著者

橋本 隆夫

出版者

日本西洋古典学会

雑誌

西洋古典学研究 (ISSN:04479114)

巻号頁・発行日

vol.35, pp.1-11, 1987

---

In vv 19-21 occurs the 'ne plus ultra' theme, which indicates that the laudandus attained to the furthest point of human prosperity, and the theme is followed by the Herakles-myth (vv 22-26), where it is reported that the hero set up the pillars as ναυτιλιαζ εσχαταζ μαρτυραζ κλυταζ But m the following lines (vv 26-32) the whole myth is broken off as irrelevant to the main theme of this epmician After the transitional part, in vv 32 the poet turns to Aeacidae-myths which are more relevant to the Aeaginetan victor Anstokleides Thus vv 19-32 are subdivided into the 'ne plus ultra' motif (19-21), the Herakles-myth (22-26) and the transitional motif (26-32). This paper is an attempt to examine the relation of the 'ne plus ultra' motif to the break-off of the myth, and to understand the significance of the break-off The Herakles-myth has been naturally taken as a digressive part since ancient scholiasts Among modern scholars questions have been proposed about the function of this myth as a digression in the part or the whole poem It is here asserted that the myth which is used to explain the pillars of Herakles is a positive paradigm of the 'ne plus ultra' motif, because Harakles succeeded in going beyond the limit of the world Moreover he becomes a god and lives with Hebe in Olympos His apotheosis, although it is cut off in the narration of the myth, is supposed apparently, as suggested by the association of the word (θεοζ v 20) That the poet points to the stupidity (παρα καιρον cf P 10 4) of going to αλλοδαπαν ακραν by means of the break-off, does not mean only that Herakles travelled to the Atlantic Ocean too far from the Island Aegina It implies also the stupidity of seeking to go beyond the limit as Herakles did Thus it would be apparent what significance the transitional gnome has The poet says one should admire the good man (εσλον αινειν) Following, he claims that the desire for an alien existence (ουδ' αλλοτριων ερωτεζ) is not good for the ordinary man Instead of αλλοτριων ερωτεζ, he advises himself and the audience to seek at home (οικοθεν ματευε) αλλοτριων means the area beyond human competence, and οικοθεν means the effort within one's ability The poet's objection to the αλλοδαπν ακραν after the break-off of the Herakles-myth is an admonition against seeking the apotheosis or the divine prosperity, i e, immortality as in the case of Herakles Therefore we ought to see that the 'ne plus ultra' motif has such admonitory significance in N 3 and even in other odes In the place of Coronis (P 3) and Bellerophon (I 7) who suffered ruin because of their desire for των απεοντων (P 3 20) and απροσικτων (N. 11 48), Herakles may well have been used in N 3 as a positive paradigm In the second half of the ode, φρονειν το παρκειμενον (75) (to make much of the near at hand) is recommended to the laudandus, in opposition to αλλοτριων ερωτεζ. This implication has the same with reference to the phrase, αισχυνων επιχωρια παπταινε τα πορσω (P 3 22). To appreciate the near at one's foot (γνοντα το παρ ποδοζ P. 3 60) is also akin to the thought that man is able to get αυτοθεν the τηλαυγεζ φεγγοζ (N 3 64) Herakles in N 3 is the inverse Coronis and Bellerophon who would not have failed to attain immortality.