Senatus consultum ultimum, the Senate's "ultimate decree", is generally thought to be a declaration of a state of emergency in Republican Rome. In this paper, by examining the process by which the "ultimate decree" was first passed, the author attempts to clarify the real intention of the Senate (= the oligarchy) in its passage. J.B.Ungern-Sternberg's detailed study, though different in its conclusions, has proven most helpful to the discussion which follows. The oligarchy, who had lost control over Ti. Gracchus by traditional means, e.g. legal prosecution, murdered him in 133 B.C. The ringleader was P.Scipio Nasica, a private citizen. The oligarchy tried to justify the murder by first admiring Nasica for what he had done, and secondly by prosecuting Ti. Gracchus' surviving followers for treason. It is more important for the purpose of this paper that the oligarchy were simultaneously prepared to find a new institutional formula to destroy their opponents instead of using private citizens to murder them as in 133 B.C. In 121 B.C., a consul, the highest magistracy of the Roman Republic, massacred C.Gracchus and his followers under the "ultimate decree", and the massacre was supported by the people in 120 B.C. The author concludes that the oligarchy, who had lost the ability to rule by any traditional means, invented the senatus consultum ultimum to destroy their political opponents under the pretext of saving the res publica from crisis. The "ultimate decree", however, encouraged political violence, and came to cause Sulla's march on Rome in 88 B.C., which ironically dealt a fatal blow to the res publica.

抄録全体を表示

Diodorus' accounts of the Sicilian Slave Wars have been a source ofcontroversies This paper deals with two particular problems among them the blaming of C Gracchus' equestrian jury in the aetiology of the First War, a notorious anachronism that has vexed scholarship since Mommsen, and the accusation against 'Italian' landowners as having encouraged the highway robbery by their slaves, but whose presence in any large number on Sicilian soil at this period is not much attested by other evidence Some scholars maintain that these passages go back to Posidonius, whose contribution, to whatever extent, as a source to the Diodoran narrative of the First War is beyond doubt I shall below present some likeliest routes for the transmission of the information that has caused these problems 1) Roman Sources The ubiquitous criticisms of Roman magistrates in the narrative smack of narrow partisan hostility within the ruling oligarchy, and it has been suggested that our difficulties result from Posidonius' use of a Roman source coloured by conservative pique against the knights Among Posidonius' Panaetian connexions the most important was P Rutilius Rufus, whose semi-autobiographical history in Greek was certainly one of Posidonius' sources, and whose sorry experience at the repetundae trial in 92 might well suggest a Rutilian origin of the troublesome passages Yet evidence reveals Rutilius' attentiveness to the niceties of law, and his work, like other Republican memoirs, was written primarily for his own political apologia Thus I doubt that this Roman Stoic dared jeopardise the whole credibility of his apologia by a trifling distortion of the history of the extortion court Furthermore, if we allow for an interpreter, Posidonius' potential Roman sources need not be restricted to works written in Greek The annals of Fannius, if the historian is to be identified with C Fannius M f, yet another disciple of Panaetius and the anti-Gracchan consul in 122, are a strong possibility Another candidate would be Sempronius Asellio, who, like Rutilius and Posidonius, belonged to the same Polybian school of history and whose kinsman Diodorus alone in ancient traditions praises for his governorship of Sicily immediately after the Second War 2) Posidonius' Narrative Pattern Many scholars have perceived a structural and thematic parallelism between the accounts of the two wars One school of thought further stretches this deductive tendency of Posidonius the Philosopher-Historian into a strictly formulated 'narrative pattern', claiming that the philosopher, for want of information, retrojected the conditions in Sicily around the time of the Second War, or those in Southern Italy at the time of the Spartacus War, to the island of the 130s, and that in this process he 'reduplicated' an equestrian/Italian involvement in the First War Yet in my view the whole idea of a narrative pattern stands on far too many unattested premises, and hence to attribute our particular problems to this nebulous paradigm risks circularity In fact the similarities between the two Diodoran accounts are no more striking than the obvious differences This fact suggests that the author had fairly detailed knowledge of each war, thus rendering it unlikely that he, simply out of horror vacui, made up part of the account of one war on the analogy of another 3) Local Sources These details include 'folkloric' anecdotes, which all concern Sicehot Greeks, and without doubt go back to the same community But how did they find their way into the current text? Posidonius' famous trip to the West may have included an investigative sojourn in Sicily, but Diodorus himself was a Sicilian, born in a town only a few tens of miles away from the epicentres of both wars within thirty years after the Second War Thus he would have been as well placed as Posidonius to draw

(View PDF for the rest of the abstract.)

抄録全体を表示

Though the historical researches in the Soviet Union came to attract attention through its translation and introduction, vet they are not throughly known to Japan.
The article by K. M. Kolobova and L. N. Kazamanoba on the city law of Gortyna, Crete, tries to go through the process of constructing classical slavery society founded on the dissolution of the primitive community through the city law and comes to the conclusion that the word "slavery" «δοςυλο ?? » is not yet be used as contrasting with "free men" and the words implicating the category of subordination are so much used.
And I mentioned the articles by E. L. Kazakevitch trying to argue that the multifariousness of the words meaning "slavery" reflects vice versa the clear class opposition between the slavery and free men and deepens it more. But on account of spaces given I want to introduce their details on other chance.
Finally I listed the articles of Soviet scholars relating to the Greek-Roman history.
I should be happy to be of service to the Japanese scholars for information on the academic situation of ancient history in the Soviet Union.

抄録全体を表示

In 1979, a bronze tablet called "Tabula Contrebiensis" was found at Botorrita, 20 km south of Zaragoza, in the middle Ebro valley in Spain (Roman Hispania). There inscribed 20 lines of Latin text, including a dispute over irrigation among the indigenous people. It can be dated 87 B. C. Hispania had its first contact with Rome in 218 B. C., the date of the outbreak of the Second Punic War, and was conquered completely in 19 B. C. by Vipsanius Agrippa. In the course of Roman conquest, it has been assumed that a cultural change, referred to as "Romanization" or "Latinization", was carried out, and it really had profound effects on Hispania. In fact, now in Spain, we can see many traces of ancient Rome. And so, this inscription, at first glance, can be interpreted as signifying advances of uses of Roman law procedure or Latin language by indigenous people. On the other hand, however, when we examine the text taking account in detail several terms used in it, in the light of other contemporary Latin inscriptions and the conditions in which it was inscribed, we can identify clearly indigenous people in Hispania experiencing Roman Empire and not bound by such an interpretation. In this sense the author shows in this article that "Romanization" is not cultural change that took place only between militarily and culturally superior Rome and indigenous Spaniards. It's a more complicated phenomenon. This paper is the author's first step toward the work of inquiring into "experienced Rome" by contemporary people.

抄録全体を表示

本稿は、ユダヤ系ドイツ人でありナチス期に米国へ亡命した法政治理論家Otto Kirchheimer（1905-65）の初期作Weimar... und was dann? Entstehung und Gegenwart der Weimarer Verfassung（Berlin: E. Laub, Jungsozialistische Schriftenreihe, 1930）の全訳の後半部である。本作は副題をAnalyse einer Verfassungに変えて論文集Politik und Verfassung（Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp, 1964）S. 9-56に再録されており、大意に影響しない範囲で表現上の細かい修正がなされている。

抄録全体を表示

Today few scholars would dispute that archaeological evidence is indispensable for the study of Roman agriculture ; most would also accept the validity of comparisons between literary and archaeological evidence. However, the ambiguity of much archaeological evidence, especially from field survey, has meant that so far there are no agreed criteria for interpreting this material. The present paper offers a new methodology for interpreting survey evidence, and in doing so will aim to demonstrate the potential value of an archaeological approach to Roman agrarian history. Section 1 presents a hypothesis based on literary evidence about the decline of 'SMP (the slave mode of production)'. The importance of free casual labour for a slavestaffed villa, in terms of economic efficiency, is widely accepted, and the source of the free labour is usually considered to be the free peasants living near the villa. Thus it is assumed that villas and small farms had a mutually complementary relationship. However, inhabitants=@of a city within easy reach (approximately within 6km) of the villa should also be taken into consideration as a source of free labour. In either case, there is a possible correlation between a decline in these sources of labour and the loss of economic viability of SMP. Section 2 presents a basic working method, using field survey data, for proving the decrease of free peasants, and thereby for verifying the above hypothesis. All sites of each survey area are separated into three classes (Class V [villa], Class F [farm], and Class H [hut], basically according to Potter's classification) and the diachronic trends such as accumulation of lands can be seen by comparing the fluctuation of the number of V-sites with that of F-sites. In addition, some serious problems involved in using archaeological evidence, such as the dating of sites by domestic pottery, are noted, and some methods to overcome them are suggested. Section 3, based on this methodology, treats four survey areas in Italy and tries to analyse the agricultural structure of each, incorporating literary evidence. The results of each analysis are compared with one another, yielding the following points : 1) In the ager Cosanus, the decrease of small farms in the late Republican and the early Imperial period was proved, and the hypothesis thus receives some corroboration. The coexistence of villas and farms, however, enabled the conversion from SMP to tenancy after the '1C crisis' (of Rostovtzeff). 2) In the Biferno Valley in Molise, the diversification of agriculture (mixed farming and polyculture) not only lessened the shock of the crisis, but also enabled the shift from cultivation of grapes and olives to pasturage. 3) At the piedmont of Massico in northern Campania, the interdependence of slavestaffed villas and a port city, established after the villas drove out the small farms, was inflexible and vulnerable to the crisis. The vicious circle of the decrease of wine exports and the decreasing population of the city seems to have been the main cause of the rapid decline of the area's economy. Besides, monoculture of vine-cultivation made the conversion to other types of land use extremely difficult. 4) In south Etruria, agriculture was wholly dependent on the city of Rome. A pattern of suburban agriculture including such phenomena as pastiones villaticae developed ; there was a constant influx of population from the city. Thus the fluctuation of the number of sites in south Etruria reflects the rise and fall of the city of Rome.

抄録全体を表示