Lector intende: et doceberis et laetaberis. This variation of Apuleius’ dictum may well serve as a motto for the present study. M. has been an opinion leader in the field of Apuleius studies for more than half a century, as the author of seminal articles, of the groundbreaking study on Apuleio e il platonismo (1978) and of the Teubner edition of Apuleius’ philosophical works (1991). In this new book, he takes a fresh look at the philosophus Platonicus from Madaura, taking into account new scholarly insights and combining them with the treasures of his own erudition.
After a brief introduction, which contains a useful survey of the most important ‘revolutions’ in Apuleian studies (such as the rejection of the hypothesis of the school of Gaius, the different views on the origin of Middle Platonism and the appreciation of Apuleius as both a philosopher and a sophist), the first chapter deals with Apuleius’ Apology and Florida. In these two rhetorical works Apuleius appears as a brilliant sophist who is not afraid of discussing philosophical issues before his audience. Several of these issues, such as Apuleius’ distinction between two kinds of magic and his Platonic view of the god, are examined in this chapter, and although M. obviously does not aim at a full discussion of the two works (nothing is said, for instance, about the protagonists of the trial and the judicial background of the Apology, nor about the rhetorical strategies used in both works), his survey both casts light on some important leitmotifs of Apuleius’ thinking and writing and does justice to Apuleius’ own authorial perspective.
Chapters 2 and 3 focus on the Metamorphoses. The interpretation of this novel is hotly debated, and it is perhaps rather unlikely that scholars will one day agree on the precise meaning and scope of this multilayered work. M. works towards a well-balanced equilibrium between ‘separatists’ (who regard the Metamorphoses only as a collection of funny stories) and ‘unitarians’ (who detect a deeper, philosophical meaning in it), arguing that the novel is the product of a Platonist philosopher (or ‘Halbphilosoph’) who took into account the demands of the literary genre and therefore carefully omitted technical questions. Special attention is given to the famous ‘Tale of Cupid and Psyche’, six interpretations of which are listed (the symbolic, the folkloric, the religious, the literary, the moral and the Platonic). This section on the Metamorphoses ends by a short reconsideration of the Platonism of the ‘Tale of Cupid and Psyche’.
In Chapter 4, M. presents Apuleius’ systematised demonology as it is elaborated in De deo Socratis. He deals with the place of demons in the world, with their nature, roles and language, and with the complicated relation that exists between demons and the human soul. Apuleius’ views on these matters are also compared with those of other Middle Platonists, such as Maximus of Tyre, Alcinous, Calcidius and especially Plutarch. These parallels show that De deo Socratis is the product of a rich previous tradition of philosophical reflection that may be traced back to Plato and the Early Academy, but at the same time it reveals aspects of Apuleius’ creative thinking, and M. rightly concludes that demonology ‘certainly represents one of the better results of Apuleius’ thought’ (p. 145).
The next chapter, which deals with the relation between philosophy and rhetoric in Apuleius’ day, introduces a broader perspective. M. briefly examines the positions of Fronto and Marcus Aurelius, Favorinus, Aulus Gellius and Calvisius Taurus, Cynicism, and Aelianus, and adds a lengthier discussion of Aelius Aristides. Remarkably absent from the list is Maximus of Tyre, who constitutes in several respects perhaps the best parallel to Apuleius. Figures such as Plutarch and Dio of Prusa would have been of particular interest too (although, it is true, they belong to the generation before Apuleius), and a few general comments about the so-called ‘Second Sophistic’ would have been relevant as well. Nevertheless, this brief overview is very welcome, as it contributes a great deal to a better understanding of Apuleius’ cultural environment and thus to his literary work as a whole.
Chapters 6 to 8 are devoted to Apuleius’ more technical philosophical works. A short general presentation of De Platone et eius dogmate (with particular attention to the ‘Life of Plato’ with which the work begins) and De mundo (Apuleius’ free translation or adaptation of the Pseudo-Aristotelian Περὶ κόσμου) is followed by a discussion of the date and authenticity of these works. M. regards both works as authentic and situates them in the final years of Apuleius’ life. The authenticity of De interpretatione, however, is rejected. M.’s re-examination of the evidence shows that Hildebrand was correct in considering De interpretatione as spurious. In the subsequent discussion of Apuleius’ physics, pride of place is given to his doctrine of the highest God, the transcendent deus summus exsuperantissimus. Apuleius changes the traditional ‘doctrine of the three principles’ (Dreiprinzipienlehre), viz. God – Matter – Ideas, by introducing a new hierarchy in it, placing God at the top. His views on these principles, but also on the cosmic soul and the notorious problem of the creation of the world, on providence and fate, on time, and on the human soul all rest on a rich school tradition that finds its principal roots in Plato's Timaeus, but was also influenced by later Stoic and Peripatetic thinking. M. adds a great wealth of parallel material from other Platonists, but also from Christian authors, which is of considerable help in understanding the intellectual framework in which Apuleius elaborated his Platonic world view. This also holds true for the chapter on Apuleius’ ethics, which provides a survey of the key topics discussed in the second book of De Platone: the doctrines of goods and evils, of οἰκείωσις, of virtue, vice and the intermediate phase of moral progress, and the traditional Platonic goal of ‘likeness to God’ (ὁμοίωσις θεῷ).
The final chapter deals with the reception of Apuleius’ thinking in later Christian literature. This reception, to be sure, is quite limited, for the great majority of Christian writers simply ignored Apuleius. A few parallels between the latter's thinking and the views of Arnobius may be discovered, although it is difficult to find compelling evidence that Arnobius was directly influenced by Apuleius. A much more obvious case is Augustine, who explicitly attacks Apuleius’ demonology in his De civitate Dei. The book ends with a short conclusion, a bibliography and an index of names.
This study shows, once again, that M. knows Apuleius as few others do. His impressive familiarity with the scholarly literature is illustrated both in the many learned footnotes and in his frequent discussions of the views of other scholars. Those readers who lack prior knowledge of the philosopher Apuleius may occasionally encounter a few difficulties in grasping all the technical details of his position (even more so as the quotations from his works are left untranslated), but they are never abandoned by M., who remains a reliable guide. His arguments are always clear, lucid and well-considered, and the many illustrative parallels with other authors make this book not merely a penetrating study of Apuleius’ Platonic philosophy but also of the general intellectual climate in Apuleius’ time. The book is well written, in a fluent and elegant style, and as such succeeds no less in docere than in delectare – a combination that Apuleius himself would no doubt have appreciated very much. In short, this is an excellent book on Apuleius written by an Apuleius rediuiuus.
