2 0 0 0 古代ギリシア軍事史研究の新動向
- 著者
- 長谷川 岳男
- 出版者
- 錦正社
- 雑誌
- 軍事史学 (ISSN:03868877)
- 巻号頁・発行日
- vol.33, no.1, pp.64-84, 1997-06
- 著者
- 長谷川 岳男
- 出版者
- 錦正社
- 雑誌
- 軍事史学 (ISSN:03868877)
- 巻号頁・発行日
- vol.51, no.2, pp.4-28, 2015-09
2 0 0 0 OA 古典期スパルタにおける公と私 : ポリス論再考
- 著者
- 長谷川 岳男
- 出版者
- 日本西洋古典学会
- 雑誌
- 西洋古典學研究 (ISSN:04479114)
- 巻号頁・発行日
- vol.58, pp.12-24, 2010-03-24
Fustel de Coulange considered that ancient Greeks had never had any private spheres in their poleis and the polls was a fusion of state and society. In the entry 'polis' in the 3^<rd> edition of OCD 0. Murray basically followed his ideas and gave Sparta as a typical example. Thus the general understanding seems to have been that polis could not be translated as 'state'. M. Hansen, however, argued against taking Sparta as a typical case and insisted that there was a differentiation between public and private spheres in Athens and many other poleis and consequently concluded that we may view a polis as similar to a modern state. However S. Hodkinson, as part of his studies aimed at rescuing Sparta from a 'fossilized society' themepark and normalizing her position as a polis, objected to the idea that Sparta was a polis where the state and society were inseparably fused together. He argued that Xenophon showed no clear cases of Spartan authorities taking active control over every aspect of Spartan citizens' life in his Lakedaimonion Politeia which is the most credible source concerning the Classical Spartan society. Moreover, building on Humble's thesis that the characteristic feature of Spartan citizens was not σωψροσυνη but αιδωζ, it seems that Spartan citizens were only careful how they behaved in public spaces and in private they could do as they pleased. Therefore it can be recognized that there was a distinction between the public and private sphere in Sparta. Indeed, not only Xenophon, but also Thucydides painted the picture of the Spartan society as a system of voluntary corporations among citizens rather than one of severe controls over them. Hodkinson then insisted that there was no social control on the part of the Spartan authorities, but only social pressure from the citizens themselves within their society. I agree with his conclusion regarding the importance of social pressure in Sparta, but I do not think that there was no social control over the citizens, because the existence of social pressure reveals the existence of Gramsci's theory of the 'hegemony'. I think it is a flaw in Hodkinson's argumentations that he did not point clearly to the substance of the authorities in Sparta so that the reality of social control became obscured. In order to complement his contention, I would introduce the thesis on which Berent insisted in a series of articles, namely, that a polls is not a state but a stateless society. A polis did not have the public coercive power so that Greeks had to devise ways to keep order in their polis and prevent an outbreak of a stasis. If we are right to perceive a polis as a stateless society, it followed that it was of paramount importance for Greeks to reach consensus on public matters. As a result, politics became entangled with ethical considerations and education which internalized ethics became important. In consideration of this context, the images of Spartan society seem fit for achieving consensus among its citizens, the fact that made it an object of high esteem among other Greeks. We should realize from this conclusion that a polis was not a monolithic entity and that it was susceptible to being torn apart because of the lack of public coercive power, and that Sparta (and Athens) were exceptional in preserving their stability.
1 0 0 0 IR 大レトラとタラス建市─古典期スパルタ社会の形成について
- 著者
- 長谷川 岳男
- 出版者
- 東洋大学
- 雑誌
- 東洋大学文学部紀要. 史学科篇 = Bulletin of Toyo University, Department of History, the Faculty of Literature (ISSN:03859495)
- 巻号頁・発行日
- no.45, pp.310(047)-274(083), 2020-03
1 0 0 0 OA 古典期スパルタにおける公と私 : ポリス論再考
- 著者
- 長谷川 岳男
- 出版者
- 日本西洋古典学会
- 雑誌
- 西洋古典学研究 (ISSN:04479114)
- 巻号頁・発行日
- vol.58, pp.12-24, 2010-03-24 (Released:2017-05-23)
Fustel de Coulange considered that ancient Greeks had never had any private spheres in their poleis and the polls was a fusion of state and society. In the entry 'polis' in the 3^<rd> edition of OCD 0. Murray basically followed his ideas and gave Sparta as a typical example. Thus the general understanding seems to have been that polis could not be translated as 'state'. M. Hansen, however, argued against taking Sparta as a typical case and insisted that there was a differentiation between public and private spheres in Athens and many other poleis and consequently concluded that we may view a polis as similar to a modern state. However S. Hodkinson, as part of his studies aimed at rescuing Sparta from a 'fossilized society' themepark and normalizing her position as a polis, objected to the idea that Sparta was a polis where the state and society were inseparably fused together. He argued that Xenophon showed no clear cases of Spartan authorities taking active control over every aspect of Spartan citizens' life in his Lakedaimonion Politeia which is the most credible source concerning the Classical Spartan society. Moreover, building on Humble's thesis that the characteristic feature of Spartan citizens was not σωψροσυνη but αιδωζ, it seems that Spartan citizens were only careful how they behaved in public spaces and in private they could do as they pleased. Therefore it can be recognized that there was a distinction between the public and private sphere in Sparta. Indeed, not only Xenophon, but also Thucydides painted the picture of the Spartan society as a system of voluntary corporations among citizens rather than one of severe controls over them. Hodkinson then insisted that there was no social control on the part of the Spartan authorities, but only social pressure from the citizens themselves within their society. I agree with his conclusion regarding the importance of social pressure in Sparta, but I do not think that there was no social control over the citizens, because the existence of social pressure reveals the existence of Gramsci's theory of the 'hegemony'. I think it is a flaw in Hodkinson's argumentations that he did not point clearly to the substance of the authorities in Sparta so that the reality of social control became obscured. In order to complement his contention, I would introduce the thesis on which Berent insisted in a series of articles, namely, that a polls is not a state but a stateless society. A polis did not have the public coercive power so that Greeks had to devise ways to keep order in their polis and prevent an outbreak of a stasis. If we are right to perceive a polis as a stateless society, it followed that it was of paramount importance for Greeks to reach consensus on public matters. As a result, politics became entangled with ethical considerations and education which internalized ethics became important. In consideration of this context, the images of Spartan society seem fit for achieving consensus among its citizens, the fact that made it an object of high esteem among other Greeks. We should realize from this conclusion that a polis was not a monolithic entity and that it was susceptible to being torn apart because of the lack of public coercive power, and that Sparta (and Athens) were exceptional in preserving their stability.
- 著者
- 長谷川 岳男
- 出版者
- 錦正社
- 雑誌
- 軍事史学 (ISSN:03868877)
- 巻号頁・発行日
- vol.37, no.1, pp.51-74, 2001-06
- 著者
- 長谷川 岳男
- 出版者
- 日本西洋古典学会
- 雑誌
- 西洋古典学研究 (ISSN:04479114)
- 巻号頁・発行日
- vol.42, pp.79-89, 1994-03-28 (Released:2017-05-23)
The nature of assemblies convened at the synodoi and the synkletoi in the second century B. C. is one of the most inextricable questions in the study of political organizations in the Achaian Confederacy. This is because Polybios' descriptions on the Achaian Confederacy are replete with contradictions. This paper investigated the question above by re-examining the evidence concerning Achaian assemblies. It is generally accepted that the synodos and the synkletos are not terms indicating the bodies of the assemblies. "Synodos" merely means a regular meeting, held four times a year, while "synkletos" means a specially summoned extraordinary meeting. Many scholars have thought that a primary assembly had been originally convened and resolved all subjects in the synodoi, but after regulations were introduced in the late third century B. C. which forbade summoning the primary assembly except for special subjects, e. g. alliance, war or written communications from the Roman Senate, the synkletos was created to deal with important subjects and the synodos began to deal only with routine subjects. This assumption is mainly based on Polybios' description of the synkletos held in Sikyon in 169 B. C. His writings indicate that this synkletos was assembled to discuss military aid to Egypt after an appeal that it was illegal to discuss this subject in the synodos was made. The synkletos was opened not only to the boule but also to all citizens over thirty. Based on this information, the synkletos was generally regarded as a primary assembly which dealt with special subjects. If, however, a primary assembly was convened in the synkletos, two problems arise. First, the membership of this meeting excluded citizens in their twenties and those serving in the Achaian army. This contradicts several passages which imply that the Achaian army occasionaly acted as the equivalent of an assembly. Therefore, it was not an ekklesia that was summoned in the synkletos. Second, military aid was not a subject which required summoning the primary assembly(cf. XXVII. 2. 11-12). Furthermore, several kinds of assemblies could be specially summoned. In concluson, "synkletos" referred not only to a specially summoned primary assembly but also to all kinds of assemblies which were specially summoned (i. e. in the Greek original sense). Therefore, another explanation is required for Polybios' description that the synkletos was specially held in Sikyon. For this purpose, the synodos in the second century B. C. should be examined. Many studies have centered on the synodos and attempted to prove that a specific assembly, either a boule or an ekklesia, was convened in every synodos. Unless, however, one abandons this preconceived idea that earlier scholars have had, the contradictions between the two types of synodoi, a boule and an ekklesia that were mentioned in Polybios' descriptions, are inextricable. By careful examination of the descriptions, it is evident that an ekklesia convened in the synodos dealt with subjects prescribed by the regulations mentioned above to be resolved by an ekklesia, while boulai convened in synodoi dealt with subjects which were not prescribed by the regulations. Besides, Polybios' narrative on the synodoi implies that the magistrates were summoned before a synodos to discuss the subject. In conclusion, one can say that the federal magistrates chose the body of the assembly according to the subject to be dealt with by each synodos as well as by each synkletos. This assumption explains why the synodos held in 168 B. C. could not deal with military aid for Egypt. Since the magistrates summoned an ekklesia in this synodos disregarding that this subject could not be discussed in an ekklesia, a synkletos was specially convened in Sikyon to discuss the matter. One concludes upon these re-examinations that the Achaian assemblies,(View PDF for the rest of the abstract.)
- 著者
- 長谷川 岳男
- 出版者
- 公益財団法人 史学会
- 雑誌
- 史学雑誌 (ISSN:00182478)
- 巻号頁・発行日
- vol.123, no.3, pp.451-460, 2014-03-20 (Released:2017-07-31)