<論説>紀元前四世紀アテナイにおける銀行家ネットワークの性質と機能

Abstract

従来の研究では、前四世紀アテナイの銀行家はポリス社会から切り離された存在としてとらえられてきた。しかし、史料からは彼らが市民とも何らかの関係を築いていた様子を見てとることができるため、この見解には再考の余地があるといえる。そこで、本稿では銀行家の人的紐帯を網羅的に分析することで、銀行家とアテナイ社会との関係について再検討を試みた。その結果明らかとなったのは、当時の銀行経営は人的紐帯に依拠したものであり、銀行家たちは市民との関係も積極的に利用していたということ、他方で市民側も、銀行家との結びつきを必要とするような社会的状況に置かれていたということである。加えて、このような人的紐帯は、市民たちの社会的ネットワークに即する形で形成・維持されたものであった。すなわち、ここからはアウトサイダーというよりもむしろ、アテナイ社会内部と密接にかかわる存在としての銀行家像が浮かび上がるであろう。

It is known that in the fourth century BC a great many people who were engaged in commercial activities were attracted to Athens. Athenians had suffered from serious grain shortages and were therefore dependent on grain imported by maritime traders, who often used banks in order to deposit or exchange money. In previous studies, it has been emphasised that those who engaged in economic activities were "outsiders" in the poleis. However, it is clear from primary sources that these people established relationships not only with other non-citizens but also with Athenian citizens, and thus it would seem that the previous view of the traders and bankers as "outsiders" should be revised. Based on this point of view, this paper focuses on the banking network in fourth century BC Athens. Since previous studies on banking have been carried out in the context of the debate on the nature of the ancient economy, the main focus of discussion has been on whether loans were productive or consumptive and whether or not bank deposits bore interest. Although E E. Cohen and K. M. W. Shipton have pointed out the importance of bankers in Athenian society, their views have not completely supplanted the idea of "outsiders" since they discussed the economic function of loans and deposits rather than the role of the banking network. In order to address this problem, this paper examines the nature and function of the banking network as a whole, and thus clarifies 1) how banking operated within the banking network, 2) the nature of the network, and 3) how the banking network was related to Athenian society. Personal relationships involving bankers can be categorised according to the nature of the relationship a person had to the banker, whether customer, mediator, supporter, and so on. Importantly, in most cases the customers were either acquaintances of the banker or people who these acquaintances had introduced. This suggests that customers were restricted to people whose trustworthiness could be personally vouched for, and this can be interpreted as a strategy of risk avoidance. Turning to the mediators and supporters, they would have provided important aid when the bankers encountered problems. Thus, it can be concluded that it was a network of bankers that sustained the fundamental basis for banking operations. On the other hand, however, this relationship of reliance was Rot one-sided. For example, two customers of a bank, Stephanos and a son of Sophaios, attempted to hide their money with the aid of a banker named Pasion. Similarly, Timotheos lied about borrowing money from Pasion for military purposes, officially reporting that the money had come from a military fund. These examples indicate that customers must have trusted their bankers not to divulge their secrets. It can therefore be said that bankers and customers established a cooperative relationship, characterised by mutual trust. This network, however, was not always available. There are many examples where a banker could not make use of a relationship and so looked for an alternative. When an ally of a banker also had a relationship with other individuals whose interests clashed with those of bankers, difficult situations in which the ally could not aid the banker might arise. In this sense, it can be said that the banking network was embedded in the network of Athenian society. Furthermore, bankers often had close relationships with Athenian politicians. Agyrrios, Callistratos, and Demosthenes were all influential politicians who were involved with financial policy at that time, and all of them had relationships with bankers. In the case of Timotheos, he sought a relationship with a banker both because he needed to borrow money for military purposes, and because bankers could indirectly assist his political career. Apollodoros and Stephanos, who had served as a trierarch and a syntrierarch respectively, were connected to bankers as well. The fact that these Athenians sought a relationship with bankers shows that the banking network functioned as an aid for their political careers or as a source of funds for military activities, which were deeply related to the structure of Athenian society. Moreover, the banking network even sustained the system of maritime loans because traders entrusted their written contracts to bankers for safekeeping. In conclusion, the analysis above has identified many aspects of the banking network. Firstly, the banking network was a Key element that sustained banking operations. Secondly, this network was embedded in Athenian society. Thirdly, this network partly sustained the structure of Athenian society. Considering all these aspects, it seems necessary to dismiss the traditional view of bankers as "outsiders".