In the following, I would like first to clarify what Cleitophon actually demands from Socrates in the eponymous dialogue. Second, I sketch how Socrates is depicted in it. Third, I examine the legitimacy of Cleitophon's demands and, finally, take up the vexed problem of authorship.
1. What does Cleitophon demand from Socrates ?
Cleitophon expresses his demands in various forms. Though Cleitophon does not articulate the nature of their relationship, we could take him to demand two things, namely
(i) to go beyond a mere exhortation and grasp the matter fully (cf.408d3-4); that is, to define what justice is by giving its peculiar ergon.(cf.409b6-c1), and
(ii) to give concrete advice concerning the next step which corresponds to the nature of Cleitophons' soul(cf.410d1-5).
2.What features does Socrates have in the Cleitophon?
Socrates here should be differentiated into two figures: the Socrates in the frame dialogue, who directly speaks to Cleitophon(Sc1), and the Socrates indirectly portrayed by Cleitophon(Sc2). Most of the thoughts put into the mouth of Sc2, except for Polemarchus' thesis, can be regarded as basically Platonic, whereas Sc1 shows both Platonic and non-Platonic traits. This strongly suggests that the main target of the author is the Socrates of Plato, giving some hint as to the authorship.
3. Is the demand made by Cleitophon legitimate?
On this, there seem to be three options.
A: Cleitophon's demand(CD) is legitimate because he rightly sees the dangerous consequence of being merely protreptic and leaving the young at a loss without giving any positive guidance. B1: CD is illegitimate because he understands neither Socrates' role as a "midwife" nor the meaning of philosophizing in a Socratic sense.
B2: CD is illegitimate because Socrates actually gave a definite practical principle, namely the absolute denial of doing injustice(adikein).
B1 appears to be convincing, but in view of the similar demand made by Glaukon in the RepublicII, it is highly likely that Plato himself felt some uneasiness about the aporetic ending of the first book, which undoubtedly stands in close connection with the Cleitophon. B2 deserves serious consideration. Still, it seems to me that B2 cannot satisfy CD either, so long as Socrates offers no definition of injustice itself. From all this I am inclined to agree with A.
4. Is the Cleitophon Plato's work?
Apart from other grounds for doubt, the problem of wrongly ascribing the "Harming enemies and helping friends" principle to Socrates still remains the fatal stumbling block to claims of authenticity. The only possible way to avoid this would be to regard the Cleitophon as a draft conceived before the Republic I, which seems to me very improbable. It is more plausible to assume that somebody other than Plato wrote the Cleitophon after reading the RepublicI, and that Plato, having found Cleitophon's demand to be justified, then wrote the rest of the Republic.
In this paper, I explored some valid criteria for dating controversial fifth century Attic inscriptions. The appearance of some key letter forms such as the three-bar sigma and the tailed rho has been widely thought to be the only non-historical dating criterion of any value. However, confidence in this criterion has been undermined by a recent work by Mortimer Chambers redating the Egesta decree from 458/7 to 418/7. Thus other statistically and objectively valuable criteria are required.
The criteria I have suggested result from the analysis of two incidents: the appearance of superscripts (headings for official documents) and its stylistic characters; the infiltration of Ionic letters and orthography into Attic texts. Both incidents are accompanied by visual effect, so they would seem to show a certain tendency of a given period and would seem to have been easily shared by people involved in writing and inscribing official documents.
Analyzing the appearance of superscripts is effective and perhaps most fruitful for dating undated or controversial Attic inscriptions if the tops of the inscriptions remain. Superscripts occasionally appear in Attic inscriptions and are usually inscribed in slightly larger letters than those of the main texts. Three types of superscripts are used in Attic inscriptions: (1) theoi and/or other relevant words; (2) the words indicating the title or subject matter; and (3) the name(s) of the official(s) who passed the decree. The earliest known examples of a simply written theoi as a superscript in dated or approximately dated inscriptions are IGI350 from the mid 430s and IGI3292 from 434/3. Theoi constantly appears after this period. From this evidence, IGI334, 186, 190 and 418 can be dated in or after 430s respectively. The earliest occurrence of (2) is IGI365, dated ca. 427/6, and there are 15 later examples in dated or approximately dated inscriptions. Using this evidence for IGI317, 18, 21, 28 and 31, low dates would be suggested, and for IGI3190 the last two decades of the fifth century. The earliest known appearance of (3) is 427/6 (IGI366). There are 18 examples in dated or approximately dated inscriptions, and 14 examples in undated or controversial inscriptions. From the evidence, the latter examples could be dated to around 430 or after 430. This means that low dates are suggested for the particularly controversial decrees, IGI331, 35 and 40.
Concerning the infiltration of Ionic letters and orthography into Attic texts, I examined the following four phenomena: (1) the infiltration of Ionic letters; (2) the appearance or disappearance of aspirate signs; (3) the orthography of syn-compounds; and (4) the forms of the first declension dative plural. Though attention has been paid to each of these phenomena, no systematic and statistic examination has ever been attempted. While evidence suggests that the use of this criterion is not as conclusive for the dating of undated inscriptions as the criterion of superscripts, it still offers some good clues for dating. The analysis of phenomena (1) and (2) is more effective because their occurrence is less accidental than that of (3) and (4), and this is particularly useful when there is difficulty dating a decree between 440s and 420s. The earliest known examples of (1) in dated inscriptions are IGI3521, dated at 427 and IGI361, dated at 424/3. Concerning (2), I paid particular notice to inscriptions written in Attic orthography without aspirate signs. The earliest example of this is IGI3383, dated at 429/8, and 9 other examples are from the last two decades. As for controversial inscriptions, we can deduce low dates as more plausible ones using this criterion.
The two criteria presented here are far from absolute. However, if they are used in combination with other criteria, they will assist in the more confident dating of some undated inscriptions. It is true that, using the above criteria, low dates are favored for some very controversial decrees such as IGI317 (Sigeion), 21 (Miletos), 31 (Hermione), 34 (Kleinias), 35 (Athena Nike), 37 (Kolophon), 38 (Aigina), and 40 (Chalkis). Of course we should not ignore the fact that the materials are limited and only a small number of them are securely dated. Nevertheless, we should respect the evidence to be found on the stones themselves.
How was the 'frogs-chorus' scene(209-268) in the Frogsproduced ? R. H. Allison (G & R30, 1983, 8-20) and C. W. Marshall (EMC40, 1996, 251-265) have recently re-examined this problem. The former has plausibly argued the 'frogs-chorus' to be off stage and invisible, which has been the predominant opinion ever since antiquity(cf. schol. ad. 209); the latter, however, has refuted Allison's weak argumentation and has rightly declined his conclusion, arguing that the 'frogs-chorus' must have been on stage, invisible for Dionysus and yet visible for the spectators.
Marshall's ingenious solution, easily feasible for staging, has been duly adopted by Sommerstein in his edition of the Frogs(1996, ad. 205-6). The problem of howto produce the 'frogs-chorus' scene, I believe, has been almost decisively settled. However, whythis scene was produced in the way Marshall asserts has still not been fully elucidated. Since the particulars of staging are not known to us, they must be reconstructed solely from the critic's reading and interpretation of the text. I suggest that (i) Marshall's solution makes Dionysus' final utterance sound more ludicrous to the spectators, and that (ii) a proper interpretation of the 'frogs-chorus' scene (and the other two contests) also provides support for his solution.
At the end of this scene, Dionysus utters: emellon ara paudein toth' hymas tou koax(268). Stanford states in his commentary(1958, ad 267-68) that 'he triumphantly announces' this(cf. Dover's edition, 1993, ad 268). As Coulon notes(IV, 1928, 98, n. 3), this phrase in itself is in fact 'la formule ordinaire par laquelle celui qui a triomphe constate sa victoire realisee'; Dionysus' triumphant victory, however, exists only in his own mind and has not been achieved in reality. And the spectators must certainly have regarded his declaration of victory as one of self-complacency, and subsequently laughed at it. In Nub.1301 and Vesp.460 a similar formula is spoken by the hero in such a way as to make the spectators mock his self-complacent triumph. These scenes also involve the hero's opponents on stage and the action of the hero (or his attendant) to drive them away violently with a stick. A similar violent action could easily have been staged in the 'frogs-chorus' scene because Dionysus favorably holds an oar in his hand. Dionysus's swinging of the oar at invisible (only for him) opponents must have constituted a laughing scene and far more laughing would have occurred for the spectators if his opponents, the frogs, were on stage as the scenes mentioned above.
As C. P. Segal shows (HSCP65, 1961, 207-242), Dionysus' journey to Hades corresponds to the process of his self-discovery: he finally finds his true identity as the god of theater after having experienced the three contests in the play. I suggest that Dionysus' process of self-discovery on stage may have been regarded by the spectators also as corresponding to their own actual experiences as Athenian citizens in the real world. Dionysus in the play can be said to be a representative of Athenian citizens as well as the god of theater. If this hypothesis is correct, then the spectators may have identified with Dionysus and passed through the three successive contests of the Frogs with him. These contests were related to some of the qualifications necessary for an Athenian to prove that he was a capable citizen. First, Dionysus attempts to show that he can row if necessary; he, consequently, gets 'blisters'(236) which are taken by the Athenians as a token of contribution to the polis(cf. Vesp.Ill9). Second, he attempts to show that he not only has the intelligence to quote from tragedies, but also the physical endurance required of a citizen to get through an unexpected physical hardship. As a result, he is acknowledged as a citizen. Thirdly, he is appointed to be judge at the dramatic festival and to preside over the contest between Aeschylus and Euripides. Thus Dionysus' three trials reflected real life concerns of the Athenian citizens.
If Marshall's solution is correct, the total effect of the three contests would have been much stronger, since the 'frogs-chorus' scene would have given more meaning to the final contest. In the 'frogs-chorus' scene, the spectators may have nonchalantly laughed atDionysus, because he does not see the frogs, whom they can clearly see on stage. In the 'dramatic festival' scene within the play, however, the spectators witness the process in which the judge Dionysus, as a representative of the spectators, arrives at the decision of who wins the dramatic festival. Considering that attending at the annual dramatic festival as a judge is one of the most important civic duties, the spectators may not have laughed at Dionysus indifferently. With grave concern and warm sympathy, they may have laughed withDionysus. In order to underline this laughter, at once sobering and comical, in the 'dramatic festival' scene, it was necessary for Aristophanes to first create the simply farcical laughter of the 'frogs-chorus' scene, which would have been much more effective had the frogs been visible to the spectators.
It is well known that in his RepublicPlato says that a human soul has three parts and each of them has a unique 'desire'. However, it is one thing for each part of a human soul to have its own desire or pleasure, and another thing for a whole person to will something. The purpose of my paper is to clarify how and what a whole persons, especially an unjust person, is willing.
In section 1, I take up a sentence in Book 9, which says: 'It is also true that the ruling principle of people's souls is in some cases this part and in others one of the other two, as it may happen(581b12-c1).' In this sentence, 'this part' indicates the wisdom-loving part, and 'the other two' are therefore 'the victory-loving part' and 'the gain-loving part'. The problem is that the second half of this sentence can be interpreted in two ways: the first interpretation is that 'the ruling part of some people is the victory-loving part and that of others is the gain-loving part; the second one is that the ruling part of some people is in some times the victory-loving part and in other occasions the gain-loving part. Which interpretation is more reasonableH
In section 2, I analyze the process of how an oligarchic person degenerates, via a democrat, into a tyrannic person. In my view, this process, as the process of degeneration of states is necessary, is also a necessary one in a sense that an oligarchic person has latently the inclination to be a tyrannic person. This analysis indicates that the first interpretation is right.
In section 3, however, I argue that the second interpretation is also true by pointing out the feature of a tyrannic person's soul. His soul, according to Plato, is a battlefield of the victory-loving part and the gain-loving part. This means that the ruling part of a tyrannic person's soul is at some time the victory-loving part and at another time the gain-loving part. These arguments show that while human soul has three parts, two of them confront each other, when confronted, and either of the two defeats the other, then finally rules the whole person.
In this way, a whole person, who has [the]tripartite soul, come to will one thing. In section 4, I confirm this feature especially in unjust persons, and try to find out how one can resist the desire of the two parts --the victory-loving and the gain-loving-- of one's soul. It is the wisdom-loving part (to logistikon) that can resist desires of the other two parts, and this resistance is relevant and required to be a just person.
Personifications of countries and cities (C-C personifications) in the figure of a draped woman wearing a crown called a polos on her head and carrying a cornucopia or sheaf of grain in her hand were popular in Hellenistic and Roman art and later in western art. Emperors or sovereigns often used them in art to imply and proclaim the vastness and fertility of their territories. Although it has usually been thought that the origin of these personifications could be traced back to the art of the Classical period, there have been few special studies as to under what circumstances and in what way they were being created and used in Classical Greek art. The aim of this paper is to investigate this question through Attic vase paintings and Attic document reliefs, and to suggest that these personifications would have appeared in connection with Athenian political affairs, thus assuming some nuance of political allegory; and that the archetype of the Hellenistic C-C personifications would have been shaped in Classical Athenian art.
Relying on the thorough and useful catalogue of Smith's dissertation(1997), I draw up a list of 17 vases on which there is a possibility that C-C personifications are represented, and examine in particular three vases on which the representations of C-C personifications are positively confirmed by their inscriptions: Eleusis (on the skyphos by Makron and on the stamnos attributed to the Syleus Painter) and Epidauros (on the plate by the Meidias Painter). Eleusis, depicted in the scene of the departure of Triptolemos in the presence of the Eleusinian deities and others, seems to emphasize and advertise the importance of the place where the Mysteries were held and which was one of the demes of Athens It may be possible to consider that these two representations of Eleusis could be connected with Athenian religious and diplomatic politics, at a time when the city-state of Athens was striving to have this sanctuary achieve Panhellenic status. On the other hand, the representation of Epidauros could be connected with the cult of Asclepios, which was introduced to Athens frum Epidauros in 420 BC, just at the time this plate was made.
Attic document reliefs constitute within Greek art a unique genre directly connected with Classical Athenian politics, and therefore we can observe the appearance of many political personifications on the reliefs, but C-C personifications are relatively rare. On the basis of Meyer's(1989 ) and Lawton's(1995) two detailed catalogues, I was with difficulty able to draw up a list of about 11, of which half are too badly broken for identification. Even in the case of reliefs that are not so badly broken, there exist many different interpretations about one and the same figure. A decisive element in the identification of a figure as a personification is the presence of an inscription, but only two examples with inscriptions. Although the hierarchy of figures gives us one clue --personifications are always larger than mortals and almost always slightly smaller than deities--, sometimes a personification may appear on the same scale as a deity. On one relief in Athens(NM1467) the figure occupying the central position is the object of a dispute as to whether she is Hera or the personification of Korkyra. As Lawton and Smith showed, C-C personifications have an "ad hoc" nature, invented to fit some new event or particular needs. Because of their lack of their own iconographic tradition they tend to borrow from the iconographic type of deities, nymphs or others that already had a long iconographic tradition. It is significant that they typically often resemble such old traditional fertility deities as Demeter and Hera.
Objects from a wreck at Antikythera were discovered and recovered in 1900-01 and further in 1976. The shipwreck can be dated to 70-65 B.C. The fabrication of the Antikythera Youth(Athens, Nationai Archaeological Museum, inv. X13396) is dated to 340-330 B.C. The bronze has been interpreted variously: Victor of a ball game, Perseus showing gorgoneion, Alexandros-Paris showing an apple, or Herakles taking goJden apple(s) from a tree in the Hesperides Garden. But difficulties remain for each identification: the Youth is not represented with any characteristic attribute (such as headgear, weapon, shoes). The proposed interpretations fail to explain why the Youth does not look at the object he has in his right hand, nor why he draws back his right free leg, nor the precise motivation of the form of his both hands. It is here argued, for the first time, that the Youth is Iason taking the Golden Fleece hung upon a tree. The most important comparisons are an Apulian red-figured krater of ca. 360 B.C. and a Paestan red-figured krater of ca. 320-310 B.C. It is presumed that originally the Youth constituted a sculptural group with two other bronzes.
Reconstruction: in the centre stands a tree coiled with the serpent Ladon, and on a tree branch extending toward the (our) right hangs the Golden Fleece, probably gilt. On the right side of the tree, diagonally a little in front of it, stands lason with a sword or spear in his left hand, pulling the Golden Fleece with his right, and looking at Medeia, who stands on the left side of the tree offering, with her left hand, a phiale filled with magic sleeping potion toward the stretched head of the serpent. The eyes of Iason and Medeia directed toward each other constitute the base of the isosceles triangle, the vertex of which is the tree, and close the sculptural space. A female left hand from the Antikythera wreck(inv. X15095), wearing a ring on the ring finger, has a hole on the palm, where a phiale or other object was probably fixed with a stud. If projected scientific analyses of the bronze alloy and the core material coincide with those of the Youth/ Iason, the hand may have belonged to his Medeia.
Thus interpreting the Youth, we can appreciate Praxitelean principles in the group: the tree used as an indispensable element(Apollon Sattroktonos), the filling of the space by the direction of eyes(Satyros pouring wine), and the movement to draw garments with a hand(a version of Knidia). On the other hand, other elements are ascribed to Lysippos, such as the relatively small head, muscular expressions, and the motif of shifting the weight from one leg on the other(Apoxyomenos).
In 1903 E. Ritterling put forward a new theory: the emperor Gallienus created four independent cavalry corps, all under the control of one commander Aureolus. This theory was developed by A.Alfoeldi who used coins as a historical source to argue that these four independent cavalry corps were converted into the central cavalry corps stationed at Milan. Alfoeldi's argument was generally accepted. However, H. G. Simon recently rebutted it and denied the existence of such corps on the grounds that the main Greek sources concerning GallienusÕ reform of cavalry are unreliable.
In this paper, I examine Gallienus' supposed reform of cavarlry to clarify the military system of the Roman Empire in the mid-third century. First, I attempt to reconstruct the career of Aureolus who is key to understanding cavalry reform. According to the Greek sources, Aureolus was commander of the central cavalry corps at the time of his rebellion against Gallienus. But there are many inconsistencies in the Greek sources and further the Latin historian Aurelius Victor said that Aureolus was commanding the army in Raetia when he revolted. In SimonÕs view, the Latin source is more reliable and he reinterprets the Greek sources to reconcile them with the Latin source. Since his interpretation seems unconvincing, I here propose another solution to this problem. I argue that Aureolus was the commander of the central cavalry corps at the time of GallienusÕ war against Postumus in 265, not in 268 and that after concluding the war Aureolus remained in Raetia to defend the invasion of Postumus into Italy.
I observe that there is no evidence for the existence of the central cavalry corps except the title of Aureolus. Rather it is recognized that independent cavalry corps, such as the Dalmatian cavalry corps, played a prominent part in many battles. Moreover there were some independent cavalry corps not included into the central cavalry corps, though it is commonly said that they are all created to form it. Form these observations, I suggest that Gallienus originally intended to create the independent cavalry corps and the central cavalry corps was temporarily formed from the independent cavalry corps which happened to be under the direct command of the emperor.
To understand the real significance of the independent cavalry corps, it is necessary to consider to the phenomenon that prior to the cavalry reform, Roman legion, which mainly consisted of infantry, divided into the vexillatio for independent use. By creating a new cavalry unit corresponding with vexillatio, Gallienus probably intended to form mobile field forces, containing both cavalry and infantry. I can find it not only under the direct command of the emperor but also deployed by other military commanders elsewhere. It seems probable that such military condition in the midĐthird century shaped DiocletianÕs later policy to divide the Roman Empire into four parts.