Cicero - on friendship

The introduction of this book says:

Quote:
As a philosopher, Cicero’s most important function was to make his countrymen familiar with the main schools of Greek thought. Much of this writing is thus of secondary interest to us in comparison with his originals, but in the fields of religious theory and of the application of philosophy to life he made important first-hand contributions. From these works have been selected the two treatises, On Old Age and On Friendship, which have proved of most permanent and widespread interest to posterity, and which give a clear impression of the way in which a high-minded Roman thought about some of the main problems of human life."



Cicero has some interesting and rather odd things to say of friendship.

Quote:
6. Now friendship may be thus defined: a complete accord on all subjects human and divine, joined with mutual good will and affection."

Now I'm sure friendship hasn't changed much, so does this descriibe the sort of friendships we are familiar with? This description of a friend as a second self who agrees on all things?
It sounds more like political agreement between citizens or oligarchs, or loyalty to a political patron.

Quote:

They say that a certain philosopher of Agrigentum, in a Greek poem, pronounced with the authority of an oracle the doctrine that whatever in nature and the universe was unchangeable was so in virtue of the binding force of friendship; whatever was changeable was so by the solvent power of discord."

Does this mean anything, except to ascribe natural forces of attraction or sythesis to friendship or, perhaps, love in an attempt to show its sacred or ordained nature?

and then

Quote:
We have fought for empire in Italy with two great generals, Pyrrhus and Hannibal. For the former, owing to his probity, we entertain no great feelings of enmity: the latter, owing to his cruelty, our country has detested and always will detest."

Now we have moved from the idea that there is no friendship without vitue to virtue as an attractive quality which excites general public admiration.

Then we have a discussion on whether friends should support each other right or wrong, concluding ;
Quote:
We may then lay down this rule of friendship—neither ask nor consent to do what is wrong."

followed by
Quote:
We must therefore impress upon good men that, should they become inevitably involved in friendships with men of this kind, they ought not to consider themselves under any obligation to stand by friends who are disloyal to the republic."

Is this a general conclusion, or one spefic to the situation and factions of the times? It is followed by a piece about breaking off friendships...and then

Quote:
Well, then, if it is true that to give and receive advice - the former with freedom and yet without bitterness, the latter with patience and without irritation - is peculiarly appropriate to genuine friendship, it is no less true that there can be nothing more utterly subversive of friendship than flattery, adulation, and base compliance."


In short, the type of friendship discussed is that between equals of the better class of men, and those equals must be in perfect accord on all matters.
Frienship is the Divine glue that holds the whole of the world together.
Frienship is only possible between virtuous men.
Virtuous men of public standing attract public recognition and respect.
If you have a special friendship with someone who works against what we perceive as the good of the republic, you shouild not support him.
In fact you should end the friendship, and point out the error of his ways to him, and not remain a flattering toadie.

Hence I'd like a better understanding of the context of the piece, the standing and duties of the men mentioned, and tha purpose of it being written. But that's a good point, David, about being given a better understanding of methods of oratory and philosophy.l'm just curious about the specific purpose of that oratory and philosophy by this person in the political context of the time.

But taking what's there, and applying it to an individual psyche, we see a discourse on a species of connection between certain psychological aspects by, I imagine, the ego, who arranges characters on a stage to make [I believe] a point relevent to the set-up of the time and so of a particular balance of power between forces in a personality. It is the specific agenda that I can't quite appreciate, but I think it is an exhortation addressed to individual elements - the KOTOR - within a 'republic' to stay loyal to that republic.