Cicero: On Obligations. P.G. Walsh translation. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008.
Cicero writes to his son, Marcus, whom he sent to Athens to study with Cratippus, an Aristotelian Cicero calls “the outstanding philosopher of our day” (I.2). By philosophy Cicero means the study of both theoretical principles and practical precepts—Aristotle’s division of rational thought into theoria, the understanding of which is sophia and praxis, the understanding of which is phronēsis. As a guide to theory, one needs a teacher; as a guide to practice, one needs a city, a political community, a re publica or public thing. Each is the “supreme authority” in one area: the teacher for knowledge, the city for examples. Pay attention, then, not only to Cratippus but to Athens, which provides examples of the most eminent philosophers, beginning with Socrates. Of course, Cicero knows that philosophy cannot be authoritative in any straightforward sense; Socrates knows that he doesn’t know, or at least doesn’t know anything. But Marcus is a young man, not a philosopher, and the De officiis presents him with clear doctrines more than it engages him in dialectic.
The Latin officium translates the Greek kathekon, which (as Walsh explains in his introduction) means a service or friendly and helpful act. Cicero emphasizes service to the re publica, intent as always to turn his reader away from an exclusively private life, whether philosophic or not. He calls attention to the need to pay attention to translation, urging Marcus to study not only Greek but his native Latin and, by implication, not only Athens but his native Rome. To make progress in dicendum, learning, and judicandum, judiciousness, you need both languages. It is noteworthy that Cicero chooses judiciousness to denote practical wisdom or prudence; he will go on to speak of argumentation in law courts—a public forum for Roman citizens, and a place where one can indeed provide ‘good offices’ or friendly service to fellow citizens. And again to this purpose, he tells his son, you might read not only Aristotle but your own father’s books, while “exercis[ing] your own judgment on the content without pressure from me” while perfecting your mastery of your own language—a language for which his own writings serve as a model, Cicero rightly implies (I.2). While “I yield to many in knowledge and the practice of philosophy,” I really am a good orator (I.2), exhibiting propriety, clarity, and elegance of thought and expression. “While [my] orations exhibit a more forceful style, the equable and temperate style of my philosophic discussion is also worth imitating” (I.3). None of the major Greek philosophers and orators excelled in both genres.
Cicero’s own immediate good office or service to Marcus consists of his gift of this book. “I intend to begin with the subject most suited to both your years and my paternal authority,” the topic of officium itself. (I.4). This part of philosophy has the widest practical application, as “there is no aspect of life public or private, civic or domestic, which can be without its officium” (I.4). “Honorable conduct lies entirely in the performance of such obligations, base conduct in neglecting them” (I.5). Honestum not only contrasts with turpitudo but is also distinct from what is utile, useful. A substantial part of De Officiis consists of a defense of the claim that honorable conduct comports better with utility than base conduct does. And it is this point that Machiavelli will contest the moral ground with his great rival, centuries later. [1]
Cicero warns his son that some philosophic schools “undermine obligation in general by their theories of the supreme good and the supreme evil” (I.5). How a philosopher understands nature, what is theory of ‘the whole’ is, had considerable bearing upon his practical, ethical, teaching. For example, if a philosopher thinks that the summum bonum or supreme good “has no connection with virtue, and measures [that good] by his own interests rather than by what is honorable,” he “cannot cultivate friendship, justice, or liberality so long as he remains consistent in his views, and is not prevailed upon by his own better nature” (I.5). He will be a Cynic, an apologist for the base, one who sees no real possibility of honorable conduct in himself or in anyone else. Or a philosopher might be an Epicurean, holding pain to be “the greatest evil”; such a man “cannot possibly be brave, and he that accounts pleasure the summum bonum cannot be temperate” (I.5).
Thus, the underlying question is nature, human nature. These schools of philosophy can “say nothing about obligation,” as “no firm, stable precepts inherent in nature can be posited except by those who claim that honorable maxims are to be enacted solely or chiefly for their own sake” (I.6). The schools that do make that claim are the Stoics, Academics (Platonists), and Peripatetics (Aristotelians). Cicero tells Marcus that he shall “draw upon their wells as much as, and in whatever way, my judgment and inclination dictate” (I.6), although he shall “follow the Stoics chiefly,” perhaps in order to lean against any cynical and/or epicurean inclinations the young man might develop during his stay in Athens.
What is obligation—its end or aim—and what guidance does it give us in shaping our lives from day to day? Obligation can be either absolute—the right, simply—or measured, a matter of shaping means to an end. In considering a course of action, one should first think of whether that course is right, honorable, or whether it is reprehensible, base; second, one should think of whether it is useful, likely to enhance their wealth or power; one should also think of whether a useful course of action contradicts the right. And when choosing between courses of action, one must distinguish between an honorable course and one still more honorable, and between a useful course and one still more useful.
Cicero begins with the right, the honorable. What is right for any species of thing is the fulfillment of its nature. Man differs from beasts in his capacity to reason, which enables him to identify the causes of things and the likely consequences of the actions of things. “Without effort [Man] visualizes the course of his whole life and prepares the necessities to live it out” (I.11) In their families and cities, in which men share “a common language and life,” reason enables them to find the best way, to choose the right course of action. But “primary for man is the inquiry and investigation into the truth”; “what is true, simple, and genuine is what is most suited to man’s nature” (I.13). Bringing this desire for knowledge together with family and political life, men by nature consent to be governed only by those who issue “just and lawful commands for our benefit” (I.13). “From this attitude comes greatness of soul and contempt for merely human ways” (I.13).
With such rational apprehension of natural right, “man alone of all animals” apprehends “the nature of order and propriety and due measure in deeds and words” (I.14). In so apprehending the natural order, Man “transfer[s] this by analogy” from “eyes to mind,” and plans his course of action as a similarly “harmonious structure” (I.14). He wants to do nothing “unsightly or degenerate,” or to contemplate anything irrational in thought or action (I.14). “These are the qualities that kindle and fashion honorable conduct,” whether or not that conduct wins praise (I.14).
The honorable has four sources: the perception and intelligent awareness of what is true (wisdom); safeguarding the community by assigning to each individual his due and by guaranteeing fidelity to contracts (justice); the greatness and strength of a loft and unconquered spirit (courage); and modestia and temperantia (moderation). Readers will recognize the four principal virtues enumerated by Plato’s Socrates in the Republic. Cicero devotes the remainder of Book I to discussing each of them.
Wisdom or “knowledge of the truth comes closest to the essentials of human nature, for” as Aristotle asserts at the beginning of the Metaphysics, “we are all impelled and attracted towards a desire for discovery and knowledge” (I.18). “In this natural and honorable activity there are two faults which we must avoid,” namely, to take unknown things as known, giving “rash credence to them,” and to waste energy and effort on “unnecessary” matters (I.18-19). On this latter point, Cicero warns against shirking one’s obligations by becoming “diverted from public service by enthusiasm for research” (I.19). Here, he has in mind some of the more recent Stoics, such as Sallust, satirized by the young man in Cicero’s De Republica who is preoccupied with trying to figure out an optical illusion caused by a meteorological phenomenon that makes it appear as if there are two suns in the sky. It is true that theoretical wisdom (sophia in Greek, sapientia in Latin) is “chief of all virtues,” differing from practical wisdom (phronēsis, prudentia), the “knowledge of things to be sought and things to be avoided” (I.153). But since theoretical wisdom “embraces the sense of community between gods and man, and the relationship between man and man,” it would be enfeebled and unfulfilled “if no practical action were to flow from it” (I.153). And how could practical action be sound if it were not informed knowledge of what human beings are and “concerned with the fellowship of the human race” (I.153)?
Justice, “the brightest adornment of virtue,” ensures, first “that no one harms his neighbor unless he has himself been unjustly attacked” and, second, “communal property should serve communal interests, and private property private interests” (I.20). Nature doesn’t endow private property; one comes by it either by longstanding occupancy of empty land, victory in war, law, bargain, contract, or lot. For another person or persons to seize property so acquired is to “transgress the law of the community” (I.21). Communal or public property is also legitimate, since “our country claims a share in our origin, and our friends likewise,” doing so by nature, human beings being social and political animals. Public property betokens these claims, “binding the community and its individuals closely together by our skills, our efforts, and our talents” (I.22). Justice rests on “good faith,” that is, “truthfully abiding by our words and agreements,” by our fides making our promises fiat (I.23).
Injustice, by contrast, usually stems from fear, greed, and/or the desire for glory. Cicero cites “the shameless conduct of Gaius Caesar” as a recent illustration: “He undermined all laws, divine and human, in order to establish that dominance which his erroneous belief had targeted for himself” in his pursuit of power and glory (I.26). Most regrettably, such ambition “is usually nursed by men of the greatest and most outstanding talent” (I.26). They often possess the abilities needed to achieve their unjust ends.
Cicero takes care to distinguish between injustice committed under sudden impulse or stress from premeditated injustice. There is also a certain moral laziness that can set in, whereby men “allow persons whom they should protect to go without their support” (I.28). And injustice can occur through sheer distraction, as we concentrate on our “personal pursuits or activities” (I.28). Cicero singles out philosophers as especially prone to this last cause of injustice. In this, he disagrees with Plato’s remark in the Theaetetus to the effect that philosophers are just because they search for the truth, eschewing more ordinary ambition. They do indeed refrain from acts of justice committed out of fear, greed, or the desire for glory, Cicero concedes—they are not Caesars—but the very often neglect acts of justice because they are distracted by philosophizing itself. Still others commit injustice because they pursue family interests too ardently, in the manner of today’s soccer moms, or they harbor “some repugnance for the human race,” cloaking their misanthropy with the claim that “they are minding their own business” (I.29). Such persons are “deserters from the life of the community” (I.29).
Having defined the two types of injustice and identified their causes, and having shown the ways by which justice is maintained, “now we shall be able readily to assess what our obligation is at any particular juncture, unless our self-absorption becomes excessive” (I.29), letting no person suffer harm and remaining mindful of the public good. This settles the question of justice within the political community, but what about justice between and among political communities?
“Rights in warfare must be scrupulously observed” (I.34). Some military disputes are settled by negotiations, others by force. “Since the first is characteristic of human beings and the second of beasts, we must have recourse to the second only if we cannot exploit the first” (I.34-35). (Machiavelli famously subverts this formula in The Prince.) As in Aristotle, “wars should be undertaken for the one purpose of living peaceably without suffering injustice; and once victory is won, those who have not indulged in cruel monstrosities in the war should be spared” (I.35). We Romans have done just that, indeed conferring citizenship upon many former enemies even as we “utterly destroyed Carthage and Numantia,” whose armies committed such monstrous acts against Romans. Not just any peace should be accepted, only those which do not “contain the seeds of future treachery” (I.35). [2]
There is also the question of civil war, usually waged when two or more factions arise within a political community which do not agree upon what the community’s regime should be. To prevent this, we should observe justice even with respect “to the lowliest of society,” the slaves (I.41). “That we treat them as hired hands is reasonable enough: make them work, but give them what is their due” (I.41).
More generally, Cicero identifies “two ways of inflicting injustice, by force or by deceit. Deceit is the way of the humble fox, force that of the lion. Both are utterly alien to human beings, but deceit is the more odious; of all kinds of injustice none is more pernicious than that shown by people who pose as good men at the moment of greatest perfidy.” (I.41). Machiavelli’s adjuration to “use” both the fox and the lion is another instance of his subversion of classical morality as seen in one of its most admired Roman exponents. Although Machiavelli is usually understood to be an enemy of Christianity, this animosity is often supposed to be part of a defense of ‘the ancients.’ Not so: Machiavelli is out to ruin both moral codes and to substitute his own for them.
Related to justice with respect to the distribution of property are beneficence and liberality. Cicero recommends that these subsidiary virtues be ruled by reason in the form of practical wisdom. Assess the character of your potential beneficiary, his affection for you, the type of association you have with him, and any obligations he may have “undertaken in [your] interest” (I.45). At the same time, since “our lives…are spent not with men who are perfect and manifestly wise, but with people who at best embody some pale reflection of virtue,” liberality should extend to anyone “as long as some glimpse of virtue is perceptible in him” (I.46). This requires you to rank your fellow human beings in terms of your obligations to them. Whether good or not so good, one should extend liberality to those “endowed with the milder virtues of moderation, self-rule, and justice”; this is prudent, since those of less mild disposition, the high-spirited ones, often become perfervid,” more likely to abuse your open-handedness (I.46).
You should also rank possible recipients of beneficence and liberality with respect to their relation to you. The most general relationship is our shared human nature, “the fellowship of the whole human race” (I.50). As mentioned earlier, what unites human beings is reason and speech, “which more than anything separates us from the nature of the beasts” and binds us “in a kind of natural alliance” (I.50). True, some animals may be said to have courage, but not justice, equity, or goodness in the sense of being fully cognizant of the rational order of nature. Within this bond, there is also “the common ownership of all things which nature has brought forth for men’s joint use”—air and water, for example (I.51). These “must be preserved” with the help of laws governing private and public property (I.51). Other levels of human relationship include nationality (including race and language), the political community, close friends, kin, and marriage. Following Aristotle, when it comes to friendship, no friendship “is more pre-eminent of enduring than the friendship forged between good men of like character” (I.55).
How to rank these relationships? Here, Cicero provides a challenging contrast to the rank order ‘we moderns’ incline to make. “None of these affinities has more weight and induces more affection than the allegiance which we each have to the re publica” (I.57). True, “our parents are dear to us, and so are our children and relatives and friends; but our native land alone subsumes all the affections which we entertain” (I.57). But since we feel the competing attractions of all these relations, Cicero ranks country and parents first, since “the debts we owe to the benefits which they bestow are the greatest” (I.58). Next come children and the rest of the household, “for we are their sole resource, and they can have no other refuge”; following them come “those relatives whom we find congenial and with whom our future prospects also are often shared” (I.58). Nonetheless, in terms of our life within the re publica and outside of our families, all persons “flourish best in friendships; and the most satisfying friendship is that cemented by similarity of moral outlook” and character (I.58).
Aristotle identifies magnanimity or greatness of soul as the compendium of all the virtues, rightly ordered. It is especially associated with the spirited element of the soul, the part which takes risks, regrets that it has but one life to give for its country. If a spirited soul lacks any of the virtues it can become dangerous to itself and to others. Lacking justice, it will fight “not for the safety of all but for personal interests,” descending from civility to barbarism (I.62). True courage defends the right. Similarly, an intelligent and knowledgeable soul “divorced from justice [is] to be called cunning,” not wise (I.63). Spirited souls lacking one or more of the virtues become tyrannical. “Such men do not allow themselves to be overruled by argument”—reason”—or by any political or lawful sanction”—by civility (I.64). Demagogues who rely “on the false assumptions of the ignorant mob” cannot be classified among the men of magnanimity, either (I.65). “The loftier a man’s spirit, the more easily in his desire for fame he is drawn to unjust deeds; this is a slippery slope on which he is poised” (I.65). The desire for wealth is equally deleterious, “for we must consider it characteristic of the brave and noble spirit to think little of the things which most men reckon special and glorious, and to despise them with the steady and unflinching eye of reason”; “it is the mark of the mature spirit and the great resolution it shows to endure [the numerous and varied occasions which affect the human condition throughout life] in such a way as not to abandon either the life of nature or the dignity of the philosopher” (I.67).
The mention of philosophers spurs Cicero to relent a bit on his previous strictures regarding their inclination to the private life. Some of these are “austere and serious men unable to stomach the conduct of the people or its leaders”—Stoics, not Epicureans (I.69). Let us “perhaps allow abstention from public affairs both to individuals of outstanding talent who have devoted themselves to learning, and to men hindered by ill-health or some other cogent reason who have renounced politics and yielded to others the power and praise for administering the re publica” (I.71). But if a man’s only excuse is that he “despise[s] the military and civil offices which most men admire,” this is not to be condoned, given our obligations to the re publica as our protector (I.71). Men “whom nature has endowed with the resources for conducting public business should renounce all hesitation, seek entry to public office, and administer the re publica,” as “in no other way can it be governed, or greatness of soul be made manifest” (I.72). Both statesmen and philosophers should cultivate such greatness of soul, and philosophers will find this easier to do, as they are less vulnerable to reversals of fortune, need fewer material resources, and endure less humiliation in reversals of fortune than the public men do.
The political man therefore needs a different kind of preparation than a philosopher does. He should consider not only the honor political work brings but whether he has the capacity to perform it. “Careful preparation must be made” (I.73). Many politically ambitious men take military achievement as crucial to such preparation. Cicero demurs. In truth, “there have been many civic issues of greater importance and renown than operations in war” (I.74). Let arms, then yield to the toga. Although war should not be avoided by inventing ‘rationalizations’ for evading it, “establishing the rationale for making war is more desirable than courage in battle” (I.80). A war should be undertaken for some purpose that justly serves the re publica, not as an opportunity to win glory.
In considering civil rule, a man should follow two precepts articulated in the Platonic dialogues: to “protect the interests of the citizens in such a way that all they do should be directed towards that end without thought of personal advantage” and that “the whole rei publicae be their concern, so that they do not protect one section at the expense of the rest” (I.85). Otherwise, he will only exacerbate factionalism, that is to say, contradiction or disharmony in the city, which is unreasonable and immoral, as seen in the political histories of both Athens and Rome. One should not engage in “scrambling for offices,” either—an “utterly wretched business” (I.86). Nor should we “lend an ear to those who will have it that we should show bitter anger towards adversaries”; rather, “nothing is more praiseworthy or more worthy of a noble an exemplary man than to be conciliatory and forgiving,” as “those of us who live with free peoples in communities where there is equality before the law should make a habit of affability and reserve,” not allowing ourselves to become irritated by demanding and annoying requests (I.88). At the same time, “such gentleness and magnanimity are praiseworthy only if we are stern when the state demands it, for otherwise the civitas cannot be well administered” (I.88). Be governed by the laws, “which when imposing punishment are guided by fairness and not by anger” (I.89).
The virtue of moderation comports with the honorable because what is truly honorable precedes from what is well-measured, fitting. ‘Fittingness’ or decorum applies to all the virtues. In exercising practical wisdom, for example, one should fit words to the circumstances and “recognize and maintain the truth in all matters”—true statements being words that fit the nature of the matter considered (I.95). With courage, “what is performed in a manly and lofty spirit is seen to be worthy of a man and to be fitting, whereas the opposite is unfitting and because it is despicable” (I.95) In general, the fitting is whatever action is reasonable in a given circumstance; “the fitting is what is consistent with man’s excellence in the respect in which his nature differs from all other living creatures” (I.96). Nature is ‘what is’; decorum is consistent with nature, does not contradict it, and indeed burnishes it.
Many poets understand this, but apply it more broadly, showing us what is fitting in a villain as well as what is fitting in a hero. “But nature has endowed us with the role of constancy, moderation, self-government, and consideration of others” (I.98). Poets show us what is fitting to human nature and what is fitting to men who have ruined their nature. They know the difference, and so do we, since “just as physical beauty attracts the eye because of the apt harmony of the bodily parts, and our pleasure lies in the fact that all those parts are as one in sharing a native grace, so this notion of the fitting, of decorum, which shines in our lives, wins the applause of our contemporary through the order, moderation, and constancy reflected in every word and action” (I.98). “The obligation which stems from this advances first on the path which leads to harmony with nature and to the preservation of its law. If we take nature as our guide, we shall never go astray”; just as “we win approval by our physical movements which accord with nature,” so much more do we win it “with the movements of the soul which are likewise consonant with nature” (I.100).
By nature, the soul’s appetites should obey the commands of the soul’s reasoning capacity. “Nature has not fashioned us to behave as if we have been generated for play and jest” but for “more serious and important pursuits” (I.103). Play and jest should be treated as we treat sleep and relaxation generally, as restoratives after “we have done justice to serious and weighty business” (I.103). As for play itself, it can be “ill-bred, rude, scandalous, indecent” or “refine, urbane, clever, and witty,” as seen in the plays of Plautus and “the books of Socratic philosophy” (I.104). Cicero commends the second form, preferring that his son not turn into a frat boy.
Cicero understands that individuals have different natures within the overall framework of human nature. He does not, impossibly, expect everyone to be the same. “We should each of us hold resolutely to the characteristics peculiar to us as long as they are not flawed,” following “our natural bent insofar as it befits the law of nature” (I.110). Nothing is fitting if it flies in the face of Minerva, of reason, and that includes never aiming at “something we cannot achieve” (I.110). The boy puts aside his dreams of athletic ‘stardom’ when he learns that he can’t hit a curveball. Instead, “work hardest at the things for which we are best suited,” unless circumstances require otherwise (I.114). But above all, Marcus, “we must establish what kind of person we wish to be, and what way of life we wish to follow” (I.117). This is the hardest decision to make, and we make it when we are young, “at a time when our powers of deliberation are at their weakest,” when we are more likely to follow our desires than our reason (I.117). “The person who has harmonized his entire plan of life with the sort of nature which is free of faults should hold a steadfast course, for this is supremely fitting, unless perhaps he realizes that he has made a mistake in his choice of a way of life,” in which case he should never be so vain as to fail to change course (I.120). Many times, the example of a father is helpful in such deliberations, provided one doesn’t imitate his vices.
Decorum should be observed also in relation to one’s age—a young man should concentrate especially on developing habits of moderation, an old man on avoiding laziness and shameless luxury—and to one’s role in relation to the political community—a magistrate is not an ordinary citizen and neither is the same as a resident foreigner. Decorum also manifests itself in personal conduct: modesty regarding the body, never “fall[ing] into a habit of listless sauntering in our gait” or of “hurrying too fast” (I.131). Decorum of soul consists of “keeping our mental operations in harmony with nature,” never succumbing against perturbation or depression” (I.131). Our appetites should obey reason whether we are intent upon discovering the truth or in determining a course of action. Decorum of speech, whether in an oration or in ordinary conversation, requires a similar reasoned measure.
“In all of life,” then, “the right precept is to avoid exhibitions of passion, that is, mental excitement that is excessive and untempered by reason” (I.136). Even in rebuking someone, “show clearly that event that very harshness which goes with our reproof is designed for the good of the person reproved” (I.137).
Turning from speech to action, Cicero identifies three principles to be followed. “First, impulse should obey reason”; “second, we should assess the importance of a project we seek to achieve, to ensure that neither more nor less attention and labor is expended than the case justifies”; “third, we must take pains to safeguard all that pertains to the dignity and moderation of a gentleman” (I.141). The political community’s civil institutions will serve as guides for many actions, whatever criticisms may have been leveled against them by philosophers. With respect to foreigners, “in sum, not to go into details, we should respect, defend, and preserve the common bonds of union and fellowship subsisting between all humanity” (I.149).
A gentleman will select a fitting means of livelihood, excluding tax gathering, usury, manual labor, wholesale merchandizing, mechanical trades (“for no workshop can have anything liberal about it”), and all trades which “serve sensual pleasures,” such food preparation, and entertainment (I.150). Honorable trades require “more prudence” than these, and include medicine, architecture, and “teaching honorable things” (I.151). “But of all profit-making activities none is better, more fruitful, more delightful, more worthy of a free man than agriculture” (I.151). Such Virginia gentlemen as Washington, Jefferson, and Madison took due note.
Having established that “obligations derive from what is honorable, and from each type of virtue” (II.1), in Book II Cicero addresses the second main element of ethics, utility, which involves “the kinds of obligation which impinge upon our mode of living, and on the availability of the things which men put to use, their wealth and their resources” (II.1). However high-minded he may be, a gentleman still must attend to ‘low’ necessities.
There have been some who have charged Cicero with failing to observe this obvious point. He offers an apologia. “From time to time I fear that mention of philosophy is abhorrent to men of integrity, and that they are surprised that I devote so much time to it” (II.2). But he does so only because public life is no longer possible in Rome, now that Rome is “wholly in thrall to one man,” Julius Caesar (II.2). Had the re publica remained a mixed-regime republic, had its regime not changed, I no longer had any public role to maintain. Here, Cicero illustrates an earlier teaching: That moral conduct or obligation changes with circumstances. “Should anyone pour scorn on such study” as philosophy, “I cannot possibly imagine what such a person thinks worth praising” (II.5).
Others criticize not his philosophizing but his way of philosophizing, charging that he contradicts himself when “I maintain that we can grasp nothing for certain” while “pursuing the rules for obligation” (II.7). But I have never claimed that there are some things certain, other things uncertain, only that “some things are probable and others improbable” (II.7). Ethical reasoning depends not upon certainty but upon convictions tested by logic, by dialectic, “the clash of arguments from the two sides” (II.8). Such rational testing, whereby one can identify and discard improbabilities, suffices for firm moral conduct. Cicero proceeds to do just that with respect to utility and possible conflicts between it and the honorable.
“Nothing more destructive can be imposed on human life” than the claim that “the honorable is detached from the useful” (II.9). And both the honorable and the useful should be related to justice. “Those who fail to see this are people who often venerate only tricksters and mistake perversity for wisdom” (I.10).
There are several kinds of useful things: inanimate (gold, silver), animate but non-rational (farm animals), and animate and rational (the gods, other men). Of the last group, “the gods are not thought to inflict harm” but men often do, presenting “the greatest stumbling-block to their fellow-men” (II.12). Inanimate and animate but non-rational things require human labor or at least rule to be useful. As for human beings, they can scarcely be useful to one another if they do not live in political communities, preferably ones with sound regimes. As a result of political life, “men developed a peaceable outlook and a sense of restraint; human life thus became more secure, and by giving and receiving, by interchange and application of talents we came to want for nothing” (II.15). Conversely, “there is likewise no plague so abominable that it is not visited by one man on another” (II.16). Cicero agrees with the opinion of Dicaearchus, who wrote that “many more men…have been wiped out by attacks of other men in wars or civil commotions than by all other disasters” (II.16).
Given this crucial dichotomy, “I regard it as the peculiar function of virtue to win over men’s minds, and to harness them to its purposes” (II.17). In this way, morality is supremely useful as well as good ‘in principle.’ All virtue centers on three things: “in detecting what is true and genuine in any instance, what is consistent with it, and what are its consequences, origins and causes”; in restraining “those mental disturbances which the Greeks call pathe (’emotions’)” and “subject[ing] impulses (the Greek for which is hormai) to the control of reason”; and, finally, in “treat[ing] our associates in a restrained and expert way, so that with their support we may have our natual needs supplied in full and abundant measure” while “wreak[ing] vengeance on those who have sought to harm us, and inflict[ing] such punishment as justice and decency allow” (II.18).
In diametric opposition to Machiavelli, Cicero argues that “of all these possibilities none is more calculated to secure and retain influence than winning affection, and none is more repugnant than being feared,” which leads to being hated (II.23). Tyrants like Julius Caesar are killed for this reason, as “no amount of influence”—meaning bribes—can “withstand the hatred of the many” (II.23). Even if the laws have been trashed by such a man, and “even if liberty has been intimidated,” eventually the laws will surface again, ready to prescribe just punishment (II.24). More, “liberty which has been suppressed has a fiercer bite than when it has been maintained” (II.24). Those who rule by fear often die in fear. The same goes for factitious men who foment civil wars. As a result of such men, “we have lost our republic” (II.29). “We have plunged into this disaster through choosing to be feared rather than to be cherished as the object of affection” (II.29).
Glory, which military commanders seek, works the same way, depending upon the affection and trust of the people and their opinion that a man is worthy of admiration and honor. These sentiments in turn depend upon the intent to serve the people and, better still, success in doing so, actions which manifest the virtues of “liberality, beneficence, justice, good faith, and all the virtues associated with civilized and affable manners” (II.32). It is human nature itself which induces us to “feel affection for those in whom we think these virtues reside” (II.32). Beyond affection, we also trust those whom we think have practical wisdom conjoined with justice, the ability to foresee events and to prepare for emergencies when they arise. Justice inspires trust still more because we place more trust in a just man with lesser prudence than a prudent man with little justice. “Justice without prudence will be able to do much; prudence without justice will have little effect at all” (II.34). In the philosophic sense, prudence with little or no justice is mere craftiness, not true prudence, but Cicero stipulates that he here describes the sentiments of ‘the many’ on these matters, not a precise moral teaching.
Along with beneficence and the combination of prudence and justice, the man who wins glory enjoys the admiration and honor of his fellow-citizens. A man known for self-indulgence, unscrupulousness, backbiting, and baseness generally will be viewed with contempt, whereas the one who maintain their self-possession regardless of circumstances, good or bad, earn respect.
Above all, “justice fulfills all three prerequisites for gaining glory: benevolence, because it seeks to benefit the greatest number; trust for the same reason; and admiration because it despises those things which fire most men with greed, and possesses them” (II.38). A reputation for justice is necessary to gain the help of others, but “if people imagine that they can obtain glory by deceit and empty show and hypocrisy, in word and look”—the mere appearance of justice—they “very much mistaken” (II.43). Even thieves need to practice justice among themselves. Therefore, “justice must be cultivated and maintained by every means, both for its own sake (otherwise it would not be justice) and to enhance our honor and glory” (II.42). “We should be as we wish to be regarded” (II.43). To win this worthy reputation, one may conduct oneself well in war, exhibit modesty, devotion to parents and household, associate with men with the reputation for wisdom and justice, and demonstrate the ability to speak well, in friendly and affable conversation but also in public oratory, especially in courtrooms and especially as a defender of the accused, not their prosecutor. To defend the accused, especially those accused by government officers, can put a just limit on rule by fear even as it wins the esteem of the people, who are often the victims of such unjust intimidation. Cicero refers his son to an oration of this sort that he made when he was a young man. It is reasonable to consider the De Officiis not only as an example of a father’s advice to his son, not only as a model of advice fathers generally should give to their sons, but as his own version of Plato’s Apology of Socrates, that is, the speech of a man punished unjustly for living a just life—in his case, however, a life devoted mostly to civic activity, less to the more exclusively philosophic way of life defended by Socrates.
Beneficence or kindness—seen in what we now call charitable giving but even more charitable work—and liberality (the mean between the extremes of extravagance and miserliness) will earn you many friends. Direct your acts of beneficence toward men of integrity, lest your efforts be wasted; this keeps your efforts within the limits of justice. Some such acts should be directed to individuals, others to the re publica. Care must be taken to give moderately because gifts of money erode the wealth that makes such gifts possible; it can also corrupt the recipients. Cicero censure the practice of providing not so much bread as ‘circuses’—civic feasts, gladiatorial shows, public games, and “wild-beast chases” in the arenas (II.55). Liberality hits the middle between extravagance and miserliness.
Beneficence is for men in their private capacity. As public officials, their “chief preoccupation…must be to ensure that the individual keeps what is his; there should be no public confiscation of the possessions of private persons” (II.73). Sulla began, and Julius Caesar expanded, the policy of proscribing their enemies and then giving their property to others; such largesse with others’ possessions is an instrument of tyranny. Similarly, Marcius Philippus’ “agrarian law,” whereby property would be transferred from the wealthy few to the many poor, aimed at “the equalization of property; what could be more baneful than that?” (II.73). “The chief motivation behind the establishment of res publicae civitatesque was to ensure the maintenance of private property; for although nature guided men to form communities, it was in the hope of guarding their possessions that they sought protection in cities” (II.73). Cicero singles out the property tax as particularly unjust for that reason; needed revenues may be supplied by tariffs. In all, “there is no vice more squalid than greed” (II.77), whether it is seen in private or public men, leading as it does to injustice and thus to factionalism. Rather, “the supreme demonstration of reason and wisdom as manifested by a good citizen, not dividing the interests of the citizens but uniting all on the basis of equity” (II.83).
At the same time, and as a corollary to property rights, rulers must take care that the many who are poor do not fall into debt. This only leads to resentment when the few who are rich attempt to collect what they’ve lent. To guard private property, prevent exploitation of the poor by the rich and rebellion by the poor against the rich; to “employ all possible means both in war and at home to enhance the power, territories, and revenues of the re publica while observing justice: “these are the tasks for great men,” tasks “regularly achieved in the days of our forebears” and still achievable today “for those who will carry them through,” thereby winning glory for themselves and proving useful to the re publica.
Book III continues the theme of usefulness, now with respect to describing and ranking the several kinds of useful things and actions. Cicero begins by contrasting his own enforced leisure, with the overthrow of the republican regime and the rule of Mark Antony, with that of Publius Scipio, whose intentionally extracted his moments of leisure from a life of military and political activity. Scipio said that “he was never less at leisure than in his leisure-time, and was never less lonely than when he was on his own,” thinking of public business or communing with himself (III.1). Leisure and solitude lend themselves to sloth in others; they stimulated the soul of Scipio. As for himself, Cicero wishes he could say the same, as “my leisure has been imposed on me from want of public business rather than through desire for rest” (III.2). But he can imitate Scipio as best he can, if imperfectly. Scipio’s leisure and solitude were superior to my own because he, like Socrates, wrote nothing while at leisure, concentrating his mind entirely upon political and philosophic meditations undiluted by the act of writing. Lacking “the strength of mind” that enabled Scipio to ignore his solitude, Cicero writes, an act of sociality—in this instance, one directed toward the care of his son. Cicero is ‘making himself useful,’ as our phrase puts it.
This returns Cicero’s thoughts to the relationship between the honorable and the useful. “Socrates used to pronounce a curse upon those who first separated these two things which are inseparable by nature” (III.11). In this, the Stoics concurred, arguing that nothing truly useful can be dishonorable and that the honorable is always useful—in sharp contrast to those who claim that what is honorable should serve the useful. Things said to be useful very often conflict with the useful.
Cicero cautions that for the Stoics the identity of the honorable and the useful can only coincide perfectly among the wise. Most of us are not wise. We esteem as honorable what is not truly honorable and esteem as useful what is not truly useful. We are human but imperfectly so; we strive to fulfill our true nature but have yet to do so. For us, what the Stoics call “the honorable at a secondary level” must suffice (III.16), cultivating and admiring the virtues as imperfectly understood—thinking of justice simply as repaying debts and refraining from lying or cheating, for example. Such virtue is not to be discouraged. It readily distinguishes between the honorable as conceived imperfectly from, for example, greed for financial gain. But it does lead to doubts in the moral realm, a realm where we typically seek certitude. For example, murder is rightly deemed evil, murdering a friend especially heinous. “But if a man murders a tyrant even if he is a friend, has he thereby implicated himself in a criminal act? the Roman people in fact do not think so, for they regard this as the most noble of illustrious deeds. So in this instance has the useful prevailed over the honorable? On the contrary, the honorable has allied with the useful.” (III.19). The criterion for judging these moral dilemmas we unwise folk must consider is human nature, which is social and political. Ordinarily, murder and theft and other acts of injustice undermine the natural sociability of human beings, although in the exception given such an act might affirm that sociality by killing an enemy of that very humanity. Thus, “though nature does not object to our opting to obtain for ourselves individually rather than for another what is need for life’s necessities, she does not permit us to increase our own resources, wealth, and possessions by plundering those of other people” (III.22). The “aim and purpose of laws [is] too keep intact the unifying bonds between citizens” (III.23). This goes not only for those who live as fellow-citizens but for nations as they deal with other nations.
As he had discussed in the Laws, nature as a whole holds together, consists of a unity of many forces and things, a harmony. There is a law of nature; nature isn’t chaotic. So too with the human soul, which is part of nature: “a lofty and noble spirit, and attitudes of courtesy, justice, and generosity, are much more in harmony with nature than are pleasure, mere life, and riches.” [3] “It is the mark of that noble and lofty spirit to despise these last, and to account them as nothing compared with the common good,” the good of the re publica (III.24). For ‘we unwise,’ we imperfect human beings, to emulate Hercules, who undertook “the greatest toils and privations so as to save or aid each and every nation, rather than to live apart from men, enjoying not only freedom from all troubles but also the greatest pleasures,” as Epicureans recommend (III.25). In engaging in military and especially political life, however, the one who “conforms with nature can inflict no harm on his fellow-man,” although he will unhesitatingly inflict harm on men who act as if they were beasts (III.25). “We do not share fellowship with tyrants” (III.32). In this sense “we must all adhere to the principle that what is useful to the individual is identical with what is useful to the community” (III.25). As Aristotle argues, we must attend to the circumstances, adjusting our conduct to them in order to achieve the honorable with the useful.
“What is good is certainly useful, and so whatever is honorable”—by definition good—is “useful” (III.35). The circumstances which “perplex our minds” occur because some things appear to be useful when they are not (III.40). So, for example, “the good man will never promote a friend’s interests to the detriment of the re publica or in defiance of his oath or pledged word, even if he is sitting in court over him, for he then quits the role of friends to undertake that of judge” (III.44). It might seem useful to promote your friends interests in expectation of some quid pro quo down the line, but this would injure the bonds of the re publica within which your friendship is framed. On the contrary, “the good man is one who benefits all those whom he can, and who harms none unless he has been the victim of injustice” (III.76). “Is it not shameful for philosophers to have doubts about this, when even plain country folk would have no doubts?” (III.77). Even if the prize is consulship, even if the intended end is, Caesar-like, lordship “of all the world,” it remains “a monstrous error” to perform what seem to be useful but unjust acts, to “lose the luster and repute of a good man” (III.83). “Nothing is more useless to the man who has gained that eminence unjustly,” as he “fears by day and night” for his own safety, knowing that the victims of his crimes seek just revenge, and will not stop until they have it (III.84).
In contrast to the likes of Julius Caesar and Mark Antony, Cicero holds up the example of Marcus Atilius Regulus, a consul captured by during a war with Carthage. The Carthaginian monarch sent Regulus back to the Roman senate to ask for the return of some prisoners of war; Regulus swore an oath that if the senate refused to release them he would return to Carthage to face death by torture. Instead, Regulus recommended a supremely un-useful course for himself and his family, recommending to the senators that they not release the prisoners and then returning to Carthage to face execution. In doing so, Regulus “maintain[ed] the dignity of his consular standing,” exhibited “greatness of soul and courage,” serving the re publica instead of himself (III.99). How did this serve Rome? Regulus was old, “spent with age,” whereas the Carthaginian prisoners were young, brave officers; it was more useful to Rome for Regulus to sacrifice himself than to have such men released (III.100). Cicero’s title, De Officiis, suggests the intimate relation between the ‘good offices’ of the individual man and the political office he holds. Ciceronian ethics are political to the core, yet with no suggestion of modern ‘totalitarian’ servility towards ‘the state’ or ‘the party.’
“When men detach the useful from the honorable, they undermine the very foundations of nature” (III.101), which support the harmony of all elements not their contradiction and consequent destruction. “Nothing is useful which is not also honorable; and it is not honorable because it is useful, but useful because it is honorable” (III.110). That is, one must always ask, ‘Useful for what?’ To join pleasure with the honorable, for example, “is like mating an animal with a human” (III.118). It is Machiavelli who will commend the Centaur as a model for the prince.
Notes
- As Walsh mildly puts it, “Machiavelli in his celebrated Il Principe (1513) diverges from the Ciceronian tradition.”
- Walsh suggests that Cicero alludes to the Great Civil War of 49 BC, when Julius Caesar was allowed to retain the means by which he could violate the peace agreement he had reached with the Senate.
- Hobbes and other materialists often put self-preservation, the maintenance of mere life on whatever terms, at the head of moral aims. Cicero is thinking more of such pleasure-seeking philosophers as the Epicureans, who argue “that all good lies in pleasure, and have maintained that virtue is praiseworthy merely because it is productive of pleasure” (III.116). This notion is “at war with the honorable,” contradicting the principal virtues of practical wisdom, courage, moderation, and justice—all now reduced to the status of instruments of pleasure (III.117).
Recent Comments