Corbeill offers a new edition, translation and commentary on Cicero's speech De haruspicum responsis, sometimes called De haruspicum responso. The speech is much less famous than the De divinatione; its authenticity has been questioned, and it appears as just another episode in the familiar struggle between Cicero and the demagogue Clodius. In his introduction, C. justifies his choice of the title De haruspicum responsis by pointing to the use of the plural by Quintilian, Arnobius and Cicero himself. He explains clearly what is at stake in the speech and identifies Cicero's rhetorical and political strategies.

Cicero insists on the need to protect the state from Clodius, presented as the perpetrator of a sacrilege by participating in the rites of Bona Dea. Underground rumblings had been heard in Latium, raising questions about the cause of this manifestation of divine wrath. A priori, this was a question of religious law: in case of prodigy, specialists should be consulted, but there were many different specialists in prodigies in Rome. This time, in 56 b.c., the Senate referred it to the haruspices. The haruspices delivered a responsum: they recommended atonement and singled out the human actions that caused the anger of the gods: negligence and defilement in the organisation of the games (§21); desecration of sacred places (§30); murder of ambassadors (§34); violation of faith (fides) and oaths (§36); ceremonial negligence and defilement (§37). Finally, the haruspices gave four warnings about the near future: to avoid discord among the best citizens, at the risk of the State passing into the power of one man; to prevent secret projects from harming the republic; to avoid conferring honours on bad citizens; to watch over the foundations of the republic. Clodius took advantage of this occasion and, at a public gathering (contio), interpreted the haruspices’ response, transforming this question of religious law into a political issue. He stated that the divine message referred to Cicero, who had polluted a sacred place by rebuilding his house on the site where a temple to Libertas formerly stood. A day or two after this speech, Cicero replied to Clodius by rephrasing the question put to the haruspices: was it the rebuilding of Cicero's house, or was it Clodius’ own turpitude? He first discredited his opponent's version of events, then presented his own version of the response, in which Clodius was blamed for the wrath of the gods and as the author of the civil discord. Cicero's argument was an invective against Clodius: Rome is threatened with such grave dangers because of the vices and faults of Clodius.

C. follows R. A. Kaster in dating the speech to 8, 9 or 14 May 56 b.c. He explains the intervention of the haruspices mainly for reasons of competence and politics. For C., the haruspices have been consulted, rather than the pontiffs or the X(V)viri, because they specialised in lightning prodigies. This explanation is interesting, but there is little evidence that the haruspices had such a specialism; they were consulted c. 56–52 for infant speaking (Phlegon, Olym. Fr. 13), for example, and in 54 for a rain of iron in Lucania (Pliny, NH 2.147). C. also argues that the Senate generally had recourse more to the haruspices than the X(V)viri after 140, but it is difficult to assess the relative balance of interventions; our sources often record prodigies without noting which authorities the Senate consulted. On the other hand, we can agree with C.'s argument that since Clodius was himself a member of the XVviri sacris faciundis, he had a form of control over the haruspices and considered that the pontiffs favoured Cicero, since they had allowed him to recover his property. Cicero does not dispute the response of the haruspices, but follows his opponents onto their terrain.

Thus, C.'s introduction is particularly interesting when he dares to propose new hypotheses about the original response of the haruspices. The text of these answers is not preserved, but a reconstruction based on the text of Cicero's speech had been proposed by Wissowa (Religion und Kultus der Römer (1912): 545 n. 4). C. proposes a new reconstruction, supplementing the text with information from fragmentary speeches attributed to Clodius or other opponents of Cicero, as well as from other Ciceronian works. The difficulty, of course, is to distinguish between Ciceronian creation and what the haruspices really said; Cicero presented the haruspices’ responses in archaic form to give them more authenticity and, above all, more authority.

C.'s translation attempts to convey the variety of Cicero's style, with long periods interspersed with short, punchy attacks. The result in terms of style is convincing. However, we can be critical of some translation choices. For example, the term religio, admittedly one of the most difficult to translate, is sometimes rendered in an unclear manner. It is not clear, for example, what ‘religious considerations’ adds to religion in §18. Regarding the editing of the text, C. based his Latin text on Maslowski's 1981 Teubner, making 29 minimal changes. C. does not develop the philosophical aspects of the speech in the introduction, but some useful explanations of Cicero's philosophical sources can be found in the commentary (e.g. 131).

Overall, the book is an excellent and useful edition, translation and commentary of a Ciceronian speech which deserves to be better known, to understand Roman religious processes and especially the interpretation of prodigies in this period. What do gods say and why did they say it? This was a key question for the Roman élite: prodigy-handling was a highly political issue. We can be grateful to C. for providing both a useful source and food for thought — and certainly scope for further exploration — on Roman religion.