In every era, the institution of the monarchy and the associated ideology, as well as social reactions to this form of political system, have been the subject both of panegyric eulogies and of fierce criticism. The latter is the leitmotif of the articles in this volume, put together on the initiative of Henning Börm. This scholar, associated with the University of Konstanz, is known mostly for his studies of the history of Iran under Sassanid rule. In recent years his research has also had an important focus on the question of the role of monarchy in the Iranian world. And it was these interests that gave rise to his initiative to publish a set of studies devoted to the topic of manifestations in the ancient world of hostile or unfriendly attitudes towards the institution of monarchy (or rather, more broadly, the monocratic style of rule), as well as the social and ideological foundations of these positions.

The book titled Antimonarchic Discourse in Antiquity contains a total of 13 texts. Although most of them (10) were written by German researchers (the other three authors are from Austria, Israel and the USA), they are all published in English, which certainly helps with finding a wider audience. In chronological terms, the articles occupy a broad timeframe, from the history of pharaonic Egypt to the times of Justinian. The various historical eras are not represented equally, however.

The volume is opened by an article which forms its introduction, written by Börm (Antimonarchic Discourse in Antiquity: A Very Short Introduction, pp. 9‒24). The rest of the chapters are in chronological order. J.F. Quack (‘As he disregarded the law, he was replaced during his own lifetime’: On Criticism of Egyptian Rulers in the So-Called Demotic Chronicle, pp. 25‒43) analyses the antimonarchical message contained in the Demotic Chronicle. Only one copy is known of this text, recorded in the third century BCE. According to the author, the original was written at the time of pharaoh Nectanebo II, and the criticism of his predecessors that it presents was supposed to legitimise his own rule, gained by means of usurpation (pp. 38‒39).