『オイディプース王』716(εν), 730(προ〓)に関する一考察
スポンサーリンク
概要
- 論文の詳細を見る
この論文は国立情報学研究所の学術雑誌公開支援事業により電子化されました。N. Fujisawa("Did Oedipus Try to Escape from the Truth?-with Reference to OT 730 : προς τριπλαις αμαξιτοις ?", Journal of Classical Studies 41, 1993), assumes that "ευ" with dative is replaceable with "προς" with dative and contends that Oidipus restates Iokaste's words "ευ τριπλαις αμαξιτοις" (716) as "προς τριπλαις αμαξιτοις"(730) with the intention of identifying definitely the place of Laios' murder. However, a close examination not only of the passages cited by Fujisawa but of others reveals that "ευ" with dative cannot be replaced with "προς" with dative, and vice versa. Take e. g. Trachiniai, 371f. : προς μεση Τραχινίων αγορα, and 423f. : ευ μεση Τραχινίων αγορα. Now 423f. Are part of an answer to the question("ποίοις ευ ανθρωποις : ", 421) asked from the viewpoint of Lichas who, surrounded by the inquisitive townspeople(194f.), was "in(ευ)" the middle of the gathering. "ευ" at 423 is a verbatim repetition of that at 421 and cannot be replaced with "προς". 371f., on the other hand, are the words said from the viewpoint(cf. "ωσαύτως εμοί") of the messenger who stood "hard by(προς)" a circle of the townspeople surrounding Lichas and was thus able to get away quickly(R.C.Jebb). When Oidipus uses "the vaguer προς" (R.D.Dawe) instead of "ευ", he distances himself from the reality which he apprehends. A similar antithesis of "in" and "near" can be observed also in Oidipus' words at 798(τους χωρους ενοις) and at 801 (κελεύθου τησδ' … πελας). On the other hand, K. Tange("Review of M.Oka, Oidipus and the Truth, in : Greek Tragedy and Latin Literature, Tokyo, 1995", Classical Studies 15, 1998) claims that Oidipus mentions truthfully the place of the murder when he says "near(προς)" a crossroads. Oidipus, however, while lamenting his fate, names as witnesses to the murder the three ways, the hidden glades, the coppice and the narrow path "ευ τριπλαις οδοις", all of which drank his father's blood (1398ff.). Here the three ways are restated as the narrow path "ευ τριπλαις οδοις", echoing "ευ τριπλαις αμαξιτοις"(716). As it is, Oidipus killed his father "in(ευ)" a crossroads, not "near(προς)" a crossroads(730). Tange believes that, while a collision must occur in a narrow path "near" a crossroads, it cannot occur "in" a crossroads because either of the parties can withdraw into one of the three ways. But when neither of them is willing to withdraw as in the case of Oidipus and Laios, a collision necessarily occurs even "in" a crossroads. The scene of the father's murder is the narrow path "ευ τριπλαις οδοις" where not only the three ways but also the fates of father and son must meet.
- 京都大学の論文
- 1999-08-31