「反寡頭派戦争」の帰結とアテナイ社会 : 前403年の「和解協定」をめぐって

One of the provisions of the reconciliation agreement of 403 B.C. concerns property confiscated by the Thirty. We have evidence for this in Lysias' fragmentary speech Agaist Hippotherses. According to lines 34-47, goods which had been purchased were to remain in the hands of the buyers, and the returning men were to recover anything remaining unsold, while immovable property such as land and houses were returned to former owners. Whether previous owners of immovable property had to pay something to get it back, as Gernet and Bizos interpret(pouvus qu'ils payassent(?)), is not certain because the text is fragmentary and corrupt at this point. If we weigh the gains and losses of the exiles against those of the men of the City when the regulations were applied, however, it is more likely that the original owners were to get their land and houses back without paying anything. Otherwise, the exiles' losses would have been too large compared with the losses of the men of the City. It is clear, then, that the regulation was more favorable to land(and house) -owners than to owners of movable property, even though both were exiles. This treatment was not in keeping with social and economic conditions of Athens at that time, since among owners of movable property there must have been a good number of metics, whose economic role was very important in Athens after the middle of the fifth century B.C. Many of the rich metics whose property was confiscated by the Thirty might have been large-scale traders, and Athens grew prosperous partly because of Aegean trade. The three parties involved in drawing up the reconciliation agreement were the men of Piraeus, the men of the City and the Spartan king Pausanias. In defining its terms, they must have had a conception of what kind of polls they wanted Athens to become. This vision is reflected in the agreement. Judging from the regulation regarding the confiscated property, it was a polls of land-owner citizens, which was not what Athens had been in her prosperity. Was it what the Athenian citizens wanted for Athens? We know that the answer is no, since Phormisios' proposal that citizenship be restricted to landowners was rejected. However, the unequal treatment of the exiles coincides with one of the terms that Sparta demanded of Athens in ending the Peloponnesian War, that is, surrender the fleet except for twelve vessels. Abandonment of naval power led to both the decrease in the importance of lower class citizens, who manned the fleet and brought power to Athens, and the subsequent decline of democracy. Thus, it is now apparent that Sparta had a significant influence in the formation of the regulation regarding confiscated property. Metics and xenoi who played an important role during the civil war had been promised isotelia, but in effect were not well compensated for their confiscated property. Thrasybulus must have felt guilt towards them. This is probably the reason why he made the motion to give all who returned from Piraeus citizenship instead of isotelia. The restored democracy started under such a restraint.