The Philosophy of Fine Art, volume 2 (of 4): Hegel's Aesthetik
Georg Hegel · en
When he stormed there for the fourth time then it was that
the god, enveloped in obscure night, made toward him among the medley
and smote him on the back and the shoulders, tore away from him his
helmet, so that it rolled on the ground, and rang out sharply as it
struck the hoofs of the chargers; and the plumes of it were besmirched
with blood and dust, which none ever wot of before. Apollo also breaks
the brazen spear in his hands, the shield drops from his shoulders, and
his armour is loosened on him by the god. This interference of Apollo
we may accept as the poetic explanation of the circumstance, that it
is exhaustion no less than natural death which seizes upon and subdues
Patroclus in the turmoil and heat of battle at the fourth encounter.
Then it was that Euphorbus was able to thrust his spear into his
back between the shoulders. Yet one more time Patroclus endeavoured
to withdraw from the battle; but Hector had already hastened to meet
him, and thrust his spear deep into his side. Then Hector rejoiced and
mocked the sinking hero. But Patroclus, speaking in low tones, replied
that it was Zeus and Apollo who had mastered him, and withal with no
trouble, because they had taken his weapons from off his shoulders.
"Twenty men such as thou art," he exclaims, "I could have laid low with
my spear, but I am slain by fateful necessity and the hand of Apollo.
Thou, Euphorbus, hast but slain me the second time, and thou, Hector,
but the third." Here, too, we may remark that the appearance of the
gods simply points to the fact that Patroclus, albeit protected by
the armour of Achilles, becomes faint, confounded, and despite of it
slain. And this is not by any means a superstitious freak or empty play
of the imagination, or rather a statement which amounts to this[196],
that Hector's fame will be detracted from by this interposition of
Apollo, and that even Apollo does not play in the entire affair a
part which entirely redounds to his honour, since we necessarily take
into account the might of the god--speculations of this kind merely
betray a superstition of the prosaic mind as destitute of taste as it
is devoid of reason. For in every case where Homer explains specific
events by means of such appearances of the gods the gods use that
which is already immanent in the conscious life of men, the power,
that is, of their own passion and observation, or the potentialities
of the general condition in which the man is placed, the force and the
foundation of that which befalls and happens to anyone as a consequence
of such conditions If it is true that at times traits that are wholly
external and absolutely positive assert themselves in the appearance
of the gods these in their turn have a comic aspect; as in the case
when the lame Hephaestos goes round as cup-bearer. And generally we may
say that Homer never treats the reality of such appearances from first
to last seriously. At one time we see the gods in action, at another