Pindar's Seventh Pythian and the Status of the Alcmaeonids as "Oikos" or "Genos"
1979; Classical Association of Canada; Volume: 33; Issue: 3 Linguagem: Inglês
10.2307/1087432
ISSN1929-4883
Autores Tópico(s)Classical Antiquity Studies
ResumoIN AN APPENDIX TO AN ARTICLE ON THE EUPATRIDS published in 1931 H. T. Wade-Gery argued that the Alcmaeonids were what Herodotus calls an oikie, i.e., real family descended from historical ancestor, and not genos or clan.1 His reasons for reaching this conclusion were that Herodotus (6.125.5) calls the Alcmaeonids an oikie, a that the Alcmaeonids as whole benefited from Croesus' generosity to Alcmaeon and from Megacles' marriage to the daughter of Cleisthenes of Sicyon (Hdt. 6.125-126.1), evidence that the Alcmaeonids were too small group to be genos or clan, and that all known Alcmaeonds are the descendants of that Alcmaeon who was Solon's contemporary. In propounding this thesis, Wade-Gery was taking issue with what was at the time and is apparently even now the most commonly accepted view of the status of the Alcmaeonids, namely, that they are genos or clan. A. Boeckh, in his great commentary on Pindar, in treating the Seventh Pythian, had argued that the Alcmaeonids were genos on the ground that the form of their name so indicated and because Harpocration (s.v.) said they were.2 That the Alcmaeonids were genos or clan seems to have been generally accepted thereafter. Toepffer, for example, assumes that they are.3 U. Kahrstedt accepted Wade-Gery's view of the matter and it has recently been re-asserted by J. K. Davies. A. Andrewes holds that the Alcmaeonids were house, though he raises the possibility that there may have been genos or clan called Alcmaeonidae of which this oikos was part.4 F. Bourriot concludes in his study of what genos in Athens was that until the middle of the fourth century the Alcmaeonids were
Referência(s)