The second period, which produced the _Iliad_ and the _Odyssey_, needs
no description here: but it is very important to observe the effect of
these poems on the course of post-Homeric epic. As the supreme
perfection and universality of the _Iliad_ and the _Odyssey_ cast into
oblivion whatever pre-Homeric poets had essayed, so these same
qualities exercised a paralysing influence over the successors of
Homer. If they continued to sing like their great predecessor of
romantic themes, they were drawn as by a kind of magnetic attraction
into the Homeric style and manner of treatment, and became mere echoes
of the Homeric voice: in a word, Homer had so completely exhausted the
epic _genre_, that after him further efforts were doomed to be merely
conventional. Only the rare and exceptional genius of Vergil and Milton
could use the Homeric medium without loss of individuality: and this
quality none of the later epic poets seem to have possessed. Freedom
from the domination of the great tradition could only be found by
seeking new subjects, and such freedom was really only illusionary,
since romantic subjects alone are suitable for epic treatment.

In its third period, therefore, epic poetry shows two divergent
tendencies. In Ionia and the islands the epic poets followed the
Homeric tradition, singing of romantic subjects in the now stereotyped
heroic style, and showing originality only in their choice of legends
hitherto neglected or summarily and imperfectly treated. In continental
Greece 1101, on the other hand, but especially in Boeotia, a new form
of epic sprang up, which for the romance and PATHOS of the Ionian
School substituted the practical and matter-of-fact. It dealt in moral
and practical maxims, in information on technical subjects which are of
service in daily life—agriculture, astronomy, augury, and the
calendar—in matters of religion and in tracing the genealogies of men.
Its attitude is summed up in the words of the Muses to the writer of
the _Theogony_: ‘We can tell many a feigned tale to look like truth,
but we can, when we will, utter the truth’ (_Theogony_ 26-27). Such a
poetry could not be permanently successful, because the subjects of
which it treats—if susceptible of poetic treatment at all—were
certainly not suited for epic treatment, where unity of action which
will sustain interest, and to which each part should contribute, is
absolutely necessary. While, therefore, an epic like the _Odyssey_ is
an organism and dramatic in structure, a work such as the _Theogony_ is
a merely artificial collocation of facts, and, at best, a pageant. It
is not surprising, therefore, to find that from the first the Boeotian
school is forced to season its matter with romantic episodes, and that
later it tends more and more to revert (as in the _Shield of Heracles_)
to the Homeric tradition.

The Boeotian School

How did the continental school of epic poetry arise? There is little
definite material for an answer to this question, but the probability
is that there were at least three contributory causes. First, it is
likely that before the rise of the Ionian epos there existed in Boeotia
a purely popular and indigenous poetry of a crude form: it comprised,
we may suppose, versified proverbs and precepts relating to life in
general, agricultural maxims, weather-lore, and the like. In this sense
the Boeotian poetry may be taken to have its germ in maxims similar to
our English

“Till May be out, ne’er cast a clout,”

“A rainbow in the morning
Is the Shepherd’s warning.”

Secondly and thirdly we may ascribe the rise of the new epic to the
nature of the Boeotian people and, as already remarked, to a spirit of
revolt against the old epic. The Boeotians, people of the class of
which Hesiod represents himself to be the type, were essentially
unromantic; their daily needs marked the general limit of their ideals,
and, as a class, they cared little for works of fancy, for pathos, or
for fine thought as such. To a people of this nature the Homeric epos
would be inacceptable, and the post-Homeric epic, with its conventional
atmosphere, its trite and hackneyed diction, and its insincere
sentiment, would be anathema. We can imagine, therefore, that among
such folk a settler, of Aeolic origin like Hesiod, who clearly was well
acquainted with the Ionian epos, would naturally see that the only
outlet for his gifts lay in applying epic poetry to new themes
acceptable to his hearers.

Though the poems of the Boeotian school 1102 were unanimously assigned
to Hesiod down to the age of Alexandrian criticism, they were clearly
neither the work of one man nor even of one period: some, doubtless,
were fraudulently fathered on him in order to gain currency; but it is
probable that most came to be regarded as his partly because of their
general character, and partly because the names of their real authors
were lost. One fact in this attribution is remarkable—the veneration
paid to Hesiod.

Life of Hesiod

Our information respecting Hesiod is derived in the main from notices
and allusions in the works attributed to him, and to these must be
added traditions concerning his death and burial gathered from later
writers.