great rival of Cicero, took presents, if not absolute payment. Indeed,
the myth of honorary work, which is in itself absurd, was no more
practicable in Rome than it has been found to be in England, where
every barrister is theoretically presumed to work for nothing. That
the "Lex Cincia," as far as the payment of advocates went, was absurd,
may be allowed by us all. Services for which no regular payment can be
exacted will always cost more than those which have a defined price.
But Cicero would not break the law. It has been hinted rather than
stated that he, like other orators of the day, had his price. He
himself tells us that he took nothing; and no instance has been
adduced that he had ever done so. He is free enough in accusing
Hortensius of having accepted a beautiful statuette, an ivory sphinx
of great value. What he knew of Hortensius, Hortensius would have
known of him, had it been there to know; and what Hortensius or others
had heard would certainly have been told. As far as we can learn,
there is no ground for accusing Cicero of taking fees or presents
beyond the probability that he would do so. I think we are justified
in believing that he did not do so, because those who watched his
conduct closely found no opportunity of exposing him. That he was paid
by different allied States for undertaking their protection in the
Senate, is probable, such having been a custom not illegal. We know
that he was specially charged with the affairs of Dyrrachium, and
had probably amicable relations with other allied communities. This,
however, must have been later in life, when his name was sufficiently
high to insure the value of his services, and when he was a Senator.

Noble Romans also--noble as they were, and infinitely superior to the
little cares of trade--were accustomed to traffic very largely in
usury. We shall have a terrible example of such baseness on the part
of Brutus--that Brutus whom we have been taught to regard as almost