Before the publication of this volume, the only Apuleian work in the Loeb Classical Library was the Metamorphoses or The Golden Ass, edited first by Gaselee in 1915 and then by Hanson in 1989 (reprinted with corrections in 1996). This is, therefore, a very welcome addition, which completes the presence of Apuleius’ literary production in the Loeb series.

The volume opens with a useful general introduction on Apuleius’ life, style, reception and manuscript tradition, and a select bibliography. Each Apuleian work is then accompanied by a specific introduction and a summary of their content arranged by bullet points. In the general introduction J. discusses the evidence from Apologia and Florida for the origin of Apuleius’ family, which J. suggests belonged to the group of Roman settlers who founded Madauros (modern M'Daourouch in eastern Algeria, not ‘western’ as on p. vii); Apuleius’ career as a rhetorician and his public offices; and the date of composition of Apologia, Florida and Metamorphoses. J. adds a convenient overview of Apuleius’ style and vocabulary: Apuleius’ syntax and the most recurrent figures of speech are discussed, as well as Apuleian neologisms. Here, J. might have acknowledged the more extensive studies by L. Callebat, WS 97 (1984), 143–67 and L. Nicolini, Ad (l)usum lectoris (2011). The stylistic section is followed by a survey of the Nachleben of Apuleius’ production. J.’s claim that Augustine's interest is the crucial reason for the survival of Apuleius’ works (pp. xvi–xvii) can be challenged: one might argue that Augustine would not have acknowledged Apuleius and engaged in a lengthy confutation of his demonology had its author not been well known. Thus, Apuleius’ popularity in Late Antiquity is likely to be the premise and not the consequence of Augustine's interest in his works.

J. also provides an explanation of the possible origin of the three titles. In the case of the Apologia, he argues that the title De magia is misleading since the speech is not a treatise on magic: therefore, it might be ascribed to the late-antique editor Sallustius or an earlier copyist (p. 7). Yet, the full transmitted title is Pro se de magia, which actually fits the speech and its contents very well because the core of the accusation concerns a series of magical performances attributed to Apuleius and his alleged seduction of Pudentilla through magic. Although J. argues that Apuleius did not intend to display his knowledge of magic, Apuleius seems to do so provocatively in several passages (e.g. 26.6–9; 38.7–8; 47.3–4; 64.1–2; 90.6). In fact, this speech together with Pliny N.H. 30.1–18 is our richest literary source on Greco-Roman magic. In order to direct non-specialist readers towards updated discussions of magic in the Apologia, the works by F. Graf, Magic in the Ancient World (1997), pp. 65–88, and J. Rives in W. Riess (ed.), Paideia at Play (2008), pp. 17–49, would have been worth mentioning alongside A. Abt, Die Apologie des Apuleius von Madaura und die antike Zauberei (1908). Similarly, since J. notes the relevance of the Lex Cornelia de sicariis et veneficis for Apuleius’ trial, a reference to the recent studies by J. Rives in J. North, S. Price (edd.), The Religious History of the Roman Empire (2011), pp. 71–108, and L. Pellecchi, Innocentia eloquentia est (2012), could have been useful. Finally, for all the social and historical aspects of this and the other speeches, A. La Rocca, Il filosofo e la città. Commento storico ai Florida di Apuleio (2005), pp. 13–25; 35–77, is a good source of information. At the end of the introduction to the Apologia, there is a helpful list of the people involved in the trial, but Apuleius’ assistant and physician Themison, who played an important part in the proceedings (cf. Apol. 33.3; 40.5; 48.3; 51.9), is missing.

The introduction to the Florida provides a handy overview of its aspects and fragmentary nature. In the introduction to De deo Socratis, J. suggests that a more accurate title might have been De daemone Platonis since this speech is about Platonic demonology (p. 341). However, the daimon of Socrates was a topic of interest to other Platonists such as Plutarch and Maximus of Tyre, as J. acknowledges (pp. 343–4); in this perspective, the preserved title seems less problematic. Attention is paid to Augustine's polemic against Apuleius’ demonology; J. also accepts in his text some readings transmitted in the quotations from the De civitate Dei. Nevertheless, the claim that Augustine at De civ. D. 8.19 considers this speech as a copiosissima et disertissima oratio is incorrect, since this is a comment on the Apologia. Perhaps there has been a confusion with Augustine's words at De civ. D. 8.14, where he refers to the De deo Socratis (dicit enim apertissime et copiosissime asserit non illum deum fuisse, sed daemonem).

The Latin text follows the orthographic convention of the OLD, as explained in the general introduction, normalising archaic forms and Greek spellings of some loanwords, although J. acknowledges that they might go back to Apuleius. J. introduces a few emendations of his own and a number of readings by humanists and early editors, which are, however, not always recorded in the apparatus as promised in the introduction. There are some misprints and omissions in the Latin and Greek: Apol. 4.4 ἐπικυδέα, read ἐρικυδέα; 17.1 neque labor, read neque laboro; 22.6 peram et baculam, read peram et baculum; 31.6 ζείδουρος, read ζείδωρος; 39.3, line 11 (purpura, muriculi, mures, dulces quoque echini) is missing in the Latin but translated; 46.2 ut producantur, read ut producant; 49.3 non congruent, read non congruant; 82.2 Απολέϊος, read Ἀπολέϊος; 83.1 ἀντὶ πάντων γαμηθῆναι, read ἀντὶ πάντων αἱρεῖσθαι; Ἁπολέϊος, read Ἀπολέϊος; καὶ ἐγὼ ὑπ’ αὐτοῦ μεμάγευμαι, read καὶ ἐγὼ μεμάγευμαι ὑπ’ αὐτοῦ; ἐμέ ἕως, read ἐμὲ ἕως; Flor. 18.13 mirum dictum, read mirum dictu; in the ‘orphan chapters’ or false preface to the De deo Socratis at 1.3 enim sic ferme, read sic enim ferme; 2.1 ille philosophiae, read illi philosophiae; 4.11 the clause quod solum deesse tantae eius formae vulpes simulaverat is missing in the Latin but translated; De deo Soc. 6.3 precum hinc, read precum inde. I have found at least eight cases of v written u in the text of the De deo Socratis. On the other hand, the misprint in R. Helm, Apuleius. De magia (1959) at Apol. 25.9 quod tandem est crimen in place of quod tandem crimen est – which slipped into the editions of V. Hunink, Apuleius of Madauros. Pro se de magia (1997) and J. Hammerstaedt (ed.), Apuleius. De magia (2002) – does not appear in this volume.

The English translation is accurate and enjoyable, offering an alternative to the Oxford translation of these works in S. Harrison (ed.), Apuleius. Rhetorical Works (2001). It follows Apuleius in variating between formal and informal style, and is accompanied by abundant interpretative notes. The fresh translation of Apuleius’ short poems is particularly welcome, since V. Hunink in Harrison, op. cit., follows the anonymous translation in The Works of Apuleius (1893), which is rather old-fashioned.

The volume ends with five appendices, mainly focusing on the Apologia, and an index of names. Appendix A offers a discussion of Apuleius’ possible birthdate, which J. places about ad 122 or 123. Appendix B focuses on the location of Zarat/Zarath, the town of Apuleius’ accuser Sicinius Aemilianus, which J. identifies with the modern Ain Zara in Libya, a village in the territory of the ancient Oea. The other appendices look into the social and political standing of Apuleius’ father, the list of historical figures mentioned at Apol. 66.4 and the transmitted reading consulatus at Apol. 94.5, which J. proposes to emend to proconsulatus.

It is important to point out that this is the only edition of these works that presents the original texts with a parallel English translation. Every library should welcome it on its shelves, since it allows experts and non-experts of Apuleius to appreciate the sophistication of his surviving speeches.