In his epinician odes Pindar several times addresses the recent dead relatives of the victors' family (Ol. VIII 77-84, Ol. XIV 20-24, Nem. IV 79-90, Nem. V 48-54, Nem. VIII 44-48, Isth. VIII 61-65. I exclude two Theban odes, Isth. IV 16-19 & Isth. VII 23-30, because I think they belong to the different group of the war dead motif, cf. David C. Young: Isthmian VII, Leiden 1970). Furthermore they have some interesting similarities in common like the following: 1) bearing names of the dead relatives and indicating their family relationships 2) communicating with the dead by song 3) always located at the end of the odes 4) only for the victors from Aegina and Boeotia(once) (For the last two points cf. W. Mullen: Choreia, Princeton 1983, 72-75) The first two points (1) & 2)) suggest that while composing these lines Pindar mayhave had to follow some basic requirements from the subject matter, for example there is a distinct difference between half-heroized ancestors (Pyth. V 94-103 or Isth. VI 63-66) and ordinary dead relatives. In other words they form one type of 'topos' beyond each specific condition given to the poet. On the other hand the last two points ( 3) & 4)), together with other facts such as: 1) 3 examples out of 6 are monostrophic and the rest are also considered as marching songs in their homeland. 2) most mentions of the hero-cult in epinician odes except those at Olympia or Pythia are related to Aegina or Boeotia. 3) the popularity of the chamber-tomb in the sixth-fifth century Aegina (some of them are either cenotaphs or heroa) indicate that this 'dead relative' topos may have its origin in a kind of custom or ritual for the dead relatives after the return of the hero-athlete at Aegina and Boeotia. In relation to this kind of topos we may find some traces of more general background in epinician odes. Firstly at several places Pindar shows evidence that he considers a person at the height of his youth and power may be able to communicate with the dead (Pyth. IV 156-159 etc.). This is not only a typical feature of mythical heroes, but also coincides with some legends of famous contemporary athletes who became heroes (e.g. Euthymus or Cleomedes). Secondly sometimes Pindar describes the victors not as an independent self but rather as a kind of materialization of power and constitution of their clan, often using plant metaphors. In these cases repetition or revival itself has its own meaning and although the individual victors are mortal, their inherited power and constitution will survive from generation to generation for ever.

View full abstract

The Bacchae is Euripides' tragic masterpiece based on the long tradition of Dionysiac plays. As is well known, the poet never fails to add his own original elements even when he treats a traditional subject. In the Bacchae such an innovation can be recognized in what is often called the Cadmus-Teiresias-scene in the first episode. It is almost certain that Euripides was the first to add the two old men. He combined the new element to enhance the tragedy; he made it indispensable to the development of the main plot by making effective use of parallel sequences and words. The purpose of this paper is to analyse Euripides' dramatic technique by examining these parallel relationships. First as to the parallel sequences, it is quite usual in drama for some motifs in the first scene to be repeated in later ones, but in the fourth episode of the Bacchae we find a whole concentration of recurrences. This episode shares the same motifs and emotional tone as the first one. Two characters, Cadmus and Teiresias in the first scene, and Pentheus and the Stranger in the fourth one, walk to Mt. Cithaeron in Bacchic dress. Both pairs have the same kind of attitudes and their dialogues have something in common. In addition, the magic of the god has great influence upon both pairs; the old men are filled with a mysterious strength and exaltation. On the other hand Pentheus feels supernatural power in his body. The emotional tone pervading both scenes is the indissoluble blending of the tragic and the comic. In all of these ways, from the viewpoint of motifs and emotional tone the fourth episode is parallel to the first one. But at the same time the relation is completely reversed when we consider who is laughing at whom. In the first scene it is Pentheus who sneers at the god, the old proselytes, and Dionysus' birth myth. He is afraid of becoming the laughingstock of Thebes; nevertheless, in the fourth episode he in turn is mocked by Dionysus. Thus both scenes are placed in symmetrical opposition. Secondly we should discuss the parallel use of words, in particular in the god's birth myth which Teiresias explains. The core of the myth lies in the story that Zeus concealed Dionysus within his thigh. The verb "conceal" appears many times in the Bacchae and constitutes an important motif. Hiding always occurs just before the miracles showing the absolute force of Dionysus. The motif of concealment is closely related with the final epiphany of the god, which brings a miserable destruction to his oponent. Therefore concealment and epiphany compose a paired motif. On the other hand this paired motif is parallel to another, the god's double birth and the antagonist's double death. It is clear from the context that Dionysus was born twice, but it may be necessary to explain in what sense Pentheus experiences double death. When he reappears on stage at v. 918, he is wearing Bacchic dress instead of the armour he called for in the preceding scene. He is suffering from Dionysiac delusions and has lost normal consciousness. In this sense his first death is mental, whereas the second one is physical, executed by his own mother. Seen against the background of these parallel motifs, Teiresias' words describing the birth of the god have a deeper meaning. They express not only Dionysus' birth but also give a hint of the coming destruction of Pentheus and his family in the last scene. V. 290 predicts the king's falling to his death from a high tree and the exile of Cadmus and Agave from their homeland. And v. 292 suggests that Pentheus will be torn to pieces.

View full abstract

The following questions have still been discussed; (1). Was the main source of the Certamen Alcidamas' Museion? (2). In this case, did Alcidamas invent the story of the contest of Homer and Hesiod? This article attempts to reexamine these questions to make the relation between the story of the contest and Alcidamas clearer. I. The main point of discussion about question (1) is whether the following facts coincide one another; 1. The Museion is mentioned in Cert. 240 as the source of a story about the fate of Hesiod's murderers. 2. The couplet which occurs in Cert. 78-9 was attributed by Stob. 4. 52. 22 to the Museion. 3. Michigan papyrus 2754 gave the end of a story closely resembling the end of Certamen, followed by the subscription] δαμαντο&b.sigmav; περι Ομηρου. As the result of examining the above point at issue, by using the structural analysis of the narrative in the Certamen, it is concluded that the series of the stories such as the contest-death of Hesiod-death of Homer were derived from the Museion. II. Next comes question (2). Indeed, we are left with no evidence for a contest between Homer and Hesiod before Alcidamas. But, the writer of the article believes that there are a number of reasons for thinking the contest story older than Alcidamas. One of them is Plutarch's passage of the contest story (Moralia, 153 ff.), where the order of events is different from that of Certamen. Some scholars take the view that Plutarch's version was derived from the Museion. However, from closer examination of that passage, this view does not seem to have any adequate foundation. Then, according to M. L. West, Alcidamas invented the judgement of Panedes who awards the victory to Hesiod. But, this attractive opinion is also not so well-founded. The writer in the second part of the article tries both to clarify the meaning of the construction of the contest story, and to show 1). that the Plutarch's passage reflects the original version, 2). that perhaps Alcidamas reversed the order of this original version, 3). that the origin of the contest was much older than Alcidamas.

View full abstract

The idioms of Plato's Paradeigmatism are disposed to be exploited improperly so as to fuse image's of-ness into resemblance. What I call picture-metaphor is such fusion that gives rise to a tvompe I'ceil, which puts on the appearance as if Forms and sensible particulars were comparable in the same rank. In this paper I propose to show that the picture-metaphor is to be dispelled from the Paradeigmatism, and that problems of eidolon and logos in the Soph, can be located in this context. (I) It is on the picture-metaphor that Parmenides' criticism of the Paradeigmatism in its main points, such as a) If any object resembles another, that other resembles it; b) If any object resembles another, there exists a form in which both objects participate. For the fusion of image's of-ness into resemblance conceals the invalid argument of Parmenides, who exhibits no less a shrinking from restoring the old participation-term than from ignoring the asymmetrical relation between original and image. So I accept his conclusion (133a5) as the rejection of the picture-metaphor, not as that of the Paradeigmatism. (II) Next, I attempt to delineate a path from this removal in the Farm, to the conception of image-ness (eidolon) in the Soph. Since the division of the real/image is the desired goal of the Soph, toward which the paradox about falsehood holds up progress, it is preposterous to begin to decode the puzzles by presuming the division of statement/fact, and formulate 'a false statement' in terms of difference from the fact or reality. Accordingly, I cannot support the opinion of some gifted scholars, including R. S. Bluck, that it is by weaving together Forms that all discourse came to be (259 e). The identification of the eide in this place with Forms seems to be assured when referring back to the combination and separation of Being, Rest, Motion and anything else (251 d), which compose the texture of philosophic discourse (253 c). Although these eide or gene, I agree, are Platonic Forms, Plato suggests that we should treat the 'Forms' without their semantical values, for he says that in seeking for the Sophist, we chanced to find the Philosopher first. Moreover, Forms-weaving interpretation involves a dilemma such as either a false statement depends on the weaving of Forms, or any string of words makes a statement. By considering these issues and examining the steps of argument on falsehood, I conclude: 1) The weaving of eide does not refer to Forms, but to the combination, e.g. an action and an actor, which is the formation rule of statements, not the truth-condition of them. 2) The puzzle (260 d) assumes that a statement is the same as states of affairs, not representing them, which is closely connected with the phenomenalism of Protagoras in the Theaet. 3) Plato responds to it that the linkage of two incompatible statements which is made in a dialectic-frame renders either of them false that combines the different with the same, and then this nature of statement is reduced to the concept of imageness, the alienation from the form (not with a capital) of the kinds of beings one of which the logos is, and the movement to recover its proper form-from the dialogos to the veridiction.

View full abstract

The concepts of arche and hegemonia in Isocrates have the following features in the light of analysis conducted from a politico-historical perspective. In the first place, Isocrates attributed a highly moral and ethical value to the concept of hegemonia. In his Panegyricus, he claimed that Athens alone deserved the title of supreme leader of the Greeks because the city had been a benefactor of the Greeks and a protector of all those who had suffered. This claim never changed throughout his political discourses. Secondly, Isocrates located the essence of arche in sea-power which he criticized as bringing misfortune to Greece, and stressed the ethical superiority of land hegemony. He came to this conclusion in his On the Peace as a result of the downfall of Sparta after the battle of Leuctra and the defeat of Athens in the Social War. His position is in sharp contrast to that of Thucydides and Old Oligarch, who insisted on the superiority of Athens as a sea-power. In the third place, he considered the problem of constitutional reform in the light of his concept of hegemonia. He sought the model of the ideal constitution in the age of hegemonia of Athens and Sparta, and described it in contrast to the age of arche. The concepts of arche and hegemonia in Isocrates reflect the political situation of Greece in the middle of the fourth century when Sparta, Thebes and Athens fell one after the other, and differ from those of historians such as Herodotus, Thucydides and Xenophon.

View full abstract

Here we do not pretend to solve all problems of the Stoic doctrine of Zeus the father-god or even to cover the whole ground which they embrace. Our interest is confined to the meaning and reference of προτερη γενεη and its combination with Zeus-θαυμα-ονειαρ. While agriculture and navigation are complements each of the other in Aratus, above all within his general (and traditional) idea of human life, Zeus in the proem turns his eyes away from navigators and exclusively upon ploughmen. This deflection of σημα is suggestive of subsequent development, that is to introduce Nyx and her σημα for navigators. Nyx, both αρχαιη and ουρανιη, is, the double image of Zeus, much more active than Zeus himself and personifies the "night-motif". Night as the stage of the starry sky and its personification alone enable men to distinguish all σηματα. τι&b.sigmav; ανδρων (373), too, does so, and that by originating a new method for men, the constellation, which should correct the method of Zeus (cf. 11 αστρα διακρινα&b.sigmav;→375 παντων οιοθι κεκριμενωνv). Nyx and τι&b.sigmav; αν., whose name and epithet build up a remote antiquity and a mythical fiction around them, can convert θαυμα-Zeus into ονειαρ-Zeus for men, through intervening in their life. But this connection is also fictive and intends to show the origin of the relation between stars and men. Then we can identify πρ. γεν., whose name describes the same mythical situation as that of Nyx and τι&b.sigmav; αν. does, with them. In Phaenomena θαυμα mirrors and means all aspects of the reaction of men against Zeus or the celestial world. Despite the dissolution of θαυμα by πρ. γεν. it remains still in the sky: nameless stars, which do not associate themselves with any constellation, and some constellations of which the shape and name stir up θαυμα again in the mind of men (e.g. Engonasin). Then that paradox rises (cf. 374 f. απαντ'……ηλιθα). But πρ. γεν., who will favour men constantly and devotedly, has nothing to do with it. Aratus shows us the origin of the paradox implicitly and skillfully. The contrast between ειδεα and ειδωλον is in this case more remarkable and intentional, because the former, only one example (381), indicates the shape of the constellation which τι&b.sigmav; αν. first designed, and the latter, nine examples, does for some of the constellations which were transmitted from τι&b.sigmav; αν. to mankind. The ειδλον means therefore constellations like Engonasin and nameless stars which men could not appreciate just as τι&b.sigmav; αν. intended and then which men see with θαυμα. From ειδεα to ειδωλον: in this process that paradox rises and gains ironical significance. It is through the same process as this that Nyx and her σημα finally lead also navigators to the ironical paradox. Men have themselves to blame for the failure. Gods favour men and lead them to ovsiccp. But θαυμα sometimes leads them astray. We may name such a belief "theodicy" as some interpreters do, and it goes without saying that Aratus intends there an ironical effect. In Phaenomena Aratus' purpose, the sole aim, is to describe the celestial sphere, in other words, to explain all σημαγα as intelligibly as possible. He could not, however, suppress his intent to install here one particular point (and the originality of this work), namely, when and how men have a concern with stars. For that purpose the mythical digressions were created by him. In parallel with the association between πρ. γεν. and mankind, then Zeus, the kindly father-god of the Stoics, rises again to the surface now as θαυμα, now as ονειαρ. Zeus is not always ovsiccp for men and that in consequence of mankind being paradoxical. It may safely be said that Aratus' Phaenomena is more ironical than allegorical.

View full abstract

This paper deals with the Roman policy of colonization from 393 B. C. to 134 B. C. First of all, the author considers the first half of the third century B. C. as the turning point of the policy and divides the period in question into two stages, the former from 393 B. C. to 269 B. C. and the latter from 268 B. C. to 134 B. C. Then, he points to two types of Roman colonizations, that is, establishment of a colony (deductio coloniae) and viritane distribution (adsignatio viritim). In the former system, individual Romans, receiving parcels of land in private ownership, were organized as self-governing communities with their own civic centers and apparatus of administration, which, further, fell into two classes, coloniae civium Romanorum and coloniae Latinae, according to the political rights of the settlers and the status of the colony. In the latter, settlers likewise received parcels of land, but were not organized on their new holdings into self-administering communities. Finally, he argues these four points: 1. As to Rome's activity to establish colonies, we cannot distinguish one stage from another. The active attitude of the Roman senate or the Nobiles toward the policy to plant settlers in the colonies, civium Romanorum or Latinorum, continued before and after 268 B. C. 2. As to the viritane distribution, we can point to the diminution of the activity after 268 B. C. This is the main difference between these two stages. 3. Between two systems of the Roman colonization, the viritane distribution is more favourable to Roman Plebs, because of their easier participation in this system, than the establishment of a colony, and yet more troublesome to the Roman ruling class to keep the equilibrium between members of each tribus. 4. As Fraccaro suggested perceptively in his excellent paper, Lex Flaminia de agro Gallico et Piceno viritim dividundo (Opuscula, II, Pavia 19S7), the change of the Roman policy of colonization was brought about by the transformation of the city-state which Republican Rome underwent during a series of political events in the first half of the third century B. C. so much that the tribus became the most important institution in the Republican constitution. It was the tribus institution that the Nobiles depended on in exercising their political power at Rome. Thus, the Nobiles could not but change the policy of colonization to defend the city-state constitution, that is, the tribus institution and themselves.

View full abstract

A. K. Michels thinks the Gates of Sleep explain Aeneas' forgetfulness in the sub-sequent books of what he saw and heard in the underworld ("THE INSOMNIUM OF AENEAS", Cl. Qu. 31 (i), 1981, 140-6). Her observation that Aeneas forgets all of his catabatic experience (including the Show of the Roman Heroes) is contrary to the popular view but seems to me to be right. This paper aims at supporting her interpretation of the Gates of Sleep by trying to show that Rome meant next to nothing to Aeneas not only in the last half of but all through the Aeneid and that it was Troy instead that held him to the end. There is in the Aeneid what might be called 'the tale of Aeneas', which begins on the last day of Troy and ends with his killing of Turnus. This tale covers no more than seven or eight years and its setting is still the Homeric world. Rome is in the distant future and, one might say, outside 'the tale of Aeneas'. As the Aeneid shows, Virgil's purpose was not to narrate 'the tale of Aeneas' alone as it was but rather to make use of it for the glorification of Rome. He not only tells 'the tale of Aeneas' as the origin of Roman history but even tries to make us feel as if all the labores of Aeneas in 'the tale' had been done for and successfully resulted in, for example, Rome's birth itself, or Augustus' world dominion itself, although these things were in the far distant future for Aeneas. These and other various devices allowed Virgil to attain his purpose, but at the same time they led to a misunderstanding. Those devices were devised, as it were, outside 'the tale of Aeneas', meant for Roman readers, and had nothing to do with Aeneas himself who was in 'the tale'. But many readers came to think as if Aeneas himself had known something about Rome and even striven for its realization in the distant future. This is a misunderstanding because he did not have any clear knowledge of Rome and because he had his own purpose and 'mission' to perform which bore no direct relation to Rome. His 'mission' was, in brief, the revival of Troy, his own patria. The popular and ruling view holds that Aeneas abandons Troy (the past) and turns his eyes to Rome (the future) with his catabasis, esp. his seeing the Show of the Roman Heroes there as a turning-point. But if my investigation is correct, nowhere in the A eneid does Aeneas abandon his fatherland. The following passages will show what he and the other Trojans had in mind to the end; 1. 5-6, 1. 68, 1. 205-6, 2. 293-5, 2. 703, 3. 86-7, 3. 462, 3. 504-5, 5. 631-8, 6. 66-8, 7. 120-2, 7. 228-30, 8. 9-13, 8. 36-7, 9. 644, 10. 27, 10. 58, 12. 819-28. As these passages indicate, there is no difference between what they aimed at before and after the catabasis. It did not have any effect upon them. And there are some points that strongly suggest Aeneas' forgetfulness of his experience in the underworld. For example, he never mentions any of the experience. And he never makes any use of his father's advice (6. 890-2). And the advice seems inconsistent with Jupiter's speech (9. 96-7). Rome is, as remarked above, in the distant future for Aeneas, outside 'the tale of Aeneas', and so is basically beyond his grasp. But there are two occasions on which future Rome wedges into 'the tale' or 'the world of Aeneas' and makes direct contact with him. (2. 679-704, 3. 97-8, 3. 158-9, 4. 275, etc. are negligible as far as Aeneas is concerned, cf. a lot cf passages collected above, 6. 716-8, 9. 644.) One is that of the Show of the Roman Heroes in question and the other the Shield of Aeneas Vulcan made and Venus brings to him (8. 626-728). And in the latter case Virgil added at the end of the scene an explanatory note to the effect that Aeneas did not know or understand the great events of the Roman

(View PDF for the rest of the abstract.)

View full abstract

Scholars disagree in opinion about the question whether a colon or a period should be placed after line 36 in Horace's Carmen Saeculare, and many of them choose the latter. This choice, consequently, decides whether vestrum(37)in the next stanza refers to Apollo and Diana or others who are considered chiefly the Capitoline deities, that is to say, luppiter and luno. Some scholars think that the poem can be divided into two halves, 1-36 and 37-72, and that, primarily, Apollo and Diana-the new deities-are sung of in the first and the Capitoline deities-the traditional deities-in the latter. Therefore a full understanding of the C. S. depends on the way in which this point is treated. We find, surveying the whole structure, that both Apollo and Diana are invoked in stanzas 1, 9 and 19, which occupy the opening, central and ending part of the poem respectively. Further, if Sol(9) can be identified with Apollo and Ilithyia(14) with Diana, stanzas 3 and 16-17 are those in which Apollo alone is invoked, while Diana alone is invoked in stanzas 4-6 and 18. These stanzas are linked with each other (3-6〜16-18), thus occupying symmetrical positions in each of the two halves. Accordingly it is evident that Apollo- and Diana-stanzas form the main prop of the whole structure. In stanzas 3-6, Apollo and Diana are called and praised as Sol and Ilithyia, who, advancing time, bring round a new saeculum with fertility, so Fate or, so to say, a fundamental power which moves all things especially toward prosperity is suggested by both deities as such. In the latter half, we can say, the past, present and future of Rome are referred to(stanzas 10-11, 14-15 and 17 respectively), and the gods are begged to confer a benefit upon Rome and the Roman people both now and from now on, as they did upon Aeneas and his party for the foundation of Rome in the past-Roma si vestvum est opus(37). On the other hand, over both halves, the motif of prosperity and fertility is found in stanzas 4-5, 8 and 15, and lustrum(67) showing a cycle of time corresponds to orbis(22). In addition to these, the word 'Rome' appears symmetrically as urbe Roma(11)in the third stanza, Roma(37)in the middle and remque Romanam(66)in the third from the last. Therefore we realize that the prosperity of Rome, which extends from the past to the future, depends on the fundamental power symbolized by Apollo and Diana in the first half. I conclude from the above-stated that a colon should be placed after line 36, and that vestrum(37) refers to Apollo and Diana. It is both deities that are invoked primarily, so the poem must not be divided distinctly into two halves.

View full abstract

Paulus, who was a lawyer in the Severan Age, states that Imperial Procurators are absents rei publicae causa, and he explains that they as well as other public officials can get the relief measure called restitutio in integrum, when they are legally at a disadvantage (Dig., IV, 6, 35, 2). Clearly what Paulus really intends to do is apply this relief measure even to the procurators who are dispatched to the provinces and are engaged in the imperial financial service called fiscus, which included the management of patrimonium, or reconfirm the actual state that this measure was already given to them. At present, with only the probable exception of F. Millar, fiscus is generally understood to be the whole financial administration controlled by the emperor that has a mutual and compensational relationship in the State finance to aerarium, which is a so-called "public" financial administration under the senate. But as for a duality of the State finance such as we could find in the form of aerarium and fiscus from the middle of the first century, it was dissolved as the latter (fiscus) was changed into the only "State chest" while the former (aerarium) as a "State chest" actually disappeared by the Severan Age. This proves to be true because the confusion of the terms, "aerarium" and "fiscus", is found in the text of the law at that time. The various official posts which perform the administration and management of fiscus are known generically as procurator Caesar is or procurator Augusti(only in inscriptions), the title with the term "procurator", which is the technical term in Roman private law originally meaning a personal agent of individuals. As is commonly known, they became the nucleus in the official posts' system of Equestrian Order equivalent to the one of Senatorial Order through the Principate. Therefore, when the duality of the State finance was dissolved in such a way, this also means the dissolution of the dual official posts' system which characterized the Principate by means of the "coexistence" of Senatorial Order and Equestrian Order. And this is what Paulus' legal theory-Imperial Procurators are absents owing to the service of the State-really means, when it is located in the context of the Imperial constitutional history in the Principate.

View full abstract