Tacitus’ senatorial speeches form an important but often neglected part of his historical narrative. Ellen O'Gorman's thought-provoking book sheds valuable new light on this under-studied aspect of Tacitus’ works. In it, she challenges the generally held view that Tacitus’ focus on the senate and their activity is simply a hangover of the Republican tradition of historiography and thus out of proportion to its importance in the imperial system. Instead, O'G. argues that Tacitus sees in his narration of senatorial activity an effective way for individuals to engage in meaningful political activity through speech. Previous studies have emphasised the importance of concepts such as ‘figured speech’ and ‘doublespeak’ in Tacitus’ senatorial scenes, in which senators’ speech involves a deliberate suspension of meaning as a reaction to the imbalance of power in the ruler–subject relationship. O'G. argues that Tacitus’ senators frequently demonstrate agency and speak in ways intended to ‘act upon the world’ (11), operating in a more proactive and concrete sense than the interpretive lens of ‘figured speech’ allows.

Part one, ‘Modes of Speech’, investigates the political results of deleterious senatorial speech in Tacitus, before considering the ways he suggests such damaging speech may be countered. Ch. 1 examines the practice of adulatio as a perversion of social networks of friendship. While in genuine networks of friendship advice and praise are offered between equals, in the unequal power structures of the principate the flatterer seeks to isolate his subject from his social network and construct an exclusive relationship, ultimately becoming complicit in the creation and continuation of a culture of tyranny in which flattery leads to isolation, which leads to fear of the ruler, which inspires further flattery. Ch. 2 focuses on delatio as a similar perversion of established forms of social interaction, in this case the duty to report and prosecute crime. As the lines between ruler and state are blurred, this civic responsibility becomes more about preserving the dignity of the ruler than that of the res publica and the sharing of agency among multiple prosecutors with sometimes diverse aims raises questions about the nature of senatorial agency in imperial politics.

Ch. 3 considers the strategies available for countering the excesses of adulatio and delatio. These range from ‘open attacks upon the practice of these modes of speech to engagement with these modes in order to bypass their most deleterious effects’ (82). In the case of adulatio, only the emperor himself can directly challenge the practice (as Tiberius does with his famous remarks in Greek at Ann. 3.65.3), as for anyone else to do so would imply rejection of the praise offered. Thus ‘diversion and refashioning’ (88) are the methods available to senators themselves, illustrated by Helvidius’ measured honorific intervention at the accession of Vespasian at Hist. 4.4.3. In the case of delatio, counter-speech often takes the form of engaging with the delatores on their own turf, in the sphere of agonistic discourse. Opponents of delatio, such as those that prosecute Suillius Rufus in a.d. 58, focus on the harm the delator does to his fellow citizens, and by extension the state, thereby countering the equation of ruler and state that comes with accusations of maiestas. Alternatively, senators were able effectively to mitigate the worst effects of delatio through their role in sentencing in cases of maiestas. Interventions in favour of alternative forms of sentencing (e.g. exile instead of death, as in the case of Thrasea Paetus’ intervention in the case of Antistius Sosianus in a.d. 62 at Ann. 14.48), while ultimately accepting of delatio in some form, nevertheless carve out some limited space for independence of thought within its discourse.

The second half of the book, ‘The Critical Archive’, consists of two chapters which focus on Tacitus’ creation of an exemplary archive of effective senatorial speech through both representation and authorial comment. Ch. 4 deals with the performative ethos of the speaker, i.e. how he represents himself as ‘a good man skilled at speaking’ (Sen. Controv. 1, pr. 9), and its lasting implications beyond the contemporary context, as Tacitus encourages his reader to (re)evaluate the efficacy of senators’ speeches and extend the debate into his own day. Ch. 5 examines the modes by which political efficacy is transmitted via social networks across generations of senators, thus presenting a framework that can be imitated and adapted in the present. In doing so, Tacitus reminds us that ‘the effects of political speech may not be fully felt until later times’ (165).

The very short concluding chapter (167–8) feels rather unsatisfactory following the complexity of the preceding arguments, pointing only very briefly to the importance of Tacitean sententiae (both senatorial statements and Tacitus’ own interventions) in exploring ‘the consequences of speech for the political worlds that we pass on to others’ (168). This is a very dense book that packs in a lot of complex and at times provocative arguments which, whether one agrees with them or not, will have far-reaching implications for scholars of Tacitus and Roman history more broadly. I cannot help thinking a longer conclusion that tackled some of these implications head-on would have been beneficial. Nevertheless, while I finished the book with some unanswered questions, it certainly caused me to revaluate my own assumptions about the role of the senate in Tacitus’ works, and its arguments will surely prove to be highly influential in shaping the course of Tacitean studies for years to come.