This book has been much awaited by students of ancient philosophy and especially by those interested in the political philosophy of Cicero. Malcolm Schofield, professor rmeritus of ancient philosophy at the University of Cambridge, has a justly earned reputation as among a handful of the world's outstanding scholars of the Greek philosophical experience including the writings of Plato and Aristotle. More than a generation ago when it was evident that Schofield was turning part of his attention to Cicero, there was some concern that here was another Graecophile poised to highlight alleged deficiencies of Cicero as a thinker. One might say, with just a touch of exaggeration, that the only Graecophile throughout history not to depreciate Cicero was Cicero himself. Anticipation for this book was, however, chiefly due to the respect for what this author, so accomplished in treating the Greeks, might bring to the understanding of Cicero, and that anticipation grew as his scholarly essays on Cicero appeared over the last thirty years.

Schofield's Cicero does not disappoint in any way. It is not the customary and often useful collection of a scholar's previously published articles. Although Schofield at times incorporates parts and paraphrases from his earlier publications, these are folded into the transparent rethinking and continuing research that characterizes this exemplary scholar. He brings the spirit of genuine philosophical inquiry to the work of scholarship and seeks in this case an understanding of what Cicero teaches about the political and social dimension of human life. Both for Schofield and the renaissance of Cicero studies in which his work is embedded, this book is a milestone but not a capstone. Throughout the rich scholarly notes and especially at the end of the book, one finds references to his work in progress, some already in the pipeline toward publication, and one also finds everywhere invitations to further thinking and gentle questioning of interpretations of Cicero that do not seem to be based on convincing readings of Cicero's texts.

Cicero, subtitled “Political Philosophy,” appears in Oxford's series Founders of Modern Political and Social Thought for which Schofield has also authored a book on Plato. His Cicero focuses on interpreting and speaking to critical issues in Cicero's On the Commonwealth, On Laws, and On Duties. There are five core chapters bookended by an introduction and a significant epilogue. The chapters do not unfold as a systematic working through each of those writings in chronological or any particular order; they are rather devoted to treating salient concepts and themes in Cicero's moral and political philosophy. For example, chapter 2 is given to liberty, equality, and popular sovereignty while chapter 4 considers cosmopolitanism, imperialism, and the idea of law. While the topics naturally tend to draw more attention to one or another of the three texts (chapter 5 on republican virtues is a magnificent foray into On Duties), Schofield draws on all three works and more as he addresses the various topics. The “more” is his mastery of all the writings of Cicero, including his orations and letters, all of which he puts in the service of understanding Cicero's political philosophy. The “more” is also his understanding of other relevant Romans such as Lucretius and Livy, as well as his learning in the Latin terms that play key roles in the texts of Cicero. With a nod to Quentin Skinner, Schofield explores the Roman context for the usage of such terms as fides, libertas, and res publica. He does not divorce Cicero's life and political leadership from the examination of his political philosophy. Thus Schofield's remarkable resources are in play in this book, and while it may be in part true and especially for a portion of the introduction that, as Schofield claims, the book “does not presuppose much prior familiarity with Cicero or Roman history, nor knowledge of Latin vocabulary” (viii), its value is above all to be a touchstone and taking-off point for future scholarship on Cicero, as Schofield seems to acknowledge.

Potential readers of Cicero and of this book should take note of how the book exemplifies what Schofield calls the “rehabilitation” of Cicero (7). In this context it means primarily the reassessment and elevation of Cicero as a philosopher and of his significance for the history of philosophy. Rehabilitation has worked hand in hand with the renaissance in Cicero studies; it has stimulated that renaissance even as the renaissance has given encouragement and support to continuing efforts of rehabilitation. Schofield clearly has been a leader in the rehabilitation and has been buoyed as he found much helpful in this ongoing scholarship. While Schofield has noted certain factors contributing to rehabilitation (such as the significant attention to Hellenistic philosophy over the last two generations), the primary and direct cause for rehabilitation, might I suggest, is found in a disposition and ability that he himself exemplifies. It is what was so dramatically lacking in the earlier influential debunkers of Cicero as man and thinker, namely, the willingness to take up the task of a careful, fair-minded and extensive reading of Cicero. In this regard, the experience of the author of another Cicero comes to mind. This is the late Elizabeth Rawson who in her preface to the second edition of that biography and after ten years of additional work on Cicero comments that “closer knowledge of Cicero tends to breed greater appreciation” (Cornell University Press, 1983, vi).

Schofield's Ciceronian turn has brought him to a number of remarkable assessments of Cicero's work and its significance, marking a sea change from academic perspectives not that long ago. I note just a few of them. Cicero's works on the commonwealth and on laws as well as his letters are “highly crafted and often subtle pieces of writing” (viii). Plato is “imitated in a strikingly independent and imaginative manner” (62). Cicero's horizons are “undoubtedly wider than those that are most visible” in Plato and Aristotle (135). Cicero's questions are “intrinsically interesting” and his way of handling them shows a powerful mind at work (20). His political philosophy “stands as the first surviving attempt to articulate a holistic rationale for republicanism and a sustained account of its different elements” (vii). Cicero's “historical importance” is “massive” (1).

In this book's arresting epilogue, Schofield confronts what this reviewer has long regarded as the most interesting topic one can raise about Cicero's thought. Put perhaps too simply, this is the tension between Cicero's professed Academic skepticism and his apparent Stoicism. Schofield attends to nearly all of the significant texts of Cicero bearing on this matter and conjectures about possible resolutions. This can all be very helpful in what must be a continuing effort to understand how Cicero, from his skeptical platform, chose the Stoic and Peripatetic philosophies. To hold Cicero in high regard is, of course, not necessarily to find that he has worked out every problem in theory or on the relation of theory and practice to our satisfaction. This is the sensible way of Schofield. As different as is Cicero's world, Schofield concludes that Cicero has raised a good and enduring question “when he asked whether philosophy's need for ongoing debate is compatible with the requirements of guidance on policy and practice” (242).