Madsen's study addresses the nature of Roman rule and responses to it in a single province, Pontus and Bithynia, from the Mithridatic Wars of the early first century b.c. until a.d. 212. In doing so, M. challenges the idea that Greek-speaking élites remained culturally aloof from the Romans whatever their degree of participation in the Roman army or bureaucracy, and thus that their Greek identity, in terms of what they called themselves and their cultural practices, was unchanged by Roman rule. The last decade has seen increasing interest in defining the concept of ‘identity’ and using this concept as a tool to better understand attitudes and experiences. M. applies recent scholarship that establishes the changing, multifaceted and subjective nature of ‘identity’ to the élites of Pontus and Bithynia. This understanding of identity, combined with examination of a specific province, results in a more nuanced picture of the response of Greeks under the Romans than is obtained in studies that consider these issues in the eastern provinces generally. Much of M.'s study is focused explicitly on the élite, due to the limitations of the sources and the fact that they were the group in most direct contact with the Romans. M. makes use of epigraphy and literary resources in his study, as well as archaeology to a more limited degree.

After orientating the reader in the history of Pontus and Bithynia in the opening chapter, M. considers interaction between Rome and the peoples of Pontus and Bithynia from multiple perspectives. He begins with consideration of the degree to which Rome was an active cultural as well as political presence in the province. An important resource that provides the Roman perspective are the letters of Pliny the Younger. M. is not the first to observe that the letters of Pliny reveal micromanagement of the provinces by Trajan, but he uses this point to establish the context of the local response of the élite, who would have been reminded, through Rome's willingness to intervene in finance, public building, emperor worship and other affairs, of its power and their own subordination. M. then turns to consider those élites of the province who pursued a career in the Roman army and administration. M. responds to the notion that imperial careers were a step to social advancement within their local communities with close inspection of individual career paths. He argues that joining the army or bureaucracy was motivated by an individual's desire to establish membership in the ruling élite, not to advance himself within or on behalf of his community.

Nevertheless, the majority of local élites did not leave their communities, and M. considers them next. While they remained at home, M. finds that this group adopted aspects of Roman culture in contexts that could not have been for the benefit of the Roman authorities. The use of Roman nomenclature, support of the imperial cult and inscriptions that show support for the emperor suggest that affiliation and familiarity with Rome were regarded favourably on the local level; this is in contrast to the common view that Greek-speakers of the eastern provinces refrained from adopting aspects of Roman culture. M. concludes by examining attitudes to Roman rule as gleaned from the writings of Dio Chrysostom, Arrian and Cassius Dio. While some authors did not always write favourably of Roman institutions or emperors, M. provides the essential caution that such criticisms need to be considered in context, as finding fault with Rome was not limited to provincials and not necessarily an indication of general anti-Roman sentiment.

As the concept of ‘Romanization’ as a uniform process has fallen out of favour in recent years, M.'s study illustrates how a better understanding of the effect of Rome on provincials can be obtained. Of particular value is M.'s conclusion that attitudes to Rome can best be described as a spectrum, with attitudes varying tremendously according to individual experiences, thereby avoiding the over-generalizations that result from seeing the Greek-speaking élite in monolithic terms. M. shows that questions of whether Greek-speakers in the East regarded themselves as Greek or Roman or were favourably or unfavourably disposed towards Rome are too simple. It was possible to be Greek and still feel a connection to the Roman community.