The success of C.’s speech and of the defense case generally is shown by the fact that Caelius was not forced into exile but remained in Rome to pursue his prosecution of Bestia, who was probably convicted (TLRR 269), and continue his political career, attaining the tribunate of the plebs of 52, the curule aedileship of 50 and serving as praetor peregrinus in 48. Enmity with the Clodii persisted, however, as is reported by C. in a letter to Quintus of 14 February 54. Not surprising, then, that when P. Clodius was killed in an apparently chance encounter with Milo and his entourage on the Via Appia near Bovillae on 18 January 52, as tribune, Caelius was among Milo's staunchest supporters and gave him opportunity to relate his version of events at a contio (Asc. 33C); he also joined with C. and others in one of the two successful defenses de ui of Milo's henchman M. Saufeius, who led the attack on the inn where the wounded Clodius had taken refuge (TLRR 313); and he continued to watch over Milo's interests during the latter's exile (Fam. 8.3[79].2). In view of his firm stand against the Clodiani, C. commends in general Caelius’ assembly speeches as tribune as graues; his election as curule aedile followed cum summa uoluntate bonorum (Brut. 273). But his own departure for Cilicia and consequently waning influence were, according to C., the cause of his friend's downfall: nescio quomodo discessu meo discessit a sese ceciditque, posteaquam eos imitari coepit quos ipse peruerterat (ibid.).

The way the defense case was divided up among the speakers itself gives some hints about the strategy. Caelius apparently spoke first, attacking Atratinus, the tutor who allegedly wrote Atratinus’ speech for him and Clodia, while trying to present his own character in the best possible light (see above and on §80 fin.). The actual charges were assigned to Crassus and Cicero, the former refuting those de seditionibus Neapolitanis, de Alexandrinorum pulsatione Puteolana and de bonis Pallae, the latter the charges relating to the (attempted) murders of Dio and Clodia (§23). This shows that the charges related to Dio's embassy, the prosecution's major point, were divided up to reduce their impact since the charge de Alexandrinorum pulsatione Puteolana certainly had to do with mistreatment of Dio's embassy, the charge de seditionibus Neapolitanis possibly so (cf. on §23), whereas C. dealt with the murder of Dio on its own; it is unclear how or whether the goods of Palla related to the other charges. As usual, because of his mastery in stirring emotions, C. delivered the last of the set-speeches for the defense (cf. Brut. 190; Orat. 130).

M. Caelius Rufus was probably born in 88 or 87. This would accord with the facts of his public career (aedile 50, praetor 48: MRR ii 248, 273) in spite of Pliny's claim that he was born on the same day (28 May 82) as the poet and orator C. Licinius Calvus (Nat. 7.165), an apparent mistake. From an early age he was educated in the house of the later “triumvir” M. Licinius Crassus, no doubt along with Crassus’ younger son Publius (§9). Upon reaching maturity, perhaps ca. 72, he was placed in the care of C. for the traditional apprenticeship of a young man destined for work in the courts and public life generally (tirocinium fori: ibid. with n.). C. suggests that he continued in this tutelage during the following years, though one might query whether he has not, for the sake of his case, exaggerated the closeness of the relationship. As late as 64 he still stood by C. in his candidature for consul (§10); only the following year did he deviate, perhaps under Crassus’ influence, by supporting Catiline's consular candidature (§11 with n.). C. is keen to deny that his client was Catiline's lover or that he supported his revolution (§§12 and 15). But Caelius was prosecuted in 50 by Servius Pola under the lex Scantinia (banning homosexual activity: TLRR 347; Rotondi : 293) and in 48 promulgated a bill calling for cancellation of debts (nouae tabulae: Caes. Civ. 3.21.2; Vel. 2.68.2; Dio 42.22.4), a key point in Catiline's program (Sal. Cat. 21.2). Though C. denies that there was “so great a wound” (tantum…uulnus) in his client as to draw him into the conspiracy (§15), Caelius’ father was stingy (§36 patre parco ac tenaci) and his expenditures large (§17; cf. the remark, albeit ironic, at §27 qui nullum conuiuium renuerit, qui in hortis fuerit, qui unguenta sumpserit, qui Baias uiderit); his youth and his debts (if the charge at §17 is true would match the profile of some of Catiline's followers (Catil. 2.8 and 22–3; Sal. Cat. 14).

While Aristotle describes a period (περίοδος) as a sentence involving an antithesis, later rhetoric treats it as a rhetorically shaped sentence with several grammatically connected clauses. A hallmark of C.’s style is his preference for certain rhythmical shapes, especially at the close of sentences, but also marking smaller units (cola). This mannerism was so firmly rooted in C. that it appears even in hastily written letters. The basic unit is the cretic (– ˘ –), varied with trochee (– ˘) and iamb (˘ –); the last syllable is anceps (x), i.e. it may be either short or long; and a long may be resolved into two shorts. The following are C.’s favorite shapes in order of preference:

1. – ˘ – – x (cretic + trochee)

2. – – – – ˘ x (molossus + cretic)

3. – ˘ – – ˘ x (double cretic)

4. – – – – ˘ – x (molossus + double trochee)

5. – ˘ – – ˘ – x (cretic + double trochee)

6. – ˘ – ˘ x (cretic + iamb)

7. – ˘ ˘ ˘ – x (first paeon + trochee).

Pro Caelio provides many examples of such rhythms before a pause. C. also has certain aversions, in particular the hexameter ending, though the avoidance is not absolute.

Though it fails to appear on medieval lists of set-books, Cael. belongs to the group of ten speeches that arrived in France in the late eighth or early ninth century, perhaps from an insular center on the Continent, since they show errors typical of transcriptions from insular sources. One copy found its way to Tours, where it was transcribed (Paris. lat. 7794 = P, first half of the ninth century), another to Liège yielding various copies, of which the oldest are G (Brussels 5345, beginning of eleventh century) and E (Berlin lat. fol. 2o 252, beginning of the twelfth century). Another manuscript (Harley 4927 = H, copied in central France in the middle of the twelfth century) is used by editors beside PGE in the reconstruction of the ω hyparchetype, though it has been suspected of deriving directly from P. In addition, there is a second branch of the tradition (Ω) derived from the famous “uetus Cluniacensis” (Cluny 496 = C), a codex copied perhaps in the eighth century that was discovered in 1413 by Jean de Montreuil and made its way to Italy, where it was copied twice, in 1416–17 at Florence and ca. 1428, perhaps by Poggio, and then lost; it is reconstructed from the marginalia of Paris lat. 14749 (French) and from some Italian MSS. Recent editors have tended to proceed eclectically without preference for a particular MS or group of MSS.

C.’s influence on Latin as an expressive medium is unrivaled. This has to do with his “elaboration of periodic sentence structure, his formalization of the principles of euphony for prose composition…and his implicit definition, through his careful selection of particular variants, of ‘best practice’ in grammar and usage”; nor did his influence cease with the end of antiquity but continued in the middle ages, Renaissance and early modern period until the fundamental shift in educational focus ushered in by the Romantic age. This is hardly the place for a full exposition of the subject; here the goal is the much more modest one of highlighting how C.’s mastery of Latinity contributes to the persuasive power of Cael.

Cael. is a work of C.’s maturity and free of the defects of his juvenile style. He has by now mostly dropped such legal clichés as the repetition of the antecedent within the relative clause (but cf. §78). He has also purged his language of most, but not all, archaic features; those that have survived include: (1) the alliterative pairs, an aspect of Latin's primitive expressive power that C. did not wish to abandon (§19 acute arguteque; §78 oro obtestorque); (2) huiusce, of which Cato was fond (5x) and C., too, through the speeches of his consular year (58x), after which it drops off markedly, occurring in Arch., Flac., Cael. 1 and two subsequent speeches; (3) cuicuimodi (“no matter of what kind”: §24) is virtually Ciceronian property, occurring fourteen times in his corpus and otherwise only twice in Gellius (9.2.6 and 13.23.19); C. uses it in all prose genres, but our passage is its last occurrence in a speech. In addition, he uses the archaic/legal “future” imperative to lend weight to a command, three times addressed to the jurors (§22 excluditote, §34 scitote, §79 constituitote), once to Clodia (§36 putato).

The prosecution case was divided among three speakers, L. Sempronius Atratinus, L. Herennius Balbus and P. Clodius. Of these Atratinus was just seventeen years old and the biological son of L. Calpurnius Bestia, whose second prosecution de ambitu at the hands of Caelius is pending, the prosecution de ui insuring that the present case came to trial first. All the prosecutors taxed Caelius with immorality (§6b) but none more so than Atratinus, to C.’s annoyance (§7); in the circumstances C. could not respond with a mere tu quoque. Caelius, closer to Atratinus in age, was less charitable, claiming that he was merely mouthing words written for him by his teacher L. Plotius Gallus (orat. p. 485, no. 24 = Suet. Gram. 26.2). Atratinus went on to a fine career: as a follower of Mark Antony he was coopted to the college of augurs in 40, gained some provincial experience in Syria and Macedonia and led a squadron of ships in the war with Sextus Pompey. He was suffect consul in succession to Antony in 34 but changed sides opportunely and served as proconsul of Africa, whence he returned in triumph in 21; in illness and old age he ended his life in ad 7.

Caelius spoke in his own defense and gave, according to C., a good account of his oratorical talent (§45). Writing from a perspective two years after Caelius’ death, however, C. finds his defenses less impressive than his other oratory: defensiones, etsi illa erant in eo meliora quae dixi [sc. contiones, accusationes], non contemnendae tamen saneque tolerabiles (Brut. 273). The speech was quoted for examples of his caustic wit, as when, without mentioning his name, he called Plotius Gallus, the author of Atratinus’ speech, a “gingerbread rhetorician” (hordearium…rhetorem: orat. p. 485 no. 24) and Atratinus himself a “Pelias with curled hair” (Pelia cincinnatus: ibid. p. 488 no. 37). He also characterized Clodia as a quadrantariam Clytaemestram (ibid. p. 486, no. 26; cf. §62n [quadrantaria illa permutatione]) and said of her in triclinio coam, in cubiculo nolam (orat. p. 486 no. 27). He seems to have commented on Asicius’ recent acquittal on charges relating to the plot against Dio: he said he regarded Asicius’ case as strong but unrelated to his own (C. quotes him to this effect at §24). Perhaps in the peroration he asked the jurors to overlook anything offensive in his aspect and personal style and described himself as utilis multis and therefore worthy of being saved (ibid. pp. 485–6 nos. 25 and 28; C. offers a similar argument at §80).

At Athens and elsewhere in the Greek world, the defendant in court was allowed a συνήγορος, literally a “with-speaker,” to collaborate in presenting the case. The Roman term for the advocate in court, patronus, suggests a fundamentally different relation, namely the patronus/cliens model that pervaded Roman society. In early Rome, before advocacy was professionalized, the patronus was expected to exert his auctoritas and force of personality in advocating his client's case before the bar. Continuing as a factor in C.’s time, this element is marked in the oratory of his maturity, when he seeks, on the strength of his long-standing ties to the client, to vouch for him as a worthy citizen and invest him with the aura of his consular auctoritas. The identification of the patronus with his cliens is especially marked in this speech in view of his association with Caelius since he assumed the toga uirilis (§9) and their similar origins as noui homines from Italian municipia; hence he presents Caelius as guaranteed to pursue similar policies for the benefit of the community (§§6a, 77, 80).

Since there was no public prosecutor at Rome, a private citizen had to take upon himself the task of collecting evidence of wrongdoing and filing charges. The would-be prosecutor appeared before the chairman of the relevant quaestio (this might be either a praetor or a iudex quaestionis) and reported the name of the alleged culprit (nomen deferre; corresponding substantive nominis delatio). The official then decided whether to accept the prosecution (nomen recipere) or not; he imposed an oath on the prosecutor to insure that he was acting in good faith. The prosecutor's advantage lay in the fact that only he, and not the defense, could compel the testimony of witnesses; he also had the power to collect relevant documents and place them under seal pending trial. A trial date would be set and a jury empanelled from the album of available jurors established each year by the praetors, whereby each side had the right to reject (reicere) a certain number of proposed jurors. The jury ordinarily consisted of three decuriae of twenty-five each, one decuria of senators, another of equites and a third of tribuni aerarii (a group meeting the same property qualification as the equites); the jurors had to swear to render a conscientious verdict.

It is not easy to construct a coherent prosecution case from C.’s speech since, as usual, he refutes the charges piecemeal and out of order so as to sunder the causal connections argued by the prosecutors. By filing charges de ui the prosecution clearly hoped, however, to forestall Caelius’ (second) prosecution of Bestia de ambitu, since cases of seditious violence received priority (see further on §1 ab eius filio…et uocarit).

In a Roman courtroom it was not discrediting for a prosecutor to admit a personal grudge against a defendant; such an admission could, in fact, be taken as a guarantee of sincerity. Thus the young Atratinus could say that he was prosecuting the man who was hounding his father, Bestia, through the ambitus-court and receive some sympathy and credit for pietas (§1); in all probability he also sought to draw a contrast with Caelius’ treatment of his father, from whose house he had moved out (§3b pater…parum pie tractatus a filio; §18). Herennius Balbus could allege that he was similarly motivated by the plight of his friend Bestia (§56) and stir ill-will against Caelius with a description of his friendly relations with and sudden betrayal of the man (§26).

R. G. Austin's commentary on Pro Caelio introduced several successive generations of anglophone students to the speech and is fondly remembered by many, even those who simultaneously recognize its flaws. Austin deployed his formidable learning on what modern students tend to regard as Cicero's most attractive speech, and he did so in a highly engaging manner. On the other hand, the flaws in his book are also considerable, and time has tended to magnify rather than reduce their scope. Despite his knowledge of Latin grammar, it is possible to contest some of his interpretive and textual decisions. Further, he tended to be gulled by Cicero's rhetorical wiles and too often fell back on his own (often quite deft) renderings at the expense of explaining how the Latin actually works (a need perhaps less urgent in those days). In addition, some decisions taken by author and publisher made the book less than ideally “user-friendly.” It was decided that the Latin text should be a reprint of Clark's OCT, so Austin occasionally found himself in the awkward position of arguing against his own text. In addition, Austin buried a great deal of essential matter in a long series of appendixes that it is difficult to persuade students to read. Finally, over the course of three editions Austin revised some of his views and arrived at new interpretations; these, however, are relegated to a series of “Additional Notes” at the back; in such cases the reader typically first encounters an interpretation that further searching shows to have been repudiated and replaced by a different (and usually better) one. For all these reasons I was not surprised when the series editors asked me to undertake a new commented edition of Pro Caelio in accord with the norms of the Cambridge Greek and Latin Classics.

It is a pleasure to register debts to several benefactors. I thank the series editors and the Syndics of the Press for commissioning the project, The Loeb Classical Library Foundation for generously funding related research expenses, Brent Vine for bibliographic advice, Stephen Oakley and Philip Hardie for reading and improving my drafts and Michael Sharp and his staff for bringing the book to print with their usual care and efficiency; I am solely responsible for any remaining errors. My greatest debt is recorded in the dedication.