|UFDC Home||myUFDC Home | Help|
This item has the following downloads:
1 IMAGES OF POVERTY AND WEALTH IN APULEIUS APOLOGIA By HEIDI DE BAERDEMAEKER-POOLE A THESIS PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORID A IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 2010
2 2010 Heidi De Baerdemaeker-Poole
3 To my daughter Noa
4 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I would like to thank my t eachers throughout the years for instilling a love of the classics in me and encouraging me to become a teacher of Latin. I would especially like to extend my deepest appreciation to Dr. Vict oria Pagn, Dr. Andrew Wolpert, Dr. Velvet Yates, and Dr. Chri stian Laes for their continuous support, guidance, and inspiration. I would also like to thank my many students for letting me share my enthusiasm with them. I thank my parents for taking me to Greece during my first year of classical studies and for always believing in me. I also extend my gratitude to Dr. William Tortorelli for always inspiring me and encouraging me to carry my education to a higher level and Dr. Matt Carrigan for pati ently opening up his house to my family during our frequent stays in Fl orida. Finally, I would like to thank my loving husband, Daniel Poole, for truly believing in me and encouraging me to follow my dreams.
5 TABLE OF CONTENTS page ACKNOWLEDG MENTS .................................................................................................. 4ABSTRACT ..................................................................................................................... 6 CHA PTER 1 IMAGES OF POVERTY AND WEALTH IN APULEIUS APOLOGIA ........................ 62 INTRODUC TION ...................................................................................................... 73 POVERTY AND WEALTH IN NORTH AFRICA ...................................................... 10History of No rth Africa ............................................................................................. 10Economy ................................................................................................................. 14Poverty and Wealth ................................................................................................ 204 IMAGES OF POVERTY AND WEALTH IN THE MINOR CHARG ES ..................... 28The Trial .................................................................................................................. 28Setting the Stage .................................................................................................... 30The Charge of Poverty ............................................................................................ 35Apuleius Philosophical Inte rpretation of Poverty .................................................... 43Other Minor Charges .............................................................................................. 49Conclusi on .............................................................................................................. 525 IMAGES OF POVERTY AND WEAL TH IN THE MA IN CHARGE .......................... 54The Engagement to Pudentilla ................................................................................ 54Rufinus .................................................................................................................... 57The Wedding Ce remony ......................................................................................... 60The Do wry .............................................................................................................. 61Pudentillas Donat ions and Will ............................................................................... 636 CONCLUS ION ........................................................................................................ 67LIST OF RE FERENCES ............................................................................................... 70BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH ............................................................................................ 72
6 Abstract of Thesis Pres ented to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulf illment of the Requirements for the Degr ee of Master of Arts IMAGES OF POVERTY AND WEALTH IN APULEIUS APOLOGIA By Heidi De Baerdemaek er-Poole May 2010 Chair: Victoria Pagn Major: Latin In Roman antiquity, poverty was oft en considered to be a disadvantage. Nevertheless, several philosophers and writ ers regarded poverty as an asset. The same was true for wealth. Public speakers ther efore often used both positive and negative opinions about poverty and wealth to win their case or attack their rivals. In the middle of the second century, the North-African wr iter and philosopher Apuleius was accused of luring a wealthy widow into marriage by m eans of magic, thereby gaining access to her large fortune. As a trai ned public speaker and a follower of the Second Sophistic, Apuleius capitalized on the existing ideas about poverty and wealth to win over his audience and utterly annihilate his opponents case. He attributed all the positive aspects of poverty and wealth to himself and ascribed all the negatives ones to his rivals. As a result, he was able to complete ly undermine the case made against him. Since the province of North Africa was diffe rent from Rome, I first survey its history and economy. In addition, I look at Apuleius background and life within North African society. In the next chapter, I examine images of poverty and wealth used by Apuleius in order to refute the minor charges. Fina lly, I explore how Apuleius made use of these images to disprove the main charge brought against him.
7 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION In the middle of the second century, in the N orth-African city of Sabratha, the Roman writer and philosopher Apuleius of Maudauros defended himself in court against a charge of magic.1 According to Apuleius, his opponents accused him of having used magical practices to lure a wealthy wid ow, Aemilia Pudentilla into marrying him.2 In addition to this formal charge, Apuleius was also suspected of supplying exotic ingredients for dental hygiene, writing erotic poems about boys, using fish and mirrors for illicit purposes, being poor and of mixed bi rth, concealing mysterious objects, making a nocturnal sacrifice, and practi cing magic upon epileptic patients.3 The speech that Apuleius delivered in his defense, commonly known as the Apologia is the only surviving account of the trial.4 This immediately presents us with some methodological concerns: is Apuleius a trustworthy source? Ho w biased or distorted is his portrayal of the events and people involv ed in the trial? Did Apuleius le ave out certain facts to help his case? Since we have no other evidence fo r the trial, we cannot possibly answer these questions adequately. However, Bradley convincingly argues that the essential elements of the speech had to be at least plausib le in order for Apuleius to believe that 1 For the date of the trial see Hunink 1997: 12a and Ha rrison 2000: 7. For the location of the trial see Apul. Apol. 59. All ancient authors are abbreviated according to the Oxford Latin Dictionary P. G. W. Glare, ed., Oxford 2006. 2 For the official charge see Apul. Apol 2.: calumnia
8 he could convince the judge of his innocence.5 Nevertheless, we mu st remember that we are dealing with a one-sided and therefore tendentious document. Recent scholarship has also focused on t he authenticity of the text as a speech.6 Because of the length of the speech, the ma ny literary digression s, and the fact that ancient writers commonly revised a speech bef ore publication, most scholars conclude that this must also be the case for the Apologia Yet because of the speakers reference to the clock and the audience, the lack of clarit y, and the fact that speeches lasting five to seven hours were not unusual, Winter s makes a compelling case for the stenographic and therefore unalte red nature of the speech.7 Less common, but not unfounded, is the view that the trial never took place and that the whole speech was nothing more than an ost entatious display of Apuleius eloquence, perhaps to aid his reputation. Ultimately, no real external evidence exists for any of the three possibilities. Augustine is the only ancient author to offer testimony of the trial, but since he wrote about 200 years after Apuleius, it is quite likely that the publish ed speech itself was interpreted as evidence for the trial.8 Even though it is not know n how the trial ended, it is commonly assumed that Apuleius was acquitted.9 There is no direct evidence of an acquittal, but the fact that Apuleius was free to publish the speech supports the idea that he was indeed victorious. This supposition is further confir med by Apuleius activity as a celebrated 5 Bradley 2000: n.3. 6 See Hunink 1997: 25-27a and Harrison 2001: 21-24 for an overview of the debate. 7 Winters 1969: 607-612. References to lengthy speeches include Pliny Ep. 2.11 and 4.16. 8 August. C.D. 8.19: postremo Apuleius ipse numquid apud Christianos iudices de magicis artibus accusatus est? 9 Hunink 1997: 19-20a.
9 orator in the 160s and his later office of sacerdos Africae in Carthage, a position he would never had obtained if he had been found guilty.10 In addition, the mere fact that Apuleius survived the trial seems to indicate that he was acquitted, since a guilty verdict would likely have led to the death penalty.11 For my purposes, I assume that Apuleius was successful in his defense. Whether revised, verbatim, or fictitious, regardless of the outcome, the speech is nevertheless an important hist orical document that can better our understanding of several sociological aspects of the high em pire. It has, for exam ple, recently gained importance as a crucial document for the understanding of t he Roman family.12 This thesis aims to examine the images of poverty and wealth that occur in the Apologia and to explore how Apuleius makes use of this imagery to achieve his acquittal. The first task is to survey the meaning of the word s poverty and wealth within a specific Roman-African context and then to analyze Apuleius histor ical background, including his family, education, and social and financia l status. The third chapter will focus on images of poverty and wealth in the minor charges brought forth by the accusation, and Apuleius rebuttal. The final chapter will exam ine images of poverty and wealth in the main charge. 10 Harrison 2000: 7-9. 11 Graham 1971: 136. Bradley 1997: 207. Sandy 1997: 132. 12 E.g. Bradley 2000: 215-239.
10 CHAPTER 2 POVERTY AND WEALTH IN NORTH AFRICA The trial of the Apologia took place in the Roman province of Africa Nova, which included the coastal cities of Sabratha, Oea (modern Tripoli), and Leptis Magna. The area around these three cities was later fitti ngly called Tripolitania or region of the three cities.1 The events that led up to the trial occurr ed at Oea, whereas the trial itself was held in Sabratha. Apuleius was born in the 120s CE in Madauros (modern MDaourouch), an inland city located to t he west of Carthage and described by Apuleius himself as splendidissima colonia.2 He later received part of his education in Carthage.3 Thus the history and economy of both Africa Nova and Africa (Vetus), which included Carthage, is important for our understanding of t he representations for poverty and wealth in the Apologia History of North Africa The first people to bring substantial agr iculture, trade, and urban development to North Africa were the Phoenicians. Around 1,000 BCE they started founding colonies along the North African coast, including what wa s to become the city of Carthage. When they first arrived in this region, they came into contact with the local people, who mainly consisted of nomadic tribes that trav eled nort h each year with their herds.4 These nomads, who up until the time of Apuleius would disturb the peace with their yearly migrations, were called Lybians by the Gree ks, Africans, Numidians, or Moors by the 1 See Raven 1993: xxviii for historical maps of this region. 2 Apul. Apol 24.8. Madouros is specifically nam ed as his birthplace by e.g., August. C.D. 8.14: Apuleius tamen Platonicus Madaurensis See Mattingly 2001: 68 for a map of the area. 3 See Butler and Owen 1967: ix and Apul. Fl 18.15: ita mihi et patria in concilio Africae, id est vestro, et pueritia apud vos et magistri vos et secta, licet Athenis Atticis confirmata, tamen hic incohata est. 4 Haywood 1975: 33.
11 Romans, and later Berbers by the Arabs. Ev en though the African land itself did not offer many attractions, it lay on the way to Spain, where the Phoenicians obtained their much-desired silver and tin. The different Phoenician settlements in North Africa therefore played a crucial role as wateri ng places and refuges from sudden storms. They also functioned as places of temporar y exile, since the motherland of Phoenicia was frequently assaulted by invaders.5 By the sixth century BCE, the Greeks started founding new settlements in the area and soon became rivals of the Phoenici ans in their quest for control of the Mediterranean Sea and its precious trade rout es. Carthage, which by this time had become the new Phoenician capital, unsuccessf ully attempted to drive the Greeks out of its territory and was soon forced out of the eastern Mediterranean. As a result, the Carthaginians now focused their attention on their own hinterland and slowly changed from sea-born tradesmen into farmers (Raven 1993: 10-11). By the late third century BCE the Carthaginians had established thei r power over most of their surrounding areas, including Tripolitania, and the successful introduction of agriculture in many of its colonies led to a prosperous revival. Carthage soon set its eyes back on the Mediterranean and embarked on a new war with t he Greeks. As a result of the war, Greek slaves were imported into Afric an cities and brought wit h them Greek art and culture. Gods such as Demeter and Dionysu s became important cult s at Carthage, the Greek custom of cremation replaced inhum ation, and wearing Greek clothes became fashionable. Yet the local gods were never abandoned, the use of Greek was restricted 5 Raven 1993: 6-10. Ravens book Rome in Africa covers the history of Roman Africa from its earliest historical evidence until the end of its Roman rule in the seventh century CE. Though the book is mainly intended for a general audience and lacks clear citations and references, it nevertheless offers a sufficient overview of the history of this region for my purposes.
12 to practical matters, and un like the Greeks, the Carthagini ans had no real interest in athletics or the human body: while Greek god s were usually depicted without clothes, the Carthaginian gods were represent ed fully clothed. (Raven 1993: 24-32). The earliest record of any contact bet ween Carthage and Rome dates from about 510 BCE, when a contract was signed in which Carthage acknowledged Romes rule over Latium and allowed it to trade in a lim ited number of Carthaginian ports. During the next few centuries, the Rome and Carthage cont inued to enter into contracts stipulating power and rights. In 264 BCE, the first war between the Carthaginians and the Romans broke out. At the core of the dispute was control of Sicily, located directly between the Italian peninsula and Carthage. For the Romans, this was their first military venture outside of the peninsula. They quickly gather ed that the Carthaginians could only be defeated at sea. This was a significant c hallenge, considering t he fact that Carthage was known for its powerful and almost invincible fleet. Carthage, tricked into a false sense of security by the initial loss of the Romans, was utterly unprepared. The first Punic war ended in a Roman victory. Carthage gave up some of its territories and paid a heavy fine over the next t en years (Raven 1993: 33-37). Having lost Sicily, Carthage set its sight on Spain for a new source of income, and it quickly gained control of the souther n regions. In 218 BCE, hoping to conquer Italy, Hannibal, who by then was leading the expedition, set out to cross the Alps, bringing with him thirty seven elephants. Desp ite the lack of trails, unclear directions, extreme cold, and attacks by locals, Hannibal managed to reach Italy, having lost about half his men and almost all his elephants. His arrival took Ro me by surprise and in the next few years, Hannibal never lost a battle. Yet he lacked supplies and reinforcements
13 and was unable to sustain his conquest. He returned to North Africa and met the Romans there for a final battle in 202 BCE. The second Punic War ended with yet another Roman victory, this time aided by a group of Af rican allies (Raven 1993:37-43). As a result of the war, Carthage lost all its foreign territories and was surrounded by a ditch that separated it from the rest of North Africa. Nevertheless, it was still a very affluent and powerful city of merchants. Ev en Rome was aware of Carthages economic threat, as illustrated by an anecdote from the life of Cato the Elder. He purposely dropped some Carthaginian figs in the senat e. When the senators remarked about the size and beauty of the fruit, Ca to said that it came from a place only three days away and added that Carthage had to be destroyed.6 Rome soon set out for North Africa and demanded that Carthage be abandoned and could only be rebuilt twelve miles from the sea, something to which the Carthaginians could not accede. For three years they fought with all their might, until the city was finally captured by Scipio Aemilianus, adopted grandson of the Scipio who had defeated Hannibal. For six additional days the Romans pillaged and ransacked the whole city slaughtering its inhabitants or selling them into slavery (Raven 1993: 44-49). North Africa was now officially a Roman pr ovince. During the firs t century of their reign, the Romans mainly focused on keepi ng the peace and exacting war tribute. Many pieces of land were sold or given away as a reward for siding with the Romans during the war. The tribal kingdoms were mainly le ft to govern themselves. Caesar was the first to take Romes rule beyond Scipios demarcation ditch. The area within the original boundaries was now called Africa Vetus, w hereas the new annexation was given the 6 Plut. Cat. Mai. 27.
14 name Africa Nova. Caesar set out to abolis h the tribal kingdoms, gradually establish Roman settlements in Africa, and settle some of his veterans and dispossessed Roman farmers in the area. Under Augustus, Ca rthage was officially refounded and thousands of the retired soldiers who had fought in t he civil war against Mark Antony settled in Africa. This was the true start of the Romanization of Africa made possible by Augustus implementation of the pax Romana Under Caligula, Maur etania was added to the empire, though most of the western desert was left to the natives due to its extreme heat and harsh terrain. Roman Africa now cons isted of Mauretania in the west, Numidia in the south, and Tripolitania in the eas t. Despite occasional disturbances by the nomads, it was a rather peaceful time, as show n by the fact that many towns were left unwalled.7 The Romans soon started the construction of public works such as massive aqueducts, baths, and administrative buildin gs. New towns were founded to house Roman legions or army veterans and were connected by long stretches of roads. The originally Roman veterans soon married wit h local women and within a few generations the army in Africa consisted mainly of African-born Romans who spoke Latin and were trained according to the rules of the Roman a rmy. This was the Africa in which Apuleius was to be born (Raven 1993: 49-63). Economy Despite its rather adverse climate, No rth Africas main in dustry was always agriculture.8 Since only the valleys were naturally suitable for cereal culture, the 7 Graham 1971: 120. Haywood 1975: 33. 8 Haywood 1975: 55.
15 Romans increased the amount of arable land by irrigation. Yet providing a steady supply of water for the new farm lands proved to be a laborious task. At times, it did not rain for years on end. Emperor Hadrians arriva l in Africa in 128 CE coincided with the first rainfall in five years.9 As a result, cisterns were used to store rain water, dams and terraces were constructed, and aqueducts we re built to transport large amounts of water.10 Due to this scrupulous water management, the Romans were able to turn North Africa into a major source of grain to provide Romes growing urban population with enough food.11 After only a century of Roman rule, North Africa even replaced Egypt as Romes main importer of grain, since it was lo cated closer to Italy and the transportation of goods was therefore cheaper. According to Josephus, North Africa fed Rome for eight months of the year, while Egypt was only able to provide four months worth of corn.12 For more than 300 years, North Africa supplied Rome with about half a million tons of grain each year.13 As for the quality, according to Pliny the Elder, it ranked third among all foreign types: Africa was so fertile that one modius would yield 150 modii and almost 400 shoots would spring from one grain.14 9 Graham 1971: 109. Raven 1993: 94. 10 Graham 1971: 110, 114. Raven 1993: 95. 11 Several ancient authors give evidence of North Africa being a country rich in grain. Hor. Carm 1.1.10: quiquid de Libycis verritur areis. Hor. S 2.3.87: frumenti quantum metit Africa Juv. 8. 117-118: parce et messoribus illis qui saturant urbem circo scenaeque vacantem. Tac. Ann. 12.43: sed Africam potius et Aegyptum exercemus, navibusque et casibus vita populi Romani permissa est. Tac. Hist 1.73: Calvia Crispinilla transgressa in Africam ad instigandum in arma Clodium Macrum, famem populo Romano haud obscure molita Tac. Hist. 3.48: namque et Africam, eodem latere sitam, terra marique invadere parabat, clausis annonae subsidiis inopiam ac discordiam hosti facturus. Haywood 1975: 39-40. 12 Jos. BJ. 2.383. Haywood 1975: 43. Kehoe 1988: 4. 13 Raven 1993: 88. 14 Plin. Nat. 18.63: montanis modo comparetur Italiae agris externum, in quo principatum tenuit Boeotia, dein Sicilia, mox Africa. Haywood 1975: 44. Kehoe 1988: 4. Plin. Nat. 18.94: cum e modio, si sit aptum solum, quale in Byzaico Africae campo, centeni quinquageni modii reddantur. misit ex eo loco divo
16 During the first century CE, cultivation of grain was the most important aspect of North African agriculture and many of the sanc tuaries at that time were dedicated to the goddess Ceres.15 By the time of Apuleius the population had incr eased greatly and much of the soil had been exhaust ed. As a result, agriculture now spread to areas that were less suitable for grains due to their lack of water. Yet these areas were perfectly fit for oleoculture. Although olive trees thrive on rather dry and infertile land, they need nearly ten years to come to maturity. Now that North Africa had been settled in a general sense of security, the trees had enough time to produce and the area was peaceful enough to attract capital.16 In addition, Italys demand for oil had by now exceeded its own production. Consequently, the Af ricans were actively encouraged to use more land for oleoculture.17 In Tripolitania, olives ha d always been the main crop, but during the second century CE olive groves were planted in Numidia as well to match the cultivation of Tripolitania.18 Along the whole east coast of North Africa, oleoculture quickly ousted the cultivation of grains. Not onl y did it require less labor, it was also a more profitable export than grain, which was bulkier and therefore more expensive to Augusto procurator eius ex uno grano, vix credibile dictu, CCCC paucis minus germina, estantque de ea re epistulae. Raven 1993: 79. 15 Plin. Nat. 15.8: cereri totum id natura concessit, oleum ac vinum non invidit tantum. Haywood 1975: 45. Raven 1993: 80. 16 Haywood 1975: 37, 48. 17 Raven 1993: 89. 18 Haywood 1975: 46. Raven 1993: 87, 91. The number of olive presses found in Tunisia far exceeded the regional requirements, thereby indicating that o live oil was produced on a larger scale in order to export it. See Mattingly 2001: 82. Madauros, the birthpla ce of Apuleius, was also an important center of oil industry. Oleoculture was mainly situated to the east of Maudauros, while the area to the west of it remained focused on cereal production. See Haywood 1975: 47-48.
17 transport. In addition, it could also be used for things other than food, such as soap, perfume base, and oil for lighting.19 During Apuleius lifetime agriculture oft en included more than the cultivation of grains and olives. North Africas prosperity soon allowed for more luxurious crops such as pomegranates, figs, truffles, beans, and artichokes.20 Inscriptions found in the area also mention the pr oduction of honey and wine.21 Equally important to its economy was the raising of livestock such as horses, cows, mules, asses, pigs, sheep, and goats.22 Towards the end of the first century CE, the Roman conquest of North Africa had almost come to an end. Farm land was mainly divided into large estates, both imperial and private. During Neros reign, half the pr ovince of Africa supposedly belonged to only six landowners. Nero reportedly had them all condemned to death and confiscated their property.23 Estates were often subdivided into sma ller plots of land, which were either let directly to individual farmers or to tenants who t hen sub-let it to the peasants.24 Rent for these plots was commonly paid in goods: each tenant had to give up a third of his grain harvest, a fifth of the beans, and a third of wine or oil.25 The size of these estates sometimes even surpassed North Africas urban developments.26 Because of the 19 Raven 1993: 92. 20 Raven 1993: 97. 21 Inscription: C.I.L VIII.25902. Haywood 1975: 42. 22 Inscription: C.I.L. VIII.4508. Haywood 1975: 52. 23 Plin. Nat. 18.35: sex domini semissem Africae possidebant cum interfecit eos Nero princeps Lvy 1967: 80-81. Haywood 1975: 84. 24 Lvy 1967: 81. Raven 1993: 83. 25 Inscription: C.I.L. VIII.25902. Haywood 1975: 45. 26 Finley 1999: 112.
18 employment and protection they provided, esta tes often attracted so many workers that small hamlets were founded along the main villa of the estate. However, some farmers had no fixed plot of land to work on and were forced to hire themselves out on a day-today basis. They often joined a harvest gang that would work on the large estates during harvest time, but frequently struggled to survive.27 Even though a large part of the land was worked by free men, whether tenants or day-laborers, we also find some evidence of the use of slaves in agriculture.28 The first coastal settlements in North Afri ca were founded every 15 to 20 miles as stops along the Phoenician trade route to the west.29 At first their purpose was to provide shelter and victuals, but over time they also beca me export centers of local goods. The three cities of Tripolitania becam e crucial ports in t he trade routes that developed between North Africa and the rest of the Mediterranean.30 At Leptis Magna, a deep-sea port was even constructed to accommodate the large Roman ships.31 The main export products included grain, olive oil, wood, and luxury products such as purple dye, gold, ivory, pearls, amber, and marble.32 African boys were exported and sold as slaves or boxers for Roman spectacles.33 Sabrathas prosperity was mainly based on 27 Raven 1993: 84. 28 Haywood 1975: 71. 29 Lvy 1967: 11. 30 Raven 1993: 70. 31 Raven 1993: 71. 32 Cod. Theod. 13.5.10: navicularios Africanos, qui idonea publicis dispositionibus ac necessitatibus ligna convectant, privilegiis concessis dudum rursus augemus. Haywood 1975: 52-55. Lvy 1967: 74. Raven 1993: 97. 33 Juv. 5.52-53 and 59-60: vos aliam potatis aquam. tibi pocula cursor Gaetulus dabit aut nigri manus ossea Mauri quod cum ita sit, tu Gaetulum Ganymedem respice, cum sities Suet. Cal 18: munera
19 the export of exotic animals, whereas Leptis Magna thrived on its oil and caravan trade.34 All three Tripolitanian cities may hav e been terminals for caravan routes that came from the interior. Goods meant for lo cal trade were sold in small shops located around the forum, in front of houses, or near a market building, whereas items for foreign trade were loaded onto ships that called at the towns local harbor.35 This constant passage of ships also provided local employment: workers were needed to maintain the ships and sailors would make use of the towns accommodations to gather provisions.36 As a result, items needed for food supply were the main aspect of North Africas industry.37 Amphorae used for the transportation of food items were produced on a la rge scale, though its role in North Africas economy by no means came close to the role played by agriculture.38 Now that soldiers were stationed in North Africa, textile production also started to gr ow in importance. In order to provide the soldiers with cloaks and blank ets, cloth production was increased to a level that surpassed the level of local consumption.39 Due to their location on the coast, Carthage and the cities of Tripolitania al so excelled in the production of garum.40 Other gladiatoria partim in amphitheatro Tauri partim in Saeptis aliquot edidit, quibus inseruit catervas Afrorum 34 Haywood 1975: 110-111. 35 Haywood 1975: 60, 62, 69. 36 Raven 1993: 97. Mattingly 2001: 83. 37 Lvy 1967: 83. Haywood 1975: 58-60. 38 Finley 1999: 252 n85. Mattingly 2001: 78. 39 Wilson 2001: 285-288. 40 Plin. Nat. 31.93-94: aliud etiamnum liquoris exquisiti genus, quod garum vocavere, nunc e scombro pisce laudatissimum in Carthaginis Raven 1993: 98. Mattingly 2001: 80. Wilson 2001: 288.
20 local industries included the production of glass, jewelry, weapons, and mosaics, but most of the archaeological eviden ce for this is rather meager.41 During Apuleius lifetime, North Africa was at the height of its prosperity.42 The main cities attracted ambitious men, such as Apuleius himself, from various parts of the province and soon ranked with cities such as Rome and Alexandria as centers of intellectual enlightenment.43 Leptis Magna evolved into a city of about 80,000 inhabitants, whereas Sabrat ha most likely had between 20,000 and 40,000. However, this long period of prosperity came to an abr upt end in the middle of the fourth century CE, when the Tripolitanian town s suffered from invasions by Gaetulians and Vandals. Poverty and Wealth Recent scholarly research has shown a gr eat interest i n the social aspects of ancient societies, including poverty and wealth.44 However, it is difficult to differentiate between poverty and wealth in ancient times, as there are no standard measurements. This is hardly surprising, since even for t he Greeks and the Romans rich and poor were relative terms. The Greek words ptochos (beggar) and penes (subsistence laborer) for example could be used for people of varied financial backgrounds, depending on the context.45 Research is also hampered by the lack of evidence, especially for the poor in Roman society. Those who were landless and destitute were usually missing from populati on registers and so it is impossible to know how many 41 Haywood 1975: 58-60. Mattingly 2001: 81. 42 Haywood 1975: 73. 43 Graham 1971: 128. 44 See e.g., Atkins and Osborne 2006. 45 Finley 1999: 41. Osborne 2006: 11, 15.
21 there were.46 In addition, Roman writers were often elite and showed little to no interest in the poor of their society.47 As a result, very little is known about the actual poor. This did not change until the arrival of Christiani ty, which only had its full effect more than one hundred years after t he time of Apuleius.48 Trying to define poverty and wealth in North Africa poses an even greater problem since most of our surviving documents refer to living conditions in the city of Rome. Yet we do know that standards of livi ng in North Africa were sometimes different from those at Rome. When St. Augustine liv ed in Italy, he was stunned by the fact that artificial light was considered a luxury. In his native North Africa, where olive oil was plentiful and readily available, oil lamps were almost taken for granted and all but the most destitute could afford them.49 Not only did agriculture provide ample olive oil for almost everyone in North Africa, it also provided the poor with basic f ood: in North Africa figs were an essential par t of a poor mans diet.50 And unlike their Italian counterparts, the North African rich of the ear ly empire were mainly city dwellers. It was not until the late third and early fourth century CE that country villas became more fashionable and life in North African cities had become rather unpleasant.51 In addition, the population of North Africa during the second century CE was made up of both Roman citizens and 46 Scheidel 2006: 53. 47 Parkin 2006: 61. 48 Rathbone 2006: 100. 49 Raven 193: 96. 50 Plin. Nat. 15.82: panis simul et obsonii vicem siccatae implent. Haywood 1975: 51. 51 Raven 1993: 100.
22 Berber or Punic natives. Many of the Ber ber natives continued their nomadic lifestyle and thereby added to the number of landless poor.52 Very little information is available on t he size of individual fortunes. In the Apologia Apuleius speaks of fortunes meas uring two, three, and four million sesterces.53 According to Cicero, one needed to have an annual income of six hundred thousand sesterces in order to live a life of luxury.54 Pliny the Younger, for example, who was a senator of aver age fortune, had an annual income of two million sesterces.55 In comparison, a legionary under Trajan had a gross annual income of about one thousand two hundred sesterces, from which the cost of food and other expenditures still had to be deducted.56 During Apuleius lifetime, many of the wealthy citizens, who attempted to gain immortality through the erection of statues and mausoleums, poured their money into the improvement of their own city. Now that the province was at peace and there was no need for extensive warfare, they were determined to use their fortune as a means to rise up the social and politic al ladder. In hundreds of cities temples and forums were built with money from the newly rich.57 Several of these gifts were made by benefactors of Punic origin, who had thri ved under the Roman rule and had made their 52 Haywood 1975: 102, 106. 53 Apul. Apol 23: profiteor mihi ac fratri meo relictum a patre HS XX paulo secus 71: mater sestertium quadragies po
23 fortune in the shipping business.58 There even seems to have been an increase in the amount of smaller fortunes, as illustrated by an increase in small gifts, fewer than 5,000 sesterces, to local towns. However, si nce people tended to donate more than their fortune really allowed in order to be exempt from certain municipal burdens, the size of these gifts does not always accurately re flect the size of individual fortunes.59 In Apuleius lifetime, however, many North Africans had become wealthy enough to enter into the Roman equestrian rank, which r equired a census of four hundred thousand sesterces.60 An average-sized North African city had about three or four equestrian families. Even wealthier citizens could be admitted into the senatorial rank, though their fortune was less than that of their counterpar ts in the city of Rome, who needed a minimum of one million sesterces to become a senator.61 Yet since a lot of these wealthy citizens were landowners, their fortu ne was mainly tied up in land, and they did not necessarily have much cash readily avai lable. They often had to borrow money from professional lenders to main tain their wealthy life-style.62 Since the wealthier people of North Africa spent most of their time outside, whether on the farm or in t he forum, their houses were fair ly simple. Some houses even had running water, though this never extended into the kitchen, since providing water there was considered work for the slaves Mosaics commemorating an event at the 58 In 53 CE the old forum at Leptis Magna was repa ired by Gaius, son of Hanno. The market place and theater at Leptis Magna were built by Annobal Rufu s Tapapius in the early first century CE. See Raven 1993: 103, 105-106. Mattingly 2001: 83. 59 Haywood 1975: 79. 60 Harrison 2000: 4. 61 Raven 1993: 126. Finley 1999: 100. 62 Finley 1999: 52-53.
24 amphitheater or circus that had been hosted by the houses owner often adorned the more luxurious houses.63 Rich households always had many slaves, including cooks, pedagogues, nannies, bookkeepers, and administrators.64 Apuleius wife, who had a considerable fortune, gave about f our hundred slaves to her two sons.65 Though the cost of a slave depended on each slaves skills, the average price paid for a slave in the early third century CE was about five hundred denarii or two thousand sesterces, only slightly more than t he cost of a horse.66 The poor people of North Africa usually li ved in their masters household or in rented apartments or shops. Many were draw n to life in the towns because of the considerable advantages it offered. Since wealthier citizens often donated money for the running costs of the baths, the poor were usually able to visit these bathhouses for free. They were also able to take in any s hows at the theater or circus at no cost. In addition, many of the rich people kept open hous e as part of their po litical campaign and the poor were thus able to pick up a free meal.67 Besides the corn dole and the family allowances started by emperor Trajan, the Roman state showed very little concern for the poor. When it displayed generosity, it wa s usually directed to the whole community and not specifically to the needy. The corn dol e, which was available to all citizens regardless of their financial si tuation, was not made into a di stribution for the poor until 63 Raven 1993: 118-119. 64 Finley 1999: 73. 65 Apul. Apol 93: servos quoque haud minus CCCC 66 Haywood 1975: 71, 81-82. 67 Raven 1993: 114, 119-121.
25 the early third century CE.68 When an individual gave to the poor, it was often in exchange for a favor or political support. This do ut des mentality that prevailed throughout antiquity had already been express ed as early as the seventh century BCE, when the poet Hesiod suggested to give to one who gives, but not to one who does not give.69 In the first century CE Se neca maintained that a rich man ought to give to the needy, though not to the destitute, whom no amount of money could save.70 Yet in his letters, he also took the time to mention giving a coin to a beggar and a crust to a starving man, thereby perhaps indica ting a slowly shifting mentality.71 Poor people and beggars were a normal part of life in a Roman city and most likely of rural life as well.72 It is likely that the Roman gov ernment at times tried to ship them off to colonies, such as North Africa.73 If one did not own, r ent, or inherit enough land to sustain himself and his family, a life of poverty was difficult to avoid.74 Women and children were especially vulnerable if their familys breadwinner died.75 Yet despite ones humble origins, it was still possible to move up the social ladder and even gain fame and fortune. Chariot racers and gladiat ors sometimes became local idols and 68 Finley 1999: 170-171. 69 Hesiod. Works and Days 355. Finley 1999: 39-40. 70 Sen. Dial. 7.23.5-24.1: quibusdam non dabo quamuis desit, quia etiam si dedero erit defuturum Parkin 2006: 65. 71 Sen. Ep. 95.51: praecipiemus, ut naufrago manum porrigat, erranti viam monstret, cum esuriente panem suum dividat? Osborne 2006: 3. 72 Parkin 2006: 61. 73 Finley 1999: 171-172. 74 Osborne 2006: 4-5. 75 Parkin 2006: 73.
26 benefitted both financially and socially from their newly attained status.76 If one was born into a poor family but possessed great talent, wealthy citizens would at times provide patronage and a decent education, which in turn could lead to financial and social advantages.77 Marcus Cornelius Fronto, the tuto r of the future emperor Marcus Aurelius, obtained great wealth and status. He even made it to consul.78 A funeral monument from Makhtar in North Africa tells the exceptional story of a farm laborer who even made it to the rank of censor.79 Yet one could also experi ence a harsh reversal of fortune, resulting in a loss of money or pr operty and therefore social status. When an inheritance was subdivided into many piec es, someone belonging to an originally wealthy family could end up with only a sma ll plot of land, barely enough to sustain himself. This was the case for Sicinius Aemi lius, Apuleius accuser. Yet fortune favored him again later on when almost all his re latives died in a pandemic and he became wealthy again through the resulting inheritance. Apuleius, a Roman citizen of Latin nomenclature, was lucky enough to be born into a rather wealthy family.80 His father had attained t he duumvirate, the highest provincial office, and had le ft him and his brother the subs tantial sum of two million sesterces when he died.81 Apuleius received his first educ ation in Carthage or possibly 76 Raven 1993: 112. 77 Raven 1993: 123. 78 Raven 1993: 124-125. 79 Inscription: C.I.L. VIII.11824: paupere progenitus lare de rusticulo censor et ipse fui. Raven 1993: 85. Finley 1999: 224 n28. 80 For a more extensive biography and chronology of Apuleius life, see Sandy 1997 and Harrison 2000 and 2001. 81 This sum was five times the equestrian census at that time. See Harrison 2000: 4.
27 his native town of Madauros, where he had also started a public career. After his fathers death, his newly found personal we alth enabled him to study abroad, following the standard elite literary educati on. He certainly spent time in Athens and Rome and he was on his way to Alexandria when the events leading up to the tria l took place. After his trial, he spent several years in Carthage as a successful public speaker. His wealth and rhetorical activities made him a member of the local elite and the senate and people of Carthage honored him with a statue and the liturgy of prov incial priesthood, which only the rich could afford. Nevertheless, Apuleius does not seem to have pursued a political career after his literary and rhet orical successes. Nothing is known about the end of his life. He most likely spent his last years in Carthage, continuing his career as a public speaker, teacher, and philosopher.
28 CHAPTER 3 IMAGES OF POVERTY AND WEALTH IN THE MINOR CHARGES The Trial During the winter of 156-157 CE, Apuleius was on his way to Alexandria when he stopped at a friends house in the North African city of Oea to regain his strengths.1 While staying there, he was visited by Sici nius Pontianus, with whom he had previously studied in Athens. Pontianus convinced Apul eius to stay in Oea until the following winter, so as to avoid the dangers of trav eling during the heat of summer. He also convinced him to stay at his widowed mother s house near the sea in order to speed his recovery. After a few months, during which A puleius had started to give speeches in Oea, Pontianus brought up the real reason fo r wanting Apuleius to stay with him: he was looking for a suitable husband for his widowed mother, Pudentilla, in order to safeguard her considerable fortune for himself and his younger brother Sicinius Pudens. At first, Apuleius was opposed to the idea of remaining in North Africa and entering into marriage since he desired greatly to continue his journey to Alexandria, where he had planned on continuing his studies. But after a lengthy conversation and some considerable pressure, Pontianus was able to persuade Apuleius to marry the wealthy Pudentilla. It was decided that the marriage would take place after Pontianus own marriage to the daughter of Herennius Rufi nus. Rufinus, hoping to get his hands on Pudentillas riches through his new son-in-law convinced Pontianus that the marriage of his mother to Apuleius was a bad idea. Ne vertheless, Pudentilla was determined to continue with the union and the couple was ma rried in one of her suburban villas. Apuleius was able to reconcile Pudentilla wi th her sons and prevailed upon her to leave 1 See Harrison 2000: 39-41 for a general introduction of the trial.
29 considerable portions of her fortune for the two boys. Yet Pontianus died unexpectedly while on his way to Carthage and Sicinius Pudens subsequently left their house and moved in with his paternal uncle, Sicinius Aemilianus. Aemilianus, together with Rufinus, who was purportedly planning on ma rrying his newly widowed daughter to Sicinius Pudens, used the young boy to attack A puleius in court. At first, they accused Apuleius of having murdered Pontianus. Yet when Apuleius challenged them to substantiate the accusation and bring a formal charge, they changed their tactic and accused him of having used magic to lure the wealthy Pudentilla into marriage. In order to avoid serious legal repercussions, they had the charge brought forward by Sicinius Pudens, who was still a minor. While the core of the dispute was his marriage to Pudentilla and her wealth, many other and lesser charges were brought forth against Apuleius.2 Even though these charges, which included po verty, erotic poetry, and the use of mysterious objects, seemed quite trivial compared to the main issue at stake, Apuleius dedicated a substantial part of his speech to their refutation.3 The accusers mainly used these additional charges to deface Apuleius r eputation as a philosopher, which probably aggravated him greatly. As a result, he spent the greater part of his speech dealing with these charges. This also allowed him to grad ually paint a picture of his accusers before getting to the actual charge. This chapter focuses on the first part of the speech by examining how the prosecution used poverty as an accusation to slander Apuleius. It also surveys how 2 See Apul. Apol 66-101 for the main charge. 3 See Apul. Apol 4-65 for the minor charges.
30 Apuleius used images of intellectual poverty to slowly win over his audience by making them feel part of his privileged and intellectu ally wealthy group, as opposed to the base and intellectually poor accusers. Setting the Stage From the very beginning, Apuleius makes it clear that the real accusation of poverty should be aimed at Sicinius Aemi lianus, who has filled h is accusation of Apuleius with nothing but baseless slander, due to a lack ( penuria ) of actual charges:4 Certus equidem eram proque vero obtinebam, Maxime Cl. quique in consilio estis, Sicinium Aemilianu m, senem notissimae temeritatis, accusationem mei prius apud te coeptam quam apud se cogitatam penuria criminum solis conviciis impleturum. (1.1) I felt sure and took it for granted, Claudius Maximus and members of the council, that Sicinius Aemilianus, an old man well known for his recklessness, would fill his accusation of me, which he brought before you before thinking it over himself, wit h nothing but abuse for lack of real charges. Aware that his opponents are accusing hi m of being poor and therefore marrying a wealthy woman, Apuleius casts the accusation of poverty right back at them within the first sentence of his speech. The word penuria does not only refer to a lack of charges in this case, but already foreshadows the material and intellectual poverty of his opponents. He immediately puts this into shar p contrast with his ow n plentiful resources of oratorical skill: Quo ego uno praecipue confisus gratulor medius fidius, quod mihi copia et facultas te iudice optigit purgandae apud imperitos philosophiae et probandi mei. (1.3) Relying on this above all, I count myse lf lucky indeed: with you as a judge I have now been given the chance and oppor tunity to clear the name of Philosophy in the minds of the ignorant, and to justify myself. 4 All Latin excerpts from the speech are taken from Hunink 1997. All English translations are taken from Huninks translation in Harrison 2001.
31 Though Hunink renders copia here as chance, Apuleius Latin-speaking audience would surely have also understood it as its ot her meaning, abundance, in contrast to Aemilianus penuria Besides portraying Aemilianus as lacking any real charges, Apuleius also depicts him as being void of confidence and cowardly looking for a hiding-place: Ibi vero Aemilianus cum te quoque acrius motum et ex ve rbis rem factam videret, quaerere occipit ex diffidentia latibulum aliquod temeritati. (1.7) By then, however, Aemilianus saw that you were fiercely indignant and that the matter had become one of deeds rat her than words, and for lack of confidence he began to seek a hiding-place for his recklessness. His sense of decency is compared to a poor mans tattered and threadbare clothing, worn so often that it no longer receives any care: Pudor enim veluti vestis quanto obsole[n ]tior est, tanto incuriosior habetur. (3.3) For a sense of decency is like clothing: the more worn it becomes, the less care it is given. Apuleius sense of decency, on the other hand, is described as undiminished and is therefore implicitly co mpared with the clothing of a wealthy man, who is able to care for it and only wear it on appropriate occasions: Et ideo necessarium arbitror pro integritate pudoris mei, priusquam ad rem aggrediar, maledicta omnia refutare. (3.4) And accordingly, I think it necessary for my own sense of decency, which remains undiminished, to refute all abus ive allegations before turning to the case itself. Apuleius accusation of intellectual poverty is not only aimed at Aemilianus, but also at his hired sidekicks. They are characterized as day laborers, looking only for a profit and another days work, a sight not at all uncomm on in Roman Africa. Hunink also points out
32 that [g]enerally speaking, in antiquity the motif of financ ial gain was associated with a low social status, thereby identifying the social standing attribut ed to these advocates.5 Propter quod paulo prius patroni Aemiliani multa in me proprie conficta et alia communiter in philosophos sueta ab imperitis mercennaria loquacitate effutierunt. Quae etsi possunt ab hi s utiliter blaterat a ob mercedem et auctoramento impudentiae depensa haber i, iam concesso quodam more rabulis id genus, quo ferme solent linguae suae virus alieno dolori locare (3.6-3.7) Precisely for that reason, Aemilianus lawyers, wit h their hired garrulity, have just now blurted out many fabrications about me in particular and other general reproaches against philosophers usually made by the ignorant. This may of course be consi dered as profitable babbling for a reward, paid with the fee for their impudence. This is what this sort of tubthumper is now more or less allowed to do: they commonly hire out their venomous tongues to harm others. Nevertheless, being the skilled speak er that he is, Apuleius is careful not to just portray himself as a wealthy man and his opponents as poor, as will become clear in the next part of the speech. He is cons tantly aware of his literary audi ence and the jury, some of whom most likely would be offended by such a poorly nuanced portrayal. After the exordium, Apuleius starts tack ling the minor charges that will eventually take up most of the speec h. He first deals with the charge of beauty and eloquence: Tannonius Pudens, presumably a relative of the young Pudens, had introduced Apuleius in his accusation as handsome, eloquent, and fluent in both Latin and Greek. Most likely, Tannonius had done so in an attempt to create a distance between Apuleius and his audience in court, many of whom were native P unic speakers. In addition, Hunink points out that exce ssive grooming could easily be interpreted as a sign of weakness and moral flaws and t hus of luxury and dandyism.6 Apuleius fights off the 5 Hunink 1997: 19b. 6 Hunink 1997: 22b, 25b.
33 charge, not only by refuting it completely, but also by explaining his shabby appearance as being caused by his intellectual drive for knowledge: Sed haec defensio, ut dixi, aliquam mu ltum a me remota est, cui praeter formae mediocritatem continuatio etia m litterati laboris omnem gratiam corpore deterget, habitudinem tenuat, sucum exsorbet, colorem obliterat, vigorem debilitat. Capillus ipse, quem isti aperto mendacio ad lenocinium decoris promissum dixere, vides quam sit amoenus ac delicatus: horrore implexus atque impeditus, stuppeo toment o adsimilis et in aequaliter hirtus et globosus et congestus, pror sum inenodabilis (4.10-4.12) But this type of defense, as I said, is some distance removed from me. It is not just that I am gifted with only m ediocre looks, but incessant literary activity wipes out my bodily cha rm, makes me perceptibly meager, consumes my vital life-sap, effaces my healthy colour (sic), disables my strength. Just look at my hair! With an outright lie they said I wear it long to make my beauty alluring. Well, you see how pleasant and elegant it is: it is all entwined and stuck together, much like flax for stuffing cushions, irregularly shaggy, bunched, and p iled up, really inextricable. Apuleius description of himself would be more fitting for a poor farmer, working the field all day and not spending any time on his outwa rd appearance. Neglect of ones physical presence was in a way almost typi cal of the traditional Roman man.7 By successfully refuting the charge, Apuleius therefore re connects with his North African audience. Yet he continues to tie all of this into his portr ayal of himself as an intellectually wealthy man, who finds his riches in the teachi ngs of philosophy. Thus the shabbier his appearance grows, the richer his mind becomes. Next, Apuleius moves on to the a ccusation of poetic licentiousness. The accusers had brought forth some of his poem s, including one on dental hygiene and two on his love for younger boys. Apuleius ince ssantly continues to depict his opponents as poor country bumpkins and himself as the educated philosopher. He also feels confident about having the audience on his si de, since he claims that the manner in 7 Hunink 1997: 26b.
34 which the accusers recited the poems is the reason why his poetry raised anger from those listening: eos absone et indocte pronuntiarent. (5.6) they recited them harshly and ignorantly. quos tamen tam dure et rustice legere, ut odium moverent. (9.1) which they none the less read aloud with such harshness and rusticity that the poetry raised only hatred. Since all wealth and intellectual activity were centered around the urban areas at that time, describing Aemilianus and his henchmen as rustic immediately labels them as ignorant and poor. Apuleius is then quick to contrast this with his own educational background: he starts name-dropping several Greek and Roman poets and writers, including Sappho, Catullus, and even emperor Hadrian, in order to display his own intellectual wealth.8 In addition, he then recites his ow n poems to the crowd. According to his own speech, he does this to show t hat he is not ashamed of them. However, one quickly understands that he is also doing th is to offset the poor recitation by his accusers. Before moving on to the actual charge of pov erty, Apuleius very clearly reiterates to the audience why he and Aemilianus are so different. Whereas Apuleius is a wise and intellectually wealthy man, who wonders about things around him and has the intellectual curiosity to look into a mirro r, Aemilianus is nothing but an irrelevant and mentally poor field worker, who lives in di rt and darkness, similar to a cockroach or any kind of vermin: 8 Apul. Apol 9.7, 10.3, 11.2, and 11.4.
35 Quem tu librum, Aemiliane, si nosses ac non modo campo et glebis, verum etiam abaco et pulvisculo te dedisses, mi hi istud crede, profecto discendi cupidine speculum inviseres et aliquando re licto aratro mirarere tot in facie tua sulcos rugarum. (16.7) If you had known his [Archimedes fr om Syracuse] book, Aemilianus, and had not devoted yourself just to the clods of the field but also to the sand on the counting-board, believe me, curi osity would certainly have made you look into a mirror. Yes, finally you would have left your plough and wondered about all those furrows in your face. et adhuc < h >ercle non satis novi. Id adeo factum, quod et tu rusticando obscurus es et ego discendo occupatus. cum ipse humilitate abdita et lucifuga non sis mihi mutuo conspicuus. (16.9-13) Actually, not even today do I know a great deal about you. The reason for this is that you are invi sible because of your fa rmers life, whereas I am absorbed by my studies. you in turn are kept out of my sight by your lowly life that shuns the light. The Charge of Poverty Now that Apuleius has clearly created a division between himself as a man of wisdom and his accusers as ignorant countrym en, he is ready to deal with the actual charge of poverty. According to Aemilianus and his advocates, Apuleius had come to Oea as a poor man in the company of one slave but had s hortly thereafter manumitted three slaves in one day. As Hunink points ou t, the accusers most likely tried to make the point that Apuleius had co me to Oea with one slave only, i.e. as a poor man, and after only a short time was seen to set fr ee three slaves, i.e. as a man who has suddenly become rich (e.g. by marriage) and is now squandering his money.9 If so, Apuleius is purposely trying to misrepres ent the matter by turning to full-fledged sophism: Quod quidem velim mihi respondeas, qui potuerim ex uno tris manu mittere, nisi si et hoc magicum est. (17.3) 9 Hunink 1997: 69b.
36 Well, explain this to me: how can I m anumit three slaves out of one? Or is this yet another example of magic? Most likely, the three slaves had been in Apuleius possession for a long time. According to Hunink, a new marriage may have indeed been the perfect time to set free old and faithful slaves.10 Apuleius therefore deliberatel y makes advantage of the fact that he was seen in the company of one slav e, which does not rule out possession of more slaves. He then turns the possession of three slaves into a sign of poverty instead of wealth: cur potius tris servos inopiae signum putares quam tris libertos opulentiae? (17.5) why would you think three slaves are a sign of destitution rather than three freedmen one of wealth? Though some scholars believe that owning thr ee slaves was actually a sign of wealth, examples also exist to suggest the opposite. Fo r instance, in the four th century C.E. the Greek sophist Libanius pleaded for an increase in the stipend for his lecturers. He claimed they were miserable and underpaid sinc e they could only afford about two or three slaves each.11 Apuleius accusers most likely agreed that owning three slaves was the privilege of a wealthy man, but Apuleius himself decides to represent it as the opposite to aid his cause and distort the original charge brought against him. According to Apuleius, poverty was actually honorable for a philosopher: Nescis profecto, nescis, Aemiliane, philosophum accusare, qui famulitii paucitatem obprobraris, quam ego gl oriae causa ementiri debuissem, quippe qui scirem non modo philosophos quorum me sectatorem fero, verum etiam imperatores populi Romani paucitate servorum gloriatos. (17.6) 10 Hunink 1997: 69b. 11 Lib. Orat. 31.11. Finley 1999: 79.
37 You do not know, Aemilianus, you really do not know, how to accuse a philosopher. Against me you bring up my small number of servants, but that is something I should have simulated for the sake of glory. For I know only too well that not merely philosophers (of whom I claim to be a devotee) but also generals of the Roman people have gl oried in the small number of their slaves. This laus paupertatis was by no means a new concept. According to Hunink, it is clearly redolescent of the rhetorical school and exempla literature.12 For example, in the Controversiae Seneca the Elder claimed that pov erty actually makes a person innocent.13 Seneca the Younger also stated that ri ches have shut off many a man from the attainment of wisdom, whereas pov erty is unburdened and free from care.14 Already by the middle of the Republic, the Romans cu ltivated the idea of t he poor but virtuous man who only devotes his life to work and civic duty.15 Some well-known examples include Cincinnatus, who returned to his simp le farmers life after being a dictator, and Cato the Elder, who lived a humble and virt uous life and eventua lly became consul.16 To justify his amount of slaves, Apuleius al so reminds his audience of Marcus Antonius, who owned only eight slaves, Cn. Papirius Carbo, who had only seven, Manius Curius, who had only two, and Marcus Cato, who to ok only three to Spain with him when he was consul.17 By the late Republic peopl e started seeing lavish luxury as leading to moral decay and political corruption.18 This point was clearly stated by Sallust in the 12 Hunink 1997: 68b. 13 Sen. Con 2.4.7: quam te, paupertas, amo, si beneficio tuo innocens sum! Woolf 2006: 88. 14 Sen. Ep. 2.17.3: multis ad philosophandum obstitere divi tiae: paupertas expedita est, secura est Woolf 2006: 92. 15 Osborne 2006: 13. 16 For Cincinnatus, see Liv. 3.26-29. For Cato the Elder, see Plut. Cat. Mai. 3.1-3. 17 Apul. Apol 17.7-10. 18 Osborne 2006: 15.
38 Bellum Catilinae : Catilinas incessant desire for money led to a desire for power and thus depravity as it had done to many Romans before him.19 As a philosopher, Apuleius also found his inspiration in the writings of Socrates and Pl ato. According to Socrates, wealth was by no means essential in obt aining the good life and Plato even suggested that all philosophic rulers should give up their possessions.20 In his defense, Apuleius proclaims poverty as the handmaiden of everything good: Enim paupertas olim p ilosophiae vernacula est, frugi, sobria, parvo potens, aemula laudis, adversum divitias posse ssa, habitu secura, cultu simplex, consilio benesuada. Neminem umquam superbia inflavit, neminem inpotentia depravavit, neminem tyr annide efferavit, delicias ventris en inguinum neque vult ulla s neque potest. (18.2-3) For Poverty has long been a member of Philosophys family; she is honest and sober, content with little and eager for praise, a stable possession compared with wealth, safe to have, ea sy to maintain, and liberal with good advice. No one has she ever filled with conceit, no one has she corrupted through lack of restraint, no one has she maddened through absolute power, and for gastronomic or sexual pleasures she has neither care nor talent. Wealth, on the other hand, he cl aims to be the source of some of the worst crimes in Romes history: Quippe haec et alia flagitia di vitiarum alumni solent. (18.4) These and other shameful deeds are norma l only for the nurslings of wealth. He then states that all eminent men in Ro mes history found their start in poverty, probably hoping to include himself in this number for the sake of his cause: Maxima quaeque scelera si ex omni memoria hominum percenseas, nullum in illis pauperem reperies, ut contra haut temere inter inlu stris viros divites comparent, sed quemcunque in aliqua laude miramur, eum paupertas ab incunabilis nutricita est. (18.4-5) 19 Sal. Cat. 10-13. Osborne 2006: 14. 20 Finley 1999: 36.
39 If you review the worst crimes of history, you will not find a poor man involved in them. Conversely, among illu strious men the rich are not readily to be seen, but all whom we adm ire for whatever good reason have been nursed from the cradle by poverty. In addition, Apuleius praises poverty as the source of cu lture and the arts: Paupertas, inquam, prisca apud saecula omnium civitatium conditrix, omnium atrium repertrix, omnium peccatorum inops, omnis gloriae munifica, cunctis laudibus apud om nis nationes perfuncta. (18.6) Poverty, I say, is the age-old, universal founder of communities and inventor of arts, destitute of mora l offences, but bountif ul with glory, and praised in every manner by all nations. Yet one should not forget that Apuleius is r eally a wealthy man, who is married to an even wealthier woman. His fathers weal th provided him with a good education and allowed him to travel to different centers of learning with in the Roman Empire. Because of this wealth, Apuleius was able to becom e a man of culture and the arts, even though he tells his audience that these aspects have to come from poverty. Later in the speech Apuleius even presents fourteen of his own slaves in his defense and describes them as a large staff, which completely cont radicts his claim of owning few slaves.21 To reconcile this contradiction, one mu st remember that A puleius was a skilled orator who knew how to manipulate his audi ence and adapt different ideologies to his own goals. He was a philosopher and was only able to be one because of his wealth: if he had truly been poor, he would have had to work his fields every day or practiced a trade in order to sustain himself. Yet as a Platonic philosopher and a sophist, he supported the ideology of pov erty and he used that ideology to refute the charges against him. Since an accusation of poverty was common slander at t hat time, it was a 21 Apul. Apol. 45.1 and 47.1: XIIII servos quos postul asti exhibeo. Aut cur sisti postulabas tantam familiam?
40 theme on which he could easily elaborate and about which his audience was most likely very familiar.22 Apuleius must have been confident that many of his listeners were bound to nod their heads in agreement since this laus paupertatis was so well known and ingrained in contemporary ideology and orat ory. He also played this card well: his accusers never actually used the word pover ty against him as far as we can tell. They only stated that he had come to Oea with one slave and had then freed three a short period afterward. It is much more likely that they had actually intended to accuse him of being a nouveau riche who had just married a wealthy widow for her money and was now abusing his newly attained position. But it was Apuleius turn to speak now, and he cleverly manipulated their charge to aid his own cause. By claiming that he had freed three slaves, they must have meant that he was too poor to own more slaves, so therefore he insists they actually accus ed him of poverty, a charge he could easily refute based on all the oratorical experience he had. It is clear that Apuleius had no real intentions to live as a poor man. He was obviously not interested in plowing his own field and he never took up any political office, as opposed to textbook examples such as Cincinnatus and Cato the Elder. His real passion in life was philosophy and public speaking, both of which were impossible wit hout financial resources to back them up. His poverty therefore, s eems to be nothing more than a rhetorical convention. Nevertheless, Apuleius continued to us e his alleged poverty to link himself to several important historical figures. He a sks his audience to imagi ne that the trial was presided over by Gaius Fabricius, Gnaeus Scipio, and Manius Curius, generals from the third century B.C.E., all of whom were so poor that they had to use state funds to 22 Hunink 1997: 68b.
41 provide their daughters with a dowry.23 Next, he brings to mind P. Valerius Publicola, consul during the first year of the Republic, and Menenius Agrippa, consul in 503 B.C.E. and responsible for ending the first secessio plebis .24 Both men were of such modest means that the Roman people collected money to provide them wit h a proper funeral. Finally he mentions Atilius Regulus, a famous general that was put to death in Carthage in the third century B.C.E., whose field had to be farmed at public expense because he could not afford it by himself.25 He then addresses his accuser and creates an imaginary confrontation between him and a group of well-known authorities: si denique omnes illae veteres pros apiae consulares et censoriae et triumphales brevi usura lucis ad iudicium istud remissae audirent, auderesne paupertatem philosopho exprobrare apud tot consules pauperes? (18.12) yes, suppose all those ancient lines of consuls and censors and celebrators of triumphs were tempor arily granted the boon of light to come back to earth to attend this trial: w ould you dare to reproach a philosopher with poverty, in front of so many poor consuls? Apuleius clearly aims to rank himself am ong these prominent men to win his case. The word prosapia which can be translated as lineage or family, was a very archaic word. By using this word, Apuleius not only portra ys these famous figures as related to him, he also shows off his knowledge and eloquence in order to dazzle his audience and lend weight to his argument. So as not to overlook the actual judge pres iding over his trial, Apuleius then subtly identifies himself with Claudius Maximus, who had also been granted a copious patrimony but was nevertheless a philosoph er who was bound to agree with Apuleius 23 Apul. Apol 18.9. 24 Apul. Apol 18.10. 25 Apul. Apol 18.11.
42 views. By putting himself and the judge on the same intellectual and financial level, he aims to create a gap between the accusers and the judge, who most likely felt flattered by the remark. He then puts words in the judges mouth that acco rd with his own views of poverty and wealth. Here at last is a cl ear picture of how Apul eius defines poverty and wealth: fortunam velut tunicam magis conc innam quam longam probare; quippe etiam ea si non gestetur et trahatur, nihil minus quam lacinia praependens impedit et praecipitat. Etenim omnibus ad vitae munia utendis quicquid aptam moderationem supergreditur, honeri potius quam usui exuberat. Igitur et inmodicae divitiae velut i ngentia et enormia gubernacula facilius mergunt quam regunt, quod habent irri tam copiam, noxiam nimietatem. (19.2-5) A man of his caliber approves of a fortune on the same grounds as a tunic: it should be a good fit rather than too l ong. For a mans fort une too, if it can no longer be worn and must be dragged along, hampers him much like a garment hanging down in front and causes a fall. Really, this is how it is with all things in normal life: whatev er exceeds due measure is more of a burden than a benefit. So too, excessive wealth is like an outsize rudder that sinks rather than steers, its abundance being of no avail, its excess bringing only harm. After flattering the judge with their common ideas on wealth and poverty, Apuleius goes on to justify indirectly his own affluent ye t moderate life-style, though he does not openly admit that he is referring to himself: Quin ex ipsis opulentioribus eos poti ssimum video laudari, qui nullo strepitu, modico cultu, dissimulatis facultatibus agunt et divitias magnas administrant sine ostentatione, sine superbia, s pecie mediocritatis pauperum similes. (19.6) Moreover, even among the more well-to-do, I see t hat those in particular are praised who live in silence and temperance, and who do not put their resources on display. They manage thei r huge wealth without affectation or arrogance, and their seemingly moderate means make them look like poor men.
43 Though Apuleius is speaking about others, it is apparent that he is really describing himself as well. Based on what we know abo ut Apuleius and his financial resources, he clearly fits into this category. Nevertheless, he continues to classify himself as an actual poor man to identify with his audi ence, which is apparent from his use of the first person plural in the next sentence: Quod si etiam ditibus ad argumentum modestiae quaeritur imago quaepiam et color paupertatis, cur eius pudeat tenuioris, qui eam non simulate, sed vere fungimur? (19.7) But if even rich people wish to convey an impression of modesty and so look for an image and semblance of poverty why would really poor folk like us be ashamed of it? Our poverty is not fictitious but real. Despite evidence that proves opposite, he again refers to himself as one of the poor in order to maintain his argument of poverty. Yet at the same time he was also able to insert an excuse for his real financial stat us and way of life. The audience did not seem to mind this rhetorical dichotomy and a ccepted it easily, as proven by Apuleius confidence in bringing forth the argument. Apuleius Philosophical Interpretation of Poverty Next, Apuleius moves on to describe a more philosophical meaning of poverty. He argues that poverty actually has nothing to do with money or lack of it: it is a mentality. A real paup er is one who continuously wants more and is never satisfied, even if he has an immense fortune. A wealth y man, on the other hand, no matter how little money he actually has, is content with w hat he has and desires the least. As a true philosopher, he reasons that: Et idcirco divitiae non melius in fundis et in fenore quam in ipso hominis animo aestimantur (20.3) Therefore, a mans wealth should bes t be measured not in his land or interest but in his own soul.
44 si nihil in animo deest, de rebus extrariis quantum desit non laboro (20.9) as long as nothing is lacking in my soul, I do not bother about how much I miss in external things. By now, Apuleius has covered his bases no ma tter where the attack comes from. If they accuse him of being poor, he will take it as a compliment because that is what fits a true philosopher. If they accuse him of being rich, he will equally accept it since this means his soul is free from longing and desire. In all of this, one might notice a striking similarity with the writings of Plut arch, another Platonist, who stated that:26 Poverty is never dishonorable in itself, but only when it is a mark of sloth, intemperance, extravagance, or thought lessness. When, on the other hand, it is the handmaid of a sober, indust rious, righteous, and brave man, who devotes all his powers to the service of the people, it is the sign of a lofty spirit that harbors no m ean thoughts. God alone is absolutely free from wants. For as a body which is well tempered and vigorous needs no superfluous food or raiment, so a health y individual or family life can be conducted with the simplest outlays. Great is the simple life, and great its independence, but only becaus e it frees a man from the anxious desire of superfluous things. those who were poor in spite of themselves should be ashamed of their poverty; those w ho, like himself, chose poverty, should glory in it. Realizing that not ever yone in the audience might see poverty and wealth in a philosophical light, Apuleius returns to thei r materialistic meaning. He starts by listing ways in which he could have been reduced to poverty, if that had actually been the case: a guardian might have reduced his weal th, an enemy might have stolen it, or his father might not have left him any money. He then quickly pretends that this imaginary condition is actually a fact: Sed finge me ideo pauperem tu mi hi vitio dabis quod vivo gracili lare, quod paucioris habeo, parcius pasco, levius vestio, minus obsono? (21.1-2) 26 Plut. Comp. Aristid. Cat. 3.2. Translated by Perrin 1914.
45 But imagine that I am poor Will you count against me my living in a modest household and owning few slaves, eating simply, dressing soberly, and dining sparingly? For Apuleius, living soberly is a conscious choi ce. He explains to t he audience that this simple life is even too luxurious for him since less luxury leads to more happiness: certumque signum est informitatis pluribus indigere. Prorsus ad vivendum velut ad natandum est melior, qui onere liberior; sunt enim similiter etiam in ista vitae humanae tempestate[s] levia sustentui, gravia demersui. (21.4-5) To be in need of many things is a clear sign of frailty. Living is like swimming: the less you have to carry, the better you will fare. For in the storms of human life likewise lighte r things keep you afloat, but heavy things make you sink. This choice of metaphor was by no means co incidental: it is reminiscent of a similar metaphor by the Stoic philosopher Seneca, whose teachings the judge of the trial adhered.27 As a sophist, Apuleius is clearly very aware of his choice of words. Without naming any specific names, he goes on to almost deify himself and the judge: Equidem didici ea re praecedere maxi me deos hominibus, quod nulla re ad usum sui indigeant, igitur ex nobis cui quam minimis opus sit, eum esse deo similiorem. (21.6) For my part, I have learnt that t he gods rank before men particularly because of this: there is nothing they require. So whoever among us needs the least is most similar to a god. At this point, Apuleius lets us in on another part of the original accusation: Proinde gratum habui, cum ad contumelia m diceretis rem familiarem mihi peram et baculum fuisse. (22.1) So I was much obliged by your insulti ng remark that my property consists of just a bag and a staff. The accusers had clearly intended this to be an insult, but Apuleius regards it as a compliment. The bag and staff were typical of the Cynic philosophers, who believed in a 27 Sen. Ep. 22.12: nemo cum sarcinis enatat. Hunink 1997: 76b.
46 rejection of all possessions and aspired to live a life in agreement with nature.28 Apuleius is eager to be seen as a true philosopher and does not pass up any opportunity to bring this to the audiences attention. He offers them the example of Crates, a rich and famous man who gave up everything he owned and went through life as a Stoic, only carrying a little bag. Cr ates even praised the bag in a poem and Apuleius eagerly quotes the first line of th is poem, adding that Aemilianus surely never read this and thereby stigmatizing hi m again as rustic and uneducated: quae si tu legisses, magis mihi peram quam nuptias Pudentillae invidisses. (22.5) Had you read them, you would have been j ealous of my bag rather than my marriage with Pudentilla. By now Apuleius has finally revealed the tr uth behind the whole prosecution: Aemilianus had accused Apuleius of being poor and therefore wanting to marry the wealthy widow Pudentilla. For now, Apuleius is careful not touch on this subject too much and he calls attention back to himself by almost rendering himself equal to Hercules, the ultimate hero and the embodiment of the ideal man in both Stoicism and Cynicism.29 Not only had Hercules travelled the world and purged it of wild beasts, he had also ascended to heaven wearing nothing but an animal hide and ca rrying only a staff. In addition, when arriving at a crossroads as a young man, Hercules had been faced with the choice between good and evil. Although the path that lead to evil and pleasure was easy and effortless, Hercules chose the arduous path that led to virtue. Even though Hercules was by no means a philosopher, Apuleius almo st makes his audience believe that he is in order to top off his list of historical references with a true hero. 28 Hunink 1997: 76b. 29 Harrison 2001: 47.
47 Apuleius concludes his rebuttal to the charge of poverty by casting a light on his own financial situation: profiteor mihi ac fratri meo relic tum a patre HS XX paulo secus, idque a me longa peregrinatione et diutinis studiis et crebris liber alitatibus modice imminutum. (23.1-2) So I proclaim that my brother and I i nherited nearly 2 milli on sesterces from our father. I have considerably reduced this capital by travelling abroad for a long time, extended studies, and frequent instances of generosity. Instead of providing his audienc e with more clarity in the matter, Apuleius actually causes more confusion. Earlier on he portrayed himself as a poor man in order to turn the initial accusation into a matter of praise and to add to his status as a true philosopher. On the other hand, Apuleius now admits to his rather substantial fortune in order to undermine the accusers charge of marrying Pudentilla for her money. And above all, as Hunink points out, he wants to disassociate himself from poor men like Aemilianus.30 So as not to be seen as extravagant, he also elaborates on why he has significantly reduced his fortune: surely no one could fault him for giving his money to his teachers in gratitude, spending it on his education, or offering it to a friend to finance a dowry. This last example is clearly remini scent of 18.9, where Apuleius discussed the three famous generals from the third cent ury B.C.E. whose daug hters were given dowries financed by the state. To finish it a ll off, Apuleius turns the charge of being a poor man bent on enriching himself on his accusers: Tu vero, Aemiliane, et id genus homines uti tu es inculti et agrestes, tati re vera estis quantum habetis, ut arbor infecunda et infelix, quae nullum fructum ex sese gignit, tanti est in pretio, quanti lignum eius in trunco. (23.5) 30 Hunink 1997: 79b.
48 But you, Aemilianus, and those uncouth and rustic folk like you, are really worth as much as you have. A ster ile and barren tree that does not bring forth fruit is worth no more than its wood. Unlike Apuleius, who brings value to his surroundings by his studies, Aemilianus has no value since he does not benefit others. Apulei us, who in 17.1 had stated that he knew nothing about Aemilianus land, slaves, or busine ss, now seems to be privy to all of this information. He urges Aemilianus to stop blaming others for his destitution and divulges to the audience that Aemilianus father had le ft him nothing but a small plot of land, which he had to plow by himself with the help of only one donkey. Even so, he had to wait for the rain to come in order to comple te the task, which easil y took about three full days. According to Hunink, these were some devastating details, suggestive of extreme barrenness and poverty.31 By singling Aemilianus out for his destitute condition, Apuleius does not only humiliate him, he also provides us with a very plausible explanation as to why Aemilianus came after him in the first place: his poverty made him envious of Apuleius marriage to Pudentilla, whose fortune Aemilianus had hoped to get his hands on. In addition, Apulei us then reproaches Aemilianus for his newfound wealth as well: his recent a ffluence was undeserved since he gained it through a series of bereavements among hi s relatives, whose death he might even have caused. To bring the whole reproach to a climax, he wraps it up by giving Aemilianus the nickname Charon, a figure known for his love of money and the embodiment of an Etruscan demon of death. 32 31 Hunink 1997: 80b. 32 Hunink 1997: 81b.
49 Other Minor Charges After dealing with the charge of poverty, Apuleius moves on to rebuke several lesser charges such as the acquisition of fish for magical purposes, the hiding of a secret object, the possession of a strange figurine, and the making of a nocturnal sacrifice. Throughout all of these, he cont inues to tie in his opponents intellectual poverty, their base origins, and their i nability to comprehend true wealth. He sarcastically apologizes to Aemilianus by saying: non elegi illud tuum Atticum Za rat, ut in eo nascerer. (24.10) I did not choose this Attic Zarath of yours to be born in. As Hunink points out, the poor, provincial vill age Zarath is sarcastically given an epithet suggesting high culture.33 While Aemilianus was ignorant of any Greek, it was widely known that Apuleius was not only fluent in Greek, but had also imbued its culture and learning.34 Not only does he stigmatize Aemi lianus for coming from an uncivilized village, he also chides him for not having any education at all.35 Aemilianus is also characterized as a man who knows nothing of nor cares for religion, a field in which Apuleius was highly interested and educated: Atque ego scio nonnullos et cum primis Aemilianum istum facetiae sibi habere res divinas deridere. Nam, ut audio partim Oe< e >nsium qui istum novere, nulli deo ad hoc aevi supplicavit, nullum templum frequentavit Ist e vero nec dis rurationis, qui eum pa scunt et vestiunt, segetis ullas aut vitis aut gregis primitia s impertit. (56.3-5) I am well aware that some people, particu larly our friend Aemilianus, think it is a witty thing to laugh at matters of religion. For as I am told by some 33 Harrison 2001: 49. 34 For Aemilianus inability to read Greek, see 30.11: ni te dudum animadvertissem Graecam Pudentillae epistulam legere nequivisse. 35 Apul. Apol 31.1: si tibi ulla eruditio adfuisset
50 residents of Oea who know him, never in all his life has he sacrificed to any god, never has he visited a temple Not even the gods of husbandry, who none the less feed and clothe hi m, are given any first offerings of grain, grapes, or sheep. Apuleius continues to put this into sharp c ontrast with his own learning by quoting wellknown authorities such as Quintus Ennius, Plato, and Aristotle and with the erudition of the judge, whose favo r he is courting: Bene quod apud te, Maxime, causa agitu r, qui pro tua eruditione legisti profecto Aristotelis multiiuga volumina (36.5) Thank goodness this case is held before you, Maximus! Of course, as an educated man you have read Aristotles many volumes A final onslaught against Aemilianus comes in t he form of an attack on his friend, Iunius Crassus, in whose house Apuleius had s upposedly performed a nocturnal sacrifice. Crassus, who is described by Apuleius as a hog and insatiable drunk, had submitted a written testimony against Apuleius in which he accused him of performing some kind of magic ritual in his house while he was away in Alexandria.36 He deduced all this from the soot-stained walls of his room and the bi rd feathers that were left behind on the floor. Unlike Apuleius, Crassus had not gone to Alexandria to study: Apuleius insists that he was only there to indulge his vice s and attend numerous symposia. Upon his return, he sold his testimony to Aemilianus, which was a criminal offence. Moreover, he sold it early in the morning, before eight o clock, presumably so he could spend the rest of the day eating and drinking with the m oney he had just acquir ed. In order to undermine this testimony, Apuleius brings us a very lively and detailed description of the man: 36 Apul. Apol 57.2: gumiae cuiusdam et desperati lurconis Iuni Crassi Hunink 1997: 154b.
51 Nam equidem hic Sabratae e um hesterna die animadver ti satis notabiliter in medio foro tibi, Aemilia ne, obructantem. (59.2) For yesterday I saw him in Sabrat ha: in the middle of the Forum, Aemilianus, he was fairly conspicuously belching in your face! caput iuvenis barba et capillo populatum, madentis oculos, cilia turgentia, rictum <> sali vosa labia, vocem obsonam, manuum tremorem, ructus < po >pinam. Patrimonium omne ia m pridem abligurrivit, nec quicquam ei de bonis paternis super est, nisi una domus ad calumniam venditandam, quam tamen numquam carius quam in hoc testimonio locavit; n a m temulentum istud mendacium tri bus milibus nummis Aemiliano huic vendidit, idque Oeae nemini ignoratur. res acta est in Rufini cuiusdam domo Quod eo libentius Rufinus perfe cit, quod erat certus ad uxorem suam, cuius stupra sciens dissimulat, non minimam partem praemii eius Crassum relaturum. (59.6-8, 60.2) a young mans head, bereaved of bear d and hair, watery eyes, swollen eyelids, a broad grin, slobbering lips, an ugly voice, trembling hands, and a breath smelling of cheap eating-places He squandered all of his patrimony long ago and nothing of his paternal pr operty is left except for one house, where he can capitalize on his calumny. Never has he rented it out for more than in this testimony. For he has sold his drunken lie to our Aemilianus here for 3,000 sesterces, as everybody in Oea knows perfectly well. It happened in the house of a certain Rufi nus Rufinus was all the more eager to assist, because he was certain that a large part of the price paid to Crassus was to go to his wife: he read ily turns a blind eye to her sexual misconduct. Since Crassus himself did not attend the tria l, his testimony had to be read to the court. Apuleius takes advantage of this by explaining his absence in a way that stigmatizes him even more as a hopeless drunk who squanders all his money: Quid sit diei vides: dico Crassum iam dudum ebrium stertere, aut secundo lavacro ad repotia cenae obeunda vinul entum sudorem in balneo desudare. sed fortasse nec tantulum potuit ebr ia sibi temperare, ut hanc horam sobrie expectaret. (59.3-4) You see what time of the day it is I am sure that Crassus has long been drunk and snoring, or is taking a second bath and sweating out his inebriated sweat in the bathhouse, to prepare for an after-dinner drinking bout. but he probably could not even slightly moderate his lust for drink so as to wait for this hour in a state of sobriety.
52 Apuleius explanation of Crassus absence is in sharp contrast with Apuleius own strict and sober life-style. While Crassus wastes his days and his money, Apuleius lives as soberly as possible and dedicates his time to the study of the gr eater good. This of course only adds to Apuleius own credibility and completely annihilates that of Crassus testimony. Aemilianus acquaintance with such a man helps Apuleius in branding both of them as worthless human beings and of inte llectual poverty, which is crucial for his defense. If the audience does indeed see Aemilianus and his accomplices through Apuleius eyes and acknowledges that they are indeed poor and uneducated men who recently acquired some money and are now hungr y for more, they are far more likely to believe Apuleius claim that the true reason behind this whol e trial is Aemilianus desire to obtain part of Pudentillas fortune, as Apuleius will attempt to prove in the second half of his speech. Conclusion Throughout the first half of his speech, Apuleius has led us through many aspects and definitions of poverty. It is im possible to ascribe just one of these to Apuleius. He claims to be both poor and we althy at the same time, depending on his need. On the one hand, he admits that he has a substantial fortune. The fact that he can devote his life to philosophy and public s peaking confirms this. Then again, he calls himself one of the poor because he attempts to live a sober and humble life-style, as befits a true philosopher. In contrast, he describes Aemilianus as a poor man who probably acquired his new fortune through criminal means and now aspires to live a life of wasteful luxury. When considering poverty on a more philosophical level, Apuleius considers himself very wealthy because his s oul is free from vain desire. Aemilianus on the other hand, is a true poor man because he constantly longs for more. By now
53 Apuleius has set the scene for the second half of the speech, in which he will refute the fact that he married Pudentil la for her money, since he has no desire for material wealth, and prove that Aemilianus is actually out to get her fortune by means of this trial, since he is a man whose lust fo r wealth can not be satiated.
54 CHAPTER 4 IMAGES OF POVERTY AND WEALTH IN THE MAIN CHARGE While refuting the minor charges, Apuleius carefully presented his audience with his personal views on poverty and wealth. The idea he wanted to convey to them was that he was a poor man by choice, which in turn made him a wealthy man because he was free from materialistic desire. His opponents, so he claimed, desired to live a lavish and decadent life-style, which actually made them poor according to Apuleius philosophy. He also made it clear that he was an intellectually wealthy man while his accusers were rustic and uneducated and theref ore intellectually poor. These ideas are interwoven in most of the first half of the speech and are ess ential to Apuleius refutation of the main charge. Since Aemilianus had accused him of being a dowry hunter who had only married Pudentilla because of her fortune, it was crucial for Apuleius to undermine this argument by proving to t he judge that he was not interested in materialistic wealth. However, Apuleius k ept delaying the task of tackling the main charge until halfway through the speech, wh ich allowed him to prepare his audience and subtly convince them to adopt his own views. As soon as he perceived that they were fully persuaded and on his side, he felt secure enough to tackle the main charge. The Engagement to Pudentilla Apuleius starts by countering the accusa tion that he profited financially from his union with Pudentilla. He even takes it a st ep further by saying that he should have stayed away from her house complete ly, if he had any desire for profit: quin et in ceteris causis minime pr osperum matrimonium, nisi ipsa mulier tot incommoda virtutibus suis repensaret, in im icum. (66.2) For in general terms this marriage w ould not be advantageous at all, or would even harm my interests, if the woman herself did not compensate for all discomforts through her virtues.
55 One is left to wonder what those discomfor ts really were. Apuleius purposely does not elaborate on this. One possible explanation might be the fact t hat his marriage to Pudentilla prevented him from c ontinuing his journey to Alexan dria and eventually led to this court battle. Yet except for her slight ly older age and her rebellious younger son, Pudentilla was actually a highly desirable spouse. To obtain his personal goal of acquittal, Apuleius of course stresses the fact that she was virtuous and that this is the real reason he married her since virtue consti tutes true wealth for him. Yet one must not forget that Pudentilla wa s nonetheless a very wealthy woman who owned several estates, hundreds of slaves, and millions of sesterces. If someone would have reminded Apuleius of this at that moment, however, he surely would have responded that her material wealth by no means had enticed him, since he considered the desire for money to be a sign of an intellectually poor man and thus unbefitting for a philosopher. Apuleius actually turns the tables on hi s opponents and claims that their own baseless envy is the true reason for the whole trial. He does this by means of elimination: Aemilianus could not be seeking revenge, si nce he had not been harmed by Apuleius in any way. Nor could he be trying to gain glory from this trial, because he is a boorish and barbarous man. It was also impossible for him to seek justification for a moral offence, since he does not have the ability to understand what that would be. Apuleius therefore concludes that: Cuivis clar e dilucet aliam rem invidia nulla m esse quae hunc et Rufinum, impulsorem huius, pr ovocarit. (67.1) it is as clear as the light at noonday to anyone that it was nothing but envy that motivated this man and hi s instigator Herennius Rufus This envy was by no means anything new. When Sicinius Amicus, Pudentillas first husband and Aemilianus brother, died, his father tried to ma rry Pudentilla to his other
56 son, Sicinius Clarus, in order to keep the family fortune within the family. If Pudentilla married an outsider, he would bequeath nothi ng to his grandsons. According to Apuleius, Clarus was nothing but a rust ic and decrepit old man. Consequently, Pudentilla kept delaying t he undesirable union until her fa ther-in-law had passed away. At this point, her sons were left as heirs. Aemilianus, thinking that Pudentilla would still marry his brother, was very supportive of he r intentions to be wed once more. Yet when he found out she had decided to marry Apulei us according to her sons wishes, he greatly opposed the whole plan. He was, of course, worri ed that the family fortune would be usurped by this new intruder. Before he found out that Apuleius was the man of her choice, even Pontianus was highly conc erned about the fact t hat his mother was ready to be married again. Upon receiving her letter, in which she explained her desire to enter into a new marriage, Pontianus hastened back from Rome, fearing that a greedy man had taken hold of his mother and all her assets. Even though Pontianus had inherited his grandfathers money by now, his biggest hope for wealth was placed in his mothers property, which amounted to about four million sesterces. Yet Pudentilla had not chosen a new husband yet and Pontianus then visited with Apuleius, whom he consider to be: peridoneum maritum matri cu i bono periculo totam domus fortunam concrederet. (72.4) a most suitable husband for his mother, a man to whom he could safely entrust his entire house and fortune. If Pontianus, who was clearly concerned about hi s inheritance, was highly in favor of his mothers plan to marry Apuleius, this surely indicated that Apulei us had no intention of taking hold of her wealth. Apuleius theref ore continues to downplay the material advantages of his marriage and stress the fa ct that he was only persuaded to marry
57 Pudetilla because of the true riches of her qualities, as befitted his status as a philosopher: Ni id onus recipiam, quoniam non formosa pupilla, sed mediocri facie mater liberorum mihi offeratur, si haec r eputans formae et divitiarum gratia me ad aliam condicionem reservarem neque pro amico neque pro philosopho facturum. (73.4) If however I did not accept the burden, since it was not a beautiful young girl but an average-looking mother of children I was being offered if pondering this I kept myself for another match, for the sake of beauty and riches, I would be acting neither as a friend, nor as a philosopher. One might initially be shocked by Apuleius rather harsh words about his wife, especially since he was originally offered this description of her by her own son, Pontianus. Yet it wasnt Apuleius intention to insult his wife in any way. On the contrary, he uses this description to present himself in an opport une manner. As Hunink points out, Apuleius consistently adopts the role of the unselfi sh philosopher, who does not care about wealth or physical beauty, but is only conc erned with moral obligat ions, virtue, and lofty pursuits.1 Rufinus Despite Pontianus flattering words about his new stepfather, Apuleius still had to explain the fact that Pontianus tempor arily turned against him and the proposed marriage. Apuleius even admits that at one point Pontianus was ready to do and allow anything to prevent the marriage from happening. Yet Apuleius claims that Pontianus, who had passed away by now and could theref ore not be called to witness, was by no means to blame. He insists that the boy had come under the influence of his new fatherin-law, about whom Apuleius has nothing even remotely kind to say: 1 Hunink 1997: 189b.
58 Herennio Rufino, qui unum neminem in terris viliorem se aut improbiorem aut inquinatiorem reliqui t (74.3) Herennius Rufinus, the vilest, mo st shameless, most impure man on earth. Hic est enim pueruli huius instigator, hic accusationis auctor, hic advocatorum conductor, hic testium coemptor, hic totius calumniae fornacula, hic Aemiliani huius fax et flagellum (74.5) Yes, he is the instigator of this little boy, he is the bringer of this accusation, the hirer of lawyers, the buyer of witnesses; he is the furnace where this whole calumny was forged, the torc h and lash of our Aemilianus here. Est enim omnium litium depector, omni um falsorum commentator, omnium simulationum architectus, omnium malorum seminarium, nec non idem libidinum ganearumque locus, lustrum, lupanar. (74.6) For he is the fixer of all quarrels, the deviser of all falsehoods, the architect of all pretences, the breedi ng-ground of all evils, yes, the place, the haunt, the brothel of licence and gluttony. From Apuleius speech, we learn that Ru finus is now a bald and disfigured man, who even as a young man was willing to submit himself to all kinds of unspeakable and unmanly acts in order to get his hands on so me money. As a youth, he performed in pantomimes, which were often lewd and obsc ene. Apuleius claims that Rufinus had absolutely nothing of an actors skill, exc ept for the sexual impurity that these pantomimes required. He t hen goes on to describe Rufinus household as a whole: Rufinus is a pimp, his wife is a whore, and hi s sons are no better. All day and all night they open their house to adulterers in order to make a profit: Neque enim ulli ad introeundum metus es t, nisi qui pretium marito non attulit. Ita ei lecti sui contumelia vectigalis est. Olim sollers suo, nunc coniugis corpore vulgo meret. (75.2-3) For nobody needs to fear going in, prov ided he has paid the price to the husband. This way the disgrace of his own bed becomes a source of income. Once he smartly earned his money with his own body, now he publicly does so with the body of his wife.
59 Not only is Rufinus presented as the stock character of the leno maritus but his actions as paterfamilias were also against the law.2 Rufinus, however, seems to have taken the law in his own hands: whoever brings along ample means to pay for his wife can have his way with her without being watched and c an leave whenever he wishes, but those who arrive empty-handed are barred from leav ing until they have written Rufinus an acknowledgement of debt. According to Apul eius, all of this st ems from Rufinus incessant desire for money. He originally obtained his wealth through his own fathers fraudulent actions. His father was indebted to numerous creditors but never paid them back, claiming that he did not have the money to do so. He even took of all his rings and the attributes of his rank in order to co me across as a poor m an. The wealth he had gathered by means of loans, however, he had tr ansferred into his wifes name. Despite his claim of being penniless, he left his son, Rufinus, about three million sesterces upon his death. Yet within just a few years, Rufinus managed to reduce this fortune to nothing by means of his gluttony and excess. Since his wife was by now getting on in years, Rufinus decided to circulate his own daughter among wealthy yo ung men in the hopes of enriching his whole family. This is how she met Pontianus, who decided to marry her, much a gainst his mothers and Apuleius advice. A day before the marr iage, Rufinus borrowed the whole dowry from a creditor. According to Apuleius, this dowry was beyond excessive, as was to be expected from Rufinus immodesty: grandior, quam domus exhausta et plena liberis postulabat. (76.6) it was larger than an exhaust ed house packed with children required. 2 Hunink 1997: 193b.
60 In addition, Rufinus threatened to take his daughter away if Pontianus did not stop the proposed wedding between Apuleius and Pudentilla, in the hopes that Pontianus family fortune would then somehow end up in his own hands: totum Pudentillae quadr a giens praesumptione cassa devorarat eoque me amoliendum ratus, quo facilius P ontiani facilitatem, Pudentillae solitudinem circumveniret (77.1) In his baseless presumption he had already devoured those 4 millions of Pudentillas. Therefore he w anted to get rid of me, to make it easier to lay siege to Pontianus good natur e and Pudentillas solitude. Yet Pontianus insistence on ending the engagement only strengt hened Pudentillas desire to stick to her decision: she could use the help of a husband against Rufinus shameless cupidity. The Wedding Ceremony The accusers objected that Apulei us and Pudentilla were married in the countryside instead of the city Though this was by no means il legal, it did arouse some suspicion. After all, Hunink points out that Pudentilla occupied a prominent place in the society of Oea and was expected to let the people have their share.3 Apuleius justifies their actions by saying that Pudentilla on ly shortly before had donated 50,000 sesterces to the people of Oea on the day that Pontianus was married and Pudens received the mans toga and the couple therefore did not want to spend another 50,000 sesterces. Despite the fact that this was indeed a considerable donation, one might object that Pudentillas wealth was lar ge enough for her to afford th is first donation and allow for another one during her own weddi ng. Apuleius also claims that they had wanted to avoid the many banquets and obligations that usually come with a wedding. Even 3 Hunink 1997: 215b.
61 though this could be considered a breach of so cial etiquette, it was not unusual for a second marriage to be celebrated less lavishly than the first.4 At this point, Apuleius doesnt hesitate to entertain his audience by turning to Aemilianus and adding with a hint of sarcasm: nec tecum aut apud te cenandum. Estne causa idonea? (88.1) we did not want to be obliged to have dinner with you or in your house. That was a good reason, wasnt it? The Dowry In order to support their cl aim that Apuleius had ulterior motives for marrying Pudentilla, the accusers brought up the fact that she was older than he was. Apuleius tells us that: Formam mulieris et aetatem ipsi ul tro improbaverunt idque mihi vitio dederunt, talem uxorem causa avar itiae conc upisse atque adeo primo dotem in congressu grandem et uberem rapuisse. (91.5) Of their own accord the accusers impugned the womans beauty and age and this then was firmly held against me: I could desire such a woman only for the sake of greed and so, at the beginning of our union, I seized a large and ample dowry from her. According to Apuleius, this dowry wa s the very root of the accusation.5 In order to refute this claim, he divulges all the details of the dowry to his a udience. Before getting married, Apuleius and Pudentilla had signed a marriage contract in which they made provisions for the present and the future. As it turns out, the dowry which amounted to 300,000 sesterces, was rather modest in comparison with Pudentillas large fortune. In contrast, Rufinus, who was penniless and desti tute, had procured 400,000 sesterces for his own daughters dowry. Furt hermore, the dowry was not ac tually given to Apuleius 4 Hunink 1997: 215b. 5 Apul. Apol 90.1: Venio nunc ad ipsum stirpem accusationis
62 but only promised. If Pudentilla were to die without having any children by Apuleius, the whole amount of the dowry would remain with her sons. If, however, a child of theirs were to survive at the time of her death, half the dowry would go to the youngest child and the other half to the two older ones. A puleius once more adopts the role of the philosopher who does not care fo r material wealth and says that the real dowry for him was Pudentillas love for him: et maritum habet et multis saepe et ingentibus dotibus spretis inani nomine tantulae dotis contentum, ceterum praeter uxorem suam nihil computantem, omnem supellectilem c unctasque divitias in concordia coniugis et multo amore ponentem. (92.3-4) She has a husband who has often re jected numerous enormous dowries and who was satisfied with the mere pledge of such a small dowry. Apart from his wife there is nothing that c ounts for him. All ho usehold goods, all riches he includes in the loyalty of hi s partner and the great love she shows him. If Apuleius had truly been interested in Pudentillas money, he would likely have asked for a substantially larger dowry. He tells us that an older woman of average looks who wants to attract a younger man would normally try to lure him into marriage by offering a lavish dowry. Yet if Pudentilla had been a very young and poor girl, she would have still been well endowed: affert quippe ad maritum novum animi indolem, pulchritudinis gratiam, floris rudimentum. Ipsa virginitas commendatio iure meritoque omnibus maritis acceptissima est. nam quodcumque aliud in dotem acciperi s, potes, cum libuit, ne sis beneficio obstrictus, omne ut acceperas retribuere; pecuniam renumerare, mancipia rest itutere, domo demig rare, praediis cedere; sola virginitas cum semel accepta est, reddi nequitur, sola apud maritum ex rebus dot alibus remanet. (92.6-7) For what she brings to her new husband is the fresh nature of her mind, her gracious beauty, her first blossom. Virgin ity itself is very rightly considered the best recommendation by all husbands. For whatever else you accept as a dowry you can, if you want, return completely as you accepted it and so avoid obligations. Money can be paid back, slaves can be sent back, a
63 house can be left, an estate vacated; only virginity, once accepted, can never be restored. It is the only elem ent of a dowry that remains with the husband. Since Pudentilla was no longer young or a virg in, Apuleius could have easily requested a much larger dowry as compensation. Any other suitor, he claims, would surely have done so. Yet as a philosopher none of this was by any means important to him, so he settled for a modest dowry that woul d never even come his way. Pudentillas Donations and Will Apuleius first act as a st epfather was to reconcile Pudentilla with her sons. In order to do so, he persuaded her to give t hem the money they had been asking for. He adds that he suggested to pay them out in land valued at a low figure, so that they received a lot of land for their money. It is not clear which money Apuleius is referring to at this point, but most likely he was talking about their fathers money, which Pudentilla had invested for them during her fourteen years of widowhood.6 Furthermore, he urged his new wife to donate fertile fields from her own possessions, a large house, a great amount of produce and cattle, and 400 slaves. He tells his audience that this was merely a small advance to the boys whole inheritance, thereby illustrating the large amount of money that was truly at stake during this trial. Before this donation had been made, Pontianus had already reconciled himself with his new stepfather and had expressed sincere remo rse for having listened to Rufinus. After he had received the donation, he said he owed all of it to Apuleius, without whose help he might still have been wait ing for his inheritance. To safeguard his newly acquired money, Pontianus had a will dr awn up. Having found out the true ways 6 Hunink 1997: 229b.
64 of his young wife and her money-hungry father, Pontianus had decided to name his own mother and brother as sole heirs. By way of an insult he only left his wife linen cloth worth about 200 denarii. Hunink points out that 200 denarii by itself was a very small sum. In addition, linen was commonly associ ated with prostitutes. A supply of linen worth 200 denarii would have been enough for at least a dozen cloaks and thus hinted at Pontianus wifes extensiv e involvement in prostitution.7 After Pontianus death, Pudentilla drew up a new will of her own. In it, she wanted to disinherit Pudens for his wrongdoing in o pposing her marriage to A puleius and siding with his uncle Aemilianus. Apuleius st rongly opposed his wifes decision. He even threatened to divorce her if she proceeded. Pudentilla finally relented and allowed Apuleius to dictate her new will instead. He insisted she na me Pudens as her heir and only assign himself a modest bequest for the sake of honor, since it would not be appropriate for a husbands name to be absent from his wifes will. Despite Pudens clear hostility towards his st epfather, Apuleius still wanted him to be the rightful heir to Pudentillas fortune, even if it possibly entailed negative consequences: obsequentissimum maritum exheredavi t, inimicissimum filium scribsit heredem, immo enimvero non filium, sed Aemiliani spes et Rufini nuptias, set temulentum illud collegium parasitos tuos? (100.3-4) she disinherited the most indul gent husband, whereas she named her most hostile son as heir no, not her son, but rather the hopes of Aemilianus, the marriage of Rufinus, the whole drunken collection, those parasites of yours! Since Pudens was still a minor, Aemilianus was his legal guardian. As a result, he hoped that Pudens inheritance would be his to control and even use up. Rufinus cherished the same hopes by planning to marry his daughter off to the young boy. 7 Harrison 2001: 115.
65 Apuleius was aware of this, but neverthel ess he wanted Pudentilla to do what would eventually place him in the most favorable light and exonerate him from the real charges brought forth during this trial: Mihi iam dudum satis est, si non modo crimina obiecta plenissime delui, verum etiam radicem iudicii huius, id est hereditatis quaesitae invidiam, funditus sustuli. (101.3) For me it is sufficient by now if I have not only fully removed the charges brought against me, but also completely torn out the roots of this trial, namely envy about an inheritance I allegedly sought to acquire. Now that he has driven his point home, Apuleius has only one more minor charge to refute. The accusers claimed that Apuleius had used his wifes money to purchase a beautiful estate in his own name. Apuleius objects by saying it was actually a small estate of only 60,000 sesterces and that Pudentilla had bought it in her own name. He even has a witness present, the tax collector to whom the payment for the house was made. Since this charge was so easily dispro ved, Apuleius probably saved it until the end.8 As the grand finale of his tour de force, Apuleius reminds his audience of all the individual charges. Then, in a clear attempt to show off his orator ical proficiency, he answers each of the charges with no more than two words: Dentes sp
66 Shes older: that happens. Seeki ng gain: hear dowry, recall donation, read will.
67 CHAPTER 5 CONCLUSION When Apuleius delivered the Apologia Africa was still a young and fledgling province of the Roman Empire. While mo st of its inhabitant s only spoke Punic and continued many of the pre-Rom an traditions of their ancestors Apuleius ventured out to learn about Roman and Greek culture and becam e fluent in both Latin and Greek. He quickly became inspired by the Second Sophistic, a movement that sought to revive the rhetorical teachings of the Gr eek intellectuals of the fifth century BCE. As a result, he greatly enjoyed delivering speeches and displa ying his rhetorical eloquence in public. Due to the Pax Romana in Africa at the ti me, Apuleius was able to devote his life to the pursuit of knowledge and orat ory. According to Graham, A puleius even made light of the trial because he lived under emperor Ant oninius Pius, under whose peaceful rule personal convictions and religious freedom were greatly respected.1 Apuleius Apologia was a real tour de force in terms of the Second Sophistic. Throughout the whole speech, Apuleius dazzl ed his audience with ar chaic Latin words, clever puns, and artful sophisms. His consta nt name-dropping of venerable writers and philosophers must have made the listeners heads spin.2 Though Apuleius most likely wrote the final version of his speech for a very erudite and literary audience, the actual audience of the trial included common North Af ricans who were not very familiar with the Greek or Latin language and its literary culture. By s howing off his erudition and eloquence, Apuleius created a vast contra st between himself and his accusers, whom 1 Graham 1971: 137. 2 Sandy 1997: 134.
68 he characterized as boorish and ignorant. In addition to embellishing his own reputation, this technique allowed him to undermi ne the charges brought against him. Though many scholars believe that the main charge against Apuleius was the use of magic, the real issue at stake was Apuleius supposed sedu ction of a widow in order to get her money.3 The Apologia was therefore not a defens e of magic, but rather a response to accusations of greed and envy. Even Apuleius admitted in his speech that his wifes dowry and fortune were the core of his whole case.4 Nevertheless, it is quite likely that some people indeed believed Apuleius was a magician due to his keen interest in religious myst eries and esoteric science. In order to win his case, Apuleius had to convince his audience of his own definitions of poverty and wealth. Since he was accused of having married a woman for her money, he had to prove that he had no desire for material wealth. As a result, he spent the first half of his speech persuading his listeners that he was a selfless philosopher who purposely lived a poor lifesty le and had thereby become spiritually and intellectually wealthy. Conversely, he also admitted that he was of affluent descent and therefore had the ability to dedicate himself to a life of learning. Only as soon as he felt that he had won over the audience, did he move on to the main charge. As a result, the charge was played out according to his rules, which he had laid down during the first half of the speech. Apuleius consequently obliterated the whole case against him and even successfully turned the accusation of greed and dowry hunting on his opponents. 3 Scholars who indicate the use of magic as the main charge include, for example, Hunink and Sandy. 4 Apul. Apol 90.1: Venio nunc ad ipsum stirpem accusationis, ad ipsam causam maleficii.
69 Though Apuleius made it clear that the accusers driving force was pure avarice, their suspicions of the marriage were not completely unfounded. Rathbone points out that widowed or divorced women past child bearing age tended not to remarry since a formal second marriage would only complicate existing arrangements for children of the previous marriage, as was the case for Pontianus and Pudens.5 Yet Apuleius was able to utterly remove all suspicions and even make his audience suspicious of Aemilianus and Rufinus real intentions. In conclusion, the Apologia provides us with an insight into many aspects of NorthAfricas intellectual and daily life. It give s us an idea of how it s inhabitants, both commoners and world-travelling intellectuals, perceived poverty and wealth and how being educated or not tied into this. It also offers us an account of the rhetorical, philosophical, and religious trends and practices that were common at the time. Finally, it allows us to better understand the laws an d traditions involved with marriage, dowries, and wills. As a result, the Apologia enables us to evaluate our own perceptions of poverty and wealth and critically analyze those t hat try to convince us of an argument. It thus allows us to reflect on our modern worl d in comparison to the world of Apuleius. 5 Rathbone 2006: 102, 104.
70 LIST OF REFERENCES Butler, H.E. and Owen, A.S. 1967. Apulei Apologia Sive Pro Se De Magia Liber Hildesheim. Bradley, K. 1997. Law, Magic, and Cult ure in the Apologia of Apuleius. Phoenix 51: 203-223. -----. 2000. Romanitas and the Roman Family: The Evidence of Apuleius Apology. Canadian Journal of History 35: 215-39. Finley, M.I. 1999. The Ancient Economy. Berkeley and Los Angeles. Graham, A. 1971. Roman Africa. New York. Harrison, S.J. 2000. Apuleius: A Latin Sophist Oxford and New York. -----., ed. 2001. Apuleius: Rhetorical Works Oxford and New York. Haywood, R. M. 1975. Roman Africa. in F. Tenney, ed., An Economic Survey of Ancient Rome: 1-120. New York. Hunink, V. 1997. Apuleius of Madauros: Pro Se De Magia Amsterdam. Kehoe, D. P. 1988. The Economics of Agriculture on Roman Imperial Estates in North Africa. Gttingen. Lvy, J.P. 1967. The Economic Life of the Ancient World Chicago. Mattingly, D.J., Stone, D., Stir ling, L. and Ben Lazreg, N. 2001. Leptiminius (Tunisia): A producer city? In D.J. Mattingly and J. Salmon, eds., Economies Beyond Agriculture in the Classical World : 66-89. London and New York. Osborne, R. 2006. Roman Poverty in Context. In M. Atkins and R. Osborne, eds., Poverty in the Roman World : 1-20. Cambridge and New York. Parkin, A. 2006. You Do Him No Service: An Exploration of Pagan Almsgiving. In M. Atkins and R. Osborne, eds., Poverty in the Roman World : 60-82. Cambridge and New York. Perrin, B. 1914. Plutarchs Lives London. Rathbone, D. 2006. Poverty and Population in Roman Egypt. In M. Atkins and R. Osborne, eds., Poverty in the Roman World : 100-114. Cambridge and New York Raven, S. 1993. Rome in Africa. London and New York.
71 Sandy, G. 1997. The Greek World of Apuleius Leiden, New York, and Kln. Scheidel, W. 2006. Stratific ation, deprivation and quality of life. In M. Atkins, and R. Osborne, eds., Poverty in the Roman World : 40-59. Cambridge and New York. Wilson, A. 2001. Timgad and Textile Production. In D.J. Mattingly and J. Salmon, eds., Economies Beyond Agricultur e in the Classical World : 271-296. London and New York. Winter, T.N. 1969. The Public ation of Apuleius Apology. Transactions and Proceedings of t he American Philological Association 100: 607-12. Woolf, G. 2006. Writing Poverty in Ro me. In M. Atkins, and R. Osborne, eds., Poverty in the Roman World: 83-99. Cambridge and New York.
72 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Heidi De Baerdemaek er-Poole was born in 1981 in Merksem, Belgium. She began her study of Latin and Greek at the Groenendaal College in 1993 and soon fell in love with both languages and their culture. In 2003, she graduated from the Karel de Grote Hogeschool of Antwerp as a secondary school teacher of Latin, History, and English as a Second Language. After teac hing in Antwerp for one year she moved to the United States. In 2004, she started teaching Latin, French, and Spanish at the Madeleine Choir School in Salt Lake City, Utah. She received a Master of Arts degree in Latin from the University of Florida in 2010.