著者
中谷 彩一郎
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.49, pp.74-85, 2001

Achilles Tatius' Leukippe and Kleitophon consists of various doublings/double structures These include the shapes and structures of objects, developments of the plot, analogies or contrasts in human relationships, and rhetorical expressions or the like Of course such doublings are often used in Greek romance as well as in other classical genres as scholars have frequently noted However this feature is most remarkable in Achilles Tatius because double structures are stratified over and over again This fact has already been remarked in relation to individual matters like ekphrases or the relationship between the two main female characters, but there seems to be no overall study of this motif In this essay I therefore would like briefly to consider the character of these doublings in Achilles Tatius in various aspects The starting-point in an investigation of Achilles Tatius' multiplicity must be the painting of Europa in the opening scene At one level there is a simple contrast here with the high valuation the similar painting had received in the preface of Longus' Daphnis and Chloe, but in a more fundamental way it plays a central role in the multiplex structure of the work Accordingly I examine the doublings in Achilles Tatius along with the description of the painting of Europa First, the picture of Europa implies the elopement of Kleitophon and Leukippe (and the abduction of Kalligone by Kallisthenes) which occurs in book 1 and 2 as well as their marriage at the end Hence it anticipates the frame of the story Secondly, in respect of human relationships too, a pattern of doublets overlaps one after another and spreads over the whole story Thirdly, added to the framework mentioned above, a close observation of the painting of Europa proves further relation with the story I divide the description into five elements, namely (a)pasture, (b)maidens, (c)colours, (d)Europa, (e)Eros and look at the correspondence to the love-story step by step Furthermore I also examine the picture of Andromeda and Prometheus and the picture of Philomela because these two pictures have many features in common with the Europa picture and are both carefully situated, at the beginning of book 3 and 5 respectively And finally I indicate other double structures in the novel To conclude, Leukippe and Kleitophon is an mtertexture of various double structures in respect of keywords, expressions, complexities of human relationships and the structure and development of the plot The association of ideas 'doublings/double structures' is stratified over and over again In this multiplex structure the painting of the abduction of Europa plays a central role In other words the ideas and expressions originating from the Europa painting run through the whole story of Leukippe and Kleitophon
著者
城江 良和
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.12-21, 1987

The purpose of this paper is to explain a structural problem of the role which Hecatoncheires play in the Theogony, from the poet's religious sentiment. Their role can be seen from two aspects, namely as antagonists against Titans and as helpers of Zeus But in either role they have another god or other groups of gods who have similar functions to theirs. On the one hand in Titanomachy we see, beside Hecatoncheires, Zeus himself overpowers the enemies with his thunderbolt (the assertion that the ansteia of Zeus [687-712] is an interpolation is untenable), and on the other hand in order to support the supremacy of Zeus we already have Cyclopes who gave him the thunderbolt to be his weapon and the children of Styx, named "Emulation", "Victory", "Strength" and "Force", who dwell near Zeus and always escort him When we examine the episodes of these helper-gods, we discover two motifs recurrent in each of them First, the aid is motivated by the justice of Zeus and offered as a return for his kindness, and second, each episode ends with the words which praise the rule of Zeus. But the motifs are most conspicuous in the case of Hecatoncheires They fight together with Zeus in return for their release by him and Kottos, representing them, praises the wisdom of the supreme god We can infer that the aim of Hesiod who permitted the overlap of their role with that of the other gods was to express, through the mouth of Kottos, his own religious view This inference drawn from the internal arguments on the structure of the poem is supported by the external ones on the poet's attitude to the tradition of Titanomachy In the Iliad there are several allusions to the war against Titans, which tell that Zeus threw Kronos down into Tartaros, and in another place it is narrated that Thetis called up Briareos to rescue Zeus from being bound by three revolting gods In the Theogony the Titanomachy scene opens with the release of Hecatoncheires, for the poet's concern is concentrated on the alliance between Zeus and the monsters Accordingly the events which occurred before it are mentioned as briefly as possible. From these accounts on Titanomachy it is proper to assume a common source for both the epics, so to speak Ur-Titanomachy, which included the assistance to Zeus by Hecatoncheires The'tradition of Gigantomachy, beside that of Titanomachy, had also existed before Hesiod and he certainly knew it (SO, 185-6). Nevertheless he did not incorporate the war, unlike Titanomachy, in his work The reason for his selection is to be found in his piety for Zeus The story of Gigantomachy, where Olympian gods had not the power by themselves to defeat mortal enemies, and were forced to demand aid of a mortal hero Heracles, was not acceptable to the poet who believed in the sovereign power of Zeus. On the contrary in Titanomachy, though the situation is similar, the enemies as well as the helpers are immortal gods, therefore the tradition is less contrary to his religious sentiment. It is not certain whether the imprisonment of Hecat- oncheires by their father and their release by Zeus are an invention by Hesiod. But this plot, to be sure, gave the poet a good opportunity to make the monsters play an important role in the Theogony
著者
今井 知正
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.26, pp.89-97, 1978-03-23

According to my diagnosis, when we try to solve problems of Aristotle's modal syllogistic, a key to them, lies in a semantical analysis of which of the three-terminterpretations for 'proof by contrasted instances' and 'proof by instances' is applied to non-modal propositions of each of his syllogisms. I. The analysis of proof by contrasted instances in the case of the non-modal syllogisms shows that the non-modal propositions here are clearly regarded as those which can also be interpreted as necessary propositions. II. On the analysis of proof by instances in the case of the syllogisms with one necessary and one non-modal premiss, we can conclude that the non-modal propositions here are characteristically posited as true in at least one possible world accessible to the real world, on the ground that they are true in the latter as admissible propositions in the strict sense. III. Exactly speaking, there is only one example of proof by instances in the case of the syllogisms with one admissible and one non-modal premiss. Therefore let us direct our attention to his restriction on the term-interpretation in An. Pr. 34b7-18. From a logical point of view, then, this restriction is opposed to the definition of a valid syllogism as dependent only on its logical structure. From a philosophical point of view, on the other hand, it gives rise to the serious problem that the formal language level in which, proper to An. Pr., no semantical distinction is drawn between categories, is confused with another language level which contains this distinction.
著者
久保 田中 美知太郎
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.26, pp.175-176, 1978-03-23
著者
岩崎 允胤
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.6, pp.68-82, 1958-05-10

アリストテレスは矛盾律と排中律を定式化した入として知られるが,彼はまた運動の論理について鋭い考察をおこなつている.本稿は,形式論理學と辮證法的論理學との關係をアリストテレスにまで遡つて,とくに矛盾律・排中律と運動の論理との關係を検討しようとするものである.
著者
廣川 洋一
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.20, pp.40-48, 1972-03-25

As the forerunners of philosophy, we have no small numbers of semi-philosophical cosmogonies written both in verse and prose. Almost all cosmogonies in verse such as that of Hesiod and of Epimenides are composed in hexameters. While even in the age of philosophy hexameters were still influential as one of the effective means of expression, lyric meters on the other hand are scarcely found used for semi-philosophical as well as philosophical ideas. Although it has been admitted that lyric poets had perhaps so great an influence on the shaping of philosophy, it is to be noted that no philosopher set forth his thoughts with the aid of lyric meters. Alcman's cosmogony in lyric meters, viewed in this light, arouse a great deal of interest. However, serious problems, such as the fact that the cosmogonical subjects from thenceforward had not been treated in lyric meters are by no means answered here. In this article, as the first step towards solving these problems, merely some remarks on his cosmogony will be given. Though we may regard Thetis, poros and tekmor as characteristic of his cosmogony, we do not subscribe to the opinion which holds that by emphasizing Thetis' character as a craftsman too much, it is alien from the early Greek cosmogonies. It is perhaps more suitable, when considering the nature of his cosmogony, to draw a comparison with the Hesiodic cosmogony than with the Near Eastern cosmogonies. Indeed, some close parallels are found between Alcman and Hesiod: (1) The original state of the world in their cosmogonies is a confused, undifferentiated mass. (2) Thetis, poros and tekmor can be considered to make a group and have the same function, -differentiation; differentiation, however, in the same sense as the formation of Chaos implying a vast gap comes into being. τηζ θετιδοζ γενομενηζ κ. τ. λ. (vv. 15-16) is therefore equivalent to χαοζ γενετ' (v. 116). (3) The formation of Daylight, the moon and stars out of Darkness (vv. 22-27) corresponds well to that of Aither and Daylight out of Night (v. 24). From what we have seen above, we may conclude that Alcman's cosmogony follows Hesiod with considerable accuracy even after having given careful consideration to the point that while Hesiod, as G. S. Kirk (Pres. Ph.) suggests, places emphasis on the nature of the gap itself, Alcman, on the other hand, takes a vivid interest in the act of separation at the first stage in the formation of a differentiated world.
著者
岩田 靖夫
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.27, pp.15-28, 1979-03-29

"What is Place?" To this question Aristotle proposes four possible answers: form (ειδο&b.sigmav;) , matter (υλη) , the empty interval (διαστημα) between the extremities of the containing body and the limit of the containing body (περα&b.sigmav; του περιεχοντο&b.sigmav;), and examines these possibilities one by one. First, both place and form contain things so that we could say they are similar in this respect. But, while form is the boundary of the contained body and not separable from it, place is the boundary of the containing body and separable from the contained one. So we must say place is not form. Second, both place and matter receive qualities or other limitations, and in this respect they somehow seem to resemble each other. But, while matter is neither separable from the thing nor contains it, place is separable from it and contains it. So, also in this case, we must say matter is not place. The third possible answer, that is, the empty interval seems to be most appropriate as the explanation of place. But Aristotle denies even this answer. His main argument is as follows. If there were an interval which existed by itself(καθ' αυτο ειναι) , it would be a hypostatized κενον, which would further demand its own place to be in, so that there would be a place of place ad infinitum. (This argument of Aristotle seems in my opinion not to be so successful. But even if it fails, it reveals, by his strong denial of the existence of κενον, his conception of κοσμο&b.sigmav; which matters to us. Thus the only remaining answer is the fourth, that is, "the first unmoved limit of the containing body(πρωτον ακινητον περα&b.sigmav; του περιεχοντο&b.sigmav;)" which is indeed to be the final definition of place by Aristotle. This definition has two important characteristics. One point : Place as Aristotle understands it, is not an independent reality but the relation of a containing body to a contained one. In other words, place is an attribute of bodies. Another point: Although place as above said is the relation between bodies, it does not necessarily mean that place is a relative phenomenon. Rather, he says, the containing body realizing the role of place must be unmoved. From this it follows that place as a relation must be based on an absolute measure. This measure is just the everlastingly revolving circumference of the universe (κοινο&b.sigmav; τοπο&b.sigmav;)and the four ringed layers of the elements fire, air, water, earth-(οικειο&b.sigmav; τοπο&b.sigmav;)whose unalterable absolute arrangement in the incessant change into one another imitates the constant movement of the heaven. This fact that the elements have a natural tendency to move towards their own(respectively different)places is the very reason why he denied so strongly the existence of the void which implies the negation of all differentiation. Conclusion: the universe which is reflected in his theory of place is a finite(πεπερασμενον) and complete (τελειον) universe which is so densely filled (πληρε&b.sigmav;) by bodies that it has no empty interstices at all. Actually there exists no infinite thing. In ontology he was essentially the most genuine successor to Parmenidean theory of being.