Conclusion

Summary

It was often said of Cicero that he was eclectic rather than systematic; that his treatises are devoid of originality; that even to call him a philosopher is overgenerous. In the eyes of these critics, his primary contribution to Western thought is as a translator, more prolific than precise. Thankfully, the shadow of anti-Ciceronian sentiment cast by 19th‑century scholars – the caricature of grandiose orator, failed statesman, and unserious thinker – has lifted in recent years. In this moment of resumed appreciation of his philosophy, I hope this study has affirmed two major innovations for which he deserves credit.