A Written Republic

BOOK REVIEWS/COMPTES RENDUS 191 Il s’achève par une conclusion provisoire : « Once the contemporary reader recognizes the relevance of the lives of these non-Roman commanders to the political turmoil of the last generations of the Roman Republic, the power of Nepos’ invention of serial political biography can be both deeply felt and widely applied » (229). Reste à cerner l’identité de ces lecteurs et la nature de leur mise en pratique des leçons contenues dans les vies des généraux étrangers. Ce sera l’objet de la conclusion (« Readership and Relevance », 230–237). Viennent enfin une riche bibliographie (239–257) et trois indices, locorum, auteurs modernes et général (259–291). On le voit à la lecture de ce résumé, le livre suit une progression claire et logique. L’auteur fait preuve de pertinence et d’acribie dans son analyse de l’œuvre de Népos, quelque peu trop limitée, il est vrai, aux Vies des généraux étrangers. Il allie érudition et concision, analyse des détails et synthèses. Il convient par ailleurs de souligner une autre qualité de ce travail : R. Stem entretient constamment le dialogue avec des savants contemporains pour les contredire ou les approuver. Cet échange est stimulant. Le livre que notre collègue de l’UC Davis a publié constitue de fait non seulement une excellente introduction à Népos mais invite également à revoir le jugement plus que mitigé porté généralement sur le biographe. Universit e de Strasbourg Martine Chassignet A Written Republic: Cicero's Philosophical Politics. By Yelena Baraz. Princeton , N.J.: Princeton University Press. 2012. Pp. x, 252. This book analyzes the prefaces of Cicero’s philosophical works, mining them especially for Cicero’s reasons and aims in writing about philosophy. As Baraz points out, Cicero had a collection of (according to himself) somewhat interchangeable prefaces (his volumen prohoemiorum mentioned in Ad Atticum 16.6.4) ready to be glued into place once each treatise was finished. Rather than conclude from this that the prefaces are unimportant to Cicero’s individual philosophical arguments, Baraz argues that the volumen prohoemiorum shows that Cicero saw a similar challenge in publishing all his philosophica which his potentially interchangeable prefaces were intended to meet: defending the value of philosophical writing (6–8). Like Sallust and the anonymous author of the Rhetorica ad Herennium, Baraz argues, Cicero used his prefaces to address his audience’s assumptions that writing, and particularly philosophical writing, was a frivolous and suspect activity (22–42). To defend his efforts, Cicero’s prefaces offer a variety of explanations for his philosophical work, the most important of which, according to Baraz, positions philosophical writing as being of parallel importance to political action: an honourable substitute for the real job of a Roman senator, as well as of supplementary value to politics . Cicero variously argues that his writing benefits the republic by educating its leaders, that it is a way of redirecting his own skills and energy during his forced exile from public life, and that he needs to write in order to distract himself from, and cure himself of, his grief at the loss of his daughter and of the res publica. Baraz argues that Cicero gave greater or lesser emphasis to each reason depending on the political climate at the time of publication, but that, during the period of Caesar’s dominance, the first argument (his philosophica as public benefit) predominated. Baraz shows how Cicero’s use of the traditionally Roman appeal to exempla and the mos maiorum was intended 192 PHOENIX to adapt philosophy to Roman ways of thinking about virtuous decision-making, thus emphasizing the publicly beneficial nature of his endeavour (53). Baraz notes the fact that during Cicero’s personal exile (in 58–57 b.c.e.) he wrote no philosophy (78), suggesting that his writing was not, therefore, just a private consolation for Cicero, but was intended as a public service. The issue of making philosophy palatable to a Roman audience is explored further in Baraz’s discussion of the multiple audiences for whom Cicero’s prefaces were written. Cicero, Baraz points

Art · Art history · Humanities · Political science · Politics · Classical Antiquity Studies · Law · Philosophy