Magic in Apuleius' >Apologia: Understanding the Charges and the Forensic Strategies in Apuleius' Speech 3110616599, 9783110616590

Table of contents :
Acknowledgements
Contents
List of Abbreviations
1. Introduction
2. Magic in the Apologia: A Matter of Terminology and Meaning
3. Apuleius the Lustful Magus
4. The Core of the Defence-Speech
5. Love, Sea Creatures, and Literary Magic
6. Sea Creatures for the Seduction of Pudentilla
7. The Noxiousness of Apuleius’ Spells
8. The Pollution of Pontianus’ Lares
9. Occult Nocturnal Activities
10. Apuleius the Necromancer
11. The Allegations Concerning the Seduction of and Wedding with Pudentilla
12. Conclusion
Bibliography
Index

Citation preview

Leonardo Costantini Magic in Apuleius’ Apologia

Beiträge zur Altertumskunde

Herausgegeben von Susanne Daub, Michael Erler, Dorothee Gall, Ludwig Koenen und Clemens Zintzen

Band 373

Leonardo Costantini

Magic in Apuleius’ Apologia

Understanding the charges and the forensic strategies in Apuleius’ speech

ISBN 978-3-11-061659-0 e-ISBN (PDF) 978-3-11-061752-8 e-ISBN (EPUB) 978-3-11-061667-5 ISSN 1616-0452 Library of Congress Control Number: 2018964951 Bibliographic information published by the Deutsche Nationalbibliothek The Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbibliografie; detailed bibliographic data are available on the Internet at http://dnb.dnb.de. © 2019 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston Printing and binding: Hubert & Co. GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen www.degruyter.com

Acknowledgements This book springs from a doctoral dissertation written at the University of Leeds between October 2013 and November 2016. This project came into being because of a genuine curiosity about magic in the Greco-Roman world, a topic of which I knew little before my arrival at Leeds. This ‘reckless curiosity’ has led me to delve into Apuleius’ extraordinary Apologia, which this book attempts to explore. I owe many debts of gratitude to various people, without whose contributions and assistance this work would not have been possible. First, I would like to thank my doctoral supervisors Regine May and Malcolm Heath. They have been a precious source of advice, and have patiently read and commented on the drafts of the dissertation and then the book itself. I am also indebted to Jan Bremmer, Ben Cartlidge, Robert Carver, Sara Chiarini, Christopher Faraone, Julia Gaisser, Luca Graverini, Owen Hodkinson, Dániel Kiss, Almuth Lotz, Juan Martos, Tom McCreight, Svenja Nagel, Lara Nicolini, Michael Paschalis, Luigi Pellecchi, Francesca Piccioni, Emmanuel Plantade, Patricia Rosenmeyer, and Stefan Tilg for their encouragement and for their kind help on matters concerning Apuleius, the Second Sophistic, literary and textual criticism, and ancient magic. I wish to express my gratitude to my PhD examiners Emma Stafford and Stephen Harrison. He and Antonio Stramaglia have greatly helped me in the process of turning the doctoral dissertation into the present book, for which I am deeply grateful. Finally, I want to thank my family and Hollie, to whom this book is dedicated. Freiburg im Breisgau, September 2018

https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110617528-001

Contents List of Abbreviations

XI

 . . . . . .

1 Introduction The Purpose of this Book 1 The Title of Apuleius’ Defence-Speech 2 4 The Trial against Apuleius and its Legal Context The People in the Courtroom of Sabratha 7 12 The Scholarship on the Apologia The Structure of the Charges and the Summary of the Chapters 16

 . . . . . .

Magic in the Apologia: A Matter of Terminology and Meaning 20 Introduction Philosophic-Religious Magic: Oriental Wisdom 24 The Goetic Magus 27 33 The Literary Dimension of Goetic Magic Magic in Rhetoric 38 40 Conclusion

 . . . . . .

Apuleius the Lustful Magus 43 43 Introduction Apuleius the Handsome Seducer 45 49 Apuleius’ Suspicious Eloquence Dabbling with Exotic Venena: The Toothpaste A Magus at the Mirror 56 58 Conclusion

 . . . . . . .

The Core of the Defence-Speech 60 60 Introduction 61 Playing with Magic: Apuleius Platonising the Term Magus The Description of ‘Vulgar’ Magic and Goetic Utterances 66 70 A Plea for Philosophy 74 The Goetic Notoriety of Pythagoras, Orpheus, and Ostanes Philosophers and Magi: Empedocles, Socrates, and Plato 77 Conclusion 81

20

51

VIII

 . . .

Contents

. .

Love, Sea Creatures, and Literary Magic 82 Introduction 82 83 A Bold Denial: No Fish in Magic Apuleius’ Digression on Literary Magic: Laevius, Vergil, and Other Sources in Greek 87 91 From Pythagoras to Homer: Apuleius’ Flights of Fancy Further Allusions to Magic in Homer: Proteus, Odysseus, Aeolus, 95 Circe, and Venus 99 The Goetic Employment of Stones and the Deities of Magic Conclusion 104

 . . . . . . .

106 Sea Creatures for the Seduction of Pudentilla Introduction 106 A Platonising Appeal 107 Obscene Molluscs: Association through Name Similarity A Parody of the Voces Magicae 119 124 Swinging between Magic and Medicine The Dissection of a Sea-hare 129 Conclusion 133

 .

135 The Noxiousness of Apuleius’ Spells Introduction: The Facts, the Charge, and its Distortion by Apuleius 135 Spells, Youths, Oil-lamps, and Altars in Goetic Magic 140 145 Magical Divination with Pueri Apuleius’ Secret Magical Ritual 151 156 To Harm a Mulier with Spells 159 Conclusion

. .

. . . . .  . . . . . . .

The Pollution of Pontianus’ Lares 161 161 Introduction The Relationship between Magic and Mystery Cults 163 166 The Summary of the Charge: The Linen Cloth The True Meaning of Lares Pontiani and Their Alleged Pollution 169 174 A Borderline Defence The Platonising Strategy: Mystery Cults, not Magic 179 Conclusion 181

112

IX

Contents

 . . . . . . .

Occult Nocturnal Activities 182 Introduction 182 185 Reconstructing the Charge: The Nocturna Sacra 187 Feathers and Smoke as Evidence of Goetic Magic Concealing the Magical Implications: The Desecration of Crassus’ Penates 190 193 Further Manipulations: Cubiculum and Focus A Wary Defence 194 196 Conclusion

 . . . . . . . . .

Apuleius the Necromancer 197 197 Introduction The Magus and the Dead 199 The Chthonic Mercury and Magic 203 The Summary of the Charge and Apuleius’ Reticence The Use of Ebony in Goetic Magic 210 212 Skeletons and Daemons in Magic Apuleius Conjuring the Dead 217 Mystery Silence and the Epithet βασιλεύς 222 224 Conclusion



. .

The Allegations Concerning the Seduction of and Wedding with Pudentilla 226 The Secondary Charges: An Overview and their Magical 226 Implications Carmina and Venena: The Seduction of Pudentilla 229 233 Magic in the Remoteness of the Countryside 237 The Corpus of Letters and Apuleius’ Denial of Magic Uttering the Name of the Magi: Forbidden Knowledge in Public Libraries 242 248 Rufinus Consulting the Chaldeans Conclusion 252

 .

254 Conclusion Apuleius: Philosophus Platonicus and Defensor Magiae

. . . . .

Bibliography Index

285

260

208

254

List of Abbreviations AE ANRW

(1888‒) L’Année épigraphique (Paris). Haase, W. and Temporini, H. (eds.) (1972‒) Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt, part I, 4 vols., part II, 37.3 vols. (Berlin and New York). Brill’s New Pauly Cancik, H. and Schneider, H. (eds.) (2002‒2010) Brill’s New Pauly. Encyclopaedia of the Ancient World, 15 vols. (Leiden). CGL Loewe, G. and Goetz, G. (1873‒1901) Corpus Glossariorum Latinorum (Leipzig and Berlin). CIL Mommsen, T., Dessau, H., and Hirschfeld, O. (1862‒) Corpus inscriptionum Latinarum (Berlin). CML (1915‒) Corpus Medicorum Latinorum, 8 vols. (Berlin). CRF 3 Ribbeck, O. 1898. Comicorum Romanorum Fragmenta, 3rd edn. (Leipzig). DAGR Daremberg, C. and Saglio, E. (eds.) (1877‒1919) Dictionnaire des antiquités grecques et romaines, 5 vols. (Paris). DK Diels, H. and Krantz, W. (1989) Die Fragmente der Vorsokratiker, 17th edn., 3 vols. (Zurich and Hildesheim). Enc. Art. Ant. (1958‒1984) Enciclopedia dell’arte antica, classica e orientale, 10 vols. (Rome). Enc. Berb. (1984‒) Encyclopédie berbère (Leuven). Enc. Virgil. (1984‒1991) Enciclopedia Virgiliana, 5 vols. (Rome). FGrH Jacoby, F. (ed.) (1923‒) Die Fragmente der griechischen Historiker (Berlin). GCN Hofmann, H. and Zimmerman, M. (eds.) (1988‒1998) Groningen Colloquia on the Novel, 9 vols. (Groningen). IG (1873‒) Inscriptiones graecae (Berlin). ILA Gsell, S. (1922‒1976) Inscriptions latines de l’Algérie (Paris). LIMC (1981‒1999) Lexicon Iconographicum Mythologiae Classicae, 9 vols. and Supplementum (2009) (Zürich). LSJ Liddel, H. G., Scott, R., and Jones, H. S. (2009) A Greek–English Dictionary. With a revised supplement (Oxford). OLD 2 Glare, P. G. W. (2012) Oxford Latin Dictionary, 2 vols., 2nd edn. (Oxford). PCG Kassel, R. and Austin, C. (1983‒2001) Poetae comici Graeci (Berlin). RAC (1950‒) Reallexikon für Antike und Christentum, 26 vols. (Stuttgart). RE (1903‒1972) Paulys Real-Encyclopädie der classischen Alterthumswissenschaft, 19 vols. (Stuttgart). Rh Waltz, C. (1832‒1836) Rhetores Graeci, 9 vols. (Stuttgart and London). TheDeMa Dreher, M. (ed.) (2015–) Thesaurus Defixionum Magdeburgensis (online resource). ThesCRA (2004‒2005) Thesaurus Cultus et Rituum Antiquorum, 5 vols. (Los Angeles). ThLL (1900‒) Thesaurus Linguae Latinae (Leipzig). TRF 3 Ribbeck, O. (1897) Tragicorum Romanorum Fragmenta, 3rd edn. (Leipzig). TrGF Snell, B., Kannicht, R., and Radt, S. (1971‒2004) Tragicorum Graecorum fragmenta, 5 vols. (Göttingen).

https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110617528-002

XII

List of Abbreviations

Reference Abbreviations The reference abbreviations for ancient sources are those found in the OLD 2 and the LSJ. When an author is not acknowledged in the lists of abbreviations of these lexica, I have used those in The Oxford Classical Dictionary (20124) and in the ThLL. Unless otherwise specified, the editions of Greek and Latin texts to which I refer are those available in the Thesaurus Linguae Graecae (TLG online) and in the Library of Latin Texts – Online (LLT-O). The reference abbreviations for journals and periodicals employed are those of L’Année philologique. I frequently refer to Audollent’s edition of the Defixionum Tabellae (1904) throughout this book, indicating Audollent’s numeration of each curse-tablet and the specific line/lines to which I refer (e. g. Audollent 1904: 135a.5‒6 = inscription no. 135, side a, lines 5 and 6). When I refer, instead, to Audollent’s introduction, I indicate the pages in Roman numerals; when referring to his commentary, I add ‘p.’ or ‘pp.’ before the number of the page/pages, given in Arabic numerals.

1 Introduction 1.1 The Purpose of this Book This monograph offers a new interpretation of Apuleius’ Apologia, a defencespeech on magic delivered in the courtroom of the North African city of Sabratha in AD 158/159. It aims to address two main questions: first, the extent to which Apuleius’ arguments could betray his controversial knowledge of magic and, second, the importance and the dangerous implications of the allegations brought against him. By analysing the Apologia sequentially I shall reconstruct, on the one hand, the content of the prosecution’s case, which Apuleius heavily distorts in order to avoid any threatening innuendos.¹ On the other hand, I will explore Apuleius’ forensic techniques and assess the Platonic ideology underpinning his speech: I propose that a Platonising reasoning – distinguishing between higher and lower concepts – lies at the core of Apuleius’ rhetorical strategy, and that Apuleius aims to charm the judge, the audience, and ultimately his readers, with the irresistible power of his arguments. The standpoint herein adopted complies with my attempt to understand the text according to the author’s viewpoint. Thus, attention will be paid to reconstructing the socio-cultural context of Apuleius and his contemporaries to gain a better understanding of the Apologia. Since ancient magic is the point at issue in this defence-speech, I will introduce a new semantic taxonomy in order to elucidate the ambivalent meaning of magus and its linguistic cognates in the second century AD. I will distinguish, therefore, three possible meaning of ‘magic’, with which both Apuleius and his attackers play, namely: philosophical or religious magic, goetic magic, and literary magic.² This methodological approach will enable me not only to throw new light on the Apologia, but also to offer an innovative contribution to the study of ancient magic itself. Apuleius’ speech contains, in fact, allusions to several features of ancient magic: in this monograph, I present a new examination of the relationship between magic and philosophy (4.5, 4.6), magic and medicine (6.5), magic and mystery cults (8.2), magic and necromancy (10.2), and magic and the Babylonian Chaldeans (11.6). In addition, I discuss the features of goetic curses and voces magicae, which Apuleius mocks at Apol. 38.7‒8 (6.4) and Apol. 64.1‒2 (10.7), respectively.

 An interesting study showing to what extent a rhetorician would prefer “persuasiveness over veracity” is that by Lintott 2008: 33‒9, who focuses on Cicero. Thanks to Dániel Kiss for pointing out this book to me.  See the discussion in Ch. 2. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110617528-003

2

1 Introduction

I also analyse the common belief in the efficacy of goetic incantations (4.3), and the employment of spells and potions in ancient love-magic (11.2). This introductory chapter aims to provide some preliminary information about Apuleius’ Apologia, and will focus first on the double title Apologia or Pro se de magia (1.2), and on the legal context in which the speech was delivered (1.3). I will then discuss the identity of the people involved in the lawsuit (1.4), and overview the most influential scholarship on the Apologia, showing how my work fills the gaps between these studies (1.5). Finally, I shall outline the structure of the charges brought against Apuleius according to my reconstruction, and summarise the chapters of this book to guide the reader through its content (1.6).

1.2 The Title of Apuleius’ Defence-Speech The defence-speech through which Apuleius contests the allegations of being a magus, having harmed some people in Oea, and forced the widow Pudentilla to marry him with magic, is known by the double title of Apologia and Pro se de magia. This work was to become a masterpiece of rhetoric that was praised by Augustine, who describes it as copiosissima et disertissima oratio (‘most eloquent and learned speech’),³ his animosity towards Apuleius’ Platonism and magical reputation notwithstanding.⁴ This double title deserves a careful discussion given its relevance to understanding the possible reference to Socrates’ own defence. According to the most authoritative manuscript preserving Apuleius’ literary works,⁵ the title under which Apuleius’ speech circulated was Pro se aput Claudium Maximum proconsulem de magia (‘Self defence-speech on magic deliv-

 August. C.D. 8.19. Here I have used the translation by Carver 2007: 26. For the text of Apuleius’ Apologia I mainly follow the edition by Martos 2015 and I have adapted the translation by Hunink in Harrison et al. 2001. Other translations, where not otherwise indicated, are my own. In Ep. 137.4 Augustine describes Apuleius as se contra magicarum artium crimina copiosissime defendentem (‘he defended himself against the crimes concerning the magical arts with outstanding eloquence’). Further appreciation of Apuleius’ style in Ep. 138.4 and C.D. 8.12.  August. C.D. 8.14; Ep. 102.32; 137.4; 138.8, on which cf. Moreschini 1978: 240‒54, updated in 2015: 348‒63; Carver 2007: 23‒30; Gaisser 2008: 29‒36.  This is an eleventh-century manuscript from Monte Cassino, now preserved at the Biblioteca Laurenziana of Florence under the shelf-mark Plut. 68.2 (siglum F). High-resolution digitisations of this manuscript are available on the Digital Repository of the Biblioteca Medicea Laurenziana. The stemmatic importance of F is undisputed, cf. Helm 1910=19593: xxxiv‒xli; Butler and Owen 1914: xxix‒xxxiii; Vallette 1924: xxxi‒xxxvii; Marshall 1983: 15‒16; Hunink 1997, vol. I: 28; Martos 2015: li, and especially Piccioni 2010: 365‒75; 2012: 445‒54; 2016: 799‒802.

1.2 The Title of Apuleius’ Defence-Speech

3

ered before the proconsul Claudius Maximus’).⁶ As Schindel notes,⁷ to this title was added that of Apologia in the editio princeps by the Italian humanist Giovanni Andrea Bussi.⁸ Schindel proposes that the double title Apologia and Defensio Magiae could not be an innovation by Bussi: the Greek title Apologia is, in fact, quite similar to the Greek title of Apuleius’ novel, the Metamorphoses or Asinus Aureus. ⁹ Furthermore, it befits the defence-speech of a Platonist under trial,¹⁰ given the easy connection with Plato’s Apology of Socrates. ¹¹ Schindel, therefore, suggests that the double title might have been preserved in one of the ancient manuscripts (varia et vetustissima non nullibi exemplaria)¹² transmitting the Apologia which Bussi read while preparing his edition;¹³ thus, this double title might

 F fol. 118r, ll. 34‒5; fol. 118v, l. 1. This manuscript does not indicate the title at the beginning of the work but at the end of each book, preserving a late-antique fashion, on which see Pecere 1984=2003: 16‒23. As it emerges from the subscriptiones, the person who edited Apologia and Metamorphoses between AD 395/397 is Gaius Crispus Sallustius; on this figure, see the discussions by Pecere 1984=2003: 6‒11; Stramaglia 1996a=2003: 129‒133; Carver 2007: 13‒14; Gaisser 2008: 43‒52.  Schindel 1998 disproves the incorrect claim by Mosca 1974: v – followed by Hijmans 1994: 1713 – that the double title first appears in the Aldina (1521). Surprisingly, Schindel’s study has been unacknowledged in Apuleian scholarship with the exception of Hunink 2001: 230; and Schenk 2002: 22‒3, n. 1.  Bussi 1469 adopts the title Apologiae sive defensionis magiae ad clarissimum virum Claudium Maximum proconsulem pro se oratio. For a discussion of Bussi and his edition of Apuleius’ works, cf. Gaisser 2008: 160‒72.  The presence of a double title characterises Apuleius’ most famous literary work, the Metamorphoses, according to Sallustius’ edition preserved in F, or Asinus Aureus according to another ancient edition read by Augustine (C.D. 18.18); on this see Winkler 1985: 294‒5; Sandy 1997: 233‒ 4; Harrison 2000: 210, n. 1; Bitel 2006: 222‒34; Carver 2007: 26; Gaisser 2008: 33, n. 130; May 2013: 15.  Harrison 2000: 43 emphasises the connection with the contemporary ᾿Aπολογία ὑπὲρ Χριστιανῶν by Justin, a defence of Christian beliefs framed within a Platonic tone. That this type of title was conventional in defence-speeches is also clear from Lucian’s Apologia; see also Plutarch’s lost ᾿Aπολογία ὑπὲρ Σωκράτους, mentioned in the Catalogue of Lamprias 189. For the diffusion of the ‘Socratic apology’ as a genre in the Second Sophistic, cf. Max. Tyr. 3, on which see Trapp 1997: 24.  Schindel 1998: 866‒7.  Bussi 1469. The text is reprinted in Miglio 1978: 15.  Schindel 1998: 872‒88 notes the high degree of different readings between the editio princeps and F, and argues that they cannot be entirely due to conjectures by Bussi but to readings found in a lost manuscript, perhaps the Assisi Fragments (Fondo Biblioteca Comunale di Assisi, n. 706, siglum C). Once a printed text became available, old manuscripts, especially if damaged or difficult to read, were generally abandoned or dismembered (e. g. cf. Pasquali 19522: 50). This was likely the fate of the Assisi Fragments, ten leaves written in Monte Cassino roughly at the same time as F, and reused as covers or to strengthen the spine of the rogations by the sixteenth-cen-

4

1 Introduction

have already been employed in Apuleius’ time. For this reason I shall adopt the title Apologia, by which Apuleius’ speech is conventionally designated in most studies.¹⁴

1.3 The Trial against Apuleius and its Legal Context In AD 158/159 Apuleius stood trial before the proconsul of Africa Claudius Maximus¹⁵ in the city of Sabratha, a prosperous centre of North Africa facing the Mediterranean Sea.¹⁶ The accusers claimed that Apuleius, who was already believed by some to be a practitioner of goetic magic,¹⁷ was an extremely dangerous magus who unleashed his wicked arts on various victims in Oea, and especially on the rich Aemilia Pudentilla, a woman senior to Apuleius,¹⁸ forcing her into marriage by means of magic after a widowhood of fourteen years.¹⁹ By doing so, Apuleius purportedly endangered the substantial wealth of the late Sicinius Amicus,²⁰ Pudentilla’s first husband, and their sons Sicinius Pontianus (who died shortly before the trial)²¹ and Sicinius Pudens. Since Pudens was still a minor,²² his uncle Sicinius Aemilianus (a brother of Sicinius Amicus) brought forward the allegations on Pudens’ behalf, avoiding the dangerous repercussions of the Lex Remmia de calumniatoribus: this law punished those falsely accusing someone. Pudens, however, was not prosecutable since he was a minor.²³ In order to clarify the dangerous repercussions that Apuleius could face in case of a negative outcome of the trial, it is necessary to understand the law tury notaries Alessandro and Flaminio Benigni. Cf. also Zimmerman 2012: xxi, who suggests that Bussi might have read more than one lost manuscript.  E. g. the editions by Helm 1905, Vallette 1924, and Martos 2015, and the studies by Harrison 2000, May 2006, and Pellecchi 2012.  On the date of Maximus’ proconsulship, cf. Ch. 1.4.  Apol. 59.2. On Sabratha see Brill’s New Pauly, vol. XII, s.v. Sabratha, coll. 819‒20.  Apol. 81.1.  Apol. 27.9. At Apol. 89.5 it is explained that Pudentilla was in her forties. On the age of Pudentilla, Pontianus and Pudens see also the assessment of Butler and Owen 1914: xix‒xx; although they were unaware of the date of Maximus’ proconsulship (cf. Ch. 1.4), they place it between AD 156/158 (p. xv).  Apol. 69‒71, especially 68.2.  Apol. 68.2.  Apol. 1.5; 2.1; 96.5.  Apol. 2.3‒4; 45.7; on this see the comprehensive discussion of the related jurisdiction in Pellecchi 2012: 93‒119.  Apol. 2.3‒4. On the Lex Remmia, see Norden 1912: 136‒7; Amarelli 1988: 145‒6; Hunink 1997, vol. II: 15; Martos 2015: 4, n. 9.

1.3 The Trial against Apuleius and its Legal Context

5

under which he was prosecuted. Abt²⁴ and Vallette²⁵ independently argue that the law at issue was the Lex Cornelia de sicariis et veneficis ²⁶ which was originally promulgated by Sulla in 81 BC. This law eventually encompassed the crimen magiae, as shown by the Sententiae ad Filium by Julius Paulus,²⁷ a jurist who lived between the second and third century AD.²⁸ That the law at stake in Apuleius’ trial was the Lex Cornelia is accepted by many scholars,²⁹ but this interpretation has been challenged by Lamberti, Rives, and Bradley. Lamberti³⁰ suggests that, since Apuleius was not accused of murder, he was not tried under the Lex Cornelia itself but under a senatus consultum updating the law, according to which veneficium included mala sacrificia comprising nefarious magical rites.³¹ In various studies Rives develops the idea that the issue during the lawsuit was not veneficia but the maleficia which Apuleius had supposedly performed.³² Thus, the trial must have been a cognitio extra ordinem,³³ which is a special type of court proceedings for legal situations that had previously not been actionable.³⁴ Rives argues that Paulus’ Sententiae are preserved in the form of a later compilation datable to the end of the third century AD, therefore they do not offer useful information to reconstruct the legal context of Apuleius’ trial.³⁵ Bradley similarly observes that, since scholars fail to show whether the Lex Cornelia already encompassed magic in the second century AD, the requirement of a specific law was unnecessary: the trial was simply a cognitio extra ordinem. ³⁶ Recently, however, Pellecchi criticises the validity of Rives’ interpretation of Paulus’ Sententiae as a source reflecting a later development of the Lex Corne-

 Abt 1908: 9‒14.  Vallette 1908: 34‒9.  Further general remarks on this law in Ferrary 1991: 417‒34.  Paulus, Sent. 5.29.15‒19. I refer to the edition of the text by Liebs 1996.  Brill’s New Pauly, vol. VI, s.v. Iulius, coll. 1084‒5.  Abt 1908; 10‒13; Norden 1912: 31‒2 and n. 1; Butler and Owen 1914: 3‒4; Marchesi 1955=2011: xxi; Amarelli 1988: 135; Graf 1997: 66; Hunink 1997, vol. I: 13; Harrison 2000: 41; Dickie 2001: 147‒ 51; May 2006: 73; Binternagel 2008: 60; Martos 2015: xviii and 3‒4, n. 8.  Lamberti 2002: 331‒48.  Dig. 48.8.13: ex senatus consulto eius legis [sc. Corneliae] poena damnari iubetur, qui m a l a s a c r i f i c i a fecerit habuerit (‘according to the decree of the Senate the person who performs or organises evil sacrifices is to be sentenced to the penalty of this law [i. e. the Lex Cornelia]’). Translation adapted from Watson in Mommsen et al. 1985: 821.  Rives 2003: 322‒36.  Rives 2006: 60; 2008: 21‒48; 2011a: 103.  Cf. Brill’s New Pauly, vol. III, s.v. Cognitio, col. 510.  Rives 2003: 331; 2006: 53‒4 argues that the Sententiae were spuriously attributed to Paulus, as already Liebs 1995: 152‒71.  Bradley 2014: 25.

6

1 Introduction

lia. ³⁷ Pellecchi argues that the senatus consultum reported in Modestinus’ Pandectae ³⁸ is likely the summary of a law which was expounded at length by Paulus,³⁹ whose description of the Lex Cornelia reflects the form in which this law was issued in Apuleius’ time. Pellecchi argues that the charges against Apuleius are clearly comparable to Sent. 5.29.15,⁴⁰ and infers that the prosecutors structured their allegations according to the contemporary formulation of the Lex Cornelia de sicariis et veneficis. ⁴¹ Following Pellecchi’s interpretation, I would like to add that the very aim of the Lex Cornelia was to guarantee the safety of people – citizens and slaves – from any type of harm,⁴² not only from death.⁴³ Thus, when practitioners of magic became perceived as a clear and present danger in the Roman Empire during the first century AD,⁴⁴ this law was adapted to banish their activities and their impious craft. Evidence for this is the progressive assimilation between veneficium and magia that is well established in the first century AD: Quintilian explains that whether veneficia had to be considered carmina magorum was even a topic for declamations;⁴⁵ thus the association between magic and veneficium must already have been customary. That this association was widespread is also shown by Pliny the Elder, who claims that the real efficacy of magic lies in the veneficae artes. ⁴⁶ Furthermore, as I propose in this study, both the prosecutors and Apuleius were aware not only of the issues mentioned in Paulus’ Sententiae 5.29.15 – namely, impious sacrifices, curses, and defixiones – but also of those in Sent. 5.29.16‒19 which concern other crimes ascribed to

 Pellecchi 2012: 266‒77, and specifically 271‒7.  Dig. 48.8.13.  In particular, Pellecchi notes the similarity between the mala sacrificia in Modestinus and the impia sacra nocturnave in Paulus, Sent. 5.29.19.  Qui sacra impia nocturnave, ut quem obcantarent, defigerent, obligarent, fecerint faciendave curaverint, aut cruci suffiguntur aut bestiis obiciuntur (‘those who have performed or arranged for the performance of impious or nocturnal rites, in order to enchant, transfix with curse-tablets, or bind someone, are to be either crucified or thrown to the beasts’). Translation adapted from Rives 2006: 47.  Pellecchi 2012: 269; 276‒7.  Although slaves did not have any legal personality in the Roman world (Berger 1953: 704; Bradley 1994: 1‒29; 174‒82; Bauman 2000: 115‒25), the Lex Cornelia de sicariis et veneficis aims at protecting the life of every human being (homo), either free or enslaved (Dig. 1.5.3), male or female (Dig. 50.16.152). Cf. Berger 1953: 488.  Inst. Iust. 4.18.5.  See the discussion in Ch. 2.3.  Quint. Inst. 7.3.7; this passage is acknowledged by Rives 2003: 321; 2006: 60; 2011a: 81‒2 although he does not consider it sufficient evidence.  Plin. Nat. 30.17.

1.4 The People in the Courtroom of Sabratha

7

goetic practitioners,⁴⁷ particularly being privy to or having knowledge of magic⁴⁸ and the possession of magical treatises.⁴⁹ Despite the detailed and dangerous accusations aiming to put Apuleius to death or to exile, he confutes these charges by misrepresenting them as the calumnies of ill-minded attackers, and demonstrates that he had no interest in the patrimony of the Sicinii.⁵⁰ In addition to the triumphant tone which shines through his Apologia, the fact that the speech was later revised and published, the presence of statues to honour Apuleius’ success alongside his career as rhetorician and priest in Carthage during the 160s AD,⁵¹ is strong evidence for his acquittal.⁵²

1.4 The People in the Courtroom of Sabratha With the exception of Apuleius and Claudius Maximus, the other figures involved in the trial are known to us only from the speech itself.⁵³ This is the case of Apu-

 Paulus, Sent. 5.29.16: qui hominem immolaverint exve eius sanguine litaverint, fanum templumve polluerint, bestiis obiciuntur vel, si honestiores sint, capite puniuntur (‘those who have sacrificed a human being or obtained omens from his blood, or have polluted a shrine or a temple, shall be thrown to the beasts or, if honestiores, shall be put to death’). Translation adapted from Rives 2006: 47.  Sent. 5.29.17: magicae artis conscios summo supplicio adfici placuit id est bestiis obici aut cruci suffigi. Ipsi autem magi vivi exuruntur (‘it is agreed that those who are privy to the magical art are to be inflicted with the supreme punishment, that is to be thrown to the beasts or crucified. The real magi, however, are burned alive’). Translation adapted from Rives 2006: 47.  Sent. 5.29.18: libros magicae artis apud se neminem habere licet; et penes quoscumque reperti sint, bonis ademptis ambustis his publice in insulam deportantur, humiliores capite puniuntur. Non tantum huius artis professio, sed etiam scientia prohibita est (‘no one is permitted to have in their possession books concerning the magical arts; those in whose possession they are found have their property confiscated and their books publicly burnt, and they themselves are deported to an island, and humiliores are punished capitally. Not only is the profession of this art, but also its very knowledge is interdicted’). Translation adapted from Rives 2006: 47.  Apul. Apol. 100‒101: from Pudentilla’s will it becomes clear that the heir is Pudentilla’s son, Sicinius Pudens, not Apuleius.  On the possible publication of the speech cf. Ch. 1.5; on the statue, cf. Ch. 1.4. As to Apuleius’ later career, Rives 1994 argues that Apuleius was also a priest of Asclepius, see the discussion in Ch. 7.1.  This opinion is shared by Butler and Owen 1914: xvi‒xvii; Marchesi 1955=2011: xxvi‒xxvii; Steinmetz 1982: 204‒5; Fick 1991: 27; Hijmans 1994: 1714‒5; Graf 1997: 65; Hunink 1997, vol. I: 19‒20; Harrison 2000: 7; Rives 2011a: 89, n. 35; Bradley 1997=2012: 3; Noreña 2014: 45; May 2014a: 762; Jones 2017: ix.  A good overview in Hunink 1997, vol. I: 15‒18, and Jones 2017: 9‒11.

8

1 Introduction

leius’ wife Aemilia Pudentilla,⁵⁴ her late son Sicinius Pontianus, and her younger son Sicinius Pudens. While the latter is described by Apuleius as a corrupted youth, almost illiterate, and a squanderer of his mother’s riches,⁵⁵ the former had been Apuleius’ friend and studied with him in Athens,⁵⁶ before Aemilianus and Rufinus turned him against Apuleius.⁵⁷ It was Pontianus who invited Apuleius – or so he claims – en route to Alexandria in Egypt to stop at his house and paved the way for the wedding with Pudentilla.⁵⁸ As to Pudentilla, although at the centre of the legal dispute, she does not seem to have had much weight during the proceeding. One could think that, being allegedly under Apuleius’ magical control, Pudentilla would have been an unreliable witness. However, the reason may simply be legal: according to Ulpianus, the Roman law barred women from being a representative in any lawsuits.⁵⁹ Little is known about the prosecutors who acted on behalf of Sicinius Pudens, namely Sicinius Aemilianus, Pudens’ uncle,⁶⁰ Herennius Rufinus, Pudens’ father-in-law,⁶¹ and the advocate Tannonius Pudens.⁶² They are slanderously portrayed by Apuleius as rustic, uncouth and corrupt. As Harrison notes, this characterisation is meant to create an unbridgeable division between Apuleius and the philosophically-minded judge Maximus on the one hand, and his igno-

 On Pudentilla’s status and literacy, cf. Pavis D’Escurac 1974: 89‒101; Gutsfeld 1992: 250‒68; Fantham 1995: 220‒32; Hemelrijk 1999: 25 and n. 49; 191 and n. 69; Harlow 2007: 195‒208; Lakhlif 2008: 319‒26; Lamberti 2015: 210‒7.  See especially Apol. 97.7‒98.9.  Apol. 72.3.  Aemilianus and Rufinus made Pontianus change his mind about Apuleius (Apol. 74.2‒3); however, before his death, Pontianus reconciled with Apuleius and repudiated his wife, the daughter of Rufinus (Apol. 94.2; 96.4‒97.7).  Apol. 72.4‒73.9.  Cf. Dig. 50.17.2 prol., on which see Berger 1953: 469; Kehoe and Vervaet 2015: 622‒3. This seems also the case of the unnamed lady in Apol. 48‒52 and of Capitolina at Apol. 61‒2. Towards the end of the speech, we find a reference to Pudentilla’s legal tutor, a certain Corvinius Celer (Apol. 101.6) or Corvinius Clemens (Apol. 101.7).  Aemilianus is presented at Apol. 10.6 as a vir […] rusticanus, agrestis quidem semper et barbarus (‘a rustic man, uncultured and invariably barbaric’). He is Apuleius’ arch-enemy, the professor et machinator (‘instructor and inventor’) of the charges (Apol. 2.8) and is slanderously addressed throughout the speech.  Apuleius describes Rufinus as the real instigator of Aemilianus (Apol. 74.5). On Apuleius’ characterisation of Rufinus, see Hunink 1998: 104‒111; May 2006: 99‒106; 2014a: 762‒763.  Tannonius is described at Apol. 4.1‒2 as a poor speaker (non disertissimum); cf. similarly in 30.5; 33.6‒34.1; 34.5; 46.1‒4. There seem to have been more advocates for the prosecution since Apuleius addresses Aemilianus’ advocati (Apol. 25.8; 74.5) or patroni (1.5; 3.6; 17.7; 38.6; 52.3), but their identity is unknown.

1.4 The People in the Courtroom of Sabratha

9

rant foes on the other.⁶³ What will emerge in this study is that Apuleius’ invective needs to be framed within a Platonic logic: Apuleius presents himself and the judge at the zenith of a Platonising hierarchy whereas the prosecutors lie at its base. Their spiritual vulgarity is the reason why they fail to understand the innocence of Apuleius, a true Socrates reborn as various scholars argue.⁶⁴ The judge Claudius Maximus, who chaired the panel of magistrates during the trial, is a historical figure.⁶⁵ The analysis of three pieces of an inscription from the theatre of Leptis Magna⁶⁶ allowed Guey⁶⁷ and Syme⁶⁸ to date the proconsulship of Lollianus Avitus, proconsul Africae before Claudius Maximus,⁶⁹ to AD 157/158. Consequently, the proconsulship of Maximus himself has been dated to AD 158/159, the year during which Apuleius’ trial took place.⁷⁰ But Maximus was not only a man of politics: he is also known as the philosopher who taught Stoicism to Marcus Aurelius,⁷¹ and is addressed by Apuleius as a connoisseur of Plato’s writing and theories.⁷² What can be inferred from the Apologia is that Apuleius and Maximus belonged to the same cultural elite: the judge was, therefore, bound to sympathise with a fellow philosopher, who represented himself as the victim of mere slanders (calumniae).⁷³ As to Apuleius, biographical evidence comes mostly from his Apologia and Florida. This has been accurately examined by Sandy, Harrison, Hammerstaedt,

 Harrison 2000: 46‒7.  Harrison 2000: 43; 96; Schindel 2000; Riess 2008: 51‒73; Puccini-Delbey 2010; Fletcher 2014: 161‒7; Costantini 2019b.  Apol. 1.1 and the comments by Hunink 1997, vol. II: 10.  Cf. AE 1990: 1030.  Guey 1951: 307‒17.  Syme 1959; 1965: 352‒4.  This is explained by Apuleius himself, cf. Apol. 94.5.  On this see the discussion in Bradley 2012: 283, n. 1, with a rich bibliographical overview.  Hunink 1997, vol. II: 10; Harrison 2000: 45; Bradley 1997=2012: 15‒16; Martos 2015: 2, n. 1 identify Claudius Maximus with the Stoic philosopher, mentor of Marcus Aurelius; see M. Ant. 1.15.1‒5; 1.16.10; 1.17.5, cf. Farquharson 1944, vol. I: 275 and SHA Marc. 3.2 (Claudium Maximum et Cinnam Catulum Stoicos) on which see Syme 1983: 34‒5.  In order to arouse the judge’s sympathy, at Apol. 25.10, 48.13, 51.1 Apuleius introduces Platonic citations by addressing the judge and referring to the Platonic anamnesis (cf. Ch. 4.2). To grasp these references, the judge must have been acquainted with Platonic theories and works. On the philosophical profile of Claudius Maximus, see Bradley 1997=2012: 15‒16 followed by May 2010: 184, n. 31. Gaisser 2008: 5‒6 and Bradley 2014: 29 suggest, however, that Maximus might not have necessarily been as knowledgeable as Apuleius’ presentation implies.  The term calumnia is insistently used by Apuleius to undermine the seriousness of the allegations. This term occurs at Apol. 33.5; 45.1; 46.5; 51.10; 52.1; 55.1; 59.7; 61.3; 63.5; 67.1; 74.5; 82.8; 83.7; 84.2; 84.6; 103.4.

10

1 Introduction

and Martos,⁷⁴ to whose discussions I refer: Apuleius was born a Roman citizen to a wealthy family in the African colonia of Madauros,⁷⁵ probably around AD 120.⁷⁶ Through his studies in Carthage, Athens and Rome, Apuleius mastered both Greek and Latin,⁷⁷ was well versed in different literary genres,⁷⁸ and was deeply acquainted with Platonic philosophy.⁷⁹ Before his arrival in Oea (AD 156), and marriage with Pudentilla (AD 157 or early 158),⁸⁰ he led a globe-trotting life worthy of the best of the Greek sophists of the time,⁸¹ and had already written poems,⁸² treatises of natural philosophy in Greek and Latin,⁸³ and given speeches before large audiences.⁸⁴ During the 160s we find Apuleius as a successful figure in Carthage.⁸⁵ The date of his death is unknown, but Harrison suggests a date after AD 170/180, which he considers as Apuleius’ floruit during which he wrote the Metamorphoses. ⁸⁶ External evidence about Apuleius’ life is uncertain. A second- or third-century inscription on the base of a statue from

 Sandy 1997: 1‒36; Harrison 2000: 1‒10; Hammerstaedt 2002: 10‒18; Martos 2003, vol. I: xii‒ xv.  Vague information about Apuleius’ birthplace comes from Apol. 24.1 where he refers that he had been insulted for being ‘Seminumidam et Semigaetulum’. That he was native of Madauros is explicitly said in [Apul.] Int. 4; August. Ep. 102.32; C.D. 8.14; Sid. Apoll. Epist. 9.13.3; Cassiod. Inst. 2.3.18; 2.4.7; 2.5.10.  Strabo Aemilianus was his peer during his studies in Carthage (Fl. 16.36‒7), and since Strabo was consul suffectus in AD 156, and the minimum age to cover that role was thirty-three, Apuleius’ was probably born in ca. AD 120; cf. Sandy 1997: 2; Harrison 2000: 3.  On the question of Apuleius’ Africitas, Harrison 2000: 3 and n. 7 argues that Apuleius’ style mirrors that of his erudite contemporaries. Cf. Mattiacci 2014, who discusses how Apuleius’ African background could have influenced his own language and style.  Fl. 9.27‒8, on which see Hunink 2001: 115‒7.  Apuleius studied general philosophy in Athens (Fl. 20.4); on his probable masters, see Moreschini 2015: 15‒24, who reassesses the conclusions of his earlier monograph (1978: 1‒18). On Apuleius’ Platonism, see the recent studies by Fletcher 2014: 31‒44; 271‒272 and Moreschini 2015: 15‒27; 42‒57; 219‒96; 301‒34; 365‒7.  Cf. Harrison 2000: 7 in the wake of Guey 1951: 317 and n. 3.  Apuleius describes himself as viae cupidus (Apol. 72.5) and peregrinationis cupiens (Apol. 73.7).  Cf. Apol. 6.3; 9.12; 9.14 that Harrison 2000: 17‒20 ascribes to Apuleius’ lost Ludicra.  Cf. Apol. 36.7‒8; 37.4; 38.2‒4, on which see Harrison 2000: 29‒30; 2008: 6‒7.  We know that he gave speeches before the proconsul Lollianus Avitus (Apol. 24.1, cf. Harrison 2000: 33‒34), and before the citizens of Oea (Apol. 55.10‒12, cf. Harrison 2000: 32‒3; 2008: 8‒9).  On this cf. especially La Rocca 2005: 13‒77.  Cf. Harrison 2000: 10; 2002=2013: 81‒94. However, the passage at Fl. 9.27‒8, used by Harrison to date the Metamorphoses after AD 162/163, might not be entirely reliable since the term historia might perhaps have been used to indicate the Metamorphoses, as discussed in Ch. 5.3.

1.4 The People in the Courtroom of Sabratha

11

the area of the theatre of Madauros lacks the top which contained the name of a certain philosophus Platonicus to which the people of Madauros erected a public monument.⁸⁷ It is not implausible to identify this Platonic philosopher with Apuleius,⁸⁸ who presents himself as a Platonicus philosophus in Apol. 10.6.⁸⁹ This is also likely since Apuleius had another statue set up in Oea after his victory against Aemilianus, about which he gave a speech now lost.⁹⁰ Coarelli suggests an identification between our author and Lucius Apuleius Marcellus, the owner of a house in the proximity of the North African cooperation in Ostia rebuilt in the Antonine period (regio II, insula VIII, 5).⁹¹ Harrison, however, rightly discards this rather speculative argument since the attribution of the praenomen Lucius to Apuleius cannot be proved.⁹² Later evidence concerning Apuleius’ link with magic, collected and examined by Carver, Gaisser, and Moreschini,⁹³ can be found in Christian sources that emphasise Apuleius’ magical notoriety and associate him with Apollonius of Tyana.⁹⁴ The corpus of his works comprises the Metamorphoses, the only complete Latin novel that has survived from classical antiquity, a fragmentary collection of speeches entitled Florida, and a series of philosophical writings preserved in a different manuscript tradition,⁹⁵ namely De Deo Socratis, De Mundo, De Platone et eius Dogmate. ⁹⁶  ILA 2115: [ph]ilosopho [Pl]atonico [Ma]daurenses cives ornament[o] suo. D(ecreto) d(ecurionum) p(ecunia) [p(ublica)] (‘the citizens of Madauros to the Platonic philosopher for his distinction, with public money and the decree of the decurions’).  This opinion is shared by Vallette 1924: vii; Harrison 2000: 8; May 2013: 2; Gaisser 2014: 55.  Apol. 10.6. That of Platonicus is the title with which later authors tag Apuleius, e. g. Charisius Ars grammatica ed. Barwick 1964: 314; August. C.D. 8.24; 9.3; 10.27; Sid. Apoll. Epist. 9.13.3. See also [Apul.] Int. 4: ut si pro ‘Apuleio’ dicas ‘philosophum Platonicum Madaurensem’.  Cf. August. Ep. 138.19 and Apul. Fl. 16.37 discussed in Harrison 2000: 33.  Coarelli 1989: 27‒42. The name appears in the stamps on two lead water pipes of the house. This identification would be supported by the fact that this house grants the access to the socalled ‘Mithraeum of the seven spheres’ (regio II, insula VIII, 6), of which Apuleius would have been the keeper. Coarelli’s hypothesis is taken seriously by Takács 2008: 80, n. 13.  Harrison 2000: 1, n. 2. A similar scepticism is expressed by Gaisser 2008: 34, n. 132.  Carver 2007: 17‒30; 57‒59; Gaisser 2008: 21‒38 and briefly in 2014: 55‒58; Moreschini 2015: 335‒63.  Cf. Lactant. Div. inst. 5.3.7; 5.3.18; 5.3.18; [Jer.] Brev. Psal. 81. See the reference to Augustine in n. 4 above, and Anastasius, Quaestiones (PG 89, col. 525 A); Psell. Script. Min. 1.262, on which see Dodds 1947: 56‒7. For a comparison between Apuleius and Apollonius and their trials see Rives 2008: 32‒5 and Ch. 4.4.  Cf. Reynolds 1983: 16‒18; Klibansky and Regen 1993: 18‒54.  While the Asclepius, Peri Hermeneias, and De Remediis Salutaribus are not Apuleian (cf. Harrison 2000: 12‒13), fragments of and references to lost texts ascribed to Apuleius have been collected by Oldfather et al. 1934: ix‒xiii; Beaujeu 1973: 169‒80; Harrison 2000: 14‒36. Stover 2016 identifies some summaries of Platonic doctrine, chiefly preserved in a MS transmitting Apuleius’

12

1 Introduction

1.5 The Scholarship on the Apologia Different studies on Apuleius’ Apologia, although not comparable in frequency to those devoted to the Metamorphoses, have explored its content, context, and literary status, helping our appreciation and understanding of this work. In this section I shall offer a survey of the most influential monographs and essays on the Apologia. This will lead us to the debate on whether the Apologia should be considered a work of fiction or whether it reflects a real speech. After Monceaux’s discussion of the emergence of the legend of Apuleius as a “magicien” that develops from the information in the Apologia,⁹⁷ the twentieth century saw an increasing interest in the speech. In 1908 two doctoral theses were published: that by Abt and that by Vallette, who could both rely on the new critical edition by Helm;⁹⁸ these works influenced deeply later studies. Vallette analyses the content of the Apologia and frames it within the rhetorical and Platonic mentality that emerges from other writings by Apuleius. Vallette’s meticulous work on the defence-speech led to an edition with critical apparatus, notes, and French translation of the Apologia and Florida, published in 1924. The focus of Abt’s dissertation was quite different: he examines implicit and explicit allusions to magic in the Apologia, showing how Apuleius reveals broad knowledge of magic, and attempting a reconstruction of the prosecution’s arguments. Abt pays special attention to the evidence in the Greek Magical Papyri, which he started to edit with other scholars.⁹⁹ Given the breadth of information contained, Abt’s work is an obligatory presence in the bibliographies of every study devoted to ancient magic; it represents, in essence, the starting point for my own work, which brings in new evidence and reassesses that employed by Abt by adopting a more accurate methodology to define ancient magic.¹⁰⁰ In 1912 scholars could benefit from Norden’s detailed monograph on the legal context of the Apologia to understand Roman private law in the second century AD. Another edition of the Apologia accompanied by a commentary was that by Butler (who had already translated Apologia and Florida into English in 1909) and Owen published in 1914. Their commentary, although mainly focusing on the

philosophical works (Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, shelf-mark Reg. lat. 1572), with the lost third book of the De Platone. Antonio Stramaglia and Aldo Corcella are currently working on a new OCT edition of known and other hitherto unacknowledged Apuleian fragments.  Monceaux 1889: 231‒91.  Helm 1905=19553. Helm also published an interpretative study on the Apologia (1955b) which he considers “ein Meisterwerk der zweiten Sophistik”.  Cf. Preisendanz 1928=19732: v‒xii.  Cf. Ch. 2.

1.5 The Scholarship on the Apologia

13

linguistic and stylistic features of the speech, remains a valuable and accessible research tool, with often original interpretative observations. Apart from the general introductions and the notes accompanying the bilingual editions by Marchesi, Mosca, Augello, and Moreschini,¹⁰¹ a major interpretative study on the Apologia is Winter’s thesis, focusing on the historicity of Apuleius’ trial.¹⁰² A further scholarly advance is represented by two lengthy studies by Hijmans published in 1987 and 1994 in ANRW. The former is an analysis of Apuleius’ Platonism in which a section is devoted to his self-presentation as a Platonist.¹⁰³ The latter contribution reviews different stylistic and content-based features of the Apologia and Florida. ¹⁰⁴ The doctoral thesis by McCreight, defended in 1991, offers a thoughtful insight into the language and style of the Apologia ¹⁰⁵ and contains a detailed appendix on Apuleius’ terminology.¹⁰⁶ An accessible analysis of magic in the Apologia is that by Graf,¹⁰⁷ and a significant step forward in our understanding of Apuleius’ speech is the edition with commentary in two volumes by Hunink published in 1997, and followed by an annotated English translation in 2001.¹⁰⁸ Although Hunink specifies that his commentary is not intended to be as detailed as the Groningen Commentaries on Apuleius’ Metamorphoses,¹⁰⁹ it presents an original interpretation of the speech and a rich overview of the scholarship. In 2002 another text with German translation and notes was edited by Hammerstaedt: this volume includes a discussion of the life¹¹⁰ and the works of Apuleius,¹¹¹ and a series of interpretative essays devoted to magic and mysteries¹¹² and to the legal issues related to the trial.¹¹³ Following Sandy’s book on Apuleius’ position within that cultural phenomenon known as Second Sophistic,¹¹⁴ Harrison published in 2000 a thorough study on Apuleius’ oeuvre; al-

 Marchesi 1955=2011; Marchesi had already published a critical edition with an introduction and a commentary in 1914; Mosca 1974; Augello 1984; Moreschini 1990. More recently, see Stucchi 2016.  Winter 1968.  Hijmans 1987: 416‒25.  Hijmans 1994.  McCreight 1991: 1‒194.  McCreight 1991: 195‒508.  Graf 1997: 65‒88.  Hunink in Harrison et al. 2001: 25‒121.  Hunink 1997, vol. I: 31‒2.  Hammerstaedt 2002: 9‒22.  Schenk 2002: 23‒56.  Habermehl 2002: 285‒314; Ritter 2002: 315‒30.  Lamberti 2002: 331‒50.  Sandy 1997; pp. 131‒45 focus on the Apologia.

14

1 Introduction

though Harrison’s aim is to provide an accessible description of Apuleius’ life and works, surviving and lost,¹¹⁵ his volume provides the reader with an acute interpretation of the Apologia and its rhetorical strategies – mixing forensic and epideictic genres – and sheds light on Apuleius’ dependence on Cicero,¹¹⁶ a point earlier disputed by Hijmans and Hunink.¹¹⁷ The same attempt to unite accessibility with a detailed literary analysis characterises May’s monograph on the dramatic features of Apuleius’ writings: the chapter on the Apologia explores Apuleius’ employment of stock characters taken from comedy, assessing how this was a customary practice observable in Cicero.¹¹⁸ The monographs by Fletcher and Moreschini on Apuleius’ Platonism also devote sections to the Apologia. ¹¹⁹ In 2008 the proceedings of the conference organised by Riess were published, which contain a collection of papers mainly on the Apologia. ¹²⁰ In the same year Binternagel’s monograph on the function of the digressions and anecdotes in the defence appeared; Binternagel argues that these digressions play a fundamental part in Apuleius’ strategies to persuade the audience of his innocence. At the same time Piccioni published some results of her research on the textual transmission of the Apologia and Florida, which will lead to an OCT edition of these speeches.¹²¹ Meanwhile, Martos has edited a remarkable new critical text of Apuleius’ rhetorical works, provided with a Spanish translation and copious explanatory notes, and Jones’ Loeb edition of Apologia, Florida, and De Deo Socratis has recently appeared.¹²² Further studies on the legal aspects of the Apologia are those by Taylor¹²³ and especially Pellecchi.¹²⁴ Pellecchi comments on the legal context of the Apologia and proposes an innovative interpretation of the structure of the charges against Apuleius.¹²⁵ Kehoe and Vervaet, following Ifie and Thompson,¹²⁶ present a detailed analysis of Apuleius’ approach towards his accusers, and the recent publication of the proceedings of a colloquium on

 Harrison 2000: v.  Harrison 2000: 39‒88.  Hijmans 1994: 1711, n. 7 and Hunink 1997, vol. I: 7; vol. II: 173; 235.  May 2006: 73‒108.  Fletcher 2014: 198‒226 and Moreschini 2015: 29‒48, respectively.  These comprise Harrison 2008: 3‒15; Rives: 2008 17‒49; Riess 2008: 51‒73; Hunink 2008: 75‒87; McCreight 2008: 89‒104; Tilg 2008: 105‒132.  Piccioni 2010; 2011; 2012; 2016.  Martos 2015; Jones 2017.  Taylor 2011.  Pellecchi 2012.  This is discussed in Ch. 1.6.  Ifie and Thompson 1978; Kehoe and Vervaet 2015.

1.5 The Scholarship on the Apologia

15

Apuleius’ polymathic knowledge, edited by Plantade and Vallat, offer further insight into the breadth and the depth of Apuleius’ thought.¹²⁷ Thus far I have listed the most influential studies on the speech, but to better understand the context in which the Apologia and Apuleius’ daring arguments were created it is necessary to discuss whether this speech was really delivered or if it was a work of fiction. Some scholars leave the question unanswered since they focus on a literary interpretation,¹²⁸ but the latter hypothesis has gained favour in recent time.¹²⁹ Contrariwise, it has been proposed that the Apologia may be a stenographic recording of the speech as delivered by Apuleius in the courtroom of Sabratha.¹³⁰ I agree, however, with the majority of the scholars, who argue that the text underwent a process of revision before its publication,¹³¹ which might have not substantially affected the form of the delivered speech, as Bradley suggests.¹³² Furthermore, that the Apologia could not be a fictional speech is shown by the fact that it differs considerably from declamations, given the precise references to real people,¹³³ its length, and the complexity of the allegations rebutted.¹³⁴ I want to stress that the possibility of the historical existence of the trial should not be seen as a hindrance, but as an additional element to appreciate the rhetorical grandeur of Apuleius and his ability to overcome even the most dangerous situations with his magniloquence. As I discuss, a fundamental aspect of the Apologia is that Apuleius tailors a defence to appeal to a learned addressee, Claudius Maximus, with whom the cultivated people in court and the readers of the speech alike could have easily identified themselves. This sophisticated audience would have consequently sympathised with a fellow

 Plantade and Vallat 2018.  Cf. Sallmann 1995: 140; Hunink 1997, vol. I: 25‒7; 2001: 21‒4, who survey the scholarly debate on the issue. Hunink mentions the well-known case of the actio secunda of Cicero’s Verrines, which is generally believed not to have been delivered (but Höeg 1939 thinks differently). Taylor 2011: 166, instead, suggests that the lack of precise legal evidence does not allow for siding with one interpretation or the other.  Cf. especially Rives 2008: 17‒19. Gaisser 2008: 5‒6 suggests that Apuleius might have rewritten the speech after the acquittal in order to present himself as the same sophisticated persona that he offers in the Florida.  Winter 1968: 25‒31; 1969: 607‒12; cautiously, Callebat 1984: 143, n. 1.  Cf. Abt 1908: 6‒8; Vallette 1908: 115‒21; Butler and Owen 1914: xxi; Ussani 1929: 130; Salottolo 1951: 45; Amarelli 1988: 115‒6; Gaide 1993: 227‒31, who claims that the original speech was heavily altered; Hijmans 1994: 1719; Harrison 2000: 42, n. 8; May 2006: 73, n. 4; Binternagel 2008: 19‒20; Pellecchi 2012: 7‒10; Martos 2015: xxvi‒xxix.  Bradley 1997=2012: 13.  On this see also Hammerstaedt 2002: 16.  See also Marchesi 1955=2011: xx.

16

1 Introduction

man of culture such as Apuleius, a philosopher unjustly tried by a bunch of rustic swindlers.

1.6 The Structure of the Charges and the Summary of the Chapters Reconstructing the charges brought against Apuleius is not an easy task, since the Apologia does not offer a reliable account of the accusers’ arguments. As Quintilian remarks, one should never report the opponent’s confirmatio,¹³⁵ and Apuleius adheres to this tenet distorting the allegations in order to sidestep their serious legal implications.¹³⁶ As far as one can gather from the evidence in the Apologia, the prosecution’s speech was divided into three principal sections, each deeply linked with the crimen magiae,¹³⁷ as I will argue. The first section, which concerns what I call Preliminary Allegations, consists of a series of arguments which serve to introduce a distorted portrait of Apuleius as a man without substance and moral principles, depraved, and fully able to perform goetic magic. The following section of the attackers’ speech contains the Primary Charges, six allegations showing how Apuleius’ goetic powers endangered not only Pudentilla, but the whole community of Oea. The third and last section deals more closely with the magical seduction of Pudentilla and Apuleius’ alleged attempt to take possession of her patrimony. These arguments can be, therefore, summarised as follows: Apuleius’ beauty and hairdressing

Apol. 

His extraordinary eloquence

Apol. 

The toothpaste made with exotic ingredients

Apol. ‒

Preliminary Pederastic poems Allegations The possession of a mirror

Apol. ‒. Apol. .‒

The manumission of three slaves

Apol. .‒

Apuleius’ poverty

Apol. .‒

His barbaric homeland

Apol. 

 Quint. Inst. 5.13.27, which is quoted by Hijmans 1994: 1712. On Quintilian’s advice on how to persuade the judge with a theatrical performance (Inst. 6.2‒3), see Martín 2003.  Ch. 1.3.  Apol. 25.5; 81.1.

1.6 The Structure of the Charges and the Summary of the Chapters

Primary Charges

Secondary Charges

17

The seduction of Pudentilla with sea creatures

Apol. ‒.

The enchantment of Thallus triggering his sickness (and of other slave–boys)

Apol. .‒

The similar noxious enchantment of a matron

Apol. ‒

The magical object which defiled Pontianus’ Lares and caused his death

Apol. ‒.

The ritual polluting Crassus’ household and his Penates, provoking his illness

Apol. .‒

The ebony skeleton used for necromancy

Apol. ‒

Pudentilla’s seduction with poisons and charms

Apol. ‒

The compromising letters used against Apuleius

Apol. .‒.

Pudentilla’s excessive age to remarry

Apol. ¹³⁸

The wedding in an isolated countryside villa

Apol. .‒

The attempt to get his hands on Pudentilla’s wealth

Apol. ‒

The reconstruction here outlined differs from that proposed by Pellecchi, who hypothesises that the opponents first accused Apuleius of having seduced Pudentilla with magical concoctions made of sea creatures and with the aid of a magical statuette.¹³⁹ Then, according to Pellecchi, the accusers presented the allegations concerning Thallus and the epileptic woman,¹⁴⁰ interspersing them with two interludes: the argument concerning the magical objects amongst Pontianus’ Lares and that concerning the nocturnal rituals in Crassus’ house.¹⁴¹ Some objections to this reconstruction, however, should be raised: Pellecchi’s reasoning is mainly based on the evidence in the summing-up at Apol. 27.6‒12,¹⁴² in which the order of the charges mirrors that which he proposes. However, this passage – similarly to the other summaries at 25.1‒2 and at 103.2‒3 – cannot be relied on:¹⁴³ there Apuleius alters the arrangement of his foes’ arguments, transforming them into a series of short and harmless sentences which he can easily ridicule; there he also omits two controversial accusations,

 In order to weaken this point, Apuleius does not discuss it in the same chronological order which he adopts at Apol. 67.3; see my discussion in Ch. 11.1.  Pellecchi 2012: 153‒78.  Pellecchi 2012: 210‒31; 248‒54.  Pellecchi 2012: 231‒48.  Pellecchi 2012: 144‒52.  See also the remarks by Hunink 1997, vol. II: 85; 94‒5; 102‒3; Harrison 2000: 62; 64‒5; 85.

18

1 Introduction

namely his alleged magical objects and his impious nocturna sacra. ¹⁴⁴ Pellecchi also suggests that the eerie statuette had to do with the seduction of Apuleius’ wife,¹⁴⁵ since the opponents became aware of this figurine by reading the same letter of Pudentilla which Apuleius discusses at Apol. 78.5‒87.9.¹⁴⁶ In addition, he claims that the charges concerning the mysterious magical objects (Apol. 53‒57.1) and the nocturnal rituals (Apol. 57‒60) were marginal arguments.¹⁴⁷ Nevertheless, as suggested in this study, the corpus of letters presented by the accusers was likely bigger and included letters which Apuleius avoids discussing in his defence-speech, and the two charges concerning the magical objects and the nocturnal rites were, instead, crucial to constructing the goetic depiction of Apuleius given by his foes. The different sections of Apuleius’ Apologia will be discussed in this study in the following order: while Chapter 2 presents a new theoretical methodology applied to ancient magic, Chapter 3 focuses on the Preliminary Allegations showing how Apuleius conceals the dangerous references to his dabbling in magic, which originally characterised these charges. Chapter 4 examines Apol. 25.5‒ 28.9, in which Apuleius plays with the semantic ambivalence of magic and stresses his status as a philosopher under trial. The following six chapters look into the Primary Charges: Chapters 5 and 6 look into the lengthy rebuttal of the purported seduction of Pudentilla with love-charms obtained from sea animals. Here Apuleius displays his rhetorical skills and draws on anecdotes and digressions which, however, might have still aroused some suspicions about his self-declared innocence. Chapter 7 focuses on the allegations concerning the noxious powers of Apuleius’ incantations, which allegedly caused the sickness of various people in Oea, including some slave-boys and an unnamed lady. It is also discussed how Apuleius misrepresents the allegation concerning the slave Thallus by inserting the element of divination, which did not feature in the prosecution’s case, as I argue. Chapters 8 and 9 analyse the accusations concerning the magical objects hidden in Pontianus’ lararium and that of having performed impious rites in the house of Iunius Crassus. A new reconstruction of these allegations is offered, showing how these were meant to present Apuleius as a harmful magus who attempted to kill Pontianus and Crassus. Chapter 10 is devoted to the ebony statuette of a skeleton which Apuleius commissioned and allegedly used for necromancy, and to his mock-curse at Apol. 64.1‒2, which has intrigued scholars because of its open connections with real    

Both allegations are excluded from the summing-up at Apol. 27.6‒12 and 103.2‒3. Apol. 61‒5. Cf. Pellecchi 2012: 194‒209, who refers to Pudentillae litteras mentioned at Apol. 61.1. Pellecchi 2012: 231‒48.

1.6 The Structure of the Charges and the Summary of the Chapters

19

magical curses. Chapter 11 throws light on the magical features of the Secondary Charges, focusing on the wedding with Pudentilla and the endangerment of her patrimony. It will be proposed that magic was a fundamental aspect of these allegations – Apuleius’ distortion notwithstanding – and that they were strongly connected with the Preliminary and the Primary Charges. Chapter 12 overviews the conclusions of the previous discussion, suggesting that Apuleius’ rhetorical skills enabled him to charm his audience and triumph over his enemies while never denying being a magus.

2 Magic in the Apologia: A Matter of Terminology and Meaning 2.1 Introduction When attempting to address a topic as popular as magic, one faces an increasing number of scholarly interpretations which have been devoted to this subject since the nineteenth century. To overview anthropological theories of ‘magic’ would, however, go far beyond the scope of this study. Furthermore, we can now benefit from the comprehensive monographs by Otto, and by Otto and Stausberg,¹ which cover the analysis of magic by Tylor, Frazer, Mauss and Hubert, Durkheim, van der Leeuw, Evans-Pritchard, Malinowski, Horton, Tambiah, Leach, Greenwood, Lehrich, Sørensen, Stratton, and Styers.² Numerous contributions have been devoted to defining ancient magic itself, and I will often refer to these studies in this book.³ The purpose of my work is, however, neither to propose a general theory nor to study ancient magic as a whole, but to undertake an examination of the Apologia which aims to show the centrality of the crimen magiae ⁴ and magica maleficia ⁵ in the body of the charges, and the strategies

 Otto 2011: 39‒132. In this rich volume, Otto reviews the representations of magic in Western culture from its Greek origin to modern times. A similar attempt in Otto and Stausberg 2013: 68‒262, which is more focused on recent scholarly interpretations: it includes, in fact, the works of Greenwood, Lehrich, Sørensen, Stratton, and Styers.  Tylor 1903, vol. I: 112‒21; 133‒6; 158‒9; Frazer 1922: 11‒12; 48‒60; 711‒4; Hubert and Mauss 1903=1950: 1‒141. Hubert had already worked on ancient magic for his entry ‘magia’ in DAGR 1900, vol. III.2: 1494‒521; Durkheim 1995: 38‒44; 304‒5; 360‒7; van der Leeuw 1986: 543‒55; Evans–Pritchard 1958: 11‒12; 63‒74; 79‒83; 475‒8; Malinowski 1954: 50‒71; Horton 1967: 155‒87; Tambiah 1973: 218‒29; Leach 1991: 29‒32; Greenwood 2013; Lehrich 2013; Sørensen 2013. Sørensen’s effort consists in framing magic within the context of cognitive sciences. Further explanations for the universal diffusion of supernatural beliefs are discussed in the studies by other cognitive anthropologists, cf. Boyer 2001: 358‒61; Atran 2002: 264‒6; Pyysiäinen 2009: 43‒53. They argue that beliefs in ‘supernatural agents’ are triggered by the very way in which the human mind works. For other contemporary approaches to magic, see Stratton 2013; Styers 2013.  See especially Graf 1997: 20‒60; Braarvig 1999: 21‒54; Gordon 1999: 161‒269; Graf in Brill’s New Pauly, vol. VIII, s.v. Magic, coll. 133‒43; Dickie 2001: 18‒42; 124‒41; Luck 20062:1‒92; Pezzoli-Olgiati 2007: 3‒19; Collins 2008a: 1‒63; Frenschkowski in RAC, vol. XXIII, s.v. Magie, coll. 857‒ 957. Luck 20062 and Ogden 20092 are accessible sourcebooks in translation. For an overview of earlier scholarship, see ThesCRA, vol. III: 286‒7. Amongst the earlier studies, cf. especially RE, s.v. μαγεία, coll. 301‒93; Nock 1933=1972: 308‒30; Bidez and Cumont 1938, vol. I: 5‒55.  Apol. 25.5; 81.1; cf. Ch. 1.3.  Apol. 1.5; 9.2; 42.2; 61.2. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110617528-004

2.1 Introduction

21

adopted by Apuleius to counter these serious charges. The Apologia or Pro se de magia ⁶ is the richest source to observe the employment of the term magus and its cognates in Latin literature: magus occurs 40 times,⁷ magia 39 times,⁸ and magicus 22 times.⁹ In this chapter I aim to define the semantic spectrum of magus and its cognates, and disentangle its ambiguous meanings in order to understand how both Apuleius and his attackers could play with its ambivalence. To do so, I shall focus on Greek and Latin sources which specifically refer to μάγος, magus and their cognates. This standpoint is fundamental to analysing a text from the viewpoint of its author, as far as possible. To do so, it is necessary to interpret it and frame it within the socio-cultural values of its author and his contemporaries. Such a methodology differs significantly from that of Adam Abt and earlier scholars, such as Frazer and Mauss, who regarded ‘magic’ as a transcultural label applied to different supernatural beliefs, and to evidence which is unconnected with μάγος, magus and related terms. Thus, for example, in the case of magic and medicine, Abt often draws on sources which have nothing to do with the magi, but are mere references to popular healing practices.¹⁰ I propose instead to focus on evidence which we do not need to interpret as ‘magical’, but was already labelled as such in Greco-Roman times. To develop this methodology I have profited from a number of studies, first, the views of Jan Bremmer.¹¹ He challenges Snoek’s idea¹² – followed by Versnel – that a scholarly discourse should always be ‘etic’,¹³ and argues that the old-fashioned pattern ‘magic versus religion’ inherited from earlier scholarship cannot be applied to the Greco-Roman world, at least before Late Antiquity,¹⁴ since magus was not opposed to ‘priest’.¹⁵ As the evidence in Apol. 25.9‒26.5 shows (4.2), the  On this double title, see Ch. 1.2.  Apol. 9.3; 25.8; 25.9; 26.3; 26.6; 26.9; 27.2; 28.4; 30.1; 30.2; 31.9; 32.2; 32.5; 40.3; 43.1; 43.2; 43.8; 43.10; 45.5; 48.2; 51.10; 54.7; 66.3; 78.2; 79.1; 79.2; 79.4; 79.6; 81.1; 82.1; 82.6; 84.4; 90.1; 90.6; 91.1. We also find the Greek forms μάγος and μαγεύω at 82.2; 83.1; 84.2.  Apol. 2.2; 9.5; 25.5; 25.10; 26.1; 27.9; 27.12; 28.4; 29.1; 29.2; 29.6; 29.9; 30.5; 31.1; 31.2; 31.4; 47.1; 47.3; 53.2; 54.6; 58.5; 62.3; 63.2; 64.8; 67.1; 67.3; 70.3; 78.5; 80.5; 81.1; 82.4; 83.5; 84.3; 84.4; 87.2; 90.4; 96.2; 102.1; 102.2.  Apol. 1.5; 9.2; 17.3; 32.2; 34.5; 36.7; 38.7; 41.5; 42.2; 42.6; 47.2; 47.5; 53.4; 53.9; 53.12; 54.1; 54.8; 61.2; 63.6; 69.4; 80.1; 102.7.  Abt 1908: 155‒6; 202‒5, see my discussion in Ch. 6.5.  Bremmer 1999=2008: 235‒47; 347‒52.  Snoek 1987: 7.  Versnel 1991. A similar position is that by Hoffman 2002, who challenges the utility of the emic approach, and Johnston 2003.  See the discussion by Graf 2002. For magic in early Christianity, see the monograph by Frenschkowski 2016.  Bremmer 1999=2008: 347‒52.

22

2 Magic in the Apologia: A Matter of Terminology and Meaning

situation is in fact quite the opposite: according to this passage magus designates the Persian priest. Thus, as Bremmer puts it, “in order to be workable, the etic definition of a concept should always be as close as possible to the actors’ point of view: if not, it will soon cease to be a useful definition”,¹⁶ a stance that is very close to the so-called ‘emic’ approach.¹⁷ At this point, it becomes necessary to discuss the terms ‘emic’ and ‘etic’. These words were coined by Kenneth Lee Pike from the linguistic terms phonetic and phonemic.¹⁸ Pike explains that the emic approach is based on the analysis of a specific language and its socio-cultural values, so it seeks to reconstruct the conceptualisations, beliefs, and customs of the culture analysed. The etic approach, instead, studies a cultural behaviour from the viewpoint of an external observer, who does not share the same customs of the culture examined. The importance of applying the emic approach to ancient magic has been acknowledged by Dickie and Stratton in their discussions of magic in the Greco-Roman world.¹⁹ The type of analysis I develop in this study is similar to the emic methodology, which is, therefore, particularly fitting for the examination of the term magus and its cognates which I offer. For this terminological reconstruction, it is also important to bear in mind Fowler’s remarks on the semantic fluidity of μάγος, magus and their cognates.²⁰ Dickie, Bremmer, and Rives work on μάγος and magus and agree that the terms had a double meaning: on the one hand, they could refer or relate to the Persian priests, followers of Zoroaster; on the other hand, they could indicate a fearsome enchanter – γόης, φαρμακεύς, veneficus, maleficus – in a word: a μάγος-magus, a skilled practitioner who could use his uncanny powers on human and non-human beings alike.²¹ This twofold meaning is well-attested in the Apologia,²² which Rives considers the starting point for his linguistic enquiry into magus and its cognates, since it exemplifies the twofold meaning of the terms more clearly than other sources.²³ Although Rives’ and Bremmer’s studies are methodologically valuable

 Bremmer 1999=2008: 348.  In a similar way, Vasunia 2007a: 16; 32 creates the term ‘exotopic’ to indicate how GrecoRoman literature describes externally religious and cultural aspects pertaining to Zoroastrianism.  Pike 19672: 37‒72.  Cf. Dickie 2001: 19; Stratton 2007: 1‒38. Although Stratton acknowledges the importance of the emic approach, she focuses on magic as a social discourse in Foucaultian terms.  Fowler 1995: 19‒22; and ThesCRA, vol. III: 283‒4.  Dickie 2001: 18‒46; 124‒41; Bremmer 1999=2008: 235‒48; Rives 2009: 119‒32; Rives 2010: 53‒ 77.  See especially Apol. 25.9‒26.9 (Ch. 4.2).  Rives 2010: 54‒8.

2.1 Introduction

23

since they dismiss modern views on magic and focus on the original terminology and its meaning, these conclusions – partially anticipated by Nock, and Bidez and Cumont –²⁴ are not definitive.²⁵ A problem is that much evidence comes from literary sources which do not aim to give a detailed and realistic account of the actual practices of contemporary magic. Thus, in order to unfold the semantic polyvalence of magus we need to take into account more than the aforementioned two meanings of ‘magic’. I shall, therefore, distinguish three types of magic in the Apologia,²⁶ each of which is discussed at length in this chapter. The first two kinds mirror the above-mentioned twofold division. The first type is what I define as philosophical or religious magic, which occurs when ΜάγοςMagus indicates the priest of the Persians, as in Apol. 25.9‒26.5, a wise man retaining a superior lore which Greeks philosophers sought out (2.2). In this case, I use the capital letter since the term indicates the ethnonym from which the religious sect derives, not the goetic practitioners. The second type of magic, which I call goetic magic or simply magic,²⁷ refers to the real goetic practices and practitioners, condemned by the Lex Cornelia de Sicariis et veneficis under which Apuleius is tried.²⁸ As we shall see, this derogatory connotation – employed by Apuleius’ accusers – can be applied to the Greek Magical Papyri and the defixionum tabellae (2.3). The third kind of magic herein introduced is ‘literary magic’: this designates the dramatised descriptions of goetic magic in Greek and Latin literature, which often stand comparison with contemporary goetic practices (2.4). This is not an idle but an important distinction: Apuleius is well aware of the fictional dimension of magic, on which he draws for instance at Apol. 30.6‒13 and

 See Nock 1933=1972: 308‒30, and Bidez and Cumont 1938, vol. I: 10‒11. See also ThLL, vol. VIII, s.v. magus, coll. 149‒52 which refers to the commentary by Pease 1963: 175 on Cic. Div. 1.46.  Rives 2010: 75‒7.  In absolute terms, one could identify another type of magic, namely ‘ethnic magic’, this is when the term μάγος indicates specifically the member of a Median tribe, as in Hdt. 1.101 and Str. 15.3.1. This meaning is already attested in the Old Persian maguš (‘priest’) which originally meant ‘member of a tribe’, cf. De Jong 1997: 387, n. 1. Since this ethnic connotation – from which that of ‘Persian priest’ derives – does not occur in the Apologia or in the sources that I examine, it is unnecessary to apply this further distinction in the current study.  Unlike μάγος, γόης had only the negative meaning of ‘wicked enchanter’. Therefore, I consider the adjective ‘goetic’ as the most suitable to specify the harmful type of magic, by using a terminology which mirrors that adopted in classical antiquity. When goetic magic is employed for the purposes of seduction, I called it loosely ‘love-magic’, as does Faraone 1999: 1‒40, whose theoretical understanding of magic differs, however, from mine since it encompasses a range of phenomena which were not described with terms related to μάγος-magus.  Ch. 1.3.

24

2 Magic in the Apologia: A Matter of Terminology and Meaning

31.5‒7, misrepresenting literary magic as evidence to back up his claim that sea creatures could not be used in real goetic practices.²⁹ My threefold distinction is not meant to constitute a rigid grid but, rather, to restore three important semantic tendencies to which this set of terms was subject in Greco-Roman times. As we shall see (2.6), the ancients could pick a meaning within these fluctuating boundaries, but they could also reinterpret the terms μάγος-magus according to their own sensibility and understanding of these figures and their practices. I shall also explore the circulation of the literary kind of magic in Greco-Roman rhetoric. This, on the one hand, will help us observe how Apuleius’ digressions on magic indicate his familiarity with the literary and rhetorical use of magic, without offering self-incriminating evidence. On the other hand, it will enable us to comprehend how the attackers could draw on commonplace literary and rhetorical tropes to depict Apuleius as a fearsome magus (2.5). With these considerations in mind, it will be possible to get a better understanding of the many facets of ‘magic’ in the Greco-Roman world and, specifically, to shed new light on how they play a crucial part in the rhetorical strategy of the prosecution and especially in Apuleius’ own defence.

2.2 Philosophic-Religious Magic: Oriental Wisdom In this section I examine sources showing how the term μάγος, from which its Latin counterpart magus originates, enjoyed a long-lasting positive connotation due to the idea that the wisdom of the Magi had been the source from which Greek philosophers, from Pythagoras onwards, gained their knowledge. A diachronic overview of the evidence is required since Apuleius, his learned addressee Claudius Maximus, and his readership would have been able to access a range of earlier writings. This religious connotation of magus as Persian priest which appears in Apol. 25.9‒26.5 predates Plato’s First Alcibiades, which Apuleius quotes.³⁰ We know that Xanthus the Lydian (ca 450 BC)³¹ devoted a part of his lost Lydiaka – which Clement of Alexandria calls Magika – to the customs of these priests.³² However, the earliest non-fragmentary source on the Μάγοι is Herodotus, who describes them as a tribe with priestly functions within the Per-

 Ch. 5.2, 5.3, 5.4, 5.5, 5.6.  Apul. Apol. 25.11 = Pl. Alc. 121e‒122a (Ch. 4.2).  Brill’s New Pauly, vol. XV, s.v. Xanthus, col. 795.  FGrH 765 F 31 = Clem. Al. Strom. 3.11.1; FGrH 765 F 32 = D.L. 1.2 might also belong to this section of the Lydiaka.

2.2 Philosophic-Religious Magic: Oriental Wisdom

25

sian Empire.³³ As Bremmer points out,³⁴ Herodotus assumes that his readership is already familiar with the Μάγοι: this is unsurprising as the Greeks living in Asia Minor would have known these priests since Cyrus’ conquest in the sixth century,³⁵ while those in Greece could have seen or heard of the Μάγοι accompanying Xerxes during his invasion.³⁶ Far from acknowledging their philosophical grandeur, Herodotus does not express any admiration for these priestly figures: on the contrary, scholars³⁷ note how Herodotus describes the Magi as φαρμακεύσαντες ³⁸ when performing the sacrifice of white horses to cross the river Strymon. This may be due to Herodotus’ bias against the Persians,³⁹ the same bias that probably led to the derogatory interpretation of μάγος which we find in Athenian drama⁴⁰ and in Hippocrates.⁴¹ In Xenophon of Athens the Mάγοι feature, too, as priestly figures,⁴² but to observe that positive connotation which Apuleius attributes to them in the First Alcibiades ascribed to Plato,⁴³ we need to look into the writings of philosophers living between the fourth and the second century BC. A passage from Diodorus Siculus⁴⁴ suggests that Hecataeus of Abdera was responsible for the circulation of the idea that Greek sages such as Orpheus, Pythagoras, Democritus, and Plato gained their wisdom from the Egyp-

 Hdt. 1.107‒8; 1.120; 1.128; 1.131‒2; 7.19. On the theogony recited by the Magi (Hdt. 1.131‒2), see De Jong 1997: 92‒120.  Bremmer 1999=2008: 240.  Xenophon explains that Cyrus the Great first established the priestly college of the Magi (Cyr. 8.1.23: πρῶτον κατεστάθησαν οἱ Μάγοι), who accompanied him throughout his conquest (Cyr. 4.5.14; 4.6.12; 5.3.4).  Hdt. 7.114; 7.191. Centuries later, Pliny the Elder (Nat. 30.8) reports that Ostanes was the high priest in Xerxes’ entourage, responsible for sowing the seeds of this lore in the Greek world. More on Ostanes in Ch. 4.5.  Bremmer 1999=2008: 240. Dickie 2001: 34; Collins 2008a: 57; and independently Stamatopoulos 2015: 20 add that Magi performed human sacrifices (Hdt. 7.113) and offered sacrifices to the dead, Thetis, and the Nereids to calm a storm on the coast of Magnesia aided by γόησι (Hdt. 7.191). This reading has been considered problematic by earlier scholars following Madvig (see the overview in Macan 1908: 283), but is accepted in the recent editions by Rosén 1997: 277 and Wilson 2015: 678 (who follows West’s emendation γοήσι), and probably rightly so: Herodotus knows and employs the term γόης at 2.33; 4.105, and he could have used this term at 7.191 given that it befits the meaning of the passage.  Ch. 2.3. On φάρμακον and its Latin counterpart venenum, see also Ch. 6.5 and 11.2.  Cf. Hall 1989: 76‒100 and Bremmer 1999=2008: 243‒4.  Ch. 2.4.  Ch. 2.3.  X. Cyr. 5.4.14; 4.5.51; 4.6.11; 5.3.4; 7.3.1; 7.5.35; 7.5.57; 8.1.23; 8.3.11; 8.3.25.  As argued by Denyer 2001: 179‒80, the First Alcibiades does not contain a praise of the Magi, cf. Ch. 4.2.  D.S. 1.96‒8. See Momigliano 1975: 146‒7.

26

2 Magic in the Apologia: A Matter of Terminology and Meaning

tian priests.⁴⁵ It is Sotion, author of the Διαδοχαὶ τῶν φιλοσόφων and a source for Diogenes Laertius,⁴⁶ who specifies that philosophy arose from the wisdom of the Magi in Persia, of the Chaldeans in Babylon, the Gymnosophists in India, and the Druids in Gaul and Britain. But this interest in the Magi can already be seen in Heraclides Ponticus, a pupil of Plato and the author of a dialogue entitled Zoroaster. ⁴⁷ In addition, in the Magikos, falsely ascribed to Aristotle by Diogenes Laertius,⁴⁸ it was made clear that the Magi did not know τὴν γοητικὴν μαγείαν (‘the goetic type of magic’), and this was also the opinion of the historian Dinon (floruit: fourth century BC), author of the Persika. ⁴⁹ Furthermore, the biographer and grammarian Hermippus of Smyrna devoted his Περὶ Mάγων to the Persian Magi.⁵⁰ Thus far I have assessed the positive attitude towards the Magi from the fourth century, especially by writers close to the Peripatetic and Academic philosophies. Later in the second and first century BC, other Greek intellectuals such as Bolus of Mendes and the physician Cleemporus also seem to have fostered the idea that earlier Greek philosophers travelled eastwards to meet with the Magi; Cleemporus does so in an essay on the virtues of plants which he attributes to Pythagoras,⁵¹ while Bolus does the same, ascribing his Cheiromecta to Democritus.⁵² This accounts for the widely diffused opinion that Pythagoras and other philosophers of old learnt from the Magi who were the bearers of a higher wisdom worth studying and pursuing, an idea that underlies Apol. 27.2‒4.⁵³ Plutarch acknowledges the priestly authority of the Magi and quotes passages which he attributes to them;⁵⁴ other texts by Apuleius are also influenced by a positive  On these figures and magic, see Ch. 4.4, 4.5, 4.6.  D.L. 1.1, in which Diogenes refers to book 23 of the Successions of Philosophers. The fragments of this work are collected, edited and commented upon in Wehrli 1978.  Wehrli 1969b: frg. 68‒70.  D.L. 1.8 = Arist. Fr. 36 ed. Rose 1886: 44. Aristotle mentions the Magi in Metaph. 1091b, but the authorship of the Magikos is debated. See Rives 2004: 35‒54 who argues that the work is spurious. The text might belong to Peripatetic philosophers: Bremmer 1999=2008: 241‒2 suggests that Aristotle’s pupils Eudemus (Wehrli 1955: frg. 89), Clearchus (Wehrli 1969a: frg. 13), and Aristoxenus (Wehrli 1967: frg. 13) were interested in the Magi and their lore.  FGrH 690 F 5. On Dinon’s date, cf. Brill’s New Pauly, vol. IV, s.v. Dinon, col. 421.  Wehrli 1974: frg. 2‒4 and the comments in pp. 45‒7.  Plin. Nat. 24.159, Pliny accepts this attribution. See Dickie 2001: 119 and Ch. 4.4.  Plin. Nat. 24.160, Pliny believes in the Democritean authorship, but in Col. 7.5.17 it is explained that Bolus was the author, not Democritus. Cf. Ch. 4.4.  Cf. Ch. 4.4, 4.5, 4.6. Here Apuleius plays with the semantic ambiguity of magus to claim that his uncouth accusers would have regarded these philosophers and him as goetic practitioners.  Plu. Mor. 270d; 396d‒370c (on which see Griffiths 1970: 470‒82; De Jong 1997: 157‒204). Other references in Mor. 537a; 670d; 820d.

2.3 The Goetic Magus

27

interpretation of magus,⁵⁵ and his contemporary Lucian of Samosata draws on the theme of the Eastern origin of philosophy.⁵⁶ In the light of this discussion, it becomes possible to reconstruct the reasons why Apuleius takes pride in being called a magus at Apol. 27.4 and does not attempt to deny his reputation: he limits himself to specifying that, like Plato, he and the erudite judge Maximus follow the lofty, Eastern type of magic, and do not share his accusers’ vulgar understanding of magic.⁵⁷ Although the religious and philosophical esteem for the Magi survives into later times,⁵⁸ already in the third century AD the reputation of μάγος and magus are in decline: Philostratus endeavours to dissociate Apollonius of Tyana from the μάγοι. ⁵⁹ Plotinus considers μαγεία as a form of γοήτεια and biases his readers against it,⁶⁰ and, with even more contempt, Augustine irrevocably equates magia with goetia. ⁶¹ This derogatory connotation was, however, far from being new: I shall now examine the origin and the development of this negative meaning of magus.

2.3 The Goetic Magus Most of the occurrences of magus and its cognates in the Apologia do not refer to the Persian wise men but to the goetic practitioners,⁶² and this is the meaning to which Apuleius’ accusers allude to portray him as a threat not only to Pudentilla but to the whole community of Oea. It is necessary, at this point, to throw more

 Apul. Soc. 6, discussed further in Ch. 7.3 and Ch. 12; Fl. 15.14; Pl. 1.3.  Luc. Fug. 8.  Apol. 26.6.  Amm. Marc. 23.6.32, on which see den Boeft et al. 1998: 168‒70.  Philostr. VA 1.2.  Plot. 1.4.9; 2.9.14; 4.3.14; 4.4.26; 4.9.3.  August. C.D. 10.9.1: non incantationibus et carminibus nefariae curiositatis arte compositis, vel magian vel detestabiliore nomine goetian vel honorabiliore theurgian vocant qui quasi conantur ista discernere; et inlicitis artibus deditos alios damnabiles, quos et maleficos vulgus appellat – hos enim ad goetian pertinere dicunt – alios autem laudabiles videri volunt, quibus theurgian deputant (‘not by means of incantations and spells, product of an art that wickedly meddles with the occult, an art called either magic or, using a more derogatory name, goetic art or, using a more respectable name, theurgy by those who almost attempt to distinguish these practices. And according to them, amongst the practitioners of such illicit arts, those who are vulgarly called malefici should be condemned – they, in fact, dabble in goetic magic – while the others, to whom they give credit for theurgy, should be praised’). Translation adapted from Wiesen 1968: 287. For Augustine’s derogatory interpretation of magic, cf. Graf 2002.  E. g. Apol. 9.3; 26.6; 26.9; 27.2; 28.4; 30.1; 30.2; 31.9; 32.2; 32.5; 43.1; 43.2; 43.8; 43.10; 45.5; 48.2; 51.10; 54.7; 66.3; 78.2; 79.1; 79.2; 79.4; 81.1; 82.1; 82.6; 84.4; 90.1.

28

2 Magic in the Apologia: A Matter of Terminology and Meaning

light on these much-feared magi and assess their existence in the Greco-Roman world, which led to the issue of a severe law against them: the Lex Cornelia de sicariis et veneficis under which Apuleius was prosecuted.⁶³ In order to do so, I will discuss the goetic connotation of the term μάγος and its Latin counterpart magus, when employed to indicate people to whom supernatural abilities were attributed. I shall also give an overview of the modern collections of the Greek Magical Papyri and the Defixionum Tabellae, since these sources show the existence of the goetic magi and their practices. These collections will be regularly referred to throughout this study to show how the accusations brought against Apuleius were tailored on similar goetic practices, and how, at times, Apuleius himself displays a controversial knowledge of goetic practices. Let us begin by examining the goetic meaning of μάγος and magus in the Greco-Roman world up to the second century AD. If one excludes Greek drama, which I discuss in the following section on literary magic (2.4), and a much-disputed fragment from Heraclitus preserved by Clement of Alexandria,⁶⁴ the first derogatory references to the μάγοι as people with unearthly skills dates to the fifth century BC. In the Hippocratic treatise De Morbo Sacro these μάγοι are scorned for being pseudo-physicians who pretend to cure epilepsy with incantations (ἐπαοιδάς) and purifications (καθαρμούς).⁶⁵ In Gorgias’ Helenae Encomium, the connection between μαγεία and γοητεία is made explicit: Gorgias discusses the power of the goetic ἐπῳδή on the human mind,⁶⁶ and explains that the two τέχναι of μαγεία and γοητεία induce mental mistakes and beguile the judgement (ψυχῆς ἁμαρτήματα καὶ δόξης ἀπατήματα).⁶⁷ With the exception of Aeschines, who employs μάγος καὶ γóης as synonyms to insult Demosthenes,⁶⁸ the evidence for the occurrence of μάγος and its cognates is scarce up until the first century AD.⁶⁹ The loss of many writings prevents us from clearly evalu-

 Cf. Ch. 1.3.  DK 22 B 14 = Clem. Al. Protr. 2.22.2‒3, its authenticity is largely disputed: Marcovich 1967: 465‒7; Rigsby 1976: 110; Lloyd 1979: 12, n. 8; Papatheophanes 1985: 101‒61; Henrichs 1991: 190‒1; Burkert 2004: 167, n. 29; Bremmer 1999=2008: 236 and n. 9, with additional bibliographical information.  Hp. Morb. Sacr. 2‒4; 21.  On magical incantations, cf. Ch. 4.3.  Cf. Gorg. Hel. 10 and the discussion by Dickie 2001: 34‒5. On rhetoric and magic, cf. Ch. 2.5.  Aeschin. Ctes. 137, on which see Carey 2000: 210, n. 152.  This may be due to the loss of a substantial amount of Hellenistic literature and, as Bremmer 1999=2008: 247 proposes, to the fact that the form γόης was more popular, probably because it was thought to be ‘more Attic’ (ἀττικώτερον, cf. Phryn. PS. 56.8). This term is, in fact, preferred in Demosthenes (D. 18.276; 19.102; 19.109; 29.32; Exord. 52) and Aeschines (Fal. leg. 124; 153; Ctes. 207) with the exception of Ctes. 137. Some occurrences of this derogatory connotation of μάγος to de-

2.3 The Goetic Magus

29

ating the spread of this goetic connotation of μάγος and, consequently, the presence and circulation of these figures in the Hellenistic period. We can infer, however, that these goetic practitioners must have become increasingly popular, to the extent that Dinon and the author of the pseudo-Aristotelian Magikos need to stress that the Persian Magi must not be regarded as goetic practitioners.⁷⁰ Centuries later this is also claimed by Dio of Prusa, endeavouring to distinguish the Persian priests from ἀνθρώπους γόητας. ⁷¹ However, whereas the Greeks could employ both γόης and μάγος, the Romans only transliterated the latter into Latin,⁷² thus they had one word – already ambiguous in Greek – to indicate the goetic practitioners and the Persian Magi. The first occurrences of magus and its cognates date back to the first century BC, and do not immediately relate to the goetic practitioner: in Cicero magus indicates the Persian priests and diviners,⁷³ and similarly in Catullus, although he regards them with contempt for their incestuous conjugal customs.⁷⁴ With Vergil, however, we find magicus employed with the derogatory meaning of goetic practitioner, although in a literary dimension: this is a connotation that becomes conventional in Latin poetry and other literary writings, as discussed below (2.4). But were there actually any magi in Rome? As Dickie argues,⁷⁵ the Late Republic and the Early Empire is the time in which professional goetic practitioners appear in Italy: historical sources refer to the expulsion of seers and astrologers (Chaldaei and mathematici)⁷⁶ during the first century AD,⁷⁷ and to their supposed

scribe goetic practitioners in Pl. R. 572e; Plt. 280e, on which see Dickie 2001: 62‒5 and Bremmer 1999=2008: 239. A significant occurrence in the Derveni Papyrus col. VI, ll. 1‒9, on which see Ch. 8.2.  D.L. 1.8, discussed in Ch. 2.2.  D. Chr. 36.41; on this passage and its connection with Apol. 25.9‒26.5, cf. Ch. 4.2.  That the term is a Greek coinage is evident from observing the employment of the Greek accusative form magian in Apul. Apol. 27.12; 28.4; 29.2; 31.1; 31.4; Tert. Anim. 57.2; August. C.D. 10.9; Amm. Marc. 23.6.32, and from the fact that the i in magīa remains long, as shown in Prudent. C. Symm. 1.89. Being, in fact, a Greek loanword, the rule according to which vocalis ante vocalem brevis est (‘a vowel before another vowel is short’) is not always respected, as explained in Niedermann 19312: 99‒100, De Climent 19815: 109‒10, and Meiser 19982: 76, who give various examples of how these loanwords preserve the Greek accent. For a discussion of Greek loans and phonetic interference in Latin, see Adams 2003: 443‒7. I would like to thank Ben Cartlidge for his help with this question.  Cic. Div. 1.46; 1.47; 1.90‒1; Fin. 5.87; Leg. 2.26; N.D. 1.43; Tusc. 1.108.  Catul. 90.1‒6.  Dickie 2001: 192‒201.  For a discussion of these terms and their association with magic, cf. Ch. 11.6.  C.D. 49.43.5; Tac. Ann. 2.32 = C.D. 57.15.8.

30

2 Magic in the Apologia: A Matter of Terminology and Meaning

involvement in practices harming the emperors’ lives.⁷⁸ The presence of such goetic practitioners aroused mixed feelings: Pliny the Elder expresses an open contempt for them and does not wish to distinguish between goetic magi and Persian sages.⁷⁹ The Naturalis Historia reflects, in fact, a stage in which magia had fully encompassed older terms to indicate goetic practices, such as veneficium; this must have been deduced from the idea that the practices of the magi and the venefici overlapped.⁸⁰ This is the reason why the Lex Cornelia de sicariis et veneficis gradually encompassed the crimen magiae: the presence of people believed to have supernatural skills endangering the community led to the inclusion of magia amongst the prosecutable crimes.⁸¹ This is why Apuleius employs magus, veneficus,⁸² and maleficus ⁸³ interchangeably to designate the practitioner of goetic magic in the Apologia. This linguistic overview shows how the disparaging employment of μάγοςmagus and their cognates reflects the presence of real goetic practitioners in the Greco-Roman world. Further evidence confirms these results: some texts written by goetic practitioners themselves have, in fact, survived and have been edited in the twentieth century in the PGM and the corpus of the Defixionum Tabellae. The so-called Papyri Graecae Magicae is a collection of various texts found in Egypt, mostly written on papyrus but also on metal, ostraca, and wood, and dating between the second and the fifth century AD.⁸⁴ Some of them are, however, earlier in origin: in the case of the Great Paris Papyrus (Bibliothèque Nationale Supplément grec 574, more commonly known as PGM IV), although dating to the fourth century AD, it has been argued that this is the copy of a text com-

 Tac. Ann. 3.22; 6.29; 12.22; 12.52.  Plin. Nat. 30.17: proinde ita persuasum sit, intestabilem, inritam, inanem esse [sc. magiam], habentem tamen quasdam veritatis umbras, sed in his veneficas artes pollere, non magicas (‘therefore let us be convinced by this that magic is detestable, vain, and idle; and although it has what I might call shadows of truth, its power comes from the art of poisoning, not from the goetic arts’). Translation adapted from Jones 1968: 289.  Plautus is the first author in which we find veneficus intended as ‘goetic practitioner’, cf. Am. 1043; Epid. 221; Mos. 218; Per. 278; Ps. 872; Rud. 987; 1112; Truc. 762. See also Dickie 2001: 130‒1.  Paulus Sent. 5.29.15‒18 and Ch. 1.3.  Apul. Apol. 78.2.  Apol. 51.10. In the speech we also find maleficium associated with goetic magic (magica maleficia). Maleficus, similarly to veneficus, appears first in Plautus, cf. Bac. 280; Cas. 783; Ps. 195a; 938. Cf. ThLL, vol. VIII, s.v. maleficium, col. 176.  Preisendanz 1928=19732: v‒xii; Betz 19922: xli; Brashear 1995: 3389‒90.

2.3 The Goetic Magus

31

posed about two centuries earlier.⁸⁵ These writings,⁸⁶ which are the result of a syncretism between Hellenistic, Egyptian and other Oriental cultures, were edited and translated into German by Preisendanz between 1928 and 1941,⁸⁷ and in 1986 Betz edited a volume with an English translation and fifty new texts.⁸⁸ The PGM contains several prescriptions for spells and rituals which belong to goetic practitioners. However, the fact that neither Preisendanz nor Betz attempted to define ‘magic’,⁸⁹ has induced them to include within this collection some texts which might not match what the ancients would have understood as magical: Addey rightly argues that a text such as the ‘Mithras Liturgy’⁹⁰ from the Great Paris Papyrus is comparable to contemporary theurgic rituals,⁹¹ although the boundaries between theurgy and goetic magic were often blurred in Late Antiquity.⁹² Likewise, Middleton observes that P. Oxy. 3.412 – which contains an interpolated passage from the eleventh book of the Odyssey with the comments of Julius Africanus’ Kestoi – suffered from being considered a magical text also known as PGM XXIII.⁹³ However, it must be noted that most of the writings forming the corpus of the PGM share strong similarities, such as the presence of prescriptions, invocations and voces magicae, and the terms μάγος,⁹⁴ μαγεία,⁹⁵ and μαγικός ⁹⁶ feature in the PGM with reference to the practices and the practition-

 Preisendanz 1928=19732: 64‒6. For an overview of the dating of the PGM, see Brashear 1995: 3419‒20. Now see also the thorough discussion by Love 2016, and especially pp. 277‒9 on the transmission of the Paris Papyrus.  On the discovery and transmission of these papyri, see Brashear 1995: 3398‒412.  Between 1973 and 1974, Henrichs updated Preisendanz’s edition. Adam Abt collaborated on the project until his death during the First World War (†1918); his knowledge of and interest in the papyri likely accounts for his extensive employment of this type of evidence in his discussion of the Apologia.  Betz 1986: xxvii‒xxix. A second updated edition was published in 1992, and I will refer to this edition. A further advance has been the Supplementum Magicum, a critical edition with commentary of 51 texts by Daniel and Maltomini, published between 1990 and 1992.  See especially Betz 19922: xlix, n. 6. Preisendanz 1928=19732: vi‒xii, like Abt (cf. Ch. 2.1), approaches magic (Zauberei) from a non-emic perspective and does not concern himself with ascertaining whether his sources would have been seen as such in ancient times.  PGM IV.475‒829, on which see the edition with commentary by Betz 2003.  Addey 2014: 38.  Cf. August. C.D. 10.9.  Middleton 2014: 139‒62, especially pp. 139 and 149.  PGM IV.243; IV.2081; LXIII.4‒5.  PGM I.127; IV.2319; IV.2449; IV.2453.  PGM I.331; IV.210.

32

2 Magic in the Apologia: A Matter of Terminology and Meaning

ers,⁹⁷ as well as the names of Pythagoras,⁹⁸ Democritus⁹⁹ and Apollonius of Tyana¹⁰⁰ who were commonly considered μάγοι. ¹⁰¹ The PGM represents, therefore, a key source to glimpse the activities of goetic practitioners, and will be extremely important in the following discussion of the Apologia to reconstruct, on the one hand, the magical implication of the allegations and, on the other hand, to shed light on Apuleius’ own familiarity with those practices, as – for instance – in the case of the magica nomina. ¹⁰² Another equally important source is the collection of Greco-Roman metal tablets inscribed with curses,¹⁰³ often analogous to those in the PGM, published by Audollent in 1904. His volume includes 301 defixiones (‘binding spells’)¹⁰⁴ or devotiones (‘curses’),¹⁰⁵ the dating of which ranges from the fifth century BC to Late Antiquity.¹⁰⁶ These tablets were found in different areas of the ancient Mediterranean, from Syria to Spain, from Britain to North Africa. A selection of these curse-tablets including new discoveries was published in 1992 by Gager, who offers an English translation and comments. An ambitious and welcome project, undertaken by a team led by Martin Dreher, is the Thesaurus Defixionum Magdeburgensis. This is an online updatable database which contains not only the curse-tablets published by Audollent, but all the curse-tablets that have been

 See also the discussion in Otto 2011: 337‒41; Otto and Stausberg 2013: 7. As argued by Ritner 1993: 14‒15, n. 60, the Egyptian Heka and the Coptic Hik were employed to render μαγεία. Thanks to Svenja Nagel for her advice on the Egyptians’ understanding of magic in the PGM.  PGM VII.795.  PGM VII.168; VII.795; XII.351.  PGM XIa.1.  On Democritus and Pythagoras, see Ch. 4.4, 4.5. Despite Philostratus’ attempt to dissociate Apollonius from the μάγοι (VA 1.2), he was contemptuously regarded as such by Lactant. Div. inst. 5.3.7; 5.3.18; [Jer.] Brev. Psal. 81; August. Ep. 102.32; 136.1; 138.4.18.  Apol. 38.7‒8 (Ch. 6.4).  On the placing, rolling, folding and piercing of these tablets, see Gager 1992: 18‒21.  The verb defigo occurs frequently to indicate ‘to curse’ in sources pertaining to magic; cf. Ov. Am. 3.27.9; Sen. Her.O. 524; Ben. 6.35.4; Plin. Nat. 28.19; Paulus Sent. 5.29.15; Porph. Hor. epod. 17.28. The term defixio meaning ‘curse-tablet’ is attested in late-antique bilingual glossaries to render κατάδεσμος and νεκυομαντίαι (cf. CGL, vol. II, 40; 42, on the dating of which see Dionisotti 1988: 28‒31). See also ThLL, vol. V.1, s.v. defixio, col. 356, and Brill’s New Pauly, vol. IV, s.v. Defixio, col. 176.  This is the typical word to indicate a ‘curse-tablet’ in the Roman world, in sources both referring to fictional and real events, cf. Tac. Ann. 2.69 (on which see Goodyear 1981: 409‒10); 3.13; 4.52; 12.65; 16.31; Suet. Cal. 3; Apul. Met. 1.10.3; 2.29.4; 9.29.2; CIL 8.2756.24‒5; 11.1639.8; (cf. Audollent 1904: cxviii‒cxx; ThLL, vol. V.1, s.v. devotio, col. 879). The verb devoveo is also commonly employed, cf. Ov. Am. 3.7.27‒28; 3.7.79‒80; Her. 6.91; cf. ThLL, vol. V.1, s.v. devoveo, col. 882.  Cf. Audollent 1904: xvii.

2.4 The Literary Dimension of Goetic Magic

33

discovered so far (approximately 1700 altogether).¹⁰⁷ Each defixio is searchable online, provided with translation, comments and bibliography. Having reviewed the most important bibliographical resources on curse-tablets, it is still necessary to explain how these relate to the activity of goetic practitioners. Audollent¹⁰⁸ pays much attention to discussing how the deposition of devotiones was commonly associated with goetic magic and interdicted by the Lex Cornelia de sicariis et veneficis. ¹⁰⁹ Even literary descriptions of magic reflect this widespread custom: in Apuleius’ Metamorphoses, ignorabiliter lamminis litteratis appear amongst the goetic paraphernalia of Pamphile.¹¹⁰ Therefore – similarly to the PGM – the defixiones are extremely important evidence of the presence of goetic practices in the Imperial age, with which Apuleius and his contemporaries would have been acquainted: not only in the aforementioned passage of the Metamorphoses but in the Apologia itself, Apuleius mocks a curse modelled after the defixiones. ¹¹¹ This excursus throws light on some of the sources about and written by goetic practitioners across the span of several centuries. Furthermore, an assessment of the widespread presence of the activities of goetic magi is essential to understanding the implications of Apuleius’ borderline arguments in his defencespeech.

2.4 The Literary Dimension of Goetic Magic The popularity of goetic practitioners and the impact that their activities had on the collective imagination was such as to leave a deep mark on classical literature as early as the fifth century BC.¹¹² Magic in ancient writings – mostly poetry, but also literary prose fiction of the Imperial age – is characterised by dramatic descriptions of goetic performers and their uncanny skills, which were meant to

 Many thanks to Sara Chiarini for her advice on TheDeMa 517, and for granting me full access to the riches of the Thesaurus Defixionum Magdeburgensis.  Audollent 1904: cx‒cxxv.  Paulus Sent. 5.29.15: qui sacra impia nocturnave, ut quem obcantarent, d e f i g e r e n t , obligarent, fecerint faciendave curaverint, aut cruci suffiguntur aut bestiis obiciuntur (‘those who have performed or arranged for the performance of impious or nocturnal rites, in order to enchant, transfix with curse-tablets, or bind someone, are to be either crucified or thrown to the beasts’). Translation adapted from Rives 2006: 47.  Apul. Met. 3.17.4, on which cf. Costantini 2018c.  Apol. 64.1‒2 (Ch. 10.7)  Although methodologically outdated, comprehensive discussions of magic as a topos in Greek and Latin literature are those by Lowe 1929: 57‒126 and especially Eitrem 1941.

34

2 Magic in the Apologia: A Matter of Terminology and Meaning

impress and entertain the readership. The purpose of this literary type of magic may be compared to how people nowadays enjoy horror, fantasy and sci-fi. The difference lies, however, in the fact that in the Greco-Roman world goetic practitioners are commonly believed to possess fearsome powers and their activities are outlawed. On this assumption pivots Apuleius’ provocation at Apol. 26.9: if he really were a goetic magus – as his accusers claim – they would never have been able to avoid his revenge and his all-powerful magic.¹¹³ Whilst Gordon suggests that literary accounts, in the specific case of Augustan literature, had very little to do with the practice of contemporary goetic magi,¹¹⁴ I suggest that there were, instead, strong ‘contaminations’ – to borrow an expression from textual criticism – between real and literary magic. As Ruiz-Montero points out, dividing literary from real magic is often problematic:¹¹⁵ authors could enrich their dramatised descriptions of magic with details taken from contemporary goetic practices, as can be seen by comparing these accounts with evidence in the PGM. ¹¹⁶ There was, in sum, a reciprocal influence between literary and real magic: for example, in the case of the Homeric poems¹¹⁷ the almost sacred character ascribed to these writings¹¹⁸ was such that Homeric verses even feature in the prescription of the PGM. ¹¹⁹ Conversely, the fortune of literary magic influenced the fashion of a first-century AD devotio from Rome, which contains references to the mythical figures of the Sirens, Geryon, Circe and her transformation of Odysseus’ companions.¹²⁰ These interconnections between fiction and reality notwithstanding, what is important for our enquiry is to point out that, in Apuleius’ time, the knowledge of magic as depicted in literary sources diverges from the knowledge of goetic treatises because of one substantial reason: while the former indicates one’s erudition, the latter is, instead, a punishable crime under the Lex Cornelia de sicariis et veneficis. ¹²¹ It is the purpose of this section to outline the development of the literary presence of goetic magic from its origin in Greek drama down to Apuleius’ time. This will help us understand how, by

 Cf. Ch. 4.3.  Gordon 2009.  Ruiz-Montero 2007: 38‒9.  The analysis in Graf 1997: 175‒204 offers an overview of possible connections between Theocritus and Lucan, and the PGM. Reif 2016 provides a comprehensive discussion of the parallels between literary magic and the PGM from the Hellenistic period up until Lucan’s Bellum Civile.  Magic, however, is not present in Homer but retrospectively applied to the Homeric poems from the Hellenistic period onwards. See Dickie 2001: 5 and especially my discussion in Ch. 5.4.  Stoholski 2007: 86.  On this see Collins 2008b: 211‒36.  TheDeMa 517.4; 517.58; 517.60‒1; cf. also Bevilaqua 2012: 614‒16.  Paulus Sent. 5.29.18.

2.4 The Literary Dimension of Goetic Magic

35

exploiting the semantic polyvalence of magus and its cognates, Apuleius could draw on a solid tradition and display his expertise in magic in the speech without painting a bullseye on his back. I shall commence this survey by looking into Greek drama, where literary magic first appears and develops. As Photius records, tragedians wrote about magic (μαγείαν οἱ τραγικοὶ λέγουσιν)¹²² and there are various occurrences of μάγος and its cognates in the plays of Aeschylus, Sophocles, and Euripides.¹²³ Scholars are doubtful about the meaning of Μᾶγος Ἄραβος in a list of deceased Persian commanders in Aeschylus’ Persae. ¹²⁴ This has been either interpreted as ‘Magos the Arab’¹²⁵ or ‘Arabos the Magian’;¹²⁶ Bremmer argues that the combination of names simply shows that Aeschylus was clueless about the Persian Magi.¹²⁷ However, in Sophocles and Euripides μάγος and its cognates already indicate the ‘goetic enchanters’.¹²⁸ The occurrence of this derogatory connotation in fifth-century Athens might be ascribed to the conflictual relationships with the Persian Empire.¹²⁹ However, as far as we can gather from the extant sources, μάγος and its cognates are not frequently used until the first century AD.¹³⁰ Yet, in Athenian drama we also find references to the uncanny powers of Thessalian

 Phot. Lexicon, s.v. μάγους = TrGF, vol. II, frg. 592. Photius might have referred to a broader meaning of μαγεία, fully developed in his time, and interpreted retrospectively as related to magic plays such as Aeschylus’ lost Psychagogoi (TrGF, vol. III, frg. 273‒8) and Sophocles’ Rhizotomoi (TrGF, vol. IV, frg. 534‒6); see Dickie 2001: 30‒1; 94. Given the scanty extant fragments, we cannot exclude that the aforementioned plays contained clear references to goetic magic. There are occurrences of μάγος in an anonymous fragment (TrGF, vol. II, frg. 700a, 5) and in the production of Hellenistic dramatists such as Sosiphanes (TrGF, vol. I, 92 frg. 1.1) and Python (TrGF, vol. I, 91 frg. 1.5).  See Bremmer 1999=2008: 236‒8.  A. Pers. 318.  Schmitt 1978: 38‒9; Belloni 1986: 63‒83.  Garvie 2009: 167. For earlier conjectures, see Broadhead 1960: 110.  Bremmer 1999=2008: 238.  S. OT. 387; E. Supp. 1110; IT. 1338; Or. 1497. We also have the fragments of a play by Aristomenes, a rival of Aristophanes, entitled Goetes (PCG, vol. II, 565‒6).  On this see Hall 1989: 56‒62 and specifically p. 194 in which she engages with S. OT. 387.  Ch. 2.3. An exception could be the so-called μαγῳδία, a type of pantomime which appeared in the Hellenistic period; this genre, according to Ath. 14.621c–d, derives its plots from comedy and its name from the fact that the performers μαγικὰ προφέρεσθαι καὶ φαρμάκων ἐμφανίζειν δυνάμεις (‘they pronounced magical spells, as it were, and displayed enchanting powers’). Translation adapted from Olson 2011: 141. The performer, the μαγῳδός, played a set of stock character connected with love-magic such as adulteresses, pimps, drunkards going to their lovers at the parties (Ath. 14.621c); cf. also Stramaglia 2000: 365.

36

2 Magic in the Apologia: A Matter of Terminology and Meaning

women,¹³¹ a trope which became mainstream in following centuries: in Aristophanes’ Clouds we first find the idea that Thessalian women (termed φαρμακίδες) can take down the moon,¹³² while the lost Thessala by Menander was devoted to these figures and their love-charms.¹³³ The topos of women dabbling in love-magic underlies Theocritus’ Second Idyll, in which we find young Simaetha attempting a ritual to bring back her lover into her arms.¹³⁴ Far from love-magic, Apollonius Rhodius provides us with a gloomy portrait of Medea evoking the dead with her incantations (ἀοιδαί);¹³⁵ this might have inspired the following depictions of Medea by Ovid,¹³⁶ Seneca,¹³⁷ and Lucan,¹³⁸ who explicitly associate her supernatural powers with magia. The reference to these authors brings us to the appearance of goetic magic in Latin literature.¹³⁹ Likely inspired by Theocritus’ Second Idyll, Vergil employs the adjective magicus (magica sacra) to indicate goetic magic for purposes of seduction in his Eighth Eclogue. ¹⁴⁰ Allusions to magic appear also in the Aeneid,¹⁴¹ and both this and the Eighth Eclogue are cited in Apuleius’ Apologia. ¹⁴² Literary magic

 Although neither these female practitioners nor their arts are described with μάγος and its cognates until later times (Aesop. 56, ed. Perry 1952; [Luc.] Asin. 4), the strong connections between φάρμακον and goetic practices (Gorg. Hel. 14, on which see Dickie 2001: 35) made the association between φάρμακον and the derogatory meaning of μάγος possible. This is fundamental to understanding how the Latin magia could encompass veneficium (Ch. 2.3) and, how maga could become a synonym of venefica (cf. Ov. Am. 1.8.5; Sen. Med. 36; Her.O. 523‒7; Apul. Met. 2.5.4), in the same way in which magus and veneficus are employed interchangeably by Apuleius (Apol. 78.2). On the terminology of female goetic practitioners, cf. Burriss 1936: 138‒ 40 and Paule 2014.  Ar. Nu. 749‒755. On the fortune of Thessalian magic as a literary topos, see Phillips 2002.  Cf. PCG, vol. VI.2, 127. Pliny (Nat. 30.7) says it concerned ‘the unfathomable incantations of women calling down the moon’.  Theoc. 2, also known as Φαρμακεύτρια, cf. also Schol. in Theoc. 2. On Simaetha’s ritual, see Gow 19522: vol. II, 33‒6; Dover 1985: 94‒112; Luck 1999: 120; Reif 2016: 35‒59. Ogden 2008: 50 suggests that Herodas’ Gyllis – although not dabbling in witchcraft – could have been a source of inspiration (Herod. 1).  A.R. 4.1665; 1668. Medea evokes phantoms to defeat the monster Talos.  Ov. Met. 7.1‒403; 12.167‒8.  Sen. Med. 670‒848  Luc. 4.556.  On this, see also Rives 2010: 67‒70.  Verg. Ecl. 8.66. On Ecl. 8.64‒109 see Abt 1908: 70‒84; Tupet 1976: 223‒32; Clausen 1994: 233‒ 9; 255‒65; Luck 1999: 121; Ogden 2008: 43. On the connections between the Eighth Eclogue and Theocritus’ Second Idyll, see Clausen 1994: 237‒9, and Reif 2016: 79‒98.  Verg. A. 4.493 (magicae artes).  Apol. 30.6‒8 discussed in Ch. 5.3.

2.4 The Literary Dimension of Goetic Magic

37

referring to female practitioners is common in Horace,¹⁴³ Propertius,¹⁴⁴ Tibullus,¹⁴⁵ Ovid,¹⁴⁶ Juvenal,¹⁴⁷ and Apuleius’ Metamorphoses, where we find the Thessalian sagae Meroe, Panthia,¹⁴⁸ and Pamphile¹⁴⁹ depicted as lustful women using their supernatural powers on their victims. As in the above-mentioned case of Medea, another exception is Lucan’s Erictho: she has little to do with love-charms and embodies an all-powerful type of enchantress¹⁵⁰ skilled in necromancy.¹⁵¹ It is, in fact, Erictho’s duty to reanimate the corpse of a Roman soldier to deliver a prophecy about the outcome of the Civil War.¹⁵² Magic was, therefore, a popular literary theme in Greek and Latin literature from the fifth century BC to the second century AD, a subject which Apuleius knows and employs in both the Metamorphoses and the Apologia. By bearing in mind the distinction between literary and real goetic magic, it is possible to comprehend why Apuleius’ digressions at Apol. 30.6‒13 and 31.5‒7,¹⁵³ and at 47.3,¹⁵⁴ would have constituted an erudite showcase without being a dangerous proof of his knowledge of magic. We may note that in Latin literature, literary magic mainly focuses on female practitioners, but Greek sources preserve fictional descriptions of male goetic μάγοι, such as the ones that we read in Lucian’s Philopseudes ¹⁵⁵ and Nekyomanteia. ¹⁵⁶ Furthermore, male goetic practitioners are predominant in the dramatised depictions of magic featuring in Greek and Latin declamations of the Imperial age. I shall now examine the relevance of literary magic in rhetoric which will enable us to get a deeper insight into how the prosecutions’ arguments and the Apologia itself could have been influenced by these common themes.  Hor. Epod. 3.8; 5; 17; S. 1.8; see the discussion in Tupet 1976: 284‒337, Watson 2003: 174‒91, and Reif 2016: 126‒45.  Prop. 4.5.1‒18; 63‒78. Cf. Tupet 1976: 348‒78; La Penna 1977: 192‒5; Ogden 20092: 127.  Tib. 1.2.42‒66. Cf. Tupet 1976: 337‒48; Maltby 2002: 165‒6; Ogden 20092: 125.  Ov. Am. 3.7.27‒36; 73‒84. Cf. Ogden 20092: 126.  Juv. 6.610, on which see Courtney 2013: 298.  They appear in Aristomenes’ tale in Apul. Met. 1.5‒19. See also the metamorphic saga in Met. 2.21‒30 and that in Met. 9.29.  Apul. Met. 3.15‒18.  See the definition “super-witch” used by Luck 1999: 137‒8.  On this see Ch. 10.2.  Luc. 6.507‒830. On this episode, see Baldini Moscadi 1976=2005: 15‒89. On the figure of Erictho, see Gordon 1987: 231‒41.  Ch. 5.5.  Ch. 7.4.  Luc. Philops. 11‒13; 13‒15; 33‒7, on which see the rich discussion by Ogden 2007: 65‒104; 105‒29; 231‒70.  Luc. Nec. 6‒9.

38

2 Magic in the Apologia: A Matter of Terminology and Meaning

2.5 Magic in Rhetoric When talking about magic and rhetoric one cannot overlook the fact that, before becoming the subject of rhetorical exercises, magic shared with rhetoric another bond on a very different level: as Jacqueline de Romilly notes, in the fifth and fourth centuries BC the skill (τέχνη) of the rhetoricians was likened to goetic magic.¹⁵⁷ Gorgias, in the Helenae Encomium, makes this association explicit: goetic magic can be employed to charm people’s minds in the same manner in which rhetoricians can persuade their audience with a deceitful speech (ψευδῆ λόγον).¹⁵⁸ When Plato attacks the goetic type of blandishments, he acknowledges that rhetoricians and sophists were regarded as γóητες,¹⁵⁹ and often jokingly depicts Socrates himself as such in his dialogues.¹⁶⁰ The association between rhetoricians and goetic practitioners is also visible from the speeches of fourth-century rhetoricians: Demosthenes was insulted by Aeschines with the expressions: γóης,¹⁶¹ μάγος καὶ γόης,¹⁶² and γόης καὶ σοφιστής. ¹⁶³ Demosthenes, too, acknowledges the connection between ῥήτωρ, σοφιστής and γóης,¹⁶⁴ and refers to γοητέια as a despicable τέχνη to coax people.¹⁶⁵ This association between rhetoric and magic endures at least until the fourth century AD: later sophists were, in fact, slandered as goetic practitioners for their extraordinary rhetorical skills,¹⁶⁶ as in the case of Libanius.¹⁶⁷ Unsurprisingly, this type of jibe features also amongst the Preliminary Allegations against Apuleius, when the prosecution warns the court against his charming grandiloquence, which he allegedly acquired by means of magic.¹⁶⁸ But the goetic reputation of some sophists could also derive from the fact that they focused on magic in their own speeches: Philostratus denies that Hadrian of Tyre – a contemporary of Apuleius – would have really used γοήτων τέχναι and explains that such an

 de Romilly 1975: 4‒43.  Gorg. Hel. 10‒11, see Ch. 2.3.  Pl. Euthd. 288b–c; Plt. 291c; 303c; R. 380a; Sph. 234c; 235a–b; 241b; Smp. 203d. These passages are discussed by de Romilly 1975: 29‒33.  Cf. Ch. 4.6. For Apuleius’ Apologia as a charming speech, cf. Ch. 12.  Aeschin. Fal. leg. 124; 153; Ctes. 207.  Aeschin. Ctes. 137.  D. Cor. 276; in Fal. leg. 109 Demosthenes describes a hypothetical attack by Aeschines, and amongst the insults we find γóης.  D. Aphob. 32.  D. Exord. 52.  See also de Romilly 1975: 83‒5.  Lib. Or. 1.50. I wish to thank Almuth Lotz for pointing out this passage to me.  Apol. 5 examined in Ch. 3.3.

2.5 Magic in Rhetoric

39

ill-deserved notoriety derives from the fact that Hadrian used to focus on τὰ τῶν μάγων in his declamations.¹⁶⁹ Given how magic was in vogue in the literature of the Imperial period,¹⁷⁰ it is not difficult to imagine that it would also have been popular in rhetorical exercises.¹⁷¹ This is confirmed by abundant evidence: in the first century AD, Quintilian says that themes such as those concerning the magi, plagues, oracles, and cruel stepmothers should be avoided in declamations.¹⁷² This negative acknowledgement reflects, however, the fact that goetic magic was a theme that rhetoricians could choose for their speeches.¹⁷³ In a recent contribution, Antonio Stramaglia¹⁷⁴ convincingly argues that the fragments of a papyrus in Greek (P. Mich. inv. 5 + P. Palau Rib. Lit. 26), dating to the mid-second century AD¹⁷⁵ contain the remains of a rhetorical exercise, specifically the defence-speech of a μάγος accused of having enchanted (φαρμάκων) a girl who fell in love with a phantom (εἴδωλον).¹⁷⁶ Further evidence comes from the Vitae Sophistarum according to which, at the end of the second century AD, the rhetorician Hippodromos challenged his master Megistias by choosing as a theme for their speech (ὑπόθεσις) ‘the μάγος who wanted to die because he could not kill another μάγος, who was an adulterer’.¹⁷⁷ A magus and his fearsome powers feature predominantly in a declamation falsely attributed to Quintilian, entitled Sepulcrum Incantatum; this probably belongs to the end of the second or

 Philostr. VS 590. In the case of Apuleius it seems improbable that, had he already written the Metamorphoses, his accusers would not have presented it as evidence of his knowledge of magic, as Augustine does (C.D. 18.18), cf. Graverini 2012: 182‒93.  Ch. 2.4.  For an overview of rhetorical exercises in the Imperial age, cf. Brill’s New Pauly, vol. XII, s.v. Rhetoric, coll. 540‒2 and especially Stramaglia 2015: 147‒61.  Quint. Inst. 2.10.5.  See also Stramaglia 2002: 20, n. 25 who suggests that this was the subject of many declamations.  Stramaglia 2015: 164‒6.  P. Mich. inv. 5 was previously thought to be part of a magical or narrative text until Dodds 1952: 133‒8 ascribed it to the genre of the ancient novel. The idea that this is a fragment of a novel is also shared by Stephens and Winkler 1995: 173‒8.  The interpretation is confirmed in the treatise De inventione attributed to Hermogenes (Inv. 3.3.10 ed. Patillon 2012a) where the theme developed in this fragmentary papyrus is discussed. Stramaglia 2015: 166 notes that this theme was commented upon in Comm. in Hermog. 168 (ed. Patillon 2012b = Rh, vol. VII. 2.802) and features in an anonymous late-antique collection of declamatory themes (Rh, vol. VIII, 410). In addition, Heath 1995: 101 observes that Minucianus cites the theme of a μάγος who claims the reward for the death of a tyrant, accidentally struck by a lightning (Rh, vol. IV, 472).  Philostr. VS 619.

40

2 Magic in the Apologia: A Matter of Terminology and Meaning

the beginning of the third century AD,¹⁷⁸ and is the speech of an advocate hired by a mother, whose son’s spirit had been tied to the grave by a goetic magus. ¹⁷⁹ Lastly, in the fourth century AD, Libanius devotes one of his declamations to the case of a goetic practitioner (termed both μάγος and γόης) who should have sacrificed his son to end a plague.¹⁸⁰ This brief analysis shows not only that the crafts of magic and rhetoric were intimately connected with each other, but that the figure of the goetic magus and his fearsome powers belonged to the rich repertoire of declamations through which both Apuleius and his attackers would have been familiar. This will help us understand how the accusers could draw on stock themes from both literature and rhetoric when portraying Apuleius as a goetic magus. It could also give us another perspective from which to consider the purpose of Apuleius’ digressions on magic at Apol. 30.6‒13 and 31.5‒7. Since magic was such a popular subject in declamations, the digressions would not have been too suspicious, even though uttered in a forensic speech:¹⁸¹ to a certain degree, they might have even met the expectations of the audience, accustomed to speeches on magic, given that this was the issue at stake during the lawsuit.

2.6 Conclusion This overview makes it possible to ascertain the different shades of meaning of the term magus and its cognates, and the division into three kinds of magic I propose will serve as a guideline to get a better grasp of the semantic ambiguity of magus and go beyond the outdated division into ‘good/white’ and ‘evil/black’ magic. This triple subdivision sets out to be a flexible frame to describe the most common trends in the semantic understanding of μάγος and magus and their cognates up to Apuleius’ time. At times one connotation could prevail over the others: for example, already in the first century AD the semantic pervasiveness of magia was such as to enable Pliny the Elder to label as ‘magical’ the

 Schneider 2013: 49‒51 hypothesises a fourth-century origin, but Ritter 1881: 268‒9; von Morawski 1881: 11‒12; Weyman 1893: 387; Hammer 1893: 44; Becker 1904: 89, n. 3; Deretani 1927: 291 argue for an earlier date by drawing on linguistic evidence.  [Quint.] Decl. 10. For general remarks on this declamation, see van Mal-Maeder 2007: 60‒2, and Schneider 2013: 13‒46.  Lib. Decl. 41, on which see Ogden 20092: 297‒9.  The boundaries between epideictic and judicial argumentation are blurred in the Apologia, as Harrison 2000: 86‒8 suggests.

2.6 Conclusion

41

most disparate phenomena, including the religion of the Persians,¹⁸² the demigod Orpheus,¹⁸³ the Jewish religion,¹⁸⁴ the arts of the Thessalian matrons,¹⁸⁵ the laws of the Twelve Tables,¹⁸⁶ the Homeric poems,¹⁸⁷ the Druids in Gaul and Britain,¹⁸⁸ and the wise men of Persia, Arabia, Ethiopia, and Egypt alike.¹⁸⁹ Some interpretative patterns can, however, be detected. The choice of a broader or of a more specific connotation depends on two factors, namely the genre and the author’s views on magic itself. On the one hand, in fact, the presence of a well-established literary tradition, in which goetic and female magic play a fundamental role, would have induced authors of fictional and dramatised accounts to employ the derogatory connotation of magic: this is the case, for instance, of the first three books of Apuleius’ Metamorphoses. On the other hand, the other key factor is the authorial esteem or contempt for the figures of the μάγοι-magi. As noted, Apuleius – with the exception of the Metamorphoses and various passages of the Apologia – has a high regard of magic in his writings (2.2), while writers such as Pliny the Elder¹⁹⁰ and Lucian of Samosata¹⁹¹ seem to utterly despise it. Therefore, different possibilities were available to Apuleius and his opponents to buttress their own claims. As we shall see in the following chapters, the prosecution draws uniquely on the derogatory connotation of magus and its cognates to depict Apuleius as an evil-intentioned magus, able to perform all the dangerous practices commonly attributed to these figures. Apuleius, instead, defends himself by professing to be a philosopher unjustly mistaken for a goetic practitioner, and toys with the semantic ambiguity of this set of terms to twist the accusations against his enemies. The methodology I introduce is essential for putting earlier scholarship on a firmer basis and for describing more accurately the dynamics of Apuleius’ wordplay and his manipulation of magus and related terms throughout the speech. Even though he presents magic as a bipartite concept in Apol. 25.9‒26.9,¹⁹² he is fully aware of its literary dimension, which features prominently in books 1‒3

          

Nat. 30.3. Nat. 30.7. Nat. 30.11. Nat. 30.6‒7. Nat. 30.12. Nat. 30.5‒6. On Homer and magic, see Ch. 5.4. Nat. 30.13. Nat. 25.13. Cf. n. 79 above. Cf. Luc. Alex. 6; 21; Demon. 23; 25. Merc. Cond. 27. Ch. 4.2.

42

2 Magic in the Apologia: A Matter of Terminology and Meaning

of his Metamorphoses and in other passages of the Apologia. ¹⁹³ Being mindful of these considerations, I shall now start examining the Apologia, reconstructing the relevance of magic in the Preliminary, Primary, and Secondary Charges, and assessing Apuleius’ rebuttal of these allegations.

 E. g. the aforementioned cases at Apol. 30.6‒13 and 31.5‒7 (Ch. 5.3, 5.4, 5.5).

3 Apuleius the Lustful Magus 3.1 Introduction In the first part of the defence-speech (Apol. 4.1‒25.2) Apuleius rebuts the Preliminary Allegations, seven arguments through which, according to various scholars,¹ the attackers aimed to offer a slanderous portrayal of Apuleius as a cunning and dissolute adventurer, interested in the art of seduction. The content of these allegations can be summarised in the following points: 1. Apuleius’ beauty and elaborate hairstyle made him appear as an immoral seducer;² 2. His fluency in Latin and Greek and enticing eloquence was extraordinary for a man from Madauros;³ 3. He was exceedingly interested in the care of his body and knew how to produce cosmetics such as toothpaste;⁴ 4. Apuleius was also a pederast, as his love poems for two boys show;⁵ 5. The possession of a mirror confirms his effeminacy and despicable behaviour;⁶ 6. Apuleius was a squanderer, who freed some of Pudentilla’s slaves as soon as Apuleius and Pudentilla got married;⁷ he was poor and, therefore, interested in gaining financial profit from the wealthy widow;⁸

 Abt 1908: 18‒19; Butler and Owen 1914: 13; Hunink 1997, vol. II: 20‒3; Harrison 2000: 49; Pellecchi 2012: 142; Martos 2015: 7, n. 12. For a discussion of the opening of the Apologia, cf. Asztalos 2005.  Apol. 4.  Apol. 5.  Apol. 6‒8.7.  Apol. 9‒13.4. Butler and Owen 1914: 23 note that the reference to the addressees of the poems, pueros Scriboni Laeti (9.2), can be interpreted either as ‘slave-boys’ or ‘sons’ of Scribonius Laetus (cf. ThLL. vol. X.2, s.v. puer, coll. 2516‒8), but they favour the former meaning, and Martos 2015: 15: n. 37 follows this line. However, Hunink 1997, vol. II: 38‒9 makes a strong case for interpreting pueros as ‘sons’ of Scribonius Laetus. If Hunink is correct, the fact that the boys were freeborn has a serious implication for Apuleius, since pederastic sex with pueri ingenui was an unacceptable practice in Roman society (Cantarella 1992: 97‒106). Therefore, the poems could have been liable to censure, and this may be the reason for Apuleius’ vagueness about the boys’ identity.  Apol. 13.5‒16.  Apol. 17.1‒6.  Apol. 17.7‒23. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110617528-005

44

7.

3 Apuleius the Lustful Magus

His obscure origin and barbarian homeland contrasted with his newly acquired renown and urbanitas. ⁹

Such a detrimental presentation was necessary to lay the foundations for the Secondary Charges, which concern Apuleius’ supposed seduction of Pudentilla with love-magic, their marriage, and the subsequent endangerment of her substantial patrimony.¹⁰ There is more, however, to some of the Preliminary Allegations: the purpose of this chapter is to reconstruct the magical insinuations hinted at by the prosecution with regard to Apuleius’ handsome appearance (3.2), his eloquence (3.3), his skill in manipulating exotic herbs (3.4), and his use of a mirror for magical divination (3.5). This reconstruction is not easy since Apuleius heavily distorts his enemies’ arguments, as it will be often noted in the course of this study. There was no need for him to repeat the dangerous charges brought against him, which the judge and the audience had previously heard. To make these links with magic clear, as his enemies did, and try to rebut them would have been simply counterproductive: Apuleius’ only objective is to weaken these arguments by drawing fully on his rhetorical skills. This is why he puts the few direct references to magic in a context in which they appear ridiculous: this is the case in Apol. 9.2 and 9.5,¹¹ where he wonders about the connection between his poems and the charge of being a magus, and in 17.3,¹² in which he ironically connects the freeing of three slaves with goetic magic. That some magical insinuations could have been stressed by the attackers is suggested by Abt,¹³ whose argument has been taken up by Hunink¹⁴ and Martos,¹⁵ and here I shall review these discussions and put their conclusion on a firmer basis, arguing that this initial group of indictments served to prepare the ground for the cri-

 Apol. 24. The section at 25.1‒2 contains a brief and distorted summary of these arguments.  Apol. 66‒103, discussed in Ch. 11.  Abt 1908: 22‒4 argues for the magical undertone of the allegation concerning Apuleius’ pederastic poems (9.12; 9.14), since the term carmen could also indicate the magical incantation (cf. Ch. 4.3). However, this interpretation is implausible since, if the prosecutors intended to misrepresent the carmina as magical spells, they would have probably not uttered these spells by reading them aloud in court in order to emphasise Apuleius’ immorality (9.13). Hunink’s suggestion (vol. II: 43) that sympathetic magic can be seen in the second poem (9.14) seems also unconvincing. For a discussion of the literary aspects of these poems cf. Mattiacci 1985: 249‒61; Courtney 1993: 394‒5.  Abt’s attempt to propose a connection with goetic magic in Apol. 17.3 (Abt 1908: 27), as well as at 23.7 (pp. 28‒30), cannot be accepted given the absence of any supporting evidence.  Abt 1908: 18‒27.  Hunink 1997: vol. II, 21‒2; 28‒9; 38; 45; 57‒8; 69.  Martos 2015: 7, n. 12; p. 9, n. 19; p. 14, n. 36; p. 24, n. 73; p. 44, n. 143.

3.2 Apuleius the Handsome Seducer

45

men magiae, which is the main issue of the Primary Charges. Having shed more light on the risky implications of the Preliminary Allegations, it will also be possible to gain a better understanding of Apuleius’ defensive strategy and, especially, his characteristic Platonising opposition between lofty and base concepts, which is a core feature of the Apologia. As I argue, by means of this opposition Apuleius depicts his enemies as unable to understand the higher values shared by him and the educated judge Claudius Maximus: the charges are the mere result of his foes’ stupidity and misunderstanding. This reasoning will, ultimately, enable Apuleius to present himself as a Socrates reborn.

3.2 Apuleius the Handsome Seducer The first two Preliminary Allegations rebutted in Apol. 4‒5 concern Apuleius’ beauty and eloquence. These accusations, as quoted by Apuleius, seem to comprise a single charge,¹⁶ and this is the interpretation of Abt, Vallette, Hunink, Harrison, and Martos.¹⁷ However, since Apuleius treats them separately and since there is no evidence that the opponents developed a single argument for both beauty and eloquence, I will discuss these attributes as two distinct allegations. I shall first examine the accusation concerning Apuleius’ beauty and his hairdressing (Apol. 4) and argue that the prosecutors employed this argument to portray him as an effeminate seducer who was likely to have recourse to love-magic to fulfil his immoral goals. As it becomes clear to us by reading Apol. 67.3, the accusers claimed that Apuleius rekindled the flame of passion in a supposedly sexagenarian woman, who had long since refused to remarry.¹⁸ The imagery on which the prosecutors seem to rely is that of a frenzied love provoked by magic, which in the eyes of Apuleius’ contemporaries might have recalled the wild passion of Phaedra for Hippolytus or the burning love of Dido for Aeneas in Vergil’s Aeneid. ¹⁹

 Apol. 4.1.  Abt 1908: 18‒19; Vallette 1908: 42‒3; Hunink 1997 vol. II: 20‒8; Harrison 2000: 52‒3; Martos 2015: 7, n. 12.  Ch. 11.1 and 11.2.  Cf. E. Hipp. 1‒57; 1268‒8 and also Sen. Phaed. 421; 791‒2 with a reference to Thessalian magic as the possible source of Phaedra’s frenzy; Verg. A. 4 and 1.749, where Dido is said to ‘drink’ love as if it were a love philtre. The deity who causes those frenzied passions is Venus, the goddess of love, who was strongly associated with goetic magic, cf. Ch. 5.5. On the imagery of love as a fiery fire, see Apol. 30.4 discussed in Ch. 5.2.

46

3 Apuleius the Lustful Magus

In his speech, Apuleius attempts to twist the allegation in his own favour and briefly explains that beauty is a feature of the Homeric Paris²⁰ and of many philosophers,²¹ such as Pythagoras,²² Zeno of Elea,²³ and other good-looking philosophers of the past.²⁴ Nevertheless, Apuleius says that none of these exterior characteristics should be applied to him, since his literary toil compromised his physical appearance.²⁵ This seems a mere excuse that supports his self-presentation as an erudite scholar: later in Apol. 92.5 he contradicts this claim, arguing that he is ‘a youth whose appearance, character, and fortune are far from displeasing’ (iuvenem neque corpore neque animo neque fortuna paenitendum).²⁶ Additionally, Apuleius briefly mentions what he punningly defines as crinium crimen: ²⁷ according to the attackers, his careful hairstyle made him look like a pimp.²⁸ Zanker and Gaisser argue that Apuleius’ handsome aspect would have clashed with the common idea that a philosopher should not be good-looking and that the hair of a true philosopher should be coarse and unkempt, as Apuleius himself claims,²⁹ suggesting the practice of a physical asceticism.³⁰ From this passage, however, it is possible to understand that the prosecution intended to besmirch Apuleius’ reputation by presenting him as a leno,³¹ and more generally, as an immoral seducer. The term lenocinium, employed at  Apol. 4.3‒4 = Hom. Il. 3.65‒6. In Synesius’ Calv. 21, Paris’ hair is mentioned as an example of effeminacy.  Apol. 4.6.  The beauty of Pythagoras is a stock theme which occurs in Fl. 15.12, on which see Hunink 2001: 146; Martos 2015: 8, n. 15.  Apol. 4.7‒8. The mention of Zeno’s beauty comes from Pl. Parm. 127b, as Apuleius openly states. On this reference, cf. Hunink 1997, vol. II: 25; Martos 2015: 8, n. 16.  Apol. 4.9. Gaisser 2008: 9‒11 stresses a parallel with Fl. 3 where Apuleius draws again on the idea that beauty and wisdom can go hand in hand.  Apol. 4.10.  Although the litotes diminishes the favourable effect of the sentence, this self-portrait is clearly positive, thus contrasting with the claim at 4.10. On Apuleius’ self-contradiction, see also Vallette 1908: 42, n. 2; Butler and Owen 1914: 16; Hunink 1997, vol. II: 227, n. 1. For an idealised portrait of Apuleius, see the late-antique contorniate in Schefold 1943: 173, image 37, and the detailed discussions by Carver 2007: 15, n. 22 and especially Gaisser 2008: 28‒9, with a reproduction of the contorniate in plate 4.  Apol. 4.13. On the comic aspect of this expression see Nicolini 2011: 55  Apol. 4.11‒12.  Apol. 4.12.  Zanker 1995: 233‒4 and Gaisser 2008: 8‒9.  For references to this figure in Roman comedy, cf. ThLL, vol. VII.2, s.v. leno, coll. 1149‒50. See also Skinner 1981: 39‒40 on Catul. 103. This characterisation is not unusual in rhetoric, see Cic. Ver. 2.1.23; Phil. 6.4; Quint. Inst. 2.4.23, and Apuleius himself adopts it against Rufinus (Apol. 75.1; 98.1, on which see May 2006: 99‒106; 2014a: 762).

3.2 Apuleius the Handsome Seducer

47

Apol. 4.11 can indicate the excessively elaborate physical appearance of a person,³² typical of pimps and Don Juans alike. In the Ars Amatoria, Ovid explains that careful hairstyle is characteristic of effeminate seducers.³³ He also warns his female readership against this kind of men: a suitable lover should, instead, look sober and neat.³⁴ Furthermore, as Ovid says, attention to one’s hair is a particularly despicable quality pertaining to effete men and pederasts.³⁵ This idea endures in later times: in the Amores attributed to the second-century sophist Lucian it is stressed that Theomnestus’ ornate hairstyle makes him look like a ‘playboy’ (διακριδὸν δ’ ἠσκημένης κόμης ἐπιμέλεια).³⁶ Centuries later, Synesius acknowledges that haircare befits ‘all who dispose of their beauty for money’ (πάντες οἱ πρὸς ἀργύριον τὴν ὥραν διατιθέμενοι) and that is a trait of the effete followers of Cybele.³⁷ Thus, this type of portrayal of Apuleius serves to introduce the subsidiary indictment which concerns his alleged pederasty.³⁸ To sum up, with the allegation concerning Apuleius’ beauty, the prosecution attempted to depict him as a corrupt man who devoted excessive attention to his appearance, in other words: a homme fatal. I will now discuss how this accusation was also meant to tie in with Apuleius’ involvement in love-magic, which he purportedly used to charm Pudentilla.³⁹ Abt⁴⁰ explains that in the PGM we find prescriptions to acquire an exceptionally handsome appearance.⁴¹ Thus, he argues that Apuleius’ beauty could have been presented as the result of goetic practices. That magic could be used to increase someone’s beauty is also attested in literary sources, and a good example comes from Plutarch’s Virtues in Women:

 E. g. Cic. N.D. 2.146; Sen. Con. 2.7.4; Suet. Aug. 79 (ThLL, vol. VII.2, s.v. lenocinium, col. 1152). On the lenocinii crimen in the Roman law, see Puliatti 2003: 147‒216.  Ov. Ars 3.433‒8, on which see Gibson 2003: 276‒8.  Ars 1.511. For an accurate discussion of this figure, see Pianezzola et al. 1993: 243‒4.  Ars 3.434.  [Luc.] Am. 3.  Syn. Calv. 21 and 23. I follow the translation by Fitzgerald 1930, vol. II: 271. For long, curly hair as a typical trait of the effeminacy of Cybele’s priests, cf. Apuleius’ description of Philebus in Met. 8.24.2, referring to Philebus’ long curls and bare head; see the discussion in Hijmans et al. 1985: 206.  The passage at Ov. Ars 3.438 (forsitan et plures possit habere viros) is compared to that in 2.683‒4 (odi concubitus qui non utrumque resolvunt / hoc est cur pueri tangar amore minus) and interpreted as a reference to pederastic love in Pianezzola et al. 1993: 342; 394. This is significant, since Apuleius is also accused of being a pederast (cf. Ch. 3.1).  Ch. 5 and 6, and Ch. 11.2.  Abt 1908: 18‒19, followed by Hunink 1997, vol. II: 22, and Martos 2015: 7, n. 12.  Abt mentions PGM IV.2175‒8 which shows, however, no connection with beauty, but also III.578‒9 (a spell for love-magic); XII.397 (a spell for admiration). To this evidence it is possible to add VIII.4; VIII.27 (love-spell) and XCII.1‒16 (a spell for favour).

48

3 Apuleius the Lustful Magus

a lady of Cyrene, by the name of Aretaphila, used her daughter as a bait and employed goetic magic and philtres (γοητεία καὶ φάρμακα) on her in order to make her look irresistible to the tyrant’s brother Laander, and influence the tyrant himself to free her city.⁴² I suggest, however, that the accusers’ description of Apuleius as an excessively refined man was meant to make him appear as a person who was likely to employ love-magic for his immoral purposes. We know from the Ars Amatoria that Ovid advises against using magia and love philtres, since they are the ideal tools of a wicked male seducer.⁴³ It is, therefore, possible to detect a connection between the ideas underlying Ovid’s characterisation and Apuleius’ portrayal, as given by the prosecution, and the use of magia to seduce someone would have been implied by the very accusation of formositas. Hunink⁴⁴ adds that the mention of hair was bound to raise suspicions in court, and relies on Abt’s comments on hair as an ingredient for love-magic in a quotation from Laevius at Apol. 30.13.3.⁴⁵ Hunink’s point, however, does not seem to hold much water since, in this type of goetic performance, the practitioners need the victim’s hair, not their own, and here Apuleius’ opponents referred to Apuleius’ hair, not to that of Pudentilla. We must note, instead, that long hair is a typical feature of philosophers who were suspiciously regarded as goetic practitioners: this is the case of Apollonius of Tyana, who – according to Philostratus’ account –⁴⁶ had long hair in imitation of Pythagoras.⁴⁷ When Apollonius was tried under suspicion of being a γόης, we find a charge specifically concerning his long hair.⁴⁸ Furthermore, long hair is also a feature of the Pythagorean Alexander of Abonoteichus,⁴⁹ whom Lucian depicts as a γόης. ⁵⁰ Thus, the question concerning Apuleius’ hair was indeed a significant aspect of this accusation, and its connections with magic are prudently overlooked by Apuleius in order to trivialise the accusation and conceal its dangerous aspects.

 Plu. Mor. 256e.  Ars 2.99‒106. For further remarks on magic in Latin elegiac poetry, see Pianezzola et al. 1993: 281‒3; Luck 1962: 45‒7; and Luck 1999: 123.  Hunink 1997, vol. II: 22.  Abt 1908: 107‒8.  On its fictitious nature, see Bowie 1978: 1652‒99 and 1994: 181‒99 and Whitmarsh 2004: 423‒ 35.  Philostr. VA 1.32. On Pythagoras and magic see Ch. 4.5.  VA 8.7.6; the comparison between Apuleius’ and Apollonius’ hair is proposed by Bradley 1997=2012: 18.  Luc. Alex. 11. The parallel is stressed by Hunink 1997, vol. II: 26, and Elm 2009: 71‒99, followed by Martos 2015: 7, n. 12; they do not stress that both Apuleius and Alexander were thought to be involved in goetic magic.  Alex. 1, on this cf. Luck 1999: 142‒8 and Petsalis-Diomidis 2010: 45; 53‒60.

3.3 Apuleius’ Suspicious Eloquence

49

In conclusion, male beauty and elaborate hairdressing were generally regarded as contemptible features, which had strong links with goetic practices and, specifically, with love-magic, and I suggest that the prosecution wanted to stress Apuleius’ moral flaws and his unnatural gifts in order to connect these with the seduction of Pudentilla. On the one hand, their description of Apuleius’ long hair resembles that of Apollonius and Alexander, also accused of being involved in goetic magic and, on the other, Apuleius’ beauty closely resembles the characterisation of Ovid’s corrupt seducer, who was inclined to employ magia for his sinful purposes. But while in Ovid’s passage the lustful ‘predator’ chases after young beauties, Apuleius’ accusers imply, instead, that he used his effete charm and his magical skills to win the love of an older woman and lay his hands on her wealth.

3.3 Apuleius’ Suspicious Eloquence The second Preliminary Allegation is about Apuleius’ eloquence in Greek and Latin.⁵¹ As I shall discuss, this charge was partly meant to warn the judge and the public in court against the unnatural glibness of the orator,⁵² and to underscore the idea that a man of barbarian origin such as Apuleius⁵³ could have acquired a full fluency in both Greek and Latin only through magic. Like the previous passage, this rebuttal is brief and offers scanty evidence to reconstruct the allegation. Apuleius claims that his eloquence is the result of his literary studies; having renounced any other pleasure from a young age, he devoted himself to the achievement of eloquence to the detriment of his own health.⁵⁴ Even though he longs to increase his knowledge,⁵⁵ he claims that he is already the most eloquent man of his time.⁵⁶ With this very confident self-portrayal, Apuleius lays the foundations for his image as a defensor philosophiae,⁵⁷ which he develops at Apol. 28.2‒3,⁵⁸ and increases the distance between his own figure and the dispar Apol. 4.1.  Cf. Thompson 1978: 2‒3; Hunink 1997, vol. II: 22; Marchesi 1955=2011: xxi, but this was already suggested in the edition by the humanist Floridus 1688: 405.  Apol. 24.  Apol. 5.1. This passage is clearly connected with Apuleius’ claim of his ruined appearance at 4.10. On this section of the speech, cf. Puccini–Delbey 2004.  Apol. 5.1‒2.  Apol. 5.5.  He already hinted at this issue twice in the exordium (Apol. 1.3 and 3.5).  Here Apuleius professes that there is nothing that philosophers could not disprove, being confident of their innocence. For the importance of this passage, cf. Harrison 2000: 65.

50

3 Apuleius the Lustful Magus

aging characterisation of his accusers: throughout the speech, Apuleius constantly contrasts himself with his foes and, in a Platonising fashion, puts himself and the cultivated judge and philosopher Maximus at the apex of a spiritual hierarchy, relegating his vulgar opponents to the lowest ranks.⁵⁹ This is a constant pattern in the Apologia and constitutes the backbone of Apuleius’ forensic strategy. The accusers’ emphasis on Apuleius’ barbarian origin would have been a slur in itself,⁶⁰ but it would have also had magical implications. As suggested by the seventeenth-century humanist Floridus,⁶¹ it is possible that the prosecutors intended to depict Apuleius’ eloquence as something suspicious against which they wanted to warn the court, and it is worth bearing in mind the strong connection between rhetoric and magic discussed in the previous chapter.⁶² As Abt notes,⁶³ in PGM IV.2176‒8 we find the prescription for an all-powerful spell enabling the practitioner to win his enemies over, and this could apply to a legal context as well. It is necessary, however, to develop this point further and to connect it with another Preliminary Allegation, namely that concerning Apuleius’ obscure origin.⁶⁴ His enemies could have used this argument to highlight the fact that Apuleius’ fluency in both Greek and Latin was an uncustomary skill for a man from the provincial Madauros.⁶⁵ Although the evidence available,

 See also Puccini-Delbey 2004: 231‒3, who discusses the contrast between Apuleius’ eloquence and the supposed ignorance of the prosecution.  Apuleius counters this argument by expressing pride for his half-Numidian and half-Gaetulian birth, as he previously did before the former proconsul Lollianus Avitus (Apol. 24.1). He provides a series of illustrious examples, such as Cyrus (24.2) and Anacharsis (24.6) born in barbaric lands, and draws on the Platonic idea that human souls within each body are divine, their mortal abode regardless (24.5). Then, however, he bitterly reproaches Aemilianus for his own place of birth, which he sardonically calls ‘the Attic town of Zarath’. As Plantade 2013: 125, n. 55 argues, the erudite judge Maximus could have detected the similarity between the name of Zarath and an alternative spelling of Zoroaster’s name (i. e. Zaratus, Ζαράτας or Ζάρατος). Apuleius, thus, might have tried to link his accuser Aemilianus with magic and turn the allegation of being a magus against him here.  Floridus 1688: 405, followed by Abt 1908: 18 and Martos 2015: 7, n. 12.  Ch. 2.5.  Abt 1908: 18‒19; he also mentions Cat. Cod. Astr. vol. III: 44, which is not related to magic.  Apol. 24. Fick 1991: 17‒18 hypothesizes the possibility of a connection between Apuleius’ barbarian origins and magic, but this argument seems implausible in this case, given the provincial setting of the trial: other people in court, including Aemilianus himself, would have come from remote areas of Northern Africa, and they could not have been regarded as goetic practitioners on the basis of their origin.  Hunink 1997, vol. II: 23, n. 1‒2 argues that the knowledge of Greek would have been rare in the province of Africa, and that Apuleius’ mastery of Latin was an achievement in itself.

3.4 Dabbling with Exotic Venena: The Toothpaste

51

especially from curse-tablets, indicates that magic was primarily used in lawsuits to tie the tongue of the practitioners’ opponents,⁶⁶ I argue that the prosecution probably suggested that Apuleius reached his extraordinary fluency by means of goetic magic. Therefore, the allegation concerning Apuleius’ eloquence could have contained explicit references to goetic magic through which Apuleius acquired his extraordinary magniloquence. This argument would have been particularly effective, tarnishing a point of pride for Apuleius, namely his rhetorical reputation.

3.4 Dabbling with Exotic Venena: The Toothpaste The subsidiary allegation most closely related to magic concerns the dentifricium that Apuleius made for Calpurnianus. Abt and Hunink propose that the references to magia are marginal here,⁶⁷ but I suggest that this is because Apuleius endeavours to conceal such references in order to make this charge appear preposterous, a strategy repeatedly employed in the Apologia. We know from the speech that the accusers read a short poem by Apuleius,⁶⁸ which accompanied the gift of some toothpaste he made for Calpurnianus.⁶⁹ This person is said to be in court for the trial,⁷⁰ and probably acted as a witness for the prosecution, admitting that he received toothpaste from Apuleius.⁷¹ At first glance, this allegation hints at Apuleius’ frivolity – in close agreement with the previous indictment of formositas –⁷² but a closer analysis will show that it also, and more insidiously, hinted at Apuleius’ magical skills in handling exotic simples. As I suggest, this point was meant to offer evidence of Apuleius’ ability to manipulate herbs⁷³ and forbidden venena in order to increase people’s beauty unnaturally. This introduces the au-

 Gager 1992: 116‒50 devotes a chapter of his monograph to those devotiones specifically used in a judicial context to bind the tongue of the adversaries.  Abt 1908: 20‒1; Hunink 1997, vol. II: 28‒9.  Apol. 6.3. For a study of the poem see Mattiacci 1985: 243‒9; Courtney 1993: 242‒9; 392‒3. Hunink 1997, vol. II: 29, Harrison 2000: 16‒20; 54, and Martos 2015: 11, n. 24, argue that it could belong to Apuleius’ Ludicra.  Apol. 6.2.  Apol. 6.1.  See Vallette 1908: 43; Butler and Owen 1914: 18; Hunink 1997, vol. II: 17‒18; 29; Martos 2015: 11, n. 26. At Apol. 60.2 Calpurnianus features together with Rufinus. The accusers undoubtedly succeeded in obtaining various depositions against Apuleius: i. e. that of Pudentilla’s familia urbana (Ch. 7.1); that of Pontianus’ librarian (Ch. 8.4); that of Iunius Crassus (Ch. 9.2).  Ch. 3.2.  Apol. 6.3.3 and 6.5.

52

3 Apuleius the Lustful Magus

dience to Apuleius’ supposed skills in using venena and producing philtres, foregrounding the charges concerning the seduction of Pudentilla with love-magic.⁷⁴ Apuleius here defends himself by digressing: he protests that, if a crime had been committed, Calpurnianus would have been his accomplice since he asked Apuleius for the toothpowder.⁷⁵ Then he proceeds with a rhetorical praise of the mouth,⁷⁶ and adds an invective against the slanderous Aemilianus, whose ‘filthy’ mouth is depicted with a series of pejorative attributes, and finally compared to that of a poisonous adder.⁷⁷ This negative description conforms to the same Platonising dichotomy that occurs in the whole speech and typifies the following division between Venus vulgaris, that is the physical and appetitive sexual impulse,⁷⁸ and the celestial Venus, which Apuleius devoutly follows.⁷⁹ Apuleius concludes that oral hygiene is not only a prerogative of mankind but it belongs to animals as well.⁸⁰ Therefore, taking care of one’s own mouth should not be reproached but, on the contrary, it should be seen as a sign of neatness and purity. Nonetheless, the issue at stake here was not oral hygiene itself, but the ability to produce a dentifricium by manipulating suspicious ingredients. Although Apuleius intentionally glosses over this point, the whitening powers of exotic powder⁸¹ might have been looked at with suspicion in court. In fact, the expression ex Arabicis frugibus would have likely indicated two specific components of Arabian origin, namely frankincense and myrrh,⁸² which were not only employed to make toothpowder but also in goetic practices,⁸³ and Apuleius knows this

 Apol. 29‒42.2 (Ch. 5 and 6) and 68‒71 (Ch. 11.2).  Apol. 6.1.  Apol. 7.5.  Apol. 8.1‒5.  This is a reference to Pl. Symp. 180d‒185e. For this specific adjective at Apol. 12.1‒2, cf. Butler and Owen 1914: 32. On this Platonic imagery see Kenney 1990: 19‒20, who comments on the figure of Venus in the tale of Cupid and Psyche (Apul. Met. 4.28‒6.24).  Apol. 12. The underlying reasoning is that Aemilianus inevitably fails to comprehend the higher nature of things, while Apuleius and the judge benefit from a loftier understanding. On this passage, see also Hunink 1997, vol. II: 54‒5; Martos 2015: 22, n. 65. For a similar discussion of the Platonic love, see Max. Tyr. 18.3.  Apol. 8.6‒7.  Apol. 8.2.  For the description of the Arabian origin of these herbs, cf. Plin. Nat. 12.30; 12.51‒32; 12.65 on frankincense, and 12.33; 12.66‒34; 12.72 on myrrh. Martos 2015: 11, n. 27 incorrectly suggests that the expression Arabicae fruges indicates only myrrh.  These were also typical burn-offerings for ordinary sacrifices (cf. Brill’s New Pauly, vol. VI, s.v. Incense, col. 762 and s.v. Myrrh, coll. 419‒20); but since they were used in goetic rituals, as discussed above, during a trial for magic any element betraying Apuleius’ magical expertise could

3.4 Dabbling with Exotic Venena: The Toothpaste

53

well. At Apol. 30.7 and 47.7 he mentions incense (tus) as a magical ingredient, and in the Metamorphoses he describes Pamphile’s magical laboratory as stocked with omne genus aromatis. ⁸⁴ This reflects the fact that both myrrh and frankincense were really employed by the practitioners of magic: even though Abt does not believe that magic was a relevant theme of this allegation,⁸⁵ he cites PGM II.17‒20, where the practitioners are supposed to grind together various ingredients and to anoint their mouth with frankincense gum. Furthermore, abundant evidence confirms that myrrh and frankincense were ingredients for various magical practices, and since the magical employment of myrrh occupies another section of this study,⁸⁶ I shall focus on frankincense here. The prescriptions of the PGM indicate that frankincense (λίβανος) could be used in rituals for very different purposes: it features as a component for an amulet to gain favour;⁸⁷ in rituals to summon a daemonic being;⁸⁸ as a burnt offering in divinatory practices;⁸⁹ either burnt⁹⁰ or unburnt⁹¹ in love-magic and attraction spells; as a burnt offering for invoking the astral constellation of the Bear,⁹² Hermes,⁹³ Asclepius;⁹⁴ to fumigate a lead tablet;⁹⁵ and in prescriptions for more than one purpose.⁹⁶ Thus, the fact that Apuleius was accused of being able to handle these substances could have been easily regarded as dabbling in goetic magic in the specific context of this lawsuit. Abt also proposes that these ingredients were specifically employed for the creation of potions and powders for oral hygiene:⁹⁷ he focuses on two passages from Pliny the Elder, namely Nat. 28.178 and 30.22. The former is a list of remedia for dental care⁹⁸ – amongst which is myrrh (murra) –⁹⁹ which, however, has nothing to do with magic. In the second passage have represented a threat to his self-proclaimed innocence, given that the very knowledge of magic was punished under the Lex Cornelia de sicariis et veneficis (cf. Paulus Sent. 5.29.17).  Apul. Met. 3.17.4, on which see van der Paardt 1971: 132.  Abt 1908: 20.  See my remarks on Apol. 32.4 in Ch. 6.2.  PGM XXXVI.276.  I.10; I.62.  IV.215; IV.907; IV.3196; VII.320; VII.543; VII.742; VII.828; VIII.70.  IV.1269; IV.1833‒4; IV.1909‒10; IV.1990; IV.2462; VIII.58.  XXXVI.135.  IV.1309; LXXVII.23.  V.202; V.395.  VII.637; VII.639.  VII.927.  II.13; II.20; II.24; IV.2678; IV.2873; XIII.18; XIII.354; XIII.1008; XIII.1016‒7.  Abt 1908: 20‒1.  Plin. Nat. 28.178‒82.  Nat. 28.179.

54

3 Apuleius the Lustful Magus

Pliny cites, instead, the recipes to promote hygiene prescribed by the magi themselves:¹⁰⁰ these were generally made of animal bones or body parts mixed with other ingredients,¹⁰¹ amongst which we find both myrrh (murra) and frankincense (tus).¹⁰² Therefore, since the creation of toothpowders with Arabian simples was known to pertain to the magi, this point could have represented a serious issue in the eyes of those who were ill-disposed towards Apuleius. Thus far it has been discussed how incense and myrrh were customary ingredients in real magical practices. What has gone hitherto unnoticed is the importance of another passage of this section of the Apologia, which indicates that magic was certainly a relevant point of this allegation. At Apol. 7.1 Apuleius explains that his accusers uttered the word dentifricium with such an indignation ‘as no one ever shows even with regard to poison’ (quanta nemo quisquam venenum). Now, venenum is a term strongly tied in with goetic magic in the Imperial age,¹⁰³ and there would be no reason for this gratuitous reference here, had the opponents not made it clear that Apuleius’ skill in concocting this toothpaste was evidence of his dabbling in magic, confirming the widespread opinion in Oea that Apuleius was a magus. ¹⁰⁴ The production of cosmetics itself was also associated with goetic magic, as shown by the commentary on Horace by Pomponius Porphyrio,¹⁰⁵ dating to the early third century AD.¹⁰⁶ Porphyrio explains that the saga Canidia¹⁰⁷ was a figure inspired by a real woman from Naples by the name of Gratidia;¹⁰⁸ she worked as an unguentaria (‘producer and/or seller of cosmetics’), and Horace insultingly described her as a venefica. ¹⁰⁹ A person trading in such merchandise would easily have been regarded as a practitioner of magic: people dealing in cosmetics would often handle poisonous substan Nat. 30.21‒7.  Namely, dogs and snakes (Nat. 30.21), crocodiles, lizards and various kinds of worms (30.22‒4), horns of snails and snail shells (30.24), hens, ravens and sparrows (30.25‒6), mice, porcupines, geese and spiders (30.27).  Apol. 32.4.  E. g. according to Pliny, the real efficacy of magic came directly from the veneficae artes (Nat. 30.17). For the employment of venena in magic, cf. Ch. 6.5, 11.2.  Cf. Apol. 81.1.  This information might derive from the commentary of Helenius Acron, probably dating to the end of the second century AD (cf. Brill’s New Pauly, vol. VI, s.v. Helenius Acron, coll. 65‒6).  See the discussion in Diederich 1999: 1‒11.  She features in Hor. Epod. 3.8; 5; 17; S. 1.8; 2.8.95. On this figure, cf. Labate 2016, and the monograph by Paule 2017.  Scholars tend to doubt this information: Mankin 1995: 300; Watson 2003: 198; Ogden 2008: 50; 20092: 121; Gordon 2009: 1‒2, n. 3; and especially Paule 2017: 2‒6. Only Dickie 2001: 168 and Reif 2016: 169‒70 approach it less sceptically.  Porph. epod. 3.7‒8.

3.4 Dabbling with Exotic Venena: The Toothpaste

55

ces,¹¹⁰ and the Lex Cornelia de sicariis et veneficis punished those who administered amatoria pocula, ¹¹¹ as well as those concocting or selling venena. ¹¹² These legal measures notwithstanding, the circulation of these philtres was so widespread that Ovid addresses this issue seriously in his poems and admonishes his readers against resorting to love charms and magic.¹¹³ I argue that this was the type of imagery and the kind of legal implications that Apuleius’ accusers intended to use in order to present him not only as an immoral and lecherous man, but also as a dangerous practitioner of magic, who would have been fully able to charm Pudentilla with love-magic. Therefore, not only did the prosecution introduce this argument to show Apuleius’ frivolity, but to probably allude to his notoriety as a magus: this allegation was meant to provide the court with a preliminary portrayal of Apuleius as a man who dabbled with suspicious substances, partly because of his purported effeminacy, partly for his unlawful interests in magic. This served to prepare the ground for the first Primary Charge, which concerns Apuleius’ alleged preparation of love potions made with sea creatures,¹¹⁴ and for the first Secondary Charge that Apuleius won Pudentilla over with carmina and venena. ¹¹⁵ As we have seen, Apuleius’ defensive strategy consists in digressions and humour to bias the audience and the judge against his opponents, and in shifting attention from the dentifricium to oral hygiene. This is how he tries to elude the dangerous slur of being an experienced magus who could easily handle exotic drugs and provide people with such types of remedies.

 Marcianus in Dig. 48.8.3.3‒4 says that a decree of the Senate condemned the pigmentarii (‘dealers in cosmetics’) who recklessly handed over ‘poisonous ingredients such as hemlock, salamander, monkshood, pine grubs, the venomous beetle, and the so-called Spanish fly, except for the purpose of purification’ (alio senatus consulto effectum est, ut pigmentarii, si cui temere cicutam salamandram aconitum pituocampas aut bubrostim mandragoram et id, quod lustramenti causa dederit cantharidas, poena teneantur huius legis). Translation adapted from Watson in Mommsen et al. 1985: 819.  Paulus Sent. 5.29.14.  Paulus Sent. 5.29.1.  Ov. Ars 2.99‒106; 2.683‒4; 3.433‒8; Her. 83‒94.  Apol. 29‒42.2 (Ch. 5 and 6).  Apol. 68‒71 (Ch. 11.2).

56

3 Apuleius the Lustful Magus

3.5 A Magus at the Mirror In Apol. 13.5‒16 Apuleius describes the fifth Preliminary Charge as something related to his possession and use of a mirror (speculum). Scholars¹¹⁶ agree that this is an argument substantiating the immoral characterisation set up in the previous allegations,¹¹⁷ namely those concerning his beauty¹¹⁸ and his pederastic poetry.¹¹⁹ Nevertheless, it is necessary to observe that, as in other cases, Apuleius does not seem to discuss the allegation as a whole: he isolates one point – in this case the possession of a mirror – and twists it to weaken the accusation. Although he shuns any references to magic in this part of the defence,¹²⁰ I argue that this charge also had a magical undertone: mirrors were, in fact, tools employed in magic, as partly noted by Abt.¹²¹ To confirm this, I will test his results with my methodology on magic and add more evidence showing the employment of mirrors in magical divination. This will show that, like the other Preliminary Allegations, this one was also meant to depict Apuleius as a dissolute seducer and an expert in magic. Vallette, and Hunink, and Martos argue that hydromancy and lecanomancy, that is divination through water used as a reflective surface,¹²² are relevant to our case,¹²³ but here the prosecution clearly refers to a mirror, not to reflective surfaces in general. Abt cites a passage from Pausanias¹²⁴ and Artemidorus¹²⁵ describing the employment of a mirror for the oracle of Demeter in Patras, which

 Butler and Owen 1914: 34; Hunink 1997, vol. II: 58; Harrison 2000: 56‒7; Martos 2015: 24‒5, n. 73.  Vallette 1908: 51 notes that this type of accusation was typically addressed to philosophers, see Sen. Nat. 1.17.1; Luc. Pisc. 45. McCarthy 1989: 168, n. 15 adds that the use of mirrors associated with effeminacy, cf. Juv. 2.99‒100; Gel. 6.12.5.  Ch. 3.2.  Apol. 9‒13.4 (Ch. 3.1).  Hunink 1997, vol. II: 60 argues that the adverb magis at Apol. 14.3 may also be interpreted as the dative of agent of magus; this interpretation, however, is implausible, since it does not contribute to Apuleius’ reasoning or to the style of the sentence.  Abt 1908: 24‒7; Butler and Owen 1914: 34 deny that magic had anything to do with this allegation but the evidence I discuss suggests the opposite.  Cf. Brill’s New Pauly, vol. IV, s.v. Divination, col. 569; s.v. Magic, col. 137 and ThesCRA, vol. III: 9. This practice is mentioned at Apol. 42.6, and we know from Pliny that Ostanes (on this figure, cf. Ch. 4.5) claimed to perform several types of divination including lecanomancy (Nat. 30.14); a similar information is reported in Str. 16.2.39.  Vallette 1908: 51; Hunink 1997, vol. II: 57‒8; Martos 2015: 24, n. 73.  Paus. 7.21.10.  Artem. 2.7.

3.5 A Magus at the Mirror

57

have no connection with goetic magic.¹²⁶ Abt, however, mentions a passage concerning the magical rituals used by Didius Julianus, emperor in AD 193, who sought out the help of some magi and resorted to ‘those practices that are said to be performed with a mirror’ (ea quae ad speculum dicunt fieri) with the aid of a child, in order to foresee his future.¹²⁷ If this passage is evidence of a real practice, it would be extremely relevant to the present analysis, showing how goetic practitioners employed mirrors for divinatory purposes in times not too far from the trial. Yet, to confirm that goetic practitioners really employed mirrors for divination, we need to look at the PGM: in the hymn to Selene¹²⁸ in the Paris Papyrus, we find a reference to catoptromancy – that is mirror-divination – in the context of love-magic,¹²⁹ and at PGM XIII.752 the spell indicated in the prescription is said to work for different types of divination, including mirror-divination (εἰσοπτρομαντιῶν).¹³⁰ This evidence suggests that Apuleius’ opponents could have likely drawn on the idea that goetic magi practised mirror-divination in order to sully Apuleius’ portrayal ascribing to him a further goetic skill. Nevertheless, Apuleius argues in his speech that his interest in mirrors is merely scientific, and builds up a strong defence against this charge: first, he asserts that possession does not imply the use of an item,¹³¹ and this claim is followed by a long philosophical disquisition on the mirror as a means to inspect one’s own image.¹³² To strengthen his case, Apuleius offers examples of illustrious philosophers interested in the nature of mirrors,¹³³ amongst whom is Socrates.¹³⁴ Then, at the end of his rebuttal, he attacks Aemilianus, portrayed as a foul man, whose ignorance prevents him from understanding fully the mirror’s philosophical importance.¹³⁵ Aemilianus is also depicted as a shady peasant (rusticando obscurus),¹³⁶ while Apuleius professes to live publicly and to be known

 Abt 1908: 24‒7. An analogous discussion in Maxwell-Stuart 1976, who does not acknowledge Abt.  SHA Did. Iul. 7.  For the link between the goddess and magic, cf. Ch. 5.6.  PGM IV.2297.  Bonati 2016: 247‒8 is probably right in defending the transmitted reading, of identical sense, ὀσυπτρομαντιῶν.  Apol. 13.6‒8.  Apol. 14.8.  Apol. 15.3‒16.6.  Apol. 15.4.  Apol. 16.7‒8. For a discussion of the philosophical tone of this part of the speech, cf. Gaisser 2008: 11‒14.  Apol. 16.10.

58

3 Apuleius the Lustful Magus

by everyone.¹³⁷ The vivid contrast between light and darkness reflects again the Platonising opposition between positive and negative concepts, which Apuleius introduces with the proverbial expression albus an ater. ¹³⁸ Therefore, the fact that Apuleius does not mention magic in this section of the speech does not mean that the indictment concerning the mirror did not have any magical implications. It seems, instead, that Apuleius decides to ignore these implications to weaken these goetic undertones. The allegation concerning the mirror, then, speaks to the prosecution’s claims that Apuleius was both an immoral and effete man who had an excessive care of his appearance, and an expert magus who could use his mirror to foreshadow future events for his wicked purposes. Thus, this charge, too, contains a goetic innuendo, preparing the audience for the Primary Charges which are specifically about Apuleius’ alleged magical skills.

3.6 Conclusion At this point, it is possible to draw attention to some considerations which will serve us as guidelines for the examination of the Primary and Secondary Charges. I have discussed that these Preliminary Allegations are far from being feeble, absurd, and merely subsidiary: they introduce, instead, the effective characterisation of Apuleius as a magus developed in the following allegations. The reconstruction of the prosecution’s case makes it possible to identify a precise structure and rhetorically elaborate features, closely intertwined with specific issues related to magic. The prosecution drew on the idea that goetic practitioners could use magic to win their victims over (3.2 and 3.3), to obtain an extraordinary beauty (3.2) and eloquence (3.3), and on the fact that such practitioners were known to handle unlawful venena (3.4), and practise catoptromancy (3.5). It is, therefore, possible to observe that the Preliminary Allegations constituted a set of accusations with strong connections with goetic magic and explicit references to the Lex Cornelia de sicariis et veneficis,¹³⁹ under which Apuleius was

 Apol. 16.11. Further remarks in Hunink 1997, vol. II: 66, n. 1; Harrison 2000: 56. The public aspect of Apuleius’ research and knowledge is also stressed at Apol. 40.6 and 91.2.  Apol. 16.8. Butler and Owen 1914: 47; Hunink 1997, vol. II: 66; Martos 2015: 30, n. 95 compare the expression with Cic. Phil. 2.41; Catul. 93.2; Phaed. 3.15.10; Quint. Inst. 11.1.38; and Hieron. Adv. Helv. 16, but another passage can be added: Hor. Ep. 2.2.189. See also Porph. epist. 2.2.189: albus et ater. Proverbialiter. Hoc est: bonus et malus.  Paulus Sent. 5.29.1; 5.29.14 (Ch. 3.4).

3.6 Conclusion

59

being tried. The following discussion of the Primary and Secondary Charges will confirm the dangerous nature of these arguments. It is important to note that, to counter these attacks, Apuleius stakes it all on lessening and ridiculing not only the allegations but chiefly the references to magic.¹⁴⁰ In particular what he does in this first part of the speech – as he also does later – is to isolate a point made by the prosecution, decontextualize it from its goetic implications, and then use his logical superiority to underscore its harmlessness. Apuleius also employs what I have defined as Platonic dichotomy, a structural feature of the Apologia which contrasts lower and higher concepts, which – according to Apuleius – his accusers could not grasp because of their base and ignorant nature. This argument serves to influence from the start the cultured Claudius Maximus as well as the cultivated audience against the attackers, who are put in the lowest ranks of an intellectual hierarchy, at the vertex of which we find Plato,¹⁴¹ Apuleius, and Maximus. In addition, throughout the first section of the Apologia, Apuleius signposts his status as a defendant of philosophy (defensor philosophiae) to present himself as a Socrates reborn.¹⁴² Both Socrates and Apuleius risked the punishment of death, Socrates for impiety (ἀσέβεια) and Apuleius for his alleged crimen magiae. Apuleius’ life, however, rested in the friendly hands of the learned philosopher Claudius Maximus. Given Maximus’ and Apuleius’ philosophical kinship,¹⁴³ the identification with Socrates allows Apuleius at the very beginning of his speech to send a powerful message to the people in court: this time, justice will be done to Socrates and to philosophy. This message subtly implies that the prosecution’s case is inevitably bound to fail.

 Apol. 9.2; 9.5; 17.3 (Ch. 3.1).  References to Plato are abundant in this section and serve to buttress Apuleius’ Platonic status. See especially Apol. 10.6 and 11.5, on which cf. Hunink 1997, vol. II: 11‒12; Harrison 2000: 55; Fletcher 2014: 196; Martos 2015: 20, n. 53.  Cf. also Harrison 2000: 43; 96; Schindel 2000; Riess 2008: 51‒73; Puccini-Delbey 2010; Fletcher 2014: 161‒7.  On Claudius Maximus as a philosopher, cf. Ch. 1.4.

4 The Core of the Defence-Speech 4.1 Introduction Having discussed the magical undertones of the Preliminary Allegations, I shall now focus on Apol. 25.5‒28.9, the part of the speech in which Apuleius sets out his distinction between philosophical and vulgar magic in order to free himself from the accusation of being a goetic magus, while corroborating his self-presentation as a defendant of philosophy. By exploiting the semantic ambiguity of the term magus,¹ he succeeds in describing himself as a philosopher who has fallen victim to unrighteous calumnies,² before starting to rebut the several allegations brought against him. Previous studies acknowledge the importance of this twofold distinction between the two types of magic,³ but do not note that this division complies with the same Platonising reasoning that characterises the whole speech, juxtaposing higher concepts, with which Apuleius associates himself and the judge, and the lower values embodied by the opposition. I propose that Apuleius re-elaborates the dualistic division between philosophical and goetic magic, inherited from previous sources reinterpreting a passage from Plato’s First Alcibiades, presenting it as evidence for Plato’s own appreciation for the Magian lore (4.2). I will then analyse Apuleius’ description of the goetic magus ⁴ and the employment of incantations in magic (4.3), which openly discloses Apuleius’ familiarity with the harmful type of magic for the first time in the speech. Attention will be paid to the goetic notoriety that Apuleius provocatively attributes to Democritus (4.4), Orpheus, Pythagoras, Ostanes (4.5), Empedocles, Socrates and Plato (4.6), and I will show how these philosophers were associated with goetic magic in earlier sources accessible to Apuleius.⁵ Finally, it will be suggested that this list of figures is arranged by Apuleius in order to create a climax that would have filled the addressee of the speech, the judge Maximus, with contempt for the prosecution. Apuleius argues, in fact, that the whole trial is the result of his enemies’ ineptitude: given their vulgarity, they were bound to misunderstand the higher meaning of magus

 On this, cf. Ch. 2.  Apol. 25.5‒27.4.  Cf. Abt 1908: 32‒41; 44‒50; Butler and Owen 1914: 68; Hunink 1997: vol. II: 88; Martos 2015: 49, n. 160.  Apol. 26.6.  In doing so, I will reassess the discussion by Abt 1908: 251‒4, and Butler and Owen 1914: 70‒1, followed by Hunink 1997, vol. II: 92‒3, and Martos 2015: 50‒2, n. 165, 167, and 168. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110617528-006

4.2 Playing with Magic: Apuleius Platonising the Term Magus

61

that he ascribes to Plato, and they would have wrongly condemned as goetic practitioners the most respectable philosophers, and even Plato himself.⁶ This discussion will enable us to comprehend fully the crucial function of this section of the Apologia, which prepares the ground for the confutation of the dangerous Primary Charges. The reconstruction of these charges in the following chapters will indicate that Apuleius was in a very unsafe situation: his enemies accused him of being a goetic magus and validated this claim with accusations, supported by relevant evidence and depositions concerning Apuleius’ manipulation of sea creatures to concoct love-philtres for Pudentilla (5 and 6), the noxious power of his incantation (7), the defilement of Pontianus’ lararium and of Iunius Crassus’ Penates (8 and 9), and lastly his necromantic skills (10).

4.2 Playing with Magic: Apuleius Platonising the Term Magus After dismissing the Preliminary Allegations as frivolous slanders,⁷ from Apol. 25.5 onwards Apuleius focuses on magic and endeavours to disprove the crimen magiae. To achieve this goal and convince his audience of his innocence, he resorts to a calculated rhetorical strategy aiming to debase his enemies’ arguments by describing them as calumnies and misunderstandings induced by their ignorance. Since Apuleius could not blatantly deny the general impression that he was a magus ⁸ – an idea shared by many Oeans already before the trial –⁹ he lessens his notoriety by using the imagery of a spreading fire to depict the slanders brought against him,¹⁰ and adds that such slanders ‘died away amidst certain old wives’ tales’ (per nescio quas anilis fabulas deflagravit). The choice of this expression is significant since it underscores the baseness of his detractors, which throughout the Apologia is contrasted with Apuleius’ self-professed integrity. Hunink,¹¹ who relies on Pease’s commentary on Cicero’s De Natura Deorum 3.12,¹² notes that the similar expression fabellae aniles occurs in Cicero to describe the superstitious accounts of old wives. Martos¹³ notes that Apuleius himself re-

 Ch. 4.6, 4.7.  Apol. 25.1‒4. On the charges as calumniae, cf. Ch. 1.4, n. 73.  Apol. 25.5.  Apol. 81.1.  Apol. 25.5 and 25.7 discussed in Hunink 1997, vol. II: 89‒90 and Harrison 2000: 63.  Cf. Hunink 1997, vol. II: 87‒8, n. 1 and 2.  Cf. Pease 1968 vol. II: 997‒8.  Cf. Martos 2015: 48, n. 158.

62

4 The Core of the Defence-Speech

employs the expression aniles fabulae in the Metamorphoses to underline the imaginary character of the tale of Cupid and Psyche. ¹⁴ It has to be added that the literary motif of the ‘old women’s tales’ dates back at least to Plato,¹⁵ and is used by Lucian of Samosata with a connotation analogous to that at Apol. 25.5: in the Philopseudes, the sceptical Tychiades discredits the superstition of his interlocutors and their belief in goetic magic as γραῶν μῦθοι. ¹⁶ I argue that Apuleius here – in a similar way – refers to a well-established trope to sully the whole magical charges as mendacious,¹⁷ since they are the result of his attackers’ superstitious beliefs. After this first battering, Apuleius caustically addresses Aemilianus and his advocates with the disparaging superlative eruditissimi,¹⁸ and exhorts them to explain to him what a magus is (quid sit magus).¹⁹ This question allows Apuleius to formulate a crucial argument: he insists that, ‘as I read in many authors, magus in Persian is what we call priest’ (quod ego apud plurimos lego, Persarum lingua magus est qui nostra sacerdos) and asks what kind of crime it is to be a priest and to master religious lore.²⁰ To validate this point, Apuleius calls on Maximus, alluding to the Platonic anamnesis,²¹ and cites a passage from the First Alcibiades ²² where Socrates describes how the eminent youths in Persia were taught the μαγεία of Zoroaster, son of Oromazes.²³ It has not been pointed out before that what seems a faithful reference to Plato could be, instead, a ref-

 Apul. Met. 4.27.8.  Pl. R. 350e; Grg. 527a; Tht. 176b; Ly. 205d, cited in Pease 1968, vol. II: 997. See also Trenkner 1958: 120‒22.  Luc. Philops. 9.  Apol. 25.7.  On the disparaging superlative in Latin see Hofmann 19513: 90‒102 and Petersmann 1977: 111, n. 75; cf. Facchini Tosi 1986: 111 specifically on Apol. 98.6 (postremissumis), and Nicolini 2011: 44‒ 5, n. 101. This type of superlative occurs also in Apol. 61.2 (exquisitissimo) discussed in Ch. 10.4.  Apol. 25.8. Harrison 2000: 63 argues that the question echoes Plato’s Socratic elenchus; this signals the following references to and citations from Plato at Apol. 25.9‒26.5.  Apol. 25.9.  Apol. 25.10. On the Platonic tone of the expression: mecum, Maxime, recognosce, see Hunink 1997, vol. II: 89; Harrison 2000: 64; Fletcher 2014: 207‒8. Similar references to the Platonic anamnesis in Apol. 48.13 and 51.1.  Although Apuleius and other ancient authors ascribe the dialogue to Plato, the attribution has been disputed by scholars. See the overview by Denyer 2001: 14‒26 who defends the Platonic authorship.  Apol. 25.11 = Pl. Alc. 121e‒122a. The minor differences between Apuleius’ citation and the transmitted text of the First Alcibiades are indicated in the apparatus of Helm 1905=19553: 30 and Vallette 1924: 32. See also Butler and Owen 1914: 68 and Hunink 1997, vol. II: 89; Binternagel 2008: 225‒38.

4.2 Playing with Magic: Apuleius Platonising the Term Magus

63

erence to a later Academic interpretation of Plato. The First Alcibiades gives an account of the Persian education that contains neither praise nor admiration for Zoroaster and his priests: as Denyer argues,²⁴ Plato aims instead to criticise the wisdom of the Persians and this would conform to Plato’s general disregard for these figures in his writings.²⁵ Apuleius is, therefore, offering an interpretation of this passage that befits his own argument but alters the First Alcibiades, presented as evidence for Plato’s approval of the Magian customs, following a tradition connecting Plato with the Persian wisdom which I discuss below.²⁶ Annequin, Hunink, Graf, and Rives claim that the opposition between higher and lower types of magic, which is also thought to have an important function in the Metamorphoses,²⁷ as expressed in the Apologia cannot be found in previous authors.²⁸ Hunink refers to later examples cited by Hopfner,²⁹ amongst which is Heliodorus’ Aethiopica 3.16 where Calasiris explains the two types of Egyptian priestly crafts.³⁰ And yet it has gone unnoticed that Philo of Alexandria contrasts the Persian ἀληθής μαγική with that of the goetic practitioners before Apuleius and Heliodorus.³¹ This distinction between goetic and philosophic magic conforms, in fact, to a long-lasting tradition prior to Philo himself and dating at least to the fourth century BC.³² In the treatise entitled Magikos that Diogenes Laertius falsely attributes to Aristotle³³ and in the fifth book of Dinon’s Persika ³⁴ it is, in fact, pointed out that the Persian priests ‘did not know the goetic type of magic’ (τὴν δὲ γοητικὴν μαγείαν οὐδ’ ἔγνωσαν). This implies that the opposition between a philosophic-religious type of μαγεία and a goetic lore was already made explicit in the Hellenistic period. Thus, the semantic ambiguity of magic with which Apuleius plays had become a subject of discussion long before his

 Denyer 2001: 179‒80.  Cf. Pl. R. 572e; Plt. 280e.  Cf. Ch. 4.6 and 2.2.  This is stressed by Griffiths 1975: 47‒5, who compares the contrast between Isis and the Thessalian sagae with this passage of the Apologia. See also Fick 1985: 132‒47; Schlam 1992: 12; 122; May 2013: 36‒41.  Annequin 1973: 108‒9; Hunink 1997, vol. II: 88; Graf 1997: 69‒70; Rives 2010: 54‒6.  Cf. RE, 1928, vol. XIV, s.v. Mageia, coll. 373‒5.  Hld. 3.16.  Ph. Spec. Leg. 3.18.100‒1; Quod. Omn. Prob. 74. In the light of my discussion, the hypothesis by Colson 1937: 635‒6, followed by Mosès 1970: 122, n. 2, that this distinction derives from the division between artificial and natural divination by the Stoics seems incorrect.  See also Ch. 2, where my taxonomy to define magia is outlined.  D.L. 1.8 = Arist. Fr. 36 ed. Rose 1886: 44. In Suid. α2723 the treatise is, instead, attributed to Antisthenes. On this cf. Rives 2009: 119‒32.  D.L. 1.8 = FGrH 690 F 5.

64

4 The Core of the Defence-Speech

time.³⁵ A passage from another author prior to Apuleius is remarkably similar to the division between philosophical and goetic magic in the Apologia: in the Borysthenic Oration, the rhetorician Dio of Prusa – whose works Apuleius likely knew –³⁶ specifies that ‘they are called Magi by the Persians and are those who know how to honour the gods, unlike the Greeks who employ this term to indicate the goetic practitioners because of their ignorance’ (οὓς Πέρσαι Μάγους ἐκάλεσαν, ἐπισταμένους θεραπεύειν τὸ δαιμόνιον, οὐχ ὡς ῞Ελληνες ἀγνοίᾳ τοῦ ὀνόματος οὕτως ὀνομάζουσιν ἀνθρώπους γόητας).³⁷ This distinction between a philosophic-religious and a goetic kind of magic matches that ascribed to Pseudo-Aristotle and Dinon, which is later adopted by Apuleius himself. Furthermore, Dio’s description, too, contains references to the First Alcibiades as the expression θεραπεύειν τὸ δαιμόνιον parallels ἔστι δὲ τοῦτο θεῶν θεραπεία in Plato Alc. I.122a,³⁸ which Apuleius quotes in full. It is, therefore, possible to conclude that Apuleius’ statement: quod ego apud plurimos lego ³⁹ is, indeed, grounded on a conventional conceptual opposition between philosophical and goetic types of magic, reflected in sources with which Apuleius was well-acquainted. Therefore, his originality would not lie in this kind of distinction, but in the Platonic frame in which the dichotomy is set out and in its forensic purpose: that of drawing away the suspicion that he was involved in goetic magic. Apuleius’ claims are not exempt from controversy: Hunink, following Abt and Bidez and Cumont,⁴⁰ suggests that the very mention of the word magus would have inevitably brought to everyone’s mind the much-feared goetic practitioners.⁴¹ The same would have happened when Apuleius mentions the name of Zoroaster,⁴² which is repeated twice in this passage.⁴³ Whilst this figure enjoyed the reputation of an esteemed sage,⁴⁴ the semantic ambiguity of μάγος-

 Cf. Ch. 2.2.  See the parallels highlighted by Harrison 2000: 101; 233, and Plantade 2018: 301‒3.  D. Chr. 36.41. The importance of this passage and its similarity to the Apologia has not been fully noted, although Dio is cited in Butler and Owen 1914: 68, and Martos 2015: 49, n. 160.  See the commentary by Russell 1992: 236.  Apol. 25.9.  Abt 1908: 32‒4; Bidez and Cumont 1938, vol. I: 143‒5; Hunink 1997, vol. II: 88‒9.  Ch. 2.3.  See also Abt 1908: 250‒1. For the sake of simplicity, I have adopted the spelling Zoroaster in place of Avestan form Zarathustra.  Apol. 26.2; 26.5.  D. Chr. 36.40; Apul. Apol. 26.2; 26.5; D.L. 1.8; Amm. Marc. 32.6.32; Suid. ζ159. For a discussion of this figure and the sources see Bidez and Cumont 1938, vol. I: 5‒55; vol. II: 7‒62. See also Boyce 1994: 278‒84; De Jong 1997: 317‒23; Vasunia 2007b: 237‒65; Bremmer 1999=2008: 239‒ 41; Brill’s New Pauly, vol. XV, s.v. Zoroaster, coll. 964‒5. Later in the Apologia, Zoroaster is defined

4.2 Playing with Magic: Apuleius Platonising the Term Magus

65

magus contributed to the diffusion of a pejorative understanding of Zoroaster in authors chronologically close to Apuleius, such as Pliny the Elder⁴⁵ and Lucian,⁴⁶ and this became even harsher in Christian writings.⁴⁷ Because of Zoroaster’s connection with magic, a conspicuous corpus of treatises was attributed to him,⁴⁸ some of which dealt with astrology,⁴⁹ others with the supernatural virtues of herbs,⁵⁰ stones,⁵¹ and even with magic itself.⁵² Furthermore, his name also recurs in the PGM, where we find a citation attributed to Ζωροάστρης ὁ Πέρσης which contains two voces magicae. ⁵³ Therefore, the presence of a rather negative reputation of Zoroaster coexists with the positive esteem shared by Apuleius, and his reference to Zoroaster might have conceivably raised some suspicions in the courtroom of Sabratha. These controversial issues are simply glossed over by Apuleius who continues his commendation of magic by adding another quotation from Plato: he calls upon the ἐπῳδαί of the Thracian Zalmoxis from Plato’s Charmides 157a,⁵⁴ where Socrates says that he learnt ἐπῳδαί from the ἰατροί of Zalmoxis that can even make one immortal.⁵⁵ The figure of Zalmoxis was already known to Herodotus,⁵⁶ who gives a twofold account of him as a chthonic deity of the Geti⁵⁷ and as a disciple of Pythagoras.⁵⁸ The latter version is followed by Strabo,⁵⁹ but not by Diodorus Siculus who includes, amongst various foreign

as Pythagoras’ master (cf. Apol. 31.2 = Fl. 15.14, cf. Ch. 5.4) as well as a goetic magus (cf. Apol. 90.6, discussed in Ch. 11.5).  Plin. Nat. 30.3‒4; 30.5 (with the name Zaratus). Pliny despised altogether magia (e.g. Nat. 30.1; 30.17) without attempting to distinguish between philosophical, literary or goetic magic.  Luc. Nec. 6, where the reference to Zoroaster has a debunking function since Mithrobarzanes’ practices are plainly goetic (cf. Nec. 7‒8).  Arn. Adv. nat. 1.52.1; August. C.D. 21.14; Prud. Apoth. 491; Ps.-Clem. Rom. Recogn. 4.27.  The fragments have been collected and commented upon in the monumental, although outdated, study by Bidez and Cumont 1938, vol. II: 137‒263. Porphyry already acknowledged the spurious nature of some of these works (Porph. Plot. 16). See also the discussion of the Zoroastrian pseudepigrapha by Beck 1991: 521‒39.  See Bidez and Cumont 1938, vol. II: 207‒42.  See Bidez and Cumont 1938, vol. II: 158‒97.  See Bidez and Cumont 1938, vol. II: 197‒206.  See Bidez and Cumont 1938, vol. II: 242‒8.  PGM XIII.968‒9.  Apol. 25.4.  On the ἐπῳδαί in magic, cf. Ch. 4.3.  Hdt. 4.93‒6. On Zalmoxis, see Eliade 1970: 31‒80; Ferrari 2013: 21‒41; Bevegni 2013: 57‒70.  Hdt. 4.94.  Hdt. 4.95. Herodotus is sceptical about the last version (cf. Hdt. 4.96.1). On Pythagoras and his association with magic, cf. Ch. 4.5.  Str. 7.3.5; 16.2.39.

66

4 The Core of the Defence-Speech

lawgivers, the immortal Zalmoxis together with Ζαθραύστης,⁶⁰ an alternative spelling of Zoroaster closer to the Avestan form Zarathustra.⁶¹ It is not implausible that – following this well-documented tradition – Apuleius made more explicit the connection between Zalmoxis and philosophic-religious magia in the same way in which, conversely, he offers a new, shocking goetic interpretation of Epimenides and Plato’s highest good later at Apol. 27.2‒3 to display the foolishness of his accusers (4.6). This would have made Apuleius’ explanation palatable to the judge.⁶² I have so far discussed how Apuleius shrewdly presents the philosophic side of magic, associating it with himself and Claudius Maximus, and how he supports his reasoning by drawing on a range of learned sources. Having emphasised the holy character of the Magi, whose practices are supposedly commended by Plato – as Apuleius puts it – he can confidently question his audience by saying: cur mihi nosse non liceat vel Zalmoxi bona verba ⁶³ vel Zoroastri sacerdotia? (Apol. 25.8). Far from flatly rejecting his personal involvement in magic, which was probably too well-known to deny, Apuleius simply avoids its nefarious connotations and turns the situation to his advantage by focusing on the erudite distinction between philosophic and goetic magic.

4.3 The Description of ‘Vulgar’ Magic and Goetic Utterances It is now time to focus on Apuleius’ knowledge of the goetic type of magic, which he betrays at Apol. 26.6‒9. Apuleius attributes this interpretation to his enemies, who would believe that the term magus does not denote the Persian priest but the goetic practitioner, whose powers lie in his incantations: more vulgari eum isti proprie magum existimant, qui communione loquendi cum deis immortalibus ad omnia quae velit incredibili ⁶⁴ quadam vi c a n t a m i n u m polleat. ⁶⁵ But by

 D.S. 1.94.2. Similarly, in D.L. 1.1, mentioned by Hunink 1997, vol. II: 90, Zalmoxis, μάγοι, and other foreign wise men are considered the forerunners of Greek philosophy.  Cf. Bidez and Cumont 1938, vol. I: 175.  On Maximus’ philosophical affiliation, cf. Ch. 1.4.  Apuleius wisely refers to the λόγοι καλοί in Pl. Chrm. 157a instead of referring to the ἐπῳδαίcarmina, thus avoiding a term with strong magical undertones (Ch. 4.3).  The emendation incredibili in place of the transmitted incredibilia was proposed by the humanist Casaubon 1594: 141, and is defended by Butler and Owen 1914: 69; Vallette 1924: 33; Hunink 1997, vol. I: 55; and Martos 2015: 50.  Apol. 26.6: ‘according to the vulgar fashion my prosecutors believe that magus is properly who can achieve any wondrous things that he wishes by means of powerful incantations and by communion of speech with the immortal gods’.

4.3 The Description of ‘Vulgar’ Magic and Goetic Utterances

67

adopting this vulgar interpretation – as Apuleius mockingly insists – how could the prosecution have ever escaped the vengeance of an invincible goetic magus? ⁶⁶ This syllogistic ploy notwithstanding, this passage shows Apuleius’ familiarity with this harmful form of magic, a display that might have looked suspicious in court.⁶⁷ To better understand these dangerous implications, some preliminary remarks are necessary: in this vivid sketch of the goetic practitioner, Apuleius argues that the magus’ strength lies in the all-powerful cantamina, a synonym for the more common form carmina. ⁶⁸ This is the device through which goetic practitioners were believed and believed themselves able to establish a communio loquendi,⁶⁹ as Apuleius puts it, contacting and compelling supernatural beings to grant their requests.⁷⁰ There is abundant evidence of magical incantations in this and other passages of the Apologia and in other Greco-Roman sources, and since Abt’s explanation chiefly focuses on the PGM, lacking an exhaustive account of the literary evidence,⁷¹ I shall provide a more comprehensive analysis and test his results with an emic approach to magic. This will make it possible to reconstruct the beliefs concerning magical incantations in Apuleius’ time, and to fully clarify the sense of Apuleius’ reference to goetic charms.⁷² Since the very appearance of the goetic use of μάγος and its cognates in the fifth century BC, these practitioners were said to act by means of ‘barbarian songs’ (βάρβαρα μέλη)⁷³ and especially ἐπαοιδαί,⁷⁴ a word that acquires the meaning of ‘magical spell’ and maintains it throughout the centuries.⁷⁵ The most suitable Latin rendering of ἐπῳδή was undoubtedly carmen, already used to define the harmful and forbidden incanta Apol. 26.6‒9; additional remarks on this reasoning in Hunink 1997, vol. II: 91.  I argue that at Apol. 90.6 the utterance of the names of some magi provoked the uproar of the people in court (Ch. 11.5).  See Burriss 1936: 142‒4.  Abt 1908: 50‒6 attempts to compare this expression and other sources.  On this, cf. my remarks on Apol. 43.2 (Ch. 7.2).  Abt 1908: 50‒6.  On magical spells see Tupet 1986: 2592‒601; Fauth 1999, which focuses on the Roman world; Versnel 2002: 104‒58; Brill’s New Pauly, vol. VIII, s.v. Magical Spells, coll. 146‒9; Bremmer 1999=2008: 245‒7. Apart from Bremmer, none of these studies adopts an emic approach to explain that spells were a quintessential feature of how the ancients imagined goetic practitioners.  E. IT. 1337‒8.  Hp. Morb. Sacr. 1; the term here is always connected with καθαρμοί (‘purifications’). This is the title of a poem by Empedocles thought to be a goetic text (Ch. 4.6).  The first attested reference to the singing of the Mάγοι in Hdt.1.132 does not have goetic connotations (cf. De Jong 1997: 118), as instead Sosiph. frg. 1.1 in TrGR, vol. I: 261; Gorg. Hel. 10; Pl. R. 426b; X. Mem. 2.6.10; Luc. DMeretr. 4.5; Nec. 6; 7; 10; Philops. 7; 8; 11; 12; 15; 17; 35; 36. For a discussion of ἐπῳδαί in the PGM, see Abt 1908: 41‒4 and my discussion below.

68

4 The Core of the Defence-Speech

tions in the Twelve Tables,⁷⁶ long before the concept and the terminology of magic entered the Roman world.⁷⁷ Then, from Vergil onwards, carmen fulfilled the same goetic role as its Greek counterpart ἐπῳδή, explicitly indicating the magical incantation.⁷⁸ As suggested by Apuleius in Apol. 26.6, these utterances were believed to enable the practitioner to attain omnia quae velit, from lovemagic⁷⁹ to lethal curses: in the Apologia, in fact, carmen indicates the magical incantation with a variety of nefarious functions,⁸⁰ from the crippling spells cast on a slave-boy,⁸¹ to the charms to seduce Pudentilla.⁸² The evidence in the PGM confirms the variety of purposes of the incantations in real goetic practices: we find references to ἐπῳδή-ἐπαοιδή ⁸³ in recipes for love-magic⁸⁴ and in instructions to summon a daemon.⁸⁵ So typical was the employment of ἐπῳδαί in goetic rites that often the papyri do not even specify their purpose.⁸⁶ In sum, in Apuleius’ time it was commonly believed that goetic practitioners – whatever their goal – would have needed to accompany their rituals with spells. After these clarifications, we may ask ourselves the reason why Apuleius preferred the form cantamen to carmen. The semantic spectrum of carmen is remarkably

 Cf. Audollent 1904: 8.1.a–b; 8.8.a–b. Later sources (Plin. Nat. 28.17‒21; Apul. Apol. 47.3; Serv. A. 8.99) interpret these carmina as magical. See Comerci 1977: 287‒303 who adopts a non-emic approach to magic, and especially De Meo 20053: 139‒43. The two apotropaic spells reported by Cato Agr. 160.1 (cf. Ogden 20092: 265) are not conceived by Cato as magical, nor later sources interpret them as such.  For a brief discussion of analogous supernatural traditions in Indo-European civilisations, see Watkins 1995: 540‒4; West 2007: 326‒9; 332‒3.  Cf. e. g. Verg. Ecl. 8.67; 8.68; 8.69; 8.70; 8.103; A. 4.487; Hor. Epod. 5.72; 17.4; 17.28; S. 1.8.19; Prop. 1.1.24; 2.28.35; Tib. 1.2.44; 1.2.51; 1.5.12; 1.8.17; 1.8.23; Ov. Am.1.8.5; 1.8.18; Ars. 2.104; Rem. 290; Met. 7.168 (Medea’s emblematic words: quid enim non carmina possunt?); 14.44; 14.58; Fast. 2.426; V. Fl. 8.351; Sen. Ep. 9.6; Med. 688; Phaed. 791; Oed. 561; Her.O. 467; Petr. 134.12.13; Luc. 6.822; Quint. Inst. 7.3.7; [Quint]. Decl. 10.2; 10.7; 10.15; 10.16; 10.18; 10.19; Sil. 1.103; 1.431; 8.440; Tac. Ann. 4.22; Juv. 6.133; Apul. Apol. 31.9; 42.3; 42.7; 44.1; 45.2; 45.3; 45.4; 47.3; 67.3; 69.4; 71.1; 90.1; 102.1; Met. 2.5.4; 3.22.1. Further occurrences are recorded in ThLL, vol. III, s.v. carmen, coll. 464‒5. A funerary inscription from North Africa is dedicated to a woman carminibus defixa (CIL 8.2756), on which see Graf 2007: 141, n. 10.  On this question, see my analysis of Apol. 68‒71 in Ch. 11.2.  Apol. 31.9; 47.3.  Apol. 42.3; 44.1; 45.2; 45.3; 45.4.  Apol. 67.3; 69.4; 71.1; 90.1; 102.1.  The second form is preferred and often united with the adjectives ἱερός and τέλειος, cf. also Abt 1908: 43.  PGM IV.452; IV.2753‒4; IV.2927; IV.2939; VII.992.  I.317.  I.296; I.322; IV.1974‒5; IV.2788.

4.3 The Description of ‘Vulgar’ Magic and Goetic Utterances

69

broad and the term is more neutral,⁸⁷ whereas cantamen precisely indicates the ‘magical spell’ in descriptions of magic:⁸⁸ Propertius, in fact, regrets his unfamiliarity with the cantamina of the Magica Musa;⁸⁹ later, Prudentius adopts the same term to describe both a spell for love-magic⁹⁰ and a lethal enchantment.⁹¹ Apuleius is fully aware of the goetic connotation of cantamen which he uses not only in the Apologia,⁹² but also in the Metamorphoses when referring to the magical incantations of the evil Thessalian sagae. ⁹³ The possible suspicions that he might have aroused with the discussion of the goetic magus at Apol. 26.6‒9⁹⁴ were certainly bound to be tempered by the Platonising tone in which the whole argument is nestled: Apuleius relegates his enemies to the lowest ranks of an intellectual hierarchy, and depicts them as ill-educated slanderers.⁹⁵ Having defined the philosophic-religious type of magic and relying on the understanding judge,⁹⁶ he can now counterattack and measure this lofty connotation of magic against that of his vulgar opponents. His sardonic threat is primarily meant to influence the erudite audience against the attackers:⁹⁷ since they believed, as Apuleius claims, that magus could only mean ‘goetic practitioner’, their base understanding of magic would have condemned them ipso facto to suffer from the irrepressible powers they attributed to the magi. In this perspective, it becomes possible to comprehend why Apuleius ignores the fact that goetic magic was thought to be counter-

 Cf. ThLL, vol. III, s.v. carmen, coll. 463‒74.  Cf. ThLL, vol. III, s.v. cantamen, col. 279, which includes Cod. Theod. 9.16.6; the reading in Mommsen’s edition (195411: 461) is, however, not cantaminibus but contaminibus, thus I have excluded the passage from the discussion above.  Prop. 4.4.51, on which see Hutchinson 2006: 128.  Prudent. Perist. 13.23.  Prudent. C. Symm. 2.176.  Apol. 43.9; 84.3; 102.4. At 40.4, however, the term is used as a positive reference to the healing charm (ἐπαοιδή) of Autolycus’ sons (Hom. Od. 19.456‒8), cf. Ch. 6.5.  Apul. Met. 2.1.2; 2.22.3. See also van Mal-Maeder 2001: 56.  Although anyone might have had a general idea of goetic magic, the Lex Cornelia de sicariis et veneficis punished the very knowledge of magic (Paulus Sent. 5.29.17), thus this display could have been indeed controversial during the lawsuit had the judge been unsympathetic towards Apuleius. This is why he expresses some cautious scepticism using the adjective incredibilis at 26.6.  Cf. the previous discussion in Ch. 3, and Apol. 5.6; 9.1; 9.6; 16.7; 23.5; 25.8, partly analysed in Ch. 4.2. See also Harrison 2000: 46.  Apol. 25.9‒26.5.  Similar provocations are a typical feature of Apuleius’ defence-speech, cf. Apol. 38.7‒8 (Ch. 6.4); 64.1‒2 (Ch. 10.7); 90.6 (Ch. 11.5).

70

4 The Core of the Defence-Speech

acted with phylacteries:⁹⁸ his intention is not to give a precise account of goetic practices,⁹⁹ but rather to ‘tickle the ears’ of the learned audience and the judge with a subtle reasoning, making them sympathetic towards his own case, which – as he firmly argues – has nothing to do with goetic magic.

4.4 A Plea for Philosophy After the provocative question on the unavoidability of the magus’ revenge,¹⁰⁰ in Apol. 27.1‒4 Apuleius moves to another topic: he states that he has not been brought to trial under suspicion of being a magus as claimed by his accusers, but actually for being a philosopher. He sets this key argument out at the beginning of the speech¹⁰¹ and employs it again in the peroratio,¹⁰² bolstering with a perfect ring-composition his self-presentation as a Socrates reborn. Here Apuleius argues that philosophers were often blamed because of a ‘commonplace mistake of the louts’ (communi quodam errore imperitorum),¹⁰³ and specifies that philosophers were ignominiously taken for goetic practitioners because of their vulgar understanding of magia. ¹⁰⁴ It has gone hitherto unacknowledged that a comparable argument can be found in Philostratus’ Life of Apollonius of Tyana: according to this account, the Pythagorean sage was also tried under suspicion of γοητεία. ¹⁰⁵ Similarly to Apuleius,¹⁰⁶ Apollonius professes to be the vic-

 Abt 1908: 56‒60, followed by Martos 2015: 50, n. 164, objects that Apuleius’ claim that none could avoid the vengeance of the goetic magus is untrue.  Cf. also Ch. 11.4. For phylacteries against magic, cf. e. g. amiantus which effectively counteracts any veneficia and especially those by the magi (Plin. Nat. 36.139), and so does the herba cynocephalia (Nat. 30.18). On the use of phylacteries in the Greco-Roman times, see Abt 1908: 56‒60; recently Kotansky 1991: 107‒37; Ogden 1999: 51‒4; Brill’s New Pauly, vol. XI, s.v. Phylakterion, coll. 205‒8.  Apol. 26.6‒9.  Apol. 1.3; 3.5‒6 and Harrison 2000: 52.  Apol. 103.4.  Apol. 27.1. This substantival use of imperitus to discredit the prosecution mirrors that in Apol. 1.3; 3.6; 82.5.  Apol. 27.1‒3.  See especially VA 7.17. The allegations concerned the following points: Apollonius’ linen clothes, his asceticism, the fact that he was worshipped, the prophecies delivered in Ephesus, his open dislike of Domitian, the sacrifice of an Arcadian youth (VA 7.20), his beard and long hair, and his Protean ability to transform himself into water, tree, and wild animal (VA 7.34). The charge concerning the hair is analogous to that presented by Apuleius’ accusers (cf. Apol. 4.11‒13 in Ch. 3.2).  Apol. 27.1‒4.

4.4 A Plea for Philosophy

71

tim of a persecution against philosophy,¹⁰⁷ explicitly comparing himself with Socrates,¹⁰⁸ and also with other illustrious philosophers of old such as Thales¹⁰⁹ and Anaxagoras, wondering how they could be seen as γόητες because of their divine predictions.¹¹⁰ The references to Anaxagoras and Socrates in Apollonius’ speech bring us back to Apol. 27.1‒4 where Apuleius mentions these and other philosophers unjustly vilified by the mob, and then sarcastically congratulates himself for being numbered amongst these eminent figures.¹¹¹ To be more specific, Apuleius argues that those philosophers who enquired about nature were attacked, ut Anaxagoram et Leucippum et Democritum et Epicurum ceterosque rerum naturae patronos,¹¹² as well as those philosophers qui providentiam mundi curiosius ¹¹³ vestigant et impensius deos celebrant, e o s v e r o v u l g o m a g o s n o m i n e n t […] ut olim fuere Epimenides et Orpheus et Pythagoras et Ostanes, ¹¹⁴ ac dein simi-

 VA 7.11.  VA 7.11 and 8.7.9, which I compare below to Apol. 27.3.  In Clem. Al. Strom. 6.7.57 it is said that Thales, like Pythagoras and Pherecydes, studied with the μάγοι.  VA 8.7.9. Demeretz 2004: 209‒22 argues that Apuleius was influenced by the defence-speech of Apollonius, which should mirror that recorded by Philostratus which, however, is likely fictitious (cf. n. 46 in Ch. 3.2). While it not impossible that Philostratus might have had in mind this passage of the Apologia, the close similarity between Philostratus and Apuleius is probably due to pre-existing topoi concerning magic and philosophy (Ch. 2.2), on which Apuleius and Philostratus drew independently.  Apol. 27.4.  Apol. 27.1: ‘as in the case of Anaxagoras, Leucippus, Democritus, and Epicurus, and other advocates of the nature of things’.  As Hunink 1997, vol. II: 92 observes, here the term is not used with the same connotation that we find in the Metamorphoses. This religious type of curiositas is examined by Leigh 2013: 130‒60, who does not discuss this passage. In the Metamorphoses, curiosus and curiositas mark Lucius’ inappropriate interest in Thessalian magic (e. g. Met. 2.6.1; 3.14.1; 11.23.5, cf. Leigh 2013: 79‒81; Keulen et al. 2015: 383‒4), mirroring a literary tradition that we already find in Hor. Epod. 17.77 (on which see Watson 2003: 583; Leigh 2013: 136‒50). This is reflected by their Greek counterparts περίεργος and περιεργία (on which cf. Quint. Inst. 8.3.55) that are equally important in [Luc.] Asin. 15; 45; 56. It is not a coincidence that Ostanes’ quotation in Ps.-Democr. 3 (ed. Berthelot 1887: 43, ll. 22‒4 and p. 10) is reported as follows: ἥκω δὲ κἀγὼ ἐν Αἰγύπτῳ φέρων τὰ φυσικὰ, ὅπως τῆς πολλῆς περιεργείας καὶ συγκεχυμένης ὕλης καταφρονήσητε (‘I, too, come to Egypt bringing the treatise on the natural questions, so that you may rise above the vulgar curiosity and the confused matter’). Analogously in PGM XII.402‒3 the name of the herbs associated with the statue of each deity is kept secret because of the people’s περιεργία.  Apol. 27.2: ‘others, who devote themselves to the study of the providence of the universe with greater care and honour the gods more zealously are vulgarly called magi […] as once happened to Epimenides, Orpheus, Pythagoras, and Ostanes’.

72

4 The Core of the Defence-Speech

liter suspectata Empedocli Catharmoe, Socrati daemonion, Platonis τὸ ἀγαθόν. ¹¹⁵ It can easily be seen how Apuleius divides the philosophers into two main groups: the former comprising those who were accused of irreligiosity¹¹⁶ – which is not, however, the question at issue during the trial –¹¹⁷ and the latter encompassing those who were regarded as magi. ¹¹⁸ This second list is particularly interesting for this study, since I argue that these philosophers were genuinely believed to have had connections with the Magi, and that the ambiguity of μάγος-magus induced many to consider these philosophers as goetic practitioners.¹¹⁹ Before addressing this point, one may note that Democritus – who features in the list of the natural philosophers – could also have been included amongst those philosophers suspected of magic, as remarked by Butler and Owen.¹²⁰ In the Naturalis Historia 30.9,¹²¹ a passage probably known to Apuleius,¹²² Pliny describes Democritus as a follower of the traditions of the magi together with Pythagoras, Empedocles and Plato. His goetic reputation – as well as the attribution of spurious magical treatises to him –¹²³ can likely be ascribed to Bolus of

 Apol. 27.3: ‘later this happened to the Purifications by Empedocles, the daemon of Socrates, and Plato’ highest good’.  Apol. 27.1.  Cf. also Hunink 1997, vol. II: 91; Harrison 2000: 64. This is probably a point to divert from the issue of magic.  Apol. 27.2‒3.  Cf. Ch. 4.5 and 4.6.  Butler and Owen 1914: 70. On Democritus and magic, see also Abt 1908: 252‒3; Martos 2015: 226, n. 687.  See also Plin. Nat. 24.156; 24.160; 25.13. An exact parallel for Nat. 30.9 cannot be found: Cicero acknowledges that Democritus, Plato and Pythagoras went to the ultimas terras to increase their knowledge, without explicitly mentioning the magi (cf. Cic. Fin. 5.50; Tusc. 4.44). Philostratus (VA 1.2.1) independently says that Democritus, Empedocles, and Pythagoras went to see the Mάγοι. Diogenes Laertius, drawing on other sources, refers that Democritus was taught by some μάγοι and Χαλδαῖοι in Abdera (D.L. 9.34), and that he travelled to Persia (D.L. 9.35). Therefore, there was a communis opinio concerning Democritus’ relationship with the magi.  Cf. Apol. 90.6 (Ch. 11.5), and Ch. 2 for general observations. This passage of the Naturalis Historia is also known and negatively commented upon in Gel. 10.12. As Nicolini 2018 argues while discussing stylistic connections between Apuleius’ novel and Ovid’s Metamorphoses, Apuleius likely borrowed various passages from Ovid mechanically since they were simply part of his cultural baggage, and the same might be happening in the case of Pliny’s Natural History.  E. g. Ps. Apul. Herb. 4.7 (CML, vol. IV, 33 and cf. the critical apparatus) and Dsc. 2.118 where Zoroaster, Ostanes, Pythagoras, and Democritus are cited as authorities.

4.4 A Plea for Philosophy

73

Mendes, who circulated his Cheiromecta under the name of Democritus,¹²⁴ but Pliny seems convinced that Democritus sought some scrolls buried in the tomb of the magus Dardanus.¹²⁵ Another interesting account handed down to us under the name of Democritus¹²⁶ relates that the philosopher summoned from Hades¹²⁷ his master Ostanes in order to know the location of the βιβλία unveiling the knowledge to control φύσις. ¹²⁸ Further evidence of the goetic reputation of Democritus can be found in the Greek Magical Papyri: the name of Democritus appears in the title of a series of recipes with different purposes (Δημοκρίτου παίγνια),¹²⁹ which seem connected with a symposiastic context;¹³⁰ his name is also found together with Pythagoras in the title of a recipe for dream divination (Ὀνειραιτητὸν Πυθαγόρου καὶ Δημοκρίτου ὀνειρόμαντις μαθηματικός),¹³¹ and lastly in the Δημοκρίτου Σφαῖρα, a text explaining how to predict life and death.¹³² Given Democritus’ notoriety for being involved in magic, Apuleius draws on a safer tradition: that of Democritus as a natural philosopher,¹³³ instead of adding a counterproductive example substantiating the idea that philosophers of old dabbled in magic. This also enables Apuleius to create two symmetrical groups: on the one hand, the purportedly irreligiosi Anaxagoras, Leucippus, Democritus, and Epicurus; on the other hand, the supposed magi Epimenides, Orpheus, Pythagoras, and Ostanes.¹³⁴ The following discussion will cast more light on the beliefs concerning the relationship between these philosophers and both philosophical and goetic magic, and the reason

 Plin. Nat. 24.160 and especially Col. 7.5.17, where the Democritean authorship is confuted. On Bolus, see Kingsley 1995a: 325‒8; Gordon 1997: 128‒58; Dickie 2001: 117‒22; Martelli 2013: 36‒48.  Plin. Nat. 30.9. D.L. 9.35 reports that, according to Antisthenes of Rhodes (FGrH 508 F 12), Democritus used to spend time alone amongst the graves. A different account is given in Luc. Philops. 32: here a rationalist Democritus, convinced that souls die once the body dies, retired into a tomb to write and was not scared by youths dressed up like ghosts; cf. Ogden 2007: 225‒7. On Dardanus, see Apol. 90.6 discussed in Ch. 11.5.  Ps.-Democr. 3, cited by Bidez and Cumont 1938, vol. II: 317‒20 and mentioned in the introduction of Betz 19922: l, n. 16.  On magic and necromancy, cf. Ch. 10.2.  Cf. analogously in Petr. 88.3: itaque hercule herbarum omnium sucos Democritus expressit, et ne lapidum virgultorumque vis lateret, aetatem inter experimenta consumpsit (on which cf. Schmeling 2011: 366), mentioned in Abt 1908: 252.  PGM VII.1687‒85. This and the following two formulae are cited in Abt 1908: 252‒3.  Cf. Betz 19922: 120.  PGM VII.795.  XII.351‒64.  This is also employed in Fl. 18.19, on which see Hunink 2001: 187‒8; Martos 2015: 226, n. 687.  Apol. 27.2 (Ch. 4.5).

74

4 The Core of the Defence-Speech

why Apuleius provocatively associates these figures with the goetic type of magic.

4.5 The Goetic Notoriety of Pythagoras, Orpheus, and Ostanes The content of the second list of philosophers associated with magic at Apol. 27.2‒3 can be divided into two sections. First, Apuleius lists philosophers of old such as Epimenides, Orpheus, Pythagoras, and Ostanes, who were wrongly considered goetic magi. Secondly, he argues that Empedocles’ Purifications, Socrates’ daemon, and Plato’s highest good suffered from a similar misjudgement.¹³⁵ The passage may be seen as a reaction to that mentality reflected in Pliny’s Natural History, where Ostanes,¹³⁶ Orpheus,¹³⁷ Pythagoras as well as Empedocles and Plato¹³⁸ are said to be involved in goetic magic. Although Apuleius claims that to consider these venerable philosophers as goetic practitioners befits his ignorant accusers, there is a substantial tradition, followed by Pliny the Elder, connecting these figures with goetic magic. This is partly noted by Abt and I shall put his discussion on a firmer basis,¹³⁹ and examine the magical reputation of each of these figures starting from those included in the first section at Apol. 27.2, namely Epimenides, Pythagoras, Orpheus, and Ostanes. As for Epimenides, apart from this passage of the Apologia, there is no other evidence associating this legendary wise man with magic;¹⁴⁰ however, in Apuleius’ Florida¹⁴¹ and in Diogenes Laertius¹⁴² it is said that Epimenides had been  Apol. 27.3.  Plin. Nat. 30.8.  Plin. Nat. 30.7. For a brief profile of Orpheus, Pythagoras, and Empedocles dabbling in magic see Luck 1999: 117‒9, who resorts to the outdated category of ‘shamanism’ employed in Dodds 1951: 135‒78. For an overview of shamanism in classical scholarship, see Bremmer 2016: 52‒78.  Plin. Nat. 30.9.  Abt 1908: 252‒4, followed by Butler and Owen 1914: 70‒1 and Hunink 1997, vol. II: 92‒3, is incomplete since it focuses uniquely on Democritus, Orpheus, and Pythagoras. Martos 2015: 51‒ 2, n. 167‒8 refers to Abt and mentions more recent bibliography.  For a thought-provoking but old-fashioned interpretation, see Dodds 1951: 140‒7. Clem. Al. Strom. 1.21.133 says that Epimenides was associated with mythical sages amongst whom Ζωροάστρης ὁ Μῆδος. In Luc. Philops. 26, Epimenides’ reawakening is alluded to amongst other supernatural deeds. See also the discussion in Luck 1999: 117‒9.  Apul. Fl. 15.20.  D.L. 8.3. Iamb. VP 104; 222 reports that Epimenides and Empedocles were instead disciples of Pythagoras.

4.5 The Goetic Notoriety of Pythagoras, Orpheus, and Ostanes

75

the master of a sage cited in this passage of the Apologia and whose magical notoriety was far more evident: Pythagoras. The belief that Pythagoras was intimate with the goetic magi is, in fact, commonplace in Greek and Latin authors – including Apuleius – who agree on Pythagoras’ Levantine travelling and his meeting with the Persian Magi.¹⁴³ For those who considered the Magian lore as a source of philosophical wisdom, unblemished by any evil connotations,¹⁴⁴ Pythagoras became a model worth imitating. Thus, from this Pythagorean tradition probably derives the belief that other philosophers, including Empedocles, Democritus and Plato, followed his example when travelling East. However, given the semantic ambiguity of μάγος-magus and the resulting confusion between philosophical and goetic magic,¹⁴⁵ Pythagoras was inevitably bound to be associated with the latter type of magic, as it emerges from both literary and papyrological sources: the figure of the cockerel in Lucian’s Gallus – the goetic features of which I discuss when commenting on Apol. 47.7 –¹⁴⁶ is said to be a reincarnation of Pythagoras himself,¹⁴⁷ and in the title of the above-mentioned divinatory formula of PGM VII.795 we find the name of Pythagoras together with that of Democritus.¹⁴⁸ Another figure to whom magical skills were attributed is Orpheus. Butler and Owen cite two significant passages from Pausanias and Strabo:¹⁴⁹ the former mentions that an unspecified Egyptian authority believed that the Thracian Orpheus and Amphion were able to use magic (μαγεῦσαι).¹⁵⁰ Strabo, instead, indicates that Orpheus was a ἀνὴρ γόης who earned his living with μουσική and μαντική and performing mystery initiations;¹⁵¹ having gathered a throng of followers, he was eventually killed for the fear of plotting and violence.¹⁵² I would like to add that Plutarch, too, associates Orpheus with the doctrines of

 Cic. Fin. 5.87; V. Max. 8.7.2; Plin. Nat. 24.156; 24.160; 25.14; 30.9; Plu. Mor. 1012e; Apul. Fl. 15.14; Philostr. VA 1.2.1; Clem. Al. Strom. 1.15.66; 1.15.69‒70; 6.7.57; D.L. 8.3; Hippol. Haer. 1.2.12; 6.23.2; Porph. VP 6; 12; Eus. PE 10.4.14‒5; Iamb. VP. 19; 151; Jul. Or. 7.236d; Cyril. Al. adv. Iul. 3‒4; Suid. π3120. The evidence is collected in Timpanaro Cardini 1958, vol. I: 12‒61 and Cuccioli Melloni 1969: 16‒21; 40‒219.  This philosophical trend is clearly described in D.L. 1.2; 1.6. On this, cf. my remarks on philosophical magic in Ch. 2.2.  Cf. Ch. 2.  Luc. Gall. 28 examined in the discussion of Apol. 47.7 (Ch. 7.4).  Gall. 18.  Cf. Ch. 4.4.  Cf. Butler and Owen 1914: 70; they also mention E. Alc. 966‒9 and E. Cyc. 646 in which Orpheus is connected with φάρμακα and ἐπῳδαί respectively.  Paus. 6.20.18.  On mysteries and magic, cf. Ch. 8.2.  Strab. 7a.18.

76

4 The Core of the Defence-Speech

the μάγοι followers of Zoroaster,¹⁵³ and the Platonist Celsus includes him amongst wise men such as Zoroaster and Pythagoras.¹⁵⁴ This association between Orphism and magic could be much earlier, since the power of the μάγοι and their ἐπωιδή are acknowledged in the Orphic ritual described in col. VI, ll. 1‒9 of the Derveni Papyrus,¹⁵⁵ dating to the fourth century BC.¹⁵⁶ This common belief connecting Orpheus with magic – either of the philosophical or the goetic kind – likely eased the circulation of spurious treatises on magic:¹⁵⁷ for example, Pliny the Elder mentions Orpheus as the first author of a detailed study of the supernatural virtues of herbs,¹⁵⁸ and two treatises on the supernatural virtues of stones have been transmitted under the name of Orpheus. In the former (in verse) the Μάγοι are mentioned as respectable authorities,¹⁵⁹ while the latter, in prose, contains direct references to the μάγοι as goetic practitioners.¹⁶⁰ In the wake of this tradition, we find Orpheus called ὁ θεολόγος in the title of a goetic recipe of the PGM for summoning gods and goddesses,¹⁶¹ followed immediately afterwards by a quotation from Erotylos’ Orphika, which contains various voces magicae. ¹⁶² If the association with magic is a secondary trait of the beliefs surrounding Pythagoras and Orpheus, it predominantly characterises the third philosophus cited by Apuleius, namely Ostanes.¹⁶³ According to Pliny the Elder, Ostanes was responsible for spreading the magicae artes in the Western world while accompanying Xerxes’ expedition, and was also the author of the first treatise on

 Plu. Mor. 415a.  Orig. Cels. 1.16.  For the interpretation of these lines, see Kouremenos et al. 2006: 170, and 166‒8 on the meaning of μάγοι in the context. See also Tsantsanoglou 2008; Ferrari 2011: 71‒3; Piano 2016: 240‒1.  Kouremenos et al. 2006: 3.  Cf. the fragments collected in Bernabé 2005: 343‒66.  Plin. Nat. 25.12.  Orph. L. 697. An earlier passage (Orph. L. 71‒4) alludes to the goetic reputation of the μάγοι and to the persecutions against them. Halleux and Schamp 1985: 51‒7 took this evidence to date the text to the first half of the second century AD. See also the discussion in Giannakis 1982: 19‒ 78, who focuses on the stylistic and content-based features of this work.  Orph. Lith. Keryg. 11.14; 23.2‒3.  PGM XIII.933‒46.  XIII.946‒53. On Erotylos, see Abt 1908: 253‒4 and Betz 19922: 193, n. 129. On the voces magicae, cf. Ch. 6.4.  See also Abt 1908: 251‒2; Butler and Owen 1914: 163; Bidez and Cumont 1938: vol. I: 167‒207; Brill’s New Pauly, vol. X, s.v. Ostanes, coll. 279‒80; Fernández García 2009: 731‒44.

4.6 Philosophers and Magi: Empedocles, Socrates, and Plato

77

magic which Pliny could find.¹⁶⁴ Many pseudepigrapha circulated under the name of Ostanes, and although none of these works survives, references and citations in other sources suggest that they dealt with healing remedies, uncanny powers of stones, plants and animals.¹⁶⁵ Furthermore, like Democritus, Pythagoras and Orpheus, Ostanes’ name also occurs in the Greek Magical Papyri: the prefatory epistle¹⁶⁶ of a recipe to seek the assistance of a καταχθόνιος δαίμων in love-magic is addressed to βασιλεύς Ὀστάνης,¹⁶⁷ and he is also referred to as an authority in a recipe for sending dreams through a daemon.¹⁶⁸ Having discussed the goetic aura surrounding the philosophi mentioned at Apol. 27.2, it is possible to infer that despite Apuleius’ upbeat tone, this namedropping might have had some controversial repercussions, in the same manner in which the list of magi at Apol. 90.6 seems to have encountered a cold reception in the courtroom of Sabratha.¹⁶⁹ Nothing should prevent us from thinking that the prosecution might have protested and feigned upset, especially when hearing the name of the notorious magus Ostanes. However, according to Apuleius’ reasoning, this reaction would have been typical of vulgar and superstitious people such as his attackers.¹⁷⁰ Surely, the learned audience and especially Claudius Maximus would never have considered those philosophers goetic practitioners. On the contrary, they could have been disturbed by this very association which Apuleius attributes to his enemies.

4.6 Philosophers and Magi: Empedocles, Socrates, and Plato So far I have analysed the goetic renown of Orpheus, Pythagoras and Ostanes, but Apuleius does not limit himself to deliberately associating these sages with goetic magic. He piles it on and claims that in the eyes of the prosecution Empedocles’ Purifications, the daemon of Socrates, and even Plato’s highest

 Plin. Nat. 30.8. At 30.11 Pliny acknowledges the existence of a second Ostanes travelling in the retinue of Alexander the Great, of whom there is no other information, cf. Ernout 1963: 82.  These fragments are collected and discussed in Bidez and Cumont 1938, vol. II: 271‒356, who divide them into two groups: magical (1938, vol. II: 296‒308) and alchemic (1938, vol. II: pp. 309‒56).  On the use of prefatory letters in late-antique recipes, see Halleux and Schamp 1985: 215; Brill’s New Pauly, vol. IV, s.v. Epistolography, col. 1145.  PGM IV.2006‒125.  PGM XII.121‒43.  Apol. 91.1 and my comments in Ch. 11.5.  On their supposed superstition, see my remarks on Apol. 25.5 (Ch.4.2).

78

4 The Core of the Defence-Speech

good would be connected with goetic magic. This provocative climax was meant to demonstrate how detrimental and untrustworthy the reasoning of the accusers was: their miscomprehension of the meaning of magus, due to their ignorance, would induce them to regard Apuleius – a Socrates reborn – and figures surely above suspicion such as Empedocles, Socrates, and Plato as goetic magi. Nevertheless, it must be pointed out that, although no evidence shows that Plato’s τὸ ἀγαθόν was associated with magic, the three philosophers were indeed associated with the magi. That Empedocles, similarly to Pythagoras (4.5) and Democritus (4.4), was believed to have pursued the wisdom of the Magi is told in the Naturalis Historia ¹⁷¹ and in the Life of Apollonius of Tyana. ¹⁷² Although Butler and Owen, and Hunink argue that the fragments of Empedocles’ Purifications do not show any direct connection with magic,¹⁷³ the evidence in Diogenes Laertius suggests quite the opposite:¹⁷⁴ Diogenes, in fact, abridges a passage from the Peripatetic Satyrus reporting that Gorgias – who was a disciple of Empedocles – saw his master practising goetic rites (γοητεύων), and that Empedocles himself claimed to have such powers in a passage of his own Purifications (DK 31 B 111),¹⁷⁵ alluding to the ability to rejuvenate the old,¹⁷⁶ controlling the wind and rain,¹⁷⁷ and reviving the dead from Hades.¹⁷⁸ Kingsley proposes a goetic reading of this fragment of the Purifications and of the figure of Empedocles.¹⁷⁹ This interpretation, which would date back to Gorgias’ time – if we believe in Satyrus’ account as reported by Diogenes Laertius – could be due to the fact that Empedocles was already thought to have contacts with the μάγοι by his contemporary Xanthus of Lydia.¹⁸⁰ Apuleius’ provocative interpretation of Empedocles and, specifically, his Καθαρμοί as a magical text was, therefore, not unprecedented.

 Plin. Nat. 30.9.  Philostr. VA 1.2.  Cf. Butler and Owen 1914: 70‒1; Hunink 1997, vol. II: 93.  D.L. 8.59.  Cf. frg. 101, ed. Wright 1995 = frg. 15, ed. Inwood 20012. See the discussion in Kingsley 1995a: 220 and n. 9.  This is the ability of Medea, cf. e. g. Ov. Met. 7.159‒293.  On the magical control of wind, see also the discussion of Aeolus in Apol. 31.7 (Ch. 5.5).  For an overview, cf. Ch. 10.1.  See Kingsley 1995a: 217‒32, who does not distinguish between philosophical magic and goetic magic, though.  D.L. 8.63 = Arist. Fr. 66 ed. Rose 1886: 75 = FGrH 765 F 33. Kingsley 1995b: 185‒91 suggests that this passage belongs to the work in which Xanthus talks about the Magi.

4.6 Philosophers and Magi: Empedocles, Socrates, and Plato

79

As to Socrates, already in the portrayal offered in Plato’s dialogues we find him ironically addressed as γόης for the constraining strength of his elenchus.¹⁸¹ Later evidence for Socrates’ connection with magic is scarce:¹⁸² Diogenes Laertius cites a passage from a lost work by Aristotle, reporting that a μάγος from Syria foretold Socrates’ violent death;¹⁸³ this, however, does not allow us to establish any direct relationship between Socrates and the μάγοι. The only remarkable – although probably independent – parallel with this passage of the Apologia is in Philostratus’ Vita Apollonii,¹⁸⁴ where Socrates’ δαιμόνιον is paradoxically compared to goetic magic.¹⁸⁵ The evidence underlining the belief that Plato had a relationship with the Persian Magi¹⁸⁶ contains different versions of the story: according to Pliny the Elder (Nat. 30.9), Plato went overseas to study their wisdom like Pythagoras; however, Diogenes Laertius (D.L. 3.7) and Apuleius himself ¹⁸⁷ say that, Plato’s

 Pl. Men. 80a–b; Meno says, in fact, to Socrates: καὶ νῦν, ὥς γέ μοι δοκεῖς, γοητεύεις με καὶ φαρμάττεις καὶ ἀτεχνῶς κατεπᾴδεις, ὥστε μεστὸν ἀπορίας γεγονέναι (‘and that seems to me to be what you are doing now too: you are using goetic arts and magic on me. It is hardly an exaggeration that you are casting a spell on me to make me utterly stuck’). For the goetic terminology attributed to Socrates in Plato, cf. de Romilly 1975: 33‒7; Belfiore 1980: 133‒6. This evidence is open to different scholarly views: Belfiore 1980: 128‒37 denies a serious goetic interpretation, while Gellrich 1994: 275‒307 defends it. In addition to this, we may add the reference to φάρμακα and ἐπῳδαί in Pl. Chrm. 155e (on which see Szlezák 1985: 141‒8), and a citation from Timon’s Silloi in D.L. 2.19 = frg. 25 [50] Diels 1901.  Other sources provide dubious evidence: in PGM XII.229‒30 the transmitted reading is σοκρα|της; this is aptly emended to ὀ Κράτης by Eitrem 1925: 117‒20, followed by Preisendanz 19742, vol. II: 73. Analogously, the title of a Περί λίθων which contains references to magic, is attributed to a certain Socrates and Dionysius, but it has been suggested by Wirbelauer 1937: 42 that the reading Socrates is a corruption of Xenocrates. May 2013: 31‒2 proposes that the character named Socrates in Apul. Met. 1.5‒19 could perhaps be seen as an ‘anti-Socrates’.  D.L. 2.45 = Arist. Fr. 32 ed. Rose 1886: 43.  VA 8.7.9: τουτὶ γὰρ ὑπὲρ σοφίαν εἶναι καὶ τερατῶδες, τῆς δ’ ἐπὶ τοσόνδε ἀληθείας οὐκ ἂν ἐφικέσθαι με, εἰ μὴ γόης τε ἦν καὶ ἀπόρρητος. τί οὖν ἐνταῦθα ἐρεῖ Σωκράτης ὑπὲρ ὧν ἔφασκε τοῦ δαιμονίου μανθάνειν; (‘This, my accuser says, is more than wisdom, it is uncanny, and I would not have hit the truth so exactly unless I were a goetic practitioner with unspeakable powers. What then will Socrates say to this in defence of what he claimed to have heard from his daemon?’). Translation adapted from Jones 2005: 353; 355.  For the magical connotations of the Latin rendering daemonion, cf. my remarks at Apol. 63.6 in Ch. 10.6.  On the question, see Riginos 1976: 25‒7; 66‒7 and Kingsley 1995b: 195‒8. As Momigliano 1975: 143 observes, already at the beginning of the third century BC, the Epicurean Colotes admonished Plato for drawing on the doctrine of Zoroaster (Procl. in R. 2.109).  Apul. Pl. 1.3. On the passage, see Fletcher 2009: 257‒83; 2014: 209‒10; and especially Motta 2018.

80

4 The Core of the Defence-Speech

intentions notwithstanding, he could not reach Persia because of a war. A slightly different account is found in later sources: in Olympiodorus’ In Alcibiadem ¹⁸⁸ and in the Anonymous Prolegomena to Platonic Philosophy ¹⁸⁹ it is told that Plato, instead of travelling to Persia, went to meet some Persians in Phoenicia from whom he learnt the doctrine of Zoroaster. The Magi themselves are said to have thought highly of Plato and, according to the Anonymous Prolegomena, Plato was superior to Pythagoras because, whilst the latter went to Persia to learn ‘the wisdom of the Magi’ (τὴν τῶν Μάγων σοφίαν), the Magi went to Athens because of Plato, ‘longing to participate in his philosophy’ (τῆς ἐξ αὐτοῦ μετασχεῖν φιλοσοφίας γλιχόμενοι).¹⁹⁰ That they might have respected Plato is also suggested by other evidence: Seneca writes that the Magi who were in Athens when Plato died made offerings to the departed and considered the years of his life as a numinous sign, being the perfectissimum numerum eighty-one.¹⁹¹ Thus, strong connection between Plato and the Persian Magi was believed to have existed, and this could have induced those who despised the Magi as goetic practitioners to believe that Plato was interested in rather suspicious lore. To sum up, I have highlighted how philosophers such as Orpheus, Pythagoras, Ostanes, Empedocles, Socrates, and Plato were associated with the Magi, and this led to the creation of their goetic reputation, as attested chiefly in Pliny the Elder. Apuleius, probably having in mind the information in the Naturalis Historia,¹⁹² rearranges these figures in a provocative climax, culminating with the unheard-of association of Plato’s highest good with goetic magic. The judge Maximus and the cultured audience would have seen this as a blasphemy: according to Apuleius’ reasoning, only his simple-minded foes, who failed to understand the real meaning of magus,¹⁹³ could have had such a vulgar opinion of the revered philosophers and of Apuleius, who proudly associates himself with

 Olymp. in Alc. 2.138‒41.  Anon. Prol. 4.10‒11, I refer to the paragraph and line subdivision of the edition by Westerink 1962.  Anon. Prol. 6.19‒22.  Sen. Ep. 58.31. The passage from Favorinus in D.L. 3.25 – which reports that a Persian named Mithridates placed a statue of Plato in the Academy – might suggest that the Persians held Plato in high regard. See also Kingsley 1995b: 197‒8 and 199‒203, who tries to connect this information with the fragment of Philip of Opus containing a dialogue between Plato and a Chaldean (cf. Gaiser 1988: 176‒80); Kingsley’s argument is followed by Vasunia 2007b: 250‒ 1 and Horky 2009: 93‒98. On the possibility that the Magi were in Athens in Plato’s time, see Tuplin 2018.  Nat. 30.7; 30.9.  Ch. 4.3.

4.7 Conclusion

81

them.¹⁹⁴ Even if all these figures were popularly associated with goetic magic, Apuleius’ cogent argument served to lessen the idea that he might have been a wicked magus, before commencing the discussion of the Primary and Secondary Charges. According to this logic, all these attacks would have inevitably appeared as the result of a misunderstanding: if Apuleius was to be blamed for goetic magic, so were Pythagoras, Empedocles, Socrates, and Plato.

4.7 Conclusion Although Apuleius discloses his acquaintance with goetic magic¹⁹⁵ and uses a terminology with specifically magical connotations,¹⁹⁶ he succeeds in structuring a compelling argument at Apol. 25.5‒28.9. By relying on an established tradition, he plays with the semantic ambiguity of magic in order to portray himself as a devout follower of a wisdom commended by Plato,¹⁹⁷ while he attributes the goetic interpretation of magus to his attackers,¹⁹⁸ whose ignorance inevitably induced them to confuse every philosopher with the goetic practitioners.¹⁹⁹ Apuleius stakes it all on his Platonic hierarchy contrasting higher and lower values in order to suggest that Claudius Maximus, the erudite audience in court – as well as his own readership – should have sided with him and unequivocally condemned his base prosecutors. This section of the Apologia is, therefore, the ground upon which Apuleius lays the foundations for his confutation of the main charges. The reconstruction proposed in the following chapters will show how the magical allegations brought against Apuleius were far more dangerous than scholars have hitherto suggested, and that were backed up by strong, incriminating evidence and depositions. The Platonising arguments set out in this section of the Apologia play, therefore, a central role in the next part of the defence, enabling Apuleius to shield himself from any dangerous suspicion by repeating his self-declared intellectual superiority, while scorning the baseness of his opponents and the mendacity of their arguments.

     

Apol. 27.4. Apol. 26.6 (Ch. 4.3). Cf. Ch. 4.3. Apol. 25.9‒26.5. Apol. 26.6. Apol. 27.2‒3.

5 Love, Sea Creatures, and Literary Magic 5.1 Introduction The most threatening set of accusations that Apuleius attempts to disprove at Apol. 29‒65 are the Primary Charges, which were meant to underscore Apuleius’ involvement in goetic magic and show how he was fully capable of forcing Pudentilla into marriage. As Abt suggests,¹ the first of these allegations specifically concerned the magical seduction of his wife by means of three res marinae: two molluscs with obscene names² and a sea-hare³ supposedly dissected to obtain the ingredients for a love-charm.⁴ This cannot be immediately gathered from Apol. 29‒42.2, the lengthy section of the defence-speech devoted to the refutation of this charge. One cannot even find Pudentilla’s name here but only a reference to a certain mulier, whom Apuleius had seemingly enchanted with allurements from the sea, which comes only towards the end of this section in Apol. 41.5. This reticence reflects Apuleius’ intention to make his opponents’ argument unintelligible:⁵ first, he begins by arguing that fish is unusable in magic,⁶ then he sandwiches the discussion of the sea animals allegedly dissected⁷ between a pietistic declaration of the philosophical nature of his research.⁸ Given its length and some significant thematic differences, I will divide the rebuttal of the first Primary Charge into two instalments which I examine separately: whilst Apol. 29‒31 is mostly characterised by Apuleius’ showcase of literary magic,⁹ Apol. 32‒42.2 addresses the allegation itself and offers a Platonising tone counterbalancing the possible risks of the previous display.¹⁰ In this chapter I shall focus on Apol. 29‒31: the forensic strategy employed here consists in disproving the idea underlying the accusation, namely that fish can be used in magic. To achieve this goal, Apuleius draws on renowned authorities, arguing that their literary descriptions of magic do not display any employment of sea animals. Although

 Abt 1908: 61, followed by Amarelli 1988: 121; Bradley 1997=2012: 8; Harrison 2000: 66; Pellecchi 2012: 162‒7.  Apol. 33.5‒34.6.  Apol. 33.3; 40.5‒11.  Apol. 41.5 and 68‒71 examined in Ch. 6.6 and 11.2, respectively.  On this point, see especially Vallette 1908: 59 and Hunink 1997, vol. II: 97‒8.  Apol. 29‒31.  Apol. 33.3‒34.6; 40.5‒11.  Apol. 36‒9; 40.5.  Apol. 30.6‒13; 31.5‒7; on literary magic, cf. Ch. 2.4.  Ch. 6.2, 6.3, 6.5. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110617528-007

5.2 A Bold Denial: No Fish in Magic

83

scholars have acknowledged that Apuleius’ statement is mendacious, I will cast new light on his controversial claim¹¹ that fish is useless in magic (5.2), and on the serious implications of the subsequent digression¹² with which he supports his argument: this consists of learned references to Vergil, Laevius and Greek authorities (5.3), particularly Homer (5.4 and 5.5). I propose that this digression does not only exhibit his insight into literary magic but indicates also a clear knowledge of goetic practices, which might have had serious juridical implications (5.6). This will make it possible to infer that, although Apuleius’ jarring display complies with a precise rhetorical strategy aiming at impressing and bewildering the audience with surprising arguments (5.7),¹³ these arguments could have also aroused scepticism about his self-professed innocence.

5.2 A Bold Denial: No Fish in Magic In order to rebut the first Primary Charge concerning the magical employment of sea creatures to seduce Pudentilla, Apuleius twists the evidence in his own favour: he opens this section by labelling the charges as Aemilianus’ deliramenta (‘deranging nonsense’),¹⁴ and uses the expression suspicio magiae,¹⁵ which turns the allegation into a calumnia (‘slander’) – as he already claimed¹⁶ and repeats shortly afterwards –¹⁷ rather than an accusatio. ¹⁸ With such premises, Apuleius summarises the charge as follows: nonnulla me piscium genera per quosdam piscatores pretio quaesisse. ¹⁹ From this we should deduce that he bought innocuous fish from some unspecified anglers. Allusions to magic are avoided and the allencompassing term pisces distracts from the fact that he was accused of using two molluscs²⁰ and a poisonous sea-hare.²¹ The term piscis can, in fact, indicate different types of marine creatures, including molluscs with or without a shell as

 Apol. 30.4.  Apol. 30.6‒13; 31.5‒7.  See also Ch. 12.  Apol. 29.1 and previously in 27.5‒12.  Apol. 29.1: ad suspicionem magiae.  Apol. 1.4; 2.2; 2.6; 8.2; 25.7.  Apol. 29.3.  Apuleius employs it shortly afterwards (Apol. 29.9), in a passage where the term accusatio produces a laughable effect.  Apol. 29.1: ‘I ordered some species of fish from fishermen in exchange for money’.  Apol. 33.5‒34.6.  Apol. 33.3; 40.5‒11.

84

5 Love, Sea Creatures, and Literary Magic

well as crustaceans.²² Therefore, although Apuleius insists on his enemies’ mendacity,²³ he intentionally overlooks two pivotal points emphasised by his foes: the types of fish he allegedly used,²⁴ and his intention of winning Pudentilla over with magic.²⁵ The following witticism about the lack of connections between magic, the fact that fishermen provided him with fish²⁶ and that they were paid in return,²⁷ is a mere distraction from the real issue at stake. As I discuss in the next chapters, this is a recurrent tactic that Apuleius adopts: he endeavours to demonstrate that the evidence brought against him is harmless and that, consequently, no goetic magic should be ascribed to him. After tampering with the prosecution’s argument, Apuleius boldly claims that fish can be of no use in magical rites,²⁸ an assertion at odds with the idea that fish was ordinarily employed in real magic. This is partly noted by Abt,²⁹ and to a greater extent by Bradley.³⁰ Both their discussions, however, lack an emic understanding of magic and include some irrelevant passages.³¹ In order to confirm this hypothesis I shall analyse evidence which, from an emic viewpoint, is connected with goetic practices or attributed to the magi, starting with a source likely known to Apuleius: the Naturalis Historia. ³² Pliny explains that the remora is an ingredient for both amatoria and veneficia,³³ and reports that the magi themselves prescribe the dissection of sea crabs³⁴ and octopuses for curative purposes.³⁵ The evidence in the Naturalis Historia is comparable to that in the Greek Magical Papyri, which highlights the use of ma-

 Cf. ThLL, vol. X.1, s.v. piscis, col. 2208.  Apol. 29.9.  Apol. 33.2‒7.  Apol. 41.5.  Apol. 29.3; 29.7.  Apol. 29.4‒6; 29.8.  Apol. 30.4‒31.9.  Abt 1908: 67‒70.  Bradley 1997=2012: 9‒11.  E. g. Abt 1908: 67, n. 1 cites Cat. Cod. Astr. vol. II: 170; vol. IV: 136; vol. VI: 95 to indicate the connection between Aphrodite and the sign of Fish. Bradley 1997=2012: 9‒10 mentions Ov. Fast. 2.577‒82 and Plin. Nat. 32.74; 32.133; 32.137, which do not deal with goetic magic but with superstitious beliefs and popular medicine. Abt’s argument is followed by Martos 2015: 54, n. 172, who also acknowledges Bradley 1997=2012 and Watson 2010.  On Apuleius’ possible knowledge of Pliny the Elder, cf. Harrison 2000: 26 and my remarks on Apol. 27.1‒3 (Ch. 4.4, 4.5, 4.6) and 90.6 (Ch. 11.5).  Plin. Nat. 9.79. See Abt 1908: 68 and specifically Watson 2010: 639‒46 with further examples.  Nat. 32.55. On crabs, see also Apol. 35.3 (Ch. 6.3).  Nat. 32.121.

5.2 A Bold Denial: No Fish in Magic

85

rine animals in goetic practices³⁶ and particularly in love-magic.³⁷ Furthermore, it seems improbable that an author of zoological³⁸ and medical treatises³⁹ such as Apuleius would have been unaware of the notoriety of the sea-hare⁴⁰ and the red mullet (mullus or τρίγλη), the head of which was considered beneficial contra omnia venena, as Pliny indicates.⁴¹ Furthermore, the red mullet was sacred to Hecate,⁴² a goddess commonly associated with goetic magic,⁴³ thus connections between fish and magic seem evident enough to make Apuleius’ claim appear daring at the very least. It should be added that Apuleius himself draws upon the idea that sea creatures could be used in magical rites to enrich a literary description of magic in the Metamorphoses: a sponge born from the sea (spongia in mari nata), thus a res marina, is involved in the uncanny practices of Meroe and Panthia.⁴⁴ Therefore, it seems undeniable that – despite his self-confident tone – Apuleius was walking on thin ice. Before putting flesh on his claim, he plays with the double meaning of quaero and quaestio (‘to seek’ and ‘to enquire into’)⁴⁵ in order to shift attention away from his purported intention of obtaining fish for love-magic to his philosophical research into sea animals. He then asks: qui pisces quaerit, magus est? ⁴⁶ Far from denying his interest in fish, he digresses again into irrelevant examples,⁴⁷ then he attacks his prosecutors, starting with Aemilianus: had the latter known that fish have aliquit occultum – Apuleius argues – he would undoubtedly have been a magus himself. Had he not, he would need to confess his ignorance and acknowledge the faultiness of his accusations.⁴⁸ Not content with this, Apuleius scorns his enemies’ ignorance of all literature (omnium litterarum) – a reference foreshadowing the literary digression at Apol. 30.6‒13 and 31.5‒7 – and  PGM IV.2218; VII.374‒6.  PGM VII.300a‒310; VII.467‒77; XXXVI.361‒71; PDM XIV.335‒55.  Apol. 36.7‒8; 37.4; 38.2‒4, on which see Harrison 2000: 29‒30 and 2008: 6‒7.  Prisc. Inst. 6.11; see also Harrison 2000: 25‒6, and Ch. 6.5, n. 175.  Ch. 6.6.  Plin. Nat. 32.44. See also Abt 1908: 67‒8.  Ps.-Plu. Prov. 8 and Ath. 7.325a–d who cites various authorities, amongst which the comic poet Chariclides (cf. PCG, vol. IV, 70, frg. 1).  Apol. 31.9 discussed in Ch. 5.6.  Apul. Met. 1.13.7. See Keulen 2007: 250; 275 and May 2013: 151; 159. Hunink 1997, vol. II: 98 and 2008: 83, n. 23 stresses a parallel with Met. 1.24‒5 where, however, the connection with magic is far less evident.  Cf. OLD 2, s.v. quaeso and quaestio, p. 1688‒9. In the two quotations from Vergil and Laevius, at Apol. 30.8 (= Verg. A. 4.515) and Apol. 30.13.2, respectively, we find again the verb quaero.  Apol. 30.1: ‘is anyone who seeks to acquire fish a magus?’.  Apol. 30.1 and likewise 29.3‒6.  Apol. 30.2. For further implications of this passage, see my remarks at 91.2 in Ch. 11.5.

86

5 Love, Sea Creatures, and Literary Magic

even all popular myths (omnium vulgi fabularum)⁴⁹ and finally claims that, since love is like a fiery fire, how could a creature like fish, cold and brutus by nature,⁵⁰ be associated with love?⁵¹ Hunink⁵² proposes that Apuleius’ words conform to the so-called sympathetic magic,⁵³ and Abt stresses their controversial aspects,⁵⁴ pointing out the astrological association between Venus-Aphrodite and the sign of the Ἰχθύες ⁵⁵ and adding examples suggesting that fish was closely associated with the goddess,⁵⁶ thus with love as a whole. I would like to add that Apuleius’ claim that the myth of Venus’ birth from the sea shows no connection between sea and magic would have been questionable.⁵⁷ This myth is told by Tibullus in an explicitly goetic context,⁵⁸ and Apuleius himself later admits the importance of this deity in love-magic.⁵⁹ Thus, the fact that Venus was born from the sea (pelago exorta) could have easily implied the existence of this magical association. Furthermore, while the connection between fire and love rests on a literary trope⁶⁰ which is also found in the Metamorphoses,⁶¹ the association between fish and cold and its resulting exclusion from the realm of love⁶² might have sounded rather unconvincing since the names of seashells and molluscs such as καλλιώνυμος, κόγχη, ἐχῖνος, and σπατάγγης were employed to indicate sexual organs.⁶³

 Apol. 30.3.  This means ‘inert’ and ‘devoid of feeling’ (cf. OLD 2, s.v. brutus, 1‒2, p. 266).  Apol. 30.4.  Hunink 1997, vol. II: 100.  See in particular Frazer 1911: 52‒219; Hubert and Mauss 1903=1950: 56‒67; and Tupet 1986: 2639.  Abt 1908: 66‒7.  Cat. Cod. Astr. vol. II, 152‒157.  Eust. In Hom. Il. 1.206; Plin. Nat. 9.80; Opp. H. 1.499.  Apol. 30.4. Hunink 1997, vol. II: 100 and Martos 2015: 56, n. 175 link this with Apul. Met. 4.28.4; see also Zimmerman et al. 2004: 46‒8. The reference to this myth could be a response to the prosecution’s claims, since they referred to Apuleius’ ekphrasis of Venus’ statue to highlight his lasciviousness; cf. Apol. 33.7‒34.3 discussed in Ch. 6.3.  Tib. 1.2.41‒2.  Apol. 31.7; 31.9; on Venus and love-magic see Ch. 5.5.  E. g. Verg. Ecl. 8.81; 83; A.4.2; 4.23; 4.54; 4.68; 4.300; 4.364; 4.368; Ov. Met. 3.372; Sen. Phaed. 361.  Apul. Met. 8.2.7; 10.2.5, see also Zimmerman 2000: 71‒2.  Since there are no other significant parallels, apart from a general reference to the coldness of fish in Mart. 5.104, perhaps this idea should be ascribed to Apuleius himself.  This is already attested in the language of Greek comedy, cf. the discussion by Henderson 19912: 142, §159‒62. See also Shaw 2014: 554‒76.

5.3 Apuleius’ Digression on Literary Magic

87

This analysis shows some considerable controversies in the first part of this section of the Apologia: whoever could remain immune to Apuleius’ tantalising grandiloquence would certainly have been puzzled by the inconsistency of an argument which does not hold much water. It is, in fact, untrue that fish and other marine creatures were unusable in magic and that they had no connection with love. Apuleius tackles the most problematic accusation by surprising and distracting his readership with impressive claims, a strategy that he reemploys shortly afterwards.⁶⁴ In order to corroborate his controversial argument, he embarks on a lengthy excursus consisting of quotations from celebrated authors who did not acknowledge the use of sea animals in magic.

5.3 Apuleius’ Digression on Literary Magic: Laevius, Vergil, and Other Sources in Greek To confirm the impossibility of using any res marinae in magic, Apuleius draws on a heavy barrage of literary sources which he arranges as follows: first, he paraphrases a passage from Vergil’s Eighth Eclogue and inserts a quotation from the Aeneid,⁶⁵ then he acknowledges various sources on magic in Greek literature⁶⁶ and cites some lines from Laevius.⁶⁷ After this display of literary magic, Apuleius adds an anecdote about Pythagoras in which he refers, instead, to the philosophical type of magus. ⁶⁸ Then, he goes back to literary magic and cites passages from the Iliad and the Odyssey,⁶⁹ and concludes by mentioning the deities invoked in real goetic magic: Mercury, Venus, Selene and Hecate.⁷⁰ Abt’s study of this section of the Apologia leaves several points undiscussed:⁷¹ to begin with, it has not been pointed out that this excursus can be compared with the exposition in the Natural History 25.10‒15. There, Pliny the Elder acknowledges Circe’s expertise in venena,⁷² then expands on Helen’s knowledge of Egyptian herbs⁷³ and mentions Pythagoras amongst the ancient experts in botanic lore  Cf. the discussion in Ch. 5.7.  Apol. 30.6‒8.  Apol. 30.11.  Apol. 30.12‒13.  Apol. 31.2‒4.  Apol. 31.5‒7.  Apol. 31.9.  Abt 1908: 70‒132.  Nat. 25.10‒11 = Apol. 31.7. On Circe and magic, see Luck 1999: 110‒1; Ogden 2008: 7‒27; 20092: 94‒99; Bracke 2009, vol. I: 142‒63, and vol. II: 5‒70.  Nat. 25.12 = Apol. 31.6.

88

5 Love, Sea Creatures, and Literary Magic

who visited the magi. ⁷⁴ Since these figures feature in the Apologia as well, it is possible that Apuleius took a leaf out of Pliny’s work, as he frequently seems to do.⁷⁵ The purpose of the digression is not only to validate his claims about fish and love-magic but also to exhibit his learnedness, yet it is necessary to note that the ploy set at Apol. 30.2: ‘if you know this [sc. the use of fish in magic], then you are a magus yourself’ (hoc si scis quid sit, magus es profecto) was a double-edged sword:⁷⁶ Apuleius needed to rely on familiar authorities and traditions beyond any suspicion. This is because the Lex Cornelia de sicariis et veneficis, according to Paulus’ Sententiae, peremptorily forbade the knowledge of the magicae artes and the possession of any books on magic:⁷⁷ had Apuleius not referred to well-known sources, he could have run the risk of presenting himself as a real magus. Bearing this in mind, it becomes possible to gain a better understanding of the first part of the excursus.⁷⁸ Apuleius begins by belittling the ignorance of Tannonius, the prosecution’s advocate, saying that, had he read Vergil, he would have known that fish should not be included amongst the components for love-magic.⁷⁹ As it appears from the Eighth Eclogue,⁸⁰ in love-magic use is made of vittas mollis ⁸¹ et verbenas pinguis et tura mascula ⁸² et licia discolora; ⁸³ praeterea laurum fragilem,⁸⁴ limum durabilem, ceram liquabilem. ⁸⁵ Since these ingredients are gathered from the earth, one could infer that res marinae are unusable in magic. Apuleius then recites verbatim four verses from the Aeneid that describe Dido beseeching Anna to collect:⁸⁶

 Nat. 25.13 = Apol. 31.2‒4.  Apol. 27.2‒3 (Ch. 4.4, 4.5, 4.6) and 90.6 (Ch. 11.5) and also Harrison 2000: 70; 82.  Ch. 5.2.  Paulus Sent. 5.29.17‒18 and the discussion of Apol. 91.2 (Ch. 11.5).  Apol. 30.6‒13.  Apol. 30.5‒6.  Verg. Ecl. 8.64‒109, which is likely inspired by Theoc. 2.1‒63, on which cf. the commentary by Clausen 1994: 255‒6.  Ecl. 8.64.  Ecl. 8.65. For tus as an ingredient for magic, see Apol. 6 (Ch. 3.4) and 47.7 (Ch. 7.4). See also Apol. 32.4, in which Apuleius intentionally omits its connection with magic.  Verg. Ecl. 8.73‒4. The binding effect of the knotted threads features also in Apul. Met. 3.18.2, on which see van der Paardt 1971: 137‒8.  Ecl. 8.82.  Ecl. 8.80. Here follows a translation of this passage at Apol. 30.7: ‘soft woollen bands, luxurious foliage, round drops of frankincense, threads of different colours; furthermore, laurel leaves that crackle, clay that becomes hard, and wax that becomes soft’.  Apol. 30.8 = A. 4.513‒6: ‘herbs, reaped with bronze sickles by moonlight and bursting with a black poisonous milk, were gathered there, and with them a love-charm ripped from the brow of a baby foal before the mother could take it’.

5.3 Apuleius’ Digression on Literary Magic

89

falcibus et messae ad lunam ⁸⁷ quaeruntur aenis pubentes herbae nigri cum lacte veneni. Quaeritur et nascentis equi de fronte revulsus et matri praereptus amor. ⁸⁸

Similarly to the passage from the Eclogues, this citation shows the magical employment of components which are not obtained from sea animals. This Vergilian part of the excursus (Apol. 30.6‒8) would, therefore, suggest that his foes’ claims were mendacious (Apol. 30.9‒10). Continuing along this line of thought, Apuleius reproaches the prosecution’s naivety insisting that further evidence from Theocritus,⁸⁹ Homer, Orpheus,⁹⁰ and ex comoediis et tragoediis Graecis et ex historiis backs up his thesis. He argues, however, that to cite these Greek authorities would have been futile⁹¹ given the Greeklessness of his accusers who were unable even to read Pudentilla’s letter in Greek (Graecam Pudentillae epistulam).⁹² This passage offers striking evidence for Apuleius’ acquaintance with literary magic. The reference to the Greek comedies and tragedies,⁹³ although brief, is particularly interesting since it reflects the presence of literary magic in these genres which contain the first goetic use of μάγος and its cognates.⁹⁴ As to the term historia, this has been seen by Abt as a reference to historical and ethnographic accounts.⁹⁵ Historia, however, could also acquire a different meaning: as Harrison observes,⁹⁶ the term was rather flexible and could be used to designate a simple narration neither related to history nor historiography.⁹⁷ To be more precise, historia was also employed in the sense of λόγος ([Luc.] Am. 1) to refer to tales and narratives

 On the moon and magic see Ch. 5.6.  See Pliny’s discussion of the hippomanes as a venenum (Plin. Nat. 8.165 and 28.180), here indicated with a periphrasis (see also Serv. A. 4.515). On the hippomanes, see Abt 1908: 92; Tupet 1986: 2653‒7, and Maltby 2002: 428‒9.  The reference is clearly to the Second Idyll. Theocritus’ precise models are unknown to us. It is not unlikely that the lost Thessala by Menander contained – like Theocritus’ Pharmakeutria – allusions to love-magic, cf. Scholia vetera in Aristophanem, Nub. ed. Holwerda 1977: 749 α, β; PCG vol.VI.2: 127.  On Orpheus’ pseudepigrapha, see Apol. 27.2, discussed in Ch. 4.5.  In reality, quotations in Greek play a substantial function at Apol. 31.5‒6, and especially at 38.8 (Ch. 6.4).  Apol. 30.11. Apuleius alludes to the letter that they misinterpreted intentionally to underscore his magical seduction of Pudentilla, cf. 78.5‒87.9 (Ch. 11.4).  Abt 1908: 95‒99 followed by Butler and Owen 1914: 75‒6 and Hunink 1997, vol. II: 102.  E. g. S. OT. 387; E. Hel. 1497a–b. Cf. Ch. 2.4.  Abt 1908: 99‒100, followed by Butler and Owen 1914: 78, and Hunink 1997, vol. II: 102.  See Harrison 1998=2013: 57‒68.  ThLL, vol. VI.3, s.v. historia, col. 2839.

90

5 Love, Sea Creatures, and Literary Magic

such as the Milesian Tales by Aristides and by Sisenna,⁹⁸ possible influential models of Apuleius’ Metamorphoses.⁹⁹ Furthermore, evidence for this use of historia is not unparalleled in Apuleius’ prose and occurs various times in the Metamorphoses.¹⁰⁰ If this interpretation is correct, in this passage of the Apologia Apuleius might have indicated his familiarity with the fact that literary magic is not only an important topos in Greek drama, but probably in novels and tales of which Apuleius was a connoisseur, such as the Milesiaka and the ‘ass-story’ ascribed to Lucius of Patras. Although refraining from citing Greek passages for the moment, Apuleius displays his erudition by adding a quotation from the poet Laevius: philtra omnia undique eruunt: antipathes illud quaeritur, trochiscili, ungues, taeniae, radiculae, herbae, surculi, saurae inlices bicodulae, hinnientium dulcedines. ¹⁰¹

Since Laevius’ production is lost,¹⁰² it is not possible to reconstruct the context from which these six lines are taken, but specific terms such as philtra – a loanword from the Greek φίλτρα,¹⁰³ which features in writings having to do with literary magic –¹⁰⁴ inlices ¹⁰⁵ and hinnientium dulcedines, which indicates the afore-

 See especially Ov. Tr. 2.1.413‒4; Gel. 12.15.1. Harrison 1998=2013: 62 argues that historia refers to a narrative or a continuous exposition. See also the study by Stramaglia 1996b=2003: 153‒8 and particularly p. 154, n. 5 on the possible content of Apuleius’ lost Epitoma Historiarum.  On the Milesian Tales and the novel, see Harrison 1998=2013: 57‒68 and May 2013: 4‒6.  Apul. Met. 2.12.5; 6.29.3; 7.16.5; 8.1.4; I owe the identification of these parallels to Stephen Harrison. For an overview of the term in the Metamorphoses, see van Mal-Maeder 2001: 216. In Fl. 1.22, historia is used in a vague connotation, cf. Hunink 2001: 163; debated is the interpretation of historiae variae rerum at Fl. 9.28; cf. Hunink 2001: 116. On this argument, see the discussion in Costantini 2018a.  Apol. 30.13: ‘philtres are brought out from everywhere: they look for love-charms, magic wheels and nails, ribbons, rootlets, herbs and twigs, and then the neighing animal’s hippomanes’. On this passage, see Abt 1908: 100‒12. For general remarks on the fragment, see Bartalucci 1985: 79‒92; Mattiacci 1986: 178‒9; Courtney 1993: 118‒43. On the stone antipathes, cf. Ch. 5.6.  For a general discussion, see Courtney 1993: 118‒20.  On this cf. Tupet 1986: 2626‒8. For love-philtres in goetic practices, cf. Ch. 11.2.  In Greek literature, e. g. Theoc. 2.1; 2.159; in Latin literature, cf. Ov. Ars. 2.105‒6; Juv. 6.610‒1 and later in Iren. adv. haer. 1.25.3.  The adjective illex from inlicio (cf. ThLL, vol. VII.1, s.v. illex, col. 367) is used as an attribute of Venus at Apol. 31.9.

5.4 From Pythagoras to Homer: Apuleius’ Flights of Fancy

91

mentioned hippomanes,¹⁰⁶ can be understood as references to ingredients for love-magic. The fact that φίλτρα ¹⁰⁷ and ἱππομανές ¹⁰⁸ appear in the Second Idyll by Theocritus could suggest that this work inspired Laevius’ verses, according to a literary tradition perhaps reflecting real customs. Since the first extant evidence for the goetic employment of magus and magia in Latin literature dates back to Vergil,¹⁰⁹ it remains impossible to determine whether Laevius knew and alluded to this negative connotation, or if Apuleius interpreted the lines ex post facto as a reference to goetic magic.¹¹⁰ Nevertheless, this additional literary example seems to strengthen Apuleius’ argument, allowing him to highlight once more the falsehood of the accusation, since fish – once captured and cooked – serves only ‘for banquets’ (ad epulas).¹¹¹

5.4 From Pythagoras to Homer: Apuleius’ Flights of Fancy Up to this point, Apuleius’ digression is nothing but an elegant list of literary evidence showing the absence of sea animals in love-magic. We face, however, a substantial change in the direction of his reasoning at Apol. 31.2‒4, since he shifts from the literary type of magic to magia as a source of philosophical wisdom.¹¹² Apuleius tells here a popular anecdote about Pythagoras¹¹³ in order to demonstrate that fish ad magian nihil quicquam videtur adiutare. ¹¹⁴ Pythagoras, introduced as a ‘follower of Zoroaster and equally knowledgeable about the philosophical kind of magic’ (Zoroastri sectatorem ¹¹⁵ similiterque magiae peritum),  Apol. 30.8; 30.9.  Theoc. 2.1; 2.159.  Cf. Butler and Owen 1914: 79; Abt 1908: 92; Tupet 1986: 2653‒7. While hippomanes in Theocritus is a herb (2.48: φυτόν), in this and other Latin sources it means the mare’s foal (cf. Verg. G. 3.282‒3; A. 4.516; Prop. 4.5.1; Ov. Ars 2.100). This interpretation is already known to Aristotle (HA 572a; 577a; 605a) and might have been attested in other Hellenistic works, to which Laevius and other authors looked back.  Verg. Ecl. 8.66 and A. 4.493; cf. Ch. 2.3, 2.4.  For example, Pl. Bac. 27 was interpreted as a reference to magic in Serv. Ecl. 8.71 even though Plautus does not know the term magus.  Apol. 31.1. This is also stressed at 29.5‒6; 32.5‒6; 39.2‒4 and 41.2 in particular.  On this concept, cf. Ch. 2.2. Hunink 1997, vol. II: 103 also notes that the obvious “difference between honourable Persian magic and black magic becomes blurred”.  Apol. 31.2‒3. The account can be found in Plu. Mor. 91c; 729e; Porph. V.P. 25; Iamb. V.P. 36 and D.L. 8.3. See also Sallmann 1995: 151, n. 29; Hunink 1997, vol. II: 103, n. 3; Nelson 2001: 85; Binternagel 2008: 150‒7; Martos 2015: 58, n. 182. On Pythagoras and magic, cf. Ch. 4.5.  Apol. 31.1: ‘for goetic magic it does not seem to be of any use’.  On Zoroaster, cf. Apol. 26.2, discussed in Ch. 4.2.

92

5 Love, Sea Creatures, and Literary Magic

saw in the environs of Metapontum some anglers dragging a net full of fish,¹¹⁶ so he bought them and, ‘in exchange for a payment’ (pretio dato),¹¹⁷ ordered to return the fish to the deep.¹¹⁸ Apuleius’ logic is compelling: if Pythagoras – an eminent disciple of Zoroaster whom the accusers would have vulgarly believed to be a goetic magus –¹¹⁹ did not examine fish when he had the opportunity, it follows that no real magus could be interested in fish. Although Apuleius aims to confuse the audience by playing with the semantic ambiguity of magus, a careful reader would not have failed to notice the irrelevance of this account and his exploitation of the term’s ambivalence. After this anecdote on Pythagoras, Apuleius goes back to literary magic, arguing that fish is useless not only in love-magic but in magic as a whole, and offers a series of literary examples from the poeta multiscius Homer:¹²⁰ these are two quotations in Greek,¹²¹ and references to figures and episodes of the Iliad and the Odyssey. ¹²² These passages do not only highlight Apuleius’ learning, but draw a neat line between himself, the sympathetic judge Maximus and the cultivated audience, and his uncouth attackers who have just been labelled Greekless.¹²³ Since Abt does not explore these Homeric references, I shall analyse the passages and clarify their connections with magic. A methodological remark is required: from an emic standpoint, we cannot read the Homeric poems as evidence for magic, because the goetic connotation of μάγος and its cognates appear only from the fifth century BC onwards¹²⁴ and reflect a sociocultural context different from that of the Homeric texts.¹²⁵ What I intend to stress in my examination is that Homer was retrospectively regarded as an au-

 Apol. 31.2.  The expression parallels those at Apol. 29.1; 29.4, where it is said that Apuleius paid for the fish, underpinning the connection between the sage and Apuleius himself.  Apol. 31.3.  Ch. 4.2.  For a stylistic discussion of the citations in this passage, see Hunink 2008: 2‒5.  Apol. 31.5‒6.  Apol. 31.7. As McCreight 2004: 158 suggests, it is worth bearing in mind that quotations from the Homeric poems feature in the PGM (e. g. IV.830‒4; IV.2145‒51; VII.1‒148; XXIIa.2‒9, on which see Collins 2008b: 211‒36).  Apol. 30.11. Actually, their knowledge of Greek becomes clear later when Apuleius says that they intentionally misread a letter in Greek written by Pudentilla to Pontianus (Apol. 82.1‒9, discussed in Ch. 11.4).  Ch. 2.2, 2.3.  A similar position is that of Dickie 2001: 5.

5.4 From Pythagoras to Homer: Apuleius’ Flights of Fancy

93

thority on magic¹²⁶ by later authors – including Apuleius – who were acquainted with the terminology of magic and its literary employment. Claiming that sea animals do not serve any magical purpose, Apuleius begins his Homeric digression by quoting the following line from the Iliad: ¹²⁷ ἣ τόσα φάρμακα ᾔδη ὅσα τρέφει εὐρεῖα χθών. ¹²⁸ This verse describes the mythical skills of Agamede, vaguely referred to as quaedam saga in order to challenge the audience to identify the Homeric character. The fact that Apuleius labels Agamede with the term saga, generally adopted to indicate the female practitioner of magic,¹²⁹ suggests that the popular connection between φάρμακα and magic¹³⁰ might have made Agamede a suitable candidate for this interpretation. Agamede features, in fact, in the repertoire of literary magic already in Theocritus’ Second Idyll,¹³¹ where she is called by the name Perimede together with Circe – who is mentioned shortly afterwards in Apol. 31.7 –¹³² and Medea,¹³³ the two exemplary female practitioners of magic in Greco-Roman literature. Probably inspired by Theocritus, Propertius likewise acknowledges Perimede as an expert in magical concoctions made of herbs.¹³⁴ After the citation from the Iliad, Apuleius quotes a passage from the Odyssey ¹³⁵ which concerns another saga:

 This could have been fostered by figures such as Apion of Alexandria, author of a lost Περὶ μάγου Ὁμήρου. Cf. Suid. π752 which is similar to Plu. Prov. frg. 50. The Suda reads Ὅμηρος which was already expunged in the editio princeps by Demetrius Chalcondyles (1499). The emendation Ὁμήρου was first proposed by von Gutschmid 1893: 359. For a discussion, see Rives 2009: 120‒2.  Apol. 31.5.  Hom. Il. 11.741: ‘who knew all the herbs that the wide earth nourishes’. Translation by Murray and Wyatt 2003: 547. In spite of Pliny’s assertion that there is no reference to magic in the Iliad (Plin. Nat. 30.5.) Apuleius refers twice to magic in the poem. The second case is at Apol. 31.7 (Ch. 5.5).  As Cicero explains (Div. 2.65, on which see Pease 1963: 210) originally the term was not associated with magic; evidence for this association comes from Hor. Carm. 1.27.21; Epist. 2.2.208; Prop. 3.24.10; Tib. 1.2.44; 1.5.59; Juv. 6.59 and Apul. Met. 1.8.4; 2.21.7; 9.29.4. See also Maltby 2002: 166‒7; Keulen 2007: 205‒6. The term saga appears in a first-century inscription from Rome to label a woman believed to have goetic skills (cf. CIL 6.19747).  On φάρμακον, see also the discussion in Abt 1908: 112‒5 and Ch. 6.5 and 11.2.  Theoc. 2.15‒16.  Ch. 5.5.  Apuleius considers her as the quintessential saga in Met. 1.10.2. For Medea’s employment of the magicae artes in Latin sources prior to Apuleius, cf. Hor. Epod. 5.62; Man. 5.35; Tib. 1.2.53; Ov. Ars 2.101; Rem. 1.262; Ep. 6.75‒94; Met. 7.1‒403; 12.167‒8; Sen. Med. 670‒848; Luc. 4.556; Plin. Nat. 25.10; Stat. Theb. 4.551. Their model might have been again Theoc. 2.16 and especially A.R. 4.1659‒72). On this figure and magic, see Luck 1999: 111‒3; Ogden 2008: 27‒35; 20092: 78‒ 93; 312‒5; Bracke 2009, vol. I: 184‒259, and vol. II: 5‒70.  Prop. 2.4.8.  Apol. 31.6.

94

5 Love, Sea Creatures, and Literary Magic

τῇ ¹³⁶ πλεῖστα φέρει ζείδωρος ἄρουρα φάρμακα, πολλὰ μὲν ἐσθλὰ μεμιγμένα, πολλὰ δὲ λυγρά. ¹³⁷

The figure in question here is the Egyptian Polydamna, who was also regarded as an expert and a skilful manipulator of φάρμακα. ¹³⁸ It is noteworthy that this Homeric character appears as a paradigmatic example of a magical practitioner in two works chronologically close to Apuleius: the first is Lucian’s biography of Alexander of Abonoteichus, who is termed γόης by Lucian,¹³⁹ and whose master is said to be endowed with the same magical skills as Polydamna.¹⁴⁰ The second occurrence is in Philostratus’ Life of Apollonius of Tyana, where Apollonius – while imprisoned and waiting to be tried – discusses Helen’s expertise in using φάρμακα due to her acquaintance with Polydamna during her Egyptian stay.¹⁴¹ The magical reputation of Helen is mentioned at Apol. 31.7, when Apuleius refers to the bowl in which she mixes φάρμακα with wine, soothing everyone’s sadness at the recollection of Odysseus’ misfortunes.¹⁴² Unsurprisingly, this episode was already interpreted as related to magic by Propertius¹⁴³ and especially Pliny the Elder, which is the probable source in various parts of Apuleius’ excursus.¹⁴⁴ I have offered so far an examination of the traditions from which Apuleius could have derived these literary passages on magic. This display was possible because of the semantic ambiguity of magic: Apuleius shifts, in fact, from the real goetic practices at which his accusers hinted, to the safe philosophic magic, then again to literary magic. This allows him to feign innocence since

 Hunink 1997, vol. II: 104 observes that τῇ, given the omission of the previous part of the line, (Αἰγυπτίη) could be interpreted as ‘for whom’ instead of ‘where’, as in the translation by Vallette 1924: 39, which Hunink follows in his own translation (cf. Harrison et al. 2001: 57). This interpretation is perhaps unnecessary since the text makes sense even taking τῇ as an adverb, as in the translation by Marchesi 1955=2011: 45.  Od. 4.229‒30: ‘for in Egypt the earth, the giver of grain, bears the greatest store of drugs, many that are healing when mixed, and many that are baneful’. Translation adapted from Murray and Dimock 1998: 135.  Hdt. 2.116; Thpr. HP. 9.15.1; D.S. 1.97.7; Str. 17.1.16; Ael. NA. 9.21.  Luc. Alex. 1.  Alex. 5. This parallel is acknowledged by Hunink 1997, vol. II: 104.  Philostr. VA 7.22. On Proteus and magic, see Ch. 5.5.  Hom. Od. 4.219‒32.  Prop. 2.1.49  Plin. Nat. 25.12, cf. Ch. 5.4.

5.5 Further Allusions to Magic in Homer

95

none of the passages cited would have proved any goetic knowledge. The next part of the defence follows this same line.

5.5 Further Allusions to Magic in Homer: Proteus, Odysseus, Aeolus, Circe, and Venus The other references to Homer comprise six succinct descriptions of various characters and their attributes, which aim to show that cum tamen numquam apud eum [sc. Homerum] marino aliquo et piscolento ¹⁴⁵ medicavit nec P r o t e u s f a c i e m nec U l i x e s s c r o b e m nec A e o l u s f o l l e m nec Helena creterram ¹⁴⁶ nec C i r c e p o c u l u m nec Ve n u s c i n g u l u m . ¹⁴⁷ The first of these figures is Proteus,¹⁴⁸ a metamorphic deity of the sea associated with magic already by Plato,¹⁴⁹ then by Petronius,¹⁵⁰ Pliny¹⁵¹ and Plutarch.¹⁵² This goetic understanding of Proteus is mainly due to three reasons: first, he is said to have oracular powers,¹⁵³ and his prophecy¹⁵⁴ might recall that given to Odysseus by Tiresias¹⁵⁵ in the Homeric nekyia, which I discuss below. Second, Proteus’ connection with Egypt,¹⁵⁶ the land of φάρμακα,¹⁵⁷ would have strengthened his association with magic since φάρμακα were considered fundamental tools in goetic practices. Third, we must acknowledge the magical feature which Apuleius emphasises, namely Proteus’ δολίη τέχνη, enabling him to change his physical aspect into

 The adjective is first used in Pl. Rud. 907; by drawing on a Plautine term Apuleius would have, therefore, corroborated the ironic tone of his claim, underscoring the idea that finding Homeric evidence for the use of sea creatures in magic is absurd.  On Helen and magic, cf. Ch. 5.4.  Apol. 31.7: ‘instead, Homeric characters never use anything from the sea or anything fishy for treatment with drugs: neither Proteus for his appearance, nor Odysseus for his pit, nor Aeolus for his bag, nor Helen for her mixing-bowl, nor Circe for her cup, nor Venus for her girdle’.  Hom. Od. 349‒572.  Pl. Euthd. 288b: ἀλλὰ τὸν Πρωτέα μιμεῖσθον τὸν Αἰγύπτιον σοφιστὴν γοητεύοντε ἡμᾶς (‘but treat us to enchanters’ tricks in the style of Proteus the Egyptian wise man’). Translation adapted from Lamb 1924: 437‒9.  Petr. 134.12.14.  Plin. Nat. 30.6.  Plu. Mor. 97a.  This is indicated by the adjective νημερτής (cf. Od. 4.349; 4.384; 4.401; 4.542; 17.140) a specific attribute of Proteus, on which see Heubeck et al. 1988: 215.  Hom. Od. 4.472‒80.  Od. 11.100‒37  Od. 4.385.  Od. 4.229‒30.

96

5 Love, Sea Creatures, and Literary Magic

a lion, snake, a panther, a boar, water and a tree.¹⁵⁸ Needless to say, the theme of the magical transformations – which is at the core of the Metamorphoses –¹⁵⁹ would have appealed to Apuleius. There is, however, a controversial issue: Proteus is described in Homer as a being closely associated with the sea and sea animals. He is a seal herd,¹⁶⁰ and an old man of the sea (γέρων ἅλιος)¹⁶¹ ‘who knows the depths of every sea, and is the servant of Poseidon’ (θαλάσσης πάσης βένθεα οἶδε, Ποσειδάωνος ὑποδμώς).¹⁶² He embodies, therefore, the connection between sea, sea creatures and – retrospectively – magic, and this would have contrasted blatantly with Apuleius’ claim that in Homer it cannot be found numquam marino aliquo et piscolento. Apuleius’ choice to mention Proteus first is, therefore, puzzling given his close connection with the sea and sea creatures, but it probably depends on the widespread magical understanding of this figure, and perhaps on Apuleius’ own fondness for the theme of magical transformations. This theme is not unique to Proteus and features predominantly in the episode of Circe,¹⁶³ which Apuleius includes in his list at Apol. 31.7. He refers, in fact, to Circe’s poculum (χρύσεον δέπας)¹⁶⁴ – an expression mirroring Circae pocula in Horace’s Epistle 1.2.23 –¹⁶⁵ which causes the transformation of Odysseus’ companions into animals. The term poculum is often used in literary passages concerning magical practices,¹⁶⁶ and Circe herself was considered a quintessential female practitioner of magic in the rhetorical works of Maximus of Tyre¹⁶⁷ and Dio of Prusa,¹⁶⁸ and in several Latin authors prior to Apuleius, such as Vergil,¹⁶⁹ Hyginus,¹⁷⁰ Ovid,¹⁷¹ Petronius,¹⁷² Pliny, Valerius Flaccus and Statius.¹⁷³ A century  Hom. Od. 4.455‒8 and 4.415‒7.  Apul. Met. 3.24.1‒6.  Hom. Od. 4.413.  Od. 4.349.  Od. 4.384‒6. Translation by Murray and Dimock 1998: 147.  Od. 10. 220‒319.  Od. 10.316‒7.  See also Ov. Met. 14.293‒6.  For the employment of poculum in explicit connection with love-magic, see Hor. Epod. 5.38; Prop. 2.1.51; 2.27.10; Tib. 1.5.50; Luc. 6.454‒6 and Apul. Met. 2.29.5, and Apul. Met. 3.23.8, where it refers to a magical transformation as in Homer. See also ThLL, vol. X.1, s.v. poculum, coll. 2483‒4.  Max. Tyr. 18.8 f.  D. Chr. 8.21.  Verg. Ecl. 8.70; A. 7.10‒20; 7.189‒91.  Hyg. Fab. 125.8‒9  Ov. Ars 2.103; Rem. 263‒90; Met. 14.55‒8; 14.312‒440.  Petr. 134.12.12‒13.  Plin. Nat. 25.10‒11; 30.6; V. Fl. 6.445‒50; Stat. Theb. 4.551.

5.5 Further Allusions to Magic in Homer

97

after Apuleius’ trial, Plotinus considers Circe a μάγος,¹⁷⁴ and in the fourth century Circe’s goetic notoriety reverberates in Augustine’s acrimonious words, depicting her as maga famosissima. ¹⁷⁵ Given Apuleius’ interest in magical transformations, and given the conventional understanding of Circe as a maga, he would have been bound to insert this character within in his list of Homeric examples. Then Apuleius indicates the scrobem, the sacrificial hole dug in the river of Ocean into which Odysseus pours milk and honey, wine, water, barley flour, and goat blood in order to raise the spirit of Tiresias.¹⁷⁶ This necromantic ritual, which Odysseus performed following Circe’s advice,¹⁷⁷ was retrospectively given a goetic interpretation¹⁷⁸ because of the later belief that the magi could evoke and communicate with the dead.¹⁷⁹ Hunink argues that Odysseus’ offerings to the dead are partly liquid and not herbs;¹⁸⁰ yet, these do not immediately relate to sea or fish, consequently this reference does not contradict the consistency of Apuleius’ argument, as the mention of Proteus instead does. After this Apuleius mentions Aeolus’ scrobis (ἀσκός), the leather bag made out of beef skin containing the powerful winds that impede Odysseus’ return.¹⁸¹ This magical interpretation of Aeolus and his control of the winds is reflected in the Scholia Vetera on the Odyssey, where Aeolus is described as μαγικώτατος. ¹⁸² It is not difficult to comprehend the reason for such an interpretation: similarly to the magus who could achieve omnia quae velit,¹⁸³ Aeolus was the watcher of the winds and could block or set in motion whatever he wanted.¹⁸⁴ It might be worth recalling a passage from Empedocles’ Purifications alluding to the control of the winds, which was considered a goetic text.¹⁸⁵ The same ideas can also be found in literary works: Petronius’ Oenothea boasts about her ability to stall the

           

Plot. 1.6.8. August. C.D. 18.17. Hom. Od. 11.21‒36; the whole book 11 concerns the episode of the nekyia. Od. 10.516‒28. See especially Plin. Nat. 30.6. Ch. 10.2. Hunink 1997, vol. II: 105, n. 2. Hom. Od. 10.19‒24. Schol. in Hom. Od. 10.2. Apol. 26.6. Hom. Od. 10.21‒2. Cf. DK 31 B 111 and D.L. 8.59 discussed in Ch. 4.6.

98

5 Love, Sea Creatures, and Literary Magic

West Wind,¹⁸⁶ and the power of blocking the winds is attributed to the Thessalian sagae in Apuleius’ Metamorphoses. ¹⁸⁷ The theme of the scrobis-ἀσκός might be also relevant in the episode of the inflated goatskin bags enchanted by Pamphile – whose intention was instead that of entrancing a Boeotian youth – in Apuleius’ Metamorphoses. ¹⁸⁸ Finally, references to setting in motion and blocking the winds belong to the real goetic practices and are attested in the PGM. ¹⁸⁹ We can infer, therefore, that the myth of Aeolus’ bag lends itself quite well to a magical interpretation. The last Homeric allusion at Apol. 31.7 brings us back to the realm of lovemagic: Apuleius, in fact, refers to Venus’ cingulum, the powerful girdle (κεστός) that ‘steals the senses even of the wise’ (ἔκλεψε νόον πύκα περ φρονεόντων), which Aphrodite unties from her body and gives to Hera who wanted to seduce Zeus and obtain his favour.¹⁹⁰ A goetic interpretation of Aphrodite’s girdle can already be found in Plutarch,¹⁹¹ and the allusions to the magical ties of Venus in Vergil¹⁹² and Tibullus¹⁹³ should be connected with a magical reading of this Homeric episode. Furthermore, Venus-Aphrodite was generally related to lovemagic to the extent that Apuleius himself includes the seductress Venus (illex animi) amongst the deities commonly invoked in goetic magic.¹⁹⁴ Significant evidence for such invocations of Aphrodite in real goetic practices can be found in the Greek Magical Papyri: PGM IV.1265‒74, a recipe to seduce a woman, begins with the Egyptian name of Aphrodite (Νεφεριηρι in Egyptian),¹⁹⁵ and IV.1721‒32 is a rite for attracting a man that involves the engraving of Aphrodite, Psyche and Eros on a magnetic stone.¹⁹⁶ The goddess is also called upon in a spell to

 Petr. 134.12.5‒6, on which see the discussion in Setaioli 2011: 300‒1 and Schmeling 2011: 521.  Apul. Met. 1.3.1, on which see Keulen 2007: 118; May 2013: 107. In Met. 1.8.4 the control of the weather, although not directly the wind, is attributed to the saga Meroe.  Apul. Met. 3.9.9; 3.17.1‒3. For a general discussion of the utres inflati, cf. Stramaglia and Brancaleone 1993=2003: 113‒7; they also acknowledge that Crusius 1890: 44 first thought of a possible association with Hom. Od. 12.395, but not with the episode of Aeolus.  PGM I.99; IV.715; IV.1366‒7; VII.320‒1; XII.233; XXIX.1‒10; XXXVI.261.  Hom. Il. 14.214‒7. The translation above is that by Murray and Wyatt 1999: 83.  Plu. Mor. 23c.  Verg. Ecl. 8.77‒8.  Tib. 1.8.5‒6.  Apol. 31.9 (Ch. 5.6).  On this name see Betz 19922: 62, n. 171.  On stones in magic, cf. Ch. 5.6.

5.6 The Goetic Employment of Stones and the Deities of Magic

99

obtain a dream revelation,¹⁹⁷ in prescriptions for lecanomancy¹⁹⁸ and for engraving a στήλη. ¹⁹⁹ Having examined these Homeric passages listed by Apuleius, it is clear that their magical interpretation is not just the result of his innovation, but of an established tradition. We can, therefore, assess not only Apuleius’ knowledge of Homer,²⁰⁰ but also this tradition associating Homeric characters and episodes with magic. This confirms Apuleius’ general interest in literary magic, which is thoroughly displayed in Apol. 30.6‒13, and 31.5‒7. Although Apuleius succeeds in flaunting his learnedness by showcasing his knowledge of literary magic, the reference to Proteus could have undermined his main assumption that sea creatures are unsuitable for magic. Nevertheless, only educated opponents, well-acquainted with the Homeric poems, would have grasped this contradiction, not Greekless rustics, as Apuleius describes his enemies. Furthermore, it is improbable that the judge Maximus or the audience would have considered Apuleius’ erudite display as incriminating evidence of his supposed goetic knowledge.

5.6 The Goetic Employment of Stones and the Deities of Magic More compromising, however, is the last instalment of Apuleius’ digression at Apol. 31.8‒9, as it contains allusions to the ominous use of stones in real goetic magic as well as references to the deities invoked in these practices. It is quite striking that now, while disclosing his acquaintance with this suspicious knowledge, he does not name any respectable authorities where he could have gathered this information. Having completed his Homeric digression, Apuleius stresses the foolishness of his opponents who would subvert the natural order²⁰¹ by presuming that they could find earthbound herbae, radices, surculi, and lapilli

 PGM IV.2557.  PGM IV.3209‒54.  PGM VII.215‒7.  On Homeric citations and allusions in the Apologia, see Hunink 2008: 75‒87; May 2010: 175‒ 92.  The expression colluvio naturae obviously has a comic function and, together with the allusion to the high mountains of Gaetulia, can be likened to the reference to Deucalion’s flood at the end of the rebuttal (Apol. 41.5), on which see the discussion in Ch. 11.3.

100

5 Love, Sea Creatures, and Literary Magic

inside the belly of fish.²⁰² This sentence is the amusing conclusion of the display which Apuleius has so far offered to demonstrate the absence of fish amongst the ingredients of magic. Tupet²⁰³ links this passage with the previous quotation from Laevius in which we find radiculae, herbae, surculi ²⁰⁴ as well as the lapis antipathes. ²⁰⁵ The latter is described by Pliny as a protection against the enchantments of the magi,²⁰⁶ and Dioscorides adds that the ἀντιπαθής is a coral.²⁰⁷ Therefore, although the antipathes does not come from piscium ventres, the fact that it was a res marina – such as the marine debris and the seaweed mentioned later at Apol. 35.4 –²⁰⁸ leads to a self-contradiction: it proves that ingredients from the sea were indeed used in magic. The mention of antipathes and lapilli sheds also light on the popular use of stones in goetic magic – likely known to Apuleius – which is evidenced by both literary and papyrological sources. Abt focuses on examples taken especially from the PGM,²⁰⁹ but a more exhaustive discussion can be provided, starting with an analysis of the literary evidence. Not only the aforementioned citation from Laevius, but also the Sepulcrum Incantatum ascribed to Quintilian indicates the employment of stones in magical rituals: in fact, to bind the soul of the boy into his grave, the magus uses both ferrum and lapides. ²¹⁰ Similarly, Pamphile in the Metamorphoses is described while using surculi et lapillis,²¹¹ and the Babylonian μάγος in Lucian’s Philopseudes ²¹² heals Midas with a charm (ἐπῳδή)²¹³ and fastening around his foot a λίθος taken from the stele of a girl who suffered an untimely death.²¹⁴ In the same work, the use of magical rings made of stones and gems is acknowl-

 Apol. 31.8. The expression also recurs slightly varied at 30.10 (herbae et surculi) and at Met. 2.5.4 (surculi et lapilli).  Tupet 1986: 2628‒9; 2630‒1.  Apol. 31.13.4.  Apol. 31.13.2. See also Abt 1908: 102‒3 who does not specify whether antipathes is a stone or a plant, even though he mentions Ps.-Plu. Fluv. 21.5 in which it is called λίθος ἀντιπαθής.  Plin. Nat. 37.145 and Dsc. 4.130 who refers to φάρμακα.  Dsc. 5.122.  See the discussion in Ch. 6.3 for their use in goetic practices.  Abt 1908: 115‒6; his argument is followed by Butler and Owen 1914: 80 and Hunink 1997, vol. II: 105.  [Quint.] Decl. 10.8. For a recent discussion of the materials used in magic, see Gordon 2015: 133‒76.  Apul. Met. 2.5.4. The passage is acknowledged by Abt 1908: 115, n. 6.  So this character is defined in Luc. Philops. 12. On the whole episode (Philops. 11‒13), see Ogden 2007: 65‒104.  On medicine and magic, see Apol. 40.1‒4 examined in Ch. 6.5. On spells in magic, see Apol. 26.6 (Ch. 4.3).  Luc. Philops. 11.

5.6 The Goetic Employment of Stones and the Deities of Magic

101

edged,²¹⁵ a practice also attested in the PGM: these rings could be made of different kinds of stones,²¹⁶ but – according to these recipes – stones themselves could also be employed as phylacteries²¹⁷ or for other purposes,²¹⁸ including lovemagic.²¹⁹ Additional evidence of the use of stones in real magic can be found in the Lapidarium attributed to Damigeron-Evax, with specific reference to the lapis adamas,²²⁰ lapis corallius,²²¹ lapis hieracites,²²² and lapis magnes. ²²³ Apuleius piles it on and ironically asserts that his clumsy enemies pretend that in magical rites one should not invoke Mercurius carminum vector et illex animi Venus et L u n a n o c t i u m c o n s c i a et m a n i u m p o t e n s T r i v i a,²²⁴ but Neptune, Salacia, Portunus and Nereus’ choir,²²⁵ and concludes by laughing at this connection between sea and love-magic.²²⁶ Abt highlights the controversial aspect of this passage since sea deities were invoked in goetic rituals,²²⁷ as shown by a curse-tablet from Hadrumetum containing an invocation to Oceanus and Tiber. ²²⁸ This is also confirmed by the Greek Magical Papyri, where we find a marine spirit (πνεῦμα θαλάσσιον),²²⁹ and the epithet πελαγίος applied to supernatural agents.²³⁰ Furthermore, Athenaeus explains that Hecate was a sea goddess,²³¹ drawing from a tradition which dates to Hesiod.²³² This reference to He-

 Philops. 24, on which see Ogden 2007: 164‒5, and Philops. 38.  PGM V.239; V.447‒58; XII.202‒16; XII.271‒350.  PGM I.66; I.143‒4; II.16‒20; III.502; III.504; III.507; III.510; III.512; III.515; III.519; III.522; III.525; III.528; IV.1619; IV.1653‒4; IV.1680‒1; IV.1702; IV.1714; IV.2630‒5; VII.999; XXIIa.11‒14.  PGM XIII.1002; LXII.43; CX.1‒12; CXXVIb.9.  PGM IV.1722; IV.1738; IV.1744; IV.1868‒9; XXXVI.333‒60.  Damig. Lapid. 3.4.  Damig. Lapid. 7.  Damig. Lapid. 26.1.  Damig. Lapid. 30.2‒3. On the magnet, see also Betz 19922: 333.  Apol. 31.9: ‘Mercury the carrier of spells, and Venus allurer of the soul, and Luna accomplice of nights, and Trivia mistress of the shades’.  For a discussion of the expression, which also occurs at Apul. Met. 4.31.5, see Butler and Owen 1914: 81; Hunink 1997, vol. II: 106; Zimmerman et al. 2004: 74‒5.  Apol. 31.9.  Abt 1908: 130‒1.  Audollent 1904: 286a.12. Although not sea deities, in a second-century defixio buried in a spring in Arezzo (Audollent 1904: 129b.4‒6) we find references to aquae ferventes or Nimfas. Similarly in the so-called Sethianorum Tabellae the Νυμφεε are invoked; see Audollent 1904: 155a.7; 155b.1; 156.6; 157.2‒3; 158.5; 159a.1; 159b.2; 160.1‒2; 161.6; 161.56‒7; 162.2; 163.6; 165.41‒2; 166.26; 167.5; 169.6; 170.3‒4 and see also Gager 1992: 70, n. 94.  PGM XII.329.  PGM IV.1780; IV.2272‒3 (this is acknowledged in Abt 1908: 131, n. 1).  Ath. 7.325c; cf. Olson 2008: 533, n. 410.  Hes. Th. 440‒3.

102

5 Love, Sea Creatures, and Literary Magic

cate brings us back to Apuleius’ acknowledgement of four deities commonly addressed in goetic magic, namely Mercury, Venus, Selene and Hecate. Since the connection between Venus (5.5) and Mercury (10.3) and goetic magic is discussed in other sections of this study, I shall here examine evidence – enabling us to observe the relevance of Selene and Hecate in magic. Luna is here elegantly described as noctium conscia, an expression which is probably derived from Ovid’s Metamorphoses 7.194, in which Hecate is invoked by Medea as conscia of her goetic rituals.²³³ The moon was associated with Thessalian magic since the first appearance of this idea in Aristophanes’ Clouds,²³⁴ and this became a commonplace theme of literary magic.²³⁵ Theocritus’ Simaetha addresses Selene²³⁶ together with Hecate,²³⁷ and uses as a refrain the invocation: φράζεό μευ τὸν ἔρωθ’ ὅθεν ἵκετο, πότνα Σελάνα. ²³⁸ These literary descriptions mirror real goetic beliefs: invocations to Selene also characterise real goetic utterances, as the evidence in the PGM shows. In fact, to acquire a supernatural assistant, the practitioners need to utter a λόγος Σελήνῃ;²³⁹ two gizzard stones of a cockerel have to be sacrificed to this goddess and to Helios;²⁴⁰ offerings must be made to her according to a prescription for love-magic.²⁴¹ Selene has to be addressed in a spell for revelation,²⁴² in a prayer for any spell,²⁴³ and to collect herbs.²⁴⁴ Furthermore, some recipes are specifically devoted to the goddess, such as the Slander Spell to Selene (Διαβολὴ πρὸς Σελήνην),²⁴⁵ Clau-

 In the second century AD, the Lex Cornelia punished those who were privy to magic (Paulus Sent. 5.29.17: magicae artis c o n s c i o s summo supplicio adfici placuit).  Ar. Nu. 749‒50; Hp. Morb. Sacr. 4; Pl. Grg. 513a; Sosiphanes’ Meleager (cf. TrGR, vol. I, 261, frg. 1); Menander’s Thessala (cf. PCG, vol. VI.2, 127); A.R. 4.57‒61; Verg. Ecl. 8.69; Hor. Epod. 5.45‒ 6; 17.77‒8 (on which see Watson 2003: 223‒4); Prop. 1.1.19; 2.28.37; Tib. 1.8.21‒2 (on which cf. Maltby 2002: 308); Ov. Ars 2.1.23; Luc. 6.500‒6; Mart. 9.29.9; Juv. 3.286; Luc. Philops. 14; cf. also the discussion by Phillips 2002. On moon and magic in general, see also Abt 1908: 123‒5; Tupet 1976: 92‒103; Keulen et al. 2015: 85; Martos 2015: 60, n. 186.  Apul. Apol. 31.9.  Theoc. 2.10.  Theoc. 2.10‒12. On the identification between Selene and Hecate, see Rabinowitz 1997. See also Audollent 1904: 41a.7‒8 in which we find both deities.  Theoc. 2.69 (repeated at l. 75; 79; 81; 87; 93; 99; 105; 111; 117; 123; 129; 135): ‘learn, lady Moon, how my love came about’. Translation by Verity 2002: 7‒12.  PGM I.148‒62.  PGM II.25‒6. For the use of hens and cockerels in magic, cf. Apol. 47.7 (Ch. 7.4).  PGM IV.2711.  PGM IV.2525; 2545; 2558.  PGM IV.2785‒890.  PGM IV.2985.  PGM IV.2622‒705.

5.6 The Goetic Employment of Stones and the Deities of Magic

103

dianus’ Lunar Spell (Κλαυδιανοῦ σεληνιακόν)²⁴⁶ and Moses’ Secret Prayer to Selene (Μοϋσέως ἀπόκρυφος Σεληνιακή).²⁴⁷ Regarding the chthonic goddess Hecate,²⁴⁸ it has gone hitherto unnoticed that Apuleius’ expression Trivia manium potens ²⁴⁹ is perhaps inspired by Catullus, who addresses the goddess as tu potens Trivia,²⁵⁰ an epithet of Diana with whom Hecate was syncretistically associated.²⁵¹ The name Trivia,²⁵² a translation of the Greek Τρίοδος ²⁵³ which also occurs in Theocritus’ Second Idyll,²⁵⁴ is used to indicate Hecate as a patroness of magic in Tibullus,²⁵⁵ Valerius Flaccus²⁵⁶ and in Seneca’s Medea. ²⁵⁷ This goddess was strongly associated with Medea,²⁵⁸ and features in various accounts of literary magic with her Greek name Hecate,²⁵⁹ the most memorable of which is perhaps Lucian’s Philopseudes 22‒3, in which Eucrates retells his terrible vision of a gigantic Hecate plunging into an infernal chasm.²⁶⁰ The goddess is also frequently invoked in the Greek Magical Papyri – where we find mention of her gigantic size as well –²⁶¹ to obtain control of daemons²⁶² and to use them in love-magic.²⁶³ She is also generally addressed in co-

 PGM VII.862.  PGM XIII.1057‒64.  Hecate is one of the many names of Isis in Apul. Met. 11.5.3; this does not imply that Hecate is presented as a goddess of magic in the novel (cf. Costantini 2018a). The association between Isis and Hecate reflects, instead, a syncretistic attitude that is typical of Greco-Roman culture, on which cf. Bettini 2014: 65‒9. On Hecate as a deity of magic, see also Abt 1908: 126‒30; Johnston 1990: 146‒8.  On magic and necromancy, cf. Ch. 10.2.  Catul. 34.15. The Catullan parallel is corroborated by the following allusion to Luna (Catul. 34.15‒16); in Apol. 31.9 the order would be, thus, inverted. A further reference to Trivia potens can also be found in V. Fl. 3.321.  Hes. Theog. 411‒52; A. Supp. 676 and see the discussion in LIMC, vol. VI.1, p. 985; Brill’s New Pauly, vol. VI, s.v. Hecate, col. 40.  This name is commonly used to indicate Diana-Hecate, e. g. Lucr. 1.84; Verg. A. 6.69; Prop. 2.32.10; Mart. Sp. 1.3; Min. Fel. Oct. 22.5.  On this theme, see Johnston 1991: 217‒24; Ogden 2007: 120‒2.  Theoc. 2.36.  Tib. 1.5.16.  V. Fl. 3.8; 3.321.  Sen. Med. 787.  Ov. Met. 7.74; 7.174; 17.194; 7.241; 14.44; Sen. Med. 7; 577; 787; 833; 841. On Medea, cf. Ch. 5.4, 2.4.  Hor. S. 1.8.35; Verg. A. 4.511; Luc. 6.700; 6.737.  On this, see Ogden 2007: 161‒70.  PGM IV.2714.  PGM III.47.  PGM IV.1432; IV.1443; IV.1462.

104

5 Love, Sea Creatures, and Literary Magic

ercive or attraction spells.²⁶⁴ Likewise, invocations to Hecate occur frequently in many curse-tablets, in which the goddess is addressed alone²⁶⁵ or with other infernal deities such as Hermes, Pluto and the Erinyes.²⁶⁶ This parallels, to some extent, the invocations in the PGM, where Hecate is addressed together with the Chthonic Hermes²⁶⁷ and Selene.²⁶⁸ This analysis suggests that the argument in Apol. 31.8‒9 draws partly on a literary tradition, but reflects also Apuleius’ direct familiarity with real goetic practices. Furthermore, since the literary traditions concerning Hecate and Selene, as well as the use of stones in magic, was inextricably linked with the lore of the goetic practitioners, this final part of Apuleius’ digression²⁶⁹ could have been appeared suspicious, had the judge been unsympathetic towards him. However, his argument is interspersed with elegant allusions to Catullus’ Trivia and to Ovid’s Hecate, which would have been seen by a learned audience as a clear sign of Apuleius’ literary erudition, not of his goetic expertise. It is this literary dimension, on which I have attempted to shed more light, that gives Apuleius sufficient leeway to showcase his general knowledge of magic and to be above suspicion. In addition, the end of the passage contains a mocking reference to the sea deities, and this ironical tone would have lessened the dangerous implications of Apuleius’ display, despite the fact that sea deities were actually invoked in magic.

5.7 Conclusion The results of the study of Apol. 29‒31 undertaken in this chapter enables us to clarify some problematic aspects of this section of the speech: being accused of having seduced Pudentilla with magical charms produced with sea creatures, Apuleius hinges his defence on a blatant lie when he contradicts the widespread

 PGM IV.2610; IV.2709‒50; IV.2957. An exception is PGM LXX.4‒25, a prescription against the fear of punishment in which Hecate is called Ἐρεσχιγάλ. In other cases the figure of Hecate needs to be engraved (cf. PGM IV.2119; IV.2632‒3; IV.2692); on this imagery, see LIMC, vol. VI.2, fig. 291‒322 discussed in LIMC, vol. VI.1, pp. 1010‒1.  Audollent 1904: 38.14; 41a.13.  This is the case of various defixiones from Cyprus dating to the third century AD, see Audollent 1904: 22.35‒6; 24.20; 26.24‒5; 29.23; 31.22‒3; 32.23; 33.27‒8; 35.22‒3; 35.22‒3 and p. 35. In a defixio from Egypt we find again Hermes and Hecate (Audollent 1904: 72.12‒14).  PGM III.47; IV.1443; IV.1462‒3; IV.2609‒10. On Hermes and magic, cf. Ch. 10.3.  PGM IV.2815.  Apol. 31.8‒9.

5.7 Conclusion

105

assumption that fish could be used in goetic magic.²⁷⁰ To dilute this controversial claim, Apuleius draws on the semantic ambiguity of magia ²⁷¹ and foregrounds his argument in a literary and philosophical context that could not have been mistaken for real goetic knowledge. Any risky reference to goetic magic – such as the mention of four gods invoked in goetic rites (Mercury, Venus, Selene, and Hecate) and the use of stones in these forbidden practices –²⁷² are drowned out in a vast accumulation of Latin²⁷³ and Greek passages²⁷⁴ on literary magic, Vergil and Homer especially, which the educated people in court and the judge would have known and which would not have seemed evidence of goetic magic. Furthermore, the grandiloquence and captivating persuasiveness of Apuleius’ borderline claims is intended to provocatively entertain the audience and especially the sympathetic Claudius Maximus, aware that Apuleius would have never actually practised goetic magic. Nevertheless, as I argue in the next chapter, to demonstrate his innocence Apuleius still needs to show that his interest in sea animals was not aimed at seducing Pudentilla – as his attackers claim – but at a better scientific understanding of fish, which would outshine even Aristotle’s own research.

    

Apol. 30.4. Ch. 2. Apol. 31.8‒9. Apol. 30.6‒8; 30.12‒13. Apol. 30.11 and 31.5‒7.

6 Sea Creatures for the Seduction of Pudentilla 6.1 Introduction In the previous chapter I have looked into some weaknesses and problematic aspects of Apuleius’ rebuttal of the first part of the ‘fishy charge’ (argumentum piscarium).¹ His attempt to deny that res marinae were used in goetic rituals – specifically in love-magic – betrays a knowledge of these practices that could in itself have constituted unfavourable evidence during the lawsuit. Furthermore, the speech in Apol. 29‒31 is extremely elusive and does not contain references to any specific details of the charge. It is only at Apol. 32‒42.2 that Apuleius finally discusses the nature of the sea creatures he sought and dissected,² and the allegation that he seduced Pudentilla with aphrodisiacs and incantations when they were in the remote inland of North Africa.³ As in the previous section of the speech,⁴ Apuleius here adopts some deliberately daredevil arguments, such as the denial of the association due to similar names (6.3) and the utterance of mock-voces magicae (6.4), which were meant to bewilder and dazzle his audience, demonstrating how a rhetorician of his calibre could prevail against all the odds.⁵ Abt and Butler and Owen rightly stress the controversial features and the magical undertone of Apuleius’ claims,⁶ and later studies rest on their results.⁷ In this chapter, I will present and analyse additional evidence showing the unconvincing nature of Apuleius’ argument when he gives examples of seemingly harmless herbs⁸ and sea creatures,⁹ and when he denies the popular belief that different objects share a connection because of their similar names.¹⁰ I will analyse the goetic undertone of the reference to the Homeric incantations at Apol. 40.4 (6.5), and suggest that Apuleius betrays a clear familiarity with magica nomina such as those found in contemporary curse-tablets (6.4), and, lastly, that his denial of having dissected a sea-hare is far from convincing

 Apol. 42.2.  Apol. 33.1‒35.7 (Ch. 6.3); 40.5‒11 (Ch. 6.6).  Apol. 41.5 (Ch. 6.6).  See Ch. 5.  Ch. 6.3 and 12.  Abt 1908: 131‒55; Butler and Owen 1914: 85; 98, and the discussion in Ch. 6.6.  Cf. Hunink 1997, vol. II: 110‒3; 118‒9; 124, and Martos 2015: 61, n. 189; n. 192; n. 193; pp. 64‒5, n. 199; n. 203; n. 206; p. 70, n. 219; p. 73, n. 237; p. 74, n. 238.  Apol. 32.4; 32.8 (Ch. 6.2).  Apol. 34.6; 35.4; 35.6 (Ch. 6.3).  Apol. 34.4; 35.6 (Ch. 6.3). https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110617528-008

6.2 A Platonising Appeal

107

(6.6). An assessment of the connections between magic and medicine will make it possible to understand how Apuleius could stress his interest in nature and medicine while digressing from the accusation of dissecting molluscs for lovemagic.¹¹ I will also throw light on the Platonising tone of this part of the defence, set out at Apol. 32.3‒8 (6.2) and constantly signposted throughout this section, which allows Apuleius to counterbalance the seriousness of the prosecution’s arguments and to argue for the zoological¹² and medical¹³ purposes of his enquiry into fish. This analysis will ultimately allow us to better evaluate how critical Apuleius’ situation was, and that his strong point is, once again, to seek the sympathy of the judge Claudius Maximus and of his peers.

6.2 A Platonising Appeal In Apol. 32.3‒8 Apuleius lays down the Platonising foundations on which he builds the following part of the speech, which deals with the sea creatures he purportedly sought to concoct an amatorium for Pudentilla.¹⁴ Despite the reassuring and almost swaggering tone, I discuss how this part of the defence does not lack self-contradictions, showing how complicated it must have been for Apuleius to disprove this accusation. The analysis of this passage will shed light on his attempt to disguise the magical notoriety of several herbs actually employed in goetic practices, which he cites at Apol. 32.4 and 32.8. At Apol. 32.1 – giving the impression that he is about to rebut the next charge – Apuleius concludes that he has given the reasons why he believes that pisces have nothing to do with magic. Then he unexpectedly concedes that the prosecution’s argument is valid, and that fish can ‘also contribute to magical powers’ (pisces etiam ad magicas potestates adiutare).¹⁵ By playing again with the semantic duplicity of quaero (‘to search’, and ‘to inquire into’)¹⁶ Apuleius adds irrelevant examples, mirroring those at Apol. 29.3‒6, in order to demonstrate that seeking fish in itself cannot be regarded as a crime,¹⁷ before introducing a

 Apol. 40.1‒3 (Ch. 6.5).  Apol. 36.3‒8; 37.4; 39.4 (Ch. 6.4), and 40.5‒7; 41.1‒4; 41.6‒7 (Ch. 6.6).  Apol. 40.1‒3 (Ch. 6.5).  Apol. 33.1‒35.6 (Ch. 6.3) and 40.5‒11 (Ch. 6.6).  Apol. 32.2. This provocative strategy is set out at 28.2‒3, on which see Hunink 1997, vol. II: 106; Harrison 2000: 66‒7.  Cf. analogously Apol. 30.1, as observed in Ch. 5.2.  Apol. 32.2. Amongst these examples: qui gladium sicarius (‘someone who looks for a sword will be an assassin’). The allusion to the assassin, as in Apol. 26.8 (sicarium qui in iudicium vocat

108

6 Sea Creatures for the Seduction of Pudentilla

paradigmatic observation: nihil in rebus omnibus tam innoxium dices quin id possit aliquid aliqua obesse; nec tam laetum quin possit ad tristitudinem intellegi. Nec tamen omnia idcirco ad nequiorem suspicionem trahuntur. ¹⁸ Scholars have overlooked the importance of this passage:¹⁹ this plea is specifically addressed to Claudius Maximus and the educated audience and complies with the same Platonic dichotomy, distancing higher and positive ideas from lower and negative values, which characterises the general forensic strategy of the Apologia. Apuleius aims to put himself and his fellow sympathisers at the vertex of an intellectual order, while his enemies are relegated to the lowest ranks. This reasoning, thus, cautions the benevolent audience about his foes, who wrongly believe him a goetic magus because of their ignorance and evil-mindedness. To validate this point, Apuleius provides two series of examples: one concerns Menelaus’ companions seeking fish to avoid starvation in Pharos thus acting like goetic magi, should one abide by Aemilianus’ foolishness, as Apuleius ironically claims.²⁰ The second example is about the use of six herbs, cited in two symmetrical groups: tus et casiam et myrram (‘frankincense, cinnamon, and myrrh’),²¹ and elleborum vel cicutam vel sucum papaveris (hellebore, hemlock, and poppy juice’).²² These are said to be used either for holy sacrifices and medical remedies or for funerary rites²³ and poisoning.²⁴ The underlying reasoning on which these examples pivot is that only a dull person such as Aemilianus would consider Menelaus’ companions (Menelai socios) as magi,²⁵ and similarly

comitatus venit), addresses a point of the Lex Cornelia de sicariis et veneficis which is unrelated to magic (Paulus Sent. 5.29.1‒3; Marcianus in Dig. 48.8.1‒3).  Apol. 32.3‒4: ‘you can mention nothing in nature so inoffensive that it could not impair other things, and nothing so positive that it lacks gloomy undertones. And yet we do not consider everything as negative for this reason’. Martos 2015: 61, n. 193 notes the similarity with the arguments in Dig. 48.8.3.2, on which n. 187 below.  Even the recent studies by Fletcher 2014: 211 and Moreschini 2015: 32‒4, which focus on Apuleius’ Platonism.  Apol. 32.5‒6, a reference to Hom. Od. 4.354‒69.  Apol. 32.4.  Apol. 32.8.  Apol. 32.4.  Apol. 32.8. As in Apol. 26.8 (qui venenarium accusat scrupulosius cibatur), this reference to veneficium – similarly to that to sicarius at 32.2 (cf. n. 17 above) – seems an allusion to the non-magical crimes punished under the Lex Cornelia (Marcianus in Dig. 48.8.3.1). Perhaps, Apuleius attempted to distance himself from magic by referring to the other crimes condemned under that law.  Hunink’s argument (1997, vol. II: 106) that Apuleius should not have referred to Pharos, an Egyptian island since Egypt was the land of φάρμακα (cf. Hom. Od. 4.229‒30) is perhaps overblown.

6.2 A Platonising Appeal

109

the above-mentioned herbs should not be feared for their ill-omened employments, but studied in order to appreciate their virtues. Apuleius takes great care when phrasing this argument not to mention any goetic application of those herbs, but only their possible use in funerals and poisoning. And he does so because all of them, with the exception of hemlock,²⁶ were actually employed in real goetic practices. Since I have already discussed the use of frankincense (tus) in magic,²⁷ I shall limit myself to observing that mentioning frankincense does not seem a very apt choice: Apuleius has already alluded to the magical application of Arabicae fruges (that is frankincense and cinnamon),²⁸ and particularly to that of frankincense in Apol. 30.7, where he paraphrases Vergil’s Eclogue 8.65 including mascula tura amongst the ingredients for a love-charm. In addition, later at Apol. 47.7, he reports that – according to his attackers – he practised a goetic rite on Thallus burning grana turis. ²⁹ Since literary descriptions of frankincense in magic were often inspired by goetic practices,³⁰ and since the passage at Apol. 47.7 does not refer to literary magic but to real goetic magic, Apuleius and the audience in court could have been indeed aware of the goetic use of tus, and they would probably have known that cinnamon, myrrh, hellebore and poppy were also employed in goetic magic. The magical employment of these herbs has been touched upon by Abt,³¹ on whose analysis commentators on the Apologia rely.³² He focuses primarily on passages in the PGM where such ingredients feature as offerings. In order to provide a more accurate discussion, I shall analyse the evidence showing the function of these herbs in goetic magic. As to cinnamon (casia, κασία),³³ the most significant evidence comes from the PGM, where this is found amongst the offerings in the Διαβολὴ πρὸς Σελήνην alongside frankincense.³⁴ It is also recommended as an offering to Hermes,³⁵ to Apollo,³⁶ and in the so-called Bear-charm to call

 To sell the venomous cicuta is, however, condemned by the Lex Cornelia, cf. Dig. 48.8.3.3. On this herb and its poisonous effects, see Plin. Nat. 25.151‒5, and Nat. 28.129; 28.158 where it is listed together with the sea-hare, on which see Ch. 6.6.  Apol. 6.5 (Ch. 3.4).  Apol. 7.1.  Ch. 7.1, 7.4.  See e. g. Reif 2016: 110.  Abt 1908: 132‒4 on Apol. 32.4 (see also pp. 73‒4), and pp. 134‒5 on Apol. 32.8.  Cf. Butler and Owen 1914: 82; Hunink 1997, vol. II: 106‒7; Martos 2015: 61, n. 189; 192.  Cf. André 1985: 52, s.v. casia. On this herb in general, see Plin. Nat. 12.95‒8; the cinnamomum (κιννάμωμον) was the tender shoot of the casia, cf. Rackham 1960: 62, n. a.  PGM IV.2678‒9.  PGM XIII.19.  PGM I.285.

110

6 Sea Creatures for the Seduction of Pudentilla

upon a divine being.³⁷ Cinnamon was also prescribed in the preparation of a magical ring consecrated to Hermes,³⁸ and is said to be the type of spice sacred to this deity in another recipe.³⁹ The goetic employment of myrrh (myrra or murra, μύρρα)⁴⁰ was so renowned as to be acknowledged by Pliny the Elder, who cites a passage from Pseudo-Democritus.⁴¹ The PGM contains rich evidence of its functions in goetic rituals: according to these prescriptions, myrrh was one of the most common ingredients for love-magic (PGM IV.1309), compelling a daemon (II.177‒8), catching a thief (V.202), business (IV.2461), and constituted a suitable burnt offering to Hermes (V.198) and Selene (XIII.20). It was also employed unburnt in various rites aiming at unsealing doors,⁴² receiving a prophetic dream (VIII.97), making a magical ring,⁴³ and love-magic.⁴⁴ Myrrh was also a customary component of inks for writing down magical formulae with several purposes:⁴⁵ a fetching spell (IV.2237), a memory spell (I.233), a phylactery,⁴⁶ an invocation of a daemon,⁴⁷ a charm to improve one’s business (IV.2393‒4) or favour,⁴⁸ to restrain anger,⁴⁹ to request (XII.146) or send dreams,⁵⁰ to induce insomnia (XII.376), a curse (V.308), divination,⁵¹ necromancy,⁵² and again love-magic.⁵³ Furthermore, it is worth noting that two recipes for love-magic – the main point in this allegation about the seduction of Pudentilla – are specifically focusing on the impor-

 PGM IV.1309.  PGM V.224. This association with Hermes-Mercury is also confirmed by the Glossae Cassinenses, where the casia is named Mercurialis, see CGL, vol. III: 540, s.v. linotesagria. On Mercury and magic, cf. Ch. 10.3.  PGM XIII.20, discussed by Abt 1908: 132.  Cf. André 1985: 166, s.v. myrrha; the spelling in the papyri is ζμύρνη. For general remarks, see Plin. Nat. 12.66‒71.  Plin. Nat. 24.166 alluding to a mixture of components including myrrh. On Democritus and magic, cf. Apol. 27.1 (Ch. 4.4).  XIII.1067; XXXVI.313.  V.221; 224; 228.  IV.2893; XXXVI.134.  In certain cases the purpose is unspecified (PGM VII.300; XIII.409; XXXVI.265‒6) or impossible to understand because the papyrus is damaged (III.178; LII.10‒11).  IV.815; IV.1075; XXXVI.257‒8.  I.9; II.35; II.60; VII.521; LXII.46; LXXII.7.  VII.999; XII.400.  VII.941; XII.179.  XII.108; XII.122; XIII.315.  IV.2208; IV.3211‒2; IV.3248; VII.664; VII.703; VIII.70; XXXVI.134.  IV.1994; IV.2142‒3.  VII.468; VII.596; VIII.57; XIII.322; XIXb.3; 5.

6.2 A Platonising Appeal

111

tance of myrrh, as their titles reveal.⁵⁴ When compared to these herbs, the presence of hellebore (elleborus or ἐλλέβορος)⁵⁵ and poppy (papaver or ἀνέμων)⁵⁶ is not equally abundant in the PGM. As to the former, we find it in a secret list of plant names by the name of γόνος Ἡλίου,⁵⁷ while the latter features amongst the ingredients for making the so-called Typhonian ink (XII.97). Pliny reports a recipe to heal lumbago ascribed to the magi in which poppy should be boiled in wine,⁵⁸ indicating how this component featured in prescriptions ascribed to the goetic practitioners. This examination confirms the magical employment of herbs such as hellebore, poppy,⁵⁹ cinnamon, myrrh and particularly frankincense,⁶⁰ which Apuleius himself associates with goetic rituals in the Apologia. Despite these problems, Apuleius’ line of argument undergoes a change in comparison with Apol. 29‒ 31,⁶¹ since it does not only consist in a plain denial⁶² and erudite displays.⁶³ Being probably aware of the weakness of his earlier arguments, at Apol. 32.3 he stakes it all on a Platonising appeal in order to bias Maximus and the cultured audience against the malevolence of his enemies. In this perspective, the mention of hemlock, tactically placed towards the end of the list,⁶⁴ can be seen as an allusion to Socrates’ tragic death,⁶⁵ which the judge and fellow philosopher Maximus would have easily understood, stressing the programmatic association between Apuleius and the venerable philosopher and warning the judge against condemning Apuleius, a Socrates reborn. Here Apuleius needs, in fact, to gain Maximus and the audience’s favour before addressing a serious point: the type of res marinae purportedly sought to allure Pudentilla.

 IV.1496‒1595; XXXVI.333‒60.  Cf. André 1985: 94, s.v. elleborus. Pliny gives a description of this plant and its virtues at Nat. 25.48‒61.  On poppy see André 1985: 188, s.v. papaver, and the overview in Plin. Nat. 19.167‒9.  PGM.XII.433.  Plin. Nat. 30.53.  Apul. Apol. 32.8.  Apol. 32.4.  Apol. 30.4‒31.9 in Ch. 5.  Apol. 30.4.  Apol. 30.6‒31.7.  Apol. 32.8.  Pl. Phdr. 117a (φάρμακον) and specifically D.L. 2.42 (κώνειον).

112

6 Sea Creatures for the Seduction of Pudentilla

6.3 Obscene Molluscs: Association through Name Similarity A Platonising texture is also a noticeable feature of the defence in Apol. 33‒35. Here Apuleius finally discusses the three sea creatures mentioned by his opponents: two molluscs resembling male and female organs that he designates with the neologisms veretilla and virginal,⁶⁶ and the notorious sea-hare.⁶⁷ While here he briefly mentions the latter,⁶⁸ he focuses at length on the veretilla and the virginal in an attempt to contradict the connection between them and sexual organs due to the similarity of names permitting their supposed employment in lovemagic.⁶⁹ Apuleius backs up this statement with three sets of examples concerning seemingly harmless res marinae,⁷⁰ which he denies ever having sought.⁷¹ The creatures in these lists are far from being as innocent as Apuleius would like us to believe as many of them feature in recipes attributed to the magi. Since Apuleius’ digression on the sea-hare occupies another section of this chapter,⁷² I will analyse here the discussion of the veretilla and the virginal ⁷³ highlighting Apuleius’ manipulation of the prosecution speech. Abt rightly argues that the accusation is serious and cleverly structured,⁷⁴ but he and other scholars fail to identify much fundamental evidence showing that these sea creatures were actually used in goetic practices. Attention will also be paid to the sophisticated tone permeating this part of the Apologia and on the possible influence of Plato’s Cratylus and Cicero’s De Divinatione, which serve to endorse Apuleius’ declaration of innocence.

 Apol. 34.5. Their name could derive from the fact that these molluscs, like the sea-hare, probably looked like human genitals (Ch. 6.6). Veretilla is a diminutive of veretrum, i. e. ‘penis’ (cf. Adams 1982: 52‒3, s.v. veretrum); virginal is an Apuleian coinage (cf. Adams 1982: 94, s.v. virginal, who does not acknowledge Apuleius). Abt 1908: 137‒8 considers virginal a translation of κτείς, and veretilla a translation of βάλανος (on the erotic connotation of both, see Henderson 19912: 132, n. 130 and p. 119, §40, respectively). Abt could not find evidence to support a goetic interpretation of these terms, but we may add that PGM VII.192 contains a reference to βάλανος to indicate the penis in an eternal spell to bind a lover. For stylistic remarks on these Apuleian neologisms, see Butler and Owen 1914: 84‒5; Bardong 1944: 270; McCreight 1991: 307‒11 and 315‒6; Hunink 1997, vol. II: 110‒1; Nicolini 2011: 132, n. 405.  Apol. 33.3.  This is postponed to Apol. 40.5‒11 (Ch. 6.6).  Apol. 34.6.  Apol. 34.6; 35.3‒4; 35.6.  Apol. 34.7.  Ch. 6.6.  Apol. 34.5 and 33.5‒7.  Abt 1908: 138; likewise, Hunink 1997, vol. II: 109 argues for Tannonius’ stylistic brilliance.

6.3 Obscene Molluscs: Association through Name Similarity

113

Initially, Apuleius digresses from the magical powers attributed to the molluscs and bitterly reprimands Tannonius – the prosecutors’ advocate – for his lack of finesse:⁷⁵ it is because of his ignorance, Apuleius claims, that he could not say the name of a certain virile marinum,⁷⁶ and needed to quote from a description of a statue of Venus by Apuleius⁷⁷ to indicate a mollusc resembling female genitals.⁷⁸ In reality, however, I suggest that Tannonius’ reticence was probably intended to be a display of prudery, underscoring the prosecution’s integrity. Furthermore, the fact that Tannonius quoted from Apuleius’ description is no trivial thing: this would have underpinned the idea that Apuleius was indeed familiar with indecent and lascivious themes because of his own moral baseness.⁷⁹ This is perfectly in line with his earlier portrayal as a lustful seducer given in the Preliminary Allegations, supporting the prosecution’s claim that his immorality made him a fitting person for using magic to seduce his victims.⁸⁰ In addition, by quoting Apuleius’ description of Venus’ pudenda to indicate a mollusc, Tannonius could have corroborated the link between fish and goetic magic, since Venus was deeply connected with goetic magic.⁸¹ After a fast-paced lambasting of Tannonius’ rusticity,⁸² at Apol. 34.4 Apuleius gets finally to the point and counters the principle through which veretilla and virginal enabled him to perform his purported magic on the widow. This forensic approach is a crucial feature of the Apologia: by disproving the goetic powers ascribed to the evidence used against him, Apuleius can avoid a comprehensive discussion of his alleged misdeeds and rebut the charges, without addressing them and their magical implications directly. In this case, he condemns the pos Apol. 33.6‒34.3.  Apol. 33.6 and 34.2. For the Ciceronian character or this invective, cf. especially Harrison 2000: 70.  Apol. 34.3. This work is now lost; Hunink 1997, vol. II: 109, n. 3 suggests that it might have been a “declamation or a treatise dealing with statues”, while Harrison 2000: 36 hypothesises an ekphrastic catalogue such as the Imagines by Lucian and the Imagines by Philostratus. For a similar claim that the prosecutors needed Apuleius’ works to name sea creatures, cf. Apol. 38.6.  Apol. 33.7, which resembles Apul. Met. 2.17.1‒2, on which see van Mal-Maeder 2001: 263‒5; Hunink 1997, vol. II: 110; Harrison 2000: 36. This shows how Apuleius re-employs stock material in his various works, as in Apol. 43.2‒3 which mirrors Soc. 6 (Ch. 7.3). On the accusers’ strategy and Apuleius’ use of euphemism, see Masselli 2004: 195‒213.  Apuleius’ interest in erotic themes also emerges in a Latin translation of Menander’s Anechomenos preserved in Anthologia Latina 712 (= PCG, vol. VI.2: 256‒7, frg. 431), according to the numeration in Riese’s second edition (1894). Harrison 2000: 19 argues that this poem belongs to Apuleius’ lost Ludicra; on this see also May 2006: 63‒71.  Apol. 4‒16 (Ch. 3.2, 3.3, 3.4, 3.6).  See my discussion of Apol. 31.7 (Ch. 5.6).  Apol. 34.1‒3.

114

6 Sea Creatures for the Seduction of Pudentilla

sibility of any connections due to the similarity of names, insisting that this reasoning evidences his enemies’ foolishness, with the following words: ‘is there anything more stupid than considering related words as a sign of a real connection?’ (an quicquam stultius quam ex n o m i n u m p r o p i n q u i t a t e vim similem rerum coniectam?).⁸³ Like the surprising claim that fish could not be used in magic at Apol. 30.4,⁸⁴ this statement might have been looked at with disbelief by his readership since the idea that beings and objects with similar names are connected with each other is a customary principle of ancient medicine,⁸⁵ as indicated in the Naturalis Historia. ⁸⁶ To a degree, Apuleius’ claims recall Lucian’s rationalist attack against popular medicine – resolutely associated with γοητεία – in the Philopseudes: ‘I do, said I, not being altogether full of drivel, so as to believe that external remedies which have nothing to do with the internal causes of the ailments, applied as you say in combination with set phrases and goetic practices are efficacious and bring on the cure’.⁸⁷ Nonetheless, given Apuleius’ admitted interest in medicine,⁸⁸ his criticism could not be directed to such therapies as a whole, but only to the principle of name similarity. It is also necessary to note that, on the one hand, Apuleius draws attention away from magic by presenting a very general tenet. On the other hand, the expression an quicquam stultius quam ex nominum propinquitate vim similem rerum coniectam (Apol. 34.4) can be seen as a learned allusion to two lofty models. The first is Plato’s Cratylus, where Socrates opposes Cratylus’ theory of linguistic natural-

 Apol. 34.4. This claim is repeated at Apol. 35.6, where Apuleius refers to the female and male genitals as spurium and fascinum respectively (cf. Adams 1982: 96‒7, s.v. spurium, and pp. 63‒4, s.v. fascinum). The term fascinum or also fascinus, however, has the double meaning ‘phallus’ and ‘charm’, cf. ThLL, vol. VI.1, s.v. fascinus, coll. 300‒1. As explained in Plin. Nat. 28.39 these phallic figurines had an apotropaic function against the evil eye, hence the meaning of ‘charm’; cf. Neilson 2002: 248‒53. The terms βασκανία and ἀβάσκαντον, which in a bilingual Glossary are indicated as the Greek equivalents of fascinus (cf. CGL, vol. II: 256, s.v. βασκανία; βάσκανος; p. 515, s.v. fascinus), appear in the PGM (IV.1451‒2; XIII.802).  Ch. 5.2.  An updated overview in Brill’s New Pauly, vol. VIII, s.v. Medicine, coll. 573‒4.  E. g. Plin. Nat. 9.79; 22.39; 27.57; 27.131. Apuleius was probably acquainted with Pliny’s Natural History (Ch. 4.4, 4.5, 4.6, 5.3, 11.5), and was also the author of medical texts (cf. n. 175 below). See Abt 1908: 139‒40, followed by Butler and Owen 1914: 87, and Önnerfors 1993: 183‒7 who, however, do not examine medicine and magic from an emic standpoint.  Luc. Philops. 8: ἔμοιγε, ἦν δ’ ἐγώ, εἰ μὴ πάνυ κορύζης τὴν ῥῖνα μεστὸς εἴην, ὡς πιστεύειν τὰ ἔξω καὶ μηδὲν κοινωνοῦντα τοῖς ἔνδοθεν ἐπεγείρουσι τὰ νοσήματα μετὰ ῥηματίων, ὥς φατε, καὶ γοητείας τινὸς ἐνεργεῖν καὶ τὴν ἴασιν ἐπιπέμπειν προσαρτώμενα. Translation adapted from Harmon 1960: 333.  Apol. 40.1‒4 (Ch. 6.5).

6.3 Obscene Molluscs: Association through Name Similarity

115

ism,⁸⁹ and shows that it is possible to speak falsely because names are not always correct μιμήματα as they are often distant from the original idea which they represent,⁹⁰ and that a name’s etymology does not always grant access to the knowledge of its referent since names often contain false beliefs about their referents.⁹¹ Needless to say, for those able to spot it, the parallel with the persona of Socrates in the Cratylus would enable Apuleius to buttress his selfcharacterisation as a Socrates reborn. A second possible model for this formulation could have been Cicero’s denial of the efficacy of the principle of affinity (συμπάθεια) in divinatory practices in the De Divinatione: in addition to negating the validity of sympathetic associations – similarly to what Apuleius does here – Cicero biases his readership against these popular beliefs, and this allows him to assert his philosophical rank in contrast with the supporters of συμπάθεια. ⁹² Apuleius uses this type of reasoning to disparage his foes, who accept the base principle of the similarity of names, while creating around himself an aura of philosophical respectability. This ultimately allows him to prejudice the educated audience and Claudius Maximus against the prosecution. To strengthen his claim, Apuleius introduces three series of intentionally incongruous examples, highlighting the absurdity of the association between different things with similar names. He divides the following sea creatures into three lists: in the first (Apol. 34.6) we find marinum pectinem, piscem accipitrem, piscem apriculam, and marina calvaria; the second and longest list (Apol. 35.3‒4) is composed by: conchulam striatam, testam hebetem, calculum teretem, and cancrorum furcas, echinorum caliculos, lolliginum ligulas, praeterea assulas, festucas, resticulas et ostrea † Pergami † vermiculata, denique muscum et algam. ⁹³ The third list (Apol. 35.6) reiterates elements of the second group: calculus, testa, cancer, and alga. While the presence of several diminutives underscores the little importance of this marine waste, the presence of Plautine forms⁹⁴ and the referen-

 Pl. Cra. 383a‒390e in particular. For an overview of this dialogue, cf. Fine 2008: 223‒9.  Pl. Cra. 430a‒431c.  Pl. Cra. 436a‒437d, on which cf. Ademollo 2011: 431‒41.  Cic. Div. 2.34‒6, on which cf. Pease 1963: 411‒2.  I follow here the text printed by Vallette 1924: 43. Hunink 1997, vol. I: 61; vol. II: 112 might be right in expunging Pergami, which Abt sees as a dittography induced by vermiculata; yet, it could have been an interlinear gloss influenced by ostrea plurima Abydi (Apol. 39.3.2), then slipped into the main text. I translate this list as: ‘a tiny grooved seashell, a blunt shell of a crustacean, a smooth pebble, and also crabs’ claws, shells of sea-urchins, squids’ little tentacles, and splinters, straws, wicks, and striped shells of oysters † from Pergamum, † even moss and seaweed’.  Pl. Cas. 493; 497. On this reference to Plautus, see Hunink 1997, vol. II: 112; May 2006: 91; Pasetti 2007: 34. On the comic tone of this and other diminutives, see McCreight 1991: 268‒9; Hu-

116

6 Sea Creatures for the Seduction of Pudentilla

ces to Ennius’ Hedyphagetica ⁹⁵ – which Apuleius cites shortly afterwards (Apol. 39.3) –were supposed to display Apuleius’ erudition and, predictably, to be welcomed by the learned audience since reflecting the archaising culture of the time. This refined feature notwithstanding, the res marinae named by Apuleius could have been easily associated with goetic magic. The examination by Abt, followed by Butler and Owen, Hunink, and Martos,⁹⁶ is methodologically imprecise from an emic standpoint because he often confuses ancient medicine with magic,⁹⁷ and lacks significant evidence which I provide below by commenting on those molluscs and their use in magic. Since the third group repeats elements of the second, I shall discuss the magical employment of the res marinae at Apol. 35.3‒4 and 35.6 together. As to the first group at Apol. 34.6, the only res marinae used in magical practices are the marina calvaria, which Apuleius describes paradoxically as objects that could be used to raise the dead (eliciendis mortuis). There was a general belief that goetic practitioners could raise the dead,⁹⁸ and had recourse to skulls – although mostly human –⁹⁹ for such purposes: the PGM contains various references to necromancy by means of a skull (κρανίον or σκύφος).¹⁰⁰ Later Apuleius displays a full awareness of this custom as in the description of Pamphile’s laboratory in Met. 3.17.5 he includes, in fact, trunca calvaria (‘mutilated skulls’).¹⁰¹ Many of the other sea creatures and marine waste at Apol. 35.3‒4 and 35.6 were indeed used in goetic magic. Seashells are included in the recipes of the Greek Magical Papyri ¹⁰² for love-magic:¹⁰³ PGM VII.300a‒10 in particular con-

nink 1997, vol. II: 110‒2; May 2006: 91; Pasetti 2007: 34. For a stylistic discussion of the whole passage, see Harrison 2000: 67.  These are pecten in Apol. 34.6 = 39.3.3; apriculus at 34.6 = 39.3.5; calvaria at 34.6 = 39.3.10; echini in 35.3 = 39.3.11; ostrea in 35.4 = 39.3.2. See also the discussion by Pasetti 2007: 37‒8.  Abt 1908: 141‒52; Butler and Owen 1914: 85‒7; Hunink 1997, vol. II: 111‒3; Martos 2015: 64‒5, n. 199; 203; 206.  For a reconstruction of the links between magic and medicine, cf. Ch. 6.5. Here only what is ascribed to the magi and features in sources explicitly referring to goetic magic is considered relevant evidence.  Ch. 10.2.  At PGM XIa.2; 4‒5; 38 a spell to evoke an old woman as a servant requires the use of the skull of a donkey; this is, however, not a marina calvaria.  PGM IV.1928‒2005; 2006‒125; 2125‒139; 2140‒4. See Faraone 2005: 255‒82 and my discussion in Ch. 10.6.  The connection between this passage of the Metamorphoses and Apol. 34.6 has gone unnoticed in recent studies on the Apologia, although acknowledged by van der Paardt 1971: 134. A similar use is in Tac. Ann. 2.69 is noted by Abt 1908: 141.  PGM IV.2218; VII.374‒6.  PGM VII.467‒77.

6.3 Obscene Molluscs: Association through Name Similarity

117

tains the instructions for a powerful love-charm in which one needs to write on a seashell and address the seashell in the spell. The same can be seen in a defixio from Carthage, in which the spell also has to be inscribed on a seashell.¹⁰⁴ Likewise, pebbles (calculi)¹⁰⁵ were employed in magical practices: Seneca reports that Democritus¹⁰⁶ knew how to make emeralds out of pebbles by boiling them.¹⁰⁷ Pliny the Elder says that, according to the recipes of the magi, sea-urchins (echini) in vinegar could cure night rashes, and burnt with vipers’ skin and frogs could even allow for the improvement of eyesight.¹⁰⁸ Crabs (cancri) were renowned as ingredients in the recipes of the magi, as explained by Pliny.¹⁰⁹ Furthermore, references to crabs appear in the PGM ¹¹⁰ where we also find evidence of the goetic employment of their claws (χηλαί).¹¹¹ Surprising is Apuleius’ scepticism about the possible use of crabs to heal cancers at Apol. 35.6, since a passage in Pliny’s Natural History,¹¹² although lacking direct connections with the terms which derive from magus,¹¹³ clearly indicates the opposite: the ashes of sea crabs burnt with lead were indeed believed to be a remedy for ulcers (ulcerae) and cancers (carcinomata), and the principle underlying this therapy seems that of name similarity.¹¹⁴ Apuleius’ statement is puzzling given his probable knowledge of the Natural History and medicine, and this contradiction might have been visible to a well-educated readership, acquainted with Pliny’s work or the medical knowledge that Pliny expounds. Yet, Apuleius’ bold strategy is in line with the previous denial of the connection between fish and magic: Apuleius’ reason for adopting such risky arguments is to be provocative, challenging his enemies with daring self-confidence, while amusing the sympathetic Maximus, aware that Apuleius was a fellow philosopher and not a goetic

 Audollent 1904: 234.6‒7; 32 and p. 310 for further comments.  For the goetic use of stones in general, cf. Ch. 5.6.  This is a reference to the Pseudo-Democritean corpus, probably by Bolus of Mendes, which is discussed in Ch. 4.4 which also contains a discussion of Democritus and magic.  Sen. Ep. 90.33. On stones and magic, cf. Apol. 31.8 (Ch. 5.6).  Plin. Nat. 32.72. For magic and medicine cf. Ch. 6.5.  Plin. Nat. 32.55; 32.74; 32.82; 32.111; 32.114‒6.  PGM VII.780.  See the so-called Slander Spell to Selene at PGM IV.2649, and even the coercive spell to attain various purposes (IV.2583).  Plin. Nat. 32.126.  This point has not been understood by Abt 1908: 151, followed by Butler and Owen 1914: 87; Hunink 1997, vol. II: 113; Martos 2015: 65, n. 206, because they do not attempt to comprehend magic according to the viewpoint of Apuleius and his contemporaries.  For comments on the contradictory aspects – although not related to magic – of the list at Apol. 35.6, cf. Abt 1908: 150‒2.

118

6 Sea Creatures for the Seduction of Pudentilla

magus. ¹¹⁵ Abt comments on the sea waste in Apol. 35.4, and cautiously proposes a comparison between assulae, festucae, and especially resticulae and PGM VII.594‒5,¹¹⁶ a passage from a prescription for love-magic, which reads: ‘make a wick of the hawser of a wrecked ship’ (ποίησον ἐλλύχνιον ἀπὸ πλοίου νεναυαγηκότος).¹¹⁷ In reality, more evidence can be added to underscore the use of remains of shipwrecks in goetic practices: PGM V.64‒5; 67‒8 and VII.466 allude to water and a copper nail respectively, which should be taken from shipwrecked vessels. Lastly, it is possible to add that seaweed (algae) is also named amongst the recipes of the magi reported in the Natural History, as they believed it useful to alleviate gout.¹¹⁸ Therefore, although Apuleius feigns innocence, both his claim about the impossible association ex nominum similitudine and his lists of examples are affected by some complications: the former contradicts a widespread principle, while the examples include ingredients actually used in magic. Another issue needs to be addressed: it is necessary to understand why Apuleius stresses the commonness of such res marinae. ¹¹⁹ Commenting on Apol. 29.1, Hunink suggests that this is an attempt to disprove the claim that he paid a substantial amount of money to obtain rare and dangerous components.¹²⁰ This is shown by Apuleius’ insistence on the pretium,¹²¹ which could indicate that the prosecution pointed out that a high price was paid for these rare, magical ingredients. This is the same kind of argument characterising the Primary Charge concerning the skeletal statuette used in necromancy and made of rare ebony which, according to the prosecution, Apuleius strenuously sought out in Oea.¹²² In addition, the idea that dangerous ingredients were very expensive is commonplace: in Apuleius’ Met. 10.9.1, in fact, he describes an evil-minded servant willing to pay a hundred

 For Apuleius’ self-professed rhetorical powers see Apol. 28.2‒3. Furthermore, as suggested by Hunink 1997, vol. II: 113, had his enemies protested, they could have indirectly betrayed knowledge of goetic practices.  Abt 1908: 147‒8.  Cf. Betz 19922: 135.  Plin. Nat. 32.111.  Apol. 35.2 and 35.4‒5. The last passage echoes Plin. Nat. 9.93 (saepias, quoque et lolligines eiusdem magnitudinis expulsas in litus) and this suggests that Apuleius was drawing on Pliny, making his following statement at Apol. 35.6 even more surprising.  Hunink 1997, vol. II: 98‒9.  Apol. 35.3 and also 29.1; 29.4‒6; 29.8. In the anecdote concerning Pythagoras (30.2‒4) Apuleius stresses that the sage paid a pretium to buy fish (30.3), thus Apuleius would have been as innocent as Pythagoras, cf. Ch. 5.4.  Apol. 61.2; 62.5 (Ch. 10.1).

6.4 A Parody of the Voces Magicae

119

gold pieces (centum aureos solidos offerens pretium) to buy a powerful venenum. ¹²³ This examination of Apol. 33‒5 shows the difficulties that Apuleius had to tackle and some disputable aspects of his arguments. His situation was, indeed, difficult: not only was the accusation more serious than he presents it, but his denial of the association ex nominum propinquitate is indeed controversial, and his examples are tainted by magical undertones. Yet, the risks of his provocative strategy were counterbalanced – at least to some extent – by his masterly distortion of his opponents’ speech, and by the learned allusions, which would have helped him gain the favour of the cultivated audience. Up to this point, Apuleius focuses on the alleged employment of veretilla and virginal to unlawfully win Pudentilla’s love. He still left unexplained the most crucial issue: the fact that he publicly dissected a mollusc which his enemies identify with the notorious sea-hare. But before addressing this important point, he adds a lengthy excursus – a deliberate distraction from the issue at stake – on the philosophical reason for his enquiry into fish.

6.4 A Parody of the Voces Magicae Apol. 36‒9 contains perhaps one of the most irrelevant digressions of the whole defence: Apuleius distracts his audience from the magical issues at stake by describing his noble research into nature and fish,¹²⁴ imitating and even outdoing¹²⁵ his illustrious predecessors Aristotle, Theophrastus, Eudemus of Rhodes, and Lyco of Troas.¹²⁶ Then he displays his magniloquence further by retelling an anecdote concerning the poet Sophocles, unjustly impugned by his son,¹²⁷

 For venenum and magic, cf. Ch. 5.6, 11.2; see also Apul. Met. 10.25.2. For the topos of the expensive poisons and the greedy physician, see Zimmerman 2000: 157‒8; 319. On Apuleius’ toxicological knowledge see Barbara 2018.  Apol. 36.3‒8; 37.4; 39.4.  Apol. 36.6 and 38.5.  Apol. 36.3; these are called Platonis minores, the interpretation of which as ‘Plato’s disciples’ befits Apuleius’ Middle-Platonic views (cf. Marchesi 1955=2011: 51; Hunink 1997, vol. II: 114; Fletcher 2014: 112). Butler and Owen 1914: 88 leave open the possibility of interpreting it either as ‘disciples’, or as posteri; cf. also the translation “successors” given by Butler 1909: 69, Hunink in Harrison et al. 2001: 61, and Martos 2015: 66 (“seguidores”). For the use of minor as ‘disciple’, cf. ThLL, vol. X.1, s.v. parvus, col. 566.  Apol. 37.1‒3, on which see Binternagel 2008: 158‒65. Harrison 2000: 68, n. 77 suggests as a model Cic. Sen. 22. For additional remarks on the anecdote, see Hunink 1997, vol. II: 116. McCreight 2004: 153‒75 argues that this anecdote might function as an ‘historiola’ to enchant the audience.

120

6 Sea Creatures for the Seduction of Pudentilla

and quotes eleven hexameters from Ennius’ Hedyphagetica. ¹²⁸ Framed within this section – in which the magical seduction of Pudentilla is wholly overlooked – we find the controversial mockery of some voces magicae, the unintelligible utterances featuring in many goetic spells. Apuleius also announces that a servant will bring into the courtroom of Sabratha some of his zoological treatises on fish, to which he sarcastically refers as de magicis meis. ¹²⁹ Despite his irony this assertion might have been dangerous, were the judge ill-disposed towards Apuleius: we know that the Lex Cornelia de sicariis et veneficis rigorously condemned the very possession of libros magicae artis,¹³⁰ and punishments would have been even more severe for a magus writing down such a forbidden lore.¹³¹ These risks notwithstanding, at Apol. 38.7‒8 Apuleius goes even further, saying that he will utter unintelligible magica nomina Aegyptio vel Babylonico ritu, and then pronounces¹³² the following series of Greek terms: σελάχεια, μαλάκεια, μαλακόστρακα, χονδράκανθα, ὀστρακόδερμα, καρχαρόδοντα, ἀμφίβια, λεπιδωτά, φολιδωτά, δερμόπτερα, στεγανόποδα, μονήρη, συναγελαστικά. This is, in reality, not a goetic utterance but a list of thirteen names indicating Aristotelian classes of fish, amphibians, and other animals probably contained in a lost zoological treatise by Apuleius.¹³³ However, its resemblance to the voces magicae found in contemporary defixiones and in the Greek Magical Papyri – as I discuss below – could have easily provoked the uproar of the prosecution and some of the people in court, given that an analogous reaction is indicated after the utterance of the names of various magi at Apol. 90.6.¹³⁴ Apuleius does not seem concerned about these possible implications: he mainly intends to amuse the cultured audience and the judge Maximus, who would have easily understood the harmlessness of the pseudo-magical names, and would have looked with disdain at the accusers – previously described as Greekless –¹³⁵ and their pro-

 Apol. 39.2‒3. On these lines, see Vivenza 1981: 5‒44; Courtney 1993: 22‒5; Schade 1998: 275‒ 8; Kruschwitz 1998: 261‒74.  Apol. 36.7.  Paulus Sent. 5.29.18. The sentence for humiliores was death, while the nobiliores were confined to an island.  A person having knowledge of goetic magic was sentenced to death, see Paulus Sent. 5.29.17‒18.  Hunink 1997, vol. II: 119 aptly observes that in this case Apuleius acts as a speaker and does not ask an assistant to read the passage. We can note that this conforms to the other allusions to goetic magic at Apol. 26.6‒9, 64.1‒2, and 90.6.  Abt 1908: 155; Butler and Owen 1914: 92‒3 followed and expanded on by Hunink 1997, vol. II: 119; Harrison 2000: 68; May 2006: 93; Martos 2015: 70, n. 219.  Ch. 11.5.  Apol. 30.11.

6.4 A Parody of the Voces Magicae

121

tests. And when Apuleius would have read the Latin rendering of the names, even the sceptical crowd would have been reassured.¹³⁶ This ploy is part of a rhetorical strategy observable in three other passages of the Apologia: at Apol. 26.6‒9, in fact, Apuleius surreptitiously threatens Aemilianus saying that, if he were a goetic magus, then his arch-enemy would never be able to escape his all-powerful magic.¹³⁷ Likewise, the use of refined neologisms at Apol. 64.2 counterbalances the frightful invocation of daemons to hunt down Aemilianus,¹³⁸ and the list of notorious magi at Apol. 90.6 is equally justified by the fact that this information did not come from magical treatises but from sources accessible in public libraries.¹³⁹ This risky strategy presupposes, again, the unquestionable benevolence and sympathy of Claudius Maximus, but the knowledge of magic here displayed is clear and dangerous. The utterance of indecipherable names is, in fact, a typical feature of goetic magic as Abt rightly points out,¹⁴⁰ but since his discussion is incomplete, I shall review the substantial evidence that can be gathered from literary, epigraphic, and papyrological sources which will allow us to confirm Apuleius’ knowledge of the voces magicae and the way in which he mocks them. From the very appearance of the goetic connotation of μάγος in the fifth century BC, these practitioners were thought to utter unfathomable βάρβαρα μέλη. ¹⁴¹ The so-called Getty Hexameters – Orphic inscriptions on golden leaves from Selinous dating to the end of the fifth century BC – may be seen as evidence for the early existence of such utterances: within these hexameters we find, in fact, the elements composing the powerful charm known as Ephesia Grammata, which also occur in later evidence of goetic magic.¹⁴² Several literary sources, both early and chronologically close to Apuleius, allude to eerie utterances in the realm of literary magic. Already in Ovid,¹⁴³ Lucan¹⁴⁴ and Silius Italicus¹⁴⁵ we find allusions to magica lingua, while Pliny the Elder refers to magica vocabu-

 Apol. 38.9; this part is not transcribed in the preserved version of the speech, cf. Harrison 2000: 68, n. 78.  Apol. 26.6‒9 (Ch. 4.3).  Ch. 10.7.  Apol. 91.2 (Ch. 11.5).  Abt 1908: 152‒5 and, in his wake, Butler and Owen 1914: 92, and Hunink 1997, vol. II: 118‒9.  E. IT. 1337‒8. On goetic spells in general, cf. Ch. 4.3.  On the Ephesia Grammata and their proto-‘magical’ aspect, see the discussion by Bernabé 2015: 71‒106. On the connection between Orpheus and magic, cf. Ch. 4.5; on magic and mysteries, cf. Ch. 8.2.  Ov. Met. 7.330, and in 14.57‒8 (magico ore).  Luc. 3.224.  Sil. 1.431‒2.

122

6 Sea Creatures for the Seduction of Pudentilla

la. ¹⁴⁶ In the Nekyomanteia by Lucian of Samosata, the magical utterance of the μάγος Mithrobarzanes is interspersed with βαρβαρικά τινα καὶ ἄσημα ὀνόματα καὶ πολυσύλλαβα (‘some barbaric, incomprehensible, polysyllabic words’).¹⁴⁷ Interestingly enough, in real magical practices such outlandish names were not perceived as goetic, but described with a holy terminology: they are, in fact, called nomina sacra ¹⁴⁸ in a Carthaginian defixio,¹⁴⁹ and as ὀνόματα ἅγια or ἱερά in the PGM. ¹⁵⁰ It has gone unnoticed that Apuleius’ specific allusion to Aegyptio vel Babylonico ritu ¹⁵¹ must be understood in the light of a widespread belief connecting the utterances of Egyptian and Babylonian holy men with goetic magic. This seems already evident in a passage from Lucan’s Bellum Civile, where the unintelligible murmur of the Thessalian women is said to be more powerful than that of goetic practitioners from Babylon and Egypt,¹⁵² and it reflects the fact that when the term magus and its cognates were associated with the cults of the Babylonian Chaldeans and the Egyptian priests they often have a goetic connotation. Since I comment on the goetic reputation of the Chaldeans in my discussion of Apol. 97.4,¹⁵³ here I will briefly analyse the magical interpretation of the Egyptian cults: although explicit evidence for this appears in Pliny the Elder and Lucian’s Philopseudes,¹⁵⁴ it is worth remarking that the aforementioned passage from Lucan’s Bellum Civile also indicates a goetic understanding of Egyptian as well as Babylonian cults.¹⁵⁵ In addition, the Homeric passages concerning Proteus and Agamede-Perimede, which are quoted in Apol. 31.6‒7, could have

 Plin. Nat. 24.166.  Luc. Nec. 9 and similarly DMeretr. 4.5. Later evidence, such as [Quint.] Decl. 10.15 and Hld. 6.14, contains analogous allusions to the voces magicae.  In his pioneering Nomina Sacra, Traube devotes a section to die ägyptischen Zauberpapyri (1907: 38‒40). On this cf. the more recent study by Hurtado 1998: 665‒73.  Audollent 1904: 250a.28.  E. g. PGM III.390; III.624; IV.216‒7; IV.871‒2; VII.443‒4; X.40; XII.134.  Apol. 38.7.  Luc. 6.448‒51: infandum tetigit cum sidera murmur, / tum, Babylon Persea licet secretaque Memphis / omne vetustorum solvat penetrale magorum / abducet superos alienis Thessalis aris. On this passage and the use of murmur in magical contexts, see Baldini Moscadi 1976=2005: 165‒74.  Ch. 11.6.  Plin. Nat. 25.13 (cf. 2.6); Luc. Philops. 34, on which see Abt 1908: 152‒3, and especially Ogden 2007: 248‒56. At the beginning of the third century Cassius Dio considers Arnouphis, the Egyptian priest in the entourage of Marcus Aurelius, as a μάγος (C.D. 71.8.4). See Dickie 2001: 199 and Ogden 2007: 248.  Luc. 6.448‒9.

6.4 A Parody of the Voces Magicae

123

eased this goetic understanding, since these figures were retrospectively associated with goetic magic before and during Apuleius’ time.¹⁵⁶ This analysis sheds more light on literary allusions to voces magicae ascribed to Egyptians and Babylonians, but it is still necessary to explore the extent to which Apuleius’ mock-voces magicae could reveal his own knowledge of goetic magic. This passage of the Apologia is exceptional, since no other surviving literary text offers such a vivid rendering of the magica nomina employed in real magic. Some stylistic remarks will show the close similarity of Apuleius’ utterance and those transmitted in the curse-tablets and the PGM. ¹⁵⁷ Abt compares Apol. 38.8 with the voces magicae in a spell for producing trance preserved in the Great Paris Papyrus,¹⁵⁸ a fourth-century copy of an earlier text probably dating to the second century AD.¹⁵⁹ It is worth noting that already in the first century AD curse-tablets from the Roman world present elaborate voces magicae of clear Oriental origin,¹⁶⁰ and Audollent argues that the utterances recorded in most defixiones have strong analogies to those in the later papyri.¹⁶¹ This indicates the presence of an established goetic idiom already in the first two centuries AD, a jargon with which Apuleius was so familiar as to parody it exemplarily. His pseudo-magica nomina are, in fact, characterised by features recurring in curse-tablets from North Africa chronologically close to the trial: the presence of figures of speech such as accumulatio of Greek names within a Latin main text, assonance,¹⁶² and alliteration of various syllables,¹⁶³ can be seen in the voces magicae in a second-century defixio from the amphitheatre of Carthage.¹⁶⁴

 Ch. 5.3 and 5.4.  The voces magicae in both defixiones and PGM have been the subject of thorough studies in recent times: see Gager 1992: 5‒12, and particularly Crippa 2012: 289‒97 and Marco Simόn 2012: 135‒45 on PGM and curse-tablets, respectively.  PGM IV.887‒95.  Cf. Ch. 2.3.  Cf. Gager 1992: 6‒7. On the Jewish origin of some voces magicae, see Bohak 2003: 69‒82.  See Index VII in Audollent’s book (1904: pp. 499‒516).  On this figure of speech in voces magicae, see also Abt 1908: 154, n. 3.  These figures of speech, alliteration in particular, are also typical of the Roman sacral language as observed in De Meo 20053: 144‒6, and an interesting parallel could be the incantation to heal a fracture in Cato Agr. 160.1. For a thought-provoking anthropological discussion of spells in various cultures, although from a non-emic standpoint, see Tambiah 1968: 175‒208.  Audollent 1904: 253.2‒7: ερεκισιφθη αραραχαραρα ηφθισικηρε̣ ευλαμω ιωερβηθ ιωπακερβηθ ιωβολχοσηθ βολχοδκ̣ η̣φ βασουμ[π]αντα θναξχθεθωνι ρινγχοσεσρ[ω]… απομψπακερβωθ ακαρθαρα ιακ̣ [ο]υβια ααψκακοχ… μωτοντουλιψ οβριουλημ κυμ[..]. A series of voces magicae covers the margins and other parts of the tablet (253.22‒30; 253.66‒8).

124

6 Sea Creatures for the Seduction of Pudentilla

Likewise, many other African devotiones contain magica nomina presenting the aforementioned figures of speech, that is alliteration, accumulatio and assonance.¹⁶⁵ Apuleius’ ominous mock-voces magicae mirror, therefore, the format of those found in goetic materials chronologically and geographically close to him, and anyone familiar with these practices – especially if less versed in Greek – could have seen this as strong evidence against the defendant. To sum up, by discussing the rhetorical strategy in Apol. 36‒9 and the use of voces magicae in the Greco-Roman world, it is possible to conclude that Apuleius’ mock-voces magicae comply with a forensic strategy intended to intimidate the accusers, who would have failed to ascertain the real nature of a provocation similar to those in Apol. 26.6‒9, 64.1‒2, and 90.6. An outraged reaction of the attackers would have only biased Maximus against them. The parodic purpose of Apuleius’ utterance notwithstanding, his mock-voces magicae would have indirectly betrayed his own goetic expertise. Even though this could have exposed Apuleius’ flank to further controversies,¹⁶⁶ in the following part of this section, he draws fully on his Platonising reasoning in order to avert suspicions.

6.5 Swinging between Magic and Medicine In Apol. 40.1‒4 Apuleius prepares the ground to defend himself from the accusation of having publicly dissected a mollusc identified by his attackers with the noxious sea-hare.¹⁶⁷ Instead of denying this controversial point, he uses semantically ambiguous concepts to dampen any suspicion and present himself as a righteous follower of Plato.¹⁶⁸ In this case, he draws upon the connection between magic and medicine to explain that his medical interests led him to seek remedies inside fish to heal people, but certainly not to make aphrodisiacs to seduce Pudentilla.¹⁶⁹ Then he adds as exemplum the fact that Homer already described the healing powers of the carmina. ¹⁷⁰ Examinations of this passage pay insufficient attention to the conceptual contiguity between goetic magic and medicine in Greco-Roman times, on which Apuleius’ reasoning relies: Abt

 E. g. Audollent 1904: 234.3‒4; 234.28‒30; 235.3‒4; 236.1‒2; 237.2‒3; 238.2‒5; 239.2‒4; 240.2‒3; 241.2‒4; 243.1‒34; 244a.1‒19; 250b.1‒3; 252.1‒6; 252.11‒24; 252.45‒6; 264.2‒11; 265a.1‒3 (spelt in Latin letters); 266.9‒11.  Paulus Sent. 5.29.17.  Apol. 40.5‒11 (Ch. 6.6).  Plato is explicitly addressed alongside Aristotle at Apol. 41.7.  Apol. 40.1‒3; see the overview in Harrison 2000: 68‒9.  Apol. 40.4.

6.5 Swinging between Magic and Medicine

125

does not address this issue in his analysis of Apol. 40.1‒4,¹⁷¹ while Hunink and Martos only refer to Önnerfors.¹⁷² Önnerfors, however, looks into incantations used in Roman medicine, which he loosely calls ‘magical’ without explaining the connections between magic and medicine. In addition, the purpose of the reference to the Homeric incantations has not been fully understood: in this section I argue that this reference was meant to provide a counter-argument to the accusation of having used both amatoria and incantations on Pudentilla; this anticipates the rebuttal of the following charge dealing with the noxious powers of Apuleius’ spells, and the first Secondary Charge which is about Apuleius’ seduction of Pudentilla with spells and love-philtres.¹⁷³ I will also cast light on the dangerous implications of Apuleius’ reference to Homeric incantations in order to clarify his serious situation. Finally, I shall analyse the connections between magic and medicine from an emic standpoint in order to clarify fully Apuleius’ reasoning. Let us take a closer look at the speech: first, Apuleius admits that he sought components from sea animals for medical purposes, since these can be even found in piscibus. ¹⁷⁴ Although he discards any goetic intentions, it is implicit that he actually gained some ingredients from fish, otherwise it would have been futile to expand on this point. He swiftly sets out the crucial argument that knowledge of and research on healing remedies befit the physician and the philosopher, who aim to help people for free,¹⁷⁵ rather than the goetic magus. ¹⁷⁶ Then, Apuleius draws on the authority of Homer to explain that the ἐπαοιδή of Autolycus’ sons could cure Odysseus’ wound,¹⁷⁷ and concludes that attempting to save people’s lives cannot be considered a prosecutable action.¹⁷⁸ It stands out immediately that the insistence on the terms salus and remedium is

 Abt 1908: 155‒6; 202‒5.  Hunink 1997, vol. II: 122; Martos 2015: 72; Önnerfors 1993: 157‒224.  Cf. Ch. 7.1 and 11.2, respectively.  Apol. 40.1‒2. On the use of the generic term piscis cf. Ch. 6.2.  On Apuleius interest in medicine, see Vallette 1908: 68‒74. Prisc. G.L. 2.203 mentions Apuleius’ lost Libri Medicinales; see the discussion in Harrison 2000: 25‒6. Further evidence of this interest can be noticed in the miraculous account about Asclepiades of Prusa (Fl. 19, on which see Hunink 2001: 196‒201 and Lee 2005: 178‒81) and in the portrayal of the honest physician in Met. 10.8‒12 (cf. Zimmermann 2000: 148‒95); see also May 2014b: 115‒17. In addition, Rives 1994 proposes that Apuleius was a priest of the healing deity Asclepius, to whom he devoted a speech now lost (Apol. 55.10‒12, on which see also Harrison 2000: 34). For an overview of medicine and rhetoric during the Second Sophistic, see Pearcy 1993: 445‒56.  Apol. 40.3. A parallel argument is presented at Apol. 51.10.  Hom. Od. 19.456‒8. On the absence of the concept of magic in Homeric, cf. Ch. 5.4.  Apol. 40.4.

126

6 Sea Creatures for the Seduction of Pudentilla

a likely reference to the Lex Cornelia de sicariis et veneficis, the law protecting people’s safety.¹⁷⁹ Apuleius wants, in fact, to make it perfectly clear that he had never harmed anyone, and by doing so he anticipates the mendacious nature of the following accusations, which are about his enchantment of Thallus, slave-boys, and an unknown matron,¹⁸⁰ the alleged murder of Pontianus,¹⁸¹ and the pollution of Iunius Crassus’ household to murder him.¹⁸² But Apuleius’ main concern here is to create an uplifting introduction to safely rebut his disputable dissection of the sea-hare¹⁸³ and, to do so, he resorts to the well-established link between magical practices and medicine. Since studies on this subject employ ‘magic’ without defining it according to the viewpoint of the ancients,¹⁸⁴ and since Apuleius plays with the semantic and conceptual ambiguity of magic and its connection with medicine, I shall attempt to clarify the contiguity of magic and medicine in Greco-Roman times. That people with diseases sought the help of the μάγοι is already attested in Hippocrates’ De Morbo Sacro, where Hippocrates condemns with utter disbelief their therapies, namely καθαρμοί and ἐπαοιδαί. ¹⁸⁵ The fact that the Greek φάρμακον is a vox media, indicating both poisons and beneficial remedies, is already clear from reading Homer’s Odyssey 4.230, a verse cited in Apol. 31.6.¹⁸⁶ Likewise, venenum – the Latin counterpart of φάρμακον – is also a vox media as explained in the second and third century AD by the jurists Gaius and Marcianus.¹⁸⁷ Thus, φάρμακον-venenum

 Cf. Ch. 1.3. This law addresses cases of poisoning by means of healing remedies: Paulus Sent. 5.29.19 indicates that ‘if because of that medicament, which is given to cure a person or as a healing remedy, a person dies’ (si ex eo medicamine, quod ad salutem hominis vel ad remedium datum erat, homo perierit), the humilior responsible for administering the medicament would have been sentenced to death, the nobilior confined to an island.  Apol. 42.3‒52.4 (Ch. 7).  Apol. 53‒57.1 (Ch. 8).  Apol. 57‒60 (Ch. 9).  Apol. 40.5‒11 (6.6).  Cf. Lloyd 1975: 1‒17; 1979: 10‒58; Önnerfors 1993: 157‒224; Nutton 2004: 37‒52; Brill’s New Pauly, vol. VIII, s.v. Magical Healing, coll. 136‒7.  Hp. Morb. Sacr. 1.  Ch. 5.4.  This was probably a trope in rhetorical exercises. Gaius (Dig. 50.16.236) cites the aforementioned Homeric verse, establishes a clear connection between ‘venenum’ and φάρμακον, and observes: qui ‘venenum’ dicit, adicere debet, u t r u m m a l u m a n b o n u m : nam et medicamenta venena sunt quia eo nomine omne continetur, quod adhibitum naturam eius, cui adhibitum esset, mutat (‘someone who talks of “drug” must add whether it is harmful or beneficial; for medicaments are also drugs since under that heading everything is contained which when applied to something changes the nature of that to which it is applied’). Similarly, Marcianus, commenting on the Lex Cornelia, explains (Dig. 48.8.3.2): n o m e n m e d i u m id [sc. venenum] est,

6.5 Swinging between Magic and Medicine

127

could indicate a medical remedy as well as a noxious poison. Yet, from an early stage φάρμακον and its cognates were associated with goetic magic in literary texts such as Aristophanes’ Clouds ¹⁸⁸ and Theocritus’ Second Idyll,¹⁸⁹ and the popularity of this literary topos probably eased the “cultural transfer”¹⁹⁰ of such goetic concepts and terminology in the Roman world. In fact, Plautus – although he does not know the words magus or magia – employs the terms venenum and specifically medicamentum ¹⁹¹ with reference to Medea’s concoctions to rejuvenate Pelias,¹⁹² making the connection between goetic and medical concepts visible. In the Imperial age, medicine was considered by Pliny the Elder as a core feature of magia: in his description of the origin of magic, he argues that magic originated from medicine and that it later acquired its religious and astrological features.¹⁹³ Numerous passages from healing recipes attributed to the magi can be found in the Natural History,¹⁹⁴ about which Pliny expresses the same scepticism emerging from the De Morbo Sacro. The medico-magical evidence in Pliny presupposes the circulation of treatises ascribed or actually written by people who called themselves magi,¹⁹⁵ and the PGM confirms the fact that magical practitioners actually performed healing rites. There we find, in fact, prescriptions to cure various illnesses, including fever, haemorrhages, and epilepsy.¹⁹⁶ Apuleius here uses the established connection between magic and medicine to turn his allegedly magical actions into medical research on fish without denying it, in the same manner in which he does not deny being a magus since he

quod ad sanandum, quam id, quod ad occidendum paratum est, continent, sed et id quod amatorium appellatur (‘the term is therefore neutral, covering as much a drug prepared for the purpose of healing as one for the purpose of killing, as also that which is called an aphrodisiac’). Translations from Watson in Mommsen et al. 1985: 819 and 954, respectively. This semantic ambiguity of venenum is also evident in Hor. Epod. 5.87: venena miscent fas nefasque.  Ar. Nu. 749.  Theoc. 2.15; 161, some remarks on the importance of this work in Ch. 5.3.  I use this theoretical model to indicate the mobility of words and concepts between cultures, cf. Espagne and Werner 1985: 502‒10.  ThLL, vol. VIII, s.v. medicamentum, coll. 534‒5 for the use of medicamentum in contexts concerning magic, seduction and poisoning.  Pl. Ps. 869‒70.  Plin. Nat. 30.2. See also Crippa 2010: 115‒25.  E. g. Plin. Nat. 28.47; 28.69; 28.89; 28.92‒106; 28.198; 28.201; 28.215; 28.226; 28.228‒9; 28.232; 28.249; 28.259‒60; 30.21; 30.51‒4; 30.64; 30.82‒4; 30.91; 30.98‒100; 30.110; 30.141; 32.34; 32.41; 32.49‒50; 32.55; 32.72; 32.115‒6. In many other cases Pliny expounds the recipes of the magi using impersonal expressions such as dicitur, ut traditur, and ut narrant.  These therapies are amusingly mocked in Lucian’s Philops. 7‒8.  PGM XVIIIb.1‒7; XXIIa.1‒27; LXXXVII.1‒11; XCV.14‒18; CXXVIII.1‒12.

128

6 Sea Creatures for the Seduction of Pudentilla

understands this term as the commendable priest of Zoroaster.¹⁹⁷ However, while Apuleius’ shift from magic to medicine might have been a successful forensic ruse, the following reference to the incantation of Autolycus’ sons¹⁹⁸ at Apol. 40.4 seems questionable. Abt¹⁹⁹ draws a parallel with a late-antique Christian historiola ²⁰⁰ to prevent a wound from bleeding, and Hunink²⁰¹ mentions a recipe with similar purposes in Pseudo-Theodorus Priscianus in which the name of Apuleius is called upon.²⁰² These late examples do not help us understand the suspicions that Apuleius’ reference might have aroused during the trial. It is necessary to observe that the belief in the efficacy of Homeric ἐπῳδαί could have been also shared by Galen, who wrote a lost Περὶ τῆς καθ’ Ὅμηρον ἰατρικῆς. ²⁰³ However, healing incantations as a whole were also contemptuously attributed to goetic practitioners. This can already be seen in Hippocrates’ De Morbo Sacro,²⁰⁴ and in the second century AD Lucian openly mocks the efficacy of healing ἐπῳδαί describing them as forms of γοητεία befitting simpletons.²⁰⁵ Even more important, this episode of the Odyssey cited by Apuleius was explicitly associated with goetic magic by Pliny the Elder, who gives a list of examples of the supernatural power of spells.²⁰⁶ That Apuleius himself was aware of the retrospective magical interpretation of this Homeric episode can be glimpsed by the fact that he translates ἐπῳδή with cantamen, a term which – as explained earlier – is specifically employed with a goetic connotation.²⁰⁷ He probably hoped that the safe context of his praise for medicine would have removed or at least attenuated the magical interpretation of this passage and of healing incantations in general, while strengthening his argument with an example from the certissimus auctor Homer.²⁰⁸ But why to offer a controversial example when attempting to rebut an already difficult accusation? As discussed in Chap-

 Apol. 25.9‒26.5.  Hom. Od. 19.455‒8.  Abt 1908: 155‒6.  Cat. Cod. Astr. vol. VI: 88. On the historiola, see Önnerfors 1993: 190‒2; Brashear 1995: 3438‒ 40; Brill’s New Pauly, vol. VI, s.v. Historiola, col. 430.  Hunink 1997, vol. II: 123.  Ps. Theod. ed. Rose 18942: 276.  The passage comes from the epitome of Rufus of Ephesus by Alexander of Tralles (cf. Puschmann 1963, vol. II: 475). See Collins 2008b: 211‒2.  Hp. Morb.2.  Luc. Philops. 8.  Plin. Nat. 28.21. Since Pliny does not distinguish between literary and goetic magic, we find this passage after the reference to the magical charms in Vergil and Theocritus (Nat. 28.19).  ThLL, vol. III, s.v. cantamen, col. 279 and my remarks on Apol. 26.6 (Ch. 4.3).  Apol. 40.4.

6.6 The Dissection of a Sea-hare

129

ter 11, both magical philtres and spells were employed to seduce a victim, and this is a point which the prosecution made clear in this allegation and in the first Secondary Charge.²⁰⁹ I argue that in this passage Apuleius probably wanted to disprove his alleged use of incantations on Pudentilla. Moreover, this reference would ultimately have constituted an uplifting prelude to his countering of the accusation concerning his noxious spells making people fall ill in Oea – which he discusses shortly afterwards – and in that part of the speech Apuleius draws once more on the contiguity between magic and medicine to cast away any dangerous implication.²¹⁰ In brief, the content of Apol. 40.1‒4 and in particular the shift from magic to medicine has a key function that does not only help Apuleius introduce his following discussion of the sea-hare, but also to address several dangerous issues covered in the other allegations brought against him. Nonetheless, the Homeric passage concerning the supernatural powers of spells which Apuleius presents as evidence of his innocence matches real goetic practices, and could have indeed cast further suspicions on Apuleius. As we will observe, some aspects of the next part of the defence are equally contentious.

6.6 The Dissection of a Sea-hare The final part of the rebuttal of the ‘fish charge’ is pervaded by the same Platonising undertone characterising the rest of this section, lessening the dangerous aspect of the charge as well as some weaker points of Apuleius’ own defence. I suggest that the argument at Apol. 40.5‒41 is far from entirely convincing: light will be shed on the notoriety of the sea-hare, explaining why a deadly and poisonous mollusc had been included by the attackers in an accusation concerning love-magic. Then, I shall discuss the mendacity of Apuleius’ claim that the sea creature dissected was not a sea-hare by expanding upon the evidence offered by Butler and Owen.²¹¹ Lastly, I shall consider the importance of Apuleius’ allusions to some features of the accusation, touched upon shortly before the conclusion, which enables us to gain a better insight into the charge and its content. After claiming his righteousness and the beneficial potential of his enquiry into fish,²¹² Apuleius declares that the reason for dissecting sea creatures goes

   

Cf. Apol. 68.1‒71.1 (Ch. 11.2). Apol. 42.3‒52.4 (Ch. 7). Butler and Owen 1914: 98. Apol. 40.1‒4 (Ch. 6.5).

130

6 Sea Creatures for the Seduction of Pudentilla

beyond medicine,²¹³ since he aims to supplement Aristotle’s zoological writings.²¹⁴ He feigns surprise at his enemies’ ignorance of the several dissections which he had practised publicly, according to his ideal masters’ example (more hoc et instituto magistrorum meorum).²¹⁵ The reasoning underlying this passage is that acting in broad daylight hinders Apuleius’ identification with the occult nature of goetic magic, a craft known for being ‘practised at night, hidden in the dark, secluded from observers’ (noctibus vigilata et tenebris abstrusa et arbitris solitaria), as he puts it.²¹⁶ Having made this point clear, Apuleius moves on to the pisciculus ²¹⁷ which his prosecutors call sea-hare.²¹⁸ First, he emphasises that the dissection took place before a crowd to whom he showed his results²¹⁹ and, second, that he did not actually dissect a sea-hare but an unidentified mollusc.²²⁰ Before assessing the validity of Apuleius’ second claim, it is necessary to offer some information concerning the dangerous properties ascribed to the sea-hare. A number of ancient sources allude to the features of the lepus marinus, or θαλάττιος λαγωός, a mollusc identified with a common seaslug of the Mediterranean sea which is now indicated by the name of Aplysia depilans. ²²¹ A physical description of the sea-hare can be found in Nicander’s Alexipharmaka, where he comments on its repugnant smell²²² and stresses its sordid aspect and the similarity to molluscs that spray ink.²²³ Pliny the Elder de-

 Apol. 40.2‒4.  Apol. 40.5, similar claims in 40.11 and already 36.6; 38.5.  Apol. 40.6‒7. On this passage see Hunink 1997, vol. II: 124 and especially Martos 2015: 73, n. 237.  Apol. 47.3 (and 42.3), cf. Ch. 7.4.  Apol. 40.6; 40.8. For the comic use of diminutives in the Apologia, see my comments at Ch. 7.2 and n. 109.  See analogously Apol. 33.2‒3.  Apol. 40.8. The adjective plurimi, used as a noun, underlines the publicity of the event and hints at Apuleius’ celebrity, always attracting crowds to his performances either for zoological purposes or for listening to his speeches (as in Apol. 28.3).  Apol. 40.9.  This contrasts with Apol. 33.3, where Apuleius states that his attendant could not find a seahare. On this animal, see Keller 1913: 544‒5; Butler and Owen 1914: 85; 98; Lewin 1920: 22; 197; Thompson 1947: 142‒4; Saint-Denis 1947: 54‒5. See also the taxonomic information in the online World Register of Marine Species (WoRMS). Thanks to Malcolm Heath for drawing my attention to this database.  Nic. Alex. 467‒8. I refer to the edition by Jacques 2007: 201‒2. At Apol. 41.6 Apuleius shows familiarity with the Theriaka but cautiously avoids mentioning the Alexipharmaka, where the sea-hare is mentioned; cf. also the observations in Hunink 1997, vol. II: 125.  Nic. Alex. 470‒3.

6.6 The Dissection of a Sea-hare

131

picts the sea-hare as offa informis colore tantum lepori similis,²²⁴ while Aelian compares it to a snail without a shell.²²⁵ There is a consensus amongst the ancients about the deadliness of this mollusc,²²⁶ and its poisonous effects were so notorious as to become proverbial in Greek comedy.²²⁷ Philostratus, in the Life of Apollonius, reports that Domitian poisoned Titus by mixing a sea-hare into his meal, inheriting Nero’s custom of employing sea-hares to murder his enemies.²²⁸ Given that the evidence available does not indicate the use of this creature in love-magic, one could wonder about the reason why the venomous seahare was mentioned in a charge concerning the seduction of Pudentilla with love-charms and philtres.²²⁹ A hypothesis can be ventured: a Mediterranean sea-slug with the mouth open can easily be likened to female genitals,²³⁰ an association perhaps not explicitly proposed by the accusers for reasons of prudishness,²³¹ but seemingly evident to anyone familiar with this notorious mollusc. If this hypothesis is correct, the role of the sea-hare in the allegation concerning the seduction of Pudentilla becomes much clearer: while dissecting a creature resembling female genitals would have suggested Apuleius’ licentiousness – which had already been pointed out by his attackers –²³² the physical shape of the sea-hare would have made it a suitable candidate for love-magic, analogously to the virginal and the veretilla. ²³³ In addition, Apuleius’ argument that the vivisected creature was unknown even to earlier philosophers²³⁴ does not come entirely out in his favour: if this sea animal was still unidentified, no one could know whether its components could be beneficial or venomous. This is perhaps why he gives no indication about what he obtained from the dis-

 Plin. Nat. 9.155: ‘a shapeless lump resembling a hare in colour only’. Translation by Rackham 1940: 269.  Ael. NA 2.45.  Nic. Alex. 465; Plin. Nat. 9.155; 20.223; 24.18; 28.158; 32.8; 32.70; Plu. Mor. 260 f; 983 f. See also Graf 1997: 72‒3.  This is stressed by Jacques 2007: 200, who refers to Amipsias (Ath. 9.400c; cf. PCG, vol. II: 205‒6, frg. 17); Cratinus (PCG, vol. IV: 324, frg. 466), and Hipponax (Scholia in Nic. Alex. 465; cf. Masson 1962: 95, frg. 157; Degani 1983: 52, frg. 37).  Philostr. VA 6.32, mentioned also in Abt 1908: 135.  A similar bewilderment is expressed by Abt 1908: 135, and Hunink 1997, vol. II: 107.  Butler and Owen 1914: 85 record a series of obscene designations for this sea creature in Italian dialects, still in use nowadays.  See Tannonius’ ostentation of contempt at Apol. 33.6 (Ch. 6.3).  Apol. 4 (Ch. 3.2); 9‒13.4 (Ch. 3.4); 13.5‒16.13 (Ch. 3.5).  Ch. 6.3.  Apol. 40.9.

132

6 Sea Creatures for the Seduction of Pudentilla

section,²³⁵ but he only presents it as a descriptive enquiry. He shares, in fact, with the audience the preliminary results of the inspection, explaining that the unknown sea creature had twelve little bones, similar to the malleoli of pigs, interconnected within its belly.²³⁶ This depiction does not entirely support Apuleius’ claim that the mollusc is not a sea-hare: Butler and Owen suspect that the vivisected creature was indeed a sea-hare since, after a scientific dissection of an Aplysia, eleven bones were found resembling those described in Apol. 40.10.²³⁷ To suppose that Apuleius is deliberately bluffing might not be improbable given that this part of the Apologia is characterised by blatant denials of other commonplace beliefs, such as the use of fish in magic,²³⁸ and the connection due to the similarity of names.²³⁹ I have so far discussed the unconvincing aspects of Apuleius’ description of his dissection of a sea-hare. What follows at Apol. 41.1‒7 is an uplifting declaration,²⁴⁰ enabling him to bias the audience further against the ill-educated prosecution,²⁴¹ whilst stressing once more his innocence:²⁴² he lashes out against his vulgar opponents²⁴³ and offers a lofty self-portrait as an encyclopaedist, a physician, a mystic, and a rhetorician, or – in a single word – a philosophus. ²⁴⁴ Then, he addresses Maximus stressing his own admiration for Aristotle, and provokes Aemilianus, arguing that if he had to be convicted, then the whole Aristotelian corpus should have been outlawed.²⁴⁵ It is implicit that Maximus would have allowed neither the destruction of these writings, nor the conviction of a follower of both Aristotle and Plato such as Apuleius.²⁴⁶ Within this safe context Apuleius

 The main point of the previous part of the speech was the idea that beneficial components can be found in fish, suggesting that some components were obtained from the dissection (Apol. 40.1‒3, discussed in Ch. 6.5).  Apol. 40.10.  Butler and Owen 1914: 98, followed by Hunink 1997, vol. II: 124, and Martos 2015: 74, n. 238.  Apol. 30.4‒31.9 (Ch. 5).  Apol. 34.4‒35.6 (Ch. 6.3).  Despite the canonical chapter subdivision, I regard Apol. 42.1‒2 as the actual conclusion of this section.  Apol. 41.1‒6.  Apol. 41.7.  Apol. 41.1‒2.  Apol. 41.3. For Apuleius’ holistic understanding of philosophy, cf. Moreschini 1978: 17‒18, updated in 2015: 42‒8; Hijmans 1987: 470; McCreight 1990: 60; Sandy 1997: 22‒6; Harrison 2000: 38; May 2010: 178; Fletcher 2014: 185‒90; Stover 2016: 66‒9.  Apol. 41.4. For a similar argument cf. Apol. 91.2 (Ch. 11.5).  Apol. 41.7. The passage contains an adapted quotation from Pl. Tim. 59d; Fletcher 2014: 211‒ 2 argues that the reworking is not due to imprecision, as Hunink 1997, vol. II: 126 suggests, but might be seen as an intentional play “of hide and go seek”.

6.7 Conclusion

133

mentions, however, fundamental information allowing us to understand the real nature of the charge: according to his foes, he seduced a mulier – clearly Pudentilla –²⁴⁷ ‘with allurements from the sea’ (marinis illecebris)²⁴⁸ in the time when he was in Gaetulia.²⁴⁹ As argued in Chapter 11, this must be understood as a reference to the fact that his attackers pointed out that he practised love-magic on Pudentilla when they travelled to the North African inland, isolated from the rest of her family.²⁵⁰ Apuleius tries to cloud this issue by saying that he could not have found any molluscs in the inland; however, he clearly acknowledges that he dissected molluscs before,²⁵¹ and probably his foes suggested that he brought along philtres brewed soon after the dissection. The following pun about Deucalion’s flood, as well as the reference to Nicander’s Theriaka,²⁵² allows Apuleius to dampen these serious points, but the very fact that he is uncomfortable when discussing them at length shows what may lie behind his ostentatious self-confidence: the awareness of being in deep water.²⁵³

6.7 Conclusion The evidence collected and discussed up to this point shows some questionable points in Apol. 32‒41: not only are most of the examples, which Apuleius claims to be harmless, closely connected with goetic magic, but the utterance of mockvoces magicae at 38.8 highlights a clear awareness of such goetic practices that could have ultimately been dangerous during the trial. Being aware of the serious allegation and of the disputable aspect of some of his arguments, Apuleius tends to touch a chord with his audience and involve them in his own defence on an emotional level, instead of rationally disproving his accusers’ claims.²⁵⁴ His daring arguments were meant to dazzle and amuse the readership,²⁵⁵ although

 So rightly Abt 1908: 61; Amarelli 1988: 121; Bradley 1997=2012: 8; Harrison 2000: 66.  The use of this term in association with love-magic is typically Apuleian (Apol. 34.5; Met. 3.16.3), cf. ThLL, vol. VII.1, s.v. illecebra, col. 365.  Apol. 41.5.  See my discussion of Apol. 78.5‒87.9 in Ch. 11.4.  Apol. 40.6; 40.8‒11.  Apol. 41.5‒6. The mention of veneficium in this passage is an ironic allusion to a point of the Lex Cornelia concerning the use of venena to poison people (Paulus Sent. 5.29.1). Since this is not a point raised in the allegations, Apuleius could jest safely as he does previously at Apol. 32.2.  The same anxiety can be seen behind the brevity of Apuleius rebuttal at Apol. 53‒57.1 (Ch. 8) and 57.1‒60 (Ch. 9).  This is a normal practice in ancient juridical rhetoric, cf. Cic. de Orat. 2.185‒8.  Cf. Ch. 12.

134

6 Sea Creatures for the Seduction of Pudentilla

the most obvious way to get on their good sides was his self-presentation as a Socrates reborn and the Platonising arguments with which this section is interspersed. This aura of probity allows Apuleius to dampen the accusation of having practised love-magic on Pudentilla with res marinae, and to move on to the next part of the defence which – as we shall see – contains further controversial questions.²⁵⁶

 Apol. 42.3‒52.4 (Ch. 7).

7 The Noxiousness of Apuleius’ Spells 7.1 Introduction: The Facts, the Charge, and its Distortion by Apuleius After the lengthy rebuttal of the accusation concerning the magical seduction of Pudentilla with sea creatures,¹ Apuleius defends himself from other serious charges supported by several witnesses:² they concern the harmful powers of his spell, which allegedly caused the sickness of the slave-boy Thallus,³ of other slave-boys,⁴ and an unnamed lady of Oea.⁵ This part of the defence focuses primarily on Thallus’ collapse and on the discussion of the epileptic woman,⁶ relegating to a quick series of rhetorical questions the counter-argument concerning the other enchanted slaves.⁷ In this chapter, I will pay particular attention to Apol. 42.4‒43.6 (7.3) and Apol. 47.3‒4 (7.4) since, by examining these passages, it will be possible to evaluate Apuleius’ own knowledge of goetic magic and the suspicion that his digressions on magical divination and magical secrecy could have aroused in court.⁸ Before beginning this analysis, I propose a reconstruction of what might have happened, how the prosecution manipulated it to present Apuleius as a goetic magus, and how he distorted this in turn to free himself from any danger. The most significant attempt to reconstruct this allegation is that by Abt, followed by later scholars.⁹ Abt argues that the prosecution accused Apuleius of practising a divinatory ritual on Thallus triggering his fall, and that the case of the other slave-boys and of the woman are a misunderstanding of epilepsy.¹⁰ Under this assumption, he develops an analysis of papyrological evidence showing the use of youths in divinatory practices,¹¹ and then discusses the superstitious beliefs surrounding medicine and epilepsy.¹² In the  Apol. 29‒42.2 (Ch. 5 and 6).  Apol. 44.2‒46.8; 47.1‒47.6; 48.3; 48.6; 51.9.  Apol. 42.3‒46.6; 47.1‒7 (Ch. 7.2 and 7.4).  Apol. 46.1‒6.  Apol. 48.‒52.4 (Ch. 7.5).  Apol. 48.1‒52.4  Apol. 46.1‒6.  The impact of this display is discussed in Ch. 7.6.  Cf. Butler and Owen 1914: 101‒2; Hunink 1997, vol. II: 126‒7; Ogden 2001: 197; Martos 2015: 76, n. 247.  Abt 1908: 158‒9.  See especially Abt 1908: 160‒70.  Abt 1908: 198‒205. This discussion, however, has no connection with what I define magic in Ch. 2. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110617528-009

136

7 The Noxiousness of Apuleius’ Spells

wake of Abt’s argument, Pellecchi hypothesises that Apuleius might have initiated Thallus by using a carmen in order to practise magical divination through him.¹³ Martos follows Abt’s interpretation but adds that, if Apuleius practised an exorcism, this would have clashed with his views on demonology.¹⁴ Here I will challenge these interpretations and attempt a reconstruction of what was likely to have happened, how the attackers distorted it against Apuleius, and how he manipulated it against them. Let us start with the case of Thallus: as discussed at greater length below, the evidence in the Apologia indicates that Apuleius probably performed a healing rite of Asclepius to cure the youth in Pudentilla’s house, unintentionally causing an epileptic attack¹⁵ that probably scared the bystanders.¹⁶ This can be deduced by considering the paraphernalia used in the ritual, described by Apuleius as sacrum ¹⁷ or sacrificium,¹⁸ namely an altar,¹⁹ some grains of frankincense, and hens.²⁰ The oil-lamp²¹ might not have been used in the ritual, and its presence was probably due to the fact that the rite took place at night or in a dark, secluded part of the house.²² Butler and Owen aptly note that hens and frankincense were offerings typically given to Asclepius,²³ but it has to be acknowledged that Apuleius had a specific interest in this deity²⁴ – of which he

 Pellecchi 2012: 214‒23.  Martos 2015: 76, n. 247 where he refers to André 2010: 335 and n. 13.  At Apol. 42.3 and 45.2 Apuleius reports that Thallus had amnesia; that epilepsy induced amnesia is already recorded in Hp. Morb. Sacr. 18, on which see Temkin 1994: 41‒2.  For this attitude towards epileptics in the ancient world, see RAC, vol. III, s.v. Epilepsie, coll. 829‒30; Temkin 1994: 9. On epilepsy and pollution in Greece, see Parker 1983: 232‒4; in Rome, see Lennon 2013: 30‒1.  Apol. 45.6; 45.8; 47.5.  Apol. 44.8.  Apol. 42.3.  Apol. 47.7.  Apol. 42.3.  Apol. 42.3: secreto loco.  Cf. Butler and Owen 1914: 108‒9, followed by Martos 2015: 85, n. 270.  Apol. 55.10; Fl. 18.37. Commenting on Apol. 55.10, Hunink 1997, vol. II: 150 stresses Apuleius’ interest in this deity, and adds that the treatise Asclepius was indeed written by Apuleius, on which cf. also Hunink 1996: 288‒308. That this work is spurious is, however, rightly argued by Horsfall Scotti 2000: 396‒416; see already Nock and Festugière 1945: 277‒83; Gersh 1986, vol. I: 218‒9; Madec 1989: 355‒6; and Harrison 2000: 12, n. 48 and 49 with bibliographical references.

7.1 Introduction: The Facts, the Charge, and its Distortion by Apuleius

137

might have even become a priest –²⁵ and that he was also committed to assisting anyone in need because of his status as a physician, which he professes at Apol. 40.3.²⁶ Apuleius’ interest in Asclepius and medicine and the presence of the customary offerings to the healing god, make it plausible that Apuleius could have performed a healing ritual of Asclepius, by sacrificing chickens and frankincense on an altar in order to gain the god’s favour and cure the epileptic slave-boy.²⁷ This performance would have given Apuleius the chance of outdoing the other physicians, who are said to have failed to heal the boy,²⁸ in the same way in which Apuleius’ public dissections of rare sea animals enabled him to outshine Aristotle.²⁹ We know that this healing ritual and the fact that Thallus had a fit was witnessed by Apuleius’ stepson and accuser, Sicinius Pudens,³⁰ and other fourteen slaves³¹ who seem to have testified against Apuleius.³² With their help, the attackers could have easily distorted and sullied their account of the ritual, and claimed that Apuleius had performed a sacrum magicum ³³ and used his noxious carmina to harm Thallus,³⁴ practices which were obviously condemned by the Lex Cornelia de sicariis et veneficis. ³⁵ Their manipulation had been possible because – as I discuss below – hens, frankincense (7.4), oil-lamps, and altars (7.2) lent themselves to a magical interpretation since they were actually employed in

 Apul. Fl. 18.37 on which see Rives 1994, who discusses the evidence in Fl. 16.38 and in August. Ep. 138.19. On this see Harrison 2000: 8, n. 30; Hunink 2001: 193. La Rocca 2005: 22‒3; 276‒ 80 is sceptical about Rives’ interpretation.  Ch. 6.5.  To further speculate about the dynamics of the ritual is impossible.  Apol. 44.3.  Apol. 40.6‒7 (Ch. 6.6).  Apol. 45.7‒8.  Apol. 44.4‒7. Apuleius forces them to admit before the judge that Thallus was already epileptic; his illness was, therefore, not due to Apuleius’ spells.  Apol. 44.2‒45.2; 47.1‒6. They were probably the familia urbana of Pudentilla (cf. Pavis d’Escurac 1974: 93).  Apol. 47.5. Analogous expressions can already be found in literary magic (Verg. Ecl. 8.66; Prop. 1.1.20; Stat. Ach. 1.135), in accounts of historical events (Suet. Nero 34.8; Tac. Ann. 2.27), and in Pliny’ Natural History (Plin. Nat. 28.188). See also Watson 2003: 224 who observes that sacrum is equally employed to describe illicit and licit practices.  Apol. 42.3; 44.1; 45.2.  Paulus Sent. 5.29.15: Qui s a c r a i m p i a n o c t u r n a v e , ut quem o b c a n t a r e n t , defigerent, obligarent, fecerint faciendave curaverint, aut cruci suffiguntur aut bestiis obiciuntur (‘those who have performed or arranged for the performance of impious or nocturnal rites, in order to enchant, transfix with curse-tablets, or bind someone, are to be either crucified or thrown to the beasts’). Translation adapted from Rives 2006: 47.

138

7 The Noxiousness of Apuleius’ Spells

these rituals. Furthermore, the idea that goetic practitioners harmed other people and particularly youths was equally notorious (7.2). Thus, the prosecutors could have easily inserted the detail about the incantation and the occult character of the ritual,³⁶ emphasising its appalling appearance. But, pace Abt’s claims, they surely did not refer to magical divination since this argument was meant to expand on the sinister effects of Apuleius’ incantations³⁷ in order to present him as a dangerous magus, who tested his all-powerful spells on several victims in Oea and made them fall ill.³⁸ This allegation would have complied with the evil-looking portrait of Apuleius given in the two following charges, which concern the pollution of Pontianus’ lararium and the ominous nocturna sacra practised in Iunius Crassus’ house.³⁹ The accusers’ reason for not saying that the slave-boy suffered from epilepsy was to imply that Apuleius himself had caused Thallus’ malady.⁴⁰ That the slave-boy was already ill is, in fact, presented as a striking revelation by Apuleius.⁴¹ As it emerges from the speech, Apuleius cannot deny that a ritual had taken place given the number of people who witnessed it. Instead of describing what he had really done – which could have still appeared suspicious because of the poor outcome of the healing rite – he conceals his actions and manipulates again his foes’ claims by deliberately introducing the argument of divination.⁴² By distorting their allegation as a case of magical divination Apuleius could highlight their clumsiness: he argues that, since divination requires a healthy boy, no divination whatsoever could have been performed with the epileptic Thallus.⁴³ In addition, he criticises the presence of many witnesses to the purportedly goetic ritual and argues that their attendance made it impossible that the rite had anything to do with goetic magic, since this requires the utmost secrecy.⁴⁴

 Apol.42.3 (Ch. 7.2); 47.3‒4 (Ch. 7.4).  Ch. 4.3.  See especially Apol. 44.1 where it is reported that the accusers said that Apuleius caused Thallus’ fall with his carmina. See also Apol. 46.1 and 48.1; 48.6‒7.  Apol. 53‒57.1; 57‒60, respectively (Ch. 8 and 9).  Apol. 44.3‒4.  Apol. 43.8‒9: Thallus, quem nominastis, medico potius quam mago indiget: est enim miser morbo comitiali ita confectus ut ter an quater die saepe numero sine ullis cantaminibus corruat (‘Thallus, whom you have mentioned, is in need of a doctor rather than a magus: this wretched creature suffers from epilepsy to such a degree that he often collapses three or four times a day without any need of incantations’).  Apol. 42.4‒43.10.  Apol. 43.1‒9 (Ch. 7.3).  Apol. 47.1‒6 (Ch. 7.4).

7.1 Introduction: The Facts, the Charge, and its Distortion by Apuleius

139

I have so far focused on Apuleius’ healing rite, its twisting by the accusers, and then by the defendant. The information about the other enchanted slaveboys in Apol. 46 is insufficient to attempt a similar reconstruction. The prosecutors insisted that Apuleius practised his goetic spells on other young slaves in the same way in which he did with Thallus, but it is not possible to determine whether this is a lie, as Apuleius claims,⁴⁵ or whether behind this argument there might have been some other suspicious practices.⁴⁶ As to the unnamed mulier, it seems that Apuleius’ claims are sincere: given his medical skills, a sick woman was brought to him to be examined, as testified in court by Apuleius’ assistant Themison.⁴⁷ I disagree with Abt,⁴⁸ who considers the reference to the ringing of the woman’s ears as related to magic according to a parallel with PDM XIV.75‒80,⁴⁹ but I agree when he says that the prosecution likely misinterpreted a medical visit by drawing on the connection between medicine and magic,⁵⁰ and claimed that the alleged magus lured a defenceless woman into his house and harmed her with his carmina, causing her collapse.⁵¹ This becomes clear by reading Apol. 48.6‒8: Maximus is described while questioning the attackers about the scope (emolumentum) of the woman’s fall,⁵² and they reply that the collapse itself – i. e. to make her sick – was Apuleius’ goal. The actual outcome of the visit is unclear: Apuleius claims that the woman did not collapse during their session,⁵³ but the Apologia lacks any further detail concerning the visit,⁵⁴ and contains, instead, a lengthy digression⁵⁵ displaying Apuleius’ medical knowledge which is meant to cast away any residue of suspicion, as in Apol. 40.1‒4.⁵⁶

 Apol. 46.1.  See the discussion in Hunink 1997, vol. II: 136.  Cf. Apol. 48.3; 51.9 (Ch. 7.5).  Abt 1908: 198 and 175, followed by Butler and Owen 1914: 109‒10; Hunink 1997, vol. II: 139; Martos 2015: 85, n. 271.  Apol. 48.3 (Ch. 7.5). As I propose, the reference is meant to display Apuleius’ medical expertise, and the connection with PDM XIV.75‒85 stressed by Abt 1908: 198 is incorrect.  Abt 1908: 159. Pliny the Elder reports prescriptions by the magi to cure epilepsy (Nat. 30.91‒ 2). The fact that they claimed to heal this sickness and the association between magic and medicine (Ch. 6.5) could have eased the misinterpretation of Apuleius’ therapy as a goetic ritual.  Apol. 48.1; 48.6‒7 (Ch. 7.5). It is possible that the prosecution emphasised the secluded and occult character of the visit. On magic and secrecy, cf. Ch. 7.4.  Apol. 48.6; this is a keyword of this section and occurs again at 42.5.  Apol. 48.4.  See also Hunink 1997, vol. II: 127.  Apol. 48.11‒51.8.  Ch. 6.5.

140

7 The Noxiousness of Apuleius’ Spells

In the light of my interpretation of the charge, it is possible to infer that: the attackers accused Apuleius of practising noxious incantations in order to harm people in Oea, slaves and citizens alike, making them fall ill. After this reconstruction I will discuss how the digressions on magical divination at Apol. 42.4‒43.6 (7.3) and on the secrecy of magic in 47.3‒4 (7.4) reveal more of Apuleius’ acquaintance with goetic and literary magic, and how this could have had serious implications, had the judge not favoured him (7.5 and 7.6).

7.2 Spells, Youths, Oil-lamps, and Altars in Goetic Magic After a final attack on what he calls the ‘fishy charge’ (argumentum piscarium),⁵⁷ Apuleius moves on to the discussion of the Primary Charges which – as argued above – deal with the purported harmfulness of his spells.⁵⁸ First, he discusses the allegation concerning the magical rite and the enchantment of Thallus, causing his subsequent sickness.⁵⁹ According to Apuleius, the accusers, conforming to the commonplace ideas about magic,⁶⁰ claimed mendaciously⁶¹ that a certain boy collapsed after being enchanted by Apuleius during an occult ritual: puerum q u e m p i a m c a r m i n e c a n t a t u m r e m o t i s arbitris, ⁶² secreto loco, a r u l a et l u c e r n a et paucis ⁶³ consciis testibus, ⁶⁴ ubi i n c a n t a t u s sit, corruisse, postea nescientem sui excitatum. ⁶⁵ Apuleius rephrases this accusation in order to present it as a case of magical divination, a point which was not raised by his opponents.⁶⁶ According to a strategy mirroring that in Apol. 29.1, Apuleius retells the  Apol. 42.1‒2.  Ch. 7.1.  Apol. 42.3‒47.  Apol. 42.2.  Apol. 42.1: excogito, which suggests a cunning and pernicious plan (ThLL, vol. V.2, s.v. excogito, col. 1275); 42.2: fingo; 42.3: confingo; 42.4: mendacium.  The expression occurs slightly varied in 47.3 (arbitris solitaria), cf. Ch. 7.4. In Met. 3.21.3 the verb arbitror is employed in a goetic context to indicate the sight of Pamphile’s metamorphosis. Cf. Keulen 2007: 35, n. 112; pp. 289 and 309; May 2013: 163‒4; 170.  This might reflect the wording of the enemies, who wanted to present fourteen slaves as a relatively small group of witnesses; Apuleius will use this point to prove, instead, that the presence of such a crowd would have hindered the secrecy typical of goetic magic (Ch. 7.4).  Conscius and testis occur again in a magical context at Apul. Met. 1.16.3. A model could have been Hor. S. 1.8.44‒5 (ut non testis inultus / horruerim voces furiarum et facta duarum?).  Apol. 42.3: ‘a boy was enchanted by me with a spell, having removed casual observers, in a secret place with a small altar and an oil-lamp, with only a few accomplices present; the boy allegedly collapsed on the spot where he was enchanted, then recovered unaware of his actions’.  Apol. 42.4‒43.10 (Ch. 7.3).

7.2 Spells, Youths, Oil-lamps, and Altars in Goetic Magic

141

charge in a vague tone⁶⁷ and conceals the identity of the puer ⁶⁸ and his epilepsy,⁶⁹ as well as the sacrifice of hens and frankincense, which emerges only later at Apol. 47.7.⁷⁰ The extent of Apuleius’ manipulation has not been entirely understood by other scholars. The main position is that of Abt,⁷¹ who believes that Apuleius’ version of the events mirrors the actual content of the charge, that is to say that he had really been accused of using Thallus for magical divination. To support this hypothesis Abt refers to PGM VII.540‒78 and PDM XIV.805‒ 40, containing the instructions for a lamp divination by means of a boy.⁷² Abt’s interpretation presents, however, a major weakness: it presupposes that Apuleius’ words literally reflect the accusation, while I propose that he systematically distorts his enemies’ arguments to weaken them. I will now discuss how the aforementioned elements – about which the eyewitnesses seemingly informed the prosecutors –⁷³ could be easily altered and presented as evidence for goetic magic. Since the analysis of secrecy in magic is covered in another part of this chapter,⁷⁴ and since I have already discussed goetic spells,⁷⁵ I will focus here on the verb incanto, boys, oil-lamps, and altars, showing how they could be used in magic for various purposes, and that they all feature in the dramatised descriptions of literary magic. This will ultimately allow us to comprehend how the attackers could misrepresent a healing rite as a nefarious goetic practice. Let us begin by stressing that goetic spells are the key theme of Apol. 42.3‒ 52: the verb incanto, in particular, is constantly repeated throughout this part of the defence to report the allegation concerning Thallus,⁷⁶ the other slave-boys,⁷⁷ and the unknown lady.⁷⁸ But what kind of incantation might be at stake here? It was a commonplace assumption that the strength of the goetic practitioners was

 This vagueness is conveyed by the indefinite quispiam.  As noted by Hunink 1997, vol. II: 128, the identity of the boy is only revealed at Apol. 43.8.  Apol. 43.8‒10 (Ch. 7.3).  Ch. 7.4.  Abt 1908: 158‒9, developed in pp. 160‒70. His position is followed by Butler and Owen 1914: 101‒2 and Hunink 1997, vol. II: 128.  Abt 1908: 174‒5. For remarks on lychnomancy, see Hopfner 1921‒24, vol. II: 345‒82; Ogden 2001: 193‒6, and especially Zografou 2010: 276‒94.  Apol. 44.1.  Ch. 7.4.  Ch. 4.3.  Apol. 42.3.  Apol. 46.1‒6.  Apol. 48.1; 48.6; 48.11.

142

7 The Noxiousness of Apuleius’ Spells

due to their incantations, as Apuleius himself acknowledges,⁷⁹ and it would have been simple enough for the attackers to play on this idea emphasising the harmfulness of Apuleius’ spells, given that the probable outcome of his therapy had been Thallus’ epileptic attack.⁸⁰ The employment of the verb incanto is significant, since it precisely indicates the casting of a magical spell to get control over people and objects:⁸¹ this appears already in the Twelve Tables where it refers to the utterance of a powerful incantation,⁸² which was retrospectively interpreted as magical by Pliny the Elder⁸³ and Apuleius.⁸⁴ In literary sources, incanto indicates the compelling power of goetic spells: incantata are the knots (vincula) made by Horace’s Canidia for love-magic,⁸⁵ and a particularly interesting parallel is that with the declamation entitled Sepulcrum Incantatum, attributed to Quintilian. There a magus practises an ominous ritual to bind the soul of an untimely dead youth to his grave⁸⁶ and, in order to achieve this result, he spellbinds the tomb with a noxium carmen ⁸⁷ and buries in it an ‘enchanted piece of iron’ (cantato ferro).⁸⁸ While papyrological evidence shows the custom of using youths in divinatory practices,⁸⁹ boys appear in literary magic for different and far more sinister ends: in Horace’s Fifth Epode, a youth is abducted by Canidia and other sagae to make a powerful love-potion with his liver and marrow.⁹⁰ Although the historicity of the information cannot be assessed, Philostratus narrates that Apollonius of Tyana⁹¹ was accused of having sacrificed an Arcadian boy during a nocturnal and occult ritual.⁹² In later times, Libanius writes a declamation on a γόης who

 Apol. 26.6 (Ch. 4.3).  Ch. 7.1.  Cf. ThLL, vol. VII.1, s.v. incanto, col. 846. See also the remarks in Tupet 1976: 168; 1986: 2595; Schneider 2013: 93, n. 6.  Plin. Nat. 28.17‒18 and my remarks in Ch. 7.4.  Plin. Nat. 30.12.  Apul. Apol. 47.3 (Ch. 7.4).  Hor. S. 1.8.49‒50.  [Quint.] Decl. 10 prol.  Decl. 10.7.  Decl. 10.2.  Ch. 7.3. The account in SHA Did. Iul. 7.10‒11, where we find the verb incanto, closely mirrors the practices ascribed to Nigidius (Apol. 42.7).  Hor. Epod. 5.32‒40, on which see Watson 2003: 174‒91. A funerary inscription from Rome (CIL 6. 3.19747) is dedicated to a three-year-old boy killed by a saga, discussed in Graf 2007: 139‒50.  On the similarities between the Life of Apollonius and the Apologia cf. Ch. 4.4.  Philostr. VA 7.20. For the theme of the sacrifice of youths, see the overview in Watson 2003: 175, n. 11.

7.2 Spells, Youths, Oil-lamps, and Altars in Goetic Magic

143

should have sacrificed his own son to free the city from a plague.⁹³ It seems likely that the prosecutors drew on the idea that the goetic practitioners considered youths useful to their nefarious ends, in order to bias the audience and the magistrates against Apuleius, whose rite and incantation did not kill Thallus but allegedly left him permanently sick. Regarding the use of oil-lamps in magic, evidence from the PGM highlights that λύχνοι are not only employed in magical divination,⁹⁴ but feature also in prescriptions to attain several goals.⁹⁵ So widespread was this use of oil-lamps as to leave a significant mark on literary descriptions of magic. In the Philopseudes, Lucian narrates the magical purification of a house inhabited by a monstrous δαίμων: to repel him, Arignotus enters the house with an oil-lamp alone at night, and utters some spells that eventually allow him to fight the spirit back.⁹⁶ The description in Apol. 42.3 can also be compared to Pamphile’s magical rituals to transform herself into an owl in Apuleius’ Metamorphoses: she anoints her body with an oil and, multum cum lucerna secreto conlocuta, begins her unnatural metamorphosis.⁹⁷ Furthermore, at Met. 2.11.6‒12.2 Pamphile is said to be able to foresee the weather by divining with her lucerna. ⁹⁸ Another parallel with the Metamorphoses can be added: in Aristomenes’ tale one of the two sagae, who replace Socrates’ heart with a sponge, holds a lucerna lucida. ⁹⁹ They too utter a spell,¹⁰⁰ and operate in secret despite the unexpected presence of a witness.¹⁰¹ The evidence from the Metamorphoses is particularly significant because – although probably written after the trial –¹⁰² it suggests that a connoisseur of

 Lib. Decl. 41.  Cf. Abt 1908: 162‒5; Eitrem 1941: 175‒87; Ogden 2001: 193‒5 where the use of lamps is, however, connected with necromancy.  The occurrences of λύχνος in the PGM are several; I shall list some cases: PGM I.125; I.282 (a ritual to acquire the assistance of a daemon); III.22 (a ritual for involving the sacrifice of a cat); IV.931; 957‒8; 1094‒5; 1102‒3; 1105; 1108; (a charm for a divine vision); IV.2192 (seeking divine assistance through Homeric verses); IV.2372 (a spell for business); VII.376‒7 (a charm to induce insomnia); VII.593; 599; 601; 613; 617‒8 (love-magic). Furthermore, a defixio from Ostia to cause the death of a certain Helenus was inscribed on the body of an oil-lamp, cf. Audollent 1904: 137 (= CIL 15.6265) and pp. 194‒5.  Luc. Philops. 30‒1.  Apul. Met. 3.21.4. Vallette 1908: 78 aptly suggests a parallel with [Luc.] Asin. 12.  On this see van Mal-Maeder 2001: 203‒4.  Met. 1.12‒13, on which see Keulen 2007: 254 and May 2013: 151.  Met. 1.13.7.  Met. 1.14.1‒2. Further remarks in Keulen 2007: 250 and May 2013: 150.  Ch. 1.4.

144

7 The Noxiousness of Apuleius’ Spells

magic such as Apuleius would have been aware that the elements cited in Apol. 42.3 could not be used only for divination, as he insists.¹⁰³ I have examined so far the act of incantare, the criminal use of youths, and the functions of oil-lamps in goetic magic according to evidence from real practices and literary descriptions. What about arula? Abt¹⁰⁴ proposes that it could be a censer (θυμιατήριον)¹⁰⁵ to burn incense,¹⁰⁶ and Butler and Owen follow him.¹⁰⁷ This interpretation is supported by the above-mentioned passages at PGM VII.540‒78 and PDM XIV.805‒40, and mainly depends on Abt’s assumption that Apuleius attempted a magical divination. Arula, however, does not seem to designate a censer: Hunink thinks of a small altar for burnt offerings, but he neither supports this interpretation with evidence, nor does he explain how this reconstruction would fit the arguments of the accusers.¹⁰⁸ I propose to interpret arula as a comic diminutive, a rhetorical tool often used in the Apologia to lessen dangerous details of the charges.¹⁰⁹ It is difficult to imagine that Apuleius could sacrifice chickens on a censer and, since he decontextualizes this piece of information by revealing it only later at Apol. 47.7,¹¹⁰ scholars have not understood the meaning of arula. Altars (arae) are, indeed, present in many goetic descriptions in literature: it would suffice to recall the altar for Dido’s magical rite,¹¹¹ those of Medea as depicted by Ovid,¹¹² and by Seneca,¹¹³ and the altar of Erictho in Lucan’s Bellum Civile. ¹¹⁴ In addition to this literary evidence, the

 Apol. 42.4.  Abt 1908: 174‒5 and p. 175, n. 4.  For censers in real goetic practices, e. g. PGM I.63; III.295; IV.214; IV.1318‒9; IV.1908‒9; IV.2712; IV.3195; V.39‒40; V.220; VII.636‒7; VII.741; LXXII.1.  Apol. 47.7 (Ch. 7.3).  Butler and Owen 1914: 101.  Hunink 1997, vol. II: 127.  E. g. pisciculus at Apol. 29.4; 40.6; 40.8; sudariolum 53.2; 53.12; 55.1 and linteolum at 53.4. On the comic function of the diminutives in Latin, see Hofmann 19513: 297‒300. For specific remarks on some comic diminutives in Apuleius’ prose, cf. Ferrari 1968: 119; 123 for the Florida; Callebat 1968: 371‒80; 510‒11; 520; Pasetti 2007: 27‒31 for the Metamorphoses; Callebat 1984: 147‒8 and n. 21 for the Apologia. The key function of these diminutives within the rhetorical strategy of the Apologia has remained hitherto unacknowledged.  Ch. 7.4.  Verg. A. 4.509.  Ov. Met. 7.74; 7.240; 7.258.  Sen. Med. 578; 785; 808.  Luc. 6.432; 6.558; and also 6.451 (Thessalis aris).

7.3 Magical Divination with Pueri

145

presence of arae-βωμοί in magical rituals unrelated to divination is widely attested in the PGM. ¹¹⁵ After this analysis, it is possible to dismiss Abt’s hypothesis and conclude that the compresence of incantations, youths, oil-lamps, altars, and secrecy¹¹⁶ characterises different types of magical practices. The fact that all this was employed in magic enabled the attackers to depict these elements as goetic and blame Apuleius for Thallus’ illness. Had the judge not favoured him, he could have been in an extremely precarious situation since magical practices such as those described in Apol. 42.3 were punishable either by death or exile under the Lex Cornelia de sicariis et veneficis. ¹¹⁷ Apuleius’ position here was rather insecure: he could not deny having performed a ritual, but he tries to demonstrate the accusers’ mendacity by using his own expertise in magic to present the charge as a case of magical divination.

7.3 Magical Divination with Pueri At Apol. 42.4 Apuleius emphasises the falsehood of his accusers and argues that, to complete their fanciful account, they should have added that the slave-boy gave oracular responses.¹¹⁸ In the light of my interpretation, it is clear that the prosecution did not need to add anything else to their account:¹¹⁹ they claimed that Apuleius, being a goetic magus, tested his carmina on Thallus in order to make him fall ill,¹²⁰ confirming that his only intention was to harm the people of Oea. Harrison suggests that Apuleius associates the enchantment of Thallus “somewhat gratuitously” with divination,¹²¹ and rightly so. In order to temper the dangerous charge, Apuleius draws on his expertise in magic to misrepresent his alleged magic as a divinatory rite,¹²² and asserts that it is possible to gain this

 PGM I.282 (summoning daemons); IV.34; IV.37‒8; IV.42 (initiation); IV.2653‒4 (slander spell); V.201 (catching a thief); VI.36 (encounter with a god); XII.28; XII.34; XII.36 (summoning Eros); XII.212 (consecrating a magical ring); XIII.8; XIII.124; XIII.367; XIII.375; XIII.681 (a spell for various purposes).  Ch. 7.4.  Paulus Sent. 5.29.15, and Ch. 7.1.  Apuleius uses interchangeably praesagium and divinatio (Apol. 42.5) as in Soc. 17; cf. Abt 1908: 65‒6, n. 5; Hunink 1997, vol. II: 128.  Ch. 7.1.  Apol. 44.1 and Ch. 7.1.  Harrison 2000: 69.  Apol. 42.4‒8; 43.1‒2.

146

7 The Noxiousness of Apuleius’ Spells

foreknowledge only by using a healthy and uncorrupted youth.¹²³ This allows him to underline the stupidity of the accusation: given Thallus’ sickness, he would have been certainly unsuitable for any divination.¹²⁴ However, to structure this reasoning, Apuleius betrays once more his deep acquaintance with magic. This risky display of goetic knowledge is counterbalanced at Apol. 43.2 with a quotation from Plato’ Symposium that would have reassured the court about his innocence.¹²⁵ As we will see, Apuleius does not simply quote from Plato, but offers a slightly different version of the passage conveying his personal appreciation for the philosophic-religious kind of magic. Apuleius’ digression on magical divination is arranged with much caution by choosing, on the one hand, a safe terminology and, on the other hand, by referencing sources above suspicion.¹²⁶ Hunink¹²⁷ notes that a term like canticum – which is applied for the first time to goetic spells in Apol. 42.4 –¹²⁸ would have been less suspicious than carmen or cantamen. ¹²⁹ Likewise, I propose that the expression magica percontatio might not belong to the original passage from Varro, which Apuleius cites at Apol. 42.6‒8, and could be due to his intention of avoiding carmen and cantamen: this is, in fact, the only occurrence of percontatio with a goetic undertone.¹³⁰ To demonstrate the employment of boys in magical divination Apuleius relies on two examples from Varro, a respectable author who could not have been taken for a goetic source, which also allows him to showcase his erudition. The first example concerns hydromancy:¹³¹ during the Mithridatic wars, a puer in Tralles saw the image of Mercury¹³² reflected in the water and sang a prophecy in a hundred and sixty lines.¹³³ It cannot be ascertained whether Varro describes

 Apol. 43.3‒6.  Apol. 43.7‒10.  See also Ch. 7.6.  This is to avoid the accusation of possessing magical treatises, punished by the Lex Cornelia de sicariis et veneficis, cf. Paulus Sent. 5.29.18.  Cf. Hunink 1997, vol. II: 128.  The only other employment of the term to indicate a ‘charm’ is in Mart. Cap. 9.928, who might have looked at this passage of the Apologia; cf. ThLL, vol. III, s.v. canticum, col. 284.  See my discussion of Apol. 26.6 (Ch. 4.3).  Cf. ThLL, vol. X.1, s.v. percontatio, coll. 1218‒9, thus the necessity of the adjective magicus.  For Varro as a source on hydromantia, see August. C.D. 7.35. On hydromancy in general, see ThesCRA, vol. III: 9.  For Mercury and magic, cf. Ch. 10.3.  Apol. 42.6. This passage comes from a lost work of Varro. For a discussion of this passage see also Abt 1908: 171‒7; Butler and Owen 1914: 102‒3; McCarthy 1989: 169, n. 20; Hunink 1997, vol. II: 128‒9; Odgen 2001: 191‒3; Cardauns 2001: 85‒7; Martos 2015: 76‒77, n. 248, 249, and 250.

7.3 Magical Divination with Pueri

147

this episode as magical, or if Apuleius retrospectively interprets it as such to corroborate his point. The second anecdote, probably still from Varro,¹³⁴ concerns Nigidius Figulus, later known for being Pythagoricus et magus, ¹³⁵ who enchanted some boys in order to find the missing money of a certain Fabius.¹³⁶ Apuleius’ account matches the real goetic practices. That the magi were able to divine is a commonplace assumption in Greco-Roman times:¹³⁷ a passage cited by Pliny the Elder¹³⁸ from a lost work ascribed to Ostanes¹³⁹ reveals that the magi could divine from water, globes, air, stars, lamps, basins, axes, and by other techniques including necromancy.¹⁴⁰ This is confirmed by several prescriptions in the PGM ¹⁴¹ and, amongst those, several cases require the use of a sexually and physically uncorrupted youth to obtain a divine vision,¹⁴² a belief closely mirroring Apuleius’ following words at Apol. 43.3‒6. Given the notoriety of these goetic practices, at Apol. 43.1 Apuleius had to distance himself from these anecdotes by restating that he gained this knowledge from many authorities (apud plerosque),¹⁴³ and underscoring his scepticism

 See Cardauns 1960: 48.  Cf. Hyeron. Chronic. 156 H, an abridgement from Eusebius’ Chronicon, who probably relied on Suetonius’ De Philosophis. Apuleius’ punningly refers to Nigidius’ magical notoriety at Apol. 45.5, on which see Brugnoli 1967: 226‒9; Hunink 1997, vol. II: 135. Nigidius’ interest in the occult emerges in Luc. 1.639‒64, and Serv. Ecl. 1.10, who cites a passage from Nigidius’ De Deis in which the magi are regarded as reputable authorities. For a discussion of Nigidius in relation to magic, see Dickie 1999: 168‒72; and 2001: 170‒2; Mayer i Olivé 2012: 237‒45.  Apol. 42.7‒8. Cardauns 1960: 47 identifies him with Quintus Fabius Maximus.  For a study of magic and divination, cf. Eitrem 1991: 175‒87; Graf 1999: 283‒98; Brill’s New Pauly, vol. VIII, s.v. Magic, col. 137.  On Pliny as a source for Apuleius, see my analysis of Apol. 27.1‒3 (Ch. 4.4, 4.5, 4.6) and 90.6 (Ch. 11.5).  Plin. Nat. 30.14, see Bidez and Cumont 1938, vol. II: 286‒7; Ernout 1963: 83. On Ostanes and magic, cf. Ch. 4.5.  On necromancy cf. Ch. 10.2.  E. g. PGM II.1‒64; II.65‒183; III.165‒86; III.187‒256; III.257‒75; III.282‒409; III.479‒93; IV.3087‒124; IV.3209‒54; V.370‒446; VII.1‒148; VII.222‒49; VII.250‒54; VII.540‒78; XII.153‒60.  PGM V.373‒4; VII.544; PDM XIV.285‒90 quoted by Abt 1908: 183‒5 who also indicates the Hor. Epod. 5.13 (on which see Watson 2003: 196‒7). In these cases, it seems that both physical and sexual purity are prescribed, cf. Hopfner 1926: 65‒74 and n. 18. Other evidence about uncorrupted youths can be found in PGM I.85‒90; II.55‒60. For prescriptions concerning the purity of the body, see PGM I.56‒7; III.306; IV.26‒7; IV.52‒4; IV.73‒4; IV.732‒6; IV.898‒9; IV.1099‒100; IV.1267‒9; IV.3084; IV.3246; VII.219; VII.334; VII.363; VII.667; VII.725; VII.749; VII.843; VII.846; VII.981; XII.208; XII.276‒7; XIII.4‒5; XIII.347; XIII.671; XIII.1004‒5; XXIIb.27‒8; XXXVII.1. See also Martos 2003, vol. II: 212, n. 309; 2015: 79, n. 256. On Apuleius’ views on purity, see Apol. 43.7 discussed below.  For a similar argument see Apol. 41.4 and 91.2 (Ch. 11.5).

148

7 The Noxiousness of Apuleius’ Spells

about goetic magic.¹⁴⁴ Before explaining that boy divination requires a pure medium, not an epileptic,¹⁴⁵ Apuleius quotes a passage from Plato’s Symposium on the agency of daemons in divination. In Apuleius’ view,¹⁴⁶ the human soul has a daemonic nature and is called Genius;¹⁴⁷ each daemonic soul is entrusted to the care of a higher class of tutelary daemons, to which Socrates’ daemon belonged,¹⁴⁸ and – if rightly revered – they help their protégées by granting them premonitions.¹⁴⁹ The Platonic passage is not given in Greek, as in Apol. 25.11, but summarised as follows: quamquam Platoni credam inter deos atque homines natura et loco medias quasdam divorum potestates intersitas easque divinationes cunctas et Magorum miracula gubernare. ¹⁵⁰ The passage belongs to Apuleius’ philosophical repertoire, recurring almost identically at Soc. 6, and is an abridged and manipulated version of Symp. 202e‒203a, which says: διὰ τούτου [sc. τοῦ δαιμονίου] καὶ ἡ μαντικὴ πᾶσα χωρεῖ καὶ ἡ τῶν ἱερέων τέχνη τῶν τε περὶ τὰς θυσίας καὶ τελετὰς καὶ τὰς ἐπῳδὰς καὶ τὴν μαντείαν πᾶσαν καὶ γοητείαν. ¹⁵¹ It has gone hitherto unnoticed that Apuleius does not only eliminate the reference to the priestly art, sacrifices, mysteries, and incantations, but takes a significantly different stance from the Platonic reference to γοητεία. At Apol. 43.2 and in Soc. 6 Apuleius either reinterprets this passage from the Symposium or perhaps follows an earlier tradition claiming that Plato commends the

 Apol. 43.1. For analogous expressions of doubt, cf. Apol. 43.4 (si qua fides hisce rebus impertienda est), and likewise 26.6 (incredibili vi) and 47.3 (incredundas inlecebras). Regen 1971: 3‒4 sees this retraction as a striking contradiction, but he fails to understand Apuleius’ cautiousness, as argued by Hijmans 1994: 1764‒5, followed by Hunink 1997, vol. II: 129‒30.  Apol. 43.3‒10.  On Apuleius’ demonology see Vallette 1908: 221‒69; Regen 1971: 3‒22; 61‒83; 1999: 438‒59 continued in 2000: 41‒62; Beaujeu 1973: 8‒15; 183‒247; Moreschini 1978: 19‒27, updated in 2015: 123‒45; Gersh 1986, vol. I: 228‒36; Brenk 1986: 2133‒5; Hijmans 1987: 442‒4; Hubert 2003: 447‒ 60; Fletcher 2014: 147‒50. The most thorough and accessible analysis to date is Habermehl 1996: 117‒42.  Soc. 15.  Soc. 16.  Socrates relies on the vis presaga of his tutelary daemon (Soc. 18). In Apol. 43.3, Apuleius uses praesagare, a rarer variant of praesagire, cf. ThLL, vol. X.2, s.v. praesago, col. 813; Callebat 1984: 144, n. 5; McCreight 1991: 425‒7.  Apol. 43.2: ‘I do believe Plato when he argues for the existence of certain intermediate divine powers, which by nature and location are situated between gods and men and which control all divinations and the wonders of the Magi’.  The following translation is adapted from Waterfield 1994: 44: ‘these daemons enable divination to take place, and holy men to perform sacrifices and rituals, and do all kind of prophecy and goetic magic’.

7.3 Magical Divination with Pueri

149

Magi.¹⁵² Here, in fact, magus does not refer to the goetic practitioner as in Plato, but to a priestly figure able to obtain divine visions. The positive connotation of magus is confirmed by the tone of the whole passage, which has nothing to do with the goetic type of magic but with divine foreknowledge and respectable initiations.¹⁵³ Furthermore, in Apuleius’ prose the term miraculum is used to indicate a marvel anticipating future events,¹⁵⁴ a connotation befitting a philosophical discourse on divination.¹⁵⁵ Having pointed out that prophecies can be obtained by seeking contact with the tutelary daemons, Apuleius cautiously¹⁵⁶ acknowledges that especially the soul of a youth can attain this foreknowledge when separated from the body.¹⁵⁷ The ideal medium needs to possess an incorrupt body and soul,¹⁵⁸ and a proper knowledge of language to faithfully reproduce his celestial vision.¹⁵⁹ This explanation could have raised some doubt about Apuleius’ feigned innocence. Abt claims that carminum avocamento and odorum delenimento could easily be associated with goetic performances,¹⁶⁰ but he cites a passage from Livy which has no connection with magic.¹⁶¹ Nevertheless, the fact that incantations and aromatic spices¹⁶² were used in goetic practices supports Abt’s argument. In addition, the lychnomantic rite by means of a boy in PGM VII.540‒78 resembles the information at Apol. 43.3‒5.¹⁶³ The close similarity to goetic magic notwithstanding, Apuleius’ description of divination through a

 Cf. my examination of Apol. 25.9‒26.5 (Ch. 4.2).  Apol. 43.3‒6. For a similar argument, cf. 55.8‒56.2 (Ch. 8.6).  For this employment of miraculum, cf. Fl. 6.6; 16.16; 18.31; Met. 2.28.7; 6.29.4; 11.14.3.  This same positive use occurs at Apol. 42.5. Bulhart, the curator of the entry miraculum in the ThLL, vol. VIII, coll. 1053‒59, wrongly includes the occurrences of the term in Apol. 43.2 and Soc. 6 amongst passages related to goetic magic (col. 1056), such as Hor. Ep. 2.2.208 and Luc. 9.923.  Apol. 43.4.  Apol. 43.3. Dowden 1982: 341‒2; 1994: 427‒8 connects this passage of the Apologia with the episode of Cupid and Psyche in Apuleius’ Metamorphoses.  For Apuleius, physical and spiritual wellness go hand in hand: epilepsy causes, in fact, the soul’s corruption (Apol. 50.1‒3).  Apol. 43.4‒6. Regarding Pythagoras’ saying (non enim ex omni ligno, ut Pythagoras dicebat, debet Mercurius exculpi), Martos 2015: 79, n. 257 stresses a parallel with Iamb. VP 34.245. The passage might foreshadow the discussion the statuette of Mercury at Apol. 61‒5 (Ch. 10).  Abt 1908: 183‒4.  Liv. 30.13.12.  Griffiths 1975: 299, followed by Hunink 1997, vol. II: 131, refers to incense. Martos 2015: 79, n. 254 reaches the same conclusion. On the Arabicae fruges in magic, cf. Apol. 6.3.3 and 6.5 discussed in Ch. 3.4.  Cf. Abt 1908: 185.

150

7 The Noxiousness of Apuleius’ Spells

youth would have probably appealed to the judge Maximus because of its resemblance to the Platonic idea that the human soul, when detached from the body, could obtain a divine foresight.¹⁶⁴ This would have consequently counterbalanced the connections with any magical practices. After this digression on divination, Apuleius can finally validate his claim about the absurdity of the accusation: if the prerequisites for divination are that the youth must be healthy and spiritually pure,¹⁶⁵ then how could he ‘initiate’¹⁶⁶ the epileptic Thallus?¹⁶⁷ According to this reasoning, the features of this slave-boy are just the opposite of what is required in a divinatory ritual and the following description of the wretched Thallus underlines his unfitness for any kind of divination.¹⁶⁸ It is because of his epilepsy and not because of Apuleius’ presumed spells that Thallus collapses at least three or four times a day.¹⁶⁹ The safe context of this paradoxical comparison between divine foreknowledge and Thallus’ impurity, which underpins the weakness of the allegation, enables Apuleius to jokingly use the dangerous term cantamen ¹⁷⁰ and to briefly engage with magic again: Thallus would benefit from the aid of a medicus rather than a magus,¹⁷¹ and this is precisely how Apuleius presents himself. Like in Apol. 40.1‒4, here, too, he plays with medicine and magic, which were both deeply interconnected in Greco-Roman times.¹⁷² In the light of this interpretation, it becomes fully evident how Apuleius toys with the attackers’ argument: should Apuleius be a goetic magus – as they claim – and not a physician, then Thallus would have been of no use to him. The greatest magus in the world, Apuleius ironically concludes,¹⁷³ is whoever could compel Thallus not to fall.¹⁷⁴

 Plu. Mor. 592c; Cic. Div. 1.50.113 and the remarks in Pease 1963: 304.  Apol. 43.7.  The verb initio is here used ironically. In Apol. 55.8 and 56.8 we find the noun initium (‘initiation into the mysteries’); for magic and mysteries, cf. Ch. 8.2.  Apol. 43.8.  Apol. 43.9, according to Sallmann 1995: 151, followed by Hunink 1997, vol. II: 132, this description was supposed to make the audience shudder. However, here this is mitigated by a comical characterisation (cf. Callebat 1984: 165; May 2006: 95) which is in line with Apuleius’ irony towards his accusers. The appalling description is that at Apol. 44.9, where the epileptic seizure is described. On Apuleius’ irony in the Apologia see also Masselli 2003: 121‒57.  Apol. 43.9.  Apol. 43.9, and cf. with 26.6 (Ch. 4.3).  Apol. 43.8.  Cf. my discussion in Ch. 6.5.  Apol. 43.9.  Apol. 43.10. Hunink 1997, vol. II: 133 proposes a subtle reference to the judge’s name in this final pun.

7.4 Apuleius’ Secret Magical Ritual

151

This discussion indicates how Apuleius’ own acquaintance with magic helps him distort the allegation of having performed evil spells on Thallus by presenting this as a case of magical divination. The obvious doubts that the audience could have had about his display of magical knowledge were meant to be dampened by the readapted quotation from the Symposium, which expresses appreciation of magic and the Magi.¹⁷⁵ His self-confidence notwithstanding, Apuleius was aware that the accusation concerning Thallus was a particularly dangerous one, since so many people witnessed the event. Therefore, to strengthen his rebuttal, he then disproves the validity of the testimonies.¹⁷⁶ I shall now clarify how, while doing so, he discloses further compromising knowledge of goetic magic.

7.4 Apuleius’ Secret Magical Ritual After undermining the allegation concerning Thallus which Apuleius misrepresents as a case of magical divination,¹⁷⁷ he adds another argument to disprove the validity of the charge: he gives an account of the occult nature of goetic magic,¹⁷⁸ and says that the presence of fourteen witnesses and of Sicinius Pudens implies that no occult magical rite could have taken place.¹⁷⁹ Before presenting this point, Apuleius attacks his prosecutors by asserting that the fourteen slaves called to bear witness against him will confirm that Thallus was already sick before Apuleius even came to Oea, so he cannot be held responsible for the slave’s illness.¹⁸⁰ Thallus was not present in the courtroom of Sabratha to avoid its contamination,¹⁸¹ and since the slave has no memory of what happened during the rite due to his illness,¹⁸² Apuleius denies that he could have provoked his epilepsy with a spell and accuses Sicinius Pudens of being responsible for such calumnies.¹⁸³ Sandwiched between these arguments, we find the short discussion of the other slave-boys on whom Apuleius purportedly tested his dire

        

Further comments on this question in Ch. 12. Apol. 44‒45; 47.1‒6. Apol. 42.4‒43.10. Apol. 47.3. Apol. 47.1‒2; 47.4‒6. On Apol. 47.1, cf. Costantini 2018b. Apol. 44.1‒3. Apol. 44.4‒9. Apol. 45.2 and 42.3. Apol. 45.7‒8.

152

7 The Noxiousness of Apuleius’ Spells

carmina. ¹⁸⁴ Apuleius claims that this is a plain lie, and the prosecution seems unable to react to his assault.¹⁸⁵ This rebuttal precedes the digression on the secrecy of magic at Apol. 47.3‒4, to which the following analysis is devoted: I will reappraise the parallels with magical sources proposed by Abt,¹⁸⁶ and provide new evidence to evaluate Apuleius’ expertise in magic. Then, I will focus on Apol. 47.7, which contains references to the sacrificial offering of frankincense and hens. Expanding on my introductory discussion (7.1), I shall assess what might have happened during the healing ritual performed by Apuleius, and how the prosecution could distort this since both frankincense and hens were really used in goetic magic. At Apol. 47.3‒4 Apuleius provides a description of goetic magic as a secret, illegal, and frightful craft, displaying a clear familiarity with magic: magia ista, quantum ego audio, res est legibus delegata, iam inde antiquitus XII tabulis propter incredundas frugum inlecebras ¹⁸⁷ interdicta, igitur et occulta ¹⁸⁸ non minus quam tetra et horribilis, plerumque noctibus vigilata et tenebris abstrusa et arbitris solitaria et carminibus murmurata. ¹⁸⁹ This passage complies with the imagery and terminology of magic in literary and non-literary sources, betraying how Apuleius was a connoisseur of the subject. The first part of the passage concerns the Twelve Tables: the idea that the magicae artes were already banished by these laws is due to a retrospective interpretation that can already be found in Pliny’s Natural History,¹⁹⁰ which Apuleius might have had in mind.¹⁹¹ Unsurprisingly, the Lex Cornelia de sicariis et veneficis – under which Apuleius is tried –

 Apol. 46.1‒6. Cf. Ch. 7.7.  Apol. 46.3‒6. For the Ciceronian tone of the passage, see especially Harrison 2000: 70; Martos 2015: 83, n. 262 and 263.  Abt 1908: 191‒8.  On this term, see my remarks on Apol. 34.5 in Ch. 6.6, and n. 248.  For the adjective occultus in magical contexts see Apol. 26.7 and Plin. Nat. 21.166. Cf. ThLL, vol. IX.2, s.v. occulo (occultus), col. 365.  Apol. 47.3‒7: ‘this goetic type of magic, as far as I hear, is condemned by the laws, and already interdicted from the earliest times in the laws of the Twelve Tables because of the incredibly powerful incantations of crops; so it is no less secret than gloomy and horrifying; it is usually practised at night, hidden in the dark, secluded from observers, and murmured in spells’.  Plin. Nat. 28.17‒18; 30.12. Apuleius does not refer to the law acting against whoever casts a spell on another person, but to that concerning the charming of the crops; this, obviously, has fewer connections with the allegation brought against him. Vallette 1908: 74, n. 2, followed by Norden 1912: 39, observes that Apuleius needs to be careful since to display knowledge of magic was indeed a punishable crime under the Lex Cornelia de sicariis et veneficis (Paulus Sent. 5.29.17).  Cf. Harrison 2000: 71, n. 83. As discussed when commenting on Apol. 27.3 (Ch. 4.4, 4.5, 4.6) and 90.6 (Ch. 11.5) Pliny seems a frequent source for Apuleius.

7.4 Apuleius’ Secret Magical Ritual

153

plainly forbids any sacra impia nocturnave as well as goetic incantations.¹⁹² The following cluster of adjectives and nouns serves to underscore the idea that goetic magic is occult and performed at night (noctibus vigilata,¹⁹³ tenebris abstrusa),¹⁹⁴ thus abominable and frightening (tetra et horribilis).¹⁹⁵ This conforms to the belief that secrecy is a prerequisite for goetic practices, and that very few witnesses could be allowed to such rites. Abt, followed by Hunink and Martos,¹⁹⁶ argues that this belief can be found in numerous literary sources, such as the description of Horace’s Canidia and Sagana,¹⁹⁷ that of Ovid’s Medea,¹⁹⁸ and the necromantic rite performed by an Egyptian crone in Heliodorus’ Aethiopica. ¹⁹⁹ Further literary examples can be added, such as the magical rite by Lucian’s Arignotus,²⁰⁰ the arcana secreta in Seneca’ Medea,²⁰¹ and Hecate’s arcana ²⁰² in Valerius Flaccus.²⁰³ Another famous example is the pyre secretly set up for Dido to perform her magical rite.²⁰⁴ The importance of secrecy in literary magic reflects its crucial function in real magic: as Abt notes, evidence from the PGM indicates that secrecy was a fundamental prerequisite for goetic magic.²⁰⁵ Apuleius’ mention of the carmina murmurata ²⁰⁶ also adheres to a long-lasting literary tradition:²⁰⁷ as Baldini Moscadi suggests,²⁰⁸ references to the mur-

 Paulus Sent. 5.29.15.  On this, see Abt 1908: 194‒6 and my discussion of nocturna sacra (Apol. 57‒60) in Ch. 9.2.  The expression occurs in Apul. Met. 3.20.1, as noted by Abt 1908: 196‒7, n. 6. See also van der Paardt 1971: 151.  The adjective horribilis occurs in literary magic (cf. Sen. Med. 191), and its cognate horrendus is used by Horace to describe Canidia and Sagana (Hor. S. 1.8.25‒6).  Abt 1908: 193‒7; Hunink 1997, vol. II: 138; Martos 2015: 84, n. 266.  Hor. S. 1.8.46‒50; nocturnal secrecy is a standard feature also in Epod. 5.49‒52, on which see Watson 2003: 222‒4.  Ov. Met. 7.138, a reference to Medea’s ‘secret arts’ (secretae artes) and Met. 7.255‒6.  Hld. 6.14‒15, on which see Scippacercola 2011: 96‒7.  Philops. 31 discussed above in Ch. 7.2.  Sen. Med. 679.  For arcanum as a keyword of both magic and mysteries, cf. Ch. 8.2.  V. Fl. 3.321‒2. For Hecate and magic, cf. Ch. 5.6.  Verg. A. 4.493‒5.  Abt 1908: 196‒7 refers to PGM III.616‒7; IV.39‒40; VII.340; XII.37, but various requirements of secrecy, often with regard to special ὀνόματα and utterances, can be also found in PGM I.130; I.146; I.217; IV.74‒5; IV.922; IV.1251; IV.1610; IV.1760; IV.1780; IV.1801; IV.2512; IV.2518‒9; VII.352; VIII.15; XII.237; XII.240; XII.265; XII.322; XII.334; XII.407; XIII.20; XIII.344; XIII.731; 732; XIII.742; XIII.755; XIII.763; XXI.1; XXIIb.20; LVII.13.  On magical carmina, cf. Ch. 4.3.  A parallel at PGM IV.745, cf. Baldini Moscadi 1976=2005: 170.  Cf. Baldini Moscadi 1976=2005: 165‒74.

154

7 The Noxiousness of Apuleius’ Spells

muring of magical spells appear in Theocritus’ Second Idyll,²⁰⁹ in the depiction of Medea’s utterances in Ovid²¹⁰ and Valerius Flaccus,²¹¹ in Lucan’s Bellum Civile,²¹² and in Pseudo-Quintilian’s Sepulcrum Incantatum. ²¹³ Analogously, in Lucian’s Nekyomanteia the expression ἐπῳδὴν ὑποτονθορύζω indicates Mithrobarzanes muttering a spell.²¹⁴ Furthermore, Bremmer notes how Prudentius calls magical utterances Zoroastreos susurros,²¹⁵ blending philosophical magic into goetic magic.²¹⁶ Unsurprisingly, murmur occurs also in Apuleius’ Metamorphoses to describe the dismaying spells of the Thessalian sagae. ²¹⁷ The evidence discussed shows how Apuleius’ digression on the occult nature of magic mirrors both real practices and literary sources. Since only a few men of free condition could witness goetic performances,²¹⁸ Apuleius criticises his accusers for including several slaves in the magicum sacrum,²¹⁹ and adds a series of jokes to mock the absurdity of the allegation.²²⁰ This farcical context serves to briefly²²¹ and ironically allude to some suspicious details of the charge: at Apol. 47.7 Apuleius mentions the ‘sacrificial victims’ (hostias lustralis)²²² of the ritual, namely hens (gallinas) and grains of frankincense (grana turis). This reference substantiates my reconstruction of what Apuleius had actually performed: grains of incense were, in fact, customarily offered to Asclepius,²²³ and so were hens – according to Prudentius²²⁴ and the epitome of the De verborum significa-

 Theoc. 2.10‒11; 62.  Ov. Met. 7.251.  V. Fl. 7.464.  Luc. 6.448; 6.568; 6.686.  [Quint.] Decl. 10.15.  Luc. Nec. 7. Cf. Baldini Moscadi 1976=2005: 170.  Prudent. Apoth. 494.  Bremmer 1999=2008: 246.  Apul. Met. 2.1.3, on which see van Mal-Maeder 2001: 60, and the magicum susurramen at Met. 1.3.1, discussed by Keulen 2007: 67; 116‒7.  Apol. 47.4. This reference could, however, suggest that Apuleius himself had been one of the few eyewitnesses admitted to goetic rites. He was certainly involved in the mysteries (Apol. 55.8‒ 56.2), which also require secrecy, cf. Ch. 8.2.  Apol. 47.5.  Apol. 47.5‒6.  Hunink 1997, vol. II: 138 comments on Apuleius’ brevity as surprising.  Apol. 47.7. The expression can be compared with the hostia pulla offered to the magici dei in Tib. 1.2.64. As to lustralis, this is its only occurrence in a goetic context; cf. ThLL, vol. VII.2, s.v. lustralis, col. 1870. See also Martos 2015: 84, n. 269, who alludes to a rite of purification.  For the employment of incense in Asclepius’ rites, cf. Aristid. Or. 42.2; Orph. H.67; Euseb. Hieron. Comm. in Isaiam 18. 65.  Prudent. Apoth. 204‒6; cf. Edelstein 1998, vol. I: 299.

7.4 Apuleius’ Secret Magical Ritual

155

tu –²²⁵ in the same way as cockerels.²²⁶ Given Apuleius’ own interest in medicine and the healing hero Asclepius (7.1), it is likely that he might have sacrificed some chickens on an altar (ara) and burnt some grains of incense,²²⁷ attempting a private ritual to purify Thallus, during which Asclepius was invoked.²²⁸ The attackers could have easily described these elements as goetic offerings: Abt, followed by Butler and Owen, Hunink, and Martos,²²⁹ focuses on a spell for revelation at PGM II.24‒6, in which a lump of frankincense, twelve right-whorled pinecones, and two cockerels are offered to Helios and Selene.²³⁰ However, more significant evidence can be added: at PGM XIII.1‒20,²³¹ a recipe to contact the divine from the Eighth Book of Moses,²³² we find most of the elements purportedly used by Apuleius, specifically: cockerels (XIII.9‒10), frankincense (XIII.18), an oil-lamp (XIII.10), and an altar (XIII.8), although there is no reference to youths. Furthermore, several prescriptions of the Greek Magical Papyri,²³³ and even two defixionum tabellae from Carthage indicate that hens and cockerels, similarly to frankincense,²³⁴ were employed in goetic rituals for different goals.²³⁵

 Paul. Fest. s.v. in insula, 110 M = p. 98 L; cf. ThLL, vol. VI.2, s.v. gallina, col. 1682.  The cockerel is the favourite offering to Asclepius (Artemid. 5.9) to the extent that Socrates’ last words: ‘a cock to Asclepius’ were proverbial, cf. Pl. Phd. 118a; Herod. 4.12; 4.16; Luc. Bis Acc. 5; Olymp. in Phd. p. 205, l. 24; p. 244, l. 17; Tert. Apol. 46.5; Lactant. Div. inst. 3.20.16‒17; Inst. Epit. 32.4‒5; Prudent. Apoth. 203‒6. Cf. Edelstein, 1998, vol. I: 296‒9; vol. II: 190. Some remarks on the cockerel and Asclepius in Butler and Owen 1914: 108, followed by Martos 2015: 85, n. 270 who do not connect this evidence to the ritual likely performed by Apuleius.  Apol. 42.3 discussed above (Ch. 7.2).  Private healing rituals of Asclepius could indeed take place, cf. Edelstein, vol. II: 119‒20; p. 182, n. 3. A detailed study including archaeological evidence in Stafford 2008.  Abt 1908: 197‒8; Butler and Owen 1914: 108‒9; Hunink 1997, vol. II: 138; Martos 2015: 85, n. 270.  On Selene and magic, cf. Ch. 5.6.  See also PGM XIII.363‒76.  On this, see Lietaert Peerbolte 2007.  Cockerels are prescribed as offerings in the PGM for various purposes: cf. II.25; II.73; III.693; III.701; XIII.125; XIII.377; XIII.437‒8; XIII.682 (an invocation of a divine being); IV.35; IV.38 (initiation); IV.2190 (a spell with Homeric verses for different purposes); IV.2371 (a spell for business); XII.30 (an invocation of Eros for love-magic); XII.213; XII.311‒3 (the creation of a magical ring). Given the semantic broadness of ὄρνις (cf. LSJ: 1254, s.v. ὄρνις), which is often used in place of ἀλεκτορίς to indicate the hen, it is difficult to understand where the term could refer to hens in the PGM. For birds in magic cf. also Ch. 9.3.  See the discussion of Apol. 6.5 (Ch. 3.4).  Audollent 1904: 222b.1‒5; 241.15‒18; the former is a curse addressed to people involved in a lawsuit, the latter is a racing spell.

156

7 The Noxiousness of Apuleius’ Spells

The analysis of Apol. 47.3‒4 shows Apuleius’ expertise in goetic magic as it emerges from both literary and non-literary sources. We can now understand the reason for the brevity and comical tone of his allusion to hens and frankincense at Apol. 47.7: Apuleius probably knew that these offerings could also be used by the practitioners of magic, and that to provide a longer discussion could have only raised suspicions. Although we cannot exactly reconstruct how the prosecution described these supposedly magical offerings, the reference to birds in goetic magic would have anticipated the following charge concerning the goetic rite in Crassus’ house, where the feathers of some unspecified birds were found.²³⁶ In conclusion, this accusation of having caused Thallus’ collapse with goetic incantations was all but clumsy, as Apuleius strives to demonstrate.

7.5 To Harm a Mulier with Spells The countering of the alleged spells with which Apuleius caused the epilepsy of a lady of free condition (mulier libera)²³⁷ differs substantially from the previous part of this section: unlike the discussion of the enchantment of Thallus, Apologia 48‒52 does not offer any specific references to magical details included in the allegation,²³⁸ and it does not contain much information revealing Apuleius’ familiarity with magic. As I argue below, Apuleius’ discussion of her ringing ears has nothing to do with goetic magic, Abt’s claims notwithstanding. Before addressing this point, I shall look into the forensic strategy of this part of the speech which shows why Apuleius could easily avoid mentioning magic here. He endeavours to reassure the audience in order to lessen the dangerous innuendos of his previous references to magical divination²³⁹ and magical secrecy.²⁴⁰ In order to do so, he claims that he practised medicine, not magic.²⁴¹ Then he displays his knowledge of medical theories about epilepsy emphasising his sta-

 Apol. 58.2 (Ch. 9.2, 9.3).  The concealment of her identity could be due to Apuleius’ choice to protect the woman’s privacy and decorum. Hunink 1997, vol. II: 139 wonders about the absence of the woman from the courtroom, but according to the Roman law her presence was not necessary since women’s testimonies did not count, cf. Ch. 1.4 with reference to Pudentilla.  For the reconstruction see Ch. 7.1.  Apol. 42.4‒43.6 (Ch. 7.3).  Apol. 47.3‒4 (Ch. 7.4).  Apol. 40.1‒4; 43.8; 48.3‒4; 51.9‒10. On the connections between magic and medicine cf. Ch. 6.5.

7.5 To Harm a Mulier with Spells

157

tus as a philosopher and a physician,²⁴² and lastly attacks Aemilianus for his calumnious arguments.²⁴³ This strategy is comparable to that in Apol. 29‒31 and Apol. 32‒42.2, where he discloses for the first time his suspicious acquaintance with both literary and real magic, and then counterbalances it by displaying his zoological and medical erudition. This different approach was possible because Apuleius did not need to engage closely with the accusation, since he could benefit from the deposition of Themison, Apuleius’ assistant and physician,²⁴⁴ and from the judge’s favour. Themison, in fact, denies any magical misdeed,²⁴⁵ and explains that he himself brought the woman for a medical inspection to Apuleius – who asked her if her ears were ringing – and that the woman did not collapse before them.²⁴⁶ This deposition disproves the accusation that Apuleius harmed the lady with his noxious spells causing her collapse,²⁴⁷ and detaches him from the direct responsibility for her epileptic attacks. As to the judge, in this case it is possible to observe how he seems to openly favour Apuleius: as it emerges from Apol. 48.6‒8,²⁴⁸ Maximus insistently questioned the prosecution about the advantages of the alleged incantation, and dismissed the possibility that the mere collapse of the lady would have been the reason behind Apuleius’ actions. Now, it is true that the Lex Cornelia de sicariis et veneficis primarily punished the murdering of Roman citizens,²⁴⁹ but simply endangering their lives with goetic performances and magical spells was a prosecutable crime in itself.²⁵⁰ An unsympathetic magistrate or a person biased against any kind of magic would have approached the accusers’ arguments less sceptically, but the evidence in Apol. 48.6‒8 suggests that Claudius Maximus discards a priori the possibility that a fellow philosopher like Apuleius would have been involved in goetic magic.

 Apol. 48.11‒51.8. An overview of this section is in Harrison 2000: 71‒2, and Israelowich 2016: 639‒42, who argues for possible connections with Hippocratic medicine.  Apol. 51.10‒52.4; on this see also Costantini 2019b.  Themison features as Apuleius’ servant (servus) skilled in medicine at Apol. 33.3 and 40.5; there the corrupted reading of the MSS (Themis [c]onservus) was aptly emended by Lipsius, and is followed by the modern editors of the Apologia, cf. Helm 1905=19553: 39; 46; Butler and Owen 1914: 83; Vallette 1924: 41; 49; Martos 2015: 62; 73. On Themison’s name, see Hunink 1997, vol. II: 108, and Martos 2015: 62, n. 196.  Apol. 48.3; 48.6; 51.9.  Apol. 48.3‒4.  Apol. 48.1 and Ch. 7.1.  Hunink 1997, vol. II: 139 observes that, in this case, the possibility of a heavy manipulation by Apuleius is improbable given that all the speakers are attending the trial.  Inst. Iust. 4.18.5; this law protected freeborn people and slaves alike, cf. Ch. 1.3.  Paulus Sent. 5.29.15.

158

7 The Noxiousness of Apuleius’ Spells

As to the reference to the ringing of the woman’s ears,²⁵¹ Abt wrongly stresses a connection with magic. This reference shows Apuleius’ technical knowledge of the jargon of medicine. In fact, tinnitus,²⁵² when used in connection with the ears, is a technical term of Roman medicine,²⁵³ while the verb obtinnio is probably an Apuleian coinage²⁵⁴ that would have emphasised his medical expertise.²⁵⁵ Abt, followed by Butler and Owen, Hunink, and Martos,²⁵⁶ argues for a magical undertone of obtinnio by referring to PDM XIV.75‒80, in which a lamp divination by means of a boy is described as follows: ‘if his two ears speak, he is very good; if it is his right ear, he is good; if it is the left ear, he is bad’.²⁵⁷ However, this passage pertains to a voice speaking in the ears, not to their ringing, and the superstitious belief, reported by Pliny,²⁵⁸ that the ringing of the ears (tinnitus aurium) indicates that someone is talking about a person has nothing to do with magic or with the divinatory practice described in PDM XIV.75‒80. In short, Apol. 48‒52 does not contain evidence of Apuleius’ acquaintance with magic, diminishing both the accusation of having harmed a woman in need of assistance and his previous display of magical knowledge. The deposition of Themison, the judge’s sympathy, and the safe context of Apuleius’ medico-philosophical showcase²⁵⁹ enable him to make a convincing case against his accusers and Aemilianus in particular, who – as Apuleius puts it – collapsed under the burden of his mendacious arguments like an epileptic.²⁶⁰ Despite the cogency of this part of the Apologia, it is still necessary to assess the impact of this and the previous accusations about Thallus and the slaveboys. This will enable us to ascertain their function within the broader context of the Primary Charges.

 Apol. 48.3; 48.11; 51.2‒3.  Apol. 48.11; 51.3.  Aurium tinnitus can be found in medical contexts in Plin. Nat. 20.162; 23.85; 31.117; in Marcellus Empiricus: CML vol. V: 172; 176; 188; in Caelius Aurelianus: CML vol. VI.1: 38; 51; 136; 320; 360; 432; 458; 464; 490; 530; 688; in the pseudo-Hippocratic epistle in Bede Temp. rat. 30. Cf. also the discussion in Langslow 2000: 377.  Apol. 48.3. Cf. ThLL, vol. IX.2, s.v. obtinnio, col. 291, and McCreight 1991: 424‒5.  Cf. Apol. 40.1‒4 (Ch. 6.5).  Abt 1908: 198 and 175; Butler and Owen 1914: 109‒10; Hunink 1997, vol. II: 139; Martos 2015: 85, n. 271.  I follow the translation by Johnson in Betz 19922: 199.  Plin. Nat. 28.24; cited in Abt 1908: 198, n. 2.  Apol. 48.11‒51.8.  Apol. 52.1; on Apuleius’ witticism, see Hunink 1997, vol. II: 143; Martos 2015: 90, n. 285; and especially Costantini 2019b.

7.6 Conclusion

159

7.6 Conclusion The present discussion suggests that, when rebutting the accusation of having harmed Thallus with magical spells,²⁶¹ Apuleius displays a fully-fledged understanding of two significant features of goetic magic: namely magical divination with boys²⁶² and the secrecy of magic.²⁶³ This analysis has also made it possible to reconstruct how the attackers tarnished a healing ritual of Asclepius according to frightful and widespread topoi of Greco-Roman magic such as the idea that the magi harmed people with their charms and had a special interest in using youths in their rituals (7.1 and 7.2). Apuleius, however, could rely on his deep knowledge of magic to distort and weaken this accusation. But unlike the lengthy digression on literary magic at Apol. 30.6‒13 and 31.5‒7 (5.3, 5.4, and 5.5) and the deliberate provocation at Apol. 38.7‒8 (6.4), the two magical displays in this section of the defence are framed within a reasoning aiming to undermine, on the one hand, the possibility of using the epileptic Thallus in divination (7.3), and, on the other hand, the validity of the witnesses (7.4). Apuleius was well aware that his showcase would have surprised the audience, and to reassure them about his innocence he inserts also an adapted citation from Plato’s Symposium, which introduces a discussion of philosophical foreknowledge,²⁶⁴ and then – after the description of magical secrecy –²⁶⁵ he moves on to medicine.²⁶⁶ The rebuttal of the accusation of the enchantment of the other slaveboys²⁶⁷ and the lady²⁶⁸ offers no evidence to glimpse Apuleius’ knowledge of magic. There is a significant progression in the way in which these charges were likely presented: whilst the first point concerns the noxious effects of Apuleius’ spells on the slave Thallus, the second and third ones are about more slave-boys and a woman of free condition, who had also been allegedly harmed by the magus. Thus, with this charge the prosecution intended to stress that the entire city of Oea was under threat since Apuleius’ presence endangered not only slaves but also free citizens. This claim is developed further by the attackers in the next two allegations, which deal with the contamination of Pontianus’ lara-

 Apol. 42.3‒47.7.  Apol. 42.4‒43.6 (Ch. 7.3).  Apol. 47.3‒4 (Ch. 7.4).  Apol. 43.2‒5; this digression is, however, comparable to the goetic practices described in the PGM (Ch. 7.3).  Apol. 47.1‒6.  Apol. 48.1‒52.4, especially 48.11‒51.8 (Ch. 7.5).  Apol. 46.1‒6.  Apol. 48.1‒52.4.

160

7 The Noxiousness of Apuleius’ Spells

rium and Crassus’ household by Apuleius, causing the supposed death of the former and the sickness of the latter.²⁶⁹

 Apol. 53‒57.1 and 57‒60 (Ch. 8 and 9).

8 The Pollution of Pontianus’ Lares 8.1 Introduction The rebuttal of this Primary Charge concerning some magical objects wrapped in linen and hidden amongst Pontianus’ Lares has a particularly delicate implication which has been overlooked in previous studies: I propose a new interpretation of this allegation, suggesting that the prosecution hinted at the fact that Apuleius polluted Pontianus’ lararium ¹ and that this brought about his stepson’s death (8.4). Abt, Hijmans, Harrison, Pellecchi, and Martos believe, instead, that the charge was the very possession of allegedly magical objects.² This leads Hunink to argue that this was a “minor remark of the prosecution, perhaps not even included in the official charges, aiming at raising doubts on the private life of the defendant”.³ However, the evidence in the Apologia has to be approached and examined more carefully and critically: Apuleius’ intention is hardly ever to give an accurate report of what his accusers said, but rather to distort and lessen their dangerous arguments by presenting the evidence they used against him as harmless. He intentionally avoids any detailed discussion of his purported evil goals. Even when discussing the charge concerning the allurements from the sea (marinis illecebris),⁴ which is the lengthiest section of the Apologia, he deviates from the issue at stake by inserting irrelevant digressions, and he does not explicitly point out that the prosecution claimed how these marine charms had been sought and employed to seduce Pudentilla.⁵ Likewise, when disputing the charges of having enchanted several people in Oea, Apuleius cautiously omits that the alleged purpose of his goetic performances was to harm his victims by making them fall ill.⁶ Quite obviously, he does not need to make these details clear: the audience and the judge would have been already aware of the content

 For the sake of simplicity, I shall adopt this term to indicate the shrine of the Lares, although evidence of its use is chronologically later than Apuleius (cf. CIL 9.2125, which dates to AD 236 and SHA Marc. 3.5; Alex. Sev. 29.2; 31.4‒5; Tac. 17.4). See also Giacobello 2008: 55, and n. 109.  Abt 1908: 206; Hijmans 1994: 1765; Harrison 2000: 72‒3; Pellecchi 2012: 231‒7; Martos 2015: 91, n. 289. Butler and Owen do not provide an interpretation of the charge, perhaps assuming that it simply consists of magical objects hidden in the lararium.  Hunink 1997, vol. II: 144. Likewise, Pellecchi 2012: 231‒40 argues that this allegation is nothing more than an interlude (cf. Ch. 1.6).  Apol. 41.5; see the discussion in Ch. 6.  Ch. 5 and 6, and 11.2.  Ch. 7.1; for a similar distortion see Ch. 9.4, 9.5, 11.4. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110617528-010

162

8 The Pollution of Pontianus’ Lares

of the charges, delivered in court before Apuleius’ defence-speech. Apuleius needs, instead, to detach himself from any suspicion and, by disproving the validity of the evidence used against him (e. g. fish cannot be used in magic; Thallus cannot be employed for divination), he hinders the prosecutions’ reasoning and frees himself from the necessity of rebutting in detail the dangerous arguments brought against him. According to this strategy, if Apuleius can simply prove that the supposedly magical evidence is innocuous, then no magic could have really taken place. Here at Apol. 53‒57.1 he follows this same approach: although he does not deny that he really put some objects amongst the Lares of Pontianus,⁷ he clarifies that these are not tools of magic or goetic defixiones but the symbols of his mystery initiations.⁸ Consequently, no goetic performance could have happened. It is likely that he really kept his own mystery symbols in Pontianus’ personal shrine as he claims; however, given the proximity between magic and the mysteries, it was easy for the prosecution to darken their description of this secret objects and present them as magical. But what would have been the implication of hiding some harmful goetic objects amongst the most sacred statuettes of Pontianus? In this chapter, I discuss the connections between magic and mystery cults (8.2), showing the kind of ideas on which the accusers drew. I will reassess Abt’s findings,⁹ confirming that Apuleius adopts again some risky arguments in this section of the Apologia, which closely resemble real goetic practices (8.3 and 8.5). I will also discuss how the risky implications of these arguments were ultimately dampened with a Platonising reasoning – mirroring that at Apol. 32.3 – which consists in exhorting the audience to look positively at the evidence and not to interpret it suspiciously or maliciously, as Apuleius’ accusers did instead (8.5 and 8.6). By doing so, I shall throw new light on this part of the Apologia and on its connection with the following charge, which concerns the defilement of Iunius Crassus’ household.¹⁰

 At Apol. 55.3‒7 he provocatively claims that this accusation could have been made up by his opponents, but then he starts his counter-argument.  Apol. 55.8‒9; 56.1.  Abt 1908: 209‒14.  Apol. 57‒60 (Ch. 9).

8.2 The Relationship between Magic and Mystery Cults

163

8.2 The Relationship between Magic and Mystery Cults Apuleius’ counter-argument begins with the same bitter tone of reprimand against Aemilianus that characterises the conclusion of the previous section.¹¹ Being aware of the threatening implications of this indictment, he endeavours to underscore from the beginning the methodological inadequacy of his attackers. He argues, in fact, that the charge cannot have any weight since Aemilianus does not even know the content of the allegedly magical wrap,¹² so how could he accuse Apuleius of what he himself admitted ignoring?¹³ Apuleius’ claims notwithstanding, the accusation is not as illogical as he presents it. If the attackers intended to describe the content of the wrap as occult and mysterious, it is because it would have contributed positively to their depiction since secrecy was a typical feature of goetic magic.¹⁴ Apuleius was fully aware of this and drew upon this idea to claim that his healing ritual, since performed before fifteen witnesses, could have nothing to do with magic.¹⁵ But in order to explain how the attackers could misrepresent Apuleius’ mystery symbols as tools for goetic magic, it is necessary to assess the connections between magic and mysteries on which the prosecution drew. The first evidence for the connection between magic and mysteries dates back at least to the fifth century BC, if we excluded a much-debated quotation from Heraclitus in Clement of Alexandria in which the μάγοι are said to undergo mystery initiations.¹⁶ In Euripides’ Bacchae we find that the mysteries of Dionysus are associated with the activities of a γóης,¹⁷ a term with which μάγος was synonymically associated.¹⁸ In addition, it has been argued that the Getty Hexameters ¹⁹ constitute evidence of the connection between magic and the mysteries, given the employment of an overlapping technical language which was later used to describe the rites of the μάγοι. ²⁰ Because of this early connection, which continues in the Hellenistic period,²¹ some features of the

 Apol. 51.10‒52.  This point is resumed at Apol. 53.5‒6 and fully developed at 54.5‒8. On this strategy see Harrison 2000: 72.  Apol. 53.1.  Apol. 42.3; 47.3 (Ch. 7.4).  Apol. 47.1‒6.  DK 22 B 14 = Clem. Al. Protr. 2.22.2‒3. On the authenticity of this passage, cf. Ch. 2.3, n. 64.  E. Ba. 233‒8. On γοητεία and mysteries see Johnston 1999: 105‒11  Cf. E. Or. 1497b; S. OT 387‒389 and the discussion in Ch. 2.3 and 2.4.  The terminus ante quem is the destruction of Selinous in 409 BC, cf. Bremmer 2013.  Cf. Faraone 2013: 107‒19.  D.S. 5.64.4, where Diodorus Siculus describes the Idean Dactyls as practising mysteries (τελετάς) because they were γόητες.

164

8 The Pollution of Pontianus’ Lares

mysteries, such as secrecy²² and a nocturnal setting,²³ became typical aspects of magical performances in the collective imagination of the Greeks,²⁴ and this has a considerable impact on literary representations of magic in the following centuries. In the Roman world, the appreciation of the mysteries varies over time: in the Republican period and at the beginning of the Imperial age, mysteria,²⁵ similarly to magia, were looked at suspiciously. The Bacchanalia were exemplarily interdicted under the Senatus consultum de Bacchanalibus (186 BC).²⁶ After more than a century, Cicero still condemns the mysteries in the Leges,²⁷ but his disapproval is not absolute, as Burkert claims,²⁸ since he also expresses a very positive attitude towards the Dionysian and Eleusinian mysteries:²⁹ what Cicero regards as reproachable are not the mysteries as a whole, but those nocturnal rites also condemned by the comic playwrights, Aristophanes in particular.³⁰ At any rate, there was a general change of attitude in the second century AD, a period when the mystery cults seemed to appeal to the Roman elite.³¹ Their popularity was such that the emperor Marcus Aurelius himself was initiated into the mysteries of Ceres.³² Therefore, in Apol. 55.8‒56 Apuleius addresses an audience who was familiar with and likely sympathetic towards these cults.³³ This positive considera-

 Secrecy is a rule of the mysteries already in the Hymn to Demeter (h.Cer. 478‒82). Cf. Brill’s New Pauly, vol. IX, s.v. Mysteries, col. 438.  See, for instance, the Eleusinian mysteries, cf. Brill’s New Pauly, vol. IX, s.v. Mysteria, coll. 431‒2.  On secrecy and night in magic, see the discussion of Apol. 47.3 (Ch. 7.4) and my remarks in Ch. 9.2.  The term, which we find in Apol. 56.1, is a loanword from the Greek μυστήριον and is first attested in Caecilius’ Titthe (CRF 3: 71, frg. 3, l. 223) and Accius’ Philoctetes (TRF 3: 236, frg. 2, l. 527); cf. ThLL, vol. VIII, s.v. mysterium, col. 1753.  Liv. 39.10‒19.  Cic. Leg. 2.21 and 2.37.  See the discussion in Burkert 1987: 11 and 138, n. 58.  Leg. 2.35‒6.  Leg. 2.36‒7, cf. especially Leg. 2.37: novos vero deos et in his colendis nocturnas pervigilationes sic Aristophanes facetissumus poeta veteris comoediae vexat. This could be an allusion to the infanticide-utricide in Aristophanes’ Thesmophoriazusae (694‒755). Impious nocturnal rites were punished by the Lex Cornelia de sicariis et veneficis (Paulus Sent. 5.29.15), which also interdicted human sacrifices (5.29.16).  See the overview in Bremmer 2014: 1‒20.  SHA Marc. 27.1.  Apol. 55.8‒11; 56.9‒10. According to Coarelli 1989, Apuleius was also initiated into the mysteries of Mithras and was the keeper of the ‘Mithraeum of the seven spheres’ in Ostia, accessible from his own house. This hypothesis is, however, highly speculative as Harrison argues (Ch. 1.4).

8.2 The Relationship between Magic and Mystery Cults

165

tion notwithstanding, some doubts remained in later times, given that mysteries and magic shared common features and a common technical language. As said above, a nocturnal setting and especially secrecy are typical of goetic rituals as well as various mysteries: in the Roman world the term arcanum³⁴ is, in fact, referred to both mysteries and magic. In Horace’s Fifth Epode Canidia invokes Nox and Diana-Hecate³⁵ and calls her rites arcana sacra,³⁶ so does Medea in Seneca’ homonymous tragedy,³⁷ and Photis when referring to Pamphile’s magical practices in Apuleius’ Metamorphoses.³⁸ We can add that Pliny the Elder mentions that Nero had been initiated into their cult by the Armenian magus Tiridates through ‘magical banquets’ (magicis etiam cenis eum initiaverat).³⁹ Likewise, the goetic μάγος Mithrobarzanes needs to perform a certain set of rites in order to initiate Menippus and prepare him for the descent into the netherworld.⁴⁰ What we reconstruct from the literary evidence parallels the real goetic practices: as discussed by Betz and Graf,⁴¹ terms like μύστης,⁴² μυστήριον,⁴³ and μυσταγωγός,⁴⁴ clearly borrowed from the mysteries, feature in the prescriptions of the PGM. This suggests that the goetic practitioners themselves drew on the language of the mystery cults to describe their rituals. It is because of these well-established connections between mysteries and goetic magic that Apuleius’ accusers were able to depict Apuleius’ mystery symbols as harmful magical objects, in the same manner in which they misread his interest in medicine as evidence for

 Cf. ThLL, vol. II, s.v. arcanum, coll. 436‒8; on this cf. also May 2018. Amongst the cases in which arcana means mysteria, we should mention: Apul. Met. 2.28.3; 2.29.4; 11.21.2; 11.21.9; 11.22.6; Soc. 20.  On these goddesses and magic, cf. my comments on Apol. 31.9 (Ch. 5.6).  Hor. Epod. 5.52, on which see Watson 2003: 224.  Sen. Med. 679.  Apul. Met. 3.15.3. Van der Paardt 1971: 114 stresses a parallel with Met. 11.21.9, where the meaning of the term is unrelated to magic. Other occurrences of arcanum associated with magic in: Ov. Met. 7.192; Luc. 6.431; 6.440.  Plin. Nat. 30.17.  Luc. Nec. 6‒7, in particular see Nec. 6: ἤκουον δ’ αὐτοὺς [sc. τοὺς μάγους] ἐπῳδαῖς τε καὶ τελεταῖς τισιν ἀνοίγειν τοῦ Ἅιδου τὰς πύλας καὶ κατάγειν ὃν ἂν βούλωνται ἀσφαλῶς καὶ ὀπίσω αὖθις ἀναπέμπειν (‘I have heard that the magi open the entrance of the Underworld with some incantations and mystery rituals and send anyone they want safely down there and bring them back again’). Translation adapted from MacLeod 1991: 131.  Betz 1991: 244‒59 and especially p. 249. On the same line Graf 1997: 96‒117.  PGM I.131; IV.477; IV.744.  I.127; IV.476; IV.723; IV.746; IV.794; IV.2477; IV.2592; V.110; XII.322; XII.331; XII.333; XIII.128; XIII.684‒5; XIXa.52.  IV.172; IV.2254.

166

8 The Pollution of Pontianus’ Lares

his magical misdeeds.⁴⁵ This allegation would have been, therefore, quite dangerous, and I shall now discuss how Apuleius counters it.

8.3 The Summary of the Charge: The Linen Cloth By stressing at the very outset the accusers’ lack of methodological consistency, Apuleius creates a safe premise before he summarises the indictment. This is a critical moment where he needs to deploy all his rhetorical mastery in order to dispel the magical undertone of the allegation. As with the summaries of the other charges,⁴⁶ this allegation is distorted to lessen the importance of its content. Apuleius rephrases it, in fact, as follows: Aemilianus said that ‘I keep certain objects wrapped in a cloth in the same place as Pontianus’ tutelary deities’ (me habuisse quaedam sudariolo involuta apud Lares Pontiani).⁴⁷ Shortly afterwards, he stresses this again in a sentence in which he mockingly imitates Aemilianus’ suspiciousness: habuit Apuleius quaepiam linteolo involuta apud Lares Pontiani. ⁴⁸ It is possible to identify two typical features occurring when Apuleius rephrases the accusations. The first is the employment of indefinite pronouns, in this case quidam and quispiam; this gives a vague and imprecise tone to the allegation and would have been an apt choice in the present context, since the content of the magical wrap is professedly unknown to the attackers themselves. The second feature is the presence of the comic diminutives mocking and belittling important elements of the charges,⁴⁹ specifically sudariolum ⁵⁰ and linteolum,⁵¹ a variation of the normal forms linteum ⁵² and sudarium ⁵³ that Apuleius uses later in this section of the speech. Since this linen wrap purportedly

 Apol. 42.3‒52 (Ch. 7); on magic and medicine cf. Ch. 6.5.  Apol. 25.1‒2; 29.1; 42.3.  Apol. 53.2.  Apol. 53.4: ‘Apuleius kept some objects wrapped in a linen cloth with the Lares of Pontianus’. On the ironic tone of this sentence, see McCreight 1990: 57.  On the comic diminutives in the Apologia, see my comments on Apol. 42.3 in Ch. 7.2, n. 109.  Apol. 53.2; 53.12; 55.2. Hunink 1997, vol. II: 145, following McCreight 1990: 56‒7, acknowledges the deprecatory value of the term sudariolum but does not contextualises it within a wider technique characterising Apuleius’ rephrasing of the charges.  Apol. 53.4. The comic use of linteolum goes back to Plautus’ Epidicus 230; another occurrence of this term in Apuleius’ prose is in Apul. Met. 2.30.9, where it indicates – not without a comic effect – the bandage covering Thelyphron’s deformed face. These occurrences are noted by Pasetti 2007: 27, n. 80; pp. 57 and 60, who does not acknowledge the same use in the Apologia.  Apol. 53.8; 54.4.  Apol. 54.5; 55.3.

8.3 The Summary of the Charge: The Linen Cloth

167

contained some tools of magic, Apuleius needed to parry his enemies’ thrust by presenting it as a piece of cloth as harmless as possible. It should also be observed that when Apuleius first refers to the allegation (Apol. 53.12), he avoids the term linteolum and uses, instead, the more general sudariolum, indicating a napkin or a cloth used to wipe one’s face, which is not necessarily made out of linen.⁵⁴ This careful word-choice is due to the fact that linen was generally believed to be used in goetic magic, especially in an Egyptian setting, with which Apuleius was familiar.⁵⁵ Abundant evidence of the use of linen in magic comes from the Greek Magical Papyri – the product of syncretistic lore within an Egyptian milieu –⁵⁶ showing that linen fabrics were frequently used in various kinds of goetic rituals.⁵⁷ We could add that in the healing prescriptions of the Lapidarium attributed to Damigeron-Evax – a figure strongly connected with magic –⁵⁸ some have to be enveloped in panno lineo to cure the sick.⁵⁹ Not only papyrological, but also literary sources show the use of linen in goetic magic. Amongst the goetic characters portrayed in Lucian’s Philopseudes, we also find Pancrates, ἱερὸς ἀνήρ from Egypt, whose garments are made of linen;⁶⁰ but the most interesting evidence is in Philostratus’ Life of Apollonius of Tyana: one of the charges of γοητεία brought against the Pythagorean sage specifically concerns the fact that he wore linen garments only.⁶¹ In order to deny this common connection between linen and magic, Apuleius claims its purity and holiness, by opposing it to the impurity of wool, and argues that it was used by the sages Orpheus, Pythagoras and by the sanctissimi priests of Egypt. Linen would have, therefore, been the most suitable material to cover the sacred symbols of his initiations.⁶² This argument – which is

 OLD 2, s.v. sudarium, p. 2049.  See my discussion of Apol. 31.5‒7 (Ch. 5.4) and 38.7 (Ch. 6.4).  On this see Brashear 1995: 3390‒452.  Abt 1908: 215‒6 refers to PGM II.162‒3; IV.1861‒2; 2189; V.217‒8, but the occurrences of linen textiles in the PGM are far more numerous: cf. I.277; I.293; I.332; III.294‒5; III.706; III.712; IV.80‒ 81; IV.88; IV.171‒2; IV.174‒5; IV.663; IV.674‒6; IV.768‒9; IV.1073‒4; VII.208; VII.338; VII.359; VII.664; VIII.85‒6; XII.122; XII.145; XII.179; XIII.96; XIII.650‒1; XIII.1012; XXXVI.269.  Apol. 90.6.  Damig. Lapid. 10.5: panno lineo puro.  Luc. Philops. 34. A detailed discussion of this figure is in Ogden 2007: 248‒59.  Philostr. VA 8.7.4‒5. In Ep. 8.1, it is repeated that Apollonius ἐσθῆτα φορεῖ λινῆν (‘he wears linen robes’) because they are τῶν ἱερέων τὰ καθαρώτατα (‘the purest amongst the sacred things’).  Apol. 56.1‒2.

168

8 The Pollution of Pontianus’ Lares

extremely similar to that used in Apollonius’ defence –⁶³ draws on a literary tradition dating back to Herodotus, who contrasts the pureness of linen with the uncleanliness of wool, and explains that linen is used by those initiated into the Pythagorean and Orphic mysteries, and by Egyptian priests.⁶⁴ In addition to this passage, the fact that Egyptian priests – and those of Isis especially – wore linen clothes is so well known in the Roman world as to almost be proverbial.⁶⁵ Unsurprisingly, Apuleius conforms to this imagery when he describes in his novel the holy robes of Zatchlas⁶⁶ Aegyptius propheta primarius,⁶⁷ and those of the priests of Isis and Osiris.⁶⁸ Despite the authority of this tradition, Apuleius’ explanation at Apol. 56.1‒2 does not seem to be based on solid foundations: not only the Egyptian priests, but also Orpheus and Pythagoras were associated with the magi, and Apuleius knows it even too well.⁶⁹

 Philostr. VA 8.7.5: ἀλλ’ ὅμως, ἐπειδὴ μὴ ἀπ’ ἐμψύχου ἐδρέφθη, καθαρὸν μὲν Ἰνδοῖς δοκεῖ, καθαρὸν δὲ Αἰγυπτίοις, ἐμοὶ δὲ καὶ Πυθαγόρᾳ διὰ τοῦτο σχῆμα γέγονε διαλεγομένοις εὐχομένοις θύουσι (‘and yet because it is not harvested from a living creature, the Indians think it pure, as do the Egyptians, and it has become the material which I and Pythagoras wear as we converse, pray, and sacrifice’). Translation by Jones 2005: 343.  Hdt. 2.37; 2.81, cited by Hunink 1997, vol. II: 151; Martos 2015: 97, n. 303. On these passages from Herodotus, see Asheri, Lloyd, and Corcella 2007: 264‒5; 295. The name of the linen tunic worn by the Egyptian priests was καλασίρις, and this is also the ‘speaking name’ of a character in Heliodorus’ Aethiopica, who is an Egyptian holy man. Linen robes must have, thus, become customarily associated with these priests in the Greco-Roman collective imagination.  Ov. Met. 1.747; Mart. 12.28.19; Plin. Nat. 19.14; Juv. 6.533; Suet. Otho 12.1. Another interesting reference in Plu. Mor. 352c, on which cf. Griffiths 1970: 270‒1.  Zatchlas is described as a propheta not as a magus by Apuleius, although Stramaglia 1991=2003: 61‒111 rightly notes the presence of some goetic traits in his characterisation.  Apul. Met. 2.28.2; there, the expression linteis amiculis iniectum used to indicate Zatchlas’ garments can be compared with Apol. 56.2: lini seges […] amictui sanctimissis Aegyptiorum sacerdotibus (‘linen is employed by the holiest of Egyptian priests for their clothing’). On this passage from the Metamorphoses, see Stramaglia 1991=2003: 80, n. 74 with specific reference to Apol. 56.1‒2, and van Mal-Maeder 2001: 370. See also Martos 2015: 97, n. 303. At Apul. Met. 11.27.4 an initiate into Osiris’ cult is described as de sacratis linteis iniectum; further remarks in Keulen et al. 2015: 456.  Apul. Met. 11.10.1; 11.14.3; 11.23.4; 11.27.4. Isis herself wore linen in Met. 11.3.5; see the commentary by Griffiths 1975: 192, and especially Keulen et al. 2015: 135; 227.  Apol. 27.2 discussed in Ch. 4.5.

8.4 The True Meaning of Lares Pontiani and Their Alleged Pollution

169

8.4 The True Meaning of Lares Pontiani and Their Alleged Pollution Further information about the content of the allegation is scattered throughout this section of the Apologia, which I propose to reconstruct as follows: the Lares Pontiani were kept on a mensa ⁷⁰ inside Pontianus’ library,⁷¹ a private part of the house which was accessible only to him, to Apuleius, and to a freedman who was in charge of the library.⁷² It was this librarian who noticed the presence of the mysterious wrap amongst the holy statuettes;⁷³ then he sided with the opposition and bore witness against Apuleius during the trial.⁷⁴ Having collected the details concerning the indictment, it becomes necessary to shed light on the alleged function of these magical objects wrapped in linen, which Apuleius does not mention and other scholars of the Apologia failed to understand, arguing that the mere possession of these purportedly magical objects was the issue at stake in this charge.⁷⁵ This misunderstanding is mainly due to an incorrect interpretation of the expression Lares Pontiani. Abt⁷⁶ interprets the term Lares as the Lares familiares, and argues that they were kept on a table in Pontianus’ library as tutelary deities of the venue, like the statues of deities placed in famous libraries, such as Athena’s statue in Pergamum and Serapis in Alexandria. Marchesi and Hunink⁷⁷ similarly argue that the Lares were kept on a table in the library of Pontianus. Butler and Owen, later Griffiths, and to some extent Moreschini,⁷⁸ challenge this position, suggesting that the Lares were not put on a table but inside a shrine in the shape of a cupboard. It is worth observing that mensa indicates neither a table in the library nor a cupboard. The term was, in fact, customarily used to designate a sacred surface, a niche, where to keep ritual objects,⁷⁹ such as the holy statuettes of the Penates mentioned in a fragment from the third book of Naevius’ Bellum Punicum,⁸⁰ and

 Apol. 53.8.  Apol. 55.3.  Apol. 53.8.  Apol. 53.8; 53.11; 55.5.  Apol. 53.8.  Ch. 8.1.  Abt 1908: 206‒7.  Marchesi 1955=2011: 157; Hunink 1997, vol. II: 145.  Butler and Owen 1914: 115; Griffiths 1975: 332; Moreschini 1990: 193, n. 1, who imagines that the Lares were kept on the same shelving unit where the volumina of the library were conserved.  Cf. ThLL, vol. VIII, s.v. mensa, col. 743.  Naev. frag. 3.2 = Prob. ad Verg. Ecl. 6.31: sacra in mensa Penatium.

170

8 The Pollution of Pontianus’ Lares

the Lares themselves in Petronius’ Satyrica. ⁸¹ The archaeological evidence collected by Giacobello validates this interpretation: niches, often richly decorated, were commonly used as lararia in various houses of Pompeii.⁸² The remains of private libraries from Pompeii show how their walls had several niches – as in the case of the ‘House of the Library’ –⁸³ not only filled with bookcases but also with statues,⁸⁴ which could likely have been Lares. If mensa at Apol. 53.8 indicates a consecrated surface, a niche, used as a shrine for the Lares, it is necessary to understand that these figurines are not the Lares familiares, but some sacred statuettes belonging to Pontianus⁸⁵ and acting as his personal protectors.⁸⁶ A passage from Apuleius’ De Platone et eius Dogmate shows the contemporary belief that there were not only the Lares familiares: ⁸⁷ ‘but daemons, whom we can call Genii and Lares, Plato thinks are subordinates of the gods, and protectors and interpreters for men whenever they want anything from them’ (daemonas vero, quos Genios et Lares possumus nuncupare, ministros deorum arbitratur custodesque hominum et interpretes, si quid a diis velint).⁸⁸ Literary and archaeological evidence shows the custom of having one’s personal lararium. In the second century AD, the emperor Marcus Aurelius himself held his belated philosophical masters in such a respect that he kept their golden statuettes in his lararium. ⁸⁹ Some fifty years after Marcus’ death, the emperor Alexander Severus had at least two lararia: in one he kept, amongst the statuettes of his ancestors and of previous emperors, those of Apollonius of Tyana, Orpheus, Christ and Abraham;⁹⁰ in the other lararium, the statuettes of Vergil, Cicero, Achilles and other illustrious men.⁹¹ The archaeological findings confirm the account of the

 Petr. 60.8: duo Lares bullatos super mensam posuerunt.  Cf. Giacobello 2008: 71‒4; by checking her catalogue of the lararia in Pompeii (pp. 132‒294) it emerges that in most cases those shrines were niches inside walls of the house.  Cf. Pompeii regio VI.7.41, room 17.  Cf. Houston 2014: 188.  In the expression Lares Pontiani (Apol. 53.2; 53.4) the genitive indicates the possession of the Lares by Pontianus; for this interpretation, cf. ThLL, vol. VII.2, s.v. lar, coll. 965‒6.  On these private tutelary statuettes see Gagetti 2006: 487‒90.  Apuleius discusses the role of the Lares and considers them as a category of daemons in Soc. 15. Hunink 1997, vol. II: 145 refers to this passage arguing for a possible connection with magic, but no reference to magic emerges from the passage in question.  Apul. Pl. 1.12. This passage alludes to Pl. Leg. 732c; 877a where Plato refers to the tutelary daemon. See the remarks by Fowler 2016: 174, n. 135, to whose translation I refer.  SHA Marc. 3.5, it is not implausible that this was his personal lararium.  SHA Alex. Sev. 29.2‒3.  SHA Alex. Sev. 31.4‒5. See the discussion by Settis 1972: 237‒51, who considers these statuettes as symbols of moral examples.

8.4 The True Meaning of Lares Pontiani and Their Alleged Pollution

171

Historia Augusta: Gagetti and Giacobello identify, in fact, the presence of this type of personal shrine in the ‘Casa a Graticcio’ in Herculaneum.⁹² The evidence so far discussed shows the trend, diffused even amongst the emperors, of worshipping sages and intellectuals in a personal lararium. This enables us to imagine Pontianus’ holy statuettes as representing philosophers and writers, which would have found an ideal abode inside his library. Being Pontianus’ own tutelary protectors, they were kept in a private part of the household, the access to which – as explained – was restricted to very few people. Because of the private character of this venue, it is impossible that the Lares Pontiani could have actually been the Lares familiares, as the latter were not to be kept in a private and inaccessible space, but in an area accessible to the whole of the familia. ⁹³ The slaves, in fact, were in charge of the cult of the Lares familiares,⁹⁴ which were customarily conserved in a shrine close to the hearth and the kitchen⁹⁵ that they could regularly approach. It is, therefore, implausible that a private library could have been the place of a domestic cult, and this made it a suitable venue to host Apuleius’ most secret mystery symbols. It is still necessary to add a further brushstroke to complete our picture. The tutelary statuettes kept inside a lararium were inextricably connected with their owner’s health: in the Life of Tacitus,⁹⁶ the falling of the statuettes inside the lararium is seen as a sign foreshadowing the death of the emperor Tacitus. Now, if the simple fall of one’s own Lares would have indicated the death of a person, it would have been clear that contaminating a shrine with unholy goetic tools would have had dramatic repercussions. According to Apuleius, the murdering of Pontianus was an argument that the prosecution explicitly employed before the trial took

 Cf. Gagetti 2006: 487 and Giacobello 2008: 56. These statuettes are thought to be Lares cubiculares, which were different from the traditional household deities, cf. Gagetti 2006: 487‒9 with further archaeological evidence.  Ov. Fast. 6.305‒6; Plin. Nat. 28.267; Col. 11.1.19; Petr. 60.8; and also Brill’s New Pauly, vol. VII, s.v. Lares, col. 248.  Cato Agr. 5.3; D.H. Ant. Rom. 4.2.1; 4.14.3; Col. 11.1.19; Brill’s New Pauly, vol. VII, s.v. Lares, coll. 248‒9; Giacobello 2008: 110‒6.  Cf. Foss 1997: 197‒218, who brings together literary and archaeological evidence from the Pompeian houses.  SHA Tac. 17.4. The author explains that the reason for the fall, even though unclear, was probably a tremor. Although Tacitus became emperor in AD 275‒276, the connection between the Lares and their owner likely reflects a custom as early as that of the personal lararium. For the reliability and the sources of the Scriptores Historiae Augustae, cf. the monograph by Barnes 1978 on the sources of the Historia Augusta, and Brill’s New Pauly, vol. VI, s.v. Historia Augusta, coll. 408‒9.

172

8 The Pollution of Pontianus’ Lares

place, but not during the lawsuit itself.⁹⁷ However, Apuleius’ words must be taken cautiously: what might have happened is that the opponents did not openly accuse Apuleius of having killed Pontianus with his magica maleficia,⁹⁸ but the unspoken consequences of putting magical tools in a lararium would have been evident to Apuleius’ contemporaries. By exploiting the reticence of his foes, Apuleius could have easily feigned his innocence and denied any connection with Pontianus’ death. The proposed reconstruction makes it finally possible to comprehend the nefarious implications that the attackers likely wanted to convey with this allegation: Apuleius, by secretly putting some impure magical objects amongst Pontianus’ Lares would have polluted the shrine itself, leading to Pontianus’ sickness and his untimely death. This, I suggest, was the obvious consequence to which the prosecutors might have alluded. To make this allegation more convincing, they probably stressed that Pontianus had no trust in Apuleius and supported the prosecutors by publicly defaming Apuleius in Oea before his death.⁹⁹ Consequently, the magus would have avenged himself by defiling his stepson’s lararium to cause his death, and remove a dangerous enemy preventing Apuleius to control Pudentilla and her wealth. Furthermore, the very idea of laying down goetic items was bound to raise fear and suspicion in court. Although it is impossible to reconstruct the exact content of the prosecution’s speech, one might stress a parallel with the frightful description in the speech entitled Sepulcrum Incantatum attributed to Quintilian, where a magus is hired by a man to seal the tomb of his young son, in order to prevent his soul from visiting and comfort his mother at night.¹⁰⁰ In order to attain this goal, the magus placed various goetic objects in the grave, namely a magicum ferrum,¹⁰¹ vincula ferrea,¹⁰² lapides ¹⁰³ and catenae. ¹⁰⁴ It is not unlikely that the prosecution would have drawn upon a similar imagery when delivering the allegation, in order to indicate the harmful-

 Apol. 1.5.  Apol. 2.2. According to the explanation here proposed, Apuleius’ claim that the charge was wholly dropped before the trial would not be entirely sincere.  Apol. 82.3; 82.6‒7 (Ch. 11). This reconstruction explains why the accusers tried to prevent the dying Pontianus from writing his testament, in which he would have expressed his admiration for his stepfather (Apol. 96.5), and why Apuleius presents the dispatches from his late stepson as a surprising revelation (Apol. 96.6‒7). The prosecution concealed the reconciliation between the two in order to support the charge that Apuleius caused Pontianus’ death to avenge himself.  [Quint.] Decl. 10.1‒2.  Decl. 10.2; 10.8; 10.17. Cf. Schneider 2013: 119.  Decl. 10.2; 10.16. Cf. Schneider 2013: 119.  Decl. 10.8.  Decl. 10.8; 10.16. Schneider 2013: 192 interprets this as a defixio.

8.4 The True Meaning of Lares Pontiani and Their Alleged Pollution

173

ness of the magus Apuleius. This charge was, therefore, meant to reinforce the portrait of the goetic magus Apuleius, a man not only capable of seducing a lady with magic,¹⁰⁵ and of causing the epilepsy of Thallus and other people in Oea,¹⁰⁶ but even of causing the death of his stepson with despicable magical tools. According to this interpretation, it becomes also possible to understand another feature of Apuleius’ rephrasing of the charge, namely the variation between the verbs habeo and depono, which Apuleius adopts to refer to the ‘placing’ of the wrap within the lararium. ¹⁰⁷ Depono is a technical verb found in defixionum tabellae of African origin with the meaning of ‘to thrust one’s soul into every hostility’ or ‘to send to the netherworld’,¹⁰⁸ and it might have been used by the attackers not only to indicate the placing of the purportedly magical objects, but also to give a particularly frightful façade to the pollution of the lararium – as if Apuleius placed there a defixio – emphasising the link with Pontianus’ death. To ward off the ominous implication of depono, Apuleius uses the more general habeo when he first refers to the allegation.¹⁰⁹ Only after developing his counter-argument and stressing the feebleness of his enemies’ claims,¹¹⁰ he could more safely employ the dangerous depono. Such a choice conforms to a precise forensic strategy which helps Apuleius stress his innocence by manipulating his enemies’ speech. Here it specifically serves to avoid the serious legal implications of the charge: the defilement of Pontianus’ lararium could have easily evoked the uncanny practices related to the defixionum tabellae,¹¹¹

 Ch. 5 and 6.  Cf. my remarks on Apol. 44.3 (Ch. 7.1).  Apol. 53.2; depono is used later at 54.4.  Audollent 1904: lviii; and especially 250b.13: ispiritum deponat in omnem prolium; 300b.7‒9: depona[s] eum at Tartara. The former is a defixio found in Carthage’s amphitheatre, the latter comes from a grave in Cirta, not far from Carthage. The verb is also found in other curse-tablets, dating between the second and the third century AD, from Mainz (Blänsdorf 2012: 97‒105, n° 6 = TheDeMa 765.1: Quintum in hac tabula depon[o]), Bath (Tomlin 1988: 148‒9, n° 31 = TheDeMa 161.4‒6: ut animam suam in templo deponat), and Rome (Blänsdorf and Piranomonte 2012 = TheDeMa 502.2: vigent. Depona[s], i. e. ‘they are strong, you [sc. the deity invoked] take them down below’). The occurrence of this verb in tablets from such different areas of the Roman Empire suggests that this use of depono had become typical of goetic magic.  Apol. 53.2; 53.4.  Apol. 54.4, where Apuleius reproduces the speech of his enemies as follows: ‘quid ergo illud fuit, quod linteo tectum apud Lares potissimum deposuisti?’. In addition, at Apol. 53.8 and 55.5 he employs the non-compound form of the verb (pono) to blunt the magical implications evoked by depono.  On the curse-tablets, cf. Ch. 2.3. For the use of defigo in goetic contexts, cf. especially Sen. Ben. 6.35.4; Her.O. 524 and the several occurrences in Audollent 1904: 134a.6; 135a.9; 135b.7; 222b.2‒

174

8 The Pollution of Pontianus’ Lares

metal tablets secretly laid down to provoke someone’s death, a widespread practice in the Greco-Roman world¹¹² that was punished by death under the Lex Cornelia de sicariis et veneficis. ¹¹³ Having reconstructed the disiecta membra of this charge, concealed behind Apuleius’ rhetorical expedients, we can infer that he faces a dangerous accusation far from being as flimsy as he insists.¹¹⁴ It is now necessary to assess the defensive strategy which Apuleius adopts to remove the suspicions of his supposed magical misdeeds.

8.5 A Borderline Defence In order to disprove the threatening allegation of having caused Pontianus’ death, Apuleius employs an argument which is very similar to that used at Apol. 32.3, where he states that nothing in the world is so innocent that it could not lend itself to a sinister interpretation.¹¹⁵ According to this claim that things should be subject to a positive and not to a negative interpretation, Apuleius protests that whichever object Aemilianus might have taken out of the wrap, Apuleius would have always denied its connection with magic.¹¹⁶ As in Apol. 32.4 and 34.8, Apuleius offers two sets of examples in support of his statement. First, he provokes Aemilianus by saying: excogita quod possit magicum videri: tamen de eo tecum decertarem. (a) Aut ego subiectum dicerem (b) aut remedio acceptum (c) aut sacro traditum (d) aut somnio imperatum. ¹¹⁷ These brief examples, although used to show the innocuousness of the mysterious objects

3; 250b.17. Apuleius is fully aware of these eerie metal tablets, which he adds to the description of Pamphile’s magical laboratory in Met. 3.17.4.  E. g. the exemplary case of the curse-tablets in which the name of Germanicus (Tac. Ann. 2.69), and Caligula (Suet. Cal. 3) were inscribed. More general remarks on the defixiones at Ch. 2.3.  Paulus Sent. 5.29.15: qui sacra impia nocturnave, ut quem obcantarent d e f i g e r e n t obligarent, fecerint faciendave curaverint, aut cruci suffiguntur aut bestiis obiciuntur (‘those who have performed or arranged for the performance of impious or nocturnal rites, in order to enchant, transfix with curse-tablets, or bind someone, are to be either crucified or thrown to the beasts’). Translation adapted from Rives 2006: 47.  Cf. especially Apol. 53.5‒6.  Ch. 6.2.  Apol. 53.12‒54.1.  Apol. 54.1‒2: ‘go on and excogitate anything that could appear magical! But I would disprove you, by saying that it is a wrong substitute, or a medical remedy, or a traditional ritual, or a command received in a dream’.

8.5 A Borderline Defence

175

in the linen wrap, are not exempt from magical implications. While the first is vague (a: ego subiectum dicerem) and simply serves to introduce Apuleius’ strategy, the second clause (b: remedio acceptum) already shows a connection with magic. As I have previously explained, the boundaries between magic and medicine were tightly interwoven,¹¹⁸ and the term remedium itself was often used to indicate the recipes of the magi. ¹¹⁹ As to the expression sacro traditum (c), this might not have been an entirely safe choice either, since the term sacrum was also applied to the ominous goetic rituals.¹²⁰ The last example in particular (d: somnio imperatum)¹²¹ has drawn the interest of scholars: Abt, followed by Butler and Owen and Hunink,¹²² proposes a possible reference to Asclepius’ incubation, an explanation befitting an initiate into Asclepius’ mysteries such as Apuleius.¹²³ This explanation, however, does not show any direct connection with magic. It is noteworthy that the expression somnio imperatum could more generally indicate ‘what has been ordered by means of a dream’,¹²⁴ and this could recall some of the practices in the PGM. Dreams, in fact, did not only provide the practitioners with prophecies,¹²⁵ since we often find that the practitioners themselves attempted to send dreams (ὀνειροπομπέω) to others whilst the victims were asleep.¹²⁶ In doing so, they could impose their will on their targets, compelling them to do whatever the practitioners wished. The second set of examples (Apol. 54.7) shifts attention away from the content of the wrap to more common cases, and serves to illustrate how so many

 See my remarks on Apol. 40.1‒3 (Ch. 6.5). Abt 1908: 209, followed by Butler and Owen 1914: 116, and Hunink 1997, vol. II: 147.  Plin. Nat. 30.34; 30.35; 30.38; 30.51; 30.72. Dickie 2001: 125; 328, n. 16 points out that already in Varro the term indicates an amulet (Var. L. 7.107).  See my comments on Apol. 47.5 (Ch. 7.1, n. 33).  The verb imperare is also applied to magic in Stat. Theb. 3.145; Firm. Err. 13.5; Man. poet. 5.525; Drac. Romul. 10.7; cf. ThLL, vol. VII.1, s.v. impero, col. 587; to these passages we may add Plin. Nat. 30.2.  Abt 1908: 209; Butler and Owen 1914: 116; Hunink 1997, vol. II: 147.  Apol. 55.10‒11 (Ch. 8.6).  Cf. in non-magical contexts: imperavit somnium in Ps.-Clem. Rom. Recogn. 7.8.4. Hunink 1997, vol. II: 147, n. 1 suggests a parallel with Apul. Met. 11.5‒6, where Isis explains to Lucius how to recover his human form during a dream; to be more precise, at Met. 11.5.4 we find: ergo igitur imperiis istis meis animum intende sollicitum (‘so, therefore, pay careful attention to these commands of mine’), showing how the feature of the command characterises Isis’ revelation as well. The translation of the Metamorphoses is that by Hanson 1989: 247.  PGM IV.2501‒17; IV.3172‒208; VII.222‒49; VII.250‒4; VII.359‒69; VII.664‒85; VII.703‒26; VII.740‒55; VII.795‒845; VII.1009‒16; VIII.64‒110; XII.144‒52; XII.190‒2; XXIIb.27‒31; XXIIb.32‒5.  PGM I.329; III.163; IV.2443; IV.2500‒1; IV.2623‒6; V.488; VII.916‒8; XII.107‒21; XII.121‒43; XIII.308‒18; XVIIa.8‒12; LXIV.1‒12.

176

8 The Pollution of Pontianus’ Lares

rituals could be malevolently interpreted as magical. To accentuate Aemilianus’ stultitia and baseness, Apuleius reproduces his possible suspicious reaction with a fast-paced series of questions and answers: (a) votum in alicuius statuae femore signasti: igitur magus es. Aut cur signasti? (b) Tacitas preces in templo deis allegasti: Igitur magus es. Aut quid optasti? (c) Contra: nihil in templo precatus es: igitur magus es; aut cur deos non rogasti? (d) Similiter si posueris donum aliquod, (e) si sacrificaveris, (f) si verbenam sumpseris. ¹²⁷ Like the other examples, these are not entirely untainted by the suspicion of goetic magic, despite their seemingly innocuous appearance. The first case (a) refers to the custom of engraving votive inscriptions on the thigh of a statue, a long-established religious practice¹²⁸ attested in the Etruscan,¹²⁹ the Latin,¹³⁰ and even the Hellenico-Judaic world,¹³¹ probably under the influence of the Greeks.¹³² Although the reasons for this practice are not entirely clear,¹³³ what is worth pointing out is that inscriptions on a statue’s thigh were used in magic as well. Butler and Owen and Hunink, following Abt,¹³⁴ argue for the presence of a connection with Lucian’s Philopseudes 20: Pellichus’ statue is said to have supernatural virtues and because of this was honoured by pasting silver coins and leaves with wax

 Apol. 54.7: ‘you inscribed a vow on the leg of a certain statue: then you are a magus! Or: why did you make that gesture? You bound a god in the temple with a murmured utterance: then you are a magus! Or: what did you ask the gods? Contrariwise: you did not pray in the temple: then you are a magus! Why did you not beseech the gods? And similarly if you ever offered a gift, made a sacrifice, collected verbena’.  See also the discussion in Abt 1908: 210, n. 4‒6.  Vermiglioli 1833, vol. I: 43, n. 1 already pointed this out; for other examples, see the socalled ‘Culsans of Cortona’ studied by Staccioli 1994, and the ‘Mars from Ravenna’ discussed in Cagianelli 1999: 372‒80.  E. g. CIL 3.4815, the inscription on the thigh of the so-called ‘Youth of Magdalensberg’; cf. Gschwantler 1993‒1994.  Cf. N.T. Apoc. 19.16.  Epigraphic evidence for the votive function of these inscriptions is discussed in Stanton 1996: 347‒9, focusing on the dedicatory inscription cut on the thigh of a kouros (IG i3.1024); and in Pennacchietti 1985‒1986: 26‒30, who examines the bilingual inscriptions (Greek and Aramaic) on the legs of a bronze statue of Heracles dating to AD 151. One of the Memnon colossi in the Egyptian city of Thebes presents inscriptions on its legs which date to the Imperial period, and some of these were written using unintelligible sequences of acrostics that might have appeared as voces magicae; on these acrostics see Rosenmeyer 2008: 333‒57 and Garulli 2013: 246‒ 78. Thanks to Patricia Rosenmeyer for pointing out the relevance of the Memnon colossi to me.  For a discussion of the supernatural lore attached to the leg, cf. Ginzburg 1989: 206‒51, who examines the mythological lameness and the golden thigh of Empedocles and Pythagoras (pp. 218 and 237), figures who were also considered magi (cf. Apol. 27.2‒3, and my remarks at Ch. 4.5 and 4.6). See also Ogden 2007: 156, n. 42.  Abt 1908: 211; Butler and Owen 1914: 117; Hunink 1997, vol. II: 148.

8.5 A Borderline Defence

177

to its thigh to heal people from fever. The supernatural power of the statue notwithstanding, this does not imply that the practice of attaching votive gifts and inscribed tablets to its thigh was seen as a magical act; it rather conforms with the above-mentioned set of religious practices.¹³⁵ More relevant and still unacknowledged evidence can, instead, be found in PGM IV.2373‒440: according to this prescription for acquiring customers and business, the practitioners need to fashion a wax figurine of a begging man,¹³⁶ and to attach on its right and left thigh – as in other parts of its body – some voces magicae inscribed on a strip of papyrus.¹³⁷ The second example, which is about uttering tacitae preces inside a temple (b), would have more easily evoked the magical rule of murmuring carminaἐπῳδαί and goetic utterances, a custom of which Apuleius was fully aware.¹³⁸ According to the third example (c), if a person would access a temple without praying, then he would necessarily be a goetic magus. With this claim, Apuleius intends to provide the audience with an ironic inversion of a customary practice (i. e. one accesses a temple to pray the gods). However, to enter a temple for other goals than seeking the gods’ favour could actually recall the practices of the goetic magi: at PGM IV.1072‒5 it is said that the essential element to prepare a protective amulet (φυλακτήριον), is a strip from the linen cloth¹³⁹ taken from a marble statue of Harpocrates kept in any temples. In PGM IV.2125‒30 the practitioner needs to collect the dirt from the doors of a temple of Osiris in order to create a restraining seal (κάτοχος σφραγίς) for speaking skulls. In addition to this, the recipe in PGM IV.3125‒71 prescribes the placing of a φυλακτήριον within the sacred space of a temple. The latter case might also apply to the following example, which concerns the deposition of an offering (d). Despite the vagueness of the clause (si posueris donum aliquod)¹⁴⁰ and the religious connotation of the terminology,¹⁴¹ the act of depositing (ponere) might have been easily associated by the audience with the unholy placing of goetic objects¹⁴² such as defixionum tabellae. Apuleius had probably been accused of performing the

 See especially the passage in Juv. 10.55 (propter quae fas est genua incerare deorum?), on which cf. Butler and Owen 1914: 116; Gnilka 1964: 52; Courtney 2013: 404.  PGM IV.2379‒82.  PGM IV.2415‒9.  On this see my comments on Apol. 26.6 (Ch. 4.3), and 42.3; 47.3 (Ch. 7.2). See also Abt 1908: 211‒3.  On the linen and its use in magic cf. Ch. 8.3.  This is also increased by using the indefinite aliquod.  Cf. ThLL, vol. V.1, s.v. donum, coll. 2017‒8.  Cf. e. g. [Quint.] Decl. 10.8.

178

8 The Pollution of Pontianus’ Lares

same unholy act, that is to put (ponere or deponere)¹⁴³ some wicked magical objects in Pontianus’ personal lararium. This example seems, therefore, all but free from the suspicion of magic. As to the following sentence (e: si sacrificaveris), since it parallels one of the previous examples, it suffices to remark that sacrifico, being a cognate of the term sacrum, could also have been associated with the magicae artes. ¹⁴⁴ The last example (f), which describes the collection of verbena, would have been particularly disadvantageous for Apuleius since this herb was employed not only in holy cults,¹⁴⁵ but also in goetic magic. This is shown by various sources, including a passage that Apuleius himself cited earlier in the speech, when claiming that fish could not be used in magic.¹⁴⁶ This is the reference to the verbenae pingues in Vergil’s Eclogue 8.65, which reflects real goetic practices. Pliny the Elder, in fact, indicates that the magi were particularly interested in the use of verbena: they believed that it had to be extracted with a specific ritual,¹⁴⁷ and that ‘those who have been anointed with verbena can obtain whatever they wish, dispel any fever, make friends, and cure every disease’ (hac [sc. verbenaca]¹⁴⁸ perunctos inpetrare quae velint, febres abigere, amicitias conciliare nullique non morbo mederi).¹⁴⁹ Therefore, these two series of examples at Apol. 54.2 and 54.7 could elicit some doubts as they conform with literary descriptions of magic and real goetic practices. Apuleius intended to provoke his accusers with examples that could be regarded either as innocent or as goetic evidence, as he does in Apol. 32.4 and 32.8. By triggering his enemies’ reaction with borderline arguments,¹⁵⁰ he would have demonstrated their spiritual vulgarity which induced them to con-

 Ch. 8.4.  Apol. 54.2: sacro traditum (b). In a second-century curse-tablet from Arezzo we find the verb desacrifico, cf. Audollent 1904: 129b.3‒4.  E. g. Plin. Nat. 22.5 and Hor. Carm. 1.19.13; 4.11.1, who refer to its use during various Roman festivities, and Apul. Met. 11.17.4 during Isis’ ceremony. For a discussion, cf. Brill’s New Pauly, vol. XV, s.v. Verbena, col. 291.  Apol. 30.7 (Ch. 5.3). See also Abt’s remarks on this passage, in which he proposes some papyrological parallels listing the various Greek renderings of the Latin verbena (1908: 71‒2). In reality, the only precise parallel is at PGM IV.798‒801, where it is said that the κεντρῖτις βοτάνη is similar to the ὀρθὸς περιστερεών (‘the erect verbena’).  Plin. Nat. 25.107.  This is another name for verbena as explained by André 1985: 269‒70, s.v. verbenaca, who refers to Isid. Orig. 17.9.55.  Plin. Nat. 25.106‒7. Translation adapted from Jones 1966: 215. For verbena as a remedium according to the prescription of the magi, see also Nat. 30.35.  This is what probably happened when he cited the names of several magi; cf. Apol. 90.6‒ 91.1, discussed in Ch. 11.5.

8.6 The Platonising Strategy: Mystery Cults, not Magic

179

fuse philosophical wisdom,¹⁵¹ medicine,¹⁵² and even mystery cults with goetic magic, biasing the cultured Claudius Maximus against his attackers. This clever reasoning notwithstanding, Apuleius was conscious that his dangerous strategy could have aroused suspicions: I shall discuss now how, to reassure the audience about his innocence, he suddenly changes the tactic of his defence, adopting that Platonising tone which we already encountered in other sections of the Apologia.

8.6 The Platonising Strategy: Mystery Cults, not Magic One can ultimately argue that the strength of Apuleius’ defence does not lie in the examples per se, but on the implicit allusion to the reasoning in Apol. 32.3‒8, a passage where Apuleius invites to consider the positive and beneficial nature of various elements such as frankincense, cinnamon, myrrh, hellebore, hemlock, and poppy juice, instead of regarding them as negative for their gloomy employment in funerals or for their toxicity.¹⁵³ Furthermore, at Apol. 32.4 Apuleius adopts a Platonising tone, contrasting lower with higher concepts, when he exhorts the audience not to take everything according to a detractive interpretation, since such a behaviour typifies his accusers’ low-mindedness, but certainly not his own – and the magistrate’s – uprightness. This subtle reference to Apol. 32.3‒8 introduces the Platonising tone of the following part of the defence,¹⁵⁴ in which this Platonic dichotomy plays a fundamental role. This reasoning is at the core of Apuleius’ whole defence: as we have seen in Apol. 25.8‒ 26.9, what his prosecutors wrongly confuse with goetic magic is, instead, righteous philosophical knowledge, worthy of a true Socrates reborn. Here, while the attackers exploit the connections between magic and the mysteries,¹⁵⁵ Apuleius draws a clear-cut line between these two phenomena: to remove any suspicion about the goetic nature of the objects in the wrap, he reveals that he underwent sacrorum pleraque initia during his stay in Greece.¹⁵⁶ The sacred signa et

 Ch. 4.2, 4.3.  Ch. 6.5, 7.5.  Ch. 6.2.  Apol. 55.8‒56.  Ch. 8.2. This same approach is used by the accusers to describe as magical the healing rite to cure Thallus (Ch. 7.1).  Apol. 55.8‒9. On this see Hunink 1997, vol. II: 149‒50.

180

8 The Pollution of Pontianus’ Lares

monumenta (Apol. 55.8) – or also sacrorum crepundia –¹⁵⁷ were there given to him as tokens of his initiations, and it was Apuleius’ duty to worship and keep them hidden from the uninitiated. For this reason, he put them inside a wrap of pure linen¹⁵⁸ in Pontianus’ lararium, a safe shrine in which the mystery symbols should have remained undisturbed by profane eyes. Since the mystery cults were very popular amongst the higher echelons of the Roman society of the time,¹⁵⁹ Apuleius’ mystery revelation was bound to be welcomed in court, especially by Maximus and the educated audience. Their appreciation of the mysteries notwithstanding, it has been already discussed that magic and the mysteries shared similar features: because of this proximity the prosecution could distort the evidence by giving it a goetic appearance and claim that Apuleius hid suspicious objects in Pontianus’ lararium, polluting it and then causing his death. Apuleius does not address this insinuation directly: his approach consists in influencing the audience against Aemilianus with his usual Platonising division. He contrasts, in fact, his self-professed piety with the irreligiousness of Aemilianus,¹⁶⁰ supposedly known in Oea with the nickname of Mezentius, the Vergilian villain notorious for his impiety.¹⁶¹ According to this reasoning, Aemilianus – because of his supposed impiety – would never have been able to understand Apuleius’ devoutness or the importance of his mystery symbols.¹⁶² Apuleius’ attempt to pillory Aemilianus is accomplished at the end of the section, when he excludes him from knowing the nature of the wrap’s content, since – as Apuleius says – that by no means he would have divulged to profane ears what he was bidden to keep secret.¹⁶³ After this final blow, he addresses Claudius Maximus professing to have removed any doubt about his innocence, then he punningly adds a joke on the term sudarium,¹⁶⁴ reinforcing the harmless nature of the purportedly magical wrap.

 Apol. 56.1. McCreight 1990: 58 rightly observes that this term would have lessened the content of the allegation.  Apol. 56.1‒2.  Ch. 8.2.  Apol. 56.3‒10.  Apol. 56.7; 56.9. Aemilianus is also called Charon, as in 23.7, and will be called again Mezentius at 89.4. Cf. Harrison 1988: 267; and Hunink 1997, vol. II: 152. This invective technique is Ciceronian, as explained by Harrison 2000: 44, n. 19; Apuleius imitates Cicero’s invective but frames it within his Platonising strategy.  Apol. 56.8.  Apol. 56.10.  Apol. 57.1: quod ad sudarium pertineat, omnem criminis maculam detersisse (‘as to what concerns the napkin, I have wiped away every dirty stain of the accusation’). See also the remarks in McCreight 1990: 57.

8.7 Conclusion

181

8.7 Conclusion It has been discussed so far that the arguments of this charge were indeed serious and potentially threatening, and this has not been noted in earlier studies.¹⁶⁵ To cause someone’s death with a defixio was, in fact, a crime punishable by death under the Lex Cornelia de sicariis et veneficis. ¹⁶⁶ And even though the prosecution might not have accused Apuleius of having caused Pontianus’ death overtly, it would have appeared clear to everyone in court that putting magical objects – and likely describing their placing with the language of the defixionum tabellae – inside a lararium, would not have remained without consequences: the premature death of Pontianus would have been the obvious side-effect of Apuleius’ supposedly impious act. From analysing this section of the defence it has become possible to reconstruct an additional feature of Apuleius’ goetic portrait, as given by his enemies: he was not only the lascivious seducer of Pudentilla,¹⁶⁷ but also the goetic magus who could harm people with spells,¹⁶⁸ and even kill Pontianus with his noxious arts. He was, therefore, a threat to Oea and to the household and the patrimony of the Sicinii. This description fittingly introduces the following allegation, which concerns the goetic rites that Apuleius and his friend Appius Quintianus performed at night violating the house of Iunius Crassus and, more precisely, the shrine where his household deities were kept.¹⁶⁹

 Cf. Abt 1908: 206; Hijmans 1994: 1765; Hunink 1997, vol. II: 144; Harrison 2000: 72‒3; Martos 2015: 91, n. 289.  Paulus Sent. 5.29.19.  Apol. 29‒42.2 (Ch. 5 and 6)  Apol. 42‒52 (Ch. 7).  Apol. 57‒60 (Ch. 9).

9 Occult Nocturnal Activities 9.1 Introduction With the fifth Primary Charge the accusers brought against Apuleius another dangerous accusation, that of having carried out some ominous nocturnal sacrifices together with his partner in crime Appius Quintianus,¹ while Quintianus was lodging at the house of Iunius Crassus. According to Crassus’ deposition, the evidence confirming such magical rituals were the fact that the walls had been blackened by dark smoke and the presence of bird feathers on the floor,² which Crassus found in his house on his return from Alexandria in Egypt.³ That this accusation was potentially a threat to Apuleius can be understood by the very mention of nocturna sacra: ⁴ this expression – as we shall see – is strongly associated with goetic magic (9.2), and people responsible for those nocturnal rites were explicitly sentenced to death under the Lex Cornelia de sicariis et veneficis. ⁵ Abt, Hunink, and May claim that Apuleius’ defence is rather unconvincing in Apol. 57‒60.⁶ His tactic here is, in fact, not that of offering any real counter-argument, but to predominantly use a vehement invective against Crassus,⁷ which betrays a Ciceronian influence,⁸ and also depends on stock themes borrowed from comedy.⁹ However, the actual magical implications of this accusation – which are concealed by Apuleius as in the previous cases – closely mirror those of the indictment regarding the pollution of Pontianus’ Lares, and have not been entirely understood. In this chapter, I offer a new interpretation suggesting that the attackers created a charge meant to provide further evidence of Apuleius’ noxiousness and of his capacity to make someone ill  As Vallette 1908: 83‒4 argues, Quintianus was probably a member of the family of the Appii, with whom Apuleius entertained a friendly relationship (Apol. 72.2).  The terms recur slightly varied in Apol. 57.2 (taedae fumo et avium plumis); 57.3 (pinnas […] fumum); 58.2 (multas avium pinnas […] parietes fuligine deformatos); 58.10 (de fuligine et pinnis).  Apol. 57.3; 58.2.  Apol. 57.2; 58.2.  Paulus Sent. 5.29.15 discussed in 9.2. This is observed by Abt 1908: 13, n. 1; p. 218, n. 6.  Abt 1908: 217‒8; Hunink 1997, vol. II: 153‒4; May 2006: 96.  Apol. 57.2‒6; 58.1; 58.10; 59.  See especially the parallel with the In Pisonem, suggested by McCreight 1991: 83‒91, followed by Hunink 1997, vol. II: 154, and Harrison 2000: 73 and n. 89.  The comical elements of Crassus’ characterisation are noted by Abt 1908: 217; Butler and Owen 1914: 121; 123‒4; Sallmann 1995: 147; Hunink 1997, vol. II: 153‒4; Harrison 2000: 73 and n. 88; Martos 2015: 99, n. 310. May 2006: 96‒99 and 2014a: 762 argues that Crassus’ derogatory portrait is based on the stock character of the drunkard and the parasite. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110617528-011

9.1 Introduction

183

with his goetic skills. To do so, I will analyse Apuleius’ concealment of the magical details of the allegation, often achieved through sophistic wordplay: by commenting on some pivotal passages of this part of the Apologia I aim to explain that Crassus’ absence from the tribunal of Sabratha was meant to be presented as the result of his illness, due to Apuleius’ contamination of Crassus’ household, and specifically of his own Penates (9.4 and 9.5), which had been desecrated by evil fumes and feathers, the remains of impious magical sacrifices (9.2 and 9.3). I suggest that this is the same implication at which the attackers hinted when they previously accused Apuleius of having contaminated Pontianus’ shrine with impious goetic objects.¹⁰ But what might have actually happened? This is hard to tell from the speech. If in the case of the previous allegations Apuleius betrays some scattered evidence that allows us to ascertain how the prosecution darkened potentially suspicious activities performed by him (such as the dissection of sea creatures,¹¹ and his attempt to heal some epileptics in Oea)¹² or unspecified objects belonging to Apuleius (namely, his mystery symbols),¹³ in this case the speech contains no evidence to determine whether this accusation reflected some nocturnal rituals carried out by Apuleius and Quintianus, as the attackers claim. If some rituals had really been performed and were later blackened by the prosecution, given Apuleius’ belief in the idea of the tutelary daemon¹⁴ and his interest in transcendental practices to foresee the future,¹⁵ one could hypothesise that something similar to the evocation of Plotinus’ personal daemon might have taken place in Crassus’ house.¹⁶ As noted by Eitrem and Dodds, this ritual –  Ch. 8.4.  Ch. 5 and 6.  Ch. 7.1.  Ch. 8.  Soc. 16.  Apol. 43.4 discussed in Ch. 7.3.  Porph. Plot. 10: Αἰγύπτιος γάρ τις ἱερεὺς ἀνελθὼν εἰς τὴν Ῥώμην καὶ διά τινος φίλου αὐτῷ γνωρισθεὶς θέλων τε τῆς ἑαυτοῦ σοφίας ἀπόδειξιν δοῦναι ἠξίωσε τὸν Πλωτῖνον ἐπὶ θέαν ἀφικέσθαι τοῦ συνόντος αὐτῷ οἰκείου δαίμονος καλουμένου. Τοῦ δὲ ἑτοίμως ὑπακούσαντος γίνεται μὲν ἐν τῷ Ἰσίῳ ἡ κλῆσις· μόνον γὰρ ἐκεῖνον τὸν τόπον καθαρὸν φῆσαι εὑρεῖν ἐν τῇ Ῥώμῃ τὸν Αἰγύπτιον. Κληθέντα δὲ εἰς αὐτοψίαν τὸν δαίμονα θεὸν ἐλθεῖν καὶ μὴ τοῦ δαιμόνων εἶναι γένους· ὅθεν τὸν Αἰγύπτιον εἰπεῖν· “μακάριος εἶ θεὸν ἔχων τὸν δαίμονα καὶ οὐ τοῦ ὑφειμένου γένους τὸν συνόντα.” Μήτε δὲ ἐρέσθαι τι ἐκγενέσθαι μήτε ἐπιπλέον ἰδεῖν παρόντα τοῦ συνθεωροῦντος φίλου τὰς ὄρνεις, ἃς κατεῖχε φυλακῆς ἕνεκα, πνίξαντος εἴτε διὰ φθόνον εἴτε καὶ διὰ φόβον τινά. Τῶν οὖν θειοτέρων δαιμόνων ἔχων τὸν συνόντα καὶ αὐτὸς διετέλει ἀνάγων αὐτοῦ τὸ θεῖον ὄμμα πρὸς ἐκεῖνον (‘an Egyptian priest who came to Rome and made his acquaintance through a friend wanted to give a display of his wisdom and asked Plotinus to come and see a visible manifestation of his own companion spirit evoked. Plotinus readily consented, and the evocation

184

9 Occult Nocturnal Activities

which was performed by an Egyptian priest – is comparable to PGM VII.505‒28 and XIII.368‒72, in which birds must be sacrificed to evoke a divine spirit.¹⁷ If this is what had happened, the accusers could have easily misrepresented it as a case of goetic magic and add more fictitious details to blacken it. Given the context in which the speech is delivered, it would not have been unsurprising for Apuleius to avoid mentioning his ability to summon and communicate with a daemonic being, given that he himself acknowledges that Socrates’ daemon could be misread as an example of goetic magic.¹⁸ Nevertheless, it remains also plausible that this indictment might have been a mere calumny, as Apuleius argues.¹⁹ His foes could have convinced Iunius Crassus to write a deposition against Apuleius,²⁰ and, in order to give an eerie appearance to their claims, they could have fabricated an argument drawing on the widespread idea that goetic magic presupposes dark, nocturnal sacrifices.²¹ Then, the soot of the smoke on the walls and the feathers on the floor would have confirmed that such impious sacrifices took place,²² and eventually contaminated Crassus’ hearth – where the household deities were kept – causing his sickness and making him unable to attend the trial.²³ In order to support this interpretation that the purported goetic sacrifices could have harmed Crassus, I will discuss the magical undertone of nocturna sacra (9.2), the presence of birds, feathers, and smoke in goetic magic (9.3). I will also shed new light on Apuleius’ manipulation of the prosecution’s speech:

took place in the temple of Isis: the Egyptian said it was the only pure place he could find in Rome. When the spirit was summoned to appear, a god came and not a being of the spirit order, and the Egyptian said: “Blessed are you, who have a god for your spirit and not a companion of the subordinate order.” Yet, it was not possible to ask any questions of the god or even to see him present for longer, as the friend who was taking part in the manifestation strangled the birds which he was holding as a protection, either out of jealousy or because he was afraid of something. Thus, the companion of Plotinus was a spirit of the more god-like kind, and he continually kept the divine eye of his soul fixed on this companion’). Translation adapted from Armstrong 1989: 35.  Eitrem 1942: 62‒7; Dodds 1947: 60‒1.  Apol. 27.3 (Ch. 4.6). Apuleius talks about divination in a context in which this is irrelevant (Ch. 7.1 and 7.3).  Apol. 58.1; 59.8 and 60.1‒2. See also the discussion in Hunink 1997, vol. II: 156; p. 160, n. 2; p. 161.  Apol. 59.8 discussed in Ch. 9.6.  For filthiness as a specific feature in literary descriptions of magical rites, cf. Hor. S. 1.8.6‒36; Epod. 5.17‒24; Prop. 3.6.27‒29; 4.5.11‒8; Tib. 1.2.47‒58; Luc. 6.639‒94; Petr. 135.3‒6; 136.1‒3; Apul. Met. 3.17.4‒5.  Ch. 9.3.  Ch. 9.4 and 9.5.

9.2 Reconstructing the Charge: The Nocturna Sacra

185

I suggest that supposed nocturnal sacrifices took place not in the forecourt (vestibulum), as scholars have hitherto believed following Apuleius’ account,²⁴ but at the hearth of Crassus’ house (9.4 and 9.5). This will enable us to gain a deeper insight into the dangerous charge that Apuleius had to face, which addressed a specific point of the Lex Cornelia de sicariis et veneficis and included various threatening ideas related to goetic magic. This, in turn, will allow us to understand fully why Apuleius’ strategy here differs from the rest of the Apologia, since it consists of slanders against the prosecution, while lacking the typical Platonising arguments that Apuleius uses to distinguish himself and the sympathetic judge from his vulgar enemies.²⁵

9.2 Reconstructing the Charge: The Nocturna Sacra Apuleius refers to this accusation using a precise legal terminology: he speaks, in fact, of a testimonium ex libello given by Iunius Crassus.²⁶ This expression indicates a voluntary deposition that had little juridical importance unless the witness was absent from the tribunal – a fact that Apuleius confirms later –²⁷ due to an impediment or bad health.²⁸ As we shall see, this reason is probably at the very centre of the charge: as I argue below, Crassus’ absence was meant to be presented as the result of Apuleius’ magic.²⁹ After this indication, Apuleius summarises the charge as follows: according to Crassus’ written testimony, Apuleius would have repeatedly performed in Crassus’ house,³⁰ while he was away, ‘nocturnal sacrifices with my friend Appius Quintianus’ (nocturna sacra cum Appio Quintiano amico meo factitasse).³¹ Here the lack of comical diminutives, which generally characterise the summing-up of the indictments,³² is counterbalanced

 Cf. Abt 1908: 219‒20; Vallette 1924: 70; Marchesi 1955=2011: 81; Moreschini 1990: 207; Hunink 2001: 81; Martos 2015: 100.  This point is discussed in Ch. 9.2.  Apol. 57.2 and 59.1. This is a technical expression, belonging to the juridical language. Apuleius repeats testimonium and libellum at Apol. 58.1; 58.10; 59.1; 59.3; 59.7; 60.1; 60.4 and 57.2; 59.1; 59.4; 60.3.  Apol. 59.2‒4.  Cf. Berger 1953: 735, s.v. testimonium per tabulas. Hunink 1997, vol. II: 156.  Ch. 9.4.  The idea that Apuleius and Quintianus reiterated the rites is suggested by the use of the plural nocturna sacra (Apol. 57.2; 58.2), and especially by the frequentative factito at Apol. 57.2 (cf. ThLL, vol. VI.1, s.v. factito, col. 139).  Apol. 57.2.  Apol. 29.1; 42.3; 48.1; 53.1.

186

9 Occult Nocturnal Activities

by the parodic characterisation of Crassus as a drunk parasite, lampooning the witness in absentia, and this shows Apuleius’ choice to distract his audience and divert from a real discussion of the charge by using comic invective.³³ The reference to the recurrent nocturnal rituals that Apuleius allegedly performed with his friend Quintianus could have constituted, in fact, a serious threat to the defendant. Nocturna sacra or sacrificia is a customary expression in Latin to describe unlawful ceremonies which had to do either with impious mystery rites, such as those described in Cicero’s Leges ³⁴ and in the Pro Cluentio,³⁵ or with goetic magic, as in our case.³⁶ As Abt observes,³⁷ evidence from both literary descriptions of magic³⁸ and real goetic practices³⁹ indicates that such rituals often took place at night. It is because of this commonplace custom that the Lex Cornelia de sicariis et veneficis persecuted whoever performed any impious nocturna sacra,⁴⁰ either related to unlawful mysteries or to magic. It seems, therefore, most likely that Apuleius’ prosecutors intelligently presented a threatening accusation which draws upon the commonplace fear of nefarious nocturnal rites and clearly addresses the law at stake during the trial. Although this accusation is quite similar to the previous one concerning the pollution of Pontianus’ lararium,⁴¹ there is a substantial change in Apuleius’ defensive line between these two sections of the Apologia. In the former, he openly argues against the magical content of the allegation,⁴² and detaches himself from the goetic type of magic by describing the holiness of the mysteries to

 Ch. 9.1 and May 2006: 96‒9; 2014a: 762.  Cic. Leg. 2.21; 2.35‒6.  Cic. Clu. 194.  On the relationship between magic and the mysteries, cf. Ch. 8.2.  Abt 1908: 194‒6.  Ov. Met. 7.192 (on which cf. Bömer 1976: 251) and Hor. Epod. 5.51 (cf. Watson 2003: 223) where Nox personified is invoked. For nightly magical rituals, cf. Tib. 1.2.63; 1.8.18 (on which cf. Maltby 2002: 171‒2); Prop. 2.4.17; Sen. Med. 729; Luc. 6.624. The strigae – or nocturnae – in Petr. 63 act at night, and so do those in Apul. Met. 1.16.2; 2.22.1 and Pamphile in Met. 3.17.3. In Apol. 47.3 Apuleius says that goetic practices are carried out at night. See also Luc. Philops. 14; Nec. 7; Hld. 6.14. On Selene and magic, see my discussion of Apol. 31.9 in Ch. 5.6.  Abt 1908: 195‒6 mentions PGM I.20; I.56; I.235‒6; XIa.4; I.318; II.4 (an invocation of Apollo); IV.3090; V.47; VII.362 (prescriptions for an oracle); IV.3151 (an invocation to make a place prosper); VII.435 (a restraining rite for any purpose). We may include VII.407 (a spell to appear in someone’s dream); XII.379‒80 (a spell to induce insomnia); IV.1853; XXXVI.136 (a love-spell); LXX.17 (a spell against the fear of punishment).  Paulus Sent. 5.29.15. Abt 1908: 218, followed by Hunink 1997,vol. II: 154 and Martos 2015: 102, n. 317, acknowledges this connection with the Lex Cornelia.  Ch. 8.4.  Apol. 53.1‒55.7.

9.3 Feathers and Smoke as Evidence of Goetic Magic

187

which the wrap in the lararium belongs.⁴³ Here, instead, he avoids discussing the magical aspects of the charge and does not attempt to apply any Platonising distinction between the impious and the hallowed types of nocturna sacra, although he could easily have done so: in the Roman world nocturnal rites were not always considered nefarious or unlawful. Their holiness was well known and praised under certain circumstances: as discussed earlier, Cicero commends the Eleusinian mysteries which took place at night;⁴⁴ Varro talks about nocturna sacra as customary rites of the Romans;⁴⁵ and Apuleius himself, in Soc. 14, gives an account of various sacred rites and acknowledges how some ‘take place at night or in the day, publicly or secretly’ (nocturnis vel diurnis, promptis vel occultis).⁴⁶ Even though he could have adopted his usual Platonising dichotomy to characterise the nocturna sacra positively as holy mysteries, Apuleius here chooses to present the whole charge as the result of the accusers’ fraudulence. He mentions, in fact, the rumour that Aemilianus bought Crassus’ testimony for three thousand sesterces, a fact that – as he insists – everyone knew in Oea.⁴⁷ Such a forensic strategy is obviously meant to draw attention away from the real point at issue – namely the alleged contamination of Crassus’ house – and illustrates how Apuleius was aware that he was walking on thin ice. A discussion of the magical undertone of feathers and smoke will cast further light on the dangerous aspects of this indictment.

9.3 Feathers and Smoke as Evidence of Goetic Magic Even though it remains impossible to determine whether the accusation mirrors real facts or is the result of a mere fabrication by Apuleius’ foes,⁴⁸ both feathers and black smoke pertain to the realm of goetic rites according to literary and papyrological sources. We also ought to remember that, during the rebuttal of the charge concerning the enchantment of Thallus,⁴⁹ Apuleius acknowledges

 Apol. 55.8‒56.10.  Cic. Leg. 2.35‒6, and especially 2.35. On mysteries and magic, cf. Ch. 8.2.  Cited in Macrob. Sat. 1.3.6 (sacra sunt enim Romana partim diurna, alia nocturna).  Translation by Harrison in Harrison et al. 2001: 206. As previously observed, secrecy was also a feature of goetic magic, cf. Ch. 7.4.  Apol. 58.1; 59.8; 60.1‒2.  Ch. 9.1.  Apol. 42.3‒47.

188

9 Occult Nocturnal Activities

that he used some hens as hostias lustralis,⁵⁰ a probable reference to a sacrifice to Asclepius misrepresented as evidence of his magical ritual.⁵¹ Therefore, the sinister presence of feathers in Crassus’ house would have been a pertinent continuation of the description of the earlier magicum sacrum,⁵² since the sacrifice of birds is typical of goetic magic, and these feathers would have been described as the remains of such eerie practices. Killing birds for magical purposes was, in fact, a normal practice in the Greco-Roman world: this is particularly evident in two recipes of the Greek Magical Papyri; in the first, the complete burning (ὁλοκαυστέω) of various ὄρνεις serves to consecrate a ring;⁵³ in the other, a bird’s tongue is required to compel a woman to confess her lover’s name.⁵⁴ Moreover, in the Metamorphoses Apuleius includes the remains of inauspicious birds (infelicium avium) amongst the paraphernalia of Pamphile’s gloomy laboratory.⁵⁵ Feathers themselves, which Apuleius calls plumae ⁵⁶ and pinnae,⁵⁷ are prescribed in the Greek Magical Papyri for the achievement of various goetic purposes: in PGM III.612‒32, to acquire the control of their own shadow, the practitioners need to put the feather of a falcon behind their right ear⁵⁸ and that of an ibis behind their left ear.⁵⁹ In PGM IV.45‒51, to complete a ritual of initiation, they have to rub their face with owl’s bile and an ibis’ feather,⁶⁰ or with the yolk of an ibis’ egg and the feather of a falcon.⁶¹ At PGM VII 335‒40 – a charm for direct vision – the practitioners must hold an ibis’ feather fourteen fingers long to see a daemonic being.⁶² The use of feathers in magical rites is also confirmed by literary evidence. Abt notes⁶³ that amongst the eerie ingredients of Canidia’s burnt offering,⁶⁴ there are the feathers of a nocturna strix,⁶⁵ a creature deeply associated with the topos of female magic in literary sources, including Apuleius’ Meta Apol. 47.7. This is discussed also by Abt 1908: 221 and n. 1 on the use of various birds in magic.  Ch. 7.1, 7.4.  Apol. 47.1‒7.  PGM XII.213‒5.  LXIII.7‒12.  Apul. Met. 3.17.4. On this, cf. Costantini 2017: 334‒6.  Apol. 57.2; 58.9.  Apol. 57.3; 58.2; 58.5; 58.10; 60.5.  PGM III.619‒20.  III.620  IV.45‒7.  II.48‒51.  VII.335.  Abt 1908: 221.  Hor. Epod. 5.17‒24.  Epod. 5.20, on which see the commentary by Watson 2003: 203.

9.3 Feathers and Smoke as Evidence of Goetic Magic

189

morphoses. ⁶⁶ We could add that Propertius (3.6.29: et strigis inventae per busta iacentia plumae) mentions the plumae of the nocturnal screech owl (strix) amongst the ingredients for a love-charm. Furthermore, in Lucian’s Gallus, the Cockerel is nicknamed γóης by the interlocutor Micyllus because of the supernatural powers of his tail’s right plume, which allows people to become invisible.⁶⁷ As with the presence of feathers, dark smoke – the second piece of evidence for Apuleius’ and Quintianus’ supposed wrongdoings –⁶⁸ is connected with the imagery of literary magic as well. It is sufficient to recall the niger fumus rising from the remains of a wooden coffin that the Thessalian Erictho collects for her impious magic.⁶⁹ Furthermore, smoke plays an important role in the Greek Magical Papyri: in the aforementioned prescription for the consecration of a ring,⁷⁰ the practitioner does not only need to kill birds, but also to hold an engraved stone over the smoke (ὑπὲρ τὸν ἀτμόν) of the burning offerings.⁷¹ In PGM VII.638‒9, one has to utter a spell while waving a ring in the smoke of incense; at XXIIa.2‒9 some amulets have to be placed over the smoke to punish ungrateful patients. Similar fumigations of goetic tools are required in other recipes: at PGM VII.176‒7 it is said that to animate the painting of gladiators on the cups, one has to smoke a hare’s head (λαγοῦ κεφαλήν) underneath them;⁷² whereas in PGM III.20‒5 storax gum must be fumigated after performing a rite involving the drowning of a cat.⁷³ The effect of such fumes on the venue where the magical rites took place would have inevitably been the tarnishing of its walls,⁷⁴ and the idea that places where goetic magic is practised are stained by smoke was com-

 Cf. the bubones or nocturnae aves at Apul. Met. 3.21.6, and especially the fuscae aves in Met. 2.21.3. The story of Thelyphron (Met. 2.21‒30) parallels, to a certain degree, that of the strigae in Petr. 63.2‒10, as noted by Pecere 1975: 128, n. 249. The theme of the metamorphic womanowl is very popular in Latin literature: these strigae are already known to Horace (Epod. 5.20), Propertius (3.6.29; 4.5.17); Ovid (Fast. 6.133‒68), Petronius (63.9) and even deserved Pliny’s attention (Nat. 11.232). In Apuleius these creatures are explicitly connected with the Thessalian sagae and magic (2.21.7; 3.21.4‒22.1); cf. van der Paardt 1971: 162; van Mal-Maeder 2001: 119‒20; 312‒3; Ogden 2008: 62‒8. On the figure of the strix, see also Oliphant 1913: 133‒49.  Luc. Gal. 28. Although this passage comes from a comic context, the idea that invisibility was connected with goetic practices features in literary magic (cf. Petr. 63.6) and reflects real goetic practices: in PGM I.222‒31 we find the instructions for an invisibility spell, and the eye of a night owl is amongst the ingredients.  See the reference to fumus in Apol. 57.2; 57.3; 58.6; 58.8; 60.5 and fuligo at 58.10; 60.5.  Luc. 6.535‒6  PGM XII.201‒69.  XII.215‒6.  I loosely follow Kotansky’s translation in Betz 19922: 120.  PGM III.1‒29.  Apol. 58.2; 58.8.

190

9 Occult Nocturnal Activities

mon enough to influence literary descriptions of magical laboratories: in Petronius’ Satyrica the paries of the room where Oenothea arranges a seemingly goetic sacrifice is, in fact, described as fumosus,⁷⁵ a depiction which recalls Apuleius’ account of the allegation (parietes fumigatos) at Apol. 58.8.

9.4 Concealing the Magical Implications: The Desecration of Crassus’ Penates Besides the grim undertones of smoke and feathers and their connections with magic, the most important element needed to clarify the meaning of this allegation can be gathered by understanding where exactly in the house such nocturnal rites allegedly took place. This information, as I discuss below, is misrepresented by Apuleius by means of sophistic wordplay. In Apol. 58.2, Apuleius offers some information about the content of Crassus’ testimonium: he says that Crassus found ‘many birds’ feathers in the vestibulum’ (in vestibulo multas avium pinnas) and that the walls were ‘sullied by soot’ (fuligine deformatos). Shortly afterwards,⁷⁶ Apuleius protests that an honourable man such as Appius Quintianus would not have endured lodging in a cubiculum with disfigured, blackened walls.⁷⁷ The only scholarly attempt to discuss this evidence is that by Abt, who argues that the information is insufficient to get a clear picture of the magical rite. Abt does not see the connections between the feathers in vestibulo and the blackened walls of Quintianus’ cubiculum. ⁷⁸ The reason why he could neither understand the connections between vestibulum and cubiculum, nor their magical implications for the whole charge is due to his inaccurate interpretation of vestibulum as the ‘forecourt’ of the house.⁷⁹ In reality, the term vestibulum does not only indicate the ‘vestibule’ or ‘forecourt’, which leads from the streets

 Petr. 135.4, on which cf. Costantini 2018c: 7‒8. Although coming from a literary text, this passage reflects the idea – on which Apuleius’ accusers drew – that goetic rites are filthy and pollute the place where they take place, cf. n. 21 above.  Apol. 58.8.  On the positive characterisation of Quintianus, cf. Apol. 58.4 and Hunink 1997, vol. II: 157.  Abt 1908: 219‒20. His interpretation is followed in the translations by Vallette 1924: 70; Marchesi 1955=2011: 81; Moreschini 1990: 207; Hunink in Harrison et al. 2001: 81; Martos 2015: 100.  Abt hypothesises that Apuleius and Quintianus might have practised a rite to seek revelations through a dream (ὀνειραιτησία). To speculate on the nature of the rituals allegedly practised is purposeless: it is likely that the prosecution did not even point out the type of rituals performed, but only hinted at the noxious impact that such rites had on the household deities of Crassus and, consequently, on his own health (Ch. 9.5).

9.4 Concealing the Magical Implications: The Desecration of Crassus’ Penates

191

into a building,⁸⁰ but could also be used to designate the atrium of a house. This is the centre of the household where the fire and the statuettes of the Penates and the Lares Familiares were kept and worshipped,⁸¹ as shown by ample archaeological and textual evidence.⁸² This use of vestibulum in place of atrium in Latin is attested at an early stage,⁸³ and becomes so widespread in the second century AD that Aulus Gellius writes: animadverti enim quosdam hautquaquam indoctos viros opinari vestibulum esse partem domus primorem, quam vulgus ‘atrium’ vocat. ⁸⁴ Because of this improper use, some ancient scholars even thought that the etymology of vestibulum derived from Vesta because of the presence of the sacred hearth in the atrium-vestibulum. ⁸⁵ As for the reason why Apuleius employs here the term of vestibulum for atrium, since the original phrasing of the prosecution is unknown to us, two plausible explanations can be suggested: the ‘vulgar’ use – as Gellius puts it – of vestibulum to indicate atrium could either be ascribed to Apuleius himself, or actually reflect his attackers’ speech. In support of the former interpretation, it is worth recalling that Apuleius modifies the formulation of the indictments to make them appear less harmful. In this case, he would use the more popular form vestibulum to stress his foes’ lack of finesse. The second possibility is that Apuleius shrewdly mocks his opponents’ solecism by quoting verbatim their use of vestibulum. This would be quite unsurprising given Apuleius’ liking for puns and wordplay:⁸⁶ being a man of letters, he would have pretended to understand the term according to its proper meaning, and, by doing so, the accusation would have become inconsistent. In fact, the presence of fumigated walls and residues of birds in the forecourt (vestibulum) would be uncommon, as Abt

 Cf. Brill’s New Pauly, vol. XII, s.v. Roman Houses, col. 545; OLD 2, s.v. vestibulum, a, p. 2257.  This shrine is different from one’s personal lararium such as that of Pontianus (Ch. 8.4), but the effect would have been believed to be equally harmful.  Cf. Enc. Art. Ant., vol. I, s.v. atrio, 886‒7; Wistrand 1970: 210‒23; Brill’s New Pauly, vol. VII, s.v. Lares, col. 248; and s.v. Penates, col. 718; Giacobello 2008: 67. Amongst the ancient etymological explanations of atrium, one says that the name derives from ater, atrum enim erat ex fumo; cf. Serv. Aen. 1.726. Servius (Aen. 11.211) also reports that the Penates were worshipped at the hearth (focus), which is located in the atrium of the house.  Cf. Pacuvius, frg. 38 in TRF3: 151. For a discussion of this use of vestibulum, see Wistrand 1970: 219‒22; Serbat 1975: 50‒1; Deroy 1983: 7‒8.  Gel. 16.5.2: ‘I have observed that some men who are by no means without learning think that the vestibule is the front part of the house, which is vulgarly called atrium’. Translation adapted from Rolfe 1952: 143 and 145.  Ov. Fast. 6.303‒4; Serv. Aen. 6.273; Prisc. Inst. 4.13.  On this see the extensive study by Nicolini 2011: 39‒89.

192

9 Occult Nocturnal Activities

himself admits,⁸⁷ and since secrecy is a prerequisite for goetic magic, the forecourt would have been an odd spot to perform any magical sacrifices, being very close to the threshold.⁸⁸ Furthermore, this would not explain how the fumes had reached Quintianus’ lodgings. If we accept this explanation, we may ask ourselves why Apuleius did not stress his accusers’ ignorance and made their solecism more explicit. This could have been a further slur on the attackers, but it would have also recalled the original and dangerous content of the charge, from which Apuleius was trying to distance himself. As observed in the previous chapters, Apuleius does very little to help his audience remember the actual content of the charges and tries to leave them dumbfounded by using his magniloquence. In doing so, he could more easily twist their arguments and present a persuasive defence. If correct, this reconstruction would make it finally possible to clarify the real meaning of this allegation: in the atrium of Crassus’ house Apuleius and Quintianus allegedly performed several impious rites contaminating the hearth (focus)⁸⁹ as well as the Lares Familiares and the Penates of Crassus, and the smoke was so intense as to sully the nearby rooms including that where Quintianus lodged.⁹⁰ The fact that Crassus gave a deposition through a testimonium ex libello was, therefore, intended to appear as the result of the goetic pollution of his whole household, and particularly of the sacred statuettes of his Lares and the Penates. As in the case of Pontianus’ Lares, to pollute these sacred statuettes has dangerous side-effects that could even lead to someone’s death.⁹¹ Furthermore, that the dii Penates were likely involved in the magical rites can be understood by considering the allusion to these holy statuettes at Apol. 57.3. Here Apuleius ironically says that Crassus, although dwelling in Alexandria, had spotted feathers fetched from his Penates (pinnas de Penatibus suis advectas). No scholar doubts that Penates in this context should be interpreted as ‘house’⁹² – as suggested by the following fumum domus suae agnovisse –⁹³ but, as in the case of vestibulum, this is a figurative connotation which the term preserves alongside its

 Cf. Abt 1908: 219.  See my remarks on Apol. 42.3; 47.3 in Ch. 7.4. Thestylis’ furtive application of magical herbs to the threshold of Delphis’ house in Theoc. 2.59‒62 cannot be compared with the repeated rituals supposedly performed by Apuleius and Quintianus.  Apol. 58.7: ad focum (Ch. 9.5).  Apol. 57.3; 58.6; 58.8 (Ch. 9.5).  Ch. 8.4.  Especially Butler 1909: 99; Moreschini 1990: 205. Cf. ThLL, vol. X.1, s.v. Penates, coll. 1026‒7.  Apol. 57.3: ‘he recognised the smoke coming from his house’.

9.5 Further Manipulations: Cubiculum and Focus

193

original meaning of ‘sacred statuettes of the ancestors’.⁹⁴ In the light of my reconstruction, the allusion to the Penates at Apol. 57.3 can be read as Apuleius’ precise attempt to ridicule a paramount feature of the accusation, by deliberately distorting its semantic connotations.

9.5 Further Manipulations: Cubiculum and Focus This interpretation of the charge is corroborated by two other passages of the Apologia: first, the apparent discrepancy⁹⁵ between the blackened walls in the vestibulum (Apol. 58.2) and those in Quintianus’ room (Apol. 58.8) can easily be resolved by interpreting vestibulum as atrium. Since the cubicula were generally placed around the atrium of the house,⁹⁶ the prosecution likely claimed that the fume was strong enough to blacken the walls of the room where Quintianus lodged.⁹⁷ Such a filthy cubiculum would, therefore, have become a fitting place for the apprentice of the fearsome magus Apuleius, where he could have practised and familiarised himself with goetic magic.⁹⁸ The second point to corroborate my interpretation is that, at Apol. 58.7, Apuleius ironically argues that the allegation is implausible (non est veri simile) since, after the long journey from Alexandria to Oea,⁹⁹ it would be understandable to seek comfort and rest in one’s bedroom, but Crassus’ appetite was such that he went straight ad focum. The real meaning of this pun lies in the double interpretation of focus,¹⁰⁰ which could also figuratively mean ‘kitchen’.¹⁰¹ However, focus properly  Cf. ThLL, vol. X.1, s.v. Penates, coll. 1023‒4.  Cf. Abt 1908: 219.  Cf. Brill’s New Pauly, vol. XII, s.v. Roman Houses, coll. 545‒6.  This is underscored by Apuleius himself, who tries to dampen the nefariousness of the smoke with ironical arguments; cf. Apol. 58.6 (fumi tantam vim fuisse); 58.8.  The idea that a magical practitioner, either male or female, is accompanied by an assistant is very common: cf. the assistants of Canidia, Sagana, Veia, and Folia (Hor. Epod. 5.25; 5.29; 5.42; Sagana only in Hor. S. 1.8.25‒50), and Proselenos, who assists Oenothea (Petr. 134‒8). Sagae apparently on equal terms are Meroe and Panthia (Apul. Met. 1.9‒15), but not Pamphile and Photis. Photis, in fact, assists the maga Pamphile (Met. 3.16‒18) but is not as skilled as her mistress, since the wrong pyxis that she gives Lucius causes his inauspicious transformation into a donkey (Met. 3.24.1‒6). See also the case of Eucrates, the “sorcerer’s apprentice”, in Luc. Philops. 33‒ 7, on which cf. Odgen 2007: 231‒70.  Crassus was in Alexandria when the nocturna sacra alledgedly took place (Apol. 57.3).  Hunink 1997, vol. II: 157 points out this double meaning but does not understand its implication.  The semantic shift is due to the fact that often the kitchen was built close to the fireplace in the atrium, cf. Brill’s New Pauly, vol.VI, s.v. Hearth, col. 26.

194

9 Occult Nocturnal Activities

indicates the ‘sacred hearth’ in the middle of the atrium,¹⁰² the place where the eerie feathers were found by Crassus upon his return, as the attackers claim.¹⁰³ By playing again with a term’s ambiguity, Apuleius focuses on Crassus’ gluttony and suggests that he went straight to the kitchen. In doing so he mocks the magical features of the accusers’ argument, namely the reference to the sacred hearth irredeemably contaminated by impious magical rituals which Crassus found defiled once returned from Alexandria. Sophistic wordplay has an essential function in the Apologia: suffice it to say that it is because of the ambivalence of magia that Apuleius succeeds in detaching himself from the very accusation of being a goetic magus. ¹⁰⁴ In this section of the speech in particular, the multiple meanings of focus, Penates, and vestibulum, enable Apuleius to pillory his opponents and their accusation, while showcasing his witticism. His subtlety notwithstanding, from this reconstruction it is possible to conclude that Apuleius and Quintianus allegedly tainted the sacred statuettes of Crassus’ Penates with nocturna sacra. Thus, emphasis can be placed on the close similarity between this allegation and that concerning the pollution of Pontianus’ Lares. These form, in fact, a pair, like the two indictments concerning the enchantment of Thallus¹⁰⁵ and the unnamed mulier. ¹⁰⁶ These two Primary Charges draw on the imagery of the magus as a polluter of shrines, the contamination of which would have brought about nefarious repercussions: Pontianus’ death in the former case, and Crassus’ illness in the latter, preventing him from attending the trial and delivering an oral deposition against Apuleius.

9.6 A Wary Defence Apuleius’ awareness of being in a dangerous situation can be noted by the fact that he does not even attempt to respond to any of the magical details of this indictment. He tries, instead, to argue for their feebleness by bringing forward some quick objections,¹⁰⁷ the most cogent of which is: why should he have prac-

 Cf. OLD 2, s.v. focus, 1, p. 788. For the hearth as the place next to which the Lares and Penates were kept in Roman houses, cf. ThLL, vol. VI.1, s.v. focus, coll. 988‒9. See also Giacobello 2008: 60; 64‒5; 110‒6.  Apol. 58.2.  Apol. 25.8‒26.6.  Apol. 42.3‒7.  Apol. 48‒52.  Apol. 57.3‒6; 58.3‒9. Amongst these objections, the references to the fumus (58.6; 58.8) and the plumae (58.9) are mere puns rather than cogent counter-arguments. Apuleius asks, in fact:

9.6 A Wary Defence

195

tised goetic magic in Crassus’ house and not in his own?¹⁰⁸ Even this defensive line does not hold much water: Apuleius had already been accused of desecrating Pudentilla’s household: Pontianus’ death, induced by goetic magic,¹⁰⁹ would have defiled the whole house. Furthermore, according to the accusers’ goetic portrayal of Apuleius so far reconstructed, he did not content himself with the enchantment of his wife,¹¹⁰ but his wickedness led him to purportedly caused the sickness of Thallus, some slaves, and an Oean woman.¹¹¹ The prosecution’s portrait aims to present Apuleius as a living threat to the entire community: in order to highlight this, they claimed that he endangered the lives of his newlyacquired family and other Oeans, including Iunius Crassus. Given these serious arguments, Apuleius did not only need to discredit this charge as a mendacious fabrication, and caricature Crassus as a glutton and a drunkard,¹¹² but especially to call upon the complaisance of the audience by arguing that everyone in the tribunal knew of the fraudulent agreement¹¹³ between Crassus and Aemilianus at the expense of Apuleius.¹¹⁴ Then, at the end of the rebuttal,¹¹⁵ he also calls on the sympathy of Claudius Maximus by praising the acumen of the magistrate, who understood the dishonest nature of the charge and displayed disgust when the accusers read Crassus’ testimonium out.¹¹⁶ Despite Apuleius’ swaying tone, he must have been aware of being legally prosecutable had the judge not been favourable to him.

how was it possible that smoke could have had so much strength as to blacken Crassus’ walls? Was it because the ritual took place at night? And why did the servant not wipe the floor? Was it because the feathers were made of lead?  Apol. 58.3.  Apol. 53‒57.1 (Ch. 8).  Apol. 29‒42.2.  Apol. 42.3‒52.  Ch. 9.1.  Apol. 59.8: idque Oeae nemini ignoratur (‘nobody ignores this in Oea’); 60.1: omnes hoc antequam fieret cognovimus (‘we all knew this before it even took place’).  Apol. 60.5.  Apol. 60.3‒5. Like the conclusion of the former section (57.1), this section, too, contains witty puns concerning faex (60.4), pinnarum formidines, and fumum vendere (60.5). Cf. Butler and Owen 1914: 124‒5 and Hunink 1997, vol. II: 161‒2.  Apol. 60.3.

196

9 Occult Nocturnal Activities

9.7 Conclusion The examination of this section enables us to gain a better understanding of the function of this accusation within the body of the charges. All the Primary Charges which have been discussed so far can be seen as the tightly tessellated tiles of a bigger mosaic depicting Apuleius’ skills in the goetic type of magia to attain different wicked purposes: not only the seduction of Pudentilla,¹¹⁷ but the falling sickness of people in Oea,¹¹⁸ the death of Pontianus¹¹⁹ and – last but not least – the illness of Crassus.¹²⁰ This allegation, in particular, repeats and merges some features of the previous ones: the eerie feathers recall the sacrifice of hens at Apol. 47.7; and the fact that Apuleius allegedly caused Thallus’ and the woman’s epilepsy at Apol. 42.3‒52 could be compared with Crassus’ presumed malady. But, above all, the magical implication of this charge mirrors that of the desecration of Pontianus’ lararium. With these two serious accusations, the attackers wanted to emphasise how Apuleius’ goetic influence had to be stopped, since it affected Crassus’ well-being and Pontianus’ life. The subtle insinuation is that the next in line to suffer from the maleficia of the magus could have been the young Sicinius Pudens, the legitimate heir of the Sicinii’s patrimony and the official accuser of Apuleius.¹²¹ In order to complete this gloomy portrayal, the prosecution added a final point claiming Apuleius’ capacity to consult the dead, a notorious conventional feature of any practitioner of magic.

    

Apol. 29‒42.2 (Ch. 5 and 6). Apol. 42.3‒52 (Ch. 7). Apol. 53‒57.1 (Ch. 8). Apol. 57‒60 (Ch. 9). Apol. 2.3‒4; 45.7 (cf. Ch. 1.3).

10 Apuleius the Necromancer 10.1 Introduction At Apol. 61‒5, Apuleius confutes the last of the Primary Charges that is about a skeletal statuette made of ebony, which Apuleius supposedly used for magica maleficia and addressed as βασιλεύς. ¹ In this chapter I propose that the actual charge did not concern this ghastly effigy, but rather the crime of practising magical necromancy.² With this allegation the attackers add the last brushstroke to Apuleius’ goetic portrait by exploiting the idea that the magi could summon and control the dead, a belief so popular as to become a typical feature of the goetic magus in the collective imagination of the ancients (10.2). To make their argument more persuasive, the enemies blackened the description of an ebony effigy of Mercury possessed and worshipped by Apuleius, which they claimed instead to be a skeletal statuette. While other scholars argue that the accusation was about the statuette itself,³ Ogden suggests that Aemilianus accused Apuleius of using this for necromancy.⁴ Following his interpretation, I suggest that the charge was precisely about Apuleius’ purported necromantic skills, and that the statuette was referred to as the main evidence to substantiate the accusation. As in the previous cases,⁵ Apuleius avoids discussing the real implications of the allegation and focuses on the material evidence used by his foes – in this case, the statuette – endeavouring to demonstrate that this had nothing to do with goetic magic. As to this effigy, Apuleius confirms that it was made of ebony but explains that it did not represent a horrifying skeleton, as the prosecution claims, but the god Mercury.⁶ Abt, followed by Hunink and Martos,⁷ proposes that the statuette presented to the magistrates by Apuleius (Apol. 63.4‒5) was probably not that to which his opponents allude.⁸ I argue, however, that it is unnecessary to doubt Apuleius’ claims here: as in the case of the people supposed-

 Apol. 61.2.  When I use the term necromancy I refer to the ability to summon the dead attributed to the goetic practitioners, not only for divination but also to control daemons and force them to perform various tasks, from love-magic to killing someone. For an emic analysis of the various terms employed in the Greco-Roman world to indicate these practices, see Bremmer 2015.  Abt 1908: 222‒3; Hunink 1997, vol. II: 162‒3; Martos 2015: 104, n. 321.  Ogden 2001: 185‒6.  E. g. the sea creatures (Ch. 5.2), and the mystery objects (Ch. 8.2).  Apol. 63.  Hunink 1997, vol. II: 163; Martos 2015: 104, n. 321.  Abt 1908: 223. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110617528-012

198

10 Apuleius the Necromancer

ly enchanted by Apuleius,⁹ and in the case of the defilement of Pontianus’ Lares or Crassus’ house,¹⁰ the accusers provided a misleading version of the events. There were good reasons for doing so and for depicting a statuette of Mercury as a necromantic idol. As Abt argues, there was a strong relationship between Mercury, magic, and the dead, and ebony was indeed a wood used for goetic paraphernalia.¹¹ In this chapter, I shall examine the employment of ebony (10.5) and skeletal figures in magic (10.6), the relationship between the magus and the dead (10.2), and that between Mercury, magic and the netherworld (10.3). This discussion will make it possible to comprehend how the attackers could plausibly turn a statuette of Mercury into sinister evidence of magic, and to reconstruct the real implication of this charge, which was that of accusing Apuleius of practising necromancy. I shall also pay attention to Apuleius’ defence and discuss his forensic strategy. Scholars acknowledge that the defence in this part of the speech appears stronger when compared to the thin and often elusive arguments of the previous rebuttals.¹² The presence of two depositions supporting Apuleius’ argument¹³ undoubtedly supports his claim about the prosecution’s mendacity in describing the statuette of Mercury.¹⁴ However, the apparent reliability of the defence has induced Hunink, expanding on Hijmans’ conjecture,¹⁵ to hypothesise that here Apuleius does not follow the order of the charges, but saves his best argument for last.¹⁶ I disagree with this interpretation since it implies that Apuleius would have blatantly lied before the courtroom when saying: nisi fallor, ordine eorum vestigia persequor. ¹⁷ This claim – if mendacious – constitutes a serious impairment to Apuleius’ credibility: the accusers, if not the magistrates themselves, would have certainly reacted to this lie. In reality, when Apuleius modifies the order of delivery of the charges, he deploys all his rhetorical subtlety to distract the audience,¹⁸ and does not certainly emphasise that he is following their order, as he does here. I argue that Apuleius’ aim was to disguise the nature of the allegation of necromancy and to claim that it was about the mere possession of an

 Apol. 42.3‒52 (Ch. 7).  Apol. 53‒57.1 (Ch. 8); Apol. 57.1‒60 (Ch. 9).  Abt 1908: 223‒31.  Cf. Abt 1908: 222; Hunink 1997, vol. II: 162.  Apol. 61.5‒62.  Apol. 61.2; 63.  Hijmans 1994: 1766, n. 188.  Hunink 1997, vol. II: 162.  Apol. 61.3: ‘if I am not mistaken, I am now following their tracks from the first to the last’.  See especially Apol. 91.5‒101; 103.1‒3.

10.2 The Magus and the Dead

199

inoffensive statuette. In order to do so, I shall explore the reticence adopted when Apuleius introduces and summarises the allegation at Apol. 61.2 (10.4). I shall also focus on the curse against Aemilianus at Apol. 64.1‒2, the importance of which has not been hitherto understood.¹⁹ I suggest that the presence of the neologisms occursacula, formidamina, and terriculamenta were meant to please the learned audience and dampen the otherwise critical implication of this quasi-curse, which could have proved that Apuleius was a real magus (10.7). Finally, I shall focus on the Platonising tone that characterises the conclusion of this section. This serves to reassure the audience about Apuleius’ integrity while strengthening the bond between Apuleius, the judge, and the learned readership – who could appreciate a loftier understanding of the world – and would not have misunderstood the allusion to the βασιλεύς as a vulgar reference to goetic magic but would have recognised it as the invocation to Plato’s Supreme Being (10.8).

10.2 The Magus and the Dead To characterise Apuleius as a magus practising necromancy the attackers could draw on the widespread tradition that goetic practitioners were able to come into contact with the dead.²⁰ This idea might have originated from the fact that the Persian priests were actually believed to have such an ability: Strabo tells that amongst the Persians, the Magi act as necromancers, dish-diviners and water-diviners (παρὰ δὲ τοῖς Πέρσαις οἱ μάγοι καὶ νεκυομάντεις καὶ ἔτι οἱ λεγόμενοι λεκανομάντεις καὶ ὑδρομάντεις).²¹ This information is later confirmed by Pliny the Elder who – quoting from Ostanes –²² says that the Magi could divine from water, globes, air, stars, lamps, basins, axes, and many other means, ‘and besides to converse with ghosts and those in the underworld’ (praeterea umbrarum

 Cf. McCreight 1991: 255‒6; Gaide 1993: 230; Hunink 1997, vol. II: 169; Harrison 2000: 75, n. 93; Hertz 2010: 105‒18; Sans 2014: 2‒16; Martos 2015: 108, n. 335.  On ancient necromancy and magic, although not analysed from an emic perspective, see also Ogden 2001: 93‒159, and Plantade in Enc. Berb. 33: 5310‒9.  Strab. 16.2.39; translation by Jones 1930: 289. See also the discussion in Dickie 2001: 116‒7. This belief that the Magi were able to control the dead seems already attested in Hdt. 7.43; 7.113‒ 4; 7.191, on which see Ogden 20092: 38, and perhaps alluded to in A. Pers. 681‒851, although there is no explicit reference to the Magi but to the Chorus of Persian elders, who used necromantic songs (Pers. 687: ψυχαγωγοῖς γόοις); on this passage see Ogden 2001: 111; 228; and Garvie 2009: 273‒6.  On Ostanes and the lost texts attributed to him, cf. Ch. 4.5.

200

10 Apuleius the Necromancer

inferorumque colloquia).²³ This ability of the Magi did not uniquely limit itself to oracular responses, as they were also believed to summon the dead for other purposes. In the Life of Nero by Suetonius it is said that the emperor, in despair after the murder of his mother Agrippina, ‘even had rites performed by the Magi, in the effort to summon her shade and entreat it for forgiveness’ (per magos sacro evocare Manes et exorare temptavit).²⁴ In addition to the belief that the Magi could contact the dead, the early assimilation between μάγος and γóης ²⁵ can help us understand why the practitioners of goetic magic are said to be able to control the dead in many literary sources. According to the lexicographer Phrynichus, Aeschylus’ lost Ψυχαγωγοί – a play probably modelled on Odysseus’ nekyia ²⁶ in which Hermes appears as well –²⁷ seems to have to do with γοητεία. ²⁸ In later times, the goetic magus becomes the utmost expert in contacting the dead: following a long-established tradition, Lucian of Samosata writes a comic dialogue, the Nekyomanteia, where the protagonist Menippus, wanting to question Tiresias about the best possible lifestyle, travels to Babylon to find a μάγος who could guide him into Hades.²⁹ Apart from the presence of necromantic magic as a literary theme in comic contexts,³⁰ the goetic magus features also in rhetoric as the specific figure who could control the dead. In the Sepulcrum Incantatum falsely attributed to Quintilian, a magus is hired by a man to prevent the soul of his son from visiting and comforting the man’s wife at night, freeing her from the obsession with her loss.³¹ So popular and widespread was this literary topos that it characterises the female counterparts of the magus: Horace’s Canidia boasts about her ability to revive crematos mortuos;³² the saga depicted by Tibullus lures ghosts out of graves and pyres still warm with her can-

 Plin. Nat. 30.14; translation by Jones 1968: 287.  Nero 34.8; translation by Rolfe 1997: 141. In the passage the meaning of magus seems to be at the same time that of ‘priest’ and ‘goetic practitioner’. The possibility of interpreting the term according to the former connotation is due to Nero’s deep interest in magia and his subsequent initiations by the Magus Tiridates; cf. Plin. Nat. 30.14‒17, discussed in Cumont 1933: 145‒54.  Ch. 2.3. As to the original connotation of γóης, Burkert 1962: 43‒5 and Johnston 2008 argue for its connection with the sphere of death, but Bremmer 2016: 64‒5 suggests a connection with magical incantations since the appearance of the term.  Cf. Librán Moreno 2004: 17‒22.  Cf. TrGF, vol. III, frg. 273; 273a, l. 8.  Phryn. PS. 127: 14‒16, cf. TrGF, vol. III, pp. 370‒1.  Luc. Nec. 6.  For magic as an entertaining theme in literary sources, cf. Ch. 2.4.  [Quint.] Decl.10.  Hor. S. 1.8.28‒9; Epod. 17.79. Cf. Watson 2003: 583.

10.2 The Magus and the Dead

201

tus;³³ the spell of Ovid’s Dipsas is so powerful as to evoke ancient spirits and tear apart the earth;³⁴ Seneca’s Medea sends a whole flock of infernal beings to Jason’s wedding;³⁵ and Lucan’s Erictho even claims that her carmen is so compelling ‘that the enchanted soul shall give no heed to the incantation of any male practitioner of magic’ (ut nullos cantata magos exaudiat umbra).³⁶ Apuleius’ Pamphile in the Metamorphoses is no exception: she is believed to master every other-worldly spell (omnis carminis sepulchralis magistra creditur), and can control all ghosts.³⁷ Not only Pamphile but also Meroe can control the dead,³⁸ and the saga at Met. 9.29.3 is likewise said to be able to raise ‘a spectre or some other harmful supernatural force’ (larva vel aliquo diro numine) in order to kill the miller/baker (pistor), as demanded by his treacherous wife. The popularity of this trope, which later became the object of a bitter Christian criticism,³⁹ even survives in late-antique poetry as shown in the Anapaesticum in magum mendicum by the sixth-century poet Luxorius.⁴⁰ From this brief survey, it is possible to acknowledge the circulation of the belief – on which Apuleius’ accusers drew – that the magus was able to contact and control the dead. This idea, however, did not only exist in the realm of fiction: both the Greek Magical Papyri and various defixionum tabellae show how the practitioners of magic were really thought and believed themselves endowed

 Tib. 1.2.45‒8. Cf. Maltby 2002: 167‒8.  Ov. Am. 1.8.17‒18.  Sen. Med. 740‒3. Cf. Boyle 2014: 315.  Luc. 6.767.  Apul. Met. 2.5.4; 3.15.6‒7. Since Apuleius does not depict Zatchlas as a magus but as an Egyptian priest (Met. 2.27‒30), I consider him as such and I will not include him in my discussion of magical necromancy.  Apul. Met. 1.8.4, cf. Keulen 2007: 205‒6.  E. g. Tert. Anim. 57.1‒12; Lactant. Div. inst. 2.14.10; 2.16.1‒4; 7.13.7; August. C.D. 7.35.  The epigram is transmitted in the Anthologia Latina, cf. Baehrens 1881: 453; Riese 18942 and Happ 1986: 299; Shackleton Bailey 1982: 294. I quote below the poem, following the text in Happ’s edition: Tibi cum non sit diei panis, / magicas artes inscius inples: / ire per umbras atque sepulcra / pectore egeno titubans gestis. / Nec tua Manes carmina sumunt. / Fame dum pulsus Tartara cantu / omnia turbas, aliquid credis / dare quod possit superis Pluton / pauperibusque? Puto quod peius / egeas totum semper in orbem, / mage, si poscis membra perempta (‘because you do not have your daily bread, you practise the magical arts, although ignorant of it: staggering with hunger and need, you eagerly desire to go amongst the shades and tombs. But the spirits of the dead do not listen to your incantations, as, driven by hunger, you throw all Tartarus into turmoil with your chanting in your belief that Pluto can give something to the poor in the upper world. I believe, magus, that you will always go about in greater want throughout the wide world if you demand the limbs of corpses’). Translation adapted from Rosenblum 1961: 119.

202

10 Apuleius the Necromancer

with such powers. In a detailed study, Christopher Faraone focuses on a sequence of recipes for necromancy in the Great Paris Papyrus (PGM IV.1928‒ 2005; IV.2006‒125; IV.2125‒139; IV.2140‒4) involving the employment of corpses,⁴¹ which I discuss below in my examination of skeletal figures in goetic magic (10.6). Additional evidence from the PGM suggests that these practitioners attempted to contact the dead for a wide range of purposes, to the extent that a formula indicates different possibilities for the summoning.⁴² In many cases, the assistance of the spirits of the dead (νεκυδαίμων)⁴³ could be explicitly sought out for a love-spell,⁴⁴ for divinatory purposes,⁴⁵ or to win a lawsuit,⁴⁶ and one recipe even provides the practitioners with instructions for resurrecting a dead body by forcing ‘a spirit hovering in the air’ (πνεῦμα ἐν ἀέρι φοιτώμενον) into a corpse.⁴⁷ Not only the Greek Magical Papyri, but especially the curse-tablets shed light on the interests of the practitioners of magic in conjuring the dead for sinful purposes, mainly to kill or to make a person fall in love with someone. And, as we will see, the structure of such curses – as well as their evil scope – functions as a model for the pseudo-curse that Apuleius casts upon Aemilianus at Apol. 64.1‒ 2 (10.7). In an Athenian tablet dating to the third century BC,⁴⁸ a practitioner seeks the death of a certain Gameta by calling upon the spirits of the dead (καταχθόνιοι).⁴⁹ Later, in a defixio from Cumae written in Greek and dating to the second or the third century AD,⁵⁰ δαίμωνες καὶ πνεύματα (‘daemons and spirits’) of the underworld are called upon by a husband to curse his wife Valeria Quadratilla.⁵¹ In three tablets from Bad Kreuznach, dating to the first or the second century AD,⁵² ‘infernal beings’ (inferi) are addressed for a curse;⁵³ one of these tablets specifically offers a reference to the inferae larvae,⁵⁴ and so does a first-

 Faraone 2005: 255‒82.  PGM V.304‒69 and VII.993‒1009; the lack of a clear purpose of the latter may be due to its fragmentary status, as Betz 19922: 144 suggests.  For the soul of the dead as a daemon, see the analysis of Apol. 63.6 in Ch. 10.6.  PGM IV.361; IV.368; IV.397; XII.493; XVI.1; XIXa.15.  IV.248‒50; VIII.80‒4.  LI.1‒27.  XIII.277‒82.  Audollent 1904: 51, cf. p. 86.  Audollent 1904: 51.2.  Audollent 1904: 198, cf. p. 271.  Audollent 1904: 198.4.  Audollent 1904: 96‒8, cf. p. 148.  Audollent 1904: 96a.4; 96b.2; 97a.2; 97b.1; 98.7.  Audollent 1904: 97a.2 = CIL 13.7555.2, the text of which is incomplete. For a specific discussion of the larva, cf. Ch. 10.6.

10.3 The Chthonic Mercury and Magic

203

century curse-tablet from Rome.⁵⁵ In a third-century defixio from the necropolis of the African city of Hadrumetum,⁵⁶ Domitiana asks for the help of the dead to compel Urbanus to love her;⁵⁷ and in another devotio from Hadrumetum, daemons and infernal being are called upon to make Vettia fall in love with Felix.⁵⁸ Given the coercing and often harmful intentions behind these goetic practices and the appalling effects that they would have inevitably aroused, it is no surprise that these magico-necromantic acts were prosecutable under the Lex Cornelia de sicariis et veneficis. ⁵⁹ It becomes now possible to understand why Apuleius’ accusers employed the much-feared idea that the magi could call upon the dead: this belief was not only widespread, as literary, papyrological and epigraphic evidence shows, but it was also openly condemned by the same law under which Apuleius stood trial.

10.3 The Chthonic Mercury and Magic To further validate the allegation about Apuleius’ necromantic ability and present his statuette of Mercury as a necromantic idol, the accusers turned two equally commonplace assumptions to their advantage: the employment of statuettes in goetic magic, and Mercury’s connection with the dead and magic. As to the former, the PGM shows that goetic practitioners used to offer sacrifices to eerie statuettes for different purposes, such as prosperity,⁶⁰ sending dreams, causing sleeplessness, and releasing the owner of the statuette from an evil spi TheDeMa 517.31: Larvabus et Furiabus inferis.  Audollent 1904: 271, cf. pp. 373‒7.  Audollent 1904: 271.  Audollent 1904: 266.2‒3.  Paulus Sent. 5.29.15, in which the reference to sacra impia likely encompasses such necromantic rites, and also 5.29.17, where it is more generally said that: ‘it is agreed that those who are privy to the magical art are to be inflicted with the supreme punishment, that is to be thrown to the beasts or crucified. The real magi, however, are burned alive’ (magicae artis conscios summo supplicio adfici placuit, idest bestiis obici aut cruci suffigi. Ipsi autem magi vivi exuruntur); translation adapted from Rives 2006: 47. Paulus also reports a precise law De sepulcris et lugendis (Sent. 1.33.5), according to which the violation of a grave or the abduction of bodily remains was forbidden; see also the law De sacrilegis (Sent. 5.25). From the middle of the fourth century, the Theodosian Code 9.16.5 acts directly against ‘those who dare to subvert the natural elements with the magical arts and to undermine the lives of innocent people, and dare to expose in the air the spectres that they summoned, so that any of such practitioners could harm their enemies with these noxious arts’ (magicis artibus ausi elementa turbare, vitas insontium labefactare non dubitant et manibus accitis audent ventilare, ut quisque suos conficiat malis artibus inimicos).  PGM IV.3130‒54.

204

10 Apuleius the Necromancer

rit.⁶¹ Furthermore, Ogden argues that the ebony statuette of Apollo in PGM III.282‒409 was specifically employed for necromancy, similarly to Apuleius’ allegedly skeletal simulacrum. ⁶² As to Mercury, this deity was regarded as the guide of the spirits of the dead already in Homer’s Odyssey,⁶³ and this belief continues in Roman times. Cicero associates Mercury with deities of the netherworld,⁶⁴ and in the Aeneid the ancient function of Hermes as a ψυχοπομπός is stressed again, when Vergil describes the god raising animas pallentis from the netherworld while alias sub Tartara tristia mittit. ⁶⁵ This ability could easily be associated with that of the magus, who – as we have just seen – was believed to be capable of summoning and controlling the dead. This chthonic function of Mercury endures in sources chronologically close to Apuleius: in Phlegon of Tralles’ Mirabilia, the seer Hyllos instructs the people to make apotropaic sacrifices to Hermes χθόνιος and the Eumenides in order to bury a girl miraculously returned to life and, then, dead again;⁶⁶ and in Artemidorus’ Oneirocritica Hermes is expressly indicated with the epithet ψυχοπομπός. ⁶⁷ Thus far we have observed the chthonic aspect of Mercury, but it is still necessary to shed light on his relationship with magic. To any reader of the Odyssey living in the first or second century AD, when the magical interpretation of Homer was already well-established,⁶⁸ it would have been clear that this god was associated with magic. The moly – the φάρμακον that protected Odysseus from Circe’s malevolent powers –⁶⁹ was, in fact, thought to be a magical herb.⁷⁰ Needless to say that Hermes, who bestowed the phylactery on Odysseus, would have easily been connected with magia as well, and some sources make this connection explicit: in Apol. 31.9, Apuleius himself includes Mercurius carminum vector ⁷¹ amongst Trivia, Selene and Venus, all popular deities of magic.⁷²

 XII.15‒25.  Ogden 2001: 186, n. 67.  Hom. Od. 24.1‒5. On the connections between his wand (ῥάβδος) and magic, cf. Ch. 10.5.  Cf. Cic. N.D. 3.56, on which see Pease 1968, vol. II: 1107‒15.  Verg. A. 4.242‒3; see also the commentary by Austin 1955: 85‒6.  Phleg. Mir. 1.17; see also the comments on the roles of Hermes and the Eumenides in Stramaglia 2000: 182, n. 36.  Artem. 2.37.  Ch. 5.4 and 5.5.  Hom. Od. 302‒6.  Plin. Nat. 25.26; 25.127; Ps. Apul. Herb. 66.11‒2.  Apuleius perhaps could have had in mind the elegant expression from Verg. Cat. 14.4: carmine vectus. This would parallel the Ovidian and Catullan resonances of the following expressions Luna noctium conscia and manium potens Trivia, discussed in Ch. 5.6.  Ch. 5.6.

10.3 The Chthonic Mercury and Magic

205

Abt, followed by Butler and Owen, argues that carmen in this context means ‘oracle’, not ‘magical spell’, and proposes a comparison with the oracular role of Mercury in the anecdote that Apuleius reports at Apol. 42.6.⁷³ Hunink, however, rightly proposes that the very word carmen would have inevitably had a strong magical undertone,⁷⁴ and that the expression carminum vector serves to describe the god as a ‘carrier of spells’.⁷⁵ We must add that the reason why Apuleius refers to Mercury is that he could probably not avoid mentioning him amongst the deities commonly invoked in magic. Thus, he seems to have chosen this lesser-known attribute of the god at Apol. 31.9, instead of referring to his notorious chthonic powers. In doing so, he would have avoided any possible reference to this allegation. Abt claims that the most important passage proving that Mercury was considered the patron god of magic is in Martianus Capella’s De Nuptiis Mercuri et Philologiae. ⁷⁶ At 1.36 Jove says that Mercury ‘possesses a marvellous skill in painting, and as a sculptor he brings to life even the heads of bronze or marble statues’ (mirabile praestigium pingendi, cum vivos etiam vultus aeris aut marmoris signifex animator inspirat).⁷⁷ In reality, this passage is not only rather late but it also fails to prove a direct connection between Mercury and magic.⁷⁸ Attention should be paid to other more relevant evidence: in Lucian’s Gallus, the character of the cockerel-γóης explains that Hermes – to whom he is sacred – conferred on the right feather of his tail the power of invisibility.⁷⁹ Other significant evidence comes from Firmicus Maternus’ Mathesis, an astrological treatise in which he tells that those who are born under or in conjunction with the sign of Mercury are destined to become magi. ⁸⁰ However, the most striking literary evidence which brings together Mercury’s role of ψυχοπομπός and goetic magic is perhaps at Contra Symmachum 1.89‒98 by the fourth-century Christian poet Prudentius, which I quote below:

 Abt 1908: 117‒20; Butler and Owen 1914: 80‒1.  On the use of carmina in magic, cf. Ch. 4.3.  Hunink 1997, vol. II: 105.  Abt 1908: 118‒9.  I follow the edition by Dick 1969: 23.  The term praestigium seems associated with magic first in Christian writings, in sources explicitly against the wonders of magic, cf. Tert. Apol. 23.1; 57.7; Lactant. Div. inst. 2.14.10; 4.15.4; 5.3.11; Min. Fel. Oct. 26.10; Arn. Adv. nat. 1.43; Hieron. Epist. 96.16.2; Rufin. Hist. 4.7.9.  Luc. Gall. 28.  Firm. Mat. Math. 3.7.6; 3.7.19; 3.10.3; 3.12.6; 3.12.16.

206

10 Apuleius the Necromancer

Nec non Thessalicae doctissimus ille [sc. Mercurius] magiae traditur extinctas sumptae moderamine virgae ⁸¹ in lucem revocasse animas, Cocytia leti iura resignasse sursum revolantibus umbris, ast alias damnasse neci penitusque latenti inmersisse chao. Facit hoc ad utrumque peritus ut fuerit geminoque armarit crimine vitam. Murmure nam magico tenues excire figuras atque sepulcrales scite incantare favillas, vita itidem spoliare alios ars noxia novit. ⁸²

Although Prudentius’ gloomy depiction of Mercury’s power over the dead is influenced by his religious views, the verb traditur at 1.90 suggests that he might have drawn on an earlier tradition associating Mercury with goetic magic; then, to make his description eerier, Prudentius referred to a particularly ominous type of magic, namely that of Thessaly.⁸³ This connection between Mercury and magic does not only feature in literary sources, but also in real goetic practices. Hermes’ name appears,⁸⁴ in fact, in curse-tablets from Attica, Boeotia, Euboea and Melos, invoked as Hermes χθόνιος,⁸⁵ καταχθόνιος,⁸⁶ κάτοχος. ⁸⁷ Hermes χθόνιος is called upon in devotiones from Cyprus dating to the second and third century AD,⁸⁸ often with other χθόνιοι θεοί,⁸⁹ and likewise in a third-century tablet from Alexandria in Egypt.⁹⁰ But the  On Mercury’s wand, cf. Ch. 10.5.  ‘Expert, too, in Thessalian magic, as we are told, he used a wand that he took in his hands to call spirits of the dead back to the light, annulling the control of Cocytus over death by making the shades fly upwards, while others he condemned to death and plunged them deep in the nether darkness. This proves that he was skilled both ways and armed his life with two kinds of crime; for he had a guilty knowledge of how to raise ethereal spirits with muttered magic and cleverly enchant the ashes in the tomb, and also how to rob other men of life’. Translation adapted from Thomson 1949: 357.  On this literary trope, cf. Ch. 2.4.  For general remarks on Hermes-Mercury amongst the deities invoked in the defixiones, see Audollent 1904: lxi; Gager 1992: 12.  Audollent 1904: 68b.5; 81a.1; 81a.7; 81b.1 presumably contained the same attribute, but that portion of the inscription is illegible.  Audollent 1904: 74.2; 75a.3‒4.  Audollent 1904: 39.6; 50.1; 50.5; 50.8; 50.11; 67.4; 72.12‒13 (spelt κατούχιος, see Audollent’s discussion in p. 101); 73.8. Other defixiones (e. g. Audollent 1904: 85a.4; 86a.4) address Hermes without an epithet.  Audollent 1904: 19.5.  Audollent 1904: 22.35‒6; 24.20; 26.24‒5; 29.23; 30.28‒9; 31.22‒3; 35.22‒3; 37.22‒3. The chthonic deities invoked are Hecate, Hermes, Pluto and the Erinyes, as in PGM IV.1462‒4.  Audollent 1904: 38.2; 38.6; 38.15‒16; 38.32.

10.3 The Chthonic Mercury and Magic

207

god in his chthonic function is also addressed in a second-century curse-tablet from the amphitheatre of Carthage with the name of Mercurius infernus,⁹¹ a source that brings us back to places and times not too distant from those of Apuleius’ trial. This connection between Hermes-Mercury and goetic magic can also be detected by looking into the Greek Magical Papyri, where the chthonic Hermes is invoked.⁹² Furthermore, in the PGM we also find Hermes’ epithet ‘thrice-great’ (τρισμέγιστος),⁹³ and he is syncretistically assimilated to the Egyptian god Thoth.⁹⁴ This association between Thoth and Hermes-Mercury was already known to Cicero⁹⁵ and Diodorus Siculus,⁹⁶ but his relationship with magic is made explicit in a hymn to the moon in the Great Paris Papyrus, where Hermes Trismegistus is associated with Thoth⁹⁷ and defined as πάντων ὡς μάγων ἀρχηγέτης (‘the chief of all the magi’).⁹⁸ Mercury was, in sum, the perfect deity to call upon for a magus wanting to control the dead. Given that Apuleius’ enemies knew that he possessed and worshipped a statuette of Mercury,⁹⁹ and given the close association of the god – as well as of ebony –¹⁰⁰ with goetic magic, they could use this statuette as evidence to back up their accusation by misrepresenting it as a chthonic effigy. In fact, to further aggravate Apuleius’ situation, they present the statuette as an appalling skeletal figurine, which they call larva and daemonium. ¹⁰¹ The following analysis of the Apologia will provide us with additional insight into this allegation, corroborating the idea that the charge dealt with necromancy, and showing how Apuleius attempts to conceal this point with his rhetorical mastery.

 Audollent 1904: 251, col. 2, ll. 16‒17. From the same location and period, see Audollent 1904: 246, which lacks an epithet, but the figure of a god (likely Mercury) with the petasos and the wand is drawn at the centre of the tablet.  PGM III.47; IV.338 (καταχθόνιος); IV.1443; IV.1463 (χθόνιος); IV.2330; IV.2609; IV.2999; V.172‒ 212; V.213‒303; V.400; V.439; VII.668; VII.919‒24; VIII.1‒63; XVIIb.1‒23; XXIII.3; LI.15.  Cf. PGM IV.886; VII.551 (τρίσμεγας); CXXII.1‒4. On Apuleius’ interests in Hermeticism, see Münstermann 1995: 131‒44; 190‒6. On Hermeticism in general, see Faivre 2010: 25‒7 followed by Martos 2015: 104, n. 321. For Hermeticism and magic, see Copenhaver 1992: xxxvi‒xl.  PGM IV.338‒9; VIII.9‒10; XII.145‒6; LXVII.11.  Cic. N.D. 3.56, on which see Pease 1968, vol. II: 1107‒14.  D.S. 1.96.6.  Cf. Betz 19922: 79, n. 285.  PGM IV.2288‒9; translation adapted from O’Neil in Betz 19922: 79.  Ch. 10.1.  Ch. 10.5.  Ch. 10.6.

208

10 Apuleius the Necromancer

10.4 The Summary of the Charge and Apuleius’ Reticence The beginning of this section of the defence differs from the others: being aware of the two depositions validating his claim,¹⁰² Apuleius neither lingers over a ludicrous caricature of his accusers, nor does he maintain that the imputation is feeble, as he previously does.¹⁰³ He addresses the accusation directly by arguing that it was about ‘the creation of a certain statuette’ (cuiusdam sigilli fabricatio),¹⁰⁴ and that his opponents learnt of it by reading Pudentilla’s letter.¹⁰⁵ Hunink and Pellecchi¹⁰⁶ interpret this as a reference to the epistulam Graecam mentioned in Apol. 30.11 – which Apuleius discusses at greater length in Apol. 78.5‒ 84.4 – but we know that there were other incriminating letters, including one which he claims to be a forgery by his prosecutors.¹⁰⁷ Most important, the letter mentioned here could also be another one which Apuleius intentionally avoids discussing in his speech, as I suggest in the next chapter.¹⁰⁸ After the reference to Pudentilla’s litteras, Apuleius summarises the accusation saying that he had a statue, quod me aiunt ad magica maleficia occulta fabrica ligno exquisitissimo comparasse et, cum sit sceleti ¹⁰⁹ forma turpe et horribile, tamen impendio colere et Graeco vocabulo βασιλέα nuncupare. ¹¹⁰ In this passage we can recognise two typical features of Apuleius’ summarising technique: the lack of specific details and a derisive tone. The former is enhanced by the adjectival employment of the indefinite quidam at Apol. 61.1 that is accompanied by sigillum, a diminutive of signum,¹¹¹ which Apuleius adopts to ridicule the purportedly skeletal statuette,¹¹² while the form simulacrum is used to indicate Apu-

 Apol. 61.5‒62.  Apol. 29.1; 42.1‒2; 53.1; 57.1.  For the meaning of quodam and sigillum, see below.  Apol. 61.1: cum Pudentillae litteras legerent.  Hunink 1997, vol. II: 163; Pellecchi 2012: 194‒209.  Apol. 87.2‒11, and my discussion in Ch. 11.4.  Cf. Ch. 11.4, where I shall evaluate the possibility that his opponents provided the magistrates with a much heftier corpus of letters than scholars are inclined to believe.  On this term, see my discussion of Apol. 63.5 below.  Apol. 61.2: ‘which they say I ordered to be made from a special kind of wood, in a secret laboratory, for magical purposes. And although it is ugly and horrible, resembling a skeleton, I allegedly hold it in great reverence and call it ‘king’, with a Greek name’.  The expression signum magiae (Apol. 63.2) should be seen as a witty reference to the sigillum at Apol. 61.1.  Apol. 61.1; 61.4. However, at 62.2 sigillum, accompanied by the ennobling adjective perfectum, describes Apuleius’ holy statuette of Mercury. See also Hunink 1997, vol. II: 163, who argues that sigillum here indicates a statuette, not a seal, as proposed by Birley 1968: 634.

10.4 The Summary of the Charge and Apuleius’ Reticence

209

leius’ holy statuette.¹¹³ Another comic feature can be detected in the superlative exquisitissimus at Apol. 61.2,¹¹⁴ with which Apuleius ironically exaggerates his supposed eagerness to obtain ebony. These rhetorical expedients serve the twofold purpose of dampening the dangerous tone of the allegation while increasing the elusiveness of its real content. In fact, apart from a single reference to his supposed magica maleficia in Apol. 61.2, Apuleius conceals any explicit information about the crime of necromancy; he will only betray himself later when mockingly cursing Aemilianus at Apol. 64.1‒2. This strategy mirrors that seen in the previous rebuttals, where he focuses not on the suspected magical act but on a specific aspect of the accusations which the prosecution used to buttress their claims.¹¹⁵ Given the commonplace beliefs in the necromantic skills of the magi, a flat denial of it – similar to that which Apuleius develops at Apol. 30.4‒31 concerning fish in love-magic – would have been counterproductive.¹¹⁶ Reticence was by far the easier and safer way to follow, enabling him to elude the legal implication of necromancy condemned under the Lex Cornelia de sicariis et veneficis. ¹¹⁷ In the summary Apuleius stresses four points to support his claim that the prosecutors lied – as he repeats –¹¹⁸ when saying that: 1. the ghoulish statuette was commissioned by Apuleius in secret (Apol. 61.4‒ 62); 2. it had the horrifying aspect of a corpse (Apol. 63); 3. it was addressed as βασιλεύς (Apol. 64.4‒8); 4. it was made of ebony (Apol. 61.7), a wood that Apuleius eagerly sought in Oea (Apol. 62.5). I shall now delve into the following part of the defence, showing the dangerous goetic features of these four points which the attackers brought forward.

 Apol. 61.6 (note the paronomasia: simul […] simulacrum); 63.3; 63.6; 63.9; 65.1.  A parallel of this use of exquisitissimus in Suet. Cal. 38.1. For the comic use of superlatives in Latin, see Hofmann 19513: 90‒102 and Petersmann 1977: 111, n. 75; see also Facchini Tosi 1986: 111 and Nicolini 2011: 44‒5, n. 101 on postremissumis in Apol. 98.6.  Cf. the discussion in Ch. 10.1 above.  The idea that sea creatures and fish are used in magical rituals (Ch. 5.2) was more specific than the set of beliefs concerning magical necromancy, a key aspect of goetic magic.  Ch. 10.2 and 10.7.  Cf. Apol. 61.3 (calumnia); 62.5 (commentior); 62.3; 63.1; 63.5 (mendacium).

210

10 Apuleius the Necromancer

10.5 The Use of Ebony in Goetic Magic Soon after the summary, Apuleius rephrases the deposition of Cornelius Saturninus, the artifex of his statuette previously interrogated by Maximus,¹¹⁹ and explains that he commissioned the carpenter ‘a statuette of any deity he wanted’ (aliquod simulacrum cuiuscumque vellet dei)¹²⁰ to be made of any type of wood. What happened next – says Apuleius – is that he went to the countryside¹²¹ and Pontianus, willing to bestow a gift on his stepfather and friend, obtained from a lady called Capitolina a box made of large ebony boards, which he brought to Saturninus and ordered to shape into a little statuette of Mercury (Mercuriolus).¹²² This testimony would already suffice to support the innocence of Apuleius, who neither commissioned a specific statuette of Mercury in secret,¹²³ nor searched the entire town for the ebony (toto oppido et quidem oppido);¹²⁴ but he goes even further, adding the testimony of the son of Capitolina¹²⁵ that confirms Saturninus’ version of the facts.¹²⁶ Both the depositions of Saturninus and Capitolina’s son seem to plainly confirm Apuleius’ defence, freeing him from the guilt of having ordered a skeletal statuette made of ebony. Yet, it is worth expanding on the insinuations that his enemies hoped to underline, starting with occultness and ebony. Since the idea that magical rites require secrecy has been the object of a previous discussion,¹²⁷ I shall only analyse the use of ebony in magic and its connection with the chthonic realm. The prosecution emphasised Apuleius’ alleged interest in obtaining ebony at all costs because this wood had a particular relevance to mag Apol. 61.5.  Apol. 61.6. The adjectival employment of the indefinite aliquis and quicumque underscores Apuleius’ innocence as to the choice of the deity to sculpt.  Apol. 61.7; 62.5. It is difficult to understand the chronology of Apuleius’ visit to the countryside: given the good relationship between Pontianus and Apuleius at the time in which the statuette was manufactured, it seems likely that the visit happened when he and Pontianus were still friends, before he sided with Rufinus and Aemilianus against Apuleius and Pudentilla. Alternatively, this visit could have taken place shortly before Pontianus’ death, when he eventually reconciled with Apuleius. Further comments on the possible chronology of the events in Ch. 11.3 and 11.4, 11.6.  Apol. 61.8. Here and at 63.4 the value of the diminutive is not comic but hypocoristic; cf. Hofmann 19513: 139‒41.  Apol. 61.4; 62.4.  Apol. 62.5.  Women were barred from public and civil offices, including lawsuits (Ch. 1.4 and n. 59); this explains why Capitolina’s son and not Capitolina herself had to testify on behalf of his mother.  Apol. 62.1‒2.  See my remarks on Apol. 47.3 and 42.3 in Ch. 7.4.

10.5 The Use of Ebony in Goetic Magic

211

ical practices: in a recipe of the PGM, the wand of a practitioner summoning Apollo has to be made out of ebony (ἐβέννινη ῥάβδος).¹²⁸ This information stands striking comparison with the literary description of Nectanebos,¹²⁹ an Egyptian priest-king and μάγος: ¹³⁰ in the older recension of the so-called Alexander Romance this figure, in fact, employs a ἐβέννινη ῥάβδος to adjure the god Ammon and various spirits.¹³¹ The idea that wands are magical tools can also be explained in view of the magical interpretation of Homer: Circe – who, in Apuleius’ time, was regarded as an archetypal maga together with Medea –¹³² performs her noxious practices on Odysseus and his companions through potions and her wand.¹³³ Furthermore, Hermes had the power to lead the flock of ghosts with a ῥάβδος made of gold.¹³⁴ As to the use of ebony in magic, the most interesting evidence is the lovespell attributed to the μάγος Astrapsoukos,¹³⁵ in which Hermes is invoked and it is specified that τὸ ἐβεννίνου is his sacred wood.¹³⁶ The choice of ebony for a statuette of Mercury would have, therefore, appeared quite suspicious, given the clear association between the wood and the god in magical sources. Prudentius, in his Liber Cathemerinon, considers ebony metonymically as a symbol of evil,¹³⁷ perhaps because of the use of dark-coloured paraphernalia in both chthonic¹³⁸ and goetic contexts.¹³⁹ Additional evidence for the magical nature of ebony can also be glimpsed in the name of the lapis exebenus,¹⁴⁰ a formidable

 PGM I.279; I.336.  On this figure, see Stoneman and Gargiulo 2007: 469‒70.  At the beginning of the story, it is explained that Nectanebos τῇ μαγικῇ δυνάμει πάντων περιγενέσθαι (1.2). I have adopted the text and paragraph subdivision of the edition by Stoneman and Gargiulo 2007.  Hist. Alex. Magn. 1.3.  On these figures and on their retrospective magical interpretation, cf. Ch. 5.4 and 5.5.  Hom. Od. 10.238; 10.293; 10.319.  Hom. Od. 24.2‒5.  Cf. Betz 19922: 145, n. 1, suggesting the identification with Αστραμψύχους mentioned amongst Ostanes and other magi in D.L. 1.2.  PGM VIII.1‒63 and 13 in particular; see also Abt 1908: 228.  Prudent. Cath. 2.69‒72. Cf. ThLL, vol. V.2, s.v. ebenus, col. 4.  Cf. Halm-Tisserant 2006: 9‒28.  In the PGM, black paraphernalia is often required (IV.2309; VII.227; VII.452; VIII.66‒7; XX.10‒12) and are often prescribed in rites involving the dead (I.58‒9; IV.176). See also the aforementioned ἐβέννινη ῥάβδος at I.279; I.336 and the ἐβέννινος ἄρριχος in III.617. A black sacrificial victim – following a chthonic tradition that dates back at least to Hom. Od. 11.32‒3 – is required in PGM IV.1440 to control a soul for a love-spell.  One may wonder about the etymological connection with ebony since the colour of this stone was thought to be white; cf. Plin. Nat. 37.159; Damig. Lapid. 8; Isid. Orig. 16.10.11.

212

10 Apuleius the Necromancer

magical stone used to polish gold, heal stomachs, bladders, or fatigue in general and the insane, according to a treatise attributed to Zoroaster. The lapis exebenus was also an aphrodisiac and, if worn as a phylactery, it was believed to protect women during their pregnancy.¹⁴¹ Therefore, the possession of an ebony statuette of Mercury was inevitably bound to raise some suspicions, since this wood was employed in goetic rites and explicitly associated with Mercury in sources dealing with magic. In the light of this discussion, the argument of the accusers seems far from being inconspicuous, while Apuleius’ self-admitted worship of a simulacrum made of ebony¹⁴² would have appeared, instead, quite risky without the support of the above-mentioned depositions.

10.6 Skeletons and Daemons in Magic Apuleius continues his defence by challenging his enemies’ claim that the ebony statuette was shaped as a sceletus ¹⁴³ and that ‘it was fabricated in the scrawny or even entirely fleshless form of a frightful corpse’ (macilentam vel omnino evisceratam formam diri cadaveris fabricatam).¹⁴⁴ He also reports that they depicted it as horribiles et larvalem,¹⁴⁵ and called it larva ¹⁴⁶ and daemonium. ¹⁴⁷ Before discussing the relationship between these terms and magic, I shall briefly focus on how Apuleius structures his counter-argument. First, he objects to the fact that his enemies did not ask him to produce the statuette in court in order to have more room for their falsehood.¹⁴⁸ With a coup de théâtre, he asks to produce in the courtroom of Sabratha the real ebony statuette given to him by Pontianus.

 Damig. Lapid. 8. Zoroaster’s passage in Pliny and Isidore (cf. n. 140 above) is abridged, whereas the Lapidarius provides a longer quotation; cf. Halleux and Schamp 1985: 244, n. 1.  Apol. 63.3.  Apol. 61.2; 63.5; 63.6; 63.9.  Apol. 63.1. This expression is similar to that used in Apul. Met. 1.6.1 (ad miseram maciem deformatus) to describe Socrates’ ghost-like aspect once cursed by the saga Meroe. For larvalis in Met. 1.6.3, see the discussion below.  Apol. 63.1.  Apol. 63.6; 63.9.  Apol. 63.6: hiccine est sceletus, haeccine est larva, hoccine est quod appellitabatis daemonium? (‘Is this a skeleton, is this a spectre, is this what you called a daemon?’).  Apol. 63.2. Apuleius employs the same juridical language (cur mihi ut exhiberem non denuntiastis?) that he employed when referring to his enemies’ insistence to take Thallus and the other slaves to give a deposition (e. g. 44.2: conservi eius plerique adsunt, quos exhiberi denuntiastis).

10.6 Skeletons and Daemons in Magic

213

Then, having done so, he addresses Claudius Maximus and praises the beauty of the statuette showcasing his skills in ekphrasis.¹⁴⁹ As discussed above (10.1), the prosecution likely distorted the description of the ebony statuette giving it a more frightful appearance. But why would they choose the symbolism of the skeleton? To answer this question, we need to explore the imagery of skeletal figures and their connection with magic. Although no literary or archaeological evidence proves the existence of a skeletal statuette of Mercury in goetic rituals, the imagery of the sceletus ¹⁵⁰ was bound to raise concerns: Katherine Dunbabin argues that such statuettes symbolising the dead were already typical in pre-Ptolemaic Egypt.¹⁵¹ From the Hellenistic period onwards, skeletal statues, often with articulated joints like the larva argentea depicted in Petronius’ Satyrica,¹⁵² were employed in symposia to recall the brevity of life to the banqueters.¹⁵³ In our case, however, Apuleius is being accused of w o r s h i p p i n g (c o l e r e )¹⁵⁴ a ghastly effigy, and this would have easily led to the suspicion of necromancy since the goetic employment of skeletal figures is clearly observable from the Greek Magical Papyri. ¹⁵⁵ In PGM III.66‒70, where we are given instructions for the preparation of a lamella to be put through the earholes of a dead cat, two σκελετοί – one on the right, the other on the left – need to be drawn as they are represented in the papyrus.¹⁵⁶ Likewise, at the end of PGM IX.1‒14, a skeletal figure is drawn;¹⁵⁷ in both cases, the skeletons appear subdued by the mighty daemon addressed in the spell.¹⁵⁸ At IV.2128‒9, a ring to restrain speaking skulls must be engraved with different figures amongst which there is a skeleton. Furthermore, parts of human skeletons were used in

 Apol. 63.6‒8. The description presents similarities to that in Apul. Met. 10.30.3‒5; cf. Hunink 1997, vol. II: 167, n. 2, and Zimmerman 2000: 370‒1, who suggests a comparison with LIMC, vol. V.2, s.v. Hermes, fig. 946 and 953. Martos 2015: 104, n. 321 says that Thanatos could also be represented as a winged man (see LIMC, vol. VII.1, s.v. Thanatos, 904‒8; Suppl. 2009: 473).  This transliteration of the Greek σκελετός was perhaps adopted by the prosecutors to enhance the suspicion of Apuleius’ guilt with a foreign-sounding word.  Dunbabin 1986: 208‒12, to whom Pellecchi 2012: 198 refers.  Petr. 34.8‒10, on which cf. Schmeling 2011: 124‒5.  Dunbabin 1986: 196‒208; 215‒37, with a rich discussion of archaeological finds.  Apol. 61.2.  Cf. Abt 1908: 223‒4; Faraone 2005: 255‒82 on PGM IV.1928‒2144, and especially Dunbabin 1986: 248‒51, who also acknowledges gems engraved with skeletons, which might have been used as phylacteries (pp. 249‒50). Abt 1915: 156 hypothesises that the sigillum might have even been an engraved skeleton used as an amulet.  Cf. Betz 19922: 20 and Preisendanz 1928=19732, vol. I, table II.  Cf. Betz 19922: 149 and Preisendanz 1931=19742, vol. II, table I.  Cf. also Dunbabin 1986: 249.

214

10 Apuleius the Necromancer

goetic practices: in PGM IV.1872‒927, a piece of a skull is required¹⁵⁹ to perform a love-spell adjuring Cerberus by the dead (νεκροί) and those who have died violently (βιαίως τεθνηκότες),¹⁶⁰ while at IV.1928‒2139 we find human skulls (σκηνοῖ or σκύφοι) used for necromancy.¹⁶¹ By drawing on these macabre practices and imagery, the prosecution could have easily misrepresented Apuleius’ statue as an effigy for necromancy. In addition to this eerie description of the statuette, to define it as an atrocious larva and daemonium would have been even more appalling for the audience, given the tightly-knit connections between these chthonic beings and goetic magic. From a terminological viewpoint, it should be observed that the accusers’ choice of larva and daemonium – as well as that of σκελετός-sceletus – is apt indeed, since larva and daemonium were semantically associated with one another to indicate a noxious class of ghosts.¹⁶² As to daemonium, this is a Latinised rendering of the Greek τὸ δαιμόνιον which Apuleius employs earlier to indicate Socrates’ daemon.¹⁶³ However, at Apol. 63.6 the term has a derogatory connotation, since it is used as a synonym for larva to indicate a baneful spirit.¹⁶⁴ An ambiguous connotation of τὸ δαιμόνιον can probably be observed already in Plato’s Symposium, where this term is put in connection with γοητεία. ¹⁶⁵ The Latinised term is mostly employed by Christian authors who consider all the traditional deities as evil daemonia,¹⁶⁶ but it is in non-Christian sources that we find daemonium connected with magic: apart for this passage of the Apologia,

 PGM IV.1885‒6.  IV.1913‒4.  PGM IV.1929; IV.1951; IV.1970; IV.1996; IV.2008; IV.2126; IV.2129; IV.2141. For further comments, see Faraone 2005: 278‒81.  Larva is a synonym of δαιμόνιον; cf. CGL vol. II: 121, and in the Glossae Graeco-Latinae under the entry σκελετός we find: larva, sceletus (CGL vol. II: 432).  Apol. 27.3 discussed in Ch. 4.6. Maselli 2011: 181‒6 hypothesises that Apuleius borrowed Christian expressions to describe the daemons but, in fact, the opposite is more likely to be true, since Christian intellectuals engaged with and reinterpreted pre-existing traditions.  The entry daemonium in the ThLL, vol. V.1, s.v. daemonium, col. 6, in which the occurrence at Apol. 63.6 is considered a reference to Socrates’ daemon as it is in 27.3, is incorrect.  Cf. Pl. Symp. 202e–203a (Ch. 7.3). For δαιμόνιον in magical contexts, see PGM I.115 (a daemonic assistant who can stop evil daemons); IV.86 (the instructions for a phylactery against the daemons); V.121 (a spell to repel noxious daemons); V.164‒70 (a spell to control all daemons); XII.281‒2 (a ring repelling a daemon from those who are possessed). See also my discussion of Apol. 43.2 in Ch. 7.3.  E. g. Tert. Idol. 20.4 and August. C.D. 9.19. In the same passage, Augustine also explains that to congratulate someone by saying daemonem habes is, indeed, wrong since that person ‘could have no doubt that this expression should be taken only as a deliberate curse’ (non se aliter accipi quam maledicere voluisse dubitare non possit). Translation adapted from Wiesen 1968: 229.

10.6 Skeletons and Daemons in Magic

215

in the Lapidarium attributed to Damigeron-Evax it is said that the coral stone, if kept at home, protects ‘from every curse and from the shades of the daemons’ (ab omni maleficio et umbris daemoniorum).¹⁶⁷ On the contrary, the stone epignathion provokes the apparition of terribilia daemonia even in daytime.¹⁶⁸ More significant evidence comes from a defixio from Carthage’s arena dating to the second century AD, thus geographically and chronologically close to Apuleius’ trial: here the reges demoniorum ¹⁶⁹ and Mercurius infernus himself ¹⁷⁰ are conjured up against seven venatores. Larva was, however, by far the most common term used to indicate malevolent ghosts:¹⁷¹ in the De Deo Socratis Apuleius underlines the negative character of the larvae, which are the souls of evil men (mali homines).¹⁷² In the Metamorphoses the noxiousness of the larvae is mentioned at 6.30.1 as a warning against travelling by night, when spectres hover in the air;¹⁷³ but the most interesting evidence is perhaps in Met. 9.29.3: here a saga is hired by a depraved wife wishing to be reconciled with her husband or, if that was not possible, to murder him with a spectre (mitigato conciliari marito vel, si id nequiverit, certe larva vel aliquo diro numine immisso violenter eius expugnari spiritum). Such is the function that the larvae fulfil in some defixionum tabellae ¹⁷⁴ and this makes it possible to connect this word with the frightful Greek term νεκυδαίμων,¹⁷⁵ with which the dead are generally described in the PGM ¹⁷⁶ as well as in various curse-tablets from Carthage.¹⁷⁷ The prosecutors seem also to have used the adjective larvalis ¹⁷⁸ to generate further dismay in court. Like his contemporaries, Apuleius was aware of the negative connotation of larvalis which he employs in the Metamorphoses: at Met. 11.2.2 larvalis is used to enhance Isis’ merits, who represses the noxious ghosts from the netherworld (seu nocturnis ululatibus horrenda Proserpina, trifor-

 Damig. Lapid. 7.9.  Damig. Lapid. 66.1.  Audollent 1904: 251, col. 2, ll. 10‒11. On the epithet ‘king’, cf. Ch. 10.8.  Audollent 1904: 251, col. 2, ll. 16‒17. On Mercury, cf. Ch. 10.3.  See also the extensive discussion in Hijmans et al. 1995: 253‒4.  Apul. Soc. 15, on which see Beaujeu 1973: 235‒6  In the parallel passage in [Luc.] Asin. 24, the term larvae is rendered with τὰ δαιμόνια. This can be seen as further evidence of the semantic connection between the two terms to indicate an evil spectre.  CIL 13.7555.2; cf. Ch. 10.7.  For this interpretation cf. Hijmans et al. 1995: 253.  PGM IV.361‒406; IV.2031‒2; IV.2061; V.334; VII.1006‒9; XII.493; XVI.1‒75; XIXa.15; LI.1‒27.  Audollent 1904: 234.1; 235.1; 237.1 (= CIL 8.12508); 239.1; 240.1 (= CIL 8.12510); 242.1; 249a, col. 1, l. 1‒2 although the first part of the word is missing.  Apol. 63.1.

216

10 Apuleius the Necromancer

mi facie larvales impetus comprimens). In Aristomenes’ tale, the connection between larvalis and magic becomes evident: Socrates is described as larvalis since he has been transformed into a living ghost by the sagae Meroe and Panthia.¹⁷⁹ Therefore, the prosecutors, adopting terms such as sceletus, daemonium, larva and larvalis to besmirch Apuleius’ statuette, would have elicited fear and suspicions against Apuleius amongst the people in the courtroom of Sabratha. The accusation against him was indeed serious, and this accounts for his bitter counterattack: after stressing his foes’ dishonesty,¹⁸⁰ he batters them using the same terminology with which they condemned his presumed necromantic skills. He says, in fact, that whoever considers his handsome and sacred simulacrum of Mercury as a larva must be possessed by an evil ghost (larvans).¹⁸¹ This use of larvans is similar to that in Met. 9.31.1, where we find the past participle larvatus indicating possession by a ghost in a context permeated with a goetic undertone.¹⁸² This has induced some scholars to hypothesise that the correct reading at Apol. 63.9 should be larvatus, not the transmitted larvans. ¹⁸³ The choice of larvatus in the Metamorphoses may be due to stylistic reasons: larvatus was a Plautine coinage,¹⁸⁴ and this would comply with the many borrowings from Plautus’

 Apul. Met. 1.6.3; cf. Keulen 2007: 169; May 2013: 123‒4.  Apol. 63.1‒8.  Apol. 63.9: hunc denique qui larvam putat ipse est larvas. This is the reading transmitted in F fol. 118r, col. 1, l. 13, which is printed by Helm 1905=19553: 72; Vallette 1924: 77; Hunink 1997, vol. I: 80; vol. II: 168‒7; Martos 2015: 108. Hunink 1997, vol. II: 168‒9 prefers the active interpretation of the participle larvans in the commentary, but in his translation (in Harrison et al. 2001: 86) adopts the passive interpretation “whoever thinks this is a ghost is clearly haunted himself”, while Graverini 2012: 189 translates the clause as “who sees in this image a ghost, is himself ghastly”. The active and passive values of the present participle are rather fluctuating in Latin (cf. Ernout and Thomas 20022: 274). An Apuleian parallel for the use of the present participle with a passive meaning is Met. 3.17.4: infelicium avium durantibus damnis, on which cf. also Costantini 2017: 333‒4 and n. 27. I suggest, therefore, to preserve the transmitted reading larvans and translate it with a passive connotation, as in Vallette 1924: 77 (“c’est être soi le jouet des spectres infernaux”) and Martos 2015: 108 (“está poseído por un fantasma”).  See the allusions to maleficium in Apul. Met. 9.29.2; 9.31.1.  Butler and Owen 1914: 128 propose larvatus, stressing the importance of the passive meaning (‘being haunted by ghosts’) and comparing this passage with Apul. Met. 9.31.1. This emendation is defended by McCreight 1991: 453‒6. Frassinetti 1991: 1206 proposes the emendation larvalis which, however, in the light of my remarks seems equally unnecessary.  Cf. Pl. Men. 890; Am. frg. 1; frg. 6. Cf. Hijmans et al. 1995: 267; Nicolini 2011: 42. The Plautine paternity of larvatus is also acknowledged in Festus (Paul. Fest. s.v. larvati, 119 M); Servius (Serv. Aen. 6.229); Nonius (Non. s.v. cerriti et larvati, ed. Lindsay 1903, vol. I: 64, ll. 20‒5), in which we read Pl. Am. frg. 6.

10.7 Apuleius Conjuring the Dead

217

style in the novel.¹⁸⁵ Here, however, I suggest that there is no need to replace larvans with larvatus, and that larvans should be interpreted passively (‘possessed by a ghost’): as in the case of the provocative threats at Apol. 26.6‒9 (4.3), 38.7‒8 (6.4), and 90.6 (11.5), the victims of the threat suffer passively from it. Apuleius’ goal is, in fact, to surprise both the attackers and the audience: on the one hand, the cultured people and the sympathetic judge would have winked at Apuleius’ bold witticism. On the other hand, this would have enabled him to provoke his enemies and trigger their uproar, which the judge might have viewed contemptuously and considered as a sign of their rusticity, given their groundless arguments.¹⁸⁶ While Apuleius’ audience could have given larvans either a passive or an active sense, he would most likely have employed the passive connotation of the participle in order to maximise the impact of the following pseudo-curse at Apol. 64.1‒2, where infernal ghosts seem to be conjured and sent against Aemilianus.

10.7 Apuleius Conjuring the Dead From the previous part of the discussion it has become evident that the sixth Primary Charge likely dealt with Apuleius’ ability to summon and coerce the dead, rather than with the simple possession of a skeletal statuette. Bearing this reconstruction in mind, it becomes possible to understand fully the reason why at Apol. 64.1‒2 Apuleius – almost fulfilling the goetic role ascribed to him – pronounces a mock-curse, asking Mercury to send all the ghosts of the underworld against Aemilianus. Previous studies do not recognise the meaning or the rhetorical function of this passage. Hunink argues that Apuleius utters a serious curse to frighten his foes;¹⁸⁷ but this interpretation implies that Apuleius had openly displayed his magical expertise, and – by doing so – he would have made a dangerous forensic blunder.¹⁸⁸ This has induced Harrison to consider the passage as a later addition made while Apuleius was rewriting the speech after his acquittal.¹⁸⁹ However, to exclude this passage from the delivered speech does not help us understand why Apuleius would have later added the curse, nor it explains what the function of this seemingly anomalous part of the defence

 On this cf. Callebat 1968: 473‒545 and p. 474 in particular; May 2006: 39; Pasetti 2007: 7‒10.  Apol. 90.6‒91.2 discussed in Ch. 11.5.  Hunink 1997, vol. II: 169.  The utterance of a curse is an offence prosecutable under the Lex Cornelia de sicariis et veneficis (Paulus Sent. 5.29.15).  Harrison 2000: 75, n. 93.

218

10 Apuleius the Necromancer

would have been. McCreight and independently Gaide propose an amusing interpretation of this curse, saying that the long list of infernal daemons would have appeared ludicrous.¹⁹⁰ This hypothesis is inexact, since – as I discuss below – amongst the fundamental features of magical curses, we do indeed find long and elaborate lists of supernatural agents invoked. More recently, rhetorical explanations of the passage have been attempted. Hertz,¹⁹¹ followed by Martos,¹⁹² argues that Apuleius curses Aemilianus playing with the goetic powers ascribed to him and, in doing so, Apuleius would have adopted the so-called argument of reverse probability attributed to Corax. Sans criticises Hertz’s explanation, since Apuleius’ strategy would still be risky and unprofitable,¹⁹³ and interprets the ‘curse’ as an attempt by Apuleius to employ Aristotle’s modes of persuasion.¹⁹⁴ Nevertheless, Sans’ hypothesis does not clarify the reason why Apuleius showcased his magical knowledge either. I propose that the apparent curse at Apol. 64.1‒2 complies with the other provocative arguments by Apuleius at Apol. 26.6‒9, 38.7‒8, and 90.6. In this case, we find a pseudo-curse that closely resembles those uttered by goetic practitioners. Yet, in order to temper the harmful aspect of this curse, he does not insert any voces magicae through which the magi compelled the supernatural agents to fulfil their bidding. Apuleius adds, instead, three neologisms to indicate daemonic beings which – as we shall see – were meant to entertain the cultivated audience. Given the relevance of this passage, I quote it in full below: At tibi, Aemiliane, pro isto mendacio duit deus iste [sc. Mercurius] superum et inferum commeator utrorumque deorum malam gratiam semperque obvias species mortuorum quidquid umbrarum est usquam, quidquid lemurum, quidquid manium, quidquid larvarum oculis tuis oggerat, omnia noctium occursacula, omnia bustorum formidamina, omnia sepulchrorum terriculamenta, a quibus tamen aevo et merito haud longe abes. ¹⁹⁵

The passage is examined by Abt, who dwells on the similarities between Apuleius’ invocation and those to various chthonic deities, amongst whom is

 McCreight 1991: 255‒6; Gaide 1993: 230.  Hertz 2010: 105‒18.  Martos 2015: 108, n. 335.  Sans 2014: 5.  Sans 2014: 5‒9.  Apol. 64.1‒2: ‘but upon you, Aemilianus, because of this lie of yours, may this god who is the messenger between upper world and netherworld cast the wrath of the gods, and may he continually bring appearances of the dead before your eyes, and whatever shades, evil ghost, spirits and spooks there are; and all the sudden coming of spectres, frightening apparitions and terrifying spirits of the dead, from which you, through age and merit, are not that far away’.

10.7 Apuleius Conjuring the Dead

219

Hermes, in PGM IV.1390‒495.¹⁹⁶ He also compares the curse with the devotiones, and with the words uttered by the boy in Horace’s Epode 5.89‒102.¹⁹⁷ Yet, a more systematic examination is required to clarify the extent to which Apuleius’ curse conforms to the format of the real goetic curses. From a close inspection of various African defixiones ¹⁹⁸ and spells from the PGM which were meant either to harm or bend the victims’ will to that of the practitioner,¹⁹⁹ it is possible to detect four principal parts in a curse:²⁰⁰ 1. the invocation to the supernatural agents, addressed with epithets; 2. the name of the victims, often accompanied by a reference to their kin;²⁰¹ 3. the type of service that the supernatural agents are required to carry out; 4. the voces magicae through which the supernatural agents are compelled.²⁰² As in the real curses, Apuleius indicates the victim’s name, which he puts at the very beginning, and then calls on the supernatural agent, addressing Mercury²⁰³ as the intermediary between the celestial deities (superum commeator)²⁰⁴ and as a chthonic god (et inferum), to assist Apuleius against his foe. In some cases, the supernatural agents invoked in real goetic curses do not carry out the goetic act directly but are asked to compel a lesser class of daemons to accomplish it,²⁰⁵ and this is precisely what happens in this passage of the Apologia, since Mercury is asked to unleash upon Aemilianus every harmful ghost. Apuleius, then, men-

 Abt 1908: 229‒30.  Abt 1908: 231.  Cf. Audollent 1904: 220; 228; 230; 233‒5; 237‒42; 247‒52; 266; 268; 270‒1; 286b; 290b; 291b; 292b; 293‒5.  E. g. PGM IV.296‒466; IV.1390‒495; IV.1496‒595; IV.1716‒870; IV.2441‒497; IV.2708‒84; IV.2891‒942; IV.2943‒66; VII.300a‒10; VII.394‒404; VII.405‒6; VII.459‒66; VII.593‒619; VII.652‒ 60; VII.925‒68; XII.365‒75; XII.376‒96; XII.397‒400; XVIIa.1‒25; XXXVI.1‒101; XXXVI.134‒60; XL.1‒18; LI.1‒27; LVIII.1‒14; LXI.39‒72.  I have used as a reference for my partition that by Graf 1991, from which mine differs since, while Graf focuses on prayers, I focus on curses.  Unlike the curse-tablets, we do not find these in the PGM, since they were meant to provide the practitioners with instructions applicable to different cases.  On this, cf. the discussion in Ch. 6.4.  For the epithets of Hermes-Mercury, cf. Ch. 10.3.  The expression iste superum et inferum commeator occurs also in Apul. Met. 11.11.1 (ille superum commeator et inferum) to describe Anubis; cf. Hunink 1997, vol. II: 169, Tilg 2014: 103; and Keulen et al. 2015: 238. On this expression, see Dowden 1994: 427, who draws on this parallel to suggest that Apuleius employed it first in the Metamorphoses. Graverini 2012: 188 argues, instead, for a possible reference to Hor. Carm. 1.10.19‒20, where Mercury is called superis deorum / gratus et imis.  E. g. PGM IV.335‒406; IV.3007‒86. See also III.66‒70 and IX.1‒14 discussed in Ch. 10.6.

220

10 Apuleius the Necromancer

tions evil spirits such as the aforementioned larvae (10.6), the umbrae, the manes, and the much-feared lemures. ²⁰⁶ Likewise, in the Greek Magical Papyri chthonic beings are often designated with more than one name in order to comprise and coerce them all with the spell: in PGM V.164‒70, for example, all the daemonic beings (πάντα τὰ δαιμόνια) are invoked with a series of attributes, namely οὐράνιος καὶ αἰθέριος καὶ ἐπίγειος καὶ ὑπόγειος καὶ χερσαῖος καὶ ἔνυδρος (‘heavenly or aerial or earthly or subterranean or terrestrial or aquatic’),²⁰⁷ to ensure that they all would submit to the practitioner. At IV.342‒5 the infernal deity invoked is asked to control every ghost, ἀώροις τε καὶ ἀώραις, ²⁰⁸ μέλλαξί τε καὶ παρθένοις (‘men and women who died untimely, youths and maidens’).²⁰⁹ And similarly at IV.1420‒1 the ἀώροι ²¹⁰ are also called ἥρωες ἀτυχεῖς (‘unlucky heroes’) and ἡρωίδες τε δυστυχεῖς (‘unlucky heroines’).²¹¹ Thus far I have highlighted three analogies between Apuleius’ curse and the real goetic curses: they all address supernatural agents with epithets, indicate the victim’s name, and the type of performance required. However, what is missing in the Apologia is the presence of the voces magicae that compel the agents to obey the practitioners, a feature with which Apuleius is surely familiar.²¹² The employment of the archaic optative duit ²¹³ gives the mock-curse a solemn and sophisticated tone befitting the following part in Apol. 64.2. Apuleius does not utter a real curse since, by doing so, he would have proved himself the goetic magus he was alleged to be. He omits, in fact, the magica nomina and inserts instead: omnia noctium occursacula, ²¹⁴ omnia bustorum formidamina,

 These terms are found in association with goetic magic in literary sources: for umbrae, cf. e. g. Prop. 4.1b.106; Luc. 6.767; [Quint.] Decl. 10.2; for manes, cf. Hor. Epod. 5.94; Tib. 1.2.45‒8; Sen. Med. 10; Apul. Met. 1.8.4; 3.15.7; for lemures, cf. Hor. Ep. 2.2.209. See also Apul. Soc. 15 in which larvae, manes, and lemures are put in a demonological hierarchy; this passage, however, does not concern magic but Apuleius’ Platonic views.  Translation by Aune in Betz 19922: 103.  This class of daemons and its connection with magic was well known in the Greco-Roman world, cf. Tert. Anim. 57.1 and the comments in Waszink 1947: 574‒5. Cf. also Johnston 1999: 111‒ 23 and Ogden 2001: 219‒30.  Translation adapted from O’Neil in Betz 19922: 44.  PGM IV.1401.  Translation by O’Neil in Betz 19922: 65.  Apol. 38.7‒8, examined in Ch. 6.4.  Apol. 64.1, see the remarks by Butler and Owen 1914: 128; Hunink 1997, vol. II: 169; and particularly Martos 2015: 108, n. 333.  Butler and Owen 1914: 128, followed by Mattiacci 1986: 167, n. 31 and Hunink 1997, vol. II: 170, report that Oudendorp compared the expression with Hor. Epod. 5.92 (nocturnus occuram furor, on which cf. Watson 2003: 246); however, I could not find this information in Oudendorp 1823: 535 or Hildebrand 1842, vol. II: 572.

10.7 Apuleius Conjuring the Dead

221

omnia sepulcrorum terriculamenta. ²¹⁵ Each of these expressions, which indicate the ghosts who will haunt Aemilianus, include elegant neologisms such as occursaculum, formidaminum, and terriculamentum,²¹⁶ complying with the archaising fashion of the time.²¹⁷ These neologisms would have reminded the learned audience – especially Claudius Maximus – that an urbane rhetorician such as Apuleius would never have been involved in loathsome, criminal practices. Therefore, the idea that Apuleius performed necromantic magic should be attributed to his ignorant accusers, unable to distinguish his oratorical finesse from a real curse, in the same way in which they could not understand the true nature of other provocative arguments, such as the subtle threat at Apol. 26.6‒9, which is a showcase of Apuleius’ syllogistic superiority (4.3); the mock-voces magicae at Apol. 38.7‒8, which is nothing but a list of animals (6.4); and the six names of magi at Apol. 90.6, a display of erudition, not of goetic knowledge (11.5). These arguments rest on a Platonising reasoning dividing the righteous philosopher Apuleius from his base attackers, and represent a fundamental part of the defence, since they serve to pillory the ignorant accusers and to influence the court and the judge against them. Furthermore, Harrison notes that, in the case of Apol. 64.1‒2, Apuleius could also rely on an illustrious literary model, namely Cicero’s In Verrem: ²¹⁸ at the very end of the Fifth Verrine,²¹⁹ Cicero beseeches these deities whose Sicilian temples had been pillaged by Verres, wishing for his punishment so that justice could be done.²²⁰ To a learned addressee like Claudius Maximus, the Ciceronian model would have been easy to understand and, together with Apuleius’ elegant neologisms, this would have lessened any suspicion that Apuleius had cast a real magical curse on Aemilianus.  As indicated above, I translate these neologisms as: ‘the sudden coming of spectres’, ‘frightening apparitions’, and ‘terrifying spirits of the dead’.  On the elegant tone of Apuleius’ neologisms ending in -men and -mentum in the Florida, cf. Ferrari 1968: 112‒7; in the Metamorphoses, cf. Gargantini 1963: 33‒43. On the neologisms in -aculum in Apuleius’ prose cf. again Ferrari 1968: 122‒6. For remarks on these three words cf. Butler and Owen 1914: 128‒9, and McCreight 1991: 254‒7; 277‒8; 304‒5. Hunink 1997, vol. II: 170, and Martos 2015: 108, n. 335 follow Facchini Tosi 1986: 127, who suggests the presence of a rhythm resembling that of real curses.  Cf. Harrison 2000: 87‒8; May 2006: 27‒43. In Apul. Met. 4.7.2, we find the expression busti cadaver as a gloomy insult which the brigands employ to threaten the old lady and make her cook their dinner. I would like to thank Regine May for indicating this passage to me.  Harrison 2000: 74.  Cic. Ver. 5.184‒9. Sans 2014: 9 proposes a further parallel with the invocation in Cic. Mil. 85‒ 6, although this cannot be seen as a curse.  Cic. Ver. 5.189. The name of the victims appears in both the Apologia and the Verrines, alongside elaborate invocations to the supernatural agents and the reason for the invocation. Cicero, however, does not wish for his opponent’s agony, as Apuleius seemingly does.

222

10 Apuleius the Necromancer

To sum up, by examining the structure of goetic curses in curse-tablets and the Greek Magical Papyri it is possible to show that the ‘curse’ at Apol. 64.1‒2 differs from real goetic curses, and that it complies with the same provocative tactic adopted by Apuleius throughout the defence. The absence of voces magicae allows us to comprehend the fundamental difference between real curses and Apol. 64.1‒2: the voces magicae are replaced here by three archaising neologisms, which were meant to delight the learned audience and undermine the dangerous magical tone of this passage. As I shall now discuss, in order to rise above any suspicion and to buttress his self-presentation as a Platonic philosopher, Apuleius provides his audience with another Platonising argument.

10.8 Mystery Silence and the Epithet βασιλεύς Having ‘cursed’ Aemilianus for the insult to his holy simulacrum, Apuleius counterbalances the dangerous tone of the previous part of the speech with an uplifting Platonic tone: he declares his belonging to the Platonica familia ²²¹ and seeks the complicity of the judge and philosopher Maximus by quoting a passage from Plato’s Phaedrus. ²²² This sets out his own righteousness,²²³ allowing him to rebut the last magical feature which he mentioned in the summary of the allegation, namely the epithet βασιλεύς. Apuleius explains the meaning of this epithet vaguely by citing one of the letters attributed to Plato, in which the Supreme Being is mentioned as ‘the king of all things’ (περὶ τὸν πάντων βασιλέα).²²⁴ He remains, however, reticent about the actual identity of the βασιλεύς he venerates: this mystery silence – analogous to that at Apol. 56.9‒10 –²²⁵ would have probably pleased the erudite audience and Maximus, who optime intellegit the identity of the Platonic king,²²⁶ while excluding his ignorant attackers from this loftier knowledge. Aemilianus, therefore, does not only suffer from the fear of

 Apol. 64.3. Cf. Hunink 1997, vol. II: 170. For a discussion of the whole passage, see also Hijmans 1987: 422‒4; 436‒9 and Martos 2015: 109, n. 336.  Pl. Phdr. 247b–d.  Apol. 64.4.  Pl. Ep. 2.312e in Apol. 64.6. Regen 1971: 92‒103 and Münstermann 1995: 196‒202 connect this passage with Apuleius’ interests in Hermeticism. In the Corpus Hermeticum the Supreme Being is often called βασιλεύς, cf. Corp. Herm. XVIII. 9; 11; frg. 23.9; 23.59; 24.2. I would also like to thank Malcolm Heath for making me aware that the Platonic philosopher Origen wrote a lost treatise entitled The only creator is the king (Ὅτι μόνος ποιητὴς ὁ βασιλεύς), showing how later Platonists could conventionally address the Platonic Supreme Being as βασιλεύς (cf. Porph. Plot. 3).  Ch. 8.6.  Apol. 64.5.

10.8 Mystery Silence and the Epithet βασιλεύς

223

having just been ‘cursed’, but is also insulted by Apuleius’ formal refusal of divulging the identity of the βασιλεύς. Within the safe context of this passage Apuleius can even joke, saying that he is seemingly incriminating himself (en ultro augeo magiae suspicionem).²²⁷ This overconfident tone notwithstanding, Apuleius avoids explaining whether he actually called the statuette βασιλεύς, an epithet customarily employed in the PGM to address various deities. Abt²²⁸ suggests this by referring to three passages in which the term is, however, only applied to the god Helios.²²⁹ A broader enquiry shows that his supposition was correct: not only Helios is hailed as βασιλεύς in the PGM,²³⁰ but also Hades,²³¹ Semea²³² and other divinities.²³³ The most significant evidence is perhaps a curse-tablet dating to the second or third century AD from a cemetery in Carthage: in this defixio in Greek we find a clear reference to a χθόνιος βασιλεύς, perhaps Hades.²³⁴ This source confirms the use of this epithet in goetic materials that are geographically and chronologically close to Apuleius’ time. Although no evidence shows that Mercury was distinctively addressed as βασιλεύς,²³⁵ this reference to βασιλεύς could have been added by the prosecution to give a more ominous undertone to their description of Apuleius’ worshipping of the statuette, clearly for goetic purposes. And if he, as his accusers maintain,²³⁶ really addressed the statuette with this epithet – a point which is never openly denied – then we can understand how a sincere invocation could have been easily turned into something related to magic. After this Platonising defence, Apuleius quotes again from Plato,²³⁷ digressing on the fact that the philosopher commends the use of wood to sculpt statuettes.²³⁸ This is a blatant diversion from the issue at stake, and serves to display his  Apol. 64.8.  Abt 1908: 225, n. 3.  PGM I.163; II.53; IV.640  See also PGM III.102 (syncretistically associated with other deities); III.540; IV.640; XIII.605.  III.81 and Betz 19922: 20, n. 19.  III.206. On this Syrian deity, cf. Betz 19922: 24, n. 48.  V.139‒40. At XII.183 the identity of the king-god is not revealed.  Audollent 1904: 240.2 (= CIL 8.12510).  The only (but rather far-fetched) association between Mercury and βασιλεύς is in Ps. Apul. Herb. 83.4, where it is reported that the herba Mercurialis is also called Hermu basilion by the ‘wise men’ (prophetae). We may still note that in an above-mentioned curse-tablet from Carthage (Audollent 1904: 251, col. 2, ll. 10‒11, discussed in Ch. 10.7) Mercury features amongst the ‘kings’ (reges) of the daemons.  Apol. 61.2.  Pl. Lg. 955e in Apol. 65.5 and the following Pl. Lg. 955e‒956a, on which cf. Hunink 1997, vol. II: 173‒4.  Apol. 65.1‒7.

224

10 Apuleius the Necromancer

knowledge of Plato, while preparing for the pietistic conclusion of this section, in which he claims before Maximus and the magistrates that he has always adhered to the precepts of Plato, his vitae magister. ²³⁹

10.9 Conclusion The study of Apol. 61‒5 has enabled us, on the one hand, to clarify the real nature and the dangerous implications of the accusation concerning Apuleius’ supposed ability to summon the dead and, on the other hand, to ascertain his rhetorical techniques diverting attention away from the implications of the charge of being a necromancer, an unlawful activity condemned by the same law under which he was being tried. At this point, it is also possible to comment more broadly on the Primary Charges and the accusers’ arguments. What has emerged so far is that Apuleius’ opponents were actually not as ignorant as he claims:²⁴⁰ they seem to draw on magical tropes from literature, rhetoric, as well as real goetic practices to besmirch the evidence available to them, and portray Apuleius as a harmful magus. This can already be seen in the Preliminary Allegations, where he is depicted as an immoral seducer²⁴¹ likely inclined to use love-magic.²⁴² Then, to validate their claims, the attackers cleverly tailored six allegations, the Primary Charges, which included crimes condemned by the Lex Cornelia: we find, in fact, the idea of a seducer winning someone over with love-magic,²⁴³ the magus as an evil polluter able to make people fall ill,²⁴⁴ and even cause their death.²⁴⁵ The ability of the magus to control the dead was an obvious choice given the wide circulation of this belief that is found in the literary, papyrological and epigraphic evidence, as discussed in this chapter. This was, in sum, the perfect corollary to complete Apuleius’ portrayal as a wicked practitioner of goetic magic.

 Apol. 65.8. Similar references to Plato can be found towards the conclusion of the sections at Apol. 13.1‒3, and 41.7.  E. g. Apol. 33.6‒34.3; 66.6‒8.  The accusations concerning beauty (Apol. 4 discussed in Ch. 3.2), the possession of a mirror (Apol. 13.5‒16 in Ch. 3.5), and pederasty (Apol. 9‒13.4) aim to give the impression of a lecherous seducer.  Cf. the suspicious Arabian herbs (Apol. 6‒8 discussed in Ch. 3.4), beauty (Apol. 4 in Ch. 3.2), eloquence (Apol. 5 in Ch. 3.3).  Apol. 29‒42.2 (Ch. 5 and 6).  Apol. 42.3‒52 (Ch. 7); 57‒60 (Ch. 9).  Apol. 53‒57.1 (Ch. 8).

10.9 Conclusion

225

After these six Primary Charges, the prosecution presented another series of accusations: in the next chapter, I shall discuss how the Secondary Charges were strongly tied in with magic and intertwined with the content of the former allegations. These Secondary Charges serve, in fact, to firmly connect the main claim of the accusers – namely, that Apuleius was a magus – with his seduction of Pudentilla and the subsequent threat to her patrimony.

11 The Allegations Concerning the Seduction of and Wedding with Pudentilla 11.1 The Secondary Charges: An Overview and their Magical Implications The third set of accusations which Apuleius rebuts in the last part of his defence (Apol. 66‒103) concerns the seduction of Pudentilla with magic that led to their wedding and the consequent danger to her wealth, which Apuleius allegedly tried to take away from Pontianus and Pudens. From the introductory summary at Apol. 67.3‒4 in particular, where the Secondary Charges are seemingly reported in the order of their delivery,¹ the content of these allegations can be reconstructed as follows: 1. Apuleius must have enticed Pudentilla into marriage with love-magic since she previously refused to remarry; 2. the letter written by Pudentilla contains indisputable evidence of the magical seduction; 3. Apuleius broke the Lex Iulia de maritandis ordinibus and the Lex Papia Poppaea nuptialis ² by arousing the desire of a widow beyond marriable age, and marrying her; 4. the wedding took place secretly in the countryside, without the presence of Pudentilla’s relatives; 5. Apuleius’ aim was to get hold of and squander Pudentilla’s patrimony, and this is proved by the fact that he bought an expensive estate with the dowry.³ To disprove these five points Apuleius employs a series of arguments⁴ which appear quite strong: first, he explains that Pudentilla needed to marry for health

 This is suggested by the fact that Apuleius points out that he follows the chronological order of the prosecution’s speech at Apol. 67.2; see also Martos 2015: 114, n. 358.  These laws forbade marriage for women over fifty, since not intended for procreation but only for lust (ad libidinem); cf. Norden 1912: 61; 106‒7; Amarelli 1988: 124‒5, n. 50; Krause 1994: 120‒1; Hunink 1997, vol. II: 218, n.1; Harrison 2000: 81, n. 109; Pellecchi 2012: 183, n. 95; Martos 2015: 144, n. 436.  To weaken this argument, Apuleius does not mention it in the summary (Apol. 67.3‒4) and discusses it shortly before the peroratio at Apol. 101.4‒8. There are obvious connections with the Preliminary Allegation concerning the manumission of three slaves in Apol. 17.1‒6.  On this see also the survey by Hijmans 1994: 1766‒8; Hunink 1997, vol. II: 175‒6 and especially Harrison 2000: 75‒86, to which Martos 2015: 114, n. 358 refers. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110617528-013

11.1 The Secondary Charges: An Overview and their Magical Implications

227

reasons, as Aemilianus himself admitted in a letter,⁵ and that the promoter of the wedding was Pontianus.⁶ Second, Pontianus (turned against Apuleius by the treacherous Rufinus and his daughter, who married Pontianus)⁷ and the attackers misread a letter by Pudentilla and claimed that it revealed the goetic nature of the seduction; in its full extension, however, the letter supports Apuleius’ case.⁸ Third,⁹ the prosecution lied about Pudentilla’s age: the widow was forty, not sixty years old, as they said;¹⁰ thus, Apuleius infringed neither the Lex Iulia de maritandis ordinibus nor the Lex Poppaea nuptialis. Fourth, the reason why the wedding took place in the countryside was to save money after the considerable expenses for Pontianus’ marriage.¹¹ Lastly, Apuleius was not interested in the dowry and sought no financial gain from the wedding;¹² the estate mentioned by the prosecutors is, in reality, a small land (praedium) bought by Pudentilla herself.¹³ At first glance, it might seem that magic truly “recedes into the background” in this part of the defence, as Hunink proposes.¹⁴ However, the Apologia is a text that needs to be carefully pondered over, and the apparent absence of magic amongst the main issues of this part of the speech does not imply its absence from the accusations themselves. Although in the indictment concerning the age of Pudentilla it is difficult to detect a direct connection

 Apol. 69.4‒70.1.  Apol. 71‒2.  Apol. 74.3‒7. Rufinus had already been mentioned at Apol. 60.2, when Apuleius rebuts the accusation of having polluted Crassus’ household. He is described as the furnace of every calumny (Apol. 74.5: hic totius calumniae fornacula). For a discussion of his own and his family’s characterisation, see May 2006: 99‒106.  Apol. 78.5‒87.9.  Apuleius inverts the chronological order of the accusations: the countering of the charge concerning Pudentilla’s age (Apol. 89) follows, in fact, that concerning the wedding in the countryside (Apol. 87.10‒88); see also Hunink 1997, vol. II: 178. Other evidence for this type of manipulations – meant to dampen the charges – can be seen in the discussion of the charge concerning the estate, that is omitted from the introductory and final summing-up (Apol. 67.3‒4; 103.1‒3).  Apol. 89.  Apol. 87.10‒88, on which cf. Hemelrijk 2015: 139. Hunink 1997, vol. II: 215 argues that this point is quite feeble.  Apol. 91.5‒101. The last counter-argument is interspersed with various digressions, such as the reference to Avitus (94.3‒95), the reconciliation with Pontianus and his premature death in Carthage (96‒97.2), the marriage between Pudens and Rufinus’ daughter (97.4‒99).  Apol. 101.4‒8.  Hunink 1997, vol. II: 175.

228

11 The Allegations Concerning the Seduction of and Wedding with Pudentilla

with magic,¹⁵ in what follows I shall discuss the goetic features of the other Secondary Charges, namely the accusations of having seduced Pudentilla with lovemagic (11.2),¹⁶ and of having married her and obtained a substantial dowry in the seclusion of the countryside (11.3).¹⁷ In this chapter, I argue that these allegations were closely connected in content with the Primary Charges, showing that they were still deeply linked with magic, a point which has been underplayed by other scholars who regard this section as separate from the magical charges.¹⁸ Therefore, attention will be paid to evaluating the significance of the argument concerning the private correspondence of Pudentilla, Pudens and Apuleius, which the opponents used as incriminating evidence against the defendant: I propose that Apuleius intentionally omits any reference to other suspicious letters which betrayed his alleged attempts to enchant Pudentilla (11.4).¹⁹ In addition to a reconstruction of the risky implications of the Secondary Charges, I shall also assess the forensic purpose of the provocative arguments which Apuleius adopts to trifle with his foes at Apol. 90.6 and 97.4. The former is a list of six magi which probably caused vehement protests from the crowd;²⁰ by reconsidering Abt’s examination of Apol. 90.6,²¹ I will cast more light on the potentially dangerous implications of Apuleius’ display of magical knowledge. On the other hand, I shall also explain how this kind of name-dropping conforms to the daring strategy encountered at Apol. 26.6‒9, 38.7‒8, and 64.1‒2 (11.5).²² The second passage, Apol. 97.4, is a reference to Rufinus’ consultation with some Chaldeans; I will analyse the connections between astrologers and goetic practitioners,²³ showing how this passage alluded to the possibility that the prosecution – not Apuleius – caused Pontianus’ death (11.6).

 Apol. 89. Analogously, in the Preliminary Allegations (Ch. 3) the accusations concerning poverty (Apol. 18‒23), and Apuleius’ birthplace (Apol. 24) are not immediately connected with magic but add subsidiary features to his goetic portrayal.  Apol. 68‒71.  Apol. 87.10‒88 and 91.5‒101.  Cf. Hunink 1997, vol. II: 180; Martos 2015: 114, n. 358; p. 148, n. 449; and especially Abt 1908: 234‒42.  Apol. 78.5‒87.9.  Apol. 91.1.  Abt 1908: 244‒50.  This is a vexed passage from a textual viewpoint but my examination offers arguments to restore its probable original form.  This is not discussed by Abt 1908: 256‒7 and Hunink 1997, vol. II: 238, while Rives 2011b: 681‒ 5 attempts to do so more generally and without showing the precise terminological association between Chaldaeus, mathematicus, and magus.

11.2 Carmina and Venena: The Seduction of Pudentilla

229

11.2 Carmina and Venena: The Seduction of Pudentilla The first of the Secondary Charges concerns the seduction of Pudentilla by means of love-magic and is rebutted at Apol. 68‒71. From reading this part of the defence we can find scarce but significant information to reconstruct the magical arguments brought against Apuleius. He already made vague allusions to his carmina in the introductory summing-up,²⁴ and later he refers again to his supposed employment of love-spells.²⁵ In addition, he mentions that – according to his foes – he would have charmed Pudentilla with venena (‘love-philtres’).²⁶ Significantly, Apuleius alludes three times²⁷ to both spells and philtres together as the tools through which he purportedly won Pudentilla over.²⁸ The scattered nature of these references to goetic magic in the Apologia probably led Abt to conclude that the prosecutors made no precise statement as to how Apuleius seduced the widow; had they done so, Apuleius would have certainly discussed this detail in the speech.²⁹ Nevertheless, this explanation cannot be accepted for two reasons. First, reticence is a core feature of Apuleius’ strategy, and he was aware that dwelling on magical issues would have been at best counterproductive. Therefore, it was safer for him not to engage with magic directly, but to scatter such points throughout the speech in order to downplay their relevance. Second, and most important, the accusers would not have needed a detailed account of Apuleius’ use of carmina and venena, since they had already provided it in the first Primary Charges: the former deals precisely with the seduction of Pudentilla by means of philtres obtained from sea creatures,³⁰ while the latter concerns the harmfulness of Apuleius’ carmina, so strong as to make people fall ill.³¹ The opponents might, thus, have delivered this accusation by underscoring the continuity between the first Primary Charges and this Secondary Charge: having already attacked Apuleius for the nefarious power of his spells and for seeking and dissecting sea creatures for love-magic, they might simply have recapitulated these points and stated that he had enticed Pudentilla with his goetic spells and love-potions. Since Pudentilla was a distinguished woman in Oea and the

 Apol. 67.3.  Apol. 71.1; 84.1; 102.4.  Apol. 91.4; 102.1; 102.3.  Apol. 69.4; 84.3; 90.1.  Elsewhere he vaguely refers to magicis maleficis (Apol. 69.4) and magicis illectamentis (Apol. 102.7).  Abt 1908: 240.  Apol. 29‒42.2, discussed in Ch. 5 and 6.  Apol. 42.3‒52, cf. Ch. 7.

230

11 The Allegations Concerning the Seduction of and Wedding with Pudentilla

mother of Sicinius Pudens, on whose behalf Apuleius was being tried, the best choice for the accusers would have been to omit too many details about the magical seduction of the widow, and insist on the dangerous consequences it brought about. Their intention was to defame Apuleius, not Pudentilla herself, and the whole trial is focused on Apuleius’ dubious morality and, chiefly, on the claim that he was a goetic magus. The accusers attempted to present the seduction of Pudentilla as the only plausible effect of Apuleius’ own wickedness and lasciviousness.³² Although it is true that charms and poisons were not always considered dangerous in themselves,³³ this charge could have upset the audience and aroused unsympathetic feelings for Apuleius, since the belief that carmina and venena were used in love-magic³⁴ was widespread and much-feared in the GrecoRoman world.³⁵ Abt points this out, but since his explanation is primarily based on the PGM,³⁶ I will put his hypothesis on a firmer basis by providing a more exhaustive scrutiny of the evidence demonstrating the belief that carmina and venena were customarily employed in love-magic. While carmen and its synonyms can indicate goetic utterances,³⁷ the Latin venenum is tied in with the idea of seduction even from an etymological viewpoint; then, it was applied to poisonous substances,³⁸ and it was even considered a form of charm.³⁹ Apuleius and earlier sources retrospectively interpret the Homeric Perimede, Circe and

 See also the overview of the charges in Ch. 1.6.  E. g. in a completely different context, Plato’s Socrates (Chrm. 157b–c) talks about the healing powers of both φάρμακον and ἐπῳδάς. On the proximity between magic and medicine see Ch. 6.5.  For modern studies on Greco-Roman love-magic, cf. Tupet 1976: 56‒91, and 1986: 2626‒47; Fauth 1980; Murgatroyd 1983; Winkler 1991; Faraone 1999; Dickie 2000.  Love-philtres and charms were not the only goetic tools of love-magic: herbs were also burnt (e.g Theoc. 2.18‒33), as well as other elements (Theoc. 2.28‒91; 2.43‒6), including objects belonging to the victims (Theoc. 2.53‒6) in order to attract them to the practitioners; cf. the discussion in Faraone 1999: 96‒131.  Abt 1908: 234‒40. Some literary sources are briefly mentioned in Abt 1908: 240‒1.  For carmen in magic see my remarks in Ch. 4.3.  Cf. de Vaan 2008: 660, s.v. venenum. This etymological reconstruction is accepted in Walde and Hofmann 19543: 747, s.v. venenum, and in Ernout and Meillet 2001=19854: 719, s.v. venenum. This does not match the ancient etymology of the term, cf. Serv. Aen. 1.688: venenum dictum ab eo quod per venas eat (‘it is called venenum from what runs through the veins’); on which see Maltby 1991: 634, s.v. venenum.  Quint. Inst. 7.3.7, where it is said that this (an carmina magorum veneficium?) was a topic for declamations; cf. also Ch. 1.3.

11.2 Carmina and Venena: The Seduction of Pudentilla

231

Helen⁴⁰ as figures connected with magic, because of their use of φάρμακα. The most significant source for the diffusion of love-magic as a literary theme is probably Theocritus’ Second Idyll. ⁴¹ This poem likely inspired Vergil’s Eighth Eclogue – which is well known to Apuleius –⁴² where we find references to both carmina ⁴³ and magical paraphernalia, amongst which are herbs and venena, for love-magic.⁴⁴ A similar although more dramatic scene is Dido’s ritual for love-magic at Aeneid 4.509‒16,⁴⁵ cited verbatim by Apuleius;⁴⁶ this commonplace theme recurs in other literary descriptions by Horace,⁴⁷ Tibullus,⁴⁸ and Propertius,⁴⁹ who refer to the compelling strength of philtres and spells in lovemagic. Ovid, in particular, depicts the literary persona of Circe and her skills in using spells and herbs in love-magic,⁵⁰ then he also talks about this idea and its impact on everyday life, describing the noxious effects of such practices and dissuading his readers from resorting to them.⁵¹ In the first half of the second century AD, Juvenal draws on this belief when mentioning the dreadful effects of charms and potions.⁵² The popularity of love-magic as a literary theme is well-attested throughout the second century: we find it, in fact, in Plutarch’s Virtues in Women,⁵³ in Lucian’s Dialogues of the Courtesans,⁵⁴ and in Apuleius’ Metamorphoses. ⁵⁵ Alongside these sources, Pliny the Elder acknowledges that carmina were used in love-magic and indicates as literary authorities Theocritus, Vergil

 Apol. 31.5‒7 (Ch. 5.4, 5.5) and the general allusion to Homer as a source for literary magic in Apol. 30.11 examined in Ch. 5.3.  This reflects the common use of φάρμακα in classical Greece; for an overview of φάρμακα and prohibition of φίλτρα in classical Athens, cf. Eidinow 2015: 38‒48. Apuleius mentions Theocritus as a source of inspiration for magic at Apol. 30.11 (5.3).  Apol. 30.7 (Ch. 5.3).  Verg. Ecl. 8.67‒71 and 8.72 which is repeated at l. 76; 79; 84; 91; 94; 100; 104; 109.  Ecl. 8.64‒5; 8.95‒6 respectively.  Here we find a clear reference to venena (cf. Verg. A. 4.514‒5) but not directly to spells.  Apol. 30.8 = Verg. A. 4.513‒6.  Hor. Epod. 5.29‒40; 17.80; S. 1.8.19; 1.8.49‒50.  Tib. 1.2.61‒2; 1.8.17‒18; 1.8.23; 2.4.55‒60.  Prop. 1.12.9‒10; 1.18.9; 2.1.51‒6; 2.4.7‒8; 3.6.25‒30; 4.7.72. See also the discussion in La Penna 1977: 192‒5.  Ov. Met. 14.34 (carmine cum tantum, tantum quoque gramine possim); 14.43‒5; 14.55‒8.  Ov. Ars 2.99‒105; Rem. 290. A further reference to cantus and herbae is in Ep. 12.167‒8.  Juv. 6.133‒4; 6.610‒2.  Plu. Mor. 256e, where it is told that Aretaphila of Cyrene used (γοητείᾳ καὶ φαρμάκοις) on her daughter to win the tyrant’s brother over.  Luc. DMeretr. 1.2; 4.4‒5.  Apul. Met. 3.16.1‒4; 3.17.3‒18.3 and 9.29.

232

11 The Allegations Concerning the Seduction of and Wedding with Pudentilla

and Catullus, probably referring to a lost work of the latter.⁵⁶ Pliny also offers us a cross-section of the real practice of love-magic: he comments on several ingredients for amatoria, such as herbs and plants,⁵⁷ animals, fish,⁵⁸ sea creatures,⁵⁹ and even arrows extracted from corpses,⁶⁰ reporting that love-philtres could even cause death.⁶¹ The PGM, rather than the curse-tablets,⁶² contains additional evidence for the function of spells in goetic rituals. The importance of utterances (λόγοι and ἐπαοιδαί) is, in fact, stressed in most prescriptions for love-magic.⁶³ In such cases, the spells must be delivered after the offerings to the deities invoked in the ritual. As to love-potions, the only probable reference is in PGM LXI.1‒38; this φίλτρον, however, is not intended to be given as a beverage to the victim. Carmina and venena were, therefore, commonly thought to enable the practitioners of magic to seduce their victims, and that such a conviction is reflected in many sources. Although we can only wonder about the description of Apuleius’ alleged magical spell – provided that the prosecution actually gave an account of it – the ingredients of the venena that he allegedly used on Pudentilla had already been made clear: these were obtained from dissecting a sea-hare⁶⁴ and sea creatures with obscene names bought at great expense.⁶⁵ The danger of openly discussing these points justifies Apuleius’ caution when countering the Primary Charge concerning the enchantment of the widow with allurements from the sea,⁶⁶ but caution is required even more so now that he contests the very accusation of having magically seduced Pudentilla. Bearing these remarks in mind, it is possible to see how magic was an issue of critical importance within the Secondary Charges, and specifically the accusation of employing love Plin. Nat. 28.19. While Ernout 1962: 124 interprets the reference to Catullus as a lapse, Jones 1968: 14, n. b, and Wiseman 1985: 193 see this as a reference to a lost poem.  Nat. 20.32, here the authority referred to is Orpheus (on this figure and magic cf. Ch. 4.5); 25.160; 27.57; 27.125.  Nat. 9.79.  Nat. 13.142.  Nat. 28.34, the authority is, again, Orpheus.  Nat. 25.25. In Ach. Tat. 4.15 Leucippe survives an overdose of a φίλτρον which, although not lethal, drives her mad; cf. McLeod 1969: 97‒105; May 2014b: 108‒9.  The purpose of several defixiones from Carthage and Hadrumetum, dating to the second and third century AD, is love-magic (cf. Audollent 1904: 227‒31; 265‒71). It is, however, unclear whether the voces magicae inscribed on them were supposed to be uttered like those in the PGM (e. g. n. 63 below). See also Gager 1992: 78‒115.  PGM IV.296‒466; IV.2708‒84; IV.2891‒942; VII.981‒93.  Apol. 40.8‒11; 41.5.  Apol. 33.1‒5; 33.6‒35.6.  Ch. 5 and 6.

11.3 Magic in the Remoteness of the Countryside

233

magic to influence Pudentilla’s mind. Although Apuleius endeavours to weaken his opponents’ claims by scattering the references to his supposed use of carmina and venena throughout this last part of the Apologia, the proposed reconstruction of this accusation enables us to understand its relevance and connection with the Primary Charges. The following analysis offers more evidence to substantiate this interpretation.

11.3 Magic in the Remoteness of the Countryside The accusation of beguiling Pudentilla with love-magic suggests the existence of connections between the Secondary and the Primary Charges, allowing us to get a better understanding of the alleged nature of Apuleius’ goetic performances. A further connection between this allegation and the first Primary Charge still needs to be explored: I shall now consider how the commonplace idea that magic is practised secretly – a topic discussed when commenting on Apol. 47.3 –⁶⁷ is alluded to in the first Secondary Charge. I will also explain that this belief throws new light on the content and implications of two other Secondary Charges: the one concerning the fact that marriage took place in the countryside,⁶⁸ and the one concerning the dowry.⁶⁹ Let us first focus on the allusion to magical secrecy in the first Secondary Charge and the first Primary Charge (Apol. 29‒42.2). According to his enemies, Apuleius prepared love-philtres ‘with allurements from the sea’ (marinis illecebris), namely two molluscs with obscene names and a sea-hare, in the time when he was in an unspecified area of the North African inland.⁷⁰ Behind this brief reference, Apuleius probably conceals a major argument employed by his attackers: the fact that when he stayed in a remote area of the countryside he was accompanied by Pudentilla and that seclusion and secrecy would have offered Apuleius the ideal conditions to perform his goetic magic on the widow. In order to substantiate this hypothesis, it is necessary to look again at the expression in Gaetuliae mediterranis montibus (‘in the inland mountains of Gaetulia’). Scholars have inconclusively wondered about the reason for Apuleius’ visit to the Gaetulian mountains and about their precise location: while Gutsfeld argues that Apuleius might have visited his own property in Gaetulia,⁷¹ Hunink re    

Ch. 7.4. Apol. 87.10‒88. Apol. 91.5‒101. Apol. 41.5. Gutsfeld 1992: 260, n. 79.

234

11 The Allegations Concerning the Seduction of and Wedding with Pudentilla

lies on Schwabe’s idea that Apuleius was looking for fossils.⁷² Butler and Owen reject the latter interpretation, cautiously suggest that Apuleius might have visited the area of the modern Djebel Aurès, and note the sarcastic tone of the geographical reference which anticipates the following comic allusion to Deucalion’s flood.⁷³ It is, however, worth observing the vagueness of the expression: in Greco-Roman times the term Gaetulia indicates the land of the nomadic tribe of the Gaetuli, and comprises a vast geographic area which roughly coincides with the modern Fezzan.⁷⁴ I propose that, with the expression in Gaetuliae mediterranis montibus, Apuleius does not only lay the basis for his witty reference to Deucalion’s flood, but also intended to be as imprecise as possible in order to cover up his stay with Pudentilla in one of her countryside estates, to which the prosecution referred. Apuleius himself admits, in fact, that his attackers were aware of his inland stay,⁷⁵ and were also aware that Pudentilla’s patrimony included various Northern African lands⁷⁶ even in remote places, as we gather from Apol. 44.6, where Thallus is hyperbolically said to be exiled a hundred miles away from the courtroom (ad centesimum lapidem longe).⁷⁷ Apuleius, furthermore, acknowledges that when Pudentilla wrote that letter to Pontianus which the prosecution distorted to show his skills in goetic magic,⁷⁸ she had gone to the countryside (rus profecta).⁷⁹ I suggest that Pudentilla could have been accompanied by Apuleius, who likely wanted to seek privacy after the public defamation mounted against him and his wife in Oea (Apol. 82.3‒7), and especially after the death threats to him.⁸⁰ No information about the place where the engaged couple stayed is given, but the writing of this letter chronologically precedes the wedding,⁸¹ which took place at a later stage in a suburban estate.⁸²  Schwabe in RE, vol. II, s.v. Appuleius, col. 248; Hunink 1997, vol. II: 125, n.2, followed by Martos 2015: 75, n. 242.  Butler and Owen 1914: 99‒100; they admit, in fact, that “there is no evidence as to what mountains these may have been”.  Var. R. 2.12; Sal. Jug. 18; Mela 1.23; 3.104; Plin. Nat. 5.10; 5.17; 5.30; Tac. Ann. 4.42; Flor. Epit. 2.31; Str. 2.5.33; 17.3.2; Ptol. Geog. 4.6.12 discussed in Enc. Virgil., vol. II, s.v. Getuli, p. 720. See also Brill’s New Pauly, vol. V, s.v. Gaetuli, coll. 638‒9.  This is clearly indicated by the litotes quo me non negabunt (Apol. 41.5).  Apol. 93.3‒4.  Despite the exaggeration, it is very likely that the epileptic slave was sent to a faraway farm to avoid polluting the rest of the familia.  Apol. 78.5‒84.4 examined below (Ch. 11.4).  Apol. 78.5.  Apol. 78.2. All this happened once Aemilianus and Rufinus succeeded in turning Pontianus against Apuleius, and before the wedding between Apuleius and Pudentilla.  This is also noted by Harrison 2000: 80 and n. 89.  Cf. n. 88 below.

11.3 Magic in the Remoteness of the Countryside

235

Since the accusers knew that Apuleius and Pudentilla had formerly stayed in the North African countryside,⁸³ they could easily have pointed out that the isolation in which they lived before the marriage provided the magus with the perfect conditions for his malevolent use of carmina and venena. From this perspective, the vague mention of the Gaetulian mountains does not only have a comic function, as argued by Butler and Owen,⁸⁴ but can also be seen as Apuleius’ attempt to conceal and discredit a dangerous piece of information upholding the suspicions raised by his foes, and linking the Primary Charges with the Secondary Charges. This interpretation throws light on two further aspects of the Secondary Charges, since references to magical secrecy during Pudentilla and Apuleius’ retreat in the countryside can be found in two other Secondary Charges, namely those concerning their wedding⁸⁵ and the dowry.⁸⁶ When introducing and rebutting the accusation of having married Pudentilla in a secluded rural estate, Apuleius claims that the only issue raised by his opponents was the fact that the wedding took place in the countryside.⁸⁷ The scanty evidence notwithstanding, we can at least ascertain that their marriage took place in a suburban estate (villa suburbana)⁸⁸ close to Oea but – as Apuleius says – far enough from the greedy hands of the clients and his unpleasant new relatives.⁸⁹ Hunink remarks that this unusual conduct could have aroused suspicions of magic,⁹⁰ but another explanation can be given. I argue that the real issue at stake was not just the unconventionality of the wedding in the countryside and sine testibus,⁹¹ but the fact

 Pontianus, after insulting his mother and Apuleius in the square of Oea (Apol. 82.3‒7), eventually fulfilled his mother’s plea and went with his wife – Rufinus’ daughter – to visit Pudentilla and Apuleius in the countryside for two months (Apol. 87.6) together with Sicinius Pudens. Thus, the opponents were fully aware of this stay in the countryside. It is necessary to observe that these events precede the marriage between Pudentilla and Apuleius, and could likely coincide with the moment in which the magical seduction purportedly happened. In fact, post ista at Apol. 87.9 opens the discussion of the charge concerning the wedding in the countryside (Apol. 89), giving a chronological order to Apuleius’ account of the events.  Butler and Owen 1914: 100.  Apol. 87.10‒88.  Apol. 91.5‒101.  Apol. 67.3; 87.10‒88.  Apol. 87.9; 87.10; 88.1; in 67.3; 88.2; 88.3; 88.7, where the property is simply referred to as villa.  Apol. 87.10‒88.1. Kehoe and Vervaet 2015: 630‒1, suggest that, by holding his wedding in the countryside, Apuleius insulted Aemilianus and Rufinus by excluding them from an important social event.  Hunink 1997, vol. II: 215.  Martos 2015: 143‒4, n. 431 stresses a parallel with the story of Cupid and Psyche (cf. Apul. Met. 6.9.6, on which see Zimmerman et al. 2004: 431) and argues that, from a legal standpoint,

236

11 The Allegations Concerning the Seduction of and Wedding with Pudentilla

that this happened in secretive conditions.⁹² Secrecy – as previously discussed –⁹³ is a prerequisite for any goetic performance, and given their isolation it would have been easy for his attackers to claim that these circumstances facilitated Apuleius’ harmful influence on the defenceless Pudentilla. The idea that goetic magic required secrecy was not only a pivotal theme of this charge, but also of that dealing with the supposed extortion of Pudentilla’s dowry, which Apuleius discusses at Apol. 91.5‒101. Despite the smokescreen he creates to conceal the relevance of magic in this section of the speech,⁹⁴ from the introductory summing-up of the Secondary Charges at Apol. 67.3‒4 it is possible to envisage that – according to the attackers – Apuleius extorted the dowry. The expression r e m o t i s a r b i t r i s could be a citation from the prosecution’s speech and is identical to that used at Apol. 42.3 (ad praescriptum opinionis et famae confinxere puerum quempiam carmine cantatum r e m o t i s a r b i t r i s , secreto loco, arula et lucerna et paucis consciis testibus, ubi incantatus sit, corruisse, postea nescientem sui excitatum), where Apuleius quotes and summarises the indictment of having made Thallus fall ill during an occult magical ritual.⁹⁵ The clear parallel between the two passages shows that the enemies likely alluded here to the belief that goetic magi operated secretly: it was because of the segregation of the couple that Apuleius not only succeeded in forcing Pudentilla into a wedding, but also in getting hold of her wealth, to Pontianus’ and Pudens’ disadvantage. In closing, this reconstruction shows a dangerous argument directly concerning magic, and prudently obscured by Apuleius, which was a prominent feature of three Secondary Charges. The seduction, the wedding, and acquisition of the dowry took place in the remoteness of the North African countryside, and this isolation was presented as the necessary requirement for Apuleius’ use of love-magic. Now that we are getting a clearer picture of the serious implications of the Secondary Charges and their links with magic, I shall reconstruct another controversial allegation – similarly distorted by Apuleius – which deals with the letters used to highlight the alleged magica maleficia.

a marriage could take place anywhere and that witnesses were only required for confarreatio and coemptio, on which cf. Treggiari 1991: 22; 25.  Pellecchi 2012: 179‒80 emphasises the unconventionality of such a secretive marriage given Pudentilla’s social status.  Cf. Ch. 7.4. It is perhaps worth remarking that in Apul. Met. 3.17.3 Pamphile acts in similar conditions of secrecy.  This point is touched upon in the introductory summing-up (Apol. 67.3‒4), and completely overlooked in the counter-argument (Apol. 91.5‒101).  Ch. 7.1.

11.4 The Corpus of Letters and Apuleius’ Denial of Magic

237

11.4 The Corpus of Letters and Apuleius’ Denial of Magic In order to corroborate their arguments the prosecutors drew upon a set of letters revealing Apuleius’ goetic wrongdoing. So important were these letters that they became the topic of the Secondary Charge, discussed at Apol. 78.5‒87.9, which concerned the letters (epistulae) of Pudentilla, as Apuleius explains in the introductory summary⁹⁶ and elsewhere in the speech when he refers to epistulae and litterae. ⁹⁷ Hunink, Harrison, and Pellecchi⁹⁸ argue that, besides the short discussion of a letter falsely attributed to Apuleius (commenticia epistula),⁹⁹ and the allusion to a letter written by Pudens,¹⁰⁰ there is only one letter by Pudentilla on which Apuleius dwells, evidencing his opponents’ dishonesty.¹⁰¹ But if the attackers brought as evidence only one letter by Pudentilla, why does Apuleius refer to his wife’s litterae and epistulae? First of all, there is a linguistic issue to tackle, namely the fact that in Latin the plural litterae normally indicates a single ‘letter’.¹⁰² This form probably influenced the use of the plural epistulae to designate one ‘letter’, which coexists with the classical meaning of epistulae: ‘letters’.¹⁰³ Because of the connection between epistula and litterae, the plural litterae was, in turn, influenced by epistulae: in fact, in post-classical Latin, the plural litterae assumes also the meaning of ‘letters’.¹⁰⁴ This confusion between the plural and singular meaning of epistulae and litterae gives rise to different scholarly interpretations of the Apologia: for example, at Apol. 97.2 the mention of epistolas in which Pudens praised Apuleius is interpreted by Butler and Owen as a singular noun,¹⁰⁵ while others interpret epistolas as ‘letters’.¹⁰⁶ In this case,  Apol. 67.3 (Ch. 11.1).  Apol. 66.1; 82.3; 85.1; 86.2; 86.3; 86.4 and maybe also at 61.1.  Hunink 1997, vol. II: 199; 212; Harrison 2000: 78‒80; Pellecchi 2012: 194‒6.  Apol. 87.2‒5.  Apol. 86.4‒5.  Apol. 78.5‒84.4.  E. g. Cic. Att. 5.20.9; 13.20.1; Tac. Ann. 4.70; 5.4; cf. OLD 2, s.v. littera, 7, p. 1140. See also Apul. Met. 7.1.5 (commendaticiis litteris) on which see Hijmans et al. 1981: 84.  For epistulae indicating ‘letters’, e. g. Cic. Fam. 7.18.1; 14.3.1; Front. Aur. 3.14.4. For epistulae as ‘letter’, e. g. Cic. Att. 5.11.6; 15.6.2; 16.12.1; Plin. Ep. 9.24. Cf. OLD 2, s.v. epistula, 1b, p. 673; Walde and Hofmann 19383: 410, s.v. epistula.  See the discussion in Wackernagel 1920 vol. I: 96‒7. Martos 2015: 142, n. 429, while commenting on Apol. 86.3, notes the double meaning of litterae but does not develop this argument further.  Butler and Owen 1914: 170, but Butler 1909: 149 translates “letters”.  Hunink 1997, vol. II: 237, and Hunink’s translation in Harrison et al. 2001: 115. This is the translation also in Vallette 1924: 115; Marchesi 1955=2011: 131; Moreschini 1990: 293; Hammerstaedt 2002: 223; Martos 2015: 159.

238

11 The Allegations Concerning the Seduction of and Wedding with Pudentilla

the lack of any additional evidence and the brevity of Apuleius’ reference prevents us from siding with one or another interpretation, although it seems plausible to me that he alluded to a collection rather than a single letter. This confusion notwithstanding, we can reconstruct that the accusers did not only refer to that single letter by Pudentilla on which Apuleius comments at Apol. 78.5‒84.4,¹⁰⁷ and which purportedly showed the magical seduction of the woman. This is revealed by Apuleius himself, when flaying Pudens for purloining Pudentilla’s s e c r e t i s l i t t e r i s d e a m o r e or e p i s t u l a s d e a m o r e and reading them out in court.¹⁰⁸ Apuleius, therefore, seems to have referred to various letters which are, however, not discussed in his defence-speech. Furthermore, from a meticulous scrutiny of the text, it is possible to ascertain that Apuleius alludes at least to two further letters by Pudentilla. First, at Apol. 27.8 – while summing-up the various charges – he singles out an epistula written before the wedding, in which Pudentilla expressed appreciation for him. This letter is neither discussed nor mentioned again in the speech, and yet it was likely to be one of Pudentilla’s above-mentioned love letters. Second, at Apol. 61.1 Apuleius introduces his purported necromantic crimes and explains that his enemies knew about the magical statuette ‘while reading Pudentilla’s letters’ (cum Pudentillae litteras legerent);¹⁰⁹ here we cannot establish whether the attackers alluded to one or more letters, but it seems likely that they did not refer to that letter which Apuleius discusses at length at Apol. 78.5‒84.4, since the latter concerns love-magic, the former a skeletal statue allegedly used in eerie necromantic rites. The reason why Apuleius excluded this epistolary evidence from the rebuttal mirrors his choice to omit most of the controversial goetic issues that – as previously discussed – were an integral part of the other Secondary Charges. This caution can also be detected in the vague references to two further letters which are alluded to in this section of the Apologia: first, what Apuleius describes as a commenticia epistula ¹¹⁰ attributed to him by the prosecution and, second, a dispatch written by Pudens to Pontianus.¹¹¹ As to the letter ascribed

 Given its importance for Apuleius’ case, there are several references to this letter throughout the speech, cf. Apol. 30.11; 78.5; 78.6; 79.3; 80.3; 81.1; 81.5; 82.3; 82.6; 82.7; 82.9; 84.1; 84.5; 84.7; 87.5; 87.6; 87.8‒9.  Apol. 84.7 and 86.2‒3.  Ch. 10.4.  Apol. 87.2‒5.  Apol. 86.4.

11.4 The Corpus of Letters and Apuleius’ Denial of Magic

239

to him,¹¹² this is not explicitly said to indicate his goetic magic but some blanditiis through which he supposedly aroused Pudentilla’s desire. It is probable that – if actually forged by his enemies as Apuleius insists – the letter would have contained explicit evidence for love-magic. In fact, the term blanditia can indicate ‘sexual allurement’,¹¹³ and the adjective blandus – from which the noun derives –¹¹⁴ is employed in connection with goetic magic.¹¹⁵ Furthermore, this letter would have underpinned the portrait of Apuleius as a lecherous seducer given in the Preliminary Allegations.¹¹⁶ Regarding the letter by Pudens, we cannot even reconstruct its content: Apuleius dismisses it with a few words, through which we gather that it was secretly sent by Pudens to Pontianus and then read out in court by Pudens himself.¹¹⁷ Not only this reticence, but also the linguistic confusion between litterae and epistulae would undoubtedly have helped Apuleius distract the audience from the whole corpus of letters and to focus on the discussion of that letter written by Pudentilla to Pontianus,¹¹⁸ which allows Apuleius to prove his enemies’ insincerity. The real content of this letter shows Pudentilla admonishing Pontianus, turned by Rufinus and Aemilianus against his mother and Apuleius.¹¹⁹ The accusers were plausibly quite confident of manipulating this evidence, since they had already successfully done so when defaming Apuleius in the square of Oea before the trial.¹²⁰ They extrapolated, in fact, the following sentence in which Pudentilla ironically¹²¹ defines Apuleius as a harmful practitioner of magic and urges her son to return: ‘Apuleius is a magus, and I have been magically enchanted by him and I now am in love. So come to me, while I am still in my right mind’ (᾿Aπολέϊος μάγος, καὶ ἐγὼ ὑπ’ αὐτοῦ μεμάγευμαι καὶ ἐρῶ. Ἐλθὲ  Apol. 87.2. The arguments that Apuleius uses to invalidate the evidence is the implausibility that his enemies could have intercepted a message given to trusted dispatchers (87.3), and the presence of a ‘barbaric’ language, betraying their hand (87.4).  Cf. ThLL, vol. II, s.v. blanditia and blandities, col. 2034; OLD 2, s.v. blanditia or blandities, 2, p. 258.  Cf. Ernout and Meillet 2001=19854: 71‒2, s.v. blandus; de Vaan 2008: 73.  Plin. Nat. 30.2.  Apol. 4.9‒13.4; 13.5‒16 discussed in Ch. 3.  Apol. 86.4. Apuleius rejects this evidence saying that Pudens is unreliable, since he is the accuser and his letter would have obviously provided evidence against Apuleius (87.1); see the similar point in Apol. 45.7‒8.  Apol. 78.5‒84.4.  Apol. 82.1; 83.1‒7.  Apol. 82.3‒6. At 82.5 Apuleius’ reputation for dabbling in unconventional activities was such – he admits – that everyone believed him that he was a magus, as his foes claimed.  For this interpretation see Apol. 83.1, on which cf. Hunink 1997, vol. II: 199; 203; Harrison 2000: 79.

240

11 The Allegations Concerning the Seduction of and Wedding with Pudentilla

τοίνυν πρὸς ἐμέ, ἕως ἔτι σωφρονῶ).¹²² The accusers expected that the very reference to μάγος and μαγεύω could have generated in court a dismay as great as that in the square of Oea.¹²³ Abt briefly comments on μαγεύω as a verb uniquely used to indicate goetic magic which, analogously to the negative interpretation given to μάγος in spoken language, is the result of the commonplace aversion to goetic practitioners.¹²⁴ The negative connotation of μαγεύω – similarly to that of μάγος –¹²⁵ is confirmed since its appearance in the fifth century BC in fictional¹²⁶ and non-fictional texts.¹²⁷ In the second century AD, although the verb does not only denote the activity of goetic practitioners,¹²⁸ it is often used to indicate lovemagic.¹²⁹ Therefore, the presence of this uncanny terminology in the passage – which the accusers decontextualized from the rest of the letter – can explain why they used it as strong evidence against Apuleius. However, we must bear in mind that the argument which Apuleius sets out at Apol. 25.9‒26.6¹³⁰ would have lessened the possible risky implications: Apuleius distinguishes between a religious-philosophical understanding of μάγος-magus shared by Plato, himself, and the judge Maximus, and a vulgar interpretation of magic that he ascribes to uncouth people and particularly his enemies. According to this reasoning, any scared or upset reaction of the crowd would have only shown their ignorance, and was bound to be looked at with scorn by the erudite magistrate. Thus far I have discussed the possibility that, on the one hand, Apuleius intentionally omitted much of the epistolary evidence corroborating the accusation of using goetic magic, and that, on the other hand, the only letter by Pudentilla which he discusses at Apol. 78.5‒84.4 contains passages that – once misread – could indeed have become compromising. There is a further complication: Apuleius cites another part of the aforementioned letter where Pudentilla explains that their union was due to destiny (ἐγὼ οὔτε μεμάγευμαι οὔτ’ ἐρῶ. Τὴν εἱμαρμένην † ἐκφ †);¹³¹ then he boldly declares that these words disprove the

 Apol. 82.2.  Apol. 82.5‒7.  Abt 1908: 241.  Ch. 2.3, 2.4.  E. Supp. 1110; E. IT. 1338.  Hp. Morb. Sacr. 3.4.  Plu. Art. 3.3; 6.4 in which the verb refers to the education of the Persian sovereigns and relates to φιλοσοφεῖν.  Plu. Num. 15.5; [Luc.] Asin. 4; 11; 54; Ath. 6.256e.  Ch. 4.2, 4.3.  Apol. 84.2: ‘I am neither enchanted nor in love. Destiny †’. For a discussion of the corruption and the abrupt interruption, cf. Butler and Owen 1914: 152; Hunink 1997, vol. II: 207; Martos 2015: 138, n. 418.

11.4 The Corpus of Letters and Apuleius’ Denial of Magic

241

very existence of magic since destiny (εἱμαρμένη-fatum)¹³² remained unaffected by his purported love-magic.¹³³ As Abt explains, this claim contradicts the typical belief that magic could alter destiny:¹³⁴ in a passage from Eusebius’ Preparation for the Gospel entitled ὅτι διὰ μαγείας φασὶ τὰ τῆς εἱμαρμένης λύεσθαι (‘those who claim that magic can break destiny’),¹³⁵ we find a citation from Porphyry in which he acknowledges that magic could actually untie the knots of destiny (εἱμαρμένη).¹³⁶ Lucan’s Erictho says that Thessalian women could change the destiny of a person’s life (fata minora),¹³⁷ and a more detailed inspection of the PGM confirms this belief. Several recipes describe the alteration of destiny for different purposes,¹³⁸ such as protection from bad luck,¹³⁹ and love-magic.¹⁴⁰ Apuleius’ claim might have, therefore, appeared startling, since it contradicts a known practice of goetic magic. Yet, we must bear in mind that Apuleius did not aim to give a precise account of goetic practices,¹⁴¹ but rather to persuade his audience – particularly the judge – while showcasing his grandiloquence and his superiority in logic, with which he could even deny the standard rules of goetic magic. The examination of the epistolary evidence reveals that, although Apuleius disproves the validity of two letters – namely that by Pudentilla and that attributed to him – he does not discuss the full corpus of letters employed to indicate his magical crimes. His triumphant tone notwithstanding, by analysing the allusions to other letters by Pudentilla in particular, we can deduce that Apuleius was aware that the charge concerning these incriminating letters was not as unconvincing as he endeavours to depict it. His opponents’ strategy was, in fact, well calculated: by citing from various private dispatches which could give rise to compromising misunderstandings, and manipulating some of them, they probably made a strong case against Apuleius and effectively validated

 On Apuleius’ translation of εἱμαρμένη with fatum, cf. Hijmans 1987: 446, n. 214, rectified by Hunink 1997, vol. II: 207, n. 1.  Apol. 84.3‒4.  Abt 1908: 241‒2, followed by Hunink 1997, vol. II: 207.  Eus. PE. 6.4.1.  Porph. De philosophia ex oraculis haurienda ed. Wolff 1856: 165. See similarly in Zosimus’ Περὶ ὀργάνων καὶ καμίνων 1.5; 1.7, ed. Mertens 2002: 3, where we find Hermes and Zoroaster claiming that the rules of Destiny can be controlled through magic.  Luc. 6.605‒10.  PGM IV.2321, in which the practitioner boasts about the strength of the spell.  I.216; XIII.613‒4; XIII.635; these occurrences are noted by Betz 19922: 8, n. 40, with further bibliography on the concept of Heimarmene.  IV.1456; XV.10.  See Apuleius’ claim at Apol. 26.9 (Ch. 4.3) that magical spells cannot be averted.

242

11 The Allegations Concerning the Seduction of and Wedding with Pudentilla

the suspicion that he really was a goetic magus. Yet, Apuleius’ does not only avoid mentioning the other letters, but also presents that one letter by Pudentilla – distorted by his enemies to present him as a goetic magus – as the result of Aemilianus’ illiteracy.¹⁴² It is their ignorance that prevented Aemilianus and his accomplices from understanding fully the real meaning of the dispatch which disproves their false claims.

11.5 Uttering the Name of the Magi: Forbidden Knowledge in Public Libraries One of the most controversial parts of the Apologia, which deals with the utterance of the names of six magi, has yet to be examined. At Apol. 90.5‒6 Apuleius displays once more his self-confidence and openly challenges his accusers. He says, in fact, that if they could find any evidence of his profits from the marriage which would have justified the magical seduction, then: ego ille sim Carmendas vel Damigeron vel † his † Moses vel I[oh]annes ¹⁴³ vel Apollobex ¹⁴⁴ vel ipse Dardanus vel quicumque alius post Zoroastren et Hostanen inter magos celebratus est. ¹⁴⁵ Given the significance of this passage for our comprehension of Apuleius’ knowledge of magic, I will provide a discussion of each of these figures, of the possible

 Apol. 87.5 and 30.11. Rufinus actually had a full understanding of the Greek letter, and would have made Aemilianus and the prosecution aware of its content when preparing the charges: at Apol. 83.3 it is said that Rufinus dishonestly selected the most incriminating passages of the letter; see also Apol. 81.1: memorabili laude Rufini vicem mutavit (‘Rufinus – may he be praised – altered its meaning’); 81.5: o subtilitas digna carcere et robore (‘what a contrivance worthy of prison and gaol’). This clearly contradicts Apuleius’ claim that his enemies were Greekless in Apol. 30.11.  The reading in F, fol. 123r, col. 1, l. 30 is ioħs, the typical abbreviation for Iohannes, on which see Lindsay 1915: 404‒5; Cappelli 20066: 185. Colvius’ apt emendation Iannes (1588: 268) is printed in Helm 1905=19553: 100. The corruption Iohannes is probably induced by the religious background of the scribe (on which cf. Havet 1915: 263), who perhaps corrected Jannes into John (the Apostle or the Baptist), influenced by the contiguous name of Moses. As Piccioni 2011: 180 notes, this Christian background provokes two further mistakes in the transmitted text of the Apologia: profeta instead of poeta at Apol. 32.5; tabernacula instead of taberna at Apol. 62.4. On the magus Jannes, see below.  This emendation is printed in Helm 1905=19553: 100, following Apollobeches proposed by Krüger 1864: 100, in place of the transmitted apollo hȩc at F, fol. 123r, col. 1, l. 30.  Apol. 90.6: ‘may I be that notorious Carmendas or Damigeron, that Moses or Jannes, Apollobex or the ill-famed Dardanus’. On Zoroaster and Ostanes, see my discussion of Apol. 26.2 (Ch. 4.2) and 27.3 (Ch. 4.5), respectively.

11.5 Uttering the Name of the Magi: Forbidden Knowledge in Public Libraries

243

impact of the utterance on the audience,¹⁴⁶ and of the legal implications of the name-dropping. This will highlight the importance of a passage that discloses Apuleius’ interest in magic, similarly to the parody of the voces magicae at Apol. 38.7‒8 (6.4) and the curse against Aemilianus at 64.1‒2 (10.7). Abt, followed by Hunink and Martos,¹⁴⁷ does not grasp the meaning of the expression ego ille,¹⁴⁸ and comments on the text arguing for the presence of two parallel groups of names, which he arranges as follows: Carmendas

vel

Damigeron

vel

his

Moses

vel I[oh]annes

vel

Apollobex

vel

ipse Dardanus

In reality, this sequence is not formed by two but by three groups, each constituted by a couplet of names connected by the disjunctive vel, and one of which is accompanied by the pronominal adjectives ille, hic or iste or is,¹⁴⁹ and ipse. ¹⁵⁰ For the sake of clarity, I will rearrange these three couplets below:

 Apol. 91.1.  Abt 1908: 246; Hunink 1997, vol. II: 223; Martos 2015: 149‒50, n. 450.  This form appears in the comedies of Plautus and Terence, as well as in Cicero’s speeches, cf. Pl. Am. 625; Mos. 1074; Per. 594; Ter. Ad. 866; Cic. Phil. 7.7; 7.8; Sul. 85; 87.  Hic and iste are conjectures by Hunink 1997, vol. II: 223 in place of † h i s † in F, fol. 123r, col. 1, l. 29; Martos 2015: 149 prints is, perhaps rightly. Krüger 1864: 100 proposes Velus ; Bosscha (see the apparatus in Helm, 1905=19553: 100) hypothesises, instead, Hisus , i. e. Jesus, and Traube 1907: 154‒5 emphasises the likeliness of this interpretation since his was, indeed, the abbreviation of Hiesus. The hypothesis seems plausible at first, since the first evidence for a goetic interpretation of Jesus dates to ca. AD 153 (on which see Wartelle 1987: 21‒2), when the Christian apologist Justin argues that Christ did not act through μαγικὴ τέχνη (Justin. Apol. 1.30). Some twenty years later the Platonist Celsus delivers a vehement anti-Christian attack in his True Discourse (on the dating of which see Borret 1976: 122‒9) in which he describes Christ as a γόης (cf. Orig. Cels. 1.6; 1.68; 1.71; 2.48). On Jesus as a magus, see also Smith 1978: 81‒139; Busch 2001: 25‒31; Holmén 2007: 43‒56. Nonetheless, here the reading Hisus is unacceptable for stylistic reasons, since it breaks the symmetrical construction of the tricolon. The reading † h i s † might, therefore, have likely originated because of the close name of Moses, which induced the copyist to replace an original is or hic, and to similarly write Iohannes in place of Iannes (cf. n. 143 above).  Apuleius’ elegance can also be seen in the chiastic use of the first (ille) and the last (ipse) which are united with the first and the last name of the pairs.

244

11 The Allegations Concerning the Seduction of and Wedding with Pudentilla

ego i l l e sim Carmendas

vel Damigeron

vel † h i s † Moses

vel I[oh]annes

vel Apollobex

vel i p s e Dardanus.

This is, therefore, a refined tricolon, a figure of speech frequently characterising the style of the Apologia. ¹⁵¹ This stylistic remark leads to the discussion of an important point: the fact that the names of these magi are found almost in the same pairs in a passage likely known to Apuleius, the beginning of book 30 of the Natural History. ¹⁵² There, Pliny mentions Apollobex the Copt and Dardanus the Phoenician together as masters of the magical lore.¹⁵³ Other sources substantiate the goetic renown of both Apollobex and Dardanus. The former name appears in PGM XII.121 as an epithet of the god Horus rather than as a practitioner;¹⁵⁴ the latter is mentioned by Clement of Alexandria¹⁵⁵ as the one who introduced the mysteries of the Mother of the Gods,¹⁵⁶ and by Fulgentius as the author of a lost treatise entitled Δυναμερά. ¹⁵⁷ Furthermore, Dardanus’ name is also in the title of a magical formula, the so-called ‘sword of Dardanus’ (Ξίφος Δαρδάνου), a prescription to attract and bind any souls.¹⁵⁸ In Pliny’s Natural History we also find together Moses¹⁵⁹ and Jannes, described as exponents of the Judaic sect of

 For remarks on colometric arrangements in the Apologia, cf. Callebat 1984: 143‒67; Hijmans 1994: 1744‒60. I would like to emphasise the analogous use of the demonstratives in the tricolon at 63.6: hiccine est sceletus, haeccine est larva, hoccine est quod appellitabatis daemonium? (‘Is this a skeleton, is this a spectre, is this what you called a daemon?’).  For Apuleius’ possible use of Pliny here, see Abt 1908: 255; Butler and Owen 1914: 164; Hunink 1997, vol. II: 224; Harrison 2000: 26; 54, n. 36; pp. 70‒1; p. 82, n. 1.  Plin. Nat. 30.9: Democritus A p o l l o b e c h e n Coptiten et D a r d a n u m e Phoenice inlustravit voluminibus Dardani in sepulchrum eius petitis, suis vero ex disciplina eorum editis (‘Democritus expounded Apollobex the Copt and Dardanus the Phoenician, entering the latter’s tomb to obtain his works and basing his own on their doctrines’); translation by Jones 1968: 285.  Cf. Betz 19922: 157, n. 35 with further bibliography.  Clem. Al. Protr. 2.13.3.  On magic and mysteries, cf. Ch. 8.2.  Fulg. Virg. 142.86 ed. Helm 1898. One might wonder whether there could be any connections with the Φυσικὰ δυναμερά attributed to Bolus of Mendes in Suid. β482; Bolus was also known to be the author of Democritean pseudepigrapha (cf. Ch. 2.2; 4.4).  PGM IV.1716‒870. See also RAC, vol. V, s.v. Dardanus, coll. 593‒4; Suárez de la Torre 2014: 251.  On Moses and magic see Gager 1972: 134‒61; Suárez de la Torre 2014: 255‒7.

11.5 Uttering the Name of the Magi: Forbidden Knowledge in Public Libraries

245

magic.¹⁶⁰ That Moses was thought to be a γόης in the second century AD can be gathered also from Celsus’ True Discourse, where Moses is regarded as the authority from which Jesus and the Christians learnt magic.¹⁶¹ As to Jannes, he was not Jewish as Pliny writes, but an Egyptian priest who challenged Moses before the pharaoh together with Jambres, according to Jewish and Christian sources.¹⁶² Pliny’s inaccuracy is probably due to his detrimental understanding of non-Roman cults and magical lore as a whole,¹⁶³ and Apuleius might have inherited this confusion in this passage.¹⁶⁴ Unlike the other pairs of magi, Carmendas and Damigeron do not feature in the Natural History. This couplet could, therefore, be either a citation from memory from a lost source – common to Pliny and Apuleius – or the result of a combination between two notorious magi known to Apuleius from other sources. While the name Carmendas appears exclusively in Apuleius’ Apologia,¹⁶⁵ Damigeron is not acknowledged by Pliny, but other sources confirm that he was believed to be a magus: Tertullian associates Damigeron with the aforementioned Dardanus,¹⁶⁶ and so does Arnobius.¹⁶⁷ Furthermore, to Damigeron is also ascribed a Lapidarium,¹⁶⁸ expounding the supernatural – and often explicitly magical – virtues of stones, in which we even find allusions to

 Plin. Nat. 30.11: est et alia magices factio a Mose et Ianne et Lotape ac Iudaeis pendens (‘there is yet another branch of magic, derived from Moses, Jannes, Lotapes and the Jews’); translation by Jones 1968: 285. Pliny adds the name, not otherwise known, of Lotapes, on which see Torrey 1949: 325‒7 and Gero 1996: 304‒23. On the passage, see Bidez and Cumont 1938, vol. II: 14, and Gager 1972: 137‒40.  Orig. Cels. 1.26. Moses’ name also appears in numerous recipes of the PGM, cf. III.444; V.109; VII.619‒627; XIII.1‒343; XIII.970‒1; XIII.1057‒1064, on which see Lietaert Peerbolte 2007.  Cf. Ex. 7.11; N.T. Ep. Ti. 2.3.8 and on the Apocryphon of Jannes and Jambres, cf. Maraval 1977; Pietersma 1994, and 2012; Schmelz 2001. It seems that the second-century Pythagorean Numenius (cf. Eus. PE. 9.8.1‒2) avoided this confusion and distinguished Moses from the Egyptian holy-men.  Plin. Nat. 30.1; 30.17. Moreover, as discussed in Ch. 4.4, 4.5, 4.6, Pliny criticises Pythagoras, Empedocles, Democritus, and Plato for their admiration for the Magi (Nat. 30.9), whom he considers mere goetic practitioners.  It is unclear whether Apuleius harboured unsympathetic feelings for the Jewish and Christian monotheistic cults; cf. Apul. Met. 9.14.5 and the comments in Hijmans et al. 1995: 140; 380‒2. On Apuleius and Christianity, see also Hunink 2000: 80‒94.  In place of the transmitted Carmendas, Bidez and Cumont 1938, vol. II: 15 defend the emendation Tarmoendas, the Assyrian magus mentioned in Plin. Nat. 30.5, and perhaps rightly so. On Carmendas see also the vague etymological speculations by Wünsch reported in Abt 1908: 244‒ 5.  Tert. Anim. 57.1, on which cf. Waszink 1947: 576.  Arn. Adv. nat. 1.52.1, on which see Le Bonniec 1982: 354‒5.  Cf. Halleux and Schamp 1985: 215‒28.

246

11 The Allegations Concerning the Seduction of and Wedding with Pudentilla

works attributed to Zoroaster¹⁶⁹ and Ostanes, who are called magister magorum omnium (‘master of all the magi’).¹⁷⁰ I have thus far assessed the profile of each of these magi mentioned in Apol. 96.6. It is necessary to add that this display could have had some serious legal repercussions. Abt observes that from the third century BC onwards, treatises concerning foreign supernatural matters were interdicted in Rome;¹⁷¹ thus, in later times, magical treatises would have been banished from public libraries.¹⁷² He fails to notice, however, that Apuleius professes at Apol. 91.2 to have read the names of these goetic practitioners in bybliothecis publicis;¹⁷³ in doing so, he addresses a section of the Lex Cornelia de sicariis et veneficis, which decrees that ‘no one is permitted to have in their possession books concerning the magical arts’ (libros magicae artis apud se neminem habere licet).¹⁷⁴ Although we cannot be certain about the sources – other than Pliny – that Apuleius used in Apol. 90.6, to utter such suspicious names and to equate himself to these magi seems to have triggered the exacerbated protest of his enemies and – as Marchesi suggests –¹⁷⁵ of part of the audience.¹⁷⁶ To counteract this reaction, Apuleius explains that he read the names ‘in the works of the most renowned writers’ (apud clarissimos scriptores).¹⁷⁷ Indeed, four out of six of these magi appear in the Natural History, a text certainly beyond suspicion of being a magical treatise. These names might also have been found in other erudite writings which have not survived, such as Varro’s Res Divinae, to which Pliny himself refers,¹⁷⁸ not to men-

 Damig. Lapid. 8.1 = Plin. Nat. 37.159.  Damig. Lapid. 34.3. On Zoroaster and Ostanes, cf. Ch. 4.2 and 4.5.  Liv. 25.1.11‒12.  Abt 1908: 255, n. 1, followed by Butler and Owen 1914: 164. For a discussion of the troubled transmission of magical texts, see Betz 19922: xli‒xlii.  An identical claim in Apol. 41.4.  Paulus Sent. 5.29.18. Translation adapted from Rives 2006: 47. Abt 1908: 255, n. 2 wrongly refers to Sent. 5.29.17, which is about the severe measures against those who were privy to (consci) magic.  Cf. Marchesi 1955=2011: 123. Hunink 1997, vol. II: 224 argues that only the prosecutors are meant here, since Apuleius signposts that the crowd often sympathises with him, as in Apol. 7.1. Yet, this does not impair the idea that part of the crowd believed Apuleius a magus, given his widespread notoriety already before the trial (Apol. 81.1).  Apol. 91.1: vide quaeso, Maxime, quem tumultum suscitarint, quoniam ego paucos magorum nominatim percensui (‘now look, Maximus, what consternation these people raise, since I listed some magi by name’).  Apol. 91.2.  Plin. Nat. 1.30b–c.

11.5 Uttering the Name of the Magi: Forbidden Knowledge in Public Libraries

247

tion Greek authorities such as Pseudo-Aristotle’s Magikos, or the works by Eudoxus of Cnidus and Hermippus of Smyrna.¹⁷⁹ Furthermore, Apuleius claims that the knowledge of the customs of the magi cannot be compared to the acquaintance with the goetic arts (aliud esse notitiam nominum, aliud artis eiusdem communionem).¹⁸⁰ This statement, however, creates a complication, since the Lex Cornelia severely punished the very knowledge of magic: ‘not only is the profession of this art, but also its very knowledge is interdicted’ (non tantum huius artis professio, sed etiam scientia prohibita est).¹⁸¹ Apuleius could not have been unaware of this legal problem: in fact, at Apol. 30.2 he turns it directly against Aemilianus, when saying that if his archenemy had any knowledge of magical virtues in fish, then he must have been himself a magus. ¹⁸² So why did Apuleius reveal this compromising knowledge? I argue that the name-dropping at Apol. 90.6 parallels the provocative arguments found in three other passages of the defence-speech: in the first case, at Apol. 26.6‒9, Apuleius says that if he were a goetic practitioner – as Aemilianus claims – his arch-enemy would never have escaped his revenge. Then, at Apol. 38.7‒8, Apuleius utters some Greek names of animals which, to a Greekless audience, would have seemed to be voces magicae. Finally, at Apol. 64.1‒2, he casts a mock-curse on Aemilianus: the absence of voces magicae and the presence of elegant neologisms undermines, in fact, the frightful tone of the spell.¹⁸³ The general reasoning is that the accusers, due to their baseness, regularly fail to comprehend the true meaning of Apuleius’ words. Their vulgar interpretation of magus induces them to consider Apuleius a goetic practitioner;¹⁸⁴ their illiteracy makes them believe that the Greek terms pronounced at Apol. 38.8 are magica nomina; and that the invocation at Apol. 64.1‒2 is a real curse. In this case, Apuleius claims that his moral righteousness suffices to prove the absence of any wrongdoing¹⁸⁵ or any knowledge of goetic magic.¹⁸⁶ These six names, although apparently suspicious, can not only be read in magical treatises, but also in vol-

 Plin. Nat. 30.3‒4; D.L. 1.8. For an analysis of the sources on philosophical magic, cf. Ch. 2.2.  Apol. 91.2.  Paulus Sent. 5.29.17; the translation above is adapted from Rives 2006: 47. In the light of this evidence, the explanation in Hunink 1997, vol. II: 224 that, by the time of the trial, knowledge of magic was not a punishable crime cannot be accepted.  Apol. 30.2: hoc si scis quid sit, magus es profecto.  Ch. 10.7.  Apol. 26.6‒9: since Apuleius is not a goetic magus (25.9‒26.5), the threat becomes nothing more than a pun (Ch. 4.3).  Apol. 90.3.  This is his core argument at Apol. 25.9‒26.6. Cf. Ch. 4.2, 4.3.

248

11 The Allegations Concerning the Seduction of and Wedding with Pudentilla

umes found ‘in public libraries’ (in bybliothecis publicis):¹⁸⁷ had his foes been more cultivated, they would have found this out by themselves. Apuleius wants to cause an adverse reaction in his seemingly superstitious and rustic foes that was meant to be laughed at by the judge Maximus. As in the previous cases, the real strength of Apuleius’ speech lies in the captatio benevolentiae of the judge: he puts himself and Maximus at the vertex of an intellectual hierarchy, while his enemies are relegated to its base. According to Apuleius, since they cannot see the true meaning of things, they mistake erudition for illicit knowledge.¹⁸⁸ Thus, Apuleius says that he fully entrusts himself to the infallible knowledge of Claudius Maximus (tua perfecta eruditione),¹⁸⁹ who would not have failed to understand that Apuleius’ learning did not imply any dabbling in magic, and that he was innocent of any of the alleged crimes. This is the reasoning that allows him to provoke his attackers safely, even when displaying his goetic expertise.

11.6 Rufinus Consulting the Chaldeans I shall now examine Apuleius’ reference to Rufinus’ consultation with the Chaldaei and their ominous prophecy of Pontianus’ death at Apol. 97.4. The argument is referred to as a matter of hearsay (ut audio) to sully the reputation of Herennius Rufinus, the real architect of the trial,¹⁹⁰ whom Apuleius also accuses of having prevented the dying Pontianus from expressing his final will.¹⁹¹ Not content with this, Apuleius reports that Rufinus consulted nescio quos Chaldaeos to enquire about the profits gained from his daughter’s marriage with Pontianus: their response was that her husband would have passed away in a few months; then – as Apuleius claims – they made up further predictions according to their customer’s wishes.¹⁹² While Abt notes that the Chaldean soothsayers were gen-

 Apol. 91.2. Likewise, in Anim. 57.2 Tertullian comments on the belief concerning the magical evocation of the dead, and says that this kind of information can be found in publica iam litteratura. On the fortune of this topos, cf. Ch. 10.2.  Apol. 91.1  Apol. 91.3.  Apol. 74.5.  Apol. 96.5; 97.3.  Apol. 97.4: praeterea nescio quos Chaldaeos consuluerat, quo lucro filiam collocaret, qui, ut audio, utinam illud non vere respondissent primum eius maritum in paucis mensibus moriturum; cetera enim de hereditate, ut adsolent, ad consulentis votum confinxerunt.

11.6 Rufinus Consulting the Chaldeans

249

erally despised in the Roman Empire,¹⁹³ Hunink stresses that they were closely associated with magic, but does not substantiate this point; he also argues that Apuleius would have put Rufinus and the prosecution in a bad light by adding this piece of information.¹⁹⁴ In order to support this interpretation, I shall examine the relationship between Chaldaei and magi, and this will shed light on two further points that have gone hitherto unnoticed: first, the dramatic resonance of this reference to the Chaldeans, as it emerges from other literary and rhetorical works. Second and most importantly, its actual implications in Apuleius’ speech: I propose, in fact, that this passage is meant to twist against Rufinus the accusation of having caused Pontianus’ death. Let us first explore the connections between the Chaldaei and goetic magi. ¹⁹⁵ The semantic evolution of Chaldaeus is remarkably similar to that of magus,¹⁹⁶ since both terms suffered a shift towards the derogatory meaning of ‘goetic practitioner’, and this accounts for their eventual synonymy. Indicating originally the Babylonian priest¹⁹⁷ specialising in astromancy,¹⁹⁸ the term Χαλδαῖος undergoes a pejorative semantic shift towards ‘astrologer’, which becomes particularly evident in the Latin rendering Chaldaeus already in Cato’s De agricultura. ¹⁹⁹ In Tacitus,²⁰⁰ Chaldaeus is used as a synonym for mathematicus (‘astrologer’).²⁰¹ This use becomes so widespread in the second century that Gellius remarks that ‘the common people apply the term mathematici to those who ought to be called by their ethnic name, Chaldeans’ (vulgus autem, quos gentilicio vocabulo ‘Chaldaeos’ dicere oportet, ‘mathematicos’ dicit).²⁰² At the same time, the terms Chaldaeus and mathematicus were connected with the goetic kind of magic, since the astrologers were commonly linked with the goetic practitioners.²⁰³ Because of the

 Cf. Abt 1908: 256‒7. Although not openly referring to magic, Abt 1908: 257, n. 1 mentions Cat. Cod. Astr. vol. II: 182 that indicates that the Persians inherited the astrological arts of the Chaldeans. An analogous explanation can be found in Suid. α4257.  Cf. Hunink 1997, vol. II: 238.  On this cf. also Rives 2011b: 681‒5, cited by Martos 2015: 159, n. 470.  Cf. Ch. 2.  S. frg. 638 (TrGF, vol. IV: 460); Hdt. 1.181.  Cic. Div. 1.2, on which see Pease 1963: 43‒4. In Div. 2.87‒90, Cicero expresses his sceptical views and contempt for the Chaldeans’ practices. See similarly Lucr. 5.727‒8.  Cato Agr. 5.4.  Tac. Ann. 2.27; 2.32; 12.22; Tacitus employs Chaldaeus and mathematicus interchangeably.  Cf. OLD 2, s.v. mathematicus, 2, p. 1192.  Gel. 1.9.6; translation by Rolfe 1946: 47.  E. g. Curt. 5.1.22; Juv. 6.553‒71; Frag. Bob. De nomine, 544, l. 19 (ed. Keil 1880). As remarked by Dickie 2001: 193, Cassius Dio, narrating the same banishing of mathematici magique in Tac. Ann. 2.32, describes them as ἀστρολόγους καὶ γόητας (C.D. 57.15.8).

250

11 The Allegations Concerning the Seduction of and Wedding with Pudentilla

semantic convergence of magus-μάγος and Chaldaeus-Χαλδαῖος, Lucian was able to create the character of the μάγος Χαλδαῖος Mithrobarzanes in his comic dialogue Nekyomanteia.²⁰⁴ Thus, Apuleius would have struck a significant blow against Rufinus, a man who sought the counsel of the suspicious Chaldeans, as despised as the goetic magi, by saying that he consulted them. This specific connotation of Chaldaeus differs from that in other Apuleian works: the Chaldeans feature in the Florida as respectable sage-philosophers from whom Pythagoras learnt the sideralem scientiam,²⁰⁵ and in the De Deo Socratis Apuleius acknowledges them as respectable authorities.²⁰⁶ Things change in the Metamorphoses: here the characterisation of the Chaldean Diophanes is rather laughable, like that of the mathematici in Seneca’s Apocolocyntosis, and Serapa, the “holy-man-cum-charlatan” – as Schmeling says – in Petronius’ Satyrica. ²⁰⁷ Diophanes, in fact, is portrayed as a quack who makes up predictions to comply with the requests of his clients.²⁰⁸ Given that in Apol. 97.4 Apuleius also stresses the fraudulence of the Chaldeans (ut adsolent, ad consulentis votum confinxerunt), we may detect a similarity to this kind of characterisation. In the defence-speech, however, the function of the Chaldaei does not seem primarily debasing but rather dramatic: since their prediction of Pontianus’ death turns out to be true, Apuleius exclaims: ‘may they had not prophesied truly’ (utinam illud non vere respondissent),²⁰⁹ a continuation of the complaint at Apol. 96.5 where he protests against Pontianus’ ineluctable fate. The theme of the astrologer’s sinister prediction lends itself quite well to declamatory praxis, as Pseudo-Quintilian’s fourth Major Declamation shows: here a son attempts to justify his suicidal intention, since a mathematicus prophesied at his birth that he was to kill his father.²¹⁰ Apuleius’ dramatisation in the Apologia was evidently meant to increase the audience’s compassion for Pontianus’ death while besmirching Rufinus, guilty of having somehow cast such a woeful destiny upon the youth by consulting the astrologers, during the period when Pontianus was close to Apuleius again.

 Luc. Nec. 6, on which see Costantini 2019a.  Apul. Fl. 15.16‒17. Analogously in D.L. 1.6; 8.3.  Apul. Soc. 1.  Sen. Apoc. 3.2; Petr. 76.10, on which see Anderson 1994: 181‒2; and Schmeling 2011: 322.  Apul. Met. 2.12.1‒14.1. The first evidence of this comic characterisation seems Juv. 6.553‒71, cf. van Mal-Maeder 2001: 12‒13; 208‒10. For remarks on Diophanes and his prophecy, cf. van Mal-Maeder 2001: 212‒3, and Keulen 2013.  Apol. 97.4; in this case I have adapted the translation by Butler 1909: 149.  For an overview of this work, see Stramaglia 2013: 13‒28.

11.6 Rufinus Consulting the Chaldeans

251

Having discussed the goetic implications and the dramatic effect of Apuleius’ allusion to the Chaldaei at Apol. 97.4, it is still necessary to explore the most important feature of this passage, namely how it was meant to turn the accusation of having caused Pontianus’ decease against Rufinus. In Paulus’ Sententiae, there is mention of a section de vaticinatoribus et mathematicis: this decree, however, acted against slaves asking mathematici about the health of their masters,²¹¹ and those citizens who asked for prophecies regarding the emperor’s life or the State.²¹² Official measures against the astrologers had already been taken in 139 BC,²¹³ and later by Agrippa who banished them – alongside the goetic practitioners – from Rome.²¹⁴ It is, however, under Tiberius and Claudius that we find mention of the first legal actions against people who asked Chaldaei and mathematici for predictions concerning the emperor: this is the case of Libo Drusus,²¹⁵ Lepida,²¹⁶ Mamercus Scaurus,²¹⁷ Lollia Paulina²¹⁸ and Furius Scribonianus.²¹⁹ It seems that the underlying belief is that such consultations were as dangerous as making an attempt on the emperor’s own life, as if the prophecy, once delivered, would have become irreversible. By applying this logic to our case, the Chaldeans’ ill-omened response concerning Pontianus’ death could have made Rufinus appear responsible for the youth’s untimely demise, at least to some degree. Apuleius avoids accusing directly Rufinus of the death of Pontianus, because – according to the Lex Remmia de calumniatoribus –²²⁰ if the accusation resulted false, the accusers themselves should have served the sentence for the alleged crime. Thus, he reports this as a rumour and says that Rufinus inquired about the profits of his daughter’s marriage. Nonetheless, knowing that Pontianus died and that Rufinus consulted some Chaldeans, anyone in court could have connected these two dots. Apuleius, therefore, by claiming that the evil Rufinus – who even suppressed the final version of Pontianus’ will to con-

 Paulus Sent. 5.21.4.  Paulus Sent. 5.21.3. From the fourth century AD, any consultation with the Chaldeans become officially prosecutable, cf. Cod. Theod. 9.16.4.  Liv. epit. Oxyrh. 8.192.  C.D. 49.43.5: ᾿Aγρίππας […] τοὺς ἀστρολόγους καὶ τούς τε γόητας ἐκ τῆς πόλεως ἐξήλασεν (‘Agrippa drove the astrologers and the goetic practitioners away from Rome’). For a discussion of these and other persecutions, see Dickie 2001: 148‒51.  Tac. Ann. 2.27‒8.  Tac. Ann. 3.22.  Tac. Ann. 6.29.  Tac. Ann. 12.22.  Tac. Ann. 12.52.  Cf. Ch. 1.3.

252

11 The Allegations Concerning the Seduction of and Wedding with Pudentilla

ceal his reconciliation with Apuleius and Pudentilla –²²¹ consulted the notorious Chaldeans, could subtly imply his involvement in the death of Pontianus. In doing so, Apuleius would successfully have turned the charge of having caused the death of his stepson against an eminent member of the prosecution.²²² To sum up, the reference to Chaldaei at Apol. 97.4 allows Apuleius to fight back effectively against Rufinus and, indirectly, against the whole prosecution with a threefold strategy: first, once blamed for being in league with the Chaldeans – as notorious as the magi – the audience and the magistrates would have loathed Rufinus. Secondly, by relying on the idea that enquiring about someone’s life could kill that person, Apuleius would have made Rufinus appear accountable for the death of Pontianus, and successfully turn the accusation of having caused his stepson’s death against the attackers.

11.7 Conclusion The examination of this final section of the Apologia reveals the relevance of magic in the Secondary Charges, and especially in those concerning the use of love-magic on Pudentilla, and Pudentilla and Apuleius’ isolation in the countryside before,²²³ during the wedding,²²⁴ and when he purportedly seized the dowry.²²⁵ Additionally, all these accusations are closely intertwined with the Primary Charges dealing with goetic magic. The Secondary Charges were, therefore, meant to represent the sheer fulfilment of Apuleius’ ominous portrait as it has been reconstructed from the Preliminary Allegations and Primary Charges: that of an effete lecher,²²⁶ a skilled and evil-minded magus, and finally a ruthless legacy-hunter (praedo).²²⁷ Apuleius defends himself by influencing the judge against the ignorance of his attackers, and by stressing that they acted because of their invidia,²²⁸ and that their real drive was not their fear for Pudentilla’s safety, but the fear that Apuleius might secure the wealth of the Sicinii for himself.²²⁹  Apol. 96.5.  Apol. 53‒57.1 discussed in Ch. 8.  Apol. 68‒71 examined in Ch. 11.2 and 11.3.  Apol. 87.10‒88.  Apol. 91.5‒101.  Apol. 4 (Ch. 3.2); 9‒13.4; 13.5‒16 (Ch. 3.5).  Apol. 93.2; 100.1. The prosecution used the term praedo to indicate the greedy legacy-hunter, which is a typical figure in comedy (e. g. Pl. Men. 1015; Ps. 895; 1029; Truc. 106); this is not unsurprising given their use of other stock characters to defame Apuleius, cf. Ch. 3.6.  Apol. 66.3; 67.1; 67.5; 68.1; 99.4; 101.3.  Apol. 101.3.

11.7 Conclusion

253

Yet, a plain denial of his alleged goetic powers is never attempted; in fact, when he says: ‘even if he had found out for certain that I was a magus’ (etsi vere magum me comperisset)²³⁰ and claims that no one was harmed by his magic,²³¹ Apuleius answers neither for his purported magical crimes, nor for the knowledge he displays. He acknowledges, instead, that he had a long-time reputation in Oea for being a magus,²³² and the utterance of the name of six magi at Apol. 90.6 – and, to a lesser extent, the reference to the Chaldaei at Apol. 97.4 – betrays a clear knowledge of magic that was punishable under the Lex Cornelia de sicariis et veneficis.²³³ This leads us to the conclusion that, far from having irrevocably disproved the accusations and dispelled the suspicion of being a magus, Apuleius would have been in a tight corner of the courtroom of Sabratha had the judge not been sympathetic towards his case. As it emerges from what has been discussed so far, the Apologia is a defence tailored for a precise addressee, Claudius Maximus, with whom the cultured audience and the ideal readers of the speech could have easily identified themselves. And by acknowledging Apuleius’ philosophical and literary status they would have hardly considered him a goetic magus.

 Apol. 66.3, which mirrors etsi maxime magus forem (‘even if I really were a magus’), repeated in Apol. 28.4 and Apol. 90.1.  Apol. 66.3; a similar claim is made at 90.1‒5.  Apol. 81.1; this antedates the defamation mounted by Rufinus, Aemilianus and Pontianus in the city square, cf. Apol. 82.3‒7.  Ch. 11.5.

12 Conclusion 12.1 Apuleius: Philosophus Platonicus and Defensor Magiae It is now time to draw some general conclusions on the findings that have emerged from my examination of Apuleius’ Apologia. In the previous chapters I have often played the role of the advocatus diaboli, assessing the contradictory aspects of Apuleius’ claims while shedding light on the strength of the prosecution’s case. This has been made possible by the new semantic taxonomy which I have introduced in this study to better define magic,¹ enabling me to reconstruct more accurately than previous scholars the goetic tone of Apuleius’ arguments, his manipulation of the ambivalent meaning of magus and its cognates, and the accusers’ employment of widespread beliefs concerning the real practices of goetic magic, and the dramatic representations of magic in literature and rhetoric. Although there is no direct evidence of Apuleius’ acquittal, this outcome is almost certain given his successful career as a priest and rhetorician in Carthage during the 160s AD (1.3), and given that he cogently proves that he had no financial interest in Pudentilla’s wealth by reading a copy of her will.² Apuleius, however, does not confute in an equally convincing manner his alleged goetic crimes: his main argument against them is that his inner inclination towards what is good makes it impossible for him to have had anything to do with goetic magic.³ This claim notwithstanding, the methodology on magic adopted in this monograph has enabled me to reconstruct the dangerous content of the allegations, heavily distorted in Apuleius’ speech, showing that these accusations complied both with commonplace ideas about goetic magic and with the Lex Cornelia de sicariis et veneficis, under which Apuleius was being tried.⁴ As we have seen, the Preliminary Allegations stress the fact that Apuleius – a Don Juan and a squanderer – purportedly paid excessive attention to his appearance employing and making illicit potions (3.2), and that his unnatural eloquence (3.3) and use of a mirror (3.5) were also possible indications of his goetic practices. Furthermore, his ability to handle venena for the creation of cosmetics,

 Ch. 2.  Apol. 100.5.  Apol. 90.3: certum indicem cuiusque animum esse; qui semper eodem ingenio ad virtutem vel ad malitiam moratus firmum argumentum est accipiendi criminis aut respuendi (‘the soul of a person is the undisputable evidence; the fact that someone’s mind is always inclined either towards good or towards evil is a solid argument to accept or reject a charge’).  Ch. 1.3. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110617528-014

12.1 Apuleius: Philosophus Platonicus and Defensor Magiae

255

proved by the deposition of Calpurnianus and by the short poem which Apuleius wrote to accompany his gift of a toothpaste (3.4), could have been a prosecutable action under the Lex Cornelia since this law punished those who sold or concocted venena. ⁵ The sinister portrayal presented in the Preliminary Allegations prepares the ground for the Primary and Secondary Charges: according to the former, the wicked magus Apuleius was a threat not only to the health and fortune of Pudentilla, whom he supposedly seduced with love-charms made from obscene sea animals (5 and 6), but to the whole community of Oea. His noxious carmina caused the sickness of numerous slave-boys, including Thallus, and of a lady of free condition (7);⁶ the defilement of Pontianus’ personal Lares eventually brought about the death of his stepson (8),⁷ and the pollution of Crassus’ hearth and Penates provoked Crassus’ sickness, preventing his attendance at the trial (9).⁸ In addition, the prosecutors hoped that the charge concerning Apuleius’ supposed necromantic abilities would have made him appear a fully-fledged magus who endangered every Oean citizen (10).⁹ The Secondary Charges, which focused more on Apuleius’ seduction of Pudentilla and his attempt to seize her patrimony, are also strongly connected with magic. They buttress, in fact, the claim that he employed carmina and venena on the defenceless widow (11.2), and that the isolation in which the couple lived before, during, and after the wedding paved the way for Apuleius’ evil goals (11.3). Had he been found guilty of at least one of these charges, he would have had to be punished under the Lex Cornelia de sicariis et veneficis, and either exiled or put to death. Apuleius’ own arguments disclose not only his erudition but also a controversial knowledge of specific features of goetic magic, especially when he utters a list of mock-voces magicae ¹⁰ and a goetic curse,¹¹ and when he cites the name of six magi. ¹² These could have represented incriminating evidence against his self-professed innocence, since the very knowledge of magic was a prosecutable crime according to the Lex Cornelia. ¹³ The borderline nature of these displays has stirred up perplexity in scholarship, and it has even been assumed that some of these passages were added at a later stage, when Apuleius revised his speech for

 Paulus Sent. 5.29.1.  The enchantment of a person is condemned by the Lex Cornelia (Paulus Sent. 5.29.15).  This action was prosecutable under the Lex Cornelia (Paulus Sent. 5.29.15).  The legal implications of this charge are the same as those of the previous allegation.  Necromancy, too, was a prosecutable offence (Paulus Sent. 1.33.5; 5.25; 5.29.15; 5.29.17).  Apol. 38.7‒8 and the discussion in Ch. 6.4.  Apol. 64.1‒2 (Ch. 10.7).  Apol. 90.6 (Ch. 11.5).  Paulus Sent. 5.29.17.

256

12 Conclusion

publication.¹⁴ I would argue, however, that there is no reason to assume this. The outcome of Apuleius’ trial did not depend on whether he could convince everyone of his innocence; rather, it was mainly determined by the forensic strategy employed to persuade the judge Maximus with a sophistic display and by creating a sense of bonhomie and camaraderie amongst intellectuals ganging up against the boorish opponents. Apuleius’ strategy pivots on the dichotomous nature of all things: ‘you can mention nothing in nature so inoffensive that it could not impair other things’ (nihil in rebus omnibus tam innoxium dices quin id possit aliquid aliqua obesse), as Apuleius puts it.¹⁵ While the dramatised portrait of Apuleius as a goetic magus presented by his foes was meant to paint him as a threat in the eyes of the people in court, Apuleius depicts his prosecutors as rustic louts to ridicule them by underlining their inner and exterior vulgarity, which he contrasts with his self-presentation as a Platonic philosopher. This is not exceptional since jokes at the expense of the opposition were customary in Roman rhetoric, employed and prescribed by Cicero¹⁶ and by Quintilian,¹⁷ and it was also a common assumption that an orator should present himself as noble-minded and law-abiding.¹⁸ What makes the Apologia unique is the constant Platonising opposition between higher concepts, which are associated with Apuleius and the judge Maximus, and inferior ones, which Apuleius attributes to his attackers. As we have seen, this happens when Apuleius praises the Platonic distinction between the pure, celestial Venus and the earthly Venus;¹⁹ when he weighs his clean mouth against Aemilianus’ filthy mouth;²⁰ when he contrasts Aemilianus’ obscure and secretive lifestyle with his own public career;²¹ when he distinguishes between Persian magia, commended by Plato, and vulgar magia in which his attackers believe;²² when he draws a line between Aemilianus’ supposed irreligiosity and his holy initiations into the mysteries;²³ and, again,

 Gaide 1993: 230‒1; Harrison 2000: 75, n. 93 with specific reference to the curse in Apol. 64.1‒2.  Apol. 32.3 (Ch. 6.2).  Cic. de Orat. 2.236‒42. His witty jokes were so famous as to be collected by Tiro (Quint. Inst. 6.3.1) and Trebatius (Cic. Fam. 15.21), see Russell 2001: 64‒5, n. 2.  Quint. Inst. 6.3.1‒5. On Apuleius’ borrowing from comedy, see May 2006: 80‒108; 2014a: 759‒ 62.  Cic. de Orat. 2.184. The accusers also played the role of the righteous men condemning Apuleius’ immorality for his supposed seeking of obscene sea creatures; cf. Apol. 34.1‒2, and my remarks in Ch. 6.3.  Apol. 12.1‒5 (Ch. 3.4).  Apol. 8.3‒5 (Ch. 3.4).  Apol. 16.7‒13 (Ch. 3.5).  Apol. 25.9‒26.9 (Ch. 4.2, 4.3).  Apol. 55.8‒56.10 (Ch. 8.6).

12.1 Apuleius: Philosophus Platonicus and Defensor Magiae

257

when he exhorts the audience to consider the positive natures of various components²⁴ and rituals²⁵ which could also pertain to goetic magic, as his ill-minded enemies would be inclined to think. In each of the above-mentioned cases, the baser concepts are attached to the prosecution, while the loftier concepts are attributed to Apuleius and, indirectly, to Maximus. By enriching the speech with this Platonising veneer, Apuleius succeeds in claiming to be defending the good name of philosophy (3.6), while buttressing his own self-presentation as a Socrates on trial. The judge and philosopher Claudius Maximus and Apuleius’ ideal readership would have enjoyed grasping this refined subtext and participating in the same cultural status as Apuleius, from which the accusers were excluded. This Platonic tone which underpins the arguments of the Apologia becomes a narrative pattern in Apuleius’ Metamorphoses. As argued by DeFilippo²⁶ and Leigh,²⁷ there it is connected with the idea of ‘meddlesomeness’ (curiositas), because of which the appetitive part of the protagonist’s soul is led astray until his transformation into human form by means of Isis’ grace, rejecting the inprospera and temeraria curiositas. ²⁸ But the very macrostructure of the Metamorphoses reflects this dichotomous contrast between a lower and a higher dimension: while the first section (books 1 to 3 and 6.25‒10) is driven by Lucius’ interest in Thessalian magic and his consequent physical and mental perdition, the salvific finale (book 11) is pervaded by a lofty, holy atmosphere, a backdrop befitting Lucius’ initiations into the mysteries of Isis and Osiris.²⁹ The Platonising opposition between superior and inferior realms that characterises the structure of the Metamorphoses is very much akin to Apuleius’ reasoning in the defencespeech. The Platonic texture of the Apologia notwithstanding, it may be argued that if one tried to resist Apuleius’ charisma, the display of his knowledge of magic was such that it could not have been taken lightly. Had the judge not sympa-

 Apol. 32.3‒8 (Ch. 6.2).  Apol. 54.1‒2; 54.7 (Ch. 8.5).  DeFilippo 1990: 471‒92.  Leigh 2013: 136‒50.  Apul. Met. 11.15.1; 11.23.5, on which Leigh 2013: 147‒9; Keulen et al. 2015: 383‒5. See also the recent study by Puccini 2017: 127‒293.  On Lucius’ changing characterisation, see Harrison 2015; Tilg 2015; Keulen 2015. Within the main plot of the novel we find the tale of Cupid and Psyche (Met. 4.28‒6.24), a fairy-tale intermezzo which mirrors Lucius’ own story. On the Platonic undertone of this tale, see Penwill 1975: 49‒82; DeFilippo 1990: 473‒7; Kenney 1990: 19‒22; Sandy 1999: 133‒5; Harrison 2000: 252‒9; O’Brien 2002: 77‒90; Graverini 2012: 110‒18; Tilg 2014: 50‒2; Moreschini 2015: 87‒115; Panayotakis 2015.

258

12 Conclusion

thised with Apuleius, the outcome of the trial would have likely been different. But Apuleius is not concerned about the viewpoint of a sceptical reader: he seems certain that his main addressee, Claudius Maximus, did not harbour unsympathetic feelings for him. Apuleius’ self-confident voice takes it for granted that the fellow philosopher Maximus will be on his side, fighting for the cause of philosophy, and would never subscribe to the prosecution’s claims, despite the fact that their arguments were extremely serious and that Apuleius did not always succeed in disproving them.³⁰ This is why Apuleius strives to persuade Maximus and indirectly his readership – who would have identified themselves with the judge – by ‘tickling their ears’, instead of disproving the allegations with solid, rational arguments. From this perspective, it may also become possible to understand why Apuleius, after commending the Magi and their traditions, adds a positive reference to the ἐπῳδαί and λόγοι of Zalmoxis at Apol. 26.4‒5.³¹ Like Plato’s Socrates, Apuleius’ oratorical mastery is such as to enable him to control his audience, almost enchanting them in the same manner of a γóης: predictably, this was the reason why Socrates himself was ironically compared with the γóητες in Plato’s works (4.6). Yet, Socrates’ charming influence on his audience serves the higher purpose of healing the soul (ψυχή) of his listeners,³² averting any impious or earthly impulse. Socrates’ influence is thus divine, not goetic, as Jacqueline de Romilly argues.³³ Analogously, the reference to Zalmoxis’ charms, in a crucial passage where Apuleius lays the ground for the rebuttal of the Primary Charges (4.7), signals the fact that Apuleius’ irresistible influence on the judge and the audience in the following part of the Apologia needs to be seen as a Platonic attempt to purify their mind from the base and mendacious arguments brought forward by his accusers. In doing so, the people in court could glimpse the higher truth to which Apuleius, a true Socrates reborn, adheres. And yet I suggest that Apuleius should not merely be seen as a Socrates reborn: while Socrates was condemned and sentenced to death, Apuleius succeeds in defeating his accusers and defending both himself and the good name of philosophy,³⁴ thus he outshines the very figure of Socrates, proving himself worthy of that philosophical esteem that accompanies him through the ages.

 The only exception is the deposition of the physician Themison (Apol. 33.3; 40.5 and especially 48‒52, discussed in Ch. 7.5) and those of Cornelius Saturninus and Capitolina’s son (Apol. 61.5‒62.2, cf. Ch. 10.5).  This is a reference to Pl. Chrm. 156d‒157a (Ch. 4.2).  Pl. Chrm. 157c.  Cf. de Romilly 1975: 33‒7.  Apol. 103.4.

12.1 Apuleius: Philosophus Platonicus and Defensor Magiae

259

We may still ask ourselves why Apuleius did not simply deny that he had an interest in magic instead of provocatively showcasing it. His dubious reputation in Oea even before the trial³⁵ and the dangerous charges against him do not induce him to ever actually deny being a magus. This is quite significant when we compare Apuleius’ attitude with the behaviour of intellectuals who live in the third century AD: both Flavius Philostratus³⁶ and Plotinus³⁷ strongly reject magic without attempting to observe its religious and philosophical aspects as, instead, Apuleius does at Apol. 25.9‒26.5.³⁸ As it emerges from some of his other writings, Apuleius regards the Magi positively:³⁹ he considers them the philosophical masters of Plato and Pythagoras, and could not avoid taking pride in being regarded as one of them.⁴⁰ According to Apuleius’ Platonic Weltanschauung, the ignoble meaning of the term μάγος-magus, which his enemies choose and that becomes predominant in the following centuries (2.3), is not worth being taken into consideration. I argue, in conclusion, that when Apuleius delivered his Apologia in the courtroom of Sabratha he attempted not only to exculpate himself and philosophy, but also to cleanse magia from its base, goetic connotation, defending a superior lore that his vitae magister Plato was believed to have sought out and admired.

     

Apol. 81.1. Philostr. VA 1.2. Plot. 1.4.9; 2.9.14; 4.3.14; 4.4.26; 4.9.3. Ch. 4.2 and 4.6. Apul. Soc. 6; Fl. 15.14; Pl. 1.3. Apol. 27.4.

Bibliography Abt, A. (1908) Die Apologie des Apuleius von Madaura und die antike Zauberei (Gießen). Abt, A. (1915) ‘Die älteste Darstellung eines Skeletts’, RhM 70: 155‒6. Adams, J. N. (1982) The Latin Sexual Vocabulary (London). Adams, J. N. (2003) Bilingualism and the Latin Language (Cambridge). Addey, C. (2014) Divination and Theurgy in Neoplatonism. Oracles of the Gods (Burlington). Ademollo, F. (2011) The Cratylus of Plato. A Commentary (Cambridge and New York). Amarelli, F. (1988) ‘Il processo di Sabrata’, SDHI 54: 110‒46. Anderson, G. (1994) Sage, Saint and Sophist. Holy Men and their Associates in the Early Roman Empire (London). André, J. (1985) Les noms de plantes dans la Rome antique (Paris). André, J.-M. (2010) ‘Culture médicale et guérison miraculeuse chez Saint Augustin: les miracles de Carthage’, in D. Briquel, C. Février, and C. Guittard (eds.), Varietates Fortunae. Religion et mythologie à Rome. Hommage à Jacqueline Champeaux (Paris), 333‒46. Annequin, J. (1973) Recherches sur l’action magique et ses représentations (Ier et IIème siècles après J. C.) (Paris). Armstrong, A. H. (1984) Plotinus. Porphyry on Plotinus. Ennead I (Cambridge, Mass.). Asheri, D., Lloyd, A., and Corcella, A. (2007) A Commentary on Herodotus Books i‒IV (Oxford). Asztalos, M. (2005) ‘Apuleius’ Apologia in a Nutshell: The Exordium’, CQ 55: 266‒76. Atran, S. (2002) In Gods We Trust. The Evolutionary Landscape of Religion (Oxford). Audollent, A. (1904) Defixionum tabellae (Paris). Augello, G. (1984) L’apologia o La magia. Florida. Di Lucio Apuleio (Turin). Austin, R. G. (1955) P. Vergili Maronis Aeneidos. Liber quartus. Edited with a commentary (Oxford). Baehrens, A. (1881) Poetae Latini Minores, vol. III (Leipzig). Baldini Moscadi, L. (1976) ‘Murmur nella terminologia magica’, SIFC 48: 254‒62. Reprinted and updated in L. Baldini Moscadi (2005) Magica musa: la magia dei poeti latini, figure e funzioni (Bologna), 165‒74. Baldini Moscadi, L. (1976) ‘Osservazioni sull’episodio magico del VI libro della Farsaglia di Lucano’, SIFC 48: 140‒99. Reprinted and updated in L. Baldini Moscadi (2005) Magica musa: la magia dei poeti latini, figure e funzioni (Bologna), 15‒89. Barbara, S. (2018) ‘Apulée et les savoirs toxicologiques’, in E. Plantade and D. Vallat (eds.), Les savoirs d’Apulée (Hildesheim, Zürich, and New York), 67‒94. Bardong, K. (1944) ‘Zur Apologie des Apuleius von Madaura’, Philologus, 96: 265‒81. Barnes, T. D. (1978) The Sources of the Historia Augusta (Bruxelles). Bartalucci, A. (1985) ‘Analisi testuale del frammento di Levio sui filtri magici’, in V. Tandoi (ed.), Disiecti membra poetae. Studi di poesia latina in frammenti (Foggia), 79‒92. Barwick, C. (1964) Flavii Sosipatri Charisii Artis grammaticae libri V. Editio stereotypa correctior editionis prioris. Addenda et corrigenda collegit et adiecit F. Kühnert (Leipzig). Bauman, R. A. (2000) Human rights in ancient Rome (London). Beaujeu, J. (1973) Apulée. Opuscules Philosophiques et fragments (Paris). Beck, R. (1991) ‘Excursus. Thus Spake not Zarathuštra: Zoroastrian Pseudepigrapha of the Greco-Roman World’, in M. Boyce and F. Grenet (eds.), A History of Zoroastrianism.

https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110617528-015

Bibliography

261

Zoroastrianism under Macedonian and Roman Rule, vol. III (Leiden, New York, Copenhagen, and Köln), 491‒565. Becker, A. (1904) Pseudo-Quintilianea. Symbolae ad Quintiliani quae feruntur Declamationes XIX maiores. Progr., K. human. Gymn. Ludwigshafen am Rhein (Ludwigshafen am Rhein). Belfiore, E. (1980) ‘Elenchus, Epode, and Magic: Socrates as Silenus’, Phoenix, 34: 128‒37. Belloni, L. (1986) ‘I Persiani di Eschilo tra Oriente e Occidente’, in M. Sordi (ed.), L’Europa nel mondo antico (Milan), 68‒83. Berger, A. (1953) Encyclopedic Dictionary of Roman Law (Philadelphia). Bernabé, A. (2005) Poetae Epici Graeci. Testimonia et Fragmenta. Orphicorum et Orphicis similium testimonia et fragmenta (Munich and Leipzig). Bernabé, A. (2015) ‘The Ephesia Grammata: Genesis of a Magical Formula’, in C. A. Faraone and D. Obbink (eds.), The Getty Hexameters. Poetry, Magic, and Mystery in Ancient Selinous (Oxford), 71‒106. Berthelot, M. (1887) Collection des anciens alchimiste grecs, vol. I (Paris). Bettini, M. (2014) Elogio del politeismo. Quello che possiamo imparare dalle religioni antiche (Bologna). Betz, H. D. (1986) The Greek Magical Papyri in translation including the Demotic Spells (Chicago and London). Betz, H. D. (1992) The Greek Magical Papyri in translation including the Demotic Spells, 2nd edn. (Chicago and London). Betz, H. D. (2003) The “Mithras Liturgy”: Text, Translation, and Commentary (Tübingen). Bevegni, C. (2013) ‘Rileggendo le fonti greche su Zalmoxis: le testimonianze dei Padri della Chiesa’, in M. Taufer (ed.), Sguardi interdisciplinari sulla religiosità dei Geto-Daci (Freiburg and Berlin), 57‒70. Bevilaqua, G. (2012) ‘Defixio latina dalla via Ostiense contro Caecilia Prima’, in R. Friggeri, M. G. Granino Cecere, and G. L. Gregori (eds.), Terme di Diocleziano: la collezione epigrafica (Milan), 614‒5. Bidez, J. and Cumont, F. (1938) Les mages hellénisés: Zoroastre, Ostanès et Hystaspe d’après la tradition grecque. Les Textes, 2 vols. (Paris). Binternagel, A. (2008) Lobreden, Anekdoten, Zitate – Argumentationstaktiken in der Verteidigungsrede des Apuleius (Hamburg). Birley, A. (1968) ‘Apuleius: Roman provincial life’, HT 18: 629‒36. Bitel, A. (2006) ‘: Apuleius, Asinus aureus 1,5,3 and the Interpretative Implications of Naming Narrators’, in W. H. Keulen, R. R. Nauta, and S. Panayotakis (eds.), Lectiones Scrupulosae. Essays on the Text and Interpretation of Apuleius’ Metamorphoses in Honour of Maaike Zimmerman (Groningen), 222‒33. Blänsdorf, J. (2012) Die Defixionum tabellae des Mainzer Isis und Mater Magna-Heiligtums (Mainz). Blänsdorf, J. and Piranomonte, M. (2012) ‘IX,49. La fontana di Anna Perenna’, in R. Friggeri, M. G. Granino Cecere, and G. L. Gregori (eds.), Terme di Diocleziano: la collezione epigrafica (Milan), 617‒39. Boeft, J. den, Drijvers, J. W., den Hengst, D., and Teitler, H. C. (1998) Philological and Historical Commentary on Ammianus Marcellinus XXIII (Groningen). Bohak, G. (2003) ‘Hebrew, Hebrew Everywhere? Notes on the Interpretation of Voces Magicae’, in S. Noegel, J. Walker, and B. Wheeler (eds.), Prayer, Magic, and the Stars in the Ancient and Late Antique World (University Park, Pennsylvania), 69‒82.

262

Bibliography

Bömer, F. (1976) P. Ovidius Naso. Metamorphosen. Kommentar. Buch Vi‒VII (Heidelberg). Bonati, I. (2016) Il lessico dei vasi e dei contenitori greci nei papyri. Specimina per un repertorio lessicale degli angionimi greci (Berlin and Boston). Borret, M. (1976) Contre Celse par Origène. Introduction, texte critique, traduction et notes (Paris). Bowie, E. L. (1978) ‘Apollonius of Tyana: Tradition and Reality’, ANRW II/16/2. 1652‒99. Bowie, E. L. (1994) ‘Philostratus: writer of fiction’, in J. R. Morgan and R. Stoneman (eds.), Greek Fiction. The Greek Novel in Context (London and New York), 181‒99. Boyce, M. (1994) ‘Zoroaster’s Theology: Translation as an Obstacle to Understanding’, in C. Elsas (ed.), Tradition und Translation. Zum Problem der interkulturellen Ubersetzbarkeit religioser Phanomene (Berlin), 278‒84. Boyer, P. (2001) Religion Explained. The human instincts that fashion gods, spirits and ancestors (London). Boyle, A. J. (2014) Seneca. Medea. Edited with an introduction, translation and commentary (Oxford). Braarvig, J. (1999) ‘Magic: Reconsidering the Grand Dichotomy’, in D. R. Jordan, H. Montgomery, and E. Thom (eds.), The world of ancient magic (Bergen), 21‒54. Bracke, E. (2009) ‘Of Metis and Magic. The Conceptual Transformations of Circe and Medea in Ancient Greek Poetry’, 2 vols. (Diss., NUI Maynooth). Bradley, K. (1994) Slavery and Society at Rome (Cambridge). Bradley, K. (1997) ‘Law, Magic, and Culture in the Apologia of Apuleius’, Phoenix, 51: 203‒23. Reprinted in K. Bradley (2012) Apuleius and Antonine Rome: Historical Essays (Toronto), 3‒22. Bradley, K. (2012) Apuleius and Antonine Rome: Historical Essays (Toronto). Bradley, K. (2014) ‘Apuleius’ Apology: Text and Context’, in B. T. Lee, E. Finkelpearl, and L. Graverini (eds.), Apuleius and Africa (New York and London), 23‒34. Brashear, W. M. (1995) ‘The Greek Magical Papyri: an Introduction and Survey. Annotated Bibliography (1928‒1994)’, ANRW II/18/5. 3380‒684. Bremmer, J. N. (1999) ‘The Birth of the Term “Magic”’, ZPE 126: 1‒12. Reprinted and updated in J. N. Bremmer (2008) Greek Religion and Culture, the Bible and the Ancient Near East (Leiden and Boston), 235‒48; 353‒6. Bremmer, J. N. (2013) ‘The Getty Hexameters: Date, Author, and Place of Composition’, in C. A. Faraone and D. Obbink (eds.), The Getty Hexameters. Poetry, Magic, and Mystery in Ancient Selinous (Oxford), 21‒9. Bremmer, J. N. (2014) Initiation into the Mysteries of the Ancient World (Berlin and Boston). Bremmer, J. N. (2015) ‘Ancient Necromancy: Fact or Fiction?’, in K. Bielawski (ed.), Mantic Perspectives: Oracles, Prophecy and Performance (Lublin and Warsaw), 119‒41. Bremmer, J. N. (2016) ‘Shamanism in Classical Scholarship: Where are We Now?’, in P. Jackson (ed.), Horizons of Shamanism. A Triangular Approach to the History and Anthropology of Ecstatic Techniques (Stockholm), 52‒74. Brenk, F. E. (1986) ‘In the light of the moon. Demonology in the early imperial period’, ANRW II/16/3. 2068‒145. Broadhead, H. D. (1960) The Persae of Aeschylus (Cambridge). Brugnoli, G. (1967) ‘Rota Figuli’, RCCM 9: 226‒9. Burkert, W. (1962) ‘Γόης. Zum griechischen ‘Schamanismus’, RhM 105: 36‒55. Burkert, W. (1987) Ancient mystery cults (Cambridge, Mass.).

Bibliography

263

Burkert, W. (2004) Babylon, Memphis, Persepolis: eastern contexts of Greek culture (Cambridge, Mass.). Burriss, E. E. (1936) ‘The Terminology of Witchcraft’, CPh 31: 137‒45. Busch, P. (2001) ‘War Jesus ein Magier?’, ZNT 4: 25‒31. Butler, H. E. (1909) The Apologia and Florida of Apuleius of Madaura (Oxford). Butler, H. E. and Owen, A. S. (1914) Apulei Apologia sive Pro se de magia (Oxford). Cagianelli, C. (1999) ‘Sulla provenienza del Marte cosiddetto di Ravenna’, SCO 47: 367‒80. Callebat, L. (1968) Sermo cotidianus dans les Métamorphoses d’Apulée (Caen). Callebat, L. (1984) ‘La prose d’Apulée dans le De Magia. Eléments d’interprétation’, WS 18: 143‒67. Cantarella, E. (1992) Bisexuality in the Ancient World (New Haven). Cappelli, A. (2006) Dizionario di abbreviature latine ed italiane, 6th edn. (Milan). Cardauns, B. (1960) Varros Logistoricus über die Götterverehrung. (Curio de cultu deorum). Ausgabe und Erklärung der Fragmente (Wurzburg). Cardauns, B. (2001) Marcus Terentius Varro: Einführung in sein Werk (Heidelberg). Carey, C. (2000) Aeschines (Austin, TX). Carver, R. H. F. (2007) The Protean Ass. The Metamorphoses of Apuleius from Antiquity to the Renaissance (Oxford). Casaubon, I. (1594) L. Apulei Madaurensis Philosophi Platonici Apologia (Heidelberg). Chalcondyles, D. (1499) Τὸ μὲν παρὸν βιβλίον Σουίδα. Οἱ δὲ συνταξάμενοι τοῦτο ἄνδρες σοφοί (Milan). Clausen, W. V. (1994) A Commentary on Virgil. Eclogues (Oxford). Coarelli, F. (1989) ‘Apuleio a Ostia?’, Dialoghi di Archeologia, 7: 27‒42. Collins, D. (2008a) Magic in the Ancient Greek World (Malden, Mass., Oxford, and Victoria, AU). Collins, D. (2008b) ‘The Magic of Homeric Verses’, CPh 103: 211‒36. Colson, F. H. (1937) Philo, vol. VII (Cambridge, Mass.). Colvius, P. (1588) L. Apuleii Madaurensis opera omnia quae exstant (Leiden). Comerci, G. (1977) ‘Carmen, occentatio, ed altre voci magico-diffamatorie dalle XII tavole a Cicerone’, BStudLat 7: 287‒306. Copenhaver, B. P. (1992) Hermetica. The Greek “Corpus Hermeticum” and the Latin “Asclepius” in a new English translation, with notes and introduction (Cambridge). Costantini, L. (2017) ‘Infelicium Avium: Reconsidering Passerat’s Conjecture at Met. 3.17.4’, Mnemosyne, 70: 331‒9. Costantini, L. (2018a) ‘The Entertaining Function of Magic and Mystical Silence in Apuleius’ Metamorphoses’, in E. Cueva, G. Schmeling, P. James, K. Ní Mheallaigh, S. Panayotakis, and N. Scippacercola (eds.), Re-Wiring the Ancient Novel. Volume 2: Roman Novels and Other Important Texts (Groningen), 117‒33. Costantini, L. (2018b) ‘An Emendation to Apuleius, Apologia 47.1’, CQ 68.1: 347‒50. Costantini, L. (2018c) ‘The Real Tools of Magic: Pamphile’s Macabre Paraphernalia (Apuleius, Met. 3,17,4‒5)’, AncNarr 15: 1‒14. Costantini, L. (2019a) ‘Dynamics of Laughter: The Costumes of Menippus and Mithrobarzanes in Lucian’s Necyomantia’, AJPh 140 (forthcoming). Costantini, L. (2019b) ‘The Spiritual Corruption of Sicinius Aemilianus. A Platonic Lambasting in Apuleius’ Apologia 52’, BollClass 39 (forthcoming). Courtney, E. (1993) The Fragmentary Latin Poets (Oxford).

264

Bibliography

Courtney, E. (2013) A Commentary on the Satires of Juvenal (Berkeley). Crippa, S. (2010) ‘Magic and rationality in Pliny. Transmission of knowledge: the medical-magical pharmacopoiea’, Palamedes, 5: 115‒25. Crippa, S. (2012) ‘Bruissements, gestes vocaux, cris: pour une réflexion sur le contexte sonore des rituels “magiques”’, in M. Piranomonte and F. Marco Simón (eds.), Contesti magici – Contextos mágicos (Rome), 289‒97. Crusius, O. (1890) ‘Märchenreminiscenzen im antiken Sprichwort’, in Verhandlungen der 40. Versammlung deutscher Philologen und Schulmänner in Görlitz vom 2. bis 5. Oktober 1889 (Leipzig). Cuccioli Melloni, R. (1969) Ricerche sul Pitagorismo: I. Biografia di Pitagora (Bologna). Cumont, F. (1933) ‘L’iniziazione di Nerone da parte di Tiridate d’Armenia’, RFIC 11: 145‒54. Daniel, R. W. and Maltomini, F. (1990‒1992) Supplementum Magicum, 2 vols. (Opladen). De Bussi, G. A. (1469) Metamorphoses, Florida, Apologia, De deo Socratis, De Platone et eius dogmate, De mundo (Rome). De Climent, M. (1981) Fonetica Latina. Con un apendice sobre fonematica latina por Sebastian Mariner Bigorra, 5th edn. (Madrid). De Jong, A. (1997) Traditions of the Magi. Zoroastrianism in Greek and Latin Literature (Leiden, New York, and Koln). De Meo, C. (2005) Lingue tecniche del latino. Con aggiornamento a cura di Mariella Bonvicini, 3rd edn. (Bologna). de Romilly, J. (1975) Magic and Rhetoric in Ancient Greece (Cambridge, Mass). DeFilippo, J. G. (1990) ‘Curiositas and the Platonism of Apuleius’ Golden Ass’, AJPh 111: 471‒92. Degani, E. (1983) Hipponactis Testimonia et fragmenta (Leipzig). Demeretz, A. (2004) ‘Narration et argumentation dans l’Apologie d’Apulée’, REL 82: 209‒26. Denyer, N. (2001) Alcibiades (Cambridge). Deretani, N. (1927) ‘De rhetorum Romanorum declamationibus. II: Quaestiones ad originem maiorum, quae sub nomine Quintiliani feruntur, declamationum pertinentes’, RPh 3: 289‒310. Deroy, L. (1983) ‘Sur la valeur et l’origine du préfixe latin vē-’, AC 52: 5‒21. Dick, A. (1969) Martianus Capella. Addenda adiecit Jean Préaux. Editio stereotype correctior editionis anni MXMXXV (Stuttgart). Dickie, M. W. (1999) ‘The learned magician and the collection and transmission of magical lore’, in D. R. Jordan, H. Montgomery, and E. Thom (eds.), The world of ancient magic (Bergen), 163‒93. Dickie, M. W. (2000) ‘Who practised love-magic in classical antiquity and in the late Roman world?’, CQ. 50. 563‒83. Dickie, M. W. (2001) Magic and Magicians in the Greco-Roman World (London and New York). Diederich, S. (1999) Der Horazkommentar des Porphyrio im Rahmen der kaiserzeitlichen Schul- und Bildungstradition (Berlin and New York). Diels, H. (1901) Poetarum philosophorum fragmenta (Berlin). Dionisotti, A. C. (1988) ‘Greek Grammars and Dictionaries in Carolingian Europe’, in M. W. Herren (ed.), The Sacred Nectar of the Greeks: The Study of Greek in the West in the Early Middle Ages (London), 1‒44. Dodds, E. R. (1947) ‘Theurgy and Its Relationship to Neoplatonism’, JRS 371: 55‒69. Dodds, E. R. (1951) The Greeks and the irrational (Berkeley).

Bibliography

265

Dodds, E. R. (1952) ‘A Fragment of a Greek Novel (P. Mich. inv. no. 5)’, in M. E. White (ed.), Studies in honour of Gilbert Norwood (Toronto), 133‒8. Dover, K. J. (1985) Theocritus. Select Poems (Bristol). Dowden, K. (1982) ‘Psyche on the Rock’, Latomus, 41: 336‒52. Dowden, K. (1994) ‘Apuleius’ Roman audience’, in J. Tatum (ed.), The search for the ancient novel (Baltimore), 419‒34. Dunbabin, K. (1986) ‘Sic erimus cuncti…The Skeleton in Graeco-Roman Art’, JDAI 101: 239‒55. Durkheim, É. (1995) The elementary forms of religious life. Translated and with an introduction by Karen E. Fields (New York and London). Edelstein, E. J. and Edelstein, L. (1998) Asclepius. Collection and Interpretation of the Testimonies. Collection of the Testimonies, 2 vols. (Baltimore). Eidinow, E. (2015) Envy, Poison, and Death: Women on Trial in Classical Athens (Oxford). Eitrem, S. (1925) ‘Additional remarks on the magical papyrus, P. Leid. V’, Aegyptus, 5: 117‒20. Eitrem, S. (1941) ‘La magie comme motif littéraire chez les Grecs et les Romains’, SO 21: 39‒83. Eitrem, S. (1942) ‘La théurgie chez les néoplatoniciens et dans les papyrus magiques’, SO 22: 49‒79. Eitrem, S. (1991) ‘Dreams and Divination in Magical Ritual’, in C. A. Faraone and D. Obbink (eds.), Magika Hiera. Ancient Greek Magic and Religion (Oxford and New York), 175‒87. Eliade, M. (1970) De Zalmoxis à Gengis-Khan. Études comparatives sur les religions et le folklore de la Dacie et de l’Europe orientale (Paris). Elm, D. (2009) ‘Wird auch kahl sein mein Haupt – Alterstopoi in Lukians Alexander oder der Lügenprophet und der Apologie des Apuleius’, in D. Elm, T. Fitzon, K. Liess, and S. Linden (eds.), Alterstopoi. Das Wissen von den Lebensaltern in Literatur, Kunst und Theologie (Berlin and New York), 71‒100. Ernout, A. (1962) Pline L’Ancien. Histoire Naturelle. Livre XXVIII (Paris). Ernout, A. (1963) Pline L’Ancien. Histoire Naturelle. Livre XXX (Paris). Ernout, A. and Meillet, A. (2001) Dictionnaire étymologique de la langue latine. Histoire des mots, 4th edn. (Paris). Ernout, A. and Thomas, F. (2002) Syntaxe Latine, 2nd edn. (Paris). Espagne, M. and Werner, M. (1985) ‘Deutsch-Französischer Kulturtransfer im 18. und 19. Jahrhundert. Zu einem neuen interdisziplinären Forschungsprogramm des C.N.R.S.’, Francia, 13: 502‒10. Evans-Pritchard, E. E. (1958) Witchcraft, Oracles and Magic among the Azande (Oxford). Facchini Tosi, C. (1986) ‘Forma e suono in Apuleio’, Vichiana, 15: 98‒168. Faivre, A. (2010) Western Esotericism. A Concise History. Translated by Christine Rhone (Albany). Fantham, E. (1995) ‘Aemilia Pudentilla: or the wealthy widow’s choice’, in R. Hawley and B. M. Levick (eds.), Women in antiquity. New assessments (London), 221‒32. Faraone, C. A. (1996) ‘Taking the “Nestor’s Cup Inscription” Seriously: Erotic Magic and Conditional Curses in the Earliest Inscribed Hexameters’, ClAnt 15: 77‒112. Faraone, C. A. (1999) Ancient Greek love magic (Cambridge, Mass.). Faraone, C. A. (2005) ‘Necromancy Goes Underground: The Disguise of Skull- and Corpse-Divination in the Paris Magical Papyri (PGM IV 1928‒2144)’, in S. I. Johnston and P. T. Struck (eds.), Mantikê. Studies in Ancient Divination (Leiden and Boston), 255‒82.

266

Bibliography

Faraone, C. A. (2013) ‘Magical Verses on a Lead Tablet: Composite Amulet or Anthology?’, in C. A. Faraone and D. Obbink (eds.), The Getty Hexameters. Poetry, Magic, and Mystery in Ancient Selinous (Oxford), 107‒19. Faraone, C. A. and Obbink, D. (eds.) (1991) Magika Hiera. Ancient Greek Magic and Religion (Oxford and New York). Farquharson, A. S. L. (1944) The meditations of the Emperor Marcus Antoninus, 2 vols. (Oxford). Fauth, W. (1980) ‘Venena amoris: die Motive des Liebeszaubers und der erotischen Verzauberung in der augusteischen Dichtung’, Maia, 32: 265‒82. Fauth, W. (1999) Carmen magicum: das Thema der Magie in der Dichtung der römischen Kaiserzeit (Frankfurt). Fernández García, A. J. (2009) ‘Ostanes, maestro alquímico’, in A. Almela Lumbreras, J. F. González Castro, J. Siles Ruiz, J. de la Villa Polo, G. Hinojo Andrés, and P. Cañizares Ferriz (eds.), Perfiles de Grecia y Roma: actas del XII Congreso Español de Estudios Clásicos (Madrid), 731‒44. Ferrari, F. (2011) ‘Rites without Frontiers: Magi and Mystae in the Derveni Papyrus’, ZPE 179: 71‒83. Ferrari, F. (2013) ‘L’incantesimo del Trace: Zalmoxis, la terapia dell’anima e l’immortalità nel Carmide di Platone’, in M. Taufer (ed.), Sguardi interdisciplinari sulla religiosità dei Geto-Daci (Freiburg and Berlin), 21‒41. Ferrari, M. G. (1968) ‘Aspetti di letterarietà nei Florida di Apuleio’, SIFC 40: 85‒147. Ferrary, J.-L. (1991) ‘Lex Cornelia de sicariis et veneficis’, Athenaeum, 69: 417‒34. Fick, N. (1985) ‘La magie dans le Métamorphoses d’Apulée’, REL 63: 132‒47. Fick, N. (1991) ‘Magie et religion dans l’Apologie d’Apulée’, VL 124: 14‒31. Fine, G. (ed.) (2008) The Oxford Handbook of Plato (Oxford and New York) Fitzgerald A. (1930) The Essays and Hymns of Synesius of Cyrene, 2 vols. (Oxford and London). Fletcher, R. (2009) ‘Plato Re-Read Too Late: Citation and Platonism in Apuleius’ Apologia’, Ramus, 38: 43‒74. Fletcher, R. (2014) Apuleius’ Platonism. The Impersonation of Philosophy (Cambridge). Floridus, J. (1688) Lucii Apuleii Madaurensi Platonici philosophi opera in usum Serenissimi Delphini (Paris). Foss, P. W. (1997) ‘Watchful Lares: Roman household organization and the rituals of cooking and eating’, in R. Laurence and A. Wallace-Hadrill (eds.), Domestic space in the Roman world: Pompeii and beyond (Portsmouth), 197‒218. Fowler, R. C. (2016) Imperial Plato. Albinus, Maximus, Apuleius. Text and Translation, with an Introduction and Commentary (Las Vegas, Zurich, and Athens). Fowler, R. L. (1995) ‘Greek Magic, Greek Religion’, ICS 20: 1‒22. Frassinetti, P. (1991) ‘Note testuali ad Apuleio (Apol., Flor.)’, in Studi di filologia classica in onore di Giusto Monaco, vol. III (Palermo), 1205‒8. Frazer, J. G. (1911) The magic art and the evolution of kings, 3rd edn. (London). Frazer, J. G. (1922) The golden bough. A study in magic and religion. Abridged edition (London). Frenschkowski, M. (2016) Magie im antiken Christentum: Eine Studie zur Alten Kirche und ihrem Umfeld (Stuttgart). Gager, J. G. (1972) Moses in Greco-Roman paganism (Atlanta).

Bibliography

267

Gager, J. G. (1992) Curse Tablets and Binding Spells from the Ancient World (New York and Oxford). Gagetti, E. (2006) Preziose sculture di età ellenistica e romana (Milan). Gaide, F. (1993) ‘Apulée de Madaure a-t-il prononcé le De magia devant le proconsul d’Afrique?’, LEC 61: 227‒31. Gaiser, K. (1988) Philodems Academica. Die Berichte über Platon und die Alte Akademie in zwei herkulanensischen Papyri (Stuttgart and Bad Cannstatt). Gaisser, J. H. (2008) The Fortunes of Apuleius and the Golden Ass. A Study in Transmission and Reception (Princeton and Oxford). Gaisser, J. H. (2014) ‘How Apuleius Survived’, in B. T. Lee, E. Finkelpearl, and L. Graverini (eds.), Apuleius and Africa (New York and London), 52‒65. Gargantini, L. (1963) ‘Ricerche intorno alla formazione dei temi nominali nelle Metamorfosi di Apuleio’, RIL 97: 33‒43. Garulli, V. (2013) ‘Greek Acrostic Verse Inscriptions’, in J. Kwapisz, D. Petrain, and M. Szymansky (eds.), The Muse at Play: Riddles and Wordplay in Greek and Latin Poetry (Berlin and Boston), 246‒78. Garvie, A. F. (2009) Aeschylus. Persae (Oxford). Gellrich, M. (1994) ‘Socratic Magic: Enchantment, Irony, and Persuasion in Plato’s Dialogues’, CW 87: 275‒307. Gero, S. (1996) ‘The enigma of the magician Lotapes: Pliny, Naturalis Historia XXX, 11’, JSJ 27: 304‒23. Gersh, S. (1986) Middle Platonism and Neoplatonism. The Latin Tradition, 2 vols. (Notre Dame, Indiana). Giacobello, F. (2008) Larari pompeiani. Iconografia e culto dei Lari in ambito domestico (Milan). Giannakis, G. N. (1982) Ὀρφέως Λιθικά (Ioannina). Gibson, R. K. (2003) Ars amatoria. Book 3 (Oxford). Ginzburg, C. (1989) Storia notturna. Una decifrazione del sabba (Turin). Gnilka, C. (1964) ‘Das Einwachsen der Götterbilder. Ein Missverständnis heidnischer Kultübung bei Prudentius’, JbAC 7: 52‒7. Goodyear, F. R. D. (1981) The Annals of Tacitus. Volume II: Annals 1.55‒81 and Annals 2 (Cambridge). Gordon, R. (1987) ‘Lucan’s Erictho’, in M. Whitby, P. Hardie, and M. Whitby (eds.), Homo viator. Classical Essays for John Bramble (Bristol), 231‒41. Gordon, R. (1997) ‘Quaedam Veritatis Umbrae: Hellenistic Magic and Astrology’, in P. Bilde, T. Engberg-Pedersen, L. Hannestad, and J. Zahle (eds.), Conventional values of the Hellenistic Greeks (Aarhus), 128‒58. Gordon, R. (1999) ‘Imagining Greek and Roman Magic’, in V. Flint, R. Gordon, G. Luck, and D. Ogden (eds.), Witchcraft and Magic in Europe. Ancient Greece and Rome, vol. II (London), 161‒269. Gordon, R. (2009) ‘Magic as a Topos in Augustan Poetry: Discourse, Reality and Distance’, Archiv für Religionswissenschaft, 11: 209‒28. Gordon, R. (2015) ‘From substances to texts: three materialities of ‘magic’ in the Roman imperial period’, in D. Boschung and J. N. Bremmer (eds.), The materiality of magic (Paderborn), 133‒76. Gow, A. S. F. (1952) Theocritus, 2nd edn. (Cambridge).

268

Bibliography

Graf, F. (1991) ‘Prayer in Magical and Religious Ritual’, in C. A. Faraone and D. Obbink (eds.), Magika Hiera. Ancient Greek Magic and Religion (Oxford and New York), 188‒97. Graf, F. (1997) Magic in the ancient world. Translated by Franklin Philip (Cambridge, Mass.). Graf, F. (1999) ‘Magic and divination’, in D. R. Jordan, H. Montgomery, and E. Thom (eds.), The world of ancient magic (Bergen), 283‒98. Graf, F. (2002) ‘Augustine and Magic’, in J. N. Bremmer and J. R. Veenstra (eds.), The metamorphosis of magic from late antiquity to the early modern period (Leuven), 87‒103. Graf, F. (2007) ‘Untimely Death, Witchcraft, and Divine Vengeance. A Reasoned Epigraphical Catalog’, ZPE 162: 139‒50. Graverini, L. (2012) Literature and Identity in The Golden Ass of Apuleius (Columbus). Greenwood, S. (2013) ‘Magical Consciousness’, in B.–C. Otto and M. Stausberg (eds.), Magic: a Reader (Sheffield and Bristol, CT), 197‒210. Griffiths, J. G. (1970) Plutarch’s De Iside et Osiride (Cardiff). Griffiths, J. G. (1975) The Isis-book. Metamorphoses, book XI (Leiden). Gschwantler, K. (1993‒1994) ‘Der Jüngling vom Magdalensberg in Aranjuez. Die Suche nach dem verschollenen Original’, Jahrbuch der Kunsthistorischen Sammlungen in Wien, 89/90: 311‒39. Guey, J. (1951) ‘Au théâtre de Leptis Magna. Le proconsulat de Lollianus Avitus et la date de l’Apologie d’Apulée’, REL 32: 301‒17. Gutsfeld, A. (1992) ‘Zur Wirtschaftsmentalität nichtsenatorischer provinzialer Oberschichten: Aemilia Pudentilla und ihre Verwandten’ Klio, 74: 250‒68. Habermehl, P. (1996) ‘Quaedam divinae mediae potestates. Demonology in Apuleius’ De deo Socratis’, GCN 7: 117‒42. Habermehl, P. (2002) ‘Magie, Mächte und Mysterien: Die Welt des Übersinnlichen im Werk des Apuleius’, in J. Hammerstaedt (ed.), Apuleius: De Magia. Eingeleitet, übersetzt und mit interpretierenden Essays versehen von Jürgen Hammerstaedt, Peter Habermehl, Francesca Lamberti, Adolf M. Ritter und Peter Schenk (Darmstadt), 285‒314. Hall, E. (1989) Inventing the barbarian. Greek self-definition through tragedy (Oxford). Halleux, R. and Schamp, J. (1985) Les lapidaires grecs. Lapidaire orphique. Kérygmes lapidaires d’Orphée, Socrate et Denys. Lapidaire nautique. Damigéron-Évax (traduction latine) (Paris). Halm-Tisserant, M. (2006) ‘Symbolique et éthique du blanc et du noir dans la pensée et dans l’imagerie en Grèce ancienne’, Eidola, 3: 9‒28. Hammer, C. (1893) Beiträge zu den 19 grösseren quintilianischen Deklamationen. Progr., K. Wilhelm-Gymn. München (Munich). Hammerstaedt, J. (2002) Apuleius: De Magia. Eingeleitet, übersetzt und mit interpretierenden Essays versehen von Jürgen Hammerstaedt, Peter Habermehl, Francesca Lamberti, Adolf M. Ritter und Peter Schenk (Darmstadt). Hanson, J. A. (1989) Apuleius. Metamorphoses. Books VIi‒XI, vol. II (Cambridge, Mass.). Happ, H. (1986) Luxurius: Text, Untersuchung, Kommentar (Stuttgart). Harlow, M. (2007) ‘Blurred visions. Male perceptions of the female life course: the case of Aemilia Pudentilla’, in M. Harlow and R. Laurence (eds.), Age and Ageing in the Roman Empire (Portsmouth), 195‒208. Harmon, A. M. (1960) Lucian, vol. III (Cambridge, Mass.). Harrison, S. J. (1988) ‘Three Notes on Apuleius’, CQ 38: 265‒7.

Bibliography

269

Harrison, S. J. (1998) ‘The Milesian tales and the Roman novel’, GCN 9: 61‒73, reprinted in S. J. Harrison (2013) Framing the Ass. Literary Texture in Apuleius’ Metamorphoses (Oxford), 57‒68. Harrison, S. J. (2000) Apuleius. A Latin Sophist (Oxford), reprinted with corrections in 2004. Harrison, S. J. (2008) ‘The Sophist at Play in Court: Apuleius’ Apology and his Literary Career’, in W. Riess (ed.), Paideia at Play: Learning and Wit in Apuleius (Groningen), 3‒15. Harrison, S. J. (2013) Framing the Ass. Literary Texture in Apuleius’ Metamorphoses (Oxford). Harrison, S. J. (2015) ‘Lucius in Metamorphoses 1‒3’, in S. J. Harrison (ed.), Characterisation in Apuleius’ Metamorphoses (Newcastle), 3‒14. Harrison, S. J., Hilton, J., and Hunink, V. (2001) Apuleius. Rhetorical Works. Translated and annotated (Oxford and New York). Havet, L. (1915) Manuel de critique verbale appliquée aux textes latins (Paris). Heath, M. (1995) Hermogenes on Issues. Strategies of argument in later Greek rhetoric (Oxford). Helm, R. (1898) Fabii Planciadis Fulgentii Opera. Accedunt Fabii Claudii Gordiani Fulgentii De aetatibus mundi et hominis et S. Fulgentii episcopi Super Thebaiden (Leipzig). Helm, R. (1905) Apulei Platonici Madaurensis. Apologia (Leipzig). Helm, R. (1910) Apulei Platonici Madaurensis. Florida (Leipzig). Helm, R. (1955) Apulei Platonici Madaurensis. Apologia, 3nd edn. (Leipzig). Helm, R. (1955b) ‘Apuleius’ Apologie. Ein Meisterwerk der zweiten Sophistik’, Das Altertum, 1: 86‒108. Helm, R. (1959) Apulei Platonici Madaurensis. Florida, 3nd edn. (Leipzig). Hemelrijk, E. A. (1999) Matrona Docta. Educated women in the Roman élite from Cornelia to Julia Domna (London and New York). Hemelrijk, E. A. (2015) Hidden Lives, Public Personae. Women and Civic Life in the Roman West (Oxford and New York). Henderson, J. (1991) The Maculate Muse. Obscene Language in Attic Comedy, 2nd edn. (Oxford and New York). Henrichs, A. (1991) ‘Namenlosigkeit und Euphemismus: Zur Ambivalenz der chthonischen Mächte im attischen Drama’, in H. Hofmann and A. Harder (eds.), Fragmenta dramatica (Göttingen), 161‒201. Hertz, G. (2010) ‘Apulée contre Émilianus dans l’Apologie: art de la polémique et cas problématique de la malédiction de l’adversaire’, in L. Albert and N. Loïc (eds.), Polémique et rhétorique. De l’Antiquité à nos jours (Bruxelles), 105‒18. Heubeck, A., West, S., and Hainsworth, J. B. (1988) A Commentary on Homer’s Odyssey. Introduction and books i‒VIII, vol. I (Oxford). Hijmans, B. L. (1987) ‘Apuleius, Philosophus Platonicus’, ANRW II/36/1. 395‒475. Hijmans, B. L. (1994) ‘Apuleius orator. Pro se de Magia and Florida’, ANRW II/34/2. 1709‒84. Hijmans, B. L., van der Paardt, R. T., Schmidt, V., Settels, C. B. J., Wesseling, B., and Westendorp Boerma, R. E. H. (1985) Apuleius Madaurensis. Metamorphoses. Book VIII. Text, introduction and commentary (Groningen). Hijmans, B. L., van der Paardt, R. T., Schmidt, V., Wesseling, B., Zimmerman, M. (1995) Apuleius Madaurensis. Metamorphoses. Book IX. Text, introduction and commentary (Groningen).

270

Bibliography

Hijmans, B. L., van der Paardt, R. T., Smits, E. R., Westendorp Boerma, R. E. H., and Westerbrink, A. G. (1977) Apuleius Madaurensis. Metamorphoses. Book IV.1‒27. Text, introduction and commentary (Groningen). Hildebrand, G. F. (1842) L. Apuleii opera omnia. Recensuit, notas Oudendorpii integras ac ceterorum editorum excerptas adjecit, perpetuis commentariis illustravit G. F. Hildebrand. Pars II. Florida, De deo Socratis, De dogmate Platonis, De mundo libros, Asclepium, Apologia, fragmenta et indices continens, vol. II (Leipzig). Höeg, C. (1939) ‘The second pleading of the Verres trial’, in Dragma M. P. Nilsson dedicatum, Acta Inst. Rom. Regni Sueciae (Lund), 264‒79. Hoffman, C. (2002) ‘Fiat Magia’, in P. Mirecki and M. Meyer (eds.), Magic and Ritual in the Ancient World (Leiden, Boston, and Köln), 179‒94. Hofmann, J. B. (1951) Lateinische Umgangssprache, 3rd edn. (Heidelberg). Holmén, T. (2007) ‘Jesus and Magic: Theodicean Perspectives to the Issue’, in M. Labahn and J. Lietaert Peerbolte (eds.), A Kind of Magic. Understanding Magic in the New Testament and its Religious Environment (London and New York), 43‒56. Holwerda, D. (1977) Scholia vetera in Aristophanem. Nubes (Groningen). Hopfner, T. (1921‒1924) Griechisch-ägyptischer Offenbarungszauber, 2 vols. (Leipzig). Hopfner, T. (1926) ‘Die Kindermedien in den griechisch-ägyptischen Zauberpapyri’, in Recueil d’études à la mémoire de N. P. Kondakov (Prague), 65‒74. Horky, P. S. (2009) ‘Persian Cosmos and Greek Philosophy: Plato’s Associates and the Zoroastrian Magoi’, OSAPh 37: 47‒103. Hornblower, S., Spawforth, A., and Eidinow, E. (eds.) (2012) The Oxford Classical Dictionary, 4th edn. (Oxford). Horsfall Scotti, M. T. (2000) ‘The Asclepius: thoughts on a re-opened debate’, VChr 54: 396‒416. Horton, R. (1967) ‘African Traditional Thought and Western Science. Part II’, Africa 37: 155‒87. Houston, G. W. (2014) Inside Roman Libraries. Book Collections and their Management in Antiquity (Chapel Hill). Hubert, C. (2003) ‘Römische Dämonologie (Varro, Apuleius, Tertullian)’, in A. Lange, H. Lichtenberger, and K. F. D. Römheld (eds.), Die Dämonen. Die Dämonologie der israelitisch-jüdischen und frühchristlichen Literatur im Kontext ihrer Umwelt = Demons. The demonology of Israelite-Jewish and early Christian literature in context of their environment (Tübingen), 447‒60. Hubert, H. and Mauss, M. (1903=1950) Sociologie et Anthropologie (Paris). Hunink, V. (1996) ‘Apuleius and the Asclepius’, VChr 50: 288‒308. Hunink, V. (1997) Apuleius of Madauros Pro Se De Magia (Apologia), 2 vols. (Amsterdam). Hunink, V. (1998) ‘Comedy in Apuleius’ Apology’, GCN 9: 97‒113. Hunink, V. (2000) ‘Apuleius, Pudentilla, and Christianity’, VChr 54: 80‒94. Hunink, V. (2001) Apuleius of Madauros. Florida. Edited with a commentary (Amsterdam). Hunink, V. (2003) ‘Plutarch and Apuleius’, in L. De Blois, P. Erdkamp, O. Hekster, G. de Kleijn, G., and S. Mols (eds.), The Representation and Perception of Roman Imperial Power (Leiden), 251‒60. Hunink, V. (2008) ‘Homer in Apuleius’ Apology’, in W. Riess (ed.), Paideia at Play: Learning and Wit in Apuleius (Groningen), 75‒87. Hurtado, L. W. (1998) ‘The Origin of the Nomina Sacra: A Proposal’, JBL 117: 655‒73. Hutchinson, G. (2006) Propertius. Elegies. Book IV (Cambridge).

Bibliography

271

Ifie, J. E. and Thompson, L. (1978) ‘Rank, Social Status and Esteem in Apuleius’, MusAfr 6: 21‒36. Inwood, B. (2001) The poem of Empedocles: a text and translation, 2nd edn. (Toronto and London). Israelowich, I. (2016) ‘The use and abuse of Hippocratic medicine in the Apology of Lucius Apuleius’, CQ 66, 635‒44. Jacques, J.-M. (2007) Nicandre. Oeuvres. Les Alexipharmaques (Paris). Johnston, S. I. (1990) Hekate Soteira. A Study of Hekate’s Roles in the Chaldean Oracles and Related Literature (Atlanta). Johnston, S. I. (1991) ‘Crossroad’, ZPE 87: 217‒24. Johnston, S. I. (1999) Restless Dead. Encounters between the Living and the Dead in Ancient Greece (Berkeley and London). Johnston, S. I. (2003) ‘Defining the Undescribable: New Books on Magic and Old Problems of Definition’, HR 43: 50‒4. Johnston, S. I. (2008) ‘Magic and the Dead in Ancient Greece’, in J. C. B. Petropoulos (ed.), Greek Magic. Ancient, Medieval and Modern (London and New York), 14‒20. Jones, C. P. (2005) Philostratus. Apollonius of Tyana, vol. II (Cambridge, Mass.). Jones, C. P. (2017) Apuleius. Apologia, Florida, De Deo Socratis (Cambridge, Mass.). Jones, H. L. (1930) Strabo. Geography. Books 15‒16, vol. VII (Cambridge, Mass.). Jones, W. H. S. (1966) Pliny. Natural History. Libri XXIV‒XXVII, vol. VII (Cambridge, Mass.). Jones, W. H. S. (1968) Pliny. Natural History. Libri XXVIIi‒XXXII, vol. VIII (Cambridge, Mass.). Kehoe, T. J. and Vervaet, F. J. (2015) ‘Honor and Humiliation in Apuleius’ Apologia’, Mnemosyne, 68: 605‒40. Keil, H. (1880) Grammatici Latini. Scriptores de orthographia. Terentius Scaurus, Velius Longus, Caper, Agroecius, Cassiodorius, Martyrius, Beda, Albinus. Audacis excerpta, Dosithei Ars grammatica, Arusiani Messii Exempla elocutionum, Cornelii Frontonis liber de differentiis, Fragmenta grammatica, vol. VII (Leipzig). Kenney, E. J. (1990) Apuleius. Cupid & Psyche (Cambridge). Keulen, W. H. (2007) Apuleius Madaurensis. Metamorphoses Book I. Text, introduction and commentary (Groningen). Keulen, W. H. (2013) ‘Apuleius and Gellius on the “controversial” Chaldaeans: Prophecy and Self-Fashioning in Antonine Prose Narrative’, in (eds.), Collected studies on the Roman novel. Ensayos sobre la novela romana (Córdoba), 179‒208. Keulen, W. H. (2015) ‘Lubrico uirentis aetatulae: Lucius as Initiate (Metamorphoses Book 11)’, in S. J. Harrison (ed.), Characterisation in Apuleius’ Metamorphoses (Newcastle), 29‒55. Keulen, W. H., Tilg, S., Nicolini, L., Graverini, L., Harrison, S. J., Panayotakis, S., and van Mal-Maeder, D. (2015) Apuleius Madaurensis. Metamorphoses. Book XI. The Isis Book. Text, Introduction and Commentary. Essays by F. Drews, W. S. Smith and U. Egelgaaf-Gaiser (Leiden and Boston). Kingsley, P. (1995a) Ancient philosophy, mystery, and magic. Empedocles and Pythagorean tradition (Oxford). Kingsley, P. (1995b) ‘Meetings with Magi: Iranian Themes among the Greeks, from Xanthus of Lydia to Plato’s Academy’, Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society, 5: 173‒209. Klibansky R. and Regen, F. (1993) Die Handschriften der philosophischen Werke des Apuleius. Ein Beitrag zur Überlieferungsgeschichte (Göttingen).

272

Bibliography

Kotansky, R. (1991) ‘Incantations and Prayers for Salvation on Inscribed Greek Amulets’, in C. A. Faraone and D. Obbink (eds.), Magika Hiera. Ancient Greek Magic and Religion (Oxford and New York), 107‒37. Kouremenos, T., Parássoglou, G. M., and Tsantsanoglou, K. (2006) The Derveni papyrus (Florence). Krause, J.-U. (1994) Witwen und Waisen im Romischen Reich (Stuttgart). Krüger, G. (1864) L. Apulei Madaurensis Apologia. Sive De magia liber (Berlin). Kruschwitz, P. (1998) ‘Überlegungen zum Text der Hedyphagetica des Ennius’, Philologus, 142: 261‒74. La Penna, A. (1977) L’integrazione difficile. Un profilo di Properzio (Turin). La Rocca, A. (2005) Il filosofo e la città. Commento storico ai Florida di Apuleio (Rome). Labate, M. (2016) ‘The Night of Reason. The Esquiline and Witches in Horace’, in P. Hardie (ed.), Augustan Poetry and the Irrational (Oxford), 74‒95. Lakhlif, M. (2008) ‘La richesse et les stratégies matrimoniales en Afrique au Haut-Empire: Aemilia Pudentilla, épouse d’Apulée de Madaure’, in J. González, P. Ruggeri, C. Vismara, and R. Zucca (eds.), L’Africa romana. Le richezze dell’Africa: risorse, produzioni, scambi (Rome), 319‒25. Lamb, W. R. M. (1924) Plato. Laches, Protagoras, Meno, Euthydemus, vol. II (Cambridge, Mass.). Lamberti, F. (2002) ‘De magia als rechtsgeschichtliches Dokument’, in J. Hammerstaedt (ed.), Apuleius: De Magia. Eingeleitet, übersetzt und mit interpretierenden Essays versehen von Jürgen Hammerstaedt, Peter Habermehl, Francesca Lamberti, Adolf M. Ritter und Peter Schenk (Darmstadt), 331‒50. Lamberti, F. (2015) ‘Elementi giuridici nell’educazione femminile in Africa proconsolare fra II e III sec. d.C. Gli esempi di Pudentilla e Perpetua’, in F. Lamberti, P. Gröschler, and F. Milazzo (eds.), Il diritto romano e le culture straniere (Lecce), 199‒230. Langslow, D. R. (2000) Medical Latin in the Roman Empire (Oxford). Le Bonniec, H. (1982) Arnobe. Contre les Gentils (Paris). Leach, E. R. (1991) Culture and Communication: The Logic by which Symbols Are Connected. An Introduction to the Use of Structuralist Analysis in Social Anthropology (Cambridge). Lee, B. T. (2005) Apuleius’ Florida. A commentary (Berlin). Lehrich, C. I. (2013) ‘Magic in Theoretical Practice’, in B.-C. Otto and M. Stausberg (eds.), Magic: a Reader (Sheffield and Bristol, CT), 211‒28. Leigh, M. (2013) From Polypragmon to Curiosus. Ancient Concepts of Curious and Meddlesome Behaviour (Oxford). Lennon, J. J. (2014) Pollution and Religion in Ancient Rome (Cambridge). Lewin, L. (1920) Die Gifte in der Weltgeschichte. Toxikologische allgemeinverständliche Untersuchungen der historischen Quellen (Berlin). Librán Moreno, M. (2004) ‘TrGF 2 Adesp. fr. 370 K.-Sn.: Aeschylus’ Psychagogoi?’ ExClass 8: 7‒29. Liebs, D. (1995) ‘Die pseudopaulinischen Sentenzen. Versuch einer neuen Palingenesie’, ZRG 112: 152‒71. Liebs, D. (1996) ‘Die pseudopaulinischen Sentenzen. II. Versuch einer neuen Palingenesie, Ausführung’, ZRG 113: 132‒242. Lietaert Peerbolte, J. (2007) ‘The Eighth Book of Moses (PLeid. J 395): Hellenistic Jewish Influence in a Pagan Magical Papyrus’, in M. Labahn and J. Lietaert Peerbolte (eds.), A

Bibliography

273

Kind of Magic. Understanding Magic in the New Testament and its Religious Environment (London and New York), 184‒94. Lindsay, W. M. (1903) Nonii Marcelli De compendiosa doctrina, vol. I (Leipzig). Lindsay, W. M. (1915) Notae Latinae. An Account of Abbreviation in Latin MSS. of the Early Minuscule Period (c. 700‒850) (Cambridge). Lintott, A. (2008) Cicero as Evidence. A historian’s Companion (Oxford). Lloyd, G. E. R. (1975) ‘Aspects of the interrelations of medicine, magic and philosophy in ancient Greece’, Apeiron, 9: 1‒17. Lloyd, G. E. R. (1979) Magic, reason and experience. Studies in the origin and development of Greek science (Cambridge). Love, E. O. D. (2016) Code-switching with the Gods. The Bilingual (Old Coptic-Greek) Spells of PGM IV (P. Bibliothèque Nationale Supplément Grec. 574) and their Linguistic, Religious, and Socio-Cultural Context in Late Roman Egypt (Berlin and Boston). Lowe, J. E. (1929) Magic in Greek and Latin Literature (Oxford). Luck, G. (1962) Hexen und Zauberei in der römischen Dichtung (Zürich). Luck, G. (1999) ‘Witches and Sorcerers in Classical Literature’, in V. Flint, R. Gordon, G. Luck, and D. Ogden (eds.), Witchcraft and Magic in Europe. Ancient Greece and Rome, vol. II (London), 91‒158. Luck, G. (2006) Arcana mundi: magic and the occult in the Greek and Roman worlds, 2nd edn. (Baltimore). Macan, R. W. (1908) Herodotus. The Seventh, Eighth, & Ninth Books (London). MacLeod, M. D. (1991) Lucian. A Selection (Warminster). Madec, G. (1989) ‘Asclepius’, in R. Herzog (ed.), Restauration und Erneuerung: die lateinische Literatur von 284 bis 374 n. Chr. (Munich), 355‒6. Malinowski, B. (1954) Magic, Science and Religion (New York). Maltby, R. (1991) A Lexicon of Ancient Latin Etymologies (Leeds). Maltby, R. (2002) Tibullus, Elegies: text, introduction and commentary (Cambridge). Mankin, D. (1995) Epodes. Horace (Cambridge). Maraval, P. (1977) ‘Fragments grecs du Livre de Jannès et Jambré (Pap. Vindob. 29456 et 29828 Verso)’, ZPE 25: 199‒207. Marchesi, C. (1914) De magia liber. Testo critico. Con introduzione e commento di Concetto Marchesi (Città di Castello). Marchesi, C. (1955) Apuleio di Madaura. Della magia. Testo latino, traduzione e note (Bologna), reprinted in C. Marchesi (2011) Lucio Apuleio. Della magia. Introduzione di Federico Roncoroni (Milan). Marco Simόn, F. (2012) ‘Power and Evocation of the Exotic: Bilingual Magical Texts in the Latin West’, in M. Piranomonte and F. Marco Simón (eds.), Contesti magici – Contextos mágicos (Rome), 135‒45. Marcovich, M. (1967) Heraclitus: Greek text with a short commentary (Merida). Marshall, P. K. (1983) ‘Apuleius. Apologia, Metamorphoses, Florida’, in L. D. Reynolds (ed.), Texts and Transmission: A Survey of the Latin Classics (Oxford), 15‒16. Martelli, M. (2013) The Four Books of Pseudo-Democritus (London and New York). Martín, J.-D. R. (2003) ‘Moving the judge: a legal commentary on Book 6 of Quintilian’s Institutio oratoria’, in O. E. Tellegen-Couperus (ed.), Quintilian and the law: the art of persuasion in law and politics (Leuven), 157‒67.

274

Bibliography

Martos, J. (2003) Apuleyo de Madauros. Las metamorfosis, o, El asno de oro, 2 vols. (Madrid). Martos, J. (2015) Apología o discurso sobre la magia en defensa propia. Floridas. [Prólogo de El dios de Sócrates] (Madrid). Maselli, G. (2011) ‘Riflessi cristiani in Apuleio (II): daemonium (Apol. 63,6) et alia (Flor. 9, 32 e 33)’, InvLuc 33: 181‒6. Masselli, G. M. (2003) ‘Apuleio ‘mago’ e l’‘incanto’ della parola’, AFLB 46: 121‒57. Masselli, G. M. (2004) ‘Apuleio, apol. 30‒35 e le ‘trappole’ dell’eufemismo’, MD 53: 195‒213. Masson, O. (1962) Les fragments du poète Hipponax. Édition critique et commenté (Paris). Mattiacci, S. (1985) ‘Apuleio poeta novello’, in V. Tandoi (ed.), Disiecti membra poetae. Studi di poesia latina in frammenti (Foggia), 235‒77. Mattiacci, S. (1986) ‘Apuleio e i poeti latini arcaici’, in Munus amicitiae. Scritti in memoria di Alessandro Ronconi (Florence), 159‒200. Mattiacci, S. (2014) ‘Apuleius and Africitas’, in B. T. Lee, E. Finkelpearl, and L. Graverini (eds.), Apuleius and Africa (New York and London), 87‒111. Maxwell-Stuart, P. G. (1976) ‘Per lancem et lycium. A note’, G&R 23: 1‒4. May, R. (2006) Apuleius and Drama. The Ass on Stage (Oxford). May, R. (2010) ‘The Function of Verse Quotations in Apuleius’ Speeches: Making the Case with Plato’, in D. H. Berry and A. Erskine (eds.), Form and Function in Roman Oratory (Cambridge and New York), 175‒92. May, R. (2013) Apuleius: Metamorphoses. Book 1 (Oxford). May, R. (2014a) ‘Roman comedy in the Second Sophistic’, in M. Fontaine and A. C. Scafuro (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Greek and Roman Comedy (Oxford), 753‒66. May, R. (2014b) ‘Medicine and the Novel: Apuleius’ Bonding with the Educated Reader’, in M. Futre Pinheiro, G. Schmeling, and E. P. Cueva (eds.), The Ancient Novel and the Frontiers of Genre (Eelde), 105‒24. May, R. (2018) ‘Magic and Continuity in Apuleius: Isis from Witchcraft to Mystery Cults’, in E. Cueva, G. Schmeling, P. James, K. Ní Mheallaigh, S. Panayotakis, and N. Scippacercola (eds.), Re-Wiring the Ancient Novel. Volume 2: Roman Novels and Other Important Texts (Groningen), 157‒77. Mayer i Olivé, M. (2012) ‘Publius Nigidius Figulus Pythagoricus et magus’, in M. Piranomonte and F. Marco Simón (eds.), Contesti magici – Contextos mágicos (Rome), 237‒45. McCarthy, W. (1989) ‘The Shape of the Mirror: Metaphorical Catoptrics in Classical Literature’, Arethusa, 22: 161‒95. McCreight, T. D. (1990) ‘Invective Techniques in Apuleius’ Apology’, CGN 3: 35‒62. McCreight, T. D. (1991) ‘Rhetorical strategies and word choice in Apuleius’ “Apology”’ (Diss., Duke University). McCreight, T. D. (2004) ‘Exemplum or Historiola? Literature and Magic in Apuleius’ Apology’, SyllClass 15: 153‒75. McCreight, T. D. (2008) ‘The ‘Riches’ of Poverty: Literary Games with Poverty in Apuleius’ Laus Paupertatis (Apology 18)’, in W. Riess (ed.), Paideia at Play: Learning and Wit in Apuleius (Groningen), 89‒104. McLeod, A. M. G. (1969) ‘Physiology and medicine in a Greek novel. Achilles Tatius’ Leucippe and Clitophon’, JHS 89: 97‒105. Meiser, G. (1998) Historische Laut- und Formenlehre der lateinischen Sprache, 2nd edn. (Darmstadt).

Bibliography

275

Mertens, M. (2002) Les alchimistes Grecs. Mémoires authentiques. Zosime de Panopolis, vol. IV (Paris). Middleton, F. (2014) ‘Illusions and Vanishing Acts: Homeric Recension, Athetesis, and Magic in P. Oxy 412 (PGM XXIII)’, Helios, 41: 139‒62. Miglio, M. (1978) Giovanni Andrea Bussi. Prefazioni alle edizioni di Sweynheym e Pannartz prototipografi romani (Milan). Momigliano, A. (1975) Alien Wisdom. The Limits of Hellenization (Cambridge). Mommsen, T. and Krueger, P. (1954) Corpus Iuris Civilis. Codex Iustinianus, 11th edn., vol. II (Berlin). Mommsen, T., Krueger, P., and Watson, A. (1985) The Digest of Justinian. Latin text edited by Theodor Mommsen with the aid of Paul Krueger. English translation, vol. IV (Philadelphia). Monceaux, P. (1889) Apulée, roman et magie (Paris). Montemayor Aceves, M. E. (2008) ‘Leyes contra el crimen de magia (crimen magiae): la Apología de Apuleyo’, Nova Tellus 26: 201‒22. Moreschini, C. (1978) Apuleio e il platonismo (Florence). Moreschini, C. (1990) Apuleio. La magia (Milan). Moreschini, C. (2015) Apuleius and the Metamorphoses of Platonism (Turnhout). Mosca, B. (1974) La magia (Florence). Mosès, A. (1970) De specialibus legibus III et IV (Paris). Motta, A. (2018) ‘Apuleius’ Biography of Plato in the Platonist Tradition’, in E. Plantade and D. Vallat (eds.), Les savoirs d’Apulée (Hildesheim, Zürich, and New York), 173‒89. Münstermann, H. (1995) Apuleius Metamorphosen literarischer Vorlagen. Untersuchung dreier Episoden des Romans unter Berücksichtigung der Philosophie und Theologie des Apuleius (Stuttgart). Murgatroyd, P. (1983) ‘Magic imagery applied to love’, EMC 27: 68‒77. Murray, A. T. and Dimock, G. E. (1998) Homer. Odyssey. Books 1‒12, vol. I (Cambridge, Mass.). Murray, A. T. and Wyatt, W. F. (1999) Homer. Iliad. Books 13‒24, vol. II (Cambridge, Mass.). Murray, A. T. and Wyatt, W. F. (2003) Homer. Iliad. Books 1‒12, vol. I (Cambridge, Mass.). Neilson, H. R. (2002) ‘A terracotta phallus from Pisa ship E: more evidence for the Priapus deity as protector of Greek and Roman navigators’, IJNA 31: 248‒53. Nelson, M. (2001) ‘A Note on Apuleius’ Magical Fish’, Mnemosyne, 54: 85‒6. Nicolini, L. (2005) Apuleio. Le Metamorfosi o L’asino d’oro (Milan). Nicolini, L. (2011) Ad (l)usum lectoris: etimologia e giochi di parole in Apuleio (Bologna). Nicolini, L. (2018) ‘Itur in silvam antiquam…Materiali ovidiani per le nuove Metamorfosi’, in E. Plantade and D. Vallat (eds.), Les savoirs d’Apulée (Hildesheim, Zürich, and New York), 279‒98. Niedermann, M. (1931) Précis de phonétique historique du latin, 2th edn. (Paris). Nock, A. D. (1933) ‘Paulus and the Magus’, in F. J. F. Jackson and L. Kirsopp (eds.), The Beginning of Christianity, vol. V (London), 164‒88, reprinted in Z. Stewart (1972) Arthur Darby Nock. Essays on Religion and the Ancient World, vol. I (Oxford), 309‒30. Nock, A. D. and Festugière, A.-J. (1945) Corpus Hermeticum. Traites XIIi‒XVIII. Asclepius, vol. II (Paris). Norden, F. (1912) Apulejus von Madaura und das römische Privatrecht (Leipzig and Berlin).

276

Bibliography

Noreña, C. F. (2014) ‘Authority and Subjectivity in the Apology’, in B. T. Lee, E. Finkelpearl, and L. Graverini (eds.), Apuleius and Africa (New York and London), 35‒51. Nutton, V. (2004) Ancient Medicine (London and New York). O’Brien, M. (2002) Apuleius’ Debt to Plato in the Metamorphoses (Lewiston, Queenston, and Lampeter). Ogden, D. (1999) ‘Binding Spells: Curse Tablets and Voodoo Dolls in the Greek and Roman Worlds’, in V. Flint, R. Gordon, G. Luck, and D. Ogden (eds.), Witchcraft and Magic in Europe. Ancient Greece and Rome, vol. II (London), 1‒90. Ogden, D. (2001) Greek and Roman Necromancy (Princeton). Ogden, D. (2007) In Search of the Sorcerer’s Apprentice. The Traditional Tales of Lucian’s Lover of Lies (Swansea). Ogden, D. (2008) Night’s Black Agents (London). Ogden, D. (2009) Magic, Witchcraft, and Ghosts in the Greek and Roman Worlds. A Sourcebook, 2nd edn. (Oxford). Oldfather, W. A. (1934) Index Apuleianus (Middletown). Oliphant, S. G. (1913) ‘The Story of the Strix: Ancient’, TAPhA 44: 133‒49. Olson, S. D. (2008) Athenaeus. The Learned Banqueters. Books 6‒7, vol. III (Cambridge, Mass.). Olson, S. D. (2011) Athenaeus. The Learned Banqueters. Books 13.594b‒14, vol. VII (Cambridge, Mass.). Önnerfors, A. (1993) ‘Magische Formeln im Dienste römischer Medizin’, ANRW II/37/1. 157‒224. Otto, B.-C. (2011) Magie: rezeptions- und diskursgeschichtliche Analysen von der Antike bis zur Neuzeit (Berlin and New York). Otto, B.-C. and Stausberg, M. (eds.) (2013) Defining Magic: a Reader (Sheffield and Bristol, CT). Oudendorp, F. (1823) Appuleii Oudendorpiani tomus tertius, sive Appendix Appuleiana, continens Philippi Beroaldi ad Metamorphoseon libros commentarii specimen, Ioannis Pricaei ad eosdem libros notas integras, excerpta ex Iani Gruteri Suspicionum libris ineditis, Ioannis Pricaei commentarium ad Apologiam, Scipionis Gentilis notas selectas ad Apologiam, Ioannis Bosscha disputationem de Appuleii vita, scriptis, codicibus MSS. et editionibus, et indices necessaries (Leiden). Panayotakis, C. and Panayotakis, S. (2015) ‘The Human Characters in the Tale of Cupid and Psyche (Metamorphoses 4.28‒6.24)’, in S. J. Harrison (ed.), Characterisation in Apuleius’ Metamorphoses (Newcastle), 125‒45. Papatheophanes, M. (1985) ‘Heraclitus of Ephesus, the Magi, and the Achaemenids’, IA 20: 101‒61. Parker, R. (1983) Miasma. Pollution and Purification in Early Greek Religion (Oxford). Pasetti, L. (2007) Plauto in Apuleio (Bologna). Pasquali, G. (1952) Storia della tradizione e critica del testo, 2nd edn. (Florence). Patillon, M. (2012a) Corpus Rhetoricum. (Pseudo-Hermogène. L’invention – Anonyme. Synopse des exordes), vol. III.1 (Paris). Patillon, M. (2012b) Corpus Rhetoricum. (Anonyme. Scolies au traité Sur l’invention du Pseudo-Hermogène), vol. III.2 (Paris). Paule, M. T. (2014) ‘Quae saga, quis magus: On the Vocabulary of the Roman Witch’, CQ 64: 745‒57.

Bibliography

277

Paule, M. T. (2017) Canidia, Rome’s First Witch (London, Oxford, New York, New Delhi, and Sydney). Pavis d’Escurac, H. (1974) ‘Pour une étude sociale de l’Apologie d’Apulée’, AntAfr 8: 89‒101. Pearcy, L. T. (1993) ‘Medicine and rhetoric in the period of the Second Sophistic’, ANRW II/37/1. 445‒56. Pease, A. S. (1963) M. Tulli Ciceronis. De divinatione. Libri II (Darmstadt). Pease, A. S. (1968) M. Tulli Ciceronis. De natura deorum. Libri III, 2 vols. (Darmstad). Pecere, O. (1975) Petronio. La novella della matrona di Efeso (Padua). Pecere, O. (1984) ‘Esemplari con subscriptiones e tradizione dei testi latini. L’Apuleio Laur. 68,2’, in C. Questa and R. Raffaelli (eds.), Atti del convegno internazionale “Il libro e il testo” (Urbino), 111‒137. Reprinted with updates by L. Graverini in O. Pecere and A. Stramaglia (2003) Studi apuleiani (Cassino), 5‒35; 180‒8. Pecere, O. (1987) ‘Qualche riflessione sulla tradizione di Apuleio a Montecassino’, in G. Cavallo (ed.), Le strade del testo (Bari), 99‒124. Reprinted with updates by L. Graverini in O. Pecere and A. Stramaglia (2003) Studi apuleiani (Cassino), 37‒60; 180‒8. Pellecchi, L. (2012) Innocentia eloquentia est. Analisi giuridica dell’Apologia di Apuleio (Como). Pennacchietti, F. A. (1985‒1986) ‘La bilingue greco-partica sull’Eracle da Seleucia (Iraq)’, ASGM 27: 26‒30. Penwill, J. L. (1975) ‘Slavish pleasures and profitless curiosity. Fall and redemption in Apuleius’ Metamorphoses’, Ramus, 4: 49‒82. Perry, B. E. (1952) Aesopica: a series of texts relating to Aesop or ascribed to him or closely connected with the literary tradition that bears his name (Urbana, Ill.). Petersmann, H. (1977) Petrons urbane Prosa: Untersuchungen zu Sprache und Text (Vienna). Petsalis-Diomidis, A. (2010) Truly beyond wonders: Aelius Aristides and the cult of Asklepios (Oxford). Pezzoli-Olgiati, D. (2007) ‘From Mageia to Magic. Envisaging a Problematic Concept in the Study of Religion’, in M. Labahn and J. Lietaert Peerbolte (eds.), A Kind of Magic. Understanding Magic in the New Testament and its Religious Environment (London and New York). Phillips, O. (2002) ‘The Witches’ Thessaly’, in P. Mirecki and M. Meyer (eds.), Magic and Ritual in the Ancient World (Leiden, Boston, and Köln), 378‒86. Piano, V. (2016) Il papiro di Derveni tra religione e filosofia (Florence). Pianezzola, E. (1993) Ovidio. L’arte di amare. Commento di Gianluigi Baldo, Lucio Cristante, Emilio Pianezzola, 2nd edn. (Milan). Piccioni, F. (2010) ‘Il De magia di Apuleio. Un testimone trascurato: il codice Assisiate 706’, in E. Bona and M. Curnis (eds.), Linguaggi del potere. Poteri del linguaggio (Alessandria), 365‒75. Piccioni, F. (2011) ‘Un manoscritto recenziore del De magia di Apuleio: il cod. Ambrosiano N 180 sup.’, S&T 9: 165‒210. Piccioni, F. (2012) ‘Sul De magia di Apuleio. Alcune proposte di constitutio textus’, in E. Bona, C. Lévy, and G. Magnaldi (eds.), Vestigia notitiai. Scritti in memoria di Michelangelo Giusta (Alessandria) 445‒54. Piccioni, F. (2016) ‘On some loci uexati in Apuleius’ Florida’, Mnemosyne, 69: 799‒821. Pietersma, A. (1994) The Apocryphon of Jannes and Jambres the magicians: P. Chester Beatty XVI (with new editions of Papyrus Vindobonensis Greek inv. 29456+29828 verso and

278

Bibliography

British Library Cotton Tiberius B. v f. 87). Edited with introduction, translation and commentary with full facsimile of all three texts (Leiden). Pietersma, A. (2012) ‘Two more fragments of the Vienna Jannes and Jambres’, BASP 49: 21‒9. Pike, K. L. (1967) Language in relation to a unified theory of the structure of human behavior, 2nd edn. (The Hague and Paris). Plantade, E. (2013) ‘Zarath ou les arcanes du sophiste. (Apul. Apol. 24, 10)’, Eruditio Antiqua 5: 113‒35. Plantade, E. (2018) ‘L’inventio du récit de Psyché et Cupidon: Apulée, lecteur de Dion de Pruse’, in E. Plantade and D. Vallat (eds.), Les savoirs d’Apulée (Hildesheim, Zürich, and New York), 299‒323. Plantade, E. and Vallat, D. (eds.) (2018) Les savoirs d’Apulée (Hildesheim, Zürich, and New York). Preisendanz, K. (1928‒1941) Papyri Graecae Magicae. Die griechischen Zauberpapyri, 2 vols. (Leipzig). Preisendanz, K. (1973‒1974) Papyri Graecae Magicae. Die griechischen Zauberpapyri. Durchgesehen und herausgegeben von Albert Henrichs, 2 vols., 2nd edn. (Stuttgart). Puccini-Delbey, G. (2004) ‘Apulée est-il un vir bonus dicendi peritus dans le De magia?’, REL 82: 227‒37. Puccini-Delbey, G. (2010) ‘Apulée, un nouveau Socrate? Une analyse des rapports d’intertextualité entre le De magia et l’Apologie de Socrate de Platon’, Latomus, 69: 429‒45. Puccini, G. (2017) Apulée: roman et philosophie (Paris). Puliatti, S. (2003) ‘Lenocinii crimen’, in F. Botta (ed.), Il diritto giustinianeo fra tradizione classica e innovazione (Turin), 147‒216. Puschmann, T. (1963) Alexander von Tralles. Original-Text und Übersetzung nebst einer einleitenden Abhandlung. Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte der Medicin, 2 vols. (Amsterdam). Pyysiäinen, I. (2009) Supernatural Agents. Why We Believe in Souls, Gods, and Buddhas (Oxford). Rabinowitz, J. (1997) ‘Underneath the Moon: Hekate and Luna’, Latomus, 56: 534‒43. Rackham, H. (1940) Pliny. Natural History. Libri VIi‒XI, vol. III (Cambridge, Mass.). Rackham, H. (1960) Pliny. Natural History. Libri XIi‒XVI, vol. IV (Cambridge, Mass.). Regen, F. (1971) Apuleius philosophus Platonicus. Untersuchungen zur Apologie (De magia) und zur De mundo (Berlin and New York). Regen, F. (1999) ‘Il De deo Socratis di Apuleio (I parte)’, Maia, 51: 429‒56. Regen, F. (2000) ‘Il De deo Socratis di Apuleio (II parte)’, Maia, 52: 41‒66. Reif, M. (2016) De arte magorum. Erklärung und Deutung ausgewählter Hexenszenen bei Theokrit, Vergil, Horaz, Ovid, Seneca und Lucan unter Berücksichtigung des Ritualaufbaus und der Relation zu den Zauberpapyri (Göttingen). Reynolds, L. D. (1983) ‘Apuleius. Opera philosophica’, in L. D. Reynolds (ed.), Texts and Transmission: A Survey of the Latin Classics (Oxford), 16‒18. Riese, A. (1894) Anthologia Latina, 2nd edn. (Leipzig). Riess, W. (2008) ‘Apuleius Socrates Africanus? Apuleius’ Defensive Play’, in W. Riess (ed.), Paideia at Play: Learning and Wit in Apuleius (Groningen), 51‒74. Riginos, A. S. (1976) Platonica. The anecdotes concerning the life and writings of Plato (Leiden). Rigsby, K. (1976) ‘Teiresias as Magus in Oedipus Rex’, GRBS 17: 109‒14.

Bibliography

279

Ritner, R. K. (1993) The Mechanics of Ancient Egyptian Magical Practice (Chicago). Ritter, A. M. (2002) ‘Magie im frühen Christentum’, in J. Hammerstaedt (ed.), Apuleius: De Magia. Eingeleitet, übersetzt und mit interpretierenden Essays versehen von Jürgen Hammerstaedt, Peter Habermehl, Francesca Lamberti, Adolf M. Ritter und Peter Schenk (Darmstadt), 315‒30. Ritter, C. (1881) Die quintilianischen Declamationen. Untersuchung über Art und Herkunft derselben (Freiburg and Tübingen). Rives, J. B. (1994) ‘The priesthood of Apuleius’, AJPh 115: 273‒90. Rives, J. B. (2003) ‘Magic in Roman Law. The Reconstruction of a Crime’, ClAnt 22: 313‒39. Rives, J. B. (2004) ‘Aristotle, Antisthenes of Rhodes, and the Magikos’, RhM 147: 35‒54. Rives, J. B. (2006) ‘Magic, religion and law: the case of the lex Cornelia de sicariis et veneficiis’, in C. Ando and J. Rüpke (eds.), Religion and law in classical and Christian Rome (Stuttgart), 47‒67. Rives, J. B. (2008) ‘Legal strategy and learned display in Apuleius’ Apology’, in W. Riess (ed.), Paideia at Play: Learning and Wit in Apuleius (Groningen), 17‒49. Rives, J. B. (2009) ‘Apion Peri Magon and the Meaning of the Word Magos’, in Mene, 9: 119‒ 32. Rives, J. B. (2010) ‘Magus and its Cognates in Classical Latin’, in R. L. Gordon and F. Marco Simón (eds.), Magical Practice in the Latin West (Leiden and Boston), 53‒77. Rives, J. B. (2011a) ‘Magic in Roman Law. The Reconstruction of a Crime’, in J. North and S. R. F. Price (eds.), The religious history of the Roman Empire. Pagans, Jews, and Christians (Oxford), 71‒108. Rives, J. B. (2011b) ‘Magicians and Astrologers’, in M. Peachin (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Social Relations in the Roman World (Oxford), 678‒92. Rolfe, J. C. (1946) Aulus Gellius. Attic Nights. Books i‒V, vol. I (Cambridge, Mass.). Rolfe, J. C. (1952) Aulus Gellius. Attic Nights. Books XIV‒XX, vol. III (Cambridge, Mass.). Rolfe, J. C. (1997) Suetonius, vol. II (Cambridge, Mass.). Rose, V. (1886) Aristotelis qui ferebantur librorum fragmenta (Leipzig). Rose, V. (1894) Theodori Prisciani Euporiston libri III. Cum physicorum fragmento et additamentis pseudo-Theodoreis. Accedunt Vindicani Afri quae feruntur reliquiae, 2nd edn. (Leipzig). Rosén, H. B. (1997) Herodoti Historiae. Libri V‒IX. Indicibus criticis adiectis (Leipzig). Rosenblum, M. (1961) Luxorius. A Latin Poet Among the Vandals (New York and London). Rosenmeyer, P. A. (2008) ‘Greek Verse Inscriptions in Roman Egypt’, CA 27: 333‒57. Ruiz-Montero, C. (2007) ‘Magic in the Ancient Novel’, in M. Paschalis, S. Frangoulidis, S. J. Harrison, and M. Zimmerman (eds.), The Greek and Roman Novel. Parallel Readings (Groningen), 38‒56. Russell, D. A. (1992) Dio Chrysostom. Orations VII, XII and XXXVI (Cambridge). Russell, D. A. (2001) The Orator’s Education. Books 6‒8, vol. III (Cambridge, Mass.). Saint-Denis, E. (1947) Le vocabulaire des animaux marins en latin classique (Paris). Sallmann, K. (1995) ‘Erzählendes in der Apologia des Apuleius, oder: Argumentation als Unterhaltung’, GCN 8: 137‒57. Salottolo, E. (1951) ‘La prosa di Apuleio nel De Magia’, AFLN 1: 45‒54. Sandy, G. (1997) The Greek world of Apuleius: Apuleius and the Second Sophistic (Leiden). Sandy, G. (1999) ‘The tale of Cupid and Psyche’, in H. Hofmann (ed.), Latin fiction. The Latin novel in context (London).

280

Bibliography

Sans, B. (2014) ‘La “malédiction” d’Apulée: une interprétation pragmatique et rhétorique’, Argumentation et Analyse du Discours, 13: 2‒16. Schade, G. (1998) ‘Ennius und Archestratos’, Philologus, 142: 275‒8. Schefold, K. (1943) Die Bildnisse der antiken Dichter, Redner und Denker (Basel). Schenk, P. (2002) ‘Die Schrift’, in J. Hammerstaedt (ed.), Apuleius: De Magia. Eingeleitet, übersetzt und mit interpretierenden Essays versehen von Jürgen Hammerstaedt, Peter Habermehl, Francesca Lamberti, Adolf M. Ritter und Peter Schenk (Darmstadt), 23‒56. Schindel, U. (1998) ‘Der Titel von Apuleius’ Verteidigungsrede’, StudMed 39: 865‒88. Schindel, U. (2000) ‘Apuleius – Africanus Socrates? Beobachtungen zu den Verteidigungsreden des Apuleius und des platonischen Sokrates’, Hermes, 128: 443‒56. Schlam, C. C. (1992) The Metamorphoses of Apuleius. On making an ass of oneself (London). Schmeling, G. (2011) A Commentary on the Satyrica of Petronius. With the collaboration of Aldo Setaioli (Oxford). Schmelz, G. (2001) ‘Zwei neue Fragmente des Apokryphons über die Zauberer Jannes und Jambres’, in I. Andorlini, G. Bastianini, M. Manfredi, and G. Menci (eds.), Atti del XXII congresso internazionale di papirologia, 3 vols. (Florence), 1199‒212. Schmitt, R. (1978) Die Iranier-Namen bei Aischylos (Vienna). Schneider, C. (2013) [Quintilien]. Le tombeau ensorcelé. (Grandes déclamations, 10) (Cassino). Scippacercola, N. (2011) Il lato oscuro del romanzo greco (Amsterdam). Serbat, G. (1975) Les Dérivés nominaux latins à suffixe médiatif (Paris). Setaioli, A. (2011) Arbitri Nugae. Petronius’ Short Poems in the Satyrica (Frankfurt, Berlin, Bern, Brussels, New York, Oxford, and Vienna). Settis, S. (1972) ‘Severo Alessandro e i suoi Lari (S.H.A., S.A., 29, 2‒3)’, Athenaeum, 60: 237‒51. Shackleton Bailey, D. R. (1982) Anthologia Latina. Carmina in codicibus scripta (Stuttgart). Shaw, C. A. (2014) ‘“Genitalia of the sea”: Seafood and sexuality in Greek Comedy’, Mnemosyne, 67: 554‒76. Skinner, M. B. (1981) ‘Gentleman’s agreement. Catullus 103’, CPh 76: 39‒40. Szlezák, T. A. (1985) Platon und die Schriftlichkeit der Philosophie. Interpretationen zu den frühen und mittleren Dialogen (Berlin and New York). Smith, M. (1978) Jesus the magician (London). Snoek, J. A. M. (1987) ‘Initiations. A Methodological Approach to the Application of Classification and Definition Theory in the Study of Rituals’ (Diss., Leiden University). Sørensen, J. (2013) ‘Magic Reconsidered’, in B.-C. Otto and M. Stausberg (eds.), Magic: a Reader (Sheffield and Bristol, CT), 229‒42. Staccioli, R. A. (1994) ‘Il bronzetto cortonese di Culsans come il Giano dell’Argileto’, ArchClass 46: 347‒53. Stafford, E. J. (2008) ‘Cocks to Asklepios: sacrificial practice and healing cult’, in V. Mehl and P. Brulé (eds.), Le sacrifice antique. Vestiges, procédures et strategies (Rennes), 205‒21. Stamatopoulos, K. (2015) ‘Embracing the Occult. Magic, Witchcraft, and Witches in Apuleius’ Metamorphoses’ (Diss., Georg-August-Universität Göttingen). Stanton, G. R. (1996) ‘Some Inscriptions in Attic Demes’, ABSA 91: 341‒64. Steinmetz, P. (1982) Untersuchungen zur römischen Literatur des zweiten Jahrhunderts nach Christi Geburt (Wiesbaden). Stephens, S. A. and Winkler, J. J. (1995) Ancient Greek novels. The fragments (Princeton).

Bibliography

281

Stoholski, M. (2007) ‘“Welcome to Heaven, please watch your step”: the Mithras liturgy and the Homeric quotations in the Paris papyrus’, Helios, 34: 69‒95. Stoneman, R. and Gargiulo, T. (2007) Il romanzo di Alessandro, vol. I (Milan). Stover, J. A. (2016) A New Work by Apuleius. The Lost Third Book of the De Platone. Edited and translated with an introduction and commentary (Oxford). Stramaglia, A. (1991) ‘Aspetti di letteratura fantastica in Apuleio. Zatchlas Aegyptius propheta primarius e la scena di necromanzia nella novella di Telifrone (Met. 2,27‒30)’, AFLB 33: 159‒220, reprinted with updates by L. Graverini in O. Pecere and A. Stramaglia (2003) Studi apuleiani (Cassino), 61‒111; 189‒96. Stramaglia, A. (1996a) ‘Apuleio come auctor: premesse tardoantiche di un uso umanistico’, StudUmanistPiceni 16: 137‒61, reprinted with updates by L. Graverini in O. Pecere and A. Stramaglia (2003) Studi apuleiani (Cassino), 119‒52; 198‒200. Stramaglia, A. (1996b) ‘Prisciano e l’Epitoma Historiarum di Apuleio’, RFIC 124: 192‒8, reprinted with updates by L. Graverini in O. Pecere and A. Stramaglia (2003) Studi apuleiani (Cassino), 153‒8; 201. Stramaglia, A. (2000) Eros. Antiche trame greche d’amore (Bari). Stramaglia, A. (2002) [Quintiliano]. La citta` che si cibo` dei suoi cadaveri. (Declamazioni maggiori 12) (Cassino). Stramaglia, A. (2013) [Quintiliano]. L’astrologo. (Declamazioni maggiori 4) (Cassino). Stramaglia, A. (2015) ‘Temi ‘sommersi’ e trasmissione dei testi nella declamazione antica (con un regesto di papiri declamatorî)’, in L. Del Corso, F. De Vivo, and A. Stramaglia (eds.), Nel segno del testo. Edizioni, materiali e studi per Oronzo Pecere (Florence), 147‒78. Stramaglia, A. (ed.) (2000) Ἔρως. Antiche trame greche d’amore (Bari). Stramaglia, A. and Brancaleone, F. (1993) ‘Otri e proverbi in Apuleio, Met. II, 32‒III, 18’, ZPE 99: 37‒40, reprinted with updates by L. Graverini in O. Pecere and A. Stramaglia (2003) Studi apuleiani (Cassino), 113‒7; 197. Stratton, K. B. (2007) Naming the witch. Magic, ideology, and stereotype in the ancient world (New York and Chichester). Stratton, K. B. (2013) ‘Magic Discourse in the Ancient World’, in B.-C. Otto and M. Stausberg (eds.), Magic: a Reader (Sheffield and Bristol, CT), 243‒54. Stucchi, S. (2016) Apuleio. Apologia: Apulei Platonici Pro se de Magia (Milan). Styers, R. (2013) ‘Magic and the Play of Power’, in B.-C. Otto and M. Stausberg (eds.), Magic: a Reader (Sheffield and Bristol, CT), 255‒62. Suárez de la Torre, E. (2014) ‘Pseudepigraphy and magic’, in J. Martínez (ed.), Fakes and Forgers of Classical Literature. Ergo decipiatur! (Leiden and Boston), 243‒62. Syme, R. (1959) ‘Proconsuls d’Afrique sous Antonin le Pieux’, REA 61: 310‒19. Syme, R. (1965) ‘Governors of Pannonia Inferior’, Historia, 14: 342‒61. Syme, R. (1983) Historia Augusta Papers (Oxford). Takács, S. A. (2008) ‘Initiations and Mysteries in Apuleius’ Metamorphoses’, ElectronAnt 12: 73‒87. Tambiah, S. J. (1968) ‘The Magical Power of Words’, Man 3: 175‒208. Tambiah, S. J. (1973) ‘Form and Meaning of Magical Acts: A Point of View’, in R. Horton and R. Finnegan (eds.), Modes of Thought: Essays on Thinking in Western and Non-Western Societies (London), 218‒29. Taylor, T. (2011) ‘Magic and Property: The Legal Context of Apuleius’ Apologia’, Antichthon, 45: 149‒66.

282

Bibliography

Temkin, O. (1994) The Falling Sickness: A History of Epilepsy from the Greeks to the Beginnings of Modern Neurology, 2nd edn. (Baltimore). Thompson, D’A. W. (1947) A Glossary of Greek Fishes (London). Thompson, L. (1978) ‘Notes on Apuleius’ Apologia’, MusAfr 6: 1‒8. Thomson, H. J. (1949) Prudentius, vol. I (Cambridge, Mass.). Tilg, S. (2008) ‘Eloquentia ludens: Apuleius’ Apology and the Cheerful Side of Standing Trial’, in W. Riess (ed.), Paideia at Play: Learning and Wit in Apuleius (Groningen), 105‒32. Tilg, S. (2014) Apuleius’ Metamorphoses. A Study in Roman Fiction (Oxford). Tilg, S. (2015) ‘Lucius as Ass (Metamorphoses Books 3‒11)’, in S. J. Harrison (ed.), Characterisation in Apuleius’ Metamorphoses (Newcastle), 15‒28. Timpanaro Cardini, M. (1958) Pitagorici. Testimonianze e frammenti, vol. I (Florence). Tomlin, R. S. O. (1988) ‘The curse tablets’, in B. Cunliffe (ed.), The Temple of Sulis Minerva at Bath. The Finds from the Sacred Spring, vol. II (Oxford), 55‒277. Torrey, C. C. (1949) ‘The magic of Lotapes’, JBL 68: 325‒27. Trapp, M. B. (1997) Maximus of Tyre. The Philosophical Orations (Oxford). Traube, L. (1907) Nomina Sacra. Versuch einer Geschichte der christlichen Kürzung (Munich). Treggiari, S. (1991) Roman Marriage. Iusti Coniuges from the time of Cicero to the time of Ulpian (Oxford). Trenkner, S. (1958) The Greek novella in the classical period (Cambridge). Tsantsanoglou, K. (2008) ‘Magi in Athens in the Fifth Century BC?’, in S. M. R. Darbandi and A. Zournatzi (eds.), Ancient Greece and Ancient Iran. Cross-Cultural Encounters (Athens), 31‒40. Tupet, A.-M. (1976) La magie dans la poésie latine (Paris). Tupet, A.-M. (1986) ‘Rites magiques dans l’Antiquité romaine’, ANRW II/16/3. 2591‒675. Tuplin, C. J. (2018) ‘Plato, Xenophon and Persia’, in G. Danzig, D. Johnson, and D. Morrison (eds.), Plato and Xenophon (Leiden), 576‒611. Tylor, E. B. (1903) Primitive Culture. Researches into the Development of Mythology, Philosophy, Religion, Language, Art, and Custom, 4th edn. (London). Ussani, V. (1929) ‘Magia, misticismo e arte in Apuleio’, Nuova Antologia, 7: 137‒55. Vaan, M. de. (2008) Etymological Dictionary of Latin and the other Italic Languages (Leiden and Boston). Vallette, P. (1908) L’Apologie d’Apulée (Paris). Vallette, P. (1924) Apulée. Apologie. Florides (Paris). van der Leeuw, G. (1986) Religion in Essence and Manifestation. Translated into English by J. E. Turner (Princeton). van der Paardt, R. T. (1971) L. Apuleius Madaurensis. The Metamorphoses. A commentary on book III with text & introduction (Amsterdam). van Mal-Maeder, D. (2001) Apuleius Madaurensis. Metamorphoses Livre II. Texte, Introduction et Commentaire (Groningen). van Mal-Maeder, D. (2007) La fiction des declamations (Leiden and Boston). Vasunia, P. (2007a) Zarathushtra and the Religion of Ancient Iran: The Greek and Latin Sources in Translation (Mumbai). Vasunia, P. (2007b) ‘The Philosopher’s Zarathushtra’, in C. Tuplin and L. Allen (eds.), Persian responses: political and cultural interaction with(in) the Achaemenid Empire (Swansea), 237‒65.

Bibliography

283

Verity, A. (2002) Theocritus. Idylls. With an introduction and notes by Richard Hunter (Oxford and New York). Vermiglioli, G. B. (1833) Antiche iscrizioni perugine, vol. I, 2nd edn. (Perugia). Versnel, H. S. (1991) ‘Some Reflections on the Relationship Magic-Religion’, Numen, 38: 177‒97. Versnel, H. S. (2002) ‘The Poetics of the Magical Charm: An Essay on the Power of Words’, in P. Mirecki and M. Meyer (eds.), Magic and Ritual in the Ancient World (Leiden, Boston, and Köln), 105‒58. Vivenza, G. (1981) ‘Gli Hedyphagetica di Ennio e il commercio del pesce in età repubblicana’, Economia e Storia, 1: 5‒44. von Gutschmid, A. (1893) ‘Vorlesungen über Josephus’ Bücher gegen Apion’, in F. Rühl (ed.), Kleine Schriften, Bd. 4: Schriften zur griechischen Geschichte und Literatur (Leipzig), 336‒589. von Keller, O. (1913) Die antike Tierwelt, vol. II (Leipzig). von Morawski, K. (1881) ‘Bemerkungen zu den sogennanten quintilianeischen Declamationen’, Zeitschrift für die österreichischen Gymnasien, 32: 1‒12. Wackernagel, J. (1920) Vorlesungen über Syntax. Mit besonderer Berücksichtigung von Griechisch, Lateinisch und Deutsch, vol. I (Basel). Walde, A. and Hofmann, J. B. (1938‒1954) Lateinisches etymologisches Wörterbuch. 3rd edn., 2 vols. (Heidelberg). Wartelle, A. (1987) Saint Justin. Apologies. Introduction, texte critique, traduction, commentaire et index (Paris). Waszink, J. H. (1947) Quinti Septimi Florentis Tertulliani De anima (Amsterdam). Waterfield, R. (1994) Plato. Symposium. Translated with an Introduction and Notes (Oxford and New York). Watkins, C. (1995) How to Kill a Dragon. Aspects of Indo-European Poetics (Oxford). Watson, L. C. (2003) A Commentary on Horace’s Epodes (Oxford). Watson, L. C. (2010) ‘The echeneis and erotic magic’, CQ 60: 639‒46. Wehrli, F. (1955) Die Schule des Aristoteles. Texte und Kommentar. Eudemos von Rhodos (Basel and Stuttgart). Wehrli, F. (1967) Die Schule des Aristoteles. Texte und Kommentar. Aristoxenos (Basel and Stuttgart). Wehrli, F. (1969a) Die Schule des Aristoteles. Texte und Kommentar. Klearchos (Basel and Stuttgart). Wehrli, F. (1969b) Die Schule des Aristoteles. Texte und Kommentar. Herakleides Pontikos (Basel and Stuttgart). Wehrli, F. (1974) Die Schule des Aristoteles. Texte und Kommentar. Hermippos der Kallimacheer (Basel and Stuttgart). Wehrli, F. (1978) Die Schule des Aristoteles. Texte und Kommentar. Sotion (Basel and Stuttgart). West, M. L. (2007) Indo-European Poetry and Myth (Oxford). Westerink, L. G. (1962) Anonymous prolegomena to Platonic philosophy (Amsterdam). Weyman, C. (1893) Studien zu Apuleius und seinen Nachahmern (Munich). Whitmarsh, T. (2004) ‘Philostratus’, in I. de Jong, R. Nünlist, and A. Bowie (eds.), Narrators, narratees, and narratives in ancient Greek literature. Studies in ancient Greek narrative (Leiden and Boston) 423‒39.

284

Bibliography

Wiesen, D. S. (1968) Saint Augustine. The City of God against the Pagans. Books VIIi‒XI, vol. III (Cambridge, Mass). Wilson, N. G. (2015) Herodoti Historiae. Libri V‒IX (Oxford). Winkler, J. J. (1985) Auctor & Actor. A Narratological Reading of Apuleius’ Golden Ass (Berkeley, Los Angeles, and New York). Winkler, J. J. (1991) ‘The constraints of Eros’, in C. A. Faraone and D. Obbink (eds.), Magika Hiera. Ancient Greek Magic and Religion (Oxford and New York), 214‒43. Winter, T. N. (1968) ‘Apology as Prosecution: The Trial of Apuleius’ (Diss., Northwestern University). Winter, T. N. (1969) ‘The Publication of Apuleius’ Apology’, TAPhA 100: 607‒12. Wirbelauer, K.-W. (1937) ‘Antike Lapidarien’ (Diss., Berlin). Wiseman, T. P. (1985) Catullus and His World. A Reappraisal (Cambridge). Wistrand, E. (1970) ‘Das altrömische Haus nach den literarischen Quellen’, Eranos, 68: 210‒23. Wolff, G. (1856) De philosophia ex oraculis haurienda. Librorum reliquiae (Berlin). Wright, M. R. (1995) Empedocles: the extant fragments (London and Cambridge). Zanker, P. (1995) The Mask of Socrates. The Image of the Intellectuals in Antiquity. Translated by Alan Shapiro (Berkeley, Los Angeles, and Oxford). Zimmerman, M. (2000) Apuleius Madaurensis. Metamorphoses. Book X. Text, introduction, and commentary (Groningen). Zimmerman, M. (2012) Apulei Metamorphoseon libri XI (Oxford). Zimmerman, M., Panayotakis, S., Keulen, W. H., Harrison, S. J., McCreight, T. D., Wesseling, B., and van Mal-Maeder, D. (2004) Apuleius. Metamorphoses. Books IV 28‒35, V and VI. The tale of Cupid and Psyche. Text, introduction and commentary (Groningen). Zografou, A. (2010) ‘Magic lamps, luminous dreams: lamps in PGM recipes’, in M. Christopoulos, E. Karakantza, and O. Levaniouk (eds.), Light and Darkness in Ancient Greek Myth and Religion (Lanham) 276‒94.

Index Aemilia Pudentilla 4; 8; 43‒4; 55; 82; 106; 133‒4; 226‒30; 232‒6 Aeolus 97‒8 Aeschines 28, n. 68, n. 69; 38 Aeschylus 35; 200 Alexander of Abonoteichus 48‒9; 94 Alexander Severus (emperor) 170 altars (arae, βωμοί), in magic 144‒5 Aphrodite, cf. Venus Apollobex 244 Apollonius of Tyana, cf. Philostratus Apologia or Pro se de magia, – dating and place of composition 4; 9 – double title 2‒4 – manuscript transmission 2‒3, n. 5 – revision of defence-speech 7; 15 – scholarship on 12‒15 Appii (family) 182, n. 1 Appius Quintianus 182‒3; 185, n. 30; 186; 189‒90, n. 79; 192; 193‒4 Ap.’s forensic approach, – association with Socrates 2‒3; 9, n. 64; 45; 59; 70; 78; 111; 115; 133‒4; 179; 257‒8 – digressions 37; 40; 52; 85‒6; 87‒91; 93‒ 104; 113; 119‒20; 139, n. 55; 146‒50; 223; 227, n. 12 – elusiveness and reticence 82; 106; 198; 208‒9; 222; 229; 239 – invective against prosecutors 8‒9; 52; 57‒8; 69‒70; 85‒6; 113; 151‒2; 157, n. 243; 180, n. 161; 182; 186; 216; 217‒22; 222‒3; 247‒8; 251‒2 – provocative arguments 34; 70; 77‒81; 105; 117‒18; 119; 124; 159; 162, n. 7; 217‒18; 221‒2; 247; 259 – self-contradictions 46, n. 26; 95‒6; 99‒ 100; 117, n. 114; 242, n. 142 Ap.’s life and career, – biography 9‒11 – notoriety for dabbling in magic 4, n. 17; 11, n. 94; 54, n. 104; 55; 61; 239, n. 120; 246, n. 175; 253, n. 232; 259, n. 35 https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110617528-016

– pederastic poems 44, n. 11 – poem accompanying toothpaste 51, n. 68 – priesthood 7, n. 51; 125, n. 175 – supposed barbarian origin 49‒50 Ap.’s other works, – De Deo Socratis 148‒9; 187; 215; 250 – De Platone et eius Dogmate 79‒80; 170 – Florida 74‒5; 250 – Metamorphoses 3, n. 9; 10, n. 86; 33; 37; 39, n. 169; 41; 53; 61‒2; 63, n. 27; 69; 71, n. 113; 85; 86; 89‒90; 96; 97‒8; 100; 116; 143‒4; 149, n. 157; 154; 165; 168; 188; 193, n. 98; 201; 215‒17; 219, n. 204; 231; 250; 257 Ap.’s style in Apol., – archaising tendency 116; 220‒1 – colometric arrangement 244, n. 151 – diminutives 112, n. 66; 115‒16; 130; 144, n. 109; 166; 208; 210, n. 122 – indefinite determiners/pronouns 141, n. 67; 166; 177, n. 140; 208; 210, n. 120 – neologisms 112, n. 66; 158, n. 258; 221, n. 216 – superlatives 62, n. 18; 209, n. 114 Aristotle 26, n. 48; 79; 91, n. 108; 105; 119; 120; 124, n. 168; 129‒30; 132; 218 [Aristotle] 26, n. 48; 29; 63; 247 Asclepius 136‒7; 154‒5; 175; 187‒8 ass-story 90 atrium, confusion with vestibulum 190‒2 Augustine 2, n. 3, n. 4; 3, n. 9; 27, n. 61; 39, n. 169; 97; 214, n. 166 Aulus Gellius 72, n. 122; 191; 249 birds, in magic 154‒5, n. 233; 187‒9 Bolus of Mendes 26; 72‒3; 117, n. 106; 244, n. 157 boys, cf. youths Calpurnianus 51, n. 71; 52; 254‒5 Canidia 54; 142; 153; 165; 188; 193, n. 98; 200 cantamen 67; 68‒9, n. 88; 128; 146; 150

286

Index

Capitolina 8, n. 59; 210, n. 125 Capitolina’s son 210; 258, n. 30 carmen (ἐπῳδή), cf. spells Carmendas 245, n. 165 Carthage 7; 10; 117; 123; 155; 173, n. 108; 206‒7; 215; 223; 227, n. 12; 232, n. 62; 254 Cato the Elder 68, n. 76; 123, n. 163; 249 catoptromancy (mirror-divination), cf. mirrors Catullus 29; 103; 104; 231‒2 Chaldeans, association with magic 249‒50 charges against Ap., original structure 16‒ 18 chronology of events before Ap.’s marriage 210, n. 121; 235, n. 83 Cicero 14; 15, n. 128; 29; 61; 72, n. 121; 93, n. 129; 113, n. 76; 115; 152, n. 185; 164; 170; 180, n. 161; 182, n. 8; 186‒7; 204; 207; 221; 243, n. 148; 249, n. 198; 256, n. 16 cinnamon, in magic 109‒10 Circe 34; 87, n. 72; 93; 96‒7; 204; 211; 230‒1 Claudius Maximus 2‒3; 9; 15; 24; 27; 45; 50; 59; 60; 62; 66; 77; 80; 81; 92; 99; 105; 107; 108; 111; 115; 117‒18; 120‒1; 124; 132; 139; 149‒50; 157; 179; 180; 195; 210; 213; 221; 222; 224; 240; 248; 253; 256‒8 cockerel, cf. hens Cornelius Saturninus 210; 258, n. 30 Corvinius Celer or Clemens 8, n. 59 crabs, in magic 117 Crispus Sallustius 3, n. 6 curiosity (curiositas) 71, n. 113; 257 curses, – Ap.’s mock-c. against Aemilianus 217‒22 – structure of goetic c. 219 curse-tablets (defixiones or defixionum tabellae), overview 32‒3 daemon (daemonium), – Ap.’s views on demonology 136; 148, n. 146 – invocation of d. in magic 213‒16 – Socrates’ d., cf. Socrates Damigeron 245‒6

Dardanus 244‒5 Democritus 72‒4; 75; 77; 117; 244, n. 154 Demosthenes 28, n. 69; 38, n. 163, n. 164 Derveni Papyrus 28‒9, n. 69; 76 destiny (fatum, εἱμαρμένη), alteration through magic 240‒1 Didius Julianus (emperor) 57 Dio of Prusa 29; 64, n. 36; 96 Diodorus Siculus 25; 65‒6; 163, n. 21; 207 Diogenes Laertius 26; 72, n. 121; 74; 78; 79 drama, Greek 35‒6; 89 ebony, in magic 210‒12 Egypt, association with magic 32, n. 97; 41; 94; 95; 122‒3; 167‒8; 207; 211; 245 emic and etic approach 21‒2 Empedocles 78 Ennius 115‒16, n. 95; 120, n. 128 Ephesia Grammata 121, n. 142 Epimenides 74‒5 epithet βασιλεύς, in magic 223 Euripides 35; 163 feathers, in magic 188‒9 female practitioners of magic 35‒7; 41; 69; 93‒4; 98; 142, n. 90; 143; 153; 154; 188‒9, n. 66; 193, n. 98; 200‒1; 215‒16 Firmicus Maternus 205 fish, in magic 84‒5; 116‒17 frankincense, in magic 53‒4; 109; 154‒5; 189 Gaetulian mountains 99, n. 201; 133; 233‒5 Getty Hexameters 121; 163 Gorgias 28; 38; 78 Gratidia, cf. Canidia hair, unkempt and magic 46‒9 Hecate 85; 101; 103‒4; 153; 165; 206, n. 89 Heliodorus 63; 153; 168, n. 64 hellebore, in magic 111 hemlock 109, n. 26; 111 hens, in magic 155 Heraclitus 28; 163 Herennius Rufinus, – R.’s profile and consultation with Chaldeans 227, n. 7; 251‒2

Index

– daughter of R. 8, n. 57; 227, n. 12; 235, n. 83; 248 Hermes, cf. Mercury Herodotus 24‒5; 65; 167‒8 Hippocrates 28; 126; 128; 157, n. 242 hippomanes 89, n. 88; 90‒1, n. 108 historia, as a synonym for novel 89‒90 historiola 119, n. 127; 128 Homer, retrospective association with magic 34, n. 117; 92‒3; 122‒3; 128; 230‒1 Horace 37; 96; 140, n. 64; 142; 153; 165; 189, n. 66; 200; 219, n. 204; 220, n. 214; 231 incantations, cf. spells inscriptions on statue’s thigh, in magic 176‒7 Iunius Crassus 182‒7; 190, n. 79; 192; 193‒ 4; 195 Jannes 244‒5 Jesus, association with magic 243, n. 149; 245 Julius Paulus, Sententiae and magic 5‒6 Laevius 90‒1 Lares and lararium 161, n. 1; 169‒74; 180; 191 larva 201‒3; 215‒17 leno and lenocinium 46‒8 letters, used as evidence in the trial 237‒42 Lex Cornelia de sicariis et veneficis and magic, overview 4‒7 Lex Iulia de maritandis ordinibus 226, n. 2 Lex Papia Poppaea nuptialis 226, n. 2 Lex Remmia de calumniatoribus 4, n. 23; 251 Libanius 38, n. 167; 40; 142‒3 linen, in magic 167‒8 Lollianus Avitus 9, n. 69; 10, n. 84; 50, n. 60 love, associated with fire 86 Lucan 34, n. 116; 36; 37; 121; 122; 144; 154; 201; 241 Lucian 3, n. 10; 26‒7; 37; 41; 48; 62; 65; 75; 94; 100; 103; 113, n. 77; 114; 122;

287

127, n. 195; 128; 143; 153; 154; 167; 176‒ 7; 189; 200; 205; 231; 249‒50 [Lucian] 47; 71, n. 113; 89‒90; 143, n. 97; 215, n. 173 Luxorius 201, n. 40 magic, cf. magus and cognates magica nomina, cf. voces magicae magus and cognates, – Ap.’ positive understanding of magic 26‒ 7, n. 55; 62‒6; 148‒9; 259 – goetic magic 27‒33 – literary magic 33‒7 – philosophic-religious magic 24‒7 – rhetoric and magic 38‒40 – scholarly theories of magic 20‒3 – threefold meaning of 23‒4 Marcus Aurelius (emperor) 9, n. 71; 122, n. 154; 164; 170 marina calvaria, in magic 116 Martianus Capella 205 Maximus of Tyre 3, n. 10; 52, n. 79; 96 meddlesomeness, cf. curiosity Medea 36; 68, n. 78; 78, n. 176; 93, n. 133; 102; 127; 144; 153, n. 198; 165; 201; 211 medicine, association with magic 125‒8; 139; 150 Menelaus’ companions 108‒9 Mercury, – Ap.’s statuette of 197‒9; 207; 208‒9; 210; 213 – connection with magic and necromancy 101‒2; 146; 203‒7 Milesian Tales 89‒90 miraculum 149, n. 154, n. 155 mirrors, in magic 56‒7 moon (Luna), cf. Selene Moses, association with magic 244‒5 murmuring, in magic 122; 153‒4; 177; 206 myrrh, in magic 52, n. 82, n. 83; 53‒4; 110‒ 11 necromancy and magic 197, n. 2; 199‒203 Nicander 130; 133 night and magic 152‒3; 186, n. 38 Nigidius Figulus 147, n. 135 nocturna sacra 185‒7

288

Index

Odysseus 94; 95‒6; 97; 125; 200; 204; 211 Oea 10; 11; 118; 140; 151; 159; 172; 180; 187; 193; 195, n. 113; 209; 229; 234; 235; 239‒40 oil-lamps (lucernae, λύχνοι), in magic 143‒4 Orpheus 25; 40‒1; 75‒6; 77; 89; 167‒8; 170; 232, n. 57, n. 60 Ostanes 72, n. 123; 76‒7; 245‒6 Ovid 36; 37; 47‒9; 55; 72, n. 122; 96; 102; 104; 121; 144; 153; 154; 189, n. 66; 200; 231

prosecutors, cogency of their arguments 224; 241‒2 Proteus 95‒6 Prudentius 69; 154; 205‒6; 211 Pythagoras, – anecdote about fish 91‒2; 118, n. 121 – association with magic 31‒2; 72; 73; 74‒ 5; 76; 78; 80; 87‒8; 245, n. 163

Pausanias 56; 75 Penates 169‒70; 191, n. 82; 192‒3; 194 Petronius 95; 96; 97; 169‒70; 189, n. 66; 190; 213; 250 PGM (Papyri Graecae Magicae), overview 30‒2 Philo of Alexandria 63 Philostratus, Life of Apollonius of Tyana, – as a work of fiction 48, n. 46 – dissociating Apollonius from magic 27; 32, n. 101; 259 – similarities with the Apologia 48; 70‒1; 94; 142; 167‒8 phylacteries 69‒70, n. 99; 100; 101; 212; 213, n. 155 Plato, – Ap.’s ideal master 224; 259 – association with magic 79‒80 Plautus 30, n. 80, n. 83; 91, n. 110; 95, n. 145; 115‒16, n. 94; 127; 166, n. 51; 216‒17, n. 184, n. 185; 243, n. 148 Pliny the Elder 6; 25, n. 36; 26, n. 51, n. 52; 30; 36, n. 133; 40‒1; 53‒4; 56, n. 122; 65; 72‒3; 74; 76‒7; 79; 84‒5; 87‒8; 89, n. 88; 93, n. 128; 94; 95; 96; 100; 110; 111; 114, n. 86; 117; 118, n. 119; 121‒2; 127; 128, n. 206; 130‒1; 137, n. 33; 139, n. 50; 142; 147; 152; 158; 165; 178; 189, n. 66; 199‒200; 231‒2; 244‒6 Plotinus 27; 96‒7; 183‒4, n. 16; 259 Plutarch 3, n. 10; 26; 47‒8; 75‒6; 95; 98; 231 Pomponius Porphyrio 54 poppy, in magic 111 Propertius 37; 69; 93; 94; 189, n. 66; 231

Sabratha 4, n. 16 sea waste, in magic 118 sea-hare 130‒2 seashells, in magic 116‒17 seaweed, in magic 118 secrecy, in magic 152‒3; 165 Selene 57; 102‒3; 104; 110; 117, n. 111; 155; 204 Sicinius Aemilianus 4; 8, n. 60; 50, n. 60, n. 64; 52; 57‒8; 62; 83; 85‒6; 108‒9; 121; 132; 157; 158; 163; 166; 174; 176; 180, n. 161; 187; 195; 197; 217‒21; 222‒ 3; 226‒7; 234, n. 80; 239; 242, n. 142; 247; 256 Sicinius Amicus 4, n. 20 Sicinius Pontianus 4; 8; 161‒2; 166; 169‒ 72; 180; 210, n. 121; 212; 227; 234; 235, n. 83; 236; 238; 239; 248; 250‒2 Sicinius Pudens 4; 7, n. 50; 8; 137; 151; 196; 227, n. 12; 230; 235, n. 83; 236; 237, n. 100; 238; 239, n. 117 skulls, in magic 116; 177; 213‒14 smoke, in magic 189‒90 Socrates, – association with magic 38; 70‒1; 79; 184 – his daemonium (δαιμόνιον) 79; 148, n. 149; 184; 214 Sophocles 35; 119, n. 127 spells, in magic 67‒9; 141‒2; 231‒2 statuettes, in magic 203‒4 Strabo 65; 75; 199 Suetonius 200 Synesius 46, n. 20; 47

Quintilian 6; 16; 39; 256 [Quintilian] 39; 100; 142; 154; 172; 200; 250

Tacitus (emperor) 171

Index

289

Tacitus (historian) 249, n. 200 Tannonius Pudens 8, n. 62; 88; 112, n. 74; 113; 131, n. 231 Tarmoendas, cf. Carmendas Thallus 136‒8; 140‒1; 143; 145‒6; 150‒1; 155‒6 Themison 139; 157, n. 244; 158; 258, n. 30 Theocritus 34, n. 116; 36, n. 134; 89, n. 89; 91; 93; 102; 103; 127; 128, n. 206; 153‒ 4; 192, n. 88; 230, n. 35; 231 Tibullus 37; 86; 98; 103; 200‒1; 231 Tiresias 95; 97; 200 Trivia, cf. Hecate Twelve Tables, laws of 41; 67‒8; 142; 152

venenum (φάρμακον) 54, n. 103; 126‒7, n. 187; 230‒3 Venus 45, n. 19; 52; 84, n. 31; 86; 87; 98‒ 9; 101‒2; 113; 256 verbena, in magic 178 veretilla and virginal 112, n. 66; 113 Vergil 29; 36, n. 140; 45; 68; 88‒9; 91; 96; 98; 109; 128, n. 206; 170; 178; 204; 231‒2 vestibulum, cf. atrium voces magicae 119‒24

unknown lady, enchanted by Ap. 8, n. 59; 139; 156‒8 unknown slave-boys, enchanted by Ap. 139; 151‒2

youths, in magic 142‒3

Valerius Flaccus 96; 103; 153; 154 Varro 146‒7; 175, n. 119; 187; 246

wand (ῥάβδος), in magic 204, n. 63; 211 winds, control of in magic 97‒8

Zalmoxis 65‒6; 258 Zarath 50, n. 60 Zoroaster (Zarathustra) 22; 50, n. 60; 62‒3; 64‒6; 72, n. 123; 75‒6; 79, n. 186; 80; 91‒2; 211‒12; 241, n. 136; 245‒6