Roman Blood (1991)

Having not studied Latin or ancient history at school or university, my knowledge of the ancient world has come from reading Gore Vidal's [b:Creation|8718|Creation|Gore Vidal|http://photo.goodreads.com/books/1298413662s/8718.jpg|1942722] and Robert Harris' [b:Imperium|243601|Imperium (Cicero, #1)|Robert Harris|http://photo.goodreads.com/books/1173066789s/243601.jpg|1237325]. Oh, and [b:Asterix the Gaul|71292|Asterix the Gaul (Asterix, #1)|René Goscinny|http://photo.goodreads.com/books/1328859702s/71292.jpg|2150655] and it's various sequels. I've also gleaned a bit from Shakespeare, although I've never been that keen on Shakespeare's histories, and while I've spent time looking at Roman ruins and ancient Roman and Greek sculptures in various places, that has not led to the acquisition of any knowledge about the history those things represent.

All this means that I came to this particular novel - the first in a series set in ancient Rome and featuring Gordianus the Finder - with very little knowledge of the time in which it is set and with no particular expectations. The first factor put me at something of a a disadvantage. The second factor was probably a plus.

Gordianus the Finder is a private detective of sorts*. He is engaged by the young Cicero to assist him in preparing the defence of Sextus Roscius, who has been accused of murdering his father. It is Cicero's first major case. The crime, the litigation and Cicero's defence of the accused are all factual, as is the political situation: specifically, the dictatorship of Sulla and the corruption of Chrysogonus, Sulla's former slave who in 82BC was placed in charge of proscriptions (that is, the identification and condemnation of enemies of the state). Saylor's imagination fills in the rest of the tale.

About three quarters of the way through the novel there is a lengthy piece of exposition - okay, let's call it an awkward information dump - which covers Sulla's rise to the position of dictator. I found it reasonably interesting at the time - because it's a topic I know nothing about - but it did interrupt the plot. Not only that, but two pages further on I couldn't remember the details of the history lesson I'd only just been taught. That was the most significant weakness of the novel. Otherwise, it was a success. The narrative is interesting and while I guessed one of the twists in the plot, I didn't guess the final big twist. In addition, the characters are well-drawn and the portrayal of Cicero made me want to read some of his works (I had the same reaction when I read [b:Imperium|243601|Imperium (Cicero, #1)|Robert Harris|http://photo.goodreads.com/books/1173066789s/243601.jpg|1237325], but didn't do anything about it. This time I've downloaded an edition of his Selected Works).

Overall, this was an enjoyable read, made the more enjoyable by reading it with my friends Jemidar and Hayes. I plan to read more of the series. This one gets 3-1/2 stars.

*I find it hard not to think of Gordianus as a Private Roman Eye, which will only make sense to those who have seen or heard Wayne and Shuster's Rinse the Blood Off My Toga ( )

An entertaining look at an actual historical trial, set in the late Roman Republic. Well written, clever interpretation, however, I do not find lawyering that exciting, so 3 stars, not 4. ( )

In spite of the fact it has taken me almost two months to read this I actually rather enjoyed it. I'm not sure of Gordianus the Finder can topple my other ancient Roman love, Marcus Didius Falco, but I am definitely going to be trying another one of these to find out. ( )

I feel that Roman Blood is an OK book. There is too much sex and domestic violence for my taste. Does this make it historically accurate? Yes, but it is too much information. I thought the plot movement was slow but this could be because it is a private detective story. It is not my top mystery sub-genre. Since there are few historical mysteries set in Ancient Rome, historical fiction fans may want to take a look at it. ( )

read a few years ago ( )