There is anecdote and pleasantry enough in this particular oration; but the scandals of Roman society of that day, into which the defence of Caelius was obliged to enter, are not the most edifying subject for any readers.  Caelius was a young man of “equestrian” rank, who had been a kind of ward of Cicero’s, and must have given him a good deal of trouble by his profligate habits, if the guardianship was anything more than nominal.  But in this particular case the accusation brought against him—­of trying to murder an ambassador from Egypt by means of hired assassins, and then to poison the lady who had lent him the money to bribe them with—­was probably untrue.  Clodia, the lady in question, was the worthy sister of the notorious Clodius, and bore as evil a reputation as it was possible for a woman to bear in the corrupt society of Rome—­which is saying a great deal.  She is the real mover in the case, though another enemy of Caelius, the son of a man whom he had himself brought to trial for bribery, was the ostensible prosecutor.  Cicero, therefore, throughout the whole of his speech, aims the bitter shafts of his wit and eloquence at Clodia.  His brilliant invectives against this lady, who was, as he pointedly said, “not only noble but notorious”, are not desirable to quote.  But the opening of the speech is in the advocate’s best style.  The trial, it seems, took place on a public holiday, when it was not usual to take any cause unless it were of pressing importance.

“If any spectator be here present, gentlemen, who knows nothing of our laws, our courts of justice, or our national customs, he will not fail to wonder what can be the atrocious nature of this case, that on a day of national festival and public holiday like this, when all other business in the Forum is suspended, this single trial should be going on; and he will entertain no doubt but that the accused is charged with a crime of such enormity, that if it were not at once taken cognisance of, the constitution itself would be in peril.  And if he heard that there was a law which enjoined that in the case of seditious and disloyal citizens who should take up arms to attack the Senate-house, or use violence against the magistrates, or levy war against the commonwealth, inquisition into the matter should be made at once, on the very day;—­he would not find fault with such a law:  he would only ask the nature of the charge.  But when he heard that it was no such atrocious crime, no treasonable attempt, no violent outrage, which formed the subject of this trial, but that a young man of brilliant abilities, hard-working in public life, and of popular character, was here accused by the son of a man whom he had himself once prosecuted, and was still prosecuting, and that all a bad woman’s wealth and influence was being used against him,—­he might take no exception to the filial zeal of Atratinus; but he would surely say that woman’s infamous revenge should be baffled and punished....  I can excuse Atratinus; as to the other parties, they deserve neither excuse nor forbearance”.