poetic inspiration in early greece

5/27/2018 Poetic Inspiration in Early Greece

1/15

Poetic Inspiration in Early GreeceAuthor(s): Penelope MurraySource: The Journal of Hellenic Studies, Vol. 101 (1981), pp. 87-100Published by: The Society for the Promotion of Hellenic StudiesStable 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 [email protected].

.

The Society for the Promotion of Hellenic Studiesis collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extendaccess 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 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=hellenichttp://www.jstor.org/stable/629846?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/629846?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=hellenic


2/15

POETIC INSPIRATION IN EARLY GREECEIT s 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 ofthis observation. For instance, while most scholars consider that the idea is of very great antiquityin Greece, there is a recent tendency to regard the concept as a formulation of the fifth centuryB.C. E. A. Havelock, for example, describes the notion of poetic inspiration as an invention offifth 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 disagreementclearly relates to the more fundamental question of the meaning of the concept of inspirationitself. For although there is an apparent consensus that ancient notions of poetic inspirationcorrespond in some way to certain modern ideas about the nature of poetic creativity, littleattention has been paid to these modern notions of inspiration. And unless such modern notionsare investigated, the mere observation that there is a similarity is of little value.3In this paper I consider the idea of poetic inspiration in early Greek literature from Homer toPindar. Despite variations in the views of individual poets (related, no doubt, to changes in thefunction and social statusof the poet during this period)4 the early Greek poets sharecertain basicassumptions about the nature of poetic creativity, and can therefore be treated together as agroup. My aim in what follows is to clarify these basic assumptions, and therefore the earlyGreek concept of poetic inspiration.

It seems to me that there are in particular two theoretical issues in need of analysis, bothfundamental to our understanding of ancient views of poetic creativity. The first is the frequentassumption that inspiration necessarily involves ecstasy or possession, and that the inspired poettakes no conscious part in the process of composition, but is merely the passive instrument ofsome overwhelming force. An important consequence of this assumption is that inspiration andcraft or technique are seen as incompatible. All this is, of course, true of Plato's concept of poeticinspirationsEvOovoaaoudsor1uaavta:hroughout isworkPlatodescribesheinspired oetasapassivenstrument hoknowsnothingof whathe issayingandwhocannotexplainhesourceor themeaningof hispoetry.5But there s no evidence o suggest hattheearlyGreekpoetsthoughtof inspirationn thisway.Infactthisconceptof poetic nspirations a kindof ecstaticmadness-furor oeticus-appearso be no olderthanthefifthcentury.6Neverthelessertainscholarspersistnequating arlyGreeknotionsof inspiration ith thePlatonicconcept ffurorpoeticus. or example,E. Barmeyer7 efers o the traditionalGreeknotion 'nachder derinspirierte ichter einenStandorterliertund m EnthusiasmusieGottheituiberhnkommt'

1 Preface to Plato (Oxford 1963) 156. This and thefollowing works are citedby author'snamealone:E. R.Dodds, TheGreeks nd heIrrationalBerkeley 195 ); R.Harriott,PoetryandCriticismbefore lato(London1969);G. Lanata, Poeticapre-Platonica Florence 1963); H.Maehler, Die Auffassungdes Dichterberufsm friihenGriechentum(Giottingen1963).2 The BacchaeNew Jersey 1970) Io.3 Those scholars who have discussed the subjectofpoetic inspiration n generalhave confused ratherthanclarified the ancient position. C. M. Bowra, for

example, in his Rede Lecture on InspirationndPoetry(London 1955) discusses the writing habits of manymodern poets and makessome interestingobservationson poetic inspiration. But elsewhere he uses hisknowledge of the creativeprocessesof modern poets tomake inferencesabout ancient poets which are purelyspeculative.See e.g. Pindar(Oxford 1964) 8-Io, 13.4 See e.g. Maehler,passim; . Svenbro, Laparole t le

marbre.uxoriginese lapoktiquerecqueLund1976).s The most important exts are: Ion passim;Ap.22a-c;Men.99c-e;Phdr. 45;Leg.682a,719c-d.6 Archil.fr. 20W canberelated o the deaofpoeticlpavia,asseveralcholars averightlypointedout;butperhapsone should not pressArchilochusoo fartowards generalfuroroeticus:t isthedithyrambe cancreatewhenlightning-struckywine.Theoldanalogybetweenpoetryandprophecy, nd nparticularhe useof verseas a mediumfor prophecyat Delphi, s alsorelevanto theorigins f thenotionoffurorpoeticus.ut

the first irm evidence hatwe haveforsucha notiondates from the fifth century.See Dodds 82; E. N.Tigerstedt,FurorPoeticus: oeticInspirationnGreekLiteratureeforeDemocritus ndPlato',JHI xxxi. 2(1970)163-78.7 Die Musen: Ein Beitragzur Inspirationstheorie(Miinchen 968)102.

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


3/15

88 PENELOPE MURRAYand M. Fuhrmann8speaksof the typicallyGreekconcept of poetic creativityas 'Verziickung,Wahnsinn,Entriickungoder Rausch,alsein Heraustretendes Dichtersaussichselbst(Ekstase),alsein Erftilltseindurchden Gott (Enthusiasmus)'.A particularlygood exampleof confusionisprovidedby Havelock.9 He rightlynotesthatthenotionof possessions absentfromearlyGreekpoetry, but consequentlyconcludesthat the notion of inspiration s equallyabsent.Before thefifth century,on hisview, poetry was thought of as a craft;the 'contraryconception'of poeticinspirationwas invented in the fifth century. In other words Havelock assumes both thatinspirationand possessionareidenticaland thatinspirationandtechniqueareincompatible.Hedoes not recogniseany conceptof poetic inspirationother thanPlato's,10nor does he appear oentertain hepossibility hattheconceptwasconceivedof in differentwaysat differentperiods nantiquity.In fact modern studies of the creative process show that there are different kinds ofinspiration,both in theoryandin practice." The experiencewhich gives rise to theconcepthasbeen describedby many differentpoets at differentperiods. Obviously the experiencediffersfrompoet to poet, but an essential eatureof it is the feelingthatpoetrycomesfrom some sourceother than the consciousmind. In its most mild form inspiration s simply the moment when athought or phrasespontaneouslypresents tself to the poet as the startingpoint of a poem.12Although the initial inspirationappears o come to the poet as if from some sourceother thanhimself,the subsequent ompositionof thepoem dependson consciouseffortand hardwork. Atthe other extremeinspirationcan be a much more shatteringexperience, nvolving any one ormore of the following features.The poet composeswith greatease andfluency,sometimeswithextremespeed. No subsequentrevision is necessary.Composition may be accompaniedby anunusuallyheightened state,variouslydescribedas frenzy, intoxication,enthusiasmor ecstasy.Such a state can only be temporary and does not depend on the will of the poet. Wheninspiration eases, he poet isamazedat what he haswritten,andcanonly describehimself astheinstrumentof some higher power.13The basicfeature n all theseexperiencesof inspiration eems to be the feelingof dependenceon some source other than the conscious mind. We might perhapsdistinguishbetween twotypesof inspiration,one of which involvesecstasy, he other of which doesnot,14 but thesetwotypes are merely the opposite ends of a spectrum,and within this spectrumthere are manydifferentkindsof inspiration.It is a mistaketherefore o assume hatinspiration ither n theoryor inpracticenecessarilynvolves totalabandonmentof responsibility orhiscreationon thepart

8 EinfiThrungndie ntike ichtungstheorieDarmstadt1973) 73-4.9 156.10 One reason for this concentration on Plato is, Isuspect,that modern notions of inspiration (which arelargely Romantic) bear more resemblance to thePlatonicconcept of inspirationthanto anything whichwe find in the early Greek poets. Compare, forexample, Socrates'well-known words about the inabi-lity of the inspiredpoet to understandhis own creationswith the following statement of Thomas Carlyle:'Manufacture is intelligible, but trivial; Creation isgreat, but cannot be understood.Thus if the DebaterandDemonstrator,whom we may rankas the lowest oftrue thinkers,knows what he hasdone, and how he didit, the Artist,whom we may rank as the highest,knowsnot; must speak of Inspiration,and in one or otherdialect,call his work the gift of a divinity.' (Characteris-tics [1831] ed. R. A. Foakes, Romantic Criticism:18oo-1850 London 19681145).11See e.g. R. E. M. Harding, An Anatomy ofInspiration2Cambridge 1942);B. Ghiselin, The Crea-tive Process(Berkeley 1952);J. Press, The Fire and theFountain(London 1966); P. E. Vernon (ed.), Creativity

(London 1970) 53-88; K. Dick (ed.), Writers at Work(Penguin 1972).12 See e.g. C. Day Lewis' account in The Listener,

28th April, 1966: 'For me, at any rate, "inspiration" sthe moment when some phrasecomes to me out of theblue and offersitself as a seed from which a poem maygrow. This seed, clue, donn&e,whatever, as you call it,swims up into my mind, not usuallyasanidea,but in aform of words.'13 See e.g., Rilke's descriptionof the way in whichhis Sonnets o Orpheuswere written (Briefe Wiesbaden

1950] ii 412): 'Sie sind vielleicht das geheimste, mirselber, in ihrem Aufkommen und sich-mir-Auftragen,ritselhaftesteDiktat, dasichje ausgehaltenundgeleistethabe; der ganze erste Teil ist, in einem einzigenatemlosen Gehorchen, zwischen dem 2. und dem 5.Februar1922 nieder-geschrieben,ohne dassein wort imzweifel oder zu indern war.' Cf. Nietzsche'scommentson inspiration n EcceHomo(1888) trans.W. Kaufmann(New York 1969) 300-I. Scepticsmay liketo note T. S.Eliot'scomment in SelectedEssays3 London 195I) 405.14 A distinctionbetween two types of inspiration salso made by Harding (n. I1) 65, and by StephenSpenderin Ghiselin (n. I1) 114-15.



4/15

POETIC INSPIRATION IN EARLY GREECE 89of thepoet. And it iscertainlya mistake o imputesuchnotionsto theearlyGreekpoets,as Ishallshow.The second issue which needs clarificationconcerns the definition of, and the distinctionbetween, the conceptsof poetic inspirationandpoetic genius.Inspiration an be broadlydefinedas the temporary mpulseto poetic creation,andrelatesprimarily o thepoeticprocess.Genius sa permanent ualityon whichpoetic creativitydependsand relatesprimarilyo the poeticpersonality.Theseideasare similar n thattheyboth accountforthe element n thepoetic processwhich is felt to be inexplicable, nd both canbe contrastedwith the technicalaspectsofcomposition. But they are basicallydistinct from each other. The one-poetic inspiration-accounts for poetic creativity in terms of a temporary visitation from some external, orseemingly external, force;the other in terms of permanentqualities nherent n the poet. Thebeginnings of both of these ideasare, I suggest, discernibleas early as Homer, and failure todistinguishbetweenthem hascloudedourunderstanding f ancientviews of poeticcreativity.'5

THE.MUSESIn early Greekpoetry inspiration s, of course,characteristicallyxpressed n termsof theMuses. shallnot discuss ere hequestion f how the deaof theMusesoriginated,16utItakeit thatwhatever lse he Muses tand orthey symbolisehepoet's eelingof dependencen theexternal:theyare hepersonificationf hisinspiration. heMusesinspirehebard n two mainways:(a)they give himpermanent oeticability; b) they providehim with temporaryidincomposition.Homerand heearlyGreekpoets ngeneral o notdistinguishetween hese woideas,neitherdoclassicalcholars. uttheyareneverthelessdistinguishable.n facttheyare he

forerunnersf the twoconcepts, utlined bove,whichaccount ortheinexplicablelement npoeticcreation.TheMuses'giftof permanent oeticabilitycorrespondso theexplanationfcreativityntermsof thepoeticpersonality;heirtemporaryid ncompositionorrespondsotheexplanationf creativityn termsof thepoeticprocess.Homerexpresseshe first dea,permanent oeticability,by sayingthatthe Muses ovebards,each hemandgivethemthegiftof poetry.Typicalof thisattitudesthedescriptionfDemodocusat Od.viii 44-5:T- 'yap pa EO',7TE PL SC&KEV&oLvopIPTELnv,nrirq7 S g E7OpV-JrorpvvIEL.

Homerdoesnot telluspreciselywhatthegiftof poetryentails,nordoeshespeculatesto thereasons or its bestowal.But evidently t is a permanent ift of poeticability,rather hanatemporarynspiration.ailureorecognisehiscanbeexemplified yHarriott'siscussionf thegiftidiom: theGreeksexpressedhe belief hatpoetry sin somemysteriousway"given", ndthat tcomes romasource xternalo thepoetand sother hanheis.Thisviewof inspirationsstill current,although partly replacedby psychological theories in which poetry is held toemanate from the unconsciousmind.'"7 There is a differencebetween lines of poetry being'given' to a poet andthe 'gift' of poeticability,which arehereconfused.Ishalldiscusselsewherethe full implicationsof the usesof the gift idiom to denote the bestowalof permanentpoeticability,andthe relationshipof the ideato the conceptof poetic genius.Forthe purposesof thispaper I wish merely to point out this differencebetween the temporaryinspirationand the15 See below, nf. 17.16The etymology of the word /Loroa is uncertain.See e.g. Maehler'ssummaryof the problem, 16-17, n.5. For general information on the Muses see e.g. M.Mayer, RE xvi (1933) 680-757; W. Otto, Die Musen(Darmstadt1956); Harriott Io-33.

17 50-1. For confusion over the concepts of inspi-rationand geniussee e.g. E. E. Sikes, TheGreekViewofPoetry (London 1931) 20; G. M. A. Grube, The GreekandRomanCritics(Toronto 1965) 9; A. Sperduti,'Thedivine nature of poetry in antiquity', TAPA lxxxi(1950) 233.



5/15

90 PENELOPEMURRAYpermanent ift of poetrywhich the Musesgrant,and the fact that we can discernherethebeginnings f a distinction etween heconceptsof poetic nspirationndpoeticgenius.We gather hat the Muse s believed o inspire he bard n a temporaryensefrom,forexample,hedescriptionf Demodocus t Od.viii73,where he Museprovidesheimmediateimpulseosong:Moi3a' p'doLsdv v^vEVaELEEVaLKEa dVSPpjV.c18heinvocationso theMuses-a traditional eatureof earlyGreekpoetry-also imply the notion of temporaryinspiration.ometimes hepoetsimplyasks he Muse o helphimbegin,or tojoin in hissong.But often the poet asksthe Muse for something pecific, uch as knowledgeof events,orsweetnessn song.19Wecan ookatthese nvocationsn twoways: a) npragmaticerms,hatis, in termsof theirsignificanceor an audience, b) in termsof the poet'sneedfor divineassistance. ndoubtedly ncientpoetsuse nvocationso establishheirauthority,o guaranteethe truthof theirwords,and to focusthe attention f theaudience tstrategic oints.But theinvocations lsoexpresshepoet'sbelief n divine nspiration. hepointat whichtheappealceases o begenuines,of course,problematic.utacomparisonetween he nvocationsf theearlyGreekpoetsandthoseof their iteraryuccessorsstrongly uggestshatthe formerspringfrom a real,religiousbelief n theMuses.20

KNOWLEDGEIt has often beenpointedout that the invocationsn Homer areessentially equestsorinformation, hich heMuses, sdaughtersf Memory,provide.This s clear rom he detailedinvocationbefore hecatalogue f ships:

"EowrEEi3v oL,MolaaL OAirnLa8aiar-'EXovaaLVILEL9Sap OEaL aE'TE, 7TapEUTE TE, LrUTETE lTavra,7vLELSSE AEOSLOVK o EVOVE'TLL'81sEV--OL LVES7jyELoVESavaw^vKaLKOLpaVOLu)av.7TA7r,;vt'QohK, iycOv07jauocLaLi' OVOIL7jVW,o0SE'L oL EEKapuvyAoaJua,mKaErlar' ETV,OCwV71 app77KTogs,XaAKEovS fLOL71TOp VEL77,EL/vr 'OAVUTLa'ESEMoloaL,ZLS LLyLoXOLOOvyaTEpE~,vrlaaaLaO'6oL r I'o"IALoVAOov. (II. ii 484-92)21

Somescholars, owever,evidentlythinkthat it is misleadingo connect nformationwithinspiration. avelock,orexample, ays hat he nvocationquotedabove showshow true t isthat heMusessymboliseheminstrel's eedof memoryandhispower opreservememory,nota spiritual nspiration,which would certainlybe inappropriateo a muster-list'.22And W. W.Minton observes thatin the Homericinvocations'thepoet does not ask forhelpor guidance nis The same idea may also be expressedat Od. viii499: 0 8' pjrlOELOEoJ pxE'ro,ca vE8' doLaSjv.Theproblemis whether to takeGEo6iith 0pjrlqeL'sr withapXe-ro.See the discussionsof e.g. 0. Falter,Der Dichterund sein Gott bei den GriechenundRomern(Wiirzburg1934) 9; Harriott42. 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 41-9,72-7.20 On this seee.g. R. H~iussler,Der Tod derMusen',AuA xix (1973) 117-45; S. Commager, The Odes ofHorace(Indiana1967) 2-16.21 Harriott (40) appearsto miss the point of theselines. The bard does not speak'asif hisphysical strengthwill not be equal to the long task of recounting the

participantsnthewar',butrathertresseshat,howevergreathisphysicaltrength, ewillnotbe able o recallthenecessarynformation ithout heprompting f theMuses. The contrastmade here for the first timebetweendivineknowledgeandhumanignorances apersistentheme nearlyGreekiterature. eee.g. Ibyc.fr. . 23-6; Sol.fr. 17; Xenoph.fr. 34; Pi. N. vii 23-4, Pa.vi 50-8, viib 15-20; B. Snell, The'DiscoveryftheMind,trans. T. G. Rosenmeyer (New York 1960) 136-52.Invocations n Homeric epic occurelsewhereat II.i I, ii761, xi 218, xiv 50o8, xvi I12; Od. i I. Cf. also thequasi-invocationsat II. v 703, viii 273, xi 299, xvi 692.Forscholarshipon Homeric invocations seeHarriott44.22 177.



6/15

POETIC INSPIRATIONIN EARLY GREECE 91"how" he shall tell his story;thereis no suggestionof a plea for "inspiration";nly forinformation'.23either cholarmakest clearwhathemeansby 'inspiration':utwhatevertis,they both agreethat it is incompatiblewith factualcontentin poetry. But why shouldinspirationotinclude, r evenconsist f, information?nfact,asMintonhimselfpointsout,theChadwickshave shown that much early oral poetry associatedwith the 'poet-seer' sinformationaln character,nd thattraceswhichsuggest hatsuch'seer-poets'nce existed nGreecehave been found in both Homerand Hesiod.WhatMinton does not note is theChadwicks'nsistence n the widespreadonnexionbetweeninspirationnd informationnsuch poetry, summarisedhus by N. K. Chadwick: The association f inspiration ndknowledgeof whateverkind acquiredby supernatural eansis ancientand widespread.Inspiration,n fact,relates o revealed nowledge.'24t is not therefore contradictiono saythattheinvocationsn Homerarerequestsorinspiration-eventhough heinspirationmightconsistlargelyof information.The associationf the Museswithknowledge f onesortoranother ontinuedhroughoutthe early period.It was, amongstotherthings,Demodocus'knowledgeof thefactsof theAchaeanexpeditionwhichcausedOdysseuso wonderat thebard: emusthavebeentaughtbythe MuseorApollo25 incehesangof the fateof theAchaeans s f hehimselfhadbeenpresent,or as f hehadheard romsomeone lse(Od.viii487-91). HesioddepictedheMuses n MountOlympus inging f past,present nd uture Th.36-40) andclearlyhegiftof poetrywhich heMuses estowed n their hosenbardsnvolved hepowerof truespeech.When heMusesmadeHesioda poettheytoldhim thattheycould reveal he truthwhentheywished:

8jLEV/JEV'EaroAAdE'yELVETV OLULV/LoLMa,L81'V ', ER"'EOWAoEV,ArlqOayrlpv'aUOaL. (Th. 27-8)Theseambiguous ines havebeenvariously nterpreted,26 utwhat cannotbe disputed s the factthat he Muses rehererepresentedshaving hepower o tellthetruth.Thechiefdifficultystodeterminehe precisenatureof the distinction rawnbetweentruth(dAi7'A) andplausiblefictionE'SEa ... E.TVfLOLrLVptoa).Theconventional,ndI think hecorrect,nterpretationis thatHesiod s herecontrastinghetruecontentof hisownpoetrywith theplausibleictionofHomericepic.Westrejectshisinterpretationn thegroundshat no Greek verregardedheHomericepicsassubstantiallyiction'.ButHomerwas riticisedormisrepresentinghetruth.27Harriott'suggestionhat nthese inesHesiodsfaithfullyeportingheMuses'warninghat fhewereto offendhewouldbepunished ybeing misled ntorecording lyingvision'28eemstometo besingularlynlikely:Hesiodwouldhardlypreface isworkwith awarninghatwhatfollowedmightbeuntrue;nthecontrary,heproem o theTheogonyssurelyoberegardedsapleafor theinfallibilityf thepoemas a whole. There s,of course,animportant ifferencebetween the kindsof knowledgebestowedby the Muses n Homer and in Hesiod.TheknowledgewhichHomer'sMuses rantsprimarilynowledge f thepast-that is,knowledgeasopposed to ignorance.Hesiod'sMuses,on the other hand,areresponsible or both truthandfalsehood:what they give Hesiod is true knowledge as opposed to false.And the poet speakswith the authorityof one who believes that his knowledge comes from divine revelation.29

23 'Invocation ndCataloguenHesiod ndHomer',TAPA xciii (1962)190.24 PoetryandProphecy Cambridge 1942) 41.25 As e.g. W. Marg pointsout, Homer?berdieDichtungMiinster 957)Io, theprecise ignificancefthisalternativesnow lost to us. But theoverlappingfthedomains f Apolloand he Muses learly tressesheimportancefknowledge nd ruthnthepoetryof thisperiod.26Seee.g. K.Latte,HesiodsDichterweihe', uA ii(1946) I59--63;Lanata24-5 and bibliographyhere;

Maehler 41; A. Kambylis, Die Dichterweiheund ihreSymbolikHeidelberg 965)62-3; West adloc.;W.J.Verdenius, 'Notes on the Proem of Hesiod's Theo-gony', Mnem.xxv (1972)234-5; P. Pucci,Hesiodand heLanguage f Poetry(Baltimore 1977) 9-16.27 Seee.g. Pi. N. vii 20-4; Heraclit.fr. 6,cf.fr.42;Xenoph.fr.1I;P1.Rep.377d,and ngeneralF.Mehmel'Homerunddie Griechen'AuAiv (1954)16-40. SeealsoMaehler 1 andVerdeniusn. 26) 234.28 113.29 Cf. Th. Io4-14; Op. 661-2.



7/15

92 PENELOPE MURRAYPindaroo,oftenclaimso havespecial nowledge rom heMuses, sforexample t Pa.vi51-8:

-raira OEOLUL[/I]E'V7mTLOELVofO[s] vvaro'v,JporoLLv'&padavo[vVe]pEILE

rrarpLMvavouv]avTE&, apov,v"]?KARrEVV.30

LikeHesiod,but moreobsessively,Pindar nsistson the truthof what he hasto say31-aninsistencewhich is all the strongerbecausehe is acutelyawareof the powerof poetrytoperpetratealsehood.32indarees t aspartof his task o combat uch alsehood, ndhe isableto do so becausehe, asprophetof theMuses,hasaccess o knowledgewhich is hidden romordinarymortals. nsimilarashionEmpedoclesppealso the Muses o givehimknowledgewhichwill sethimapartromothermortals, ndheevidently egardshesupernaturalriginofhispoetryasa guaranteef its truth.33Ina moremodestHomericspirit,Platotrades n thetraditionalunction f theMuses spurveyorsf thetruthwhenheremarks(albeitronically)tRepub.47a hat he Hesiodicmythof the fouragesof manmustbe true ince tcomes rom heMuses.A. W. Allen hasargued hat fromthe firstthe Museswerenot only the inspirers fpoetry,butalso hepossessorsf allknowledge.Andhemakeshepertinent oint hat aslongastherangeof poetry ncluded llformsof knowledge,t fullycorrespondedo therangeof theMuses'authority'.34 he frequent ndrecurrent ssociation f theMuseswithknowledgenearlyGreekpoetrysuggestsa closeconnectionbetweenpoetic inspiration ndknowledgeduring hisperiod.

MEMORYThe ancienttraditionwhich madethe Musesthe daughters f Mv7)pUoa'v7s furtherevidence f suchaconnexion.ThegoddessMvrjqoouvrifirstappearssmotherof theMusesnHesiod,35but theconnexionbetweenmemoryand the Muses salreadyapparentn Homer's useof theverb LuttqvwKOttaLf heMuses'unction t II.ii 492.36ForPlato t wasacommonplacethat one of the tasksof the Muses was to remind the poet, as we can see from Socrates'wordsatEuthydemus75c:he, like thepoets,must invoke Memoryandthe Muses n orderto rememberapreviousconversation.Severalscholarshavestressed he importanceof thisaspectof the Muses,

30 Cf. e.g. Pi. O. x 1-6, xiii 93-1oo; Pa. viib I5-20;Ibyc.fr. I. 23-6; Bacch. xv 47.31 See e.g. O. iv 17-18, vi 20-I, vii 20-I, xiii 52 andP. i 86-7 on the importance of truth in general.'AAaOcELas invoked at O. x 3-4 and atfr. 205. Pindar'sconcern for truth is also evident in his characteristicuseof arrow andjavelin imagery asat e.g. 0. xiii 93-5, P. i42-5, N. i 18,vi 26-7. SeefurtherBowra, Pindar 6-33;Harriott69-70; Maehler96-8.32 See e.g. O. i 28-32, N. vii 20-3. Ingeneralon thispersuasivepower of poetry see e.g. Harriott I17-20; J.de Romilly, 'Gorgiaset le pouvoir de la po6sie',JHSxciii (1973) 155-62.33 Frr.3, 4, 23.11, 131. The view expressedby Falter(n. 18)40 thatEmpedocles' nvocation to the Museinfr.3 is nothing but 'poetischeEinkleidung,Motiv, keines-wegs aber aus wahrem Glaubenerwachsen' is rightly

refutedby W.J. Verdenius, The meaningof HarTLs inEmpedocles',Mnem.4i (1948) Io0-I. Cf P. Boyanc6,Le cultedes Muses chez lesphilosophes recs (Paris 1936)241. Clearly the goddess in Parmenides' proem fr.1.22-32 alsoguarantees he truth of hismessage,but sheis not identified as a Muse. See e.g. Harriott65-7.34 'Solon's Prayerto the Muses', TAPA lxxx (1949)65.

35 Th. 53-61 with West ad loc. To the referencesthere given add Th. 915-17; PMGfr. 941; Pi. Pa. vi54-6, viib 15-I6; P1. Theaet.I9Id; Plut. Mor. 9d,frr.215h, 217j. See furthere.g. B. Snell 'Mnemosynein derfriihgriechischenDichtung', Archivfir Begriffsgeschichteix (1964) 19-21; A. Setti, 'LaMemoria e il canto', Stud.Ital. xxx (1958) 129-71.36 Cf e.g. Certamen 8; Pi. N. i 12.



8/15

POETIC INSPIRATION IN EARLY GREECE 93pointingout that at times the Musesseem to be little more than a personificationof memory.37Havelock goes so far as to say that the Muses in Homer have nothing to do with inspirationbecausethey 'areconnectedwith special eatsof memory'.3 This dissociationof inspirationandmemory ismisguided: here sno inherentincompatibilitybetweeninspirationandinformation,asIhavepointedout, andthe factthat wemight identifythe sourceof the poet'sinspirationas aninternalone does not meanthat thepoet or his audience eels t to be so. FurthermoreHavelock'scontentionthat the Musesembody the bard'spowersof memorisations highly dubious,as is histheory that Mv7lptoaUv7'hiefly implies the notions of recall,record and memorisation.39The precisenatureof poeticmemoryin earlyGreecehasbeenmuchdiscussed.J.-P.Vernant,in an article entitled 'Aspects mythiques de la m6moire et du temps'40 argued that thepsychological function of memory in early Greek poetry is not to reconstruct the pastaccurately,but to transport he poet into the past,to give him a direct visionof'l'ancien temps'.Memory of thistype, to be distinguished rom historicalmemory, is the privilegeof poetsandseers,who havein common 'unmeme don de "voyance"'. As evidence for this latterstatementVernant cites the phraserd 7'-odvra r 7'r EaaoEva rrpd 'povra which is usedin connexionwith Calchas'propheticskill at II.i 70 andof the Muses'song at Hes. Th. 38 (note thatit is usedof the Muses,not of Mvr)oLoa'vr)s Vernantstates).In fact thisphrasesuggeststhat what poetsand seers have in common is knowledgeather than vision. Of coursethe connexion betweenknowledge andsightisvery closein earlyGreekliterature--at II.ii 485, for example,the Musesknow everythingbecausethey have seeneverything4'1-but the 'don de "voyance"', of whichVernantspeaksappears o be something ratherdifferentfrom sight in the senseof knowledge.The poet's knowledge, he says, is the result of 'une vision personelledirecte. La m6moiretransporte e poete au coeurdes 6v6nementsanciens,dans leur temps', a contention which issupportedby referenceto Plato'sIon 535b-c, where SocratesasksIon about his mental stateduring his rhapsodicperformances:TOTEorETEPOV 'coWV EL17]w aarou yLyv~)KaL, 7apa T LS~pay/av OLETL(TaOUELvaL77vX ) O.S AEyELSevOULvataovaa, 7rEv jGaK 1Uovav71Ev Tpol 7"1orrwSav KaLTa 7T7EX77;The experienceheredescribedby Socrates eems to me to be something quitedifferent rom thatdescribedby the bard at II. ii 484-92 (and, it may be added, has nothing much to do withmemory). The rhapsode--and he is a rhapsode,not a poet-is transportednto the scenesheevokes,but in the Iliad t is the Museswho see the eventsof the past,not the bard.Furthermore,the ecstaticstate of the rhapsodehasno parallel n Homer: we aresimply told that the Museswere presentandsaw the events. The implicationof the invocation,andin particular f 492, isthat the Musescan communicatetheirknowledge to the bard,but there is no suggestionthatthey do so by transportinghim into thepastandgiving him a directvisionof abygone age. Bothhere andin the other references itedby Vernant42 hepoet isenvisagedasbeingin contactwiththe powers of the Muses ratherthan actually having thesepowers directlyhimself.Odysseus'praiseof Demodocus at Od.viii 489-91 might appear o providebetterevidencefor Vernant'stheory:

At7lv dpKTa' KdOLov'XaLtv

OLoVE'l"ELS,aa' :prav 7" EraO'v 7'EKaLOa' 4'tqCzyrlaav"AXaLOL,

WSt rEITOU " avUTSo 7TapEv 7) ~AAov ao'uasxBut the possibility that the bard might have heard of the sufferingsof the Achaeans fromsomeone else is somewhat difficultto reconcilewith the notion that he was given a personalvision of them. He sings KaGrdKdoOv, a phrase which refers as much to the form as to the37 Seee.g.J. Duchemin, indareoete t prophite(Paris1955)26.38 163-4.100.

40oJournaldePsychologie1959) 1-29 repr.in Mytheet

penseechez les Grecs(Paris 1974) 80--l7. See also M.Detienne, Les mattresde veritedans la grecearchdique2(Paris1973) 15, 24-7, I o.41 See further Snell (n. 21).42 83 n. 9.



9/15

94 PENELOPEMURRAYcontent f hissong: tisboth rueandwellstructured.43WhatamazesOdysseuss thereality ndvividness f Demodocus'ccount, ut thisdoesnotimply hathe hasvisionary owers.Thefirstof the two alternativewaysin whichthe bardmighthaveacquired isknowledgewouldbecompatiblewith vision(althought does not imply it), but the secondrenders hispossibilityhighlyunlikely ince nformationromsomeone lsecancreate hesamevividness sthebard'spersonal resence t theevents. nfact t seems o methatHomer shereoffering formulationof the idea of poetic imagination s a form of visualisation,n ideawhich is foundfullydevelopedn Aristotle's oetics(I455a22) ndinLonginusI5. ).44One of the basicconfusionsn Vernant'sarguments his failure o distinguish etweenecstatic ndnon-ecstaticinspirationither n prophecy r in poetry.Forexample, he 'dondevoyance'of whichVernantspeakss highly appropriateo Cassandras she is depictedn theAgamemnon.nher renzy hedoeshaveadirectandpersonalisionof variousepisodeselatingto thepast,present nd utureof thehouseof Atreus.Thatsheactuallyeeswhatshedescribessclear romherwordsat,forexample, 125: ?8o00'o0.45Ithas ongbeenrecognised,owever,that,with theexception f TheoclymenustOd.xx 351-7,prophecy f thisvisionary aturesabsent from Homer. The .tadvrtgn Homer is largelyconcernedwith the techniqueofinterpretingmens,not with havingvisionary xperiencesf events naccessibleo ordinaryhumanbeings.46Vernant'semarks boutpoetryaresimilarlymisleading. orexample:Lapo6sie constitueune des formes typiquesde la possessionet du d6lire divins, l'6tatd'"enthousiasme"u sensetymologique.'Thisstatements certainlyrue of Plato,but onecannotusePlatoasevidence or pre-Platoniciewsof poetry.Thenotionthatmemory s apowerof poeticor prophetic isionis, I think,easier o reconcilewith anecstatictheoryofinspirationn whichthepoetor prophets literallyakenout of himself hanwith themoreintellectualconcept f inspiration hichwe find nHomerand heearlyGreekpoets.That snotto saythatpoeticmemoryduring hisperiod s simplya process f factual ecall.Thesubstantialimplicationsf theancient onnexionbetweenMemoryandtheMusesnoralpoetrywere firstrecognised yJ. A. Notopoulos.47Hepointedout thatthereareat leastthreedifferentwaysin whichmemory s importantn suchpoetry.First,memoryserves operpetuate nd hence immortaliseKMAa dvspv. The immortalising ower of poetry isrecognisedromHomeronwards nd sa centralheme nPindar'spoetry.The atterrepeatedlyemphasiseshe Muses' unctionas bestowersof immortality.48 econd,memoryconservesinformation-apointtooobvious o needsubstantiation.hird,andmostimportant,memoryisthemeansbywhichoralpoetryscreated.Homericepic sbased na vastandcomplex ystemof formulas ndwordgroups,whichthebardmustretain n hismind to use as thebuildingblocksof hiscomposition:noralcompositionf thistypememorysacreativeorce, ince hebardmustnotonlymemorise heoraldictionoutofwhichhispoetrysmade,butalsocreate issongfrom t. Memorysthusat theheart f thistypeof oralpoetry orwithout tcompositionsimpossible.Memoryand inspiration,ar from being incompatible, re vitallyconnected:memory s virtuallyhesourceof thepoet's nspiration.

PERFORMANCE

The widely held view that there are certain fundamentaldifferencesbetween oral and43

See Lanata'sexcellent discussionof this passage,12-13-44 I hope to discussthe history of this concept in alaterarticle.45 Cf I1114, 1217.46 See e.g. E. Rohde, Psyche, trans. W. B. Hillis(London1925) 289;Dodds70.47'Mnemosyne n Oral Literature',TAPA lxix

(1938) 465-93.48 See e.g. Hom. II. vi 358; Od. viii 73, 580; xxiv196-7; 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. viii70-80, x 86-96, P. i 93-100oo,ii 112-15, iv 293-9, v45-9, vi 5-17, xi 55-64, N. vi 26-35, vii I1-16, ix48-55, I. v 53-7, vii 16-26, viii 56-63,fr. 121;P1.Smp.2o9d-e.



10/15

POETIC INSPIRATION IN EARLY GREECE 95literarypoetry hasrecentlybeen challenged by R. Finnegan.49She demonstrates hat no onemodel will cover all types of oral literatureandarguesthat there is no clear-cutdifferentiationbetween oral literatureon the one hand and written literatureon the other. Nevertheless itwould clearlybe false to saythat oralpoetryis exactly the same as writtenpoetry in allrespects.The one aspect in which oral poetry obviously does differ from literary poetry is in itsperformance-a point which Finneganherselfstresses. ndeed she describesperformanceasthe'heartof the whole conceptof oral literature'.50 ngeneralclassicalscholarshiphas not seenthatthisimportantdifferencebetweenoral andliterarypoetryhas a directbearingon the conceptofpoetic inspiration.One of the essential eaturesof the Parry-Lordtheoryof oral formulaiccompositionis thatoralpoetryiscomposedandperformedsimultaneously.This isnot to saythat the bard s merelyanilliterateimproviseror to imply that hardwork andthought may not go into thecompositionbeforehand.But it isat the moment of performance hat thepoem is fully composedfor the firsttime.51 Composition, therefore,does not dependon flashesof inspirationwhich mysteriouslyprovide ideas or phrases o the poet, but on a steadyflow of words. The oral poet is both acomposerand a performer:he needsnot only memory and a command of technique,but alsofluencyand confidence or 'presence'asa performer.What must thereforebe emphasiseds thatinspiration n oral epic poetry is inextricablyconnectedwith performance.The Muses in early Greek poetry do more than simply provide information. Od. xvii5I8-21, for example, shows that they also inspirethe bard with the power to mesmerisehisaudience. When the Muses made Hesiod a poet, they inspiredhim with a wonderful voice:eve~ vevaavS tpota'8&)v OoErLVTh. 3I-2).52 The significanceof these wordsis not generallystressed.Fluencyof compositionisa common characteristic f inspirationn allperiods.To takeone example from ancientliterature,Cratinusdescribes he inspiringeffectsof wine infr. 186:'LordApollo, whatafloodof words Streamssplash,his mouthhastwelve springs, lissus s in histhroat.What more canI say?If someone doesn'tstophim up, he'llswampthe whole placewithhispoems '53Harriott,54amongstothers,pointsout that the comparisonof flowing speechto arivergoes backto Homer. In the Iliad(i 249) Nestor'seloquence s described n the well knownline:7ro Kat &rnoyA'jaaorlqLPeAro~AKwL'VpEEVa3&87. esiodemphasises he effortless lowof the Muses'voices in similarlanguage(Th. 39-40), andthose whom the Muses ove have thisgift of fluency(Th.96-7, cf.84).Harriottand othersdraw ourattentionto thesepassages,but failto pin-point theirsignificance.Surelythe significanceof the comparisonof the poet'sutteranceto a stream is that in oral poetry fluency is vital. Since composition and performancearesimultaneous,without fluency composition breaksdown.Even when Greekpoetry ceasedto be orally composed, there was still the associationofinspirationwith performance:hroughoutthe classicalperiod,poetrywas alwayscomposedforsome kind of audience;it was never simply a private expression. Hence performancewasimportant and the Muses continued to provide inspiration in performanceas well as incomposition. The frequent invocations to the Muses to give sweetness in song should beinterpreted with this in mind. For example, Alcmanfr. 27: MJo"'&yEKaAAQdrra vyarEpAZds/PhXx'parv iTrrEwv,rr 8' LLEpov / utvw Kat Xaptvra 7rl Xopo'v.55ssindar begins Nem. iiiwith an invocation which is clearlya requestfor help in performance:

49OralPoetryCambridge1977).0 Ibid.8,cf 133.51 See M. Parry,Studiesn theEpicTechnique fOral Verse-Making',HSCP xli (1930) 77-8= TheMaking fHomericVerse,d. A. Parry Oxford1971)269--70;A. B. Lord,TheSinger f Tales(CambridgeMass.1960)13-29;M. N. Nagler,SpontaneityndOralTradition(Berkeley 974) xi, xxiii,20-I. Onthewholetopicof priorcomposition,memorisation ndperfor-mance eeFinnegan n.49) 73-87.

52 Cf. Th. 97; Hom. Od. i 371.sa53 ~4 "AoAAov,rcvw vTwVPEv'irwv.KavaxovaL7r)yal, SW8EKKpouvOVOVa'TdOta,I A t k a a o a p v y -7 0rop ; /ELI ydp 7TcLpEctLTgLSvto) 7TOrdpaadravra avTai KaT-aKAt~aELrot)aaLtv.Cf Ar. Eq. 526-8; P1.Leg. 719c.54 88-9, 124. Cf Kambylisn. 26) 144-6.ss Cf. e.g. Hes. Th. o104;Pi.fr. 75; Ar. Av. 737-50,Ra. 675.



11/15

96 PENELOPEMURRAY'2 rr6rvtaMoCaa,LpaTrpaperEpa, laaotat,rdv rwoAve'vavlEpotLvIt'a NepLed&LKEO wpt'8avicaovAywtvav- SartydppEIvovr'n' 'Aoawro'w LeAtyapvwv rTEKTOVESKWLOWVEca,'a,aEOEV7a Lpato/.EvoL.t.The Chorusesn Aristophaneslsofrequentlynvoke he Muse orhelp nperformance,s,forexample, t Peace 75-80: 'Muse,havingdrivenaway hewar,oininthe choruswithme,yourfriend, elebrating eddings f thegods,banquetsf menand estivitiesf theblessed.'57nthecontextof bothvictorycelebration nd dramaticcompetition, omposition ndperformanceareunited,and the Muserelateso both.

THE POET AND HISMUSE

What stheprecise ature f therelationshipetween he Museand hepoet nearlyGreekpoetry?Whatevertis,thepoet scertainlyottheunconsciousnstrumentf thedivine,assomescholars avesuggested.G. M. A. Grube,orexample,aysof the nvocationsnHomer:WhenHomer nvokes he Museson his own account, verythingsinspirationndhespeaks s f thepoetwere but a passivenstrument.'s8 he firstthreewordsof the Iliad(MivwtvEL, Oad)might ndeedbe taken o suggesthat hepoet snothingbut the nstrumentf thegoddess.Butthe request or specific nformation t 8 (Who then of the gods brought hemtogether ocontend n strife?)uggestshat thepoet is an activerecipient f informationfrom heMuserather hanapassivemouthpiece. hesamestrueof all theother nvocationsnthe Iliad.59 heproemof the Odysseymakes hepoet'sactiverole even clearer:"AvSpapLotVVETE,ooa . .TQjV l/,LOdEVYE, O~Ea,OvyaEpZLOS,yIT, Ka~LOLCv.Therelationshipereenvisaged etween hepoetand heMuses an ntellectualone--the Museisasked o communicate ith thebard,not tosendhim nto astateofecstasy-and itwouldbe amistake o interprethese nvocations sevidence or the view that thebard akesno part ncomposition.TheearlyGreekpoets n general xpressheirbelief n theirdependencen theMuse,butthey also stress heirpartin composition.Forexample,at Od. viii 44-5, Alcinous aysofDemodocus:

rL yap pa OEOsrrpLWKEv aOLS~VTcp7TELV,PT0?7GVtLOSq E7TO7PV1flULVvoIEtLV.These words make it clear that poetry is both god-given and the product of the bard'sownOv0ds.60 There is a similarcombinationof humanand divineelements n Phemius'claimat Od.xxii 347-8:

avo8t708aKTos 8 tL OES 8 fOL,V ;pEaLV oLtasTav'rolasr VvayVIt might be arguedthat the two halvesof this statementarecontradictory:because hegodshaveimplanted the paths of song in him the bard cannot claim responsibility for his composition. Butthese lines, like the previous example quoted, must surely be understood in the context of

56 Cf. e.g. P. iv 1-3, N. vi 28-9.57 Mooaa, aOpv 7ToA4lovS" 7-coapl ev-q 1E-r elPovr70t t'AovXpevUov,KAEOvaUaOeWV7 yaltOUSvavspcov-v E aa-Tag

Ka Oa gasl taKapwvvCf. Ach. 665-75.58 Op. cit. (n. 17) 2.59 See above, n. 21.60 Cf. Od. i 346-7.



12/15

POETICINSPIRATIONIN EARLY GREECE 97Homer'slanguage.Dualmotivations,of course,a characteristicf Homeric picanda god'sprompting oesnot exclude personalmotivation.61 hetwo halves f Phemius'tatementrethereforecomplementaryather hancontradictory:e isboth selftaughtandtherecipient fdivineaid.Ithasbeensuggestedhata3'ro801taKrosefersothetechnicalaspectsfcomposition(form, tyleetc.),whereas rp)asefers o thesubjectmatter f hissong,62 utthis eems ometobe too precise distinction.Whilst he worda3r'o81a8K0roslearly mpliesanotionof skillortechnique,hemetaphorf thepathorwayof songshouldnot be restrictedosubjectmatter.63Thegeneralpointof Phemius' laim s thathe doesnotsimply'repeatongshehas earnt romotherbards,but composeshissongshimself.64Theparticularointwhichis relevant o thepresentdiscussions thatalthoughPhemius tresseshe divineoriginof hispoetryhe is verymuchawareof hisownpart ncomposition.Thisattitudestypicalof theearlyperiodof Greekliterature s a wholein theway thatpoetry s describedn bothhumananddivineterms.One of theconventionalwaysof describing poetis to callhima MovoawvOEpdcawv,ndOEpda7TWVs a revealingword.It does not implythat the poetis passiveor servilebutrathersuggestsa closerelationshipetweenthe Muse andthe poet who attendshere.65Theognisspecifieshe nature f thisrelationship orepreciselywhenhedescribeshepoetasamessenger(&yyEAos)f the Muses.66The relationshipetween hepoetand the Muse s describedn anumber f differentwaysbyPindar, sforexamplenfr. 150:iavrEEOo,Motaa,,rpobarTOow8' E'y6.Thismetaphor onveysPindar'senseof dependencen theMuse,butalsostresses ispartas therrpo4rs'j (onewhointerpretsndproclaims)f hermessage.67 s Doddsexplains:'Thewordsheusesare hetechnicalerms f Delphi;mplicitnthem s theoldanalogybetweenpoetryanddivination. utobservehat tis theMuse,andnotthepoet,whoplays hepart f thePythia;hepoetdoesnot ask o behimself"possessed",utonlyto actastheinterpreterortheentrancedMuse.Andthatseems o be theoriginal elationship. pic raditionrepresentedhepoetasderivingupernormalnowledgerom heMuses, utnotasfallingntoecstasy rbeingpossessedy them.'6"Dodds sclearly ight nsaying hat theMuse,andnot thepoet. .. playsthepartof thePythia',but to inferfromthisthatthe Muse s actually ossessedeems o medubious. t is difficult o see who or whatmightbe possessingheMuse,andPindarnowheremakesanyreferenceo possession. heemphasisn thefragments on Pindar'spositionas theintermediaryetweengodsandmen,not on thepsychologicaltateof theMuse.Pindar lsoemphasisesisactiverolein poeticcreationby hisuse of thetermEVplaKw,asat 0. iii 4-6:

Mogoa 'o07rw7ToLrapE-ara pot vEocnyaAovEV"pdvTLpo'0rovdcpt'w bwvav E'vap LouaL?7TE&AwdyAacdKWJwov69Andelsewhere e describes ispoetryassimultaneouslyhegiftof theMuses(Modyv8UaLow)and heproduct f hisownmind(yAvKivKaprTov pEvod).70oeticcreativity epends othoninspirationndon conscious ffort.

61See e.g. Dodds 1-18; A. Lesky,GittlicheundmenschlicheMotivation m homerischenEpos(Heidelberg1961).62 Seee.g.Lanata,3-14.63 Seee.g. O. Becker,DasBilddesWeges',HermesEinzels. iv (Berlin 1937); Harriott64-5.64 See e.g. W. Schadewaldt, Von HomersWelt undWerk3(Stuttgart1959) 78-9; Dodds Io; Maehler22-3;Harriott92 and bibliographythere.65 See Pi. P. iv 286-7 where the free attendant

(OLpd6rwov)s contrastedwith the slave (Spapiaas).ForO6pdrowvof thepoet seee.g. Hes. Th. Ioo; h.Hornm.xxii20; Choeril. fr. I; Ar. Av. 909. Cf. Bacch. v 192(7rpd7roAos);Sapph. r. i50 (tLoLon7TAoso).

66 See B. A. van Groningen, Thbognis:Le premierlivreAmsterdam966)ad. oc.andM.S.Silk, nteractionin PoeticImagery Cambridge 1974) 89 who notes that'MovoajvOEpdtrovs anabsolutelyonventionalperi-phrasisorthepoet;Movcr(dvyyEAos s ivemetaphor'.67 Cf. Pi. Pa. vi 6; Bacch. ix 3. On rpoobjrg see E.FascherHPOOHTHE (Giessen 927);H. W. Parke,CQ xxxiv (1940) 85; Fraenkelon Aesch. Ag. o199.68 82.69 Cf.O. i I IO,N.vi 54,viii 20,fr. 122. 14;Bacch.fr.5. Cf. pEvvavat Pa.viib 20.And ngeneraleeBecker(n. 62) 73; Maehler96; Harriott6o-I.70 0. vii 7-8. Cf. N. iv 6-8; Bacch.xii I-3, xiii220-9.



13/15

98 PENELOPEMURRAYCRAFT

LikePindarheearlyGreekpoetsasa wholeseem ohavehadaverybalanced iewofpoeticcreativity,morebalancedhansome scholarswouldallow.Havelock,71s I havealreadyaid,maintains hat in the earlyperiodpoetrywas thoughtof as a craftand that the 'contraryconception' f poetic inspirationwas invented n the fifth century.Otherscholars akethedirectly ppositeview.Barmeyer,72orexample, uggestshat heearlyGreekdoS's;isto beregardedsinspiredather hanasa craftsman. ndSvenbronhisrecentbookargueshat'pourHombreet H6siode 'aedetientsa parole"de la Muse", l n'apparaitullement ommele"producteur"e sondiscours'73ndeven hat l'id6ememede l'aede ommeauteur u chant sten effet"syst6matiquement"ejet6eparHombre'.74 hesituation f thechoralpoet,on theotherhand,scompletely ifferent:'toujoursnquetede commissions.. ildoit nsisterur efaitqu'ilest e "producteur"e sonpokmeafin'mtre r6munre,etil le faitaumoyendenombreusesm&aphores

ond6esurl'analogientrepoeteetartisan'.75nhiszeal o stress heimportancefthe different ocialsituations f theHomericdoo86sand the choralpoetSvenbroignores hecontinuityn attitudeso poetrywhichexistsbetween hem.Thenotion hatthepoetreceiveshis words rom heMuse s notconfinedo HomerandHesiodanymore han he notionof thepoetascraftsmans confined o Pindar ndthe choralpoets.IntheOdysseyhebard s includedn a list of 7LtLoEpyoIL:Tts ydap 7ELVOVKaAE AAo0oEVvro~EIrrEAOWvcAAov,E.l 717V ol 87tlLOEpOLaOL,av 71t 7l7pa K(KWV 71TEKTOVa o0pwvSKaLOtEULv aoto,O 0, KE0TVTEp7TLVaEl"ov;

(Od.xvii 382-5)Svenbroargues hat thispassage annot be takenasevidencefor theideaof thepoetascraftsman,referring to Vernant's observation that the word 8IytoepyodS'ne qualifie pas al'origine l'artisanen tantque tel ... il d6finittoutes lesactivit6squis'exercenten dehorsde 1'o0'KoS,n faveurd'unpublic'.76Now it maybe true hatthe word8f7tLLoEpyoSnitselfdoesnot implythenotionofcraftsmanship,utthecontext nwhich hewordoccursmustsurelybeconsidered. hefact hatthebard s includedn a listof peoplewho havespecialisedkillswhichcanbe of use to thecommunitysuggests hat he too possesses certain kill.WhenPhemiushas to justifyhisexistence o Odysseus e doesso on thegroundshathe isat'ro81SaK'roS,wordwhichclearlyimplies hat there s at leastanelementof skill n thepoet'sactivity.At Od.xi 368AlcinouspraisesOdysseusortellinghisstory4rETotaa.itevwgthat s,skilfully)ikeabard.And,asIhavepointedout,thephraseKarddoryov usedof Demodocus'ongatOd.viii489 refers smuch othe constructionas to the contents of the song.77The importanceof skill in poetryduringtheearlyperiod salsoapparent romthefrequencyof references o the teachingand learningof poetry, and from the repeateduse of skill wordsvis-i-vis poetry: o0ha, irn'aratat, aoeo's, aoq'a, rivpr.78Bruno Snell has shown that theword idecraLa& n the early period meansprimarilyknow (how).79 Similarlyot'a, riXvX/,o4o'so and ao~lbadenotepracticalabilityandknowledge rather han'wisdom'. Homerusestheword ao#la only once, and in connection with a carpenter II. xv 412). And Hesiod usesthe

71 156.72 Op. cit. (n. 7) 70.3 Op. cit. (n. 4) 5.74 Ibid. 193. Cf 195.7- Ibid. 6.76 Ibid. 193-5.77 On the notion of poetic skill in Homer seeespecially chadewaldtn.64)70-5.78 For heteachingdiomseee.g.Hom.Od.viii481,

488, xvii 519, xxii 347; Hes. Th. 22, Op. 662; Sol. fr.13.51. Cf. the idea that man learnt to sing from thebirds:Democr.fr. 154; Alcm.frr. 39, 40. For ofta seee.g. Od. i 337; Alcm. fr. 40; Archil. fr. I20.2. ForTrrtarapatee e.g. Od. xi 368;Hes. Op. 107;Archil.fr.1.2; Sol.fr. 13.52.79 Die Ausdruckefiir den Begrif des Wissens in dervorplatonischenhilosophieBerlin 1924) 8I-3.



14/15

POETIC INSPIRATION IN EARLY GREECE 99word of skill in seamanship Op. 649) as well as of Linus' musical skill (fr. 306). Craftsmenofmany differentvarietiesare describedasaodo's-including poets.80Snellpointsout thataoosoriginally meant 'one who understandshis craft': the emergence of uao- words to mean'wisdom' in a more intellectualsense was a gradualprocess.

The use of the word rro70Lr)rto meanpoets1 is evidentlybasedon the notion of the poetascraftsman,but the evidenceI havecited shows that thisconceptdid not suddenly emerge fromnowherein the fifthcentury.Ina fragmentattributed o Hesiod(fr. ub.357)poetic compositionis likened to stitching:Iv ZI7A(w".TrETTp'rov y KaL,"OILrLposaOL8OLLEA7TOLLEV,EV VEapOL~9jIVOLSpeavW qLOL&7v.

The etymology of the words adrT-Ew,pacufq8epv, a&6'gs and their precise meaning whenappliedto poets is uncertain,but clearly they involve an idea of craft.82 Craft metaphors,asSvenbrorightlyobserves,become more frequent n the poetryof BacchylidesandPindar-thepoet is describednot only as a stitcher and weaver of songs, but also as builder,carpenterorsculptor.83Svenbroarguesthat this use of craftmetaphors s to be understood n terms of theprofessionalpoet'seconomic dependenceon hispatrons.Since what he produces s not tangible,the poet is in a weaker position than the craftsmanas regardspayment: he must thereforeemphasizethat his poetry is 'une merchandise'and portrayhis activity 'comme une activit6artisanale afin d'etre r6munre6'.84 This theory sheds more light on Svenbro's ownpreoccupationshan on Pindar.P. v 72-6 indicate hat Pindarwas anaristocrat,85 nd the toneinwhich he addresses,or example,Thorax at P. x 64-6 or Hiero at P. i 85-94 suggests hat he wason equaltermswith hispatronsrather hananinferiorsubject.86Pindar's raftmetaphors eflecthis attitudeto his art,they do not tell us abouthis social status.And whilst it is true that Pindaruses a largenumber of craftmetaphorswhen speakingof his poetry, he saysmuch more abouthis poetry in generalthando his epic predecessors-a point not noted by Svenbro. He is moreself-consciously articulate about his poetry-more self-conscious about his inspirationandgeniusas well asabouthiscraftsmanship. venbro s not theonly scholarguilty of one-sidednessin discussingPindar'sattitude to poetry. Grube, for example, claims that Pindar 'despisestechniqueand training;everything in poetry is natural alent'.87This statement s misleading.Whilst Pindardoes contrastthe truepoet who is a poet by nature(vaud)with thepoet who hasmerely been taught his craft,88he never denies the importanceof techniquein poetry. Hisfrequent use of craft metaphorsand his own evident concern with techniqueshow that heregardedtechniqueas a vital ingredientin poetry. But for the truepoet mere technique s notenough.

CONCLUSIONS

It was Plato who, so far as we know, firstopposed the conceptsof poetic inspirationand80 See Snell (n. 79) 5-7, where he givesa listof aool(including seers, generals, steersmen, doctors, coachdrivers,wrestlers, cooks, and farmers. For ao-- wordsof poets, seee.g. Solfr. 13.52; Ibyc.fr. 1.23;Theog. 770,995; Pi. O. ii 86 and other references cited by Lanata83-5 (Pindar,of course, invests the terms ao6o' andaockoa with a new significance: in particularaodo'denotes for him a rare individual, set apart from hisfellows both by his inborn nature and by his com-munion with the gods); Xenoph.fr. 2.12; Ar. Nu. 547,Pax 797, Lys.368. For a detailedstudy of the subjectseeB. Gladigow, SophiaundKosmos(Hildesheim 1965).81 Hdt. ii 53; Ar. Ach.654. See furthere.g. Harriott93-4. Similarterminology for the poet's craft occursinSanskritand other I.E. languages.See M. West, 'Greek

Poetry 2000-700 B.C.' CQ xxiii (1973) 179 andbibliographythere.82 For a sensiblediscussionsee Harriott94.83 Seee.g. Bacch.v 9-10, xiii 223, xix 8-io; Pi. O. vi1-4, 86-7, P. iii I13, vi 9, N. ii 1-2, iii 4-5, L. 14,fr.194-84 Op. cit. (n. 4) 178-9, 187, 168-70.85 See Wilamowitz Pindaros(Berlin 1922) 124; M.R. Lefkowitz, 'r aKaLt&y:The FirstPerson n Pindar',HSCP lxvii (1963) 229-32.86See he urtherriticismsf St.Fogelmarknhisreview f Svenbro, nomon(1978) 3-24.87 Op. cit. (n. 17) 9.88 0. ii 83-88.Cf.O.ix Ioo-2, N. iii40-2.



15/15

100 PENELOPE MURRAYtechniquewhen he describednspiration s EOOvLacupdS.venDemocritus,who is oftenconsidered precursoro Plato, evidentlydid not consider nspiration nd techniqueasincompatible:OwrLpos4aEwsaX vuEao;,arLs iTrrqwv KdtLOVTEKT7 VaTO7TraVTOLWVDKfr. 21). In factthroughout arlyGreekpoetry here eems o beanequalemphasisn craftandinspiration.fwe areunableo accept his act, t mustbe becausewe havecertain reconceivednotionsabout heconceptof poetic nspirationnd ts relationo the ideaof poetryas a craft.Doubtless he notionof inspirationriginatedrom the poet'sfeelingof dependencen thedivine.And thisfeelingcorrespondso the beliefof many poets throughout istory hat,asDoddsput t, 'creativehinkings not the workof theego'."9But the deaof poetic nspirationin earlyGreecediffersn a numberof importantwaysfromsubsequent onceptions.t wasparticularlyssociated ithknowledge,withmemoryandwithperformance;t didnot nvolveecstasy rpossession,nd t was balancedby a belief n theimportancef craft.Butalthoughtthereforeaid armoreemphasisn the technicalaspects f poeticcreativity,t wasneverthelessan ideaessentiallyonnectedwith thephenomenon f inspirations we know it.

PENELOPE URRAYUniversityf Warwick89 81.


poetic inspiration in early greece

Documents

idea of poetic inspiration

notion of poetic inspiration

modern notions of inspiration

nature of poetic creativity

ancient notions of poetic

early greeceauthors

early greek literature

jstor terms