As far as titles go, Philosophy, Poetry, and Power in Aristophanes's Birds is somewhat vague and raises questions about the exact content of the book. Unfortunately, the title is a reflection of the absence of a main thesis and the lack of precise focus. H. notes (p. xxvii) that what he aspires to offer is a close reading of the play and, for that reason, the play is treated in a linear fashion, following the unfolding of the plot, with commentary on every scene. This close, holistic reading may well allow for the exposition of several interesting thoughts and observations on various aspects of the play, but these are not coherently organised around a main thesis, making it hard to grasp the scope of the analysis. In the introduction it is argued that father-beating and the exploitation of the tensions in the nomos/physis debate are the two broad sophistic methodologies upon which Aristophanes structures the play, and that the Birds as a whole offers a continuation and deepening of Aristophanes’ critique of the sophists. However, the discussion often strays from the main point, as the analysis expands to cover every single scene of the play, which results in a lack of focus and cohesiveness. The book gives the impression of a collection of various thoughts loosely centred around Aristophanes’ attitude towards the sophistic trains of thought in Athenian culture, with the Clouds as one of the main intertexts. While the linear narrative offers the advantage of a clear, easy-to-follow structure, scholarly analysis is often reduced to long, unnecessary plot description and re-narration of the action. In what follows I shall attempt to single out some strands of thought that are worth reflecting and commenting upon.

Chapter 1 draws a distinction between Peisetairos and Euelpides, which helps elucidate the unfolding of the plot. While Euelpides represents the golden-type utopia, Peisetairos supports the inverted world type of utopia – and it is his position that will prevail. Less clear is the statement that Peisetairos’ erotic ambitions are directed not at women but at power. Here, a more substantiated analysis of how political power can be expressed and conveyed through a violent and aggressive erotic discourse would have been helpful. Engagement with the work of V. Wohl (Love among the Ruins: the Erotics of Democracy in Classical Athens [2002]) would also have been desirable.

The theme is picked up in Chapters 3 and 4, where it is argued that the Birds’ nature is unerotic. This is an intriguing suggestion, but, first, there is an inherent difficulty in considering the Birds, who pose as the children of Eros, as not erotic, and second, it is not explained how this view may shape the Birds’ position and role in the new city (especially given the fact that Peisetairos reserves the role of the aggressive lover for himself). At any rate, the Birds seem preoccupied with the act of sex in many ways. For instance, they boast of their capacity to facilitate pederastic relationships (705–7), and they advertise their winged state as a facilitator of adultery (793–6). How do these statements fit within their non-erotic nature? Similarly, the description of Tereus as an ‘impossible animal, an erotic bird’ (p. 26) is not expanded upon. How can it be explained that Tereus does not carry any of his literary baggage with him in the comic environment? Could his literary background, which is extensively discussed in the book but not commented upon, be considered as a possible inspiration for Peisetairos?

In Chapter 6, the analogy between Peisetairos’ undertaking and the Gigantomachy is attractive, even though not wholly original. Aristophanes’ play with the mythic trials of Zeus is picked up in Chapter 9, where, it is argued, Peisetairos achieves some legal ‘son-swallowing’ in a pre-emptive act of eating the revolutionary birds. There is definitely comic deflation and mythical travesty, but the view that the violent act ‘is not done under his [Peisetairos’] tyrannical authority, but under a law to which all (barring Peisetairus, of course) are subject and which is enacted for the sake of democracy’ (p. 150) is somewhat problematic. If Peisetairos is a tyrant, how can we talk of a democracy? Furthermore, this suppresses the dark/dystopian elements of the play, which are acknowledged (p. 166), but too quickly dismissed.

The concluding chapter is slightly puzzling. It is argued that, on the one hand, Peisetairos is victorious because he establishes a just cosmos, but, on the other hand, that the new cosmos is not ‘beautiful’ (p. 167). This is a paradox, which is stated, but not explained. How is the audience supposed to react to a just but ‘repugnant’ (in what way, exactly?) regime? And how is this conclusion reconciled with the initial thesis of the book that Aristophanes undertakes the defence of traditional virtues and education through the deconstruction of the sophists? The conclusion raises more questions than it answers and is hardly satisfying.

In terms of presentation, there were a few Greek words that were wrongly accented (e.g. τίμη instead of τιμή twice [p. 25], συμφόρον instead of σύμφορον [p. 137]), while the index could have been more exhaustive.

Overall, the book may be useful to students of Aristophanes who wish to gain a better understanding of the various themes of the play and get a sense of the relevant scholarship and bibliography. It is less successful as a solid academic study with a tight argument.