ギリシア的なるものと非ギリシア的なるもの : 『キュクロプス』『オレステス』『バッコスの信女』をめぐる一考察

<p>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</p><p>(View PDF for the rest of the abstract.)</p>