The first tribunal de ui at Rome was enacted by the consul Q. Lutatius Catulus in 78 as a tool for suppressing the revolt led by his colleague M. Aemilius Lepidus; it was evidently a quaestio extraordinaria rather than a permanent institution. M. Caelius Rufus was charged under the lex Plautia de ui, which was probably enacted in 70 by the plebeian tribune M. Plautius Silvanus (MRR II 128), the man who also introduced the lex Plautia de reditu Lepidanorum; possibly the lex de ui was a concession to those who feared new unrest if the exiles were allowed to return. Certainly the lex Plautia de ui was in effect by 63, since in that year Catiline was prosecuted under it (TLRR 223). Perhaps Plautius proposed this legislation, rather than rely on the existing quaestio maiestatis, since the latter was better adapted to prosecuting the ringleaders of armed violence than the rank and file. The lex Plautia outlawed any act of violence that was directed contra rem publicam and established a standing court (quaestio perpetua) to hear relevant charges; it also provided that that court meet daily, even during festivals (dies festi), and that its cases receive priority over other pending trials.

This is not the place for a full biography of Clodia Metelli, but since C. presents her as his main antagonist in this speech, it is worth considering briefly who she was and what rôle she played in this trial. A daughter of Ap. Claudius Pulcher (cos. 79), she was probably born by 93; she was married, possibly by 79, to Q. Metellus Celer (cos. 60). Of her three brothers, Appius achieved the consulate (54), Gaius the praetorship (56), Publius the tribunate of the plebs (58) and aedileship (56). She also had two sisters, though the order of their births is unclear. In any case, both of her sisters also married consuls: one married L. Licinius Lucullus (cos. 74); the other, Claudia Tertia, married Q. Marcius Rex (cos. 68). Clodia herself was widowed by the sudden death of her husband in 59 (see further on §§59–60). She is known to have possessed three properties, a house on the Palatine, gardens on the Tiber and a house at Baiae. There is no reference to her dated later than 44.

The date of publication of Cael. has been controversial since Norden argued that it remained unpublished during C.’s lifetime because the Council of Luca of mid-April interfered with any plans for publication; hence it was edited posthumously from his papers with “doublets” remaining in the text as traces of C.’s improvisation during delivery. But the “doublets,” i.e. reprise of topics previously mooted (§28 ∼ §§41–3 and §38 and §§48–50), can be otherwise explained; and C. heard of the Council of Luca only ca. 25 April; even if he drew immediate conclusions from that information, in view of the speed with which he could work, the prior writing up and circulation of the speech is not excluded. As a general rule it is probably true that C. wrote up and circulated quickly the forensic speeches that he meant to publish. Crawford points out that a desire to memorialize “the devastating attack on the Clodii” would have argued for immediate publication; indeed the speech shows the wounds of the exile still raw (§§32, 50).

This is a selection of texts from the ancient world commenting directly on Thucydides’ life and work. There exist two extended treatments – by Dionysius (mainly on his style) and ‘Marcellinus’ (mainly on his life) – but it is perhaps surprising how few other direct sources of this kind there are, given Thucydides’ great celebrity and influence.

1. Cicero (106–43 BC). Roman orator, statesman and philosopher. He played an active part in Roman politics before the death of Caesar, delivered many important political speeches and wrote major treatises on rhetoric and philosophy.

2. Brutus. A study of the history of oratory, cast in the form of a dialogue.

Cicero is describing the origins of the art of oratory in Greece, and in particular in Athens:

(1) It was in that city that the orator first came into prominence and where oratory began to be committed to written records. But before Pericles, who is credited with some writings, and Thucydides – who belong not to the infancy of Athens but to her maturity – there is not a single example of the written word that shows any degree of elaboration at all or looks like the work of a real orator. [He then mentions various earlier figures famous for their eloquence] … And after them came Pericles, who excelled in every way but was especially renowned for this ability. We also know that in the same period Cleon, for all the trouble he caused as a citizen, was a man of eloquence. Among his near contemporaries were Alcibiades, Critias and Theramenes, and it is from the writings of Thucydides that one can best understand the style of speaking that flourished at that time: these were impressive in their choice of words, full of wise sayings, and so concise through their compression of material as to be sometimes obscure. (Brutus 26–29)

Summer [V 40–50]

Right at the beginning of spring in the next summer season, the Argives noted with mounting concern that the envoys the Boeotians had promised to send did not arrive, that Panactum was being destroyed and that the Boeotians had made a private alliance with the Spartans. They therefore became afraid that they would be isolated and that the whole alliance would go over to the Spartans. They supposed that the Boeotians had been persuaded by the Spartans to destroy Panactum and to enter into a treaty with the Athenians; and they imagined that the Athenians knew all this, with the result that it was no longer possible for them to make an alliance with the Athenians, though they had previously hoped that while Athens and Sparta remained at odds with each other, even if their treaty with the Spartans did not survive, they could at least become allies of the Athenians. The Argives were therefore at a loss what to do in this situation. They were afraid that they might find themselves at war simultaneously with the Spartans, Tegeans, Boeotians and Athenians, having previously declined to accept a treaty with the Spartans, indeed having even entertained the proud fancy that they might become the leading power in the Peloponnese. They therefore now sent envoys as quickly as possible to Sparta – in the persons of Eustrophus and Aeson, who they thought would be the ones most congenial to the Spartans – taking the view that in the present circumstances it would be best to make an agreement with the Spartans on whatever terms possible and then be at peace.

Summer [II 47.2–68]

As soon as summer began the Peloponnesians and their allies, under the leadership of Archidamus, son of Zeuxidamus and king of the Spartans, invaded Attica with two-thirds of their forces just as they had done the year before. They established themselves and set about wasting the land. They had not been there many days when the plague first broke out among the Athenians, and although it is said to have struck in many places before, particularly at Lemnos but also elsewhere, there is no previous record anywhere of a pestilence so severe and so destructive to human life. The physicians were not able to help at its outset since they were treating it in ignorance, and indeed they themselves suffered the highest mortality since they were the ones most exposed to it. Nor were other human arts of any avail. Whatever supplications people made at sanctuaries and whatever oracles or the like they consulted, all were useless and in the end they abandoned them, defeated by the affliction.

It first came, so it is said, out of Ethiopia beyond Egypt, and then spread into Egypt and Libya and into most of the territory of the Persian King. When it got to Athens it struck the city suddenly, taking hold first in the Peiraeus, so that it was even suggested by the people there that the Peloponnesians had put poison in the rain-water tanks (there being no wells yet in the Peiraeus). Later on it reached the upper city too and then the mortality became much greater. I leave it to others – whether physicians or lay people – to speak from their own knowledge about it and say what its likely origins were and what factors could be powerful enough to generate such disruptive effects.

Summer [II 71–92]

The following summer the Peloponnesians and their allies did not invade Attica but instead launched a campaign against Plataea under the command of Archidamus, son of Zeuxidamus and king of the Spartans. After establishing his army's position he was about to start wasting the land, but the Plataeans quickly dispatched envoys to him with the following message:

‘Archidamus and Spartans, this invasion of the territory of Plataea is an act of injustice and one unworthy both of you and of the men who were your fathers. Remember the commitment made by Pausanias son of Cleonbrotus, himself a Spartan, when he had liberated Greece from the Persians with the help of those Greeks who were prepared to share the danger in the battle that was fought on our land. He made sacrifices to Zeus God of Freedom in the market-place of Plataea and, summoning together all the allies, granted the Plataeans the right to hold and occupy their land and city as an independent people; no one was to take up arms against them without just cause or to enslave them; and if they did so the allies present would do everything in their power to defend them. This was the reward your fathers gave us for the courage and commitment we showed at that time of danger. But you are doing just the reverse – you have come here with the Thebans, our worst enemies, intending to make us slaves. We call to witness the gods in whose name we then swore and the gods of your ancestors and of our own country, and we say to you, do not wrong the land of Plataea and do not violate your oaths, but let us live in independence just as Pausanias decreed.’

This synopsis is complementary to the synopsis of contents (above) and is set in the same structure, which includes both the conventional divisions by books and chapters and Thucydides’ own chronological division into years.

The speeches in Thucydides are a central feature of the work and have always been among the parts most quoted and studied (see introduction pp. xxviii–xxix and I 22n). I have listed here all the speeches that appear in the text in the form of direct speech, including some that are really only short quotations or conversational remarks, and also some ‘letters’ that were intended to be read aloud (for example that of Nicias at VII 11–15). I have indicated the kind and context of each item very briefly in the introductory description and have grouped related items together under these headings. I have dealt slightly more selectively with speeches that appear only in the form of indirect or reported speech in the text (‘he said that …’), but I have included all the most important ones (and some are very significant, for example that of Pericles at II 13) and those that purport to summarise the whole speech delivered; most examples of such reported speech are in fact quite short, though it should be noted that all the speeches in book VIII (with one tiny exception) are in this form (see further IV 97.2n and VIII 27.1n).