Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-lj6df Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-19T01:56:03.922Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Text of Hesiod's Theogony and the Hittite Epic of Kumarbi1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 February 2009

P. Walcot
P. Walcot
Affiliation:
University CollegeLondon
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Hesiod is among the most difficult Greek poets for problems of text. This is especially true in the case of the Theogony. Today we consider an over-scrupulous analysis of the logical consistency of a text a characteristic of nineteenth-century pedantry. Yet such latitude is not always allowed the Theogony. It was only twenty-five years ago that there appeared the most ruthless survey of its contents. This was Jacoby's edition of 1930, when only a mutilated remnant of the surviving text was left the original poet; the rest was added by a whole series of subsequent rhapsodes. Hesiod received very much the same treatment four years later from Schwenn. Recently, however, two developments have gone a long way towards the defence of passages excluded by scholars from what they think the authentic text of Hesiod's Theogony. Many single lines or groups of verses have been bracketed by the editors of Hesiod, since they reproduce some other part of the poem in a similar or even identical form. The researches of the Dutch scholar Otterlo have now revealed that the fault is rather that of these editors. When they stigmatize the passages with the description of aimless repetition, they fail to appreciate what Otterlo claims as an inherent principle of oral recitation, or literature derived from an oral prototype. Otterlo's term for what would be an essential feature of this literature is ring-composition. A rhapsode provides a loose unity for his poem by repeating at the conclusion to the sections of the poem the verses which also introduced them. These repetitive verses announce the beginning and then the end of each section. We are wrong if we think that they have only been transferred from their original place in the poem to some later passage because there has been a lack of proper care in the process of transmission. Certainly this repetition is no adequate reason for us to suppose their occurence a second time in our text spurious.

Type
Articles
Information
The Classical Quarterly , Volume 6 , Issue 3-4 , December 1956 , pp. 198 - 206
Copyright
Copyright © The Classical Association 1956

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

page 198 note 2 Otterlo, W. A. A., De Ringcompositie ah Opbouwprincipe in de epische Gedichten van Homerus.Google Scholar

page 198 note 3 Aly, W., Hesiods Theogonie, pp. xvii and 52;Google ScholarMazon, P., Hésiode, pp. 15–16;Google ScholarWilamowitz, U. von, Hesiodos Erga, pp. 112 and 131;Google ScholarJacoby, F., Hesiodi Carmina, Pars 1, Theogonia, pp. 19–21;Google ScholarSchwenn, F., Die Theogonie des Hesiodos, pp. 41–45;Google ScholarSolmsen, F., Hesiod and Aeschylus, p. 53 n. 172;Google Scholar and Worms, F., Hermes, lxxxi (1953), 29 ff.Google ScholarCf. Valk, M. H. A. L. H. van der, Mnemosyne, IV, vi (1953), 279–82.Google Scholar

page 199 note 1 A list is given by Gaster, T. H., Thespis, pp. 140 ff.Google Scholar

page 199 note 2 Dornseiff, F., L'Antiquiti Classique, vi (1937), 254 ff.;Google ScholarCornford, F. M., The Un written Philosophy, pp. 104 ff.,Google Scholar and Principium Sapientiae, pp. 218–20;Google ScholarThomson, G., J.H.S. lxxiii (1953). 77–78;Google Scholar and Murray, G., J.H.S. lxxiv (1954). 52–53.Google Scholar

page 199 note 3 Both are translated into English by A. Goetze in Pritchard's, J. B.Ancient Near-Eastern Texts relating to the Old Testament, pp. 120 ff.Google Scholar The latest edition of the Kumbarbi epic is that by Meriggi, P., Athenaeum, xxxi (1953), 101 ff.,Google Scholar while Gueterbock, H. G. treats the other exhaustively in Journal of Cuneiform Studies, v (1951), 135 ff.,CrossRefGoogle Scholar and vi (1952), 8 ff. Their relation to Hesiod is discussed by Dornseiff, , op. cit., pp. 246 ff.;Google ScholarBarnett, R. D., J.H.S. lxv (1945), 100–1;Google ScholarGueterbock, , A.J.A. lii (1948), 123 ff.;Google Scholar and Lesky, A., Saeculum, vi. i. 38 ff.Google Scholar

page 199 note 4 Gordon, C. H., Introduction to Old Testament Times, pp. 89–99,Google Scholar and Rivista degli Studi Orientali, xxix (1954), 161–9;Google ScholarDirlmeier, F., Rh. Mus. xcviii (1955), 18–37.Google Scholar

page 199 note 5 Dornseiff, , Philologus, lxxxix (1934), 397 ff.Google Scholar A selection of texts of this type is included in the collection by Pritchard, , op. cit., pp. 412 ff.Google Scholar

page 199 note 6 Wilamowitz, , op. cit., p. 155;Google ScholarSchade-walt, W., Iliasstudien, p. 118;Google Scholar and Philippson, P., Thessalische Mythologie, pp. 107 ff.Google Scholar Cf. Solmsen, , op. cit., pp. 20 ff.Google Scholar

page 200 note 1 Lesky, Am. Öst. Akad. d. Wiss., 1950, pp. 146–7.Google Scholar Cf. Holscher, U., Hermes, lxxxi (1953). 392, n. 2.Google Scholar

page 200 note 2 Apollodorus, 1. 6. 3.

page 200 note 3 Porzig, W., Kleinasiatische Forschungen, 1930, pp. 379 ff.Google Scholar The myth is translated by Goetze in Pritchard, , op. cit., pp. 125–6,Google Scholar and by Gaster, , Thespis, pp. 325 ff.Google Scholar

page 201 note 1 Eiβfeldt, O., ‘Ras Schamra und Sanchunjaton (Beiträge zur Religionsgeschkhte des Altertums IV), pp. 64, 112 ff., and 128 ff.Google Scholar

page 201 note 2 Pritchard, , op. cit., pp. 130–1.Google Scholar

page 201 note 3 The best edition of Philo is still Müller, C., Fragmenta Historicorum Graecorum, iii. 563 ff.Google Scholar There is also a new version with a German translation of the fragments by Clemen, C., ‘Die phönikische Religion nach Philo von Byblos’ (Mitieilungen der vorderasiatisch-ägyp-tischen Gesellschaft, xlii. 3), pp. 16 ff.Google Scholar

page 201 note 4 Albright, W. F., Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research, lxx (1938), 24;Google ScholarFrom Stone Age to Christianity, pp. 240 ff.;Google ScholarArchaeology and the Religion of Israel, pp. 69–71.Google Scholar

page 202 note 1 Eissfeld, , op. cit., pp. 67–71.Google Scholar Cf. Clemen, , op. cit., p. 77.Google Scholar

page 202 note 2 Pritchard, , op. cit., p. 141.Google Scholar See Eiβfeldt, , ‘Sanchunjaton von Berut und Ilumilku von Ugarit’ (Beiträge zur Religionsgeschichte des Altertums v), pp. 47 ff., 58–59, and 68–69.Google Scholar

page 202 note 3 Gueterbock, , A.J.A. lii (1948), 133;Google ScholarHolscher, , Hermes, lxxxi (1953), 391 ff.Google Scholar

page 202 note 4 Frazer, J. G., Adonis, Attis, Osiris, i. 225.Google Scholar

page 203 note 1 Lesky, , Saeculum, VI. i. 42.Google Scholar

page 204 note 1 Gurney, O. R., The Hittites, p. 191.Google Scholar

page 204 note 2 Solmsen, , op. cit., p. 26.Google Scholar

page 205 note 1 Mazon, , Htsiode, pp. 13–14.Google Scholar Cf. Wilamowitz, , Hermes, lxiii (1928), pp. 369–71.Google Scholar

page 206 note 1 Robert, C., Melanges Nicole, pp. 461 ff.Google Scholar