Bondarenko Dmitri M. Homoarchy

44
and power are perceived as indissolubly related” (Vincent, J.-F. 1993: 48;
besides numerous case studies proving this [Kuper 1947; Evans-Pritchard 1956;
Turner 1967; etc., etc.], see general considerations on the point, e.g.: Gluckman
1962; 1965; Mair 1965: 206–232; Balandier 1967: Ch. 5; Lvova 1984: 163–
167; 1996: 155–165; Bocharov 1994; Pirzio-Biroli 2001/1978: 223–229) 26 .
However, the sacral aspect was not so important for substantiation of the Benin
chiefs’ power as it was for the supreme ruler, it could not prevent them from
effective exercising of the administrative duties and pursuing policy favorable
for their corporate and individual rational, practical goals.
As for the Oba, his power rested on the idea of his sacredness, its real
amount was determined by it in the decisive measure either. Sacrality restricted
the supreme ruler inevitably. It was considered that just strict observation of all
the inscribed taboos (see, e.g., Adams 1823: 111–113; Talbot 1926: III, 736–
737) made him almighty both in the profane and “irrational” respects (the latter
meant the abilities to communicate with spirits, call the rain, etc.). However, in
reality numerous taboos up to the prohibition to communicate with the subjects
freely, had been more and more depriving the Oba from the opportunity to
govern the country in the course of time. The necessity to observe all the ritual
bans left the supreme ruler practically isolated and defenseless at the face of
corporations of his relatives and chiefs who hardly took his sacrality into
account. By Natalia Kochakova’s (1986: 201) calculation, according to the oral
historical tradition as it was held down by Jacob Egharevba, “nineteen out of
thirty-five rulers of the precolonial period, that is more than every second,
either conquered the throne by force, or suppressed mutinies during their
reigns, or were killed, or dethroned.”
On the other hand, sacrality presupposed automatically that the
sovereign possessed a set of dignities (might, justice, wisdom, physical and
spiritual strength, etc., etc.) in absolute completeness of each of them. The
supreme ruler’s image had no defects; it remained the same at changes of
people on the throne and naturally could have very little to do with their real
personalities. The Bini ideal of the ruler and the human being in general – this
is what was embodied in the sovereign’s image. What was sacralized was not a
concrete supreme title holder but the very institution of supreme ruler. His cult
was the cult of him only due to his possession of the Oba title but not the cult
of his personality. In fact, every Oba served merely as a temporal container of
what was really worshipped – the eternal sacral force vested in the supreme
authority. In the supreme ruler or to be correct, in his image the Bini’s
consciousness united sides of different binary oppositions (see Bradbury 1973:
250) without any care of possibility or impossibility to combine incompatible.
The sovereign was perceived by his subjects as at one time “for and against,
right and left, a human being and deity; he unites oppositions in himself, he
exists for the sake of this unification” (Palau Marti 1964: 218). The Oba was
not a “deity among people” (Mercier 1962: 103–127) (though from early time