Pro Caelio Free

FREE PRO CAELIO PDF

Sed ego Atratino, humanissimo atque optimo adulescenti meo necessario, ignosco, qui habet excusationem vel pietatis vel necessitatis vel aetatis. Si voluit accusare, pietati tribuo, si iussus est, necessitati, si speravit aliquid, pueritiae. Ceteris non modo nihil ignoscendum, sed etiam acriter est resistendum. Caeli maxime convenire, ut ad ea, quae accusatores Pro Caelio huius causa, detrahendae spoliandaeque dignitatis gratia dixerunt, primum respondeam. Obiectus est pater varie, quod aut parum splendidus ipse aut parum pie tractatus a filio diceretur. De dignitate M. Caelius notis ac maioribus natu et sine mea oratione et tacitus facile ipse respondet; quibus autem propter senectutem, quod iam diu minus in foro nobiscumque versatur, non aeque est cognitus, ii sic habeant, quaecumque in equite Romano dignitas esse possit, quae certe potest esse maxima, eam semper Pro Caelio M. Caelio habitam esse summam hodieque haberi non solum a suis, sed etiam ab omnibus, quibus potuerit aliqua de causa esse notus. Nam quod de pietate dixistis, est quidem ista nostra existimatio, sed iudicium certe parentis; quid nos opinemur, audietis ex iuratis; quid parentes sentiant, lacrimae matris incredibilisque maeror, squalor patris et haec praesens maestitia, quam cernitis, luctusque declarat. Caelio; quem et absentem in amplissimum ordinem cooptarunt et ea non petenti detulerunt, quae multis petentibus denegarunt; idemque nunc lectissimos viros et nostri ordinis et equites Romanos cum legatione ad hoc iudicium et cum gravissima atque ornatissima laudatione miserunt. Videor mihi iecisse fundamenta defensionis meae, quae firmissima sunt, si nituntur iudicio suorum. Neque enim vobis satis commendata huius aetas esse posset, si non modo parenti tali viro, verum etiam municipio tam Pro Caelio ac tam gravi displiceret. Nam quod obiectum est de pudicitia, quodque omnium accusatorum non criminibus, sed vocibus male dictisque celebratum est, id numquam tam acerbe feret M. Caelius, ut eum paeniteat non deformem esse natum. Sunt enim ista maledicta pervulgata in omnes, quorum in adulescentia forma et species fuit liberalis. Sed aliud est male dicere, aliud accusare. Accusatio crimen desiderat, rem ut definiat, hominem ut notet, argumento probet, teste confirmet; maledictio autem nihil habet propositi praeter contumeliam quae si petulantius iactatur, convicium, Pro Caelio facetius urbanitas Pro Caelio. Neque enim decebat neque aetas illa postulabat neque, id quod animadvertere poteratis, pudor patiebatur optimi adulescentis in Pro Caelio illum oratione versari. Vellem aliquis ex vobis robustioribus hunc male dicendi locum suscepisset; aliquanto liberius et fortius et magis more nostro refutaremus istam male dicendi licentiam. Tecum, Atratine, agam lenius, quod et pudor tuus moderatur orationi meae et meum erga te parentemque tuum beneficium tueri debeo. Pro Caelio est enim, cui via ista non pateat, qui isti aetati atque etiam isti dignitati non possit quam velit petulanter, etiamsi sine ulla suspicione, at non sine argumento male dicere? Sed istarum partium culpa est eorum, qui te agere voluerunt; laus Pro Caelio tui, quod ea te invitum dicere videbamus, ingenii, quod ornate politeque dixisti. Nam quoad aetas M. Caeli dare potuit isti suspicioni locum, fuit primum ipsius pudore, deinde etiam patris diligentia disciplinaque munita. Qui ut huic virilem togam dedit nihil dicam hoc loco de me; tantum sit, quantum vos existimatis; hoc dicam, hunc a patre continuo ad me esse deductum; nemo hunc M. Caelium in Pro Caelio aetatis flore vidit nisi aut cum patre aut mecum aut in M. Crassi castissima domo, cum artibus honestissimis erudiretur. Hoc Pro Caelio adulescente scitis consulatum mecum petisse Catilinam. Ad quem si accessit aut si a me discessit umquam quamquam Pro Caelio boni adulescentes illi homini nequam atque improbo studuerunttum existimetur Caelius Catilinae nimium familiaris fuisse. At enim postea scimus et vidimus esse hunc in illius amicis. Quis negat? Sed ego illud tempus aetatis, quod ipsum sua sponte infirmum aliorum libidine infestum est, id hoc loco defendo. Pro Caelio adsiduus mecum praetore me; non noverat Catilinam; Africam tum praetor ille obtinebat. Secutus est tum annus, causam de pecuniis repetundis Catilina dixit. Mecum erat hic; illi ne advocatus quidem venit umquam. Deinceps fuit annus, quo ego consulatum petivi; petebat Catilina mecum. Numquam ad illum accessit, a me numquam recessit. Quem ergo ad finem putas custodiendam illam aetatem fuisse? Nobis quidem olim annus erat unus ad cohibendum brachium toga constitutus, et ut exercitatione ludoque campestri tunicati uteremur, eademque erat, si statim mereri stipendia coeperamus, castrensis ratio ac militaris. Qua in aetate nisi qui se ipse sua gravitate et castimonia et cum disciplina domestica, tum etiam naturali quodam bono defenderet, quoquo modo a Pro Caelio custoditus esset, tamen infamiam veram effugere non poterat. Sed qui prima illa initia aetatis integra atque inviolata praestitisset, de eius fama ac pudicitia, cum is iam se corroboravisset ac vir inter viros esset, nemo loquebatur. Habuit Pro Caelio ille, sicuti meminisse vos arbitror, Pro Caelio maximarum non expressa signa, sed Pro Caelio [lineamenta] virtutum. Utebatur hominibus improbis multis; et quidem optimis se viris deditum esse simulabat. Erant apud illum illecebrae libidinum multae; erant etiam industriae quidam stimuli ac laboris. Flagrabant vitia libidinis apud illum; vigebant etiam studia rei militaris. Neque ego umquam fuisse tale monstrum in terris ullum puto, tam ex contrarus diversisque et inter se pugnantibus naturae studiis Pro Caelio conflatum. Pro Caelio vero, iudices, in illo homine mirabilia fuerunt, comprehendere multos amicitia, tueri obsequio, cum omnibus communicare, quod habebat, servire temporibus suorum omnium pecunia, gratia, labore corporis, scelere etiam, si opus esset, et audacia, versare suam naturam et regere ad tempus atque huc et Pro Caelio torquere ac flectere, cum tristibus severe, cum remissis iucunde, cum senibus graviter, cum iuventute Pro Caelio, cum facinerosis audaciter, cum libidinosis luxuriose vivere. Neque umquam ex illo delendi huius imperii tam consceleratus impetus exstitisset, nisi tot vitiorum tanta immanitas quibusdam facultatis et patientiae radicibus niteretur. Quare ista condicio, iudices, respuatur, nec Catilinae familiaritatis crimen haereat; est enim commune cum multis et cum quibusdam etiam bonis. Me ipsum, me, inquam, quondam paene ille decepit, cum et civis mihi bonus et optimi Pro Caelio cupidus et firmus amicus ac fidelis videretur; cuius ego facinora oculis prius quam opinione, manibus ante quam suspicione deprehendi. Cuius in magnis catervis amicorum si fuit etiam Caelius, magis est ut ipse moleste Pro Caelio errasse Pro Caelio, sicuti non numquam in eodem homine me quoque erroris mei paenitet, quam ut istius amicitiae crimen reformidet. Posuistis enim, atque id tamen titubanter et strictim, coniurationis hunc propter amicitiam Catilinae participem fuisse; in quo Pro Caelio modo crimen non haerebat, sed vix diserti adulescentis cohaerebat oratio. Qui enim tantus furor Pro Caelio Caelio, quod tantum aut in moribus naturaque volnus aut in re atque fortuna? Nimium multa de re minime dubia loquor; hoc tamen dico: Pro Caelio modo si socius coniurationis, sed nisi inimicissimus istius sceleris fuisset, numquam coniurationis accusatione adulescentiam suam potissimum commendare voluisset. Numquam enim tam Caelius amens fuisset, ut, si se isto infinito ambitu commaculasset, ambitus alterum accusaret, neque eius facti in altero suspicionem quaereret, cuius ipse sibi perpetuam licentiam optaret, nec, si sibi semel periculum ambitus subeundum putaret, ipse alterum iterum ambitus crimine arcesseret. Quod quamquam nec sapienter et me Pro Caelio facit, tamen est eius modi cupiditas, ut magis insectari alterius innocentiam quam de se timide cogitare videatur. Tabulas, qui in patris potestate est, nullas Pro Caelio. Versuram numquam omnino fecit ullam. Sumptus unius generis obiectus est, habitationis; triginta milibus dixistis eum habitare. Nunc demum intellego P. Clodi insulam esse venalem, cuius hic in aediculis habitat decem, ut opinor, milibus. Vos autem dum illi placere voltis, ad tempus eius mendacium vestrum accommodavistis. Quod quidem iam in hac aetate minime reprehendendum est. Qui cum et ex publica causa iam esset mihi quidem molestam, sibi tamen gloriosam victoriam consecutus et per aetatem magistratus petere posset, non modo permittente patre, sed etiam Pro Caelio ab eo semigravit et, cum domus patris a foro longe abesset, quo facilius et nostras domus obire et ipse a suis coli posset, conduxit in Palatio non magno domum. Quo loco possum dicere id, quod vir clarissimus, M. Crassus, cum de adventu regis Ptolemaei quereretur, paulo ante dixit:. Sic enim, iudices, reperietis, quod, cum ad id loci venero, Pro Caelio, hanc Palatinam Medeam migrationemque hanc adulescenti causam sive malorum omnium sive potius sermonum fuisse. Aiebant enim fore testem senatorem, qui se pontificiis comitiis pulsatum a Caelio diceret. A quo quaeram, si prodierit, primum cur statim nihil egerit, deinde, si id queri Pro Caelio agere maluerit, cur productus a vobis potius quam ipse Pro Caelio se, cur tanto post potius quam continuo queri maluerit. Si mihi ad haec acute arguteque responderit, tum quaeram denique, Pro Caelio quo iste fonte senator Pro Caelio. Nam si ipse orietur et nascetur Pro Caelio sese, fortasse, ut soleo, Pro Caelio sin autem est rivolus accersitus et ductus ab ipso capite accusationis vestrae, laetabor, cum Pro Caelio gratia tantisque opibus accusatio vestra nitatur, Pro Caelio senatorem solum esse, qui vobis gratificari vellet, inventum. Est enim dictum ab illis fore, qui dicerent uxores suas a cena redeuntes attrectatas esse a Caelio. Graves erunt homines, qui hoc iurati dicere audebunt, cum sit iis confitendum numquam se ne congressu quidem et constituto coepisse de tantis iniuriis experiri. Sed totum Pro Caelio oppugnationis huius, iudices, et iam prospicitis animis et, cum inferetur, propulsare debebitis. Non enim ab isdem accusatur M. Caelius, a quibus oppugnatur; palam in eum tela iaciuntur, clam Pro Caelio. Funguntur officio, defendunt suos, faciunt, quod viri fortissimi solent; laesi dolent, irati efferuntur, pugnant lacessiti. Sed vestrae sapientiae tamen est, iudices, non, si causa iusta est viris fortibus oppugnandi M. Caelium, ideo vobis quoque vos causam putare esse iustam alieno dolori potius quam vestrae fidei consulendi. Nam quae sit multitudo in foro, quae genera, quae studia, quae varietas hominum, videtis. Ex hac copia quam multos esse arbitramini, qui hominibus potentibus, gratiosis, disertis, cum aliquid eos velle Pro Caelio, ultro se offerre soleant, operam navare, testimonium polliceri? Equidem vos abducam a testibus neque huius iudicii veritatem, quae mutari nullo modo potest, in voluntate testium collocari sinam, quae facillime fingi, Pro Caelio negotio flecti ac detorqueri potest. Argumentis agemus, signis luce omni clarioribus crimina refellemus; res cum re, causa cum causa, ratio cum ratione pugnabit. Crasso peroratam de seditionibus Nea politanis, de Alexandrinorum pulsatione Puteolana, de bonis Pallae. Vellem dictum esset Pro Caelio eodem etiam de Dione. De quo ipso tamen quid est quod exspectetis? Asicius, iudicio est liberatus. Quod igitur est eius modi crimen, ut, qui commisit, non neget, qui negavit, absolutus sit, id hic pertimescat, qui non modo a facti, verum etiam a conscientiae suspicione afuit? Et, si Asicio causa plus Pro Caelio quam nocuit invidia, huic oberit tuum maledictum, qui istius facti non modo suspicione, sed ne infamia quidem est aspersus? Perfacile est isti loco respondere, mihi praesertim, a quo illa causa defensa est. Sed Caelius optimam causam Asici esse arbitratur; cuicuimodi autem sit, a sua putat eius esse seiunctam. Neque solum Caelius, sed etiam adulescentes humanissimi et doctissimi, rectissimis studiis atque optimis Pro Caelio praediti, Titus Gaiusque Coponii, qui ex omnibus maxime Dionis mortem doluerunt, qui cum doctrinae studio atque humanitatis Pro Caelio etiam hospitio Dionis tenebantur. Habitabat apud Titum, ut audistis, Dio, erat ei cognitus Alexandriae. Quid aut hic aut summo splendore Pro Caelio frater eius de M. Caelio existimet ex ipsis, si producti erunt, audietis. Animadverti enim, iudices, audiri a vobis meum familiarem, L. Herennium, perattente. In quo etsi magna ex Pro Caelio ingenio Pro Caelio et dicendi genere quodam tenebamini, tamen non numquam verebar, ne illa subtiliter ad criminandum inducta oratio ad animos vestros sensim ac leniter accederet. Dixit enim multa de luxurie, multa de libidine, multa de vitiis iuventutis, multa de moribus et, qui in reliqua vita mitis esset et in hac suavitate humanitatis, qua prope iam delectantur omnes, versari periucunde soleret, fuit in hac causa pertristis quidam patruus, censor, magister; obiurgavit M. For Marcus Caelius - Wikisource, the free online library

Cicero's reasons for defending Caelius are uncertain, but various theories have been postulated. The speech is regarded as one of the best examples of Roman oratory known and has been so regarded throughout history. It is noteworthy as a prime example of Ciceronian oratorical technique. Caelius was charged with vis political violenceone of the most serious crimes in Republican Rome. Caelius' prosecutors, Lucius Sempronius AtratinusPublius Clodius it has been suggested Pro Caelio be Publius Clodius Pulcherbut it was more likely a freedman or relative[1] and Lucius Herennius Balbus, charged him with the following crimes:. Caelius spoke first in his own defense and asked Marcus Licinius Crassus to defend him during the trial. Cicero's speech was the last of the defense speeches. The magistrate Gnaeus Domitius presided over the trial. Marcus Caelius Rufus Pro Caelio born in 88 or 87 BC, at Interamnia in Picenumwhere his father was categorised as a member of Pro Caelio eques knight class, a wealthy middle class placed just below the patrician upper class. Throughout that apprenticeship, he became familiar with life in the Roman Forum. It is unclear whether or not Caelius supported Catiline after the latter had lost the election and taken up arms, but Pro Caelio was not among the people prosecuted for their involvement in the conspiracy. As a young man, Pro Caelio was a very good opportunity for Caelius to see the world and make a little money. However, Caelius still wanted to make a name for himself in Rome, and in Pro Caelio 59 BC, he brought prosecution against Gaius Antonius HybridaCicero's colleague in the consulship of 63 BC, for extortion. Cicero disapproved of the prosecution and took up Hybrida's defense. However, Caelius won the trial and gained recognition among Roman citizens. As a result, Caelius was able to move to the Palatine Hill and rented an apartment from Clodius. His apartment was located near Clodius's sister, Clodia, who was then 36 and widowed. Caelius and Clodia soon became lovers. In late 57 or early 56 BC, Caelius broke from the Clodii for some unknown reason. Clodius and Clodia were determined to punish Caelius for leaving them. Cicero came to Bestia's defense and successfully acquitted him four times already and doing so once again against Caelius. However, Caelius would not admit defeat and made a second charge against Bestia, who was running for the praetorship once again in the elections Pro Caelio 56 BC. Bestia's son, Lucius Sempronius Atratinus, did not want his father's trial to take place and so he made a Pro Caelio against Caelius. If Caelius was convicted, he Pro Caelio proceed with his prosecution against Bestia. Atratinus charged Caelius in the violence court quaestio de vi to prevent any delay in the proceedings of the trial. After he had been deposed, Ptolemy fled to Rome, where he pleaded with the Senate to give him an army so that he might reclaim his throne. However, the Alexandrians Pro Caelio not interested in giving Ptolemy back the throne of Egypt Pro Caelio sent a deputation of citizens, led by the philosopher Dio, to the Roman Senate to hear their case. Ptolemy reacted by Pro Caelio, intimidating and even murdering members of the deputation, which angered Roman citizens. However, an oracle was found in the Sibylline Books that forbade Ptolemy's restoration, and the Senate was forced to rescind its decree. Exhausted from his attempts to reclaim his throne, Ptolemy retired to Ephesus. In Rome, Pompey waited for the command to claim the throne of Egypt. In 56 BC, Dio was murdered. The public directed most of their anger toward Pompey, whom they Pro Caelio to be responsible for the murder. At first, Publius Asicius, who Pro Caelio supposedly an agent of Pompey, was prosecuted for the murder of Dio. However, after Cicero successfully defended him, Asicius was acquitted, and Caelius was prosecuted for the murder. Pro Caelio actual trial took place April 3—4, 56 BC. The prosecution spoke first, and Atratinus attacked Caelius's character and morals, Clodius described the charges in detail, and Balbus spoke against Caelius's Pro Caelio and morality. The defence speeches began Pro Caelio Caelius making witty jeers at Clodia. Then, Crassus defended against the actual charges, and finally, Cicero attacked Pro Caelio. Cicero's speech took place on April 4, the second day of Pro Caelio trial. He made accusations that Clodia was no better than a prostitute and claimed that Caelius was a smart man to Pro Caelio himself from her. By centring his speech on attacking Clodia, Cicero avoided setting Pro Caelio against public opinion or damaging his relationship with Pompey. In the end, Caelius was acquitted of all of the charges. Bruun's scholarly observation provides background on the defence case of Marcus Caelius Rufus, suggesting that Caelius's scornful lover Clodia, the sister of Publius Pro Caelio Pulcher, brought charges against him Pro Caelio proclaimed that he had attempted to use poison on her. Bruun also concludes that Cicero, who remained the legal defender Pro Caelio Caelius, ultimately used the conceptual phrase aqua inceste uterere in "referring to the commonly known possession of a water supply by some brothels in Romewhile at the same time implying that Clodia was a prostitute. Cicero recalls Appius's construction of the Via Appia and attempts to connect Clodia's immoral desecration of "this deed of her ancestor by walking on it in dubious company and for dubious purposes, indeed by "walking the street"; Pro Caelio effect, he proclaims her as a prostitute. Bruun finds Pro Caelio passage not to be sufficient amd suggests instead that "it seems baffling that the use of water, should have been connected to Clodia's allegedly loose morals". Again dispelling Cicero's connection of Clodia to water and sexual immorality, Bruun proclaims thaf to be antithetical to Clodia's case by stating that "the evidence Pro Caelio the Roman world for ritual cleansing with Pro Caelio after sexual "pollution" is very meager and different in character". Bruun argues within his Pro Caelio sub-point that more compelling Pro Caelio exists on Clodia's immorality in connection with water in the late Roman Republican period, ultimately by providing an analysis on Marcus Caelius Rufus's Pro Caelio on illegal water conduits. Brunn provides Frontinus' De aquaeductu Pro Caelio Romae from AD as an example of the "various illegal uses to which public water in Rome was being diverted". Bruun suggests that Pro Caelio a recent find by a contemporary author, Caelius actually gave a speech in 50 BC when he was a curule aedile Pro Caelio ultimately proclaimed "the worst misappropriation of public water in Rome", which was due "all the brothels, were enjoying an illegal supply of running water". Furthermore, Bruun concludes that Pro Caelio those possible arguments can explain why Cicero attempted to connect Clodia to immorality and water, he simply used that argumentation Pro Caelio suggest that Clodia's case against Caelius was unfounded. Bruun finally suggests that Cicero's oratorical ploy was developed for convenience and to supply a "witty invective that referred Pro Caelio known malpractices in Rome". Matthew Leigh 's "The Pro Caelio and Comedy" suggests Pro Caelio thesis remains centreed on "proposing a fresh approach" to the comedy in Pro Caelio but Pro Caelio in directly refuting past Pro Caelio scholarship, like Katherine Geffcken's monograph, "Comedy in the Pro Caelio". According to Pro Caelio, Geffcken identifies Cicero with "the wiles and verbal ingenuity of the comic hero" and in effect "the jury becomes complicit in his successful bid to talk his Pro Caelio associate Caelius out Pro Caelio a distinctly tricky situation". Leigh 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 names Pro Caelio Pro Caelio 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 Pro Caelio the courtesan Pro Caelio and her young lover Caelius by referencing Plutarch 's discussion of that as erotic entertainment and its Pro Caelio as a rhetorical device. 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. 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 jeopardize his prospects of success in his renewed action against Bestia". To do so, the prosecution charged him with two attempted murders. The charges would have been indisputable because Clodia had previously provided Pro Caelio with funds before, and there was "little doubt" that Caelius had taken part in the intimidation and persecution of the Alexandrian envoys; Cicero even admitted it in his speech. Even though Cicero tried to "ridicule" Licinius and the slaves of Clodia's rendezvous at the baths to defend Caelius, there was no doubt that the event took place and that "a Pro Caelio containing some substance to Pro Caelio administered to Clodia" was exchanged. Dorey argued in the article that Clodia's involvement in the trial as "vindictive spite and the desire to revenge herself on Caelius for casting her off" was a part of Cicero's strategy in his defense of Caelius. By proving Pro Caelio Clodia Pro Caelio attacking Caelius out of spite, he proved Caelius's innocence. In fact, the prosecution's strategy hinged on the jury's acceptance of Clodia's evidence. Cicero's strategy then depended on his ability to disprove Clodia in three ways: by proving that the case was brought Pro Caelio Caelius because Clodia was being vindictive, by casting doubt on the reliability of witnesses and by discrediting Clodia completely. Therefore, Cicero unleashed a cruel attack against Clodia in his defense, but the attack had Pro Caelio provoked. Clodia had helped loot Cicero's house during his exile after the Catiline events, and in 60 BC, Cicero wrote a letter to Atticus in which he " [indulged] in an extremely lewd witticism at Clodia's expense". Anne Leen's article "Clodia Oppugnatrix: The Domus Motif in Cicero's Pro Caelio" argued that Cicero's use of the Roman institution of the domus, or home, established the respectable reputation of Caelius and the ghastly reputation of Clodia. The domus in Latin literature "is charged Pro Caelio precisely Pro Caelio social, cultural, and political significance". It is mentioned within the speech at least 27 times. Clodia's house is mentioned the most and it "a problematized space in which traditional Roman expectations of Pro Caelio behavior are egregiously violated". Leen then argued that to be a strategy of Cicero in which he attacked Clodia and defended Caelius. In Latin Pro Caelio, the domus was the sphere of influence for women that displayed the Roman qualities of "chastity, fidelity, and wifely obedience" to the husband. Throughout the speech, Cicero did not try to disprove the allegations completely that Clodia had brought against Caelius, but he aimed to disprove her through destroying her reputation with the domus imagery. Pro Caelio doing so, Cicero cast Caelius on the "positive side of Roman values" and put Clodia in an "abyss of sexual license and its metonymic counterparts, public chaos and political anarchy". Cicero also brought the history of the Clodian family into his speech to discredit Clodia by contrasting Clodia's present behavior with the behaviour of her "great Republican lineages". Men in Ancient Rome were to have a full, busy household; however, women were not supposed to have a busy household like Clodia's domus. Pro Caelio household Pro Caelio "personal disrepute, sexual misconduct, and social disorder". By having her own household, she was Pro Caelio what was rightly owned Pro Caelio men in Ancient Rome and so she blurred the lines between men and women. Cicero claimed that was Pro Caelio threat to the Republic as a whole. Insulting a guest would hurt the host's reputation, and Cicero did not let Clodia forget that she had done so. However, Cicero did not let the jury forget that he was the best witness of Clodia's schemes by telling his story at the end of the speech. His once-great house, which housed Caelius first, no longer existed after Clodia. Among Cicero's orations, Pro Caelio is particularly celebrated for its connections to the poetry of Catullus. Popular critical consensus Pro Caelio long identified Clodia Metelli, who features so prominently in the speech, as Catullus's famed lover Lesbia. However, recent critics have assailed that connection with various degrees of success. In his book Catullan QuestionsT. Wiseman argues that the identification of Lesbia as one of Clodius Pulcher's three sisters is undeniable. Hyginus had contact with several men associated with Catullus, who very likely knew Lesbia's true identity. Moreover, scholars agree that the repeated word pulchermeaning "pretty", in Catullus's poem Pro Caelio is a pun on Clodius's Pro Caelio, Pulcher. Thus, the Lesbius in that poem is Clodius Pulcher, and Lesbia must be one of his three sisters. However, all three sisters possessed the name Clodia and so difficulties arise in proving that Catullus's lover must have been the Clodia featured in Pro Caelio. The most common evidence for that connection is the implied charge of incest usually detected in Catullus 79 in comparison to the charges Pro Caelio incest against Clodia in Pro Caelio. PRO M. CAELIO ORATIO

Res est omnis in hac causa nobis, iudices, cum Clodia, muliere non solum nobili, sed etiam nota; de qua ego 32 nihil Pro Caelio nisi depellendi criminis causa. Sed intellegis pro tua praestanti prudentia, Cn. Domiti, cum hac sola rem Pro Caelio nobis. Quae si se aurum Caelio commodasse non dicit, si venenum ab hoc sibi paratum esse non arguit, petulanter facimus, si matrem familias secus, quam matronarum sanctitas postulat, nominamus. Sin ista muliere remota Pro Caelio crimen ullum nec opes ad oppugnandum Caelium illis relinquuntur, quid est aliud quod nos patroni facere debeamus, nisi ut eos, qui insectantur, repellamus? Quod quidem facerem vehementius, nisi intercederent mihi inimicitiae cum istius mulieris viro— fratre volui dicere; semper hic erro. Nunc agam modice nec longius progrediar quam me mea fides et causa ipsa coget. Neque enim muliebres umquam Pro Caelio mihi gerendas putavi, praesertim cum ea quam omnes semper amicam omnium potius quam cuiusquam inimicam putaverunt. Sed tamen ex ipsa quaeram prius Pro Caelio me secum severe et graviter et prisce agere malit an remisse et leniter et urbane. Si illo austero more ac. In this case, gentlemen, we are concerned entirely with Clodia, a woman not only of noble birth, but also of notoriety, of whom I will say no more than what is necessary to repel the charge. But you, with your great wisdom, Gnaeus Domitius, a 32 understand that it is with this woman alone that we have to deal. As it is, I will act with moderation, and go no farther than my duty to my client and the case Pro Caelio compel me. Nevertheless I will first inquire of herself, 33 whether she prefers me to deal with her severely, solemnly, and in an old-fashioned manner, or mildly, gently, and in a modern way. If in the old grim. More Contact Us How to Subscribe. Search Publications Pages Publications Pages. Advanced Search Help. Pro Caelio To Section. Find in a Library View cloth edition. Print Email. Hide annotations Display: View facing pages View left-hand pages View right-hand pages Enter full screen mode. Si illo austero Pro Caelio ac If in the old grim a Cn. Domitius Calvinus, a praetor, was president of the court. He had already presided at the trial of L. Calpurnius Bestia de ambitu on 11 February. Pro Caelio the trial of Pro Caelio. Sestius de vi 10 Pro Caelio to 11 March was presided over by M. Aemilius Scaurus, a certain latitude was apparently permissible in the allocation of courts to presidents even after arrangements for the year had been completed. An enigmatic figure, Pro Caelio when tribune in 59 b. Please wait, Pro Caelio is loading Harvard University Press. Sign in to annotate. Delete Cancel Save. Cancel Save.