Πόλις - 도시국가 - 공화국의 형태; 고대 그리스

[dhleepaul]

도시 국가Πόλις

헌법 미시국가[a]

고전 그리스의 유명한 도시 아테네의 아크로폴리스. 폴리스는 도시 전체를 의미하며, 자체 성벽을 가지고 있었습니다. 여기에는 아크로폴리스(도시 고지)의 일부가 나타났는데, 이곳은 결코 독자적인 도시로 여겨지지 않았습니다. 이 정착지의 기원은 선사 시대에 의해 전해지고 있습니다. 고전 아테네 폴리스에는 항구 피레우스와 같은 아티카 지역의 교외 지역도 포함되었다.

어원: "벽"

공화국, 또는 연방. 행정 형태가 매우 다양했음에도 불구하고, 궁극적인 권위는 시민, 즉 데모스에 있다고 여겨졌다.

의회, 즉 에클레시아는 보다 독재적인 행정 형태였지만 드물게 모였다. 치안판사들은 일상적인 통치를 담당했으며, 이들은 아르콘이라 불렸다.

100 km2 (39 평방마일)

200 km2 (77 평방마일)

7,500,000+

아티카-이오니아 방언에서는 Dēmos, 도릭어에서는 dãmos로 불립니다. 이 민족명은 폴리스(도시) 이름에서 한 민족의 이름을 만들어 만들어졌습니다. 예를 들어, 아테네의 폴리스는 여신 아테나의 이름을 따서 아테나이라고 불렸다; 그래서 데모스는 아테나이오이, 즉 '아테네인들'이었다. [d]

폴리스[e](복수형: 폴리스[f])는 고대 그리스어로 '도시'를 의미합니다. 고대의 '폴리스'라는 단어는 현대적 용어에서는 드러나지 않는 사회정치적 함의를 지니고 있었습니다. 예를 들어, 현대 그리스어 πόλη(póli, '도시')는 χώρα(chóra, '나라') 내에 위치하며, 이는 시민들에게 '고향 땅'(patrída)을 의미합니다. [3] 고대 그리스에서 폴리스는 고향 땅이었으며; 다른 사람은 없었다. 헌법을 가지고 있었고 시민들의 절대적인 충성을 요구했다. Χώρα는 나라가 아니라 단지 시골일 뿐이었다. 고대 그리스는 주권 국가가 아니었으며, 고대 그리스어 방언을 모국어로 삼았던 헬레네인들이 점령한 영토였습니다.

폴리스는 현대 그리스 공화국 지역에만 존재하지 않았습니다. 1993년부터 2003년까지 코펜하겐 폴리스 센터가 수행한 공동 연구에서는 고대 및 고대 그리스어 사용 인구 약 1,500개의 정착지를 폴리스로 분류했습니다. 이들은 코카서스에서 남부 스페인, 남부 러시아에서 북부 이집트까지 지중해와 흑해 해안에 걸쳐 있었다. [4] 이들은 미시 국가 네트워크라고 불렸습니다. 많은 정착지가 여전히 존재하며; 예를 들어 마르세유, 시라쿠사, 알렉산드리아 등이 있지만, 이들은 더 이상 그리스나 마이크로 국가가 아니라 다른 나라에 속해 있습니다.

고대 그리스 세계는 고향 지역과 식민지로 나뉘어 있었습니다. 식민지는 일반적으로 단일 폴리스가 인구를 구하거나 사회적 위기를 해결하거나 더 유리한 나라를 찾기 위해 파견했습니다. 이 도시는 대도시 또는 '모도시'라고 불렸습니다. 그리스인들은 식민지 지역과 대도시를 신중히 구분했다. 일반적으로 대도시는 식민지의 사회경제적·군사적 지원을 기대할 수 있었지만, 항상 그런 것은 아니었다. 고향 지역들은 그리스 본토에 위치해 있었습니다. 각 지역은 인구와 도시에 민족적 또는 '인종' 이름을 붙였다. 예를 들어, 아카르나니아는 아카르나니아인들과 폴리스의 거주지였습니다. [4] 그곳에서 온 식민지는 아카르나니아에서 아무리 멀리 떨어져 있어도 아카르나니안으로 간주됩니다. 따라서 식민화는 그리스 폴리스와 문화를 확산시키는 주요 수단이었다.

고대 그리스인들은 폴리스라는 용어를 그리스어를 사용하는 정착지에만 국한하지 않았습니다. 예를 들어, 아리스토텔레스의 폴리스 연구에서는 카르타고도 언급하며, 그 헌법을 스파르타와 비교합니다. 카르타고는 페니키아어를 사용하는 도시였습니다. 명목상 그리스어 식민지에는 시라쿠사와 같이 비그리스어 사용 자치체도 포함되었다. [g]

정의

폴리스라는 단어는 그리스 문학의 최초 알려진 작품인 일리아드에서 최대 350번까지 사용되었습니다. [5][h] 페르세우스 디지털 도서관에 있는 수백 권의 고대 그리스 고전 문헌들은 이 단어를 수천 번 사용합니다. 가장 자주 사용되는 것은 고대 역사가 할리카르나소스의 디오니시우스로, 최대 2,943명이다. 비문 연구에서 기원전 300년 이전에 폴리스를 사용한 비문이 1,450개, 아테네 명이 425개, 그리고 폴리스 산맥의 나머지 1,025개가 발견되었습니다. 문학적 용법과 비문적 용법 간에 의미에는 차이가 없었다. [6]

폴리스는 많은 부수적 의미로 가득 차 있었다. [7] 주요 의미는 '국가'와 '공동체'입니다. [8] 폴리스에 대한 이론적 연구는 그리스 문학 초기까지 거슬러 올라가며, 호메로스와 헤시오도스의 작품들이 곳곳에서 이상적인 국가를 묘사하려 시도했다. 플라톤과 학계가 '좋은 '또는 이상적인 폴리스'가 무엇을 의미하는지 정의하기 시작하면서 이 연구는 큰 도약을 이루었다.

플라톤은 『국가』의 폴리스를 분석하는데, 그 그리스어 제목인 Πολιτεία(폴리테이아)는 '폴리스'라는 단어에서 유래했다. 플라톤에게 폴리스의 가장 좋은 통치 형태는 공공선으로 이어지는 것이다. 철학자 왕은 최고의 통치자인 이유는 철학자로서 선의 이데아를 잘 알고 있기 때문이다. 플라톤의 국가의 배에 대한 비유에서, 철학자 왕은 폴리스를 마치 배처럼 최선의 방향으로 조종한다.

젬마 아우구스테아에 이상적인 폴리스를 묘사한 카메오. 위 장면은 철학자 왕과 다른 천재 및 전사들을 묘사하고, 아래 장면은 사람들을 묘사한다.

『국가』 2권부터 4권까지는 플라톤이 이상적인 폴리스의 구성에 대해 다루는 데 초점을 맞춘다. 『국가』에서 소크라테스는 사회의 두 가지 근본 원칙, 즉 상호 필요와 능력의 차이에 관심을 둡니다. 이 두 원칙에서 출발해 소크라테스는 이상적인 폴리스의 경제 구조를 다룬다. 플라톤에 따르면, 모든 폴리스에는 다섯 가지 주요 경제 계층이 있습니다: 생산자, 상인, 선원/선주, 소매상, 임금 노동자. 두 가지 원칙과 다섯 가지 경제 계급과 함께 네 가지 덕목이 있습니다. "정의로운 도시"의 네 가지 덕목은 지혜, 용기, 절제, 정의입니다. 이 모든 원칙, 계급, 덕목을 바탕으로 '정의로운 도시'(폴리스)가 존재할 것이라 믿어졌습니다.

플라톤과 학원에서 벗어난 아리스토텔레스는 자신의 학교인 리세움(Lyceum)이라는 대학을 설립했다. 가장 강력한 교육과정 중 하나는 아리스토텔레스가 창안한 정치학이었습니다. 그는 전 세계 폴리스 전역에 학생들을 파견해 각 폴리스의 사회와 정부를 연구하게 하고, 그 정보를 문서로 가져와 도서관의 정치학 섹션에 보관했다. 현재까지 남아 있는 문서는 정치와 아테네 헌법 두 개뿐이다. 이것들은 현대 정치학 교육과정의 일부입니다.

Both major ancient Greek philosophers were concerned with elucidating an existing aspect of the society in which they lived, the polis. Plato was more interested in the ideal; Aristotle, the real. Both had a certain view of what the polis was; that is, a conceptual model. All models must be tested, by definition. Aristotle, of course, could send direct observers. The only way to know a polis now is through a study of ancient literature (philology), and to some extent archaeology. There are thousands of pages of writing and certainly thousands of sites. The problem is to know what information to select for a model and what to neglect as probably irrelevant.

Classical studies of the last few hundred years have been relatively stable in their views of the polis, relying basically on just a few models: the concept of a city-state, and Fustel de Coulange's model of the ancient city. However, no model ever seems to resolve all the paradoxes or provide for every newly considered instance. The question is not whether poleis can be found to fit a particular model (some usually can), but whether the model covers all the poleis, which, apparently, no model ever has, even the ancient ones.[9][i] The re-defining process continues.[10]

The Copenhagen study rejects either model and proposes instead the microstate. Some scholars are cynical, rejecting the idea that any solution can be found. This argument places polis in the same category of Plato's indefinable abstracts, such as freedom and justice. However, there is a practical freedom and a practical justice, although not theoretically definable, and the ancient authors must mean something consistent when they use the word polis. The problem is to find it.

Modern usage

The Modern Greek word πόλη (polē) is a direct descendant of the ancient word and roughly means 'city' or an urban place. However, the Ancient Greek term that specifically meant the totality of urban buildings and spaces was asty (ἄστυ), rather than polis.

Modern models

The subjective element of a model

Monaco, a modern city-state on the south coast of France. Monaco bears no resemblance to any aspect of an ancient Greek polis.

In modern historiography of the ancient world πόλις is often transliterated to polis without any attempt to translate it into the language of the historiographer. For example, Eric Voegelin wrote a work in English entitled "The World of the Polis".[11] In works such as this the author intends to define polis himself; i.e., to present a model of society from one or more of a list of ancient Greek cities (poleis) culled from ancient Greek literature and inscriptions.

For example, Voegelin describes a model in which "town settlements" existed in the Aegean for a few thousand years prior to the Dorian invasions, forming an "aggregate, the pre-Doric city".[12] This type of city is not to be regarded as "the Hellenic type of the polis". The Greeks set adrift by the Dorian invasions countered by joining (synoecism) to form the Hellenic poleis. The polis can thus be dated to this defensive resettlement period (the Dark Age). Quite a few poleis fit the model, no doubt, which was widely promulgated in the 20th century.

Classical Athens, however, is a paradox in this model, to which Voegelin has no answer. He says, "in the most important instance, that of Athens, the continuity between the Aegean settlement and the later polis seems to have been unbroken." It seems a matter of simple logic that if Athens was a Hellenic polis in the time of the Hellenic poleis and was continuous with the pre-Doric city phase, then pre-Doric Athens must have been a Hellenic polis even then. The model fails in its chief instance.

A second approach to the modelling of the polis is not to use the word polis at all, but to translate it into the language of the historiographer. The model is thus inherent in the translation, which has the disadvantage of incorporating a priori assumptions as though they were substantiated facts and were not the pure speculations they actually are.

Problems with Coulanges' ancient city

Plaque over the door of Coulanges' last residence

One of the most influential of these translative models was the French La Cite antique, translated again into English "the ancient city", by Coulanges. Only to read the title gives credibility to the idea that there is a model type inclusive of all ancient cities, and that the author need only present it without proving it. This type is based on the ancient practice of translating polis in Greek literature to civitas (early form of city) in Latin literature and vice versa.[13]

Coulanges' confidence that the Greek and Italic cities were the same model was based on the then newly discovered Indo-European language: "Go back as far as we may in the history of the Indo-European race, of which the Greeks and Italians are branches,...."[14] The Greeks had a genos, "family"; the Italics, a gens. Corresponding to Greek phratry, a group of families, was the Italic curia. Corresponding to Greek phyle, a tribe of multiple phratries, was the tribus. The comparison of IE cultures is a solid technique, but it is not enough to develop a solid model of "the ancient city", which must take historical disparities into consideration.

From the analogy Coulanges weaves a tale of imaginary history. Families, he asserts, originally lived dispersed and alone (a presumption of Aristotle as well). When the population grew to a certain point, families joined into phratries. Further growth caused phratries to join into tribes, and then tribes into a city. In the city the ancient tribes remained sacrosanct. The city was actually a confederacy of ancient tribes.[15]

Romulus and Remus, descendants of Trojan Aeneas, having been cast away to die, being suckled by the wolf on the banks of the Tiber prior to their rescue by Evander, king of a polis, a colony from Arcadia, already on what became the Palatine Hill (site of the imperial "palace"). There are no Italic tribes in this story.

Coulange's tale, based on the fragmentary history of priesthoods, does not much resemble the history of cities such as it survives.[j] For example, there was no familial and tribal development of Rome. Livy (Book I), the grandest of the historians of early Rome, portrays a city formed under competitive duress by a collaboration of warriors, some of whom were from among the neighboring Etruscans, led by Romulus and Remus, the true descendants of the Trojans who with the aborigines had earlier formed the Latin people. They were not welcome among the Latins of Alba Longa, and so they had turned to raiding from their base in their seven hills. The myth supposes they had been nourished by a she-wolf and lived a wild life camping in the country. They were, however, supported by an ally. Evander had led a colony from Arcadia before the Trojan War and had placed a polis (Livy's urbs) on one of the hills named Pallantium, later becoming Palatine. He had actually raised the Trojan boys and supported them now. When the band of marauders became populous enough Romulus got them to agree to a synoecism of settlements in the hills to form a new city, Rome, to be walled in immediately. Remus had to be sacrificed because he had set a precedent of jumping over the wall in mockery of it.

There were no families, no phratries, no tribes, except among the already settled Latins, Greeks, and Etruscans. The warriors acquired a social structure by kidnapping the nearby Italic Sabines ("the Rape of the Sabine Women") and settling the matter by agreeing on a synoecism with the Sabines also, who were Latins. Alba Longa was ignored, later subdued. The first four tribes were not the result of any previous social evolution. They were the first municipal division of the city manufactured for the purpose. They were no sort of confederacy. Rome initially was ruled by Etruscan kings.

Problems with the city-state

Coulanges work was followed by the innovation of the English city-state by W. Warde Fowler in 1893.[17] The Germans had already invented the word in their own language: Stadtstaat, "city-state", referring to the many one-castle principates that abounded at the time. The name was applied to the polis by Herder in 1765. Fowler anglicised it: "It is, then, a city-state that we have to deal with in Greek and Roman history; a state in which the whole life and energy of the people, political, intellectual, religious, is focused at one point, and that point a city."[18] He applied the word polis to it,[19] explaining that, "The Latin race, indeed, never realised the Greek conception ... but this was rather owing to their less vivid mental powers than to the absence of the phenomenon."[19]

Antique map of the five villages of Sparta. The Eurotas River is to the right. The central citadel shown, site of the former Mycenaean palace, was abandoned.

Polis is thus often translated as 'city-state'. The model, however, fares no better than any other. City-states no doubt existed, but so also did many poleis that were not city-states. The minimum semantic load of this hyphenated neologism is that the referent must be a city and must be a sovereign state. As a strict rule, the definition fails on its exceptions.[20] A polis may not be urban at all, as was pointed out by Thucydides[21][k] regarding the "polis of the Lacedaemonians", that it was "composed of villages after the old fashion of Hellas". Moreover, around the five villages of Lacedaemon, which had been placed in formerly Achaean land, were the villages of the former Achaeans, called the Perioeci ("dwellers round").[l] They had been left as supposedly free poleis by the invaders, but they were subject to and served the interests of the Dorian poleis.[22] They were not city-states, failing the criterion of sovereignty.[23]

Lacedaemon by the city-state rule thus falls short of being a polis. The earlier Achaean acropolis stood at the edge of the valley and was decrepit and totally unused. Lacedaemon had neither a city nor an acropolis, but all the historiographers referred to it as a polis. The rule of the city-state persisted until late in the 20th century, when the accumulation of mass data and sponsored databases made possible searches and comparisons of multiple sources not previously possible, a few of which are mentioned in this article.

Hansen reports that the Copenhagen Centre found it necessary to "dissociate the concept of polis from the concepts of independence and autonomia". They were able to define a class of "dependent poleis" to consist of 15 types, all of which the ancient sources call poleis, but were not entirely sovereign, such as cities that had been independent, but were later synoecized into a larger polis, new colonies of other poleis, forts, ports, or trading posts some distance removed from their mother poleis, poleis that had joined a federation with binding membership, etc. The Perioeci were included in this category.[24]

When the models are set aside as primary sources (which they never were) it is clear that historiography must be founded on what the authors and inscriptions say.[m] Moreover, there is a time window for the active polis. The fact that polis was used in the Middle Ages to translate civitas does not make these civitates into poleis. The Copenhagen Study uses quite a few evidential indications of a probable polis, in addition to the manuscripts and inscriptions, some of which are victory in the Panhellenic Games,[26] participation in the games,[27] having an official agent, or proxenos, in another polis,[26] presence of civic subdivisions, presence of citizens and a Constitution (Laws).

Ancient Greek models

Aristotle's polis

Roman statue of Aristotle. Degree of similarity to the real Aristotle is not known.

Aside from modern theories, it is difficult to establish how the ancient Greeks thought of the polis. The only author whose writings have been preserved that wrote extensively about the polis appears to have been Aristotle with his book Politics (Πολιτικά, Politiká).

Ortygia, site of the original polis of classical Syracuse (now Italian speaking), the largest ancient Greek-speaking polis, larger even than Athens. The polis was a colony placed on the island in 733/732 BC as a Corinthian enterprise under Archias.[28] It began as a united polis with a constitution and subsequently synoecised gradually with villages of indigenous population on the mainland. Non-Greek, they were invited to join. This city began with a centralized city thrown suddenly up and acquired the districts later. There were no connections of kinship between the polis and the komai.

A polis is identified as such by its standing as polis among the community of poleis. Poleis have ambassadors, can join or host the Hellenic Games, etc. According to Aristotle, their most essential characteristics are those that, if changed, would result in a different polis. These are three. A polis has a particular location, population, and constitution (politeia). For example, if a polis moves en masse, receives a different form of government, or an influx of new population, it is not the same polis.[29]

Aristotle expresses two main definitions of polis, neither of which is possible as stated. In the second (see below for the first) a polis is "a collection of citizens...." (Book III I 2). If they already are citizens, then there is no need for anyone to collect to create a polis, as it already exists. If they are not citizens then they cannot be defined as a polis and cannot act as such. Aristotle's only consistent meaning is that at the moment of collecting together a population creates a polis of which they are now citizens.

This moment of creation, however long it might be,[n] is a logical necessity; otherwise, the citizenship recedes indefinitely into the unknown past. All current citizenships must have had their first moments, typically when the law-maker had gotten his laws ratified, or the colony had broken with the metropolis.

The ancient writers referred to these initial moments under any of several words produced with the same prefix, sunoik- (Latinized synoec-), "same house", meaning objects that are from now on to be grouped together as being the same or similar. It is a figure of speech, the most general instance being sunoik-eioun, "to be associated with",[30] its noun being sunoik-eiosis, the act of association.

A second verb, sunoik-ein,[31] "to live together," can mean individuals, as in marriage, or conjointly, as in a community. The community meaning appears in Herodotus. A closely related meaning, "to colonize jointly with", is found there also, and in the whole gamut of historical writers, Xenophon, Plato, Strabo, Plutarch; i.e., more or less continuously through all periods from Archaic to Roman. Associated nouns are sunoik-ia,[32] sunoik-esion, sunoik-idion, sunoik-eses, sunoik-isis, a multiplication to be expected over centuries of a single language. These can all mean community in general, but they have two main secondary meanings, to institute a community politically or to enlarge the buildings in which it resides.

Finally in the Classical Period and later, the -z-/-s- extension began to be used, as evidenced in Thucydides, Xenophon, and Plutarch: sunoik-izein,[33] "combine or join into one city", with its nouns sunoik-isis and sunoik-ismos,[34] "founding a city", from which the English scholarly term synoecism derives. All poleis looked back to a synoecism under any name as their source of politeia. Not all settlements were poleis; for example, an emporion, or "market reserved for foreign trade", might be part of a polis or out on its own.[35]

In any particular synoecism recorded by either ancient or modern epigraphists a major problem has been to fit the model credibly to the instance. For example, Thucydides refers to Spartan lack of urbanity as "not synoecised", where synoecism is the creation of common living quarters (see above). Here apparently it means only the building of a central urban area. The reader of Plutarch knows that another synoecism existed, one instituted by Lycurgus, founder of the military state. The single overall synoecism is apparently double, one for the facilities, missing in this story, and one for the constitution.

He uses the same word to describe the legal incorporation of the settlements around Athens into the city by King Theseus, although no special building was required. The central polis already existed.[36][o] In this story also there is a duality of synoecism with an absent change of physical facilities. Apparently a synoecism can be of different types, the selection of which depends on the requirements of the sunoikisteres.[37] Lippman applies two concepts previously current, the political synoecism and the physical synoecism, to events at the polis of Pleuron (Aetolia) described by Strabo.[38] Pleuron, in danger of being sacked by the Macedonians, was officially moved up the slope of a nearby mountain, walled in, and named Newer Pleuron. This act was a physical synoecism. After the Macedonian threat vanished the former location was reinhabited and called Old Pleuron. The old and the Newer were united with a political synoecism.

The polis as community

The first sentence of Politics asserts that a polis is a community (koinonia). This is Aristotle's first definition of polis (for the second, see above). The community is compared to a game of chess. The man without community is like an isolated piece (I.9). Other animals form communities, but those of men are more advantageous because men have the power of speech as well as a sense of right and wrong, and can communicate judgements of good or bad to the community (I.10). A second metaphor compares a community to a human body: no part can function without the whole functioning (I.11). Men belong to communities because they have an instinct to do so (I.12).

The polis is a hierarchy of community. At the most subordinate level is the family (oikia), which has priority of loyalty over the individual. Families are bound by three relationships: husband to wife, owner to slave,[p] and father to children. Thus slaves and women are members of the polis.[q] The proper function of a family is the acquisition and management of wealth. The oikia is the primary land-holder.[r]

The koinonia, then, applied to property, including people. As such it is just as impossible as the collection of citizens mentioned previously, which cannot be both all the citizens and simultaneously a collection of some of the citizens. Similarly property shared by all cannot be shared by men who do not own it. These fictions led to endless conflict between and within poleis as the participants fought for citizenship they did not have and shares they did not own.

A village (kome) is a community of several families (I.2). Aristotle suggests that they came from the splitting (apoikia, "colonization") of families; that is, one village contains one or more extended families, or clans. A polis is a community of villages, but there must be enough of them to achieve or nearly achieve self-sufficiency. At this point of his theorization, Aristotle turns the "common" noun stem (koino-) into a verb, koinonizein, "to share" or "to own in common". He says: "A single city occupies a single site, and the single city belongs to its citizens in common."

Aristotle's description fits the landscape archaeology of the poleis in the Copenhagen Study well.[39] The study defines settlement patterns of first-, second-, and third-order. The third, dispersed, is individual oikiai distributed more or less evenly throughout the countryside. The other two orders are nucleated, or clustered.[40] 2nd-order settlements are the komai, while the 1st order is the poleis. Approaching the polis from the outside of an aerial photograph one would pass successivle orders 3, 2, and 1.

By the end of Book I of Politics Aristotle (or one of the other unknown authors) finishes defining the polis according to one scheme and spends the next two books trying to tie up loose ends. It is generally agreed that the work is an accumulation of surviving treatises written at different times, and that the main logical break is the end of Book III. Books I, II, and III, dubbed "Theory of the State" by Rackham in the Loeb Edition,[41] each represents an incomplete trial of the "Old Plan". Books !V, V, and VI, "Practical Politics", are the "New Plan". Books VII and VIII, "Ideal Politics", contains Aristotle's replacement of Plato's ideology, openly called "communist" by modern translators and theoreticians, of which Aristotle is highly critical.[s]

The Theory of the State is not so much political by modern definition. The politics are covered by the New Plan. The topic of the Old Plan is rather society, and is generally presented in sociology and cultural anthropology. At the end of Book III, however, Aristotle encounters certain problems of definition that he cannot reconcile through theorization and has to abandon the sociology in favor of the New Plan, conclusions resulting from research on real constitutions.

The difficulties with the Old Plan begin with the meaning of koinonizein, "to hold in common". Typically the authors of the Old Plan use the verb in such expressions as "those holding in common", "A holding in common", "the partnership", and the like, without specifying who is holding what or what the holding relationship implies.

In Book II Aristotle begins to face the problem. The "polis men", politai, translated as 'citizens', must logically hold everything there is to hold, nothing, or some things but not others (II.I.2). In this sociological context politai can only be all the householders sharing in the polis, free or slave, male or female, child or adult. The sum total of all the specific holdings mentioned in the treatise amount to the anthropological sense of property: land, animals, houses, wives, children, anything to which the right of access or disposition is reserved to the owner. This also happens to be Plato's concept of property, not an accident, as Aristotle was a renegade Platonist. The polis, then, is communal property. The theory of its tenancy is where Aristotle and Plato differ sharply.[t]

Plato had argued that the relinquishing of property to form the polis is advantageous, and the maximum advantage is maximum possession of common property by a polis. The principle of advantage is unity. The more united, the more advantageous (compare the action of a lever, which concentrates advantage). The ideal commun-ity would be commun-ism, the possession of all property by the community. Personal property, such as wives and children, are included (II.1).[u]

Aristotle argues that this eminent domain of all property is actually a lessening of unity and would destroy the state. The individual is actually most united and effective; the polis the least. To take away the property and therefore the powers of the individual diminishes the state to nothing, as it is composed of citizens, and those citizens have been rendered null and void by the removal of their effectiveness. As an example Aristotle gives a plot of land, which owned by one man is carefully tended, but owned by the whole community belongs to no one and is untended.

The ideal state therefore is impossible, a mere logical construct accounting for some of the factors, but failing of others, which Aristotle's examples suffice to demonstrate. For example, in some hypothetical place of no polis, a buyer would apply to an individual builder for a house. In an ideal polis, he would apply to the state, which would send other members of the united polis to do the work. They would also be sent for any other task: plumbing, farming, herding, etc., as any task could be performed by any member. This view is contrary, as Aristotle points out, to the principle of division of labor. The output of one professional building crew far exceeds the efforts any number of amateur ideal statists, rendering the ideal state incapable of sustaining itself.

Aristotle says, "A collection of persons all alike does not constitute a state." He means that such a collection is not self-sufficient (II.1.4). He alleges the opposite: "components which are to make up a unity must differ in kind .... Hence reciprocal equality is the preservative of states, as has been said before in (Nichomachean) Ethics (1132b, 1133a)." In summary the argument there is "For it is by proportionate requital that the city holds together .... and if they cannot do so there is no exchange, but it is by exchange that they hold together."

In short Aristotle had stated two systems of property, one in which the polis holds everything, distributing it equally, and one in which some property is held in common but the rest is privately owned. As the former only leads to a bankrupt state, the latter must be the one that prevails. For survival the citizens of each city build a privately owned pool of diverse resources, which they can exchange for mutual ("reciprocal") benefit. The theory of equal reciprocity is nothing more than a statement that owners of diverse assets must make profitable deals with each other.[42]

In Book III Aristotle begins presentation of the New Plan. The Old Plans had concerned themselves with the sociology of the community, concluding that the family, or house, was the smallest unit of the state, and using the term citizen to mean any family members, slave or free, of any age. The discovery of reciprocal equality brought the realization that in the supposedly synoecized polis a large amount of unsynoecized property was a sine qua non of sufficiency and therefore of the polis. The Old Plan was abandoned and the state was defined again in the New Plan.

The presence of private property in the polis meant that it might be owned by foreigners (xenoi), raising questions of whether a single state existed there at all, or if it did, whose was it (III.I.12). Anyone might own the property of the city.[v] The whole purpose of synoecism was to create a single city for the benefit of the owners. These were the tribesmen of the villages. The need exists therefore to distinguish between citizens and others. The citizens can own common property, but the non-citizens, only private.

The polis as state

Polis is usually translated as 'state'. "Politics" is from the adjective politika formed on polis. It concerned the affairs of the polis and is approximately equivalent to statesmanship.[w] Politeia means what moderns mean by government. There are certain social activities that are generally agreed to be the concern of the whole community, such as justice and the redress of wrongs, public order, soldiering, and leadership of major events. The institutions that accomplish these goals are the government. It demands to be the object of greatest loyalty and the highest authority in the land. To this end laws are enacted to establish the government. Constitution as it is used of poleis signifies the social substructure, the people, and the laws of government.

Like polis, politeia has developed into a battery of meanings.[43] This battery reveals the semantic presence of a concept inseparable from any polis; namely, citizenship. The population of a polis must be divided into two types: citizens (politai),[44] and non-citizens. The latter are designated by no single term; "non-citizen" is a scholarly classification.[45] The concept of citizenship is more or less unchanged. Citizens are members of the polity and as such have both rights and obligations for which they are held responsible.

According to Aristotle, a citizen is "a person who is entitled to participate in government".[46] A government that is the hands of its citizens is defined as a republic, which is one meaning of politeia.

However, a republic is not an exclusive form of government; it is a type of many forms; e.g., democracy, aristocracy, and even limited monarchy. If the people have nothing at all to say, then no republic, no polis exists, and they are not citizens. A polis was above all a constitutional republic. Its citizens on coming of age took an oath to uphold the law, according to Xenophon, usually as part of their mandatory military service.[47]

Part of the Gortyn Law Code, an ancient constitution engraved on a wall for public showing at Gortyn, Crete

Citizenship was hereditary. Only families could provide young candidates for citizenship, but that did not mean they would be accepted. The government reserved the right to reject applications for citizenship or remove the status later. The politeia was a federal agency; there was nothing confederate about it. The duty officers did not have to obtain permissions from municipalities to exercise their sworn duties; they acted directly. If there were any legal consequences of these actions the accusers argued either that the magistrates had exceeded their authority or did not exercise it. The defense was a denial and an assertion of performance of duty.

The Copenhagen Study provides more definitive information about citizenship, and yet, it does not cover all the problems. Every polis once it had become so rejected the authority of all previous authoritative organizations and substituted new civic subdivisions, or municipalities, for them. Only citizens could belong to them, and only one per citizen. They were either regional (the deme) or fraternal (tribe, etc.). Furthermore, foreigners, slaves and women were excluded from them.[48]

Aristotle had said (Politics III.I.9): "Citizenship is limited to the child of citizens on both sides; that is, the child of a citizen father or of a citizen mother ...", which poses a difficulty in the model of the Copenhagen Study: since women cannot be citizens, there can't be any citizen mothers. Hansen proposes a dual citizenship, one for males, and one for females: "Female citizens possessed citizen status and transmitted citizen status to their children, but they did not perform the political activities connected with citizenship. They were astai rather than politai."[49]

The use of gyne aste, "female citizen", is rare, but it does appear in Herodotus with regard to the matrilineal system of Lycia. An astos is a male citizen, an aste, a female. One should therefore expect instances of the feminine of polites, which is politis,[50] and there are a few instances in major texts. Plato's Laws[51] speaks of politai (male) and politides (female) with reference to a recommendation that compulsory military training be applied to "not only the boys and men in the State, but also the girls and women....".[52]

Site of the judicial buildings on Areopagus Hill, which Solon made into a supreme court by trusting it with the guardianship of the new constitution he had devised. The top of Areopagus Hill is in the foreground; in the background is another hill, the Akropolis.

In the model slaves also cannot be citizens. Although that seems to be generally true, there may be some exceptions. For example, Plutarch's Solon reports that Solon of Athens was called upon to form a new government in a social crisis, or stasis. The citizenry had been divided into a number of property classes with all the archonships going to the upper class. They had gone into the money-lending business requiring the lower-class borrowers to put up their persons or those of their families for collateral.[x] Defaulters were sold into slavery at home and abroad. Now the lower classes had united and were pushing through a redistribution of property. In a panic, the upper class called on Solon to write a new constitution allowing them to keep their lands.

Solon took the reins as chief archon. Invalidating the previous laws he cancelled the debts, starting with the large one owed him, made debt-slavery illegal, and set free the debt-slaves, going so far as to buy back Athenian citizens enslaved abroad. The price the rebels had to pay was that the upper class kept their land. The classes were re-defined. Now even the propertyless could attend the assemblies and sit on the juries. Apparently for that period in Athens citizens could be slaves, unless the whole story has not been told.[y]

Aristotle notes (II IV 12) that to maintain its population early Sparta "used to admit foreigners to their citizenship". A foreigner here is any person from any polis not under Spartan jurisdiction. Whether the practice implies double citizenship is not stated. If it does not, then a change of citizenship, or successful immigration, must be presumed. Otherwise there might be a conflict of interest.

A symbolic representation of Lycurgus giving the politeia to the new citizens of Sparta, which would be a political synoecism. There was no physical synoecism, according to Thucydides.

A polis is a binding and irrevocable agreement between formerly separate populations to form a united and indissoluable commonwealth. Once the agreement takes effect all previous social arrangements become null and void. The polis demands first loyalty and exercises the power of life or death over its constituents. Its subdivisions and its laws must prevail.[z]

The organization of the government and the behavior of the constituents is governed by a constitution, or "laws". The constitution further defines which of the constituents are empowered to conduct government (citizens) and which not (non-citizens). Citizenship is not construed to mean constituency in the polis but is only a status within it. The laws of the polis are binding on all members, regardless of citizenship. The polis is therefore a commonwealth. The type of government, however, may vary.

City-states, therefore, are not necessarily poleis. There must be another, unifying element that made both Athens, Sparta, and the hundreds of other known settlements poleis. The answer is, so to speak, hiding in plain sight: the demonyms. Athens could not be a polis without the Athenians, Lacedaemon without the Lacedaemonians, etc. The general word for these united populations was demos in the Athenian dialect, damos originally and in the Spartan dialect.

Etymologically the demos is not a unification of pre-existing populations, but is a division of a united population into units. The Indo-European root is *dā-, "to divide", extended to *dā-mo-, "division of society".[53] Logically the division must be after the unification or there would be nothing to divide. How the whole can be a division is something of a problem. Demos can mean 'the common people', but if these are meant to be opposed to the non-common people then the non-commons must be excluded from the polis, an unlikely conclusion, since it is the non-commons who usually have the most to do with the unification to begin with.

The demes, or municipalities, of Athens varied over its long history. This map by William Shepherd shows the demes of 200 AD. For a history of the Athenian demes, see deme.

The dictionary entry for demos shows that demos had a wide range of meanings, including either the whole population of the polis or any municipality of it, but not both for the same polis.[54] The exact use depended on the polis; there was no one, universal way to synoecize into a polis. Athens especially used demos for "deme", a municipality. After noting "there was a grey area between polis and civic subdivision, be it a demos or a kome or a phyle...",[55] Hansen remarks, "demos does not mean village but municipality, a territorial division of a people...."[56]

The inventory of poleis published by the Copenhagen Study lists the type of civic subdivisions for each polis for which it could be ascertained (Index 13). Names from a tribal structure are common, such as oikia, gene ("clans"), phratriai ("brotherhoods"), and phylai ("tribes"), never the whole range; i.e., clans without brotherhoods, or tribes withous clans, etc., suggesting that the terminology came from a previous social structure not then active. Only one or two are used; exceptionally, several systems of subdivisions superimposed.[57] Hansen suggests that these units, expressed generally in groups of komoi, were chosen because of their former role in synoecism, which also removed the former structures from service in favor of new municipalities.

In addition to these remnants of an earlier social organization are the demoi. All demoi are post-synoecic. Where the municipalities are demoi, they are the decision-making institution; i.e., the assembly (legislative branch) is of demoi. Those units also staff the boule (council) and the dikasterion (law courts). The fact that small poleis have only one demos suggests a way in which the demos could come to mean the whole population.

See also

Library resources about
Polis

---

• Resources in your library
• Resources in other libraries

• The Other Greeks
• List of ancient Greek cities
• List of modern words formed from Greek polis

Notes

1.  Up to the 21st century city-state was preferred. As not all the poleis are cities, microstates, which cover less than cities, are preferred now. Both names have the state problem: not all poleis are currently fully autonomous, but while microstate is generous in that regard, the city-state is not.
2.  한센은 코펜하겐 연구에서 채취한 869개의 폴레이 샘플을 바탕으로 연구하고 있습니다. 500 km²(190 평방마일) 이상의 영토를 가진 곳은 10%에 불과했습니다. 아르고스(1,400 km2 / 540 평방마일)부터 시러큐스(12,000 km2, 4,600 평방마일)까지 13개의 슈퍼 스테이트가 있었습니다. 아테네의 면적은 2,500km(970 평방마일)였다. 라케데몬의 면적은 8,400 km²(3,200 평방마일)였다. 물론, 수백 년에 걸친 이러한 추정치와 불확실한 출처에 근거한 것은 기껏해야 매우 근사적인 것입니다.
3.  알려진 폴리스의 869개 샘플 중에서 한센은 크기 범주별 인구 표를 개발한 후 표를 비례적으로 확장하여 표 내 일부 항목이 검증 가능한 숫자(샷건 발사)에 도달할 때까지 확장합니다. 1,100개 도시로 확장하면 에피루스와 마케도니아를 제외한 700만 명의 고대 그리스인을 확보하며, 이 중 750만 명이 포함된다. 1100개가 넘는 도시가 있었기 때문에 이 숫자는 최소한의 수치를 나타냅니다. 이 중 300만 명은 200 km2(77 평방마일)에서 500km(190 평방마일) 및 500 이상 규모의 대형 구역에 속해 있어, 당시(지금과 마찬가지로) 그리스인들이 대도시 환경을 선호했음을 보여줍니다. 물론 대부분의 도시는 규모가 작았습니다.
4.  코펜하겐 연구는 폴리스 민족명의 민족적 반사를 '도시-민족'이라고 부르며, 종종 개인 이름을 보완한다. 자세한 내용은 Hansen 2004, p. 60을 참조하라.
5.  영국: /ˈpɒlɪs/ 폴-리스, 미국: /ˈpoʊlɪs/ 포-리스; 고대 그리스어: πόλις [pólis].
6.  영국: /ˈpɒleɪz/ 폴-아이즈, 미국: /ˈpoʊleɪz/ 포-레이즈; 고대 그리스어: πόλεις [póleːs].
7.  한센은 또한 헤로도토스, 투키디데스, 크세노폰이 '포레이스'라고 불렀던 75개의 '야만인' 도시들을 언급한다. 여기에는 티레, 시돈, 일부 에트루리아 도시들, 로마, 에릭스, 에게스타가 포함됩니다. 헤로도토스는 때때로 페르시아와 스키타이 도시를 폴리스라고 부르지만, 한센은 그 언어들에서 이름을 헬레니즘화하는 경향이 있다고 지적한다. 자세한 내용은 Hansen 2004, 36쪽을 참조하라.
8.  페르세우스의 주파수 계산 소프트웨어에는 해석의 오차 범위가 있습니다. "최대" 해석은 모든 가능성을 "폴리스"로 간주합니다.
9.  사켈라리우는 주요 모델들을 소개하며 장단점을 설명합니다. 코펜하겐 연구 이전에 작성된 이 책은 기존의 모델링 접근법에 대한 불만을 표현하고, 몇 년 후 코펜하겐 대학교의 10년간 협력 사명으로 이어진 더 넓은 연구 프로그램의 필요성을 강조합니다.
10.  한슨은 쿨랑주가 폴리스 형성에 대해 본 견해를 "내 생각에 폴리스에 대한 전체론적 관점은 왜곡되어 있다..."이다. [16]
11.  도시화 과정에서의 전체 문헌과 그 중요성은 Brand, Peter J.의 "아테네와 스파르타: 민주주의 대 독재"(PDF)에서 확인할 수 있다. 인민대학. 2023년 4월 3일에 확인함.
12.  19세기와 20세기 초에 페리오에키와 헬로트가 모두 아카이아 출신이라는 견해는 스파르타의 학대와 동료 관계 수용 때문에 의문시되었습니다. 케임브리지 고대사에서 해먼드는 헬로트가 아카이아인에서 후손이었지만, 페리오에키스는 아카이아인과 도리아인이 혼합된 집단으로, 기원전 9세기 후반 리쿠르구스의 법에 따라 군사 국가가 창설되기 전에 라코니아에 정착했다는 대안적 견해를 재차 제시한다. 해먼드, N.G.L. (2008). "암흑기에서의 도시국가의 등장". 케임브리지 고대사. 제3권 1부 (2판). 738–744쪽.
13.  코펜하겐 폴리스 프로젝트는 고대 자료에 폴리스가 언급되는 모든 것을 확실한 증거로 간주했습니다. 한센은 그들이 11,000건이 넘는 폴리스 사례를 발견했다고 말합니다. [25]
14.  Probably in the order of days or weeks, as the deal needed to be closed.
15.  "테세우스... 소도시들의 의회와 치안관을 폐지하고 모든 주민을 현재의 도시와 연합시키며, 단일 의회와 시청을 설립했으며, 각자 이전과 같이 자신의 영지를 점유하면서도 아테네를 유일한 수도로 사용하도록 강제했다.... 그리고 그의 시대부터 오늘날까지 아테네인들은 공공 비용으로 시노에키아(Synoecia)라는 축제를 열어왔다, ..."
16.  아리스토텔레스가 노예제의 열렬한 옹호자였다는 점은 부인할 수 없다. 그는 (I.5)라고 썼다. "태어난 순간부터 어떤 이는 복종을 받고, 어떤 이는 통치를 위해 표시된다." 그럼에도 불구하고 노예들은 구성원으로서 일부 권리를 가지고 있었습니다. 적어도 아테네에서는 법적으로 임의로 살해할 수 없었다. 스키타이 경찰과 같은 일부 노예들도 어느 정도 권력을 부여받았다. 다른 이들은 은광에서 일당하거나 매춘에 강요당했다. 아마도 대다수는 신뢰받는 자유 신하가 될 수 있도록 자유를 얻도록 허락받았을 것이다. 어쨌든 노예와 여성이 폴리스의 일부가 아니었다는 주장은 사실이 아닙니다.
17.  I.3. 철학자는 노예(douloi)와 자유(eleutheroi)를 구분하는데, 이 구분은 정부 결정에 중요한 역할을 한다: "완전한 가구는 노예와 자유민으로 이루어진다."
18.  아리스토텔레스는 (I.3, I.4) 오이키아가 고정된 정착지로서 자급자족 농업을 필요로 한다고 보여준다. 그는 사냥·채집과 어떤 형태의 유목민도 경제적 기반으로서 폴리스를 거부한다. 무역도 거부되지만, 기존 폴리스는 보조적으로 무역에 참여할 수 있습니다.
19.  아리스토텔레스는 플라톤 학파인 아카데미의 교수였으나, 학교에 동의하지 않아 마케도니아에 자신의 학교를 세우기 위해 떠났다. 필립은 알렉산더가 필립의 뒤를 이어야 했기 때문에 오래가지 않고 아들 알렉산더를 가르쳐 달라고 부탁했다. 아리스토텔레스는 아테네에 매우 성공적인 지점을 열었다. 그의 방법과 자원(마케도니아인들의 자금 지원)은 대학과 다름없었다. 알렉산더는 그의 조언을 구했으나, 두 사람은 정복당한 민족에 대한 대우에 대해 의견이 달랐다. 아리스토텔레스는 그들을 정복당한 민족으로 대하라고 조언했지만, 알렉산더는 새로운 문화 간 세계 국가를 만들려 했고, 그의 죽음으로 인해 중단되었다. 마케도니아의 지원이 사라진 아리스토텔레스는 명예를 잃고 아테네를 죽음에 내버려 두었다.
20.  아리스토텔레스는 항상 최초의 법률 대가인 플라톤보다는 아카데미의 비공식적 창시자인 소크라테스를 언급한다.
21.  플라톤과 아리스토텔레스가 제기한 많은 논증들은 현대의 대서사시 투쟁에서 가장 일반적으로 마르크스주의라고 불리는 것을 확립하거나 파괴하려는 투쟁에서 다시 등장한다. 창립자 칼 마르크스는 철학, 특히 고전 철학에 대해 많은 교육을 받았으며, 고전 주제로 박사 논문을 작성했으며, 한때 라틴어 고전 번역을 직업으로 삼기도 했다. 플라톤과 아리스토텔레스가 이상적인 폴리스에 대해 나누는 역사적 대화는 많은 현대인들에게 익숙하게 들릴 것입니다.
22.  "만약 한 무리의 사람들이 같은 장소에 산다고 가정해보면, 어떤 상황에서 그들의 도시를 하나의 도시로 간주해야 하는가?"
23.  현대 정치의 의미는 냉소적인 의미로, 정치가와는 거리가 먼 대중적으로 비난받아야 할 행동을 가리킵니다.
24.  가족을 집에 머무르는 것은 불법이었지만, 실제로 그렇게 된 것 같아요.
25.  솔론의 개혁은 여기서 다루기에는 너무 방대한 주제입니다. 해석은 다양하지만 확실한 답은 없습니다.
26.  이러한 사상이 현대 국가의 건국자들이 표현한 것과 유사한 것은 우연이 아니며, 그 창시자들은 고전 사상의 영향을 많이 받았기 때문입니다.

참고문헌

1.  한센 2004, 70–72쪽
2.  한센 2008, 261–265쪽
3.  현대 단어들은 현대 그리스어 사전에서 찾을 수 있으며; 고대 그리스어 사전이라면 어떤 고대 그리스어 사전이든 말이죠. 예를 들어, 현대 번역본을 위한 『옥스퍼드 그리스어 사전』(미국판)과 고대를 위한 리델과 스콧의 『그리스어-영어 사전』이 있습니다.
4.  한센 2004, 4쪽
5.  "πόλις의 단어 빈도 정보". 퍼시우스 디지털 라이브러리. 터프츠 대학교. 2023년 5월 1일 확인.
6.  플렌스테드-젠슨, P.; 한센, M. H.; 닐슨, E. H. (1993). "비문에서 폴리스라는 단어의 사용". 고대 그리스 폴리스에 대한 추가 연구. 슈투트가르트: 슈타이너. 161쪽.
7.  한센 2004, 39–46쪽
8.  리델; 스콧. "πόλις". 그리스어-영어 사전. 퍼시우스 디지털 라이브러리.
9.  사켈라리우 1989, 27–57쪽, 1장: 폴리스는 어떻게 정의할 수 있는가? 논쟁
10.  데이비스, J.K. (1997). "그리스 폴리스의 기원". L.G. 미첼; 로드스, P.J. (편집). 고대 그리스의 폴리스의 발전. 런던: 라우틀리지. 25쪽. 암흑기와 그 이후의 지역적 재인구와 발전 궤적은 성격, 규모, 연대 면에서 너무나 뚜렷하게 달라서 '폴리스의 부상'에 대한 단일 모델이 타당할 수 없다.
11.  포겔린 1957
12.  포겔린 1957, 114쪽
13.  사켈라리우 1989, 19쪽, 서문
14.  쿨랑주 1901, 16쪽
15.  쿨랑주 1901, 168쪽
16.  Hansen 2004, p. 130
17.  사켈라리우 1989, 20쪽
18.  파울러 1895, 8쪽
19.  파울러 1895년, 6쪽
20.  한센 2004, 3쪽. "폴리스라는 용어는 종종 도시국가(city-state)와 동의어로 사용되며, 두 용어의 개념은 종종 그러나 잘못되게도 동일하게 포괄적이라고 생각된다."
21.  펠로폰네소스 전쟁 I.10
22.  미셸, H. (1964). 스파르타. 케임브리지: 케임브리지 대학교 출판부. 64쪽. 라케다이모니오 국가의 두 번째 주요 구역은 페리오에키(Perioeci, 즉 '변두리의 거주자')로 구성되었다.... 이들이 국가의 필수적인 일부였고, 자유롭고, 어느 정도 불완전하게 정의되긴 했지만 스파르타인과 같은 정치적 지위는 없었다는 점은 모두 꽤 명확한 사실입니다.... '도리안'이든 '아카이아인'이든... 명확하지 않다....
23.  그레이브스, C.E. "투키디데스 주석: 4권 8장". 퍼시우스 디지털 라이브러리. 2023년 4월 10일 확인.
24.  Hansen 2004, 87쪽
25.  한센 2004, p. 12
26.  한센 2004, 107쪽
27.  한센 2004, 103쪽
28.  한센 2004, 19쪽
29.  한센 2004, 70쪽
30.  리델; 스콧. "Συνοικειόω". 그리스어-영어 사전. 퍼시우스 디지털 라이브러리.
31.  리델; 스콧. "Συνοικέω". 그리스어-영어 사전. 퍼시우스 디지털 라이브러리.
32.  리델; 스콧. "Συνοίκια". 그리스어-영어 사전. 퍼시우스 디지털 라이브러리.
33.  리델; 스콧. "Συνοικίζω". 그리스어-영어 사전. 퍼시우스 디지털 라이브러리.
34.  리델; 스콧. "Συνοικισμός". 그리스어-영어 사전. 퍼시우스 디지털 라이브러리.
35.  한센 2004, 141쪽
36.  II.15.
37.  리델; 스콧. "συνοικιστήρ". 그리스어-영어 사전. 퍼시우스 디지털 라이브러리.
38.  립먼, 마이클 B. (2004). "스트라보 10.2.4와 신 흉막의 공동성". 헤스페리아. 73 (4): 497–512. doi:10.2972/hesp.2004.73.4.497.
39.  한센 2004, 75쪽
40.  "정착 패턴".
41.  H. 랙햄 (1959). 아리스토텔레스 정치학과 영어 번역본. 런던: 하이네만. xv면.
42.  프랭크, 질 (2005). 『구별된 민주주의: 아리스토텔레스와 정치의 작업』. 시카고: 시카고 대학교 출판부.
43.  리델; 스콧. "πολιτεία". 그리스어-영어 사전. 퍼시우스 디지털 라이브러리.
44.  리델; 스콧. "πολίτης". 그리스어-영어 사전. 퍼시우스 디지털 라이브러리.
45.  한센 2004, 80쪽
46.  한센 2004. 이 인용문은 한센의 의역이다.
47.  클로스코, 조지 (2020). "고대 그리스의 선서와 정치적 의무" (PDF). 정치 사상사. XLI (1): 9.
48.  한센 2004, 95쪽
49.  Hansen 2004, p. 131
50.  리델; 스콧. "πόλιτις". 그리스어-영어 사전. 퍼시우스 디지털 라이브러리.
51.  플라톤. "법률 7.814c". 퍼시우스 디지털 라이브러리.
52.  플라톤. "법률 7.813e". 퍼시우스 디지털 라이브러리.
53.  왓킨스 2009b dā-
54.  리델; 스콧. "δῆμος". 그리스어-영어 사전. 퍼시우스 디지털 라이브러리.
55.  Hansen 2004, 30쪽
56.  Hansen 2004, p. 76
57.  한센 2004, 95–97쪽

출처

• 쿨랑주, 푸스탈 드 (1901). 고대 도시: 그리스와 로마의 종교, 법률, 제도 연구 (PDF). 스몰, 윌라드 번역 (10판). 보스턴: 리 앤 셰퍼드.
• 파울러, W. 워드 (1895). 그리스인과 로마인의 도시국가: 고대 역사 연구 입문 (재출판). 런던; 뉴욕: 맥밀란 앤 컴퍼니.
• 한센, M.H. (2004). "서론". 한센, M.H.; 닐슨, T.H. (편집). 고대 및 고전 폴리스 목록 (PDF). 옥스퍼드: 옥스퍼드 대학교 출판부.
• 한센, M.H. (2008). "샷건 방법에 대한 최신 정보". 그리스, 로마, 비잔틴 연구. 48.
• 사켈라리우, Μ.Β. (1989). 폴리스-국가의 정의와 기원 (PDF). ΜΕΛΕΤΗΜΑΤΑ 4. 아테네: 그리스 및 로마 고대 연구센터 국립 헬레니즘 연구 재단.
• 에릭 보겔린 (1957). 폴리스의 세계. 질서와 역사, 제2권. 루이지애나: 루이지애나 주립대학교 출판부.
• 왓킨스, 칼버트 (2009a). "인도유럽어와 인도유럽인". 미국 유산 사전(4판). 보스턴; 뉴욕: 하우튼 미플린 하코트. 2007–2015쪽.
• 왓킨스, 칼버트 (2009b). "부록 I: 인도유럽어 뿌리". 미국 유산 사전(4판). 보스턴; 뉴욕: 하우튼 미플린 하코트. 2020–2055쪽.

외부 링크

위키미디어 공용에는 폴리스(도시)와 관련된 미디어가 있습니다.

위키낱말사전에 'polis'라는 무료 사전을 찾아보세요.

• 스탠퍼드 대학교의 POLIS, 고전 및 고대 성곽의 지도와 표, 그리고 조각들에 나온 페르소나 목록