{CENTRE FUK OD YSSEAN STUDIES
ERANOS
Proceedings
‘of the 9th International Sympostum on the Odyssey
(2-7 September 2000)
Bator
‘Machi Patsi-Apostolopoulou
ITHACA 2004
KENTPO OAYEEETAKON SI1OYAON
EPANOZ
And xa Toaxeixd
0» @ SuveBlov ya ry OBSeaeia
(2-7 Zenrepplov 2000)
ost,
ice
ANATYIIO
STEFAN HAGEL
Homeric Psychology: Sheer Formula
or an Image of the Human Mind?
I@AKH 2001STEFAN HAGEL
Homeric Psychology: Sheer Formula
or an Image of the Human Mind?
In ordi to show the fallacy af ll uispilesophy, 1
stall endeneour to prove fist, that reason alone ca
never be a motive to any action ofthe will; and se-
andy, thal ican never oppose passion inthe dies~
tion of the wil
| (David Hume, A Trestice of Human Nature)
rue
UN YEARS AGO, THE REVISED DISSERTATION of Thomas
Jel! challenged all scholars who had dealt. with Homeric peycho-
‘ogy and the associated Homeric terms before. Traditionally, work-
ing in that field meant studying carefully the employment of words
such es Ove, gobves npaniBes, eo., and thus deriving the meaning
of these terms from their context.* This work was done in vain, if
| Jahns right. He holds that most of the words included in his study
show no semantic diversity at all, that they form part of a formu
Jaic system and share the same essential idea. His conclusion is all
the more surprising because it pl
nly contradicts the results his
teacher Joachim Latacz had reached in his study on Homerie terms
related with joy. Nevertheless, the majority of reviewers have ac-
review by Shitley D. Sullivan,? whose work was in danger of seeming
1.4, dati, Zum Word “Sete-Geist” in der Sproche Homers, Mane
|
cepted the general idea of Fehn’s book. A natural exception is the
|
2 On earl discussion, soe Une excellent overiaw in dah’ book,
‘Su, Lalace, Zuo Wartfld “Breade” in der Sprache Homer, Meidel
1 Reviews: Clasen, GS Sect 929 (1990) 16-19, Donnet, LEC 60 (1992),
5-H5, Fuhrer, GGA 241 (1989) 165157, Long, CR 42 (1902) 8-5, Rath, Con
spins (Wien Verband der Wiss. Ges. Oster), 4 (1990) Nr. 62,
Der Mje, Mnemonyne 6 (1091) 640-465, Wajtowicn,
5, Phoani 65 (1991) 66-68.
1st
(U99H) (984STEFAN HAGEL
‘usoloss in the light of Jahn’s results, as it embraces the most recent.
detailed studies on some of the terms involved. But even her review,
trailing along the paths of conventional argument, did but scratch
the surface of Jahn’s excellently presented thesis.
It is not the primary purpose of this little paper to contribute
to the definition of Homeric psychological terms. Instoad, it may
sulfice to reopen the discussion by proving that. Jaha's conclusion
contradicts the evidence as gathered by himsel. If wa, in addition,
will be able :0 derive a rough outline of the interrdation of the
torms from Jabn’s data, this will be just a hicky opportunity to get
2 starting point for farther investigation.
‘Now how does Jahn reach his conclusion? First he has to estab-
lish his wWortfeldn. As aseolisch-geistige Instanzen, which he
profers to the usual «Seelenorgane», he includes all terms related
‘ith the psychology of Homeric man that are assigned corporeality
as well as a defined location in the body. These, he hclds, are Sonic
and gpbses as well as xeaBln, wp, Foe, mpariBec, and aso olten ov%-
og, which exrbraces all of them. On the other hand, vag and woe
are excluded, as well at guph, whieh ig irrelevant for the psychic
activity of the living man in Homer. For uévos and Quzj Jahn is
surely right, while the exclusion of weg a8 non-corporeal might well
bp drawn inte question.* @uyc does not fit into his scheme well: it
has certain cxoracteristics in common with ylves as it may even
Teave the body of the fainting or dying.” In this case, Jahn seems
6. Unfortunately, in his dscusion of loc Jahn doesnot apply the same
‘unprjudiced method as forthe other terms: here he starts fram one defivite
{ype of context to show that tho moaning dorved from there i not oalea-
dicted by the rat ofthe passages, This isthe method for whi lah ext
1s eatlor scholarship, If used Hhroughout in hi Book it woald have yield
Fompltaly difaont results
CE 3 250.282 (Byte teaver the dying body, apparetty to vanish,
while dr preserved as unit); 1131 (Byab diving into Tad, a metaphor
Tor death; A 588 [tle Og lat — nearly dd), 478, «458 849 (eco¥e-
ing trom a fant involves reassembling of Daye Into the ge); N 7L, ML
386 par, 470, 0 524,57 654 Ova eaves the dylag person, sonetimas slovly,
-apparenly inti form and Unrough the mouth]. Tn my opinion Jah misun~
‘dostands tho only passage which he is abe to eie for his location of Oouic
within the arrargerent af the othor organs 2523s. x8 3° duce | ra
‘opi sams to wean nol umy heartaches uy Oya but amg hear ae
is aon, nf bing the suc ofthe formulaic expresion Prk = 2) Oa
192
to fail to distinguish between weorporealn, which is true for Oop’c
and maybe for everything else in the Homeric world, and «part of
the body», which is true for the rest of the wSeelenorganen.
In a next step, Jahn tries to show that all of his eseelisch-gei-
stige Instanzen» are employed in emotional as well as in retional
‘and volitional contests, none of them heing restricted to a seman-
tic field of its own. Or, to state it the other way round, he shows
that in any context any term may be used. I will give but one ex-
ample of his extensive analysis to make his method clearer, For
the association of each term with the notion of joy he cites:
Onde: zatee BE Dons (E156 ete.)
et nan. pebva (Z. 481)
‘roo: alge BE yon Hoop (YF 67)
ip: wipe! (8 259 8)
without any: zatze 88 <3 Bpm0” *OBvce (K 27).
‘This example is taken from those that are complete in the sense
that indeed at least one passage cen be cited for each term. Jahn is
‘ot troubled very much by the fact that his tables show significant
aps as well.* Instead he arrives ab an extreme Parrianist view: the
sumed total interchangesbility of the terms implies that these have
‘except in certain eases no semantic meaning at all. Not only
are expressions containing one term interchangeable with expros-
sions containing another one, but. even with expressions containing
none at all, as inthe last example above, Instead of forming a dil-
Ferentinted semantic field, the variety of terms build a formulaic
system, governed by thrift, just as Parry argued for noun-epithet
formulas, Except in the eases where they are nocessary to denote
that. just the inner person is involved in an emotion not visible to
the others, Ube terms may fulfil stylistic function at mos.
[No doubt Jahn’s thesis seems at odds with a more modern view
of formulaic epic language, a8 today we might stross that the way
al the beginning of the second sors (ef. g B 223, @ 128, N37, P 254,
bra, a 118 311 8158, 0-995, x 891,949) This passage is thon ential difer-
feat trom € 168s, where ds orHeoae usta, Inthe fst vers, indeel qu
Fes Bs (with whl 1 often ozeure) othe whole sentence Jost as also in 3
18 shove Uo ondor is reversed.
3."Seo the table pp 18-192: 6D gape oul of 293, which ie
183STEFAN HAGEL
his spocial kind of language works is not so very diforent from the
way language generally works.* Nevertheless, as the reviews show,
‘many if not most scholars seem to have accepted Jahn’s theory.
‘So why should Jabn’s conclusion be erroneous? Even apart
from the gaps in his tables, he eannot but run into petit prineip
What he tacitly assumes i, that giving few examples of a Lert
«8 specific context suffices to prove that this context is quite usual
for the term. Thus, he deprives himself a priori of she possibility to
detect nuances of speech that are achieved by usng terms in less
‘usual contects. The correct way to find the semantic field of a term
isnot giving examples but getting an overview by means of stati
tis. And it is statistics that will refute Jahns theory on the basis
of Jahn's work itell
Usually, the introduction of statistics into an inquiry of this
kind immediately encounters the problem that statistics of meaning
have to rely on appropriate interprotations of single instances.
In our case, however, Jahn himself provides us with a complete list
Of his interpretations, which comprise all instances of the terms in
{question in the Homerio works. Thus, we are in the unusually lucky
Position of being able to rely our statisties on data given hy the
author whose conctusion we want to refute. The main problem with
all statisties of this kind, namely that the interpretational data
‘underlying tho calculations are at least unconsciously biased by
the scholar’s presuppositions, that problem simply does not exist
in our case. If our data is biased, itis biased against our conclusions,
s0 our tests will be conservative.
‘As we search for variances in the semantic field of paychology,
wwe have to constrain our data to those instances that. Jahn lists as
‘occuring in psychological context. So we have to dispose of hi
motional» cases, which are immediately associatad with the cor-
poreal functions of the organs, as well as of the eases which do not
Fit into Jahn’s scheme." The remaining Unree categories are ident-
9. Gh A.M. Folay, Homer's Traditional rt, University Park, Pennsyle
‘vain 199, p. 6: Ort rein works ike langage, only mare
10. Formulated eg. by Kurt ¥. ri, vlog and vay in Uhe Homers
Poems, CPh 38 (1949) 81 mole 1,
TH. These are daln’s valegores 4 and 5 (ec p. 298). Moreovor ealegors
4 isnot usofl at all bocause it combines under the keyword wMabiitatn quite
1%
oMBRIG PSYEHOLOGY
ical with Plato's parts of the soul: emotion, volition, and ratio-
ality.
‘One might well wonder if « Platonic eateyurisation of Us kind
will be useful for an investigation of the Homeric soul. There is no
need, however, to discuss that issue here at length.” If any non-
‘metrical ontegorisetion, weird as it may he, leads us to measurable
differences between the terms in question, the hypothesis of com-
plete semantic interchangeability is refuted. On the other hand, in
‘my opinion Jahn’s categorisation is not so bad, and I think it mir-
tors a distinction whieh is basic enough for the human mind that it
‘may serve for Homerio scholarship, too.
So all we have to do is to compute Jahn’s data, which is but
‘counting his instances!" Then we are able to print the results in a
diagram. Thus we get Disgram 1, where the terms are sorted with
respect to emotionality. As one can now see at first glance, the con-
lexts of the single terms are far from being distributed equally.
00%
com
20%
oon; on bins OHS wpe Hop
om
Diagram 1: All eases, sortod by emotionality (ascending)
nt notions as physical destin the cases of frop and On a8 compared
reasonable bahaviour inthe caso of gps: the latter should botlr be
ed tothe inslaces of «2 rationtler Boriche
12, "her ie plony of discussion in A. Schmitt, SelitGndighett und the
hangigheit mensehlichen Honda bei Homer. Hermenentsche Untervuchan-
igo cur Peychalogie Homers, Sigurt 1990, who ix dealing with the vow af
B.Suell, Die Bwidertung dex Geiser, Ob1tngon #197
18. Curiously auough, Jahn seems simply to have fall to do so. More-
‘over, nol all of the few numbers he gives [p. 180) are vompatble with his
tabs.
18,STBEAN AGEL
While over 80% of the instances of mpanidss are connected with
rationality, nearly all of the instances of x and rep are emotional
‘Botween ese two extremes we encounter much variation,
In Diagram 2, the same data is sorted according to rationality,
‘where rparifes anil gpéves hold the frst place. It will be noticed
‘that in volitional contexts only oviloc, opie anu xza8%y are to be
found —often two of them connected in the same formula."
[Broinerar
|Bemononat
[Deaton
aba Rae
i wes oom ms patly wee
Diagram 2: All ase, sored hy rationally (descending!
1t goes without saying that the differences between the distsibu-
tions are #9 strong that. we need not even apply testing statistics:
it would yeld significance values that differ from 100% by values
too small jor most calculating devices. When Jahn tries to deny
the significance of these differences, he is plainly denying mathe-
smatios.
So it becomes clear that itis completely inappropriate to spenk
14, xpatin may driv ils volitional component from its connection with
aye within on formula, which is responsible for 9 ut of 1 instances of vol-
Tionat wea Jahn, 8360, however, shows that this eonnection had bad
“ough inflsnce on tie meaning of xeaBin that his erm vould a last appear
in-ceasly valional contest without yabe
15. 0: Die Zahlonvengliche (4953 baw. 15: 30 [these ave procon-
tual, no absolote numbers) ergeben noch nicht einmal eigen vindentigen
inwels aut die Praritat einer der belden psychishon Instanzon bei der Bo-
teiligang an Regongen baw. intallektvell auggrichotem Geschchen..»; nolo
‘S20: a wnt -angsteis der rola aeltenen Sculderang (not lss tha 335
Instances] ntaloktoller Vongange i homerschon Bpos x1 einem (vor dem
186
‘of semantic interchangeability in the context of Homerie psycho-
logical terms. Only xi and Jro9, supposedly both denoting the
same part of the body, show no detectable differences between their
meanings, at least in the light of Jahns criteria, All other «Seelen-
organe, different as Uhey are in thei physical identity and func-
tion (neither being altogether clear in the oase of pxxi8sc), have
markedly differently balanced psychic functions, too.
Tn the Tight of this evidence, Jan's conclusions cannot be true
in the very general sonse as he states thom. Dut stil he might be
right regarding a eubset of the data. As yet, we have evaluated all
instances together —_but it would be concsivable that the obvious
differences stem from but a part of the sample. As Van der Mije
suggosted, the nominative and accusative instances of the terms in
{question are prone to display different semantic values, while the
oblique cases, used to denote the location of psychic phenomena,
might turo out to build a formulaic system in Jahn’s sense
So, in a next step, we will constrain our calculations to oblique
cases, ‘The results, displayed in Diagram 3, tell us that the diffe-
ences observed above do not vanish at all, even if we concentrate
four research on those eases thal. aeour most likely in solely formu-
so 5
=
os e
on [Borverat
larson
~ lenotonst
ae =
om ee
ante; oto: wots Oo; MB
Diagram 3: Oblique cases, sort by emotionality
intergrand des ufabedington Toloranespetraums jeder Statistik) unsi=
‘huren Fakiorn, Soh sentence deplny at leat romplete igrrance of mater
Imalial fats and methods, i nol lack of wil to deal with evidence rontradi=
ting the hypothesis
187STEFAN HAGEL
Jae function, Instead, the terms retain their variant meanings just
as we were able to derive them from the previous diagrams.
So we can state our final conclusion: on the basis of Jahn's
‘data, each of the Homeric «Seelenorgane» turns out to maintain its
specific area in the semantic field, just as pre-Jahn scholars have
‘ever assumed.
‘The numbers which we have derived from Jahns lis
‘to proceed even a litle further: from them, we are able to gauge
the raw position of each term in the «psychic coordinate system,
If we take pure emotion, pure ratio and pure volitional function as
the extremes, we ean plot all the terms to certain locations within
f triangle, as in Diagram 4
Diagram 4: Position ofthe aSeslenorganeo in the teiprtite soul
‘We have to note that this ean he no more than a prefiminary
‘eount, To approach @ more reliable distribution, we would have
to re-read and re-interpret all instances in the light of our present
‘lata, But thie would result just in even more expressly marked dif
ferences. The nature of the tendencies as such would, of course, stay
unchanged, and so we may be sure that our diagrams are as reliable
188
HOMERIC PSYCHOLOGY
‘96 Jahn’ interpretation is —which is, as we have stated, most pro-
Dably not biased in a way that can touch our conclusions
‘Nevertheless, even if the differences could well be greater than
‘our data implies, there will be no binary distinetions in the light
‘of Fehn’s erteria: gees, if tending to rationality just as ite deriva-
tions suggest, has a great deal of emotionality init, are is almost
identical to uy, which it embraces, in comprising a balanced mix
ture ofall three parts of the goul
However, only a misguided over-Cartesian view of human psy-
chology could lead scholars to wonder why reasoning, feeling and
will ae not separated more clearly in Homer's language. There may
bo emotion without reasoning, as »iip and Jrop teach us. But there
ino will without emotion, at Ove, arog and xpadin show. And
even reasoning will usually not come to terms without emotions
‘that help to rate different possibilities of decision. As modern neuro-
biology reminds us, a man who looses the ability Lo feel the emo-
‘tions that his wbody» connects with the expected outoomes of dif-
ferent. possible choices (wsomatic markers») will he seriously im-
paired in drawing conclusions leading to action, even when his
‘mental reasoning algorithms are working perfectly. So it should
be surprising if the simple anthropological fact that somatic
Sensations play in important part in human decision-making
‘mirrored in Homeric speech, even if the same fact maybe came to
‘be neglected in Western philosophical tradition, to give room to
the illusion of man ruled by reason. Homer's heroes are not engaged
in abstract logical reasoning, but usually in decisions between dif
ferent actions, decisions which might well be between life and death:
0 they need emotion in their reasoning, just as the location of god
16. Gt A. R, Damasio, Descartes” Error: Emotion, Reason, andthe
Human Brain, New Yor 996; A. Bechara ea, elnsesiivity to Futare
Consoquences Following Damage to Human Prfrotal Cortex», Cognition 50
(1994) 7-19; A. Bechara etal, Failure to Respond Autonomic to Antic
pelod Future Outcomes Following Damage ta Prelrotal Corles», Cererat
Cortes 6 (1986) 316-225, a5 wll ab the discussion of her sll in the con-
text of Western philogphy in P.& Churchland, «Peeling Reasons, is AR.
Damasio et al. (ed, Neurobiology of Decision-Making, Berlin e a. 1996, p.
11-199. 1 i, of cove, ierelevant to our discusion i Ue implementation of
somatic markers rally nvales a body loops, arf they are mare projec
His of the brain
189STEFAN HAGEL
vee and even mpaniBss in the Homerie soul implies. And finaly itis
surely significant that there is no single notion in Homeric speech,
which comes to be located in our diagram in the space between ra
tionality and voliticn: there is no way from one of Uhese to the
other except over the mediation by emotion. Reason will ealeulate
‘the emotional outcome of different choices, which have to be rated
‘by emotion subsequently. Quasi per definition, itis not apt Lo ti
up wil.
So we may conclude that whoever it was who First used formu:
las such as
Js #22507 pu
sensi goto val nach Oxy,
seems to have displayed a far deeper insight into human nature
than some of Homer's critics: it is only an intimate eonnestion be-
tween rational reasoning (x27% geéva) and the awareness of somatic
rosponses (va:d Oyué) tbat guarantees an optimal decision.
OMHPIKH YYXOAOTIA: AYZTHPH @OPMOTAA.
“MIA EIKONA TOY AN@POMINOY fINEYMATOE;
(eptingn)
0 THOMAS JAHN NPOTEINE ye sq Stare cov (Zum Wortfeld
“‘Seele-Goist™ in de: Sprache Homers, Méwxyo 1987) br. 0 Bdgopee
Spot mou mapamypotvea orov ounpind Déyo a nig Bbaeg mas dupes
Beaornpibcrras (roe, owde, we, xoabin, noanibes, axfos, pobre) Br
uavpyoby ba orepeowrinb abernun ané ro onola chara uum onuacio
Aeyech Biapogorclyon. AveBera Gua, pia aranerorh exryneT TOF
Deyérvey BeBoulvay ond voy Bio uae Belper ig xaryeypanntses Bix
‘popls nav éyovr aroBoet orang bpans anh rox usher, Ot operons
“Toig evmorenzione ue so mhastoved splay Whe (ovata =
Beret - Beanan) Belyrouy bse 0 opnprxis Néyas Bplowerss neptaasrezo ot
‘ougovla ue 22 aWdpunshoyack yeyevbes, bmtuc BarundOnaay arch
yeupedayord noplowar, maph ye vic Oboes voy abyzpowy xeertety 200
emrgedforea and yy waprenavh eidoadpla: 7 BuBucacia anieacrs
sanatrel ueyo apiOyl ounavaDrpdcey wan cochun Bev undpyes BixalvBery
saxduean ary Royund x21 my Oman, népa and m ounaadyyarich excl
laser tov Buveréy ofbdocey Baxpopervuby Bpdacun.
190
Introduction, Translation, Commentary, and Notes by Frederic M. Schroeder, Robert B. Todd. Two Greek Aristotelian Commentators On The Intellect The de Intellectu Attributed To Alexander of PDF