{"collection":"philosophy-ethics","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/wikisource_Homer_and_Classical_Philology/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/wikisource_Homer_and_Classical_Philology","id":"wikisource_Homer_and_Classical_Philology","license":"Public Domain / CC-BY-SA (see source)","rights_basis":"wikisource_site_inclusion_policy","source":"wikisource","source_url":"https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Homer_and_Classical_Philology","summary":null,"tags":["1910_works","PD-old","Pages_with_translator","Philosophy"],"text":"Inaugural Address delivered at University of Basel, 28th of May 1869.\n\nAt the present day no clear and consistent opinion seems to be held\nregarding Classical Philology. We are conscious of this in the circles\nof the learned just as much as among the followers of that science\nitself. The cause of this lies in its many-sided character, in the lack\nof an abstract unity, and in the inorganic aggregation of heterogeneous\nscientific activities which are connected with one another only by the\nname \"Philology.\" It must be freely admitted that philology is to some\nextent borrowed from several other sciences, and is mixed together like\na magic potion from the most outlandish liquors, ores, and bones. It may\neven be added that it likewise conceals within itself an artistic\nelement, one which, on aesthetic and ethical grounds, may be called\nimperatival\u2014an element that acts in opposition to its purely scientific\nbehaviour. Philology is composed of history just as much as of natural\nscience or aesthetics: history, in so far as it endeavours to comprehend\nthe manifestations of the individualities of peoples in ever new\nimages, and the prevailing law in the disappearance of phenomena;\nnatural science, in so far as it strives to fathom the deepest instinct\nof man, that of speech; aesthetics, finally, because from various\nantiquities at our disposal it endeavours to pick out the so-called\n\"classical\" antiquity, with the view and pretension of excavating the\nideal world buried under it, and to hold up to the present the mirror of\nthe classical and everlasting standards. That these wholly different\nscientific and aesthetico-ethical impulses have been associated under a\ncommon name, a kind of sham monarchy, is shown especially by the fact\nthat philology at every period from its origin onwards was at the same\ntime pedagogical. From the standpoint of the pedagogue, a choice was\noffered of those elements which were of the greatest educational value;\nand thus that science, or at least that scientific aim, which we call\nphilology, gradually developed out of the practical calling originated\nby the exigencies of that science itself.\n\nThese philological aims were pursued sometimes with greater ardour and\nsometimes with less, in accordance with the degree of culture and the\ndevelopment of the taste of a particular period; but, on the other hand,\nthe followers of this science are in the habit of regarding the aims\nwhich correspond to their several abilities as the aims of philology;\nwhence it comes about that the estimation of philology in public opinion\ndepends upon the weight of the personalities of the philologists!\n\nAt the present time\u2014that is to say, in a period which has seen men\ndistinguished in almost every department of philology\u2014a general\nuncertainty of judgment has increased more and more, and likewise a\ngeneral relaxation of interest and participation in philological\nproblems. Such an undecided and imperfect state of public opinion is\ndamaging to a science in that its hidden and open enemies can work with\nmuch better prospects of success. And philology has a great many such\nenemies. Where do we not meet with them, these mockers, always ready to\naim a blow at the philological \"moles,\" the animals that practise\ndust-eating ex professo, and that grub up and eat for the eleventh\ntime what they have already eaten ten times before. For opponents of\nthis sort, however, philology is merely a useless, harmless, and\ninoffensive pastime, an object of laughter and not of hate. But, on the\nother hand, there is a boundless and infuriated hatred of philology\nwherever an ideal, as such, is feared, where the modern man falls down\nto worship himself, and where Hellenism is looked upon as a superseded\nand hence very insignificant point of view. Against these enemies, we\nphilologists must always count upon the assistance of artists and men of\nartistic minds; for they alone can judge how the sword of barbarism\nsweeps over the head of every one who loses sight of the unutterable\nsimplicity and noble dignity of the Hellene; and how no progress in\ncommerce or technical industries, however brilliant, no school\nregulations, no political education of the masses, however widespread\nand complete, can protect us from the curse of ridiculous and barbaric\noffences against good taste, or from annihilation by the Gorgon head of\nthe classicist.\n\nWhilst philology as a whole is looked on with jealous eyes by these two\nclasses of opponents, there are numerous and varied hostilities in other\ndirections of philology; philologists themselves are quarrelling with\none another; internal dissensions are caused by useless disputes about\nprecedence and mutual jealousies, but especially by the\ndifferences\u2014even enmities\u2014comprised in the name of philology, which\nare not, however, by any means naturally harmonised instincts.\n\nScience has this in common with art, that the most ordinary, everyday\nthing appears to it as something entirely new and attractive, as if\nmetamorphosed by witchcraft and now seen for the first time. Life is\nworth living, says art, the beautiful temptress; life is worth knowing,\nsays science. With this contrast the so heartrending and dogmatic\ntradition follows in a theory, and consequently in the practice of\nclassical philology derived from this theory. We may consider antiquity\nfrom a scientific point of view; we may try to look at what has happened\nwith the eye of a historian, or to arrange and compare the linguistic\nforms of ancient masterpieces, to bring them at all events under a\nmorphological law; but we always lose the wonderful creative force, the\nreal fragrance, of the atmosphere of antiquity; we forget that\npassionate emotion which instinctively drove our meditation and\nenjoyment back to the Greeks. From this point onwards we must take\nnotice of a clearly determined and very surprising antagonism which\nphilology has great cause to regret. From the circles upon whose help we\nmust place the most implicit reliance\u2014the artistic friends of\nantiquity, the warm supporters of Hellenic beauty and noble\nsimplicity\u2014we hear harsh voices crying out that it is precisely the\nphilologists themselves who are the real opponents and destroyers of the\nideals of antiquity. Schiller upbraided the philologists with having\nscattered Homer's laurel crown to the winds. It was none other than\nGoethe who, in early life a supporter of Wolf's theories regarding\nHomer, recanted in the verses\u2014\n\nWith subtle wit you took away\nOur former adoration:\nThe Iliad, you may us say,\nWas mere conglomeration.\nThink it not crime in any way:\nYouth's fervent adoration\nLeads us to know the verity,\nAnd feel the poet's unity.\nThe reason of this want of piety and reverence must lie deeper; and many\nare in doubt as to whether philologists are lacking in artistic capacity\nand impressions, so that they are unable to do justice to the ideal, or\nwhether the spirit of negation has become a destructive and iconoclastic\nprinciple of theirs. When, however, even the friends of antiquity,\npossessed of such doubts and hesitations, point to our present classical\nphilology as something questionable, what influence may we not ascribe\nto the outbursts of the \"realists\" and the claptrap of the heroes of the\npassing hour? To answer the latter on this occasion, especially when we\nconsider the nature of the present assembly, would be highly\ninjudicious; at any rate, if I do not wish to meet with the fate of\nthat sophist who, when in Sparta, publicly undertook to praise and\ndefend Herakles, when he was interrupted with the query: \"But who then\nhas found fault with him?\" I cannot help thinking, however, that some of\nthese scruples are still sounding in the ears of not a few in this\ngathering; for they may still be frequently heard from the lips of noble\nand artistically gifted men\u2014as even an upright philologist must feel\nthem, and feel them most painfully, at moments when his spirits are\ndowncast. For the single individual there is no deliverance from the\ndissensions referred to; but what we contend and inscribe on our banner\nis the fact that classical philology, as a whole, has nothing whatsoever\nto do with the quarrels and bickerings of its individual disciples. The\nentire scientific and artistic movement of this peculiar centaur is\nbent, though with cyclopic slowness, upon bridging over the gulf between\nthe ideal antiquity--which is perhaps only the magnificent blossoming of\nthe Teutonic longing for the south\u2014and the real antiquity; and thus\nclassical philology pursues only the final end of its own being, which\nis the fusing together of primarily hostile impulses that have only\nforcibly been brought together. Let us talk as we will about the\nunattainability of this goal, and even designate the goal itself as an\nillogical pretension\u2014the aspiration for it is very real; and I should\nlike to try to make it clear by an example that the most significant\nsteps of classical philology never lead away from the ideal antiquity,\nbut to it; and that, just when people are speaking unwarrantably of the\noverthrow of sacred shrines, new and more worthy altars are being\nerected. Let us then examine the so-called Homeric question from this\nstandpoint, a question the most important problem of which Schiller\ncalled a scholastic barbarism.\n\nThe important problem referred to is the question of the personality of Homer.\n\nWe now meet everywhere with the firm opinion that the question of\nHomer's personality is no longer timely, and that it is quite a\ndifferent thing from the real \"Homeric question.\" It may be added that,\nfor a given period\u2014such as our present philological period, for\nexample\u2014the centre of discussion may be removed from the problem of the\npoet's personality; for even now a painstaking experiment is being made\nto reconstruct the Homeric poems without the aid of personality,\ntreating them as the work of several different persons. But if the\ncentre of a scientific question is rightly seen to be where the swelling\ntide of new views has risen up, i.e. where individual scientific\ninvestigation comes into contact with the whole life of science and\nculture\u2014if any one, in other words, indicates a historico-cultural\nvaluation as the central point of the question, he must also, in the\nprovince of Homeric criticism, take his stand upon the question of\npersonality as being the really fruitful oasis in the desert of the\nwhole argument. For in Homer the modern world, I will not say has\nlearnt, but has examined, a great historical point of view; and, even\nwithout now putting forward my own opinion as to whether this\nexamination has been or can be happily carried out, it was at all\nevents the first example of the application of that productive point of\nview. By it scholars learnt to recognise condensed beliefs in the\napparently firm, immobile figures of the life of ancient peoples; by it\nthey for the first time perceived the wonderful capability of the soul\nof a people to represent the conditions of its morals and beliefs in the\nform of a personality. When historical criticism has confidently seized\nupon this method of evaporating apparently concrete personalities, it is\npermissible to point to the first experiment as an important event in\nthe history of sciences, without considering whether it was successful\nin this instance or not.\n\nIt is a common occurrence for a series of striking signs and wonderful\nemotions to precede an epoch-making discovery. Even the experiment I\nhave just referred to has its own attractive history; but it goes back\nto a surprisingly ancient era. Friedrich August Wolf has exactly\nindicated the spot where Greek antiquity dropped the question. The\nzenith of the historico-literary studies of the Greeks, and hence also\nof their point of greatest importance\u2014the Homeric question\u2014was reached\nin the age of the Alexandrian grammarians. Up to this time the Homeric\nquestion had run through the long chain of a uniform process of\ndevelopment, of which the standpoint of those grammarians seemed to be\nthe last link, the last, indeed, which was attainable by antiquity. They\nconceived the Iliad and the Odyssey as the creations of one single\nHomer; they declared it to be psychologically possible for two such\ndifferent works to have sprung from the brain of one genius, in\ncontradiction to the Chorizontes, who represented the extreme limit of\nthe scepticism of a few detached individuals of antiquity rather than\nantiquity itself considered as a whole. To explain the different general\nimpression of the two books on the assumption that one poet composed\nthem both, scholars sought assistance by referring to the seasons of the\npoet's life, and compared the poet of the Odyssey to the setting sun.\nThe eyes of those critics were tirelessly on the lookout for\ndiscrepancies in the language and thoughts of the two poems; but at this\ntime also a history of the Homeric poem and its tradition was prepared,\naccording to which these discrepancies were not due to Homer, but\nto those who committed his words to writing and those who sang them. It\nwas believed that Homer's poem was passed from one generation to another\nviva voce, and faults were attributed to the improvising and at times\nforgetful bards. At a certain given date, about the time of Pisistratus,\nthe poems which had been repeated orally were said to have been\ncollected in manuscript form; but the scribes, it is added, allowed\nthemselves to take some liberties with the text by transposing some\nlines and adding extraneous matter here and there. This entire\nhypothesis is the most important in the domain of literary studies that\nantiquity has exhibited; and the acknowledgment of the dissemination of\nthe Homeric poems by word of mouth, as opposed to the habits of a\nbook-learned age, shows in particular a depth of ancient sagacity worthy\nof our admiration. From those times until the generation that produced\nFriedrich August Wolf we must take a jump over a long historical vacuum;\nbut in our own age we find the argument left just as it was at the time\nwhen the power of controversy departed from antiquity, and it is a\nmatter of indifference to us that Wolf accepted as certain tradition\nwhat antiquity itself had set up only as a hypothesis. It may be\nremarked as most characteristic of this hypothesis that, in the\nstrictest sense, the personality of Homer is treated seriously; that a\ncertain standard of inner harmony is everywhere presupposed in the\nmanifestations of the personality; and that, with these two excellent\nauxiliary hypotheses, whatever is seen to be below this standard and\nopposed to this inner harmony is at once swept aside as un-Homeric. But\neven this distinguishing characteristic, in place of wishing to\nrecognise the supernatural existence of a tangible personality, ascends\nlikewise through all the stages that lead to that zenith, with\never-increasing energy and clearness. Individuality is ever more\nstrongly felt and accentuated; the psychological possibility of a\nsingle Homer is ever more forcibly demanded. If we descend backwards\nfrom this zenith, step by step, we find a guide to the understanding of\nthe Homeric problem in the person of Aristotle. Homer was for him the\nflawless and untiring artist who knew his end and the means to attain\nit; but there is still a trace of infantile criticism to be found in\nAristotle\u2014i.e., in the naive concession he made to the public opinion\nthat considered Homer as the author of the original of all comic epics,\nthe Margites. If we go still further backwards from Aristotle, the\ninability to create a personality is seen to increase; more and more\npoems are attributed to Homer; and every period lets us see its degree\nof criticism by how much and what it considers as Homeric. In this\nbackward examination, we instinctively feel that away beyond Herodotus\nthere lies a period in which an immense flood of great epics has been\nidentified with the name of Homer.\n\nLet us imagine ourselves as living in the time of Pisistratus: the word\n\"Homer\" then comprehended an abundance of dissimilarities. What was\nmeant by \"Homer\" at that time? It is evident that that generation found\nitself unable to grasp a personality and the limits of its\nmanifestations. Homer had now become of small consequence. And then we\nmeet with the weighty question: What lies before this period? Has\nHomer's personality, because it cannot be grasped, gradually faded away\ninto an empty name? Or had all the Homeric poems been gathered together\nin a body, the nation naively representing itself by the figure of Homer?\nWas the person created out of a conception, or the conception out of a person?\nThis is the real \"Homeric question,\" the central problem of the personality.\n\nThe difficulty of answering this question, however, is increased when we\nseek a reply in another direction, from the standpoint of the poems\nthemselves which have come down to us. As it is difficult for us at the\npresent day, and necessitates a serious effort on our part, to\nunderstand the law of gravitation clearly\u2014that the earth alters its\nform of motion when another heavenly body changes its position in space,\nalthough no material connection unites one to the other\u2014it likewise\ncosts us some trouble to obtain a clear impression of that wonderful\nproblem which, like a coin long passed from hand to hand, has lost its\noriginal and highly conspicuous stamp. Poetical works, which cause the\nhearts of even the greatest geniuses to fail when they endeavour to vie\nwith them, and in which unsurpassable images are held up for the\nadmiration of posterity\u2014and yet the poet who wrote them with only a\nhollow, shaky name, whenever we do lay hold on him; nowhere the solid\nkernel of a powerful personality. \"For who would wage war with the gods:\nwho, even with the one god?\" asks Goethe even, who, though a genius,\nstrove in vain to solve that mysterious problem of the Homeric\ninaccessibility.\n\nThe conception of popular poetry seemed to lead like a bridge over this\nproblem\u2014a deeper and more original power than that of every single\ncreative individual was said to have become active; the happiest people,\nin the happiest period of its existence, in the highest activity of\nfantasy and formative power, was said to have created those immeasurable\npoems. In this universality there is something almost intoxicating in\nthe thought of a popular poem: we feel, with artistic pleasure, the\nbroad, overpowering liberation of a popular gift, and we delight in this\nnatural phenomenon as we do in an uncontrollable cataract. But as soon\nas we examine this thought at close quarters, we involuntarily put a\npoetic mass of people in the place of the poetising soul of the people:\na long row of popular poets in whom individuality has no\nmeaning, and in whom the tumultuous movement of a people's soul, the\nintuitive strength of a people's eye, and the unabated profusion of a\npeople's fantasy, were once powerful: a row of original geniuses,\nattached to a time, to a poetic genus, to a subject-matter.\n\nSuch a conception justly made people suspicious. Could it be possible\nthat that same Nature who so sparingly distributed her rarest and most\nprecious production\u2014genius\u2014should suddenly take the notion of\nlavishing her gifts in one sole direction? And here the thorny question\nagain made its appearance: Could we not get along with one genius only,\nand explain the present existence of that unattainable excellence? And\nnow eyes were keenly on the lookout for whatever that excellence and\nsingularity might consist of. Impossible for it to be in the\nconstruction of the complete works, said one party, for this is far from\nfaultless; but doubtless to be found in single songs: in the single\npieces above all; not in the whole. A second party, on the other hand,\nsheltered themselves beneath the authority of Aristotle, who especially\nadmired Homer's \"divine\" nature in the choice of his entire subject, and\nthe manner in which he planned and carried it out. If, however, this\nconstruction was not clearly seen, this fault was due to the way the\npoems were handed down to posterity and not to the poet himself\u2014it was\nthe result of retouchings and interpolations, owing to which the\noriginal setting of the work gradually became obscured. The more the\nfirst school looked for inequalities, contradictions, perplexities, the\nmore energetically did the other school brush aside what in their\nopinion obscured the original plan, in order, if possible, that nothing\nmight be left remaining but the actual words of the original epic\nitself. The second school of thought of course held fast by the\nconception of an epoch-making genius as the composer of the great works.\nThe first school, on the other hand, wavered between the supposition of\none genius plus a number of minor poets, and another hypothesis which\nassumed only a number of superior and even mediocre individual bards,\nbut also postulated a mysterious discharging, a deep, national, artistic\nimpulse, which shows itself in individual minstrels as an almost\nindifferent medium. It is to this latter school that we must attribute\nthe representation of the Homeric poems as the expression of that\nmysterious impulse.\n\nAll these schools of thought start from the assumption that the problem\nof the present form of these epics can be solved from the standpoint of\nan aesthetic judgment\u2014but we must await the decision as to the\nauthorised line of demarcation between the man of genius and the\npoetical soul of the people. Are there characteristic differences\nbetween the utterances of the man of genius and the poetical soul of the people?\n\nThis whole contrast, however, is unjust and misleading. There is no\nmore dangerous assumption in modern aesthetics than that of popular poetry\nand individual poetry, or, as it is usually called, artistic poetry.\nThis is the reaction, or, if you will, the superstition, which\nfollowed upon the most momentous discovery of historico-philological\nscience, the discovery and appreciation of the soul of the people. For\nthis discovery prepared the way for a coming scientific view of history,\nwhich was until then, and in many respects is even now, a mere\ncollection of materials, with the prospect that new materials would\ncontinue to be added, and that the huge, overflowing pile would never be\nsystematically arranged. The people now understood for the first time\nthat the long-felt power of greater individualities and wills was larger\nthan the pitifully small will of an individual man; they now saw that\neverything truly great in the kingdom of the will could not have its\ndeepest root in the inefficacious and ephemeral individual will; and,\nfinally, they now discovered the powerful instincts of the masses, and\ndiagnosed those unconscious impulses to be the foundations and supports\nof the so-called universal history. But the newly-lighted flame also\ncast its shadow: and this shadow was none other than that superstition\nalready referred to, which popular poetry set up in opposition to\nindividual poetry, and thus enlarged the comprehension of the people's\nsoul to that of the people's mind. By the misapplication of a tempting\nanalogical inference, people had reached the point of applying in the\ndomain of the intellect and artistic ideas that principle of greater\nindividuality which is truly applicable only in the domain of the will.\nThe masses have never experienced more flattering treatment than in thus\nhaving the laurel of genius set upon their empty heads. It was imagined\nthat new shells were forming round a small kernel, so to speak, and that\nthose pieces of popular poetry originated like avalanches, in the drift\nand flow of tradition. They were, however, ready to consider that kernel\nas being of the smallest possible dimensions, so that they might\noccasionally get rid of it altogether without losing anything of the\nmass of the avalanche. According to this view, the text itself and the\nstories built round it are one and the same thing.\n\nNow, however, such a contrast between popular poetry and individual\npoetry does not exist at all; on the contrary, all poetry, and of course\npopular poetry also, requires an intermediary individuality. This\nmuch-abused contrast, therefore, is necessary only when the term\nindividual poem is understood to mean a poem which has not grown out\nof the soil of popular feeling, but which has been composed by a\nnon-popular poet in a non-popular atmosphere\u2014something which has come\nto maturity in the study of a learned man, for example.\n\nWith the superstition which presupposes poetising masses is connected\nanother: that popular poetry is limited to one particular period of a\npeople's history and afterwards dies out\u2014which indeed follows as a\nconsequence of the first superstition I have mentioned. According to\nthis school, in the place of the gradually decaying popular poetry we\nhave artistic poetry, the work of individual minds, not of masses of\npeople. But the same powers which were once active are still so; and the\nform in which they act has remained exactly the same. The great poet of\na literary period is still a popular poet in no narrower sense than the\npopular poet of an illiterate age. The difference between them is not in\nthe way they originate, but it is their diffusion and propagation, in\nshort, tradition. This tradition is exposed to eternal danger without\nthe help of handwriting, and runs the risk of including in the poems the\nremains of those individualities through whose oral tradition they were\nhanded down.\n\nIf we apply all these principles to the Homeric poems, it follows that\nwe gain nothing with our theory of the poetising soul of the people, and\nthat we are always referred back to the poetical individual. We are thus\nconfronted with the task of distinguishing that which can have\noriginated only in a single poetical mind from that which is, so to\nspeak, swept up by the tide of oral tradition, and which is a highly\nimportant constituent part of the Homeric poems.\n\nSince literary history first ceased to be a mere collection of names,\npeople have attempted to grasp and formulate the individualities of the\npoets. A certain mechanism forms part of the method: it must be\nexplained\u2014i.e., it must be deduced from principles--why this or that\nindividuality appears in this way and not in that. People now study\nbiographical details, environment, acquaintances, contemporary events,\nand believe that by mixing all these ingredients together they will be\nable to manufacture the wished-for individuality. But they forget that\nthe punctum saliens, the indefinable individual characteristics, can\nnever be obtained from a compound of this nature. The less there is\nknown about the life and times of the poet, the less applicable is this\nmechanism. When, however, we have merely the works and the name of the\nwriter, it is almost impossible to detect the individuality, at all\nevents, for those who put their faith in the mechanism in question; and\nparticularly when the works are perfect, when they are pieces of popular\npoetry. For the best way for these mechanicians to grasp individual\ncharacteristics is by perceiving deviations from the genius of the\npeople; the aberrations and hidden allusions: and the fewer\ndiscrepancies to be found in a poem the fainter will be the traces of\nthe individual poet who composed it.\n\nAll those deviations, everything dull and below the ordinary standard\nwhich scholars think they perceive in the Homeric poems, were attributed\nto tradition, which thus became the scapegoat. What was left of Homer's\nown individual work? Nothing but a series of beautiful and prominent\npassages chosen in accordance with subjective taste. The sum total of\naesthetic singularity which every individual scholar perceived with his\nown artistic gifts, he now called Homer.\n\nThis is the central point of the Homeric errors. The name of Homer, from\nthe very beginning, has no connection either with the conception of\naesthetic perfection or yet with the Iliad and the Odyssey. Homer as\nthe composer of the Iliad and the Odyssey is not a historical\ntradition, but an aesthetic judgment.\n\nThe only path which leads back beyond the time of Pisistratus and helps\nus to elucidate the meaning of the name Homer, takes its way on the one\nhand through the reports which have reached us concerning Homer's\nbirthplace: from which we see that, although his name is always\nassociated with heroic epic poems, he is on the other hand no more\nreferred to as the composer of the Iliad and the Odyssey than as the\nauthor of the Thebais or any other cyclical epic. On the other hand,\nagain, an old tradition tells of the contest between Homer and Hesiod,\nwhich proves that when these two names were mentioned people\ninstinctively thought of two epic tendencies, the heroic and the\ndidactic; and that the signification of the name \"Homer\" was included in\nthe material category and not in the formal. This imaginary contest with\nHesiod did not even yet show the faintest presentiment of individuality.\nFrom the time of Pisistratus onwards, however, with the surprisingly\nrapid development of the Greek feeling for beauty, the differences in\nthe aesthetic value of those epics continued to be felt more and more:\nthe Iliad and the Odyssey arose from the depths of the flood and\nhave remained on the surface ever since. With this process of aesthetic\nseparation, the conception of Homer gradually became narrower: the old\nmaterial meaning of the name \"Homer\" as the father of the heroic epic\npoem, was changed into the aesthetic meaning of Homer, the father of\npoetry in general, and likewise its original prototype. This\ntransformation was contemporary with the rationalistic criticism which\nmade Homer the magician out to be a possible poet, which vindicated the\nmaterial and formal traditions of those numerous epics as against the\nunity of the poet, and gradually removed that heavy load of cyclical\nepics from Homer's shoulders.\n\nSo Homer, the poet of the Iliad and the Odyssey, is an aesthetic\njudgment. It is, however, by no means affirmed against the poet of these\nepics that he was merely the imaginary being of an aesthetic\nimpossibility, which can be the opinion of only very few philologists\nindeed. The majority contend that a single individual was responsible\nfor the general design of a poem such as the Iliad, and further that\nthis individual was Homer. The first part of this contention may be\nadmitted; but, in accordance with what I have said, the latter part must\nbe denied. And I very much doubt whether the majority of those who adopt\nthe first part of the contention have taken the following considerations\ninto account.\n\nThe design of an epic such as the Iliad is not an entire whole, not\nan organism; but a number of pieces strung together, a collection of\nreflections arranged in accordance with aesthetic rules. It is certainly\nthe standard of an artist's greatness to note what he can take in with a\nsingle glance and set out in rhythmical form. The infinite profusion of\nimages and incidents in the Homeric epic must force us to admit that\nsuch a wide range of vision is next to impossible. Where, however, a\npoet is unable to observe artistically with a single glance, he usually\npiles conception on conception, and endeavours to adjust his characters\naccording to a comprehensive scheme.\n\nHe will succeed in this all the better the more he is familiar with the\nfundamental principles of aesthetics: he will even make some believe\nthat he made himself master of the entire subject by a single powerful\nglance.\n\nThe Iliad is not a garland, but a bunch of flowers. As many pictures\nas possible are crowded on one canvas; but the man who placed them there\nwas indifferent as to whether the grouping of the collected pictures was\ninvariably suitable and rhythmically beautiful. He well knew that no one\nwould ever consider the collection as a whole; but would merely look at\nthe individual parts. But that stringing together of some pieces as the\nmanifestations of a grasp of art which was not yet highly developed,\nstill less thoroughly comprehended and generally esteemed, cannot have\nbeen the real Homeric deed, the real Homeric epoch-making event. On the\ncontrary, this design is a later product, far later than Homer's\ncelebrity. Those, therefore, who look for the \"original and perfect\ndesign\" are looking for a mere phantom; for the dangerous path of oral\ntradition had reached its end just as the systematic arrangement\nappeared on the scene; the disfigurements which were caused on the way\ncould not have affected the design, for this did not form part of the\nmaterial handed down from generation to generation.\n\nThe relative imperfection of the design must not, however, prevent us\nfrom seeing in the designer a different personality from the real poet.\nIt is not only probable that everything which was created in those times\nwith conscious aesthetic insight, was infinitely inferior to the songs\nthat sprang up naturally in the poet's mind and were written down with\ninstinctive power: we can even take a step further. If we include the\nso-called cyclic poems in this comparison, there remains for the\ndesigner of the Iliad and the Odyssey the indisputable merit of\nhaving done something relatively great in this conscious technical\ncomposing: a merit which we might have been prepared to recognise from\nthe beginning, and which is in my opinion of the very first order in the\ndomain of instinctive creation. We may even be ready to pronounce this\nsynthetisation of great importance. All those dull passages and\ndiscrepancies\u2014deemed of such importance, but really only subjective,\nwhich we usually look upon as the petrified remains of the period of\ntradition\u2014are not these perhaps merely the almost necessary evils which\nmust fall to the lot of the poet of genius who undertakes a composition\nvirtually without a parallel, and, further, one which proves to be of\nincalculable difficulty?\n\nLet it be noted that the insight into the most diverse operations of the\ninstinctive and the conscious changes the position of the Homeric\nproblem; and in my opinion throws light upon it.\n\nWe believe in a great poet as the author of the Iliad and the\nOdyssey\u2014but not that Homer was this poet.\n\nThe decision on this point has already been given. The generation that\ninvented those numerous Homeric fables, that poetised the myth of the\ncontest between Homer and Hesiod, and looked upon all the poems of the\nepic cycle as Homeric, did not feel an aesthetic but a material\nsingularity when it pronounced the name \"Homer.\" This period regards\nHomer as belonging to the ranks of artists like Orpheus, Eumolpus,\nDaedalus, and Olympus, the mythical discoverers of a new branch of art,\nto whom, therefore, all the later fruits which grew from the new branch\nwere thankfully dedicated.\n\nAnd that wonderful genius to whom we owe the Iliad and the Odyssey\nbelongs to this thankful posterity: he, too, sacrificed his name on the\naltar of the primeval father of the Homeric epic, Homeros.\n\nUp to this point, gentlemen, I think I have been able to put before you\nthe fundamental philosophical and aesthetic characteristics of the\nproblem of the personality of Homer, keeping all minor details\nrigorously at a distance, on the supposition that the primary form of\nthis widespread and honeycombed mountain known as the Homeric question\ncan be most clearly observed by looking down at it from a far-off\nheight. But I have also, I imagine, recalled two facts to those friends\nof antiquity who take such delight in accusing us philologists of lack\nof piety for great conceptions and an unproductive zeal for\ndestruction. In the first place, those \"great\" conceptions\u2014such, for\nexample, as that of the indivisible and inviolable poetic genius,\nHomer\u2014were during the pre-Wolfian period only too great, and hence\ninwardly altogether empty and elusive when we now try to grasp them. If\nclassical philology goes back again to the same conceptions, and once\nmore tries to pour new wine into old bottles, it is only on the surface\nthat the conceptions are the same: everything has really become new;\nbottle and mind, wine and word. We everywhere find traces of the fact\nthat philology has lived in company with poets, thinkers, and artists\nfor the last hundred years: whence it has now come about that the heap\nof ashes formerly pointed to as classical philology is now turned into\nfruitful and even rich soil.\n\nAnd there is a second fact which I should like to recall to the memory\nof those friends of antiquity who turn their dissatisfied backs on\nclassical philology. You honour the immortal masterpieces of the\nHellenic mind in poetry and sculpture, and think yourselves so much more\nfortunate than preceding generations, which had to do without them; but\nyou must not forget that this whole fairyland once lay buried under\nmountains of prejudice, and that the blood and sweat and arduous labour\nof innumerable followers of our science were all necessary to lift up\nthat world from the chasm into which it had sunk. We grant that\nphilology is not the creator of this world, not the composer of that\nimmortal music; but is it not a merit, and a great merit, to be a mere\nvirtuoso, and let the world for the first time hear that music which lay\nso long in obscurity, despised and undecipherable? Who was Homer\npreviously to Wolf's brilliant investigations? A good old man, known at\nbest as a \"natural genius,\" at all events the child of a barbaric age,\nreplete with faults against good taste and good morals. Let us hear how\na learned man of the first rank writes about Homer even so late as 1783:\n\"Where does the good man live? Why did he remain so long incognito?\nApropos, can't you get me a silhouette of him?\"\n\nWe demand thanks\u2014not in our own name, for we are but atoms\u2014but in\nthe name of philology itself, which is indeed neither a Muse nor a\nGrace, but a messenger of the gods: and just as the Muses descended upon\nthe dull and tormented Boeotian peasants, so Philology comes into a\nworld full of gloomy colours and pictures, full of the deepest, most\nincurable woes; and speaks to men comfortingly of the beautiful and\ngodlike figure of a distant, rosy, and happy fairyland.\n\nIt is time to close; yet before I do so a few words of a personal\ncharacter must be added, justified, I hope, by the occasion of this\nlecture.\n\nIt is but right that a philologist should describe his end and the means\nto it in the short formula of a confession of faith; and let this be\ndone in the saying of Seneca which I thus reverse\u2014\n\n\"Philosophia facta est quae philologia fuit.\"\nBy this I wish to signify that all philological activities should be\nenclosed and surrounded by a philosophical view of things, in which\neverything individual and isolated is evaporated as something\ndetestable, and in which great homogeneous views alone remain. Now,\ntherefore, that I have enunciated my philological creed, I trust you\nwill give me cause to hope that I shall no longer be a stranger among\nyou: give me the assurance that in working with you towards this end I\nam worthily fulfilling the confidence with which the highest authorities\nof this community have honoured me.\n\n\u2014Friedrich Nietzsche\n\nNotes\n\n\u2007This work is a translation and has a separate copyright status to the applicable copyright protections of the original content.\n\nOriginal:\n\nThis work was published before January 1, 1931, and is in the public domain worldwide because the author died at least 100 years ago.\n\nPublic domainPublic domainfalsefalse\n\nTranslation:\n\nThis work was published before January 1, 1931, and is in the public domain worldwide because the author died at least 100 years ago.\n\nPublic domainPublic domainfalsefalse","title":"Homer and Classical Philology","tradition":"philosophy-ethics","translated_text":null,"word_count":6626}