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 on a par with Cato in purity.

To lend money to citizens, or more profitably to allied States and cities, at enormous rates of interest, was the ordinary resource of a Roman nobleman in quest of revenue.