Presentación de Resultados

0 - Introduction

In chapter 2, we have seen that Hesiod and Homer were strongly bound together in the Greek imagination where ethics, morality and education are concerned. The two poets, whose authority in this field amounted to laws, were often presented together. As a team, they were believed to have invented Greek religion and to have established the moral code according to which one should interact with other people and the gods. As a unity, they were severely attacked by Plato and others for promoting ethically questionable behaviour that could disrupt society, while countless teachers defended the canonical status of Hesiod and Homer through an extremely elaborate apparatus of exegetical strategies that was developed and passed on through the centuries. Eventually, the poets were aligned with other true ‘educators of Greece’, such as Plato, Pythagoras, and the Seven Sages.

The present chapter will shift from the poets’ authority in the field of ethics to a different area of competence: that of natural philosophy, science, and (factual) knowledge. In the first section, we will examine if and to what extent Hesiod and Homer together are associated with particular scientific and natural-philosophical notions. Contrary to what one may expect, we will find that the unity of the poets is extremely weak in this respect. Despite the fact that both Hesiod and Homer are often connected with particular philosophical theories and views when they appear apart from each other,1 they hardly even count as philosophers when they are combined. This is a curious fact in need of explanation.

On the other hand, the poems of Hesiod and Homer were often searched for purely factual information, especially in the fields of history, geography, anthropology and (human and animal) physiology; section 2 will concentrate on the poets’ role as storekeepers of knowledge. It is not the main concern of this section to examine what sort of information the epic poems were thought to contain (this subject is briefly discussed in 2.1), but rather how this information was evaluated. Some critics believed that all poets wrote fiction and were more concerned with enchanting the audience than with providing factual information; as

1

See on Hesiod’s philosophical qualities ch. 6, and on their incompatibility with the qualities ascribed to Homer ch. 9, pp. 263-268.

could be expected, Homer was their example par excellence. But others disagreed, and it is especially interesting for us that Hesiod played an important part in their argumentation. We will see in this chapter that our sources suggest that the combination of Hesiod and Homer could somehow be regarded as a class of its own, a special category of just two poets that could (to some degree) escape the accusations of fiction and fantasy. We will gain insight into the workings of this mechanism if we investigate how this ‘special category’ was given shape by the sophists (2.1), and how it related to other categories, such as that of the tragic poets (2.2) and the historians (2.3). These sections will make clear that the combination of Hesiod and Homer has a different conceptual value than that of the poets treated separately, since it is used in a decidedly different way.

1 - Hesiod and Homer as Philosophers

When speaking of the Greek view of Hesiod and Homer as philosophers, it is fundamental to distinguish between two types of references: 1) general references to their philosophical insights and wisdom, and 2) specific references to their propagation of particular doctrines. The first type is common, and understandably so: the philosophical status of both Hesiod and Homer was acknowledged throughout all periods of antiquity. There is ample evidence, for instance, that the earliest recipients of epic, the natural philosophers from Milete, regarded the poets as their own predecessors; they borrowed freely from and reacted seriously against the physiological views either explicit or implicit in the poems of Hesiod and Homer.2 A similar debt can be seen in the works of Parmenides and Empedocles.3 It was common procedure to select what one needed from the poetic tradition as a whole, and thus use Hesiodic material for some purposes, and Homeric for others. This approach continues in the classical and later periods. In the fragments that remain from the sophists, and in the works of Plato and Aristotle, we often see references made to either Hesiod or Homer: they are hailed as the ‘first founder’ of a particular theory, and quotations from their work are employed to illustrate a certain notion, be it in the field of epistemology, natural philosophy or linguistics.4

2

See e.g. Cornford (1952) 187-201, Stokes (1962 and 1963), and Ferrari (1984) 202 dismissing the statement of Havelock (1983) 80 that ‘philosophy proper arose as a commentary upon and correction of the cosmic imagery of Homer and the cosmic architecture of Hesiod’ as ‘disappointingly uncontroversial’; see further ch. 6, pp. 164- 172. It was especially the cosmogonical and cosmological passages in the poems the Milesians were interested in, but other passages of a more physiological nature must have appealed to them as well (we can think, for instance, of Hesiod’s ‘physical’ explanation of mist, clouds and rain in WD 548-553).

3

For Hesiodic influence on the works of Parmenides and Empedocles see ch. 6, pp. 181-188. For Homeric influence on Parmenides cf. e.g. Vos (1963) and Meijer (1984).

4

This eclectic use of the poets allows for them to be occasionally mentioned together as philosophers.5 This observation fits well with one of the conclusions of the previous chapter, i.e. that the two poets were often aligned with the best-known philosophers and sages and thus achieved a certain philosophical quality.

The second type of reference, however, is extremely rare. None of the early philosophers refers to Hesiod and Homer together, and nowhere do we find the two poets together as either the creative source or even the illustrative material for a specific philosophical doctrine. This observation is confirmed by Stoic references to Hesiod and Homer: their poems are the Stoics’ favorite texts for philosophical exegesis, but they do not provide the same philosophical insights.6 And a similar picture emerges from the scholia: Hesiod and Homer appear as the most ‘philosophical’ of poets,7 but the specific tenets ascribed to them are not the same. Generally speaking, then, the poets are both regarded as philosophers, and hence comparable, but they are not seen as a combination where the particular content of their respective philosophies is concerned.

Exceptions to this general rule are hard to find. The only explicit example I could find for the classical period is a passage from Plato’s Cratylus, where Socrates ascribes the Heraclitean notion of flux to both poets. After a brief summary of Heraclitus’ beliefs,8 Socrates conjectures that such thinking is more ancient since ‘Homer speaks of ‘Ocean, origin of the gods, and their mother Tethys’, and I think Hesiod does so too…’.9 The connection of the poets to a specific doctrine seems fairly straightforward here: the literary depiction of a river as the origin of all things is put on a par with the theory of flux. But even in this one

5

Thus Hesiod and Homer are for instance said to ‘philosophize’ by Clemens (Strom. 5.4.24.1). According to Maximus of Tyre (Or. 4.3), the human soul was less complicated in archaic times, and Hesiod and Homer provided ‘gentle and artistic kind of philosophy which would guide it and control it by the use of myths’ (filosofiva~ mousikh`~ tino~ kai; pra/otevra~, h} dia; muvqwn dhmagwghvsei aujth;n kai; metaceiriei`tai, cf. Or. 26.2). See also Arist. Metaph. 982b7-983b20 (on which see Schmitter 1991 58) and the epilogue of Cornutus’ Epidrome (saying that ‘the ancients’ (oiJ palaioiv), by which he primarily means Hesiod and Homer, were ‘both able to understand the nature of the universe and inclined to philosophize about it through symbols and riddles’ (kai; pro;~ to; dia; sumbovlwn kai; aijnigmavtwn filosofh`sai peri;; aujth`~ eujepivforoi, Epidr. 35 p. 76 Lang).

6

It is striking that the Stoics themselves do not refer to the combination of Hesiod and Homer, but of course do refer to the poets very often separately. Only in the mouths of others (cf. Plu. Mor. 948E-F = SVF 2.430), especially their opponents (cf. Galen Hipp. 3.2 260 Müller = SVF 2.906, Cic. N.D. 1.41, Phld. Piet. 13 = SVF 1.539), do we hear that the Stoics make use of the poems of ‘Hesiod and Homer’.

7

In the scholia, Hesiod and Homer are explicitly called philosophers or said to philosophize far more often than other poets; compare the number of instances for Hesiod (4 times) and Homer (9), for instance, with those for Pindar (1), Aeschylus (0), Sophocles (2; in one of those, SEl. 86, the philosophical thought is said to go back to Hesiod) and Euripides (1; although his characters are called philosophical three times).

8

Pl. Cra. 402a: ‘Heraclitus says somewhere that ‘everything gives way and nothing stands fast’, and, likening the things that are to the flowing of a river, he says that ‘you cannot step into the same river twice’’ (Levgei pou JHravkleito~ o{ti ‘pavnta cwrei` kai; oujde;n mevnei’, kai; potamou` rJoh/` ajpeikavzwn ta; o[nta levgei wJ~ ‘di;~ ej~ to;n aujto;n potamo;n oujk a]n ejmbaivh~’).

9

Pl. Cra. 402a-c: {Omhro~ ‘ jWkeanovn te qew`n gevnesivn’ fhsin ‘kai; mhtevra Thquvn’: oi\mai de; kai; JHsivodo~... (transl. slightly altered).

explicit case the combination is rather weak as Hesiod is added with a certain hesitation

(oi\mai) - and rightly so -10 and the theory of flux is elsewhere in Plato only associated with

Homer.11 Besides this passage from Cratylus, other philosophical equations of Hesiod and Homer qua content are much later and not very strong either.12

We must conclude, then, that Hesiod and Homer were generally regarded as philosophers, but that their combination was not attached to any particular doctrine. This is a remarkable conclusion since it clearly contrasts with the findings of the previous chapter, where we have seen that the two poets were both regarded as moral authorities and were often credited with the same ethical notions, be it either approvingly (the ‘wise sayings’ and ‘famous deeds worthy of imitation’) or disapprovingly (the objectionable picture of the gods and the underworld).

Part of the explanation for this discrepancy lies in the fact that Hesiod and Homer have always played a central part in Greek education, and thus had to be seen as comparable in this respect. Their combination in the field of ethics both carried the weight of tradition and was proven of educational value each day. Philosophy, however, was a later and more intellectual endeavour, which makes it a priori more suitable for differentiation.13 As we will see in chapters 6 and 9, Hesiod and Homer were in fact, from the classical period onwards, credited with very distinct and often completely opposite notions on especially epistemology and ontology. With such a contradictory view on the poets rather firmly in place, it was unlikely for the Greeks to present them as a philosophical combination, except in a most general way. Such a combination, on the other hand, was possible in cases where Hesiod and Homer were regarded as age-old authorities recording and handing down factual knowledge. This is a matter to which we will now turn.

2 - Old Knowers: an Exclusive Category

The poems of Homer, for a Greek, contained more than moral advice and stories of gods and heroes; as Havelock pointed out, the Iliad and Odyssey constituted a kind of ‘encyclopaedia’

10

The cited verse on Ocean occurs twice in Homer (Il. 14.201 and 302) but nowhere in Hesiod. Perhaps Plato means that Hesiod says something comparable (‘I think Hesiod says much the same’, in Reeve’s unaltered translation); maybe he is thinking of Th. 337 (‘Tethys bore to Ocean eddying rivers’, the introductory sentence to the catalogue of rivers), as Patzer (1986) 52 suggests. There can be little doubt that Plato mentions Hesiod in the first place because he derives his material from Hippias’ Synagoge (see pp. 95-98).

11

Cf. Tht. 153a, 153d, 160d, 179e (and see further ch. 9.1, pp. 263-268).

12

See Plu. Mor. 1088D (the reference to Hesiod is obvious here, see e.g. Adam (1974) and Einarson-De Lacy (1967) ad loc. contra Zacher 1982 103) and fragm. 178; S.E. Adv. Phys. 1.7.

13

Such differentiation is perhaps sharpened by the Greeks’ conscious search for the prw`to~ euJrethv~ (‘first founder’) of particular views or inventions, which allows only one ‘discoverer’ at a time.

filled with all sorts of factual knowledge relevant to the audience, be it historical, technical, or geographical.14 The breadth of such knowledge attributed to the poet seems to have been virtually endless, from instruction on the proper way to conduct a sacrifice to the rules of successful seamanship - anyone listening to the adventures of Odysseus would in the meantime learn how to build a raft or address a stranger. And although Havelock stressed the importance of epic’s encyclopaedic function in an essentially oral society, Homer’s immense scope of learning seems to have remained a commonplace throughout antiquity, as the famous libellum De Vita et Poesi Homeri II demonstrates.15

Scholars have been remarkably less eager to point to the comparable position held by Hesiod, who seems to have been a similarly encyclopaedic figure to the Greeks: he was considered an expert in such fields as the (early) history of Greece, geography, astronomy, ethnology, animals and monsters, and specific crafts like household economy and of course agriculture.16 It need not surprise us, therefore, that the poets are often mentioned together as the authorities on numerous matters. Herodotus, for instance, names both Hesiod and Homer as sources for one of the world’s most obscure peoples, the Hyperboreans,17 and Stesichorus is said to have written two poems to correct stories told by Hesiod and Homer.18 Apart from such early cases there are many other references to the two poets as knowers: according to Ephorus, Hesiod and Homer agreed on the justice of the Scythian people, and Strabo too mentions the two poets as authorities familiar with Scythians, Arabians and Pelasgians, as well as with certain geographical data.19 Plutarch says that Hesiod and Homer showed us the right way of praying, and rightly distinguish between sorts of seers, and Lucian (ironically)

14

See Havelock 1963, who pays much attention to religious and ethical instruction as well. Although he focuses on Homer, Havelock grants this encyclopaedic function to Hesiod as well (61-64, and further 97-114).

15

Cf. Max.Tyr. Or. 26.1 and 4 presenting a long list of Homer’s areas of expertise; cf. Seneca Ep. 88.5 mocking all philosophical schools for their appropriation of Homer.

16

Examples of the expertise attributed to Hesiod: early history and genealogy Hecat. fr. 19, Str. 7.72, S Il. 2.523a (b), 2.604 (test.), 12.292-3 (T), Od. 10.2, 10.139, 12.69, J. Ap. 11.6 and Ant. 1.108, Theon 2.93, Paus. 2.6.5, Men.Rhet. 3.338 Spengel; geography Str. 8.3.11, 8.6.8, 9.5.22, 14.5.17, S Il. 2.523a (b), Od. 1.85; astronomy [Pl.] Epin. 990a, Plin. Nat. 18.213, Plu. Mor. 402E; ethnology Str. 7.7.2; animals and monsters Arist.

HA 591a4, Nic. Ther. 10-12, Str. 9.1.9, SIl. 6.181b (bT), 8.367-8 (AbT), Plu. Mor. 978F; the household Pl. Lg.

677e, Arist. Oec. 1343a18-21, SIl. 1.250b (AbT), Plu. Mor. 157F, 753A, 940C; agriculture Varro RR 1.1.9, Virgil Georg. 2.176, Prop. 2.34.77-78, Ovid Fasti 6.13-14, Plin. NH 14.3, 15.3, 18.201 and 25.12. Heraclitus called Hesiod a much-knower (DK B 40). The scholia on Th. and WD abound with references to Hesiod’s factual knowledge.

17

Hdt. Hist. 4.32. It is clear that Herodotus, who after this passage tells us what he knows of this half-mythical people, was at first hesitant to accept their existence; a reasonable doubt, considering that their close neighbours the Scythians, who speak even of one-eyed men, do not mention them at all. It is the authority of Hesiod and Homer that encourages him to carry on his investigation.

18

Stesichorus fr. 193 PMG. One poem of Stesichorus was directed against Homer and argued that his account of the abduction of Helen was false; the other poem was directed against Hesiod, but it is unknown what story he found fault with.

19

calls them both astronomers.20 The scholia provide us with ample evidence on the coupling of Hesiod and Homer in the field of knowledge: for instance, they agree on the name of Achilles’ daughter, the place where Oedipus died, the origin of man, the existence of a race of heroes, the name of the town Hyria, the hiding-place of Typhoeus, the wind-appeasing capabilities of the Sirens, and the right way to grind grain.21

Obviously, Hesiod and Homer were not the only poets credited with factual knowledge of many different subjects; to a certain extent the Greeks considered their poets and prose- writers in general as storekeepers of knowledge. Nonetheless, there are several indications that Hesiod and Homer in this respect belonged to a category of their own. Their special status finds expression in at least two ways: 1) they were often taken together in a way that excluded all other Greek authors, and 2) more credence was attached to their words than to those of others, especially when those others were poets. I will now illustrate these two ways by examining how the Greeks distinguished Hesiod and Homer from other groups of alleged knowers, i.e. the tragedians (2.2) and the historians (2.3). Whereas Homer was often regarded as a tragic poet, we will see that such a qualification was impossible for Hesiod; as a result, their combination set them apart from the tragic poets, who are generally described as later but less truthful and less accurate. The veracity and reliability of the poets are also at stake in the ancient debate concerning the relationship of Hesiod and Homer with the historians; I hope to show that in this debate, it is especially the combination of the two that plays a vital role.

First, however, by way of introduction, I will briefly discuss the sophists’ categorization of Hesiod and Homer (2.1). Some of them attempted to appropriate the poets’ authority by turning them into proto-sophists, and in so doing, they were the first to explicitly group them together as a separate category.

2.1 - Making Groups: the Sophists

Scholars have often pointed out that the sophists’ approach to Hesiod and Homer was widely different from that of the (early) philosophers. Whereas the latter tended to find fault with the poets because they regarded them as competition, the sophists deliberately appropriated ‘the cultural tradition of which mythological poetry was so important a part’,22 and tried to assimilate the poets as proto-sophists. In an excellent study of the sophists’ treatment of

20

Plu. Mor. 169B, 593D; Lucian Astr. 22. Cf. Aristid. Or. 27.18 coupling the poets as experts in ancient lore.

21_S

Il. 16.175a (T), 23.679 (T), Od. 24.13, WD 159a, Il. 2.496 (A), Th. 304, Od. 12.168, 7.104.

22

Hesiod and Homer, Morgan demonstrated the many advantages that such an approach could have. Apart from the fact that the sophists could manipulate myth and harness the authority of the poets, there were considerable practical benefits. The sophists were itinerant teachers, and the epic poems fulfilled their need for a Hellenic lingua franca. At the same time, the very