Hesiods theogonische Eris

Summary

Hesiod prepared the way for dialectic thought in his division of apparently uniform phenomena into two types. In the Erga, he sets up against the bad strife (Eris) a good strife. This distinction, however, can already be found in the Theogony,for the “detestable” Eris does not coincide with the “stouthearted” Eris. In the Erga, Hesiod only supplements his earlier conception. He turns the stouthearted Eris, who had no children, into something good by providing her with `children’, that is, by relating the works through which she first becomes good. In the Theogony, the relationship of the two Erises to each other is not articulated. It is first disclosed by means of an analysis of the all-inclusive relationship between the children of the night, of which the stouthearted Eris is the youngest, and the children of the detestable Eris.

The children of the night are forces which strike mortals down, and this is the basis of the negativity which defines them and in which passionate love (Philotes) — to be distinguished from Eros — also participates. In contrast, the stouthearted Eris is isolated. The children of the night, as overwhelming forces, are powers of fate. Hesiod, however, distinguishes between the fate of death and an indebted fate, between pure wrongs and those wrongs which set in as a consequence of transgressions. The difference thereby emerging between the mere wrong and evil becomes manifest with the transition to the children of Strife. The section dealing with these is structured analogous to the previous section. The detestable Eris is the evil act par excellence. Hesiod first presents the external consequences of the evil act (that is, of wrong), and then those consequences which are themselves evil acts.

Whereas the detestable Eris is an evil act, the stouthearted Eris is the disposition to it. On the one hand, she lets herself be linked to the chain of wrongs, for it is a wrong that evil arises from her. On the other hand, she breaks out of this chain. She separates herself from it not only as the inclination towards evil, but also because she is, as the driving force towards activity in general, the inclination towards good as well.

The unity in the duality of the figures is beyond Hesiod’s grasp. Nevertheless, he shows the direction for later dialectics to take in so far as he traces the inner disunion of Eris to the bad condition of the world.