It is important for the reading of Cicero's character that we should trace the meaning of his utterances about Caesar from this time up to the day on which Caesar was killed--his utterances in public, and those which are found in his letters to Atticus and his brother. That there was much of pretence--of falsehood, if a hard word be necessary to suit the severity of those who judge the man hardly--is admitted. How he praised Pompey in public, dispraising him in private, at one and the same moment, has been declared. How he applied for praise, whether deserved or not, has been shown. In excuse, not in defence, of this I allege that the Romans of the day were habitually false after this fashion. The application to Lucceius proves the habitual falseness not of Cicero only, but of Lucceius also; and the private words written to Atticus, in opposition to the public words with which Atticus was well acquainted, prove the falseness also of Atticus. It was Roman; it was Italian; it was cosmopolitan; it was human. I only wish that it were possible to declare that it is no longer Italian, no longer cosmopolitan, no longer human. To this day it is very difficult even for an honorable man to tell the whole truth in the varying circumstances of public life. The establishment of even a theory of truth, with all the advantages which have come to us from Christianity, has been so difficult, hitherto so imperfect, that we ought, I think, to consider well the circumstances before we stigmatize Cicero as specially false. To my reading he seems to have been specially true. When Caesar won his way up to power, Cicero was courteous to him, flattered him, and, though, never subservient, yet was anxious to comply when compliance was possible. Nevertheless, we know well that the whole scheme of Caesar's political life was opposed to the scheme entertained by Cicero. It was Cicero's desire to maintain as much as he could of the old form of oligarchical rule under which, as a constitution, the Roman Empire had been created. It was Caesar's intention to sweep it all away. We can see that now; but Cicero could only see it in part. To his outlook the man had some sense of order, and had all the elements of greatness. He was better, at any rate, than a Verres, a Catiline, a Clodius, a Piso, or a Gabinius. If he thought that by flattery he could bring Caesar somewhat round, there might be conceit in his so thinking, but there could be no treachery. In doing so he did not abandon his political _beau ideal_. If better times came, or a better man, he would use them. In the mean time he could do more by managing Caesar than by opposing him. He was far enough from succeeding in the management of Caesar, but he did do much in keeping his party together. It was in this spirit that he advocated before the Senate the maintenance of Caesar's authority in the two Gauls. The Senate decreed the withdrawal of Piso and Gabinius, but decided to leave Caesar where he was.