‘The problem inherent: in the surface of things, and only in the surface of things, is the heart of things’: Leo Strauss's enigmatic formulation deals with the idea, later developed by Seth Benardete, that action and argument work with and against one another to produce multi-layered meanings in texts of all genres. On the surface, Tacitus' Dialogus is a collection of speeches that deal with different aspects of ancient and modern eloquentia, problematic in its refusal to deliver a clear point. The body of the dialogue does not answer the question with which it begins (‘Why … is our age so barren and bereft of the eminence of eloquence?’), and on the themes they do treat the speakers often contradict themselves, leading to Christopher van den Berg's succinct statement that ‘the incoherence of the dialogue as a whole is the most striking problem …’ (100). His project in this book, however, is to show that previous scholarship on the Dialogus has missed the crucial interconnection of argument and action; of the speeches' internal logic on the one hand, and their dynamic reciprocity on the other. Viewed in this way the dialogue is not at all incoherent, but rather a highly complex system of inter-, intra- and metatextual reference that considers the question of eloquentia in a way that does justice to the topic itself: that is, with as much nuance as a gifted speaker gives an oration. B. gives fine and respectful treatment to previous scholarship whose short-sightedness frankly makes me want to bang my head against a wall (searching narrowly for the text's main point either in the light of identification with one of its characters, or persuasiveness of the speeches.) But then it is the mark of a gifted critic to make us see something that seems obvious, only after he has shown it to us. Back to Strauss's point about the surface.

I appreciated the author's meticulous review of the scholarship, which is wide-ranging. To make his point he deals with a great deal of previous work on the text itself as well as developments in theory (particularly on the issue of intertextuality) that inform his own interpretation. All this careful work makes his book an invaluable resource for, as well as an interesting new vision of, the Dialogus. The main thrust of his own theory concerns what he calls the ‘argumentative dynamics’ (90–7) of the text: the ways in which the speeches and the ‘interstitial passages’ (99, 111) refer to one another in theme and language to create a wide-ranging consideration of the problem of eloquentia. This phraseology immediately reminded me of Benardete's ‘argument and action’ interpretive framework for the Platonic dialogues, though B. does not reference him. The chapters of the book treat the speeches successively, showing how the concerns of each are addressed within the speech itself and across the dialogue as a whole. In this way Tacitus does not confine the major issues to the speeches in which they appear, in such a way as to make our understanding of them dependent on the speaker's development of them, but rather allows them an expansive development throughout the work.

The result is Tacitus' capacious and self-reflexive assessment of the social and political importance of eloquentia in his own time, and B.'s analysis probes the questions it raises about fame, social standing, education and other aspects of life that ground the élite male Roman's sense of identity. Though B. does not discuss Tacitus' Domitianic experience in much detail, his study implies a crisis of identity to which a study such as the Dialogus responds. In particular he gives a rich reading of the difficult character of Marcus Aper, whose utilitarian appreciation of eloquentia has not won him many admirers. Reading Aper's arguments through the language and themes of the other characters as well as the interstitial passages, however, and noting that Aper introduces the utilitas of eloquentia in a conditional clause that embraces the whole rhetorical tradition, B. shows how Aper elevates rhetoric to a position of ‘the greatest possible relevance’ (11). He becomes in this author's reading a multi-dimensional character that stands for the problem of eloquentia, and thus the more existential and ethical concern of who and how to be in this particular historical moment. As one speaks, so one is.

The details of this book's scholarship and interpretation are impressive, and the argument for broadening our perspective on the Dialogus absolutely persuasive. The author cautions against seeking a single focus or argument in the text, showing instead how its polyphony invites reflection on many critical questions. Yet leaving the text so open does not quite do justice to Tacitus' vision. For all that the Dialogus' ambiguities and ironies open up a richer world than previous scholarship has uncovered, it also suggests a position for the one who speaks in it: ‘Tacitus’, or the voice that orchestrates the polyphony. What is this position? It is unfair to B. to demand more, as his book handsomely fulfills the promise of its title. However this reader wished for a resolution of argument and action, though not singular, as still something more than the sum of the many interesting parts that B. investigates here.