<論説>「追従者」ストラトクレス―ヘレニズム初期アテナイの政治情勢を巡って―

Abstract

本稿の目的は，ヘレニズム初期アテナイにおいて最も活躍した政治家の一人であるストラトクレスに焦点を当て，彼の政治的行動に新たな解釈をもたらすことにある。この目的のため，本稿はストラトクレスの行動を検討し，彼を同時代の政治家の中に位置づけて考察した。分析の結果，ストラトクレスはかつて考えられてきたような「追従者」ではなく，彼の行動は都市の利益にもなり得るものであったこと，それと同時に，彼が行った「追従」は同時代の他の政治家に共有された行動であったことが確認された。その一方で，ストラトクレスには同時代の他の有力政治家と異なり軍事・外交面での活躍はなかった可能性が高いこと，しかし彼は，「劇的」な言語やパフォーマンスを用いて，市民を指導する政治家であったことを明らかになった。この結論は，前307 年以降，両王の支配の下で内政が制限された状況における民主政の重要性，または両王の支配の影響を政治実践の側面から解釈する一つの事例とすることができると考えられる。

In order to consider the political situation in Athens between 307 and 301 BCE and the influence on Greek cities of the dominance of the kings, this paper focuses on the political actions of Stratocles, one of the most prominent politicians in Athens, and regarded in ancient literature and modern scholarship as a flatterer of Antigonus I Monophthalmus and Demetrius I Poliorcetes. The points of the author' s discussion are as follows: First, contrary to the view of previous scholarship, Stratocles was not a "flatterer" of the kings, as his political actions concerning Demetrius were carried out in response to the pressure or the request of the king. In addition, these actions can be regarded not only as pursuit of selfadvancement but also as the pursuit of profits for Athens. Furthermore, contrary to the view that Stratocles looked to his own interests and changed his behaviour after 304/3 BCE, the author argues that his actions did not change throughout the period 307-301 BCE. In addition, by considering Stratocles' political actions as other than "flattery", the author confirms his argument. Second, the author explores Stratocles' political position in Athens through the prosopographic study of persons who were active between 307 and 301 BCE. After examining data collected by the author, he argues that Stratocles lacked some of the political capital held by his contemporary politicians, as the people do not seem to have elected him as a general or envoy or to offices such as held by Demochares, one of Stratocles' contemporary political rivals. Furthermore, Stratocles might also not have been chosen as envoy to the kings. Third, the author considers the political basis of Stratocles. After enumerating Stratocles' political capital, the author examines the texts of decrees proposed by Stratocles, in order to reconsider his political actions. Through a consideration of the literary texts, the author insists that Stratocles' "theoretical" performance in the assembly was important for his political career. As a result of his discussions, the author confirms that the profit gained by Stratocles during 307-301 BCE was the leadership of Athens, as long as he upheld the dominance of the kings. This also confirms the importance and the vitality of democracy of Greek poleis in the early Hellenistic period.