Bondarenko Dmitri M. Homoarchy

43
In any case, the Bini mass consciousness did not treat material
values as an exceptionally important criterion of anyone’s dignity. As Fortes
and Evans-Pritchard (1987/1940b: 8) wrote, in Africa “[d]istinctions of rank,
status, or occupation operate independently of differences of wealth”. 24 Indeed,
in Benin much greater, really tremendous, importance was vested in social
values – status, prestige, the kin net’s width (see Bondarenko 1995a: 31, 52, 59
et al.). This made the Oba (as well as titled chiefs) to give out a certain amount
of material values to his subjects at festivals (Barbot 1746: 365; Roth
1968/1903: 74) and practise other kinds of charity; for example, to support a
number of paupers at the court (Nyendael 1705: 438–439). “The ruler, who is
in the eyes of the population embodies the state, is expected to be open-handed.
He must give in order to legitimize his position. The mere fact of his
presenting a gift compensates the recipient for everything he has done for him”,
Claessen (1984: 367) generalizes with respect to the societies he labels as early
states. 25 Nevertheless, by no means the supreme ruler was a poor and unselfish
obligor for the Benin folk. “To maintain the elaborate political system, the
Oba’s support and the maintenance of his palace was accepted as a basic
economic responsibility of the people” (Igbafe 1975: 12). It goes without
saying that he had opportunities for accumulation of, and profiting by riches.
Among such opportunities there were regular tribute collected from the whole
populace twice a year, additional and extraordinary requisitions (for example
for repairs in the palace), tolls for entering a city gate, trade tolls, court fines,
payments for chiefs’ investiture, inheritance of parts of subjects’ property after
their deaths, and so on and so forth (see Svanidze1968: 108–110; Igbafe 1975:
12; 1980: 21–23; Kochakova 1986: 262; Bondarenko 1993a: 152–155).
With respect to the Oba’s nature as political figure and his true role in
government (with what I am concerned now), it must be noted that power was
divided between him on the one hand, and titled chiefs of all the categories on
the other. The supreme ruler was always considered as a member of all the
ruling bodies (Dapper 1975/1668: 167–169; Talbot 1926: III, 581–590;
Egharevba 1949: 29–33; 1960: 78–82; Bradbury 1957: 35–39) including the
royal chiefs council participated by members of twenty-one grade of
administrators (Ajisafe 1945: 18; Egharevba 1949: 29; 1960: 78–80; Bradbury
1957: 43–44; Igbafe 1979: 10–11). Notwithstanding this, the distribution of
power between the sovereign and the chiefs was historically dynamic and had
dialectics of its own. The dialectics of the relations between profane functions
and sacral duties was crucial at this point (for detail see: Bondarenko 1995a:
203–257; 2001: 193–229; 2003c; 2005d).
The institution of the Oba appeared as a combination of profane
functions and sacral duties in one person. It would have also been wrong to
look at Benin titled chiefs as completely secular figures: in Africa any political
responsibilities implicitly if not explicitly had a political dimension as “religion