Sometimes, listening to political news, one wonders to what level those who want public office are willing to stoop, what and how many falsehoods and nastinesses they are willing to utter. As a comment on this tendency, I have heard more than a few people invoke the ancient virtues of the Roman Republic, with its censors and orators of the calibre of Cicero. Here, perhaps it is better not to. This rather amusing essay is precisely about Cicero, describing, by means of the most famous cases he himself or his admirers and disciples passed on to us, precisely his great oratorical qualities. In the meantime, however, it describes a society that had reached rock bottom and was strenuously digging its way down even lower. And, to quote Osgood, if his opponents were willing to go down, Cicero was willing to go even lower.
This is not a moral judgement on the man, but just a way of making it clear that even the great Cicero, undoubtedly honest to a fault, was a child of a tragic and ferocious time.
As I said, an entertaining and well-written essay that does what good essays should always do: provoke in the reader a desire to delve deeper into the subject they are dealing with.

I found this to be a very interesting look at the transition of Rome's Republic to Rome's Empire. I've not always been a fan of Cicero. Perhaps I've always held my third year college Latin course against him, but this book shapes him into something more closely resembling a sympathetic figure. He was not great, but he stood up for his convictions and did not just allow the Republic to go quietly. I think there are plenty of parallels people can make to today's politics, but this stand firmly on it's own.

I thought it was possible to look at this book (which I received for free to review) two ways.

One: A book about Cicero.

Yes, well, obviously, but more specifically about his character. A good thesis could be written (or may have been written) about how the popular view of Cicero has changed with time. Every generation seems to have a view on Cicero which comments more on the society from which the view comes, rather than the reality of the man, if such a thing can possibly be discerned across two millenia.

Summary: Formerly, people thought Cicero was a great man. Today, not so much: he's just another flawed man with a special talent for public speaking.

I don't have any scholarship to back up the opinion that follows. Here it is: Traditional, British-public-school-influenced education puts a great value on the ability to debate and argue. From the opinion that the ability to debate and argue is a valuable trait and evidence of a superior mind, it is a short hop to the opinion that people who are talented in this debate are good people and superior character, meaning, for example, honest, moral, interested in justice for its own sake. So, by this logic, Cicero was a great orator and lawyer, so he must have been an admirable man.

There are so many counterexamples of this proposal, ripped from the headlines in our time and previously, that it's difficult to even type it without a smirk.

The first chapter of this book is in my opinion the best. It is genuinely suspenseful and has a great story: an unknown young lawyer takes on the establishment on behalf of a (probably) unjustly accused man. Spoiler: Through superior oration, Cicero makes the wealthy and powerful turn tail and flee.

After the first chapter, Cicero’s taste for the finer things takes over. He turns his attention to the well-healed and well-connected. Not so heroic now, he is a lot like the many many examples in our modern day of people who were nominally championed of equal justice until they are irresistibly drawn to the finer things in life, including a well-located and impressive-looking home. This eventually became a big fat target for his political enemies, who were not above putting it to the torch and then constructing a public monument with religious overtones on the site, just to make it especially difficult for Cicero to claw back his stolen real estate.

Cicero was also apparently an uncontrollable smartass who could not restrain himself from remarking acidly on his contemporaries, a habit which is only wise in small, small doses, and is especially unwise if the target of your satire is an ally.

After the first chapter, Cicero becomes less interesting as he becomes less admirable, just another dully ambitious young man from the province, climbing the greasy pole of success and power with occasional setbacks and also vaulting successes. Cicero also disappears from the narrative occasionally for several consecutive pages, as similar aspirants to prestige thrash and snatch after scraps of power, putting not only themselves but their families and supporters (oh, and don't forget: slaves) in danger for their lives.

In summary, large parts of the book are not so much fun to read, just another chronicle about how the short-sighted and selfish took a great and prosperous society and drove it into the ground.

Two: A book about our own time

Since there is a great deal of the immediately previous (i.e., the short-sighted and selfish driving society into the ground) happening at this moment, it's hard not to think that some of the above is really the way we live now. This is happening in many countries, but I'm an American so I'm going to only make one comparison: Rome vs. USA.

I'm late to this party, it seems, as I see that there are at least two separate books entitled Are we Rome?, with “we” meaning the USA, one seemingly written from the point of view of the American political left, the other from the American political right. I haven't read these books.

Sometimes it seems like any book published now about the Roman Empire must be a comment on the state of the world today.

Here are the remarks from this book that I highlighted which seem to make the reader want to say, “Oh, yeah, the author's commenting on today.”

– The courts’ capriciousness and corruption not only sapped public trust, but also emboldened those who were inclined to commit crimes to feel they might get away with (Kindle location 235)

– … the city suffered from more political violence, fueled by glaring inequality among citizens and unscrupulous leaders exploiting this gap. (l. 259)

– Cicero's own extraordinary story and the tumultuous years he lived through provide no simple solutions to these hard questions. But they do help to show what holds up the rule of law, what threatens it, and what happens when law gives way to disorder. (l. 268)

– Other lawyers besides Cicero discredited whole groups of people … and sought to deny them a fair hearing. In doing so, advocates might have helped their clients, but they undercut the rule of law and in this destabilized the Republic. (l. 1551)

– When Catiline and his followers took up arms to overturn an election, they were striking at a key principle of the Republic: the peaceful transfer of power … (l. 2600)

– [Cicero] showed more commitment to upholding the interests of the well-off than maintaining the rule of law. (l. 2608)

– On both sides of this struggle, we see a lack of foresight regarding the long-term health of the state. (l. 2610)

– This was the secret of patrician success: at the moment of peril, you had to be most brazen. (l. 2753)

– Politicians, desperate to win elections and pass laws, saw that violence could be a useful tactic and sometimes deliberately incited it. (l. 3035)

– Like other citizens in democratic societies, Romans struggled to balance a desire for security with respect for civil liberties. (l. 3042)

– Couldn't much of the violence plaguing Rome be passed off as “the justified anger of the Roman people”? (l. 3093)

– [Caelius, a pupil of Cicero] and [Cicero] had much in common, such as a fondness for demeaning nicknames and a thirst for political success. (l. 3378)

– In their pursuit of their own ambitions, Roman politicians were increasingly ignoring customary and legal restraints on power, such as limited commands, regular elections, and a prohibition on reaching fro weapons when passions flared. (l. 4110)

– Perhaps there are times when one needs to obey a higher law than the laws of men. But as the escalating rancor and violence in Rome shows, there is a grave danger to civil society when that attitude becomes common. (l. 4113)

– … a widespread belief that there is a higher power than human law that justifies murdering your enemy spells trouble for civil society. (l. 4537)

– By reckless demagoguery, politicians could turn their enemies into tyrants and justify their own acts of violence. (l. 4542)

– Cicero did the long-term health of the Republic no good by his lack of sympathy for the less privileged members of society. (l. 4556)

According to Sherlock Holmes, if you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth. Maybe a corollary: If we eliminate, one by one, all of the ways that a globe-spanning empire can fall apart, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, might be the way to avoid world-destroying slaughter. When you read books about the Roman Empire, n=1 in the matter of falling-apart empires. It only eliminates one way NOT to do it. That’s a start, I guess.

I received a free electronic advance review copy of this book from the publisher via Netgalley.

This book details the workings of the Roman government, especially the courts, in the waning days of the Republic and beginnings of autocracy/Empire. It is a tale of corruption, political expedience, and “justifiable” violence taking precedence over law and justice. The author focuses on Cicero as the foremost lawyer of his time, a major participant in (and eventual victim of) the rising tide of lawlessness.

A significant part of the page count is devoted to various court cases in which Cicero served as either prosecution or defense. While these give a feel for the times and the state of Roman “justice,” they can be a bit convoluted and tedious. They give the impression of verdicts having more to do with a lawyer’s cleverness & manipulation and/or their client’s wealth & power than with the actual pursuit of truth and justice. Add in vicious self-serving, law-disregarding, rights-suspending, violence-inciting, prosecution-circumventing politics, and you get a picture that is not altogether unfamiliar.

Overall, this was an interesting (if occasionally dry) biography-history combo that is well worth reading. It provides a look at ancient Rome and raises red flags for our own Republic.

Oh, the times! Oh, the morals! Marcus Tullius Cicero began his legal practice and subsequent political career in tempestuous times: the Roman Republic was actively failing, critically hit during the civil wars between Marius and Sulla, attempting to salvage itself thereafter, and then finally succumbing to Caesar and his nephew, the future Augustus. Lawless Republic examines Cicero's legal career against the background, showing how Tully's course cases demonstrate the attempt to short up law and legitimacy after the civil wars, and then demonstrate the failure of that (and the weaknesses in Cicero's character) as he backs down from Caesar. The cases range from administrative abuse and widespread corruption to out-and-out murder on public highways. All of these featured have political implications, either by directly concerning the re-establishment of the rule of law, or because they involve political actors. Unfortunately, despite Cicero's promising start in attempting to restore order, his zeal for the cause led him to act outside the law. This is most obvious in the case of Cataline, who was threatening rebellion and whose co-conspirators were executed without trial. Political actors trying to settle things by "any means necessary" spurred on more violence, culminating in the assassination of Julius Caesar, and a following war that would ultimately lead to the rise of Octavian, soon to be Emperor Augustus. At the end Cicero becomes a fence-sitter, trying to figure out which way the winds were blowing: ultimately, his association with Caesar's assassins, in addition to his speeches against Marc Anthony, would lead to Cicero's being murdered by agents of Anthony following a momentary truce between the two contenders for Caesar's thrown. Lawless Republic is an interesting look at the last years of the Republic, illustrating the power of Law and what happens when its awe is diminished by political manipulation. If the law is viewed as the mere application of power, and not obedience to an order that transcends men's whims and politics, then the law of the jungle quickly establishes itself until a new force capable of inspiring awe establishes itself, like the imperial cult that rose from the civil law's ruins.

Thanks to NetGalley for a copy of this ARC!

I looooved this. Such an interesting topic with a conversational writing style that didn't feel difficult or patronising. The maps were such an interesting addition to an already engaging novel, with apt descriptions joining them. I can't wait to dive into other works by this author.

Mr. Osgood does an excellent job of introducing us to the downfall of the Roman Republic and the rise of the Roman Empire in the personage of Marcus Tullius Cicero. Cicero symbolized Republican Rome during these last few years of the Republic filled with change, chaos and eventual perpetual Dictatorship under the Roman Emperors. This was very well done and well worth the time to read and think about.

Oh wow, I LOVED this book. It is absolutely fascinating and brilliantly written. I felt like I was sitting at one of Cicero’s cases hearing him speak. The Classicist in me just adored this and I am absolutely going to use it in the classroom. Best book I’ve read all year!