Cicero was full of shit.

Though I did some Classics in the 80s, I barely read any Cicero. (This was out of personal indolence, not the fault of my courses...) He is one of the people from the Graeco-Roman world I really would like to read a bit more of than I did back then - probably in translation on a long National Express coach journey, or something. The impression I retain of Cicero is attractive: someone vain, voluble, companionable, and - crucially - warm; somewhat larger than life, volcanic by temperament, capable of being quite formidable. I think he was like some figures in the performing arts up and down my lifetime, certain directors - I can't even name names right now - rather than politicians I can think of who are active now. I'm sure I've met something of him in a number of people. I dare say the bar still accommodates people with his talents and personality and virtues - I have just known very few people who work there.

 

If you're into stuff like this, you can read the full review.

Having spent four years of my life studying a law degree (and having an interest in the criminal side of things) when I discovered this book years ago my interest was immediately piqued – it was a collection of ancient speeches that focused around murders. Anyway, who doesn't like a good murder trail (though most murder trials these days usually arise from domestic disputes), particularly if they happen to be politically motivated. It is not surprising that the four trials in this book are all political since Cicero was what you would consider a high-flier, and generally grabbed the complex trials that had the greatest risk. One interesting thing is that there are a couple of trials that are mentioned, but not included, in this book, but the reason for that is that they have been included in [book:Political Speeches], and considering the nature of Cicero's career it's not surprising that some of them would overlap.

In a nutshell, Murder Trials is a collection of four defence speeches by one of Rome's greatest orators and one of the great things about this book is that not only does it give you and insight into how criminal trials operated in the Roman Republic, but also some of the tactics that were used to get people acquitted. One of the major differences between a murder trail in Rome and a murder trial in our modern world is that in Rome such charges, unless there were elements of treason involved, where brought about through the civil court. In those days the state wouldn't prosecute, therefore to be able to have somebody found guilty of an offence you needed to fund the prosecution yourself. Needless to say only the rich could afford to take somebody to court. However, in some cases, the state would provide assistance with the prosecution, though unlike today charges weren't laid by the police, nor were complaints – they would be brought directly to the court by the victim (or victim's family in the case of murder).

The Roman court wasn't structured in the way that our courts are structured – that is with a judge who would preside over the case and make sure that the procedure is followed correctly, while a jury of twelve people would listen to the case and then go away, confer, and then determine whether the accused is guilty or innocent. The Roman judicial system worked more like the Athenian system, where a jury (which could compose of upwards of thirty people) would listen to the case and the each would go away and make their own decision – they were not allowed to confer with each other, nor were they allowed to persuade another away from their decision. However, like the modern trails, at least in the common law countries such as the United States and England, each side would present their case, and guilt or innocence would be determined based upon who presented the best case. However, unlike the Athenian system, where one had to present their case (and defence) themselves, the Roman system allowed one to appoint somebody to present the case on one's behalf.

 

 

Mind you, this system that I outlined really only applied to Roman citizens (as was the case with the Athenian system). If you were a slave, or a foreigner (or more precisely a non-citizen, as being born in the Republic did not automatically guarantee one a right to be a citizen – it had to be awarded to you, though citizenship would automatically be granted to the child of a citizen), then the law would play out a lot differently. One should note that one of the defence speeches included in this book was for a non-citizen – he was a king of a Gaullic tribe that lived on the fringes of the empire, though this was a trial for treason. Even then it does indicate that a non-citizen could be brought before the Roman courts to face trial, though in his particular case he did happen to be a king.

 

Another major difference between the Roman world and ours was the question of punishment. Sure, the Romans did have dungeons, but one would only land up there if they were going to be executed (or fed to the lions). However this came about much later, and it certainly wasn't a place were Roman citizens would end up. In Rome, if you were brought to trial on a charge of murder you weren't kept in a cell to make sure you turned up to court – you were allowed to go about your daily business. However if you were found guilty then you had two options – flee, or face execution. Needless to say that most people ended up fleeing. This was a perfectly acceptable option, unlike today where if you were to flee abroad there would be a massive hunt for you to bring you back to face trial. The other thing is that despite appearances, Rome was actually a pretty small city (compared with the cities of today that is), which meant that it was a lot harder to hide, and pretty much everybody knew everybody else (especially if you were a member of the upper classes). That also meant that if you did chose to flee, then you couldn't really come back because if you did then bad things would happen to you (though in some instances, say a pardon, you would be allowed to return).

 

There are a couple of other things that I wish to touch upon, and one of them is the reason for Cicero to defend these people. He claims that he does it for justice, but I would hardly consider Cicero to be a champion of human rights. First of all he was an aristocrat, and also on the opposite side of the political spectrum from the likes of Julius Caesar. He was a conservative, not a populist, which meant that his goal was to defend conservatives against the attacks of the populists. This whole question of justice is actually rubbish – if he was really concerned about justice then he would be defending the lower classes – people who couldn't afford to pay him, as well as defending slaves and foreigners. No, Cicero wasn't about justice, he was about defending the patricians against the relentless attacks of the lower classes.

 

 

I finally want to finish off about the idea of the defence lawyer. The thing with defending somebody in a court of law isn't about taking sides, but about defending somebody against charges using the best argument available. It also means not passing judgement on, or making assumptions about, your client. Sure, the accused might actually be a despicable human being, but that doesn't mean that that particular person does not deserve a defence, or representation. When I was applying for positions in law firms (a career path that I didn't end up taking), one of the questions was 'could you defend a …..?'. Another interesting thing was that a barrister friend of mine suggested that criminal lawyers don't actually make that much, namely because a lot of people who end up in the criminal system don't actually have any money.

 

A lot of criticism is levelled against people who defend criminals, with the belief that they are allowing scum and monsters to wander the streets and thus making society a much worse place to live. However, one should remember that if they were to find themselves in the place of the accused, most people are going to want to have a defence lawyer representing them. Sure, there are some who will represent themselves, and there are a lot of reasons as to why they would do that, however I believe that the role of the defence lawyer is an important one – they protect people from the power of the state. The reason that the idea of everybody having the right to be represented in a court of law by a competent lawyer is to prevent the state from running roughshod over people that it doesn't like, and to be able to give people a voice to explain their actions. The problem is, though, that the legal system has become so complex that one could not possibly understand what is going on without the help of a lawyer.

 

 This work is devided into 6 books. Most of the books are dedicated to discuss the best way of government for achieving the true Republic ('public thing'), a fair society with equal rights for all citizens. It is presented as a dialogue among friends. They present the pro and con of monarchy, aristocracy and democracy. For developping this ideas, they discuss History of Rome.



The last book is dedicated to God and author's spiritual experience. As a Brazilian, this part was expecially interessant for me. There is a popular Religion here named 'Spiritualism' (founded by French Alan Kardec), it says people have successive reincarnations and, between the death in a previous life and the reincarnation in the next life, the spirits go to a Spiritual World. The description of the Spiritual World made by Chico Xavier (a famous leader of Spiritismus) is the same of Cicero. But he lived 2,000 years after Cicero! Maybe he read Cicero's book (that is not probable, because Chico Xavier had low education) or both had the same kind of experience and this is the only way they could explain it.

It called my attention when one of the spirits says: 'Look at that globe! That is the Earth!'. How do they know the Earth was a globe 100 b.C.? And he says there are lands in Southern Earth and there were peoples there too. These peoples were so different that they didn't look like Romans.

I can write thousands of things that impressed me. I still don't know if I trust on it or not. But even if you are not religious, you should read this book. The discussion about the ways of government is very current until nowadays.

 

 

 

These are images from the movie Nosso Lar (Our Home, Neutre Demeure), based on the book (with same title) by Chico Xavier.

 

 

Most of Marcus Tullius Cicero's (106-43 BCE) Academica has been lost to the winds of time. He produced two editions of this work, the first in two books, of which we have only the second, and the second edition in four books, of which we have only portions of the first book. And the bits of the latter we do have don't fit together very well with the former, due to changes in the dramatis personae and dates. This promises a field day for a philologist, but, for one interested in philosophy, to find most of the beginning of an argument missing is somewhat disheartening. During Cicero's time the intellectuals of the Roman empire were themselves Greek or bilingual Romans. So philosophy was simply done in Greek, by everybody. Forced out of public life by Julius Caesar's dictatorship, Cicero wanted to reach out to the non-Greek-reading Romans, and in order to do so he had to invent a philosophical vocabulary in Latin. Fortunately for the Romans, Cicero was particularly well suited for this task. The Romans accepted his neologisms and increasingly philosophized in Latin; for reasons well known to all, they subsequently influenced philosophizing in most of the European languages, as well. I mention this because, though he may not have been the most original philosopher of ancient times, he was a particularly well informed one, and because the book under review was part of his project to bring philosophy into the Latin language.The book takes the form of a debate between a character (who changed between the first and second editions for reasons I won't go into) representing the position of the Stoics and one (coincidentally named Cicero in both editions) representing that of the so-called Academic sceptics, though there are subsidiary characters participating in the discussion. Unlike many of Plato's "dialogues", Cicero's is an authentic exchange of views. The Academica was written late in Cicero's life, and by then (and possibly much earlier, but that is being argued by the experts(*)) he adhered to the positions and techniques then being taught at the Academy in Athens. Briefly summarized, they held that under close scrutiny, (almost) all philosophical positions crumbled; that there are positions more persuasive (i.e. which crumble less swiftly) than others, but there are (almost) none that a rational person could accept as the Truth. One of the techniques students of that school had to practice was to argue both sides of every question. So, when Cicero set out to present two distinct philosophical positions, he earnestly made the argument on both sides (in contrast to Plato). As he had studied all of the major philosophical schools, he correctly represented the position of the Stoics in this dialogue (according to the experts).The argument in the Academica is focused on epistemology, i.e. on truth and knowledge. What are they and can we attain them? Epistemology is still a central field of study in modern academic philosophy, but the arguments have become very technical. The basic positions argued in this dialogue are still in play today. But be warned, though the arguments in this book are less technical than those to be found in the modern literature, they are still not easy reading for many.Since much of the Stoic literature Cicero could pull out of his legendary library and unroll at his convenience has not survived, a good portion of what we know about Hellenistic Stoicism has been gleaned second hand from Latin texts like this one. Reading this book offers one of the few opportunities to catch a reliable glimpse into the thoughts of Chrysippus, the third head of the Stoic school in Athens, who, had his works survived as Plato's and most of Aristotle's did, could well be regarded as their equal now. Philosophical Stoicism was essentially formed in the estimated 705 books Chrysippus wrote, of which not a single manuscript has survived in more than fragmentary fashion. (Ach, wie man träumt!) By the time Cicero wrote this book, the Stoic/Academic debate about epistemology had already been underway for 250 years. One of the great services of this edition translated and commented by Charles Brittain is that he provides an overview of what we know about the historical development of this 250 year old argument from this and other sources. This eases the entry into the dialogue's topics, but Brittain also analyzes how the different historical layers of the debate are reflected in Cicero's text and, thus, significantly aids understanding an incomplete text like this. Even with these aids, the usefulness and pleasure of reading this book are mitigated by its incompleteness. Nonetheless, the entire second book of the first edition is here, and after making the necessary transition, aided by Brittain's introduction and notes, one is soon engaged in the very clear and interesting exchange of ideas that Cicero so deftly presents. It then becomes a real pleasure. How many philosophical books are written now with illustrative examples taken from mythology and literature? As for the remaining fragments of the first book of the second edition, the first 20 pages are complete, and then the text breaks off in mid-sentence... After that, only pieces. What a shame.For those who understand French, I strongly recommend that you also read the fine review by Yann of a French edition of this book:http://www.goodreads.com/review/show/312427292Our reviews supplement each other nicely.Let me close with Cicero's graceful words:However, I should come to a close, Lucullus, since it's time for me to sail, as the west wind's whispers as well as the boatman's signals are telling me, and since I have said quite enough.(*) I suspect that he did have such views much earlier, because such a philosophical position would enable him to avoid the danger that his political and oratorical manipulations, which were made with little regard for what was actually true, would be inconsistent with his philosophy - if we cannot unimpeachably know truth, then one need not and cannot take it into account in one's actions. But perhaps I have the cart before the horse.

Although men running for positions of power in the Roman Republic were deemed candidati- ‘made shining white’, due to their artificially white togas- their methods of winning elections were oftentimes anything but. In fact, Quintus Tullius Cicero informs readers in his Commentariolum Petitionis (Little Handbook on Electioneering) that “Politics is full of deceit, treachery, and betrayal”. Within this work reflecting the events of the consular election of 64 BC, Quintus Cicero presents many ‘helpful’ techniques to use when campaigning, including promising everything to everybody, speaking with “vague generalities”, and reminding the public incessantly of the sexual scandals of which other candidates have been involved.

Just in time for the recent American election, a new edition of the Latin text has been translated and retitled How to Win an Election: An Ancient Guide for Modern Politicians . Philip Freeman, the translator, has written many books pertaining to Ancient Roman history, received his PhD in Classics from Harvard University, and is currently a professor at Luther College. The title seems to have been altered by the translator to market to a modern audience, and thus reflects his view that the work is still highly relevant to the modern political scene. He is not alone in his belief, as this little-known guidebook has been compared by some to Machiavelli’s influential work, [b:The Prince|28862|The Prince|Niccolò Machiavelli|http://d.gr-assets.com/books/1347720934s/28862.jpg|1335445], which is valued for its modern significance. However, unlike Machiavelli, the author of the Commentariolum Petitionis is still relatively unknown in the present day. Quintus is often overshadowed by his older brother, Marcus Tullius Cicero, who is considered to be the greatest Roman orator, and also held positions of great political power. In general, the brothers had a very affectionate relationship, as shown by the writing of the Commentariolum Petitionis itself; it was intended to be read by Marcus, who was campaigning to become a Roman consul. Although this book presents many interesting and relevant pieces of advice pertaining to how to win an election, there is a lack of evidence supporting Quintus’s ideas. This prevents it from providing comprehensive information on the subject. However, history itself has demonstrated the success of much of Quintus’s advice, showing that the manipulation and strategy used in ancient times has remained as relevant today as when the book was written.

It is difficult to judge the writing quality of this book due to the fact that it is a translation. However, the manner of which it has been translated (as in, the terminology used) makes it more relevant to modern times. The ‘modern adaptation’, in a sense, makes the book more intriguing since it is obviously presented in a way that is more relatable to current political events. Despite this, the fact that Philip Freeman adapted the original text could affect the meaning of Quintus’s original words. Some people claim that the meanings do differ in some places; however, one would have to be fluent in Latin in order to confirm discrepancies. This is a short book. The advantage to having such generalized content, applicable to any election in history, is that the evidence is unnecessary in a sense; people who buy the book will still be entertained. However, the evidence is necessary for historians and for those who are trying to use the book to learn about elections in the Roman Republic in particular. This book reveals much pertaining to political campaigns, and presents many questions about ethics of campaigning, and even politics itself, that could be further explored. I definitely recommend it for those interested in politics who want a quick, interesting read.