[ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]
.K.Davies,  Demosthenes on Liturgies: A Note , Journal of Hellenic Studies, 87 (1967), pp.33 40, 36 7; and especially P.Ceccarelli,  Dancing the Pyrrhich in Athens , in P.Murray and P.Wilson (eds.), Music and the Muses: The Culture of  Mousik  in the Clas-sical Athenian City (Oxford, 2004), pp.91 118, 93 9.152 D.PRITCHARDmaintain, but, after 508/7, in the last years of the century (pp.178 84).48 Thisfestival staged a re-enactment of the mythical transfer of the cult of Dionysosfrom the village of Eleutherai, on the border with Boiotia, to Athens itself,while the actual transfer and its aetiology go back to when this village volun-tarily joined Attike because of its hostility to the Thebans.49 Anderson sensi-bly suggests that the most likely moment for the annexation of this village wasthe border conflicts between Athens, Khalkis and Thebes in 506 (p.181).However he does not show the same touch with the religious dimensions ofthe festival when he argues that it was founded  not because of  the peculiarpower and appeal of Dionysos  but simply as a way to commemorate theannexation of a Boiotian village and the new territorial unity of Attike (pp.182 3).By contrast, Peter Wilson recently established that dithyrambs,always performed by tribal teams at this festival, were knowingly and deliber-ately introduced by the cities of archaic and classical Greece in order to har-ness the divine power of this god to ward off civil strife and encourage civicsolidarity.50 In view of its ongoing political instability late-sixth-century Ath-ens also required such magico-religious aid.Turning to the Eleusinian Mysteries (pp.185 94), Anderson highlights themassive rebuilding of its two sanctuaries at Athens and Eleusis in the decadeafter 508/7 (pp.186 7, 274 nn.26 7).This  along with the pre-existingpomp between the two  meant  the festival now visibly underscored thenew order s efforts to affirm the political integrity of the region and build asense of collective mission among its citizens (p.192).Nonetheless Ander-son does acknowledge the earlier, parallel building at both sanctuaries, in thesecond quarter of the sixth century, and the ceramic depictions, from around540, of the Eleusis-related myth of the spreading of Demeter s gift of agricul-ture by Triptolemos, which deliberately styled the Athenians as benefactorsof mankind (pp.186 7, 189 90, cf.275 6 n.39).Anderson again does not seeevidence of any burgeoning Athenian self-identity here.Rather both of thesemid-sixth-century developments were products of the  yearning of theEumolpidai and the Kerkyes, the two gen controlling the priesthoods of theMysteries,  for Panhellenic recognition (pp.190 1).Finally Andersonmakes a very good case against the traditional dating of the foundation of theBrauronia to the tyranny of Peisistratos: what archaeological evidence there issuggests that this festival of Artemis, ritually linking Athens with Brauron,was created just after 508/7 (pp.194 6; cf.22).48W.R.Connor,  City Dionysia and Athenian Democracy , Classica et Mediaevalia,40 (1989), pp.7 32; republished in W.R.Connor, M.H.Hansen, K.A.Raaflaub andB.S.Strauss (eds.), Aspects of Athenian Democracy (Copenhagen, 1990), pp.7 32.49Pausanias 1.38.8 9.50P.Wilson,  The Politics of Dance: Dithyrambic Contest and Social Order inAncient Greece , in Phillips and Pritchard (eds.), Sport and Festival in the Ancient GreekWorld, pp.163 96.REVIEW ARTICLE 153In chapter 9  Change and Memory (pp.197 211) Anderson finishes hisconsideration  started back in chapter 2 (pp.44 52)  of the ways theAthenians of late archaic and classical periods understood the political tumultof the late sixth century.In particular he brings together the testimonia for theso-called Tyrannicides, Harmodios and Aristogeiton, before asking whythese two aristocrats, whose assassination of Hipparkhos in 514/3 did not endthe tyranny, were honoured so highly by the post 508/7 regime (pp.199 206,278 nn.16 17; cf.94 5).51 True to iconoclastic form, his answer challengesthe current scholarly orthodoxy that the Tyrannicides were honoured becausethey were considered the promoters or founders of the democracy (pp.204 7).Anderson explains that earlier chapters of his book show howKleisthenes and his associates  out of a concern that their reforms would beperceived as revolutionary  misleadingly presented what they had done  asno more than the restoration of an older, ancestral order that had been sus-pended or dismantled by the Peisistratid  tyrants  (p.205).Although themost important event in this preferred narrative was the expulsion of thetyrants in 511/10, they could not commemorate it, as the Spartans, who hadtried to stop the reform process in 508/7, actually provided the force to expelHippias and his family [ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]