In Orestes' opening scene, Orestes exposes himself to two dangers; a danger of the soul (συνεσιζ, λυπη, μανιαι) and that of life (death by stoning). Unlike Orestes in Aeschylus, Orestes in Euripides killed his mother unwillingly, and therefore he always feels pangs of remorse about the matricide. Orestes in Aeschylus also is not always prudent and lucid about his immoral act, and occasionally shows mental helplessness (cf. Cho. 899, 1023-25). But Aeschylus only expresses it as mere mental weakness, while Euripides names this disposition συνεσιζ and presents it as a recognition. The signification of this term συνεσιζ is "to know" or "die Einsicht". This ethical portrait of Orestes reminds us of Oedipus. Orestes, however, is beneath Oedipus, who endures sufferings boldly and heroically, in character. To survive is an important matter to Orestes. The words, σωξειν, σωτηρια, μη θανειν etc. are seen from beginning to end in this play. These words express desire for escape from the danger of life. At first Orestes entreats Menelaus to save his life. Orestes is related to Menelaus, the latter being the uncle of the former. In addition, he receives many benefits from Agamemnon concerning Helen and the Trojan War. Orestes, therefore, requires that Menelaus should save his life. Menelaus, however, hesitates to save him, and between them φιλια breaks down. This shows the denial of "old φιλια", which is based on the blood relationship or the concept of favor. After the collapse of this φιλια, Orestes is obliged to rely upon Pylades to survive. These two young men are in close friendship with each other, and Pylades is not only a mere intimate friend, but also an accomplice to Orestes in the matricide. Besides, he must make an effort to save Orestes and Electra in order to make Electra his wife. Between them there is "new φιλια"; the feeling of solidarity which is based on their interests. Namely, these two φιλια are of different nature. A rise of the idea of this "new φιλια" reflects the social circumstances and human relations at the time of the Peloponnesian War (cf. Thuc. III, 82). In the last scene of this play, only the danger of life is saved by Apollo. Apollo, who is supposed to appear as the Saviour of the danger of the soul (414, 416), acts as the Saviour of the danger of life. It is natural that the danger of the soul can not be saved by Apollo. Because it is not what is brought on him by God Apollo, but a mental phenomenon of a human being named Orestes which the matricide itself gave rise to. By an avoidance of the danger of life, the drama tentatively accomplishes its purpose. But the persecution by Erinyes, a fit of madness and above all the pain of the soul i. e. συνεσιζ will go on further. To Orestes "living" is "suffering". In this sense, Deus ex machina is extremely ironical. Orestes has the self-consciousness i. e. συνεσιζ, but he is not a hero. He is no more than a typical citizen in the latter half of the 5th century B. C.. Unlike Oedipus, he did not dare to endure the sufferings heroically and to maintain the dignity of the human being. We may say that it is his tragedy. But he, being not a hero, had not the capacity to endure the sufferings. He, knowing that "living" is "suffering", must continue the endless flight burning with the will to live. This is the tragedy of a so-called petit bourgeois, not that of a hero. And the intention of the poet, I believe, was to write this tragedy of a petit bourgeois.

抄録全体を表示

　En 1750, Voltaire fit représenter Oreste. Parmi les prédécesseurs qui avaient déjà utilisé le même sujet（Eschyle, Sophocle, Euripide, Longepierre, entre autres）, c’est Crébillon qui a poussé Voltaire à écrire son Oreste. Car Crébillon avait introduit deux intrigues galantes entre les enfants de Clytemnestre et ceux d’Égisthe. Pour Voltaire qui blâmait la galanterie dans la tragédie, un tel épisode n’était qu’un outrage à la tradition à laquelle son Oreste est donc revenu. Mais en même temps qu’une critique contre Crébillon, la composition d’Oreste constituait aussi un défi aux pièces grecques.

　Pour inspirer la pitié, il ne suffit pas de représenter la simple mort de Clytemnestre. Voltaire vise à attendrir le public par le conflit intérieur de la reine. Aussi Voltaire décrit-il non seulement l’amour d’une mère mais celui d’une épouse. Tout en aimant ses enfants et concevant un sentiment de culpabilité à leur égard, elle garde son amour pour Égisthe. Elle cherche continuellement à jouer à la fois le rôle de mère et celui d’épouse dans l’espoir de rétablir le bonheur de sa famille. L’une des particularités de l’Oreste voltairien se trouve dans cet aspect de la sincérité de Clytemnestre.

抄録全体を表示

Marguerite Yourcenar parle souvent de l'importance de la voix du narrateur dans ses romans, ou elle choisit toujours des narrateurs masculins mail jamais des narratrices. Par contre, dans ses pieces de theatre, nous constatons qu'il y a beaucoup de femmes qui parlent, s'expriment et jouent les roles principaux. Dans cet article, nous avons donc essaye de degager quelques traits particuliers du theatre yourcenarien en exposant les caracteristiques des voix feminines dans Electre ou la chute des masques ; celles de la mere et de la fine. Il y existe une rivalite evidente et un contraste saisissant entre elles, neanmoins, les deux voix feminines se synchronisent, se superposent et s'identifient. Cela nous fait penser a la situation ambigue de l'auteur envers sa propre mere, qu'elle a perdue a sa naissance et dont elle n'a pas connu la voix. Si ses romans sont l'expression d'un savoir et d'un intellect, ses pieces de theatre ne sont-elles pas flees de l'exigence de son etat d'ame personnel?

抄録全体を表示

Orestes slays Aegisthus at the sacrificial ceremony by taking his victim unaware As the messenger's report continues, it becomes apparent that because of the manner in which Orestes had his revenge it is far from a heroic act Yet at the same time the messenger's report is replete with images that suggest a heroic world images such as swordmanship and Olympic games These images represent the code of heroism which Orestes should have followed, and ironically, juxtaposed as they are with the tyranny of his aet, they bring out in full relief Orestes' transgression from this code This ironic juxtaposition is not meant to criticize the unheroic nature of Orestes' character, as Arnott would have it Rather, it is an attempt on Euripides part to underscore the fact that the heroic context for vengeance has been lost In the play, the background situation for the revenge is such that the act itself can no longer be regarded as a great act of heroism reinstating justice (δικη) throughout the whole πολιζ. This loss of the heroism in the background context of the revenge can be clearly seen in a comparison of the scene with that of Aeschylus' Choephoroi (1) In Electra the antagonists are not large figures but are seen in complete isolation from the citizen-life of πολιζ Aegisthus' attendants are not citizens of Argos but are house slaves Clytaemnestra fears aspersion on her morality and lives an exotic life only with Phrygian slave-women (2) The action in Euripides' play is at a distance from πολιζ, whereas Aeschylus centers the action of his play in the heart of political power Aeschylus' Orestes marches into the palace, while Euripides' Orestes is ushered into a farm-house in the countryside, led there hand in hand by the very man he will eventually slay Once Orestes has completed his revenge in Aeschylus' play, he addresses the citizens in apology for his deed Euripides' Orestes, however, shakes his javelin "with courage" ανδρειαζ δ' υπο (845) against Aegisthus' slaves who earlier were scorned (632-633) After they recognize him, they surround him with praise and crown him This last point culminates the irony of the scene Orestes has called his revenge "the crown" στεφανον(614) Eventually he gets his crown, but it is the crown of slaves Having lost the heroic context for revenge, Orestes is no match for the legendary heroes of the past, heroes he nevertheless believes he has imitated. The poet's overall stance towards the protagonists, however, is neither critical nor cynical Rather, as he observes them grappling with their impossible situations, he seems to be sympathetic This sympathetic view is suggested in the noteworthy change that takes place in the attitude of the gods as presented in the play. Moved by the lament of the protagonists, Dioscuri say, "Sad is your plaint to hear For in me and the gods of the heaven, there is pity for the many hardships of mortals" (1327-1330) Apollo is, of course, included among "the gods of heaven" And he is present in this play, as a statue on the stage He keeps silent, but he has seen every detail of the act His silent observation of the protagonists is much the same as that of the audience In Apollo's pity one can see a reflection of the sympathy the audience and the poet feel for the protagonists

抄録全体を表示

The purpose of this paper is to show Hercules' role in the Aen., especially in the Hercules-Cacus episode (8.185ff.) , by examining the correspondence of Hercules in the Aen. to Orestes in the Od. It is well known that Aeneas' journey to Pallanteum in Aen. VIII is modelled on Telemachus' journey to Pylos in Od. III. In Aen. 8.362-5, Euander encourages Aeneas to follow Hercules' example, just as Nestor encourages Telemachus to follow Orestes' example in Od. 3.199-200. Hence there is correspondence of Hercules in the Aen. to Orestes in the Od. as paradeigma (en exemplar). Orestes is mentioned in Od. I, III, IV, XI. Od. I-IV(the story of Telemachus)correspond to Aen. VIII, and Od. XI clearly corresponds to Aen. VI. Hercules plays an important part in Aen. VI and VIII(a parallel to Aeneas and Augustus), like Orestes in Od. I-IV and XI, who is a parallel to Odysseus and Telemachus as an avenger. In this respect, Aen. VI and VIII correspond to Od. I-IV and XI. This view is cofirmed through the correspondence of the prophets, i.e. Sibylla(Aen. VI) , Tiberinus(Aen. VIII) , Teiresias (Od. XI), and Proteus(Od. IV). Now the Hercules-Cacus episode in Aen. VIII, like the Orestes story in the Od., contains the motives of 'treachery' and 'revenge'. In this episode, Hercules is called an avenger(8.201 ultor), and Cacus uses treachery(206 dolus). Likewise, in the Od., Agamemnon's death through the treachery of Aegisthus is told, Orestes is cited as an examplar of revenge, and the method of revenge by Odysseus and Telemachus comes into question(by treachery or openly : 1.296, 11. 120). Hence I suggest the following two points : (1) The motive of 'treachery or valor' (cf. 2.390 dolus an uirtus) is indicated in this episode. Hercules' uirtus, in contrast to Cacus' dolus, is recalled from Aen. VI(122-31, 801-6). (2) Hercules' victory over Cacus foreshadows Aeneas' victory over Turnus, just as Orestes' revenge on Aegisthus corresponds to Odysseus and Telemachus' revenge on the suitors. Therefore, considering the correspondence of Hercules and Orestes, Turnus corresponds to the suitors in the Od. as a man who should be killed. In conclusion, Hercules is described as paradeigma of an avenger by valor (not by treachery).

抄録全体を表示

In this paper we examine the opposing relationship between the Greek world and the barbarian world in Cyc, Or. and Bac. with the aid of the antithesis; "το ελληνικον" and "το βαρβαρικον". Euripides, in writing Cyc, has taken his plot from Homer(Od. IX.), but he is not entirely indebted to Homer. In the characterization of Cyclops there is a great difference between them. Cyclops of Homer is a monster(πελωριον) , while that of Euripides is described as a more humanized and civilized character. In addition, the latter, unlike the former, is strongly opposed to "law(νομο&b.sigmav;)", one of the mental elements which constitute the Greek world(338 ff.), and criticizes the expedition to Troy, which was a great achievement of the Greeks, as an act of folly (280 ff.). Polyphemus is by no means the anti-social monster, but a man of reason, though a barbarian. His denial of law and his criticism of the Trojan War are nothing but an expression of an antipathy of the barbarian world against the Greek world and at the same time are also an expression of the poet's doubts about the traditional values of Greece. In this play we can also understand that "wisdom(σοφια)"(this is also one of the mental elements which constitute the Greek world)becomes a laughing-stock. At first sight Odysseus of Euripides, like that of Homer, seems to use every artifice in order to escape from the cave of Cyclops, but once in the middle of the play he comes out of the cave without trouble(375) , and moreover, at the end of the play (707), it is shown to us that the cave has a second opening. He can escape from the cave at a moment's notice without the aid of artifices, whenever he wishes to. His artifices are, so to speak, of no practical use. This shows that "wisdom", i. e. Greek intelligence represented by Odysseus is thoroughly ridiculed. Now, Mr. Matthiessen pointed out the similarity of the dramatic construction between Cyc, Hel., and IT. and set the date of Cyc. in the years 415-410 B. C. Setting aside the problem of the date there is something in common between these three plays, e. g. motif of escape and criticism of the Trojan War. However, we must indicate that there is something in common between Cyc. and Or. rather than between those three plays; motif of escape, criticism of the Trojan War and disregard of "law". Orestes, who was guilty of matricide and sentenced to death, is going to break the "law" in order to escape from death and comes into conflict with Tyndareus and Menelaus. Orestes, of course, is a Greek, but his behaviour may be said unsuitable for a Greek. In short, he is going to destroy the Greek world by his barbarian behaviour. It can be said that this behaviour of Orestes is a surfacing of barbarian elements ( (i. e. 美雪το βαρβαρικον) which have been contained by the civilized community of Greece. In Or. the Greek world is menaced with a fall from the inside. The Trojan War, in this play, is relentlessly criticized by a Greek Tyndareus (521, 2) , which shows that Greeks themselves are sceptical about their own traditional values. We must recognize that the criticism of the Trojan War shown in some plays of Euripides is not only a manifestation of the anti-war sentiment of the poet, but also that of his criticism of traditional values of Greece. Now, in Bac. the Greek world and the barbarian world are sharply set in opposition. A mission of a new heretical religion enters into Thebes from Asia. Pentheus, a king of Thebes, i. e. a representative of the Greek world, persecutes this barbarian religion in order to keep social order in his kingdom. On the other hand, Dionysus, the leader of the mission, and his devotees also keep their own law and act on it, though they are both barbarians. Here we see two laws of different nature: the law of Greeks and that of barbarians. The former is state law and the

(View PDF for the rest of the abstract.)

抄録全体を表示

In Haguruma we can see some correspondence based on the stories of Greek Mythology. First, the consciousness of "I" who is reminded by Icarus of Orestes, suggests the denial of his consanguinity including his mother. The correspondence in Chapter II based on the story of Iason and Elinius, implies the presence of the Oedipus complex of the author. Based on these correspondence, I've attempted to analyze the dream in Chapter III and explain that "My god of vengeance" is the author's Oedipus complex revealed in his dream.

抄録全体を表示

Les enquetes philosophico-historiques menees par Michel Foucault mettent sans cesse en question la raison totalisatrice et universelle, dont on peut trouver le modele chez Hegel. Si ce philosophe allemand annule ce qui est exterieur a la philosophie par la dialectique, Foucault cherche dans ce <<dehors>> la possibilite d'une nouvelle pensee philosophique. Nous tentons dans ce texte d'examiner cette pensee du <<dehors>>, en prenant comme point d'ancrage l'analyse foucaldienne du concept de la parresia, le dire-vrai de la Grece ancienne. En 1982, Foucault evoque pour la premiere fois ce concept, a savoir l'obligation ethique faite au maitre de dire avec la plus grande franchise la verite a son disciple. Toutefois, l'annee suivante, dans le cours intitule Le gouvernement de soi et des autres, Foucault modifie largement cette definition, et dans son commentaire sur Ion d'Euripide, il met l'accent sur l'origine politique de la parresia. La se pose une nouvelle question : comment la parresia politique s'installe-t-elle au coeur de la philosophie? Se referant a des textes platoniciens, Foucault decrit ce deplacement comme resultat d'une tension entre la parresia et la democratie. Cette <<genealogie>> de la parresia est une critique de la philosophie en general : si le lien entre la parole et la verite est extrinseque a la philosophie, a quel titre le discours philosophique est-il vrai? Ainsi apparait une ligne qui nous mene de la parresia antique a la question kantienne de l'Aufklarung, ligne dans laquelle se trouve egalement la pensee foucaldienne. Cette histoire de la parresia est donc un lieu ou se croisent le passe et le present, ou la philosophie et son dehors.

抄録全体を表示