Już 62 355 użytkowników uczy się języków obcych z Edustation.
Możesz zarejestrować się już dziś i odebrać bonus w postaci 10 monet.
Jeżeli chcesz się dowiedzieć więcej o naszym portalu - kliknij tutaj
Jeszcze nie teraz ZAREJESTRUJ SIĘlub
Zaloguj »
ZAREJESTRUJ SIĘ
Nie masz konta?
5. Introduction to Ancient Greek History: The Rise of the Polis (cont.)
Poziom:
Temat: Edukacja
Professor Donald Kagan:
Okay, we were discussing
the rise of the polis and
I was into the subject of the
way the Greeks thought about the
significance and the function of
the polis,
which is really critical in
distinguishing between the
polis example of a city
state and other city states in
history.
It's the notion of what the
function of that state is,
I think, that is most striking.
I was about to tell you last
time about the poet Hesiod,
who lived in a little town in
Boeotia to the north of Attica.
He describes himself as a
farmer and in the Works and
Days, he talks about the
quarrel that he had with his
brother and how he was
mistreated,
in his opinion,
when his brother bribed the
barrens, the basileus, in
his area,
and cheated him of his birth
right.
He quotes a kind of a fable.
He says that he is a fool;
I'm sorry, he tells this fable
of the hawk and the nightingale,
which illustrates really the
doctrine of might over right.
The hawk says he is a fool who
tries to match his strength with
the stronger.
He will lose the battle and
with the shame will be hurt
also.
So, don't try to fight against
stronger people is what he said.
Hesiod says that this is
the wrong doctrine.
It is better,
he says, to go by the path
leading to justice.
For when justice is outraged,
and by the way justice here is
personified in the form of the
goddess called Dike.
She follows before us weeping
to the polis and the
gatherings of people.
She puts a dark mist upon her
and brings a curse upon all
those who drive her out,
who deal in her and twist her
in dealing.
He speaks about the word
polis more than once in
the same general context.
He draws a contrast between the
men who give just decisions to
strangers and to natives,
and who do not depart from what
is just, and those who practice
violence and cruel deeds.
In the case of the former,
the polis flourishes and
its people prosper.
Peace reigns over their land
and Zeus keeps them free of
wars.
They don't suffer famines or
disasters.
Their flocks have thick wool.
Their wives bear them children.
So fruitful is their land that
they are spared the evil
necessity of traveling on ships
and there you have an
interesting point about the
Greeks.
Hesiod is not alone in saying,
for God's sake try not to take
a voyage at sea because your
chances of coming back are
really bad,
which was a reality to a degree.
That's a very strange thing
because the Greeks turn out to
be an enormously active
seafaring people with tremendous
fear of the seas.
I think that those things are
connected.
What about those who don't
follow the path of
righteousness,
of justice, of Dike?
Zeus orders severe punishments
for them.
Often, even a whole
polis,
is paid punishment for one bad
man.
His people are troubled by
disaster, plagues,
famines, the men die,
the women are barren.
At another time,
Zeus destroys the wide camped
army of people or wrecks their
city with its walls,
or their ships on the open
water.
Well, one thing that emerges
from these lines of Hesiod is
that the polis is already
there.
There is no way to talk about
what he's talking about in the
kinds of settlements that
existed before the invention of
the polis,
and that I think is worth
mentioning.
If our date for him,
which is very problematical,
is right roughly,
then by certainly 700 B.C.
there are people who know what
poleis are,
poleis exist.
But beyond that,
there is the fact that for the
Greeks that early and always--by
the way it remained so,
the notion of justice is
directly connected with a
polis.
The only place where justice
exists or can exist is in a
polis.
The only way you can lead a
good life is if you live in a
polis,
and when you do live in a
polis of course,
you will have to behave justly
because--and this is
tremendously important,
your behavior doesn't affect
just you and your family,
it involves the entire
community.
Remember, even one bad man can
ruin a polis.
That is a very strong statement
about the priority of community
and it's very different from the
values that we saw in the
Iliad and the
Odyssey.
You cannot imagine,
it seems to me,
in the world that Hesiod
describes, Achilles or anybody
else saying,
"Well, you insulted me and so
I'm not going to fight anymore
for my polis."
That would have been
inconceivable in this world.
Now, given this
information, we are onto the
problem that will be a problem
for the Greek polis for
the rest of its history and it's
really a problem to this very
day for all people who live in
some sort of a civilized
community.
How do you reconcile the
interests and desires,
and well being of the
individual and his immediate
family with those of the
community at large?
They may seem,
and probably might even be said
to be, different and
antagonistic at some point,
and when they are what should
you do?
For the Greeks the answer was
pretty clear hereafter.
One ought to be interested and
to take action on behalf of the
polis.
We'll be seeing this kind of
argument and people presenting
positions about it going on into
the future.
But nobody is going to be very
comfortable, if comfortable at
all.
It would be a very oddball
position to take for the rest of
Greek history.
No, the right thing to do is to
take care of yourself and the
hell with the polis.
That's not what you're going to
hear.
What you're going to hear is to
the contrary.
Little bit later,
when we get to talking about
Sparta, you'll see a beautiful
example of that in the form of
the poems of Tyrtaeus,
who is a poet in Sparta,
and whose poetry became so
central to their way of thinking
and living that they were used
as marching songs for the
Spartan army as they walked,
and they make the same point,
but I'll come back to that.
Now, here's another
document that you want to be
aware of that gives you some
idea of what the Greeks fairly
early thought the polis
was for and about,
and what the relationship
between individual and
polis was.
In this case I'm talking about
Herodotus, who very early in his
history tells the story really
of his visit to Lydia,
to the land of the great Tyrant
Croesus, who is also the richest
man in the world.
It's not clear that this event
ever really took place,
but it's really not very
important,
because what Herodotus is doing
is telling how he,
I think, and how the Greeks in
general viewed the questions at
issue.
So on goes the visit to Croesus.
Croesus asked Solon to tell him
who is the happiest,
the most fortunate--both of
those things contained in the
words he uses--that he had ever
seen.
Solon was now a man of full
years, he was a man greatly
respected, and he turns out to
be one of the seven sages that
the ancient Greeks selected for
the wisest men who ever were.
So, it would be interesting to
know what he thought about that.
Of course,
Croesus had shown his
great wealth already to Solon.
In my view, he put the question
this way.
Solon, as he looked around at
his fabulous wealth and great
good fortune,
who do you think is the
happiest, fortunate man you ever
knew?
You know what the answer was
that he expected.
Solon answered,
Tellus of Athens.
I'll bet you never heard of
Tellus of Athens,
neither had Croesus,
neither had anybody else
outside of Athens.
Croesus was astonished
and he asked Solon why did he
select Tellus?
Here's what Herodotus says:
First, because his city was
flourishing, that is his
polis,
and he himself had sons both
beautiful and good.
The words in Greek are kalos
kagathos for the singular,
kaloi kagathoi for
plural and it's a kind of a
formula.
It means a gentleman;
it means the best kind of
person.
If a person kalos
kagathos,
it means he is good to look at
and his soul is excellent -- all
that you could expect of a
person.
So, he had sons,
beautiful and good,
and he lived to see children
born to each of them,
and these children all grew up,
and further.
After a life spent in what our
people look upon as comfort,
his end was surpassingly
glorious.
In a battle between the
Athenians and their neighbors
near Eleusis he came to the
assistance of his countrymen,
routed the foe and died upon
the field most gallantly.
The Athenians gave him a public
funeral on the spot where he
fell and paid him the highest
honors.
So, to summarize,
the happiest,
the most fortunate man that
Solon ever knew was a dead
Athenian that nobody ever heard
of.
Why?
What does this say?
Right, we see in this passage
something that reveals so much
about what the Greek values were
and you'll see how closely they
were tied up with the
polis and the primacy of
the polis in their lives.
Well, why are things good?
Well, his city,
his polis was going
well.
A man who is living in a
polis not doing well,
how can he be happy?
There's just no way.
Secondly, he had sons.
Now, this has to do with the
Greek idea about immortality and
mortality.
Since, the Greeks really didn't
believe in personal immortality,
how do you find what everybody
wants?
Immortality.
One way is through your family
and its sons who carry forward
the family name,
so to speak.
So if you have sons and they
are healthy, and they do well,
and they have children,
that means your name will be
carried into the future,
your memory will persist and
that is one form of immortality.
Then, of course,
the greatest form of
immorality--and think of it when
you compare it with what was the
form of immortality available to
Achilles and his fellow heroes.
You fought for your
polis and when you died
fighting nobly for your
polis,
you will be - and were then -
honored extraordinarily by that
polis and what everybody
knew was that your memory would
last thereafter so long as your
polis lasted,
and the proof of it is that
Herodotus knows that story and
is telling it,
as will other story tellers,
and in fact, it worked.
Here we are talking about
Tellus all these many years
later thanks to Herodotus.
But the point is that this form
of immortality is available to
Tellus because of his place in
the polis,
because of the deeds he does
for the polis,
and that is the greatest
possible payoff.I've been
making the case that a
polis is a different
thing from any other city state.
I'm not aware that any other
culture that had city states had
ideas of this kind that helped
explain why one was associated
with it and cared about it.
The final document I want to
use to make the point here comes
from precisely the poems of
Solon.
As we shall see later,
Solon will be a very important
political figure in Athens,
and at a critical moment in
Athenian history,
the Athenians will give him the
honor and the responsibility of
being the sole public official
and to draw up a new
constitutional laws for Athens,
an enormously important job.
And in the course of doing
that, and in the course of
defending himself against the
attacks after he had done it,
he wrote what really amount to
political pamphlets to defend
his actions and to set forth the
ideas that lay under the actual
laws that he had put
forward.But as you may know,
in writing, the earliest kinds
of writing among the Greeks
anyway, but I think this is not
atypical,
come not in the form of prose
but in the form of poetry and
that's because people are used
to,
before they used writing,
remember things through verse.
I don't know if that's true of
you, but it certainly is true of
people of my generation.
The things that they taught us
in school, when they required us
to remember poetry,
no matter how we try,
we can't forget it,
and the stuff that we had to
remember that was in prose,
no matter how we try we can't
remember it.
It's the rhythm.
I'll bet even all of you can
remember songs that you have
known all your life,
but not other things.
So it's a great mnemonic device.
But in any case,
that's why Solon's pamphlets
are written in poetry and
apparently in really good
poetry.
So, we have his very words.
Here is a fragment from one
of his poems:
"So the public ruin invades the
house of each citizen,
and the courtyard doors no
longer have strength to keep it
away, but it overleaps the lofty
wall and though a man runs in
and tries to hide it in his
chamber or closet,
it ferrets him out.
So, my spirit dictates to me.
I must tell the Athenians how
many evils a city suffers from
bad government."
The Greek word for that is
dysnomia and how good
government eunomia
displays all neatness and order,
and many times she must be
shackles on the breakers of
laws.
Now, get this eunomia
levels rough places,
stops glut and greed,
takes the force from violence,
she dries up the growing
flowers of despair as they grow,
she straightens out crooked
judgments,
remember those crooked
judgments that Hesiod complained
about.
Well, the polis
straightens out crooked
judgments, gentles the swollen
ambitions and puts an end to
acts of divisional strife.
She stills the gall of
wearisome hate and under her
influence all life among mankind
is harmonious and does well.
Wonderful, where do all these
good things come from?
From God?
No, they come from the
polis when its laws are
good and therefore when what the
government provides is
eunomia rather than the
opposite.
He is making a claim here
which is a very strong,
powerful one,
but which was characteristic of
the Greeks and I want you to
take note of it here.
He is giving the law and the
polis that gives law.
It's not merely a negative
thing the way I think modern
ideas about law,
as for instance,
represented in the American
Constitution are,
which is to say,
its function is to prevent
wrong doing,
to punish wrong doing.
It doesn't really--well,
let me just say what the
polis claims to do here
in Homer.
It claims actually to shape the
character of mankind.
The polis makes,
a good polis,
following good laws,
makes its citizens better.
It not only defeats wrong,
but it creates right and it
creates citizens who behave
rightly.
This is tremendously important
because every Greek state that
we know about made the claim
that that's what it did.
No matter what its constitution
was, no matter how these
differed from one another,
the idea was that the state has
to make good men and that for a
city to be good,
the men must be good.
This is very different.
If you think about the American
idea as an example of the modern
way of thinking about these
things, the notion is we can't
do anything.
The laws can't do anything
about making people better or
worse, it takes them as they are
and then it deals with them
accordingly.
But for the ancient Greeks that
was not enough.
If you even think about the
founding fathers Madison,
Federalist ten,
based upon the principle that
you can expect that men will do
wrong things,
and that a good constitution
has the role of balancing the
wrongs off against each other,
so as to produce the closest
approximation possible to
justice.
You can only do that by
balancing competitive desires
that can be thought of as evil;
faction was what they were
talking about and everybody
thought faction was bad,
but it was inevitable.
You couldn't get rid of faction
by saying to men,
it's not good to be factious,
you should think of the whole
community at all times.
That's not what the American
constitution is about,
but it was what the Greek
constitutions were about.
A polis ought to make
men like that,
and in fact,
there's a great revolution in
the political theory presented
by the American constitution in
that it's not the first thing to
do it,
but it was the first one that
was really applied,
in turning away,
rejecting the possibility that
a constitution could make men
better.
It accepted the premise that
men were what they were and that
the state had to control that by
various devices.
So, it's very important to
see how different from that the
Greek idea was and what an
enormous responsibility the
polis was supposed to
have,
and of course with that,
there had to be an enormous
amount of support for the state
by the citizens.
That's another thing I want to
emphasize before I leave this
subject -- the word,
citizen.
We should not take that for
granted.
By the way, in Greek the word
citizen is politas,
derives from polis.
He's somebody who lives in a
polis;
he's a citizen.
Well, there never was a citizen
in the world before the
polis.
There are only subjects,
people who are subject either
to a god, or to the king,
or to a representative of the
god, or to a chieftain or
whoever, but somebody in a sense
owns them all,
but nobody owns a citizen.
This is something brand new in
the world and we shall see how
it crops up in different forms
and how it shapes the course of
Greek history.
Well, this whole business
presents the problem I mentioned
a moment ago.
All of us have this natural
selfishness when we are born.
We all seek our own interests
and soon we join up with a
family, we want the family's
interest up to a point,
but how is this fit together
with the needs of the community
at large?
A problem the Greeks always
wrestled with,
but when you get down to the
fifth century,
and indeed the latter part of
the fifth century,
there is a marvelous document
that you will be reading in
Thucydides,
the famous funeral oration of
Pericles delivered in the winter
of 431 - 430 B.C.,
where one of the,
in my judgment,
great things about Pericles was
that he had given a great deal
of thought to this problem and
presented the best argument he
could think of for solving that
problem,
which was to claim that the
individual's highest needs and
greatest personal and family
goals could be met only through
the polis,
that his well being was tied up
inextricably with the well being
of the polis.
Now, you don't have to buy
that and individuals undoubtedly
found the strain too much from
time to time,
but what's interesting,
is rather the ideal,
the claim, the theory.
You cannot truly achieve what
you want and need as a human
being without being an active
and loyal citizen of this great
community which you need to
achieve what you want in life.
It is a claim already,
and as you've seen in
Aristotle, towards the end of
the history of the free
polis,
it is something necessary for
mankind.
It is the center of his life
and it explains the Greeks
devotion to the independence,
to the autonomy of the
polis,
and their desire to beautify
and make it as great as it could
possibly be.
All of that sounds very nice
and it certainly had very nice
aspects to it,
but there was of course a down
side to it as well,
which is every polis
wanted to be great,
and being Greeks they wanted to
be greater than their neighbors
and sometimes that involved
conflict,
and it often among the Greeks
did involve war.
Now, the Greeks were not
unique in history in constantly
being at war.
That is, if you just examine
the history of the human race,
so soon as they were
sufficiently organized to wage
war they began doing it all the
time,
but it is true that the life of
the Greek world was much more
filled with war throughout the
history of the polis than
other civilizations,
because other civilizations
after a time,
had one great power that was
able to dominate the entire
region.
Egypt being the best example,
so that no longer was war
possible, but the flip side of
that is, there was also another
thing that was impossible;
freedom.
In Greece you have a lot of war
and you have a lot of freedom,
and all of that is tied up,
I think very much,
with the development of this
very special thing called the
polis.
Now, let's take a look at
other aspects of the
polis;
not ideas, but rather how it
functioned, how its function
developed and how that helped to
shape the characteristics that
it showed in its full blown
period,
that is to say,
the Classical Period.
I want to talk about--there
were really three things that
come together.
One of them is how the Greeks
in the late Dark Ages and in the
period in which the polis
emerges, made their living.
The second has to do with how
they fought.
The third is,
and these are not necessarily
in any particular order,
how they were governed or
rather how they governed
themselves.
All of these three things,
in my judgment,
are necessary to understand how
the polis came into
being,
how it came to be what it was,
and how it came to fulfill and
believe in these ideas that I
have just been telling you
about.
I should say it once,
that this is now a very
controversial subject.
Let me just back up a second.
Along the way I'm attempting to
also to answer the question that
people always ask me when they
understand I'm a historian about
Greece and if they have any
interest in the subject.
They say, "yeah,
yeah the Greeks were terrific,
they achieved wonderful things,
they were a miracle,
the golden age,
and all that.
But tell me how did that happen?
Why did they do that?
Why them and not somebody else?"
Until I came upon a brilliant
solution that another scholar
presents to us,
all I could do was tell jokes.
I remember,
way before you guys were born,
there was a TV show run by Sid
Caesar,
and one of the characters that
repeatedly showed up on this
thing was a kind of a comic
German/Austrian professor of
seemingly everything,
and then Carl Reiner would
interview him on the topic that
was allegedly the topic of the
day,
and the one I remember best was
he was a great aeronautical
expert and here he was landing
briefly.
He was being interviewed by
Carl Reiner, and he would ask
him questions,
and in his comic German accent
he would give silly answers.
But finally,
Reiner says,
well, thank you for visiting
us, it's all very wonderful,
but you know our audience would
really like to know;
it seems like a simple question
but it's awfully hard to
understand, but how can a great,
big, enormous,
heavy thing like this airplane
get off the ground?
He says, oh it's a very simple
question;
it's not difficult to answer.
I mean, you know the wings go,
and the air runs,
and then the motor on the
engine and it's a miracle how it
gets up there and that is the
way I used to explain the
Greeks,
because I had no better idea.
I could bumble around about
geography and this and that,
but nothing.
Then there came a great
voice from the west,
Victor Davis Hanson,
who was a professor at Fresno
State,
California and he thought about
this and he brought to it,
in addition to extraordinary
intelligence and remarkably good
knowledge of Greek and the
Greeks,
a magical additional element,
and that was the fact that he
was a farmer and he was,
I think, in the fifth
generation that had farmed the
same piece of farmland in
California,
in the Central Valley of
California ever since the
nineteenth century.
And that climate by the way and
that whole scene is very similar
to the Mediterranean kind of
climate that the Greek farmers
were engaged in,
and so it had potentially,
Hanson thought,
and I think he was right,
proper analogous possibilities
and he came to the conclusion
that much could be learned about
the development of the
polis if one looked at
the business of how one farms in
these kinds of environments.
And I think that turns out to
be a great key to understanding
what's happening,
and everything you hear from me
on this subject I learned from
Hanson.
It is, needless to say,
being a bright,
brilliant idea that one guy
thought of,
it has been assaulted on all
sides and there is plenty of
controversy about it.
You start with the Dark Ages
and there is general agreement,
I think, that the population of
Greece had become much smaller
than it had been in the
Mycenaean Period,
and that from the standpoint of
the population it could sustain,
it was under populated.
If you start with a look at
what was the way in which the
land was worked for the purposes
of feeding the population,
it would be okay to take a look
at the Homeric poems as some
kind of evidence to help us out,
and Hanson focused on this,
what was really obviously the
units that mattered in the world
of Homer,
call it the family--the Greek
word is oikos,
and it really means household.
But it comes to mean the land
that the family works,
the family itself,
and what does it look like?
Well, in the
Odyssey,
there is a very fine example of
such a place in the form of the
oikos of King Laertes,
the father of Odysseus,
who somehow is still alive when
Odysseus is king,
but he is in retirement and
there he is.
We see him, a nobleman that he
is, former king that he is,
working the soil and how he
does this is very illuminating,
because he is clearly,
according to Hanson,
involved in the period after
the transition away from an
earlier style.
The earlier style pictures
rather large estates by Greek
standards, with raiding warrior
groups going out to steal what
they can.
They are engaged in raising
livestock, which in Greece is
more likely to be sheep and
goats than cattle,
but also breeding horses,
which is very important for the
aristocracy for carrying on
warfare.Let's flip back a
step beyond that to Mycenaean
civilization for the purpose of
noting the great contrast,
the great change.
Remember the ancient near
eastern kingdoms and their
collectivized agriculture,
control from the center,
the individuals who carry out
the farming or the grazing.
They are not permitted
individual initiative;
they are controlled.
This civilization,
like these other ancient
Mediterranean kingdoms,
was rather advanced.
They knew how to cultivate the
grape to make excellent wine;
they knew how to cultivate
olives to be able to make superb
olive oil and how to process
them to produce the result.
They were engaged in arbor
culture;
they had fruit trees that
produced very well.
It was a civilization that was
rather advanced in terms of its
agricultural skill.
They knew the techniques for
grafting and improving,
and domesticating species of
grapes and olives particularly.
You can't go out there and just
plant these things.
What comes out is inedible,
unusable until you
finally--what's the word that I
want?
What do you get when you mix
two agricultural things?
You have to--what do you get?
You need hybrids,
in order to improve the
category of what you're doing.
Well, they could do all that
and that's the knowledge that
was in the palace that allowed
the kings and his people to send
out messages,
orders to everybody to do what
they did.
Now, when the palace
civilization collapses,
the whole system collapses.
That explains,
in large part,
why there was such a decline in
population, why the Dark Ages
were so dark,
lots of poverty,
lots of starvation,
but also, as I suggested when I
spoke of this earlier,
also the freedom if you could
make it, to learn and also to
grow stronger.
Now, in some time in that
period of the Dark Ages,
and Hanson would suggest,
I think, probably around the
eighth century is the greatest
transition.
Somehow the oikos
obtains a chunk of land that is
understood to belong to it.
The Greek word for that is a
kleros,
and what happens is now the
family knows that it has this
land,
it has it now,
it will have it next year,
the family will be able to pass
it on from father to son,
so that he can inherit it,
and that changes everything.
That kind of stability gives
promise and is a basis for
making every kind of necessary
investment in the soil that you
are working in order to make it
better and more profitable for
you,
and it's worth it because
you'll be, you and your
children, there to collect it.
As Hanson says,
thus arose the kleros,
or the idea of a privately held
plot attached not to any one
person,
but rather in perpetuity to a
single farm family or
oikos.
As Hanson points out,
look at the difference between
this and previous ways of
working the soil.
People either rented the land
from a large landowner or they
were hired help who got nothing
except a salary or a piece of
what they did.
Serfs who are compelled to work
the land, or in some places even
slaves, well,
they have no incentive,
put aside the question even of
capacity, to invest capital for
the purpose of improving the
size and quality of the their
crops,
their trees, their vines.
They would not be willing to
take the risk without clear
title to the land.
That is the critical thing.
Once they have it,
and they plant permanent crops,
that changes the whole basis of
society and the values,
and the attitudes that go with
it.
In short, according to Hanson,
it is the invention of the
family farm that is the critical
moment in this very,
very important moment in the
history of the human race and
there certainly is no example of
it that I know of,
apart from Greece,
when it happens right about
this period.
You can imagine that this can
only happen gradually;
none of this happens overnight.
But if you think of the
time span about 900 to 700 B.C.,
that is, when these changes are
taking place.
I would have guessed at an
increasing pace as you go
further down the road.
Then what happens is the
population grows,
and for this the archaeological
evidence is very strong.
There are getting to be more
and more people living on the
land of Greece.
What do they do?
One of the problems that it
produces is the more people you
have, up to a point that's good.
There are more people who can
work to increase the production,
but beyond that point there are
more people to feed than the
production can produce,
and that leads to a desire for
expansion of the land available
for cultivation.Now,
there are a couple of ways that
can go;
one that was certainly
important and again it's for
something that Hanson
emphasizes, is what he calls
internal colonization.
The way these things work,
when you are engaged in
agriculture, it's natural to go
first to that soil,
to that patch of land which is
known to be likely to produce
the best land,
the most fertile,
the best product,
the most fertile land there is.
So, that is where they start.
But now, when you need more,
you can't just say I only want
the best bottom land there is.
You move out to someplace that
nobody bothered to farm before,
because it wasn't profitable
enough, because you need more
land.
So, marginal land is brought
into play with hard work and
ingenuity, and this is one of
the things that Hanson
emphasizes that is so helpful.
You got to be a farmer to
understand these things--not
everything that you try works.
I think the picture he paints
of farming reminds us of the
picture that Homer pays of human
condition as explained in the
pot--the two jars of Zeus.
Most of the luck is bad;
it's hard to succeed,
and with some combination of
luck, skill, determination and
hard work all of that will
decide which of these farmers
will be successful and which
will not.
And that's an important thing
to remember.
There will be success and
there will be failure.
Hanson says and I'm quoting
him, "the real beginning in the
West of individual property
holding on a large scale is what
he is describing."
Hanson himself has a farm that
specializes in grapes for the
purpose of producing raisins.
I guess all the raisins in the
world are produced near Fresno,
isn't that right Curtis?
He points out that the
knowledge of how to do this,
of how to grow the kind of
grapes you want,
viticulture,
and also arboriculture,
both of these,
are learned from Asia.
The Asians were ahead and the
end of the isolation of Greece
made possible communication,
and it allowed this kind of
learning and so you got this
picture of some people learning
how to do these things very,
very well.
Everything is farmed in a
new way and let me just give you
a picture of what this new farm
that Hanson describes is like.
There is intensive farming.
It's not extensive in the sense
that you just have to scatter
your stuff over wide fields;
that's not what it is.
Every piece of that soil is
necessary.
A lot of it can't produce the
crop you would most like to
grow.
So, you find another crop that
will grow there that can be
useful;
that's the picture.
So, you have varied crops,
among them.
These are the ones that are
typical of a Mediterranean
climate.
Everybody needs grain;
bread is the stuff of life as
you have been rightly told.
So you try, if you can grow
grain on your land or you grow
it where you can,
if not, you have to get it
elsewhere.
Olives, for the purposes that I
mentioned to you the other day
that is a very important one.
Vegetables can be grown many
times in places where you could
never grow wheat or grain.
Fruits from the trees--what
have I left out Curtis,
anything?
Have we left out any other
crops?
That's about it.
Those are the things that you
do.
Now, observe several things
about them.
They together will make up
everything you need to live.
All the food groups are
represented there.
I have left out meat and fish,
of course, neither of them very
common in this part of the
world,
but meat was common enough,
because there were sheep and
there were goats,
even when beef would have been
very hard to get.
But what you need to understand
about the Greeks is that they
don't eat a lot of meat.
Now, you might say,
how come no fish?
I mean, they're surrounded by
water everywhere you look.
Well, guess what,
it turns out fish don't live
everywhere in the water and they
don't live very much around
Greece as it turns out.
I don't mean no fish,
but no sort of major schools of
fish.
This is not the banks of
Newfoundland and the Greeks do
eat fish, but not a lot.
So, their diet is a little bit
of that--some of their protein
from that, then bread,
olive oil, fruit,
vegetables, cheese,
milk, those kinds of things
they can do.Well,
now one of the things farmers
in history discovered is that
it's very hard to do well as a
farmer if all you do is grow the
crops,
because people normally don't
use what you grow in the form in
which you grow it.
I'm thinking again of grapes
and olives;
they made mostly olive oil and
wine.
So, what do you do?
Well, if you're a poor farmer,
you don't know what else to do.
So, you send it off to a
middleman who does the turning
of the grapes and the olives
into the liquids that are
necessary,
and he takes a good bit of the
profit.
But these farmers didn't do
that.
They acquired the equipment
necessary;
grape and olive presses which
allowed them to purify and to
produce the final product,
and that made them more
successful than they otherwise
would have been,
and also another great thing
that you have to be able to do,
if you're going to succeed as a
farmer, if you have to have
places to store what you
produce,
so that you will have it for
next year when you need it.
And also if you have a surplus,
and that's a desirable thing to
do, you can sell it.
Probably in the early days,
this was largely a question of
barter.
You could trade it in for those
things that you didn't make
yourself and needed.
But in any case,
it is a profit,
but it's no good if it's going
to spoil.
So it's important to realize
the role of ceramics;
they need to make storage jars
that could be sealed very well
and preserve the stuff for a
very long time,
and indeed, they did that.
Another thing that you need
to understand about these farms,
if you're going to grasp their
significance for the society
that will come,
is that they are small,
really small.
Maybe a typical farm,
you might imagine,
is maybe ten acres;
that is a very small farm.
Some of them,
of course, were bigger.
There was no regulation about
it, but we are talking not about
the emergence of an agricultural
aristocracy,
but we are talking about the
emergence of an agricultural
community of small family farms.
One of the things that come
with the development of this
kind of agriculture as the
polis is coming into
being is slavery.
Now, of course,
slavery is as old almost as the
human race, and it certainly was
already present in the world of
Homer,
but it looks like in the Dark
Ages there were very few slaves
around just because owning
slaves requires wealth.
You can't have slaves without
wealth, because you got to feed
them at the very least,
and no matter how wicked a
master you are,
dead slaves are no good to you.
Chances are you had to pay
something for them;
they are like a machine.
If a slave dies you got to buy
a new machine,
and while he's alive you got to
feed him.
So, when you're talking about a
very poor society,
you're not going to see much
slavery,
but it is true,
that as the family farm I've
been describing comes into
being,
a way is found to use slaves in
a productive,
positive way,
positive from the standpoint of
profits.
The reason for that is,
if you are just engaged in a
single crop farming,
well you plant it,
you take care of it,
and then when the times comes
you reap it.
What do you do in between?
Well, there's not much to do.
So, you have to feed the slave
all year round to work only a
small part of the time,
that's not very profitable.
But Hanson's farm,
as I like to think of it,
there's work to do all year
round,
because these different crops
need attention at different
times, and they need different
kinds of attention,
and some of them need all kinds
of very hard work to keep them
going, so that there's plenty of
work to be done that is useful
and profitable.
Therefore, you will produce
enough profit to make it
possible, so that these small
farms,
you should imagine had one or
two slaves playing a part in
this experience.
I mean, you should not
imagine when I say slaves--just
take out of your mind the
plantations of the old South,
because when you only have one
or two slaves,
the master is working right
alongside them,
doing exactly the same work
that they are doing,
and also instructing them and
telling them what's what.
If you want to really
understand this in a practical
sense, it's more as though these
guys are hired hands.
I mean, they live in the house,
they get fed,
probably with everybody else,
they work with the master;
the difference being that they
are slaves rather than free men.
One of the funny things is that
the emergence of this family
farm gives rise to the
polis' character as a
land in which there is a
citizenry,
which is to say free men who
rule themselves.
So, the polis will see
the invention of freedom in this
way, and oddly enough,
it is accompanied by the growth
of slavery at the same time.
Both slavery and freedom come
along at the same time in the
Greek world.
One of the interesting
documents we have is a
fragmentary inscription from the
Island of Chios.
I think it's in the eighth
century that Hanson points out
is relevant here.
On it there is little language
and it's obvious it's talking
about some kind of a town
council.
This is the first time we have
such a reference.
The Greek words are,
boule he demosia;
the best translation I can come
up with is the council for the
people.
It doesn't mean the council of
the people necessarily,
that would suggest something
democratic.
It's probably more oligarchic
or aristocratic,
but the point is this is
something we haven't heard of
ever before.
There is clearly some kind of
an official group that has some
sort of political role to play,
which is popular in its
character.
It's the word demos
that's at the root of
demosia and demos
means the people,
all the people.
That's one of its meanings and
I think it's the meaning that's
relevant here.
As Hanson points out,
only in early Greece did
independent agrarians have free
title to their land,
own slaves, and ultimately out
of this council that I told you
about, ultimately,
came to have control of their
own communities.
Although the political
development came late in the
process, it did come.
As Hanson says,
the new farmer is not just a
different kind of farmer,
but a different kind of person.
He is a citizen in his
political role,
he is a soldier but he is a
soldier not in the pay or the
hire of a king,
or of an aristocracy;
he is a citizen soldier who has
participated in the decision
that says it is time to go to
war and who will play an active
role in making decisions about
his state's policy and behavior.
He is independent in a way that
nobody who was not a king or an
aristocrat in the past has ever
been--a new kind of man,
the backbone of the
polis as it emerges.
I don't want to overstate this.
There is still an aristocracy
made up of the old guys and they
don't just disappear and there
will be a long stretch in which
there will be some degree of
conflict between these new
independent farmers and the old
established aristocracy,
and never does that aristocracy
go away, that's old.
I'm simply emphasizing what's
new in the situation and it's
very new indeed.
I might just say a little
bit more.
Hanson has a marvelous
situation in which he's the
scholar telling us about these
developments in the world of
ancient agriculture and farming,
but he's also an active farmer
and reacting to what happens to
farmers today,
and he's written a book,
a wonderful book called,
Fields Without Dreams,
which is the story of modern
farming in America.
But this is also true of all of
Western Europe,
which has to do pretty much
with the abolition of farmers
and I just don't think it's
right for me to pass without
mentioning the significance.
Nobody knows anything about it.
What percentage of Americans do
you think worked on farms at the
end of the nineteenth century?
Twenty, thirty percent?
You better believe it's sixty
to seventy percent,
and the further back you go in
American history the closer it
is to ninety and ninety-five
percent.
That's the history of the world;
the whole human race has spent
the bulk of its time farming.
What percentages of
Americans are engaged in farming
today?
Well, the figure I saw last was
a number too small to be
mentioned;
I mean, to say you just can't
really say how much it is,
but all right,
two percent.
Does anybody know a farmer?
How, how come?
Just by accident;
still farming?
God bless him.
Is his son farming?
No kidding, where is this?
Fantastic, that's a marvelous
thing;
please give him my greetings.
But it's kind of a miracle;
I don't know any farmers.
Oh yeah, I know Hanson,
but if I didn't know him,
I wouldn't know any farmers.
So, now I don't want to go too
deeply into this,
but if you're interested in
this subject get a hold of his
book.
What is inescapable is farmers
are a sociological category of
people, different from
non-farmers in all kinds of
critical ways,
and it is just an example of
how this whole business has
disappeared.
Nobody even thinks about it
anymore.
If you were to say to me,
what do you think is the most
important thing,
however you define thing,
that has changed the character
of life in the United States in
the twentieth century,
I would say the disappearance
of farmers.
There are so many ways in which
that has changed the world,
but I can't do justice to it
but Hanson does,
so if you want to read,
Fields Without Dreams,
you can ponder the significance
of this great change.
Now, I've talked to you
essentially about the economic
aspect of this phenomenon and
I'd like to turn next--give me a
second here I just want to find
out where I am in this.
These are all my proofs to
support all the things that I've
already told you,
but I'm not going to bother
proving it, it would take too
long.
Well, I guess the next thing I
might mention is in the area of
politics.
If you look at the world of
Mycenae once again,
we've already seen this,
you have a despotism of some
kind.
You have some kind of a lord,
I mean a king,
for lack of a better name,
a monarch who fundamentally
rules and everybody is subject
to him.
He has an aristocracy around
him, he has a lot of helpers,
but he's the boss and that's
what you see in the world
everywhere else.
After that, if you examine as
best we can the cities of the
Dark Ages and ask what kind of
government,
if you want to use that word,
would these communities have
had, you probably wouldn't do
badly if you looked at the
Odyssey for the best
clues you could find.
Of course, they won't be
perfect, there's a mixed
character of the world of Homer,
but still, if you look at the
world of Odysseus,
his home, what's going on in
Ithaca,
there are some valuable clues.
There is somebody in that
world called a basileus,
who is a single individual who
is understood to be superior in
some way to everybody else.
However, he's not very superior
to everybody else.
He has all of these noblemen
around him, all of whom claim to
be basileis,
as you recall,
and a fairer way to put this
would be that this is largely an
aristocratic society,
that was our conclusion after
we looked at the poems of Homer,
and I think that's what
continues,
even after the world of Mycenae.
People who had power by virtue
of their wealth,
by virtue of their personal
physical strength maybe,
by virtue of their descent
because people always have
theories about individuals in
their society,
I mean early societies,
who were born to the purple so
to speak, but whatever the
criteria were,
and birth always was a critical
criterion in the days of the
aristocracies,
you would have aristocracies
who would have the practical,
the de facto control of
things.
Well, by definition,
an aristocracy is plural not
singular, so how do you make
decisions in an aristocracy?
The answer, typically,
is a council.
I use the word council,
the Greek word is
boulē,
and not assembly,
which in Greek comes to be
called ecclesia,
because an ecclesia is
understood to be a gathering of
the entire adult male
population,
and a boulē is
understood to be not a gathering
of the whole,
but rather a smaller group who
has some degree of authority,
and I would have suggested that
in the earliest days they had
all the authority that mattered.
However, it's interesting that
these Greek communities from a
very early time seem to have
been different from the
Mycenaean kinds of things by
virtue of the fact that the men
who fought in the army always
seemed to have had to be
consulted when it came to a
question of fighting,
and so you always had an
assembly, even in an
aristocratic state,
but decisions in general were
made by aristocrats.
Moreover, the law was
interpreted, spoken,
and to the degree it had to be
enforced by the aristocrats
working through a council in
their community,
and these councils might have
been elective from within the
aristocracy or they could have
been simply the whole
aristocracy,
depending really on the size of
the community,
because you can't have a
council functioning to any
useful purpose if it gets to be
too big;
it just becomes something else.
That's where you start;
that's the Dark Ages.
Now, what we shall see as the
polis grows and develops,
and as these changes in the
economic situation that I've
described are happening,
is that these successful
farmers, as I will be telling
you next time,
who also will be the fighting
men who fight for their
polis as infantrymen when
the infantry becomes the
critically important part of the
army.
These men, the combination of
their independence,
their wealth--when I say wealth
I don't mean great wealth--but
the fact that they do have
wealth,
that they amount to something,
and their role as soldiers
makes them demand a larger voice
in the government of the state,
in the decisions that affect
them so closely.
So, there will be a whole--I'm
looking ahead now,
projecting into some topics
that we'll explore more closely
later.
They will be finding different
ways to insist on their
inclusion and the results will
be different in every state.
Sometimes the old
aristocracy will be able to hold
on for a very long time and to
suppress any attempt to change
things.
Other times,
and this will be widespread in
certain places and will be very
significant,
the dissatisfied people in the
society, mainly these farmers
I'm talking about,
will get together and perhaps
fix on some discontented
aristocratic individuals,
and most particularly pick some
aristocrat who has distinguished
himself typically as a soldier,
as a leader of troops,
and engage really in what
amounts to a kind of a
revolution or at least a coup,
and bring about a different
kind of a monarchy which the
Greeks called a tyranny.
When these tyrannies take
place, they last for different
periods of time,
but when the tyrant is removed,
what follows after that is,
there is never again in that
town a one-man rule of any kind.
Either what is established
after the tyranny is an
oligarchy, but notice I didn't
say an aristocracy.
An oligarchy just means rule of
the few, but as we shall see
what changes is,
is it is no longer the rule of
those few who are born in the
right place, it will be based
upon the wealth of those people
and that means that the newly
wealthy,
or the newly well,
that is, the reasonably
well-off will participate in
their government and the form of
government which is oligarchy
will be throughout the classical
period the most characteristic
form of government in Greek city
states.
When democracy is invented it
will have its moment and it will
spread, and there will be
numerous democracies but they
will never be the majority of
the poleis.
Your typical polis will
be a kind of a Hanson farmer
outfit, where people from that
class and up,
will participate in politics,
will be the governing bodies in
their state, they will be the
ones who continue to fight in
that infantry that is decisive
for the state,
and they will be the ones who
make decisions,
and the people poorer than them
will be excluded.
So, it's very important to
realize that these family
farmers, who are successful,
do not necessarily lead to
democracy.
Indeed, I want to emphasize
again, it is an unusual outcome
when they end up with democracy.
So now we've said something
about the economic change and
something about the political
change,
and next hour,
I'll start with the story of
the military change that has so
many significant consequences.
Okay.
