logo
Wrong email address or username
Wrong email address or username
Incorrect verification code
back to top
Search tags: cicero
Load new posts () and activity
Like Reblog Comment
show activity (+)
review 2017-12-26 23:24
Dictator (Cicero # 3)
Dictator (Book Three) - Robert Harris

‘If only you will look on high,’ the old statesman tells Scipio, ‘and contemplate this eternal home and resting place, you will no longer bother with the gossip of the common herd or put your trust in human reward for your exploits. Nor will any man’s reputation endure very long, for what men say dies with them and is blotted out with the forgetfulness of posterity.’

All that will remain of us is what is written down.

I have not read Imperium (Book #1) or Lustrum (Book #2), yet, but if this last book in the trilogy is anything to go by, I am going to enjoy the first two books very much.

 

Dictator was not exactly what I had expected: Yes, it was a historical novel based on the life of Marcus Tullius Cicero, but it did not read like the usual run down of a sequence of events and dates that I had for some reason feared it might be. In fact, the biographical facts are taking a back seat in this book and exist to provide a framework of what I can only describe as tense political thriller - which I guess is even more gripping if you don't know Cicero's biography. 

 

Harris chose a tone of narration that does not try to emulate what we imagine speech patterns or use of words to have been like in Ancient Rome, but instead reflects a more modern approach, and he makes it work. At least, I liked it, even if I can see that it may seem like it might deprive the book of some of that "ancient" setting. The politicking, intrigue, treason, madness, revenge plots make up for it in way that is less I, Claudius and more House of Cards (the UK version!). 

In a way it feels like Harris took an old story and set it in the arena of modern politics. Maybe he wanted to show that not that much has changed in 2000 years of politics? 

If that is what he tried, I think he succeeded. 

 

Another aspect, Harris succeeded in is the portrait of the main characters - Cicero, Caesar, Marc Antony, Octavian, and all of the senators we meet along the lines. 

Historical accuracy may vary, of course, but overall I could not say that any one character was portrayed as one-dimensional. 

I also really liked that part of the intrigues were spun by the wives, sisters, widows of the main players and that these were shown as an integral part of Roman society. 

 

I look forward to reading the rest of the series.

Like Reblog Comment
show activity (+)
text 2017-12-26 19:47
Reading progress update: I've read 72%.
Dictator (Book Three) - Robert Harris

I have been wondering about the cover design of this edition, but now it makes sense:

"From that point onwards Caesar’s funeral followed the pattern of Clodius’s. The body was supposed to be burned on a pyre already prepared on the Field of Mars. But as it was being borne down from the rostra, angry voices cried out that it should instead be cremated in Pompey’s Senate chamber, where the crime was committed, or on the Capitol, where the conspirators had taken refuge. Then the crowd, with some collective impulse, changed its mind and decided that it should be burned on the spot.

Antony did nothing to stop any of this but looked on indulgently as once again the bookshops of the Argiletum were ransacked and the benches of the law courts were dragged into the centre of the Forum and stacked in a pile. Caesar’s bier was set upon the bonfire and torched. The actors and dancers and musicians pulled off their robes and masks and threw them into the flames. The crowd followed suit. They tore at their own clothes in their hysteria and these along with everything else flammable went flying on to the fire."

Like Reblog Comment
show activity (+)
text 2017-12-26 18:48
Reading progress update: I've read 64%.
Dictator (Book Three) - Robert Harris

If you thought that having the family over for the holidays was keeping you busy, check this out:

Caesar Dictator to M. Cicero.

 

Greetings.

I am in Campania inspecting my veterans and shall be spending part of Saturnalia with my niece Atia at the villa of L. Philippus.

If it is convenient, my party and I could visit you on the third day of the festival.

Please let my officer know.

 

I asked, ‘How did you reply?’

‘How else does one reply to a god? I said yes, of course.’

 

He pretended to be put-upon, but I could tell that secretly he was flattered, although when he enquired as to the size of Caesar’s entourage, which he would also have to feed, and was told it consisted of two thousand men, he had second thoughts.

 

They had 2 days to prepare.*

 

Fa-la-la-la-laa-la-la-la-laaa.

 

(*Historical accuracy may vary.)

Like Reblog Comment
show activity (+)
text 2017-12-26 13:29
Reading progress update: I've read 26%.
Dictator (Book Three) - Robert Harris

Pompey regarded Cicero with crafty eyes.

‘So I hear you caused a stir in the Senate the other day.’

I have a feeling that this short quote embodies most of this book - it's fun, it's Machiavellian (before its time obviously...), and describes Cicero's life in one sentence.

 

Loving this book so far. It is always a sign of great historical fiction if it inspires to find out more about the actual history.

Like Reblog Comment
show activity (+)
review 2016-05-29 12:40
A Glimpse into the Roman Criminal Justice System
Murder Trials - Marcus Tullius Cicero, Michael Grant (Translator)

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.

 

Cicero Indicting Catallus

 

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.

 

Cicero Conferrign

 

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.

Source: www.goodreads.com/review/show/1557237831
More posts
Your Dashboard view:
Need help?