694. A Place for the Respublica in Cicero's Theory of Natural Law
(This needs work- these are only thoughts)
This was pure pleasure to read. Quality work from first to last.
I have a few things you may wish to think about. These are merely suggestions for thought.
Striker's definition of Natural Law is a good one. But too technical. It misses the point that natural law as Cicero (and others) conceived it was grounded in extensive and acute observation of people; people in very different cultures, speaking different languages. In my humble opinion this gave the Romans an immense advantage over Greeks.
I have thought a great deal through the years about Cicero and his death. I am not so sure that it was inglorious so much as a tragedy on a major scale. His letters back this up. Most people read his letters and see the times when he was weak or indecisive. That is, of course, because we have personal notes he wrote to a friend who also often did not know what to do (as is true of any of us at moments in our lives in far less dangerous situations). But if someone is willing, his letters reveal a person very determined, dogged in pursuit of what he viewed as right. He is focused and his analysis of people is very accurate. I think many times that scholars tend to view people as bugs under a glass- objects to be observed (a theory of mine). This leads, if one is not very careful, to arrogance.
I think that it is important to keep in mind that it was not easy to adapt Greek concepts to Roman way of life. Not because there was anything wrong with Romans but because in his mind there were two sets of Greeks- those in his own lifetime who were weak and whinny and often expected another power to solve their problems. And then complain about it. The other Greeks are those from the past whom Cicero admired for their tenacity and pursuit.
In modern times here in the USA and in observations of ancient Rome there is often much to be made of social and political tension. One author I admire is Erich Gruen- The Last Generation of the Roman Republic. I do not agree with all that he says BUT he makes a strong side case that the Republic was designed to channel political tension toward something beneficial to society. I learned from him that the purpose of government is not necessarily to prevent tension but accept it as a reality and develop ways to direct it for good. 400 plus years is not a bad record.
I had a Roman Law course once at Un of Michigan taught by Bruce Frier. I learned many things from him but perhaps the most important was this- the Romans seemed to have figured out that pure reason and consistency in law does not lead to justice. Frier pointed out that Romans seemed to understand that pure logic and strict consistency would not arrive at justice. They were willing to live with an inconsistency because it was the only way to approach justice. Life the Romans learned is too varied and complex for purity. Romans realized that humans are not always rational and for good reason- we are humans. It is part of the package. So your distinction between ratio and concilium is wonderful. Ratio- inborn capacity, consilium- product of nature and experience. Awesome!!!! Romans realized that theory alone is not enough, in fact dangerous.
Zetzel's assertion (and he/she is not alone) that the De Legibus is unsatisfactory miss something. In the beginning of book one there is the passage where they walk and talk along the stream, see the oak, etc. It is clear that all are watching the water pass by. This passage is very important to understand the rest of book one. But I fear that most scholars see the charm, the beauty and sounds of the words and little more. Often I have found that where Cicero is charming that there is more to it. (also another subject)
Cicero's and others' idea that Law, Natural Law, is something eternal. That it does not exist because a people enacted it but because it exists independent of human awareness. I think that you wisely quote "Cato" in saying that Roman law was the result of many legal scholars working on it for decades/centuries. As you also wisely point out elsewhere- Cicero realized that one person could not put this all together. I would bet my best winter boots that he new that there would never be an achievement of this goal but only an approximation -which means it is an ever going ordeal.
I admire too your struggle to connect Natural Law with the Roman state. I think you drove the nail in firmly. In addition I suggest that in De Legibus Cicero was giving a moral and logical argument for Natural Law. He grounds it in our connection with divinity- that shared reason. But I think that in De Officiis he was using argument to grounding our natural rights in the real world, the one we live and walk in- this he grounded in the ownership of property. Property ownership is the physical right we have to preserve the moral right of natural law. (also another subject)
I also admire the places where you demonstrate Cicero's modesty. I remember I grew very weary of profs dragging out that old whine against Cicero. His modesty is missed by those who interpret the whole Cicero based only on his political persona. You make it so clear that there is so much more to Cicero. He is a far more complex person than many scholars recognize. I think that there are reason for this- but another time.
I think too that it is sad that more people do not agree with Cicero that a knowledge of history is crucial to make advancements. I see serious deterioration here. Not in you but in our own education system- which makes people like you all that more important.
As an aside- I think that the modern difficulty with treating Cicero as worthy of serious study for thought is grounded in a movement which began in the 1830/40s that Greeks were more sophisticated, Greeks thought more deeply, that Greek culture was superior to Roman simplicity and that the language of Greek was superior to Latin. I have also noticed this in interpretation of Roman sculpture and architecture. (Also another subject).
I appreciate your sense of despair Cicero had for the Republic. A fair reading of his letters would reveal this- THAT has been made a little more difficult by Bailey's translations which must be read with care and sometimes doubt. It is essential to read his letters with the compassion of a fellow human being. A real person- not just a bug under a glass.
Dyck's observation concerning Cicero's decision to join Pompey is well taken- this is made clear in his letters (Cicero's letters) that obligation for past kindness made it imperative.
Again, this is wonderful.
No comments:
Post a Comment