Comparing Cicero's Views About The Government And The Commonwealth

Ideas and critiques about the government and the commonwealth have been debated ever since authoritative figures first began to preside over societies, or the common man. Of these ideas, the concept of what the commonwealth is and how it should be best implemented is especially contended. There are a myriad of different varieties of interpretations, as seen in the stark differences in opinion between Cicero’s 54 BC treatise On the Commonwealth and Thomas Hobbes’ 1651 work The Leviathan. The contrasting definitions of the commonwealth, its historical necessity, and the best tactic of its implementation into society of the governed are much debated between these two pieces.

Even the fundamental definition of the commonwealth is a source of contention. In Cicero’s On the Commonwealth, he asserts that the commonwealth is “a constitution of the entire people,” (Source I). He continues to argue that men under said constitution are bound by the repercussions of justice and the

Cicero postulates that men are weak while solitary and naturally gravitate towards a society to which they belong. He proclaims, “For the human race is not a race of isolated individuals, wandering and solitary; but it is so constituted that even in the affluence of all things [and without any need of reciprocal assistance, it spontaneously seeks society]” (Source I). In this context, a commonwealth is necessary to unite all men of a group under a singular constitution. However, Hobbes states, “The only way to erect such a common power, as may be able to defend them from the invasion of foreigners, and the injuries of one another, and thereby to secure them in such sort as that by their own industry and by the fruits of the earth they may nourish themselves and live contentedly…” (Source II). This interpretation portrays the commonwealth as more of a security measure, as to protect the governed from themselves or