murdered on December 7, 43 BC. His life coincided with the decline and
fall of the Roman Republic, and he was an important actor in many of
the significant political events of his time (and his writings are now
a valuable source of information to us about those events). He was,
among other things, an orator, lawyer, politician, and philosopher.
Making sense of his writings and understanding his philosophy requires
us to keep that in mind. He placed politics above philosophical study;
the latter was valuable in its own right but was even more valuable as
the means to more effective political action. The only periods of his
life in which he wrote philosophical works were the times he was
forcibly prevented from taking part in politics.
1. Cicero's life
Cicero's political career was a remarkable one. At the time, high
political offices in Rome, though technically achieved by winning
elections, were almost exclusively controlled by a group of wealthy
aristocratic families that had held them for many generations.
Cicero's family, though aristocratic, was not one of them, nor did it
have great wealth. But Cicero had a great deal of political ambition;
at a very young age he chose as his motto the same one Achilles was
said to have had: to always be the best and overtop the rest. Lacking
the advantages of a proper ancestry, there were essentially only two
career options open to him. One was a military career, since military
success was thought to result from exceptional personal qualities and
could lead to popularity and therefore political opportunity (as was
the case much later for American presidents Ulysses S. Grant and
Dwight D. Eisenhower). Cicero, however, was no soldier. He hated war,
and served in the military only very briefly as a young man.
Instead, Cicero chose a career in the law. To prepare for this career,
he studied jurisprudence, rhetoric, and philosophy. When he felt he
was ready, he began taking part in legal cases. A career in the law
could lead to political success for several reasons, all of which are
still relevant today. First, a lawyer would gain a great deal of
experience in making speeches. Second, he (there were no female
lawyers in Rome) could also gain exposure and popularity from
high-profile cases. Finally, a successful lawyer would build up a
network of political connections, which is important now but was even
more important in Cicero's time, when political competition was not
conducted along party lines or on the basis of ideology, but instead
was based on loose, shifting networks of personal friendships and
commitments. Cicero proved to be an excellent orator and lawyer, and a
shrewd politician. He was elected to each of the principle Roman
offices (quaestor, aedile, praetor, and consul) on his first try and
at the earliest age at which he was legally allowed to run for them.
Having held office made him a member of the Roman Senate. This body
had no formal authority — it could only offer advice — but its advice
was almost always followed. He was, as can be imagined, very proud of
his successes. (Though this is not the place for a long discussion of
Roman government, it should be noted that the Roman republic was not a
democracy. It was really more of an oligarchy than anything else, with
a few men wielding almost all economic and political power).
During his term as consul (the highest Roman office) in 63 BC he was
responsible for unraveling and exposing the conspiracy of Catiline,
which aimed at taking over the Roman state by force, and five of the
conspirators were put to death without trial on Cicero's orders.
Cicero was proud of this too, claiming that he had singlehandedly
saved the commonwealth; many of his contemporaries and many later
commentators have suggested that he exaggerated the magnitude of his
success. But there can be little doubt that Cicero enjoyed widespread
popularity at this time – though his policy regarding the Catilinarian
conspirators had also made him enemies, and the executions without
trial gave them an opening.
The next few years were very turbulent, and in 60 BC Julius Caesar,
Pompey, and Crassus (often referred to today as the First Triumvirate)
combined their resources and took control of Roman politics.
Recognizing his popularity and talents, they made several attempts to
get Cicero to join them, but Cicero hesitated and eventually refused,
preferring to remain loyal to the Senate and the idea of the Republic.
This left him open to attacks by his enemies, and in January of 58 BC
one of them, the tribune Clodius (a follower of Caesar's), proposed a
law to be applied retroactively stating that anyone who killed a Roman
citizen without trial would be stripped of their citizenship and
forced into exile. This proposal led to rioting and physical attacks
on Cicero, who fled the city. The law passed. Cicero was forbidden to
live within 500 miles of Italy, and all his property was confiscated.
This exile, during which Cicero could not take part in politics,
provided the time for his first period of sustained philosophical
study as an adult. After roughly a year and a half of exile, the
political conditions changed, his property was restored to him, and he
was allowed to return to Rome, which he did to great popular approval,
claiming that the Republic was restored with him. This was also
treated by many as an absurd exaggeration.
Cicero owed a debt to the triumvirate for ending his exile (and for
not killing him), and for the next eight years he repaid that debt as
a lawyer. Because he still could not engage in politics, he also had
time to continue his studies of philosophy, and between 55 and 51 he
wrote On the Orator, On the Republic, and On the Laws. The
triumvirate, inherently unstable, collapsed with the death of Crassus
and in 49 BC Caesar crossed the Rubicon River, entering Italy with his
army and igniting a civil war between himself and Pompey (Caesar's own
account of this war still survives). Cicero was on Pompey's side,
though halfheartedly. He felt that at this point the question was not
whether Rome would be a republic or an empire but whether Pompey or
Caesar would be Emperor, and he believed that it would make little
difference, for it would be a disaster in either case. Caesar and his
forces won in 48 BC, and Caesar became the first Roman emperor. He
gave Cicero a pardon and allowed him to return to Rome in July of 47
BC, but Cicero was forced to stay out of politics. Most of the rest of
his life was devoted to studying and writing about philosophy, and he
produced the rest of his philosophical writings during this time.
Caesar was murdered by a group of senators on the Ides of March in 44
BC. Cicero was a witness to the murder, though he was not a part of
the conspiracy. The murder led to another power struggle in which Mark
Antony (of "Antony and Cleopatra" fame), Marcus Lepidus, and Octavian
(later called Augustus) were the key players. It also gave Cicero, who
still hoped that the Republic could be restored, the opportunity for
what is considered his finest hour as a politician. With Caesar dead,
the Senate once again mattered, and it was to the Senate that Cicero
made the series of speeches known as the Philippics (named after the
speeches the Greek orator Demosthenes made to rouse the Athenians to
fight Philip of Macedon). These speeches called for the Senate to aid
Octavian in overcoming Antony (Cicero believed that Octavian, still a
teenager, would prove to be a useful tool who could be discarded by
the Senate once his purpose was served).
However, Antony, Lepidus, and Octavian were able to come to terms and
agreed to share power. Each of them had enemies that he wanted
eliminated, and as part of the power-sharing deal each got to
eliminate those enemies. Antony put not only Cicero but also his son,
his brother, and his nephew on the list of those to be killed (the
Philippics are not very nice to him at all, especially the Second
Philippic). Though Octavian owed his success in part to Cicero, he
chose not to extend his protection to Cicero and his family. Cicero,
his brother, and his nephew tried somewhat belatedly to flee Italy.
His brother and nephew turned aside to collect more money for the
trip, and were killed. Cicero kept going. Plutarch describes the end
of Cicero's life: "Cicero heard [his pursuers] coming and ordered his
servants to set the litter [in which he was being carried] down where
they were. He…looked steadfastly at his murderers. He was all covered
in dust; his hair was long and disordered, and his face was pinched
and wasted with his anxieties – so that most of those who stood by
covered their faces while Herennius was killing him. His throat was
cut as he stretched his neck out from the litter….By Antony's orders
Herennius cut off his head and his hands." Antony then had Cicero's
head and hands nailed to the speaker's podium in the Senate as a
warning to others. Cicero's son, also named Marcus, who was in Greece
at this time, was not executed. He became consul in 30 BC under
Octavian, who had defeated Antony after the Second Triumvirate
collapsed. As consul, the younger Marcus got to announce Antony's
suicide to the Senate. It is unfortunate that we have no record of
this speech.
2. Cicero's influence
While Cicero is currently not considered an exceptional thinker,
largely on the (incorrect) grounds that his philosophy is derivative
and unoriginal, in previous centuries he was considered one of the
great philosophers of the ancient era, and he was widely read well
into the 19th century. Probably the most notable example of his
influence is St. Augustine's claim that it was Cicero's Hortensius (an
exhortation to philosophy, the text of which is unfortunately lost)
that turned him away from his sinful life and towards philosophy and
ultimately to God. Augustine later adopted Cicero's definition of a
commonwealth and used it in his argument that Christianity was not
responsible for the destruction of Rome by the barbarians. Further
discussion of Cicero's influence on later philosophers can be found in
MacKendrick, Chapter 20 and Appendix.
3. Cicero's thought
As has been said, Cicero subordinated philosophy to politics, so it
should not surprise us to discover that his philosophy had a political
purpose: the defense, and if possible the improvement, of the Roman
Republic. The politicians of his time, he believed, were corrupt and
no longer possessed the virtuous character that had been the main
attribute of Romans in the earlier days of Roman history. This loss of
virtue was, he believed, the cause of the Republic's difficulties. He
hoped that the leaders of Rome, especially in the Senate, would listen
to his pleas to renew the Republic. This could only happen if the
Roman elite chose to improve their characters and place commitments to
individual virtue and social stability ahead of their desires for
fame, wealth, and power. Having done this, the elite would enact
legislation that would force others to adhere to similar standards,
and the Republic would flourish once again. Whether this belief shows
an admirable commitment to the principles of virtue and nobility or a
blindness to the nature of the exceedingly turbulent and violent
politics of his time, or perhaps both, is impossible to say with
certainty.
Cicero, therefore, tried to use philosophy to bring about his
political goals. Like most intellectual endeavors in Cicero's time,
philosophy was an activity in which Greece (and especially Athens)
still held the lead. The Romans were more interested in practical
matters of law, governance, and military strategy than they were in
philosophy and art (many of Cicero's writings include justifications
for his study of philosophy and arguments that it ought to be taken
seriously). But for Cicero to really use philosophy effectively, he
needed to make it accessible to a Roman audience. He did this in part
by translating Greek works into Latin, including inventing Latin words
where none seemed suitable for Greek concepts (including the Latin
words which give us the English words morals, property, individual,
science, image, and appetite), and in part by drawing on and
idealizing Roman history to provide examples of appropriate conduct
and to illustrate the arguments of philosophy. He also summarized in
Latin many of the beliefs of the primary Greek philosophical schools
of the time (and he is the source of much of our knowledge about these
schools). These included the Academic Skeptics, Peripatetics, Stoics,
and Epicureans. Cicero was well acquainted with all these schools, and
had teachers in each of them at different times of his life. But he
professed allegiance throughout his life to the Academy.
4. Cicero and the Academic Skeptics
In Cicero's time there were in fact two schools claiming to be
descended from the First Academy, established by Plato. Cicero studied
briefly in both the Old Academy and the New Academy; the differences
between the two need not concern us. What they shared was their basic
commitment to skepticism: a belief that human beings cannot be certain
in their knowledge about the world, and therefore no philosophy can be
said to be true. The Academic Skeptics offered little in the way of
positive argument themselves; they mostly criticized the arguments of
others.
This can be annoying, but it requires real mental abilities, including
the ability to see all sides of an issue and to understand and accept
that any belief, no matter how cherished, is only provisional and
subject to change later if a better argument presents itself. It is
the approach which underlies the modern scientific method, though the
Academics did not use it in that way. Even something like evolution,
for which there is mountains of evidence and seemingly no resonable
alternative, is treated as a theory subject to change if needed rather
than an eternal truth.
And it is this approach which Cicero embraced. This is not surprising
if we consider again why he was interested in philosophy in the first
place. As a lawyer, he would need to see as many sides of an argument
as possible in order to argue his clients' cases effectively. He would
have to marshal all the available evidence in a methodical way, so as
to make the strongest possible case, and he would have to accept that
he might at any time have to deal with new evidence or new issues,
forcing him to totally reconsider his strategies. As a politician, he
would need a similar grasp of the issues and a similar degree of
flexibility in order to speak and to act effectively. A lawyer or
politician who fanatically sticks to a particular point of view and
cannot change is not likely to be successful. Adopting the teachings
of the Academy also allowed Cicero to pick and choose whatever he
wanted from the other philosophical schools, and he claims to do this
at various points in his writings. Finally, his allegiance to the
Academy helps to explain his use of the dialogue form: it enables
Cicero to put a number of arguments in the mouths of others without
having to endorse any particular position himself.
However, Cicero did not consistently write as a member of the Academy.
Skepticism can, if taken to extremes, lead to complete inaction (if we
can't be certain of the correctness of our decisions or of our
actions, why do anything at all?) which was incompatible with Cicero's
commitment to political activity. Even if it isn't taken that far, it
can still be dangerous. It may not be a problem if trained,
knowledgeable philosophers are skeptical about things like whether the
gods exist or whether the laws are just. But if people in general are
skeptical about these things, they may end up behaving lawlessly and
immorally (see Aristophanes' Clouds for a portrayal of this). Thus,
while Cicero is willing to accept Academic Skepticism in some areas,
he is not willing to do so when it comes to ethics and politics. For
doctrines in these areas, he turns to the Stoics and Peripatetics.
5. Cicero and Stoicism and Peripateticism
Cicero believed that these two schools taught essentially the same
things, and that the difference between them was whether virtue was
the only thing human beings should pursue or whether it was merely the
best thing to be pursued. According to the first view, things like
money and health have no value; according to the second, they have
value but nowhere near enough to justify turning away from virtue to
attain them. This was a difference with little practical consequence,
so far as Cicero was concerned, and there is no need to take it up
here.
Since, according to the teachings of the Academy, Cicero was free to
accept any argument that he found convincing, he could readily make
use of Stoic teachings, and he did so particularly when discussing
politics and ethics. In the Laws, for example, he explicitly says that
he is setting aside his skepticism, for it is dangerous if people do
not believe unhesitatingly in the sanctity of the laws and of justice.
Thus he will rely on Stoicism instead. He puts forth Stoic doctrines
not dogmatically, as absolutely and always true, but as the best set
of beliefs so far developed. 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. Both during and after a person's life, the gods rewarded
or punished human beings according to their conduct in life. 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.
For example, it was fine to enjoy sex, but not with another man's
wife. 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. If politics is
painful, as it would often prove to be for Cicero, that's not
important. What matters is that the virtuous life requires it.
6. Cicero and Epicureanism
For the Epicurean philosophy Cicero had only disdain throughout most
of his life, though his best friend Atticus was an Epicurean. This
disdain leads him to seriously misrepresent its teachings as being
based on the shameless pursuit of base pleasures, such as food, sex,
and wine (the modern day equivalent being sex, drugs, and
rock'n'roll). 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. According to the
Epicureans, death simply meant the end of sensation, as one's atoms
came apart. Thus there was no reason to fear it, because there was no
divine judgment or afterlife. The best known Epicurean is Lucretius, a
contemporary of Cicero's at Rome who Cicero may have known personally.
Lucretius' On the Nature of Things, available online, sets out
Epicurean teachings.
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.
7. Cicero's writings
Cicero's written work can be sorted into three categories. None can be
said to represent the "true" Cicero, and all of Cicero's work, we must
remember, has a political purpose. This does not make it worthless as
philosophy, but it should make us cautious about proclaiming anything
in particular to be what Cicero "really thought." Also, as an Academic
skeptic, Cicero felt free to change his mind about something when a
better position presented itself, and this makes it even more
difficult to bring his writing together into a coherent whole.
The first category of Cicero's work is his philosophic writings, many
of which were patterned after Plato's or Aristotle's dialogues. These
writings, in chronological order, include On Invention, On the Orator,
On the Republic, On the Laws, Brutus, Stoic Paradoxes, The Orator,
Consolation, Hortensius, Academics, On Ends, Tusculan Disputations, On
the Nature of the Gods, On Divination, On Fate, On Old Age, On
Friendship, Topics, On Glory, and On Duties. 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 1820 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. As we
have seen, Cicero's skepticism would have made this an especially
attractive style. 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. These speeches provide many
insights into Roman cultural, political, social, and intellectual
life, as well as glimpses of Cicero's philosophy. Many of them also
describe the corruption and immorality of the Roman elite. However,
they have to be taken with a grain of salt, because Cicero was writing
and delivering them in order to achieve some legal outcome and/or
political goal and by his own admission was not above saying
misleading or inaccurate things if he thought they would be effective.
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 900 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. It is important to be
cautious in drawing conclusions from them about Cicero's "true"
beliefs since they rely on an understanding between the sender and
recipient not available to others, because they are often not the
result of full reflection or an attempt at complete clarity and
precision (after all, a friend can be counted on to know what you
mean), and because many of them, like the speeches, were written with
a political purpose in mind that may make them less than fully
truthful and straightforward.
Space does not allow us to discuss Cicero's speeches and letters. The
serious student of Cicero, however, will not want to ignore them. What
follows is a brief summary of the main points each of Cicero's
philosophical works.
a. On Invention
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.
b. On the Orator
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.
c. On the Republic
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 until recently (the dialogue is set in 129 BC) Roman
history has been essentially the increasing perfection of the
Republic, which is now 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.
d. On the Laws
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. Finding the source of
law and justice, he says, requires explaining "what nature has given
to humans; what a quantity of wonderful things the human mind
embraces; for the sake of performing and fulfilling what function we
are born and brought into the world; what serves to unite people; and
what natural bond there is between them." Philosophy teaches us that
by nature human beings have reason, that reason enables us to discover
the principles of justice, and that justice gives us law. 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. They care for us, and punish and reward us as
appropriate. Much of what remains of this dialogue is devoted to
religious law.
e. Brutus
This dialogue too is in a mutilated condition. It is a history of
oratory in Greece and Rome, listing hundreds of orators and their
distinguishing characteristics, weaknesses as well as strengths. There
is also some discussion of oratory in the abstract. Cicero says that
the orator must "instruct his listener, give him pleasure, [and] stir
his emotions," and, as in On the Orator, that the true orator needs to
have instruction in philosophy, history, and law. Such a person will
have the tools necessary to become a leader of the commonwealth. This
dialogue is less inclined to the argument that the orator must be a
good man; for example, Cicero says that orators must be allowed to
"distort history [i.e. lie] in order to give more point to their
narrative."
f. Stoic Paradoxes
Not a dialogue; Cicero lays out six Stoic principles (called
paradoxes) which the average listener would not be likely to agree
with and tries to make them both understandable and persuasive to such
a listener. It is, he says, an exercise in turning the specialized
jargon of the Stoics into plain speech for his own amusement (which
obviously does not require Cicero to actually agree with any of the
Stoic beliefs). The beliefs discussed are as follows: moral worth is
the only good; virtue is sufficient for happiness; all sins and
virtues are equal; every fool is insane; only the wise man is really
free; only the wise man is really rich. These topics are largely taken
up again in the Tusculan Disputations. MacKendrick argues strenuously
that this work is far more than an idle amusement, and that it
showcases Cicero's rhetorical skills as well as being an attack on his
enemies.
g. The Orator
Written in the form of a letter on the topic of the perfect orator, it
includes a defense of Cicero's own oratorical style (Cicero was never
known for his modesty). It emphasizes that the orator must be able to
prove things to the audience, please them, and sway their emotions. It
also includes the famous quote "To be ignorant of what occurred before
you were born is to remain always a child."
h. Consolation
This text is lost except for fragments cited by other authors. Cicero
wrote it to diminish his grief over the death of his daughter Tullia
through the use of philosophy. From his letters we know that it was
not entirely successful.
i. Hortensius
his text is heavily fragmented and we can determine little more than
its broad outline. It is written in order to praise philosophy, which
alone can bring true happiness through the development of reason and
the overcoming of passions. In antiquity it was widely read and very
popular; it was instrumental in converting St. Augustine to
Christianity.
j. Academics
The positions of the various philosophical schools on epistemology
(how we can perceive and understand the world) and the possibility of
knowing truth are set out and refuted by the participants in this
dialogue (of which we have different parts of two editions). Cicero
also incorporates a detailed history of the development of these
schools following the death of Socrates (diagrammed nicely in
MacKendrick; see below). The nature of Cicero's own skepticism can be
found in this work; the reader is left to choose the argument that is
most persuasive.
k. On Ends
A dialogue which sets out the case, pro and con, of the several
philosophic schools on the question of the end or purpose (what
Aristotle called the telos) of human life. For Cicero, and arguably
for ancient philosophy generally, this was the most important
question: "What is the end, the final and ultimate aim, which gives
the standard for all principles of right living and of good conduct?"
Today many are inclined to believe that an answer to this question, if
an answer exists at all, must be found in religion, but Cicero held
that it was a question for philosophy, and this text was meant to
popularize among the Romans the various answers that were being
offered at the time. As with Academics, the reader must decide which
case is most persuasive.
l. Tusculan Disputations
Another attempt to popularize philosophy at Rome and demonstrate that
the Romans and their language had the potential to achieve the very
highest levels of philosophy. The first book presents the argument
that death is an evil; this argument is then refuted. The second book
presents and refutes the argument that pain is an evil. The third book
argues that the wise man will not suffer from anxiety and fear. In the
fourth book Cicero demonstrates that the wise man does not suffer from
excessive joy or lust. And in the fifth and final book Cicero argues
that virtue, found through philosophy, is sufficient for a happy life.
These positions are all compatible with Stoicism.
m. On the Nature of the Gods
This dialogue, along with the next two, was intended by Cicero to form
a trilogy on religious questions. It offers desciptions of literally
dozens of varieties of religion. Emphasis is especially placed on the
Epicurean view (the gods exist but are indifferent about human
beings), which is described and then refuted, and the Stoic view (the
gods govern the world, love human beings, and after death reward the
good and punish the bad), which is similarly stated and refuted. At
the end of the dialogue the characters have not reached agreement.
This is perhaps the dialogue that best illustrates Cicero's skeptical
method.
n. On Divination
This dialogue too, according to Cicero, is meant to set out arguments
both for and against a topic, in this case the validity of divination
(predicting the future through methods such as astrology, reading
animal entrails, watching the flight of birds, etc.) without asserting
that either side is correct. The case for the validity of divination
is presented in the first book and then crushed in the second (in
which Cicero himself is the main speaker). While Cicero explicitly
says that he reserves judgment, it is hard to conclude that Cicero
approved of divination, which he saw as drawing on superstition rather
than religion. Religion was useful because it helped to control human
behavior and could be used as a tool for public policy; and in this
context divination could be useful too (as when an unwise political
decision was prevented by the announcement that the omens were
unfavorable).
o. On Fate
The text is fragmented. The topic discussed is whether or not human
beings can be said to have free will, so much of the book deals with
theories of causation and the meaning of truth and falsehood. Cicero
apparently rejects the idea that fate determines all our actions and
argues that human beings, to a significant extent, have free will.
p. On Old Age
In this dialogue, we learn that the sufferings of old age do not
affect everyone equally but in fact are dependent on character; old
men of good character continue to enjoy life, though in different ways
than in their youth, while men of bad character have new miseries
added to their previous ones. Nothing is more natural than to age and
die, and if we are to live in accordance with nature (a Stoic
teaching) we should face death calmly. If one has lived well, there
are many pleasant memories to enjoy, as well as prestige and the
intellectual pleasures that are highest of all.
q. On Friendship
This dialogue describes the nature of true friendship, which is
possible only between good men, who are virtuous and follow nature.
This friendship is based on virtue, and while it offers material
advantages it does not aim at them or even seek them. The dialogue
goes on to describe the bonds of friendship among lesser men, which
are stronger the more closely they are related but which exist even in
more distant relationships. The conclusion is reached that all human
beings are bonded together, along with the gods, in a community made
up of the cosmos as a whole and based on shared reason. There is,
however, awareness of the fact that in the real world friendship can
be a difficult thing to maintain due to political pressures and
adversity. It also includes the assertion that Cato was better than
Socrates because he is praised for deeds, not words, which is perhaps
the center of Cicero's personal philosophy (recall that he only wrote
about philosophy, rhetoric and so on when political participation was
denied to him by force), as well as the claim that love is not
compatible with fear – a claim that Machiavelli found significant
enough to explicitly reject in The Prince.
r. Topics
A toolkit for orators on the science of argument, touching on the law,
rhetoric, and philosophy, and setting out the various kinds of
arguments available to the orator, rules of logic, and the kinds of
questions he may find himself facing. It has similarities to
Aristotle's Topics and part of his Rhetoric.
s. On Duties
Written in the form of a letter to his son Marcus, then in his late
teens and studying philosophy in Athens (though, we can gather from
the letters, not studying it all that seriously), but intended from
the start to reach a wider audience. Cicero addresses the topic of
duty (including both the final purpose of life, which defines our
duties, and the way in which duties should be performed), and says
that he will follow the Stoics in this area, but only as his judgment
requires. More explicitly, the letter discusses how to determine what
is honorable, and which of two honorable things is more honorable; how
to determine what is expedient and how to judge between two expedient
things; and what to do when the honorable and the expedient seem to
conflict. Cicero asserts that they can only seem to conflict; in
reality they never do, and if they seem to it simply shows that we do
not understand the situation properly. The honorable action is the
expedient and vice-versa. The bonds among all human beings are
described, and young Marcus is urged to follow nature and wisdom,
along with whatever political activity might still be possible, rather
than seeking pleasure and indolence. On Duties, written at the end of
Cicero's life, in his own name, for the use of his son, pulls together
a wide range of material, and is probably the best starting place for
someone wanting to get acquainted with Cicero's philosophic works.
8. Further reading on Cicero's life
Plutarch's "Life of Cicero" is the source of much of our knowledge of
Cicero's life. It should be kept in mind that Plutarch is writing a
century after Cicero's death and has no firsthand knowledge of the
events he describes. He also writes to offer moral lessons, rather
than simply record events. The Roman historian Sallust's Conspiracy of
Catiline offers a description of that conspiracy, written twenty years
after it took place, which fails to give Cicero the same degree of
importance he gave himself. Both of these texts are available online
and in inexpensive Penguin editions. D.R. Shackleton Bailey, Cicero,
incorporates many of Cicero's own letters in describing Cicero and the
events of his life; the reader gets a firsthand look at events and a
taste of Cicero's enjoyable prose style through these letters. Manfred
Fuhrmann, Cicero and the Roman Republic, uses the same approach and
also includes material from speeches and the philosophical writings.
Christian Habicht, Cicero the Politician, is a short (99 pages of
text) history of Cicero's life and times. Its brevity makes it a
useful starting point and overview. Even shorter (84 pages of text) is
Thomas Wiedemann, Cicero and the End of the Roman Republic. Weidemann
even finds room for photographs and drawings, which makes this book
perhaps too short. R.E. Smith, Cicero the Statesman, focuses on the
period from 71 BC-43 BC, which is the most active part of Cicero's
life. He gives a very clear exposition of Roman politics as well as
Cicero's part in it. Thomas Mitchell's two volumes, Cicero, the
Ascending Years (which covers Cicero's life up to the end of his
consulship) and Cicero the Senior Statesman (which covers the years
from the end of his consulship to his death), in his words, aim to
"provide a detailed and fully documented account of Cicero's political
life that combines the story of his career with a comprehensive
discussion of the political ideas and events that helped shape it." He
succeeds admirably. There are also available a large number of general
histories of the Roman Republic and empire which the reader is
encouraged to explore.
9. Further reading on Cicero's philosophy
a. Texts by Cicero
The standard versions of Cicero's writings in English are still the
Loeb editions of the Harvard University Press. They include the Latin
text on the left hand pages and the English translation on the right
hand pages, which is obviously of particular use to one who knows or
is learning Latin. There are Loeb editions of all of Cicero's
speeches, letters, and philosophical writings known to exist, and they
were the main sources for this article. The Perseus Project includes
Cicero's writings in its online archives. The series of Cambridge
Texts in the History of Political Thought has recently added editions
of On the Commonwealth and On the Laws (in one volume, edited by James
E.G. Zetzel) and On Duties (edited by M.T. Griffin and E.M. Atkins).
These volumes include the Cambridge series' usual excellent
introductions and background material and were also helpful in
preparing this article. The Oxford World's Classics series has
recently released a new translation of On the Commonwealth and On the
Laws (edited by Jonathan Powell and Niall Rudd); while its
supplemental material is not as thorough as that of the Cambridge
edition, it is still worth reading.
b. Texts by Cicero
Perhaps the best starting point is Neal Wood, Cicero's Social and
Political Thought. It includes chapters on Cicero's life and times and
then discusses Cicero's thought in a number of areas (for example
there are chapters entitled "The Idea of the State" and "The Art of
Politics"); admittedly its focus de-emphasizes Cicero's thought on
religion, oratorical theory, and so on. A wider range of essays, which
can best be appreciated after reading Cicero's texts, can be found in
J.G.F. Powell, editor, Cicero the Philosopher: Twelve Papers. Andrew
R. Dyck, A Commentary on Cicero, De Officiis (On Duty), is exactly
what it says; it is massive (654 pages), detailed, relies on the
reader's knowing Latin, and is of interest almost exclusively to the
specialist. Paul MacKendrick, The Philosophical Books of Cicero,
offers detailed summaries of each of Cicero's philosophical writings,
as well as brief discussions which include the issue of Cicero's
sources and originality for each text (Cicero is defended against the
charges of unoriginality commonly made against him). It was extremely
helpful in the preparation of this article. The final two chapters, as
mentioned above, trace Cicero's influence down through the centuries
and conclude with the observation that "Americans, though denied by
their educational system a widespread knowledge of the classics in the
original, share with Cicero a sturdy set of ethical values, which it
is to be hoped they will, in true Ciceronian fashion, still cleave to
in time of crisis."
No comments:
Post a Comment