Marcus Tullius Cicero was born on
January 3, 106 BC and was 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
Table of Contents
(Clicking on the links below will take you to those parts of
this article)
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. 1. 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."
|
