Achilles, returning to the battlefield, begins with a duel against Aeneas in book 20. Subsequently he fights his first duel with Hector in the same book. These two scenes are similar in structure and in elements which may be said to form doublets. They have four components in common: 1. an intervention by Apollo; 2. a dialogue and a duel proper; 3. divine rescue of an opponent; 4. Achilles' slaying of a series of minor warriors. The aim of this paper is to show how the two duels function as doublets in book 20, and in the whole battle of Achilles ranging from book 20 to book 22. First, despite their similarities, these two duels are different in detail, length, and elaboration. 1. Apollo's instruction to Aeneas/Hector and their reactions to him are in contradiction with each other. 2. The dialogues and the duels are contrasted in the space devoted to them and in their content. Achilles urges Aeneas to withdraw and has a long verbal exchange with him; however, in the case of Hector, Achilles demands that he come closer and they finish their conversation promptly. 3. Aeneas/Hector is rescued by Poseidon/Apollo. But Achilles complains about Hector's disappearance much more. 4. Achilles ferociously kills more than twice the number of minor warriors after the duel with Hector compared to the duel with Aeneas. The poet must have intended to depict the increase in Achilles' rage and the fierceness of his battle by contrasting the two duels. It still remains to address the subject of fate itself with relevance to the above contrast. The different fates of three antagonists in these duels are related from the viewpoint of the gods; Aeneas' survival after the Trojan War, Hector's death and the fall of Troy, and Achilles' death after Hector's, and therefore all three characters' fates are mutually contrasted. It is obvious that the doublets are composed so as to reflect the opposite fates of Aeneas and Hector, which together prepare for the climax in book 22. The two duels function not just as a preparation, but as important structural elements of the whole battle of Achilles. The duel of Achilles and Aeneas includes the episode of Aeneas' past duel with Achilles and his rescue at Zeus' hands. Then the actual duel is interrupted during the dialogue between the gods, who grant him his salvation and he is rescued again by a god, Poseidon. It turns out that Aeneas is depicted as the one who survives the past, the present, and the future (that is, the fall of Troy). On the other hand, Hector is saved by Apollo as Aeneas has been saved by a god. Nevertheless everyone must expect Hector to be killed in the near future since his death has been predicted. Indeed, his salvation is rejected in the dialogue between the gods in book 22, and accordingly Apollo leaves him to his death. The poet, incorporating the past and future aspects into the doublets, constructs the multilayered narrative structure in the whole battle of Achilles where the scenes are closely linked to each other through these divine motifs. Accordingly, the poet at once prepares for the climax in book 22 by the doublets in book 20 and depicts the climax as contrasting to the fate of Aeneas mentioned in the duel in book 20. Furthermore the fact that such duels are set out in the earlier battle scene of Achilles hints at the fact that he is approaching his own death because he is doomed to die shortly after Hector's death. Therefore the two duels seen as doublets ultimately permit us to foresee the outcome of "the wrath of Achilles".

抄録全体を表示

The Protoattic pottery, the very distinct style of Attic vase painting in the 7^<th> century BCE, was known for including some of the earliest representations of mythological scenes in ancient Greek art. The conical stand that was once in the Berlin Antiquarium (A42), originally with a dinos above it, is one of the most important examples of Protoattic pottery. On the lowest frieze, which depicts the procession of five men in gorgeous himatia, the painted inscription "ΜΕΝΕΛΑΣ" can be read. The stand is commonly known as the Menelas stand. In previous studies, many scholars regarded this inscription as a label which refers to the nearest figure as the hero Menelaos. Others have deliberately avoided such a definitive interpretation, instead considering it as some generic mythological representation which refers to the epic cycle (e. g. Ahlberg-Cornell 1992), because the five men all have the same appearance and the inscription does not clearly single out one from the others. These studies have more or less aimed at the interpretation of the stand's subject matter and have been based only on the connection between the imagery and its inscription; yet, few studies have focused on the original shape and usage of this stand. Thanks to a recent contextual approach to Protoattic pottery (e. g. Whitley 1994), the usage of this pottery in Attic burial customs has gradually come to light. This study first examines the original shape of the Menelas stand, considering its missing parts and its usage, and then reconsiders it and its mythological representation in the wider contemporary context. The original shape of this stand, a dinos or crater with a high stand, has been thought to have originated in Anatolia, especially among the Urartian bronze artifacts. The eastern originals, the so-called bronze cauldrons, were extremely popular in Italy and Greece in the 7^<th> century BCE. The potters of Corinth and Attica imitated the eastern, exotic bronze shape in their pottery. Moreover, in Attic funeral practice, a large quantity of this pottery that stood on high stands was employed for ritual devices, such as offering trenches. At this point, the Attic funeral custom became exclusive to a limited number of the elite, and their burial places were adorned with such lavish, easternized pottery. Based on the original shape of the high stand and its possible usage, I presume that it originally functioned in the burial context of some Attic elites. On the other hand, when its mythological representation is reconsidered, a different aspect comes to light that has not been discussed in previous research. The image or name of the famous epic hero might be due to the social demands of the elite, as a way of enabling them to create a connection with their renowned ancestors. From this perspective, some of the earliest mythological representations of Protoattic pottery have a sociological function.

抄録全体を表示

This paper aims to analyze the meaning of the Parthenon frieze against the backdrop of the votive culture on the Acropolis. The composition of the Parthenon frieze could be summed up as a procession of the mortals to the seated gods who receive their offerings. The gods and men face each other, and so the theme and iconographical type accord well with the characteristics of a votive relief. The frieze relief shows remarkable similarities with the so-called adoration reliefs. Parallel examples are the votive reliefs Acropolis Museum no. 581 (ca. 490 BCE) and no. 577 (ca. 480-70 BCE). In the genre of the adoration reliefs the difference in the height of the gods and mortals is always clearly expressed, while on the other hand the closeness of these two groups is also vividly rendered by their gestures or direct body contact. The rendering of this god-protege relationship seems important when we interpret the mes- sage of the Parthenon frieze. Compared to the votive reliefs, the Parthenon frieze is however in one point very different: namely, in that most of the former monuments were dedicated privately, seldom by the public. It becomes therefore significant to investigate the development of the public votive monuments on the Acropolis. So far as we know, most of the votive monuments on the Acropolis of the sixth and fifth centuries BCE were dedicated by private citizens or groups. Before the construction of the Parthenon only a few public monuments were set up on the hill, e. g. the Bronze Athena, and the bronze chariot group commemorating the Athenian victory over Boeotia and Chalkis. Many private monuments stood around them. On the other hand, under the democratic regime in Athens official documents began to be inscribed on a stele and dedicated on the Acropolis. In this respect the first Athenian tribute list was of special importance because it resembled the Parthenon sculpture. From the sociological point of view, both could have functioned as a showcase for the Athenian Empire. The Parthenon frieze seems to have demonstrated that Athens was, as the Olympian gods' protege, in a particularly privileged position. It becomes clear that the type of a votive relief was intentionally chosen when designing the frieze. It was supposed to send a message to the viewer: it is the polls that placates the gods and enjoys a special relationship with them, not an individual citizen. The action of the offering itself remained, but the individual demonstration of honor was removed from the relief. The fine art produced under the Periclean democracy seems to have emphasized the predominance of the community over the domestic, while showing to the outside world that Athens enjoyed a special status of the gods' protege.

抄録全体を表示

This article considers Plato's description of the rhapsode in his dialogue Ion as a critique of the New Music which flourished in late fifth- and fourth-century Athens. At this time, mousike, which may be understood as a body of skills and activities presided over by the Muses, including poetry, instrumental music, dancing, and drama, began to change and diversify. The development of new practices of mousike was stimulated by the growth of public festivals, such as musical contests held at the Panathenaea and theatrical performances held at the Great Dionysia. The new style of mousike attracted the attention of intellectuals, most notably Plato, who subjected it to severe scrutiny. I view the rhapsode in Plato's Ion as a social critique of the innovations in mousike. The New Musicians and Plato's rhapsode share two important features. Firstly, both are professional performers on the public stage. Secondly, both emphasise superficial aspects of public performance, for example mimesis and emotional expressions, purely for entertainment. These aspects were criticised by Plato, who understood that mousike was important in nurturing people's minds and perpetuating Athenian cultural identity. He was afraid, therefore, that the New Music might be socially disruptive. This essay draws attention to a neglected aspect of the New Music as a social phenomenon, and brings social and cultural studies to bear in the examination of a literary text.

抄録全体を表示

The main purpose of this article is to show that, in rejecting Theaetetus' first answer to the question 'What is knowledge ?'(Tht. 146c-147c), Socrates is appealing to what I call the principle of the priority of the definition of the whole over the definitions of parts, namely: (PDWP) If one fails to know the definition of F, then one fails to know the definition of any part (or any kind) of F, rather than, as many scholars have supposed, to the principle (PD) If one fails to know the definition of F, then one fails to know, for any x, that x is an F (where 'x' stands for anything that may possibly turn out to be F). Some scholars have noticed that (PDWP) is at issue in the relevant context in the Theaetetus, but they regard (PDWP) as an equivalent or a version of (PD), to which they think Socrates is committed. By contrast, I argue that these two principles are independent of each other, and that (PD) is not relevant here (in fact, I have argued elsewhere that Socrates is not committed to (PD) at all, as it stands). A significant difference between the two principles is that (PD) prevents us, but (PDWP) does not prevent us, from using examples of F as reliable data for the definition of F. Socrates' argument at 147a7-c2 is the source of the problem. Many scholars have supposed that Socrates employs (PD) as a basis for rejecting the examples of knowledge enumerated by Theaetetus as reliable data for the definition of knowledge. I argue, however, that on closer examination the text shows Socrates actually encouraging Theaetetus to make use of the examples before proposing the definition (cf. Tht. 147d-148d), which is a clear sign that he was not appealing to (PD). I then propose an interpretation of Socrates' argument at 147a7-c2 along different lines. I suggest that the cases Socrates is talking about there are not cases in which one enumerates many examples, but cases in which one gives a single example. The point of his argument is, then, that giving a single example of F is useless for understanding F as a whole. I suggest that Socrates argues this because of his commitment to (PDWP). I finally and briefly discuss another context in which Socrates mentions (PDWP), i. e. Meno 79c-79e. On the basis of the passages discussed in the article as a whole, I suggest that Socrates treats (PDWP) as one of his key methodological principles.

抄録全体を表示

I argue that, in the Sophist, the imitators who use the art of imitation (MT) or its species, namely, the art of likeness-making (ET) and appearance-making (FT), are not engaged in philosophical activities. Some scholars, though, think that ET is concerned with philosophical activities because its works are according to 'proportions', and it is left free from blame unlike FT which produces seeming proportions. First, the Sophist inherits the understanding of MT from the Republic because, as it is often said, in both dialogues, the analysis of the art is quite similar in many points. In addition, if MT of the Republic is similar to MT of the Sophist, then it is natural to infer that the analysis of MT in the Republic influences MT and its species, ET and FT, in the Sophist. Second, ET does not get an advantage over FT in cognitive and philosophical ability or understanding of what is true. The difference between ET and FT is rather based on whether each of these arts deceives people who see its products. 'The true proportion (235e6-7)' is introduced not because the imitator of ET is superior to the one of FT, but because if there are no criteria such as the proportions and appropriate colours of the model, the deceitfulness of FT cannot be a point of issue. In addition to the abovementioned points, even if an imitative product is concerned with truth, it does not entail that the imitative artist has knowledge through philosophical activities. For example, in the ideal state of the Republic, poets can implant truth (378c1, 391c1) in their works according to law (νομοζ) and form (τυποζ), because they are supervised and forced to do so by their lawgivers (401b1-3). Similarly, in the Laws, it is said that a god or divine man in Egypt legitimated musical melodies (657a-b), and the Egyptian conservative imitative arts are highly reputed. These texts show that imitative artists can implant truth in their products without knowledge of philosophical activities under the supervision of gods or, say, philosophers. Thus I conclude that the imitators who use MT and its species are not engaged in philosophy, while there remains the possibility that the products of ET are made under philosophers.

抄録全体を表示

Aristotle's formulation of perception as receiving form without matter in De anima II. 12 has proven one of the most challenging phrases in his corpus. Recent debates between spiritualists who believe that no corresponding material changes accompany mental changes and literalists who think that a literal change such as an eye becoming red happens when one perceives red reconfirm the phrase's ambiguity. In this paper, I will stand by neither of these two positions but will adopt a third position and argue that when one perceives, contra spiritualists, a corresponding material change occurs alongside a mental change, and, contra literalists, the material change is not literal. Both spiritualists' and literalists' interpretations of the formulation (and those of some who stand by the third position) posit a distinction between "receiving form without matter" and "receiving form with matter" and ascribe perceptual changes and non-perceptual changes respectively to each, but as different processes of change; for example, spiritualists ascribe the perception of warmth without any corresponding material changes to the former and becoming warm by the patient herself to the latter, while literalists ascribe the perception of warmth that occurs concurrently with the patient becoming warm by herself to the former and the patient becoming warm by receiving warm matter inside herself to the latter. However, I do not see Aristotle as making a distinction between receiving form without matter and with matter. Rather, he distinguishes between material changes according to proportion that are caused by sensibles, such as colour, and material changes not according to proportion that are caused by that which possesses sensibles, such as gold. The former can be further divided into two subclasses: perceptual changes which accompany the reception of form, and non-perceptual changes which do not accompany the reception of form. By reconstructing Aristotle's classification of changes in De anima II. 12, I will argue that Aristotle refers to mental changes by the phrase "receiving forms of sensibles" as spiritualists have pointed out, but that because his phrase "without matter" has a limited meaning, he does not deny the possibility of every material change, and that the process of material changes according to proportion which accompany the reception of form does not have to be identical with that of material changes according to proportion which are literal and do not accompany the reception of form because the proportions of sense-organs and non-perceptual matter are not necessarily identical.

抄録全体を表示

In the Idylls, Theocritus uses the concept of 'pastoral hierarchy', that is the ranking or ordering of some types of herdsmen above others, placing cowherds at the top, shepherds in the middle and goatherds at the bottom. The hierarchy is certainly present in the characterisation of the herdsmen in Theocritus. It is normally goatherds who exhibit most explicitly the typical motifs of the new genre of bucolic poetry: the behaviour of lower-class people and their rusticity. They serve primarily as a target for urban/sophisticated readers' ridicule. On the other hand, cowherds tend to function as retaining more traditional values in literature and to be depicted as more heroic or noble. Thus, the goatherds' rusticity works to present the pastoral as a radically new genre, clarifying its difference from the traditional epic, whereas the cowherds' nobility functions to place the pastoral in the wider current/tradition of epic poetry. However, Theocritus occasionally changes the way the rule of the hierarchy is applied to his characters, so that his characters, especially the goatherds, have fascinatingly diverse features besides the simple lowliness. This paper focuses on Lycidas in Idyll 7 as a prominent example of such goatherds. Lycidas is a personification of 'bucolic poetry' in the framework of Idyll 7. At the same time, he is, as a character in Simichidas' journey-story, a rustic goatherd. With hints of an epic goatherd/divine encounters with humans, Lycidas is introduced, not as a simple countryman, but as someone greater than Simichidas in their field of expertise, i. e. bucolic singing. He does not represent a real goatherd in his attitude or poetic knowledge. Lycidas as a syrinx-player is much idealised, being humble in appearance and status, but with a divine smile, with which he shows agreement and appreciation to Simichidas. We do not necessarily have to assume Lycidas to be a particular god. Rather, he is a bucolic character (rustic goatherd), who embodies the intense 'bucolicism' in the Idyll, while Simichidas is a poet, but, as a bucolic character (former cowherd), someone yet to reach the bucolicism, the intensely rustic side of the pastoral. Theocritus sees in Lycidas his poetics in the newly created bucolic world: the goatherd represents rusticity, an essence of bucolicism, which is no longer silly and funny, but rather elevated to be the essence of a new type of hexameter poetry. Through Lycidas, 'the country' is also idealised as 'inspiring the art of poetry', even culturally or spiritually high, implying it to be somehow close to the divine: Lycidas' dual existence as a rustic character and also as the embodiment of bucolic poetry elevates the meaning of 'rusticity'. This is the very point where Theocritus exhibits his uniqueness and his playful challenge to the tradition.

抄録全体を表示

In his work Legatio pro Christianis, the Christian apologist Athenagoras of Athens (floruit in the latter half of the second century A. D.) quotes some passages from a theogony which he ascribes to the legendary poet Orpheus. Athenagoras gives no detailed information about the sources he is using but later the Neo-Platonist philosopher Damascius (5.-6. century A. D.) quotes a parallel, but substantially longer, text from an Orphic theogony and names as his source "(the Orphic theology) according to Hieronymus and Hellanicus." In the collections of Orphic fragments (Kern and Bernabe, to name the most important ones), the testimony of Athenagoras and that of Damascius are arranged in the same chapter and presented together as the testimony transmitted by "Hieronymus and Hellanicus." Although neither of these two names is mentioned by Athenagoras, scholars have generally accepted this view, and M. L. West too speaks of "Hieronyman theogony" in his influential work, The Orphic Poems (1983), even when discussing Athenagoras. In other words, Damascius is in this traditional understanding the absolute primary source, whereas Athenagoras provides only supplementary information, if any. This understanding implies that Athenagoras and Damascius are using essentially the same text (and it goes back to a certain "Hieronymus and Hellanicus"). In my opinion, this is not the case. The reasons are as follows: 1. Most importantly, a textual comparison between the shorter quotation in Athenagoras and the longer one in Damascius shows that it is much more reasonable to assume that the latter expanded the former than to assume that the former summarized the latter. 2. Athenagoras is some three centuries older than Damascius. Historical precedence should be taken into account, if not unconditionally. 3. Orphic traditions seem to have been very active and productive in the late antiquity. The expansion of Damascius' version is explicable enough. 4. "Hieronymus and Hellanicus": Damascius himself suspects that the two might in fact have been one and the same person. A doxography transmitted by two authors seemed strange enough to him. Such an exceptional attribution suggests a complicated background for the text Damascius referred to and therefore a relatively later stage of its development and/or its possible contamination. To conclude, the testimonies of Athenagoras and Damascius are not to be treated as an established and fixed package, so to speak, but one should recognize their internal historical development. Athenagoras is no less a primary source for studying Orphic traditions than Damascius.

抄録全体を表示

Prudentius' Contra Symmachum contains the Prosopopoeia of Rome (II. 655-768). This is a reply to Symmachus' Prosopopoeia of Rome in his Relatio III. 9-10. Prudentius praises Stilicho's victory over Alaric at Pollentia in 402, and in these lines his tone sounds particularly panegyrical. Prudentius attempts to refute Symmachus by playing up Stilicho's victory with techniques of panegyrical literature. Against Symmachus' insistence that only the religious rites of paganism ensure the victory and security of the empire, Prudentius claims that Stilicho defends Rome under the protection of Christ and the victory of the empire is guaranteed without any pagan rituals. The ground of this claim is the repulse of Alaric by Stilicho. The description of Stilicho's victory at Pollentia by Prudentius is conspicuous for its panegyrical tones. According to Prudentius, (1) the recent victory over the Goths is more praiseworthy than Camillus' victory over the Gauls in early Republican years, because this time the city of Rome itself escaped occupation by foreign enemies (721-730); and, (2) Stilicho's prowess is greater than the repulse of Hannibal in Punic wars because the defeat of Hannibal was merely due to the luxury and dissipation of Campania and Magna Graecia but Stilicho owes his victory to the military valor of the Roman army (739-749). Late antique panegyrists often refer to past leaders in the Roman history in order to praise the current honorand. This technique generates an imaginary continuity between past glory and present situations, and provides a guarantee that past glory will be recovered by the current honorand. Such a panegyrical method is used by Prudentius in his Prosopopoeia of Rome. On the ground of Stilicho's prowess, Prudentius refutes Symmachus and assures his readers that Christianity benefits the Roman empire. After Stilicho's death and the sack of Rome by Alaric, however, Prudentius' rhetoric, deprived of its immediate historical context, would lose its original effect.

抄録全体を表示