著者

岩崎 務

出版者

東京外国語大学

雑誌

基盤研究(C)

巻号頁・発行日

2003

---

古代ローマの詩人たちから、紀元前1世紀に活躍したカトゥッルス、ウェルギリウス、ホラティウスを取り上げ、その詩作品を「家郷喪失者」の観点から比較研究を行ない、以下のような考察を得た。カトゥッルスの恋愛詩、とくにレスビアとの恋を歌うものは、恋人との関係を、信義や義務に基づいた人間同士の正しい関係を表わす一連の言葉を用いて表現している点で独特であるが、そのような関係が実現する場所として「家」が強調されている。ウェルギリウスでは、最初の詩集『牧歌』において描かれる故郷の土地を追われる牧夫の慨嘆と悲しみに、家郷喪失の危機に面した詩人の経験が重ねられるし、その原因となった内乱は道徳的な退廃をもたらしていると見られている。『農耕詩』では、家郷がそのような混乱した世界が再生するための拠り所とされ、詩人は農耕民族であるローマ人の持つ本来の道徳的理想を示そうとしている。ホラティウスでは、初期の詩において、内乱によって自ら崩壊しようとするローマを去って、新しい故国となるべき理想郷を求めようと詩人が呼びかけるとき、詩人の被った家郷の土地没収と、共和派としての敗北が色濃く反映している。これらの詩人に共通して見られる倫理性は、彼らの出自、すなわち家郷と関連していると考えられる。カトゥッルスとウェルギリウスは、北イタリアのトランスパダナの、ホラティウスは南イタリアの地方都市出身であり、ワイズマンも指摘しているように、これらの田園都市では、ローマ人の古風な道徳観が中央以上に根強く存続しており、入植者の末裔である住民たちは新しい家郷の建設の中で伝統的な道徳を保持し、そのことに誇りを抱いてきた。このことが、あるいは恋愛に対しての、あるいは内戦に揺れる国の状況に対しての、あるいは自己の詩作活動に対しての、彼らの視点に大きく影響している。

著者

岩崎 務

出版者

日本西洋古典学会

雑誌

西洋古典學研究 (ISSN:04479114)

巻号頁・発行日

vol.46, pp.77-87, 1998-03-23

---

In Tibullus 2. 5, the last section(105-22)balances the first section(1-18)in length and in words, but the two sections differ in some respects. Messalinus, who is introduced at first as a newly elected priest of Apollo, is later imagined as a triumphant general. What development of the poem causes this change? Moreover, bringing in a new theme, the poet talks about his love for Nemesis and asserts that she is the source of his poetry. How does Tibullus' personal love affair match this national poem which treats Rome's history? In this paper, I attempt to consider Tibullus' attitude to Rome's growth and the new regime by examining these questions. After mentioning the Sibylline Books, the care of which is entrusted to quindecimuiri, the poet quotes the Sibyl's former prophecy to Aeneas(39-64). She predicted that Troy would be reconstructed to be Rome and dominate the whole world. Here the marvelous development of Rome is the poem's theme. The poet's intention is to heighten his praise of Messalinus by placing him in Rome's victorious history. Singing of a great victory has been suggested, because Apollo was asked to dress up as he had done when he celebrated Jupiter's triumph over Saturn (7-10). However, as Bright points out, Saturn is also a significant god for Tibullus. In 1.3, he states how happily men lived in the Golden Age of Saturn in contrast to his contemporary men. The coming of Jupiter's age is good and right, but can be viewed from a different angle. Therefore in the description of Rome's history its dark side is hinted dimly, e. g. Romulus' fratricide(23-4), and emerges more clearly when the poet refers to the ominous phenomena associated with the death of Julius Caesar(71-8). Now, facing Rome's painful realities, Tibullus himself predicts a happy future of Rome, which is imagined in the peaceful country(83-104). This joyful picture of a country festival is similar to the former description of the site of Rome before the arrival of Aeneas(23-38), but I agree with Mutschler that these two scenes differ in accent. While the former scene as a whole is very idyllic and fantastic, the latter is rather realistic in that the rural life is depicted more concretely. Especially the charming picture of a united family(91-4)makes a vivid impression on us. Therefore the poet doesn't suggest the restoration of the early pastoral world nor an utterly fanciful ideal society. In the last section the praise of Messalinus which has been reserved begins at last, and Tibullus as uates glorifies Messalinus as a future conqueror. Although war is a target of the poet's criticism in other poems and the dark side of Rome's development has been hinted, here the poet makes a realistic choice to assure a happy future, which corresponds to the more realistic tone of the preceding description of the rural life. What makes possible this realistic choice? I think that is showed in 105-12 referring to love and Nemesis. The poet keenly expresses the ambivalence of love, especially his love, in 107-8, where ars bona makes a sharp contrast with ars...malum, and in 110(faueo morbo cum iuuat ipse dolor). Moreover it is emphasized that Nemesis inspires Tibullus as uates and that she is the truth he reveals, because 111-2 with uati(114)is parallel to 15-6 with uatis(18), and to 63-4 with uates(65). By his sensibility to the ambivalence of love the poet can realize that Rome's prosperity cannot but involve a negative element, and on the other hand that the peaceful rural world he loves may be easily destroyed. Therefore the realistic glorification of a victorious general of Rome becomes possible for the poet, though he does not praise only the political and martial power, as pia...spectacula displayed by Messalla(119)shows. Tibullus is not singing a reluctant and unnatural praise. His song here rests on the same foundation that underlies his other elegiac poems. In this poem Tibullus sings his own song to the end, while he as uates makes a responsible prediction.

著者

岩崎 務

出版者

京都大学西洋古典研究会

雑誌

西洋古典論集 (ISSN:02897113)

巻号頁・発行日

vol.22, pp.249-259, 2010-03-28

---

In the Menaechmi of Plautus there are many expressions about binding and restrictions and we find situations in which people are bound or restrained. On the other hand, some people are set free at the end of the play. Messenio who saved Menaechmus I (the twin in Epidamnus) from kidnapping wishes to be released from slavery and Menaechmus I, who is mistaken for Menaechmus II (the twin from Syracuse), agrees with him. Furthermore, Menaechmus I achieves reunion with his brother and tries to leave Epidamnus for his homeland after selling off all his possessions. The motifs of restraint and release are constituent factors throughout this play. As far as restrictions and release are concerned, Peniculus seems the one who tries to set Menaechmus I free from his house. But, fundamentally, he wants Menaechmus I to stay in his own house, because that way he can get invited to meals more surely. So he is always on the lookout for his master just outside the doors. On the other hand, Messenio attempts to get a grip on Menaechmus II by giving him wise advice, but, ignored by his master, he fully realizes that he is just a slave. Peniculus' behavior forms a strong contrast to Messenio's. The former, who wants to be bound to the house, fails to follow Menaechmus I and loses a chance to enjoy an expensive dinner, while the latter, who deplores his state of enslavement, saves Menaechmus I from abduction and on that account is released from slavery. It is uncertain whether the Menaechmi is based on any Greek original. However, we can discern a symmetrically built structure behind this play. Plautus often brings in farcical elements or Romanizes some scenes in the play to please the Roman audience, even if it may mean spoiling a well-balanced structure and realism of the original. This play also has such scenes where the motifs of restrictions are more prominent (446-65, 571-97, etc.). Menaechmus I as the head of the household controls his family members. However, it is often the wife with a large dowry (uxor dotata), always scolding her husband in the house, who is in control. Outside the house, too, he is bound by various customs and human relations typical of the Roman society. Here it is emphasized that not only slaves but also free men like him, the head of the household, encounter restrictions in this social system. Occasionally he is bound by duties towards a client, a parasite or a slave, who should otherwise be subject to his own authority. This play ends with the divorce of Menaechmus I from his wife in contrast to other comedies which usually end happily with young lovers' marriage. The story after Menaechmus I's coming to Epidamnus is not related in detail in the play. From the information provided by the prologue we are under the impression that the Epidamnian merchant was a benefactor for the kidnapped twin because he made the twin his inheritor and let him marry a wealthy man's daughter, though he committed the crime of kidnapping. Therefore the audience is likely to question Menaechmus I's behavior at the end of the play. To make this ending happy and appropriate for comedy, Plautus had to emphasize Menaechmus I's state of captivity by various expressions concerning a restricted situation. Menaechmus I loses his wealth and the status of the head of the household but he is released from his shackles and becomes a truly free person. His escape from the maze of restrictions of everyday life features in the play more prominently than the theme of kidnapping and restrictions imposed by living in a foreign land.