Lawless Republic: The Rise of Cicero and the Decline of Rome

by Josiah Osgood

The true story of Cicero, Rome's greatest criminal lawyer, and his times.

Patricide, extortion, poisoning and conspiracy.Lawless Republic recounts just some of the most sensational criminal cases in the last years ofthe Roman Republic, which gave rise to trademark legal practices we recognize today-fromdiscrediting a star witness to establishing criminal intent. These gruesome stories-both famousand obscure-are interwoven with the rise and fall of Cicero, "king of the courts," and his greatestenemy, the arrogant patrician Clodius. From the accusation of patricide to cover up a fraudulent
property conspiracy in the murder of Sextus Roscius, to the serial poisoner Cluentius and the high-profile prosecution of Clodius himself for allegedly disguising himself as a lute girl at a sacredceremony to attempt a tryst with Caesar's wife, the cases feature an irresistible cast of swindlers,political schemers, and poisoners in the upper echelons of late Roman society. But all too quickly,the tables turn on Cicero, whose very livelihood becomes caught up in a cycle of exile, murder,and revenge at the intersection of law and politics. Far from restoring a sense of justice, the courtswere nakedly exploited as an arena for political conflict, which in turned swayed judicial outcomesand the deterioration of late Roman society. As well as the drama of the courts this book alsooffers a morality story for our times about how the state of a nation's legal systems reflects thehealth of the nation as a whole.

Genres: History, Nonfiction, Biography, Ancient History, Politics, Roman History, European History

384 pages, Hardcover

First published January 30, 2025

About the author

Josiah Osgood is Professor of Classics at Georgetown University. His teaching and research cover many areas of Roman history and Latin literature, with a special focus on the fall of the Roman Republic.

Reviews

[Larry (LPosse1) · Rating 4 out of 5]

My wife and I took a few days off. And traveled by car to Nashville. Visited a few wonderful book stores, heard some great music looked at some amazing art and ate some incredible food. Oh, we both love to read and took the free time to to do just that!!
Josiah Osgood’s Lawless Republic offers a unique and refreshing lens through which to view the turbulent rise of the Roman Republic. Far from being just another retelling of Roman history, this book dives deeply into the role of constitutional violence—how power struggles, legal gray areas, and political aggression helped shape the very foundations of republican Rome. It’s an ambitious and timely study, especially for those reflecting on the fragility of political systems today.

One of the real strengths of the book is its focus on Cicero and the brilliance of his legal and political thinking. Osgood showcases how Cicero navigated—and at times manipulated—a lawless political environment, illuminating the tension between ideals and realpolitik. The book is also incredibly well-researched, drawing from a wide range of sources to construct a nuanced and layered account. Even for an experienced reader of Roman history, there’s fresh insight here.

That said, there are a few drawbacks. I occasionally found myself lost in some of the more technical legal arguments, which at times felt overly detailed and dense. While Osgood’s knowledge is undeniable, the narrative occasionally bogs down in its complexity. Additionally, there were moments where the prose seemed a touch too salacious—perhaps an effort to add drama to already dramatic material. It didn’t ruin the experience, but it occasionally distracted from the otherwise scholarly tone.

Still, Lawless Republic is a rich, thought-provoking book that will challenge readers to reconsider what they think they know about Rome’s earliest days. It’s not light reading, but for those willing to engage, it offers real intellectual rewards. Four stars. Audio/hard cover

[Ryann · Rating 4 out of 5]

Lawless Republic focuses primarily on Cicero as a young lawyer. From his career debut in the late 80’s b.c. and following his highs and lows until his death roughly forty years later, Osgood highlights a few of Cicero’s high profile, memorable cases as well as his transition into politics.

What I enjoyed most about this book were the insights into how the Roman courts operated. Regarding witnesses, there was no thought to perjury. The Romans swore to Jupiter to speak the truth. According to Osgood the belief was, “a man who took the name of the Gods in vain was doomed to destruction by the Gods themselves”.

The idea that hierarchy existed and the lowest, a slave, could only testify under torture was shocking to learn. Foreigners could testify but not without the scowl of the Romans, with the exception of the Greeks who were respected.

Overall a very interesting read for the Roman enthusiast, and full of great material if your knowledge of Cicero is limited, like my own, to his time practicing law.

[Thomas Lopez · Rating 5 out of 5]

Fun and well worth the read. Complete enough to stand on its own for readers with limited classical knowledge but heartily researched and cited for those who want to go deeper

[David · Rating 3 out of 5]

I thought it was possible to look at this book (which I received for free to review) two ways.

One: A book about Cicero.

Yes, well, obviously, but more specifically about his character. A good thesis could be written (or may have been written) about how the popular view of Cicero has changed with time. Every generation seems to have a view on Cicero which comments more on the society from which the view comes, rather than the reality of the man, if such a thing can possibly be discerned across two millenia.

Summary: Formerly, people thought Cicero was a great man. Today, not so much: he's just another flawed man with a special talent for public speaking.

I don't have any scholarship to back up the opinion that follows. Here it is: Traditional, British-public-school-influenced education puts a great value on the ability to debate and argue. From the opinion that the ability to debate and argue is a valuable trait and evidence of a superior mind, it is a short hop to the opinion that people who are talented in this debate are good people and superior character, meaning, for example, honest, moral, interested in justice for its own sake. So, by this logic, Cicero was a great orator and lawyer, so he must have been an admirable man.

There are so many counterexamples of this proposal, ripped from the headlines in our time and previously, that it's difficult to even type it without a smirk.

The first chapter of this book is in my opinion the best. It is genuinely suspenseful and has a great story: an unknown young lawyer takes on the establishment on behalf of a (probably) unjustly accused man. Spoiler: Through superior oration, Cicero makes the wealthy and powerful turn tail and flee.

After the first chapter, Cicero’s taste for the finer things takes over. He turns his attention to the well-healed and well-connected. Not so heroic now, he is a lot like the many many examples in our modern day of people who were nominally championed of equal justice until they are irresistibly drawn to the finer things in life, including a well-located and impressive-looking home. This eventually became a big fat target for his political enemies, who were not above putting it to the torch and then constructing a public monument with religious overtones on the site, just to make it especially difficult for Cicero to claw back his stolen real estate.

Cicero was also apparently an uncontrollable smartass who could not restrain himself from remarking acidly on his contemporaries, a habit which is only wise in small, small doses, and is especially unwise if the target of your satire is an ally.

After the first chapter, Cicero becomes less interesting as he becomes less admirable, just another dully ambitious young man from the province, climbing the greasy pole of success and power with occasional setbacks and also vaulting successes. Cicero also disappears from the narrative occasionally for several consecutive pages, as similar aspirants to prestige thrash and snatch after scraps of power, putting not only themselves but their families and supporters (oh, and don't forget: slaves) in danger for their lives.

In summary, large parts of the book are not so much fun to read, just another chronicle about how the short-sighted and selfish took a great and prosperous society and drove it into the ground.

Two: A book about our own time

Since there is a great deal of the immediately previous (i.e., the short-sighted and selfish driving society into the ground) happening at this moment, it's hard not to think that some of the above is really the way we live now. This is happening in many countries, but I'm an American so I'm going to only make one comparison: Rome vs. USA.

I'm late to this party, it seems, as I see that there are at least two separate books entitled Are we Rome?, with “we” meaning the USA, one seemingly written from the point of view of the American political left, the other from the American political right. I haven't read these books.

Sometimes it seems like any book published now about the Roman Empire must be a comment on the state of the world today.

Here are the remarks from this book that I highlighted which seem to make the reader want to say, “Oh, yeah, the author's commenting on today.”

– The courts’ capriciousness and corruption not only sapped public trust, but also emboldened those who were inclined to commit crimes to feel they might get away with (Kindle location 235)

– … the city suffered from more political violence, fueled by glaring inequality among citizens and unscrupulous leaders exploiting this gap. (l. 259)

– Cicero's own extraordinary story and the tumultuous years he lived through provide no simple solutions to these hard questions. But they do help to show what holds up the rule of law, what threatens it, and what happens when law gives way to disorder. (l. 268)

– Other lawyers besides Cicero discredited whole groups of people … and sought to deny them a fair hearing. In doing so, advocates might have helped their clients, but they undercut the rule of law and in this destabilized the Republic. (l. 1551)

– When Catiline and his followers took up arms to overturn an election, they were striking at a key principle of the Republic: the peaceful transfer of power … (l. 2600)

– [Cicero] showed more commitment to upholding the interests of the well-off than maintaining the rule of law. (l. 2608)

– On both sides of this struggle, we see a lack of foresight regarding the long-term health of the state. (l. 2610)

– This was the secret of patrician success: at the moment of peril, you had to be most brazen. (l. 2753)

– Politicians, desperate to win elections and pass laws, saw that violence could be a useful tactic and sometimes deliberately incited it. (l. 3035)

– Like other citizens in democratic societies, Romans struggled to balance a desire for security with respect for civil liberties. (l. 3042)

– Couldn't much of the violence plaguing Rome be passed off as “the justified anger of the Roman people”? (l. 3093)

– [Caelius, a pupil of Cicero] and [Cicero] had much in common, such as a fondness for demeaning nicknames and a thirst for political success. (l. 3378)

– In their pursuit of their own ambitions, Roman politicians were increasingly ignoring customary and legal restraints on power, such as limited commands, regular elections, and a prohibition on reaching fro weapons when passions flared. (l. 4110)

– Perhaps there are times when one needs to obey a higher law than the laws of men. But as the escalating rancor and violence in Rome shows, there is a grave danger to civil society when that attitude becomes common. (l. 4113)

– … a widespread belief that there is a higher power than human law that justifies murdering your enemy spells trouble for civil society. (l. 4537)

– By reckless demagoguery, politicians could turn their enemies into tyrants and justify their own acts of violence. (l. 4542)

– Cicero did the long-term health of the Republic no good by his lack of sympathy for the less privileged members of society. (l. 4556)

According to Sherlock Holmes, if you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth. Maybe a corollary: If we eliminate, one by one, all of the ways that a globe-spanning empire can fall apart, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, might be the way to avoid world-destroying slaughter. When you read books about the Roman Empire, n=1 in the matter of falling-apart empires. It only eliminates one way NOT to do it. That’s a start, I guess.

I received a free electronic advance review copy of this book from the publisher via Netgalley.

[Logan Kedzie · Rating 4 out of 5]

A specter is haunting Lawless Republic - the specter of President Trump.

This book is a biography of the Roman politician Cicero, mostly. Unlike some ancients, Cicero left a copious paper trail that is somewhat intact. Cicero rose to prominence on his oratory, specifically in the Roman courts. Courts in Rome were less about questions of law and fact and more like...analog Twitter. Clowning on your enemies knows no season, and the jabs are pretty damn funny, mostly.

Cicero is a great writer, making it a lot of fun to write about him, and that inherent joy bursts through each page. The writing here is worthy of Cicero in being lively and engaging, a book it took me a long time to read because I wanted for it to take a long time. This is sometimes the wrong way to write a history, but it is the right way to write this history.

There is something of a Columbo-like structure, since the end-point of most chapters is Cicero giving a speech. A speech which contains all the facts that the chapter has been leading up to, and sometimes is acting as the primary source for everyone. This deconstruction is weird to contemplate, but works.

The problem with this structure is the problem of any history about the Roman Republic, early or late, which is that it can get confusing. Other than similar names and repeated instances of concepts that feel familiar, but are not (cf. trials) it has all the personal grudge of dynastic politics with six times the people. Therefore, the book periodically must step back to explain the deep lore, which can be taxing as it requires reading backwards and forwards. It is good enough, but it is a tension between the book as biography and the book as history.

The letdown here is that the book makes an argument about civility, about respect for the rule of law, and the degrading quality of politicized violence to the political process that just does not bear out with the facts. Cicero was a jerk. He was an eloquent jerk, less jerkish than some of his contemporaries, but an jerk nevertheless. High minded ideals are not in deeds, only in words, and only occasionally that. He was out for self-aggrandizement, same as all the others, playing to his strengths, which was being clever. What is unique, and to the author's credit this is noted, is his legacy and its creation of a sort of political character to emulate that fossilizes into a high-minded ideal.

Of course, since it is Rome, we have to make it into an analogy. Don't make me tap the sign. Look, for my money, the Roman Empire fell in 1922 (your homework is figuring out what I am referring to) so all this talk is so much Spenglerian bunkum. Oh, you rejoin, we are talking about the fall of the Roman Republic, not the Empire. First off, are you? Are you drawing a distinction? The Romans did not always themselves. But let us say for the sake of argument you can, and you do, and we are agreed on it. Okay, then this is still the wrong setting. The contemporary United States is not coming out of a civil war complete with government-sanctioned murk lists, not without some generous foot-lopping.

But great Caesar's ghost, is this book full of the pregnant comment. And maybe it is unintentional. It is not coherently pointing at something, but that feels as good evidence for it being intentional. I, myself, would not call it paraleipsis. I might call it a sound marketing strategy.

My thanks to the author, Josiah Osgood, for writing the book and to the publisher, Basic Books, for making the ARC available to me.

[Joe · Rating 4 out of 5]

Had to pick this up after spotting Cicero on the cover in Hodges Figgis. While it’s not the first book I’ve read that covers Cicero’s life, it was nice to view it through the prism of his career in the courts and the descent into chaos of Rome during that time. A flawed but fascinating character.

[John Gossman · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is a little gem of a history, building a thesis about the root of the fall around the Roman Republic around the career of Cicero, told by close examination of several of his cases. Osgood summarizes this thesis thus:

In their pursuit of their own ambitions, Roman politicians were increasingly ignoring customary and legal restraints on power such as limited commands, regular elections, and a prohibition on reaching for weapons when passions flared. Cicero himself, especially in the published version of his defense of Milo, showed a willingness to disregard laws when he thought them unjust or inconvenient. Perhaps there are times when one needs to obey a higher law than the laws of men. But as the escalating rancor and violence in Rome shows, there is a grave danger to civil society when that attitude becomes common. Cicero had helped to bring on forces that would ultimately kill him and destroy the Republic.

I don't think it's a novel thesis, or one particularly disputed, but Osgood clarifies the case brilliantly and with charm, never pushing it or (as far as I can tell) cherry-picking. In fact, his primary source--Cicero's own writings--cast a vastly more positive light on his career, but by citing them directly, Osgood allows the reader to see between the lines to the violence, corruption and cynicism that Cicero simultaneously decried and abetted.

This short volume is an excellent companion or substitute (being in many ways more entertaining) to Robert Harris' trilogy of novels about Cicero.

[Chad Manske · Rating 4 out of 5]

Josiah Osgood’s “Lawless Republic: The Rise of Cicero and the Decline of Rome” is a gripping, scholarly, and unsettlingly relevant account of how one man’s legal brilliance both illuminated and hastened the twilight of the Roman Republic. Osgood, a leading historian of Rome, crafts a narrative that reads with the pace and intrigue of a true-crime thriller, yet is grounded in meticulous research and nuanced analysis. At the heart of the book is Marcus Tullius Cicero, Rome’s greatest orator and criminal lawyer, whose meteoric rise from ambitious advocate to consul unfolded against a backdrop of political violence, rampant corruption, and social upheaval. Osgood vividly reconstructs the spectacle of Rome’s courts, where Cicero’s eloquence and cunning made him a star—but also where the boundaries between law and politics blurred fatally. The book’s central drama revolves around Cicero’s prosecution of the Catiline Conspiracy, where, in the name of defending the Republic, he ordered the extrajudicial execution of conspirators. This moment, Osgood argues, was both Cicero’s greatest triumph and a harbinger of the Republic’s unraveling, as it set a precedent for bypassing legal norms in the pursuit of “higher justice.” Osgood’s analysis is razor-sharp, drawing out how Cicero—and his rivals—repeatedly justified breaking the law for the sake of Rome, only to unleash forces that would destroy the very order they claimed to defend. The book does not shy from exposing Cicero’s flaws, showing how his shifting principles and willingness to bend the law for political ends contributed to the chaos that ultimately led to Caesar’s assassination and the rise of autocracy. What makes “Lawless Republic” especially compelling is its resonance with contemporary anxieties about the erosion of legal norms and the dangers of political demagoguery. Osgood’s storytelling is fast-paced and vivid, but his warnings about the fragility of republican institutions feel as urgent now as they did in Cicero’s day. This is essential reading for anyone interested in history, law, or the perennial struggle between order and ambition.

[Michael Reilly · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is the story of Cicero's legal career and its relationship to his political career. Osgood's theory is that "the career of Rome's greatest trial lawyer also demonstrates how the rule of law broke down."

(I have always suspected that Cicero's reputation as "Rome's greatest lawyer" was a result of his brilliant self-promotion. He published his opening and closing arguments as examples of the best rhetorical practices. His books were very successful. Osgood suggests that the versions in the books were edited and improved versions of what he said in court. There were no transcripts.

Trial lawyers these days are as aware as Cicero was that publicity is the best way to build a reputation as a trial lawyer. Like most lawyers, I have met famous well publicized lawyers who were great at getting publicity and average in a court room. I suspect that there may have been other Roman trial lawyers who we never heard of, but who were better trial lawyers.)

Cicero was one of the top lawyers in Rome. He was retained in the high publicity trials. Osgood does an excellent job recreating the high-profile cases tried by Cicero. The trial procedures were different from ours. A majority of the jury could convict. Evidence of a Defendant's character and any previous bad acts by him was admissible and carried great weight. Bad men committed crimes. Good men did not. The jurors were only from the higher classes of Rome.

Cicero's first big trail was a murder case. Sextus Roscius junior, a wealthy young man, was charged with killing his father, Sextus Roscius senior. The case was full of intrigue, including Cicero's claim that one of the most powerful men in Rome ordered the murder. Cicero also argued that it was inconceivable that a good Roman man like his client would commit parricide, one of the most heinous crimes in the Roman world. Junior was found not guilty.

Osgood does an excellent job telling the story of the other Cicero's high-profile trials. (Of course, they are high profile because Cicero wrote about them and his writings survive.)

Cicero's plan was to use his prominence as a trial lawyer to become successful as a politician. He succeeded and was eventually elected to serve as consul in 63 BC. As consul he was responsible for quashing the Catilinarian Conspiracy. It was an attempt to overthrow the Roman Republic with the help of foreign troops. Cicero had five of the conspirators executed. After his term, he was exiled from Rome for killing a Roman citizen without a trial.

He was allowed to return to Rome. He was trial lawyer for Milo who was accused of killing Clodius, a prominent Roman. Cicero suggested that Clodius was a demagogue and a gangster and sometimes violence was necessary in defense of the Republic. Milo was found Guilty.

Osgood argues that Cicero's argument in Milo's trial contributed to the lawlessness which led to the end of the Republic. This seems a stretch. He makes it clear that the social fabric had been unrepair ably torn. The city was full of armed mobs. It seems unlikely that a speech could do much more.

One unsolvable problem I have in reading Greek and Roman history is that I find it difficult to keep track of the names. Osgood does his best, but we still get passages like, "the saga of Dinaea, a rich old woman of Larinum, and her family. From two different husbands. Dinaea had three sons, Marcus Aurius, Numerius Aurius, and Gnaeus Magius, and one daughter Magia, who was for a time married to Oppianicus." or "Diogenes immediately went to Cleophantis and Cleophantus then talked to Cluentius."

This is the best explanation of what it was like to try a case in Rome that I have seen. I didn't necessarily agree with the larger theory of the book, but the trial stuff was fascinating and well told.

[Jordan · Rating 4 out of 5]

3.5 stars rounded up.

[Matt McCormick · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is much more a scholarly summary of Cicero's legal career told through a handful of entertaining and evocative court cases than it is a story of Rome's decline. It is very well written and enjoyable to read. It provides a reader with some basic knowledge of Marcus Tullius Cicero a better understanding of how he used his skills the courts to advance his political career. The book is also a fine sketch of Roman history throughout Cicero's lifetime.

What it lacks is a deeper discussion of the efficient causes that led to the "decline of Rome". One might argue that although the shouting wasn't over, the fall occurred with Sulla's civil war and Cicero was simply a player in the post-fall world like Cassius, Claudius, Milo, Catiline, etc. albeit more clever and articulate than many of his contemporaries. The fact he wrote and that writing was retained and that retained writing was viewed for 1,500 years as a way to learn Latin made him standout in history. Cicero didn't win a war, implement a significant change to public policy, make prescient predictions or create a new philosophy. He was an excellent court attorney, extremely smart and very prolific with tongue and stylus and always in the action.

I do recommend Osgood's book and I will read others he wrote.

[Maria Beltrami · Rating 4 out of 5]

Sometimes, listening to political news, one wonders to what level those who want public office are willing to stoop, what and how many falsehoods and nastinesses they are willing to utter. As a comment on this tendency, I have heard more than a few people invoke the ancient virtues of the Roman Republic, with its censors and orators of the calibre of Cicero. Here, perhaps it is better not to. This rather amusing essay is precisely about Cicero, describing, by means of the most famous cases he himself or his admirers and disciples passed on to us, precisely his great oratorical qualities. In the meantime, however, it describes a society that had reached rock bottom and was strenuously digging its way down even lower. And, to quote Osgood, if his opponents were willing to go down, Cicero was willing to go even lower.
This is not a moral judgement on the man, but just a way of making it clear that even the great Cicero, undoubtedly honest to a fault, was a child of a tragic and ferocious time.
As I said, an entertaining and well-written essay that does what good essays should always do: provoke in the reader a desire to delve deeper into the subject they are dealing with.

[Jim Bogue · Rating 5 out of 5]

The author skillfully surveys the career of Cicero in the increasingly violent late Roman Republic. He argues that Cicero’s failure to have a vision for aiding the lore classes and growing willingness to utilize bad methods to achieve supposedly worthy causes played a major role in the Republic’s fall.
It is easy to become annoyed by Cicero’s waffling, self absorption, and hypocrisy. But he almost always TRIED to do the right thing. Because his letters show his indecision and because we know what happened it is easy to fault his actions. It is far harder to argue what a better course would have been.
What sets this book apart is the author’s close look at several of Cicero’s most memorable cases. The sources are carefully marshaled and analyzed and the episodes are very well explained. This is a very useful and coherent study.

[Ed Stoddard · Rating 4 out of 5]

A cracking narrative account of Cicero's rise while Rome descended into lawlessness.
"Among thew worst problems the Roman Republic faced during Cicero's years in public life was a resurgence of political violence. The precedent of Sulla was always there. If you didn't get your way, why not take up arms?," Osgood writes. "By reckless demagoguery, politicians could turn their enemies into tyrants and justify their own acts of violence."
In the wake of 6 January 2021 and the subsequent reelection of Donald Trump as US president, Cicero's age holds a mirror up to our troubled times ...

[Ella · Rating 3 out of 5]

Started strong but became repetitive about halfway through - the politics and intrigue seemed to go in circles. I'd have loved to have some exerpts of Cicero's speeches in the original Latin as well. The author did his very best to tell the events as entertaining as possible though. And the case of the pathological art thief was indeed very interesting front to back. The other cases lacked that quirky part the would have kept me engaged though.

[Stephen · Rating 4 out of 5]

Oh, the times! Oh, the morals! Marcus Tullius Cicero began his legal practice and subsequent political career in tempestuous times: the Roman Republic was actively failing, critically hit during the civil wars between Marius and Sulla, attempting to salvage itself thereafter, and then finally succumbing to Caesar and his nephew, the future Augustus. Lawless Republic examines Cicero’s legal career against the background, showing how Tully’s course cases demonstrate the attempt to short up law and legitimacy after the civil wars, and then demonstrate the failure of that (and the weaknesses in Cicero’s character) as he backs down from Caesar. The cases range from administrative abuse and widespread corruption to out-and-out murder on public highways. All of these featured have political implications, either by directly concerning the re-establishment of the rule of law, or because they involve political actors. Unfortunately, despite Cicero’s promising start in attempting to restore order, his zeal for the cause led him to act outside the law. This is most obvious in the case of Cataline, who was threatening rebellion and whose co-conspirators were executed without trial. Political actors trying to settle things by “any means necessary” spurred on more violence, culminating in the assassination of Julius Caesar, and a following war that would ultimately lead to the rise of Octavian, soon to be Emperor Augustus. At the end Cicero becomes a fence-sitter, trying to figure out which way the winds were blowing: ultimately, his association with Caesar’s assassins, in addition to his speeches against Marc Anthony, would lead to Cicero’s being murdered by agents of Anthony following a momentary truce between the two contenders for Caesar’s throne. Lawless Republic is an interesting look at the last years of the Republic, illustrating the power of Law and what happens when its awe is diminished by political manipulation. If the law is viewed as the mere application of power, and not obedience to an order that transcends men’s whims and politics, then the law of the jungle quickly establishes itself until a new force capable of inspiring awe establishes itself, like the imperial cult that rose from the civil law’s ruins.

Lawless Republic will be published in January 2025.

[Terry Tucker · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book consists of 12 chapters that tells the story of Cicero and his rise to prominence as a trial lawyer. I'm not a lawyer or legal analyst, but I find the stories insightful and a window into culture and society. Although the crimes discussed in these stories took place over 2025 years ago, they are mainly derived from Cicero's public speeches which were a matter of Roman legal public record. The reconstruction of the process casts a significant light on the Roman Trial process and the oratory. Other sources include diaries, books by Plutarch, Quintilian, and other lessor known players. In many respects, today's trial process would be familiar to the ancients - it still relies on skillful oratory, Cui Bono, or, who stands to gain, and lastly to present the argument of for or against in terms of who has the motive, the opportunity and the character. Questions asked in Cicero's Day are still relevant. For example, In response to political violence is it acceptable to fight back in kind? Is it ok to advance the argument for the disregard of law. How, after outbreaks of political violence, do you restore law and order. How do you hold to account those that incite violence? How do you protect against domestic terrorism without suppressing civil liberties. When does a juror, or a voter decide a politician's fate? The case trial reconstructions in this book provide no simple answers or solutions but they do show what might hold up to the rule of law, what threatens it and what happens when law gives way to disorder. The level of corruption in these cases is no less appalling than what a contemporary reader will find in contemporary news - in essence - the human condition is alive and well today and, as in Ecclesiastes, there is nothing new under the sun.

The stories flow nicely and are engaging. I highly suggest this book.

[Kenton Wilson · Rating 4 out of 5]

3.5 stars rounded up. Josiah Osgood’s Lawless Republic is a focused and accessible biography of Cicero that takes an intentionally narrow lens. Rather than attempting to retell the entire drama of the late Republic, Osgood zeroes in on Cicero’s legal career, using his surviving speeches and famous trials to trace his rise, triumphs, and eventual downfall. This approach brings the courtroom to life and offers a fresh angle on a figure often viewed only through the lens of politics or philosophy. As a lawyer, this was a unique and intriguing lens through which to view one of my favorite periods of history.

Readers already familiar with the Roman Republic will find little new here in terms of broader historical revelation. The likes of Caesar, Pompey, Crassus, and Cato appear only fleetingly as background players in Cicero’s personal narrative. Yet Osgood’s tight focus is also a strength; this is a brisk, engaging read that highlights Cicero’s rhetorical brilliance and his uneasy balancing act between principle and pragmatism. For those seeking an introduction to Cicero or a reminder of why he remains one of antiquity’s most fascinating voices, Lawless Republic delivers.

[Conor · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book was fantastic! I would like to think I'm above average when it comes to Roman history knowledge, but admittedly the specifics of Cicero's life beyond the basics were a bit of a blind spot. This book was perfect for me.

The book could certainly serve as a biography of Cicero on its own, but its strengths are more than that. Much of the book focuses on specific trials Cicero participated in - and each of these reads like a true crime story. These parts are downright thrilling. Also, the author goes into great detail about the Roman court system, government operations, daily Roman life, etc. I have seen other reviews cite this as a negative, but for me this stuff is as good as it gets.

Highly recommend and thanks to the author for such a wonderful book!

[Ellis · Rating 4 out of 5]

so interesting to see how Cicero's career progresses as the Republic and the values it represents slowly die.

using examples of Cicero's court cases we see how politics is used to pursue personal revenge against rivals which inherently results in physical violence.

As individuals gained more power and abused the law I think we see Cicero drop some of his personally held values in order to combat it.

when the republics greatest defender starts to believe acts of violence are sometimes warranted, well, now you are in big trouble.

[Carolyn · Rating 3 out of 5]

Not a biography in the traditional sense - this book focuses primarily on Cicero's legal career, but mentions/details other events in his life in relation to that. Full of fascinating information about politics and the legal system in the Roman Republic's last days. Paints a measured, nuanced portrait of Cicero.

[Trevor Mitchell · Rating 5 out of 5]

Absolutely amazing book with a very balanced viewpoint that leaves much to the interpretation of the reader. The narrative format is also very compelling and makes it a perfect book for anyone interested in law, politics, or history.

* This is the third book I’ve read from Osgood and all of them have been stellar so far.

[Colin · Rating 5 out of 5]

An excellent account of the legal and political career of Marcus Tullius Cicero, and how while practicing law, he also helped undermine the rule of law, thus inadvertently paving the way for the rise of authoritarian rule beginning with Gaius Julius Caesar. Highly recommended!

[Janelle Bollingmoore · Rating 5 out of 5]

Enjoyed it and the style it was written in made the book easy to read.
Cicero is controversial because he advocated for violence and the results for that were disastrous.
Interesting read though and would recommend it to people.

[Liviu · Rating 5 out of 5]

Informative and well written

[Anthony Verhelpen · Rating 3 out of 5]

Leuke invalshoek maar sommige hoofstukken nogal langdradig

[April · Rating 3 out of 5]

Easy to read, easy to follow. I’ve just never had much use for Cicero, and I was hoping this was going to place him more in the late Republic context rather than centring him.

[Joseph Rizzo · Rating 4 out of 5]

Very interesting read. An amazing amount of historical detail is available due to the quantity of extent writings from Cicero and other historians. We would see in this book a fairly developed legal system, but one that was highly vulnerable to bribery and corruption. The misdeeds of the politicians will show a modern reader there is nothing new under the sun.

[Joelendil · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book details the workings of the Roman government, especially the courts, in the waning days of the Republic and beginnings of autocracy/Empire. It is a tale of corruption, political expedience, and “justifiable” violence taking precedence over law and justice. The author focuses on Cicero as the foremost lawyer of his time, a major participant in (and eventual victim of) the rising tide of lawlessness.

A significant part of the page count is devoted to various court cases in which Cicero served as either prosecution or defense. While these give a feel for the times and the state of Roman “justice,” they can be a bit convoluted and tedious. They give the impression of verdicts having more to do with a lawyer’s cleverness & manipulation and/or their client’s wealth & power than with the actual pursuit of truth and justice. Add in vicious self-serving, law-disregarding, rights-suspending, violence-inciting, prosecution-circumventing politics, and you get a picture that is not altogether unfamiliar.

Overall, this was an interesting (if occasionally dry) biography-history combo that is well worth reading. It provides a look at ancient Rome and raises red flags for our own Republic.

[Eschargot · Rating 5 out of 5]

Ah! Cicero… A book that covers the tumultuous 40/50 years between Sulla’s civil war and the end of the Roman republic. The era where Cicero thrived and died. It’s a great reminder of how republics disintegrate and how an ineffectual senate being subservient to a leader leads to the demise of a republic.
Reminded me of a National Geographic article I had read decades ago (1990s?) about ‘Their story is our story’ the comparison of the fall of the Roman republic with modern democracies.