4.1. INTRODUCTION

(p. 80 ) 4.2. EXORDIUM (‘INTRODUCTION’) 1–3

In the exordium, which Apuleius shapes in good Ciceronian manner, ³⁸ he presents himself as the unjustly accused philosopher (a leitmotif of the speech), who has to defend his innocence against a trumped-up accusation by Sicinius Aemilianus, the main villain of the piece, who uses Apuleius’ stepson Pudens as a shield behind which to hide, since the minor Pudens could not be punished if the accusation against Apuleius were judged unsubstantiated. The first time Aemilianus is mentioned, he becomes (1.1) ‘senem notissimae temeritatis’ (‘an old man well known for his recklessness’); this reference to age and rashness is standard invective, ³⁹ found already in Cicero, but it also opens the field for further characterizations of Apuleius’ main opponent as a senex, an old man, who bears some links with comedy. ⁴⁰ Temeritas, ‘rashness’ is usually the prerogative of youth, ⁴¹ but it should be noted that during the whole speech Aemilianus is built up as a boorish senex from the countryside, (an impression enhanced by his later characterization as rustic, stupid, and old) ⁴² like for example Demipho, the senex of Plautus’ Mercator, ⁴³ who loses his head over a woman, ⁴⁴ becomes quite childish again and has to relearn how to read since love has made him very foolish and rash. ⁴⁵

Aemilianus as the arch-villain of the Apologia is called (2.8) ‘professor et machinator’ (‘instructor and inventor’) and auctor (‘author’) of the accusation. Considering that in the further course of the speech Aemilianus is portrayed as lacking the technical expertise these words suggest, they have to (p. 81 ) be taken ironically. ⁴⁶ The metaphor of machinari is used seven times in Plautus for the comic intrigue (for example in Bacch. 232); the inventor of it is usually called auctor (cf. for example Mil. 1094). ⁴⁷

4.3. REFUTATION OF SUBSIDIARY, NON-MAGICAL CHARGES 4–24

The defence against the minor magical charges is conducted from a superior standpoint, that of the eloquent sophist and orator who can use his wide knowledge against his boorish ⁴⁸ accusers and easily ward off their attacks. Apuleius does this by quoting a wide range of literary sources to display his vast erudition. His first example is Greek, from the Iliad, quoted in extenso in order to win over to his side the learned philosopher Maximus, who is sitting as the judge over the trial, and to some extent Apuleius’ audience, too. ⁴⁹ The second quotation used, however, and the first one in Latin, is derived from the comic writer Caecilius (5.3):

Sane quidem, si verum est quod Statium Caecilium in suis poematibus scripsisse dicunt, innocentiam eloquentiam esse, ⁵⁰

(Indeed, if it is true what Caecilius Statius is said to have written in one of his comedies, that ‘innocence is eloquence’,)

This is the only quotation of Caecilius in the extant work of Apuleius. Caecilius was in antiquity known for his gravity, ⁵¹ and the dicunt distances Apuleius from the quotation.

(p. 82 ) It seems unlikely, however, that Apuleius was not familiar with the works of Caecilius, which is what Hunink and Mattiacci maintain. ⁵² On the contrary, since the whole age of the Latin Second Sophistic preferred archaic to classical poets generally, there is no reason to assume that Apuleius, and possibly also the more educated members of his audience, did not know exactly what he was quoting. Gellius knows Caecilius sufficiently, and Apuleius could have known the comic poet either from direct study or from excerpts. His careful phrasing only hides a play with the quotation which is lost to us since we do not have the context any longer. ⁵³

It is remarkable, too, that Apuleius starts from the same standpoint as Cicero, from the comic gravity of Caecilius. Cicero casts himself in one of Caecilius’ roles, that of the durus pater, objecting to Caelius’ lifestyle, cf. (Cael. 37): ‘quem patrem potissimum sumam, Caecilianumne aliquem vehementem atque durum’ (‘which father should I best take up, one of Caecilius’, vehement and harsh?’) Thence Cicero will enter the more benign world of some of the more indulgent fathers of Terence, as the following quotation from Ter. Ad. 120f. (Cael. 38) shows. Apuleius, on the other hand, although he refrains from any identification, still uses the proverbial gravity and sincerity of Caecilius to strengthen his own argument about his innocence. His rare use of Caecilius here mirrors his equally rare reference to Terence in De Deo Socratis when he needs to find a less frivolous comic writer. ⁵⁴

Comedy in quotation and reference, however, is at this stage only one among many literary references Apuleius employs in his defence. In the section about his dental hygiene, he refers to poems written by himself emulating Catullus (Apol. 6) and quotes common knowledge about the tooth-cleaning of crocodiles (Apol. 9) taken from Hdt. 2.68, Aris., HA 7, 612a20ff. and other zoological sources. When he has to defend his own (p. 83 ) homoerotic poetry he quotes extensively from Solon’s (Apol. 9.9) and Plato’s elegiacs (Apol. 10) in addition to his own ludicra (‘playful poems’) on the subject; ⁵⁵ thus it is not surprising that this passage in itself contains several references to Greek epigrams by Plato and others (Apol. 10.8–10), ⁵⁶ all with a homoerotic context, and statements by Catullus and Hadrian (Apol. 11) ⁵⁷ on the essential chastity of poets, who nevertheless might write lascivious verses.

Just before he finishes his section on homoerotic poetry, however, Apuleius quotes a line by Lucius Afranius, another archaic Roman writer of comedy, this time of fabulae togatae, after some brief allusions to the Platonic concepts of beauty and anamnesis: ⁵⁸ ‘ut semper, eleganter Afranius hoc scriptum relinquat: “amabit sapiens, cupient ceteri” ’ (‘as always Afranius has left it rather elegantly in his writings: “the wise man will love, the rest will feel lust” ’; trans. adapted). ⁵⁹

Quintilian remarks that Afranius was known for his interest in boys: ‘utinam non inquinasset argumenta puerorum foedis amoribus mores suos fassus’ (‘If only he had not defiled his plots with loathsome love affairs with boys, professing his own inclinations!’). ⁶⁰ There are, however, no clear pederastic references in his extant fragments, and perhaps Quintilian is exaggerating his claim, basing it on one or two comedies of Afranius. It is generally accepted that Apuleius assumes his audience knows that Afranius showed this predilection though he cannot himself offer a matching quotation. It suffices for him to flatter their supposed learning by alluding to this author’s life and works and to quote a phrase which on the surface corroborates his Platonic approach to the issue. Although traces of homoerotic poetry are found in archaic Roman poetry and are alluded to by Apuleius, ⁶¹ to quote Afranius is more suitably archaic and flattering to his audience’s capacity to catch allusions. ⁶²

(p. 84 ) The triad of allusions to early Roman drama, crossing three available subgenres, concludes with a reference to the tragedian Ennius ⁶³ (Apol. 13.1), loosely linking philosophy with tragedy:

Da igitur veniam Platoni philosopho versuum eius de amore, ne ego necesse habeam contra sententiam Neoptolemi Enniani pluribus philosophari.

(So please forgive Plato the philosopher for his love poems! Otherwise I will need to act against the opinion of Neoptolemus in Ennius and ‘philosophize at length’.)

In its full form the line runs. ‘philosophari mihi necesse, paucis, nam omnino haud placet’ (‘I must needs be a philosopher—in a few things; for to be so in all ways—that displeases me’). ⁶⁴ This apparently well-known line is quoted three times by Cicero in a philosophical context and Gellius, ⁶⁵ and Apuleius seems to expect his audience to know either its original context in the tragedy ⁶⁶ or its use in the arguments of the philosopher Cicero, since Apuleius alludes to the line and rephrases it by the substitution of paucis (‘in a few words’) for pluribus (‘at length’), and perhaps even changes the meaning by manipulating his audience into taking paucis in the original quotation to refer to the number of words used. Thus Apuleius invites the learned members of his audience, especially the presiding judge, who probably also knows Cicero’s and Gellius’ references to this particular phrase, to join him again in his witty derision of his boorish accusers. He uses a similar strategy in Flor. 2. ⁶⁷

The next passage among the subsidiary charges is concerned with Apuleius’ possession of mirrors (13–16). In a sophistic argument Apuleius suggests that owning a mirror does not imply using it, and the example with which he illustrates this is taken from drama again (Apol. 13.7):

Si choragium thymelicum possiderem, num ex eo argumentarere etiam uti me consuesse tragoedi[i] syrmate, histrionis crocota, † orgia, mimi centunculo? Non opinor. Nam et contra plurimis rebus possessu careo, usu fruor. ⁶⁸

(Look, if I possessed an actor’s equipment, would you argue that I was regularly wearing the long cloak of tragedy, the saffron-coloured dress of the stage, or the (p. 85 ) patchwork robe of mime? I do not think so. On the other hand there are many things I do not possess, but use none the less.)

The first phrase, describing theatrical equipment, ⁶⁹ is split up into the three main dramatic genres on the Roman stage, the costume of the tragic, comic and mime actors, with a possible fourth element missing between comedy and mime. Its use may soften us up for further dramatic reference. At the end of his mirror argument, Apuleius closely associates by implication his opponent Aemilianus with exactly the theatrical equipment the possession of which is so negatively charged (Apol. 16.7):

Teterrimum [sic] os tuum minimum a Thyesta tragico demutet, tamen profecto discendi cupidine speculum inviseres et aliquando relicto aratro mirarere tot in facie tua sulcos rugarum.

(although your hideous face differs only a little from the mask of tragic Thyestes, curiosity would certainly have made you look into a mirror. Yes, finally you would have left your plough and wondered about all those furrows in your face.)

Whilst Apuleius in 13.7 does not usually (consuesse) wear any dramatic equipment, it is his opponent who wears his tragic mask on a permanent basis. Again, drama is used to illustrate, here even visualize, Apuleius’ supposed innocence. The by now familiar invective against Aemilianus’ age and boorishness is put to good use here, as Apuleius suggests that Aemilianus should take up a mirror to recognize his own character, that is, that he should make good use of a commodity that he himself has accused Apuleius of possessing, to take a good look at his own dramatic equipment. ⁷⁰ This ‘throwing back’ of the argument into the face of his opponent is also done by the association of the tragic mask of Thyestes ⁷¹ with the ugly and wrinkled Aemilianus. Like Cicero in Pro Caelio, Apuleius here refers to tragedy, but only to alienate the associated character (Clodia and Medea in Cicero, Aemilianus and Thyestes in Apuleius) from the audience’s sympathies, and to prepare the audience for more daring dramatic identifications to come.

The fifth subsidiary charge against Apuleius is his poverty and his lack of slaves, which his opponents of course exploited in order to prove his need for a rich marriage. Apuleius turns this argument into a defence of the conventionally poor philosopher against mistrust, and inserts rhetorical set-pieces (p. 86 ) such as the ‘Praise of Poverty’, the laus paupertatis. He claims to have inherited some money from his father, and to have spent it on honourable causes like education and his friends. As he arrived in Oea, a foreign town, all alone except for a single slave, it would have been possible for him to conjure up comic references about a young man with only one slave arriving in a strange city, such as Menaechmus II in Plautus’ Menaechmi. ⁷² Apuleius however refrains from any identification of himself with the stock comedy type of the young man in love, as he had also in the last section dissociated himself from any stage costume. Although this young man is generally a sympathetic character, ⁷³ he often squanders his father’s inheritance on a courtesan or other irresponsible activities. Apuleius is careful not to be associated with this lifestyle, since he wants to avoid any allegation that he wished to marry Pudentilla, a mulier dotata (a richly dowered woman), only for her money, as is sometimes done by men in comedy. ⁷⁴ He is careful to avoid any association of himself with drama at all, as will be seen more clearly later, and his usual closural invective against Aemilianus this time (23.7) likens his opponent to Vergil’s Charon, an epic character as well as a dramatic one: Apol. 23.7: ‘unde tibi potius quam ob istam teterrimam faciem Charon nomen est ⁷⁵ (‘This circumstance, rather than your hideous face, has earned you the nickname of “Charon”’).

The last subsidiary charge brought against Apuleius is his native region, since he comes from Madauros, from between Numidia and Gaetulia. ⁷⁶ Both this invective against one’s place of birth and Apuleius’ counter-attack, setting it off against Aemilianus’ even more barbarian birthplace Zarath, is conventional. ⁷⁷ Conventional also is the assertion that even the clever Athenians have the proverbially dumb Meletides as a countryman: ‘apud Athenienses catos Meletides fatuus’ (‘the foolish Meletides among the clever Athenians’; Apol. 24). This Meletides, proverbial for his stupidity, occurs in Athenian comedy, (p. 87 ) such as Aristophanes’ Frogs and Menander’s Aspis, as Hunink notes, ⁷⁸ but not only there.

The first section contains many elements which are quite alien to a forensic speech, but which might well have been included in Apuleius’ declamatory Florida speeches. Comedy is only one of many displays of erudition. Towards its end, Apuleius has managed to show his learning by quoting, among other genres, different manifestations of Roman drama, that is the fabula palliata (comedy with Greek content), the fabula togata, and tragedy in a speech which is supposed to be a self-defence against the accusation of magic.

By showing his own wide reading and claiming that he is on trial because he is a philosopher and thus far more erudite than his boorish opponents, he wants to draw the educated judge onto his side. Drama, however, is only one of the many genres used. Whenever Apuleius employs it, he does so with a particular purpose, but he has similar purposes in quoting Catullus or zoological treatises. Even when he refers to the dramatic genres by quoting tragedy and comedy, he firmly disassociates himself from comedy, although, as seen in the Ennius example, he links the philosopher (and by implication himself) with the tragedian. This strategy changes only slightly in the next section.

4.4. REFUTATION OF ‘MINOR’ MAGICAL CHARGES 25.5–65

With a rhetorical division, in which he separates out his several arguments, Apuleius launches into the second main section, the discussion of the ‘minor’ magical charges he is accused of, some of which seem strange to our modern eyes, like the buying of fish. This is, however, not as harmless as Apuleius portrays it, since different fish were indeed used in love magic. ⁷⁹

Already in the division (25–8) Apuleius manages to make the fish argument look ridiculous, by using comedy as a reference. In 27.12, when he sums up the charges against him with ‘Hiscine argumentis magian probatis, casu puerili et matrimonio mulieris et obsonio piscium?’ (‘Is this the sort of (p. 88 ) argument you prove magic with: the fall of a boy, the marriage of a woman, the buying of fish?’) he uses a word, as Hildebrand ( 1842 : ad loc.) observes, which is used only for purchasing food, making the purchase of fish look extremely harmless, since fish bought for food is not used for magic purposes. One could add that this is the usual word for buying the typical comedy food for the typical comic dinner. ⁸⁰ Comic fish-buying is put into the mouth of the opponent (cf. probatis), ensuring that the accusation looks trumped-up and ridiculous. ⁸¹

It is also telling that the second point, the marriage with Pudentilla, receives some comic colouring, but seen through the eyes of the old Aemilianus: ‘Quod quidem matrimonium nostrum Aemiliano huic immane quanto angori quantaeque dividiae fuit’ (‘but this marriage of ours has brought Aemilianus here an awful lot of anguish and vexation’; Apol. 28.6) recalls similar passages from Plautus. ⁸²

The argument about the fish takes up a tenth of the whole speech. Apuleius’ opponents surely suggested that he bought these fish in order to perform some magic ritual, that is, to use them for love-magic, which Apuleius flatly denies.

At first he argues that buying fish is an everyday business, and he creates a slightly comic atmosphere in his argument. He lists other food he could have bought (29.5f.):

Nam saepe numero et vinum et holus et pomum et panem pretio mutavi. Eo pacto cuppedinariis omnibus famem decernis: quis enim ab illis obsonare audebit, si quidem statuitur omnia edulia quae depenso para<n>tur non cenae, sed magiae desiderari?

(For I have often obtained wine, vegetables, fruit, and bread in exchange for money! This way you condemn all grocers to hunger. For who will dare to buy from them once it has been established that all eatables acquired for payment are not served at dinner but serve magical purposes?)

The list of four edible things is not in itself a comic food catalogue, ⁸³ since this is not the food provided for a comic dinner, but it is reinforced by a list of luxurious food added shortly afterwards in 30.1: ‘lepores quaererem vel apros vel altilia’ (‘I sought to acquire hares, boars, or fattened fowls’). Together with the Plautine alliteration ⁸⁴ and two definitely comic words within two (p. 89 ) sentences (obsonare (‘to purchase provisions’) and cuppedinariis (‘sellers of delicacies’ ⁸⁵ )), the first list creates a comic environment upon which Apuleius can elaborate in the beginning of the section. Anyone who buys fish, he argues, does so for provender, not for magic. Its strategy resembles that of the mirror argument: he begins a section of his defence by saying that he has indeed done the act that he is accused of (i.e. he does own a mirror or buy fish), but then proceeds to argue that this is absolutely harmless (i.e. he does not use the mirror, or fish, for magical purposes ⁸⁶ ). Instead, he has his own, philosophical or oratorical, purpose for it, that is, he uses the mirror to practise oratory with it just like Demosthenes, and he cuts up fish to study their zoological features just like Aristotle. Indeed, as soon as he launches into his scientific excuse for dealing with fish, he leaves fish in comedy right behind. ⁸⁷ He quotes Vergil ⁸⁸ for love-magic not involving fish, and says he could cite other examples of love-magic in Greek comedies and tragedies which do not mention fish either: ⁸⁹

Memorassem tibi etiam Theocriti paria et alia Homeri et Orphei plurima, et ex comoediis et tragoediis Graecis et ex historiis multa repetissem, ni te dudum animadvertissem Graecam Pudentillae epistulam legere nequivisse.

(I would have referred to similar places in Theocritus, others in Homer, and many more in Orpheus, and I would have drawn many parallels from Greek comedy and tragedy as well as from historiography, if I had not noticed long before that you were not able to read a Greek letter of Pudentilla’s; Apol. 30.11)

He claims that he refrains from doing so under the pretext that his opponent Aemilianus is too illiterate to understand Greek (a point which will not keep (p. 90 ) him from quoting Homer in the original ⁹⁰ in the very next chapter, and on precisely the same subject), and then cites Laevius ⁹¹ as a specifically Latin example for this kind of non-fishy love-magic in comedy and as another link with the élite who read this archaic Latin author:

Igitur unum etiam poetam Latinum attingam, versus ipsos, quos agnoscent qui Laevium legere:

Philtra omnia undique eruunt:

Antipathes illud quaeritur,

Trochiscili, ung<u>es, taeniae,

Radiculae, herbae, surculi,

Saurae inlices bicodulae,

Hinnientium dulcedines.

(So I will just touch upon one more Latin poet. Those who have read Laevius will recognize his lines:

Philtres are brought out from everywhere:

they look for love-charms, magic wheels and nails,

ribbons, rootlets, herbs and twigs,

enticing lizards with two-forked tails ⁹²

and then the neighing animal’s hippomanes.)

Apuleius refers to comedy by quotation or allusion for the last time in this section at 30.11, although he keeps up a light-hearted tone in what follows. He sums up the food argument by the ‘naive’ statement (31.1) ‘Enimvero piscis ad quam rem facit captus nisi ad epulas coctus?’ (‘really, what is the use of a fish that is caught, except to be cooked for dinner?’). This is the last we hear about fish as food; then he leaves the sphere of food-buying, and turns to philosophy.

After a short anecdote about his fellow philosopher Pythagoras who also buys fish, ⁹³ but for a non-magical and non-dietary purpose, and some references to Homer, he goes into detail about the fish he is accused of dealing with. The list of fish is headed by ‘piscis [ … ] quem mihi Themis[c]on servus noster medicinae non ignarus, ut ex ipso audisti, ultro attulit ad inspiciundum’ (‘My slave Themison, who is not unpractised in medicine (as you have (p. 91 ) heard from the man himself), brought the fish to me on his own initiative’; Apol. 33.3). Apuleius does not elaborate this, but he makes no claim that it is bought as food—the lepus marinus or sea-hare is well known as a poisonous dish ⁹⁴ —nor does he make anything of the fact that his own slave provided him with it (the verb is neutral: attulit, ‘he brought’). Apuleius remains remarkably reticent here, with no verbal or structural allusion to the potential comic situation. Fish-shopping is a common activity for slaves in Roman comedy, and even the catching of a fish could be linked to comedy (for example Plautus’ Rudens). ⁹⁵ References to fish-shopping also occur in the ‘lesser’ genre mime. ⁹⁶ Reference to comedy or mime would easily have been possible by verbal allusion, but neither he himself nor his slave is associated with comic action. Furthermore, he does give some fish catalogues later on, both in Greek and in Latin, but none of them is taken from the plentiful resource of Greek comedy, despite the vast availability of fish catalogues especially in Greek Middle Comedy, and the link between philosophy and fish offered by Terence (Ad. 373–81).

Apol. 35.3 and 4 feature comic-sounding catalogues; yet Apuleius does not pronounce them in propria persona, for they are put into the mouth of his opponents:

Quin ergo dicitis me [ … ] quaesisse de litore conchlam striatam testam habentem, calculum teretem, praeterea cancrorum furcas, echin<or>um caliculos, lolliginum ligulas, postremo assulas, festucas, resticulas et ostrea Pergami vermiculata, denique muscum et algam, cetera maris eiectamenta.

(So why not say that at the same time I hired a large number of fishermen to search the coast for grooved shells, blunt-edged scales, and smooth pebbles? And further for crab-claws, sea-urchin suckers, and squid tentacles? And finally for splinters, stalks, cords, molluscs with wavy lines, or even moss and seaweed and other waste of the sea.)

Similarly, in the earlier discussion about Virgil’s references to love-magic, it is his opponent, not himself, Apuleius insists, who talks about the magic purposes of fish, in a passage full of comic language ⁹⁷ (Apol. 30.10): (p. 92 )

Postremo in maleficio ille [sc. Virgilius] venenum nominat, tu [sc. Tannonius Pudens] pulmentum, ille herbas et surculos, tu squamas et ossa, ille pratum decerpit, tu fluctum scrutaris.

(Finally, for black magic he [i.e. Vergil] names poison, you [i.e. Tannonius Pudens] a piece of fish, he mentions herbs and twigs, you scales and bones, he plucks in the field, you explore the deep.)

Apuleius wants to avoid being associated with the men who order fish to be bought in comedy, often enough the adulescentes amantes, who need extravagant food for a dinner with a courtesan, who irresponsibly squander their inheritance on a girl and extremely expensive fish dishes, who are ‘gulones omnes, qui inpendio a piscatoribus merguntur’ ⁹⁸ (‘all gourmands, who are sunk by the prices they pay to fishermen’; Apol. 32.6).

Instead, Apuleius casts himself in two completely different roles, first in that of the philosopher and follower of Aristotle interested in natural science (Apol. 36.3):

Legat [sc. the opposition] veterum philosophorum monumenta, tandem ut intellegat non me primum haec requisisse, sed iam pridem maiores meos, Aristotelen dico et Theop<h>rastum et [t]Eudemum et Lyconem ceterosque Platonis minores, qui plurimos libros de genito animalium deque victu deque particulis deque omni differentia reliquerunt.

(Let him read the monumental works of ancient philosophers, so that he finally understands that I am not the first one to have looked for these things. For a long time my masters have done so—I mean Aristotle, Theophrastus, Eudemus, Lyco, and the other successor Platonists, who have left on record many books on the origin of animals, their diet, anatomy, and differentiating characteristics.)

To prove his philosophical involvement, he sends off one of his attendants to get the book he has written about Naturales Quaestiones. ⁹⁹ In the meantime, he proclaims, he will entertain his audience with a story about Sophocles. This well-known anecdote supplies not only a moment of rest for his audience, as scholars have pointed out, but also offers the second model for Apuleius to identify himself with, a great tragedian, who like Apuleius himself is falsely accused by a relative and defends himself by reading from his own work—the fact that Sophocles was acquitted is clearly to influence the judge on Apuleius’ behalf, too (Apol. 37):

Sophocles poeta Euripidi aemulus et superstes—vixit enim ad extremam senectam—, cum igitur accusaretur a filio suomet dementiae, quasi iam per aetatem desiperet, protulisse dicitur Coloneum suam, peregregiam tragoediarum, quam forte tum in eo (p. 93 ) tempore conscribebat, eam iudicibus nec quicquam amplius pro defensione sua addidisse, nisi ut audacter dementiae condemnarent, si carmina senis displicerent. Ibi ego comperior omnis iudices tanto poetae adsurrexisse, miris laudibus eum tulisse ob argumentum sollertiam et coturnum facundiae, nec ita multum omnis afuisse quin accusatorem potius dementiae condemnarent.

(The poet Sophocles, the rival of Euripides, whom he also survived (for he became extremely old), was accused by his son of insanity. It was alleged that he was ‘out of his mind’ due to his age. Then, it is said, he took a copy of his Oedipus in Colonus, that most excellent tragedy, which he happened to be writing at the time. He read it aloud to the judges, without adding a word in his defence, except that they should not hesitate to declare him ‘insane’, if they disliked the poem of an old man. At that point, so I read, all the judges rose for this great poet and praised him highly for the skilful plot and the solemn style. They all very nearly declared the accuser himself ‘insane’!)

This is not simply a banal literary judgement, as Marache claims; ¹⁰⁰ it is not accidental that Apuleius claims the judgement was given in favour of Sophocles due to his coturnum facundiae (‘solemn style’), a technique that Apuleius prides himself on mastering. ¹⁰¹ Apuleius associates himself with Sophocles for tactical purposes.

The philosophical stance is taken up again after this interlude and Apuleius launches first into a full-length discussion on the generation of fish (38–9), which culminates in his own, philosophical, catalogue of fish (and related species) with the words taken from Aristotle and an ironic warning directed at Aemilianus not to take this as a magic incantation (38.7f.):

Ausculta igitur quae dicam. Iam me clamabis magica nomina Aegyptio vel Babylonico ritu percensere—σελάχεια, μαλάκεια, μαλακόστρακα, χονδράκανθα, ὀστρακόδερμα, καρχαρόδοντα, ἀμφίβια, λεπιδωτά, δολιδωτά, δερμόπτερα, στεγανόποδα, μονήρη, αυναγελαστικά

(Listen then to what I say. You will probably shout that I am giving a full list of magical words in Egyptian or Babylonic fashion: selacheia, malakeia, malakostraka, chondrakantha, ostrakoderma, karcharodonta, amphibia, lepidota, pholidota, dermoptera, steganopoda, monere, sunagelastika)

Apuleius implies that he utters catalogues of inedible fish in the interests of philosophy and science only; after that he finally offers a literary catalogue of fish used for food, and again not from comedy, ¹⁰² but eleven lines from Ennius, whom he had before cited as a tragedian. This Ennian translation (p. 94 ) of Archestratus of Gela, the Hedyphagetica, is a mock-didactic poem ¹⁰³ on where to buy and how to cook fish. Its function as the climax of Apuleius’ fish argument is clear: besides offering an erudite point of relaxation, it stresses that writing about fish has nothing to do with magic, even if it is translated from Greek. Moreover, it enables Apuleius tacitly to identify with an author previously introduced as a tragedian who is also a philosopher, perhaps of the Pythagorean school. ¹⁰⁴

Finally he even claims that a philosopher should not eat fish (maybe harking back to his Pythagorean example which he may have recalled to his audience by the reference to Ennius), but rather inspect it for scientific curiosity (Apol. 41.2):

‘Piscem proscidisti’ [says Aemilianus]. Quod crudum, id accusas? Si cocto ventrem rusparer, hepatia suffoderem, ita ut apud te puerulus ille Sicinius Pudens suomet obson<i>o discit, eam rem non putares accusandam. Atqui maius crimen est philosopho comesse piscis quam inspicere.

(‘You cut up a fish’. That it was raw: is that your point? If it were cooked and I scrutinized its stomach and pierced its liver (just like young Sicinius Pudens is now learning to do so with you in his luxurious dining), you would not regard this as a possible accusation. In fact, for a philosopher it is a more serious charge to eat fish than to examine them!; trans. adapted)

Not Apuleius but Pudens, the young ward of Aemilianus and official accuser in this trial, is the one who learns how to indulge in gourmandism involving fish, all under the instruction of Aemilianus. Again Apuleius uses the word obsonium (‘purchasing of food; provisions’) within a comic context, as the associations of wasting money and irresponsibility going along with the emerging identification of Sicinius Pudens with a young man from comedy started in Apol. 30.10. This might explain why Apuleius took good care to dissociate himself from comic fish after the introductory section on fish-shopping. Instead, Apuleius identifies himself with famous philosophers and a tragedian, and leaves comic identification completely to his opponents. He ends this section with a flourish when he repeats his major line of defence with ‘quis enim fando audivit ad magica maleficia disquamari et exdorsari piscis solere?’ (‘For who has ever heard of fish being scaled and stripped of their (p. 95 ) backbones for magical purposes?’) ¹⁰⁵ and cunningly implies that only his opponents could think of something as ridiculous as magic. This line is in addition a close reminiscence of the fish-cooking scene in Plaut. Aul. 398f., again firmly associating his opponents with characters from comedy:

anthrax Dromo, desquama piscis. Tu, Machaerio, congrum, murenam exdorsua quantum potest.

(anthrax Dromo, scale the fish. You, Machaerio, bone the conger and the lamprey as much as possible.)

This technique of rendering his opponents comic and even ridiculous cannot be kept up during the discussion of the other minor magical charges Apuleius is accused of, since no element of comedy offers itself for comparison. Still, Apuleius manages to insert the occasional characterization in a comic style. So Thallus, the unfortunate epileptic slave whose fits Apuleius is accused of having caused, is portrayed in a manner resembling comic or mimic descriptions: ¹⁰⁶ ‘facie ulcerosus, fronte et occipitio conquassatus, oculis hebes, naribus hiulcus, pedibus caducus’ (‘his face is full of sores, his brow and the back of his head are bruised, his sight is dim, his nostrils wide open, and he can hardly stand on his feet’). Fictional characterization through comedy is something Apuleius could have learned in his rhetorical training, and he employs it as Cicero had done before him. Apuleius later on draws close parallels between Aemilianus and Thallus, and thus indirectly characterizes Aemilianus as similarly unpleasant, for example in Apol. 44.7: ¹⁰⁷ ‘turpissimum puerum, corpore putri et morbido, caducum, barbarum, rusticanum’ (‘the boy is very ugly and has a decrepit and crippled body, [ … ] he is unsteady, barbaric, boorish’) recalls the description of Aemilianus as barbarus and rusticus (‘boorish’ and ‘uncivilized’) in Apol. 10.6. ¹⁰⁸

Another member of the opponent’s group, Tannonius Pudens, is also linked with a bad actor of drama at the end of the Thallus episode (Apol. 46.1):

Tannonius Pudens, cum hoc quoque mendacium frigere ac prope iam omnium vultu et murmure explosum videret…

(When Tannonius Pudens saw that even this lie was given a cool reception and was rejected with the frowns and murmurs of nearly all…)

Hildebrand (ad loc.) notes the dramatic metaphor in frigere, which is the proper term for actors, musicians, or rhetoricians who displease their audience (p. 96 ) and do not receive applause, ¹⁰⁹ and murmure explosum is the technical term for an audience booing an actor off the stage. ¹¹⁰ Apuleius makes sure that the image of his opponents as comedy actors, and bad actors for that matter, is never forgotten.

The incident of the linen cloth, which apparently covers a sacred object in Apuleius’ library—a ground for some suspicion—has little comic potential in itself, and Apuleius restricts himself to occasional comic vocabulary, ¹¹¹ and the invective against Aemilianus which closes this section alludes to epic, as he is compared to Charon and Mezentius (Apol. 56.7).

This reticence in comic invective does not last long. In the next section, on nocturnal sacrifices, Apuleius lashes out wildly against the prosecution witness. Crassus, while absent on a journey to Alexandria, had lent his house to Apuleius’ friend Quintianus. On coming back, Crassus claims to have found traces of nocturnal sacrifices in his house, smoke on the walls and bird feathers on the floor. Apuleius’ defence is twofold (and not very convincing): first he claims that it is not very likely that he would leave a house in this state if he had really done something illegal involving magic (57–58.10), and secondly he makes the most of the fact that the witness Crassus is not in court by unleashing the worst possible invective on him, which is already hinted at in the first sentences of the section. The abuse follows the traditional pattern of invective, as found in Cicero’s In Pisonem, ¹¹² but comedy is the main source: as his name unfortunately suggests ‘fat’ ¹¹³ , he is immediately portrayed accordingly, with abusive words found in comedy ¹¹⁴ but which may also have survived in everyday language. ¹¹⁵ He is given all conceivable titles for ‘glutton’: gumia, lurco ¹¹⁶ (57.1), helluo (‘squanderer’) ¹¹⁷ (58.6 and 59.1), (p. 97 ) belua (‘monster’) ¹¹⁸ (59.6), and characterized as someone who likes to spend most of his time in cheap eateries. Apuleius even claims that Crassus was only able to smell the smoke on his return because he had gone straight into the kitchen: ‘nisi forte Crassus non in cubiculum reversus perrexit, sed suo more recta ad focum’ (‘unless Crassus on his return did not go to the bedroom but, as usual, straight to the kitchen!’). ¹¹⁹ His sense of smell is so highly developed that he even smelled his Oea kitchen smoke all the way from Alexandria, surpassing even the keen noses of beasts of prey (57.5):

Sin vero naribus nidorem domesticum praesensit, vincit idem sagacitate odorandi canes et vulturios. Cui enim cani, cui vulturio Alexandrini caeli quicquam abusque Oeensium finibus oboleat?

(If he literally smelled the odour of his house, he also has a far better nose than dogs and vultures. For what dog, what vulture in the Alexandrian sky, can smell anything all the way from the land of Oea?)

The invective culminates in a description which, though generically derived from Cicero’s invective, is reminiscent of that of the slave Thallus and generally of comedy. ¹²⁰ We may note that the mask of the parasite is listed in Pollux ¹²¹ under those of the young men. It is beardless, balding, perhaps with a puffy face, and the parasite spends much of his time in the wrestling-school: ¹²²

caput iuvenis barba et capillo populatum, madentis oculos, cilia turgentia, rictum <…>, salivosa labia vocem absonam, manuum tremorem, ructus <po>pinam. ¹²³ Patrimonium omne iam abligurrivit, nec quicquam ei de bonis paternis superest.

(You would notice a young man’s head bereaved of beard and hair, watery eyes, swollen eyelids, a broad grin, slobbering lips, and ugly voice, trembling hands, and a breath smelling of cheap eating-places. He squandered all of his patrimony long ago and nothing of his paternal property is left.)

(p. 98 ) Abligurrire (‘to eat up dainties; to squander’) is a comic word: in Terence it is found in the mouth of a parasite, in a phrase which seems to be recalled in Apuleius’ version: ¹²⁴ ‘itidem patria qui abligurrierat bona’ (‘someone who had guzzled up his patrimony like me’). Ligurrire (‘to lick off, to sponge on’) is also used by Plautus in a parasite’s monologue describing his ‘job’: ¹²⁵

parasiti rebus prolatis latent

in occulto miseri, victitant suco suo,

dum ruri rurant homines quos ligurriant.

(when there are bank holidays, the poor parasites hide in their hiding places and live off their own juices, while the people from whom they usually sponge escape to the country.)

This parasite, Ergasilus, also compares himself to several beasts of prey in the same monologue: mures (‘mice’, 77), cocleae (‘snails’, 80), and finally Molossan hunting dogs: venatici j Molossici (85f.) ¹²⁶ The comparison with hunting dogs implies a good sense of smell, an asset parasites are believed to have, ¹²⁷ and parasites are often metaphorically associated with greedy animals. Crassus, Apuleius argues, acts much like a parasite, especially since he is absent from the court in order to pursue his usual parasitical business: gluttony, drinking, and bathing, cf. Apol. 59: ‘dico Crassum iam dudum ebrium stertere, aut secundo lavacro ad repotia cenae obeunda vinulentum sudorem in balneo desudare’ (‘I am sure that Crassus has long been drunk and snoring, or is taking a second bath and sweating out his inebriated sweat in the bathhouse, to prepare for an after-dinner drinking bout’).

Evidently Apuleius has the stock comic type of the parasite in mind when he describes Crassus as a food- and wine-devouring glutton whose sense of smell when food is concerned is keener than that of dogs (cf. Apol. 57.5). Furthermore, in 100.4 the entourage of Aemilianus and Rufinus is called ‘temulentum illud collegium, parasitos tuos’ ‘the whole drunken collection, those parasites of yours!’, and Apuleius had made much of the drunkenness of Crassus.

Scholars, probably under the influence of 81.4, ‘si cum hac una Rufini fallacia contendantur, macc[h]i prorsus et bucc[h]ones videbuntur’ (‘if compared with this single deceit of Rufinus, will seem no more than clowns and jokers’) have inferred that Crassus is here depicted as a maccus, a figure of the (p. 99 ) Roman Atellana, ¹²⁸ and the literary parallels point also to the mimic or comic parasite at this stage. There was already some conflation between the two types in Roman comedy, ¹²⁹ and Apuleius makes sure that the parasitical (and, since he is, as Apuleius claims, lying, sycophantic) behaviour of Crassus is portrayed in the crassest way by referencing the Atellana.

This stock character is not exactly a sympathetic figure in Roman comedy, and with this mask Crassus will be good company for the assorted disagreeable comedy cast that Apuleius is going to put on the Sabrathan stage in the third great section of his defence, the argument against his seduction of Pudentilla by magic. ¹³⁰

4.5. REFUTATION OF ‘MAJOR’ CHARGES CONCERNING PUDENTILLA’S MARRIAGE 66–101

Some scholars have noted (though not in great detail) that in this section the main opponents, Rufinus, the father-in-law of the dead Pontianus, and his wife and daughter, are portrayed as stock characters from comedy. ¹³¹ This greedy group is unleashed on the little boy (puerulus) Sicinius Pudens (the second son of Pudentilla) after the death of the girl’s first husband, Pontianus, Pudens’ elder brother and Pudentilla’s firstborn, in order to turn Sicinius Pudens against his own mother and her husband Apuleius. Apuleius makes sure that they are described in a most unfavourable way, and the literary allusions to the greedy pimps (lenones) and wicked courtesans (meretrices malae) abundant in Plautus and Terence naturally are helpful for his argument.

However, before this trio infernale is considered, it is necessary to see how Apuleius describes his own wife, Pudentilla. She is a rich widow in her early forties, thus ten or fifteen years his senior. ¹³² Apuleius, whose trial is ostensibly about magic but effectively about being a legacy hunter trying to enrich himself by her dowry, has to make sure from the beginning that he does not (p. 100 ) represent himself as gaining anything through the marriage. Already in the division, and repeated many times afterwards, is the statement (Apol. 66.2), that he stands to lose from the marriage:

me, quem lucri cupiditate invasisse Pudentillae domum dictitant, si ullum lucrum cogitarem, fugere semper a domo ista debuisse; quin et in ceteris causis minime pros-perum matrimonium, nisi ipsa mulier tot incommoda virtutibus suis repensaret, inimicum.

(They keep on saying that I ‘invaded Pudentilla’s house’ in pursuit of profit, but it should become fully clear to everyone that, had I really set my mind on profit, I would have had to keep away from that house at all times. For in general terms this marriage would not be advantageous at all, or would even harm my interests, if the woman herself did not compensate for all discomforts through her virtues.)

Here as well as later on in his narratio about her reasons for remarriage, he downplays his monetary gain and stresses her virtues, as it is in his interests to exaggerate exactly these aspects of their marriage. The vocabulary used to describe her is not taken from comedy. This, too, excludes Pudentilla firmly from any comic association with the stock figure of the mulier dotata (a richly dowered woman), which the audience might have suspected her to be in real life. The mulier dotata is a rich woman only married for her dowry, whose virtues are few and maledictions (usually of her poor husband) abundant. ¹³³ Since this is a negatively cast character in comedy, Apuleius avoids association with it by stressing the opposite characteristics in Pudentilla throughout the narratio, and later (Apol.90ff., esp. 92) makes it clear that there is no dowry to speak of coming with his wife. Again it is evident that Apuleius tries to keep himself and his side out of the comedy of which he is the stage-manager.

His enemies, however, are again not spared: Rufinus looks like a full-blown leno from comedy. Pollux in his description of masks from New Comedy describes the brothelkeeper in a way that is highly reminiscent of Rufinus, as balding or bald: ¹³⁴

Ὃ δὲ πορνοβοσκὸς τᾆλλα μὲν ἔοικε τῷ Λνκομηδείῳ, τὰ δε χείλη ὑποαέσηρε και συνάγει τὰς ὀφρυς, καὶ ἀναφαλαντίας ἢ φαλακρός.

(The Brothelkeeper in other respects is like the Lycomedian, but he has a smile on his lips and draws his brows together; he has receding hair or is bald; trans. Webster, Green, and Seeberg)

Compare Rufinus’ description in 74.7: ‘olim in pueritia, priusquam isto calvitio deformaretur’ (‘long ago, before this baldness started to disfigure him’) ¹³⁵ Plautine lenones are ‘characterized by greed and accused of impiety, (p. 101 ) perjury, faithlessness, cruelty and inhumanity’ as well as ‘boastful and stupid’, ¹³⁶ and Rufinus is accused of sharing some of these features: ¹³⁷

Hic est enim pueruli huius instigator, hic accusationis auctor [ … ] hic testium coemptor, hic totius calumniae fornacula [ … ] idque apud omnis intemperantissime gloriatur, me suo machinatu reum postulatum. [ … ] omnium simulationum architectus.

(he is the instigator of this little boy, he is the bringer of this accusation, [ … ] the buyer of witnesses; he is the furnace where this whole calumny was forged [ … ]. In front of everyone he keeps boasting without any self-control that it is through his machinations that I have been indicted. [ … ] the architect of all pretences.)

Worse than this is his profession as an effeminate pantomime dancer in his early years (Apol. 74): ¹³⁸

Mox in iuventute saltandis fabulis exossis plane et enervis, sed, ut audio, indocta et rudi mollitia; negatur enim quicquam histrionis habuisse praeter impudicitiam.

(Later, as a youth, he turned to performing pantomime; he seemed to be without bones or sinews, but this softness (so it is said) was both unskilled and unrefined. For it is said that he possessed nothing of an actor’s character except for sexual impurity.)

Rufinus’ effeminacy continues into his adult life, and again a member of the opposition is compared to an unskilled actor, this time of pantomime, where (Apuleius implies) effeminacy might be useful in the portrayal of female characters, as he later on suggests (cf. Apol. 78.3ff.). Rufinus and his wife own an extremely unvirtuous house, and have an equally unvirtuous and adulterous marriage (75):

Domus eius tota lenonia, tota familia contaminata; ipse propudiosus, uxor lupa, filii similes. Prorsus diebus ac noctibus ludibrio iuventutis ianua calcibus propulsata, fenestrae canticis circumstrepitae, triclinium comisatoribus inquietum, cubiculum adulteris pervium. Neque enim ulli ad introeundum metus est, nisi qui pretium marito non attulit.

(His whole house is that of a pimp, his whole household corrupt. He himself is infamous, his wife a whore, and his sons are of the same calibre. All day and night young people have their fling; there is kicking at the doors and noisy singing at the windows, the dining room is swarming with revellers, the bedroom open to adulterers. For nobody needs to fear going in, provided he has paid the price to the husband.)

(p. 102 ) This is an explicit description of a brothel displaying some parallels from comedy, ¹³⁹ complete with the cantica ¹⁴⁰ which the young men who want to be let in sing outside its doors. Long invectives full of Plautine vocabulary sketch Rufinus’ family in bold colours; ¹⁴¹ Rufinus, the pimp of his own wife (perhaps the outcome of his effeminacy?), manages to entrap first Pontianus, who is explicitly called amans adulescentulus (‘the young lover’) ¹⁴² (another stock character), with his daughter’s meretricious skills, and after Pontianus’ death manages to get young Sicinius Pudens under his control, too. Sicinius Pudens is to fall into the same trap and marry the undeserving meretrix, too, as the second young man to do so in this comedy. Pudens’ ‘education’ runs on the lines of a young man from comedy: he indulges in expensive food, notably fish (see above), and in the older meretrix ¹⁴³ kindly offered to him by a leno with the hope of further profit; he turns his back on his family in order to live with his girl (Apol. 97.7–98.1):

admodum puero [sc. Sicinio] eandem illam fliae suae machinam Rufinus admovet ac mulierem aliquam multo natu maiorem, nuperrime uxorem fratris, misero puero obicit et obsternit. A[i]t ille puellae meretricis blandimentis et lenonis patris illectamentis captus et possessus.

(Although the latter is still a boy, as you see, Rufinus is moving the same siege-engine into place: his daughter. So a considerably older woman, who until very recently was the wife of his brother, is pressed and imposed upon the poor boy. The lad was conquered and mastered by the allurements of the whorish girl and the enticements of her pimping father.)

and (Apol. 98.6):

Cum a nobis regeretur, ad magistros itabat; ab iis nunc magna fugela in ganeum fugit, amicos serios aspernatur, cum adulescentulis postremissumis inter scorta et pocula puer hoc aevi convivium agitat.

(As long as he was governed by us, he used to go to school. Now he rapidly flees from there to go to the taverns. Spurning serious friends, he joins the most depraved youths to feast and party (at his age!) with whores and drink.)

(p. 103 ) This is highly reminiscent of the sins of young men in comedy: for example Plaut. Most. 959f.: ‘Triduom unum est haud intermissum hic esse et bibi, scorta duci, pergraecari’ (‘there were not three days when there was no eating and drinking, wenching and doing things the Greek way’) ¹⁴⁴ The phrase in ganeum fugit (‘he flees [ … ] to the taverns’) picks up Apuleius’ criticism of Pudens’ extravagant and wasteful eating habits (cf. above on fish), that Aemilianus has taught him. This is comic, too: Plaut. Most. 22f.:

Dies noctesque bibite, pergraecamini,

Amicas emite et liberate, pascite

Parasitos, obsonate pollucibiliter

(You drink day and night, do Greek things, buy girlfriends and set them free, feed parasites and go shopping for sumptuous food!)

Usually the young man is a sympathetic character, not beyond reform, and the audience is led to hope that he gets the girl in the end. Sicinius Pudens, however, is far from that stage. His education under Rufinus and Aemilianus reduced him to a barbarian, Apuleius claims, who wastes his money on tarts. There might be reminiscences from Terence, Adelphoe at 98: ‘at nunc adeo patientem te ei praebes itaque eum indulgentia corrumpis, adeo ei nulla re adversare’ (‘But now you are patient with him and spoil him by your indulgence and oppose him in nothing whatever’), a notion also uttered by Terence’s Demea (Ad. 96ff.) in accusing the lenient Micio, who has adopted and spoilt his nephew.

Callebat ( 1998 : 211ff.= 1984 ) points out that Apuleius’ recourse to dramatic literature can even be paralleled by his employment of comic metre: Apol. 85.7, in a comic context, namely the description of a young man scolding his mother, starts in the form of a Roman canticum (that is in anapaests, molossi, and bacchiacs). Pudens’ accusations against his mother as Apuleius phrases them are comic, and thus, Apuleius implies, should not be taken seriously. Pudens’ description as a debauched comic adulescens is however best brought out in Apuleius’ malicious quotation from an unknown palliata ¹⁴⁵

Est ille poetae versus non ignotus: ‘odi puerulos praecoqui sapientia’, sed enim malitia praecoqui puerum qui non aversetur atque oderit, cum videat velut monstrum quoddam prius robustum scelere quam tempore, ante nocentem quam potentem, viridi pueritia, cana malitia?

(There is this well-known verse ‘I hate little boys who are wise before their age’, but what about a boy who is wicked before his age? Who would not turn away from him and hate him, seeing a sort of monster that is more swiftly mature in crime than in age, culpable before he is capable, green in youth but grey in wickedness?)

(p. 104 ) Pudens is even worse and more loathsome than a young boy who is wise before his years, since he is malicious at a young age, with the debauchery of a grey-haired old man. The latter links Pudens very closely with the grey-haired Aemilianus.

Interestingly, Apuleius’ opponents undergo a metamorphosis of character during the course of the speech. Aemilianus, at one instant linked with a tragic mask, even though the repulsive one of Thyestes, later on becomes a morally debased and greedy caricature of an old man. Rufinus goes through a similar degradation. From a fully fledged leno in the brothel cameo, Apuleius reduces him to an emasculated and effeminate pantomime dancer acting the part of women (78.3f.):

Tune effeminatissime, tua manu cuidam viro mortem minitari<s>? At qua tandem manu? Philomelae an Medeae an Clytemnestrae? Quas tamen cum saltas—tanta mo<l>litia animi, tanta formido ferri est—, sine cludine saltas.

(So you, the most effeminate of men, are threatening death to a real male with your own hand? But what hand will it be? That of Philomela, or Medea, of Clytemnestra? But if you perform these roles, you do so without a dagger: such is your weakness, such your fear of steel!)

Finally, as already mentioned, Rufinus is linked with the stupid macci and buccones of the fabula Atellana and low comedy (81.4). As he moves across Apuleius’ stage, he is—not unlike Cicero’s Clodia—slowly degraded from a character of Roman comedy—a leno, but still a member of a respectable genre, to a pantomime dancer, and finally to the depths of Atellan farce.

Against this background of opponents reduced from membership of respectable dramatic genres to participants in non-respectable subliterary farces, Apuleius can fall back into comedy for a single instant. Only once does Apuleius use comedy to describe himself and Pudentilla: when he looks for an explanation for the marriage taking place in the countryside, he claims that this is done to save money (87.10), and to enhance the bride’s fertility, ending the argument with a metaphorical quotation from an unknown Greek comic writer, which resembles the Greek engagement formulae (88.6): ¹⁴⁶

Ibi et ille celeberrimus in comoediis versus de proximo congruit: παίδων ἐπ ἀρότῳ, γνησ ων ἐπὶ σπορᾷ

(Here this well-known verse from comedy is quite appropriate: ‘To produce children, to generate legal offspring.’)

(p. 105 ) This is quite a different comedy from the low-life scenario with brothel-keepers and meretrices of the Rufinus family, whose main object is not the procreation of children (as Apuleius claims his is, by quoting this text), but the enriching of themselves. ¹⁴⁷

If there is a young married couple at the end of a comedy, they stay together happily ever after; marriages with Rufinus’ promiscuous flia are doomed and, as Apuleius darkly hints, life-threatening. Apuleius’ ‘happy ending’ with Pudentilla is that of respectable (and possibly Menandrean) comedies, not that of low-life scenarios also found in the more exuberant Roman comedies. It is thus perhaps significant that the one quotation linking him with comedy is taken from a Greek, not a Latin, text and echoes the wedding ritual.

In this context, finally, one other element of drama in connection to Pudentilla’s letter is important: an invited comparison of Pudentilla with Phaedra (Apol. 97). Apuleius, certain of his victory over his opponents once this letter will have been read out completely, pretends that her letter may be considered as written under duress or as proof of her insanity: (Apol. 79): ‘an sola Phaedra falsum epistolium de amore commenta est’ (‘Or is Phaedra the only woman who made up a false letter about love?’). This is a reference to Phaedra’s letter to Theseus (cf. E. Hipp. 856ff.) and fleetingly associates Pudentilla with an exemplary unsympathetic heroine from tragedy. Since Apuleius immediately proceeds to use the (Greek) letter in his defence, proving that neither allegation was true, he in fact disassociates Pudentilla from Phaedra (an older woman besotted with a younger man): her letter is truthful, and thus the disassociation from Phaedra functions as another, rather drastic, proof of Pudentilla’s sanity and his own innocence.

The letter itself is then personified: (Apol. 81.1): ‘superest ea pars epistulae, quae similiter pro me scripta in memet ipsum vertit cornua’ (‘What remains is the part of the letter that was equally written in my defence but has turned its horns against me’). ‘Turning horns against someone’ is a metaphor from comedy: ¹⁴⁸ cf. Pseud. 1020f. (scil. formido) ‘ne malus item erga me sit ut erga illum fuit, | ne in re secunda nunc mi obvortat cornua’ (‘I fear that this evil fellow will act against me as he has acted against him, and now when he is lucky he might turn his horns against me.’). This is Pseudolus’ praise for Simia, who has successfully deceived Ballio with a letter. Apuleius again (p. 106 ) portrays himself as an innocent victim of a machinator of a comic intrigue, since the harmless letter is used against him unjustly. To link Rufinus once again with the comic genre from which Apuleius disassociates himself, he also turns him into the arch-deviser of dangerous plots, and again associates his enemy with comic stock types (Apol. 81.4):

Omnes isti quos nominavi et si qui praeterea fuerunt dolo memorandi, si cum hac una Rufini fallacia contendantur, macc[h]i prorsus et bucc[h]ones videbuntur.

(All those whom I mentioned and any other legendary crooks, if compared with this single deceit of Rufinus, will seem no more than clowns and jokers.)

Rufinus is more dangerous than the fools found in Atellan farce—he is compared unflatteringly with characters from low comedy.

4.6. CONCLUSION

Generally Apuleius, who portrays himself as a philosopher or a serious litteratus, such as an author of drama (cf. the Sophocles episode), studiously avoids associating himself too closely with stock comic figures, although he could have done this in some parts of his defence. There would have been an obvious opportunity when the matter of the liberation of the three slaves was discussed (Apol. 17). A young man arriving in a strange city with only one slave is comic material, and it is exploited for example in the Menaechmi. Liberation of slaves at weddings is another stock situation at the end of a comedy, which results in the liberation of the servus callidus who brought about the wedding. ¹⁴⁹ If Apuleius had wanted to make a reference to comedy here, he could have done so by quoting Plautus or by using words taken from comedy. Instead, he most studiously avoids the association, which would cast him in the role of the young (and sometimes irresponsible) adulescens, a role which he firmly associates with the young Sicinius Pudens. Pudens, instead, is the young man who has his band of parasites for aid against Apuleius (cf. Apol. 100.4). ¹⁵⁰

Another unexploited opportunity for comic associations is the long discussion about buying fish. There are many catalogues of food, especially fish, in Greek or—to a lesser extent—in Roman comedy. Instead of quoting one of (p. 107 ) them, which he surely could have done, Apuleius quotes an Ennian translation of Archestratus of Gela, which is a didactic poem and not comedy.

A third instance of avoidance of Roman comedy is the country wedding. The fact that he had actually received a large patrimony and spent it before coming to Oea (23) could also have been embellished by comic references, but instead Apuleius gives a philosopher’s answer and a Praise of Poverty in 17ff. He stresses that he reduced his inherited fortune by ‘longa peregrinatione et diutinis studiis et crebris liberalitatibus’ (‘travelling abroad for a long time, extended studies, and frequent instances of generosity’; Apol. 23.2), that is on honourable and socially accepted causes. This is far from the things the young Pudens is said to have spent his money on: food and a meretrix, the usual drains on a comic young man. ¹⁵¹ Again it is Pudens, not Apuleius, who is cast in the role of the irresponsible adulescens of comedy. ¹⁵²

Naturally, it is Apuleius’ opponents who are continuously associated with comedy. It is the opposition which uses (as Apuleius maintains) comic language, which is urged to speak fish catalogues, but which ironically denies at the same time that fish is food and food only, which is its sole purpose in comedy. Aemilianus is a rash and silly senex rusticus (‘rustic old man’), and Crassus, Rufinus, his family, and Pudentilla’s young sons form the perfect unsympathetic cast for a low-life comedy (with the two sons not without possible redemption, as such characters are usually forgiven and reformed characters at the end of the comedies). Apuleius hopes that this association will have the same effect as that employed by Cicero: the unsympathetic characters of comedy will be laughed out of court, or even booed off the stage, since, as Apuleius constantly reminds us, they are bad actors, too. On the other hand, Apuleius suggests that he himself is to be identified with philosophers and tragedians.

To return to Cicero’s example set in the Pro Caelio: some of the invective tactics employed by Apuleius to win his similarly dangerous case are the same. Both speeches start with quotations from comedy and portray their opponents as stock characters who descend lower and lower. They are all unsym-pathetic characters portrayed in a similar situation, a comic brothel, and it is the judges who decree the happy ending of the comedy in favour of the speaker.

Two major differences are evident, though, the portrayal of the adulescentes and the speaker’s own self-portrait. The sympathetically portrayed Caelius is mirrored in Apuleius’ friend Pontianus, who erred first with the meretrix and left Apuleius’ side but then came back to him. Sicinius Pudens is by contrast (p. 108 ) in the more debased state of the adulescens’ progress, still under the spell of the prostitute. Furthermore, Cicero stars in his play in the role of an indulgent father, ¹⁵³ but Apuleius takes care to stay outside the low farce. ¹⁵⁴ There is no sympathetic stock role for him to play, and he prefers his chosen role as a philosopher and litteratus to one of a mere participant in his own, slowly developing but nevertheless highly successful, comedy.