Although the Iliad has for the main theme the Wrath of Achilleus it has been called "the Song of Ilios" probably because not only does it tell the fate of Troy but by the frequent mention of earlier and later events, by allusion or narration, gives us the entire picture of the Trojan War. This combination of two themes, it is said, is possible because the short lay of the Wrath of Achilleus has been expanded into a long epic or because the poet, either taking up a traditional motif of the wrath of a hero or making use of earlier poems(e.g. 'Achilleis', 'Memnonis', 'Meleagris' etc.), has created the Wrath of Achilleus and at the same time retold the fate of Troy. However, the Wrath of Achilleus which is but an episode in the last year of the war cannot have been well fitted to be interlaced with the theme of the fate of Troy, nor has any convincing explanation been offered why the poet or the poets have chosen from among the rest the theme of the Wrath of Achilleus so as to make out of it "the Song of Ilios". Now it is to be noted that just as the Trojan War arises from the abduction of Helene, so is the Wrath of Achilleus caused by the detaining of Chryseis and the taking of Briseis, and a scrutiny of these two motifs shows that there exist close parallels between them: (1) The taking of Briseis preceded by the detaining of Chryseis brings about the wrath of Achilleus which extends through the death of Patroklos to the downfall of Hektor and, at the same time, of Troy(cf. Ζ 403, Χ 410 f, Ω 728). This is parallel to the abduction of Helene which brings about the revenge of the Atreidai on the Trojans (the Trojan War) and finally leads to the fall of Troy. (2) Just as human actions are very often interrelated with those of gods, so is Paris held responsible for the wrath of Zeus and other gods and their destruction of Troy because he violates not only wedlock but also hospitality (cf. Γ 351 ff, Ν 622 ff etc.). It is parallel to this when Agamemnon brings upon the Achaeans and himself not only the wrath of Apollon but that of Zeus(Θ 37, 468, Ο 72)while he detains Chryseis and then takes Briseis from Achilleus. The wrath of Zeus which is identical with his promise to Thetis may appear at first sight directed against the Achaeans, all the same it leads to the fall of Troy while it brings about the death of Patroklos and then that of Hektor, the only defender of Troy (cf. Ο 64-77, Σ 74 ff, 79 ff). On the other hand the wrath of Apollon which is caused by Agamemnon's rejection of the supplication of Chryses and which would thus be better suited to Zeus as guardian god of a suppliant (cf. Ω 143 ff, 569 ff) seems to have the function of introducing and foreshadowing that of Zeus. (Notice also that in the Odyssey Zeus appears as Xeinios and at the same time as Hiketesios. ) (3) Ι 336 ff Achilleus says that, although the Achaeans make war on Troy because of Helene and not only the Atreidai but all those who are decent and right-minded love their wives, Agamemnon has robbed him of his θυμαρηζ αλοχοζ. Here the taking of Briseis is seen as parallel to the abduction of Helene. (4) Helene is Menelaos' wife. Likewise Chryseis and Briseis, though captives, are said to be equal to legitimate wives (cf. Α 113 f, Ι 336) ; Achilleus says that he loves Briseis, and Patroklos is said to have promised to marry her to his friend. The wrath of Achilleus is all the more intense because he has been robbed of his beloved (the same process is repeated when Patroklos is killed). (5) The Atreidai make war in order to win τιμη from the Trojans and revenge the injury. On the contrary Achilleus retires from battle to win τιμη and redeem his injured honour. Patroklos, however, goes to battle in place of Achilleus (and disguised as Achilleus) to win τιμη and κυδοζ for the latter and get Briseis back (Π 84 ff). (6) The Trojan War arises when Helene is

(View PDF for the rest of the abstract.)

抄録全体を表示

it is generally admitted that the mam theme in the latter half of the Odyssey is derived from the tale of a wanderer's return and reunion with his wife such as would be seen in folk-tales the world over In the Odyssey, however, Penelope knows nothing about her husband's return until the killing of the suitors is over Now there arises a question why Odysseus does not take his wife into his confidence while making himself known to his son Telemachus According to the view of the so-called analysts, there existed another version of the Odyssey where the heio was recognized and helped by his wife before the killing of the suitors If, however, this view were right, there would have been two (') persons who helped Odysseus to kill the suitors Now the situation in the latter half of the Odyssey requires that there should be at least one person who helps the hero from within Then there would be no place for a grown-up son like Telemachus if the wife helps her husband from within as would be seen in folk-tales If, however, the hero's helper is his own son, there would be no place at all for the wife, as in the Odyssey From this and other observations the present writer supposes that in the Odyssey Telemachus must have taken upon himself the role played originally by the wife in folk-tales and that he must have played a very important part in the making of the Odyssey as a heroic epic The view of the analysts, on the one hand, cannot be accepted as a true picture of the Odyssey, as they confuse the element of a folk-tale (i e the wife) with that of a heroicepic (i e the son) When we observe closely the role played by Telemachus in the first half of the poem we find that the main purpose of his journey lies in connecting closely with the heroic world the hero of the Odyssey whose sphere of actions lay originally in the fantastic world of folk-tales Here it is to be noted that the return of the Atreides, especially that of Agamemnon as told in the first four books and then in Books 11 and 24, makes a strong contrast with that of Odysseus Now in Book 11 Agamemnon advises Odysseus to be cautious with his wife when the latter returns home With this warning still fresh in his ear, Odysseus could not have taken his wife into his confidence as the analysts suppose Penelope, on the one hand, could not have easily forgiven her husband who kept not only his own identity secret until the very last moment but also tried to put her faithfulness to the cruel test (19 221 ff) Such psychological conflicts between husband and wife as are found in Book 23 could only be possible when the role of helping wife was given to Telemachus and not to Penelope The present writer, considering in what relation the tale of the Atreides' return as told in the Odyssey would have stood with the so-called νοστοι of Agias, comes to the conclusion that there must have existed another epic poem concerning the Atreides' return before the poet of the Odyssey composed Such an epic must have had two threads, i e that of Agamemnon on the one hand and that of Menelaos on the other, the latter being subordinated to the former Here the present writer supposes that such a constiuction of two threads must have influenced the peculiar structure of the Odyssey which is formed from the stoiy of Odysseus and that of Telemachus And while the tales of the Atreides' and other heroes' return are told again and again, the Odyssey becomes not only a tale of Odysseus' adventures and return, but also an epic of the Greek army's direful return And in this connection Telemachus is seen playing a role which links the world of folk-tale with that of the heroic poetry which developed around the war of Troy

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

The story of the Wooden Horse is told by three different characters in the Odyssey. It is first told by Menelaos at δ 266-289, then by Demodokos at θ 499-520, and lastly by Odysseus at λ 505-537. Previous studies on these three passages have shown that the details of these three accounts are so composed that each account fits its context. In the present paper, I would like to further the observations in those studies by comparing the three passages, especially in terms of whether what is happening outside or inside the Wooden Horse is described in each account, and by considering the inter-relationship between these accounts. In Menelaos' account, both Helen's behaviour outside the Wooden Horse and Odysseus' behaviour inside are depicted. Menelaos' depiction of Helen as behaving irrationally and endangering the Greek soldiers undermines her own favourable depiction of herself (δ 244-264) as a woman who kept the secret of Odysseus' identity and whose sympathy was already on the Greek side. On the other hand, the depiction of Odysseus in Menelaos' account emphasizes his steadfast resistance to temptation. The detail of Odysseus seizing Antiklos' mouth enhances this effect. Odysseus asks Demodokos to sing of the Wooden Horse. The wording employed in his request to Demodokos (θ 494-5) indicates that Odysseus desires to hear especially of his own brilliant prowess as the leader of the enterprise of the Wooden Horse. Demodokos, however, concentrates on the fatal meeting of the Trojans outside the Wooden Horse, not Odysseus' leading role among the Greek soldiers inside. In relation to the contrast between Odysseus' request and the actual content of the song, it should be noted that Odysseus asks Demodokos to sing of the Wooden Horse 'which godlike Odysseus led to the acropolis' (θ 494-5), whereas it is stated in Demodokos' song that it was the Trojans themselves who brought it to the acropolis (θ 504). The song of Demodokos emphasizes the suffering of the war, especially on the Trojan side, rather than Odysseus' prowess. The simile of a captive war widow attached to Odysseus (θ 523-530) points up the suffering of the Trojans in Demodokos' song. Since Odysseus' account of the Wooden Horse is a reply to Achilleus' question about his son, it contains detailed description of Neoptolemos' prowess. The description of Neoptolemos' exploits suggests that father and son played similar roles among the Greeks. This account also contains descriptions of Odysseus' own exploits. Especially, Odysseus claims that he was responsible for opening the Wooden Horse at the right moment for the attack, and for keeping it closed until then (λ 524-5). Like Menelaos' account, Odysseus' account of the Wooden Horse has two foci (Neoptolemos and Odysseus), though the two accounts differ in that Menelaos, whose foci are Odysseus and Helen, describes both the inside and outside of the Wooden Horse, whereas Odysseus concentrates on the inside. As we have observed above, Odysseus' key role does not feature in Demodokos' account of the story, even though Odysseus specifically requests to hear it. In this respect, it is notable that both Demodokos' song and Odysseus' account of the Wooden Horse, which is a part of his lengthy story of his wanderings (the apologoi), are presented to the same audience at Alkinoos' palace on the same evening. Though a long stretch of Odysseus' story of his adventures intervenes between the two accounts of the Wooden Horse, the fact that the apologoi are addressed to the Phaiakians at the court of Alkinoos is brought back to our attention by the intermission in Odysseus' narrative at λ 333-377. It is conceivable that Odysseus adds the detail of his own leading role inside the Wooden Horse in order to correct the song of Demodokos.

抄録全体を表示