It is a widely accepted idea that archaic Greek elites consisted of 'aristocrats' who ruled by hereditary right and enjoyed a life of leisure thanks to their riches.It is said that in the archaic age only these 'aristocrats' possessed full citizenship-rights, allowing them to rule their cities.Their leading position was jealously guarded by means of a gentilician social structure, until the lower social ranks, the de ¯mos, challenged their right to control every political office and the whole process of decision-making.Hesiod, Solon and Theognis are seen as witnesses of this long struggle, which eventually ended, at least in Athens, with Cleisthenes' reforms and the victory of the de ¯mos. 1 Various studies have deeply challenged, however, this definition of aristocracy by rethinking its relationship to political authority, nobility and wealth. 2 In all these fields, 'aristocrats' actually seem to hold an unstable position, which has to be constantly built up.Elaborating on these milestone studies, I developed in my book Le prestige des élites the notion that enterprising individuals create and perform their own status through various strategies of distinction (modes de reconnaissance sociale).Adopting an anthropological perspective, I tried to demonstrate that social status in archaic and classical Greece was achieved rather than ascribed.Among citizens, individual status was generally the result of continuous investment in forms of behaviour which required a great deal of time, money and energy. 3
Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 45 citations exist upstream.
Imported from OpenAlex (CC0) — nothing here is generated.