What do you think?
Rate this book
On Duties
De Officiis (On Duties) is Cicero's last theoretical work and contains his analysis, in a Greek theoretical framework, of the political and ethical values of the Roman governing class in the late Republic. It has often been treated merely as a key to the Greek philosophical works that Cicero used, but this volume aims to render De Officiis, which had a profound impact upon subsequent political thinkers, more intelligible by explaining its relation to its own time and place. All the standard series features are present, including a wholly new translation, a concise introduction by a leading scholar, select bibliography, chronology, notes on vocabulary and brief biographies of the most prominent individuals mentioned in the text.
256 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 45
About the author
Marcus Tullius Cicero
7,778 books1,833 followersMarcus Tullius Cicero was a Roman philosopher, statesman, lawyer, political theorist, and Roman constitutionalist. Cicero is widely considered one of Rome's greatest orators and prose stylists.
Alternate profiles:
Cicéron
Note: All editions should have Marcus Tullius Cicero as primary author. Editions with another name on the cover should have that name added as secondary author.
Alternate profiles:
Cicéron
Note: All editions should have Marcus Tullius Cicero as primary author. Editions with another name on the cover should have that name added as secondary author.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 178 reviews
June 2, 2017
This was difficult to read. Every idea was so familiar, it made me constantly want to put it down for something else new and exciting. But when I look at society, pragmatic duties are not what I see the majority observe (or so it seems). So homily or not, it's usefulness or truth is not negated.
Cicero writes to his son who, according to Tom Holland's Rubicon, was the campus drunk. Cicero wants his son to concern himself with moral obligations. “For no phase of life...can be without its moral duty; on the discharge of such duties depends all that is morally right, and on their neglect all that is morally wrong in life.” And why should he be concerned with what is morally right or wrong? Briefly, because it is the means to an orderly society, which in turn leads to a happy individual life.
While the moral tone of the book as a whole rings true, there were some sections that struck me as different from Judeo-Christian ideas. For example, he seems to proffer something like conditional kindness, that it shall be proportioned to the worthiness of the recipient; for this is the corner-stone of justice; and by the standard of justice all acts of kindness must be measured.” He is concerned that an act of kindness may cause injustice in some way, but it seems to me that kindness can be offered in all situations, even when dealing justice? Do not “unworthy” recipients need kindness? This isn't really clear to me.
Even if his thoughts are unoriginal, this is still worth reading for Cicero's perspective alone. He was a master rhetorician and prominent figure in his day. From his sadness at the fall of the Republic to his observations of the political scene; these glimpses into his mind and personality make fascinating reading.
Cicero writes to his son who, according to Tom Holland's Rubicon, was the campus drunk. Cicero wants his son to concern himself with moral obligations. “For no phase of life...can be without its moral duty; on the discharge of such duties depends all that is morally right, and on their neglect all that is morally wrong in life.” And why should he be concerned with what is morally right or wrong? Briefly, because it is the means to an orderly society, which in turn leads to a happy individual life.
While the moral tone of the book as a whole rings true, there were some sections that struck me as different from Judeo-Christian ideas. For example, he seems to proffer something like conditional kindness, that it shall be proportioned to the worthiness of the recipient; for this is the corner-stone of justice; and by the standard of justice all acts of kindness must be measured.” He is concerned that an act of kindness may cause injustice in some way, but it seems to me that kindness can be offered in all situations, even when dealing justice? Do not “unworthy” recipients need kindness? This isn't really clear to me.
Even if his thoughts are unoriginal, this is still worth reading for Cicero's perspective alone. He was a master rhetorician and prominent figure in his day. From his sadness at the fall of the Republic to his observations of the political scene; these glimpses into his mind and personality make fascinating reading.
April 27, 2022
I have to admit, I'm not so great with reading the philosophers but when I started reading this book from the library, I realized I had to go out and buy my own edition so I could mark it up to my heart's content!! I didn't "learn" anything new as the values and ethics espoused in this treatise are akin to the U.S founding values. And it wasn't so abstract, but very pragmatic, at times a little too repetitive as he pounds home his point. Although it took me a long time, it wasn't difficult reading. Just had alot of other things on my plate!
Cicero writes this to his son on what constitutes living an honorable life individually and with the common good in mind- our moral obligation. Early on he states that on " one level it refers to the highest aim among goods, and at another to the moral guidance which shape our daily lives in all their aspects." He says that all that is morally right comes from 1 of 4 sources:
1) wisdom or prudence
2)justice
3) courage
4) temperance
He discusses the virtues as honorable behavior, usefulness, and dissects potential conflicts between the two.
This should still be mandatory reading in our schools and at the minimum for anyone going into public service, it reminds us that expediency, self-gratification usually does not serve the community well.
Cicero writes this to his son on what constitutes living an honorable life individually and with the common good in mind- our moral obligation. Early on he states that on " one level it refers to the highest aim among goods, and at another to the moral guidance which shape our daily lives in all their aspects." He says that all that is morally right comes from 1 of 4 sources:
1) wisdom or prudence
2)justice
3) courage
4) temperance
He discusses the virtues as honorable behavior, usefulness, and dissects potential conflicts between the two.
This should still be mandatory reading in our schools and at the minimum for anyone going into public service, it reminds us that expediency, self-gratification usually does not serve the community well.
August 16, 2018
It's interesting that I followed up the previous collection of Cicero's orations with this book. This work of Cicero's (originally titled De Officiis), really makes plain a lot of the sensibilities which I simply intuited from his orations. I mentioned in my last review that Cicero was very suspicious of people who sought to manipulate a populace in order to create a factious mob. This work illustrates his ideals with a lot of poignant quotes. I would like to share some of those because they are quite astute. First, a quote regarding the ambitions of tyrannical leaders:
“Now it is hard, when you covet pre-eminence, to maintain the equity which is the most essential property of justice. Hence it is that such men suffer themselves to be overcome neither in debate nor by any legal or constitutional hindrance, and in the state they, for the most part, employ bribery and intrigue that they may acquire the greatest influence possible, and may rise by force, rather than maintain equality with their fellow-citizens by justice.”
Later on the same page, he follows the previous idea up with this:
“A soul truly and wisely great regards the right to which the nature of man aspires as consisting in deeds, not in fame; it chooses to be chief rather than seem so. On the other hand, he who depends on the waywardness of the undiscerning multitude does not deserve to be reckoned among great men.”
It seems likely that Cicero saw these kinds of leaders as especially pernicious because of their ability to sway a population, and, seemingly, to weaponize them as a mob.
We have a tendency to think that Socialism/Communism is a relatively new philosophical/political movement that went as far back as the 19th century and no further, but, as Cicero proves, it is not a new idea at all. Even in his day, devious politicians gained power by promising people the property of those who were more well-to-do. Once again, this makes plain how suspicious Cicero was of leaders that sought to manipulate a gullible population. There are some really great quotes regarding this. Keep in mind that agrarianism was the ancient version of Socialism:
“He who administers the affairs of the state must take special care that every man be defended in the possession of what rightfully belongs to him, and that there be no encroachment on private property by public authority. Philippus, during his tribunate, when he proposed the agrarian law (which he readily suffered to be rejected, behaving in the matter with great moderation), while in defending the measure he said many things adapted to cajole the people, did mischief by the ill-meant statement that there were not in the city two thousand men that had any property. It was a criminal utterance, tending to an equal division of property, than which what more ruinous policy can there be?”
Following this up on another page, he says this:
“Those, therefore, who desire to be popular, and with that view either attempt agrarian measures, that the occupants of the public domains may be driven from their homes, or advocate the remission of debts, are undermining the foundations of the state, - in the first place, harmony, which cannot exist when money is taken from some and debts are canceled for others; in the next place, equity, which is utterly destroyed, if hindrances are laid in the way of men's keeping their property. For, as I said above, this belongs to the very idea of state and a city, that the protection of every man's property should be certain and not a subject of solicitude. Moreover, by measures thus ruinous to the state men do not gain the favor they anticipate. He from whom property is taken becomes their enemy.”
A good summation of Cicero's position is shown with this quote:
“From this kind of generosity, then, - the giving to some what is taken from others, - those who mean to be guardians of the state will refrain, and will especially bestow their efforts, that through the equity of the laws and of their administration every man may have his own property made secure, and that neither the poorer may be defrauded on account of their lowly condition, nor any odium may stand in the way of the rich in holding or recovering what belongs to them...”
Cicero also deals with what we today would often call pluralism (i.e. where everyone looks out for their own interests and those of their group):
“...this is the consummate reason and wisdom of a good citizen, not to create separate interests among those of the same state, but to hold all together by the same principles of equity.”
Clearly, Cicero understood that a society cannot function with divisive special interest groups. There must be cohesiveness in any functioning society. Equity is the cohesiveness that he specifically names. No such cohesiveness can be had when people are given special rights at the cost of others and when people look to gain the property belonging to others.
Nearer the end of the book, Cicero tackles the subject of expediency and whether it is different than what is right. There were philosophers prior to Cicero that had sought to make a distinction between the two, but Cicero was adamant that what is right is also expedient and what is expedient must be right. One can modernize the subject a little by noting that it is basically the same as the subject regarding the relationship between means and ends. There have been utilitarians that argued that the end justifies the means, but others have forcefully argued the reverse, that the means cannot be divorced from the ends - both must be equally blameless. Certainly, Cicero would be on the side of the latter position (so would I, btw).
I would say this is definitely an essential work of Cicero's. Along with the Republic, De Finibus, De Legibus and the Tusculan Disputations, this work provides the most detail regarding Cicero's ethical and political philosophy. Highly recommended.
“Now it is hard, when you covet pre-eminence, to maintain the equity which is the most essential property of justice. Hence it is that such men suffer themselves to be overcome neither in debate nor by any legal or constitutional hindrance, and in the state they, for the most part, employ bribery and intrigue that they may acquire the greatest influence possible, and may rise by force, rather than maintain equality with their fellow-citizens by justice.”
Later on the same page, he follows the previous idea up with this:
“A soul truly and wisely great regards the right to which the nature of man aspires as consisting in deeds, not in fame; it chooses to be chief rather than seem so. On the other hand, he who depends on the waywardness of the undiscerning multitude does not deserve to be reckoned among great men.”
It seems likely that Cicero saw these kinds of leaders as especially pernicious because of their ability to sway a population, and, seemingly, to weaponize them as a mob.
We have a tendency to think that Socialism/Communism is a relatively new philosophical/political movement that went as far back as the 19th century and no further, but, as Cicero proves, it is not a new idea at all. Even in his day, devious politicians gained power by promising people the property of those who were more well-to-do. Once again, this makes plain how suspicious Cicero was of leaders that sought to manipulate a gullible population. There are some really great quotes regarding this. Keep in mind that agrarianism was the ancient version of Socialism:
“He who administers the affairs of the state must take special care that every man be defended in the possession of what rightfully belongs to him, and that there be no encroachment on private property by public authority. Philippus, during his tribunate, when he proposed the agrarian law (which he readily suffered to be rejected, behaving in the matter with great moderation), while in defending the measure he said many things adapted to cajole the people, did mischief by the ill-meant statement that there were not in the city two thousand men that had any property. It was a criminal utterance, tending to an equal division of property, than which what more ruinous policy can there be?”
Following this up on another page, he says this:
“Those, therefore, who desire to be popular, and with that view either attempt agrarian measures, that the occupants of the public domains may be driven from their homes, or advocate the remission of debts, are undermining the foundations of the state, - in the first place, harmony, which cannot exist when money is taken from some and debts are canceled for others; in the next place, equity, which is utterly destroyed, if hindrances are laid in the way of men's keeping their property. For, as I said above, this belongs to the very idea of state and a city, that the protection of every man's property should be certain and not a subject of solicitude. Moreover, by measures thus ruinous to the state men do not gain the favor they anticipate. He from whom property is taken becomes their enemy.”
A good summation of Cicero's position is shown with this quote:
“From this kind of generosity, then, - the giving to some what is taken from others, - those who mean to be guardians of the state will refrain, and will especially bestow their efforts, that through the equity of the laws and of their administration every man may have his own property made secure, and that neither the poorer may be defrauded on account of their lowly condition, nor any odium may stand in the way of the rich in holding or recovering what belongs to them...”
Cicero also deals with what we today would often call pluralism (i.e. where everyone looks out for their own interests and those of their group):
“...this is the consummate reason and wisdom of a good citizen, not to create separate interests among those of the same state, but to hold all together by the same principles of equity.”
Clearly, Cicero understood that a society cannot function with divisive special interest groups. There must be cohesiveness in any functioning society. Equity is the cohesiveness that he specifically names. No such cohesiveness can be had when people are given special rights at the cost of others and when people look to gain the property belonging to others.
Nearer the end of the book, Cicero tackles the subject of expediency and whether it is different than what is right. There were philosophers prior to Cicero that had sought to make a distinction between the two, but Cicero was adamant that what is right is also expedient and what is expedient must be right. One can modernize the subject a little by noting that it is basically the same as the subject regarding the relationship between means and ends. There have been utilitarians that argued that the end justifies the means, but others have forcefully argued the reverse, that the means cannot be divorced from the ends - both must be equally blameless. Certainly, Cicero would be on the side of the latter position (so would I, btw).
I would say this is definitely an essential work of Cicero's. Along with the Republic, De Finibus, De Legibus and the Tusculan Disputations, this work provides the most detail regarding Cicero's ethical and political philosophy. Highly recommended.
September 27, 2017
“Cicero, like thoughtful men of every age, knew that the reason vicious leaders like Caesar could rise to power was because the Roman population itself had been corrupted and no longer pursued the old virtues; a leader is, after all, a mirror of the people who choose him or at least allow him to retain power.” – Wes Callihan, Foreword to On Duties
Last Spring, I began the most lovely tradition: I had a morning coffee date with Cicero nearly every weekday morning. Sadly, that tradition came to a bittersweet last week when I turned the last page in my copy of Roman Roads Media’s new translation of Cicero’s On Duties. I say bittersweet because I didn’t really want my coffee dates to end, but I also appreciate how much this little book has stretched me and challenged my prejudices. While I always knew that Rome was a pagan empire, I never really understood how complex their view of ethics was nor how moral they considered themselves to be while behaving in ways Christians would consider profane. In coming to understand the wars over morality that Cicero and his peers engaged in, I grew to understand exactly how radical the Gospel must have seemed to Ancient Rome. And, of course, that made me reflect on how like that time this age is, and how radical the Gospel continues to be.
I have wanted to read and know Cicero for many years. I love David McCullough’s biography of John Adams. When I read that tome in 2014, I noted how impressed Adams had been with Cicero. Ever since then I was watching for an opportunity to start some kind of Cicero course of study. I was delighted to discover that Roman Roads Media had a new translation of Cicero’s On Duties, and that Wes Callihan had penned the foreword. I have admired Wes Callihan since discovering “Old Western Culture,” and have come to respect his opinions on the classics. I was intrigued.
When my copy arrived, I noticed two key things: the large pocket-size printing was perfectly unintimidating, and Cicero arranged his text into very short numbered points. I realized that this text could easily be divided into a short daily reading allowance and that it would give me a long and slow journey through Cicero’s thoughts. The text is divided into three “books,” and each book is subdivided into several dozen points which span an average of two pages each.
Pairing Cicero with my Charlotte Mason reading plan, I could start each day with coffee, prayer, and some study of the classics. This suited my needs perfectly.
(I did post thoughts about this text on Instagram as I was reading. If you want to find them, you can find me at @homeschoolsara)
Last Spring, I began the most lovely tradition: I had a morning coffee date with Cicero nearly every weekday morning. Sadly, that tradition came to a bittersweet last week when I turned the last page in my copy of Roman Roads Media’s new translation of Cicero’s On Duties. I say bittersweet because I didn’t really want my coffee dates to end, but I also appreciate how much this little book has stretched me and challenged my prejudices. While I always knew that Rome was a pagan empire, I never really understood how complex their view of ethics was nor how moral they considered themselves to be while behaving in ways Christians would consider profane. In coming to understand the wars over morality that Cicero and his peers engaged in, I grew to understand exactly how radical the Gospel must have seemed to Ancient Rome. And, of course, that made me reflect on how like that time this age is, and how radical the Gospel continues to be.
I have wanted to read and know Cicero for many years. I love David McCullough’s biography of John Adams. When I read that tome in 2014, I noted how impressed Adams had been with Cicero. Ever since then I was watching for an opportunity to start some kind of Cicero course of study. I was delighted to discover that Roman Roads Media had a new translation of Cicero’s On Duties, and that Wes Callihan had penned the foreword. I have admired Wes Callihan since discovering “Old Western Culture,” and have come to respect his opinions on the classics. I was intrigued.
When my copy arrived, I noticed two key things: the large pocket-size printing was perfectly unintimidating, and Cicero arranged his text into very short numbered points. I realized that this text could easily be divided into a short daily reading allowance and that it would give me a long and slow journey through Cicero’s thoughts. The text is divided into three “books,” and each book is subdivided into several dozen points which span an average of two pages each.
Pairing Cicero with my Charlotte Mason reading plan, I could start each day with coffee, prayer, and some study of the classics. This suited my needs perfectly.
(I did post thoughts about this text on Instagram as I was reading. If you want to find them, you can find me at @homeschoolsara)
June 5, 2017
Originally written for his son Marcus, this treatise expounds principles for a honorable life. The three books deal with 1) what is honorable, 2) what is useful and 3) what to do when the honorable "conflicts" with the useful.
In the end, Cicero argues that that which is honorable is also useful and that which is not honorable is not useful. Hence, we should pursue that which is honorable, which can come from 4 sources: 1) wisdom/prudence, 2) justice, 3) greatness of soul and 4) fitting.
The book is short but dense and requires deep thinking. The Oxford World's Classics edition comes with a detailed introduction and extensive footnotes. This is a work that makes us ponder and brings us closer to being virtuous.
In the end, Cicero argues that that which is honorable is also useful and that which is not honorable is not useful. Hence, we should pursue that which is honorable, which can come from 4 sources: 1) wisdom/prudence, 2) justice, 3) greatness of soul and 4) fitting.
The book is short but dense and requires deep thinking. The Oxford World's Classics edition comes with a detailed introduction and extensive footnotes. This is a work that makes us ponder and brings us closer to being virtuous.
July 7, 2017
Cicero's book is intelligent and charming, though his usual--how can I put this?--hatred of poor people does dull through the brilliance. But you shouldn't really need a goodreads review to convince you to read this book, which is tremendously important for the history of ideas Europe.
You might need a review to suggest a particular edition, and I heartily recommend this one. It's an ideal of its kind. Walsh's notes are full, relevant, and broad (they cover biography, history, and philosophy); his introduction is, too (they cover those three, as well as the book's later influence). The text reads well. Highly recommended.
You might need a review to suggest a particular edition, and I heartily recommend this one. It's an ideal of its kind. Walsh's notes are full, relevant, and broad (they cover biography, history, and philosophy); his introduction is, too (they cover those three, as well as the book's later influence). The text reads well. Highly recommended.
September 1, 2016
Difficile de lire sans émotion ce texte, le dernier que Cicéron a laissé avant son assassinat par les spadassins de Marc Antoine : rédigé après la mort de César, il s'adresse à son fils et traite de la morale. C'est également le testament politique d'un homme qui a consacré sa vie à la République et qui, retiré dans sa maison de campagne, est le témoin impuissant de sa dissolution progressive. Le ton est donc lourd, car l'auteur ne peut pardonner à Caius César d'avoir déclenché la guerre civile, et défié les institutions. Ses Philippiques ne parviendrons pas à mobiliser les forces de la République contre les ambitieux qui souhaitent se partager l'héritage de César, l'Empire. Caton et Brutus ont péri. Bientôt l'auteur les suivra. Rome entrera dans une nouvelle ère.
Fidèle à son attachement à la méthode de la nouvelle Académie, il se plait à passer en revue les thèses des principales écoles philosophiques concernant la morale, mais n'hésite pas pour autant à donner son avis et à clairement prendre parti. Quand on parle de morale, il ne faut pas s'imaginer que l'auteur est un raseur qui débite d'un ton docte des sentences sans réflexion, ni un théoricien qui bâtit des châteaux en l'air sans rapport avec la réalité. Cicéron est au contraire un homme qui a consacré son existence à la vie publique, qui a exercé les plus hautes charges politiques et judiciaires, et qui est pénétré du souci de se rendre utile et de confronter ses idées avec le réel.
On peut dire que du point de vue privé, Cicéron prône une morale pratique et souple, qui s'adapte avec à propos aux circonstances, et dont sa carrière d'avocat lui avait enseigné la variété. C'est un juste milieu entre d'un coté un stoïcisme ombrageux, pour lequel tout les crimes se valent, tuer son père ou égorger un poulet sans nécessité, et d'un autre coté un épicurisme qui le choque en ne mettant le souverain bien que dans le plaisir. Pour Cicéron, moins que la vertu, c'est l'honnête qui prime : une qualité qui consiste à rechercher la vérité par l'instruction et la philosophie, travailler à l'harmonie de la société, obtenir des biens et des honneurs, et enfin, agir résolument en s'investissant dans la vie publique. Il rejette une interprétation trop subtile de la justice, celle qui s'attache plus à la lettre qu'à l'esprit. Summum jus summa injuria : c'est lui. Enfin, il se pose en exemple : au contraire de philosophes qui prôneraient un détachement par rapport à la marche du monde, il plaide pour un investissement de l'individu : l'homme vit pour ses semblables, sa famille, ses proches, ses concitoyens, mais aussi toute l'humanité.
En ce qui concerne la politique, Cicéron embrasse résolument la position conservatrice des Optimates : on peut le comprendre compte tenu des circonstances lors de la rédaction de ce livre, et des engagements qui ont été les siens auprès de Pompée, même s'il n'était pas allé jusqu'à prendre les armes. Quelle aigreur, bien sûr, à considérer la séduction que pouvait exercer sur la plèbe l'opportunité de se partager les biens des vaincus, suite à la guerre civile. Les ambitieux surent en faire bon usage, en prenant comme César le parti de la plèbe, en prodiguant des richesses et des honneurs. Ainsi, les Gracques, les lois agraires, toutes redistribution, toute atteinte à la propriété privée lui semble au plus haut point impie. Pour lui, cela détruit ce qu'il considère être le fondement de la société : pouvoir jouir de ses biens en toute sécurité. Sur ce point, je trouve qu'il est incohérent avec ce que sont ses positions par rapport à la morale individuelle. Il donne aux institutions un caractère trop sacré, il demande une soumission trop forte de l'individu, pour ma sensibilité moderne plus individualiste.
La République de Platon, où la propriété est abolie, est une utopie. Mais conserver de manière inviolable la propriété sans jamais violer la justice, en voilà une autre. Chacune des deux, trop absolue, écrase l'individu. Si on lit la constitution d'Athènes d'Aristote, quel fait a déterminé Solon le législateur, à fonder la démocratie, si ce n'est la guerre sociale entre les riches et les pauvres ? Par quelle mesure a-t-il ramené la concorde si ce n'est en réduisant les dettes qui condamnaient à l'esclavage les citoyens incapables de les honorer ? Il sut aussi borner les prétentions de la multitude en refusant la loi agraire. Et quand on lit Tite-Live, quel tableau offre l'histoire politique de la République Romaine, si ce n'est une permanente guerre latente entre patriciens et plébéiens, pour l'accès aux places, la reconnaissance publique, l'égalité devant la justice ? Par deux fois, la plèbe quitte la ville pour signifier son mécontentement et obtenir des ménagements. Combien de luttes âpres, d'assassinats pour obtenir les tribuns, pour abolir l'esclavage pour dettes ? Comment juger l'acharnement de Coriolan que Plutarque relate dans les Vies Parallèles ? Et je ne dirai rien des terribles guerres civiles qui ont opposé les romains du temps de Marius et Sylla, qu'a relaté Appien.
Les lois n'ont aucun caractère sacré qui les mettrait en dehors de toute remise en question : c'est par la bonne volonté de chacun à s'y soumettre qu'elles puisent leur véritable force, beaucoup plus que dans les moyens coercitifs dont la société se dote pour les faire respecter, ou dans le fait qu'elles puissent découler de principes divins ou transcendants. C'est le grand objet de la politique de maintenir l'équilibre et l'harmonie entre les groupes qui se forment naturellement par affinité d'intérêt au sein de la société, et d'amortir dans le rite des institutions la compétition acharnée qu'ils se livrent. Que l'un d'eux prennent un ascendant irrésistible sur les autres, et tout est perdu. Celui qui croit l'emporter ne fait que suspendre au dessus de tous l'épée de Damoclès.
February 7, 2021
On Obligations (De officiis) was written in 44 BC, shortly after Caesar’s assassination and shortly before Cicero’s own. Cicero discusses the nature of the honorable, our obligation to pursue the honorable through the exercise of four cardinal virtues (wisdom, justice, beneficence, and magnanimity), and the relationship between the honorable and the useful. He takes the stoic position that reason itself endows us with moral obligations to the gods, the state, the family, and to all of humanity—typically prioritized in that order—and argues that, properly understood, there is no contradiction between the honorable and the useful; that which is honorable is useful, and that which is useful is honorable. Our perceptions to the contrary stem from either a lack of knowledge about natural law, or a mistaken assumption that what is truly good for an individual is not always good for humanity collectively.
The treatise is also notable for its rather straightforward ethical endorsement of the assassination of tyrants, viewing them effectively as enemies of humanity that can—and often must—be severed from the communal life as one might amputate a diseased body part to prevent the infection from spreading. The work has the tenor of a cerebral man attempting to appeal to timeless truths while also navigating a heated moment of political chaos.
The treatise is also notable for its rather straightforward ethical endorsement of the assassination of tyrants, viewing them effectively as enemies of humanity that can—and often must—be severed from the communal life as one might amputate a diseased body part to prevent the infection from spreading. The work has the tenor of a cerebral man attempting to appeal to timeless truths while also navigating a heated moment of political chaos.
February 3, 2008
De Officiis, or “On Duties,” was the second book printed on Gutenberg’s printing press. Apparently, Gutenberg and his other contemporaries knew how important the press was so they wanted to give props to the Bible, as the most important book ever written/compiled—but along those lines he decided to print Cicero’s classic shortly thereafter. Cicero wrote this book as a series of letters to his prodigal child, who had little ambition to be a correct man, like his father was. Consequently, it reads like good advice from your father.
Some of the greatest logos on ethics comes from this book. He will convince you that being an ethical person is the only way to live, and he does it through expediency—“whether the action contemplated is or is not conducive to comfort and happiness in life, to the command of means and wealth, to influence, and to power.” The gist of it is that having good moral character will bring you more expediency in the long run than any illicit behavior. Maintaining power, increasing wealth and influence will naturally be easiest to those men and women with high moral character.
Most books on ethics and morality are not widely credible. The reason is that those great books are religious texts, claimed by those sects to be inspired by God, which is why they are incredible to many who are not members of that particular faith. But Cicero’s De Officiis is recognized by all—because it is a secular book. So if you want to quote a high authority on morality, quote Cicero. Here is a preview of the good quotes: “For self control is the foe of the passions, and the passions are the handmaids of pleasure.”
Some of the greatest logos on ethics comes from this book. He will convince you that being an ethical person is the only way to live, and he does it through expediency—“whether the action contemplated is or is not conducive to comfort and happiness in life, to the command of means and wealth, to influence, and to power.” The gist of it is that having good moral character will bring you more expediency in the long run than any illicit behavior. Maintaining power, increasing wealth and influence will naturally be easiest to those men and women with high moral character.
Most books on ethics and morality are not widely credible. The reason is that those great books are religious texts, claimed by those sects to be inspired by God, which is why they are incredible to many who are not members of that particular faith. But Cicero’s De Officiis is recognized by all—because it is a secular book. So if you want to quote a high authority on morality, quote Cicero. Here is a preview of the good quotes: “For self control is the foe of the passions, and the passions are the handmaids of pleasure.”
February 12, 2019
This book was written shortly after Caesar’s assassination in 44 B.C., and was heavily influenced by the Stoic school of philosophy. It could be said that this is a more historical than theoretical book, which makes it more practical in the light of daily experiences in a more direct way than other books of philosophy.
When you read "On Duties," it is possible to feel that Cicero operated under a very different set of values. The ancient world was founded on justice and reason, and our postmodern world is based on mercy and emotion, with disastrous consequences. We need to have some sensitivity to these differences, since our assumptions are blind spots.
Being a worthy work of Stoic philosophy, I can assure that it is very useful for personal development. For some, it could become the path that leads them to achieve virtue and well-being.
When you read "On Duties," it is possible to feel that Cicero operated under a very different set of values. The ancient world was founded on justice and reason, and our postmodern world is based on mercy and emotion, with disastrous consequences. We need to have some sensitivity to these differences, since our assumptions are blind spots.
Being a worthy work of Stoic philosophy, I can assure that it is very useful for personal development. For some, it could become the path that leads them to achieve virtue and well-being.
September 9, 2010
The original, and until about a century ago, the most popular discussion of why it's better to be admired than feared. From the 16th through the 19 centuries anyone in public life who considered himself educated and moral had to be intimately familiar with this book, written by Cicero as an essay to his son in his last year, before he was murdered by some of Mark Antony's thugs. Machiavelli wrote specifically against this book in The Prince. If you want to know why it's ALWAYS wrong to torture, or lie, or take the easy way for immediate gain while in public office, from a man who spent his life in (literally) cut-throat politics, this is the place to start.
April 24, 2020
El escritor de esta obra, además de ser un gran orador; fue un gran escritor, con un estilo fluido y absorbente, en esta oportunidad habla sobre los distintos deberes de un ciudadano romano, gracias a esto, podemos analizar el modo de conducta deseable para esa sociedad antigua, los consejos y anécdotas que da Cicerón en este texto son increíbles.
Los principales valores estoicos: Templanza, Fortaleza, Justicia, Sabiduría, se muestran y explican claramente, lo honesto por encima de lo útil, la resiliencia en las circunstancias difíciles, el aborrecimiento del dolor. Principalmente escrito para su hijo, este texto es una joya de la antigua Roma, con un estilo literario exquisito, invaluable, eminente.
Los principales valores estoicos: Templanza, Fortaleza, Justicia, Sabiduría, se muestran y explican claramente, lo honesto por encima de lo útil, la resiliencia en las circunstancias difíciles, el aborrecimiento del dolor. Principalmente escrito para su hijo, este texto es una joya de la antigua Roma, con un estilo literario exquisito, invaluable, eminente.
November 4, 2021
this book has very shiny pages, which made it hard to annotate because my pen kept smudging. other than that, it's surprisingly great! did not expect to vibe with cicero so much, but the man's substantially more bearable in english. something to probably reread more slowly and carefully at a time when nanowrimo isn't making every one of my classes a pvp enabled zone
October 14, 2024
Cicero’s smooth and cultured style does not exactly translate well into English even in the best versions like the most recent one from Benjamin Patrick Newton. It usually tends to come off at least a little bit pompous, dry, and discursive. Those who have translated his rhetoric from the original are well-aware that the precise, mellifluous cadences of his language are the inspiration for all great oratory in all languages since, and a major part of its value is lost in the carrying over. Hence, many who read it today apart from the original language may struggle to appreciate Cicero's immense position in the history of Western education and the accolades with which he has been consistently revered.
The majority of his ideas here are essentially recycled from either Aristotle or the Hellenistic philosophers which will make much of it sound redundant to those familiar with the aforementioned. But it is still close to being an essential read since Cicero scours all those streams of thought for their high points and provides a concrete guide to their implementation in a civil community. It gives much profound insight into the general cultural climate of Rome and its struggles for an identity of worldview and preservation of national/communal ideals at a time of crisis—indeed much of it is startlingly relevant to today's American climate. I believe that the U.S. founders held Cicero in very high regard because he provides an almost perfect blend of the two much later traditions that we call classical liberalism and classical conservatism—that is, the desire for ordered and virtuous liberty which informs the Constitution and the Federalist Papers. The book is also somewhat of a guide to how to be a classical gentleman, even extending into such particularities as the arrangement of one's house! For these reasons I might even recommend it above the Nicomachean Ethics for an introduction to classical ethics, especially for young men in search of beauty and cultivation. Sure, Tully may be nowadays considered "second rate," but if you want to know how the average educated person in Europe was trained to think about life from the time of the Renaissance through the early 20th century, you have to read this.
Somewhat of an over-inflated windbag as he may be, what I wouldn't give to have politicians who thought, spoke, and acted like Cicero today. Unfortunately, the misaligned appetites of the people would most likely drive such figures to obscurity, as we now (in my observations) mostly have to worry about Plato's tyranny of the masses and resulting demagogues rather than oppressive dictators from the top down, like the Caesar who Cicero fought so vociferously.
The majority of his ideas here are essentially recycled from either Aristotle or the Hellenistic philosophers which will make much of it sound redundant to those familiar with the aforementioned. But it is still close to being an essential read since Cicero scours all those streams of thought for their high points and provides a concrete guide to their implementation in a civil community. It gives much profound insight into the general cultural climate of Rome and its struggles for an identity of worldview and preservation of national/communal ideals at a time of crisis—indeed much of it is startlingly relevant to today's American climate. I believe that the U.S. founders held Cicero in very high regard because he provides an almost perfect blend of the two much later traditions that we call classical liberalism and classical conservatism—that is, the desire for ordered and virtuous liberty which informs the Constitution and the Federalist Papers. The book is also somewhat of a guide to how to be a classical gentleman, even extending into such particularities as the arrangement of one's house! For these reasons I might even recommend it above the Nicomachean Ethics for an introduction to classical ethics, especially for young men in search of beauty and cultivation. Sure, Tully may be nowadays considered "second rate," but if you want to know how the average educated person in Europe was trained to think about life from the time of the Renaissance through the early 20th century, you have to read this.
Somewhat of an over-inflated windbag as he may be, what I wouldn't give to have politicians who thought, spoke, and acted like Cicero today. Unfortunately, the misaligned appetites of the people would most likely drive such figures to obscurity, as we now (in my observations) mostly have to worry about Plato's tyranny of the masses and resulting demagogues rather than oppressive dictators from the top down, like the Caesar who Cicero fought so vociferously.
October 2, 2023
Ha sido raro e incómodo leer esta obra filosófica en tiempos de investidura porque queda muy claro a quién votaría Cicerón. Detrás de todo el discurso sobre que hay que hacer lo honesto, lo justo y lo útil, lo que viene a decir es que matar está mal excepto si es en nombre de la Libertad™. Las piruetas que da Cicerón para justificar sus actos y los de quienes él apoyaba, me confirman uno de los peligros de la filosofía en ciertas manos: dignificar lo indigno bajo palabras que suenan bien pero despojanq de toda emoción cualquier acto.
November 20, 2022
3.5
This is a book on ethics but where it really shines is its place as a historical document.
As work of ethics it's a bit muddled and does not stand out, there is a lot of wit and wisdom in it, but the foundations of it are shaky. It follows the stoic line of of attributing nature as the source of authority and justification for ethics, now while that may be a correct foundation the book just takes it for granted and doesn't bother to deal with the very serious challenges that face this line of reasoning.
As a historical document it is fascinating, it was quickly written in the last months on Cicero’s life before his execution during the failed attempt at restoring the Roman Republic after the Assassination of Caesar. Written to his son, it outlines what we understand as the normative Roman ethical value (though there is a lot of not to subtle justification regarding the assassination of tyrants) and contains interesting historical commentary.
Finally, it also ended with a surprisingly heavy emotional note, with one of the sadder footnotes I’ve read. Speaking to his son Marcus:
so you will please devote as much time as you can to these volumes, for in them my voice will travel to you; and you can devote to them as much time as you will. And when I see that you take delight in this branch of philosophy, I shall then talk further with you — at an early date,* I hope, face to face — but as long as you are abroad, I shall converse with you thus at a distance.
*But Cicero never saw his son Marcus again
This is a book on ethics but where it really shines is its place as a historical document.
As work of ethics it's a bit muddled and does not stand out, there is a lot of wit and wisdom in it, but the foundations of it are shaky. It follows the stoic line of of attributing nature as the source of authority and justification for ethics, now while that may be a correct foundation the book just takes it for granted and doesn't bother to deal with the very serious challenges that face this line of reasoning.
As a historical document it is fascinating, it was quickly written in the last months on Cicero’s life before his execution during the failed attempt at restoring the Roman Republic after the Assassination of Caesar. Written to his son, it outlines what we understand as the normative Roman ethical value (though there is a lot of not to subtle justification regarding the assassination of tyrants) and contains interesting historical commentary.
Finally, it also ended with a surprisingly heavy emotional note, with one of the sadder footnotes I’ve read. Speaking to his son Marcus:
so you will please devote as much time as you can to these volumes, for in them my voice will travel to you; and you can devote to them as much time as you will. And when I see that you take delight in this branch of philosophy, I shall then talk further with you — at an early date,* I hope, face to face — but as long as you are abroad, I shall converse with you thus at a distance.
*But Cicero never saw his son Marcus again
October 6, 2023
Cicero kirjeldab inimese eluviisi, mis peaks tagama kõige parema ühiskonna, mida ta loota oskas, kohustuste ja vooruste kaudu. Teksti saadab küsimus, millistest kohustustest tuleks lähtuda oma igapäevaelus. Kohustuste ja ühiskonnamudeli õigustuseks illustreerib Cicero teksti ka põhjendustega, miks on mingite kohustuste järgimine oluline ja veelgi enam, kasulik. Seda nii inimesele kui indiviidile, riigi kodanikule, riigijuhile ja üldiselt ühiskonnale laiemalt. Teosesse on kätketud ka küsimus, kas sellised ootused inimestele on üldsegi realistlikud? Sellele saab teosest leida nii poolt- kui vastuväiteid Vana-Rooma elust, millest Cicero tegevus inspireeritud oligi. Üldiselt tolle aja kohta isegi üllatavalt kaasaegne ja liberaalne tekst, kuid siiski on sellise tugeva riigi ja iga mees peab oma vara ja õigusi kaitsma mentaliteet selgesti näha. Mingil määral saab siit leida aluseid filantroopiale, mis on lihtsalt rikaste inimeste viis enda ekspluateerimist õigustada, kuid teksti saaks kasutada ka astmelise tulumaksu ja heaoluriigi õigustamiseks, kus riigimeeste eesmärk peaks olema tagada heaolu kõigile.
December 5, 2022
this is the perfect book to end the semester with. it really ties in all of the themes and ideas from all of the other books. 4 virtues to remember: wisdom, justice, courage, and moderation.
May 16, 2023
Just finished this with my 15 and 16 year old sons.
Coined as the formost guide to good conduct and this work contributing to the formation of ethical values in western Christendom, it is a very worthy read.
Thankfully my boys had a lot of historical experience to place so many names and events mentioned. I was far more lost than they were. Pleased to know these kids are getting a far richer education than I did, but am glad to know it’s not too late for me.
If you want the present to be different from the past, study the past. - Baruch Spinoza
Coined as the formost guide to good conduct and this work contributing to the formation of ethical values in western Christendom, it is a very worthy read.
Thankfully my boys had a lot of historical experience to place so many names and events mentioned. I was far more lost than they were. Pleased to know these kids are getting a far richer education than I did, but am glad to know it’s not too late for me.
If you want the present to be different from the past, study the past. - Baruch Spinoza
October 8, 2017
This is amazing writing. I started underlining sentences in every other paragraph. Its message is so akin to Judeo-Christian values and virtues that it’s incredible that this was written in the first Century BC and is secular though he does refer to the “immortal gods” occasionally.
It’s a set of instructions to his son. He recommends combining Greek philosophy, his own, and oratory. He tells him that the teachings on moral duties have the widest practical application and are worth seeking for their own sake. He defines and classifies duties and praises moral goodness--the main subject of this inquiry. He places virtues high and it consists of Wisdom, Temperance, and Justice.
Some of his statements as on rights to private property would be a good subject for discussion. He is critical of riches, unjust acquisition, and unfair distribution of property but he does defend the right to own property.
One of my favorite passages is on Cato: “when he was asked what was the most profitable feature of an estate, he replied: "Raising cattle successfully." What next to that? ‘Raising cattle with fair success.’ And next? ‘Raising cattle with but slight success.’ And fourth? ‘Raising crops.’ And when his questioner said, ‘How about money — lending?’ Cato replied: ‘How about murder?’’ (Book II, Chapter XXV)
Expediency versus moral obligation is a major issue in this work. There are many fine examples about this with the one about selling a house with serious concealed faults that stands out. How different this attitude is from more than two Centuries ago from our present day. Cicero admits though that in his day there are very few transactions into which “criminal fraud” does not enter. But Cicero simply states his position with “it is never expedient to do wrong, because wrong is always immoral; and it is always expedient to be good, because goodness is always moral.” (Book III, Chapter XV) He further states that “pretence and concealment should be done away with in all departments of our daily life”. Man should remember that he has “God as his witness—that is, as I understand it, his own conscience, than which God himself has bestowed upon man nothing more divine”. (Book III, Chapter X)
It’s a set of instructions to his son. He recommends combining Greek philosophy, his own, and oratory. He tells him that the teachings on moral duties have the widest practical application and are worth seeking for their own sake. He defines and classifies duties and praises moral goodness--the main subject of this inquiry. He places virtues high and it consists of Wisdom, Temperance, and Justice.
Some of his statements as on rights to private property would be a good subject for discussion. He is critical of riches, unjust acquisition, and unfair distribution of property but he does defend the right to own property.
One of my favorite passages is on Cato: “when he was asked what was the most profitable feature of an estate, he replied: "Raising cattle successfully." What next to that? ‘Raising cattle with fair success.’ And next? ‘Raising cattle with but slight success.’ And fourth? ‘Raising crops.’ And when his questioner said, ‘How about money — lending?’ Cato replied: ‘How about murder?’’ (Book II, Chapter XXV)
Expediency versus moral obligation is a major issue in this work. There are many fine examples about this with the one about selling a house with serious concealed faults that stands out. How different this attitude is from more than two Centuries ago from our present day. Cicero admits though that in his day there are very few transactions into which “criminal fraud” does not enter. But Cicero simply states his position with “it is never expedient to do wrong, because wrong is always immoral; and it is always expedient to be good, because goodness is always moral.” (Book III, Chapter XV) He further states that “pretence and concealment should be done away with in all departments of our daily life”. Man should remember that he has “God as his witness—that is, as I understand it, his own conscience, than which God himself has bestowed upon man nothing more divine”. (Book III, Chapter X)
July 28, 2019
I feel pretty ambivalent about this--Cicero's ideas on duties, for me, was better as an insight into Roman ideals as opposed to our ideals. And even that may be a stretch--Cicero's ideals may have been even stringent for Romans; he was, after all, making a pretense of guiding his son in the pursuit of duties; and even if he meant to reach a broader audience, that still indicates that Cicero thought there were people who needed a refresher on what their ideals ought to have been.
Personally, my ideas on duties to the state diverge widely from Cicero's--in his hierarchy of duties, those owed to the state took precedence over almost everything else. Perhaps the Roman State engendered such feelings, I don't know--perhaps it was an ideal republic. If it was, then I might could be persuaded that Cicero's ideas had merit, if I lived in the Roman Republic. As it is, I don't, and the level of fidelity that Cicero proposes seems preposterous to me.
There are other aspects that Cicero focuses on that seem quaint when I look around at the society we have today, though I often wish they weren't. Many of the intangible qualities that he talks about have a lot to do with one's standing in the community. This has been de-emphasized over the last forty or fifty years--at least here in America. There is much less of an agreed-upon universal compact in our society; it certainly feels much more fragmented to me, but that may be due to a limited perspective. But it does seem to me that Cicero was writing to a group that largely held to the same principles, which makes it much easier to codify a set of rules regarding ones duties. Today, I think the task is much more challenging.
Personally, my ideas on duties to the state diverge widely from Cicero's--in his hierarchy of duties, those owed to the state took precedence over almost everything else. Perhaps the Roman State engendered such feelings, I don't know--perhaps it was an ideal republic. If it was, then I might could be persuaded that Cicero's ideas had merit, if I lived in the Roman Republic. As it is, I don't, and the level of fidelity that Cicero proposes seems preposterous to me.
There are other aspects that Cicero focuses on that seem quaint when I look around at the society we have today, though I often wish they weren't. Many of the intangible qualities that he talks about have a lot to do with one's standing in the community. This has been de-emphasized over the last forty or fifty years--at least here in America. There is much less of an agreed-upon universal compact in our society; it certainly feels much more fragmented to me, but that may be due to a limited perspective. But it does seem to me that Cicero was writing to a group that largely held to the same principles, which makes it much easier to codify a set of rules regarding ones duties. Today, I think the task is much more challenging.
March 5, 2024
هو كتاب خصيب، في ذاته، وصغير كذلك، وأثار انتباهي في مواطن كثيرة، وهو وصايا كتبها شيشرون، الخطيب السياسي الروماني المعروف، إلى ابنه، وأكثر الكتاب يدور حول فكرة أخلاقية تقول إن المنفعة لا تنفصل عن الفضيلة، بمعنى أنه لا يوجد فعل ما يحقق فائدة في نفسه دون أن يكون في نفس الوقت من الفضائل، فليس هناك ما هو مفيد ولكنه غير فضيل، فإن تحققت فائدة ما دون فضيلة فهي ليست بفائدة في العاقبة البعيدة، مثل أن يحقق أحدهم فائدة من خداع غيره، وهذه أحسها بديهيات، ولكن كان من الجميل استنباط الحالات المختلفة منها، لمحاولة معرفة ما حدود محاولة نيل الفائدة فعلاً مقابل السعي وراء تحقيق الفضائل، فشيشرون يقول كذلك لابنه في بساطة أن لو أراد كل شخص أن يتصرف بشكل فضيل ونزيه في درجته القصوى المطلوبة، لانعدم البيع والشراء بين الناس ووهب كل أحد الفائض لجاره، لكان عالمًا مثاليًا أو يوتوبيا خيالية وهذا محال أن يحدث، مع أن الفضيلة تدعو إليه، ولكن الفائدة تكبح هذا بمنطق بشري خالص.
وحكى شيشرون في كتابه هذا قصة أعجبتني، حكى أن أفلاطون أورد في بعض كتبه أسطورة عن رجل عثر على خاتم سحري، واكتشف أنه إذا قلبه وأدار فصّه إلى الداخل فسيصبح غير مرئيّ لمن حوله، مع رؤيته هو لهم، وإذا أعاد تدوير الخاتم إلى الخارج أظهر نفسه، وقد مكّنه هذا من ��تل الملك والتخلّص من المعوّقات والخصوم حتى استطاع أن يعتلي عرش المملكة وينصّب نفسه ملكًا عليها، والمغزى الواضح فيما يتصل بموضوع الكتاب الأثير هو هل يحقق الإنسان الفائدة لنفسه إن آمن العقاب من عيون الآلهة والبشر، لا آلهة تحكم عليه ولا بشر يرون أنه يضرّهم أو يضرّ مجتمعهم، هل في هذه الحالة سيظلّ يربط بين الفضيلة والفائدة؟
..
وهامش عن الترجمة:
--
وودت لو أن من ترجم هذا الكتاب كان متخصّصا في هذا الباب من الفلسفة، لأن ترجمته جعلت من عملية تقدّمي في قراءة هذا الكتاب الصغير كمن يشقّ طريقًا في الصخر، وهي وإن كانت جيدة حقًا في مواضع وصفحات كثيرة إلا أن عدم التخصص يأكل الحسنات كما تأكل النار الحطب، فما الظن بمن يجعل ويكيبديا هو مصدر تعريفات هوامشه الاول ليأتي التعريف عامًّا وبشكل لا يهم إن كان يوضح المغزى المقصود من الإتيان به في السياق أو لا، وما الظن بمن يترك أكثر أسماء الأعلام بالأحرف والهجاء الفرنسي كما هي (النسخة المترجم عنها فرنسية) دون أن يكلّف نفسه عناء ترجمة الاسم أو التعريف به إلا في القليل النادر جدًا، فأكثر المواطن التي تمنّيت ظهور هامش يوضح الإشارة عندها كانت خالية من كل ما قد ينير الطريق.
وهناك أيضًا خلل في ترجمة بعض المواضع، منها موقف توقّفت أمامه دون أن أفهمه، وأنقذتني الترجمة الإنجليزية التي عثرت عليها على الانترنت.
فالنص المترجم في هذا الكتاب يقول:
وبعدُ، نتسائل أي حياة عاشها ألكسندر دو فيرس
Alexandre de pheres
[يقصد ألكسندر ملك فيراي]
عندما نقرأ أنه رغم ولهه الشديد بزوجته، فإنه لم يكن يغادر طاولته لكي يعود إلى منزله، من دون أن يجعل بربريًّا يمشي أمام��، والجدير بالذكر أنه كان يشهر سيفًا ويضعه على جبين ذاك البربري، على طريقة التراقيّين
Thraces
كما تقول القصة، ومن ثم يجعله يفتّش خزائن زوجته ليتأكد من أنها لا تخبّئ خنجرًا في ثيابها، يا لبؤس من يعتقد أن بربريًّا يعاني من ندبات على جبينه يمكن أن يكون مخلصًا له أكثر من زوجته!
وظهر الهامش عند كلمة التراقيين، في عشر أسطر، ذكر عنده أنه منقول من ويكيبديا، ولكنها أتى وذهب دون أن يقول الشيء الأساسي المرتبط بهذا النص، فالنص الإنجليزي فيقول في هذه الفقرة:
In what state of mind do we fancy Alexander of Pherae lived? We read in history that he dearly loved his wife Thebe; and yet, whenever he went from the banquet-hall to her in her chamber, he used to order a barbarian — one, too, tattooed like a Thracian, as the records state — to go before him with a drawn sword; and he used to send ahead some of his bodyguard to pry into the lady's caskets and to search and see whether some weapon were not concealed in her wardrobe. Unhappy man! To think a barbarian, a branded slave, more faithful than his own wife!
ومن المقارنة نلاحظ أنه أسقط ا��م الزوجة، ثيبي
Thebe
وترجم:
whenever he went from the banquet-hall to her in her chamber
إلى:
لم يكن يغادر طاولته لكي يعود إلى منزله .. إلخ
وهو معنى مشوّش فما معنى يغادر طاولته إلى منزله؟ ولكن المقصود بالطاولة هو قاعة الولائم، فالحديث عن ملك وقصر، والمقصود بمنزله أو كما هو مكتوب:
her chamber
هو الجناح الخاص للملكة في القصر (جناح مستقل لها، وليس جناحهما معًا، فهو شكّاك ويشعر بالتآمر عليه من قبل الجميع حتى زوجته، فلم يكن ينام معها في غرفة واحدة طول الليل، وكان له جناحه الخاص)
ثم ترجم هذه العبارة:
he used to order a barbarian — one, too, tattooed like a Thracian, as the records state — to go before him with a drawn sword
إلى:
من دون أن يجعل بربريًّا يمشي أمامه، والجدير بالذكر أنه كان يشهر سيفًا ويضعه على جبين ذاك البربري، على طريقة التراقيّين Thraces، كما تقول القصة
مع أنها تعني لا تعني شيئًا من هذا، بل مذكور في الترجمة الإنجليزية أنه كان يعود من قاعة الحفلات أو الولائم بعد أن يأمر عبدًا امن البرابرة، جسده موشوم بالكامل كأجساد التراقيّين، أن يتقدّمه وهو شاهر سيفه أمامه.
ثم يقول النص:
and he used to send ahead some of his bodyguard to pry into the lady's caskets and to search and see whether some weapon were not concealed in her wardrobe
والتي ترجمت إلى:
ومن ثم يجعله يفتّش خزائن زوجته ليتأكد من أنها لا تخبّئ خنجرًا في ثيابها
والترجمة أسقطت بشكل غريب أن الكلام أصبح لا يدور عن البربري الموشوم الشاهر لسيفه! ما لماذا قد يسير هذا البربري أمامه طول هذه المسافة من قاعة الولائم إلى جناح الملكة لكي يفتش ثيابها؟ لماذا يشهر سيفه طول هذا الوقت؟! ولكن الترجمة الإنجليزية كانت أكثر وضوحًا، فالملك كان شكّاكًا بشكل كبير وكان يحس أن القوم يأتمرون به، فكان يسيّر أمامه رجلا بربريًا مخيف الشكل (موشوم) بسيف مشهر، لكي يخوّف الناس خلال رحلة عودته (لا لكي يفتش زوجته!) وكان كذلك يرسل قبله مجموعة من الحرس (البربريين كذلك - وهو ما جعل المترجم يظن أن الحديث ما زال يدور حول البربري الموشوم) لكي يفتشوا صناديق مجوهرات زوجته وخزائن ثيابها.
أما الهامش المكوّن من عشر أسطر منقولة من ويكيبيديا عن من هم التراقيون، فلم يذكر فيه كلمة واحدة عن أن الرومانيين كانوا يطلقون على التراقيين وصف البرابرة، وأنهم كانوا يتخذون منهم أرقّاء وعبيدًا وحرسًا خاصًا، ولم يذكر كذلك بطبيعة الحال عن أن من عاداتهم وشم أجسادهم دلالة على النبل والمكانة في قومهم، وهذا لأن كلمة الوشم لم تترجم مع وجودها في الأصل، وتحوّلت إلى وضع السيف على الجبين على طر��قة التراقيين!
وحكى شيشرون في كتابه هذا قصة أعجبتني، حكى أن أفلاطون أورد في بعض كتبه أسطورة عن رجل عثر على خاتم سحري، واكتشف أنه إذا قلبه وأدار فصّه إلى الداخل فسيصبح غير مرئيّ لمن حوله، مع رؤيته هو لهم، وإذا أعاد تدوير الخاتم إلى الخارج أظهر نفسه، وقد مكّنه هذا من ��تل الملك والتخلّص من المعوّقات والخصوم حتى استطاع أن يعتلي عرش المملكة وينصّب نفسه ملكًا عليها، والمغزى الواضح فيما يتصل بموضوع الكتاب الأثير هو هل يحقق الإنسان الفائدة لنفسه إن آمن العقاب من عيون الآلهة والبشر، لا آلهة تحكم عليه ولا بشر يرون أنه يضرّهم أو يضرّ مجتمعهم، هل في هذه الحالة سيظلّ يربط بين الفضيلة والفائدة؟
..
وهامش عن الترجمة:
--
وودت لو أن من ترجم هذا الكتاب كان متخصّصا في هذا الباب من الفلسفة، لأن ترجمته جعلت من عملية تقدّمي في قراءة هذا الكتاب الصغير كمن يشقّ طريقًا في الصخر، وهي وإن كانت جيدة حقًا في مواضع وصفحات كثيرة إلا أن عدم التخصص يأكل الحسنات كما تأكل النار الحطب، فما الظن بمن يجعل ويكيبديا هو مصدر تعريفات هوامشه الاول ليأتي التعريف عامًّا وبشكل لا يهم إن كان يوضح المغزى المقصود من الإتيان به في السياق أو لا، وما الظن بمن يترك أكثر أسماء الأعلام بالأحرف والهجاء الفرنسي كما هي (النسخة المترجم عنها فرنسية) دون أن يكلّف نفسه عناء ترجمة الاسم أو التعريف به إلا في القليل النادر جدًا، فأكثر المواطن التي تمنّيت ظهور هامش يوضح الإشارة عندها كانت خالية من كل ما قد ينير الطريق.
وهناك أيضًا خلل في ترجمة بعض المواضع، منها موقف توقّفت أمامه دون أن أفهمه، وأنقذتني الترجمة الإنجليزية التي عثرت عليها على الانترنت.
فالنص المترجم في هذا الكتاب يقول:
وبعدُ، نتسائل أي حياة عاشها ألكسندر دو فيرس
Alexandre de pheres
[يقصد ألكسندر ملك فيراي]
عندما نقرأ أنه رغم ولهه الشديد بزوجته، فإنه لم يكن يغادر طاولته لكي يعود إلى منزله، من دون أن يجعل بربريًّا يمشي أمام��، والجدير بالذكر أنه كان يشهر سيفًا ويضعه على جبين ذاك البربري، على طريقة التراقيّين
Thraces
كما تقول القصة، ومن ثم يجعله يفتّش خزائن زوجته ليتأكد من أنها لا تخبّئ خنجرًا في ثيابها، يا لبؤس من يعتقد أن بربريًّا يعاني من ندبات على جبينه يمكن أن يكون مخلصًا له أكثر من زوجته!
وظهر الهامش عند كلمة التراقيين، في عشر أسطر، ذكر عنده أنه منقول من ويكيبديا، ولكنها أتى وذهب دون أن يقول الشيء الأساسي المرتبط بهذا النص، فالنص الإنجليزي فيقول في هذه الفقرة:
In what state of mind do we fancy Alexander of Pherae lived? We read in history that he dearly loved his wife Thebe; and yet, whenever he went from the banquet-hall to her in her chamber, he used to order a barbarian — one, too, tattooed like a Thracian, as the records state — to go before him with a drawn sword; and he used to send ahead some of his bodyguard to pry into the lady's caskets and to search and see whether some weapon were not concealed in her wardrobe. Unhappy man! To think a barbarian, a branded slave, more faithful than his own wife!
ومن المقارنة نلاحظ أنه أسقط ا��م الزوجة، ثيبي
Thebe
وترجم:
whenever he went from the banquet-hall to her in her chamber
إلى:
لم يكن يغادر طاولته لكي يعود إلى منزله .. إلخ
وهو معنى مشوّش فما معنى يغادر طاولته إلى منزله؟ ولكن المقصود بالطاولة هو قاعة الولائم، فالحديث عن ملك وقصر، والمقصود بمنزله أو كما هو مكتوب:
her chamber
هو الجناح الخاص للملكة في القصر (جناح مستقل لها، وليس جناحهما معًا، فهو شكّاك ويشعر بالتآمر عليه من قبل الجميع حتى زوجته، فلم يكن ينام معها في غرفة واحدة طول الليل، وكان له جناحه الخاص)
ثم ترجم هذه العبارة:
he used to order a barbarian — one, too, tattooed like a Thracian, as the records state — to go before him with a drawn sword
إلى:
من دون أن يجعل بربريًّا يمشي أمامه، والجدير بالذكر أنه كان يشهر سيفًا ويضعه على جبين ذاك البربري، على طريقة التراقيّين Thraces، كما تقول القصة
مع أنها تعني لا تعني شيئًا من هذا، بل مذكور في الترجمة الإنجليزية أنه كان يعود من قاعة الحفلات أو الولائم بعد أن يأمر عبدًا امن البرابرة، جسده موشوم بالكامل كأجساد التراقيّين، أن يتقدّمه وهو شاهر سيفه أمامه.
ثم يقول النص:
and he used to send ahead some of his bodyguard to pry into the lady's caskets and to search and see whether some weapon were not concealed in her wardrobe
والتي ترجمت إلى:
ومن ثم يجعله يفتّش خزائن زوجته ليتأكد من أنها لا تخبّئ خنجرًا في ثيابها
والترجمة أسقطت بشكل غريب أن الكلام أصبح لا يدور عن البربري الموشوم الشاهر لسيفه! ما لماذا قد يسير هذا البربري أمامه طول هذه المسافة من قاعة الولائم إلى جناح الملكة لكي يفتش ثيابها؟ لماذا يشهر سيفه طول هذا الوقت؟! ولكن الترجمة الإنجليزية كانت أكثر وضوحًا، فالملك كان شكّاكًا بشكل كبير وكان يحس أن القوم يأتمرون به، فكان يسيّر أمامه رجلا بربريًا مخيف الشكل (موشوم) بسيف مشهر، لكي يخوّف الناس خلال رحلة عودته (لا لكي يفتش زوجته!) وكان كذلك يرسل قبله مجموعة من الحرس (البربريين كذلك - وهو ما جعل المترجم يظن أن الحديث ما زال يدور حول البربري الموشوم) لكي يفتشوا صناديق مجوهرات زوجته وخزائن ثيابها.
أما الهامش المكوّن من عشر أسطر منقولة من ويكيبيديا عن من هم التراقيون، فلم يذكر فيه كلمة واحدة عن أن الرومانيين كانوا يطلقون على التراقيين وصف البرابرة، وأنهم كانوا يتخذون منهم أرقّاء وعبيدًا وحرسًا خاصًا، ولم يذكر كذلك بطبيعة الحال عن أن من عاداتهم وشم أجسادهم دلالة على النبل والمكانة في قومهم، وهذا لأن كلمة الوشم لم تترجم مع وجودها في الأصل، وتحوّلت إلى وضع السيف على الجبين على طر��قة التراقيين!
October 14, 2022
Overview:
Each individual has obligations to the community they belong to. Obligations to not harm others directly, and not allow inaction to cause harm to others. Those attempting to not concern themselves with others do prevent potentially harming others. But, as they prevent committing an injustice of commission, they are committing an injustice of omission. As they desert community life, they do not contribute anything to the community.
Foundation of justice is adherence to good faith in interactions, to not exploit others for profit. Individuals are meant to be useful to human community, without restricting obligations to those close to them. But being useful must not come at the expense of exploiting the rest of the world. Justice overrides that which can be useful. For useful activities that contain shameful elements should be rejected. Rejected even if the reprehensible behavior will not be made public.
Obligations of Philosophy:
The job of the philosopher is meant to teach obligations. To teach about the behaviors that each member in the community has to other members, and even beyond the community. That requires teaching about what is useful, honorable, and justice. There are behaviors which should be done because they are honorable. Praiseworthy behavior that should be done even within anyone praising the behavior.
Individuals are meant to be active in helping others, rather than being idle in seclusion. There is more to wisdom than just obtaining knowledge. Knowledge needs to be applied, which facilitates practical wisdom. Knowledge is useless without practical action as a reward. Knowledge needs to be justified by applying knowledge in the service to the community.
There are those who undermine obligation by assuming a supreme good, which is not connected with virtue. Philosophers undermine social obligation by using their self-interest as a measurement for what is honorable. What that means is that friendship, generosity, and justice cannot be cultivated if they are not aligned with the philosopher’s perspective.
Justice, and Injustice:
Just behavior comes from preventing harm on others with the exception to an aggressor, and that individuals should observe the common good. Not even friendship overrides justice. Protection of interests needs to come without damaging others. Politicians should not promote advantages when they come about by hurting other communities or with dishonorable policies. Even within commerce, merchants are meant to declare defects in the products. Corruption comes about from those proclaiming to be doing good and useful activities, but utilize inappropriate behaviors and policies.
Roots of injustice come from fear, greed, and lust for dominance and fame. Sometimes injustices are justified when committing a harm to prevent more harm. There are individuals who seek the rewards of actions, but ignore the consequences of their actions. Law can be escaped by those who harm, but they cannot escape the knowledge of what they had done. A constant reminder of the harm they have committed. Better to avoid those who do not have regrets over harm done, or that the harm done was appropriate or justified.
Cicero uses Caesar as the example of not just behavior. Caesar treated Cicero generously, but understood Cicero’s disdain for Caesar. Cicero saw Caesar as the individual responsible for the fall of the Roman Republic.
Decisions are difficult and have many uncertainties about their use and impact. Many question whether their decision is appropriate or reprehensible. The following issue with decisions is whether they are useful, if the decision is beneficial to them. The third issue is the conflict between what is useful and what is just. These are issues within decision making that can be paralyzing and cause indecision. A conflict between what is honorable and useful, which needs resolution. When there is uncertainty whether a decision is appropriate or not, better to be patient and clear up the uncertainty. Fairness within decision clears up uncertainty.
How To Treat Others:
The individual judges oneself differently then when judging others. Everyone should be treated with at least some respect, and avoid harming their self-worth. A lack of integrity is shown when disregarding what others think of oneself.
Considering the welfare of others and being generous towards them, should not go beyond the resources available for appropriate distribution to close individuals and their futures. Excess generosity does not come from generosity or honorable conduct but is disguised as such. Excess generosity has its own self-interested motivations.
Success must not come along with arrogance, contempt, and disdain. Appropriate behavior and retaining a dignified character are the desired attributes. Decision making changes during success, making it important to utilize advice of those trusted, while being careful of those who flatter and deceive. Many make grievous errors by taking the advice of those who flattered their ego.
Justice, Even In Time Of War:
Even within warfare, there are decisions which must be upheld by the state. Military disputes can be settled by negotiation or by force. Within civil societies, force is allowed if negotiation is not possible.
Just war comes about after due warning and demands for satisfaction are provided. Wars are meant to be used as tools for living peaceably without suffering injustice. The defeated are to be spared and forgiven, unless they committed terrible injustices.
Caveats?
A difficult book to read because of the era in which it was written in. The era also makes the many references, not readily familiar.
Many of the claims that Cicero provides need to be adjusted for they carry ambiguity. The claims have philosophical paradoxes and additional contextual complications. Even Cicero recognized the complexity of the claims, and tried to guide the reader in how to overcome them.
Each individual has obligations to the community they belong to. Obligations to not harm others directly, and not allow inaction to cause harm to others. Those attempting to not concern themselves with others do prevent potentially harming others. But, as they prevent committing an injustice of commission, they are committing an injustice of omission. As they desert community life, they do not contribute anything to the community.
Foundation of justice is adherence to good faith in interactions, to not exploit others for profit. Individuals are meant to be useful to human community, without restricting obligations to those close to them. But being useful must not come at the expense of exploiting the rest of the world. Justice overrides that which can be useful. For useful activities that contain shameful elements should be rejected. Rejected even if the reprehensible behavior will not be made public.
Obligations of Philosophy:
The job of the philosopher is meant to teach obligations. To teach about the behaviors that each member in the community has to other members, and even beyond the community. That requires teaching about what is useful, honorable, and justice. There are behaviors which should be done because they are honorable. Praiseworthy behavior that should be done even within anyone praising the behavior.
Individuals are meant to be active in helping others, rather than being idle in seclusion. There is more to wisdom than just obtaining knowledge. Knowledge needs to be applied, which facilitates practical wisdom. Knowledge is useless without practical action as a reward. Knowledge needs to be justified by applying knowledge in the service to the community.
There are those who undermine obligation by assuming a supreme good, which is not connected with virtue. Philosophers undermine social obligation by using their self-interest as a measurement for what is honorable. What that means is that friendship, generosity, and justice cannot be cultivated if they are not aligned with the philosopher’s perspective.
Justice, and Injustice:
Just behavior comes from preventing harm on others with the exception to an aggressor, and that individuals should observe the common good. Not even friendship overrides justice. Protection of interests needs to come without damaging others. Politicians should not promote advantages when they come about by hurting other communities or with dishonorable policies. Even within commerce, merchants are meant to declare defects in the products. Corruption comes about from those proclaiming to be doing good and useful activities, but utilize inappropriate behaviors and policies.
Roots of injustice come from fear, greed, and lust for dominance and fame. Sometimes injustices are justified when committing a harm to prevent more harm. There are individuals who seek the rewards of actions, but ignore the consequences of their actions. Law can be escaped by those who harm, but they cannot escape the knowledge of what they had done. A constant reminder of the harm they have committed. Better to avoid those who do not have regrets over harm done, or that the harm done was appropriate or justified.
Cicero uses Caesar as the example of not just behavior. Caesar treated Cicero generously, but understood Cicero’s disdain for Caesar. Cicero saw Caesar as the individual responsible for the fall of the Roman Republic.
Decisions are difficult and have many uncertainties about their use and impact. Many question whether their decision is appropriate or reprehensible. The following issue with decisions is whether they are useful, if the decision is beneficial to them. The third issue is the conflict between what is useful and what is just. These are issues within decision making that can be paralyzing and cause indecision. A conflict between what is honorable and useful, which needs resolution. When there is uncertainty whether a decision is appropriate or not, better to be patient and clear up the uncertainty. Fairness within decision clears up uncertainty.
How To Treat Others:
The individual judges oneself differently then when judging others. Everyone should be treated with at least some respect, and avoid harming their self-worth. A lack of integrity is shown when disregarding what others think of oneself.
Considering the welfare of others and being generous towards them, should not go beyond the resources available for appropriate distribution to close individuals and their futures. Excess generosity does not come from generosity or honorable conduct but is disguised as such. Excess generosity has its own self-interested motivations.
Success must not come along with arrogance, contempt, and disdain. Appropriate behavior and retaining a dignified character are the desired attributes. Decision making changes during success, making it important to utilize advice of those trusted, while being careful of those who flatter and deceive. Many make grievous errors by taking the advice of those who flattered their ego.
Justice, Even In Time Of War:
Even within warfare, there are decisions which must be upheld by the state. Military disputes can be settled by negotiation or by force. Within civil societies, force is allowed if negotiation is not possible.
Just war comes about after due warning and demands for satisfaction are provided. Wars are meant to be used as tools for living peaceably without suffering injustice. The defeated are to be spared and forgiven, unless they committed terrible injustices.
Caveats?
A difficult book to read because of the era in which it was written in. The era also makes the many references, not readily familiar.
Many of the claims that Cicero provides need to be adjusted for they carry ambiguity. The claims have philosophical paradoxes and additional contextual complications. Even Cicero recognized the complexity of the claims, and tried to guide the reader in how to overcome them.
June 6, 2017
Written near the end of his life, as a letter to his son, who was studying in Athens at the time. It does not have a lot of notably original thought in it, but it is a strong exposition of the idea that being just and honorable is more important than any consideration of expediency; that the good of the state is the most important thing; that there is a natural law that all men are obliged to follow. Marc Antony had him murdered a few months after writing this, of course.
March 20, 2024
Great book, third only to Plato and Aristotle in Greco-Roman literature that I have read. Definitely get a copy with footnotes, because he references a lot of historical events that that the modern reader will not know. It can be difficult to follow the structure and flow of the argument, as he does not labor over proving out his points and hits on them in fairly rapid succession.
Currently reading
June 23, 2012Re-reading this again - though in a new imprint - for the first time in two decades. Main interest here for me is to situate it within the tradition of 'mirror for princes' texts.
July 14, 2017
Cicero's advice to his son on what it means to live a good life, be a good person, and a good citizen. A philosophical and moralistic treatise about what Cicero hoped to see for the progeny.
February 28, 2021
Cicero equates public ethics with virtue and so self-interest. Unfortunately, our leaders see their interests differently.
December 11, 2020
A very interesting book for what it says (and what it doesn’t). On Obligations is actually three treatises from Cicero to his son, discussing definitions of ethics and the expected posture of an honorable man in various scenarios. While very few of the definitions per see actually provide life-altering insight for the modern reader, it’s interesting to read how Cicero frames certain questions, always with a practical leaning, rather than a theoretical point of view. To reach his conclusions, Cicero relies heavily on the interpretations of philosophical schools of his time, especially Stoicism, but also the views of the Academics, Epicureans and Cyrenaics. Nonetheless, Cicero was first and foremost a politician (and famous orator), so his choice of characters to provide examples, his emphasis on some events and even his choice of words may reveal a lot of which side he’s trying to “defend”, rather than forming an “unbiased” view on the points he argues.
I’m always fascinated by how much the classical authors continue to influence our interpretations of reality. This book provides a neat summary of this. It becomes quite obvious the massive influence of Cicero on Christian values. Many of the problems he discusses remain valid 2,000 years later, which makes you ponder on what kind of progress we achieved. The introduction and extensive supplementary notes by P.G. Walsh are extremely useful: they provide historical, philosophical and political commentary of the age, helping us understand under what circumstances Cicero wrote the treatises, his political leanings (and biases), references to historical figures/facts as well as customs that may have led him to adopt some views. The third book quality, however, suffers due to repetition and even some contradictory statements. While this is understandable by the circumstances (Cicero reportedly wrote the treatises while traveling from Italy to Greece in a few weeks), the reading can be somewhat frustrating compared to the rest of the book.
I’m always fascinated by how much the classical authors continue to influence our interpretations of reality. This book provides a neat summary of this. It becomes quite obvious the massive influence of Cicero on Christian values. Many of the problems he discusses remain valid 2,000 years later, which makes you ponder on what kind of progress we achieved. The introduction and extensive supplementary notes by P.G. Walsh are extremely useful: they provide historical, philosophical and political commentary of the age, helping us understand under what circumstances Cicero wrote the treatises, his political leanings (and biases), references to historical figures/facts as well as customs that may have led him to adopt some views. The third book quality, however, suffers due to repetition and even some contradictory statements. While this is understandable by the circumstances (Cicero reportedly wrote the treatises while traveling from Italy to Greece in a few weeks), the reading can be somewhat frustrating compared to the rest of the book.
June 21, 2020
I was reading this in parallel with the Aeneid, written some 20 years later, and the contrast between the two is striking, and not in Cicero's favour. What a strange idea to compare an epic poem with a collection of fatherly advice, you might say; well I am not hugely versed in Roman thought, and all I can say is that Vergil, for all his poetic license, surprised me at every turn with his 'modernity' - which is but a gaudy way to say his characters are both finely observed and relatable in their inner-life.
Cicero, on the other hand, shows (predictably) no concerns for emotions and is relentlessly prescriptive. This of itself is not a problem - however neither is he very systematic about it (the circumstances of his writing might explain this) and not always as insightful as one might expect given his undying fame.
There is something endearing in his unashamed satisfaction with his own achievements, but this comes perhaps bound with a pious blindness to the faults of his social order, generally excused by appeal to an omnipresent and amorphous notion of 'nature' inherited from the stoics. We find here, too, the classic formulation of the conservative cult of moderation, which suffers already from the evident shortcomings that dogs it to this day. Finally, the central thesis of the book, namely the inalienable identity of the beneficial and the honourable, is repeated rather than defended, which is perhaps the inescapable consequence of Cicero's unexamined notion of honour.
Cicero, on the other hand, shows (predictably) no concerns for emotions and is relentlessly prescriptive. This of itself is not a problem - however neither is he very systematic about it (the circumstances of his writing might explain this) and not always as insightful as one might expect given his undying fame.
There is something endearing in his unashamed satisfaction with his own achievements, but this comes perhaps bound with a pious blindness to the faults of his social order, generally excused by appeal to an omnipresent and amorphous notion of 'nature' inherited from the stoics. We find here, too, the classic formulation of the conservative cult of moderation, which suffers already from the evident shortcomings that dogs it to this day. Finally, the central thesis of the book, namely the inalienable identity of the beneficial and the honourable, is repeated rather than defended, which is perhaps the inescapable consequence of Cicero's unexamined notion of honour.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 178 reviews