アムピトリュオーンの重装歩兵論

エウリーピデース『ヘーラクレース』190-194

研究成果: ジャーナルへの寄稿記事

抄録

The debate in the first episode employs the opposition between the hoplite and the archer While Lycus disparages archers and exalts hoplites' bravery, Amphitryon points out a weakness of hoplites and applauds archers' cleverness It has recently been argued that the unusual portrayal of Heracles solely as an archer in the drama has the function of showing how independent he is from the others What each says about the hoplite, however, has not received the attention it deserves, in spite of the recognized prominence and importance of hoplite warfare in the classical period The present essay reexamines Amphitryon's lines on the hoplite (190-194) After this, the final scenes are discussed based on the preceding analysis First, Wilamowitz' widely accepted transposition of 191-2 after 193-4 is unfortunate since it conceals the point of Amphitryon's argument It should be noted, first of all, that the statement made in 190 is highly ambiguous "The weapons" (190) could refer to the other hoplites' arms as much as to that of the individual hoplite 191-4 provides the required amplification 190-4 as a whole centers on the hoplites' inherent defect of interdependence Breaking his spear (193-4) becomes crucial only after his companions break ranks(191-2), for the hoplites rely on each other for protection The broken spear represents a detail related to his death caused by 'the cowardice of those near him'(191), a human failure which seems to be the most significant point of the passage Second, Amphitryon's argument has a wider range of reference to Lycus and the civil strife in Thebes Lycus is reproached as 'coward' repeatedly and represented as a 'coward' hoplite He and his companions who have caused the civil strife in Thebes are censured for hurting 'those near them' so that their negative role in their polis corresponds to that of the 'coward' hophtes in the phalanx described by Amphitryon The chorus who are unable to fight now but once fought for Thebes as hoplites contrast sharply with Lycus and his companions The ideal, brave hophte of Lycus' speech is undermined In this way, Amphitryon's argument presents questions about how one should behave as 'a hoplite' or in a community, and on what foundation a community should stand Putting in question the framework of a existing community is an important theme in the drama In the final scenes, that Heracles' earlier isolation is transformed into a dependence on other human beings is signaled by military metaphor, which recalls the characteristics of the hoplite established earlier in the drama His transformation is obvious in his physically leaning on Theseus, which could be considered as a 'phalanx' relationship In consideration of the questions about the univocal understanding of 'hophte', what their 'phalanx' represents seems to be the potentiality of a new community In addition, their 'phalanx' relationship should not be identified completely with Heracles' new dependence on Athens, for the question still remains of how amicably the city can accept him, a problem man The reexamination of Amphitryon's argument about the hoplite, thus, allows us to interpret the drama from the point of view of exploring what a community should be
元の言語Japanese
ページ(範囲)56-66
ページ数11
ジャーナル西洋古典学研究
50
発行部数0
DOI
出版物ステータス出版済み - 2002

Fingerprint

Heracles
Euripides
Phalanx
Drama
Thebes
Companionship
Coward
Strife
Spear
Interdependence
Amplification
Military
Polis
Transposition
Classical Age
Isolation
Range of Reference
Human Being
Portrayal
Weapons

これを引用

アムピトリュオーンの重装歩兵論 : エウリーピデース『ヘーラクレース』190-194. / 浜本裕美.

:: 西洋古典学研究, 巻 50, 番号 0, 2002, p. 56-66.

研究成果: ジャーナルへの寄稿記事

@article{bba9d913b9ee4a1d9dbe68d35ef9fc20,
title = "アムピトリュオーンの重装歩兵論: エウリーピデース『ヘーラクレース』190-194",
abstract = "The debate in the first episode employs the opposition between the hoplite and the archer While Lycus disparages archers and exalts hoplites' bravery, Amphitryon points out a weakness of hoplites and applauds archers' cleverness It has recently been argued that the unusual portrayal of Heracles solely as an archer in the drama has the function of showing how independent he is from the others What each says about the hoplite, however, has not received the attention it deserves, in spite of the recognized prominence and importance of hoplite warfare in the classical period The present essay reexamines Amphitryon's lines on the hoplite (190-194) After this, the final scenes are discussed based on the preceding analysis First, Wilamowitz' widely accepted transposition of 191-2 after 193-4 is unfortunate since it conceals the point of Amphitryon's argument It should be noted, first of all, that the statement made in 190 is highly ambiguous {"}The weapons{"} (190) could refer to the other hoplites' arms as much as to that of the individual hoplite 191-4 provides the required amplification 190-4 as a whole centers on the hoplites' inherent defect of interdependence Breaking his spear (193-4) becomes crucial only after his companions break ranks(191-2), for the hoplites rely on each other for protection The broken spear represents a detail related to his death caused by 'the cowardice of those near him'(191), a human failure which seems to be the most significant point of the passage Second, Amphitryon's argument has a wider range of reference to Lycus and the civil strife in Thebes Lycus is reproached as 'coward' repeatedly and represented as a 'coward' hoplite He and his companions who have caused the civil strife in Thebes are censured for hurting 'those near them' so that their negative role in their polis corresponds to that of the 'coward' hophtes in the phalanx described by Amphitryon The chorus who are unable to fight now but once fought for Thebes as hoplites contrast sharply with Lycus and his companions The ideal, brave hophte of Lycus' speech is undermined In this way, Amphitryon's argument presents questions about how one should behave as 'a hoplite' or in a community, and on what foundation a community should stand Putting in question the framework of a existing community is an important theme in the drama In the final scenes, that Heracles' earlier isolation is transformed into a dependence on other human beings is signaled by military metaphor, which recalls the characteristics of the hoplite established earlier in the drama His transformation is obvious in his physically leaning on Theseus, which could be considered as a 'phalanx' relationship In consideration of the questions about the univocal understanding of 'hophte', what their 'phalanx' represents seems to be the potentiality of a new community In addition, their 'phalanx' relationship should not be identified completely with Heracles' new dependence on Athens, for the question still remains of how amicably the city can accept him, a problem man The reexamination of Amphitryon's argument about the hoplite, thus, allows us to interpret the drama from the point of view of exploring what a community should be",
author = "裕美 浜本",
year = "2002",
doi = "10.20578/jclst.50.0_56",
language = "Japanese",
volume = "50",
pages = "56--66",
journal = "西洋古典学研究",
issn = "0447-9114",
publisher = "日本西洋古典学会",
number = "0",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - アムピトリュオーンの重装歩兵論

T2 - エウリーピデース『ヘーラクレース』190-194

AU - 浜本, 裕美

PY - 2002

Y1 - 2002

N2 - The debate in the first episode employs the opposition between the hoplite and the archer While Lycus disparages archers and exalts hoplites' bravery, Amphitryon points out a weakness of hoplites and applauds archers' cleverness It has recently been argued that the unusual portrayal of Heracles solely as an archer in the drama has the function of showing how independent he is from the others What each says about the hoplite, however, has not received the attention it deserves, in spite of the recognized prominence and importance of hoplite warfare in the classical period The present essay reexamines Amphitryon's lines on the hoplite (190-194) After this, the final scenes are discussed based on the preceding analysis First, Wilamowitz' widely accepted transposition of 191-2 after 193-4 is unfortunate since it conceals the point of Amphitryon's argument It should be noted, first of all, that the statement made in 190 is highly ambiguous "The weapons" (190) could refer to the other hoplites' arms as much as to that of the individual hoplite 191-4 provides the required amplification 190-4 as a whole centers on the hoplites' inherent defect of interdependence Breaking his spear (193-4) becomes crucial only after his companions break ranks(191-2), for the hoplites rely on each other for protection The broken spear represents a detail related to his death caused by 'the cowardice of those near him'(191), a human failure which seems to be the most significant point of the passage Second, Amphitryon's argument has a wider range of reference to Lycus and the civil strife in Thebes Lycus is reproached as 'coward' repeatedly and represented as a 'coward' hoplite He and his companions who have caused the civil strife in Thebes are censured for hurting 'those near them' so that their negative role in their polis corresponds to that of the 'coward' hophtes in the phalanx described by Amphitryon The chorus who are unable to fight now but once fought for Thebes as hoplites contrast sharply with Lycus and his companions The ideal, brave hophte of Lycus' speech is undermined In this way, Amphitryon's argument presents questions about how one should behave as 'a hoplite' or in a community, and on what foundation a community should stand Putting in question the framework of a existing community is an important theme in the drama In the final scenes, that Heracles' earlier isolation is transformed into a dependence on other human beings is signaled by military metaphor, which recalls the characteristics of the hoplite established earlier in the drama His transformation is obvious in his physically leaning on Theseus, which could be considered as a 'phalanx' relationship In consideration of the questions about the univocal understanding of 'hophte', what their 'phalanx' represents seems to be the potentiality of a new community In addition, their 'phalanx' relationship should not be identified completely with Heracles' new dependence on Athens, for the question still remains of how amicably the city can accept him, a problem man The reexamination of Amphitryon's argument about the hoplite, thus, allows us to interpret the drama from the point of view of exploring what a community should be

AB - The debate in the first episode employs the opposition between the hoplite and the archer While Lycus disparages archers and exalts hoplites' bravery, Amphitryon points out a weakness of hoplites and applauds archers' cleverness It has recently been argued that the unusual portrayal of Heracles solely as an archer in the drama has the function of showing how independent he is from the others What each says about the hoplite, however, has not received the attention it deserves, in spite of the recognized prominence and importance of hoplite warfare in the classical period The present essay reexamines Amphitryon's lines on the hoplite (190-194) After this, the final scenes are discussed based on the preceding analysis First, Wilamowitz' widely accepted transposition of 191-2 after 193-4 is unfortunate since it conceals the point of Amphitryon's argument It should be noted, first of all, that the statement made in 190 is highly ambiguous "The weapons" (190) could refer to the other hoplites' arms as much as to that of the individual hoplite 191-4 provides the required amplification 190-4 as a whole centers on the hoplites' inherent defect of interdependence Breaking his spear (193-4) becomes crucial only after his companions break ranks(191-2), for the hoplites rely on each other for protection The broken spear represents a detail related to his death caused by 'the cowardice of those near him'(191), a human failure which seems to be the most significant point of the passage Second, Amphitryon's argument has a wider range of reference to Lycus and the civil strife in Thebes Lycus is reproached as 'coward' repeatedly and represented as a 'coward' hoplite He and his companions who have caused the civil strife in Thebes are censured for hurting 'those near them' so that their negative role in their polis corresponds to that of the 'coward' hophtes in the phalanx described by Amphitryon The chorus who are unable to fight now but once fought for Thebes as hoplites contrast sharply with Lycus and his companions The ideal, brave hophte of Lycus' speech is undermined In this way, Amphitryon's argument presents questions about how one should behave as 'a hoplite' or in a community, and on what foundation a community should stand Putting in question the framework of a existing community is an important theme in the drama In the final scenes, that Heracles' earlier isolation is transformed into a dependence on other human beings is signaled by military metaphor, which recalls the characteristics of the hoplite established earlier in the drama His transformation is obvious in his physically leaning on Theseus, which could be considered as a 'phalanx' relationship In consideration of the questions about the univocal understanding of 'hophte', what their 'phalanx' represents seems to be the potentiality of a new community In addition, their 'phalanx' relationship should not be identified completely with Heracles' new dependence on Athens, for the question still remains of how amicably the city can accept him, a problem man The reexamination of Amphitryon's argument about the hoplite, thus, allows us to interpret the drama from the point of view of exploring what a community should be

U2 - 10.20578/jclst.50.0_56

DO - 10.20578/jclst.50.0_56

M3 - 記事

VL - 50

SP - 56

EP - 66

JO - 西洋古典学研究

JF - 西洋古典学研究

SN - 0447-9114

IS - 0

ER -