Dictator by Robert Harris

(Book Review)

This is the third (and final) book in Robert Harris's Cicero trilogy.
I gave a mostly negative review to the first book in the series, Imperium.  However, despite being critical of many of the narrative choices that Robert Harris had made, I said at the time that I would probably be back for the subsequent books anyway.  I'm interested enough in the time period that I'd happily read just about any book on the subject, and plus I'm a big fan of historical fiction.

And so I came back for the second book, Conspirita, which I enjoyed much more.
And then here I am with the third and last book in the series.

The Review
I really enjoyed this book.
(I'm not sure what happened with Imperium.  It could be that I was just in a bad mood when I reviewed that book.  Or it could be that Robert Harris improved his craft with the subsequent books. I'd have to re-read the book to know for sure.)

The history that this book covers was already well-known to me (see HERE, HERE, HERE, HERE, HERE, HERE , HERE, HERE, HERE , HERE and HERE).  So there was very little suspense for me in the actual story.  I pretty much knew exactly all the events that this book had to cover.  But even with a well-known story, it is still interesting to see the unique spin that a  different story teller brings to the story.  I already knew Clodius's murder was coming, but how would Robert Harris tell it?  I already knew Cicero would freeze up at Milo's trial, but how would Robert Harris explain this failure of nerves?  I already knew Cicero would be a beneficiary of Caesar's clemency, but how would Robert Harris portray Caesar at this moment?  Et cetera.
And this is the pleasure of a historical novel when you already know the history--anticipating how you think the author is going to tell the story, and then checking your predictions as you read.

This novel covers the time period of 58 BC to 43 BC.  This was a time when, to put it mildly, a lot was happening in the Roman Republic.
As Robert Harris himself says: "...[this book] encompasses what was arguably--at least until the convulsions of 1933-45--the most tumultuous era in human history..." (from the Author's Note).  And I'm not sure he's wrong.
When I first started this book, I wondered, "Wow! How is Robert Harris going to cover all these events in just 376 pages."
For comparison's sake, Colleen McCullough spread these same years over about 2 and a half books, each book close to 1,000 pages.  So how could Robert Harris do justice to these years in just 376 pages?

And yet, Robert Harris pulls it off.  He manages to cover this whole period without ever feeling like he was rushing anything.
He mostly accomplishes this by keeping the focus of the story tightly focused on Cicero.
Any events for which Cicero was not personally present are either summarized very briefly or skipped over entirely.
As a result, this book won't work for anyone interested in a complete history of the period, but it works just fine for a biography of Cicero.

Other Comments
* Each book in Robert Harris's Cicero Trilogy is about 300 or so pages.
By comparison, one book in Colleen McCullough's Master of Rome series is often close to 1,000 pages.
No doubt if Colleen McCullough had been writing this series, all three books would have been published all at once under one single binding.
Apparently Robert Harris wasn't capable of this output (and who can blame him) but if his Cicero trilogy ever goes through a reprinting, I recommend putting all three books under the same binding and just selling it as one book.

* As with the other books in this trilogy, the framing of the story is in favor of Cicero, and against Cicero's enemies.
This results in a biased view of history, but it's fair enough in historical fiction.  If you're going to expect the reader to stick around for 3 books, you need to create likable protagonists.  And so you need to tilt everything in favor of your protagonist.  (Colleen McCullough did the same thing in her Masters of Rome series, only she favored the other side of the political aisle).
Robert Harris pulls this off for the most part, but there are one or two blind spots.
Cicero, although he was a new man in Rome, usually sided with the aristocratic Senate against the populares (the populist reformers) like Julius Caesar.
The legacy of the populares is mixed.  On the one hand, they often resorted to illegal and extra-constitutional measures to get their reforms through.  But on the other hand, these were much needed reforms for Rome's poor.
Robert Harris omits everything positive about the populare legacy.  As a result,  it is stated that Caesar was very popular with the Roman mob, but never explained why.
Nor is it obvious in Robert Harris's book why the assassins of Julius Caesar weren't immediately greeted by the general population like liberators (as Cicero thought they should be.)

* Actually while I'm on the subject...
It's tempting to draw a parallel between the ancient Roman populares and modern day leftists.  But the parallels are not exact.
The anti-war crowd during this period was actually the conservatives--something Robert Harris does a good job of pointing out.
Despite the image most people have of ancient Rome--an image of armies marching in and conquering whatever they wanted to--the ancient Romans actually had laws against wars of unprovoked aggression.
They often got around these rules of course--sometimes by getting themselves invited into one side of a civil war, often by a puppet government (like the United States did in Vietnam)
Or sometimes by manufacturing a cause of war on flimsy evidence (like the United States did in Iraq).
I think it's important to remember this, because otherwise we risk exaggerating the difference between us and the Romans, and in the process forgetting some of the lessons of history.
Robert Harris does a good job of recording some of the anti-war sentiment that took place in ancient Rome.  Cato and the conservatives were convinced that Caesar's whole war in Gaul was an illegal war of aggression, and wanted to prosecute him for it.
And this anti-war sentiment popped up again when Crassus marched against Parthia--many people in Rome also condemned Crassus's war as an illegal act of aggression.
(Dan Carlin also does a good job of talking about the anti-war sentiment that grew up around Crassus's expedition against Parthia.)

* Contrary to what you read in Shakespeare, Octavian and Anthony did not immediately team-up to make war on Brutus and Cassius right after the assassination of Julius Caesar.
Instead, when Octavian originally arrived on the scene, he was an ally of Cicero, and an enemy of Mark Antony.
There followed a complex period when there was a lot of political games being played and shifting alliances until Antony, Octavian, and Lepidus finally decided to team up and form the Second Triumvirate.
Robert Harris doesn't shy away from these complex back-and-forth political negotiations, and it's all included in the book.
If you're a history nerd like me who loves this kind of detail, then this is all great.
If not, then consider yourself warned ahead of time.

*  In my review of Imperium, I complained that, among other things, the book didn't do justice to Cicero's early years and only briefly skimmed over Cicero's first case in which Cicero defended a parricide.
Robert Harris tries to bring that parricide case back in Dictator, by having the soldier who delivered the death blow to Cicero be the very one that Cicero defended in the parricide case.
It's an ironic end to Cicero's career, but it's a pity this wasn't set-up better in Imperium.  It just seems to highlight the fact that Robert Harris dropped the ball by not including that story in his first book.

* Although I was familiar with most of the stuff in this book beforehand, I'd be exaggerating if I said it was all old information.  For example Cicero's attack upon Clodia during Marcus Caelius Rufus's trial (W) was new to me.
Also Cicero's various philosophical works were also new to me as well.  (The philosophical books came up in the narrative, because the narrator would describe the circumstances that lead Cicero to write each particular book, and briefly summarize its contents.

* In his acknowledgements section, Robert Harris praises Rubicon by Tom Holland as the book which first gave him the idea for this whole trilogy.

* Moving away from Cicero, I also tremendously enjoyed one of Robert Harris's other books: An Officer and a Spy

*This is only of interest to us history geeks, but I thought Wikipedia's section on Cicero's legacy was interesting.  To quote:

Likewise, no other ancient personality has inspired as much venomous dislike as Cicero, especially in more modern times.^[90] His commitment to the values of the Republic accommodated a hatred of the poor and persistent opposition to the advocates and mechanisms of popular representation.^[91] Friedrich Engels referred to him as "the most contemptible scoundrel in history" for upholding republican "democracy" while at the same time denouncing land and class reforms.^[92] Cicero has faced criticism for exaggerating the democratic qualities of republican Rome, and for defending the Roman oligarchy against the popular reforms of Caesar.^[93] Michael Parenti admits Cicero's abilities as an orator, but finds him a vain, pompous and hypocritical personality who, when it suited him, could show public support for popular causes that he privately despised. Parenti presents Cicero's prosecution of the Catiline conspiracy as legally flawed at least, and possibly unlawful.^[94]

Some of this comes out in Robert Harris's book. Robert Harris does a good job of explaining why political necessity sometimes forced Cicero to lend his public support to causes he privately despised. But Cicero's opposition to populist reforms is played down in Robert Harris's trilogy.


Video Review
Link here and embedded below.



Link of the Day
Professor Noam Chomsky & Filmmakers - Q&A for Requiem for the American Dream (4-22-16)

Conspirata by Robert Harris

Subtitle: A Novel of Ancient Rome

Published in Britain as: Lustrum

(Book Review)

Why I Read This Book

            This is the second book of Robert Harris’s trilogy on the life of Cicero.

            The first book, Imperium, I read and reviewed on this blog way back in 2006.  Although I gave Imperium a mostly negative review, I said at the time that in spite of all my complaints, I planned to read the rest of the trilogy when it came out.  I love historical fiction, even bad historical fiction, and besides which I’m particularly interested in the time period—the last hundred years of the Roman Republic—in which these books take place. 

            (In my youth I was particularly fascinated by Colleen McCullough’s epic - Masters of Rome series on the same time period.  Also, back in my schooldays, whenever I was assigned a research paper and had any flexibility on the choice of topic, I often picked a topic associated with precisely this time period.  See, for example, my old paper on the Catiline Conspiracy here, and my paper on Clodius Pulcher here.   Both the Catiline Conspiracy and Clodius figure prominently in Conspirata, so I was eager to read Robert Harris’s take on the events.)

           

The Review

          In my 2006 review of Imperium, I had a number of negative things to say about the book.  And though I stand by everything I said, it does strike me now that perhaps I put too much emphasis on the little flaws, and ignored the main merits of the book.

            The main merit of the book is that it is very readable.  This is worth mentioning, because there are a number of books out there that aren’t readable—books that are boring, or filled with thick unwieldy prose.  Like every other reader, I’ve struggled with these books, or given up on them in frustration.  So when you come across a book that’s well written, where the prose moves smoothly along and where you can easily keep turning the pages, it’s worth mentioning.  Whatever complaints I may have about Robert Harris, the man can write very readable books.

            When you add Robert Harris’s very readable prose to the pleasures of learning about history in the form of a novel, it makes for a very enjoyable book.  And I enjoyed this one.

            Despite Robert Harris’s disclaimer at the beginning of the book (“This is a novel, not a work of history: wherever the demands of the two have clashed, I have unhesitatingly plumped for the former”) the book is, as far as I can tell, pretty accurate.  (As I usually do when I read historical fiction, I kept double checking with Wikipedia to see how accurate this book was, and most of the events in the novel seemed to check out.)

            The biggest compliant I have is the same complaint I had with Imperium.  Most historians don’t seriously think Julius Caesar and Crassus were behind the Catiline Conspiracy—the Catiline Conspiracy was an act by a desperate group of men who had nothing to lose, whereas Caesar and Crassus still had very good traditional political careers open to them, and had no reason to fall in with the revolutionaries.  Robert Harris is well aware that nothing was ever proven linking Caesar and Crassus to the Catiline Conspiracy, but for dramatic purposes he finds it useful to imagine they were secretly behind the whole thing, masterfully pulling all the strings.

            Of course the whole point of a historical novel is that you’re supposed to be free of the strict rigors of academic history, and you can choose whatever version of history is the most dramatic.  Robert Harris wants to set up Cicero as the hero of the story, and every hero needs a good villain, so Caesar is the villain of the story.  In fact, in Conspirata, Caesar becomes an almost James Bond type villain, deftly manipulating everything, the unseen hand behind every scandal in Rome.  This is the story Robert Harris wants to tell, and for what it is, he does a good job of telling it.

            Except, I rather think the more interesting story is to imagine the politics as complex.  Instead of only two feuding groups (Cicero’s allies versus Caesar’s allies), I find it much more interesting to imagine this period of Roman history as a period of many different ambitious men with constantly changing alliances.  Cicero opposed Catiline, and Cicero also later opposed Julius Caesar, but that doesn’t mean that Catiline and Caesar necessarily had to be in league with each other just because they had a mutual enemy in Cicero.

            (I am also perhaps influenced by the Masters of Rome series by Colleen McCullough, for the simple reason that I read it first, and whatever you first read on a subject makes a greater impact on you than anything you read subsequently.  While McCullough doesn’t attempt to deny that Caesar was ambitious, she portrays his populist program as motivated by genuine concern for the welfare of Rome’s poorest citizens.  Robert Harris, however, portrays Caesar’s populist program as simply demagoguery.  But as to which view is right, I cannot say.  I imagine a case could be made for either.  But I tend to find McCullough’s Caesar much more interesting.)

Notes:

* Add this book to my list of historical fiction.  

Addendum (September 30, 2014)
Inspired by this book, I've been continuing to browse around the historical records.  I've been browsing through Plutarch's Lives online [LINK HERE] and have been pleasantly surprised to find how much of this book seems to have been taken directly from Plutarch.  
For example, from the section on Cato [LINK HERE]:  When the trial was held, Cicero, who was consul at that time and one of Murena's advocates, took advantage of Cato's fondness for the Stoics to rail and jest at length about those philosophers and what were called their "paradoxes," thus making the jurors laugh. Cato, accordingly, as we are told, said with a smile to the bystander: "My friends, what a droll fellow our consul is!"
That scene, and that quote, is directly represented in the novel.  I assumed it was improvised by Robert Harris, but it comes directly from the history books.
It is to Robert Harris's credit that he's obviously done his research well.  Combining both the talents of an historian with an author is not the easiest thing to do, and, upon reflection, perhaps I've been focused more on criticizing this series for its shortcomings than highlighting its impressive accomplishments as a work of historical fiction.

Link of the Day 
Noam Chomsky: The Difference Between Obama and Bush

Imperium by Robert Harris

(Book Review)
Now that I’ve finally finished off the last two books in McCullough’s “Masters of Rome” series, I am beginning to remember why I used to be so interested in this period of history, particularly the last 100 years of the Roman Republic. With my interest officially rekindled, I began to wonder if there were any other good historical novels that dealt with the same period of time.

And then, (what perfect timing), a new historical novel “Imperium”, which chronicles the life of Cicero, just came out this fall. I don’t often like paying hardcover prices for new books, but I figured in this instance it was worth it.

This book is the life of Cicero as told from the perspective of his secretary Tiro. (According to the author’s end note, the actual Tiro really did write a biography of Cicero, but it was lost with the collapse of the Roman Empire.) At only 300 pages, this book is significantly shorter than McCullough’s books, but then it only covers a short part of Cicero’s life. Although the author does not explicitly say so, I can only assume that this is to be the first book of a larger series, because it ends before most of the major events in Cicero’s life.

The book itself has a number of serious flaws. I guess I feel about this book the same way I feel about the comic book novels I’ve recently reviewed on this blog. I was so enamored with the subject material, that I enjoyed the book in spite of its literary shortcomings. (And I will probably buy and read the sequels when they come out.) But there are a lot of serious problems with this book.

For reasons that are mystifying to me, this book got a lot of very good reviews. I think that is because the life of Cicero isn’t generally known to the average person, and I think a lot of reviewers were just really excited to be able to put some sort of story in connection with all those stuffy Cicero Latin quotes which have survived the ages.

In comparison with McCullough’s series, however, this book is definitely the poorer of the two. I will try and keep the comparisons to McCullough to a minimum, because I realize that it would only be of interest to someone like me who had read both books recently. But I got a much better picture of Cicero from her books, and her books weren’t even about Cicero. In her books, Cicero is just a supporting character in a story about Julius Caesar.

In McCullough’s books, we first meet Cicero as a 17 year old youth serving an internship in Pompey Strabo’s army. We then follow him as he makes his first appearances in Rome, takes his first court case, and meets his friend Atticus for the first time.

In Robert Harris’s book, we start when Cicero is 30, despite the fact that the narrator, Tiro, has known Cicero since childhood. All of Cicero’s life up to that point is covered in a few paragraphs, and his time in the army and his famous case defending a client accused of Patricide are virtually ignored. A great opportunity to add some depth and interest to the characters is lost.

There are several supporting characters in “Imperium” who help Cicero in his political career. His friend Atticus, his younger brother Quintus, his cousin Lucius, his protege Frugi, etc. These characters are present in most scenes (apparently they have nothing better to do but follow Cicero around) but none of them are developed at all. They’re nothing more to the reader than a bunch of names to keep track of. And what little characterization we do get is done in the worst way possible: by the narrator simply telling the reader. (Didn’t Robert Harris ever take “Creative Writing 101"? Isn’t that the cardinal sin for fiction writers?) For instance, we know Atticus was an Epicurean because the narrator states: “Atticus was an Epicurean.” Otherwise we would have no way of knowing from the story. In the same way we know Quintus Cicero is not as clever as his older brother, but more militarily inclined. It is told to us directly by the narrator, not shown in the story. And despite Quintus being in almost every scene, that’s as much characterization as he gets in the whole book.

As for the history parts:
This book ends with the election of Cicero as consul, so it doesn’t get into the Catiline conspiracy. But it does lay the ground work for it, and sets up Catiline as a pretty nasty villain. In my high school paper, I argued that Cicero exaggerated or made up many of Catiline’s crimes for his own political purposes, and that they were afterwards recorded into history. (Or rather, Lester Hutchinson argued that point, and I plagiarized him for my paper). Robert Harris seems to be taking Cicero’s allegations against Catiline at face value. Which I guess is the difference between a serious history and a historical novel. In a serious history you spend a lot of time analyzing conflicting accounts to get to the truth. In a historical novel, you are free to use which ever account best serves your dramatic purposes. And having Catiline as a great villain and, by correlation, Cicero as a great hero, definitely makes the story more exciting.

The big problem though, as Hutchinson points out, is that if all those awful allegations about Catiline were true, how in the world did he manage to stay in good graces with the aristocratic Roman Senate? And this seems to be the 500 pound Gorilla in Robert Harris’s novel. How does this psychotic, murdering, incestuous sex fiend keep moving in the snobbiest circles of the Roman aristocracy?

Also, in order to preserve the hero-villain dichotomy of the novel, Harris presents a view of history in which all of Cicero’s enemies are in conspiracy together. For example when Clodius prosecutes Catiline, Harris’s takes the unlikely explanation that both Clodius and Catiline engineered a show trial to boost their respective reputations. That’s right, Catiline arranged to have himself prosecuted, because he thought it would increase his popularity. Would it have been too much complexity to admit the possibility that Clodius could hate Cicero and also hate Catiline? Would that have been too confusing for the readers?

And then it gets worse. Harris takes the (I believe almost universally disregarded) view that Caesar and Crassus were secretly funding the Catiline conspiracy. By the time you get to the end of this book, it’s like reading the “Conspiracy Nut's Guide to Ancient Roman History”. I suppose some of this (and the discussion it generates) is all part of the fun of historical novels. But to me, it just seemed too ridiculous. All that being said, I’m still looking forward to the next volume in this series, just to see what Robert Harris’s take on events will be.

One last addendum: Robert Harris takes advantage of the post 9-11 world to draw some parrallels between ancient and modern history. The Pirate attacks, and the resulting panic in Rome and Pompey's power grab are retold in terms very reminiscent of the 9-11 terrorist attack and the resulting expansion of government power. This makes the book feel a bit more relevant to today's world. It will also date the book in 20 years time, but then I severely doubt anyone will still be reading this book in 20 years.
Update: Interview with the Robert Harris on NPR here confirms that this is indeed intentional. Not that there is much of a chance of people missing it.

Useless Wikipedia Fact
"Birthday" begins with a blues progression in A (in the form of a guitar riff doubled by the bass) with Paul singing at the top of his chest voice, "They say it's your birthday/ Well it's my birthday too, yeah!" Afterwards, a drum break lasting eight measures brings the song into Lennon's section, which rests entirely on the dominant before returning to a third section, sung by McCartney. It is among the latter's most intense vocal performances due to the range in which he sings during the blues run. The female backing vocals that sing the "birthday" were performed by Yoko Ono, Linda Eastman and Patti Harrison.

Link of the Day
What the media aren't telling you about the Iraq Study Group report

And, via Phil's Blog:
From This Month's Harper's Index"Amount a 2006 defense bill authorized for a daylong "celebration" of "success" in Iraq and Afghanistan: $20,000,000""Date on which the authorization was extended to 2007: 9/30/06"
I wonder how many teachers we could've afforded with that 20 mill alotted for propaganda. Not very convincing propaganda, most likely.

Imperium by Robert Harris: Book Review (Scripted)