That there were at least two modes of persuading, with words and with gifts, in classical Athens has widely been accepted since Buxton(1982). It should be noted, as Harvey has suggested(1985), that neither mode was necessarily considered more improper than the other : monetary persuasion, expressed as χρημασι(δωροι&b.sigmav;, δου&b.sigmav; χρηματα etc.) πειθειν, coexisted with verbal, for which λογοι&b.sigmav; πειθειν was the usual phrase. In this paper the author's principal aim is to examine how and by which mode the Athenian citizens could be persuaded by their leaders under the regime of democracy, and to show what kind of social values underlay each of the two modes of persuading. Persuasion with gifts including bribes, mainly used in more or less private spheres, was firmly rooted in the traditional and rather aristocratic values according to which reciprocity should play an essential role in forming social relationships, whereas persuasion with words-and rhetoric-, normally employed in public speeches before a large body of citizens, i. e., assembly, council or popular court, was underpinned by a new, democratic ideology. The author attempts to argue that there can be observed a shift from the former toward the latter mode of persuasion in the course of the development of Athenian Democracy during the fifth century B. C, where three politicians are relevant : Miltiades, Cimon and Pericles. Miltiades, the victorious general at Marathon, and his son Cimon both represented the traditional norms concerning reciprocity, exercising their leaderships characteristically by means of persuasion with gifts : Miltiades promised the Athenian citizens 'to make them rich if they followed him' (Hdt. VI 132) , thus offering a gift in the future, when he persuaded them into setting out on an expedition against Paros in an assembly in 489 ; Cimon could likewise obtain much support from them and be elected general many times in the 470s and 460s only by lavishly expending his funds in giving his private patronage to the lower-class people. Persuading the demos with gift, however, was crucially checked by Pericles, who was well conscious of the power of oratory and fully exploited it as a political weapon to persuade the demos ; furthermore, he drove a wedge into the tradition of the political culture based on the reciprocity principle, himself adopting an extremely incorruptible life-style as a politician, for which he was praised by Thucydides as 'αδωροτατο&b.sigmav;'(II 65,8). It is also worth noting that there is much evidence that a system of accountability to detect and prosecute financial crimes including bribery was remarkably evolved under Pericles' leadership by the third quarter of the fifth century. The development of Athenian Democracy, therefore, can be described in a way as a process of conflict between the two opposing attitudes toward reciprocity, old and new, which eventually caused an inevitable change from persuasion with gift to that with words as a means of moving the demos in the symbouleutic and jurisdictional bodies : persuasion by words and rhetoric, not by gift and wealth, was more suited to the democratic principle that all male citizens were equally allowed to participate in the government regardless of the amount of their property.

抄録全体を表示

Eisangelia (the impeachment trial) in classical Athens is known as a legal process to try political and military leaders for major public offences. The author attempts to reconstruct its procedure in the period from Solon to Ephialtes, and to assess the powers of the demos (people) and the Areopagos within early Athenian democracy. Two problems are discussed in this paper. One is when and by whom eisangelia was instituted, and the other is what political body heard the pre-Ephialtic eisangelia. The author finds it less appropriate to ascribe the institution to Solon than to Kleisthenes, partly because no contemporary evidence proves the existence of a Solonian eisangelia, and partly because the danger of tyranny must have been felt more seriously by the latter reformer. It seems more probable that Kleisthenes (or his successors) made use of the Solonian ephesis to introduce some method of prosecution against tyranny. By means of the ephesis, i.e., the reference of a case from one of the arkhons to the heliaia, the demos was invested with the power to hear the trials for major public offences. This is because the heliaia at that time was in substance a judicial session of the ekklesia (assembly of the citizen body). In this way a legal system came into being to impeach those who attempted to threaten the existence of the democratic constitution. It may be called the prototype of eisangelia. After the arkhons lost their political significance in 487/6 B.C., the prytaneis (presidents of the council of Five Hundred and the assembly) took their place and became the recipient of eisangelia. Two possible ways of prosecution were then open to an accuser: he could bring an impeachment either to the council or to the assembly. These channels formed the classical procedure of eisangelia for major public offences in the post-Ephialtic period. The only judicial body to hear eisangelia in the pre-Ephialtic period seems to be the demos, whether as ekklesia or as heliaia, though some scholars have argued that sovereignty in eisangelia belonged to the Areopagos. The author also offers a hypothesis that eisangelia to the arkhon for maltreatment of orphans and parents derived from the prototype and retained that original form until the time of Aristotle. Eisangelia is one of the oldest types of procedure for political trials, and its course of development shows us how the Athenian demos came to secure a way to protect their own democracy.

抄録全体を表示

According to Demosthenes (20.70), Conon was the first man after the Tyrannicides to be voted a bronze statue by the Athenians. His statue was set up during his lifetime in front of the Stoa of Zeus Eleutherios in the Agora, the most important public space of democratic Athens. The aim of this paper is to elucidate the historical background of this event, which was a phenomenal breakthrough in the development of Athenian statue culture. The immediate reason for the Athenians to grant such an extraordinary honor to Conon was obviously his contribution to freeing the Athenian allies from the Spartan yoke after his victory at the battle of Cnidus. But it is highly remarkable that the Athenians conferred on him unprecedented honor of erecting his statue, which even such prominent generals as Miltiades or Themistocles could not enjoy during the fifth century BC. What were, then, the general circumstances in which the Athenians formed this critical decision? The following two observations are relevant to this phenomenon. First, the rivalry between Lysander, the Spartan navarch, and Conon must have played an important role in Conon's claim that he deserved such honor. Lysander was responsible for the final victory of Spartans over the Athenians at Aegospotami in 405 and put the Aegean world under Spartan domination. Many statues of Lysander were dedicated in the international sanctuaries such as Olympia and Delphi. It was only natural for Conon, who overturned Lysander's achievement and reestablished Athenian supremacy in the Aegean, to receive similar honor from his native country. Second, there seems to have been a strong local tradition among the Ionian cities to erect statues in order to express gratitude toward their benefactors. Although Pausanias ironically comments that the Ionians merely follow the example of the entire world in paying court to strength (6.3.15), they were happy to erect statues of Lysander in their sanctuaries after Aegospotami and then flatly proceeded to set up that of Conon after Cnidus. It was under the influence of this Ionian tradition that the Athenians reintroduced the custom of erecting statues for politically powerful individuals, which culminated in the early Hellenistic period in response to the diffusion of ruler cults in the wider Greek world.

抄録全体を表示

The Athenian democracy, with most of its magistrates chosen by lot, needed an elaborate system to review the accountability of all the citizens holding offices. Among the system's many legal procedures, eisangelia (the impeachment trial) was the most dramatic for its political judgements, often posing the death penalty, on many noted Athenian politicians, including Perikles. The author concentrates on the eisangelia for major public offences, like overthrowing democracy or treason, which would threaten the existence of Athens herself. Two problems are discussed in this paper, although many others have been disputed hotly. One is what kind of procedure was followed in this type of eisangelia, and the other what function it had in the political context of the Athenian democracy. The author also considers the relationship between these two areas. Concerning the procedure of eisangelia, the most disputed points have been (i)which of the three bodies, i.e., boule (council), ekklesia (assembly) and dikasterion (court), gave the first hearing, and (ii)whether it was possible for the boule to refer the case directly to the court, without any reference to the assembly, which was the sovereign body. On the first point, the author regards the possibility that eisangelia was brought first not only to the kyria ekklesia but also to the boule, if only the assembly gave eventually a decree to send the case to the final hearing court, though some scholars seem to think the former was the only body to take the initiative. On the next point, the author accepts the view that this type of process ("the by-passing of the ekklesia") could exist lawfully, in spite of some arguments which may interpret the process to be unconstitutional. Concerning the political function of eisangelia, we cannot help but admit that actually it never functioned to insure democracy, which was the eisangelia's original role assigned by law. It is exceedingly ironical, on the contrary, that it was used by oligarchs to overthrow the democracy in 404 B.C.. Moreover, very interestingly, the above-mentioned process of "by-passing of the ekklesia" was employed in this oligarchic conspiracy, not accidentally. It must not be overlooked, on the other hand, that another type of procedure existed by which the assembly's decree played a significant part in impeaching many politicians and generals by the so-called radical democrats. It could be explained, therefore, in terms of this dualism of procedure why eisangelia was used not only by democrats but also by oligarchs. Eisangelia's function seems therefore just as complicated as its complex procedures.

抄録全体を表示

The concept of ζεινο&b.sigmav; is not so clear. ζεινο&b.sigmav; is usually understood in two divided meanings, A. guest-friend, B. stranger. People interested in this word have sought the development of this word. However, considering that already in Homer both meanings are found, it must be treated as one word which has the two meanings at the same time. Also whether it has any united meaning must be investigated. In this paper the author intends to clarify the concept of ζεινο&b.sigmav;. At first he examines the opinion of Ph. Gauthier who first tried to understand its united meaning ("Notes sur l'etranger et l'hospitalite en Grece et a. Rome," Anc. Soc. 4, 1973). Gauthier insists that ζεινο&b.sigmav; is another Greek. The author finds some difficulties in this theory, and concludes that his opinion does not have grounds for support. For example, his insistence that αλλοθροοι cannot be ζεινο&b.sigmav; contradicts the material suggesting that Egyptians, who seem to be αλλοθροοι, can be ζεινο&b.sigmav;(Od. XIV. 283-6). The other evidences do not suggest the necessity of dividing Greeks and non-Greeks, either. Then the author studies the use of ζεινο&b.sigmav; in archaic times, especially in Homer, in which it is used 208 times. He draws these conclusions: 1. The meaning of ζεινο&b.sigmav; is constant in showing the people who do not belong to the same community. 2. Estimates of ζεινο&b.sigmav; are in a certain range. 3. There exists μεταναστη&b.sigmav; who cannot be ζεινο&b.sigmav; for a long time. His estimate is low. 4. A non-μεταναστη&b.sigmav; foreigner can remain ζεινο&b.sigmav; much longer than μεταναστη&b.sigmav;, but not forever. 5. In any case the period of remaining ζεινο&b.sigmav; links the degree of his estimate. These point out that ζεινο&b.sigmav; can be understood from two factors, estimate and time. The author, thereupon, presents the figure of ζεινο&b.sigmav;-concept by making two axes, estimate and time. From this concept-figure the author throws some new light on the dogma that a foreigner at this time was without legal rights. Foreigner should be understood strictly by names, because ζεινο&b.sigmav; is not foreigner in general. Since Odysseus can claim his rights as ζεινο&b.sigmav; to Cyclops(Od. IX. 266-71) , and themis orders that ζεινο&b.sigmav; should be given hospitality, ζεινο&b.sigmav; must not be without legal rights. μεταναστη&b.sigmav;, however, appears as without legal rights, because, who, when he wants to stay there, needs to change in a short time into some concept other than ζεινο&b.sigmav;, such as θεραπων, θη&b.sigmav;, cannot claim his rights as ζεινο&b.sigmav; for a long time. If he does, it means that he will have to leave that place in a short time and return to a wandering life again. Remaining ζεινο&b.sigmav; any longer than the period determined by the degree of his estimate, will cause dissatisfaction among people and he will not be able to expect hospitality any more as in the case of Odysseus who returned to Aeolus (Od. X. 725). To understand ζεινο&b.sigmav; from these two factors, estimate and time, is not helpful in understanding that of classical times. The structure of ζεινο&b.sigmav;-concept suffered a great change during the development of polis. The essence of this change will be clearly understood when the structure of ζεινο&b.sigmav;-concept in classical times is well grasped.

抄録全体を表示

Since Boeckh pioneered in the study of liturgies in the nineteenth century, many works have been published on this subject. Yet except for incidental references, none of them have dealt thoroughly with the significance of the participation of metics in the liturgies. The liturgies originated in the period of the oligarchy and, in the democratic period, began to be performed not by noble families as in the earlier days but by wealthy citizens as honourable duties. A curious fact is that both citizens and non-citizens performed them in classical Athens where each category of population enjoyed a legal status distinct from the other. Here I want to discuss the problem of the participation of non-citizens in the liturgies and consider the significance of this fact. In the Panathenaic festival, metics performed a few fixed liturgies. Perhaps originally these accorded them honour; but, as the performer was restricted only to the metics who were humble in their social standing, the liturgies assigned to them also came to be looked upon as rather humble ones. Among the encyclic liturgies, we are certain that metics performed the choregia. However, they did so only in the Lenaean festival, which was held in winter, and for this reason they did not thrive. So the supposed honour may not have been held in common by both metics and citizens. Some scholars state that citizens alone performed the trierarchy but they do not enlarge any further upon this problem. However, as Kahrstedt has shown, the role of metics in the trierarchy was important. However, they did not become official trierarchs; there is a case of a metic embarking on behalf of a citizen trierarch. I think this cannot be the solitary example. Considering the original function of the trierarchy as a measure of naval defence substituting the naucracy, the embarkation was its most essential part. Nevertheless, in this case, a citizen trierarch bore only the financial part of his duties and transferred personal service required of him to a non-citizen. This is a parallel to the fact that citizens preferred to accept mercenaries in the army than to arm themselves. Apart from its importance in the scheme of national defence, the trierarchy had a secondary effect to promote its performers in society. The citizens wanted to monopolize the honour of bearing the title of litourgos. Therefore, when they allowed metics to take part in some liturgies, they restricted the latters' participation; when they entrusted metics the essential personal service in the trierarchy, they reserved the title of trierarch by bearing the financial part of his duties. This explains some passages in the writings of contemporaries as Aristotle, Demosthenes, Lysias etc., to the effect that, while the citizens maintained the position of litourgos to be an honourable one, in fact, they did not want to perform the liturgies by themselves, but only desired the position of litourgoi in order to win fame and they discharged the financial part of their duties for fear that they should harm their reputation by failing to perform the liturgies which they had undertaken. By the time of Aristotle, the liturgies had lost their original spirit and had become detached from their original purpose. However, as they were closely related to the democratic structure of Athenian society, they survived to the end of the democratic period.

抄録全体を表示

Freedom in the abstract sense of the word might be defined as the condition of being able to choose and to carry out purposes of life. The real content of this concept contains freedoms of various kinds from the human relations of various kinds. We must, therefore, observe it concretely in relation to the given society as a whole. In the ancient Greek society the word eleutheria represented the independence of the autonomous citizen-body of each polis, and freedom from slavery, from debt, and from tyranny and the Persian rule. Of the Mycenaean period we find some of the Linear B tablets on which the words relating to freedom —eleuthera, eleutheron, eleutherose— were written in particular meaning. They always represent exemption from paying a certain amount of tribute (do-so-mo). It is the king who excused payment: and those who were exempted are smiths, shipbuilders, huntsmen, planters, and etc. of several villages which were obliged to contribute flax. We find a different expression of the obviously same meaning on some tablets of Ma- and Na- series. With collapse of the tribute-systems of the Mycenaean monarchies, the concept of freedom as exemption from tribute seems to have disappeared.

抄録全体を表示

本稿は、四世紀末から五世紀初頭のマニ教教師ファウストゥスの思想の一端を明らかにすることを目的とする。マニ教はアウグスティヌス当時の属州アフリカで隆盛を誇ったが、五世紀以後急速にその教勢を減じていった。須永はその原因をマニ教の折衷主義に求め、過度なキリスト教化がマニ教の教団としての独自性の喪失を招いたのではないかと見ている。我々はこの須永の指摘を念頭に、ファウストゥスのセクト論の内にその萌芽が既に見出せることを論じた。第一に我々はファウストゥスの思想の大枠を概観し、その根底にある彼の特徴的な律法理解を明らかにする。第二に我々はその律法解釈から生じる彼のセクト論について考察を加える。最後に上述二つの議論を基に、ファウストゥスのマニ教理解について論じる。そこから彼のセクト論がキリスト教とマニ教との連続性を強化する一方で、創始者マニの役割を縮小し、マニの地位を後退させていることを明らかにする。

抄録全体を表示

The "Old Oligarch", the author of Constitution of the Athenians, recorded his very interesting observations of the various phases of Athenian democracy during the later half of the fifth century B.C. Among those views, his pointing out of the relation between a marine empire and democracy in Athens is very important because it shows his basic point of view. He recognizes that in reality it is the poor people who are the support and driving force of a sea power and who contribute more to the strengthening of their country than do the nobles and the wealthy. He also considers it to be right that they hold a predominent position and participate in government. It is noteworthy that he uses the words "right" or "rightfully" in this context, for rightness, or justice, is one of the most fundamental subjects in the history of Greek ideas. Moreover, the oligarch's statement justifying the rule of the poor people cannot be found anywhere else in Greek texts. Nevertheless, scholars have not paid due regard to it, and have usually been occupied with the philological interpretation of words, phrases, expressions and statements concerning particular matters in the text. Being diligent about their minute work, they often have neglected examining the basic ideas of this work. This is the reason why the author of the present paper tries to investigate the work in holistic terms from the standpoint of the history of ideas and to make clear the "Old Oligarch's" view of justice; and then marine empire and democracy that were the most important elements constituting the Athenian life in those days, will be revealed from within. The investigation proceeds as follows : 1.The "Old Oligarch" sees many aspects of Athenian democracy in a very biased light, while his observant eye watches its fundamental structure with great presence of mind. As a result his view of democracy seems to be contradictory. So what, we may ask, was democracy actually for him? 2.He seems to accept democracy as a form of government, though he unfavorably criticizes the democratic way of life. In the face of this ambiguous attitude, what on earth, we may ask, did he consider to be valuable in the Athenian situation? And what kind of social class formed the basis of his attitude toward politics? 3.He seems not to have found the value or political idea which has great influence on society and of which he approves, and also loses sight of the social class in which he has close interest. Yet he affords an excellent insight into the reality of Athens. What did he regard as the most important powers supporting the Athenian empire? What's more, what originality was shown in his understanding of Athenian democracy? 4.His view of justice is inseparably related to the existence of the Athenian empire, which he considers to be the highest priority. In that case, what were the characteristics of his view of justice, compared with those of his contemporaries who were more or less similar to him.

抄録全体を表示

The innovative works of two French scholars, F. Bourriot's Recherches sur la nature du genos and D. Roussel's Tribu et cite, which were both published in 1976, criticized radically the common view that polis society was based on a tribal system and have been supported by many Greek historians since they were appreciated by M.I. Finley in his notable book, Politics in the Ancient World. However, the author feels that their theories are not well founded, and that especially Bourriot's argument emphasizing the religious function of Athenian gene meets with definite invincible difficulties. First, regarding his interpretation of Philochoros' fragment (FGH 328 F35a), Bourriot's interesting reference to homogalaktai in Arist. Pol. 1252b is unsuccessful. The inhabitants of a village, called homogalaktai in that passage, must have been considered by Aristotle to be members of a local lineage in the anthropological sense rather than such joint owners of a pasturage, as Bourriot infers. Homogalaktai in Philochoros' fragment is probably an obsolescent term of the members of an aristocratic group in an Athenian phratry, while orgeones appear to imply upper commoners who stood together against homogalaktai as worshippers to their own god or hero in the course of the democratization of a phratry and also succeeded in organizing lower commoners in the classical period. Secondly, the positive part of Bourriot's theory that gene were originally sacerdotal families is also unpersuasive, because the author cannot cite sufficient evidence giving us both the technical term genos and the proper noun of a sacerdotal group. There are only too sporadic examples (Athen.234f.; Pindar. Olymp. VI71; Hdt. IX33; Demosth. LIX 117). Aesch. III 18, as well as Arist. Ath. Pol.57.2, does not necessarily establish that the term genos originally implied just the sacerdotal family, though in Aesch. III 18 the term happens to be used to represent a sacerdotal family. In Ath. P0l. 57.2 gene appear to be the aristocratic clans which often served as priests in their own phratries, in contrast with the sacerdotal families monopolizing the important priesthoods of communal temples. Thirdly, Bourriot's other insistence that aristocratic families were not called gene, but oikiai, is also not supported by sufficient evidence. From the archaic to the Roman imperial period, ancient authors appear to have usually used only proper nouns when referring to individual aristocratic families. The description of Bacchiadai (Hdt. V 92β; Diod. VII 9; Paus. II 4) sets a good example. It is also important that the above-mentioned dources concerned with Bacchiadai show the cooperative power and spirit of an aristo-cratic clan. As for Roussel's theory that ethne had no tfaces of a tribal system, there is definite epigraphical evidence against it. In an eastern Locrian inscription we find two kinds of primordial community, damos and koinan (ML 20 11. 3-4), besides polis as a constitutional unit of that ethnos (ibid. 11. 19-28). In comparison with an inscription of Elis, another ethnos which includes damos as a social organization (e.g. Buck 62 1.9), the Locrian koinan proves to be equivalent to the Elean patria (Buck 61 1.1), a kind of tribal group. Though the works of Bourriot and Roussel are significant contributions to the study of ancient Greek society, the original arguments of those scholars cannot nevertheless replace the view that phratriai and gene date back to the Dark Age and that gene were aristocratic groups ruling individual phratriai.

抄録全体を表示