<論説>｢第二のソフィスト｣にみる過去と現在 --アイリオス・アリステイデスの事例から--

Abstract

本稿は、紀元2世紀のローマ帝国下に生きたギリシア人弁論家アイリオス・アリステイデスを事例に、当時盛んに語られた古典期（前5-前4世紀）の過去がどのように描かれ、また、現実社会とどのような関係を有するのかに迫ることで、いわゆる「第二のソフィスト」と呼ばれる知識人層たちによる活動の性格を改めて考察するものである。過去を語る行為自体に焦点を当てた結果、テクストで語られた過去の分析を掘り下げてこなかった先行研究に対して、本稿は、人々の調和に関するアリステイデスによる2 篇の政治弁論を題材に、弁論に描かれる過去と現在の関係を体系的に検討した。その結果、弁論家にとって古典期の過去は、ただ礼賛すべきものではなく、競合し乗り越えるべきものとして描出されていることが明らかとなった。また、弁論家個人としても、過去の著述家に対抗しようとする意識が看取され、この点で、過去を指向する「第二のソフィスト」の活動に関しては、単なる陶酔や現実逃避というよりは、ギリシア知識人としての競争意識が根底にあったと結論づけられる。

This paper argues the nature of the Second Sophistic in the high Roman Empire, exploring how the classical past to which many Greek writers frequently referred was described and how the past was contrasted to the contemporary society, based particularly on orations by Aelius Aristides, one of the most illustrious orators in the second century, Focusing on the act of recounting the past rather than the content of the past described in the texts, previous researches have clarified that the Greeks recognized the classical past as a basis of their own identity and that many of them maintained or improved their social status by narrating the past as cultural capital. But, since scholars have emphasized the importance of rhetoric in the works of the Second Sophistic and on the aspect of the performance of the speakers, the narrated past itself has not been systematically investigated. However, a recent study insists on correspondences between the narrated past and the contemporary world and, as a result, indicates the possibility of further text examination. This article attempts, therefore, to expose the relationship between the past and the present more clearly with a systematic inspection of the two political orations of Aristides, “To the Rhodians: Concerning Concord”（Aristid. Or. XXIV）and “Concerning Concord”（Aristid. Or. XXIII）. Although Aristides expresses some opinions expedient for the Roman rule in both orations, on the whole he underlines affairs of pride as a Greek. In this way, he depicts the classical past not only as confirmation of the people's identity but also as a competitor which they should emulate and even strive to surpass. This competition with the past mattered to the orator himself too. Undoubtedly, Aristides kept in mind some distinguished writers or speakers who in the past had made addresses on the same subject. Accordingly, we should understand the past to which sophists referred not as mere nostalgic inclination, but as a kind of foil which indicated the present Greeks' superiority.