Hesiod, the Homeric Hymns, and Homerica
(_Works and Days_, 37-39). While his brother wasted his patrimony and
ultimately came to want (_Works and Days_, 34 ff.), Hesiod lived a
farmer’s life until, according to the very early tradition preserved by
the author of the _Theogony_ (22-23), the Muses met him as he was
tending sheep on Mt. Helicon and “taught him a glorious song”—doubtless
the _Works and Days_. The only other personal reference is to his
victory in a poetical contest at the funeral games of Amphidamas at
Chalcis in Euboea, where he won the prize, a tripod, which he dedicated
to the Muses of Helicon (_Works and Days_, 651-9).
Before we go on to the story of Hesiod’s death, it will be well to
inquire how far the “autobiographical” notices can be treated as
historical, especially as many critics treat some, or all of them, as
spurious. In the first place attempts have been made to show that
“Hesiod” is a significant name and therefore fictitious: it is only
necessary to mention Goettling’s derivation from IEMI to ODOS (which
would make ‘Hesiod’ mean the ‘guide’ in virtues and technical arts),
and to refer to the pitiful attempts in the _Etymologicum Magnu_
(_s.v._ {H}ESIODUS), to show how prejudiced and lacking even in
plausibility such efforts are. It seems certain that “Hesiod” stands as
a proper name in the fullest sense. Secondly, Hesiod claims that his
father—if not he himself—came from Aeolis and settled in Boeotia. There
is fairly definite evidence to warrant our acceptance of this: the
dialect of the _Works and Days_ is shown by Rzach 1103 to contain
distinct Aeolisms apart from those which formed part of the general
stock of epic poetry. And that this Aeolic speaking poet was a Boeotian
of Ascra seems even more certain, since the tradition is never once
disputed, insignificant though the place was, even before its
destruction by the Thespians.
Again, Hesiod’s story of his relations with his brother Perses have
been treated with scepticism (_see_ Murray, _Anc. Gk. Literature_, pp.
53-54): Perses, it is urged, is clearly a mere dummy, set up to be the
target for the poet’s exhortations. On such a matter precise evidence
is naturally not forthcoming; but all probability is against the
sceptical view. For 1) if the quarrel between the brothers were a
fiction, we should expect it to be detailed at length and not noticed
allusively and rather obscurely—as we find it; 2) as MM. Croiset
remark, if the poet needed a lay-figure the ordinary practice was to
introduce some mythological person—as, in fact, is done in the
_Precepts of Chiron_. In a word, there is no more solid ground for
treating Perses and his quarrel with Hesiod as fictitious than there
would be for treating Cyrnus, the friend of Theognis, as mythical.
Thirdly, there is the passage in the _Theogony_ relating to Hesiod and
the Muses. It is surely an error to suppose that lines 22-35 all refer
to Hesiod: rather, the author of the _Theogony_ tells the story of his
own inspiration by the same Muses who _once_ taught Hesiod glorious
song. The lines 22-3 are therefore a very early piece of tradition
about Hesiod, and though the appearance of Muses must be treated as a
graceful fiction, we find that a writer, later than the _Works and
Days_ by perhaps no more than three-quarters of a century, believed in
the actuality of Hesiod and in his life as a farmer or shepherd.
Lastly, there is the famous story of the contest in song at Chalcis. In
later times the modest version in the _Works and Days_ was elaborated,
first by making Homer the opponent whom Hesiod conquered, while a later
period exercised its ingenuity in working up the story of the contest
into the elaborate form in which it still survives. Finally the
contest, in which the two poets contended with hymns to Apollo 1104,
was transferred to Delos. These developments certainly need no
consideration: are we to say the same of the passage in the _Works and
Days?_ Critics from Plutarch downwards have almost unanimously rejected
the lines 654-662, on the ground that Hesiod’s Amphidamas is the hero
of the Lelantine Wars between Chalcis and Eretria, whose death may be
placed _circa_ 705 B.C.—a date which is obviously too low for the
genuine Hesiod. Nevertheless, there is much to be said in defence of
the passage. Hesiod’s claim in the _Works and Days_ is modest, since he
neither pretends to have met Homer, nor to have sung in any but an
impromptu, local festival, so that the supposed interpolation lacks a
sufficient motive. And there is nothing in the context to show that
Hesiod’s Amphidamas is to be identified with that Amphidamas whom
Plutarch alone connects with the Lelantine War: the name may have been
borne by an earlier Chalcidian, an ancestor, perhaps, of the person to
whom Plutarch refers.
The story of the end of Hesiod may be told in outline. After the
contest at Chalcis, Hesiod went to Delphi and there was warned that the
‘issue of death should overtake him in the fair grove of Nemean Zeus.’
Avoiding therefore Nemea on the Isthmus of Corinth, to which he
supposed the oracle to refer, Hesiod retired to Oenoe in Locris where
he was entertained by Amphiphanes and Ganyetor, sons of a certain
Phegeus. This place, however, was also sacred to Nemean Zeus, and the
poet, suspected by his hosts of having seduced their sister 1105, was
murdered there. His body, cast into the sea, was brought to shore by
dolphins and buried at Oenoe (or, according to Plutarch, at Ascra): at
a later time his bones were removed to Orchomenus. The whole story is
full of miraculous elements, and the various authorities disagree on
numerous points of detail. The tradition seems, however, to be constant
in declaring that Hesiod was murdered and buried at Oenoe, and in this
respect it is at least as old as the time of Thucydides. In conclusion
it may be worth while to add the graceful epigram of Alcaeus of Messene
(_Palatine Anthology_, vii 55).
“When in the shady Locrian grove Hesiod lay dead, the Nymphs washed his
body with water from their own springs, and heaped high his grave; and
thereon the goat-herds sprinkled offerings of milk mingled with
yellow-honey: such was the utterance of the nine Muses that he breathed
forth, that old man who had tasted of their pure springs.”
The Hesiodic Poems
The Hesiodic poems fall into two groups according as they are didactic
(technical or gnomic) or genealogical: the first group centres round
the _Works and Days_, the second round the _Theogony_.
I. “The Works and Days”
The poem consists of four main sections. (_a_) After the prelude, which
Pausanias failed to find in the ancient copy engraved on lead seen by
him on Mt. Helicon, comes a general exhortation to industry. It begins
with the allegory of the two Strifes, who stand for wholesome Emulation
and Quarrelsomeness respectively. Then by means of the Myth of Pandora
the poet shows how evil and the need for work first arose, and goes on
to describe the Five Ages of the World, tracing the gradual increase in
evil, and emphasizing the present miserable condition of the world, a
condition in which struggle is inevitable. Next, after the Fable of the
Hawk and Nightingale, which serves as a condemnation of violence and
injustice, the poet passes on to contrast the blessing which
Righteousness brings to a nation, and the punishment which Heaven sends
down upon the violent, and the section concludes with a series of
precepts on industry and prudent conduct generally. (_b_) The second
section shows how a man may escape want and misery by industry and care
both in agriculture and in trading by sea. Neither subject, it should
be carefully noted, is treated in any way comprehensively. (_c_) The
third part is occupied with miscellaneous precepts relating mostly to
actions of domestic and everyday life and conduct which have little or
no connection with one another. (_d_) The final section is taken up
with a series of notices on the days of the month which are favourable
or unfavourable for agricultural and other operations.
It is from the second and fourth sections that the poem takes its name.
At first sight such a work seems to be a miscellany of myths, technical
advice, moral precepts, and folklore maxims without any unifying
principle; and critics have readily taken the view that the whole is a
canto of fragments or short poems worked up by a redactor. Very
probably Hesiod used much material of a far older date, just as
Shakespeare used the _Gesta Romanorum_, old chronicles, and old plays;
but close inspection will show that the _Works and Days_ has a real
unity and that the picturesque title is somewhat misleading. The poem
has properly no technical object at all, but is moral: its real aim is
to show men how best to live in a difficult world. So viewed the four
seemingly independent sections will be found to be linked together in a
real bond of unity. Such a connection between the first and second
sections is easily seen, but the links between these and the third and
fourth are no less real: to make life go tolerably smoothly it is most
important to be just and to know how to win a livelihood; but happiness
also largely depends on prudence and care both in social and home life
as well, and not least on avoidance of actions which offend
supernatural powers and bring ill-luck. And finally, if your industry
is to be fruitful, you must know what days are suitable for various
kinds of work. This moral aim—as opposed to the currently accepted
technical aim of the poem—explains the otherwise puzzling
incompleteness of the instructions on farming and seafaring.
Of the Hesiodic poems similar in character to the _Works and Days_,
only the scantiest fragments survive. One at least of these, the
_Divination by Birds_, was, as we know from Proclus, attached to the
end of the _Works_ until it was rejected by Apollonius Rhodius:
doubtless it continued the same theme of how to live, showing how man
can avoid disasters by attending to the omens to be drawn from birds.
It is possible that the _Astronomy_ or _Astrology_ (as Plutarch calls
it) was in turn appended to the _Divination_. It certainly gave some
account of the principal constellations, their dates of rising and
setting, and the legends connected with them, and probably showed how
these influenced human affairs or might be used as guides. The
_Precepts of Chiron_ was a didactic poem made up of moral and practical
precepts, resembling the gnomic sections of the _Works and Days_,
addressed by the Centaur Chiron to his pupil Achilles. Even less is
known of the poem called the _Great Works_: the title implies that it
was similar in subject to the second section of the _Works and Days_,
but longer. Possible references in Roman writers 1106 indicate that
among the subjects dealt with were the cultivation of the vine and
olive and various herbs. The inclusion of the judgment of Rhadamanthys
(frag. 1): “If a man sow evil, he shall reap evil,” indicates a gnomic
element, and the note by Proclus 1107 on _Works and Days_ 126 makes it
likely that metals also were dealt with. It is therefore possible that
another lost poem, the _Idaean Dactyls_, which dealt with the discovery
of metals and their working, was appended to, or even was a part of the
_Great Works_, just as the _Divination by Birds_ was appended to the
_Works and Days_.
II. The Genealogical Poems
The only complete poem of the genealogical group is the _Theogony_,
which traces from the beginning of things the descent and vicissitudes
of the families of the gods. Like the _Works and Days_ this poem has no
dramatic plot; but its unifying principle is clear and simple. The gods
are classified chronologically: as soon as one generation is
catalogued, the poet goes on to detail the offspring of each member of