704. De Legibus Book 1

Garden in House of Loreius Tiburtinus or D. Octavius Quartio

704.  De Legibus Book 1 by Cicero.  Atticus admires an oak near by.  The observation produces a mini-discussion about permanence.  What has more permanence an object or a thought or an idea?  What if a thought is applied to an object?  Does the object ever depart?  Cicero takes an odd turn here and suggests that reality is a slippery slope.  I wondered as I read, if this was designed to get the thinker/reader to contemplate matters from a different perspective in preparation for the coming topic. History is then brought up as they walk and Atticus asks Cicero to write a history and then Atticus, Cicero and Quintus discuss what period he should cover.  

Subjects flow from one to the next.  I wonder if this was offered not only as a means to bring on the topic at hand but also to give a method for discussion. Romans or at least Cicero and his friends enjoyed a wide range of topics.

The topic selected is the origin of law, that is Law with a big L.  

Cicero makes the assertion that all nature is ruled by divine power, nature, reason of the gods.  To this all agree.  For any one disturbed by this, I ask them to ponder for a moment if a discussion can ever begin unless a premise is accepted.

There are comments about the beauty of birds and water. 

Cicero seems to equate Nature= God, God = Nature.  Reminds me of Pliny the Elder (Natura deus est).  Cicero goes on- it has not been chance that so much has been provided for humans, as in seeds, animals, soil, climate.  Countless skills have been derived from nature- our tools for these are the five senses and the shape of our bodies.  The eyes and faces of a human provide keen insight into a person- not so with animals.  Nature helps to perfect reason. This reason is personal ( i.e. I can think) but only has value in terms of others.

Virgil in the Georgics, Book 1, gives nice examples of this ability of Nature to teach skills when he says (lines 121-135)

The Father himself scarcely desired the path of farming to be easy, and first through skill works the fields, sharpening mortal hearts with problems, nor having permitted his kingdoms to be motionless and sluggish with heavy drowsiness.   Before Jupiter no farmers mastered the fields: it was not even possible to mark or divide up the fields with boundaries…. Jupiter gave poisonous venom to black serpents, he ordered wolves to plunder and the sea to be moved with storms, he shook honey from the leaves, and removed fire from easy access and restrained the wine once flowing in streams, in order that he might squeeze out various skills  by meditating practices and uses little by little, to seek weeds in the furrows of grain, to strike out hidden flame in the veins of flint.

Note that the modern view of natural human nastiness is absent.  I suggest that modern thought has been heavily influenced by Christianity's concept of original sin.

Cicero continues- we were born to seek justice.  Humans differ in kind but not degree, differ in educational background but equal in that fact that all humans learn.  Humans are similar in good and evil tendencies but Cicero insists that even the bad things have the appearance of being good which is why these are sometimes mistakenly sought. It makes sense then that knowledge is what makes us better.  Knowledge of Nature.

It is interesting that Cicero defines and quantifies humans in terms of the mind- not legs, arms, feet, appearance.

We have been made by nature to share justice- we talk, write, listen, look, observe and embrace life in terms of others.

Cicero comments that one of the most dangerous assertions was to separate utility from justice- from this springs much mischief. He uses friendship as an example- if the smallest thing comes between two people, there is no friendship.  If justice fights with utility, justice will only prevail when it is useful.

Atticus summarizes the argument:

1.  Humans have been provided by Gods with special gifts.

2.  One guide exists by which humans live together.

3.  People are bound together by a certain fondness and kindness.

4.  That all people are bound together in an association of justice.

What is the point of the above?  That law/justice cannot be separated from Nature.  To do that is to deny that humans are part of nature.

Cicero has combined with his style Stoic logic as a basis.  My guess is because Stoic logic creates a very tight argument. He suggests to which Atticus makes a joke, that he, Cicero, is just following the rules.

Atticus wonders if Cicero, who was known for his willingness to take on difficult arguments in Senatorial debate, if he, Cicero, felt obliged to follow someone else's rules.  Cicero laughs and replies that he hopes to seeks approval from those who think that what is right and honorable is worth seeking for its own sake, not for the sake of something else.  

He has no interest in those who take pleasure as the guiding light.  The reason is that every virtue, justice included, is sought for something else- pleasure or a release from pain or potential pain.  Cicero points out that under this system only fear of punishment keeps people from doing harm- this he says is a good example of how important the principles of Nature are.

Cicero spends a great deal of time refuting Epicureanism.  It must have been, as it is now, very prevalent and pervasive. 

Only law, as in the common sense of the word, combined with force will keep people from doing harm.  If such a person does do the right thing it is only to avoid trouble.  Cicero must have been something in debate- he goes on:  So is every law which is passed just and proper just because it was passed? Cicero says no.  There is only one principle by which a law can be judged.  A law is a true Law which is right reason applied to command and prohibition.  This is what is meant by living in harmony with Nature- the nature of the universe and human nature and life.  The kind of Law which Cicero discusses exists whether someone is aware or not.

For Cicero points out that if justice does not exist in nature there is no justice at all.  Because then it would only exist by the whim of people and only when it suited their purpose.  To put it another way- if justice rests on utility then utility will destroy justice out of interest in its own utility.

Cicero is clearly looking for a rock upon which justice can stand- that rock is Nature.

The foundation of justice is the tendency of humans to love other humans.  But if a human is the measure of all things, then utility must be the new God.  So Cicero issues a challenge, if justice is not based upon Nature, then just exactly is the rock of justice?  But if justice is derived from Nature, then we have a standard by which to judge laws.  So what criteria do we use to judge a law?  Answer:  Is it contrary to Nature?

So, I do not think that Cicero is talking about judging a traffic stop sign.  

He gives an example.  The proper excellence of a tree is found in Nature, it is not found in personal judgement or a vote of the crowd.

It is important to understand that Cicero thinks this way to a degree because Romans did not view humans as an intrusion upon nature but part of nature.

A good is viewed as worthy of praise in and of itself by nature, not by opinion.  (For Cicero emotion is largely dangerous, for only by study and mental discipline can someone rise to a higher level than simple emotion and learn to know the true self.

The wide variety of opinion on this matter makes it very confusing.  In addition the senses are not perverted but the mind can be.  Cicero separates the mind from that which perceives things.  That is why his definition of human has everything to do with the mind/intellect.

The sense of smell, the ability, is not perverted by  a parent; the same with sight, touch etc. But our minds can be by the counterfeit of good which is pleasure.  The only defense our minds have is the ability to reason, observe and live in harmony with Nature.

If someone does something nice without anticipation of reward, then it is disinterested; if it is done with the anticipation of reward, it is hired.  Something is good and in accordance with Nature if it is sought for its own sake and not for something else.  The same is true for justice and all other virtues.  If this is not true, then people will act decent only in order to acquire a good reputation. There will be no standard for judgement, if any action is not evaluated by Nature.  So if virtue is sought for any other purpose there must be something better- what would that be?

Then there is a discussion about Zeno and the Old Academy, Quintus brings the discussion back to the one at hand.

Cicero states Law's purpose:  

1.  to correct vice

2.   a system of living may be lead from it.

3.  it encourages virtue

In Cicero's opinion wisdom is God's greatest gift to humans because the most difficult thing in life is to know oneself.

Some understanding of a power beyond ourselves is essential for the realization that we have an obligation to be good people. By obtaining knowledge and the acquisition of virtues, all those material wants, fears and such will be viewed in terms of a true understanding of true religion and worship.  This is accomplished by study and observation of the sky, land, sea and the nature of all things.  Cicero combines religion, science and the study of Nature as the means we have to grasp wisdom.

What to study to acquire these?  To learn from where things have been derived, where they will go, when/how they will perish, then the mind will see what is everlasting, what is perishable, what is eternal and divine, and the mind will grasp almost the very thing (ipsum) guiding these things and regulating them.  When the mind realizes that it is not bordered by the physical world but through these studies the mind will realize that it is permitted to go further and then lift itself above the material world and see what is truly valuable.

The mind will develop skills of argument and persuasion to protect, promote and develop laws and record for all to read the achievements of the wise and disgrace of the evil.

A DINING PARABLE

 A DINING PARABLE

Long ago a Roman politician in Rome during the early empire invited guests from far and distant places.  He so hoped to impress his guests with his class, wealth and power that he hired an agent to organize the affair.  He hoped too to improve his standing with powers that be.  Preparation took on a great deal of time and remarkable expense.

Food was shipped from Greece.  For that province was famous for its cheese.  A specialist arrived from Africa who once made mushrooms taste like chicken. 

 He maintained a garden near the villa which were filled with those items one would associate with diligence and an earthiness.  But the tubers therein would not do from this garden but instead 12 varieties of radishes and turnips and carrots were gathered from farms as distant and diverse as Hispania, Asia Minor and Britannia.  He had heard that these achieved fame due to manner of care and fertilization.  

The meat which was loaned from a pig had been smoked with wood from trees which are said to produce ethereal delight and to provide an air of distinction.  He had even heard that this wood from a distant land would help to nullify the after effects of indulgence.  This wood came from the forests near by Byzantium at the northern end of the Aegean Sea.

A custard was made with eggs and elderberries.  However, special eggs were shipped from distant Gallia.  To please his wife the master of the house served nuts and fruits smothered in honey and sprinkled with a dusting of rosemary.

The wine came from those villas which the master had recently toured the past weeks.  One came from the vineyard which had once belonged to Scipio Africanus who had defeated Hannibal.  The politician looked forward to the moment of decanting the wine for he fancied himself adept at the nuances of wine production and for that matter the history of Scipio.

All of this was to be served by slaves who would meet every need of every guest.  The finest plates, service dishes and ware would be on hand.  Expensive crystal and bronze ware collected from the finest shops in Rome and Alexandria would add sparkle to the setting.

Now read no further beyond the line below and answer the following:

What would be your opinion of this Roman?  Would you view this as extravagance?  The necessities of his office?  An offensive display of wealth and power at the expense of others? Repulsive?

___________________________________________________________________

I suggest that most would consider this an example of ostentatious display for personal sensation, that most would find this disgusting and representative behavior of those greedy and wallowing-in-wealth Romans. 

I fabricated the entire scenario above.  I simply made it up.

In reality the vast majority of Romans were mostly vegetarian.  Their main foods were nuts, vegetables such as cabbage, peppers, turnips, radishes, cauliflower, lettuce, carrots, wheat, barley, oats, legumes, figs, dates and apples and pears.  They did have meat, usually pork.  But meat was by and large reserved for religious celebrations and those sacrifices associated with it.  They also consumed cheese, numerous herbs and honey for flavoring.  

Truth to tell they were not impressed with extravagant dinners.  They passed laws against serving exotic and certain expensive foods.  The existence of these laws makes it clear that some very wealthy Romans did dine high off of the hog so to speak.  But it is interesting that it was frowned upon by the public and the practice of extravagance was often used in court cases  to weaken someone's testimony.  In other words no Roman publicly stood up and said:  I live an extravagant life style and eat the rarest and most expensive of foods. 

If one looks carefully at the photograph, the Romans preferred to eat out side and most settings, even among the well to do, were mild. 

So what was my inspiration for this?  I record the article I recently read (February, 2014) which covered the costs and service and dishes provided for a banquet at the White House:

Highlighting food from across the country, menu items include a first course of American Osetra Caviar from Illinois, quail eggs from Pennsylvania and 12 varieties of potatoes from farms in New York, Idaho and California. For the salad course, the White House details a Winter Garden Salad that “pays tribute to The First Lady’s White House Kitchen Garden.”

The main course is a dry-aged rib eye beef from a family-owned farm in Colorado that will be served with Jasper Hill Farm Blue Cheese crisp from Vermont.

Finishing the meal are a selection of sweets. There will be a chocolate malted cake that combines bittersweet chocolate from Hawaii and tangerines from Florida and will be served with vanilla ice cream from Pennsylvania. Additionally, the menu boasts fudge made from Vermont maple syrup, lavender shortbread cookies and cotton candy dusted with orange zest.

A selection of wines priced between $30 to $65 will be offered from California, Washington and Monticello, Va. (reported by CBS)

It matters little who is in the White House when it comes to such things.  In other words it is not a Democrat thing or a Republican thing.  It seems to be whoever occupies the White House. I rarely detect a sense of thanks or humbleness.  This practice has become common for a lengthy time.  What practice?  

Expensive meals, high calorie, food items shipped from all over at great expense appear to be the main fare.  12 varieties of potato?  Quail eggs?  

I do not suggest that the President hand out paper plates but I would suggest that he or she should make it clear that he or she indeed comes from the people. And that a degree of frugality is evident in terms of our money.

701. In Vatinium

701.  In Vatinium.  A speech Cicero gave on February 10, 56 B.C.  against Vatinius who was serving as a witness against Cicero's client, Publius Sestius.  Cicero owed Sestius a great deal in two different periods of his life.  One during Cicero's consulship Sestius helped to defeat and outwit Catiline.  And then later during Cicero's exile he was very helpful and kind to Cicero during his exile when he was in Thessalonika, Greece.

But this speech is mostly directed against Vatinius during that period when he was Tribune in 59 B.C.  During that time Vatinius used violence to help push through Caesar's legislative agenda.  He used force to prevent Consul Bibulus from blocking Caesdar's proposed laws.  He announced and carried through his plans to ignore auspice and obnuntiatio.  He threw aside safe guards which had been in place for extensive periods. He attempted to arrest a consul who opposed his business.  His actions brought so much danger to a consul that that consul could not leave his house.

Auspicia needs to be explained.  Elected officials had the right to declare that they were observing the skies for signs from the gods.  By doing so it meant that an assembly could not be held nor could a bill be proposed.  It may sound very odd to someone in modern times.  But it is very important to keep in mind that for a very long time this was viewed as a means for an elected official to block something which was thought to be contrary to the interests of the Republic.  It could be frustrating for a politician trying to get something done but by the same token it meant that a politician had to work with others in a very intense way.  It was a safe guard which had served the Republic very well.  When Cicero passed his bill into law, he followed all of the rules, worked with those he should to make sure the bill became law.

The Law which set up these procedures was the Lex Aelia Fufia.  It appears that this law was ignored for the first time by Vatinius.  The next year Clodius challenged the law and it seems suspended it for purposes of being able to exile Cicero.  Since no one would be able to "watch the skies" in order to stop proceedings and save Cicero.

His methods continued the next year when he helped Clodius bring about Cicero's exile.

Cicero's main point is that the Tribunate of Vatinius sums up what is wrong with the Republic:  people who consider their agenda more important than those rules and standards which give protection to all, who consider their agenda more important than proper give and take which exists in a Republic, who think their personal goals in their particular case over ride tradition and respect for authority or the needs and interests of anyone else.

In the course of dealing with this Cicero replied to Vatinius' comment that he, Cicero, acted tyrannically in handling the Catilinarian crisis.  Cicero's primary response is that he followed the will of the Senate and worked for agreement on how to solve the problem.  Vatinius did neither.

It may not be very elegant at this point to say that this speech was actually aimed at Caesar.  Caesar was the one whose laws were at stake.  His methods were ones of violence and the best one could say is that he looked the other way during Vatinius' excesses. Ambition and Cicero suggests blind ambition drove him to seek methods which were largely for his benefit at the expense of any ideas that anyone else had.   It is a damning view of Caesar.  It also took guts for Caesar was no trifle.

It just may be that Cicero was gambling that he felt that there was a rift in the Triumvirate, between Pompey and Crassus (heated words had been exchanged) and that Cicero could use this speech to sever Pompey's connection with Caesar.  It did not work but it shows how Cicero was capable of looking way down the road in order to bring a plan together.  His brain was always turning.

I often think that Cicero in a way can be viewed asRobert E.Lee can be viewed.  When one looks at Lees photographs and views how his soldiers felt about him and the way he commanded it is very easy to forget how driven he was and how fierce.  The same is true for Cicero his portraits show an intellectual fellow with a kindness and charm which belies the incredible ambition and drive which lay beneath.