著者

三浦 洋

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.72-83, 1997

---

アリストテレスは『形而上学』Θ巻第6章(以下, Θ6)で様々な行為を「エネルゲイア(活動)」と「キーネーシス(運動)」に区別している.その一方の「ネルゲイア」とは,現在進行と完了が同時に成立する行為であり,「見る」がその典型例である(「見ている」と同時に「見てしまった」といえる).他方「キーネーシス」とは,一定の目的に向かう末完了的な過程を持つ行為であり,現在進行と完了が同時には成立しない.その典型例は「建築」である(「建築している」と同時に「建築してしまった」ということはない).この区別をめぐっては従来,他のテキストとの関連が注目される一方で,このような排他的区別の成立を根本的に疑う見解が研究者から示されてきた.とりわけ,アクリルが投げかけた疑問と,それを解消するべくペナーが提起した「二局面構造説」は,区別の成否を検討する上で重要な論点を提示している.本稿は,ぺナー説を批判的に検討しつつ,アクリルの疑問の発生源である「一つの現実態を構成する二つの項」をめぐる問題を解明し,疑問の解消を目指すものである.関連テキストにおけるアリストテレスの議論を検討することにより, 「エネルゲイア」と「キーネーシス」の区別が,単一の現実態,すなわち単一の事態について必然的に成立する区別であることを明らかにしたい.

著者

兼利 琢也

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.106-109, 2008-03-05 (Released:2017-05-23)

著者

岡 道男

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.26, pp.1-22, 1978-03-23 (Released:2017-05-23)

---

In the traditional Greek epic there is an oft-repeated theme of the confrontation or clash between valour(ανδρεια) on the one hand and stratagem(μηχανη) and prudence (φρονησι&b.sigmav;) on the other, where Odysseus usually stands for the latter, cf. Il. 19. 148-237, Schol. B. E., Od. 8. 77 etc. The fatal contest for Achilleus' arms between Aias and Odysseus also seems to be a variation of the same theme, cf. Pindar, N. 7 and N. 8. Now the opening verses of the Aeneid could be understood in the traditional background of such a theme, if the much-discussed avma virumque is to be interpreted as a hendiadys meaning virum armatum i. e. virum armis insignem (ci. Ovid, Trist. 2.533 f.) ; Virgil may have modelled the opening of the Aeneid on that of the Odyssey in order to bring out the heroic qualities of Aeneas which are clearly opposed to the ανδρα πολυτροπον=virum versutum (Livius Andronicus). This view is made probable through the following observations : 1. Aeneas is noted not only for his pietas but for his military prowess(1.544 f., 6.403., 11.291f. etc.), and especially in the second Book the valour of Aeneas and the Trojans makes a sharp contrast with the treacherous stratagem of the Greeks. Thus arma virumque and insignem pietate virum(1.10) , forming a complementary pair, can be understood as indicating Aeneas at the very start of the poem as a hero who embodies in himself the fundamental virtues of the Romans (cf. 6.768ff., 878 ff. etc.). 2. Compared with the prooemium of the Homeric poems, the opening of the Aeneid shows closer resemblance to that of the Odyssey(1.1-21)both in structure and in contents. In the Iliad the prooemium(1.1-12a)retrogresses into the past (menis→eris→cholos of Apollon) and then the narrative, beginning with the hikesia of Chryses, progresses in the reverse order (cholos of Apollon→eris→menis); in the opening of the Odyssey and the Aeneid, however, such a pattern is not to be detected, while more attention is paid to the earlier events (Troy's fall, the causes of Juno's wrath) and the situation of the hero just before the start of the narrative. Further, the theme of the Aeneid, i.e. the founding of Lavinium=Rome(1.5 f.) , is, as in the Odyssey(1.5), shown as a goal to be attained bythe hero, which then reveals itself as the nostos of Aeneas and the Aeneadae(3.94 ff., 163 ff., 7.239 ff., 8.36 f). It may be said that Virgil, while modelling the theme of the Aeneid on that of the Odyssey, expressed his intention to rival Homer's poem(and Livius' Odusia, v. infra). 3. There existed, in parallel with a legend making Aeneas the founder of Rome, another tradition that Ulixes=Odysseus had founded the city. Livius' Odusia, a first Latin epic and not a mere translation, appears to have been instrumental in making this tradition take root in Italy. Thus Virgil, taking upon himself to sing of Aeneas as the founder of Rome and ancestor of Augustus, may have confronted his arma virumque(=virum armatum)not only with ανδρα πολυτροπον of Homer but also with virum versutum of Livius(cf. Ennius, Ann. fr. 326 f., where the contrast with the opening of Odusia could also be observed). This Aeneas who is quite different from an Achilleus or an Aias in being fato profugus(i.e. in his pietas erga fata), is an entirely new creation of Virgil. In short, in the opening words of the Aeneid literary debt is acknowledged, and at the same time originality within the tradition is proclaimed(cf. the opening of Choirilos' Persika, Ennius' Annales etc.). In this sense arma virumque cano is the sphragis of an epic poet who introduces a new hero in the Augustan Rome. The "ille ego……" verses, on the other hand, show a sphragis of Virgil's poetic career and, as such, cannot be placed side by side with arma virumque cano which proclaims originality within the epic tradition. It seems very likely that someone who was not(View PDF for the rest of the abstract.)

著者

安西 眞

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.51, pp.121-128, 2003-03-20 (Released:2017-05-23)

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

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

藤縄 謙三

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.45-55, 1969-03-25 (Released:2017-05-23)

---

'Greek art reconciles two principles which are often opposed; on the one hand control and clarity and fundamental seriousness; on the other, brilliance, imagination and passion.' (H.D.F. Kitto). Such dual nature of Greek culture is usually explained as the outcome of the fusion of two peoples or cultures (Mediterranean and Indo-European). This explanation is, I believe, fundamentally correct, but not satisfactory enough; because a fusion of two cultures might also produce a neutral sort of culture. In order to explain the nature of Greek culture in full, we must seek some more direct causes in addition which produced its dual nature. In Classical Greece, the social and political organizations were clearly patriarchal, but if we turn to the realm of mythology and religion we can easily find many matriarchal traits. We often find both features in the same persons. For example Hesiod, a marked misogynist living in a patriarchal family, very often arranges the genealogies of gods in matrilinear systems. This matriarchy in mythology and religion (die mutterrechtliche Religion) was no doubt mainly of Mediterranean origin. From our almost exclusively archaeological evidence we cannot exactly know to what extent Minoan Civilization was matriarchal. It is possible that it may have had some matriarchal or at least matrilinear social systems, but they must have been incompatible with the new-comers' patriarchal systems; so they must have gone out of existence, say by the end of the Mycenaean Age, except in certain obscure districts (e.g. in Lycia) . On the other hand, Minoan religion was without any doubt matriarchal; and what was more, it could co-exist and combine with the patriarchal system, because it was especially connected with agriculture, the importance of which in Classical Greece was as great as it had been in the Minoan Age. Thus in Classical Greece we find the combination of the matriarchal religion with the patriarchal system, which I think was the basic structure of Greek culture. Analyzing some important Athenian legends and some tragic plays, we try to explain the operation and effects of the combination. The most ancient kings of Athens (Kekrops, Kranaos, Amphiktyon and Erichthonic's or Erechtheus) were said to have been born from Gaia, and all the Athenians proudly called themselves autochthones. This firm belief in the Mother Earth had its origin in the Mediterranean matriarchal religion, and promoted the unification of the Athenian Polis. Thus in a way matriarchal religion sustained the political superstructure. Aeschylus in the Eumenides clearly thought that a reconciliation of the Apolline principle (i.e. the patriarchal system) and the Eumenidean principle (i.e. the matriarchal religion) was absolutely necessary for the well-being of the Athenian Polis. In Euripides' Ion Kreusa's chthonian descent is often clearly mentioned, so she seems to represent the matriarchal religion ; while her only son Ion is given a divine father Apollon, the most distinct representative of patriarchy. Thus, according to Euripides Ion combines in himself our two principles. In Sophocles' Antigone and Euripides' Bacchae is depicted the disruption of the two principles. Antigone and Dionysos stand for the matriarchal religion which includes feminism and emotionalism, Kreon and Pentheus for the patriarchal and rationalistic principle. While in the Ion and the Eumenides Athena acts as mediatress between two parties or principles, in the Antigone and the Bacchae in which are treated problems of a foreign city, the poets do not try to settle them. We may say that some Athenian thinkers such as the three great tragedians were in some way conscious of the basic structure of their culture or spirit. The substructure (i. e. the emotional side) of their spirit was nourished by the matriarchal religion, while its superstructure (i.e. the rational side) was formed by their patriarchal social principle.

著者

広瀬 三矢子

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.44, pp.109-120, 1996-03-15 (Released:2017-05-23)

---

Recently, many books on women in the Roman empire have been published in Italy. They, however, describe only prosopography of the famous women such as mothers, wives, and daughters of commanders, statesmen, and emperors. In this article, I will reconsider one of the most famous women, Livia who was the wife of Augustus. Tacitus emphasized Livia as the diplomatic mother of Tiberius as well as the faithful wife of Augusuts. By analyzing the portraits of Livia, I wish to reinterpret the image which Tacitus provided and to understand how she took part in the politics in the early Principate. I collected and analyzed seventy portraits of Livia, which have survived in Italy and other countries. I can classify these portraits into two main groups by examining the hairstyle as Italian "nodus" or "center-parted". Moreover, I classified them into several sub-groups, by evaluating when they were produced, as follows : Type A. after 38BC when Livia was married with Augustus. Bonn Akademisches Kunstmuseum ; Bologna, Museo Civico ; Paris, Louvre 622 ; Roma, Villa Albani 793 ; Padova, Museo Civico ; Paestum, Museo, Pesaro, Museo Oliveriano 3820 ; Stuttgart, Wurttembergisches Landesmuseum 3 etc. Type B. AD4 when Tiberius was designated the successor of Augustus. Kopenhagen, NyCarlsberg 615 ; Toulouse, Musee Saint-Raymond 3000 ; London, British Museum 1990 ; Hamburg, Kunstmuseum 1967 ; Cadiz, Museo Arqueologico ; Tarragona, Museo Arqueologico etc. Type B^1 and B^2. after AD14 when Augustus was dead. Ephesus, Museo Archeologico ; Cordova, Museo Arqueologico ; Leptis Magna : Volterram Museo Etrusco Guarnacci ; Musei Vaticani Laterano 1812 etc. Type C. Paris, Louvre 29 (Julia Augusta) ; Kopenhagen NyCarlsberg 616. Type D. Roma, Musei Capitolini ; Musei Vaticani sala dei Busti ; Musei Vaticani Laterano 10180. Type E. AD14 or AD19 when the type of "center-part" appeared. Kopenhagen, NyCarlsberg 618 ; Bochum Universtat Museum ; Luxemburg ; Kiel, Kunsthall ; Volterra Museo Etrusco Guarnacci etc. Type F. so called Salus Type, AD22 when Livia fell seriously ill. Pompei, Antiquarium ; Leningrad, Ermitage ; Bochum Universtat Museum. Type E^1. after AD29 when Livia died at 86 years old. Madrid, Museo Arqueologico ; Leptis Magna ; Paris Bibliotheque Nationale ; Atene, National Museum 325 ; Genova, Museo Civico. Type E^2. after AD41 when Livia was deified by Claudius. Kopenhagen, NyCarlsberg 617 ; Parma, Museo Archeologico etc. Type G. Kopenhagen, NyCarlsberg 614; 531; Napoli, Museo Archeologico. And there was another "nodus" type of the Claudian Age : Hague Cameo. As a result, I emphasize two points. Firstly, I can find a strong similarity among the portraits(type B-D)that were produced in abundance from the late Augustan age to the early Tiberian age. So, I say that the politics of the late Augustan age persisted into the early reign of Tiberius. In those days, statues of Livia were shown with those of Tiberius or her children, providing her image as a diplomat. Secondly, why did Claudius set up many statues of Livia? He was born in the famous family "the Claudius", the same family as Livia. He was not adopted into "the Julian", the family of the deified Augustus, although he was a predecessor, Tiberius and Caligula were adopted. Therefore Claudius looked upon Livia as an ancestor of his family and deified her as "Diva". Livia was very important for Claudius giving authority to himself and his family. And he regarded the marriage of Augustus and Livia as an important one, as the fact that the portraits of Livia were made in the old type(the Date of Augusuts)shows. Tacitus and Dio Cassius informed us of Livia's diplomatic efforts to certify Tiberius as the successor to Augustus. According to my research, however, I conclude that emperors made use of the images of Livia to justify their position as Princeps.

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.66, pp.23-34, 2018 (Released:2021-03-24)

著者

内田 康太

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.61, pp.73-85, 2013-03-28 (Released:2017-05-23)

---

The centuriate assembly, which elected higher magistrates such as consuls or praetors during the Roman republic, had at its disposal - at least in the case of consular elections - a specific voting system called Centuria Praerogativa. This was the first century to cast its vote and the result was proclaimed separately from the others. Many scholars have assumed that the voting of this one century often had a decisive influence over the centuries that followed, so that the candidates selected by this one century won the competition. Their studies, therefore, have focused on explaining the significance of its influence, especially in the light of recent discussions about the political importance or influence of the Roman people. However, by analyzing some sources which are considered to indicate the influence of Centuria Praerogativa in their proper context, I will argue that the great influence exerted by this century is found under certain conditions pertaining to the elections, which have not adequately studied yet. Accordingly this paper aims to analyze the influence of Centuria Praerogativa by asking when and how this century was followed by the other centuries. I first analyze one actual election, the consular election of 53 BC. In this election, there were four candidates with equal chances of winning, but two of these would be in a more favorable position than the rest once they have promised Centuria Praerogativa a huge amount of money. From this it can be surmised that the influence of Centuria Praerogativa emerges in the case of close elections. And this is actually confirmed by some ancient sources explaining the function of this century. According to them, Centuria Praerogativa was supposed to work as a unifying factor for the other centuries. Therefore, for Centuria Praerogativa to fulfill this function, there needed to exist a situation that the voting of the rest could be split between candidates with a possibility of a close election. However, the consular election for the year 63 BC seems not to have been such a case. Of the two candidates with a chance of winning - and despite the fact that one of them must have won the votes of Centuria Praerogativa - the victor won the election by a very close margin. However, based on the voting system that allowed the electorate to cast at any time as many votes as was the quorum for the magistrate concerned, it seems possible to argue from this case that Centuria Praerogativa exerted its influence not on the higher strata of the centuries but rather on the lower ones. And this also corresponds to the above view, because the lower centuries could take part in balloting when the election was closely contested. To conclude, it is during close election that the Centuria Praerogativa exerted its decisive influence over the following centuries, possibly over the lower strata of the centuries. And this argument should caution us not to overestimate the political importance or influence of the Roman people.

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, 2004-03-05 (Released:2017-05-23)

---

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

島田 誠

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.102-106, 2008-03-05 (Released:2017-05-23)

著者

内山 勝利

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.29, pp.41-52, 1981

---

The main purpose of this paper is to reconsider the true standpoint of Socrates in the Crito, one of the earlier dialogues of Plato, in order to remove misunderstandings about the Socratic attitude towards the city-state and the law. This attempt will at the same time clarify the substantial principle which is constantly held by Socrates throughout his life and death. From ancient times, it has been frequently considered that Socrates in the Crito puts the law of the city-state into the position of the absolute standard of ethical judgment. A series of discussions on this problem has recently again arisen from the papers of R. Martin("Socr. on Disob. to the Law", Rev. of Metaph., 24/1970, 21-38)and of A. D. Woozley("Socr. on Disob. the Law", G. Vlastos ed., Philos. of Socr., 1971, 299-318). Many of the writers debate it on the assumption that the central point of the assertion here stated by Socrates lies in the 'Destruction of the City' argument(so named by G. Young, whose paper in Phronesis 19/1974 is also referred to particularly in my paper) , whether they agree with or reject it. But, the author thinks, when we read the Crito following carefully the essential structure of the argument which is, as is explicitly stated at 48E-49E, already systematically methodised, and that in the same way as is formalised in the Phaedo, then it will become obvious that the 'Destruction of the City' argument is only a showy but untrue one, while Socrates' substantial assertion is stated duly with the 'hypothetical' procedure based exactly on the αρχαι(49D-E). The true reason for his refusal to escape is, accordingly, not because his escape might bring destruction of the law and then of the city-state, but just because it is not compatible with the αρχαι accepted by himself or, in other words, not compatible with "the logos which upon reflection appears to me to be the best"(46B). In short: when said in response to the subtitle to this dialogue, περι πρακτεου, it is asserted here by Socrates that we should make our conduct conform to the judgment of the logos, and not in obedience to the law.

著者

三浦 要

出版者

日本西洋古典学会 = Classical Society of Japan

雑誌

西洋古典学研究 (ISSN:04479114)

巻号頁・発行日

vol.50, pp.123-126, 2002

---

[書評]

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

辻 直四郎 高津 春繁

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.3, pp.173-178, 1955

著者

日本西洋古典学会

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.63, pp.165-187, 2015 (Released:2018-03-30)

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.61, pp.187-212, 2013-03-28 (Released:2017-05-23)

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.