Apuleius and Africa Conference Oberlin College April 29 - May 2, 2010

Organizers: Benjamin Todd Lee, Oberlin College Ellen Finkelpearl, Scripps College Luca Graverini, University of Arezzo Sonia Sabnis, Reed College

This conference has been made possible by the generous support of the Mellon Foundation (in the form of a Mellon 23 Grant), by the Oberlin College Department of Classics, and by several anonymous private donors

PROLEGOMENA

Introduction The Metamorphoses of Apuleius is a Latin novel written by an African author on the model of a lost Greek novel; it narrates the adventures of a Greek character bearing a Roman name moving from Greece to Rome who ends his adventures clothed in Egyptian robes. This statement alone is enough to show that the Metamorphoses can be considered an intricate knot of cultural identities. The Florida and Apology announce more strongly than the Metamorphoses the African setting and “Numidian-Gaetulian” character of their author while also demonstrating his complex interaction with Greek, Roman and local cultures. Several studies have been written to untangle this knot, each stressing the Roman, Greek or African identity of Apuleius and his works. Such studies have been particularly cultivated in the last decades, when scholarly interest has placed a special focus on the problem of different cultural identities cohabiting, competing and sometimes fighting against each other under the Roman Empire. This new surge of studies however, has mostly undervalued the African side of Apuleius, usually described in terms of Greek or Roman culture. The Oberlin Conference aims to bring to the foreground Apuleius’ African origins and setting, and to investigate if and how they react with his Greek and Latin culture. In this document we wish to offer some food for thought to the speakers, to 1

help them in keeping their papers clearly focused, and to suggest some lines of approach. It is not possible to give an ample and exhaustive status quaestionis here, but we try at least to provide a general overview and the basic bibliography. Overview of previous scholarship Earlier studies of Apuleius and Africa were framed in terms of a polarity between happy assimilation to Roman culture and resistance to it. The prevailing tendency during the rise of Apuleius studies in the 1980s was to attempt to bring Apuleius out of the shadows of Africa and bring him into the center of Roman literary production. Dowden’s article “The Roman Audience of the Golden Ass” (1994), now the classic statement of this position, straightforwardly seeks to make the eccentric Metamorphoses more “intraordinary” by emphasizing the Roman spatial markers, the survival of the manuscript at Rome, Apuleius’ probable residence at Rome and other factors that give the novel a Roman rather than Carthaginian orientation. Harrison’s work in the 1990s/2000, too, stresses Apuleius’ assimilation to and promulgation more generally of Graeco-Roman culture: “Though he, like Fronto, can speak lightly of his African background, Apuleius, through his name, literary culture and education, is fundamentally Roman in cultural identity and a native speaker and writer of Latin” (2000, 3). At the opposite extreme, the 1970 article by Summers paints Apuleius as an African provincial fiercely indicting in the Metamorphoses the flawed imposition of justice by Rome on its provinces (refuted, however, in Graverini 2007, 218 ff.). Approaching the issue from the point of view of Apuleius’ allusiveness, Finkelpearl (1998) argued that, in the story of Charite which is heavily allusive to Aeneid 4, Apuleius has restored the original chaste Dido who dies rather than remarry. Apuleius, as someone with strong allegiances to Carthage, has cause to restore the myth as preserved in local culture and in other African writers, and to “correct” Vergil’s version which may be interpreted as using Dido’s fall to illustrate the flaws of Carthaginian character. The argument, that the nature of allusion may reflect cultural differences between center and periphery, was supported with discussion of the historical, religious and social character of second century North Africa, as separate from the cultural center. In Apuleius’ Metamorphoses, Lucius is from Corinth, which is also where he is restored to human shape: this is in all likelihood a meaningful innovation by Apuleius, since in the Onos Lucius is from Patras and his retransformation takes place in Thessalonike. Luca Graverini, in “Corinth, Rome, and Africa…” (2002) discusses at length the associations of Corinth for both Romans and Greeks: “a Roman could use the symbol of Corinth to celebrate the greatness of his people and the vengeance of Aeneas’ descendants over the destroyers of Troy. A Greek could use it to lament his loss of freedom” (65). Corinth therefore becomes a powerful symbol of cultural identity, not only of Romanization but also of possible conflicts between different cultures.

2

More recent considerations of the Africanness of Apuleius and his works have tended toward an evaluation of cultural mediation and negotiation, many of them focusing on the identity of Lucius and/or Apuleius. Gianpiero Rosati’s article on cultural identity in the Metamorphoses (2003) emphasizes the many ways in which Apuleius moves away from the Greek points of reference in the Greek source, toward Rome. Rome is not necessarily the real point from which Apuleius wrote the book, but is the fictional space in which he wrote. Like the major works of Vergil and Ovid, the book moves toward Rome and toward reality, away from myth. Rosati argues that the book’s best readers are those who can recognize the physical points of reference in the city which come up passim, hence a Roman. Latin is the mark of Apuleius’ cultural allegiance. Rosati does not, however, give much attention to the African elements of Lucius’ (or Apuleius’) identity. Yun Lee Too (2001) examines the way the Prologue confronts its readers with a multiplicity of cultural influences and backgrounds, but simultaneously “shows ‘origins’ to be an arbitrary idea and signifier” (178). She calls attention to the confusing set of cultural markers that are presented within the Prologue as deliberately confusing: not only Greek, Latin, and Egyptian, but a Greek identity that is impossible in its regional variety (Corinth Sparta Athens) and multiple linguistic identities that do not seem necessarily aligned with cultural identities. The end result, as Too suggests via a comparison with contemporary identity politics, is that Apuleius, and Lucius, are simultaneously many things and that fixed or single identity is refused; “Apuleius is neither Greek nor Roman but Madauran, yet he is acculturated as Greek and Roman…” (187). Luca Graverini’s recent book (2007), Chapter 4, focusing on the Metamorphoses, mediates among these positions, weighing in particular each of Dowden’s arguments for the Roman orientation of the Metamorphoses, countering each of them with reasons for understanding the work as also addressed to Carthaginians. Graverini points out, for example, that the spatial markers used by Dowden to support a claim of Roman readership are recognizable much more widely; that Rome was not the only center of literary production (Martial wrote from Spain, for example); that Carthage is mostly absent from the Met. largely because of the preexisting requirements of the Greek model; that survival of the manuscript at Rome does not preclude survival at Carthage as well. Though, as Graverini adds, the Met. is fictionally written at Rome, Lucius’ identity as Madaurensem seems designed to appeal to an African readership. Graverini advocates reading the work as an exercise in cultural mediation rather than conflict: “dalle opere di Apuleio sembra emergere una dinamica di integrazione, emulazione e forse anche competizione che associa centro e periferia dell’impero nel perseguimento di un comune ideale culturale” (227). With regard to the Met., Graverini also emphasizes the importance of its exploration of the relationship of Greece and Rome, one of its projects being the Romanization of both the novel (from its Greek source) and its protagonist so that Apuleius’ relationship toward Africa and Rome must be triangulated with that toward Greece and its culture. (Alvares 2007 and Finkelpearl 2007 both see the “becoming Roman” of Lucius as problematic or unsuccessful.)

3

Finkelpearl (forthcoming in Ramus) however, sees a more difficult negotiation. Using Florida 3 (Marsyas and Apollo) as a point of departure, she argues that, via the doubleness and ambiguities of the text, Apuleius identifies with both Marsyas and Apollo, the barbarian and the Graeco-Roman and has an uncomfortably hybrid identity. This hybridity is reflected in Lucius’ hybrid animal-human character in the Metamorphoses, the cultural discomfort manifesting itself in Lucius’ incomplete assimilation to Roman culture in Book 11, where we last see him appearing as foreign as possible. In a number of articles, Keith Bradley has focussed on more material evidence for the African background to Apuleius’ works. “Romanitas and the Roman Family” (2000) thickly describes the survival of local culture in the regions of Sabratha and Oea, areas relatively untouched by Italian settlement where, for example, elephant tusks are sacrificed to Punic deities. Bradley suggests that the actions brought against Apuleius by his in-laws were not primarily motivated by monetary considerations, but by the fact that Apuleius, fundamentally Roman, was a “homo extrarius” whose thorough Romanization created anxiety in the local population. In “Apuleius and Carthage” (2005), he paints a complex picture of the emphatically Carthaginian background to the Florida in particular. Pointing out the strong persistance of the Punic language (3), the majority of local Africans in the population vs. Roman settlers, the persistence of native deities and art forms, as well as the visual expressions of Roman power in central architectural monuments, Bradley reminds us that Apuleius is emphatically not speaking in Rome. In “Law, Magic and Culture…” (1997), Bradley emphasizes the shared language and doctrina of Apuleius and magistrate Claudius Maximus, examples of the educated few to be distinguished sharply from the rest of the population of Oea who never lose the marks of their local origins. Bradley views Apuleius himself as fundamentally Roman and an agent of Romanization in his native land. Any consideration of the cultural markers in the Metamorphoses must begin with the recognition that it is adapted from the original Greek Metamorphoses of which the Onos is perhaps an epitome, and consider the cultural positioning of the author of that work. Edith Hall argues that the original Greek Metamorphoseis “may well have been the most subversive ancient novel ever written,” (1995, 57) noting especially the mechanism by which the reader is given a “double vision” of society through the eyes of an aristocrat temporarily transformed into a slave. This double vision “produces a deeply ambivalent perspective on the Greek provinces’ relationships with the Roman imperial administration” (51). While the “ideal” Greek romances are set nostalgically in the pre-Roman Greek past, effacing Rome, the Onos takes place in the early second century in Achaea under Roman rule. The hero and his brother, “who both have stereotypically Roman names” (51), are from Patras, a city which had been given privileged status by Augustus and had long held particularly strong allegiance to Rome. “The choice of this city for the hero’s provenance marks him out as a privileged member of the hyper-elite, descended from and especially loyal to and beloved by the Romans” (51). Hall notes a number of instances in which the text signals a failure of the Roman imperial administration, e.g., the market gardener is treated arrogantly by the 4

Roman soldier who speaks Latin to the Greek-speaker (Onos 44). The presentation of these incidents would have been enjoyable to a provincial Greek audience. The Onos does ultimately portray an elite restored and maintaining its power, but not before it has been exposed. While Hall asserts that most of these anti-Roman sentiments have been erased in Apuleius, Finkelpearl 2007 compares the evocations of Rome and Roman imperial power in the Onos and Apuleius’ Metamorphoses, arguing that Apuleius reproduces and intensifies his source’s negative view of Roman power in the provinces, though “pseudo-Lucian” is writing from Roman Greece and Apuleius from Roman North Africa. The endings diverge, however, with Lukios re-joining the Romanized elite of Patras and Lucius assimilating uncomfortably to life in Rome. Despite his success as an advocate in the Roman courts, the culturally hybrid Lucius describes himself as speaking anomalous Latin and feeling most comfortable in a foreign cult. (See also Alvares 2007.) The discussion above should make it clear that there is still disagreement on many of the central questions: is the Metamorphoses a novel written in Rome or in Africa? And is it written for a Roman, African, or generally Imperial and Latinspeaking audience? Does Apuleius always endorse Rome’s domination over the provinces? Is he fundamentally “Roman”? What was the cultural status of Carthage and Africa in the second century? Did Roman culture assume specific forms in Africa in those times? Where do we see African cultural markers asserting themselves? Is an African, or generally provincial, perspective detectable in Apuleius’ works? There is still room in this conference to revisit some of these questions in new forms. On the other hand, we hope that new perspectives will be aired as well.

Further lines of approach? Gaisser (2008) has much to say about the survival and propagation of Apuleius in Africa, especially in tandem with his countryman, Augustine, who had famously referred to Apuleius with the words “qui nobis Afris Afer est notior” (Epl. 138), but also in Lactantius and Fulgentius. On Apuleius in Fulgentius, see also the detailed study by Mattiacci 2003. In this connection, it may be worthwhile to model some of our discussion on recent studies of other Africans. Wilhite’s Tertullian the African, which engages with contemporary sociological theory, and the conference “Augustine the Algerian” might offer illustrative parallels—and one participant has already offered to speak on Apuleius and Fronto, another will perhaps address the connection of Apuleius and Fulgentius. Another related line of inquiry: how has reception seen Apuleius culturally? For example, Salman Rushdie called Apuleius “Moroccan writer . . . a colonial of the old Roman Empire,” (1985, 365) claiming thereby a kinship with him as a colonial. Gerald Sandy’s book, The Greek World of Apuleius (1997), situates Apuleius in the context of the Greek Second Sophistic, as does, in a different way, Harrison’s 2000 book. This work could be better integrated with new work on the Greek Second

5

Sophistic by Goldhill (2001) and Whitmarsh, who explore, for example, the complex cultural identity of a Lucian who is a Greek Syrian under Roman imperial rule. Whitmarsh’s concept of the performance of identity, the self-conscious donning and doffing of masks involved in being now Syrian, now Greek in different circumstances seems a useful approach for Apuleius, particularly in the rhetorical works where he speaks directly to us in various adopted personae. (See below as well on Dhingra.) We have listed work on the history and material culture of Roman North Africa in our bibliography; Bradley’s work reflects an exceptionally successful application of this kind of evidence to contextualizing the works of Apuleius. There remains the question of how this colorful picture of Apuleius’ world might change our reading of his work, or whether this is even a legitimate objective. Are there North African variants of myths evident in mosaics, for example, that Apuleius adopts? What does Apuleius have to say about other cultures, and can this tell us anything about his position in his own? One participant will speak about Apuleius and India. What is the cultural meaning of Egypt in the Metamorphoses? Is the Isis cult Romanized and de-exoticized or does its presence and representation introduce another significant cultural element? We have said nothing so far about the philosophical works. To what extent is Apuleius an African Platonic philosopher? The topic of African Latin, very much alive, will be addressed below. Post-colonialism et al. Below we provide some theoretical background for possible discussions we all might have informally and in roundtable group discussions. We hope to make available these lines of interpretation, but by no means do we intend to imply that post-colonialism, multiculturalism, or deconstruction are de rigueur or necessarily to be taken as somehow correct a priori. Instead, we hope that these brief overviews will stimulate conversation and dialogue for the conference and that they will be further explored in the Workshops. Several papers will certainly involve some of these ideas, and we hope our participants will feel free to make reference to these Prolegomena if they are so moved, or find it useful to do so. Post-colonialism and Neo-colonialism One of post-colonialism’s advantages is to encourage multivalent, dialectical readings of the literatures of colonial writers. Apuleius’ literature recognizes but also adapts and manipulates his literary debt to Roman literary precursors, and it is this sort of rewriting of dominant or imperial canons that is the central concern of much postcolonial theory. Chantal Zabus, arguably the most important critic of post-colonial North African and Caribbean literature, uses the image of the palimpsest as the governing metaphor for her interpretation of North African post-colonial literature in her classic study The African Palimpsest (1991):

6

Largely speaking, any writer is a writer-in-progress,, a rewriter, “re(w)righter,” or reteller of (his)tories making imitative, or at best, imaginative use of sources harking back atavistically to a point of origin. Rewriting thus entails both writing palimpsestically, sedimentarily, in draft form, and writing toward an original, both an aboriginal and an unusually creative form. As such, it does not imitate.

We hope that the conference will address Apuleius’ Latin as part of a larger, empirewide phenomenon of colonial attempts to work out their identity by experimenting with and performing the language of the empire. Das sogennant afrikanische Latein As a line of interrogation, African Latin began in the era of Erasmus with Juan Luis Vives (De Tradendis Disciplinis, 1531) and culminated in the late renaissance scholars Casaubon and Saumaise. These scholars first articulated the African style as one full of over-exuberance, a judgment of value indicated by their term tumor Africus. The debate on African Latin then engaged some of the greatest Latinists of the late 19th centuries, in both France and Germany (Wöfflin, Sittl, and Monceaux). In the late 19th and early 20th centuries, several French and German scholars aimed to explicate the stylistic tendencies of African Latin as the result of innate ethnic characteristics: an influential example of this is the work of Monceaux, who concluded that African linguistic exuberance was the result of Punic origins and Semitic blood. The next stage of major research into African Latin was the wissenschaftliche Philologie, which culminated in the studies by Kroll and Norden. These studies utilized a linguistic framework to argue we should reject any notion of African Latin as a dialect that was different from contemporaneous Italian Latin, and which could explain the stylistic peculiarities of African authors as an expression of linguistic dialect. Instead, they concluded that the so-called African Latin was merely a collection of rhetorical styles. The question has been re-opened twice since those studies, by Lancel and Petersmann, who, in short articles from the 1980s, argued that there are a few short phrases that can be considered local (such a phrase is the nominative plural + genitive plural pattern seen in the phrase nugae nugarum, semantically equivalent to a superlative). At any rate, such minimal dialectical expressions, as the authors agree, cannot account for the exuberance of African Latin or its remarkable word-forms. More recently, however, interest and fruitful research into the colonialization of the Roman provinces has thrived. These new investigations would argue that the construction of Roman provincial identity was a careful balance of both conformity and non-conformity (Woolf [1998], Ando [2000]). Colonies had to strike a balance between complying with and defying the political and cultural mandates of Rome, depending on their own self-interest. It is important, therefore, to reconsider the question of African Latin in light of this work on colonialization and the tension between the Roman center and its colonial peripheries, and to approach the question with a set of nuanced cultural and philological questions.

7

It is not difficult to see why constructing a sympathetic apparatus of interpretation for the bizarre literature of the African periphery was not attractive to 16th century or even 20th century intellectuals: these scholars generally saw their scholarship as a project dedicated to the greater cultural mission of interpreting and animating the “pinnacles” of ancient civilization, to generate desirable and digestible cultural commodities for their own nations in the form of scholarship and pedagogy. In retrospect, African Latin was an impossible or at least undesirable intellectual project for these scholars—such styles of Latin defied Rome, Cicero, his middle style, not to mention Seneca and the other canonical authors. Perhaps post-colonialism can help here. Post-colonial theory would bring to bear, perhaps above all, two major points regarding the cultural productions of the Roman provinces, especially art and literature. 1) We need, in an age of Empire, to study the edges as well as the center; and it might well be the case that the “center” has less cultural specificity than the edges, which are engaged in a more radical and amplified form of self-definition. In our case, the peripheral term would be the province of Roman North Africa, in particular the city of Carthage, with its long and complex history; the central term would be Rome itself and its canonical Latin authors. 2) Post-colonial theory recognizes that there is an inseparable connection between the weaker cultural term of periphery, and the stronger term of the authoritative center. This is not a simple dichotomy of master and slave; rather, as seen in the post-colonial Caribbean author Aimé Césaire, this is a dialectical relationship of terms, even a Hegelian dialectic of negation. The center supplies cultural terms, and the periphery, in order to re-assemble an autochthonous discourse, must perform a negation, or, more properly, an erasure, and a rewriting on that cultural surface of the original form of the term. This process has come to be known in post-colonial studies as the palimpsest, a remaking, a creative re-writing. Neo-colonialism and the Post-colonial Exotic Previous infiltrations of post-colonial theory into classical scholarship have for the most part considered the reception of the classics in post-colonial cultures (e.g., Classics and Colonialism); fewer attempts have been made to use the terms of post-colonialism to reflect upon the literature and art of the Roman empire. We recognize that such attempts must be limited, for post-colonial theory includes specificities about race, nation, capitalism, and globalization that are incompatible with our knowledge of the ancient world. One could even argue that such a project is a strategy of containment, diffusing specific social and cultural tensions by co-opting the terms of resistance into the hegemonic discourse. In response to the tension between post-colonialism (a practice that is fundamentally resistant to imperial structures) and post-coloniality (which builds upon the historical facts of European imperialism), post-colonial studies have also developed theoretical schemata that may be better models to account for Apuleius’ social position.

8

Graham Huggan’s The Postcolonial Exotic: Marketing the Margins (2001) may also be useful to consider Apuleius’ career as well as his place in the Second Sophistic. Drawing attention to the commodification of cultural difference in the context of variously value-coding audiences, Huggan identifies post-colonial thinkers who engage in “strategic exoticism,” a term that might well apply to the Prologue of Apuleius’ Metamorphoses: cultural production is characterized by working within existing representational codes of the exotic in ways that may subvert or reaffirm them. The instability of the exotic compels continuous re-evaluations of authority and authenticity. As discussed by Kwame Nkrumah in Neo-Colonialism: The Last Stage of Imperialism (1965), and in Gayatri Spivak’s landmark essay “Post-structuralism, Marginality, Postcoloniality, and Value” (1990), neo-colonialism is a structure consisting of newly elevated local and indigenous bureaucrats (and on not a few occasions the professoriate itself), who assumed power in lieu of the recently departed power structure of the metropole, albeit often to the benefit of the metropole’s interests. The neo-colonial class abrogate to themselves the same financial and social rewards which the erstwhile political system had previously distributed to the governing class of the mother-city. This neo-colonial structure may in fact be a better model to describe Apuleius’ social and cultural station. Sociology and Multiculturalism Indeed, Apuleius, as he survives for us as a textual artifact, is Greco-Roman: he spoke both Greek and Latin, and his works express cultural, political, religious, legal and philosophical ideas that draw exhaustively upon on the genres of classical literature. But his Florida and Apology, and to a less conspicuous degree his Metamorphoses, also deliberately remind us that he is North African, semi-Numida et semi-Gaetulus. Contemporary sociology would encourage us not to emphasize one aspect of Apuleius’ identity over another. For his identity could never be adequately described without a hermeneutic apparatus that can account for the dialectic between his simultaneous multicultural identities. In his award-winning 2007 book Managing Multicultural Lives: Asian American Professionals and the Challenge of Multiple Identities, the sociologist Pawan Dhingra (who will participate in the conference) studies the tensions between integration and assimilation and the strategies used to resolve as well as perpetuate them. Dhingra also points out that space and social context delimit and define which dialect, which dress code, even which set of values a multicultural subject chooses on an a daily, even an ad hoc basis. And so, Asian-American second generation immigrants in Dallas, Texas, at the turn of the new millennium tended to express and perform their ethnicity while in their own homes by means of dress, speech, diet and other social forms, while at school, in civic spaces, or in the office, they would often emphasize their “Americanness” by showing their mastery of American codes of conduct, dress and speech.

9

One most insightful point made by Dhingra is that in certain contexts, these codes overlap, and a subject, without any internal perception of contradiction, will define him/herself not so much as who he/she thinks he is but what the situation calls for which may result in the subject performing racial stereotypes to his own benefit. This sociological work, we hope, might be helpful in explaining Apuleius’ own simultaneous display of Greco-Roman paideia, and at the same time, his selfproclaimed Numidian-Gaetulian roots; it can also explain his derision of his own uneducated Punic cousins.

Deconstruction Derrida’s attacks on the epistemological structure of Western metaphysics have met with a mixed reception, essentially on the grounds that Derrida does not aim to advance useful arguments; and so, as Derrida himself admits, his philosophy amounts to a form of “play.” Within Apuleian studies this critique has also been expressed as an aversion to “aporetic” readings. And yet Derrida’s critique has had the salubrious effect, as many philosophical, literary and sociological theorists would aver, of delineating the problematic nature of any given metaphysical or critical center, to the degree that any center relies for its authority (or centrality) on the marginalization of peripheral terms. In sociological terms, this has opened up the question of whether critical or interpretive language and larger critical discourses expressed in such language do not take an unproblematic notion of their own center for granted (cf. Spivak’s famous 1988 essay “Can The Subaltern Speak?”). Thus, we invite the participants to question the very terms of center and periphery with which we began. In our terms for this conference on Apuleius and Africa, we run the risk of making Africa a pilgrimage site, of venerating its alterity while ultimately returning to the safety of Rome. We must ensure that, as we study Carthage, we do not merely imply the absence of Rome. Deconstruction, or at least the contemporary reception of it in the discourses of literary studies, history, and sociology, would encourage us to be wary of the limitations of using any center, especially in this “new” interpretive center: what weaker, peripheral terms have been suppressed to lend authority to this central configuration? What weaker, peripheral terms of his own culture does Apuleius himself marginalize (cf. the Apology, in which Apuleius marginalizes his North African attackers by deriding their Punicness explicitly, particularly but not solely through their demonstrable lack of Greek and Latin paideia)? If this conference might succeed in making Africa a new center for Apuleian studies, to do so it will have succeeded also in making other cultural terms peripheral.

10

Bibliography Alvares, J. 2007. “The Coming of Age and Political Accommodation in the GrecoRoman Novels,” in M. Paschalis, S. Frangoulidis, S. Harrison, M. Zimmerman (eds.), The Greek and the Roman Novel. Parallel Readings (Ancient Narrative suppl. 8), Groningen, 3-22. Ando, C. 2000. Imperial Ideology and Provincial Loyalty in the Roman Empire, Berkeley. Bénabou, M. 1976. La résistance africaine à la romanisation, Paris. Bhabha, H. 1994. The Location of Culture, London. Bradley, K. 1997. “Law, Magic and Culture in the Apologia of Apuleius,” Phoenix 51: 203-223. ---. 2000. “Romanitas and the Roman Family,” Canadian Journal of History 35.2: 215239. ---. 2005. “Apuleius and Carthage,” Ancient Narrative 4: 1-29. Brett, M. and Fentress, E. 1996. The Berbers, Oxford. Bouchier, E. S. 1913. Life and Letters in Roman Africa, Oxford. Césaire, A. 1969. Une Tempête (Paris), in English as A Tempest, tr. R. Miller (New York, 1985). ---. 1972. Discourse on Colonialism, tr. J. Pinkham, New York. ---. 2001. Notebook of a Return to the Native Land, tr. C. Eshleman and A. Smith, Middletown. Cherry, D. 1998. Frontier and Society in Roman North Africa, Oxford. Connors, C. 2002. “Chariton’s Syracuse and Its Histories of Empire,” in M. Paschalis, S. Frangoulidis (eds.), Space in the Ancient Novel (Ancient Narrative suppl. 1), Groningen, 12–26. ---. 2008. “Politics and Spectacles,” in T. Whitmarsh (ed.), The Cambridge Companion to the Greek and Roman Novel, Cambridge, 162-181. Derrida, J. 1978. “Structure, Sign, and Play in the Discourse of the Human Sciences,” in Writing and Difference, tr. A. Bass, London, 278-294. ---. 1982. Margins of Philosophy, tr. A. Bass, Chicago. Dewar, M. 2000. “Culture Wars: Latin Literature from the Second Century to the End of the Classical Era”, in O. Taplin (ed.), Literature in the Greek and Roman Worlds: A New Perspective, Oxford, 519-545. Dhingra, P. 2007. Managing Multicultural Lives: Asian American Professionals and the Challenge of Multiple Identities, Stanford. Dowden, K. 1994. “The Roman Audience of the Golden Ass,” in J. Tatum (ed.), The Search for the Ancient Novel, Baltimore, 419-434. Fick, N. 1987. “Le milieu culturel africain à l’époque antonine et le témoignage d’Apulée,” BAGB 1987: 285-296. Finkelpearl, E. 1998. Metamorphosis of Language in Apuleius: A Study of Allusion in the Novel, Ann Arbor [Chapter 6: Charite, Dido, and the Widow of Ephesus].

11

---. 2007. “Apuleius, the Onos, and Rome,” in M. Paschalis, S. Frangoulidis, S. Harrison, M. Zimmerman (eds.), The Greek and the Roman Novel. Parallel Readings (Ancient Narrative suppl. 8), Groningen, 263-276. ---. forthcoming. “Marsyas the Satyr and Apuleius of Madauros: Reflections on Apuleius and Africa,” Ramus 38.1. Gaisser, J. 2008. The Fortunes of Apuleius and the Golden Ass, Princeton. Goff, B., ed. 2005. Classics and Colonialism, London. Goldhill, S., ed. 2001. Being Greek under Rome: Cultural Identity, the Second Sophistic and the Development of Empire, Cambridge. Graham, A. 1902. Roman Africa, London. Graverini, L. 2002. “Corinth, Rome, and Africa: A Cultural Background for the Tale of the Ass,” in M. Paschalis, S. Frangoulidis (eds.), Space in the Ancient Novel (Ancient Narrative suppl. 1), Groningen, 58-77. ---. 2007. Le Metamorfosi di Apuleio. Letteratura e identità, Pisa: Pacini [Chapter 4: Grecia, Roma, Africa]. Griffiths, J. G. 1975. Apuleius of Madauros: The Isis-Book, Leiden. Gsell, St. 1920. Histoire ancienne de l’Afrique du Nord, IV, Paris. Gualandri, I. 1989. “Persistenze e resistenze locali: un problema aperto,” in G. Cavallo, P. Fedeli, A. Giardina (eds.), Lo spazio letterario di Roma antica, vol. 2, La circolazione del testo, Roma, 509-529. ---. 1989b. “Per una geografia della letteratura latina,” in G. Cavallo, P. Fedeli, A. Giardina (eds.), Lo spazio letterario di Roma antica, vol. 2, La circolazione del testo, Roma, 469-505. Hall, E. 1995. “The Ass with Double Vision: Politicising an Ancient Greek Novel,” in D. Margolies, M. Joannou (eds.), Heart of the Heartless World. Essays in Cultural Resistance in Memory of Margot Heinemann, London, 47-59. Huggan, G. 2001. The Postcolonial Exotic: Marketing the Margins, London. Hurst, H. 1993. “Cartagine, la nuova Alessandria,” in A. Momigliano, A. Schiavone (curr.), Storia di Roma, vol. 3.2: I luoghi e le culture, Torino, 327-337. Harrison, S. J. 2000. Apuleius: A Latin Sophist, Oxford. Kroll, W. 1897. “Das afrikanische Latein”, RhM 52: 569-590 Lancel, S. 1985. “Y-a-t-il une Africitas?”, REL 63: 161-182 Mattiacci, S. 2003. “Apuleio in Fulgenzio”, SIFC 106: 229-256 Mattingly, D. J., ed. 1997. Dialogues in Roman Imperialism: Power, Discourse, and Discrepant Experience in the Roman Empire, Portsmouth. ---. 1997b. “Africa,” in Mattingly 1997, 117-139. Méthy, N. 1983. “Fronton et Apulée: romains ou africains?”, RCCM 25: 37-47. Millar, F. 1981. “The World of the Golden Ass,” JRS 71, 63-75; repr. in S.J. Harrison (ed.), 1999, Oxford Readings in the Roman Novel, Oxford, 247-268. Monceaux, P. 1894. Les Africains. Etudes sur la littérature latine d’Afrique, Paris. Nkrumah, K. 1965. Neo-Colonialism: The Last Stage of Imperialism, London. Norden, E. 1898-1923. Die antike Kunstprosa, Leipzig, repr. Stuttgart, 1958. Peek, W. 1972. Versinschriften aus der Cyrenaica, aus Mauretanien und Numidien (Abh. der Sächs. Akad. der Wiss. zu Leipzig Philol.-hist. Kl.; LXIII, 4), Berlin. 12

Perkins, J. 2009. Roman Imperial Identities in the Early Christian Era, London. Petersmann, H. 1998. “Gab es ein afrikanisches Latein? Neue Sichten eines alten Problems der lateinischen Sprachwissenschaft,” in B. García-Hernandez (ed.) Estudios de lingüística Latina, Madrid, 125-136. Rayfield, J. R. 1970. The Languages of a Bilingual Community, The Hague. Rosati, G. 2003. “Quis ille? Identità e metamorfosi nel romanzo di Apuleio,” in M. Citroni (ed.), Memoria e identità. La cultura romana costruisce la sua immagine, Firenze, 267-296. Rushdie, S. 1985. “Travels with a Golden Ass,” in Imaginary Homelands, London. Sandy, G. 1997. The Greek World of Apuleius, Leiden. Schlam, C. and Finkelpearl, E. 2000. A Survey of Scholarship on Apuleius 1971-1998. Lustrum 42, Göttingen. Schwartz, S. 2003. “Rome in the Greek Novel? Images and Ideas of Empire in Chariton’s Persia,” Arethusa 36: 375–394. Sittl, K. 1882. Die lokalen Verschiedenheiten der lateinischen Sprache, Erlangen. Spivak, G. 1988. “Can the Subaltern Speak?”, in C. Nelson, L. Grossberg (eds.), Marxism and the Interpretation of Culture, Basingstoke, 271-313. ---. 1990. “Post-structuralism, Marginality, Postcoloniality and Value,” in P. Collier, H. Geyer-Ryan (eds)., Literary Theory Today, Ithaca, 219-244. Stephens, S. 2008. “Cultural Identity”, in T. Whitmarsh (ed.), The Cambridge Companion to the Greek and Roman Novel, Cambridge, 56-71. Summers, R. 1970. “Roman Justice and Apuleius’ Metamorphoses,” TAPA 101: 511531. Swain, S. 1996. Hellenism and Empire, Oxford. Too, Y.L. 2001. “Losing the Author’s Voice: Cultural and Personal Identities in the Metamorphoses Prologue”, in A. Kahane and A. Laird (eds.), A Companion to the Prologue of Apuleius’s Metamorphoses, Oxford, 177–187. Vives, J. L. 1531. De Tradendis Disciplinis, Antwerp. Vössing, K. 1997. Schule und Bildung im Nordafrika der römischen Kaiserzeit, Bruxelles. Whitmarsh, T. 2001. Greek Literature and the Roman Empire, Cambridge. Wilhite, D. E. 2007. Tertullian the African, Berlin. Wöfflin E. 1977. Über die Latinität des Afrikaners Cassius Felix (Munich, 1880, repr. in Ausgewählte Schriften) Hildesheim. Woolf, G. 1998. Becoming Roman: The Origins of Provincial Civilization in Gaul, New York. Zabus, C. 1991. The African Palimpsest: Indigenization of Language in the West African Europhone Novel, Amsterdam.

13

14