Parmenides and Theogony - Philosophy and Mythology

Theogony. A Homeric poem from around 700 BCE describing the origin of all things through a genealogy of the gods. Parmenides. A writer exploring ways of truth through writing in 500 BCE Elea. Despite the works of both existing under the umbrella of Ancient Greek texts, Theogony is widely considered a mythological text while the writing of Parmenides is understood as philosophical. But where does this distinction arise from? The differing emphasis placed on genealogies of power, the specificity of the content focused on, and the form of the writings themselves present a basis with which to parse the contrasting elements of Theogony and Parmenides’ writing that ultimately provides a framework with which to differentiate mythology and philosophy. The ultimate stylistic distinction is the room for interpretation of the content of the literature shown in philosophy as opposed to mythology.

A first difference between mythology and philosophy as illustrated by Theogony and Parmenides is the amount of emphasis placed on the concept of claimable lineages. In Hesiod’s Theogony, the emphasis upon this stems from a proving of the credibility of human leaders through creating traditions of power. Particularly in the section dedicated to Heroes, there is a lot of crossover between the genealogies of human and god.

And Harmonia, daughter of golden Aphrodite,

Bore to Kadmos Ino and Semele

And fair-cheeked Agaue and Autonoe,

Whom deep-haired Aristaios wed,

And Polydoros in Thebes crowned with towers…

And Dawn bore to Tithonos bronze-helmeted Memnon,

The Ethiopian king, and the Lord Emathion.

And for Kephalos she produced a splendid son,

Powerful Phaethon, a man in the gods’ image (Hesiod l.76-995)

In this excerpt, the way that many Heroes in Greece’s families developed over time is shown. Many Heroes derived their authorities to power and often rulership through the Gods and sometimes through being blood-related to them. For instance, Kadmos was a Hero and founder of Boeotian Thebes whose family became intermingled with the blood of the goddess Harmonia. His children had this god-blood in them and became the next rulers of Thebes. This was similarly the case with Lord Emathion, king of Ethiopia, and many other characters derived from historical figures also mentioned. The idea of characters being divinely related has historically been a way of justifying leadership. Like in the much-interacted-with Ancient Egypt where the Pharaoh was considered a god, much was the case with kings and leaders in Hesiod’s Theogony. This excess of focus upon bringing the genealogy of gods into the world of men is something heavily cemented in Theogony as a means of validating structures of power.

However, quite the opposite is the case in Parmenides’ writings. Fundamentally, Parmenides’ writings bring into question the credibility of different structures of power. He provides a system by which structures can be seen as related to the way that humans view the world and that there is a multiplicity of these rather than a singular authoritative one.

19. (B19) In this way, according to opinion (doxa), these things have

grown and now are

and afterwards after growing up will come to an end.

And upon them humans have established a name to mark each

one.

                (Simplicius, Commentary on Aristotle’s On the Heavens 558.9-11)

Doxa is used by Parmenides as a device to critique and break down cosmologies that are flawed. Doxa is also based on individual opinion. In saying that things have grown and now are; and after growing up will come to an end, Parmenides communicates the way that these opinions shape critiques and paths of action that influence reality, and the way that each of these corresponds to a name- each individual human’s name. Parmenides’ structures of power are not centralized and do not seek to create an authoritative cosmology/genealogy out of any one of these views.

A second difference between mythology and philosophy as illustrated by Theogony and Parmenides is the specificity of the writing and content in each. In Theogony, there is such a level of detail provided that considers every element of how things are as owed to forms dictated to gods and their families that makes it authoritative in a way that people adopt without criticizing. There is no united line of reasoning as to why things have come to be as they are outside of pure narrative.

That’s just how Zeus, the high lord of thunder,

Made women as a curse for mortal men,

Evil conspirators. And he added another evil

To offset good. Whoever escapes marriage

And women’s harm, comes to deadly old age

Without any son to support him. He has no lack

While he lives, but when he dies distant relatives

Divide up his estate. Then again, whoever marries

As fated, and gets a good wife, compatible,

Has a life that is balanced between evil and good,

A constant struggle. But if he marries the abusive kind,

Pain in spirit and mind, incurable evil (Hesiod l.604-616)

The quote is from a section of Theogony discussing Pandora, who opened the box only as a side effect of Zeus practically setting her up to do so. In this quote, Zeus is illustrated as having simply created a curse for mortal men through Pandora without much reasoning behind it. The text itself even uses the phrase, “That’s just how” and throws a series of details at the reader that actively describe the way that intermarital conflicts occur as if it were planned out precisely that way by Zeus. There is no room to criticize this series of rapid-fire ideas presented through the narrative device of “Zeus just did”.

Unlike this, Parmenides’ writing is extremely vague and a logical puzzle to play out. In fact, the impreciseness of the language encourages the reader to come up with their own perception/interpretation of the text in a way that suits the way they might employ the information.

16. (B16) As on each occasion there is a mixture of the much-

wandering limbs,

So is mind present to humans; for the same thing

Is what the nature of the limbs think in men,

both in all and in each; for the more is thought.

(Theophrastus, On the Senses 3; tpc)

From this quote, an array of different interpretations could be formed. Two will be provided to prove this point. The quote above could be, on one hand, seen as describing a literal situation: the limbs wander, they are active. In the way that they engage in action, the brain also does. Both could be seen as moving, as being inter-involved because thinking is involved in moving the limbs and the moving of the limbs is involved in moving the brain. Thought is an act of both perception and action. How would one perceive or act without the limbs? On the other hand, this quote could be interpreted quite differently. Consider this: the limbs physically mix and wander. The mind is always there in humans. The mind itself literally wanders physically in the limbs and body. The brain is the nature of the limbs. The wording itself owes itself to this variety of interpretation through its inherent vagueness and use of expression.

A third difference between mythology and philosophy as illustrated by Theogony and Parmenides is the form of each of the writings. While both describe the way things are and why through narrative, Theogony is structured as more of a cosmology whereas Parmenides’ writings are a critique of preexisting notions.

In the end, the different levels of emphasis on lineage, the specificity of the content, and the form of the writings shown between Theogony and Parmenides’ writings stands as a framework with which we can distinguish the difference between mythology and philosophy from some of the earlier recorded points in their lineages. While this is interesting in its implications for studying the development of these genres in the past, this difference raises questions further down the line for us, even in the modern day.

Bibliography

• Hesiod. Works and Days; Theogony. Translated by Stanley Lombardo, Hackett Publishing Company, Inc., 1993.

• Curd, Patricia, and Richard D. McKirahan, translators. A Presocratics Reader : Selected Fragments and Testimonia. Edited by Patricia Curd, 2nd ed., Hackett Publishing Company, Inc., 2011.