This slender but dense book offers the first monographic study of Callias III of the Ceryces (ca. 455–365 BC), presented as an important figure in Athens’ transition, from aggressive imperialism to a new peace-seeking attitude, over the ‘secolo breve’ (‘short century’, 13; why not a new Pentekontaetia?) of 421–371.

The introduction outlines the ancient stereotypes (horse fever, poor military record, fondness for sex and luxury) which resulted in the traditional view of Callias as a frivolous, self-indulging bon viveur; however, collecting all relevant sources (26–40), Marginesu also acknowledges the weight of Callias’ prestigious public offices (dadouchos, torch-bearer priest at the Eleusinian Mysteries, ambassador and proxenos for Sparta) and acquaintances among great philosophers. Epigraphic evidence is as critical as problematic, and Ifind it hard to agree with Marginesu’s tendency to favour the low dating of 422/1 for IG I³ 52 A(which both OR 144 and AIO now assign to 434/3). Regardless of the date, the name Callias is so common that its simple epigraphic occurrence is hardly useful in reconstructing the career of a specific individual; yet Marginesu (for example, 35–36, 49, 75–77), although extremely cautiously, attributes this and other important decrees proposed by some Callias, such as IG I³ 36 and 53–54, to Callias III.

Chapter 1 outlines strongly recurring features within Callias’ genos, such as the onomastic tradition and the ties with Eleusis. Family wealth (43–53) is treated chronologically through the various exponents, but perhaps greater emphasis on distinguishing two contrasting traditions, one insisting on the questionable, treacherous origins of the fortune (for example, [Them.] Ep. 9.5–6 Cortassa; Arist. Ath. Pol. 6.2–4 and Plut. Sol. 15.7–9), the other on its rather virtuous sources and/or destination (for example, Hdt. 6.121; [Andoc.] 4.15), would have best illustrated how the family tended to polarize attention. Discussion (61 n.134) of the Aristotelian treatment of τὸ νεμεσᾶν (‘righteous indignation’, Rh. 2, 1386b8–1387b21) perhaps deserved more space, as wealth, birth, marriages, beauty, etc. are all frequent topics in sources on Callias.

Chapter 2 offers a biographical profile. The limits of the documentation occasionally result in summaries of major events in which Callias may, or may not, have played a role. Marginesu uses Callias’ acquaintance with the sophists to question the assumption of his indifference to politics. Callias’ relationship with both a woman and her mother (86–88), likely a parody of his priesthood of Demetra and Kore (Andoc. 1.124), might have led to a wider exploration: Andocides calls the mother a γραῦς (‘old woman’), perhaps hinting at a comic/slandering tradition which is found also for Callias II’s wife Elpinice (Plut. Per. 10.5, Cim. 14.5: Stesimbrotus? Possibly cf. the γραίδιον in Ath. 12.537c, discussed separately by Marginesu at 124).

Chapter 3 digs deeper into the family reputation. Many points are accurately discussed, but most do not seem particularly distinctive: sexual intemperance, wealth and luxury were all aristocratic clichés, as were envy, derision and slanders of them; the rich section on the body and demeanour (137–44) probably presents Callias’ most peculiar traits.

Marginesu makes a good case for a peace-seeking attitude within the élite in 421–371, but one wonders if exactly the practical failure of (and opposition to) such an ideology might explain the need to frequently negotiate or renew treaties. The gaps in the documentation leave some wider problems unsolved, such as the reasons behind the family priesthood, or Callias’ own conduct during the government of the Thirty vis-à-vis his ties with important personalities of the time and with Sparta. Given the recurrence of stereotypes in sources on Callias, the analysis could have considered further cross-contaminations between some of his signature traits: was the tradition on Callias’ perversions affected by his horse fever (53–57), given the lustful fame of horses (Arist. Hist. an. 6, 575b30–1)? What about the links between horse breeding and oligarchic sympathies (Pol. 4, 1289b35–8 and 6, 1321a8–11), the onomastic traditions of other important families (Hippias, Hipparchus?) and the hippo puns for over-the-top tastes and manners (Ar. Nub. 1070, Ran. 821 and 929)?

The volume reads smoothly, despite the strange paucity of internal cross-references; sometimes, a passage is quoted and (re)discussed in several places, such as bits from Ath. 12.537a–c (at 47, 124, 133, 145), which, all being parts of Heraclid. Pont. fr. 58 W., should perhaps be considered together; Ibelieve the correct passage referred to at 103 n.179 is D.S. 14.79.6. Some anachronistic modern terminology, for example, ‘conservatore’ vs ‘democratico’ (97, ‘conservative’ vs ‘democratic’) or ‘partiti’ (115–19, ‘parties’, in inverted commas) does not suit Marginesu’s otherwise admirable prudence in treating his difficult subject matter.

Marginesu’s Callias emerges as a complex, prominent character, able to generate widely diverging opinions among the sources, but the frustrating unreliability of crediting him with important epigraphic documents weighs heavily on any attempt to reconstruct his career. Nevertheless, this study is successful in rehabilitating an apparently ‘minor’ character (13) in the wider contexts of his ancestors, peers and period.