Nestor's story in Iliad 11 seems to be without close correspondences with the main plot of the epic, unlike other paradeigmata in the Iliad such as the story of Meleager and the story of Niobe. Still, critics have detected some elements which are similar to the situations surrounding the Greeks in the Iliad, such as the loss of leading warriors and the besieged city of Tryoessa. A notable feature of the story is the similarity of Nestor's valour in the cattle raid and in the battle against the Epeians. Another notable feature is the repeated references to Nestor's relationship to his father Neleus. Both of these features strengthen the contrast between Nestor who displayed his valour though his father forbade him to enter the battle, and Achilleus who does not display his valour though his father Peleus ordered him to do so. These elements contribute to the function of this story as a paradeigma for Achilleus. Patroclus is moved by the story, and when he sees Achilleus in book 16 and reports Nestor's words, he does not overtly ask Achilleus to return to battle. Instead, Patroclus emphatically asks Achilleus to let him return to battle, though this was only Nestor's second option. Those elements in Nestor's story in book 11 which strengthen its function as a paradeigma for Achilleus are so designed that they also work on Patroclus. In Nestor's story, the point where Nestor stopped his pursuit of the enemies and withdrew is clearly marked. It is notable that the moment when Patroclus should have stopped his pursuit of the Trojans is emphasized. This contrast between Nestor and Patroclus is discernible for the audience (or readers) of the Iliad who know the outcome of the influence of Nestor's story on Patroclus through the course of the epic. Nestor's story, which seems to be merely a lengthy and garrulous boast, is skillfully connected to the main plot of the Iliad on different levels: It is scattered with elements which strengthen its function as a paradeigma both for Achilleus and Patroclus. It also points to Patroclus' death through a notable contrast between this story and the course of events in the main plot of the epic.

View full abstract

Through the Delian League, Athens put great value on their activities in the sanctuaries as part of the process of promoting their "imperialism". The Panathenaea festival is a good example to show how the alliance was placed under Athenian control through offerings to sanctuaries during this period. Considering this point, the sanctuaries were excellent places for late fifth century Athens to visualize their authority, as the tyrants did in the sixth century. And Delos was also one of the most important sanctuaries for Athens in the early stages of the Delian League's history. It has been suggested that its "Ionian character" was a crucial aspect in establishing it as a place for the bank of the league, but there is more to this story. In this paper, the author deals with the relationship between Athens and the Delian sanctuary in the late fifth century, especially focusing on the Athenian administrators of the sanctuaries who were called the Amphiktyones. These administrators came into existence in the history of Delos by 434 B.C. at the latest, that is, after the transfer of the bank of the Delian league from Delos to Athens. Why did Athens maintain this sanctuary during the Peloponnesian war? This question is the starting point of this paper. To address this problem, the author will summarize the role of the Amphiktyones in the Delian sanctuary by observing their accounting records ID 89, 91, 92, 93, and 94. From these records it could be said that the Amphiktyones took charge of the asset management that related to the operation of the Delia festival even in the middle of the war. A second question arises, that is, whether this was a special case for contemporary Athens or not. In the second place, to compare with the other sanctuaries which the Athenians managed at the same period in mainland Greece, the author examines the evidence from the acropolis in Athens. Because Thucydides' account of the financial situation of Athens (2.13), and a famous inscription IG I^3 52, the so-called "Kallias decree" is important evidence to consider in the relationship between Athens and the sanctuaries. The author also considers the chronological problem of the establishment of "tamiai of the other god" in the acropolis in Athens as the background of the appearance of these two administrators, the Amphiktyones and the "tamiai of the other god" respectively. To conclude, the reason why the Athenians persisted in the control of the Delian sanctuary was not only because of its Ionian character, but also because of Athenian respect for the traditional religion which had been brought down by the social instability, such as plague and war. Moreover the appearance of the Amphiktyones was not a special case, but one of the many reforms in 430's Athens.

View full abstract

In the Laws the philosopher-king argued in the Republic does not appear explicitly. So it has been maintained that Plato abandoned the idea of the philosopher-king because of experiences in Syracuse or change in metaphysical thought. But some insist that the Nocturnal Council and its systems reflect the idea of the philosopher-king. This is correct, I think. And the philosophical theology in Book X is said to be the prologue to all laws. I believe that the work is a product of the idea of the philosopher-king. In this paper I argue that there is a strong possibility that Plato has eagerness for its realization in the future and does not exchange it for thought of rule of law. Points of the argument: 1. In the Laws Plato evidently abstains from philosophical discourses. 2. Plato gives a term of legislator in place of philosopher in our text (708E-712B). 3. It is significant that a main political ability of a philosopher (or a philosopher-king) is legislation. 4. The text 709E-711D ('the young tyrant') appears to be intended to tell us that the easiest and speediest way to realize the philosopher-king is cooperation of a philosopher and a tyrant. 5. The text 711D-712A ('god-like eros in great political power') appears to be intended to tell us that eros is the philosopher-king in the meaning of the Republic, as eros is taken to be a representative of a philosopher's mind. 6. Plato has eagerness for the realization of the philosopher-king in the future and does not only hold the idea. For 2 above there is no direct support in the text, but when the legislator is said to be 'axios epainou' (710C8), 'akros' (710D7), and 'alethes nomothetes' (710E8) in conjunction with 'the young tyrant' (709E-711D), we should consider the meanings of Plato's attribution of these terms to the legislator.

View full abstract

Plato's aetiological search in the Phaedo (95e7-102a9) has been recently interpreted as a conceptual reformation of the term 'aitia'. Accordingly, many scholars attempt to look into the presuppositions of the Platonic aitia, in particular his three tacit principles of aitia, in order that they may adduce evidences of a semantic modification. In this paper, I criticize the above interpretation as misleading and call attention to Plato's original criticism of the physical aitiai (96e5-97a5). Plato there avows his lack of understanding that 'where one is added to one either the one to which it is added or the one that is added becomes two, or that the one added and the one to which it is added becomes two because of the addition of the one to the other', and wonders (thaumazo) that 'when each of them is separate from the other, each of them is one, nor are they then two, but that, when they come near to one another, this is the cause of their becoming two, the coming together and being placed closer to one another' (tr. by Grube). His perplexity here strikes us as odd, but that the physical conjunction stated in the passage is a typical formulation of change for natural philosophers provides a good account for it. This is because by the disavowal of understanding the phenomenon, he can be considered as indicating the inexplicability of change on the natural philosophers' side. For this reading, I offer the following reason: having no explicit account of the ontological status of properties such as 'two' or 'beautiful', natural philosophers are compelled to admit that any property belongs to some physical thing by itself, so that there is no room for 'property change' in their world, as Aristotle also points out in G.C. I. 314b15-28. This is because if the thing that is intrinsically one becomes two, it would be one and two by itself, which sounds absurd immediately. Similarly, every change to opposites would be impossible on that physical conjunction model (cf. perdurantist's attack against endurantist in contemporary metaphysics). Plato thus introduced Forms, such as 'the beauty itself, and replaced physical conjunction by formal participation with a view to providing a coherent account of change. By doing so, he makes an ontological claim that Forms and participations can solely bring about change. It is therefore this ontology-centred argument that led Plato to the formal aetiology, whereas a conceptual concern is to be considered marginal. In other words, the alleged conceptual reformation of 'aitia' was in fact supervened upon the onto-metaphysical reflexion on change, stimulated by his ingenious 'wonder'.

View full abstract

In Nicomachean Ethics VII 3 Aristotle asks in what way an uncontrolled person (an akrates) knows what he should (or should not) do when he acts against his knowledge. Aristotle's analysis of the uncontrolled person's knowledge is based on his doctrine of the practical syllogism. According to that doctrine, if an agent knows all of the premises of a practical syllogism, he will decide to act on them and (if not prevented) he will act on them. For example, if he knows that one should not taste anything that is X and he knows that this is X, he will decide not to taste it and (if not prevented from not tasting it) he will not taste it. On the traditional interpretation of 1147a31-b12 an uncontrolled person has knowledge of the universal premise, but because he is affected by passion, he fails properly to have knowledge of the particular premise. However, 1147b15-17 appears to be inconsistent with this interpretation, since Aristotle seems to say there that the condition of being uncontrolled occurs when knowledge of the particular premise, and not knowledge of the universal premise, is present in us (parouses). To remove this inconsistency many interpreters accept Stewart's proposal to emend 'parouses ginetai' at b16 to 'periginetai'. However, this proposal is not well grounded from a philological point of view. I think it is better to keep the text as it stands. The main reason the above inconsistency arises is that 'parouses' in b16 is interpreted as 'present in us'. However, it can also be interpreted as 'near to passion'. If so, then 1147b15-17 can be understood as follows: being uncontrolled occurs when knowledge of the particular premise, and not knowledge of the universal premise, is near to passion (i.e. affected by passion). If this interpretation of 1147b15-17 is right, then Aristotle attributes a cognitive failure to the uncontrolled person. The uncontrolled person does not recognize what he should (or should not) do on a particular occasion, because under the influence of passion, he fails properly to have knowledge of the particular premise of the relevant practical syllogism. So understood, Aristotle seems to defend Socrates' position on being uncontrolled. Socrates insists that knowledge is not dragged about by passion, and that being uncontrolled occurs because of a lack of knowledge. Aristotle concludes that in a sense this is correct. In the case of an uncontrolled person, knowledge proper, knowledge of the universal, is not affected by passion. A person is uncontrolled because, affected by passion, he does not properly have knowledge of the particular situation at hand.

View full abstract

This article considers the reasons behind the anti-Macedonian War started by Rhodes and Pergamum in 201 BCE. This was a direct trigger of the Second Macedonian War in the following year, in which the Roman advance to the East was a significant step for Rome to become superpower in the whole ancient Mediterranean World. However, this war in 201 BCE was originally caused by diplomatic dynamism in the Hellenistic states. Moreover, what should be noted is that the war was not merely a resistance to Macedonian expansion to the south, contrary to what some studies have argued. The genuine fears for Rhodes and Pergamum should have been the cooperation between Macedonia and Seleucid and the very fact that the two dynasties had begun to advance to the Aegean areas and Asia Minor simultaneously in those days. The last years in the third century BCE in the eastern world were the period in which the Ptolemaic dynasty declined rapidly, while Macedonia and Seleucid recovered their powers greatly. This was one of the largest reorganizations of strength after the Successor's War, and the impact reached Rhodes and Pergamum which had been growing, taking advantage of the conflicts among the dynasties. For these two states, it was inevitable to confront the expansion by the two powerful dynasties to the Aegean areas and Asia Minor, and it was so serious a threat that those two states decided to struggle jointly first against Macedonia, regardless of diplomatic isolation which had existed between them. In consideration to the war in 201 BCE and the central factor of the crisis, what have sometimes been discussed are the economic and political situations of Rhodes and Pergamum and the alleged secret pact between Macedonia and Seleucid to divide the Ptolemaic kingdom. However, the more important is that Rhodes and Pergamum believed and made much of the existence of the cooperation between the dynasties despite the lack of accurate information on the pact. Furthermore, the situation in 201 BCE was unexpectedly favorable for the two states to counter the axis of the powers because the main body of the Seleucid army with the king had briefly turned to Coele Syria from Asia Minor possibly by the birth of cooperation with Macedonia. Although Seleucid was a natural enemy for Pergamum, its attention was drawn towards the second largest threat, Macedonia, by Seleucid's temporary retreat, and in this very situation Pergamum could agree to ally with Rhodes. On the other hand, the first priority for Rhodes was to press back Macedonia and it was at least originally thought to be possible to realize sufficiently if the two states could battle jointly in the sea. The anti-Macedonian war in 201 BCE was a product of those chain reactions in the whole Hellenistic states, and it was the last and biggest competition in foreign affairs before the Roman advance.

View full abstract

Ovid's Heroides 13 is a fictional letter from Laodamia to her husband Protesilaus who left to fight at Troy. One of the notable features of the work is Laodamia narrating how she saw Protesilaus in her dream (107-114) and how she cherishes a statue of him (151-158) all the while assuming that he remains in Aulis (3). The purpose of this paper is to examine Laodamia's state of mind when she refers to the dream and the statue. In this letter she seems to be conscious of the fate awaiting Protesilaus (i.e. his death), but she does not give up the hope of seeing him come back home alive (cf. 1-2). We may therefore assume that such hope is reflected in the descriptions of the dream and the statue. In Heroides 13, Laodamia tends to avoid bad omens (49, 85-90, 135), and anticipates that the oracle which prophesies death of a Greek soldier concerns Protesilaus (93-100), and avoids describing his death although she suspects it (65, 69-70, 79-80, 164, 166). In her dream, Protesilaus' figure (imago 109) looks pale and seems to lament his fate (querela 110), then she drives the dream away and offers sacrifices on the altar (111-114) because the dream makes her think of his death and she regards it as a bad omen. Right after that she imagines that she will meet with the returned Protesilaus (115-122). We can understand that she intends to deny what she has seen and heard in the dream by imagining an ideal homecoming scene. We can also observe remarkable verbal echoes in her imagination. Here she intends to replace the ominous scenes with the ideal ones by such verbal echoes. When she describes the statue of Protesilaus, she feels in appearance (imago 155) it is more than a mere statue and she complains to it (queror 158). Here imago at 109 and at 155, querela at 110 and queror at 158 become verbal echoes. Like 115-122, she intends to replace the bad dream with her cherishing the statue of Protesilaus. In this description, the remarkable expression is hanc teneo sinu 157. Considering 77-78 and 147-148, we can say that she treats the statue as her returned husband. In conclusion, Laodamia hopes so earnestly that Protesilaus will come back home alive that she refuses to see the deathlike figure of him in the dream and instead she devotes herself to his statue which makes her believe he is still alive.

View full abstract

The aim of the present paper is to investigate into the imperial cult performed on Roman Cyprus, placing a special emphasis on the so-called Cypriot oath to emperor Tiberius preserved in a Greek inscription from the Aphrodite sanctuary of Paphos Vetus (T. B. Mitford, A Cypriot Oath of Allegiance to Tiberius, JRS 50(1960), 75-79). In the oath, the Cypriots swore to the goddess Roma, Tiberius and his family at the accession of the emperor to the throne in 14. After providing an overview of studies on the imperial cult and of the Cypriot oath, the present paper tackles the oath and its text from the following three viewpoints: the theoi horkioi, i.e., the guarantor deities of the oath; the oath and the imperial cult; and the context of the oath. The Cypriot oath to Tiberius, though fragmentary in part, provides us with some fascinating insights into the religious status of the emperor on the island, the rituals of the imperial cult, and the religious and political communication between the centre and the province. The elaborately structured list of the theoi horkioi not only connects the local deities with the communal and Roman deities of greater importance, but also places Augustus and his descendants into the local context of Cyprus by means of representing the first emperor as an offspring of Aphrodite, patroness of the city of Paphos and of the island as a whole. The living emperor Tiberius also received the cultic veneration of the Cypriots, though his religious status was modified 'downwards' by means of depriving him of the epithet theos and including the goddess Roma in the objects of the final clause, which would pertain to the sacrifice to the emperor. The practice of the oath was perhaps focused on the city of Paphos, which retained the Aphrodite sanctuary and (probably) that of Hestia; however, this does not mean that the Paphians drafted and performed the oath exclusively for their own purposes and that the other cities were excluded from it. The Cypriot oath is probably a 'provincial-civic' oath in which all communities on the island participated. The oath would have involved communication between the Cypriots and the imperial power (imperial agents and the emperor himself), e.g., through the supervision of the oath by proconsules and the dispatch of a delegation to the emperor. The oath, therefore, offered the occasion for a communicative network between the Cypriots in the provincial capital and other communities, imperial agents, and the emperor himself at the religious and political levels.

View full abstract

While Medea, the eponymous protagonist of Seneca's tragedy, has been interpreted in various ways, as a furious woman, as a symbol of the nature, as a witch, etc., not enough attention has been paid to her important position as the wife of Iason. The purpose of this paper is to explore, through an analysis of the construction of the play, the ways in which Seneca treats Medea as Iason's wife, and thereby to clarify the side of her character that signifies her as a proud heroine. The paper first focuses on the parallelism that we find between the prologue and the final scene. The words at 53-56 are intended to notify the audience/reader of the correspondence between her past kin-killings and those to come. It will suggest one more parallelism: her abandonment of her homeland and later the abandonment of her husband, too. The paper then considers the ambiguity of Medea's identity as Iason's wife. Since we hear an account of Iason's wedding with Creusa as taking place during the drama, we wonder whether she still retains her status as a wife. And since the author links those crimes to their marital relationship, we ask, in addition, who is responsible for the past crimes - only Medea or her husband as well? I shall argue that she keeps hold of her status throughout the play. We next consider Medea's change from 170 to 910. She was at the start a weak woman with no inherited property and nowhere to go, but her newly acquired supernatural power gives her the strength that enables her to overcome Creon and Creusa and, so, to leave her husband. Finally, the paper examines the different motives for Medea's two son-killings. Seneca divides the murder scene into two parts. The first killing means the atonement for her murder of her brother and her own punishment for past crimes; but it also involves her 'return of the dowry' at 982-984, an act that marks the end of her marriage. In this way, she abandons her position of Iason's wife volountarily, and takes the lead in the divorce from her husband. The second killing occurs right in front of Iason's eyes: this not only signifies her revenge on him but also her resolution to cut herself off from him completely. She asks him 'coniugem agnoscis tuam?' While several past studies have translated these words as "This is your wife", I shall argue that it is in fact a rhetorical question meaning "Do you recognize your wife in me? I am not your wife any longer". While, in the prologue, Medea was surrounded by enemies on all sides, in the final scene Iason is left alone and has nowhere to go. Their positions are now reversed entirely and Medea accomplishes the purpose that she had hinted at in the prologue. She would not allow herself to be a passive figure in the divorce. Seneca molded her as above all a proud-hearted wife.

View full abstract

In the Heroicus two salient features are discourse on heroes and criticism of Homeric poetry. Scholars tend to interpretation in which one element is preferred to the other. Here another sort of reading is proposed to find nostoi as the overarching theme so as to locate it in the tradition of Nostoiliterature. In this reading we will bear in mind that the basic concept of nostos (from ^*nes-) is 'saving', that it can be used in an extended range of meanings, mythical, literary, philosophical, religious or mystical. The Phoenician, who is kept near the precinct of Protesilaus by bad weather, is compared to Odysseus in the Odyssey. The nostos-accounts concerning him in the epic are mostly denied here: for example, the mild death promised him in the Odyssey is substituted by a tragic one. Moreover, his nostos is denied also from the viewpoint of the afterlife. Contrary to Palamedes, Protesilaus and others, who enjoy blissful lives as heroes, Odysseus would sink into the feeble state of the mass ghosts. In contrast the Phoenician would sail off happily, with the valuable freight of true knowledge. Odysseus is also contrasted with the other main heroes in the work from the viewpoint of nostos. Protesilaus has returned by resurrection to Phthia so as to meet Laodamia again. Elaius with the vine-yard is another home for Protesilaus, where he plays a variety of sports, enjoys some seasonable offerings from the vine-grower, and so on. The 'saving' of Protesilaus, who is neglected by Homer, is achieved through the vindication of his fame as a valiant warrior, too. He is depicted also as giver of the happy return. Achilles' transportation to Leuce after his death as related in the Aethiopis would have been a sort of nostos-tale; in the Heroicus this connotation is made clearer by the imagery of 'home' in the depictions concerning the environment and the life of Achilles with his wife Helen. The story of the hero fending off the Amazons, who had attacked his hestia, is another element of the imagery. Achilles' eternal life through fame, which he himself says is dependent on Homer's poetry, owes a part in reality to the depictions here, for his life in Leuce is a non-Homeric story.

View full abstract

Bardaisan, the first Christian author in Syriac, whose thought is known mainly from the Book of the Laws of Countries, is often considered as a philosopher, and his thought is very frequently understood in the light of Greek philosophy (e.g. Stoicism). However, scholars who argue for Greek influence on Bardaisan seldom ask whether or to what extent Bardaisan really knew Greek; and curiously enough, some rare evaluations of his knowledge of Greek are rather negative. This problem needs to be solved. The present article addresses the problem by examining the Greek loan words used by Bardaisan in the Book of the Laws of Countries, and also by comparing his knowledge of astrology with that of the astrology as presented in Greco-Roman astrological literature, and argues that his knowledge of Greek was far from extensive and that he should be considered as one of the first thinkers who thought not in Greek but in Syriac.

View full abstract