Shortly after his accidental transformation into an ass, Lucius attempts to return to his human form by grabbing some roses decorating a statue of the patron goddess of the quadrupeds, Epona. But his servulus feels outraged at the sacrilegious act. Jumping to his feet in a temper and acting as a faithful defender of the sacred place, he addresses his former human owner as a new ‘Catiline’ (Apul. Met. 3.27):Footnote 1
Quod 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!’
A self-evident instance of parody,Footnote 2 the servant's words ironically reformulate one of the most familiar texts of Republican oratory, the famous opening of Cicero's first invective against Catiline,Footnote 3 delivered before the assembled senate in the Temple of Jupiter Stator on 8 November 63 b.c.: the substitution of a low and familiar word such as cantherium for Catilinam Footnote 4 underpins the comic undertone of the entire passage, imbued with further reminiscences of Cicero.Footnote 5 Scholars debate whether the servant's verbal attack against Lucius is a parodic adaptation of Cicero's opening invective or rather a spoof on Catiline's paradoxical reading of Cicero's phrase in Sallust (Sall. Cat. 20.9).Footnote 6 It is safer to assume a case of double imitation, not unusual in Apuleius' work.Footnote 7
Lucius of the Metamorphoses is ‘an incarnation of Lucius Sergius Catilina, the arch conspirator of Republican Rome’.Footnote 8 The blatant allusion to the Ciceronian interrogation quo usque, strengthened by the combination with tandem only in the opening passage of the First Catilinarian,Footnote 9 unequivocally signals the identification of Lucius, turned into an asinine form, with Catiline. As Tatum has pointed out, ‘the similarities between Catiline and Lucius are too many to be accidental’.Footnote 10 A parallel examination of the portrait of Catiline in Sallust (Cat. 5.1–6) and that of Lucius as asinus prudens in Apuleius (Met. 9.13)Footnote 11 shows that the two characters share ‘respectable lineage, intellect, and the basest kind of appetites’.Footnote 12 In this note, I will follow on Tatum's arguments, trying to demonstrate that Apuleius depicts Lucius as a ludicrous copy of Cicero's arch-enemy by manipulating significant aspects of the classic image of Catiline established by Cicero's and Sallust's texts. The learned sophist Apuleius, whose familiarity with Ciceronian oratory is beyond any doubt,Footnote 13 evokes Catiline as iconic symbol of political subversion and sexual perversion and parodies Cicero's literary masterpieces, providing then his educated readers with a sophisticated entertainment based on the comic effect arising from the contrast between the fictional characterization of Lucius as Catiline and the fabricated ‘Ciceronian’ accusations against the unlucky ass.
As the recurrence of the passionate quo usque, followed by a first-person plural in the future indicative, may be a clear, sure sign of a Ciceronian-Catilinarian incipit, it is worth considering whether the presence of this form of rhetorical interrogation in the Metamorphoses entails a parodic and humorous duplication of Catiline's characteristics in Lucius' portrait. To start with, the ‘Ciceronian’ form of address for the human ass is prompted by Lucius' failed attempt to catch the sacred roses. It is in fact the violation of the shrine of the goddess that elicits the violent reaction of Lucius' former slave, who expresses his righteous indignation over the ass' impiety by reproducing the same words – and, above all, the same tone – that marked the incipit of Cicero's fierce invective against Catiline. Offence against the divine order is a motif deployed by Cicero on several occasions in his speeches addressed to his political opponents:Footnote 14 the attempted desecration of the revered cult of Epona and the related portrayal of Lucius as impious might summon up the analogous image of Catiline violating the chastity (and thereby the sacred cult) of the Vestal Virgin Fabia.Footnote 15 Impiety favours thus the Apuleian ‘cartoon of Cicero rebuking Catiline’.Footnote 16 Apuleius compares Lucius-ass with ‘the satanic hero of Cicero's orations and Sallust's history’Footnote 17 through their shared scelus against divinity.Footnote 18
The same tone of reproach returns at the end of the sixth book during a conversation about Lucius' fate held by three robbers, the first of whom exclaims: Quo usque ruptum istum asellum, nunc etiam claudum, frustra pascemus? The discussion about how much longer a useless, lame ass should be fed promptly shifts to another reason for not allowing Lucius to live further, the fact that the ass is a source of misfortune, a negative omen, that brings about only vulnera et fortissimorum occisiones (Apul. Met. 6.26). This definition of Lucius as murderer of the ‘bravest men’ may parody another important feature of Catiline. The expression fortissimus (fortis) vir (civis) is a distinctive feature of political language in the Late Republic.Footnote 19 In Cicero's oratory the epithet fortis, invested with a strongly politicized sense, appears usually attached to those citizens who display the courage of facing a danger looming over the republic, even at the cost of their own lives. As Dyck remarks, ‘vir forti(ssimu)s is a conventional commendation found 12× elsewhere in the Catilinarians’,Footnote 20 generally referred to the members of the senate or the opponents of Catiline.Footnote 21 Apuleius' robber, in deeming his comrades fortissimi, like the most honourable Roman citizens and, most importantly, applying one of the fundamental civic and political virtues, fortitudo, to the bravery of habitual criminals longing for an idoneum lucrum,Footnote 22 makes a mockery of a concept traditionally belonging to the mos maiorum. Given this context of political parody, it is reasonable to suppose that the presentation of Lucius as an ominous ass, who causes the death of the best men, alludes to the figure of Catiline planning the massacre of the consul and the ‘best men’, as stressed by Cicero in more than one occasion.Footnote 23 The ass now imitates Catiline in adopting a ‘subversive’ attitude towards the best part of the society, the brave robbers: though involuntarily, he brings death and, as such, he deserves capital punishment!
Even more meaningful to the recognition of the asinine Lucius as Catiline is a hitherto neglected passage from the seventh book. Tortured by a deterrimus puer, Lucius luckily escapes certain death. The victim of a trick, he suddenly sees his tail covered by flames but he manages to rescue himself by plunging into a pool of muddy water; the depraved boy then blames the ass for the blaze before the herdsmen, adding with Ciceronian flavour: Quo usque ergo frustra pascemus igninum istum? (Apul. Met. 7.20). It may be tempting to say that the characterization of Lucius as igninus (‘fond of the fire’) is not casual.Footnote 24 The definition of Lucius as an ‘incendiary ass’,Footnote 25 introduced by an easily recognizable Ciceronian formula, might represent an implicit allusion to the frequent depiction of Catiline as a dangerous arsonist in Cicero's political oratory. The consul alleges on several occasions that Catiline planned to vastare atque inflammare urbem: the formula caede atque incendiis, a sort of ‘paraphrase for Catiline's program’,Footnote 26 recurs often in the Catilinarians as well as in other speeches.Footnote 27 Catiline and Lucius seem to parallel each other in their fondness for flames. If that were the case, the boy would assume the role of the prosecuting consul, holding up the menace of arson posed to the entire community by an unprofitable, fire-starting ass!
The subsequent complaint about the immoral behaviour of the ass is crucial to the appreciation of another ‘Catilinarian’ feature of Lucius. The cruel boy denounces the ‘lazy, slow-footed, all-too-asinine creature’ (pigrum tardissimumque et nimis asinum, Apul. Met. 7.21) for disregarding natural law. Adding nova pericula to other flagitia, Lucius aspires to be a lover of humans, in spite of his asinine nature. He practices his sexual behaviour with ladies, girls and young boys indifferently; acting as a furens amator and festivus amasio, the ass ‘seeks to indulge his bestial urges with love-making at which Venus frowns’ (illicitas atque incognitas temptat libidines et ferinas voluptates, aversaque Venere, Apul. Met. 7.21). As a cause of social disturbance, Lucius' sexual misconduct is then presented as a threat to the safety of the whole group of the herdsmen. Deemed a ‘marriage partner’ (publicus maritus) and ‘adulterer’ by reason of his immoral attitude, Lucius is condemned first to death, finally to castration (Apul. Met. 7.22–3).
The presentation of Lucius as a ‘pre-eminently phallic animal’,Footnote 28 whose immorality brings about social confusion, may remind us (and Apuleius' ancient readers) of the similar description of Catiline's libido in Cicero's orations and Sallust's historical monograph. The figure of the conspirator as painted by Cicero is notoriously that of a man winning support from his youthful followers by establishing homosexual relationships.Footnote 29 Among the traits of Catiline's personality described by Sallust, a special place is occupied by luxuria. Footnote 30 In addition to personifying the ‘nefarious rebel against the constituted authority’,Footnote 31 Catiline, prosecuted for seducing a Vestal,Footnote 32 is constantly referred to as the moral guide of omnes adulteri, omnes impuri impudicique,Footnote 33 perfect example of simulatio, and symbol of sexual perversion.
The literary tradition on Catiline is substantially concordant in describing the republican conspirator as a pernicious libertine. His subversion of morality represents a danger to the stability of the social institutions. It is hardly surprising that Apuleius created his immoral and sexually perverse Lucius in asinine form by drawing on the canonical image of the depraved Catiline. In a threefold attack against him, introduced each time by the Ciceronian rhetorical question quo usque (Met. 3.27, 6.21 and 7.20), the novelist labels his personage as a new Catiline, focussing on Lucius' impiety, subversive attitude and fondness for fire to parody the figure of the conspirator. The depiction of the ass-man in the shape of Catiline reaches its high point in the invective by the wicked boy (Met. 7.21–2), centred on Lucius' immorality, so that Lucius sublimely plays the role of Cicero's privileged victim by behaving as a lecherous ass, whose sexual misconduct destabilizes the basic rules governing human society.
However, Lucius is far from being a ‘true’ Catiline. Lucius is neither an impious, nor is he a lecherous, incendiary and amorous ass. Whenever a Catilinarian accusation appears, the ass is entirely innocent of that specific accusation. He is forever wrongly accused of having done something he has not done: furthermore, he is accused not by a revered consul of Rome but, in turn, by a slave, a robber and a wicked boy. To begin with, Lucius is not impious, as accused in 3.27: he is simply attempting to recover his former human shape by catching the sacred roses which decorate the shrine of the goddess Epona. He is unjustly blamed for murdering the bravest robbers in 6.26. He is not an incendiary ass in 7.20, as it is the nasty boy who sets Lucius' tail on fire. Finally, Lucius is not a libidinous ass, as depicted in 7.21–3; throughout the novel he is implicated in sexual affairs unwittingly. The ‘metamorphosis’ of Lucius into a new Catiline relies on blatantly false allegations. Alerted to recognizing presentation of the asinine Lucius as an amusing version of Catiline by a well-known Ciceronian formula, literate readers may smile at the reincarnation of the lecherous conspirator in the form of a libidinous ass. Nevertheless, it is the humorous opposition between the ‘Catilinarian’ figuration of Lucius and the evident inconsistency – and falsity – of the ‘Ciceronian’ accusations that generates the readers' most intense pleasure and strengthens the irony inherent in the novel.
Reduced to a verecundum silentium by the mass of lies and false allegations launched by the boy,Footnote 34 Lucius cannot react to his transformation into a ‘Catilinarian’ persona; his asinine form dooms him to silence. A further manipulation of a Ciceronian theme occurs here. The motif of taciturnitas is in fact one of the most effective devices in Cicero's invective strategy.Footnote 35 As Batstone rightly notes, Cicero silences Catiline – and takes advantage of it – to prove the validity of his speech.Footnote 36 The boy, a ridiculous parody of the republican orator, tries to confirm the truth of his accusations by forcing the ass to stay silent. Lucius listens to the boy's cutting remarks in dignified silence. But his non-reply does not mean a public confession of guilt. The Ciceronian tactic of silencing one's enemy is successful in this case simply because of Lucius' unfortunate condition: as an asinine man, he is unable to utter any word.
Impious, subversive, incendiary and libidinous: Lucius seems a perfect copy of Cicero's main opponent. The auctor Apuleius engages his readers to recognize the main narrative character as a parodic counterpart of Catiline. But the actor Lucius rejects his conversion into the republican villain. It is only because he cannot speak that he does not thwart his second ‘metamorphosis’. ‘I just wish that the ass himself could break into human speech and attest my innocence’, the passerby unjustly accused of killing the boy says.Footnote 37 If Lucius had preserved the human faculty of speaking,Footnote 38 he would have rebuffed the boy's arguments, denying the Catilinarian crimes of which he is accused. One might ask what could have happened, if Catiline had been offered the chance to reply to the counsel's attacks.
