As the editors of this excellent collection of papers rightly state in their informative introduction, thankfully ‘[k]ings are fashionable again in scholarship’ and, concomitantly, ‘[c]ourt studies are back too’ (p. xv). The accuracy of this statement is amply demonstrated by important publications of recent years, both in Classics and other disciplines, of which the most important are referenced in the introduction (pp. xv–xxx; one might add J. Duindam, Myths of Power. Norbert Elias and the Early Modern European Court [1995]), and by the papers of this volume itself, which attest to the wide diversity of approaches available in dealing with matters of royal or imperial courts.

Importantly, in their introduction (p. xxi) the editors engage with recent scholarship across disciplinary boundaries and provide a theoretical framework for the volume, defining the ‘court’ – a notoriously vague and ambivalent term – as ‘a circle of elite people and attendants … in orbit around a monarch as well as … a larger environment of political, military, economic, and cultural structures which converged within the monarch's household’, adding that courts are also architecturally defined even in the cases of itinerant courts (as is the case, e.g., with the Seleucids). This definition along with the methodological consequences for any analysis of court structures in the Hellenistic world is implicitly (and sometimes explicitly) adapted by the various authors. Moreover, the stated aim of looking beyond the now somewhat-discredited model of court studies pioneered by N. Elias (Die höfische Gesellschaft [1969]) by adopting comparatist approaches is likewise realised in a number of contributions, though mostly with regard to earlier Achaemenid or contemporary Hellenistic courts of, for example, middling states such as Bithynia, Cappadocia or Pergamum (see the chapters by D. Engels, C. Hardiman, E. Gruen and O. Gabelko).

The book is structured mostly according to overarching themes such as the ‘Development’ of early Hellenistic Courts (Wallace, J. Morgan, Engels), ‘Life at Court’ (I. Savalli-Lestrade, R. Strootman, I. Petrovic), or cross-cultural influences (Gruen, Gabelko, L. Capponi). Other sections look at specific features of the court, such as norm-transgressions (P.F. Mittag) or different facets of death (O. Palagia, S. Winder), individual ceremonies such as royal marriages (S. Ager, A. McAuley), or the social connections of kings and courtiers ‘Beyond the Palace’ (K. Buraselis, P. Ceccarelli, D. Thompson, Hardiman). Perhaps in part due to the decades-long dearth of ancient court studies particularly for the Hellenistic world, but certainly on account of their individual quality, there is scarcely a chapter in this rich volume that will be read without considerable insight and new appreciation gained for the intricacies of ancient court life. While I cannot give an overview of the whole of these contributions, some deserve more detailed mention, though I freely admit that the selection reflects mostly my own interests.

In his analysis of the development of a ‘royal style’ in the early Hellenistic period, Wallace rightly argues that the period immediately after Alexander's death was one of ‘experimentation in the display of power’ (p. 15). He convincingly shows that all Alexander's successors, including those often labelled ‘conservative’ or ‘traditional’, such as Craterus or Cleitus the White, adopted elements of what soon became a recognisable royal Hellenistic style, influenced by the changes Alexander himself had introduced. Further, for all intents and purposes, ‘no clear and distinct separation between royal style and royal status existed’ (p. 19). In other words, kingship in this period was constituted by ‘royal’ performances: if manner maketh man, then pomp maketh royalty. Because of the resistance of parts of the Greek audience to such displays, a certain degree of experimentation was necessary, as Wallace points out.

Petrovic's chapter also engages with such a resistance or, more precisely, with strategies of making royal pomp more palatable to different audiences. Reading Ptolemaic poets such as Theocritus and Callimachus from this point of view, she posits that the description of Olympian gods in their works are in fact barely veiled references to the Ptolemaic court: ‘to avoid the dangerous example of Alexander, who was perceived as too open in his adoption of Persian ways … [the] model of Greek gods was used as a powerful communicative paradigm’, to ‘present the court as a replica of the hierarchy and modes of behaviour of the Greek divine royal family’ (p. 146). This is an intriguing possibility that deserves further study beyond purely literary works; one may well find the notion of the Olympians as an image paradigm (a concept coined by art historian and Byzantinist Aleksey Lidov) of Hellenistic royal performances fruitful as a heuristic instrument.

Morgan's chapter on the Hellenistic palace is one of the few in the collection to engage with the architecture of Hellenistic royalty (others include that by Engels, which features a short discussion of Achaemenid and Hellenistic palace layouts, and Palagia's very stimulating and up-to-date reading of the Macedonian/Argead tomb architecture in Vergina and Agios Athanasios) – though, given the relatively few archaeological remains available to us, this should perhaps not be surprising. Morgan begins her analysis with an emphatic warning of using the modern term ‘palace’ uncritically when discussing Hellenistic royal structures (pp. 32–5), a point that is well taken, even if the argument that the post-Hellenistic etymological origin of the word indicates that the notion of ‘palaces’ (as a concept) were modelled almost exclusively on the behaviours of Roman emperors and medieval monarchs wishing ‘to connect themselves to Rome’ (p. 32) seems unconvincing. Furthermore, architectural linkage of a monarch's house with his god and a divine ‘authority and right to rule’ (ibid.) is neither exclusively Roman nor medieval. However, Morgan's discussion of the ‘palaces’ or royal buildings of Persepolis, Vergina, Pergamum and Alexandria is illuminating, and her final reminder that ‘in antiquity a “palace” does not make a king; it is the presence of the king that gives meaning to the building’ (p. 53) is apt for the Hellenistic period (though less so, e.g., for the Roman imperial monarchy, where the occupation by a new emperor of ‘the’ palace [i.e. the palatium] is frequently seen as part of properly constituted imperial authority; cf. as one case among many, Pertinax assuming the purple and being escorted by laurel-wearing praetorians to the Palatine palaces in Hdn. 2.2.9).

Ager's is the only chapter to devote itself to the analysis of a specific royal ceremony performed at the Hellenistic (and every other) court, i.e. royal marriages. Purposefully drawing a connection with the 2011 wedding of Prince William, she emphasises that throughout history monarchic societies are heavily invested in the marriages – specifically the marriage ceremonies – of their rulers. Given the sources available to us for the Hellenistic dynasties, Ager does not attempt a full ‘reconstruction’ of ‘the’ typical Hellenistic royal wedding and rightly doubts whether there was such a thing as a ‘typical’ wedding ceremony at all. Heavily drawing on Classical Greek marriage models (but cognizant of the dangers such an approach holds; cf. p. 166 n. 4), she instead gives an overview of possibly salient features and the inherent symbolism of marriage alliances, acknowledging that she is only ‘scratch[ing] the surface of the topic’ (p. 177), but indicating possibilities for further research. In light of recent research specifically into Hellenistic royal women (e.g. A. Coşkun and A. McAuley [edd.], Seleukid Royal Women [2016]), such research seems both warranted and promising.

All the chapters of this stimulating collection – no less than eighteen, all originating from a conference held at the University of Edinburgh in February 2011 – are fascinating (and frequently innovative) in their own right, whether they deal with the king's philoi, the role of the notorious favourites or the use of poison at court. This is not the place to discuss all of them in detail. In their totality, however, they will likely have an important impact on the study of Hellenistic (and other ancient) kingship and court.