postulates that Cicero attempts to make the jury study what he claims to be the central issues in the case, as if they were watching a comedy. Leigh suggests the focus of his thesis remains not to identify the "role comedy takes in the Pro Caelio as what it might mean for our understanding of rhetorical practice to state that comedy takes such a role". Leigh further suggests that the role in his work is to answer "what, in particular, is the relationship between comic morality and the locus as a unit of rhetorical argumentation, and what is the evidence for its historical development at Rome?" Leigh's analysis suggests that the comedic influence within Cicero's defense speech remains focused on the distinction between the ill-fated young male lover (Caelius) and the assault generated at him by an immoral prostitute (Clodia Pulcher). Leigh names Pro Caelio and other contemporary legal cases with similar constructs centered on this type of prosecution as "New Comedy". According to Leigh, the jury at Caelius's prosecution would have recognised "both stock types familiar from the comic stage": both Caelius and Clodia. Leigh also provides historical and literary evidence for the comic construction of the relationship between the courtesan Clodia and her young lover Caelius by referencing Plutarch's discussion of that as erotic entertainment and its use as a rhetorical device. Cicero's ulterior motive In T. A. Dorey's article "Cicero, Clodia, & the ‘Pro Caelio'", Dorey argued that although Cicero stressed Clodia's involvement in the case against Caelius as an important role, she played only a secondary part. In fact, Herennius stated that the case against Caelius would not have been made without the prosecution against Bestia. Dorey claimed that the prosecution of Caelius was an attempt at delaying the second charge against Bestia, and was caused by Caelius' new attack against the family of Bestia and Atratinus. Throughout the speech, Cicero displaced the cause of the attack on Clodia, instead of an attack on Atratinus, to build his defense of Caelius. Dorey claims that cannot be believed, however, because an orator and a historian in Ancient Rome were not the same since an orator's job was "to win his case" and a historian's was to tell "the truth". In his article, Dorey claims that the prosecution's aim was that "even if Caelius were acquitted, there was the chance of his emerging so discredited as seriously to