W.’s biography of Demosthenes is the first written in English for about a century (with the exception of R. Sealey, Demosthenes and His Time [1993]). His approach is essentially historical: other studies (such as D.M. MacDowell, Demosthenes the Orator [2009]) focus on the treatment of rhetorical aspects in the Demosthenic corpus. The book sticks to a linear chronological structure, following the main stages of the orator's political career. The life, work and above all the political activity of Demosthenes are presented in a very accessible way. Numerous quotations of Demosthenes (translated into English) are inserted into the text. Fifty pictures and maps illustrate characters and places and two appendices summarise the ancient coinage system and the months of the Attic year. The narrative is aimed at non-specialist readers, as attested by several sections dedicated to general aspects of Athenian politics, Macedonian history and Greek sexual habits.
The title, Demosthenes of Athens and the Fall of Classical Greece, is somewhat old-fashioned because the destruction of the independent poleis following the battle of Chaeronea is essentially a historiographical topos of the nineteenth century, influenced by a post eventum point of view of some ancient writers (mainly Justin, author of an Epitome of Trogus’ Philippic History). Moreover, the title is not really representative of the central question developed by W. in his preamble: were the actions of Demosthenes motivated by his ‘patriotic’ spirit or by his political and personal ambition? This may sound like a very modern question (thinking about the contemporary political situation), but it is actually an old issue, already present in a judgement by Theopompus (F. Jacoby, FGrHist 115 F 326) and in the trial of the Harpalus affair in which Demosthenes was accused of bribery. Unfortunately, W. does not use any specific arguments to ascertain whether the political action of Demosthenes was guided by a personal career plan or by a real intention to defend the freedom and interests of Athens. He interprets the thematic change in the orations of the late 350s as a research of the best way to become a first class politician. However, this reading has two problems. First, since not all Demosthenes’ speeches of this period have been preserved, it is difficult to draw any conclusions on the basis of an incomplete corpus. Second, there is another (easier?) interpretation of the facts: Demosthenes’ actions were guided by the principle of realpolitik. It is possible that the best way to preserve Athens's power was to adapt the political line to the circumstance of the day. The best example is the oration On the Peace (too briefly mentioned by W.), in which Demosthenes pleads for the status quo.
The fragility of the central demonstration of this biography is a mirror of W.’s historical methodology. The book is widely based on modern studies and not on a first-hand critical approach of the sources. All ancient authors are quoted at the same level of authority, and without a proper discussion (even in footnotes). As a result, examples of over-interpretation or inaccuracies can easily be found. For example, W. argues that the decree IG II2 130 attests the deployment of Athenian troops at the city of Methone (p. 68). Clearly this is not what the inscription says and Demosthenes himself (Phil. 1.35) testifies that the Athenian troops arrived too late to save Methone (as W. writes a few lines later). On p. 96, W. writes ‘The Theban general Pammenes at the head of an amphictyonic army defeated him [Philomelus] at Neon’. This is another unverified affirmation, because no source says that Pammenes was the Theban commander at Neon, and the army is presented as Boeotian and not as Amphictyonic (see Diodorus 16.31.3–4 and Pausanias 10.2.4). On p. 153, W. writes that the city of Abai was in Boeotia, when it was a Phocian town (Pausanias 10.35.1–4; see also J. Oulhen, Phokis, in M.H. Hansen and T.H. Nielsen [edd.], An Inventory of Archaic and Classical Poleis [2004], p. 408). On p. 180, W. argues that the Athenians lost to Philip their right of promanteia as a consequence of the amphictyonic peace. But only Demosthenes mentions this, in a problematic passage of the Third Philippic (Phil. 3.32), according to which the Athenians were not the only people to lose this advantage. This question is very controversial and should not be presented as a well-established fact.
These are only some examples but the presentation of historical hypotheses as well-demonstrated realities often occurs. This is undoubtedly intended to make the reading easier but is very problematic for the scholarly reader.
The same problem appears for the chronology of the Third and Fourth Sacred Wars which is highly speculative, mainly based on the work of N.G.L. Hammond, while other chronological schemes could widely modify the interpretation of the facts.
The bibliography contains few non-English language books. For example, the treatment of Delphic questions (discussed very briefly) ignores the recent works of French scholarship (F. Lefèvre, L'Amphictionie pyléo-delphique: histoire et institutions [1998]; P. Sánchez, L'Amphictionie des Pyles et de Delphes. Recherches sur son rôle historique des origines au II e siècle de notre ère [2001]) which analyse many of Demosthenes’ orations (especially Sánchez's book). There is, however, a comprehensive listing of all recent studies in English.
The volume has too many weaknesses in its historical analysis to become the new work of reference on Demosthenes. But it remains, especially for the non-specialist reader, an accessible introduction to the life and political action of the great Athenian orator.
