Any book of more than 600 pages and containing twenty-four contributors is hard to review. (Not surprisingly, twenty write in Italian, but there are two papers each in English and French.) However, this collection, being based on a themed colloquium, held in Pavia for three weeks in June and another week in September, does have more internal coherence than most collected conference papers. It is divided into three sections: from iudicium populi to quaestiones perpetuae; iudicia publica and the tension between law and rhetoric; legal procedure and politics. Clearly springing from the background circumstances, there are connections both overt and implicit between many of the papers, particularly those in the second section, which is essentially devoted to Cicero.

The first section begins with a survey by Coarelli of the places in which trials were held. Lintott talks about provocatio and assembly trials after Kunkel; rather oddly, he does not mention Cloud. Mantovani, always subtle, finds a capital trial in one of Lucilius’ Satires. Ledneva carries on the theme of capitis deminutio maxima with a discussion of whether confiscation of property was an automatic consequence of aquae et ignis interdictio in the Republic, while Jońca considers how far voluntary exile was available. Santalucia discusses the preliminaries to a trial before a quaestio; ‘we need further research’. Liva considers the role of the quaesitor. Laffi provides a lengthy survey of Roman residents on trial in the eastern provinces. Faro writes on the constraints on a governor's consilium in the late Republic and under Augustus’ Cyrene edicts. All this is pretty firmly legal.

Rhetoric and its rules, as well as law, are the concern of the longest section, a theme which has been of interest to scholars for quite a few years now. Calboli's paper is definitely more on rhetoric than law, whereas Ferrary looks at the Pro Norbano of M. Antonius and Cicero's Pro Cornelio quite definitely in the context of the maiestas laws. Giuffrè points out that the young orator knew tricks in de inventione that the mature advocate would use in pro Cluentio. Scognamiglio considers examples of the interpretation of individual leges iudiciorum publicorum. Baldo re-examines the use of rhetoric in the Verrines, while Venturini is more concerned with legal aspects. Alexander returns to the balance between legal and non-legal factors in Roman criminal trials, with an interesting appendix on iudices editicii. Fascione is also focused on Pro Plancio, and the importance of non-legal factors. Cavarzere has a long paper on Pro Caelio, stressing that the portrait of Clodia is a stereotype. Bensi discusses the use of examination and cross-examination in In Vatinium.

The third section I found less coherent. Desideri talks rather cynically about ius belli and the Senate. Mazzoli finds what seems to me a rather tenuous link between poetry and law in Lucilius’ Satires. Hassan looks at Virgil's list of the damned in Tartarus, and sees a dialectic between archaic Roman law and contemporary ideology. David stresses that, while defending might be more honourable, accusing was often a duty of vengeance; public opinion — never defined — may have been the deciding factor where there were conflicts of interest. Finally, Balbo continues Alexander's Trials for 49–29 B.C., pointing out the uncertainties inevitable in this period.

The volume is well produced and edited. There is no General Index, but there is a 30-page Index of Sources, and the Contents give sub-headings for many of the papers, which for such a collection is the best that can be done.