Cicero, Clodia, and the 'Pro Caelio'

Author(s): T. A. Dorey
Source: Greece & Rome , Oct., 1958, Vol. 5, No. 2 (Oct., 1958), pp. 175-180
Published by: Cambridge University Press on behalf of The Classical Association

Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/640934

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms

The Classical Association and Cambridge University Press are collaborating with JSTOR to
digitize, preserve and extend access to Greece & Rome

This content downloaded from

186.19.89.25 on Sat, 22 Jul 2023 22:40:07 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 CICERO, CLODIA, AND THE PRO CAELIO
By T. A. DOREY

IN his description of Cicero's eloquence Quintilian says that h

the power of carrying a jury with him against its better judgem
without the jury's realizing what was happening.' This magical pow
Cicero's is exercised not only on Roman jurors, but also on most m
readers and even on some editors. This process is particularly app
in many interpretations of the Pro Caelio. For example, Professor
Austin, in his great edition of that speech, says, 'Whatever the s
history, it is clear that the actual indictment was formal, and that
was the real driving force behind it; society reasons prompted the
and the issue was the social disappearance of either Clodia or Cael
Yet an impartial weighing of the evidence with a mind unclouded
Cicero's brilliant oratory will point to the conclusion that the part play
by Clodia in the case, though an important part, was only a
sidiary one.3
When Cicero is opening his defence to the charge that Caelius had
attempted to poison Clodia, he tries to show that the alleged attempted
Inst. x. I. i o.
2 Cicero, Pro Caelio, ed. R. G. Austin2 (Oxford, 1952), p. viii. See also C. G.
Richards, Cicero (London, 1935), 78, io6, 222, and W. Warde Fowler, Social
Life at Rome in the age of Cicero (London, 1937), 129, for similar points of view.
3 R. Heinze ('Cicero's Rede Pro Caelio', Hermes, lx (1925), 193-258) and
E. Ciaceri ('I1 Processo di M. Celio Rufo e l'Arringa di Cicerone', Atti della
Reale Accademia de Archeologia, Lettere e Belle Arti di Napoli, N.S. xi (1929-30),
1-24) have already shown that Cicero deliberately magnified Clodia's part in the
prosecution. Heinze (p. 197) holds that the prosecution of Caelius was the result
of a combination between Bestia's friends and family and the family of Clodia,
and he goes on to say that Cicero tried to gain a tactical advantage by giving the
impression that Clodia was the heart and soul of the prosecution, and that it all
derived from her. It is doubtful, however, whether Clodia's family gave any
official backing to the prosecution. Cicero's remark in Pro Caelio 29. 68,
'tandem aliquid invenimus quod ista mulier de suorum propinquorum sententia
atque auctoritate fecisse dicatur', implies that they did not, but Cicero's word, in
such circumstances, carries very little weight as evidence. However, there can
be no doubt about Cicero's contempt for the performance of P. Clodius, the
subscriptor. This Clodius was clearly a man of very little oratorical ability or
standing, and it is inconceivable that, had Clodia's family been giving their
official sanction to the prosecution, they would not have selected some more
weighty and responsible representative. It seems that he was some nonentity
whom Clodia had induced to appear to give the impression that she had the
support of her family. See also M. Gelzer, R.E., s.v. 'M. Tullius Cicero'.

This content downloaded from

186.19.89.25 on Sat, 22 Jul 2023 22:40:07 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
176 CICERO, CLODIA, AND THE PRO CAELIO
poisoning was completely motiveless by referring to a statement mad
by the prosecution. According to Cicero, Herennius had said that he
would not have taken any action against Caelius had not the latte
brought a second prosecution against Bestia.' It is difficult to see ho
the authenticity of this statement can be questioned, as Cicero de
liberately called the attention of the jury to it. The only conclusion th
can logically be drawn is that the prosecution of Caelius was a direct
result of his renewed attack on Bestia, and that its purpose was to pos
pone, or possibly to prevent altogether, the hearing of this second charge.
It seems, then, that the initial cause of the prosecution of Caelius w
the bitter feud that had arisen between himself and the family of Best
and Atratinus. The origins of this feud cannot be discovered; at one
time Caelius had clearly been on very good terms with Bestia, and had
also been a club-mate of Herennius.2 If Professor Austin's identifica-
tion of Palla as the mother-in-law of Atratinus' adoptive sister is correct,3
the quarrel may have originated in a dispute over some property of
Palla; this view is supported by the prominence given by Quintilian to
the charge de bonis Pallae.4 In any case Cicero's explanation of the motive
that actuated Caelius in prosecuting Bestia, that he wanted to kill off
the talk about his idle and dissolute way of life,s does not hold water, in
view of the fact that Caelius had been till recently a friend of Bestia.
Cicero's explanation is deliberately designed to conceal the existence of
this feud, which would have weakened the effect of the case that he was
trying to build up. In the same way, in his opening sentences, Cicero
tries to implant in the minds of the jury the idea that, though it is
Atratinus who is bringing the prosecution, it is really Clodia who is
responsible for the attack.6 Yet there is no reason why this idea should
be accepted as the truth, any more than Cicero's suggestion to the jury
in the Pro Cluentio that if he proved that Oppianicus had bribed the
court, he automatically proved that Cluentius had not,7 or the suggestion
in the Pro Milone that the only point at issue was whether Milo had laid
an ambush for Clodius, or vice versa.8 It should be remembered that the
Romans drew a sharp distinction between the duties of the historian and

Cael. 23. 56.

2 Ibid. I I. 26. Cicero's reply to these allegations is so weak as to make it
almost certain that they were true.
3 Op. cit., p. 74.
4 Inst. iv. 2. 27. See R. G. Austin, op. cit., App. V.
s Cael. 31. 76.
6 Ibid. i. i, 'accusari ab eius filio quem ipse in iudicium et uocet et uocarit,
oppugnari autem opibus meretriciis'.
Clu. 23. 64. 8 Mil. I1. 31.

This content downloaded from

186.19.89.25 on Sat, 22 Jul 2023 22:40:07 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 CICERO, CLODIA, AND THE PRO CAELIO 177
the orator; the historian was bound to relate the truth, whi
tion of the orator was to win his case.'
What part, then, did Clodia play in the prosecution of Caelius? To
answer this question, it will be necessary to analyse the nature and
purpose of the two charges with which Cicero himself deals. As regards
their purpose, it seems probable that the aim of the prosecution was to
include in the indictment one or more charges of such a serious nature
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. This requirement would be fulfilled by
the two charges of attempted murder. As regards the nature of these
two charges, though in fact Caelius was probably innocent, in both cases
the prosecution were in a position to corroborate their allegations by
certain facts that seem to have been indisputable. In the first place,
there can be little doubt that Caelius had taken some part in the cam-
paign of persecution and intimidation directed against the Alexandrian
envoys. Otherwise the charge de Alexandrinorum pulsatione Puteolana
would have been inexplicable. Secondly, Clodia had clearly provided
Caelius with funds at various times. Cicero himself admits as much in
two separate passages.z Thirdly, Dio, the leader of the envoys, had left
Lucceius' house and gone to stay with Coponius; and the prosecution
could suggest, with some plausibility, that his motive for this move was
that he felt his life to be endangered while staying with Lucceius.3 Now
the prosecution no doubt hoped that if Clodia could be induced to give
evidence that one of her gifts of money had been obtained in suspicious
circumstances, on an excuse that afterwards turned out to be false, they
could use this direct evidence in combination with the above-mentioned
items of circumstantial evidence to build up a damaging case against
Caelius. Finally, however much Cicero may pour ridicule on the
incident at the baths, it is clear that Caelius had arranged a rendezvous
between Licinius and Clodia's slaves, that the appointment was kept by
Licinius, and that Licinius did in fact attempt to hand over a casket
containing some substance to be administered to Clodia. Once again, the
direct evidence of Clodia could put a most damaging interpretation on
I Cic. Leg. i. I. 5 'cum in illa omnia ad ueritatem referantur'; Quint. Inst. x.
I. 31 'scribitur ad narrandum, non ad probandum, totumque opus non ad
actum rei pugnamque praesentem sed ad memoriam posteritatis et ingenii
famam componitur'.
2 Cael. I5- 36 'uis nobilis mulier illum filium familias parco ac tenaci patre
habere tuis copiis deuinctum'; I6. 38 'quae etiam aleret adulescentis et parsi-
moniam patrum suis sumptibus sustineret'.
3 Ibid. 21. 51, o10. 24.

This content downloaded from

186.19.89.25 on Sat, 22 Jul 2023 22:40:07 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 178 CICERO, CLODIA, AND THE PRO CAELIO
the facts. What the casket really contained can never be discovered;
may possibly have contained some form of love-philtre. But Clodia's
evidence, including her account of what her slaves had revealed to he
of Caelius' intention, might have convinced the jury that she had inde
been the intended victim of a murderous attack.
Clodia's motives for lending herself to the prosecution's schemes have
always been portrayed as vindictive spite and the desire to revenge her-
self on Caelius for casting her off. But there is no authority for this view
apart from Cicero himself,' and to implant in the minds of the jurors the
idea that Clodia was a vengeful cast-off lover was an essential part of his
case. It is equally possible that Clodia had tired of Caelius first and had
become angered at his persistence. If the uenenum was in fact a love-
philtre, this would fit in with such an interpretation.
It will thus appear that the success of the prosecution's case depended
on whether or not the jury accepted Clodia's evidence as true. Cicero's
main object, therefore, was to attack Clodia 'as to credit'. He did this in
three ways. Firstly, he asserted that the whole case was a frivolous and
vindictive fabrication worked up by Clodia; secondly, he cast frequent
aspersions on the reliability of witnesses in general as opposed to 'internal
proof';z and finally he launched such a savage and devastating attack on
Clodia's whole character as to make it highly improbable that her
evidence, if she ever dared to give it, would carry very much weight.3
The savagery of Cicero's attack on Clodia was not unprovoked; for it
can be supposed that she had taken part in the plundering of his houses at
the time of his exile.4 But his animosity towards her went back earlier
than that; in a letter to Atticus written in 60 B.C. he expresses his detesta-
tion of the woman, and the strength of his feelings is shown by the fact
that, in this same letter, he admits to having so far forgotten his normal
sense of decorum as to indulge in an extremely lewd witticism at
Clodia's expense.s Such animosity as this may well have taken a com-
paratively long period to develop, and it is interesting to note that the
few recorded occasions when Cicero had personal dealings with Clodia
were all capable of causing bad blood between them. There is, for
example, the interesting story in Plutarch that Clodia wanted Cicero to
' Cicero's explanation has, I think, never been questioned. But if Clodia was
'Lesbia', there is no reason why she should not have tired of Caelius just as she
had tired of Catullus.
2 Cael. 9. 20-22, 28. 66.
3 Cicero's insistence that Clodia is a meretrix is not mere vulgar abuse.
A meretrix was infamis, and her testimony would thereby carry less weight;
cf. Dig. xxii. 5. 3. 5 for a ban on a meretrix giving evidence.
Cic. Dom. 62, Red. in Sen. I8, Sest. 54. s Att. ii. I. 5.

This content downloaded from

186.19.89.25 on Sat, 22 Jul 2023 22:40:07 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 CICERO, CLODIA, AND THE PRO CAELIO 179
divorce Terentia and marry her.' Plutarch appears to date this sto
the time of the trial of Clodius for sacrilege in 6I B.c., and it is ge
rejected as an invention. But Plutarch's chronology is often vagu
inaccurate,z and if Clodia's proposal is ante-dated by two years it
fit in very well with the circumstances of the time.
There were several dynastic marriages concluded or proposed at
this time, notably Pompeius' marriage to Caesar's daughter Julia
Caesar's marriage to Calpurnia in 59, and Pompeius' offer to C
form a marriage-connexion with his family in 62.3 Then, too, t
are the rather strange circumstances of Pompeius' divorce of Mu
According to Plutarch he had been informed of her misconduct w
was in the East, but had ignored it for a long time, and had decid
divorce her only when approaching Italy on his way home.4 Pom
divorce of Mucia, then, can be dated to some time in the year 62
and the decision may well have been prompted by the news of th
riage between Metellus Celer and Clodia, which probably took pl
the end of 63 B.C.s
By this union Metellus had linked himself with the Optimate fa
and was now the brother-in-law of Pompeius' arch-enemy, Lucul
seems likely that there was a deliberate attempt on the part
Optimates to detach Pompeius' chief supporters from him. O
hypothesis the proposal for a marriage between Clodia and Cicer
comes explicable. It was probably made some time in the year 63
when Cicero's successes against the Populares had made him an
standing political figure. Failing to win Cicero, the Optimates suc
with Metellus Celer; the result was Pompeius' divorce of Mucia, a
attempt to strengthen his position by an alliance with Cato, now c
into prominence as one of the leading Optimates.
In his story of Clodia's offer Plutarch stresses the resultant jeal
of Terentia. But Cicero's probable reaction, too, should be consid
Coming from outside the ranks of Roman high society, he probab
not regard divorce as a thing to be embarked on lightly. He set
value on his family life, as his letters from exile show. The sugge
that he should disrupt his family for no good cause other than tempor

Plut. Cic. xxix. 2. M. Gelzer, R.E., s.v. 'M. Tullius Cicero', dismisse
story as a malicious fabrication by Cicero's enemies.
2 See, for example, the mis-dating of Bestia's tribuneship in Plut
XX111. I.

3 Plut. Pomp. xliv, Cat. Min. xxx.

4 Plut. Pomp. xlii. 7.
s Cicero refers to Clodia as Metellus Celer's wife in Fam. v. 2. 6,
the beginning of 62 B.C.

This content downloaded from

186.19.89.25 on Sat, 22 Jul 2023 22:40:07 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
I8o CICERO, CLODIA, AND THE PRO CAELIO
political expediency must have been offensive and repugnant to him,
and it may well have been this that first kindled his bitter animosity
towards Clodia.
The next contact between Cicero and Clodia was early in 62 B.C., at
the time of Cicero's quarrel with the Metelli. He approached Clodia, a
Metellus Celer's wife, in the hope of effecting some sort of reconciliation
between himself and Nepos.' In this he failed completely, and it
possible that Clodia, so far from placating Nepos, deliberately went ou
of her way to misrepresent Cicero and so provoke the hostile letter from
Metellus Celer.z It is significant that in his reply to Metellus Cele
Cicero does not speak of Clodia in such complimentary terms as he do
of Mucia.3
Finally, there is a point that arises out of Cicero's exchange of per-
sonalities with Clodius in the Senate after the latter's acquittal in 6i B.C.
After Cicero had delivered a violent harangue against Clodius, the main
theme of which was that he was 'born to be hanged', Clodius got to his
feet and taunted Cicero with having been at Baiae.4 The usual explana-
tion of this remark, based on the version of the altercatio that Cicero
wrote up as a set speech,s is that Cicero had bought a villa in the neigh-
bourhood of Baiae, and that Clodius was implying that Cicero, as a
homo Arpinas, was trying to move in circles of society that were too high
for him. There is no record of Cicero's having a villa at Baiae, but its
existence may be implied by a remark in a subsequent letter to Atticus.6
But on this interpretation, which is the one which Cicero tries to put on
the remark, the taunt is a very feeble one, especially considering the
violence of Cicero's language to which it is meant to be a retaliation.
There seems to have been more in it than Cicero was willing to admit,
and it is possible that the visit to Baiae, or its neighbourhood, to which
Clodius refers, may have somehow involved Cicero in some embarrassing
or humiliating experience at the hands of the 'smart set' to which Clodia
belonged and which made Baiae its headquarters. It is perhaps signi-
ficant that not long afterwards we find Atticus advising Cicero to avoid
Baiae.7 If there is any foundation in this suggestion, it would give con-
siderably more point to Clodius' taunt, and would also help to explain
the bitter animosity that Cicero had come to feel towards Clodia less
than a year later.
Fam. v. 2. 6. 2 Ibid. v. i.
3 Ibid. v. 2. 6 'cuius erga me studium . . . perspexeram'.
4 Att. i. 16. Io.
s Oratio in Clodium et Curionem, 4. 1-2. 6 Att. ii. 8. 2.
7 Ibid. 'quoniam putas praetermittendum nobis esse hoc tempore cratera
illum delicatum'.

This content downloaded from

186.19.89.25 on Sat, 22 Jul 2023 22:40:07 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms