Abstract of

Rhetorical Strategies and Word Choice
in Apuleius' Apology

Dissertation - 1991 - Duke University

by Thomas Dean McCreight

Abstract

This dissertation offers a rhetorical and lexicographical analysis of the strategies of persuasion in Apuleius' Apology. The most compelling feature of the speech is the effective use of vivid portraits of the characters involved, especially Apuleius' opponents, who appear more as personifications of ignorance and malignancy than as individuals.

The dissertation begins with a description of the legal and procedural background of the trial, and a short description of the principal characters. Then a review of the conventions of praise and blame in Roman oratory is given in order to place the portraits in a generic context, with special attention given to ancient invective techniques.

The chapters following treat the members of the prosecution, Apuleius' family, and the presiding magistrate. Stress is laid throughout on Apuleius' inventive use of the conventions of invective combined with his facility at coining new words and using ordinary words in unusual ways. Five appendices (nouns; adjectives; verbs; participles; adverbs) discuss in detail the many words that occur for the first or only time in extant Latin in the speech. These entries review the pertinent scholarly literature on the individual word, and then discuss its range of meaning and its function within the strategy of the speech. Three further appendices discuss Apuleius' use of legal, military, and religious vocabulary at particular points in the work.

This study indicates that the Apology is not merely a piece of forensic oratory, but is also a highly literary text putting forth and defending Apuleius' vision of the philosopher as a comprehensively educated and eloquent man who works to the benefit of those around him.

Table of Contents 

  1.  INTRODUCTION, BACKGROUND, AND PRINCIPAL CHARACTERS   1

  2.  THEORETICAL BACKGROUND AND METHODS . . . . . . . . .27

  3.  THE PROSECUTION: PATRONI AND WITNESSES . . . . . . .42

  4.  PRINCIPAL ACCUSERS: AEMILIANUS AND RUFINUS . . . . .92

  5.  FAMILY MEMBERS: PUDENTILLA, PUDENS, AND

      PONTIANUS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .136

  6.  THE JUDGE: CLAUDIUS MAXIMUS . . . . . . . . . . . .184

INTRODUCTORY REMARKS ON APPENDICES 1-5 . . . . . . . . . 195

Appendix

  1.  SUBSTANTIVES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 197

  2.  ADJECTIVES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 322

  3.  VERBS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .409

  4.  PARTICIPLES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .443

  5.  ADVERBS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .467

  6.  LEGAL VOCABULARY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 482

  7.  MILITARY VOCABULARY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .490

  8.  RELIGIOUS VOCABULARY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 499


BIBLIOGRAPHY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 509