Bondarenko Dmitri M. Homoarchy

42
1671: 491; Thomas, N. W. 1910a: I, 91; Ajisafe 1945: 25, 75, 95; Bradbury
1957: 44; Akenzua, S. I. A. 1974: 3; Jones 1983: 40) what was confirmed by
many of his titles, like enonyagbon (“master of the land”) or obayagbon (“the
Oba holds the world”). However, neither all the land nor all the people in the
realm belonged to the sovereign in reality (as some keen European visitors
understood clearly [Nyendael 1705: 430; Smith, W. 1744: 228; Gallwey 1893:
129]). Particularly, the Binis did not know private property in the politicoeconomic
sense, land in their country was held by communities being regarded
as belonging to the ancestors. The Binis were sure in their specific, but not
proprietary, relations with the land: the people and the land were perceived as
in essence non-alienable from each other (Talbot 1926: II, 164, 308; III, 713,
737; Egharevba 1949: 84; for detail, see Bondarenko 1995a: 98, 149–152).
According to Kalous’s (1970: 83–84) correct remark, in Benin the very idea of
private land ownership could have looked “absurd”. It did not appear even
under the Europeans’ influence, including the colonial period (Rцmer 1769: 94;
Thomas, N. W. 1910a: I, 91; Ajisafe 1945: 42; Rowling 1948; Bradbury 1957:
44–45; Sidahome 1964: 102–103, 128; Ogbobine 1974: 13–15; Nwankwo
1987: 47–49, 50). The Oba was not a real landholder or furthermore proprietor
even of the plots a part of harvest from which went for his support (Dennett
1910: 199; Egharevba 1949: 77; Ogbobine 1974: 17; Nwankwo 1987: 48).
When an external threat to the country appeared, the Binis used to say: “Truly
this is my father’s land and it does not belong to the Oba alone; then I must do
my utmost to defend my father’s land” (Egharevba 1959: 34). Only war
captives and criminals could be slaves in the proper sociological sense (e.g.,
Ajisafe 1945: 75–76; Egharevba 1949: 65–66).
The title that reflected the part the Binis assigned to their sovereign
most exactly, was obarehiagbon – “Oba is the guard of the world” (Omoruyi
1981: 14). The phrases like “all the land in Benin belongs to the Oba and all
her inhabitants are his slaves” served for expressing the attitude to him as to the
guarantee of the country and populace’s prosperity. This formula also served to
express the idea of all the Benin citizens’ supracommunal unity symbolized and
personalized by the sovereign. Not by chance the notions of “subject” and
“slave” are expressed in the Bini language by one and the same word – ovie
(Bradbury 1973: 181). The name of “the Oba’s slave”, that is to be considered
as his subject, was honorary and only men could have the right to be called so
(Nyendael 1705: 430, 444). As for the idea of the Oba’s omnipotence, it did
not prevent the commoners from recognition as necessary of the separation of
powers between him and titled chiefs, as this idea was rooted in the perception
as completely legal of the division of duties in many local communities
between the sacral “master of the land” (odionwere) and the “profane” ruler
titled onogie that appeared in the early 2 nd millennium (see Bondarenko 1995a:
183–194; 1995c; 2001: 55–63 and below, section 4 of this chapter) and thus
preexisted the political system of the Kingdom, as well as the Kingdom as such.