The Thessalian Confederacy played an important role in the course of the conquest of Greece by Philip II. The purpose of this paper is to investigate the relation between the Third Sacred War and Philip's invasion in the context of Thessalian history. At the time of the outbreak of the Sacred War in 356 B.C., we find no conflict within the Thessalians, but the next year, tyranny was revived in Pherai and set to recover the rule of Thessaly, in alliance with Phocis, who had occupied Delphi and provoked the Sacred War. In oppositon to them, the Thessalians urged Philip to support them, which forced him to concern himself directly with the Sacred War. In 354 B.C., the allied forces of Phocis and Pherai defeated the Thessalians and the Macedonians, and gained superiority in Thessaly. Then, at least three polis stood for Pherai. In 353 B.C., Philip marched south again. In the Crocus Plain, the Macedonian and the Thessalian army enjoyed a great victory over the Phocians and the Pheraians. Philip banished the tyrants from Pherai and recovered the unification of the Thessalian Confederacy. During the same year, the Thessalians appointed Philip as archon of the Confederacy for life. It was the Aleuadai, the great aristocrats of Larissa, who proposed this appointment. They had had friendly relations with the Macedonian royal house since the fifth century, but it was unprecedented for a Greek state to entrust their supreme power to a foreign king. Why did this occur ? In the first place, the Aleuadai aimed at exterminating the Pheraian tyranny and unifying Thessaly under their hegemony. Because they have not been able to control the Pheraian tyranny by themselves since c.400 B.C., they decided to rely on Philip, even if it meant that they had to be content with the position of an ally subordinate to Philip. Secondly, the offensive of Pherai and Phocis in 354 B.C. was so critical to the unification of Thessaly that the Thessalians welcomed Philip as a liberator of the confederacy. Thirdly, there was a profound suspicion among the Thessalian cities. The Aleuadai chose to give the office of archon to Philip, who was a reliable ally rather than to share it with the other cities. Finally, Philip was not a mere foreigner to the Aleuadai, because they and the Macedonian royal house alleged that the Heracleidai were their common ancestors. On the other hand, Thessaly was extremely valuable to Philip both in securing the south frontier of his kingdom and in its abundant resources. Now Philip 'legitimately' gained it. In the end, the complicated situation of Thessalian politics, connected with the course of the Third Sacred War, opened the way to Philip' invasion of the south.

抄録全体を表示

明治二〇年前後において、同時代の歴史改良論と連動しながら〈小説〉性を戦略的に利用した伝記『経世偉勲』や、小説改良論と呼応しながら〈歴史〉を独自の形で移入した政治小説『雪中梅』といった、歴史-伝記-小説を混質化する実践が相次いで登場した。坪内逍遥は、こうした試みに対して、事実/真理や題材の選択性といった基準に基づいた、歴史伝記/小説というジャンル区分を対置し、小説に関する言説を再編していった。

抄録全体を表示

戸田欽堂の『情海波瀾』は寓意的手法による政治小説とみなされているが、細かく見るとこの作には小説空間をふくらませようとする志向があり、そのための写実的性格がうかがわれる。この寓意と写実を展開した作品として『経国美談』と『鬼啾啾』を読むと、前者には理念を核とする〈正史〉から物語空間への志向性がみられ、後者には作者の情念に染まりつつ、独得な「実伝」への姿勢が見い出される。この物語性と写実性の幅に初期政治小説の可能性を考えたい。

抄録全体を表示

Since 377 B.C., foreign policy of Athens was pursued on the basis of her Second Sea-League and failed by the defeat of the Social War in 355 B.C.. The purpose of this paper is to analyze the Athenian politics and diplomacy in this period through the concept of political groups, and to locate them in the Greek political history in the first half of the fourth century B.C.. In Athens, in this period, there were three political groups whose leaders were Kallistratos, Timotheos, and Aristophon respectively. Kallistratos-group pursued the dual hegemony policy of Athens-Sparta, and maintained the friendly relations with Sparta even after Athenian sea-hegemony was recovered. But Spartan defeat in the battle of Leuctra and the rise of Thebes destroyed the ground of this policy, and brought about the downfall of Kallistratos. Then both Timotheos and Aristophon-groups positively promoted the expansion policy of sea-hegemony after mid-360's, which caused the transformation of the Sea-League into the type of the Empire in the fifth century B.C.. The struggle for leadership between these two groups resulted in the triumph of Aristophon-group. But this expansion policy also failed by the defeat of the Social War in 355 B.C.. By the way, it was King's Peace concluded in 386 B.C. which formed the framework for Greek politics in the first half of the fourth century B.C.. King's Peace was a treaty in which all Greek cities took part under the authority of Persian King, and guaranteed the freedom and autonomy of each city. Kallistratos-group built the Sea-League in conformity with King's Peace and maintained Athenian sea-hegemony within its framework. Then in 360's, Persian Empire was weakened by inner rebellions and Great King lost his authority over Greece. It was this change of the balance of power between Greece and Persia which enabled Timotheos- and Aristophon-groups to carry out the expansion policy beyond the framework of King's Peace and to recover the Empire. In result, political groups of Athens in the first half of the fourth century conflicted with each other for leadership concerning the sea-hegemony which was essential to the existence of Athens. And the political situation in Greece, especially the relations with Persia, together with this political situation in Athens, gave a direct impact on the recovery of the Athenian Empire.

抄録全体を表示

Wie die fruhe Tyrannis, ist auch die spate Tyrannis eine bemerkenswerte Erscheinung in der Krisensituation der hellenischen Poleis. Die Krise, die die fruhe Tyrannis ermglichte, war die der Aristokratie der hellenischen Poleis, wodurch sich diejenige Burgerschaft in den hellenischen Poleis gebildet hatte, welche in den kommenden klassischen Poleis zum Kern werden muBte ; dagegen konnte man die Krise, die die spate Tyrannis hervorbrachte, als die Krise um das Uberleben der Poleis an sich ansehen. Die tyrannischen Regime im 4. Jahrhundert v. Chr. entstanden zwar in den fortgeschrittenen hellenischen Poleis, aber von groBerer historischer Bedeutung ist die starke territorialherrschaftliche Tyrannis, die in den Gebieten mit engen ethnischen Verbindungen entstand. Die Tyrannis in Thessalien und Phokis zeigen ein wichtiges Problem uber dis Staatsformung in den ethnischen Gebieten im 4. Jahrhundert v. Chr. : diese territorialherrschaftlichen tyrannischen Regime, entstanden unter dem politischen und wirtschaftlichen Druck der fortgeschrittenen Poleis, unterscheiden sich von den klassischen Poleis und konnen als eine der Ubergangsformen der Staaten von den klassischen Poleis zu den hellenistischen Monarchien betrachtet werden. In diesem Jahrhundert entstand auch in dem hochentwickelten Gebiet eine viele Gemeinschaften verwaltende Territorialherrschaft, die sich aus der Not der Griechen, sich an der Peripherie der hellenischen Welt gegen die Barbaren verteidigen zu mussen,gebildet hatte. Die Tyrannis des Dionysios in Sizilien und der Poleis in Kleinasien konnen in diesen Typ kategorisiert werden und auch als eine der Ubergangsformen der Staaten von den klassischen Poleis zu. den hellenistischen Monarchien betrachtet werden.

抄録全体を表示

Because of the growing interest in Macedonia stimulated by recent archaeological discoveries, there have been a considerable number of studies on Macedonian history. Since the 1970s these studies have been concentrated on Philip II, whose reputation had previously been overshadowed by that of Alexander the Great. Recent major works on Philip II have one common feature: they criticize the Atheno-centric nature of traditional research on this historical figure and consider him instead from a Macedonian standpoint. Unfortunately, all of these studies fall into the trap of overemphasizing Philip's friendly attitude toward Athens. This tendency is most apparent in their interpretation of "the Peace of Philocrates" concluded between Philip and Athens in 346 B.C.. Most scholars exaggerate the importance of this peace and regard it as clear evidence of Philip's friendly attitude toward Athens. The purpose of this paper is to put the Peace of Philocrates in its proper perspective and to shed some light on Philip's overall strategy in 346 B.C.. The negotiations regarding the Peace of Philocrates coincided with two important events: Philip's Thracian campaign, and his intervention in the Third Sacred War. This paper attempts to analyze the Peace in the context of these two events. Within the framework of his Thracian campaign, the Peace can be regarded as a diplomatic expedient used by Philip to forestall Athens' offensive intervention in Thracian affairs and to conquer Thrace as smoothly as possible. On the other hand, when we look at his intervention in the Sacred War, which led to his emergence as the major power in Greek politics, we can see that Philip intended to strike a blow at Athens' ally, the Phocians, with Thebes' cooperation, in order to enter the mainstream of Greek politics. In short, we can affirm that Philip's policy of favouring Athens played no part at all in that process, and that his peace with Athens had no effect on his settlement of the Sacred War. Therefore, the Peace of Philocrates was only a diplomatic expedient for conquering Thrace smoothly, and it had almost nothing to do with Philip's intervention in the Sacred War, which, in 346 B.C., was a very important part of his strategy toward Greece. It follows from this conclusion that it is necessary to amend the recent studies which inflate the importance of the Peace of Philocrates in Philip's plan and which consequently imply that Philip's attitude toward Athens was friendly.

抄録全体を表示

本翻訳は、Leo Strauss, The Argument and the Action of Plato's Laws, The University of Chicago Press, 1975 (Midway reprint 1983), pp. 22-53 の日本語訳である。ジョゼフ・クロプシーの「前書き」と「第一巻」の翻訳は、『政治哲学』第20号（2016年、99-123頁）に、レオ・シュトラウス「プラトン『法律』の議論と筋書」（１）としてすでに公表されている。併せて参照いただければ幸いである。

抄録全体を表示