Dreams in the Metamorphoses

197 Pages·2013·1.83 MB·English

FROM PHILOSOPHISING ASS TO ASININE PHILOSOPHER:

SATIRE IN BOOK 11 OF APULEIUS’ METAMORPHOSES

by
Nathan A. Watson

A thesis submitted in fulfilment of the degree of Master of Arts
University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand
October 2012
ii

ABSTRACT

The major question in the study of Apuleius’ Metamorphoses concerns the interpretation
of Lucius’ religious conversion in Book 11. For the past thirty years scholars have put
forward interpretations that discern satire in this conversion. As yet, however, there has
been no comprehensive examination of the merits and drawbacks of each approach that
offers a systematic deconstruction of the essential themes in relation to Books 1-10.
This study argues that there is a fundamental flaw in the current approach to satire in
Book 11. This is caused by trying to read it as a satire on priestly deception and religious
gullibility, just as in the presentation of the priests of the Syrian goddess and their
followers in Books 8-9. The key difference between the scenario presented in Books 8-9
and that in Book 11 is that the latter includes god-sent dreams. This thesis shows that,
depending on whether one interprets Lucius’ dreams as divine visions or as meaningless
delusions, the ultimate responsibility for the conversion rests with the priests or the gods.
Both alternatives are explored separately. It emerges that a more coherent interpretation
of satire in Book 11 can be found when the gods and their relationship to Lucius is the
focus rather than the priests. Consequently, Apuleius is shown to have a philosophical
motive driving his satire in addition to his desire to entertain.
iii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like to show my heartfelt appreciation to all those who have aided me on this
journey. It has not been easy and I cannot help but feel that I am not the same man now
as the one who first set out to explore Apuleius’ Metamorphoses. Any journey entails
change to some degree, and this one has been no different.

My enduring thanks to Dr. John Garthwaite for his encouragement, patience, and open
mindedness. The reins could not have been in better hands.

A big ‘thank you’ to Kerri for the reading, the suggestions, and helping me understand
what I was trying to say all along (see, I get there eventually!).

To my colleagues and fellow post grads in the Otago Department of Classics – you are
all very inspirational, each in your own special way. I would resent your talent if you
weren’t such wonderful people.

To my friends and family, whom I’ve neglected for so long, call off the search party,
I’m back.

And finally, to the people at the ISIS Centre. Thank you for taking care of this not-so-
golden ass. (No, the irony was not lost on me.)

Cover image: ‘Lucius’ by Nathan Watson.
iv

CONTENTS

Abstract ii
Acknowledgements iii
Abbreviations vi
Introduction 1
Chapter One – The Philosophical Context of Dream Interpretation 10
Background to Dream Interpretation 13
Philosophical Context 17
Dreams in Satire 31
Chapter Two – Dreams in the Metamorphoses 38
Background to Scholarship on the dreams in the Metamorphoses 38
Analysis of Dreams in the Metamorphoses
Books 1-10 50
Book 11 59
Why Dreams 71
Chapter Three – Mithras and Asinius Marcellus 77
Instances of Greed and Theft in the Metamorphoses 77
Instances of a Gullible and Foolish Lucius in the Metamorphoses 81
Mithras the High Priest 85
Asinius Marcellus the pastophorus 91
The Case for the Satire of a Greedy Asinius and a Gullible Lucius 100
The Case against the Satire of a Greedy Asinius and a Gullible Lucius 103
Chapter Four – Isis and Osiris 107
Isis, Divine Mistress 107
Magic 109
Love and Slavery 114
Isis as domina 118
Osiris, Divine Mentor 124
Chapter Five – The Transformed Man 131
Lucius, Pre-Conversion 131
Lucius, Post-Conversion 134
v

The Inconscient Narrator 136
Lucius and Wisdom 141
Lucius and Appearances 144
Lucius and Emotion 149
Lucius and Apuleius 157
Conclusion 167
Bibliography 172
vi

ABBREVIATIONS

AAGA Aspects of Apuleius’ Golden Ass
GCA Groningen Commentaries on Apuleius
GCN Groningen Colloquia on the Novel
ILA Inscriptions latines de l’Algérie
PGM Papyri Graecae Magicae (Greek Magical Papyri)

All abbreviations used for ancient authors and their works follow the conventions used in
Oxford Classical Dictionary (3rd Edition).

Journal abbreviations follow the convention set forth by L’année philologique.
Introduction

The subject and occasion itself demand that I produce a description of the region
and the cave inhabited by the robbers, for thus I shall both put my talent to the test
and also let you effectively perceive whether in intelligence and perception I was
the ass that I appeared to be.1
This passage from Book 4 of Apuleius’ Metamorphoses invites the reader to evaluate
the intelligence, perception, and character of Lucius the ass and Lucius the narrator.
When it is considered in light of the work’s conclusion, however, the sentiment appears
to gain added significance, striking at the heart of the problem presented by its eleventh
and final book. For the question of how to explain Lucius’ sudden change from the
bumbling fool of Books 1-10 to the devout and literally reformed figure of Book 11 is
still a subject of animated discussion amongst Apuleian scholars. Indeed, the third
volume of Aspects of Apuleius’ Golden Ass, which was published earlier this year and
focuses upon the so-called Isis-Book, bears testament to this remaining a point of
contention. Its preface, putting the problem in simple terms, asks:
should we interpret the religious narrative of Book Eleven as the true and serious
report of the protagonist’s genuine experiences as an Isiac convert, or should we
read it as comedy, continuing the atmosphere of entertaining fiction in the
preceding ten books of the Metamorphoses, with the credulous dupe Lucius
featuring in the final book as the butt of the authorial irony and the victim of an
exploitative cult?2

1 Res ac tempus ipsum locorum speluncaeque illius quam latrones inhabitant descriptionem exponere
flagitat. Nam et meum simul periclitabor ingenium, et faxo vos quoque an mente etiam sensuque fuerim
asinus sedulo sentiatis. (Apul. Met. 4.6) All translations of the Metamorphoses by J. A. Hanson
(1998/2001), unless stated otherwise.
2 Keulen and Egelhaaf-Gaisser (eds.) (2012) vii. (= AAGA 3)
INTRODUCTION 2
One might expect that an understanding of Apuleius’ life and the reception of his
Metamorphoses would help to answer this question, but this is not so.
Born some time during the 120s AD, Apuleius was a provincial North African from
the Roman colony of Madauros. The son of a man who achieved the duumvirate, the
highest magistracy available in a colonia, Apuleius received a privileged upbringing. He
seems to have been educated first at Carthage and then in Athens (Flor. 18.15, 20.4),
before he moved to Rome for an indeterminate period (Flor. 17.4). His greatest fame,
however, was evidently achieved in his home province of Africa proconsularis, where
he became a prominent orator and author. He is also said to have been elected to the
Imperial cult’s chief priesthood (August. Ep. 138.19), and appears also to have been a
priest of Aesculapius (Flor. 18.38).3 But Apuleius’ career was not without its troubles;
his marriage to the wealthy, widowed mother (Pudentilla) of an old school friend
(Pontianus), both of whom soon died, resulted in him having to defend himself against a
charge of being a magician (magus). This charge was brought forward by his step-son
(Sicinius Pudens), apparently under compulsion by the boy’s paternal uncle (Sicinius
Aemilianus) and Pontianus’ father-in-law (Herennius Rufinus), who sought to use the
boy, a minor, to gain access to the fortune of the late Pudentilla.4 Apuleius defends
himself by contrasting the ignorance of his accusers, the evidence being their absurd
charges, with his learning as a philosopher; he points to his religious convictions by
stating that he has been initiated into many mystery cults (Apol. 55).5 Though a priest,
follower of Asclepius, and initiate in many cults, Apuleius refers to himself and was

3 Apuleius also mentions taking up a priesthood at Flor. 16.38, but does not offer specific details about it.
Rives (1994: 273-90) believes that Augustine was mistaken about the nature of Apuleius’ priesthood, and
instead argues that he was a priest of Aesculapius or Ceres. Harrison (2000a: 8 and n. 30), however,
prefers to trust Augustine. Like Harrison, I am inclined to trust Augustine’s knowledge of Apuleius, but I
do not discount Apuleius’ comment about having become a priest of Aesculapius. The evidence thus
points to Apuleius attaining both priesthoods, for they were not mutually exclusive.
4 The odd set of circumstances behind this court case put to shame anything that one might expect to see
from a modern television talk show; for a retelling of these circumstances in greater depth, see Harrison
(2000a) 39-41, and Harrison, Hilton & Hunink (2001) 11-14.
5 It is clear that Apuleius was acquitted because he chose to publish his defence speech, which survives
under the name Apologia. There thus seems to have been some poetic justice in that this court case likely
benefitted Apuleius’ career and fame by the publishing of the speech.
INTRODUCTION 3
identified by later authors as a philosophus (Platonicus).6 And yet, centuries after his
death, the fame of Apuleius’ learning was such that many apparently viewed him to
have been a worker of miracles—a status which Augustine earnestly sought to correct
(Ep. 102.32, 137; 138.18).7
Apuleius’ literary output seems to have been vast and varied, but sadly most of it has
been lost.8 He himself attests that he wrote all kinds of poems (epic, lyric, comic,
tragic), satires and riddles, speeches, philosophical dialogues, and histories on various
topics (Flor. 9.27-8).9 He makes much of his bilingualism in Latin and Greek (Flor.
9.29), and appears to have had a penchant for taking Greek works and translating them
into Latin.10 The Metamorphoses numbers amongst these works, but it should be
stressed that since Apuleius has added to and changed aspects of the story it is truer to
say that it is an adaptation rather than a translation.
It is greatly vexing to Apuleian scholars that the original Greek version of the tale
has not survived. Fortunately, however, an epitomised version of the original does
survive. This text, entitled Λούκιος ἢ Ὄνος (henceforth, Onos), was attributed to Lucian
and features a protagonist named Loukios.11 A comparison between the Metamorphoses

6 August. De civ. D. 8.12, 8.14, 8.24, 9.3, 10.27; Sid. Apoll. Epist. 9.13.8; Cassiod. Inst. 2.5.10; and
Charisius Gramm. 2.16. Apuleius himself claimed to be a Platonic philosopher (Apol. 10, 36; Flor. 2.1,
15.26), and it seems to be as a philosopher that Macrobius considers him (In. Som. 1.2.8). The inscription
(ILA 2115) found in modern M’Daourouch (i.e. Madauros) dedicated to a philosophus Platonicus is very
likely to have belonged to a statue of Apuleius erected by his native city; Harrison (2000a) 8 and n. 31.
7 Gaisser (2008) 30-32. Note that Apuleius’ posthumous fame as a magus thus contradicts his own
defence speech, a fact which Augustine is only too happy to point out. This has led some to argue that
Apuleius’ knowledge of magic suggests that he did in fact have some involvement with it; Winter (2006:
100-106), however, argues against such notions.
8 For an excellent review of Apuleius’ literary output, see Harrison (2000a) 10-38.
9 cf. Apol. 9, in which Apuleius refutes the prosecution, who evidently read aloud Apuleius’ elegiac love
poetry in an attempt to tarnish his character, and Flor. 20.5-6, in which he claims to have cultivated the
poems of Empedocles, the dialogues of Plato, the hymns of Socrates, the mimes of Epicharmus, the
histories of Xenophon, and the satires of Crates.
10 Harrison (2000a) 9, 218-19.
11 The relationship between the three versions of the ass-tale is problematic. A Greek original, entitled
Metamorphoseis, is referred to in the ninth century by the patriarch Photius (Bibl. cod. 129), who claims it
was written by one ‘Loukios of Patrae’, whom he believed Lucian plagiarised when writing the Onos.
Perry (1967: 212-13, 224-25), however, attributes the Greek Metmorphoseis to Lucian, whose name he
believes was mistakenly attached to the epitome, whilst the protagonist (Loukios of Patrae) was
erroneously credited with authorship of the longer original. Loukios of Patrae, it so happens, is the
protagonist of the Onos. Sullivan, in Reardon (2008: 589), and Tilg (2012: 143) consider this theory the
most plausible; Harrison (2000a: n. 34, 218), however, sees no reason to doubt Photius about the
authorship of the Greek original. This is interesting since Harrison regards Augustine as mistaken in his
belief that Apuleius was writing about himself as the protagonist in the Metamorphoses, and yet he