Zeus the Father in Homer

Author(s): George Miller Calhoun

Source: Transactions and Proceedings of the American Philological Association , 1935,
Vol. 66 (1935), pp. 1-17
Published by: The Johns Hopkins University Press

Stable URL: http://www.jstor.com/stable/283284

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms

The Johns Hopkins University Press and are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve
and extend access to Transactions and Proceedings of the American Philological Association

This content downloaded from

132.248.9.41 on Thu, 06 Aug 2020 18:16:51 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 TRANSACTIONS
OF THE

AMERICAN PHILOLOGICAL ASSOCIATION

1935

I.-Zeus the Father in Homer

GEORGE MILLER CALHOUN

UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA

The prevailing opinion that Zeus in Homer is "king" of the gods has
recently been emphasized by Nilsson, who holds that the monarch of
heaven is patterned after the " Great King of Mycenaean times." Care-
ful study of Zeus's titles and epithets, of the passages which attest his
power, and of his relations to Poseidon, suggests that the pattern is rather
to be sought in the patriarchate. The fundamental objection to Nilsson's
view is the fact that not once in the entire Homeric- text is Zeus called
flactXebsu, though given the title repeatedly in the Hymns, Hesiod, and the
Cyclic fragments.

When Xenophon woke from the pregnant dream in which

a bolt of lightning fell upon the home of his fathers, almost
his first thought was of Zeus the King, the heavenly counter-
part of earthly monarchs, their patron and protector (Anab.
3.1.12). When a reader of Homer thinks of Zeus, it will
likely be of Zeus the Father and the ever recurring formula
iram7p ap'p&' rE OcEw- TEr-. We know that Xenophon's thought of
Zeus the King did not exclude the concept of Zeus the Father.
May we believe that the Zeus of Homer is conceived likewise
both as father and as king? More specifically, is the Olympian
polity, the state whose realm is primarily heaven, not earth
or the entire cosmos, whose body politic includes only divine
beings, not mortal men-is this "State of the Gods" a mon-
archy? The answer of expert opinion is a unanimous affirma-
tive; in Homer, we are told, Olympus is a monarchic state
1
This content downloaded from
132.248.9.41 on Thu, 06 Aug 2020 18:16:51 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 2 George Miller Calhoun [1935

and Zeus is its king. So far as I am aware, this view has not
been seriously questioned, and it has recently been emphasized
by Nilsson, both in his brilliant lectures on The Mycenaean
Origin of Greek Mythology and in Homer and Mycenae.1 The
political organization of the gods, according to Nilsson, is
admittedly modeled upon "the conditions of human life."
Zeus is an absolute monarch, yet no institutions which might
have served as a model can be found in the historical period
either in Ionia or in Thessaly. Hence the pattern must be
sought in pre-Homeric institutions; the monarchy of Zeus is
patterned after the Mycenaean state and is a reminiscence of
the power and splendor of the "Great King of Mycenaean
times" (Mycenae 266-269).
This striking combination of literary and archaeological
interpretations, propounded with the learning and acumen
which its distinguished author invariably commands, is most
attractive. But it seems to me remarkable that proponents
of this view either fail to observe or disregard the significant
fact that not once in the Homeric poems is Zeus spoken of
as f3ao-AcXvS.2
This is not an ordinary instance of the argument from
silence.3 The poet refers to Zeus hundreds of times, often
with some ornamental epithet or title of honor; he uses the
word OacXbs some sixty times of many different individual
not once in either poem does he call Zeus faXEvbs-. But in the
I M. P. Nilsson, The Mycenaean Origin of Greek Mythology (Berkeley, 1932)
221-251 (cited as Origin); Homer and Mycenae (London, 1933) 266-272, 277
(cited as Mycenae). See also T. D. Seymour, Life in the Homeric Age (New
York, 1907) 413: "Monarchy prevails in heaven as on earth. Zeus,-the typi-
cal monarch of the poems,-is at least as absolute a ruler as Agamemnon."
2 Nilsson (Origin 234, n. 26) merely notes that "The gods are never called
flaatXus, only dva,. BaotXevs is probably a pre-Greek word, and this is of
certain importance in corroborating my view concerning the Mycenaean king-
ship." I must confess that this seems to me to reverse the logic of the situation;
if Zeus, as king of Olympus, is modeled upon the kings of Mycenae, we should
expect him to inherit their titles. On the possibility that hivaa is a pre-Hellenic
Aegean title, cf. infra n. 6.
3 The dangers of too great reliance on the argument from silence are properly
emphasized by J. A. Scott, The Unity of Homer (Berkeley, 1921) 119f.

This content downloaded from

132.248.9.41 on Thu, 06 Aug 2020 18:16:51 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Vol. lxvi] Zeus the Father in Homer 3

few lines that remain from the Cycle, in the Hymn to Demeter,
in the Works and Days and in the Theogony, Zeus is termed
f3aTLEYv's, in a variety of formulas that ought to have been
most inviting to the composer of epic.4 In seeking an expla-
nation of the facts, I am compelled to adhere to a principle
of Homeric criticism I have elsewhere defended,5 of declining
to assume the presence of an idea which does not once find
expression in more than 27,000 lines but appears repeatedly
in the scant remains of the so-called post-Homeric poetry.
In the circumstances, the burden of proof would seem to rest
upon those who hold that Homer thought of Zeus primarily
as "king" of the gods; the proof, if it is to carry conviction,
should be found within the poems and should be definite, and
it might properly extend to an explanation of what can only
be described, if the accepted view is correct, as a word-taboo.
Our problem, however, is not so simple that it can be
solved on the basis of a single word; other epithets and titles
are used of Zeus, and we must consider fairly whether any of
them represents him as king of the gods. We think at once
of avat. Like certain other words of unknown derivation,
this may perhaps be of pre-Hellenic Aegean origin; it might in
fact be an ancient title inherited from the Great Kings of
Mycenae and preferred to f3anXcis by the poet precisely
because of its regal dignity. Were we content to rely on
formal argument, it would suffice to point out that the title
apat is not given to Zeus only, but also to Hermes, Hephaestus,
Poseidon, and very often to Apollo.7 Since it cannot in these
I These formulas are quoted infra A.
5 "Classes and Masses in Homer," Class. Phil. xxix (1934) 197f.
6 C. D. Buck, Comparative Grammar of Greek and Latin (Chicago, 1933) 18
"titles (r6pavos, a5vat, laaoXev6s) for which pre-Greek Aegean origin is alto-
gether probable." See also Boisacq, Dict. Etym., s.v.; P. Chantraine, La for-
mation des noms en grec ancien (Paris, 1933) 266, 376.
7 E.g. 'EpAecas 6e a5vat (B 104); Iloo-eL&aLwV a&'aKTL (O 57, 158; ry 43, 54; C 412,
526 etc.); 'H/alh-roto dvaKTos (0 214; 1 137); often of Apollo (cf. A 36, 75; H 23;
O 253 etc.). Clearly the allocation of the title is determined chiefly by the
technique of the ornamental epithet, and the relative rank of the several Olym-
pians is not involved; on the interpretation of epithets, cf. " Classes and Masses,"
196, n. 10.

This content downloaded from

132.248.9.41 on Thu, 06 Aug 2020 18:16:51 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 4 George Miller Calhoun [1935

instances mean "king of the gods "-unless the Olympian

polity was a roXvKoLpa1L-7 it cannot fairly be so interpreted
when used of Zeus. In any case we shall do well to inquire
into the original meaning of the word and its primary con-
notations in Homer.
The lexica recognize two distinct meanings of hi'at: (1) lord,
prince, chieftain, king; and (2) master of the house, bciar'rO7s.
They tend rather to emphasize the former, and commentators
often treat it as primary.8 Yet in reading the poems I have
been impressed repeatedly by the large proportion of instances
in which the second meaning seems clearly to have prompted
the choice of this particular word.
Quite often, especially in the Iliad, a5vat is a purely orna-
mental epithet of the Homeric hero or king, very like our
formal use of "lord" or "king" with proper names.9 Occa-
sionally it is used to refer to a chieftain or warrior whose name
has just been used or is immediately to follow; the effect,
particularly when d'av precedes the name, is stately and
impressive, as in T 35f, av-Tap -rO'v -yE a'aKTa, KTX.10 But in
the great majority of cases in which a5vat is not a mere epithet
it designates a man in his relations to his property, treasures,
pets, domestic animals, thralls, or the OLKOS of which he is the
master; naturally it occurs in such contexts oftener in the
Odyssey than in the Iliad, and oftenest where slaves appear

8 The special as well as the general lexica have found it difficult to get away
from definitions based largely on later usage; both Ebeling and Cunliffe dwell
on the figurative and ornamental uses of a5va, and relegate to the last and least
place the many instances in which it means simply "master," in the ordinary,
literal sense. Instances that are, in my opinion, wrongly classified will be dis-
cussed in the following pages.
9 Besides the familiar dvat a&vepwv, it is often used in such formulas as HpLAI
avaKTos (B 373 etc.), 'Ibo,Ei6ra a'iaKra (B 405 etc.), 'AxLXfL a'paKTL (I 164),
TaXaLovi'ao dvaKros (B 566 = T 678) etc., where it is convenient for closing a
hexameter line after names or patronymics ending in -aio, -77a, -rL, -oLO etc.
10 E.g. E 794 (cf. A 420). A comparable effect is created in Q 449, 452,
where we are told of the lodge and court which the Myrmidons had built for
"their lord." It is doubtful whether T 173 belongs here, or with the instances
cited in the following note. In N 28, 38, despite the ornamental effect, the
original meaning of dvat seems clearly to determine the choice of the word.

This content downloaded from

132.248.9.41 on Thu, 06 Aug 2020 18:16:51 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Vol. lxvi] Zeus the Father in Homer 5

or treasure is described. Telemachus strikes the keynote

when he says that another may be king in Ithaca,

awrap Eycow OLKOWO a5vat 'oCoY' ?7/.ETEpOWO

Kab yccov ovs /uoL Xlo-oa-ro 6'os 'Obvo-o-s [a 397f].

One need only read over the scenes in which Eumaeus and
Eurycleia converse with their master, or the episode of the
faithful Argus, or the passage in which the treasury of Odysseus
is described, to be convinced that ba'a is closely associated
in the poet's mind with the household, its servants, domestic
animals, and treasures, and that the use of the word as a
kingly title is an extension of this original meaning." The
tendency of the verb aba'caaa to govern the dative of persons
and the genitive of things seems to be definitely related to
the two meanings of the noun.'2 Something may be learned
also from occasional instances in which a5vat takes the place
of the customary titles in direct address. They are few and
distinctive in tone. In the Iliad, Agamemnon is thrice ad-
dressed in this way, by Odysseus (B 284, 'ArpE67L, vvv brl Erc,
avat, C0SXovo-v 'AxatoI), by Nestor (B 360, AMXA, a5vat, aro's TX
E) M71eo IrEWco' 7' aXcp), by Diomede (I 32f, 'ArpE7L, 00c lrpwTa
laaxt uoAat aq5pawkovrt, 7ij OEts Eo-rtv, a5vat, ayopj av e / -r
XoOXi03). On both occasions Agamemnon's leadership has
collapsed along with his morale, and the effect of the unusual
mode of address is a tone of marked personal deference-
which is not altered in the case of Diomede by the fact that
it is but the prelude to a savage attack upon Agamemnon's
weakness and cowardice. Achilles is twice addressed as ba'a
by Odysseus (I 276 = T 177) in bringing up a very delicate
subject-Agamemnon's conduct toward Briseis. Although
the modern reader may be troubled at finding the formula
11 E.g. t 36, 40, 63, 67, 139, 170 etc.; 7r 14; p 189, 201, 255, 303, 310, 318,
320 etc.; T 295, 358, 392; v 216; sp 9, 56, 62. Cf. also L 452; K 216.
12 Cf. D. B. Monro, A Grammar of the Homeric Dialect (Oxford, 1891), sec.
151f, where two instances are noted of &va'vELe with the genitive of persons.
The distinction appears very clearly in T 180f: iXw6ro,-vop Tpcboatv tiva&etv
L7r7r0AaAOLOa / TL/nAsr TS HpLaAAov.

This content downloaded from

132.248.9.41 on Thu, 06 Aug 2020 18:16:51 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 6 George Miller Calhoun [1935

' E/ulS io-lV, avat, used of matters so unlike as free speech in

the agora and sexual intercourse, he will feel here, I believe.
as in the preceding instances the tone of marked personal
deference. The same note is struck in avat MEPEXaE of Anti-
lochus' winning appeal to his angry opponent (T 588).13 The
instances from the Odyssey are comparable in tone. There
is Elpenor's earnest entreaty, CvGa &' E7ElrTa, avat, KEXoIaL
IAPV cTaoLal E/lO (X 71), and Odysseus' anxious query to Teiresias,
EL7rE, aPva, 7rwS KEV /IE aVayVOl?1 T6V iovra (X 144), as well as his
final appeal to the resentful Ajax (X 561).14 Even when a
god is addressed, the use of the simple avat gives an effect
very different from that produced by the customary titles.15
To address another simply as avat is to speak as one of the
household to the master, to express a deference that is absolute
and unqualified. It is not surprising that the instances are
so few, and we are reminded of Xenophon's words on Hellenic
freedom, oivb'3va yap &u'p&7rov bEc7ronr?v a&XX roSs 6Eovs 7rpOcTKVVELrE.16
In a number of passages our interpretations can be cor-
rected or improved by giving greater weight to the primary
connotations of a5v4. For example, in 4 56, Butcher and Lan
yield to the irresistible temptation to translate "took out the
bow of her lord." In a sense the OlKOlO avat is the ava4 of th
wife as of the other members of the family, but I do not recall
that Homer uses the word to express the idea "her lord and

13 With this compare Hera's ingratiating address, 'TW7rve, avat 7raLTCP TE OeCOV
wavrcov T' &vp'-rw (p 233). The words are literally true, for Sleep is master
both of all gods and of all mankind, but their magniloquence, scarcely matched
by any of Zeus's titles, and the effusive tone in which they are uttered (indicated
by the formula in the preceding line; cf. Class. Phil. xxx [July, 1935] 225), con-
tribute materially to the comic effect.
14 With this use of a5vaa may be compared such expressions of deference as
7raTeP XI (eve (0 408; o- 122; v 199; cf. 7X 28, 48; 0 145; p 553).
15 Cf. e445, 450 (in this instance the god's name is unknown); H 514, 523.
This mode of addressing a god, so unusual in Homer, is quite usual in the
Hymns, especially in the formulas of invocation and farewell, and the tone of
intensity becomes merged in a general effect of religious fervor.
16 Cf. the words of Demaratus to Xerxes (Hdt. 7.104): EXeb0epoL yap E
ou 7raTra AXeb0epol ealaT freaTt Pyap a4L &ca7ro6T77S vo6os, TOP V'roSayalvovUt
eTL /axxov X o' aol ae.

This content downloaded from

132.248.9.41 on Thu, 06 Aug 2020 18:16:51 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Vol. lxvi] Zeus the Father in Homer 7

master"; here it has obviously the same connotation as in

lines 9 and 62, and we should interpret "took out the master's
bow," if we wish to avoid a sentimental touch that is not in
the original. Again, in v 223, olol TE cavacKTCwv WaL3Es '-ao-T is
commonly interpreted "such as are the sons of kings"
(Butcher and Lang; cf. Merry ad loc. and schol. V; Ebeling
interprets correctly); what is meant is simply that the lad's
appearance showed him to be a son of the household, not a
thrall. In , 290, 0cEwv aEKnnTL a'VaVKT&wv has caused some difficulty
it is the only instance in which the plural of avat is used of the
gods collectively, and we are told that Zenodotus read 4l@Xwv
a cK71TL CraLp&v. The solution, in my opinion, is that the poet
is thinking of the gods as a family who are the 'avaKTES of the
winds, and means to say that the winds rage despite the will
of the gods, their masters (not, with Butcher and Lang, "the
gods, the lords of all"); the background seems to me to be the
establishment where Aeolus has been set by Zeus as steward
over the winds (K 21, rajlnp a' v4j.ywv ro&1afE KpovWwv). In B 777,
aVaKT.WV is used of the Myrmidons, not, as Ebeling seems to
think, because Achilles is included, but because they are
spoken of as masters of their horses and chariots; a similar
connection accounts for ava4 in 0 453.17 When we make
proper allowance for the primary connotations of a5va, we
can appreciate more fully the irony of v 194, TOVVEK' ap' aXXOELc
4aLvEOfKETo 7ravra avaKTL, and the grim bitterness of Q 734
Andromache's aGXEvcov 7rpo avaKTOS acIlEXlXov.
Finally, the most important result of attention to the
primary connotations of &vat is that we at once perceive the
utter emptiness and futility of the theories that have been
built upon the two words 3aoTAL7XL &vaKTL in v 194.18 The
speaker is Philoetius, the thrall of Odysseus, and he says
that the disguised Odysseus has the appearance, not merely
of an a5v4, master of a household, but of an &vat who is faoTALXEs
17 There are many similar instances, e.g. II 371; K 559; ' 417 = 446, 517;
in N 28, 38, Poseidon is spoken of as master of sea monsters and of horses.
18 Cf. G. Busolt, Griechische Staatskunde. Part I (Munich, 1920) 322.

This content downloaded from

132.248.9.41 on Thu, 06 Aug 2020 18:16:51 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 8 George Miller Calhoun [1935

as well.'9 I am aware that those who see in this single instance

of the double title the honorific appellation of a "chief king"
will be reluctant to accept so simple an explanation, but I
believe that any who may read the poems with attention to
the uses of &va4 will be convinced that it is true.
When the distinctions I have attempted to outline are fully
understood, speculation regarding the etymology of avat and
the possibility that it may have been a title of the Great
King of Mycenae becomes superfluous. Its chief connotations
in Homer unquestionably derive from the patriarchal group
and from the venerable authority of the O'lKOlO ava .20 Its
occurrence among the honorific appellations of the gods does
not indicate that Zeus or any other of them was thought
of as a king, but suggests rather that the organization of
the Olympians may go back ultimately to the patriarchal
household.
Many of the titles and epithets of Zeus express his power
and glory in words which leave no doubt as to his absolute
supremacy over the other gods and over mankind. He is
jEWyas, v7rWEp/,EV s, alvoTaTos, v7raTos, apLOTos / av3pwv 7M& GEWv
v7raTos Kal &pLOOS, KV5LTOS /E.LctTOS, KapTro-Tos a7TcaV v7raTos

KpELO6VTOV, O0V TE Kpa'TOS ClTan /IE7WO0TOV, OS wa0C GV7TO-lf- Kacl aaV

avacTeL. Since these are practically all ornamental epithets
or formulas, we need not scrutinize the instances in which they
are applied to lesser gods, or even to men; we need not be
troubled, with the ancient commentators, because Menelaus'
major domo is KpEl&.V 'ErEcvEls (b 22), or because Polyphemus,
oov KpaTOS EoT- /Eyto-rov / 7rakLv KVKXC&EOOC-l, lives in a typical
19 The emphasis which naturally falls on faauLXi& in reading accords with
Kal f3auLXevcnv (196). It is precisely the thought of flaatuXiL yp &vApS pOLKe
(r 170) except that a&aKTL for aWvpl represents the thrall's point of view.
20 If it could be proved that a5vaa is a pre-Hellenic Aegean word, and had
been a title of the Great King of Mycenae, the facts of usage exhibited in the
Homeric text would not thereby be altered or their implications materially
affected; we should still be obliged to recognize the original meaning, and only
the degree of its persistence would be remarkable. There are very few instances
of a5vat referring to kings which could not be fairly well rendered by "master"
(e.g. a5vat aWp&v), and even these few may have been felt as metaphor by
Homeric audiences.

This content downloaded from

132.248.9.41 on Thu, 06 Aug 2020 18:16:51 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Vol. lxvi] Zeus the Father in Homer 9

pastoral anarchy (a 70f).21 Viewed collectively, the titles of

Zeus center in the concept of power, supreme and absolute,
over gods and men, and they admit of no doubt regarding
the association of that power with Zeus in the poet's mind.
But this does not prove ipso facto that this power was con-
ceived as royal, or that Zeus exercised it by reason of being a
king. We moderns instinctively restrict the idea of absolute
authority to the state, and we associate it with monarchy or
empire because in our experience these forms of the state
embody it most completely. But in Greece, in the remote
ages during which we must believe the epic formulas were
taking shape, there was another institution, of paramount
importance in every social or political function, which afforded
a far better example of absolute and unlimited power than
ever did legitimate monarchy among the Hellenes. This was
the patriarchal group, which presumably existed prior to
monarchy and certainly remained the foundation of the city-
state when monarchy had become little more than a name.
We touch here upon a fundamental difference between the
organization of the patriarchal group and the primitive tribal
state which has been too much neglected by historians. It is
a difference of vital importance in the evolution of European
institutions, as I pointed out, as early as 1928, in a communi-
cation 22 to the Sixth International Congress of Historical
Sciences at Oslo, in the following words: "The tribal chief-
tainship, although it is undoubtedly a development from the
patriarchal authority, differs from the patriarchate in one
respect, and that of the very greatest importance. The patri-

21 The formula is merely the epic way of saying that Polyphemus was the
most powerful of the Cyclopes. Eteoneus, like Agapenor in B 609, is given
the title KpeLCwv chiefly because his name is an ionic; however, it may be remarked
in passing that the word need not imply power more exalted than that exercised
by the head of a household; the persistent notion that it must mean "king"
or "prince" is an assumption prompted by its ornamental use.
22 "The Antecedents of Hellenic Law and Government," communicated to
the section "Histoire du droit et des institutions" at the session of August 15,
1928; as yet unpublished (cf. Bulletin of the International Committee of Historical
Sciences, No. 6 [May, 1929] 95).

This content downloaded from

132.248.9.41 on Thu, 06 Aug 2020 18:16:51 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
10 George Miller Calhoun [1935

archal family is a natural social unit. Its members are born

into it; no voluntary act is involved and there is consequently
no element of consent; the power of the family-father is
subject to no limitations originating within the group. But
the association of these natural units into clans, and brother-
hoods, and tribes, involves volition and purpose. The larger
groups are in a sense artificial organizations, arnd with them
appear new factors-consent of the governed and responsi-
bility of the governors. Here I think we find the germ of
what has since become the fundamental difference between
oriental and western types of government, and it seems to be
very closely related to the environmental factors of which I
have just spoken."
The limitations upon the power of the king implied in his
relations with the council of elders and with the assembly of
the people are familiar to all students of Homer. On the
other hand, even such remnants of the paternal authority as
survived here and there in the historical period make it
certain that originally the power of the father over the house-
hold was absolute in the fullest sense of the word. The idea
I am trying to develop, of the absolute power of the father
within the natural social unit made up of his children, could
not be better expressed than in three lines with which Poseidon
in the Iliad ends his reply to Zeus's threats of violence:

6Vyamepw-aatv -yap TE KaL vLao-L fEXTEpov 6'L7

-K1racyXOlS EWEELClV EVlooE/iEV, OVS TEKEV avros,

Ot E6EV oTpvvovTOS aKOvoToVrat KaL ava-Ky [O 197-199].

The use of a&aVYK71 here reminds us that in classical times near

relatives were aivayKa-OL, and that the thralls of Laertes are
called b,uc-s avayKaLot in co 210. Obviously we need look no
farther than the concept of the 7ramip, the O'lKOlO avat, for
justification of the epithets which imply that the power of
Zeus is supreme. We have no right to project back into
Homeric times the modern association of supreme power with
monarchy, and no occasion to bring in an idea which never

This content downloaded from

132.248.9.41 on Thu, 06 Aug 2020 18:16:51 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Vol. lxvi] Zeus the Father in Homet 11

finds expression in the poems, that Zeus is king on Olympus.

It will be quite sufficient to think of him as the head of a
patriarchal group of gods whose domain is the cosmos.
We have now to inquire into the relationship in which Zeus
stands to his two younger brothers. Poseidon begins the
retort from which I have just quoted with a complaint that
Zeus is encroaching upon rights which were recognized in the
partition of Cronus' domain, since the heavens, the nether
world, and the sea were allotted respectively to Zeus, Hades,
and himself, with the understanding that earth and Olympus
should be enjoyed in common. Nilsson, who speaks of Posei-
don as the "vassal" of Zeus, sees in this partition a typical
instance of the division of a kingdom among the heirs of a
ruler,-and cites as a parallel the partition of the Peloponnese
among the sons of Aristomachus (Origin 245-248). This
interpretation seems to me to present a number of difficulties.
Even if the case of the Heraclidae were exactly parallel, I
should hesitate to explain a passage in Homer on the basis
of details which first appear in so late a source as Apollodorus
and seem to have originated in an attempt to explain the origin
of certain Dorian institutions.23 However, the two situations
are not really parallel. In the case of the Heraclidae we have
a reconquest of territory by "pretenders" who have been in
exile for several generations, and the division of the conquered
territory is so made as to reward an ally, Oxylus, with the
kingdom of Elis. In the Homeric passage, if Zeus succeeded
to a "kingdom" and his brothers become his "vassals"
(Origin 245, 249), Poseidon's emphatic 6/I6Tl/IOV (186) and
Ocr6jopoV KaL o,u4 76/ E7arpCEVOV a'L'ra (209) call for some explana-
tion, and it is remarkable that Iris in her earnest appeal
speaks only of the Erinyes that attend upon an elder brother
(204),24 without any hint that Zeus is king or Poseidon
"vassal." If we may take account of general probabilities,

23 G. Grote, A History of Greece (London, Everyman, 1906) II.131f.

24 That the reference here is to the rights of an elder brother is clear from
,yeVpE 7rpo6epos (166, 182). Cf. N 354f.

This content downloaded from

132.248.9.41 on Thu, 06 Aug 2020 18:16:51 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 12 George Miller Calhoun [1935

the partition of a domain seems to be the exception in succes-

sion to a throne, but quite usual among the Hellenes in suc-
cession to family property under the patriarchal system.25
However, we need not look outside of the Homeric poems for
the parallel we are seeking. It is the partition of Castor's
estate in the fictitious tale told by the disguised Odysseus to
Eumaeus, where the patrimony is divided by lot among the
legitimate sons (t 207-210). There is of course room for
differences of opinion, and the problem cannot be solved by
legalistic interpretation of a few words, but the account of
the partition, as well as Poseidon's general attitude toward
Zeus in the matter of rights, suggests to me that the poet is
thinking in terms of the patriarchal group rather than mon-
archy or succession to a throne.
We come now to the Olympian scenes, with their ridiculous
squabbles and the bullying braggadocio of Zeus. It is true
that these are not quite the manners we should expect in a
Monarch of the Gods patterned after the Great King of the
Achaeans, yet I agree with Nilsson that too much importance
should not be attached to this aspect of Olympian society.
These motifs evidently come from very primitive myth and
folk-lore; the poet often uses them for comic effect, and in
this mood would be as ready to travesty a monarch as any
lesser figure.26 Nilsson has taken an important step toward
rational methods of interpretation in discarding as valueless
the subjective theories on which Wilamowitz and Finsler
base their criticism of these scenes. But he does not strengthen

25 Partition of an estate at the death of the householder seems to have been

the invariable Hellenic practice from the earliest times; it is implied in E 158,
and attested by Hesiod (e.g. Works 37-39, 377-379; Theog. 606f) as well as by
the earliest extant legal texts.
26 Cf. Nilsson, Origin 223-228, 244; Mycenae 267f, 275. The words "a
tone due to the Ionian minstrels, who were fundamentally irreligious" (Origin
244) seem to me to be a reminiscence of views Nilsson has properly rejected.
There is no one simple formula for the Olympian scenes, but they are often
used to introduce elements of comedy that do not suit with the heroic dignity
of the human characters; cf. A. Lang, The World of Homer (New York, 1910)
120-122.

This content downloaded from

132.248.9.41 on Thu, 06 Aug 2020 18:16:51 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Vol. lxvi] Zeus the Father in Homer 13

his case, in my opinion, by his enumeration of instances in

which the gods show themselves submissive and deferential
toward Zeus, since these accord equally well with the view that
Zeus is portrayed as head of a patriarchal group. In fact,
Nilsson sometimes overlooks the plain statement of the text
that the deference in which he would see veneration for a king
is offered to the father. For example, he remarks (Origin
244) that "the gods many times show a very great veneration
and respect for their king." His first instance is A 534, on
which he comments as follows: "When Zeus enters among the
gods gathered on Olympus, nobody dares to remain on his
seat; but they all rise to greet him." Homer says NotL 6' a,ua
7ravrEs avvEorav /e d ecov 4ov 7rarpos Evavrlov, and we cannot
accept an interpretation which neglects completely so plain
and emphatic a statement. In another of his instances, the
episode in 0 in which Athena and Hera turn back "at the
command of Zeus," he fails to observe that the command is
pointed, for Athena, in the significant line

o6p' EL9fl yXaVKJ7rLts or0' 'av X raTpt W2X-TraL [406-420].

On the whole, I am inclined to believe that the Olympian

scenes of horseplay and Zeus's constant threats of personal
violence are best understood as embodying in the main very
primitive material in which the Olympians figure as a patri-
archal family and Zeus as O'LKOLO avat.
The attempt to determine what was in the poet's mind as
he sketched one after another of his myriad scenes presents
a very different sort of problem from those say of the mathe-
matical sciences. We have no assurance that one single
formula will be found wholly true and all other answers wholly
false. It would be a mistake to maintain that the poet never
thought of Zeus as performing the functions of a king. Very
many functions and prerogatives of king and patriarchal head
are identical, and in themselves are not reliable criteria for a
decision on this point. And it must be allowed that a poet
familiar with kings and kingly activities would be bound at

This content downloaded from

132.248.9.41 on Thu, 06 Aug 2020 18:16:51 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 14 George Miller Calhoun 11935

times, unconsciously and almost inevitably, to assimilate the

functions of a patriarchal Zeus become ruler of the cosmos to
those of the highest authority in the society of his own time.27
For example, the daily gathering of the Olympians in the hall
of Zeus in itself suits equally well with either view, but the
assembly of the gods in T may perhaps go somewhat beyond
the patriarchal picture.28
The question we are now seeking to answer, however, is
fortunately more simple, since it is directed to the fundamental
outline of the Olympian scenes rather than the profusion of
detail and ornamentation. We should be able to determine
whether the original model for the picture of Olympian society
was the court of a Great King of the Achaeans, as Nilsson
believes, or the primitive family group dominated by the
OLKOLO avat. No answer can be satisfactory which ignores the
striking fact from which we started, that the title J3aoLXebs is
not once given to Zeus or to any other of the gods. And this
cannot be properly understood without some attention to the
technique of formula. Why should a poet with a rich store
of formulas containing the word 3acLXebs restrict himself in-
variably, in speaking of Zeus, to epithets and formulas which
seem to go back to those remote times when the pattern of
power was the O'L'KOLO hivat? Why has he not come to use the
convenient and very stately formulas that we find in the few
lines remaining from the Cycle (Thebais fr. 3 [Kinkel]: EVKrO Atl
f3aoLXAL Kat 'acXXoLs WavacLrTOcL Cypria fr. 6 [Kinkel]: Zvt'L OECv
O3aoXAr), in the Hymn to Demeter (358: o'v8' a7rl'-Lfo-eAL0' f3autXrqos
27 Probably the clearest instances are the formulas 'os rE OeooLt KaL a6pcpnroCULo
avao-oe (B 669 = v 112); 8s 7raoc Ovp-toZac KaL &aa'ar-ocacv avauoet (M 242); os
7rao-v avaao-oe (c 552; v 25). It is a curious circumstance that these formulas
should be used of Zeus, but none which contain 3aatLXEvEtv or /3aa)EVLS.
28 All the rivers and all the nymphs are present, yet they can all be seated
in the porticos of Zeus's palace. Is it because the poet wishes to introduce the
melodious formulas of lines 10-13? Who can say whether the picture in his
mind is a gathering of the subjects of a king, or the retainers and dependents
of a patriarchal household? He is mainly interested in sounding a brilliant
prelude to the battle that is to come, and not at all, consciously, in portraying
political or social institutions; insistence upon a precise and positive interpre-
tation would be most precarious.

This content downloaded from

132.248.9.41 on Thu, 06 Aug 2020 18:16:51 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Vol. lxvi] Zeus the Father in Homer 15

ke,r/As), and in the Hesiodic poems (

7rarEpa ov* 8 6' oivpavc-o EIJ3ao-Aevec 886: ZEvs be OcEv f3aoXEV'S
923: 6ec2v f3ao-ArX Kat 'avpcov Works 668: i) Zevs aoav4rcov 3aToALvs) ?
Why does he not refer to Zeus even as GECv or1iuavropa -rarrcov
(Hymn to Hermes 367; cf. Aspis 56; Catalogi fr. 22 [Kinkel])?
We shall probably never understand fully the reasons for this
remarkable contrast, yet we cannot avoid seeing that the
contrast is there and distrusting theories which ignore it. It
may well be of fundamental import in the attempt to assign
to Homer his place in the constellations of history. Here
again we confront the sharp break between the Homeric
poems and other early literature to which I have invited
attention in another connection.29 Anyone who doubts its
reality need only turn from the Iliad and Odyssey to the
Theogony and read the passages which deal with the royal
dignity of Cronus (f3aotXAlba nTlv) and with Zeus's accession
to the throne.
On the whole, the epithets and formulas used of Zeus in
Homer create an impression of great antiquity. The com-
parative frequency of one or another epithet should not be
too much stressed, since this is mainly determined by the case
in which the proper name appears, yet a conspectus of all the
references to Zeus will indicate in a general way the aspects
under which his godhead was conceived.30 In fully one-third
of the instances he is called wrarp. Expressions of his attri-
butes as a weather-god, which are likely a priori to be the
most ancient of all, are of very frequent occurrence. His

29 "Classes and Masses," 31lf, 314.

30 For the reasons stated in the text, I have not thought it useful to attempt
a precise enumeration. Leaving out of account passages in which the name
ZEus stands alone, I have taken note of somewhat more than three hundred
references; of these well over one hundred speak of Zeus as the "Father." The
proportion runs much higher in the Iliad than in the Odyssey, very largely
because Zeus constantly takes part in the action of the former poem; a careful
study of the formulas and their contexts would be most instructive; on the
dangers of superficial generalization from statistical data, see J. A. Scott, "Zeus
in the Iliad and in the Odyssey. A Chorizontic Argument," Class. Jour. xii
(1916-1917) 478f.

This content downloaded from

132.248.9.41 on Thu, 06 Aug 2020 18:16:51 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 16 George Miller Calhoun [1935

other appellations, with few exceptions, may be referred to

qualities or functions implicit in one or the other of these
two roles, and the most striking allusions to his power and
glory are often merely the superlatives of adjectives which
express rather elementary notions of just these qualities or
functions.3' The ideas involved are uniformly of the sort
that might be expected to have their origin in a very primitive
way of life; here again the stately epic diction invests the stark
simplicity of the real world with a glamorous radiance which
may at times dazzle the historical eye.32
Certain of the names under which Zeus was worshipped are
suggestive of functions identical with those of the father and
master of the household. We find in Homer Zeus Herkeios
(x 334-336), at whose altar in the courtyard Laertes, and
after him Odysseus, offered frequent sacrifice (cf. A 772-775),
and also Zeus Xenios (N 624f; L 270f) and Zeus Hiketesios
(v 213f), who attends upon guests and suppliants and punishes
violations of hospitality. We first hear of Zeus Ktesios in
Aeschylus (Suppl. 445), but the title is evidently very ancient
and it suggests the acquisition and management of property
by the head of the family. Although Zeus Horkios was asso-
ciated with chthonian rites and ideas in the classical period,
the functions of Zeus as guardian of oaths were no doubt
originally connected with those of the O'LKOLO avat, the only
member of a family whose oath could bind the group as a
whole.33 The worship of Zeus under the title Patroos is also
suggestive. It is fairly clear that Zeus acquired many of his
fundamental attributes during the remote ages in which the
salient aspect of social organization and its efficient unit was

31 E.g. 67raros is merely the superlative of the first element in v;/3pEAq4rfs, and
i7raTE Kpe6OVTcV may have been coined at a time when KpeWlv implied no greater
power than that of the otKOto a5vat. Cf. supra n. 21.
32 Cf. "Classes and Masses," 314, n. 29.
33 This eminently practical consideration, as well as the greater composure
and wisdom of the elderly man, prompted the demand of Menelaus in r 105-
110 that Priam take the oath in person. When Hector in X 119 thinks of a

'yepovoLOv opKoV as peculiarly binding upon the Trojans, it is because the -yepOVrES
are the heads of the kinship groups which compose the state.

This content downloaded from

132.248.9.41 on Thu, 06 Aug 2020 18:16:51 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Vol. lxvi] Zeus the Father in Homer 17

the family. This association of the heavenly Father with his

mortal counterpart is perhaps one of the causes of the tenacity
with which the poet clung to the time-honored epithets and
formulas in preference to those which exhibit Zeus as King.
When the evidence is weighed, the Homeric picture of Zeus
and of Olympian society seems to go back, not to a Great
King of Mycenae and his court, as Nilsson believes, but rather
to the primitive patriarchal regime. If the poet's portrayal
of human polity is based upon the 7rarptKaL f3acALe-at, as I
have elsewhere ventured to suggest,34 it is entirely reasonable
to expect that his picture of Olympian society should preserve
the memory of institutions even more venerable.
34 "Classes and Masses," 314.

This content downloaded from

132.248.9.41 on Thu, 06 Aug 2020 18:16:51 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms