著者

西村 賀子 桜井 万里子 和泉 ちえ 森谷 公俊 樋笠 勝士 後藤 篤子 北野 雅弘

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.67, pp.63-106, 2019 (Released:2022-03-08)

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.60, pp.123-125, 2012-03-23 (Released:2017-05-23)

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

坂下 浩司

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.54, pp.159-163, 2006

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

西洋古典学研究 (ISSN:04479114)

巻号頁・発行日

vol.45, pp.72-83, 1997

---

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

著者

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

川田 殖

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.134-136, 1984-03-29

著者

兼利 琢也

出版者

日本西洋古典学会

雑誌

西洋古典学研究 (ISSN:04479114)

巻号頁・発行日

vol.56, pp.106-109, 2008-03-05 (Released:2017-05-23)

著者

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

岡 道男

出版者

日本西洋古典学会

雑誌

西洋古典学研究 (ISSN:04479114)

巻号頁・発行日

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

---

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

著者

安西 眞

出版者

日本西洋古典学会

雑誌

西洋古典学研究 (ISSN:04479114)

巻号頁・発行日

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

著者

田中 美知太郎

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.10, pp.1-19, 1962-03-31

---

The idea of ελευθερια as conceived by the ancient Greeks was primarily political As against external forces, it meant independence from any foreign rule, something to be defended at any cost in face of the terror of foreign encroachment and in the state itself, it meant not to be under the rule of a tyrant, something to be long commemorated when successfully achieved As they recognized such a state of being as established among themselves, and as they observed furthermore the fact that all the other peoples (βαρβαροι) were invariably under absolute despotism, they came to be strongly convinced that freedom was just the word for the Greeks only As a result, it did not strike the Greeks as being strange to treat the 'barbarians' as δουλοι, though theoretically they were not absolutely without doubt regarding the master-slave relation among themselves To them the situation appeared as natural as the racial difference between the two And, though what we call the idea of equality (ισηγορια, ισονομια) had been early cultivated among the Greeks, it was destined to be kept within that boundary, never crossing over the barrier between the Greeks and the barbarians It has been criticized that the Greek concept of ελευθερια was narrow and limited, not only from the view-point above stated, but also on the ground that the ελευθρια known to them was political only, and never had anything to do with individual and personal liberty However, could one be justified to acknowledge such a statement ? In Book VIII of the Republic Plato states that the supreme good sought for m democracy is the liberty, which is explained as 'the state of being able to do whatever one desires to do' (εξουσια ποιειν οτι τιζ βουλεται) And we find a similar concept of liberty employed by Aristotle, Politics V 1-2, in his definition of demociacy We might possibly say that m ancient Greece, at least in those democratic states, personal liberty was not unknown either Not only do we read this m those philosophical works just mentioned, but also in the historical writings of Thucydides E g to the mind of those men on the Scilian expedition, their mother country now far away was, first of all, a country of greatest ελευθερια, where every man was free to enjoy his daily life subject to no control (πατριδοζ τηζ ελευτερωτατηζ και τηζ εν αυτη ανεπιτακτου4 πασιν ειζ την διαιταν εξουσιαζ) And the Epitaphian Oration of Pericles might well be regarded as a decisive vote (ο κολοφων) for one in the position of defending the ελευθερια of the Greeks, for Pericles is here found ensuring personal liberty in everyday life as well as political freedom Such personal liberty, however, as is supposed to have been realized in a state such as Athens, was something which could only be secured and defended provided that the independence of the state and the political freedom were ensured, something too delicate to stand by itself And this is the very reason why Pericles had in addition to lay great emphasis on the necessity of observing the law written or unwritten as an essential condition in order that they might keep their mutual relationship untouched with any infringing on the interests of the others Maintenance of the balance, however, between the ordinance of law and personal liberty was left to the good sense of individuals, the harmony between the two being optimistically just expected, and, apart from this, there was hardly to be found any positive principle sufficient to guarantee that harmony Nor was this all, the increasing tendency towards making slight of the laws, which found its theorization in the so-called νομοζφυσιζ controversy, exposed this balance to the danger of being overthrown Such was the radical form of personal liberty which Plato perceived in the decadence of democracy, where law was utterly disregarded, σωφροσυνη lost and every επιθυμια liberated, resulting in anarchy, which in its turn was to give birth to tyranny We find the Gorgias introducing the claim that such personal liberty was realized in the person of Macedonian despots This, we should say, means to deny the traditional idea of freedom of the Greeks and to find the utmost of ελευθερια in barbarian despots, the exact opposite of the former When we think of the Greek history succeeding the period in question, we might well call it an ironical paradox

著者

中務 哲郎

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.23, pp.18-29, 1975-03-29

---

That the Histories of Herodotos contains those episodes which are narrated apparently m the historical context, but, in fact, belong to folkliterature or fiction by Hdt., has been pointed out from various points of view. In this paper, the present writer attempts to demonstrate some episodes not to be the historical facts in the light of the comparative study of folkliterature. The episode of III 36 runs as follows: Kambyses, offended at Kroisos' admonition, was about to kill him. But the servants who had been ordered to kill Kroisos sheltered him, calculating that if Kambyses should miss Kroisos, they would produce him for a reward, and that if the king should show no sign of regret, they could kih him thereupon (36, 5). Soon afterwards, when they noticed Kambyses missing Kroisos, they announced that he was still alive. Kambyses rejoiced at Kroisos' existence but executed the men who had saved his life (36, 6). While the first section of this episode is said to be based on the motif of the Story of Ahikar (W. Aly), the second part may be regarded as a fiction by Hdt. for several reasons: 1) Ancient testimonies differ extremely as to Kroisos' career after the fall of Sardis, so that his survival may be doubted. 2) A similar story is told in Sima Qian's Shiji(司馬遷,史記). In this story, however, the man who had been ordered to kill a loyal retainer was in a dilemma and killed himself. As compared with this pathetic story, the Herodotean episode of Kambyses sounds ratherlike the one that aims at displaying the narrator's wit. 3) "While in its original, the Story of Ahikar, the man who hides and preserves the sage is simply praised, Kambyses, in the Herodotean version, was pleased to know that Kroisos was safe, but punished the men who had saved him. The divergence from the archetype was probably due to Hdt.' own device. 4) Kambyses' treatment contradicts the account of I 137, where it is said that Persians never punish a man for a single offence, and that the normal Persian way is to balance faults against services. Indeed, for Dareios, services and offences of Sandoces offset each other (VII 194). 5) Hdt. reports another account containing a similar treatment. Taking a stormy passage over the Aegean, Xerxes was compelled, according to the captain's opinion, to let many passengers jump overboard to lighten the ship. On landing at the Asian coast, Xerxes rewarded the captain with a gold crown for saving the King's life, but beheaded him as being responsible for the death of a number of Persians (VIII 118). In this motif (to rejoice but punish or to praise but punish) , Hdt. imitates himself. 6) Ailianos, too, informs us of an interesting Persian custom, according to which if a man advises the king and proves to be serviceable, he is awarded the gold brick on which he stood advising, but at the same time, is flogged for his hybris (V. H. 12, 62). This account suggests that the Greeks including Hdt. took the Persians for a legally rigorous nation. And perhaps such a presumption caused Hdt. to invent the humorously rigorous treatment of Kambyses. In a more orlesssimilarway examined are I 21f, I 27, II 107, III 85ff, V 12, VI 52, VI 125 and III 31, III 34, III 119, IV 3f. In these cases, thepresentwriter believes, we must see in Hdt. a folklorist who picks up folktales and retells them rather than a historian who collects historical events and interprets them.

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

田中 美知太郎

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.1, pp.1-10, 1953-07-20

著者

浜本 裕美

出版者

日本西洋古典学会

雑誌

西洋古典学研究 (ISSN:04479114)

巻号頁・発行日

vol.50, pp.56-66, 2002-03-05 (Released:2017-05-23)

---

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