7/30/2019 immortalit dieux.docx

1/2

[p. 1] I. GODS AND MEN.

To a modern reader the most striking characteristic of the Homeric gods is their humanity ;but this cannot possibly have been their chief attribute. What constitutes their divinity is nottheir likeness to man but the quality that distinguishes them from him. From our point of

view the most important criterion for the distinction between gods and men is the fact thatthe gods only existed in the belief of their worshippers. Such a view, however, necessarilyimplies that one has ceased to believe in the gods in question ; for a living religious faith thegods are just as real as anything else. If they are conceived anthropomorphically they mustconsequently possess some other quality which renders them divine and distinct from man.It thus follows that if Homers description of the gods embodied a living religious faith, if itwas genuinely felt to represent reality, the gods cannot have been regarded as whollyhuman and their human attributes must have been of secondary importance. If on the otherhand the gods are human throughout it is definitely improbable that they were the objectsof faith.

Wides definition of the Homeric gods expresses the current view1. They are, he says, whollyhuman, they have human form, human feelings and passions and even share the moralimperfections of mankind ; yet they are immortal, possessed of superhuman power andsuperior to man in strength, beauty, and intelligence2. From this view it follows that the onlyclear distinction between gods and men is furnished by the immortality of the gods. This isaccordingly their chief attribute3. The other qualities of the gods [p. 2] are entirely human,though brought to greater perfection and more highly developed than in the average man.But this intensification of human characteristics at most amounts to a difference in degree,not to a difference in kind1.It may, however, be doubted whether immortality alone was held to constitute divine status.

As a mere prolongation of life, which is in itself no quality, immortality ought to be due tosome specific characteristic of the gods that exempts them from old age and death. In fact, itwas held to result from the special nourishment of the gods2. It would thus seem moresatisfactory to regard immortality as a symptom or a function of the power of the gods3. Forthe believer the immortality of the gods cannot have been of very great importance. It

mattered very little whether the god was immortal or not, whereas his power oftenmanifested itself in a very tangible way4. Further, it seems probable that if the idea ofimmortality really formed the essential element of the conception of the god, words withthe signification divine or holy, like dios, theios and hieros would be synonymous with immortal . This is however not the case. They are on the contrary used in the sense of

excellent , marvellous , awful , and powerful 5. Thus power seems to be theessential attribute of the gods ; but if this power is of the same nature as mans, onlygreater, no specific distinction between gods and men can be based on it. In that case we areconcerned with a difference in degree only, for the observation that the gods in general aresuperior to man does not enable us [p. 3] to draw any clear line of demarcation between thetwo categories. The superiority of the gods is indeed far from absolute.1. WIDE in Gercke-Norden, Einl. in die Altertumswissenschaftll : 2, p. 12. Cf. e. g. NGELSBACH I. 13 sq. ; NILSSON, History142 sq., 157; id. Minoan-Mycenaean Religion542 ; WILAMOWITZ, Glaube I. 333 ; NESTLE, Griechische Religiositat I. 17 ; PFISTER, Griechischeund romische Religion 191 ; SEYMOUR, Life in the Homeric Age 414 ; BOWRA, Tradition and

Design 222.

7/30/2019 immortalit dieux.docx

2/2

3. NILSSON, History157 : The immortality of the gods drew a clear line of demarcation whichman could not pass. In other respects no such line exists. Cf.NGELSBACH I. 38 sq.

1. Cf. NILSSON, I. c.2. Ngelsbach I. 16 sq., 42 sq. ; ROSCHER, Nektar und Ambrosia 51 sq. Cf. also BUTTMANN, Lexil.I. 133 ; FINSLER, Homer161. For the connection of this idea with the practice of enbalming see

ROSCHER, op. cit. ; id. in Roschers Lex. s. v. Ambrosia ; HELBIG, Das Homerische Epos 56.3. Menelaus did not become a god when he was exempted from death (Od. 4.561 sq. ; cf.NGELSBACH I. 40, whose argument is, however, not convincing). Cf. the story about Tithonus,who was granted immortality but not youth (Hymn. Hom. in Ven. 219 sq. ; cf. d. Col., 607sq.). ROSE, Prim. Cult., 91.4. WIDE, op. cit. 24. Cf. also OTTO, Die Gtter Griechenlands 310.5. According to CURTIUS (Etymol. No. 614) the original sense of is strong. Cf. Butcher-Lang, note on Od. 1.2 ; BOISACQ, Dictionnaire tymologique s. v. ; WILAMOWITZ, Glaube I.21sq. ; KRETSCHMER, Glotta 11 (1921). p. 278 sq. ; LIDDELL and SCOTT, Greek-English Lexicons. v., , and .

ERLAND Ehnmark, The Idea of God in Homer, trad. Olof von Feilitzen, Uppsala : Almqvist etWiksells Boktryckeri-A.-B., 1935.