In the description of Patroklos' death (Π 788-858) Apollo overcomes the hero with his own hand and knocks down his arms to earth, at the same time Euphorbos strikes him with a spear before Hektor give him a death blow. It seems, however, to be no great honor for Hektors to kill his enemy who is already wounded by the other hero, but there arises also the another question how he could rob him of his arms (cf. P 13, 125, esp. 205) if these were knocked down to earth. Now the present writer infers from many passages in the Iliad that there must have existed a poem on the death of Achilles which in many ways influenced the description of Patroklos' death. In the Iliad Apollo's intervention is to be explained from the fact that the hero wears Achilles' arms which the gods gave to Peleus as a wedding gift and that there is no Trojan who could check his advance. That the arms given or made by a god possess special qualities can be seen in many allusions to the invulnerability of Achilles' old and new arms, especially in the scene of 'kerostasia' where the scales of Zeus finally decide the fate of the heroes who both wear invincible arms. As for the fact that Apollo overcomes the hero with his own hand, it is unparalleled in the Greek epic and shows a most striking contrast to the death of Achilles. The latter is killed, as he tries to take Troy, by Apollo and Paris, and there can be no doubt that both, being noted for archery, used bows as weapons to overcome him. The difference, however, lies in that Patroklos does not wear his own, but Achilles' arms and that in a battle of those days the lending of one's arms necessarily leads to a disguise (cf. Π 41 f, 278 f) which may, however, be revealed eventually. Indeed, in the case of Patroklos the disguise and recognition is almost suppressed, with an evident intention on the part of the poet to heighten the effect of the hero's aristeia (for the disguise in a battle is contrary to the epic conception of a hero who tries to gain a good name for himself). But a close scrutiny of Patroklos' death shows that the stripping of his arms originally meant the recognition of a disguised hero. The poet of the Iliad, while he suppressed the disguise of Patroklos, used the motif of recognition to describe more vividly the tragic death of the hero struck with ατη. The role of Euphorbos, therefore, is but an extention of Apollo's act: he strikes Patroklos in the very same place as does the god who takes it upon himself to show who the hero really is. It follows then that here Apollo (=Euphorbos) and Hektor take over the roles played by Apollo and Paris in the death of Achilles. The contradictions as seen above are but the results of this development. The present writer sees the same motif of recognition, assuredly a popular one in the Greek epic, in Σ 203 ff where Achilles reveals himself to the Trojans and routs them with his shouts. For Iris explicitly bids him to show himself, i. e. to show that he is still alive, although Hektor has taken and put on his arms, a symbol of heroic honor and quality. Finally to be noted are many parallels between the death of Patroklos and that of Hektor: the death scenes of the two heroes etc.

View full abstract

Before the Second World War, the birth of coinage in Asia Minor was generally placed at the beginning or in the first half of the seventh century B.C. But in 1951, E.S.G. Robinson, by reconsidering the coins (together with dumps immediately preceding them) found at the Ephesian Artemisium in 1904-5, insisted that coinage can hardly have begun in Asia Minor much earlier than about 630 B.C. Since then many scholars have accepted his opinion. In 1959, however, N.G.L. Hammond criticized this 'recent opinion', and put the first appearance of coins in Asia Minor in c. 687-77 B.C. on the strength of several pieces of evidence. I. Archaeological evidence. A. The coins and dumps from the Artemisium at Ephesus must have been coeval with other finds from it (700-590 B.C.). B. Two vases from Khaniale Tekke in Crete contained gold and silver dumps along with other objects (c. 800-650 B.C.). C. At Perachora the supposed dedication of an iron drachma which was demonetized as the result of the introduction of coinage at Corinth is dated to a time before 650-40 B.C., being judged from the unearthed stone with the dedicatory inscription. II. Literary evidence. A. Hermodike, a wife of Midas, struck coins (Heraclides Ponticus 11, 3). B. The gold coins of Gyges were held in high repute (Pollux 3,87; 7, 98). C. The first coinage of the Greek mainland was struck at Aegina by Pheidon of Argos (Strabo 358, 376; Marmor Parium 30; Etymologicum Magnum 613), who is said to have been contemporary with Gyges. Upon these I remark as follows. I.A, II. A,B are easily refuted. In his more recent study of the vases of I.B, the excavator dates their contents to the seventh century B.C., not c. 800-650 B.C. The Perachora inscription of I.C. may belong to as late as the first half of the sixth century B.C. Moreover, concernig the exact character of the undiscovered 'drachma', nothing decisive can be said. The iron spits found at Argive Heraeum seem to confirm the tradition (Orionis Etymologicum 118), which reports the dedication of the obsolete spits to Hera of Argos by Pheidon. But those spits are not necessarily taken as the tradition goes. There is also some doubt about the credibility of informations on Pheidon's coinage of II. C. Accordingly, Hammond's contention is not strong enough to deny the appropriateness of Robinson's conclusion, which is based on precise numismatical and archaeological research.

View full abstract

This paper is an attempt to grasp an aspect of the Aeschylean δικη in terms of θρασο&b.sigmav; and τολμα, and thus to elucidate the fundamental idea of his Oresteia. What the members of the Atrean family (Agamemnon, Clytemnestra, and Orestes) conduct in the name of δικη, proves actually to be unlawful, reckless deeds, and is more adequately described by θρασο&b.sigmav;, τολμα or their compounds, as examples in the text show. Clytemnestra, for instance, kills her husband with the alleged intention of exacting justice for her daughter. But when she utters, in her triumphant exaltation, blasphemous words, she appears in the eyes of the chorus simply as θρασυστομο&b.sigmav;. The chorus also sing of women, who are moved by παντολμο&b.sigmav; gpcos to commit a horrible crime. Athena's. advice and warning, given to the Athenian citizens in the Eumenides, remind us of the Thucydidean passage (3, 82 ; cf. 6, 59) where the author regards the αλογικο&b.sigmav; τολμα as courageous loyalty to party. What Aeschylus feared for the Athenians a generation before, has come to be a reality!

View full abstract

A few extant records on Democritus' theory of knowledge have been taken by many as self-contraditory. They will be classified into the following three groups in this paper, in which I will try to reexamine these materials to see if they really contradict each other: (1) Sextus, Adversus mathematicos I 135-139 (2) Galen, De medico empirico 1259, 8 (3) Aristotle, Metaphysica Γ5, 1009 b; De anima A 2, 404 a; Philoponus, in Aristotelis de Anima libros commentaria p. 35; Aetius, IV 8, 5 (1) In Sextus' quotations from Democritus himself, the relativity of sensations seems to be made the basis of scepticism, and it is shown that thought is prior to sensation. (2) Galen appears to attribute to Democritus a sort of criticism against the superiority of thought over sensation, while admitting the superiority on the other hand. (3) In Aristotle's view, thought and sensation, as well as soul and mind, are the same in Democritus, and "truth is what appears." For they all depend on a physical mechanism, that is, they are material and the objects of them are the atomic composition (the phenomenon). In Sextus, however, the objects of thought are the atoms and the void themselves, while those of sensation are the atomic composition. Thus, some quotations and comments in Sextus and a few remarks of Aristotle seem to contradict each other. They are not essential contradictions, however, because it is merely the objects of cognition that are comprehended differently by them. According to Aetius, moreover, thought is a form of sensation, for thought is exactly parallel to sensation. Hence, the superiority of thought over sensation is not opposite to the identity of them either. In ordinary circumstances, it is very difficult for most people to grasp the atoms and the void with thought, because of the disturbance of sensation, or the relativity of them. Democritus' fragments of scepticism, as I taken them, do not show the impossibility, but the difficulty, of knowledge about reality. And the passages in Galen suggest that thought corrects and supplements sensation, and that it is very difficult for the activity of thought to be explained in atomic terms. There is a sort of limitation in Democritus' theory of knowledge in this point.

View full abstract

1. Did Zeno kill himself? Adam Smith denied it. I agree with him for the following reasons: (a) the report that Zeno died at the age of 98 is due to Apollonius of Tyre and (b) this report seems to have been originally connected with the story of Zeno's suicide; (c)the report should be, and has now been generally, rejected on the basis of Persaeus' testimony and Apollonius' unreliability. It seems probable therefore that the story of Zeno's suicide did not exist before Apollonius of Tyre. 2. It is possible that the paradoxical statements about the Stoical wise man (the so-called paradoxa Stoicorum) originated, not with Zeno, but with Chrysippus. Adam Smith propounded this interpretation with some plausibility and I have added a few reasons to his. 3. Is Zeno's ethics deontological or teleological? It cannot be denied that there is a deontological side there and this side is a very fundamental one. But the Stoical wise man believes in and relies upon the providence of a God which aims at the prosperity and perfection of the universe, and thus his "deontological act" is grounded on his "teleological belief".

View full abstract

'Greek art reconciles two principles which are often opposed; on the one hand control and clarity and fundamental seriousness; on the other, brilliance, imagination and passion.' (H.D.F. Kitto). Such dual nature of Greek culture is usually explained as the outcome of the fusion of two peoples or cultures (Mediterranean and Indo-European). This explanation is, I believe, fundamentally correct, but not satisfactory enough; because a fusion of two cultures might also produce a neutral sort of culture. In order to explain the nature of Greek culture in full, we must seek some more direct causes in addition which produced its dual nature. In Classical Greece, the social and political organizations were clearly patriarchal, but if we turn to the realm of mythology and religion we can easily find many matriarchal traits. We often find both features in the same persons. For example Hesiod, a marked misogynist living in a patriarchal family, very often arranges the genealogies of gods in matrilinear systems. This matriarchy in mythology and religion (die mutterrechtliche Religion) was no doubt mainly of Mediterranean origin. From our almost exclusively archaeological evidence we cannot exactly know to what extent Minoan Civilization was matriarchal. It is possible that it may have had some matriarchal or at least matrilinear social systems, but they must have been incompatible with the new-comers' patriarchal systems; so they must have gone out of existence, say by the end of the Mycenaean Age, except in certain obscure districts (e.g. in Lycia) . On the other hand, Minoan religion was without any doubt matriarchal; and what was more, it could co-exist and combine with the patriarchal system, because it was especially connected with agriculture, the importance of which in Classical Greece was as great as it had been in the Minoan Age. Thus in Classical Greece we find the combination of the matriarchal religion with the patriarchal system, which I think was the basic structure of Greek culture. Analyzing some important Athenian legends and some tragic plays, we try to explain the operation and effects of the combination. The most ancient kings of Athens (Kekrops, Kranaos, Amphiktyon and Erichthonic's or Erechtheus) were said to have been born from Gaia, and all the Athenians proudly called themselves autochthones. This firm belief in the Mother Earth had its origin in the Mediterranean matriarchal religion, and promoted the unification of the Athenian Polis. Thus in a way matriarchal religion sustained the political superstructure. Aeschylus in the Eumenides clearly thought that a reconciliation of the Apolline principle (i.e. the patriarchal system) and the Eumenidean principle (i.e. the matriarchal religion) was absolutely necessary for the well-being of the Athenian Polis. In Euripides' Ion Kreusa's chthonian descent is often clearly mentioned, so she seems to represent the matriarchal religion ; while her only son Ion is given a divine father Apollon, the most distinct representative of patriarchy. Thus, according to Euripides Ion combines in himself our two principles. In Sophocles' Antigone and Euripides' Bacchae is depicted the disruption of the two principles. Antigone and Dionysos stand for the matriarchal religion which includes feminism and emotionalism, Kreon and Pentheus for the patriarchal and rationalistic principle. While in the Ion and the Eumenides Athena acts as mediatress between two parties or principles, in the Antigone and the Bacchae in which are treated problems of a foreign city, the poets do not try to settle them. We may say that some Athenian thinkers such as the three great tragedians were in some way conscious of the basic structure of their culture or spirit. The substructure (i. e. the emotional side) of their spirit was nourished by the matriarchal religion, while its superstructure (i.e. the rational side) was formed by their patriarchal social principle.

View full abstract

Th. Mommsens These, dass die sog. servianische Reform eine grundsassige Burgerschaft herstellte, hat seit Pl. Fraccarros Kritik viel an Gultigkeit verloren. Aus den Umstanden des 6 Jahrhunderts v. Chr. gesehen, wird die Reform bloss eine politische Zusammenstellung von Burgern, grundsassig oder nicht, gewesen sein.

View full abstract

We have the Greek theory of mixed constitution in the works of Plato and Aristotle and the Roman theory in those of Polybius and Cicero. For the historian, who tries to study how the Romans, while inheriting the Greek theories, created the theories of their own, it is an important step to investigate connection between the political thought of Polybius and that of Cicero. In an attempt to trace the relationship historically, I take up the political discussions in the time of the Gracchi, which is half way between the ages of the two thinkers, considering the connection of the discussions to each of the two systems of thought. Among Polybius, Scipio and Tiberius Gracchus there is a community of thought concerning the idea of res publica and we can detect a close connection between Polybius and the Reforms of the Gracchi. However, Polybius was not fully acquainted with the originality of the Roman constitution. In the time of the Gracchan Reforms the theories of aristocracy, democracy and monarchy were discussed thoroughly and the controversy paved the way for the theory of the Roman mixed constitution. The transition from the Polybian theory of the Roman mixed constitution to the Ciceronian can be best understood as the process of the political thoughts of res publica in the Scipio-circle advancing, in accordance with the historical development of the Roman state, to the theoretical arrangement of the political thoughts in the works of Cicero, through the political discussions in the time of the Gracchi. The Polybius' theory of the mixed constitution, which remained under Greek influence and was not appropriate to the Roman reality, began to take root in the Roman world and was succeeded by that of Cicero. The fact that Cicero established his peculiarly Roman theory of state the theory of res publica-at the time of the decline of the Roman Republic forms an exact parallel of Aristotle composing the Greek counterpart the theory of πολιτεια at the fall of the Greek city-states.

View full abstract

SALLUST's predilection for the historic infinitive is well-known. He usually employs several in succession. On the other hand examples are not lacking of historic infinitives used singly and there seems to be a feature common to some of them; one action described by a single infinitive is in strong contrast with the other described by a finite verb immediately preceding or succeeding. For example, (nostri maiores) neque victis quicquam praeter iniuriae licentiam eripiebant. at hi contra, ignavissumi homines, per summum scelus omnia ea sociis adimere, quae fortissumi viri victores reliquerant (Cat. 12, 4-5) . (Catilina) ad hoc maledictis increpabat omnis bonos, suorum unum quemque nominans laudare (Cat. 21, 4). veterani pristinae virtutis memores comminus acriter instare, illi haud timidi resistunt (Cat. 60, 3). Further the historic infinitive is used sometimes by the author in a passage where some contrast apparently exists; e.g. neque tamen Catilinae furor minuebatur, sed in dies plura agitare (Cat. 24, 2). (At Rome Catiline's preparations for insurrection resulted in failure) interea Manlius in Etruria plebem sollicitare (Cat. 28, 4). In these instances an antithesis in thought is to be regarded as strengthened by that in form between the historic infinitive and the finite verb. This view pushed farther induces one to hold that because of this formal contrast Sallust generally uses the historic infinitive whenever he prefers to throw one action, dramatic or not, into relief against the others.

View full abstract

The Geoponics has been attributed in the past to a number of compilers of different ages, but nowadays it is generally thought that an unknown compiler in the middle of the tenth century gave shape to the treatise. This argument is based on examination of its preface which can be considered as a dedication to Constantinus VII Porphyrogenitus. In the preface the emperor himself is described as the compiler and publisher. This curious statement for a dedication makes one assume, as to the preface at least, the presence of a writer other than the emperor. However, it should be noted that the preface and the introduction of Book I share some words and phrases bearing great resemblances to one another; that, according to certain manuscripts which do not transmit the preface in question, the introductions of Book VII-IX keep a dedication phrase to a son named Bassus whose father must be Cassianus Bassus, a name added to the title of the Geoponies; and that because of the same formula of the introduction to each Book the dedication to the son Bassus might be retained in the other seventeen Books. Accordingly Cassianus Bassus should be identified with a farmer in Bithynia who, compiling the treatise, supplements a lot of articles referred to by ancient authorities with remarks obtained from his own experience as a farmer. Then the two chapters, Chapter I of Book XII "Cultivation calender of vegetables in the climate of Constantinople" and Chapter I of Book XV "Sympathy and antipathy of the natural world" are, judged from their contents and method of quotation, lacking in harmony with the whole composition of the treatise. So they can hardly be ascribed to Cassianus Bassus, but should be regarded as interpolations by the writer of the preface. The Geoponics, therefore, owes its greatest part to Cassianus Bassus who, making use of Anatolius' agricultural treatise as framework of a new compilation, amplified it with supplements from other authorities as well as from his own experience. Later, in the middle of the tenth century, the Geoponics was found by an unknown compiler, who, attributing the work to his emperor Constantinus VII, fabricated a very unskillful preface and slightly touched the contents. It may be in this way that the Geoponics we have now came into being.

View full abstract