Cicero: The Life and Times of Rome's Greatest Politician

Rating:
Summary: Reads like a novel
Review: Anthony Everitt has written a highly readable biography of Cicero that has appeal to a general reader and specialists in Roman history. Mr. Everitt's writes passionately about his subject but also recognizes Cicero's faults and failings. I was relieved that Mr. Everitt did not give us extended quotations from Cicero's letters and other works. I have read biographies were the author has relied too heavily on extended quotations from his subject: Mr. Everitt relates Cicero's life in his own words. The book is also well paced with each chapter covering a particular aspect of Cicero's life.

For readers new to the study of ancient history, Mr. Everitt includes digressions on Roman marriage ceremonies, the administration of the Roman State administration, what a triumph was and other subjects. I was acquainted with these facts but enjoyed reading them and did not find them intrusive. Mr. Everitt knows Cicero and speaks eloquently on the life of his subject and the period in which he lived. The author provides good background on other important figures in Cicero's life, such as Caesar, Marc Antony, and Sulla, including Cicero's family and his long relationship with Atticus and Pompey. Mr. Everitt, instinctively, know how much detail to include in his book so that the reader is satisfied and not assailed by facts. This is a book that does not disappoint and one that is hard to put down.

Rating:
Summary: Cicero Meets Biography on A&E
Review: Anthony Everitt's biography of Cicero is a fine yet pedestrian account of the ancient politician. In almost every respects, it could serve as the basis for an A&E or History Channel documentary; it outlines the basic facts, presents a scandal or two, but does nothing to engage the mind or reveal deep truths about the human condition. This book is neither insightful nor provocative, like Christian Meier's Caesar. Nor does Everitt adequately explain why Cicero held such a fascination for generations to come, including (if not especially) our own founding fathers, John Adams in particular. And for a biography about a man best remembered for his writings, precious little space is spent discussing Cicero's written ideas. One gets more of a sense of Cicero as a person from Colleen McCullough's fictional Masters of Rome series.

That's the negative. The positive is that Everitt's account is well-presented and the events surrounding Cicero's life are inherently interesting. Everitt particularly shines in depicting Cicero's activities after Caesar's assassination, arguing that for the few short months left to his life Cicero was the preeminent man of the hour - mainly because he was the last one of the elder generation left standing.

The bottom line is that Everitt's Cicero is a book that nobody should regret reading. It's a fine review of the end of the Roman Republic, and a good refresher course for those who maybe haven't visited Ancient Rome in a while. Those looking for some substance, however, and those who are serious Roman scholars, will be disappointed.

Rating:
Summary: The Resurrection of Marcus Tullius Cicero
Review: Everitt in his preface makes no bones about his bias: "This book is an exercise in rehabilitation. Many writers from ancient times to the present day have seriously undervalued Cicero's consistency and effectiveness as a politician."

The portrait that Everitt proceeds to paint, therefore, is principally one of a political figure. To that end, he describes in great and accessible detail the turbulent politics of the deal (the death of the Roman Republic and the birth of the Roman Empire). As a sort of bonus, then, this biography of Cicero discusses in some detail the political careers of such contemporaries as Cato and the First Triumvirate (Pompey, Crassus and Caesar).

Everitt succeeds remarkably well at bringing to life the necessary context to make Cicero's political decisions and ideas comprehensible. We see his conservatism and his attachment to the constitution of the Republic and also the career- and life-threatening perils that induced him, from time to time, to side with the anti-Republican forces (i.e., Caesar).

Cicero was no Cato, willing to die for the Republic. He had other peccadilloes, too, which Everitt also recounts: a certain vanity, a habit of writing bad poetry, a lack of affection that may have ended his first marriage. But he was an excellent writer of prose, a deep thinker on political issues, and enormously attached to his children. And he was a great orator, and, from time to time, an immensely popular leader. This well-written biography brings the interesting man to life.

Rating:
Summary: Well-written history of the Republic's demise
Review: If your goal in reading a biography of a historical figure is to gain a new perspective on the society and culture they lived in as well as an insight into their character and personality, then you should find Anthony Everitt's "Cicero" a satisfying read. In particular, if you are interested in learning more about how Cicero advanced the art of politics during a multi-faceted career, this book will provide a fresh look at the methods -- primarily oratorical -- he employed.

This is the most accessible accounting I have read of the steadily intensifying battle between aristocracy and plebeians and of how that battle led to the rise of dictatorship. Cicero's role in trying to bridge this growing gap while protecting the integrity of the Senate forms the heart of the political side of his life as presented here. This is not to say that Everitt presents Cicero as man solely devoted to principle. On the contrary, the book highlights Cicero's early devotion to advancing his own interests and career. This led Cicero to some monumental injustices, for which he later paid a significant price.

Cicero's personal life takes on a dimension here not usually reflected in more general treatments of Roman history. His account of Cicero's devotion to his daughter, of his (Cicero's) reaction to her early death, and of how that affected Cicero's career are especially convincing.

Everitt has made copious use of the ancient sources. Much of Cicero's writings and correspondence has survived, and Everitt cites them frequently. In fact, his citations and notes on sources are a main reason why the book is so satisfying.

Because of this strong use of original sources, the power of Cicero's story itself, and Everitt's skill in telling it, I found it easy to credit the book with a certain authority in its depiction and conclusions.

There is some reason to be cautious however. Some reviewers, more credentialed than this reader, have claimed serious mischaracterizations in Everitt's picture of Roman politics. In an otherwise generally positive review, T. Corey Brennan, in the New York Times, faults Everitt for depicting the Roman constitution as more rigid than it really was. (I found Everitt's treatment of the constitution more nuanced than this.) Brennan also takes the author to task for badly simplifying Pompey's sack of Jerusalem. These examples seem unconvincing of a larger credibility issue, but the serious reader might want to check other sources as well.

There were two areas where the book propelled me to further reading. Cicero's sense of loss at the death of his daughter eventually led him to write the essays "On Emotions" and "On Grief". New translations by Margaret Graver have recently been published under the title "Cicero on the Emotions". On the political side, Everitt dramatically presents the use of mob violence as a political tool by the different factions. For those wanting to know more about this facet of pre-dictatorship Rome, a readable supplement to "Cicero" is Erik Hildinger's "Swords Against the Senate".

I liked "Cicero" for its multi-dimensioned story, its strong and comprehensive use of the ancient sources, and its stimulus for further reading. Although some specialists might claim that it contains unsophisticated and faulty aspects, I think most lay readers will find it rewarding and, for the most part, convincing.

Rating:
Summary: A marvelous effort
Review: It's easy to see why this marvelous effort by Anthony Everitt became a bestseller. It is a beautifully written, intelligently organized and well-researched history of the famous Roman statesman whose name is certainly familiar to most American high school students. By tying the name to the story of the life of a remarkable man, Mr. Everitt has created a classic biography, one which might set the standard for future Cicero biographies.

I cannot praise too highly how well written this history is. There is no jargon, no scholarly arrogance which insults the reader, no slipshod verbosity. It is everything a biography for the general reader ought to be: a terse, focused, illuminating history of a memorable personality; a pleasure to read.

That Cicero was a giant of his time is also well documented elsewhere, but Mr. Everitt brings out his status with refreshing clarity. More than that, to aid the reader to understand how Rome ruled its people so as to fully appreciate Cicero's place in its history, the author describes in a straight forward way, its political processes, explaining the duties and powers of Quaestors, Aediles, Praetors and Consuls.

One can sense the passions of the time and see how a gifted orator that was Cicero earned his status and reputation. We come to know Cicero the gifted lawyer, Cicero the husband and father, Cicero the faithful brother, Cicero the enlightend slave master, Cicero the wary Statesman who worried at the rise of the ambitious Caesar.

And, finally -- at the end --, there is Cicero, the valiant, who bared his neck to his sword-wielding assassin with the pragmatic remark loosely translated as "Make a good job of it."

And thanks to Mr. Everitt for this outstanding biography, for he did, indeed, make of a good job of it.

Rating:
Summary: too much detail for me
Review: Marcus Tullius Cicero was the great statesman of the Roman Republic. To Cicero politics and government was not something that was just necessary evil. It was, in the words of former US Senator Paul Wellstone "...not about power. Politics is not about money. Politics is not about winning for the sake of winning. Politics is about the improvement of people's live. It's about advancing the cause of peace and justice in our country and in our world. Politics is about doing well for people." This is how Cicero viewed the "games" of politics and government.

Right now we have a lot of weird leaders in both parties who don't know who Cicero was or why he is important to know about. At beast our leaders today know that there was a guy with that name from the various history classes they took in High School and College. Of course, our leaders today -- on both sides of the isle -- barely know who the American founding fathers were, let another Roman ones. Yet our own American Founding Fathers knew whom the Roman ones were.

Think of whom Cicero dealt with in the Roman Politics of the first century B.C. There was Julius Caesar, Cato, Cassius, Mark Antony, Octavian/Augustus, the two Brutus', Pompey, etc. This is not just a who's who list of Roman history... these are all people who lived at the same time, who knew and worked with or against each other. The founding American political experience with so many great minds all working together was not original to history... rare, but not original.

Yes, Roman politics was a blood sport when it came to it in the end. Cicero ended up very dead, with Antony's wife, Falvia pulling out his tongue and piercing it with hairpins. But in the end, even his enemies thought highly of him. Late in life Augustus, who had colluded in his murder, said of Cicero "an eloquent man, and a patriot".

We need leaders who know the lessons history teaches. One of the great lessons of history is the end of the Roman Republic and the beginning of the Roman Empire. Right now, we don't have leaders who understand the difference.

Rating:
Summary: Everitt v. Rawson
Review: There are many able and thoughtful reviews of this bestseller below. Rather than rehash the common themes -- namely that "Cicero" is well-written but a bit shallow (I happen to agree) -- I've decided to use this review to assess Everitt's work against the last popular biography on the great Roman statesman and philosopher, Elizabeth Rawson's "Cicero: A Portrait," which is regarded by many Roman scholars as the finest ever written. With diligence and a little bit of luck I was able to obtain a copy of Rawson on the Internet. I decided to read the two books concurrently to discover why many learned readers hold her book in so much higher regard than Everitt's.

Keeping with the spirit of a head-to-head competition, first let us consider the "tale of the tape." The paperback versions of both books are remarkably similar is structure, organization and length. That is, both are chronological narratives organized into seventeen chapters and just over 300 pages in length (it should be noted that the font and margins in Rawson are smaller, so "Portrait" is roughly 20% longer in terms of wordcount). Clearly, then, Everitt's relative weakness isn't excessive brevity or an unorthodox and ineffective approach to Cicero's life.

Much to my surprise, these books turned out to be just as similar in content as they were in size. Rawson certainly does a more thorough job of analyzing Cicero's philosophical works and her book ends with an excellent but brief review of Cicero's legacy, but overall Everitt's prose is more lucid and he excels Rawson in his ability to capture the pulse of life in Republican Rome (his descriptions of the traditional Roman marriage ceremony and assembly voting procedures are especially noteworthy). Rawson doesn't quote from Cicero's writings or letters to Atticus any more extensively than Everitt -- indeed, Everitt's choice of quotes are so precisely similar to Rawson's that it almost raises some suspicions. In sum, because these books are so close in every way I feel that Everitt's is superior simply because it is more readable (not to mention far easier to find and purchase).

In closing, I'd like to echo the frequent comment that this book isn't a deep and penetrating study of Cicero and his times, such as Meier's biography of Caesar. It wasn't meant to be. It is targeted to a wide audience and succeeds exceptionally well at bringing Rome and one of its most remarkable figures to the average reader. In a world where many of the liberal arts graduates of our leading universities never touch Cicero or Polybius or Livy or Thucydides and probably couldn't tell you whether the Greeks or Romans came first, I can't help but think that books like this are at least a step in the right direction toward stimulating public interest in the classics. Ideally, "Cicero" will inspire young students or the merely intellectually curious to read some of Cicero's writings or pursue more substantial works on the Republican Rome or the ancient world in general. As someone who didn't "discover" the ancients until graduate school and then developed a passion for them, I can only hope that books like this will make a few converts along the way.


Rating:
Summary: Maybe the worst thing i've ever read....
Review: This book was so boring. It did have a lot of dry details. The writing is confusing b/c time seems to not move in a straight line in this biography. Cicero comes off a pompous jerk and a completely unlikable character. I couldn't even finish this book it was so bad. I was forced to read it and I can't finish it. This book put me to sleep. Unless you're looking for a sleeping pill, leave this book on the shelf.

Rating:
Summary: Solid, but not spectacular
Review: This is a standard biography of Cicero's life, written well to meet those aims. Everitt drops in nice tidbits of Roman life--shopping malls, insurance-arson scams, and Vestigial Virgin drag queens--but this biography lacks both A.) historical perspective and B.) philosophical perspective on Cicero. Someone who knows little of Cicero before reading this book, would not know a whole more about Cicero's worldview. We learn that he believed in the representative Republic, in some degree of personal freedom--but he also believed in deterministic, pantheistic Stoicism. How could these be reconciled? How is determinism and liberty compatible? How is determinism and virtue compatible? How could these beliefs impact the Founding Fathers? This is what lacks from the book--why Cicero's beliefs led to his life, and why his life led to the Enlightenment.

This book nonetheless does it's basic job, and the portrayals of Cato, Pompey, Caesar, and Octavian are strong. Cato comes off as the noble idealist--as Cicero would have seen him--and the emperors and would-be emperors come off as the practical power mongerers that they probably were. Crassus and Cataline are like cartoonish villains, yet, by their idiotic deeds and schemes they might have been. This would be a good book simply to flesh out one's knowledge of a time slowly being forgotten in the Postmodern West.

Rating:
Summary: Solid, but not spectacular
Review: This is a standard biography of Cicero's life, written well to meet those aims. Everitt drops in nice tidbits of Roman life--shopping malls, insurance-arson scams, and Vestigial Virgin drag queens--but this biography lacks both A.) historical perspective and B.) philosophical perspective on Cicero. Someone who knows little of Cicero before reading this book, would not know a whole more about Cicero's worldview. We learn that he believed in the representative Republic, in some degree of personal freedom--but he also believed in deterministic, pantheistic Stoicism. How could these be reconciled? How is determinism and liberty compatible? How is determinism and virtue compatible? How could these beliefs impact the Founding Fathers? This is what lacks from the book--why Cicero's beliefs led to his life, and why his life led to the Enlightenment.

This book nonetheless does it's basic job, and the portrayals of Cato, Pompey, Caesar, and Octavian are strong. Cato comes off as the noble idealist--as Cicero would have seen him--and the emperors and would-be emperors come off as the practical power mongerers that they probably were. Crassus and Cataline are like cartoonish villains, yet, by their idiotic deeds and schemes they might have been. This would be a good book simply to flesh out one's knowledge of a time slowly being forgotten in the Postmodern West.