The Republic and The Laws (Oxford World's Classics)

by Cicero

  the meaning of the name: to begin with definitions is a familiar technique in philosophical expositions, doubtless inspired by the habits of Socrates in Plato’s dialogues; cf. De Finibus 1. 29.

  initial union: Greek philosophical accounts of politics tended to do just this; e.g. Aristotle, Politics 1252a.

  property of the public (res populi): the word ‘republic’, res publica, literally means ‘public property’ (although res has a wider meaning, embracing also at least ‘affairs’, ‘business’). Res publica approximately represents Greek πóλις and πoλιτεία, but the definition given here is based on the etymology of the Latin term: see M. Schofield, ‘Cicero’s Definition of Res Publica’, in Powell (3).

  not every kind of human gathering: cf. Aristotle, Politics 7. 1328b, the polls must be self-sufficient; the Stoics (quoted by Dio Chrysostom 36. 20) included law in the definition.

  weakness: the explanation of the origin of society as a contract for mutual protection was familiar in antiquity. It was associated particularly with the Epicureans (cf. Lucretius 5); Polybius also believed it, and in 6. 5. 7 actually cites ‘weakness’ as the reason for the development of societies. Cicero here rejects this view in favour of the Aristotelian and Stoic line that it is part of human nature to form communities regardless of utility.

  decision-making process: the word used here, consilium, means both ‘policy’ (cf. ‘counsel’) and ‘deliberative body’ (cf. ‘council’; the English spelling is influenced by a mistaken connection with another Latin word concilium ‘assembly, gathering’).

  aristocracy (optimates): see Note on the Translation.

  nod and wish: we have accepted Castiglioni’s conjecture nutu ac (voluntate; eodem) modo.

  depraved version: it was standard in Greek political theorizing since Plato to divide the possible constitutions into good and bad versions, the bad sometimes being seen as the result of corruption of the good, but sometimes as arising in other ways. Thus tyranny is seen as the perversion of monarchy, oligarchy as that of aristocracy, and mob rule as that of democracy.

  cruelly capricious: we retain ad immutandi animi licentiam and take it as adverbial, qualifying crudelissimus.

  cycles: the concept of cycles of political change was prominent in Plato’s Republic and, in a more elaborate form, was an important element in Polybius’ constitutional theory: see Walbank 131–2, 139–46. For the development of this theme see below, 1. 64–8, 2. 45.

  mixture: this is the first mention of the ‘mixed’ constitution, which is to be a key concept in the ensuing discussion. The theory of the mixed constitution is again associated especially with Polybius: for his version and its antecedents see Walbank 132, 135–7. However, Cicero first deals with the question of whether any of the simple constitutions, monarchy, aristocracy and democracy, is to be preferred to the others. Scipio successively presents the arguments for democracy and aristocracy in the section that follows. He does not endorse these arguments himself; still less should we assume that Cicero endorsed them.

  Rhodian: the constitution of Rhodes was more purely democratic even than that of Athens: Cicero describes it below at 3. 48.

  Ennius: this quotation is used by Cicero also in De Officiis 1. 26, but there is no information as to its original context: Jocelyn fr. 169, p. 141.

  50: this section almost certainly comes from the democrats’ speech. Büchner and others have attempted to show that it comes instead from a lost speech in favour of monarchy; but the content of this section would hardly fit an expression of monarchist views, since the argument is that all kings are equivalent to tyrants.

  a royal family: Sparta had a dual kingship; one of the kings always came from the family of the Agids, the other from the Eurypontids.

  chosen by lot: many of the Athenian officials were appointed by lot, considered a more ‘democratic’ procedure than popular election, although the choice of candidates was made in such a way as to prevent the appointment of anyone thoroughly unsuitable.

  But what about yourself, Scipio?: pressed further by Laelius, Scipio now puts the arguments for monarchy in his own person. There are six arguments: (1) Jupiter rules the universe; (2) Rome had kings not long ago; (3) monarchy is like the domination of reason over the passions; (4) it is common practice to have a single individual in charge of an estate or a household, etc.; (5) the Romans in time of crisis commit the state to the power of a single dictator; (6) a just king such as Romulus leaves nothing to be desired. However, Scipio is presented as approving of monarchy only in theory and by comparison with the other two simple forms, not unconditionally (cf. more clearly still 2. 47–8); note also that Scipio in this passage does not elicit full agreement from the other speakers. It is made quite clear that he regards monarchy as a dangerous form of government because of the ease with which it can turn into despotism, whereas the mixed constitution offers safeguards against this contingency.

  Aratus: his poem began in Cicero’s version with the words Ab love Musarum primordia; this opening formula was adapted by other poets including Virgil (Eclogues 3. 60).

  Homer’s words: Iliad 1. 530.

  57: some editors here insert fr. 1 (printed at the end of Book 1), but others place it in the gap at section 34. It seems impossible to determine which placing is right. The speaker is probably Laelius.

  a proud one: alluding to the name of Tarquinius Superbus, ‘Tarquin the Proud’.

  A very just one: Servius Tullius (cf. 2. 38).

  Greece was already growing old: an exaggeration; Romulus supposedly lived in the eighth century BC.

  ship’s captain and doctor: these analogies were so familiar from Plato that Cicero passes over them lightly here.

  dictator: see Appendix: Notes on the Roman Constitution. It is peculiar that Cicero ignores the obvious derivation of dictator as ‘one who dictates’, and instead concentrates on the fact that the dictator ‘is appointed’ (dicitur).

  our augurs’ books: Scipio addresses Laelius as a fellow-member of the augural college, of which Cicero himself became a member in 53 BC (while he was writing the Republic). These books were manuals of procedure; their extent and availability to those outside the college is uncertain.

  As Ennius says: on the quotation from Ennius see Skutsch 105–9.

  Plato: Republic 8. 562cff.

  something else: retaining MS reading aliud.

  two dangers: Carthage and Numantia.

  you yourself: reading ipse, Watt’s conjecture for MS esse (the two words sounded similar or identical in late Latin pronunciation; cf. Italian esso from ipsum).

  Fr. 1: see on i. 57 above.

  Fr. 3: attributed to Book 1, but its placing is quite uncertain.

  BOOK 2

  Most of what survives of the second book is taken up with an account of the development of the Roman constitution. The purpose is not mere antiquarianism, although there appears to be an element of that in some of the details (as Cicero makes Scipio virtually acknowledge in 2. 55). As Scipio says several times in the dialogue, the aim is to provide an actual historical example both of what is meant by the mixed constitution in its best form, and of the various changes that can take place in the government of a state, instead of discussing these matters in purely theoretical terms or, as Plato did, with reference to an imaginary ideal state. The early history of Rome, as understood by Cicero, provides him with examples of (a) pure monarchy (the reign of Romulus), which nevertheless soon acquired aristocratic and democratic elements; (b) tyranny (Tarquinius Superbus, and the subsequent attempts of Sp. Cassius, Sp. Maelius, M. Manlius to gain control of the state); (c) pure aristocracy (the decemvirate) which within a very short time was corrupted into oligarchy (the second set of decemvirs); (d) if not pure democracy, at any rate a period in which the people demanded more rights for itself (immediately after the expulsion of the kings) and two popular revolts (the two Secessions of the Plebs); (e) an imperfect version of the mixed constitution parallel to that of Sparta or Carthage (the constitution of S
ervius Tullius); and (/) the fully-fledged republican constitution, a better version of the mixed constitution than any other yet devised. As soon as (f) is reached, the narrative ends. This does not mean that Cicero saw the republican constitution of 449 BC as ideal or perfect, merely that, granted the conceptual framework of Greek political theory, no further significant and radical changes took place thereafter. Although, therefore, this account happens to be the earliest surviving narrative of the regal period and the beginnings of the Republic, it has no pretensions to completeness; little is said, for example, of the ‘struggle of the orders’ or of Rome’s rise as a Mediterranean power. It is clear that Cicero was reasonably careful with his historical research, but much of the material came not from authentic records but from tradition and legend, or else from antiquarian attempts to explain the origins of existing institutions. Cicero’s main point of reference, in fact, was the Roman constitution as it existed in his own time. His account may be compared with our other main sources for the period, Livy and Dionysius of Halicarnassus, both of whom wrote somewhat later but give much fuller historical narratives. See further Cornell; E. Rawson (1) 36–7; Ferrary (3); Hathaway. On the problem of Cicero’s relation to Polybius see Walbank 147–8.

  two fathers: Scipio’s real father, L. Aemilius Paulus, and his adoptive father, P. Cornelius Scipio (son of Scipio Africanus).

  no genius of such magnitude: the style of this passage is ponderous in the Latin, probably reflecting Cato’s own style. Scipio prefaces his narrative with the observation that the Roman constitution is the result of gradual evolution, and is better that way: an implicit condemnation of suggestions for radical change.

  ‘origin’: Cato’s historical work was entitled Origines; the first part of it did indeed deal with the origins of Rome and the other communities of Italy (Nepos, Cato 3. 3). It is possible, though unprovable, that Cicero drew on this work as a source.

  Romulus: the Romulus story here appears in a simplified form, without the murder of Remus, which, whatever its true significance, was irrelevant to Cicero’s purposes here. The she-wolf appears merely as ‘an animal from the forest’; Cicero distances himself from folk-tale.

  augury: cf. 2. 16 below. According to the legend, Romulus and Remus took auspices to find out which of them should be king. Remus ascended the Aventine and saw six vultures; Romulus ascended the Palatine and saw twelve. This decided the issue in Romulus’ favour. Cicero again omits the element of competition with Remus, and regards Romulus as the founder of the Roman institution of augury, an institution which (as an augur himself) he constantly praises, although he had philosophical difficulties with the concept of divination (cf. L. 2. 31 ff., and De Divinatione 2).

  a colony: Ostia; cf. 2. 33.

  coastal sites were not particularly suitable: the Greeks debated whether cities should be founded near the sea: cf. Plato, Laws 7043–705b, Aristotle, Politics 7. 6. Livy very probably recalls this passage in 5. 54. 4 (the speech of Camillus persuading the Romans not to abandon the city).

  Carthage and Corinth: both ruthlessly destroyed by Rome in the mid-second century BC. Carthage was, of course, destroyed by the Scipio who speaks here; Corinth, by L. Mummius, brother of the Spurius Mummius who is a minor character in this dialogue. Cf. Purcell.

  apart from Phlius . . . : Cicero discusses this passage in a letter to Atticus (6. 2. 3). Atticus had queried the statement that all Peloponnesian communities had a sea-coast: what about Arcadia? Cicero replied that he had himself been surprised to find it in a work of Dicaearchus, a careful researcher who himself lived in the Peloponnese, but had consulted his learned slave Dionysius, who was at first equally puzzled but then pointed out that Arcadia had an outlet to the sea at Lepreon, and that some other apparently landlocked communities were late foundations. ‘So’, says Cicero, ‘I transferred the passage in so many words from Dicaearchus.’ Phlius is in the north-east Peloponnese.

  Dorians: not in the wider sense of speakers of the Doric dialect, but in the narrower sense of inhabitants of the area called Doris in northern Greece.

  a novel and somewhat crude plan: for the Rape of the Sabines cf. Livy 1. 9–13.

  ‘Fathers’: the senators were called patres or ‘fathers’ in certain contexts. ‘Patricians’ were supposedly descendants of the senators of the regal period (2. 23 below).

  three tribes: the Roman citizen body was anciently divided into three tribes called Ramnes, Titles, and Luceres (cf. 2. 36 below); the present context provides an explanation (philologically rather implausible) for these names. They may reflect early ethnic divisions (Latin, Sabine, Etruscan). Each tribe was divided into ten ‘voting-districts’ or curiae. The assembly of the Roman people thus divided was called the comitia curiata (cf. Appendix). These divisions still existed for ceremonial purposes in the late Republic, but the three ancient tribes had long been superseded for all practical functions by a newer system of thirty-five tribes (Cornell 173; Staveley 122–3; Taylor (2) 3–5).

  Sparta: the parallel was often drawn between the Roman ‘Senate’ and the Spartan ‘Gerousia’: both words mean ‘assembly of elders’; cf. 2. 50 below.

  explained later: not in the extant parts of the text. On the client system see Cornell 289–92.

  livestock etc.: Cicero is right in deriving the word pecunia ‘money’ from pecus ‘cattle’. The same semantic shift is apparent in the English word ‘fee’; cf. German Vieh ‘cattle’, from a Germanic root cognate with pecus.‘Cattle’ went the opposite way; it originally meant ‘property’ generally, cf. ‘chattels’, ‘capital’.

  eclipse of the sun: cf. above, 1. 25.

  second year of the seventh Olympiad: the first Olympiad began in 776/5 BC; the date given here is therefore 751/0, which is also the date given by Polybius (cf. 2. 27 below). The now conventional date of 753 was established by Cicero’s friend Atticus; its popularization by Varro leads to its modern designation as the ‘Varronian’ dating. See Zetzel 175–6; Bickerman 76–8.

  confusion over the name: another Lycurgus, king of Elis, was supposed to have founded the Olympic games.

  sometimes clumsily conceived: the rest of this paragraph is absent from the MS but is preserved by St Augustine. The missing portion will have contained a mention of the poet Hesiod who was supposed to be the grandfather of Stesichorus.

  doyen of writers: Plato.

  best men (optimates): cf. Introd. n. 14.

  ‘Patricians’: cf. above, note on 2. 14.

  interregnum: under the Republic, the consuls had responsibility for conducting the election of their successors. If both consulships were vacant, the Senate appointed an official known as interrex (lit. ‘between-king’) who held office for five days only. Successive interreges were appointed until the elections could be held; the period during which interreges held office was known as an interregnum. The Romans believed, as indeed the name of the office implies, that this procedure went back to the regal period.

  Assembly of Voting Districts: see Appendix and 2. 14 above. Cicero’s point here is that the appointment of the king was in two stages. First the king was chosen by the comitia curiata; then the same body formally passed a law to confer the regal power on him. This statute was called lex curiata. Under the Republic, the election of the higher magistrates was no longer in the hands of the comitia curiata but in those of the comitia centuriata, on which see below, 2. 39 ff., but their position was still formally confirmed by a lex curiata. The lex curiata had been the subject of controversy from time to time during Cicero’s career. It is very unclear precisely what it enabled a magistrate to do that he could not, in practice, do without it. At one point Cicero implies that it concerned the right to command an army (De Lege Agraria 2. 30). In 54 BC, at the time -when Cicero was conceiving the plan of the Republic, there was apparently obstruction of the normal procedure in connection with the appointment of Appius Claudius to govern the province of Cilicia. Appius declared that he would go to his province even without the law, at his own expense (Fam. 1. 9. 25,
Att. 4. 18. 4, Q. fr. 3. 2. 3). However, it is not clear that Cicero is here alluding directly to these political squabbles. It is more likely that he has in mind a general concern for legitimacy, and that his purpose is to trace democratic elements in the Roman constitution right from the beginning, and to highlight the function of the popular assembly as the legal source of political power. He mentions the lex curiata again in connection with each of the four succeeding kings, Tullus Hostilius, Ancus Marcius, Tarquinius Priscus, and Servius Tullius.