Against M. Caelius Rufus (F1)

F 1 Cic. Cael. 25–26, 27, 29, 30, 35, 51, 53, 56, 57, 58, 61, 62

animadverti enim, iudices, audiri a vobis meum familiarem, L. Herennium, perattente. in quo etsi magna ex parte ingenio eius 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. Caelium, sicut neminem umquam parens; multa de incontinentia intemperantiaque disseruit. quid quaeritis, iudices? ignoscebam vobis attente audientibus, propterea quod egomet tam triste illud, tam asperum genus orationis horrebam. [26] ac prima pars fuit illa quae me minus movebat, fuisse meo necessario Bestiae Caelium familiarem, cenasse apud eum, ventitasse domum, studuisse praeturae. non me haec movent quae perspicue falsa sunt; etenim eos una cenasse dixit qui aut absunt aut quibus necesse est idem dicere. neque vero illud me commovet quod sibi in Lupercis sodalem esse Caelium dixit.... [27] ... deliciarum obiurgatio fuit longa, et ea lenior,1 plusque disputationis habuit quam atrocitatis, alienior unus cod. (fort. et a causa alienior Clark in app.)



Against M. Caelius Rufus (F 1)

F 1 Cicero, Pro Caelio

Now I noticed, judges, that you listened to my friend L. Herennius very attentively. Although in this you were influenced to a great extent by his ability and a particular style of oratory, still at times I was afraid that his speech, carefully presented to suggest guilt, might imperceptibly and gently enter into your minds. For he said a lot about profligacy, a lot about lust, a lot about the vices of youth, a lot about morals; and, although he was gentle in the rest of his life and was generally most pleasant in that charm of courteous conduct that now delights almost everyone, in this case he was some kind of very grim uncle, a censor, a schoolmaster: he rebuked M. Caelius as nobody has ever been by their parent; he set out much about lack of self-restraint and want of moderation. What are you asking, judges? I tried to excuse your careful listening, for the reason that I myself was shuddering at such a glum, such a bitter manner of speech. [26] And the first part of it, which moved me less, was the claim that Caelius was intimate with my friend Bestia [L. Calpurnius Bestia], dined with him, frequently visited him at home, helped him in his candidacy for the praetorship. This does not trouble me as it is evidently false; for he said that some people dined together who are either not here or obliged to say the same. Nor does it trouble me that he said that Caelius was a fellow member of his in the Luperci [a college of priests].... [27] ... The rebuking of decadent luxuries was long, and it was rather on the quiet side; and it had about it more of a discussion than harshness, so that it was

DOI: 10.4159/DLCL.fragmentary_republican_latin-oratory.2019