We ought to adhere to them because our lives, both individually and collectively, will be better if we do. It is essentially Stoic ethical teachings that Cicero urges the Roman elite to adopt.
Stoicism as Cicero understood it held that the gods existed and loved human beings. The gods had also provided human beings with the gift of reason. Since humans have this in common with the gods, but animals share our love of pleasure, the Stoics argued, as Socrates had, that the best, most virtuous, and most divine life was one lived according to reason, not according to the search for pleasure.
This did not mean that humans had to shun pleasure, only that it must be enjoyed in the right way. It was fine to enjoy wine, but not to the point of shameful drunkenness. Finally, the Stoics believed that human beings were all meant to follow natural law, which arises from reason.
The natural law is also the source of all properly made human laws and communities. Because human beings share reason and the natural law, humanity as a whole can be thought of as a kind of community, and because each of us is part of a group of human beings with shared human laws, each of us is also part of a political community.
This being the case, we have duties to each of these communities, and the Stoics recognized an obligation to take part in politics so far as is possible in order to discharge those duties. The Stoic enters politics not for public approval, wealth, or power which are meaningless but in order to improve the communities of which they are a part. What matters is that the virtuous life requires it.
For the Epicurean philosophy Cicero had only disdain throughout most of his life, though his best friend Atticus was an Epicurean. However, this is not what Epicurus, who founded the school, or his later followers actually taught.
Epicurus did claim that nature teaches us that pleasure is the only human good, and that life should therefore be guided by the pursuit of pleasure. But he meant by pleasure the absence of pain, including the pain caused by desires for wealth, fame, or power.
This did not mean living life as one long Bacchanalia. Instead it meant withdrawing from politics and public life and living quietly with friends, engaged in the study of philosophy, which provided the highest pleasure possible think of a monastery without the Bible and the rigorous discipline.
The notion that the life of philosophy is the most pleasant life, of course, also comes from Socrates. Epicureans were also publicly atheists. Their atheism was based on a theory of atomism, which they were the first to propose.
Everything in the universe, they argued, was made up of atoms, including the heavenly bodies; the gods did not exist. This knowledge was not a cause of despair but a cause of joy, they believed, since one of the greatest human pains is the pain caused by the fear of death and what lies beyond it.
Thus there was no reason to fear it, because there was no divine judgment or afterlife. It is easy to see why Cicero, a man deeply involved in politics and the pursuit of glory, would find any doctrine that advocated the rejection of public life repulsive. It is also easy to see why someone concerned with the reform of character and conduct would reject public atheism, since fear of divine punishment often prevents people from acting immorally.
During his forced exile from politics at the end of his life, however, some of his letters claim that he has gone over to Epicureanism, presumably for the reasons he hated it previously. No longer able to take part in public life, the best he could hope for was the cultivation of private life and the pleasures that it had to offer.
Since Cicero abandoned this idea as soon as the opportunity to return to public life arose, there is no reason to take his professed conversion seriously — unless we wish to see in it an example of changing his beliefs to reflect changing circumstances, and thus an example of his commitment to the Academy. Unfortunately, several of them have been lost almost entirely Hortensius , on the value of philosophy, the Consolation , which Cicero wrote to himself on the death of his beloved daughter Tullia in order to overcome his grief, and On Glory , almost totally lost and several of the others are available only in fragmentary condition notably the Laws , which Cicero may never have finished, and the Republic , fragments of which were only discovered in in the Vatican.
These will be discussed in more detail below. While each of them is dedicated and addressed to a particular individual or two, they were intended to be read by a wide audience, and even at the end of his life Cicero never gave up entirely on the hope that the Republic and his influence would be restored. Hence these are not purely philosophical writings, but were designed with a political purpose in mind, and we are entitled to wonder whether Cicero is being entirely candid in the opinions that he expresses.
Also, the dialogue form is useful for an author who wishes to express a number of opinions without having to endorse one. We should not assume too quickly that a particular character speaks for Cicero. Instead we should assume that, unless he explicitly says otherwise, Cicero wanted all the viewpoints presented to be considered seriously, even if some or all of them have weaknesses. The second category is the speeches Cicero made as a lawyer and as a Senator, about 60 of which remain. Many of them also describe the corruption and immorality of the Roman elite.
In addition, the speeches that we have are not verbatim recordings of what Cicero actually said, but are versions that he polished later for publication the modern American analogy would be to the Congressional Record , which allows members of Congress the opportunity to revise the text of their speeches before they are published in the Record. In some cases such as the Second Philippic the speech was never delivered at all, but was merely published in written form, again with some political goal in mind.
Finally, roughly letters to and from mostly from Cicero have been preserved. Most of them were addressed to his close friend Atticus or his brother Quintius, but some correspondence to and from some other Romans including famous Romans such as Caesar has also been preserved.
The letters often make an interesting contrast to the philosophic dialogues, as they deal for the most part not with lofty philosophical matters but with the mundane calculations, compromises, flatteries, and manipulations that were part of politics in Rome and which would be familiar to any politician today.
The serious student of Cicero, however, will not want to ignore them. Written while Cicero was still a teenager, it is a handbook on oratory. Cicero later dismissed it and argued that his other oratorical works had superceded it. A lengthy treatise, in the form of a dialogue, on the ideal orator. While it is full of detail which can be tedious to those who are not deeply interested in the theory of rhetoric, it also contains useful discussions of the nature of and the relationships among law, philosophy, and rhetoric.
Cicero places rhetoric above both law and philosophy, arguing that the ideal orator would have mastered both law and philosophy including natural philosophy and would add eloquence besides. He argues that in the old days philosophy and rhetoric were taught together, and that it is unfortunate that they have now been separated.
The best orator would also be the best human being, who would understand the correct way to live, act upon it by taking a leading role in politics, and instruct others in it through speeches, through the example of his life, and through making good laws.
This dialogue is, unfortunately, in an extremely mutilated condition. It describes the ideal commonwealth, such as might be brought about by the orator described in On the Orator.
In doing so it tries to provide philosophical underpinnings for existing Roman institutions and to demonstrate that Roman history has been essentially the increasing perfection of the Republic, which is superior to any other government because it is a mixed government.
By this Cicero means that it combines elements of monarchy, aristocracy, and democracy in the right balance; the contemporary reader may well disagree. But even this government can be destroyed and is being destroyed by the moral decay of the aristocracy. Thus Cicero describes the importance of an active life of virtue, the foundations of community, including the community of all human beings, the role of the statesman, and the concept of natural law. It also includes the famous Dream of Scipio.
This dialogue is also badly mutilated, and may never have been finished. In it Cicero lays out the laws that would be followed in the ideal commonwealth described in On the Republic. Therefore any valid law is rooted in nature, and any law not rooted in nature such as a law made by a tyrant is no law at all.
The gods also share in reason, and because of this they can be said to be part of a community with humanity. The Syncretic, Universal, or Mixed government then, which Cicero, like many of the sages of antiquity, preferred to all particular forms of government whatsoever, included and harmonized all those partial systems which pass under the names of patriarchal, monarchical, aristocratic, and democratic institutions.
The divine and theocratic form of government, when closely examined, will be found to be analogous in many of its elemental features to the Catholic or Syncretic policy. All these terms are analogous, and all imply a system of divine dominations, perfectly regular and complete, capable of embracing all just authorities, and of holding them in a state of perfect coalition, harmony, and co—operation, from the highest to the lowest.
The first development of the syncretic and mixed policy, is that form of government which is called the Patriarchal or Paternal. The power of patriarchs has in all ages been accounted higher, wider, and more absolute than that of any of the emperors, kings, aristocrats, or democrats that subsequently arose. This aboriginal and supreme form of government, entitled the patriarchal, has been lauded as the earliest and best, by Philo, Plutarch, Selden, Bossuet, Filmer, Michaelis, Pastoret, and most of the commentators on the political history of the Jews.
The patriarchs, and, as they were subsequently called the Judges, of the Jewish nation, were in fact theocratic legislators: they combined an absolute ecclesiastical and civil power, universal and indefeasible.
Sir Robert Filmer has evinced, beyond contradiction, the priority and superiority of the patriarchal power. He has shewn that the beautiful principle of paternal government and hereditary succession is the natural and proper foundation of human government. When they entitle the pope a patriarch, they acknowledge that so far as precedence of rank is concerned, he stands as much above all emperors and kings, as they stand above all archbishops and bishops. The patriarchal power of the pope should not, however, extend beyond his own dominions.
Emperors and kings should be supreme within their own territories in ecclesiastieal as well as civil matters; for they ought to be as much defenders of the universal faith of their subjects, as they are of their universal rights.
The patriarchal theory, which shews us that we must trace the true origin of monarchical and aristocratic power to the paternal principle of hereditary succession, is of the greatest value. These remarks would indicate the truth of what the admirable Selden observes with reference to the Hebrew commonwealth, namely, that when the government was changed from the patriarchal into the monarchical, there was in fact a fall from a higher order of government into a lower.
It is no wonder, therefore, that the Deity was incensed against the people of Israel for asking a king, instead of a patriarchal successor to Samuel; for, by so doing, they throw their political system into an inferior condition.
Yet, royal, imperial, and monarchical government is next to the patriarchal, wonderfully sacred and venerable. We find something resembling it in the first rise and youthful spring of all ancient nations. In the Asiatic territories it has been universally cherished. And we find that kings, a series of wise and heroic monarchs, laid the foundation of all the glories of Greece and Rome.
Still, however fair, monarchy has been continually exposed to the dangers of degeneration into despotism and tyranny. Next to the imperial or regal, is that particular form of government called the aristocratical. Inferior to the regal no doubt it is, but something infinitely better than the democratic.
It still maintains something of the patriarchal dignity of hereditary succession to family wealth and honors, which is the grand security of all states, though it has often been abused to purposes of pride, extravagance, and oppression. The last particular form of government we shall mention, is the democratical or republican. Catilina was so angry that he plotted to stage a violent take-over of the government.
When Cicero took office, he learned of the plot and secured "emergency powers" from the Senate to defend the Republic. Catilina fled the city, but his top lieutenants stupidly wrote down the details of their plan to kill all the senators.
When this fell into Cicero's hands, he arrested five plot leaders. Cicero wanted to execute the five leaders immediately because of the emergency then in force.
Roman law, however, normally required a trial before imposing the death penalty. Caesar, a general and member of the Senate, said execution without trial would set a bad precedent. But most senators finally agreed with Cicero.
He personally supervised the execution of the men, and the Senate proclaimed him savior of the Republic. Cicero thoroughly enjoyed the glory. Caesar, elected a consul for the year 59, allied himself with two other army generals, Pompey and Crassus.
With thousands of soldiers behind them, the three military men, called the "Triumvirate," intimidated the Senate with their political demands.
They also asked Cicero to join them, but he refused, believing the Triumvirate was a threat to the Republic. After completing his year as consul, Caesar took his troops to fight uprisings in Gaul which encompassed today's France, Belgium, and northern Italy. Even so, the Triumvirate remained a powerful force in Roman politics. Cicero resumed his trial work, but his political career had stalled.
He decided to turn to writing as a way to influence public affairs. He wrote these books in the form of dialogues, discussions among friends, modeled after earlier works by the Greek philosopher Plato. Cicero wrote on papyrus scrolls and published his writings by using the common practice of having slaves copy them. In these two books, Cicero wanted to restore the republic to its uncorrupted and truest form, which he believed had existed several generations earlier.
He intended to persuade good and honorable men to participate actively in public affairs. Politics, he argued, was the most honorable of all professions. His ideas were not new. He relied on Greek and Roman writings, many of which were later lost. In The Laws, Cicero explored his concept of natural law. Since reason "is certainly common to us all," Cicero asserted, the law in nature is "eternal and unchangeable, binding at all times upon all peoples.
Without laws, Cicero reasoned, there can be no state or government. More important, he continued, there must be equality under the law with no special exceptions.
This is essential, he said, for justice, which in turn is necessary for a successfully functioning government. In The Republic , Cicero argued that laws are not enough for a just state. There also must be liberty. Cicero looked into the ideal form of government for upholding natural law, establishing justice, and ensuring liberty. He started by examining three "good states" and their perverted forms, described earlier by the Greek historian Polybius.
Cicero believed the best of the good states was a monarchy, but the king could turn into a tyrant. Cicero also approved of an aristocracy, rule by the best men, but it was vulnerable to conspiracies by factions intent on grabbing power an oligarchy. In Cicero's view, the worst of the good states was a democracy, where all the people participated directly in running the government.
It eventually led to mob rule. Cicero went a step further than Polybius to describe a cycle of government forms. Even so, Cicero recognized each good state had its merits. A king could act quickly and decisively in an emergency. The people in a democracy enjoyed liberty with equal rights. In short, an aristocratic republic values order from which the fruits of liberty can be enjoyed. For Cicero, Monarchy is the best of the three simple forms — even if it is not the most ideal.
After all, Cicero claims that democracy — in an ideal world that does not exist — would be best. In the real world, however, monarchy suffices. The reason for this is because monarchy, properly speaking i. Like Aristotle, Cicero considers the family household as the basis of all civilization and politics.
A good father loves his children and only wants the best for them, so he provides the best for them and nurtures them to be honorable and virtuous men and women as they grow older. Furthermore, Cicero discusses the attraction to monarchy because we have an inherent want for beauty. And there is nothing more beautiful than the ritualism, symbolism, and allegory of monarchy.
So in comparing them it is hard to choose which one likes best. We are social animals who desire love and beauty — this comes out most explicitly in monarchy. Cicero even pivots the discussion to nature itself — human nature that is. What is meant here is simply this: monarchy has been the most common and natural form of government throughout human history, it attracts us by affection, want for beauty, love, and belonging, it deeply embodies human nature, wisdom, and desire all at once.
Monarchy attracts us by its very nature because we share the nature of what monarchy symbolizes: beauty, compassion, fatherliness or motherliness with a queen , filialism, and general affection. Thus, monarchy allows us to participate with, and installs us with, deep reverences for beauty, family, traditions, and closest reflects the ordered hierarchy of the world. Monarchy as republic is tied to the common cause, common good, and common sacrifice of filial affection and defense of beauty.
Monarchy demands a common virtue found in common affection. Cicero basically argues that politics is the constant devolution of political order into tyranny. Monarchy starts first. Eventually, one king or queen is terribly unjust and cruel. The aristocrats rise up in their mutual power and overthrow the monarch. A new constitution is established proclaiming the rule of aristocrats. Eventually, the aristocrats become oligarchs and tyrants in their own right. The masses rise up and form a democracy in its place.
Claiming liberty and equality, the revolution is successful. This is the push back to aristocracy. The cycle continues without end. This is why Cicero prefers a mixture of all three forms — a mixture is better able to safeguard against all the problems that come with the three simple forms alone. The drive to democracy is the push for greater liberty and equality, but once this is achieved, the people grow weak and licentious with their wealth and prostitute their liberty and equality away in favor of hedonism and nihilism, from which chaos and anarchy emerges because of lack of wisdom and virtue from among the population.
The return to order commences and the cycle starts anew, moving from democracy back to monarchy. And then from monarchy back to democracy and from democracy back to monarchy, etc. According to Cicero, not even a mixed constitution can prevent this. Although a mixed constitution has the most built in mechanisms to prevent the descent into tyranny as it calls us to defend it by filial virtue and affection monarchial aspects , through the promise of order and rule of best men aristocratic aspects , who seek to guarantee and uphold liberty and equality democratic aspects , only an educated, virtuous, and courageous people can prevent the slip into tyranny and anarchy.
And this struggle for virtue is why philosophy is important to society — it buttresses against Caesarism and also against nihilistic hedonism. Again, we cannot divorce the historical reality away from the Roman Stoics and their obvious political goals of wanting to save the Roman Republic regardless of whether it was actually worth saving — Cicero, Seneca, and Cato certainly thought so. But Cicero argues that the growth of constitutions and constitutional rights is the result of the flight from tyranny which produces a new constitution which nevertheless fails and dissolves into tyranny at a future point in time when people have lost their virtue.
On this note, Cicero sees History as cyclical but essentially political in nature. History, then, is the tragic story of the decline and fall of political orders and their constitutions, of the story of virtuous people collapsing in their common virtue and forgoing the responsibilities necessary for preserving the republic.
They give themselves over to nihilism which leads to tyranny. When people get upset with tyranny they revolt, and the constitutions change to reflection revolution. However, all people at some later point in time grow weak in their virtue and renege on the constitutional compact that was birthed from revolution, and they fall into tyranny once again.
0コメント