Judging by his own writings, Apuleius became so famous in his own lifetime that statues were erected in his honour.Footnote 1 And yet, as Julia Gaisser has shown,Footnote 2 for a long time no extant source ever mentions him. Around 310, Lactantius broke the silence, stating that ‘many and extraordinary things are remembered about him’ (Diu. inst. 5.3.7). Scholars have attempted to identify echoes of Apuleius before the fourth century, but their endeavours remain speculative or ‘lack all cogency’, as convincingly argued by Barnes.Footnote 3 Similarly, material evidence has been used to confirm his immediate renown: a second-century papyrus represents a scene from Cupid and Psyche;Footnote 4 an inscription from Madauros, Apuleius’ birthplace, dedicates a statue (now lost) ‘to the Platonic philosopher’, who can be safely identified with him;Footnote 5 and both Augustine and Christodorus mention statues dedicated to Apuleius.Footnote 6 However, none of these pieces of evidence casts light on his early reception: the inscription cannot be dated with certainty; neither Augustine nor Christodorus specifies how old the statues were; and Antonio Stramaglia has demonstrated that the papyrus most likely predates the Metamorphoses and belongs to a tradition of representations of Cupid and Psyche which is independent from Apuleius.Footnote 7 As a result there seems to be a gap of one hundred and fifty years: on the one hand, Apuleius was allegedly known and celebrated in his own lifetime; on the other hand, literary sources remain silent until Lactantius and Augustine, and no piece of material evidence can be safely used to illuminate the early reception of Apuleius. In this paper I wish to fill this gap and suggest that, about a hundred years before Lactantius, Tertullian made a clear reference to a passage from the Metamorphoses.
ADVERSVS VALENTINIANOS
Sometime between 207 and 210, Tertullian turned his attention against the Valentinians, a group founded by Valentinus and based on teachings he had drawn from Greek philosophy and from Gnostic and Christian beliefs.Footnote 8 Valentinus’ doctrine seems to have given little concern to Tertullian: what prompted him to write Aduersus Valentinianos was both the growing size of the movement (cf. Adu. Valent. 1.1) and their unwillingness to separate themselves from other Christians.Footnote 9
Tertullian shaped the structure and style of his work more to ridicule than to disprove their beliefs.Footnote 10 The treaty reads like a prosecution speech but consists solely of an exordium (1–6) and a narratio (7–41), with no proper confirmatio. In Tertullian's view, the Valentinians’ doctrines were so obscure and absurd that a full engagement could wait, and a simple exposition of their credo would do (6.2). The narratio, following ancient theory and practice, exposes a strongly biased account of the Valentinian doctrine. Tertullian draws heavily from the section on the Valentinians found in Irenaeus’ Aduersus Haereses (1.1–20), but his choice of style fits his plan of exposing and deriding his opponents (6.3).Footnote 11 This promise, while intriguing the reader and inflicting another blow on the opponent, sets the tone for the entire work, which is filled with mocking irony.Footnote 12 This pervasive festiuitas stands out in comparison with Tertullian's sources and with his other writings,Footnote 13 and has a highly literary character, as proven by the many citations and references both to Christian and to classical literature. For example, unlike his other extant works, in Aduersus Valentinianos Tertullian names Ovid and the Metamorphoses (12.1) and quotes Ennius (7.1). Equally prominent, though less exceptional, are the citations and references to Christian scriptures. Since the Valentinians were recruiting members among Christians and non-Christians alike, Tertullian probably tried to address both audiences and hence drew from both sides in order to discredit his target from both directions: citations from Christian writings help Tertullian to argue that Valentinian beliefs were incompatible with Christian teachings;Footnote 14 and citations from classical literature help him to portray their beliefs as conflicting with traditional Roman values and, indeed, even more absurd than the stories found in Graeco-Roman mythology (for example 10.2 and 21.1–2).
TERTULLIAN'S USE OF APULEIUS
Remarkably, when departing from Irenaeus, Tertullian often makes references to North African characters, who must have appealed to his immediate audience. For example, in targeting the Valentinian proclivity to multiply the names of demigods, he asks ‘why not call them also Sterceia?’ (8.5). Sterceia, from stercus, was the slave in charge of changing babies, a sort of ‘poop-maid’, and, as Kajanto has shown, eleven out of fourteen occurrences of ‘Sterceia’ come from North Africa, where ‘the peculiarities of Latin nomenclature were perhaps more striking than elsewhere’.Footnote 15 Similarly, Tertullian mentions and scorns Phosphorus, a useless orator from Carthage (8.3).
Given the literary character of the work and its immediate North African audience, one should not be surprised to find references to Apuleius as well. In a learned commentary, Jean-Claude Fredouille has shown that Tertullian and Apuleius share some unusual terminology, word meanings, word order and ideas.Footnote 16 Given their common North African origin and identity, it is reasonable to assume that Tertullian knew Apuleius; and yet, taken per se, none of the parallels Fredouille finds proves that he had read him, let alone that he was activating an intertextual link with any of his works.
In at least one case, however, Tertullian clearly models his words after a passage from the Metamorphoses. According to the Valentinians, the world was created through the mediation of demigods, the Aeons: specifically, after Christ shaped and left Enthymesis (Inclination), she went on a quest for him. But another Aeon, Horos, got in her way. Tertullian writes (Adu. Valent. 14.3–4):
fortasse adprehendisset, si non idem Horos … nunc tam importune filiae occurrisset, ut etiam inclamauerit in eam ‘Iaô!’, quasi ‘porro Quirites!’ aut ‘fidem Caesaris!’ inde inuenitur Iao in scripturis.
she might have reached Christ, if that same Horos … had not gotten in her way so rudely that he even screamed to her ‘iao’ as if to say ‘give way, citizens!’ or ‘by Caesar's good faith!’ For this reason, ‘Iao’ is found in their scriptures.
A comparison with Irenaeus demonstrates Tertullian's method. Specifically, the corresponding description from Irenaeus’ Aduersus Haereses provides the factual information and is translated almost verbatim; but Apuleius helps Tertullian to keep his promise and add much festiuitas. Irenaeus writes (1.1.7 [= Mass 1.4.1]):
ἐπὶ ζήτησιν ὁρμῆσαι τοῦ καταλιπόντος αὐτὴν φωτὸς καὶ μὴ δυνηθῆναι καταλαβεῖν αὐτό, διὰ τὸ κωλυθῆναι ὑπὸ τοῦ Ὅρου. καὶ ἐνταῦθα τὸν Ὅρον κωλύοντα αὐτὴν τῆς εἰς τοὔμπροσθεν ὁρμῆς εἰπεῖν Ἰαώ⋅ ὅθεν τὸ Ἰαὼ ὄνομα γεγενῆσθαι φάσκουσι.
[they say that] … she went out in search of the light which had abandoned her, but she was unable to reach it, because she was prevented by Horos. Hence Horos, preventing her from advancing further, said ‘iao’. They say that the name ‘Iao’ comes from this.
Having read Tertullian, this passage sounds familiar, but Tertullian adds the suggestion that ‘Iao’ may stand for porro Quirites or fidem Caesaris, and this is where Apuleius comes into play: this language and context call to mind a vivid passage from the Metamorphoses. In Book 8, Lucius, still in the form of an ass, witnesses various misdeeds by the priests of the Syrian goddess. They invite a guest to dinner, strip him naked, lay him on his back and demand his services. Lucius’ eyes can no longer tolerate the view, and he tries to intervene (Met. 8.29.5):
‘porro Quirites’ proclamare gestiui, sed uiduatum ceteris syllabis ac litteris processit ‘O’ tantum, sane clarum ac ualidum et asino proprium, sed inopportuno plane tempore.
I tried to scream ‘give way, citizens’, but only an ‘O’ came out, stripped of the other syllables and letters; it was clear and loud, as it fits an ass, but badly out of place.
These two passages present many similarities. Both Apuleius and Tertullian use the expression porro Quirites, which occurs only one other time in Classical Latin, in a mime by Laberius.Footnote 17 Macrobius reports that in 47–46 Caesar invited Laberius to act his own mime on stage; Laberius, who was a Roman knight, felt he could not refuse but expressed his resentment in a prologue and in scattered remarks, such as porro, Quirites! libertatem perdimus (Macrob. Sat. 2.7). It is unlikely that Tertullian modelled this passage after Laberius; but various features in Tertullian resemble Apuleius. The solemn language in the mouth of Horos or in the mouth of an ass triggers the same comical effect;Footnote 18 and other common vocabulary and a similar context further strengthen the intertextual link. Two verbs from the same root introduce Horos’ and Lucius’ shout (inclamauerit and conclamare); this shout produces a similar sound, ‘Iaô’ and ‘O’, and in either case the open ‘O' derived from a Greek omega.Footnote 19 In either case, this inarticulate utterance stands for porro Quirites and is meant energetically to invite the addressee (Enthymesis or the priests) to desist from their enterprise; in spite of the inarticulate utterance, neither intervention proves effective, but is perceived as out of place (tam importune and inopportuno plane tempore). The context of hypocritical Syrian priests who hide their sexual immorality beyond a façade of mysterious rites perfectly fits Tertullian's grotesque portrayal of the Valentinians and their mysteries: for example, in the first paragraph, Tertullian programmatically declares that, for all its secretive aura of divinity, the object of their devotion turns out to be a phallus (1.1; cf. 1.3), a detail not found in Irenaeus.Footnote 20 Taken together, these similarities both in language and in context suggest that Tertullian is intentionally calling to mind this misadventure from the Metamorphoses.
In this way, Tertullian elicits the spectre of charlatan Syrian priests in the background of Valentinian mythology, perhaps also hinting at Lucius’ indignation as the proper response. Readers can still make sense of Tertullian's passage without grasping the reference to The Golden Ass, but more festiuitas is in store for those who do. The allusion equates Horos to an ass and Enthymesis to the innocent victim of deceitful priests, who may implicitly stand for the other Valentinian gods. Moreover, Tertullian covertly suggests that Horos’ failure to utter meaningful words produced a futile sound, ‘Iaô’, and adds that ‘from this is found “Iaô” in their scriptures’.Footnote 21 As seen, this etymology is confirmed by Irenaeus, but the allusion to Apuleius colours it with a quite different meaning: it tracks the name of the known Gnostic god Iaô back to a ‘heehaw’ uttered by an ass.
In conclusion, one could argue that Tertullian's reference to Apuleius suggests that at least some of his readers were familiar enough with the Metamorphoses that they could appreciate the allusion. If correct, the proposed intertextual link, which connects Aduersus Valentinianos to the Metamorphoses, bridges the gap of one hundred and fifty years in the sources between Apuleius himself and the evidence of Lactantius and material culture. Indeed, Apuleius was known and read also in the immediate aftermath of his death.