Sovereignty in Classical Athens? The View From the Household to the City-State

• In Event: What are the Elements of Classical Politics?

Abstract

The question of whether the concept of sovereignty applies to Athenian democracy has been contentious for decades. Who or what was “sovereign” at Athens? Is “sovereignty” the best way to understand political power in the polis? After falling out of favor in the 1980s, sovereignty has recently been reimagined and attributed to classical Athens. Modifications have included redefining requirements of sovereignty (e.g. M. Hansen) and pinpointing sovereignty as control of office holders (M. Lane). In these attributions, the Greek term kurios, or “empowered,” has been linked to sovereignty, especially when kurios is defined as mastery or control.

The use of sovereignty as the heuristic imposed on kurios leads to unnecessary complications, however, and may obscure what is unique about Athenian power structures. In this paper, I will interrogate the use of kurios as “sovereignty.” I use a range of ancient texts to elucidate the meaning of kurios starting from the household (oikos) and stretching to the city-state (polis). The most common use of kurios applied to individual adult male citizens and indicated their default status as free men who were the heads of households. Attending to the citizen as kurios reveals that, in addition to a sense of singular domination, kurios could also signify a shared power to achieve desired outcomes. The citizen as kurios both in his oikos and polis structured the public and private spheres within the same network of power. Kurios was not solely applied to individuals, but was also attributed to the whole demos, governmental institutions, and even to the laws themselves (hoi nomoi). Hence, there could be more than one kurios in the city. I will show that these interlocking layers of kurioi reinforced each other under ideal circumstances.

The conception of power indicated by kurios is best understood on its own terms. Unfolding the meaning of kurios reveals a concept distinct from sovereignty; one that is shareable and focused on the power to act. Turning away from sovereignty and toward the robust meaning of kurios has implications for institutional organization as well as the role of the individual in a democracy. Since a tension in democracy remains between individual and collective, my study into the concept of being kurios provides a fresh look into the possibilities of a democratic plurality of power.

Author

• Naomi T. Campa, The University of Texas at Austin