Blood in the Forum: The Struggle for the Roman Republic. By PAMELA MARIN.
Cornwall: Continuum Books, 2009. Pp. xix + 198. Cloth, $29.95. ISBN:
978–1–8472–5167–1.
Order this text for $22.76 from Amazon.com using this link and benefit
CAMWS and the Classical Journal:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/redirect-home/classjourn-20
Previously published CJ Online reviews are at
http://classicaljournal.org/reviews.php
CJ Online 2009.08.07
Pamela Marin’s (hereafter M.) book promises to tell “the story of the
last decades of Rome—what succeeded, and why the Republic ultimately
failed” (p. 3). Springing in the most part from her PHD dissertation on
Cato the Younger, M.’s book seeks to provide “a new perspective” on
the period from 133–43 BCE (jacket). She follows the standard
chronological approach to the late Republic, and works throughout to keep
the focus on what she views as Cato’s critical role.
Unfortunately, two major problems prevent the book from reaching its goal.
First, far from providing a “new” look at the fall of the Republic,
there is really nothing new here. M.’s work reads as a standard history,
and in places is little more than a summary of names and dates. I am unable
to discern how M.’s argument advances the study of the late Republic in
general or Cato specifically. This is due in part to the absence of any
academic discussion in either the text itself or the notes. M. never
engages with current scholarship, beyond quoting scholars such as Millar
and Lintott, and the lack of dialogue leaves me wondering where she herself
places her book. Second, though perhaps not entirely the fault of the
author, the text is plagued by an appalling lack of editing,
inconsistencies in citation content and style, and a number of factual
errors.
The overall thrust of M.’s argument is that the death of the Republic was
not inevitable; rather, Octavian’s machinations were the sole cause (p.
175). But Octavian is absent from the text, save in a solitary paragraph at
the very end (p. 171), and M. provides no evidence of how he was able to
destroy the Republic when Marius, Sulla and Caesar had failed. The omission
of any such discussion renders the rest of the text puzzling. If we accept
M.’s assertion, despite the lack of supporting evidence, that Octavian
was the sole cause, what is the point of such detail about the political
alliances and individual accomplishments of the Late Republic? And if the
fall of the Republic was “a cumulative process” (p. 175), can we say
that Octavian alone was responsible? M. seems torn between these two lines
of reasoning, and a definitive statement promoting one or the other would
have been a welcome addition, with the added benefit of providing a
definitive framework for her discussion.
As for Cato, he is presented throughout as the leader of the boni, and his
death becomes “a viable political weapon against Caesar” (p. 162). This
treatment, however, is imbalanced. Cato’s speech concerning the fate of
the Catilinarian conspirators, which should offer prime evidence of his
position as leader of the boni, is given a mere two sentences (p. 103),
while M. devotes a full three pages to proving that there was no personal
animosity between Clodius and Cato (pp. 123–6). M. also seems to
attribute strange motivations to Cato, as when she says that he accepted
the mission to Cyprus because “he needed something significant to do”
with Caesar gone and the praetorship still several years away (p. 125).
Overall, Cato, far from looking like the driving force behind senatorial
politics, comes off as a lone voice crying out against the inevitability of
the Republic’s demise. His intransigence in the face of Caesar’s
demands in the 50s seems more the result of a loathing of Caesar than of a
grand devotion to the Republic (a fact M. alludes to several times, as on
p. 122). Instead of proving Cato’s importance, she proves his
ineffectualness. He is constantly thwarted by the dominant personalities of
Pompey and Caesar, despite his leadership of the boni, and M.’s assertion
that “Cato, in death, would perhaps be even more powerful than in life”
(p. 162) highlights his lack of effectiveness while alive.
It might be easier to assess M.’s argument if she made it clear for whom
the book is intended. In her acknowledgements she indicates that she is
writing for both general readers and scholars. But since all primary
sources are cited as translations, usually from the Loeb or Penguin
Classics series, and the bibliography, while both relatively current and
curiously brief, is entirely in English, a school text or an introductory
survey would appear to have been intended. Yet the vast number of names
that flit in and out of the narrative may force even a specialist in the
field to reach for a favorite reference work.
If M. was hoping to produce a more general survey of the Late Republic
accessible to the non-specialist, my second complaint is all the more
serious. The text is rife with factual, typographical and syntactic errors,
and the rudimentary nature of these mistakes is troubling. I will provide
only a few examples, though others could be noted. It is asserted that L.
Junius Brutus assassinated Tarquinius Superbus in 509 BCE (pp. ix, 168,
169); that 100 BCE was the last of Marius’ seven consecutive consulships
(p. 41); that Cicero, as the successful prosecutor, was able to confiscate
Verres’ fortune and assume his rank as ex-praetor in the senate when
Verres went into exile (p. 75); that Asconius is a contemporary source for
the Catilinarian conspiracy (p. 88); that Clodius’ funeral pyre burned
down both the senate-house and the curia (p. 140); and that Brutus did not
leave Crete between the years 44–42 BCE (p. 171). Furthermore, we read
“cursus honorem” for “cursus honorum” twice (pp. 11 and 57);
“leges Plotia” for “leges Plotiae” on p. 72; “Allrobroges” for
“Allobroges” on p. 103 (it is spelled properly five lines later); “C.
Crassius” for “C. Cassius” on p. 139; and that the Second Punic War
lasted from 218–204 BCE (p. 37). I could go on, but the point is clear.
Hyperbole runs throughout the text (e.g. Rome is “the greatest city that
has ever existed” on p. 3), and sentence fragments are common (e.g. p.
74: “Cicero, overcoming a challenge from Q. Caecilius, who had been a
quaestor under Verres and was appointed a prosecutor.”; and p. 103:
“The issue of Catiline dominated the rest of the month as the newly
elected officials, including Caesar as praetor and Cato, along with
Metellus Nepos, as tribune.”).
The endnotes are also problematic. They are used merely for citation of
sources and contain no discussion, and thus would have been better as
in-text citations. Throughout the book M. consistently uses phrases such as
“______ records/notes…” with no citation of the original source;
“as Cicero said” on pg. 174, for example, is supported by a television
program from 2003. Several items in the endnotes do not appear in the
bibliography (Bryant in n. 11 in Ch. 1; Carcopino in n. 11 in Ch. 3; and
Bickerman in n. 27 in Ch. 8). More troubling is the fact that the citations
provided are sometimes misleading or wrong. For example, on p. 21 M.
introduces a block quote by saying “Aristotle’s view is particularly
astute”; yet the quote is not from Aristotle at all but from Dunn’s
Setting the People Free. The note for M.’s statement that “many modern
scholars have put [Cato’s] quaestorship in 65, while it is more probable
that it was in 62” (p. 89) cites Cicero’s Pro Murena 38.37 (sic) ,
doing little to help settle the debate. Finally, the block quote on p. 92
is attributed to a letter from Cicero to his brother Quintus, yet in fact
the citation comes from the Commentariolum Petitionis (strangely cited as
Q.F. 64). The problem with the citation of the Comm. Pet. brings me to
another concern. M. relies heavily on translations of primary sources, yet
nowhere does she indicate whether these are her own or are borrowed from
other sources. In most cases, I believe that M. has adapted them from the
translations listed in the bibliography, but the Catullus 57 translation on
p. 134 comes verbatim from Guy Lee and is unattributed.
Overall, this book fails both in its quest to provide a fresh look at the
late Republic and in its presentation. As M. acknowledges, a great deal of
scholarship on the Late Republic exists. Because of the undeveloped nature
of the argument and the sloppiness of the text, be that the fault of the
author or the press, this book will not find a place of prominence within
that tradition.
JONATHAN P. ZARECKI
The University of North Carolina at Greensboro
If you have been forwarded this review, you may subscribe to the listserv
by sending an email to: [log in to unmask]
Leave the subject line blank, and in the first line of the message write:
SUBSCRIBE CJ-Online
You may remove yourself from the CJ-Online listserv by sending an email to:
[log in to unmask]
Leave the subject line blank, and in the first line of the message write:
UNSUBSCRIBE CJ-Online
|