W.'s book, which represents a revision of his D.Phil. thesis, focuses on ‘how fourth-century Athenian politicians’, particularly Demosthenes and Aeschines, ‘made use of versions of the past … in their public speeches’ and explores the ways in which these versions were used by these orators to shape ‘their own political identity and authority in public’ (p. 4). After a short introduction setting out the themes and structure of the book, these aspects are analysed in six chapters. Chapter 1 is, again, introductory, and, by discussing ‘the characteristics and patterns’ (p. 6) discernible in the orators’ approach(es) to the past, it builds the background against which readers will be able to interpret the case studies presented in Chapters 2–6. These case studies are all drawn from the corpora of Demosthenes and Aeschines because, as detailed in the first chapter, although these two ‘front-line politicians’ were, to an extent, ‘simply representatives of a much more general phenomenon’ (p. 6), their well-documented political rivalry serves as a prime example of how different interpretations of the past could be – and indeed were – used both to bolster self-representation and to fuel political competition.

The first speeches to be analysed in Chapter 2 (Dem. 20; 22–4) belong to Demosthenes’ early forensic output: they are all prosecution speeches and, with the exception of Against Leptines (Dem. 20), which represents the main focus of the chapter, were written for delivery by third parties. Nevertheless, as W. demonstrates, they all operate with a consistent and unified view of the Athenian ēthos, and they display similar techniques and strategies when it comes to the ‘deployment of the Athenian past as a continuum of excellence’ (p. 84). The representation of Athenian history as a continuum of excellence that percolates into the present as a guide to decision-making – or has at least the potential to do so, if the Athenians pay heed to Demosthenes’ advice – acts as a fil rouge also in Demosthenes’ Assembly speeches, which are the subject of Chapter 3.

Within this symbouleutic context, ‘where a host of politicians were competing for public attention’ (p. 135), W. convincingly depicts a Demosthenes who seeks to establish his personal authority by presenting himself as the best interpreter of the past, the only one who is able to use it correctly in recommending the right course of action for the present, carefully balancing nostalgic commemorations of bygone days of glory with the optimistic notion that, thanks to his guidance, the future can be just as bright.

But Demosthenes’ strategies in his quest for primacy in the Athenian Assembly were not equally and indiscriminately focused on all the other public speakers: on more than one occasion, the contest was specifically between him and his long-standing political enemy, Aeschines. The stage for this rivalry is set by Chapter 4, in which W. examines two politically charged trials of the mid-340s that saw the involvement of the two orators – Demosthenes’ graphē hybreōs against Meidias (Dem. 21) and Aeschines’ dokimasia rhētorōn against Timarchus (Aeschin. 1) –, framing them as the ‘strategic context’ (p. 179) for the later Embassy trial (343 bce) and more broadly for their authors’ different approaches to the past when contending with speakers with whom they had ‘a history of enmity’ (p. 181).

We get to the heart of the dispute in the last two chapters: Chapter 5, where the Embassy trial (Dem. 19 and Aeschin. 2) is discussed, and Chapter 6, which focuses on the showdown: the Crown trial of 330 bce (Dem. 18 and Aeschin. 3). In both these courtroom clashes, the past features prominently – both the city's and the two orators’ past, and especially the ways in which different versions of these pasts connect and intersect – and represents the two politicians’ main choice of battleground. The in-depth analysis of their competing strategies in their handling of the past – and of their respective strengths and shortcomings – is followed by a crisp and terse conclusion, where W. completes the story by recounting Demosthenes’ fate – and the endurance of his legacy – after his (apparently landslide) victory in the Crown trial, and rounds up and summarises the main points of this monograph.

The book is well researched and extremely learned, as shown not only by the comprehensiveness of the analysis of Aeschinean and Demosthenic speeches and their broader context(s), but also by the rich bibliography and the impressive number of passages examined, both in the main body of the work and in the accurate and detailed footnotes. The prose is elegant and refined (sometimes to a fault), with very few typos. The underlying thesis of the book – that the past was a paramount aspect of Athenian orators’ construction of their political personae and that rival conceptions of the city's past often reflected more profoundly different views on future policy – is solid and meticulously argued. While the main issue is always sharply in focus, W. does not shy away from addressing important (and difficult, if somewhat collateral) questions – such as the extent to which the speeches we possess have been revised by their authors, or the issue of originality vs derivativeness of certain historical arguments we find in the orators –, always offering a measured, balanced and carefully nuanced perspective. The effectiveness of the book is, however, partially reduced by a general lack of concision, often leading to a certain repetitiveness, that might regrettably obscure some of W.'s acute and thoughtful remarks, and potentially prevent less persistent readers from getting the gist of the argument. Nevertheless, I have no doubt that, thanks to its thoroughness and precision, this work will become an essential point of reference for any scholar working on the past in the Attic orators.