Poetic Inspiration in Early Greece Author(s): Penelope Murray Source: The Journal of Hellenic Studies, Vol.

101 (1981), pp. 87-100 Published by: The Society for the Promotion of Hellenic Studies Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/629846 . Accessed: 07/05/2013 13:05
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 support@jstor.org.

The Society for the Promotion of Hellenic Studies is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The Journal of Hellenic Studies.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 194.214.161.15 on Tue, 7 May 2013 13:05:19 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

POETIC INSPIRATION

IN EARLY GREECE

ITis generally agreed that the concept of inspiration is one of the most basic and persistent of Greek notions about poetry. Yet there appears to be a certain confusion on the significance of this observation. For instance, while most scholars consider that the idea is of very great antiquity in Greece, there is a recent tendency to regard the concept as a formulation of the fifth century B.C. E. A. Havelock, for example, describes the notion of poetic inspiration as an invention of fifth century philosophers,' and G. S. Kirk states, without discussion, that poetic inspiration was 'probably quite a new conception' at the time Euripides was writing.2 This type of disagreement clearly relates to the more fundamental question of the meaning of the concept of inspiration itself. For although there is an apparent consensus that ancient notions of poetic inspiration correspond in some way to certain modern ideas about the nature of poetic creativity, little attention has been paid to these modern notions of inspiration. And unless such modern notions are investigated, the mere observation that there is a similarity is of little value.3 In this paper I consider the idea of poetic inspiration in early Greek literature from Homer to Pindar. Despite variations in the views of individual poets (related, no doubt, to changes in the function and social status of the poet during this period)4 the early Greek poets share certain basic assumptions about the nature of poetic creativity, and can therefore be treated together as a group. My aim in what follows is to clarify these basic assumptions, and therefore the early Greek concept of poetic inspiration. It seems to me that there are in particular two theoretical issues in need of analysis, both fundamental to our understanding of ancient views of poetic creativity. The first is the frequent assumption that inspiration necessarily involves ecstasy or possession, and that the inspired poet takes no conscious part in the process of composition, but is merely the passive instrument of some overwhelming force. An important consequence of this assumption is that inspiration and craft or technique are seen as incompatible. All this is, of course, true of Plato's concept of poetic

as or 1uaavta: hisworkPlatodescribes theinspired inspiration throughout poetasa EvOovoaaouds instrument who knows of the source passive nothing whathe is sayingandwho cannotexplain or the meaningof his poetry.5But thereis no evidenceto suggestthatthe earlyGreekpoets in thisway. In factthisconceptof poeticinspiration asa kindof ecstatic thoughtof inspiration to be no older than the fifth Nevertheless certain madness-furor poeticus-appears century.6 scholars in Greek notions of with thePlatonic persist equating early inspiration concept offuror For example,E. Barmeyer7 refersto the traditional Greeknotion 'nachder der poeticus. DichterseinenStandort verliert undim Enthusiasmus dieGottheit ihnkommt' uiber inspirierte
1 Preface to Plato (Oxford 1963) 156. This and the following works are cited by author'sname alone: E. R. Dodds, The GreeksandtheIrrational (Berkeley 195i); R. Plato(London 1969); Harriott,PoetryandCriticism before G. Lanata, Poetica pre-Platonica(Florence 1963); H. im friihen Maehler, Die Auffassungdes Dichterberufs Griechentum 1963). (Giottingen 2 The Bacchae (New Jersey 1970) Io. 3 Those scholars who have discussed the subject of poetic inspirationin general have confused rather than clarified the ancient position. C. M. Bowra, for and Poetry example, in his Rede Lecture on Inspiration (London 1955) discusses the writing habits of many modern poets and makes some interesting observations on poetic inspiration. But elsewhere he uses his knowledge of the creative processesof modern poets to make inferences about ancient poets which are purely speculative. See e.g. Pindar(Oxford 1964) 8-Io, 13. 4 See e.g. Maehler, passim; J. Svenbro, La paroleet le

marbre. Aux origines de la poktique (Lund1976). grecque s The most importanttexts are: Ion passim; Ap. 22a-c; Men.99c-e; Phdr. 245;Leg.682a,719c-d. 120W canbe related to theideaof poetic 6 Archil.fr. scholars haverightlypointedout;but lpavia,as several perhapsone should not press Archilochustoo far towards a generalfuror it is thedithyramb hecan poeticus: createwhenlightning-struck by wine.The old analogy betweenpoetryandprophecy, andin particular the use of verseas a mediumfor prophecyat Delphi,is also relevant to theorigins of thenotionoffurorpoeticus. But the firstfirm evidencethat we have for sucha notion dates from the fifth century. See Dodds 82; E. N. 'Furor Poeticus: PoeticInspiration in Greek Tigerstedt, Literature beforeDemocritus and Plato',JHI xxxi. 2 163-78. (1970) 7 Die Musen: Ein Beitragzur Inspirationstheorie (Miinchen 1968)102.

This content downloaded from 194.214.161.15 on Tue, 7 May 2013 13:05:19 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

88

PENELOPE MURRAY

and M. Fuhrmann8speaksof the typically Greek concept of poetic creativity as 'Verziickung, des Dichtersaus sich selbst (Ekstase), Wahnsinn,Entriickungoder Rausch, als ein Heraustreten als ein Erftilltsein durch den Gott (Enthusiasmus)'. A particularlygood example of confusion is providedby Havelock.9 He rightly notes that the notion of possessionis absentfrom earlyGreek poetry, but consequentlyconcludes that the notion of inspirationis equally absent. Before the fifth century, on his view, poetry was thought of as a craft;the 'contraryconception' of poetic inspiration was invented in the fifth century. In other words Havelock assumes both that inspirationand possessionare identicaland that inspirationand techniqueare incompatible.He does not recogniseany concept of poetic inspirationother than Plato's,10nor does he appearto entertainthe possibilitythat the concept was conceivedof in differentways at differentperiodsin antiquity. In fact modern studies of the creative process show that there are different kinds of inspiration,both in theory and in practice." The experiencewhich gives rise to the concept has been describedby many differentpoets at differentperiods. Obviously the experience differs from poet to poet, but an essentialfeatureof it is the feeling that poetry comes from some source other than the conscious mind. In its most mild form inspirationis simply the moment when a thought or phrasespontaneouslypresentsitself to the poet as the startingpoint of a poem.12 Although the initial inspirationappearsto come to the poet as if from some source other than himself, the subsequent composition of the poem dependson consciouseffort and hardwork. At the other extreme inspirationcan be a much more shatteringexperience,involving any one or more of the following features.The poet composes with greateaseandfluency, sometimes with extreme speed. No subsequentrevision is necessary.Composition may be accompaniedby an unusually heightened state, variously describedas frenzy, intoxication, enthusiasmor ecstasy. Such a state can only be temporary and does not depend on the will of the poet. When inspirationceases,the poet is amazedat what he haswritten, and can only describehimselfas the instrumentof some higher power.13 The basicfeaturein all these experiencesof inspirationseemsto be the feeling of dependence on some source other than the conscious mind. We might perhapsdistinguishbetween two types of inspiration,one of which involves ecstasy,the other of which does not, 14 but these two types are merely the opposite ends of a spectrum, and within this spectrum there are many differentkinds of inspiration.It is a mistakethereforeto assumethat inspirationeitherin theory or in practicenecessarily involves total abandonmentof responsibilityfor his creationon the part 8 EinfiThrung indieantike Dichtungstheorie (Darmstadt(London 1970) 53-88; K. Dick (ed.), Writers at Work
1973) 73-4.
9 156.
10 One reason for this concentration on Plato is, I suspect, that modern notions of inspiration (which are largely Romantic) bear more resemblance to the Platonic concept of inspirationthan to anything which we find in the early Greek poets. Compare, for example, Socrates'well-known words about the inability of the inspiredpoet to understandhis own creations with the following statement of Thomas Carlyle: 'Manufacture is intelligible, but trivial; Creation is great, but cannot be understood. Thus if the Debater and Demonstrator, whom we may rankas the lowest of true thinkers,knows what he has done, and how he did it, the Artist, whom we may rankas the highest, knows not; must speak of Inspiration, and in one or other dialect, call his work the gift of a divinity.' (Characteristics [1831] ed. R. A. Foakes, Romantic Criticism: 18oo-1850[London 19681 145). 11See e.g. R. E. M. Harding, An Anatomy of Inspiration2 (Cambridge 1942); B. Ghiselin, The Creative Process(Berkeley 1952);J. Press, The Fire and the Fountain(London 1966); P. E. Vernon (ed.), Creativity

(Penguin 1972). 12 See e.g. C. Day Lewis' account in The Listener, 28th April, 1966: 'For me, at any rate, "inspiration"is the moment when some phrasecomes to me out of the blue and offers itself as a seed from which a poem may grow. This seed, clue, donn&e,whatever, as you call it, swims up into my mind, not usually as an idea, but in a form of words.' 13 See e.g., Rilke's description of the way in which his Sonnetsto Orpheuswere written (Briefe[Wiesbaden 'Sie sind vielleicht das geheimste, mir 1950] ii 412): selber, in ihrem Aufkommen und sich-mir-Auftragen, ritselhaftesteDiktat, das ichje ausgehaltenund geleistet habe; der ganze erste Teil ist, in einem einzigen atemlosen Gehorchen, zwischen dem 2. und dem 5. Februar1922 nieder-geschrieben,ohne dassein wort im zweifel oder zu indern war.' Cf. Nietzsche's comments on inspirationin EcceHomo(1888) trans.W. Kaufmann (New York 1969) 300-I. Scepticsmay like to note T. S. Eliot's comment in Selected Essays3(London 195I) 405. 14 A distinction between two types of inspirationis also made by Harding (n. I1) 65, and by Stephen Spender in Ghiselin (n. I1) 114-15.

This content downloaded from 194.214.161.15 on Tue, 7 May 2013 13:05:19 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

POETIC INSPIRATION IN EARLY GREECE

89

of the poet. And it is certainlya mistaketo impute suchnotions to the earlyGreekpoets, as I shall

show.

The second issue which needs clarificationconcerns the definition of, and the distinction can be broadlydefined between, the conceptsof poetic inspirationand poetic genius. Inspiration as the temporaryimpulseto poetic creation,and relatesprimarilyto the poetic process.Geniusis

personality.These ideasaresimilarin that they both accountfor the elementin the poetic process composition. But they are basicallydistinct from each other. The one-poetic inspirationaccounts for poetic creativity in terms of a temporary visitation from some external, or seemingly external, force; the other in terms of permanentqualitiesinherentin the poet. The beginnings of both of these ideas are, I suggest, discernibleas early as Homer, and failure to of ancientviews of poetic creativity.'5 distinguishbetween them hasclouded our understanding
THE. MUSES

a permanent to the poetic qualityon which poetic creativitydependsand relatesprimarily which is felt to be inexplicable, and both can be contrasted with the technicalaspectsof

Muses. I shallnot discuss herethe question of how theideaof theMuses butI take originated,16 it thatwhatever elsethe Muses standfor theysymbolise thepoet'sfeelingof dependence on the external: are the of his The Muses the bard in two main they personification inspiration. inspire him him with aid in ways:(a) they give permanent poeticability;(b) they provide temporary Homer andthe earlyGreek do not distinguish betweenthesetwo composition. poetsin general do classical scholars. But theyarenevertheless In ideas,neither distinguishable. facttheyarethe forerunners of the two concepts, outlined for theinexplicable element in above,whichaccount creation. The Muses' of to the of poetic gift permanent poeticabilitycorresponds explanation in termsof thepoeticpersonality; theirtemporary aidin composition to creativity corresponds the explanation of creativity in termsof the poeticprocess. Homer expresses the firstidea, permanent poetic ability,by sayingthat the Museslove teachthemandgive themthe gift of poetry.Typicalof thisattitude is thedescription of bards, Demodocusat Od.viii 44-5:
'yap pa EO PL SC&KEV T- ',7TE &oLvo S rpIPTELnv, Onrirq G7 g E7OpV-Jrorpvv aIEL.

In early Greek poetry inspirationis, of course, characteristically expressedin terms of the

Homerdoesnot tell us precisely whatthe gift of poetryentails, nor doeshe speculate asto the reasons for its bestowal.But evidentlyit is a permanent of gift poetic ability,ratherthana Failure to recognise thiscanbe exemplified discussion of the temporary inspiration. by Harriott's idiom: 'the Greeks the belief that is in some and expressed gift poetry mysterious way "given", thatit comesfroma source external to thepoetandis otherthanhe is. Thisview of inspiration is
still current, although partly replaced by psychological theories in which poetry is held to emanate from the unconscious mind.'"7 There is a differencebetween lines of poetry being 'given' to a poet and the 'gift' of poetic ability, which arehere confused.I shalldiscusselsewhere the full implicationsof the uses of the gift idiom to denote the bestowal of permanentpoetic ability, and the relationshipof the idea to the concept of poetic genius. For the purposesof this paper I wish merely to point out this differencebetween the temporary inspirationand the
15

See e.g. Maehler'ssummary of the problem, 16-17, n. Poetry (London 1931) 20; G. M. A. Grube, The Greek 5. For general information on the Muses see e.g. M. and RomanCritics(Toronto 1965) 9; A. Sperduti, 'The Mayer, RE xvi (1933) 680-757; W. Otto, Die Musen divine nature of poetry in antiquity', TAPA lxxxi (Darmstadt 1956); Harriott Io-33. (1950) 233.

16The etymology of the word /Loroa is uncertain. ration and genius see e.g. E. E. Sikes, The GreekViewof

See below, nf. 17.

17

50-1. For confusion over the concepts of inspi-

This content downloaded from 194.214.161.15 on Tue, 7 May 2013 13:05:19 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

PENELOPEMURRAY gift of poetrywhich the Musesgrant,and the fact that we can discernhere the permanent of betweenthe conceptsof poeticinspiration andpoeticgenius. beginnings a distinction We gatherthat the Museis believedto inspirethe bardin a temporary sensefrom, for theimmediate at Od. where the Muse the of Demodocus viii 73, provides example, description to to the invocations The ap' doLsdv impulse song: Moi3a' dv^v KEV aELEEVaLKEa dVSPpjV.c18 notion of featureof early Greek the Muses-a traditional temporary poetry-also imply Sometimes the poet simplyasksthe Museto helphim begin,or tojoin in hissong. inspiration. But often the poet asksthe Muse for somethingspecific,such as knowledgeof events,or in song.19 We canlook at theseinvocations in two ways:(a)in pragmatic sweetness terms,that in in for an the for divine terms of their terms of need is, audience,(b) significance poet's ancient use to establish their to assistance. invocations Undoubtedly poets authority, guarantee of the audience at strategic the truthof theirwords,andto focusthe attention points.But the also express the poet'sbeliefin divineinspiration. invocations The point at which the appeal of the ceases to be genuine But a comparison betweentheinvocations is, of course, problematic. and those of successors the former Greek their that literary stronglysuggests spring early poets froma real,religious beliefin the Muses.20 90
KNOWLEDGE

in Homerare essentially It has often been pointedout that the invocations for requests whichtheMuses, asdaughters of Memory, This is clear from the detailed information, provide. invocation beforethe catalogue of ships:

vi3v "EowrEE LoL,MolaaL'OAirnLa 8aiar-'EXovaaL

yap OEaL aE'TE, 7TapEUTE VILEL9S

OL TLVES KOLpaVOL KaL ju)av. Lavaw^v 7jyELoVES oi' OVOIL7jVW, 7TA7r,;v t'QohK, v mycO Lv07jauocLaL i puv ETV, L joL EEKa 8mKa EErlar' yAoaJua, o0SE'
S fLOL EVEL77, OCwV71 app77KTogs, 71TOp XaAKEov EL OS

OVE'TL &E aK 7vLELSS KAEOS oo EV OLOV L'81sEV--

TE, LrUTETE lTavra,

/vr 'OAVUTLa'ESE aLLyLoXOLO MoloaL,ZL"IALoV OvyaTEpE~, pvrlaaaLaO' o6oL r I'o 7AOov.

(II. ii 484-92)21

Some scholars, to connectinformation with however,evidentlythink that it is misleading for that the invocation above 'shows how true it is Havelock, inspiration. example, says quoted thattheMuses the minstrel's need of and his to symbolise memory power preserve memory,not
a spiritualinspiration,which would certainlybe inappropriate to a muster-list'.22And W. W. Minton observesthat in the Homeric invocations 'the poet does not ask for help or guidancein
is The same idea may also be expressed at Od. viii 499: 0 8' pjrlOELOEoJ apxE'ro,ca vE 8' doLaSjv.The with 0pjrlqeL's or with problem is whether to take GEo6i apXe-ro.See the discussionsof e.g. 0. Falter,Der Dichter und sein Gott bei den Griechenund Romern(Wiirzburg 1934) 9; Harriott 42. And cf. Pi.fr. 15I. 19 On invocations in early Greek poetry see e.g. Falter (n. I8) 4-7, 12, 18-23, 34-50; Harriott 41-9, 72-7. 'Der Tod der Musen', 20 On this see e.g. R. H~iussler, AuA xix (1973) 117-45; S. Commager, The Odes of Horace(Indiana 1967) 2-16. 21 Harriott (40) appears to miss the point of these lines. The bard does not speak 'as if his physicalstrength will not be equal to the long task of recounting the in thewar',butrather stresses that,however participants he will not be ableto recall greathis physical strength, thenecessary information withouttheprompting of the Muses. The contrastmade here for the first time betweendivineknowledgeand humanignorance is a themein earlyGreek literature. Seee.g. Ibyc. persistent

fr. . 23-6; Sol.fr. 17; Xenoph.fr. 34; Pi. N. vii 23-4, Pa.

vi 50-8, viib 15-20; B. Snell, The'Discovery of theMind, trans. T. G. Rosenmeyer (New York 1960) 136-52. Invocationsin Homeric epic occur elsewhere at II. i I, ii quasi-invocationsat II. v 703, viii 273, xi 299, xvi 692. For scholarshipon Homeric invocations see Harriott44. 22
177.

761, xi 218, xiv 50o8, xvi I12; Od. i I. Cf. also the

This content downloaded from 194.214.161.15 on Tue, 7 May 2013 13:05:19 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

POETIC INSPIRATION IN EARLY GREECE 91 "how" he shall tell his story; there is no suggestionof a plea for "inspiration"; only for it is, whatever but what means it clear he Neither scholar makes by 'inspiration': information'.23 should But in with factualcontent poetry. why they both agree that it is incompatible Infact,asMintonhimself not include, or evenconsist of, information? pointsout, the inspiration Chadwickshave shown that much early oral poetry associatedwith the 'poet-seer'is once existedin whichsuggestthatsuch'seer-poets' in character, informational andthattraces Greecehave been found in both Homer and Hesiod. What Minton does not note is the and information in connexionbetweeninspiration Chadwicks' insistence on the widespread of inspiration and such poetry, summarised thus by N. K. Chadwick:'The association meansis ancientand widespread. knowledge of whateverkind acquiredby supernatural to say a contradiction is not therefore It in relates to revealed knowledge.'24 Inspiration, fact, the in Homerarerequests for inspiration-eventhough inspiration thatthe invocations might consistlargelyof information. continued of one sortor another with knowledge of the Muses Theassociation throughout the earlyperiod.It was, amongstother things,Demodocus'knowledgeof thefacts of the he musthavebeentaught whichcaused to wonderat thebard: Achaean by Odysseus expedition hadbeenpresent, asif he himself the Museor Apollo25 sincehe sangof thefateof the Achaeans on Mount theMuses fromsomeoneelse(Od.viii 487-91). Hesioddepicted or asif he hadheard of and the and future of (Th. 36-40) clearly gift poetrywhichthe singing past,present Olympus made WhentheMuses bards involvedthepowerof truespeech. Muses on theirchosen bestowed Hesioda poet they told him thatthey couldrevealthe truthwhen they wished:
8'V ', ER"' L81 aArlqOayrlpv'aUOaL. EOWAoEV, AE'yELV OLULV 0/LoLMa, 8jLEV 0/JEV'Ea iroAAd ETV (Th. 27-8)

but what cannotbe disputedis the fact These ambiguouslineshave been variouslyinterpreted,26

ashavingthepowerto tellthetruth. Thechiefdifficulty is to thattheMuses arehererepresented the precisenatureof the distinction drawnbetweentruth(dAi7'A and determine a) plausible thecorrect, fiction andI think (E'SEa ... E.TVfLOLrLV interpretation 6ptoa).The conventional, is thatHesiodis herecontrasting thetruecontentof hisown poetrywith theplausible fictionof that'no Greekeverregarded Homericepic.Westrejects thisinterpretation on the grounds the But Homeric as fiction'. Homer was criticised for the truth.27 epics substantially misrepresenting thatin theselinesHesiodis faithfully the Muses' Harriott's thatif suggestion reporting warning he wereto offendhe wouldbe punished a 'misled into seems by being recording lyingvision'28 hisworkwitha warning to me to be singularly Hesiodwouldhardly thatwhat unlikely: preface on thecontrary, followedmightbe untrue; theproemto the Theogony is surely to be regarded as a pleafor the infallibility of the poem as a whole. Thereis, of course,an important difference between the kinds of knowledgebestowedby the Musesin Homer and in Hesiod. The is primarily whichHomer's Muses of thepast-that is,knowledge knowledge grant knowledge
as opposed to ignorance.Hesiod's Muses, on the other hand, are responsiblefor both truth and falsehood:what they give Hesiod is true knowledge as opposed to false. And the poet speaks with the authority of one who believes that his knowledge comes from divine revelation.29
23 'Invocation in HesiodandHomer', Maehler 41; A. Kambylis, Die Dichterweiheund ihre andCatalogue TAPAxciii (1962)190. (Heidelberg 1965)62-3; West ad loc.;W. J. Symbolik

As e.g. W. Marg points out, Homer i?berdie of (Miinster 1957)Io, the precise Dichtung significance thisalternative is now lostto us.But theoverlapping of thedomains of ApolloandtheMuses stresses the clearly of knowledge andtruthin thepoetryof this importance period. AuA ii 26 See e.g. K. Latte,'Hesiods Dichterweihe', there; (1946) I59--63;Lanata24-5 and bibliography
25

24 Poetryand Prophecy (Cambridge 1942) 41.

Verdenius, 'Notes on the Proem of Hesiod's Theogony', Mnem.xxv (1972) 234-5; P. Pucci, Hesiodandthe of Poetry(Baltimore 1977) 9-16. Language

27 See e.g. Pi. N. vii 20-4; Heraclit.fr. 56, cf.fr. 42; F. Mehmel Xenoph.fr.1I; P1.Rep.377d,andin general 'Homerund die Griechen' AuA iv (1954)16-40. See also Maehler 41 and Verdenius (n. 26) 234.
28 113.

29

Cf. Th. Io4-14; Op. 661-2.

This content downloaded from 194.214.161.15 on Tue, 7 May 2013 13:05:19 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

92

PENELOPE MURRAY

asforexample Pindar atPa.vi too, oftenclaimsto havespecial knowledgefromtheMuses,

51-8:
-raira
7mTLOELV uofO O[s] OEOLUL [/I]E'V vvaro'v,

8'&padavo[v JporoLLv EVe]pEILE

rrarpL Mvavouv]av TE &, r apov,v"]?
VV.30 KARrE

Like Hesiod,but more obsessively, Pindarinsistson the truthof what he has to say31-an insistence which is all the strongerbecausehe is acutelyawareof the power of poetry to Pindar seesit aspartof histaskto combatsuchfalsehood, andhe is able falsehood.32 perpetrate to do so because he, as prophetof the Muses,hasaccessto knowledgewhich is hiddenfrom In similar mortals. fashion to the Musesto give him knowledge ordinary Empedocles appeals whichwill sethimapart fromothermortals, andhe evidently thesupernatural regards originof his poetryas a guarantee of its truth.33 In a moremodestHomericspirit,Platotrades on the traditional function of theMuses aspurveyors of thetruthwhenhe remarks at (albeit ironically) that the Hesiodic of the four of man must be true since it comes from the 547a Repub. myth ages Muses.A. W. Allen has arguedthat from the firstthe Museswere not only the inspirers of but also the of all Andhe makes thepertinent poetry, possessors knowledge. pointthat'aslongas the rangeof poetryincluded all formsof knowledge,it fullycorresponded to the rangeof the Muses'authority'.34 The frequent andrecurrent association of the Museswith knowledgein and knowledge early Greekpoetry suggestsa close connectionbetweenpoetic inspiration this during period.
MEMORY

that one of the tasksof the Museswas to remind the poet, as we can see from Socrates'words at 275c:he, like the poets, must invoke Memory and the Musesin orderto remembera Euthydemus conversation. Severalscholarshave stressedthe importanceof this aspectof the Muses, previous
30

The ancienttraditionwhich made the Musesthe daughters of Mv7)pUoa'v7 is further evidence of sucha connexion. The goddess firstappears asmotherof theMuses in Mvrjqoouvri andthe Musesis alreadyapparent in Homer'suse Hesiod,35but the connexion between memory of theverb LuttqvwKOttaL function at II.ii 492.36 ForPlatoit wasa commonplace Ofthe Muses'

refuted by W.J. Verdenius,'The meaning of HarTLs in Empedocles', Mnem.4 i (1948) Io0-I. Cf P. Boyanc6, 31 Le cultedes Muses chez les philosophes grecs (Paris 1936) P. i 86-7 on the importance of truth in general. 241. Clearly the goddess in Parmenides' proem fr. is invoked at O. x 3-4 and atfr. 205. Pindar's 1.22-32 also guaranteesthe truth of his message, but she 'AAaOcELa concern for truth is also evident in his characteristic use is not identified as a Muse. See e.g. Harriott 65-7. of arrow andjavelin imagery as at e.g. 0. xiii 93-5, P. i 34 'Solon's Prayer to the Muses', TAPA lxxx (1949) 42-5, N. i 18, vi 26-7. See furtherBowra, Pindar 26-33; 65. Harriott 69-70; Maehler 96-8. 35 Th. 53-61 with West ad loc. To the references 32 See e.g. O. i 28-32, N. vii 20-3. In general on this there given add Th. 915-17; PMGfr. 941; Pi. Pa. vi persuasivepower of poetry see e.g. Harriott I 17-20; J. 54-6, viib 15-I6; P1. Theaet. I9Id; Plut. Mor. 9d, frr. de Romilly, 'Gorgias et le pouvoir de la po6sie',JHS 215h, 217j. See furthere.g. B. Snell 'Mnemosyne in der xciii (1973) 155-62. friihgriechischenDichtung', Archiv fir Begriffsgeschichte 33 Frr.3, 4, 23.11, 131. The view expressedby Falter ix (1964) 19-21; A. Setti, 'La Memoria e il canto', Stud. (n. 18) 40 that Empedocles'invocation to the Muse infr. Ital. xxx (1958) 129-71. 36 Cf e.g. Certamen 3 is nothing but 'poetische Einkleidung, Motiv, keines98; Pi. N. i 12. wegs aber aus wahrem Glauben erwachsen' is rightly
Ibyc.fr. I. 23-6; Bacch. xv 47. See e.g. O. iv 17-18, vi 20-I, vii 20-I, xiii 52 and

Cf. e.g. Pi. O. x 1-6, xiii 93-1oo; Pa. viib I5-20;

This content downloaded from 194.214.161.15 on Tue, 7 May 2013 13:05:19 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

POETIC INSPIRATION IN EARLY GREECE

93

pointing out that at times the Muses seem to be little more than a personificationof memory.37 Havelock goes so far as to say that the Muses in Homer have nothing to do with inspiration becausethey 'areconnectedwith specialfeatsof memory'.3 This dissociationof inspirationand memory is misguided:thereis no inherentincompatibilitybetween inspirationand information, as I have pointed out, and the fact that we might identify the sourceof the poet'sinspirationas an Havelock's internalone does not mean that the poet or his audiencefeelsit to be so. Furthermore is highly dubious, as is his contention that the Muses embody the bard'spowers of memorisation chiefly implies the notions of recall, record and memorisation.39 theory that Mv7lptoaUv7' natureof poetic memory in earlyGreecehasbeen much discussed.J.-P.Vernant, The precise in an article entitled 'Aspects mythiques de la m6moire et du temps'40 argued that the psychological function of memory in early Greek poetry is not to reconstruct the past accurately,but to transportthe poet into the past, to give him a directvision of'l'ancien temps'. Memory of this type, to be distinguishedfrom historicalmemory, is the privilege of poets and seers,who have in common 'un meme don de "voyance" '. As evidencefor thislatterstatement which is used in connexion r 7'r EaaoEva rrpd Vernant cites the phraserd -odvra 7' 7' dpovra with Calchas'propheticskill at II. i 70 and of the Muses'song at Hes. Th. 38 (note that it is used as Vernantstates).In fact this phrasesuggeststhat what poets of the Muses, not of Mvr)oLoa'vr) ratherthan vision. Of course the connexion between and seers have in common is knowledge in is and close early Greekliterature--at II. ii 485, for example, the Muses sight very knowledge know everything becausethey have seen everything4'1-but the 'don de "voyance" ', of which Vernant speaksappearsto be something ratherdifferentfrom sight in the senseof knowledge. The poet's knowledge, he says, is the result of 'une vision personelle directe. La m6moire transportele poete au coeurdes 6v6nementsanciens, dans leur temps', a contention which is supported by referenceto Plato's Ion 535b-c, where Socratesasks Ion about his mental state during his rhapsodicperformances:
'coWV E17 EL E]w TOTE o aarou yLyv~) KaL ToLS~pay/av OLETL (TaOUELvaL l77 orETEPOV , 7apa Ta 7 7T7 Tpol EX77; vXo) O AEyELS Ev 'jGaK 1Ev KaL 7r O1Uovav 7"1 evOULvataovaa, orrwSav .S

The experiencehere describedby Socratesseemsto me to be something quite differentfrom that describedby the bard at II. ii 484-92 (and, it may be added, has nothing much to do with memory). The rhapsode--and he is a rhapsode,not a poet-is transportedinto the scenes he evokes, but in the Iliadit is the Museswho see the events of the past, not the bard.Furthermore, the ecstatic state of the rhapsodehas no parallelin Homer: we are simply told that the Muses were presentand saw the events. The implication of the invocation, and in particular of 492, is that the Muses can communicate their knowledge to the bard, but there is no suggestion that him into the pastand giving him a directvision of a bygone age. Both they do so by transporting here and in the other referencescited by Vernant42the poet is envisagedas being in contactwith the powers of the Muses ratherthan actually having these powers directly himself. Odysseus'praiseof Demodocus at Od. viii 489-91 might appearto provide betterevidence for Vernant'stheory:
ydp At7lv

oaa'

'XaLtv E'l"ELS, 7'EKaL 7" EraO'v "AXaLOL, KTa' KdOLov Oa' 4'tqCzyrlaav :prav a
ITOU

OLoV

WSt rE

" avUTSo 7TapEv

7) ~AAov

o'uasx

But the possibility that the bard might have heard of the sufferingsof the Achaeans from someone else is somewhat difficult to reconcile with the notion that he was given a personal
vision of them. He sings KaGrd a phrase which refers as much to the form as to the KdoOv, (Paris1955)26.
38 163-4.
100. 40oJournaldePsychologie (1959) 1-29 37

Pindare et prophitepensee chez les Grecs(Paris 1974) 80--l7. See also M. See e.g. J. Duchemin, poete
repr. in Mytheet

Detienne, Les mattresde veritedans la grece archdique2 (Paris 1973) 15, 24-7, I o. 41 See further Snell (n. 21). 42 83 9. n.

This content downloaded from 194.214.161.15 on Tue, 7 May 2013 13:05:19 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

94 PENELOPEMURRAY content of hissong:it isbothtrueandwellstructured.43 Whatamazes is thereality and Odysseus vividness of Demodocus' butthisdoesnot implythathe hasvisionary Thefirst account, powers. of the two alternative his knowledgewould be ways in which the bardmight haveacquired with vision (although it does not imply it), but the secondrenders thispossibility compatible since information from someone else can create the same vividness asthebard's highlyunlikely at the In events. fact it seems to me is that Homer here a personal presence offering formulation of the idea of poetic imagination as a form of visualisation, an idea which is found fully in Aristotle's Poetics andin Longinus developed (I455a22) (I5. ).44 One of the basicconfusions in Vernant's is his failureto distinguish between argument ecstatic andnon-ecstatic in either in or For the inspiration prophecy poetry. example, 'donde of which Vernant is to Cassandra as she is depictedin the voyance' speaks highlyappropriate In herfrenzyshedoeshavea directandpersonal visionof various Agamemnon. episodes relating to thepast,present andfutureof the houseof Atreus. Thatsheactually seeswhatshedescribes is clearfromherwordsat, forexample,1125: ?8o00 however, L'o0.45It haslong beenrecognised, of Theoclymenus at Od.xx 351-7, prophecy of thisvisionary nature is that,with theexception absentfrom Homer. The .tadvrtg in Homer is largely concernedwith the techniqueof of eventsinaccessible to ordinary omens,not with havingvisionary interpreting experiences humanbeings.46 Vernant's remarks aboutpoetryare similarly For misleading. example:'La po6sie constitue une des formes typiques de la possessionet du d6lire divins, l'6tat au sensetymologique.' This statement is certainly true of Plato, but one d'"enthousiasme" cannotuse Platoas evidencefor pre-Platonic views of poetry.The notion that memoryis a visionis, I think,easierto reconcilewith an ecstatictheoryof power of poeticor prophetic in which the or inspiration poet prophetis literallytakenout of himselfthanwith the more intellectual of whichwe findin HomerandtheearlyGreek concept inspiration poets.Thatis not to say thatpoeticmemoryduringthisperiodis simplya process of factual recall. The substantial of the ancientconnexionbetweenMemoryandthe Musesin implications oralpoetrywere firstrecognised He pointedout thatthereareat least byJ. A. Notopoulos.47 threedifferent in which is in ways memory important suchpoetry.First,memoryservesto and hence immortaliseKMAa perpetuate power of poetry is &dvspv. The immortalising fromHomeronwards andis a central themein Pindar's The recognised poetry. latter repeatedly the Muses' function as bestowers of Second,memoryconserves emphasises immortality.48 information-a pointtoo obviousto needsubstantiation. Third,andmostimportant, memory is themeans which oralpoetryis created. Homeric on a vastandcomplexsystem by epicisbased of formulas and word groups,which the bardmustretainin his mindto use as the building blocksof hiscomposition: in oralcomposition of thistypememoryis a creative force,sincethe bardmustnot only memorise theoraldictionout of whichhispoetryis made,butalsocreate his of thistypeof oralpoetryforwithoutit composition is songfromit. Memoryis thusattheheart far from being incompatible, are vitally connected: impossible.Memory and inspiration, memoryis virtuallythe sourceof the poet'sinspiration.
PERFORMANCE

The widely held view that there are certain fundamentaldifferencesbetween oral and
43

See Lanata'sexcellent discussion of this passage,

12-1344 I hope to discuss the history of this concept in a later article. 45 Cf I1114, 1217. 46 See e.g. E. Rohde, Psyche, trans. W. B. Hillis (London1925) 289; Dodds70.

47 'Mnemosynein Oral Literature',TAPA lxix

(1938) 465-93. 48 See e.g. Hom. II. vi 358; Od. viii 73, 580; xxiv 196-7; h.Ap. 298-9; Theog. 237-52; Sapph.fr. 55, cf.fr. 193; Bacch. iii 71, 90-8, ix 81-7, x 9-I8; Pi. 0. viii iii 112-15, iv 293-9, v 70-80, x 86-96, P. i 93-100oo, 45-9, vi 5-17, xi 55-64, N. vi 26-35, vii I1-16, ix 48-55, I. v 53-7, vii 16-26, viii 56-63,fr. 121;P1.Smp. 2o9d-e.

This content downloaded from 194.214.161.15 on Tue, 7 May 2013 13:05:19 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

POETIC INSPIRATION IN EARLY GREECE

95

literarypoetry has recently been challengedby R. Finnegan.49She demonstratesthat no one model will cover all types of oral literatureand arguesthat there is no clear-cutdifferentiation between oral literatureon the one hand and written literatureon the other. Nevertheless it would clearlybe falseto say that oral poetry is exactly the same as written poetry in all respects. The one aspect in which oral poetry obviously does differ from literary poetry is in its performance-a point which Finneganherselfstresses.Indeedshe describesperformanceas the 'heartof the whole concept of oral literature'.50 In generalclassicalscholarship has not seen that this importantdifferencebetween oral and literarypoetry has a directbearingon the concept of poetic inspiration. One of the essentialfeaturesof the Parry-Lord theory of oral formulaiccomposition is that oral poetry is composed and performedsimultaneously.This is not to say that the bardis merely an illiterateimproviseror to imply that hardwork and thought may not go into the composition beforehand.But it is at the moment of performancethat the poem is fully composed for the first time.51 Composition, therefore,does not depend on flashesof inspirationwhich mysteriously provide ideas or phrasesto the poet, but on a steady flow of words. The oral poet is both a composer and a performer:he needs not only memory and a command of technique,but also fluency and confidenceor 'presence'as a performer.What must thereforebe emphasisedis that inspirationin oral epic poetry is inextricablyconnected with performance. The Muses in early Greek poetry do more than simply provide information. Od. xvii 5I8-21, for example, shows that they also inspire the bard with the power to mesmerisehis audience. When the Muses made Hesiod a poet, they inspired him with a wonderful voice: eve~ vevaavS tpota'8&)v/ OoErLV (Th. 3 I-2).52 The significanceof thesewords is not generally stressed.Fluencyof composition is a common characteristic of inspirationin all periods.To take one example from ancient literature,Cratinusdescribesthe inspiringeffects of wine infr. 186: 'LordApollo, what a flood of words! Streamssplash,his mouth hastwelve springs,Ilissusis in his throat.What more can I say?If someone doesn't stop him up, he'll swamp the whole place with his poems!'53Harriott,54amongst others, points out that the comparisonof flowing speechto a river goes back to Homer. In the Iliad(i 249) Nestor's eloquenceis describedin the well known line: 7ro Kat &rno Hesiod emphasisesthe effortlessflow yAKwL'V pEEV a3&87. yA'jaaorlqLPeAro~ of the Muses'voices in similarlanguage (Th. 39-40), and those whom the Museslove have this but fail gift of fluency (Th. 96-7, cf. 84). Harriottand othersdraw our attentionto thesepassages, to pin-point their significance.Surely the significanceof the comparisonof the poet's utterance to a stream is that in oral poetry fluency is vital. Since composition and performance are simultaneous,without fluency composition breaksdown. Even when Greek poetry ceased to be orally composed, there was still the associationof inspirationwith performance:throughout the classicalperiod, poetry was always composed for some kind of audience; it was never simply a private expression. Hence performance was important and the Muses continued to provide inspiration in performance as well as in composition. The frequent invocations to the Muses to give sweetness in song should be
interpreted with this in mind. For example, Alcmanfr. 27: MJo"'&yEKaAAQdrra OvyarEp AZds/ iparv iTrrEwv,rr 8' PhXx' / Pindar begins Nem. iii Kat Xaptvra 7rl Xopo'v.55ss utvw with an invocation which isLLEpov clearly a request for help in performance:
52 49 OralPoetry Cf. Th. 97; Hom. Od. i 371. (Cambridge 1977). 50 Ibid. v 28, cf 133. sa53 A~4 "AoAAov, Trcv ' w TwVPEv'irwv. 51 See M. Parry, 'Studiesin the EpicTechnique of 77r)yal, SW8EKKpouvOVOV KavaxovaL r a'TdOta, Oral Verse-Making', HSCP xli (1930) 77-8= The ;/"Av apvy-0rop' 'IAtkaao' ev T-^ 7ed. A. Parry(Oxford 1971) EL tI Verse, avto) Making of Homeric 7TOrdpa ydp 7TcLpEctLTgLS A. B. Lord, The Singer of Tales(Cambridge adravra KaT-aKAt~aEL Trot)aaLtv. 269--70; avTai Mass.1960)13-29;M. N. Nagler,Spontaneity andOral Cf Ar. Eq. 526-8; P1. Leg. 719c. Tradition 54 xxi, xxiii,20-I. On thewhole (Berkeley 1974) (n. 26) 144-6. 88-9, 124. Cf Kambylis memorisation and perfortopic of priorcomposition, ss Cf. e.g. Hes. Th. o104;Pi.fr. 75; Ar. Av. 737-50, mancesee Finnegan Ra. 675. (n. 49) 73-87.
-

This content downloaded from 194.214.161.15 on Tue, 7 May 2013 13:05:19 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

96

PENELOPEMURRAY

pEIvovr'n' 'Aoawro'w/LeAtyapvwv rTEKTOVES KWLOWV vEca,'a,aEOEV "7a Lpato/.EvoL.t.

'2 rr6rvtaMoCaa, LpaTrp Alaaotat, aperEpa, v rdv rwoAve'vav lEpotLvIt'a NepLed& ~Sartydp LKEO wpt'8avicaov Aywtvav-

in Aristophanes alsofrequently invokethe Musefor helpin performance, The Choruses as,for in with at Peace driven the the chorus war, 'Muse, me, 775-80: having away join your example, of In of of men and festivities the blessed.'57 the the friend, celebrating weddings gods,banquets and contextof both victorycelebration anddramatic competition, composition performance to both. areunited,andthe Muserelates
THE POET AND HIS MUSE

of therelationship Whatis theprecise nature betweentheMuseandthepoetin earlyGreek not theunconscious Whatever it is, thepoetis certainly instrument of thedivine,assome poetry? G. M. A. Grube, in Homer: scholars havesuggested. forexample, of the invocations 'When says Homerinvokesthe Museson hisown account, is and he as everything inspiration speaks if the a were but The first of three words the Iliad dtvEL, Oad) poet passiveinstrument.'s8 (Mivw thatthepoetis nothingbuttheinstrument of thegoddess. But mightindeedbe takento suggest the requestfor specificinformation at 8 (Who then of the gods broughtthem togetherto contendin strife?) that the poet is an activerecipient of information 'fromthe Muse suggests rather thana passive The is of in same true all the other theIliad.59 invocations The mouthpiece. of proem the Odysseymakesthe poet'sactiverole even clearer:
TQjV

"AvSpa pLotVVETE, Mooa . .

Therelationship hereenvisaged betweenthepoetandtheMuseis anintellectual one--the Muse is asked to communicate with thebard, not to sendhimintoa stateof ecstasy-and it wouldbea mistaketo interpret theseinvocations as evidencefor the view thatthe bardtakesno partin composition. The earlyGreekpoetsin general theirbeliefin theirdependence on the Muse,but express in also stress their For at Od. viii they 44-5, Alcinoussays of part composition. example, Demodocus:
T0?7GVtLOSq OvoIEtLV. Tcp7TELV, OPT E7TO7PV1flULV

YE, EyIT, O~Ea, 'OLCv. OvyaEpZLOS, l/,LOdEV

Ka~L

tWKEv aOLS~V rL yap pa OEOs rrpL

These words make it clear that poetry is both god-given and the product of the bard'sown Ov0ds.60 There is a similarcombinationof human and divine elementsin Phemius'claim at Od.
xxii 347-8:
avo8t708aKTos 8 EL t OES ,V Tav'rolasr VvayV

8 fOL

;pEaLV

oLtas

It might be arguedthat the two halvesof this statementarecontradictory: becausethe gods have
implanted the paths of song in him the bard cannot claim responsibility for his composition. But

these lines, like the previous example quoted, must surely be understood in the context of
Cf. e.g. P. iv 1-3, N. vi 28-9. 57 Mooaa, aOpv d71E-r 7ToA4lovS"
56

coapliev-q

elPov

KAE OvaUaOeWV yaltOUSv 7 7E avspcov-v aa-Tag

XpevUov, r70t t'Aov

Ka Oa gasl taKapwvv Cf. Ach. 665-75. 58 Op. cit. (n. 17) 2. 59 See above, n. 21. 60 Cf. Od. i 346-7.

This content downloaded from 194.214.161.15 on Tue, 7 May 2013 13:05:19 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

POETIC INSPIRATION IN EARLY GREECE 97 Homer's Dual motivation of Homericepic anda god's is, of course,a characteristic language. does not exclude a The two halves of Phemius' statement are motivation.61 prompting personal therefore he is both selftaughtandthe recipient rather thancontradictory: of complementary divineaid.Ithasbeensuggested thata3'ro801taKros to thetechnical of composition refers aspects refers to thesubject matter of hissong,62 but thisseemsto me to orp)as (form,styleetc.),whereas be too precise a distinction. Whilstthe word a3r'o81a8K0ros clearlyimpliesa notionof skillor the of the or of to subject should not be restricted matter.63 technique, metaphor path way song The general claimis thathe doesnot simply'repeat pointof Phemius' songshe haslearntfrom The particular otherbards,but composeshis songshimself.64 point which is relevantto the discussion is that Phemius stresses the divine present although originof his poetryhe is very muchawareof hisown partin composition. Thisattitude is typicalof theearlyperiodof Greek literature as a whole in the way thatpoetryis described in both humananddivineterms. One of the conventional of a is and ways describing poet to callhim a Movoawv OEpdcawv, is a word. It does not that the is or servile but rather revealing imply poet passive OEpda7TWV betweenthe Muse and the poet who attendshere.65Theognis suggestsa close relationship thenature of thisrelationship moreprecisely whenhe describes the poetasa messenger specifies of the Muses.66 The relationship betweenthe poet and the Museis described in a (&yyEAos) of different number for as Pindar, waysby example infr. 150: iavrEEOo,Motaa,,rpobarTO Eow senseof dependence his 8' E'y6.Thismetaphor conveysPindar's on the Muse,but alsostresses andproclaims) of hermessage.67 As Doddsexplains: partasthe (onewho interprets rrpo4rs'j 'Thewords he usesarethetechnical terms of Delphi; in themis theold analogy between implicit and divination. But observe it that is the not and the who the of the Muse, poetry poet, plays part the does not ask to be himself but to act as the for Pythia; poet "possessed", only interpreter the entranced Muse.And thatseemsto be the originalrelationship. the Epictradition represented fromtheMuses, butnot asfallingintoecstasy orbeing poetasderiving supernormal knowledge Doddsis clearly possessed by them.'6" rightin sayingthat'theMuse,andnot the poet . .. plays the partof the Pythia',but to inferfrom this thatthe Museis actually seemsto me possessed dubious.It is difficult to see who or what mightbe possessing the Muse,andPindar nowhere makesany reference to possession. The emphasis in the fragment is on Pindar's positionas the between and not on the of state the Muse. Pindar also men, intermediary gods psychological his active in role creation his use of the term at 0. emphasises iii 4-6: poetic by EVplaKw,as

Mogoa TrapE8' o07rw7ToL

ara pot vEocnyaAov EV"pdvTL rpo'0rov
dcpt'w bwvav E'vap!LouaL?7TE&Aw

dyAacdKWJwov69

And elsewhere he describes his poetryas simultaneously the gift of the Muses 8UaLow) (Modyv andthe product of hisown mind(yAvKivKaprTov Poeticcreativity bothon depends bpEvod).70 andon conscious effort. inspiration
menschliche Motivationim homerischen Epos (Heidelberg 1961).
62
63

61 See e.g. Dodds 1-18; A. Lesky, Gittlicheund

Seee.g. Lanata, 13-14.

Einzels. iv (Berlin 1937); Harriott 64-5. Pi. Pa. vi 6; Bacch. ix 3. On rpoobj see E. 67 Cf. 64 See rg Parke, HPOOHTHE (Giessen H. W. e.g. W. Schadewaldt, Von Homers Welt und Fascher 1927); Werk3(Stuttgart 1959) 78-9; Dodds xxxiv (1940) 85; Fraenkelon Aesch. Ag. o199. Io; Maehler22-3; CQ 68 82. Harriott 92 and bibliography there. 65 See Pi. P. iv 286-7 where the free attendant 69 Cf. O. i I IO, N. vi 54,viii 20,fr. 122. 14; Bacch.fr. is contrasted with the slave (Spapiaas).For 5. Cf. pEvvavat Pa.vii b 20. Andin general seeBecker (OLpd6rwov) xxxii (n. 62) 73; Maehler 96; Harriott 6o-I. O6pdrowvof the poet see e.g. Hes. Th. Ioo; h. Hornm. 20; Choeril. fr. I; Ar. Av. 909. Cf. Bacch. v 192 70 0. vii 7-8. Cf. N. iv 6-8; Bacch. xii I-3, xiii 220-9. (7rpd7roAos);Sapph.fr. i50 (tLoLon7TAoso).

Seee.g. O. Becker,'DasBild desWeges',Hermes phrasis forthepoet;Movcr(dv &yyEAosislive metaphor'.

in PoeticImagery(Cambridge 1974) 89 who notes that is an absolutely conventional peri'Movoajv OEpdtrov

livre (Amsterdam 1966) ad.loc.andM. S. Silk,Interaction

66 See B. A. van Groningen, Thbognis:Le premier

This content downloaded from 194.214.161.15 on Tue, 7 May 2013 13:05:19 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

98

PENELOPEMURRAY
CRAFT

theearlyGreek LikePindar view of poetic poetsasa wholeseemto havehada verybalanced morebalanced thansomescholars wouldallow. Havelock,71 as I havealready said, creativity, maintains that in the early periodpoetry was thoughtof as a craftand that the 'contrary of poetic inspiration was inventedin the fifth century.Other scholars take the conception' for that the Greek doS's; is to be directly oppositeview. Barmeyer,72 example, suggests early as rather than in asa craftsman. AndSvenbro hisrecent bookargues that'pour regarded inspired et H6siode tient sa "de la nullement comme le l'aede il Muse", parole n'apparait Hombre de son and even that meme de l'aede comme auteur du chant est discours'73 'l'id6e "producteur" en effet "syst6matiquement" The situation of the choralpoet, on the rejet6e par Hombre'.74 otherhand,is completely different: en de commissions ... il doitinsister surle fait 'toujours quete desonpokme afin d'mtre r6munre, et il le faitaumoyende nombreuses qu'ilestle "producteur" fond6es surl'analogie entrepoeteet artisan'.75 Inhiszealto stress theimportance of m&aphores the different socialsituations of the Homericdoo86sandthe choralpoet Svenbroignoresthe in attitudes to poetrywhichexistsbetweenthem.The notionthatthe poetreceives continuity hiswordsfromthe Museis not confined to HomerandHesiodanymorethanthenotionof the is confinedto Pindar andthe choralpoets. poet as craftsman In the Odyssey the bardis included in a list of 7LtLoEpyoIL: o7 Tts ydap avro~EIrrEAOWv lELVOVKaAE 6AAo0oEV 71 E.l y, cAAov 7V ol 87tlLOEpOL EaOL,
K(KWV 7l7pa 71TEKTOVa o0pwv SKaL 0, KE0TV TEp7TLV OtEULv aoto, O "aEl"ov;

av

71t

(Od.xvii 382-5)

referring to Vernant's observation that the word

Svenbroarguesthat thispassagecannot be takenas evidencefor the ideaof the poet as craftsman,

'ne qualifie pas al'origine l'artisan

Now it maybe truethatthe word in itselfdoesnot implythe notionof public'.76 8f7tLLoEpyoS the but context in which the word occurs mustsurely be considered. Thefactthat craftsmanship, the bardis includedin a list of peoplewho havespecialised skillswhich can be of use to the a certainskill. When Phemiushas to justify his communitysuggeststhat he too possesses existence to Odysseus he doesso on thegrounds thathe is at'ro81SaK'roS, a wordwhichclearly that there is at least an element of skill in the poet'sactivity.At Od. xi 368 Alcinous implies for tellinghisstory4rETotaa.itevwg likea bard.And,as I have praises Odysseus (thatis, skilfully) of Demodocus' at Od. viii 489 refers asmuchto pointedout, thephrase Kard Kdoryov used song
the constructionas to the contents of the song.77 The importanceof skillin poetry duringthe earlyperiodis also apparentfrom the frequency of referencesto the teaching and learning of poetry, and from the repeateduse of skill words vis-i-vis poetry: o0ha, irn'aratat, aoeo's, aoq'a, Bruno Snell has shown that the rivpr.78 word in the early period means primarily know (how).79 Similarly ot'a, riXvX/, idecraLa& o4o'so and ao~lba denote practicalability and knowledge ratherthan 'wisdom'. Homer usesthe word ao#la only once, and in connection with a carpenter(II. xv 412). And Hesiod uses the
71 156. 72 Op. cit. (n. 7) 70. 74 Ibid. 193. Cf 195.

en tant que tel ... il d6finittoutes les activit6squi8IytoepyodS en faveurd'un s'exercenten dehorsde 1'o0'KoS,

3 Op. cit. (n. 4) 5.

Ibid. 193-5.

7- Ibid. 6.
76

13.51. Cf. the idea that man learnt to sing from the birds: Democr. fr. 154; Alcm.frr. 39, 40. For ofta see e.g. Od. i 337; Alcm. fr. 40; Archil. fr. I20.2. For see e.g. Od. xi 368; Hes. Op. 107; Archil.fr. Trrtarapat
1.2; Sol.fr. 13.52.

488, xvii 519, xxii 347; Hes. Th. 22, Op. 662; Sol. fr.

On the notion of poetic skill in Homer see 79 Die Ausdrucke fiir den Begrif des Wissens in der Schadewaldt 70-5. especially (n. 64) vorplatonischen (Berlin 1924) 8 I-3. Philosophie 78 Forthe idiomseee.g. Hom. Od.viii 481, teaching
77

This content downloaded from 194.214.161.15 on Tue, 7 May 2013 13:05:19 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

POETIC INSPIRATION IN EARLY GREECE

99

word of skill in seamanship(Op. 649) as well as of Linus' musical skill (fr. 306). Craftsmenof many differentvarietiesare describedas aodo's-including poets.80 Snell points out that aoos originally meant 'one who understandshis craft': the emergence of uao- words to mean 'wisdom' in a more intellectualsense was a gradualprocess. to mean poets1 is evidently basedon the notion of the poet as The use of the word rro70Lr)r I have the evidence cited shows that this concept did not suddenlyemerge from but craftsman, dub.357) poetic composition in fifth a the nowhere century. In fragmentattributedto Hesiod (fr. is likened to stitching: Iv ZI7A(w rTrET daOL8OL "OILrLpos ". Tp'rov y KaL, 7 LEA7TOLLEV, EV VEapOL~ S qLOL&7v. 9peavW U9jIVOLS The etymology of the words adrT-Ew,pacufq8epv,fa&6'gs and their precise meaning when applied to poets is uncertain,but clearly they involve an idea of craft.82 Craft metaphors,as Svenbrorightly observes,become more frequentin the poetry of Bacchylidesand Pindar-the poet is describednot only as a stitcher and weaver of songs, but also as builder, carpenteror sculptor.83Svenbro argues that this use of craft metaphorsis to be understoodin terms of the professionalpoet's economic dependenceon his patrons.Since what he producesis not tangible, the poet is in a weaker position than the craftsmanas regards payment: he must therefore emphasize that his poetry is 'une merchandise'and portray his activity 'comme une activit6 artisanale afin d'etre r6munre6'.84 This theory sheds more light on Svenbro's own thanon Pindar.P. v 72-6 indicatethat Pindarwas an aristocrat,85 and the tone in preoccupations for example, Thorax at P. x 64-6 or Hiero at P. i 85-94 suggeststhathe was which he addresses, on equal termswith his patronsratherthanan inferiorsubject.86Pindar'scraftmetaphorsreflect his attitude to his art, they do not tell us about his social status.And whilst it is true that Pindar uses a large number of craft metaphorswhen speakingof his poetry, he says much more about his poetry in general than do his epic predecessors-a point not noted by Svenbro. He is more self-consciously articulate about his poetry-more self-conscious about his inspiration and Svenbrois not the only scholarguilty of one-sidedness genius as well as about his craftsmanship. in discussing Pindar's attitude to poetry. Grube, for example, claims that Pindar 'despises technique and training;everything in poetry is naturaltalent'.87This statementis misleading. Whilst Pindardoes contrastthe true poet who is a poet by nature (vaud) with the poet who has his never been he denies the of merely taught importance technique in poetry. His craft,88 use of craft his and own evident concern with technique show that he frequent metaphors regardedtechnique as a vital ingredientin poetry. But for the true poet mere techniqueis not enough.
CONCLUSIONS

It was Plato who, so far as we know, first opposed the concepts of poetic inspirationand
See Snell (n. 79) 5-7, where he gives a list of aool( including seers, generals, steersmen, doctors, coach words drivers, wrestlers, cooks, and farmers. For ao-of poets, see e.g. Solfr. 13.52; Ibyc.fr. 1.23;Theog. 770, 995; Pi. O. ii 86 and other references cited by Lanata 83-5 (Pindar, of course, invests the terms ao6o' and aockoa with a new significance: in particular aodo' his denotes for him a rare individual, set apart from fellows both by his inborn nature and by his communion with the gods); Xenoph.fr. 2.12; Ar. Nu. 547, Pax 797, Lys. 368. For a detailed study of the subjectsee B. Gladigow, Sophia und Kosmos(Hildesheim 1965). 81 Hdt. ii 53; Ar. Ach. 654. See further e.g. Harriott 93-4. Similar terminology for the poet's craft occurs in Sanskritand other I.E. languages. See M. West, 'Greek
80

Poetry 2000-700 B.C.' CQ xxiii (1973) 179 and bibliography there. 82 For a sensible discussion see Harriott 94. 83 See e.g. Bacch. v 9-10, xiii 223, xix 8-io; Pi. O. vi 1-4, 86-7, P. iii I13, vi 9, N. ii 1-2, iii 4-5, L.i 14,fr.
19485 See Wilamowitz Pindaros(Berlin 1922) 124; M. a dt&y: The FirstPersonin Pindar', R. Lefkowitz, 'r KaL HSCP lxvii (1963) 229-32.

84 Op. cit. (n. 4) 178-9, 187, 168-70.

86 Seethefurther criticisms of St. Fogelmark in his review of Svenbro, Gnomon 1(1978) 13-24. 87 Op. cit. (n. 17) 9. 88 0. ii 83-88.Cf. O. ix Ioo-2, N. iii 40-2.

This content downloaded from 194.214.161.15 on Tue, 7 May 2013 13:05:19 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

100

PENELOPE MURRAY

as EOOvLacupdS. Even Democritus, who is often inspiration techniquewhen he described to Plato, evidently did not considerinspiration and techniqueas a precursor considered LOV TE KT7 (DK incompatible: ~4aEws VaTO7TraVTOLWV iTrrqwv Kdt raX v "OwrLpos uEao;,arLs on craft and an there seems to be In fact Greek equalemphasis throughout early poetry fr. 21). have If be because we certain we to this it must are unable preconceived accept fact, inspiration. to the ideaof poetryas a craft. andits relation notionsaboutthe conceptof poeticinspiration on the from the poet'sfeelingof dependence Doubtless the notion of inspiration originated as to the beliefof many poetsthroughout divine.And this feelingcorresponds that, history is not the work of Doddsputit, 'creative the thinking ego'."9 But theideaof poeticinspiration in earlyGreecediffers in a numberof important It was ways from subsequent conceptions. associated withknowledge, withmemoryandwithperformance; it didnotinvolve particularly or in and it was balanced a belief the of Butalthough it craft. ecstasy possession, by importance therefore laidfarmoreemphasis on thetechnical of it was nevertheless aspects poeticcreativity, an ideaessentially connected with the phenomenon of inspiration as we know it.
PENELOPE MURRAY

University of Warwick
89 81.

This content downloaded from 194.214.161.15 on Tue, 7 May 2013 13:05:19 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions