What do you think?
Rate this book
Murder Trials
Cicero was still in his twenties when he got Sextus Roscius off a charge of murdering his father and nearly sixty when he defended King Deiotarus, accused of trying to murder Caesar. In between (with, among others, his speeches for Cluentius and Rabirius), he built a reputation as the greatest orator of his time.Cicero defended his practice partly on moral or compassionate grounds of 'human decency'--sentiments with which we today would agree. His clients generally went free. And in vindicating men--who sometimes did not deserve it--he left us a mass of detail about Roman life, law and history and, in two of the speeches, graphic pictures of the 'gun-law' of small provincial towns.
368 pages, Paperback
First published September 30, 1975
26 people are currently reading
1052 people want to read
About the author
Marcus Tullius Cicero
8,183 books1,981 followersBorn 3 January 106 BC, Arpinum, Italy
Died 7 December 43 BC (aged 63), Formia, Italy
Marcus Tullius Cicero was a Roman philosopher, statesman, lawyer, political theorist, and Roman constitutionalist. Cicero is widely considered one of Rome's greatest orators and prose stylists.
Alternate profiles:
Cicéron
Marco Tullio Cicerone
Cicerone
Note: All editions should have Marcus Tullius Cicero as primary author. Editions with another name on the cover should have that name added as secondary author.
Died 7 December 43 BC (aged 63), Formia, Italy
Marcus Tullius Cicero was a Roman philosopher, statesman, lawyer, political theorist, and Roman constitutionalist. Cicero is widely considered one of Rome's greatest orators and prose stylists.
Alternate profiles:
Cicéron
Marco Tullio Cicerone
Cicerone
Note: All editions should have Marcus Tullius Cicero as primary author. Editions with another name on the cover should have that name added as secondary author.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 22 of 22 reviews
May 29, 2016
A Glimpse Into the Roman Criminal Justice System
29 May 2016
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 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.
29 May 2016
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 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.
July 24, 2020
A series of trials in Ancient Rome with Cicero as the defense attorney. The trials themselves reveal a lot about Roman politics and culture. The first ones were in law courts and the last in Caesar’s home since he was the state at that point.
Now all of the above is pretty highbrow, but there is enough sex, violence, and murder for the modern reader to follow as well.
Now all of the above is pretty highbrow, but there is enough sex, violence, and murder for the modern reader to follow as well.
Read
September 12, 2023Ok I got past the introduction I was fighting for my life why do I need to know about the first murder ever in the Roman republic. Hopefully the actual speeches will be more engaging
July 6, 2012
What makes Cicero's courtroom strategies so impressive is the fact that he never bothers to dispute the evidence against his clients. In both the defenses of Roscius and Cluentius, he doesn't even use a single witness. He doesn't offer contradictory evidence or waste much time with alibis. Instead, he focuses his entire arguments on the most critical part of the case - motive. In both trials he successfully creates such compelling versions of the events that all remaining details became irrelevant to a jury who believes there was no motive. His speeches are fantastic illustrations of a whole swath of Robert Greene's strategies in The 33 Strategies of War: Control the Dynamic, Weave a Seamless Blend of Fact and Fiction, Take the Line of Least Expectation and so on. Cicero's work is filled with so many applicable examples and fables and syllogisms and his name still carries such weight that I really leave each of his books with a ton of material I use for other things. This is one of those books. You should read it.
February 9, 2022
As ever it's really exciting to feel like you're getting close to this distant and bizarre society, with Cicero's implausible but vivid character assassinations and brief mentions of people of whom no other evidence will ever now be found. It's a bit unpleasant to hear pre-echoes of Oxbridge debating club vulgarity, but it's also funny how we are meant to understand that advocates in republican Rome spoke not like legal professionals now, but as if they were lawyers in a schlocky drama series…
June 22, 2017
Should be read by everyone with a brain at some point, I think.
Wow, saw this review because someone "liked" it and realized it comes off a bit elitist. I guess what I meant was that this is sort of THE book that teaches people how to think critically, and has been for over a thousand years. The implication is not that people who haven't read it can't think or are stupid.
Wow, saw this review because someone "liked" it and realized it comes off a bit elitist. I guess what I meant was that this is sort of THE book that teaches people how to think critically, and has been for over a thousand years. The implication is not that people who haven't read it can't think or are stupid.
Read
May 17, 2022Really got a feel for how the court system evolved. Surprised at some of the stuff Cicero was allowed to say in his defence. Stuff completely unrelated, and definitely leading.
May 13, 2012
I recently read this as part of a Roman Law and Society class, and I loved it. We focused on the defense of Cluentius, and I thought the text for this oration was fantastic. The words are so compelling when read out loud that it was easy to forget what the actual laws were on the topics he was discussing, and even though some of the points he was making were incorrect it was easy to see how any jury could get wrapped up in his artful prose and declare his side the winner. A must-read if you are into classics.
June 13, 2009
I overall liked it, but there is only so much Roman legal oratory that I can handle before my eyes start to cross. Also, a lot of Cicero's puns don't translate well into English. Also, "I will be brief and to the point" is Ciceronian for "I will be long winded and irrelevant."
May 9, 2020
I've always had an interest in law, for a long time I planned on becoming a lawyer and I still adore all those crime shows, and this edited collection of Cicero's speeches is an amazing indication of crime and punishment during the Roman Era. For anyone interested in those areas, this book is a must-read.
I will admit, it was not an easy read. However, a 3-star rating (for me at least) is a 'good' book. Despite the difficulties I had getting through this and it did take me a while to get through this one, I am definitely going to be reading more of Cicero's speeches. The editor of this collection did a fantastic job in explaining things thoroughly through the footnotes and providing useful family trees.
It was insane to see just how similar the judicial process is to Roman time. And to see the types of crime that were prevelant during this time. 'Murder Trials' deals with some of Cicero's most popular and eloquent speeches defending alleged murderers, there's an abundance of poisoning and some very tangled webs. For me, this was one of the most interesting parts of this read - it was truly fascinating.
Finally, it cannot go unsaid that Cicero's speeches (if they were delivered as this editor has translated them) were beautifully eloquent. He had me convinced! There was humour, evidence and charisma. I really could imagine these speeches taking place in a modern court room. As I said above, this is certainly worth a read for those interested in law or/and the Roman empire.
I will admit, it was not an easy read. However, a 3-star rating (for me at least) is a 'good' book. Despite the difficulties I had getting through this and it did take me a while to get through this one, I am definitely going to be reading more of Cicero's speeches. The editor of this collection did a fantastic job in explaining things thoroughly through the footnotes and providing useful family trees.
It was insane to see just how similar the judicial process is to Roman time. And to see the types of crime that were prevelant during this time. 'Murder Trials' deals with some of Cicero's most popular and eloquent speeches defending alleged murderers, there's an abundance of poisoning and some very tangled webs. For me, this was one of the most interesting parts of this read - it was truly fascinating.
Finally, it cannot go unsaid that Cicero's speeches (if they were delivered as this editor has translated them) were beautifully eloquent. He had me convinced! There was humour, evidence and charisma. I really could imagine these speeches taking place in a modern court room. As I said above, this is certainly worth a read for those interested in law or/and the Roman empire.
October 6, 2024
70 years ago the first trial in this book was my set text for Advanced Latin exam. Now engaged in a study of society and religious beliefs in the centuries immediately before and after the birth of Christ, I picked it up again.
I am reading it side by side with the original Latin of which I retain enough to see that Michael Grant has permitted himself great freedom in his translations, maybe to make it more acceptable to modern readers as more like a modern pleading. I am not sure if this kind of thing would be acceptable to modern examiners but candidates looking for a crib might be better off with Loeb, if it is available. A closer translation to the original is, to my mind, actually much more effective.
Having said that, it is an enjoyable read for anyone fond of reading about trials. The notes explain the background both of the offences and the practices of Roman law courts on which so much of our own is based. The sheer brilliance of Cicero even in his early days in court, (he was still under 30 at the time of the Pro Roscio), is staggering.
P.S. I passed the exam.
I am reading it side by side with the original Latin of which I retain enough to see that Michael Grant has permitted himself great freedom in his translations, maybe to make it more acceptable to modern readers as more like a modern pleading. I am not sure if this kind of thing would be acceptable to modern examiners but candidates looking for a crib might be better off with Loeb, if it is available. A closer translation to the original is, to my mind, actually much more effective.
Having said that, it is an enjoyable read for anyone fond of reading about trials. The notes explain the background both of the offences and the practices of Roman law courts on which so much of our own is based. The sheer brilliance of Cicero even in his early days in court, (he was still under 30 at the time of the Pro Roscio), is staggering.
P.S. I passed the exam.
February 21, 2024
This review is written my 18-year-old son who is studying Latin:
I was using this book as a resource for a Latin class project, and at first thought it was very convenient to have all of these Cicero speeches in one place. The rhetoric is of course powerful stuff. However, when I compared it to the original Latin versions, I noticed discrepencies—for example, the Latin version mentions the Field of Mars first and the forum second, while Michael Grant’s translation for the book does the reverse. The Latin refers to the innocence of a man, and Grant changes that to “my innocent client.” Given that I found those changes just looking at two paragraphs, I imagine that there are others throughout.
Obviously, these changes do not alter the substance of Cicero’s arguments, and if you are a casual reader you might not care. However, if you truly want to read Cicero as closely as possible to how he wrote it, you should seek out another translation.
I was using this book as a resource for a Latin class project, and at first thought it was very convenient to have all of these Cicero speeches in one place. The rhetoric is of course powerful stuff. However, when I compared it to the original Latin versions, I noticed discrepencies—for example, the Latin version mentions the Field of Mars first and the forum second, while Michael Grant’s translation for the book does the reverse. The Latin refers to the innocence of a man, and Grant changes that to “my innocent client.” Given that I found those changes just looking at two paragraphs, I imagine that there are others throughout.
Obviously, these changes do not alter the substance of Cicero’s arguments, and if you are a casual reader you might not care. However, if you truly want to read Cicero as closely as possible to how he wrote it, you should seek out another translation.
December 13, 2017
“There is no king left, no people, no nation, for which you, citizens of Rome, need feel the slightest fear. From outside, from foreign parts, there exists not a trace of any menace capable of offering a threat to this commonwealth of ours. But if you want immortality for our country, if it is your desire that our empire and our glory shall be everlasting and eternal, then what we have to resist is the savagery of our own passions, the violence of men who long for revolution: we have to fight against perils arising within the nation itself, plots devised here in our very midst.”
February 12, 2018
Interesting, law in the Roman times was not quite the same as today, at least in the courtroom. In the public forum, not much has changed, vilify your prosecutor, the judges, the plaintiffs, everything we see in on line or on TV. I think Cicero would have crushed it today. Be sure to have a note pad as you read this, the cast of characters is great, this text covers four trail defenses. Some really nasty sarcasm from a truly professional orator. Check it out
January 23, 2019
Finally, took this book off my to read shelf and read it...I liked the speeches but wished we had the result of the trials...just to see if his argument swayed the jury.
December 9, 2019
the author is kind of a dickhead but damn if he doesn’t know how to write
April 24, 2021
Some fine insights into Roman society.
April 13, 2010
I loved my roman history course in college. Hated this book. Kind of like Judge Judy except there's a smaller chance that the plaintiff and defendant are both inbred and will start a fight and pull each others' hair.
November 25, 2008
What I learned from this book were a few tricks of the trade from a master of it.
August 5, 2012
You should have a general knowledge of the Roman government, Roman history, and the ancient world to enjoy this work in translation.
July 31, 2009
Given how little we have how do I rate the ancient sources other than "must read?"
Displaying 1 - 22 of 22 reviews