This library is built in the open.
If you spot an error, have a suggestion, or just want to say hello — we’d love to hear from you.

it proves two things: since some of Cicero’s orations are even longer. Nor did he divide it into two parts when writing, when he had spoken it as one and at a single time: since no reason for this plan can be brought forward. Although I am not unaware that the most eloquent and prudent Isocrates wished his own Apology, περὶ ἀντιδόσεως On the Exchange, to be read in such a way, as he writes in the oration itself, so that it might not be read through in its entirety in the first impulse, but only as much of it as would not bring weariness to the listeners. Isocrates wrote that oration but did not deliver it: and he revealed why he wanted it to be read in that manner. Nor would it be absurd if it were said that this oration was delivered by Apuleius in two actions, just as the case of M. Fonteius is said by Cicero to have been pleaded in two orations, and Fonteius was accused in two actions. The same Cicero defended Cornelius for four days, which actions (says Pædianus) it is apparent he compiled into two Orations.
Finally, regarding the judges before whom Apuleius delivered this oration, I shall conclude briefly. They were all Pagans: Clodius Maximus, the Proconsul of Africa, and others who were in the council. This is most clearly apparent (to say nothing of other testimonies) in this very oration, especially in that place where Apuleius places the seal of Mercury into the hands of Maximus. And I would not note this, had not the otherwise learned youth P. Colvius fallen ridiculously into error in this matter, as he affirms at the beginning of his notes that these judges were Christians. I believe he was led by the words of Augustine, which we cited above from Book VIII of the City of God, by which, however, the opposite is proven, and can be manifestly known from that entire chapter of St. Augustine.
Regarding the various types of punishments to which magicians were accustomed to be subjected long ago, Albericus Gentilis, my best and most learned brother, explained it—briefly and concisely indeed, as is his habit, but accurately and diligently—in his Commentary on the Title of the Code concerning Sorcerers and Mathematicians original: "de Maleficis et Mathematicis". Scipio Gentilis.
PAGE 400 Apology] St. Augustine writes in The City of God, Book VIII, that Apuleius was accused before Christian judges regarding magical arts. He wrote these Apologies at that time, or rather he defended himself before the tribunal with them. But the same St. Augustine also makes us think that these were not two separate Apologies, but only one written by our author in a continuous oration. For he says: "A most copious oration of this Platonic philosopher exists, in which he defends himself from the crime of magical arts." This now seems to me highly probable. And, if you consider it well, the series of the oration itself might seem to prove this as well. Colv. In editing this most elegant book, we have used the old Roman edition, which was the first of all, published in the year 1469. That was always at our hand in place of a manuscript. With its aid, we removed many very serious errors from so small a work: I do not know how to excuse the negligence of those who, having professed this very thing before us, finished the collation of that book so lightly. We, on the contrary, followed that edition in all things, as it was the least experienced of corrected hands and therefore less corrupt, unless it was manifestly faulty. For even that edition, besides the fact that it contained almost no Greek, contains many and grave errors; most of which, by the grace of God, we have wiped away with sagacious conjecture. Such is the case with the false ἐπιγραφήν inscription/title, which badly divided the single oration—and what legal experts call a legitimate act, which must necessarily be continuous—and we have joined together what was separated by error and restored it to its pristine integrity. That this section is not the author's, no sane person can call into controversy. For why, I ask, in writing the oration...