else, gerald, f._god and gods in early greek thought_1949_tapha, 80, pp. 24-36

7/29/2019 Else, Gerald, F._god and Gods in Early Greek Thought_1949_TAPhA, 80, Pp. 24-36

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/else-gerald-fgod-and-gods-in-early-greek-thought1949tapha-80-pp-24-36 1/14

American Philological Association

God and Gods in Early Greek ThoughtAuthor(s): Gerald F. ElseSource: Transactions and Proceedings of the American Philological Association, Vol. 80 (1949),pp. 24-36Published by: The Johns Hopkins University Press

Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/283509 .

Accessed: 02/09/2013 18:43

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of

content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

American Philological Association and The Johns Hopkins University Press are collaborating with JSTOR to

digitize, preserve and extend access to Transactions and Proceedings of the American Philological Association.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 132.248.9.8 on Mon, 2 Sep 2013 18:43:17 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=jhup

http://www.jstor.org/stable/283509?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp





http://www.jstor.org/stable/283509?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=jhup



24 GeraldF. Else [1949

II.-God and Gods in EarlyGreekThought

GERALD F. ELSE

STATE UNIVERSITY OF IOWA

The article is summarized in the last paragraph.

In thesecondbook of theRepublic Plato bringsup his heaviestguns to attack the poets' stories about the gods. We will not

tolerate them in our state, he says, not only because they havedamagingeffectsn theyoungbutbecause they re false,theymis-represent hedivinenature.' And he proceedsto lay down a few"outlines" (typoi)for heguidanceof the poets. First,god, 6OE6 2

mustbe representeds he is, namely s good and thecause of good.Hence a passage like Achilles'famous ccountof the ars on Zeus'sdoorstep Il. 24.525 ff.)mustbe expungedfrom he record. This,then, s thefirst outline" concerninghegods,thatgodis onlythecause ofgood.3 The secondstates that goddoes notchangeform4

or, as Socrates says in summary,5he gods do not change form.Finally, it is impossiblethat god should tell lies;6 gods and menalike hate a real lie, "the lie in the soul";7 god,that is, thedivine,T6 OELOV aL TOaL/bL6VLov,8s free romeception;od ssimplend true;or,to sum it all up, thegodsneither ie nordeceive.9

In this passage Socrates constantly hiftsnumber n a curious

way; his initialstatements nd summaries end to speak of deityin theplural,his argumentsn thesingular. None of those presentseemsto boggleat his language, n fact t appears thatthesingular(including heneuter ingularrOO,6ov)nd thepluralare acceptedas identical. And yetSocrates' successdependson theirnotbeingquite identical. In each successive typoshe is appealing to anintuition r conceptof god as such,whichhe thenapplies to the

familiar tories fdivinebeings, thegods." Singularityppertains

to theconcept,plurality o thestories;there s a real alternation fthoughtbetweenthetwo. And finally,most curiousfeature f all,whereasto our minds the shadow of monotheism asses over the

I Rep. 377D ff. 4 380D. 7 382c.

2 379B. 1,381E. 8382E.3 380c. ' 382A~. 9383A.







Vol. lxxxi God and Gods n EarlyGreekThought 25

argument gain and again - the suggestionthat really therearenot manygods but onlygod - no one present eems to notice it.Socrates returnsunchallengedfromhis monotheistic xcursions orest n the gods: a purified olytheism, ut polytheism or ll that.'0

Similardiscussionstake place in theMemorabilia fXenophon,4.3,11 nd especially 1.4, the argumentwith the practising theistAristodemus, here ingular nd pluralalternate gainand Socratesendsbysaying, If youwillworship he odsyouwillcometounder-stand that thedivine TO MEop) s such that they thegods] see andhearall, are everywhere,nd care for verything."'12

Of course the alternationbetween6 Osos nd ol OoL is familiarelsewhere;'3 ut thesepassagesseemto me to bring ut theparadoxmost vividly, that fifth- nd fourth-century reeks could talkmonotheisticallynd polytheisticallyt thesame timeand withoutappearing to be aware of a contradiction. The rootsof these twomodes ofspeechand thought re worth nvestigating.

If we go back to one of the verypassages whichso offended

Plato, Achillesto Priam (II. 24.525 ff.),we findthe same alterna-tion. Ayme,saysAchilles, uch stheportion he odshaveallottedto mortals, life ofmisery. Two jars sit on Zeus's doorstep, on-tainingthegiftshedispenses:to somemen evil, to somegood,andto somea mixed ot. Such werethegifts fthegodsto Peleus (534).He was wealthy nd powerful,nd theymade a goddesshisconsort.But god 538) gave himtooan evilgift, hatheshouldhaveonlyonechild and nowhe sits hereat Troy. And so theHeavenlyOnes

(547) have brought hispresentwoe on you also, old man, thepre-lude ofmoreto come.

10When it comes to the religious ordering of the new state, Rep. 4.427B, there isno question of monotheism. The matter is left to Apollo of Delphi, who was notori-ously conservative in such things.

11Mem. 4.3.3-14: Socrates expatiates at length on the benefactions of "the gods"to men; to which Euthydemus replies, ibid. 15, that he is sure he will never againneglect to daimonion.

12 Mem. 1.4.18. Marchant's Oxford text brackets aiJrois on the strength of its

omission in one inferiorms. The omission, like a.or6 n Parisinus 1302, is an emenda-tion by somebody who could not understand acbrouso soon after TroOeao. At 1.4.2the discussion is said to be repl roi6aLOU0ovLoU;hen the terms follow: 4, oL sc. &wrpyar&-/AEVOL,i.e., oLOeoi]; 5, 6 woLwvi.e., 6 0O6s]; 10, 76 baqoMvLov;1, OfObS; 13, rcnOea, Osc7;14, OSbs; 16, roUs Owbs; 17, -roiOeoi; 18, TrrvOf, r6 Oe7ov.

13 E.g., Pind. P. 2.49, 88; 0. 13.104; Aesch. Pers. 742; Ag. 1424; Soph. Ant. 1273;El. 1267; Eur. Ion 569. For Herodotus see below, note 58.








It is clear that, whateverbe Achilles' theology, god," "gods,"and even "Zeus" are equivalent terms throughout he passage.

And that his mode of expression s not eccentric s proved by aspeechlikeNestor's narrative fthe ourneyhomewardfromTroy(Od. 3.130-183), wherethe divinities nvolvedare Zeus, Athena,Poseidon,"the gods," and "god" (oe6s nd aLaw,v).'4Nestor is lessvague thanAchilles,buthe uses the samemodeof speech, ncludingthe alternationbetween propername and commonnoun and be-tween singular nd plural.

Nobody would suggestthat Achillesor Nestoralternatelybe-lieves in one god and many. Nor can it be maintainedthat thesingulartheosrefers ach time to the divinity ast mentionedbyname."' The solution lies ratherin the principleenunciated byJorgensen, ed6n,and Ehnmark'6 s to Homeric utterances boutthegods, namelythat thepoetalwaysknowswhatgod s presentnorresponsibleora given ituation,while hehuman haracterssuallydo not. The poet's knowledge fthe divinenature and behavior s

precise, encyclopedic,binding; that of the characters is vague,limited,unauthoritative. There is no need to reciteherethecaseswhere thepoet knowswhatgod has intervenedwhilehischaractersonlyknowthata godhas intervened,r wherehe knowstheattitudeof a certaindivinepersonagewhiletheydo not."7

14Nestor's story in outline: we embarked and god scattered the Achaeans, 131;

Zeus was meditating a grievous return for them, 132; they encountered an ill fate

because of the wrath of Athena, 135, who stirred up a quarrel between the Atridae;

Agamemnon thought to appease Athena, 145, but the mind ofgods is not easily turned,

147; thus we were divided, and Zeus was preparing woe forus, 152; half of us set sail,and godsmoothed the sea, 158; at Tenedos we sacrificed,but Zeus was not yet planning

our returnand stirredup strifea second time, 161 [but it was Athena who had stirred

it up before, 136]; I knew what sufferinggod (daim6n) was planning, 166; we asked

(the?) god for a sign, 173; he showed one and gave us a route to escape ill fortune,and

a gentle wind arose, 176; at Geraistos we sacrificed to Poseidon, 178; the wind held

all the way home, from the time when god first et it blowing, 183.

"6There is a general equivalence of "god" and "Zeus" in both passages, but theos

cannot be taken as referring pecifically and consistently to the particular god Zeus,

since it sometimes occurs at some distance fromhis name, with theoior another god's

name intervening, 11. 24.538, Od. 3.183; or it precedes it, Od. 3.131. It could just aswell be said that "Zeus" refersto theos. See below, p. 30.

16Ove Jorgensen, "Das Auftreten der Gotter in den Buichern L-u der Odyssee,"

Hermes 39 (1904) 357 ff.; E. Heden, Homerische Gotterstudien diss. Uppsala, 1912)

16 ff. not seen by me); Erland Ehnmark, The Idea of God in Homer (Uppsala, 1935)

64-5.17 E.g., Apollo stirs up Hector, II. 17.75-81, but Menelaus only sees that Hector







Vol. lxxx] God and Gods n EarlyGreekThought 27

When the Homericusage of6e6s nd OeL is surveyedfrom hisvantage-point, ettingon one side utterances f the poet and the

gods themselves, n the other side utterances f the humanchar-acters,'8 some importantdistinctions merge. But they emergeagainst a significant ackgroundof uniformity.Back of all Ho-meric thought nd speech of the poet, the gods, or men liesthe common assumption that a plurality of gods exists. "DieG6tter indda."'9 There are no atheists,but also no monotheists,in Homer. Any one, including the poet, may have occasion torefer to a single god or many; singular and plural are equally

natural according to the context. There is no usage in whicheither number may not occur. One prays to or addresses a godor the gods,20 everences r fails to reverence god or the gods,2'is dear to a god or the gods,22 oes somethingwith the help orapproval of a god or the gods,23 eceives blessingor bane fromgod or the gods 24 and the divine wrath, retribution, ounsels,prophecies, ctions,etc., may be those of one god ormany.25

is being helped by a god (daimona, 98; theos,99); Poseidon speaks to the Aiantes, II.

13.47, but they only know that "some god" has appeared to them, 68; Odysseus isput to sleep by Athena, Od. 5.492, but later, 7.286, he says merely that "(a) god" didit. The Trojan women make offering nd pray to Athena, II. 6.297 ff.;the poet knows,but they do not, that their prayer is denied, 311. Any reader can multiply instances.

18 The survey included theosand daim6n, but since the plural normally does notreveal whether its reference is definite or indefinite (cf. Heden quoted by Ehnmark,op. cit. 67 note 2) it was taken into account only when it appears in significant uxta-position or parallel with the indefinite or generalizing singular.

19Wilamowitz, Der Glaube der Hellenen 1 (Berlin, 1931) 17.20 There is no need to cite more than sample cases forthis and the followingpoints

(notes 21-25). Naturally a single god is usually referred to by name,not with theword theos. Prayers: II. 1.35, Chryses to Apollo; II. 6.476, Hector to Zeus and the

other gods; Od. 12.337, Odysseus to all the gods.21 Reverence: II. 1.215-18, Achilles to Athena; 16.710-11, Patroclus beforeApollo;

24.503 = Od. 9.269, Priam to Achilles, and Odysseus to Polyphemus: reverence thegods; Od. 21.28, Heracles did not respect the vengeance of the gods.

22 II. 1.381, Chryses dear to Apollo; 24.67, Hector dearest of mortals to the gods;Od. 7.316, may this not be dear to Zeus.

23 II. 5.185, Pandarus to Aeneas: Diomed is being helped by a god; cf. Od. 15.531;Od. 3.28, Athena (as Mentor) to Telemachus: it is not without the gods(' help) thatyou have grown up (note also daim6n, 27); cf. Od. 6.240, 24.444; II. 9.49, Diomed:

we came with god; cf. II. 24.430, Priam to Hermes disguised: escort me with thegods(' help). This latter idiom also in Attic, e.g. Soph. OT 146; Aesch. Ag. 913.24 II. 1.178, Agamemnon to Achilles: god gave you your strengthand valor; 6.156,

Glaucus to Diomed: the gods gave Bellerophon beauty and prowess; 9.493, Phoenix toAchilles: the gods did not accomplish (grant) me any offspring.

26 Wrath: II. 1.75, ofApollo; 5.178, of (a) god; Od. 2.66, of the gods. Retribution:II. 16.388, Od. 20.215, 21.28, of the gods; II. 4.507, of Apollo; 15.115-16, of Zeus.Counsel(s): II. 8.370, of Thetis; Od. 16.402, 11.276, of the gods. Signs and prophecies:








Neverthelessthere are differencesn usage. They arise notfrom ifferingpinions s to thebasic assumption, ut from ifferent

kindsand degreesof knowledge n the speaker. The gods knoweach other nd each other'snamesand activities nd have no occa-sion forthe indefinite e6s r OeCVTLsexceptwhen talkingto men.26Neitherdoes the poet, whose knowledge s accreditedas comingfrom he gods.27 Both the gods and the poet, then, are correctlypolytheistic n their anguage. And so are men when theyhavethe guidance of cult or prophecy. But they are not always soprecise. Not onlydo they notalwaysknow what god or gods they

are dealingwith, nd whethert is one or more; it does not alwaysmatterverymuch.

It does matter ntenselyn any genuinely eligious ransaction.A prayer,for xample,cannot but be felt s addressedto a person,and onewants toknow hisname,hisidentity,f t is ascertainable.28Likewise a man in themidstofa strenuous ctionwheregods maybe presentwillwant to knownotonlythat theyare therebut whothey are.29 His knowledgemay be vague and imprecise n fact,

but it is concrete nd precise n intention as thatofthepoet andthegods is concrete nd precise n fact. Ifhe speaksof"(a) god,"it is because he cannotyet say more.

Od. 15.168, god showed this sign; cf. 3.174 (above, note 14); 3.215, god's voice; cf.

14.89; II. 4.398, signs fromthe gods; 5.64, oracles from the gods.

26 The gods know each other; Od. 5.79; II. 23.388, Hymn to Hermes 154. II. 5.128,

Athena tells Diomed that she has taken the mist fromhis eyes so that he can tell both

(a) god and (a) mortal; this is said from the point of view of the mortal. But a god

can use theos predicatively: 11. 18.394, Hephaestus to Thetis: you ar.e a revered and

awesome goddess to me.27 Ehnmark, op. cit. (above, note 16) 70: "For obvious reasons the poet was in

quite a differentposition fromthat of the ordinary man. His knowledge is unlimited

and he has no doubt as to the identity of the intervening god; he can even tell what

was the object of the god's intervention and how it took place. Whether we assume

that Homer believed in his gods or not, it was his right and duty as a poet to supply

definite informationon those points that were left vague and indefinite n the popular

conception of the gods. In this respect the position of the poet is, mutatis mutandis,

similar to that of the oracles." Divine source of the bard's knowledge: Od. 1.338;

8.44, 63, 73, 480, 498; 22.347.26 Wilamowitz, op. cit. (above, note 19) 21: "Ein unbestimmter Osfskann gar

keinen Kultus erhalten, weil er keine Person geworden ist. Wie soll man ihn zumOpfer laden? Und konnte er kommen?" Ibid. 33: "In allen Fltichen und Beschwor-

ungen kommt es auf die peinliche Einhaltung der zauberkraftigen Worte an, dann

also auch darauf, dass der Gott bei seinem richtigen Namen gerufen wird." Cf.

Ehnmark, op. cit. 69.29 II. 15.247, Hector asks Apollo who he is. II. 22.297, the sign of Hector's

doomed state is that he has failed to recognize Athena; once he recognizes that it was

she, he is prepared fordeath.








It is when men are withdrawn rom ctionand theurgentneedto reach or influence he gods,when theyare recallingtheirownpast life n tranquillity r reflectingn life ngeneral, hattheyarecontentwith therecognition f "god," the divine"x," as operativein our existence. Man is thenneither worshippernoran actor,nor yet a professional elater of the doings of the gods; he is inneitherthe religiousnor the mythicalsphere. He is Achilles re-memberinghis father, or Nestor rememberinghe long voyagehome, or a humbleman like Eumaeus or Melanthiuscommentingpiously and resignedly n the ways of "god" with man.30 Themood ofthiskind of talk is recognition nd resignation ombined.And thereforet constitutesno real threatto polytheism.

There are manypassages in both Iliad and Odyssey,speciallythe latter,where"god" is mentioned s thedispenser fgood andbad fortune, appiness nd sufferingngeneral, nd wherethe con-textmakes it eitherunlikely r impossible hat theos s merely nindefinite ay ofreferringo a particular eity.3" The same thingsare said, oftenby the same people, about "the gods";32 that is,Homerfreelynterchangesingular nd plural nthis ortofcontext.It is in thissphere, hen,wheregod is felt imply s giverand manas receiver fgoodand ill,thattheos eemsfirst oattain orapproachreal generality. We have here anotherformof apprehensionofdivinity, uitedistinctfrom heapparatusofmythologynd divinepersonality nd quite capable of existing longside it because itsframe freferences differentnd perpetually enewed;theactual,

observed world ofhappiness and suffering,uccess and failure, orwhichmythologyhas only indirect nd tardyexplanations, s inthe foreground ere, while the divine world is seen only throughitsoperations,not in itsowndistinctforms.

The wordbal,uwv,hich tselfmeans "dispenser,"points in thesame direction.33The gods themselvesdo not use the term to

30Eumaeus, Od. 14.444; god will give one thing and leave another alone as hepleases, forhe can do anything; 14.65: god makes the work grow; 17.218, Melanthius:god brings like together with like.

31 The usage occurs in II. 1.178; 2.436; 6.228; 7.288; 9.445, 703; 13.727, 730, 743;17.99, 688; 19.159; 21.103; 22.285; Od. 4.181(?); 8.44, 170, 177, 498, 570; 9.158, 339(?);11.292; 13.317; 14.65, 227, 309, 444; 17.218, 399; 18.37, 265; 19.485, 488, 496; 20.344;21.213, 280; 22.347; 23.185(?), 222.

32 E.g., cf. Od. 3.269, 11.292; II. 1.178 (cf. 16.867), 4.320, 6.156; Od. 14.65, 15.372(Eumaeus); 23.210, 222 (Penelope).

33 On daim6n see Wilamowitz, op. cit. (above, note 19) 362-69.








refer o each other, nd the poet in his own characteruses it onlyseldom34 but it is on the lips of men frequentlyespeciallyin the

Odyssey)whentheyrefer o the operationof divine poweron thefortunes f a particularman, or men in general.35 It is not areligiouswordand the daimonas such is nota personality; ne doesnot prayto a, or the,daim8n.

The different etrical hape of theworddaim8n,togetherwithits similarityn meaningto the generalized heos, ed to a furtherdevelopment. Daim8n can stand in the last footof a hexameterline, and in otherplaces wheretheos nd theoicannot. Hence it

tendsto becomea standingalternative especiallycommon n theOdyssey)fortheos, ccording to the metrical situation.36Thereare even signs in Homer of extensionto the plural (daimones=theoi), nd in the Homerichymnsdaimon s already used freely orefer o knowngods. But thatdevelopment s not our theme.37

The other equivalent for theosgenerale s "Zeus." Withoutgoing into the problemof the particulargod Zeus, it is clear thathis name is oftenalternated withtheoswithout ppreciablediffer-

ence of meaning, n the speeches of Achillesand Nestor alreadycited and elsewhere.38This generalizedZeus = "god" is to bedistinguished romthe dramatic Zeus of the scenes on Olympus,and forthat matteralso from the personalizedsupremegod ofHesiod and the Atticpoets.

These alternationsof theoswith theoi,daim8n,and especially"Zeus" mightbe taken to mean that we have nothingmorehereafterall than haziness about the identityof the god concerned.

And it is true: wherethe speakersays "god," or even "gods," if34 Daim6n is used by gods only in the formula ba&ijo/ 'Laos, II. 5.459, 884, and by

the minor god Aeolus, Od. 10.64; by the poet, chieflyin bai,uov 'Los, II. 16.705, 786;

20.447, 493; 21.18, 227; otherwise II. 1.222, pur& balpovas &XXovs, unique phrase

which has caused much discussion, and 3.420, i5pXee baijuwv, lso unique as referring

to a definitedeity (but see below, note 36); II. 11.480; 15.418; Od. 5.396 (- 10.64, see

above) .35E.g., II. 6.115; 7.291; 11.792 abv bal.ovn (cf. abv 0eL); 15.468 (cf. 473, Oe6s);

17.98, 104 (cf. 99, e66s; 01, Oe&ku');Od. 2.134; 6.172; 7.248; 11.61; 12.169; 18.256 (ct.

265, 06es); 24.306.

36Of 56 occurrences of daim6n listed by Ebeling for liad and Odyssey,36 are nom.sing. in the last foot, usually preceded by a verb of dactylic shape (the commonest is

77yayz). All but seven of the 36 cases are in the Odyssey. But daim6n can also begin

a line, and its oblique cases have differentmetrical value fromthose of theos.

37 See above, note 33.38 E.g., Od. 4.173 Zeus, 181 e66s; 4.300, 305 Zeus,309 Oehs, 10 Zeus abur6s; f. 7.248

bajuwiv, 50 Zeus. This parallel usage also (Oces-Zebs) would bear metrical investiga-

tion.







Vol. lxxx] Godand Gods n EarlyGreekThought 31

hewerechallengedo give a name he would probablytryto do so,and probably n morecases than not he would say "Zeus." Cer-tainlyhisunspecifiedgod" is notanotherdivinity longsideZeus,Apollo, etc.39 He meanswhateverdivine powerthere s, withouttrying o say more; if pressedhe will offer name usually,nodoubt, the commonest nd easiest that is familiar o himfromcultor poetictradition. The answer"Zeus" does notbespeakanypenetrating hought-process. And yet the tendencytowardgen-eralization s also there. The tendencyto relapse into anthropo-morphism r particularisms notdecisiveevidenceto thecontrary,

even where t can be demonstrated; orthe two tendencies re notreal contraries. Even much later, when the concept of a singledivine naturehad longbeen familiar,t stillconstitutedno bar tobelief n a plurality fdivinebeings; and thedeveloped term6 NOeS= "god" no morenecessarilympliedtheexistence fonlyone godthan 6 'vOp&ros implied the existenceof only one human being.Oe6swas certainly genericwordfrom hebeginningit was prob-ably predicative n origin, houghwe do not knowits rootmean-

ing),40nd was thereforevailable toHomericmenfor uchgeneral-izinguse as theywerecapable ofor inclinedto. What is lackingin theirspeech is not the tendencyto generalize,but theexplicitawareness hat generalizations beingmade,and a nexusoftermsand procedures hroughwhich tcan be made fruitful. It remainedfor hesixthand fifthenturies o providethenexus.4'

Nevertheless he Homeric diomis ofmajor importance. It isalso a paradox. Forhere t is ust thecommonfolk, nd active men

in theirmoments freflection, ho talk thelanguageofphilosophyto come. Their mode of speech is vague, uninstructed,ven un-inquiring, ut it carries hegermoffuture hought. Gods, priests,bardsare above it; theyhave too muchuo4La,technicalknowledge

39As Nilsson at one time thought, A HistoryofGreekReligion (Oxford, 1925) 165.See Ehnmark, op. cit. (above, note 16) 71.

40 The etymology is still uncertain: Walde-Pokorny, Vergleichendes Worterbuchd. indog. Sprachen 1 (Berlin-Leipzig, 1930) 867; though Otto Kern, for example, DieReligion der Griechen 1 (Berlin, 1926) 126, still accepts Bechtel's explanation as "theshining one." On the original predicative use of theossee Wilamowitz, op. cit. (abovenote 19) 18. B. Snell, Die Enideckung des Geistes (Hamburg, 1946) 204, shows how the"Dingwort" in itselfhas a generic character which is original but is brought into sharperfocus by the development of the generic definite article.

41 We have no good test of the awareness of generalization without the article.and it is only clinched by the development of the neuter substantive (see below, p. 35),But see Eduard Meyer quoted below, note 45.








about the gods, to talk in such a fashion. They cannot see thewood for he trees.

The existenceof such a way of speakingabout thegods wouldhave to be positedforseventh-centuryonia fromHomer alone.42But thereis also other evidence, fromthe elegy, to some extentfrom ther yricpoetry, nd from onian philosophy.

For Ionian non-epicpoetry n the late seventh enturywe haveCallinus, Mimnermus,Archilochus,and Semonides. The brieffragmentsf Callinusyieldnothing or urpurpose, ndArchilochusnot much.43 But Mimnermus alks like Achilles ("so hatefulhas

god made old age," 1.10 Diehl; "there is no man to whomZeusdoes notgivemany lls,"2.15-16 D.)," andSemonides ikeEumaeus(''we mortalsknownot howgodwillbring ach thing ofulfilment,"1.5 D.; "god made good senseapart fromwoman," 7.1 D.).4" Theinstancesare not many, but in the small body of these poets'extantworktheyare numerous noughnot to be fortuitous.

The same conclusion can be drawn from ixth-centurylegy,Solon and especiallyTheognis. Solon's elegies,like all his verse,

bear the impressof his own powerful nd original mind,and histheology s Hesiodic and Attic ratherthan Ionian; even so he hasthegeneralizingingular f theos hree imes, woof them npopularor conventional ontexts.46There are sevensure instancesof it inTheognis, and threeof daimon in the same use, alternatingwith

42 Ehnmark, op. cit. (above, note 16) 65-66, accepts Heden's view that the indefinite

use of theosechoes the speech of Homer's own time, but rightlyrejects his idea that

it is an aristocratic expression which already betrays an advanced state of abstraction

and scepticism.43 Theoi, Archil. 7 Diehl; 22; 58; Zeus, 68; 74; daim6n, 45, but referring o some

particular deity; no case of theos n sing.44 Zeus also fr.4 D.45 Theos also 7.7, 25 D.; Zeus 1.1; 7.93, 96. See Eduard Meyer, Geschichtedes

Altertums 32 (Stuttgart, 1937) 552: "Schon Archilochos [?J, Semonides, Mimnermos

ist es gelaufig,von den 'Gottern' oder einfach von 'Gott' als dem Lenker des Schicksals

und Schirmer des Sittengesetzes [?J u reden. Fragt man, wer dieser Gott ist, so lautet

die Antwort naturlich Zeus - oder auch 'das Schicksal' (MoZpa, dllAap,uevov,allin.

1.9.12). Aber der Name ist nichts mehr zur Sache, der Begriff st das Wesentliche

geworden. Vor der Idee der Gottheit beginnen die Einzelgestalten der Gotter zu

erblassen-

nochnicht im Kultus und in der praktischen Betatigung der Religion,

wohl aber in der zunachst fast unbewussten Empfindung und bald auch in der erwach-

enden Spekulation." Meyer has postdated the phenomenon, he perhaps gives it too

clear and definite a status by speaking of "Begriff" and "Idee der Gottheit," and he

does not stress its specifically Ionian provenance; but he correctlyindicates its impor-

tance for the future.461.69 D.; 19.3; 23.2. Note the sequence in his prayer to the Muses (1 D.): 55.

theoi; 64, the6n; 69, theos; 74, athanatoi; 75, Zeus.







Vol. lxxx] God and Gods n Early GreekThought 33

"Zeus" and "the gods" in the familiarway.'7 Furthermore, nTheogniswe can observe how the choice ofword and numberde-pends at least in part on the metrical hape of the form nd itssuitabilityforvarious places in the hexameteror "pentameter"line.48 Finally,wenotethatTheognisuses thegeneralizingingularoftheos nly n speakingofdeityas dispenser fblessings nd woes(usuallywoes) to men.49

To thiswe may add that our idiom is not foundin Alcaeus,Sappho,80 yrtaeus, Alcman),51 nacreon, tesichorus, bycus;andonly once inHesiod.62 That is, it is notnativeto earlymonodicor

choral lyric (Alcaeus, Sappho, Anacreon, Ibycus; Alcman, Stesi-chorus) and not at home in the Aeolis (Alcaeus, Sappho), theCyclades (Archilochus),or the mainland (Hesiod, Tyrtaeus,Alc-man) except as inherited hrough heelegy Solon,Theognis). Allthe evidence points to the same place and time of origin: Ioniaproper, hat is, theAsia Minorcoast and adjacent islands(Homer,Mimnermus, emonides) in theseventhcentury.53

It is not likely that the idiom is specifically literary," .e.,

Homeric,since Homerdoes not use it when he speaks forhimself.On thecontrary, e seems toecho heretheactual ways ofspeech ofhis owncountry nd time. Neither s it an exclusively ristocraticlocution,54since swineherds, oatherds, nd womenuse it as wellas great ords. It simplyrepresents heway ofthinkingnd talk-ingofordinary onians,neither riestsnorbards,without ccess tospecialknowledgebout thegods. Nowtheearly legiacpoets, ndthereflective oetsand philosopherswho follow hem, reprecisely

suchmen. WhereHomerspoke, ifnot from ivine inspiration, tleast froma professional raditionand the accumulated "theo-logical" lore ofgenerations f bards,Mimnermus r Semonides orevenSolon is thrown n hisownideasoraDDrehensions f god. with

47 Theos, Theogn. 123, 151, 321, 432, 589 (-Solon 1.69), 865, 1189; daimon, 149,403, 1333 (the last two at the end of a line). Alternation of theos,theoi,589, 591.

48 In 123, 321, 432, 589, 865, 1189 the plural either of theosor the verb, or both,will not fitthe meter; in 149, 403, 1189 neither theosnor theoi will fit. Daim6n fitstheend of the hexameter line, theosand theoi of the pentameter.

49 All the instances are nom. case, with verbs vrouiw,ircarw,M6iwpuL,rWi7p, vf8pU7r.60Sappho is fond of words and phrases meaning "godlike" (2.1 D.; 55b.1, 14;

71.3); otherwise theos (not generalizing) only in 67.3; 69.1; 135.2.61Daimdn once in Alcman 1.23 D., with predicate 13JWKE &Upa, 25, and summary

a-rcrtLsatav Tlats, 36. See below,note55.62 Only WD 756, and in predicative use ibid. 764 (suggested by 756?).63 See Wilamowitz, op. cit. (above, note 19) 350."4See above, note 42.








only cult and a public literarytraditionto guide him a verydifferentmatter. Homerspoke as a specialist,theyspeak as lay-

men.The earlyelegiacpoets,then, n theirreflectionsn divinity nd

itsworkingsn our lives,are in the positionof Homer'scharacters,notHomer himself. This is a distinctionwhich, fconscientiouslyobserved,would go far towardssolvingsome of the conventionalparadoxesabout the "Lyric Age" and the "rise of individualism"in Greek iterature. Individualismwas rampant ntheGreekworldlongbeforeHomer. It is rampant n Homer's poems,but Homer

himself s no individualist;his professional raditionforbids t.The lyricpoetsare not underany such taboo; they ack hisknowl-edge, but also its limitations. On the other hand melic poetryproper,monodicor choral,has a differentrientation. Whetheras singer fhisownimmediateoys and sorrows r his ownpersonalrelationto a special divinityor as spokesmanof a community nritual and celebration sharingthe contextof a particularcultand the knowledgeor assumptionsof its communicants he is

essentially ctiverather hanreflective. Again,so far s he acceptsthe Homericmythsabout the gods and retellsor reshapesthem,he takesuponhimselfheHomericmantle f the pecialist. Neitheras expresser f immediate xperiencenoras mythopoioss he likelytospeakof"god" without ualification. These activeand mythicalmodes tend to remainseparate fromthe reflective,he ones em-bodied in melic proper, he other n elegyand Semonides' typeofiambic,until ate in thesixthcentury. WithSimonides, nd then

Pindar, the gnomicstreambegins to run into choral lyric andwith t thegeneralizing se of theos.5

By the fifth enturyboth the "polytheistic"and the "mono-theistic" mode are common property:parallel, yet still subtlydistinct. Plato and Xenophoncould draw on both as part of thecommon tockofAtticspeech.

We have alreadytouchedon someof the reasonswhythegen-eralization of (ho) theosdid not lead to real monotheism. But

one Ioniandid take,or tryto take,the decisivestep. XenophanesofColophon,fellow-townsmanfMimnermus,ed byexperience robservationand his own restlessnature,seems to have startedfrom heworn nd colorless onceptof"god" and given t newcon-

b5E.g., Simon. 4.7 D.; 10; 11; 63. The beginning is perhaps in the modest gnomic

section of Alcman's great partheneion (see above, note 51).








tent. Withhima negative dea, to whichno positive ntuition adcorresponded, ecomesthevessel of a genuine ntuition, hekeytotruth.`6Only Xenophanes went in this particulardirection;butonly n Ionian couldorwouldhave done so. AndevenXenophanesis nota truemonotheist;his One God is still "greatest monggodsand men."57

More important orus is the finaldevelopment hat tookplacein lonia itself. The persistence f the basic idiom (ho) theos nIonia is attested byHeraclitus nd Herodotus.58 Here, n thesixthcentury,the generalconcept of "the divine," to theion,was ab-stractedfromhotheos. There is reasonfor scribing he inventionto Anaximander;59n any case it belongs to Ionian naturalphilos-ophy,whence t spread to the Sophists,60 tticspeech,and Plato.The decisive step, as withXenophanes,was the filling f the oldundifferentiateddea of"god" withnew content. Anaximander, r

56 Aristotle,Metaph. 1.5, 986B18 ff. = 21 A 30 Diels-Kranz), excludes Xenophanesfromconsideration as a real philosophical monist because he did not get at either theunity of essence or the unity of matter, but ets r6p6Xovobpavyv&rog3XbPas r ev 'evat

q5i7athvOeov. That is, Xenophanes got his new concept merelyby looking around himBut in any case it was a new concept of 6 Oehs. W. Jaeger, The Theologyof theEarlyGreek Philosophers (Oxford, 1947) 41 ff.,sees in Xenophanes the intellectual revolu-tionary who perceived the devastating novelty of the new definitions of "the divine"by the Milesians (see below, note 59) and took them up as a weapon against Homericanthropomorphism. But Xenophanes was neither a Homeric rhapsode - as Jaegerrightly says - nor a scientificthinker; he operates neither with the anthropomorphicgods nor with to theion, but with theos,the old undifferentiated onian "god" to whomhe gives new formand status. The reform s a practical one: e.g., at the symposiummen are to sing a fittinghymn to "god" instead of the old, bad tales about Tita-nomachies and the like, 21 B 1.13-22 D.-K.

57 21 B 23 Diels-Kranz. The expression is of the well-known "polar" type; butin spite ofWilamowitz (note on Eur. Her. v. 1106) it cannot quite be reconciled with athoroughgoingmonotheism.

58 Heraclitus: 22 B 67 D.-K.; 102; cf. 11, with Kranz's note; 83; 79, ba4iAovos.On these fragments and the related ones 32, 41, 64, and 78 see Olof Gigon, Unter-suchungen zu Heraklit (Leipzig, 1935) 135-148. Apropos of the old equation theos:Zeus note that Heraclitus's divinity "will and will not be called Zeus" (fr.32). Herod-otus has the generic use of (ho) theosthirtytimes: J. E. Powell, A Lexicon toHerodotus(Cambridge, 1938) 166 (but Powell's rubric "monotheistically" is misleading).

59 Jaeger, op. cit. 31, 203-6, gives the most recent and authoritative view of the

probable origin and development of the term. He ascribes it to Anaximander (byinterpretation of Arist. Phys. 3.4. 203B6 ff. = 12 A 15 D.-K.), but does not considerout of what linguistic matrix he fashioned it.

60 By way of such men as Diogenes of Apollonia, on whom see Jaeger, op. cit. 204;note that Diogenes calls his "air" theos. Cf. Critias B 25.16 D.-K., on the invention of"to theion"; he also calls it daim6n (ibid. 17, 39) and daimones (42). For alternationof theos,theoi,and to theioncf. also Gorgias B 11.6; lla.17 D.-K.








the unknownnnovator,was workingn a tradition f Ionianspeechthatgoes back to Homer and perhapsbeyond.

Thus Plato and Xenophoninherited wosingular erms, esidesthe conventionalplural,to represent he conceptof god as such orthe divine in general:ho theos nd to theion. Both are Ionian inorigin,but of different ate and provenance:the one an itemofordinaryuntechnicalspeech at least as far back as the seventhcentury, he other a philosophical Milesian) coinage of the sixth.Theos is the Homericman's - not Homer's unpretentiousndunsophisticatedway of referringo the generaldivine powerthat

operatesin human life. This locution s foundalso in earlyelegyand spreads by the fifth enturyto otherareas of Greek speech.It led to one essay at monotheism, n Xenophanes. To theionrepresents higher tage of abstraction. But in early Greece tospeak of "god," withoutqualification, s to speak like a layman.The road that ultimately ed to theologydid not beginwith theexperts.

else, gerald, f._god and gods in early greek thought_1949_tapha, 80, pp. 24-36

Documents