By quoting several Greek philosophers, the author tries to distinguish the judgement from the description. According to his opinion, the description is nothing other than the task of the eye and its act is the objective exactitude. The judgement is on the contrary the personal decision concerning internal responsibility, and its act is the truth. Many thinkers utilize their objective description about the external world for their judgement. But Plato concentrates on the judgement. Because his theory goes on the level of logos, which is the correlative of the reason, and not on the dimension of pragma, which is the object of the sense. His theory of ideas is not the inductive reference from sense-data, but from this theory as principle the lot of true propositions are deduced. (Interpretation of Phaidon) The subject of thinking in Plato is neither the sense nor the reason of human beings. The human reason does love the true thinking which is the business of God. The act of the human reason is to become the horizon for the thinking of God. Periagoge tes psyches (conversio animae) to the Being-itself is the principle for the homoiosis toi theoi. Because the service for God (latreia tou theou) is the most important task for us, we must know what God thinks and we must do as we know. This is the reason why the thought and deed can be one in Platonic system. (Interpretation of Apologia and Politeia)

View full abstract

According to the analysts such as Kirchhoff, Wilamowitz and Schwartz, the end of the originally independent "Telemacheia" was divided into Book IV and Book XV of the extant Odyssey by bungling redactors; they say that δ 619 must have been immediately followed by o 68 ff. (Schwartz and Wilamowitz: HdO) or o 75 ff. (Kirchhoff), or o 88 ff. (Wilamowitz: HU). This theory is mainly based on the fact that Telemachus refused the invitation of Menelaus and wished to return home (δ 587-619). On the other hand Focke thinks that Telemachus does not decline the invitation of Menelaus, but accepts it on condition of staying just for a while (δ 587-619); it is said that o 64-119 does not immediately follow δ 619, but is taken up again at the end of Book XIII and the beginning of Book XV, so the discourses between Telemachus and Menelaus (o 64-119) are entirely different from those of δ 587-619. His point is that the extant Odyssey was composed by the author who expanded the original story of Odysseus by adding his "Telemacheia". Indeed the theory of Kirchhoff, Wilamowitz and Schwartz is contrary to Focke's, but it is common to both theories taht they disregard or don't give careful consideration to δ 555-598. As to the point at issue the present writer proposes the following solution: Since Telemachus had been informed of Odysseus' strategy of the wooden horses by Menelaus and Helen in Sparta, it is natural that he should want to stay there and inquire after his father as well as about many other things from the wise Menelaus so that he may have shrewdness (μητι&b.sigmav;) to make efficient use of his courage (μενο&b.sigmav;). But virtually he declines Menelaus' invitation. He knows himself that Menelaus would not fully understand him hesitating to accept the invitation (δ 594 and 595-598). So he makes the plea that his companions are waiting for him in Pylos (δ 598-599). Menelaus, however, takes Telemachus' word in opposite sense, and understands that Telemachus in fact wishes to stay. And he says he will give him a mixing-bowl, the most valuable treasure, instead of the horses (δ 611-615). On Menelaus saying that, the guests arrive and a banquet is held. And the scene changes to Ithaka. Now this misunderstanding is not removed, and as for Telemachus nothing is mentioned at all until the end of Book XIII and the beginning of Book XV. The present writer thinks that Telemachus' return home left undecided has the practical effect on the audience of increasing their anxiety and tension. This seems to be the excellent plot of the author of the Odyssey. The subsequent Athene's words will be illustrative of this theory. From her words (ν 421-424), the writer infers that the story in Books XIII and XV is based on Menelaus' understanding of the stay of Telemachus. In o 10-26, she advises Telemachus, who has forgotten about his home as he has said himself (δ 585-589), to return home, describing the incident in Ithaka, and tells him of the suitors and what to do after his returning home. Thus the next morning he tells Menelaus that he wants to return to Ithaka; Menelaus agrees and offers to accompany him if he will travel in Hellas and Argos. But he refuses this offer flatly, having manifested the reason why he should be back without delay. Then Menelaus and Helen give him the gifts and he departs after the meal. Going through Pylos he arrives in Ithaka under the protection of Athene. From this point of view the present writer concludes that the extant Odyssey is composed by a single author.

View full abstract

It is said that the trimeter is a very free verse and that it is why it was taken up by tragedians for their dialogues. I believe this interpretation is wrong. It was not until Euripides tried to create new rhythm in his dialogues by frequent use of 'resolution' that it became 'free'. Until then the trimeter was written according to some fixed practices, which fact can clearly be seen if we observe how long ancipitia and short ones are distributed both within a line and in several successive lines. Firstly, in comparison with the Iambographi, tragedians very much preferred long ancipitia, especially for the hemistich before caesura. Then, ancipitia are also used in a way that would remind us of rhyme: the distribution of long ancipitia and short ones to the three feet of each line is very often so arranged as to produce some pattern or other for several lines on end (for example, aaa…, abab…, abba, etc.). Now the late Miss A. M. Dale's argument for the priority of the tetrameter and the subsequent development of the trimeter from it must be accepted (Here again long ancipitia will be found to have contributed to the rejection of monotony of the tetrameter, especially giving more variety to the hemistich before caesura). The trimeter, then had already gone some way towards being a suitable metre for long narratives expressive of man's thoughts and emotions. The lyric trimeters of tragedy have their own traits: in contrast with the dialogue trimeters, their ancipitia are almost uniformly short and they contain a great number of resolved feet. It may sound odd, but we need not be troubled by it, because it will be found quite natural when we examine how the chorus and the dialogue are involved with music respectively. When Euripides created the new style of dialogue, it was once again ancipitia that helped the resolved feet to add the effect. This style of his, without doubt, prepared the way for Aristophanes to produce prose-like verses, on the one hand, and, on the other, it is possibly based on an idea similar to that of T. S. Eliot's in the versification of his drama. Be that as it may, Euripides' new rhythm of dialogue is sufficient for us to expect that his drama is to be essentially different from those of his predecessors; and finally we are advised firmly to bear in mind that these predecessors, Aeschylus and Sophocles, though vastly different otherwise from each other, are nearly the same so far as the rhythm of their dialogues are concerned.

View full abstract

XENOPHON'S Hellenika 2. 2. 19-20 helps to throw some light, not only on the much discussed date of the Melian dialogue (5. 91) , but, more generally, also on the grave irony with which Thucydides views the characters in his History who argue either for or against the merit of the Athenian achievements during the crisis of the Persian War. On closer examination of the 17 political speeches which contain direct or indirect allusions to the Persian War, the historian's deliberate manner in handling the theme can be elucidated. Often the Persian War marks the horizon of the historical perspective each speaker is aware of, and the speaker's attitude to the War falls within the scope of his political views on contemporary affairs. Such is the first speech of Perikles in 432 (1. 144.4-5), and also of Alkibiades in Athens in 415 (6. 17. 7), where the War seen as having been defensive by the former turns offensive by the latter's zeal to launch upon a new expansion. The Athenians are the first who aim at the most profit out of the logos on the Persian War (1. 73-78; 6. 82-87), but the Peloponnesians and the Syracusans are not much behind either. The Lakedaimonians find it expedient to recapitulate the dubious role of the Liberator of Hellas (2. 8. 5; 4. 85-87; 4. 114. 3). Hermokrates draws a remarkable parallel between the War and the Expedition (6. 33. 5-6; 76. 3-4), and exploits a markedly biased distinction between the two (6. 77. 1). His remarks may be taken to show that the comparable aspects of the two Wars first dawned upon Thucydides and his contemporaries after the catastrophe in Sicily. Thucydides leaves us in doubt if in truth so much of the Plataian dabate of 427 was taken up by the theme of the Persian War. His choice, however, becomes somewhat more transparent, if we assume that he telescoped the event after the capitulation of Athens, with the full knowledge of the scene reported by Xenophon (op. cit., loc. cit.). That he knew it seems to be reflected in his analysis of the Lakedaimonian sense of justice (3. 68. 1-3, 6; 5. 105. 4): they needed the Thebans then, now they hold up the merit of the Athenians since they no longer need to coax the Thebans. The allusions to the Persian War are the eloquent index to show that man remodels history after his experience and need. None of the logos presents an unbiased image; every speaker mirrors his political outlook on the broad term, the Persian War. Obviously Thucydides and his contemporaries thought it their problem how to overcome the variegated conflicts left unsettled by the War. Thucydides in particular deemed it his singular task to record the flickering images of the War within the context of his 27 years war, apart from keeping his precious memory of the numbers of ships and soldiers.

View full abstract

In the last forty years it has come to be the current opinion that Plato in his later works modified the position towards the phenomenal world that he had before taken up, and shifted his interest more than ever from the ideal to the empirical, and gave a higher rank in ontology and epistemology to sensible objects and to the process of becoming. There are examples of this among such as J. Stenzel's essay published shortly before his death. Apparently we can see Plato's modified attitude in the treatment of sensation and knowledge in the Theaet.; the growing divergence from the Phaedo and the Resp. is to be seen in the treatment of the phenomenal world in the Phileb. and the Tim.. But I don't subscribe to this current opinion. For the classical image of Platonism is on the solid base of Plato's whole work. The metaphysical base is found near the end of the Phileb., in the Tim. and even in the Leges. Although I do not deny the development of Plato's thought, yet practically, in his later works, he keeps to the same problems and solutions as in the earlier dialogues. Only the later Plato is more serious about the necessary adjustment of his radical principle to an empirical need than the earlier. That is what I want to state and examine in this essay. For this purpose, I make a division of problems into four parts: 1) the metaphysical thesis of the existence of an eternal and unmoving reality 2) the problem about mind and body 3) the question about the appreciation of the visible world 4) the epistemology

View full abstract

In many of Plato's dialogues, the Timaeus had been most influential on the formation of Christian theology because of its affinity to the Christian doctrine of creation. But there were many controversial and difficult passages in it both for the Christians and the Platonists, especially 28 B 7. In it Plato declares that the universe "γεγονεν". How to interpret this statement had been the object of discussions on both sides, and also between them. There had been disagreement even among the so-called Middle Platonists and Neoplatonists as to whether to interpret this passage literally or allegorically, whether Plato believed in a temporal genesis or only in a causal one. On account of its close relationship to the problem of the eternity of the universe, this passage had been the more vehemently argued. I have tried in this paper to trace briefly the history of the various interpretations from Atticus to Proclus and to make clear the fundamental difference between the Christian doctrine of creation and the Neoplatonic cosmology. Special emphasis has been laid on the Proclus' commentary on the Timaeus and John Philopon's De aeternitate mundi contra Proclum.

View full abstract

In this article, the author intends to study the inner relationship of the powerstructure and policy, especially with regard to the Greeks, of Antigonus Monophthalmos whose kingdom "formed at once a bridge and a zone of division" (V. Ehrenberg) between the empire of Alexander and the Hellenistic states. The kingdom of Antigonus which was mainly in Asia Minor, seems in itself far from being "absolute Militarmonarchie" as U. Kohler once said. It was on more than an insecure body politic, lacking in national unity and the traditional foundation of central rule. In spite of his military aggrandizement, the main part of the military power he had to get from the soldiers of fortune, and this, too, added to the weakness of his kingship as "the mercenary kingdom". From B. C. 315 on, "the anti-Antigonus Front" of the other Successors (Diadochoi) (i. e. Ptolemy, Cassander and Lysimachus), notwithstanding the temporary truce of B. C. 311, was strengthened with time, and Antigonus, giving up finally his long-held idea of imperial re-unity, may have tended towards the consolidation of his territorial state. This was followed by a change in his Greek policy. Mere friendly relationship (φιλια) alone was no more satisfactory to him, and firm as well as active symmachy (συμμαχια) which would take final form in the Hellenic League of B. C. 302, was more and more required. A great mercenary force and the symmachy with the Greeks were thus, in fact, the two mainstays of Antigonus' "Kingdom of Asia Minor". His confederate policy towards the Greeks in support of their liberty and autonomy, was one vitally necessary for the fatal vulnerability of his kingdom itself, and he may have intended to form an inseparable "symbiotic" relation, primally military, between his kingdom and the Greek states in opposition to the Allied Front. The mercenary army and the symmachical confederates have some peculiar resemblance to each other. Both were highly unreliable and insecure, and both attached themselves to the present powerful leader (ηγεμων) only for gain. Antigonus' situation, definitely dependent on these two factors, no matter how brilliant his military successes were, made his kingship substantially floating and his kingdom inevitably ephemeral as well as transitional.

View full abstract