Cicero [Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy]
Cicero (c. 106-43 B.C.)
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
2. Cicero's influence
3. Cicero's thought
4. Cicero and the Academic Skeptics
5. Cicero and Stoicism and Peripateticism
6. Cicero and Epicureanism
7. Cicero's writings
a. On Invention
b. On the Orator
c. On the Republic
d. On the Laws
e. Brutus
f. Stoic Paradoxes
g. The Orator
h. Consolation
i. Hortensius
j. Academics
k. On Ends
l. Tusculan Disputations
m. On the Nature of the Gods
n. On Divination
o. On Fate
p. On Old Age
q. On Friendship
r. Topics
s. On Duties
8. Further reading on Cicero's life
9. Further reading on Cicero's philosophy
a. Texts by Cicero
b. Texts about Cicero
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.
Back to Table of Contents
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.
Back to Table of Contents
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.
Back to Table of Contents
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.
Back to Table of Contents
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.
Back to Table of Contents
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, |
|
