 |
The
understanding of the term 'state' in the Ancient World
|
Today the term 'political ideas'
can be interpreted as meaning 'thinking about the state'. In the Ancient World,
however, to compare 'political' with 'state' would have been too narrow. The
Ancient World was aware neither of the word state as an abstract term nor
of its familiar essence as understood today. Nevertheless, we will be using the term
'state' to describe the situation in the Ancient World for
reasons of simplicity and since this
word comes from Latin status, ‘way of standing, condition’. From the descriptions
used by these city-states themselves when addressing the outside world, it can be seen that the
'state' was regarded much more as a personal community: 'The Athenians' were the Athenian
state, the Spartans were Sparta
and the Roman State was the 'the people of Rome' (populus Romanus). According
to the writing of Athenian historian, Thukydides, his fellow countryman and
general, Nikias, said the following to the Athenian troops: "A state is its
men" (7,77,7). Cicero regarded the state (res publica = the public
affair) and "the affairs of the people" as being identical (De re
publica 1,39). And Augustine in 410 AD consoled the Christians, after the
gods had conquered the eternal city by saying: What is Rome (the roman
state as apposed to the city of Rome) other than the Romans? (Sermo 81,9).
[Back
to top of page]
The personal character of the
state was internally independent of the distribution of power and decision-making
powers. This personal character of the state was as true for Athenian democracy as it was for for the
Spartan aristocracy and, indeed, did not change
officially with the transition of Rome from republic into its emperor period.
Indeed,
it was for this same reason that traditional Greek monarchs never went under a
royal title; King Philip of Makedonia was simply "Philip, son of Amyntas".
Only non-Greek rulers used a royal title. As as far as the Greeks were
concerned,
this simply confirmed that no actual state community
existed alongside the autocracy in their countries. Only later, under Persian influence, did the
Hellenistic kings also adopt a royal title.
The 'state' element in
communities of people such as these was reflected in the way these communities offered
an internal legal system and protection from outside; they also
represented a religious unit. Shared (fictive) origins, institutions or territory
were not constituent parts of the state. The city-state served a functional purpose
both in its entirety and for its individual citizens. Ancient theory on creating
state systems always mentioned usefulness as being one of the reasons or,
indeed, the only reason for state union. Aristotle opened his politics with
the following statement: "Since it is clear that each state is a community
and every community is created from goodwill..." (...).
[Back
to top of page]
Political thought in the Ancient
World was concerned with the rules for living together within the state
community and, in contrast to today, had more to do with law, morality and religion
than with "politics", government and institutions. These rules formed
an unwritten constitution and thinking about these rules was much more than just
an analysis of the situation in politics and in the community; even special
inquires did not offer "pure science". Spoken or unspoken this
thinking represented criticism of existing circumstances, which, within a
personal state union, meant criticism of its members. The aim of political
thought was to reform these circumstances, which for the ancient authors meant
one thing only: Improving the morality of its members.
Criticism and reform as a
characteristic of political thinking says: Each individual statement stands in
close relationship to its corresponding historical period and cannot fundamentally
be understood without it
[Klaus Rosen; taken from: Hans Fenske u.a., Geschichte der
politischen Ideen. Von Homer bis zur Gegenwart, Frankfurt/Main 1987]
[Back
to top of page]
