Jim's Reviews > The Nature of the Gods

Provides insight into the theological arguments of Greek philosophical schools. Provides perspective on how religion was generally viewed by Roman intellectuals. The reasoning is at points extremely dated, as can be found in Cicero's other works (where less of the blame can be placed on his Greek sources).
We take for granted how much of our lucidity of thought we owe to the thinkers of the renaissance and their successors. Millennia of history have given us a vantage over affairs never attainable by the Romans, who lacked all but the most rudimentary scientific and social theory.
Politically though, Cicero has less of an excuse. He must have realized that for decades Rome had been tumbling into chaos, but I know of no record suggesting that he questioned the integrity of the Republican system or, alternatively, the social context that existed around it.
In his 'Republic' Cicero writes truly that the best form of government is not one or another "natural" system, however rationalized by elaborate sophistry, but simply whichever system best manages the "public property" (which presumably includes the public morals and social well-being). Like Greek political philosophers before him he writes that all political systems are susceptible to corruption, and that the cause of the corruption is an absence of virtue in the person or people who make decisions (be it a mob electorate, greedy nobles, or a despotic king).
Cicero's (political) antagonism to Julius and Augustus was, i assume, based on the assumption that the Roman system, due to its "hybrid" structure, was better able to manage the "public property" than a questionably virtuous despot. But his confidence in the Republic ought to have been undermined by the obvious fact that the miserable thing was in the process of collapsing from under itself, in vitriolic spite of its own unrivalled invincibility.
Augustus ultimately refuted the republicans with his peaceful reign, but alas Livy wrote true when he belittled the glory of Alexander on the grounds that the genius of a single man is worth far less than reliable, but mere, quality maintained over successive generations of leaders.
But, back to the relevant work, it can be tedious. He did not need to go into such elaborate detail regarding biology and astrology, a couple examples would have sufficed.
tldr: flawed but worth reading for anyone interested in Rome and Cicero.