|
The Partition of Babylon designates the attribution of the territories of Alexander the Great between his generals after his death in 323 BC. The phrase is a proper name formulated by scholars in English in the late 19th century. For example, the ''Encyclopedia Britannica'' of 1885 presents it as one of a trio occurring sequentially in the period: “The list of satrapies at this period is known from the records of the partitions of Babylon (323), Triparadisus (321), and Persepolis (315).”〔 The 3rd partition refers to adjustments made in the command of the eastern satrapies by Antigonus after his defeat of Eumenes at the end of the 2nd Diadochi War. Proceeding to Persepolis to relieve Peucestas of his command, he sets up a tent city around the ruins and makes the reassignments described in Diodorus Siculus, XIX.48. The date is uncertain, either 316 or 315 BC.〕 “Partition” as presented by the name does not mean that Babylon was politically partitioned, but rather the same convention is applied as in the naming of a treaty, after the location where the agreement was reached. It was reached at Babylon, Triparadisus, or Persepolis. == Definition of partition == Territorial boundaries were to remain in question for the rest of the century, until 300BC. The two main sources on the “Partition of Babylon” use equivocal language concerning it. According to Diodorus Siculus, a coalition of factions in the army "established" (''kathestesan'') that Arridaeus, son of Philip, should be king, and his name changed to Philip.〔XVIII.2-3.〕 Perdiccas, “to whom the dying king had given his finger-ring,” was to be "caretaker" (''epimeletes''). The most worthy of the companions were to "succeed" (''paralabein'') to the satrapies, and obey the king and Perdiccas. Alexander and Philip before him had not merely been kings, they were "leaders" (''hegemones'') in the League of Corinth. Perdiccas was not merely to be the king’s manager, he was to succeed to the Hegemony, which apparently the king did not. "Holding a council" (''sunedreusas'') as Hegemon, he assigned the various satrapies. A catalogue of assignments follows. To this point it appears to be a list of successions, or promotions. Then Diodorus says: “the satrapies were partitioned (''emeristhesan'') in this way.” The word is based on “part” (''meros''). It isn’t the Companions who are being promoted to Satraps, but the satrapies that are being divided and distributed to the Companions, which is a different concept. Satraps who own their satrapies do not need a king. Quintus Curtius Rufus, who wrote more extensively about the transition, says much the same thing.〔X.X.25.〕 Holding a “council of the chief men” (''consilium principum virorum''); that is, the ''sunedrion'', Perdiccas divides the ''imperium'', or “Empire,” between the top rank (''summa'') held by the king and the satrapes. He clarifies, “the empire having been divided into parts” (''divisis imperii partibus''), or partitioned between individuals who could defend or choose to expand them. He points out that those who a little before had been ''ministri'' under the king now fought to expand their own “kingdoms” (''regna'') under the mask of fighting for the empire. Johann Gustav Droysen, innovator of the historical concepts of a Hellenistic Period divided it into a Diadochi Period and an Epigoni Period, and adopted Curtius’ view of the result of the ''sunedrion'' at Babylon as a partition. He refers to the “First Partition of the Satrapies” (''Erste Verteilung der Satrapien''). Droysen’s view is that Perdiccas distributed the satrapies with a view toward removing his opponents from among the Companions at the scene; thus the changes were never legitimate promotions of Diadochi, persons who expected advancement within the Empire. George Grote, the Parliamentarian-turned-historian within the British Empire, did not share this skeptical view, at least of the assignments at Babylon. He says: “All the above-named officers were considered as local lieutenants, administering portions of an empire one and indivisible, under Arridaeus. ... No one at this moment talked of dividing the empire.” Droysen’s view prevailed. Contemporaneously with the two, another parliamentarian and historian, Edward Bunbury, was using the concepts of Droysen, not Grote, in the standard reference works being chaired by William Smith.〔 For the Partition of Babylon Bunbury offers Droysen’s “First partition of the provinces” with alternatives “division of the provinces” and “distribution of the provinces.” There is no mention of any Diadochi.〕 The differences in point of view derive from the ancient historians themselves. They in turn were categorizing the conflict as they knew or read of it. For example, Ptolemy I Soter asks for and receives from Perdiccas as Hegemon promotion to Satrap of Egypt. There he disposes of the Nomarch of Alexandria appointed by Alexander. Thereafter he refers to himself for the next nearly 20 years as Satrap, even though there was then no empire. Finally in 305, when all hope of empire was gone, he declares himself Pharaoh of Egypt. Meanwhile, he perpetuates the cultural legacy of Alexander, most notably with the musaion and library, and the recruitment of population for Alexandria from many different nations. Historians of Ptolemy divide his biography into Ptolemy Satrap and Ptolemy Basileus. Earlier it was Ptolemy Hetairos. The term Diadochos was used by the historians to mean any and all of these statuses. 抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア（Wikipedia）』 ■ウィキペディアで「Partition of Babylon」の詳細全文を読む スポンサード リンク
|