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 Cicero clash
and contradict with the early stoic teachings. Cicero 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 mainstream.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), opposition 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
overthrows the senate, patricians play 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 arose 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.
Endnotes
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
