No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 11 February 2009
The fact that the Odyssey and the Theogony share a number of verses in common seemed to most scholars of the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries reason enough to assume that one work has influenced the other. Now that more is known about the techniques of oral poetry, which have clearly influenced the composition of both works, a greater caution is rightly shown in arguing for the priority of the one or the other on the basis of individual verses or phrases, since these may in fact be formulaic and thus common property which could have been used by any poet working in that tradition. In one case, however, Odyssey 8. 166–77 and Theogony 79–93, what is common is not a single verse but two and a half lines, so that the possibility of chance occurrence of the same formulas is virtually ruled out. Quite rightly therefore few critics have doubted that here either Homer has directly influenced Hesiod or vice versa. For this reason a good deal of the argumentation for the priority of the Odyssey or of the Theogony has concentrated on an examination of Od. 8. 166–77 and Th. 79–93. However, as is usual in such cases, most of the arguments which have been adduced in favour of the priority of the one or of the other are reversible because they are based on subjective grounds such as alleged incompetent adaptation of the earlier work, which is tacitly assumed to be superior. Since these arguments have recently been discussed in detail by Heinz Neitzel in a useful survey, it will not be necessary to review them here.
1 For an earlier attempt to determine priority by an examination of the common verses and phrases v. Sellschopp, I., Stilistische Untersuchungen zu Hesiod. Diss. Hamburg (Hamburg, 1934), esp. pp. 42–65Google Scholar. For a recent discussion of this method v. Edwards, G. P., ‘The Language of Hesiod in its Traditional Context’, Publications of the Philological Society 22 (Oxford, 1971), esp. pp. 166–89Google Scholar.
2 An exception is Walcot, P., ‘Hesiod and the Law’, SO 38 (1963), 5–21, esp. pp. 11–12Google Scholar, who thinks that agreement between the two passages need not mean dependence of one upon the other, but can be explained entirely by the use in oral composition of the same formulas. He does not, however, take into account that the common elements here are (1) mostly non-formulaic and (2) too extensive to be mere chance. Another exception is West, M. L., Hesiod: Theogony (Oxford, 1966), p. 183 (on vv. 84 ff.)Google Scholar, who does ‘not think it safe to assume a direct relationship of dependence’ and suggests that ‘the Odyssey passage is an adaptation, if not of the Theogony passage, at any rate of a similar passage in a similar context’. However, even if we should assume the existence of a similar passage in what, since accidental similarity is virtually ruled out, would be a lost intermediary, for which there is in fact no evidence, this would not affect the question of the relative order in which the two extant works were composed.
3 ‘Zum zeitlichen Verhältnis von Theogonie (80–93) und Odyssee (8, 166–177)’, Philologus 121 (1977), 24–44, esp. pp. 24–40Google Scholar.
4 ‘The “Gift” of Speech in Homer and Hesiod’, TAPhA 85 (1954), 1–15, esp. pp. 9–10Google Scholar.
5 After surveying the subjective arguments Neitzel, op. cit., pp. 41–4, offers several observations (including Solmsen's) which he considers point to the priority of the Odyssey.
6 The Odyssey is cited from the text of T. W. Allen2 (Oxford, 1917) rather than, e.g. from that of P. Von der Mühll4 (Basel, 1971), whose unsatisfactory punctuation in 171 was inspired by a belief in the priority of the Theogony, on which v. Neitzel, op. cit., p. 31. In 167, which Von der Müll rightly considered corrupt, we should read αὒτως for οὕτως; v. Pfeiffer, R., History of Classical Scholarship [i] (Oxford, 1968), p. 175 n. 1Google Scholar. The Theogony is cited from West's edition.
7 Some, e.g. Peppmüller, R., Hesiodos: Ins Deutsche übertragen (Halle, 1896), p. 17 n. 2Google Scholar, have wished to delete Th. 88–90, but for a defence v. Solmsen, op. cit., p. 4 n. 13.
8 In the case of the Homeric Hymn to Aphrodite, which is doubtless later than the Iliad and the Odyssey, we can see how the poet of the hymn has taken the description of Aphrodite's arrival in Cyprus which he found at Od. 8. 362–6 and expanded it for his own description of a similar scene at h. Ven. 58–65. Lines 58–9, 61–2, and 64 are taken over in whole or part (with suitable adaptation) from Od. 8. 362–6, while 60 and 63 are identical with Il. 14. 169 and 172 respectively and 65 after the penthemimeeres uses the formula which fills the second half of Od. 8. 362. Here the poet of the hymn has clearly taken the compact unit which he found in the Odyssey and added other verses to produce his own fuller description. This is obviously the normal way of making use of existing material, whereas it is most unlikely that the unit found in Od. 8. 362–6 would have been constructed out of the scattered elements of h. Ven. 58–65.