De Oratore is generally considered the most sophisticated of Cicero's treatises exploring the theory of rhetoric: as he states at the beginning of Book 1, it is a more polished (politius) and perfected (perfectius) treatment of the subject than his youthful De Inventione (De Orat. 1.5). In spite of this, a commentary on this text, which as the blurb rightly states, ‘is one of the masterpieces of Latin prose’, primarily geared towards advanced students of Latin, has long been awaited. David Mankin's commentary on Book 3 — the first full commentary of the text to appear in English since A. S. Wilkins' nineteenth-century edition — is, therefore, an extremely welcome addition to the Cambridge Greek and Latin Classics series.

M.'s objective, as he states in his preface, is ‘to provide an accurate and readable text as well as what seems necessary information about its syntax, usage, and style, its historical, literary, and philosophical background, and the subtle and often unexpected progression of its thought and argument’ — and in this he succeeds. The introduction is divided into a series of sections which cover the essential information for students coming to the text for the first time. Section 1 of the introduction posits the De Oratore within the context of Cicero's political and literary career at the date of its composition in 55 b.c. (1a), before offering an overview of the first two books (1b), and a detailed introduction to the content and arguments of Book 3 (1c). As such, there is nothing particularly new in this section, although the claim that Cicero had not abandoned public life (4) could have perhaps been fleshed out with reference to Cicero's assertion, elsewhere, in his post-exilic works that he was engaging in public life from a different angle (e.g. in the preface to De Divinatione 2), rather than seemingly perpetuating the view that the De Oratore was simply a solacium, and the product of an involuntary otium forced on Cicero after Luca (the implication of the discussion on p. 1; contra, see A. D. Leeman and H. Pinkster, Cicero De Oratore Libri in Kommentar 1 (1981), 17–21). The second section examines the work's literary and historical background discussing its dialogue form (2a), and the political context of the De Oratore's dramatic setting in 91 b.c. (2b), before establishing the scene and dialogi personae (2c). The subsequent section is devoted to the theoretical background, sketching first the schism between oratory and philosophy (3a), and secondly the technical and philosophical systems of rhetoric (3b). Section 4 then turns to the topic of prose rhythm and style to examine the word choice and periodic structure of Crassus' speech in Book 3 (4a), and to clarify and supplement Crassus' account of prose rhythm in 3.178–98 (4b). It is here that M. makes his most original and interesting contribution to the scholarship on De Oratore by suggesting that the clausulae attributed to the diologi personae perhaps reflect the preferred rhythmic patterns of the real-life speakers: Cicero, he argues, ‘may have wished his audience to hear not his own rhythmic “voice”, but the “voices” of an earlier and now silent generation’ (48). Finally the fifth section provides a succinct overview of the manuscript tradition, which, in short, can be divided into two main classes: the Mutili (M) and the Laudensis (L). Also important for M. are the testimonia (T) found in the works of other ancient authors, as well as the derivative MSS (D), and the conjectures of earlier editors and more recent studies.

The core of M.'s edition is his Latin text and the lemmatic commentary of De Oratore III which follow. It is beyond the scope of this review to discuss the text and commentary at length, but a couple of examples may help. Primarily, M. bases his text on M, L and T, typically preferring T to M and L, and more often following L to M. However, all of these have been updated so that they take into account the norms of Late Republican Latin (thus e.g. at 22 ‘hesterno die’ (D) is preferred to L's ‘hesterna die’), as well as Cicero's rhythmic preferences (thus at 115 M. follows M in keeping ‘facere’ in the clausula ‘praeterea facere possit’ because its omission (as in L) would produce a choriamb + spondee). The result is a careful attempt to improve L and T which continues the efforts to correct K. Kumaniecki's apparatus criticus in the 1969 Teubner edition (cf. Renting's list of corrections in J. Wisse, M. Winterbottom and E. Fantham, M. Tullius Cicero, De oratore libri III: A Commentary on Book III, 96–230 (2008)).

The commentary itself is very well designed to guide the reader through the intricacies of Cicero's dialogue: copious subheadings, coupled with a corresponding outline of De Oratore III (333), guide the reader through the material, while explanatory notes help the student understand the key points of discussion at each stage. Students who are not familiar with Cicero's language and style will benefit from the attention M. pays to these areas; rhetorical terms and their usage are also usefully listed in a separate index. In short, M.'s commentary is a valuable and needed contribution to the study of Cicero's De Oratore. It is useful for background information, straightforward in its analyses and explanations, and sensible in its treatment of the text. Continuing the tradition of the Greek and Latin Classics series, it offers an invaluable resource for a close reading of the Latin text. But as the first rhetorical work to appear in the series, it will make essential reading not just for Latin students and first readers of the text, but for anyone with an interest in the history of rhetoric.