Apropos, can't you get me a silhouette of him? The relative imperfection of the design must not, however, prevent us from seeing in the designer a different personality from the real poet. With the superstition which presupposes poetising masses is connected another: that popular poetry is limited to one particular period of a people's history and afterwards dies out—which indeed follows as a consequence of the first superstition I have mentioned. We may even be ready to pronounce this synthetisation of great importance. The decision on this point has already been given. At the present time—that is to say, in a period which has seen men distinguished in almost every department of philology—a general uncertainty of judgment has increased more and more, and likewise a general relaxation of interest and participation in philological problems. For opponents of this sort, however, philology is merely a useless, harmless, and inoffensive pastime, an object of laughter and not of hate. The great poet of a literary period is still a popular poet in no narrower sense than the popular poet of an illiterate age.
The infinite profusion of images and incidents in the Homeric epic must force us to admit that such a wide range of vision is next to impossible. The Iliad is not a garland, but a bunch of flowers. All those dull passages and discrepancies—deemed of such importance, but really only subjective, which we usually look upon as the petrified remains of the period of tradition—are not these perhaps merely the almost necessary evils which must fall to the lot of the poet of genius who undertakes a composition virtually without a parallel, and, further, one which proves to be of incalculable difficulty? The majority contend that a single individual was responsible for the general design of a poem such as the Iliad , and further that this individual was Homer. Beyond good and evil, tr. And that wonderful genius to whom we owe the Iliad and the Odyssey belongs to this thankful posterity: he, too, sacrificed his name on the altar of the primeval father of the Homeric epic, Homeros.
As it is difficult for us at the present day, and necessitates a serious effort on our part, to understand the law of gravitation clearly—that the earth alters its form of motion when another heavenly body changes its position in space, although no material connection unites one to the other—it likewise costs us some trouble to obtain a clear impression of that wonderful problem which, like a coin long passed from hand to hand, has lost its original and highly conspicuous stamp. Up to this time the Homeric question had run through the long chain of a uniform process of development, of which the standpoint of those grammarians seemed to be the last link, the last, indeed, which was attainable by antiquity. Below, we use the final ordering, noting when the volume number was originally different. Homer was for him the flawless and untiring artist who knew his end and the means to attain it; but there is still a trace of infantile criticism to be found in Aristotle—i. The design of an epic such as the Iliad is not an entire whole, not an organism; but a number of pieces strung together, a collection of reflections arranged in accordance with aesthetic rules. Paul Bishop, intro by Jill Marsden.
Are there characteristic differences between the utterances of the man of genius and the poetical soul of the people? The infinite profusion of images and incidents in the Homeric epic must force us to admit that such a wide range of vision is next to impossible. There is no more dangerous assumption in modern æsthetics than that of popular poetry and individual poetry, or, as it is usually called, artistic poetry. So Homer, the poet of the Iliad and the Odyssey , is an æsthetic judgment. The first school, on the other hand, wavered between the supposition of one genius plus a number of minor poets, and another hypothesis which assumed only a number of superior and even mediocre individual bards, but also postulated a mysterious discharging, a deep, national, artistic impulse, which shows itself in individual minstrels as an almost indifferent medium. With this contrast the so heartrending and dogmatic tradition follows in a theory, and consequently in the practice of classical philology derived from this theory.
This is the central point of the Homeric errors. Has Homer's personality, because it cannot be grasped, gradually faded away into an empty name? So Homer, the poet of the Iliad and the Odyssey, is an aesthetic judgment. The conception of popular poetry seemed to lead like a bridge over this problem—a deeper and more original power than that of every single creative individual was said to have become active; the happiest people, in the happiest period of its existence, in the highest activity of fantasy and formative power, was said to have created those immeasurable poems. The zenith of the historico-literary studies of the Greeks, and hence also of their point of greatest importance—the Homeric question—was reached in the age of the Alexandrian grammarians. But even this distinguishing characteristic, in place of wishing to recognise the supernatural existence of a tangible personality, ascends likewise through all the stages that lead to that zenith, with ever-increasing energy and clearness.
We believe in a great poet as the author of the Iliad and the Odyssey—but not that Homer was this poet. The conception of popular poetry seemed to lead like a bridge over this problem—a deeper and more original power than that of every single creative individual was said to have become active; the happiest people, in the happiest period of its existence, in the highest activity of fantasy and formative power, was said to have created those immeasurable poems. But the same powers which were once active are still so; and the form in which they act has remained exactly the same. If, however, this construction was not clearly seen, this fault was due to the way the poems were handed down to posterity and not to the poet himself—it was the result of retouchings and interpolations, owing to which the original setting of the work gradually became obscured. John McFarland : , also by Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche, Robert Guppy, Horace Barnett Samuel, Thomas Common, Paul V.
And philology has a great many such enemies. They conceived the Iliad and the Odyssey as the creations of one single Homer; they declared it to be psychologically possible for two such different works to have sprung from the brain of one genius, in contradiction to the Chorizontes, who represented the extreme limit of the scepticism of a few detached individuals of antiquity rather than antiquity itself considered as a whole. Was the person created out of a conception, or the conception out of a person? The E-mail message field is required. It is not only probable that everything which was created in those times with conscious æsthetic insight, was infinitely inferior to the songs that sprang up naturally in the poet's mind and were written down with instinctive power: we can even take a step further. Cohn multiple formats at archive.
Mügge, William August Haussmann, and Oscar Levy, contrib. It was none other than Goethe who, in early life a supporter of Wolf's theories regarding Homer, recanted in the verses— With subtle wit you took away Our former adoration: The Iliad, you may us say, Was mere conglomeration. It is a common occurrence for a series of striking signs and wonderful emotions to precede an epoch-making discovery. Friedrich August Wolf 1759-1824 , founder of classical philology as a scientific discipline, and author of Kleine Schriften Minor Writings; Nietzsche read the 1869 edition , Prolegomena ad Homerum Prolegomena to Homer, 1795 , Darstellung der Altertumswissenschaft Representation of Antiquity, 1807. For in Homer the modern world, I will not say has learnt, but has examined, a great historical point of view; and, even without now putting forward my own opinion as to whether this examination has been or can be happily carried out, it was at all events the first example of the application of that productive point of view. The more the first school looked for inequalities, contradictions, perplexities, the more energetically did the other school brush aside what in their opinion obscured the original plan, in order, if possible, that nothing might be left remaining but the actual words of the original epic itself.
He left the in 1894, where his father was a banker in , and lived in the. As it is difficult for us at the present day, and necessitates a serious effort on our part, to understand the law of gravitation clearly—that the earth alters its form of motion when another heavenly body changes its position in space, although no material connection unites one to the other—it likewise costs us some trouble to obtain a clear impression of that wonderful problem which, like a coin long passed from hand to hand, has lost its original and highly conspicuous stamp. Individuality is ever more strongly felt and accentuated; the psychological possibility of a single Homer is ever more forcibly demanded. The difference between them is not in the way they originate, but it is their diffusion and propagation, in short, tradition. The dawn of day, tr. By it scholars learnt to recognise condensed beliefs in the apparently firm, immobile figures of the life of ancient peoples; by it they for the first time perceived the wonderful capability of the soul of a people to represent the conditions of its morals and beliefs in the form of a personality.