Hesiod Theogony Analysis Essay Example

Far from Hesiod portraying humans as a reflection of the gods, the gods are shown to be reflections of humans, with all their forms and flaws. Accordingly, the contemptuous ways in which the Muses refer to men signifies their invalid position of moral superiority, and the gods’ desire to be praised “first… and last” (Hesiod, Theogony, 29-30) enhances Hesiod’s display of their ill-founded senses of pride and of glory.

Rather than altruistic sympathy, the poet defines the relationship between men and gods as parasitism, one in which the gods extract “[s]acrifices and pra[yer]’’ (Hesiod, Theogony, 414) from men to remind humanity of the gods’ strength and glory (Hesiod, Theogony, 401). For instance, the Muses’ “goatskin fetish” (Hesiod, Theogony, 21-22) signifies Zeus’ aegis, a battle-shield forged by the Cyclopes that serves to illustrate the power disparity between the parties as the gods address Hesiod. This theme is further demonstrated by how the relatively lowly Muses “[command]” Hesiod (Hesiod, Theogony, 28), crowing about their ability to freely speak “false things that look like the truth”, and mocking Hesiod’s helplessness as a mortal to discern fact from fiction (Hesiod, Theogony, 23-24). Although it may appear that the gods function as the “divine benefactors” of men (Hesiod, Theogony, 42), in reality, the “blessed gods” (Hesiod, Theogony, 29) are entirely as desirous for glory – called kleos – as the “rough shepherds” who worship them (Hesiod, Theogony, 22). Consequently, Hesiod represents the gods’ desire for glory as innate, and in the context of the personal nature of the legendary Greek heroes, he successfully humanises the Olympian gods.

Hesiod’s depiction of the gods in his works reflects the attribution of recognisably human qualities to what ought to be omnipotent entities, a universally anthropological pattern. Perhaps the single largest theme of all Greek literature, excessive pride – called hubris – dictates every exchange between gods and humans. The Muses, the lowliest of all Immortals, seemingly approach Hesiod on a whim, insulting him as a “Wretched [object] of reproach” (Hesiod, Theogony, 22) and ordering him to arbitrarily sing their praises (Hesiod, Theogony, 28-29). The nine Muses occupy a largely symbolic position in the Olympian hierarchy, yet betray their insecurity by imploring Hesiod to “sing of them first of all, and last” (Hesiod, Theogony, 23-25, 29), a request likely supported by the implicit threat of divine coercion and contrasting markedly with their “sacred gifts to men” (Hesiod, Theogony, 89). This undermines the notion that interaction with the gods is one of mentorship, and validates the idea that pride corrupts even the most modest deities. Theogony opens with a haughty jibe from the Heliconian Muses, which serves to needlessly remind Hesiod of his inferiority as an ego-crutch to the Muses’ own low standing among the Olympian gods (Hesiod, Theogony, 20-24). Throughout the poem, Hesiod refers to both the Ouranians and Titans as “proud” (Hesiod, Theogony, 362, 461), but never the Olympian gods. This indicates that the gods are aware of the stigma of hubris, and prefer to turn a blind eye to their foibles. Hesiod too exhibits a similar pride, describing his own poetry as “a marvellous voice” (Hesiod, Theogony, 27) and relishing his opportunity to act as the speaker for the gods. These are painfully human imperfections, and remind the reader that the relationship between gods and men is one in which both recognise themselves in the other.

The gods seemingly cannot refrain from proudly establishing their heavenly authority, even at the risk of alienating Hesiod. Comparing the use of imperatives in the passage, the Muses contradictorily “taught Hesiod beautiful song” (Hesiod, Theogony, 18) and “commanded [Hesiod] to sing” (Hesiod, Theogony, 28), thereby unnecessarily belittling him to reinforce the status quo. Hesiod further delineates the relationship between himself and the Heliconian Muses through his ceaseless veneration of the “awesome gods” (Hesiod, Theogony, 935) despite their maltreatment of humanity, which fundamentally strengthens the gods’ egos and inflates their sense of pride. As such, the Theogony continually promotes hierarchies between and within gods and mortals, championing a psychologically soothing concept of cosmic order and accountability.

Hesiod’s interaction with the Muses supports the claim that the gods present characteristics derived from humans, instead of the reverse. One would expect the archaic Greeks to resent the gods for their callous treatment of “sod-born humans” (Hesiod, Theogony, 881), however, the great poets developed their mythology to mirror their society – as all humans do – and such gods would have appeared reflective of the Peloponnese civilisations. The “deathless [a]nd ageless” gods (Hesiod, Theogony, 273-274) paradoxically require everyday mortals to “sing of them first of all, and last (Hesiod, Theogony, 29-30) and to “celebrate what came before and what will come after”, signifying the familiar vices of vanity, honour, and the desire to leave a legacy. Hesiod’s opus shows the Pantheon as merely a projection of what Classical civilisations believed were intrinsically human qualities.