This is a highly readable English translation of the French original of 2014 (reviewed in CR 65.2 [2015], 612-13). A. combines his penchant for innovative biography, exemplified by his recent book on Pericles, with his sensitivity to the political valence of material objects (see his analysis of the rise and fall of Demetrius of Phalerum's portrait statues, Annales HSS 64 [2009], 303-40). The introduction promises a work that is both materialbiographical (with a reference to the 'social life of things') and 'micro-historical'. A. proposes to study the statues of the Athenian Tyrannicides, mostly the Critius and Nesiotes group but to a lesser extent the original Antenor group as well, as being possessed of a 'life', one which was not only continuously redefined by various social actors over time, but which also directly affected the world, 'even exerting a measure of power' (p. 6). Despite that promise, this is not really a study in New Materialism or actor-network theory, wherein objects no less than human beings are seen as agential. It rather succeeds best as an excellent micro-historical case study of the famous monument in the Athenian Agora, showing how various individuals and groups deployed the iconography and ideology of the statues for their own purposes. In the nine chapters, epilogue, conclusion and appendix that follow, A. analyses the style, history and reception of the statues, in the process staking out positions within scholarly debates. Some examples: he speculates that the erection of the Antenor group dates not to 510/9 BCE, as Pliny would have it, but to the period after Marathon (pp. 29-30). He suggests, based on an episode from Hellenistic Erythrae, that the statue group was abused, if not physically, then at least verbally by Athenian oligarchs around 411 (pp. 58, 67-9). He argues that the 'Elgin Throne', which features an image of the Tyrannicides, was most plausibly housed in the Prytaneum (pp. 102-5). He takes seriously the idea, based on Pausanias' testimony, that the Tyrannicides were surrounded by numerous portraits of Hellenistic rulers, and not just Demetrius and Antigonus, already in the third century (pp. 125-31). Finally, he argues that the historical context for the statue group on the Capitoline Hill is most likely post-83 BCE, after Sulla's visit to Athens the previous year (pp. 141-8). There are points with which one can quibble throughout (for example I do not think that Aristophanes' treatment of the statue group in Lysistrata amounts to mockery), but for the most part A.'s handling of the historical, iconographic and logical evidence for his positions impresses and convinces. An epilogue on the reception of the statues by totalitarian regimes should prompt further scholarship. One comes away with a newfound appreciation for the manifold ways in which the Tyrannicide monument(s) provoked, inspired and outraged over the course of their 'life', from serving as models in life-or-death struggles against oligarchs to being just one of many markers of 'culture' in a Roman-era eli...

No abstract

No abstract

This paper introduces scholars of Greek political thought to the continued existence of the phenomenon of demagoguery, or ‘(mis-)leadership of the people’, in the Hellenistic period. After summarizing Classical elite discourse about demagoguery, I explore three areas in which political leaders continued to run afoul of elite norms in Hellenistic democratic poleis: 1) political persecution of the wealthier members of a political community; 2) ‘pandering to’ the people in a way considered infra dignitatem; and 3) stoking bellicosity among the common people. I show that considerable continuities link the Classical and Hellenistic periods and that demagoguery should be approached as a potential window onto ‘popular culture’ in Greek antiquity.

One of the commonest clichés in the study of ancient and modern democracy is the claim that the former is ‘direct’, the latter ‘representative’. A few scholars have recently explored areas in which the Classical Athenian democracy had representative features, particularly the magistracies. These studies continue, however, to understand ‘political representation’ according to the definition proposed by the political scientist Hanna Pitkin, that is, as ‘acting [on the part of the political representative] in the interest of the represented, in a manner responsive to them’. In this paper I introduce the insights of the recent ‘constructivist turn’ in studies of political representation to the analysis of Athenian politics in the hope of suggesting, in what will necessarily be a brief and incomplete exercise, how productive this exciting new paradigm can be for understanding the dynamics of ancient democracy. I first lay out the basic tenets of constructivist representation, particularly the notion of the ‘representative claim’ as developed by the political theorist Michael Saward, and argue for their suitability for studying ancient Greek history and political thought. Next, I adapt the model of the representative claim to two episodes of Athenian democratic deliberation, showing how it illuminates processes of demotic will- and identity-formation. I conclude by briefly underscoring how approaching Athenian politics in terms of constructivist notions of representation restores an aesthetic dimension to ancient democratic debate, one that allows us to compare more productively the ‘demos’ of symbouleutic oratory with its counterparts in poetry, sculpture, and other media, namely as a represented object fashioned for creative and rhetorical purposes.