Comic Invention and Superstitious Frenzy in Apuleius' Metamorphoses : The Figure of Socrates as an Icon of Satirical Self-Exposure

Wytse H. Keulen

American Journal of Philology, Volume 124, Number 1 (Whole Number 493), Spring 2003, pp. 107-135 (Article) Published by The Johns Hopkins University Press DOI: 10.1353/ajp.2003.0021

For additional information about this article

http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/ajp/summary/v124/124.1keulen.html

Access provided by University of Belgrade (5 Jul 2013 16:46 GMT)

COMIC INVENTION AND SUPERSTITIOUS FRENZY IN APUL. MET.

107

COMIC INVENTION AND SUPERSTITIOUS FRENZY IN APULEIUS METAMORPHOSES: THE FIGURE OF SOCRATES AS AN ICON OF SATIRICAL SELF-EXPOSURE
WYTSE H. KEULEN

Abstract. This article concentrates on the Apuleian Socrates (Met. 1.619) as a programmatic gure who reects both the comic ambiguity of the novel and the paradoxical identity of its protagonist and main narrator, Lucius, author of an entertaining narrative and a superstitious initiate of a religious cult. It offers a reading of a satiric Socrates as parallel to a satiric Lucius. Socrates ambiguous exhibitionistic gesture (1.6) is a tribute to his Socratic-Cynic pedigree and can be viewed as an icon of satirical self-exposure. Both Socrates and Lucius seem to be literary projections of Apuleius himself as an author of comic autobiographical ction.

0. INTRODUCTION WHETHER THE ENDING of Apuleius Metamorphoses is religiously earnest, fundamentally satiric, or endorses ambiguity is still a matter of debate among Apuleian scholars. Since Winkler (1985), various studies have plausibly argued for a satirical interpretation of Lucius initiation in the cult of Isis.1 Along similar lines, the present study will offer a reading of a satiric Socrates as parallel to a satiric Lucius.2

1 Winkler (1985, 20927) analyses the comic elements in Book 11 but still argues for an open ending that allows both a serious and a satirical interpretation. For a more determinate approach towards a satirical interpretation, see, e.g., Van Mal-Maeder 1997; Harrison 2000, 23559. Harrison (25052) even suggests that Book 11 is satirical of a particular persons addiction to superstitious cults (Aelius Aristides); for a different approach, see section 3. 2 The terms satire and satirical are ambiguous. It is therefore important to note that I use the words satire, satirist, and satirical in a broader sense, not restricting myself to the genre of Satire, which is known to be exclusively Roman (Quint. Inst. 10.1.93), but including its Greek literary predecessors (e.g., Old Comedy, Cynic diatribe), whose strong satirical elements inuenced Roman Satire (see Freudenburg 1993 on Horace).

American Journal of Philology 124 (2003) 107135 2003 by The Johns Hopkins University Press

108

WYTSE H. KEULEN

Socrates is the central gure in the rst inset tale of Apuleius novel (1.619), narrated by Aristomenes. Various expressions emphasise the visual and theatrical nature of the opening scene, in which Socrates appears as a pale and emaciated beggar (cf. 1.6.1 deformatus; 1.6.3 simulacrum; 1.6.5 miserum aerumnae spectaculum). Socrates is the only character in this tale whose visual features are pictured to some extent (1.6.1; 1.6.4; 1.19.12); he and his symptoms are repeatedly the object of Aristomenes gaze (cf. 1.18.1; 1.19.1). Despite being a focal character, and despite the fact that he bears the famous name of the father of philosophy, the gure of Socrates is one of the most enigmatic characters in the Metamorphoses. His evasive, slippery nature seems aptly represented by his physical symptoms of pallor and emaciation, which can be interpreted on various levels. The ambiguous portrayal of Socrates turns out to be closely intertwined with the hybrid personality of his antagonist Meroe, whom he represents as the cause of his miserable state (1.7.10). When we nd Socrates pale and emaciated, sitting as a beggar dressed in rags, and learn that the cause of his misfortune was his encounter with a lecherous, dominant old hag (1.67), the obvious explanation of his symptoms seems to be that of a man ruined by his submission to uoluptas. However, symptoms turn out to be highly ambiguous in this story, where various scenarios and interpretations compete to offer a plausible explanation for the provocative events (see Winkler 1985, 8286). Socrates appearance in the story as a poor victim, and his symptoms of pallor and emaciation, are perhaps not to be taken at face value. His performance as a passive dupe may be viewed as a masquerade, concealing features whose relevance is beyond his apparent role of victim in the story. There is another, perhaps far more important role of Socrates that we should take into account: the role of devious storyteller who partly retells the repertoire of another storyteller, Meroe (1.10.3 ut mihi temulenta narrauit). The present study concentrates on the character of Socrates as a programmatic gure who reects both the comic ambiguity of the novel and the ambiguous character of its protagonist and main narrator, Lucius. Apuleian studies have hitherto pointed out many parallels between Socrates and Lucius as a character in the story, which are related to

Apuleius considered the Greek Cynic Crates as a writer of satire (Flor. 20.5), and ancient scholia refer to the sharp wit of the Cynic Bion with the term satura (see n. 21). The question of the satiric voice or genre in the Roman novel deserves further exploration; see, e.g., Smith 1996, 30917.

COMIC INVENTION AND SUPERSTITIOUS FRENZY IN APUL. MET.

109

central themes of the novel (e.g., curiositas, seruiles uoluptates). Both Socrates and Lucius seek profane pleasures (uoluptates), indulging, for example, in popular shows (1.4; 1.7.56) and sex (1.8.1 uoluptatem Veneriam). In both cases, their sexual escapades (Socrates with the old hag Meroe; Lucius with the maid Photis) make them a victim of witchcraft and form the prelude to various misfortunes, involving metamorphosis, destitution, and exploitation by other powerful characters (see e.g., Walsh 1970, 177; Sandy 1973, 232), including Isis (Van Mal-Maeder 1997, 102; 1067). Many scholars stress the correspondences between the witches from the rst three books and Isis; according to a recent study, we should see these parallels not in terms of opposition, but of continuation (Van Mal-Maeder 1997, 97100). Since it has been acknowledged that Socrates is a kind of programmatic anticipation of Lucius, it would be interesting to study him also as a reection of Lucius paradoxical identity as a narrator, both the author of an entertaining Milesian narrative and an initiate of a religious cult. Although Lucius as a narrator does not mention his conversion to Isis until he describes it in the eleventh book, one wonders whether it really came as a surprise for the contemporary reader. As the present study of the gure of Socrates intends to demonstrate, the gap that Winkler (1985, 24142) observed between the entertaining storyteller and the religious fanatic may not have been that wide, and in some cases may even have been nonexistent. As we will see, the Apuleian Socrates foreshadows Lucius in resembling types of storytellers and charlatans that were part of Apuleius contemporary life, who, by making a show of their superstitious inclinations as a form of entertainment, were able to make a living. Winkler (23842) adduced two such types as models for Lucius as a storyteller, namely, the Cynics as philosophical entertainers and the religious entertainers with shaven heads who narrated their tragic misfortunes and ensuing salvation by a divinity; both performed in order to make money.3 Viewed in the light of the literary tradition of Socrates-like gures

3 Cynics: Dio Chrysostom orat. 32.9 on the Cynics in Alexandria who play upon the peoples credulity at crossroads or at temple gates, skmmata ka polln spermologan sunerontew ka tw goraouw tataw pokrseiw (stitching together crude jokes and long-winded chatter and sharp marketplace answers), to make a living (xrevn trofw). Winkler 1985, 242, compares the stitching metaphor sunerontew to the narrators promise to stitch together various stories (Met. 1.1.1 uarias fabulas conseram). Religious entertainers: Lucian. Merc. cond. 1 t poll tata prw tn xrean tn parautka pitragdosin w par pleinvn lambnoien.

110

WYTSE H. KEULEN

(Old Comedy, the Socratic-Cynic tradition) and of contemporary satire (Plutarch, Lucian), the Apuleian Socrates will appear to embody both the skciw of the Cynics (dicacitas) and the pitragden of religious storytellers (aulaeum tragicum). Elements of both comedy and tragedy in the characterisation of Socrates unmask him as a devious charlatan who deceives his audience with superstitious inventions. His comic banter and tragic histrionics are complementary expressions of his role as a storyteller, behind which we may perhaps discern commercial motives. The most important paradigm for the portrayal of the Apuleian Socrates as a satirist and an inventor of autobiographical ction is the Cynic beggar-philosopher, who reunites the apparently irreconcilable concepts of kvmden (skvpten) and tragden and whom contemporary satire sometimes pictures as a religious charlatan (Lucian, Death of Peregrinus).4 Socrates ambiguous exhibitionistic gesture in his opening scene is a tribute to his Cynic pedigree and can be viewed as an icon of satirical self-exposure, an emblem of the novel. 1. kvmden, skvpten: OLD COMEDY AND THE SOCRATIC-CYNIC TRADITION Studies of the Apuleian Socrates have hitherto concentrated on the contrasts with the Platonic Socrates.5 However, it is also possible to speak in terms of correspondences instead of contrasts. Socrates reputation as a satirist can be traced back to Plato. In Platos Symposium (221DE), Alcibiades compared Socrates to Silenuses and Satyrssymbols of satire and invective (cf. Ael. VH 3.40)in person and speech, being rude and ridiculous in appearance and behaviour but hiding some4 Until now, the connections between Apuleius novel and Cynicism have been rather neglected; exceptions are Tatum 1979, 12425; Winkler 1985, 125 n. 4. Apuleius sometimes expresses admiration for Cynic genius, as he praises the Cynic Crates for composing satire (Flor. 20.5) and parodying Homeric verse (Apol. 22.4). However, in Flor. 7.1013, Apuleius severely criticises the Cynics for their rejection of intellectual culture (cf. also Apol. 39.1 Cynicam temeritatem). See n. 16. 5 For example, it is often noted that the real Socrates refused to go to Thessaly to escape capital punishment (Pl. Crit. 53D), whereas the Socrates in Aristomenes tale experiences his misfortunes in Thessaly. Moreover, scholars contrast the version of Socrates in the novels rst book, whose story ends with his farcical death, with the eulogy of the Platonic Socrates in 10.33.3 (diuinae prudentiae senex) whose teachings have made him immortal. For comparisons between the Platonic and the Apuleian Socrates, see, e.g., Van der Paardt 1978, 82; Fick 1991, 127; more references in Zimmerman 2000, 399400 on 10.33.3.

COMIC INVENTION AND SUPERSTITIOUS FRENZY IN APUL. MET.

111

thing godlike within him.6 The contrast in the Platonic Socrates between his slovenly appearance (resembling an groikow; Ribbeck 1888, 3940) and powerful mental qualities appears to be a paradigm for a literary tradition of uncouth paupers, who have it in common that they embody some devious, corrupting kind of rhetoric or philosophy. This tradition begins with the caricature of Socrates in Aristophanes Clouds and continues with the Cynic beggar-philosopher, for whom Socrates was a role model in both appearance and philosophical attitude. 1.1. Socrates in Aristophanes Clouds In Apuleius time it was well known that the historical Socrates of the fth century B.C. was a favourite target of contemporary comedians like Aristophanes and Eupolis.7 Although he never mentions it, we may safely assume that Apuleius knew Clouds (423 B.C.), one of Aristophanes most popular comedies in antiquity (a direct allusion to a verse from Clouds, which will be discussed below, may even prove this). For his comic version of Socrates, Apuleius borrows traits of the Aristophanic one as markers of comic invention and cunning verbal trickery. 1.1.1. Pallor and Emaciation. By introducing a character called Socrates with an emaciated body and a pale skin (1.6.1 paene alius lurore, ad miseram maciem deformatus), Apuleius pays homage to the earliest portrait known to us of the philosopher Socrates, namely, his caricature in Clouds. Socrates there also appears pale (103 xrintaw), as do his pupils (18586, 718, 1112). A recent study conrms the view that this description of Socrates physical appearance follows a common Greek stereotype of the intellectual, which ridicules his wasted appearance (Zanker 1995, 3233). In the Apology, Apuleius used a similar stereotype to describe himself in order to demonstrate that he was a genuine philosopher.8
6 According to Cicero (nat. deor. 1.93), Zeno the Epicurean called Socrates, the very father of philosophy, the scurra of Athens (see Pease 195558, 45556). On the ambivalent role of Socrates as a jester-hero in Platos Symposium, see Gold 1980, 135359. 7 Apuleius contemporary Lucian refers to the derision of Socrates by Aristophanes and Eupolis in piscator 25 (=Eupolis test. 31 K-A). Cf. Eupolis fr. 386; 395 K-A; Aristoph. Clouds, passim. Plutarch (Mor. 10CD) tells an anecdote about Socrates being asked whether he was bothered by Aristophanes abuse of him in Clouds. 8 Apol. 4.10 cui praeter formae mediocritatem continuatio etiam litterati laboris omnem gratiam corpore deterget, habitudinem tenuat, sucum exsorbet, colorem obliterat, uigorem debilitat. See Zanker 1995, 234.

112

WYTSE H. KEULEN

In view of the connection with Aristophanes, it is interesting to compare Aristomenes shocked reaction (1.6.2) to the comical reaction of Strepsiades (Clouds 18487) when he sees the pale and emaciated students of Socrates who are bending down to the ground. Both seem to believe that the pallor does not have a natural cause like a lack of fresh air, sun, and exercise, but that some magic or miasma may have caused it (see Sommerstein on Clouds 71819). Strepsiades frightened reluctance to go into the school (5069) is reected in Aristomenes reluctance to approach Socrates (1.6.2); both associate the unnatural pallor with death (1.6.3; Clouds 504). In both texts, there is a comic tension between a rationalistic explanation of paleness on the one hand and an unnatural or even supernatural one on the other (cf. S. Panayotakis 1998). Whereas the dangerous force behind Socrates deteriorated appearance in Apuleius novel turns out to be witchcraft, in Aristophanes it is the revolutionary philosophy taught in the Socratic frontistrion. What is more, both texts emphasise the active inuence of Socrates paleness and emaciation, being no mere symptoms but some dangerous form of contagion in itself that completely changes someones identity.9 1.1.2. Covering the Head. We may also observe Aristophanic comedy in the rst dramatic gesture Socrates makes in his programmatic opening scene: he covers his facewhich is now blushing for shamewith his patched cloak (1.6.4), assuming a pathetic attitude that he sustains as long as he can, embodying Fortunes triumphal monument (1.7.1). We frequently encounter such gestures in tragedy as an expression of shame and grief, and Apuleius elsewhere uses it as such.10 As is well known, the gesture is also associated with the historical Socrates, both the one we know from Platos writings and his caricature created by Aristophanes. In Platos Phaedrus (237A), Socrates covers his head before he starts his rst speech on eros; as K. J. Dover (on Aristophanes Clouds 735 gkalucmenow) remarks, he does this in order not to see Phaidros during his speech, using a Socratic technique of concentration.11 Aristophanes
9 515 nevtroiw tn fsin ato prgmasin xrvtzetai, (he [Strepsiades] is dipping himself in the dye of revolutionary new ideas); 1.6.1 paene alius lurore, ad miseram maciem deformatus; 1.19.1 aliquanto intentiore macie atque pallore buxeo; 1.19.2 sic denique eum uitalis color turbauerat . . . 10 See, e.g., Willink 1986, 132, on Eur. Orest. 280 with further references; Zimmerman 2000, 8889 on Met. 10.3.4 laciniaque contegens faciem in an episode full of reminiscences of the tragic story of Phaedra. 11 Cf. Gell. 19.9.9 permittite mihi, quaeso, operire pallio caput, quod in quadam parum pudica oratione Socraten fecisse aiunt. For different explanations of the gesture in Apuleius,

COMIC INVENTION AND SUPERSTITIOUS FRENZY IN APUL. MET.

113

makes fun of this technique by transforming it into a gesture that is supposed to help Strepsiades in fabricating concoctions and fraudulent ideas (cf. Clouds 728) in the Socratic frontistrion, which he has to dream up in bed with his head covered.12 Strepsiades nally comes up with a concoction that involves a Thessalian witch who is able to draw the moon down (74956; cf. Met. 1.3.1), which Socrates accepts with approval. That we should regard the Apuleian Socrates as a follower of the school of his Aristophanic ancestor and deem him capable of thinking up fraudulent ideas about Thessalian witches too is suggested by his successful rhetoric in 1.910, his tales of metamorphoses. Listing the magic feats of his mistress, Socrates makes his friends scepticism disappear, so that he seems now terried of witchcraft too (1.11.1). However, we should keep in mind that Aristomenes stands above Socrates as the narrator of this miraculous story, which will impress Lucius just as much (cf. 2.1) as Socrates tales had impressed Aristomenes himself. Thus, we may perhaps see Aristomenes as an accomplice of his comrade in dreaming up concoctions about witchcraft when under the bedclothes. Apuleius gives a clear hint of this possibility by a direct allusion to Aristophanes. After the delirious nocturnal visit of the two Thessalian witches, a dream-like experience of Aristomenes that Socrates appears to conrm later on (1.18.7), the doorkeeper bursts in at dawn and shouts (1.17.1): ubi es tu, qui . . . stertis inuolutus? (Where are you, who . . . are snoring wrapped up in your covers?). The curious juxtaposition of stertis inuolutus, which is nowhere else attested in Latin, is an almost literal translation of Clouds 11 ll, e doke, =gkvmen gkekalummnoi (all right, if you want to, lets cover our heads and snore). Although it is Socrates who is actually snoring (1.11.4; 1.12.3), the ianitors question is directed to Aristomenes who had rolled down on the oor together with Socrates (1.16.6) and, as a result, may even be wrapped up in the same cover with him.

see Van der Paardt 1978, 82; Caprettini 1986, 114. Also, in Cynic sources Socrates is sometimes comically represented with his head covered; cf. the humorous anecdote in Teles, II Per atarkeaw (On Self-Sufciency), p. 19, 7 Hense. 12 Cf. Ar. Clouds 633, 694, 727; 735 (Socr. to Str.) ok gkalucmenow taxvw ti frontiew; (Cover up, will you, and think of something, fast); 740 yi nn kalptou . . . . On Aristophanes mockery of Socrates techniques of concentration, see Montiglio 2000, 96 with n. 60.

114

WYTSE H. KEULEN

1.2. The Paradigm of the Cynic Beggar-Philosopher: Satirist and Satirised When he invented his comic character Socrates, Apuleius doubtless was aware of the fact that the Greek philosopher bearing the same name was a role model for the Cynics and that Socrates unconventional attitude greatly inuenced the famous Cynic shamelessness (naidea) and verbal license (parrhsa).13 In the Cynic perception of a caustic and censorious Socrates, his well-known powers of wit, censure, and irony have much more prominence than in Plato and make him resemble his Aristophanic caricature.14 Moreover, Apuleius knew the literary stereotype of the Cynic beggar-philosopher, usually portrayed with a worn cloak, a bag, a beard, and a stick (cf. Flor. 14.3, on Crates), a stereotype that owes a great deal to the slovenly appearance of the philosopher Socrates, especially his threadbare cloak.15 Like the contemporary satirist Lucian, Apuleius uses it also as the stock image of the pseudophilosopher (Flor. 9.9; Met. 11.8.3).16 The Apuleian Socrates external appearance to some extent recalls the Cynic type, appearing as a beggar with a ragged cloak, which covers only half of his body (1.6.1 semiamictus; cf., on Crates, Flor. 22.4 seminudus). Moreover, our Socrates pays homage to the Cynic paradigm through a programmatic gesture of shamelessness and his propensity for satiric banter. 1.2.1. Socrates Icon of Cynic Self-Exposure. While Socrates covers his head, he uncovers the rest of his body, which had been (barely) covered before (1.6.4). Thus, a movement made out of embarrassment (prae pudore) itself curiously produces an embarrassing posture. It is not clear whether this exhibitionism is intentional, but it is certainly unavoidable, since he had been only semiamictus. An important implication of the

See Long 1996, 33; Grifn 1996, 200201; Bracht Branham 1996, 104 n. 74. Timon fr. 799 SH (see Long 1988, 15051, who compares Clouds 130). 15 On Socrates inuence on the Cynics appearance, see Zanker 1995, 12930. On Socrates threadbare cloak (Pl. Symp. 219B; Protag. 335D; Xen. Mem. 1.6.2), adopted by the Cynics, see Kindstrand 1976, 162, with further references. 16 For the stock outt of the (pseudo-) philosopher in the Second Sophistics mime of philosophy, see Clay 1992, 341420; on the icon of the Cynic type, see also Clay 1996, 37073. In Apol. 22, Apuleius says that his opponents accuse him of possessing only peram et baculum as if he were a poor Cynic beggar like Crates, but there, Apuleius takes it as a compliment, praising Crates as a parodic writer and defending the Cynic attributes, as he defends anything related to philosophy. On the apparent inconsistency, see Hunink 1997, 78 on Apol. 22.7 non Platonicae . . . sectae; Hunink 2001, 13435, with lit.
14

13

COMIC INVENTION AND SUPERSTITIOUS FRENZY IN APUL. MET.

115

gesture is that Socrates lower parts remain exposed during the nal tableau of the rst scene (1.7.1 capite uelato), the icon of Fortunes victory thataccording to Socratesshe should keep enjoying (1.7.1). Again, we may be reminded of Clouds, where Strepsiades covers his head up, but instead of getting some cunning idea, he only gets hold of his penis (734). But there is more to it than that. Pulling up his cloak and exposing his loins, Socrates reproduces a notorious gesture that belongs to the distinctive traits of the Theophrastan boorish character (groikow), who probably reected a type from the Greek comic stage.17 This provocative gesture has a close parallel in the notorious exhibitionism of Cynic philosophers like Diogenes and Crates, which was emblematic of their Cynic shamelessness and freedom of speech (Bracht Branham 1996, 100101).18 Apuleius gives an illustrative exemplum of Cynic morality in a bizarre anecdote about Crates (Flor. 14.3; see Hunink 2001, 134), whom he elsewhere identies as a writer of satire (Flor. 20.5). There, Crates completely takes off his philosophers cloak (pallium) before taking Hipparche to a portico to have sex with her in public. His pupil Zeno conceals the act with a worn cloak called a palliastrum, the same word that is used for the cloak of our Socrates (there are no other attestations of it). It seems that Apuleius regarded Crates not without sympathy, using the example of Cynic morality to teach his listeners to look beyond surface appearances to underlying values that really matter. As Tatum 1979, 12425, suggested, this might be illustrative of how Apuleius comic ction works. In view of the comic (Theophrastus) and Cynic backgrounds, Socrates ambiguous act of uncovering while covering up gains a deeper, programmatic meaning. His tragic gesture of shame produces a satirical icon of shamelessness, showing two extremes of his oscillating character and reecting the comic ambiguity of the Metamorphoses itself. This ambiguity is also embodied by Lucius, whose uerecundia (1.23.1; 1.23.3) turns out to conceal a tactic of working on his host (1.24.1); Lucius exposes his true nature when he seduces Milos kitchen maid Photis (cf. Theophr. Char. 4.10), making a similar exhibitionistic gesture to that of

17 Cf. Theophr. Char. 4.7 ka nabeblhmnow nv to gnatow kayiznein ste t gumn ato fanesyai. For a similar character in comedy, cf. Philetaerus fr. 18 KA; more references in Ribbeck 1888, 35 with n. 8. For illustrations of the type, see the references in the Loeb edition of Theophrastus (Rusten et al. 1993, 65 n. c). 18 For the exhibitionism of Diogenes cf., e.g., Teles p. 10.911.1 Hense; Diog. Laert. 6.69.

116

WYTSE H. KEULEN

Socrates but leaving no doubt as to his intentions (2.16.4 inguinum ne lacinia remota inpatientiam ueneris Photidi meae monstrans). Yet Socrates provocative position is also programmatic for his own performance in Aristomenes tale. We may observe in it a sneak preview of his role as a mocking satirist. The next morning, for example, Socrates makes a verbal assault on all innkeepers (1.17.2) and cannot stop ridiculing Aristomenes for stinking of urine (1.17.6; 1.18.6). What is more, his mistress Meroe accuses him for mocking her age day and night, using an expression that suggests both verbal and sexual aggression (1.12.4 inlusit aetatulam meam).19 Similarly, Meroe herself and her sister Panthia repeat the elements of exhibitionism and obscenity by squatting on Aristomenes face and soaking him in their urine (1.13.8). Socrates exhibitionistic tableau vivant may therefore be interpreted as a programmatic indication of the satirical element in the text and may as such pay homage to the Socratic-Cynic tradition. However, Cynic exhibitionism was also an object of contemporary satire, for example, the public masturbation of Peregrinus Proteus in Lucians Death of Peregrinus (17). In his Symposium (16), Lucian depicts the Cynic Alcidamas who at the conclusion of a speech bares himself still more, in the most shameless way, ka ma (cf. 1.6.4 et cum dicto) paregmnou autn mllon xri prw t asxiston. Signicantly, his gesture provokes mocking laughter among the guests. This may illustrate how in the Apuleian Socrates, too, satire works both ways, as his exhibitionistic gesture makes him join the Socratic-Cynic tradition of ambiguous gures who both satirise and are satirised and unite the reputations of a cunning genius and a boorish laughing-stock. 1.2.2. Dicacitas Mimica. We see another programmatic indication of Socrates role as a satirist during the evening scene at the inn with Aristomenes. Together they indulge in symposiastic buffoonery (1.7.4), which climaxes with dicacitas, biting wit (comparable to the Greek skciw):
iam adlubentia procliuis e[s]t sermonis et ioci et scitum [et] cauillum, iam dicacitas mimica (F timida).

19 1.17.2 non . . . immerito stabularios hos omnes hospites detestantur . . . 1.17.6 apage te, inquit, fetorem extremae latrinae et causas coepit huius odoris comiter inquirere; 1.18.6 ad haec ille subridens: At tu, inquit, non sanguine, sed lotio perfusus es. 1.12.4 (Meroe:) hic est . . . Catamitus meus, qui diebus ac noctibus inlusit aetatulam meam; for the connotation of sexual abuse, see Adams 1982, 200; ThLL s.v. illudo 389, 76 (speciatim de stupro).

COMIC INVENTION AND SUPERSTITIOUS FRENZY IN APUL. MET.

117

Soon comes an eager craving for conversation and jokes, and brilliant banter, soon farcical raillery.

The much-debated reading of F, the sole authoritative MS, is dicacitas timida (see Augello 1977, 29); I propose to read dicacitas mimica, which would be in accordance with the comrades characterisation as scurrae, as the adjective mimicus suggests both histrionics and verbal license.20 The negatively loaded stylistic term dicacitas for sharp, satirical humour that easily escalates into downright offence is a key word of Socrates and Aristomenes characterisation and performance in the tale. The term recurs when Meroewho is easily offended (cf. 1.9.5 in eam dicacule probrum dixerat)reproaches Aristomenes for his insulting banter (1.12.8 praecedentis dicacitatis). In view of the comic and Cynic backgrounds mentioned above, it is probably no coincidence that ancient commentaries call the Cynic Bion of Borysthenes (335245 B.C.) a man of biting wit (magnae dicacitatis) in explicit comparison with Aristophanes.21 The association of dicacitas with Old Comedy and the Socratic-Cynic tradition may also be illustrated by the Greek verb skptv, which is found as a term both for comedy (cf. e.g., Clouds 540) and for Socratic mockery (Xen. Mem. 1.3.7).22 We may again recall Dio Chrysostoms picture of the

20 Compare the synonym scurrilis in 8.25.3 qui scurrilibus iam dudum contra me uelitaris iocis (antea: cognito cauillatu). For mimicus and scurrilis used of facetiousness that crosses the boundaries of moral restraint and decency cf. Cic. De Or. 2.239 uitandum est oratori utrumque, ne aut scurrilis iocus sit aut mimicus; 247 ipsius dicacitatis moderatio . . . distinguet oratorem a scurra; Orat. 88 ridiculo sic usurum oratorem, ut nec nimis frequenti, ne scurrile sit, nec subobsceno, ne mimicum (see Ribbeck 1888, 58). For mimicus referring to verbal license, cf. Mart. 8 praef. l. 1213 Shackleton Bailey mimicam uerborum licentiam; Aug. civ. 5.26 p. 241, 22 satyrica uel mimica leuitate. Similar expressions with mimicus from authors later than Apuleius refer to mime performances; cf. Amm. 26.6.15 ut in theatrali scaena simulacrum quoddam insigne per aulaeum uel mimicam cauillationem subito putares emersum; Sol. 5.13 hic (sc. in Sicilia) et cauillatio mimica in scaena stetit ; Prud. perist. 2.317 20 inpune tantas, furcifer, / strofas cauillo mimico / te nexuisse existimas, / dum scurra saltas fabulam? . . . Dr Costas Panayotakis draws my attention to Macrob. Sat. 2.7.5, referring to the dicacitas with which the mimographer Laberius is said to have humiliated Julius Caesar. 21 Cf. Porph. Hor. epist. 2.2.60 Ille Bioneis s. Bion Aristophanis comici par dicitur fuisse magnae dicacitatis, quam uul<t> intellegi de nigro sale. This is Bion test. 16 Kindstrand; magnae dicacitatis also occurs in test. 17; see also test. 15 and 18, where Bions wit is referred to with the term satura. See the commentary on dicacitas in Kindstrand 1976, 159; on Bions malicious humour p. 51. 22 See Kindstrand 1976, 168 on Bion test. 22 (= Diog. Laert. 4.10) skvptmenow, with further references. On the close relation between Cynicism and Old Comedy, see Kindstrand 1976, 4648.

118

WYTSE H. KEULEN

Cynics in Alexandria who entertained the crowd with their skmmata (see n. 3). A comparison between Socrates and the mendicant priests of the Dea Syria (below, section 2.3.2.) will demonstrate that Socrates cauillum and dicacitas have a pendant in the priests propensity for cauillari as a marker of their dissimulation and theatricality. 1.3. Cynic Role-Playing and the Poetics of Comic Fiction Our Socrates is not only a mocking satirist, for we see him also performing as a tragic beggar on stage (1.6.11.7.1), and his buffoonery in 1.7.4 is immediately followed by a pathetic lament. In 1.8.5, Aristomenes even makes an explicit reference to Socrates histrionics, urging him to stop play-acting like a tragic actor and to start using ordinary language (Oro te, inquam, aulaeum tragicum dimoueto et siparium scaenicum complicato et cedo uerbis communibus). We may compare this crucial paradox in Socrates character, oscillating between tragic pathos and satirical wit (dicacitas), to the ambiguity of his tragic gesture of shame, resulting in the icon of shamelessness discussed above. Perhaps, then, we should see Socrates dicacitas and tragic roleplaying not as irreconcilable characteristics, but as complementary ones, indicating the theatrical and ctitious nature of the Apuleian Socrates, which is emblematic of the novel as a whole. Viewed in its programmatic context, the concept of dicacitas, being a marker of verbal deception and comic performance, may be read as a programmatic reference to the crafty role-playing of a protagonist of comic ction, who poses as a hero from epic or tragedy in order to entertain, in the manner of some Cynic philosophers. 1.3.1. Rags as a Comic Symbol of Tragedy: The Imagery of Sewing. A clear indication that Socrates opening scene involves a comic representation of tragic behaviour is his ragged costume (1.6.1 scissili palliastro semiamictus; 1.6.4 sutili centunculo), a comic symbol of tragedy going back to Aristophanes. In the Frogs Aristophanes has Aeschylus call Euripides a ptvxopoi ka =akiosurraptdh, creator of beggars and stitcher-together of rags.23 Apuleius uses similar Aristophanic imagery in his description of the female apparition in 9.30.3, ebili centunculo

23 Ar. Ran. 842 (see Dover 1993, 298). Euripides used the beggars disguise with rags for several of his characters (e.g., Telephos), for which he was ridiculed by Aristophanes; see Sommerstein 1980 on Ach. 41013; 433.

COMIC INVENTION AND SUPERSTITIOUS FRENZY IN APUL. MET.

119

semiamicta (half clothed in tearful rags), recalling the expression syt leinn from the Acharnians (413), a reference to tragedy (in apposition to =kia). This garb most pitiable (Sommerstein 1980, 77) is worn by Euripides; the idea implied is that the dramatists characters reect the habits of their creator, in this case Euripides wearing of rags and avoiding of exercise (for a similar idea, see Agathons speech in Thesm. 14652). In view of the above, we may detect in the description of Socrates ragged cloak references both to invention and to an inventor. Great emphasis is laid on the fabricated and theatrical nature of the cloak. What is more, his tragic costume seems conated with the outt of a Cynic beggar-philosopher. First, it is called palliastrum, the same word Apuleius used in the description of the Cynic Crates. Then the word centunculus is used, in which the imagery of sewing (cf. also sutili) indicates ctitiousness; elsewhere, Apuleius mentions the centunculus as a costume of an actor from the mime (Apol. 13.7 mimi centunculo).24 Apuleius elaborates upon the notions of fabrication and theatricality by using adjectives that suggest that the rags have been torn intentionally (1.6.1 scissili) and stitched together (1.6.4 sutili) by some sutor.25 Notably, in contemporary Christian polemic, such a stitched cloak is used as a metaphor for falsities uttered by pagan pseudo-philosophers.26 The phraseology implies, then, that Socrates initial metamorphosis into an emaciated beggar is a product of stagecraft instead of witchcraft. Some craftsman (or woman) seems responsible for it, and what is more, Socrates may even be the =akiosurraptdhw (stitchertogether of rags) himself, staging himself as a beggar in a theatrical play. Moreover, with the Aristophanic imagery in mind, we may perhaps see Socrates as a

24 Cf. 7.5.3 centunculis disparibus et male consarcinatis; Hijmans et al. 1981, 110 (with lit.) point out that the image of sewing (e.g., centones sarcire in Plautus) refers to machinations and lies from Homer onward. For the centunculus as a theatrical costume, see Winkler 1985, 163; Hunink 1997, 5859 on Apol. 13.7 with lit. 25 Contrast Verg. Aen. 12.609 scissa ueste; Iuv. 3.148 scissa lacerna. The formation of adjectives in -ilis (cf. textilis, ctilis) belongs primarily to expressions with reference to manufacturing (weaving, ceramics, sculpturing, constructing); see Leumann 1917, 5355 with many examples. This is also argued, albeit along a different line, in Ernst Leumanns Nachtrag (Leumann 1917, 145): he argues that the adjective in -tilis is derived from the nomen agentis; sutilis, then, literally means having a sutor, resulting from a patcher (for a more recent discussion, see LHSz 1, 348). 26 Cf. Iren. 2.14.2 (the Greek original was written at the end of the 2nd century A.D.) apud omnes qui Deum ignorant et qui dicuntur philosophi sunt dicta, haec congregant et, quasi centonem ex multis et pessimis panniculis consarcientes, nctum supercium subtili eloquio sibi ipsi praeparauerunt. Cf. also ThLL s.v. 1.panniculus, 230, 4249.

120

WYTSE H. KEULEN

dramatic character that reects the habits of his literary creator (cf. n. 16). 1.3.2. Fortuna as a Source of Invention: The Odyssean Paradigm. In both scenic design and direct speech, Socrates performance reects the Cynic notion of txh/Txh as the creative agent behind his tragedy.27 Socrates appearance in his opening scene is an icon of his sufferings, a gura that represents his fortuna (cf. 1.1.23 guras fortunasque hominum in alias imagines conuersas . . . ut mireris exordior). Aristomenes compares him to Fortunes outcasts (1.6.1 Fortunae decermina); Socrates considers himself the triumphal monument of Fortune, established by the goddess herself, which should remain unchanged (1.7.1 sine, sine, inquit, fruatur diutius trophaeo Fortuna, quod xit ipsa).28 In theatrical terms, Dame Fortune has drawn up the scenic design of his tragedy (quod xit ipsa). Socrates seems to propagate the Cynic notion of Fortune as a source of invention (cf. Bracht Branham 1996, 91) in his elaborate, beguiling description of the ways of fortune:
1.6.4 Aristomene, inquit, ne tu fortunarum lubricas ambages et instabiles incursiones et reciprocas uicissitudines ignoras. Aristomenes, he says, you really do not know fortunes slippery manoeuvres and changeable attacks and alternating vicissitudes.

This statement is ambiguous: on the one hand, it describes random adversities as suffered by the protagonist of a story, but on the other hand, it suggests a designed policy of Fortune. Thus, Socrates introduction and summary of his own vicissitudes may be read as a programmatic statement of the role of Fortune as the craftswoman of various reversals in the novel. Indeed, Dame Fortune often seems the poitria behind the narrative of Lucius many reversals of fortune (cf. Winkler 1985, 108), which are exemplied by his transformations into an ass and back into a man. Just as Socrates does, Lucius continuously relates his own ordeals to predestination by fortune or fate (see Zimmerman 2000, 196 on 10.13.1 talibus fatorum uctibus uolutabar).
27 For the notion of Fortune as a poet (poitria) who distributes roles to actors, for example, the role of beggar, see Bion fr. 16A and B in Kindstrand 1976, 11617 with detailed commentary (p. 20512). 28 To describe the acceptance of ones fate of a beggar in terms of setting up a trpaion recalls a Cynic notion; cf. Teles p. 15.12 kn tde drsw, =&dvw stseiw trpaion kat penaw there; however, the victory is on mans side against Poverty.

COMIC INVENTION AND SUPERSTITIOUS FRENZY IN APUL. MET.

121

In view of the above, we may see Socrates as a programmatic anticipation of Lucius as a narrator of his own ordeals. Both follow the Odyssean paradigm that connects suffering to cunning storytelling (cf. Pucci 1987, 5662). Both are indeed compared to the wandering Odysseus, Socrates indirectly, Lucius directly. In 1.7.7, Socrates reports how he told Meroe his Odyssey (cf. 2.14.1 Ulixeam peregrinationem), emphasising his lengthy travelling according to the paradigm of Odysseus as a wandering and suffering hero (eique causas et peregrinationis diuturnae et domuitionis anxiae et spoliationis miserae refero).29 Socrates mistress Meroe compares herself to Calypso, abandoned by her cunning lover Odysseus (1.12.6 Vlixi astu deserta uice Calypsonis aeternam solitudinem ebo; see Harrison 1990, 19495). Lucius explicitly describes his wanderings in terms of an Odyssey, which has made him multiscius (9.13.45). The emphasis on theatricality, the motif of Fortune, and the association with poltropow Odysseus reveal the Apuleian Socrates as a cunning inventor who can assume any shape he likes, beguiling others with the magic of his devious rhetoric. Like an Odysseus, he plays the part of someone who presents himself as a victim of a higher force but nevertheless orchestrates his own story of reversals to entertain his audience. The similar attitude of the Cynicswho considered Odysseus as their patron saint and liked to assume his role just as they liked to assume that of Socratesgave them a reputation of being cunning frauds. In the age of Apuleius, another reputation was added, i.e., of being religious charlatans.30 2. tragden: THE SATIRICAL PORTRAYAL OF THE SUPERSTITIOUS MAN As noted above, Socrates links with the literary conventions of Old Comedy and the Socratic-Cynic tradition revealed his characteristics of a cunning satirist and storyteller. It has also been shown that the element of tragedy and the Odyssean paradigm in Socrates characterisation are at least as signicant, being constituent parts of his Cynic characterisation, and are equally to be interpreted in connection with his role as a storyteller. In this section, I will further explore Apuleius use of the notion of
29 As in his description of the ways of fortune (1.6.4), Socrates uses a tricolon, phrased in a high-sounding rhetorical style (-tionis . . . -tionis . . . -tionis), to summarise and preannounce the narrative of his misfortunes. 30 This is especially highlighted by Lucians satire of Peregrinus Proteus (Bracht Branham and M.-O. Goulet-Caz 1996, 1718); see nn. 34.

122

WYTSE H. KEULEN

tragden in his gure of Socrates by viewing it as a traditional metaphor for rhetorical pomp and implausible exaggeration. In accordance with the literary model of the superstitious type in Plutarch, we see how in the Apuleian Socrates the genre of tragedy functions in delineating the superstitious man and his superstitious fear; consequently, his stories can be viewed as gments of the superstitious imagination. In the gure of Socrates, the concepts of superstition, tragedy, and invention seem to become almost synonymous. 2.1. Tragic Frenzy and Superstitious Fabrications Socrates opening scene is a miserum aerumnae spectaculum, a miserable scene of torment (1.6.5) reminiscent of tragedy. The performance recalls the scene in Euripides Orestes (385455) where the dishevelled and funereal appearance of Orestes provokes a reaction of superstitious fear in Menelaos ( yeo), as if he saw a ghost (1.6.1 hem; 1.6.3 at tu hic laruale simulacrum . . . uiseris). Willink 1986, 49, compares the comical reaction of the Athenian to the unkempt, half-dead-looking intellectual, as represented in Aristophanes Clouds (see above, section 1.1.1.). Socrates resemblance to the tragic gure of Orestes, whose visions of the Furies had made him a type of madmen in general (see Pease 1935, 383, on Verg. Aen. 4.471), may be an indication of his own torments caused by the Furies. Perhaps Socrates initial appearance as a laruale simulacrum suggests that he was laruatus, frenzied; we may again recall his striking resemblance to the pale and emaciated female apparition wearing tragic rags in 9.30.3 who may be a larua herself (cf. 9.29.3; see section 1.3.1.). In ancient literary criticism and rhetorical theory, being tormented by the Furies came to be a symbol of tragedy and a metaphor for pompous, histrionic forms of rhetoric that characterise mime actors and bad declaimers.31 As I will demonstrate in section 2.2., Socrates raging histrionics expose him as a follower of this school. It is conceivable, then, that we should see a link between Socrates initial tragic performance and his being tormented by superstitious fear
31 Cf. Verg. Aen. 4.47173 with Pease 1935, 38285. For Orestes, agitated by the Furies, as an example of the poetics of tragedy, see Ps. Longinus, De subl. 15.8, who cites Eur. Or. 26465; see Cosci 1978, 2056. For being tormented by Furies as a metaphor for histrionic behaviour of bad declaimers and mime actors, cf. Petron. 1.1 alio genere furiarum declamatores inquietantur; Quint. Inst. 2.10.8 nam si foro non praeparat (sc. declamandi opus), aut scaenicae ostentationi aut furiosae uociferationi simillimum est; see C. Panayotakis 1995, 5.

COMIC INVENTION AND SUPERSTITIOUS FRENZY IN APUL. MET.

123

of the avenging Furies. In a later scene, Socrates shows himself indeed possessed by a superstitious fear of a woman with magic powers whom he considers of divine status (1.8.4). His gesture of laying his index nger across his lips creates an atmosphere of initiation (1.8.2), calling for a mystic silence that is required for the revealing of things of a higher order. Thus, magic and superstition seem to become virtual synonyms (cf. Hunink 1997, 88 n. 1 on Apol. 25.5). Signicantly, Socrates high-sounding description of Meroes divine powers elicits Aristomenes immediate response that he should stop his tragic play-acting (1.8.5; section 1.3.). After his nocturnal experience with the avenging witches, Aristomenes calls these women Furies (1.19.2 mihi prae metu nocturnas etiam furias illas imaginanti). Just like Socrates, he has lost touch with reality and reason and is haunted by a superstitious fear that, according to Plutarch (De superst. 3, Mor. 165 F), torments the soul with nightmares, in which it calls up fearful images, horrible apparitions and divers forms of punishment (edvla frikdh ka terstia fsmata ka poinw tinaw).32 Thus, it is suggested that the Apuleian witches are mere gments of the superstitious mind, a product of tragic frenzy that we should perhaps regard not very differently from the comic invention about a Thessalian witch contrived in the Socratic frontistrion. Socrates superstitious fear and tragic frenzy, reected in his Orestes-like appearance, his speech, and his histrionics, can be seen to work together as emblems of the poetics of tragedy, seeking the fabulous and the incredible. 2.2. The Histrionics of Public Confession In view of the above, we may observe that Socrates tragic appearance and behaviour can be read as poetic symbols, referring to his role as a narrator of incredible stories. This may be further illustrated by comparing his tragic acting to the histrionics of the superstitious man. The detailed picture of the superstitious man drawn by Plutarch in his treatise On Superstition, permeated with tragic allusions, sheds light on possible underlying motivations for our Socrates performance. As Socrates does, the deisidamvn displays the self-humiliating histrionics of a tragic beggar that succumbs to a higher force and expresses his superstitious fear in terms of tragic frenzy. This gure seems to have been a model for Lucius, too (section 2.2.2).
32 Cf. TrGF 375 Kannicht-Snell ll e s nupnon fntasma fobe / xyonaw y Ekthw kmon djv (If a vision in sleep is the cause of your fear/ And the troop of dire Hecate felt to be near), cited in Plut. De superst. 3, Mor. 166A.

124

WYTSE H. KEULEN

2.2.1. Sitting, Lamentation, and Moaning. In his opening scene Socrates appears seated on stage like a tragic beggar.33 Plutarch repeatedly describes the deisidamvn sitting inertly on the ground, which is an emblem of his lethargy and moral baseness (e.g., 7, Mor. 168D):
jv kyhtai sakkon xvn ka periezvsmnow =kesi =uparow, pollkiw d gumnw n phl kulindomenow jagoreei tinw martaw ato ka plhmmeleaw, w tde fagntow pintow badsantow dn n ok ea t daimnion. He sits outside his house with sackcloth on and lthy rags about him; and oftentimes he rolls naked in the mire as he confesses diverse sins and errors of hiseating this or drinking that, or walking in a path forbidden by his conscience.

This description originally derivesat least partlyfrom the Cynic Bion of Borysthenes ( fr. 30 Kindstrand). This Cynic derivation links Plutarchs treatise to the satirical tradition of the Cynic diatribe.34 With this satirical portrayal, Plutarch censures the public confession of committed sins as a typically superstitious act that originates from oriental mourning rites. Pallor is one of the symptoms of superstitious fear; nakedness signies humiliation and religious submission (see Lozza 1980, 116). Like Socrates, the superstitious man repulses those who want to help him (cf. Mor. 168F) because he prefers to stay in his sacred spot to suffer punishment and retribution (166F). Socrates refusal to leave his spot directly recalls his Plutarchan model:
1.7.1 sine, sine, inquit, fruatur diutius trophaeo Fortuna, quod xit ipsa. Please, leave, he said, Fortune to enjoy her triumphal monument, which she set up herself. (De superst. 7, Mor. 168 C): a me, fhsn, nyrvpe, didnai dkhn, tn seb, tn praton, tn yeow ka damosi memishmnon. Oh sir, he says, leave me to pay my penalty, impious wretch that I am, accursed, and hateful to the gods and all the heavenly host.

33 On sitting beggars, see Bremmer 1991, 2526 (with examples from tragedy and comedy). 34 See the detailed comm. in Kindstrand 1976, 23235, where he points out a possible inuence from Menander; cf. Menand. fr. 631.45 K-A (on the cult of Atargatis) labon sakon, et ew tn dn / kyisan atow p kprou.

COMIC INVENTION AND SUPERSTITIOUS FRENZY IN APUL. MET.

125

Yet Plutarch unmasks this exaggerated fear of the gods as a form of impious calumny: the assumptions of the superstitious that the gods are cruel, ckle, and vengeful are expressions of the superstitious devious malignity, which contradicts the superstitious apparent gestures of reverence (1011, Mor. 169F170F). Seen in this light, Socrates dicacitas does not seem dissonant with his exaggerated reverence for the divine Meroe but can be interpreted as a typical sacrilegious offence of a superstitious calumniatorMeroe herself, who frequently takes offence at dicacitas, will most probably have seen it that way. Moreover, as we have seen above, dicacitas also connotes theatricality and invention (1.2.2). Plutarch strongly emphasises the elements of fabrication and invention in the mishaps bewailed by his superstitious man, as well as the histrionic, melodramatic nature of his performance (7, Mor. 168A):
ll e ka mikrtaton at kakn ti sumpeptvkw stin, lla kyhtai pyh xalep ka megla ka dusapllakta t lp prosoikodomn, ka prosemforn at demata ka fbouw ka pocaw ka taraxw, pant yrn ka pant stenagm kayaptmenow. But if even the slightest ill befalls him, he sits down and proceeds to construct, on the basis of his trouble, a fabric of harsh, momentous and practically unavoidable experiences which he must undergo, and he also loads himself with fears and frights, suspicions and trepidations, and all this he bitterly assails with every sort of lamentation and moaning.

This picture illuminates Socrates performance as a self-pitying tragic actor who introduces the confession of his ills with histrionic self-torture combined with affected moans (1.7.45; see section 2.3.1.):
. . . cum ille imo de pectore cruciabilem suspiritum ducens dextra saeuiente frontem replaudens: me miserum, int . . . . . . when suddenly he draws an agonised sigh from the depths of his breast, claps his forehead again and again with an angry right hand, and starts to speak: woe is me . . .

2.2.2. Socrates Prostration and Lucius Tearful Submission to Isis. Shortly before he dies, again pale and emaciated, Socrates creates another monumental tableau vivant by kneeling down while bending over (1.19.8 complicitus in genua adpronat se). Although his obvious intention is to drink water from a spring, the resulting picture may be viewed as another icon of a self-degrading submission (a miserum aerumnae spectaculum), although the name of Fortune is left unmentioned. Socrates histrionics

126

WYTSE H. KEULEN

again reveal his spinelessness and inrmity, as in the introductory scene where we saw him sitting on the ground like a poor beggar. What is more, the ancients associated prostration with tears and exaggerated pathos.35 With this contemptible body language that both Theophrastus and Plutarch deemed characteristic of the superstitious man,36 Socrates foreshadows Lucius act of reverence before Isis in 11.24.7, in which the elements of pathos, prostration, and submission recur (prouolutus denique ante conspectum deae et facie mea diu detersis uestigiis eius, lacrimis obortis, singultu crebro sermonem interciens et uerba deuorans aio).37 That Lucius embodies the superstitious type in the eleventh book is also suggested by his repeated dips in the ocean (11.1.4 puricandi studio marino lauacro trado septiesque summerso uctibus capite . . . deam praepotentem lacrimoso uultu sic adprecabar), which recall superstitious purifying rituals (Plut. De superst. 3, Mor. 166A bptison seautn ew ylattan, with Lozza 1980, 82). Notably, the moon goddess to whom he addresses his tearful prayer was identied with Hecate (cf. section 2.3.1); Hecate turns out to be one of the epithets of Isis (11.5.3). 38 In another passage, Isis is identied with Providence (11.15.3 Fortunae . . . uidentis), which recalls the superstitious belief in Prnoia in Plut. De superst. 8 (Mor. 168F). 2.3. Socrates and the Mendicant Priests as Figures of the Professional Storyteller In the light of his Plutarchan model, we see how Socrates as narrator of his own misfortunes assumes the shape of the deisidamvn who confesses
35 Cf. Isid. Orig. 11.1.109 (after quoting Enn. fr. inc. 14 atque genua comprimit arta gena): inde est quod homines, dum ad genua se prosternunt, statim lacrimantur. Although he keeps on emphasising his great misery, Socrates himself does not shed one single tear in the story. The only persons who weep in the rst book are those who lose Socrates: his wife (1.6.3), Meroe (1.12.6 aeternam solitudinem ebo), andas much as time allows Aristomenes (1.19.11 deetum pro tempore comitem misellum). 36 Cf. Theophr. Char. 16.5 ka p gnata pesn, describing a superstitious man who kneels down and prostrates when he passes a crossroads with oiled stones; Plut. De superst. 3 (Mor. 166A) =ceiw p prsvpon . . . lloktouw proskunseiw, with Lozza 1980, 8384. 37 Cf. 6.2.3 Tunc Psyche pedes eius aduoluta et uberi etu rigans deae uestigia humumque uerrens crinibus suis multiiugis precibus editis ueniam postulabat; 6.3.4 genu nixa . . . detersis ante lacrimis sic adprecatur. Cf. Christian satire of contemptible pagan superstition in Prud. ham. 4045 incerat lapides fumosos idololatrix / religio et surdis pallens aduoluitur aris). 38 Cf. Catull. 34.1316; Sen. Med. 67; Plut. Mor. 416EF; see A. J. Keulen 2001, 278, on Sen. Troad. 389 Hecate.

COMIC INVENTION AND SUPERSTITIOUS FRENZY IN APUL. MET.

127

his ills in public. Socrates performance as a devious public confessor becomes even more conspicuous if we compare him to other notoriously superstitious gures in the Metamorphoses, namely, the mendicant priests of the Dea Syria who are similarly treated in the Onos (3641; see Mason 1994, 1676). 2.3.1. Simulated Frenzy. Socrates histrionic use of agonised deep sighs and slapping of the forehead (section 2.2.1) has a striking parallel in the frenzied performance of one of the mendicant priests who confesses his sins in a public ritual (8.27.6):
. . . de imis praecordiis anhelitus crebros referens uelut numini<s> diuino spiritu repletus simulabat sauciam uecordiam prorsus quasi deum praesentia soleant homines non sui f<i>eri meliores, sed debiles efci uel aegroti. . . . repeatedly heaving deep sighs from his chest as if he were lled with the heavenly inspiration of a deity, he pretended to be stricken with madnessas if the presence of the gods does not usually raise people above themselves, but makes them weak and ill.39

Notably, the narrator Lucius censures the priests simulated frenzy in a very explicit way, taking the stance of a moralising satirist who attacks superstition according to the tradition of the Cynic diatribe. Showing his patent antipathy to religious practices that he deems immoral, Lucius seems to follow the example of Plutarch, whom he professes to be his ancestor at the outset of the novel (1.2.1). Possibly, this reects also the attitude of the author Apuleius towards contemporary tendencies; as Hijmans et al. 1985, 299300 (Appendix V, Public Confession) observe, the phenomenon of penitence for guilt is well attested in both literary and non-literary sources (inscriptions) of Apuleius time, and it is often connected with sexual offences. Although such a debunking comment is missing in the description of Socrates, we may note several parallels that make Socrates emerge, in some respects, as a forerunner of the priest in book 8. Both Socrates and the mendicant priest have committed sexual transgressions (cf. 1.8.1); both perform their pathetic acts as an introduction to a show of penitence, performed with histrionic frenzy (cf. 8.28.1 int uaticinatione clamosa
39 Translation by Hijmans et al. 1985, 242; see the commentary on p. 244. Appendix IV in the same volume, section 2.10.1, points out the close resemblance to the stereotypical frenzied rites of Cybele (see n. 40). The deep sighs of priestly frenzy recur in the description of the Isiac priest, 11.16.1 fatigatos anhelitus trahens.

128

WYTSE H. KEULEN

concto mendacio semet ipsum incessere). Both are disapprovingly described as the dregs of society that hang around at triuia, notorious breeding places of magic and obscure superstition, associated with the goddess Hecate who was also called Triuia.40 Moreover, their connection with triuia reveals their identity as itinerant showmen who make up stories to entertain the mob like Cynic beggars.41 The resemblance between Socrates and the mendicant priests goes beyond their penchant for superstition and exaggerated performance and includes their role as satirists. Socrates cauillum and dicacitas have a counterpart in the priests indulging in cauillari, which is a key word for their fraudulent practices (cf. Hijmans et al. 1995, 100 on 9.10.2 mendoso risu cauillantes). 2.3.2. Superstition as (Show) Business. There is one important attribute of the Plutarchan superstitious man that seems to be missing in our Socrates theatrical outt: the sack or sackcloth (skkow, sakkon; Lat. saccus, sacculus)42 that was considered an emblem of sorrow and submission. These are very important attributes of the mendicant priests of the Dea Syria but put to a commercial use, for they carry off the spoils of their penitence-show stuffed in sacculos huic quaestui de industria praeparatos (8.28.6 bags specially made for the trade).43 That Socrates had some experience with sacci, too, is indicated by his own former trade, which is also called quaestus (cf. 1.7.6 secundum quaestum). In 1.7.10 he refers to his profession as saccariam faciens, usually translated as plying

40 Cf. 1.6.1 qualia solent Fortunae decermina stipes in triuiis erogare; 8.24.2 unum de triuiali popularium faece. Cf. Verg. Aen. 4.609 nocturnis . . . Hecate triuiis ululata with Pease 1935, 48586; Apul. Apol. 31.9 manium potens Triuia (sc. Hecate); Lucian. dial. mort. 1.1; further references in Lozza 1980, 133 on Plut. De superst. 10 (Mor. 170B) ate . . . k tridvn. For Thessaly as a centre of the cult of Hecate, see Costa 1973 on Sen. Med. 670 739. For the function of ecstasy as a part of the piety associated with Hecate and her sister goddess from Asia Minor, Cybele, see Rabinowitz 1998, 6364. For the association of tragic sighing, high-own storytelling, a triuium, and the moon (=Hecate) cf. also the scene of Lucius-ass and Charite before they are caught again by the robbers after escaping (6.29). 41 Verg. Ecl. 3.2627 non tu in triuiis, indocte, solebas / stridenti miserum stipula disperdere carmen? (echoed in Hieron. adv. Ruf. 1.17); Dio Chrys. Orat. 32.9 (on Cynic storytellers; see n. 3); cf. also Lucian Peregrin. 3 (on the Cynics usual loud appeals); Hist. conscr. 16 (describing vulgar language) t d lla modaita tow pollow ka t plesta oa k tridou. 42 Cf. Menand. fr. 631.4 K-A (quoted more fully in n. 34) labon sakon. On the religious signicance of sackcloth, see Kindstrand 1976, 232; Lozza 1980, 116. Cf. Ev. Luc. 10.13 n skk ka spod kaymenoi. 43 For their scandalous commercial motives, cf. also 9.8.6 ad istum modum diuinationis astu captioso conraserant non paruas pecunias.

COMIC INVENTION AND SUPERSTITIOUS FRENZY IN APUL. MET.

129

the porters trade, with the implication that Socrates had to carry sacci for others. An argument in favour of this interpretation is the addition adhuc uegetus, when I was still vigorous. However, in a Latin inscription, saccarius is also attested in the meaning of maker and seller of sacci, and in an ancient Greco-Latin glossary, it translates the Greek noun sakkoplkow (sackweaver).44 With Socrates as the weaver and seller of this important attribute of comic beggars that succumb to superstition, we are back to the earlier observation that Socrates might well be responsible for his own transformation, the =akiosurraptdhw behind his own theatrical performance. This implies an intentional, staged metamorphosis from auctor to actor, along with calculated commercial motives (quaestus). Both Socrates and the mendicant priests, then, resemble the contemporary picture of philosophical and religious entertainers who perform for money (see section 0. with n. 3). We may, for example, think of Lucians satire of the Cynic performer Theagenes who stuffed his Cynic bag with gold (Peregrin. 30). Moreover, the Apuleian characters seem incarnations of trade metaphors current in Apuleius age (quaestus, negotium, caupona) that attack a degraded, sophistic kind of rhetoric that trades true values for business or, even worse, show business.45 This may also highlight why Lucius went to Thessaly on business (1.2.1 ex negotio; cf. 1.7.6 secundum quaestum); this is an enigmatic expression but somehow reveals that his motives are calculated and planned. We nd a programmatic link between Lucius business and his future lucrative career as a storyteller in Diophanes divination in 2.12.5 in a context permeated with references to commerce (cf. prouentum huius peregrinationis; on this passage, see Graverini 2001). The connection between earning money and successful rhetoric recurs in the context of Lucius conversion to Isis. Just as Socrates is robbed of his earnings by Meroe (1.7.10), Lucius is ruined nancially by Isis expensive initiation rites (Van Mal-Maeder 1997, 102). However, his conversion will also entail a lucrative career in court as a professional lawyer (11.28.6; 11.30.4). We

Cf. CIL 13.3700 (Trier) Iulius Victor cuparius et saccarius; see LSJ s.v. sakkoplkow. For a near-contemporary satire on the commercialising of religion, which becomes also manifest in Lucius experience as an initiate of Isis (cf. 11.23), compare the invective against pagan mendicant religion in Tert. Apol. 13.6 maiestas quaestuaria efcitur: circuit cauponas religio mendicans; exigitis mercedem pro solo templi, pro aditu sacri; cf. also ad nat. 1.10.24. The use of trade metaphors to expose sophistic rhetoric in the bad sense of the word goes back to Plato (e.g., Prt. 313D). Many references in Waszink (1947, 11617) on Tert. De Anim. 3.1 sapientiae . . . caupones, who quotes e.g., Lucian. Hermotim. 58.
44 45

130

WYTSE H. KEULEN

may interpret this along the lines of the well-known comic motif of joining a fraudulent institute of rhetorical instruction for reasons of nancial gain,46 like Strepsiades who becomes an initiate in the mysteries of the Socratic frontistrion in Aristophanes Clouds.47 3. CONCLUSION Socrates, the archetype of the philosopher, appears in Apul. Met. 1 as an icon of the philosopher gone mad. Socrates involvement with witchcraft and his succumbing to Fortune turn the portrayal of the philosopher into a satire of superstition. As such, Socrates is a programmatic gure that foreshadows the superstitious frenzy with which Lucius succumbs to Isis in the eleventh book. Socrates programmatic function is echoed in the actor who plays the role of the philosopher in the procession of Isis; this demonstrates how the attributes of philosophy become stage props of a religious charade (Met. 11.8.3 nec ille deerat, . . . qui pallio baculoque et baxeis et hircino barbitio philosophum ngeret).48 Lucius Milesian narrative turns out to be the public confession of a professional superstitious charlatan with a shaven head who narrates his tragic misfortunes and ensuing salvation by a divinity (cf. Winkler 1985, 23842). This paradoxical identity is already embodied by the gures of Socrates and the mendicant priests of the Dea Syria and can be compared with gures from contemporary life (Cynics, religious entertainers) who sold their beliefs at crossroads. In my opinion, it is not the intrinsic aim of the Metamorphoses to attack superstition, nor is it satirical of a specic persons addiction to cults (e.g., Aelius Aristides; see n. 1). Rather, superstition is used as a foil, as a conventional literary means of exposing corrupt rhetoric and behaviour that goes back to Old Comedy. Thus, addiction to superstitious (Isiac) cult becomes one of the paradigms of false rhetoric in the Metamorphoses, along the same lines as tragedy (parody of tragic

46 See C. Panayotakis 1995, 79 for the comic exploitation of educational methods in schools of rhetoric, which goes back to Aristophanes Clouds (e.g., 45775) and is found in comedy, mime, and Petronius. 47 For the Platonic analogy between philosophical-rhetorical instruction and mystic initiation and its parody in Clouds, see Sommerstein 1982 on Clouds 140; Dover 1968 on 143 mustria; Green 1979. 48 Cf. Penwill 1990, 5 with n. 28 on the anteludia reecting earlier episodes from the Met.

COMIC INVENTION AND SUPERSTITIOUS FRENZY IN APUL. MET.

131

behaviour does not entail an attack on tragedy itself). True, cult activity and superstition thrived in Apuleius age (cf. Harrison 2000, 238). This background may give Apuleius satire of superstition a contemporary dimension. Apuleius uses contemporary satire (Plutarchs On Superstition, Lucian) as well as ancient literary traditions (Old Comedy, the Socratic-Cynic tradition) as established repertoires that provide the characterising elements of various devious satirists and storytellers in his novel who can perhaps be viewed as literary projections of himself as an author of entertaining ction. Along these lines, the gure of Socrates can be interpreted in connection with traditional imagery for poetic invention, as he embodies notorious gures of rhetorical craftiness (Odysseus; Socratic gures, including Cynic beggars; superstitious charlatans). The Apuleian Socrates reveals the symptoms of both comic invention and tragic frenzy, which unmask him as a cunning narrator of incredible tales. Also in this respect he may be viewed as an anticipating counterpart of the main narrator and protagonist of the novel, Lucius, whose superstitious curiosity for novelty plunges him into the various misfortunes that form the wellspring of his authorial invention. Socrates icon of satirical self-exposure shows us the satirist who is also satirised and foreshadows Lucius as the typical satirist persona, who exposes superstition to ridicule (the mendicant priests) but cannot live up to his own morals and succumbs to superstition himself,49 thus becoming the object of his own satire.50 By their self-degrading metamorphoses, both Socrates, comic transformation of the father of philosophy, and Lucius,

49 On the close resemblance between the ancient cults of the Dea Syria and Isis, see Hijmans et al. 1985, 28889 and cf. above, n. 39. For the ridiculous connotations of the gure of the bald priest, see Van Mal-Maeder 1997, 1067 (with further references there in n. 69). 50 In my opinion, it is probable that the Latin Metamorphoses in this respect follow the Greek original, although Photios statement on the difference between the Metamorphoseis and the Onos is confusing (Cod. 129): Gmei d katrou lgow plasmtvn mn muyikn, rrhtopoiaw d asxrw. Pln mn Loukianw skptvn ka diasrvn tn Ellhnikn deisidaimonan, sper kn tow lloiw, ka toton suntatten (In both authors [namely, Loukios of Patrae and Lucian, distinguished by Photios as the respective authors of the unabridged and the abridged Greek version of the ass story] the narrative is stuffed with mythical inventions and vile obscenity, except that Lucian works into his narrative the mockery of Greek superstition that he does in his other writing; trans. Mason 1994, 1668). Probably Photius failed to notice that the genuine credulity of the protagonist Loukioswhom he mistakes to be the authorin the unabridged version was part of the satire, too. Thus, Loukios attitude seems to have been very similar to that of Lucius in Apuleius novel (for a similar view, see Winkler 1985, 25456; Van Mal-Maeder 1997, 106 n. 63). On this difcult question, see Mason 1994, 167577 (VII. Satire in Onos?).

132

WYTSE H. KEULEN

alter ego of the novels author, can be identied as satirical voices, exposing superstitious rhetoric and conduct to entertain their audience.51
R IJKSUNIVERSITEIT GRONINGEN e-mail: W.H.Keulen@let.rug.nl

BIBLIOGRAPHY
Adams, J. N. 1982. The Latin Sexual Vocabulary. London: Duckworth. Augello, Giuseppe. 1977. Studi Apuleiani: Problemi di testo e loci vexati delle Metamorfosi. Palermo: Palumbo Editore. Babbitt, F. C. et al., ed. and trans. 192776. Plutarchs Moralia. 15 vols. in 16. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press; London: Heinemann. Bracht Branham, R., and M.-O. Goulet-Caz, eds. 1996. The Cynics: The Cynic Movement in Antiquity and Its Legacy. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press. Bremmer, J. N. 1991. Walking, Standing, and Sitting in Ancient Greek Culture. In Bremmer and Roodenburg 1991:1535. Bremmer, J. N., and Herman Roodenburg, eds. 1991. A Cultural History of Gesture from Antiquity to the Present Day. Cambridge: Polity Press. Caprettini, G. P. 1986. Gli indici gurali e la dimensione iconica del personaggio (Apuleio, Metam. I, 6). MCSN 4:10515. Clay, Diskin. 1992. Lucian of Samosata: Four Philosophical Lives. ANRW 36,5:340650. . 1996. Picturing Diogenes. In Branham and Goulet-Caz 1996:36687. Cosci, Paola. 1978. Per una ricostruzione della scena iniziale del Satyricon. MD 1:2017.

The text of the Metamorphoses used, with a few alterations, is the Teubner edition of Helm 1931, reprinted with addenda and corrigenda 1955. For reasons of convenience, the paragraphs from Robertsons edition (194045) have been used to quote passages. Translations are my own unless stated otherwise; translations from Aristophanes Clouds are from Sommersteins edition; translations from Plutarchs On Superstition are from the Loeb edition of the Moralia (F. C. Babbitt). A part of this study was presented at the OIKOS Masterclass on Metamorphosis in Greece and Rome, held at the University of Leiden, May 1819, 2001. I thank Professor Richard Buxton and the other participants of the workshop for their feedback. For helpful comments on earlier versions of the present article, I am indebted to Professor Annette Harder, Dr. Stephen Harrison, who also kindly corrected my English, Gottskalk Jensson, Peter von Mllendorff, Professor Ruurd Nauta, Dr. Stelios Panayotakis, Dr. Costas Panayotakis, Dr. Maaike Zimmerman, and the anonymous referees of AJP (this should not, of course, be taken to imply agreement with all views put forward here).

51

COMIC INVENTION AND SUPERSTITIOUS FRENZY IN APUL. MET.

133

Costa, C. D. N. 1973. Seneca: Medea. With intro. and comm. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Dover, K. J. 1968. Aristophanes: Clouds. Ed. with intro. and comm. Oxford: Clarendon Press. . 1993. Aristophanes: Frogs. Ed. with intro. and comm. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Fick, Nicole. 1991. Les histoires dempoisonnement dans les Mtamorphoses dApule. In Hofmann 1991:12133. Freudenburg, Kirk. 1993. The Walking Muse: Horace on the Theory of Satire. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Gold, Barbara. 1980. A Question of Genre: Platos Symposium as Novel. In Modern Language Notes 95:135359. Goulet-Caz, M.-O. 1996. Religion and the Early Cynics. In Branham and Goulet-Caz 1996:4780. Graverini, Luca. 2001. Apul. met. 2.12.5: Una profezia ambigua. Maecenas 1:18494. Green, Peter. 1979. Strepsiades, Socrates, and the Abuses of Intellectualism. GRBS 20:1525. Grifn, Miriam. 1996. Cynicism and the Romans: Attraction and Repulsion. In Branham and Goulet-Caz 1996:190204. Harrison, S. J. 1990. Some Odyssean Scenes in Apuleius. MD 25:193201. . 2000. Apuleius: A Latin Sophist. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Helm, R., ed. 1955. Apuleius Metamorphoseon Libri XI. 3d ed. of 1931, with additions and corrections. Leipzig: Teubner. Hijmans Jr., B. L., and R. T. Van der Paardt, eds. 1978. Aspects of Apuleius Golden Ass. Groningen: Boumas Boekhuis. Hijmans Jr., B. L., R. T. Van der Paardt, V. Schmidt, R. E. H. Westendorp Boerma, and A. G. Westerbrink, eds. 1981. Apuleius Madaurensis: Metamorphoses, Book VI, 2532, and VII. Text, intro., and comm. Groningen: Boumas Boekhuis. Hijmans Jr., B. L., R. T. Van der Paardt, V. Schmidt, C. B. J. Settels, B. Wesseling, and R. E. H. Westendorp Boerma, eds. 1985. Apuleius Madaurensis: Metamorphoses, Book VIII. Text, intro., and comm. Groningen: Egbert Forsten. Hijmans Jr., B. L., R. T. Van der Paardt, V. Schmidt, B. Wesseling, and Maaike Zimmerman, eds. 1995. Apuleius Madaurensis: Metamorphoses, Book IX. Text, intro., and comm. Groningen: Egbert Forsten. Hofmann, Heinz, ed. 1991. Groningen Colloquia on the Novel. Vol. 4. Groningen: Egbert Forsten. Hofmann, Heinz, and Maaike Zimmerman, eds. 1997. Groningen Colloquia on the Novel. Vol. 8. Groningen: Egbert Forsten. , eds. 1998. Groningen Colloquia on the Novel. Vol. 9. Groningen: Egbert Forsten. Hunink, Vincent, ed. 1997. Apuleius of Madauros: Pro se de magia (Apologia). Ed. with comm. 2 vols. Amsterdam: Gieben.

134

WYTSE H. KEULEN

, ed. 2001. Apuleius of Madauros: Florida. Ed. with comm. Amsterdam: Gieben. Kindstrand, J. F. 1976. Bion of Borysthenes: A Collection of the Fragments with Introduction and Commentary. Studia graeca Upsaliensia 11. Uppsala. Knuf, J., ed. 1996. Unity and Diversity: Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Narrative. University of Kentucky: College of Communications and Information Studies. Keulen, A. J. 2001. L. Annaeus Seneca: Troades. With intro. and comm. Leiden: Brill. Leumann, Manu. 1917. Die lateinischen Adjektiva auf -lis. Untersuchungen zur indogermanischen Sprach- und Kulturwissenschaft 7. Strassburg: Trbner. Long, A. A. 1988. Socrates in Hellenistic Philosophy. CQ 38:15071. . 1996. The Socratic Tradition: Diogenes, Crates, and Hellenistic Ethics. In Branham and Goulet-Caz 1996:2846. Lozza, Giuseppe. 1980. Plutarco, De Superstitione: Introduzione, testo, traduzione, commento. Testi e documenti per lo studio dellantichit 68. Milano: Cisalpino-Goliardica. Mason, H. J. 1994. Greek and Latin Versions of the Ass-Story. ANRW 2, 34, 2:16651707. Montiglio, Silvia. 2000. Wandering Philosophers in Classical Greece. JHS 120:86 105. Panayotakis, Costas. 1995. Theatrical Elements in the Satyrica of Petronius. Mnemosyne suppl. 146. Leiden: Brill. Panayotakis, Stelios. 1998. On Wine and Nightmares: Apul. Met. 1.18. In Hofmann and Zimmerman 1998:11529. Pease, A. S. 1935. Publi Vergili Maronis Aeneidos liber quartus. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press. Pease, A. S. 195558. M. Tulli Ciceronis De natura deorum libri III. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press. Penwill, J. L. 1990. Ambages reciprocae: Reviewing Apuleius Metamorphoses. Ramus 19:125. Pucci, Pietro. 1987. Odysseus Polutropos: Intertextual Readings in the Odyssey and the Iliad. Cornell Studies in Classical Philology 46. Ithaca and London: Cornell University Press. Rabinowitz, Jacob. 1998. The Rotting Goddess: The Origin of the Witch in Classical Antiquitys Demonization of Fertility Religion. New York: Autonomedia. Ribbeck, Otto. 1888. Agroikos: Eine ethologische Studie. Abhandlungen der philologisch-historischen Classe der kniglich-Schsischen Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften 10. Leipzig: Hirzel. Robertson, D. S. 194045. Apule: Les Mtamorphoses. Trans. Paul Mallette. 3 vols. Reprint 196571. Paris: Les Belles Lettres. Rusten, J., I. C. Cunningham, and A. D. Knox, eds. and trans. 1993. Theophrastus, Characters; Herodas, Mimes; Cercidas and the Choliambic Poets. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.

COMIC INVENTION AND SUPERSTITIOUS FRENZY IN APUL. MET.

135

Sandy, G. N. 1973. Foreshadowing and Suspense in Apuleius Metamorphoses. CJ 68:23235. Smith, W. S. 1996. The Satiric Voice in the Roman Novelistic Tradition. In Knuf 1996:30917. Sommerstein, A. H., ed. and trans. 1980. Acharnians. The Comedies of Aristophanes, vol. 1. Warminster: Aris & Phillips. , ed. and trans. 1982. Clouds. The Comedies of Aristophanes, vol. 3. Warminster: Aris & Phillips. Tatum, James. 1979. Apuleius and the Golden Ass. Ithaca and London: Cornell University Press. Van der Paardt, R. T. 1978. Various Aspects of Narrative Technique in Apuleius Metamorphoses. In Hijmans and Van der Paardt 1978:7594. Van Mal-Maeder, Danielle. 1997. Lector, intende; laetaberis: The Enigma of the Last Book of Apuleius Metamorphoses. In Hofmann and Zimmerman 1997:87118. Walsh, P. G. 1970. The Roman Novel: The Satyricon of Petronius and the Metamorphoses of Apuleius. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Waszink, J. H. 1947. Quinti Septimi Florentis Tertulliani: De Anima. Ed. with intro. and comm. Amsterdam: Meulenhoff. Willink, C. W. 1986. Euripides: Orestes. With intro. and comm. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Winkler, J. J. 1985. Auctor and Actor: A Narratological Reading of Apuleiuss Golden Ass. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press. Zanker, Paul. 1995. The Mask of Socrates: The Image of the Intellectual in Antiquity. Trans. A. Shapiro, Sather Classical Lectures 59. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, . Zimmerman, Maaike. 2000. Apuleius Madaurensis: Metamorphoses, Book X: Text, Introduction and Commentary. Groningen: Egbert Forsten.