soon became the leader of the
democracy? became rather what Mommsen describes as "Democracy" itself;
and as Cicero had defended the Senate from Catiline, and had refused to
attach himself to Caesar, he is supposed to have turned from the
political ideas of his youth, and to have become a Conservative when
Conservative ideas suited his ambition.

I will not accept the excuse put forward on his behalf, that the early
speeches were made on the side of democracy because the exigencies of
the occasion required him to so devote his energies as an advocate. No
doubt he was an advocate, as are our barristers of to-day, and, as an
advocate, supported this side or that; but we shall be wrong if we
suppose that the Roman "patronus" supplied his services under such
inducements. With us a man goes into the profession of the law with the
intention of making money, and takes the cases right and left, unless
there be special circumstances which may debar him from doing so with
honor. It is a point of etiquette with him to give his assistance, in
turn, as he may be called on; so much so, that leading men are not
unfrequently employed on one side simply that they may not be employed
on the other side. It should not be urged on the part of Cicero that, so
actuated, he defended Amerinus, a case in which he took part against the
aristocrats, or defended Publius Sulla, in doing which he appeared on
the side of the aristocracy. Such a defence of his conduct would be
misleading, and might be confuted. It would be confuted by those who
suppose him to have been "notoriously a political trimmer," as Mommsen
has[270] called him; or a "deserter," as he was described by Dio Cassius
and by the Pseudo-Sallust,[271] by showing that in fact he took up
causes under the influence of strong personal motives such as rarely
govern an English barrister. These motives were in many cases partly
political; but they operated in such a manner as to give no guide to his
political views. In defending Sulla's nephew he was moved, as far as we
know, solely by private motives. In defending Amerinus he may be said to
have attacked Sulla. His object was to stamp out the still burning
embers of Sulla's cruelty; but not the less was he wedded to Sulla's
general views as to the restoration of the authority of the Senate. In
his early speeches, especially in that spoken against Verres, he
denounces the corruption of the senatorial judges; but at that very
period of his life