Homer and Classical Philology
- Language:
- English
- Status:
- Complete work
- Authorship:
- Written by the author
- Condition of the text:
- No scanning noise detected (automatic measure over the whole text, not checked by hand)
- Extent:
- ~8,420 words · 40 passages
Cite this work
- APANietzsche. (n.d.). Homer and Classical Philology. Digital reproduction: SigPhi. https://sigphiai.com/en/works/nietzsche/homer-and-classical-philology
- MLANietzsche. Homer and Classical Philology. Digital reproduction, SigPhi, https://sigphiai.com/en/works/nietzsche/homer-and-classical-philology.
- ChicagoNietzsche. Homer and Classical Philology. Digital reproduction, SigPhi. https://sigphiai.com/en/works/nietzsche/homer-and-classical-philology.
Reference to the edition that SigPhi reproduces: SigPhi is its digital reproduction, not its publisher. The edition's year is not in the metadata (hence "n.d."), and the translator appears only when recorded.
What it is about
The inaugural lecture at Basel (1869), aged twenty-four and newly appointed to a chair without having finished his doctorate.
Context and history
On the 'Homeric question' — whether Homer existed or is the name of a tradition — and, beyond it, on what philology ought to be. It is the document of the academic Nietzsche just before he began to stop being one. Forty fragments: it is a lecture. English translation from the complete edition edited by Oscar Levy (1909-1913), the one in the public domain. It is over a century old and it shows. The original is GERMAN and citation should follow the original, but of this work only the translation is here.
Editorial context, not a citable source: unlike the passages of the work itself, these statements cannot be checked against the corpus.
Such a conception justly made people suspicious. Could it be possible that that same Nature who so sparingly distributed her rarest and most precious production—genius—should suddenly take the notion of lavishing her gifts in one sole direction? And here the thorny question again made its appearance: Could we not get along with one genius only, and explain the present existence of that unattainable excellence? And now eyes were keenly on the lookout for whatever that excellence and singularity might consist of. Impossible for it to be in the construction of the complete works, said one party, for this is far from faultless; but doubtless to be found in single songs: in the single pieces above all; not in the whole. A second party, on the other hand, sheltered themselves beneath the authority of Aristotle, who especially admired Homer's "divine" nature in the choice of his entire subject, and the manner in which he planned and carried it out. If, however, this construction was not clearly seen, this fault was due to the way the poems were handed down to posterity and not to the poet himself—it was the result of retouchings and interpolations, owing to which the original setting of the work gradually became obscured. The more the first school looked for inequalities, contradictions, perplexities, the more energetically did the other school brush aside what in their opinion obscured the original plan, in order, if possible, that nothing might be left remaining but the actual words of the original epic itself. The second school of thought of course held fast by the conception of an epoch-making genius as the composer of the great works.…