Roman Blood (book one of the Roma Sub Rosa series) by Steven Saylor centers around the real life patricide trial of a country farmer by the name of Sextus Roscius. The advocate of Sextus Roscius, the well known Marcus Tullius Cicero, employs the help of a man named Gordianus to dig up information about the murder in order to prove his client innocent. Gordianus is known as ‘the finder,’ a man well experienced in finding facts no matter how well hidden or obscure. Of course, such facts don’t come easy. There is much lying, much danger, and tons of characters only out for their own benefit that all together paint a picture of a corrupt Roman aristocracy. It is a very perilous time in Rome, after all, which has only just caught its breath from the proscription of Sulla and his restoration of the aristocracy over the common people. In order to prove Sextus Roscius innocent, Cicero and Gordianus must attack those very aristocrats that now hold Rome in a powerful grip.I avoided reading this book for a while because I didn’t want it to disappoint me. And it didn’t. Saylor is clearly a historian. If it’s not obvious in his reader’s notes, it’s apparent in his clear delivery of accurate and compelling historical detail. You can almost see the dark dilapidation of the Roman Subura that is as hazardous as it is teeming with life, or see the immaculate scene of Carthage on the Rostra, or imagine the men in togas sitting around the Senate. What Saylor does is bring Rome to life, but not without insult and credit where credit is due. He doesn’t present a Rome that is glorious and magnificent as some are prone to do, but neither does it portray it as a place irredeemably corrupt as others would have it. Saylor gives his readers Rome in all her shameless glory without falling into some one of the most common traps of those who attempt to write historical fiction. A tendency of most historical writers is to accentuate what is ‘abnormal’ by today’s standards because they imagine it will help people understand the time period more, or respect it for how different it is, but this often backfires. I like how Saylor did not give excuses for Rome, but didn’t gloss over the many faults. Details are presented in an easy and matter of fact way, which I found helped me get into the time period more simply because it was all given so casually.Roman Blood is not a ‘great men of Rome’ sort of book, though it does feature many of the people we know: Cicero and Sulla to name a few. They all play their roles, as great men do, but without stealing the spotlight. Gordianus is a great character because he is likable, realistic and humble. And very Roman. I also quite like the portrayal of Cicero in Roman Blood because I think it captured his peculiarities perfectly while still redeeming him at the end when it was shown to Gordianus the doubter that Cicero is more than just a picky nag and really is one of the greatest statesmen. Roman Blood is as much mystery as it is historical fiction. It’s full of murder, perversion, ruthlessness, and doubt. There are enough twists and turns to make the plot interesting while not so many that you lose sense of the thing. In the end, you come to understand that everyone is guilty of something in some way and even an ‘innocent’ man has committed plenty of crimes of his own.
Sextus Roscius was a wealthy, degenerate old man murdered on his way to a brothel in the heart of Rome. The man accused of the crime is none other than Sextus Roscius' own son, Sextus Roscius the Younger. A young, ambitious Orator (i.e., lawyer/advocate) - none other than Marcus Tullius Cicero - is defending the young Roscius. Cicero retains Gordianus the finder (i.e., a private detective) to help solve a mystery. What follows next was one of the best mysteries I've read in some time.First, the mystery itself. Like any good mystery what looks like an open and shut case is anything but. Sextus Roscius the Younger clearly has motive. His father treats him poorly and is squandering the family fortune on food, drink, gambling and whores. But it also turns out that the Roscii have a long simmering feud with their cousins. And then there are the political feuds, the maneuvering, the jockeying, the struggle for advantage. (This doesn't even touch the Proscriptions, the culmination of Sulla's political purge against enemies of the state.) There is much more going on here than Gordinas (and the reader) suspects.The setting itself is fantastic. I read historical fiction because I like to gain insight and learn about distant lands and times. Roman Blood took me on a thrilling tour of Ancient Rome - from the slums of the Subura to the Forum to the seemingly peaceful countryside. I especially appreciated the time period of the story. Much of Roman historical fiction that I had read thus far seemed to focus on either Julius or Augustus. I suppose this makes sense - the transition from Republic to Empire provides ample opportunities for drama. Saylor focused his story on the period following the Social Wars (about 90 BCE). This provided some insight into Marius and Sulla and a period that I had only known about in the most general terms. I liked the new perspective. Saylor did a good job of bringing it to life. The world felt alive to me as Gordinas wandered through it.Finally, Gordinas himself was an excellent character. The story is told from his perspective and his interactions felt genuine to me. He made no exceptional leaps to the truth. Rather he gained his insights the hard way. He traveled the city. He visited the scene of the crime. He spoke to witnesses. He tried to intimidate a person or two. He followed false leads. He did exactly what I'd like to think a hard-boiled investigator would do back in the day. It didn't hurt that I actually liked the guy. He was good to his slave, Bethesda. He actually hired someone to protect her. And, at the very end he really does an extraordinary act of human decency that I really appreciated. What a great character.Four and a half stars rounded down to four. The book was missing something that would've popped it up to five. Not entirely sure why I feel that way. Maybe it needed another character? Maybe it dragged in a couple of places? No worries, it was still a fun book. I recommend to those who enjoy historical fiction and mysteries.
What do You think about Roman Blood (2000)?
Roman Blood is a fictional narrative of Cicero's first major case, Sextius Roscia's defence for killing this father. He hires the services of Gordanius to find out exactly what happened, and the author has woven a thrilling story. I am not much of a Roman history fan, but I looked up some aspects of the case and was surprised by how true Saylor has been to history, even with the inclusion of a major fictional character. The narrative was good too, and the action is consistent. The only parts that bored me was when the author had Gordianus pontificate about Roman history. When you are in the mood for murder and mysteries, you don't want to read about who won wars or what their aristocratic background is. A murder mystery must keep to the theme. The characters were well etched, and I especially loved Tiro. There were no inconsistencies such as superwomen or stupid men masquerading as heroes, as is so often seen in historical fiction and / or mystery novels these days. Every person behaved as we would have expected them to behave, and that is a huge plus. I also enjoyed the details about daily Roman life that Saylor wove in effortlessly in the story. All in all, an excellent read for history / mystery fans.
—Kavita
This was a great mystery set in ancient Rome. A murder has occurred under odd circumstances. None other than the murdered man's son is accused of the crime and he faces an atrocious (by modern standards) punishment for parricide. Gordanius the Finder is hired by Cicero to investigate the murder. I really liked it. I liked the mystery and I liked the main character, Gordanius. He is likable and fair fellow of his time. But what I loved about the book is Saylor's descriptions of Rome and Roman life at all levels of society. The lavish lifestyles of the rich, and of citizens merely trying to scratch a living however they can and also the slaves. I also loved that Saylor took actual events and actual people and wove them into the story expertly. The murder of Sextus Roscius Amerinus was real. And his son Sextus Roscius filius was indeed accused of the crime by a freedman of Sulla's named Chrysogonus. And Cicero did defend the son before the Roman Rostra. Well done! I'll be reading more in this series for sure.
—Leslie
Originally published on my blog here in October 1999.The third I have read (but the first in sequence) of Saylor's Roman detective stories about Gordianus the Finder gets him involved in one of the most famous trials in history. It's famous because it made the name of Cicero, whose speech from the trial still survives.The murder victim, Sextus Roscius the elder, is a wealthy farmer who has retired to Rome to enjoy himself while his son (with the same name) runs the farm, its profits funding the old man's taste for the high life. The two men have never liked each other very much, and when the father is murdered in a back street - on his way to a brothel - during a visit by the son to Rome, the latter is suspected to be a parricide. This particular crime carried an extremely unpleasant penalty under Roman law (a most painful execution), and so the trial immediately assumed immense public interest, and so was likely to enhance Cicero's career if a successful defence was made.Saylor has looked carefully at Cicero's speech - the prosecution speech does not survive, and has to be inferred from the rebuttal of points from it made by Cicero - and by reading between the lines has constructed an interesting mystery novel. (Cicero's speech aims to prove the innocence of his client, rather than to identify the guilty party.) This makes Roman Blood take a place in the top rank of historical crime novels.
—Simon Mcleish
