Vincenthunink.nl

Collana di testi e studi sul pensiero antico Collana di testi e studi sul pensiero antico FRANCESCA ALESSE, ENRICO BERTI, ALDO BRANCACCI, CLAUDIO MORESCHINI, RICCARDO POZZO, MARIO VEGETTI ISTITUTO PER IL LESSICO INTELLETTUALE EUROPEO E STORIA DELLE IDEE del Ministero dell’Università e della Ricerca Scientifica – Prin 2009 e dell’Istituto Italiano di Studi Filosofici C.N.R., Istituto per il Lessico Intellettuale Europeo e Storia delle Idee FRANCO FERRARI: L’Epinomide, il Timeo e la “sag-gezza del mondo”. Osservazioni introduttive LUC BRISSON: Le programme d’études des mem -bres du Collège de veille dans l’Épinomis FERRUCCIO FRANCO REPELLINI: La “vera” astro-nomia e la sapienza SILVIA M. CHIODI: L’Epinomide e l’Oriente ELISABETTA CATTANEI: Arithmos nell’Epinomide LUCA SIMEONI: L’Epinomide, vangelo della reli-gione astrale FRANCESCA ALESSE: L’Epinomide e la Stoa FRANCESCA CALABI: Filone di Alessandria e l’Epi-nomide ADRIANO GIOÈ: Richiami e citazioni dell’Epino-mide nella letteratura medioplatonica (e oltre) VINCENT HUNINK: The Epinomis and Apuleius ofMadauros FEDERICO M. PETRUCCI: La tradizione indirettadell’ultima pagina dell’Epinomide (991d5-992b1):Nicomaco, Teone, Giamblico, Elia, Davide,pseudo-Elia GIOVANNA R. GIARDINA: L’Epinomide negli scrit-ti matematici neopitagorici e neoplatonici ALESSANDRO LINGUITI: L’Epinomide in autorineoplatonici CLAUDIA MAGGI: Il Demiurgo e l’Anima demiur-gica. Platone, gli Gnostici e Plotino ELENA GRITTI: La ricezione dell’Epinomide inProclo MICHAEL J.B. ALLEN, Ratio omnium divinissima:Plato’s Epinomis, Prophecy, and Marsilio Ficino THE EPINOMIS AND APULEIUS OF MADAUROS One of the most systematic and detailed accounts of Middle Platonic demonology can be found in a Latin text from the 2ndcentury A.D. This text, entitled De Deo Socratis (On the God ofSocrates, hence: DDS)1, was written by the Second Sophistic au-thor Apuleius of Madauros (ca. 125-ca. 180), who gained great-est renown on account of his popular novel Metamorphoses(Metamorphoses, or The Golden Ass)2. Given the important role 1 The standard Latin text for DDS is Apuleius. De philosophia libri, ed. C. MORESCHINI, Teubner, Leipzig-Stuttgart 1991; another useful edi-tion is Apulée. Opuscules philosophiques […] et fragments, Texte établi,traduit et commentée par J. BEAUJEU, Les Belles Lettres, Paris 1973. Fora modern English translation with ample introduction and notes, see S.
HARRISON, [Apuleius] On the God of Socrates, in S. HARRISON-J. HILTON-V. HUNINK, Apuleius. Rhetorical Works, Translated and annotated, Ox-ford University Press, Oxford-New York 2001, pp. 185-216. No fullcommentary is available as yet, but much useful material can be found al-so in two translated and annotated editions intended for a non Latinist,German speaking, academic audience: M. BALTES-M.L. LAKMANN-J. DIL-LON-P.L. DONINI-R. HÄFNER-L. KARFÍKOVÁ, Apuleius. De Deo Socratis /Über den Gott des Sokrates, Eingeleitet, übersetzt und mit interpretieren-den Essays versehen, Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, Darmstadt2004, and M. BINGENHEIMER, Lucius Apuleius von Madaura. De DeoSocratis / Der Schutzgeist des Sokrates, Übersetzt, eingeleitet und mit An-merkungen versehen, Haag + Herchen, Frankfurt am Main 1993.
2 For general information about Apuleius, his life and works, there is a helpful monograph: cfr. S. HARRISON, Apuleius. A Latin Sophist, Ox-ford University Press, Oxford-New York 2001.
of demonology in the Epinomis3, it does not come as a surprisethat both texts are frequently mentioned together in scholarlystudies, both on Middle Platonic theory4 and on Apuleius andDDS5, although not all scholars make this connection6. In mostcases the connection between Epinomis and DDS is described orsuggested in rather general terms, the basic notion being thatApuleius was to some extent influenced by the Greek original.
In the present contribution, I shall review the relevant data in the source texts and attempt to state somewhat more pre- 3 For relevant bibliographical references concerning the Epinomis, see both the general introduction and individual contributions in the pre-sent volume. I shall further assume that the reader is familiar with theEpinomis as a whole.
4 Cfr. notably J. DILLON, The Middle Platonists, a Study of Platonism 80 B.C. to A.D 220, Duckworth, London 1977 (19962), pp. 317-20; F.E.
BRENK, In the Light of the Moon: Demonology in the Early Imperial Peri-od, in ANRW, II 16, 3 (1986) pp. 2069-145, esp. p. 2134.
5 Cfr. notably F. REGEN, Apuleius philosophus Platonicus, De Gruyter, Berlin 1971, esp. p. 6 n. 50; further C. MORESCHINI, Apuleio e il Platoni -smo, Olschki, Firenze 1978, esp. pp. 20-2, with references to earlierscholarly literature. Further J. BEAUJEU, Opuscules, cit., p. 10; M. BIN-GENHEIMER, Der Schutzgeist, cit., pp. 50-1; M. BALTES et al., Über denGott des Sokrates, cit., pp. 132-3.
6 Modern accounts of Apuleius’ demonology without any mention of the Epinomis are: B.L. HIJMANS JR., Apuleius philosophus Platonicus, inANRW, II 36, 1 (1987) pp. 395-475; W. BERNARD, Zur Dämonologie desApuleius von Madaura, «Rheinisches Museum», CXXXVII (1994) pp. 358-73; H. CANCIK, Römische Dämonologie (Varro, Apuleius, Tertullian), in A.
LANGE et al., Die Dämonen. Demons. Die Dämonologie der israelitisch-jüdischen und frühchristlichen Literatur im Kontext ihrer Umwelt / TheDemonology of Israelite-Jewish and Early Christian Literature in Contextof their Environment, Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen 2003, pp. 447-60, esp.
pp. 447-51. On Apuleius’ philosophical ideas about gods, see further alsoJ.F. FINAMORE, Apuleius on the Platonic Gods, in H. TARRANT (ed.), Read-ing Plato in Antiquity, Duckworth, London 2006, pp. 33-48 (who argues«that Apuleius is an independent Platonic philosopher creating his ownMiddle Platonic reading of Plato», p. 33, and G. PUCCINI-DELBEY, La sci-ence philosophique d’Apulée comme lieu de mémoire de la pensée platoni-cienne, in H. CASANOVA-ROBIN (éd.), Écritures latines de la mémoire: del’antiquité au XVIe siècle, Garnier, Paris 2010, pp. 83-103 (a rather gener-al account of Apuleius as a philosophical author).
THE EPINOMIS AND APULEIUS OF MADAUROS cisely how the relationship between Apuleius’ DDS 7 and theEpinomis could be adequately defined.
For a true appreciation of Apuleius’ text it is important to realize what it is, or rather what it is not. Apuleius did write andpublish books that might be called philosophical, notably hisDe Platone et eius dogmate, a somewhat bookish and ratheruninspired account of Platonic teaching, and De mundo, a Latinversion of the pseudo-Aristotelic Peri kosmou. The DDS how -ever, unlike most texts on demonology to which it is compared,is not a treatise nor even a philosophical text in the strict sense ofthe word, but rather a brilliant speech, delivered to an audiencein Roman Carthage, probably in the 160s.8.
Public lectures of this kind were widespread during the Second Sophistic, and surviving specimina9 clearly show thecurrent taste of the time: a penchant for themes that were suffi-ciently spectacular or fascinating to catch the interest and imag-ination of the attending crowds, and above all: a highly devel-oped or even extravagant epideictic style. Apuleius in particularappears to be fond of impressive linguistical “pyrotechnics”, in-venting new words or resuscitating archaic ones, building elab-orate periods or, by contrast, powerful brief lists, and exploit- 7 For the sake of clarity I shall not discuss some scattered remarks in Apuleius’ other works that may be connected with his ideas on demonolo-gy, such as Apol. 43, 2: inter deos et homines natura et loco medias quasdampotestates and Flor. 10, 3: mediae potestates. On these and other passages,see Apuleius of Madauros. Pro se de magia (Apology), edited with a com-mentary by V. HUNINK, Gieben, Amsterdam 1997, II, pp. 130-1.
8 Cfr. S. HARRISON, A Latin Sophist, cit., p. 139; S. HARRISON et al., Rhetorical Works, cit., p. 5.
9 The extant Florida by Apuleius is a collection of particularly striking oratorical fragments from such speeches. One may also compare the exu-berant De pallio by Tertullian or some Greek speeches by Dio Chrysostomand Maximus of Tyre. ing rhythm and sound by means of all possible forms of asso-nance, alliteration, and even rhyme10.
In DDS, Apuleius admittedly does not carry these elements to the extremes of some of his other works, but it remains fair tosay that his written text is the reflection and result of what maybe considered a captivating public performance, meant to im-press the attending audience, rather than a meticulous, philo-sophical inquiry for strictly academic purposes. To put it differ-ently, the author of DDS could best be designated as a skilled,erudite orator with strong interest in literature and history, phi-losophy and religion. To consider him a purebred philosopherwould be quite misleading.
In DDS we may accordingly expect to find a rhetorical, lit- erary version of philosophical themes, rather than a crystal-clear, academic account.
Moreover, DDS shows many marks of being directed at a Latin-speaking audience11, e.g. with quotations of Virgil, Lu-cretius, and Ennius ornamenting the very first paragraphs of thespeech12. The speaker seems to be at pains to underscore his fa-miliarity with Roman literature. Roman examples13 and strikingLatin words drive home the point that DDS aims to display a 10 For a longer description of Apuleius’ flowery style, cf. e.g. J.
HILTON, [Apuleius] Florida, in S. HARRISON et al., Rhetorical Works, cit.,pp. 121-76, esp. pp. 134-6. On the rhetorical nature of DDS see also B.L.
HIJMANS JR., Apuleius philosophus Platonicus, cit., pp. 425-6 and M.
BALTES et al., Über den Gott des Sokrates, cit., pp. 34-9.
11 Cfr. S. HARRISON et al., Rhetorical Works, cit., p. 187, referring to DDS 150: «It would be better to discourse in Latin». It is a matter of de-bate whether the consciously Latin and Roman nature of DDS as we haveit allows us to assume a preceding part in Greek. This is related to thevexed question concerning the preface (or so called “false preface”) ofDDS; see V. HUNINK, The Prologue of Apuleius’ De Deo Socratis, «Mne -mosyne», XLVIII (1995) pp. 292-312, with further references, and S. HAR-RISON et al., Rhetorical Works, cit., pp. 177-80.
12 See DDS 116, 118, 120, 121. See also DDS 130, 131 (Virgil), 143 (Lucretius), 145 (Virgil and Plautus), 150 (Virgil), 165 (Terence), 173(Virgil), and 176-177 (Accius).
13 One may point to e.g. some historical examples from the legendary Roman past (DDS 135), or to the deliberate attempt in to explain the THE EPINOMIS AND APULEIUS OF MADAUROS Roman erudition without resorting to Greek language. Indeed,not a word of Greek is to be found in DDS14. Meanwhile, Greekphilosophy and literature are, decidedly part of the general cul-tural background of DDS, as appears from the numerous refer-ences to Greek names, such as Homer, Odysseus (Ulixes),Socrates, and Plato15.
Given these characteristics of DDS, it does not come as a surprise that it does not contain an explicit reference to theEpinomis. Although such a reference would not be utterly im-possible16, its absence in DDS can be satisfactorily explained.
Consequently, if we look for traces of the Epinomis in DDS, it is the thematical level which must be considered.
What are the general ideas on demonology that are reflect- ed and expressed in DDS? A brief outline of the Apuleian textmay prove useful here.
The crucial section on demonology is located in the heart of the text (DDS 132-156). It is preceded by a section on gods highest type of daemones in conventional Latin terms such as Genius,Lemur, or Lar (DDS 150-154). Even Socrates’ daimonion is tentativelycalled Lar contubernio familiaris (DDS 157).
14 One might have expected Greek quotations to occur in DDS, giv- en the fact that in his other works (notably Apol.) Apuleius seems keen toinsert quotations in Greek to show off his erudition and impress his audi-ence; see V. HUNINK, Pro se de magia, cit., II, p. 23 on Apol. 4, 4. As an or-ator, he clearly was bilingual, as becomes manifest also e.g. from his an-nouncement in Flor. 18, 38-39 of a hymn on Aesculapius: Eius dei hym-num Graeco et Latino carmine uobis iam canam illi a me dedicatum.
15 For Homer see DDS 145, 157, 158, 166, 177; for Odysseus 159, 176, 177; for Socrates 156, 157, 162, 163, 165, 166, 167, 169, 174, 175(meus Socrates); for Plato 120, 123, 124, 125 (Platoni [.] meo), 128, 132,133, 155, 163 (with the Phaedrus mentioned in 164). Cf. also Aristotelesin 138 and 167.
16 Plato’s Phaedrus is mentioned in DDS 164, with a brief paraphrase of the beautiful setting in which the Platonic dialogue was situated.
and men (115-132), with specific stress on the clear separationof men from the gods (125-132), and followed by a third mainsection devoted to the special theme of the daemon of Socrates(157-167). This last section is concluded with a final, practicalencouragement to virtue and philosophy, after Socrates’ exam-ple (167-169), as well as with some fairly commonplace praiseof virtue (169-178)17.
This leaves sections 132-156 for the theory of demons, amounting to some nine pages of text. In this brief scope, fourmain themes concerning daemones are passed in review.
First, the function of daemones is dealt with (132-7). Having highlighted the wide gap between gods and men, Apuleiusnext brings in Plato, whose general opinion he paraphrases asfollows: There are certain intermediary powers, interjacently situated between the highest heaven and the earth far below in the regionof the aer, powers through which our desires and our own goodservices are passed to the gods18.
The question immediately arises what passage of Plato Apuleius may be referring to, and some scholars are eager toinclude a reference to Epinomis 984d3ff.19. In the Greek pas-sage the Platonic author refers to daivmona~ as an ajevrion gevno~holding a middle position, a class of beings whom we must ho-nour with prayers for the sake of a good journey across.
On closer scrutiny, the resemblance is fairly general, and there is no specific indication that the Epinomis was used byApuleius. Rather, the basic (and much better known) text of 17 For similar schemes, see J. BEAUJEU, Opuscules, cit., p. 5, and S.
HARRISON et al., Rhetorical Works, cit., p. 192.
18 DDS 132-133 (translation Harrison, as all English translations of 19 Cfr. M. BALTES et al., Über den Gott des Sokrates, cit., p. 57 n. 82; further H. MÜNSTERMANN, Apuleius. Metamorphosen literarischer Vorla-gen, Teubner, Leipzig-Stuttgart 1995, p. 175.
THE EPINOMIS AND APULEIUS OF MADAUROS Plato Symp. 202d13-e7 on the intermediate position of demonsbetween gods and men is in the background here, as is provedby the fact that Apuleius mentions this text himself in the im-mediate context (DDS 133). One may also point to similar pas-sages on the essential function of demons in Plutarch, whichseem somewhat closer to Apuleius20. If any specific reference isneeded here, it seems better and more relevant to mentionApuleius’ own general qualification in Apol. 41, in the speechdelivered only a few years before DDS 21. Next Apuleius dwells on the various areas or “provinces” in which daemones are active, ranging from dream visions todivinatory practices. Here it is Roman history rather than anyGreek model which dominates the picture, with famous exem-pla such as Hannibal, Flaminius, and Servius Tullius illustrat-ing the point (DDS 134-137).
The second issue concerns the location and physical sub- stance of the daemones. Here Apuleius gives the fairly com-mon ancient theory of four elements: earth, water, fire, and aer(137-138), and argues that the daemones should properly beassigned to the aer (138-140). Accordingly, he continues, thedaemones are neither “earthy” nor fiery, but have an intermedi-ate nature in accordance with their middle position in the aer,with a small degree of weight and a little lightness (140-141).
As a visible model for this, he adduces the example of clouds, atheme on which he eagerly expands in a passage that owesmuch to Lucretius, with concluding examples from Greekmythology and Plautus (142-145).
20 Cfr. e.g. PLUTARCH. De Is. 361b-c, aptly quoted by H. MÜNSTER- MANN, Apuleius, cit., p. 175 n. 1. See also V. HUNINK, Plutarch andApuleius, in L. DE BLOIS-J. BONS-T. KESSELS-D.M. SCHENKEVELD (eds.),The Statesman in Plutarch’s Works. Proceedings of the Sixth Internation-al Conference of the International Plutarch Society (Nijmegen/CastleHernen, May 1-5, 2002), I: Plutarch’s Statesman and His Aftermath: Polit-ical, Philosophical, and Literary Aspects, Brill, Leiden-Boston 2004, pp.
251-60, esp. pp. 252-6.
21 This is acutely remarked by M. BINGENHEIMER, Der Schutzgeist, Here too, it is possible to link the basic notion of the pas- sage in DDS with the Epinomis passage, in which daemones aresaid to be the class of creatures of the aer (984e). However, itdoes seem striking that Apuleius does not refer to a special no-tion in the Epinomis that may be called truly original, namelythe theory that there are actually five elements: earth, water,aer, fire, and aether (Epinom. 981c)22. If he were directly usingthe Epinomis as a source, one would have expected him to ei-ther support this striking theory or reject it, but not to pass onin absolute silence.
The third special topic concerning daemones in DDS is their character and “psychology”. It is argued that unlike thesupreme gods, who exist in eternal serenity, the daemones aresusceptible to sensations of both pain and pleasure, and so ofemotions of anger and joy. With the supreme gods they shareimmortality, with men their susceptibility to emotion (145-147).
Again, the Epinomis passage makes the same philosophical point: God is remote from affections of pain and pleasure, butthe daemones show kindness to good men and hate evil men(Epinom. 985a). However, it may be observed that the Epino -mis is rather brief on this issue (susceptibility to emotions be-ing merely mentioned in passing), and even shows a small dif-ference concerning the supreme being23. Apuleius’ more elab-orate and rhetorically refined text does show a decidedly otherapproach to the theme.
In DDS the general portrait of daemones is conveniently 22 In DDS, the aether occurs as well, but it is said to be situated above the aer and is associated with the element of fire, as the region of thestars.
23 One may note the use of the singular in the Greek passage: qeovn (985a), whereas Apuleius in this context repeatedly refers to the highest di-vinity with plural forms: a deorum caelestium tranquilitate, caelites (146),deos (147), cum diis immortalibus (148). This need not be an essentialpoint as far as Platonic theology is concerned, but the linguistic differencebetween the Epinomis and DDS is remarkable nonetheless.
THE EPINOMIS AND APULEIUS OF MADAUROS Quippe, ut fine comprehendam, daemones sunt genere animalia, in-genio rationabilia, animo passiua, corpore aeria, tempore aeterna.
(For, to encompass them by a definition, daemones are living be-ing in kind, rational creatures in mind, susceptible to emotion inspirit, in body composed of the aer, everlasting in time, DDS148)24.
Nothing similar may be found in the Epinomis25, which af- ter the short section on daemones quickly passes on to crea-tures of water (that is, nymphs) and to other matters (Epinom.
985b and further).
Apuleius, by contrast, even resumes the notion of dae- mones having emotions, adding that the variety of their inter-ests explains the variety of rites and religious ceremonies.
Rather than any Platonic passage, it is rather, again, Plutarchwhich may be adduced as a source of inspiration26.
All of this leads up to Apuleius’ fourth and final theme on daemones: the various types that may be distinguished. Havingbriefly discussed the idea that the human mind itself might becalled a daemon (DDS 150-152), he identifies a second groupof daemones as souls which have left their bodies, calledLemures, or Lares, Larvae, or Manes27. The Epinomis is entirelysilent on such notions.
A third class of daemones in Apuleian terms, the highest ones, are those daemones that never enter bodies, such as Loveand Sleep. Daemones from this type, Apuleius adds, are as- 24 Apuleius’ impressive definition was to be quoted and repeatedly discussed by Augustine in his De civitate Dei, as is noted by e.g. H. CAN-CIK, Römische Dämonologie, cit., p. 448.
25 J. BEAUJEU, Opuscules, cit., p. 228 suggests that the list of charac- teristics in DDS is rather common and has been drawn from «un“catéchisme” platonicien». Apuleius may indeed have used a general Pla-tonic source here, but the statement perhaps does not do justice toApuleius’ creativity as a writer of polished Latin.
26 Cfr. PLUTARCH. De Is. 361b, quoted by J. DILLON, The Middle Pla- 27 The various Latin terms are discussed in DDS 152-153.
signed to men as witnesses and guardians, never as visible pow-ers, but as judges of our actions and thoughts. At the end of ourlives, they drag us off to trial and stand beside us when our caseis dealt with.
Here Platonic ideas are certainly at the background28. In- deed, Apuleius himself explicitly mentions Plato as his sourceagain (twice in DDS 155). But the connection with the Epino -mis is, at best, the idea that daemones can understand ourthoughts (Epinom. 985a).
After this detailed comparison of the Epinomis and Apuleius’ speech DDS the conclusion seems clear. Both textsbelong to widely different genres addressing different audi-ences: here we have a Greek treatise meant to be studied, anda Latin speech meant to be appreciated by a live audience. Thesubject matter of daemones, very much the centre of Apuleius’interest, is merely a small theme in the Greek text. Some gen-eral notions on their nature seem to be corresponding, but theEpinomis does not stand out as a clear model for Apuleius. It israther Plato’s more renowned works such as the Symposium, aswell as texts by Plutarch, which seem to have inspired him. Infact, Apuleius’ silence on some special details in the Epinomis,notably the theory of five elements, may be taken as an indica-tion that he did not have the Greek texts readily at hand, andmay not have known it at all from personal reading29.
28 J. DILLON, The Middle Platonism, cit., pp. 319-20 refers to Symp. 202e, Phaed. 107d ff., and Resp. 617d-e and 620d-e; cfr. also S. HARRISONet al., Rhetorical Works, cit., p. 208 n. 51 with reference to J. BEAUJEU,Opuscules, cit., pp. 237-9.
29 The Epinomis is, for that matter, never mentioned in Apuleius’ works. As a rule, Apuleius does not refer to Platonic teachings by referringto specifically named works, not even in his De Platone et eius dogmate.
On occasion, however, he was perfectly able to do so: cfr. Apol. 65, 4: uer- THE EPINOMIS AND APULEIUS OF MADAUROS From Middle Platonism only a limited corpus of texts has survived. It seems reasonable to assume that many Pseudo-Pla-tonic and Middle Platonic works from the 4th century B.C. tothe 2nd century A.D. have gone lost, some of which may haveinfluenced Apuleius’ description of daemones. In the absenceof such texts, we cannot be certain here.
Apuleius’ well written and influential30 account of “Platon- ic” demonology seems to be the result of a long Platonic tradi-tion31. In this tradition, the Epinomis certainly played a role,but there is no good reason to state that it was of special im-portance to the philosophus Platonicus from Madauros. Thetextual evidence is too meagre to support such a claim.
ba ipsa Platonis iam senis de nouissimo legum libro, mentioning Laws. Ingeneral, Apuleius was «a voracious reader both of Latin and Greek (B.L.
HIJMANS JR., Apuleius philosophus Platonicus, cit., p. 406).
30 Well after the 2nd century, Apuleius’ text on demonology became the subject of intense polemic for the Christian Church Father Augus-tine, who strongly rejected his fellow African’s views. On the debate seeV. HUNINK, Apuleius, qui nobis Afris Afer est notior. Augustine’s polemicagainst Apuleius in De Civitate Dei, «Scholia, Studies in classical antiqui-ty», n.s. XII (2003) pp. 82-9, with further references.
31 Cfr. F. REGEN, Apuleius philosophus Platonicus, cit., p. 14 with nn.

Source: http://www.vincenthunink.nl/documents/apul_epinomis.pdf