This book is a study of the relationship between political and religious thought in the Theban plays of Sophocles. It follows in the tradition of scholars such as P. Euben and A. Saxonhouse and perhaps will be of more interest to political theorists than to Sophoclean critics. At the heart of this work is the conviction that Sophocles is a political and philosophic thinker whose plays share a great deal with the ‘rationalism of Socrates and Aristotle’ (p. 8). This sounds like a worthwhile project, and it is refreshing to see these plays viewed from the perspective of a political philosopher; ultimately, however, A.'s interpretation of the plays is largely unconvincing and his methodology at times questionable.

The book devotes a chapter to each of the Theban plays (two of the chapters have been published earlier as journal articles and appear here in slightly modified form) followed by a conclusion and a bibliography. In the introduction, A. establishes the framework for his treatment of the plays. He is opposed to the Nietzschean interpretation of tragedy that sees the tragic protagonist as a figure who derives his nobility and grandeur from his ability to accept the chaos and cruelty of the world. For A., Sophocles is not the pious poet scholarship has sometimes made him out to be, but a humane rationalist whose plays offer a model of political statesmanship that navigates a middle way between piety and rationalism.

The first chapter, ‘Oedipus the Tyrant and the Limits of Rationality’, examines the play in terms of A.'s themes of piety and rationalism. His thesis is that Oedipus' reign is ‘an experiment in political rationalism’ (p. 19) that fails when Oedipus abandons reason for piety. In sending Creon to consult the oracle about the plague, Oedipus has forsaken the rationalism that governed his reign for the past fifteen years. A. further argues that the king also abandons the city of Thebes when he begins ‘to focus exclusively and, one must say, selfishly, on establishing his own innocence’ (p. 30). Even his act of blinding himself is motivated by the desire for immortality and thus is an act of a selfish ruler. In the end the two characteristic features of Oedipus (his noble devotion to the city and his rationality) are renounced in the course of the play.

Chapter 2, ‘Blind Faith and Enlightened Statesmanship in Oedipus at Colonus’, treats the play as O.T. in reverse. Oedipus is now an anti-rationalist and deeply pious man whose anger blinds him to his mortality and whose piety causes his children to suffer. Theseus in contrast to Oedipus is the embodiment of a proper ruler, compassionate, rational and free from self-interest. For A., Theseus comes closest to representing the views of the poet and is the true hero of the play.

Chapter 3, ‘The Pious Heroism of Antigone’, the longest in the book, continues the focus on piety and rationalism, with A. examining the positions of each character. Antigone initially acts in the name of piety in her quest to bury her brother but then in the face of the challenge from Creon is overcome by doubt. In despair and doubting the piety and justice of her actions, she kills herself. Ismene on the other hand is largely driven by the desire for self-preservation, although A. argues that she does recognise the limitations of her position when she tries to join Antigone and take responsibility for the burial. Creon shifts from reason to piety when he chooses to bury Polyneices first, and thus, like Oedipus, brings about his own downfall. In the end, both Creon and Antigone are destroyed by their piety, although for A., Antigone is the clear hero of the play.

The conclusion returns us to political philosophy with a discussion of Plato and Aristotle and their differing views on tragedy. Plato bans tragedy from the city for the way it instils a false dependence on the gods while Aristotle defends tragedy in the name of reason.

It is clear that this work is the result of much thinking about the plays themselves, and A. should be applauded for his willingness to cross disciplinary boundaries, not always an easy task. The book, however, is marred by a number of mistakes, some minor, but others serious enough to question whether A. is always entirely at home in interpreting Greek tragedy. For instance, although A. is aware that the plays were not written as a trilogy, he treats them as such, arguing that there are too many parallels between the plays (pp. 86–7 n. 4). Such an approach assumes a consistency of character from play to play, a difficult notion to defend. It is almost as if A. assumes these characters are historical people with lives separate from the plays. This tendency accounts for the sometimes mystifying comments we read about characters, such as Creon must have kept his political ambitions hidden from Oedipus in O.T. because his later career finds him driven by the desire for power. A. at times treats these characters as if they are psychologically realistic beings with fully formed emotional lives and then seems surprised when they fail to act accordingly. For instance, he is critical of Oedipus for not expressing regret ‘for having broken the heart of his father’ (p. 31) or for not feeling guilty for killing Laius or wanting Polybus dead. Stranger still is his notion that Oedipus tries to kill Jocasta. A. argues that Oedipus rushes into the palace to kill Jocasta, and it is only when she hears Oedipus raging outside that she kills herself, a reading for which I could find no textual support. Finally, the editing of the book does not inspire confidence. Greek words appear throughout with no accents or breathing marks (or incorrect breathings), and sometimes with odd spaces in the middle of words. It is disappointing that a press of Cambridge's calibre would not be more careful in this regard.

To be fair, A. is a political philosopher examining the plays for their political thought and not as tragedies performed in the theatre in fifth-century Athens. So perhaps we should not be too surprised at his willingness to sever them from their historical and social context. The idea of having these plays engage with the thought of Plato, Aristotle and Nietzsche is a valuable one, even if it produces at times some rather odd interpretations of Sophocles' plays.