著者
庄子 大亮
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.56, pp.14-25, 2008

The Atlantis story told by Plato in Timaeus and Critias is well known. Plato says that Atlantis, the prosperous maritime empire in primeval time, was ruined because of her corruption. He also says that primeval Athens, which defeated Atlantis, was a noble state governed by virtuous people. This story is said to be "true" (Tim. 20d) and some scholars have held that it may have some historical basis, for example in the facts of Minoan Crete. In any case, the only source of this story is Plato and we should take it to be basically Plato's invention. What is most important is to understand the meaning of this story. As to that, P. Vidal-Naquet has pointed out that by contrasting Atlantis with an imaginary noble state (primeval Athens), Plato set his ideal state against historical Athens which he criticized as a warlike maritime state. But why did Plato show his idea by the mythical past? In what context can we understand it? Ancient Greeks, who had experienced discontinuity from the Mycenaean period, regarded their distant past as the age of great heroes. Many legends of such heroes were narrated by poets and handed down by communities. On the other hand, democratic city-states, especially Athens, emphasized equality and did not recognize actual charismatic individuals. So models of virtue and various types of behaviour were not so much sought among citizens as reflected in the mythic past. Plato recognized this paradigmatic role of the mythic past. In Republic, groping for the ideal state, he emphasizes and appreciates the educative function of myth. But Plato also criticizes the stories in circulation in terms of ethics. He says human beings, unlike the gods, cannot know the truth about the past; all we can do is to make our falsehood as like truth as possible to make it beneficial (Rep. 382 c-d). Trying to present the ideal state, and appreciating a function of myth while ethically dissatisfied with circulated myths, Plato told a new story. In order to show citizens a model of the virtuous state and its antithesis, primeval Athens and Atlantis were created. Isocrates, an oratorical writer contemporary with Plato, adapts mythic discourse too. In Panegyricus and Panathenaicus he insists on Athens' leader-ship in Greece by reinterpreting the legendary achievements of Athens. As Isocrates appropriated the past for his actual political purpose, so Plato told the Atlantis story. This should be understood as a new intellectual concern in the fourth century B.C.. In this period Athens, trying to establish a new identity in the Greek World, wanted a state to serve as model. But Athens' factual past, which led to the defeat of the Peloponnesian War, could not be a model. Under such conditions it was necessary to consider how to appropriate the mythic past to make it influential as a means of education and as a model of virtue. The story of Atlantis and primeval Athens is "true" for Plato not because it is historical fact but because Plato thought such a story necessary and beneficial for actual citizens. The Atlantis story should be understood in this context.
著者
豊田 浩志
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.39, pp.92-101, 1991

Eusebius, bishop of Caesarea in Palestine, is called the 'Father of Ecclesiastical History,' and rightly so His most important work, Historia Ecclesiastica (= HE) is an extremely rich collection of historical documents, quotations, and extracts from a multitude of early Cnurch writings HE can thus be called a monumental achievement of early Christian literature There are many doubts, however, as to the authenticity of Eusebius' sources A serious drawback to his reliability as a historian is the loose and uncritical way he handles his materials But this criticism has too commonly resulted in an excessive depreciation of his great contribution and has tended to obscure its true merits Even with due allowance made for such faults, the objective merit and value of his HE should be duly acknowledged and appreciated In his HE, Eusebius usually allows his quotations to speak for themselves He does his best to collect testimonies from writers who lived at the time of the events which he describes In such cases, we might safely suspect that the quotations or extracts are based on some pre-existing text and that their historical authenticity is remarkable Cases in which he relies only on oral tradition are more problematic, but so far, such cases have tended to be greatly underestimated by many scholars and have been regarded as in- authentic Having carefully reexamined Eusebius' HE, I suggest the following two points First, in HE, he creates a personal style the quotations are often preceded by introductions or paraphrases I would like to emphasize especially the importance of cases where he writes an anonymously introduced narrativefollowed by a quotation or brief summary, such paraphrase almost always being derived from a quotation from his main source If so, it is not necessary for us to question the historical authenticity of the anonymous narrative Second, this paper analyzes two typical formulae which Eusebius uses to introduce oral traditions in HE <katechei logos> (it is recorded) and <logos echei> (tradition says), and reconsiders the authenticity of Eusebius' sources Detailed examination of the 10 volumes of the HE shows that Eusebius uses these introductory formulae 24 times, all of which are found in the first 8 volumes Moreover, 17 of these 24 cases are accompanied by another verb Indeed, no doubt exists that 16 of the 17 supposedly reflect the existence of some documental authority In 5 of the remaining 7 cases, a similar conclusion can be drawn Thus, Eusebius' use of such typical introductory formulae suggests that, for the most part, his statements are based directly on written sources even if they seem to be presented in the form of oral tradition It can safely be said that he very seldom worked without some authentic source
著者
逸身 喜一郎 片山 英男
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.24, pp.75-86, 1976-03-31 (Released:2017-05-23)

How do phraseology and meter correlate with each other in the dialogue verse ・of Greek tragedy? With this question in mind, we set about analyzing all the extant trimeters with the help of a computer. The following is an interim report on some points of interest. (i) Conversion of texts into machine-readable form. The system we adopted was that of the normal transliteration into Roman alphabet with some modifications; long vowels marked by* , prosodical signs(-for crasis, +for synizesis, &c.) added. At present 6660 lines of eight plays are converted and reposited on magnetic tape. (ii) Automatic scansion. The computer scans trimeter according to the prosodical rules and, recognizing resolutions as such, writes out a metrical scheme to each line. The resulting, completely scanned texts serve as the raw materials for subsequent inquiries. For the symbols used in scansion see Explanatory Note to fig. 1-a. (iii) Automatic production of concordance. Two Concordances were made; the usual, Alphabetical one and the one in which words are classified and arranged .according to their Metrical word-types. These are reposited on MT and serviceable ior various further uses. Cf. fig. 1-a〜c. (iv) Examination of metrical features of lines. Lines with any particular metrical features can be assembled and examined at a stroke with the use of the computer. The example shown in fig. 3 is an inquiry into metrical behavior after caesura of the lines with penthemimeral caesura. (v) Examination of 'correptio Attica'. All occurrences of the sequence of short vowel-mute-liquid were assembled and classified according to the constituent 'Consonants. Refined statistics were drawn there from. The gross figure is 960 short .syllables(resolutions excluded)against 354 longs in 6660 lines. Cf. fig. 2. (vi) Examination of lengthening by position of word-final open syllable. This ・prosodical abnormality occurs 183x in the lines examined, mostly between words that cohere closely together. Each individual case can be examined in the list prepared by the computer. For some of the more conspicuous cases see above p.78. (vii) Study of localization and distribution of metrical word-types. Occurrences of each word-shape, at each metrical position of the verse, were counted and a comprehensive list of distributional figures for each shape was made; cf. fig. 4-a〜b. From the list certain tendencies become apparent: Every shape has its preferred position or positions. For instance, one of the fittest forms to iambic, SLSL, which can be used in four positions, shows a tendency towards localization at the verse-end(cf. fig. 4-b), and SL, iamb itself, too. On the contrary, SLS_0 and SLS_1, which are also shapes suitable to iambic, appear mostly in the former half of the verse. Sometimes preference amounts to restriction. SLL and LSLL are used each in one position only(this is a corollary of Porson's Law). These tendencies are consistent throughout all the plays regardless of their author or the date of composition, although some innovations were made and introduced by using resolution or crasis(cf. fig. 4-b and"-SSL" &c. in fig. 4-a). They may beinherent properties of the iambic trimeter, and if we examine further the words themselves from semantical and syntactical point of view, the system on which poets subconsciously depend in versification will be correctly described. The figures referred to are on pp. 80〜86 above.
著者
納富 信留
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.46, pp.44-55, 1998-03-23 (Released:2017-05-23)

Critias is known as the leader of the cruel "Thirty Tyrants", who governed defeated Athens after the Poloponnesian War(404/3 B.C.), and killed over 1500 people under their reign of terror. Critias raises two important issues in the history of philosophy. First, as a relative of Plato, he seems to have influenced young Plato ; Plato later says in the Seventh Letter that he was initially attracted by Critias' invitation to the oligarchic government, but soon got disappointed on seeing its evil deeds(324B-325A). Second, Critias is regarded as a major cause of the decision to bring Socrates to trial in 399 ; the Athenians believed that Socrates was guilty of "corrupting youth" because he had educated anti-democratic politicians, such as Critias and Alcibiades(cf. Aeschines, 1. 173). These events kept Plato away from real politics and forced him to contemplate politics in philosophy. I believe that Plato confronted the issues concerning Critias in his early dialogue, the Charmides, in which young Critias plays a major role in discussing sophrosyne(temperance or prudence). However, the commentators have scarcely considered political issues in this dialogue, probably because they take the "evil image of Critias" for granted. First, therefore, I reexamine the historical figure of Critias and show how his image was created. It is Xenophon who is most responsible for making up our image of Critias. He describes Critias as a cruel tyrant and ascribes all evils of the Thirty to his personal motivations. Xenophon's account in the History of Greece II. 3. 11-4. 43 reflects the strong reaction against oligarchy in democratic Athens, and originates both in his hostility against the Thirty and his intention to defend Socrates' education(Memorabilia 1. 2. 12-38, 47). This has concealed the Thirty's real political intentions under the "evil image of Critias". On the other hand, we have some positive evidence to indicate that the Thirty originally intended to restore justice and morality in Athens (Lysias 12. 5 ; P1. Ep. VII 324D) ; they executed the sycophants("villains" in democratic Athens). We cannot deny the possibility that Critias and his group seriously aimed for ideal justice, and philosophical examination of the ideology of Critias is therefore necessary. The problem lies in what they understand as justice and sophrosyne. This is the main target of Plato's examination of Critias in the Charmides. Most commentators have ignored the political aspect of the dialogue. Sophrosyne is(unlike Aristotle's definition in the Ethics)a major political virtue along with justice, and the leading ideal for the Spartans and the oligarchs. Sophrosyne is said to bring about good government(Charm. 162A, 171D-172A, D). A crucial point in interpreting the Charmides is how we can understand the shift and relationship between several definitions of sophrosyne which Critias provides. He often gives up his earlier definitions easily and presents new ones ; there seems no logical relation between these. I see his definitions not as logically consequent, but as implying and revealing Critias' underlying ideology. I focus on two shifts : the first comes when Critias abandons his first definition "to do one's own", and gives a new definition "to know oneself" (164C-D) ; the second shift explicates "to know oneself" as "knowledge of the other knowledges and of itself" (166B-C). In each case, the direct cause of shift is Socrates' using an analogy between sophrosyne and techne (skill). Critias opposes Socrates' analogy and tries to separate two kinds of knowledge : self-knowledge and particular skills. Since the relation between the two is explained in terms of "rule" and "supervise" (173C, 174D-E) , I conclude that the clear distinction between the two(View PDF for the rest of the abstract.)
著者
浜本 裕美
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.50, pp.56-66, 2002-03-05 (Released:2017-05-23)

The debate in the first episode employs the opposition between the hoplite and the archer While Lycus disparages archers and exalts hoplites' bravery, Amphitryon points out a weakness of hoplites and applauds archers' cleverness It has recently been argued that the unusual portrayal of Heracles solely as an archer in the drama has the function of showing how independent he is from the others What each says about the hoplite, however, has not received the attention it deserves, in spite of the recognized prominence and importance of hoplite warfare in the classical period The present essay reexamines Amphitryon's lines on the hoplite (190-194) After this, the final scenes are discussed based on the preceding analysis First, Wilamowitz' widely accepted transposition of 191-2 after 193-4 is unfortunate since it conceals the point of Amphitryon's argument It should be noted, first of all, that the statement made in 190 is highly ambiguous "The weapons" (190) could refer to the other hoplites' arms as much as to that of the individual hoplite 191-4 provides the required amplification 190-4 as a whole centers on the hoplites' inherent defect of interdependence Breaking his spear (193-4) becomes crucial only after his companions break ranks(191-2), for the hoplites rely on each other for protection The broken spear represents a detail related to his death caused by 'the cowardice of those near him'(191), a human failure which seems to be the most significant point of the passage Second, Amphitryon's argument has a wider range of reference to Lycus and the civil strife in Thebes Lycus is reproached as 'coward' repeatedly and represented as a 'coward' hoplite He and his companions who have caused the civil strife in Thebes are censured for hurting 'those near them' so that their negative role in their polis corresponds to that of the 'coward' hophtes in the phalanx described by Amphitryon The chorus who are unable to fight now but once fought for Thebes as hoplites contrast sharply with Lycus and his companions The ideal, brave hophte of Lycus' speech is undermined In this way, Amphitryon's argument presents questions about how one should behave as 'a hoplite' or in a community, and on what foundation a community should stand Putting in question the framework of a existing community is an important theme in the drama In the final scenes, that Heracles' earlier isolation is transformed into a dependence on other human beings is signaled by military metaphor, which recalls the characteristics of the hoplite established earlier in the drama His transformation is obvious in his physically leaning on Theseus, which could be considered as a 'phalanx' relationship In consideration of the questions about the univocal understanding of 'hophte', what their 'phalanx' represents seems to be the potentiality of a new community In addition, their 'phalanx' relationship should not be identified completely with Heracles' new dependence on Athens, for the question still remains of how amicably the city can accept him, a problem man The reexamination of Amphitryon's argument about the hoplite, thus, allows us to interpret the drama from the point of view of exploring what a community should be
著者
牛田 徳子
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.31, pp.19-31, 1983

The most important locus classicus of the 'Third Man Argument' (TMA) in Corpus Aristotelicum is found in the Sophistici Elenchi(178b36-179a10). There the TMA, the last example of sophistical refutations depending on the form of expression, is said to presuppose the admission that the common predicate, like 'man', expresses, because of its form, just what is a 'this' (hoper tode ti), that is, the substantial essence of a being (e.g. Callias) , in spite of the very fact that it expresses a quality, a quantity or some one of the other non-substantial attributes. Depending on Alexander's report of the lost work De Ideis and on his comment on Metaphysics 991a2 ff. that the Platonic Form is a 'universal' essentially predicable of individuals, many scholars explain Aristotle's TMA as follows : that which produces the 'third man' is the individualisation of the universal predicate common to the essences of Form and of particulars. This interpretation has nothing to do with the TMA above in the Soph. El. which will then assert that 'the universal predicate common to the essences of Form and of particulars' does produce the 'third man' without the 'individualisation' of that predicate, for any universal expressing an attribute, once admitted that it expresses an essence, will produce something like a third essence. The TMA in the Soph. El. depending on the similar form of expression of things that are not categorially the same, can be elucidated by a passage from the Topics (103b27-39) which distinguishes two kinds of 'what-is-it' expressions, the intercategorial and the categorial. By the former, one can give the species-genus definition to whatever the given being is, e.g. man, white, a foot length, the latter two of which are not substances, while that definition does not express any categorial 'what-is-it' (the substantial essence), but a quality or a quantity or some one of the other attributes. The truth is then as follows. That which the Form and the particulars have in common is not the eidos qua substantial form, but the eidos qua species (Met. 1059a13) whose one logos is predicated both of the Form and of the particulars as synonymous entities, so that it is limited to setting forth differentiae -a sort of 'quality' {Met. 1020a34)- to the question "what is the species 'man'?", differentiae specific and generic ('biped', 'sensitive' and so on) which are valid to all individual members belonging to the species 'man', but not valid to a substance like Callias himself, endowed with the essence identical with himself. That which causes the TMA is, therefore, to assimilate the inter-categorial 'what-is-it' expression which is in fact an attributive expression, to the categorial 'what-is-it' expression which is, according to Aristotle, the only substantial expression. Aristotle's criticism of the theory of Forms, therefore, does not consist in the following: in spite of the fact that every universal expresses an attribute, the theory of Forms which makes it express the individual, should recognize not only the second being, but the third being both having the same essence as the sublunary beings, but in the following: because of the fact that every universal expresses an attribute, the theory of Forms making it express the essence should recognize not only the second, but the third being both having the same attribute as the sublunary beings. By the first formula of criticism one could be inclined to think that Aristotle purports to emphasize the idealistic character in the theory of Forms, while in the second to see Aristotle's tactics to make the Forms 'universalized attributes'-accidental phenomena-separated from the sublunary substances, which inverts the very relation of Paradeigmata of that world and eidola of this world.
著者
阪本 浩
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.91-100, 1987

Greek writers rarely mentioned about the imperial cult Our author Aelius Aristides, however, frequently attended at the meetings of the provincial assembly So we may expect his orations to tell us something about the Greek attitudes toward the Roman imperial cult The Cyzicus speech (Or 27 K), one of such orations, is delivered at Cyzicus on the occasion of the dedication of Hadrian Temple, a temple for the provincial imperial cult This panegyric consists of three parts the praise of the city of Cyzicus, the description of the Temple, the encomium of two emperors But, as G Bowersock pointed out, nowhere in this panegyric does he call an emperor as a god He explicitly distinguishes the emperor from the traditional gods Instead, he calls the Hadrian Temple as "a thank offering to the gods," and says as follows, "We should be grateful to the gods, but we should congratulate the emperors and join in prayer for them" The Greeks erected many temples and cult images of the emperors, nevertheless, they did not call the emperor as a god, and in practice did pray for the emperors Here at least we may see one aspect of the Greek attitudes toward the imperial cult Another feature of the Cyzicus Speech is its patriotic tone He speaks of the temple of the imperial cult in terms of the Greek mythology and the glory of the Greek past. He refers to the temple as the pride of a Greek city. It it true that praise of the city where the festival is located is conventional in the panegyrics And yet, at the same time, we ought to pay attention to some passages in his other orations, where Anstides suggested how the leading Greek cities engaged in strife because of the temples and festivals of the koinon. And, judging from other sources, the title of neokoros, "temple warden," was such a distinction for the Greek cities that it became a cause of the struggles among them. It seems that the temple of the provincial imperial cult was recognized as the pride of a Greek city. We may be justified in pointing out another aspect of the Greek attitudes toward the imperial cult.
著者
牛田 徳子
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.31, pp.19-31, 1983-03-30 (Released:2017-05-23)

The most important locus classicus of the 'Third Man Argument' (TMA) in Corpus Aristotelicum is found in the Sophistici Elenchi(178b36-179a10). There the TMA, the last example of sophistical refutations depending on the form of expression, is said to presuppose the admission that the common predicate, like 'man', expresses, because of its form, just what is a 'this' (hoper tode ti), that is, the substantial essence of a being (e.g. Callias) , in spite of the very fact that it expresses a quality, a quantity or some one of the other non-substantial attributes. Depending on Alexander's report of the lost work De Ideis and on his comment on Metaphysics 991a2 ff. that the Platonic Form is a 'universal' essentially predicable of individuals, many scholars explain Aristotle's TMA as follows : that which produces the 'third man' is the individualisation of the universal predicate common to the essences of Form and of particulars. This interpretation has nothing to do with the TMA above in the Soph. El. which will then assert that 'the universal predicate common to the essences of Form and of particulars' does produce the 'third man' without the 'individualisation' of that predicate, for any universal expressing an attribute, once admitted that it expresses an essence, will produce something like a third essence. The TMA in the Soph. El. depending on the similar form of expression of things that are not categorially the same, can be elucidated by a passage from the Topics (103b27-39) which distinguishes two kinds of 'what-is-it' expressions, the intercategorial and the categorial. By the former, one can give the species-genus definition to whatever the given being is, e.g. man, white, a foot length, the latter two of which are not substances, while that definition does not express any categorial 'what-is-it' (the substantial essence), but a quality or a quantity or some one of the other attributes. The truth is then as follows. That which the Form and the particulars have in common is not the eidos qua substantial form, but the eidos qua species (Met. 1059a13) whose one logos is predicated both of the Form and of the particulars as synonymous entities, so that it is limited to setting forth differentiae -a sort of 'quality' {Met. 1020a34)- to the question "what is the species 'man'?", differentiae specific and generic ('biped', 'sensitive' and so on) which are valid to all individual members belonging to the species 'man', but not valid to a substance like Callias himself, endowed with the essence identical with himself. That which causes the TMA is, therefore, to assimilate the inter-categorial 'what-is-it' expression which is in fact an attributive expression, to the categorial 'what-is-it' expression which is, according to Aristotle, the only substantial expression. Aristotle's criticism of the theory of Forms, therefore, does not consist in the following: in spite of the fact that every universal expresses an attribute, the theory of Forms which makes it express the individual, should recognize not only the second being, but the third being both having the same essence as the sublunary beings, but in the following: because of the fact that every universal expresses an attribute, the theory of Forms making it express the essence should recognize not only the second, but the third being both having the same attribute as the sublunary beings. By the first formula of criticism one could be inclined to think that Aristotle purports to emphasize the idealistic character in the theory of Forms, while in the second to see Aristotle's tactics to make the Forms 'universalized attributes'-accidental phenomena-separated from the sublunary substances, which inverts the very relation of Paradeigmata of that world and eidola of this world.
著者
脇本 由佳
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.45, pp.28-39, 1997-03-10 (Released:2017-05-23)

『イーリアス』においてアイネイアースは,トロイア方でヘクトールに次ぐ重要な英雄として扱われている.しかし,『イーリアス』の中でのアイネイアースの活躍は,意外なまでに少ない.本稿では,この矛盾を解決しうる一つの仮説を提示するべく,『イーリアス』におけるアイネイアースの描かれようを観察し,そこから,ホメーロス以前のトロイア伝承で,主にアイネイアースがどのような位置づけをなされていたかを探る試みを行う.
著者
高橋 宏幸
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
no.44, pp.96-108, 1996

This paper reexamines an inconsistency considering the fatal spear in the Cephalus-Procris episode in Met. 7 : one of the companions of Cephalus says that the spear flies back spontaneously after hitting the target, whereas it remains stuck in Procris at the ending of the story told by Cephalus. It will be suggested that the inconsistency hints at a transformation of the story as narrated by Cephalus. I have observed three recurrent story patterns in the episode : someone (thing)comes back after being lost(or gone) (P1) ; a rumor is believed before eventually turning out to be false(P2) ; happiness follows a disaster (P3). P1 fails only at the ending, where Procris dies, never to return. This failure of P1 corresponds to the inconsistency about the spear, since its power to fly back after launched exactly matches P1, whereas it did not return when piercing Procris. Why not an ending that would imply a return of Procris, in accord with P1? We note that there is no metamorphosis of a main character in the episode, that the spear is almost identical to Procris with regard to fate (7531, 846) , beauty(679, 730) , and name(Procris<procuris ; cf. Fasti 2.477), and that mirabere(682)is one of the words suggestive of metamorphosis(cf. mirandum 758). Seeing these points, it would not be quite hard to imagine that, the moment Procris dies, her soul enters the spear to give it the miracle power, so that, every time Cephalus launches the spear, it would come back into his hands, as she did in her life. This would have happened, if only Procris had not emitted her soul in the mouth of Cephalus(861) , but into the spear. With this ending by metamorphosis, the inconsistency about the spear would not have occurred, since it obtained its power after she died, but, instead, an eternal, spiritual union of the couple would have been achieved, quite a suitable finish for the story of mutual love (800). Considering P2 and P3, we should note that Cephalus echoes the phrases in the Orithyia story in Bk. 6(esp., 681f.). When Cephalus comments that he was said(dicebar 698)to be happy, he seems to presume that such a rumor is prevalent(cf. also 694), coming from the story told in Bk. 6. He rejects it as untrue with his tragic story, which fits in P2, but, it would be different with the ending by metamorphosis, which implies a kind of bliss for Cephalus as Procris' spear never goes without returning as if to ease his bad conscience, granting pardon for his wrongdoing. This version would match P3, and support the rumor of Cephalus' happy marriage with Procris. Then, we may assume that Cephalus did not speak of the metamorphosis because he intended to deny the rumor about his marriage, and I think this is where the inconsistency arises. What, then, was his motivation? On his arrival at Aegina he was spectabilis hews, which is a reminiscence of what he looked like(496f.), and Procris, when dying, was looking at him as long as possible(dumque aliquid spectare potest, me spectat 860). Then, after she exhales her soul(if exhaled into the spear, there would have been the metamorphosis), that is, at the end of his story, Cephalus appears as lacrimans hews (863). It looks as if, instead of narrating the metamorphosis of Procris, Cephalus himself has transformed from a good-looking hero into a hero in tears. Why, then, in tears? Presumably because it is a mark of great heroes, to Cephalus' eyes. In fact, Cephalus is presenting himself as a great hero like Odysseus or Aeneas, not only in his marital or tragic love as pointed out by Labate and Segal, but also in his story-telling, which takes place at the palace of a king(or queen), whose assistance the hero needs to return home, as in Od. Bks. 8-12 and Aen. Bks. 2-3. It is such an enchanting tale of his own sufferings that causes all listeners to cry. A tragic story like this, which enables Cephalus to play a role of great hero, would have been ruined if he had told of the metamorphosis of Procris, which would have made her a heroine, with him serving as a foil. This is, it seems, where his motivation lies : to make himself a hero, not her. Returning to the inconsistency about the spear, we should note that "nullo referente" (684)can be translated as "as nobody(else)tells it" (also note the frequent use of referre in the story), and that "in ore"(861)can mean "spoken" as in 1.708. Here it seems to be implied that the metamorphosis of Procris goes unspoken as nobody tells that story, while Cephalus stands out as a great tragic hero as a tearful tale of his own is put in his mouth.
著者
井上 文則
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.52, pp.84-94, 2004

In 1903 E Ritterling put forward a new theory the emperor Gallienus created four independent cavalry corps, all under the control of one commander Aureolus This theory was developed by A Alfoldi who used coins as a historical source to argue that these four independent cavalry corps were converted into the central cavalry corps stationed at Milan Alfoldi's argument was generally accepted However, H G Simon recently rebutted it and denied the existence of such corps on the grounds that the main Greek sources concerning Gallienus' reform of cavalry are unreliable In this paper, I examine Gallienus' supposed reform of cavalry to clarify the military system of the Roman Empire in the mid-third century First, I attempt to reconstruct the career of Aureolus who is key to understanding cavalry reform According to the Greek sources, Aureolus was commander of the central cavalry corps at the time of his rebellion against Gallienus But there are many inconsistencies in the Greek sources and further the Latin historian Aurelius Victor said that Aureolus was commanding the army in Raetia when he revolted In Simon's view, the Latin source is more reliable and he reinterprets the Greek sources to reconcile them with the Latin source Since his interpretation seems unconvincing, I here propose another solution to this problem I argue that Aureolus was the commander of the central cavalry corps at the time of Gallienus' war against Postumus in 265, not in 268 and that after concluding the war Aureolus remained in Raetia to defend the invasion of Postumus into Italy I observe that there is no evidence for the existence of the central cavalry corps except the title of Aureolus Rather it is recognized that independent cavalry corps, such as the Dalmatian cavalry corps, played a prominent part in many battles Moreover there were some independent cavalry corps not included into the central cavalry corps, though it is commonly said that they are all created to form it Form these observations, I suggest that Gallienus originally intended to create the independent cavalry corps and the central cavalry corps was temporarily formed from the independent cavalry corps which happened to be under the direct command of the emperor To understand the real significance of the independent cavalry corps, it is necessary to consider to the phenomenon that prior to the cavalry reform, Roman legion, which mainly consisted of infantry, divided into the vexillatio for independent use By creating a new cavalry unit corresponding with vexillatio, Gallienus probably intended to form mobile field forces, containing both cavalry and infantry I can find it not only under the direct command of the emperor but also deployed by other military commanders elsewhere It seems probable that such military condition in the mid-third century shaped Diocletian's later policy to divide the Roman Empire into four parts
著者
木原 志乃
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.50, pp.12-23, 2002-03-05 (Released:2017-05-23)

In this paper, I would like to examine the change of the soul (psyche) in fr 36 and reconsider the significance of Heraclitus explaining the soul in the physical process In fr 36, Heraclitus says that the soul becomes the water, the water becomes the earth and vice versa There is little agreement as to what the changes of the soul should be It is a disputable question whether the reciprocal changes in fr 36 are in macrocosm (that is, the extinction or production of the soul from its relation to the sea and the earth cf fr 30 and 31) or in microcosm (that is, the physiological process of the soul from its relation to the blood and the flesh) Many commentators have interpreted it as being in macrocosm However, I do not share this interpretation First, I will examine the two typical interpretations in which the soul in macrocosm is supposed (Kirk and Kahn) According to Kirk, the soul is equated with cosmic fire and 'the death of the soul' means the death of individuals in an eschatological context However, this interpretation is unsound when Kirk must suppose the relation of two fires, between 'a fiery soul' of individuals and the 'cosmic fire' Although Herachtus indicated 'the soul out of water', Kirk discounted this point and supposed falsely the soul out of cosmic fire through respiration On the other hand, Kahn intended that the soul is equated with the air Inasmuch as Heraclitus described the soul as 'dry' or 'wet', so Kahn considered that 'fire' is not suitable as a substitute for the soul from the expressive viewpoint in the fragments Although Kahn's interpretation is a correct one in view of his insistence that the soul is not fire, he overcomplicated the relation between the 'airy soul' of individuals and (cosmic) fire or water The soul as the fire or the air, which is also macrocosmic, is not suitable for the explanation of 'the death of the soul' The important point is the relationship between life and death We must recognize that, for Helaclitus, the psyche has the fundamental meaning of 'life force' and that his 'life and death' is a unity of opposites Heraclitus did not uncritically accede to antecedent ideas of the soul The traditional problem of immortality is reconsidered by Heraclitus in fr 36 The 'death of the soul' is not the biological death of the individual Rather, his use of the soul enables him to combine these aspects of the life and death of individual I would like to emphasize this point and elucidate that the soul includes death and is incessantly renewed as life by death Heraclitus refused the traditional idea that the soul of individuals continues separate from the body after death For him, the soul is not a transcendental substance separate from the body, but constantly maintains the material aspects of the bodily force So for Heraclitus the soul is not like an airy or fiery element or a cosmic soul, but the constitutive principle of the life force That is the meaning of the physiological process This suggests that the soul in fr 36 is a principle for physiological activity as the subject of the life force Finally, I wish to conclude by referring briefly to two connected contents of the soul, as a subject of this physiological activity and of the cognitive activity in other fragments.
著者
西川 亮
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.17, pp.28-38, 1969

トラシュロスがデモクリトスの作品を四部作に分類して配列した目録の中に,認識論的傾向のものを扱ったとおもわれる若干の作品名が残されているが,その内容に至ってはほとんど知られない.もしそれについて考察を試みようとすれば,セクストス・エンペイリコスやガレノスによって引用された断片や,アリストテレスやアエティオスなどの記録,さらに諸感覚についてのテオプラストスのかなり詳細な記述などによらなければならない.しかし皮相的にみれば,これらの資料間における齟齬が,統一的見解を阻んでいるかのように見做される.むろんデモクリトスのいわゆる認識論についての資料の処理にすでにかなりの努力が払われてきた.ここでは,それらの諸資料を三区分し,その間の差異を検討して,デモクリトスのいわゆる原子思想における認識論的問題の一端にふれてみたい.