著者

原 正幸

出版者

日本西洋古典学会

雑誌

西洋古典學研究 (ISSN:04479114)

巻号頁・発行日

vol.26, pp.145-147, 1978-03-23

著者

山本 建郎

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.51, pp.20-30, 2003-03-20

---

As is well known, in the Respublica III Plato remarks many kinds of harmoniai, among which he selects the Dorian and the Phrygian as fitting subject matter for education of the young The aim of this paper is firstly to find out the real nature of Dorian and other harmoniai The detailed structures are shown in the additional paragraph of Aristides Quintihanus (Arq)' De Musica I ch 9 as old-fashioned harmoniai, according to which we can guess that Plato's Dorian is akin to the form of disjunction of two tetrachords, the standard style of a scale of an octave On the other hand the rationalized styles of harmoniai as the species of an octave are also described in Arq (I ch 8) These structures correspond to the modes of Western Medieval and Renaissance music Historically speaking the standard schema of an octave has developed through Terpander's improvement Terpander's schema has been guessed to be conjunction of tetrachords added the tonos uppermost But this schema shows the Mixolydian octave instead of the Dorian To be Dorian the schema must be the form of disjunction As an evidence of the disjunct octave we can take up Nicomachus' description of Philolaus' scale in the Enchilidion ch 9 This passage is opposed to the description of Pythagoras' scale (Ench ch 5), which is an improvement of the old-fashioned conjunct scale Compared to Nicomachus' passages we can conclude that Terpander's schema must have been the disjunct schema devoid of the trite Terpander arranged the old-fashioned Dorian which had appeared much earlier into the rationalized schema of the disjunct octave Contrary to the Dorian the other old-fashioned harmoniai are supposed to come into existence respectively These traces could be seen in Plutarch's description (mainly on the Mixolydian) So the rationalized style of harmoniai which form the species of an octave should have come into existence somewhat later They might have been constructed artificially about BC430 when Eratocles (an inventor of the circularity of a scale) and Damon were both in their akme Plato's so called Dorianism is supposed to be a reaction against the overflowing of ethos of his age But Plato was not a theorist of harmonics, so he was unable to make an actual reformation It was Aristoxenus (Arx ) who reformed the musical situation by replacing the species with tonoi (pitch) Each tonos is also the same fragment as the species of an octave, but there is a central note, the mese, around which all of the other notes move As the mese works as a central note, many kinds of ethos in the species of an octave disappear, and the scale is reduced to the Dorian The system of tonos presupposes the Great Perfect System (GPS), two octaves system which has the mese as a central note Usually GPS wasconjectured to be arranged about at the middle of the 4^<th> century BC and succeeded by Arx , but I assert as a conclusion that it was invented by Arx constructing the system of tonos

著者

久保 正彰

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.28, pp.150-156, 1980-03-26

著者

岩崎 良三

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.5, pp.109-118, 1957-03-30

著者

松平 千秋

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.16, pp.1-12, 1968-03-30

---

In the Aeschylean "Persae", Xerxes is contrasted, in a most simplified way, to Darius, his father. He is a fool, or at least a very thoughtless young man, who, by his reckless attempt to subdue Greece, has endangered the safety of the kingdom, which his predecessors, with Darius at their head, had laborously built up, guided by laudable foresight. The same person, as described by Herodotus in his Histories, can, however, hardly be done away with so easily. That Xerxes was endowed with royal dignity as well as lordly generosity, is well illustrated by episodes in the Histories: he is not inferior to his predecessor in this respect. What separates him from Darius, is the lack of firm mind and resolute will, while these are the very characteristics that principally made out the greatness of Cyrus and Darius. Xerxes was, unlike Cambyses who had a born inclination to insanity, a man of perfect normality. But the two shared the same fate to be heirs to their great predecessors, Xerxes to Darius, Cambyses to Cyrus. Both of them painfully felt their obligations to cope with their predecessors or even to surpass them in merits. However, they lacked the firmness of mind, which was most essential to actualize this ideal; hence their frustration. The way Herodotus presents us Xerxes in VII 187, with description of his physical characteristics, is most impressive and dramatic too, reminding us of the scene in the τειχοσκοπια, where Agamemnon is shown to Priamus by Helen. The lordly figure of the Great King, with his immense host behind him, is really that of a tragic hero, who proudly stands on the summit of happiness, not knowing what fate awaits him at the next moment. Does then Xerxes in fact deserve the name of a tragic hero? Perhaps in the modern, sentimental sense of the word, but surely not in its true sense. The present writer believes that Herodotus was well aware of it. In that he nevertheless dared to stage Xerxes as a tragic hero, one might discover some ironical implications of the author. It is indeed a typical tragic situation that Xerses is placed in. But it seems as if the main concern of the author lies not so much in the fate of Xerxes as in his character itself. Tradition assigns Sophocles, among the tragic poets, the nearest place to our author. It is a pity, however, that no record has been preserved concerning the contact which might have existed between Herodotus and Euripides.

著者

和田 利博

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.53, pp.114-124, 2005-03-08

---

In Democritean atomism, all atomic motion is forced by blows of other atoms On the contrary, Aristotle demanded an explanation for why, if there was no natural motion for atoms, there was any motion for them at all In response to this criticism, Epicurus introduced the downward fall of atoms by their own weight as a natural motion for them But if all atoms only fall downwards at equal speed, why is there any collision amongst them at all ? This is just why the atomic swerve was introduced as another natural motion for atoms in Epicurean cosmology Now, according to Cicero, Epicurus introduced the atomic swerve to avoid a necessary motion by atom's own weight that he himself has introduced with the intention of improving upon Democritean atomism However, the fear arising from this necessity is that if all atoms were only to fall downwards, since there would be no collision amongst them, no compound body would be formed On the other hand, Diogenes of Oenoanda represents the atomic swerve in Epicurean atomism as counterevidence to a necessary motion by collisions amongst atoms in Democntean atomism And the fear arising from this necessity is that if all atoms were only to collide with one another, since the soul too is composed of them, no voluntary action would exist If that is the case, the testimony that the necessary motion by atom's own weight hinders the voluntariness of action by governing the mind is inaccurate Therefore, the interpretation that the atomic swerve ensures the voluntariness of action by freeing the mind from such a necessity is mistaken To sum up, in Epicurean atomism, the atomic swerve plays the following two roles (A) In his cosmology, the atomic swerve prevents the atom's own weight from causing all things (including all actions) not to occur by the blows of other atoms and makes a beginning of collisions amongst atoms, (B) In his theory of action, the atomic swerve prevents the collisions amongst atoms from causing all actions to occur exclusively by the blows of other atoms and breaks a chain of collisions amongst atoms (though it does not hinder collision itself, needless to say) Incidentally, Epicurus divides all things into three categories and contrasts necessity with chance and what depends on us And since the atomic swerve was exactly introduced to avoid necessity, it must be either chance or what depends on us However, there is much evidence suggesting that the atomic swerve is uncaused motion Judging from this, it is inevitable to conclude that the atomic swerve is a kind of chance Nevertheless, I suppose that the atomic swerve need not be the alternative of chance or what depends on us but can be either of them as the case may be That is, it is just the atomic swerve occurring even without the soul that Epicurus called chance in a general sense And what depends on us eventually means the action that has the atomic swerve occurring within the soul at the beginning of motion

著者

森谷 公俊

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.33, pp.40-48, 1985-03-29

---

The concepts of arche and hegemonia in Isocrates have the following features in the light of analysis conducted from a politico-historical perspective. In the first place, Isocrates attributed a highly moral and ethical value to the concept of hegemonia. In his Panegyricus, he claimed that Athens alone deserved the title of supreme leader of the Greeks because the city had been a benefactor of the Greeks and a protector of all those who had suffered. This claim never changed throughout his political discourses. Secondly, Isocrates located the essence of arche in sea-power which he criticized as bringing misfortune to Greece, and stressed the ethical superiority of land hegemony. He came to this conclusion in his On the Peace as a result of the downfall of Sparta after the battle of Leuctra and the defeat of Athens in the Social War. His position is in sharp contrast to that of Thucydides and Old Oligarch, who insisted on the superiority of Athens as a sea-power. In the third place, he considered the problem of constitutional reform in the light of his concept of hegemonia. He sought the model of the ideal constitution in the age of hegemonia of Athens and Sparta, and described it in contrast to the age of arche. The concepts of arche and hegemonia in Isocrates reflect the political situation of Greece in the middle of the fourth century when Sparta, Thebes and Athens fell one after the other, and differ from those of historians such as Herodotus, Thucydides and Xenophon.

著者

仲手川 良雄

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.1-11, 1989-03-15

---

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

朴 一功

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.47, pp.98-111, 1999-03-23

---

By investigating the Greek word neidw and its cognates in the Republic and other dialogues, Popper believed that Plato is recommending rhetorical propaganda i. e. "talking over by foul means," together with violence, rather than "persuasion by fair means" as instruments of political technique (The Open Society and Its Enemies, 1945). But more important than this criticism is Morrow's claim that even without the foul means, persuasion, as is understood by Plato, involves ominous consequences ('Plato's Conception of Persuasion,' PR62, 1953). Morrow examined relevant passages, particularly in the Laws and concluded that Plato, who could not allow any soul to engage in "the free play of individual criticism" so that it could safely reach maturity, blinded himself to the deeper meaning of Socratic concern for the soul. Yet Socrates' dialectic, in which Morrow sees the spirit of genuine persuasion, does often break down without any agreement being reached when it is carried on with such difficult interlocutors as Callicles and Thrasymachus. Plato took seriously Socrates' failure to persuade them to care for virtue. My purpose is, by examining this line of Plato's thought, to show that his conception of persuasion has the significance drawn from his reflections on Socrates' dialectic. It is not just that the failure of a reasonable conversation would be, as Irwin supposes ('Coercion and Objectivity in Plato's Dialectic,' RIP40, 1986), due to the insincerity or ill-temperedness which the interlocutor displays in refusing to continue cooperative discussion. We know that in the Gorgias Socrates argued that rhetoric alleged to be the art of persuasion was no art but a mere empirical knack, whereas in a later dialogue, the Phaedrus, Plato concedes the possibility of the kind of rhetoric that deserves a genuine craft and sets it forth as the art of leading souls. What this remarkable change actually means will become clear to us when we consider Socrates' method of cross-examination and refutation. His arguments always rest on, and his conclusion step by step logically follows from, premises to which he secures agreement from his interlocutors. But the problem lies in the way in which the agreed-upon premises are accepted, taken, and felt by each interlocutor with his own point of view. Socrates' understanding of some premises does not agree with, and is sometimes irreconcilably different from, the interlocutor's, so that it is hard for them to share the same conclusion. For no statement and no word is a logical formula or a logical symbol to be manipulated in a definite way. Such disagreement has its roots, Plato's theory of the tripartite soul reveals, in their essentially different conceptions of the good that cannot be easily reduced to each other. Now in the Apology Socrates says, "the unexamined life is not worth living" and invites everyone to join in cooperative inquiry. However, when Plato wrote the Republic he had become sceptical, not about the truth of Socrates' memorable words, but about his philosophical activity characterized as inquiry into the truth by examinig himself and others, since everyone does not want to, and cannot, therefore, should not, examine himself or herself in the same way as Socrates does. Plato's realistic view is that no two people are born alike in that there are innate differences which fit them for different occupations. Dialectic requires a natural gift for it. People's different conceptions of the good, however, derive from their dominating desires or motives rather than from their natural gifts. Hence three basic types of men, the philosophic, the ambitious, and the lovers of gain. Plato can, then, no longer believe that the conflict of their value judgements is resolved by Socratic argument, since their experience, intelligence, and ability in discussion are decidedly different. Thus in the Phaedrus he attempts to reinstate rhetoric as the art of persuasion by basing it on psychology and dialectic. Plato was not blind to the deeper meaning of Socratic concern for the soul. Following Socrates, he certainly admits that genuine persuasion requires inquiry into the truth by dialectic, but unlike Socrates, he demands that a person who employs it should select a fitting soul, not every soul, to plant and sow in it his or her words founded on knowledge. Persuasion in other cases, therefore, must involve more or less "noble lies" or compulsion. Such conception of persuasion Plato applied to his own political philosophy. But perhaps the application was an inevitable conclusion for Plato himself who experienced more than once political confusion and violence in the Cave. Whether it may lead to liberation or enslavement of human beings, we can see in it Plato's insight into the significance of his master's philosophical activity. For, as Corn ford argued ('Plato's Common Wealth,' GR4, 1935), he would have foreseen that Socrates' mission pointed to a subversion of all existing institutions, which rest on fictitious devices.

著者

國方 栄二

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.57, pp.65-77, 2009-03-26

---

The concept of the modern cosmopolitanism is connected with the ideal of cessation or prevention of wars, as represented in Kant's Toward Perpetual Peace, and it has been claimed that this concept has its origin in ancient Greek philosophy. Martha C. Nussbaum, an American scholar on ancient philosophy as well as on political philosophy, advocates in her article, 'Patriotism and Cosmopolitanism' (Boston Review, 1994), the revaluation of ancient cosmopolitanism as an effective thought for the realization of peace and the protection of human rights across countries' borders. However, she is often criticized for anachronistically importing our enlightenment-derived interpretation into ancient Greek thoughts (cf. Lee Harris, 'The Cosmopolitan Illusion', Policy Review, 2003). Diogenes the Cynic, upon being asked to give the name of his home city, replied 'I am a citizen of the world (cosmoplolites)'. But Cynic cosmopolitanism seems to have been rather negative in that it rejected any ethical obligation. I attempt in this paper to trace cosmopolitanism to its origins, making use of materials from Cynics, early Stoics and Roman writers. My contentions are as follows: 1) Diogenes said that the only true city is that which belongs to cosmos (DL 6, 72). For him no other cities on earth could be genuine. The true city has law just like any other cities, but it is not any such system of rules as adopted in communities on earth. It was rather a system of virtues. 2) Although we know very little about what more Diogenes made of his ideal city, we can at least infer from materials of early Stoics what it was like. The assertion of Epicurean Philodemus(On the Stoics) that Diogenes and Zeno wrote works with the same title, Republic, and that they both had essentially the same opinion, suggests that they actually believed in an ideal city. As to its concrete nature, we know from the criticism of Cassius, a Sceptic, that the ideal city was for Zeno a small community of sages, and this is confirmed for Diogenes too, by relevant passages in Diogenes Laertius. It is thus likely that Diogenes' cosmopolitanism was a negative one, virtually equivalent to anarchism. 3) For Roman philosophers like Plutarch and Epictetus, both Diogenes and Zeno were philanthropists, who treated national origin and location as a matter of secondary importance. It is interesting that they also attributed 'cosmopolitanism' to Socrates. However, Socrates' 'cosmopolitanism' covered too small a part of the world, i. e. Greek world. Hence, their attributions were not exactly correct although they believed that they took Diogenes and Zeno in the right spirit. Thus, such cosmopolitanism as Nussbaum is willing to recognize in ancient world is safely traced to Roman philosophers and their interpretation of Diogenes and Zeno, even though it is difficult to trace it to these two philosophers themselves.

著者

樋口 勝彦

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.1, pp.27-35, 1953-07-20

著者

村田 数之亮

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.14, pp.1-14, 1966-03-28

---

The Greek vase-painting is to be at once decorative and narrative. These two fundamental elements of Greek vase-painting, decorativeness and narrativeness, are, however, separate and not easily compatible with each other. Works of vase-painters' great periods-the best black-figure and red-figure of the ripe and late Archaic Period-are therefore not produced until the difficult task, to effect a compromise between these two opposite elements, was achieved. What are then the principles that made this compromise possible, by controlling figures and composition of paintings? In black-figure painting, the head is shown in profile, the trunk in front, legs in profile, one arm and one leg extending forwards and the others backwards. But the form of figures is still rigid and is little varied. Compared with geometric style, the narrativeness is in black-figure painting strengthened and amplified, owing to introduction of running figures and more or less exaggerated motion of arms. It is, we may say, the tectonic principle that dominates here. Black-figure vase-painters are apparently very fond of antithetic (i.e. opposing two persons) composition and also often the so-called three-persons composition. The group of these figures, sometimes with some secondary persons beside themselves constitute the centre of composition. It is again the tectonic principle that rules the composition. It is interesting to note that the technique of black figure also matches with this principle excellently. Exekias marks a limit of black-figure painting. In Exekias, the figures and composition are ruled by the severe tectonic principle, which gives dignity to his art. Sometimes, however, he dares to go beyond this limit and makes some new attempts: in Exekias unlike in other painters' works, the space acquires life and sense of depth and there are more natural and free movements instead of excessive motion of arms, and the composition itself is often asymmetrical. Introduction of a new technique was inevitable, for these new trials by Exekias fully to be developed. The red-figure painter, at least after 500 B.C., was fully aware of the whole possibility of the new technique and established a new style of vase-painting on a new principle. Natural and free movement of figures has now become the main concern of painters. Normally figures move in third dimension (a figure in torsion for example), and the rendering of body suggests certain plasticity. Movement flows through the whole body. The new principle which dominates figures of the new style painting may be called rythmic principle. Compostion of the red-figure painting is normally asymmetrical. The asymmetry, however, does not mean irregularity. There is an order, which is rythm. What makes figures and composition of the red-figure more free and dynamic than those of the black-figure, this we may call rythmic principle. The emotional mood, which usually pervades scenes of the red-figure painting, is probably not alien to this rythmic principle. The principles on which the two main styles of Greek vase-painting were based are both of visual nature. In Classical periods, however, something higher than that, something spiritual, was demanded from the new viewpoint of the art. This demand, we must admit, was beyond the possibility of the vase-painting, perhaps with the only exception of the white-ground vase-painting). It was only natural that the vase-painting had to concede its supreme place in Greek painting to other branches such as the wall-painting.

著者

田中 享英

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.50, pp.1-11, 2002-03-05

---

Everyone believes and no one doubts that Socrates was a philosopher But when and how did he practise his philosophy ? We know that in conversation with Athenian people every day, he examined their opinions about moral virtues, asking a series of questions which would reveal that their opinions contained self-contradiction, and thus compelling people into the state of aporia or difficulty We know that in practising such refutation Socrates taught people their ignorance However, was this practice Socrates' own practice of philosophy ? To be a philosopher is to be a student of philosophy Did Socrates study philosophy in his refutation of other people? We must say "Yes" In Plato's Apology of Socrates, Socrates declares that the greatest good for a human being is to converse with people and discuss virtue every day (38A) and that in his conversation with people, he examined both himself and others (ibid) In the Charmides Socrates says that he refuted his interlocutors for no other purpose than to examine what he, Socrates himself, was saying (166C-D) and inquired the meaning of the answers of other people just for his own sake (ibid) According to these words, Socrates must have been examining himself and refuting himself at the same time as he refuted other people, and he must have found his own ignorance each time he taught his interlocutors their ignorance But how is such practice possible? And in what way could such practice be called philosophy ? We would understand this if we would note the fact that Socrates and his interlocutors cooperated in their inquiry, that they collaborated in making an answer to their question, and that, at the end of the inquiry, both Socrates and his interlocutors shared in responsibility for their aporia This is just what we find in the Laches, for example In this dialogue Socrates asks Laches what courage is Laches answers that it is 'some endurance of the soul' But Socrates protests about the answer and proposes to change it to 'wise endurance' And Laches accepts this as his second answer It is obvious here for us to see that the new answer is a production of the collaboration between Laches and Socrates The new element in this second answer is the adjective 'wise,' and it was Socrates who proposed adding this element (we should notice Socrates' intellectualism here) In this way Socrates participates in the inquiry and in making an answer, and, consequently, he has to share responsibility for the failure of that answer Why, then, did Socrates not practise philosophy by himself, but needed to converse with Athenian people and cooperate with them ? Our answer will be that it is because philosophy is an inquiry into reality by means of words, the usage of which cannot be decided by one person In other words, philosophy is the practice of improving the usage of words in the community in which the philosopher lives In this practice Socrates shared aporia with his fellow citizens

著者

篠澤 和久

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.48, pp.150-153, 2000-03-10

著者

兼岩 正夫

出版者

日本西洋古典学会

雑誌

西洋古典学研究 (ISSN:04479114)

巻号頁・発行日

no.2, pp.112-119, 1954

著者

山本 晴樹

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.51, pp.153-156, 2003-03-20

著者

広瀬 三矢子

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.44, pp.109-120, 1996-03-15

---

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

金山 弥平

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.1-13, 2006-03-07

---

Does the demonstration of recollection with the slave boy in the Meno really constitute the proof of recollection thesis? Socrates seems there to be asking leading questions I take it that Plato intended to make it uncertain whether the boy is really recollecting his second denial of knowledge 'ou manthano' (85A4-5) can mean 'I am not learning', suggesting that he is not recollecting We can never know the truth about his learning, because the demonstration is a Gorgian type of epideixis (81B1-2), which produces only persuasion However, it is one thing to know whether the boy is recollecting, and quite another to know whether learning is recollection The demonstration is meant to make Meno recollect the latter truth (81E6-82A3) Throughout the demonstration Socrates addresses questions to Meno, thereby making him consider whether the boy is really recollecting (82B6-7, E12-3, 84A3-4, C10-D1) Socrates' remark after the demonstration is that Meno knows that the boy will regain knowledge (85C9-D1), which means that Meno has been successfully made to recollect that recollection thesis is correct According to Cebes' explanation in the Phaedo (73A7-B2), recollection is helped by the use of proper questions and diagrams, and according to the Republic (510D5-511A1, 529D7-530A), mathematicians should not seek truth in diagrams or models made by such masters as Daedalus, but make use of them simply as images The boy's learning is a beautiful image of true learning created by Socrates, an offspring of Daedalus We should not seek truth concerning learning in this image, but make use of it to find truth about true learning Socrates' proper questions with the help of this image made Meno recollect that learning is recollection However, inquirers are rather misled by perceptual images when the object of inquiry has no lustre in its earthly image(Phaedrus 250B), as is the case with virtues, knowledge, education and learning In order to establish that learning is recollection, it is then necessary to have recourse to another kind of proof, in which one relies on rational thinking Plato embarks on this task in the Phaedo Recollection itself can be taken to be an image or metaphor (eikon) of learning, presented by Socrates, just as the torpedo is an image of Socrates, presented by Meno (80A-C) But they are different in that while the latter is intended to stop inquiry, recollection is a metaphor that stimulates inquiry and helps to develop new ideas expressible in literal paraphrases ('the illustrative thesis' in E E Pender, Images of Persons Unseen, Sankt Augustin 2000) In the Phaedo Plato continues his quest for the truth about learning, with the help of recollection as the image of learning, and thereby develops such new ideas as the existence of Forms and the immortality of the soul His further inquiry about knowledge, the object of learning, in the Theaetetus is taken to be its further continuation

著者

松永 雄二

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.25, pp.65-77, 1977-03-29

---

Aristotle observes in Met. Z, 6, 1031a23ff. that το κατα συμβζβηκο&b.sigmav; λεγομενον (e.g. το λευκον)may be understood in two ways. They are: (a)ω συμβεβηκε λευκον (i.e. the white thing)and(b)το συμβεβηκο&b.sigmav;(i.e. the whiteness as a pathos). Of these two, the present writer believes that the distinction between το καθ' αυτο λεγομενον(e.g. the man) and το κατα συμβεβηκο&b.sigmav; λεγομενον(e.g. the white thing)is more fundamental to the Aristotelian grasp of being than that between the substance(e.g. the man)and its inhering attribute(e.g. the whiteness). The reason is that it is the only way to understand that the Aristotelian theory of substance is at the same time a theory of essence. I. Now, what is the difference between "being said per se" and "being said per accidens"? (1)This question is considered in the various realms of science as the problem of "that A is B". When B is A's so called accidens per se, the distinctionwhether "that A is B" is per se or per accidens depends, in the final analysis, on how to determine as a species in a series of genera-species that of which "is B" is directly predicated. (Ana. Post. A, 4-5) And it is there that the proposition in which the demonstration in sciences is made properly, namely the commensurately universal proposition is formed. (2) In what way, however, "being said per se" is distinguished from "being said per accidens" from the ontological viewpoint generally? I do not recognize the distinction between the so called essential predicates and accidental predicates asessential. Rather, what is fundamental is the following: Each term('F')signifies "being F" simply and fundamentally, in so far as it represents something that belongs to any one category. Then, we have the following: (a) On the one hand το λευκω ειναι≠το λευκον, and on the other hand to ανθρωπω ειναι=ο ανθρωπο&b.sigmav;. Properly speaking, the meaning of the distinction between "being said per accidens" and "being said per se" consistsin that. That is to say, oucricc is to be found in that in which εκαστον is identical with το τι ην ειναι(Met. Z. 6). "Being said per accidens", on the other hand, is to be expressed always as the predicate in a statement. II. A problem, however, remains here. To Aristotle, what is represented by the subject of a statement, namely τοδε τι, was συνλον, and was not pure form. Then, what does ουσια mean in the final analysis? This problem is to be solved through a consideration of the meaning of "to be in actu" from the viewpoint of the unity of being and knowing.

著者

小林 薫

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.49, pp.62-73, 2001-03-05

---

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