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

(View PDF for the rest of the abstract.)

抄録全体を表示

Humanism is one of the subjects most frequently discussed by leading thinkers of today It means criticism of babarism and symbolizes European unity with its cultural tradition and freedom from ecclesiastical and political dogma or materialism If hominism and anthropology can be included, because they are also homo-centric, humanism widens its realm indefinitely In view of this variety of meaning, it is worth reconsidering how the word humanism came into use in the 19th century, when the importance of Greek and Roman classics was stressed by educators These teachers were following the example of the anti-scholastic leaders of the 14th century But the classics themselves are also very rich in variety, they cover all fields of science including theology and they span the long age from Homer to St Augustine The humanists of the Renaissance period understood only one aspect of the classics their aesthetic and homo-centric side This kind of misunderstanding is found even today among students of the classics and admirers of humanism Archaeological discoveries bear witness that Homer and other Greek writers were strongly influenced by Oriental culture and that in antiquity East and West were closely connected The above mentioned misunderstanding of the classics can be obviated by this new conception of a composite antiquity This historical and philological attitude helps also to clarify the Bible which was written in "eastern" Hebrew and 'western" Greek and to defend it against dogmatic prejudice Only such an analysis of the scriptural text and such an understanding of it against the background of the world in which it was written can explain how the Bible came into being and why it was called the "Book"

抄録全体を表示

It lias been said that Aristotle, being intent on establishing his own system, was often inaccurate or negligent in his description of the presocratic philosophers He is said to have written about them only for the purpose of either illustrating how they are wrong as compared with his own views, or showing their ideas as confirmations of his own, which are always true He is, after all, not motivated by any historical sense, and turns out to be incorrect and at times unjust in his historical treatment As against him, it is said, Theophrastus, thought not prompted by any different motive, is more impartial and correct concerning the early Greek philosophy There is a third opinion that Theophrastus is in all essentials only repeating interpretations he found in Aristotle and they have, therefore, the same deficiencies, in fine, he too is a biased witness and even less trustworthy than Aristotle In view of these three interpretations, the present writer scrutinizes the problem deliberately confining himself to a single item το απειρον of Anaximander He knows that such a limited method of treatment is inadequate, and may even be dangerous, but he is also convinced that even though he restricts hisv problem to such a small aspect, he can come to a conclusion which has some value In sum there can be no choice between Aristotle and Theophrastus in regard to the presocratic causes in general Sometimes incorrect and inattentive as he is, the former is quite reliable as a historian, and the latter surely follows his master's interpretations faithfully without being blind to the blunders and omissions on his part Any issue has to be solved through consulting both of them together with other sources, and, carefully adopting or rejecting them

抄録全体を表示

At the beginning of the Iliad Bk 2, Zeus sends his messenger Dream to Agamemnon with the false message that, if the war should be resumed, the Greeks would beat the Trojans Agamemnon, determined to rearm his soldiers, summons, prior to the general assembly, a council of the leading generals, and requests their cooperation in carrying out his plan, which is summarized in ll 72-5 At the assembly, however, his plan proves to be a sheer failure, as soon as the proposal of retirement is made, the army rush to their camps to make preparations for their return home The confusion is so disastrous, that, but for Hera's intervention, the retirement of the Greek army would be realized 'contrary to fate' (υπερμορα) Evidently it is not Zeus but Agamemnon himself, who is responsible for this confusion, because the idea of "tempting" the soldiers was not involved in Zeus' plan How, then, does such a strange idea, which seems to serve only as a cause for troubles, occur to Agamemnon ? The present author thinks that the clue to the solution of this question is to be sought in ll 72-5 Let us start our discussion from the following two points (1) What is in this context the meaning of the phrase η θεμιζ εστι (73) ? (2) What is the object of ερητυειν (75) ? 1) After having examined several views set forth hitherto by modern critics, the author concludes that the scholiast's interpretation (Scholia A ad loc) best suits the context He says that the King tries to test the army κατα τι παλαιον εθοζ, with the intention of knowing whether they are going to fight voluntarily or reluctantly, compelled by force, for, the scholiast continues, the King knows that the Greeks had been discouraged by the long war, by the plague, and moreover by Achilles' withdrawal from the battle-line We do not know, it must be confessed, what precedents the poet had in mind when he said η θεμιζ εστι, i e κατα τι παλαιον εθοζ. We must assume, however, that there were examples so familiar to the poet and his audience alike that it was hardly necessary for the poet to add further comments on the topic We moderns could easily collect a dozen similar examples from various times and places 11) With regard to the second point, the author again takes sides with the ancient critic (Scholia B ad loc ), who takes sue (sc Agamemnon) ταυτα λεγοντα as the object of ερητυειν, not εκεινουζ (sc 'Αχαιουζ) φευγονταζ, as did Leaf et alii Interpreted on this line, Agamemnon's plan was to stage a sham fight between the chieftains and himself, and thus to lead the debate toward his intended conclusion It is true that his plan did not succeed at the first assembly, Agamemnon may be blamed for his miscalculation of the low morale of his army But let us here turn our attention to the reopened assembly, and we shall see how smoothly, after the Thersites-scene, of course, everything proceeds, almost (not exactly, indeed) as the King had intended Agamemnon had been no fool His plan, though checked for a while, proves a success after all Certainly there are some exaggerations in the narrative from Agamemnon's "Temptation" up to the "Thersites-scene" One may even call it a trick on the poet's part Probably the poet thought that a detailed narrative to such an extent was necessary in order to make the audience realize how low the army's morale was and how difficult a task it was to make this resume warfare But it must be admitted on the other hand that the emphasis, perhaps over-strong, on this aspect has mainly been responsible for causing various misunderstandings, especially among modern critics The present writer suggests that the Temptation passage including the Thersites-scene may be called a "detachable" part of the poem By "detachable" the author means no "interpolation" in the Analyst's sense, but rather a section which the

(View PDF for the rest of the abstract.)

抄録全体を表示

An episode of the Theseus-legend-that of the rape of Helen by Theseusseems, at first sight, to be a poor imitation of another legend of the rape of Helen by Paris, which has become one of the immortal themes of literature since Homer But, in discussing this problem, we need to deal with a whole series of complexities in the legend The whole sequence of the legend is as follows Helen, being only a girl of ten or so, is carried off from Sparta by Theseus He takes her to Aphidna in Attica, where he leaves her with Aethra, his mother, under supervision of Aphidnos But the Dioscuri, Helen's brothers, come to Aphidna to rescue her from the enemy's hand in the absence of Theseus who has gone to the land of Hades to fetch Persephone for Peinthoos The Dioscuri attack and destroy Aphidna, taking with them not only Helen but Aethra as well Supported by Nilsson's suggestion and S Wide's description of her cult, we are encouraged to regard Helen as originally a Peloponnesian vegetation goddess, who is said to be carried off by a god of wealth But who is this god of wealth ? Certainly he is not Theseus, but rather Aphidnos S Wide refers to Maass's remark that Aphidnos is an underworld god, his name being 'Α-φιδ-νοζ. And it is known that gods of the underworld are very often regarded as gods of wealth Thus this legend of the rape of Helen can be reduced to a myth in which Helen is carried off by Aphidnos to his underworld, Aphidna If Helen is traced back to a vegetation goddess in the Peloponnese, we can only regard this as her origin But it may be thought also that she was venerated as a goddess of some sort in Attica, especially in connection with Nemesis at Rhamnus, as one version of the legend of her birth tells us But we have reasons to believe that this was not the case, the 'Attic' Helen is better understood as an invention by the poet of the Cypria So the Trojan Helen must also have originated in the Peloponnesian Helen raped by Aphidnos Later than this, we can safely say, Theseus, Diacrian prince also assumed the role of Aphidnos and Aphidna was identified with a small town of Diacria in Attica This change may be attributed to the Attic effort to enhance Theseus' fame Even later than that the Dioscuri were introduced into the Theseusversion of the legend, only taking Helen back to Spaita to make her Menelaos' wife, thus connecting the Theseus legend with the Trojan legend, which had, by that time, acquired its complete details The most important question, namely, how Paris, the Trojan prince, could have come into relation with Helen must be left unanswered, because nothing is known as yet about it Bethe's effort to find some place where Menelaos, Helen and Paris are related together in some way or other is doomed to failure. We must satisfy ourselves with the assertion that any passage which has any bearing upon Theseus and the Dioscuri in connection with Helen must be regarded as a later interpolation

抄録全体を表示

It was necessary for every citizen, in Athens, to have his name entered in at least two registers-"komon grammateion" in his phratrie and "lexiarchikon grammateion" in his deme, of which the latter was politically important The State had no list which included all the citizens , therefore, there were possibilities that (A) a legitimate citizen might lose his citizenship if his demesmen rejected him or removed his name from their register, on the other hand, (B) rich foreigners could acquire civic rights through bribery As the counter-measures the State prescribed two legal procedures-"εφεσιζ" [against (A)] and "γραφη ξενιαζ [against (B)], and they were both brought before the thesmothetai who introduced them before the law courts But this was the system contemporary with Aristotle, i e, about 325 B C (cf A P XLII 1, LIX 3 4) When Kleisthenes created the demes, it was confirmed that the Athenians revised the citizen roll according to the statements of Aristotle in A P XIII 5 and in Politika 1275 b (as for the latter, I follow the interpretation newly suggested by Oliver in Histona IX 1960 pp 503-4) But, it seems that, at that time, the state left the revision completely to the demes, and there remain no materials which bear testimony to the existence of the procedures of the εφεσιζ and the γραφη ξενιαζ When and how was the above-mentioned system framed ? Diller and Gomme have disputed on this subject, and recently, Jacoby treated of it This paper is concerned with this problem with a view to a reconsideration of the character of the demes in the history of the athenian constitution The materials relating to the γραφη ξενιαζ (indictment for usurpation of civic right by an alien) are preserved only from 440 B C, but in the 5th century This indictment was brought before the nautodikai, and in the 4th century before the thesmothetai We must not overlook the fact that the nautodikai and the thesmothetai were not procuratonal officials, and the necessary arrangements for indictment were all charged upon a complainant The existence of the εφεσιζ (appeal of anyone whose claim to citizenship has been rejected by his deme) is first attested by Isaios XII which belongs to between 395/4 B C and 346/5 B C, but here the διαιτα (arbitrations) stood before the εφεσιζ After 346/5 B C the appeal was directly before the thesmothetai Demosthenes LVII describes vividly how the διαψηφισμοζ (general revision) of 346/5 B C was performed Gernet regards Eubulides in this oration as one of the buleutai elected by the deme of Halimus According to this interpretation, he revised the register of his own deme in the capacity of a buleutes As we have seen, the athenian registration system was defective in many respects Nevertheless, the glorious name of 'Athenian Democracy' will remain eternally in history The high and firmly-rooted consciousness of autonomy in the demes was really the basis of the athenian constitution, and its gradual retrogression undermined others' glorious name

抄録全体を表示

Plato's formula of the One and the Many, as ιδεα and the sensibles respectively, is comprised in the recognition of Beauty itself and many beautiful things, without regard to their being man, horse, clothes etc Strictly speaking, these beautiful things are not beautiful man and horse, etc, but simply 'the many beautifuls'-whereas in Aristotle such a concept is inadmissible in his system a horse as a substance must be recognized as the substratum of the 'beautiful' In Phaedo 102 B3 ff, however, Simmias is said to be grasped independently and absolutely as a participant in the ιδεα(e g in the ιδεα "the Tall" or "the Small") and always remains as he is (i e having identity), no matter what ιδεα he takes In this trend of thought, does Plato recognize Simmias as a kind of substance=substratum, as Aristotle hold ? If so, does not Plato explain only alteration (αλλοιωσιζ) in his "causal" theory of ideas ? And does he recognize the independent reality of the so-called particulars (i e of physical things) apart from the ιδεα ? αλλοιωσιζ, however, even in Aristotle, is not αλλοιωσιζ simply because it is the alteration of qualities In order to be αλλοιωσιζ, the qualities to be changed must be the proper qualities, winch belong to the Substance itself (Arist De gen et corr, A 4, 319b 10 ff) But in the case of Plato the change can never be explained satisfactorily in terms of the changeable things, but only in the fact of their participation in the ιδεα so also the above-mentioned change in Simmias is not the change of his properties, which are primarily attached to Simmias himself The case is, strictly speaking, not then that Simmias became beautiful, but that something beautiful happened in Simmias Therefore Simmias here is only a locus in which Beauty appears-never a substance which has the quality "beautiful" in itself What, however, is Simmias as a locus ? Indeed he may not possess such a quality as beauty, yet we tend to attribute the term "man" and other definitions to Simmias as his inherent qualities But Plato never recognized Simmias as a Substance qua ο τιζ ανθρωποζ, Even in Aristotle, Simmias qua Simmias is not the same as Simmias qua ο τιζ ανθρωποζ, but only something combined with various attributes which belong to the respective categories In Plato, still more, Simmias is never identical with the "man as immanent ιδεα" -Thus, ultimately, both philosophers recognize that Simmias is different from ο τιζ ανθρωποζ, but the understanding of the content of this so-called Simmias qua Simmias is utterly different in the two cases whereas in Aristotle qua Simmias is thought to have all the distinct qualities which characterize the concrete man Simmias, in Plato, the so-called Simmias qua Simmias is understood as having no distinct attributes, when he loses the connection with the ιδεα of man It is this "Simmias" of which Plato speaks when he describes him as the participant in the "Tall" and "the Small" For in the case of Plato two propositions (1) "This fire is hot" and (2) "This fire is beautiful" are differentiated from each other, and may be put as follows the former (1) shows that the ειδοζ "Fire" is combined with the ειδοζ "Hot" eternally and essentially So it is changeable into a universal proposition But in the latter (2), because fire is not always beautiful, it is not a combination between the ειδοζ "Fire" and ειδοζ "Beauty" So in this case we can only assert "this thing is beautiful" In Plato's thought we can never grasp this event in the form "This fire is beautiful" So it follows that the relation between substance and attributes in the system of Aristotle is, from Plato's standpoint, the reverse of the relationship of the One and the Many Aristotle refers the many

(View PDF for the rest of the abstract.)

抄録全体を表示

Concerning the problem of the so-called 'Deification' of Alexander, it has been much disputed whether the king himself took the initiative or the Greek cities The hitherto accepted view has ascribed the initiative to the king, whose Machtgefuhl, enhanced in the process of the expedition, led him to the demand for his deification The examination of the sources, however, does not alway sprove this dominant view, but rather assures me of Alexander's firm faith through his life that he was 'a son of the god Zeus' An analysis of the several episodes (e g the reception of Ammon's oracle, the rivalry with Heracles and Dionysos, etc) may somewhat clarify what has been stated above On the other hand, the fact too, must be noticed that Alexander is, as to religious feeling, an exponent of his people, among whom a much more pious character still persisted than among other contemporary Greeks It is important that Alexander is said to be ο του θειου επιμελεστατοζ, the man who most of all fears ασεβεια or human υβριζ I should like to consider, both from his innermost belief and from his outer behaviour, his demand in 324 B C for official confirmation of his popularly recognized status as 'a son of the god Zeus' Moreover, judging from his political intentions, it must have been necessary for him to incorporate the Hellenic League and the macedoman territory into one united imperial regime For this final purpose, Alexander, while striving for his higher auctoritas, must eliminate the undercurrents of distrust against him among the Greeks without using compulsion Therefore, through winning their religious sympathy as 'a son of the god Zeus' like Heracles, he tries to mitigate the situation and cultivate their mutual solidarity thereafter For the Macedonians too, he could count on a similar result Suspicious feelings were increasing among the macedonian soldiers that their king might desert his compatriots Hence there arose severe opposition to Alexander as 'the son of the god Ammon', and to his orientalization in general On the other hand, Alexander as 'a son of Zeus' might be acceptable to them too, and thus he could compromise with their nationalism from which his policy step by step became estranged The request for recognition as 'a son of Zeus', together with the 'exile decree', denotes his farsighted statesmanship-an effective policy, conciliatory toward the Greeks and concessive toward his subject peoples, and one by winch both these components could be united into an empire with the least friction In 324 B C, when Alexander was officially deified at Babylon by the θεωροι from Greece, it was a result of nothing more than such κολακειοα on the part of the pro-macedonian factions in the cities, a κολακεια stimulated by Alexander's own request but going far beyond his real intentions at that time

抄録全体を表示