Although the Iliad has for the main theme the Wrath of Achilleus it has been called "the Song of Ilios" probably because not only does it tell the fate of Troy but by the frequent mention of earlier and later events, by allusion or narration, gives us the entire picture of the Trojan War. This combination of two themes, it is said, is possible because the short lay of the Wrath of Achilleus has been expanded into a long epic or because the poet, either taking up a traditional motif of the wrath of a hero or making use of earlier poems(e.g. 'Achilleis', 'Memnonis', 'Meleagris' etc.), has created the Wrath of Achilleus and at the same time retold the fate of Troy. However, the Wrath of Achilleus which is but an episode in the last year of the war cannot have been well fitted to be interlaced with the theme of the fate of Troy, nor has any convincing explanation been offered why the poet or the poets have chosen from among the rest the theme of the Wrath of Achilleus so as to make out of it "the Song of Ilios". Now it is to be noted that just as the Trojan War arises from the abduction of Helene, so is the Wrath of Achilleus caused by the detaining of Chryseis and the taking of Briseis, and a scrutiny of these two motifs shows that there exist close parallels between them: (1) The taking of Briseis preceded by the detaining of Chryseis brings about the wrath of Achilleus which extends through the death of Patroklos to the downfall of Hektor and, at the same time, of Troy(cf. Ζ 403, Χ 410 f, Ω 728). This is parallel to the abduction of Helene which brings about the revenge of the Atreidai on the Trojans (the Trojan War) and finally leads to the fall of Troy. (2) Just as human actions are very often interrelated with those of gods, so is Paris held responsible for the wrath of Zeus and other gods and their destruction of Troy because he violates not only wedlock but also hospitality (cf. Γ 351 ff, Ν 622 ff etc.). It is parallel to this when Agamemnon brings upon the Achaeans and himself not only the wrath of Apollon but that of Zeus(Θ 37, 468, Ο 72)while he detains Chryseis and then takes Briseis from Achilleus. The wrath of Zeus which is identical with his promise to Thetis may appear at first sight directed against the Achaeans, all the same it leads to the fall of Troy while it brings about the death of Patroklos and then that of Hektor, the only defender of Troy (cf. Ο 64-77, Σ 74 ff, 79 ff). On the other hand the wrath of Apollon which is caused by Agamemnon's rejection of the supplication of Chryses and which would thus be better suited to Zeus as guardian god of a suppliant (cf. Ω 143 ff, 569 ff) seems to have the function of introducing and foreshadowing that of Zeus. (Notice also that in the Odyssey Zeus appears as Xeinios and at the same time as Hiketesios. ) (3) Ι 336 ff Achilleus says that, although the Achaeans make war on Troy because of Helene and not only the Atreidai but all those who are decent and right-minded love their wives, Agamemnon has robbed him of his θυμαρηζ αλοχοζ. Here the taking of Briseis is seen as parallel to the abduction of Helene. (4) Helene is Menelaos' wife. Likewise Chryseis and Briseis, though captives, are said to be equal to legitimate wives (cf. Α 113 f, Ι 336) ; Achilleus says that he loves Briseis, and Patroklos is said to have promised to marry her to his friend. The wrath of Achilleus is all the more intense because he has been robbed of his beloved (the same process is repeated when Patroklos is killed). (5) The Atreidai make war in order to win τιμη from the Trojans and revenge the injury. On the contrary Achilleus retires from battle to win τιμη and redeem his injured honour. Patroklos, however, goes to battle in place of Achilleus (and disguised as Achilleus) to win τιμη and κυδοζ for the latter and get Briseis back (Π 84 ff). (6) The Trojan War arises when Helene is

(View PDF for the rest of the abstract.)

View full abstract

Zielinski's 'laws', of which infringements he used as criteria to give the chronological order to Euripides' tragedies, are not so well known as his name. But these prohibitive rules were strictly observed by Aeschylus and Sophocles as well as by Euripides himself in his earlier works, so that they can be considered fundamental laws governing the relation between wordforms and resolutions of iambic trimeter. A resolution of each longum is differentiated respectively legitimate or illegitimate according to caesura or other breaks between words and the kind of contiguous anceps even if the disposition of longum and bveve is similar. (See examples, page 35, 36) Unbalanced preponderance of peculiar forms indicates that both the restraint of the irregular resolution of older tragedians and the steadily progressive increase of Euripides are conscious. From the 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th and 8th Zieliriski's laws we can deduce the word-shapes which are inevitably illegitimate wherever they may appear in a verse, in other words, the shapes which predecessors would not choose for their verses. Two did not exist in the traditional vocabulary of trimeter in tragedy: ionicus such as ικετευω and paeon primus such asαλλοτρια. Euripides uses the former 130 times and the latter 50. (See Table 3 & 4, page 39, 41) Is there any particular reason for preference of these words? They are not keywords nor do they represent the new tendency of theme or thought, if any, of later Euripides tragedies. All of them cannot be considered to be borrowed from epic (the two word-shapes above mentioned fit easily to dactylic hexameter), nor from comedy (in which trimeter is much freer). The only characteristic is that all are common words. And it is for their commonness and nuance that Euripides, who rejected bombast, chose them in contriving his verses. On the other hand, they may have been chosen for the rhythmical effect by increasing the number of short syllables. But who could perceive this' device? There is no relation between these irregular metric combinations and a certain character or a certain emotion of speech, and they appear too sporadic to modify the ethos of iambic trimeter. Further, the irregularities are so subtle that one cannot distinguish them if only rhythm is extracted. Infringements of Zielinski's laws will not be appreciated fully unless we suppose that the meter is perceived with the aid of the traditional wording or 'formula' in the loosest sense. By this word I mean a word or words repeated several times in a peculiar position or positions in a verse. The words in Tables 3 & 4 were not formulaic; thus they could not occur to a tragedian's mind. But Euripides refined traditional formula, and in this process the infringements took place. He not only adopted new words into the vocabulary of trimeter but contrived new positions for the words used formerly in fixed positions. Words, which were hitherto separated and modified decoratively to fill the gap, are adjoined, so that the sentense construction became simpler or more condensed. At first not every word in those word-shapes but only special words were allowed to infringe the rules. This is the reason why the frequence of the infringement increases in chronological order. For once a traditional 'formula' is transfigured by adopting new words or new construction and this device is convenient, it is repeat-ed and becomes itself 'formula'.

View full abstract

We can understand why Aristotle defined time as the number of movement in respect of before and after by examining the passages which precede and follow this definition. From the fact that time follows and corresponds to movement and movement to magnitude, Aristotle concludes that time is a continuous and divisible quantity depending on movement and magnitude. Therefore, by virtue of their reciprocal relativity movement can be measured with reference to time and vice versa. Time is a quantity divided by two "vows", the two time instants, the before and the after. Movement is a quantity divided by two positions, the before and the after, of a moving thing. Thus, to the question 'what is time?' the answer is: time is the number of movement because 1) it measures movement, and 2) it is an "accidental" element of movement. From this, however, can be posed two questions: 1) how can we determine this quantity of time which is used to measure movement? 2) how can we avoid making time relative and multiple depending on each quantity of movement? The unit of time as measure of movement depends, however, on a certain quantity of movement to which it corresponds. Now according to Aristotle, movement is absolutely one (and thus continuous) only 1) if it is one specifically (as determined by the categories or the species under the categories comprehending two contraries between which the subjet moves), 2) one numerically (as indicated by the unity of the subject of this movement) and 3) one in time which is not interrupted. It follows from this that the unit (unity) of time consists in the quantity of movement thus determined; it can be regarded as the quantity of duration necessary to pass in order for the same subject to move from an extremity to the other as determined by the same species of the movement. This argument leads us to consider series of time, each of which is composed of time-units and, therefore, is not continuous but only "successive" or "contiguous": series which are different according to the defference of categories of movement: substantial, quantitative, qualitative and locomotive. Now all these series except one corresponding to the "absolute" movement of the substance presuppose absolute time, which is one and continuous, of the movement of the substance whose identity enables all "particular", predicative changes to take place. But since the substance is also exposed to its own change, the time of its movement cannot be continuous in itself and needs another time which is one and continuous. This time, one and continuous by nature, is taken by Aristotle to be that which corresponds to the circular movement of the celestial bodies the movement which, because of its circular character, is par excellence one (complete and regular) and, thus, guarantees the unity, the continuity, the uniformity, the infinity and the constancy of celestial time. This time "envelops" all non-continuous times and movements of sublunary bodies, and serves as the standard time in and by which the latter can take measurable values. For Aristotle, there can be no other time which would surpass and "envelop" the whole universe, for time passes only where movements of bodies occur. The universe has its own time in virtue of its own movement, being both measured and measuring. Therefore, outside the universe, which for Aristotle is complete, there is no time, no place, no change. That is to say, there is no body, but only a kind of entity which escapes all material changes (immobile and immaterial) and is absolutely self-identical (the One, the Actual, the Being), that is, eternal God.

View full abstract

The "Great Persecution" offers some important problems for the study of the conflict between the Roman Empire and the Church. We must examine it not only on the level of religion but also the political and social backgrounds. Therefore, it seems that Maximinus Daia is the most interesting persecutor in this period. He ruled the East of the Empire where Christians were most densely populated in the Empire, and he persecuted the Church more violently than any other emperor. He tried to revive paganism energetically in order to establish the moral unity in his dominions. Then we find it important that many cities in the East petitioned to the Emperor against the Christians and asked him to persecute them, for it means that Daia's persecution was regulated by some external conditions. We can find some factors which determined the course of his persecution. First of all, he faced the political crisis in the Empire which affected his Christian policy, so his attacks against the Church were very intermittent. He was the sole emperor who resumed the persecution after Galerius had issued an edict of toleration, but he was forced to relax the persecution by Constantine and Licinius. After his defeat Daia was even obliged to publish an edict of toleration. Maximinus, however, intended to accomplish the persecution to the last, which was his fundamental policy. And it was the traditional Roman religion-paganism -that made him choose such a policy. He was not a brutal persecutor, for he rather desired that through persuasion his subjects should be brought fitly to reverence the gods and that the Christians should not be constrained by violence. We may consider he was devoted to paganism and was even an intelligent emperor. He regarded Diocletian as his father and called himself Jovius-another name of Jupiter who was the main god of the tetrarchic system. He inherited Diocletian's policy including the persecution, and wanted to obtain the rank of the first Augustus. The reform and reorganization of paganism were executed, parallel with the persecution. Temples were restored. Perhaps in conscious imitation of the Church he organized a hierarchy of priests. They were drawn from among those who had shown themselves zealous in the service of paganism. And the forged anti-Christian books like Acts of Pilate were published and taught in the school. General sacrifices were ordered to be made by all people. Then we must give attention to the petitions against the Christians, which asked that they should be expelled from the cities. The petitions were sent to the Emperor by many cities like Nicomedia, Antioch and so on from autumn 311 to summer 312. It is clear that the cities petitioned spontaneously and they became one of the causes for reopening the persecution at the end of 311. But we can not overestimate the pressure of the petitions on the policy of Maximinus. For the pagan citizens who had petitioned, e.g. Theotecnus of Antioch, belonged to the upper classes. They supported the policy of persecution by means of petition, and were granted by the Emperor offices of the empire or of the pagan organization, or even some boons for the city itself in return for their devotion to the gods. So it seems that the Emperor and these citizens were interdependent. Rather we should find that paganism was declining in this period. Eusebiuss often says that pagan people in the lower classes disliked the persecution and orders of sacrifices, and they felt pity for the Christians. So paganism must be "revived" by Maximinus and it was a vain attempt. Before Maximinus was defeated by Licinius in 313 he had been defeated by the Church.

View full abstract