B.'s monograph on the politics of Athens in the five or so decades following the death of Demosthenes in 322 b.c. is an earnestly argued refutation of what B. sees as the prevailing views on Hellenistic Athens. Although recent scholarship has challenged both the disparagement of the state of Athenian politics in the Hellenistic period and the glorification of its Classical counterpart, B. contends that the general communis opinio remains the same: that the death of Demosthenes (and more importantly, the insistent intrusion of the Macedonian presence) marked also the death of the truly free democratic spirit in Athens. He argues that, on the contrary, there is much continuity to be observed between the politics of the Classical democracy and the way in which the Athenians ran their polis under the shadow of Macedonian imperialism. This publication, a revised version of B.'s Ph.D. dissertation, is ‘a reaction against the tendency to see Hellenistic Athens as the poor relation in the discipline of classics and ancient history’ (p. 8). B.'s arguments fall into three categories: a review of the last three centuries of scholarship and their impact on modern ways of thinking about Hellenistic Athens; an evaluation of the evidence for political thought and life in early Hellenistic Athens generally; and a trio of case studies reassessing individual Athenians who played a role in their city's affairs during these years.

The first chapter, ‘The Reception of Hellenistic Athens: the Origins of a Negative Image’, is the lengthiest, and the approach B. takes here underpins the rest of the book, reappearing at various points throughout. He examines the origins of Greek history as an academic discipline, pointing to its biases towards warfare and politics as objects of study and to the tendency to view ancient states as models for contemporary society and politics. Plutarch is identified as instrumental in creating a negative view of Hellenistic Athens among eighteenth-century historians, while the critical approaches taken in the nineteenth century towards the ‘shabby’ sources of Plutarch, Diodorus and Justin (all important for the history of Hellenistic Athens) further marginalised the study of this period in Athenian history. B. emphasises in particular the role played by early modern and modern concepts of ‘liberty’ in the popular evaluation of the politics of early Hellenistic Athens: democracy could only be vigorous and viable so long as the Athenians were free of external constraints, and indeed was at its most vital in the years when Athens itself was an imperial power. All these prejudices, B. argues, continue to inform our view of Hellenistic Athens and constrain both popular and scholarly perceptions and analyses.

Chapters 2 to 4 (‘Ideology in Hellenistic Athens’, ‘The Enemy Within: Oligarchy in Hellenistic Athens’, ‘Democracy in Hellenistic Athens’) review the evidence for the continued strength of ideological attachment – both oligarchic and democratic – in the years after 322 b.c. B. is particularly critical of the scholarly ‘blurring of the lines between democratic and oligarchic ideology’ that has, in his view, ‘created an environment that has allowed some modern scholars to deny the extent to which the two fourth-century regimes imposed by Antipater and Cassander were oligarchic’ (p. 60). He takes aim at ‘apologists’ such as L. Tritle (Phocion the Good [1988]) and S. Tracy (in W.W. Fortenbaugh and E. Schütrumpf [edd.], Demetrius of Phalerum [2000], pp. 331–45) for their ‘rebranding’ of ‘regimes that were seen as oligarchic in antiquity’ as democracies (Chapter 3 passim).

The final three chapters are each dedicated to a re-evaluation of individuals who played a role in Athenian history in the early Hellenistic period: ‘Phocion: “The Good” or “The Bad”?’, ‘Stratocles of Diomeia: Audacious Buffoon or Shamelessly Bold?’ and ‘Callippus of Eleusis: Tin-Pot General, or Generalissimo?’. In all three cases, B. examines the ancient evidence for the life and career of the subject in the light of his conclusions about the negative distortions of Hellenistic Athenian history inherent in modern scholarship. Filtered through the lens of B.'s belief in the continuing vitality of Athenian democracy, the prevailing view of these individuals shifts dramatically: Phocion the cautious moderate becomes Phocion the self-righteous traitor; Stratocles the louche sycophant of Demetrius Poliorcetes becomes Stratocles the bold seizer of opportunity; and Callippus the nonentity just becomes.

It is in these individual analyses that B.'s work on occasion falls most prey to scholarly attitudes that he himself condemns. The earnest arguments can descend into a sort of preachiness, and in the closing pages of the book B. states: ‘If we must compare Hellenistic Athens to Classical Athens, then we should leave our moral judgements and our own politics at the door’ (p. 213). Yet there is at times a polemical and judgemental tone in his own comments, especially evident in the chapter on Phocion, who (as noted above) is flatly labelled as a self-righteous traitor (pp. 130, 150). As for Stratocles, B. asks whether we should blame him ‘for the excesses of Demetrius and his entourage, or … congratulate him for his efforts to placate Demetrius as he became increasingly erratic and domineering’, concluding that the answer ‘must be both “yes” and “no”’ (p. 185). But why should we blame or praise (or congratulate) at all? And why are Stratocles' actions in placating Macedonian warlords to be viewed in a softer light than Phocion's? ‘Certainly Stratocles was trying to further his own career when he flattered Demetrius. But what politician has not acted in a self-serving manner?’ (p. 185). If Stratocles is to be absolved on such grounds, why is Phocion to be condemned for acting with the familiar collaborationist's motive of survival for self and community?

B. is certainly correct in saying that we must try to understand the politics of Hellenistic Athens from the perspective of those who lived there and then. One of the most original contributions his book makes is its detailed deconstruction of why traditional scholarship has viewed early Hellenistic Athens as it has, and how the ‘agendas of particular intellectual debates in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries’ (p. 211) still have the power to frame our thinking. Nevertheless, any attempt at reassessment carries with it the risk of correcting too far in the other direction. A more even-handed treatment of the individual politicians surveyed would have helped to mitigate that risk; if Tritle and Tracy are to be characterised as apologists for oligarchy, B. at times falls into the opposite trap. While it would be unfair to depict B.'s stance as simplistically as ‘democracy good, oligarchy bad’, this is the tone of much of the book. Modern criticisms of the Athenian democracy for its decision to grant divine honours to Demetrius and Antigonus are condemned as ‘racially charged’ (pp. 165, 212); one wonders how B. would have viewed such a decision if it had been made by oligarchs.

A book largely about perceptions and scholarly attitude, B.'s monograph offers an interesting perspective on ideology and action in the politics of early Hellenistic Athens. The work can be inconsistent: in addition to the issues identified above I would simply note that, while B. is critical of the perceptual distortions caused by the antiquated approach of using ancient states as models for contemporary practice, his concluding remarks (p. 214) are very much in the same vein. Nevertheless, there is much of value in this book. It offers considerable food for thought and any new scholarship on the period will need to take it into account.