Basic Greek political Trajectory – Theseus and Solon by Debabrata Banerjee Yet, it should be considered whether `between the time of Solon and Cleisthenes, `there was a change in the terms in which conflicts dividing the city were expressed’. `The most significant shift of emphasis, economic preoccupations were superseded by a concern for civic institutions’`It begs the question of comparability, besides being an overstatement and oversimplified manner of stating the changes, which will be taken up for whatever its worth when we come to the subject of Greek democracy and the revolution in which Cleisthenes played a major role, having much to do with his rational reforms in place of archaic arrangements. To state that in Solon’s time, `debts and land tenure were in the forefront while in the times of Cleisthenes, the problems were associated with institutional system to make it `possible to unify groups of human beings of different territorial, social familial and religious status, as Vernant makes the distinction means little, once the import of both Solon’s and Cleisthenes’ reforms are taken into account. Taking a long view, it was Morgan who on the basis of the sketch provided by Thucydides of Grecian power in the long transitional period, understood that the old system – based on gentile institutions was failing, and a new one was fundamental for further progress. It was Theseus who found that the Greeks cities, when not in fear of dangers did not consult their basileus [on whom military power first devolved] but governed their own affairs separately, through their own councils. Theseus persuaded them to break council house and magistracies of their separate municipalities and come into relation with one council house [ bouleutroes]. This provided a picture of Attic people as self-governing societies who confederated for mutual protection. Under Theseus they were coalesced into one people, with Athens as their seat of government. The centuries which passed from Theseus to Solon [594 BC] is important about which little is known. The office of basileus was abolished prior to the first Olympiad [776 BC] and archonship established its place. Which was initially hereditary but in 711 BC archon was limited to 10 years and later to 1 year, bestowed by free election. This must be regarded as proof of advancement of knowledge at this early period for Athenian tribes to substitute a term of a year for the most important office, allowing for competition of candidates. This is near the `historical period’ and the threshold where we get the elective principle with regard the highest office. The aristocratic principle also increased its force along with increase in property, the source of hereditary rights. In the time of Solon, the court of Areopagus composed of six ex-archons with the power to try criminals and vested with censorship over morals. More important was the institute of Naucratis, which was a local circumspection of householders from which levies were drawn into military and navy and taxes collected. The naucrary was a principle `dem’ or township which when the territorial basis was fully developed became the second `plan’ of the government. They existed before the time of Solon and Solon expressed that this should be understood as their confirmation by the political constitution of Solon, the `germ of the country’. Before Solon no person could become a member of society except through connection with tribe or gens. It was the prerogative of the council of chiefs to submit public measures before the people that shaped policy and administration of finances. But the rise of the assembly as a power of the government is the surest evidence of progress of Athenian people in `knowledge and intelligence’. Solon also revived Theseus’ project of dividing society into classes on the basis of property At the same time Servius Tillus of Rome was trying experiments for the same purpose. Solon divided people into 4 classes according to the measure of wealth. Going beyond Theseus, he vested these classes with certain powers and obligations. He transferred a portion of powers of gentes , phratries and tribes to the propertied classes, classes composed of persons, which meant that the government was founded on a person. But the idea of property as a basis of government failed to reach the idea of a political society. Among the four classes the most significant was the fourth, light armed officers [ hoplites] They were the numerical majority, though disqualified from holding offices, they didn’t pay taxes, but in popular assemblies in which they were members They possessed a vote upon election of all magistrates and officers with powers to bring them to account. They also had the power to adopt or reject all public measures submitted by senate for their decisions. All freemen not connected to gentes or tribes could be brought into government by becoming citizens. . But Solon’s scheme made imperfect provisions – without granting direct religious privileges- brought an element of discontent among them. The idea of a `foreigner’ as the `other’/ alien remained which brought in numerous disorders in Athens..It is true that among Solon’s greatest measures was to free the numerous indebted in agriculture, like the Roman plebs under Servius, to annul the debts which was a great relief and a source of perpetual tensions. But there are many other constitutional reforms carried out by Solon which falls in the Greek trajectory towards the establishment of a political society. Morgan thought that Cleisthenes was the genius who embodied that idea. At any rate, the economic was no means excluded from the aims of the political revolution in Athens that enabled the redistributive `reforms of Cleisthenes. Besides, Solon was not the product of Greek political rivalry and any revolution. Around his time similar measure were taken in Rome under Servius, but they did not last because the Aristocracy returned and placed the equestrian order to the fore, whereas in Greece the Hoplite reforms were firmly established and lasted long. It would be tautological to say that the Greeks were not only among the first to write on politics, but also held politics in the highest esteem, and economy was always a subordinate moment, as in Aristotle’s Politics. In no case was economics superior to politics at Solon’s time as it was in the times of Cleisthenes. Solon is remembered and noted as a `sage’ for giving a radical, reformist constitution, which was aimed more at reducing the possibility of conflicts and stasis, which was a kind of a permanent looming shadow hovering over Greece. Going by Herodotus, the idea of democracy was at first discussed in the Persian side, in which Darius participated. Otanes, speaking in favour of democracy put its case as follows: The rule of the people…has the finest of all names to describe it – isonomy [isonomia ] - and secondly, people in power do none of the things that monarchs do. Under the government of the people, the magistrate is appointed by lot and is held responsible for his conduct in office, and all questions are put up for open debate…For these reasons I propose that we do away with monarchy and raise the people to power; for everything resides in number.’4 Though Leveque and Vidal-Naquet, are rather one-sided and very formal in their research on the term isonomia, they posit from the passage that isonomy is `identified with democracy’ or isonomy meant opposition to tyranny’. Yet in one passage on changes occurring in 6th-early 5th c., isonomy, as `the finest of all names’ comes across: Finally, around 500 BC, on the eve of the Ionian revolt, Aristagoras `abdicated from tyranny and established equal rights [isonomie] in Miletus…’ However, the conditions for Aristagoras `abdicating’ tyranny’ in favour of democracy is more complex and often not discussed, but it was linked to the events surrounding the great Ionian revolt. He was after all responsible for calling a council of supporters and friends, who with the sole exception of the historian Hecateus, all supported and recommended revolt to throw off Persian yoke. He sought the help of the Spartans but was not diplomatic enough, though dealing with the eccentric Spartan King Cleo- manes, and then in Athens he made a democratic appeal to the Athenian crowds of 30,000 Athenians, who passed a decree dispatching 20 warships to Ionia. But the `blunder’ committed by the troops of Aristagoras at Sardinia, led to the Athenians’ decision that they would have nothing to do with the Ionian revolt after the Ionians were defeated on land by Persians because of the blunder at Sardis.. They refused help despite numerous requests for help from Aristagoras After the attack on Ionia from the Persian side under Otanes, who took Clagonianae and parts of Aeolis, Herodotus thought that Aristagoras was after all a poor spiritual creature. Nevertheless, the Ionians possessed on with war with Persia, without Athenian aid and with no less vigour. They decided to raise no troops on land, but on the sea, which would man every available ship that numbered 353 triremes, seeing which the Persians officers in command were shocked. Nevertheless, splits during crucial moments dispersed the Ionians and they retreated.9 However the quote in bold, cited by Pierre Leveque and Vudal-Naquet, we get to learn why isonomie was the `finest name’ to describe the rule of the people, namely political equality for all in the polis, where, in every assembly each members voice or vote counted equally, as the self-same, though only with regard to citizens and not the women, foreigners and slaves. Yet the principle of self-equality [ one man, one vote] was revolutionary in its very early phase, in so far as Cleisthenes’ reforms reorganizing the entire population into demes extended greatly the democratic scope for many more people who had been excluded. Victory in democracy resided in `numbers’ because only the self-same or self-identical could be additive and then the one having more numbers on his side became the deputy or the magistrate of the people. To this extent the quantitative dimension of the arithmos monadikos was well understood, as ending up in respective assemblages, or gathered together, it took the form of the ideal `arkhe’/ genos , arithmos eidetikos, [Plato]. In a meeting prior to war between the Spartans and Greeks, the Corinthian Soklas, the `only one to raise his voice in protest’ says: Upon my word gentlemen, he exclaimed, this is like turning the universe upside-down. Truly the sky will sink beneath the earth, and the earth will hover above the sky; men [anthropoid] will make their home in the sea, and fishes will reside where men [anthropoid] once lived, because you Lacedaemonians have laid waste to egalitarian regimes [ isokratias], are ready to restore tyranny in the cities, tyranny that is the most unjust and bloodiest [adikoteron, miaiphonoteron] thing that is there among men [kat anthropous] Believe me, there is nothing wickeder or bloodier in the world than despotism’. While making the contrast, Soklas is very clear about defining democracy as isokratias, or egalitarian regimes in which the citizens are equal. To the extent that exchange had developed in the limited sense, at least in Athens, a world from which slaves were excluded, exchange relations are `a good indicator of social relations toward one another. Each has the same social relation towards the other that the other has towards him. As subjects of exchange the relation is that of equality. It is impossible to trace any difference, leave alone contradiction between them. Commodities exchanged are equivalent exchange values and count as such [most that could happen are subjective errors in appraisal of values]. Differences owing to natural origins are irrelevant to the nature of relation as such...equivalents are objective relations of one subject for another, i.e., of equal worth. The fact that the need of one can be satisfied can be satisfied by the product of another, that one is capable of producing objects for the need of others, each confront each other as owners of object of the others need proves that each of them reaches beyond its particular needs and as human beings they relate to each other as human beings and that this common species being is acknowledged by all. Each becomes the means for other [being for another- sein fur andres] only as an end in himself [being for self – sein fur sich] reciprocity of means and ends each attain ends insofar as each becomes means , only insofar as it posits itself as an end, each thus posits himself as being for another insofar as he is being for self – this reciprocity is presupposed in the natural precondition for exchange and as such irrelevant for the subjects of exchange. This common interest works behind the backs in antiquity, or exchange developed in a limited sphere.’ According to a work by Richard Seaford, `exchange-value is one of the `series of factors’ for the making of Greek metaphysical representation of reality’. It strikes one as immediately odd that `exchange value’ is some sort of representation of reality, at least from the Marxist standpoint. Moreover, for making such bold statements one needs sources, since, just in case, Greek metaphysics is itself well sourced and it is not possible to find the notion of `exchange-value’ in it. But Seaford seems self-impressed as he goes on to state that the `abstraction’ money and philosophy is also related to a number of innovations, actualized in the `Greek miracle’ – democracy, tragedy comedy’. This is an outrageous and not a provocative view, and unsubstantiated. Maybe its alright as a Marxist to degrade the money abstraction, but to state that philosophy can be understood as an `abstraction’ of social developments and class struggle, makes no sense because of a very poor understanding of Greek historical thematic and totality. There is nothing concrete about philosophy in the least concerned about `class struggles’. To look for that one needs to examine the Greek anthropological and historical discourse. Like Sohn-Rethel, Adorno over-emphasized `exchange-value’ as a `social a priori’, but this tends to overlook completely the sharp distinction Marx made between concrete labour and abstract labour, and between use-value or quality and exchange value or quantity. Besides, the money abstraction, still undeveloped, was social or anthropological, but not a philosophical abstraction. From the side of Greek anthropological side, Herodotus describes trade and bargaining practices between Carthaginians and a race of men who lived in `a part of Libya beyond the pillars of Heracles: On reaching this country they unload their goods, arrange them tidily along the beach, and then, returning to their boats raise a smoke. Seeing the smoke the natives come down to the beach, place on the ground a certain quantity of gold in exchange for the goods and go off again to a distance. The Carthaginians then come ashore and take a look at the gold; and if they think it represents a fair price for their wages they collect it and go away to a distance; if, on the other hand it seems too little, they go back abroad and wait. And the natives come and add to their gold until they are satisfied. There is perfect honesty on both sides; the Carthaginians never touch the gold until it equals in value what they have offered for sale, and the natives never touch the goods until the gold has been taken over. Now, this could also curiously be read as a wage bargain, and the term wage and `value’ are used rather than price or sale; but of course a sale and exchange is involved, in which it seems that the Carthaginians do the work of making and transporting the goods, perhaps after being asked for delivering these goods against money payment in gold. Besides a bargain is involved, which instead of the traders bargain looks like the workman’s bargain based on their valuation of goods. However, in Herodotus, the discourse is clearly anthropological with the emphasis on ethical dimension, or fairness in the dealing. It was not possible to narrate this in the language of political economy, since it is the qualitative dimension that really mattered. The amount is left as hypothetical, and exchange value is implicit not an explicit abstraction. Yet the mode of exchange is archaic, wherein the economic surplus is too small, unlike regular, fixed time based commerce. `Yet the last Helladic phase there was already a richly differentiated spectrum between the free and slave: at the bottom of hierarchy was chattel slave, as an object or thing and on the upper end, the ruling class with power. In between there were several categories of the `un-free’ whose `status’ was defined according to a differentiated pattern of obligations and rights. This plurality of `status’ or personal status limited by particular groups affected the `value’ of freedom as a sociopolitical concept. But the historical tendency moved in a direction that eliminated intermediate, social subdivisions so that in 5th-4th c. BC Athens, the intermediate sphere defining the non-free was virtually eliminated. As Athens started getting imperialized by means of warfare, increased manpower needs favoured recruitment of slaves in the navy, and helots by the Spartans in army Earlier chattel slavery had already contributed to economic or as primary producers and their labour became a huge source for extracting surplus resulting in hoplite reforms and professionalization of Spartan army, in which the helots carried the arms, the ratio being 7 helots to one hoplite, but the slaves too often played a decisive role during the classical period, epigraphic evidence suggests that the Athenian naval power rested on as many slaves as Athenian citizens.16 As we would see, even wage-labour appears as an `abstract’ theoretical category within a dynamic sector of the Roman world, which is different from empirical characterization of what `free labour’ in general denoted in its determinateness, such as hired labour employed in manufacture and agriculture for periods exceeding 100 years, not evenly distributed and then vanishing from records/sources. For instance, the `Oxyrhynchus Papyri’ excavated in 1896-97, which is considered to be the most coherent and extensive body detailing the history of the Apion family, holders of aristocratic estates in Egypt regarded as `distinct social elite’ in late antique Empire, according to the author of `Secret History’ Procopius have left accounts of their estates with wage payments, capital expenditure, etc. It has been largely known since 1931 that papyrological evidence recorded existence of large estates, the best documented belonging to the Apion family from the middle Egyptian city of Oxyrhyanchus. Letters between Apion family estate managers refer to contracts detailing the terms on which the estate labour force was employed, presumably under private, non-actionable contracts indicates the substantial presence of waged labour, The contracts found in the papyri records related to the Apion family in the Egyptian city, Oxyrhnyanchus were not very novel in the context of the Egyptian-Babylonian historical space. These contracts, in Babylonia [6th-4th c. B C], were used by businessmen, at times mentioned under two names in the records, for leasing to private contractors for collecting state taxes. This system effectively spared the authorities to `pay wages’, or supplement subsistence rations of the workers, in a non-monetized [circulating coins] though business oriented society.18 Or again, in the 4th c. BC, the principle of work contracts was commonplace among prebendaries, who could grant for the performance of monthly services to the college in the `form of a work contract or transferable lease’. Jairus Banaji noted that leases in late antiquity take on the appearance of labour contracts detailing individual tasks to be undertaken and completed. A contract known as a vineyard lease was an agreement that had the `peculiarity’ that `the owners were leasing out not the land itself but the jobs connected with it, so that the lessees were as much workers as self-employing contractors’. The peasantry employed in such estates, highly commodified and monetized enterprises, `was a largely proletarianized labour force.’20 At the same time, there was the continued existence in the 5th-6th c Egypt the substantial presence of autonomous peasant communities, recorded in the extant papyri from the settlement of Aphrodito. Besides, in the argument by Gascou, i.e., elites like the Apion family were essentially tax-raising institutions – even though Apion estate accounts clearly distinguish rents and taxes collected from estate employees – essentially employed for the purposes of the state.Clearly, the Apions were flourishing at a time when the estate owner, Flavius Apion was appointed praetorian prefect for overseeing the provision of grain from Edessa and Alexandria to one of the largest ever armies ever mobilized for a single campaign against Sassanian Persia in 503/04 for feeding the army. This was a weakened military compared to earlier times, yet it had to be paid in grain and cash. In a not too distant period in late mid 4th c., when Julian [the apostate] was the emperor, high-minded about civic values, he had to sacrifice the life of his finance minister Ursicinus to appease the wrath of the army, for protesting publically that the army’s pay was bankrupting the treasury. This brings out the central position occupied by the institution of the army `as regards economic development. It was in the army that the ancients fully developed a wage system.’ It was in the army that movable property, belonging to others instead of paterfamilias as a legal form developed. The use of machinery at a large scale started in the army. Most important, the exclusive value of metals and their use as money owed its beginnings to its military significance. The division of labour within a single economic branch of production was also carried out in armies. Marx found the `whole history of the `forms’ civil society was’ epitomized by the army. The army exemplified the connection between developing productive forces and production relation based on wage labour. [next Early initiators and Innovations of Economy]
Posted on: Wed, 02 Oct 2013 07:45:09 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015