Conclusions

This section summarizes the main findings of this study from which Hesiod emerges as a thinker who reflects seriously, in poetic form, on the authority of human speculation about the cosmos, the divine, and the human condition, as well as on the means—that is, language and the ways it represents reality—that make his didactic message possible.

Hesiod in Plato’s Cratylus

This chapter explores Plato’s interaction with Hesiod the language expert in his Cratylus. On a basic level, Plato often invokes Hesiod by quoting from his works in order to lend support to a certain thesis that one of the interlocutors proposes. More importantly, there is a different mode of interaction as well, i.e. the intellectual affinity that may exist between the two authors in matters pertaining to language. From the ensuing discussion, it emerges that both authors show that names and their etymology have some value insofar as they enable us to search for the truth. But knowing a name and its etymology does not enable us to grasp the meaning of the denotatum tout court.

Begriffsspaltung I

This chapter examines Eris (‘Strife’) and Zelos (‘emulation/jealousy’), two ‘split’ abstract concepts presented programmatically at the opening of the Works and Days. It argues that what appears in the beginning as a clear-cut opposition between a good and a bad Ἔρις‎ turns out to be not so well-defined after all. The two members of the antithesis begin to resemble each other, and indeed form a unity, just like Heraclitus’ bow in fr. 48, when allowance is made for differing perspectives. What is more, the name Ἔρις‎ does not suffice in order for the audience to grasp the nature of this goddess, but its further qualification is necessary, in this case through the adjectives ἀγαθή‎ (‘good’) and σχετλίη‎ (‘evil’). This point, the idea that names (and words in general) are not fully capable of conveying the nature of the entity or thing they designate, brings Hesiod’s Erga closer to Heraclitus.

Hesiod and Early Mythography

This chapter explores the ways in which early mythography resonates with Hesiodic. In doing this, it goes beyond the question of whether certain narratives in Hesiod’s poetry (esp. the myth of the five human races) can be viewed as proto-historical accounts, a question posed by earlier scholarship. Rather, the focus lies on the discursive strategies shared by Hesiod and some of the fragmentary early mythographers. These strategies indicate a similarity in approach between Hesiod and the mythographers that can be attributed to the similar (or indeed sometimes identical) material with which they work. It is argued that Hesiod can be considered an exponent of historie who is epistemologically conscious and that he is a thinker who for the first time, as far as we know, raises questions and engages with material in a way that resonates with the intellectual developments brought about by Hecataeus and his peers.

Begriffsspaltung III

The present chapter discusses another important abstract concept, viz. dike. This time we are not confronted with an abstraction that can have both a positive and a negative aspect, expressed through adjectival attributes. In the case of dike, there is no ontological split as in Eris, either. Instead, in presenting dike Hesiod uses the same means of expression as earlier (adjectival attribution) in order to portray the opposition between genuine and false justice. But Hesiod goes further and illustrates the variety of (sometimes contradictory) meanings which dike can have. It turns out to be so multivalent and (sometimes) deceitfully used that it requires a special kind of definition. Coming to grips with the confusion that the (mis-)application of dike can cause is essential for Hesiod’s project since this concept is of paramount importance for the world of mortals as established by Zeus.

Hesiod in the Homeric Scholia, or

This chapter explores an aspect of Hesiod’s reputation as linguistic expert in antiquity that has not been studied adequately thus far, viz. the references to Hesiod’s poetry found in the Homeric scholia. The Homeric scholiasts’ treatment of Hesiod resonates with the agonistic relation between the two poets that developed in the biographical traditions. The chapter is articulated in three parts: first, it examines the scholia that treat Hesiod as a source of linguistic parallels and Realien. Thereafter attention is focused on the scholia which draw inferences regarding the two poets’ relative chronology. Finally, the chapter deals with scholia claiming that Hesiod, as the more recent of the two poets, was familiar with Homer’s work which he had read but misunderstood. The misinterpretation of the poet’s verses often led him to invent (πλάσσειν‎, ἀναπλάσσειν‎, διαπλάσσειν‎) some of the stories we find in his poems, especially in the Theogony. In this way, several sections of the Theogony appear in the eyes of some Homeric critics as the result of Hesiod’s mistaken interpretation of specific Homeric passages. Moreover, when the Homeric scholiasts criticize Hesiod in this way, they often designate Hesiod’s ‘errors’ through technical terms, elsewhere found in the scholia when critics expressly argue against the views of other philologists, as parallels both from the Homeric scholia and other scholiastic corpora show. In this way the activity of the critic is projected on the archaic poet, and Hesiod is conceived of as a literary critic. In other words, the poet is simultaneously also a κριτικός‎.

Begriffsspaltung II

This chapter explores two further ‘split’ abstract concepts presented in the Works and Days, Aidos (‘Shame/Awe’) and Nemesis (‘Righteous Indignation’). It is shown that not only are there contradictory meanings inherent in these terms, but these contradictions become apparent only once we consider the context. For Hesiod, the good and the bad Aidos are not clearly opposed and distinct from one another, but can have positive or negative effects depending on the existing conditions. Reality and its linguistic expression are not static, but fluid and dynamic, and must be subjected to interpretation.

Introduction

This introduction places the study within recent approaches in scholarship on Hesiod, discusses relevant theoretical points on etymology, and gives an outline of the chapters that follow. It distances itself from both autobiographical readings of Hesiod’s poetry and from interpretations that treat Hesiod as the voice of tradition, rather than an individual, and thus deny the possibility of an individual poet’s plan or purpose in the Theogony and the Works and Days. Furthermore, the introduction highlights some important issues concerning ancient and modern etymology and argues that while the interest in the meaning of names is germane to early Greek poetry, Hesiod turns the etymology of names into a didactic instrument by which one can represent and interpret the divine reality or the realities of the human condition.

Ἔτυμα‎ and Ἀληθέα‎

This chapter examines one of the last days accounted for in Hesiod’s catalogue of days, the so-called triseinas (Works and Days 814–18), the correct understanding of which has been debated already in antiquity. The lack of clarity concerning the meaning of the term triseinas and the poet’s comment on the frequent errors in the designation of the day are manifestations of a problem that runs throughout both poems: the distinction between truth (ἀληθέα‎, ἐτήτυμα‎) and lies/falsehoods (ψεύδεα‎). Besides being yet another riddle, the brief entry of the triseinas-day is intimately connected to questions of truth and naming and thus leads us back to the beginning of both the Theogony (27–8) and the Works and Days (10). Therefore, beginning with a discussion of Op. 814–18 the chapter moves into a question that is central for the understanding of Hesiod’s project, namely the truth status of his poetry.

Kennings and Riddles

This chapter discusses a number of riddling expressions in the Works and Days, often referred to in scholarship as kennings. These represent another facet of Hesiod’s ambiguous language in the final part of the Works and Days. Here, the poet goes beyond the difficulties posed by the ‘split’ abstract concepts discussed earlier and actually suggests a tendency for opacity and obscurity. The kennings are riddles that introduce the idea that language may not only explain and reveal, but also cause confusion and conceal. They are semata whose interpretation requires a certain hermeneutic effort and thus their primary function is to add a further layer of complexity that mirrors the condicio humana.