[236] Cicero was not a practical philosopher. Like most persons who have been much engaged in public life, he lived in the opinion of others. He did not follow the maxim of the Emperor Antoninus, who bids us “Look within; for within is the source of good, and it sends up a continuous stream to those who will always dig there” (vii. 59). Cicero did not reverence his own soul, but he placed his happiness “in the opinion of others” (i. 6). Perhaps however he was not weaker than most active politicians, whose letters would be as dolorous and lachrymose as his, if they were banished to a distant colony.
[237] This is not obscure, if it is properly considered, and it contains a serious truth. A man must view things as they are, and he must not take his notions of them from the affects of the many. “Things touch not the soul, but they are out of it, and passive; perturbations come only from the opinion that is within a man” (M. Antoninus, iv. 3).
The philosophic emperor and the unphilosophic statesman were very different persons. The emperor both preached and practised. The statesman showed his feebleness by his arrogance in prosperity and his abjectness in adversity.
[238] These proceedings are described by Cicero in his oration (Pro Domo, c. 24). The marble columns were removed from his house on the Palatine to the premises of the father-in-law of the consul Piso, in the presence of the people. Gabinius, the other consul, who was Cicero’s neighbour at Tusculum, removed to his own land the stock that was on Cicero’s estate and the ornaments of the house, and even the trees.
[239] In B.C. 57, P. Cornelius Lentulus Spinther and Q. Cæcilius Metellus Nepos were consuls. Cicero alludes to the disturbance which preceded his recall in his oration for P. Sextius, c. 35: “Caedem in foro maximam faciunt, universique destrictis gladiis et cruentis in omnibus fori partibus fratrem meum, virum optimum, fortissimum, meique amantissimum oculis quaerebant, voce poscebant.” Cicero adds that his brother being driven from the Rostra lay down in the Comitium, and protected himself “with the bodies of slaves and freedmen;” by which Cicero seems to mean that his slaves and freedmen kept watch over him till he made his escape at night. Plutarch appears to have misunderstood the passage or to have had some other authority. In this dreadful tumult “the Tiber was filled with the dead bodies of the citizens, the drains were choaked, and the blood was wiped up from the Forum with sponges.” This looks somewhat like rhetorical embellishment.
[240] Cicero in a letter to Atticus (iv. 2) gives an account of the compensation which he received. The valuation of his house at Rome (superficies aedium) was fixed at HS. vicies, or two million sesterces. He seems not to have objected to this, but he complains of the valuation of his Tusculanum and Formianum.
[241] In the seventeenth month according to Clinton (Fasti Hellen. B.C. 57). The passage that Plutarch refers to is in the Oration to the Senate after his return (c, 15): “Cum me vestra auctoritas arcessierit, Populus Romanus revocarit, Respublica implorarit, Italia cuncta paene suis humeris reportarit.”
[242] See the Life of Cato, c. 40, and Dion Cassius, 39, c. 21.
[243] Clodius was killed B.C. 52, the year in which Pompeius was chosen sole consul. Cicero’s speech for Milo is extant, or at least a speech which he wrote after the trial. Milo was condemned and went an exile to Massilia. His property was sold and it went cheap. Cicero was under some suspicion of being a purchaser; but the matter is quite unintelligible (Drumann, Annii, p. 49, and the references). There could be no reason why Cicero should write in such obscure terms to Atticus, if his conduct in this matter was fair.
[244] Crassus perished B.C. 54. See the Life of Crassus.