In these terms, the problem with Everitt's book is that it is more historical than biographical. The narrative is gripping, but it is a narrative of events. Cicero's life coincided with the end of the Roman Republic – he was born in 106BCE and died in 43CE. As these 60 or so years saw more bloodshed and turmoil than almost any comparable period in European history, the events are bound to make good copy.Cicero owed his fame, considerable fortune, and political success to his speeches In this domain, he was a true master. A number of his forensic speeches have just been published by Oxford World's Classics, well translated by DH Berry, as Defence Speeches.

But Everitt's book is not a literary biography; he does not analyse Cicero's style, or the views of his later philosophical works. He admits that he is an enthusiast rather than a professional scholar. So, again, we find him relying on external historical events, especially as reflected in Cicero's voluminous correspondence.Cicero's rise to the consulship in 63BCE was followed fairly rapidly by a fall after he got on the wrong side of the thuggish powers that be. He returned from a brief exile in Greece, but his teeth were pulled, and he focused for a long while more on idealistic political writing than on action.In the power-play between Pompey and Julius Caesar that came to dominate Roman political life in the 50s, Cicero wanted a compromise. This was so unrealistic that it actually constituted dithering. Cicero's lifelong ideal was what he called concordia ordinum – harmony between the rich and the poor, and their political champions.There was a unique occasion when he had the opportunity to turn this slogan into reality: he was invited to join Pompey, Caesar and Crassus in running the country. But he found that at heart he was too conservative to take up the offer, and so the slogan remained an empty watchword.This is my view, not Everitt's, and I had better come clean I am not an admirer of Cicero, and never have been.

If you read between the lines of Everitt's book, perhaps you will see what I mean.Cicero's much-vaunted principles were often so flexible as to make him seem self-serving; he went on and on (to the derision of some of his contemporaries) about how during his consulship he had saved Rome from the threat of the unscrupulous radical Catilina; he comes across as conceited and complacent, despite the fact that he was prepared to defend patent rogues in court and change political allegiance; he was gullible and open to flattery.Here is an example of his flexibility: after exaggerating the threat Catilina posed to the Republic, and having several conspirators executed, a few years later, Cicero defended one of Catilina's associates, although this involved praising (albeit in a qualified fashion) Catilina's noble qualities!All in all, Cicero strikes me as rather a sad figure: an intellectual out of his depth in a world of action, a man who thought he was a major player, while others knew better He was more effective as a symbol than a player. If Cicero had not been a prolific writer, so that we knew as little of him as of others in these years, I doubt there would be a tendency to hold him in such high esteem. His ploy to elevate his reputation by his writing has worked.It is true that anyone who tries to portray the character of a figure from the distant historical past runs the risk of projecting his own predilections. We have seen enough of the re-invention of Rome this year, with the appalling historical inaccuracies perpetuated in the blockbuster film Gladiator. So some will think that it is to Everitt's credit that he has toed a moderate line. But if it is the purpose of biography to portray character, then he has not done us a full service.There are insights into Cicero's character littered throughout the pages, but they are appended to episodes, rather than forming a coherent narrative in their own right.