<論説>古典期アテナイにおける住民概念としてのアストス : 成員の閉鎖性をめぐって

Abstract

従来、古典期アテナイは血筋による市民団の閉鎖性を特徴とするとされてきた。本稿はこの見解に疑問を呈し、その論拠となるペリクレスの市民権法でも用いられ、血筋に基づく血縁概念と一般に解釈されてきたアストスの用例の網羅的な再検討を通じて、ポリス・アテナイの性格について再考した。その結果、ノモスを基準とし、非市民、特にメトイコスをも包含しうる住民概念としてアストスが度々用いられたことが明らかになった。この認識は、日常での住民間の密接な共同関係を素地としつつも、ペロポネソス戦争期におけるメトイコスの役割や、戦争末期(前五世紀末) の社会混乱に起因するポリスをめぐる価値観の転換により助長された可能性がある。このように、市民団の閉鎖性がアテナイで占める位置は、従来想定されてきた程絶対的ではなかった。むしろ前五世紀末を転換点として、アテナイは「血縁共同体」から「ノモス共同体」へと変貌していったと考えられる。

This paper aims to reconsider the classical view on Athens as polis through an analysis of the concept astos. Many scholars think classical Athens maintained exclusivity of citizenship based on kinship on the basis of the citizenship law of Pericles that stipulated, "polites (citizen) should be limited to those born of two astos, " in 451/0 BC. According to this general view, astos is a concept of blood relationship and thus the law limited citizenship to Athenians. There is no room for doubt about the traditional interpretation of the citizenship law and astos in the context of the Athenian empire in the mid-fifth century. Nevertheless, it would be naive to generalize about the character of Athens as polis on the basis of this law alone, for actual personal relationships and politics existed outside the law. We need to reconsider the exclusivity of Athens from the perspective of these relationships. For such a consideration, the term astos that appears in the passage of the citizenship law is a key concept. Considering that the word etymologically, we see that it meant a "resident of the asty (central city), " and thus the concept of astos probably encompassed certain residents of the polis, including metics (foreign residents). Therefore, we have to recognize the possibility that there were diverse usages of the term astos among people and that meaning may have changed over time, apart from an interpretation of the citizenship law. According to an analysis of the various usages of the term astos in Athens, the generations that followed Aeschylus, e.g. those of Sophocles, Aristophanes and Thucydides who were active in the latter half of the fifth-century, often used astos in a manner that can be understood to include metics, although astos as the concept of blood relationship also appears frequently. Aristophanes, for example, regards metics as "petty astos" in Acharnians 507-8. When Athenian inhabitants used astos as the concept of resident, criterion for their judgment was a shared nomos (custom or law), as in Herodotus' folklore. His identification of groups was based on nomos, whose extent was broader than the bonds on kinship. Moreover, judging from the tendency in Athens, the usage of astos in the last quarter of the fifth century suggests the concept of resident predominated over that of blood relationship, despite what the condition of remaining documents seems to reflect. We can suppose two reasons for rise of the usage of astos as the concept of resident. Socially, citizens and metics established close relationships privately and publicly in daily life. They, for example, participated privately in the same associations for the purpose of mutual aid. Furthermore there were common honors awarded them, when they performed public service in rituals of the polis. Both sides could identify themselves as Athenian residents, especially when the shared nature of the Athenian nomos was emphasized. Historically, we might be able to suppose two conditions for the frequency of this sense of astos in the last quarter of the fifth century BC. First, metics increasingly played an important part in economic and military affairs, during the Peloponnesian War (431-404 BC). Second, civic values were in period of unrest at the end of the fifth century BC. When tide of war was going against Athens, supporters of the oligarchy overthrew the democracy on two occasions in 411 and 404 BC. Athenians were forced to reconsider "who is the member of the polis" particularly in the light of the second oligarchy, "The Thirty, " because its members had behaved highhandedly and acted wantonly against their fellowmen, while metics cooperated with citizens in resistance to The Thirty. In the orations of Lysias after the revival of democracy in 403 BC, recognition of membership in, the polis is often based on whether one is seen as "obeying the Athenian nomos" or "doing as one pleased." When Athenians judged who was a member of the polis, they did so on the basis of share of nomos rather than emphasizing the distinction based on kinship between citizen and non-citizen. In conclusion, the exclusivity of membership in the polis based on kinship was less absolute in classical Athens than many scholars today suppose. Kinship and nomos competed as the basis of the Athenian polis, and their relative weight depended on the historical circumstances. Accordingly, historical trends in the usage of the term astos as presented in this paper demonstrate that Athens shifted from a "kinship-community, " which was based on shared blood, to a "nomos-community, " which was based on shared customs, toward the fourth century BC.