古典期アテナイのシュコファンテス : アテナイにおける民衆訴追

In classical Athens there was no public prosecutor. Any Athenian citizen could prosecute public offenders through graphe. It is often said that the development of the democracy after the reform of Ephialtes gave rise to people who abused it, that is sykophantai (sg. sykophantes). We know many examples of their vicious activities, such as false accusation and blackmailing, by Aristophanes and orators, and know how disliked they were in Athens. Most of the historians of Greece have thought them as "the inevitable disease of democracy" (J.O. Lofberg), "a leech on society" (J.Ober), and so on. On the other hand, R.Osborne's article in 1990 proposes that (1)sykophantai should not be identified as malicious prosecutors motivated by money. The word was applied to any prosecutor, especially one who did not have a good case, whose case depended on improbable assumptions, empty assertions, or over-meticulous quibbling, (2)prosecution cases brought by sykophantai prevented rich Athenian citizens from using their wealth in an anti-social way. In this sense, sykophantai played a structural role in democratic Athens like demagogues. The term sykophautai has a very descriptive character. As a result, if we treat it in a static or synchronic way, our conclusions are likely to become imbalanced. The author suspects that both negative and positive theories are formed on an all too static analysis of evidence and are too simplified. This paper tries to treat sykophantai in a different way. It considers the activities of sykophantai in a diachronic perspective, in the actual changing circumstances in Athens from the middle of the fifth century B.C. to 322 B.C. The author's conclusions are as follows. (1)In the fifth cntury B.C. the activities of sykophantai as malicious prosecutors motivated by money were chiefly against the allied citizens. Of course, sykophantai annoyed the rich Athenian citizens, but this was limited mostly to the late period of the Peloponnesian War, especially after the oligarchic revolution in 411 B.C.. (2)As for the fourth century B.C., there are many references to sykophantai among orators. However, these references are untrustworthy. In other words, sykophantai as malicious prosecutors motivated by money were not rampant through the fourth century B.C.. (3)It is said that in classical Athens the trial was basically adversarial. However, as the scene in Aristoph, Plutus shows, prosecutions conducted by sykophantai had some inquisitorial character. References to sykophantai by orators should be grasped as indicating how suspicious the Athenians were about this inquisitorial prosecution by hoboulomenos.