Post reditum in senatu

Clodius is not prominent in this speech. Indeed, he is never named in it.Footnote ⁵ In particular he plays only a supporting role in the events of 58 b.c. by comparison with the consuls.Footnote ⁶ He first appears anonymously (§3) as eum tribunum plebis (‘that tribune of the plebs’), subordinated to Gabinius and Piso, also as yet unnamed. Incapable of damaging the republic on his own account, sub alieno scelere delituit (‘he sinned by the crime of others’). This formulation serves to establish Clodius as the enemy of the res publica.Footnote ⁷ The parallel notion of Clodius as meus inimicus (‘my personal enemy’) appears in the next section (§4) in connection with his authorship of the law on consular provinces. That law is so described as to introduce another key theme, the link between Clodius and Catiline. Clodius had allegedly declared that Cicero might return if those who had come close to destroying Rome were brought back to life.

Clodius, Gabinius and Piso again appear in collective anonymity (§6) as meos inimicos (‘my personal enemies’). But Cicero's next formulation (§9) still gives primacy to Gabinius and Piso over Clodius: he would not have needed a consular remedy (the efforts of Lentulus Spinther are mentioned in §8), had he not fallen victim to a wound dealt by consuls.Footnote ⁸ There follows a diatribe against the pair (§§10–18).Footnote ⁹ They sold the senate's dignitas and betrayed Cicero, neither helping him themselves nor allowing others to do so (§10). Both are accused of Catilinarian links, Gabinius with Catiline himself, Piso through his cousin Cethegus (§10).

Gabinius sat as a spectator while Clodius dismantled the Aelian and Fufian laws (§11), threatened the equites with vengeance for their support of Cicero in 63 b.c., expelled Lamia from the city and prevented the senate from putting on mourning (§12). Brought before a contio by Clodius, he solemnly declared his disapproval of the execution of citizens without trial (§13). Piso's role is secondary to that of Gabinius (§16), though he shared responsibility for the edict forbidding mourning. He delivered Cicero up to the enemies of the republic (§17), which economically implies both Cicero's identification with the republic and Clodius’ hostility to it.Footnote ¹⁰ Cicero then repeats the claim with which he introduced this section (§17, cf. §9): I fell, along with the republic, to a consular, not a tribunician stroke.

The conclusion of the attack on Gabinius and Piso, in which Clodius plays such an artfully minimized role, serves as a convenient springboard for praise of the contrastingly virtuous consuls and tribunes of 57, Spinther, Nepos, Milo, Sestius, Messius and Fabricius (§§18–22), along with others who are thanked by name. Little attention is then paid to Clodius in the account of Cicero's recall; he gets only a passing mention in the designation of Nepos as et inimicus et frater inimici (‘both an enemy and the brother of an enemy’, §25), while his solitary vote against the senate's decree is noted (§26), with a pointed restatement of his alleged Catilinarian links and his failure to revive the conspiracy.

In recalling his own actions and motives Cicero again makes the link with 63 b.c. (§32). He realized he would have to contend in 58 b.c. with the same army he had defeated as consul not by force of arms but through the senate's auctoritas. Pride of place is again given to the consuls, first Gabinius, then Piso. The Catilinarian theme is then more forcefully, if even less plausibly, restated (§33). Cicero realized that all Catiline's forces had been recalled under virtually the same leaders, in the hope of slaughter and arson. This was one of the reasons why, true to the principles he had established in 63 b.c., he rejected the use of force in 58 b.c. to defend himself and his position (§§33–4).

Post reditum ad Quirites

The speech to the people, whatever its status,Footnote ¹¹ assigns even less prominence to Clodius.Footnote ¹² Pride of place is again given to Gabinius and Piso (§§10–11): it is they who expel Cicero.Footnote ¹³ Then Cicero looks back a little (§13), drawing a distinction between himself and his enemies. He realized that Catiline's old forces had been recalled in the hope of a massacre, while the consuls, bought by the pact about their provinces, had thrown their weight behind the enemies of the republic. So Clodius is reduced to an anonymous plural. In January 57 b.c. (§14) Cicero's enemies, who were responsible for the violence of that time, are again anonymous. But Cicero had no doubt that, when Lentulus Spinther became consul, he would provide a consular remedy to bring salvation from the wounds inflicted by the consuls of 58 b.c. (§15). The opposition of Clodius to the senate's decree is reduced to an anonymous ablative absolute, uno dissentiente (‘with one dissentient voice’). A similar vagueness characterizes the allusion (19) to Cicero's losses thanks to the violence, wrongdoing and furor (‘madness’) of criminals. So too in the list of the categories of his enemies (§21): first come those who were bitterly hostile to him through their hatred of the republic, which he had saved against their will, which discreetly adumbrates the theme of the Catilinarian revival; last those who, when it was their duty to protect the republic, sold out – Cicero does not specify to whom.

De domo sua

It is hardly surprising that Clodius plays a much more prominent role in the De domo.Footnote ¹⁴ The theme of his insanity is introduced early. After a general mention (§2) of amentes ac perditi magistratus (‘insane and desperate magistrates’) Clodius is labelled (§3) as demens and furiosus (‘insane’ and ‘mad’). This emphasis on his madness is found throughout the speech.

In the first mention of his relationship with Gabinius and Piso (§5) the initiative rests with Clodius; the crime of the consuls is one item in a list of the weapons that he deployed in 58 b.c. Cicero also accuses Clodius, the enemy of otium and pax (‘peace and quiet’) (§12), of trying to create a pretext for violence out of the corn shortage that had coincided with his own return (§§10–18) and contrasts (§11) Clodius’ furor (‘madness’) with the rational measures taken by himself and the senate.

This incident also produces the first link between Clodius and Catiline, since one of the individuals named as involved in the violence, L. Sergius, is called (§13) armiger Catilinae (‘Catiline's arms-bearer’). As in the post reditum speeches, Clodius’ role as the solitary opponent of the senate's decree for Cicero's recall is noted (§14). The devotion to the republic shown by himself and Pompey in this disturbed situation (§§16–18) is contrasted with the attitude of Clodius (§18), who always sought to make political capital out of the communal misfortunes of the republic.

Another line of attack (§§20–2) pillories Clodius’ inconsistency, contrasting his present assertion that he disapproved of all special commands with the nefarious law by which he had sent Cato to Cyprus. Clodius’ criticism of Cato's role in the Catilinarian debate (§21) enables another passing reference to his supposed sympathy for Catiline. After explaining Clodius’ motives for this measure (§22), Cicero passes on to the subject of the consular provinces (§§23–4), contrasting Clodius’ law and its depraved beneficiaries with his own measure for Pompey (§§25–6). After a further reference to Clodius’ furor (‘madness’) (§25) Cicero taunts him with yet another inconsistency (§26), since his law against Cicero was itself passed extra ordinem (‘as an extraordinary measure’), before turning (§§27–31) to the more delicate subject of justifying his own support of Pompey.

Cicero next (§§34–42) turns back to 59 b.c., denying the validity of Clodius’ adoption and so of his tribunate and all its legislation. In the course of this argument Clodius’ objective is said (§35) to be to disturb the republic with seditions; he sought the tribunate in order to overthrow the foundations of the state. Cicero then again accuses Clodius of madness (§40) for his in fact tactically shrewd claim that all Caesar's acts should be rescinded by the senate because they had been passed in defiance of the auspices.Footnote ¹⁵

But even if Clodius’ adoption and tribunate were in general terms valid, the priuilegium (‘personal measure’) against Cicero was still illegal (§§43–58), since, like the law on Cato's command, it infringed the lex Caecilia Didia, was defective in wording and logic, and had been passed by violence. The diatribe includes (§48) the claim that Clodius ruined the republic. The theme of violence leads (§55) to mention of haec furiosa uis uaesani tribuni plebis (‘the frenzied violence of an insane tribune of the plebs’), before another attack on Gabinius and Piso, which again presents them as Clodius’ agents, bought by their commands. Cicero would have had nothing to fear from a trial; it was to violence and the threat of violence that he yielded, an assertion appropriate to the restatement of the Catilinarian theme (§58), since the forces arrayed against him included the former adherents of the conspirators and (§61) illa manus copiaeque Catilinae (‘the band and forces of Catiline’). Gabinius and Piso, who received the congratulations of the conspirators while Cicero's house burned, are both linked with Catiline (§62), Gabinius directly, Piso through Cethegus. Cicero sacrificed himself to this violence and furor (‘madness’) (§63) so that others would not suffer. His formulation again presents Clodius as the active head, who uses the consuls as weapons, and reasserts the continuity with 63 b.c. So Clodius’ furor (‘madness’) was frustrated (§64).

With Cicero gone, Cato too was removed (§§65–6) before Clodius attacked Pompey, thus (§66) proving himself the perpetual enemy of virtue; he feared that Pompey would move to check his madness. At the beginning of 57 b.c. L. Cotta, Pompey, the pontifices, the new consuls and the senate itself, merely by discussing the issue, all indicated that they regarded Clodius’ law as invalid (§§68–71). In the debate Cotta and Pompey alluded to Clodius’ furor (‘madness’). A contrast is drawn with Gabinius and Piso (§70), who were, as they claimed, impeded by a law of Clodius – albeit a different one!

There follows (§72) the claim that Clodius’ supporters called him felix Catilina (‘a fortunate Catiline’).Footnote ¹⁶ The verdict of the senate, the equestrian order, the scribes and other associations and indeed all Italy (§§73–5) is set against the claim of uos Catilinae gregales (‘you mobsters of Catiline's’) that Cicero was a tyrant. Cicero then reiterates at length (§§77–83) the point that he had never been tried and condemned and that Clodius’ measures against him were illegal and taken (§79) only after the republic had been overthrown. The underlying burden throughout, that Clodius was no true popularis (‘friend of the people’), provides another implied link with Cicero's position in 63 b.c.

The first casual passing reference to Clodius’ alibi in the Bona Dea affair occurs here (§ 80). Then, after various historical reflections, Cicero repeats (§92) his rejection of violence and again alludes to the ingrained hatred of good men felt by the impious members of that old conspiracy.

A new theme is then introduced (§92), that of incest, in response to an apparently ill-informed gibe by Clodius against Cicero. Yet another formulation of the claim that the conspirators’ attack in 58 b.c. had been directed against all good men (§96) again gives Clodius primacy over Gabinius and Piso. A variation occurs in §99, where Gabinius and Piso appear alone, for the sake of an epigram: qui consul togatus armatos uicerim, priuatus consulibus armatis cesserim (‘I, who as consul in a toga conquered armed men, as a private citizen yielded to armed consuls’).

Clodius then appears (§100) as Cicero's enemy, as Cicero warns the pontifices of the consequences of a wrong decision, but the personal element of Cicero's dolor (‘resentment’) is balanced by mention of publica calamitas (‘public disaster’).Footnote ¹⁷ So too a little later he speaks of trophies set up for victories over himself and the republic and (§101) of his house being overthrown not by his inimicus (‘personal enemy’) but by a hostis communis (‘a communal public enemy’). The standard version in this speech of Clodius’ relationship with Gabinius and Piso then recurs (§102): Clodius, fax ac furia patriae (‘torch and fury of the fatherland’), seized and occupied the city with Gabinius and Piso as his generals. All these thematic strands are woven together (§ 103) when Cicero rejects the notion that his house might be the memorial furoris tribunici, sceleris consularis, crudelitatis coniuratorum, calamitatis rei publicae, doloris mei (‘of tribunician madness, consular crime, the cruelty of conspirators, the calamity of the republic, my resentment’).

There follows (§§104–5) the first full mention of the Bona Dea scandal, formulated to exploit the paradox: Publiusne Clodius, qui ex pontificis maximi domo religionem eripuit, is in meam intulit? (‘Did Publius Clodius, who tore out religion from the house of the chief priest, bring it into mine?’) But not even Clodius in his madness (§107) dared to occupy Cicero's house in person. His abuse of religion means (§109) that his madness is more than ever to be resisted, especially by the present audience. Next comes another paradoxical phenomenon: Clodius’ erection of a statue to Libertas (§§110–14), spoken of in similar terms (§112).Footnote ¹⁸

Gabinius and Piso are pilloried yet again (§113) for delivering up the senate tribuno furenti (‘to an insane tribune’), but play second fiddle to Clodius in his attack on Catulus (§§113–14). The same emphasis is found a little later (§119): a tribune, equipped with consular forces, attacked with the full vigour of his madness a citizen whom the republic itself then rescued from his clutches. Likewise at §§129–30, where plans that were the product of blind madness are said to have been made to control the republic by tribunician violence once it had been captured thanks to the consuls’ treachery, while at §131 his agreement with the consuls is again one of a list of weapons with which Clodius oppressed the state. There follows the most economical statement of the link between Clodius and Catiline (§132), when Cicero claims that in 63 b.c. he snatched the republic ex uestris manibus ac faucibus (‘from your hands and jaws’). Reputable pontifices refused (§133) to have any part of Clodius’ madness. Even the res publica itself (§141) demanded its own and Cicero's return ab istius inflammato atque indomito furore (‘from his inflamed and uncontrolled madness’). Gabinius and Piso appear again as Clodius’ generals (§143), before madness serves (§§144–5) to link 63 and 58 b.c.: in 63 b.c. Cicero defended Vesta and her virgins from the criminal madness of insane men, while in 58 b.c. he sacrificed himself for the common good to the madness and arms of the wickedest of citizens.

Pro Sestio

Clodius’ madness is asserted early in the speech (§15), and again remains prominent throughout. Yet for most of the Sestiana he yields pride of place to Gabinius and Piso when their relationship is in point.Footnote ¹⁹ As tribune (§16) Clodius was successful in overthrowing the republic, not because of his own strength – and here there is a passing gibe at his alleged incest – but because (§17), insane as he was, he had the good fortune to hold office in a year cursed with monsters for consuls. There follows a lengthy diatribe against the pair (§§17–25); this gradually mutates into a narrative of 58 (§§25–30) which continues to focus primarily on the consuls. Piso had at first given false hopes (§20) that he would protect Cicero against Clodius, who is again labelled furiosus (‘insane’). But once they had been bought (§§24–5) the consuls stood alone with furiosus ille tribunus (‘that insane tribune’) against the interests of the fatherland. Gabinius is then linked (§8) with Catiline.Footnote ²⁰ He delivered a speech in a contio worse than anything Catiline would have produced had he been victorious, promising to punish the equites for their support of Cicero in 63 b.c. and to avenge the conspirators.

For the benefit of those unable to discern any relevance in all this, Cicero explains (§31) that his object is to show how Sestius devoted himself to healing wounds inflicted on the republic before his tribunate began. He then returns to his narrative (§32), focussing as before on the consuls, though somewhat more initiative is allowed to Clodius in the account (§33) of the contio at which he secured their approval of all that was being done against Cicero and the republic. Similarly the consuls merely looked on while Clodius dismantled the Aelian and Fufian laws (§33) and slaves were enrolled (§34) in readiness for violence.Footnote ²¹ But, though Clodius alone had any power at this time (§34), Cicero again stresses that it was not through any strength of his own, but because he had bought the consuls.

Cicero next turns (§36) to his own actions, denying that he yielded to the madness of a tribune or the irresponsibility of the consuls. But Clodius claimed the support of the coalition (§§39–41), and Cicero, while unmoved by his enemy's claims (§40), was concerned at the silence of the three. He also introduces at this point (§42) the notion of a Catilinarian revival under a new leader and the problem this presented for him. If he resorted to force and Clodius was killed (§43), the consuls would avenge him; if he overcame the tribune's madness, he would still have to face the consuls and other avengers. So the course he chose was the only one compatible with the interests of the republic (§§44–50). By taking it, Cicero sums up (§49), he saved the republic by his departure.

The hope that if the republic ever again faces such a crisis it will do so with more reputable consuls (§52) ushers in another recapitulation of the defects of Gabinius and Piso, (§§53–5) with a plain statement (§53) that in 58 b.c. the republic had been overcome thanks to the criminality of the consuls.Footnote ²² Clodius’ other laws, to which Cicero now turns (§§55–7), were also passed (§55) with their approval. They fade momentarily into the background when Cicero speaks (§§58–9) of the escape of Tigranes’ son, but Clodius’ treatment of Cato (§60) recalls them, with a note that Cato had been in conflict with them. Again the consuls had neglected their duty (§64), just as they had done (§§65–6) when Clodius moved against Cicero, though now the initiative is at last ascribed to Clodius (§66): agebat tribunus plebis, consules adiuuabant (‘the tribune of the plebs acted, the consuls helped’).

As the movement in Cicero's favour gathered momentum, Gabinius and Piso still opposed the law of the eight tribunes (§70). But their departure (§71) brought hope to the republic in 57 b.c., by which time Sestius had already gone on his mission to Caesar.Footnote ²³ L. Cotta pointed (§73) to formal defects in the law composed by that insane enemy of modesty and chastity. Responsibility for the violence of early 57 b.c. (§§75–81) is attributed (§79) to manus illa Clodiana (‘Clodius’ band’) and (§81) gens ista Clodia (‘Clodius’ family’), with mention (§82) of the unbridled madness of Clodius and his adherents, while the near murder of Sestius is a Clodian crime. Milo's house was attacked (§85) by Clodius’ army. Lavish praise of Milo (§§86–7) highlights Clodius’ violent reaction (§88), whereas Milo appealed to the law, resorting to force only under compulsion (§§89–92). Cicero then laments how villains flourish (§§93–5): first Gabinius and Piso, then various quisquiliae seditionis Clodianae (‘odds-and-ends of Clodius’ sedition’), finally Clodius himself as aedile; he has dared to prosecute Milo, who had to some degree suppressed his madness.Footnote ²⁴

After the disquisition on optimates there are only scraps. The topic of Scaurus’ games in 58 b.c. brings (§116) passing but mordant allusions to Clodius’ alleged incest and the Bona Dea affair.Footnote ²⁵ On another occasion (§117) the madman with his insane mind was lucky not to be lynched. The underlying message in all this is (§119) that not all those supposed to be friends of the people actually are.Footnote ²⁶

In Vatinium

Clodius’ role in this speech is minimal, though not entirely without significance. In the account of Vatinius’ appeal to the tribunes of 58 b.c. (§33), Clodius is singled out by name and he is accused of resorting to his characteristic violence and madness. Vatinius is the master whom Clodius imitated in the powers his law gave to Gabinius and Piso (§36), so that Vatinius damaged the republic by his example as well as his actions. But despite this hint that Vatinius might be assigned the primary role in accordance with the demands of the occasion, the pupil is said to have outdone the master (§41), since Clodius is the one man whom Vatinius would sometimes acknowledge as wickeder than himself.

Pro Caelio

Here only two of the themes under consideration appear: incest and madness. Cicero asserts with consummate hypocrisy that he would deal more harshly with Clodia, were it not common knowledge that there was enmity between him and istius mulieris uiro – fratrem uolui dicere (‘that woman's husband – I mean brother’) (§32). The light-hearted tone of this reference to Clodius’ alleged incest is of course typical of the whole speech and is repeated in the remonstrations put into the mouth of Clodius himself (§36) and in the peroration (§78), though there the overall tone is rather more serious. The only reference to Clodius’ insanity occurs (§60) in Cicero's accusation that Clodia had murdered her husband Metellus Celer, who as a consular had resisted the madness of his brother-in-law, just as he had done as consul when that madness was only beginning to show.

De haruspicum responso

The madness of Clodius is established at the very outset (§1), when Cicero describes his own attack on the previous day on a madman who was out of control.Footnote ²⁷ Clodius had apparently failed to realize that times had changed since the dark days of the consulship of Gabinius and Piso (§2); his disturbed state of mind is heavily stressed. Cicero wonders what he needs to say about his unbridled and precipitous madness, when Servilius Isauricus has already lacerated him to devastating effect.

Cicero then declares (§3) that he has always been the enemy of Gabinius and Piso, who betrayed their office to attack him and the res publica. Against them (§4) he was committed to a war without quarter, a cause he shared with all good men. He contrasts this position with his alleged attitude to Clodius, whom he claims to hate no more today than he did on the day he learned of Clodius’ violation of the rites of the Bona Dea. This judgement is clearly not merely quantitative but carries the implication that neither then nor now were Cicero's feelings towards Clodius personal. On the other hand he had perceived even then that the activities of Clodius, adulescentis furentis (‘an insane young man’), would bring trouble to the republic.

This impersonal stance on his part, according to Cicero, merely mirrored Clodius’ own (§5), since Clodius was motivated by hatred, not of Cicero himself, but of severity, dignitas and the republic. His attitude, that is, was the same as that of his friend Catiline would have been had he lived. Yet Cicero feels no need to pursue Clodius in court; that can be left to Milo (§6), whose divinely appointed task it is to crush Clodius for the benefit of the republic. Only if Clodius provokes him will he respond (§7).

As in De domo Cicero plays on the irony (§8) that Clodius of all people should complain of the neglect of religion, with another allusion to the Bona Dea scandal. This leads easily to a similarly ironic accusation of incest (§9): perhaps Clodius will speak next on chastity! Clodius had claimed that the profanation of sacred places mentioned in the response referred to Cicero's house. In fact, says Cicero (§10), the response is a warning from Jupiter against Clodius’ criminal madness.

When Cicero turns to his own interpretation of the response (§18), he criticizes Clodius for his behaviour at the Megalesia (§§22–7), his intrigues over the priesthood of the Magna Mater at Pessinus (§§28–9), the profanation of sacred places (§§30–3) and the murder of the Alexandrian envoys (§§34–5). Most imaginative is his suggestion (§36) that the neglect of oaths in the response refers to the conduct of the jurors at the Bona Dea trial, which he justifies (§§37–9) by interpreting the pollution of ancient and secret sacrifices as an allusion to the Bona Dea affair. Here Cicero contrasts the shameful conduct of men with the justice of the gods (§39), who punished Clodius for his sacrilege by afflicting him with furor and dementia (‘madness’ and ‘insanity’).

Under the rubric of discordia optimatium (‘discord among the optimates’, §40) Cicero presents a summary of Clodius’ career (§§42–5), which mentions his alleged praeuaricatio on behalf of Catiline (§42) but without expanding on the theme.Footnote ²⁸ His quaestorship was a disaster for the republic (§43), but it was only his involvement in the Bona Dea affair, which is labelled amentia (‘insanity’), that turned him into a popularis (§44). As a result of Clodius’ adoption (§45) a grievous torch was set to the republic, though its effects were limited by Cicero's self-sacrifice. Returning to the present Cicero warns the optimates to close ranks and stop encouraging Clodius (§46); otherwise his madness may be turned against them.

Madness bulks large in the remainder of the speech. Clodius’ attack on Caesar's legislation is described (§48) as the work of one blinded by amentia (‘insanity’), while those who encouraged him did not understand the measure of his furor (‘madness’). Discord also fostered his attacks on Pompey (§§48–50), just as it had fanned the beginnings of his madness (§50). Those attacks, like his diatribes against the whole senate, show Clodius as demens (‘demented’) (§51), while his newly advertised reconciliation with Pompey (§§51–2) should show those who had misguidedly applauded his unbridled furores (‘acts of madness’) how unreliable an ally he was. Finally Cicero contrives to set Clodius at the centre of his peroration by presenting him (57–9) as dux … atque princeps (‘chief … and leader’) of the deteriores (‘worse men’), with yet another catalogue of his vices and crimes.

De prouinciis consularibus

It is hardly surprising that Gabinius and Piso are much more prominent in this speech than Clodius. The occasion of the debate was ideal for an attack on the consuls of 58 b.c., though Clodius might still be relevant, apart from his connection with them, to any attempt on Cicero's part to justify his own conduct. So there is no mention of Clodius in the opening diatribe (§§1–3) against Gabinius and Piso, though their treatment of Cicero in 58 b.c. is prominently featured, or in the briefer reference (§13) to the provinces as their reward for the crimes of their consulship.

Clodius first appears in a different context (§24): Cicero's defence of his current support for Caesar. He enunciates the principle nemini ego possum esse bene merenti de re publica non amicus (‘I cannot but be a friend to anyone who deserves well of the republic’), then proceeds from that to the claim that the only hatred he had ever felt for Clodius was inspired by his belief that Clodius would be a danger to the state and had, inflamed by lust, violated in a single criminal act both religion and chastity. His choice of the Bona Dea affair as his starting point is apt, since it facilitates the assumption of impersonality and was also a matter in which Caesar should have felt the same. Events, Cicero claims, had proved him right, and also showed that his ongoing conflict with Clodius had been undertaken out of concern for the republic rather than his own tranquillity.

When Clodius reappears towards the end of the speech Cicero's concern is still self-justification. He is anonymous throughout: at first plural (§41), when Cicero claims that he might have protected himself against the criminal intentions of his enemies by joining the coalition, then at least singular, when reference is made (§42) to Caesar's part in making him a plebeian. Clodius’ role is even more drastically reduced in the subsequent, strikingly vague account of 58 b.c. (§43), which is carefully slanted to exculpate Caesar as much as possible; consulum scelus, cupiditas, egestas, audacia (‘the crime, cupidity, poverty and audacity of the consuls’) cover Gabinius and Piso, but Clodius is not directly mentioned at all.

A little later the impropriety of Clodius’ adoption recurs (§§45–7). But this is merely one element in an argument designed to show the irrationality of those who accepted the legality of his measures against Cicero in 58. It is the conduct of the optimates, not that of Clodius, with which Cicero is concerned here.

In Pisonem

Even though Piso is the formal villain of the piece, he tends to be portrayed as passive by contrast with the active Clodius. Thus (§9) the Aelian and Fufian laws were destroyed by Clodius, with Piso merely looking on in silence. Clodius is again given the active role in restricting the censorship; Piso was again silent. Similarly (§11) Clodius’ paramilitary preparations in the temple of Castor, which became a haven for former soldiers of Catiline, were made with Piso looking on.

Clodius also (§12) takes the initiative in his dealings with Gabinius. Returning to Piso (§14) Cicero asks what difference there was between Catiline and Clodius, to whom Piso had sold the senate's authority and the whole republic in exchange for his province. For Gabinius and Piso (§15) had helped Clodius to do what Cicero in 63 b.c. had prevented Catiline from doing. Cicero does his best to make 58 b.c. appear worse than 63 b.c., even though it is apparent that what happened in 58 b.c. was much less than what was allegedly planned for 63 b.c. If Cicero had not left the city (§16), he would have been sacrificed on Catiline's tomb. Cicero's conclusion is that there was no difference between ‘you’ and Catiline; whether uos refers merely to Gabinius and Piso or includes Clodius too is unclear.

The consuls occupy centre stage (§§17–20) in the diatribe against their edict forbidding the senate to put on mourning, with another allusion to Gabinius’ link with Catiline (§20), while Piso is accused (§21) of embracing Clodius. But a little later the positions are reversed (§23) when Piso is addressed as Clodiane canis (‘Clodius’ dog’). The link between Clodius and Catiline is then strongly asserted, with his supporters described as the survivors of the conspiracy and Clodius himself as once Catiline's praeuaricator (‘collusive prosecutor’), then his avenger.

Piso continues in a subordinate role (§26), as consul keeping the frenzied Clodius supplied with blazing torches. When Gabinius eventually broke with Clodius (§§27–8), consul and tribune are presented as two of a kind: erat ipse sceleratus, erat gladiator, cum scelerato tamen et cum pari gladiatore pugnabat (‘he himself was a criminal, he was a gladiator, yet he fought against a criminal and a similar gladiator’). Clodius is then referred to in passing (§28) as ille sororius adulter (‘his sister's adulterer’), though the mention of incest does not seem particularly relevant at this point.

Later (§56) Piso is said to have overthrown the republic, but, though this might appear active, he did so only by putting his consulship at Clodius’ disposal. The description of Pompey's attitude in 58 b.c. (§77) also leaves Clodius as the active partner: se contra armatum tribunum pl. sine publico consilio decertare nolle; consulibus ex senatus consulto rem publicam defendentibus se arma sumpturum (‘he was unwilling to contend against an armed tribune of the plebs without public authorization; if the consuls defended the republic in accordance with a decree of the senate, he would take up arms’). But Piso (§78) assured Cicero and the world that neither he nor his son-in-law nor his colleague would fail the tribune. A final parallel between Clodius and Catiline occurs (§95) when Cicero reflects on just and unjust judicial verdicts. Various good men have been condemned, while Catiline was twice acquitted, as was the provider of Piso's province for his sacrilege against the Bona Dea.

Pro Plancio

The paradox of this speech is stated early on (§§1–4), as Cicero tries to claim that Plancius’ services to him are relevant to the case, even though he admits that they cannot in themselves constitute a reason for acquittal, an admission that might justify Laterensis’ exasperation, to which Cicero alludes later (§71).

After a couple of anonymous references (§§71, 76) to his enemies Cicero, explaining his behaviour in 58 b.c., asks the question (§ 86): tribunicius me terror an consularis furor mouit? (‘was it fear of the tribune or the madness of the consuls that moved me?’) and implies that he was faced at that time with the surviving Catilinarians, whom he had once defeated without recourse to arms. The ensuing diatribe (§§86–9) does not name either the consuls or Clodius, but gives considerably more space to the consuls, including an allusion to Gabinius’ association with Catiline.

Clodius is still anonymous when Cicero alludes (§96) to the pressure he exerted, which contributed to Vergilius’ refusal to let Cicero land in Sicily. The link with 63 b.c. is brought into play again to explain his reluctance to go to Greece (§§98–100), which he had heard was full of criminals whom his consulship had relieved of their impious weapons.

The peroration (§§101–4), which amply justifies Laterensis’ complaint, appeals to the jury not to gratify Cicero's enemies, with a reminder that he had undertaken those enmities for the sake of the state, and exploits the link with 63 yet again in the appeal to the president of the court to show consistency.

Pro Milone

The speech inevitably presents certain new features as well as many familiar ones. Clodius’ madness remains a disruptive force even after his death (§3). But alive he had been the enemy of people and state, and so his death (§6) can be unequivocally hailed as salus uestra (‘your salvation’), though Cicero insists disingenuously that he will not exploit that fact in Milo's defence. There is (§13) a reference to the Bona Dea trial, but merely to suggest that, given Clodius’ treatment of the senate in that matter, it would not have been eager to set up a special court to avenge his death. A new topic is the aborted prospect of Clodius’ praetorship (§24), the objective of which, like that of his tribunate, had been the overthrow of the republic: uexare rem publicam (‘to vex the republic’), ad dilacerandam rem publicam (‘to lacerate the republic’), and ad uertendam rem publicam (‘to overthrow the republic’) all in the space of a few lines. It had therefore been vital for him to stop Milo from becoming consul (§§25–7); this put him in his habitual state of madness (§27). Hence his motive for murder (§32), since Milo's death would have given him a free hand as praetor to indulge in the acts of madness he had planned, whereas Clodius’ death (§34) had prevented Milo gaining even greater glory by keeping those mad acts in check.

Cicero insists (§35) that Milo felt no personal animosity towards Clodius; he had no hatred for him praeter hoc ciuile odium quo omnis improbos odimus (‘beyond that citizen's hatred we feel for all wicked men’). Clodius on the other hand hated Milo as the defender of Cicero's safety, an impediment to his madness, a successful opponent in arms, and his accuser in court. The last point is important: Milo always preferred to proceed in accordance with the laws, resorting (§38) to force only to prevent Clodius from controlling the state by violence. For Clodius was the heir of Catiline (§37): the dagger he had received from Catiline's hand was always kept busy. Indeed Cicero claims (§§38–41) that Milo passed up several opportunities of killing Clodius before summarizing (§52) the distinction between their motives and attitudes towards each other and repeating (§63) that by finally killing Clodius Milo had brought salvation to the Roman people.

The catalogue of Clodius’ crimes (§§72–6) is wide-ranging, going back to his incestuous adultery with Clodia Luculli and the Bona Dea affair and passing by way of the legislation of his tribunate and his activities against Cicero and Pompey to the prospect of his praetorship. The conclusion is that Milo would have been entitled to boast of killing such a villain (§77). Cicero has no fear that he will be accused of personal bias (§78): Clodius was the common enemy of all men, and so the object of universal hatred. Yet another list of Clodius’ past crimes and alleged future plans (§§87–90) serves to focus attention on the heroism of Milo. Only Milo would have been able to keep him in check had Clodius become praetor, but the gods in their wisdom had inspired the madman with the plan of ambushing Milo and so brought about his destruction.