MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2072202682 · doi:10.2307/4135166

Kleisthenes, Participation, and the Dithyrambic Contests of Late Archaic and Classical Athens

2004· article· en· W2072202682 sur OpenAlexvenueno aff
David Pritchard

Notice bibliographique

RevuePhoenix · 2004
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineSocial Sciences
ThématiqueClassical Antiquity Studies
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésAncient historyArtHistory

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Ancient literary evidence and demography confirms that the demands and opportunity cost of dithyrambic participation impeded non-elite Athenian boys and men from joining a chorus of their tribe. They suggest too that chorus sponsors, driven as they were by their love of victory and honour, recruited a majority or, in most instances, all of their choristers from those best able to sing and dance a dithyramb: the upper class. Participation, then, in the dithyrambic contests was a predominantly or, more often than not, an exclusively elite pursuit. Therefore, in contrast to the Council of Five Hundred and the tribally organized military corps, which did ‘mix up’ significant numbers of Athenians, reaching down to and including the non-elite hoplites, the dithyrambic competitions were not a significant mechanism for bringing individual wealthy and poor citizens together, nor were they one of the chief means by which ties of solidarity between fellow tribesmen and connections between citizens living in different parts of the country were created. Dithyrambic participation in late archaic and classical Athens was not a ‘clear analogy’ to service as a bouleutēs or hoplitēs. While we may no longer say that these choral competitions were introduced by Kleisthenes as part of his effort to ‘mix up’ as many Athenians as possible, alternate and – I would argue – adequate explanation for their introduction can be found in the other significant ways they undergirded his tribal and political reforms. Firstly, these new musical competitions would have helped to cohere the Athenian elite and to placate any elite opposition to the Kleisthenic programme. As is often noted, a significant community problem of sixth-century Athens was the excessive rivalry between individual aristocrats and their supporters, which had already led to the Peisistratid tyranny (Ath. Pol. 15.2-3; Hdt. 1.61-62) and, in 508/7, was quickly leading to the establishment of a narrowly based oligarchy (Ath. Pol. 20.3; Hdt. 6.72.2). Dithyrambic participation helped moderate this intra-elite stasis by fostering bonds between upper class boys and men cutting across factions and regions and by schooling them in how to work together for tribal and civic, as opposed to partisan, ends. Moreover, since Greek aristocrats had long used choral training to educate their youngsters and prized agōnes as a means to prove aretē and to build up symbolic capital, wealthy Athenians no doubt welcomed these new competitions. This expansion of agonistic opportunities for the city’s elite may even have been a deliberate attempt by Kleisthenes to secure their support for a reform package placing marked restrictions on their political power as a class. Secondly, the goings-on at festivals were used by the ancient Greeks to articulate and legitimate civic ideology and social structure. Thus, the introduction of new tribally organized contests into the Great Dionysia would have been an effective way to broadcast to, and solemnize for, all Athenians the new tribal organization of the city. Finally, while I take issue with some of his views, Peter Wilson establishes beautifully, in his chapter for Sport and Festival in the Ancient Greek World, that the cities of archaic and classical Greece knowingly and deliberately performed dithyrambs in order to harness the divine power of Dionysos to ward off stasis and to bring about civic cohesion and solidarity. Late sixth-century Athens did indeed stand in need of such magico-religious assistance. That these religious advantages would have been appreciated by Kleisthenes is suggested by the piety and sophistication he displayed when he had the Delphic oracle choose the ten ‘national’ demi-gods to be the figureheads of the city’s new tribes (Ath. Pol. 21.6). In conclusion, the new tribally organized dithyrambic contests, hoplite army and Council of Five Hundred did ‘mix up’ citizens, but brought together different social classes of the citizen-body. Dithyrambic choruses did not duplicate the thorough mixing of elite and non-elite Athenians achieved by the other two institutions, but combined elite boys and men from different regions of Attike and traditional political factions, and encouraged them to accept the new political arrangements of Kleisthenes and to work cooperatively within them. As part of a significant festival of Dionysos, these choral competitions helped to legitimise the new tribal organization and ensure divine protection from future civil strife. Importantly, they were not the only element of the Kleisthenic reforms with such particular purposes. The military changes of the late sixth century ensured the Athenians had, for the first time, a city-based and formidable army, which they needed to meet the very real external threats to their new constitution (Hdt. 5.74-78). And the Council of Five Hundred gave the dēmos the permanent institutional presence they required if they were to exercise the political power Kleisthenes had promised them. To make these three institutions analogous, then, risks obscuring such differences of purpose and effaces the different ways they ‘mixed up’ the citizens of late archaic and classical Athens.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction machine sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,001
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Qualitatif · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,008
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,018

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0010,002
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0020,002
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0080,014
Communication savante0,0040,002
Science ouverte0,0010,004
Intégrité de la recherche0,0010,001
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0040,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,028
Tête enseignante GPT0,311
Écart entre enseignants0,283 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeQualitatif
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations76
Publié2004
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revuePhoenixMême sujetClassical Antiquity StudiesTravaux en français237 207