'Notice' in Classical Review of V. Azoulay, The Tyrant-Slayers of Ancient Athens (Oxford 2017) (original) (raw)
Related papers
“The Beautiful Monument: The Aristocracy of Images in Athenian Funerary Sculpture (c. 530–480 BCE)”
Marion Meyer – Gianfranco Adornato (eds.), Innovations and Inventions in Athens c. 530 to 470 BCE – Two Crucial Generations,WIENER FORSCHUNGEN ZUR ARCHÄOLOGIE, Bd. 18, Phoibos Verlag, Wien 2020, 167-186. , 2020
The discoveries that have occurred over the last sixty years, together with chronological considerations and the appropriate evaluation of the epigraphic corpus, testify overall to the duration of the system of monumental funerary dedications well beyond the advent of democracy by Kleisthenes (508/7 BCE) and probably up to the end of the Persian Wars. This ‘longue durée’ will require the revision of the interpretation that mechanically links Archaic funerary monuments and the ruling “aristocracy” during pre-democratic political regimes in turn paving the way for a more detailed analysis of patronage. The monument is built according to precise rules of a visual rhetoric, aimed at enhancing its beauty, to match and reflect the excellence of the recipients – largely male and including impressive monuments for non-Athenians (xenoi) – and to define their social position through the joint devices of word and image. The evidence is discussed in detail, and the Author accepts the proposal that the grave statue of Aristodikos, one of the latest examples of the kouros type, wore a helmet. The head of a youth, found in the Kerameikos and likewise once equipped with a helmet might attest to the next “step”: a grave statue in ponderation. The monuments recovered from Piraeus Gate are discussed in detail, as well as Jeffery’s so-called Samian plot; a new interpreation of the bases with athletic scenes is proposed, highlightening the possible connection with Sparta and the Athenian pro-Lacedemonian party (sphairomachia) as well as the connection with Eretria and eastern Attica for the allusion to the Amarysia or to the Attic version of the event (the chariot scenes with hoplites). Concluding, funerary monuments reflect the changes in Athenian society, which in turn are largely influenced by the international situation.
SCRIPTA CLASSICA ISRAELICA , 2004
This is an important book. Clearly written, concisely argued and cogently organized, it belongs in the library of any serious student of early Greek cult, culture and art. Catherine Keesling (hereafter Κ.) treats the votive sculpture of the Athenian Acropolis-its contexts, functions, and meanings as well as its position in the history of sixth and fifth century Attic art. It is a genuinely ground breaking study that goes a long way towards redefining the nature of the questions surrounding this important body of ancient Athenian sculpture. Even so, the reader must be warned at the outset: this is not a traditional, art historical treat ment of the famous Archaic and Classical period votives of Athena's temenos. And those coming to this volume in search of clear-cut answers and trendy arguments will be brutally disappointed. Why? Because this is a truly intellectual, truly serious book. The ideas presented are complex, imaginative and intricate. As such, they perfectly reflect the often overlooked nuances of the sub ject matter that they encompass. Indeed, only when one completes this volume is the full scope of its purpose made clear, namely that the book is designed as a holistic, synthetic and creative examination of the fundamental principles and contexts that allow the votive sculpture of the Athenian Acropolis to signify. In other words, K.'s arguments represent a series of critical steps towards understanding the underlying epistemological and methodological bases for reading early votive sculpture. The book is therefore fundamental reading. It is a starting point for all further enquiries into Athenian votive studies and the study of Greek votive art generally. The text is divided into three parts. Part Ι (Anathemata) is based, in part, on K.'s 1995 dissertation 'Monumental Private Votive Dedications on the Athenian Acropolis, ca. 600-400 B.C.' (a volume that also deserves to be widely and independently read) and treats the dedicatory mechanisms, sacred spaces, epigraphical problems and religio-historical realities-in short, the deep contexts-of Acropolis votive sculpture. In Part II (Divine Identities), the most famous and problematic images of the late sixth and early fifth century Acropolis, the Acropolis korai, are subjected to a detailed and refreshing reading. Part III (Human Identities) discusses the beginnings of portraiture on the Acropolis and the non-canonical portrait types that can be discerned using non-traditional methodological tools. There are three Appendices. The first gives a useful list of votives as recorded by Pausanias, the second lists sculptors' 'signatures' as found in the Acropolis dedications, while the third provides a list of Acropolis statues matched with inscribed bases. (Pp. 210-12, in Appendix 3, provide a wonderful example of K.'s careful and polite discussion of a potentially volatile subject-the problematic join between the famous dedication of Alkimachos son of Chairion and Acr. No. 629-and perfectly exemplifies the care and attention to detail witnessed throughout the rest of the text.) It should be admitted here that any attempt to summarize the intricacies of K.'s arguments in the space allotted does injustice both to their thoughtful construction and to their subtlety. Instead, three significant conclusions are summarized below-one from each of K.'s sections-that here serve to whet the appetites of those who relish truly cerebral cuisine. These are not the only con clusions of significance in this volume nor are they even the most provocative. Instead they repre sent a cross-section of the type of questions asked and the manner in which the answers are given. In Chapter Three ('Nothing to Do with Democracy? Votive Statues and Athenian History'pp. 36-62), Κ. challenges the prevailing notion that the late Archaic/early Classical history of Athens-whether it be tyranny or democracy-can be read through or within the archaeology of Acropolis votives. Underpinning the chapter is a long-overdue (and very cleverly designed) critique of the relative/stylistic/so-called 'fixed point' dating game as practised by art historians and epigraphers for the last two centuries. The entire chapter is pure bliss. And no small part of the pleasure comes from realizing that historians of style and non-critical epigraphers will squirm with each passing page since the argument civilly exposes the yawning cavern of subjectivity lying
A New Epigram for tyrannicides Harmodios and Aristogeiton
ZPE, 1996
Two fragments of a lapidary epigram with a mention of tyrannicide(s) found in Olbia Pontica in 1970 and 1985 have been joined and published by J.G.Vinogradov in his “Political history of Olbia” (1989). Vinogradov interpreted the stone as a base of monument erected by Olbiopolites to a local tyrannicide and identified this local hero with a certain Heuresibios known from other inscriptions from Olbia. The section (1) of our article shows that Vinogradov’s reconstruction of the Greek text cannot be correct both on the grounds of grammar and style. The particle γοῦν, typical for Attic prose, is alien to the language of epos and elegy, no Greek verse could ever begin with γοῦν. Τhe attempt to insert the name of Heuresibios in the first line is unfortunate. The second fragment of the stone found in 1985 proves without any doubt that the epigram glorifies tyrannicides, not one tyrannicide (the reading οἱ κτάνον ἄνδρα τύραννον imposes itself as the only possible, Vinogradov’s οὐ κτάν᾽ ὅς being faulty Greek). On the ground of the close similarity of the Olbian epigram with a Hellenistic epigram for Harmodios and Aristogeiton from Chios published by Lloyd-Jones, we identify the tyrannicides with the famous Athenian heroes. In section (2) we date the stone and the inscription to the last third of the fourth century B.C. It is at this time after the siege of Zopyrion that a series of dedications to Zeus Eleutherios were made. However, the text of epigram may be older than this stone. Olbia, like Chios, was a member of the Delian league, the cult of Harmodios and Aristogeiton was a part of Athenian political propaganda in allied poleis. The similarity with the Chios epigram should be explained by a common source. In section (3) we argue that the text of the Olbian epigram is probably based on the epitaph of Athenian tyrannicides in the Demosion sema in Kerameikos, not on the inscription of the older statue in agora. This epitaph was composed by a first-class professional poet who probably won a competition. Since the Chios collection of epigrams, including the one for Harmodios and Aristogeiton, may have been a gift of Ion of Chios to the gymnasium of his native city, Ion appears to be a plausible candidate for the authorship. Vinogradov' hypothesis of a 5th century tyranny in Olbia lacks evidential basis. Vasily Latyshev's view of 5th century democratic Olbia remains valid.
The 2021 Brandeis AGRS Graduate Conference. Cracking Open the Contact Zone: Imperialism and Indigenous Interaction in Antiquity, 9-10th April, 2021
Panhellenic Sanctuaries were spaces of acute political struggle and entangled dynamics of communication. The conditions of the Roman imperial period in the Hellenistic East offer exceptional material evidence for understanding the fragile and erratic views of both conqueror and conquered. Accordingly, this paper reevaluates L. Aemilius Paullus’ monument at Delphi in a comprehensive fashion: rather than isolated elements, a concise examination of each of its main components is proposed and then integrated into a thorough and contextualized explanation for its imperialistic message. A close examination of the pillar will be undertaken. Firstly, its battle frieze and architecture both possess styles, techniques and themes rooted in Hellenistic culture, which by the III II centuries BCE were starting to be integrated by Italian elites. This makes this Delphic monument a landmark for the study of artistic Mediterranean communication within the geopolitical framework of a Panhellenic space, particularly warfare and warrior principles shared by Roman aristocracy and Hellenistic monarchies. Secondly, by dealing with its Latin and Greek inscriptions, a tense coexistence of epigraphical habits can be attested: imperialistic Roman spoil of war and Late Hellenistic Panhellenic votive offering. Therefore, Paullus’ pillar can be understood, not in the sense of a brusque and unilateral Roman imperialistic symbol imposed on the Greek world, but as a cultural hybrid device. On the one hand, it is an imperator’s traditional reuse of war spoils in an experimental, unique and personal manner for self promotion while dealing with specific Graeco-Roman historical conditions, namely the Hellenistic acceptance of Roman conquest and the second century BCE senatorial surveillance of triumphant Roman commanders. On the other hand, the Delphic rehash of this monument as a political platform in traditional Late Hellenistic terms, with a nuanced and equal exchange of prestige and benefactions between Roman, Greek and local authorities.
The impact of Ares Macedon on Athenian sculpture
The Macedonians in Athens 322-229 B.C., 2003
Εßπερ ßσην βþμην 1νþμηι, Δημιüσθενεò, Ýσχεò, οßποτ' Üν ¸λλιßνων Þρξεν ¶ρηò Μακεδþν. Plut. ,ηr'ol. 847 Did ιhe military involνemenι of the Λ4αòεdοηßαηs ßη Athens affect the Stylc and iconography of Attic