Sunt autem duo crimina, auri et veneni; in quibus una atque eadem persona versatur. Aurum sumptum a Clodia, venenum quaesitum, quod Clodiae daretur, ut dicitur. Omnia sunt alia non crimina, sed maledicta, iurgi petulantis magis quam publicae quaestionis. "Adulter, impudicus, sequester" convicium est, non accusatio; nullum est enim fundamentum horum criminum, nulla sedes; voces sunt contumeliosae temere ab irato accusatore nullo auctore emissae.
 Horum duorum criminum video auctorem, video fontem, video certum nomen et caput. Auro opus fuit; sumpsit a Clodia, sumpsit sine teste, habuit, quamdiu voluit. Maximum video signum cuiusdam egregiae familiaritatis. Necare eandem voluit; quaesivit venenum, sollicitavit quos potuit, paravit, locum constituit, attulit. Magnum rursus odium video cum crudelissimo discidio exstitisse. Res est omnis in hac causa nobis, iudices, cum Clodia, muliere non solum nobili, sed etiam nota; de qua ego nihil dicam nisi depellendi criminis causa.
 Sed intellegis pro tua praestanti prudentia, Cn. Domiti, cum hac sola rem esse nobis. Quae si se aurum Caelio commodasse non dicit, si venenum ab hoc sibi paratum esse non arguit, petulanter facimus, si matrem familias secus, quam matronarum sanctitas postulat, nominamus. Sin ista muliere remota nec crimen ullum nec opes ad oppugnandum Caelium illis relinquuntur, quid est aliud quod nos patroni facere debeamus, nisi ut eos, qui insectantur, repellamus? Quod quidem facerem vehementius, nisi intercederent mihi inimicitiae cum istius mulieris viro—fratre volui dicere; semper hic erro. Nunc agam modice nec longius progrediar quam me mea fides et causa ipsa coget.
 There are two charges. One concerns gold; the other, poison. Yet they involve one and the same person. It is alleged that gold was taken from Clodia, and poison was sought for administering to Clodia. All the other matters are not charges but slanders. They have more to do with unbridled abuse than a public court of justice. To say he is 'an adulterer, a lecherer, a briber' is vituperation, not accusation.
These slurs have no foundation, no basis in fact. They are insulting taunts fired rashly by an angry prosecutor with no one to back them up.
 As for these two charges, I see there is a source, I see a wellspring, I see a definite name and fountain-head. "He needed gold; he took it from Clodia, took it without a witness and kept it as long as he wanted." I see an unmistakable indication of a quite remarkable closeness.
"He also wanted to murder her; he looked for poison, bribed slaves, prepared a draught, arranged a venue, and brought it in secret." This time I see the emergence of a powerful hatred, allied with a lacerating separation. In this case, gentlemen of the jury, we are concerned solely with Clodia, a woman not only noble but also notorious, about whom I shall say nothing except for the sake of rebutting the charge.
 But thanks to your outstanding wisdom, Gnaeus Domitius, you realise that our involvement is with Clodia alone. If she denies that she provided Caelius with gold, if she does not allege that he made ready to poison her, then we are behaving disgracefully in using a matron's name in a manner other than a matron's virtue requires.
But if, with the removal of that woman, my opponents are left without a charge and without the resources to attack Marcus Caelius, what proper course is left to us his advocates except to repel his assailants?
I should indeed go about this more vigorously were I not hindered by the bad feeling between me and that women's husband - I meant to say brother; I'm always making this mistake. As it is, I shall moderate my pleading and proceed no further than loyalty to my client and the case itself require. I never imagined I should have to do battle with a woman, especially one whom everyone thought of as the "friend" of all rather than the enemy of anyone.