Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-gb8f7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-23T20:24:45.433Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Two Forms of the Common in Ancient Greece *

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 April 2017

Arnaud Macé
Arnaud Macé*
Affiliation:
Université de Franche-Comté, EA 2274 Logiques de l’agir
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstracts

This paper argues that there were two fundamental conceptions of the “common” in Archaic Greece. This distinction is worth teasing from contemporary practices of distribution, such as the division of bounty between warriors after a military expedition. Within this context we can observe a difference between the “common” that is not distributed—the part that a community sets aside before portioning out individual shares—and the “common” that results from the way in which individual parts are distributed: for instance, a division according to equal measures gives individuals the sense of belonging to a sharing community. Identifying these two forms as “exclusive commons” and “inclusive commons,” the article provides an analysis of their properties. It also outlines the consequences of the fact that the ancient Greeks came to apply this distributive schema to the polis itself and to conceive its political structure as the result of a global distribution of goods and prerogatives. The duality outlined here should thus be understood as one of the core structuring principles of ancient Greek political practice and thought.

Type
Constructing the Community
Information
Annales. Histoire, Sciences Sociales - English Edition , Volume 69 , Issue 3 , September 2014 , pp. 441 - 469
Copyright
Copyright © Les Éditions de l’EHESS 2014

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

*

I would like to thank the anonymous readers of this article for their invaluable comments, as well as Vincent Azoulay, whose reading yielded many fruitful suggestions and made a considerable contribution to the final version. My thanks also go to Vincent Bourdeau, who accompanied me step by step though my initiation into the question of common goods. Unless otherwise indicated, the translations of Greek texts used in this article are my own, and have been transformed into English with the help of Katharine Throssell.

References

1. See the list of objects described as common by the ancient Greeks from Homer to Plato in Macé, Arnaud, ed., Choses privées et chose publique en Grèce ancienne. Genèse et structure d’un système de classification (Grenoble: J. Millon, 2012) appendix, table 1, pp. 463-71Google Scholar.

2. Benveniste, Émile, Le vocabulaire des institutions indo-européennes, vol. 1, Économie, parenté, société (Paris: Éd. de Minuit, 1969), 332 Google Scholar. See also the table of Greek derivatives from the theme *swe defined as “ipseity, the relationship defining the person himself,” in Frédérique Woerther, L’éthos aristotélicien. Genèse d’une notion rhétorique (Paris: J. Vrin, 2007), 33. The author bases her analyses on the work of Daniel Petit, *Sue- en grec ancien. La famille du pronom réfléchie: linguistique grecque et comparaison indo-européenne (Leuven: Peeters, 1999).

3. See Sahlins, Marshall David, Stone Age Economics (Chicago: Aldine-Atherton, 1972), chapter 5, particularly pp. 188-91Google Scholar. As Sahlins notes, these pages owe much to Bronisław Malinowski’s description of Melanesian societies and to the model of “centricity” developed by Karl Polanyi to describe the particular type of “pooling” and redistribution specific to primitive cultures: Malinowski, Bronisław, Argonauts of the Western Pacific: An Account of Native Enterprise and Adventure in the Archipelagoes of Melanesian New Guinea (1922; repr. London: Routledge, 2005)Google Scholar; Polanyi, Karl, The Great Transformation (New York: Farrar and Rinehart, 1944), 50-58 Google Scholar.

4. For an overview of how ancient history has used anthropological studies of these symmetrical relations, see Azoulay, Vincent, “Du paradigme du don à une anthropologie pragmatique de la valeur,” in Anthropologie de l’Antiquité. Anciens objets, nouvelles approches, ed. Payen, Pascal and Scheid-Tissinier, Évelyne (Turnhout: Brepols, 2012), 17-42 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

5. See Borecký, Borřivoj, Survivals of Some Tribal Ideas in Classical Greek: The Use and the Meaning of Lagchanoō, Dateomai, and the Origin of Ison Echein, Ison Nemein, and Related Idioms (Prague: Univerzita Karlova, 1965)Google Scholar. I also refer the reader to the range of studies inspired by Louis Gernet, Jean-Pierre Vernant, and Marcel Detienne, the results of which will be discussed in the following pages.

6. This is precisely the thesis of Borecký’s Survivals of Some Tribal Ideas, which shows how a certain number of categories in the political thought of the Classical era are derived from descriptions of Archaic distribution practices. For a similar treatment of ideas relating to destiny, see Greene, William Chase, Moira: Fate, Good, and Evil, in Greek Thought (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1944)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

7. Homer, Iliad 1.124-26 and 15.187-93. The Greek text is cited from Allen, Thomas William’s edition: Homeri Ilias (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1931 Google Scholar; repr. 2000). See the chapter dedicated to the Homeric poems in Borecký, Survivals of Some Tribal Ideas, 9-30, which demonstrates that several terms are used in specific ways in descriptions of these practices. These include $$λαγχάνω (“I gain by drawing lots,” pp. 10-15) and δατέομαι (“I divide into portions,” pp. 15-22), which describe the two poles of the same process, between which are situated, for example, αΐσα and “οΓρα, in the sense of the portion resulting from the division, and νέμω (“I distribute, pp. 22-29).

8. On the respective roles of the community and the leader in the distribution process, see the summary of these debates in Ready, Jonathan L., “Toil and Trouble: The Acquisition of Spoils in the Iliad ” Transactions of the American Philological Association 137, no. 1 (2007): 3-43 CrossRefGoogle Scholar, particularly pp. 4-13.

9. Homer, Iliad 1.118 and 210. I will come back to the significance of this term below, p. 451.

10. Homer, Iliad 1.124-126: ούδέ τί που ‘ίδμεν ξυνήϊα κείμενα πολλά’/ άλλά τά μεν πολύχιν έξεπράθομεν,τάδέδασται,, /λαούς δ’οίικ έπέοί,κε παλίλλογαταϋτ’ έπαγείρει,ν.

11. The ξυνήϊα of Book One are common goods or loot “not yet shared,” according to Chantraine, Pierre, Dictionnaire étymologique de la langue grecque: histoire des mots (Paris: G. Klincksieck, 1980)Google Scholar, “ξύν,” p. 768. In this they are comparable to the weapons offered in reward to the participants in the funeral games in Book Twenty-Three, verse 809: τευχεα δ’ άμϕότεροι. ξυνήϊα. Discussing the passage from Book One, Benveniste claimed that the loot had “already been pooled”: Émile Benveniste, Le vocabulaire des institutions indo-européennes, vol. 2, Pouvoir, droit, religion, (Paris: Éd. de Minuit, 1969), 44.

12. Détienne, Marcel, “En Grèce archaïque: géométrie, politique et société,” Annales ESC 20, no. 3 (1965): 425-41 Google Scholar, citation p. 431 n. 2. These arguments are taken up in Détienne, Marcel, The Masters of Truth in Archaic Greece, trans. Lloyd, Janet (New York: Zone Books, 1996), 92 n. 16Google Scholar. Scheid-Tissinier, draws on this thesis in Les usages du don chez Homère. Vocabulaire etpratiques (Nancy: Presses universitaires de Nancy, 1994), 236 Google Scholar. See also Mele, Alfonso, Società e lavoro nei poemi omerici (Naples: Università degli studi di Napoli. Istituto di storia e antichità greche e romane, 1968), 66 Google Scholar.

13. Gernet, Louis, “Jeux et droit (remarques sur le XXIIIe chant de l’Iliade),” Comptes rendus des séances de l’Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres 91, no. 4 (1947): 572-74 Google Scholar.

14. Ibid., 573.

15. In the geometric figure of a center surrounded by equidistant points along a circumference, Vernant saw an analogy between the pre-Socratic representation of the universe (particularly that of Anaximander) and the city as conceived in the egalitarian schema of isonomy: Vernant, Jean-Pierre, The Origins of Greek Thought [1962] (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1984), 119-29Google Scholar; Vernant, , “Geometry and Spherical Astronomy in Early Greek Cosmology” [1963], in Myth and Thought among the Greeks, trans. Lloyd, Janet with Fort, Jeff (New York: Zone Books, 1983; repr. 2006), 197-212 Google Scholar, especially pp. 206-7 for a comparison between the act of putting things in the center, public space, and the act of making things common. The following year, Lévêque and Vidal-Naquet’s book reinforced the hypothesis of a link between cosmic ideas and political ideas: Lévêque, Pierre and Vidal-Naquet, Pierre, Cleisthenes the Athenian: An Essay on the Representation of Space and Time in Greek Political Thought from the End of the Sixth Century to the Death of Plato [1964], trans. Curtis, David Ames (Atlantic Highlands: Humanities Press, 1996)Google Scholar. Vernant discussed this study in a 1965 review first published in issue no. 20.3 of Annales ESC and translated as “Space and Political Organization in Ancient Greece,” in Myth and Thought among the Greeks, 235-62. Detienne’s article appeared in the same issue of the Annales and gave new scope to the comparison between the geometric notion of the center and the act of putting goods in the middle. In 1968, it was drawing on this article that Vernant declared “The expressions ##ές μέσον and έν μέσω are exactly synonymous with ές Kocvón and έν Κοι,νφ. The meson, or middle, defines the common or public domain (the xunon) as opposed to what is private, individual.” Vernant, “Geometric Structure and Political Ideas in the Cosmology of Anaximander,” in Myth and Thought among the Greeks, 213-34, especially p. 213. My position is that these correspondences between geometric ideas and forms of the “common” are multiple and plurivocal.

16. In the interests of justice, distribution must be irrevocable. See Scheid-Tissinier, Les usages du don chez Homère, 239. This does not mean that goods cannot be taken back once distributed, but that such an action will create a feeling of injustice—exactly as it does between Agamemnon and Achilles.

17. Demosthenes, Philippics 1.4-5. Cited in Detienne, Masters of Truth, 91.

18. See, for example, Herodotus’s use of this notion in his version of Leotychides’s speech on deposits. An inhabitant of Miletus wanted to take advantage of the renowned virtue of the Spartan Glaucos by entrusting him with half of his fortune, which “deposited with you, will be secure” ##(κεψ,ενα εστοα παρά σο` σόα). Herodoti Historiae, ed. Hude, Carolus, 3rd ed. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1984)Google Scholar, 6.86.27-28.

19. Thomas, Yan, “La valeur des choses. Le droit romain hors la religion,” Annales HSS 57, no. 6 (2002): 1431-62 CrossRefGoogle Scholar, particularly p. 1433.

20. Ibid., 1435.

21. See chapter 6 of Pierre Dardot and Laval, Christian, Commun. Essai sur la révolution au XXIe siècle (Paris: La Découverte, 2014)Google Scholar, which is a modem reappropriation of the Roman division between three spheres: public goods that are the property of the state, private goods, and common goods destined for public use. The authors use this to argue in favor of commons that are not controlled by the state.

22. Homer, Iliad 15.187-93: Ζεύς καί έγώ, τρίτατος б’ Άΐδης ένέροί,σί,ν άνάσσων. / τριχθά 8ε πάντα δεδασται, εκαστος δ’ εμμορε τιμης / ητοι έγών ελαχον πολιήν σλα ναιέμεν αίεί / παλλομένων, Άΐδης δ’ ελαχε ζόϕον ήερόεντα, / Ζευς δ’ ελαχ’ οΰρανδν ευρυν έν αίθέρι καί νεϕέλτ]σι / γαία δ’ ‘έτι ξυνή πάντων καί μακρος Όλυμπος.

23. As so often in cases of inheritance, the father is no longer present—in this instance he has been “buried beneath the earth and the immense sea,” Iliad 14.203. I would like to thank Marie-Laurence Deselos for drawing my attention to the fact that Plato overlooks the element of strife between the gods in his Gorgias, only mentioning the fact that the three brothers received power from their father before dividing it between themselves: ώσπερ γάρ Όμηροςλέγει, διενείμαντο τήν άρχήν б Ζευς καί б Ποσειδον καί б Πλουτων, επείδή παρά τοΰ πατρδς παρέλαβον (“as Homer said, Zeus, Poseidon, and Pluto shared the power after they received it from their father”). Plato, , Gorgias, ed. Burnet, John (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1903)Google Scholar 523a3-5. With ##paralamba´nω followed by the preposition ## para´, Plato nevertheless implies nothing more than that the three brothers received what belonged to their father and that the distribution between them indeed corresponded to the drawing of lots evoked by Homer.

24. Perpillou, Jean-Louis, Recherches lexicales en grec ancien: étymologie, analogie, représentations (Leuven/Paris: Peeters, 1996), 176 Google Scholar. Perpillou argues against the idea that ## pa´ llω should be taken literally here. I follow Paul Demont’s argument, which is based on an analysis of the Homeric formulation and a comparison between this scene and Hermes’s division of portions of sacrifice between the twelve main gods in Hymn to Hermes, ll. 127-29: Demont, Paul, “Lots héroïques: remarques sur le tirage au sort de l’Iliade aux Sept contre Thèbes d’Eschyle,” Revue des études grecques 113, no. 2 (2000), 299-325 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

25. Borecký, Survivals of Some Tribal Ideas, 13. See also the analysis by Benveniste in vol. 2 of Le vocabulaire des institutions indo-européennes, particularly p. 52 on the difference between ge´raς, a privilege granted by humans, and the timh´ granted by fate, like moi˜ra.

26. Homer, Iliad 15.186 and 209.

27. Hesiod, , Theogony, ed. West, Martin L. (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1966), 412-13Google Scholar: πόρεν

28/. Sé oí άγλαά δορα, μοίραν εχειν γαίηςτε καί άτρυγέτοιο θαλάσσης.

28. Ibid., 423-25: ουδέ τί μι,ν Κρονίδης εβι,ήσατο ουδέ τ’ άπηυρα, /δσσ’ ελαχεν Τί,τησι μέτα προτέροι,σι. θεοίσι,ν, / άλλ’ εχει, ώς το πρωτον άπ’ άρχής επλετο δασμός.

29. See the passage from Plato’s Gorgias cited above, 523a3-5.

30. Vernant, Jean-Pierre, “At Man’s Table: Hesiod’s Foundation Myth of Sacrifice,” in The Cuisine of Sacrifice among the Greeks, ed. Detienne, Marcel and Vernant, Jean-Pierre, trans. Wissing, Paula (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1989), 21-86 Google Scholar, particularly pp. 26-29.

31. On the general meaningofthe terminthe Homeric poems and the need to dissociate it from the false etymology that connects it to the idea of aging, see Benveniste, Le vocabulaire des institutions indo-européennes, 2:43-49.

32. Borecký notes its persistent use in Sparta and in the military practices of the Classical age in Survivals of Some Tribal Ideas, 22-23. Scheid-Tissinier distinguishes two phases—the attribution of portions of honor and the division and distribution of portions in the standard sense—in Les usages du don chez Homère, 236. Hans van Wees sets out a schema in five phases: the loot is pooled, the highest ranking leader takes his portion of honor, he gives portions of honor to those who merit distinction, he divides the remaining portions among the leaders, the leaders then divide these portions among their men: see van Wees, , Status Warriors: War, Violence, and Society in Homer and History (Amsterdam: J. C. Gieben, 1992), 304 Google Scholar. On the distinction between the portions that come from division and privileges, see Benveniste’s analysis of Hermes’s distribution in the Homeric Hymn and the development of the human dimension of ## ge´raς (privilege recognized by humans) as opposed to that granted by fate: Benveniste, Le vocabulaire des institutions indo-européennes, 2:47-48.

33. I will discuss examples of the setting aside of land, notably that of a domain (the distribution of Demonax and Maeandrius) below, pp. 459-460.

34. On meat as ## ge´raς for the Homeric kings, see Carlier, Pierre, La royauté en Grèce avant Alexandre (Strasbourg: Association pour l’étude de la civilisation romaine, 1984), 151-57Google Scholar. On the fact that portions of meat offered to the gods are understood according to the same model as portions of honor, see Ekroth, Gunnel, “Meat for the Gods,” in Nourrir les Dieux? Sacrifice et représentation du divin, ed. Pirenne-Delforge, Ventiane and Prescendi, Francesca (Liège: Center international d’étude de la religion grecque antique, 2011), 15-41 Google Scholar, particularly pp. 28-33. As for the cuts of meat set aside, archaeological evidence reveals that shoulders are rarely found among the bones burnt on altars—this part of the animal could thus not have been among the portions distributed. See Naiden, Fred S., “Blessèd are the Parasites,” in Greek and Roman Animal Sacrifice: Ancient Victims, Modern Observers, ed. Faraone, Christopher A. and Naiden, Fred S. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2012), 55-83 CrossRefGoogle Scholar, particularly 61-64.

35. Homer, , Odyssey, ed. von der Mühll, Peter (Basel: Helbing und Lichtenhalm, 1962)Google Scholar, 14.231-33: καί μοί μάλα τύγχανε πολλά. / των έξοαρευμην μενοει,κέα, μολλά δ’ οπίσσω / λάγχανον.

36. Homer, Odyssey 7.10-11: ‘Αλκινόψδ’ αυτήν γέραςεξελον,ουνεκα πασι / Φαι,ήκεσσι,ν δνασσε. See also Iliad 11.627.

37. Homer, Iliad 16.56: κουρην, ήν αρα μοι. γέρας εξελον υΐες Άχαί,αιν.

38. Homer, Iliad9.365-69: αλλον б’ ενθένδε χρυσον καί χαλκον ερυθρον /ήδε γυναίκας έϋζώνουςπολί,όν τε σίδηρον / > αξομοα, ασσ’ ελαχόνγε’γέραςδέ μοι, δς περ εδωκεν, / χύτις εϕυβρίζων ελετο κρεύϊΐν Άγαμέμνων / Άτρεΐδης.

39. Euripides, , “The Trojan Women,” in Fabulae, ed. Murray, Gilbert (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1981)Google Scholar, 11. 32-34.

40. Homer, Odyssey 9.157 and 159-60.

41. Thomas, “La valeur des choses,” 1435.

42. For two examples of these approaches, see: Betzig, Laura L. and Turke, Paul W., “Food Sharing on Ifaluk,” Current Anthropology 27, no. 4 (1986): 397-400 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Bliege Bird, Rebecca L. and Bird, Douglas W., “Delayed Reciprocity and Tolerated Theft: The Behavioral Ecology of Food-Sharing Strategies,” Current Anthropology 38, no. 1 (1997): 49-78 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

43. See Bell, Duran, “On the Nature of Sharing: Beyond the Range of Methodological Individualism,” Current Anthropology 36, no. 5 (1995): 826-830 CrossRefGoogle Scholar. The application of economic rational choice theory to ethnography was already strongly criticized by Malinowski in 1922: Argonauts of the Western Pacific, 46-47.

44. Samuelson, Paul A., “The Pure Theory of Public Expenditure,” The Review of Economics and Statistics 36, no. 4 (1954): 387-89 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

45. Samuelson defines “private consumption goods” as those that can be “parcelled out among different individuals” and opposes them to “collective consumption goods” which “all can enjoy in common in the sense that each individual’s consumption of such a good leads to no subtraction of any other individual’s consumption of that good”: ibid., 387. In these conditions, divisibility (the good’s ability to be “parcelled out”) is directly opposed to non-rivalry (the fact that one individual’s consumption does not subtract from the consumption of the others). Divisible goods are rival goods and it is non-divisibility that entails non-rivalry. On the tendency to assimilate indivisibility and non-rivalry in economic literature, see Touffut, Jean-Philippe and Gazier, Bernard, “Bien public, bien social,” introduction to L’avancée des biens publics. Politique de l’intérêt général et mondialisation , ed. Touffut, Jean-Philippe (Paris: Albin Michel, 2006), 9-22 Google Scholar, particularly p. 9n2.

46. According to Inge Kaul, it is a “pure private good,” most certainly rival and with easily identifiable borders. See Kaul, “Une analyse positive des biens publics,” in Touffut, L’avancée des biens publics, 28.

47. Hesiod, Theogony 117: πάντων εδος άσφαλες αΐε`.

48. Hesiod, Theogony 618-20 and 717-20. See also Iliad 8.14-16, where Zeus promises to send the gods who disobey him far from the earth, to the same remote place.

49. This famous description was introduced by Hardin, Garrett, “The Tragedy of the Commons,” Science 162, no. 3859 (1968): 1243-48 Google ScholarPubMed.

50. This insistence on the importance of the decision to set things aside can be found in Yan Thomas’s analysis of Roman law, with the nuances that I mention. See also the importance accorded to this point in chapter 6 of Dardot and Laval, Commun. Essai sur la révolution.

51. Hesiod, , “Opera et Dies,” in Theogonia, Opera et Dies, Scutum, Fragmenta Selecta, ed. Solmsen, Friedrich, Merkelbach, Reinhold, and West, Martin L., 3rd ed. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1990), 722-23Google Scholar: μηδε μολυξε´νουδαι,τος δυσπέμϕελοςεΐναί /εκ κocvoű πλεύττη τε χάρις δαπάνη τ’ δλί,γύττη.

52. Descat, Raymond, “Public et privé dans l’économie de la cité grecque,” in Public et privé en Grèce ancienne: lieux, conduites, pratiques, ed. Pantel, Pauline Schmitt and de Polignac, François (Strasbourg: Centre de recherches sur le Proche-Orient et la Grèce antiques, 1998), 229-41Google Scholar, here pp. 234-35. Descat cites page 109 of Pauline Pantel, Schmitt, La cité au banquet. Histoire des repas publics dans les cités grecques (Rome: École française de Rome, 1992)Google Scholar, but there is no clear reference on this page to the question of the common costs of banquets, and this text by Hesiod does not feature in the index.

53. On the parallels and tensions between these terms, see the references given in Chantraine, Dictionnaire étymologique de la langue grecque, 768.

54. See the use of εκ τοϋ κotvou in Herodotus, Histories 9.87.7, and more generally table 3 in Macé, Choses privées et chose publique en Grèce ancienne, 473.

55. On the opposition between public and private frameworks in ancient Greece, see: Schmitt Pantel and de Polignac, Public et privé en Grèce ancienne; Véronique Dasen and Marcel Piérart, eds., Ίδ´α κ ´ δημοσ´α. Les cadres “privés” et “publics” de la religion grecque antique (Liège: Centre international d’étude de la religion grecque antique, 2005); Macé, Choses privées et chose publique en Grèce ancienne.

56. Alain Bresson, “Prosodoi publics, Prosodoi privés: le paradoxe de l’économie civique,” in Schmitt Pantel and de Polignac, Public et privé en Grèce ancienne, 243-62.

57. Herodotus, Histories 1.170.13-16.

58. On the fact that Herodotus uses the notion of “d¯me” as the subdivision of a single city in a way that is characteristic of thought after Cleisthenes’s reform, see Lévêque and Vidal-Naquet, Cleisthenes the Athenian, 45-46.

59. In favor of this connection between the figure of the center and the value of equality, see Vernant, The Origins of Greek Thought, 127-28 and Detienne, Masters of Truth, 101-2.

60. If this analysis appears to corroborate the idea, defended by Vernant and Detienne, that the geometric concept of the center provides a model according to which putting things in common becomes constitutive of the city, it differs in one important respect: the common evoked here does not correspond to the entirety of things “put in the center” to be distributed. We begin to sense that geometric schemas are too ambiguous to provide a stable foundation for the description of ancient practices.

61. Solon, frag. 4.11, ed. West, Martin L. in Iambi e elegi graeci ante Alexandrum cantati (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1971)Google Scholar: ουθ’ ίερων κτεάνων ουτε τι δημοσ´ων.

62. On this point, see Rousset, Denis, “Sacred Property and Public Property in the Greek City,” Journal of Hellenic Studies 133 (2013): 113-33 CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Rousset criticizes what he considers to be the overly stark opposition defended by Papazarkadas, Nikolaos in Sacred and Public Land in Ancient Athens (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

63. Herodotus, Histories 1.170.5.

64. Herodotus, Histories 4.161.12-14: τφ βασι,λέϊ Βάττψτεμένεα εξελώνκαί Ιρωσυνας, τά αλλα πάντα τά πρότερον έΐχον οΕ βασι,λέες ες μέσον τω δήμω εθηκε. See Ghamoux, François, Cyrène sous la monarchie des Battiades (Paris: E. de Boccard, 1952)Google Scholar.

65. Scheid-Tissinier, Les usages du don chez Homère, 229-30.

66. Perhaps in the context of the cult to the founder of the colony, his grandfather Battus. On the question of cults to the founders of colonies, and in particular that of Battus, his tomb, and its location, see Malkin, Irad, Religion and the Founders of Greek Colonies (Ann Arbor: University Microfilms International, 1981), 371-93Google Scholar.

67. See the account (and critique) of Finley’s position regarding the existence of common land from which new properties could be distributed in Scheid-Tissinier, Les usages du don chez Homère, 230-31.

68. See Scheid-Tissinier’s account of Walter Donlan’s thesis on this point: ibid., 231-33. See also the detailed discussion by Link, Stefan, “‘Témenos’ und ‘ager publicus’ bei Homer?,” Historia. Zeitschrift für Alte Geschichte 43, no. 2 (1994): 241-45 Google Scholar.

69. On this act of “putting in the center” as providing the right to an equal access to public life, see: Lévêque and Vidal-Naquet, Cleisthenes the Athenian, 21-22; Détienne, Masters of Truth, 100-101.

70. Herodotus, Histories 3.142.12: δεσπόζων άνδρων όμοίων έωυτω.

71. Herodotus, Histories 3.142.14-15: Πολυκράτης μέν νυν εξέπλησε μοΓραν τήν έωυτοϋ, έγώ δε ες μέσον τήν άρχήν τώεις Ισονομίην ύμίν προαγορευω.

72. Herodotus, Histories 3.142.15-16: δι,και,ω γέρεα εμεωυτω γενέσθαι,.

73. Vernant, “Space and Political Organization,” 244-45.

74. Once again, this is the conclusion of Borecký, Survivals of Some Tribal Ideas.

75. In relation to banquets, the binary model—based on the distribution of portions of honor and equal distribution among everyone else—has notably been described in Détienne and Vernant, The Cuisine of Sacrifice. Nevertheless, Naiden has recently raised the possibility that the second distribution procedure may in fact have only concerned the priest’s assistants (parasitoi) and distinguished persons in the assembly: see Naiden, “Blessèd are the Parasites,” 75-83. See also the role played by the “delegation of responsibility” in sacrifices, where those who carry them out do so on behalf of and in the name of everyone: Naiden, Fred S., Smoke Signals for the Gods: Ancient Greek Sacrifice from the Archaic through Roman Periods (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013), 185-201 Google Scholar. The officiates received certain parts in recompense, see pp. 201-9.

76. Herodotus, Histories 7.152.6-10: Έπίσταμοα δε τοσοϋτο, δτι, εΐ πάντες ανθρωποι τά οΐκήια κακά ες μέσον συνενείκαι,εν άλλάξασθοα βουλόμενοι. τοΖσι πλησίοι,σι., έγκύψαντες αν ες τά των πέλας κακά άσπασίως εκαστοι. αυτων άποϕεροίατο οπίσω τά εσηνείκαντο.

77. This interpretation is advanced by Détienne in Masters of Truth, 95-96.

78. Homer, Iliad 23.809: τευχεα δ’ άμφότεροι. ξυνήϊα ταθτα φερέσθων.

79. Homer, Iliad 23.823: άέθλί,αΐσ’ άνελέσθαι,.

80. Homer, Iliad 16.259-65: αυτίκα δε σϕήκεσσι,ν έοι,κότες εξεχέοντο / > εΐνοδίοις, οΰς ποαδες έριδμαίνωσιν εθοντες/-αίείκερτομέοντες δδφ ‘έπι οΐκί’ εχοντας/νηπίαχοΐ’ ξυνον δε κακον πολέεσσί τιθεΓσι. /τους δ’ εϊ περ παράτίςτεκι,ών ανθρωποςοδίτης/ κί,νήσΎ] άέκων, οΓ δ’ αλκι,μον ήτορ εχοντες/πρόσσω πας πετετοα καί άμύνεί οΐσι τέκεσσι,.

81. Tyrtaeus, frag. 13.15, in West, Iambi e elegi graeci ante Alexandrum cantati: ξυνον δ’ έσθλον τοΰτο πόληΐ τε παντχ τε δήμωι,.

82. Heraclitus, Die Fragmente der Vorsokratiker: griechisch und deutsch (hereafter DK), ed. Hermann Diels and Walter Kranz (Berlin: Weidmann, 1951), frag. 22.B.113: ξυνόν εστι πα,σι το ϕρονέει,ν. The citation continues with Diels’s fragment 114.

83. I therefore do not share Gigon’s interpretation, taken up by Kurt von Fritz, according to which the passage πα,σι ταύτο το ϕρονέει,ν means “it is the same thing for all to think”: Ol of Gigon, , Untersuchungen zu Heraklit (Leipzig: Dieterisch, 1955)Google Scholar, 16; con. von Fritz, Kurt, “Nous, Noein, and their Derivatives in Pre-Socratic Philosophy (Excluding Anaxagoras): Part I. From the Beginnings to Parmenides,” Classical Philology 40, no. 4 (1945): 223-42 CrossRefGoogle Scholar, here p. 233.

84. Heraclitus, DK 22.B.116: Άνθρωποισι πασι. μετεστι γι,νώσκει,ν έωυτους καί σωϕρονεΓν.

85. Parmenides, DK 28.Β.16:τογάρ αύτο /εστι,ν δπερ ϕρονέει,,... /κα,ϊ πασι,ν κα,Ι πα,ντί.

86. Xenophon, , Oeconomicus, ed. Marchant, Edgar C. (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1921)Google Scholar 21.5.4-5: άγαλλομένουςτω πείθεσθοα ενα εκαστονκαί σύμπαντας.

87. Joseph Stiglitz, “L’organisation politique du monde permet-elle de servir l’intérêt général de la planète ?,” in Touffut, L’avancée des biens publics, 181-202, particularly pp. 184-85.

88. David Bouvier, “Les poèmes homériques,” in Macé, Choses privées et chose publique en Grèce ancienne, 41-73, particularly p. 45.

89. Christine Hunzinger, “Le corpus hésiodique,” in Macé, Choses privées et chose publique en Grèce ancienne, 75-116, here p. 78, referring to the texts Hes. A12 and Hes. A13.

90. Democritus, DK 68.B.282: χρηματων χρησις ξιΐν νόωι μέν χρήσιμον εΐς το έλευθε’ρι,ον εΐναί Καί δημωφελε’α, ξυν άνοιηι δέ χορηγιη ξυνη. This translation is based on Olivier Renaut’s French version (slightly modified) in Macé, Choses privées et chose publique en Grèce ancienne, Pre-Socratics D10.

91. Democritus, DK 68.В.293: οΐ,σι,ν ήδονήν εχουσι,ν ai των πέλας ξυμϕοραί, ου ξυνίασι. μεν ώς τά της τυχης κot-và πασιν, άπορέουσί δε οΐκηίης χαρας.

92. Plato, Laws 6.779a8-b7, citation at Ы-Ь4.

93. Callinus, frag. 1.6-9. See the translation into French by Nadine Le Meur in Macé, Choses privées et chose publique en Grèce ancienne, 122, Lyric Bl.

94. Wersinger, Anne-Gabrièle, La sphère et l’intervalle. Le schème de l’harmonie dans la pensée des anciens Grecs d’Homère à Platon (Grenoble: J. Millon, 2008)Google Scholar. The author traces the development of these two conceptions of circularity from Homer to Plato, thus exploring the two forms of primitive mathematical thought that fed into Archaic culture—the one seeking harmony between heterogeneous entities and the other working to create an art of measurement that would make objects of measurement homogeneous. See also the review by Macé, Arnaud, Les études platoniciennes 6 (2009): 206-16 Google Scholar.