To distinguish colon from period is essential to modern metrical studies. Cola are in synaphea while the end of a period is marked by pause which is sometimes, though not always, explicitly indicated by hiatus/brevis in longo. But ancient scholarship took all divided lines as equal entities and did not care about the difference between colon-ends and period-ends (in the modern sense) : 1. Hiatus/brevis is located within a line by the colometry of papyri(Pindar, Paean 2. 25, 77; 6. 16, (?)95, (?)136; Bacchylides 10. 15, 33, 43) and scholia vetera of Pindar. 2. Hephaestion regarded each final ουλλαβη as αδιαφορο&b.sigmav;, and sometimes interpreted as αδιαφορο&b.sigmav; a real long syllable which was situated at a short element(e. g. -〓〓--〓- as achoriambic catalectic(=-〓〓--〓〓〓)or-〓-〓-- as τροχαικον ημιολιον(=-〓-〓-〓〓〓))- The Pindaric scholiast even supposed such an aαδιαφορο&b.sigmav; could be in synaphea with the next line (e. g. Pyth. 8. 24 θιγοσα νασο&b.sigmav; τε-, which was described as iambic dimeter brachycatalectic). 3. Horace carefully imitated his Greek models as represented in Hellenistic-Roman editions, but failed to notice that hiatus/brevis and synartesis were incompatible in the same position. He admitted both at the end of the third line of the sapphic and the alcaic stanzas (hiatus/brevis being rejected by Sappho and Alcaeus, as the third and fourth lines belonged to the same period). 4. Horace also imitated apparent interlinear hiatus/brevis of epodi of Archilochus faithfully. Actually Archilochean models must have comprised three periods though they were divided into two lines (cf. Cologne Archilochus) , perhaps to save wasted spaces in a papyrus roll. Hephaestion seems to have developed his theory of asynarteta at Ench, 15. 1 by observing the line division of a Hellenistic-Roman edition. He did not mean a verse (a period, in the modern sense)by στιχο&b.sigmav; but a line which he found written down continuously (cf. his definitions of στιχο&b.sigmav; and κωλον at Poem. 1 and usages of these words in Heliodorus). The analysis into metra of Hephaestion and Pindaric scholia sometimes approaches nonsense. They cut a ready-made line into metra arithmetically from its beginning and called it hypercatalectic etc. paying no attention to its nature. Sometimes a right colometry was acquired. For example, the glyconic was picked up in the papyri of Sappho 96, Pindar Parth. 2 and Bacch. 2 in spite of synartesis. But in other similar odes a wrong colometry is offered : see Alcaeus 130, 357, Bacch. 6, 18. The basic principles of Hellenistic-Roman colometry are (1) to avoid split words as much as possible(2)to make each line of roughly equal length (i.e. with variation in length no greater than dimeter to tetrameter) (3) to arrange consecutive lines of similar shapes when possible. A right colometry and a reasonable classification of cola are induced from collecting all possible parallels. To decide which form of the colon is regular, the statistical method is useful, and antistrophic responsion is most important. 'Genealogical' speculation must be avoided at this stage. A colometry is argued rationally though the choice between two possible colometries is sometimes a matter of taste and though not every structure of a period can be clearly analysed by dividing into cola when the length of a colon is presupposed.

View full abstract

The concept of ζεινο&b.sigmav; is not so clear. ζεινο&b.sigmav; is usually understood in two divided meanings, A. guest-friend, B. stranger. People interested in this word have sought the development of this word. However, considering that already in Homer both meanings are found, it must be treated as one word which has the two meanings at the same time. Also whether it has any united meaning must be investigated. In this paper the author intends to clarify the concept of ζεινο&b.sigmav;. At first he examines the opinion of Ph. Gauthier who first tried to understand its united meaning ("Notes sur l'etranger et l'hospitalite en Grece et a. Rome," Anc. Soc. 4, 1973). Gauthier insists that ζεινο&b.sigmav; is another Greek. The author finds some difficulties in this theory, and concludes that his opinion does not have grounds for support. For example, his insistence that αλλοθροοι cannot be ζεινο&b.sigmav; contradicts the material suggesting that Egyptians, who seem to be αλλοθροοι, can be ζεινο&b.sigmav;(Od. XIV. 283-6). The other evidences do not suggest the necessity of dividing Greeks and non-Greeks, either. Then the author studies the use of ζεινο&b.sigmav; in archaic times, especially in Homer, in which it is used 208 times. He draws these conclusions: 1. The meaning of ζεινο&b.sigmav; is constant in showing the people who do not belong to the same community. 2. Estimates of ζεινο&b.sigmav; are in a certain range. 3. There exists μεταναστη&b.sigmav; who cannot be ζεινο&b.sigmav; for a long time. His estimate is low. 4. A non-μεταναστη&b.sigmav; foreigner can remain ζεινο&b.sigmav; much longer than μεταναστη&b.sigmav;, but not forever. 5. In any case the period of remaining ζεινο&b.sigmav; links the degree of his estimate. These point out that ζεινο&b.sigmav; can be understood from two factors, estimate and time. The author, thereupon, presents the figure of ζεινο&b.sigmav;-concept by making two axes, estimate and time. From this concept-figure the author throws some new light on the dogma that a foreigner at this time was without legal rights. Foreigner should be understood strictly by names, because ζεινο&b.sigmav; is not foreigner in general. Since Odysseus can claim his rights as ζεινο&b.sigmav; to Cyclops(Od. IX. 266-71) , and themis orders that ζεινο&b.sigmav; should be given hospitality, ζεινο&b.sigmav; must not be without legal rights. μεταναστη&b.sigmav;, however, appears as without legal rights, because, who, when he wants to stay there, needs to change in a short time into some concept other than ζεινο&b.sigmav;, such as θεραπων, θη&b.sigmav;, cannot claim his rights as ζεινο&b.sigmav; for a long time. If he does, it means that he will have to leave that place in a short time and return to a wandering life again. Remaining ζεινο&b.sigmav; any longer than the period determined by the degree of his estimate, will cause dissatisfaction among people and he will not be able to expect hospitality any more as in the case of Odysseus who returned to Aeolus (Od. X. 725). To understand ζεινο&b.sigmav; from these two factors, estimate and time, is not helpful in understanding that of classical times. The structure of ζεινο&b.sigmav;-concept suffered a great change during the development of polis. The essence of this change will be clearly understood when the structure of ζεινο&b.sigmav;-concept in classical times is well grasped.

View full abstract

In the Acharnians Dicaeopolis goes to Euripides to borrow the rags of Telephus and disguises himself as a beggar. In Thesmophoriazusae, too, the similar motif can be indicated in its prologue-scene; that is, Mnesilocus goes to Agathon and borrows his costume to dress up as a woman. The similarities between these two scenes have been argued and pointed out, but the examination in view of Agathon's mimesis-theory may enable us to recognize another in addition to those mentioned. The mimesis-theory is stated by Agathon as the defense of his own appearance which Mnesilocus ridicules as effeminate. He explains that his guise is necessary for the composition of the γυναικεια δραματα, the plays with a female chorus, explained by the scholia. He, however, does not seem to concede that he dresses himself as a woman to compose his song. The reference to the Ionian poets is, I think, important to understand what object he caught by mimesis; μιμησι&b.sigmav; ηδη ταυτα συνθηρευεται (156). He emphasizes they wore the μιτρα and were dressed up luxuriously in accordance with the Ionian fashion ; εμιτροφορουν τε καχλιδων 'Ιωνικω&b.sigmav;, (163) (καχλιδων is Meineke's emendation). His emphasis suggests that their appearances are much the same as Agathon's, and in fact, as shown by Snyder, the Anacreon figure painted on ληκυθο&b.sigmav; corresponds precisely to the guise of Agathon. Considering these, the conclusion drawn is that what he caught by mimesis is the appearances of the Ionian poets. Then why does Agathon imitate the apperances of them in order to compose the γυναικεια δραματα? The answer, I think, lies in την εσθηθ' αμα γνωμη in line 148, which hints that Agathon believes it possible to acquire their poetic skill by making his appearance alike. In other words, by imitating their appearances, Agathon tries to make his own that effeminate melody which is their favorite subject and above all suitable to his female-song. If Agathon's mimesis-theory is interpreted like this, the similar attitude of a poet may be indicated in Dicaeopolis' disguise-scene. In the confrontation scene with the Acharnians, the σπονδαι, which meant 'wine' when Amphitheus handed it to Dicaeopolis, reverts to 'treaty', that is to say, to the subject of the argument just as in the assembly scene. Then he offers to make his appearance pitiable for the sake of his long-speech, and goes to Euripides to borrow the rags for his disguise. But before the scene changes to the Euripides' house, the dramatic illusion is interrupted by the entrance of Aristophanes. That is, Dicaeopolis gives up his role and begins to speak as the mouthpiece of the author. Dicaeopolis fears lest he should persuade the Acharnians who are lovers of litigation, and his fear overlaps with Aristophanes' experience of having been prosecuted by Cleon because of last year's comedy. At this point Dicaeopolis' speech changes to that of Aristophanes. Thus Aristophanes, as it were, comes onstage through Dicaeopolis' speech. Aristophanes implores to let him dress up most piteously. I think Aristophanes' speech continues as far as line 384, because the sharp stylistic incongruity between line 393 and line 394, the former tragic and the latter comic, hints that Aristophanes restores Dicaeopolis to his role at this point. This tells that the disguise is necessary not only for Dicaeopolis but for Aristophanes. Therefore, Aristophanes goes to Euripides with Dicaeopolis as his internal being, which is suggested by Dicaeopolis' address to his own soul (450, 480, 483, 488). While Dicaeopolis disguises himself as a beggar, Aristophanes as a tragedian, Euripides, who if also dressed in rags. (The repetition of line 384 in line 436 shows that the author's imploration is carried out here by Dicaeopolis' action.) When the scene returns to the

(View PDF for the rest of the abstract.)

View full abstract

Many scholars treat the first part of the dialogue (384 c-391 b) as the exposition of Plato's own views about the correctness of names because of its similar phraseology to that of the Republic X and its critical remarks on the Protagorean background of Hermogenes' conventional theory of names. But this treatment not only drops the demarcation between Plato's position and Cratylus', but also prevents them from understanding the overall structure of the dialogue. For, as Bernard Williams recently revealed in his brief but excellent paper, it is Cratylus' natural theory of the correctness of names that Socrates attempts to elaborate with Hermogenes in the next part (391 b-427 d) and then he sets about to refute with Cratylus himself in the final part (427 d-439b). According to my interpretation, however, Plato's strategy is already mentioned to some extent in the first part of the dialogue. Because a name-giving role personified as νομοθετη&b.sigmav; is said not only to precede a name-using role as διδασκαλικο&b.sigmav; but also to be supervised in turn by the dialectician, διαλεκτικο&b.sigmav;, who uses names for discussion. And I suppose these three personified figures to represent the positions of Cratylus, Hermogenes and Socrates respectively. So the main theme in succeeding arguments of the dialogue as well as the dialogue itself seems to be under dialectical supervision. This is a noeud initial of the dialogue. I suggest, therefore, that the notorious etymological section in the second part displays various deviational forms of name-relation from such integral linguistic practice with names as the dialectic. For, though we find in the text somewhat confusing expressions with the same verb 'δηλουν' (to show) , e.g. 'someone shows something by a name.', 'a name shows something to us.', 'a name shows something.', etc., we can presume from them an underlying structure: A shows p with n to B (where A and B are persons, p is a thing, and n a name). This underlying 4-place relation is transformed into the various expressions found in the text without changing the meaning of 'show' in it. But the etymological explanation urges us to think the verb 'show' equivocal like this: A legislator as a name-giver showed^1 something with a name, from which descended name shows^2 it to us. Thus, etymological study turns out to be nothing less than research for original intentions or thoughts of the name-giver-they are usually expressed by a verb 'βουλεσθαι'-, for such intentional factors take advantage of the time- and semantic gap between giving names and deciphering their descendants. But, of course, research for such factors may be uncertain and arbitrary. To do without it, there must be a direct relation between names and things : 'a name shows^3 something'. Being interpreted by similarity, this binary relation though it is also transformed from the same 4-place relation above gets another meaning of 'show': 'a name is a copy of something'. It is this final position of Cratylus' natural theory that is to be refuted in the third part of the dialogue. If we demand the correctness of names for its own sake i.e. apart from our integral linguistic practice, we cannot but rely on either the correspondence between language and reality or tacit consent among people without reference to our understanding the reality whatever we acknowledge it to be. So we must try to understand the truth (that is not the same thing as the correctness anymore) with names and the other linguistic components in the dialectical integrality. This denouement seems to have been already anticipated in the noeud initial of the dialogue.

View full abstract

Das erste Idyll Theokrits wirft fur die Forschung bestimmte Probleme auf, die sich in den verschiedenen Interpretationsthesen zu diesem Gedicht spiegeln. Kennzeichnend fur die meisten Interpretationen ist der Versuch, die Leiden des Daphnis in einem Zusammenhang mit der Tragik des Hippolytos zu sehen. Damit verwandt ist der Versuch, eine Vorgeschichte des Daphnis zu konstruieren. Eine andere Auffassung sieht in der ironischen Distanz des Autors zu seinen poetischen Gegenstanden den Grundcharakter des theokritischen Werks. Insofern destruieren das Stadtleben spiegelnde Verhalten des Geisshirten und die Figur des an den vollig unbukolischen tragischen Helden Hippolytos erinnerunden Daphnis die bukolische Stimmung der Anfangsszene, die von der Beschreibung des locus amoenus erregt wird. Fur diese Interpretation entsteht aber die Frage nach dem Zusammenhang der Daphnis Geschichte mit dem bukolischen Eingangsthema und damit die Frage nach der inneren Einheitlichkeit dieses Gedichtes. Wenn man Daphnis "unbukolisch" auffasst, wird insgesamt problematisch, ob das erste Idyll ein bukolisches Gedicht ist und was uberhaupt das Bukolische bei Theokrit bedeutet. In der Anfangsszene beschreiben Thyrsis und der Geisshirt sowohl ihre musische Betatigung als auch die schone Natur mit dem Schlusselwort theokritischer Hirtendichtung, αδυ. Auch in der Beschreibung des Trinkgefasses durch den Geisshirten, das im Namen "Kissybion" und in den darauf geschnitzten Szenen nicht stadtische, sondern landliche Zuge aufweist, wird die gleiche Wirkung der schonen Natur und des musischen Werks auf die Menschenseelen angedeutet, so dass zwischen der Gefassbeschreibung und der bukolische Eingangsstimmung des Gedichtes ein tieferer Zusammenhang besteht. Zur Erklarung des Leidens Daphnis' im Thyrsis-Lied miissen die Worte, welche die Gottheiten an den "dahinschmelzenden" Daphnis richten, genau untersucht werden. Aus der Rede Aphrodites ist zu schliessen, dass Daphnis im Gegensatz zu Hippolytos, der unempfindlich gegen die Reize des Aphrodisischen ist, durch die Pfeile des Eros todlich verwundet wird und dennoch entschlossen ist, lieber zu sterben als dem Drangen des Eros nachzugeben. Das Verhalten der Gottin lauft auch nicht darauf hinaus, Daphnis wie Hippolytos mit dem Tod zu bestrafen. Sie versucht sogar, nachdem er sie an ihr eigenes Leiden durch die Liebe zu Anchises und Adonis erinnert hat, sein Leben zu retten. Die Rede Priaps wird oft so ausgelegt, dass Daphnis' Liebe unerwidert und deshalb unglucklich sei. Mir scheint vielmehr, dass Priaps Spott die Ohnmacht Daphnis' gegenuber Eros und den unerfullbaren Wunsch Daphnis' treffen soil. Auch Hermes' Wort zeigt offensichtlich, dass der Grund des Leidens Daphnis' nur seine Verliebtheit ist, unabhangig von konkreten Umstanden dieser Liebe. Die Interpretationen, die Daphnis' Ungluck aus einer im Gedicht nicht erwahnten Vorgeschichte erklaren wollen, gehen deshalb fehl. Denn als das Wesen des Eros der theokritischen Hirten enthullt sich die unerfullbare und dennoch unwiderstehliche Sehnsucht nach Schonheit. Das einzige Heilmittel gegen diesen Eros kommt, wie die Klage Thyrsis' uber die Abwesenheit der Nymphen (V. 66 ff.) andeutet, von den Nymphen, d. h. von der heilenden Kraft der Musen. Von diesem Pharmakon spricht Theokrit auch in seinen anderen Werken(z. B. im 7., 10. und 11. Idyll) , und immer handelt es sich dabei um den Versuch, die Liebe aus einer sengenden und schliesslich vernichtenden Gewalt in einen milden, heiteren Seelenzustand zu uberfuhren, und nicht etwa um den sentimentalen Wunsch, sich uber die ungluckliche Liebe hinwegzutrosten. Das Leiden Daphnis' kann daher durchaus zu einem Grundthema bukolischen Singens werden, weil boukoliasthai der Versuch ist, mit den Mitteln der Kunst den Zauber des kakon Eros abzuwehren und durch die Beschaftigung mit dem Schonen in Natur und

(View PDF for the rest of the abstract.)

View full abstract

In der zweiten Ekloge klingt sicher das Theokrit-Gedicht (11) nach. Der Eklogendichter fuhrt an fangs den Hirtensanger Korydon ein, der vergebens um den schonen Alexis wirbt. Dies entspricht dem Einfuhrungstyp der hellenistischen Liebeselegie (z. B. "Akontios und Kydippe", Kallimachos, fr. [67-75]) , indem sie die Namen der Figuren angibt sowie Angaben uber ihre Herkunft macht und berichtet, wie sich der Liebende der(oder dem) Geliebten gegenuber benimmt. In dieser Hinsicht ist auch das ll. Gedicht [7-18] eine Variation dieses Musters. Korydon fleht, ruhmt sich seiner Fahigkeiten und seines Reichtums, droht und bietet Geschenke [6-55]. Diese Motive sind hinsichtlich des sogenannten "paraklausithyron" konventionell. Man muss allerdings Korydons Lied ein Quasi-"paraklausithyron" nennen, weil in ihm das Motiv "Tur" ebenso fehlt wie ein anderes Motiv fur Trennendes (z. B. "Meeresstrand" im 11. Gedicht oder "Grotte" im 3.). Als Polyphem im 11. Gedicht bemerkt, dass Galatea ihn wegen seiner Hasslichkeit flieht, ruhmt er sich vor ihr seines Reichtums, seiner musischen Fahigkeiten und verspricht reiche Geschenke, als ob er dadurch seinen Mangel ausgleichen konnte. Ebenso verhalt sich Korydon; daruber hinaus vergleicht er sich mit dem schonen Daphnis. Er nimmt nicht wahr, dass, was er fur seine Vorzuge halt, fur Alexis nicht besonders anziehend ist. Der Teil des Liedes, der die Genusse des Landlebens aufzahlt [28-35], geht in eine Herzahlung der Geschenke uber, die er Alexis bietet [36-55]. Wahrend er singt, traumt er sich in eine ideale Hirtenwelt hinein. Diese Traumwelt ist nirgends zu finden als in seinem Kopf. Diese ideale Welt bekommt aber fur ihn erst Sinn in Alexis' Gegenwart. Das Idyll bedeutet also fur Korydon, was fur Tibull der Traum vom Landleben, vom Leben auf dem Land mit Delia, ist: wie bezaubernd auch die bukolischen Szenen sind, machen sie doch dem Liebenden keine Freude, solange der (oder die) Geliebte nicht daran teilnimmt. Die Traumwelt ist wegen der nuchternen Wirklichkeit nicht zu realisieren. Am Ende des Liedes versucht Korydon-wie Polyphem-seiner Liebe zu entsagen. Die auffallenden sprachlichen Ahnlichkeiten zwischen E. 2. 69. und Id. 11. 72. sowie zwischen E. 2. 73 und Id. 11. 76. fuhrten oft zu der Annahme, dass auch Korydon von seiner unglucklichen Liebe geheilt wurde. Man konnte den Ausgang auch so verstehen, dass Korydon nicht geheilt wird. Diese Deutung Hegt nahe, wenn man, wie Poschl das tut, den Schlussteil [69-73] wie die Einfuhrung [1-5] den Eklogendichter selbst sprechen lasst, d. h. die beiden Teile als Rahmen des Verfasserkommentars wertet. Vergil scheint die Aussage des 11. Gedichtes [1-3] umgekehrt zu haben, obgleich er, was die Struktur angeht, Theokrit folgt.

View full abstract

It is the purpose of this paper to explore the symbolic meaning of the golden bough and the golden age of Augustus, both of which appear in Aeneid 6, with regard to the theme of labor of Aeneas, and to consider the relation between them and some aspects of the significance of the καταβασι&b.sigmav;. The gold of the golden bough seems to be a symbol of divine life. But just as the luxuriant growth of the forests, itself a manifestation of nature's vitality, covers the bough in the dark shadows(136, 138-9)which bear resemblance to the darkness of the underworld, so the bough casts a shadow on the life-giving earth(195-6). Life is always attended by the shadow of death. Therefore the mistletoe-simile (205-7) makes it certain that the idea in primitive belief is transferred to the bough that life and death are both aspects of a single reality and the mistletoe is a symbol of such a union. But because the gold is associated with divinity, the golden bough may be said to be an eternal embodiment of that reality. Hence the bough belongs to both heaven (Iuppiter) and hell (Iuno Inferna) and achieves agreement between them, which enables Aeneas to undergo an experience of death and rebirth. And it also indicates Aeneas' pietas which brings about a harmony of man with the gods. Moreover, it is described as though it has its own strength (virtus) to conquer the powers of death and war (represented by ferruwi) which do not meet fate's wishes (147-8). Thus the golden bough symbolizes Aeneas' own character and shows that because of his being a divine man ofpietas and virtus he can overcome the labor of death and be restored to new life as a Roman hero. The golden age of Augustus is compared with that of Saturn(792-4). But the Saturnian age of peace could not withstand the invasion of the warlike iron age of Iuppiter(8.314ff). And it is implied in the expression 'aurea condet/saecula…… rursus…/…quondam…' that Augustus will replace Saturn as a representative of Iuppiter and that the new golden age will surpass the old. For Augustus will have the strength to vanquishfuror impius typical of Iuno as an opponent to the fate of Iuppiter, because the word 'asper' in 'aspera saecula' (1.291) suggests Iuno's influence. The expansion of imperium (6.794-805) will also depend on this strength (virtus), which is here exemplified by Hercules who suffered many labores because of 'fatis Iunonis iniquae' (8.292)but conquered her furor embodied in the hellish monsters such as Cacus. Similarly, Aeneas in the second half of the poem is involved in the war caused by Iuno, but he not only exerts his virtns but also keeps a pious attitude towards her and at last prevails to make her reconciled with Iuppiter. Therefore the golden age of Augustus together with the imperium can be said to be a peaceful order having fighting force, or rather a harmonious union of peace and war, which reflects a concord between Iuppiter and Iuno, achieved through labores of the divine man of pietas and virtus. Now it is clear that both the golden bough and the Augustan golden age stand for a harmonious union of opposites, the former of life and death, the latter of peace and war, and both of Iuppiter and Iuno. And it is also indicated in both that the labor is not a mere suffering but an indispensable exertion by which a divine man of pietas and virtus can attain 'rebirth' of new life or of a stable order of peace. Thus the labor of the κταβασι&b.sigmav;, at the center of the poem, making a pivotal point of this theme, relates beforehand the labores of the succeeding story and those for the historical ideal in terms of life and death.

View full abstract

There was a disagreement in the Late Republic concerning the military rank of A. Cornelius Cossus at the time when he dedicated the spolia opima to the temple of Iuppiter Feretrius. The annalistic tradition said Cossus was a tribunus militum ; but the antiquarian scholar Varro asserted that only a dux could dedicate the spolia, which hehad taken from the enemy he had killed in a duel, to the temple of Iuppiter Feretrius. In the time of Augustus, when the requirements for dedicating spolia opima became a political issue, antiquarians such as Verrius Flaccus were ordered by Augustus to settle the disagreement, and the ruler himself furnished some historical evidence to aid them-an epigraph Augustus alleged he had found in the temple of Iuppiter Feretrius (Liv., IV, 20, 6f.)-which indicated that Cossus had been a consul at the time of the dedication. Augustus informed Livy of the epigraph when he found out that Livy was writing about the legend of the duel of Cossus in his history. Livy, who often judged the trustworthiness of evidence according to the auctovitas of the witness, believed Augustus and expressed his trust by writing in a note that Cossus was a consul when he presented the spolia opima. However, in his actual textual treatment of the legend, Livy followed the annals as his source, and therefore described Cossus as a tribunus militum. Livy took this tack because he aimed at making his narration consistent, retelling the contents of the annalistic tradition in a style that matched the subject he was dealing with, rather than pondering the authenticity of his sources.

View full abstract