Episode Transcript
[00:00:00] Speaker A: Foreign.
[00:00:10] Speaker B: Welcome back to the On Duties podcast, where we'll be reading through all of Cicero's great work. De Offici's On Duties, one of his most influential works, with a rotating cast of co hosts from the scholars associated with the Ciceronian Society.
We hope you'll read along with us. Maybe check out this series from the beginning if you're seeing it for the first time. To find out more about our programs and our other podcasts, our conferences and journals, Please go to ciceroniansociety.org I'm Chris Anadale. I teach philosophy at Mount St. Mary's University in Emmitsburg, Maryland. I'm joined today by two of my colleagues and regulars on the podcast. Would you guys care to introduce yourself briefly? Ethan first, and then Ben.
[00:00:54] Speaker A: Yes. Ethan Alexander Davy. I teach political science at Campbell University, focusing on political theory and constitutional law.
And also I have a course on ancient political thought, of which Cicero is an important figure.
[00:01:11] Speaker C: Well, thanks, Chris. I'm Ben Peterson. I teach political science at Abilene Christian University, and I also teach some political theory classes, including a class on ancient political thought and where we teach the Republic and the law.
And so it's been a lot of fun to dive into On Duties.
[00:01:29] Speaker B: Great. Okay. My experience teaching Cicero has been limited to teaching his on friendship to high school students.
So you guys both have more university experience with these texts and with this thinker than I have.
We are in the middle of book one. We're about halfway through book one right now at chapter 79. We have just.
We are finishing up with Cicero's treatment of the third virtue of greatness, of spirit.
And so we're moving into a section now that I wrote in my notes down as advice to statesmen. So this is just what.
[00:02:08] Speaker A: How.
[00:02:08] Speaker B: How one should go about pursuing virtue while governing the state. Well, why don't.
Ethan, why don't I ask you to begin with, with reading chapters 79, 81, if you don't mind.
[00:02:26] Speaker A: That honorableness that we seek from a lofty and magnificent spirit is in general produced not by bodily strength, but by strength of spirit.
However, we must exercise the body, training it so that when it has to attend to business or endure hard work, it is able to obey counsel and reason.
The honorableness that we seek depends entirely upon the concern and reflection of the spirit in this field. The civilians who are in charge of public affairs provide no less a benefit than those who wage war.
And so it is by often.
So it is by often their counsel that a war may be avoided or terminated and sometimes declared it was through Marcus Cato's counsel that the Third Punic War was declared and his authority had effect even after his death.
We must therefore value the reason which makes decisions above the courage which makes battle. Yet we must be careful to do that because we have reasoned about what is beneficial and not merely for the sake of avoiding war.
Moreover, war should always be undertaken in such a way that one is seen to be aiming only at peace. It is the mark of a truly brave and constant spirit that one remain unperturbed in difficult times and when agitated, not to be thrown, as the saying goes, off one's feet, but rather hold fast to reason with one's spirit and counsel ready to hand.
[00:03:59] Speaker B: Would you continue through 81 as well? I think that'll make sense.
[00:04:04] Speaker A: That is the mark of a great spirit. But this is the mark also of great intellectual talent to anticipate the future by reflection, deciding somewhat beforehand how things could go in either direction and what should be done in either event, never acting so that one will need to say, I had not thought of that. Such is the work of a spirit, not only great and lofty, but also relying on good sense and good counsel.
To charge rashly into battle and engage the enemy hand to hand is monstrous and beastlike. But if the necessity of the occasion demands one must fight hand to hand, preferring death to slavery or dishonorableness.
[00:04:46] Speaker B: Okay, thank you very much. Ben, why don't you take lead comment on that? What do you think?
[00:04:53] Speaker C: I think the big takeaway I have from these chapters would be something like the supremacy of reason.
It seems to be the big message here. So we begin with, you know, our body ought to be under the control of reason. So he recommends some greatness of spirit is. This is not primarily about bodily strength, but it's. It's aided by training your body so that your body will obey your reason. Right. And I think even of an echo there of the Apostle Paul. Right. Physical training is of some value, but it's interesting. I wonder if there's a parallel going on between the way that our bodily appetites and our bodies ought to be under the control of our reason, in the same way that the state or the Republic ought to be under the control of the Council, the reasoning elements, the civilian leaders, as he's been talking about.
At the same time as we have to be.
Physical training is good for the body. The ability to engage in military activity is also a necessity for the state as well. So I think the control of reason seems to be.
Or the supremacy of reason seems to be one of the big messages here.
[00:06:08] Speaker B: Yeah, I got some of the same instincts, some of the same reactions. I'm sorry about this. Seems to continue his thought about the greater dignity and excellence of the civilian over the military. That is, the mind that directs the war is superior to the muscle that fights the war, though both are necessary and both are even glorious and fitting objects for a great spirited man to aspire to. Yet he's just finished saying to his son that between the two, you should follow in my footsteps, which is where the man can do the greater good for the greater glory, which he even notes in the past that the military triumph has depended upon the right rule of the republic in his own case.
The one thing I would add to what you said was that we get this kind of imperative to join the goods of intellect to your greatness of spirit, be great spirited through military might, but also, if you have those gifts, bring the intellect online and combine these things to be the most fully glorious that one can be. This is where the object of highest ambition should lie.
Ethan.
[00:07:27] Speaker A: Yes. Well, I'll just add that I know we of course have said before many times that Cicero should not be seen as derivative, that he is his own man, but there are definite echoes of Socrates and Plato here. So the, the implicit criticism, and it'll make it more explicit a little later, of timocracy, of the Spartan model, where the honor lovers are in charge and they make decisions on the basis of honor, which is gained by military glory. But for Cicero, as for Plato, reason is first, and the thinking about the.
The good of all, the good of the entire community comes before that virtue of courage. So courage is to serve the good of all.
And one therefore must of course have echoes of Aristotle here as well.
One has to judge when it is appropriate to use courage and when it is not, or when it is appropriate to. To wage war and one should try to avoid war.
There's a similarity of thinking, certainly between Cicero and Plato on all of these points.
[00:08:48] Speaker C: Can I say one more thing on this, Chris?
Interesting. Love the line. First of all, your goal should be to act in a way that you'll never have to say, oh, I hadn't thought about that possibility.
Make sure you're thinking through all the contingencies that might happen once you consider whether you're going to engage or not engage in a war and things like that.
Great line. And also, it connects to his earlier point that what makes us different from other animals is in part our ability to have foresight and think about the consequences of our actions.
And so I think there's a connection
[00:09:28] Speaker A: there which is especially important in the questions about whether to go to war or not.
One thinks about contemporary events in that context, surely.
[00:09:42] Speaker B: If I could add one more textual note myself, I made a mark here that towards the end of Chapter 80, he mentions, War should always be undertaken in such a way that one is seen to be aiming only at peace. And that perked up my ears. As a philosopher, one should aim at peace and one should make sure that everybody in the world knows that you're aiming at peace. This is the statesman speaking. It's not enough to have this intention, to have that be your goal. You have to act in such a way that demonstrates that for all the world to see, and that's the duty of an intelligent and wise and just statesman, is to conduct the affairs of states such that there's no ordinary minimal opportunity for misunderstanding among one's allies and one's enemies. That seems also to be part of the circumspection that the intellectual, great spirited man who uses reason will bring to his tasks.
Ben, I think the next section will get us from chapters 82 through 84. If you'd read through the end of 84, that's page 33. I'll take the first comment on that and then pass it off to Ethan.
[00:10:53] Speaker A: Okay.
[00:10:54] Speaker C: In the case of destroying and plundering cities, it is particularly important to take care that nothing is done with recklessness or cruelty.
It is also the mark of a great man in times of unrest to punish the guilty, but to preserve the mass of people holding fast to what is upright and honorable, whatever fortune may bring. For just as some, as I have mentioned above, put war before civic affairs, so you will find many to whom dangerously hot headed counsels seem greater and more brilliant than calm and considered ones, we must never purposefully avoid danger so as to appear cowardly and fearful. Yet we must avoid exposing ourselves pointlessly to risk.
Nothing could be stupider than that. When confronting danger, therefore, we should copy the doctor whose custom it is to treat mild illnesses mildly, though he is forced to apply riskier, double edged remedies to more serious illnesses.
Only a madman would pray for a facing storm during a calm. But when a storm does arise, the wise man meets it using all his reason. That is particularly so when a successful outcome may bring more good than the period of uncertainty evil. The dangers attending great undertakings fall sometimes upon their authors and sometimes upon the nation.
Again some are called to put their lives at risk, others their glory and the goodwill of their fellow citizens. We must therefore be eager to risk our own.
More eager, excuse me, to risk our own than the common welfare and readier to fight when honor and glory than when other advantages are at stake.
However, many have been found who were willing to pour out on their country's behalf not only money, but even life itself, yet they would not make the slightest sacrifice of glory, not even when the nation was crying out for it.
Callicratidus, for example, had, as the Spartan general in the Peloponnesian War, performed many notable deeds. At the last, however, he undermined them all by disobeying the counsel of those who thought the fleet should have left Arginusae rather than engaged the Athenians. His reply was that was, that if the Spartans lost their fleet, they could build another, whereas for him flight was impossible without disgrace.
That blow was a moderate one to the Spartans, but this was ruinous when Kleombrotus recklessly engaged Epaminondas or Epinondas because he feared unpopularity, all Sparta's resources were destroyed. How much better Quintus Maximus Aeneas writes of him. When one man alone restored our affairs by delaying our safety, he preferred to all thought of his fame. Therefore the hero's glory now shines and ever more brightly.
We must avoid that type of error even in civic affairs, for there are those who do not dare to say what they think, however excellent it may be, through fear of unpopularity.
[00:14:00] Speaker B: Thanks very much, Ben. That's excellent.
My first thought on reading this. Well, first it's an advice about prudence. To be a prudent statesman, to think calmly and to be willing to make sacrifices not only of money, but also of glory and of reputation. That's the story of the Spartan general who says, well, you can replace the fleet, but if I disgrace myself by retreating from battle, that's a permanent loss to me and to the.
And to the city that seems outrageous and have sort of kind of an excess of great spiritedness, like in excess of what reason would command.
And so he ends with, of course, the poem about the man who sacrificed his own glory for the good of the state, and so now he attains even further glory in the aftertime.
I like the final line of chapter 34. Here there are those who will not dare to say what they think for fear of unpopularity. And this brings to my mind, not for the last time in this bank of chapters, the contrast with Machiavelli and the person who will act out of fear, out of fear of reputation, be sort of bluffed into doing something that's not wise.
So that's apart from the examples, it seems to me to be a sort of advice to statesmen consists of be prudent, be cautious, and be willing to put everything on the line if reason and wisdom demands it for the good of the state.
Ethan, what are your thoughts?
[00:15:35] Speaker A: Well, similar to yours, I do like the analogy of the statesman here to the doctor. Right. Depending on how severe the illness the cure should be appropriately, should be proportional to the illness. So if we have a more dangerous situation, we may have to use more force and more violence, but it all depends on the situation, and the amount of force should be proportional to the danger.
And. Right. You covered, Chris, the problems with the Spartan approach here, the timocratic approach, which emphasizes glory above all else. And here we have Cicero's statesman, who is prepared to sacrifice his own glory for the good of the state and to be more willing to risk himself than to risk the common welfare. And it seems obvious that a statesman should do that and think that.
And yet we don't see too many examples of it, at least in. In modern times. It seems politicians are concerned first and foremost with their reputation and their popularity, and it's hard to find a statesman who truly appears to act in this way and to think in this way.
[00:17:01] Speaker B: Ben,
[00:17:04] Speaker C: first of all, I love the beginning parenthetical statement. Chapter 82.
In the case of destroying and plundering cities, it is particularly important to take care that nothing is done with recklessness or cruelty. Right. So if you have to plunder and destroy the city, but very, you know, gently and. And kindly. Right. I. It's just kind of a funny, funny
[00:17:24] Speaker B: thing, but in line with reason, I suppose. If it's got to be destroyed, it's got to be destroyed and just destroy it. Well, correctly and in line with the way a virtuous person would plunder a city.
[00:17:35] Speaker C: Exactly, exactly. Right. And I suppose, I mean, again, biblical parallels, right. Hey, don't go in, you know, make sure you devote the booty to the Lord. Right. And not take it for yourself. I mean, there are other. Other sort of examples of this kind of like, hey, it matters even your conduct, even when you're sacking a city, you know.
But the other thing that strikes me that is kind of seems like one of the themes that's emerging when he's discussing these different virtues is that people are going to be prone to erring one way or another, and it's gonna. The way of virtue, the way of duty, of properly performed duties, is really hard to get. Right. Because the person who's gonna be inclined to be brave and to be courageous and great souled in that way is also going to be inclined to be thirsty for glory and therefore inclined to not take the wise counsel that says, hey, it's not the time for battle. Right. It's time for parlay. Right. And so on the other hand, the person who's more inclined to be prudent might also be a little more inclined to be cowardly.
[00:18:36] Speaker B: Right.
[00:18:36] Speaker C: And not be ready to engage the enemy when it's time to engage the enemy. Right. And so finding that where you're willing to face the storm if it comes, but you're not recklessly seeking danger for yourself or your city is a very narrow path. Right. And I do think that's kind of what's striking me in these examples.
[00:18:56] Speaker B: Absolutely.
Any final comment before we move on?
[00:19:01] Speaker A: I think we covered it.
[00:19:02] Speaker B: Okay, great. I think it's my turn to read. I'll read and Ethan, give you first comment.
The next section. I'm going to take chapters 85 and 86 together.
In general, those who are about to take charge of public affairs should hold fast to Plato's two pieces of advice.
First, to fix their gaze so firmly on what is beneficial to the citizens that whatever they do, they do with that in mind, forgetful of their own advantage.
Secondly, let them take care for the whole body of the Republic, rather than protect one part and neglect the rest.
The management of the Republic is like a guardianship and must be conducted in the light of what is beneficial to, not to the guardians, but to those who are put in their charge.
By consulting the interests of some of the citizens and neglecting others, they bring upon the city the ruinous condition of unrest and strife.
Consequently, some appear as populares and other as devotees of the best men, but few as champions of everyone.
That was the reason for serious strife in Athens in our Republic. It has caused not merely unrest, but even disaster, disastrous civil war.
That is something which any serious courageous citizen who is worthy of preeminence in the Republic will shun with hatred. He will devote himself entirely to the Republic, pursuing neither wealth nor power, and will protect the whole in such a way that the interest of none is disregarded. He will expose no one to hatred who will or unpopularity by making false accusations.
He will, in sum so adhere to justice and what is honorable, that in preserving them, he will endure any reverse, however serious, and face death rather than abandon those things I have mentioned.
[00:21:07] Speaker A: Yeah. So this. This is a particularly rich passage and I knew I had a reason for referring to Plato.
[00:21:14] Speaker B: Right.
[00:21:14] Speaker A: So here he's citing Plato.
So one of the roles of the statesman is to understand that the Republic is composed of different parts of different social classes, different groups, and to understand that it's his duty to try to harmonize those different groups. And so he talks more about this in the. On the Republic, he compares the statesman somewhat to the conductor of an orchestra, someone who is able to bring the different musical instruments into a harmony, just as the. To bring the different classes into a harmony with each other so that the interests of all are promoted.
And in that, in that respect also, he says, he also compares himself to other people. So we have this reference here to the optimati, the aristocrats, the senatorial class and the populares, the people who.
The advocates of the common people, essentially. And so that was the major dividing line, class line in the Roman Republic.
And those divisions had to be harmonized. And so Cicero often compares himself to other Roman politicians.
I'm not sure I can remember the names, but there was one fellow who says, on the Republic, I am in favor of nothing that is popular, so whatever the common people want, I'm against it.
And Cicero says, well, that's not quite right. I mean, the people do have interests and they do have opinions that are at least worth listening to. And that's why we give them tribunes, so that they can have a voice in the constitution, so that even if they're wrong, they at least get to express their opinion.
And so, again, the role of the statesman is to harmonize these different classes and try to pursue what is good for all of them.
[00:23:25] Speaker C: Yeah, Just. Just to build on. To build on that. I totally agree. This is. This is rich with. And, and it's. I think what he's saying here, as Ethan pointed out, is consonant with things that Plato will talk about, also things that Aristotle will talk about in the politics and other, other political writings. Right. The idea of the, The. The just ruler or the, the good.
You know, leaders of a, Of a. Of a state or a city are going to be concerned with the interest of the whole. So what marks, for instance, for Aristotle the difference between a monarchy and a tyranny, between an aristocracy and an oligarchy, between a polity and a democracy, is the question of whether or not the ruling element in the society, whichever it is, the one, the few, or the many, do they rule in the interests of the common interest or just the interest of their own class or their own persons? Right. And so I think that's that's consistent here.
The idea of a, of a management or a guardianship, you know, is the, is the picture of you're holding in trust, right.
The responsibility to care for the whole, for the whole community.
It is really interesting that to the point Ethan was talking about the sort of, you know, the optimates or the best, you know, the, the wealthy, the well born, the best men versus the populares. Right. Or the, those who are. Might themselves be, you know, well born, you know, well educated, etc. But nevertheless are claiming to speak on behalf of the lower class. You know, Cicero would, would probably fall within the optimates. Right. And the book, this, this book I read, Lawless Republic by the classicist Josiah Osgood, kind of argues that, you know, Cicero ultimately wasn't able to actually genuinely represent the, you know, the, the plebeians. Right. And so his. And so he's kind of a failure in terms of. Now maybe it's a little harsh. He's trying to be a kind of person who thinks about this, this harmonious relationship, but it's kind of hard, and this is Madison, I mean, to kind of way fast forward to a Madisonian way of thinking about, hey, there's always going to be competing interests between different groups in society. Is there a way, is this even a possible thing to fully care for all of the different interests or by Madison's example in Federalist 10, I think is if you favor the debtors, you're going to hurt the creditors and if you favor the creditors, you're going to hurt the debtors. Is there a way to actually balance all of these interests in a way that is acceptable to all is a tough thing. The last thing I'll point out is that one of the things I think is really interesting about Aristotle's analysis along these lines is connected to what Cicero is saying here. And I kind of call it the equilibrium theory of justice, right? It's that you have to, you know, in order for this city to be stable and to be enduring, it has to be just right. It has to can care for the interest. It has to care and give to each what is his due to a tolerable degree, or else there's going to be factionalism, there's going to be cycling between regimes and each ruling element that comes to power is going to rule only in its own interests and oppress the other parts of the city. So very interesting, a challenging tall order again. But as we're saying, Cicero gives tall orders.
[00:26:51] Speaker B: Yeah, absolutely. Only thing that I would Add here one. I was struck by the line, by consulting the interests of some of the citizens and neglecting others, it sounds to me like just the kind of politics we've had of late in the current year.
That we just take turns advancing one set of interests and neglecting the others plainly falls short of our ambition for a healthy republic of what we expect. And I think we've got some roots of that here. My other thought was that Cicero gives us here plainly a very moral vision of politics. The job of the ruler is to neglect his own interests, to set them aside, to rule in the interests of all, weighing the interests of all as much as they can be harmonized in the common good.
But he's also identifying a theme very much part of his life, but which we may habitually associate with the early modern political theorists like Hobbes and Machiavelli, that civil war is the worst thing. That's what we want to avoid. And yet, of course, Machiavelli comes to a radically different conclusion about the role, the duty of the ruler to be just and true and prudent and good.
I was just thinking here that Cicero, he certainly knows civil war, and he's able to say the civil strife is the worst thing that can happen. We want to avoid that at all costs. And he would say it's your job as a statesman, doing your duty right, Fulfilling your duties to prevent that by acting in just this way.
So that's. I'm sorry to bring up Machiavelli twice in one episode, but that it's.
It leaps out at me that he's not.
[00:28:32] Speaker A: And he is at this time surrounded by other, other statesmen who are acting in very Machiavellian ways, who are. Or who are fanning the flames of civil war to suit their own interests. So, right.
Right in the middle of this. Yes.
Okay.
[00:28:47] Speaker B: Well, we've come through the end of book one, chapter 86, and I think this is a good time for us to bring this episode to a close. I think we'll. We'll be back next week, next Wednesday to pick up with chapters 87 through 92, which will bring an end to this treatment of greatness, of spirit.
I appreciate both my co hosts here, Ethan and Ben. Thank you very much for being on the podcast and thank you guys for watching. We hope you'll subscribe to this podcast, share it, popularize it, share it with your friends, let people know about it.
You've been listening to the On Duties podcast from the Ciceronian Society. We'll see you next week. Goodbye.
