Cicero: The Life And Times Of Rome's Greatest Politician (2003) - Plot & Excerpts
Actually read in January of 2009. The following is a review written at the time that I am moving to my Goodreads library. Most people remember Cicero as an orator and praise him for his rhetorical skills, but few realize that he had a very full political career as well. He worked his way up the political ladder early in his life, all the way up to Consul in 63 BC. In the last half of his life we see that powerful men such as Caesar, Pompey and Octavian either want Cicero on their side or want him dead because he was so well respected and influential. Anthony Everitt’s work brings to life not just Cicero’s involvement in the Roman Republic’s government and politics, but shows us what Cicero was like as a man. He shows us that Cicero was flesh and blood with doubts and flaws like the rest of us, yet still a great force in human history.British writer Anthony Everitt has spent time teaching in the universities of England and has contributed articles to The Guardian and Financial Times. This work on Cicero is his first biography. Cicero is written well and the research that went in to it is very impressive. The citations and sources listed at the back of the book would make this work a perfect launching point for further research on Cicero. Most of what Everitt teaches us about Cicero comes from the personal letters Cicero wrote to his friend, Atticus (Titus Pomponius). These letters are the key to understanding a very influential and complex man living during one of most crucial points in human history – Rome’s transition from Republic to Empire.So, who was Cicero as a private person? Through his letters to Atticus, we get to see the real Cicero – a man who has doubts and regrets, vanity to spare, and a strong set of principles. Those already familiar with Cicero’s history may view the comment about principles as dubious due to Cicero’s constantly changing alliances, but we need to remember that in the brutal politics of the day, one had to be alive to have much influence. He also had a great interest in Greek philosophy. Some of Cicero’s writings, such as On Law, were inspired by Plato. In this work he states “Virtue is reason completely developed” – very Aristotelian. In fact, Cicero was not really an original philosopher himself, but wrote a great deal about Greek philosophy. We can thank Cicero for much of what we know about the ancient Greeks because he included so much of it in his writings – and in his character.Much of what we know about Cicero comes from his own writings. Cicero wrote out many of his speeches after the fact and had them published. Sometimes he even published speeches that he never delivered. The content of hundreds of his letters also survives. Cicero also wrote several “books” for publication. Books during Cicero’s time were not as we know them. They were written out on long papyrus rolls and the most competent of slaves were given the task of copying them. Atticus appears to have employed many slaves for this purpose. Wealthy citizens, like Cicero, were very proud of their personal libraries (shelves loaded with papyrus scrolls).Probably the most exciting portion of Everitt’s book lies in the period after Cicero had official status in Roman government. Cicero was caught between powerful forces struggling to gain control of Rome and in the process was exiled, lost his properties, returned from exile, had to capitulate to the First Triumvirate, sided with Caesar, then sided with Pompey, was accepted again by Caesar, angered Caesar with his book on Cato – and somehow, lived through it all and held on to his republican principles and his reputation as best he could. Cicero’s life is an amazing story of survival. After Caesar’s assassination, he would be thrown into a similar pattern of events but with Anthony, Octavian, Brutus and Cassius.Shortly after the establishment of the Second Triumvirate, Cicero was added to the proscription list and had to flee Rome once again. Proscription meant that a bounty was placed on the heads of those proscribed. Convincing evidence of the proscribed person’s death was usually in the form of a severed head. Now in his early sixties, Cicero met his death bravely when caught and stretched his neck out for his executioners. They took his head and hands as proof of his death. A year later the last major battle to save the Republic was fought and lost at Philippi. Cicero would have mourned the deaths of his friends Brutus and Cassius. Cicero did not live to see Octavian transform himself into Emperor Augustus.In the days before Caesar was assassinated, he made some comments about Cicero demonstrating that he understood the importance of Cicero’s work in the grand scheme of things. Everitt describes Caesar’s remarks, “Cicero had won greater laurels than those worn by a general in his Triumph, for it meant more to have extended the frontiers of Roman genius than of its empire.” Rather than let Caesar have the final word, let’s let Cicero have his say via Everitt,“When we inherited the Republic from our forebears, it was like a beautiful painting whose colors were fading with age. We have failed to restore its original colors and have not taken the trouble to preserve its overall composition or even its general features.”from On the State (51 BC)
The fundamental difficulty of writing a life of Cicero is that he's not the most interesting person in the story by a long shot. The trouble is that he has to share the stage with Caesar, who's bold, sexy -- every man's woman and every woman's man -- far-sighted enough to understand that the ship of the Republic had well and truly sunk, loyal to friends and merciful to enemies -- at least so long as they were potentially useful -- in short, one of the great men of history. Cicero, by way of contrast, was a bit of a ditherer, prone to dissembling and not committing to anything until the last possible moment (and then prone to changing his mind); he prosecuted or defended a number of high-profile court cases, but in most instances raw political power of the more important factions determined the outcome; and when he was briefly able to play a leading role after Caesar's assassination, it didn't exactly end well. Devoted enough to serving and preserving the Republic, he lacked the capacity or vision to realize its flaws and the need for radical reform.As a result, it would take a strong biographer not to take Cicero's life and turn it into a sort of synecdoche of the Republic, his own vacillation and weakness standing in for the ineffectiveness of a political institution on its last legs, contrasted with the magnetic, grasping dynamism of an Empire, personified by Caesar.Everitt, to his credit, avoids this temptation, but does so by taking the puzzling approach turning his book into an exercise in apologetics. Repeatedly, we're told that Cicero was making the best of a bad situation, or not in a position to make strong decisions, or just lacked the capacity for large-scale leadership. There's some truth in this litany of excuses, but Everitt seems to be trying to make the case that but for one or two unfortunate flaws of character, education, or position, Cicero might have been another Caesar or Augustus, at least an Antony.Of course, this strains credulity, and it's also to Everitt's credit that he provides the evidence allowing the reader to realize he's stretching. The book is a nice balance of concision and comprehensiveness, leading the reader through the proto-Byzantine web of plots and factions that characterized Rome at the fall of the Republic, providing not just Cicero's take on the lead players but also a more objective look at what he missed. It's just that the analysis at the end has a systematic bias that's hard to take seriously. The most egregious example is probably where after relating how Cicero, as consul, helped roll up a plot to overthrow the Republic, then panicked and executed some of the conspirators without trial, over loud protest. Again, the book makes clear that this was an ill-informed overreaction, with many other leaders correctly counselling restraint -- but Everitt attempts to downplay the magnitude of the error, even as Cicero's peers exile him and hold years'-long grudges over it. Not to get too far down on the guy -- but the main draw here is definitely that Cicero was a reasonably good observer of an incredibly interesting period of history, playing an interesting albeit minor role, not that he was or even might have been one of the main protagonists. The more Everitt strays into the latter story, the weaker the book becomes. Before wrapping up, I should note that there's a potential objection here: the genius of his oratory and prose are in large measure why old Tully's revered, not for being a cunning politician or a great leader, so why shouldn't an appraisal of the biography focus on that? Well, yes, but the problem is, the genius of said prose doesn't come across too well in translation; his Latin syntax may be admirably balanced, but reading his speeches in English, power and force don't come through that clearly (though he is endearingly bitchy in his letters). While some writers are at least partially celebrated for the role they played in key events -- Milton, let's say -- they tend to have some masterpiece upon which to hang their hats, clearly overshadowing the parts of their biography wrapped up in politics and war. And for the modern reader, Caesar's crossing of the Rubicon is a much more salient reference point than the rhetorical heft of Against Verres.
What do You think about Cicero: The Life And Times Of Rome's Greatest Politician (2003)?
I knew nothing of Cicero before I read this book upon the recommendation of Rob. Took me some time to get around to it, but it was well worth my time.The only reason I gave it just three stars is because Anthony Everitt's writing prose annoyed me to no end. I would get lost at times and at other times I was begging for more information. Guess what I was looking for was a very detail oriented book about the Roman Republic during Cicero's time, and as Anthony Everitt explained in the beginning of the book, this was just an introduction to who Cicero was and the place he grew up in.That said, I still learned a lot about the Roman Republic from this book and walked away amazed about the book's namesake and the society he lived in. Cicero himself, nor anyone else in that era, didn't strike me as an amazing and upstanding individual, but I think that was due to the fact that they grew up in place and a time I can't comprehend fully. But to see how the world's most influential people and culture (up to that point) worked was simply fascinating and gave me a better appreciation for what was Rome accomplished.All in all, not a bad book, and I just started Everitt’s other book, Augustus. That one already started with more detail than I saw in Cicero, so I have high hopes…
—Mat Domaradzki
A biography of 'Rome's Greatest Politician'. Human nature is the same as always, and the political animals are as beastly as ever.Cicero was described as a defender of the republic, and a brilliant orator, but most of all, a politician. He waffled, he did character assassinations. But compared to the relative chaos that was Ancient Rome, he stands almost as a beacon. One wonders, once Republic became Empire, how the state managed to survive for so long.A very interesting book, and recommended for those with any interest in Roman history.
—Hadrian
I always enjoy reading history books that are written in an assessable manner. Anthony Everitt’s biography of the Roman statesman Cicero reads like a novel at times. Perhaps this is a byproduct of the source material. We are fortunate that Cicero was a prolific writer, and that many of his personal letters have survived. For these reasons, Everitt often provided the reader with insights on Cicero’s thoughts and emotions. Everitt did this by intent, as it makes for interesting reading. My quibble is that I wonder how much liberty Everitt took inferring the thoughts of a person who lived in a radically different time and place. I wonder if Everitt has faced criticism from his peers for writing “pulp” history. To his credit, in instances when Everitt makes inferences that fall outside the scope of what is written in his source material, he clearly works hard to place these inferences in the context of accepted historical background knowledge on Roman culture and social institutions. Beyond this issue, I learned a great deal from this book. The political motivations of Cicero and his political colleagues were fascinating. I am still not clear on the political ideologies of the time. Everitt seems to brand Cicero as a conservative because of his respect of long-standing institutions and political checks and balances. Opposed to this seem to be “reformers” who try to break through what Everitt describes as an inefficient administrative quagmire by seizing power. Yet, it seems as if ego and thirst for power guided these “reform” efforts as much as interest in political change. There were high stakes associated with Roman political life. A disgruntled politician would seemingly not hesitate to kill those who stood in his way. In fact, the most powerful politicians were also generals; success in war meant success in politics. As Everitt notes, it is a testament to Cicero that, although he was not a prolific general, he was able to maintain political power for much of his career. On a related note, it is interesting that, as Everitt implies, power hungry political figures would first rely on the detailed system of rules embedded in Roman government (albeit to their personal advantage) and, only when this failed, resorted to violence. This is not unlike politics in many contemporary governments. I also found the connection between superstition, ritual, and politics to be interesting. If, in accordance with Roman religious rules, a day was declared to be “unlucky”, all public business was halted. It was not uncommon for this to be used as a political delay tactic, or a means of preventing unpopular assemblies from meeting. Finally, Everitt indicates that Roman politics were largely confined to city limits. Other regions of the Empire were disenfranchised. In part, this may have been by intent – territories obtained through war were likely subjugated. But, it is also a byproduct of communication limitations of the day. When one puts these limitations in perspective, the nature of the Roman political system becomes even more remarkable.
—Timothy
