As the title suggests, the theme of civic stability ties together most of the essays in this volume, dedicated to the memory of Alexander Fuks. In the preface, H. makes a controversial claim: ‘… unusual stability, as judged by the standard of ancient states’ characterised the Athenian democracy between 508 and 322 b.c. (p. 9). Assuming, perhaps, that the reader is familiar with his earlier work, H. fails to elaborate on what made Athens so unusual, beyond that it was not ‘much given to lawlessness and feuding’. Even if we should accept his view (despite the fact that Athens in these years lost a series of major wars, gained and lost its empire twice over and was governed by no fewer than five constitutions according to the Athenaion Politeia), the same could be said of many other Greek states, to say nothing of Egypt, Achaemenid and Sassanid Persia, Rome, Han China and India under the Guptas, all of which were arguably (if not demonstrably) more stable.

Be that as it may, the establishment of the Cleisthenic democracy did lend Athens a degree of political stability that it had not historically enjoyed. Most of the contributions elucidate a number of less obvious practices and institutions that contributed to its unity. P.J. Rhodes's ‘Appeals to the Past in Classical Athens’ serves as a fitting place to begin a collection dedicated to Fuks, whose first book examined the ‘ancestral constitution’ in the political discourse of late fifth-century Athens. Rhodes builds upon the earlier treatment of Fuks, who noted that, in the turbulent years between 411 and 403 b.c., first oligarchs and then democrats portrayed themselves as traditionalists. Among other things, Rhodes suggests that it was the democrats' claim in 403 that they were restoring the laws of Solon and Draco that helped bring about the reconciliation of that year: ‘the traditional constitution was something which both staunch democrats and men who had dallied with the oligarchy could declare their allegiance to’ (p. 29). In a similar vein, S. Epstein, ‘Direct Democracy and Minority Rule’, contends that an ideology of homonoia led orators to elide differences between various constituencies of the democracy. Pointing to the Arginousae trial and the restoration of 403, he concludes: ‘The assumption of basic unity of interests and styles of behavior of all or almost all citizens … was grounded in reality to a considerable extent’ (p. 97). For such a bold statement, Epstein produces remarkably little evidence; one could easily point to several counter-examples, not the least of which is the reported divide between city and country over Pericles' strategy on the eve of the war (Thuc. 2.16; cf. Old Olig. 2.14, Aristoph. Ach.).

Two contributions examine the adaptation of traditionally aristocratic institutions and practices. R. Zelnick-Abramovitz, ‘The Guardian of the Land’, surveys the history of the Areopagus and notes the variety of political persuasions among its members. Despite its undemocratic associations, Zelnick–Abramovitz argues persuasively that the Areopagus Council became a symbol of stability because of its prestige, longevity and record of assisting the democracy in times of crisis. P. Low, ‘Athenian Foreign Policy and the Quest for Stability’, describes the challenge of adapting the traditionally aristocratic practices of xenia and eunoia to the conduct of foreign affairs under the democracy. Though the Athenians employed a combination of rewards and punishments to regulate the behaviour of their generals overseas, Low attributes their mixed success in the fourth century to a lack of rewards and – more significantly – the incompatibility of aristocratic xenia with democratic notions of corruption: ‘An Athenian overseas was therefore in the uncomfortable situation of having a strong incentive to cultivate foreign eunoia … while simultaneously knowing that the more successful he was … the more likely he would be to arouse the profound suspicion of the Athenian demos’ (p. 85).

D. Schaps and A. Yakobson use Rome as a counterpoint in their analyses. In a well-written essay, ‘The Athenians and their Gods in a Time of Crisis’, Schaps compares Roman religion with that of Athens under the democracy and concludes that the latter exhibited ‘religious scruple combined with practicality’ (p. 135). What his handling of Rome lacks in sophistication (e.g. his claim that it was ‘riddled with superstition’, p. 137), he makes up for in his treatment of Athens. He notes that, while the Athenians were willing to adapt religious conventions to suit their own ends, their decision in 410/09 b.c. to resume construction of the Erechtheum, despite a lack of funds, evinces a genuine concern with obtaining divine favour. In ‘Political Stability and Public Order – Athens vs. Rome’, Yakobson looks at the role of the Scythian archers at Athens and considers why Rome had no comparable force. He offers three possible reasons. First, the Roman nobility would have been apprehensive of any magistrate who held office for a year and had a security force at his disposal (as opposed to an Athenian epistatês, who held office for a day). Second, if a consul commanded a force whose primary responsibility was to maintain order at the assemblies, any intervention could be seen as infringing on the rights of the People. Third, any force would have been ‘authorized to “drag”, if need be, not just any citizen, but respectable citizens, including knights, senators, and nobles’ (p. 151). Yakobson highlights a fundamental difference between Athenian and Roman society – the Athenian ideology of equality (isonomia, isegoria) versus a Roman culture that emphasised the importance of rank and status (dignitas).

The democratic principles of freedom and equality did not extend to women, foreigners and slaves. In a thought-provoking essay, ‘Integrating Athens, 463–431 bc’, however, R. Wallace argues that ‘with important exceptions Attic society became more inclusive and open’ after the second generation of the democracy (p. 32). Wallace suggests that the Athenians of the later fifth century were more humane than their forbearers: they appear less fond of war and demonstrate ‘a growing sense of public sympathy or even respect for those outside democracy's privileged group’ – women, slaves, metics and occasionally foreigners (p. 35). The advent of the radical democracy certainly produced cultural changes. The increasing involvement of the poor in affairs of state, for example, lent them an enhanced status vis-à-vis the elite; evidence for this may be found in both drama (especially Old Comedy) and democratic practice. But Wallace puts excessive stock in the former as a source and not enough in the latter. Like Dionysus, Athenian drama transgresses norms as readily as it reinforces them. Unfortunately for Wallace, the facts often belie the literary evidence: citizenship laws became more restrictive, not less; women were probably always citizens – astai – rather than ‘(re)admitted’ to citizenship in 451/0 (cf. Ath. Pol. 26.4); the same Athenians who had watched the Suppliant Women in 422 went on to make widows (and slaves) of the Melian women in 416. At best, drama offers an incomplete view of Athenian attitudes.

The editor's contribution, ‘The Problem of Moral Judgment in Modern Historical Writing on Ancient Greece’, concerns itself with modern historiography. H. criticises certain historians for allowing their ‘own moral experience’ to cloud their judgement of the Greeks. ‘For an historical judgment to be sound’, he argues, ‘it must proceed from the norm, from carefully researched and defined instances of comparable human behavior’ (p. 55). Perhaps, but might we also consider the Athenians in light of the standards they set for themselves? At various times, the Athenian democracy put a premium on wealth, war, empire and the rule of law. Is it unfair to ask how well they succeeded in what they set out to do? The Athenians themselves certainly did. And yet for this, H. charges one scholar, L.J. Samons, with using an ‘imaginary, idealized standard’ (p. 64), even while Samons himself endeavours (in What's Wrong with Democracy?) to employ facts and reasoned argument to dispel what he sees as an ‘imaginary, idealized’ view of Athenian democracy, current among academics and the general public. Surely, H. can at least sympathise with Samons's ends, given his own contention that ‘the Zeitgeist is an unreliable guide for passing judgment on past societies’ (p. 53).

Criticisms notwithstanding, this volume is a worthy contribution to the ongoing debate over the merits of the Athenian democracy.