No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
The Invention of the Social?
Debating the Scope of Politics in the Greek Polis from the Later Classical to the Early Roman Period
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 20 July 2023
Abstract
This paper applies to ancient Greece an approachdeveloped by Pierre Rosanvallon: the integration of philosophicaltexts with the most everyday documents to better grasp a society’sunderstanding of its political life. For the ancient polis, this meansfocusing on the more prosaic evidence offered by cities’ inscriptions,especially their collective decisions published on stone. It is usedhere to consider the changing ideas about the nature of political andprivate life—and especially the space between them. In a veryinfluential model, Classical Athenian democrats and philosopherstended to insist on a sharp binary distinction between public/political life and private life, leaving little room for a notion ofan intermediate third space of polis life, similar to a “socialsphere” or “civil society.” This pattern remained dominant in theHellenistic and Roman periods, but, especially after c. 150 BC, someGreek citizens and intellectuals developed, above all in inscriptions,a much more explicit, complex, and subtle notion of “social life” assomething between politics and private life. The article concludes byasking what the different ancient concepts discussed can contribute tocurrent historiographical debates about the nature of the Greek cityafter c. 150 BC, especially when it comes to moving beyond thetraditional picture of “depoliticization.” It also calls into questionthe orthodox narrative of the development of ideas of “the social”over many centuries up to the present.
Résumé
Cet article applique à laGrèce antique une approche développée par Pierre Rosanvallon :l’intégration des textes philosophiques aux documents du quotidienpour mieux saisir la compréhension qu’une société a de sa viepolitique. Ici, cela nécessite de se concentrer sur les sources pluspragmatiques que sont les inscriptions des villes, notamment cellesportant sur les décisions civiques. Nous nous penchons sur l’évolutiondes idées sur la nature de la vie politique et privée, et surtout surl’espace qui les sépare. Avec une influence considérable, lesdémocrates et les philosophes de l’Athènes classique ont eu tendance àinsister sur une distinction binaire nette entre viepublique/politique et vie privée, laissant peu de place à la notiond’un troisième espace intermédiaire de la vie de la polis, semblable àune « sphère sociale » ou à une « société civile ». Ce modèle estresté dominant pendant les périodes hellénistique et romaine, mais,surtout après 150 av. J.-C. environ, certains citoyens etintellectuels grecs ont développé, principalement dans lesinscriptions, une notion beaucoup plus explicite, complexe et subtilede « vie sociale », entre la politique et la vie privée. L’articles’interroge finalement sur ce que les différents concepts antiquesdiscutés peuvent apporter aux débats historiographiques actuels sur lanature de la cité grecque après 150 av. J.-C., en particulier sur lamanière de dépasser l’image traditionnelle de la « dépolitisation »,et remet également en question le récit orthodoxe du développement desidées du « social » sur plusieurs siècles jusqu’à aujourd’hui.
- Type
- Research Article
- Information
- Copyright
- © Éditions de l’EHESS 2023
Footnotes
*
* This article wasfirst published in French as Benjamin Gray, “L’invention du social ?Délimiter la politique dans la cité grecque (de la fin de la périodeclassique au début de la période impériale),” Annales HSS 77, no. 4 (2022): 633–71. Ithas benefited greatly from the guidance of the Annales’ readers and editors, especiallyVincent Azoulay. I am most grateful too for comments on differentversions from Clifford Ando, Mirko Canevaro, Lisa Pilar Eberle,Matthias Haake, Anna Heller, Moritz Hinsch, Georgy Kantor, John Ma,William Mack, Jan Meister, Wilfried Nippel, Ben Raynor, and ClaudiaTiersch. I would also like to thank the Alexander von HumboldtFoundation for the fellowship which enabled me to write the firstdraft. Following my university’s policy, I assert that a CC BY licenseis applied to the accepted manuscript version of this paper. Alltranslations of ancient texts are my own. Inscriptions are citedaccording to the conventions of epigraphy: François Bérard et al., Guide de l’épigraphiste.Bibliographie choisie des épigraphies antiques et médiévales,4th edn. (Paris: Éd. Rue d’Ulm 2010). The Greek is typeset in IFAOGrecUnicode.
References
1 Pauline Schmitt Pantel, “Collective Activities and the Political in the Greek City,” in The Greek City: From Homer to Alexander, ed. Oswyn Murray and Simon Price (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1990), 199–213, here p. 212.
2 See the introduction to Clifford Ando and Jörg Rüpke, eds., Public and Private in Ancient Mediterranean Law and Religion (Berlin: De Gruyter, 2015), 1–9, here p. 3.
3 For a recent analysis, see Malcolm Bull, The Concept of the Social: Scepticism, Idleness and Utopia (London: Verso, 2021), chapter 1. For different French conceptions of “the social,” see Pierre Rosanvallon, Le modèle politique français. La société civile contre le jacobinisme de 1789 à nos jours (Paris: Éd. du Seuil, 2004), especially part 2.
4 See, for example, Hannah Arendt, The Human Condition (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1958), especially 38–49.
5 For this tradition, see the first part of Rosanvallon, Le modèle politique français, for instance 59–65 and 72–75; for its continuing force, cf. Catherine Neveu, Citoyenneté et espace public. Habitants, jeunes et citoyens dans une ville du Nord (Villeneuve d’Ascq: Presses universitaires du Septentrion, 2003), 198 (on immigrant groups).
6 See Benjamin Constant, Écrits politiques, ed. Marcel Gauchet (Paris: Le Livre de poche, 1980). On the resulting debates, see Wilfried Nippel, Antike oder moderne Freiheit? Die Begründung der Demokratie in Athen und in der Neuzeit (Frankfurt: Fischer, 2008), especially chapters 7–9. In a distinctive new theory, with some loose connections with this second tradition, Bull, The Concept of the Social, has recently proposed celebrating “the social” as a model for a more anarchic, skeptical way of living together, free from the normative constraints of political life (note his reflections, on pp. 12–15, on Arendt’s idea of “the social,” which he repurposes as a positive model).
7 For this concept applied to the history of political thinking and interaction, see Willibald Steinmetz, Das Sagbare und das Machbare. Zum Wandel politischer Handlungsspielräume – England 1789–1867 (Stuttgart: Klett-Cotta, 1993), 24–34.
8 See in particular Vincent Azoulay, “Repoliticizing the Greek City, Thirty Years Later,” in “Politics in Ancient Greece,” ed. Vincent Azoulay, special issue, Annales HSS (English Edition) 69, no. 3 (2014): 471–501.
9 See Jacqueline Bordes, Politeia dans la pensée grecque jusqu’à Aristote (Paris: Les Belles Lettres, 1982); Verity Harte and Melissa Lane, eds., Politeia in Greek and Roman Philosophy (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2013).
10 On civic elites, see Philippe Gauthier, Les cités grecques et leurs bienfaiteurs ( ive– ier siècle av. J.-C.). Contribution à l’histoire des institutions (Athens: École française d’Athènes, 1985); Pierre Fröhlich and Christel Müller, eds., Citoyenneté et participation à la basse époque hellénistique. Actes de la table ronde des 22 et 23 mai 2004, Paris, BNF (Geneva: Droz 2005). For a recent analysis of the role of associations, see Vincent Gabrielsen and Christian A. Thomsen, eds., Private Associations and the Public Sphere: Proceedings of a Symposium Held at the Royal Danish Academy of Sciences and Letters, 9–11 September 2010 (Copenhagen: Royal Danish Academy of Sciences and Letters, 2015).
11 See Paul Veyne, Le pain et le cirque. Sociologie historique d’un pluralisme politique (Paris: Éd. du Seuil, 1976).
12 For the former, see Schmitt Pantel, “Collective Activities,” for instance 203; for the latter, see Oswyn Murray, “Cities of Reason,” in Murray and Price, The Greek City, 1–25.
13 See Claude Lefort, Democracy and Political Theory [1986], trans. David Macey (Cambridge: Polity, 1988).
14 See especially Azoulay, “Repoliticizing the Greek City.”
15 On these inscriptions as (neglected) sources for the history of (praise) rhetoric, see Laurent Pernot, La rhétorique dans l’Antiquité (Paris: LGF, 2000), 109–12. Compare the juxtaposing of literary and epigraphic texts to reconstruct changing ideology in Giovanni Salmeri, “Empire and Collective Mentality: The Transformation of Eutaxia from the Fifth Century BC to the Second Century AD,” in The Province Strikes Back: Imperial Dynamics in the Eastern Mediterranean, ed. Björn Forsen and Giovanni Salmeri (Helsinki: Suomen Ateenan-instituutin säätiö, 2008), 137–55.
16 For example, Quentin Skinner, Visions of Politics, vol. 1, Concerning Method (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002).
17 For example, Reinhart Koselleck, Begriffsgeschichten. Studien zur Semantik und Pragmatik der politischen und sozialen Sprache (Frankfurt: Suhrkamp, 2006).
18 For example, Pauline Schmitt Pantel, La cité au banquet. Histoire des repas publics dans les cités grecques (Rome: École française de Rome, 1992); Nicole Loraux, La cité divisée. L’oubli dans la mémoire d’Athènes (Paris: Payot et Rivages, 1997); or the contributions to Vincent Azoulay, ed., “Politics in Ancient Greece,” special issue, Annales HSS (English Edition) 69, no. 3 (2014).
19 Pierre Rosanvallon, Pour une histoire conceptuelle du politique (Paris: Éd. du Seuil, 2003); Rosanvallon, La démocratie inachevée. Histoire de la souveraineté du peuple de France (Paris: Gallimard, 2000), 34.
20 Pierre Rosanvallon, Democracy: Past and Future (New York: Columbia University Press, 2006), chapters 1–2, especially pp. 74–75.
21 Rosanvallon, Le modèle politique français.
22 Aeschines, Against Timarchus 1.195.
23 See Demosthenes, Against Timocrates 24.155; Pseudo-Demosthenes (Apollodorus), Against Callippos 52.28.
24 See Arnaud Macé, “La genèse sensible de l’État comme forme du commun. Essai d’introduction générale,” in Choses privées et chose publique en Grèce ancienne. Genèse et structure d’un système de classification, ed. Arnaud Macé (Grenoble: Éditions Jérôme Millon, 2012), 7–40, here pp. 11 and 13 (convergence of κοινόν and δημόσιον); Alain Fouchard, “Dèmosios et dèmos : sur l’État grec,” in “Public et privé en Grèce ancienne. Lieux, conduites, pratiques,” ed. François de Polignac and Pauline Schmitt Pantel, special issue, Ktèma 23 (1998): 59–70, here pp. 60 (on κοινόν and δημόσιον) and 67–68 (on δημόσιον and πολιτικόν). As these scholars show, there were also continued divergences between these three words: for example, δημόσιον could be used in a more technical sense than the others, to refer to polis property or other “official” items. See Macé, “La genèse sensible de l’État,” 14–15, with table 1, pp. 463–71.
25 For example, Demosthenes, Against Eubulides 57.3 (τῶν ὑμετέρων ἱερῶν καὶ κοινῶν μετεῖχον); see Nikolaos Papazarkadas, Sacred and Public Land in Ancient Athens (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011).
26 Josine Blok, Citizenship in Classical Athens (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2017), especially chapter 2. For a similar view concerning polis land, see Denis Rousset, “Sacred Property and Public Property in the Greek City,” Journal of Hellenic Studies 133 (2013): 113–33.
27 Paulin Ismard, La cité des réseaux. Athènes et ses associations ( vie– ier siècle av. J.-C.) (Paris: Publications de la Sorbonne, 2010), especially 409; cf. more recently, for Hellenistic Rhodes, Christian A. Thomsen, The Politics of Association in Hellenistic Rhodes (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2020), chapters 7–8.
28 Ismard, La cité des réseaux, 14–15 and 31.
29 Ibid., chapter 1; Alain Duplouy, “The So-Called Solonian Property Classes: Citizenship in Archaic Athens,” in Azoulay, “Politics in Ancient Greece,” 411–39.
30 Schmitt Pantel, “Collective Activities,” 204, discussing Christian Meier, Die Entstehung des Politischen bei den Griechen (Frankfurt: Suhrkamp, 1983), and Paul Veyne, “Critique d’une systematization : les Lois de Platon et la réalité,” Annales ESC 37, no. 5/6 (1982): 883–908.
31 Thucydides, History of the Peloponnesian War 2.37.2–3.
32 For this interpretation, see Vincent Azoulay, “Isocrate, Xénophon ou le politique transfiguré,” Revue des études anciennes 108, no. 1 (2006): 133–53, here pp. 135–36.
33 Demosthenes, Against Timocrates 24.192–93.
34 Compare similar dynamics in Demosthenes, On the Crown 18.268.
35 Schmitt Pantel, “Collective Activities,” 207–208 and 212, argues that collective activities beyond political institutions came to be conceived in the fourth century as making up a very general, broad category of the “common” (κοινόν), of which political life was merely one component; this interpretation does not quite match the texts she cites (see what follows on Xenophon and Aristotle). Compare too François de Polignac and Pauline Schmitt Pantel, introduction to “Public et privé en Grèce ancienne. Lieux, conduites, pratiques,” special issue, Ktèma 23 (1998): 5–13, here pp. 7–8.
36 See Azoulay, “Repoliticizing the Greek City.”
37 Isocrates, Panegyricus 4.78.
38 See especially Isocrates, Panathenaicus 12.144; Azoulay, “Isocrate, Xénophon ou le politique transfiguré,” 136–40.
39 For example, Plato, Republic or Apology 30b–32a; Aristotle, Politics, book 8.
40 Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics 1160a8–23.
41 See Ismard, La cité des réseaux, 13–15.
42 Ibid., 405–406.
43 Blok, Citizenship in Classical Athens.
44 Pierre Fröhlich, “La citoyenneté grecque entre Aristote et les modernes,” Cahiers du Centre Gustave Glotz 27 (2016): 91–136.
45 Contrast the institutional focus of book 3 of Aristotle’s Politics with the broader vision of books 7 and 8.
46 Anthony A. Long and David N. Sedley, The Hellenistic Philosophers, 2 vols. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987), text 22D = Epicurus, Vatican Sayings 58.
47 Long and Sedley, The Hellenistic Philosophers, text 22Q = Diogenes Laertius, Lives and Opinions of the Eminent Philosophers 10.119.
48 Long and Sedley, The Hellenistic Philosophers, texts 22A–C = Epicurus, Principal Doctrines (Kyriai Doxai) 33, 36–37, and 40.
49 Long and Sedley, The Hellenistic Philosophers, texts 22A–C = Epicurus, Principal Doctrines (Kyriai Doxai) 38.
50 Long and Sedley, The Hellenistic Philosophers, text 22M = Porphyry, On Abstinence 1.7 (note εἰς τὴν τοῦ βίου κοινωνίαν τῶν ἀνθρώπων καὶ τὰς πρὸς ἀλλήλους πράξεις); see Antonina Alberti, “The Epicurean Theory of Law and Justice,” in Justice and Generosity: Studies in Hellenistic Social and Political Philosophy; Proceedings of the Sixth Symposium Hellenisticum, ed. Andre Laks and Malcolm Schofield (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995), 161–90, here p. 165.
51 See Christian Habicht, Athens from Alexander to Antony (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1997), 171–72.
52 See Gauthier, Les cités grecques et leurs bienfaiteurs; Volker Grieb, Hellenistische Demokratie. Politische Organisation und Struktur in freien griechischen Poleis nach Alexander dem Großen (Stuttgart: Franz Steiner, 2008); John Ma, “Whatever Happened to Athens? Thoughts on the Great Convergence and Beyond,” in The Hellenistic Reception of Classical Athenian Democracy and Political Thought, ed. Mirko Canevaro and Benjamin Gray (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2018), 277–97. For Asia Minor and the eastern Aegean, see examples from Eresos (Peter J. Rhodes and Robin Osborne, eds., Greek Historical Inscriptions, 404–323 BC [Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003], no. 83), Erythrai (I.Erythrai 503) and Ilion (I.Ilion 25), in David A. Teegarden, Death to Tyrants! Ancient Greek Democracy and the Struggle against Tyranny (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2014), chapters 4–6.
53 For example, I.Priene 2 6, ll. 25–26; 46, ll. 12–13.
54 For the evidence for federal states’ public language, see the epigraphical appendix in Emily Mackil, Creating a Common Polity: Religion, Economy, and Politics in the Making of the Greek Koinon (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2013), 409–504.
55 CID 4.117 (118/7 or 117/6 BCE), ll. 11–14.
56 Diodorus Siculus, Library of History 13.26.3.
57 Compare Liddell-Scott-Jones, s.v. συμβίωσις, citing Polybius (Histories 5.81.2 and 31.25.10) and Diodorus Siculus (Library of History 4.54), as well as documentary sources. The root verb συμβιόω (“to live together”) was used in earlier texts in reference to spouses or friends and associates (cf. Isocrates, On the Exchange 15.97; Plato, Symposium 181d): Aristotle even used the infinitive as a substantive (τὸ συμβιοῦν, “living together”) to refer to friends’ or associates’ shared life (Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics 1126a31, cf. 1165b30–31; Magna Moralia 1213a27–30).
58 Benjamin Gray, “Reconciliation in Later Classical and Post-Classical Greek Cities: A Question of Peace and Peacefulness?” in Peace and Reconciliation in the Classical World, ed. Eoghan. P. Moloney and Michael S. Williams (New York: Routledge, 2017), 66–85.
59 Benjamin Gray, “The Polis Becomes Humane? Philanthrōpia as a Cardinal Civic Virtue in Later Hellenistic Honorific Epigraphy and Historiography,” in “Parole in movimento. Linguaggio politico e lessico storiografico nel mondo ellenistico,” ed. Manuela Mari and John Thornton, special issue, Studi ellenistici 27 (2013): 137–62.
60 Compare Demosthenes, Against Timocrates 24.51–52.
61 See Azoulay, “Isocrate, Xénophon ou le politique transfiguré,” 148–51.
62 For example, Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics 1155a16–22; Polybius, Histories 4.20.1; cf. the Karzoazos decree from Olbia, discussed below.
63 See IG XII 4.1.132 (Telos, later fourth century BCE), ll. 4–5 and 38–39; IG XII 6.1.95 (Samos, third century BCE), ll. 16–17; Tit. Cal. Test. XVI (Kalymna, third century BCE), ll. 37–38.
64 I.Mylasa 101, ll. 37–46. For an example of its traditionalism, the preference expressed for mediation over legal judgement was a hallmark of Greek inscriptions concerning reconciliation: Astrid Dössel, Die Beilegung innerstaatlicher Konflikte in den griechischen Poleis vom 5.-3. Jahrhundert v. Chr. (Frankfurt: Peter Lang, 2003), 256 and 262–63.
65 I.Mylasa 101, ll. 38–39.
66 I.Mylasa 101, ll. 15–38.
67 Carneiscus, Philistas (c. 200 BCE), P.Herc. 1027, 4.21 (cf. 4.18 for the verb); cf. Epicurus, Vatican Sayings 18.
68 Carneiscus, Philistas, P.Herc. 1027, 4.18; SIG 3 534, ll. 7–8; SIG 3 534B, l. 8; FD III 4 175, ll. 7–8.
69 For epigraphy, as well as the Mylasan text, see SEG 26.1817, ll. 11–14. For an Epicurean text, see Philodemus, On the Gods (Peri Theōn), book 3, col. a, fr. 87 (Diels) (linking the concept with συμφυλία). For other literary texts, see the Letter of Aristeas 169 and 246; Diodorus Siculus, Library of History 3.18.7 and 4.4.6; cf. 3 Maccabees 2:31, 2:33, and 3:5.
70 Julia Annas, “Aristotelian Political Theory in the Hellenistic Period,” in Laks and Schofield, Justice and Generosity, 74–94, especially pp. 82–87.
71 Georgia Tsouni, “Didymus’ Epitome of Peripatetic Ethics, Household Management, and Politics: An Edition with Translation,” in Arius Didymus on Peripatetic Ethics, Household Management, and Politics: Text, Translation, and Discussion, ed. William Fortenbaugh (New York: Routledge, 2017), 1–67.
72 On the fit with the broader later Hellenistic Peripatetic context known from other sources, see Philip Schmitz, “Oikos, polis und politeia—Das Verhältnis von Familie und Staatsverfassung bei Aristoteles, im späteren Peripatos und in Ciceros De officiis,” Rheinisches Museum für Philologie 160 (2017): 9–35.
73 Tsouni, “Didymus’ Epitome of Peripatetic Ethics,” section 26 Tsouni, 148.4; cf. Robert W. Sharples, Peripatetic Philosophy, 200 BC to AD 200: An Introduction and Collection of Sources in Translation (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010), chapter 15A, section 44.
74 Tsouni, “Didymus’ Epitome of Peripatetic Ethics,” section 3 Tsouni, 120.14.
75 Aristotle, Eudemian Ethics 1242a22–b1.
76 Tsouni, “Didymus’ Epitome of Peripatetic Ethics,” section 3 Tsouni, 120.9–20.
77 I.Priene 2 63, ll. 17–21.
78 Epictetus, Discourses 3.13.5–6 (ἀπὸ τοῦ φύσει κοινωνικοῦ εἶναι καὶ φιλαλλήλου καὶ ἡδέως συναναστρέφεσθαι ἀνθρώποις).
79 SIG 3 534, ll. 7–8; SIG 3 534B, l. 8; FD III 4 175, ll. 7–8.
80 For a recent overview, see Richard Alston, “Post-Politics and the Ancient Greek City,” in Political Culture in the Greek City after the Classical Age, ed. Onno M. van Nijf and Richard Alston (Leuven: Peeters, 2011), 307–36.
81 See Pierre Fröhlich and Patrice Hamon, eds., Groupes et associations dans les cités grecques ( iiie siècle av. J.-C– iie siècle ap. J.-C) (Geneva/ Paris: Droz/EPHE, 2012). On associations in Athens, see Ilias N. Arnaoutoglou, “Thusias heneka kai sunousias”: Private Religious Associations in Hellenistic Athens (Athens: Academy of Athens, 2003); Ismard, La cité des réseaux, chapter 5. For Rhodes, see Thomsen, The Politics of Association.
82 For the rich epigraphic evidence, see John S. Kloppenborg and Richard S. Ascough, eds., Greco-Roman Associations: Texts, Translations, and Commentary, vol. 1, Attica, Central Greece, Macedonia, Thrace (Berlin: De Gruyter, 2011); Philip A Harland, ed., Greco-Roman Associations: Texts, Translations and Commentary, vol. 2, North Coast of the Black Sea, Asia Minor (Berlin: De Gruyter, 2014); as well as the Copenhagen Inventory of Ancient Associations Database, https://ancientassociations.ku.dk/CAPI/.
83 See Benedikt Eckhardt, “Romanization and Isomorphic Change in Phrygia: The Case of Private Associations,” Journal of Roman Studies 106 (2016): 147–71.
84 Compare Thomsen, The Politics of Association, chapter 7.
85 See, for example, Cicero, On the Orator 1.85–89, with Elizabeth Rawson, “Cicero and the Areopagus,” Athenaeum 63 (1985): 44–67, especially pp. 53–54.
86 See SEG 39.1243 (Colophon, later second century BCE, decree for the citizen Polemaios), col. 5, ll. 1–11; and col. 1, 22–36. Cf. Acts of the Apostles 17:17–22.
87 For example, Strabo, Geography 14.5.12–15 (on the city of Tarsus); more generally, see Johannes Engels, “Ἄνδρες ἔνδοξοι or ‘Men of High Reputation’ in Strabo’s Geography,” in Strabo’s Cultural Geography: The Making of a Koloussourgia, ed. Daniela Dueck, Hugh Lindsay, and Sarah Pothecary (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005), 129–43.
88 Plutarch, Precepts of Statecraft 814a–c.
89 Contrast, for example, I.Priene 2 68–70 (first century BCE) with earlier Hellenistic decrees of Priene, such as I.Priene 2 20–28. For some of the changes discussed here, see Giovanni Salmeri, “Reconstructing the Political Life and Culture of the Greek Cities of the Roman Empire,” in van Nijf and Alston, Political Culture in the Greek City, 197–214, here pp. 206–207.
90 See also Mackil, Creating a Common Polity.
91 Anna Heller and Anne-Valérie Pont, eds., Patrie d’origine et patries électives : les citoyennetés multiples dans le monde grec d’époque romaine (Bordeaux: Ausonius, 2012).
92 Christel Müller, “(De)constructing Politeia: Reflections on Citizenship and the Bestowal of Privileges upon Foreigners in Hellenistic Democracies,” in Azoulay, “Politics in Ancient Greece,” 533–54.
93 See Oliver Marchart, Post-Foundational Political Thought: Political Difference in Nancy, Lefort, Badiou and Laclau (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2007); Engin F. Isin, ed., Recasting the Social in Citizenship (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2008).
94 See Alston, “Post-Politics and the Ancient Greek City”; Robin Osborne, Greek History: The Basics (London: Routledge, 2014), 139: “the city had been reduced to a mere town.”
95 See in particular Gauthier, Les cités grecques et leurs bienfaiteurs, 56–59. See also Friedemann Quaß, Die Honoratiorenschicht in den Städten des griechischen Ostens (Stuttgart: Franz Steiner, 1993), dating the changes earlier in the Hellenistic period than Gauthier.
96 Arendt, The Human Condition, 38–49.
97 Chantal Mouffe, On the Political (New York: Routledge, 2005), 72–76, here p. 72. For an overview, see Japhy Wilson and Erik Swyngedouw, eds., The Post-Political and Its Discontents: Spaces of Depoliticisation, Spectres of Radical Politics (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2014).
98 For this complex, mixed picture, see, for example, Riet van Bremen, The Limits of Participation: Women and Civic Life in the Greek East in the Hellenistic and Roman Periods (Amsterdam: J. C. Gieben, 1996); Fröhlich and Müller, Citoyenneté et participation; Arjan Zuiderhoek, “On the Political Sociology of the Imperial Greek City,” Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 48 (2008): 417–45; Anna Heller, “La cité grecque d’époque impériale : vers une société d’ordres ?” Annales HSS 64, no. 2 (2009): 341–73, and, more recently, Heller, L’âge d’or des bienfaiteurs. Titres honorifiques et sociétés civiques dans l’Asie Mineure d’époque romaine ( ier s. av. J.-C.– iiie s. apr. J.-C.) (Geneva: Droz, 2020); Cédric Brélaz, “La vie démocratique dans les cités grecques à l’époque impériale romaine. Notes de lectures et orientations de la recherche (note critique),” Topoi 18, no. 2 (2013): 367–99; Henri-Louis Fernoux, Le dēmos et la cité. Communautés et assemblées populaires en Asie Mineure à l’époque impériale (Rennes: Presses universitaires de Rennes, 2011); Salmeri, “Reconstructing the Political Life”; Christian Mann and Peter Scholz, eds., “Demokratie” im Hellenismus. Von der Herrschaft des Volkes zur Herrschaft der Honoratioren? (Mainz: Antike, 2012); John Ma, Statues and Cities: Honorific Portraits and Civic Identity in the Hellenistic World (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013), especially part 1; also Ma’s earlier “Public Speech and Community in the Euboicus,” in Dio Chrysostom: Politics, Letters and Philosophy, ed. Simon Swain (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002), 108–24; Müller, “(De)constructing Politeia.”
99 See the account of Hierocles’ views in Stobaeus, Florilegium 4.671, ll. 16–21, with Anthony A. Long, “Hierocles on Oikeiōsis and Self-Perception,” in Stoic Studies (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996), 250–63.
100 For example, Azoulay, “Isocrate, Xénophon ou le politique transfiguré,” 151 and 153.
101 Claudia Rapp, “City and Citizenship as Christian Concepts of Community in Late Antiquity,” in The City in the Classical and Post-Classical World: Changing Contexts of Power and Identity, ed. Claudia Rapp and Harold A. Drake (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2014), 153–66.
102 For example, Strabo, Geography 3.2.15; 7.4.6; 14.3.2; and 17.1.3.
103 For example, SEG 39.1243 (Colophon, late Hellenistic), col. 4, ll. 24–34.
104 For example, SEG 38.1396, later Hellenistic decree of Perge for Stasias, a gymnasiarch, said to be “engaging in politics in the finest way” (ἄριστα πολιτευόμενος, ll. 22–24 and 59–60).
105 IG XII 5.274 or 321 (Paros, Hellenistic); cf. IG IX 1.540 (Leukas, Imperial).
106 I.Metropolis 1, text B, ll. 27–28.
107 Plutarch, On Whether an Old Man Should Participate in Politics 791c and 796c–797a.
108 Azoulay, “Isocrate, Xénophon ou le politique transfiguré,” 148–51.
109 Plutarch, Precepts of Statecraft 800d. By contrast, On Monarchy, Democracy, and Oligarchy (826c–e) presents a narrower, more institutional understanding of politeia, but Plutarch’s authorship is doubtful: G. J. D. Aalders, “Plutarch or Pseudo-Plutarch? The Authorship of De Unius in Re Publica Dominatione,” Mnemosyne 35, no. 1/2 (1982): 72–83.
110 TAM V 1.166, ll. 6–9 (from the katoikia at Encekler in the territory of the polis of Saittai in Lydia, Imperial period).
111 For recent analyses of the debate about the use of this language in Lycia (both favoring the “citizenship” interpretation), see Christina Kokkinia, “Opramoas’ Citizenships: The Lycian Politeuomenos-Formula,” in Heller and Pont, Patrie d’origine et patries électives, 327–39; and Patrick J. Baker and Gaétan Thériault, “Xanthos et la Lycie à la basse époque hellénistique. Nouvelle inscription honorifique xanthienne,” Chiron 48 (2018): 301–32, here pp. 306–307, plus their edition of the new inscription (p. 302), ll. 3–5, cf. ll. 20–21.
112 I.Metropolis 1, text B, ll. 10–12.
113 I.Kaunos 30, first or early second century CE, ll. 15–18: ἐπεικῆ καὶ ἰσότειμον τὸν ἑαυτοῦ παρεῖχεν βίον αἰδούμενος μὲν τοὺς πρεσβυτέρους ὡς πατέρας, φιλοστόργως δὲ καὶ φιλοκαλῶς προσφερόμενος πάσῃ ἡλικίᾳ, δίκαιος ἐμ πολιτείᾳ, ἁγνὸς καὶ περὶ τὰς δημοσίας πίστεις, ζηλωτὸς τῆς σωφροσύνης, εὐσεβὴς καὶ φιλόστοργος πρὸς τοὺς οἰκείους, ἀμείμητος πρὸς τοὺς φίλους, ἐπεικὴς καὶ φιλάνθρωπος πρὸς τοὺς οἰκέτας.
114 See IOSPE I² 32, third century BCE, face B, l. 76: ἐν τοῖς τῆς πολιτείας χρόνοις.
115 Adolf Wilhelm, “Zum griechischen Wortschatz,” Glotta 14, no. 1/2 (1925): 68–84, here pp. 78–82, with many examples.
116 I.Kaunos 139, IIIc, ll. 19–21.
117 Adolf Wilhelm, Neue Beiträge zur griechischen Inschriftenkunde, vol. 1 (Vienna: Hölder-Pichler-Tempsky, 1911), 56–57, ll. 18–19; compare the Lydian katoikia decree discussed in the previous section.
118 Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Roman Antiquities 1.41.1.
119 I.Priene 2 64, ll. 16–23: βεβιωκὼς εὐσ[εβῶς μὲ]ν πρὸς θεούς, ὁ[σ]ίως δὲ πρὸς τοὺς γονεῖς καὶ τοὺ[ς συμ]β[ι]οῦντας ἐν οἰκ[ε]ιότηιτι καὶ χρήσ̣ει κ̣α̣ὶ τοὺς λοιπο̣[ὺς] πολίτας πάντας, δικαίως δὲ καὶ φιλοδόξως προσε[νην]εγμένος τῆι πατρίδι καὶ καταξίως τῆς τῶν πρ[ογόνων] ἀρετῆς τε καὶ δόξης, διαμαρ[τ]υρουμένην ἐσχηκ̣[ὼς διὰ παν]τὸς τοῦ βίου τὴν παρὰ τῶν θεῶν εὐμένεια[ν] κα̣[ὶ τὴν παρὰ] [τ]ῶν [σ]υμπολιτευομένων καὶ τῶν κατοικού̣[ντων εὔνοια]ν ἐπὶ τοῖς κατὰ τὸ κάλλιστον πρασσο̣[μένοις…].
120 For example, Harland, Greco-Roman Associations, 195.
121 See Cicero, On Duties 1.50–58; Tsouni, “Didymus’ Epitome of Peripatetic Ethics,” section 3 Tsouni, 120.9–122.9; section 9 Tsouni, 127.4–9; compare also the later ideas of Hierocles the Stoic, discussed above.
122 Philodemus, On Piety 1, ll. 1505–56.
123 SEG 46.1721, ll. 5–21, with Philippe Gauthier, “Bienfaiteurs du gymnase au Létôon de Xanthos,” Revue des études grecques 109, no. 1 (1996): 1–34. On groups of neoi as both inside and outside the polis and its politics, see Riet van Bremen, “Neoi in Hellenistic Cities: Age Class, Institution, Association?” in Fröhlich and Hamon, Groupes et associations, 31–59.
124 IOSPE I² 39. See Angelos Chaniotis, “Political Culture in the Cities of the Northern Black Sea Region in the ‘Long Hellenistic Age’ (The Epigraphic Evidence),” in The Northern Black Sea in Antiquity: Networks, Connectivity, and Cultural Interactions, ed. Valeriya Kozlovskaya (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2017), 141–66.
125 SEG 39.1243, col. 2, ll. 3–31, here ll. 16–18.
126 On the complex mixture of wide participation, citizen initiative and elite dominance in the later Hellenistic poleis, see Fröhlich and Müller, Citoyenneté et participation.
127 Especially Fernoux, Le dēmos et la cité; cf. Heller, “La cité grecque d’époque impériale.”
128 Strabo, Geography 1.2.8 and 15.1.53.
129 Strabo, Geography 1.1.18; cf. 16.2.38.
130 See Jean-Luc Nancy, La communauté désœuvrée (Paris: Christian Bourgois, 1990); Mouffe, On the Political. For an analysis, see Marchart, Post-Foundational Political Thought, chapter 3.
131 Tsouni, “Didymus’ Epitome of Peripatetic Ethics,” section 7 Tsouni, 125.10–23. As in the case of the Strabo passages cited above, it is justifiable here to translate the term κοινωνικός as “social” in the sense proposed in this article, because it is used to describe a sphere of communal life.
132 Annas, “Aristotelian Political Theory,” 87 (cf. p 82) does, however, see a strong convergence in meaning between the two terms.
133 See, for example, Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics 1098a20–1098b8; Tsouni, “Didymus’ Epitome of Peripatetic Ethics,” section 7 Tsouni, 125.10–23.
134 For this evolution, see Annas, “Aristotelian Political Theory,” 87.
135 Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics 1161b12–15; Pseudo-Aristotle, Constitution of the Athenians 52.2; cf. Demosthenes, On the Symmories 14.16. The word could also have a more generic meaning in Aristotle: Politics 1283a38.
136 Cicero, On Duties 1.53.
137 Compare Azoulay, “Isocrate, Xénophon ou le politique transfiguré,” 135, n. 6, on the institutional conception of politeia in Classical decrees, though Classical inscriptions lacked much complementary exploration of the social.
138 To take a few examples, consider Gauthier, Les cités grecques et leurs bienfaiteurs; John Ma, “Fighting Poleis of the Hellenistic World,” in War and Violence in Ancient Greece, ed. Hans van Wees (Swansea: Classical Press of Wales, 2000), 337–76; Grieb, Hellenistische Demokratie.
139 Compare, for ancient Greek history more generally, Kostas Vlassopoulos, Unthinking the Greek Polis: Ancient Greek History beyond Eurocentrism (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007), chapters 3 and 6; Ismard, La cité des réseaux, 405–11.
140 It is probably not a question of a genealogical link, although Cicero’s On Duties, partly inspired by the debates of the later Hellenistic period (see above), may have exercised an influence on the evolution of the modern ideas.
141 Consider Jürgen Habermas, The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere: An Inquiry into a Category of Bourgeois Society [1962], trans. Thomas Burger and Frederick Lawrence (Cambridge: Polity Press, 1989), and its influence.
142 See, for example, Dana Villa, “The Legacy of Max Weber in Weimar Political and Social Theory,” in Weimar Thought: A Contested Legacy, ed. Peter E. Gordon and John P. McCormick (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2013), 73–98, here p. 79.
143 See Max Weber, “Politics as a Vocation” [1919], in The Vocation Lectures, trans. Rodney Livingstone (Indianapolis: Hackett, 2004).
144 See Rosanvallon, Le modèle politique français, especially chapter 5 (for example, p. 143) and chapter 10.
145 Ibid., 11–12.