Classics and the Western Canon discussion

The reading schedule for Cicero's De Officiis, usually translated as either On Duties or On Obligations, but occasionally by other titles, will be posted in a few days. But here is a thread for posting background and resources, which can include discussion of translations. And there will be a separate thread for Cicero's Life and Times.

There are a number of copies of De Officiis available online.

Peseus has a copy in both English (Walter Miller translation) and Latin at
http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/t...

The copy on Gutenberg says it's just Latin, but in fact it's Latin with a parallel translation, again the Miller translation, with sort of titles for each section which may help a bit with navigation and finding passages.
http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/47001

Gutenberg also has other materials on Cicero, including Trollope's Life of Cicero in two volumes, and another by Collins which includes the following chapters:
I. Biographical—early Life and Education,
Ii. Public Career—impeachment of Verres,
Iii. The Consulship and Catiline,
Iv. Exile and Return,
V. Cicero and Caesar,
Vi. Cicero and Antony,
Vii. Character as Politician and Orator,
Viii. Minor Characteristics,
Ix. Cicero's Correspondence,
X. Essays on 'Old Age' and 'Friendship',
Xi. Cicero's Philosophy,
Xii. Cicero's Religion.

I would highly recommend The History of Philosophy Without Any Gaps podcast series for anyone wanting some broad context on Cicero's philosophy (or, really, for anyone in general). The episodes are just the right length for my commute, and as engaging introductions to the bones of historical philosophy, they work well.

At #9, Genni:

Patrice wrote: "That reminded me of Dante, the worst circle of Hell was for the betrayer. I haven't checked dates yet but Cicero was supposed to be very influential when he was rediscovered. I wonder if Dante read..."

GENNI:
It is interesting that he says this when he was so approving of the betrayal of Julius, no?

Adelle: From my reading, Cicero above all wanted to save The Republic.

For a time he backed Caesar. "Caesar was the only person who could reunite past enemies and bring back Rome's traditional institutions --the rule of law, the freedom of the Senate... The Dictator should legislate a constitutional settlement that would outlast him" (240l).

A man could legally be Dictator for six months.

But then...Caesar was voted Dictator for Life. It looked less and less as though he planned on restoring The Republic.

And then Caesar was deified. No good republican has himself deified.

Cicero: The Life and Times of Rome's Greatest Politician; Anthony Everitt

Adelle wrote: "For a time he backed Caesar. "Caesar was the only person who could reunite past enemies and bring back Rome's traditional institutions --the rule of law, the freedom of the Senate... The Dictator should legislate a constitutional settlement that would outlast him" (240l).

A man could legally be Dictator for six months.

But then...Caesar was voted Dictator for Life. It looked less and less as though he planned on restoring The Republic.

And then Caesar was deified. No good republican has himself deified.
"

I agree, Adelle. I in no way think that Caesar was in the right. I was thinking in black and white, that no betrayal is justified. I do understand where he, and the conspirators, were coming from.

Patrice wrote: "interesting. who are you loyal to? the person or the state? I think a good Roman or American would say the state."

Can you not be loyal to both? I think you can be loyal to the state and handle the case of a betrayer without betrayal.

I dont know enough history. Wondering though, in terms of betrayal. It wouldn't have been betrayal of Cicero on s personal basis. I think, like you, Patrice, first loyalty would be to the state. Betrayal of Cicero's hope of a renewed Republic? From my reading--it seems The Republic, really, was already gone. Overwhelming debt. Soldiers gathered demanding promised land. Senate not functional. 800 citizens killed in the Forum on Antony's orders... What if Caesar had come to the conclusion that a nominal return to The Republic would not save Rome?

Adelle wrote: "I dont know enough history. Wondering though, in terms of betrayal. It wouldn't have been betrayal of Cicero on s personal basis. I think, like you, Patrice, first loyalty would be to the state. Betrayal of Cicero's hope of a renewed Republic? From my reading--it seems The Republic, really, was already gone. Overwhelming debt. Soldiers gathered demanding promised land. Senate not functional. 800 citizens killed in the Forum on Antony's orders... What if Caesar had come to the conclusion that a nominal return to The Republic would not save Rome? "

I have only recently begun reading about this also so am in the same boat. I am not sure what you mean when you say that it was not a betrayal on a personal basis. Do you mean that the betrayal of Caesar was ok because it wasn't personal? Also, Cicero was not a direct conspirator in his assassination (that I know of), he just endorsed it publicly after it happened. I just thought his comment about a false front was interesting in light of those facts.

I have read the same as you. The Republic was already falling apart. Caesar, in a large part, was trying to bring things in order. He pardoned almost all enemies rather than publishing proscription lists and taking steps to unify the outlying provinces. Again, I don't think he was right in assuming so much power and a dictatorship, and certainly that he was not right in deifying himself, but I don't think he deserved the Ides of March. But I could just be naive about how conditions under him really were. (i.e. I didn't know about the 800 citizens. As I said above, I thought Caesar was trying to eliminate more violence-relatively, anyway, as compared with before under Sulla, etc.)

Hi, Genni.

Genni wrote:
. Do you mean that the betrayal of Caesar was ok because it wasn't personal?

Well, I dont really know that I'm ready to state that Caesar betrayed anyone. But he didn't seem to have betrayed Cicero, and, well, I had thought we were looking at betrayal from Ciscero's pov. I may have misunderstood about that.

Oh, I read the same as you. Cicero not a direct conspirator.

False front... intriguing. :-) I'll have to back and re-read what Ciscero wrote on that.

As I was reading this first section I couldn't help but be reminded of the Aristotelian idea of the "mean". I was glad to see him specifically call it out in 89.

Rex wrote: "I would highly recommend The History of Philosophy Without Any Gaps podcast series for anyone wanting some broad context on Cicero's philosophy (or, really, for anyone in general). The episodes are..."

That's a very useful site! Thank you Rex.

I would have mentioned before Leo Strauss's 1959 seminar on Cicero, the official transcript of which only came out recently:

https://leostrausscenter.uchicago.edu...

Strauss goes through the Republic and the Laws before taking up De Officiis, (session 9), but I skipped ahead, and his remarks on what C. meant to indicate by "officium" are very interesting.

An excerpt:

Well, a thing which I have said often enough:
Aristotle is the discoverer of moral virtue, and Aristotle is the greatest influence in our
tradition even up to today. There is no moral virtue in Plato; there is in Plato a distinction
between genuine virtue and popular virtue. What Aristotle calls moral virtue is called by
Plato popular or vulgar virtue. If you want to have the proof of that you only have to read
the myth of Er at the end of the Republic, where he describes the man of moral virtue
without using the term. What is a morally virtuous man, according to Aristotle? A man
who is virtuous by virtue of habituation. Of this man who has been brought up in good
habits and has become good by virtue of habituation, Plato says, or Socrates says, that he
will choose, at the moment of the possibility of his rebirth, the life of a tyrant. In other
words, the morally virtuous man is not truly converted to the true good, and therefore his
virtue is only vulgar or popular virtue. And until further and better instruction, I would
contend that in this respect the Stoics agreed with Plato. And [hence] this distinction
between perfect duty, if we may translate it that way, and medium or common officium—
that which every human being can be expected to do. The latter does not require wisdom.
From this distinction many consequences flow for the understanding of Cicero’s book.