Bondarenko Dmitri M. Homoarchy

39
Sidahome 1964: 143; Anonymous 1969/1652: 313; Kochakova 1981: 208;
Eweka, E. B. 1992: 153). In fact, those undefined share in tribute and
occasional monarch’s gifts stood for fixed salaries which have never been due
to them at all (nothing in common with Weber’s point 6).
As titles belonged to the same lineages for centuries, there was no free
competition for titles in the society. Then, there were no opportunities for
making a career, for chiefs held first and foremost titles, and titles besides lack
of their well-defined hierarchy, were not subjected to their changing by a
person. Having once got a title, he could not only lose it by the Oba’s
command but also receive another one, in addition to, or exchange for the
previous one (compare to Weber’s point 8).
As has been remarked at the outset, the administrative apparatus in
Benin was not confined to the Oba with his relatives and the three major
corporations of titled chiefs. Among other administrators (who could also act
as priests or generals) the persons of non-Bini origins who enjoyed the status of
royal, or sometimes a nobleman’s, slaves are worth special noting if point 1 of
Weber is recollected (see Roth 1968/1903: 104; Egharevba 1947: 9; 1960: 17,
29; Igbafe 1979: 2627; Kochakova 1981: 214; 1986: 122, 151; Bondarenko
1990: 40–41; 1995a: 248250; 2001: 225–226). At sunset of the Kingdom’s
history possibly freedmen could be found among administrators, too (see
Sidahome 1964: 181).
So, our attempt to apply the Weber’s features of bureaucracy to the
Benin Kingdom of the 13 th – 19 th centuries reveals that none of them, including
the most significant – independence of the kin organization, was characteristic
of her titled chiefs. In fact, even the sovereign did not completely desert the
community organization (Bondarenko 1995a: 203–231; 2001: 193–211) while
the internal structure of, and relations in the royal and titled chiefs’ families
remained traditional, too (Ibid.: 194–203). The “communal spirit” revealed
itself in his support (including economic) by the populace, and his subjects not
at all perceived the supreme ruler as a power alien for the community. “He
who owns you / Is among you here” are the lines of a medieval verse devoted
to a new Oba’s enthronization (Elimimian 1986: 105). Just the fact that the
Oba’s power was considered as continuation and strengthening of the
legitimate community heads’ authority at a new level, 23 guaranteed the
continuity of fundamental features of political organization at a change of rulers
on the throne or of the general apportionment of forces in the upper strata. In
its turn, the community provided the society with socio-economic firmness.
2. The sovereign as supreme administrator
Indeed, though it is evident that the Oba shared many non-bureaucratic features
of titled chiefs, the present analysis will not be complete if some more attention
to the sovereign as supreme administrator is not paid.
In the situation when the basic unit in society was not the individual