Full-text resources of CEJSH and other databases are now available in the new Library of Science.
Visit https://bibliotekanauki.pl

Results found: 4

first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last

Search results

Search:
in the keywords:  HESIOD
help Sort By:

help Limit search:
first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last
1

Músický charakter básnické řeči

100%
Konradova V.
Listy filologické (Folia philologica)
|
2007
|
vol. 130
|
issue 3-4
205-228
EN
The article deals with the role of the Muses in archaic poetry, namely in the works of Homer and Hesiod. It points out the uniqueness of the presence of the Muses in poetic context, which marks off Greek poetry in comparison with other poetic traditions. The first part of the analysis focuses on Homeric conception of the Muse, especially on her connection with 'memory'. The core of the argument lies in the analysis of memory, based on textual evidence, which shows that the memory of the Muses doesn't work simply as 'remembering the past' - the invocation of the Muse in Homeric poems suggests another interpretation, namely that the function of the Muse is to make the portrayed events present. The proposed interpretation steps over the concept of memory as a reservoir of the past. The second part of the analysis turns to Hesiod and to the prooemium of his Theogony. Hesiod's report about the Muses is rich and it draws our attention to a number of ambivalent features, which characterize the performance of the Muses. These features express themselves in the polarity mnemosyne - lesmosyne and pseudea - alethea. Both poles of these pairs act in the performance of the Muses - understanding of the function of memory, which is not a storage place of the past, helps to understand that 'remembering' in this context does not eliminate 'forgetting', and that both of these poles are complementary. Taken together, the pairs of opposites mnemosyne - lesmosyne and pseudea - alethea demonstrate one aspect of divinity, foreshadowed in the poems of Homer and Hesiod, i.e. the aspect of ambiguity, which is specifically articulated in the case of Hesiodic Muses.
2

The look of hopes. Pindar I.5. 56-58.

100%
Adorjani Z.
Antik Tanulmanyok (Studia Antiqua)
|
2006
|
vol. 50
|
issue 2
261-295
EN
The I. 5. 56 - 58 is one of the few highly controversial cruxes in Pindar, though it may be an interpretative and not a textual one. The kernel of the ambiguity is in the expression 'oupis elpidon'. After examining the various interpretations the paper analyses the concept underlying the rare and quaint word 'oupis' from Homer on, which turns out to be a strong visual metaphor in Pindar as well. The author's reading of the passage: 'nec labor ingens occaecatus est, nec tot sumptus, qui aciem spei excitaverunt' is examined within the context of the poem, and the relevance of the keen visual metaphor prevalent in Pindar's whole poetry, is elucidated.
3

Světovládci a politikové: setkání Platóna s Hésiodem

88%
Luhanová E.
Listy filologické (Folia philologica)
|
2011
|
vol. 134
|
issue 1-2
25-51
EN
This paper examines whether it is possible to interpret the philosophical myth from Plato’s Statesman against a background taken from Hesiod’s Theogony. At first, the Hesiodic conception of three generations of gods is reconstructed, and the changes of the world-order related to the transfer of the world-rule from Cronus to Zeus are emphasised. The Cronus’ rule is strictly centralized, absolute and does not tolerate any co-rulers. It means blessed life with all material needs immediately fulfilled for all living beings (here also the exposition of Cronus’ rule from Works and Days is taken into account), but it is unstable and vulnerable on the level of the cosmos as a whole. Zeus wins the battle against his father thanks to his wisdom and prudence. Zeus’ world rule is decentralized and depersonalized, Zeus takes other gods as his partners, entrusts to them their specific areas of concern and therefore abandons the absolute unity of the cosmic power. Plato’s myth is interpreted against this background. The cosmic phase of Cronus’ rule is the phase when the cosmos as a whole is governed by one supreme divine power, but there is no political constitution in the human world – people live without families and cities, without memory and apparently also without philosophy; their way of life is unhuman and evokes the animal life. The opposite cosmic phase characterized by Zeus’ rule constitutes a world with a permanent conflict of many powers, but which is also open to autonomous and fully human activity. It is the phase of the world we live in, the phase when people have to take care of their lives and struggle for good by themselves, but still with the help of particular gods who guarantee the connection between the unified rule of Cronus and the new pluralist world order. The unity of Cronus’ world phase becomes an ideal point toward which the human activity, as well as the happening of the world as a whole, strives to converge toward, and it is but in this very striving the questions of good and consequently also wisdom and philosophy become vital and essential for human life. The political meaning of the Platonic myth is often interpreted only in the light of its first-hand verbal content, and so the Cronus’ phase is in all its bearings interpreted as a transcendental ideal of pure perfection, whereas the Zeus’ phase only negatively as a deficient decline from this ideal. However, the use of the comparative method enables us to show that the Platonic myth is substantively ambiguous, which corresponds with the ambiguity of the questions it refers to: the question of a good statesman and essentially the question of an optimal order of human society.
4

WHY DID THEOGNIS NOT LEAVE RESPECT AND RETRIBUTION IN HIS “HOPE ELEGY”?

88%
Porubiak M.
Filozofia (Philosophy)
|
2023
|
vol. 78
|
issue 4
245 – 258
EN
The aim of the essay is to give a detailed analysis of Theogins’ so-called Hope Elegy (ll. 1135 – 1150) which was considered an earlier fusion of Hesiod’s story of Pandora and the Myth of the races. First, the author focuses on both Hesiod’s story to reveal the context and then turns to the elegy itself to answer why Theognis choose Elpis as the only good god remaining among mankind and why he substitutes Aidōs and Nemesis with Pistis, Sōphrosunē and Charites. The author concludes that Theognis could not let Aidōs and Nemesis go, for if he had, it would have been an indication of the ultimate end of morality for his audience. Using the metaphor of decline Theognis first chose the image of leaving goddesses which is the hallmark of Hesiod’s Iron race last day´s story and mixed it with some other components present in the story like grace, justice, oaths and hubris. Then he took key notions of his own moral thinking – pistis, sōphrosunē and charity and made goddesses from them. Finally, he crowned his elegy by choosing Hesiod’s Elpis with her intrinsic ambiguousness of both expectation and false hope. Such combination enabled him to create a stunning warning for his audience.
first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last
JavaScript is turned off in your web browser. Turn it on to take full advantage of this site, then refresh the page.