ODYSSEUS SCAR

Erich Auerbach, Mimesis: The Representation of Reality in Western Literature, trans. Willard R. Trask. Princeton,
1953, repr. 1974, chapter one.
Readers o the Odyssey !ill re"e"ber the !ell#prepared and touchin$ scene in book 19, !hen %d&sseus has at last
co"e ho"e, the scene in !hich the old housekeeper Eur&clea, !ho had been his nurse, reco$ni'es hi" b& a scar on
his thi$h. The stran$er has !on Penelope(s $ood !ill) at his re*uest she tells the housekeeper to !ash his eet, !hich,
in all old stories, is the irst dut& o hospitalit& to!ard a tired tra+eler. Eur&clea busies hersel etchin$ !ater and
"i,in$ cold !ith hot, "ean!hile speakin$ sadl& o her absent "aster, !ho is probabl& o the sa"e a$e as the $uest,
and !ho perhaps, like the $uest, is e+en no! !anderin$ so"e!here, a stran$er) and she re"arks ho! astonishin$l&
like hi" the $uest looks. -ean!hile %d&sseus, re"e"berin$ his scar, "o+es back out o the li$ht) he kno!s that,
despite his eorts to hide his identit&, Eur&clea !ill no! reco$ni'e hi", but he !ants at least to keep Penelope in
i$norance. .o sooner has the old !o"an touched the scar than, in her /o&ous surprise, she lets %d&sseus( oot drop
into the basin) the !ater spills o+er, she is about to cr& out her /o&) %d&sseus restrains her !ith !hispered threats and
endear"ents) she reco+ers hersel and conceals her e"otion. Penelope, !hose attention Athena(s oresi$ht had
di+erted ro" the incident, has obser+ed nothin$.
All this is scrupulousl& e,te"ali'ed and narrated in leisurel& ashion. The t!o !o"en e,press their eelin$s in
copious direct discourse. 0eelin$s thou$h the& are, !ith onl& a sli$ht ad"i,ture o the "ost $eneral considerations
upon hu"an destin&, the s&ntactical connection bet!een part and part is perectl& clear, no contour is blurred. There
is also roo" and ti"e or orderl&, perectl& !ell#articulated, unior"l& illu"inated descriptions o i"ple"ents,
"inistrations, and $estures) e+en in the dra"atic "o"ent o reco$nition, 1o"er does not o"it to tell the reader that it
is !ith his ri$ht hand that %d&sseus takes the old !o"an b& the throat to keep her ro" speakin$, at the sa"e ti"e
that he dra!s her closer to hi" !ith his let. 2learl& outlined, bri$htl& and unior"l& illu"inated, "en and thin$s
stand out in a real" !here e+er&thin$ is +isible) and not less clear#!holl& e,pressed, orderl& e+en in their ardor##are
the eelin$s and thou$hts o the persons in+ol+ed.
3n "& account o the incident 3 ha+e so ar passed o+er a !hole series o +erses !hich interrupt it in the "iddle. There
are "ore than se+ent& o these +erses4!hile to the incident itsel so"e ort& are de+oted beore the interruption and
so"e ort& ater it. The interruption, !hich co"es /ust at the point !hen the housekeeper reco$ni'es the scar4that is,
at the "o"ent o crisis4describes the ori$in o the scar, a huntin$ accident !hich occurred in %d&sseus( bo&hood, at
a boar hunt, durin$ the ti"e o his +isit to his $randather Autol&cus. This irst aords an opportunit& to inor" the
reader about Autol&cus, his house, the precise de$ree o the kinship, his character, and, no less e,hausti+el& than
touchin$l&, his beha+ior ater the birth o his $randson) then ollo!s the +isit o %d&sseus, no! $ro!n to be a &outh)
the e,chan$e o $reetin$s, the ban*uet !ith !hich he is !elco"ed, sleep and !akin$, the earl& start or the hunt, the
trackin$ o the beast, the stru$$le, %d&sseus( bein$ !ounded b& the boar(s tusk, his reco+er&, his return to 3thaca, his
parents( an,ious *uestions4all is narrated, a$ain !ith such a co"plete e,ternali'ation o all the ele"ents o the stor&
and o their interconnections as to lea+e nothin$ in obscurit&. .ot until then does the narrator return to Penelope(s
cha"ber, not until then, the di$ression ha+in$ run its course, does Eur&clea, !ho had reco$ni'ed the scar beore the
di$ression be$an, let %d&sseus( oot all back into the basin.
The irst thou$ht o a "odern reader4that this is a de+ice to increase suspense4is, i not !holl& !ron$, at least not
the essential e,planation o this 1o"eric procedure. 0or the ele"ent o suspense is +er& sli$ht in the 1o"eric poe"s)
nothin$ in their entire st&le is calculated to keep the reader or hearer breathless. The di$ressions are not "eant to keep
the reader in suspense, but rather to rela, the tension. And this re*uentl& occurs, as in the passa$e beore us. The
broadl& narrated, char"in$, and subtl& ashioned stor& o the hunt, !ith all its ele$ance and sel#suicienc&, its
!ealth o id&llic pictures, seeks to !in the reader o+er !holl& to itsel as lon$ as he is hearin$ it, to "ake hi" or$et
!hat had /ust taken place durin$ the oot#!ashin$. 5ut an episode that !ill increase suspense b& retardin$ the action
"ust be so constructed that it !ill not ill the present entirel&, !ill not put the crisis, !hose resolution is bein$
a!aited, entirel& out o the reader(s "ind, and thereb& destro& the "ood o suspense) the crisis and the suspense "ust
continue, "ust re"ain +ibrant in the back$round. 5ut 1o"er4and to this !e shall ha+e to return later4kno!s no
back$round. What he narrates is or the ti"e bein$ the onl& present, and ills both the sta$e and the reader(s "ind
co"pletel&. 6o it is !ith the passa$e beore us. When the &oun$ Eur&clea 7++. 4oi.8 sets the inant %d&sseus on his
$randather Autol&cus( lap ater the ban*uet, the a$ed Eur&clea, !ho a e! lines earlier had touched the !anderer(s
oot, has entirel& +anished ro" the sta$e and ro" the reader(s "ind.
9oethe and 6chiller, !ho, thou$h not reerrin$ to this particular episode, e,chan$ed letters in April 1797 on the
sub/ect o :the retardin$ ele"ent; in the 1o"eric poe"s in $eneral, put it in direct opposition to the ele"ent o
suspense4the latter !ord is not used, but is clearl& i"plied !hen the :retardin$; procedure is opposed, as so"ethin$
proper to epic, to tra$ic procedure 7letters o April 19, <1, and <<8. The :retardin$ ele"ent,; the :$oin$ back and
orth; b& "eans o episodes, see"s to "e, too, in the 1o"eric poe"s, to be opposed to an& tensional and suspensi+e
stri+in$ to!ard a $oal, and doubtless 6chiller is ri$ht in re$ard to 1o"er !hen he sa&s that !hat he $i+es us is
:si"pl& the *uiet e,istence and operation o thin$s in accordance !ith their natures;) 1o"er(s $oal is :alread&
present in e+er& point o his pro$ress; 5ut both 6chiller and 9oethe raise 1o"er(s procedure to the le+el o a la! or
epic poetr& in $eneral, and 6chiller(s !ords *uoted abo+e are "eant to be uni+ersall& bindin$ upon the epic poet, in
contradistinction ro" the tra$ic. =et in both "odern arid ancient ti"es, there are i"portant epic !orks !hich are
co"posed throu$hout !ith no :retardin$ ele"ent; in this sense but, on the contrar&, !ith suspense throu$hout, and
!hich perpetuall& :rob us o our e"otional reedo";4!hich po!er 6chiller !ill $rant onl& to the tra$ic poet. And
besides it see"s to "e unde"onstrable and i"probable that this procedure o 1o"eric poetr& !as directed b&
aesthetic considerations or e+en b& an aesthetic eelin$ o the sort postulated b& 9oethe and 6chiller. The eect, to be
sure, is precisel& that !hich the& describe, and is, urther"ore, the actual source o the conception o epic !hich the&
the"sel+es hold, and !ith the" all !riters decisi+el& inluenced b& classical anti*uit&. 5ut the true cause o the
i"pression o :retardation; appears to "e to lie else!here4na"el&, in the need o the 1o"eric st&le to lea+e nothin$
!hich it "entions hal in darkness and une,ternali'ed.
The e,cursus upon the ori$in o %d&sseus( scar is not basicall& dierent ro" the "an& passa$es in !hich a ne!l&
introduced character, or e+en a ne!l& appearin$ ob/ect or i"ple"ent, thou$h it be in the thick o a battle, is described
as to its nature and ori$in) or in !hich, upon the appearance o a $od, !e are told !here he last !as, !hat he !as
doin$ there, and b& !hat road he reached the scene) indeed, e+en the 1o"eric epithets see" to "e in the inal
anal&sis to be traceable to the sa"e need or an e,ternali'ation o pheno"ena in ter"s perceptible to the senses. 1ere
is the scar, !hich co"es up in the course o the narrati+e) and 1o"er(s eelin$ si"pl& !ill not per"it hi" to see it
appear out o the darkness o an unillu"inated past) it "ust be set in ull li$ht, and !ith it a portion o the hero(s
bo&hood4 /ust as, in the 3liad, !hen the irst ship is alread& burnin$ and the -&r"idons inall& ar" that the& "a&
hasten to help, there is still ti"e not onl& or the !onderul si"ile o the !ol, not onl& or the order o the -&r"idon
host, but also or a detailed account o the ancestr& o se+eral subordinate leaders 71>, ++. 1558. To be sure, the
aesthetic eect thus produced !as soon noticed and thereater consciousl& sou$ht) but the "ore ori$inal cause "ust
ha+e lain in the basic i"#pulse o the 1o"eric st&le? to represent pheno"ena in a ull& e,ternali'ed or", +isible and
palpable in all their parts, and co"pletel& i,ed in their spatial and te"poral relations. .or do ps&cholo$ical processes
recei+e an& other treat"ent? here too nothin$ "ust re"ain hidden and une,pressed. With the ut"ost ullness, !ith an
orderliness !hich e+en passion does not disturb, 1o"er(s persona$es +ent their in"ost hearts in speech) !hat the& do
not sa& to others, the& speak in their o!n "inds, so that the reader is inor"ed o it. -uch that is terrible takes place
in the 1o"eric poe"s, but it seldo" takes place !ordlessl&? Pol&phe"us talks to %d&sseus) %d&sseus talks to the
suitors !hen he be$ins to kill the") 1ector and Achilles talk at len$th, beore battle and ater) and no speech is so
illed !ith an$er or scorn that the particles !hich e,press lo$ical and $ra""atical connections are lackin$ or out o
place.
This last obser+ation is true, o course, not onl& o speeches but o the presentation in $eneral. The separate ele"ents
o a pheno"enon are "ost clearl& placed in relation to one another) a lar$e nu"ber o con/unctions, ad+erbs,
particles, and other s&ntactical tools, all clearl& circu"scribed and delicatel& dierentiated in "eanin$, deli"it
persons, thin$s, and portions o incidents in respect to one another, and at the sa"e ti"e brin$ the" to$ether in a
continuous and e+er le,ible connection) like the separate pheno"ena the"sel+es, their relationships4their te"poral,
local, causal, inal, consecuti+e, co"parati+e, concessi+e, antithetical, and conditional li"itations4are brou$ht to
li$ht in perect ullness) so that a continuous rh&th"ic procession o pheno"ena passes b&, and ne+er is there a or"
let ra$"entar& or hal#illu"inated, ne+er a lacuna, ne+er a $ap, ne+er a $li"pse o unplu"bed depths.
And this procession o pheno"ena takes place in the ore$round4 that is, in a local and te"poral present !hich is
absolute. %ne "i$ht think that the "an& interpolations, the re*uent "o+in$ back and orth, !ould create a sort o
perspecti+e in ti"e and place) but the 1o"eric st&le ne+er $i+es an& such i"pression. The !a& in !hich an&
i"pression o perspecti+e is a+oided can be clearl& obser+ed in the procedure or introducin$ episodes, a s&ntactical
construction !ith !hich e+er& reader o 1o"er is a"iliar) it is used in the passa$e !e are considerin$, but can also
be ound in cases !hen the episodes are "uch shorter. To the !ord scar 7+. 3938 there is irst attached a relati+e clause
7:!hich once lon$ a$o a boar . . .@8, !hich enlar$es into a +olu"inous s&ntactical parenthesis) into this an
independent sentence une,pectedl& intrudes 7+. 39>? :A $od hi"sel $a+e hi" . . .:8, !hich *uietl& disentan$les itsel
ro" s&ntactical subordination, until, !ith +erse 399, an e*uall& ree s&ntactical treat"ent o the ne! content be$ins a
ne! present !hich continues unchallen$ed until, !ith +erse 4>7 7:The old !o"an no! touched it...;8, the scene
!hich had been broken o is resu"ed. To be sure, in the case o such lon$ episodes as the one !e are considerin$, a
purel& s&ntactical connection !ith the principal the"e !ould hardl& ha+e been possible) but a connection !ith it
throu$h perspecti+e !ould ha+e been all the easier had the content been arran$ed !ith that end in +ie!) i, that is, the
entire stor& o the scar had been presented as a recollection !hich a!akens in %d&sseus( "ind at this particular
"o"ent. 3t !ould ha+e been perectl& eas& to do) the stor& o the scar had onl& to be inserted t!o +erses earlier, at the
irst "ention o the !ord scar, !here the "otis :%d&sseus; and :recollection; !ere alread& at hand. 5ut an& such
sub/ecti+istic#perspecti+istic procedure, creatin$ a ore$round and back$round, resultin$ in the present l&in$ open to
the depths o the past, is entirel& orei$n to the 1o"eric st&le) the 1o"eric st&le kno!s onl& a ore$round, onl& a
unior"l& illu"inated, unior"l& ob/ecti+e present. And so the e,cursus does not be$in until t!o lines later, !hen
Eur&clea has disco+ered the scar4the possibilit& or a perspecti+istic connection no lon$er e,ists, and the stor& o
the !ound beco"es an independent and e,clusi+e present.
The $enius o the 1o"eric st&le beco"es e+en "ore apparent !hen it is co"pared !ith an e*uall& ancient and
e*uall& epic st&le ro" a dierent !orld o or"s. 3 shall atte"pt this co"parison !ith the account o the sacriice o
3saac, a ho"o$eneous narrati+e produced b& the so#called Elohist. The Ain$ Ba"es +ersion translates the openin$ as
ollo!s 79enesis <<? 18? :And it ca"e to pass ater these thin$s, that 9od did te"pt Abraha", and said to hi",
Abraha"C and he said, 5ehold, here 3 a".; E+en this openin$ startles us !hen !e co"e to it ro" 1o"er. Where are
the t!o speakersD We are not told. The reader, ho!e+er, kno!s that the& are not nor"all& to be ound to$ether in one
place on earth, that one o the", 9od, in order to speak to Abraha", "ust co"e ro" so"e!here, "ust enter the
earthl& real" ro" so"e unkno!n hei$hts or depths. Whence does he co"e, !hence does he call to Abraha"D We
are not told. 1e does not co"e, like Eeus or Poseidon, ro" the Aethiopians,
!here he has been en/o&in$ a sacriicial east. .or are !e told an&thin$ o his reasons or te"ptin$ Abraha" so
terribl&. 1e has not, like Eeus, discussed the" in set speeches !ith other $ods $athered in council) nor ha+e the
deliberations in his o!n heart been presented to us) une,pected and "&sterious, he enters the scene ro" so"e
unkno!n hei$ht or depth and calls? Abraha"C 3t !ill at once be said that this is to be e,plained b& the particular
concept o 9od !hich the Be!s held and !hich !as !holl& dierent ro" that o the 9reeks. True enou$h4but this
constitutes no ob/ection. 0or ho! is the Be!ish concept o 9od to be e,plainedD E+en their earlier 9od o the desert
!as not i,ed in or" and content, and !as alone) his lack o or", his lack o local habitation, his sin$leness, !as in
the end not onl& "aintained but de+eloped e+en urther in co"petition !ith the co"parati+el& ar "ore "aniest $ods
o the surroundin$ .ear Eastern !orld. The concept o 9od held b& the Be!s is less a cause than a s&"pto" o their
"anner o co"prehendin$ and representin$ thin$s.
This beco"es still clearer i !e no! turn to the other person in the dialo$ue, to Abraha". Where is heD We do not
kno!. 1e sa&s, indeed? 1ere 3 a"4but the 1ebre! !ord "eans onl& so"ethin$ like :behold "e,; and in an& case is
not "eant to indicate the actual place !here Abraha" is, but a "oral position in respect to 9od, !ho has called to
hi"41ere a" 3 a!aitin$ th& co""and. Where he is actuall&, !hether in 5eersheba or else!here, !hether indoors or
in the open air, is not stated) it does not interest the narrator, the reader is not inor"ed) and !hat Abraha" !as doin$
!hen 9od called to hi" is let in the sa"e obscurit&. To reali'e the dierence, consider 1er"es( +isit to 2al&pso, or
e,a"ple, !here co""and, /ourne&, arri+al and reception o the +isitor, situation and occupation o the person +isited,
are set orth in "an& +erses) and e+en on occasions !hen $ods appear suddenl& and briel&, !hether to help one o
their a+orites or to decei+e or destro& so"e "ortal !ho" the& hate, their bodil& or"s, and usuall& the "anner o
their co"in$ and $oin$, are $i+en in detail. 1ere, ho!e+er, 9od appears !ithout bodil& or" 7&et he :appears;8,
co"in$ ro" so"e unspeciied place4!e onl& hear his +oice, and that utters nothin$ but a na"e, a na"e !ithout an
ad/ecti+e, !ithout a descripti+e epithet or the person spoken to, such as is the rule in e+er& 1o"eric address) and o
Abraha" too nothin$ is "ade perceptible e,cept the !ords in !hich he ans!ers 9od? Hinne-ni, 5ehold "e here4
!ith !hich, to be sure, a "ost touchin$ $esture e,pressi+e o obedience and readiness is su$$ested, but it is let to the
reader to +isuali'e it. -oreo+er the t!o speakers are not on the sa"e le+el? i !e concei+e o Abraha" in the
ore$round, !here it "i$ht be possible to picture hi" as prostrate or kneelin$ or bo!in$ !ith outspread ar"s or
$a'in$ up!ard, 9od is not there too? Abraha"(s !ords and $estures are directed to!ard the depths o the picture or
up!ard, but in an& case the undeter"ined, dark place ro" !hich the +oice co"es to hi" is not in the ore$round.
Ater this openin$, 9od $i+es his co""and, and the stor& itsel be$ins? e+er&one kno!s it) it unrolls !ith no episodes
in a e! independent sentences !hose s&ntactical connection is o the "ost rudi"entar& sort. 3n this at"osphere it is
unthinkable that an i"ple"ent, a landscape throu$h !hich the tra+elers passed, the ser+in$"en, or the ass, should be
described, that their ori$in or descent or "aterial or appearance or useulness should be set orth in ter"s o praise)
the& do not e+en ad"it an ad/ecti+e? the& are ser+in$#"en, ass, !ood, and knie, and nothin$ else, !ithout an epithet)
the& are there to ser+e the end !hich 9od has co""anded) !hat in other respects the& !ere, are, or !ill be, re"ains
in darkness. A /ourne& is "ade, because 9od has desi$nated the place !here the sacriice is to be peror"ed) but !e
are told nothin$ about the /ourne& e,cept that it took three da&s, and e+en that !e are told in a "&sterious !a&?
Abraha" and his ollo!ers rose :earl& in the "ornin$; and :!ent unto; the place o !hich 9od had told hi") on the
third da& he lited up his e&es and sa! the place ro" aar. That $esture is the onl& $esture, is indeed the onl&
occurrence durin$ the !hole /ourne&, o !hich !e are told) and thou$h its "oti+ation lies in the act that the place is
ele+ated, its uni*ueness still hei$htens the i"pression that the /ourne& took place throu$h a +acuu") it is as i, !hile
he tra+eled on, Abraha" had looked neither to the ri$ht nor to the let, had suppressed an& si$n o lie in his ollo!ers
and hi"sel sa+e onl& their ootalls.
Thus the /ourne& is like a silent pro$ress throu$h the indeter"inate and the contin$ent, a holdin$ o the breath, a
process !hich has no present, !hich is inserted, like a blank duration, bet!een !hat has passed and !hat lies ahead,
and !hich &et is "easured? three da&sC Three such da&s positi+el& de"and the s&"bolic interpretation !hich the&
later recei+ed. The& be$an :earl& in the "ornin$.; 5ut at !hat ti"e on the third da& did Abraha" lit up his e&es and
see his $oalD The te,t sa&s nothin$ on the sub/ect. %b+iousl& not :late in the e+enin$,; or it see"s that there !as still
ti"e enou$h to cli"b the "ountain and "ake the sacriice. 6o :earl& in the "ornin$; is $i+en, not as an indication o
ti"e, but or the sake o its ethical si$niicance) it is intended to e,press the resolution, the pro"ptness, the punctual
obedience o the sorel& tried Abraha". 5itter to hi" is the earl& "ornin$ in !hich he saddles his ass, calls his
ser+in$#"en and his son 3saac, and sets out) but he obe&s, he !alks on until the third da&, then lits up his e&es and
sees the place. Whence he co"es, !e do not kno!, hut the $oal is clearl& stated? Beruel in the land o -oriah. FGhat
place this is "eant to indicate is not clear4;-oriah; especiall& "a& be a later correction o so"e other !ord. 5ut in
an& case the $oal !as $i+en, and in an& case it is a "atter o so"e sacred spot !hich !as to recei+e a particular
consecration b& bein$ connected !ith Abraha"Hs sacriice. Bust as little as :earl& in the "ornin$; ser+es as a te"poral
indication does :Beruel in the land o -oriah; ser+e as a $eo$raphical indication) and in both cases alike, the
co"ple"entar& indication is not $i+en, or !e kno! as little o the hour at !hich Abraha" lited up his e&es as !e do
o the place ro" !hich he set orth4Beruel is si$niicant not so "uch as the $oal o an earthl& /ourne&, in its
$eo$raphical relation to other places, as throu$h its special election, throu$h its relation to 9od, !ho desi$nated it as
the scene o the act, and thereore it "ust be na"ed.
3n the narrati+e itsel, a third chie character appears? 3saac. While 9od and Abraha", the ser+in$#"en, the ass, and
the i"ple"ents are si"pl& na"ed, !ithout "ention o an& *ualities or an& other sort o deinition, 3saac once
recei+es an appositi+e) 9od sa&s, :Take 3saac, thine onl& son, !ho" thou lo+est.; 5ut this is not a characteri'ation o
3saac as a person, apart ro" his relation to his ather and apart ro" the stor&) he "a& be handso"e or u$l&,
intelli$ent or stupid, tall or short, pleasant or unpleasant4!e are not told. %nl& !hat !e need to kno! about hi" as a
persona$e in the action, here and no!, is illu"inated, so that it "a& beco"e apparent ho! terrible Abraha"(s
te"ptation is, and that 9od is ull& a!are o it. 5& this e,a"ple o the contrar&, !e see the si$niicance o the
descripti+e ad/ecti+es and di$ressions o the 1o"eric poe"s) !ith their indications o the earlier and as it !ere
absolute e,istence o the persons described, the& pre+ent the reader ro" concentratin$ e,clusi+el& on a present
crisis) e+en !hen the "ost terrible thin$s are occurrin$, the& pre+ent the establish"ent o an o+er!hel"in$ suspense.
5ut here, in the stor& o Abraha"(s sacriice, the o+er!hel"in$ suspense is present) !hat 6chiller "akes the $oal o
the tra$ic poet4to rob us o our e"otional reedo", to turn our intellectual and spiritual po!ers 76chiller sa&s :our
acti+it&;8 in one direction, to concentrate the" there4is eected in this 5iblical narrati+e, !hich certainl& deser+es
the epithet epic.
We ind the sa"e contrast i !e co"pare the t!o uses o direct discourse. The persona$es speak in the 5ible stor&
too) but their speech does not ser+e, as does speech in 1o"er, to "aniest, to e,ternali'e thou$hts4on the contrar&, it
ser+es to indicate thou$hts !hich re"ain une,pressed. 9od $i+es his co""and in direct discourse, but he lea+es his
"oti+es and his purpose une,pressed) Abraha", recei+in$ the co""and, sa&s nothin$ and does !hat he has been told
to do. The con+ersation bet!een Abraha" and 3saac on the !a& to the place o sacriice is onl& an interruption o the
hea+& silence and "akes it all the "ore burdenso"e. The t!o o the", 3saac carr&in$ the !ood and Abraha" !ith
ire and a knie, :!ent to$ether.; 1esitantl&, 3saac +entures to ask about the ra", and Abraha" $i+es the !ell#kno!n
ans!er. Then the te,t repeats? :6o the& !ent both o the" to$ether.; E+er&thin$ re"ains une,pressed.
3t !ould be diicult, then, to i"a$ine st&les "ore contrasted than those o these t!o e*uall& ancient and e*uall& epic
te,ts. %n the one hand, e,ternali'ed, unior"l& illu"inated pheno"ena, at a deinite ti"e and in a deinite place,
connected to$ether !ithout lacunae in a perpetual ore$round) thou$hts and eelin$ co"pletel& e,pressed) e+ents
takin$ place in leisurel& ashion and !ith +er& little o suspense. %n the other hand, the e,ternali'ation o onl& so
"uch o the pheno"ena as is necessar& or the purpose o the narrati+e, all else let in obscurit&) the decisi+e points
o the narrati+e alone are e"phasi'ed, !hat lies bet!een is none,istent) ti"e and place are undeined and call or
interpretation) thou$hts and eelin$ re"ain une,pressed, are onl& su$$ested b& the silence and the ra$"entar&
speeches) the !hole, per"eated !ith the "ost unrelie+ed suspense and directed to!ard a sin$le $oal 7and to that
e,tent ar "ore o a unit&8, re"ains "&sterious and :rau$ht !ith back$round.;
3 !ill discuss this ter" in so"e detail, lest it be "isunderstood. 3 said abo+e that the 1o"eric st&le !as :o the
ore$round; because, despite "uch $oin$ back and orth, it &et causes !hat is "o"entaril& bein$ narrated to $i+e the
i"pression that it is the onl& present, pure and !ithout perspecti+e. A consideration o the Elohistic te,t teaches us
that our ter" is capable o a broader and deeper application. 3t sho!s that e+en the separate persona$es can be
represented as possessin$ :back$round;) 9od is al!a&s so represented in the 5ible, or he is not co"prehensible in
his presence, as is Eeus) it is al!a&s onl& :so"ethin$; o hi" that appears, he al!a&s e,tends into depths. 5ut e+en
the hu"an bein$s in the 5iblical stories ha+e $reater depths o ti"e, ate, and consciousness than do the hu"an
bein$s in 1o"er) althou$h the& are nearl& al!a&s cau$ht up in an e+ent en$a$in$ all their aculties, the& are not so
entirel& i""ersed in its present that the& do not re"ain continuall& conscious o !hat has happened to the" earlier
and else!here) their thou$hts and eelin$s ha+e "ore la&ers, are "ore entan$led. Abraha"(s actions are e,plained not
onl& b& !hat is happenin$ to hi" at the "o"ent, nor &et onl& b& his character 7as Achilles( actions b& his coura$e
and his pride, and %d&sseus( b& his +ersatilit& and oresi$htedness8, but b& his pre+ious histor&) he re"e"bers, he is
constantl& conscious o, !hat 9od has pro"ised hi" and !hat 9od has alread& acco"plished or hi"4his soul is
torn bet!een desperate rebellion and hopeul e,pectation) his silent obedience is "ultila&ered, has back$round. 6uch
a proble"atic ps&cholo$ical situation as this is i"possible or an& o the 1o"eric heroes, !hose destin& is clearl&
deined and !ho !ake e+er& "ornin$ as i it !ere the irst da& o their li+es? their e"otions, thou$h stron$, are
si"ple and ind e,pression instantl&.
1o! rau$ht !ith back$round, in co"parison, are characters like 6aul and Ia+idC 1o! entan$led and stratiied are
such hu"an relations as those bet!een Ia+id and Absalo", bet!een Ia+id and BoabC An& such :back$round; *ualit&
o the ps&cholo$ical situation as that !hich the stor& o Absalo"(s death and its se*uel 733 6a"uel 1J and 19, b& the
so#called Bah+ist8 rather su$$ests than e,presses, is unthinkable in 1o"er. 1ere !e are conronted not "erel& !ith
the ps&cholo$ical processes o characters !hose depth o back$round is +eritabl& ab&s"al, but !ith a purel&
$eo$raphical back$round too. 0or Ia+id is absent ro" the battleield) but the inluence o his !ill and his eelin$s
continues to operate, the& aect e+en Boab in his rebellion and disre$ard or the conse*uences o his actions) in the
"a$niicent scene !ith the t!o "essen$ers, both the ph&sical and ps&cholo$ical back$round is ull& "aniest, thou$h
the latter is ne+er e,pressed. With this, co"pare, or e,a"ple, ho! Achilles, !ho sends Patroclus irst to scout and
then into battle, loses al"ost all :presentness so lon$ as he is not ph&sicall& present. 5ut the "ost i"portant thin$ is
the :"ultila&eredness; o the indi+idual character) this is hardl& to be "et !ith in 1o"er, or at "ost in the or" o a
conscious hesitation bet!een t!o possible courses o action) other!ise, in 1o"er, the co"ple,it& o the
ps&cholo$ical lie is sho!n onl& in the succession and alternation o e"otions) !hereas the Be!ish !riters are able to
e,press the si"ultaneous e,istence o +arious la&ers o consciousness and the conlict bet!een the".
The 1o"eric poe"s, then, thou$h their intellectual, lin$uistic, and abo+e all s&ntactical culture appears to be so "uch
"ore hi$hl& de+eloped, are &et co"parati+el& si"ple in their picture o hu"an bein$s) and no less so in their relation
to the real lie !hich the& describe in $eneral. Ieli$ht in ph&sical e,istence is e+er&thin$ to the", and their hi$hest
ai" is to "ake that deli$ht perceptible to us. 5et!een battles and passions, ad+entures and perils, the& sho! us hunts,
ban*uets, palaces and shepherds( cots, athletic contests and !ashin$ da&s4in order that !e "a& see the heroes in
their ordinar& lie, and seein$ the" so, "a& take pleasure in their "anner o en/o&in$ their sa+or& present, a present
!hich sends stron$ roots do!n into social usa$es, landscape, and dail& lie. And thus the& be!itch us and in$ratiate
the"sel+es to us until !e li+e !ith the" in the realit& o their li+es) so lon$ as !e are readin$ or hearin$ the poe"s, it
does not "atter !hether !e kno! that all this is onl& le$end, :"ake#belie+e.; The ot#repeated reproach that 1o"er
is a liar takes nothin$ ro" his eecti+eness, he does not need to base his stor& on historical realit&, his realit& is
po!erul enou$h in itsel) it ensnares us, !ea+in$ its !eb around us, and that suices hi". And this :real; !orld into
!hich !e are lured, e,ists or itsel, contains nothin$ but itsel) the 1o"eric poe"s conceal nothin$, the& contain no
teachin$ and no secret second "eanin$. 1o"er can be anal&'ed, as !e ha+e essa&ed to do here, but he cannot be
interpreted. Kater alle$ori'in$ trends ha+e tried their arts o interpretation upon hi", but to no a+ail. 1e resists an&
such treat"ent) the interpretations are orced and orei$n, the& do not cr&stalli'e into a uniied doctrine. The $eneral
considerations !hich occasionall& occur 7in our episode, or e,a"ple, +. 3>L? that in "isortune "en a$e *uickl&8
re+eal a cal" acceptance o the basic acts o hu"an e,istence, but !ith no co"pulsion to brood o+er the", still less
an& passionate i"pulse either to rebel a$ainst the" or to e"brace the" in an ecstas& o sub"ission.
3t is all +er& dierent in the 5iblical stories. Their ai" is not to be!itch the senses, and i ne+ertheless the& produce
li+el& sensor& eects, it is onl& because the "oral, reli$ious, and ps&cholo$ical pheno"ena !hich are their sole
concern are "ade concrete in the sensible "atter o lie. 5ut their reli$ious intent in+ol+es an absolute clai" to
historical truth. The stor& o Abraha" and 3saac is not better established than the stor& o %d&sseus, Penelope, and
Eur&clea) both are le$endar&. 5ut the 5iblical narrator, the Elohist, had to belie+e in the ob/ecti+e truth o the stor& o
Abraha"(s sacriice4the e,istence o the sacred ordinances o lie rested upon the truth o this and si"ilar stories.
1e had to belie+e in it passionatel&) or else 7as "an& rationalistic interpreters belie+ed and perhaps still belie+e8 he
had to be a conscious liar4no har"less liar like 1o"er, !ho lied to $i+e pleasure, but a political liar !ith a deinite
end in +ie!, l&in$ in the interest o a clai" to absolute authorit&.
To "e, the rationalistic interpretation see"s ps&cholo$icall& absurd) but e+en i !e take it into consideration, the
relation o the Elohist to the truth o his stor& still re"ains a ar "ore passionate and deinite one than is 1o"er(s
relation. The 5iblical narrator !as obli$ed to !rite e,actl& !hat his belie in the truth o the tradition 7or, ro" the
rationalistic standpoint, his interest in the truth o it8 de"anded o hi"4in either case, his reedo" in creati+e or
representati+e i"a$ination !as se+erel& li"ited) his acti+it& !as perorce reduced to co"posin$ an eecti+e +ersion
o the pious tradition. What he produced, then, !as not pri"aril& oriented to!ard :realis"; 7i he succeeded in bein$
realistic, it !as "erel& a "eans, not an end8) it !as oriented to!ard truth. Woe to the "an !ho did not belie+e itC %ne
can perectl& !ell entertain historical doubts on the sub/ect o the Tro/an War or o %d&sseus( !anderin$s, and still,
!hen readin$ 1o"er, eel precisel& the eects he sou$ht to produce) but !ithout belie+in$ in Abraha"(s sacriice, it
is i"possible to put the narrati+e o it to the use or !hich it !as !ritten. 3ndeed, !e "ust $o e+en urther. The
5ible(s clai" to truth is not onl& ar "ore ur$ent than 1o"er(s, it is t&rannical4it e,cludes all other clai"s. The
!orld o the 6cripture stories is not satisied !ith clai"in$ to be a historicall& true realit&4it insists that it is the onl&
real !orld, is destined or autocrac&. All other scenes, issues, and ordinances ha+e no ri$ht to appear independentl& o
it, and it is pro"ised that all o the", the histor& o all "ankind, !ill be $i+en their due place !ithin its ra"e, !ill be
subordinated to it. The 6cripture stories do not, like 1o"er(s, court our a+or, the& do not latter us that the& "a&
please us and enchant us4the& seek to sub/ect us, and i !e reuse to be sub/ected !e are rebels.
Ket no one ob/ect that this $oes too ar, that not the stories, but the reli$ious doctrine, raises the clai" to absolute
authorit&) because the stories are not, like 1o"er(s, si"pl& narrated :realit&.; Ioctrine and pro"ise are incarnate in
the" and inseparable ro" the") or that +er& reason the& are rau$ht !ith :back$round; and "&sterious, containin$
a second, concealed "eanin$. 3n the stor& o 3saac, it is not onl& 9od(s inter+ention at the be$innin$ and the end, but
e+en the actual and ps&cholo$ical ele"ents !hich co"e bet!een, that are "&sterious, "erel& touched upon, rau$ht
!ith back$round) and thereore the& re*uire subtle in+esti$ation and interpretation, the& de"and the". 6ince so "uch
in the stor& is dark and inco"plete, and since the reader kno!s that 9od is a hidden 9od, his eort to interpret it
constantl& inds so"ethin$ ne! to eed upon. Ioctrine and the search or enli$hten"ent are ine,tricabl& connected
!ith the ph&sical side o the narrati+e4the latter bein$ "ore than si"ple :realit&;) indeed the& are in constant dan$er
o losin$ their o!n realit&, as +er& soon happened !hen interpretation reached such proportions that the real
+anished.
3 the te,t o the 5iblical narrati+e, then, is so $reatl& in need o interpretation on the basis o its o!n content, its
clai" to absolute authorit& orces it still urther in the sa"e direction. 0ar ro" seekin$, like 1o"er, "erel& to "ake
us or$et our o!n realit& or a e! hours, it seeks to o+erco"e our realit&? !e are to it our o!n lie into its !orld,
eel oursel+es to be ele"ents in its structure o uni+ersal histor&. This beco"es increasin$l& diicult the urther our
historical en+iron"ent is re"o+ed ro" that o the 5iblical books) and i these ne+ertheless "aintain their clai" to
absolute authorit&, it is ine+itable that the& the"sel+es be adapted throu$h interpretati+e transor"ation. This !as or
a lon$ ti"e co"parati+el& eas&) as late as the European -iddle A$es it !as possible to represent 5iblical e+ents as
ordinar& pheno"ena o conte"porar& lie, the "ethods o interpretation the"sel+es or"in$ the basis or such a
treat"ent. 5ut !hen, throu$h too $reat a chan$e in en+iron"ent and throu$h the a!akenin$ o a critical
consciousness, this beco"es i"possible, the 5iblical clai" to absolute authorit& is /eopardi'ed) the "ethod o
interpretation is scorned and re/ected, the 5iblical stories beco"e ancient le$ends, and the doctrine the& had
contained, no! disse+ered ro" the", beco"es a dise"bodied i"a$e.
As a result o this clai" to absolute authorit&, the "ethod o interpretation spread to traditions other than the Be!ish.
The 1o"eric poe"s present a deinite co"ple, o e+ents !hose boundaries in space and ti"e are clearl& deli"ited)
beore it, beside it, and ater it, other co"ple,es o e+ents, !hich do not depend upon it, can be concei+ed !ithout
conlict and !ithout diicult&. The %ld Testa"ent, on the other hand, presents uni+ersal histor&? it be$ins !ith the
be$innin$ o ti"e, !ith the creation o the !orld, and !ill end !ith the Kast Ia&s, the ulillin$ o the 2o+enant, !ith
!hich the !orld !ill co"e to an end. E+er&thin$ else that happens in the !orld can onl& be concei+ed as an ele"ent
in this se*uence) into it e+er&thin$ that is kno!n about the !orld, or at least e+er&thin$ that touches upon the histor&
o the Be!s, "ust be itted as an in$redient o the di+ine plan) and as this too beca"e possible onl& b& interpretin$ the
ne! "aterial as it poured in, the need or interpretation reaches out be&ond the ori$inal Be!ish#3sraelitish real" o
realit&4or e,a"ple to Ass&rian, 5ab&lonian, Persian, and Ro"an histor&) interpretation in a deter"ined direction
beco"es a $eneral "ethod o co"prehendin$ realit&) the ne! and stran$e !orld !hich no! co"es into +ie! and
!hich, in the or" in !hich it presents itsel, pro+es to be !holl& unutili'able !ithin the Be!ish reli$ious ra"e, "ust
be so interpreted that it can ind a place there. 5ut this process nearl& al!a&s also reacts upon the ra"e, !hich
re*uires enlar$in$ and "odi&in$. The "ost strikin$ piece o interpretation o this sort occurred in the irst centur& o
the 2hristian era, in conse*uence o Paul(s "ission to the 9entiles? Paul and the 2hurch 0athers reinterpreted the
entire Be!ish tradition as a succession o i$ures pro$nosticatin$ the appearance o 2hrist, and assi$ned the Ro"an
E"pire its proper place in the di+ine plan o sal+ation. Thus !hile, on the one hand, the realit& o the %ld Testa"ent
presents itsel as co"plete truth !ith a clai" to sole authorit&, on the other hand that +er& clai" orces it to a constant
interpretati+e chan$e in its o!n content) or "illennia it under$oes an incessant and acti+e de+elop"ent !ith the lie
o "an in Europe.
The clai" o the %ld Testa"ent stories to represent uni+ersal histor&, their insistent relation4a relation constantl&
redeined b& conlicts4to a sin$le and hidden 9od, !ho &et sho!s hi"sel and !ho $uides uni+ersal histor& b&
pro"ise and e,action, $i+es these stories an entirel& dierent perspecti+e ro" an& the 1o"eric poe"s can possess.
As a co"position, the %ld Testa"ent is inco"parabl& less uniied than the 1o"eric poe"s, it is "ore ob+iousl&
pieced to$ether4but the +arious co"ponents all belon$ to one concept o uni+ersal histor& and its interpretation. 3
certain ele"ents sur+i+ed !hich did not i""ediatel& it in, interpretation took care o the") and so the reader is at
e+er& "o"ent a!are o the uni+ersal reli$io#historical perspecti+e !hich $i+es the indi+idual stories their $eneral
"eanin$ and purpose. The $reater the separateness and hori'ontal disconnection o the stories and $roups o stories in
relation to one another, co"pared !ith the 3liad and the %d&sse&, the stron$er is their $eneral +ertical connection,
!hich holds the" all to$ether and !hich is entirel& lackin$ in 1o"er. Each o the $reat i$ures o the %ld Testa"ent,
ro" Ada" to the prophets, e"bodies a "o"ent o this +ertical connection. 9od chose and or"ed these "en to the
end o e"bod& in$ his essence and !ill4&et choice and or"ation do not coincide, or the latter proceeds $raduall&,
historicall&, durin$ the earthl& lie o hi" upon !ho" the choice has allen. 1o! the process is acco"plished, !hat
terrible trials such a or"ation inlicts, can be seen ro" our stor& o Abraha"(s sacriice. 1erein lies the reason !h&
the $reat i$ures o the %ld Testa"ent are so "uch "ore ull& de+eloped, so "uch "ore rau$ht !ith their o!n
bio$raphical past, so "uch "ore distinct as indi+iduals, than are the 1o"eric heroes. Achilles and %d&sseus are
splendidl& described in "an& !ell#ordered !ords, epithets clin$ to the", their e"otions are constantl& displa&ed in
their !ords and deeds4but the& ha+e no de+elop"ent, and their lie#histories are clearl& set orth once and or all. 6o
little are the 1o"eric heroes presented as de+elopin$ or ha+in$ de+eloped, that "ost o the"4.estor, A$a"e"non,
Achilles4appear to be o an a$e i,ed ro" the +er& irst. E+en %d&sseus, in !hose case the lon$ lapse o ti"e and
the "an& e+ents !hich occurred oer so "uch opportunit& or bio$raphical de+elop"ent, sho!s al"ost nothin$ o it.
%d&sseus on his return is e,actl& the sa"e as he !as !hen he let 3thaca t!o decades earlier. 5ut !hat a road, !hat a
ate, lie bet!een the Bacob !ho cheated his ather out o his blessin$ and the old "an !hose a+orite son has been
torn to pieces b& a !ild beastC4bet!een Ia+id the harp pla&er, persecuted b& his lord(s /ealous&, and the old kin$,
surrounded b& +iolent intri$ues, !ho" Abisha$ the 6hunna"ite !ar"ed in his bed, and he kne! her notC The old
"an, o !ho" !e kno! ho! he has beco"e !hat he is is "ore o an indi+idual than the &oun$ "an) or it is onl&
durin$ the course o an e+entul lie that "en are dierentiated into ull indi+idualit&) and it is this histor& o a
personalit& !hich the %ld Testa"ent presents to us as the or"ation under$one b& those !ho" 9od has chosen to be
e,a"ples. 0rau$ht !ith their de+elop"ent, so"eti"es e+en a$ed to the +er$e o dissolution, the& sho! a distinct
sta"p o indi+idualit& entirel& orei$n to the 1o"eric heroes. Ti"e can touch the latter onl& out!ardl&, and e+en that
chan$e is brou$ht to our obser+ation as little as possible) !hereas the stern hand o 9od is e+er upon .the %ld
Testa"ent i$ures) he has not onl& "ade the" once and or all and chosen the", but he continues to !ork upon the",
bends the" and kneads the", and, !ithout destro&in$ the" in essence, produces ro" the" or"s !hich their &outh
$a+e no $rounds or anticipatin$. The ob/ection that the bio$raphical ele"ent o the %ld Testa"ent oten sprin$s ro"
the co"bination o se+eral le$endar& persona$es does not appl&) or this co"bination is a part o the de+elop"ent o
the te,t. And ho! "uch !ider is the pendulu" s!in$ o their li+es than that o the 1o"eric heroesC 0or the& are
bearers o the di+ine !ill, and &et the& are allible, sub/ect to "isortune and hu"iliation4and in the "idst o
"isortune and in their hu"iliation their acts and !ords re+eal the transcendent "a/est& o 9od. There is hardl& one
o the" !ho does not, like Ada", under$o the deepest hu"iliation4and hardl& one !ho is not dee"ed !orth& o
9od(s personal inter+ention and personal inspiration. 1u"iliation and ele+ation $o ar deeper and ar hi$her than in
1o"er, and the& belon$ basicall& to$ether. The poor be$$ar %d&sseus is onl& "as*ueradin$, but Ada" is reall& cast
do!n, Bacob reall& a reu$ee, Boseph reall& in the pit and then a sla+e to be bou$ht and sold. 5ut their $reatness,
risin$ out o hu"iliation, is al"ost superhu"an and an i"a$e o 9od(s $reatness. The reader clearl& eels ho! the
e,tent o the pendulu"(s s!in$ is connected !ith the intensit& o the personal histor&4precisel& the "ost e,tre"e
circu"stances, in !hich !e are i""easurabl& orsaken and in despair, or i""easurabl& /o&ous and e,alted, $i+e us,
i !e sur+i+e the", a personal sta"p !hich is reco$ni'ed as the product o a rich e,istence, a rich de+elop"ent. And
+er& oten, indeed $enerall&, this ele"ent o de+elop"ent $i+es the %ld Testa"ent stories a historical character, e+en
!hen the sub/ect is purel& le$endar& and traditional.
1o"er re"ains !ithin the le$endar& !ith all his "aterial, !hereas the "aterial o the %ld Testa"ent co"es closer
and closer to histor& as the narrati+e proceeds) in the stories o Ia+id the historical report predo"inates. 1ere too,
"uch that is le$endar& still re"ains, as or e,a"ple the stor& o Ia+id and 9oliath) but "uch4and the "ost essential
4consists in thin$s !hich the narrators kne! ro" their o!n e,perience or ro" irsthand testi"on&. .o! the
dierence bet!een le$end and histor& is in "ost cases easil& percei+ed b& a reasonabl& e,perienced reader. 3t is a
diicult "atter, re*uirin$ careul historical and philolo$ical trainin$, to distin$uish the true ro" the s&nthetic or the
biased in a historical presentation) but it is eas& to separate the historical ro" the le$endar& in $eneral. Their
structure is dierent. E+en !here the le$endar& does not i""ediatel& betra& itsel b& ele"ents o the "iraculdus, b&
the repetition o !ell#kno!n standard "oti+es, t&pical patterns and the"es, throu$h ne$lect o clear details o ti"e
and place, and the like, it is $enerall& *uickl& reco$ni'able b& its co"position. 3t runs ar too s"oothl&. All cross#
currents, all riction, all that is casual, secondar& to the "ain e+ents and the"es, e+er&thin$ unresol+ed, truncated,
and uncertain, !hich conuses the clear pro$ress o the action and the si"ple orientation o the actors, has
disappeared. The historical e+ent !hich !e !itness, or learn ro" the testi"on& o those !ho !itnessed it, runs "uch
"ore +ariousl&, contradictoril&, and conusedl&) not until it has produced results in a deinite do"ain are !e able,
!ith their help, to classi& it to a certain e,tent) and ho! oten the order to !hich !e think !e ha+e attained beco"es
doubtul a$ain, ho! oten !e ask oursel+es i the data beore us ha+e not led us to a ar too si"ple classiication o
the ori$inal e+entsC Ke$end arran$es its "aterial in a si"ple and strai$htor!ard !a&) it detaches it ro" its
conte"porar& historical conte,t, so that the latter !ill not conuse it) it kno!s onl& clearl& outlined "en !ho act ro"
e! and si"ple "oti+es and the continuit& o !hose eelin$s and actions re"ains uninterrupted. 3n the le$ends o
"art&rs, or e,a"ple, a sti#necked and anatical persecutor stands o+er a$ainst an e*uall& sti#necked and anatical
+icti") and a situation so co"plicated4that is to sa&, so real and historical4as that in !hich the :persecutor; Plin&
inds hi"sel in his celebrated letter to Tra/an on the sub/ect o the 2hristians, is unit or le$end. And that is still a
co"parati+el& si"ple case. Ket the reader think o the histor& !hich !e are oursel+es !itnessin$) an&one !ho, or
e,a"ple, e+aluates the beha+ior o indi+idual "en and $roups o "en at the ti"e o the rise o .ational 6ocialis" in
9er"an&, or the beha+ior o indi+idual peoples and states beore and durin$ the last !ar, !ill eel ho! diicult it is to
represent historical the"es in $eneral, and ho! unit the& are or le$end) the historical co"prises a $reat nu"ber o
contradictor& "oti+es in each indi+idual, a hesitation and a"bi$uous $ropin$ on the part o $roups) onl& seldo" 7as
in the last !ar8 does a "ore or less plain situation, co"parati+el& si"ple to describe, arise, and e+en such a situation
is sub/ect to di+ision belo! the surace, is indeed al"ost constantl& in dan$er o losin$ its si"plicit&) and the "oti+es
o all the interested parties are so co"ple, that the slo$ans o propa$anda can be co"posed onl& throu$h the crudest
si"pliication4!ith the result that riend and oe alike can oten e"plo& the sa"e ones. To !rite histor& is so
diicult that "ost historians are orced to "ake concessions to the techni*ue o le$end.
3t is clear that a lar$e part o the lie o Ia+id as $i+en in the 5ible contains histor& and not le$end. 3n Absalo"(s
rebellion, or e,a"ple, or in the scenes ro" Ia+id(s last da&s, the contradictions and crossin$ o "oti+es both in
indi+iduals and in the $eneral action ha+e beco"e so concrete that it is i"possible to doubt the historicit& o the
inor"ation con+e&ed. .o! the "en !ho co"posed the historical parts are oten the sa"e !ho edited the older
le$ends too) their peculiar reli$ious concept o "an in histor&, !hich !e ha+e atte"pted to describe abo+e, in no !a&
led the" to a le$endar& si"pliication o e+ents) and so it is onl& natural that, in the le$endar& passa$es o the %ld
Testa"ent, historical structure is re*uentl& discernible4o course, not in the sense that the traditions are e,a"ined
as to their credibilit& accordin$ to the "ethods o scientiic criticis") but si"pl& to the e,tent that the tendenc& to a
s"oothin$ do!n and har"oni'in$ o e+ents, to a si"pliication o "oti+es, to a static deinition o characters !hich
a+oids conlict, +acillation, and de+elop"ent, such as are natural to le$endar& structure, does not predo"inate in the
%ld Testa"ent !orld o le$end. Abraha", Bacob, or e+en -oses produces a "ore concrete, direct, and historical
i"pression than the i$ures o the 1o"eric !orld4not because the& are better described in ter"s o sense 7the
contrar& is the case8 but because the conused, contradictor& "ultiplicit& o e+ents, the ps&cholo$ical and actual
cross#purposes, !hich true histor& re+eals, ha+e not disappeared in the representation but still re"ain clearl&
perceptible. 3n the stories o Ia+id, the le$endar&, !hich onl& later scientiic criticis" "akes reco$ni'able as such,
i"perceptibl& passes into the historical) and e+en in the le$endar&, the proble" o the classiication and interpretation
o hu"an histor& is alread& passionatel& apprehended4a proble" !hich later shatters the ra"e!ork o historical
co"position and co"pletel& o+erruns it !ith prophec&) thus the %ld Testa"ent, in so ar as it is concerned !ith
hu"an e+ents, ran$es throu$h all three do"ains? le$end, historical reportin$, and interpretati+e historical theolo$&.
2onnected !ith the "atters /ust discussed is the act that the 9reek te,t see"s "ore li"ited and "ore static in respect
to the circle o persona$es in+ol+ed in the action and to their political acti+it&. 3n the reco$nition scene !ith !hich !e
be$an, there appears, aside ro" %d&sseus and Penelope, the housekeeper Eur&clea, a sla+e !ho" %d&sseus( ather
Kaertes had bou$ht lon$ beore. 6he, like the s!ineherd Eu"aeus, has spent her lie in the ser+ice o Kaertes( a"il&)
like Eu"aeus, she is closel& connected !ith their ate, she lo+es the" and shares their interests and eelin$s. 5ut she
has no lie o her o!n, no eelin$s o her o!n) she has onl& the lie and eelin$s o her "aster. Eu"aeus too, thou$h
he still re"e"bers that he !as born a ree"an and indeed o a noble house 7he !as stolen as a bo&8, has, not onl& in
act but also in his o!n eelin$, no lon$er a lie o his o!n, he is entirel& in+ol+ed in the lie o his "asters. =et these
t!o characters are the onl& ones !ho" 1o"er brin$s to lie !ho do not belon$ to the rulin$ class. Thus !e beco"e
conscious o the act that in the 1o"eric poe"s lie is enacted onl& a"on$ the rulin$ class4others appear onl& in the
role o ser+ants to that class. The rulin$ class is still so stron$l& patriarchal, and still itsel so in+ol+ed in the dail&
acti+ities o do"estic lie, that one is so"eti"es likel& to or$et their rank. 5ut the& are un"istakabl& a sort o eudal
aristocrac&, !hose "en di+ide their li+es bet!een !ar, huntin$, "arketplace councils, and eastin$, !hile the !o"en
super+ise the "aids in the house. As a social picture, this !orld is co"pletel& stable) !ars take place onl& bet!een
dierent $roups o the rulin$ class) nothin$ e+er pushes up ro" belo!. 3n the earl& stories o the %ld Testa"ent the
patriarchal condition is do"inant too, but since the people in+ol+ed are indi+idual no"adic or hal#no"adic tribal
leaders, the social picture $i+es a "uch less stable i"pression) class distinctions are not elt. As soon as the people
co"pletel& e"er$es4that is, ater the e,odus ro" E$&pt4its acti+it& is al!a&s discernible, it is oten in er"ent, it
re*uentl& inter+enes in e+ents not onl& as a !hole but also in separate $roups and throu$h the "ediu" o separate
indi+iduals !ho co"e or!ard) the ori$ins o prophec& see" to lie in the irrepressible politico#reli$ious spontaneit&
o the people. We recei+e the i"pression that the "o+e"ents e"er$in$ ro" the depths o the people o 3srael#Budah
"ust ha+e been o a !holl& dierent nature ro" those e+en o the later ancient de"ocracies4o a dierent nature
and ar "ore ele"ental.
With the "ore proound historicit& and the "ore proound social acti+it& o the %ld Testa"ent te,t, there is
connected &et another i"portant distinction ro" 1o"er? na"el&, that a dierent conception o the ele+ated st&le and
o the subli"e is to be ound here. 1o"er, o course, is not araid to let the realis" o dail& lie enter into the subli"e
and tra$ic) our episode o the scar is an e,a"ple, !e see ho! the *uietl& depicted, do"estic scene o the oot#
!ashin$ is incorporated into the pathetic and subli"e action o %d&sseus( ho"e#co"in$. 0ro" the rule o the
separation o st&les !hich !as later al"ost uni+ersall& accepted and !hich speciied that the realistic depiction o
dail& lie !as inco"patible !ith the subli"e and had a place onl& in co"ed& or, careull& st&li'ed, in id&l4ro" an&
such rule 1o"er is still ar re"o+ed. And &et he is closer to it than is the %ld Testa"ent. 0or the $reat and subli"e
e+ents in the 1o"eric poe"s take place ar "ore e,clusi+el& and un"istakabl& a"on$ the "e"bers o a rulin$ class)
and these are ar "ore untouched in their heroic ele+ation than are the %ld Testa"ent i$ures, !ho can all "uch
lo!er in di$nit& 7consider, or e,a"ple, Ada", .oah, Ia+id, Bob8) and inall&, do"estic realis", the representation o
dail& lie, re"ains in 1o"er in the peaceul real" o the id&llic, !hereas, ro" the +er& irst, in the %ld Testa"ent
stories, the subli"e, tra$ic, and proble"atic take shape precisel& in the do"estic and co""onplace? scenes such as
those bet!een 2ain and Abel, bet!een .oah and his sons, bet!een Abraha", 6arah, and 1a$ar, bet!een Rebekah,
Bacob, and Esau, and so on, are inconcei+able in the 1o"eric st&le. The entirel& dierent !a&s o de+elopin$
conlicts are enou$h to account or this. 3n the %ld Testa"ent stories the peace o dail& lie in the house, in the ields,
and a"on$ the locks, is under"ined b& /ealous& o+er election and the pro"ise o a blessin$, and co"plications arise
!hich !ould be utterl& inco"prehensible to the 1o"eric heroes. The latter "ust ha+e palpable and clearl&
e,pressible reasons or their conlicts and en"ities, and these !ork the"sel+es out in ree battles) !hereas, !ith the
or"er, the perpetuall& s"olderin$ /ealous& and the connection bet!een the do"estic and the spiritual, bet!een the
paternal blessin$ and the di+ine blessin$, lead to dail& lie bein$ per"eated !ith the stu o conlict, oten !ith
poison. The subli"e inluence o 9od here reaches so deepl& into the e+er&da& that the t!o real"s o the subli"e and
the e+er&da& are not onl& actuall& unseparated but basicall& inseparable.
We ha+e co"pared these t!o te,ts, and, !ith the", the t!o kinds o st&le the& e"bod&, in order to reach a startin$
point or an in+esti$ation into the literar& representation o realit& in European culture. The t!o st&les, in their
opposition, represent basic t&pes? on the one hand ull& e,ternali'ed description, unior" illu"ination, uninterrupted
connection, ree e,pression, all e+ents in the ore$round, displa&in$ un"istakable "eanin$s, e! ele"ents o
historical de+elop"ent and o ps&cholo$ical perspecti+e) on the other hand, certain parts brou$ht into hi$h relie,
others let obscure, abruptness, su$$esti+e inluence o the une,pressed, :back$round; *ualit&, "ultiplicit& o
"eanin$s and the need or interpretation, uni+ersal#historical clai"s, de+elop"ent o the concept o the historicall&
beco"in$, and pre occupation !ith the proble"atic.
1o"er(s realis" is, o course, not to be e*uated !ith classical#anti*ue realis" in $eneral) or the separation o st&les,
!hich did not de+elop until later, per"itted no such leisurel& and e,ternali'ed description o e+er&da& happenin$s) in
tra$ed& especiall& there !as no roo" or it) urther"ore, 9reek culture +er& soon encountered the pheno"ena o
historical beco"in$ and o the :"ultila&eredness; o the hu"an proble", and dealt !ith the" in its ashion) in
Ro"an realis", inall&, ne! and nati+e concepts are added. We shall $o into these later chan$es in the anti*ue
representation o realit& !hen the occasion arises) on the !hole, despite the", the basic tendencies o the 1o"eric
st&le, !hich !e ha+e atte"pted to !ork out, re"ained eecti+e and deter"inant do!n into late anti*uit&.
6ince !e are usin$ the t!o st&les, the 1o"eric and the %ld Testa"ent, as startin$ points, !e ha+e taken the" as
inished products, as the& appear in the te,ts) !e ha+e disre$arded e+er&thin$ that pertains to their ori$ins, and thus
ha+e let untouched the *uestion !hether their peculiarities !ere theirs ro" the be$innin$ or are to be reerred
!holl& or in part to orei$n inluences. Within the li"its o our purpose, a consideration o this *uestion is not
necessar&) or it is in their ull de+elop"ent, !hich the& reached in earl& ti"es, that the t!o st&les e,ercised their
deter"inin$ inluence upon the representation o realit& in European literature.