Dillon Matthew - Ancient Greece: social and historical documents from archaic times to the death of Alexander the Great

The central focus of civilisation for the Greeks, after the oikos or family unit, was the polis (plural: poleis). Polis is usually translated as city-state as a polis was generally an independent state, with its own laws, customs, political system, military force, currency and sometimes calendar. According to Aristotle those who did not live in a polis were tribeless, lawless, hearthless, and to the Greeks the fact that they lived in a city-state was proof that they were a civilised people (doc. 1.1). But the polis should also in Aristotles opinion be limited in size and self-sufficient. He was the first to employ the metaphor of the ship of state. Too few inhabitants and the polis could not be self-sufficient, too many and the ship would be too big, and the administration of the polis would be adversely affected (doc. 1.3).

Aristotles well-known statement that man is a political animal should in fact be translated as man is a creature who lives in a polis (Arist. Pol . 1253a 23: doc. 1.1), while according to Thucydides (7.77.7) it is men who are the city, and not walls or ships with no men inside. Much of the history of the Greeks is the history of the interaction between its cities. City-states were generally independent, and, though various cities at different times attempted to dominate the other cities in Greece, these attempts were generally short-lived. The cities, rather than uniting with each other, were prone to fight amongst themselves, and nearby neighbours were often the most implacable enemies, such as Sparta and Argos. While there was a concept of mutual identity when faced with an outside enemy, as when during the Persian Wars the Hellenic League was formed to combat Xerxes (docs 11.19, 11.24), most Greeks saw themselves not primarily as Greek, but as a member of their city-state. Aristotle viewed the Greeks as superior to other peoples; the Greeks attained the highest political development and Greece could rule everyone else, if it could achieve political unity (doc. 1.2). But such unity was achieved only under Philip and Alexander of Macedon.

Apart from links with a mother-city which had sent out a colony, individual communities preferred to be self-sufficient, though many states were members of leagues, larger organisations formed to protect smaller cities or contribute to the power of the largest city-state in the region, such as the Peloponnesian League and Boeotian federation (docs 1.5758, cf. 6.6263). Athens was to gain power over a number of cities through the Delian League. There could also be cultural and religious unions between different cities (docs 1.5960). While the Greek states shared several cultural features, such as the same language, religious beliefs, and system of writing (doc. 3.90), there were still differences between states: there were dialectical variations, each state had its own tutelary deities with different cults, names and festivals, and there could be differences of alphabet (cf. doc. 2.10).

Athens was the largest mercantile and commercial centre but had a rival in Corinth whose position on the Isthmus made it a major shipping centre and trading depot, with goods being transferred across the Isthmus to avoid the longer sail around the Peloponnese (docs 1.6162). From the available sources, it is possible to obtain a clear impression of some of the economic priorities of Greek city-states. Obviously by the fifth century the import of grain was of great importance to certain states like Teos (doc. 1.65), and there was legislation to stop corruption and consumer exploitation, as in the wine trade at Thasos, which not only regulated when wine could be sold, but specifically prevented adulteration and retail dealing, in terms which imply that these were a common occurrence (doc. 1.66). The most specific evidence for the economy of a city-state of course derives from Athens. Athens controlled trade (doc. 1.69), and levied customs duties (doc. 1.68), and had revenues drawn from a wide variety of taxes (doc. 1.28). All cities would have had their own system of taxation, both direct and indirect (doc. 1.47), and in the sixth as well as the fifth century BC most states would have had quite complex taxation and commercial systems in place.

Aristotles discussions of the various types of government point to the diversity of political organisation in Greece: kingship, aristocracy and constitutional government (politeia), from which the deviations were, respectively for him, tyranny, oligarchy and democracy (doc. 1.1). Naturally the constitutions of cities changed over time, and the Athenaion Politeia listed eleven changes in constitution (politeia) from Athens earliest history down to the 320s BC (doc. 1.4). In a democracy, Aristotle notes that all the citizens must be equal; each citizen is governed by the others but in turn governs them (through rotation of who holds the political offices). The majority of citizens should decide what is to be done (doc. 1.5). Theophrastos in discussing the laws of Eresos saw merit, adequate property and common sense as defining the criteria for office (doc. 1.6), but Perikles summed up a different political ideology for democratic Athens: it was merit alone, not the property a citizen owned, which was the determining principle in political participation: no one was denied office because of being poor (doc. 1.17).

While the poorer citizens in a democracy did ensure that they enjoyed sacrifices and civic amenities (doc. 1.8, cf. 1.18), and Aristotle defined democracy as looking only to the interests of the poor (doc. 1.1), citizenship carried specific obligations. Perikles in his Funeral Oration outlined the privileges citizens enjoyed: to stand for political office and to speak in the assembly, with the majority managing the affairs of the city and not just a few (doc. 1.17). All citizens were to participate in Athenian affairs of state: Solon had passed a law against political apathy in 594/3 BC (doc. 8.21). More importantly, Perikles described the citizen who took no part in politics as totally useless (doc. 1.17). A citizen had to be prepared to lay down his life for his city (cf. doc. 1.41); he had to look at Athens and become its lover (doc. 1.17).