<論説>ヘレニズム期初頭における後継者-ポリス間の権力構造 : アンティゴノス一世とデメトリオス一世の臣下に対する顕彰を中心に

Abstract

本稿は、後継者戦争期の東地中海世界に焦点を当て、後継者たちの臣下を顕彰した決議の分析を通して、当該時期における後継者たちと彼らの支配下に入ったポリスの関係を問う。先行研究では、当該時期に関して十分な注意を払ってこなかったが、本稿は、特にアンティゴノス一世とデメトリオス一世の臣下に注目し、彼らを顕彰した決議のテクストを分析した。その結果、ポリスは顕彰決議を通して自身の地位の保全や利益の確保を目指したこと、他方で、ポリスからの顕彰は、アンティゴノスらにとって臣下の忠誠を維持するのに効果があったと考えられることを指摘した。また、本稿では、顕彰の背景に、他の後継者より緩やかで、ヘレニズム期の基本路線を形作った支配体制があったとしたが、その緩やかさはあくまで限定的なものであり、ポリスにとって顕彰という行為は、アンティゴノスと臣下の互酬的関係に巻き込まれていることを意味すると主張した。

The relationship between kings and cities is one of the most important topics in the study of Hellenistic history (323-31 BCE). As previous scholarship has shown, kings had to develop reciprocal relationships with various kinds of subordinate cities, especially Greek poleis. Even though holding overwhelming military force and economic resources with which it was possible to conquer large territories, kings provided donations and benefactions toward poleis to maintain good relations. Poleis also gave rewards back to kings not only to express gratitude but also to seek better treatment. This reciprocal relationship, however, does not seem to have been completely developed at the beginning of the Hellenistic period. After the death of Alexander III (323 BCE), war began between his former generals (Diadochs), and it continued for almost 40 years. As a result of this so-called "Diadochs war, " the major Hellenistic kingdoms were formed, and the multipolar structure of the Hellenistic world was then created. How then did Diadochs and polies construct their relationship at that time? This paper explores this question, which has recently come into focus because of the reevaluation of the vitality of poleis that was begun in the 1980s. In order to tackle this question, the author focuses on the Diadochs' "vassals". They both served and supported the Diadochs, being given missions and positions by their masters. They were sometimes called philoi, which means "friends" in Ancient Greek, by contemporaries and modern scholars because there seems to have been mutual friendship between vassals and masters. What is important for this paper is that they often acted as intermediaries between Diadochs and poleis and they played a significant role in maintaining the Diadochs-poleis relationship. In section 1, the author reviews previous scholarship concerning the vassals in order to clarify the problem. Pointing out the lack of research of vassals in the Diadochs war, he decided to focus on the honours conferred on vassals by poleis as his primary source. Poleis often honoured vassals as the latter contributed to the former by helping the former's communications with Diadochs. He also justifies using the word "vassals" to denote Diadochs' subordinates, although modern scholars have tended to use "philoi" to denote these subordinates. But as they do not provide a clear definition of this word, using it would confuse the discussion. Furthermore, he has also decided to focus specifically on the vassals of Antigonos I Monophtalmos and Demetrios I Poliorketes as they have been evaluated by modern scholars as having played the most crucial role in creating the Hellenistic world because they had conquered the greater part of the eastern Mediterranean. The author clarifies in section 2 the contents of the honours and discusses how poleis negotiated with Diadochs and vassals by conferring honours. He points out that vassals were honoured by poleis because 1) they mediated communications between the poleis and Antigonos and Demetrios, 2) they helped the poleis militarily by being appointed or by following their masters. Then, the author also argues that, by honouring vassals, the poleis not only wanted to acquire profits from Antigonos and Demetrios but also required the honorands to make further contributions. In section 3, the author approaches the question of how Antigonos and Demetrios profited from the honours granted by the poleis. First, he compares the honours with the establishment of the ruler cults that were decided by poleis and points out there are differences in scale between them. Second, in analysing the letter sent by Demetrios asking Athens to honour one of his vassals, the author adopts Rolf Strootman's position and argues that the poleis had to be involved in the reciprocal "gift-exchange" relationship between masters and vassals. Finally, he argues that even though Antigonos carried out a policy of giving freedomand autonomy to the poleis, they were able to acquire opportunities to negotiate because of it and they were de facto bound to the interests of Antigonos. In the final section, the author summarizes his discussion and calls for modification of the theory of the vitality of poleis.