The Example & The Exemplified
In lines 1-104 of Hesiod’s Theogony we see a tense structuralist relationship between the enduring and ephemeral nature of man’s praise of the gods. In contrast, lines 1-29 of The Homeric Hymn to Apollo are concerned with an internal reconciliation of threat and peace, also as a path towards a closer relationship with the immortals. Read together as warnings for how to lead a virtuous life, both offer alternatives for how best to honor the gods, and present a conflict between the example and the exemplified. Which path we choose to follow in our servitude as humans introduces a tension we must resolve ourselves.
In Hesiod’s Theogony, the relationship between the enduring and the ephemeral is framed as a warning in the form of a ‘holy gift to men’ from the muses (Theogony, 95), who remind us that humans are inherently temporal and fallible in thought and behavior. They fix in us the god-like enduring importance of legacy, permanence, and prudence. They reinforce the virtuous immortality of the gods, and their distinct otherness from us. The conflict is in man’s perpetual need for correction, where the muses, channeled through Hesiod, help to keep us on the virtuous path through guidance, advice and ‘the ordinances and the good ways of all the immortals’ (Theogony, 65). The message of the muses offers that the best way to lead a less ephemeral life is to become more virtuous, to follow the good ways, but it is the oral tradition in Hesiod itself that is trying to help us understand how to transcend our own mortality. Through poetry itself he is attempting to transform the temporal into the enduring.
Whereas the muses sit in the intersection between the gods and Hesiod, it is Hesiod who is attempting to transcend the impermanence of man. It is he who has special access to the permanence of the gods, and he who is trying to claim something enduring with his poetry. As the mediator for what the muses are saying, it is explicitly Hesiod that becomes the figure of tension between the enduring and ephemeral nature of how best to lead a life of virtue, and it is the often violent nature of Hesiod’s later interpretations of what he hears through the muses which propels the poem forward.
In contrast, The Homeric Hymn to Apollo offers us a different, more cautious and challenging model of servitude. As the paragon of all beings, ‘born to be the lord of mortals’ (The Homeric Hymn to Apollo, 29), he exemplifies the model of majesty to which all humans should aspire. Just as Hesiod sits as a fulcrum between the binary elements of the enduring and the ephemeral, Apollo himself sits at the intersection of threat and peace. The Homeric Hymn helps us understand that this threat is not only to us but also to the gods, and specifically Zeus, where ‘all but one shake while he is striding towards them’ (The Homeric Hymn to Apollo, 3). Who is the ‘one’ here? Why don’t we hear ‘all but Zeus?’ The one at peace, not shaking here isn’t Zeus, but Apollo himself. All are shaking except him. Only he is able to reconcile fear and calm, threat and peace, and as humans we are invited to follow his example.
The reading of The Homeric Hymn to Apollo is divided neatly into two halves, leading towards an inevitable binary. The first is concerned with weaponry, technology, and power. It is here where we experience thunder, glittering bows and the gods rising from their seats. The second concerns the peace and majesty of the natural world. In contrast it’s here we enjoy the fertile mainland, the towering headlands and beaches that lean towards the sea. Bridging the gap between these two structures is the birth of Apollo. ‘How can I make a song from all your glory?’ (The Homeric Hymn to Apollo, 19) asks the author. A structuralist reading poses the same challenge. How might we reconcile the tension between the fear of violence and the glory of nature? This tension resolves itself in the hymn’s advice that in order to lead a virtuous life in service of the gods, men must follow Apollo’s example in being able to reconcile the threat and violence of life with a mastery of all around them. These come into direct conflict with each other in Apollo, but his example is to perform regulation and domination of both.
Structuralist readings of both texts conclude that Hesiod’s Theogony offers a clearer binary definition than The Homeric Hymn to Apollo due to the more nuanced relationships between the gods, the muses, the role of Hesiod, and ourselves as the audience experiencing an oral tradition. Apollo as a fulcrum around which to develop a structuralist reading is more challenging as he is a less binary, more networked figure, with the main structuralist device being anchored by the equal distribution of two distinct themes, with Apollo’s birth providing a more literal, distinct bridge between the two thoughts. The frustrations of this approach can be resolved by considering both readings holistically as a single text, drawing structuralist conclusions together instead of individually.
Both poems serve as warnings to us, but through a holistic structuralist reading of both texts, also offer tactical, practical alternate paths for us to choose in our lives. As Hesiod, channeling the muses, is showing us a virtuous path through service, song and worship, Apollo shows us virtue through balancing the traits of threat and peace. Hesiod is the example, Apollo is the exemplified. One is resolved through the external, public display of praise, the other through the more challenging resolution of internal struggle. One path is social, the other is psychological. We must decide which is the best and most efficient path in bringing ourselves closer towards an immortal relationship. How we choose to reconcile these is the question before us as humans.
Latest Articles
