Cicero -  The Ideal Statesman

Scipio: Why, he should have virtually no duty apart from this, for it embraces all the rest — namely that he should never cease inspecting and examining himself, challenging others to imitate him, and by the splendour of his mind and conduct offering himself as a mirror to his fellow-citizens.  Just as with string instruments* or pipes or in singers’ voices a certain harmony of different sounds must be maintained (and trained ears cannot bear the effect if that harmony is thrown out or becomes discordant), and as that harmony though arising from the management of very different notes, produces a pleasing and agreeable sound, so a state, by adjusting the proportions between the highest, lowest, and intermediate classes, as if they were musical notes, achieves harmony.  What, in the case of singing, musicians call harmony is, in the state, concord; it constitutes the tightest and most effective bond of security; and such concord cannot exist at all without justice.

[About a dozen leaves are missing. Augistine (De Civitate Dei 2. 21) says that Philus asked for a fuller discussion of justice in view of the common opinion that no state could be governed without injustice.]

Scipio: I do agree, and I would stress that what we think has been established so far about the government of the state amounts to nothing, and that we have no basis for further progress, unless we refute the contention that government cannot be carried on without injustice, and, more than that, prove conclusively that it cannot be carried on without the highest degree of justice.

——————————————————————————————————————————————————————

The Re-Write

The ideal statesman has qualities that should be embraced,
a rational model of intellectual conduct and of natural grace.
Harmonious are his thoughts and actions which shall govern sound,
constantly seeking wholeness, while being order-bound.

A musical conductor of life, striving for melodious consonance with each class,
whether strings, or pipes, or voices gathered to join together amass.
Each role has a part to play, whether performance or to sing,
no greater than each other, proportional equality each role shall bring.

Security is sought from these notes, and justice from its voice,
Melodious is its overture, bringing good government by our choice.
Sing out to all who hear our words, and let the bells ring tried and true,
for injustice shall not tarry here, where justice constitutes anew.

This is one of the easiest ways to share your ideas on Politicolor. Every week we ask our contributors two questions and post their answers in an effort to help you find good ideas on the web. Because effective citizens are informed citizens engaged in sharing ideas…

What didn’t you know last week?

Gravity is an illusion. This story from the NY Times also suggests some of our best ideas  come to us when we have to change our plans. (Stepwinder/Shellee)

Most of the crew has gone on vacation. Leave your responses in the comments below and help fill this space!

What are you reading?

American Dream is Elusive for New Generation. I certainly have my own story when it comes to coping with the current economy, but I’m concerned about how it changes our ideas of the American Dream and what is possible too. It’s easy to read stories like this with a “kids today!” filter. I’m working through this longer read, however, wondering what it reveals about who we are and who we might be as a society and the problems aren’t always a question for the younger generation! (Stepwinder/Shellee)

This string without attribution or much commentary comes from discussions at the National Academy in Los Angeles this week:

Mel walked us through constitutional interpretation using Bob Jones University v. United States (1983). This is the university’s current statement about race under a broader category of “Who We Are.” Sarah, a 2010 participant, pointed us to this statement in addition to Stanley Fish’s column asking “Is Religion Special?”

In our discussion of “user’s knowledge” vs. “maker’s knowledge,” our afternoon groups turned to considering the worlds built through a good book. Nicole, a 2010 participant, was a bit startled to find an author she knows was contemplating something similar on his blog. We’re going to repost his thoughts in their entirety but his latest post considers democracy, capitalism and choice.

And lastly, as our models of political order came into view these last two weeks, we had several discussions about the promise and perils of pursuing one transcendent truth. Another NYT Opinionator post,”Moral Camouflage or Moral Monkeys,” seems to be thinking along a parallel track.

The force of words being (as I have formerly noted) too weak to hold men to the performance of their covenants; there are in man’s nature but two imaginable helps to strengthen it. And those are either a fear of the consequence of breaking their word; or a glory or pride in appearing not to need to break it. This latter is a generosity too rarely found to be presumed on, especially in the pursuers of wealth, command, or sensual pleasure; which are the greatest part of mankind. The passion to be reckoned upon, is fear, whereof there be two very general objects: one, the power of spirits invisible; the other, the power of those men they shall therein offend. Of these two, though the former be the greater power, yet the fear of the latter is commonly the greater fear. The fear of the former is in every man his own religion; which hath place in the nature of man before civil society. The latter hath not so; at least not place enough to keep men to their promises; because in the condition of mere nature, the inequality of power is not discerned, but by the event of battle. So that before the time of civil society, or in the interruption thereof by war, there is nothing can strengthen a covenant of peace agreed on against the temptations of avarice, ambition, lust, or other strong desire, but the fear of that invisible power which they every one worship as God; and fear as a revenger of their perfidy. All therefore that can be done between two men not subject to civil power is to put one another to swear by the God he feareth, which swearing, or OATH, is a form of speech, added to a promise; by which he that promiseth signifieth that, unless he perform he renounceth the mercy of his God or calleth to Him for vengeance on himself. Such was the heathen form, Let Jupiter kill me else, as I kill this beast. So is our form, as I shall do thus, and thus, so help me God.  And this, with the rites and ceremonies, which every one useth in his own religion, that the fear of breaking faith might be the greater.

Re-presented as though from Cicero:

SCIPIO: As you know, men do not always hold to their words as they attempt to imitate the laws of natures.  Still, there are ways to keep men more honest.

LAELIUS: And what, may I ask, are they?

SCIPIO: Men, in a state of nature, are driven by a fear of consequences if they do not perform what they have spoken, or the glory they receive in not needing to break with their word.  The latter, a good sense of consciousness, shows moral excellence, but is not achievable in each iteration.

LAELIUS: True, they may often be driven by a desire for wealth or power, or some other pleasure.

SCIPIO: Still, I think you won’t object to finding out about the nature of men’s fears.

LAELIUS: No, nothing seems more apt.

SCIPIO:  Well, the first fear is man’s fear of his fellow.  This we may call the common fear, the one to which all society is subject.  When men look around them, they see other men in the immediate vicinity, and that can create in them a sense of alarm.

LAELIUS: Perhaps they are not always men of good sense?

SCIPIO: No, not always.  But when men find themselves in this state of inequality, fear of another man adds nothing to them, and does not allow them to escape, no more than a fish can escape an eagle.

LAELIUS: I know the very sort of man you mean.

SCIPIO:  Such a man may still be motivated by his fear of God, and turn his pursuit again to that of justice.

LAELIUS: We can hope for nothing greater.

SCIPIO: In order to hasten this return to the laws of nature and the virtue there assigned, men can swear oaths.  By so doing, they recognize that there is one single justice.  The act of swearing helps enforce his promise to goodness, and that if he still fails he renounces God’s mercy.  Thus, the fear of breaking faith may be greater.

LAELIUS: But is it his nature to have a regard for others, or to fear others?  Is man, in nature, more likely to seek goodness or to necessarily defend himself?

[Here a leaf has been lost]