Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-dlnhk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T08:53:23.244Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Invocations of the Muse in Homer and Hesiod: A Cognitive Approach

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 November 2018

Juraj Franek
Juraj Franek*
Affiliation:
Masaryk Universityj.franek@mail.muni.cz
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In this paper, I offer a cognitive analysis of the invocations of the Muse in earliest Greek epic poetry that is based on recent advances in cognitive science in general and the cognitive science of religion in particular. I argue that the Muse-concept most likely originated in a feeling of dependence on an external source of information to provide the singer with the subject matter of their song. This source of information is conceptualised as an ontological type (or template) ‘person’ by means of the hyperactive agency detection, and the Muse’s full access to strategic information, along with other characteristics, establishes her as a minimally counter-intuitive concept (that is to say a concept that conforms to most of our intuitive expectations and runs counter to a few of them), which, in turn, significantly increases the probability of the acquisition and transmission of the Muse-concept within the culture.

Type
Research Article
Information
Antichthon , Volume 52 , 2018 , pp. 1 - 22
Copyright
© The Australasian Society for Classical Studies 2018 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Accame, S. (1963), ‘L’invocazione alla musa e la “verità” in Omero e in Esiodo’, RFIC 91, 257-281 & 385-415.Google Scholar
Arrighetti, G. (1992), ‘Esiodo e le Muse: Il dono della verità e la conquista della parola’, Athenaeum 80, 45-63.Google Scholar
Arthur, M. (1983), ‘The Dream of a World without Women: Poetics and the Circles of Order in the Theogony prooemium ’, Arethusa 16, 97-116.Google Scholar
Atran, S. (2002), In Gods We Trust: The Evolutionary Landscape of Religion. Oxford.Google Scholar
Barmeyer, E. (1968), Die Musen: Ein Beitrag zur Inspirationstheorie. Munich.Google Scholar
Barrett, J. L. (2000), ‘Exploring the Natural Foundations of Religion’, Trends in Cognitive Sciences 4, 29-34.Google Scholar
Barrett, J. L. (2002), ‘Smart Gods, Dumb Gods, and the Role of Social Cognition in Structuring Ritual Intuitions’, Journal of Cognition and Culture 2, 183-193.Google Scholar
Barrett, J. L. (2004), Why Would Anyone Believe in God? Lanham, MD.Google Scholar
Barrett, J. L. (2012), Born Believers: The Science of Children’s Religious Belief. New York, NY.Google Scholar
Beekes, R. (2010), Etymological Dictionary of Greek. Leiden.Google Scholar
Belfiore, E. (1985), ‘Lies Unlike the Truth’: Plato on Hesiod, Theogony 27’, TAPhA 115, 47-57.Google Scholar
Boyancé, P. (1937), Le culte des Muses chez les philosophes grecs: Études d’histoire et de psychologie religieuses. Paris.Google Scholar
Boyer, P. (1994), The Naturalness of Religious Ideas: A Cognitive Theory of Religion. Berkeley, CA.Google Scholar
Boyer, P. (2001), Religion Explained: The Evolutionary Origins of Religious Thought. New York, NY.Google Scholar
Brown, D. E. (1991), Human Universals. New York, NY.Google Scholar
Brügger, C., Stoevesandt, M., and Visser, E. (2010), Homers Ilias, Gesamtkommentar, Band II: Zweiter Gesang, Faszikel 2: Kommentar . Berlin.Google Scholar
Burkert, W. (1996), Creation of the Sacred: Tracks of Biology in Early Religions. Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
Calame, C. (1982), ‘Enonciation: véracité ou convention littéraire? L’inspiration des Muses dans la Théogonie ’, AS 4, 1-24.Google Scholar
Calame, C. (1983), ‘Entre oralité et écriture: Énonciation et énoncé dans la poésie grecque archaïque’, Semiotica 43, 245-`273.Google Scholar
Calhoun, G. M. (1938), ‘The Poet and the Muses in Homer’, CPh 33, 157-166.Google Scholar
Camilloni, M. T. (1998), Le Muse. Roma.Google Scholar
Carruthers, P. (2015), The Centered Mind: What the Science of Working Memory Shows Us about the Nature of Human Thought. Oxford.Google Scholar
Chadwick, N. K. (1942), Poetry and Prophecy. Cambridge.Google Scholar
Curtius, E. R. (2013), European Literature and the Latin Middle Ages. Princeton, NJ.Google Scholar
Czachesz, I. (2017), Cognitive Science and the New Testament: A New Approach to Early Christian Research. Oxford.Google Scholar
Dawkins, R. (2006), The Selfish Gene. Oxford.Google Scholar
De Jong, I. (2001), A Narratological Commentary on the Odyssey. Cambridge.Google Scholar
De Jong, I. (2004), Narrators and Focalizers: The Presentation of the Story in the Iliad. London.Google Scholar
De Jong, I. (2006), ‘The Homeric Narrator and His Own Kleos ’, Mnemosyne 59, 188-207.Google Scholar
De Jong, I. (2014), Narratology and Classics: A Practical Guide. Oxford.Google Scholar
Dennett, D. C. (2006), Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon. New York, NY.Google Scholar
Dodds, E. R. (1951), The Greeks and the Irrational. Berkeley, CA.Google Scholar
Falter, O. (1934), Der Dichter und sein Gott bei den Griechen und Römern. Würzburg.Google Scholar
Ferrari, G. (1988), ‘Hesiod’s Mimetic Muses and the Strategies of Deconstruction’, in A. E. Benjamin (ed.), Post-Structuralist Classics. 45-78. London.Google Scholar
Finkelberg, M. (1990), ‘A Creative Oral Poet and the Muse’, AJPh 111, 293-303.Google Scholar
Ford, A. (1992), Homer: The Poetry of the Past. Ithaca, NY.Google Scholar
Ford, A. (1997), ‘Epic as Genre’, in I. Morris and B. Powell (eds.), A New Companion to Homer. 396-414. Leiden.Google Scholar
Franek, J. (2016), ‘Beyond Faith and Reason: Epistemic Justification in Earliest Christianity’, GLB 21, 125-156.Google Scholar
Fritz, K. von (1956), ‘Das Prooemium der hesiodischen Theogonie ’, in H. Erbse (ed.), Festschrift Bruno Snell zum 60. Geburtstag. 29-45. Munich.Google Scholar
Graziosi, B. and Haubold, J. (2010), Iliad: Book VI . Cambridge.Google Scholar
Griffin, J. (1980), Homer on Life and Death. Oxford.Google Scholar
Groningen, B. A. van (1946), ‘The Proems of the Iliad and the Odyssey’, MKNAW 9, 279-293.Google Scholar
Guthrie, S. E. (1980), ‘A Cognitive Theory of Religion’, Current Anthropology 21, 181-194.Google Scholar
Guthrie, S. E. (1993), Faces in the Clouds: A New Theory of Religion. Oxford.Google Scholar
Halliwell, S. (2011), Between Ecstasy and Truth: Interpretations of Greek Poetics from Homer to Longinus. Oxford.Google Scholar
Hardie, A. (2004), ‘Muses and Mysteries’, in P. Murray and P. Wilson (eds.), Music and the Muses: The Culture of ‘Mousikē’ in the Classical Athenian City . 11-37. Oxford.Google Scholar
Hardie, A. (2005), ‘Sappho, the Muses, and Life after Death’, ZPE 154, 13-32.Google Scholar
Hardie, A. (2009), ‘Etymologising the Muse’, MD 62, 9-57.Google Scholar
Hardie, A. (2016), ‘The Camenae in Cult, History, and Song’, ClAnt 35, 45-85.Google Scholar
Heiden, B. (2007), ‘The Muses’ Uncanny Lies: Hesiod, Theogony 27 and Its Translators’, AJPh 128, 153-175.Google Scholar
Heider, F. and Simmel, M. (1944), ‘An Experimental Study of Apparent Behavior’, American Journal of Psychology 57, 243-259.Google Scholar
Kahane, A. (2005), Diachronic Dialogues: Authority and Continuity in Homer and the Homeric Tradition. Lanham, MD.Google Scholar
Kahneman, D. (2011), Thinking, Fast and Slow. New York, NY.Google Scholar
Kambylis, A. (1965), Die Dichterweihe und ihre Symbolik: Untersuchungen zu Hesiodos, Kallimachos, Properz und Ennius. Heidelberg.Google Scholar
Katz, J. and Volk, K. (2000), ‘Mere Bellies? A New Look at Theogony 26-8’, JHS 120, 122-131.Google Scholar
Kirk, G. S. (1985), The Iliad: A Commentary, vol. 1: Books 1-4. Cambridge.Google Scholar
Krischer, T. (1965), ‘Die Entschuldigung des Sängers (Ilias B 484-493)’, RhM 108, 1-11.Google Scholar
Laird, A. (1999), Powers of Expression, Expressions of Power: Speech Presentation and Latin Literature. Oxford.Google Scholar
Lane, J. D. and Harris, P. L. (2014), ‘Confronting, Representing, and Believing Counterintuitive Concepts: Navigating the Natural and the Supernatural’, Perspectives on Psychological Science 9, 141-160.Google Scholar
Larson, J. (2016), Understanding Greek Religion: A Cognitive Approach. Abingdon.Google Scholar
Latacz, J. (1985), Homer: Eine Einführung. Munich.Google Scholar
Lawson, E. T. and McCauley, R. N. (1990), Rethinking Religion: Connecting Cognition and Culture. Cambridge.Google Scholar
Ledbetter, G. M. (2003), Poetics before Plato: Interpretation and Authority in Early Greek Theories of Poetry. Princeton, NJ.Google Scholar
Lenz, A. (1980), Das Proöm des frühen griechischen Epos: Ein Beitrag zum poetischen Selbstverständnis. Bonn.Google Scholar
Maehler, H. (1963), Die Auffassung des Dichterberufs im frühen Griechentum bis zur Zeit Pindars. Göttingen.Google Scholar
Marg, W. (1957), Homer über die Dichtung. Münster.Google Scholar
McCauley, R. (2011), Why Religion Is Natural and Science Is Not. Oxford.Google Scholar
Méautis, G. (1939), ‘Le prologue à la Théogonie d’Hésiode’, REG 52, 573-583.Google Scholar
Minchin, E. (1995), ‘The Poet Appeals to His Muse: Homeric Invocations in the Context of Epic Performance’, CJ 91, 25-33.Google Scholar
Minchin, E. (2001), Homer and the Resources of Memory: Some Applications of Cognitive Theory to the Iliad and the Odyssey. Oxford.Google Scholar
Minton, W. W. (1960), ‘Homer’s Invocations of the Muses: Traditional Patterns’, TAPhA 91, 292-309.Google Scholar
Minton, W. W. (1962), ‘Invocation and Catalogue in Hesiod and Homer’, TAPhA 93, 188-212.Google Scholar
Mühll, P. von der (1970), ‘Hesiods helikonische Musen’, MH 27, 195-197.Google Scholar
Murray, G. (1924), The Rise of the Greek Epic. Oxford.Google Scholar
Murray, P. (1981), ‘Poetic Inspiration in Early Greece’, JHS 101, 87-100.Google Scholar
Murray, P. (2005), ‘The Muses: Creativity Personified?’, in E. Stafford and J. Herrin (eds.), Personification in the Greek World: From Antiquity to Byzantium. 147-159. Aldershot.Google Scholar
Murray, P. (2008), ‘Qu’est-ce qu’une Muse?’, Mêtis 6, 199-219.Google Scholar
Nagy, G. (1996), Poetry as Performance: Homer and Beyond. Cambridge.Google Scholar
Nagy, G. (1999), The Best of the Achaeans: Concepts of the Hero in Archaic Greek Poetry. Baltimore, MD.Google Scholar
Neitzel, H. (1980), ‘Hesiod und die lügenden Musen: Zur Interpretation von Theogonie 27f.’, Hermes 108, 387-401.Google Scholar
Notopoulos, J. A. (1938), ‘ Mnemosyne in Oral Literature’, TAPhA 69, 465-493.Google Scholar
Oleynick, V. C. et al. (2014), ‘The Scientific Study of Inspiration in the Creative Process: Challenges and Opportunities’, Frontiers in Human Neurosciences 8, 1-8.Google Scholar
Otto, W. F. (1955), Die Musen und der göttliche Ursprung des Singens und Sagens. Düsseldorf.Google Scholar
Pedrick, V. (1992), ‘The Muse Corrects: The Opening of the Odyssey’, YCS 29, 39-62.Google Scholar
Peek, W. (1977), ‘Hesiod und der Helikon’, Philologus 121, 173-175.Google Scholar
Pinker, S. (1997), How the Mind Works. New York, NY.Google Scholar
Pinker, S. (2002), The Blank Slate: The Modern Denial of Human Nature. New York, NY.Google Scholar
Podbielski, H. (1994), ‘Der Dichter und die Musen im Prooimion der hesiodeischen Theogonie ’, Eos 82, 173-188.Google Scholar
Pötscher, W. (1986), ‘Das Selbstverständnis des Dichters in der homerischen Poesie’, Literaturwissenschaftliches Jahrbuch 27, 9-22.Google Scholar
Pucci, P. (1977), Hesiod and the Language of Poetry. Baltimore, MD.Google Scholar
Pucci, P. (1998), The Song of the Sirens: Essays on Homer. Lanham, MD.Google Scholar
Purzycki, B. G. and Willard, A. K. (2016), ‘MCI Theory: A Critical Discussion’, Religion, Brain & Behavior 6, 207-248.Google Scholar
Pyysiäinen, I. 2003. How Religion Works: Towards a New Cognitive Science of Religion. Leiden.Google Scholar
Pyysiäinen, I. (2004), Magic, Miracles, and Religion: A Scientist’s Perspective. Walnut Creek, CA.Google Scholar
Pyysiäinen, I. (2009), Supernatural Agents: Why We Believe in Souls, Gods, and Buddhas. Oxford.Google Scholar
Ready, J. L. (2018), The Homeric Simile in Comparative Perspective: Oral Traditions from Saudi Arabia to Indonesia. Oxford.Google Scholar
Redfield, J. (1979), ‘The Proem of the Iliad: Homer’s Art’, CPh 74, 95-110.Google Scholar
Ritoók, Z. (1989), ‘The Views of Early Greek Epic on Poetry and Art’, Mnemosyne 42, 331-348.Google Scholar
Roth, C. P. (1976), ‘The Kings and the Muses in Hesiod’s Theogony ’, TAPhA 106, 331-338.Google Scholar
Russo, J. and Simon, B. (1968), ‘Homeric Psychology and the Oral Epic Tradition’, JHI 29, 483-498.Google Scholar
Schachter, A. (1986), Cults of Boiotia, vol. 2: Herakles to Poseidon . London.Google Scholar
Schachter, A. (2016), Boiotia in Antiquity: Selected Papers. Cambridge.Google Scholar
Scodel, R. (1998), ‘Bardic Performance and Oral Tradition in Homer’, AJPh 119, 171-194.Google Scholar
Scodel, R. (2002), Listening to Homer: Tradition, Narrative, and Audience. Ann Arbor, MI.Google Scholar
Setti, A. (1958), ‘La memoria e il canto: Saggio di poetica arcaica greca’, SIFC 30, 129-171.Google Scholar
Sikes, E. E. (1931), The Greek View of Poetry. London.Google Scholar
Snell, B. (1964), ‘ Mnemosyne in der frühgriechischen Dichtung’, ABG 9, 19-21.Google Scholar
Solmsen, F. (1954), ‘The “Gift” of Speech in Homer and Hesiod’, TAPhA 85, 1-15.Google Scholar
Spentzou, E. (2002), ‘Introduction: Secularizing the Muse’, in E. Spentzou and D. Fowler (eds.), Cultivating the Muse: Struggles for Power and Inspiration in Classical Literature. 1-28. Oxford.Google Scholar
Sperber, D. (1975), Rethinking Symbolism. Cambridge.Google Scholar
Sperber, D. (1996 ), Explaining Culture: A Naturalistic Approach . Oxford.Google Scholar
Sperduti, A. (1950), ‘The Divine Nature of Poetry in Antiquity’, TAPhA 81, 209-240.Google Scholar
Stern-Gillet, S. (2014), ‘Hesiod’s Proem and Plato’s Ion’, CQ 64, 25-42.Google Scholar
Stoddard, K. B. (2003), ‘The Programmatic Message of the “Kings and Singers” Passage: Hesiod, Theogony 80-103’, TAPhA 133, 1-16.Google Scholar
Strauss Clay, J. (1989), ‘What the Muses Sang: Theogony 1-115’, GRBS 29, 323-333.Google Scholar
Strauss Clay, J. (2011), Homer’s Trojan Theater: Space, Vision, and Memory in the Iliad. Cambridge.Google Scholar
Stroh, W. (1976), ‘Hesiods lügende Musen’, in H. Görgemanns and E. A. Schmidt (eds.), Studien zum antiken Epos. 85-112. Meisenheim am Glan.Google Scholar
Svenbro, J. (1976), La parole et le marbre: Aux origines de la poétique grecque. Lund.Google Scholar
Tigerstedt, E. N. (1970), ‘ Furor Poeticus: Poetic Inspiration in Greek Literature before Democritus and Plato’, JHI 31, 163-178.Google Scholar
Tooby, J. and Cosmides, L. (1990), ‘The Psychological Foundations of Culture’, in J. H. Barkow, L. Cosmides, and J. Tooby (eds.), The Adapted Mind: Evolutionary Psychology and the Generation of Culture. 19-136. New York, NY.Google Scholar
Tremlin, T. (2006), Minds and Gods: The Cognitive Foundations of Religion. Oxford.Google Scholar
Verdenius, W. J. (1972), ‘Notes on the Proem of Hesiod’s Theogony ’, Mnemosyne 25, 225-260.Google Scholar
Verdenius, W. J. (1983), ‘The Principles of Greek Literary Criticism’, Mnemosyne 36, 14-59.Google Scholar
Vicaire, P. (1963), ‘Les grecs et le mystère de l’inspiration poétique’, BAGB 1, 68-85.Google Scholar
Watkins, C. (1995), How to Kill a Dragon: Aspects of Indo-European Poetics. Oxford.Google Scholar
West, M. L. (2007), Indo-European Poetry and Myth. Oxford.Google Scholar
Wheeler, G. (2002), ‘Sing, Muse …: The Introit from Homer to Apollonius’, CQ 52, 33-49.Google Scholar
Wilson, E. O. (2000), Sociobiology: The New Synthesis. Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
Zellner, H. M. (1994), ‘Scepticism in Homer?’, CQ 44, 308-315.Google Scholar