DOCSLIB.ORG

The Point of a Politeia: Changing Conceptions of Regimen and Regime from 450 to 350 BCE

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The Point of a Politeia: Changing Conceptions of Regimen and Regime from 450 to 350 BCE The Point of a Politeia: Changing Conceptions of Regimen and Regime from 450 to 350 BCE By Derin Bennet McLeod A dissertation submitted in partial satisfaction of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Classics in the Graduate Division of the University of California, Berkeley Committee in charge: Professor G.R.F. (John) Ferrari, chair Professor Mark Griffith Professor Leslie Kurke Professor Kinch Hoekstra Spring 2016 The Point of a Politeia: Changing Conceptions of Regimen and Regime from 450 to 350 BCE Copyright 2016 by Derin Bennet McLeod Abstract The Point of a Politeia: Changing Conceptions of Regimen and Regime from 450 to 350 BCE by Derin Bennet McLeod Doctor of Philosophy in Classics University of California, Berkeley Professor G.R.F. (John) Ferrari, Chair This dissertation provides a conceptual history of politeia from its origins in the second half of the fifth century BCE down through the middle of the fourth century BCE. In the period under consideration, politeia shows a wide range of meanings. It can describe the function or condition of a politēs (‘citizenship’) or his activities (‘daily life of a citizen’) but also the ‘government or administration’ of a city or the ‘constitution’ or ‘form of government’ of a city. In order to explain this pattern of usage, building on the methodological insights Reinhart Koselleck, Quentin Skinner, and R.G. Collingwood as discussed in the introduction, I explain why and to what ends people began and continued to talk about politeia. In chapter one, I suggest that people first began talking about politeia in the context of descriptions of the supposedly unusual features of the Spartan way of life, which they said were part of the Spartan politeia. Building on tropes of sympotic literature that discussed sympotic practices as a mode of ethical orientation, they sought to intervene in ubiquitous debates about the merits of nomos as opposed to physis. Politeia, and more particularly Lacedaimoniōn Politeia—the “title” for such works—provided a third banner in such debates and a way of responding to the individualist concern with control and independence associated with praise of physis. They did so by pointing out the importance of things outside a person’s control, especially his breeding and education, in forming that person and making him and all those like him best and strongest in the way those praising physis claimed to want to be. In chapter two, I argue that precisely such controversies lie behind Herodotus’ unexpected use of the term politeia in his stories of the seers Teisamenos and Hegesistratus (Hdt. 9.33- 37). The stories, read alongside other passages in the History, reflect Herodotus’ skepticism about both the unmitigated drive for control and independence associated with physis and the notion that a person could only be shaped by an extended, arduous process outside his control. Furthermore, details in the story of Teisamenos direct our attention to the similarity between the promises of the Lacedaimoniōn Politeiai and the position of the dual Spartan kings, each of whom would be superlative. I argue that the Spartan kings help us see a problem with the promises of the Lacedaimoniōn Politeiai: for one person to be the best or the strongest he must be better than others. I finally argue that the Constitutional Debate (Hdt. 3.80-82), though decidedly not conceived as being about politeiai, suggests the importance of having a ruling entity that is at once both unified and plural. 1 In chapter three, I consider how politeia as a heading for descriptions of all the features of Spartan life came also to center more particularly on who ruled in a city. I suggest that in the Old Oligarch we can see a plausible explanation: when the question at the heart of the Lacedaimoniōn Politeiai—how did these people become so powerful—was asked about the people of Athens, the answer couldn’t be in virtue of their breeding or education because aristocratic audiences assumed that the Athenian dēmos lacked any sort of breeding or education. The answer therefore had to be that they were powerful just in virtue of their position in the city; from that position they could shape all the elements of civic life at issue in the Lacedaimoniōn Politeiai but would not be shaped by them. By contrast, the funeral oration that Thucydides puts in Pericles’ mouth (Th. 2.35-46) encourages the people of Athens to focus on their power but to conceive their power not in terms of ruling or setting the terms of civic life but rather in realizing their interests. It further tries to help them see those interests not just as material advantage but as realized by becoming better versions of themselves through conscious love for the city and its empire rather than unconscious subjection to civic norms as in the Lacedaimoniōn Politeiai. In the remainder of the history, and especially in book eight, Thucydides suggests that by 411 the Periclean vision had been supplanted by the promise of one group ruling over others to its own advantage. This matches what we can see of thinking about politeia in oratory from around 411. In chapter four, I argue that Aristophanes’ Acharnians, Knights, and Wasps take up the appeal of ruling for members of a group such as the Athenian dēmos and humorously exploitation of the tension between the appeal of the dēmos as a group ruling and of the members of the dēmos severally doing so. While only the dēmos as a collective could rule, these plays stage fantasies of each member of the dēmos himself ruling, either by identifying with the corporate person of the dēmos or, more preposterously, by imagining himself taking on that role in his own person. In chapter five, I explore the continuation into the fourth century of the focus on the ruling group in talking about politeia. I first argue that fourth-century Attic oratory continues the pattern, identified in book eight of Thucydides and in late fifth-century oratory, of talking about politeia as the power of ruling, the fact of a particular group wielding that power, or the group of individuals wielding that power. I also argue that this focus makes sense in the context of the orators’ concern, described especially by Josh Ober, to create an ideology that levels on the political field the imbalance between speakers and jurymen or members of the assembly on the social field. I also demonstrate that there is a similar pattern of use in treaties from the first half of the fourth century and suggest that the importance of treating the contracting parties as much like natural people as possible explains the tendency to talk of politeia as just the group in charge of a city. I finally discuss the use of politeia to describe the honorary status conferred on foreigners, which, while it falls outside the dissertation’s main narrative of political reflection and activity would be prominent down through the Hellenistic and Roman times. Finally, in chapter six, I take up Plato’s response, in his Republic (Politeia) to these earlier traditions. I argue that the motivating challenges of the Republic—above all Thrasymachus’ statements about civic structure and how people should behave within that structure as well as their restatement in Glaucon’s challenge—represent for the reader the danger of the focus on the ruling group and its connection to the selfish individualism of those who praised physis as a guide for action. I further suggest that the response to 2 these challenges—the politeia described in the central books—is best understood as elaborating or repurposing elements of thinking about politeia already in the air. The focus on the musical education of the guards helps us further see the importance of forces working on people unawares. And the description of the creation and civic situation of the philosopher-rulers amounts to a recommitment to the importance of who rules but with an entirely new sense of what should make someone a ruler and of what the activity of ruling properly consists. I finally argue Isocrates’ later epideictic speeches explicitly argue against Plato’s new vision of rulers and for something like the popular conception of politeia. 3 Table of Contents Acknowledgments ii Introduction 1 Chapter 1: Politeiai of the Lacedaimonians 9 Chapter 2: Herodotus and Politeia 32 Chapter 3: Politeiai of the Athenians 49 Chapter 4: Do the People Rule or Does the People Rule 68 Chapter 5: Popular Politeiai 83 Chapter 6: Plato’s Politeia and Isocrates’ 102 Conclusion 129 Bibliography 137 i Acknowledgements I have been able to focus on writing this dissertation over the past two years through the generosity of the University of California, Berkeley Graduate Division, the University of California, Berkeley Classics Department, the Charlotte W. Newcombe Foundation, and Phi Beta Kappa, Northern California Association. I should first of all thank them. In the course of writing this dissertation I have had the good fortune to discuss part or all of it with a great many people. I am grateful to all of them for offering suggestions, sharing their ideas with me, and helping me get clearer about my own ideas: Peter Agócs, Victor Bers, Josh Billings, Paco Brito, Sarah Broadie, Tim Clarke, Alan Code, Klaus Corcilius, Lisa Eberle, Mark Fisher, Nick Gooding, Verity Harte, Tae-Yeoun Keum, Matthew Landauer, Melissa Lane, Angelos Matthaiou, Christopher Moore, Josh Ober, Nikolaos Papazarkadas, Daniel Richter, Matt Simonton, and Ron Stroud. If there is anyone I have neglected to mention, please accept my apologies and please do not take the oversight for lack of appreciation.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 2. Aristotle's Concept of the State
    Page No.13 2. Aristotle's concept of the state Olivera Z. Mijuskovic Full Member International Association of Greek Philosophy University of Athens, Greece ORCID iD: http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5950-7146 URL: http://worldphilosophynetwork.weebly.com E-Mail: [email protected] Abstract: In contrast to a little bit utopian standpoint offered by Plato in his teachings about the state or politeia where rulers aren`t “in love with power but in virtue”, Aristotle's teaching on the same subject seems very realistic and pragmatic. In his most important writing in this field called "Politics", Aristotle classified authority in the form of two main parts: the correct authority and moose authority. In this sense, correct forms of government are 1.basileus, 2.aristocracy and 3.politeia. These forms of government are based on the common good. Bad or moose forms of government are those that are based on the property of an individual or small governmental structures and they are: 1.tiranny, 2.oligarchy and 3.democracy. Also, Aristotle's political thinking is not separate from the ethical principles so he states that the government should be reflected in the true virtue that is "law" or the "golden mean". Keywords: Government; stat; , virtue; democracy; authority; politeia; golden mean. Vol. 4 No. 4 (2016) Issue- December ISSN 2347-6869 (E) & ISSN 2347-2146 (P) Aristotle's concept of the state by Olivera Z. Mijuskovic Page no. 13-20 Page No.14 Aristotle's concept of the state 1.1. Aristotle`s “Politics” Politics in its defined form becomes affirmed by the ancient Greek world.
    [Show full text]
  • “On Plato's Πολιτεία,” by Stephen Menn, Pp. 1- 55, in Proceedings of the Bosto
    CORRIGENDA Corrigenda belonging to “On Plato’s Πολιτεία,” by Stephen Menn, pp. 1- 55, in Proceedings of the Boston Area Colloquium in Ancient Philosophy, Volume XXI, 2005 (eds. J.J. Cleary and G.M. Gurtler, S.J.). 2006. ISBN 90 04 15353 5 (Pbk), ISBN 90 04 15391 8 (Bound). Due to a series of failures of regular and electronic mail, Stephen Menn’s contribution was printed without his having seen either first proofs or page proofs, and without the comments of Professor Sara Monoson (Northwest- ern). Menn refers to Monoson’s comments in his final footnote, on the assumption that they would be in the same volume. The editors apologize to Professor Menn and especially to Professor Monoson for these failures. Corrections: p.2 n2, “Proclus In rem publicam v.1 p.8. Kroll, citing unnamed earlier writers …” should be “Proclus In rem publicam v.1 p.8 Kroll, citing unnamed earlier writers …” p.4 line 13, “καλῶς ἔξειν” should be “καλῶς ἔχειν” p.4 line 24, after “περὶ πολιτείας” delete the quotation mark. p.4 line 27, after “περὶ πολιτείας” delete the quotation mark. p.5 n4 next to last line, “Πολιτείαι” should be “Πολιτεῖαι” p.5 n5 line 4, “πολιτεῖα” should be “πολιτεία” p.6 n8 first line, “τὸ βίβλιον” should be “τὸ βιβλίον” p.7 line 1, “ἤ” should be “ἢ” p.7 n10 line 4, “Θεόδορος” should be “Θεόδωρος” p.14 n21 line 5, “περὶ τῆς ἐν ἀρχῆς καταστάσεως” should be “περὶ τῆς ἐν ἀρχῇ καταστάσεως” p.18 line 5, after “πρὸς τὰς πολιτείας” delete the quotation mark.
    [Show full text]
  • Ancient Economic Thought, Volume 1
    ANCIENT ECONOMIC THOUGHT This collection explores the interrelationship between economic practice and intellectual constructs in a number of ancient cultures. Each chapter presents a new, richer understanding of the preoccupation of the ancients with specific economic problems including distribution, civic pride, management and uncertainty and how they were trying to resolve them. The research is based around the different artifacts and texts of the ancient East Indian, Hebraic, Greek, Hellenistic, Roman and emerging European cultures which remain for our consideration today: religious works, instruction manuals, literary and historical writings, epigrapha and legal documents. In looking at such items it becomes clear what a different exercise it is to look forward, from the earliest texts and artifacts of any culture, to measure the achievements of thinking in the areas of economics, than it is to take the more frequent route and look backward, beginning with the modern conception of economic systems and theory creation. Presenting fascinating insights into the economic thinking of ancient cultures, this volume will enhance the reawakening of interest in ancient economic history and thought. It will be of great interest to scholars of economic thought and the history of ideas. B.B.Price is Professor of Ancient and Medieval History at York University, Toronto, and is currently doing research and teaching as visiting professor at Massachusetts Institute of Technology. ROUTLEDGE STUDIES IN THE HISTORY OF ECONOMICS 1 Economics as Literature
    [Show full text]
  • Meet the Philosophers of Ancient Greece
    Meet the Philosophers of Ancient Greece Everything You Always Wanted to Know About Ancient Greek Philosophy but didn’t Know Who to Ask Edited by Patricia F. O’Grady MEET THE PHILOSOPHERS OF ANCIENT GREECE Dedicated to the memory of Panagiotis, a humble man, who found pleasure when reading about the philosophers of Ancient Greece Meet the Philosophers of Ancient Greece Everything you always wanted to know about Ancient Greek philosophy but didn’t know who to ask Edited by PATRICIA F. O’GRADY Flinders University of South Australia © Patricia F. O’Grady 2005 All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise without the prior permission of the publisher. Patricia F. O’Grady has asserted her right under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act, 1988, to be identi.ed as the editor of this work. Published by Ashgate Publishing Limited Ashgate Publishing Company Wey Court East Suite 420 Union Road 101 Cherry Street Farnham Burlington Surrey, GU9 7PT VT 05401-4405 England USA Ashgate website: http://www.ashgate.com British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data Meet the philosophers of ancient Greece: everything you always wanted to know about ancient Greek philosophy but didn’t know who to ask 1. Philosophy, Ancient 2. Philosophers – Greece 3. Greece – Intellectual life – To 146 B.C. I. O’Grady, Patricia F. 180 Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Meet the philosophers of ancient Greece: everything you always wanted to know about ancient Greek philosophy but didn’t know who to ask / Patricia F.
    [Show full text]
  • Athenaion Politeia and Aristotle’S Political Theory
    4. The Athenaion Politeia and Aristotle’s Political Theory Lucio Bertelli DOI – http://dx.doi.org/10.7359/852-2018-bert ABSTRACT – This contribution addresses the issue of the mutual influence between the Athenaion Politeia and Aristotle’s political theory as developed in the Politics and elsewhere. It surveys previous approaches to this issue, analysing problems both with deterministic approaches and with those approaches that deny any influence of theory on the historical treatment of the Ath. Pol. It focuses in particular on the theory of the metabole and on the constitutional transitions in the Ath. Pol., and examines in detail the various metabolai of Athens vis-à-vis the treatment of Politics V and VI. It argues that the influence of Aristotle’s political theory in the Ath. Pol. is clear and detectable, but not deterministic. Theory is used as a key aid to understanding the logic of events. KEYWORDS – Aristotle’s political theory; Athens; metabole; stasis – Atene; metabole; sta­ sis; teoria politica di Aristotele. 1. SUMMARY OF THE IssUE The issue has been partially created by Aristotle himself when, in the sketchy outline of the Politics in EN X 9 (1181b 16-20), he announced: «First, then, if there is anything that has been correctly said by our pre- decessors on some part of the subject, let us try to go through it and then, on the basis of the collection of constitutions, try to get a theoretical grasp on what sorts of things preserve and destroy cities, what sorts of things preserve or destroy each sort of constitution, and what causes some cities to be well governed and others the opposite.
    [Show full text]
  • How Ancient Greece and Rome Provide Insight for Citizenship and Immigration in the 21St Century
    Xavier University Exhibit Honors Bachelor of Arts Undergraduate 2019-4 Comparing Ancient to Modern: How Ancient Greece and Rome Provide Insight for Citizenship and Immigration in the 21st Century Viktoria Schumacher Follow this and additional works at: https://www.exhibit.xavier.edu/hab Part of the Ancient History, Greek and Roman through Late Antiquity Commons, Ancient Philosophy Commons, Classical Archaeology and Art History Commons, Classical Literature and Philology Commons, and the Other Classics Commons Comparing Ancient to Modern: How Ancient Greece and Rome Provide Insight for Citizenship and Immigration in the 21st Century Viktoria Schumacher CPHAB Senior Thesis Xavier University 2019 Director: Thomas Strunk Readers: Jay Arns and Tim Severyn 1 Introduction Migration plays an extremely vital role in the advancement of human societies. Despite our world’s staggering history with immigration, the conversation about how to manage current issues has fallen flat. Patterns of immigration have demonstrated that the number of migrants, especially refugees, has peaked in the 21st century, and numbers are still raising steadily.1 The increase is caused by an abundance of factors, including major events such as the Syrian refugee crisis, harmful or unfavorable political climates, and ongoing gang violence in Mexico and Central America. These issues have gone largely unsolved, causing immense suffering resulting in millions of people to migrate out of their home countries. Movement away from home due to tumultuous times is not a new concept. In fact, migration history demonstrates that major movement of people is a characteristic of our world. I posit that looking at migration in our past as well as examining its effects on different societies will offer a perspective that has otherwise been ignored.
    [Show full text]
  • The Wisdom of Noble Simplicity
    The Εὐηθέστεροι Myth: the Wisdom of Noble Simplicity L. M. J. Coulson A Thesis Submitted in Fulfilment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy Department of Classics and Ancient History School of Philosophical and Historical Inquiry Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences The University of Sydney November 2016 Statement of Originality This is to certify that to the best of my knowledge, the content of this thesis is my own work. This thesis has not been submitted for any degree or other purposes. I certify that the intellectual content of this thesis is the product of my own work and that all the assistance received in preparing this thesis and sources have been acknowledged. L. M. J. Coulson November 2016 i Acknowledgements Throughout this undertaking it has been my great good fortune and privilege to have the gracious and generous support of my family, supervisors and colleagues. On November 5, 2012 Professor Eric Csapo and I met for the first time. At that meeting Eric suggested the apparently paradoxical use of εὐήθεια in Ancient Greece as a postgraduate research topic. This thesis is a direct consequence of his suggestion, encouragement and forbearance. Eric’s erudition in the Classics’ disciplines is extraordinary and gives constant cause for admiration. Professor Rick Benitez is officially designated as my auxiliary supervisor. However, he has been far more that that, especially in the last year of this project when the depth of his Platonic scholarship and generous support made an invaluable contribution to the completion of this thesis. I am grateful for the opportunity to have worked closely with these exceptional scholars.
    [Show full text]
  • Giorgio Agamben: Introductory Note on the Concept of Democracy
    Giorgio Agamben: Introductory Note on the Concept of Democracy From Theory & Event. Vol. 13, No. 1, 2010. Any discussion of the term “democracy” today is distorted by a preliminary ambiguity that condemns those who use it to misunderstanding. Of what do we speak when we speak about democracy? To what form of rationality does this term actually pertain? A slightly more attentive observation would show that those who discuss democracy today understand this term sometimes as a form of the body politic’s constitution, sometimes as a technique of government. The term thus refers both to the conceptuality of public law and to that of administrative practice: it designates power’s form of legitimation as well as the modalities of its exercise. Since it is obvious to everybody that, in contemporary political discourse, this term is more often related to a technique of government – which, as such, has nothing especially reassuring about it – one understands the malaise of those who continue to use it in the first sense in entirely good faith. That the interlacing of these two conceptualities – juridico- political on the one hand, economico-managerial on the other – has deep roots and is not easily disentangled will appear clearly in the following example. When we find the word politeia in the classics of Greek political thought (often within the context of a discussion about the different forms of politeia : monarchy, oligarchy, democracy, as well as their parekbaseis or deviations), we see the translators render this word sometimes as “constitution,”
    [Show full text]
  • In Search of Democracy 4.0
    Brook Manville and Josiah Ober here are plenty of indicators of doom: Donald Trump rid- ing roughshod over U.S. con- stitutional norms; the rise of high-handed strongmen across Europe supported by ethno-centric crowds; free press and free voting under attack by cyber ma- Tnipulation. Add mass migration threatening bor- ders and national identities; rising wealth in- equality; politics gridlocked by strife about rights, benefits, and duties, amidst growing re- sentment of “global elites” and new would-be cit- izens; and evolving confusion about the nature of the “common good” [1] –[5]. But others argue that democracy’s glass is still half-full. Global levels of freedom-embracing governance are at an all-time high [6], and look- ing back several decades, there’s been substan- tial (if uneven) spread of democracy to more parts of the world [7]. Yes, autocrats are rising here and there, but so are movements against In Search of Democracy 4.0 Is Democracy as We Know It Destined to Die? Digital Object Identifier 10.1109/MTS.2019.2894458 Date of publication: 6 March 2019 32 1932-4529/19©2019IEEE IEEE TECHNOLOGY AND SOCIETY MAGAZINE ∕ MARCH 2019 doomed but most versions of it today are indeed struggling to do what citizens expect it to do, and be what it is supposed to be. History suggests that, as an enduring human construct, democracy has a good chance of persisting, but not necessarily in its familiar guise: We will show that democ- racy cycled through several phases of evo- lutionary adaptation; it could be on the brink of another reinvention.
    [Show full text]
  • THE KRATOS in DÊMOKRATIA* Daniela Cammack Yale University Paper Prepared for Presentation at the 2018 Meeting of the American
    THE KRATOS IN DÊMOKRATIA* Daniela Cammack Yale University Paper prepared for presentation at the 2018 meeting of the American Political Science Association, Boston MA Dêmokratia is at the same time one of the simplest words in the ancient Greek lexicon to translate and one of the most difficult to understand.1 It suggests ‘democracy’, but what did that imply two and a half thousand years ago? As is often observed, dêmos meant ‘people’, kratos ‘power’ or ‘rule’, leading to the conventional glosses ‘rule by the people’ or ‘people- power’.2 But these glosses raise further questions. ‘People’ defined how? ‘Ruling’ or ‘exercising power’ in what way? In previous work, I have tackled the first question, arguing— against the prevailing view that dêmos in this context denoted ‘people’ in the sense of the entire citizen body—that the dêmos in dêmokratia indicated, first and foremost, the common people formally constituted as a political body, that is to say, a popular assembly.3 Dêmokratia, on this interpretation, indicated rule by, or the power of, the assembly, in contradisinction from that of a council or single man. In this paper I turn to the second question. What did, and did not, kratos imply in the classical democratic context? I focus here on our most important source, the Aristotelian Athênaiôn Politeia or ‘Constitution of the Athenians’, rediscovered only in 1890 and whose full impact on the interpretation of Athenian democracy has arguably not yet been felt.4 Establishing the meaning of kratos requires distinguishing it from two proximate ‘power’ terms: archê, usually translated ‘rule’, ‘government’ or ‘empire’, and to kuros, ‘authority’ or ‘sovereignty’ (adjective kurios, ‘authoritative’ or ‘sovereign’), and one advantage of the Athênaiôn Politeia is that it contains these and cognate terms in abundance.
    [Show full text]
  • The Aristotelian Athenaion Politeia As 'Poor History'?
    Histos 13 (2019) 129–45 THE ARISTOTELIAN ATHENAION POLITEIA AS ‘POOR HISTORY’? HISTORIOGRAPHY, RHETORIC, AND THE CONTROVERSIES ABOUT SOLON IN THE FOURTH CENTURY* Abstract: This article examines the kind of historiographical thought that the Aristotelian Athenaion Politeia reveals in its use of sources, especially in chapters 2–17, which deal with Solon’s political activity. It confronts the scholarly view of the Athenaion Politeia as poor history and argues that its historical reasoning employs the same kind of rhetorical argumentation that would have been acceptable in the intellectual context of fourth-century Greek historiography. Keywords: ancient historiography, rhetoric, Solon, Aristotle, Athenian Constitution 1. Introduction he historical thought and methodology of the Aristotelian Athenaion Politeia have received some attention over the years in studies often T linked to the debate over its authorship.1 For those who ascribed the Ath. Pol. to Aristotle, his ideas about history as less philosophical and serious than poetry (Poetics 1451b),2 as well as presumed contradictions within the text or with other works,3 reaffirmed the absence in the work of historical accuracy and original research.4 Even when scholars thought otherwise and the value of Aristotle’s history was acknowledged, the Ath. Pol. was often dismissed as not being a proper historiographical work. I include here the explicit beliefs of * I am grateful to Francisco Marshall, Jose Carlos Baracat Junior, and Delfim Ferreira Leão for their help at different stages of this investigation, and to the institutions which supported it: CNPq (Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico), UFRGS (Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul), and UFRB (Universidade Federal do Recôncavo da Bahia).
    [Show full text]
  • Aristotle on Money and on Economy
    Review of Business and Economics Studies Volume 5, Number 3, 2017 Aristotle on Money and on Economy: First remarks1 Catherine BRÉGIANNI PhD on Modern History, Research Director Modern Greek History Research Centre, Hellenic Academy of Science [Academy of Athens] Associated Member (external), LaDéHis/CRH-EHESS [email protected] Abstract. This proposed paper (being a part of a work in progress on money and on monetary/ economic crises’ conceptualization) examines the institutional facet and the symbolic function of money as its diachronical qualities; this global perception of money and of monetary phenomena is integrated, thus, in the assumption that objective functions inheres in them, corresponding to respective historical conjuncture. The obvious outcome is that each historical period accentuates the different economic concepts—and their philosophical representation or their synthesis—according to the existing stage of the market’s evolution. In this methodological framework, in the first part will be examined the variable historical phases in the process of monetary integration, as far as the different characteristics of monetary globalization—in historical perspective—are specified. It is then useless to state that the “global” concept is referred not only to an interdisciplinary approach of money but equally to the diversified levels of globalization, the latest perceived as historical phases in market’s evolution. The past experience of monetary “integration” being briefly presented, in the second part of the article are depicted Aristotle’s notions on institutional characteristics and social/symbolic functions of money. Secondly, Plato’s Politeia offers to the research a systemic differentiation on parallel monetary units, i. e. the simultaneous function of local and global monetary systems.
    [Show full text]