Cicero and Confucius: Similitude in Disguise

It is no doubt an exciting enterprise to put Cicero and Confucius in juxtaposition for comparative deliberations. They appear similar in their lifelong interest in politics and philosophy as well as in the ultimate failure of their respective political ambitions. Their visions of philosophy are apparently in agreement, particularly on the point of laying great emphasis upon practice and contingency. And they are alike in leaving, each in his own way, a great influence on posterity, which would eventually extend well beyond the confines of their respective birthplaces. These similarities seem indeed to invite a promising comparison; a closer look, however, reveals a number of significant dissimilarities. This is evident, for example, in the accessibility of basic textual sources: the Roman person wrote a great deal while the Chinese man spoke but left no writings behind. It is hardly possible to bridge the gap existing between the very different historicocultural milieus in which they were situated: the Chinese can be called the founder of a great tradition whereas the Roman is sandwiched historically between the two great traditions of (prior) Athens and (later) Jerusalem, and thus perhaps cannot. In this sense, the role Cicero had to play was that of transmitter and modifier of tradition. The purpose of the present essay, however, does not lie in proving the case for comparative incompatibility by drawing attention to dissimilarities. Rather, I wish to argue that any comparison of Cicero and Confucius needs to place them in their proper cultural contexts, which can only highlight their dissimilitude.