The tension between political disruption and imperial expansion is a familiar theme of the late Republican period, which has long attracted interest and remains a major focus of enquiry in the longue durée, not just among ancient historians. This important book makes a substantial and innovative contribution to its exploration. M. puts forward a strong, clearly articulated thesis: Pompey and the Younger Cato envisaged a new approach to the management and exploitation of the Empire, which advocated a more lenient attitude towards its subjects and was as strongly based on self-interest as resting on philosophical considerations. Their choices were not a sudden development, but were rooted in a long-standing debate on the running of the empire, and point to a much more complex set of strategies underpinning Roman provincial government than usually envisaged. M.’s periodisation is neatly defined: her opening tableau is the prosecution of Verres in the summer of 70 bc, and the endpoint of the discussion is the work of Cato between 51 and 50 on the brief of provincial government and his debate with Cicero on its moral dimension. There is some discussion of earlier developments, notably Sulla and Lucullus, and an acknowledgement of the fact that the theory that leniency towards foreigners would mainly serve the exploitation of the empire was first recognised (as far as we know) by Gaius Gracchus (p. 273). Conversely, there is hardly any focus on what followed: Caesar's work in the Greek East is not discussed in any detail, and Augustus’ stabilisation of the region is altogether overlooked. One of the great strengths of M.’s discussion is the ability to discuss some specific problems within a tightly documented period; at the same time, she is self-assured and convincing in bringing out the wider significance of her research question.

Her central claim that the emergence of a new logic of running the empire is a strong objection to the ‘Crisis without alternative’ model (p. 272) is sound and brings an important qualification to mainstream reconstructions of late Republican history. What will persuade readers to different degrees is the extent to which that claim can be applied. There are instances in which M. pushes her evidence to the very limit of its potential. Reading the expulsion of P. Cornelius Lentulus Sura from the Senate in 70 bc as a statement against corruption in the provinces is far-fetched: very little is known about the purge of that year, and nothing in the surviving evidence rules out that narrow internal politics played a crucial role. Postulating a close alignment between Pompey and the censors of 70 bc (p. 41) is a leap of faith. Caesar may have been ruthless towards his external enemies, but there is no evidence that Pompey was more lenient: we do not have any source that compares even remotely to the Commentarii, and hardly any record survives of how Pompey presented his achievements to Roman audiences. M.'s analysis of his use of patria is perceptive (pp. 95–6), but does not explore the intrinsically acquisitive dimension of that image. Lucan's reference to the ‘rightful anger of Latium’ (8.234) might be a reference to Pompey's intervention in the Senate to dissuade against retaliation; a scholion to Lucan makes that claim (p. 178). M. accepts that scenario (not unlikely, but far from certain), but does not discuss the reliability of the evidence of the scholia, nor does it prove the claim that Pompey might have made on that occasion.

Many of M.’s arguments revolve around close readings of evidence that has so far been under-exploited or not brought into a discussion of comparable scope: the reading of the letter of Q. Minucius Thermus to the koinon of Asia (RDGE 52) is especially rewarding (pp. 246–8). However, the epigraphy of the Greek cities of Asia Minor (especially the province of Asia) would have required a more focused treatment. M. is arguably too ready to see instances of ‘genuine gratitude’ (p. 56 n. 199) towards Pompey in a highly formalised language that codifies existing and developing ties between him and the cities, and has a long history that predates the coming of Rome: the language of euergetism brought out by J. Ma (whose seminal book on Antiochus III and the cities of Western Asia Minor is absent from M.’s wide-ranging bibliography) would have required closer discussion. More broadly, the impact of the patronage of Greek cities by Roman magistrates should have been accorded greater prominence. The fact that Pompey's munificence and ability were recognised by a number of communities in the Greek East certainly indicates that they were valued features of a wider discourse on power, but hardly show that he consistently or consciously upheld those values. The discussion of Pompey's impact on the East seems heavily focused on stressing his qualities and restraint: much as he might have not executed prisoners during his triumph, the lavishness of the procession in late September 61 is strong testimony to his ambition and the amount of wealth he gathered. More importantly, there is relatively little interest in the nuts and bolts of Pompey's impact on the Greek East – a topic that has awaited a full-scale discussion for several decades. The development of Roman administration in Asia Minor has also received very little attention: the works of G.D. Merola and S. Mitchell do not find any place in the bibliography, and the customs law from Ephesus is not explored either. Archaeological evidence and material culture, whether from Italy or from the Greek East, are overlooked.

A tendency to take a laudatory approach towards Pompey's conduct is also apparent in the interesting section on Posidonius (pp. 84–95): M. helpfully charts the influence of that major figure through much of the late Hellenistic thought on kingship and rightly notes that the language with which Plutarch describes Pompey's conduct in the East is closely reminiscent of what is known about Posidonius’ thought. The gap between representation and reality, however, remains harder to explore. We are on safer ground in the discussion of Cato's vision of the empire and the duties that came with it, where M. explores the evidence for Cato's views in his correspondence with Cicero; Plutarch, though, cannot be read on the same principles with which one reads the Ad familiares. The discussion moves to safer and more rewarding ground in the sections where the focus is on specific points. Two crucial pieces of legislation, the lex Julia de repetundis of 59 and the lex Pompeia de provinciis of 52, receive a thorough discussion (pp. 129–52 and 204–36 respectively). The view that statutes may be linked with philosophical and intellectual developments is not unprecedented: there could have been more thorough, comparative engagement with A.N. Sherwin-White's reading of the political vision behind the Gracchan law de repetundis (duly cited by M.).

There is little doubt that this book will readily become compulsory reading for anyone with a serious interest in the late Republican period. It is informed by powerful ideas, insightful readings of a diverse and rich body of evidence, and a bold attempt to integrate political and intellectual history in creative and assertive ways. It is elegantly written and competently produced. Its central claim sets a powerful message that some will wish to qualify or deepen, but is likely to set the debate for some time to come. M. aims to break away from the ‘factional approach to Roman politics’ (p. 18) by exploring the approaches of Cato and Pompey to the running of the empire: in positing such a close connection between the two men, though, there is a risk to let factionalism back in through the rear door. Conversely, establishing a close link between political developments and intellectual trends is sometimes hazardous, and I am not sure that the potential advantages outweigh the potential shortcomings. Envisaging a close connection between the reform programme of 52–50 and the De legibus, for instance, involves reading Cicero's philosophical work through a heavily short-term outlook. M. is certainly right in envisaging an intensification of the process she is focusing on; however, the main reservation prompted by her study involves its periodisation. This insightful book puts the study of a crucial aspect of the late Republican period on a stronger footing and paves the way for a larger-scale endeavour that might come to encompass the early Principate and the elites of the Greek East: the world of Zoilos of Aphrodisias, Areios of Alexandria and Dionysius of Halicarnassus.