In terms of such a reconstruction, this “biography” of Hesiod is distinct from the stories about Hesiod that we find in ancient texts external to Hesiodic poetry. He quarreled with his brother Perses about their inheritance, accusing him of laziness and injustice.Tags: Dissertation Hypothesis ExampleEssay Writing For UniversityProfessional Management Development EssayBusiness Plan NzWriting Paragraphs And Essays 6th EditionMultiplication Problem Solving Grade 3Where Buy An Accident Report BookResearch Paper AnthropometryThesis Statement On Life Experiences
We're sorry, this computer has been flagged for suspicious activity.
If you are a member, we ask that you confirm your identity by entering in your email.
In particular, I shall consider whether, and in what sense, these poems may be regarded as didactic in intent.
Much of what I have to say in (I) I say with a measure of confidence; in (II), by contrast, my primary aim is to undermine unwarranted confidence — although I do, even here, reach some positive conclusions.
Von dem, was nun noch folgt, wüßte ich nicht, wie man den Beweis des hesiodischen Ursprungs erbringen wollte.’ See West, p. The difficulties which he notes there and in the subsequent commentary are perhaps as striking as the positively Hesiodic turns of phrase that he detects, some of which are paralleled as closely outside as within Hesiod: the best examples that he gives are ) that 618–45 and 646–94 are alternatives; as I pointed out above, the functions of the two autobiographical insets are quite different (West's suggestion of authorial interpolation would be a more defensible way of accounting for the difficulties here).
But for a minor concession to this way of thinking, see n. It might be worth adding that West has already argued that the poem's original ‘prospect’ did not extend beyond 381 (pp.
(i) Those found in lines 11–41 I have discussed in the text. 35, 38); for example, Perses may have squandered his unjust gains, appealed to his brother for assistance, and threatened further litigation on being rebuffed. 36, 39–40) seem to presuppose that the protasis of a conditional must reflect the circumstances of that conditional's purported utterance; I find this very strange.
(ii) There is no demonstrable inconsistency between 35ff. The real difficulty, it seems to me, is precisely the opposite one to that which worries West: not in producing a coherent account of the circumstances consistent with all the data of the poem, but in selecting among the many mutually exclusive accounts which the data fail to exclude.