The Theogony Literary Analysis Essay Example

The Theogony is often interpreted in passing as Hesiod’s attempt at composing a universal Greek mythology by listing the cosmogony, genealogies, and certain important legends. In this reading, the poetic voice of Hesiod is an impartial perspective describing the relationship of gods and men as a great gulf of virtue. However, this analysis contends that, far from the humans being portrayed as a reflection of the gods, the gods are in fact shown to be reflections of humans, with all their vices and forms. The contemptuous ways in which the Muses refer to men – such as ”Wretched objects of reproach” (Hesiod, Theogony, 22) – signifies their invalid position of moral superiority, and the gods’ desire to be praised “first… and last” (Theogony, 29-30) enhances their ill-founded pride.

Glory in modern religion is defined as the manifestation of God’s presence as perceived by humans, but to the Ancient Greeks the concept of glory represented heroism in battle. Hesiod’s “goatskin fetish” (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 as they address Hesiod. Rather than altruistic sympathy, the relationship between men and gods is characterised as parasitism, one in which the gods extract “[s]acrifices and pra[yer]’’ (Hesiod, Theogony, 414) from men to remind them of their “power and rules” (Hesiod, Theogony, 401). This theme is further demonstrated by the manner in which 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 the truth (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 as the “rough shepherds” who worship them (Theogony, 22). Theogony opens with a haughty jibe from the Heliconian Muses, acting as a means to needlessly remind Hesiod of his inferiority as an ego-crutch to the Muses’ own low standing among the Olympian gods (Theogony, 20-24).

Perhaps the single largest theme of all Greek literature, excessive pride – called hubris – dictates any exchange between gods and humans. The Muses, lowliest of all Immortals, seemingly approach Hesiod on a whim, insulting him and commanding him to sing their praises (Theogony, 28-29). This contrasts markedly with their “sacred gifts to men” (Theogony, 89), undermining the notion that interaction with the gods is a purely symbiotic relationship, and validating the idea that pride corrupts even the most modest deities. Comparing the use of imperatives in the passage, the Muses contradictorily “taught Hesiod beautiful song” (Theogony, 18) and “commanded [Hesiod] to sing” (Theogony, 28). The Muses believe that they have the “eloquent” (Theogony, 25) skill to manipulate language (Theogony, 23-24), yet are obliged to order Hesiod to act as their prophet under duress. 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. 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” (Theogony, 29), a request likely supported by the implicit threat of divine punishment. The relationship between Hesiod and the Heliconian Muses is further delineated by Hesiod’s ceaseless veneration of the “blessed gods” (Theogony, 29) in spite of their maltreatment of humanity, which only reinforces the gods’ egos and inflates their sense of pride. Throughout the Theogony, the Muses – through Hesoid’s “marvellous voice” (Theogony, 27) – refer to both the Ouranians and Titans as “proud” (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 own foibles. 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.

One would expect the archaic Greeks to resent the gods for their “rough” (Hesiod, Theogony, 22) treatment of “sod-born humans” (Theogony, 881). However, the Greeks developed their mythology to mirror their own 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 (Theogony, 29-30) and to “celebrate what what came before and what will come after”, signifying the familiar vices of vanity, honour, and the desire to leave a legacy. Hesiod’s works show the Pantheon as merely a projection of what the Ancient Greeks believed were intrinsically human qualities.