Cicero pro Caelie: Chapters 51-58; 61-68

51 (a) Sed quoniam emersisse iam e vadis et scopulos praetervecta esse videtur oratio mea, perfacilis mihi reliquus cursus ostenditur. Duo sunt enim crimina una in muliere summorum facinorum, auri quod sumptum a Clodia dicitur, et veneni, quod eiusdem Clodiae necandae causa parasse Caelium criminantur.

But since my speech now seems to have arisen from the shallows and sailed on past the crags, my remaining course is shown to me easily. For there are two charges, which are being alleged against Caelius together in the woman, of the most serious crimes, about the gold, which is said to have been taken from Clodia and poison, which was prepared for the purpose of killing the same Clodia.

51 (b) Aurum sumpsit, ut dicitis, quod Lucii Luccei servis daret, per quos Alexandrinus Dio, qui tum apud Lucceium habitabat, necaretur. Magnum crimen vel in legatis insidiandis vel in servis ad hospitem domini necandum sollicitandis, plenum sceleris consilium, plenum audaciae!

He took gold, as you have said, to give to the slaves of Lucius Lucceius, through whom Alexandrian Dio would be killed, who was then living at the house of Lucius. It is a great crime to plot against ambassadors and to induce slaves to murder the guest of their master, a plan full of wickedness, full of boldness!

52 (a) quo quidem in criminine primum illud requir, dixeritne Clodiae quam ob rem aurum sumeret, an non dixerit. si non dixit, cur dedit? si dixit, eodem se conscientiae scelere devinxit. tune aurum ex armaro tuo promere ausa es, tune Veneram illam tuam spoliar ornamentis,

In the matter of this charge, Indeed I first ask this thing: did he tell Clodia why he took the gold or did he not tell her? If he did not say, why did she give it? If he did say, then she has bound herself in the same crime through her awareness. Did you dare take out the gold from your chest? did you dare to strip that Venus of yours its ornaments?

52 (b) spoliatricem ceterorum, cum scires, quantum ad facinus aurum hoc quaereretur, ad necem legati, ad Lucii Luccei, sanctissimi hominis atque integerrimi, labem sclereis sempiternam? huic facinori tanto tua mens liberalis conscia, tua domus popularis ministra, tua denique hospitallis illla venus adiutrix esse non debuit

Even though you knew how much this gold was being sought for a crime, for the murder of an ambassador, for the purpose of creating an eternal stain on Lucius Lucceius, the most pious and most honest man? That such a generous mind of yours should not have been accessory to such a terrible crime, your popular home should not openly have been an instrument in it , nor finally that welcoming Venus of yours the accomplice.

53 (a) vidit hoc Balbus; celatam esse Clodiam dixit, atque ita Caelium ad illam attulisse ad ornatum ludorum aurum quaerere. si tam familiaris erat Clodia, quam to esse vis, cum de libidine eius tam multa dicis, dixit profecto, quo vellet aurum; si tam familiaris non erat, non dedit.

Balbus perceived this; he said that Clodia was kept in the dark, and in this way Caelius alleged that he sought the gold from her, for the purpose of adorning the games. If he had been so intimate with Clodia - as you would want him to be, since you say so many things about his lust - he definitely would have said why he wanted the gold; If he was indeed not so intimate with her, she would not have given it.

53 (b) ita, si verum tibi Caelius dixit, o immoderata mulier, sciens tu aurum ad facinus dedisti; si non est ausus dicere, non dedisti. quid ego nunc argumentis huic crimini, quae sunt

innumerabilia, resistam? possum dicere mores Caeli longissime a tanti sceleris atrocitate esse

disiunctos; minime esse credendum homini tam ingenioso tamque prudenti non venisse in

mentem rem tanti sceleris ignotis alienisque servis non esse credendam.

. In this way, if truly he said this to you, O unrestrained woman, you gave him the gold knowing it was for a crime; if he didn't dare to say it, you did not give it. Why should I now oppose this charge, with arguments which are countless? I am able to say that customs of Caelius are a very long way away estranged from the atrocity of such great a crime. In no way can it be believed that it did not occur to a man so clever and so sensible, that a deed of such a crime ought not to be entrusted to slaves, who were unknown and belonging to another man.

53 (c) possum etiam alia et ceterorum patronorum et mea consuetudine ab accusatore perquirere, ubi sit congressus cum servis Luccei Caelius, qui ei fuerit aditus; si per se, qua temeritate: si per alium, per quem? possum omnes latebras suspicionum peragrare dicendo; non causa, non locus, non facultas, non conscius, non perficiendi, non occultandi maleficii spes, non ratio ulla, non vestigium maximi facinoris reperietur

I can even enquire diligently about the other things both according to my customs and that of my other defence counsels from the prosecutors - where did Caelius meet with the slaves of Lucceius, what access was there for him? if through himself, with what recklessness did he act, if through another person, then through whom? I am able to search through all the hiding places of suspicion by talking; the reason will not be found, nor the place, nor the means, nor the accomplice, nor the hope of carrying this out or of concealing a wicked deed, nor any plan, nor the trace of the greatest crime will be found.

54(a)sed haec, quae sunt oratoris propria, quae mihi non propter ingenium meum, sed propter hanc

exercitationem usumque dicendi fructum aliquem ferre potuissent, cum a me ipso elaborata

proferri viderentur, brevitatis causa relinquo omnia. habeo enim, iudices, quem vos socium vestrae

religionis iurisque iurandi facile esse patiamini, Lucium Lucceium, sanctissimum hominem et

gravissimum testem, qui tantum facinus in famam atque fortunas suas neque non audisset illatum

a Caelio neque neglexisset neque tulisset.

But these things, which belong to an orator, which could have brought some benefit to me, not on account of my innate talent but on account of this training and this experience in speaking, since these things would seem to be produced by me as elaborations, I abandon everything for the sake of brevity. For I have, judges, someone whom you all may easily allow to be an ally of your religious duty and of your sworn oath, Lucius Lucceius, a most pious man and a most serious witness, who could not, not have heard nor ignored nor endured such an outrage brought against his reputation and his fortunes by Caelius.

54(b) an ille vir illa humanitate praeditus, illis studiis, illis

artibus atque doctrina illius ipsius periculum, quem propter haec ipsa studia diligebat, neglegere

potuisset et, quod facinus in alienum hominem intentum severe acciperet, id omisisset curare in

hospitem?

Or could that man that is so endowed with such kindness, with those studies, with those arts and his learning, have ignored these dangers, which threatened that very man, whom he loved on account of these very pursuits, and could he have neglected to deal with a crime plotted against a guest, which he would have taken seriously if it was committed against a stranger?

54(c) quod per ignotos actum si comperisset, doleret, id a suis servis temptatum esse

neglegeret? quod in agris locisve publicis factum reprehenderet, id in urbe ac domi suae coeptum

esse leniter ferret? quod in alicuius agrestis periculo non praetermitteret, id homo eruditus in

insidiis doctissimi hominis dissimulandum putaret?

A crime, which he would have been hurt if he had discovered it was carried out by unknown persons, would he neglect it when attempted by his own slaves? That which he criticised was done in fields or in public places, would he calmly bear it begun in his city and in his own house? A thing he would not overlook if it endangered some ordinary countryman, would a man of such education ever think he could hide a plot directed against such a learned man [Dio]?

55(a) sed cur diutius vos, iudices, teneo? ipsius iurati religionem auctoritatemque percipite atque

omnia diligenter testimonii verba cognoscite. recita. LUCII LUCCEI TESTIMONIVM. quid

exspectatis amplius? an aliquam vocem putatis ipsam pro se causam et veritatem posse mittere?

haec est innocentiae defensio, haec ipsius causae oratio, haec una vox veritatis.

But why do I hold you, jurors, for any longer? Perceive the reverence and influence of the man's sworn oath and get to know all the words of his testimony carefully. Read it out. THE TESTIMONY OF LUCIUS LUCCEIUS. What else are you waiting for? Or do you think that the case itself and the truth can send another voice on behalf of itself. This is the defence of innocence, this is the speech for the case itself, this is the one voice of truth.

55(b) in crimine ipso

nulla suspicio est, in re nihil est argumenti, in negotio, quod actum esse dicitur, nullum

vestigium sermonis, loci, temporis; nemo testis, nemo conscius nominatur, totum crimen

profertur ex inimica, ex infami, ex crudeli, ex facinerosa, ex libidinosa domo;

In the charge itself there is no suspicion, in this case there is no argument, in the business dealings, which are said to have happened, there is no trace of what was said, nor the place or the time. No witness, no accomplice is named, the whole charge has been produced out of this hostile, infamous, cruel, crime-stained, lust-stained home.

55(c) domus autem

illa, quae temptata esse scelere isto nefario dicitur, plena est integritatis, dignitatis, officii

religionis; ex qua domo recitatur vobis iure iurando devincta auctoritas ut res minime dubitanda

in contentione ponatur, utrum temeraria, procax, irata mulier finxisse crimen, an gravis sapiens

moderatusque vir religiose testimonium dixisse videatur.

But that house, which is said to have been disturbed by that terrible crime, is in fact full of integrity, dignity and religious duty; out of which house, the statement, bound by a sworn oath is read out to you so that something of very little doubt is placed under dispute - whether that a rash, angry and wanton woman seems to have falsified this charge or the serious, wise and sensible man seems to have said his testimony dutifully

56(a) reliquum est igitur crimen de veneno; cuius ego nec principium invenire neque evolvere

exitum possum. quae fuit enim causa, quam ob rem isti mulieri venenum dare vellet Caelius?

ne aurum redderet? num petivit? ne crimen haereret? num quis obiecit? num quis denique

fecisset mentionem, si hic nullius nomen detulisset?

Therefore there remains the charge of poison; of which I can neither find the beginning nor explain the end. For what reason was there, why Caelius should wish to give poison to this woman? So as not to return the gold? Surely he never sought it? So that the charge would not stick to him? Surely no one brought a charge against him? Surely in the end no one would have made mention of Caelius , had he not brought a prosecution against anyone?

56(b) quin etiam Lucium Herennium dicere

audistis verbo se molestum non futurum fuisse Caelio, nisi iterum eadem de re suo familiari

absoluto nomen hic detulisset. credibile est igitur tantum facinus nullam ob causam esse

commissum? et vos non videtis fingi sceleris maximi crimen ut alterius causa sceleris

suscipiendi causa fuisse videatur?

But Indeed you heard Lucius Herennius say in a word that he would not have troubled Caelius, unless he had brought a charge again, against his Kingsman, who had already been acquitted on the same charge. Therefore is it credible that such great a charge was committed for no reason? And do you not see that the accusation of such great a crime is being invented so that there might seem to be a reason for undertaking a crime for the sake of another crime?

57(a) cui denique commisit, quo adiutore usus est, quo socio, quo conscio, cui tantum facinus,

cui se, cui salutem suam credidit? servisne mulieris? sic enim obiectum est. et erat tam demens

is cui vos ingenium certe tribuitis, etiamsi cetera inimica oratione detrahitis ut omnes suas

fortunas alienis servis committeret?

Finally, to whom did he entrust it, whom did he employ as an assistant? As a companion? As an accomplice? To whom did he entrust with such a great crime, to whom did he entrust himself and his own safety? To the slaves of that woman? For that is what was thrown against him. And was he so mad - he to whom you at any rate attribute natural talent, even if you refuse him the rest in that hostile speech - that he would entrust all of his whole fortune to another man's slaves?

57(b) at quibus servis? refert enim magnopere id ipsum. eisne,

quos intellegebat non communi condicione servitutis uti, sed licentius, liberius, familiarius cum

domina vivere? quis enim hoc non videt, iudices, aut quis ignorat, in eius modi domo, in qua

mater familias meretricio more vivat, in qua nihil geratur, quod foras proferendum sit, in qua

inusitatae libidines, luxuries, omnia denique inaudita vitia ac flagitia versentur,

But to which slaves? For that itself highly significant. Was it those slaves, whom he understood that they did not live by the normal condition of slavery, but with greater license, with greater freedom, with greater familiarity along with their mistress?

For who is there, jurors, who does not see this, or who is there who does not know, that a house of this kind, in which the mother of the family lives as a prostitute, in which nothing is done, which could be mentioned outdoors, in which unusual lusts, luxuries, and finally all kinds of unheard vices and misdeeds are carried on

57(c) hic servos non

esse servos, quibus omnia committantur, per quos gerantur, qui versentur isdem in

voluptatibus, quibus occulta credantur, ad quos aliquantum etiam ex cotidianis sumptibus ac

luxurie redundet? id igitur Caelius non videbat?

that here the slaves are not slaves, to whom everything is entrusted, through whom [all] is carried out, who carry on in the same pleasures, to whom secrets are confided, to whom even some of the daily extravagances and luxury is poured out? Caelius therefore did not see this?

58(a) si enim tam familiaris erat mulieris, quam vos vultis, istos quoque servos familiares dominae esse sciebat. sin ei tanta consuetudo, quanta a vobis inducitur, non erat, quae cum servis potuit familiaritas esse tanta?

For if he was so familiar with that woman, as you want, he would also know those slaves as intimates of his mistress. But if there was not so much intimacy as is suggested by you, how could there be so much familiarity with her slaves?

58(b) ipsius autem veneni quae ratio fingitur? ubi quaesitum est, quem ad modum paratum, quo pacto, cui, quo in loco traditum? habuisse aiunt domi vimque eius esse expertum in servo quodam ad eam rem ipsam parato; cuius perceleri interitu esse ab hoc comprobatum venenum

But what reason is being invented of the poison itself? Where was it sourced? How was it prepared? With what agreement, to whom and in what place was it handed over? They allege he kept it at home and he tested its strength on a certain slave, having been provided for this very thing; by who's very quick death, the poison was approved by him

59-60 summary

Cicero suddenly switches to talking about Clodia's deceased husband Metellus and the great loss his death is to the Republic. However, his purpose is to suggest that Clodia is the one experienced in plotting with poison, not Caelius. There is a clear hint that she may have been involved in murdering her husband

61(a) . sed tamen venenum unde fuerit, quem ad modum paratum sit, non dicitur. datum esse aiunt huic Publio Licinio, pudenti adulescenti et bono, Caeli familiari; constitutum esse cum servis ut venirent ad balneas Senias; eodem Licinium esse venturum atque eis veneni pyxidem traditurum. hic primum illud requiro, quid attinuerit ferri in eum locum constitutum, cur illi servi non ad Caelium domum venerint.

But however, it is not said where the poison was from, how it had been prepared. They say that it was given to this Publius Licinius, a modest and good young man, a kinsman of Caelius; that it was decided to go to Senain baths along with slaves; that Licinius would come to the same place and he would hand over the little box of poison to them. Here, I first ask this thing: for what reason was it important for it to be brough to this appointed place? why did those slaves not come to Caelius' house?

61(b) si manebat tanta illa consuetudo Caeli, tanta familiaritas cum Clodia, quid suspicionis esset, si apud Caelium mulieris servus visus esset? sin autem iam suberat simultas, exstincta erat consuetudo, discidium exstiterat, 'hinc illae lacrimae' nimirum, et haec causa est omnium horum scelerum atque criminum

If there remained so much intimacy and so much familiarity between Caelius and Clodia, what suspicion would there be if the slave of the woman was seen at Caelius' house.

But if rivalry had already arisen, and the intimacy was finished, and a quarrel had emerged, 'Henceforth those tears' - without a doubt, this is the reason for all these crimes and charges

62(a) 'immo,' inquit, 'cum servi ad dominam rem totam et maleficium Caeli detulissent, mulier ingeniosa praecepit his ut omnia Caelio pollicerentur; sed ut venenum, cum a Licinio traderetur, manifesto comprehendi posset, constitui locum iussit balneas Senias, ut eo mitteret amicos, qui delitiscerent, deinde repente, cum venisset Licinius venenumque traderet, prosilirent hominemque comprehenderent.'

The prosecution says, 'In no way, when the slaves had reported the whole matter and the evil plan of Caelius to their mistress, that clever woman instructed these men to promise Caelius everything, but in order that the poison could be seized openly, while it was being handed over by Licinius, she ordered the Senian baths to be decided as the location so that she could send friends there, who would lie in wait, then suddenly, when Licinius had come and was handing over the poison, they would jump out and arrest the man' (This is what Cicero says the prosecution alleges).

62(b) quae quidem omnia, iudices, perfacilem rationem habent reprehendendi. cur enim potissimum balneas publicas constituerat? in quibus non invenio quae latebra togatis hominibus esse posset.

All of these things, jurors, have a connection, which has a very easy way to refute. For why had she decided the public baths above all? In which, I cannot find where there might be hiding places for men in togas.

62(c) nam si essent in vestibulo balnearum, non laterent; sin se in intimum conicere vellent, nec satis commode calceati et vestiti id facere possent et fortasse non reciperentur, nisi forte mulier potens quadrantaria illa permutatione familiaris facta erat balneatori

For if they were in the entrance hall of the baths, they were not hiding; if they wanted to thrust themselves into the innermost place, they could not do this conveniently enough wearing clothes and shoes and perhaps they could not have been welcomed in, unless by chance that powerful woman had become an intimate of the bathkeeper through her usual cut price deal.

63(a) atque equidem vehementer exspectabam, quinam isti viri boni testes huius manifesto deprehensi veneni dicerentur; nulli enim sunt adhuc nominati. sed non dubito quin sint pergraves, qui primum sint talis feminae familiares, deinde eam provinciam susceperint ut in balneas contruderentur, quod illa nisi a viris honestissimis ac plenissimis dignitatis, quam velit sit potens, numquam impetravisset.

And indeed I was waiting eagerly, to see who on earth those good men were, said to be witnesses of this poison, having been apprehended openly; For none have been named up till now. But I do not doubt that they are very serious, who firstly are the intimates of such a woman, secondly they then undertook a task to thrust themselves into the baths, a plan which that woman would never have achieved except for by the most honest men, most full of dignity, however powerful she wishes to be.

63(b) sed quid ego de dignitate istorum testium loquor? virtutem eorum diligentiamque cognoscite. 'in balneis delituerunt.' testes egregios! 'dein temere prosiluerunt.' homines temperantes! sic enim fingitis, cum Licinius venisset, pyxidem teneret in manu, conaretur tradere, nondum tradidisset, tum repente evolasse istos praeclaros testes sine nomine;

But why do I talk about the distinction of those witnesses? Get to know their courage and their hard work. 'They lay hidden in the baths.' amazing witnesses! 'Then they jumped out rashly.' What men of self-control! For you invent this, that when Licinius had come, he was holding the box in his hand, he was trying to hand it over, he had not yet handed it over, then suddenly those distinguished witnesses without a name flew out!

63(c) Licinium autem, cum iam manum ad tradendam pyxidem porrexisset, retraxisse atque ex illo repentino hominum impetu se in fugam coniecisse. o magnam vim veritatem, quae contra hominum ingenia, calliditatem, sollertiam contraque fictas omnium insidias facile se per se ipsa defendat!

But Licinius, since he had already stretched out his hand to hand over the box, withdrew it and he had thrown himself into flight from that sudden attack of men. Oh how great is the strength of truth, which easily defends itself, by itself, against the tricks of men, the cunning, the plotting and against the made up schemes of all men.

64(a) velut haec tota fabella veteris et plurimarum fabularum poetriae quam est sine argumento, quam nullum invenire exitum potest! quid enim? isti tot viri (nam necesse est fuisse non paucos ut et comprehendi Licinius facile posset et res multorum oculis esset testatior) cur Licinium de manibus amiserunt?

As if this whole little drama of the experienced poetess of very many stories - how devoid of plot it is, how no ending can be found! How come? Those many men (for it is necessary that there were not a few (litotes) so that both Licinius could be easily arrested and that the matter would be more easily provable by the eyes of many men) why did they lose Licinius from their hands?

64(b)qui minus enim Licinius comprehendi potuit cum se retraxit ne pyxidem traderet, quam si tradidisset? erant enim illi positi ut comprehenderent Licinium, ut manifesto Licinius teneretur, aut cum retineret venenum aut cum tradidisset.

For how was Licinius less able to be arrested when he withdrew himself back so as not to hand over the small-box, than if he had handed it over? For those men were placed to arrest Licinius, so that Licinius could openly be apprehended, either when he was still holding the poison or when he had handed it over.

64(c) hoc fuit totum consilium mulieris, haec istorum provincia, qui rogati sunt; quos quidem tu quam ob rem temere prosiluisse dicas atque ante tempus, non reperio. fuerant ad hoc rogati, fuerant ad hanc rem collocati ut venenum, ut insidiae, facinus denique ipsum ut manifesto comprehenderetur.

This was the whole plan of the woman, this was the task of those men, which they had been asked; Whom, indeed, you say jumped out rashly and ahead of time, but I do not find why. They had been asked to do this, they had been gathered for this aim, that the poison be clearly seized, that the plot was apprehended and the very crime itself.