「買うか借りるか・電子か紙か ―地方大学の立場から―」

2023/05

齋藤貴弘

『東洋大学人間科学総合研究所 公開シンポジウム報告集―西洋古代史研究における 史資料の安定的利用をめざして』

（MISC）その他記事

ペルシア戦争がアテナイに与えた『聖俗』観への影響―神々と人間の地平

2022/03

齋藤貴弘

パルテノン彫刻研究 ―オリエント美術を背景とする再解釈の構築―（平成30年度~令和3年度 科学研究費補助金 基盤研究(A) 研究成果報告書）

49-61

研究論文（研究会，シンポジウム資料等）

［書評］ 栗原麻子著『互酬性と古代民主制―アテナイ民衆法廷における「友愛」と「敵意」』

2021/07

齋藤貴弘

『地中海学研究』

44, 83-91

（MISC）書評,文献紹介等

古代ギリシアの聖俗空間をめぐる一考察 ―「聖なる杜」alsos について ―

2021/03

齋藤貴弘

『多文化社会研究』（愛媛大学法文学部人文社会学科「記憶とアイデンティティ形成研究プロジェクト」）

8, 10-23

「松山＝ポリス」私(試)論と「お接待」

2020/05

齋藤貴弘

地中海学会月報

430

〈書評〉「郊外」（上野愼也「郊外―古典期のアテーナイ」（浦野聡編『古代地中海の聖域と社会』勉誠出版, 2017, 49-105）に寄せて―古代ギリシアの「聖－俗」空間についての覚え書

2020/02

齋藤貴弘

『愛媛大学法文学部論集〈人文学編〉』

48

（MISC）書評,文献紹介等

書評 髙畠純夫著『ペロポネソス戦争』

2017/05

齋藤 貴弘

白山史学

53

白山史学会

古代ギリシアの「巡礼」

2017/01

齋藤貴弘

地中海学会月報

396

（MISC）その他記事

聖オリーヴ「モリア」moriaの起源について (坂野良吉先生退職記念号)

2013/11

齋藤 貴弘

上智史学

58, 73-98

上智大学史学研究会

坂野良吉先生退職記念号

澤田典子著, 『アテネ民主政-命をかけた八人の政治家-』(講談社選書メチエ), 講談社, 二〇一〇・四刊, 四六, 二七八頁, 一七〇〇円

2011/01/20

齊藤 貴弘

史學雜誌

120/ 1

公益財団法人史学会

アルギヌサイ海戦将軍弾劾裁判と市民団 : 死者の報復とカタルシス

2006/11/30

齋藤 貴弘

上智史學

51, 135-156

上智大学

平田耿二先生退職記念号

「レトリックと時代背景―喜劇・弁論における身分に関する揶揄・中傷を題材に―」

2006

齋藤貴弘

基盤研究（Ｂ）14310226研究代表者 逸身喜一郎『古典古代史の近年の動向に対応したギリシャ・ローマ思想史ならびに文学史の書きかえ』

73-82

研究論文（研究会，シンポジウム資料等）

ジョン・D・マイケルソン著/箕浦恵了訳, 『古典期アテナイ民衆の宗教』(叢書ウニベルシタス 792), 法政大学出版局, 二〇〇四・四刊, A5, 二一〇頁, 二六〇〇円

2004/11/20

齋藤 貴弘

史學雜誌

113/ 11

公益財団法人史学会

前421/0年のヘファイスティア祭に関する決議とアテナイ市民団

1999/03/23

齋藤 貴弘

西洋古典學研究

47, 32-40

日本西洋古典学会

In 421/0 B. C. the festival of Hephaistos was organized or reorganized at Athens (IG I^3 82). Many studies have generally supposed that this event along with the resumption of building of the Hephaisteion honored Hephaistos and Athena as the patron deities of metalworking and handicraft. Whereas I recognize the importance of the two gods in these areas, I contend also that too little attention has been paid to the reasons why this minor god suddenly attracted Athenian state attention and why his festival was (re)organized in the period after the end of the Archidamian War that lasted 10 years. The contents of the Hephaistia lacked features with special relation to handicraft or metalworking. Rather, the Hephaistia seems to have been a festival for all citizens, consisting mainly of tribal team races, contests, and a procession. On the other hand, a distribution of sacrificial meat for metics may be regarded as a token of Athens' gratitude for their services in the areas of handicraft and metalworking. However, the clause of the distribution bears special terms, to which little attention has been paid until now. That is, a distribution of 'raw meat'(ωμα τα κρεα). This should indicate, I think, that there were two procedures for distribution of sacrificial meat ; one for Athenian citizens, the other for non-Athenians, metics. This might be the reason why two sets of hieropoioi were exceptionally elected. Therefore, this would mean that the receivers of 'raw meat', i. e. metics, were not essentially participants of the festival and the festival aimed at exclusively Athenian citizens in a ritual sense. In the course of the fifth century the myth of Erichthonios had become systematized alongside increasing claims to autochthony, and Hephaistos has a relevant place as father of Erichthonios. Even so, this character seems to have been underestimated in studies of Athenian religion. Although there are not many sources, a few certainly exist which characterize him as Athenian mythical ancestor in cults and rites since the fifth century. The most representative of these is a rite devoted to Hephaistos at the festival Apatouria reported by Istros in the last half of the third century. Irrespective of Istros' explanation, we should recognize that in that rite Hephaistos was regarded as mythical ancestor as a rite for him was added to the great ancestral festival Apatouria. Besides, although this relation between Hephaistos and the Apatouria has been supposed to be very ancient in origin, such an inference is not based on any certain sources. It would be more appropriate to infer that the relationship was not formed until the fourth century when state concern for phratries was increased. In 451/0 B. C. Pericles' citizenship law was enacted, and thereafter it played an important role in deciding Athenians' identity alongside the tradition of Athenian autochthony. However, there was an inconsistency between these two concepts. Autochthony was the claim to be born from the earth, i. e. born from unisexual (maternal) reproduction, while on the other hand Pericles' citizenship law required two citizen parents, i. e. father and mother. In this point, the claim to autochthony had not a function to keep Athenians observing the law. When the 10 years-long war ended, Athens felt a need to tighten up and reintegrate her citizen body. It was the Hephaistia that was utilized for this purpose. An especially important point of the Hephaistia is that the festival was devoted not only to Hephaistos but also to Athena. The Hephaistia honored Hephaistos and Athena as the mythical father and mother gods of autochthonous Athenians rather than as the patron deities of metalworkers and craftsmen. Through participation in the festival, it was intended to make Athenians reconfirm that their citizenship was also obtained through their lawful parents in the same way as their autochthony through their ancestral gods. In addition, there was an intention to make Athenians reconfirm and reintegrate their membership through rites consisting of tribal actions, on the other hand to fix the boundary between citizen and metic. Consequently, the enactment of the Hephaistia in 421/0 B. C. was an art of religious politics aimed at Athenian citizens. In this point, the Hephaistia may be contrasted with other Athenian major cults such as the Panathenaia (at which not only citizens but also metics, the allies of Athens and even non-Greeks took part in the procession and which was used for religious propaganda for the Athenian Empire), and the cult of the Two Goddesses of Eleusis (which urged all Greeks to offer their first fruits).