Recenzii - 2023

Aug 21, 2026

Comprehensive scholarly review of Evelyn Adkins’ 2022 study on discourse, knowledge, and power in Apuleius’ Metamorphoses. The work examines how characters’ speeches function as Second Sophistic constructions tied to second-century Roman cultural identity, weighing internal limits and social relationships that determine reception outcomes. Organized into six chapters on marginal, elite, “asinine,” feminine, and silence-based discourses, it traces Lucius’ shifting trajectory toward self-control, redemption, and social integration, supported by anthropological, sociological, and linguistic arguments.

LanguageEnglish

CategoryLiterature

FormatPDF

Pages81

Reading Time2 h 5 min

AccessFree to download

Recenzii

Book background and research focus

Framework: speech, knowledge, and power

Six chapter structure of discourse types

Gender, status, and social identity through discourse

Conclusions and scholarly apparatus

Recenzii Evelyn ADKINS, Discourse, Knowledge, and Power in Apuleius’Metamorphoses, Ann Arbor MI, University of Michigan Press, 2022, XI+278 p. The book under review is based on the author’s 2014 Ph.D. dissertation at the University of Michigan, “Rudis locutor: Speech and Self-Fashioning in Apuleius’Metamorphoses”. It investigates the social and cultural dimensions of characters’ speeches, pointing out that character’s identity is fundamentally a Second Sophistic construct of the second-century CE Roman Empire. The book opens with an introduction taking into account Apuleius’ biography and works, due attention being paid to the alleged and generally accepted Greek source of Metamorphoses, Onos of Pseudo-Lucian of Patrae. An exposition of the content follows, along with the presentation of author’s approach to characters’speech. Author values speech as discourse evaluated in its relationship with knowledge. Speech is viewed not only as science of the discourse and capability of the learned, but also as «internal» or «external factor», that contributes to the success or failure of the reception of characters’ discourse. Adkins designates these factors as tensions brought about by the character’s internal limits, as well as by his relationships with the other characters of the novel, either individual or collective. From Adkins’ point of view, another important dimension of the discourse is its power to consolidate or destruct social identity (p. 3) . The author articulates her work in six chapters, each of them revolving around different types of discourse. The first chapter considers two types of «marginal discourse», antithetical as regards their speakers, although with a self-legitimating intent: the priests, despite their normative role, are peripheral by their uncustomary ways, surprisingly effeminate at least for the Greek characters and at the same time, for the Roman audience 1, due to the oriental, i.e. «barbarian» goddess’ cult they serve (pp. 34􀀐47), while the lawbreakers are peripheral by the nature of their deeds, but nevertheless masculine and assertive, using various professional Roman terminologies ranging from military to rhetorical (pp. 47􀀐52) . The second chapter mirrors the first by introducing «elite discourse» as mark of Roman masculinity. Yet, in the interplay between «internal and external factors», derision arises in a less subtle way when compared to the first chapter, as it is the case for the misery of Telyphron (pp. 66􀀐69) and the naivety of Lucius during the Festival of Laughter (pp. 70􀀐79), both of them victims of grotesques qui pro quos contrasted by the successful discourse of the physician (pp. 80-85), whose wise behavior and learned speech save the lives of the two innocent brothers. The next chapters, specifically the third («Asinine discourse»), the fourth («Feminine discourse») and the fifth («Silence»), focus more on Lucius’ trajectory, undermined from the beginning by his compulsiveness to acquire knowledge by any means necessary (curiositas, voluptas, etc.) unappropriated for his social status and education, whose refrain, i.e., self-control is the final step on his way to be redeemed, as it is the case with his mirror character Psyche. Chapter V reckons with theapophatic form of discourse: the silence as discursive limit takes the shape of mystic silence through abstinentia (pp. 148􀀐150), a sine qua non condition, in order to restore his lost identity and to achieve his objective of social integration. Chapter III and V are complementary, as they discuss alternative forms of discourse: «asinine», i.e., non-human, respectively «silence», i.e., disabled speech. Chapter IV balances the presence of the «masculine» discourse, conversely exploring the «feminine» one in its mundane (Byrrhena, Photis, the Corinthian matron) and divine hypostases (Isis), though Photis is held up as a 1 For the readership as audience, see L. Graverini, Litterature and Identity in Apuleius’ Golden Ass, B. T.

FAQs

What is the main focus of Adkins’ book as described in the review?

The book analyzes the social and cultural dimensions of characters’ speeches in Apuleius’ Metamorphoses, treating identity as a discourse-based construction linked to knowledge and power.

How does the review describe the role of speech in character reception and social identity?

Speech is presented as a factor that can consolidate or disrupt social identity, with success or failure depending on tensions between a character’s internal limits and relationships with others.

What discourse types structure the book’s six chapters?

The chapters cover marginal discourse, elite discourse, “asinine discourse,” feminine discourse, silence as a discursive limit, and a concluding shift where the novel itself is treated as “discourse.”

Aug 21, 2026

Upload by Felix Montgomery