AUTARKEIA:

AUTARKEIA:
N OTES ON ITS C U L T U R A L AND H ISTO RIC AL C O N T E X T
Neil Morpeth
T h e c on cept o f self-s u fficie n c y in G reece during the fifth and fourth centuries
B .C . has an integral place within G reek thought and its cultural w orld-view .
T h is paper will con sid er the concept o f autarkeia from a political rather than
from an ethical point o f view. W hen Solonian wisdom argued, as reported by
H erodotos, that no-one was sufficient ( autarkes ) in o n e s e l f (l ldt. 1 . 3 2 .8 -9 ), it
was not a c o n c e p t that was to disappear from G r e e k e x p e r ie n c e .
F o r its
lo gical, but far more conceptually developed s u c ce s so r was A risto tle ’s notion
o f autarkeia. S e l f - s u f f i c i e n c y represented in A r i s t o t l e ’ s Politics not (he
c apacity o f a self-supporting individual but the interaction o f oikoi and polis
and their potential to harness the means by which so c icty could renew itself
(A rist. Pol., 1 2 5 6 b 2 6 - 3 l ) .
However, there was a limit to the amount o f useful
property that was needed lo provide the necessary level o f s c l f -s u f fic i c n c y for
Aristotle's good life within a polis (Arist. Pol., 12 5 6 b 3 1-34fQA r i s t o t l c ’s con cept o f s e lf-s u fficie n c y could only be understood if his
reader was made aware o f the limited nature o f goods and property required
to achiev e a self-sufficient social ideal. T h is concept was as much Ihe product
o f an ethical outlook on the roles o f the citizenry and their oikoi within a polis
as it was a c on cept for a preferred conduct o f political life in the fullest sense
o f that term. Aristotle did not reje ct the material world which constituted his
p o lis.
R a th e r, in his c ritiq u e, he sought to realign his p o lis world by
W e a lth -g e ttin g ( klire
matistike ): Arist. Pol. 1 2 5 6 b 4 0 - 1 2 5 7 a l ) and a m a n ’s a c q u is it iv e , grasping
behaviour, as represented by the term pleonexia (Arist. ΕΝ 1 1 2 9 b ! - 4 f f ) , were
presenting it with a model for its continual renewal.
re je c te d as d esirab le s oc ia l ends in them selves.
In this intellectu al spirit.
autarkeia b e c a m e a model concept which stood in the vanguard o f A risto tle ’s
evaluation o f the polis. Autarkeia was the central ideal o f his venture into the
social engin eering o f the polis.
W hat then, were the general and peculiar origins o f autarkeia which, by
dint o f A risto tle ’s deployment o f this term, embodied a self-contain ed c o s m o s ?
Autarkeia grew from within a cultural and historical e n v iro n m e n t w hich,
whilst o fte n in te lle ctu ally adventurous, was ch a ra c ter iz e d by the caution
inherent in daily life within an agrarian world. T his particular agarian world
was in turn circu m scribed by its physical and cultural borders, the boundaries
126
A U T A R K E IA
As B lo c h su c cin c tly o b served in The
w hich fo rm ed the lim its o f a polis.
Historian's Craft:
A b o v e and beyond the peculiarities o f individuals o f every
age, there are states o f mind which were fo rm erly c o m m o n ,
yet which appear peculiar to us b ecau se we no longer share
them .1
F o r an insight into the intellectual milieu which gave birth to the notion o f
autarkeia an enquirer would be well-advised to turn to the folk loric traditions
which were represented by and associated with the nam e o f So lo n.
S o lo n ia n wisdom , as generally represented b y H erodotos and Aristotle
(Hdt. 1 .3 0 -3 2 ; Arist. Pol. 1 2 5 6 b 3 3 -3 4 ) , is concern ed with the c o n flic t between
limited and limitless wealth and its relationship to the m aintena n ce o f human
w e l l - b e i n g and h a p p in e s s w ithin the b o u n d a r ie s o f a p o lis .
T h is
s im u l t a n e o u s ly m o ral and p h ilo so p h ic a l o u tlo o k fo und its heart within
A ris to tle ’s concept o f autarkeia.
For Aristotle, s elf-s u fficie n c y was the ideal
o f a c o m p le te universe o f human relationships (A rist. Pol. 1 2 5 2 b 2 7 - l 2 5 3 a l ;
Arist. EN I 0 9 7 b 6 - 8 f f ) .
O f equal im po rtan ce, A ristotle re co gnized the c en trality o f agrarian
production in daily life (Arist. Pol. 1 256a 3 8 - 4 0 ) but he did not d isassociate
this e veryd ay productive activity from its immediate and broad human social
e n v iro n m e n ts, the oikos and polis (note the general argument and con text o f
Arist. Pol. 12 5 6 a - 12 5 8 a 3 8 ) . In this sense, there is a cultural and historical
con tin uu m b e tw e e n the agrarian outlooks and moral w o rld -v iew s o f Hesiod
and A risto tle.
a g r a ria n
H e s i o d ’s w isdom or, rather, astute pe asant o b se r v a tio n s on
survival,
fo und
agreeable
p h i l o s o p h ic a l
com panionship
with
Aristotle's critique o f the Solo nian view o f ploutos in A risto tle ’ s Politics. It is
worth noting the intellectual symm etry o f Arist. Pol. 1 2 5 2 b 9 - 1 4 and Arist.
Pol. 1 2 5 6 b 2 6 - 3 4 .
F o r Aristotle, both these sources o f G re ek w isdom and
traditional valu es signified his b e li e f that limited needs were to be upheld as
the model for polis e xisten ce (Arist. Pol. 1 2 56b 2 6 - 3 4 ) .
W h ilst Aristotle recognized that the pursuit o f material wealth as an end
in itse lf existed within his own world (Arist. Pol. 1 2 5 6 b 4 0 - 1 2 5 7 a 1), he held
to an autarkic peasant world-view.
Y e t, o f cours e, this w o rld -v iew did not
prevent A ristotle from c o m m e n c in g a formative analysis and critique o f this
n e w ’ p h e n o m e n o n . H ow ever, contin uity rather than ch an g e, limits rather
than l im itlc ss n c ss , characterized his model o f oikos and polis harmony. Nor
M . B lo c h , Tlic Historian's Craft, trails. P. Putman (M a n ch e ster U n iversity Press,
1 9 5 4 ), p .80 .
127
N. Morpeth
was this philosophical and political b e lie f system sprung from a naive view o f
thc social and historical charactcr o f internal and external polis history.
A risto tle well understood thc general h isto rical e n v iro n m e n t within
w hich a polis sought to maintain its e xiste n ce . T h e principal fo rc e s which
characteriz ed this historical environment had a direct impact upon A risto tle's
polis w o rld -v iew which, in turn, was intimately associa ted with his support
for an autarkic polis.
I
turn to a c o n s i d e r a t io n o f the rela tio n sh ip s o f th e s e f o r c e s
A r i s t o t l e ’ s d e v e lo p m e n t o f a u ta rk e ia . W a rf a re be tw e e n p o le is w as an
e v eryd ay reality o f G r e ek historical life and its ev er-presen t m e n a c c bred a
certa in b c l l i c o s e resig nation to A ristotle's view o f thc po lis.
W h i l s t thc
martial outlook o f polis societies can be a cceptcd as given, and readily finds
e xp licit support in Arist. Pol. 1 2 54b 3 0 - 3 2 ; 1 2 56 b 2 3 - 2 6 ; 1 26 5a 2 0 - 2 8 ; 1327a
4 0 - 1 3 2 7 b 6 , it is but one o f three primary, contributory facto rs to A risto tle's
ideas o f s e lf-su fficie ncy.
T h e s eco nd contributory facto r resides in the notion o f tcrritorialism .
In this con text, territorialism can be defined sim ply as the d c f c n c c o f a p o l is ’
bord ers from disputes o v er bo undaries or external threats o f c n c r o a c h m c n t
from a n e ig h b o u rin g (but not n e c e ss a rily b e n ig n ) polis or c o m b in a t io n o f
p olcis.
Aristotle's discussion o f tcrritorialism was clo s e ly associa ted with the
histo rical e x p e r ie n c e s o f thc polis. A sig nificant rem inder o f the impact o f
these e x p e r ie n c e s upon a p o lis ’ historical fortunes can be found in a prime
e x a m p l e o f b o rd e r p o l it i c s -a s -tc r r it o r i a l is m as reco rded by T h u c y d i d c s .
1 .1 0 3 .4 . H ere T h u c y d id c s reports upon thc impact o f a bo un dary dispute
b e tw e e n C o rin th and M cg a ra , and d iscu sse s how A t h e n s ’ interv entio n in
support o f M e g a ra was, whilst tim e ly for M e g a ra , a l o n g - b u r n in g fuse
attached to C o r i n t h ’s a n im o sity towards the Athenian polis.
H o w e v e r, the
notion o f territorialism did not reside e x c lu s iv e ly in the realm o f histo rical
i n c id e n t s .
T e r r i t o r i a l i s m w as g iv e n a t h e o r e t i c a l d i m e n s i o n in thc
philo so ph ical and political writings o f Aristotle and Plato (A rist. Pol. 1265a
1 0 - 2 0 ; P la t o , R e p ., 4 2 2 - 4 2 3 , and cf. 3 7 3 ) .
O f c o u r s c , as the previous
re fe re n c e s indicate, this did not mean that Plato and Aristotle were as one on
the sub je ct o f polis and territory. In terms o f P lato ’s sch e m a o f a model polis,
A ristotle argued against Plato along the following lines: a large po p u latio n ’s
need for increased territorial space inevitably carried within itself thc seeds o f
its o w n d e s t r u c t i o n b c c a u s e o f in s u p e rab le p r o b l e m s o f s c a l c .
Thc
M editerranean polis was a limited, known world governed by agrarian routine
and tradition rather than a ready harbinger o f social experim entatio n.
128
A U TARK E IA
T h e third factor which contributed to the notion o f aularkcia was land.
E v e ry polis and its oikoi needed land and a p referably w ell-reg ulated land
tenure and inheritance structure if it hoped to perpetuate itse lf s u c ce s sfu lly .
W ithout this s o c io -lc g a l b alance, a polis and its oikoi, and hence, its citizen
m a n p o w e r , w e re d ir e c tly end a n g ered .
(N ote Arist. Pol. 1 2 6 5 a 1 8 - 2 0 ;
1 2 7 0 a 1 6 - 3 9 and s ee e a r l ie r re S p arta, A risto tle and the d e m is e o f the
Spartiate population base, pp. 4 6 - 5 2 ) .
Aristotle's a dvocacy o f aularkcia as an ideal polis form o f e x iste n ce was
not pre m ise d on any a n ac h ro n is tic notions o f ‘c o n s e r v a t i s m ’ . R a th e r, his
pre fe re n c e fo r an autarkic model o f s ocia l e x i s t e n c e aro se from his moral
view o f the world. That this can be called ‘ co n se rv a tiv e ’ m isses the point or
o b sc u re s the fact that his idea o f self-s u fficie n c y arose from a notion o f the
polis as a model for citizen life which sought renewal rather than expan sion.
T his was a view o f the polis which was philosophically coloured by the notion
o f the p o lis as a co n tin u u m in G r e e k s o c ia l e x p e r ie n c e .
It should be
r e m em b e re d that our con tem po rary notions o f ‘c o n s e r v a t i s m ’ and, for that
matter, ‘ r a d i c a l is m ’ still have a c on cept o f progress inherent within them.
A risto tle ’s morality arose from his view that material relations should serve as
a m eans to an end, nam ely, the reproduction o f the oikos and the polis, not as
ends ill themselves.
A r i s t o t l e ’s m orality was insep arable from his intellectual a d v o c a cy o f
b a l a n c e d and h a r m o n io u s d e c i s i o n s w hich perpetu ated the ideal po lis
form ation (A rist. Pol. 1 2 5 6b 2 6 - 3 9 ; the polis itself was an ideal form : 1 2 5 2 b
27-30).
A risto tle ’s use o f the term aularkcia reflected an intellectual capacity
to incorporate with seem in g ease a preferred moral ord er o f the world within
a c are fu lly structured critique o f the polis. Y e t , Aristotle's model polis was
not the w ork o f a d is p a s sio n a te p h ilo so p h er; it was the product o f an
intellectual com m itm ent.
A risto tle ’s model polis was an autarkic ideal which was dependent upon
the culture o f its citizenry and cannot be extricated from it.
W itho ut that
env ironm en t s clf- s u f fic ic n c y would have been a nonsense. H i e drive for selfs u f f i c i e n c y could o nly be perceiv ed within a c o n te x t which a c ce p te d that
hu man b e in g s were social bein gs who were self-d efined within the political
orbit o f a polis world (A rist. Pol. 1 2 5 2 b 3 0 - 1 2 5 3 a 3 ; EN 1 0 9 7 b 6 - 1 1 ) .
In
other words, notions o f s elf - s u ff ic ie n c y were not e x p re ss io n s o f a singular,
isolated e x is t e n c e (Arist. Pol. 12 53a 3 - 4 ff; 1253a 2 5 - 2 9 ; EN ibid.)·, they were
only germ a ne to a gregarious existen ce within a polis. Within this con te xt, it
must be c le a rly reco gnised that A risto tle ’ s ideal world con siste d o f a dual
c a r r i a g e - w a y w h ic h
lin ked a s e l f - s u f f i c i e n t e x i s t e n c e
in s o c i e t y to the
re a l iz a t i o n -i n - s o c i e t y o f prosperity and happin ess, eudaimonia (A rist. EN
129
N. Morpeth
1 0 9 7 b 6 - 2 1 ) . Eudaimonia found its fulfilment in its ac co m p lishm ent o f a selfsu fficie n t standing.
Further, a self-s u fficie n t life could only be understood
within the c on te xt o f the full social life o f a citizcn . In turn, a c it i z e n 's life,
by d efinitio n, included the gamut o f relationships within the c i t i z e n 's own
oikos as well as his external household relationships with those citizens with
w ho m he had form ed c lo s e personal and political a s s o c ia t io n s , his philoi
(Arist. EN 1 0 9 7 b 8-1 I). T he se relationships constituted the cultural realm o f
the polis and the social world within which autarkeia was given place and
m ean in g within a particular historical time.
T h e polis represented the p innacle o f a structured s erie s o f s o c ia l
r e la t io n s -in -s o c ic t y w hich aimed to m ak e its citize nry m ore s e l f -s u f f i c i c n t
(A rist. Pol. 1 2 6 1 b 11-15 ). T o the extent that this was achieved , qualitativ ely
and quantitatively, a polis was described as being in a m ore independent or
self-relian t mode o f e x is t e n c e (Arist. Pol. 1 2 6 1 b 12-13 and note 1 2 5 2 b 2 71 2 5 3 a 2 ). A risto tle ’s concept o f s elf-sufficiency was formed by a com binatio n
o f moral and e c o n o m i c (and hence political) values which sought to realize a
philosophical ideal within the cultural context o f G r e ek s ocial e x i s t e n c e , the
polis.
In this sense, whilst self-sufficiency remained an ideal goal as well as a
paradigm, it never put aside or over-turned the world o f n e c e s s a ry relations
o f e x c h a n g e (A rist. Pol. 12 57a 2 8 - 3 0 ) . A ristotle’s critique o f the polis world
did not re je ct the need for useful goods and property in daily life: it viewed
them as tools or means to an end.
T h e parameters o f hu man, that is, citizcn
h ap p in ess, were given b y the polis as a s e l f- s u f f i c i e n t , g re gario u s entity.
A r i s t o t l e ’ s m o d e l polis world was as much c o n str a in e d by cultural and
intellectual boundaries as it was restrained by the physical borders and scale o f
any given historical polis.
U n iversity o f N ew ca stle
130