In this volume W. presents a philosophical discussion of justice via an analysis of the Ajax myth. W. begins by skilfully retelling the myth. He remains fairly faithful to Sophocles' version but places his own spin on the tale when necessary. Briefly, Achilles has died, and both Odysseus and Ajax claim his armour as a prize for being the finest soldier in the army. King Agamemnon then assembles a jury and holds a contest of speeches in which each soldier will tell why he deserves the armour. Odysseus thrills the jury with a clever speech and wins. Ajax is enraged and attacks the king. Destroyed by his shame, Ajax falls on his own sword. W. reveals an Ajax who is loyal to the army and will quit if the honour of his community is denied him, while his Odysseus is wise and most deserving of the prize. The first quarter of the book contains W.'s insightful retelling, while the remainder contains an analysis and discussion of justice in the light of the Ajax myth. The choice between giving Ajax his honour and Odysseus his prize is the titular dilemma that must be resolved.

Throughout W. advances a Platonic conception of justice. In the Republic Plato views justice as the harmonisation of the discordant elements in an individual soul or community. W. follows Plato in this analysis. ‘Justice’, W. writes, ‘is what ought to keep a community together through the stress of disputes’ (p. xi). A just resolution to the Ajax dilemma is one that holds the army together and properly honours Ajax. W. argues that this resolution can only be arrived at by a leader who is capable of exercising wisdom. The leader must survey the moral landscape and pursue a solution that is best for the community (p. 178). The leader must not get bogged down in abstract principles, but must become immersed in the particular details of the case. This will require practising compassion, listening to others and considering the individual needs of each community member (pp. 153–8). This kind of leadership, W. argues, is conspicuously absent in King Agamemnon. It is only through the wisdom of Odysseus that the Achaean army survives the conflict over the armour (p. 200).

Important to W.'s approach is his emphasis on the role of honour, which conveys the respect of the community toward an individual for his unique achievements (p. 172). W. argues that the distribution of honour is an integral part of justice. He writes, ‘Honor and respect are essential parts of what is due in a community’ (p. 173). If a leader aims merely for inclusivity or only to distribute rewards fairly, those who are exceptionally strong performers, perhaps in a way not adequately captured by the system of distribution, will feel dishonoured. In an example that W. frequently returns to, an exceptional teacher at an academic institution that values research must be honoured in some way if insult and disrespect are to be avoided (p. 173). So too, an industrious and loyal soldier like Ajax in a system that values the victories that come through Odysseus' cunning stratagems will feel disrespected if he is not honoured. When Ajax's contributions to the army are weighed less heavily than Odysseus' tricks and cunning, Ajax feels insulted. Though he will not be denied his fair share of the booty at the end of the war, he has been denied the honour that is due to him.

A wise leader, W. argues, must reconcile two competing needs if the demands of justice are to be met. First, she must fairly dole out the rewards, in this case the valuable armour of Achilles. Second, she must give exceptional soldiers their due by bestowing honours upon them. Perhaps in the case of Ajax the dispute cannot be perfectly resolved. W.'s description of the problem as a dilemma suggests as much. However, W. argues in his concluding chapter that a wise leader in the vein of Odysseus might have cast the problem in such a way that justice could prevail (p. 200). With a leader like Agamemnon at the helm the armour debacle was bound to become a dilemma, but a better leader would have had the trust of the Achaean army and the wisdom needed to resolve the dispute.

W. is primarily focussed on developing an account of justice based on the Ajax myth. However, W.'s argument can be read as a criticism of the theory of justice as fairness developed by J. Rawls, and the book will find an audience among those interested in this topic. Rawls argued that the primary questions of justice are resolved when goods are fairly distributed, and he provides a principled apparatus that will arrive at such a distribution. In contrast, W. argues that when it comes to questions of justice, conceiving of those questions in terms of fairness is a trap. Fairness, W. claims, ‘is the double of justice; that is fairness looks like justice but isn't the same’ (p. 121). Justice involves exercising wisdom in order to maintain the community. Fairness cannot be justice because simple applications of principles, which intend to make things fair, often lead to hostilities and resentments. Thus, Agamemnon's principled choice to resolve the dilemma by means of a fair contest fails to hold the community together. While there is a time and a place for fairness, which W. calls the ‘fairness zone’, fairness should not be confused with justice. A wise leader will utilise fairness as one tool when attempting to achieve a just decision (pp. 121–5).

Those seeking a principle-based approach to justice, in the fashion of Rawls' justice as fairness, will be disappointed with this book. W. does not believe that such principles can be given. He writes in his preface that, ‘justice is not a set of rules … it is a matter of character and leadership’ (p. xii). Hence his unique approach to the topic. A traditional philosophical treatise, which might boil justice down to a series of abstractions and caveats, will not do. W.'s reliance on the Ajax myth is meant to illustrate the account of justice he advocates.

This is a wonderful book whose audience will not be limited to scholars of classical history or professional philosophers. Indeed, the main appeal of the book is W.'s ability to bring the Ajax dilemma to bear on academic life as well as other leadership roles including those in business and the military. This book should find a wide audience among those interested in applying the unique approach to justice that characterised much of Greek philosophy to contemporary life. For, as W. writes, his purpose is ‘to breathe new life into the ancient approach’ (p. 167).