Familiar Studies in HomerClerke, Agnes M. (Agnes Mary)
History
Familiar Studies in Homer
Clerke, Agnes M. (Agnes Mary)
Epic poetry, Greek -- History and criticism; Homer -- Criticism and interpretation
It is clear that one of these passages is an adaptation from the other;
nor is there reason for hesitation in deciding which was the model.
Independently of extrinsic evidence, the verses in the Iliad have the
strong spontaneous ring of originality, while the Odyssean lines betray
excision and interpolation. The ‘Hyads and Orion’s might’ are suppressed
for the sake of introducing Boötes. Variety was doubtless aimed at in
the change; and the conjecture is at least a plausible one, that the
added constellation may have been known to the poet of the Odyssey
(admitting the hypothesis of a divided authorship), though not to the
poet of the Iliad—known, that is, in the sense that the stars comprising
the figure of the celestial Husbandman had not yet, at the time and
place of origin of the Iliad, become separated from the anonymous throng
circling in the ‘murk of night.’
The constellation Boötes—called ‘late-setting,’ probably from the
perpendicular position in which it descends below the horizon—was
invented to drive the Wain, as Arctophylax to guard the Bear, the same
group in each case going by a double name. For the brightest of the
stars thus designated we still preserve the appellation Arcturus (from
_arktos_, bear, _oûros_, guardian), first used by Hesiod, who fixed upon
its acronycal rising, sixty days after the winter solstice, as the
signal for pruning the vines.[30] It is not unlikely that the star
received its name long before the constellation was thought of, forming
the nucleus of a subsequently formed group. This was undoubtedly the
course of events elsewhere; the Great and Little Dogs, for instance, the
Twins, and the Eagle (the last with two minute companions) having been
individualised as stars previous to their recognition as asterisms.
Footnote 30:
_Works and Days_, 564-70.
There is reason to believe that the stars enumerated in the Iliad and
Odyssey constituted the whole of those known by name to the early
Greeks. This view is strongly favoured by the identity of the Homeric
and Hesiodic stars. It is difficult to believe that, had there been room
for choice, the same list _precisely_ would have been picked out for
presentation in poems so widely diverse in scope and origin as the Iliad
and Odyssey on the one side, and the Works and Days on the other. As
regards the polar constellations, we have positive proof that none
besides Ursa Major had been distinguished. For the statement repeated in
both the Homeric epics, that the Bear _alone_ was without part in the
baths of Ocean, implies, not that the poet veritably ignored the
unnumbered stars revolving within the circle traced out round the pole
by the seven of the Plough, but that they still remained a nameless
crowd, unassociated with any terrestrial object, and therefore
attracting no popular observation.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account