Cicero
 
 Cicero, was truly a man of the state. His writings also
show us he was equally a man of philosophical temperament
and affluence. Yet at times these two forces within
clash and contradict with the early stoic teachings.
gradually adopted the stoic lifestyle but not altogether
entirely, and this is somewhat due to the fact of what it
was like to be a roman of the time. The morals of everyday
Rome conflicted with some of the stoic ideals that were set
by early stoicism. Thus, Cicero changed the face of
stoicism by romanizing it; redefining stoicism into the
middle phase. Of Cicero it can be said he possessed a bias
towards roman life and doctrine. For Cicero every answer
lay within Rome itself, from the ideal governing body to
the place of divination. Cicero does not offer any
alternate answers to roman society, which robs him of being
truly a unique and bold political philosopher. This is not
to say however some of his doctrines are untrue, just that
he is somewhat blinded by his roman beliefs and
assumptions. The assumptions of Cicero can be noticed when
one inspects his view of the ideal governing body, which he
expresses through Scipio (in the commonwealth). Although
Cicero presents very convincing arguments for a Composite
government, clearly his view is possibly only due towards
his belief in the roman structure of government.1 Cicero
was limited to roman borders of experience, and this point
was best illustrated by his disagreement with Aristotle's
writings on the decay of states. Cicero was unable to think
on the level of Aristotle's logic. He quite simply used
roman history as a mapping of the paths of the decay of
states. In contrast, Aristotle understood the underlying
forces and influences that transpired when a state
degraded. Cicero quite frankly could not understand the
forces which Aristotle so eloquently denoted. For Cicero,
history offered the only possible paths of outcomes; the
forces and behaviors played little part on the resulting
state.2 A further point of philosophical belief which
Cicero contradicted the stoic lifestyle, is religion. Roman
tradition conflicted greatly with stoic doctrine, and the
two philosophies could never truly harmonize with one
another. This point brought the distinction between the
Greek learned world of intellect, and the traditional
religious roman patronage. This observation literally draws
a line between the two worlds, that of knowledge and reason
opposing that of tradition and sentiment. This illustrated
that roman was truly unable to fully accept a Greek
philosophy based on knowledge and brotherhood, and a great
Roman such as Cicero was similarly unable to accept the
stoic doctrine as a whole.3 The philosophy of stoicism
originated in Greece, and was based on the order of the
universe. Nature to the stoics (universe) was a precisely
ordered cosmos. Stoics taught that there was an order
behind all the evident confusion of the universe. Mans
purpose was to acquire order within the universe;
harmonizing yourself with the universal order. Within this
notion of harmonizing lies wisdom, sin resides with
resisting the natural order (or nature). The stoics also
tell of a rational plan in nature; our role was to live in
accord with this plan. The natural order was filled with
divinity, and all things possess a divine nature. This
natural order was god, and thus the universe was god; the
Greek and roman pathos were simply beliefs forged by
superstition. The stoics also had a great indifference
towards life, in the regard that the natural plan cannot be
changed. This attitude made stoic's recluse from fame, and
opposed to seeking it. One fundamental belief stoics held
was in the universal community of mankind. They held that a
political community is nothing more than its laws' borders,
since the natural laws are universal imposed; a universal
political community existed in which all men share
membership. This interpretation is generally regarded as
the early stoic stage, which had yet to experience little
roman influence. Upon roman adoption, stoicism went through
a romanizing period; an altering of the philosophy to
better integrate into roman mainstram.The ideal state of
Cicero's; " For I hold it desirable, first, that there
should be a dominant and royal element in the commonwealth;
second, that some powers should be granted and assigned to
the influence of the aristocracy; and third, that certain
matters should be reserved to the people for decision and
judgment."4 It is important to note that Cicero loses sight
of the international community which Zeno, Cleanthes and
Chrysippus taught. Cicero tries to link the universal
community of mankind within the borders of roman political
thought. This composite state expressed in Scipio by
Cicero, is an ideal Rome of the past. The Rex, was the
royal element; the senate was the aristocratic influence;
The plebs and patricians became the deciding people. By
giving this blueprint of the ideal society, Cicero
attempted to answer the stoic doctrine of the universal
community of mankind. Cicero addressed the pragmantical
problems faced by the universal community, by giving it
armies, judges and powers; literally giving the community
of mankind the powers it lacked through Rome. But what
makes this attempt unattainable is the notion of Rome; Rome
was a dividing agent. Rome was the polity that divides
people; early stoics understood that tradition and politics
divide people. Brotherhood of man is not the assimilation
of people into Roman mainstream, but in reality the
assimilation of Rome into the universal community. Cicero
does not understand the spirit in which the universal
community of mankind was thought. " It is, indeed, my
judgment, opinion, and conviction that of all forms of
government there is none which for organizing, distribution
of power, and respect for authority is to be compared with
that constitution which our fathers received from their
ancestors and have bequeathed to us...... The roman
commonwealth will be the model; and to it shall apply, if I
can, all that I must say about the perfect state."5
 
Clearly Cicero Identifies the perfect state with Rome, he
suggested that Rome was the closest thing their was to such
an aspiration. The perfect state was the expression and
embodiment of the universal community of mankind, to link
Rome with the ideal state; was to link Rome with the
universal community. The early stoics held that a specific
community was nothing more than its laws borders. Thus,
arises the notion of a universal community, since we are
all under the natural law imposed by the universe. The
fundamental problem lays in that Rome could not
realistically impose the natural law. Rome could simply
impose laws of convention, which it could pass as natural
law. This brought about a belief in dual citizenship; one
roman, the other universal. But Cicero believed that Rome
was the closest manifestation of the common community of
man. A very clear bias was present, Cicero forced Roman
sentiment on stoic thought; thereby changing it into
something less grandiose than the stoics meant by universal
citizenship. The accommodating of stoic philosophy into
Roman society is very present in the argument of the ideal
state. The accommodating brings about the validity of
imperialistic Roman virtue. The Roman expansion was part of
the divine plan, to draw together a universal community
under Roman society. At this point early stoics and Roman
virtue conflicted. Roman expansion contradicted stoic
indifference doctrine; the natural plan cannot be changed.
Yet Roman expansion was rationalized by accepting the
belief that it was part of the divine plan. For stoicism to
be adopted by Roman some ideals had to be compromised.
Cicero saw this notion of compromise more so than the idea
of the early stoic view on universal citizenship. In using
the composite state which Rome possesses traits of, Cicero
tried to justify roman conquest. " You will see the truth
of what you say still more clearly when you observe the
state progressing and coming to its perfect form by course
of development natural to itself. You will conclude, in
fact, that the wisdom of our ancestors deserves praise even
for the many institutions which, as you will find, they
adopted from other states and made much better in our state
than they had been in the places where they originated and
whence they were derived."6 Within this quotation, Rome's
stance as the "perfect form" is brought about due to Roman
conquests and adoptions. This was another instance of Roman
virtue being rationalized by stoic philosophy. This is a
twisting of view points on stoicism, which Cicero did not
necessarily do intentionally. Cicero also has a good deal
of Roman insight on the decay of states. Stoics contend
that reason and logic should have precedence over tradition
and sentiment, yet Cicero goes against this somewhat.
Cicero chooses tradition and Roman sentiment over logic
when discussing the decay of states. However his opinions
are belittled somewhat by Aristotle's views on the decaying
of a states constitution. A contrast of Aristotle and
Cicero on constitutional decay illuminates Cicero's
acceptance of tradition. It is important to note the major
differences between Aristotle's and Cicero's understanding
of terms and powers at work. When Aristotle spoke of a
states constitution, he referred to the well being of that
state. He took the word constitution in a health sense; in
a context of well being. In Aristotle the meaning of well
being is implied because the state reflects the well being
of the people. The constitution of states become the
teachings on a day to day basis. The people become a mirror
of the states well being. Cicero held the meaning of
constitution to be in the form of a legal document. A good
constitution for Cicero was something establish by the
people for the common good.7 The forces at work in
determining the courses of a deteriorating state are very
different between Aristotle and Cicero. Aristotle believes
in a behavioral chain of events, pushing a state which has
a certain constitution (good or bad) into another
constitution (good or bad). Aristotle held that they're are
six constitutional forms possible. All likely
constitutional forms have either a good or bad alignment.
Furthermore, some forms can only arise after another.
Finally, all constitutions can be categorized into one, few
or many citizens. A simple chart can be made of good and
bad, by one, few and many. The constitutions for the good
are monarchy (one), aristocracy (few), and polity (many),
oppossingly for the bad are tyranny (one), oligarchy (few),
and democracy (many). The simple diagram Aristotle
illustrated he had an underlying logic. For example
Aristotle holds that within a tyranny, certain forces and
behaviors take place. If a tyranny exists, all the people
become carbon copies of their ruler. The teachings on a day
to day bases promote the values imposed by the ruler. In a
sense, the populace become "mini-tyrants" within the
society. This is due to the morals being promoted: lies,
cheating, hypocrisy, obsequiousness, etc. In such a case
the decay, or overthrow of a tyrannical power that has long
been established does not become a polity. Rather the
citizens reflect their well being, and become what has been
promoted; an oligarchy or democracy. Similar logic dictates
that a good (well being) people who have a tyrant seizing
power would be quick to overthrow him. For Aristotle the
governmental arrangements affected people day to day;
essentially people mirror they're governments alignment.
Cicero uses a different rationale than did Aristotle, and
in so doing conflicted with early stoic doctrine. Cicero
believed that the pattern of governmental decomposition
laid in the past. By looking within Rome's past, Cicero
hoped to understand the possible propelling factors which
led states to behave in a certain fashion. However, Cicero
did not attempt to understand the factors too deeply but
rather he relied to mush on the roman historic path as a
blueprint. Cicero offered no real comprehensive logic
behind his pattern of possible outcomes. Early roman
history (tradition) tells of a series of seven kings, and
the last, Lucius Tarquinius Superbus, was a tyrannical rex.
In the first part of Cicero's diagram a monarch is in
place, which can only be followed by a tyrant. After Lucius
Tarquinius Superbus overthrow the senate and patricians
played a decisive role. The rex's position was abolished
and two consuls were elected annual ridding Rome of
monarchical and tyrannical rule. This brought Rome into the
age of a republic, shortly after the senate gained powers
and showed aristocratic traits. Cicero's diagram almost
perfectly shadowed the events described. After the seventh
tyrannical rule, there are two possible outcomes in
Cicero's diagram, either a democracy or an aristocracy.
Cicero's logic is that he knew of the senate gaining power
historically, yet he also knew of the struggles in the
republic between the aristocratic party and the popular
party. Cicero understood that the powers could have been
gained by the masses just as easily as the aristocrats. It
is noteworthy that Cicero did not take the peoples well
being as Aristotle did. For Cicero, a good aristocracy
could seize power, or rather a bad mob could seize power
over the government. Cicero did not contend (as Aristotle
did) that the populace mirrors the government. Cicero's
diagram loses more strength in its argument as it
progresses. Cicero believed a democracy could then only be
followed by an oligarchy or an aristocracy. The first
aristocracy could only be followed by an oligarchy; At this
point it is hard to comprehend Cicero's logic. Cicero, when
describing his logic is not systematic or organized, and
clearly his Greek counterparts were more convincing. As a
stoic Cicero held far too much esteem to the past and
traditions of Rome, as the major part of the second book of
the commonwealth is dedicated to that notion of the roman
tradition. It is easy to see how a man such as Cicero
transfused his sentiment of roman accomplishments into a
rationalized logic. The point on roman tradition can more
carefully be examined, and reveals another aspect in which
Cicero changed stoicism. Early stoics did not have a
patronage in the ancient roman or Greek sense, rather they
believed in the universe being full of divine reason. Thus,
the stoics adhered to the universe and divine plan as god.
Most ancient Greek philosophies denied the existence of
traditional gods and pathos. A conflict arised between the
Greek world of the intellect and the Roman world of
traditional sentiment. On the subject of divinity Cicero
had a dual nature to his beliefs. On one hand he spoke
dispassionately on the inability of the gods to exist, on
the other hand he made great oratories to Jupiter and the
other gods who he believed helped and guided the state.8
Cicero gives an example of the roman sentiment on religion,
which we hear through the mouth of Cotta in De Natura
Derum: " I will always defend, and always have defended,
the traditional Roman religious opinions, rites and
ceremonies, and nothing that anyone, learned or unlearned,
says will move me from the view I have inherited from our
forefathers about the worship of the immortal gods. On any
question of religion I follow men who held the office of
pontifex maximus, like Coruncanius, Scipio and Scaevola,
not Zeno, Cleanthes or Chrysippus....I have never held that
any branch of traditional Roman religion should be
despised, and am persuaded that Romulus be establishing the
auspices and Numa by instituting our sacred rites laid the
foundation of our state."9 It is important to note that at
this point in time Rome was in crisis of religious belief.
Cicero often took the stance of disclaiming Roman
divination, yet as a statesman he returns to his Roman
attitudes. In De Legibus, Cicero hesitatingly shows his
support for the notion of divination. " If the gods exist,
and guide the universe and care for mankind and can give us
indications of future events, I see no reason for denying
divination"10 Greek though was kept in a different light in
the Roman mind, apart from the day to day beliefs and
lifestyles of Rome. Rome and Cicero were unable to accept
the early stoic doctrine as a whole, especially in light of
religious beliefs. Philosophy to Romans was an adopted
import from outside Rome, thus not fully accepted. This is
another point which conflicted with stoicism, it proved
that politics and tradition do divide men. A distinction is
evident between Cicero's philosophical works and his
non-philosophical writings and oratories.11 On the matter
of immortality of the soul, Cicero was in accordance with
Plato rather than early stoics. The early stoics preached
that the soul and body survive, yet not within a sense of
capacity. By this they meant the soul was together with the
universal worldly soul; which forsook the premise of reward
and punishment. This may be due to Cicero the man, rather
than Cicero the philosopher. Cicero cannot be faulted for
not relinquishing his roman traditions, after all Cicero
was also a man of the state. The attitudes of other senate
members and the general populace forced him to keep these
sentiments. But this showed he was only slightly stoic or
only sympathetic towards stoic teachings, his primary
responsibility lay towards Rome; not stoicism. Due to his
primary responsibility being the state, Cicero's adoption
of stoic religious view was simply not possible. The stoic
lifestyle is that of an emotion vacuum, this appealed to
Cicero. In truth Cicero may have thought embracing stoicism
would cure his worldly pains. Namely the loss of his
daughter Tullia, whom he obviously loved very much. Equally
stoicism may have given him escape during his time of exile
from Rome. But early stoics had certain fundamental traits
of comportment, which in some instances of his life, Cicero
as a roman and a person abolished.
 
One trait at practice was the stoics aversion to violence
stoics as Cicero also shared this disgust. In addition
stoics also avoided and scorned personal glory. However
Cicero had a very different demeanor towards this type of
behavior. The quest for glory on a national and personal
level was a widely held feature of roman disposition. It
was intensely present within Cicero's temperament, the
posterity of his and his family name was an abnormally
great desire. Cicero's family name was relatively
unfamiliar in Rome. Plutarch tells of a tale which although
may be untrue conveys the right idea of Cicero's desire for
glory;12 "Cicero himself is said to have given a lively
reply to his friends on one occasion. When he first entered
politics, they said he ought to drop or change the name. He
said that he would do his best to make the name Cicero more
famous than names like Scaurus or Catulus. (Plutarch, life
of Cicero I)13 In a letter to his son Cicero admitted that
sometimes his sentiment for glory and tradition provided a
better direction than the life of philosophy. " One should
know what philosophy teaches, but live like a gentleman."14
Cicero displayed an air of Roman vanity, which denies him
of being a true early stoic. As such Cicero's aspirations
are of a Roman political life, not that of a stoic good
life. Cicero either consciously or accidentally,
permanently changed early stoicism into its later identity;
middle stoicism. Cicero did not agree to everything
stoicism taught, he sought to accept what had merit and
what was true to him. At times this proved to contradict
Cicero's ideas, he was part skeptic, part stoic and all
roman. Some of Cicero's peers reject his seemingly
over-acceptance of Greek philosophy. Yet Cicero believed he
could strike a balance between the two worlds. By his
exhortations on the composite state Cicero attempted to
create a common accord between the roman state and the
universal community of mankind. To say the romanization of
stoicism was an abuse upon early stoicism is a inaccurate
assumption. Cicero made the survival of stoicism possible
by rendering it more appeasing to roman society. At the
same instance Cicero was trying to answer the early
pragmatic problem facing such stoic topics as the universal
community of mankind. Although he may not have been true to
the stoic ideal (spirit of), Cicero made a genuine effort
to answer the philosophical dilemmas present in stoicism.
It is unfortunate that Cicero's historic bias deprived him
from being place on the same footing as Aristotle. Cicero's
viewed the decay of states to be nothing more than a
reoccurrence of history, but he did seem to understand too
well the powers at work. However Cicero did not see past
the roman republic of the day. The aspect of stoicism that
Cicero cannot accept, is religion. Perhaps because of his
daughter's death, the inner pain he must have felt to
believe she was too much to bear, as such, this influenced
his position. This must have made him decide that the stoic
belief in this instance to be unacceptable.
 
Cicero the statesman knew that disbelief in roman religion
and tradition was an unwise course of action. Tradition and
the gods gave Rome its strength, intelligence and resolve.
To discredit the gods was to discredit Roman society;
something Cicero would never do. But this drew a line into
how far Cicero would have believed in stoicism; Cicero
would believe in stoicism so long as it did not weaken
Rome's strength and integrity. For Cicero, stoicism was
something to be admired, read, and used. But stoicism was
still a Greek philosophy, something the roman heart could
never truly digest very well. This may have been Cicero's
attitude to a certain extent; however it certainly was the
belief of his contemporaries. Evidence exists that Cicero
did not follow stoic lifestyle in his day to day ambitions.
His glory seeking made him less respectful as a
philosopher, a damage inflicted by Roman sentiment. Cicero
took beliefs, attitudes, doctrines and logic to form his
own inner philosophical temperament. Regarded as stoic
because he sympathized with that philosophy, Cicero
modified earl stoicism to form a hybrid with roman
tradition. By adding tradition, patriotism, and roman
virtue, Cicero reshaped the landscape of stoa's philosophy.
In essence Cicero was a Roman philosopher. 1 Cicero, Marcus
Tullius. On the Commonwealth (New York: The Bobb-Merrill
Company Inc, 1929) 150-151 2 Cicero, Marcus Tullius. On the
Commonwealth (New York: The Bobb-Merrill Company Inc, 1929)
140, 144, 148, 154-194 Roman, Medievel, and Renaissance
Political Philosophy, Prof. Dr. M.W. Poirier; lecture notes
3 M.L. Clarke. The Roman Mind; Studies in the history of
thought from Cicero to Marcus Aurelius (New York: Norton
and Company Inc, 1968) 60-61 4 Cicero, Marcus Tullius. On
the Commonwealth (New York: The Bobb-Merrill Company Inc,
1929) 151 5 Cicero, Marcus Tullius. On the Commonwealth
(New York: The Bobb-Merril Company Inc, 1929) 151-152 6
Cicero, Marcus Tullius. On the Commonwealth (New York: The
Bobb-Merril Company Inc, 1929) 169 7 Cicero, Marcus
Tullius. On the Commonwealth (New York: The Bobb-Merril
Company Inc, 1929) 34, 57, 134, 147, 178 8 M.L. Clarke. The
Roman Mind (New York: Norton and Company Inc, 1968) 60-61 9
M.L. Clarke. The Roman Mind (New York: Norton and Company
Inc, 1968) 60 10 (Cicero) M.L. Clarke. The Roman Mind (New
York: The Bobb-Merril Company Inc, 1929) 61 11 Cicero,
Marcus Tullius. Cicero: On the Good Life (Great Britain:
Penguin Classics, 1971) 13-14 M.L. Clarke. The Roman Mind
(New York: Norton and Company Inc, 1968) 62 12 M.L Clarke.
The Roman Mind (New York: Norton and Company Inc, 1968) 63
Cicero, Marcus Tullius. Cicero: On the Good Life (Great
Britain: Penguin Classics , 1971) 16 13 David Taylor.
Cicero and Rome (London: MacMillan Education, 1973) 13 14
M.L Clarke. The Roman Mind (New York: Norton and Company
Inc, 1968) 64