Aristotle, the Agricultural Democracy, and the Aphytaians (Pol. 6, 1319a 14-19)

Araucaria. Revista Iberoamericana de Filosofía, Política, Humanidades y Relaciones Internacionales, año 24, nº 49. Primer cuatrimestre de 2022. Pp. 329-349. ISSN 1575-6823 e-ISSN 2340-2199 https://dx.doi.org/10.12795/araucaria.2022.i49.16 Aristotle, the Agricultural Democracy, and the Aphytaians (Pol. 6, 1319a 14-19) Aristóteles, la democracia agrícola y los Aphytaioi (Pol. 6, 1319a 14-19) Cesare Zizza1 Università di Pavia (Italia) ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6270-5706 Recibido: 09-09-2021 Aceptado: 29-12-2021 Abstract Aristotle normally used historical notations to support his arguments. This is somewhat true for all the works of the corpus, but above all for Politics: the nature, objectives, and methodology of the investigations in this treatise present the strongest links with actual and concrete data, and therefore with historia. Obviously even the Aristotle of Politics is not a historian who wants to report known historiographical traditions; however, regardless of his intentions, there is no doubt that the work in question (more than all the others attributed to the philosopher) contains precious ‘fragments’ of history which, in general, confirm or supplement our knowledge. There are, however, cases in which the Aristotelian exempla end up filling in the omissions and gaps of the available sources, such as the cursory reference to the nomos of the Aphytaians, which appears in the section of Book 6 dedicated to the so-called agricultural democracy. Keywords: Aristotle, Politics, history, agricultural democracy, Aphytaians. 1 Cesare Zizza ([email protected]) is Associate Professor of Greek History at the University of Pavia, where he carries out his research and teaching activities. He graduated from the University of Siena and has completed two PhDs, awarded by the University of Genoa (Greek History) and the University of Siena (History, Archeology and Anthropology of the Ancient World). He is a Membre Associé (Associate Member) of the ‘Archimède’ laboratory in Strasbourg (UMR 7044) and has, previously, carried out research activities at the Complutense University of Madrid. He is currently Delegate for Libraries and Archives; he is member of the PhD School in History at Pavia University and seats in a number of scientific committees of editorial series dedicated to studies and texts of ancient history and historiography. 330 Cesare Zizza Araucaria. Revista Iberoamericana de Filosofía, Política, Humanidades y Relaciones Internacionales, año 24, nº 49. Primer cuatrimestre de 2022. Pp. 329-349. ISSN 1575-6823 e-ISSN 2340-2199 https://dx.doi.org/10.12795/araucaria.2022.i49.16 Resumen Aristóteles usó normalmente notaciones históricas para apoyar sus argumentos filosóficos. Esto es cierto para todas las obras del corpus, pero sobre todo para la Política: la naturaleza, los objetivos y la metodología de las investigaciones en este tratado presentan los vínculos más fuertes con datos reales y concretos, y por lo tanto con la historia. Evidentemente, el Aristóteles de la Política no es un historiador que quiera informar sobre tradiciones historiográficas conocidas; sin embargo, independientemente de sus intenciones, no hay duda de que la obra en cuestión (más que todas las demás ascritas al filósofo) contiene preciosos ‘fragmentos’ de historia que, en general, confirman o complementan nuestro conocimiento. Hay, sin embargo, casos en los que los exempla aristotélicos acaban llenando las omisiones y lagunas de las fuentes disponibles, como la rápida y concisa referencia al nomos de los Aphytaioi, que aparece en la sección del libro 6 dedicada a la llamada democracia agrícola. Palabras-clave: Aristóteles, Política, historia, democracia agrícola, Aphytaioi. 1. The poleis and the ethne mentioned as exempla historica in the Politics of Aristotle Politics (hereafter Pol.) is the work that stands out the most in the corpus Aristotelicum for the large number of references to facts and historical figures in the form of short notations (almost always devoid of context and temporal references) throughout the treatise, mostly related to Greek cities and other Greek ethno-regional organizations2. The largest groups in this regard are the poleis and the ethne, which Aristotle mentions only once in the entire work3, or at most on two or three occasions4. However, it is also true that, due to 2 There is no lack of references to persons, historical facts, and political-institutional systems regarding the multi-faceted world of the barbarians, but – considering the purpose, nature, and setting of the work – it is evident that notations of this type are decidedly less exploited by Aristotle. In general, however, on the non-Greek peoples in the Pol., see Zizza 2014 and 2021. 3 Cf., for example, Antissaioi (5, 1303a 34), Apollonia [on the Ionian Gulf] (4, 1290b 11), Aphytaioi (6, 1319a 14: see infra, § 2, 4ff.), Erythrai (5, 1305b 18), Hestiaia/Oreos (5, 1303a 18; 1303b 33), Zanklaioi (5, 1303a 35), Heraia (5, 1303a 15), Thera (4, 1290b 11), Klazomenai (5, 1303b 9), Kos (5, 1304b 25), Lesbioi (3, 1284a 40), Leukas (2, 1266b 22), Magnetes [on the Maeander] (4, 1289b 39), Massalia (5, 1305b 4; 6, 1321a 30), Opous (3, 1287a 8), Rhegion (5, 1316a 38; and Rheginon a 2, 1274b 23, but only to facilitate the identification of Androdamas, nomothetes). 4 Cf., for example, Abydos (5, 1305b 33; 1306a 31), Aigina (4, 1291b 24; 5, 1306a 4), Ambrakia (5, 1303a 23; 1304a 31; 1311a 40), Amphipolis-Amphipolitai (5, 1303b 2; 1306a 2), Apollonia- Apolloniatai [on the Black/Euxine Sea] (5, 1303a 36-37; 1306a 9), Thourioi (5, 1303a 31; 1307a 27; 1307b 6), Istros (5, 1305b 5; 1305b 11), Knidos (5, 1305b 12; 1306b 5), Kolophonioi (4, 1290b 15; 331 Aristotle, the Agricultural Democracy, and the Aphytaians Araucaria. Revista Iberoamericana de Filosofía, Política, Humanidades y Relaciones Internacionales, año 24, nº 49. Primer cuatrimestre de 2022. Pp. 329-349. ISSN 1575-6823 e-ISSN 2340-2199 https://dx.doi.org/10.12795/araucaria.2022.i49.16 the number of occurrences and the usually cursory nature of the references, the differences among the cases just reported and most of the remaining ones are minimal and substantially negligible. In fact, apart from the references to Athens, Syracuse, and Thebes, which appear respectively 21, 14, and 9 times5, none of the other cities and peoples mentioned by Aristotle exceed the 6 citations of the Chalkideis-Chalkis pairing6: Argeioi, Korinthioi, Megareis, and Chioi are mentioned 5 times7; Epidamno, Rhodos, and Taras, 4 times8. On the other hand, the references to Sparta, Crete, and Carthage are not comparable to those mentioned so far in terms of the space reserved for their respective constitutions (2, 1269a 29-1273b 26) and of the twin objectives Aristotle reveals in noting, above all, the critical issues presented by each of the three politeiai: debunking the opinion of those who considered the political systems in question to be excellent and demonstrating that none of the known government apparatuses could be taken as a model for those who wished to reform the polis or to found a better one (2, 1260b 27-36). Therefore, it is from here that the investigation begins in the Pol. on the ariste politeia. In fact, in this work the pars destruens (from the more appropriately-termed historicaldoxographic argumentation in Book 2 to that on the real constitutions in Books 5 and 6) lays the foundations for the pars costruens. In the latter (which occupies Books 7 and 8), Aristotle presents his political-institutional project as the best alternative to the imperfect poleis/politeiai of history and to those existing only “in words (en logois)”9. However, apart from the final ‘montage’ in the ordering 5, 1303b 10), Kyrene (6, 1319b 18; 1319b 22), Leontinoi (5, 1310b 29; 1316a 36; and 3, 1275b 27, but here only to facilitate the identification of Gorgias, a Sicilian philosopher, orator, and rhetorician), Mantineia (5, 1304a 26; 6, 1318b 25; 1318b 26), Samioi-Samos (3, 1284a 39; 5, 1303a 36; 1313b 24), Sikyon (5, 1315b 13; 1316a 30), Sybaris-Sybaritai (5, 1303a 29; 1303a 31), Troizenioi (5, 1303a 29; 1303a 30; 7, 1335a 20), Pharsalos (2, 1262a 24; 5, 1306a 10-11). 5 Athenai-Athenaioi: 2, 1267b 18; 1268a 10; 3, 1275b 35; 1284a 39; 4, 1291b 24; 1300b 28; 5, 1302b 19; 1303a 8; 1303b 10; 1304a 6; 1304a 9; 1304a 28; 1305a 23; 1305b 25; 1307b 22; 1307b 23; 1310b 30; 1315b 30; 6, 1319b 21; 1322a 20; 8, 1341a 34. Syrakousai-Syrakousioi: 1, 1255b 24; 1259a 30; 3, 1286b 40; 5, 1302b 32; 1303a 38; 1303b 20; 1304a 27; 1306a 1-2; 1310b 30; 1312b 8; 1313b 13; 1313b 26; 1315b 35; 1316a 33. Thebai-Thebaioi: 2, 1269b 37; 1274a 32; 1274a 35; 1274b 2; 3, 1278a 25; 5, 1302b 29; 1306a 38; 1306b 1; 6, 1321a 28. 6 2, 1274b 24; 4, 1289b 39; 5, 1303b 2; 1304a 29; 1306a 3; 1316a 31. The generic reference the philosopher makes to the Chalcidic cities on the coasts of Italy and Sicily was excluded from the count (2, 1274a 24). 7 Argeioi-Argos: 2, 1269b 4; 1270a 2; 5, 1302b 18; 1303a 6; 1304a 25; the case in which the name of the Argos polis appears only to facilitate the identification of the figure mentioned in 5, 1310b 26- 27 (Pheidon) was not considered here. Korinthia-Korinthioi-Korinthos: 2, 1274a 41; 3, 1280b 15; 5, 1306a 23; 1310b 29; 1315b 22; for the same reasons set out above, three references were not included in the count: 2, 1265b 12-13 (Pheidon); 1274a 31 (Philolaos); 5, 1313a 37 (Periandros). Megareis: 3, 1280b 14; 4, 1300a 17; 5, 1302b 31; 1304b 35; 1305a 24-25. Chioi-Chios: 1, 1259a 13; 3, 1284 a 40; 4, 1291b 24; 5, 1303a 34; 1306b 5. 8 Epidamno: 2, 1267b 18; 3, 1287a 7; 5, 1301b 21; 1304a 13-14. Rhodos: 2, 1271b 37; 5, 1302b 23; 1302b 32; 1304b 27. Tarantinoi-Taras: 4, 1291b 23; 5, 1303a 3; 1306b 31; 6, 1320b 9. 9 The expression is borrowed from Plat. Resp. 9, 592a 10-592b 1 and is used here to refer, in general, to the politeiai referred to by philosophers and thinkers. Aristotle dedicated to these ‘ideal’ poleis/politeiai a lengthy section of the Book 2 (1261a 9-1269a 28), reserving more space for the 332 Cesare Zizza Araucaria. Revista Iberoamericana de Filosofía, Política, Humanidades y Relaciones Internacionales, año 24, nº 49. Primer cuatrimestre de 2022. Pp. 329-349. ISSN 1575-6823 e-ISSN 2340-2199 https://dx.doi.org/10.12795/araucaria.2022.i49.16 of the (macro) sections of the work, it seems entirely reasonable to hypothesize that the political model outlined in Books 7 and 8 represented a fundamental evaluation criterion in the analysis of the constitutions, in particular, in identifying the causes of the fall and transformation of the politeiai10. It seems, indeed, very likely that Aristotle had already developed a clear idea of the characteristics his ariste politeia should present during the extensive historical investigation he undertook in the drafting of the work and in compliance with the same prescriptions he addressed to politicians and nomothetai in Rhetoric (hereafter Rhet.). In fact, Aristotle believed that anyone who wanted to deal with politics and to give advice on how to best govern a community could not be satisfied with what he knew from personal experience, but instead must become historikos: that is, draw from the history of the Greeks and non-Greeks the necessary (and indispensable) knowledge to acquire an overall vision of things to carry out his ‘mission’ with competence, precision, and awareness11. In the Pol., therefore, historia is present and constitutes one of the fundamental premises. On the other hand, there is little than can be seen from the results of historical investigations; and this ‘little’ is generally more easily appreciated not only in the analysis of the constitutions of Sparta, Crete, and Carthage but also through the aforementioned historical references, to which Aristotle attributes an instrumental value. Clearly, the fact that the Aristotle of the Pol. foreshadows the historikos Aristotle of the Rhet. does not mean that it was the philosopher’s intention to make history and report more or less well-known traditions in all their detail. The Stagirite wanted only to reflect on politics and carry out in the best way possible its ‘mission’: to use the history of the Greeks and non-Greeks as a sort of reservoir of ‘special cases’: a pool of information to draw on to create functional exempla to clarify, expand, and strengthen theoretical concepts12. 2. Historical notations in Books 5 and 6 of the Politics: a quick overview Most of the historical notations in the Pol. are concentrated in Book 5 and, in part, also in Book 6, which is consistent with the content, setting, and arguments Plato treats above all in the Republic and Laws. 10 Cf. Pezzoli-Curnis 2012: 12ff., 171-172, 303-304. 11 Rhet. 1, 1359b 19-1360a 38. 12 What has been said so far on Aristotle’s use of history is the result of several reflections in recent years based on a careful reading of the topic (cf., for example, Weil 1960; Moggi 2013; Bertelli 2014; Magnoli Bocchi 2019: 39ff., 57ff. and 217-219; Poddighe 2019: 291-293 and 2020), as well as studies by the author on the Pol. (cf., for example, Zizza 2012; 2014). For another bibliography and an in-depth look at this question (which, for reasons of space, only allows for a rapid and ‘apodictic’ treatment), see the aforementioned works and the recent edition of the Pol. published by «L’Erma» di Bretschneider and edited by L. Bertelli and M. Moggi (Books 1-6: 2011-2016). 333 Aristotle, the Agricultural Democracy, and the Aphytaians Araucaria. Revista Iberoamericana de Filosofía, Política, Humanidades y Relaciones Internacionales, año 24, nº 49. Primer cuatrimestre de 2022. Pp. 329-349. ISSN 1575-6823 e-ISSN 2340-2199 https://dx.doi.org/10.12795/araucaria.2022.i49.16 objectives of this lengthy (and unitary) section of the work. Book 5, in fact, is especially devoted to the causes that have led to the ruin or to the transformations of monarchiai, oligarchiai, and demokratiai; Book 6, on the other hand, deals more at length with the theme of saving the constitutions and, in particular, the strategies to make democracies and oligarchies, the most widespread regimes in Greece at the time of Aristotle, as stable as possible. This type of investigation could not but lead the author to deal more closely (or, at least, more openly) with the concreteness of the historical ‘realia’ (events, facts, figures, constitutions, etc.), and therefore to present a whole series of cases that were exemplificatory, explanatory, and at times demonstrative. Of the two Books, however, the one with the fewest number of historical notations is undoubtedly Book 6; however, what is noteworthy is that the few exempla that Aristotle gives in presenting his arguments, in addition to generally concerning Greek cities and peoples, are all mentioned – once in the case of Aphytaioi, Thebaioi, Massalia, and Taras, or twice in the case of Kyrene and Mantineia13 – when the discourse tends to focus on the most effective remedies for establishing the best possible democracy14. Obviously, we cannot analyze all the notations in Book 6, even if, contrary to normal occurrence, they are mostly positive exempla which generally represent a small body of good political-institutional practices. For reasons of space, therefore, attention here will focus on the Aphytaioi since, to a certain extent, the information Aristotle reports fills the gaps in our very scarce and incomplete knowledge of the polis in question and because the exemplum, although referenced only once in the Pol., reveals a paradigmatic strength and importance equivalent to (and in some ways even greater than) that possessed by the poleis and ethne to which the philosopher refers several times in the treatise. In any case, so as not to lose sight of the main characteristics of the Pol. and the role brief historical references play in it, it is useful to begin by analyzing the argumentative context for Aristotle’s reference to the Aphitaioi; otherwise, we would risk giving undo emphasis and ‘exclusive’ importance to data and material the philosopher felt played a ‘service’ and support role to politika. 3. Agricultural democracy: the oldest and best demokratia Having dealt with the rigid and rigorous theoretical classification of governments (Books 3-4), from Book 5 onwards Aristotle deals with the 13 For specific references, cf. supra, n. 3ff. 14 The only exception is Athens, which is mentioned first in a section on democracy (1319b 21) and subsequently in the Chapter dedicated to the systematic description of the various Greek political offices (1322a 20). 334 Cesare Zizza Araucaria. Revista Iberoamericana de Filosofía, Política, Humanidades y Relaciones Internacionales, año 24, nº 49. Primer cuatrimestre de 2022. Pp. 329-349. ISSN 1575-6823 e-ISSN 2340-2199 https://dx.doi.org/10.12795/araucaria.2022.i49.16 real politeiai, beginning Book 6 with an investigation of democracy. After critically analyzing the interpretations the demotikoi gave to the concepts of freedom, justice, and equality (Chapters 2-3), Aristotle goes on to formulate alternative and more functional proposals to found a democracy based on medietas (Chapters 3-4), and thus on a ‘just’ justice and a ‘true’ equality among all citizens. In this case, the reference model is the so-called agricultural democracy, considered to be the first and best type of democracy. In fact, in Chapter 4 the discourse reexamines the different features a democracy could assume based on the activity carried out by the most numerous segments of the demos, and therefore on the basis of the socio-economic characteristics of the most representative group. Given the number of demokratiai mentioned (1318b 6: “four kinds of democracy”) and the order in which they are presented (from best to worst), the review coincides with the classifications proposed in Book 415. Now, however, in 6, 1318b 6-1319b 32 (Chapter 4), the space dedicated to each of the different democratic regimes is strongly skewed in favor of the oldest democracy of all and the best one under the given conditions16. Here is where the list begins and to where Aristotle’s reflections return when, in the course of his reasoning, he presents – per differentiam – the progressively worse forms, ending the chapter with the most radical democracy, characterized by excess and disorderly governing17. If it is true that in Book 6 the main purpose of the philosopher is to provide the nomothetai and politicians with the necessary tools not only to establish ‘ex novo’ stable democratic and oligarchic politeiai, but also to improve the existing ones (cf. Chapter 1, but also infra in the text), in this case the objective could undoubtedly have been achieved more easily by emphasizing not so much the ‘intermediate’ forms but the model of democracy to strive for (i.e. the first and best type of democracy), as well as the anti-model par excellence: the ultimate (and radical) democracy. If the ‘right measure’ is represented by the democracies at a time when the populace was composed mainly of farmers (georgoi), then it is necessary to return to this type of regime, identifying useful strategies in this regard (Chapters 4-5) and, above all, intervening in the contemporary democracies to correct deviations, put a stop to excess, and ensure as much as possible that the city would not end up in the hands of individuals engaged in vile activities (1319a 19-30). 15 Cf. 4, 1292b 22-1293a 12 and 1298a 9-34. At 1291b 30ff., on the other hand, the types of democracies mentioned are five in all, but the first – in the axiological sense – does not appear in the subsequent lists as it refers to an ideal form of democracy that is too close to the so-called politeia to be considered a deviation. On this specific question, cf. in particular Pezzoli 2014: 206-207 and 220- 221, with a vast bibliography; see also Canevaro 2014: 293-295. 16 Obviously, ‘best’ here is not meant in an absolute sense, since for Aristotle this could only apply to the ariste politeia he describes in Books 7 and 8. Cf. Accattino-Curnis 2013: 20 and Bertelli 2018. 17 Cf. Ober 1998: 332-339 and Bertelli 2018. 335 Aristotle, the Agricultural Democracy, and the Aphytaians Araucaria. Revista Iberoamericana de Filosofía, Política, Humanidades y Relaciones Internacionales, año 24, nº 49. Primer cuatrimestre de 2022. Pp. 329-349. ISSN 1575-6823 e-ISSN 2340-2199 https://dx.doi.org/10.12795/araucaria.2022.i49.16 If the best populaces have the best constitutions, it goes without saying that a democracy will be more stable and long-lived the more relevant and dominant are the plethos that live on agriculture or pastoralism; in fact, the populace made up of farmers or shepherds have many elements in common, and they are both defined as being better than other categories of peoples. The former group (to georgikon), however, precedes the latter, and therefore represents absolute excellence. With reference to what Aristotle refers to 4, 1292b 25ff. – where the best democracy is said to be the government in which sovereignty belongs to farmers and to those who possess a modest patrimony – in the chapter presently being analyzed (Book 6, Chapter 4), attention is focused on an aspect that is only mentioned in the previous classifications of democracies (Book 4): the diaphoroi demoi (“the fact that the populations are different”: 1317a 24) and their respective lifestyles. Therefore, what is different in the treatment in Book 4 compared to Book 6 is only the detail focused on, not the type of regime, which remains the same. Therefore, it is obvious that the unique characteristics of the best populace noted in Chapter 4 of Book 6 even include the census classifications; it is evident that the annual income required for citizenship for the georgikos demos had to be limited and, in some way, kept low. In fact, since this category represented citizens who had to work to live and could not afford to waste time in politics to the neglect of their business, it was easy under these circumstances to find a mediation between the demands of the rich (euporoi) and the needs of the poor (aporoi): farmers as well as herdsmen were willing (and, in part, forced by their economic-property situation) to let the magistracy be covered by citizens who did not need to work to live; the upper classes and notables (epieikeis/gnorimoi), feeling neither envied by the demos nor hindered in their political ambition, were content to live under a democracy of this type, and they governed without fear of repercussions because the populace was content to participate only occasionally in the assemblies (perhaps only in the most important ones), limiting themselves to exercising control over the elections of the magistrates and their activities. Of course, the essential condition for this arrangement was that participation in the government did not entail significant monetary gains and that, therefore, no compensation be provided either for the magistrates or the citizens taking part in the assemblies. In this way, the wealthy minority (oligoi-euporoi) in the agricultural democracies would feel constantly under judgment and be more motivated to govern in a just way, without wronging anyone; the demos, on the other hand, could continue to take care of the land, which was its only source of income and required constant and prolonged care 336 Cesare Zizza Araucaria. Revista Iberoamericana de Filosofía, Política, Humanidades y Relaciones Internacionales, año 24, nº 49. Primer cuatrimestre de 2022. Pp. 329-349. ISSN 1575-6823 e-ISSN 2340-2199 https://dx.doi.org/10.12795/araucaria.2022.i49.16 over time, without, however, feeling deprived of their political rights and being completely excluded from participating in the government (1319a 1-4)18. Having reiterated for the umpteenth time that the georgikos demos represented the best populace, Aristotle, from here on (and before returning to review the worst forms of democracy: 1319a 19ff.), gives his discourse a more clearly and explicitly ‘reformist’ tone, which is what principally makes the classification he proposed in the Book in question different and unique compared with the previous Books19. To achieve a stable democracy – which an agricultural democracy can, with good reason, be considered to represent – it is necessary that citizens return to the land (or do not move away from it) and that their livelihood depends predominantly on the cultivation of the land. Consequently, the sine qua non for ‘straightening out’ (and saving) a wayward democracy is by preventing the creation of groups of wealthy landowners and ensuring everyone has the possibility of having a plot of land that will satisfy their food needs and allow them to achieve the census status necessary to acquire (or maintain) full-citizen rights. Obviously, to ensure that these preconditions were met and to instill the hope that, if not a perfect isomoiria, at least an acceptable middle ground could be achieved20, the legislator had to intervene, but only after becoming an historikos and identifying from past and contemporary Greek history suitable instruments to draw inspiration from to achieve the objectives. This was what Aristotle prescribed in Rhet. and what he is prescribing even in the specific case, citing, among the first exempla historica of the chapter in question, the case of the Aphytaians. 18 In other words, according to the most widespread institutional model in the best democracies of the past (cf. 6, 1318b 21-22 and 27-31), the system adopted in agricultural democracies provided that all citizens would elect the magistrates and control their activities; however, only a few – chosen based on the census – would hold governmental offices, so that the most important of these would be entrusted to those who belonged to groups that had a high annual income. The same ‘custom’ is also referred to elsewhere by Aristotle: cf., for example, 2, 1274a 15-18 and 3, 1281b 31-34 in reference to the political-institutional order ascribed to Solon and partly coinciding with the form of rural democracy in question, especially as regards both the election of magistrates from among citizens belonging to the upper class and the powers granted to the people (cf. Pezzoli 2014: 222 and, among others, Aubonnet 1973: 254-255; Schütrumpf-Gehrke 1996: 632; Simpson 1998: 436). On the variants to the more common system just described cf. 6, 1318b 23-32. 19 Cf. Bertelli 2018: 99ff. 20 Cf. Pol. 2, 1266b 16-28 with Pezzoli-Curnis 2012: 262-264; see also Fantasia 1975: 1271-1274. 337 Aristotle, the Agricultural Democracy, and the Aphytaians Araucaria. Revista Iberoamericana de Filosofía, Política, Humanidades y Relaciones Internacionales, año 24, nº 49. Primer cuatrimestre de 2022. Pp. 329-349. ISSN 1575-6823 e-ISSN 2340-2199 https://dx.doi.org/10.12795/araucaria.2022.i49.16 4. The Aphytaians in the Politics (part I) The reason Aristotle calls the Aphytaians to the mind of his public is quite clear: the case is presented as a methodologically paradigmatic example for politicians and nomothetai who wished to establish an agricultural democracy by operating on constitutions that required rectification and at risk of metabolai, especially in a markedly oligarchic sense21. In fact, in Aristotle’s opinion, the citizens of Aphytis lived under a law that proved to be easily applicable to contemporary democracies, without necessarily having to provide for a redistribution of land ownership or equally radical interventions that could have triggered dangerous civil wars22. What is decidedly less clear in the passage in question is the description Aristotle provides of the system whereby the estates of the citizens of Aphytis were assessed (1319a 15-19): the citizens of Aphytis although numerous and possessing a small territory nevertheless are all engaged in agriculture (καίπερ ὄντες πολλοὶ κεκτημένοι δὲ γῆν ὀλίγην, ὅμως πάντες γεωργοῦσιν), for they are assessed not on the whole of their estates, but on divisions of them so small that even the poor can exceed the required minimum in their assessments (τιμῶνται γὰρ οὐχ ὅλας τὰς κτήσεις, ἀλλὰ κατὰ τηλικαῦτα μόρια διαιροῦντες ὥστ᾽ ἔχειν ὑπερβάλλειν ταῖς τιμήσεσι καὶ τοὺς πένητας). In the case in question, one cannot fail to note that, among other things, the interpretative problems posed by the text are mainly due to the concise presentation of the historical-political situation of the Aphytaians. However, one can reasonably assume that the brevity and cursory nature of the reference owed to the fact that the public the author was addressing would have known about Aphytis: this is an exemplum Aristotle cites with the primary objective of making the concept referred to more easily and immediately understandable23. Therefore, if the passage in question creates difficulties, the ‘fault’ certainly is not to be attributed to the philosopher, but above all to the ignorance of the modern-day reader: that is, to the scarce amount of information we possess about Aphitys. 21 In this regard, see, for example, Newman 1902, IV: 516; Nagle 2006: 48. 22 Cf. De Luna-Zizza-Curnis 2016: 587ff. and infra in the text. See also Newman 1902, IV: 512- 515; Asheri 1966: 16-21; Fantasia 1975: 1270ff.; Schütrumpf-Gehrke 1996: 635; Simpson 1998: 437- 438. 23 Notoriety is the main criterion adopted in the selection of exempla historica (or in the choice of facts to be transformed into exempla): otherwise, history would be less effective and useful, since a little-known exemplum would end up complicating things and certainly would not represent a valid explanatory and illustrative support to philosophia. 344 Cesare Zizza Araucaria. Revista Iberoamericana de Filosofía, Política, Humanidades y Relaciones Internacionales, año 24, nº 49. Primer cuatrimestre de 2022. Pp. 329-349. ISSN 1575-6823 e-ISSN 2340-2199 https://dx.doi.org/10.12795/araucaria.2022.i49.16 to allow the ‘parts of a whole’ to emerge from the text and to keep hidden the ‘whole’ (that is, the ‘system’) to which the ‘part’ belonged. In the specific case of the Aphytaians, therefore, we know that they had an excellent law, but this information – consistent with the role that Aristotle makes history play – is not enough to support the idea that Aristotle considered the polis in question an ideal model of reference for the Greeks53. It is no coincidence, moreover, that in Book 2 Aristotle peremptorily states that he undertook the work and considered it appropriate to reason about politics because none of the known constitutions worked correctly: in one way or another, all the politeiai he had historical information about presented structural problems and important criticalities54. Since I am not aware that Aristotle made any exceptions in this respect, I really do not see why we should consider the case of Aphytis as an exception, regarding which we are essentially being told only how the citizens were assessed in terms of their landholdings. Moreover, while it is true the Aphytaians had an agricultural democracy55, it is worth reiterating that such a regime was considered by Aristotle as the ‘best’ among those of a democratic type, and therefore not in ‘absolute’ terms but only under the given conditions. In fact, according to the philosopher, among the most widespread ‘deviant’ constitutions (that is, democracies and oligarchies), the systems in which the multitude held power, not those in which the few rich (oligoi-euporoi) ruled, were preferable, but only because the former constituted in some way the lesser ‘evil’, not the optimal solution56. The latter, on the other hand, is represented only by the ariste politeia that Aristotle outlines in Books 7 and 8, which has nothing to do with democracy (not even agricultural democracy), since in the ideal and perfect polis/politeia of the Pol. those who, like farmers, did manual work (and, therefore, work necessary and indispensable for the community) were not considered citizens and consequently not counted among the so-called “parts of a state” (πόλεως μέρη)57. 53 The same holds for the limited extension of the chora. From this point of view, in fact, Aphytis would only reflect one of the different and competing conditions which, according to Aristotle (cf. Pol. 7, 1325b 38ff.), the legislator has available for realizing the city and providing it with the best constitution (ariste politeia). Therefore, except for the small size of the territory, this specific case does not meet a whole series of equally important and fundamental criteria, such as, for example, the fact of not having many citizens and being located at a suitable distance from the sea (cf., in particular, 7, 1326a 5ff.; 1326b 2ff.; 1326b 26ff.; 1327a 11ff.). In addition, we should consider that, regarding the Aphytaians, Aristotle emphasizes the limited extent of the city’s territory for another, precise, reason: to highlight the goodness of the law to which the exemplum we are analyzing refer. Despite their large numbers and the limited amount of land available to them, the Aphytaians had managed to solve a critical situation and to make sure that most of the demos dedicated themselves to working the fields. 54 Cf. supra, § 1. 55 Cf. supra, § 7. 56 Cf. 3, 1281a 40-1281b 10 and 1281b 31-38. On this specific question and for a comment on the passage, cf. Accattino-Curnis 2013: 195ff.; Berti 2013: 38ff.; Bertelli 2018: 90ff. 57 The expression recurs several times in the Pol., but cf. especially 7, 1328a 24. See, moreover, Aristotle’s considerations in 7, 1328b 37ff., 1329a 40ff. Here and elsewhere in Book 7, the georgoi are those individuals who worked land that was not their own and who did so as slaves, and therefore represented elements without the status of citizen. Considered, instead, as ‘part of the city’ were the 345 Aristotle, the Agricultural Democracy, and the Aphytaians Araucaria. Revista Iberoamericana de Filosofía, Política, Humanidades y Relaciones Internacionales, año 24, nº 49. Primer cuatrimestre de 2022. Pp. 329-349. ISSN 1575-6823 e-ISSN 2340-2199 https://dx.doi.org/10.12795/araucaria.2022.i49.16 Therefore, with the question framed in these terms, despite the constant classification of this regime among the deviant politeiai, the Aristotelian views of democracy are clearly differentiated according to the different analytical perspectives adopted by the philosopher, whose reasoning, in these cases, always moves within a horizon that has nothing to do with ideal-desirable conditions, but with those proper of a given historical situation58. From this point of view, therefore, what can quite easily be stated regarding the Aphytaians (πάντες γεωργοῦσιν) is that, in the eyes of Aristotle, the polis in question, like the other exempla mentioned in the chapter on agricultural democracies, represented a paradigmatic and perspicuous case of political moderation achieved (and perhaps achievable) under the given conditions. It was, in fact, a community that, through its laws, had managed to create ‘in a natural way’ that same balance between the demos and the small group of euporoi/gnorimoi (the upper classes and notables) that, in the corresponding positive constitution achievable under historical conditions – that is, in the so-called politeia (the mixed regime treated above all in Book 4 of the Politics) – was obtained through the proper combination of the distinctive elements of an oligarchy and those of a democracy59. Fig. 1: Map of the Chalkidike (Papadopoulos-Paspalas 1999: 162). soldiers (to polemikon) and those who deliberated (to bouleuomenon); the latter two groups thus constituted a higher category: the politai with full rights (cf. 7, 1329a 2-5, 34-39 with Schütrumpf 2005, IV: 401, 455). Farmers and all those who had to work for a living (for example, artisans, merchants, and tetikon) represented a lower category that were even excluded from citizenship. 58 Accattino 1986: 59ff. and 74ff. 59 Cf. especially Chapters 8-9 and 11-12 of Book 4 with the commentary ad loc. in Bertelli-Moggi 2014. 346 Cesare Zizza Araucaria. Revista Iberoamericana de Filosofía, Política, Humanidades y Relaciones Internacionales, año 24, nº 49. Primer cuatrimestre de 2022. Pp. 329-349. ISSN 1575-6823 e-ISSN 2340-2199 https://dx.doi.org/10.12795/araucaria.2022.i49.16 Bibliography: Accattino 1986: P. Accattino, L’anatomia della città nella Politica di Aristotele, Torino, 1986. Accattino-Curnis 2013: P. Accattino-M. Curnis (a cura di), Aristotele, La Politica, Libro III, Roma, 2013. Arvanitaki 2019: A. Arvanitaki, Κεραμική των πρώιμων κλασικών χρόνων από ένα ταφικό σύνολο στην αρχαία Άφυτη: ένα στιγμιότυπο της αττικής κεραμικής παραγωγής / Early Classical Pottery from a Grave in Ancient Aphytis: A “Snapshot” of Attic Pottery Production, in Manakidou-Avramidou 2019, 405-422. Asheri 1966: D. Asheri, Distribuzioni di terre nell’antica Grecia, Torino, 1966. Aubonnet 1973: J. Aubonnet (éd. par.), Aristote, Politique, Livres V-VI, Paris, 1973 (repr. 1989, 1995). Bertelli 2014: L. Bertelli, Aristotle and History, in G. Parmeggiani (ed.), Between Thucydides and Polybius. The Golden Age of Greek Historiography, Washington, DC, 2014, 289-303. Bertelli 2018: L. Bertelli, Aristotele democratico?, in Teoria politica 8, 2018, 81-103. Bertelli-Moggi 2014: L. Bertelli-M. Moggi (a cura di), Aristotele, La Politica, Libro IV, Roma, 2014. Berti 2013: E. Berti, Aristotele e la democrazia, in C. Rossitto-A. Coppola et al. (a cura di), Aristotele e la storia, Padova, 2013, 31-52. Besso 2014: G. Besso, Commento ai capp. 7-13 di Aristotele, La Politica, Libro IV, in Bertelli-Moggi 2014, 231-278. Canevaro 2014: M. Canevaro, Commento ai capp. 14-16 di Aristotele, La Politica, Libro IV, in Bertelli-Moggi 2014: 279-377. De Luna-Zizza-Curnis 2016: M.E. De Luna-C. Zizza-M. Curnis (a cura di), Aristotele, La Politica, Libri V-VI, Roma, 2016. Fantasia 1975: U. Fantasia, Platone e Aristotele sull’organizzazione della χώρα, in Annali della Scuola Normale Superiore di Pisa s. III, 5, 1975, 1255-1274. Flensted-Jensen 1997: P. Flensted-Jensen, Some Problems in Polis Identification in the Chalkidic Peninsula, in T.H. Nielsen (ed.), Yet More Studies in the Ancient Greek Polis, Stuttgart, 1997, 117-128. Flensted-Jensen 2004: P. Flensted-Jensen, Thrace from Axios to Strymon, in M.H. Hansen-T.H. Nielsen (eds.), An Inventory of Archaic and Classical Poleis, Oxford-New York, 2004, 810-853. Gaebler 1935: H. Gaebler, Die antiken Münzen von Makedonia und Paionia, II, Berlin, 1935. Hatzopoulos 1996: M.B. Hatzopoulos, Macedonian Institutions under the Kings. A Historical and Epigraphic study, vol. I, Athens, 1996. Head 1911: B.V. Head, Historia Nummorum. A Manual of Greek Numismatics, Oxford, 1911 (2nd ed.). Keyt 1999: D. Keyt, Aristotle, Politics. Books V and VI, Oxford-New York, 1999, repr. 2007. 347 Aristotle, the Agricultural Democracy, and the Aphytaians Araucaria. Revista Iberoamericana de Filosofía, Política, Humanidades y Relaciones Internacionales, año 24, nº 49. Primer cuatrimestre de 2022. Pp. 329-349. ISSN 1575-6823 e-ISSN 2340-2199 https://dx.doi.org/10.12795/araucaria.2022.i49.16 Magnoli Bocchi 2019: G.B. Magnoli Bocchi, Politica e storia nella Retorica di Aristotele, Roma, 2019. Manakidou-Avramidou 2019: E. Manakidou-A. Avramidou (επιμ./eds.), Η κεραμική της κλασικής εποχής στο Βόρειο Αιγαίο και την περιφέρειά του (480- 323/300 π. Χ.) / Classical Pottery of the Northern Aegean and its Periphery (480-323/300 BC), Thessaloniki, 2019. Mari 2001: M. Mari, Macedoni fuori dalla Macedonia: il caso dei santuari panellenici, in Rivista di cultura classica e medioevale XLIII, 2, 2001, 195- 246. Misaïlidou-Despotidou 1999: V. Misaïlidou-Despotidou, Ανασκαφική έρευνα στην αρχαία Άφυτη [Excavation at Ancient Aphytis], in Το Αρχαιολογικό έργο στη Μακεδονία και Θράκη (AEMTh), XIII, 1999, 305-316. Misaïlidou-Despotidou 2009: V. Misaïlidou-Despotidou, Άφυτις 1997-2006, in Το Αρχαιολογικό έργο στη Μακεδονία και Θράκη (AEMTh), XX, 2009, 221-237. Misaïlidou-Despotidou 2012: V. Misaïlidou-Despotidou, A Red-Figure Lekythos by the “Pan Painter” fron Ancient Aphytis / Μια ερυθρόμορφη Λέκυθος του Ζωγράφου του Πάνος από την Αρχαία Αφύτη, in M. Tiverios-P. Nigdelis et al. (επιμ./eds.), ΘΡΕΠΤΗΡΙΑ. Μελέτες για την Αρχαία Μακεδονία / THREPTERIA. Studies on Ancient Macedonia, Thessaloniki, 2012, 214-239. Misaïlidou-Despotidou 2019: V. Misaïlidou-Despotidou, Λήκυθος του Ζωγράφου του Βερολίνου από το νεκροταφείο της αρχαίας Άφυτης / A Lekythos by the Berlin Painter from the Necropolis of Ancient Aphytis, in Manakidou- Avramidou 2019, 445-458. Moggi 2013: M. Moggi, Aristotele e la storia: un punto di vista, in C. Rossitto-A. Coppola et al. (a cura di), Aristotele e la storia, Padova, 2013, 9-30. Nagle 2006: D.B. Nagle, The Household as the Foundation of Aristotle’s Polis, Cambridge, 2006. Newman 1887-1902: W.L. Newman, The Politics of Aristotle (with an Introduction, Two Prefatory Essays and Notes Critical and Explanatory), vol. I-IV, Oxford, 1887-1902. Ober 1998: J. Ober, Political Dissent in Democratic Athens, Princeton, 1998. Papadopoulos-Paspalas 1999: J.K. Papadopoulos-S.A. Paspalas, Mendaian as Chalkidian Wine, in Hesperia: The Journal of the American School of Classical Studies at Athens LXVIII, 2, 1999, 161-188. Papazoglou 1988: F. Papazoglou, Les villes de Macédoine à l’époque romaine, BCH Suppl. XVI, Paris, 1988. Perlman 2000: P. Perlman, City and Sanctuary in Ancient Greece. The Theorodokia in the Peloponnese, Göttingen, 2000. Pezzoli 2014: F. Pezzoli, Commento ai capp. 1-6 di Aristotele, La Politica. Libro IV, in Bertelli-Moggi 2014: 161-230. Pezzoli-Curnis 2012: F. Pezzoli-M. Curnis (a cura di), Aristotele, La Politica. Libro II, Roma, 2012. 348 Cesare Zizza Araucaria. Revista Iberoamericana de Filosofía, Política, Humanidades y Relaciones Internacionales, año 24, nº 49. Primer cuatrimestre de 2022. Pp. 329-349. ISSN 1575-6823 e-ISSN 2340-2199 https://dx.doi.org/10.12795/araucaria.2022.i49.16 Price 1975: B.J. Price, Paradeigma and exemplum in Ancient Rhetorical Theory, Berkeley, 1975 (xerogr. ed.: Ann Arbor, 1990). Price 1987: M.J. Price, The Coinages of the Northern Aegean, in I. Carradice (ed.), Coinage and Administration in the Athenian and Persian Empires, The Ninth Oxford Symposium on Coinage and Monetary History, Oxford, 1987, 43-47. Poddighe 2019: E. Poddighe, Politeia nella storiografia e nel pensiero storico greco tra V e IV secolo a.C.: la questione della continuità e del mutamento, in Gerión XXXVII, 2, 2019, 271-300. Poddighe 2020: E. Poddighe, Aristotele e il synoran. La visione globale tra storia e politica, tra retorica e diritto, Milano, 2020. Polito 2001: M. Polito, Dagli Scritti di Eraclide sulle costituzioni: un commento storico, Napoli, 2001. Robinson-Clement 1938: D.M. Robinson-P.A. Clement, Excavations at Olynthus, IX: The Chalcidic Mint and the Excavation Coins Found in 1928-1934, Baltimore, 1938. Schütrumpf 2005: E. Schütrumpf (hrsg.), Aristoteles, Politik, Buch VII/VIII, IV, Berlin, 2005. Schütrumpf-Gehrke 1996: E. Schütrumpf-H.-J. Gehrke (hrsg.), Aristoteles, Politik, Buch IV-VI, III, Berlin, 1996. Simpson 1998: P.L.P. Simpson, A Philosophical Commentary on the Politics of Aristotle, Chapel Hill-London, 1998. Smith-Volioti 2019: A.C. Smith-K. Volioti, Lesser Pots Go Places: The Attic “Brand” in Macedonia and Thrace, in Manakidou-Avramidou 2019, 175-187. Tataki 1998: A.B. Tataki, Macedonians Abroad. A Contribution to the Prosopography of Ancient Macedonia, Athens, 1998. Tiverios 2008: M. Tiverios, Greek Colonisation of the Northern Aegean, in G.R. Tsetskhladze (ed.), Greek Colonisation. An Account of Greek Colonies and Other Settlements Overseas, ΙΙ, Leiden-Boston, 2008, 1-154. Touratsoglou 1993: Y.P. Touratsoglou, The Coin Circulation in Ancient Macedonia (ca. 200 B.C. – 268-266 A.D.), Athens, 1993. Tsigarida 2011: E.B. Tsigarida, The Sanctuary of Zeus Ammon at Kallithea (Chalicidice), in Kernos XXIV, 2011, 165-181. Weil 1960: R. Weil, Aristote et l’histoire. Essai sur la «Politique», Paris, 1960. Zahrnt 1971: M. Zahrnt, Olynth und die Chalkidier. Untersuchungen zur Staatenbildung auf der Chalkidischen Halbinsel im 5. und 4. Jahrhundert v. Chr., München, 1971. Zizza 2012: C. Zizza, Dalla cacciata di Trasibulo all’avvento di Dionisio il Vecchio: la parentesi ‘repubblicana’ di Siracusa nella Politica di Aristotele, in M. Polito-C. Talamo (a cura di), Istituzioni e costituzioni in Aristotele: tra storiografia e pensiero politico, Tivoli, 2012, 131-188. 349 Aristotle, the Agricultural Democracy, and the Aphytaians Araucaria. Revista Iberoamericana de Filosofía, Política, Humanidades y Relaciones Internacionales, año 24, nº 49. Primer cuatrimestre de 2022. Pp. 329-349. ISSN 1575-6823 e-ISSN 2340-2199 https://dx.doi.org/10.12795/araucaria.2022.i49.16 Zizza 2014: C. Zizza, Aristotele, i popoli anellenici della Politica e l’exemplum degli Achei e degli Eniochi del Ponto. Modelli e antimodelli?, in A. Gonzales- M.T. Schettino (eds.), L’idéalisation de l’autre. Faire un modèle d’un antimodèle, Besançon, 2014, 115-155. Zizza 2021: C. Zizza, Visioni d’Oriente (e d’Occidente) di un filosofo. Aristotele, la Politica e i Persiani, in S.A. Brioschi-M. De Pietri (a cura di), Visioni d’Oriente. Stereotipi, impressioni, rappresentazioni dall’antichità ad oggi, Milano, 2021, 61-83.