The agon scene of Euripides' Troades is difficult to relate to the main course of the dramatic action Apart from its bafflmgly sophistic tone, there are seemingly odd points in it (1) Hecuba requests Menelaus to give her enemy Helen an opportunity for apology (2) Menelaus allows Hecuba's request and takes sides with her (3) Menelaus allows the debate whose outcome is already determined These points have encouraged some critics to see the scene as an interlude with purely intellectual appeal not relevant to the theme of the play By re-examining these three points and the contents of the debate, this paper attempts to clarify the significance of the Helen scene and relate it to the overall structure of the play Close reading of 11 873-75 shows Menelaus' reluctance to kill his wife Helen, in spite of his apparent contempt toward her He is anxious to play the role of an executioner in order to refute the charge of uxonousness nurled at him by the Greeks, because he is surrounded by the very soldiers (οπαονεζ, 880) who hurled that charge at him and now hope Helen's death The whole agon is a play within a play performed before the audience on the stage, common soldiers as mute actors Observing that Menelaus is on the verge of surrender to Helen's charm, Hecuba tries to take vengeance upon her, taking over the will of Cassandra and Andromache Hecuba's request for debate is not a convenient clue to introduce an intellectual entertainment, but a desperate attempt to secure the execution of Helen Hecuba counts on the presence of Greek soldiers as witnesses of Menelaus' decision, and he is forced to allow the debate under the pressure of their mute presence as she expected The whole debate scene can be seen as a reproduction of the Judgement of Paris by Hecuba she appeals to the virtue of goddesses Hera and Athena, and in doing so, she recalls the discussion by Cassandra (=the virgin goddess Athena) and Andromache (=the chaste wife goddess Hera) in order to refute Helen (=Aphrodite) Hecuba nearly wins with her power of logos, but at that moment Helen embraces Menelaus' neck and knee for supplication This physical contact, the power of Eros, persuades Menelaus (=Paris) Hecuba's last hope, vengeance, is lost

抄録全体を表示

In the opening scene of Aeneid book 4 Dido is compared to a deer struck by the hunter's arrow. This is one of the most excellent similes in the Aeneid. But strictly speaking, it is inconsistent with the development of the story. First, although we can recognize behind this simile the intervention of Cupid, who makes mortals (and also immortals) fall in love in the twinkling of an eye with his bow and arrow, the love of Dido in book 1 seems to develop gradually. Second, although just before this simile Anna persuades Dido to abandon her chastity toward her lost husband, this simile depicts Dido trying to flee from the temptation of love. These two inconsistencies come from the following reasons. In book 1 Dido, like Medea, has fallen in love with a guest-hero. But her passion must be restricted by her queenly dignity, like that of queen Arete in the Odyssey. This restriction made a difference in the pattern of Cupid's intervention. In the case of Medea, Cupid used the bow and arrow, but in the case of Dido his weapon is kisses and poison. On the other hand, Dido's agony in book 4 is like that of Phaedra or Helen in the Euripidean tragedy. Dido treads the path to death by abandoning her chastity. If we consider book 4 to be an independent tragedy, the theme of that tragedy is not how Dido falls in love but how she abandons her chastity. In that case the start of her love is no more than the background to the story of abandoned chastity. And it is suitable that her love belongs to the category of love at first sight. So in this simile we can catch a glimpse of some expression of the strength of her passion along with the perplexed state of her mind. In short, Dido's love is described in accordance with the requests of the story in books 1 and 4 respectively. With regard to Anna's persuasion we can explain the inconsistency by an epic technique, the description in two stages*. 1st stage: a. the agony and sleeplessness b. the confession of love c. Anna's persuasion 2nd stage: a. the sacrifice and stopping construction of the city b. the agreement between Juno and Venus c. the wedding in the cave This technique is not used to describe one scene successively, but to describe a crucial moment of the story from two different points of view. In this case the moment of abandoning chastity is described twice in two stages. By this technique Virgil can show that the union of Carthage and Troy is a good choice for both Carthage and Dido from the terrestrial point of view, but at the same time it is nothing but an obstacle to the fate of Aeneas. * One example of this technique is Iliad 4. 446-544. The scene of the encounter between Greeks and Trojans is depicted twice, from general to individual point of view.

抄録全体を表示

ヘブライおよびギリシア文学史には,死を目前にした人物の「訣別の辞」が数多く見出される.このような場合には,両者を文学様式と機能の視点から此較してヘブライ文学史の側でのその特性を解明することが聖書の様式史的研究方法にとって避け難い課題となる.しかし私の見るところでは,この研究方法が今世紀前半にドイツで提唱され,以後の聖書学の方法的基礎となったのち今日まで,「訣別の辞」の素材の辞典的な収集はなされたが,上のような視点からの立ち入った研究が行なわれたことはない.本稿は聖書の様式史的研究が残しているこの領域的な不備を,『ヨハネ福音書』13-17章のイエスの「告別説教」とプラトンの『パイドン』を各々の文学史的前提も顧慮しつつ此較することによって多少でも補おうとする試みである.

抄録全体を表示

この小論はOresteiaをθρασο&b.sigmav;に基づくδικηの否定という観点から論じようと試みる.周知のようにδικηはこの作品の中心になる重要な思想であり,それを主に「正義・裁き・報復」の意味に分ける.δικηはこの劇の中で,「正義の名によって敵を裁く行為が実は報復にほかならない」というパターンを構成し,報復は報復を呼んで悲劇的な悪循環を生ずる.これがアトレウス家に伝わる呪いの実態であり,オレステースの母殺しはその呪いの頂点に立つ.女神アテーナーはオレステースの罪を裁き,「自らの手」による報復行為を否定すると共に,劇の背後にある市民の抗争をも警告している.この報復のδικηをθρασο&b.sigmav;, τολμαとして把えようとする私の試みは,アトレウス家の呪いと,当時のポリスの問題の特質を示し,この伝承を劇化した作者の意図を明らかにすることができると思う.

抄録全体を表示

Ursprunglich ist der Dichter gleichbedeutend mit dem Propheten. Es ist langst zur Sage geworden, dass die erste Prophezeiung von dem Riss der Erde herausgegeben wurde, d.h., die Natur sie dem Menschen gab. J.-B. Dubos, F. Nietzsche und R. Caillois erortern, nach ihren eigenen Methoden, den Dichter in bezug auf die Natur. M. Heidegger sagt, dass Nietzsches "ewige Wiederkehr des Gleichen" sich erst durch das "incipit tragoedia" kennzeichnet und der "Mittag" der Augenblick der hochsten Einheit alles Zeitlichen ist. Zwar ist solcher unendliche Umlauf der Natur tragisch, aber man wunscht in der oden Natur, dass sich die Begegnung mit diesem "Mittag" wiederholt. Das ist die echte Hoffnung des sterblichen Menschen. Wartet die Natur darauf, dass der Dichter diesen Kairos trifft? Diese Begegnung wurde fur ihn dem Suchen nach seiner eigenen Heimat gleichen, wenn man seine Herkunft "nascitur poeta" nennen konnte.

抄録全体を表示

The present paper provides a brief review on the concept risk to facilitate better consideration and meditation on the very subject of risk research or risk communication. Despite the heavy use and dependency on the term “risk” in the contemporary Japanese society, the definition of risk is often quite obscure and misleading. The term risk is often used without a clear definition in daily communication to share information on something that is believed to pose hazard or danger in various contexts. Based on past research, the authors confirm and suggest the most fundamental aspects of the concept “risk” in social science research and practice. The authors also provide explanation on risk perception, and a simple yet fundamental understanding that the concept of risk comprises of other concepts such as hazard and vulnerability was explained. Distinction between peril, danger, hazard, vulnerability and risk were also discussed.

抄録全体を表示