Category: Cicero

Thought from the Ancient World: Cicero on just war.

Today we citizens of the United States celebrate Independence Day. As an American it is a good day. While my country is not perfect it isn’t bad for a sovereign State run by mere mortals. I’d much rather be here than North Korea or Iran. But as a Christian it is always difficult to celebrate something that had to be secured through the bloodshed of fellow humans, especially if it can be shown it doesn’t fall under the auspices of classical just war theory.

That is not to say that I think highly of just war theory, but at least it plugs the dam before there is even more destruction.

On Mondays I usually share some excerpt of thought from the ancient world. It has often been the case that I find worthwhile content in the writings of Cicero. Today I will appeal to this philosopher-politician once again.

What did Cicero say about what we call “just war”? In De Officiis I.11.34-35 he writes the following:

Then, too, in the case of a state in its external relations, the rights of war must be strictly observed. For since there are two ways of settling a dispute: first, by discussion; second; by physical force; and since the former is characteristic of man, the latter of the brute, we must resort to force only in case we may not avail ourselves of discussion. The only excuse, therefore, for going to war is that we may live in peace unharmed; and when the victory is won, we should spare those who have not been blood-thirsty and barbarous in their warfare. For instance, our forefathers actually admitted to full rights of citizenship the Tusculans, Acquians, Volscians, Sabines, and Hernicians, but they razed Carthage and Numantia to the ground. I wish they had not destroyed Corinth; but I believe they had some special reason for what they did — its convenient situation, probably — and feared that its very location might some day furnish a temptation to renew the war. In my opinion, at least, we should always strive to secure a peace that shall not admit of guile. And if my advice had been heeded on this point, we should still have at least some sort of constitutional government, if not the best in the world, whereas, as it is, we have none at all. Not only must we show consideration for those whom we have conquered by force of arms but we must also ensure protection to those who lay down their arms and throw themselves upon the mercy of our generals, even though the battering-ram has hammered at their walls. And among our countrymen justice has been observed so conscientiously in this direction, that those who have given promise of protection to states or nations subdued in war become, after the custom of our forefathers, the patrons of those states.

I am no scholar of U.S. history, but it doesn’t seem that our fight for independence qualifies in the eyes of Cicero. There was likely more time and space for discussion and “taxation without representation” hardly qualifies as something preventing peace. In that sense our nation was born by means of an unjust war.

In I.11.36 he adds, “As for war, humane laws touching it are drawn up in the fetial code of the Roman People under all the guarantees of religion; and from this it may be gathered that no war is just, unless it is entered upon after an official demand for satisfaction has been submitted or warning has been given and a formal declaration made.” We did do this.

In I.11.37 he says that anyone who is not legally a soldier (i.e. has taken an oath) should not participate in warfare. This disqualifies normal day-to-day citizens from participating in the war. In some sense it should protect them as well.

This is part of the reason why pacifist scoff as those who propose that this or that war may be a “just” war. If we look at Cicero’s writings, and later those of thinkers like Augustine or Aquinas, it would seem that modern warfare cannot be engaged justly. All wars in our world are unjust because the nature of modern warfare has intensified greatly. Unless, of course, we broaden the definition of just war to include even more causes for going to war, but you see where this leads.

What do you think of the War for Independence? Was it a “just” war? 

Thought from the Ancient World: Epicurean naturalism

The debate over whether or not a god or gods were involved in the creation of the earth is not a debate that began with Darwin. In Cicero’s On the Gods, I. 53 (trans. P.G. Walsh, p. 21), Gaius Velleius is quoted as defending the Epicurean understanding of deity over against the Stoic god who is “plagued with hard work” (I. 52). He says of the “wholly inactive” (I.51) Epicurean deity the following:

“But we Epicureans define the life of blessedness as residing in the possession of untroubled mind and relaxation from all duties. Our mentor who has schooled us in all else has also taught us that the world was created naturally, without the need for a craftsman’s role, and the process which in your view cannot be put in train without the skillful touches of a god is so straightforward that nature has created, is now creating, and will continue to create innumerable worlds.”

Unlike most naturalist today, Gaius Velleius affirms a deity. He sees this deity maybe as a source of the world around us, but no active creator. This is somewhat like theistic evolutionism as explained by some.

So we see that debate over whether or not there is a form of naturalism where a personified nature evolves itself or whether as Stoic and today’s Intelligent Design adherents argue there is a deity at work is not recent or now. It goes back to even before the time of Cicero.

Thought from the Ancient World: Cicero on crucifixion.

I think many of us who have heard someone describe crucifixion understand that it was a terrible thing. In Michael Licona’s The Resurrection of Jesus: A New Historiographical Approach he mentions that Cicero commented on crucifixion, so I decided to search for the broader context. It is in Against Verres 2.5.165. He is bemoaning the crucifixion of a Roman citizen named Gavius who cried out over and over that he was a Roman while being lead to his death. One Verres ignored the claim and proceeded anyways.

In his accusation against Verres he says, “You confess that he did cry out that he was a Roman citizen; but that the name of citizenship did not avail with you even as much as to cause the least hesitation in your mind, or even any brief respite from a most cruel and ignominious punishment.”

For Cicero a Roman citizen should never, ever be subject to crucifixion. It is “a most cruel and ignominious punishment”.

On the other hand, a Jewish criminal who may be an enemy of the State has no rights. When Jesus went to die he went to suffer “a most cruel and ignominious punishment”. It was troubling enough of an event that Cicero couldn’t imagine a Roman being allowed to experience it.

Thought from the Ancient World: Gaius Velleius critiques various views of the gods

In Cicero’s The Nature of the God (I. 18-42; trans. P.G. Walsh) he recounts senator Gaius Velleius’ (an Epicurean) critique of the various views of the gods that he had heard. It is an interesting section worth reading for the mere sake of learning how various thinkers did “theology” in the ancient world. I have summarized Velleius’ commentary below:

Abaxagoras: God is reason and infinite mind. (I.26)

Thales of Miletus: Water was the first principle and god is the mind that fashioned everything from water (I.25).

Alcmaeon of Croton: The sin, moon, stars, and soul are divine. (I. 27)

Anaximenes: God is air. (I.26)

Antisthenes: One god in nature. (I. 32)

Aristo: He is semi-agnostic. (I. 37)

Arist0tle: The mind is divine, the world itself, and sometimes some person (?). (I.33)

Chrysippus: He put together a massive crowd of “unknown gods”. Also, he saw the soul and mind of nature and the universe as deity. (I. 39)

Cleanthes: The universe is god. Sometimes the mind and soul of nature. Finally, the “highest band of heat” in all creation is a god. (I. 37)

Democritus: Wandering images, nature, and our perception and understanding are somehow related to the divine. (I.29)

Diogenes of Apollonia: Air is divine. (I.29)

Empedocles: The four elements from which everything derives is divine. (I. 29)

Heraclides of Pontus: The universe is divine and maybe “Mind”. (I. 34)

Pythagoras: A great soul pervades the world from which our souls have detached. (I.27)

Persaeus: He thought great men could become gods. (I. 38)

Protagoras: Agnostic. (I. 29)

Plato: In some places he says that god cannot be named, some places he seems agnostic, some places the universe is divine, some the sky, the stars, the earth, our souls, and even deities from ancestral tradition. (I. 30)

Speusippus: There is a force by which all things controlled. (I. 32)

Strato: All divine power lies within nature itself. (I. 35)

Theophrastus: Sometimes it is “Mind” that is divine, sometimes the heavens, sometimes the stars. (I. 35)

Xenocrates: There are eight gods. (I. 34)

Xenophanes: The whole world has a mind as it is a god. (I. 28)

Xenophon: Agnostic at times, at other times sees the sun and soul as divine. Sometimes he is monotheistic and sometimes pluralistic. (I. 31)

Zeno: The law of nature is divine. The “upper air” is god. (I. 36)

To all this Velleius says:

“These approximate views which I have outlined are not considered judgments by philosophers, but the dreams of madman, indeed, the utterances of poets are not much more ridiculous, though the very charm they exercise is harmful, with their portrayal of the gods as fired with anger and maddened with lust; they have set before our eyes their wars and battles, their conflicts and wounds, their hatred and divisions and disagreements, their births and deaths, their plaints and outbursts of grief, their uncontrolled lust, their adulteries and the bonds confining them, their sexual intercourse with humans, and their begetting of mortals from their immortal seed.” (I. 42)

It seems like much of what we read here is still in circulation in some form today!