In vv 19-21 occurs the 'ne plus ultra' theme, which indicates that the laudandus attained to the furthest point of human prosperity, and the theme is followed by the Herakles-myth (vv 22-26), where it is reported that the hero set up the pillars as ναυτιλιαζ εσχαταζ μαρτυραζ κλυταζ But m the following lines (vv 26-32) the whole myth is broken off as irrelevant to the main theme of this epmician After the transitional part, in vv 32 the poet turns to Aeacidae-myths which are more relevant to the Aeaginetan victor Anstokleides Thus vv 19-32 are subdivided into the 'ne plus ultra' motif (19-21), the Herakles-myth (22-26) and the transitional motif (26-32). This paper is an attempt to examine the relation of the 'ne plus ultra' motif to the break-off of the myth, and to understand the significance of the break-off The Herakles-myth has been naturally taken as a digressive part since ancient scholiasts Among modern scholars questions have been proposed about the function of this myth as a digression in the part or the whole poem It is here asserted that the myth which is used to explain the pillars of Herakles is a positive paradigm of the 'ne plus ultra' motif, because Harakles succeeded in going beyond the limit of the world Moreover he becomes a god and lives with Hebe in Olympos His apotheosis, although it is cut off in the narration of the myth, is supposed apparently, as suggested by the association of the word (θεοζ v 20) That the poet points to the stupidity (παρα καιρον cf P 10 4) of going to αλλοδαπαν ακραν by means of the break-off, does not mean only that Herakles travelled to the Atlantic Ocean too far from the Island Aegina It implies also the stupidity of seeking to go beyond the limit as Herakles did Thus it would be apparent what significance the transitional gnome has The poet says one should admire the good man (εσλον αινειν) Following, he claims that the desire for an alien existence (ουδ' αλλοτριων ερωτεζ) is not good for the ordinary man Instead of αλλοτριων ερωτεζ, he advises himself and the audience to seek at home (οικοθεν ματευε) αλλοτριων means the area beyond human competence, and οικοθεν means the effort within one's ability The poet's objection to the αλλοδαπν ακραν after the break-off of the Herakles-myth is an admonition against seeking the apotheosis or the divine prosperity, i e, immortality as in the case of Herakles Therefore we ought to see that the 'ne plus ultra' motif has such admonitory significance in N 3 and even in other odes In the place of Coronis (P 3) and Bellerophon (I 7) who suffered ruin because of their desire for των απεοντων (P 3 20) and απροσικτων (N. 11 48), Herakles may well have been used in N 3 as a positive paradigm In the second half of the ode, φρονειν το παρκειμενον (75) (to make much of the near at hand) is recommended to the laudandus, in opposition to αλλοτριων ερωτεζ. This implication has the same with reference to the phrase, αισχυνων επιχωρια παπταινε τα πορσω (P 3 22). To appreciate the near at one's foot (γνοντα το παρ ποδοζ P. 3 60) is also akin to the thought that man is able to get αυτοθεν the τηλαυγεζ φεγγοζ (N 3 64) Herakles in N 3 is the inverse Coronis and Bellerophon who would not have failed to attain immortality.

View full abstract

The purpose of this paper is to explain a structural problem of the role which Hecatoncheires play in the Theogony, from the poet's religious sentiment. Their role can be seen from two aspects, namely as antagonists against Titans and as helpers of Zeus But in either role they have another god or other groups of gods who have similar functions to theirs. On the one hand in Titanomachy we see, beside Hecatoncheires, Zeus himself overpowers the enemies with his thunderbolt (the assertion that the ansteia of Zeus [687-712] is an interpolation is untenable), and on the other hand in order to support the supremacy of Zeus we already have Cyclopes who gave him the thunderbolt to be his weapon and the children of Styx, named "Emulation", "Victory", "Strength" and "Force", who dwell near Zeus and always escort him When we examine the episodes of these helper-gods, we discover two motifs recurrent in each of them First, the aid is motivated by the justice of Zeus and offered as a return for his kindness, and second, each episode ends with the words which praise the rule of Zeus. But the motifs are most conspicuous in the case of Hecatoncheires They fight together with Zeus in return for their release by him and Kottos, representing them, praises the wisdom of the supreme god We can infer that the aim of Hesiod who permitted the overlap of their role with that of the other gods was to express, through the mouth of Kottos, his own religious view This inference drawn from the internal arguments on the structure of the poem is supported by the external ones on the poet's attitude to the tradition of Titanomachy In the Iliad there are several allusions to the war against Titans, which tell that Zeus threw Kronos down into Tartaros, and in another place it is narrated that Thetis called up Briareos to rescue Zeus from being bound by three revolting gods In the Theogony the Titanomachy scene opens with the release of Hecatoncheires, for the poet's concern is concentrated on the alliance between Zeus and the monsters Accordingly the events which occurred before it are mentioned as briefly as possible. From these accounts on Titanomachy it is proper to assume a common source for both the epics, so to speak Ur-Titanomachy, which included the assistance to Zeus by Hecatoncheires The'tradition of Gigantomachy, beside that of Titanomachy, had also existed before Hesiod and he certainly knew it (SO, 185-6). Nevertheless he did not incorporate the war, unlike Titanomachy, in his work The reason for his selection is to be found in his piety for Zeus The story of Gigantomachy, where Olympian gods had not the power by themselves to defeat mortal enemies, and were forced to demand aid of a mortal hero Heracles, was not acceptable to the poet who believed in the sovereign power of Zeus. On the contrary in Titanomachy, though the situation is similar, the enemies as well as the helpers are immortal gods, therefore the tradition is less contrary to his religious sentiment. It is not certain whether the imprisonment of Hecat- oncheires by their father and their release by Zeus are an invention by Hesiod. But this plot, to be sure, gave the poet a good opportunity to make the monsters play an important role in the Theogony

View full abstract

The question whether the εκτημοροι, mentioned by Aristotle, Plutarch and some other authors, had to make over one-sixth of the produce to the rich or retained that portion has been discussed by many scholars since the last century. Some scholars (von Fritz, French, Lotze, Hammond, Rhodes) support the first answer to the question Others (Woodhouse, Masaracchia, Cassola, Biscardi) arrive at the conclusion that the second is correct Recently some unique assumptions about the question have been proposed by Cataudella, Kirk and Gallant. What kind of status were the εκτημοροι? In this paper the authoi considers about the portion which the εκτημοροι retained and their status and suggests the following three points. (1) The word εκτημοριον means 'a. sixth part', therefore the εκτημοροι are people of 'a sixth part' and their share has not varied between one-sixth and five-sixths but has been one-sixth or rive-sixths The possibility that the εκτημοροι have possessed one-sixth of the produce is supported by the use of the plural in Plut Sol 13 4 : εκτα των γινομενων τελουντεζ. The meaning of this passage is 'delivering five-sixths of the produce' And also in Arist Ath 2.2 the plural μιοθωσειζ can be construed as meaning five-sixths in contrast to μιοθωσιζ which means one-sixth Therefore the εκτημοροι were those who possessed one-sixth of the produce. (2) We can not find the word εκτημοροι in fragments of Solon's poems. Aristotle and Plutarch, however, define the εκτημοροι as poor people, and in fragments of Solon's poems there are three passages in which poor people are mentioned. If their definition is correct, these passages may allude to the εκτημοροι Secondly, Aristotle and Plutarch give us the terms of πελαται or θητεζ as equivalent to εκτημοροι Aristophanes Byzantinus regards the term of λατριζ as equivalent to θηζ Lexicographers and scholars have treated these words as one group ・ εκτημοροι-πελαται-θητεζ-λατριεζ The author supposes that these words have an equal meaning and the word λατρευει in Sol. F 13 v. 47f represents the εκτημοροι. Perhaps the εκτημοροι were those who worked for hire (3) The εκτημοροι are proletarian peasants-'a kind of θητεζ' who form a portion of the δημοζ and obtain one-sixth of the produce by working on the land of the rich throughout the year To work on the land of the rich and deliver five-sixths of the produce to the rich was their obligation The rich perpetuated their lien by creating the obligation through giving them one-sixth of the produce. Their politico-social status is very unstable and they did not have any legal securities at all. If they neglected their obligation, they were justly sold abroad as slaves

View full abstract

The mixture of the serious elements and the comical ones in Euripides' Alkestis creates the complexities of the play, bringing about the difficulties and diversities of the interpretation Herakles' role and significance should be considered in detail in relation with the structure of the play because he enters much earlier if compared with Theseus in HF or dei ex machina and his actions are concerned with the comical effects. The structure consists of three pieces of miniature drama, Alkestis' self-sacrifice, Admetos' sufferings after it and Herakles' rescue, all of which are contrived to unite in the Exodos Hence the illustration shown in the figure on p. 35. Prologos B belongs to the 'rescue piece' because Thanatos enters just as an antagonist to Herakles. The main function of the self-sacrifice scene is to praise Alkestis for her devotion and excellence as a wife, mother and mistress so highly that it appears to the eyes of the audience that she deserves recovery from death for her own sake because of her virtuous existence indispensable to the royal house. The repeated references unfavourable to Admetos' parents (especially 290-97, 336-39) prepare the Agon, where Pheres' violent reproaches and threatening with Akastos' revenge give Admetos so great a shock, resulting in his imaginary slander from his enemy (954-60). This motif combines the 4th Epeisodion A with the 4th Epeisodion C. The rescue piece of Harakles is provided with the prediction of his appearance in the Prologos B, his entrance and reception in the 3rd Epeisodion and his realisation of the affairs leading to his resolution with his imaginary rescue scene in the 4th Epeisodion B As for the actions these two pieces are completely severed, having, nothing to do with each other-for example, Herakles is contrived not to participate in the Agon, the most suitable occasion for him to grasp the meaning of the affairs-in order that the Exodos should be performed as an anagnorisis scene However, the close parallel should be noticed between these pieces set in similar circumstance and supplied with the opposite but complementary imagery and contents In this respect the mourning and the funeral rites frequently mentioned from the beginning, which Admetos tries solemnly to conduct, play an important role They are disturbed and delayed by the intrusion of Herakles (the exterior cause) and Pheres (the inner cause), everything finally proving to be nonsense after the appearance of the rescued Alkestis Pheres is expelled from the funeral and the house with hatred, which shows clearly the disruption of the parental relationship Herakles is enclosed into the house as an undesirable person (cf 817), though accepted through Admetos' hospitality obliging him to rescue Alkestis and through his deception contradicting with the due observance of the funeral The comic and satync characteristics of Herakles suggest symbolically overflowing vitality In contrast, Admetos envies the dead, insisting on the reversal of the proper value between life and death after his attempted suicide during the burial, which usually reinforces the distinction between the living and the dead He indicates declining life and the loss of volition to live, having no strength by himself to restore himself as well as the disrupted house Accepting the inevitable, Herakles expresses his affirmative attitude to life through his hedonistic philosophy Having evaded his destiny, Admetos falls into nihilism, though through physical existence of Alkestis he once enjoyed what Herakles embodies on the stage The subtraction of the scene reporting Herakles' victory over Thanatos and the aforementioned independence of those paralleled pieces together with the veiled Alkestis and Herakles' fiction are intended to compose the Exodos as an amusing anagnorisis scene with irony The comic features of Herakles

(View PDF for the rest of the abstract.)

View full abstract

The difference between the earlier and the later plays of Aristophanes, which I call tentatively κωμωδια and κωμωδικον δραμα respectively, owes much to the weight of the chorus in each of them. Parabasis, in particular, which shows a complete style in the earlier plays, is transformed little by little, until it finally disappears altogether in the last two plays In Aves, the first of Aristophanes' middle plays, the whole play is constructed in the typical form of κωμωδια and its parabasis, too, is not an exception. But, if we examine the contents, we find that substantial changes toward the later dissolution and disappearance of parabasis have already taken place The first of these changes is that the speaker of the anapaests speaks no more as a chorus member or the playwright himself, but as a bird, as in the rest of the play Therefore, a feeling of incongruity or rupture, otherwise caused by the appearance of a man only in parabasis is reduced considerably. Secondly, the contents of the anapaests have some common features with epirrhema or antepirrhema of the preceding plays, which means that the division of the roles inherent in the seven constituent parts of parabasis has begun to be indistinct I do not think, however, that the so-called unity in Aves between the parabasis and the rest of the play has affected the parabases of the later plays It should be understood as peculiar to this play in which the chorus takes part in the plot most closely and occupies the central position in the play as the formative figure of scenes In the parabases of the following other middle plays of Aristophanes, two more changes take place in addition to the above mentioned two innovations in Aves The parabasis does not have all the constituent parts any more, and it changes its character from a collected composition of various parts to a scene played by the chorus irrelevant to the plot. In this way, the parabasis of Aves, for all its conservative appearance, plays a significant role in the transformation from κωμωδια to κωμωδ κον δραμα, as a step toward the dissolution and disappearance of the parabasis

View full abstract

The Cratylus opens with the question of what is the correctness of names Hermogenes and Cratylus offer the so-called "convention-theory" and the so-called "nature theory", respectively, which are both criticised by Socrates One of the questions to be asked concerning this criticism is What is Socrates' own view on the correctness of names? In answering this question many interpreters assumed that Socrates is himself entangled in the battle between the convention theory and the nature theory. I wish to call into question this assumption itself. Hermogenes' thesis contains two different parts which have not been clearly distinguished so far One is the view concerning the way people began to use names or gave names to things, which can be called "the convention theory proper" According to it, we can participate in name-givmg through learning how to use names in conversation. The other is the view that any name that has been thus given to something is to be positively qualified as correct I suggest that the target of Socrates' refutation is this view, and not the convention theory proper On this view, because all names that are given to things are regarded as correct, one could rely on names in order to distinguish and teach the nature of things, and the mastery of verbal communication would guarantee the full acquaintance with their nature Then, there could be no special art of using names except rhetoric or poetics, there could be no room for dialectic by means of which we should examine our opinions and attempt to discover truth Socrates cannot accept this conclusion. He denies, therefore, that everyone can be an authoritative name-giver, and asserts that there is the natural correctness of names which can be judged only by a dialectician who is the expert at using names for the purpose of discovery Cratylus neglects this role of the dialectician and divorces the correctness of names from their dialectical use, by regarding the correctness of names as consisting in the natural correspondence between descriptive contents embodied in names and things in the world He denies the misuse of names on the ground that the understanding ot the descriptive contents is not only a necessary condition for the use of names but also the sufficient condition for their correct use But Socrates reveals the irrelevance of the understanding of the descriptive contents to the use of names. He shows also that descriptive contents represent merely opinions of name-givers, and not the nature of things. Therefore, to overestimate the role of names, as Cratylus does, is to trust the name-givers in an unreasonable way, and it makes it impossible for us to go beyond names. Socrates urges us to refuse such trust and to launch our own investigation. Socrates' aim in the Cratylus is to save the possibility of dialectic, i e the art of using names that serves the purpose of penetrating names and reaching reality This is why he had to refute Hermogenes and Cratylus, whose theories allow no room for-dialectic.

View full abstract

The questions of the authenticity and chronology of Plato's texts are long-standing arguments This paper deals with the analysis of some prose style 'concerned with word order. One of the particular features of the Greek language is its freedom with word order The choice of word order is supposed to reflect personal habit or style which can be defined by studying the frequencies of certain patterns of combination of words. The conclusions are based on data obtained in a pilot computer project organized by Dr. L Brandwood from the University of Manchester in which I participated from October 1, 1980 to March 31, 1982 The purpose of the project is to investigate some specific stylistic features of texts from different periods of Plato's career, with the aim of producing certain quantitative measures of sentence structure and establishing new methods or principles of stylistic comparison The study was carried out usmg a system of classifying elements of sentence according to their syntactic function. The categories and code numbers are twelve : noun (0), verb(1), direct object (2), indirect object (3), predicate (4), attributes of these items (5), (6), (7), (8), (9), adverb (62) and prepositional phrase (63) The combinations of word order in each category are checked according to two patterns, 'coordinate' and 'split' The coordinate is the case where more than two words of the same class are used in parallel position m a sentence The split means the gap between a word and other related words in the same class The Greek texts of Plato were already available to us on magnetic tape Among Plato's writing we chose three texts, Laches, Theaetetus, and Philebus which are generally agreed to come from three different periods of his life We were also able to obtain a tape of Xenophon from which Memorabilia was chosen In order to check the consistency of our measures withm individual works, each text was sub-divided into four sections As the project is still underway, it is too early to make many claims for our methods. But I can say that in this instance, at least, checking word order has proved an effective measure of stylistic difference. It is fully recognised that the style of Philebus stands out clearly from that of the other three dialogues The figures for coordinate and split in Philebus are extremely high compared with the other three, especially in the case of the split in the prepositional phrases. We could say, 'the greater the frequency of splits, the more complicated the sentence' Philebus is commonly grouped chronologically with Leges, Timaeus, Pohticus and Sophistes as belonging to the later period of Plato's writing These dialogues are famous for being difficult to read It is an open question how far our syntactic code system would cover the complicated implication of sentence structures But whatever the interpretation, it is important to have some quantifiable and objective methods with which to work.

View full abstract

The mismatch and duplication of Aristotle's two well-known discussions of pleasure in Nicomachean Ethics, books 7 and 10 have been discussed at length to find their proper consistency Pleasure is said, on the one hand, to be an unhindered activity of our natural faculties (1153a14-15), and on the other hand, those of completing or perfecting activities, but must not be identified with them(1174b14-1175b1, 1175b 32-35) The core of the problem is thought to be concerned with the concept of activity (ενεργεια) or the relation between pleasures and activities Recently G. E L. Owen suggested that the two discussions are too divergent to be incompatible because they are neither competing nor co-operating answers to one question, but, rather, respective answers to two quite different questions Needless to say, his point is so serious that it cannot be solved by mere explanations from the developmental view-point of Aristotle's ethical thought Although Owen's analysis is brilliant and surely epoch-making, I suspect his thesis is too strong, because several points of Aristotle's argument, especially the refutation of the anti-hedonistic doctrine, are common to both books It is necessary to investigate the respective contexts introducing "activity" before considering the linguistic analysis of human actions, apart from the text of E N For the evaluation of pleasure, which, as J Annas assumes, is common to both books and irrelevant to the apparent difference between them, depends at least partly on the character of activity In book 7 "energeia" appears 12 times, half of which converge at 1152b33-53a 17. This is the second part of the refutations of the anti-hedonistic theory, where Aristotle rejects the view which identifies pleasure with the physiological process (γενεσιζ), and replaces the activity for it on the basis of the facts that we have pleasures without preceding pains and that sick persons take delight in different things from those healthy ones take pleasure in The question in this context is what is the proper description of pleasure when one feels it, so it is clear that activity and process make an exact counterpart Pleasures can be said to be different from one another according to pleasant things, which are certainly not activities but their objects or sources Admission of variety of pleasures is an important aspect of Aristotle's view of pleasure common to both books For the assumption of pleasure as a unified kind without taking variety of actions provides the ground of (moral and psychological) hedonism (Cf. Gorg. 499B, Phzleb. 12C-E) But it should be noted that in book 10 variety of pleasures is based on that of activities "energeia" is used 40 times (including the verbal infinitive form 10 times), most of which appear after 1174b5 making the central concept in the text Aristotle begins with the case of perceptions. If a sense in the best conditioned organ is in a certain relation to its finest objects, it is most complete, and its activity is necessarily pleasant And then the pleasure intensifies its source activity, and this operation is peculiar to human activity Thus in Aristotle's supposition that activities of a different kind are completed by pleasures of a different kind, we find another understanding of human pleasure : the verbs such as "like", "enjoy", "delight", "indulge" have the intentional aspect, which is different from the unified indistinct kind of pleasure as an overall satisfaction of desire

View full abstract

Greek writers rarely mentioned about the imperial cult Our author Aelius Aristides, however, frequently attended at the meetings of the provincial assembly So we may expect his orations to tell us something about the Greek attitudes toward the Roman imperial cult The Cyzicus speech (Or 27 K), one of such orations, is delivered at Cyzicus on the occasion of the dedication of Hadrian Temple, a temple for the provincial imperial cult This panegyric consists of three parts the praise of the city of Cyzicus, the description of the Temple, the encomium of two emperors But, as G Bowersock pointed out, nowhere in this panegyric does he call an emperor as a god He explicitly distinguishes the emperor from the traditional gods Instead, he calls the Hadrian Temple as "a thank offering to the gods," and says as follows, "We should be grateful to the gods, but we should congratulate the emperors and join in prayer for them" The Greeks erected many temples and cult images of the emperors, nevertheless, they did not call the emperor as a god, and in practice did pray for the emperors Here at least we may see one aspect of the Greek attitudes toward the imperial cult Another feature of the Cyzicus Speech is its patriotic tone He speaks of the temple of the imperial cult in terms of the Greek mythology and the glory of the Greek past. He refers to the temple as the pride of a Greek city. It it true that praise of the city where the festival is located is conventional in the panegyrics And yet, at the same time, we ought to pay attention to some passages in his other orations, where Anstides suggested how the leading Greek cities engaged in strife because of the temples and festivals of the koinon. And, judging from other sources, the title of neokoros, "temple warden," was such a distinction for the Greek cities that it became a cause of the struggles among them. It seems that the temple of the provincial imperial cult was recognized as the pride of a Greek city. We may be justified in pointing out another aspect of the Greek attitudes toward the imperial cult.

View full abstract