著者
中井 義明
出版者
日本西洋古典学会
雑誌
西洋古典學研究 (ISSN:04479114)
巻号頁・発行日
vol.37, pp.12-22, 1989-03-15

Herodotus says that king Xerxes led his unprecedentedly huge forces and invaded Europe in 480 B C The size of the expeditionary force, including troops from Europe and non-combatants, was more than five million persons Other ancient sources agree that the great king's forces were vast in scale, but differ as to their number The German empire mobilized seven armies, i e, one million, five hundred thousand soldiers, on the western front at the beginning of the First World War The German troops were supplied, via thirteen railways, five-hundred-fifty trains a day Nevertheless, they were distressed by shortage of provisions Could the Persian empire, which had only primitive transport, maintain such huge forces for a long time and in a far distant country? Her transportation capability was meager It seems impossible that she mobilized and continued to supply such huge forces Modern historians doubt the size of the Persian forces which Herodotus gives They try to reduce his number to reasonable levels For that purpose they use two methods One is the philological method, used by many historians They criticize the texts and make known the organization of Xerxes' forces and the commanders' names There were three infantry divisions, three cavalry brigades, the Immortals, the guard troops and the non-combatants But, if one doubts about Herodotus' number, the size of the forces remains unknown The other method used employs logistics Gen Maurice and Gen v Fischer used this method They heed that the volume of provisions carried by the transport corps determined the scale of the forces This necessitates the fixing of some variables the mean speed, the size of the files, the carrying capability of pack animals and the rate of consumption of provisions What was the Persians' speed? It must have been that which reached the maximum value of the rate of flow There are some models for inquiring into the relation between the mean speed and the rate of flow I use Greenschields' model The outcome of my computation is that six parasangs a day is best, five a day next best and seven a day third best According to Xenophon's Anabasis, the Persians frequently marched six or seven parasangs a day When they crossed a bridge or river, their speed slowed Five parasangs a day was the usual speed So, I think that Xerxes' forces crossed the Hellespontos at the rate of five parasangs a day The rate of flow of animals was 500 4 heads/h, the rate of flow of infantrymen 1,429 7 persons/h What was the size of the Persian files? Gen v Fischer thought four files to be the usual size of the infantiy and two files that of the cavalry and transport corps I follow his view As the transport corps continued to cross for 7 days and nights, the total number of pack animals is 168,134 The transport corps carried 33,626,800 Ibs, consumed 31,945,460 Ibs, and could offer 1,681,340 Ibs to the combatants Such volume of provisions can maintain 41,000 infantrymen and 4,000 cavalrymen The number of an infantry division was 10,000 men, the number of cavalry brigade 1,000 men Xerxes' forces numbered 45,000 men Many historians think that the Persian fleet was far superior to the Greek Some believe in Herodotus' number, some modify his number to 1,000 or 800 or 600 Before the battle of Salamis, all Persian ships anchored in Phaleron bay I use this fact as a clue to estimating their scale I divide the length of the seashore by the width a trireme occupies in action The outcome is 300 ships The original fleet probably numbered about 400 ships My conclusion is that the land forces numbered 45,000 persons and the fleet 400 ships
著者
小林 太市郎
出版者
日本西洋古典学会
雑誌
西洋古典學研究 (ISSN:04479114)
巻号頁・発行日
vol.7, pp.25-38, 1959-03-30

In Japanse mythology, Susanowo-no Mikoto is the god of the sea, of the nether world and of "the universal destruction. In these characters, he is almost identical to the Greek Poseidon. And by comparing the myths of the two gods, we can prove that he is even a Horse God like Poseidon. Thus a comparison of the two gods is very instructive, and affords much help in elucidating the obscure points of their myths. For example, the myth of the dispute over Attica between Athena and Poseidon is compared to that over heaven between Amaterasu-Omikami (goddess of the sun, and of the cereal) and her brother Susanowo. In the Japanese myth, this is not a mere dispute, but an invasion of heaven, the domain of the sun- goddess, by the destructive Susanowo. So, the original form of the Athenian myth must have been the invasion of Attica, the domain of Athena, by the destructive Poseidon. In the same way, the controversy of Poseidon with the sun about Corinth, and that with Hera about Argos (Paus. II 1 & 22), must have been originally the invasion of the Sea God, the Flood God in Argos, of these respective lands. The Japanese myth tells also that Amaterasu-Omikami, the sun-goddess, to conciliate the invader, afterwards accepted his proposal to bear children with him, and that by both standing face to face on the opposite side of the celestial river, the god and goddess respectively gave birth to many children (Perhaps the original form of the Athenian myth was that Athena, accepting a similar proposal of Poseidon, gave birth to the olive, and he to Thalassa. But this original form was rationalized afterwards.). Evidently, the prudery and the respect surrounding Imperial Household have here obscured the myth. But the comparison with the myth of Demeter and Poseidon in Arcadia (Paus. VIII 25 & 42) demonstrates beyond doubt that there was in fact a violation of Amaterasu-Omikami by Susanowo. And what is important is that Susanowo threw the skin of a horse into the weaving house of the goddess, breaking the roof, so that the goddess, surprised, wounded her sex with the shuttle, and, furious, hid herself in the dark cave (that is to say, she died). Consequently the whole world was invaded by dark and famine. Here also are much obscuring and distortion of the original form of the myth, due to the prudery and the respect for the deity. But here also the comparison with the Greek myth is very instructive, and attests that Susanowo was a horse (in reality a priest wearing the skin of a horse), when he had violated the goddess, and thus caused her death. (The tradition of Onkeon assures us that Demeter herself was then in the form of a mare, which must be a rationalized interpretation of later age. Primitively, all Hieros Gamos were performances by a human goddess and an animal god.) Thus, that Susanowo was also a Horse God is beyond doubt, and we also find the true meaning of Demeter's going in the cave (death) and a very clear suggestion of the cause of her death. In any case, we can thus, by this comparative method, establish the existence of the rite of Hieros Gamos performed by a 'human goddess with a Horse God in Greece and in Japan ; this rite constituting the first part of a double Hieros Gamos which represents and celebrates the death and the revival of the solar and cereal goddess. And although the Arcadian myth had only conserved the first part of this double Hieros Gamos, its complete development is clearly visible in the mysteries of Eleusis and in the Japanese myth of Amaterasu. (She is resuscitated by a Hieros Gamos of the goddess Ameno-Uzume with the god Sarudahiko, as Demeter was by that of Baubo with Iakkhos. ) But these myths, both Greek and Japanese, represent not only the Hieros Gamos rite of the revival of spring. They contain or conceal also some corresponding historical facts of the same nature on both sides. That is to say, I believe, one can find in them : 1. an invasion by the sea-men of the cultivated lands, and a war to subjugate the original habitants; 2. the conciliation of the sea-men with the original habitants by means of marriage ; 3. the new invasion by the mounted people who came to land across the sea. Of course, these historical facts were so much obscured as to form the myths. So, it is one of the principal aims of comparative mythology to elucidate these obscurities, and to find the facts through the myths ; at least to restore the original forms of the myths by comparing and analyzing their variously distorted or obscured forms in diverse civilizations.
著者
チエシュコ マルティン
出版者
日本西洋古典学会
雑誌
西洋古典學研究 (ISSN:04479114)
巻号頁・発行日
vol.54, pp.86-97, 2006-03-07

In this paper I allude to the wealth of material and potential for comparison between even such disparate genres as the comedy of democratic Athens and the kyogen skits of feudal Japan While the former genre is of a complex nature, high lyricism and increasingly sophisticated plots and stagecraft, the latter is a brief and light vignette of life, a skit sandwiched between the more serious and poetical No dramas This type of plays has never developed into a western style of comedy Both genres, though to a greater or lesser degree literary, preserve many elements of popular culture My examples focus particularly on the agora, the market-place and the colourful characters that populate it I suggest that Aristophanes kept an eye on non-literary genres (about which we know very little indeed) when he looked at the agora with its scheming tricksters, loud female-vendors, or good-for-nothings loitering around it all day long Markets and fairs must have attracted a great deal of popular amusements of all sorts and A istophanes probably used much of this material Kyogen too found inspiration in market sellers, shysters waiting at the market for country bumpkins, temple visitors during fairs, and so on All these characters frequently feature in kyogen plays and the Japanese genre may in many ways help us refine our perception of Aristophanes I start with a Megarian scheme in Aristophanes' Akharnians (729ff) and compare it to the kyogen play Wakame The Japanese counterpart also depends on the recognizable tricksters of the market-place and their heavy punning I then go on to show how knowledge of kyogen can help us appreciate popular elements in Greek comedy Not only in subject matter with kyogen, we may still admire the actors' cleverness in devising efficient ways of moving in a fluid space without a fixed stage Now the stage is of course uniform and fixed, but movement on it reflects and preserves much of the early practice The art of kyogen exits and entrances, and generally of movement in space is truly intriguing and it may be of some value when reflecting on early Greek practice Folk motifs are a kind of metaphor in Anstophanic comedy The playwright likes to connect disparate images into a humorous but meaningful and evocative whole In order to appreciate such images and their impact on the audience we cannot afford to ignore other available traditions of folk comedy Finally, I briefly hint at New Comedy where too we find hints at panourgoi of earlier comedy However unlike in Aristophanes, they are not at the centre of humorous and unattached episodic scenes, but form an inseparable part of well-wrought plots, often significantly contributing to the resolution that consists of restored domestic bliss-something the panourgos of Anstophanic comedy was hardly ever interested in Here is a domestic version of panourgia, a compassionate trickster, and this bourgeoisification carried with it significant consequences for western literature
著者
今道 友信
出版者
日本西洋古典学会
雑誌
西洋古典學研究 (ISSN:04479114)
巻号頁・発行日
vol.12, pp.40-55, 1964-03-31

1) Almost all the so-called modern interpretations of Plato's idea tell us that the idea is nothing other than a general concept It is true that Plato endeavours to find out the general concept for the benefit of science against subjective opinion (δοξα), but it does not imply that his sight does not reach the transcendent, which is the real object for philosophy Through philological analysis and philosophical reconstruction of Plato's original texts, the author concludes, in opposition to the currently accepted interpretation, that Plato makes an effort to discriminate ειδοζ as the universal, and ιδεα as the transcendent, the transcendent being often modified by the phrase αυτο το Such an inclination in the use of words is clearly perceptible both in Plato's dialogues after Phaedo and in the various texts of his successors, Aristotle, Theophrastus and later Neo-Platomsts 2) The necessary condition of true judgement is that the predicate is not subjective but objective, not individual but general Such generality depends on the nature of the thing which is intentionally designated by the subject-term in question, namely, the immanent form of the thing, that is to say ειδοζ which itself consists in genus-species-relation, and which, therefore, is determined in definition So the ειδοζ is no doubt μαλιστα οργανον for the science in general whose construction is a system of definition 3) But there is something which may not be comprehended by definition For Socrates can never succeed in dialogues in finding out the perfect definition for the real value such as beauty, or virtue such as justice (Meno 100 b 7 etc) We realize here that there is something which is super-ειδοζ, trans-ειδοζ, "au dela de" ειδοζ, επεκεινα τηζ ουσιζ, that is to say ιδεα 4) Through strictly philosophical reflexion, which may not be summarized here, the author enumerates the following kinds of ιδεα a) The ground or criterion of thought and judgement, such as το ισον (equality), το μεγα και μικρον (great and small) (Phaedo 75 c 1-2, etc) b) Ideal form of natural beings, referred to in Timaeus (Tim 39 e 7-9, etc) c) The highest prime cause of cosmological dynamics (Phileb 27 b 9-cl, etc) d) The real value such as Beauty, Good, One, Justice etc e) Some artefacta (artificial things) which have essential relation to βιοζ θεωρητικοζ or βιοζ θειοζ (Arist Met 1070 a 18-19, Resp 596 b 3-4, Soph 265 e 3-4, Phaedo 62 b 7, etc ) But all such kinds of idea are condenced in, or included by, that mentioned in c) above, namely, the real transcendent that in nature is God 5) The idea of the Good ιδεα του αγαθου as αρχη will, according to Plato's own text, be apprehended only after the dialectical speculation through ειδοζ (Resp 510) This transcendentality of idea is confirmed by the analysis of Plato's VIIth letter (VII Epist 342 a 8-e 2)
著者
玉垣 あゆ
出版者
日本西洋古典学会
雑誌
西洋古典學研究 (ISSN:04479114)
巻号頁・発行日
vol.59, pp.96-106, 2011-03-23

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
三浦 洋
出版者
日本西洋古典学会
雑誌
西洋古典學研究 (ISSN:04479114)
巻号頁・発行日
vol.45, pp.72-83, 1997-03-10

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
岡 道男
出版者
日本西洋古典学会
雑誌
西洋古典學研究 (ISSN:04479114)
巻号頁・発行日
vol.36, pp.1-22, 1988-03-18

The telos of the menis is not, as is generally assumed, Achilles' reconciliation with Priam, but the death of Achilles and the fall of Troy The menis, which, personified by the adjective 'oulomenen' (1 2), seems to have a kind of life of its own, does not cease bringing about the desastrous results even after the reconciliation in Book 24 The death of Achilles is foreshadowed by many prophesies and especially by the death and funeral of Patroclus, which obviously are modelled on those of Achilles, in the same way the fall of Troy is anticipated by the death of Hector who alone protected the city These two events, besides the fulfilment of Zeus' promise to Thetis, are implied by the Dios boule in the proem Also in Virgil's Aeneid and in the Odyssey (where the hero's home-coming reaches the telos only when he has appeased Poseidon), the telos of the theme is realized later than the time frame of the poem This interpretation is confirmed by the basic structure of the Iliad Just as Hector is made the sole defender of the city, so Achilles becomes the sole protector of the Achacans, with the consequence that the two heroes inevitably come to a deadly confrontation Hector at first fights with Patroclus, Achilles' substitute (cf 16 838 ff), then with Achilles himself, and his death not only seals the fate of Troy but also completes the destiny of Achilles (cf 18 95 f) The interlocking of their destinies is emphasized by the fact that they fall alike into ate and bring ruin on their countrymen, and finally, fully aware of their own ate and fate, endeavour to win honour Further, Achilles' turning back from the front after the opponent's death in Book 22, though he has been told by Thetis that his death must come immediately after that of Hector, keeps the audience in suspense for the fulfilment of the prophesy, until the poem ends with the impression that both the death of Achilles and the fall of Troy occur almost simultaneously in the reopened battle after Hector's burial This impression is strengthened by the truce of twelve days Thus the two events, which seem to have been narrated separately in the tradition, are placed in the immediate future beyond the end of the poem and made the telos of the menis. In the epic tradition before the Iliad, it was Odysseus' ruse of the wooden horse that destroyed Troy It is against this background that Achilles has become the sacker of Troy Giving priority to Achilles' bie over Odysseus' metis, the poet nevertheless has respect for tradition. e g. Odysseus too is ptohporthos in the Iliad He appears, however, to assert that Achilles, by killing the sole defender of Troy, had virtually destroyed the city before the wooden horse gave it the coup de grace The implication of 'the sacker of the city' can be contextually evoked in the passages where the name of Achilles is accompanied by this epithet (15 70-7, 21 544-550, 24. 108 etc) In the age of Homer a poet is praised for telling his story 'truthfully' as well as 'kata kosmon' and 'kata moiran' (cf. Od 8 489 ff, 496) In the Iliad the poet, while adapting his story to the changes of the society, tells it more 'truthfully' by identifying Achilles with 'the sacker of the city', and more 'kata kosmon' and 'kata moiran' by making the fates of Achilles and Troy the telos of his theme In such a reinterpretation and refinement of traditional stories is to be sought the originality of Homer
著者
戸田 聡
出版者
日本西洋古典学会
雑誌
西洋古典學研究 (ISSN:04479114)
巻号頁・発行日
vol.59, pp.118-130, 2011-03-23

Bardaisan, the first Christian author in Syriac, whose thought is known mainly from the Book of the Laws of Countries, is often considered as a philosopher, and his thought is very frequently understood in the light of Greek philosophy (e.g. Stoicism). However, scholars who argue for Greek influence on Bardaisan seldom ask whether or to what extent Bardaisan really knew Greek; and curiously enough, some rare evaluations of his knowledge of Greek are rather negative. This problem needs to be solved. The present article addresses the problem by examining the Greek loan words used by Bardaisan in the Book of the Laws of Countries, and also by comparing his knowledge of astrology with that of the astrology as presented in Greco-Roman astrological literature, and argues that his knowledge of Greek was far from extensive and that he should be considered as one of the first thinkers who thought not in Greek but in Syriac.
著者
関本 至
出版者
日本西洋古典学会
雑誌
西洋古典學研究 (ISSN:04479114)
巻号頁・発行日
vol.11, pp.75-82, 1963-03-30

In modern Greece two kinds ot Greek are used that is kathareuousa (puristic language) and demotike (demotic language) They differ some what from one another in vocabulary, grammar and even in pronunciation The one is used in official documents and newspapers, and the other in poems and novels Kathareuousa is a scholarly language, inheriting the tradition of Old Greek, and demotike is a popular language, based on the colloquial language of the common people This difference between the scholarly and popular styles originated far back in the "atticism" of the Hellenistic Age When, in 1821, Greece recovered its independence from the control of Turkey it was necessarily a serious problem to decide which of these two systems should be the official language Many scholars have discussed this problem Among so many trials and practices in the history of the language problem in modern Greece the publication of Psycharis' My Trip" (1888) the translation of the Evangels into demotike by Pallis(1901), and the introduction of demotike into primary school education (1917) may be said to have been the three main and the most important events In this paper therefore three events are briefly traced, attention being focussed on the second event Mention is also made of the fact that, thanks to the efforts of various scholars and literary men, who have contributed to the solution of the language problem with their opinions and their literary works, a new standard style, a kind of mixture of kathareuousa and demotike, is being created in Modern Greek
著者
野上 素一
出版者
日本西洋古典学会
雑誌
西洋古典學研究 (ISSN:04479114)
巻号頁・発行日
vol.3, pp.104-111, 1955-05-10
著者
西村 昌洋
出版者
日本西洋古典学会
雑誌
西洋古典學研究 (ISSN:04479114)
巻号頁・発行日
vol.60, pp.111-122, 2012-03-23

Prudentius' Contra Symmachum contains the Prosopopoeia of Rome (II. 655-768). This is a reply to Symmachus' Prosopopoeia of Rome in his Relatio III. 9-10. Prudentius praises Stilicho's victory over Alaric at Pollentia in 402, and in these lines his tone sounds particularly panegyrical. Prudentius attempts to refute Symmachus by playing up Stilicho's victory with techniques of panegyrical literature. Against Symmachus' insistence that only the religious rites of paganism ensure the victory and security of the empire, Prudentius claims that Stilicho defends Rome under the protection of Christ and the victory of the empire is guaranteed without any pagan rituals. The ground of this claim is the repulse of Alaric by Stilicho. The description of Stilicho's victory at Pollentia by Prudentius is conspicuous for its panegyrical tones. According to Prudentius, (1) the recent victory over the Goths is more praiseworthy than Camillus' victory over the Gauls in early Republican years, because this time the city of Rome itself escaped occupation by foreign enemies (721-730); and, (2) Stilicho's prowess is greater than the repulse of Hannibal in Punic wars because the defeat of Hannibal was merely due to the luxury and dissipation of Campania and Magna Graecia but Stilicho owes his victory to the military valor of the Roman army (739-749). Late antique panegyrists often refer to past leaders in the Roman history in order to praise the current honorand. This technique generates an imaginary continuity between past glory and present situations, and provides a guarantee that past glory will be recovered by the current honorand. Such a panegyrical method is used by Prudentius in his Prosopopoeia of Rome. On the ground of Stilicho's prowess, Prudentius refutes Symmachus and assures his readers that Christianity benefits the Roman empire. After Stilicho's death and the sack of Rome by Alaric, however, Prudentius' rhetoric, deprived of its immediate historical context, would lose its original effect.
著者
水谷 智洋
出版者
日本西洋古典学会
雑誌
西洋古典學研究 (ISSN:04479114)
巻号頁・発行日
vol.18, pp.19-29, 1970-03-23

Agamemnon's speech (II. 19. 96 ff) in reply to that of Achilles is apt to be taken for an excuse, but a close scrutiny of the two speeches shows that it is nothing of the kind. It is to be noted that an "apology" is almost meaningless in the Homeric world where one believes only in an attained result without considering about its motive. Such an attitude is typical of a society where people live under "a kind of armed truce" without having the benefit of even "a limited public administration of justice"; it reflects also the Homeric theology which recognizes the divine will in every phase of human activity. Accordingly, if one's honour is hurt a recompense is sought usually not in a mere excuse but in an aquisition of wealth, and Achilles acts no otherwise when on Athene's advice he refrains from resorting to violence against Agamemnon. He seems, however, to have given up this attitude when he rejects flatly Agamemnon's offer of many gifts and Briseis' return. The reason for his conduct, which he never explains clearly, is to be sought in that he rebels against the heroic principle of behaviour according to which an offer of gifts is prerequisite to recompense an injured honour. In other words, he finds the conventional means of compensation meaningless if it were but a mere formality. All the same he is unable to give a logical explanation for his conduct, for his concept of honour differs so much from the traditional one that the epic language has no suitable words to express his disillusionment. Thus the only way left for him, when confronted with the necessity to take part again in the war, is to criticize the heroic practice through his behaviour: he is, or pretends to be, utterly indifferent to Agamemnon's gifts, and this attitude is to be explained as a bitter attack against the wide-spread acceptance of honour in the forms of material gains. But whether he wishes or not, he is given the gifts, and on the face of it he follows the pattern of heroic behaviour as if he renounced his wrath only in exchange for them. In this he is, one might say, typical of an Homeric hero. His rebellion is destined to collapse, because his criticism of the heroic principle, if carried to its logical conclusion, would have to be directed against the Homeric theology as forming the background of the heroic world and also because he has no proper words for his feelings. And since he leaves his criticism incomplete, he is after all allowed to remain within the frame-work of the Homeric narrative.
著者
藤繩 謙三
出版者
日本西洋古典学会
雑誌
西洋古典學研究 (ISSN:04479114)
巻号頁・発行日
vol.9, pp.14-25, 1961-03-29

The peculiar use of the chariots in the Iliad is usually explained as being due to Homer's ignorance of their use among the Mycenaeans who must have "fought like the Hittites" (D. Gray). Of course, there are some passages in the Iliad which suggest that the Mycenaeans attempted such chariot fighting (e. g. Nestor's advice to his charioteers, -A 297 ff.), and the Linear B tablets attest the existence of some hundreds of chariots in Knossos and Pylos. In spite of these facts, considering the geographical conditions of Greece, we cannot imagine that such tactics were so effective as to be widely used. So I think the assumption doubtful that Homer had forgotten Mycenaean chariot tactics, and having reexamined the text of the Iliad, I point out some evidence against the assumption. (1) Even among the chief heroes we find some who have no chariot for their own use, to say nothing of chariot troops (e. g. Odysseus, Aias of Salamis, Teukros and Aias of Lokris). As this difference among the heroes must be due to the geographical conditions, it certainly existed in the Mycenaean Age. Moreover, since Odysseus and Aias of Salamis are on equal terms with the other heroes, the possession of chariots must have been of little importance. (2) Among the Achaeans, fifteen persons have epithets relating to horses (or chariots), ten of them being of the former generation (e. g. Pelops, Atreus, Peleus and Nestor), and only five in the prime of life (e. g. Diomedes and Patroklos). This curious ratio shows that, though in earlier times horses (or chariots) had been highly esteemed, their value became lower towards the end of the Mycenaean Age. This change suggests that they were not effective in actual battles. (3) While we find many formulae which depict the scenes of jumping down, falling or making a person fall, from a chariot, there is no set formulae in the Iliad which depict an attack from a chariot. But a few passages show that Homer himself (or his immediate predecessors) aimed to depict attacks from chariots, combining spear-throwing formulae with a falling-from-a-chariot formula (Ε 275-97, Θ116-23). Therefore, strictly speaking, it is not Homer but the stock of the traditional formulae, that is responsible for the treating of the chariots as mere vehicles. We cannot assume that Homer or his immediate predecessors should have left out, if there had been any, fighting-from-chariots formulae, since they sometimes wanted to depict such scenes. Moreover, some parallel cases confirm the possibility that formulae which are inconsistent with each other do co-exist. So it does not seem possible that the fighting-from-chariots formulae arose from the many treatments in chariot fighting in the Mycenaean Epics. One is inclined to conclude that with regard to the use of chariots there was no great difference between the Mycenaean World and the Homeric.

3 0 0 0 OA 哲人王の行方

著者
奥田 和夫
出版者
日本西洋古典学会
雑誌
西洋古典學研究 (ISSN:04479114)
巻号頁・発行日
vol.59, pp.22-33, 2011-03-23

In the Laws the philosopher-king argued in the Republic does not appear explicitly. So it has been maintained that Plato abandoned the idea of the philosopher-king because of experiences in Syracuse or change in metaphysical thought. But some insist that the Nocturnal Council and its systems reflect the idea of the philosopher-king. This is correct, I think. And the philosophical theology in Book X is said to be the prologue to all laws. I believe that the work is a product of the idea of the philosopher-king. In this paper I argue that there is a strong possibility that Plato has eagerness for its realization in the future and does not exchange it for thought of rule of law. Points of the argument: 1. In the Laws Plato evidently abstains from philosophical discourses. 2. Plato gives a term of legislator in place of philosopher in our text (708E-712B). 3. It is significant that a main political ability of a philosopher (or a philosopher-king) is legislation. 4. The text 709E-711D ('the young tyrant') appears to be intended to tell us that the easiest and speediest way to realize the philosopher-king is cooperation of a philosopher and a tyrant. 5. The text 711D-712A ('god-like eros in great political power') appears to be intended to tell us that eros is the philosopher-king in the meaning of the Republic, as eros is taken to be a representative of a philosopher's mind. 6. Plato has eagerness for the realization of the philosopher-king in the future and does not only hold the idea. For 2 above there is no direct support in the text, but when the legislator is said to be 'axios epainou' (710C8), 'akros' (710D7), and 'alethes nomothetes' (710E8) in conjunction with 'the young tyrant' (709E-711D), we should consider the meanings of Plato's attribution of these terms to the legislator.
著者
大芝 芳弘
出版者
日本西洋古典学会
雑誌
西洋古典學研究 (ISSN:04479114)
巻号頁・発行日
vol.32, pp.79-90, 1984-03-29

It is the purpose of this paper to explore the symbolic meaning of the golden bough and the golden age of Augustus, both of which appear in Aeneid 6, with regard to the theme of labor of Aeneas, and to consider the relation between them and some aspects of the significance of the καταβασι&b.sigmav;. The gold of the golden bough seems to be a symbol of divine life. But just as the luxuriant growth of the forests, itself a manifestation of nature's vitality, covers the bough in the dark shadows(136, 138-9)which bear resemblance to the darkness of the underworld, so the bough casts a shadow on the life-giving earth(195-6). Life is always attended by the shadow of death. Therefore the mistletoe-simile (205-7) makes it certain that the idea in primitive belief is transferred to the bough that life and death are both aspects of a single reality and the mistletoe is a symbol of such a union. But because the gold is associated with divinity, the golden bough may be said to be an eternal embodiment of that reality. Hence the bough belongs to both heaven (Iuppiter) and hell (Iuno Inferna) and achieves agreement between them, which enables Aeneas to undergo an experience of death and rebirth. And it also indicates Aeneas' pietas which brings about a harmony of man with the gods. Moreover, it is described as though it has its own strength (virtus) to conquer the powers of death and war (represented by ferruwi) which do not meet fate's wishes (147-8). Thus the golden bough symbolizes Aeneas' own character and shows that because of his being a divine man ofpietas and virtus he can overcome the labor of death and be restored to new life as a Roman hero. The golden age of Augustus is compared with that of Saturn(792-4). But the Saturnian age of peace could not withstand the invasion of the warlike iron age of Iuppiter(8.314ff). And it is implied in the expression 'aurea condet/saecula…… rursus…/…quondam…' that Augustus will replace Saturn as a representative of Iuppiter and that the new golden age will surpass the old. For Augustus will have the strength to vanquishfuror impius typical of Iuno as an opponent to the fate of Iuppiter, because the word 'asper' in 'aspera saecula' (1.291) suggests Iuno's influence. The expansion of imperium (6.794-805) will also depend on this strength (virtus), which is here exemplified by Hercules who suffered many labores because of 'fatis Iunonis iniquae' (8.292)but conquered her furor embodied in the hellish monsters such as Cacus. Similarly, Aeneas in the second half of the poem is involved in the war caused by Iuno, but he not only exerts his virtns but also keeps a pious attitude towards her and at last prevails to make her reconciled with Iuppiter. Therefore the golden age of Augustus together with the imperium can be said to be a peaceful order having fighting force, or rather a harmonious union of peace and war, which reflects a concord between Iuppiter and Iuno, achieved through labores of the divine man of pietas and virtus. Now it is clear that both the golden bough and the Augustan golden age stand for a harmonious union of opposites, the former of life and death, the latter of peace and war, and both of Iuppiter and Iuno. And it is also indicated in both that the labor is not a mere suffering but an indispensable exertion by which a divine man of pietas and virtus can attain 'rebirth' of new life or of a stable order of peace. Thus the labor of the κταβασι&b.sigmav;, at the center of the poem, making a pivotal point of this theme, relates beforehand the labores of the succeeding story and those for the historical ideal in terms of life and death.