Gesine Manuwald’s recent publication, Cicero: De re publica, is a welcome addition to scholarship on Cicero. This book offers a comprehensive introduction to Cicero’s De re publica, integrating the Latin text, a new English translation and an extensive commentary within a single volume. Manuwald’s work is particularly notable for its accessibility to non-experts and those not proficient in Latin, while also providing a valuable resource for scholars.
Cicero’s De re publica is one of his most important works, rediscovered in large part during the 19th century. The significance of this text in the context of Roman political philosophy cannot be overstated, as is also visible from the recent rise in scholarly interest in the topic.[1] Manuwald’s contribution to the scholarship on De re publica is timely and significant, offering an up-to-date commentary which reviews recent scholarly literature and contemporary approaches to the work. This review examines the various aspects of Manuwald’s book, highlighting its strengths and areas where it diverges from previous scholarship.
The book begins with a thorough introduction, where Manuwald provides an overview of previous scholarship on De re publica, Cicero’s biographical details, and the date and context of the composition of the work. This section is invaluable for readers who may not be familiar with the historical and intellectual background of Cicero’s writing. Manuwald also outlines her aim to make De re publica accessible to a broader audience, including those who are not experts in the field or proficient in Latin. This is a commendable goal, and she achieves it by focusing on the development of Cicero’s arguments rather than on editorial or linguistic questions. As such, this approach complements well the existing commentary tradition on Cicero’s works, which often addresses expert readers.[2]
Manuwald’s edition of the Latin text follows Powell’s (2006) Oxford Classical Texts (OCT), given that, as she says, it is the most recent critical edition and represents a thorough re-examination of the textual basis. Despite following Powell’s edition closely when it comes to the text, Manuwald does not print references to Ziegler’s (1929) numbering, nor does she reprint the entire apparatus.[3] Therefore, scholars wishing to work with this book will not be able entirely to rely on the Latin edition in this volume but will have to continue consulting Powell’s edition of the text. Furthermore, readers critical of Powell’s reconstruction of the text will draw fewer benefits from this volume than those agreeing with Powell.
The Latin text features a facing English translation allowing readers to cross-check passages. This is further facilitated by the fact that unlike Zetzel’s translations (1999) and (2017a), Manuwald’s, like Fott’s (2014), is deliberately close to the Latin, ensuring that readers non-proficient in Latin or who are studying Latin can more easily identify relevant passages in the original text. Manuwald’s decision to use gender-inclusive language is particularly noteworthy in this context, as the aim of staying as close to the Latin as possible clashes with her goal outlined on pages 68-69 of the introduction better to align the text with present-day sensibilities, thus making Cicero’s text more accessible to the modern audience.
Readers might wonder why Manuwald chose to alter the translation based on the target audience rather than based on what emerges out of the text as the best possible translation and interpretation. In certain passages, for instance, a more inclusive translation of a generic masculine can be justified; in others, where this may not be the case, Manuwald runs the risk of undoing precisely what she set out to do by providing as close an English translation to the Latin as possible. She furthermore opens the floor to questions regarding the historical accuracy, the potential obfuscation of historical evidence and the prevention of non-expert readers to identify with and understand a vast body of scholarship discussing the roles of underrepresented groups at Cicero’s time and in his political philosophy.
A close look at Manuwald’s translation shows that despite such questions continuing to linger in the background, the changes she makes are often subtle, as the more neutral ‘person’ or ‘individual’ are mostly used to translate substantivised masculine participles or cases in which a direct reference to specific persons is not clearly stated. Instances of this pattern can be found at e.g. Rep. 1.45, where she translates “sapientis” as “of a wise person”, “ille improbus” as “the unsound individual” at Rep. 3.13 [3.27] or “iustus” as “just person” at Rep. 3.16 [3.30]. While this method generally works and achieves the intended effect, from the context in which these expressions occur, it is often clear that men are meant, as is the case, for instance, at Rep. 2.67 when Laelius says est tibi ex eis ipsis qui adsunt bella copia, velut a te ipso ordinare which is translated as “there is a nice supply for you among these very individuals who are here, as you might start from yourself.” Even though the translation does not per se collide with the Latin text, it does take away from the striking effect that in each of these cases, specifically men are meant. As such, readers not proficient in Latin will not be able to experience first-hand the extent to which philosophy and politics were chiefly conducted by men in Roman society.
The term vir and its various translations emerge as particularly problematic. Even though most instances of vir are translated as ‘man,’ there are a few which are not. At Rep. 2.69, for example, Manuwald translates video iam illum quem expectabam virum cui praeficias officio et muneri with “I already see that person whom I was awaiting, and the duty and task of which you give them charge” when both the wording in the Latin text and the context indicate that the person in question is a man. The same applies to negant enim sapientem idcirco virum bonum esse as “they deny, in fact, that a wise person is a good man” at Rep. 3.12 [3.25-26].[4] In this particular case, the contrast established in the Latin text is one between ‘wise’ and ‘good,’ both referring to men. In the translation, this contrast is weakened by the potential that said person does not even have to be a man.
As such, the translation introduces a new aspect to interpreting Cicero’s statements. For readers more familiar with the text, these alterations might thus raise questions as to whether new interpretations of the text are proposed here or whether new evidence on the identities of certain characters might have come to light, particularly since Cicero is careful to use the more inclusive terms populus (e.g. at Rep. 1.39, 1.42), homo (e.g. Rep. 1.39, 2.20) or societas (e.g. Rep. 1.42, 2.48) when not specifically referring to men. To bypass these difficulties, it might have been beneficial to keep the original formulation in the translation and clearly mark the difficulties arising from it in the commentary.
In the commentary, Manuwald focuses on the development of arguments by offering a running interpretation of the text, an approach which is in line with the series’ aim of supporting students to engage with ancient texts in translation. The commentary achieves this end with basic explanations and contextual information. On p. 491, for example, Manuwald describes where different peoples lived, which helps readers unfamiliar with the historical context better understand Cicero’s arguments. By paraphrasing and explaining the text, Manuwald helps to elucidate Cicero’s statements but does not explicitly position herself on different readings, passages and arguments. The volume should thus be seen as as a supplement to existing commentaries on Cicero’s De re publica, whichmakes the text accessible to a broader audience.
Similarly, although Manuwald references alternative placements and interpretations of passages, she does not go into detail or summarise the main arguments proposed by other scholars. For instance, on p. 489, when discussing the expression “in [com]munities” featuring at Rep. 3.3, Manuwald points out that other scholars have placed the section in books 4 or 5 instead, but she does not explain why she follows Powell’s placement of the passage in 3.3 or which consequences arise in terms of argument when the passage is moved to a different book. In this context too, key literature like Zetzel’s (2017b) article “The Attack on Justice: Cicero, Lactantius, and Carneades” where he engages in-depth with Powell’s placement of the passage is left out.[5]
While excluding such a discussion appears to make the text more accessible at first glance, in the long run, it might have been fruitful briefly to address how different placements of passages would influence the progression of argument on which Manuwald focuses. Including a few words on alternative readings of the text and thus alternative interpretations of arguments as well as discussing the implications of Cicero’s use of legal terms like tutor, procurator or societas would have been beneficial for a better understanding of Cicero’s political philosophy which is currently outsourced to references to existing literature on the topic.
One of the biggest assets of Manuwald’s book is, in fact, its comprehensive list of references. Manuwald has assembled a very helpful bibliography which includes core literature and provides an excellent synthesis of scholarship to-date. The bibliography functions almost like an encyclopaedia on Cicero’s work, providing readers with a wealth of information and references, and making the book a valuable resource for both scholars who wish to delve deeper into the study of De re publica and readers new to the topic who wish to explore the depths behind Cicero’s work.
In conclusion, Gesine Manuwald’s Cicero: De re publica is a valuable resource for anyone interested in this text. By featuring the text, a new translation, commentary and an extensive bibliography on scholarship to-date in a single volume, the book presents a useful companion to Powell’s OCT edition of the text and fulfils its goal of appealing to a broad audience: experts can benefit from the volume’s extensive bibliography, non-experts from the explanatory commentary elucidating Cicero’s arguments.[6]
Bibliography
Büchner, Karl (1984), M. Tullius Cicero De Re Publica Kommentar. Heidelberg: Universitätsverlag Winter.
Dyck, Andrew R. (1999), A Commentary on Cicero, De Officiis. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
Dyck, Andrew R. (2007), A Commentary on Cicero, De Legibus. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
Fott, David (ed.) (2014), Marcus Tullius Cicero On the Republic and On the Laws. Ithaca and London: Cornell University Press.
Powell, Jonathan, G.F. (ed.) (2006), M. Tulli Ciceronis De re publica, De legibus, Cato maior de senectute, Laelius de amicitia. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Straumann, Benjamin (forthcoming 2025). ‘Just Rulers, or Just States? The Originality and Legal Nature of Roman Political Thought.’ In: Journal of Roman Studies.
Zetzel, James E.G. (1995), Cicero: De Re Publica. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Zetzel, James E.G. (1999), Cicero, On the Commonwealth and On the Laws. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Zetzel, James E.G. (2017a), Cicero, On the Commonwealth and On the Laws, 2nd edition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Zetzel, James E.G. (2017b), “The Attack on Justice: Cicero, Lactantius, and Carneades” in Rheinisches Museum 160, 299-319.
Ziegler, Konrat (1929), Cicero, Marcus Tullius. De re publica. Leipzig: Teubner.
Notes
[1] For a good overview see Straumann (forthcoming 2025).
[2] See e.g. Büchner (1984), Dyck (1999) and (2007), and Zetzel (1995).
[3] With Manuwald, in this review, references to passages in Cicero’s De re publica follow Powell’s numbering with Ziegler’s numbering in square brackets where it diverges from Powell’s.
[4] Another instance is quaero, si duo sint, quorum alter optimus vir, aequissimus, summa iustitia, singulari fide, alter insigni scelere et audacia as “I ask, if there should be two individuals, of whom one is a very good man, very fair, of the highest justice, of outstanding trustworthiness, the other of conspicuous bad character and boldness” at Rep. 3.13.
[5] What is interesting is that while Zetzel’s (1999) translation features this passage in Rep. book 5, in the 2nd edition of the translation (2017a), published after the publication of Powell’s (2006) OCT edition, the passage is placed in Rep. book 4.
[6] This review was written as part of the The Just City project which is funded by the European Research Council (ERC) under the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme grant agreement No. 864309 (ERC Consolidator Grant JUSTCITY) and the University of Zurich. I would like to thank Benjamin Straumann, Andreas Gyr, Nikolas Hächler, Signy Gutnick Allen, Jeffrey Dymond, Ljubomir Kotarcic and Kurt Rossi for their helpful suggestions on an earlier version of this review.