Cypselus of Corinth established his tyranny in c 657 B C by overthrowing the oligarchy of the Bacchiads and maintained it for thirty years The Bacchiads were a huge clan with exclusive rule of Corinth In addition to being big landowners, they were also engaged in trade and tolls, thus accumulating enormous wealth Non-Bacchiad aristocrats were extremely discontent with being shut out from political power and made claims to participation Middle and upper class commoners made such claims as well, though with some reserve Moreover, all the Corinthians, and especially lower class commoners, suffered under the economic pressure of the Bacchiads On the other hand, Cypselus served as a polemarch before becoming a tyrant, both showing favours to Corinthians through the moderate exercise of his police authority, and connecting himself with the hoplites (the aristocrats and middle and upper class commoners) through his command of the army Consequently, when he attempted to establish the tyranny, all Corinthians, with the exception of the Bacchiads, supported him Though the support of the middle and upper class commoners was rather half-hearted, the aristocrats and lower class commoners lent their support, with aristocrats even helping him with their force of arms During Cypselus' tyranny, the non-Bacchiad aristocrats formed an antityrannical faction, as their admittance to political power had only been nominal and they had become the main target of a property-tax introduced by Cypselus Middle and upper class commoners continued lending lukewarm support, since minor offices were offered to them and they were equally stable economically, when compared to before Lower class commoners remained strong supporters of the tyrant, as they saw that he made efforts to improve their economic life by distributing plots of land to them and founding colonies I have been somewhat hesitant to accept overall a recently influential theory which regards the hoplites (middle and upper class commoners) as supporters of the earlier tyranny As a case study, the present paper may show that my hesitations are not without grounds

View full abstract

The aim of this paper is to describe the formation of the submarine composition which characterizes the Marine Style (MS) pottery of the Late Minoan (LM) IB period First, a marine motif of ten forms of 'units of scenery' is described and related to octopus and nautilus motifs Here, examples are restricted to Cretan provenance and to representations of Type A and B for both motifs, indicative of the earlier stage of the LM IB period After close examination, these Types (as main motifs) are seen to be painted with 'units of scenery' formed from six subsidiary motifs related to four (diagram 1) Second, the effect on MS submarine composition by syntaxes of pottery and other media of the Pre-MS periods is discussed At first, however, it is necessary to clarify what the syntax of MS submarine composition actually is In short, the latter signifies a decorative space formed of a marine motif and 'unit for scenery' filling any space left by the main motif (pls 1-2 and figs 1-3) Compared to the syntax of other media of the Pre-MS periods, the syntax of the MS is in conspicuous contrast to a space organically formed by a main motif and 'unit of scenery' such as the rock motif (figs 4-6) Third, the factors that played a definitive role in the formation of the MS submarine composition are discussed Here, the argument turns to the MS decoration itself Of the four motifs-trefoil rock-work, triton-shells, sea urchins, and the scale-pattern-trefoil rock-work is mainly discussed in tracing out the chronological development Based on close examination, the motif is typologically classified into five types, of which IΑ, IΒ, and IΓ are described below (pl 3) However, the former two types cannot be regarded as indicative of the earlier stage of the LΜ IΒ period (diagrams 2-3) On the other hand, though, Type IΓ was seen in both the early and advanced LΜ period (diagram 4) However, the Baroque version of this type signals the earliest stage of the LΜ period since the latter occurred only with the Type A octopus (pl 4) Moreover, the author already argued elsewhere that the production of this version might be attributed to the hand of a 'Trefoil rock-work master of Baroque style', one of the fourteen painters who undertook to produce the MS wares Therefore it may be concluded that the submarine composition of MS decoration had first been produced by a master in the LM period

View full abstract

The author has inquired into the implications and functions of απατη and δολοζ in Hom, by examining their usage in their context Among the four examples of απατη in Il we first scrutinize the one in B (114) Agamemnon says to the Greeks that Zeus, who had once promised him the sack of Troy, has now devised κακη απατη in bidding him retreat to Argos in disgrace (the same lines are repeated in I) In these scenes as well as in the one in 0 where Zeus warns Hera against απατη, the deed is not of human agency, but divine This is true as well in the case in Δ 168 where the word apparently refers to the truce-breaking of Pandarus, which is in fact instigated by Athena It should also be remembered that Zeus' απατη in B and I is depicted as ατη from Agamemnon's point of view In Od, on the other hand, the word appears only once in ν, and here it is applied to a human being, Odysseus, who is praised by Athena for this quality Through investigation it is proved that the same holds true of the derivatives of απατη (απαταω, εξαπαταω, απατηλιοζ, απατηλοζ), in Il they refer to divine deeds or to human deeds resulting from divine intervention, whereas in Od they depict or relate to human actions which in most cases are characteristic of the persons concerned and often have much to do with the development of the story Remarkable is the difference in the frequency of the use of δολοζ between Il and Od, i e 11 times in the former versus 32 times in the latter In Il, except for two scenes where gods' actions are mentioned (Hera's in O and Apollo's in Φ), the word is found only in small episodes and digressions which are of little or no importance in the plot In this respect Od is rather different from Il Firstly, in Od the word is used mostly to describe the tactics of human beings , the only exceptions are in the "Ares-Aphrodite song", the "Kirke-story", a small episode in δ and Odysseus' lamentation in e Secondly, δολοζ as a human strategy is generally significant in the narrative, e g in the case of Penelope it stands for the "Scheme of Weaving", in that of Aigisthus-Klytaimnestra for the "Murder of Agamemnon" and in that of Telemachus for "Vengeance upon the suitors" These repetitions of the word δολοζ, pointing up "contrasts" and "parallels" between different characters, including of course Odysseus himself, must have contributed much to the audience's appreciation of the orally recited poem Thirdly, the word is employed effectively to delineate the characters of the persons concerned The derivatives of δολοζ, as well as ψευδοζ and its derivatives, are morefrequently and significantly applied in Od than in Il Striking is the equivalency of "δολω" and "αμφαδον" in the advice given by Athena and Teiresias (α 296 a= λ 120 a) Here can be seen quite another norm of moral values than that in Il (cf H 243) As observed also from Athena's applause of Odysseus in ν where the goddess places the hero on a par with herself by using the "dual-number" (296 f), the words απατη and δολοζ in Od are not tinged with a negative import but generally with a rather positive one Nevertheless δολοζ may be regarded as having a negative implication when its agents, like Aigisthus and Clytaimnestra, are devoid of the virtues of patience and self-possession It is indeed with these virtues that Odysseus and Penelope resort to δολοζ, especially the former who, by being πολυτλαζ and πολυμητιζ, succeeded not only in reestablishing his status in Ithaka but also in establishing himself as a "hero" entirely different from Achilleus in Il

View full abstract

In line 749, Hecuba reveals her resolution to take revenge, timorein It comes as a complete surprise, since there is no mention of such an idea in the Prologue Hecuba's revenge has been acknowledged as an innovation by Euripides and is, indeed, skilfully devised to constitute the culmination of the play and to draw the attention of the audience So it is not unreasonable to regard the revenge as a crucial clue to the interpretation of the play What then drove Hecuba to take revenge? The murder of Polydorus? But that was merely the last straw W Steidle singled out her thymos as the compelling force which brought her to "fruchtbarer, ja grausiger Aktivitat" (cf WSt 74,1966,133-42) But R Mendor's paper (cf AJPh 99,1978, 28-35) has convincingly demonstrated that the revenge, far from being "an odious act of fury performed by a devilish creature", is rather "an official act of justice" counselled and confirmed by contemporary Athenian law It has thrown a new light upon the play and requires due consideration If the revenge is a legal act, how can it be considered tragic? To consider Hecuba's understanding of nomos may be a solution In a desperate plea to Odysseus (251-95), Hecuba appeals to every sort of morality including charts, dike, hiketeia, aidos, phthonos, and finally, nomos (291) Her appeal was in vain but the fact that she did appeal proves the seriousness with which she believes in the values she mentions In supplicating Agamemnon for revenge on Polymestor, she again appeals to nomos (799-805) The reading of nomos in line 800 has been much debated and there are three renderings proposed "convention", "divine order", and, "divine law (as understood by Agamemnon) and/or convention (as understood by the contemporary Athenian audience)" I propose that "divine law" would be the natural rendering here because Hecuba is attempting to persuade Agamemnon, who as king presides over the people It is, therefore, more appropriate for Hecuba to appeal not to "convention", which can be neglected by the ruler, but to "divine law", which he is in charge of administrating in human society Moreover immediately before referring to nomos, she makes an issue of Polymestor's negation of gods below and above (791) and his violation of xenia (793-97) And at lines 802-805, justice in the form of execution under the supervision of Agamemnon is at stake (the relative pronoun at line 802 designates nomos at line 800 "which now comes to you") Therefore if nomos in line 800 means "divine law" and not "convention", this gives her argument a logical continuity But I must add that Hecuba's understanding of nomos must have undergone a drastic change when she found the body of Polydorus She never denied divine nomos but was forced to recognise that it could operate as Blind Chance, Tyche, as hinted at 685-86 by the phrase nomon Baccheion I propose that, uttering these words, she must have decided to acknowledge herself as an agent of Tyche (757, 786, 865) While she believes in the existence of divine nomos, she recognises or, rather, is forced to recognise its precise nature, i e, that it can often be totally indifferent to human happiness Nonetheless, she is required to undertake revenge as a legal duty Is it not tragedy as well as irony? The violent act by an agent of Tyche itself results in a lawful act which, logically, must be completely inoffensive to contemporary Athenians Surely, this is not merely a theatrical surprise but also an astounding impact on the audience's understanding of nomos ? According to my interpretation, the scene in which Hecuba as supplicant appeals to Agamemnon is strongly ironical Hecuba is the self-confessed agent of Tyche while Agamemnon, despite the authority to execute nomos, is in fact a man unable to act at his discretion

(View PDF for the rest of the abstract.)

View full abstract

Passage 859 c to 864 b in the ninth book of the Laws presents a quite elaborate discussion of the causes of crime, in which Plato introduces the Socratic paradox "No one does wrong willingly" The discussion is usually interpreted as being Plato's most deliberate consideration of the relevance of the paradox to the penal code that is to be enacted in the ninth book Nonetheless, it is true that the paradox apparently contradicts a penal code in which decisions are determined by whether or not a crime is voluntary or involuntary The paradox seems to deny the possibility of voluntary crime, for "No one does wrong willingly" clearly implies that no injustice will be done voluntarily This suggests that some new understanding of crime is required if the paradox is to be accepted But is this the real point on which Plato sets his eyes in the vexed passage ? In this paper, alternative explanations are sought employing the ingenious criticism in the commentary of T J Saunders The following two points are at issue First, passage 864 a 1-8 is explained by Saunders as rerernng to αγνοια "however remotely" Is this the point that Plato has in mind? Second, Saunders argues that passage 863 a 5-6 requires a distinction between two senses, εκουσιον and ακουσιον, i e a Socratic and ordinary sense, and that this distinction is provided in passage 863 e 2-3 Is this also Plato's point? The alternative interpretation to the first problem derives from the fact that no need exists to read the reference to αγνοια into the discussion of the passage An act guided by η του αριστου δοξα is carefully distinguished by Plato from αδικια and said to be a βλαβη even if it happens to be committed without any fault What Plato wants to say in the last sentence of the passage is that the act can never be called αδικια, whether one names it ακουσιον or not This careful distinction seems to reject the αγνοια-referred interpretation of Saunders The answer to the second problem regarding the requirement made in the passage in question that acts of εκουσιον and ακουσιον in the ordinary sense are involved in the previous discussion from 861 e 6 to 863 a 2 (and not a distinction between the two senses, Socratic and ordinary), is found in the two successive clauses contained in passage 863 e 5-864 a 8 That is to say, "whether some damage may be done or not" (863 e 8) can be said to refer to εκουσιον and ακουσιον in the ordinary sense, and "even if some fault may be committed" to ακουσιον If this interpretation is to the point, we can argue that it is not the solution of the contradictory relevance of the Socratic paradox to the assumptions of the penal code that Plato intends to bring forth Rather, what Plato tries to make clear is the public superficial recognition of justice and injustice, his claim that they are only to be sought as a state of mind, and his firm decision that legislation, practical as it is, must set its eye on this ideal definition of justice and injustice This is the very paradox that has to be solved by Plato

View full abstract

According to the Stoics, a sign (semeion) is the true antecedent of a sound conditional and the sign-inference is part of man's nature The inference is not only a transition from one term to another, but also their synthesis All signs do not have these conditions A mnemonic sign is called common, able to designate different objects and is related to the 'convincing' (pithanon) which derives from experience and is comprehended by resemblance In cases of 'convincing', a connexion between antecedent and consequent is not necessary and is often expressed in the formation of the negated conjunction 'Not both (p & -q)' to mean material implication But an indicative sign is called peculiar (idion), and a connexion between antecedent and consequent is necessary and is called synartesis The necessity of the connexion does not create tautology, since though this sign makes clear the not-evident consequent, in tautology the consequent is perfectly evident in the antecedent by itself Nor does the connexion create a sequence of proof (apodeiksis), because even though proof is called a kind of sign, the premises being revelatory of the conclusion, a sign's revelatoriness is not essentially dependent on the sequence of modus ponens, but on the epistemological element of its premise, the conditional The antecedent being a peculiar sign, the non-evident as the consequent is the cause (aition) of the antecedent, but only if it is the mere helping cause (synergon) Besides this, there is the principal, sustaining cause (synektikon), which is the real cause of the effect, comprehended as the generalized reason or explanation Hence, the Stoics' implication-a peculiar sign is the abbreviated form of a three-term relation with a hidden term, being a generalized reason, which, in effect, leads us to the consequent

View full abstract

This paper advances the hypothesis that Lucretius composed the proem of De Rerum Natura as we read it today with a precise intention following a structural model concealed in the text that the MSS have transmitted to us If this be granted, there is no longer any need to transpose the order of paragraphs-as has been required by scholars-and moreover we can solve the problem of the abrupt transition, from lines 49 to 50, 61 to 62, and 135 to 136 In the first place, the invocation (lines 1-49) representing the three modalities of manifestation of the ηδονη in the three levels (of nature, men, and gods) can be subdivided into three sections adumbrating three themes of Epicurean philosophy Of these, the first (lines 1-23) alludes to the natural motif Venus=Physis, symbolizing the ηδονη κινητικη The second section (lines 24-43), illustrates the ethical theme Venus = Pax, taken as ηδονη καταστηματικη The third section (lines 44-49), is inspired by the theological motif of the nature of the gods αταραξια Each of the three thematic nuclei is then transposed and repeated in sequence during the development represented by lines 50-101 We thus encounter each theme in its symbolic and in its concrete aspect To the first section of the invocation there corresponds a fourth section, lines 50-61, to the second, a fifth section, lines 62-79, and to the third, a sixth, lines 80-101 (This structural principle reflects the Lucretian narrative mode and is consistent with his entire output) What we have called the fourth section, corresponding to the natural motif in the invocation, describes the union and separation of atoms This transition from Venus to atom is looked upon as natural, for the Ruler of Nature is nothing but the law which determines the movement of atoms in the Universe It is the power of Venus which incites to union and becomes manifest in atoms with the result that these can be called semina or genitalia corpora The fifth section, representing the Triumph of Epicurus, corresponds to the symbolic victory of Venus over Mars represented in the second section And indeed, this allegory is nothing but an allusion to the triumph of the Epicurean ideal, αταραξια In this section, which develops the ethical theme, we learn what it is that Epicurus triumphs over and how he obtains the victory, the poet exalts the value of the summum bonum The third section shows the ideal which men ought to pursue, that is to say the Epicurean theology, while the sixth reveals the sorrowful reality from which man must liberate himself, in other words, false theology If man cannot rightly understand the condition of blessed and immortal beings, he cannot hope to grasp the significance of the sixth section For this reason, the sixth presupposes the third, and both are mdissolubly linked The final part, lines 102-158, may be called the "synthetic" section in that it draws together and connects the three aspects of Epicurean thought mentioned above Without their conjoined understanding, man cannot obtain true peace of mind (αταραξια) More precisely, we can identify in the final part three further sections the seventh (lines 102-135) insists on the absolute necessity of the union of the three aspects of Epicurean philosophy, the eighth (lines 136-145) expresses the αταραξια which the poet has reached by achieving their synthesis (by the symbolic words serenae noctes), and the ninth (lines 146-158) brings the proem to a close, repeating the need for union between the three aspects Thus the three fundamental strands of Epicurean philosophy articulate the proem's structure and give body to its poetical development

View full abstract

In Virgil's Georgics, the relation between the end of Book 4 (the Aristaeus story) and the poem as a whole has often been questioned Many scholars have noticed that this story reflects the preceding main themes of the poem the Aristaeus episode reminds us of the theme of labor, while the Orpheus episode tells about the theme of amor and mors But how can we understand the relation between these two episodes? A close analysis of the episodes shows not only how Virgil explains the human condition in the age of Jupiter, but also how he develops the view of Lucretius on civilization, love, and death But here arises another question how can we interpret the fact that the story reflects the significant influence of Homer, with the Orpheus episode at the same time being connected with the Eclogues (esp Eel 6 and 10) ? This fact results in the impression that the story, irrelevant to the preceding didactic part of the poem, is abruptly introduced My answer is that the end of the fourth Georgic may have a hidden function of expressing the poet's career as a primus poet in Rome The Orpheus episode, closely united with the theme of amor and mors in the Eclogues, implies that Virgil has written the Eclogues, while the Aristaeus story as a whole shows Virgil's original point of view on the human condition Further, the impression that the story is closely related to epic poetry suggests Virgil's intention of writing an epic in the future This view is confirmed by another similar example found in the epilogue of Book 2 and the proem of Book 3 First, in 2 475-494, Virgil compares his view of nature and happiness with that of Lucretius, even though the former's view is quite like that of a shepherd in the Eclogues Second, through the description of happy farmers, the epilogue of Book 2 expresses the ideal of the Georgics which reflects the theme of labor in the first half of the poem Third, in the proem of Book 3, Virgil promises to write an epic which will glorify not only Caesar but also Virgil himself In short, this middle part of the poem implies that the poet has already written the Eclogues, and is writing the Georgics now, and will write an epic in the future Just as in this middle part, the end of the fourth Georgic not only reflects the preceding main themes but also, as a kind of sphragis, implies the poet's career as an original poet in Rome

View full abstract

Eusebius, bishop of Caesarea in Palestine, is called the 'Father of Ecclesiastical History,' and rightly so His most important work, Historia Ecclesiastica (= HE) is an extremely rich collection of historical documents, quotations, and extracts from a multitude of early Cnurch writings HE can thus be called a monumental achievement of early Christian literature There are many doubts, however, as to the authenticity of Eusebius' sources A serious drawback to his reliability as a historian is the loose and uncritical way he handles his materials But this criticism has too commonly resulted in an excessive depreciation of his great contribution and has tended to obscure its true merits Even with due allowance made for such faults, the objective merit and value of his HE should be duly acknowledged and appreciated In his HE, Eusebius usually allows his quotations to speak for themselves He does his best to collect testimonies from writers who lived at the time of the events which he describes In such cases, we might safely suspect that the quotations or extracts are based on some pre-existing text and that their historical authenticity is remarkable Cases in which he relies only on oral tradition are more problematic, but so far, such cases have tended to be greatly underestimated by many scholars and have been regarded as in- authentic Having carefully reexamined Eusebius' HE, I suggest the following two points First, in HE, he creates a personal style the quotations are often preceded by introductions or paraphrases I would like to emphasize especially the importance of cases where he writes an anonymously introduced narrativefollowed by a quotation or brief summary, such paraphrase almost always being derived from a quotation from his main source If so, it is not necessary for us to question the historical authenticity of the anonymous narrative Second, this paper analyzes two typical formulae which Eusebius uses to introduce oral traditions in HE <katechei logos> (it is recorded) and <logos echei> (tradition says), and reconsiders the authenticity of Eusebius' sources Detailed examination of the 10 volumes of the HE shows that Eusebius uses these introductory formulae 24 times, all of which are found in the first 8 volumes Moreover, 17 of these 24 cases are accompanied by another verb Indeed, no doubt exists that 16 of the 17 supposedly reflect the existence of some documental authority In 5 of the remaining 7 cases, a similar conclusion can be drawn Thus, Eusebius' use of such typical introductory formulae suggests that, for the most part, his statements are based directly on written sources even if they seem to be presented in the form of oral tradition It can safely be said that he very seldom worked without some authentic source

View full abstract