Literature and Identity in The Golden Ass of Apuleius

Literature and Identity in The Golden Ass of Apuleius is the first English translation of a work published in 2007 as “Le Metamorfosi di Apuleio: Letteratura e identità”. The second-century novel The Golden Ass, or Metamorphoses, has proven to be both captivating and highly entertaining to the modern reader, but the text also presents the critic with a vast array of interpretive possibilities. In fact, there is little consensus among scholars on the fundamental significance of Apuleius’ novel: is it simply a form of narrative entertainment, or does it represent some sort of religious or philosophical propaganda? Can it be interpreted as a satire of fatuous belief in otherworldly powers, or is it an utterly aporetic text? I begin by setting The Golden Ass in its ancient literary context. Apuleius’ playful defiance of generic conventions represents a substantial literary innovation, but he is also taking part in a tradition of narrative and satirical literature that typically featured experimentation with genre. Apuleius specifically engages in the definition, through the subtle use of some keywords of rhetorical polemic, of the literary space where his novel is to be placed: it partakes both of utile and dulce, but its peculiar mix of these two elements is bound to sound Greekish and provocative to Roman ears. However, I also argue that the Prologue only provides the reader with a partial outlook of the whole novel: its truly ‘satirical’ nature gradually emerges in the following chapters, and is fully displayed in the Isiac conclusion of the last book. This Isiac conclusion has been much debated, especially after John Winkler’s seminal book has called into question its seriousness; Winkler argued for a basically aporetic stance by Apuleius, who would leave his reader free to choose between a religiously and philosophically involved reading, and a comic reading according to which Lucius would only be the gullible victim of a rapacious Egyptian cult. In the second chapter, after highlighting the weak points of Winklerian and post-Winklerian criticism, I support a seriocomic reading in which serious (but generic) contents are transmitted through a ‘low’ and comic narrative genre: this means that our novel is deeply ‘satirical’, but I give to this adjective a substantially different, and more classical, meaning than Winkler. I also try to support my interpretation by showing that it is consistent with the generic expectations of a second century reader. In the third chapter I analyze some passages imbued with metapoetic suggestions, and this way I explore the interplay between Apuleius’ novel and other literary genres; a special focus is on philosophical dialogue, historiography, epic, and theatre. This generic interplay is often aimed at providing the novel with higher credibility and/or fascination, and to make it easier for the reader to be swallowed in the narrative world. This genre-related complexity reflects the complexity of the author’s cultural identity, that is the subject of the fourth and last chapter. Apuleius was a Roman North African who had traveled widely throughout the Mediterranean and enjoyed an extensive education in both Greek and Latin. A ‘provincial’ outlook on the Roman Empire sometimes permeates his narrative, but contrary to what has been suggested by some scholars no really anti-Roman feelings ever emerge. The novel is addressed to a readership that was certainly varied as for social status, learning, and geographical origins, and certainly not confined to the elite public of the capital of the Empire. In particular, the feelings and interests of an African and Carthaginian readership seems to be titillated at some points.