Rhetorical works

translated and introduced by S.J. Harrison, 
J.L. Hilton, and V.J.C. Hunink
Oxford University Press, Oxford 2001 (second print 2002) 
(2nd impr.2007)
digital edition at OSEO, 2016

ISBN 9780198152927
EISBN 9780191838255
DOI: 10.1093/actrade/9780198152927.book1

Dit is een Engelse vertaling van Apuleius' drie retorische werken: Apologie, Florida en De Deo Socratis. De Engelse vertaling van de Apologie, met inleiding en aantekeningen, is door mij gemaakt, de Florida door John Hilton, en De Deo Socratis door Steven Harrison, die ook de algemene inleiding verzorgde.

Het werk aan de Engelse Apology is mede gebaseerd op mijn Nederlandse vertaling Toverkunsten uit 1992. Van deze versie zijn bijvoorbeeld de alinea-indeling en tussenkopjes als uitgangspunt genomen. Verder berust de vertaling ook op wetenschappelijke onderzoek naar de Latijnse tekst, zoals dat gestalte kreeg in mijn editie met commentaar uit 1997.

Het boek is gruwelijk duur, vanwege het uitgavebeleid van Oxford University Press. Vertalers hebben daarop helaas geen invloed! Hopelijk komt er over enige tijd een paperback, die dan betaalbaar zal zijn. 

Inmiddels is er een tweede druk (dec. 2007), helaas nogal goedkopop uitgevoerd (paperback met harde kaft zonder stofomslag). 



(29) Now, as I planned, I will proceed to all those ravings of this Aemilianus you see before you. I will start with what you heard being said at the outset, this allegedly powerful argument for the suspicion of magic: that I ordered some species of fish from fishermen for money. So which of these two points can make one suspect magic? The fact that fishermen tried to catch fish for me? Of course, this task should have been entrusted to embroiderers and carpenters! The activity of each craft ought to have been exchanged, if I had wanted to avoid your false claims: the carpenter should have netted fish, and in return the fisherman should have shaped wood!

Or was the ordering of small fish, in your eyes, a matter of magic because it involved money? Surely, if I had wanted to have them for a banquet, I would have tried to get them free! Why do you not also indict me for many other things as well? For I have often obtained wine, vegetables, fruit, and bread in exchange for money! This way you condemn all grocers to hunger. For who will dare to buy from them, once it has been established that all eatables acquired for payment are not served at dinner but serve magical purposes?

So no trace of suspicion is left, neither in the fact that fishermen were given the prospect of a reward to do what they are used to do, to catch fish, nor in the existence of a price for merchandise. Besides, they have not adduced fishermen to give evidence, since none existed. Nor have they indicated the level of the price, to avoid ridicule if the amount they mentioned was only small, and disbelief if it was too large. So, I repeat, if there is no trace of suspicion here, let Aemilianus answer me by what evident sign he has been led to his accusation of magic.

(30) `You seek to acquire fish,' he says. I will not deny it. But let me ask you this: is anyone who seeks to acquire fish a magician? No more, I would think, than if I sought to acquire hares, boars, or fattened fowls. Or do only fish possess something that is hidden from others but known to magicians? If you know what this is, then surely you are a magician! But if you do not, you will have to admit that you accuse me of something you do not yourself know. Are you really so unfamiliar with literature and even with popular tales, that you can not even fabricate these things in a plausible way? For how would it be possible to kindle a fire of love with an inert and cold fish, or with anything at all that is found in the sea? Unless it happens that you have been led to this lie because Venus is said to have emerged from the sea!



Review by Benjamin Todd Lee, University of Pennsylvania

BMCR 2002.08.01 
(electronically published August, 2002)

At Florida 9.8 Apuleius describes his rhetoric as a plastic medium that must be sculpted, a physical artifact that must be shaped and polished with an artisan's tools "But you examine every word of mine keenly, weigh it carefully, subject it to the lathe and the rule, and compare it with the products of the lathe or productions of the stage." In similar but broader terms, at De Platone 1.3 (#188) he describes Plato's philosophy as a rhetorical achievement, to have found the perfect word-form for Socrates' ideas Plato "made [Socrates'] ideas complete and wondrous both by filing them down with reason and dressing them in the most handsome aspect of his august rhetoric."[[1]] Apuleius would particularly appreciate, then, the work of the triumvirate of scholars who have produced a fine translation of his Apology, Florida, and De Deo Socratis. Harrison, Hilton, and Hunink have rendered a great service to Apuleian studies with their new Oxford edition of Apuleius' rhetorical works. The translations are a pleasure to read, and the format of the edition has allowed the editors ample space to convey a useful and well-researched overview of the current scholarship on these understudied texts.

The Apology, Florida, and De Deo Socratis (hereafter DDS) offer a greater reward than merely an enhanced reading of Apuleius' celebrated novel the Metamorphoses (Golden Ass); these texts offer rich stores of evidence about the history of Roman North Africa, forensic rhetoric, epideictic rhetoric, magic, religion, Middle Platonism, and especially the civic and intellectual life of the provincial metropolis, Carthage. In fact, whereas the novel's relationship to a historical reality continues to mystify, the Florida and Apology depict a moment of real contact between the person of Apuleius, his rhetoric, and the historical moment they embrace. Students of North African culture will find Apuleius' interactions with the proconsul on behalf of the civic body of Carthage to be fertile material for analysis in the discourse of provincial self-fashioning (cf. Florida 20.10 Karthago provinciae nostrae magistra venerabilis, Karthago Africae Musa caelestis, Karthago Camena togatorum, "Carthage, the respected teacher of our province, Carthage, the heavenly Muse of Africa; Carthage, the inspiration of those who wear the toga!").

The present publication offers a careful and accurate translation into contemporary English, with full but not overwrought introductions that provide a generous and up-to-date bibliography, as well as commentary in the form of footnotes. The new translations are based on Hunink's text of the Apology (1997), Vallette's Florida (Apologie et Florides, 1922), and Moreschini's Teubner of the philosophical works (1991). They replace the antiquated translations currently available in English by H.E. Butler (Oxford University Press Oxford, 1909, reprinted 1968) and the anonymous translator of the Bohn Classical Library series (George Bell and Sons London, 1902), which had little by way of annotation or commentary and were based on texts that have been superseded by the editions mentioned above. What is more, reference within the old translations was no easy task, since the translators incorporated a minimum of numeration and formatting.

Students of Apuleius' dynamic style will be curious to know what has become of his "rhetorical and stylistic verbal pyrotechnics" (from the book cover). Whereas the preceding English renderings had tended to muffle the repeating rhythms of Apuleius' rhetorical prose and to mute his driving play on word forms and word shapes, it is refreshing to note that the new translators have recognized this as an essential element in Apuleius' style. They have successfully made a consistent effort to replicate these word effects in English, resisting the prevalent tendency to break longer cola into highly punctuated clauses. Hilton's Florida is particularly successful. In his introduction Hilton defends his approach to the translation "In Florida 16.9, for example, there are no fewer than four adjectival tricolons each featuring a different Latin suffix (-us, -ens, -or, and -ax). The rhythmical effect of this can quite easily be conveyed in English using -ing, -ent, -ive, and -ous without compromising the meaning.... Many readers may find the piling up of such verbal jingles and word-play distasteful, but such rhetorical cleverness is very much a part of the sophistic declamation of Apuleius' day and is essential to the proper understanding of the nature of the anthology" (135-6). A few examples of his successful and original translations are reverita... verita 9.36 "revered, feared," mellis... fellis 18.11 "saccharine... strychnine," ubi uber, ibi tuber (ibid.) "where there is opulence, there is malignance." Not all aspects of Apuleius' style can be replicated successfully in English, however neologism and archaism present the translator with a serious problem. Apuleius chooses archaic and neologizing forms especially when they facilitate rhythm and sound play, whereas in English the adoption of such forms would be unacceptable.[[2]]

The translators chose a "relatively light" level of annotation for the Apology because a modern commentary (also by Hunink) is available in English; but also for the DDS, since it "is a relatively superficial lecture aimed at a general audience" (Introduction, v). They felt a fuller level of annotation was needed for the Florida, since at the time of writing there was no commentary widely available in English (one has just been published by Hunink Brill, 2002). The problematic "False preface" of the DDS, 5 fragments of Apuleian epideictic rhetoric that have been transmitted in the manuscripts as the beginning of the DDS, also receives generous annotation and its own introduction.

The General Introduction is a precis of Harrison's important monograph and surveys the evidence for Apuleius' vita (most of which is to be found in the Apology and Florida), presenting his intellectual career and literary activity through his surviving works, fragments, and notices of lost works. As he had argued previously, Harrison aims to stress the extraordinary variety of Apuleius' literary output and the conformity it shows with the Greek Second Sophistic, defining him as a sophistic intellectual "...though Apuleius proclaimed himself a philosopher, his status as a star public speaker in Carthage, his obvious self-promotion and cult of his own personality, and his prodigiously displayed literary and scientific polymathy plainly allow us to designate him a sophist, a Latin-speaking version of the great Greek rhetorical performers of his own time" (10).

At the same time as Harrison invites us to understand Apuleius in terms of the Greek Second Sophistic, he also stresses that "Apuleius is fundamentally Roman in cultural identity and in effect a native speaker of Latin. It is crucially important for a true appreciation of Apuleius to realize that he belongs not to an African sub-culture but to the mainstream of Latin culture and literature" (1). Indeed, it has been generally recognized since Kroll's article that the particular qualities of Apuleius' linguistic preferences are not to be explained by a dialect of African Latin.[[3]] It could be objected, however, that such a linguistic distinction provides insufficient grounds for asserting that Apuleius belongs to the "mainstream of Latin culture," and it may be desirable to retain an interpretive route that can see in these works a process of self-definition and becoming, the forging of a literary consciousness in North Africa.

Hunink's section on the Apology is based on his commentary, published by Brill in 1997. He begins by pointing out that the Apology is the only post-Ciceronian forensic speech to have survived in its entirety, noting the diversity of perspectives from which the speech may be read. As rhetoric, the speech functions to disarm the accusations against him; as literature, the speech shows a playful use of language and rhetorical figures, and consistently makes reference to both classical and contemporary literature. As a document, it yields valuable material for the study of for "Roman law, magic, Middle Platonism, and contemporary medical science" (11). Hunink uses a mechanical analysis to address the uneasy relationship between the strict charges the Apology answers and the sort of autobiography and self-representation so much of the work contains "Technically speaking, section 4-65 may be said to be extra causam, since it is not directly related to the legal issues to be judged" (15). He concludes that, whereas Apuleius might "easily prove his innocence by means of various written documents," the "possible blemishes on his reputation are much more difficult to combat," and that these "digressions" actually "constitute the core of the speech" (ibid.).

Hunink closes with a consideration of one of the most pressing questions for many readers, whether the Apology is a "real," if augmented, version of an actual historical event, or whether the speech was fictitious and written in the forensic genre without a trial, such as Gorgias' Palamedes, Isocrates' Antidosis, or the Verrines. Hunink concludes that, since "we have no way to establish with any degree of certainty whether and in what form it was delivered" (24), we should accept that "the entire Apology must become literature." The speech then can be read as a "declamation with a practical function" [i.e., display] rather than a "forensic speech with extraneous elements."

Hilton's introduction to the Florida begins by addressing the form of the rhetorical excerpts that make up this collection. Recognizing that the fragmentary state of the text is a great challenge to any reader, he seeks to explicate the text's form by relating it to the first and second-century predilection for miscellanies, encyclopedias, and reductions of larger texts (cf. Gellius NA pr. 2-3, 17.21.1; Pliny Ep. 3.5.10; Philostratus VS 565). As for the problematic question of how Apuleius' speeches made their way to published documents, Hilton suggests the possibility that notarii recorded some of the speeches in shorthand (125 n 7, cf. Florida 9.13). He stresses the importance of the performative element in the composition of the text, and points out that Apuleius claims in the DDS False Preface fragments to be performing ex tempore (False Preface fragments 1, 3, and 4).

Hilton argues that these fragments show important overlaps with the rest of the Apuleian corpus fragment 10 addresses the "mediae potestates" of the daemones, as does the DDS; fragment 18's hymn to Aesculapius recalls a reference to Aesculapius in the DDS (#154), as well as a speech to that divinity he delivered in Oea (according to Apol. 55.10). Apuleius' use of the figure of Pythagoras at Fl. 15.13-2 recalls his intense interest in the Samian philosopher shown throughout the Apology (Apol. 4.14, 27.10, 31.6, 43.21 and 56.7).

With regard to the genre of the Florida, Hilton doubts whether a single interpretive category such as the propemptike lalia can be applied to such a diverse collection. Instead, he points out the Florida's formal links not only to the different epideictic forms of the lalia described in Menander Rhetor's treatise (including encomia of governors, fables, references to musicians, etc.), but also to the progymnasmata (e.g. comparisons, anecdotes, topoi, and word pictures), as shown in the rhetorical handbooks that treat these rhetorical exercises.[[4]] "There seems to be little point... in attempting to give a formal unifying generic definition" (128).

The Florida fragments also show an interest in philosophical figures and themes, and Apuleius uses these orations to define himself as a philosopher (figures Socrates [fr. 2], Crates [frr. 14 and 22], Pythagoras [fr. 15]; topoi on the limitations of human vision [Fl. 2, cf. doctrine of levels of reality from Phaedo 65Bff]; daimon theory of the mediae potestates [fr. 10], etc.). Hilton aligns Apuleius' choice to describe himself as a philosopher rather than a sophist with the same trend evident in Plutarch, Dio Chrysostom and Aelius Aristides, and traces Apuleius' less than flattering treatment of the Sophists Hippias and Protagoras (frr. 9 and 18) to this thorny question of self-representation. Whatever Apuleius would have liked to have been called, Hilton defines him as a sophist in respect to his "bitter rivalry for the favor of influential men" (130), a critical dimension to the meaning and purpose of these orations.

Hilton closes by addressing the important question of the manuscript tradition of the Florida, and the fact that the text in MSS is divided into four books. He concludes that the division into four books shows no thematic arrangement, and is probably the result of the simple use of "four scrolls that were shorter than normal" (136). This question might better have been left open, for it tacitly suggests that the process of excerption itself took place in the age of the scroll rather than the codex, which is an unwarranted assumption. Furthermore, the division of the 23 fragments into four books could well have taken place after the excerption itself. This could be the best explanation for the Florida's anomalous book lengths, and the bizarre fact that the division between book 1 and book 2 severs fragment 9. Pecere suggested Sallustius Crispus, whose name appears on the book subscriptions for the Metamorphoses and Apology, as a likely candidate for the excerptor.[[5]] At any rate, a late antique epitomization is no less likely a candidate than a second-century one, and the question should remain open until more evidence surfaces.

Harrison wrote the introductions to the DDS "False Preface" fragments (which are translated, however, by Hilton) and the DDS itself and provides a concise and effective discussion of the manuscript difficulties associated with these texts. Some argue that the fragments belong with the Florida, and actually constitute its end (Moreschini 1991, Beaujeu 1973), some that the fragments belong to the DDS, either entirely (Hunink 1995, Sandy 1997) or partially (Hijmans 1994, only for the fifth fragment). The debate continues to this day but in fact goes back to our oldest manuscript.[[6]] In the absence of conclusive palaeographical or codicological evidence, the debate has shifted to the unity of the preface fragments and the DDS. On page 180 Harrison rejects the notion that they conform "The content... [i.e. of the five fragments] seems too diverse for a continuous and coherent piece, and if taken as such the transitions between the sections are very abrupt, rather more so than those of the DDS or within the individual passages of the Florida." Since there is no solid evidence linking the fragments directly to the Florida, either, the group of fragments are labeled simply "Apuleius False Preface" and inserted with their own introduction between the Florida and DDS. The brief introduction to the False Preface covers only the issue of where the fragments belong interpretation of the fragments is deferred to the footnotes of the translation.

Harrison's last essay addresses the DDS itself, focusing on the Second Sophistic genre of popular philosophical lectures. He begins by positing that the DDS was delivered in Carthage in the 160s, and stresses the North African focus of the work, which makes honorific reference to North Africa, Egypt and especially the cult of Aesculapius (DDS 154). He devotes some time to the philosophical background of Socrates' daimonion and daimon theory in general, comparing the form and content of the DDS to Plutarch's De Genio Socratis and Maximus of Tyre's Dialexeis 8 and 9. From an analysis of the marked similarities of DDS #157 with the opening of Maximus' Dialexis 8, he argues that the two authors were "adopting a standard Greek introduction to the discussion of Socrates' daimonion" (188). This substantiates his claim on 186 that the DDS is a "lively rhetorical treatment of philosophical commonplaces."

The bulk of comparative work, however, is to be found in the footnotes, where Harrison provides generous and useful parallels of theme and subject with Platonic, Latin and Second Sophistic literature. In addition to the translation, this is the main contribution of Harrison's work his full annotations provide the reader with a running commentary that successfully contextualizes Apuleius' lecture.

The close of the introduction addresses "problems of textual transmission." Harrison argues that the DDS' abrupt beginning, abrupt ending, and mismatched title (a relative over-emphasis on daimon theory as opposed to Socrates' daimonion) are all the result of errors in manuscript transmission. A convincing structural schema (192) performs the dual function of illuminating the DDS and clarifying what structural elements it seems to have lost in transmission. He notes that whereas much of the DDS' content can be paralleled in other philosophical lectures of the period, the concluding protreptic section of the lecture seems to be Apuleius' innovation.

This Oxford edition will enable more scholars to consider the Apuleian corpus as a whole, and will have the profound effect on Apuleian studies of rectifying something of an imbalance. It could be argued that we approach Apuleius too much as the author of a rather salacious novel with surviving companion works; but, by making these "minor'" rhetorical works accessible, the edition will have the salubrious effect of widening the approach we take to all of Apuleius' works. This will make it possible to embrace the whole Apuleian corpus as an integrated rhetorical system of language and ideas, whose different parts can shed light on each other. Until the publication of this edition, one would have needed access to two out-of-print editions in order to consult an English translation of the works covered here.

Hilton in particular is to be complimented on the impressive and enjoyable quality of his prose, but all three translations are careful, accurate, and intelligent renderings of the Latin. If there is a shortcoming to the work from an artistic point of view, it may be that the three translations do not sound like the same author in English. That will in no way compromise its usefulness and importance to the field, and the quality of insightful research that characterizes the work will rightfully guarantee its place as the standard reference translation for years to come.


1. Fl. 9.8 "meum vero unumquodque dictum acriter examinatis, sedulo penisculatis, ad limam et lineam certam redigitis, cum torno et coturno vero comparatis"; De Platone 188 "[sc. eas sententias]... hic cum ratione limando tum ad orationis augustae honestissimum speciem induendo perfectas atque admirabilis fecit." In the case of the Florida, I quote from Hilton's translation (147). The translation of the phrase from De Platone 188 is mine, since none is available in English.

2. E.g., a few neologisms from Florida fragment 9 that are lost in English invisoribus (9.1), lenticularis (9.22), textrina, strigileculam, and tubulatione (all 9.23); archaisms tegumentum (9.21), rutunditate (9.22), prorsum (9.27), publicitus (9.32).

3. W. Kroll, "Das afrikanische Latein," Rh. Mus. 52 (1897), 569-590. E. Norden, Die antike Kunstprosa (2 vols Leipzig 1909), 589. Cf. S. Lancel, "Y-a-t-il une Africitas?" REL 63 (1985), 161-182; H. Petersmann, "Gab es ein afrikanisches Latein? Neue Sichten eines alten Problems der lateinischen Sprachwissenschaft," in B. Garci/a-Herna/ndez (ed.), Estudios de lingu+i/stica Latina (Madrid, 1998), 125-36.

4. The Greek texts on the progymnasmata are collected in L. von Spengel's Rhetores Graeci (3 volumes, 1853-6; reprinted Frankfurt am Main, 1966) volumes 2 and 3 Hermogenes (2nd century, Spengel 2.5), Apthonius (400 A.D., Spengel 2.21), Theon (uncertain date, Spengel 2.59) Nicolaus Sophista (5th century A.D., Spengel 3.449).

5. O. Pecere, "Qualche Riflessione sulla tradizione di Apuleio a Montecassino," 97-124 in G. Cavallo (ed.), Le Strade del testo (Rome, 1987).

6. Even at folio 3v in KBR 10054-56 (ninth century, now in the Royal Library of Brussels), we find an explanatory heading in red ink separating the false preface from the beginning of the De Deo Socratis, which reads "Explicit praefatio. Incipit disputatio De Deo Socratis."

he BMCR website (http// contains a complete and searchable archive of BMCR reviews since our first issue in 1990. It also contains information about subscribing and unsubscribing from the service.

The above review may also be found directly at the BMCR website:

Review by William Levitan

published in: American Journal of Philology 124 (2003): 156-160

Apuleius of Madauros, as this book reminds us, was no one-trick burro. Indeed he was always eager to reveal just how many tricks he had in store. "Uno chartario calamo me reficere poemata omnigenus apta virgae, lyrae, socco, coturno, item satiras ac griphos, item historias varias rerum nec non orationes laudatas disertis nec non dialogos laudatos philosophis, atque haec et alia eiusdem modi tam graece quam latine, gemino voto, pari studio, simili stilo" he tells us in what is actually one of his more muted fanfares on the theme of his own versatility (Flor. 9.27B29); there was still more to the man. Polymath and poet, Platonist and philologue, writer, rhetor, raconteur, and Wortjongleur in two tough tongues, he was also (he reminds us) a globe trotter, a snapper-up of historical trifles, a connoisseur of cults and maven of mysteries, a public performer, a popular idol, a grateful pal to the great and powerful, and the toast of the coast of northern AfricaCall these boasts of omnicompetent cultivation just part of the pose and professional program of the second-century sophist (10).

We certainly can use the reminder. In North America at any rate, the works of ApuleiusCThe Golden Ass, of course, apartChave slipped into something close to deep background (even the Latin texts are hard to come by), the skids greased, I suspect, both by the substantial difficulties in knowing just how to take in these strange and showy products and by the booming attention deservedly paid to The Golden Ass itself. But there remain Apuleians dedicated to changing all that. Especially over the last dozen years or so, a new generation of scholars has been preparing a new store of editions, commentaries, and critical assessments that, even if they do not permanently refix our gaze, should at least allow these works to be more widely accessible to the literary and cultural historians and students of rhetoric and Middle Platonism whose interest in Apuleius and his manifold contexts has surged.

Translation seems the logical next step. And now, three scholars have teamed up to offer the first translations in nearly a century of texts they group together as Apuleius= "rhetorical works": the Apology, Florida, and On the God of Socrates (trans. Vincent Hunink, John Hilton, and Stephen Harrison, respectively; Harrison also edited the volume and provided its general introduction). As a compromise between the divergent views of two of the book=s contributors, they present the paragraphs that introduce On the God of Socrates in the manuscripts, but which are often taken to belong properly to the Florida, in a separate section as the "False Preface" to the former (trans. Hilton). Each work is accompanied by an informative literary-historical introduction and substantial explanatory notes, most useful to the philologically experienced.

The book has two contrasting ambitions for the translations it contains. On the one hand, it presents them in a familiar OUP manner as matter for the archives, things to be consulted, not read. All the visual rhetoric of documentary publication is here: the official-looking fonts, the footnotes seeping up from the bottom of the page, the text itself obtrusively divided into numbered segments for ease of reference to the authorized Latin editions. On the other hand, there are the statements of the translators themselves, which assert a different status for the works they are translating. Hunink puts it most directly in his introduction to the Apology: "Apuleius= speech is an interesting document. It is also a useful source of knowledge in a wide range of areas . . . But there is more to it: this self-defence may properly be called a literary masterpiece" (11). Literary masterpieces, of course, are there to be read, not simply consulted; and these works in particularCmasterpieces or notCchafe at archival treatment. Ultimately, at issue are not only their status but also their very nature as "rhetorical works." My strongest reaction to the book is admiration for the translators' pluck.

It is certainly a daring move to face down texts like these, one tour de force after another of uninhibited verbal display. The famous Apuleian jangle turns out to be one of the smaller problems. At least in the short run, it is in fact relatively easy to do a relatively poor but recognizable English imitation (see, e.g., first paragraph above) of some of the isolated and more conspicuous formal mannerisms of Apuleian rhetoricCalliteration, homoteleuton, rhythmical cola, rhyme, puns, pleonasm, the mix of diction, and so on. To my mind, it is unthinkable to render Apuleius without a good helping of this verbal flavor, and the translators here all liberally dish up the spice; but alone it is a simple parlor trick and in the end as unsatisfying as verse translation "in original metres."

More difficult by farCand far more valuableCis getting the sense of real performance in these texts. If these rhetorical works of Apuleius belong anywhere, they belong most securely to the history of self-display. Voice, stance, tone, brute showmanship, the play of roles and masks, the audience in the palm of his hand, and Apuleius always at center stageCthese are not mere features of his work: they are its raisons d''Ítre. But voice is notoriously the most elusive quality for a translator to render, and with Apuleius in particular there is the temptation of several false moves. For all his mannerisms, Apuleius cannot be made to speak like a sideshow huckster; for all his sly flamboyance, he is not camp; for all his learning, he is no bore; and for all his long and crafted sentences, he does not soundCworst of worstsClike a translator of classical texts. Because the codes of performance governing the interaction between actor and audience are woven so intimately into the fabric of an individual culture, we may surely despair of finding a unique mode that both pretends to historical verisimilitude and yet will work in our time and in our language; but still, something must be done to lift the voice of Apuleius from the page and restore it to something like living presence before a living audience. And whatever this something is, it is the translator who must do it.

The three translators in this volume have taken up their different tasks to different effect. Working with the Apology, purportedly Apuleius' actual court defense against a charge of sorcery, Hunink (who also edited the Latin text with commentary [Amsterdam 1997] and published a Dutch translation [Amsterdam 1992]) should have had the easiest time, with the continuity of a scandalous narrative and all its lurid details to help carry the reader along. But I confess I found this selection heavy going. Hunink's ear for English rhythms is perhaps least secure of the three, and occasionally, too, his rendering of the verbal effects is strained to the point that I needed the Latin to be sure what Apuleius was really up to. I also found his way of flagging puns and other word plays with scare-quotes annoying and a distortion of Apuleius' easy confidence and the tenor of complicity he establishes with his audience; but this may be as much an editorial lapse.

And Hilton should have had the hardest time with the Florida, a tantalizing anthology of fragmentsCand possibly a few complete textsCchosen for their concentrated glitz, often with little sense of context or continuous speech. But Hilton takes advantage of their fragmentary nature and is willing to sacrifice fluency (136) for the joys of the moment. Of all the translators, he certainly seems to be having the most fun, both with Apuleius' more staccato effects, as in Marsyas' description of Apollo in Florida 3.10 (140): "First," he said, "his hair sticks out and hangs down in front, with cowlicks and forelocks licked down and slicked forward; his whole body is very pleasing; his limbs are glossy, his tongue foretells the future, and he is equally eloquent whether you choose prose or verse."  and with the extended legato of the Apuleian long sentence, as in this bravura passage in Florida 2.8B11 (138B39): The eagle, on the other hand, when he has climbed very high, right up to the clouds, lifted up on his wings through all that space in which it rains and snows, a summit beyond which there is no place for the thunder or lightening, on the floor of the ether, so to speak, and on the roof of the weatherCso when the eagle has brought himself to that point, with a gentle inclination leftwards or rightwards he glides with the whole mass of his body, turning his wings, which he has made into sails, in whatever direction he pleases, and using his tail as a small rudder, looking down from there on everything, and thrusting out his wings like untiring oars and hovering on high with short hesitant flight almost in the same place, he looks around and seeks the best direction in which to throw himself from above on his prey like a thunderbolt; unseen in the heavens, he makes out in one all-encompassing glance the cattle in the fields, the wild animals in the mountains, and men in the cities, and considers where he may pierce with his beak or hook with his talons a careless lamb or fearful hare or any living thing that chance has offered him to eat or tear to pieces.

Many readers are sure to share Hilton's fun in sentences like these; others may find them somewhat incompletely shaped, sketches of what they aim to achieve. For the sustained argument of On the God of Socrates, a popular philosophical lecture on the well-established topic of Socrates' daimonion, Harrison needs a higher degree of articulation than anything Hilton's Florida offers, and he gets it remarkably well. He is freeCfreer than ApuleiusCin his use of logical connectors; but more important, he has a strong sense of word placement and the natural cadences of English speech, allowing him to lay emphasis where he likes. When he comes to some of the purpler passages, then, he can use the Apuleian effects not as ornaments but as anchors of discursive meaning. Occasionally, too, he can give us a sense of real eloquence, as I think he does in De Deo Socratis 126B27 (198):

And so it is men, rejoicing in reason, powerful in speech, possessed of an immortal soul but of mortal limbs; of fickle and fearful mind, of sluggish and vulnerable body, of diverse characters and similar errors, of unrelenting audacity, of unremitting hope, of vain labour and fragile fortune; individually mortal, collectively everlasting as a race, successively mutable through the provision of offspring, speedy in life span, slow in wisdom, swift to die, discontent to liveCit is men who inhabit the earth.

Harrison's achievement here can teach translators of ancient prose a great deal about the importance of sentence rhythm in rendering living speech. But his success as a rhetorician is incomplete. Who exactly is speaking these lines? Just whose voice do we hear through the translation? From the introductory essays in this volume, we learn a lot about the poses of the historical Apuleius, sophistic performer. We need to learn as much about the performer of the translated text, and we need to learn it from the translation itself. Similarly - and as important - for whom is he strutting his stuff? We know something about Apuleius' original audience. We also can suppose the likeliest audience for these translations - the considerable number of scholars with various interests who will gratefully use them as a Loeb sans Latin. But how will they take them in? As a curiosity? A problem? A trot? In bits and pieces over time as they come to consult them? As a rollicking good read? This, too, needs to be implicit in the translations themselves. Rhetoric is something that happens between a speaker and an audience; and unless both are clearly imagined, along with the relationship that links them, the rhetorical work will remain unfinished.



latest changes here: 17-09-2017





(c) 2017 V. Hunink

copyright statement  / contact