This is another book I taught for World Civilization courses in the middle of the previous decade. Judging by the notes I made, we focused mainly on “The Republic,” although I have also read “The Laws” separately. It was a useful text for transitioning from discussion of Ancient Greece to Ancient Rome, since Cicero was familiar with the Greeks and frequently uses them as points of departure for his own arguments. He is especially interested in Plato, and to some degree his “Republic” is an answer to Plato’s. He clearly admires Plato, although he is trying to set out something uniquely “Roman” and not simply borrow from Greece. In the end, his State is often based in moderating between extremes, where Plato’s was uncompromising in pursuing “the good” as Plato saw it.Since Cicero takes the more practical, compromising approach, it is likely that his system has had more influence on actual governments, although during his lifetime he had little power. Today, nearly every nation in the world describes itself as a “republic,” and Cicero can be seen as the originator of the understanding of most of them as to how popular sovereignty is invested in their systems – from the freest to the most tyrannical. Understanding Cicero’s arguments, from his defenses of aristocracy and democracy to his historical analyses of the Roman and Greek past, will give any student insight into the modern world. This edition of the book is designed to be useful to the instructor but also easily approachable to the student. The text itself is not long, and is laid out with minimal explanatory notes within the text itself. An interesting but brief introduction and bibliography precede the text, and extensive explanatory and biographical notes are available at the end for those who need them and are willing to take the time to read them.
I wish I could rate this work higher, but due to the extremely fragmentary nature of the text I can only give it 3/5. Hell, 3/5 of the work is missing! It seemed like every time Cicero was about to expound on a point of contention, I would find in place of his writings an editorial note along the lines of "[six leaves have been lost; the gist of what Cicero is trying to say here, according to (insert other source here), blablablabla]". It's difficult to rate a book when so much is missing, though this is more a problem with The Republic than with The Laws.With that said, I found a lot of Cicero's propositions to be pretty interesting. Plato's ideal city is just that: an ideal, and Cicero opts to build his city and laws with an eye to practicality. Of course, one cannot be too sure as long sections of dialogue have been lost to time (or, as the "Note on the Translation" points out, to scrolls being wiped clean and re-used for other writings). "The Dream of Scipio" at the end of The Republic was the most interesting section for me. The Appendix on the Roman Constitution, explanatory notes, and Index of proper names is invaluable for the modern reader who may be unfamiliar with such things."You are not the person presented by your physical appearance. A man's true self is his mind, not that form which can be pointed out by a finger. Remember you are a god, if a god is one who possesses life, sensation, memory, and foresight, and who controls, regulates, and moves the body over which he is set, as truly as the supreme god rules the universe." --- The Republic, 6.26
Do You like book On The Republic/On The Laws (1928)?
Overall these two dialogues don't have a whole lot of new ideas. Between Plato and Aristotle most of the material is rehashed (although there are some interesting discussions on natural law which go on to play a big role in Aquinas' thinking years later). The Republic is fragmented. While the discussion of the best regime receives interesting updates from Aristotle's discussion (based on Roman examples), it reads very similarly. The Laws is much less disjointed as there is less missing in the manuscript. It reads a lot like Plato's Laws and like Plato's Laws is not as interesting as its Republic counterpart. It is very interesting to see the appeal to Roman tradition as a source of authority in the discussion of these ideas which differs from some of the Greek thinkers. Overall these two works are interesting if you're a political theory aficionado, but they lack the scope or coherence of Plato, Aristotle or even some of the other Stoic philosophers.
—J. Robert Larmer
Una obra clásica en la filosofía política de su tiempo y uno de los trabajos de Marco Tulio Cicerón que aun sobreviven; se pueden observar en el una clara y profunda influencia de la filosofia griega no solo de Platon con quien se le asocia con regularidad, si no también con otros como Aristoteles, Anaximandro, Pitagoras etc.. Para los interesados en conocer sobre el sistema político y el derecho romano es un libro clave pues retrata con gran elocuencia la composición de las magistraturas y diferentes cargos del sistema.La República y las Leyes como se le conoce en español, es un libro muy importante en la tradición occidental y se puede ver su influencia en las obras de autores muy adelante en el tiempo como Maquiavelo. Sam Agustín por mencionar un par que resaltan en los comentarios del traductor y curador de esta obra.Cicerón muestra en esta obra que su fama era y es bien merecida como uno de los hombres mas brillantes y elocuentes del mundo antiguo.
—Diego
It is terribly difficult to judge fragments, and especially to compare them with complete works such as Plato's Republic. That being said, Cicero clearly takes a much different approach than does Plato. He proposes that philosophy must be intermixed with pragmatism and experience to produce the optimal leaders and laws. In this sense, Cicero's Republic and Laws pays attention to more practical concerns than does Plato, who lacked any degree of actual involvement with real-world affairs when compared with Cicero. Moreover, the two luminaries philosophies differed, with Cicero being what I would call a liberal Stoic. The problem is, just when one gets into one of Cicero's arguments, it is often the case that a fragment is missing. Yet it is clear from the fragments that Cicero is bound by common approaches vs high-minded ideals in some cases, as in his seeming understanding of the need for greed, for lack of a better word. He does come down against tyranny and speaks highly about legal equality as a bulwark against the power of wealth. That being said, Cicero was able to turn a blind eye when opponents were strangled, as in the Catilinarian conspiracy. "It is done," was his final word on the matter, if my feeble memory serves me. Certainly no outrage there! Overall, this is a must read in understanding the evolution of the Western approach to justice and government.
—Dr. George H. Elder
