243 / 126
“OMNIUM GATHERUM”
243
code. Furthermore, the statue of Moses stood not in the
Vatican but in San Pietro in Vincoli (Gifford & Seidman, 1988:
146). As historically confused as Crawford, O’Molloy
recollects inaccurately what Bushe said during the trial, though
he does remember the periodic sentence clearly:
that stony effigy in frozen music, horned and terrible,
of the human form divine, that eternal symbol of
wisdom and of prophecy which, if aught that the
imagination or the hand of sculptor has wrought in
marble of soultransfigured and of soultransfiguring
deserves to live, deserves to live
. (Joyce, 1986: 115)
Obviously, O’Molloy is attracted to the polished period itself
rather than the argumentation. As Herr observes: “He appears
to respond to the periodic structure of Bushe’s phrasing
without regard to the adequacy of Bushe’s legal stance” (73).
Not only is O’Molloy more interested in effective rhetoric than
sound reasoning, but he pays great attention to the theatrical
performance given. Before reciting the periodic sentence on
the
Moses
of Michelangelo, he “took out his matchbox
thoughtfully and lit his cigar,” and then “resumed, moulding
his words,” and “said of it” at long last (115). After he finishes
his recitation begging mercy for the defendant, “[h]is slim hand
with a wave graced echo and fall” (115). While Lenehan acts as
more a jester than a journalist, O’Molloy behaves more like an
actor than a barrister. Osteen (1995: 208) suggests that by
quoting the more successful Bushe, O’Molloy attempts to
buttress his authority and to conceal his incipient bankruptcy.
Similarly, by resorting to a theatrical performance, he indicates
that he intends to hold the stage as if still a figure of great
weight, not a creature of no importance. His recitation of the
speech is therefore “not to invoke justice but merely to prop
him up in his friends’ eyes” (208). In so doing, however,
O’Molloy misses the point that a barrister is supposed to focus
on matters of law instead of rhetorical and theatrical