Marcus Tullius Cicero

James E. Holton’s contribution to History of Political Philosophy focuses on Marcus Tullius Cicero whose writings appear near the end of the first century BC in what is commonly thought of as being a “dark period” for philosophy, and indeed Holton readily admits that Cicero is generally poorly regarded for his own work, with many seeing it as mere justification for aristocracy. For most, his real lasting contribution to philosophy lies in his giving a detailed account of several schools of Greek philosophy, which assured these schools of thought would not be lost to the process of time. He is also well regarded for his use of rhetoric in the service of philosophy, for it was he who played a major role in bringing Greek philosophy to the Romans, who were, for the most part distrustful of philosophy due to its Greek origins.

            But as Holton notes, Cicero did more than simply sell the Romans on the merits of Greek thought, for Cicero noticed a highly troubling paradox in the heart of philosophy that could seriously undermine both the state and philosophy itself. Cicero noticed that philosophy tended to generate skepticism, and that skepticism could ultimately be dangerous to the very political order philosophy needs to flourish. Thus, philosophy had to be restrained in order to assure its ultimate survival and thus had to be careful not to undermine the existing political order and always had to keep in mind that even bad government was better than no government.

Similar to Plato, Cicero’s central works are entitled The Republic and The Laws and both are mostly dialogs of other’s speaking, discussing political matters, the major difference being that in Cicero’s works, Roman statesmen have the starring role. Though much of both these works have been lost, Holton is able to draw many important philosophical points from the surviving pieces. One of the major questions Cicero deals with in The Republic is if the active (practical/ political) life or the contemplative (philosophical) life was superior. On this question, Cicero says that contemplative life is ultimately impractical and further notes that virtue cannot exist in a vacuum. But with that being said, Cicero still does see some value in the contemplative life, as while the active life does produce more of a sense of duty, this ultimately has to remain limited, and as such, a duel approach is needed. Cicero’s duel approach can also be seen as a way of promoting continuity within the community, which can produce a more robust conception of stability. This stability for the community is important as much like Aristotle, Cicero sees man as a social animal that cannot exist in solitude, and thus the state is natural.

Though the state is natural, there are several types of regimes a state can be, which can be divided into three different categories based on the number of people who rule. First is the rule of one, which is characterized by affection, then there is the rule of the best, which is characterized by counsel/ wisdom, then finally there is the rule of all, which is characterized by liberty. It is important to note here that each form of government contains deficits and therefore the seeds of its own destruction. Following from this point, depraved counterparts for each type of government exists. For the rule of one, it is tyranny; for the rule of the best; it is oligarchy, while the depraved version of the rule by all is mob rule. As these types of governments are depraved, they cannot last long and are characterized by constant revolutions. What is important to note here though is that for Cicero, the movement towards depraved forms of government is natural, and there is nothing even the most able statesman can do to stop this decay, though he can temporarily delay it. The best way to delay this process according to Cicero is to make use of a mixed constitution, as it is able to draw from the strengths each type of government possesses while avoided the major weaknesses each government possesses, as even if one aspect of the government degenerates, the other aspects will still be able to preserve order. For Cicero, the Rome of his own day is evidence of this inevitable decline as it was sliding towards tyranny, a slide that would eventually cumulate in the fall of the Roman Republic and the establishment of the Roman Empire.

In The Laws, Cicero enquires about what would be the best regime. Plato did this as well, but there is an important distinction between Plato’s and Cicero’s thought on this subject. For Plato, questions on the best type of regime are rooted in justice, but Cicero shifts this to questions about the best type of regime being rooted in injustice. As a result, the best regime is no longer one that exists in our ideals, but rather it is the best type of regime that can be reasonably hoped to be attained. The Laws mostly centers on the debate between Philus, a young man and Laelius, an older and much more conservative man. For Philus, justice is not natural as if justice was natural; the idea of what justice was would be common to all men. Furthermore, Philus also argues that acting unjustly is a necessity as had Rome been held to the constraints of justice, it would not be an empire, but rather a small, impoverished village. Laelius responds by noting that is Philus’ ideas were to be taken seriously, it would end in disaster and that all, including states must be held to the demands of justice. Cicero, for his part should be seen as holding a position in-between Philus and Laelius. For Cicero, there is a very real tension between the demands of natural law and the demands of civil law, fully recognizing that the complete demands of natural law would render civil law impossible to perform. Ultimately then, what is needed to ease this tension is leaders with wisdom, as they can sort out this tension. Thus, for Cicero, leadership can be seen as requiring the temperance of both pure justice and pure reason.