‘Mastering’ Oratory: the mock-trial in Apuleius’ Metamorphoses 3.3.1-7.1

Mastering OratOry: the MOck-trial in apuleius’ MetaMorphoses 3.3.1–7.1

Giuseppe La Bua

abstract. the playful manipulation of ritual, literary, and legal elements marks the Festival of laughter in Book 3 of the Metamorphoses (1–11) as one of the most innovative episodes of apuleius’ novel. this article examines the rhetorical and judicial strategy adopted by the prosecutor and the defendant in the mock-trial. it also argues that lucius’ defense speech is modeled on cicero’s pro Milone. By revitalizing the portrait of cicero acting in defense of Milo, the learned novelist devises a new, amusing form of entertainment, increasing the fictionality of the oratorical-theatrical performance and making lucius-cicero producer, performer, and victim of the collective hoax.

any reader of apuLeius is famiLiar with the episode of the Festival of laughter in Book 3 of Metamorphoses (3.1–11).1 On his way back to Milo’s home at night, after a dinner organized by his relative Byrrhena, lucius kills three alleged robbers, who were trying to break into his host’s home (2.32). the following day lucius, assailed by anxiety and conscience-stricken, is arrested by the magistrates of hypata on a charge of manslaughter and taken to court (3.1–2). the unexpected size of the crowd forces the magistrates to move the trial from the forum to the theater. shortly after the prosecution speech, delivered by the night-watchman (3.3), followed by lucius’ self-defense (3.4–7) and the woeful appeal for vengeance by a woman carrying a baby in her lap and an old hag (3.8), the joke is revealed. the three murdered criminals are but three inflated wineskins. the people of hypata, including the host Milo, burst into unrestrained laughter: lucius, previously exhorted by Byrrhena to devise some entertainment to honor the god (2.31),2 has

american Journal of philology 134 (2013) 675–701 © 2013 by the Johns hopkins university press

1 latin text of apuleius’ Metamorphoses is from helm 1955; english translation is from Walsh 1994.

2 Dumque bibere solitarias postulant, sic ad me Byrrhena: “sollemnis,” inquit, “dies a primis cunabulis huius urbis conditus crastinus advenit, quo die soli mortalium sanctissimum deum risum hilaro atque gaudiali ritu propitiamus. hunc tua praesentia nobis efficies gratio-rem. atque utinam aliquid de proprio lepore laetificum honorando deo comminiscaris, quo

676 giuseppe la Bua

acted as “producer” (auctor) and “performer” (actor) at the ritual Festival of risus (3.9–11).3

Much scholarship has been devoted to the anthropological features of lucius’ farcical experience. apparently an invention of apuleius (not attested in the greek onos), or rather a creative re-elaboration of carni-val motifs,4 the stage performance in honor of the god of laughter has traditionally been interpreted as a “scapegoat ritual,” a rite of purifica-tion in which lucius acts as the pharmakos.5 recently, Frangoulidis has advanced an interpretation of the episode as a “community integration rite,” pointing up the final purpose of integration into—not expulsion from—the community, entailed in the ritual role performed by the alien lucius (2002).6 in terms of narrative, appropriate emphasis has been

magis pleniusque tanto numini litemus.” “Bene,” inquam, “et fiet, ut iubes. et vellem hercules materiam repperire aliquam, quam deus tantus affluenter indueret” (“as they demanded their customary toast to the god laughter, Byrrhena explained to me: ‘tomorrow is a feast-day which was established in the early days of this city. We are the only people who on this day seek the benevolence of the god laughter in an amusing and joyful ritual. your pres-ence will make the day more pleasant for us. My wish is that you may devise some happy entertainment from your store of wit to honour the god, so that in this way our offering to the great deity may be enlarged and enhanced.’ ‘that is a good suggestion,’ i replied, ‘and i will follow your instruction. i only hope that i can think of some material to enable the great god to deck himself out in a flowing mantle’”).

3 Met. 3.11: nam lusus iste, quem publice gratissimo deo risui per annua reverticula sollemniter celebramus, semper commenti novitate florescit. iste deus auctorem et actorem suum propitius ubique comitatur amanter nec umquam patietur, ut ex animo doleas, sed frontem tuam serena vetustate laetabit adsidue (“this festival, which we regularly celebrate in public as each year comes round, in honour of laughter, the most welcome of the gods, always owes its success to some novel subterfuge. this deity will favourably and affection-ately accompany everywhere the person who arouses and enacts his laughter, and he will never allow you to grieve in mind, but will implant continual joy on your countenance with his sunny elegance”).

4 a brief discussion of the sources of the risus festival in May 2006, 187–92. On the parallelism between the apuleian scene of the utricide and encolpius’ fight against the sacred geese in petronius 136.4–6, see ciaffi 1960, 106–8; grimal 1972, 457–58; plaza 2006, 74–75. On the device of the “narrative instantiation” and the turning of the image of the inflated wineskins from a traditional proverbial expression for “men” into actual “human beings” slaughtered by lucius (the expression utres inflati ambulamus, “we walk around like wineskins with wind in them,” is found in petronius 42.4), see plaza 2006, 68, 74–79. For the allusion of the ending of the Deus risus episode to horace s. 2.1.80–86 (and the final laughter which allows the defendant to escape a negative verdict), see plaza 2003; for the conflation of different literary models in the episode, see De trane 2009, 197–202.

5 habinek 1990.6 For a good survey of the multiple cultural and sociological interpretations of the

Festival of laughter, see May 2006, 182–90.

677MOck-trial in apuleius’ MetaMorphoses

placed on the connective nature of the utricide,7 which functions as a necessary link between Byrrhena’s warnings against the magical arts of pamphile and lucius’ subsequent violation of Milo’s hospitality.8 Further-more, the festival, crucial to providing the hero with extra motivation to take part in a transformation,9 has been set in an ideal opposition with the final celebration of isis in Book 11: the positive reaction of the people at cenchrae to lucius’ re-conversion into human form would testify to the superiority of the civilized cult of the goddess over the primitive cult of laughter, worshipped through torment and ridicule of a human being.10

With regard to the mock-trial, a “witty allusion” to apuleius’ real trial in the apologia,11 scholars have correctly emphasized both its declamatory nature, which recalls similar mock-encomia largely practiced in second sophistic epideictic rhetoric,12 and its theatrical connotations,13 immediately evoked by the setting that points to the falseness of the judicial proceedings.14 May (2006, 192–95) has stressed the Dionysiac and plautine elements implied in the repeated exposure of lucius to a laughing crowd, focusing also on the tone of dramatic irony marked by the contrast between lucius’ epic deeds—and his expectations—and the response of the people of hypata attending a frivolous, fictitious judicial dispute (quaestio). the mix of oratory and drama, two overtly oral genres, moreover, and the deliberate clash of tragedy and archaic dramatic lan-guage, non-visual oral performance, rhetorical strategies, and theatrical-mimic devices, intensify apuleius’ play on the novel’s fictionality.15 as

7 For a symbolic reading of the “utricide” (in connection with the sexual meaning of the wineskins), see Borghini and seita 2008.

8 Bajoni 1998. For an interpretation of the Festival of laughter in connection with the social practice of hospitium, see Vander poppen 2008, 169, who notes that the “entire episode of the Festival of laughter serves to demonstrate the inadequacy of Milo’s patronage,” add-ing that the “manifest rupturing of the hospitium relationship through the actions of Milo, albeit in a ‘carnivalesque’ context” leads lucius to violate the trust placed in him as a guest. On the narrative link with the description of Byrrhena’s house, see Marangoni 1976–77.

9 James and O’Brien 2006.10 Frangoulidis 2008, 179–90. see also Fick 1987, 35–37; James 1987, 88–89.11 harrison 2000, 224.12 sandy 1997, 169.13 a parallel is immediately suggested with caelius’ trial which occurred during the

ludi Megalenses of 56 B.c.e. (for the date of cicero’s speech, presumably delivered on 4 april, see austin 1960, 151). For cases of vis brought into court on dies nefasti, see greenidge 1901, 457, n. 6; for other instances of trials taking place in the theater, see May 2007, 87, n. 5.

14 Finkelpearl 1998, 88–92; May 2006, 182–207; see also penwill 1990.15 On the theatrical connotations of the slaughter of the wineskins, in parallel with

aristophanes’ themosphoriazousai, see Milanezi 1992; May 2006, 192–95. For the connec-tion of the risus festival episode with the popular mime, the so-called Laureolus, and the

678 giuseppe la Bua

has been noted recently, in the risus festival we are presented with “an often jarring novel which makes entertaining, provocative fiction from a hybrid of ‘truthful’ and fictional genres.”16

yet little consideration has been paid to the skillful conflation of standard rhetorical topoi in the watchman’s speech and lucius’ self-defense. scholars have unanimously recognized the largely rhetorical character of both speeches delivered in the theater of hypata (both of them addressed to the Quirites),17 pinning down linguistic peculiarities that might be redolent of similar ciceronian expressions.18 they have not, however, enlarged on the novelist’s playful use of specific rhetorical clichés, as exemplified by attested specimens of the genre.

this article examines the rhetorical-judicial strategy adopted by the prosecutor and the defendant and attempts to distinguish the legal, procedural, and rhetorical motifs introduced by the learned writer to cre-ate the illusion of an actual trial and, therefore, to parody a traditional greek-roman law-court case. as we shall see, a rhetorical reading of the prosecution and defense speeches provides the basis for interpreting the mock-trial as a fictitious legal case which combines and assembles arguments peculiar to the issues of “conjecture” and “quality.” it also argues that lucius’ speech takes up the defense strategy used by cicero in his unsuccessful oration on behalf of Milo. in delivering his own pro Milone, lucius emulates and parodies his model, playing on the appar-

resemblance of the irrepressible laughter that breaks out in the episode to the risus mimicus in petr. 18–19, see kirichenko 2010, 36–38.

16 May 2007, 103. it should also be observed that the fictional character of the trial is corroborated by the insertion of roman legal procedures into a greek context. On the alleged reference to the lex Cornelia de sicariis et veneficis in combination with the classic greek torture (fire and wheel), see summers 1970. harries 2007, 122, notes that the plea of self-defense adduced by lucius “is consistent with the lex cornelia but also universal,” pointing out that the “humor of the Metamorphoses depends on apuleius’ audience’s aware-ness of how the roman legal system worked” (a similar vision of the “universality” of the crime committed by lucius in graverini 2007, 217–18). On the trial as a “miscellany” of greek and roman legal elements, see colin 1965; for apuleius’ knowledge of legal roman system as attested in the apology, see Bradley 1997; rives 2008.

17 cf. 3.3.2; 3.5.6; see Van der paardt 1971, 41.18 Van der paardt 1971, 46–47; 63–64; harrison 2000, 224. For some ciceronian echoes

in the trial (e.g., Met. 3.6: dux et signifer ceterorum; cf. cic. Mur. 50: dux et signifer calamito-sorum; Met. 3.3.9: habetis itaque reum tot caedibus impiatum, reum coram deprensum, reum peregrinum; cf. cic. Caec. 104: habetis hominem singulari pudore, virtute cognita et spectata fide, amplissimae totius etruriae nomine), see harrison 2000, 224, n. 77. For the forensic flavor of the indictment of the praefectus custodiae, see van der paardt 1971, 46–47; on the “apologia parva” of lucius, 63–64.


ent veracity of the trial and stimulating the readers/spectators’ capacities of intra- and inter-textual reception. the sophist-novelist apuleius thus bolsters the comic quality of the fictional performance and generates parody through the mismatch between lucius’ intellectual ambitions and the absurd setting in which the theatrical-oratorical performance takes place. transformed into a master of oratory, lucius displays his literary education and rhetorical potential in a farcical context, reducing himself to the status of a mime actor. Besides being “an example of the multi-layered intertextuality in the Metamorphoses,” the risus festival “has an overall comic tone, with comic elements taken from a variety of sources forming a large part of its intertexts”:19 the contrast between the “serious” treatment of forensic oratory and the nature of the trial and, most notably, the recreation of a “ciceronian” speech in a theatrical, pseudo-religious setting stress the irony inherent in the episode, adding up to the general characterization of the unlucky ass-man as a foolish, credulous, and funny character.

prOsecutiOn, DeFense, anD stasis-theOry

the imaginary murder case faced by lucius may technically be read as a complex combination of rhetorical and legal arguments pertaining to the stasis-doctrine. let me start with the speech delivered by the accuser. the prefect of the nightwatch is prompted to address the accusation by the crowd’s crier. as usual in normal court procedure, a water clock is employed to regulate the time allotted for speaking, thereby reproducing the atmosphere of a regular trial.20 in conformity with the conventions of a canonical speech, as consecrated in rhetorical handbooks, the prosecutor opens his oration with a classic exordium which stresses the relevance of the case to public safety, while at the same time urging the judges to comply with their public duties and pointing to the absence of any per-sonal resentment directed at the accused (3.3.2–3).21 then there follows a statement of facts (narratio) in the form of a tragic eye-witness report

19 May 2006, 186.20 On the regular use of the clepsydra or water clock in the law-courts since 52 B.c.e.,

see van der paardt 1971, 38–39. cf. plin. ep. 2.11.14 and apul. apol. 37, 94. see ker 2009; riggsby 2009.

21 Walsh 1970, 58–59, observes that the exordium is precisely structured in the classic pattern of principium a re ipsa, ab auditoribus, a propria persona; for the canonical disposi-tion of a rhetorical proem, see loutsch 1994. On the rhetorical structure of the speech, see van der paardt 1971, 46–47; Frangoulidis 2001, 56–59.

680 giuseppe la Bua

(3.3.4–8);22 the final conclusion (peroratio) urges the judges to return a verdict of guilty (3.3.9):

sic rursum praeconis amplo boatu citatus accusator quidam senior exsurgit et ad dicendi spatium vasculo quodam in vicem coli graciliter fistulato ac per hoc guttatim defluo infusa aqua populum sic adorat: “neque parva res ac praecipue pacem civitatis cunctae respiciens et exemplo serio profutura tractatur, Quirites sanctissimi. Quare magis congruit sedulo singulos atque universos vos pro dignitate publica providere ne nefarius homicida tot caedium lanienam, quam cruenter exercuit, impune commiserit. nec me putetis privatis simultatibus instinctum odio proprio saevire. sum namque nocturnae custodiae praefectus, nec in hodiernum credo quemquam per-vigilem diligentiam meam culpare posse. rem denique ipsam et quae nocte gesta sunt cum fide proferam. nam cum fere iam tertia vigilia scrupulosa diligentia cunctae civitatis ostiatim singula considerans circumirem, con-spicio istum crudelissimum iuvenem mucrone destricto passim caedibus operantem iamque tris numero saevitia eius interemptos ante pedes ipsius spirantes adhuc, corporibus in multo sanguine palpitantes. et ipse quidem conscientia tanti facinoris merito permotus statim profugit et in domum quandam praesidio tenebrarum elapsus perpetem noctem delituit. sed providentia deum, quae nihil impunitum nocentibus permittit, priusquam iste clandestinis itineribus elaberetur, mane praestolatus ad gravissimum iudicii vestri sacramentum eum curavi perducere. habetis itaque reum tot caedibus impiatum, reum coram deprensum, reum peregrinum. constanter itaque in hominem alienum ferte sententias de eo crimine quod etiam in vestrum civem severiter vindicaretis.”

the prosecutor, an elderly man, was then summoned by a further loud cry from the herald. as he rose, water was poured into a small vessel, which was finely perforated like a colander to allow it to run out drop by drop; this was to regulate the time allowed for speaking. the man addressed the assembly as follows: “the case before us, august citizens, is no trivial one. it has a bearing on the peace of the whole community, and will be valu-able for the stern example it sets. hence it is all the more fitting that one and all here present, in the interests of the dignity of this our city, should carefully ensure that this impious killer may not escape punishment for the multiple butchery which he has bloodily perpetrated. pray do not believe that i am fired by private enmity, or that i am indulging savage hatred of a personal kind. My job is as commander of the night-patrol, and i believe that my sleepless supervision can be censured by no one up to this very day. i shall now turn to the matter in hand, and scrupulously recount the

22 May 2007, 90, notes that the report of the prosecutor “resembles a tragic mes-sanger speech.”


events of last night. Just after midnight i patrolled the city, scrutinizing in careful detail every area door by door. i caught sight of this most savage youth with his dagger drawn, wreaking slaughter all around, and before his feet i observed three victims slain by his savagery. they were still breathing, their bodies suffering convulsions in pools of blood. this man was justly apprehensive because he knew that he had committed this great outrage, and so he at once fled, slipping away under cover of darkness into some house where he lay hidden throughout the night. But the gods’ foresight allows no respite to evildoers, and early this morning i waited for him before he could escape by unobserved paths, and i ensured that he was hauled before this most austere court which exacts sacred oaths. here, then, you have a defendant sullied by numerous murders, a defendant caught in the act, a defendant who is a stranger to our city. so cast your votes responsibly against this foreigner, who is charged with an offence for which you would heavily punish even a fellow-citizen.”

the old watchman depicts lucius’ violent act as a danger to public safety and an offence against the community. playing up the seriousness of the situation and emphasizing the exemplarity of lucius’ trial, he draws atten-tion to the public interest driving his action and rejects the accusation of personal enmity towards the murderer. then he boasts of safeguarding the peace and the order of the city by picturing his capture of the killer red-handed as the result of his tireless diligence (diligentia) in cooperation with the foresight of the gods (providentia deum). Finally, he calls upon the judges to exercise their holy right to punish a crime whose gravity is reinforced by the alien status of the accused.

the prosecution speech draws on arguments common to rhetorical and legal procedure. the combination of direct proofs—specifically, the eye-witness identification of the killer—and logical arguments, or argu-ments from likelihood (εἰκός),23 provides readers with a sophisticated exploitation of rhetorical and judicial motifs, well attested in rhetorical handbooks. the theoretical discussion of argumentation in the “conjecture issue” (causa coniecturalis) in the second Book of the rhetorica ad heren-nium (2.1–12)24 helps us to identify the arguments used by the watchman in order to develop a successful prosecution strategy. to begin with, the eye-witness report of the murder exemplifies the “presumptive proof in respect to the period contemporaneous with the crime” (argumentum in

23 On the doctrine of the argumenta inartificialia, cf. Victorinus 269.26–270.20 (halm 1863). see lausberg 1960, 191–93.

24 cf. cic. Inv. rhet. 2.16–51; part. or. 33–40; 110–22; Quint. Inst. 7.2.1–57. On the status coniecturae in general, see calboli Montefusco 1986, 60–77.

682 giuseppe la Bua

instanti tempore), by which the prosecutor corroborates the veracity of his assertions (2.8).25 second, the description of lucius’ night-time attempt to escape by hiding in a house serves as a “non-artistic proof” of a guilty conscience (consecutio, “subsequent behavior, 2.8).26 third, the denial of pity to the killer and the emphasis on the gravity of the crime recall the common topic of “confirmatory proof” (adprobatio, 2.9), peculiar to the prosecution argument. Finally, the dismissal of false rumors about personal resentment directed at the murderer and the emphasis on the religious and public duties of the prosecutor serve as non-technical means of persuasion, common to both prosecution and defense (2.9, 12).27

the watchman stands out as an expert rhetorician, well acquainted with the stasis-doctrine.28 the prosecution speech exploits commonplaces (loci) and arguments that fall within the category of conjecture. the visual assessment of the facts makes the issue (κρινόμενον) complete and evident. no doubt can arise about the perpetrator of the crime. the prosecutor then diverts attention to his civic ethos and the social threat represented by the accused’s act of force (vis) to justify an appropriate punishment of lucius as murderer. By shifting from the empirical, ascertained by the eye or senses, to “artistic proofs,” derived from both the person and from the facts (ex persona et ex re),29 the commander of the night patrol aims to prove the socially dangerous character of the accused and, therefore, to fashion his own action as beneficial for the entire civic community. More strikingly, the elaborate mix of rhetorical and legal loci enables the old watchman to depict himself as a credible eye-witness and a public officer concerned for the safety of his fellow citizens: far from being merely “a witness not personally or emotionally involved with the events” (May 2007, 90), the prosecutor emerges as a statesman strongly committed to the conservation of the public institutions.

Once the violent crime is conceded, lucius elaborates his defense strategy by engaging the judges in a dispute over the “quality” of his action. Bursting into tears because of his anguished conscience,30 lucius is exhorted in turn by the herald (praeco) to respond to the prosecution’s account. Filled with “heaven-sent boldness” (audacia), he articulates his

25 lausberg 1960, 211–13.26 cf. cic. part. or. 114 for the corroborative evidence given by signa and vestigia

facti; see lausberg 1960, 195–96.27 cf. cic. Inv. 2.50.28 in general, see calboli Montefusco 1986; russell 1983, 40–73; heath 1994; 1995.29 Quintilian Inst. 7.2.16–17; see lausberg 1960, 204–9.30 Walsh 1970, 59, defines lucius’ tears as “a stock ploy in trial scenes as described

in dramatic historiography” (see also 59, n. 1).


speech as a candid confession of his criminal act. lucius cannot deny the charge of murder, as the corpses of the dead citizens are apparently conclusive evidence of his guilt; consequently, he seeks to shift atten-tion away from the crime itself to the motivations behind the violence and to the consequential benefits to the community: lucius has acted in self-defense and, most importantly, he has rescued his host, Milo, and the country from death and ruin. accordingly, he has been charged with murder unjustifiably and instead effusive praise should be bestowed upon him for his epic deeds (3.4–6):

nec ipse ignoro, quam sit arduum trinis civium corporibus expositis, eum, qui caedis arguatur, quamvis vera dicat et de facto confiteatur ultro, tamen tantae multitudini quod sit innocens persuadere. se si paulisper audientiam publicam mihi tribuerit humanitas, facile vos edocebo me discrimen capi-tis non meo merito, sed rationabilis indignationis eventu fortuito tantam criminis invidiam frustra sustinere.

(5) nam cum a cena me serius aliquanto reciperem, potulentus alioquin, quod plane verum crimen meum non diffitebor, ante ipsas fores hospitii—ad bonum autem Milonem civem vestrum devorto—video quos-dam saevissimos latrones aditum temptantes et domus ianuas cardinibus obtortis evellere gestientes claustrisque omnibus, quae accuratissime adfixa fuerant, violenter evulsis secum iam de inhabitantium exitio deliberantes. unus denique et manu promptior et corpore vastior his adfatibus et ceteros incitabat: “heus pueri, quam maribus animis et viribus alacribus dormien-ties adgregiamur. Omnis cunctatio, ignavia omnis facessat e pectore: stricto mucrone per totam domum caedes ambulet. Qui sopitus iacebit, trucide-tur; qui repugnare temptaverit, feriatur. sic salvi recedemus, si salvum in domo neminem reliquerimus.” Fateor, Quirites, extremos latrones—boni civis officium arbitratus, simul et eximie metuens et hospitibus meis et mihi—gladiolo, qui me propter huius modi pericula comitabatur, arma-tus fugare atque proterrere eos adgressus sum. at illi barbari prorsus et immanes homines neque fugam capessunt et, cum me viderent in ferro, tamen audaciter resistunt.

(6) Dirigitur proeliaris acies. ipse denique dux et signifier ceterorum validis me viribus adgressus ilico minibus ambabus capillo adreptum et retro reflexum effligere lapide gestit. Quem dum sibi porrigi flagitat, certa manu percussum feliciter prosterno. ac mox alium pedibus meis mordicus inhaerentem per scapulas ictu temperato tertiumque inprovide occurrentem pectore offenso peremo. sic pace vindicata domoque hospitum ac salute communi protecta non tam impunem me, verum etiam laudabilem publice credebam fore, qui ne tantillo quidem umquam crimine postulatus, sed probe spectatus apud meos semper innocentiam commodis cunctis antetuleram. nec possum repperire, cur iustae ultionis, qua contra latrones deterrimos commotus sum, nunc istum reatum sustineam, cum nemo possit monstrare

684 giuseppe la Bua

vel proprias inter nos inimicitias praecessisse ac ne omnino mihi notos illos latrones usquam fuisse; vel certe ulla praeda monstretur, cuius cupidine tantum flagitium credatur admissum.

i am well aware how difficult it is for a man accused of murder to persuade this large crowd of his innocence when the bodies of three citizens lie here before your eyes. this would be the case even if he speaks the truth and acknowledges the deed without prompting. But if with collective good-will you consent to grant me a cursory hearing, i shall readily persuade you that it is through no fault of mine that i am burdened with this capital charge. rather, the considerable odium of the accusation is baselessly imposed on me through the chance outcome of my reasonable indignation.

(5) i was making my way back from dinner at a rather late hour. admittedly i had taken too much to drink, and i shall not deny the truth of that. But as i turned in at the house of your fellow-citizen, the honest Milo, i saw before the very entrance to the lodging some most ruthless robbers seeking to force their way in. they were trying to wrench the house-doors off their hinges; all the bars which had been most securely installed had been violently torn away. the robbers were plotting with each other the murder of those within. then one of them, more eager for action and of more imposing physique than the others, began to rouse them to the same pitch with exhortations like these: “come on, lads, let’s attack them, while they sleep, with all our manly spirit and ready vigour. away with all feelings of hesitation and cowardice! let slaughter stalk with drawn sword throughout the house. let’s cut down those who lie sleeping, and run through those who try to resist. We shall make good our retreat unscathed only if we leave no one in the house unscathed.” i freely confess, citizens, that i sought to frighten off and rout these desperadoes. i was armed with a short sword which accompanied me in case of dangers of this kind, and i thought such action the duty of a good citizen. i was also extremely apprehensive for the safety of my hosts and myself. But those utterly savage and monstrous men did not take to their heels, and though they saw that i was armed, they none the less boldly confronted me.

(6) their battle-line was now assembled. the leader and standard-bearer of the gang promptly assailed me with brute force. he seized me by the hair with both hands, bent my head backward, and intended to batter me with a stone. But while he was urging that one be handed to him, my sword-thrust was true, and i successfully laid him low. a second robber was hanging on to my legs with his teeth: i killed him with a well-directed blow between the shoulder-blades. a third who rushed blindly at me finished off with a thrust to the heart. this was how i maintained the peace, and defended the house of my hosts and safety of the townsfolk. i believed that i would not merely escape punishment, but would also win public praise. i had never been indicted before on even the most trivial charge. as one highly respected in my community, i had always placed


unblemished behaviour before any advantage. i can see no justification for now having to stand trial here on account of the just vengeance which impelled me to take action against these despicable criminals. no one can point to any previous enmity between them and myself, or indeed to any previous acquaintance whatsoever with these robbers. if it is believed that a desire for ill-gotten gains was the incentive for so great a crime, at least let such gains be produced.

adapting his defense to mount a counterattack on the watchman’s dis-course, lucius performs as a consummate actor, delivering a speech fitting the theatrical occasion.31 he weeps at the opening and at the end, first to express guilt and fear before speaking, and later to offer a genuine but theatrically and “rhetorically activated” search for compassion in the peroratio.32 lucius’ spectacular self-defense starts off with an introduction (proemium, 3.4.3–4) which stresses the defendant’s pain at delivering a persuasive speech in the “wrong generic environment” (May 2007, 87) before a large, hostile crowd and, more importantly, before the diseased victims. responding to the watchman’s claim of the exceptional nature of the case, lucius draws attention to the atypical setting, a theatrical court, deferring until his summation (conclusio) any reference to alleged personal resentment toward the dead men and pointing out instead that the charge is groundless. the following narrative (narratio, 3.5 to 6.1–3) recounts the events of the night in detail. lucius elaborates on his encounter with the ruthless robbers and the consequent epic battle, adding significantly to the watchman’s extremely narrow version and providing the spectators with a firsthand account of the facts.33 although admittedly drunk, lucius heard the gang leader encourage his confederates to set aside cowardice and stab all those asleep inside the house. Frightened both for his host and for himself, lucius tried in vain to scatter the brig-ands who resisted fiercely. lucius then reenacted the epic slaughter of the three-bodied geryon34 and recalled how he successfully (feliciter)

31 May 2007, 90–91.32 laitener 2009, for the multivalent function of weeping in apuleius’ Metamorphoses

and lucius’ tears in the mock-trial. 33 May 2007, 90–91.34 cf. Met. 2.32: sic proeliatus, iam tumultu eo photide suscitata, patefactis aedibus

anhelans et sudore perlutus inrepo meque statim utpote pugna trium latronum in vicem geryoneae caedis fatigatum, lecto simul et somno tradidi (“the din of this engagement had roused photis, and she opened the door. i crept in, panting and bathed in sweat. i at once retired to bed and sleep, for i was wearied with this battle against three brigands, which had been a re-enactment of the slaughter of geryon”). see De trane 2009, 223–25. On the epic features in the episode, see Finkelpearl 1998, 86–92.

686 giuseppe la Bua

laid his opponents low. in the peroratio (3.6.4–6), he reasserts the civic function of his action. the cruel robbers were slain to protect the house of his host Milo and to ensure the safety of the town; instead of being indicted, he deserved to be honored. like the prosecutor who acted in the public interest, lucius had no private quarrels with the criminals and was moved to retaliate by a strong sense of justice.

perfectly incarnated in the double role of auctor/actor,of a collec-tive joke, lucius acts, then, as orator and defendant.35 he composes and delivers his speech in a theater before a crowd impatient for an amusing resolution. given the evidence, he tries to counter the charge brought against him by portraying himself as a respectable citizen, worried about the safety of his host and the city, and by depicting the trial as a miscar-riage of justice. What the prosecutor describes as an attack against the stability of internal order, and, as such, worthy of exemplary punishment, is now transformed into a deserving civic action by the learned lucius, who displays an impressive ability to manage rhetorical and epic styles of argument. Offering his own theatrically truthful version and partially contradicting the watchman’s account,36 lucius, in an amusing reprise of the Vergilian sinon,37 asserts his credibility by deliberately obscuring the spectators’ perception of reality. But lucius’ self-defense results in failure. at the end of the speech, lucius, personifying the perfect orator, bursts into tears once again and, turning in anguish from man to man, appeals to the audience’s mercy. Firmly convinced of the successful outcome of his performance, he calls the sun and Justice as witnesses to his miser-able destiny: astonishingly, as he looks out on the people, he sees every man “splitting his sides with loud laughter” (risu cachinnabili diffluebant), most of all his host Milo (3.7):

haec profatus rursum lacrimis obortis porrectisque in preces manibus per publicam misericordiam, per pignorum caritatem maestus tunc hos, tunc illos deprecabar. cumque iam humanitate commotos, misericordia fletuum adfectos omnes satis crederem, solis et iustitiae testatus oculum casumque praesentem meum commendans deum providentiae, paulo altius aspectu relato (laetum) conspicio prorsus totum populum—risu cachinnabili dif-fluebant—nec secus illum bonum hospitem parentemque meum Milonem risu maximo dissolutum.

35 Frangoulidis 2001, 57.36 May 2007, 92.37 Finkelpearl 1998, 86–92.


tears again rose to my eyes at the close of this utterance. i stretched out my hands in doleful entreaty to one section of the audience after another, appealing to their common humanity and to the love which they bore for their dear ones. Once i was satisfied that the compassion of all was roused, and that my tears had stirred their pity, i called to witness the eyes of the sun and of Justice, and recommended my immediate plight to the gods’ future care. But when i raised my gaze a little higher, i saw that the whole gathering without exception was splitting its sides with loud laughter, and that even my kind host and patron Milo was unable to contain himself, and was laughing loudest of all.

the joke is not yet revealed, but lucius’ attempt to arouse compassion ends in a further round of collective entertainment.

let me now move to the rhetorical strategy adopted by our talented speaker. lucius’ speech is an effective rebuttal of the prosecutor’s argu-ments. the threefold opening of the prosecution speech, articulated in three key arguments—the seriousness of the case under question, the sacred duties of the judges, and the portrait of the plaintiff as an unim-peachable official—is rebuffed point by point in lucius’ proemial sen-tences, which focus on the falseness of the accusations and alert the jury to the moral rectitude of the defendant. conscious of facing a desperate case, due both to the seemingly incontrovertible evidence and his status as a “foreigner,” lucius sets out to debate the quality (qualitas) of his act, which he claims to be morally and lawfully justified. to this end, he opts to displace his self-portrait as a civic hero, one not inspired to commit the crime by the prospect of personal gain after the imaginary account of the night-time events. he thereby reverses the sequence of the prosecution speech. the only way to escape the death penalty is to offer a motive for his violence and present the judges with the social advantages resulting from his act of killing. this accounts for the long narration describing the duel in which lucius exploits the argument of “retort of the charge” (relatio criminis)38 and describes the murder as self-defense, justified on the grounds of natural law. significantly, he uses the technical argument of the “comparison” (comparatio or compensatio),39 usually belonging to the “assumptive branch of the equitable issue” (qualitas adsumptiva),40 to demonstrate the social usefulness of vis. From this point of view, lucius’ self-fashioning both as a defender of his host and country and as a good

38 cic. Inv. 2.78; see calboli Montefusco 1986, 119–23.39 cic. Inv. 2.72; Quint. Inst. 7.4.12; iul. Vict. 13.7 giom.-celent.; grill. 70.4 Martin;

Victorin. 191.3; 281.34 (halm 1863). 40 calboli Montefusco 1986, 113–16.

688 giuseppe la Bua

“citizen” counters the watchman’s self-portrait as a diligent city official. Furthermore, the final re-assertion of his “moral purity,” underscored by the absence of any previous enmity between him and the criminals and, more importantly, by the lack of any personal profit, takes up and reverses the rumors-argument, at same time showing the prosecutor’s arguments to be based on the groundless assumption that a foreigner is a potential threat to the preservation of civic institutions.

in other words, the key argument of lucius’ self-defense strategy is the legitimization of violence and the counter-presentation of his action as praiseworthy. lucius has rendered an invaluable service to the city: he is a benefactor of the community, and his act of justice might even warrant suitable compensation. the legal argument framed by lucius thus appears as a brilliant variation of a standard model of a “conjecture” issue through the insertion of common topics derived from the “quality” issue. the case might be schematized as follows:41

prosecutor (watchman) = lucius killed three men

Defendant (lucius) = i killed them justly

Quaestio = Did lucius kill the men justly?

Κρινόμενον = Did lucius have the right to kill them?

Defense argument = i acted justly and lawfully and i rescued my host and the country

By shifting from conjecture to quality, lucius attempts substantially to modify the κρινόμενον, whose completeness was certified by the watch-man’s eye-witness report. Forced to concede that he committed an act of vis, he can refute the accusations, supported by the sequence of events, only through a “transposition of cause” and by diverting the crucial question to his motivations for the crime. the plausible way for lucius to defend himself—unaware that he is the victim of a ritual joke—is to counter all the arguments exploited by the accuser by insisting on the legality of his action and, most importantly, by portraying himself as a sort of “hero,” who acted in the interests of public security and for the preservation of civic institutions. But in this case, there is no room for a quaestio. all is set. lucius may reply to the accusations by delivering a splendid rhetorical set-piece, but no debate is allowed. the sudden entrance on stage of two crying women, the order by the magistrate to put the killer on the rack

41 cic. Inv. 1.18–19; part. orat. 2.132; Quint. Inst. 3.11.10–20.


(3.8), and the request by the anus for the uncovering of the bodies of the three dead men to “inflict harsh punishment which fits the crime” (3.9) are all planned in preparation for the final revelation of the ritual joke.

a neW pro MILone?

the combination of loci and arguments from both conjecture and quality makes the mock-trial a striking variant of a standard judicial dispute. it seems superfluous to observe that the legal and rhetorical proofs used by both the prosecutor and the defendant occurred widely in greco-roman speeches. they are attested as early as the fifth-century antiphon’s tetralo-gies42 and andocides’ speeches;43 some arguments used by the defendant, in particular the legal legitimization of revenge, are employed in lysias’ oratory.44 to move rapidly to roman oratory, the so-called “non-artistic proofs,” such as the emphasis on the wakeful vigilance of the prosecutor and on divine support in catching the killer red-handed, find considerable prominence in cicero’s invectives against catiline.45 Whether apuleius alluded to cicero’s consular orations in sketching the character of the accuser is hard to say. certainly, apuleius was familiar with the Catilinar-ians, if the figuration of lucius as a revived catiline at 3.2746 is directly

42 gagarin 1997, 121–25; Vidal 2000, 66–71.43 On the nature of logical or “artistic” proofs in antiphon, see gagarin 1990. 44 lys. 1.26; 43–44; 47; fr. 229a carey. 45 For the motif of the diligentia in cicero’s consular self-portrait, cf. cic. Catil.

1.7.10,11.6, 32.7; 2.14.10–13; 3.7; 4.5.3, 14.5, 13.7; phil. 4.15; see Dyck 2008, 146. For cicero’s constant reference to the protection of the gods over the city and the attribution of the suppression of the conspiracy to the providentia deorum, cf. cic. Catil. 1.33; 2.28–29; 3.18–22; sul. 40; att. 1.16.6; cf. also Quint. Inst. 11.1.23. On cicero’s special connection with the supernatural sphere in the Catilinarians and the description of his consular actions as the outcome of a partnership with the gods, see gildenhard 2011, 272–92.

46 QQQuod me pessima scilicet sorte conantem servulus meus, cui semper equi cura mandata fuerat, repente conspiciens indignatus exurgit et: “quo usque tandem” inquit, “cantherium patiemur istum paulo ante cibariis iumentorum, nunc etiam simulacris deorum infestum? Quin iam ego istum sacrilegum debilem claudumque reddam” (“My attempt was frustrated by what seemed to be the worst of luck: my own dear servant, who always had the task of looking after my horse, suddenly saw what was going on, and jumped up in a rage. ‘For how long,’ he cried, ‘are we to endure this clapped-out beast? a minute ago his target was the animals’ rations, and now he is attacking even the statues of deities! see if i don’t maim and lame this sacrilegious brute!’”). On lucius as an “incarnation of lucius sergius catilina, the arch conspirator of republican rome,” see tatum 2006, 12; see also la Bua 2013. On the apuleian passage as a “play of reminiscences on cicero,” see von albrecht 1989, 168–76.

690 giuseppe la Bua

related to the celebrated opening of the First Catilinarian rather than being mediated through sallust’s historical monograph.47 additionally, a good knowledge of ciceronian oratory on apuleius’ part is beyond any doubt.48 the relative brevity of the watchman’s speech, however, prevents us from advancing any hypothesis about its literary models. it seems safer to assume an elaboration of rhetorical topoi by cicero and apuleius independently of each other, rather than a direct influence of cicero’s consular speeches on the prosecution strategy.

a knowing assemblage of common rhetorical arguments, harmoni-ously matching established stasis terminology and theory, the watchman’s and lucius’ speeches are an additional proof of apuleius’ recognized mastery of rhetorical techniques. Most importantly, they provide a fur-ther opportunity for public laughter. the jarring contrast between the “seriousness” and severity of the trial, exemplified by the manipulation of forensic and technical formulae and designed for real-life trials, and the pseudo-religious, theatrical—and thereby fictitious—setting in which the prosecutor and lucius parade their oratorical talents generates a humorous effect, appropriate to the stage-managed context of the festival celebrating a none-too-serious deity. this ambiguous and comic treatment of elements peculiar to serious genres, such as oratory, has important parallels in the rest of the novel. apuleius’ satirical tirade against judicial corruption in Book 10 (33), in the aftermath of the pantomime of paris’ judgment (29–34),49 is a good example of the parodic use of topoi common to rhetorical invective;50 as in the risus episode, lucius impersonates a practicing rhetorician and philosopher in a theatrical context. One might also observe that, at the very end of his long-suffering journey, the newly re-humanized lucius resumes his forensic activity. encouraged by Osiris to keep pleading “celebrated advocacy in the lawcourts” (gloriosa patrocinia

47 On the sallustan paradoxical reading of cicero’s phrase transplanted in catiline’s mouth (Cat. 20.9: Quae quo usque tandem patiemini o fortissimi viri?, “how long, pray, will you endure this, brave hearts?”), see Finkelpearl 1998, 52, who claims for a case of double imitation (injection of a sallustan tone in the ciceronian passage), not unusual in apuleius’ work.

48 For cicero in apuleius, see helm 1910, xxii–xxviii; Butler and Owen 1914, xlviii–xlix. On cicero’s advocacy and apuleius’ self-praising strategy in the apology, see sallman 1995; harrison 2000, 44–45; 2008, 12–14; May 2006, 73–108; for the impact exerted on apuleius’ epideictic and theatrical performance by cicero’s pro Caelio, see harrison 2000, 44. see also May 2010, 176, nn. 2–3. a possible influence of the speech on behalf of archias on apuleius’ apology is suggested by carbonero 1977–78.

49 On the pantomime of paris’s judgment, see Fick 1990; Zimmermann 1993. 50 On apuleius’ satirical attitude and the rhetorical devices in lucius’ invective, which

reminds us of analogous tirades in Juvenal, see Zimmermann 2006, 96–99.


in foro) without taking care of his malevolent detractors (11.30), lucius retakes possession of his former dignity as a competent lawyer. literary training, however, is of no use for a curious and gullible man such as lucius. as harrison notes, “lucius’ expensive education, much stressed by other characters as a token of his elite status, does him relatively little credit, and his intellectual ambitions achieve little owing to his general foolishness and immaturity” (2000, 220).

Obviously, the creative and humorous manipulation of “serious” genres/texts is the gist of the novel’s comic effect. in addition to forensic oratory, apuleius reuses words and contexts taken from the dramatic genres, not only reproducing aristophanes’ patterns but also recreating tragic material.51 similarly, the reformulation of heroic and epic scenes as well as the conscious allusion to epic models, in particular those of Vergil, have been widely recognized as a dominant feature of lucius’ odyssey.52 again, the inserted tales of Cupid and psyche and phaedra in Book 10 show a brilliant literary texture, with the inclusion of references to tragedy, epic, love-elegy, philosophy, and alexandrian poetry.53 Finally, the interplay between platonic ideas and the technical knowledge of the isis-cult confirms the novel as an “entertaining narrative in the Milesian tradition,”54 stressing the comic tone of the final portrayal of isis and Osiris.55

On this approach, the construction of a fictitious trial after well-known rhetorical models is a display of apuleius’ extraordinary ability in conflating serious elements into a theatrical and mime context. the realization of this comic pastiche reaches its high point in lucius’ speech, a humorous recreation of one of cicero’s most celebrated orations. i suggest, in fact, that cicero’s speech on behalf of Milo might have had significant influence on lucius’ choice of defense arguments. One parallel between lucius’ speech and cicero’s defense of Milo may be drawn at a structural level. cicero’s oration has correctly been defined as a sort of deprecation (deprecatio) and as an appeal for clemency through a formal act of intercession (intercessio).56 in a similar vein, lucius’ self-defense

51 For the presence of an aristophanic pattern behind lucius’ narrative, see kirichenko 2010, 143–47. On the similarity between lucius’ killing of the wineskins and aristophanes’ thesmophoriazousai, see May 2006, 195–98.

52 For the parody of epic scenes in apuleius’ novel, see harrison 1990; 1997. 53 a good survey of the multiple intertextual references in the Cupid and psyche tale

is in May 2006, 208–20 (for the literary texture of the “phaedra” story in apuleius, 270–82).54 harrison 2000, 259.55 May 2006, 327.56 cerruti 1996, 112.

692 giuseppe la Bua

is a confession of guilt and a public petition for pity. lucius admits to being responsible for the death of three men: his actions, however, are a clear case of “i acted justly” (iure feci) to the effect that he has acted as a “brave, patriotic, dauntless hero” (May 1988, 132) in full imitation of his model Milo. it might also be tempting to say that the insertion of an explicit reference to lucius’ lodging at the house of “your good fellow-citizen Milo” (bonus civis vester Milo) at the outset of the narration (3.5) prompts the jury as well as the spectators to think about the defense speech as a new, “revisited” pro Milone. the relatively uncommon verb deverto, which signifies “to leave a roadway to rest for the night,” is used by cicero three times in Milo 51 and 54 to describe clodius in a similar context (his stopping at his alban house and at pompey’s country-seat): if employed in a figurative sense, the verb might indicate lucius’ inten-tion to “stop” at Milo’s house and “start” his own speech in defense of his host-client.

lucius’ defensive argument owes a considerable debt to cicero’s rhetorical strategy. i start with the exordium. in the opening sentences of both speeches, the conventional topos of the orator’s fear at speaking under unfavorable conditions plays a crucial role. a traditional means of arousing benevolence from the audience, the “topic of fear in delivering the exordium” (locus a timore in exordiendo)57 is used by cicero to build up the character of his client and to explain Milo’s actions in terms of “safety of the state” (salus rei publicae). handling an impossible case in which “conventional legality and morality” stand against Milo (Dyck 1998, 241), cicero begins his speech by emphasizing the “unwonted scene” (insolentia loci) and his anxiety stirred up by the sight of pom-pey’s armed guards.58 By shifting the focus from his own persona and his client’s guilt to a general, more pressing theme, namely, current violence and the defense of republican ideals, championed by the hero Milo (cic. Mil. 1.1–3), cicero seeks to win the support of the judges and to arouse a benevolent attitude from a hostile audience.59 similarly, lucius begins his self-portrait by conjuring up the image of an orator uneasy at deliv-ering a speech before an unusual tribunal, a packed theater, and, more importantly, without any chance of avoiding an unfavorable verdict. Fear is, however, spurred on by a guilty conscience, the reason for his weeping: in consequence, he can only ask for pity and humanity (humanitas) from

57 loutsch 1994, 510–12.58 For multiple readings of the fear-theme in cicero’s pro Milone, see Fotheringham

2006.59 cerruti 1996, 112–28.


the judges, a necessary condition to demonstrate that the charge is based on nothing but envy (invidia).

Beyond the traditional exordial topic,60 both lucius’ and cicero’s proems point to the exceptional setting,61 a theater for the apuleian comic character pleading before three dead bodies, a tribunal-stage for the orator who takes advantage of the visual effects to transform a court of law into a gladiatorial arena through devices of “theatricaliza-tion.”62 surrounded by a highly expectant audience,63 lucius and cicero perform the double role of orator-actor, perfectly integrating comedic characterization into the oratorical performance.64 their shared expres-sion of anxiety and fear at speaking in an unsuitable setting serves as a theatrical device, an appropriate (and expected) introduction to the great spectacle about to unfold.

involuntarily reduced to the low condition of mime actor, lucius, as a ridiculous duplication of the republican orator, tries to construct his own pro Milone. let me sketch out the main points of contact between cicero’s oration and lucius’ speech. after rejecting “previous legal judg-ments” (praeiudicia) and claiming justification for violence as self-defense sanctioned by the law of nature and history (7–22), cicero creates his own narration of the fateful battle of Bovillae (24–29), a tendentious and implausible account aimed at putting the blame for the fight on clodius, the thief (latro). cicero’s words show “awkward gaps that point to a weak-ness of the cause itself” (Dyck 1998, 227). By depriving clodius the plotter (insidiator) of “the sympathy ordinarily accorded a murder victim” and by glorifying the figure of Milo, a “model of restrained courage” (Dyck 1998, 224), cicero throws sand in the eyes of judges who are unfamiliar with the facts, keeping them ignorant of the deadly struggle and directing their attention towards the heroism of the lucky victim, Milo.

analogously, the imaginative narrative of the battle with the three giants-robbers in lucius’ speech manipulates events to arouse the people’s sympathy towards the killer-victim. lucius’ detailed account of his night-time encounter with the robbers claims to be a reliable version of the facts. What puzzles and amuses the spectators, however, is lucius’ astonishing (if fictional) mnemonic skill. claiming to have heard the gang leader’s

60 For a similar use of the theme of fear and periculum in cicero’s speeches, in par-ticular in the pro sexto roscio amerino, see loutsch 1994, 139–54.

61 For a “strategic” use of the commonplace of the insolentia loci, cf. cic. Deiot. 1–7. 62 axer 1989. On the figure of evidentia as theatrical device in cicero’s pro Milone (e.g.,

in the spectacular description of the battle between clodius and Milo), see celentano 2006. 63 plutarch Cic. 38; on the “attesa mediatica dell’evento”; casamento 2006, 181.64 Fantham 2002, for the theatrical connotations of the oratorical art.

694 giuseppe la Bua

exhortation to carry out the criminal act, though drunk, he now presumes to scoff at the spectators’ credibility by repeating the leader’s words. the manipulative intent of lucius’ speech is palpable. By visualizing the events and adding aural elements, which is common in a theatrical piece, lucius “corrects” his opponent’s version and invents a fictitious speech, organically inserted within a first-person narrative in adherence to the rules of tragic historiography, to stir up the people’s and the judges’ rage against the three latrones. lucius’ telling of his story bears the “stigma of incredibility” (May 2007, 103). like cicero, he relies on his listeners’ ignorance of the facts, and like the illustrious epic liar sinon, he makes up an incredible story by resorting to a fictitious oratorical performance, i.e., the invented dialogue between the gang leader and his comrades, to arouse horror in the citizens of hypata and excite their feelings of revenge, fulfilled and satisfied by the new hero of the city.

cicero’s incomplete and unreliable description of the battle between the two gang leaders horrifies the reader by “holding up the specter of clodius’ past crimes and future plans”; it also paints a “compelling por-trait of Milo as a brave champion of the res publica” (Dyck 1998, 241). lucius pretends to terrify the audience by calling up the image of the destruction of the house of Milo and the entire town, at the same time portraying himself as a hero.65 the similarity between the two heroic fig-ures is striking. lucius fashions himself as the savior of the country and as a “new” Milo, who has, of course, acted on behalf of his host-client Milo.

But there is something more. after recapitulating the arguments that are the lynchpin of his defense, i.e., clodius’ ambush (30–31), cicero proceeds to introduce the “what good?” (cui bono?) argument. Dispelling any possible doubt about a personal motivation behind clodius’ killing, and denying that clodius’ death served Milo’s interests, the orator high-lights the civic and political “value” of the heroism displayed by his client, who operated under the natural impulse of the “patriotic hatred with which we loathe all traitors” (civile odium quo omnis improbos odimus, 35). the parallel with lucius’ rejection of rumors pointing to a “private quarrel” with the robbers is remarkable. in response to the prosecutor’s denial of personal reasons behind his action, the mock-victim forcefully claims his innocence and, searching for public praise as a reward for his heroic act, he denies any previous acquaintance with the murdered men, reinforcing his case by insisting on the absence of material gain (praeda).

taking up cicero’s defense argument, lucius, who has never before

65 For the representation of Milo as a “heroic gladiator, the tamer of a beast, whose assault threatened the citizens” in cicero’s speech, see axer 1989, 309.


been indicted on even the “most trivial charge,” portrays his violent reaction to the robbers’ assault as self-defense and as the fulfillment of a civic duty, that is to say, the preservation of the safety of his host and the citizenry. the denial of personal gain behind the killing pushes forward the characterization of lucius as Milo. as cicero affirms in the opening lines of his speech, Milo, “a man of great courage,” is “less concerned for his own survival than for that of his country” (1). similarly, lucius, “highly respected in his community,” has always “placed unblemished behavior before any advantage” (probre spectatus apud meos semper innocentiam commodis cunctis antetuleram). the two heroes not only share physical courage, they also have in common “nobility of mind” (magnitudo animi), one of the fundamental philosophical virtues, that assimilates Milo to a stoic hero66 and makes lucius’ behavior an external manifestation of his internal candor and unsoiled character.

if lucius acts as Milo, however, he does not show equal firmness and adopt an emotion-free attitude. By contrast, he impersonates Milo’s defense attorney, the orator cicero, bursting into tears at the end of his passionate delivery. it is lucius’ weeping finale that consolidates the ideological and structural link between the two defense speeches. play-ing the role of the afflicted, in the pathetic peroratio of the pro Milone (92–95), cicero assumes the role of Milo, but not the stoic, unemotional Milo depicted at length in the speech.67 Justifying the impassive demeanor of his client as a sign of bravery, cicero adds the expected tears to his final request for mercy, meeting the requirements of a perfect oration and at the same time satisfying the audience’s desire for a spectacular ending. it has recently been argued that cicero, linking his own fate to that of the accused, was moved to shed tears by the memory of his own exile and by the thought that he might not be able to help his savior.68 What seems certain is that cicero deployed a rhetorical-theatrical device to persuade and to stimulate emotions in the judges and audience which, as the subsequent conviction of the accused was to demonstrate, was not convinced of Milo’s innocence by cicero’s argument.

a similar situation might be suggested for lucius. By displaying uncommon mimicking and visual abilities, lucius conflates the roles of the dramatic and oratorical performer. Bursting out sobbing, he pretends to persuade the jury of his innocence, covering up his guilt with a pathetic

66 For a philosophical representation of Milo in cicero’s speech, see Dyck 1998, 227–29.67 On the peroratio in cicero’s speeches, see Winterbottom 2004. For the peroratio

of the pro Milone, see tzounakas 2009.68 heckenkamp 2010.

696 giuseppe la Bua

manifestation of true repentance. acting as a mime, he then turns to each “spectator” in the hope of eliciting forgiveness. acting as an accomplished tragic actor, he calls the gods to witness, perfectly integrating the ora-torical performance into the canonical drama. as already observed, the fiction does not stop there. the subsequent irruption into the scene of the old woman “wearing mourning black” and carrying a baby in her lap (3.8), a traditional pathetic device,69 and the revelation of the beheaded wineskins (3.9), strengthen the tragicomic atmosphere of the trial, thus meeting the expectations of the public sitting in the theater.

it is, then, the contrast between the alleged plausibility of lucius’ oratorical-theatrical performance and the fictionality of the trial that pro-vokes collective laughter. Because of the fictional stage, lucius’ story is expected to be disbelieved. it is only thanks to the fictionalized oratorical drama that the accused is eventually acquitted. Formally, lucius fails, but actually, he wins. in contrast to his rival cicero, lacking his resolution in speaking,70 lucius shows “heaven-sent boldness” and performs the role of the actor-orator inspired by a divine force. additionally, with—and despite—his humiliation, lucius properly celebrates the god of laughter, thus meeting the needs of the festival’s organizers, who will now bestow on him outstanding honors. albeit in a fictional setting, lucius offers an extraordinary display of dramatic-oratorical skills, entertaining his specta-tors with his own pro Milone and deserving civic honors for his playful performance. cicero failed and Milo was convicted. By contrast, lucius, an appropriate victim of a popular, ritual show, becomes the object of public praise for his mimic virtues and will finally become the comic hero of the city of hypata.

69 cic. or. 131 on the technique of displaying a crying baby on the court; see Moretti 2004, 69–70.

70 as any ciceronian scholar well knows, the speech as transmitted to us may have been different from the delivered one in the trial against Milo charged de vi in early april of 52 B.c.e. asconius (41–42 clark) informs us that cicero, restrained and “greeted by barracking from the clodians” (exceptus acclamatione Clodianorum), was unable to speak with his usual “steadiness” (constantia). What the orator actually said was “taken down” and is still extant (manet autem illa quoque excepta oratio): the text which has come down to us is but a revised version, rewritten by the orator “with such consummate skill that it may rightly be reckoned his finest” (scripsit vero hanc quam legimus ita perfecte ut iure prima haberi possit); cf. also plutarch Cic. 35; cassius Dio 40.54.1–4; scholia Bobiensia 111.24–112.17 stangl. a good discussion of the issue of the revision of first Milonian speech is in powell and paterson 2004, 55 (who suggest that the written, revised version of Milo’s case, not diverging so much from the line of argument adopted at the trial itself, may have functioned as a “corrective” of the circulating unauthorized transcript of the delivered speech); see also Wisse 2007, 667. On cicero’s “desire to supersede the pirated version” and promote a new, politically effective version of the facts, see steel 2005, 118, 120–21 (see also crawford 1984, 211–12).


cOnclusiOn

a “mise-en-scéne inspired by drama” (May 2007, 88), the risus festival shows a novelist and orator at ease during a theatrical occasion. in a constant, polyvalent dialogue with his readers, apuleius creates a fictional theatrical performance in which the comic hero lucius acts as producer and actor of a collective ritual entertainment. in this vivid and imaginary fiction apuleius inserts an extraordinary piece of advocacy. “a collection of elements of contemporary rhetorical training” (May 2007, 88), the prosecution and defense speeches in the mock-trial display apuleius’ skills at mastering arguments and proofs common to the conjecture—and quality—issue.

the contrast between the “seriousness” of the rhetorical material and the fictionality of the trial-spectacle stresses the comic tone of the risus episode, testifying to the multilayered literary texture of the novel. this comical discrepancy between the apparently serious use of rhetori-cal clichés and the mime context is evident in lucius’ response to the prosecution speech. the learned sophist lucius-apuleius constructs his self-defense as a new, condensed pro Milone, reproducing the character of the ciceronian hero. lucius’ speech is a hilarious, textbook example created by a talented, well-trained orator. it revitalizes and parodies the canonical image of cicero, unlucky pleader on behalf of Milo. By mocking the oratorical model, apuleius adds a further occasion of collective fun to the spectacle of the risus festival, pleasing the spectators attending the delivery of a new, unsuccessful pro Milone and reducing cicero to the status of a mime actor.

partly in emulation, partly in parody, apuleius “invents” a cicero-nian speech. lucius and cicero, auctor(es) of the Metamorphoses (tatum 2006), share the role of actor and victim of a ritual, popular hoax. Both are unwillingly transformed from brilliant pleaders into mime actors, humili-ated before a laughing crowd. But lucius, not cicero, will be offered a well-deserved reward for being a laughing stock before a large audience and for offering it such an astonishing spectacle.71

sapienza–università di roma

e-mail: [email protected]

71 an earlier version of this article was delivered at princeton university, colum-bia university in new york, and the university of cincinnati in the spring of 2011. i am grateful to Denis Feeney, andrew Feldherr, andrew Ford, harold gotoff, robert kaster, Daniel Malkovic, simone Marchesi, katharina Volk, and gareth Williams for their invalu-able comments: my deep thanks to the students and all the attendants for their precious and thoughtful suggestions. i am also grateful to the anonymous readers of aJp and to its editor David larmour for helping me to streamline my arguments.

698 giuseppe la Bua

BiBliOgraphy

austin, r. g. 1960. M. tulli Ciceronis pro M. Caelio oratio. Oxford: clarendon press.

axer, Jerzy. 1989. “tribunal-stage-arena: Modelling of the communications situation in M. tullius cicero’s Judicial speeches.” rhetorica 7:299–311.

Bajoni, M. g. 1998. “Lucius utricida: per un’interpretazione di apul. Met. 2.23.” rhM 141:197–203.

Borghini, alberto, and Mario seita. 2008. “egeo-otre e i tre otri apuleiani: un versante di significato.” Quaderni del Dipartimento di filologia a. rostagni 7:93–97.

Bradley, keith. 1997. “law, Magic, and culture in the apologia of apuleius.” phoenix 51:203–23.

Butler, h. e., and a. s. Owen, eds. 1914. apulei apologia. Oxford: clarendon press.calboli Montefusco, lucia. 1986. La dottrina degli status nella retorica greca e

romana. hildesheim: Olms. carbonero, Oreste. 1977–78. “analogie e rapporti fra la difesa ciceroniana

del poeta archia ed il processo per la magia di lucio apuleio.” sileno 3-4:245–54.

casamento, alfredo. 2006. “spettacolo della giustizia, spettacolo della parola: il caso della pro Milone.” in Lo spettacolo della giustizia. Le orazioni di Cicerone, ed. gianna petrone and alfredo casamento, 181–98. palermo: Flaccovio.

celentano, M. s. 2006. “l’evidenza esemplare di cicerone oratore.” in Lo spettacolo della giustizia. Le orazioni di Cicerone, ed. gianna petrone and alfredo casamento, 33–46. palermo: Flaccovio.

cerruti, s. M. 1996. Cicero’s accretive style: rhetorical strategies in the exordia of the Judicial speeches. lanham, Md.: university press of america.

ciaffi, Vincenzo. 1960. petronio in apuleio. torino: Facoltà di lettere e Filosofia, Fondazione parini-chirio.

colin, Jean. 1965. “apulée en thessalie: fiction ou verité?” Latomus 24:330–45.crawford, J. W. 1984. M. tullius Cicero: the Lost and Unpublished orations.

göttingen: Vandenhoeck and ruprecht. De trane, ginetta. 2009. scrittura e intertestualità nelle Metamorfosi di apuleio.

lecce: pensa Multimedia.Dyck, a. r. 1998. “narrative Obfuscation, philosophical topoi, and tragic pat-

terning in cicero’s pro Milone.” hsCp 98:219–41.———. 2008. Cicero Catilinarians. cambridge: cambridge university press.Fantham, elaine. 2002. “Orator and/et actor.” in Greek and roman actors: as-

pects of an ancient profession, ed. pat easterling and edith hall, 362–76. cambridge: cambridge university press.

Fick, nicole. 1987. “l’isis des Métamorphoses d’apulée.” rBp 65:31–51.———. 1990. “Die pantomime des apuleius (Met. X 30–34.3).” in theater und

Gesellschaft im Imperium romanum, ed. Jürgen Blänsdorf et al., 223–32. tübingen: Francke.


Finkelpearl, e. D. 1998. Metamorphosis of Language in apuleius: a study of al-lusion in the novel. ann arbor: university of Michigan press.

Fotheringham, lynn. 2006. “cicero’s Fear: Multiple readings of pro Milone 1–4.” MD 57:63–83.

Frangoulidis, stavros. 2001. roles and performances in apuleius’ Metamorphoses. stuttgart: Metzler.

———. 2002. “the laughter Festival as a community integration rite in apuleius’ Metamorphoses.” in space in the ancient novel, ed. Michael paschalis and stavros Frangoulidis, 177–88. groningen: Barkhuis.

———. 2008. Witches, Isis and narrative: approaches to Magic in apuleius’ Metamorphoses. Berlin: De gruyter.

gagarin, Michael. 1990. “the nature of proofs in antiphon.” Cp 85:22–32.———, ed. 1997. antiphon: the speeches. cambridge: cambridge university press. gildenhard, ingo. 2011. Creative eloquence: the Construction of reality in Cicero’s

speeches. Oxford: Oxford university press.graverini, luca. 2007. Le Metamorfosi di apuleio. Letteratura e Identità. pisa:

pacini.greenidge, a. h. J. 1901. the Legal procedure of Cicero’s time. Oxford: claren-

don press. grimal, pierre. 1972. “la Fête du rire dans les Métamorphoses d’apulée.” in

studi Classici in onore di Q. Cataudella. Vol. 3, 457–65. catania: università di catania Facoltà di lettere e Filosofia.

habinek, t. n. 1990. “lucius’ rite of passage.” MD 25:46–69.halm, karl, ed. 1863. rhetores Latini Minores. leipzig: teubner.harries, Jill. 2007. Law and Crime in the roman World. cambridge: cambridge

university press.harrison, s. J. 1990. “some Odyssean scenes in apuleius “Metamorphoses.” MD

25:193–201. ———. 1997. “From epic to novel: apuleius as a reader of Vergil,” MD 39:53–74.———. 2000. apuleius: a Latin sophist. Oxford: Oxford university press. ———. 2008. “the sophist at play in court: apuleius’ apology and his literary

career.” in paideia at play: Learning and Wit in apuleius, ed. Werner riess, 3–15. groningen: Barkhuius.

heath, Malmom. 1994. “the substructure of stasis-theory from hermagoras to hermogenes.” CQ 44:114–29.

———. 1995. hermogenes on Issues: strategies of argument in Later Greek rhetoric. Oxford: Oxford university press.

helm, rudolf, ed. 1910. apulei Florida. leipzig: teubner.———, ed. 1955. apulei Metamorphoseos Libri XI. leipzig: teubner.heckenkamp, Marcus. 2010. “cicero’s tears.” in papers on rhetoric X, ed. lucia

calboli Montefusco, 173–82. rome: herder.James, paula. 1987. Unity in Diversity: a study of apuleius’ Metamorphoses.

hilde sheim: Olms.James, paula, and Maeve O’Brien. 2006. “to Baldly go: a last look at lucius

and his counter humiliation strategies.” in Lectiones scrupolosae: essays

700 giuseppe la Bua

on the text and Interpretation of apuleius’ Metamorphoses in honour of M. Zimmerman, ed. W. h. keulen et al., 234–51. groningen: Barkhuis.

ker, James. 2009. “Drinking from the Water-clock: time and speech in imperial rome.” arethusa 42.3:279–302.

kirichenko, alexander. 2010. a Comedy of storytelling: theatricality and narra-tive in apuleius’ Golden ass. heidelberg: Winter.

la Bua, giuseppe. 2013. “Quo usque tandem cantherium patiemur istum? (apul. Met. 3.27): lucius, catiline, and the ‘immorality’ of the human ass.” CQ 63:833–38.

lateiner, Donald. 2009. “tears in apuleius’ Metamorphoses.” in tears in the Graeco-roman World, ed. thorsten Fögen, 277–95. Berlin: De gruyter.

lausberg, heinrich. 1960. handbuch der literarischen rhetorik. Munich: hueber. loutsch, claude. 1994. L’exorde dans les discours de Cicéron. Brussels: latomus. Marangoni, claudio. 1976–77. “per un’interpretazione delle Metamorphoses di

apuleio.” annali dell’accademia patavina di scienze e arti 89:97–104.May, James. 1988. the eloquence of Ciceronian ethos. chapel hill: university

of north carolina press.May, regine. 2006. apuleius and Drama: the ass on stage. Oxford: Oxford

university press.———. 2007. “Visualizing Drama, Oratory and truthfulness in apuleius Metamor-

phoses 3.” in seeing tongues, hearing scripts: orality and representation in the ancient novel, ed. Victoria rimmel, 86–105. groningen: Barkhuis.

———. 2010. “the Function of Verse Quotations in apuleius’ speeches: Making the case with plato.” in Form and Function of roman oratory, ed. D. h. Berry and andrew erskine, 175–92. cambridge: cambridge university press.

Milanezi, silvia. 1992. “Outres enflées de rire: à propos de la fête du dieu risus dans les Metamorphoses d’apulée.” rhr 209:125–47

Moretti, gabriella. 2004. “Mezzi visuali per le passioni retoriche: le scenografie dell’oratoria.” in Le passioni della retorica, ed. gianna petrone, 63–96. palermo: Flaccovio.

penwill, J. l. 1990. “ambages reciprocae: reviewing apuleius’ Metamorphoses.” ramus 19:1–25.

plaza, Maria. 2003. “solventur risu tabulae: saved by laughter in horace (s. ii.1.80–86) and apuleius (Met. iii.1–11).” C&M 54:353–58.

———. 2006. “nomen omen—narrative instantiation of rhetorical expressions in apuleius’ Metamorphoses.” in Lectiones scrupolosae: essays on the text and Interpretation of apuleius’ Metamorphoses in honour of M. Zimmer-man, ed. W. h. keulen et al., 68–85. groningen: Barkhuis.

powell, Jonathan, and Jeremy paterson, eds. 2004. Cicero the advocate. Oxford: Oxford university press.

riggsby, a. M. 2009. “For Whom the clock Drops.” arethusa 42:271–78. rives, J. B. 2008. “legal strategy and learned Display in apuleius’ apology.”

in paideia at play: Learning and Wit in apuleius, ed. Werner riess, 17–49. groningen: Barkhuis.


russell, D. a. 1983. Greek Declamation. cambridge: cambridge university press. sallmann, klaus. 1995. “erzählendes in der apologie des apuleius, oder argu-

mentation als unterhaltung.” in Groningen Colloquia on the novel Vi, ed. heinz hoffman, 137–68. groningen: Forsten.

sandy, g. n. 1997. the Greek World of apuleius: apuleius and the second soph-istic. leiden: Brill.

steel, catherine. 2005. reading Cicero: Genre and performance in Late republican rome. london: Duckworth.

summers, r. g. 1970. “roman Justice and apuleius’ Metamorphoses.” tapa 101:511–31.

tatum, James. 2006. “Marcus tullius cicero, author of the Metamorphoses,” in Lectiones scrupolosae: essays on the text and Interpretation of apuleius’ Metamorphoses in honour of M. Zimmerman, ed. W. h. keulen et al., 4–14. groningen: Barkhuis.

tzounakas, spyridon. 2009. “the peroration of cicero’s pro Milone.” CW 102: 129–41.

van der paardt, r. t. 1971. L. apuleius Madaurensis: the Metamorphoses III. amsterdam: hakkert.

Vander poppen, robert. 2008. “a Festival of laughter: lucius, Milo, and isis playing the game of hospitium.” in paideia at play: Learning and Wit in apuleius, ed. Werner riess, 157–74. groningen: Barkhuis.

Vidal, g. r. 2000. La retórica de antifonte. Mexico city: universidad nacional autónoma de México.

von albrecht, Michael. 1989. Masters of roman prose from Cato to apuleius. leeds: cairns.

Walsh, p. g. 1970. the roman novel: the satyricon of petronius and the Meta-morphoses of apuleius. cambridge: cambridge university press.

———. 1994. apuleius the Golden ass. Oxford: Oxford university press.Winterbottom, Michael. 2004. “cicero’s perorations.” in Cicero the advocate, ed.

Jonathan powell and Jeremy paterson, 215–30. Oxford, Oxford university press.

Wisse, Jakob. 2007. “the riddle of the pro Milone: the rhetoric of rational ar-gument.” in Logos: rational argument in Classical rhetoric, ed. Jonathan powell, 35–68. london: institute of classical studies.

Zimmermann, Maaike. 1993. “narrative Judgment and reader response in apuleius’ Metamorphoses 10.29–34: the pantomime of the Judgment of paris.” in Groningen Colloquia on the novel V, ed. heinz hofmann, 143–61. groningen: Forsten.

———. 2006. “echoes of roman satire in apuleius’ Metamorphoses.” in Des-ultoria scientia: Genre in apuleius’ Metamorphoses and related texts, ed. r. r. nauta, 87–104. leuven: peeters.

‘Mastering’ Oratory: the mock-trial in Apuleius’ Metamorphoses 3.3.1-7.1

Documents

Transcript of ‘Mastering’ Oratory: the mock-trial in Apuleius’ Metamorphoses 3.3.1-7.1