785. Cicero on Politics and the Limits of Reason by Jed Atkins

785.  Cicero on Politics and the Limits of Reason by Jed Atkins.  

The author’s argument is that the De Republica and De Legibus of Cicero borrow ideas from Plato and the Stoics and others but changes them to Roman acceptability, but in the end rises to a different level which makes these works gems for all time and places.

Reason to Cicero meant a way to understand the proper way to live and how humans fit into the universe of life, to unite humans and determine the kind of political life for society.  Reason is divine but humans are imperfect- this impacts the nature of political society.

So this book analyzes these two works by Cicero but is not a survey of Cicero’s political views.

Cicero developed a science of politics, this is viewed from a level beyond the physical world.  His science of politics combines the ideal with what is possible.  People are not perfect, thus there is a need for an aristocratic element, monarchic and democratic.  The manipulation of these must be from the perspective that no one knows what history will bring, for life can be unpredictable.  Thus the four virtues are needed for leadership to maintain a balance in a changing world.

Atkins argues that Cicero kept himself out of De Re Publica to allow the reader to think things through for themselves instead of being told by Cicero what to think.  The style of the dialog is guided by a desire NOT to dictate what people should think.  In fact the manner of approach is to encourage discourse, discussion and study.  But in the De Legibus Cicero puts himself in the dialog, perhaps to bring an aspect of the De Re Publica into current times or the reality of a living government.

Atkins remarks that Cicero began De Re Publica after Caesar, Pompey, Crassus met at Luca in 56 B.C.  That is an interesting remark.

Cicero views practical experience as essential for political knowledge and thus places this above philosophy which “dismisses political activity as unworthy of the philosopher.”  At the same time he is careful to argue that political philosophy is of value for the practical politician.  Cicero makes the case that political philosophy allows a politician to see underlying causes and thus have a better grip on how to deal with fluctuations.

Cicero handles the participants in such a way that each contributes an aspect or idea so that the reader may in a sense participate in the growth of the discussion.

It seems to me that by giving good arguments to each member of the dialog and by letting each dispute each other and even contradict themselves, Cicero exemplifies in this way the Roman idea that private law, for example, is so valuable and possesses the quality it has because it is the work of so many over many years.  

Scenes such as that of the Dream may have had the purpose to cause the reader to go back, re-read and think.

Cicero argues that somehow even though the interests of philosophy are hostile to politics and vice versa the two must be combined if one ever hopes to grasp “the principles of civic affairs.”

Tubero’s and Scipio’s discussion bring astronomy to bear on the study of politics.  Scipio observes that astronomy can predict cycles and movement.  Perhaps the changes of a constitution can be predicted and guided.  Thus Cicero combines science and constitutional studies.  Thus the ideal state is viewed as perhaps impossible but useful as a model to create a state approximate to the ideal.  The Roman Republic contains contradictions, confusion, disorder and adjustments.  All politics does not have reason at the helm.  There are limits to reason.

Looming in the background to all this are the works of Plato, Stoics and others.  Cicero deftly uses these for his own purposes.

The Dream has two aspects:  the cosmos with its ideal, divine and rational and the Earth with non-ideal, human and irrational.  Both are combined in the Dream and both are used to “search for a scientific account of politics.”

By knowing the ideal a statesman may better direct the course of his country amidst the irrationality and unpredictability of politics.

Scipio defends the idea of in possession of the ideal but it is clear that with reason alone this system cannot adapt to the vicissitudes of politics.  To use the ideal wisely a statesman must bring one’s soul into harmony with nature’s ideal.  And then as best as possible bring fellow people as close as possible to that ideal.  This must be done with people who rarely follow reason.

The Dream reveals the limits of reason as it puts on display the “rational cosmic order.”  Thus a Roman politician’s code of honor, for example, glory, a study of the the rational cosmic order will show how meager glory is compared to the order of the universe.  This allows a re-evaluation of glory’s worth in cosmic terms.  Thus a statesman, a true statesman looks upon glory as something different from what other politicians see.  Thus even though Scipio’s grandfather who appears in the dream mentions the possibility of his murder, Scipio is eager to return to his duty.  This is in direct contrast to Plato’s man who reluctantly returns to the cave.

Scipio also rejects Polybius’ idea that humans possess rational self-interest.  Instead he feels that humans are a complex mix of reason and passions.  Thus human nature is unpredictable.

In Cicero’s view when it comes to the constitution power is not enough.  There must be auctoritas.  Auctoritas: reputation, dignity, influence, weight.  It is not something which comes from law but what is the result of getting things done or a demeanor which signals respect with a sense of awe.  The Senate has this.  This helps to produce stability- this is Roman and Roman alone.  So power with authority and liberty- there must be a balance to avoid revolution.  Liberty’s definition was a matter of dispute in Scipio’s time and in Cicero’s and for that matter in the present.  To many people liberty is a numerical equality.  This view is rather simple.  Aristotle felt that liberty without respect for dignity is a perversion of liberty- licentia.  But in the dialog Scipio realized that people must have liberty as it is universally appealing.  Concordia (harmony), caritas (charity), libertas and concilium( assembly) are to be connected to custom and education and tradition- from this citizens are educated and guided.

Atkins makes the argument that Romans possessed rights and the power to use them.  This defense he felt was needed in that in modern times he must battle the repeated assertion that the Romans did not possess rights.  He pretty must smashes that assertion.

Scipio defines res publica:  1.  property of the people

                                             2.  gathering of people in a partnership (societas) with the agreement that law, justice and rights are for common advantage.

This res publica- this property of the people= the liberty to be masters of laws, courts, of war, peace.  This property is emancipated from the power of kings or aristocrats.  If the res publica, Scipio asserts, is the property of the people, then people possess a right to run it.  The res publica represents citizens interests, activities and thus stands for rights.  (My observation-  in the De Officiis Cicero makes much of property rights.  I think that the basis of liberty is owning the res publica and undisputed rights to one’s own property.  Property in Roman private law could only be given up by an owner.  Thus Romans did not endorse eminent domain as we have.)

Consequenbtly a citizen has the right to redress if this societas (partnership) is corrupted.  The history of Rome supports this view of Scipio/Cicero- for as time passed, citizens gained more and more rights to ownership of the Republic.

Scipio argues that the reason for states is a human need, a natural desire to create a society.  Thus the purpose of government is to promote natural desires.  Natural desires are supported by laws and government.  This is the opposite of Plato and Aristotle.  Cicero does not think that people formed societies to supply what they themselves can not provide but to fulfill a need to share thoughts and ideas.

Tubero in De Re Publica questions what is needed to preserve such a state.  Thus Cicero wrote De Legibus.

Cicero in contrast to De Re Publica puts himself as one of the participants in the work on laws.  Cicero felt that the Stranger in Plato’s Laws was actually Plato.  A friend, Sallustius, may have advised him to do so.  So Cicero plays the lawgiver.

Cicero argues for Natural Law but uses elements from Stoics, Platonists and Aristotle to attract a wide audience.  Cicero may well have this idea from the time he spent with Antiochus. So Cicero felt that “all humans are governed by natural rights or justice.”  All humans possess reason, justice has been given to all humans.  There are natural qualities which humans have:  humans are upright, unlike animals (this encourages thinking), senses, facial expression and speech.  Humans are rational, this draws them together.

Atkins points out that Cicero is not dogmatic about these issues.  Cicero is not completely convinced of Natural Law but knows that if progress in argument is to be made, the power of doubt (such as that practiced by Peripatetics) must be dialed down  There is a Natural Law, Cicero feels, but as his understanding of it stands, it may not be fully correct.  But Cicero feels that in essence the Stoics, Platonists and Aristoteleans are in the end in agreement on Natural Law.

Atkins puts out a long discussion on Cicero’s sources.  The essence is this:  Cicero uses what makes the most sense.  (Cicero never seemed the type to fail to see the forest for the trees. )  He uses what make the most sense in light of his understanding of human nature, the limits of reason, the limits of government and in light of what is practical.

In Atkins’ view Cicero demonstrates how the natural, rational, divine and ideally best may purchase authority from the customary, irrational humans.

Conventionalists argue that law is what people say it is.  Thus there is no basis in nature.  This rests on the idea that humans are only motivated by self interest.

But human nature to Cicero is what is common between Gods and humans.  So Cicero looks to the very heart of the essence of what a human is.  He looks to the higher hopes and capacity of humans.  This human nature will produce laws.  These laws may not satisfy the requirements set by Natural Law.  What to do?

So laws to Cicero may be imperfect but these are valid even if said law does not fit perfectly with Natural Law.  Cicero does not think that human law modeled on Natural Law would be permanent- for all depends upon human situations which may arise.

According to Atkins Cicero uses Natural Law to help form constitutional law and religious law, but he does so in terms of society, human nature and society’s desires.  

Cicero’s constitution is characteristic of human life just about everywhere- such as respect for the dead and protection of sacred sites.

Cicero has a tripartite division of law:

1. Natural Law (ius naturale)
2. laws which ought to be (ius gentium)
3. laws actually in place (ius civile)

In the De Legibus, De Re Publica Cicero asks us to think along with the participants to examine, study and question just what can be done to come as close as possible to the ideal state.  He looks at the essence of the realizable state.  He had the good sense to know that there are limits to what reason, human reason, can accomplish.

Cicero examined people to figure out what they are by examining what they hope to be.  Thus he looked at Plato and others to see their hopes but then looked at history to see what humans are and then examine what is possible in light of an ideal.

776. Cicero on Politics and the Limits of Reason, by Jed. W. Atkins.

776.   January 16, 2018.  Cicero on Politics and the Limits of Reason, by Jed. W. Atkins.  Atkins advances the argument that Cicero argues in De Republica and De Legibus that reason and the perfect natural law are the essential weapons for a statesman to have.  But these tools need to be put into play in light of history, the people of a particular nation, their customs and in light of chance circumstances which take place.  He also argues that the De Republica and De Legibus were meant to be taken together.  Atkins asserts that Cicero felt that politics, reform and the goals of perfection must be viewed in terms of the art of what is possible.  Hence the title of the book:  Cicero on Politics and the Limits of Reason.

It is interesting that Atkins feels compelled to deal with the view of a long list of scholars who find it almost impossible to imagine that any Roman, let alone Cicero, could possess the innovative intellect of a Greek.  It has always struck me that Classicists can possess deep seated prejudices just like anyone else.

I would recommend reading Bruce Frier’s, The Rise of the Roman Jurists and Alan Watson’s The Spirit of Roman Law.  These would be of great value in assessing Cicero’s innovative nature and the arguments presented by Jed. W. Atkins.

751. De Natura Deorum II by Cicero

751.  De Natura Deorum II by Cicero.

Quintus Lucilius Balbus presents the Stoic view.  There are four parts:

1. The Gods exist.

2. What the Gods are like.

3. The world is governed by the Gods

4.  The Gods care about humans.

Balbus begins:

A mere look at the sky at objects and it is clear that a power rules over all of this.  And events from history such as Castor and Pollux during the battle of Lake Regulus show the interest which the Gods have in human activity.  How else can we explain premonitions other than some divine presence?  It is true that not all premonitions come true.  But just because a doctor’s skill does not always cure a patient does not mean that the art of medicine does not exist.  Besides all groups have an idea of the existence of Gods inborn in them.

Cleanthes, Stoic, gave four reasons for the notion of Gods in people:

1. There is often foreknowledge of future events.

2.  The bounty of our climate, fertility and abundance.

3.  The powers of Nature- earthquakes, comets, meteors, eruptions, lightning, etc.

4.  The order and beauty of the heavens.

If someone enters the forum, would not the order, plan cause the person to realize that this was due to some guide, director?  Thus no one can view the beauty, complexity and order of the universe as mere chance.

Chrysippus’ argument:  Is there something which humans can not create?  Answer- the universe.  The universe is better than a human.  Is there any better name for this than God?  If there is no God, what is better than a human?  In a human is reason than which nothing is more outstanding, but it is the height of foolishness or even arrogance to think that there is nothing better than a human.  There is something better and that is the universe.  God exists. Is all of the beauty, power of the universe, the sky, land, sea mine and not the abode of God?  Such a person would be viewed as insane.  If someone enters a beautiful home, even if the owner is not there, it is clear that it was not built by mice.  Even though a thick layer of air blunts our intellect, we realize sure enough that there is some mind or intellect of the universe.  If this is not the case, whence came human intelligence?  Whence came the moisture warmth of the body?  Th earthy solidity of the body?  Breath?  One came from the earth, one from moisture, one from heat, one from air.  Our bodies come from the physical world around us.  But whence comes reason, intellect, plan, contemplation, wisdom?  If the universe contains all the material aspects, is not reason and wisdom part of the universe?  Is there anything better than reason and order and wisdom?  It not, it is necessary that these are in that which one grants is the best.

Then there is Zeno’s syllogism:

That which uses reason is better than that which does not use reason.

Nothing is better than the universe.

The universe uses reason.

Cleanthes says that there is a presence of heat which pervades all living things.  Heat is in the earth as evidenced by digging in the winter.  For we see that steam rises.  Water has heat which is why it is a liquid.  (It is interesting that Velleius in his dissertation did not express any wonder at the beauty of nature.) Heat is the essential characteristic of life.  Water contains heat, otherwise it would not be a liquid.  Heat is the cause of the reproductive cycle.  The element of heat holds the universe together.  It has sensation and reason.  Every natural constitution (natura) is complex and interwoven with the other elements and has a ruling principle:

in a human it is intellect, in a beast it is something similar to intellect, i.e. appetite or desire, in plants the ruling principle is in the roots.  Each thing has a supreme ruling principle.  So what is the ruling principle of all nature? (Because Stoics observed that there is more to the universe than material aspects, their thoughts were more inclusive in order to try to explain the sum total.)  The ruling principle of nature is consciousness/self-awareness/sensation, i.e. reason.  The universe is wise.  Nature which keeps all of this together excels in reason, thus the universe is God and all the force of the universe is held together by divine nature.  This heat ( fervor, energy?) is more suitable to effect our senses/consciousness than that heat of our bodies.  This heat is not caused by another but is moved by its own will.  

Plato says that there are two kinds of nature:  one which is moved by another’s force and one moved by its own will.  The self moving is superior to movement caused by another.  It is necessary that the heat is the soul.  From this ti follows that the universe is living.  If humans possess wisdom so must the universe because humans, part of the universe, can not be more than the whole.

If we examine the begun natural constitution and follow this to perfected constitution, we would approach to an understanding of the gods.  We notice in plants that nature looks out for these by providing nourishment and growth.  To the beasts nature supplies more complex appetite which urges them to embrace healthful things and avoid the opposite.  But humans possess reason which allows the appetite to be controlled and used.  There is a fourth step- some people possess right reason which leads to wisdom.  These just seem born with it.  This is an attribute of God.  All things possess potential for perfection.  A vine, if not damaged, tends toward perfection.  A painting possesses a certain completion of perfection.  But this drive is more intense in nature.

Many things are beyond the control of a human or a plant, but nature as a whole relentlessly pushes on.  This force, the tendency of the 4th step to come to pass, nothing is able to stop.  Thus the universe is intelligent and wise.

Nature which encompasses the whole ball of wax must possess what the individual parts possess.  Only the universe is complete in and of itself.

Neque enim est quicquam aliud praeter mundum cui nihil absit quodque undique aptum atque perfectum expletumque sit omnibus suis numeris et partibus.  Scite enim Chrysippus, ut clipei causa involucrum vaginam autem gladii, sic praeter mundum cetera omnia aliorum causa esse generata, ut eas fruges atque fructus quos terra gignit animantium causa, animantes autem hominum, ut equum vehendi causa arandi bovem venandi et custodiendi canem; ipse autem homo ortus est ad mundum contemplandum et imitandum, nullo modo perfectus, sed est quaedam particula perfecti.

And there is not any other thing except the universe to which nothing is absent and which in every way is fitting and perfect and complete in all its parts.  Wisely Chrysippus said that just as a cover has been made for the purpose of a shield, a sheath for that of the sword, thus all other things have been created for something else, except the world, just as produce and fruit which the earth produces has been generated for the sake of animals, animals for the sake of humans, just as the horse for the hauling, the ox for ploughing and the dog for hunting and guarding; the human sprung forth in order to contemplate and imitate the (perfection of ) universe, in no way perfect but there is a certain little part of perfection.

Virtue is the excellence a human is capable of achieving.  It allows a human to possess some small aspect of perfection which the universe has.  Consequently stars are divine because they exist in the fiery sky and are of the same fire as that of the sun.  That which moves of its own will must possess reason and since it is greater that that of which it is a part, it must be divine.

Three things account for Aristotle’s cause of motion:

Nature- an apple falls from a tree

force- someone throws an apple

will- I want to change rooms

But the stars and planets move in a circle.  Aristotle could not imagine a stronger force to cause this, so their movement is voluntary.  These too are Gods.

So what are the qualities of nature.  This requires training the mind to see what the eyes can not see.  This is the reason that some people can not imagine God in any form but that of the human form. Balbus takes issue here with Epicurean view of beauty.  They say that a cylinder is more beautiful than a sphere.  But says Balbus a circle or a sphere contains all aspects of all the other shapes, there are no breaks and no roughness.  But an Epicurean would not know this because geometry is not studied.  All the planets follow a circular path.  These revolutions of the sun and shifts in its position produce night and day, the seasons and all animals and plants.  (It is clear that the Stoics observed the movement of stars and planets and sun and moon.  They knew the significance of the moon to the cycle of life and conceived that this contributes to life.  Thus their interest in astrology.)

The complexity of the movement of planets indicates the presence of reason, plan and intellect.  These must be gods.  It is irrational to deny that rational regularity of the universe, for nothing happens by chance, rashness or error.  In fact there is order, precision (veritas), reason and regularity.  To deny this to me displays an absence of intellect.

Zeno’s definition of nature:

Zeno igitur naturam ita definit ut eam dicat ignem esse artificiosum, ad gigendum progredientem via.

Zeno therefor defines nature thus: he says that nature is an artful fire and by a method going forward (exists) for the purpose of creating.

Just as a seed moves from one stage to the next and becomes from what that seed came, so nature possesses those impulses which apply suitable responses.  Nature is not only artful but a designer.  Nature is foresight and particularly is busy concerning 

1. that the world is as fitting as possible for lasting

2. world needs nothing- it is complete.

3. a source of unsurpassed beauty and all attractiveness.

So gods are not inactive but doing what they do without labor or trouble.  Gods do not consist of blood, bones and body.  There are gods everywhere and this is due to many distinctive features of the gods.  There is a long list: Fides, Ops, Salus, etc.

From science we have tales which have produced so much superstition in lives and humans.  Yet are derived from scientific explanation.  All the common mythological stores are not bunk but can be interpreted as metaphorical explanations of common occurances.

So Balbus spends much time on etymology because Stoics sensed that since language recored in a way the past, this allows insight to the scientific roots which lie at the heart of the words and myths and early stories.  This is the reason they were able to accept and honor a religion which in many ways they considered silly.  This criticism has come up again and again- Epicurus only read his own stuff and mocked any other study and consequently was without acumen, art, literary expertise, charm, attacking everyone else.

Balbus:  all the world is administered, all its parts, and established by divine providence.  This argument consists of three parts:

1. the gods exist ( if the Gods exists then their reason guides it)

2. The world is administered by a plan of the gods for the world and has been created from living rudimentary particles of matter.

3.  There is wonder and admiration of all this matter.

If 1,2,3 are not correct, there must be something greater than God.  But this seems unlikely for God rules nature.  Why?  Because there is overriding evidence of order and the absence of chaos.

To a Stoic, if humans have intellect, virtue, good faith, harmony, these must come from someplace.  This someplace must be the Gods.  The Gods exist.

Nature is administered by the Gods.  Must first define nature.  There are different definitions:

1.  Nature is a force causing motion without reason

2. Nature is a force which possesses reason and order, this nature proceeds with method which is predictable.  No human skill can oppose it.

A seed is an example.  The force in it is so strong that if it should fall into a nature embracing and absorbing and has obtained that which it needs to grow, it will produce another like itself.  Some of these which grow are nourished through their roots, some are able to self move, possess sensation and desires and produce ones like itself.  This shows what is common between plants and animals.

The order of the way of the world makes it clear that nature rules the world.  What have humans made which approaches the quality of nature?

How can we admire the orrery of Archimedes more than the works of nature of which Archimedes and his orrery are a part?  Archimedes required an intellect to create the orrery and the world, the universe is not due to order and intellect?

Those philosophers who were confused and disturbed by the world, upon experimentation it should be evident that rules and order guide everything.  These guides are unchanging and fixed.  There must be a governor.

In the aether (upper air) are the stars.  The main one is the sun which is much larger than the earth.  Even the other stars are beneficial to the earth for if these were closer the earth would burn.  So can anyone say that the world we see and contemplate was produced by random atoms colliding, by chance?

If the world we see is random chance, why doubt that if we loaded letter into a container, infinite letters, and dumped these out that we would have Ennius’ Annales?

The descriptions of the beauty of the world is almost endless- there is harshness, roughness, majesty, power and beauty.

The world is so interwoven and stable that clearly it is designed for permanence, if not permanence, at least for an almost unimaginable amount of time.

Here is the earth, round, all parts inclined toward the middle, the earth surrounded by water doing the same, then the air which tends to move upward but gives necessary air for animals to breath.  This air is enclosed by the aetheria , here the stars round by their own weight and gravity, moving in their own orbits.  Roundness is the most stable and safest form.  The stars are refreshed by vapor from the earth.

When the vapors are depleted, fire will consume the earth.  A new living earth will happen.  Who is not impressed by all this apparently has not bothered to look around.

There is an example of order on the earth- a tree has roots to give stability and drawn nutrients from the soil, the trunk is covered with bark to protect it from the heat and cold.

animantium vero quanta varietas est, quanta ad eam rem vis ut in suo quaeque genere permaneat!

How much variety of living things there is, how much force there is for each in its own kind to remain!

The placement of quaeque shows how awed Balbus is by the tenacity of nature.  (This is a good example why there is so much more to Cicero than a translation.  His use of words is so expressive, so carefully arranged that it is most difficult to render all that he has to say.  Balbus or Cicero would have found the modern principles of DNA very interesting.)

Nature deserve praise for its cleverness, order and manner which allows all species to flourish.  There is a neat example.  There is the bivalve mussel which works with a small shrimp to survive.  The shrimp hangs around the entrance of the open shelves of the mussel.  When a prey enters the area, the shrimp alerts the mussel to the prey, the mussel closes and both dine, while of course the shrimp remains unharmed.

From this it is clear how important a wide range of reading is of value.  This would also include the study of poetry, tragedy, comedy, history, music, art, architecture, etc.  Plus an awe for the world.  This feeling was sadly absent in Velleius’ talk.

So why are we here.  Why are humans upright?  

Sunt enim ex terra homines non ut incolae atque habitatores sed quasi spectatores superarum rerum atque caelestium, quarum spectaculum ad nullum aliud genus animantium pertinet.

Humans exist on earth not in such a way that these are colonists and dwellers but as it were observers of things above and of the heavens, the observation of which pertains to no other kind of animal.

It is difficult to praise the human intellect too much.  But even a swift look at human capacity seems to show that none of this is chance.  Thus all of the above has been created for humans.  Only humans employ reason, live by justice and law.  If only a person contemplates and attempts to understand the universe, surely it exists for humans.  For the universe possesses reason and order and so do humans.

The power of prophesy also proves the presence of divinitiy.  The world is so interconnected and the world alive that it makes sense that a rational being would give warning and advice.

Magna di curant, parva neglegunt.

The Gods care about the important things, and neglect the small..  This is the answer we have to those who point out that crops were destroyed and thus the gods have no care.

For one is rich enough and fortunate enough to whom there are the riches of virtue.

Balbus makes a plea at the end for Cotta to reply but suggests that he use the skill of taking both sides of an issue can be contrary to the respect due to the Gods. 

750. De Natura Deorum I by Cicero

750.  De Natura Deorum I  by Cicero.

This is a most fascinating book.  I can not urge the importance enough of reading this.  Both atheists and devoutly religious people should immerse themselves in these pages.

Cicero begins:

The most obscure and difficult investigation is into that of the nature of the Gods.  This investigation is essential for the acquisition of knowledge and for properly guiding religion.  

Some say that there are Gods, some are not sure and some say that there are none at all.  Besides these views there are many questions at play here:  what part do Gods play in this world?  If Gods have no care for humans, should piety, reverence and religion be given to the Gods?  This poses an even bigger problem.  If piety, reverence and religion are removed, how will the partnership of society, good faith and justice continue?  If Gods do not exist, upon what is good faith or justice based?

There are those who think that the Gods play a direct part in the lives of humans.  Carneades attacked religion so vigorously that this caused many to desire to find the truth.

Many have expressed surprise at the amount of time and effort I have written and published, particularly using a philosophy which calls all held near and dear into question.  Well, I have been interested in philosophy my whole life.  The essence of philosophy pertains to a guide for life.  This is even evident in my speeches, in fact my whole public and private life.

But why so much writing?  With one person in charge of the state, I owed it to my countrymen to reveal philosophy.  

The idea in this work is to avoid saying ”because the master says so.”  (Cicero was very much opposed to dogma.)

I prefer the Academic system of arguing for and against all philosophical systems.  This is more difficult which is the reason it is avoided.  I do not claim success in this approach, but I have tried.  Academics are often accused of denying the existence of truth.  There are truths, but because false concepts are so similar to truths, it is difficult and risky to give assent to any view.  But out of a list of probabilities some present a stronger argument.  These I follow.  (Thus for Cicero, learning never ends.)

So in this work, various views will be presented.  If all of these different systems agree, then the Academics will look foolish, indeed.  However, the reader will find a wide disagreement.  This should give pause to anyone who thinks that they have it all figured out.

(Cicero meets C. Aurelius Cotta at Cotta’s house.  He finds there C. Velleius, Q. Lucilius Balbus  discussing in an exhedra in a garden.  Each represent a different system:  Epicurean, Stoic and Academic.  The topic of discussion is the nature of the Gods.

Velleius presents the Epicurean view. He begins:

I will not discuss the silly ideas of those who conceive a builder of the universe or a world endowed with mind.  No one can seriously defend the idea that the physical world is everlasting.

Why did God wait so long to create a world?  Why did He adorn the world?  What pleasure would it bring?  What life is that of God?  Why is part of the earth inhabited and much else is not?

(All concepts of the other philosophical systems are evaluated in terms of corporeal means.  As there are nothing else but objects. He spends much time refuting those philosophical systems which discourage attempts to imagine the shape or appearance of God.)

There are many criticisms of Zeno.  He proposes that the law of nature is divine.  This is in charge of directing people to right behavior and preventing the opposite.  How can law be alive?  We want God to be a living being.  (Why?  What advantage does Epicurus gain from this line of thinking?)  In another place, Zeno says that pure air is God.  This is silly for such a God could never be present before us.  In other books Zeno says reason is divine.  He says that stars, months, seasons are divine and that Juno, Jupiter are not Gods.

So what is the Epicurean view of the nature of the Gods?  Gods exist because all people have the concept of God, because this idea is imprinted on the human mind.  Gods exist because of an innate sense of these exists.  All people conceive of Gods with human form but reason also reinforces this.  And no wonder, what could be more beautiful than the human form?  

We perceive God in the mind not by physical perception but a notion of God comes to us via a constant stream of atoms from God to us.

Atoms are infinite, so are the number of Gods.  Infinity is important to Epicureans.  It allows the creation and destruction of mortals, immortals and matter.  Everything is thus in a constant state of flux.

What is the life of the Gods?  Nothing is more blessed nor more abundant in all things.  God does nothing, is not busy and rejoices in virtue and wisdom.  God knows that he will always be with the greatest and eternal pleasures. 

Our God is happy.  The Stoic God is always toiling.  If the world is God, then rest is impossible, since the world constantly spins.  Unless there is rest, there is no blessed existence.

Nos autem beatam vitam in animi securitate et in omnium vacatione munerum ponimus. 

However, we place the good life in the securitate of the mind and in the absence of burdens.

According to Epicurus, nature produced the universe, thus there is no need for a designer nor God creator.  Nature easily produces countless worlds.  There is no need for God creator, when we accept that the universe is infinite.  There is no need for bellows or an anvil.  To Epicurus any alternative requires an all powerful God who interfere in our lives.  This introduces a fatal necessity and introduces the necessity of fate.

At this point Cotta replies with his usual calm to Velleius. He says that Crassus felt that Velleius was very knowledgeable of Epicureanism.  Cotta mentions that Philo suggested he learn of Epicureanism from Zeno (a different Zeno from the one who defended Stoicism).  Philo suggested this because he felt that the best way to learn arguments against Epicureanism are best developed by hearing arguments from its best representative.  But Cotta is upset that someone with Velleius’ ability would fall prey to such a silly system.Cotta prefers not to give his own views but instead refute what others contend.

Cotta:  So does God exist?  There is the story of Simonides.  Hero asked Simonides about this and Simonides asked for a day to think about it.  Then when asked the next day for his answer, he said that he needed two days, then 4, etc.  Hero finally asked what his opinion was.  “Well, Hiero, the more I think about it, the more obscure it becomes.”  But your argument, Velleius, seems weak in places.

You say that God exists.  Fine.  Where are they?  How do they live?  Are they atoms?  Are these atoms all shapes and sizes?  Willy nilly, you say, these produce all that we see?  Where is the truth of Epicureanism?

I grant, says Cotta, that there are little atoms. And that these make up all things.  So how does this help us to seek the nature of the Gods?  If Gods are atoms, they are not eternal.  If atoms once did not exist, neither did the Gods.  So where do you find God, an eternal and happy God?  You say that God has a body, sort of, blood, sort of.  This is a weak argument.  You say that atoms were all falling downward.  Of course this can not explain objects.  So you say that one atom swerved and this caused atoms to bump about and form what we see.

Epicurus rejects dialectic because dialectic states that something is or is not.  But Epicurus rejected this.  How does this apply?  Archesilas said that all sense perceptions were false which were perceived by the senses.  Zeno said that some were false and others not.  Epicurus feared that if one sense perception was wrong, all could be.  Thus Epicurus saw  and others were not.  But Epicurus rejected this.  Epicurus said that all sense perceptions were messengers of truth.  He had to because all there is are atoms.

Thus in the case of the Gods, he avoided these consisting of lumps of atoms which may decay, thus he said that they have bodies, but not bodies and blood but not blood.

It is interesting that Epicurus bragged that he never had a teacher.  This is easy to believe since his arguments are not well constructed.  Epicurus claimed that he was self taught, yet his philosophy is very similar to that of Democritus’.  So explain to me this sort of body/blood thing. If their system is something only you can understand, do you not think it strange that words can not explain your thoughts?

Gods you say have human form because these forms (1) are imprinted on our minds and (2) nothing is more beautiful than the human form and (3) only the human form can have an intellect.  But it makes sense that humans who admire the human form would depict Gods in the human form.  But how is this proof of the nature of the Gods?

So what do Gods look like?  Do any have blemishes?  Is one prettier than another?

Epicurus either knew what he was doing when he spoke in foggy terms about the bodies and blood of the Gods, or he simply failed to express himself very well due to poor ability.  But he surely seems to be clear when he wants to be.  He surely believes in Gods, because he fears death and Gods which oddly he says he fears not at all.  

Cotta points out that since the senses are the road to truth, how can Epicurus believe in God, for no one has ever seen him.  Cotta’s point is that there is more to knowledge that what we can taste, smell, feel, see and hear.

Cotta:  It is incorrect to say that the Gods have human form instead it is people who have the form of the Gods.  For the Gods always existed, these are eternal as you have said.  You claim nothing happened by reason in the nature of things , so how did humans purely by chance with atoms flying about here and there happen to create the human form just like that of the Gods?

So why do Epicureans mock someone who does not view God as with human form?  What if God is such that hands and feet are unnecessary?  Why would Gods need human body parts?

It just seems that the Epicureans have nothing to learn from anyone but their own accepted views.  Thus Epicurus and others mock anyone who disagrees as worthless.

Why would God need limbs?  Why speech?  Why can not the sun be a God or the Earth?

If the Gods are superior to humans in all else, why are we equal in body?  It seems that in virtue we come closer to God than in our human form.  In a way humans look alike but actually with a careful look we are actually quite different from each other.  If Gods look like a human, another may claim that reason can only exist in a human.  There appears to be no argument why God would need limbs, heart, head, neck, etc.  If reason is the common link, none of these are needed.  Epicurus condemns those who observe the wonders of the earth, sky, see heavenly bodies and suspect that some divine nature brought all of this about and guides it.  Maybe this view, divine nature, is wrong, but yours simply says- we have in our minds certain notion of Gods imprinted on our minds.

Your God does nothing.  There are birds which do more than your Gods, when they eat snakes.

Epicurus must love children who think that doing nothing is the end all.  For in this they imitate your concept of God.  Every animal seeks what is suitable to its nature- what do your Gods seek?  For what purpose does he exercise his mind?  How is he happy?  Eternal?

According to your system God has nothing solid, is occupied only in thought- so what difference does it make, if we think of God as a hippocentaur?  If our perception of God is due to constant stream of images are you saying that when I enter a place where someone did something that that image comes to me and that is the reason I can “see” them?  And from this you say that I am to understand that God is eternal and happy?  Because an image occurs to me of some event in the past, this is proof that God is eternal and happy?

(If knowledge of something is personal, how can there be a shared image of the exact same thing?)

So to visualize God as an object, your system fails.  What about happiness?  Can God be happy without virtue?  Nope.  Virtue requires activity and your God does nothing.  What is the life of God?  You say a supply of good things with no evil mixed in.  What good things?  Pleasure?  But pleasure of the mind requires a body.

(Cotta is demonstrating his immense grasp of a system with which he disagrees.)

Cotta:  Epicurus destroys religion for there is not point in worship, for the Gods do not care, do nothing.

You say that images are produced by a constant stream of atoms.  So how then explain objects which do not exist?  Why would people owe piety to the Gods, if Gods do nothing and have no care for our lives?  What would replace the sense of duty and obligation of human to human, if the Gods are meaningless?

Epicurus claims freedom from superstition- yes, but only by making the Gods powerless.  What Epicureans do is destroy superstition by making Gods powerless but this also destroys religious practices. Your argument is that wise people invented the Gods in order to get people to be good.  But what about those people whom reason may not reach?  Do they not need another way to reach goodness- religion?  

Prodicus felt that those things which benefit humans were considered Gods.  What religious practice does Epicureanism leave?

In your view all things are matter.  So what is this object you call God?  If all matter is temporary, how can there be any image of God?

Epicurus grants that the nature of the Gods is best and outstanding, yet denies their favor/service/kindness toward humans.  If God lacks goodness and kindness to humans, then in God there is no love, nor affection for anything.  For example the Stoics believe that all wise people are friends- even though they may not know each other but they know each other via their love of virtue, kindness and good will.  These you classify as weaknesses.  Do you think that humans are kind because they are weak?  Does this natural affection between good people reflect the natural affection of Gods for all things good?

Are we driven by kindness and generosity to associate with each other or is this done by need alone?  If by need alone, we will only be generous or kind only in so far as it would be to our advantage.  The Stoic idea reaches outward to others, Epicureanism reaches to self.  We evaluate fields of a farm by the profit these bring.  But dearness and friendship and love are voluntary.

How can there be a complete understanding of the human experience solely through matter?  Posedonius suggests that Epicurus really did not believe in the Gods at all and only came up with this idea about Gods to avoid criticism.

The huge problem with Epicureanism is this:  there is only one way to the truth.

748. Cicero and the Jurists by Jill Harries

Rostra- from here the voice of liberty once spoke!

748.  Cicero and the Jurists by Jill Harries.  This has been a most interesting book.  I have tried to select the author’s main points:

Legal discussion was not separate from public discourse in ancient Rome as it is in modern times.  As can be learned from Cicero jurists were often Senators and through this they maintained a high profile to compete in Roman politics.  Quintus Mucius Scaevola the Pontifex claimed that bona fides (good faith- the mark of an honest person) was a crucial part of societas (partnership).  He was a stoic and viewed this concept, bona fides, in a philosophical manner and the way people viewed it in society.  Just as a partnership relies on working toward mutual benefit, so partnership (societas) in society  works toward mutual  benefit.  This partnership relies, he felt, on legal consent.  These views of Scaevola, a stoic, influenced Cicero, who, as an avid student of several philosophical systems, connected jurisprudence (the knowledge of the law), philosophy and politics.

Varro and Manilius are used as examples of jurists who led active political lives and published in order to enhance their prestige.  Jurists were not in the Roman Republic professionals as they are in modern times, but were active and interested in a number of other activities.

The Republic gravitated toward avoiding monopoly of knowledge in jurisprudence.  The reason for this is that they had to compete.  Once  pontifices, were in control of knowledge of legal actions allowed.  But Flavius the Scribe published the calendar which contained such information.  This removed control of legal actions from them and made it available to public view.  Thus as time passed jurists came about to study what was known as ius civile, as an end in itself, so in that they lacked political clout and prestige.  This forced them to compete in the political world to enhance their position which jurisprudence on its own could not give.  This did not fully change until the imperial period.  Much of their credibility in terms of legal advice was derived from their position in the state as Praetor or Consul, etc.  

This also helped to create a tradition to give them a basis in history and the workings of government.

Cicero felt qualified to write about Laws, because he was immersed in the Republic, part of which was the law.  De Legibus is the philosophy of law.  Cicero defines law (lex, legis) as something chosen (lego, lectus) because it is just and true.  So he does not examine law through the eyes of a jurist but as a philosopher.  His philosophy of law allowed allowed a denial of laws as law which were contrary to the principles of Natural Law.  

As time passed ius civile was separated from religious law.  There are two aspects to the ius civile: written law and custom. So a case was argued in terms of the written law and and non-legal factors (custom).  The principle of fairness may trump the letter of the law and even someone’s intent (say in a will) , if the intention was not fair.  So the laws of the Republic appear to us chaotic and were written with more flexibility for decisions.

Cicero defines law:  Law is the refined reason, embedded in the  nature of a human which orders what should be done and prohibits the opposite.   (Leg 1.18).  It seems that Cicero carefully and purposefully removes law, the law he is talking about, from the letter of the law so many associate with the word law.

The juristic tradition in Cicero’s time was under attack.  An example can come from Cicero himself.  In his defense of Murena in December of 63 BC, Cicero argued against Servius Sulpicius Rufus, the premier jurist of the day.  As part of his defense, Cicero argued that jurists did not have the necessary status for high office.  In fact after Flavius the Scribe published the legal actions available, jurists were forced to invent jargon to give themselves a purpose and appearance of value (So says Cicero).  It is true that Cicero took the case at the height of the Catilinarian conspiracy and was concerned that if Servius was successful in his prosecution of Murena, the state could be, at a time of crisis, without two consuls in office and in a state of confusion.  So he would need to say what was necessary to win the case.  But he could not say something which meant nothing to his audience or was wacko.  So what he said about jurists meant something to those listening.

In this attempt to make jurists more legitimate, jurists for good reason traced jurists back to the kings of Rome who alone could give answers to legal questions.  The implication was that the same respect was due to jurists.

The survival of jurists’ writings is meager.  What survives has been distorted.  Servius’ efforts survive because of his students.  His works, which themselves do not survive, were quoted.  This has helped to save passages but these are now out of the context in which originally placed.  But what survives of jurists makes it clear that as jurists they needed to be versed in history, antiquarianism and etymology.  As a result their works are sometimes quoted because of a reference to history or antiquarianism or etymology.  These remarks would be made in the context of a discussion of law. 

There is an overlap between jurists and orators on how they approached argument from cases.  De Inventione (Cicero), at times reads as though it is a textbook on law.  Jurists spent most of their time on law based on custom (mos) fairness (aequitas).  But eloquence was required to persuade a jury of the correctness of the jurists views.  To Cicero the foundation of eloquence was a knowledge of history, and this was to used for the good of the community.  For it was, he believed, eloquence which first brought people together to form states.  It was the “tool” which convinced people to leave the savage world and work for the common good of all.  Eloquence was also needed to protect good people from the bad.  Juristic authority relied on custom, popular will and argument.  This authority was challenged by the orator and the people.  Judges were from the upper class, these represented the people and since trials took place in public view, the trial and judges received the impact of the audience.  

Persuasion could convince judges to vote in contradiction to the law.  Thus there was much room for orators to operate.  But the definitions of the jurists could play an important part.  Often the point at issue in a trial required the right question to be asked which would help the decision- this is another overlap between jurists and orators.

The Causa Curiana shows a jurist and orator in battle.  The orator won but used juristic arguments.  The jurists gave responses to questions.  These responses (sometimes recorded and that is how something is known about these guys) were based on real life events, but were stated as a general guide.  As time passed Cicero realized that citations of individual cases needed to be replaced by a system which stated general principles (this push probably came from his deep interest in philosophy which was always seeking the general principles of things).

In Cicero’s De Oratore, Mucius Scaevola argues that a good man, not eloquence, is needed to keep a state healthy.  Crassus responds that an orator trained in history, questions, philosophy is best suited to bring it all together.  And in truth judges did not explain their decisions and thus there was no precedence.  The orator using eloquence to explain and persuade the correctness of a jurist’s response contributed to the development of law and jurisprudence. 

Cicero argues that jurists depend upon elegance for interpreting law and upon philosophy because philosophy concerns the great questions:  how best to live the good life, what is a good man, friendship, etc. Cicero hoped by approaching law this way to make it accessible to ordinary people.  

What about the influence of Topica by Cicero? In this work Cicero makes the case that rhetoric’s system of arrangement influences better understanding of law.

What about precedents?  Previous decisions in court carried auctoritas but were not binding on the next trial.  The judex was not a professional , represented the populus and their view.  Since the Romans saw this as an advantage, they did not want the judge to be fettered by precedence.  Consequently the Romans never developed case law.  However Roman advocates did cite past cases and used these to support their case but these were not binding.  There was precedence in this sense: ius was law based on custom and consent.  This put limits upon what the populus could declare to be law.  The case which is cited concerning this is the defense Cicero gave for a woman from Arretium.

Ius civile and pontificial law were interconnected in that pontificial law had a part in adoptions and augurs from signs from birds, etc.

Cicero in De Domo suo knew in his effort to get his full property back after his exile that the case before the Pontiffs would shape the debate in the Senate.  Thus he had to prove that the Lex Clodia was invalid, i.e. his adoption.

Jurists and Antiquity:  Jurists were not part of the origin of the Roman constitution but as Romans who looked back on the past as guides to the future, particularly during period of upheaval, of the late Republic, put them in the mix in terms of legitimacy.  This is indicated by a strong antiquarian tendency of jurists and their interest in etymology.  And it makes sense that to understand the Twelve Tables or old legal terms, it was necessary to learn the origin of words and their history.

Cicero slowly realized the connection between specialist jurisprudence and his understanding of law in a wider sense as important for the existence of the state.  The ius civile covered actions permitted but it also represented “advantage and life style common to all.”  (Pro Caecina. 70).

An inheritance can be lost and if done contrary to law, the community (not just the person who loses the inheritance) is endangered.  In the Caecina case Cicero contends that court decisions should not diverge from juristic authority.  Because the courts could be wrong and advocates could use forged testimony to get the verdict they desired (for example).  He was arguing to win his case, but this does not mean that he did not see the need for more authority for jurists.

Bound up in this case for Caecina was the possibility that Caecina could lose his reputation- to a degree the loss of reputation was worse than material loss, so honor was important.  Because losing it was due to being wicked.  Thus Catiline and Clodius did not operate in ways respecting Roman law and society (societas= partnership).  To Cicero such people were not citizens.

What about a situation wherein there was no possibility for Cicero to prosecute someone?  Was there a substitute?  In the speech In Pisonem Cicero attacked Piso, the one who stood by while Cicero was exiled.  In fact it appears he made a deal with Clodius to look the other way; in return he received a plum province.  Cicero made a strong case in the Senate to have him recalled from his province.  So why did he not prosecute the guy in court?  Piso’s son in law was Caesar.  Thus Cicero did not want to risk prosecution and failing in court.  So he delivered a blistering attack in the Senate. (Piso was recalled.) 

(So the author gives a new way to look at the speech against Piso.)

Cicero’s speeches of 57- 55 BC present serious thoughts about law and citizens.  His exile caused him to think about such matters in a very new light.  He felt and defended the idea that ius (law) is to a degree based upon community perception. His return from exile was supported by so many from so many areas: Senate, comitia vote, embassies from all over Italy, elected officials that this, he felt, represented the real Republic, not those who master minded his exile through force.  And this showed that Piso was not a true representation of the feeling of the people.

This is why van de Blom 2003 asserts that if Cicero had known ahead of time what would happen in his fight against Antonius, he would have done it anyway.

In Cicero’s view the honorable must be beneficial, the rule of law produces justice.  To do otherwise was/is against nature.  To join honor with the beneficial/expedient was true gloria (reputation).  Thus true gloria is not gained by personal ambition.  So Antonius by using Caesar’s notebooks as his acts subverted law to his own purpose and not to the advantage of the Republic.

In the De Officiis Cicero connects moral value of the Republic with ius civile, the value of fairness, trust, obligation and honor.  Antonius in the Philippic 2 did not recognize those rights expressed in the ius civile.  This marked him as a man outside of societas (partnership):  his thefts, ignoring of the Senate, disregard for law put him in the category of a non-citizen.

(Cicero conceived the Republic in terms of Natural Law- if someone conducts himself in such a way to deny the essence of what it is to be a human then that person does not deserve protection, indeed that person is an enemy.  Those laws of the land which prevent implementation of the natural needs of humans, should be ignored.  To be a human every one needs the freedom to think and say what they feel.)

In Cicero’s De Officiis and De Re Publica societas is a partnership for advantage/benefit, united by self will and ruled by law- that law in turn relied on fides (good faith, character).  This is very similar to Mucius’ concept of societas in the ius civile.

Did Cicero go too far?  In his concept of Natural Law?  He took on Antonius not because he thought he could win but because it was the right thing to do.  He argued for what a Republic ought to be.