Customer Reviews

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

5 star:		(1)
4 star:		(2)
3 star:		(1)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

Niall Rudd's edition of Cicero's two works The Republic and The Laws is the ideal handbook for the aspiring statesman; the accomplished politician should also be referred to use these two dialogues as a sort of political guide to draw from. In these two texts, the reader will find Cicero in all his eloquence artfully dicating the principles of what it means to be a good man and what it takes to create and consolidate states. This book will leave a lasting impression upon anyone who pans through the pages of these two very important works of the great Marcus Tullius Cicero. Also found here are the always insightful explanatory notes contained in the excellent series of Oxford World Classics; and the concise, scholarly introductions will without a doubt throw significant light upon the principles addressed throughout these timeless texts.

I enjoyed this translation and found it to be quite accessible. The two works go together to discuss the ideal state through a reasonably sophisticated approach though one which is quite trapped by views of Roman superiority. After all, Cicero begins by extolling the virtues of patriotism so we shouldn't be surprised if his ideal state looks exactly like his own state.

However, the approach taken by Cicero is rather interesting. Rather than emphasizing a specific structure, he seems to emphasize ongoing synthesis of elements of different structures, emphasizing the importance of what might later be thought to be a "social contract theory of government." Often I think in many areas of political discourse returning to this basic level would be helpful even in our modern age.

The second work builds upon this by offering a system of laws for the ideal republic. This helps to clarify Cicero's thinking a great deal by offering more concrete examples of how the Republic should be formed.

The introduction and end notes add a great deal to this edition. Anyone interested in theory of government, Roman studies, or Cicero in general, should read this book. Highly recommended.

From Plato's Republic or before, people have written their ideas of what the ideal state would look like, and especially how it would be governed. Cicero, a citizen of classical Rome adds his thoughts in the first half of this volume. To him, the philosophically ideal state would be very much like Rome itself.

Cicero establishes early on (p.16) that, regarding the marvels of the physical world, "that kind of knowledge will not make us better or happier people." Only statecraft is worthy of serious study. That ideal state would be populated by "We Romans, paragons of justice as we are" (p.63-64), who forbid many industries in their outlying states "in order to enhance the value of our own products." He reinforces this idea of the predatory state by saying "No state is so stupid as not to prefer wicked domination to virtuous subjection" (p.67), as if domination and subjection are the only two roles that states may hold with respect to each other.

Cicero presents his thoughts in the form of Platonic dialogs, but without the clear direction of Plato's works. Instead, these little plays express Cicero's unfailingly high opinion of himself and of Rome, dismissing all others (both people and states) as unworthy of interest. His "Lasw" follow the same pattern, exploring the ideal by reciting the rules that Rome had in place, with only minor revisions.

Mixed in with his smug sense of superiority regarding self and state, Cicero makes a few points of interest. He compares monarchy, oligarchy, and democracy as forms of government. He notes that each has flaws, and each holds the seeds of its own collapse. Instead of any one, Cicero proposes an ideal government - i.e., Rome's own - that combines all three. I found it interesting that the US constitution creates much the same structure. We have the mono-archic presidency, oligarchic supreme court, and democratic Senate and Congress. Unfortunatley, I found Cicero's discussion too diffuse and too broken by losses through the centuries to get any clear idea of how he would have divided responsibility between the three, so I can not contrast his ideal to our current situation.

The translation is lively and modern. Profuse end notes fill in cultural background and ambiguities in translation, adding nicely to the main text. I could only ask for uniform numbering in the references - end notes are numbered by the page to which they refer, but cross reference by section numbers in the text. That, combined with numbers that apparently identify leaves of the original, creating an indexing scheme that fell short in clarity. Those minor problems seem not to interfere with Cicero's presentation, or with Cicero's sense of his own importance and Rome's.

//wiredweird

I really enjoyed Cicero's writing and insight into politics and government, but too much of Cicero's Republic is missing to make it a compelling read. What parts do exist are reminiscent of Plato's Republic, Aristotle's Politics, and Polybius's Histories and Cicero certainly built upon those sources. It is interesting to read what this great man who fought against Cataline, Julius Caesar, Mark Antony, and Octavian/Octavius/Augustus has to say on the topic. I certainly recommend Cicero's Republic to anybody interested in Roman history or the history of political thought. However, to the more casual reader or those more generally interested in political thought, there is little benefit to reading this book if you already read or plan to read Plato, Aristotle, and Polybius. If we had all of Cicero's Republic, I'd likely be giving it four or five stars, but it deserves only two or three stars as it exists to us today.

Turning to the second half of the book, The Laws, which appears to be more complete and thus easier to read and review, Cicero argues that laws come from nature, not men. Cicero explains, "Law was not thought up by the intelligence of human beings, not is it some kind of resolution passed by communities, but rather an eternal force which rules the world by the wisdom of its commands and prohibitions... That original and final law is the intelligence of God, who ordains or forbids everything by reason." In this respect, I found sections of Cicero's The Laws to be quite similar to Frederic Bastiat's The Law.

Cicero explains that the Latin word for law, lex, comes from the word for choosing, lego. [Pages 103 and 125. But there is much uncertainty whether this is the actual etymology of the word law.] Thus, the book is primarily designed "to provide a code of living and a system of training for nations and individuals alike."

Cicero then makes the case that "the highest good is either to live according to nature or to follow nature and live, so to speak, by her law."

Cicero then describes Rome's legal code and proposes some changes. This section is sometimes interesting from a historical perspective, but less so in terms of political philosophy. However, it becomes extremely tedious and dull at times when Cicero describes certain aspects of Rome's laws in depth.

All in all, very insightful, though a bit tedious at times. But the worst aspect is the incongruous nature of the work because of all the missing text. I also wish the notes were put on the bottom of each page rather than in the back. I for one enjoy reading every note and found it difficult to flip back and forth four or five times per page.

In total, I am giving Cicero's The Republic and The Laws just three stars. I am sure this would disappoint Cicero greatly, but I place little blame on him. If his writing existed in full, I'm sure he would easily earn four stars and possibly five, though Cicero himself admitted in The Laws that he could not compete with Plato's writings on the same subject, which is why it would likely earn just four starts while Plato's Republic and Aristotle's Politics deserve five stars.