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:
- Natural Law (ius naturale)
- laws which ought to be (ius gentium)
- 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.
