This article investigates a scene from Book 22 of the Odyssey, which depicts the punishment of unfaithful servants, specifically twelve serving girls, including Melantho, and her brother Melanthios. Although previous research has focused on either a physical or an ethical point of view, this paper considers the scene as one in which three relationships - those of master-servant, male-female, and father-son - are closely intertwined with each other. First an analysis of the master-servant relationship pays attention to the fact that a plan of the punishment is alluded to at an early stage of Odysseus' homecoming. This foreshadowing is closely connected with the first two recognition scenes of the poem and is reinforced by the use of two pairs of character doublets consisting of faithful male and female servants. After the punishment, a drastic shift in the scenic atmosphere takes place; as a result, in contrast to the preceding books, only those servants who are loyal appear in Book 24. Dolios, the most loyal of all, is described as the opposite of Melanthios and Melantho, his son and daughter who have betrayed their master. Next, as to the male-female relationship, gender disparities are identified in the charges faced by the unfaithful servants: the housemaids are punished because of their deviations from silence and chastity, qualities that were thought of as women's virtues; Melanthios' punishment, however, is unconnected to such deviation. In addition, the description of the housemaids' hanging is full of sexual imagery and allusion. On the other hand, Melantho is closely linked with her mistress, Penelope; at the same time, the fidelity of the two women is contrasted. The comparison, however, ends abruptly at the hanging of Melantho, and it follows that the audience subsequently regards Penelope with suspicion. They are thus led to expect that a meeting between husband and wife will soon take place. Third, the father-son relationship is highlighted by the fact that Odysseus gives silent approval to Telemachus' suggestion, abruptly changing the method of punishment just before it is meted out. The son has shown gradual development since he recognized his father; his change in attitude is apparent, for example, in his reactions to the suitors' three throws against the beggar. He has become aware of his capacity to take charge of the house. There thus exists the implicit possibility of conflict between father and son, but it remains only a possibility, and, therefore, brings the father-son relationship to the fore and functions as preparation for the scenes in Book 24 in which Odysseus meets his own father. The three relationships mentioned above permeate the latter half of the Odyssey as components indispensable to the re-establishment of Odysseus' own oikos(household). When the suitors are killed, one of his major aims is achieved but his main goal has not yet been attained. Through the intertwining of the three relationships, the punishment scene serves the important function of shifting focus to the poem's still unsolved issues.

View full abstract

Leandrios, the Milesian historian of the early Hellenistic period, claims that Cleochos, the grandfather of the founding hero of the city of Miletus, was buried in the Didymaion, the Apolline oracular sanctuary near the city. Despite the recent interpretation by Polito, based on Sourvinou-Inwood's theory, it is unlikely that either Cleochos or his grand son, Miletos, the eponymous founding hero, was regarded as autochthonous by the ancient Milesians. The story reported by Leandrios must be a version of accounts of the Cretan foundation of Miletus, not an episode of a myth of autochthony. While the name of Cleochos was plausibly already known in the 5th century BC, his burial in Didyma had not been mentioned before Leandrios, as far as we know. The burial of the grandfather of the founding hero in the famous sanctuary was plausibly invented in the early Hellenistic period or, if not invented out of thin air, paid much more attention to than before. The fresh start for Miletus in this period would have created among the citizens a lively sense of communal identity and interest in local myths. Moreover, the revival of the Didymaean Oracle, the foundation of the gigantic temple and Miletus' diplomatic negotiations with the Seleucid kings and Greek cities, especially their own 'colonies', must have made the Milesians highly conscious of the importance of Didyma, one of the most valuable elements of their symbolic capital. Besides, among other newly founded or re-founded Ionian cities, the Milesians may have tried to distinguish themselves from the others by claiming a mythical origin for their own city and their important mantic sanctuary dating back to the heroic age.

View full abstract

This paper deals with a notorious problem in Euripides' Hippolytos, the interpretation of αιδως in 385. There are two aims of this paper. One is to justify, with some modifications, a very interesting, but not widely accepted interpretation proposed by E. Craik, which reads the word as a metonym for ερωζ. The other is to identify what role the word αιδως plays in its context, and to clarify the function of the opening part within the whole speech. I begin by comparing the opening part with the whole speech, especially lines 391ff. They indicate two important contrasts: a general statement about the destruction of human life vs. a specific one concerning Phaedra's own behavior: those who have destroyed their lives leaving aside their γνωμη vs. Phaedra, who shows tenacity in resisting her strong passion without forsaking her γνωμη. These contrasts suggest that the destruction stated in the opening part is not Phaedra's, but concerns rather those whose characteristics are exactly opposite to Phaedra's. Then I investigate the context around αιδως. I note three points: Phaedra's concern on destruction caused by ηδονη (especially αιδως); a certain implication of the two examples preceding αiδωζ(μακραi λεσχαι and σχολη, working in combination in this passage); and the narrowing down of the meaning of the bad αιδως by means of the expression αχθοζ οικων. Especially the third point reminds us of the fact that the most important thing for Phaedra to avoid is the destruction of her family, which, as we know, is being set in motion by Kypris. They suggest, I think, that we should see the meaning of αιδως in its relation to Kypris, and Craik's explanation should then be given due consideration. This reading can be supported by adducing some metonymical usages of αιδως(e.g. Il. 22. 74, 17. 335; Od. 3. 24), which indicate objects or causes of the feeling of αιδως rather than the feeling itself. Their concrete meanings are respectively a genital, withdrawal from the battlefield, and questioning a venerable elder. They have nothing in common except being objects or causes of the feeling of αιδως. It suggests the word could indicate other types of objects or causes of αιδως according to context, and one of them is adultery, about which Phaedra would feel αιδως. Why then does Euripides use such a metonymical expression? The context helps us. The wording of 380-7 reminds us repeatedly of the odious character of ηδονη or αiδωζ. In such a context the metonymy in question focuses our attention on some aspects of adultery related to αιδως, and makes us notice Phaedra's good sense behind it. Perhaps we can also sense a condemning tone there. Phaedra's good sense is expressed more explicitly in 388-90, which I read as Phaedra's declaration that she will not discard her own good sense unlike those who are mentioned in the opening part. This means, considering the two contrasts mentioned above, that the opening part focuses our attention on Phaedra's attitudes toward γνωμη, on which she makes the final appeal in 426-30.

View full abstract

According to Demosthenes (20.70), Conon was the first man after the Tyrannicides to be voted a bronze statue by the Athenians. His statue was set up during his lifetime in front of the Stoa of Zeus Eleutherios in the Agora, the most important public space of democratic Athens. The aim of this paper is to elucidate the historical background of this event, which was a phenomenal breakthrough in the development of Athenian statue culture. The immediate reason for the Athenians to grant such an extraordinary honor to Conon was obviously his contribution to freeing the Athenian allies from the Spartan yoke after his victory at the battle of Cnidus. But it is highly remarkable that the Athenians conferred on him unprecedented honor of erecting his statue, which even such prominent generals as Miltiades or Themistocles could not enjoy during the fifth century BC. What were, then, the general circumstances in which the Athenians formed this critical decision? The following two observations are relevant to this phenomenon. First, the rivalry between Lysander, the Spartan navarch, and Conon must have played an important role in Conon's claim that he deserved such honor. Lysander was responsible for the final victory of Spartans over the Athenians at Aegospotami in 405 and put the Aegean world under Spartan domination. Many statues of Lysander were dedicated in the international sanctuaries such as Olympia and Delphi. It was only natural for Conon, who overturned Lysander's achievement and reestablished Athenian supremacy in the Aegean, to receive similar honor from his native country. Second, there seems to have been a strong local tradition among the Ionian cities to erect statues in order to express gratitude toward their benefactors. Although Pausanias ironically comments that the Ionians merely follow the example of the entire world in paying court to strength (6.3.15), they were happy to erect statues of Lysander in their sanctuaries after Aegospotami and then flatly proceeded to set up that of Conon after Cnidus. It was under the influence of this Ionian tradition that the Athenians reintroduced the custom of erecting statues for politically powerful individuals, which culminated in the early Hellenistic period in response to the diffusion of ruler cults in the wider Greek world.

View full abstract

In comparing Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics (EN) and Eudemian Ethics (EE), it is significant to note that there are nameless virtues dealt with only in the EN. One of those is virtue concerning small honors; it is the intermediate state of desire for honor as argued in the EN IV 4. Although Aristotle gave it no name, I call this virtue "proper ambition". What, then, is the reason behind Aristotle's decision to deal with this virtue only in the EN? In order to answer the question, I will argue as follows: First of all, I will make a brief sketch of the place of honor in Aristotle's Ethics as a preliminary consideration. Then I will discuss two virtues concerning honors, namely greatness of soul and "proper ambition". It is believed that those two virtues are different in the magnitude of honor that they are concerned with, "proper ambition" being concerned with the small honors that even ordinary people can attain. However, it is still uncertain what the function and meaning of that virtue is from the wider perspective. I claim that argument on civic courage in the EN III 8 can define the function and meaning of that virtue. According to Aristotle, there are several sources of civic courage; those are shame, desire to escape penalties and desire for honor. Opposed to civic courage, a truly courageous man acts bravely for the sake of the noble. In that sense civic courage is not as excellent as true courage, but still we can appreciate civic courage as the better form of courage than the other four forms of "courage". Further, I assert that the relationship between "proper ambition" and civic courage is well confirmed when we take Aristotle's political views into account. In Politics III 4, Aristotle discusses virtue of a good man and virtue of an excellent citizen. From his argument, we can deduce that civic courage is a part of civic virtue required for the city-state, because defending the city-state is one of the roles of the citizen in Aristotle's Politics and that is realized when citizens full of civic courage fight against their enemies. All the citizens are therefore required to possess civic courage. As I have argued, citizens fight courageously when they possess "proper ambition" as proper desire for honor, therefore I conclude that "proper ambition" is the virtue that is sought after in order to defend the city-state. Finally, I observe that Aristotle is paying attention to the political aspect of virtues when he is arguing about various virtues in the EN III-V, while EE, on the other hand, has a less political view both in its list of virtues and in the book as a whole.

View full abstract

The "Alexander Sarcophagus" is one of the most celebrated works in the Hellenistic period. One of the six reliefs that decorated the sarcophagus shows a battle scene with Alexander the Great even though most scholars believe that the sarcophagus was not made for him but for Abdalonymos, the last king of Sidon in the 4^<th> century BCE. This paper aims at an iconographic interpretation of the battle scene featuring Alexander the Great through comparison with battle scenes made in the same period. What was the most important agenda for Abdalonymos, and what message did he intend to convey with the battle scene? Hence I would like to suggest a different point of views from previous studies. Most scholars identify the figure on the far left as Alexander wearing a lion-skin headgear. Based on his depiction, many scholars suggested that the relief shows a historical battle scene and tried to establish a connection between the relief and literature sources. Nowadays, the scene is often identified as the battle of Issus(333 BCE). There are, however, scholars who suggest a different interpretation, namely that the relief shows a symbolic or unidentifiable generic battle scene. It should be worthwhile to compare this battle scene with other contemporary battle scenes - for example, on the "Amazon Sarcophagus" in Vienna - in order to throw some light on the theme. As far as we know, similar works represented generic figures with idealized features. There are many similar motifs between these works and the Alexander sarcophagus that could be categorized as conventional topoi. A noteworthy difference between the battle scene on the Alexander sarcophagus and comparable reliefs' lies in the rendering of Alexander. Comparing the sarcophagus with the "Alexander Mosaic", which also depicted battle scene with Alexander, we find many similar motifs. Both works are considered to be influenced by the same original, a painting made in the 4^<th> century BCE. But it should be noted that there are distinguished differences between both works. Firstly, the expression on the sarcophagus is far less triumphant than on the mosaic. Secondly, Alexander is portrayed on the sarcophagus wearing lion-skin headgear, it's clearly an expression of his divinity. We know that Alexander wore lion-skin headgear which is an attribute of Hercules' because he saw himself as a descendant and rival of Hercules. Besides, there is no reference proving that Alexander fought with the lion-skin headgear on battlefields. According to ancient literature sources, Abdalonymos was appointed king of Sidon by Alexander. For Abdalonymos, it was most important to commemorate both the authority and the divinity of Alexander, the origin of his own royal authority. Very probably, the rendering of the victory over Persia was to him a matter of secondary concern.

View full abstract

The centuriate assembly, which elected higher magistrates such as consuls or praetors during the Roman republic, had at its disposal - at least in the case of consular elections - a specific voting system called Centuria Praerogativa. This was the first century to cast its vote and the result was proclaimed separately from the others. Many scholars have assumed that the voting of this one century often had a decisive influence over the centuries that followed, so that the candidates selected by this one century won the competition. Their studies, therefore, have focused on explaining the significance of its influence, especially in the light of recent discussions about the political importance or influence of the Roman people. However, by analyzing some sources which are considered to indicate the influence of Centuria Praerogativa in their proper context, I will argue that the great influence exerted by this century is found under certain conditions pertaining to the elections, which have not adequately studied yet. Accordingly this paper aims to analyze the influence of Centuria Praerogativa by asking when and how this century was followed by the other centuries. I first analyze one actual election, the consular election of 53 BC. In this election, there were four candidates with equal chances of winning, but two of these would be in a more favorable position than the rest once they have promised Centuria Praerogativa a huge amount of money. From this it can be surmised that the influence of Centuria Praerogativa emerges in the case of close elections. And this is actually confirmed by some ancient sources explaining the function of this century. According to them, Centuria Praerogativa was supposed to work as a unifying factor for the other centuries. Therefore, for Centuria Praerogativa to fulfill this function, there needed to exist a situation that the voting of the rest could be split between candidates with a possibility of a close election. However, the consular election for the year 63 BC seems not to have been such a case. Of the two candidates with a chance of winning - and despite the fact that one of them must have won the votes of Centuria Praerogativa - the victor won the election by a very close margin. However, based on the voting system that allowed the electorate to cast at any time as many votes as was the quorum for the magistrate concerned, it seems possible to argue from this case that Centuria Praerogativa exerted its influence not on the higher strata of the centuries but rather on the lower ones. And this also corresponds to the above view, because the lower centuries could take part in balloting when the election was closely contested. To conclude, it is during close election that the Centuria Praerogativa exerted its decisive influence over the following centuries, possibly over the lower strata of the centuries. And this argument should caution us not to overestimate the political importance or influence of the Roman people.

View full abstract