Research on Cicero's unique contribution to political thought has advanced greatly since the first edition of Z.'s translation of Cicero's De re publica and De legibus appeared in 1999. As a result, these works, which are central to Cicero's thought, have attracted increased interest from students outside Classics, especially those in political theory and the history of political thought. But these works present challenges. The texts themselves are fragmentary, and the arguments are rooted in Roman law, history and politics as well as Platonic and Hellenistic philosophy. For these reasons, readers need guidance in addition to an accessible translation.

Z.'s goal, in both the first and second editions, has been to address these challenges and elucidate Cicero's political arguments. As in the first edition, Z.'s introduction surveys Cicero's political and philosophical background (pp. vii–xv), describes the works’ importance (pp. xvi–xxviii), includes notes on text and translation (pp. xxix–xxxvi) and provides a bibliography, chronology and synopsis (pp. xxxvii–lx). The second edition has been modified to account for the increasing number of readers coming to Ciceronian thought without a background in Roman history or Latin. Z., for instance, has added a section, ‘Rome in the Late Republic’, that describes the social and political situation during Cicero's lifetime for those unfamiliar with it. In the same vein, Z. has expanded the list of key Latin terms from ten to fourteen (pp. xxx–xxxvi). He unpacks each term in a paragraph and explains how the Latin language and attendant ideas can and should be understood differently based on context. Of the major translations of these works – David Fott (2014) and Niall Rudd (1998) being the others – it contains the most comprehensive such section and makes the works more intelligible for those approaching them without Latin.

Most changes in the introduction, however, were made to incorporate recent scholarship. The greatest revision was saved for the section for On the Commonwealth (pp. xvi–xxii), which Z. updates by emphasising how Cicero adapted Platonic thought for the Roman context. The biggest change for the section covering On the Laws (pp. xxii–xxvi) is the dating: though Z. still dates the work to the late 50s, he presents the arguments for dating it to the mid-40s.

The translation remains fluent. The only changes have been for clarity. An example is Rep. 1.39, which discusses the origins of a commonwealth. The first edition had: ‘The first cause of its assembly is not so much weakness as a kind of natural herding together of men’. The second edition substituted ‘herding together’ with ‘flocking together’. Though the Latin (congregatio) supports either choice, the use of ‘flocking together’ eliminates any implication of some leader doing the herding, rather than it being done freely and without compulsion, which Cicero intended.

Z. does not offer a literal translation but one that aims to make clear Cicero's reasoning. Consider Z.'s edition alongside another translation of Rep. 2.15, where Cicero describes the genesis of the Senate. The key to understanding this section is the delineation between the Senate's authority (auctoritas) and Romulus’ power (imperium, potestas, vis). Without recognising this delineation, the section's argument can be lost. Z. makes several small choices to bring it out. The Latin (Powell's OCT) is first provided, then Rudd's popular 1998 translation and finally Z.'s.

Niall Rudd's translation:

Z.'s translation:

Z. conveys Cicero's structure and argument concisely, especially for those who have not studied the language. The first translation uses ‘authority’ to describe both the Senate's and Romulus’ competency. One coming to the text without Latin might think that the same word is used for both parties and that Cicero intends this overlap. To avoid this misunderstanding, Z. uses ‘authority’ only when referring to the Senate's auctoritas. And when describing Romulus’ power, Z. uses ‘ruled’ twice – following Cicero's use of regnare in both cases – to emphasise the contrast with the Senate's authority/auctoritas. Third, Z. collapses Cicero's pleonastic phrase imperio et potestate regia into the single power of a king. Finally, Z. again prevents confusion by translating vim dominationis as ‘the monarch's absolute rule’. Though not a literal translation – Fott's rendering of ‘dominating force’ is far closer –, it better conveys Cicero's meaning, namely a king's despotism in the absence of the law; and Z.'s ‘rule’ clearly classifies vis as a type of unrestrained regal power.

Aside from the indexes, the book ends with biographical notes on individuals, major and minor, who figure in the works (pp. 179–201). Though some students might visit Wikipedia to look up a name they do not know, these notes summarise a person's connection to the works and includes names not easily found elsewhere.

There is little to quibble with in the second edition. The core of the work, the translation, is sharp. In the introduction, one might wish that the section of On the Laws were more developed and that it provided more philosophical background on natural law as well as mentioned the work's importance as a source for Roman civil religion and for just-war theory (along with Cicero's Rep. and Off.). Likewise, a more complete list of Latin terms (including e.g. imperium) would be welcome as would a fuller section on the works’ afterlife that includes early modern thinkers. But introductions to translations are necessarily short, and this one provides sufficient background to help the reader approach the work intelligently, without unduly pressuring the reader to accept any one interpretation.

In the end, if one is looking for a literal translation, the other two translations are better resources. But if one is looking to contend with Cicero's ideas, Z.'s translation continues to be indispensable.