In his recent book, Jon Hall, the well-known scholar of Cicero and Roman social customs, again brings these two fields of research together by looking at what he calls ‘Cicero's judicial theater’. In his definition the term ‘judicial theater’ includes ‘all non-verbal devices employed by advocates in order to enhance the impact of their words and argument’ (2). Thereby H. continues studies by himself and others into what has come to be called ‘performance’ with respect to the delivery of speeches, necessarily mainly focusing on Cicero. With the expression ‘theater’, H. alludes to the close association of this aspect of oratory with dramatic performances and highlights that ‘such theatrics were the stage business of the orator's art’ (2). Thus H. focuses on the most ‘theatrical’ elements of performance and limits himself to speeches in court (excluding political speeches, for which Cicero seems to have disapproved of such elements (31)). Out of the potential elements covered by this concept, H. analyses three aspects, although he does not explicitly justify this selection: ‘Cicero's integration of physical action into his pleas and entreaties; his deployment of tears in perorations (a particularly challenging and potentially risky type of performance); and the curious practice of individuals donning sordes (dirtied clothes) for their appearances in court’ (3).

The book starts with an ‘Introduction’ (1–4), outlining its aim and structure. Ch. 1: ‘Judicial Theater in Ancient Rome: Some Basic Considerations’ (5–39) sketches the historical and conceptual background. The next three chapters deal with the three selected aspects: ch. 2: ‘A Sordid Business: The Use of “Mourning Clothes” in the Courts’ (40–63), ch 3: ‘Too Proud to Beg: Appeals and Supplications in the Courts’ (64–98), ch. 4: ‘Shedding Tears in Court: When Crying is Good’ (99–128). Ch. 5 (the final chapter): ‘Judicial Theatrics beyond Cicero’ (129–54) extends the focus and looks at indications of similar behaviour of orators other than Cicero, so as to place what has emerged for Cicero into context. The book ends with a ‘Conclusion’ (155–9), followed by a bibliography (161–78) and indexes (179–90).

H. is conscious of the methodological challenges: for instance, almost all the evidence comes from Cicero; understandably, the extant texts mostly only have brief allusions to the theatrics played out. Still, H. is right in compiling the information about existing instances and interpreting it with the appropriate caution since this has the potential of providing a clearer idea of what could happen in Roman courts. This is relevant in particular since, as H. points out, rhetorical handbooks do not give advice on such measures and there are no proper parallels from the Greek world; in his view, these elements are likely to have been developed by exploiting conventions in Roman society.

Accordingly, and also to place a particular stunt within its Roman context, the main chapters start by describing the respective practice in everyday life outside court before proceeding to review examples of its use in court. This approach generally takes the form of a series of case studies for those instances for which there is a decent amount of information with the key passages quoted. H. is able to demonstrate that, for instance, it was acceptable for Roman males to shed tears in certain circumstances to show compassion, and he can then list examples of the successful use of dirtied clothes, display of scars, production of distressed relatives, appeals and tears in court. Since he also provides instances where such strategies went wrong and notes comments in Quintilian suggesting the view that they do not suit all orators, this may have been an effective, but also risky strategy. H. concludes by recalling the methodological difficulties, but highlighting that ‘Cicero almost certainly excelled in the business of performance’ (157) and that it was not only his ‘remarkable mastery of language’ (157) that turned him into a successful advocate.

While H. has done a great job in collecting the relevant evidence, he is well aware that there is not a statistically significant sample, so as to determine how frequent such interventions were and to what extent they contributed to the overall success of speeches. Yet, even though these theatrics merely take up a small part of extant speeches, they are often placed in the important peroration, and Cicero sometimes makes a big effort to incorporate them even when the defendant was unwilling, so that he must have counted on their effectiveness. H. points out that ‘Roman grandees inhabited a world in which energetic showmanship and public posturing formed a crucial part of political life’ (153–4), and therefore doing the same in court was seen as an extension.

Although H. does not make the implications explicit, since his study focuses on the material and does not have much theoretical reflection, this is a significant book, not only for its individual insights, but also, more importantly, for what can be inferred from remaining scripts for the organization of Roman society and the rôle of ‘performances’ within it. This study proves that a thorough and cautious analysis of surviving texts can unearth some of the social conventions that they may have reflected. This is a salutary reminder of how much we do not know to assess these texts appropriately, but also of how much we can still find out if we ask the right questions of the material at our disposal.