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

---

<p>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</p><p>(View PDF for the rest of the abstract.)</p>

著者

生島 幹三

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.13, pp.87-97, 1965

---

This article is intended to analyse the part of the dispute between Thrasymachus and Socrates in Book A of "Republic", in relation to the preceding part of the book, i e Polemarchus' definition of "justice" and Socrates' criticism of it Polemarchus defines "justice" as "to do good to the friends and to do evil to the enemies" This principle of the right action is composed of two rules, opposite to each other and applied in each case to only one of the two groups of men Socrates, in his criticism, expelling "to do evil" from "justice" and extending over the whole the rule applied to the friends by Polemarchus, seems to suggest "to do good (to everybody)" as the general principle, advocating, as it were, the cause of "justice" On the contrary, Thrasymachus recommends "to do evil to others", i e "injustice" as the punciple, applying to everyone except oneself the rule that Polemarchus has done to one's enemies only In Thrasymachus' view, "to do evil to others" is one's own good (as it were, justice, δικαιον), while "to be righteous" is another one's (i e the stronger man's) good and one's own evil From Socrates' standpoint again, if we might infer so, "to do evil to others" is the gravest evil to oneself, and despite his unerring skill in the art of evil, an unjust man is in the grandest error in mistaking it for a good and is possessed of grossest ignorance, and he is less strong and more unfortunate in the true sense than a righteous man The problem of justice is, on the other hand, treated by Thrasymachus in relation to the law and the ruler who makes it, and thus is given a public meaning (not only a private one) in the whole state or community But the two disputants differ diametrically from each other as to what the ruler and his τεχνη essentially consist in Throughout the whole of their dispute, Socrates appears to be triumphant, but we should rather think that the question is, in reality, of the difference of standpoint between Socrates, who thinks a man always does good when he knows good and evil and who considers the whole community to be a world all composed of brothers, and Thrasymachus, who again regards the society as a battlefield where everyone fights with others for his own good, which is nothing but another's evil When refuting Thrasymachus, however, Socrates is found showing in the sharpest contrast his own views and their implications, by means of treating from his own point of view the problems presented by his opponent

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.

著者

戸塚 七郎

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.21, pp.118-121, 1973

著者

酒井 健太朗

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.64, pp.27-38, 2016

著者

仲手川 良雄

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.37, pp.1-11, 1989-03-15 (Released:2017-05-23)

---

Both isegoria and parrhesia have the meaning "free speech", which seems to have been indispensable to the Greeks, especially the Athenians The aim of this paper is to inquire into the relationship between isegoria and parrhesia, two ways of realizing free speech at meeting It is noteworthy that the parrhesia, which came into being about the last third of the fifth century BC, came to be used widely in a short time and invaded the large sphere of the word isegoria What does this mean historically? The essence of isegoria is manifest in the expression heralds conventionally used to urge free speech in the assembly "Who wishes to address the assembly?" On the other hand, according to Aischines, the expression was formerly as follows . "Who of those above fifty years of age wishes to address the assembly?", this practice of addressing according to age was aimed at obtaining the best counsel for the polis, though it went out of fashion in Aischines' day An attitude of πολει χρηστον (rendering service to polis), which also is proclaimed in Euripides' Suppliants' "Who desires to bring good counsel for his polis to the people?", predominated among Athenians in the moderate democracy It declined remarkably, however, with the rise in radical democracy and the spread of individualism Moreover, we must consider the growth of class antagonism between οι χρηστοι and οι πονηροι, as is proven in Pseudo-Xenophon, Ath Pol 1 2, 1 6, 1 9, 3 12-13 In this situation, the word χρηστοζ might be viewed with a strong tincture of classconsciousness The multitude must have had some doubt as to whether the practice of addressing according to age and the principle of πολει χρηστον were serviceable to them or to οι χρηστοι alone They did away with that practice and introduced the parrhesia, by which every citizen could speak out on whatever he regarded as important and right, free of the restrictions of πολει χρηστον The shift in stress from isegoria to parrhesia corresponded with the momentous change in the actuality and the sense of polis-community

著者

松平 千秋

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.136-138, 1969-03-25 (Released:2017-05-23)

著者

松本 仁助

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.5, pp.37-50, 1957-03-30 (Released:2017-05-23)

著者

長谷川 岳男

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.58, pp.12-24, 2010-03-24 (Released:2017-05-23)

---

Fustel de Coulange considered that ancient Greeks had never had any private spheres in their poleis and the polls was a fusion of state and society. In the entry 'polis' in the 3^<rd> edition of OCD 0. Murray basically followed his ideas and gave Sparta as a typical example. Thus the general understanding seems to have been that polis could not be translated as 'state'. M. Hansen, however, argued against taking Sparta as a typical case and insisted that there was a differentiation between public and private spheres in Athens and many other poleis and consequently concluded that we may view a polis as similar to a modern state. However S. Hodkinson, as part of his studies aimed at rescuing Sparta from a 'fossilized society' themepark and normalizing her position as a polis, objected to the idea that Sparta was a polis where the state and society were inseparably fused together. He argued that Xenophon showed no clear cases of Spartan authorities taking active control over every aspect of Spartan citizens' life in his Lakedaimonion Politeia which is the most credible source concerning the Classical Spartan society. Moreover, building on Humble's thesis that the characteristic feature of Spartan citizens was not σωψροσυνη but αιδωζ, it seems that Spartan citizens were only careful how they behaved in public spaces and in private they could do as they pleased. Therefore it can be recognized that there was a distinction between the public and private sphere in Sparta. Indeed, not only Xenophon, but also Thucydides painted the picture of the Spartan society as a system of voluntary corporations among citizens rather than one of severe controls over them. Hodkinson then insisted that there was no social control on the part of the Spartan authorities, but only social pressure from the citizens themselves within their society. I agree with his conclusion regarding the importance of social pressure in Sparta, but I do not think that there was no social control over the citizens, because the existence of social pressure reveals the existence of Gramsci's theory of the 'hegemony'. I think it is a flaw in Hodkinson's argumentations that he did not point clearly to the substance of the authorities in Sparta so that the reality of social control became obscured. In order to complement his contention, I would introduce the thesis on which Berent insisted in a series of articles, namely, that a polls is not a state but a stateless society. A polis did not have the public coercive power so that Greeks had to devise ways to keep order in their polis and prevent an outbreak of a stasis. If we are right to perceive a polis as a stateless society, it followed that it was of paramount importance for Greeks to reach consensus on public matters. As a result, politics became entangled with ethical considerations and education which internalized ethics became important. In consideration of this context, the images of Spartan society seem fit for achieving consensus among its citizens, the fact that made it an object of high esteem among other Greeks. We should realize from this conclusion that a polis was not a monolithic entity and that it was susceptible to being torn apart because of the lack of public coercive power, and that Sparta (and Athens) were exceptional in preserving their stability.

著者

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.42, pp.98-100, 1994-03-28 (Released:2017-05-23)

著者

桜井 万里子

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.51, pp.114-121, 2003-03-20 (Released:2017-05-23)

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, 1997-03-10 (Released:2017-05-23)

---

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

松平 千秋

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.23, pp.167-169, 1975-03-29 (Released:2017-05-23)

著者

川本 愛

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.62-73, 2015 (Released:2018-03-30)

著者

玉垣 あゆ

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.59, pp.96-106, 2011-03-23 (Released:2017-05-23)

---

While Medea, the eponymous protagonist of Seneca's tragedy, has been interpreted in various ways, as a furious woman, as a symbol of the nature, as a witch, etc., not enough attention has been paid to her important position as the wife of Iason. The purpose of this paper is to explore, through an analysis of the construction of the play, the ways in which Seneca treats Medea as Iason's wife, and thereby to clarify the side of her character that signifies her as a proud heroine. The paper first focuses on the parallelism that we find between the prologue and the final scene. The words at 53-56 are intended to notify the audience/reader of the correspondence between her past kin-killings and those to come. It will suggest one more parallelism: her abandonment of her homeland and later the abandonment of her husband, too. The paper then considers the ambiguity of Medea's identity as Iason's wife. Since we hear an account of Iason's wedding with Creusa as taking place during the drama, we wonder whether she still retains her status as a wife. And since the author links those crimes to their marital relationship, we ask, in addition, who is responsible for the past crimes - only Medea or her husband as well? I shall argue that she keeps hold of her status throughout the play. We next consider Medea's change from 170 to 910. She was at the start a weak woman with no inherited property and nowhere to go, but her newly acquired supernatural power gives her the strength that enables her to overcome Creon and Creusa and, so, to leave her husband. Finally, the paper examines the different motives for Medea's two son-killings. Seneca divides the murder scene into two parts. The first killing means the atonement for her murder of her brother and her own punishment for past crimes; but it also involves her 'return of the dowry' at 982-984, an act that marks the end of her marriage. In this way, she abandons her position of Iason's wife volountarily, and takes the lead in the divorce from her husband. The second killing occurs right in front of Iason's eyes: this not only signifies her revenge on him but also her resolution to cut herself off from him completely. She asks him 'coniugem agnoscis tuam?' While several past studies have translated these words as "This is your wife", I shall argue that it is in fact a rhetorical question meaning "Do you recognize your wife in me? I am not your wife any longer". While, in the prologue, Medea was surrounded by enemies on all sides, in the final scene Iason is left alone and has nowhere to go. Their positions are now reversed entirely and Medea accomplishes the purpose that she had hinted at in the prologue. She would not allow herself to be a passive figure in the divorce. Seneca molded her as above all a proud-hearted wife.

著者

小坂 俊介

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.64, pp.75-87, 2016 (Released:2019-03-25)

著者

小川 正広

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.66-81, 1983

---

<p>Whether in terms of external or internal criteria, the Sixth Eclogue has been regarded as a poem which owes least to the Theocritean pastoral. This general opinion, however, seems to be inconsistent with the introductry statement in which the poet decides to return to his early manner of bucolic composition. The use of Hesiodic Dichterweihe, which may follow Callimachean example in Aetia, recalls also the application of the same idea to the Seventh Idyll by Theocritus. So this paper attempts to find another principle of unity in the frequent appearance of the.motif of labor and to show in this thematic adaptation from Id. VII Virgil's deep understanding of an important aspect of the Greek pastoral tradition. The Eclogue can be divided into three sections. In the main part, the Song of Silenus, the labor-motii is presented in various types of myth. The opening cosgomonical passage, emphasizing the autonomic movements of the elements in contrast with a similar account in Ovid's Met. I. 5 ff., represents the existence of labor at the origins of the world, while the Pyrrha-episode and the theft of Prometheus mark respectively, with a happy age (Saturnia vegnd) intermediate between them, the beginning and the aggravation of human struggle with nature. In the next stories, where the passions of love are depicted as cause of labores, the realistic description of Pasiphae's painful wandering is enclosed by brief allusions to the sufferings of Hercules and the suitor of Atalanta. The following two sketches can be also paired as failure and success of labor: Phaethon falls to the ground in his dangerous attempt but Gallus ascends on the top of Helicon after a bitter trial as love poet. Lastly, Silenus pictures Scylla and Philomela enduring through adversity even after their transformations into animals. Thus interpreted, the Song will be closely related with the framework. In the introduction, where Virgil talks about his poetics, stress is laid on the special effort to be spent to make a fine work(ludere-deductum dicere carmen-meditabor), and that this artistic labor should not be disjoined from the poet's own painful experiences is suggested by the scene in which Silenus passes a symbolic bondage. These two aspects of poetic creation, recapitulated and integrated by a phrase Phoebo meditante in the ending lines, explain the reason not only for the stylistic refinement but also for the thematic selection of Silenus' Song. Now, this interpretation will invite comparison with Id. VII. Structural affinities and topical resemblances are observed as in the following: (1) The relation between poetic creation and ponos, hinted at first by the opening mention of Burina and Chalcon, finds its full expression in the words of Lycidas : το μελυδριον εζεπονασα. And this locution, with a preceding phrase βουκολικα&b.sigmav;……αρζωμεθ' αοιδα&b.sigmav;, corresponds to agrestem tenui meditabor harundine Musam in Eel.VI. (2) But Lycidas is not thinking of his ponos solely from the artistic point of view, because the first part of his song is clearly concerned with his personal experience of ponos. The deliverance from this predicament, as in the case of Silenus, makes it an essential condition for the second subject of his poem. (3) Mythical ponoi which are narrated in this part (αμφεπονειτο : Daphnis, εζεπονασα&b.sigmav; : Comatas) reflect the former situation of Lycidas himself and remind us of various stories sung by Silenus. In the song of Simichidas, too, the bitterness of love is expressed in the form of fantastic and real trials. (4) The ending description of Thalysia, in which the close connection between bucolic poetry and ponos is symbolically summarized, fulfils the function analogous to the conclusion of Eel. VI. Despite Rosenmeyer's view, recent critics tend to estimate the importance of the ponos-motif in 'Theocritus' larger</p><p>(View PDF for the rest of the abstract.)</p>

著者

佐野 好則

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.61, pp.125-127, 2013-03-28 (Released:2017-05-23)

著者

小林 薫

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.62-73, 2001-03-05 (Released:2017-05-23)

---

It is generally agreed that the agon scene between Teucer and the Atreidai over the burial of Ajax in the latter half of Sophocles' Ajax ruins the tragic pathos which is subtly developed in the course of the dramatic action up to the point of the suicide scene Among three topics disputed in the debate-evaluation of Ajax' conduct, legitimacy of the Atreidai's generalship, and Teucer's birth (status)-the last is most frequently alleged to be responsible for the drama's incongruity as having no relevance at all to the question of burial Reexammation of this controversy, however, reveals that it not only holds an appropriate place in the debate but also relates the agon scene to the earlier part of the drama First, the issue of birth is effectively introduced in the agon to highlight the fundamental difference of the opponents of the debate in the moral principles, thus aptly pertaining to the dramatic context The dispute over evaluation of Teucer's birth makes strikingly clear the contrast between the two sides, the Atreidai demanding that all Greeks should be under their supreme authority and no hubris should ever be tolerated, and Teucer, on the other hand, claiming that every warrior is equal and is subject to none but himself Secondly, the dispute over Teucer's birth relates the latter half of the drama to the first by calling into question the objective clarity of 'nobility of birth' To the scornful reproach of his antagonists that he is a barbaros, a slave born of a captive, a non-hoplite, thus having no claim to privileges of free men, Teucer makes strong objections insisting that he prides himself upon his nobility originating from royal-both Greek and Trojan-parents as well as in outstanding performance as an archer, and that the Atreidai too have barbaric elements in their allegedly noble birth This argument of Teucer seriously undermines the Atreidai's assumptions concerning nobility of birth by posing two questions first, by what standard is nobility evaluated, and second, to what extent is nobility of character determined by nobility of birth ? Furthermore, Teucer's protest against the Atreidai's abusive attack on his birth reveals, in spite of himself, the problematic nature of his brother's belief in nobility, which is thoroughly presented in his discourses in the earlier part of the drama Ajax's obsessive preoccupation with his noble birth, inherited from Telamon and to be inherited by Eurysakes, as well as self-chosen death as its proof is put into question ironically in attempt to redeem the honor of his brother Understanding the agon scene in this manner allows us to interpret the scenes to follow as well Odysseus' intervention as an arbiter can be seen as an enactment of possible alternative to nobility by which Ajax abides determinedly to the death, Eurysakes' participation in the rite of burial as problematic presentation of consanguinity of the father and the son It is incontestable, therefore, that the issue of Teucer's birth plays an indispensable role to grant coherent unity to the drama

著者

廣川 洋一

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.20, pp.40-48, 1972-03-25 (Released:2017-05-23)

---

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.