F. and V.W.'s latest collaboration brings a much needed new perspective on aristocracy in the ancient world. Divided into twelve articles, this volume seeks to ‘[redefine] Greek and Roman elites’. The editors, in a robust introduction, make their arguments clear: (i) their definitions of aristocracy are largely rooted in the medieval and post-medieval models of European aristocracies, mainly that aristocracy is hereditary and a birth right; (ii) this form of aristocracy should not be applied to the ancient world, which can be implied from the title's use of the word aristocracy in single quotation marks; (iii) even though the volume's title includes the all-encompassing term ‘in antiquity’, the editors stress that the Archaic and Classical Greek worlds are the main focus of the volume; and (iv) today's scholars are too quick to label ancient societies as aristocratic.

The introductory chapter does not subscribe to the idea that scholars should label elite groups ‘aristocracies’ since these groups themselves did not claim exclusive descent. Indeed, the editors make a thoroughly convincing case against the theory of ‘Greek aristocracies’ by analysing specific Greek terms (pp. 5–6) and modern concepts such as ‘aristocratic societies’ (a phrase that stems from the assumptions made by the original term ‘aristocracy’) and ‘aristocratic values’, of which there are ‘very few indications in archaic and classical Greece’ (p. 32). Furthermore, the editors do not attempt to mask the real meaning of their arguments. For example, they argue that class divides society into three groups, which they go on to list clearly (p. 37). However, they quickly ‘simplify and modernise’ these definitions and acknowledge that they include slavery.

Subsequent chapters identify it as misleading how historians are quick to throw in ‘aristocracy’ as the answer to changes in social hierarchies. And even though it would be ideal to talk about how they all carry this torch effectively, due to word limit it is impossible to comment on all of them. A. Duplouy's chapter parts from the premise that in Greece status has to be defined by performance. Greek ‘aristocracy’ is too unstable because status depended on performance and not on hereditary right. Therefore, in a performance there was much social mobility, which according to Duplouy was the norm in Archaic and Classical Greece (p. 78). Duplouy does a good job by suggesting that inheritance of land and status, for example, did not ‘safeguard against social decline’ (p. 61). He gives an excellent example, though non-specific, about how some wealthy sons of good standing never gained authority or position in the city, whereas some homines novi, as he calls them, did in fact achieve position (p. 61). In Duplouy's chapter, two categories go head to head: genealogical strategies, where social mobility trumps hierarchy, and dynastic behaviours, where preservation of the same lineage is key, and it is the former that ultimately is victorious.

Moving on to Rome, L.E. Tacoma's chapter on Roman elites under the Principate continues the examination of the concept of mobility. Tacoma takes a bottom-up approach to Roman elites, focusing more on elites at the local rather than senatorial level. He convincingly argues that at face value Roman elites of the Principate do fit the mould of ancient aristocrats. But when we look closely, they were not ‘fenced-off’. Instability again is used as a counter-argument. Tacoma explains that there is a myriad of evidence of movement in and out of elites under the Principate (p. 126). Roman culture was exclusivist and open, and thus, in other words, adaptable (p. 141). But in the end, alluding to the introductory chapter, he concludes that still they were not aristocracies (p. 142).

Part 2 returns to ancient Greece; it deals with social status and heredity at Athens. S. Lambert's chapter focuses on something different, mainly that aristocracy equals elite of birth. Lambert does not conform to the theory that the social dynamic of Classical Athens can be divided into two categories, a ‘mass’ and an ‘elite’. This view, he notes, is too simplistic, whereas reality was much more complex. That is why the chapter's main subject is the genê and its socio-political status as projected in its mythology. Lambert provides useful and detailed ‘factual information’ about the genê (p. 170). He then goes on to explore the origin of genos mythology (p. 172) and its implications for the social status of the genê within the polis community (p. 177), using specific examples of genos like the Eteoboutadai (royal priesthood), the Kalliases, the Kerykes and the Gephyraioi. Ultimately, Lambert takes the reader in a new direction by offering evidence that can be designated as ‘aristocratic’, though he concedes that it is only in a later time period. Lambert's chapter ends with a useful table that painstakingly breaks down the myth and reality of genos and aristocracy.

Part 3 deals more broadly with competition in the Aegean, and it includes F.’s excellent chapter on aristocratic values and practices in ancient Greece. F. begins by stating that his chapter also reconsiders the practice among historians to use the term ‘aristocracy’ ‘freely and uncritically’ (p. 227). He uses Aegina as a case study, more specifically the social attitudes and relations between athletes and their families and coaches in athletic events. F. moves on to the early history of Aegina to try and find evidence of ‘aristocracy’. He discusses Aeginetan subgroups and patronymic groups found in Pindar, but does not find any concrete evidence of what these groups were, let alone if they were aristocratic, even if most scholars quickly assume that they were (p. 234). For F., it is better to avoid the term altogether and instead describe them as mobile elites who had both land wealth and ‘overseas exchanges’. F. here seems to be appealing to both the American and the European views of aristocracy (p. 237). F. concludes that Aeginetan society was filled with mobile elites. People like trainers ‘moved along a spectrum’, they were ex-athletes, friends of equal status, and had both romantic and professional relationships with the athletes (p. 247). Therefore, the polarity between aristocratic birth and natural talent, and the fact that coaches were paid for their work, was not an important issue here.

Part 4 takes the reader overseas. T. Figueira's chapter on elites and colonisation in Archaic Greece offers a quasi middle ground on the ‘aristocracy’ debate. While he argues that aristocracy in Archaic Greece seems anachronistic (p. 313), he does admit that for lack of a better term, ‘aristocracy’ is the closest term we can use to describe social elites of this period. His chapter goes on to explore how colonisation served as a means to gaining elite status. Ultimately, instead of focusing solely on aristocracy, Figueira convincingly argues that it is better to focus on how unique archaic elites were and on their ‘mastery of resources, of techniques for economic exploitation, of physical force, and of systems of signification’ (p. 336).

This volume clearly and cohesively demonstrates that ancient societies were too unstable for us to be able to say that stable elites existed (p. 41). There is simply insufficient evidence to support labelling Greek and Roman societies as ‘aristocracies’. However, if it is utterly necessary for scholars and historians to find some semblance of aristocracy in the ancient world, then we might say that aristocracy in antiquity resembles more the American model of aristocracy rather than the European model. In any case, this is a surprisingly obscure topic that needs more exploration and more interpretation of the evidence. The structure of ancient societies is far too complex and deserves more careful study. This volume should serve as a catalyst for further studies on ancient aristocracies.