Cicero's Pro Milone is unique in that it is only extant defence speech of Cicero for which we have a full and independent account of the case in the commentary written by Asconius in the mid-first century c.e. (pointed out by D. H. Berry, Cicero: Defence Speeches, 2000, 162). According to Asconius, the facts weighed against Milo: when he and Clodius unexpectedly met on the Appian Way, on 18 January 52 b.c.e., Milo's gladiators started a skirmish with Clodius’ slaves; Clodius was wounded and subsequently killed, when Milo ordered him dragged out of an inn where he had been taken. In Cicero's published speech, we can see the stratagems a skilled advocate used to overcome these facts. Keeline's superb new edition makes Cicero's achievement accessible to advanced students of Latin while also offering researchers a valuable resource.
The thorough introduction lucidly covers all the topics an instructor may wish to pursue with students, historical and philological. K. introduces first Cicero and his career up to Pro Milone, then Clodius’ death and Milo's trial. The historical timeline (19–22) is an excellent feature. (Also to be consulted for events of 52 b.c.e. is the table in John T. Ramsey, Historia 65.3 (2016), 298–324, which indicates on which days elections could be held to fill the vacant consulship, a key detail.) K. then moves on to the structure of the speech and Cicero's rhetorical strategy. Famously, Cicero follows the textbook arrangement for a speech (another reason this is a good text to teach in my view), and as K. (23) remarks, Cicero may have chosen that form to compensate for a weak case. A slightly fuller description of the concept ‘conjectural case’ (introduced at 24) would have been helpful, but this, and status theory in general, is well covered in the commentary itself. I like K.'s explanation of why the prosecution tried to argue that Milo ambushed Clodius, just as Cicero argued that Clodius ambushed Milo: ‘because these accusations had been leveled over months of very public debates, the terms of the dilemma were fixed in the public's mind’ (24). K. gives a good discussion of Cicero's style, including word order and prose rhythm. He shares with students ‘an inconvenient truth: if you do not know 95–8 percent of the vocabulary in a given passage, you almost certainly cannot read and understand it’ (28). Next, K. turns to the question of publication, joining the camp of those who have concluded that the first two-thirds of the speech (sections 1–66) are close to what Cicero said in court, while the last third (sections 72–105) is an addition (sections 67–71 are ‘harder to judge’, 43). Finally comes ‘Text and Transmission’, with a clear description of the pertinent manuscripts. K. here states his view that intrusive glosses are ‘fairly frequent’ in the transmitted text (48).
The commentary itself guides the reader expertly through the speech. K. introduces each major section of the speech (e.g. exordium, narratio) with a discussion of relevant rhetorical theory and Cicero's own strategy in Pro Milone. Longer sections are divided into subsections (e.g. argument from motive, sections 32–35). The notes thoroughly identify all the persons, places, events and institutions to which Cicero refers and give much guidance on translating Cicero's language. This is a commentary that really teaches Latin. K. discusses favourite expressions of Cicero's and notes words and phrases inadequately covered in standard references (e.g. nec enim, 87; iam in concessions, 280; mediusfidius, 293). He makes helpful comparisons to English, sometimes humorous, e.g. ‘The comparative here adds a note of vagueness … cf. Engl. real estate argot, “a newer kitchen”’ (126). Many good observations on word order complement the discussion in the introduction.
K. presents his own Latin text and abbreviated apparatus criticus and explains his choices in the commentary. He makes a good case for removing glosses or other intrusions at a number of points, some previously undetected. For instance, he prints: … tu spoliatum imaginibus, [exsequiis,] pompa, laudatione, infelicissimis lignis semiustilatum nocturnis canibus dilaniandum reliquisti (Mil. 33). In the accompanying note, he justifies his excision. Another example occurs at Mil. 94, where, on the basis of Ciceronian parallels, K. opts for ubi nunc senatus [est ]… ubi … … ubi … … ubi … … ubi. As he acknowledges, sometimes there is room for debate. At Mil. 55, he prints Milo qui numqum, tum casu pueros symphoniacos [uxoris] ducebat et ancillarum greges. In his note on that passage, he observes that the instrumentalists might have been there ‘to entertain [Milo's wife] Fausta during the journey, as uxoris would imply, but it seems more likely that they would perform at the religious ceremony in Lanuvium … an explanatory interpolation seems more likely, perhaps originally a note on ancillarum’ (247). But even if the enslaved musicians were to perform at the ceremony, they could have been Fausta's. K.'s text and commentary together alert students to the problems of textual editing, while also making a major contribution in their own right.
Finally, to cap it all, there are two generous indexes, one for Latin words, the other ‘General’, covering the persons, places, events and institutions (such as the terrifying eculeus); rhetorical terms; features of language and style; prose rhythm; textual editing; and more. This edition of Pro Milone is a brilliant piece of work. It will handsomely serve students, teachers and researchers alike.
