Cicero-politic and Social Science

Cicero’s vision for the Republic was not simply the maintenance of the status quo. Nor was it a straightforward desire to revitalise what many, such as Sallust, term the ‘moral degradation’ of the republican system. Cicero envisioned a Rome ruled by a selfless nobility of successful individuals determining the fate of the nation via consensus in the Senate. Cicero’s country and equestrian background resulted in a broader outlook, not marred by self-interest to the same extent as the patricians' of Rome.

Cicero aspired to a republican system dominated by a ruling aristocratic class of men, “who so conducted themselves as to win for their policy the approval of all good men”. Further, he sought a concordia ordinum, an alliance between the senators and the equites. This ‘harmony between the social classes’, “which he later developed into a consensus omnium bonorum to include tota Italia (all citizens of Italy), demonstrated Cicero’s foresight as a statesman. He understood that fundamental change to the organization and the distribution of power within the Republic was required to secure its future. However, Cicero was also far too idealistic, believing that ‘the best men’ would institute large-scale reforms which were contrary to their interests as the ruling oligarchy. Cicero's guiding principle throughout his political career was:

That “some sort of free-state” is the necessary condition of a noble and honourable existence; and that it is the worst calamity for a people to permanently renounce this ideal and to substitute for it the slave’s ideal of a good master.

(this quote comes from James Leigh Strachan-Davidson - 1894 - Rome only the section "some sort of free state" is cicero. the rest is Strachan-Davidson.)p. 427)

Links with the equestrian class, combined with his status as a novus homo meant that Cicero was isolated from the optimates. Thus, it is not surprising that Cicero envisioned a “selfless nobility of successful individuals” instead of the current system dominated by patricians. The fact remains that those who sat in the Senate had appropriated huge profits by exploiting the provinces. Repeatedly, the oligarchy had proved to be short-sighted, reactionary and “operating with restricted and outmoded institutions that could no longer cope with the vast territories containing multifarious populations that was Rome at this point of its history” The repeated failings of the oligarchy were not only due to the leading patricians like, Crassus and Hortensius, but also to the influx of conservative equites into the Senate’s ranks.

The combination of the Roman governing system, presently used by the oligarchy to selfishly maximize economic exploitation, and the introduction of the business minded equites, only resulted in an increase of the plundering of resources within the Empire. The large-scale extortion destabilized the political system further, which was continuously under pressure by both foreign wars and from the populares. Moreover, this period of Roman history was marked by constant in-fighting between the senators and the equites over political power and control of the courts. The problem arose because Sulla originally enfranchised the equites, but then, these privileges were soon removed after he stepped down from office. Cicero, as an eques, naturally backed their claims to participate in the legal process; moreover the constant conflict was incompatible with his vision of a concordia ordinum. Furthermore, the conflict between the two classes showed no signs of a feasible solution in the short term. The ruling class for over a century had showed nothing of ‘selfless service’ to the Republic and through their actions only undermined its stability, contributing to the creation of a society ripe for revolution.

The establishment of individual power bases both within Rome and in the provinces undermined Cicero’s guiding principle of a free state, and thus the Roman Republic itself. This factionalised the Senate into cliques, which constantly engaged each other for political advantage. These cliques were the optimates, led by such figures as Cato, and in later years Pompey, and the populares, lead by such men as Julius Caesar and Crassus. It is important to note that the although the optimates were generally republicans there were instances of leaders of the optimates with distinctly dictatorial ways. Caesar, Crassus and Pompey were at one time the head of the First Triumvirate which directly conflicted with the republican model as it did not comply with the system of holding a consulship for one year only. Cicero’s vision for the Republic could not succeed if the populares maintained their position of power. Cicero did not envisage wide spread reform, but a return to the “golden age” of the Republic. Despite Cicero’s attempts to court Pompey over to the republican side, he failed to secure either Pompey’s genuine support or peace for Rome.

After the civil war, Cicero recognised that the end of the Republic was almost certain. He stated that “the Republic, the Senate, the law courts are mere ciphers and that not one of us has any constitutional position at all.” The civil war had destroyed the Republic. It wreaked destruction and decimated resources throughout the Roman Empire. Julius Caesar’s victory had been absolute. Caesar’s assassination failed to reinstate the Republic, despite further attacks on the Romans’ freedom by “Caesar’s own henchman, Mark Antony.” Furthermore, his death only highlighted the stability of ‘one man rule’ by the ensuing chaos and further civil wars that broke out with Caesar’s murderers, Brutus and Cassius, and finally between his own supporters, Mark Antony and Octavian.

Cicero remained the ”Republic's last true friend” as he spoke out for his own ideals and that of the libertas (freedom) the Romans had enjoyed for centuries. Cicero’s vision had some fundamental flaws. It harked back to a ‘golden age’ that may never have existed. Cicero's idea of the concordia ordinum was too idealistic. Thirdly, he and all his contemporaries were unable to realise that Rome had grown far too large to be governed by institutions that were originally created for governing a small town. Furthermore, the Republic had reached such a state of disrepair that regardless of Cicero’s talents and passion, Rome lacked “persons loyal to [the Republic] to trust with armies.” Cicero lacked the political power, nor had he any military skill or resources, to command true power to enforce his ideal. To enforce republican values and institutions were also ipso facto contrary to republican values. He also failed to a certain extent to recognize the real power structures that operated in Rome, as anybody does who is enmeshed in the politics of his own time.

Works

Cicero was declared a “righteous pagan” by the early Catholic Church, and therefore many of his works were deemed worthy of preservation. Saint Augustine and others quoted liberally from his works “On The Republic” and “On The Laws,” and it is due to this that we are able to recreate much of the work from the surviving fragments. Cicero also articulated an early, abstract conceptualisation of rights, based on ancient law and custom.