With this book, Pascal Montlahuc provides an extensive and very insightful history of political humour and laughter in Rome from the third century b.c. to the second century a.d. Due to his broad chronological scope and carefully contextualised readings, M. significantly adds to, and sometimes usefully corrects, previous work in the field, most notably Anthony Corbeill's Controlling Laughter: Political Humor in the Late Roman Republic (1996). M. considers the socio-political mechanisms that determined the success or failure of remarks intended to provoke laughter (risum movere). To this end, he examines 478 passages that are mostly derived from literary sources, although ch. 4 also includes graffiti. Most of the material is from Cicero, Plutarch, Suetonius and, to a lesser extent, Quintilian. M.'s extensive use of ancient biography adds a valuable new perspective to the study of the politics of humour in Rome. Another strength of the book is its broad conception of politics. M. considers the political uses of laughter not only in what he calls ‘la politique’, Rome's formal political institutions, such as the law courts, senate and contiones, but also in ‘le politique’, the social practices and political rituals of civic society at large that took place in the forum, the streets and even on military campaigns.

The book is divided into three sections. The first considers the final two centuries of the Republic. In ch. 1 (23–76), M. qualifies Corbeill's argument that political humour in the republican period primarily functioned as an instrument of control and exclusion in the hands of the Roman elite. Although public laughter played an important role within the competition for status between members of the elite, M. shows that this competition was judged by a broad, civic audience whose views had to be considered in order to win the day. What is more, about a third of the passages analysed by M. display a ‘bottom-up’ form of mockery aimed at the elites rather than a ‘top-down’ use of humour that legitimated their political dominance. Corbeill's notion of controlling laughter is further challenged in ch. 2 (77–141), which shows that risum movere was not merely a game between the most powerful but also involved other actors, such as pedarii, plebeians and soldiers. The participation of the lower segments of society, moreover, was not limited to the reinforcement of existing hierarchies but could also take the form of ‘humorous rebellions’ that modified socio-political relations.

The second part traces the transformation of the politics of humour during the first century b.c. Ch. 3 (147–83) examines the elites’ response to the rise of Caesar. Although Caesar could not be the target of open mockery like any of the other aristocrats, M. convincingly argues that Cicero's claims about Caesarean censorship should not be taken at face value. Instead, it was prudence and self-censorship that gave rise to a new, less openly aggressive form of political humour. In ch. 4 (185–213), M. examines the use of slogans, jokes and satirical comments on the streets and walls of Rome. Although these are often seen as originating from the lower classes, their authors, M. shows, actually belonged to a reasonably educated and politicised section of the population. Ch. 5 (215–64) considers the triumviral years. Here, M. points to the coexistence of anonymous taunts and open criticism to challenge the notion that this period was marked by the death of public speech. Ch. 6 (265–75) briefly outlines the function of political humour in the portrayal of Caesar and Octavian by ancient authors.

The third part examines the early Principate. In ch. 7 (283–333), M. examines Augustus’ response to, and use of, humour. He notices a shift between the beginning of Augustus’ reign, when the emperor tolerated jokes from aristocrats and the populace, provided that they could not form the basis for systematic opposition, and its end, when imperial authority came under pressure and tolerance towards verbal attacks on the emperor decreased. Augustus himself, M. argues, used humour to bridge the gap between himself and his subjects as well as to legitimate his position. Ch. 8 (335–402) considers the emperors after Augustus. Here, M. rightfully draws attention to the distorting influence of the distinction between the ‘good prince’, who benevolently tolerated mockery, and the ‘tyrant’, who sought to repress all forms of laughter, articulated in ancient historiography. Moving beyond this simple dichotomy, M.'s readings reveal how the emperor's response to a particular joke depended on its context, the identity of the author and the potential threat it posed to his authority. In the conclusion (403–7), M. succinctly outlines the major developments in political humour from the Republic to the Principate.

To conclude, Le pouvoir des bons mots constitutes an ambitious monograph that significantly advances the study of Roman political humour. M.'s careful readings of humoristic exchanges, which pay close attention to the historical circumstances as well as to the actors and audiences involved, offer fresh insights into the socio-political practices that structured Roman politics in the Republic, the triumviral period and the early empire.