fecundity of Cicero, and then passing on to the praise of the
Philippics as senatorial speeches, says of him that he seems to have
been at the head of the "minds of the second order." We cannot judge
of the classification without knowing how many of the great men of
the world are to be included in the first rank. But Macaulay probably
intended to express an opinion that Cicero was inferior because he
himself had never dominated others as Marius had done, and Sylla, and
Pompey, and Caesar, and Augustus. But what if Cicero was ambitious
for the good of others, while these men had desired power only for
themselves?

Dean Merivale says that Cicero was "discreet and decorous," as with
a similar sneer another clergyman, Sydney Smith, ridiculed a Tory
prime-minister because he was true to his wife. There is nothing so
open to the bitterness of a little joke as those humble virtues
by which no glitter can be gained, but only the happiness of many
preserved. And the Dean declares that Cicero himself was not, except
once or twice, and for a "moment only, a real power in the State."
Men who usurped authority, such as those I have named, were the "real
powers," and it was in opposition to such usurpation that Cicero
was always urgent. Mr. Forsyth, who, as I have said, strives to be
impartial, tells us that "the chief fault of Cicero's moral character
was a want of sincerity." Absence of sincerity there was not.
Deficiency of sincerity there was. Who among men has been free from
such blame since history and the lives of men were first written? It
will be my object to show that though less than godlike in that gift,
by comparison with other men around him he was sincere, as he was
also self-denying; which, if the two virtues be well examined, will
indicate the same phase of character.