5E^ 
 
 CORNELL 
 
 UNIVERSITY 
 
 LIBRARY 
 
 FROM THE FUND GIVEN BY 
 
 GOLDWIN SMITH 
 1909 
 
 UNDERGRADUATE LIBRARY 
 
Cornell University Library 
 PA 4037.B88 1905 
 
 Handbook of Homeric study, 
 
 3 1924 014 208 890 
 
The original of this book is in 
 the Cornell University Library. 
 
 There are no known copyright restrictions in 
 the United States on the use of the text. 
 
 http://www.archive.org/details/cu31924014208890 
 
HANDBOOK 
 
 OF 
 
 HOMERIC STUDY 
 
HANDBOOK 
 
 OF 
 
 HOMERIC STUDY 
 
 BY 
 
 HENRY BROWNE, S.J. 
 
 M.A . New College, Oxford ; Fellow of the Royal University of 
 Ireland; Professor of Greek at University College, Dublin 
 
 With Twenty-Two Plates 
 
 LONGMANS, GREEN, AND CO. 
 
 39 PATERNOSTER ROW, LONDON 
 NEW YORK AND BOMBAY 
 
 1905 
 

Preface 
 
 An apology can hardly be required for any effort, 
 however feeble, towards lessening the difficulties of 
 Homeric study and making it a little more intelligent. 
 In his two-fold capacity of learner and teacher, the 
 writer has found that at the very threshold of his task 
 a student is confronted with a mass of complex 
 problems which hardly grow less entangled as he pro- 
 ceeds. He cannot ignore them if he would, unless he 
 be content with merely translating the poetry line by 
 line ; his ordinary commentaries, handbooks of litera- 
 ture and history, his very dictionaries, teem with 
 allusions to controversial topics, and may often contain 
 statements which are mutually destructive, as weU as 
 over confident. In this matter of decisiveness there 
 is a danger of defect, as well as of excess, and I can 
 scarcely hope in my own pages to have steered suc- 
 cessfully between the two extremes. On the one 
 hand, it is less important for the beginner to have a 
 cut and dried solution of his difficulties (even were this 
 possible) than to feel their true inwardness, to recog- 
 nise their mutual relations, and to grasp the lines by 
 which he might hope at least to reach a tolerable 
 solution of them. Hence it has been constantly my 
 concern to lay before the reader the elements out of 
 
VI 
 
 Preface 
 
 which he could form a judgment of his own, rather 
 than to force on him conclusions to which I find myself 
 inclined. On the other hand— to have any chance of 
 interesting him in questions like the date and author- 
 ship of the Poems, the nature and history of their 
 dialect, the relation of the Homeric to pre-historic, 
 oriental, and Hellenic civilisation and art, and other 
 kindred difficulties arising out of modern archaeology, 
 comparative religion, and linguistic science— it appeared 
 needful, as well as natural, to attempt the framing of 
 a clear and consistent hypothesis regarding the more 
 important discussions. What made it feasible for me 
 to essay such a task is a strong conviction that (pro- 
 vided we keep as much as possible to general principles 
 and neglect what is comparatively unimportant) it 
 is possible to discern beneath all the surface differences 
 a real and practical unanimity, at least on many points, 
 among the highest and best authorities on Homer — 
 and that, although the progress of Homeric science, 
 especially archeology, may raise many new and urgent 
 questions, yet it has a progressive tendency to dispose 
 for ever of many a time-honoured controversy. 
 
 Possibly the matters herein treated of may be of 
 interest to others who are not professed students of 
 the Homeric text; still the needs of the latter have 
 been kept mainly in view. It is. hoped they will 
 find the book fairly complete for purposes of reference 
 on more general topics, but the first glance at it will 
 show them that they must not regard it as in any way 
 superseding the ordinary Homeric grammars, text- 
 books, or lexicons. I have resisted the obvious temp- 
 
Preface vii 
 
 tation to use'appendices, owing to a belief that for 
 young students what is worth giving at all is worth 
 giving in the text. 
 
 As the authorities followed are usually referred to 
 in foot-notes it is hardly necessary here to specify 
 fully the obligations I am under to published works. 
 I have, as I hope, made it clear that the most inspiring 
 book I ever read on Homer — ^it has been like the key 
 to a Sphinx's riddle — ^was the late Professor Geddes' 
 work. The Problem of the Homeric Poems. I also, 
 naturally, owe much to the various publications on 
 Homer of Dr. Monro, Vice- Chancellor of the Uni- 
 versity of Oxford ; to Sir Richard Jebb's Introduction 
 to Homer ; and to Professor Percy Gardner's New 
 Chapters in Greek History. I may add that the intro- 
 ductory chapters in Professor Bury's new History of 
 Greece appear to me to compress much learning into 
 a compact and interesting form. The monumental 
 work, A Companion to Greek Study, just issued by 
 the S3mdics of the University Press of Cambridge, 
 would have been of immense benefit to me had it been 
 in my hands before my last sheets were going through 
 the press, when I could barely avail myself of its 
 wonderful wealth of learning. Although on quite differ- 
 ent lines, my Scheme of Approximate Chronology of 
 the Poems was first suggested by Mr. H. R. Hall's very 
 useful Scheme of Mycenaean Chronology. 
 
 What I feel to be more incumbent on me is to express 
 the debt of gratitude I have incurred to Mr. John L. 
 Myres, of Christ Church, who has both allowed me 
 to make use of the as yet unpublished notes of his 
 
viii Preface 
 
 invaluable lectures on Homeric archaeology, and has 
 taken much trouble in rendering me manifold assist- 
 ance. In regard to matters of geography and com- 
 merce, and particularly that great ' crux,' the Phoeni- 
 cian question, I owe everything to his kindly criticism 
 and advice. He is not however responsible for the 
 particular application I have ventured to make of his 
 Diagonal theory (on page 175) ; still less are my errors 
 or omissions, which are wholly my own, to be imputed 
 to him. On textual matters Mr. T. W. AUen, of 
 Queen's College, the collaborator of Dr. Monro in 
 editing the Poems, has been equally helpful ; and I 
 am also obliged to Dr. F. G. Kenyon, of the British 
 Museum, for information regarding the papyri of which 
 he has proved himself so masterly a decipherer. Last, 
 but not least, my best thanks are due to my former 
 tutor , at New College, Mr. A. O. Prickard, who has 
 devoted his time to reading the pages in proof, and 
 has, moreover, given me several valuable suggestions, 
 and much badly-needed encouragement. 
 
 H. B. 
 
 University College, 
 Dublin, 
 February 2nd, 1905. 
 
Contents 
 
 CHAPTER I 
 
 THE HOMERIC POEMS 
 
 Page 
 Seo. 1 — IntrodnctoFy Survey of Homeric Poetry . . i 
 
 Object and limits ol introductory Section.— Main scope 
 of Ihad. — ^Back-ground of plot ot Iliad. — Counter- 
 plot formed by Olympian Divinities. — Odysiey^^ . 
 how contrasted with Ihad. — Plot of Odyssey. — 
 Special features of Odyssey. — ^The so-called Homeric 
 'Hymns.' — Humorous pieces. — Poems loosely attri- 
 buted to Homer. — Cyclic Poems connected with the 
 Iliad. — Cyclic Poems connected with the Odyssey. 
 
 Seo. 2— Homer and the Cycle • - . ' 14 
 
 Poems included in Trojan Cycle.— The Cycle, a result of 
 accommodation.— Origin of the TrojanXjrcIe.-^-'Date 
 of Homer prior to the * Cyclics.'— Conclusion regard- 
 ing date of Ihad and Odyssey. — Further corrobora- 
 tion of date of Homer (850-800 b.c.) 
 
 Seo. 3— The Poems among the Greeks • - • 24 
 
 Traditional introduction of the Poems into Greece. — 
 The Poems among^ the^ Atbeaians.=-The Recension 
 of Peisistratus. — Cynaethus of Chios and Anti- 
 machus of Colophon. — ^The Poems at the Pan- 
 athenaea. — ^The Homeridse and the Rhapsodes. — 
 Homer in Greek Education. — Plato's attitude 
 towards Homer.— Foundation of textual criticism 
 of Homer.^^The Forerunners of Aristarchus. — ^The 
 linguistic labours of Aristarchus. — His treatment 
 of Homeric questions in general. — ^The critical 
 signs of Aristarchus. — ^The work of Didymus and 
 'The Epitome.' — The arrangement of the Poems in 
 Books. 
 
X Contents 
 
 Page 
 Beo. 4 -The Homerlo Dialect - - - 4° 
 
 Homeric Dialect essentially composite. — Old Ionic 
 forms the prevailing element. — ^olisms in Homer 
 — Pick's theory : Inflexional forms ; Special forms 
 of words : Special words. — ^Traces of the Digamma. 
 — Absence of all trace of Dorism. — New-Ionic 
 Forms and Atticisms. — Alleged Hellenistic Forms. 
 — Occurrence of False Archaisms in the Homeric 
 Dialect : {The confusion of words ; The formation 
 of impossible verb-forms by false analogy ; A con- 
 fusion of dialects ; Mistakes regarding words.) — Con- 
 clusion from the above facts. 
 
 Beo. S— Oof Homeric Text - - - - 51 
 
 A short recapitulation. — ^The existing authorities for our 
 Homeric Text. — ^The Codices. — Earlier evidence : 
 fragmentary MSS. and papyri. — ^The Scholia. — 
 Extant quotations in Classical authors. — Conclu- 
 sions drawn from above data. — What real effect 
 had Alexandrian criticism on the Vulgate ? — ^The 
 pre-Alexandrian Canon. — Antiquity of Athenian 
 Vulgate. 
 
 Scheme of Approximate Chronololy - - ... 64 
 
 Sec. 6— Homeric Grammar, Style, and Metre - - 66 
 
 General principles of Homeric Grammar. — Remarks 
 on Contraction in Homeric Grammar. — ^Noun- 
 formation. — Pronoun -forms. — Verb-formation. — 
 Preposition-forms. — Syntax of Moods. — Syntax of 
 Cases. — Use of the so-called article, 6, 17, rd. — Uses 
 of Particles. — Characteristic figures of speech. — 
 Homeric epithets. — Vocabulary and meaning of 
 words. — Homeric Verse— The Pause. — Elision and 
 Hiatus. — ^Vowel quantity. — Loss of Digamma and 
 other consonants. — Crasis and Synizesis, 
 
 CHAPTER II 
 THE HOHERIO BARDS 
 
 Ses, 1— Traditional belief in a Personal Homer - 
 
 How we approach the Homeric Controversy. — External 
 evidence for a personal Homer. — The Tradition 
 merely apparent. — Internal evidence for Homer 
 the only test.— Conclusions we hope to eatabUsh. 
 
 - 81 
 
Contents xi 
 
 Page 
 B«e. 2 — Oradnal CompOBition of the Foema - - 87 
 
 Our point of view defined. — Analogy of argument re- 
 garding date of Cyclic Poems. — Minor discrepancies 
 may be neglected. — ^Development of language dur- 
 ing composition of Poems. — Vocabulary. — ^Metrical 
 peculiarity. — Development of civilisation during 
 formation of Poems." — Ideas of Keligion. — Ethical 
 progress.-t Evolution of the Myth.-j-Material civile 
 sation.— borrowing from earlier oy l ater_Bards. / 
 
 Sec. S— EYolntion of the ' Iliad ' - - - - 104 
 
 The original scope of the Iliad : its hero. — Theory of an 
 Achilleid : a ' via media.' — ^Limits of the Primitive 
 Poems. — ^The greater expansions. — ^Lesser Inter- 
 polations. — Some distinguishing features of later 
 work. — ^Tabular scheme of Books to illustrate 
 the Evolution of the Iliad. — Odyssean affinities 
 of later work. 
 
 Sec. 9— Local Origin of the Poems - - - 118 
 
 Asiatic theory of Homer's birth-place. — Arguments on 
 the European side. — Intrinsic probability of two- 
 fold origin. — ^Thessalian origin of ' Achilleid." — 
 Ionian origin of Odyssean portions. — Question of 
 .S^lisms in Homeric language. — ^Theory of an 
 ^olic School properly so-called. 
 
 See. B—lB the 'Odyssey' CompoBite 7 - - -13^ 
 
 Conclusions as to Odyssey must be uncertain. — Period 
 of decadence of Ionian epic. — Positive traces of 
 later ' Redaction.' — Duplication of incidents in 
 the Odyssey. 
 
 Sec 6— What, then, we mean by ' Homer ' ~J39, 
 
 Is no place left for ' Homer the Bard ' ? — Our position 
 reviewed. — Two views of ' Homer ' considered. — 
 Only sure meaning of the name of ' Homer.' 
 
xii Contents 
 
 CHAPTER III 
 
 HISTOBICAL OUTLIMES OP THE HOMERIC 
 
 Page 
 
 CONTROVERSY »44 
 
 Controversy started from Wolf's Prolegomena. — ^The 
 Wolfian School in Germany. — ^The reaction against 
 the Wolfian School. — Constructive School in Eng- 
 land.— Grote. — Important advance made by Pro- 
 fessor Geddes. — Part of Geddes' theory not well 
 established. — Mr. Walter Leaf and Sir Richard 
 Jebb. — play's Paradox. — Professor Paley's argu- 
 ments.-tKJrchhofi's work upon the Odyssey^ 
 ' Nostos ' and two ' Redactions.' — ^Tabular scHEine 
 of Books to illustrate Kirchhofl's theory of the 
 Odyssey. 
 
 CHAPTER IV 
 HOMERIC LIFE 
 
 Sec. 1— Geography and Commerce - - - - 169 
 
 Special importance of this subject. — Homeric Cosmo- 
 graphy. — The Troad and its Topography. — ^The 
 Hellespont and its area.— Homeric view of ^gean 
 Geography. — ^The Western Peloponnese. — Ithaca 
 and its surroundings. — Crete and its Inhabitants — 
 Phoenicia and its Traders. — Evidence in the Poems 
 regarding the Phcenicians. — Notices in the Poems 
 regarding Egypt and the East. — The Western 
 Mediterranean. 
 
 Map of Homeric Geography - - _ _ _ _ jgs 
 
 Sec. 2— Religion and Ethics - - - - - 190 
 
 Religion and Mythology.— Primitive or Chthonian 
 Cults.— Traces in Homer of Primitive Religion : 
 {Nature-cults ; Worship of the Dead ; Human Sacri- 
 fice ■ Earlier Dynasties ; Survivals of a Matriarchal 
 period [?])— Homer and later religion contrasted. 
 -^^.tfi*.— Homer's great triad of Divinities.— The Homeric 
 conception of Zeus.— Is Zeus really a Supreme 
 Ruler ?— Do the Homeric gods work evil ?— Some 
 characteristics of the Homeric Cult.— The supposed 
 condition of the Dead. 
 
Contents xiii 
 
 Paga 
 See. |— Social Or^aniBation - - - - - 204 
 
 \ Do the Poems give a picture of real society ? — Society 
 \ roughly organised but strongly aristocratic. — Patri- '• 
 
 ' archal Constitution of the State. — System of Land- 
 
 Tenure. — Law of Hospitality. — Woman's.,Jbigh ^^_. ^ 
 position and influence. — Position "oT" slaves in 
 Homer^i^ttustfKfOrganisatioB?^ 
 
 See. 9— Material CiiriliBation - - - - - 217 
 
 Knowledge and use of metals.— Do the Poems deal 
 with an ' age of Iron ' ? — ^Tfie Homeric Palace. — 
 The position of the Women'sQuajjlprs. — Domestic 
 and Dietary jingjigeiiieali^^l!ffi& and Female Ap- 
 paS^et.^^Panoply of Homeric Warrior. — Evidence 
 for the large shield. — Evidence for Armour of later 
 type. — The war chariot. — Navigation. 
 
 CHAPTER V 
 
 WHO WERE THE HOMERIC PEOPLE? 
 
 See. 1— The Problem Stated - - - - - 237 
 
 Historical basis of the Poems worth consideration. — 
 Hew data for the investigation of this question. — 
 •First beginnings of the Hellenic period. — So-called 
 Legendary penod. — ^Yet the Poems existed, where 
 did they come from ? — Could we not pierce the 
 veil and see the vision ? 
 
 Sec. 2— Trinmph of the Spade - - - - 244 
 
 The story of Schliemann. — ^Troy and Mycenae. — ^The 
 so-called Mycenaean city of Troy. — Great Argive 
 Fortresses. — ^The Shaft and Tholos-tombs of 
 Mycenae. — Excavations in Cyprus. — Importance 
 of late discoveries in Crete. — ^'Excavations of Dr. 
 A. J. Evans at Knossus. — Discovery of early Cretan 
 forms of Writing. — Further aspects of Cretan dis- 
 coveries. — The British School at Phylakopi (Melos). 
 — In what sense is Mycenaean culture indigenous ? 
 Mycenaean vases easily recognii^able. 
 
xiv Contents 
 
 Page 
 Sec. 3— UycensBan Chronology _ _ - 269 
 
 Conclusions indirect, but well grounded, — ^The later 
 Mycenaean Age. The early Mycenaean (or late 
 MinSan) Age. — Middle Mindan and early Mindan 
 Ages. — Conclusions from above statements. 
 
 Sec. i— HomeF and the Myoensan People - - - 278 
 
 Distribution of Mycenaean culture. — ^The Mycenaean 
 Palace in Homer. — General features of Mycensan 
 culture. 
 
 Chart showing Uyoenaean Culture - - - _ 282 
 
 Sec. S— Difficulties of Mycenaean Theory - - 287 
 
 Homeric method of Burial.—Cult of Olympian Divini- 
 ties in Homer. — Questions regarding Material 
 Civilisation. — Professor Ridgeway's Celtic theory 
 of the Homeric people.— The ' fair-haired 
 ^Achieans.' — ^Alleged Alpine habitat df-Achaeans : " 
 {The Physique of the Homeric People ; The practice 
 of Cremation ; The use of Iron ; The Brooch or 
 Fibula; Labialisation in Greek; Other subsidiiry 
 Arguments). 
 
 Sec. 6— Some Hints towards Reconciliation - - -302 
 
 Possibility of constructing a • via media.' — Extreme 
 opinions which ought to be rejected. — The Prin- 
 ciple of Contamination, not Interpolation. — Dis- 
 crepancies which cannot be accounted for by 
 post-Dorian Contamination. 
 
 CHAPTER VI 
 
 THE EPIC ART OF HOMER 315 
 
 Difficulty of this part of our subject.— The character 
 of AchUles.— The Iliad and Odyssev compared.— 
 The Homeric Poems thoroughly Greek.— dramatic 
 element in Homer.— The Homeric similes.— SuDer- 
 natural mtervention.— Homer's love of nature. 
 
 INDEX 
 
 - 32s 
 
List of Illustrations 
 
 PlATK Facing Page 
 
 I. — Bard Reciting. {Amphora in British Museum) 
 
 Frontispiece 
 
 II. — Scene from Athenian School Life. {Soy 
 
 reciting Lesson) - - - - 30 
 
 III. — Codex op Iliad. Venetus A. {ist page of Book 
 XI., reduced, showing primary and secondary 
 Scholia and Aristarchian Signs) - - 54 
 
 IV. — Papyrus British Museum 486 {II. xi. 502-38). 
 {Actual size of fragment, indicating s new lines 
 out of 36) - - - - - 55 
 
 V. — " Snow-Capped Olympus," from the S.W. - 124 
 
 VI. — Combat between Hector and Menelaus {II. 
 xvii. 106 fi.) {Rhodian Pinax in British 
 Museum, early sixth century) - - - 138 
 
 VII. — Port Vathi, Ithaca, from the S.W. - - 180 
 
 VIII. — ^Types of Ancient Chariots. A. — Egyptian or 
 Assyrian. B. — Greek. C. and D. — Mycenaan 
 {from Gems) ----- 234 
 
 IX. — ^Ancient Forms of Vessels. A. — Odysseus and 
 the Sirens from Vase-painting. B. — Model of 
 Boat in terra-cotta found in Cyprus, showing 
 l<TToB6iai. C. — Gold Model of Boat found in 
 Egypt, showing use of paddle - - - 235 
 
 X. — Obverse — Ancient Sea-Fight from Decked 
 Vessels. {Vase found at Ctare in Etruria, 
 probably of the seventh century, B.C.) Reverse — 
 The Blinding of the Cyclops _ - - 236 
 
 XI. — Greek Chariot of Later Date. {From Vase- 
 painting — Gerhard. A. V. iv. 249) - - 237 
 
 XII.— The Lion Gate, Mycen*. {As excavated by 
 
 Schliemann in 1876) - - - - 244 
 
xvi List of Illustrations 
 
 Plate Facing Page 
 
 XIII.— Entrance to Tholos-Tomb, Mycen^ - - 250 
 
 XIV.— Gold Ornaments from Shaft-Graves, MYCENiE. 
 A.— Frontal Band for Lady's coif. S.— Leg- 
 piece for Gaiter {iirur<l>vpiov ?) C. — Sphinx - *Si 
 
 XV. — Theatral Area at Knossus— Partially Restored 
 
 {Excavated by Dr. A. J. Evans, 1903) - - 254 
 
 XVI. — Inlaid Royal Gaming Board — Restored. {Found 
 
 in the Palace at Knossus, \(yi2)- - -255 
 
 XVII.— MYCENiEAN Gold Vases. A.~Part of Design of 
 Vaphio Cup. B. and C. — Vases found in Shaft- 
 grave, Mycena. D. — Vase found in Shaft-grave, 
 MycentB, showing Egyptian Design. E. — Nestor's 
 Gold Cup {II. xi. 632) - - - - 266 
 
 XVIII. — CHARACTERISTIC Mycen^an Pottery (mostly 
 Stirrup-vases). A. — Schnabelkanne (or Beak- 
 jug) found at Hissarlik. B.B. — Champagne-glass 
 Vases. C. — Octopus Stirrup-vase. t>. — Stirrup- 
 vase found in Egypt - - _ _ 268 
 
 XIX. — Shairetana Warriors, MedInet Haboo (near 
 
 Thebes in Egypt) - - - - 272 
 
 XX. — A. — Keftian {in Mycentsan costume), fresco in 
 Tomb of Rechmara, Thebes. B. — Cretan, fresco 
 in Palace of Knossus. C.-^Cretan pithos. D. — 
 Philistine, with feather headdress (temp. Rameses 
 III.) - - - - - - 274 
 
 XXI. — A. — One of the irrrjKm found over the Shaft-graves 
 at Mycencg. 'B.—The Lion-hunt dagger-blade. 
 C. — Signet with cult of Double Axe. D. — Model- 
 of Mycensan Shield - - - - 286 
 
 XXII. — Arming op Hoplites. (Showing later type of 
 
 accoutrement) - - - - _ 287 
 
Chapter I 
 
 The Homeric Poems 
 
 I. Introductory Survey of 
 Homeric Poetry 
 
 The Homeric poems mean for us the Iliad and the 
 Odyssey, and with them the readers of this ' Handbook ' 
 
 will be chiefly concerned. In Hellenic 
 
 Object and limits times, however, there existed a large 
 
 of introdnctoFy body of literature which the Greeks 
 
 Section. themselves believed to be Homeric ; 
 
 works which are no longer extant with 
 the exception of a few shoirter pieces, most of which are 
 still known as the Homeric Hymns. In this preliminary 
 survey of Homeric poetry it will be necessary to give 
 a brief outline of everything attributed to Homer in 
 the largest sense, not merely for the sake of complete- 
 ness, but because of some important sideli ghts which 
 such considerations will throw upon the origin and the 
 history of those masterpieces which it will be our chief 
 business to discuss. 
 
 With regard to the Iliad and Odyssey it will suffice 
 at the outset to give a few descriptive remarks which 
 may help towards that single and comprehensive 
 view of the poems which it is not easy on account of 
 their length and complexity for the beginner to acquire, 
 and without which he will hardly approach his sub- 
 ject with intelligence or zest . For although this book, 
 as its title indicates, is chiefly intended for students 
 of the Homeric text, yet even they will confine their 
 reading at least for some time to portions, perhaps to 
 single books, of one or other poem. So that it seems 
 proper to give here some preliminary notions of the 
 scope and spirit of the epics ; while yet we have thought 
 it better to reserve for our concluding chapter such 
 
 B 
 
2 The Homeric Poems [chap. I 
 
 remarks as we have to offer in the way of more formal 
 criticism of the epic art of Homer. Moreover, in this 
 introductory Section we shall of course endeavour to 
 steer clear of those theoretical and often warrnlv c on- 
 teoversial topics to which large portions of a ' Hand-j 
 book to Homer ' must necessarily be devoted. The 
 most therefore that we think of attempting here is a 
 general and somewhat superficial description of the 
 poems, or rather of certain important features of them 
 which are calculated to interest the simplest mind, and 
 with which the student of Homer, as he progresses in 
 his reading, will become thoroughly familiar. 
 
 Our first task, then, will be to give a brief outline of 
 the scope and spirit of the Iliad on both its human and 
 divine side ; next to show that the Odyssey is contrasted 
 with it in tone and feeling ; then to offer a few remarks 
 on the Hymns and short pieces formerly accounted 
 Homeric ; lastly to append a short description of the 
 so-called Cyclic poems, which were both imitations 
 of Homer and more or less vaguely attributed to him. 
 The question of the true relation of Homer to the 
 Cycle is one of great importance for our plan, and will 
 be accordingly reserved for a separate Section imme- 
 diately succeeding this introductory one. 
 
 Nothing, comparatively speaking, is of any account in 
 the Iliad besides Achilles, and his story. Concentra- 
 tion of interest is of the essence of the 
 Main scope of epic, a principle which is nowhere 
 Iliad. better illustrated than in Homer. 
 Achilles is at once pathetic and mag- 
 nificent, and his character is displaye d in a plot whic h 
 contains a deep and sustained interes t. The story 
 opens with the famous quarrel between Achilles anc| 
 his chief, a quarrel which, while it signifies the passion- 
 ate nature of the hero, also leads directly to the further 
 development of the plot. In revenge for Agamemnon's 
 JligliJiaiidfid conduct towards Achilles, he refuses to 
 fight against the Trojans, and at once retires sullenly 
 to his tent to watch the discomfiture which he foresees 
 will ojrertak e the ungrateful Achaeans, his countrymen,| 
 Never wilThe come to their aid unless they are brought 
 
sec. i] Introductory Survey 3 
 
 to such a pass that the very existence of the army is 
 in immediate danger. When things become critical, 
 and even an important embassy comes to placate his 
 wrath, he remains obdurate. At length his comrade 
 and dearest friend Patroclus implores to be allowed 
 to charge th« Trojans in Achilles' own armour, to 
 which arrangem ent he with difficulty consents. His 
 affection for Patroclus is as intense as his other emo- 
 tions, but it is one of the noblest and most dignified 
 of all the features of his lofty but truly human char- 
 acter. Foreseeing that the enemy will be routed, he 
 commands Patroclus not to pursue them far enough 
 to bring his own life into danger. The young champion, 
 however, disobeys his chief, and alas ! pays for his 
 temerity with his life-blood, falling supernaturally a 
 prey to Hector, the chieftain of Troy. 
 
 The loss of his loved friend moves Achilles to wrath 
 afresh and yet more majestically, this time against his 
 lawful enemies. His armour is gone, but through the 
 influence of his mother who is divine, the Fire-god 
 forges him a new panoply and he marches forth to 
 avenge Patroclus' death. Being now in his turn 
 assisted by heaven he slays the slayer, who in vain 
 beseeches of the conqueror that his corse may be re- 
 spected, for Achilles shows himself once more iron- 
 hearted. In his passionate longing for revenge he 
 Qutrapes the body of the Trojan — and yet in the end 
 Be relents when the aged Priam comes to his tent to 
 implore the surrender of his son's dead body. 
 
 Such is the outlin e of the main plot of the Iliad, a^ ^ 
 story which is unexcelled in the literature of the world x ' 
 
 Thus the story of Achilles is presented 
 Back-ground of ^^ ^^ episode in what is assumed in the 
 plot of Iliad, poem to be a great event^or series of 
 *' events — the Trojan War. We have 
 
 here a worthy and a highly- coloured back-ground for 
 the Epic ; but we must beware of confusing the back- 
 ground, which is essentially subordinate, with the 
 genuine interest of the poem. The question of the 
 organic unity of the Iliad cannot be discussed here : 
 sufftce it to state that in the poem, as it has reached us, 
 
4 The Homeric Poems [chap. I 
 
 there are long portions which do not directly apper- 
 tain to the plot ; although they do belong in some sense 
 to its back-ground. These portions consist m great 
 part of so-called Aristeiai; that is, of elaborate narratives 
 illustrating the prowess of individual Achaean leaders,^ 
 who, it is true, are never brought into direct competii 
 tion with Achilles. In fact, it is the voluntary absenc^ 
 of the hero which gives an opportunity for his com- 
 rades to make a mpre striking- exhibition of their prowess 
 than would be normally possible. 
 
 Although individually the Achaean warriors are 
 seldom if ever allowed to be worste d in the fight against 
 their non-Greek adversaries, yet on the whole th^ 
 development of the true plot demands that in the 
 absence of Achilles the Trojans are highly successful, 
 even to the point of attacking the ships of his own 
 followers, the Myrmidons, with fire. The situation 
 during the action of the Iliad supposes the Achaeans 
 to be in great difficulties. Here again we must never 
 forget that this state of affairs is in itself wholly un- 
 usual. We find, for instance, in the poem that the 
 Trojans are ranging, as a rule, freely through the plain 
 between their city and the sea. But it is not so much 
 stated, as taken for granted, that during the long period 
 which has elapsed (for we are supposed to be near the 
 end of the ten years' siege) the opposite was the case. 
 The Trojans were usually cooped up within -the wallSj 
 and if the city was not taken, it was on account of the 
 strength of its walls which were divinely built, and 
 also owing to divine intervention, rather than to any 
 special courage of its human defenders. Thus the 
 actual back-ground of the poem is in a very special 
 way dependent upon its true epic plot, which entirely 
 centres in Achilles. 
 
 We must now trace some of the main features of the 
 celestial counterplot, which is of vital importance to 
 the story. The favour of the gnda is divided between 
 the two sides in the human combat, so that the divine 
 action accompanies and even controls the human/j 
 l^rling.it a majpsty and an awfulness not quite its 
 own. The division of opinion among the gods is 
 
sec. I] Introductory Survey 5 
 
 Coanter-plot very artfully contrived. Hera, queen 
 the'oiymnan °^ heaven, Athena a peculiarly Greek 
 Divinities. conception of female divinity, are of 
 course consistently on the Achaean side. 
 So is Poseidon, who had a very special and personal 
 p[rudge ag ainst Troy. Quite naturally Ares and his 
 paramour Aphrodite — whose cult had been imported 
 among the Achaeans probably from the East— take 
 the adversaries' side. Apollo joins them, at least 
 under the special circumstances of the plot, and this 
 is accounted for at the outset of the poem by an 
 insult offered to his priest. He is, however, in a 
 most particular way associated with Zeus, and is chosen 
 to carry out the behests of the Father of the gods. 
 The really interesting problem is the attitude of Zeus. 
 He cannot be painted as frankly un-Greek. Patriotism 
 would forbid it, and morality — for au fond the cause 
 of the Achaeans is a just one, vengeance for a dis- 
 honoured wife^ But Zeus holds the balance of "power 7 
 like Apollo, he wavers^ m his allegiance to the Greeks, 
 and for special reasons even favours Troy. His sym- 
 pathies are with Hector for his piety, — and with Achillas 
 as outraged by the Achara.n Over^lord, Agamemnon. 
 Lastly, this great god has one very human trait ; he 
 is most susceptible to the subtle influences of Aphro- 
 dite, and thp firrt^ ^ttarhTTipnt nf \]\<i gpnngp TTot--^ in 
 
 the cause of the Achaeans tends to put him on the 
 opposite side. So that we find him during the poem 
 continually befriending Hector and the Trojans ; yet 
 he is fully aware and even determined that in the end 
 Hector, and by implication Troy, must fall, and thus 
 the righteous get their own. Meanwhile this Trojan 
 sympathy of the chief divinity helps to secure that 
 another man, the injured hero of the poem, may con- 
 tinue to enforce his personal xlaim to justice. 
 
 It is perhaps difficult to compare the Odyssey with the 
 liiad, because the contrast between them is so extreme 
 and may be considered from so many points of view. 
 It is sometimes assumed that it depends on a mere 
 difference of subject, the Iliad treating rather of War 
 and the Odyssey of Peace. If we look a little deeper, 
 
6 The Homeric Poems [chap. I 
 
 there is possibly a more fundamental 
 cXnKed'' difference-one of ideals, or of the 
 with Iliad. ' motif.' Aristotle felt there was some 
 such explanation when he called the 
 Iliad TradtinK^, and the Odyssey ridtKr,,'' by which he ap- 
 parently means that the Iliad depends for its interest 
 on its external plot and action, while that of the 
 Odyssey is rather as we say psychological. But in our, 
 remarks on the Iliad we have maintained that its, 
 interest centres round Achilles, his wrath with its 
 ^effects, and iis grief with its effects, . If this is not 
 psychology words have no meaning — though no doubti 
 it is psychology in action. But the Odyssey is also full 
 of action of the utmost variety without excluding 
 irddos of the most exciting kind. 
 
 Without, then, rejecting Aristotle's ground for dis- 
 tinction between the poems, we may add a further 
 explanation. The J/ja4. deals mainly (in the plot) with 
 human passion, the Odyssey with human wit, intelligence 
 and resource. And as -passion carries with it more 
 vital energy _than calm thought,, so the interest of the 
 Odyssey is infinitely less thrilling than that of the 
 grander poem. Perhaps after all Aristotle had some 
 such feeling when he called the Iliad iraOriTiKfi. 
 
 The plot of the Odyssey is, in its way, very absorbing 
 
 and is worked out with consummate skill. Indeed 
 
 there is felt to be an artistic finish in 
 
 Plot of Odyssey, the Odyssey which is wanting to the 
 
 longer and more loosely-compactec| 
 
 poem. The terrestrial action opens with the travels 
 
 and adventures of Telemachus in search of his father,, 
 
 who should be on his return from Troy. Later on we 
 
 are introduced to Odysseus himself, detained a prisoner 
 
 by Calypso, and then to his own adventures chiefly told 
 
 by himself. When at last he succeeds in getting back' 
 
 to Ithaca, we have only reached the middle of the poem, 
 
 and the plot thickens for the hero has still to reckoi^ 
 
 with his enemies at home. These are the suitors of 
 
 ' Koi TOOK TioirifiaTav inarepov irvviaTrjKev r) {j^v 'IXiar airKovv Kol 
 iraBrjnKov, rj be '08v£r(7em iren'KeyiJ.ni'OV Kal tidiKrj. — (Poet. oh. xxiv. 2). 
 
sec. I] Introductory Survey 7 
 
 Penelope, who has been driven to the last extremity 
 in resisting their overtures, and in vainly endeavouring 
 to control their unbridled insolence. A series of re- 
 cognition-scenes and finally the destruction of the 
 suitors brings about a happy ending; but the d6noue- 
 mea t is over-elaborated, nor are the later portions of 
 "the poem by any means equal in sustained and varied 
 interest to the earlier adventures of Odysseus. 
 
 There is a divine action in the Odyssey influencing 
 the course of events, but the interference is not on the 
 same scale of grandeur as in the Iliad. 
 Special features Some of the divinities, notably Poseidon, 
 of Odyssey. for special reasons exhibit strong hos- 
 tility to Odysseus, and in fact delay hiS; 
 return home, besides destroying all his companions.l 
 But the chief interest in t he cele stial plot (if it can be \ 
 so called), hangs upon f^p n^,^rf%n'rgnHrlpgg~anfi guardian j 
 \ of the hero, the ever-watchlul Athena. This is interest- j 
 |ing, inasmuch as the attributes of Athena are closely j 
 f^ allied to the character of Odysseus. She is the very per- I 
 sonation of intelligence and practical wisdom, being in | 
 ] fact by far the most spiritual of all the Homeric con- j 
 ! ceptions of divinity. Odysseus was, as it were, inspired | 
 [ as weU as exteriorly protected by her, and the element , 
 \oi craft in his prudence is directly traceable to the ' 
 |influence of his tutelary deity . 
 
 Somewhat coiinectea witn this subject is the re- 
 markable beauty and dignity of the female characters 
 of the Odyssey, especially those of the matron Penelope 
 and the sweet virgin Nausicaa. It is perhaps not too i 
 much to say that the popularity of the poem is largely 
 due to this really wonderful feature. The whole epi- 1 
 sode of the visit of Odysseus to the Phaeacians is told ! 
 with the utmost animation. He is thrown up on the I 
 shore after ship-wrec k; i s discovered by the princess ; 
 invited home to her father's palace with the freedoflT 
 and the delicacy of a fresh and healthy-minded girl ; is 
 royally entertained • betrays his personality by his own 
 emotion when the Jatp.. nt .■imy is -allvrderl fi{\'r\ gnni 
 and nnaiiy recounts all his adventures not yet made 
 known to the audience or readers_of the poem. These 
 
8 The Homeric Poems [chap. I 
 
 scenes in fact constitute a poem within a poem, and 
 strongly illustrate the beauty of the Odyssey and the 
 deftness with which its episodes are woven into the 
 main fabric of the epic. 
 
 But we cannot insist too much on the fact (which is 
 more evident on the face of it than in the case of the 
 Iliad, where it is also absolutely true) that the real 
 power and value of the Odyssey depends not on the 
 episodes considered as such, but on the personality, 
 the action, the career, and above all the character of 
 the hero of the whole poem. The thing should be too 
 obvious to require insistence ; and yet we doubt whether 
 it is unnecessary to call attention to it. 
 
 We have several shorter pieces which were, like the 
 
 Iliad and Odyssey, attributed to Homer in antiquity. 
 
 ThP Rn r»ii«-i "^^^y ^^^ ^^^1^'^ Hymns/ because they are 
 
 Homeric addressed to the gods and otherwise re- 
 
 ' Hymns.' late to them, but they are by no means 
 
 uniformly devotional in character. 
 
 They are also called jrpooi^ta (preludes), and it has 
 
 been generally maintained that they were composed by 
 
 various rhapsodes as preludes to the recitation of 
 
 Homer— the choice of the divinity being decided either 
 
 according to the nature of the passage selected, or by 
 
 external considerations such as the celebration of a 
 
 particular festival, or at least the presence at the shrine 
 
 of a god. If this is the case these productions, which 
 
 may have been ostensibly extempore, gradually grew in 
 
 length until they became more like distinct poems than 
 
 mere preludes, and must in fact have been considered 
 
 the principal part of the rhapsodical performance ^ 
 
 But this theory has been very seriously damaged bv 
 the recent editors of the Hymns, Messrs. All en ancrSi kes. 
 who show" that at least in some cases the poems in 
 our collection hardly bear the character of preludes, 
 
 ' Thucydides (iii. 104) quotes thirteen lines of the Hvotm to A bnlln 
 
 "^^To'l^TT"'' ^°^'' ^y "^'"^ ^^'^^ author orhVpiec^e!""' 
 So Pmdar says, Be.^.p Ka\ '0^r,pLha. pc^r&v iniJra nolOC 
 aoiSo. ap)^ovTal Aios CK npooi.p.iov.—Nem. ii. i 
 
 intLSSHymnrs'l^^^^rr^/i^''''"" '"^ *'^ '^^'''^'^' 
 
sec. i] Introductory Survey g 
 
 and argue that in the longer Hymns the term 
 Prelude was used in an applied and conventional sense 
 without its proper meaning. They lay stress on the 
 scholiast to Pindar {loc. cit.), who says that the real 
 preludes to recitation of Homer were addressed to Zeus, 
 or sometimes, to the Muses, which seems natural enough. 
 However, Messrs. Allen and Sikes rely for their view 
 partly on negative evidence and also on the assumption 
 (which seems probable enough) that the greater Hymns 
 of our collection would be somewhat out of place unless 
 they were recited as substantial performances. 
 
 Of these greater Hymns there are four, namely, those 
 to Aphrodite, Hermes, Demeter, and Apollo. But the 
 Hymn to Apollo, which is nearly six hundred lines in 
 length, is in all probability a combination of two dis- 
 tinct poems — one part, the shorter, celebrating the 
 older cult at Delos the birthplace of the god ; and the 
 following part, the longer, which appertains to Pytho 
 or Delphi, which became in later times the chief centre 
 of the Apolline cult. 
 
 In aU there are over thirty pieces ; but the majority 
 are short and fragmentary. Though far inferior to 
 nearly all the Homeric poetry proper, the Hymns are 
 by no means wanting in merit ; they deserve, perhaps, 
 to be more often read than they have been hitherto, 
 a result which may follow from the new and very 
 scholarly edition alluded to. We shall deal with the ques- 
 tion of the date of the Hymns in the following Section. 
 
 At different times many sportive, poems, more or 
 
 less parodying Homer, were held in great popularity, 
 
 and as they were in the metre, and in a 
 
 pTe°M?* sense in the style, of Homeric poetry, 
 
 they came to be roughly classed as such. 
 
 From the Poetics of Aristotle we gather that a poem 
 
 called Margites from the hero was the most celebrated 
 
 of its kind. He states that it was composed by Homer, 
 
 and was moreover the germ from which comedy was 
 
 derived just as tragedy was a development from the 
 
 lUad and the Odyssey.^ 
 
 1 Poet., ch. iv. 9. 
 
lO 
 
 The Homeric Poems [chap. I 
 
 We know very little about the Margites ; one line, 
 however, which happens to be extant, tells us what sort 
 or person its hero was : — 
 
 TToXX' TjiritrraTO epya, kokSis fi'^jriVroro rravra. 
 
 There is a much later parody of Homer extant, which 
 has a good deal of spirit about it, and it may possibly 
 give us some idea of what the earlier humorous pieces 
 were like. This is the 'Myo-machia,^ " the Battle of the 
 Mice" (with frogs). Our version, which seems to be 
 nearly complete, has just over three hundred lines. It 
 tells of the cause of the great Homeric fray, the drown- 
 ing of a mouse by a frog, the war of vengeance, the 
 frightful slaughter, and finally the intervention of Zeus 
 in the most orthodox fashion. He determines to send 
 Ares and Athena to ward off ruin from the frogs. Ares 
 says it will be necessary for all the Olympians to de- 
 scend to the earth, or at least that Zeus must use his 
 thunderbolt. This he does but with very little effect, 
 except to frighten the combatants of both sides ; but 
 finally he sends helpers in the shape of an army of 
 crabs, who speedily end the battle, for, 
 
 01 pa /MVav ovpas, trTOfidT(cr<riv cKoirrov 
 rjbe niSas Koi x^'pos, aveyvdnTrovTO Si Xdypjai* 
 
 We now come to the so-called Cyclic poems of which 
 there are only minute fragments extant, but which 
 were very celebrated in antiquity, and 
 Posms loosely around which, on account of their rela- 
 to Homer. ^^°^ ^° ^^® Homeric question, much 
 interest revolves. Taken all together 
 they must have comprised a vast mass of literature, 
 and since some knowledge, more or less certain, of their 
 real authorship has in many cases reached us, it can only 
 have been in the vaguest sense, and (except among the 
 ignorant multitude) doubtfully, that they were attri- 
 buted to Homer. That they grew out of the Homeric 
 poems and represent, along with other compositions, 
 
 ^ Sometimes written at full length, but rather cumbrously, 
 Batracho-myo-machia. 
 
sec. I] Introductory Survey ii 
 
 the decadence of the epic impulse, will be readily granted 
 by those who have looked into the existing notices and 
 fragments of the Cyclics. Our knowledge, indeed, 
 does not gixtend miir.h heynn d the poems relating to 
 the Trojan heroes, and thence called the Trojan Cycle.'- 
 But these were only one bjij'anch of the Cyclic poems. 
 Another branc h related to the Theban War, and it, 
 too, was sometimes loosely attributed to Homer, nor 
 did these even exhaust the store . 
 
 The poems which concern the student of Homer 
 relate partly to the Iliad and partly to the Odyssey, 
 and it will be convenient when describing their scope 
 to consider the two classes separately. Our know- 
 ledge of both classes is derived through extracts from 
 the xpria-TonaSda ypanfucrLKrj (which means Something like 
 Treasury of Literature) of one Proclus, who very prob- 
 ably lived about the middle of the second century, a.d." 
 The arguments of the poems are given mostly in the 
 celebrated Codex Venetus A, which will be described, 
 and one of its pages reproduced, in our Section on 
 " The Homeric Text." 
 
 On the subject of the Trojan War, in addition to the 
 
 Iliad, four poems were included in the Cycle, as follows : 
 
 I. The Cypria, giving events antece- 
 
 Cyclic Poems ^ent to the Iliad. 
 
 """the mad! 2- The Aethiofis, from Hector's fune- 
 
 ral (II. xxiv.) to the death of Achilles, 
 and the contention for his armour. 
 
 3. The Little Iliad, from the last-mentioned event 
 to the taking of Troy. 
 
 4. The Sack of Troy, on the same subject (partly) as 
 the last, and sometimes regarded as belonging to it. 
 It comes do wn-tn the dppartupe of the Greeks from Troy. 
 
 The Cypria was a long poem in honour of Aphrodite 
 retailing the part she took in bringing about the 
 
 ^ We reserve the discussion of this title for the next Section, 
 entitled " Homer and the Cycle." Here we only propose to give 
 some description of the poems. 
 
 * This is, however, matter of conjecture. What is fairly, certain 
 is, that he is not the celebrated Platonic philosopher (called 
 Ciadochus) of the fifth century, a.d. 
 
12 The Homeric Poems [chap. I 
 
 war of Troy by inciting Paris to the abd uction JOt 
 Helen after the celebrated ' Tudgment of Paris : ' it 
 also commenced the history of the war. The author- 
 ship of the poem is uncertain. The ancients knew very 
 well that it was not really Homeric, though Pindar 
 (doubtfully) quotes it as such. Herodotus plainly 
 denies Homer's authorship, and Aristotle, who gives 
 the substance of it, states that it is far inferior to the 
 Iliad in the management of the plot.^ The Cypria 
 has been attributed to Stasinus of Cyprus, supposed 
 to have been a contemporary of Arcttnus (the first 
 Olympiad, B.C. 776), but very little is known of him. 
 There is, however, a story, evidently an accommodating 
 one, that he was Homer's son-in-law, and that the 
 poem was given to him as a marriage portion with 
 his wife. 
 
 Of Arctinus, to whose authorship the Aethiopis and 
 the Sack of Troy are both attributed, we know a little 
 more. As indicated above he lived about 776 B.C., 
 and he ^slQHg£dJo_Miletus, the most important of the 
 Ionian colonies. He was by far the best as well as 
 the best known of the Cyclic poets, and he was thought 
 so much of by the ancients that some of them placed 
 him before Homer even in point of time. By others 
 he was called a disciple of Homer, and there is reason 
 to think that he was really a poet of some distinction. 
 
 The authorship of the Little Iliad is again uncertain, 
 but it has been attributed to Lesches of Mitylene (who 
 should have used the Aeolic dialect). In all prob- 
 ability he was tv/o generations later than Arctinus, but 
 there is a storv of t heir having held a contest of pnptry , 
 which may be explained by the fact that their work 
 to some extent overlapped, as both the Little Iliad 
 and the Sack of Troy were intended as sequels to the 
 Iliad of Homer, and treated, though differently, of 
 the same events. 
 
 1 See Poetics, ch. xxiii. There is, however, another passage in 
 the fragmentarjr treatise not quite consistent with this which 
 iSe'redTinThe" xt° '"'P''' *^' genuineness of the passage 
 
sec, i] Introductory Survey 13 
 
 The poems of the later portion of the Cycle are closely 
 
 connected with the Odyssey. They are two in number : 
 
 I. The Nostoi, or " Returns " of 
 
 Cyclic Poems heroes from Troy, like the Odyssey which 
 
 ewu'eeted with gives a much-elaborated description of 
 
 the OdyBsey. ^j^g return of Odysseus to his home in 
 Ithaca. 
 
 2. The Telegony, or Sequel to the Odyssey, recounting 
 the fortunes of Telegonus, a son of Odysseus by the 
 enchantress Circe. He kills his father, and, after 
 visiting his mother, weds his step-mother Penelope. 
 
 The author of the Nosioi^ was particularly uncertain, 
 which may have been a reason why it was attributed 
 to Homer. The later authorities, however, attribute it 
 mostly to Agias of Troezen, of whom very little is 
 known but who is said to have live d about 740 B.C. (or 
 about a generation later than Arctinus and Stasinus). 
 The Nostoi described the Returns of many of the Greek 
 heroes, but more especially that of the two Atreidse, 
 whence it was also known as v '"Si' 'ArpetSav Kddobos. 
 
 The author of the Telegony was believed to be Eugam- 
 mon of Cjrene, who lived somewhere about two centuries 
 later than the earlier Cyclics (circ. 570 B.C.). As far as 
 we can judge it was altogether inferior, but it is worth 
 remarking that the Cyclic poems, as such, were prized 
 not for their literary me rit, but solely f or the mythology 
 they containe3^ ,^"?> "* 
 
 Here our description ^adlP end, and we reserve for 
 a separate Section the treatment of the important 
 question : What is the real relation of Homer to the 
 Cycle? 
 
 I It has been very plausibly maintained that the Nostoi was 
 really a group of separate poems rather than a single one. It may 
 be that originally this was the case, but we have no means ot 
 knowing definitely. 
 
[ 14 ] 
 
 § 2. Homer and the Cycle 
 
 Bv combining together the different elements alreadji 
 
 described, and inserting the Iliad and the Odyssey in 
 
 their respective positions we get a com- 
 
 Poems inolnded plete conspectus of the Trojan Cycle. 
 
 In Irojan Cycle. Xhe lUad comes immediately before the 
 
 Aethiopis, and we are told by a scholiast V 
 
 that certain copies of the former ended with an allusioni 
 
 to the arrival of the Amazons with which the Aethiopis 
 
 opened. Thus instead of our reading (//. xxiv. 804) 
 
 'Or oly dfKpieTTov Td(j)Ov "ExTopos ijrTroSd/ioio, 
 
 they omitted the last word and added 
 
 "Apjjof dvyoTTip fieyaKtiTopps Saibpo^ovoio, 
 
 On the other hand, th.Q Odyssey came after the Nostoi 
 which led up to it, and before its sequel the Telegony. 
 Thus we get the order : — 
 
 1. The Cypria, B.C. 776 (Stasinus). 
 
 2. The lUad of Homer. 
 
 3. The AetUdpis 776 (Arctinus). 
 
 4. The Little Iliad 700 (Lesches ?). 
 
 5. The Sack of Troy 776 (Arctinus). 
 
 6. The Nostoi 740 (Agias ?). 
 
 7. The Odyssey of Homer. 
 
 8. The Telegony 560 (Eugammon). 
 
 It will now be necessary to look into this arrangemeat 
 more closely, for from the relation of the genuine Horner:^ 
 to the rest of the Cycle a most important argument can 
 be instituted regarding the probable date of the Iliad and 
 Odyssey, at least as fully developed epic poems. In the 
 first place, then, our evidence for the existence of the 
 Cycle as such is late. There are two conflicting views 
 as to its origin. Some good authorities, as Welckleif 
 would attribute it to the Alexandrian period : on the 
 
 ' In the Brit. Mus. Townley MS. of Iliad. 
 
sec. 2] Homer and the Cycle 15 
 
 other hand Monro ' would bring it down much later, in 
 fact well into the Roman period. In any case it is most 
 probable that the grammarians originally formed a 
 prose cycle of Mvtholoqrv.? or a comp lete and continnnns 
 arrangement q1 the myths jn th eir, prp^exjorder; and 
 that sabsaoagnt to this the demand sprung up for a 
 collection of epic_goems_in a cohtmuous form^mbody- 
 ingl Eeiaihe mytnoIofflHrio rer ~ "" 
 
 ■ iTtEis view IS correct, the fitting together of the d if- 
 f erent sections of epic in the cycle was due not tolihe 
 o riginal authors of the poetry, butja. 
 iSt f* STibsP,q,nP.nt— accommodation like -that 
 
 accommodation. which_w&,haye -already seen was prac- 
 tised on the end of the Iliad in certain 
 codices (though this particulardevice was never adopted 
 liTthe vulgate text). 
 
 With regard to the grave difficulties in the way o f our 
 assuming that the poems were originally intended to 
 run togethe r. K. O. Miiller says very well,° " In order 
 to make such an interlacing of the poems comprehen- 
 sible, we must suppose the existence of an academy of 
 poets, dividing their materials amongst each other upon 
 a distinct understanding, and with the most minute 
 precision. It is, however, altogether inconceivable that 
 Arctinus should have twice broken off in the midst of 
 actions, which the curiosity of his hearers could never 
 have permitted him to leave unfinished, in order that, 
 almost a century after, Lesehes, and probably at a still 
 later date Agias, might fill up the gaps and complete the 
 narrative." And besides this, which we may call the 
 intrinsic absurdity of the supposition alluded to, there 
 are other arguments against it. Proclus, to whom, as we 
 have said, we owe our account of the Cycle, evidently 
 speaks of only portions of poems, and not of wholes, for 
 
 ' See J.H.S., 1883, " On the fragments of Proclus' abstract 
 of the Epic Cycle contained in the Codex Venetus," and § 3 of the 
 appendix to Odyssey, xiii-xxiv., which is one of the most valuable 
 portions of the volume. 
 
 ' They had cycles of History also, and even of Oratory. 
 
 ' Literature of Ancient Greece, chap, vi., p. 67 (Lewis's Trans- 
 lation). 
 
i6 The MomeriG Poems [chap, f 
 
 we have extant fragments of Arctinus and Lesches 
 relating to events which are not treated of by them in 
 their respective parts of the Cycle. Again Aristotle 
 practically enumerates the divisions of the Little Ili^d 
 in regard to its plot,^ and several of these are necessarily 
 omitted in the arguments of Proclus, because they 
 would overlap with the work of Arctinus (the Sack of 
 Troy) which was preferred to the Little Iliad by the 
 compilers of the Cycle. Lastly, with regard to Arctinus 
 himself there must have been selection (and consequent 
 accommodation) — for the Cycle only included , seven 
 books from him (five of the Aethiopis and two of the 
 Sack of Troy) ; whereas it is stated t hat his works ran t o 
 Q,5oo line s, which ought to indicate twelve books at the 
 lowest. 
 
 How, then, did the Trojan Cycle arise ? Clearly it was 
 a gradual growth, a sort of accretion around the original 
 Homeric poems. And we can trace the 
 Origin of the mental process which led to this. In 
 Trojan Cycie. our last Section we gave an outline of 
 the Iliad. It chiefly concerns one iiero 
 and one single action. Many other heroes are intro- 
 duced, so that we get our minds focussed on the Trojan 
 War. After Hector's death and burial the epic closes; 
 hence we are left in suspense, for we are told nothing 
 about the fate of Troy, nothing except in the way of 
 dark forebodings as to that of the chief actor, the swift- 
 footed Achilles. It was almost inevitable that, as the 
 Iliad became more and more popular and added ever 
 fresh impetus to the epic inspiration, successive bards 
 should endeavour to carry on the story. Many sequels 
 may have been composed and have perished; those of 
 Arctinus and Lesches (supposing them to be the authors 
 of the poems in question), being highly reputed, survived. 
 Now we find there was in the work of Arctinus, so far as 
 our evidence goes, something of the spirit of the Iliad. 
 At least the Aethiopis turns wholly on the same hert) as 
 
 ' See Poet., ch. xxiii. 4. There is some difficulty about the 
 readm?, but tliis liardly affects tlie force of tlie argument. 
 
 Aristotle draws attention to the unity of action of the IKad, 
 as compared to the later epics {loc. cit.). 
 
sec. 2] Homer and the Cycle 17 
 
 the Iliad, and there is a certain largeness of design 
 apparent in the plot, together with a marked originality 
 of incident and freedom from servile imitation. Arctinus 
 was, according to tradition, the oldest of the Cyclics, and 
 according to Monro, " the tradition that he was a disciple 
 of Homer is fully borne out by what we know of his 
 work." 
 
 What more natural, seeing the success and popularity 
 of these sequels of the Iliad, than that other bards should 
 essay the task of composing — on the one hand an intro- 
 duction to the same great epic; and, on the other,* a 
 sequel to the Odyssey which also lent itself very favour- 
 ably to the idea ? With regard to the Nostoi, it has been 
 remarked above that we do not know whether it was a 
 single poem so much as a group of shorter pieces. From 
 the Odyssey^ itself we learn that 'Nostoi,' or ballads 
 describing the Return of the Heroes from Troy, were 
 recognised favourites among the listeners of the bards. 
 
 Here, then, we see the materials were at hand for the 
 formation of a Trojan Cycle. Nothing more than judi- 
 cious selection was required, together with ^modicum 
 ofjngeaiiity in joining the sections into a continuous 
 whole — ^just the sort of work to suit the Alexandrians 
 or their successors. They did not care much about 
 literary merit, and indeed were not good judges of it ; 
 so that the cyclic poems often included inferior work, 
 and by degrees the very term carried with it a reproach 
 impl3dng what was trite, mechanical, (in a word) de- 
 cadent. 
 
 So far we have merely indicated roughly the tenden- 
 cies that led to the formation of the epic Cycle. But it 
 is necessary for our purpose to prove 
 Date of Homep the truth of one part of the theory, 
 ' CvcUcbT'*' namely, that the Iliad and the Odyssey 
 existed, at least as fully developed epics, 
 prior to the composition of the Cyclics. This is the more 
 necessary because, on specious rather than solid grounds, 
 the contrary has been maintained in recent times. 
 
 ' Notice the sequel to the Odyssey is considerably later than 
 the other Cyclics. 
 • I. 326-52. 
 
 C 
 
1 8 The Homeric Poems [chap. I 
 
 As we have not the text of the Cyclics but only very 
 small fragments, we can hardly consider the question 
 linguistically ; but as we possess outlines of the subject- 
 matter of the poems we can use a very good test, namely 
 that of mythological growth. It is easy to discern 
 stages in the development of myths ; and we can be 
 absolutely certain that the Cypria which precedes the 
 Iliad, equally with the poems which follow it in the 
 Cycle, represents quite a notably advanced stage. 
 Myths which became very celebrated in after times, 
 and which are remarkable by their absence from the 
 Iliad and even the Odyssey, are taken for granted in the 
 Cypria. Among these are the apotheosis of the twin 
 Dioscuri, the sacrifice of Iphigenia, and above all the 
 Judgment of Paris. In regard to the latter at least, 
 it bears so st'""Tig1y nn ths origin of the Trojan War that 
 we can hardly believe it would be omitted in Homer, 
 unless it were an after-growth. 
 
 But on the other hand the implied references to the 
 Iliad in the Cyclics belonging to it, as also those to the 
 Odyssey in the other two, are such as to leave no doubt 
 that when the Cyclics were composed our Homeric 
 poems were not merelv in existence, but alreadv he ld 
 a commanding position in the world of poetr y. Even, 
 in the Nostoi, which takes a more independent theme 
 than the rest, many of the incidents are merely borrowed 
 from the Odyssey, sometimes with the introduction of 
 new details owing to the desire of the newer poet to 
 improve on the old.^ 
 
 ! To go further into this interesting question would 
 ex\;eed our limits, but for a very satisfactory treatment 
 of it, the student must be referred to the section in 
 Monro's Appendix already named.^ Among the criteria 
 
 ' In one point Monro (p. 381) points out the Nostoi shows less 
 development than we might have expected, namely, in regatd 
 to the ptominent part taken by Clytemnestra in the murder oi 
 Agamemnon. 
 
 ^ One of Monro's minor arguments is, however, open to 
 (question, namely, that from rites of purification after crime. It 
 is true that the idea is not Homeric ; it is doubtful if we can 
 assume that it is late (see G. Murray, Ancient Greek Literatwn, 
 P-47). - ' 
 
sec. 2] Homer and the Cycle 19 
 
 of priority we may remar k that Hirprt g nntatin ng from 
 the Iliad and Odyssey occur even among our scanty 
 fragments of the Cyclic poems. 
 
 Finally there is no doubt that nearly all the Cyclic 
 poems were popularly attributed to the same authorship 
 as the Iliad and the Odyssey, whereas we never hear 
 of the latter being attributed to Stasinus, Lesches, 
 Eugammon and the rest. The reason is because the 
 latter were conscious imitators of the Homeric epics, 
 both as to matter and style, and although their authors 
 never intended it, it was inevitable that in an uncritical 
 age the imitation should be identified with the reality, 
 ^e dross mistaken for the pure gold. 
 
 Hitherto we have been simply maintaining the priority 
 
 m,date of our poems over the lost Cyclics; ana it now 
 
 remains to consider what light is thereby 
 
 Conclasion thrown on the actual date of what we 
 
 'of*IU^* ^t ^^1 Homer. 
 
 Odyssey. I* would be out of place to antici- 
 
 pate what we have to say in a later 
 chapter on the subject of the unity of authorship 
 of the Iliad and Odyssey. For clearness' sake, how- 
 ever, it will be better to point out now that if the 
 composition of the poems was (as we shall later 
 attempt to prove), gradual and even slow, there can 
 be no such thing as a single date for their entire com- 
 position. But we are not prejudicing that question here, 
 because we are dealing with the latest date, the date 
 beforewhich the poems must have existed as completed 
 compositions. And we must make yet another distinc- 
 tion. We do not mean by completed that at the date 
 we are undertaking to establish, the poems were already 
 canto for canto, line for line, precisely in the form 
 which they bear in our modern text. The antiquity 
 ot that text is another and a very different question ; 
 to which we shall have to devote a separate section of 
 the present chapter. But we mean relatively, we might 
 say organically, complete, in the sense that the poems 
 were, as we have said, fully-developed epics, such as 
 could gain a wide celebrity and become sources of 
 inspiration to succeeding schools of poets. 
 
20 The Homeric Poems [chap. I 
 
 Plainly in early times it would be quite compatible 
 with such a view of an organised epic commanding a wide , 
 celebrit y, to suppose that subordinate" additions, even of 
 considerable relative length (as for instance the ' Cata- 
 logue,' or a single Aristeia of the Iliad, or scenes of 
 Recognition in the Odyssey), might very possibly be 
 added by later bards. 
 
 With the above limitations, then, we hope the student 
 will agree with us that our data point to a period not 
 later than somewhere about the middle of the ninth 
 century, B.C., for what we may call the substantial 
 composition of the 'Iliad' and 'Odyssey.' It must 
 be seen that the above argument, if it has any force, 
 demands their existence not merely at an earlier, but at 
 a considerably earlier date than the poems which were 
 imitations of them. If the reader will now turn back 
 to our tabulated list of the Trojan Cycle, he will iind 
 that four of the poems, by three different authors, are 
 all grouped about the First Olympiad, or within a 
 generation of it ; in other words not later than the middle 
 of the eighth century. Naturally this evidence is to 
 some extent mutually self-supporting. If it was a 
 question of a single poem or even of a single name, we 
 could not pretend the case would be a strong one. Even 
 as it is, the argument if it stood alone, would not do 
 more than establish a certain degree of proba- 
 bility. 
 
 But if we look further into the qttSstion, we shall see 
 
 that there are several distinct lines of argument, all 
 
 tending to corroborate the date we have 
 
 Further corrobo- put forward as the latest possible one. 
 
 Homer "50*M0 ^ ^^^ ^^^^^T I' ""f °^ ''}^'^ ^"^^v"'*- 
 B,(j.) - ance, we will briefly indicate these 
 
 arguments. 
 
 In the first place, when we turn our attention to the 
 
 early beginnings of Hellenic as distinct from Homeric 
 
 literature, we see in them a cogent though indirect 
 
 reason for throwing bar.y ly ell into the ninth century 
 
 the bloom of the Homeric epic. The schools of 
 
 elegiac poetry in Ionia and of lyric poetry in ^olis 
 
 took their rise at least in the early part of the seventh 
 
sec. 2] Homer and the Cycle 21 
 
 century, and their existence certainly seems to postu- 
 late that the epic inspiration was on the wane, if 
 it had not quite died away. But we know that there 
 was a long period of epic decadence, not merely on 
 account of the Cyclic poetry which has perished, but 
 also from other extant poetry. For instance let us 
 take the case of the Homeric ' Hymns ' which were 
 described above. It is true that their dates cannot 
 be fixed with certainty, but there is more dispute 
 about the inferior limit than the superior. Many 
 independent reasons put the latter at least as early 
 as 700 B.C., for the Hymns to Demeter, the Delian 
 Apollo and Aphrodite ; and possibly they may, like the 
 Cyclics, go back even beyond that date, well into the 
 eighth century. Now, the difference between these 
 and the Odyssey is well marked, especially in regard to 
 the decay of the digamma.^ Besides they are clearly 
 imitative of the Homeric poems — one of them, that to 
 Aphrodite, containing a very large proportion of lines 
 or parts of lines which are evidently borrowed from 
 Homer. 
 
 Therefore, although we could not certainly go back to 
 the date for Homer which we mentioned above from 
 the evidence of the Hymns taken alone, yet they have 
 considerable importance as confirming the view of an 
 early date. 
 
 The case of the Works and Days of Hesiod is perhaps 
 stronger, inasmuch as this poem may be even earlier 
 than the Hymns'"; whereas the gap between the style 
 of Homer and of Hesiod is so marked as to postulate a 
 very decided interval. Hesiod represents the beginning 
 of a new school of epic quite distinct from the Homeric, 
 yet presupposing it. In language, in mythological 
 ideas, in poetic ethos, he cannot be less than a century 
 
 * The point was worked out by Hartal. See Horn. Stud., iii. 
 
 ' Sometimes the ancients, as Herodotus, thought Hesiod was 
 nearly as old as Homer : but he was never put later than the 
 eighth century, B.C. We know something tangible about Hesiod, 
 his individuality and his surroundings ; but even were his person- 
 ality wholly unknown, we could still argue from the probable 
 date of the poetry ascribed to him. 
 
22 The Homeric Poems [chap. I 
 
 later than the bulk of Homer." The influence of Homer 
 on Hesiod is most marked, as Professor Mahaffy has 
 testified." 
 
 If we look to the internal evidence of the Homeric 
 poems, we find our belief in their substantial antiquity 
 again confirmed. They must have received their 
 existing outlines at a time not many centuries removed 
 from the Dorian invasion and the great migrations, as 
 they deal with a state of affairs prior to them, and they 
 depended for their transmission not on written docu- 
 ments, but on oral tradition. To press this point would 
 be impossible here, but its importance and its force 
 will, we venture to think, dawn more and more on the 
 reader's mind. For as he proceeds with his study be 
 will come to realize what the age of the migrations 
 involved in transforming the face of things— how 
 utterly new was the Hellas which emerged from 
 them and how unlike the civilisation of pre-historic 
 tunes. So that in reality, in the hypothesis that the 
 composition of the poems was largely subsequent to 
 the migrations, it becomes difficult to explain the 
 consistency of the bards in ignoring, for instance, the 
 Dorians, and the new distribution of the Greek people 
 which we know existed at the dawn of Hellenic history 
 properly so called. However, this difficulty does not 
 directly militate against our position, since we are not 
 now maintaining that the poems were composed or even 
 seriously modified so late as the ninth century — ^but 
 merely that their substantial origin must not he placed 
 notably later than this date. And our argument is 
 simply that what is a difiiculty for the date we mention 
 would become practically an impossibility for a later one. 
 , Lastly we have the express testimony of Herodotus." 
 
 ' This does not exclude Hesiodic influence from the latest 
 additions to the Homeric Corpus. In particular the Catalogue 
 is very probably the work of this later school of poetry. 
 
 ' See his Greek Classical Literature, i. p. 119. Mahaffy, however, 
 would put Hesiod a century later. 
 
 ' It would be beside the mark to argue that Herodotus was not 
 clear as to what was really Homeric poetry ; though he seems to 
 have had a good idea of the difference between it and the Cyprvi- 
 We are not now arguing as to the priority of the Iliad and Odyssif 
 to the CycUcs, but taking it for granted. 
 
sec. 2] Homer and the Cycle 23 
 
 He states with some emphasis that Homer lived not 
 more than four hundred years before himself, a state- 
 ment which, curiously enough, agrees very closely with 
 the conclusion we are maintaining on general grounds. 
 It may be objected that Herodotus is not a critical his- 
 torian. But he is quoted here not so much because of 
 the value of his own judgment, as because he indicates 
 the current opinion of his time. Now, in a case of 
 national poetry like this, the tradition is worth a good 
 deal as to its general antiquity. Probably when con- 
 troverting an earlier date, the view given by Herodotus 
 as his own was also that of the better-informed Greeks, 
 who were somewhat on their guard against the exag- 
 gerations of the populace. 
 
 We think on the whole the case for putting the author- 
 ship of the bulk of Homer not later than the ninth 
 century, B.C., is quite satisfactory, and it is one on which 
 scholars are much more unanimous than on most 
 Homeric questions. The only difficulty of any real 
 account is a linguistic one, which we shall deal with in 
 the Section, " Our Homeric Text." But we shall now 
 proceed to give some notes on the external history of the 
 poems, much of which may help to throw an indirect 
 light on the question of their substantial antiquity. 
 
[ 24 ] 
 
 § 3- The Poems among the Greeks 
 
 The early traditions about Homer in historical times 
 were vague and have for us merely an indirect import- 
 ance. There appears to have been a 
 Traditional in- consensus among the Greeks that they 
 troduction of the had derived the poems from the Ionian 
 ^ toeeM*" colonies of Asia Minor, as indeed the 
 dialects in which they received them 
 would also suggest. One tradition attributed their 
 importation into Greece to Lycurgus, who was reputed 
 to have been King of Sparta about the first Olympiad, 
 or B.C. ,776. As, however, so many impossible things 
 were related of Lycurgus, whose very existence has 
 been (perhaps rashly) called in question by modern 
 critics, this statement is not of much importance. 
 Still, it testifies to a rooted belief in the great antiquity 
 of the poems. Herodotus, as we have seen, confirms 
 this by stating with some emphasis that the poems were 
 not more than four hundred years prior to himself, as 
 though combating a view that they were far older. 
 This would bring them, roughly speaking, to a genera- 
 tion before the supposed date of Lycurgus. In consider- 
 ing this question it is necessary at the outset to point 
 out that references to Homer need not necessarily apply 
 to our Iliad and Odyssey in any form, still less to the 
 precise text which has come down to us. According 
 to Herodotus, about a century and a half before his 
 own date the tyrant of Sicyon, Cleisthenes, objected to 
 the public recitation of the poems because they made 
 too much of the city of his rivals, the Argives. This 
 seems to point to the Iliad,'^ which makes the title 
 ' Argive ' synonymous with ' Greek,' and it seems to 
 
 ^ It is true that Grote and other critics deny this, and attribute 
 the reference to the cyclic poem the Thebais — a gratuitous and 
 unnecessary assumption. 
 
sec, 3] The Poems among the Greeks 25 
 
 show that at the date in question, not merely was our 
 Homer well known in Greece, but it already held an 
 almost sacred character, insomuch that its recitation 
 was a matter of political importance. 
 
 This public recitation was in vogue at Athens at an 
 early date. According to the Platonic dialogue, Hipp- 
 
 archus^ the poems were introduced by 
 
 The Poemg among the well known tyrant of that name, a 
 
 the Athenians, son of Peisistratus. Other, and later, 
 
 authorities af&rm that Solon at a still 
 earlier date introduced the poems into Athens. More- 
 over, it is stated of both Solon and Hipparchus that 
 they enacted that the recitation should be taken up 
 in a regular order,' each rhapsode commencing to 
 recite at the point where his predecessor had ended. 
 It is plain that any such regulation, were it really 
 made, would necessarily presuppose a form of the 
 text more or less established by custom, at least 
 with regard to the substantial sequence of the different 
 passages. 
 
 We must now turn to another important (alleged) 
 event in the history of the poems at Athens, and that 
 
 is the Recension stated to have been 
 
 I!he Recension of carried out by Peisistratus somewhere 
 
 Peisistratus. about the middle of the sixth century, 
 
 B.C. It has been the subject of much 
 controversy and is still a thorny topic. Wolf laid far 
 too much stress on the statement of late authorities, 
 such as Cicero and Pausanias, using them to prove 
 much more than they asserted, namely, that the poems, 
 prior to Peisistratus, had existed merely in the form 
 of disconnected lays or ballads, and that it was he who 
 gave them their epic form. It is admitted now that 
 the notices we have about Peisistratus (even supposing 
 them to represent a fact) would not bear out such a 
 
 ^ The authenticity of the Hipparchus has been and is justly- 
 controverted, but it is admitted to come from a contemporary 
 of Plato, even if not by Plato himself, so its authority as testifying 
 to current opinion will hold good. 
 
 '' The phrase in Plato, or Pseudo-Plato, is t| iirdk^^*a>s i<p€^!js 
 (Hipparch, 228 B.). 
 
26 The Homeric Poems [chap. I 
 
 sweeping conclusion. At most all that the Athenian 
 tyrant did was to settle the text of the poems, or it 
 may have been that he merely organised their public 
 recitation. One of the later scholia gives another form 
 of the story, to the effect that Peisistratus. appointed 
 a commission of four scholars to do the work (what- 
 ever it was) and among these is mentioned Onomacritus 
 of Athens, who was also accused of interpolating for 
 political purposes. The charge had been brought 
 against Solon or Peisistratus* by a Dieuchidas of Megara, 
 that he had interpolated the lines about the Athenians 
 in Iliad, ii. 557-8, which played an important part in 
 the dispute between Athens and Megara relating to the 
 possession of Salamis. The exact date of Dieuchidas 
 is not known, but it fell probably within the classical 
 period, and is therefore the earliest hint we have of 
 any action taken by Peisistratus affecting the poems, 
 Monro, who argues " against the whole tradition 
 regarding Solon, Peisistratus and Hipparchus, main- 
 tains that the Peisistratus story can be traced to a 
 late epigram quoted in two of the spurious lives of 
 Homer which speaks of Peisistratus as, " great in 
 counsel, who cultivated Homer, formerly sung in frag- 
 ments." No doubt the silence of Herodotus, Thucy* 
 dides and Aristarchus on the subject of the tradition 
 should make us regard it with a certain suspicion, more 
 perhaps than the inconsistencies in detail regarding it 
 which the reader wiU have remarked. Still it appears 
 that as a rule our modern authorities hold that there 
 is some grain of truth in the statements referred to, or 
 at least that they testify to an existing belief among the 
 Athenians that in the earliest times of which they had 
 any clear recollection the poems were publicly recognised 
 and had already an authority, and consequently a 
 definite form of their own. We must also remember 
 that negative arguments are apt to be fallacious, 
 
 * Plutarch, in the Life of Solon (§10), sajre that this charge was 
 brought by most of the Megarian writers against Solon. 
 
 »In his Odyssey (xiii,-xxiv.) pp. 402; see also an important 
 article in the Enoyclopadia Bntannica. 9th edition, entitled 
 ' Homer.' 
 
sec. 3] The Poems among the Greeks 27 
 
 Around these names, as round the name of Peisis- 
 tratus, theories have been built up starting from a 
 
 CyncethuB of slender foundation, and it may be useful 
 Chios and to state here what is really known 
 
 Antimachua about them. Cynsethus was a Rhap- 
 
 of Colophon. 1 sode, and the reputed author of the 
 extant hymn to Apollo. His date is disputed , but a 
 scholiast of Pindar says that he lived c. B.C. 504, and 
 was the first to introduce the Homeric poetry into 
 Syracuse, He, like so many other rhapsodes, was 
 accused of interpolating the text ; and it is upon this, 
 among other indications, that Pick's celebrated Aeolic 
 theory has been founded, and the translation into 
 Ionic Greek attributed to Cynsethus in the year 540 
 
 B.C." 
 
 Antimachus was an epic poet who lived in the early 
 part of the fourth century, B.C. He was thus an older 
 contemporary of Plato, and was adinired and cultivated 
 by him, according to Plutarch and Cicero. His chief 
 work was the Thebais, a poem of enormous dimensions, 
 but (in spite of the praise of the Alexandrians) this was 
 its only merit. What concerns us is that he was the 
 earliest recorded editor of the poems, and although his 
 version has not come down to us, there are traces of 
 it in the extant remains of the great Alexandrian critic, 
 Aristarchus, of which more later. 
 
 The public recitation of Homer at the festival of the 
 
 Panathenaea, whether instituted by Peisistratus or at 
 
 a later date, must have influenced the 
 
 The Poems history of the poems, and very probably 
 
 Panathensea tended to fix an official text.' The 
 
 great festival of Athena being the most 
 
 solemn of all those held at Athens, we may be sure 
 
 ^ More properly of Clarus, which was, however, a dependency 
 of Colophon, after which he is usually called. 
 
 * See below, " Historical Outlines of the Homeric Controversy," 
 chap. iii. p. 165. 
 
 ' There is considerable ground for the theory that the text 
 known as the Vulgate, as distinct from special recensions and 
 that which has mainly come down to us, was the text publicly 
 recognised at Athens. See below, p. 63. 
 
26 The Homeric Poems [chap. I 
 
 sweeping conclusion. At most all that the Athenian 
 tyrant did was to settle the text of the poems, or it 
 may have been that he merely organised their public 
 recitation. One of the later schoha gives another form 
 of the story, to the effect that Peisistratus. appointed 
 a commission of four scholars to do the work (what- 
 ever it was) and among these is mentioned Onomacritus 
 of Athens, who was also accused of interpolating for 
 political purposes. The charge had been brought 
 against Solon or Peisistratus' by a Dieuchidas of Megara, 
 that he had interpolated the lines about the Athenians 
 in Iliad, ii. 357-8, which played an important part in 
 the dispute between Athens and Megara relating to the 
 possession of Salamis. The exact date of Dieuchidas 
 is not known, but it fell probably within the classical 
 period, and is therefore the earliest hint we have of 
 any action taken by Peisistratus affecting the poems. 
 Monro, who argues " against the whole tradition 
 regarding Solon, Peisistratus and Hipparchus, main- 
 tains that the Peisistratus story can be traced to a 
 late epigram quoted in two of the spurious hves of 
 Homer which speaks of Peisistratus as, " great in 
 counsel, who cultivated Homer, formerly sung in frag- 
 ments." No doubt the silence of Herodotus, Thucy* 
 dides and Aristarchus on the subject of the tradition 
 should make us regard it with a certain suspicion, more 
 perhaps than the inconsistencies in detail regarding it 
 which the reader will have remarked. Still it appears 
 that as a rule our modern authorities hold that there 
 is some grain of truth in the statements referred to, or 
 at least that they testify to an existing belief among the 
 Athenians that in the earliest times of which they had 
 any clear recollection the poems were publicly recognised 
 and had already an authority, and consequently a 
 definite form of their own. We must also remember 
 that negative arguments are apt to be fallacious. 
 
 1 Plutarch, in the Life of Solon (§ 10), says that this charge was 
 brought by most of the Megarian writers against Solon. 
 
 ^ In his Odyssey (xiii,-xxiv.) pp. 402 ; see also an important 
 article in the Enoyclopadia Bntannica, 9th edition, entitled 
 • Homer.' 
 
sec. 3] The Poems among the Greeks 27 
 
 Around these names, as round the name of Peisis- 
 tratus, theories have been built up starting from a 
 
 CynathoB of slender foundation, and it may be useful 
 Chios and to state here what is reaUy known 
 
 AntimachuB about them. Cyn^ethus was a Rhap- 
 
 of Colophon. 1 sode^ ^nd the reputed author of the 
 extant hymn to Apollo, His date is disputed , but a 
 scholiast of Pindar says that he lived c. B.C. 504, and 
 was the first to introduce the Homeric poetry into 
 Syracuse. He, like so many other rhapsodes, was 
 accused of interpolating the text ; and it is upon this, 
 among other indications, that Pick's celebrated Aeolic 
 theory has been founded, and the translation into 
 Ionic Greek attributed to Cynsethus in the year 540 
 
 B.C.' 
 
 Antimachus was an epic poet who lived in the early 
 part of the fourth century, B.C. He was thus an older 
 contemporary of Plato, and was admired and cultivated 
 by him, according to Plutarch and Cicero. His chief 
 work was the Thebais, a poem of enormous dimensions, 
 but (in spite of the praise of the Alexandrians) this was 
 its only merit. What concerns us is that he was the 
 earliest recorded editor of the poems, and although his 
 version has not come down to us, there are traces of 
 it in the extant remains of the great Alexandrian critic, 
 Aristarchus, of which more later. 
 
 The public recitation of Homer at the festival of the 
 
 Panathenaea, whether instituted by Peisistratus or at 
 
 a later date, must have influenced the 
 
 The Poems history of the poems, and very ptobably 
 at the tended to fix an official text." The 
 
 i-anatnentea. ^^^^ festival of Athena being the most 
 solemn of all those held at Athens, we may be sure 
 
 ^ More properly of Clarus, which was, however, a dependency 
 of Colophon, after which he is usually called. 
 
 * See below, " Historical Outlines of the Homeric Controversy," 
 chap. iii. p. 165. 
 
 ' There is considerable ground for the theory that the text 
 known as the Vulgate, as distinct from special recensions and 
 that which has mainly come down to us, was the text publicly 
 recognised at Athens. See below, p. 63. 
 
30 The Homeric Poems [chap. I 
 
 implies a practice which can hardly have been in vogue 
 at the later periods when each reciter was bound to 
 take up the thread of the poetry when his predecessor 
 had dropped it. It has been maintained/ with great 
 ingenuity, that many of the sutures and inconsistencies 
 in our text of Homer may be due to its being rhapso- 
 dised, or broken up into shorter passages suitable for 
 a simple recitation. 
 
 In order to understand the i nfluence exercised 
 
 over the Greek min d by thT Homeric poems, we 
 
 need only advert to the place they 
 
 Educa°ion ^^^^ ^" *^^ ^^^^^ system of educa- 
 tion. Nothing else had any place in 
 comparison with them. Reading, writing, dictation, 
 above all memory lesson s, were largely confined to 
 Homer, though not to the exclusion of the other poets, 
 as Hesiod, Simonides, and Theognis. It was not un- 
 common for a Greek boy to know both the Iliad and 
 the Odyssey by heart." And the educational use of 
 Homer was not confined to mere mechanical repetition. 
 The scholars were required to recite the epic poets 
 before their master and fellow-scholars, paying special 
 attention to a proper pronunciation and grace of action, 
 just as they learnt also to sing the lyric poets correctly 
 and intelligently. But more than this. Homer was 
 taught in school as the one great authority on all that 
 regarded Greek religion, history, and patriotism, not 
 to say as the chief source of knowledge on most other 
 subjects. From an early period there had been a 
 tendency to interpret Homer in a more or less un- 
 natural way, just as more modern authorities used to 
 have recourse to the theory of sun-myths and other 
 nature-myths to explain the story of Achilles and 
 Homeric lore generally. Thus, as Wolf remarks, the 
 allegorising school used " by their interpretation to 
 correct the fabulous element in Homer and to accom- 
 modate it to the physical and moral teaching of their 
 own age, and to distort history and everything else to 
 
 ' By Professor F. B. Jevons in J.H.S. for Oct., 1886. 
 ' See Xenophon, Symposium, iii. 5. 
 

 K 
 
 
 C5 
 
 
 m 
 
 
 iZ 
 
 
 n 
 
 
 Tl 
 
 
 SO 
 
 
 o 
 
 to 
 
 S 
 
 o 
 
 
 «=; 
 
 > 
 
 cl 
 
 H 
 
 2 
 
 S 
 
 <^ 
 
 W 
 
 1' 
 
 a 
 
 «i 
 
 N-4 
 
 bn 
 
 *« 
 
 05 
 
 S 
 
 § 
 
 CO 
 
 fS 
 
 o 
 
 
 X 
 
 
 o 
 
 
 o 
 
 
 t-l 
 
 
 t-l 
 
 
 l-H 
 
 
 ■^ 
 
 
 H 
 
sec. 3] The Poems among the Greeks 31 
 
 the involved and artificial ideas of their own scientific 
 system." * 
 
 In spite of all such attempts to tone down what 
 appeared to be the crudities of Homeric ideas to suit 
 the mind of a more advanced epoch, there were protests, 
 even before the age of Pericles, against the epic poets 
 as a vehicle of instruction for the young. For instance, 
 Xenophanes of Colophon, who probably lived at the 
 end of the sixth century ' was known as the castigator 
 of Homer, for he complained of him, as well as of Hesiod, 
 that he " imputed to the gods all that among men is 
 shameful and blameworthy (oveidta Kal ^oyoi), as theft, 
 adultery, and mutual deceit." 
 
 Even Thucydides tries to explain away in Homer 
 whatever was too marvellous for his readers to accept. 
 In the introduction to his First Book he treats the 
 account of the Trojan war as true history, defends it 
 from objections, and at the same time endeavours to 
 explain it on what appear to him to be rational prin- 
 ciples of criticism.' 
 
 Plato's attitude towards the poets may be regarded 
 as something of a puzzle. He has the utmost rever- 
 ence for Homer as truly inspired ; he 
 Plato's attitude calls him divine, and quotes him most 
 towards frequently as a final authority. His 
 
 omer. ^^ imagination brought him, perhaps, 
 
 more than any other Greek mind under Homer's spell 
 — we can trace the influence in his treatment of the 
 deepest truths, and especially in his love of the Myth 
 to express more than mere philosophy can convey. 
 And yet when he comes to treat of poetry (and chiefly 
 Homer's) as a vehicle of education, he is inexorable. 
 The poets must go ! the Ideal State must be purified 
 from their hanefnl inflnen ce ! He is as condemnatory 
 
 * Prolegomena, § cxxxvi. 
 
 ' His date is uncertain and has been the subject of much con- 
 troversy — but cannot have been later than the one mentioned 
 above. 
 
 ' This system of rationalising Homer was carried to the 
 greatest length by Euhemerus, a Scicilian of the fourth century 
 B.C., after whom it is sometimes named. 
 
32 
 
 The Homeric Poems [chap. I 
 
 of Homer's style as of his statements about the gods 
 and heroes. The style is bad because (and this is to 
 us moderns one of its chief merits) it is so dramatic. 
 In other words, it rests on imitation which is the foe to 
 all reality. 
 
 To believe that Plato is not to be taken senously 
 is impossible. If he is not serious here, he is never, sa 
 But it is another thing to say that "he expects his rule 
 to be cardfidintiLpractice. He is laying down abstract 
 principles of government and education, and that at 
 a time when his soul is smarting under a sense of the 
 evUs of pvtromp Hprnnrra ry. He knew Athens from 
 within, and saw her weak points — and knowing Sparta 
 only from a distance, believed that the Spartan spirit 
 and the Spartan training was better. So he drew his 
 picture of the Ideal State on Spartan lines, and in his 
 enthusiasm for his brand-new and superior training of 
 the citizen-soldier, he did not hesitate to eliminate 
 from his ideal system the teaching of Homer along 
 with other familiar features of Athenian education.' 
 
 Scientific criticism of the Homeric text, or the attempt 
 
 to arrive at a genuine version of the poems, was unknown 
 
 in the so-called classical era. It was 
 
 Foundation of after the Greek nation had ceased to 
 textual have an independent existence, but 
 
 "HomM. w^^° t^^ conquests of Alexander had 
 
 carried the Hellenic tongue and civilisa- 
 tion throughout the known world, that men commenced 
 to reflect on the treasure that had been committed to 
 them and to take measures to preserve it and set it in 
 order. Nearly all the existing Greek MSS. (said to 
 have been about 700,000 in number) were collected 
 in the great royal library of Alexandria, and there new 
 schools of literature arose. The Alexandrians did not, 
 it is true, effect creative or original work; they con- 
 fined themselves to the hiimb lpr tiiskq nf tlifl rrit^^, the 
 
 » The important contributions of Aristotle to Homeric criticism 
 and his treatment of Plato's daring proposal need not be dis- 
 cussed here. His views have been referred to above, chap. i. 
 I I, and further references will occur; see especially "Epic Ait 
 of Homer," chap. vi. 
 
sec. 3] The Poems among the Greeks 33 
 
 grammarian and the lexicographer ; but the debt we 
 owe them is immense, and not least in the depart-, 
 ^1;^^nt of Homeric culture. Three successive librarians 
 of the Ptolemies in the third and second centuries, B.C., 
 all of them inen of solid learn ing and a certain real 
 discernment, devoted themselves to the task of settling 
 the Homeric text ; and at least two of them wrote 
 important treatises on its meaning, thus laying the 
 foundation for the later structure of scientific criticism 
 of Homer. 
 
 The most important of this trio was he who also 
 came last, the great Aristarchus ; but before giving 
 details of his work it will be necessary to premise, 
 something about his predecessors, Zenodotus and 
 Aristophanes. ^-..^ 
 
 Zenodotus of Ephesus became chief libra rian at (^ 
 Alexandria about the year 280 B.C., not much more 
 than half a century after the death of 
 of*AriBt*fS'* Aristotle. He set to work to collect 
 " the poems of Homer and of the 
 other most celebrated poets (illustrium poetarum)."^ 
 He made a recension of the Iliad and the Odyssey 
 which had the greatest celebrity, and entitled him 
 to be termed the first Stop^iur^s of the Homeric text. 
 The peculiarity of his criticism was its tendency to 
 rashness in marking verses as spurious, or even 
 omitting them, on insufficient and wholly subjective 
 grounds. For this practice even the ancients blamed 
 him and it was certainly a defect, but something 
 should be forgiven to a pioneer in a new department 
 of knowledge. It is not quite certain that Zenodotus 
 wrote a regular commentary on the poems, but he 
 wrote a treatise on the Homeric meaning and use 
 of words which he called yASo-o-oi (from which we get 
 the term ' glossary '). The explanations of certain 
 passages which later writers attribute to him are taken 
 (according to Wolf) from the Glossary. 
 
 1 The exact denotation of this expression has been disputed 
 -r-it is not clear whether it applies only to the epic or also to the 
 lyric writers. Anyhow he devoted himself to aU the poems of 
 the epic cycle, of which he made a complete collection. 
 
34 The Homeric Poems [chap. I 
 
 /Aristophanes of Byzantium ^ilf d the Lib rary towards 
 the end of the same (the third) century, B.C. He was 
 also an eminent scholar, but his celebrity is somewhat 
 eclipsed,^ owing to his falling between the first and the 
 ^ greatest of the Homeric scholars of Alexandria. He, 
 
 too, edited the poems, and he was much more con- 
 servative in his taste than Zenodotus. 
 
 We now come to Aristarchus, who f lourished in the 
 earlier half of the second century, b.c! He gained a 
 ' celebrity which has been compared to 
 
 The linguistic that of Aristotle ; yet there is a con- 
 
 Aristarchns. siderable difference of opinion, and 
 indeed warm controversy, about his 
 merits and achievements in the field of Homeric criti- 
 cism. We certainly owe much to him, as will be made 
 clear in another section of this chapter, though not 
 perhaps quite in the way that has been often 
 believed. 
 
 All that we propose to do here is to give a very brief 
 conspectus of his work. We may for convenience 
 distinguish between his linguistic labours, or those 
 concerned with the textual criticism of Homer ; and 
 his more general treatises, which were equally impor- 
 tant in their own way. 
 
 There is considerable doubt as to the number of 
 J/cSoo-eis (editions) of the text which Aristarchus made ; 
 and even a doubt has been raised as to whether he really 
 edited the text at all. However, the prevailing opinion, 
 founded on the scholia, is that he edited the text twice. 
 His methods have also been called into question. There 
 is little reason to doubt that on the whole he was con- 
 servative, and averse from arbitrary emendation, though 
 if he found any MS. authority for a reading which he 
 liked, he felt free to adopt it. He collated about four- 
 teen different versions, seven of these being versions 
 
 ■ ^ He is perhaps best known as the originator of Greelc accents, 
 which he invented to preserve for his successors the true pro- 
 nunciation, and certainly without success. 
 
 ^ For instance Wolf, and many others since him, was led 
 into error regarding the influence of Aristarchus on our Homeric 
 text. 
 
sec. 3] The Poems among the Greeks 35 
 
 which had been in use in various states {USoa-en Kari, 
 TToAeis) and the rest being versions of individual editions 
 (kot" avSpa) including that of Antimachus to which we 
 have already referred ;' and made it a very special aim 
 to purify the vulgate text from what he believed to 
 be interpolations. For erring on the side of caution, 
 as well as for his method of grammatical commentaries, 
 he was attacked by his contemporaries, and very 
 bitterly by Crates, the leader of a rival school of criti- 
 cism which had spr ung up at Pergamum, in Mysia. 
 Here, too, there was'a great library of which Crates, 
 like Aristarchus at Alexandria, was in charge. 
 
 The school at Pergamum was far inferior to that of 
 the Alexandrians — their work being infected by the 
 design of spreading the philosophy of the Stoics, to 
 which they adhered. Aristarchus called his chief book 
 on Homeric language mpi dvaXoyixs, signifying that 
 he was on the look out chiefly for the analogies or 
 ordinary usages of the Homeric vocabulary. Crates 
 replied in a work entitled irtpl dva)/*aXias, hinting that 
 the proper method was to seek for what is anomalous, 
 or exceptional, in the language of Homer. JQiecra^, 
 
 troversy was carried on with a^Prta^n arprhity^ hnt it 
 
 may have been useful in drawing the attention of the 
 learned to points which would have been otherwise 
 overlooked." Aristarchus did good work in pointing 
 out the peculiarities of the Homeric diction in point of 
 meaning. Thus, he noticed . that <^o;8os is used in the 
 sense of flight rather than fear ; Pakkeiv of wounding 
 from a distance only ; th at raxa ^es not mean perhaps ; 
 _that ^joafu means to show rather than to say; that 
 Inputs refers not to all the warriors, but solely to 
 kings. Besides which he drew atte ntion to gra.mmati£ al 
 idioms which are peculiarly characteristic of the poems. 
 ""Aristarchus by no means confined his researches to 
 linguistic study. He dealt, in a peculiarly scholarly 
 
 1 See above, p. 27. '' 
 
 ° After the great fire in Alexandria, B.C. 47, which destroyed 
 nearly all the great treasures of the Library, the scholars were 
 much indebted to their rivals at Pergamum for authentic copies 
 of the great editions which had been burnt. 
 
36 The Homeric Poems [chap. I 
 
 way, with the subject matter of the 
 His tpeatment poems; throwing light on their geo- 
 ofHomerio graphy, history, mythology, and gene- 
 '"/enewa.'" rally on the interpretation of Homer. 
 Many points which are commonplaces to 
 the moderns wptp trrtif [;pTnarkp rl hy ms sagariT^" Fqr 
 instance, he first pointed out that 'Apyo% ILekaa-yiKov 
 means Thessaly, and "Apyoi 'Axo-ikov the Peloponnese ; 
 and he remarked the important differences revealed in 
 the poems as to the contrast between the customs of the 
 Homeric heroes and those of Hellenic life ; the absence 
 of coined money ; marriage customs in regard to tSvo ; 
 the ritual of sacrifice ; the roasting of food only, though 
 boiling was used for other purposes ; and similar points 
 which our commentaries are constantly treating of. 
 Not even the question of Homeric armour — a thorny 
 one for us — escapes his attention. And it must be 
 remembered we have only stray jottings from his work, 
 not his commentaries in their entirety. 
 
 One point for which Aristarchus deserves the fullest 
 credit was the attitude he took up in opposition to 
 the Pergamum school regarding the allegorical system 
 of interpretation, which was only beginning in his 
 time, but was afterwards carried tq f^ mnct oV.enrH 
 length s and with remarkable persistency. If we re- 
 member that Homeric scholarship was Only one of the 
 many spheres of the activity of Aristarchus, we shall 
 recognise that he possessed a truly great mind, and 
 that he deserved the reverence which was paid him by 
 future generations, even though it was undoubtedly 
 expressed with exaggeration.' 
 
 The critical signs (cnj/xeto) which Aristarchus""used 
 
 for drawing attention to certain portions of the Homeric 
 
 text may be here described, especidly 
 
 The critical as they are often referred to in modern 
 
 irta^ohns ^^litions of the classics, and moreover, 
 
 still exist (though without their original 
 
 ' For instance, a SchoUast on Homer observes that Aristarchus 
 mtist be fcdlowed in preference to other authorities, even though 
 the latter be right. He was caUed a ;«£vm to express his feUcity 
 as a critic. * — ' — 
 
sec. 3] The Poems among the Greeks 37 
 
 meaning) in our literature generally. The signs were 
 invented by the Alexandrians, and although not peculiar 
 to Aristarchus (for they were partly in use before his 
 time and were added to by his successors), are usually 
 cohnected with his name on account of its celebrity. 
 The code which he adopted included the following 
 marks: — 
 
 1. The d/3«A.ds, or spit ( — ) was used sometimes to 
 indicate that one or more verses are spurious. We 
 sometimes use the dagger (which is the same thing) 
 for this purpose, though brackets are more common. 
 
 2. The SnrXrj (>- ) was used to mark anything in a 
 line of note regarding grammar or Homeric usage ; in 
 other words, to draw attention to something in the 
 commentaries. 
 
 3. This mark when dotted, StTrAij irepiea-Tiyiievri (>|.) 
 merely indicated that Aristarchus differed from Zeno- 
 dotus in his view of a passage. 
 
 4. The do-Tspio-Kos (-x) indicated a repetition of a 
 a line from elsewhere, and might be used in conjunc- 
 tion with the d^eAds, in case a repetition was thought 
 to be interpolated. There were one or two other a-rnitta, 
 but of less importance than these. Mr. T. W. Allen has 
 informed me that the significance of the o-jj/itia is often 
 misunderstood. They were chiefly used to warn the 
 reader to refer to commentaries. 
 
 The various treatises of Aristarchus have not reached 
 
 us directly, and all we know of his teaching comes to 
 
 us in rather a peculiar way, namely. 
 
 The work of through compilers of his school, who 
 
 DidymuBand lived more than a century after him. 
 
 The Epitome, ^t the very end of the Alexandrian 
 
 period. The most important of these 
 
 is DidymUS, called the Rrazpn^ on arrpnr^ t nf his indft. 
 
 f atigable industry , for he is said to have written works 
 
 to. ^"'' ""TD'^'''" "f 3.500 ! However this may be, a 
 
 quantity of the Homeric scholia in our MSS. were 
 
 drawn from his writings. He undertook to collect 
 
 into a single treatise the views of the great master on 
 
 ' Literally ' of the Copper Guts." 
 
38 The Homeric Poems [chap. I 
 
 the Homeric poems ; probably because the Aristarchian 
 criticism was spread over a vast quantity of literature, 
 some of which, moreover, may have been injured or 
 lost in the fire alluded to above. This work, irepl 
 Trjs 'Apia-Tapxov SiopBwa-eias was at a later period still 
 (about the third century, a.d.) combined with similar 
 but far less important works,^ into what was called 
 The Epitome, and it is this work which has reached 
 us — though only in a fragmentary condition. There- 
 fore, what we have is not properly the commentary of 
 Aristarchus on Homer, but extracts from commen- 
 tators on Aristarchus as Homeric commentator. Yet 
 the truth remains that the publication of the scholia 
 from The Epitome was the greatest event in the history 
 of Homeric scholarship. 
 
 As we shall have to give a somewhat full account 
 of the views of Aristarchus and of his influence on our 
 text,' we need not deal further with the question here. 
 Suffice it to say that the importance attributed to the 
 Aristarchian criticism depends in great measure on the 
 knowledge it gives us of the editions which he used, 
 some of them being certainly as early as the fifth 
 century, B.C. 
 
 The division, with which we are so familiar, of the 
 Iliad and Odyssey into twenty-four books each did not 
 The arrangement ^1°^^ to the poems origmally. On 
 
 of the Poems contrary the ancients always quoted 
 
 in Books. them according to the subjects treated 
 in their respective parts, and the divi- 
 sions they recognised were not quite the same as our 
 Dooks. Thus they called our first book of the Iliad 
 the Aot/*o's and the M^vss: the second book the'Cwipos 
 and the KuTo/Xoyos ; whereas the fifth and sixth books 
 together were known as the Aio/iTj'Seia. AfliLsfluJjdth 
 th^ Qdyaasy , It is supposed that these titles generally, 
 though perhaps not in every case, corresponded to a 
 division of the poem which would be suitable for a 
 
 iJ.l^f^t'^^^^ ^i"-^ ''■^^"^^ (') °* Aristarchus upon the o-nuaa; 
 kLJ^^! ° ^^'•°?ian on prosody add accentuation ; (3) that of 
 JNicanor on punctuation. 
 
 = See below, { 5 of this chapter, entitled " Our Homeric Text." 
 
sec. 3] The Poems among the Greeks 39 
 
 single recitation or rhapsody. This may be fairly 
 taken for granted, whether we maintain that the epic 
 was prior to the rhapsody, which was as it were carved 
 out of the larger mass of poetry — or hold (with 
 Wolf, Croiset, and others) that the rhapsodies were 
 composed first in their own form, and were afterwards 
 agglomerated into the epic. 
 
 The division into books was due to the Alexandrians 
 whose special delight it was to arrange their literature 
 in a more artilicial form than they acquired it. This 
 particular settlement was older than Aristarchus, and 
 may very probably be due to the hand of Zenodotus. 
 
[ 40 ] 
 
 §4- The Homeric Dialect 
 
 The question of the Homeric dialect is one that will 
 demand close attention. It contains many difficulties 
 and may appear uninteresting to the beginner, but it 
 goes to the very root of Homeric criticism, and may 
 probably contain the key to the mystery which sur- 
 rounds the poems. Moreover, the learner will find him- 
 self repaid by a study of conflicting theories regarding 
 the dialect of Homer ; for any conclusions that can be 
 reached, even of a partial nature, will pave the way to 
 the knowledge of Homeric grammar which is required for 
 reading the poems intelligently. Hence if the present 
 Section appears uninviting, it may still be mastered, if 
 for no other reason, at least with a view to making the 
 one on Homerip grammar less repulsive, 
 ^s^^fee so-called epic dialect is essentially composite and 
 ^latpi more ways than one. It represents different 
 dialects, and different stages of the same 
 essenti^^*"* dialect— being, no doubt, the result of 
 oomposit/ ^^^ gradual growth of language partly 
 but not wholly ayested by the tendency 
 of the epic bards to use traditional forms of poetic speech. 
 The complicated nature of the dialect, its enormous 
 variety of forms for expressing the simplest ideas, would 
 of itself lead to the above conclusion, even if this could 
 not be tested, as it can be, by the science of comparative 
 grammar. On the other hand, the theories relating 
 to this branch of our subject are very numerous and 
 confusing, and there are many points on which it appears 
 at present impossible to arrive at a certain conclusion. 
 It will be our endeavour chiefly to state the facts which 
 appear fairly certain, and with regard to theories merely 
 to point out those which, even though they cannot be 
 certainly proved, yet do to some extent provide a 
 rational and consistent explanation of the facts. 
 About one thing there can be no doubt regarding our 
 
sec. 4] The Homeric Dialect 41 
 
 existing text ; and that is, that it consists mainly of Ionic 
 Greek of a very early date. That it is 
 
 the or Y^fT ^° ^°°^*^ dialect will become plain if we 
 element. compare it with Herodotus, whose prose 
 is the purest extant model of the Ionic 
 of the fifth century, B.C., and a very few points of com- 
 parison wni suf&ce, We may note the dropping of the 
 temporal augment, especially before double consonants 
 and diphthongs (as «pSov, olpee,) and in pluperfects; 
 plural terminations like -otaro, -■/jaTo, etc., which are 
 peculiarly Herodotean ; the use of the iterative forms, 
 which are found much more frequently in Homer even 
 than in Hesiod; the forms <iio, ijie, ijurov, which are 
 common to Ho mer and Herodotus. That the Homeric 
 speech is on the whole archaic cannot be denied, although 
 the close correspondence of many forms with those of 
 Herodotus has led Professor Sayce to maintain, that 
 pa.rts of Homer ought to be classed as New-Ionic, as con- 
 taining forms which are not merely as late as but even 
 later than Herodotus.^ We shall refer to this later : 
 meanwhile it is enough to point out that the existence 
 of a few late forms in our MSS. of Homer cannot weigh 
 against the general character of the language as evi- 
 denced by structural or syntactical considerations. We 
 niay take it, then, for granted here that the Homeric 
 dialect is on the whole archaic, and that it is also (in its 
 present form at least) mainly Ionic is an evident fact 
 qiiiie outside the region nf controvers y. We will now 
 approa5ti_ground which is much more debatable, and in 
 fact supplies matter for the principal modern contro- 
 versies regarding the origin of the poems. 
 
 The presence of Aeolic forms in Homer as a fact has 
 been recognised from time immemorial, but in compa- 
 ratively recent times Fick has given 
 
 AeoliBiuB in them a new significance. It would be 
 
 thewv °^^ °^ P'^'^^ ^^''^ *° ^^^^ ^^^ ^^^^'^ 
 theory at length, as it will turn up in 
 
 ' For instance, he gives the form irivdave as later Ionic in 
 //. xxiv. 25, and even ^vSavt in i. 24, etc., whereas Herodotus has 
 the more primitive idvSavf. See appendix by Prof. Sayce, in 
 Maliaffy's History of Greek Literature, i. (part i.), p. 267. 
 
42 The Homeric Poems [chap. I 
 
 another connection : suffice it to say that he maintains 
 that the poems (or rather the earlier parts of them) were 
 originally composed in Aeolic Greek. Our task in the 
 present instance is merely to indicate a few of the leading 
 cases of supposed Aeolisms in our text. We shall not 
 pretend to be exhaustive, but can easily name a suffi- 
 cient number to enable the student to be on his look-out 
 for instances when reading the poems. Many so-called 
 Aeolisms are subject to controversy, so we shall try to 
 confine ourselves to the clearer instances, under which 
 we may include : — 
 
 I. Inflexional forms.' 
 
 i. The genitives in -oio, -oav (which in Ionic are always 
 
 -ra), -cui'). 'ArpECSdo, vv|>4>d(i)V. 
 
 ii. The nominative of ist decl. in -a for -v, as v€^At|- 
 7<p€To ; also the form v<)|i<|>a as vocative ; and especially 
 the form 9«<i (which is always 6fbs, even as fern., in 
 Ionic). 
 
 iii. *|i|Ji6vai, of which the Ionic form, probably quite as 
 primitive, is et/if rai. This is merely an instance ; there 
 are many other verbal forms, though not occurring so 
 often. 
 
 iv. The pronominal forms &|i|ies, &(i|ii(v), Vnfs, <i|i|"i 
 also h^v and fyfitv. (These are particularly important.) 
 
 II. Special forms of words. 
 
 i. Owing to substitution of one consonant for another, 
 
 ir^flirc tor nevTC (seen in irffiwdC^rdai, Od. I4, 161, ' tO 
 
 count by fives'). So iHirvpis' for rea-n-apts; similarly "!> 
 is substituted for 6 in <j)X£i|/«Tai = ffKiijffTafi ^acco^ding 
 to Codex A and Zenodotus, though not in Aristarchus, 
 or the received text) ; also ^^p for 6iip, 
 
 ' The argument from inflexions (on account of their tendency 
 to variation) cannot of itself be considered decisive, but it certainly 
 lends additional weight to other arguments. 
 
 ' Even Sittl admits that this form must be accounted Aeolic, 
 and is driven to the suggestion that it was borrowed by the Ionian 
 Greeks in commercial intercourse. Is not this very like special 
 pleading 7 
 
 ' In Od. xvii. 221. 
 
sec. 4] The Homeric Dialect 43 
 
 ii. Owing to substitution of e for a before p as ©epo-Cxtis 
 
 {pp. 6apa-os) ; SO irop8o\is (Cod. A) for the VuIgate ■rcaphaXi.s. 
 
 Other proper names like Novo-iKdo show an Aeolic cast, 
 iii. Other vowel substitutions; p<SXo|ji.ai for ^ovKoiuu: 
 
 &-yvpis for ayopa ; &XX11S1S for oKKobtt- 
 
 iv. The use of k6v (kc) for &v, which is very common 
 in Homer, especicilly in the Iliad, is claimed by some 
 authorities as an Aeolism, but the point is very doubt- 
 ful.^ It is also uncertain whether these two particles 
 have the same or different derivations. 
 
 III. Special words. 
 
 i. Adjectives beginning with W, as Wflcos, S^s, Jarpci 
 ^^^s, inasmuch as this prefix is the Aeolic form for Sia- 
 
 ii. Forms like XvKdpas = a year, and forms Uke 4iri<r|i«- 
 yep&s, a word probably connected with itoyepos. 
 
 It used to be f ormerly supposed tha t the digamma 
 was' pecunar to Aeolic Greek — a view v yl^i^h has b(»^n 
 
 long exploded. It was an original 
 D^lamma * sound in all Indo-European languages : 
 
 traces of it occur in Latin, German, and 
 English no less than in Greek. It is true, indeed, that 
 the Aeolic and Doric dialects (which are in some respects 
 allied) retained the digamma longer than Ionic and 
 Attic Greek, and consequently it is found very com- 
 monly in inscriptions written in the former, but hardly 
 at all in the latter, dialects. The widespread occurrence 
 of this sound in the Ionic dialect of Homer is therefore 
 an evidence, and a very important one, of the antiquity 
 of the Homeric poems f but we cannot now think of 
 seeing in the occurrences of the digamma a proof of 
 Aeolism. There is, however, a phenomenon occurring 
 a few times which is distinctly Aeolic,^ and that is what 
 has been called vocalization of the digamma, or the 
 substitution for it of the vowel «. Instances of this are the 
 
 ' See Monro, Horn. Gr., p. 269, where he takes the negative 
 view, in opposition to Hinrichs and others whom he quotes. 
 
 * With a single doubtful exception of a Naxian inscription 
 of the sixth century, there is no trace of the digamma in Ionic 
 Greek after the seventh century. There is indirect proof of 
 it in the eighth century, b.c. See Monro, p. 309. 
 
44 The Homeric Poems [chap. I 
 
 forms, iraXaipivos = roKafpivos : EdSaSe = e/aSf ; KaXaOpoi|i = 
 
 jeaXa (an Uncertain form) and pHira ; aiipva-av = (probably) 
 dfepvtrav for avfipvtrav ; and a few othcrs. With regard 
 to the form M^^on for hUo(n [cp. viginti), it is uncertain 
 whether it represents an AeoHsm or not. Fick claims it, 
 believing that the F was changed into v, and then into «, 
 but this assumption has been challenged by Sittl, who is 
 opposed to Pick's theory. J ebb, following Sittl, explains 
 the form by false analogy. 
 
 On the whole it seems quite reasonable to admit that 
 there is a clearly-marked Aeolic element in Homer. The 
 fact that many forms have been doubtfully or wrongly 
 classed as Aeolisms does not justify scepticism On the 
 main question. The argument put forward by Sittl, 
 Christ, Hinrichs, and others, on the negative side, appeals 
 to our ignorance of the earliest form of the Greek tongue 
 before the specialization of dialects, and argues that the 
 alleged Aeolisms may be merely archaic forms which 
 were originally common to all dialects, and have been 
 lost in later Ionic, but occur in Homer because they did 
 belong to Ionic at an earlier stage of its growth. There 
 is always a vagueness about arguments of this kind 
 which makes them somewhat difficult of refutati on. 
 But the fact is we have a body of fyric and elegiac poetry 
 (mostly fragmentary) written in the Ionic dialect, and 
 reaching back to the earlier half of the seventh century, 
 B.C.,' about one century later than the end of the Homeric 
 period. This poetry is free from all trace of Aeolism, 
 though it reappears (according to Fick from imitation) 
 at a later period. If, indeed, in the Homeric poems, there 
 was a question merely of one or two isolated forms, we 
 might hesitate as to drawing any certain conclusions; 
 but a large number of independent indications of what 
 appears to be a clear Aeolic element, gives a strong case 
 which a mere negative argument cannot entirely weaken. 
 And the view we have here advocated is, to a great 
 extent, admitted by scholars, though they may, and 
 
 ' The period of Archilochus is fixed by a fragment in which 
 he refers to the wealth of Gyges, whose date again is fixed within 
 a few years of B.C. 650 by Assyrian inscriptions. 
 
sec. 4] The Homeric Dialect 45 
 
 indeed do, disagree in their explanations of it.* The 
 whole subject was treated well by Professor G. C. Warr.' 
 He suggested an argument from the metres of the 
 Lesbian school as compared with the Homeric hexa- 
 meter, which is extremely ingenious, but too subtle 
 for discussion here. 
 
 The absence of Doric forms, on the other hand, is to 
 be carefully marked. It is true that there are certain 
 forms as 4<r<retToi, Tdvt] (for <rv), etc., which 
 Absence of all jj^^g ^ggjj claimed as Dorisms, but in 
 DoriBm. *^^ '^^^^ °^ these forms (in contradistinc- 
 tion to the frequent Aeolisms treated of 
 above) there is positive and direct evidence that they 
 are merely archaic forms, slightly if at all differing 
 from known Aeolisms or Indo-European forms.' What 
 makes this absence of Doric influence on a dialect which 
 is so composite remarkable, is the fact that in Hesiod 
 traces of Dorisms are undoubtedly found. It has been 
 maintained that these are due to Delphian influence 
 solely, but it matters little where they come from. The 
 significance of the evidence depends on the fact that we 
 cannot find them at all in Homer, and this is a truth 
 which must be borne in mind when we come to discuss 
 the origin of the poems. It seems to bear silent witness 
 to the view which can be proved from additional in- 
 ternal evidence, that either the poems were wholly 
 Ionian and Asiatic, or else that they belong in part to 
 a period antecedent to the Dorian invasion. 
 
 So far we have seen that while our text of Homer 
 has an Old-Ionic basis, it contains a considerable tinge 
 of Aeolism. But there are further 
 New-Ionic elements which must be considered here. 
 ittidsms We have already pointed out the cor- 
 respondence between the dialect of 
 
 ^ Pick's theories go much farther than our thesis, and have 
 naturally aroused opposition both in England and Germany ; 
 but they do not concern us just now. See below, p. 128 ff. 
 
 "See Classical Review, 1887, April and May. 
 
 * A good instance of this is the form ttoti as a variant for npot, 
 which came to be considered as a Dorism, but was undoubtedly 
 a survival of early Greek. It occurs some sixty times in Homer. 
 
46 The Homeric Poems [chap. I 
 
 Homer and that of Herodotus ; and it is maintained that 
 there are in the former certain forms which do not occur 
 in the inscriptions prior to the latter, nay some which 
 are even post-Herodotean — such for instance as I|ji«v, 
 yivivi, and other genitives in -eu and -evs instead of the 
 older -to and -fos. And there are forms like Ti8tC<n 
 SiSofio-i (for Tidiaai, SMaai), and Other contractions which 
 occur in Herodotus, but can hardly be held to belong to 
 Old-Ionic, as they do not commonly appear in the Attic 
 of the fifth century. But what is more remarkable is the 
 presence of Atticisms in Homer. If these are genuine 
 and undoubted, as they appear to be, they cannot but 
 carry with them much significance. Let us see a 
 few examples. Contracted futures as KTsvei, reXet, are 
 characteristic of Attic, but perhaps not absolutely foreign 
 to New-Ionic : v<S, a-^d, and <r^l(n., and optatives like 
 {m4p<rKoi,' are peculiarly Attic. Paley, who insists much 
 on this fact, points to phrases like in |iiv . . . Sre S^ 
 (at one time ... at another time), axXore (for eVioT-t), 
 and a large number of special phrases, some of them of 
 comparatively late origin (appertaining to legal and 
 philosophical matters). Now, how far these forms may 
 be due to the work of cop5dsts near the Alexandrian age 
 is a question hard to discuss. But they seem to throw 
 light on an important theory of Aristarchus, namely, 
 that Homer was an Athenian by birth. Professor 
 Sayce " says that the Attic colouring may be due to this 
 belief of Aristarchus, since he did in some cases deli- 
 berately adopt an Attic form. We shall see reasons for 
 rej ecting this view. But would it not seem more reason- 
 able to suggest, on the contrary, that the belief in ques- 
 tion of Aristarchus may rather have been due, at least in 
 part, to the acute observation of the great critic that 
 the most popular Codices contained Attic forms, 
 which certainly would bear out a conclusion which he 
 may possibly have had other grounds for accepting? 
 And if we give any credit to the stories regarding a 
 recension by Peisistratus, or his son Hipparchus, what 
 more antecedently probable than that Aristarchus 
 
 * Od., iv. 62. 2 Loi-^ ci;^ p.;274. 
 
sec. 4] The Homeric Dialect 47 
 
 should find Attic forms in the Athenian version, or in 
 others which had been in any degree influenced by it ? 
 Nay, have we not here a surprising confirmation of the 
 belief that the poems had passed through Attic hands ? 
 Moreover, Attic influence in the sixth and fifth cen- 
 turies would sufficiently account for the Neo-Ionic 
 forms as well as the Atticisms. The two dialects being 
 cognate, and the Athenians being so closely connected 
 with the Ionian Greeks, any tendency of Attic reciters 
 or scribes to modernise the text, would be quite as likely 
 to bring in recent Ionian forms as Attic in what they 
 knew perfectly well was Ionian literature. 
 
 But we have not reached the end of our analysis of 
 
 the Homeric dialect. Our text passed not merely from 
 
 Alleited Hellen- *^^ lonians to the Athenians, but from 
 
 iBtic Forms, them to the Alexandrians of the third 
 and second centuries. We must not 
 be surprised if their scribes influenced the text, still 
 modernising it and still among all the archaic forms 
 introducing (perhaps only half-consciously) forms be- 
 longing to their own period. A list of forms given by 
 Professor Sayce' is remarkable, consisting of words 
 which are found once or twice in Homer and which also 
 occur in late poets, such as ApoUonius Rhodius' and 
 others even later. It is possible, of course, that these 
 words are real epic forms introduced by the imitators 
 of Homer, to give an archaic colour to their poetry-r- 
 yet many of the words have undoubtedly a modern 
 look, and we cannot but feel suspicious about them in 
 view of the large number of false archaisms which exist 
 in Homer, and with the consideration of which we may 
 end our notes on the epic dialect. 
 
 By false archaisms we mean spurious forms which 
 never existed, and never could have existed, in any living 
 
 Occurrence of direct, but which were intended to 
 
 False Archaisms imitate truly archaic forms of which 
 
 in tlie Homeric the real nature was misapprehended. 
 
 Dialect. Qf these there are many in Horner—^ 
 
 ' Loc. cit., p. 268. See also Paley's Iliad, i,, p. 1. of preface. 
 ^ He imitated Homer in an epic of four books called the 
 Argonautica (about 190 B.C.). 
 
48 The Homeric Poems [chap. I 
 
 diiierent classes, indeed, some of which are wholly sur- 
 prising in the ignorance they display of elementary 
 grammar. Even Buttmann felt that there were anoma- 
 lous forms in the Homeric language, which he laboured 
 to explain in his celebrated Lexilogus, without disputing 
 or apparently doubting their genuineness. Professor 
 Paley, who has pointed this out, has also done good work 
 in drawing attention to the subject of false archaisms ; 
 we may grant him this merit without in every case 
 agreeing with his statements, still less admitting the 
 extreme conclusions which he has drawn from them. 
 
 It will not be possible to give more than a few of the 
 most striking instances of false archaism : — 
 
 I. In the confusion of words, e.g. the pronominal 
 form 8s <i 8 (or rather its by-form &s, for trfos) with 
 the adjective «vs = 'brave,' 'noble.' The genitive of 
 the possessive pronoun is inio, of the adjective iijos— 
 from a confusion of which, the monstrous form Ifjos, in 
 the sense of the possessive, seems to have been evolved. 
 And we have the word used by extension of the 2nd 
 person, as in the line ^ : — 
 
 Tw (T cS vvv KeKo/iai fieBi/iiv )^6Kov vios irjos. 
 
 The word almost always occurs at the end of a line, 
 and generally in the set phrase wior e^os or watSos e'^or. 
 A similar confusion is found between £*«, 'when' (a 
 dialectical form of »«) and ^t in the sense of 'as.' 
 This word should be a trisyllable, but is used as a 
 dissyllable (apparently by confusion with e^") in the 
 line ":— 
 
 TO) 8 ijSrf iTTcpa yiyver', aeipe fie iroifieva \aStv. 
 
 II. The formation of impossible verb forms by 
 false analogy, like 8i8ot-<rea, formed wrongly from 
 our-Sa, in which latter word the <r is an essential part of 
 the root. Similarly JXriSffiaro, formed wrongly from 
 (pripiBoTo. These two forms occur very close togethCT,' 
 and are surprisingly ahke. The latter is formed rightly 
 from tpfiia — the fi is radical — the former is from iXaim 
 
 ' //. XV. 137. 2 //. XIX. 386. 3 Od. vii. 86 and 95 1 
 
sec. 4] The Homeric Dialect 49 
 
 (stem f\a-), and is merely a blunder, probably a late 
 one. Many similar instances could be given. 
 
 III. A confusion of dialects, e.g., the Aeolic form 
 KeKXriyoTes, confused with an Ionic form (of different 
 metrical value), KcKXriyovTes, has given the impossible 
 form kskXiiyiStcs in the line': — 
 
 &s ot KcK\jiyS)Tes ctt' aKKip^ouriv opovaav. 
 
 Somewhat similar to this are the frequent so-called, 
 resolutions of contracts, as eXduo-t for ASo-t (=eka<a(TC), 
 ip<5ijT6 iopaai), and the more impossible ^P<4ovt€s (rj^aw), 
 etc. These used to be explained by a process of assimi- 
 lation, but all analogy is against it, and indeed the 
 theory of metrical necessity, combined with ignorance 
 of plulology, is a much more likely explanation. This 
 view is strengthened by the fact that we find in other 
 directions a practice of metrical license, which was 
 regularly adopted when a word could not be introduced 
 otherwise, e.g., the initial lengthening of deovarosy wjriipe- 
 <Nos from {nrcpecjios s and a short syllable not lengthened 
 before the double consonant of ZaKuveos. 
 
 IV. Mistakes regarding words, e.g., v«iro8es, 'foot- 
 less,' understood as ' descendants ' ; ^x^a.ys.i\Tt\%, ' of great 
 capacity,' understood as ' teeming with monsters.'^ We 
 could add indefinitely to this list, but it would weary 
 the student. This theory of false archaisms, while we 
 must guard against pushing it too far, will yet give a 
 clue to many mysteries which Buttmann tried to solve 
 with great ingenuity, but unsuccessfully. It must be 
 remarked that while, perhaps, there are more traces of 
 the bungling of rhapsodists and scribes in the later 
 work, yet it must be also admitted that the more primi- 
 tive parts of the Iliad are not free from late and false 
 archaic forms. 
 
 We have now seen in detail what a composite thing 
 is the so-called Epic dialect, for it contains elements 
 
 not merely of three different dialects, 
 ConcluBion from but elements proper to widely differing 
 the above facts, periods, as well as those which belong 
 
 to none because they are imaginary and 
 
 //. xvi. 430. " Cp. fifyaKfjTei, vrjl with juyaKTiTea wovtov. 
 
 E 
 
50 The Homeric Poems [chap, I 
 
 false. Now, what conclusions are we to draw from the 
 facts ? With regard to false archaisms, Professor Jebb 
 has warned us that they are not necessarily a proof of 
 very late work. As he puts it, as soon as there are 
 archaisms at . all (and owing to the changefulness of 
 language, especially of primitive language, this may be 
 at a very early date) there can be false archaisms.' 
 This is undeniable in theory : but if we closely consider 
 the strangeness of some of the Homeric ' impossibles,' 
 their variety, and above all their co-existence along 
 with undoubted ' modernisms ' of a different type, we 
 must admit that they greatly strengthen the case of 
 those who maintain that our version of the poems is 
 comparatively late. 
 
 When, however, we come to consider the external 
 evidence for our text, which we shall do in the following 
 Section, we shall see that there are strong reasons for 
 maintaining its substantial antiquity. We must not 
 be misled from the presence of a comparatively modern 
 element in the text, into supposing that it represents the 
 date of the formation of the text. It is quite clear that 
 even after the compositions, as wholes, were stereo- 
 typed, yet textual changes could be brought into them 
 through the influence of the rhapsodes. What were the 
 full effects of the custom of public recitation of the 
 poems, we cannot know with certainty. On the whole 
 we shall show the Homeric tradition was remarkably 
 conservative, but yet there were divergencies, probably 
 due to local causes, which were quite sufficient to 
 account for the grave dialectical difficulties we have 
 been considering. 
 
 ' Jebb, Homer, p. 138. 
 
[ 51 J 
 
 § 5. Our Homeric Text 
 
 Before entering on a discussion of the character, date, 
 and origin of our Homeric text, it will be necessary- to 
 
 refer briefly to our previous conclusions. 
 recapitulation. ^^ ^ Section entitled " Homer and the 
 
 Cycle " we gave reasons for the belief 
 that the Iliad and the Odyssey existed as epic poems by 
 the middle, or at latest the end, of the ninth century, B.C. 
 To this conclusion the enquiry we have to institute in 
 the present Section may be considered in a certain 
 sense as supplemental. The arguments brought forward 
 hitherto did not touch a very important question, 
 namely, how far can we prove the identity of our 
 existing poems with those of the ninth century ? Or 
 rather we shall ask, how far is it possible to trace back 
 our poems? That is to say, commencing with the 
 existing authorities for the text, and briefly discussing 
 the available evidence for its history, we shall ask is it 
 possible to fix a date which may reasonably be named 
 as the latest at which the poems as we read them could 
 possibly have come into existence. 
 
 We may note at starting that our evidence on this 
 subject concerns the Iliad much more directly than the 
 Odyssey. The longer poem especially appealed in virtue of 
 its subject to the national susceptibilities of the Greeks, 
 and received far more attention at all times. Even in 
 the Hellenistic period, when the interest of the poems 
 had become more literary than national, we have recently 
 acquired curious evidence from Egyptian tombs of the 
 immense popularity of the Iliad not merely as com- 
 pared with non-Homeric literature, but even with the 
 Odyssey. Therefore, whether we regard extant docu- 
 ments, or what is known of the history of Homeric 
 textual criticism, we are in a far better position to form 
 a direct judgment about one poem than the other. On 
 the other hand, at least in the later periods which we are 
 
52 The Homeric Poems [chap, I 
 
 about to deal with (the question of their actual origin 
 being reserved), the history of the poems is beyond 
 doubt so intimately associated that we shall not be in 
 danger of serious error if, while we are mainly discus- 
 sing the text of the Iliad, we assume that our conclusions 
 may be supposed to be indirectly valid for the dates of 
 the actual text of the Odyssey also. 
 
 We may classify our authorities for the text of Homer 
 under four headings, on each of which a few separate 
 remarks will be added : — 
 
 The existing I. MedisBYal MSS., which are very 
 
 * H^™ilif T.l"f'' numerous, not very early,' but on the 
 Homeric Text, ^j^^j^ ^ ^^^^ ^^^^ ^.^^^ pj^^^^ ^^ ^^jj^_ 
 
 tion still waiting to be effected. 
 
 II. A large nnmber of fragmentary Egyptian 
 papyri, recently acquired, some few in excellent pre- 
 servation, covering a large area of time and going back, 
 roughly speaking, from looo to 1500 years prior to the 
 other MSS. 
 
 III. Scholia written on the margin chiefly of three 
 MSS. — those of Codex A being of immense importance. 
 
 IV. Quotations from the Poems in extant Clas- 
 sical Authors, more particularly Plato and Aristotle. 
 These are important as bearing witness either for or 
 against the verbal and minute accuracy of the MSS. 
 
 Of Codices some hundreds exist ; but a large number 
 
 are still far from properly collated. Those of the Iliad 
 
 are both more numerous and of higher 
 
 The Codices, antiquity than those of the Odyssey, 
 the Italian libraries alone containing 107 
 of the Iliad. Mr. Walter Leaf, who collated four (new 
 ones) entirely and some fifteen partially, appeals to 
 fifty MSS. (exclusive of papyri) in his second edition of 
 the Iliad (1900). Monro and Allen in their text make 
 use of a much larger number, about 130, more than a 
 hundred of which were wholly or partially collated by 
 Mr. Allen. These are arranged in family groups. In 
 addition about twenty papyri are specially quoted. 
 
 described belo;!"''^*'"" °' *^° *'"'' ''^"'^ fragmentary) to be 
 
sec, 5] Our Homeric Text 53 
 
 With the exception of the four or five MSS. which will 
 be specially mentioned, none are earlier than the twelfth 
 century, a.d. ; there are about six earlier than the 
 thirteenth, and the majority are of the fifteenth and 
 sixteenth centuries. 
 
 Of the Odyssey there is only one MS. as early as 
 the thirteenth century, the Harleianus in the British 
 Museum, which is particularly important on account of 
 its scholia. There is also at Munich an important 
 Codex of the Odyssey (the Augustanus). Its date is 
 disputed, but it is probably later than the thirteenth 
 century. 
 
 To return to the Iliad, there are certain codices which 
 deserve special mention here. By far the most impor- 
 tant of all Homeric MSS. is the beautiful tenth-century 
 Codex A, of the Marcian library in Venice. In the 
 whole ' Corpus ' of classical literature there is hardly 
 any existing document more carefully transcribed than 
 this celebrated book, of which, however, some few quires 
 here and there have been lost and supplied by a later 
 hand. Codex Veneius A was first published in 1788, by 
 VOloison. This was a great event in Homeric scholar- 
 ship, for it made known the treasures of the Epitomey 
 (described above^) and thus prepared the way for Wolf's 
 Prolegomena, which laid the foundation of modern 
 Homeric scholarship. The importance of this MS. 
 depends partly on the text itself (which has been stated 
 to show strong Aristarchian influence), partly on the 
 scholia and the Aristarchian dviifla, and partly on the 
 excerpts from Proclus, giving us not merely a Life of 
 Homer, but valuable information as to the Cyclic poems. 
 In the year 1901, a photographic reproduction of Codex 
 A was published at Leyden with a critical preface by 
 Professor D. Comparetti, forming an immense boon for 
 Homeric students. Through it we are enabled to place 
 before our readers the first page of Book xi., showing 
 its double scholia and the use of the Aristarchian 
 signs. 
 
 There is also a second Codex at Venice of importance, 
 
 ' See pages 37-8. 
 
54 The Homeric Poems [chap. I 
 
 known as B, which is probably of the eleventh century. 
 It is much prized for its scholia. 
 
 At Florence, in the Laurentian library, are two MSS. 
 (known respectively as C, D) of the eleventh, or possibly 
 tenth, century. Though of comparatively early date 
 these are not considered of high authority by Leaf. 
 
 Lastly, in the British Museum is the Townleianus, of 
 the eleventh century ; a very good MS., of which the 
 scholia rank next in importance to those of Codex A. 
 In many cases the two sets are taken from the same 
 source, but in other cases Codex T contains valuable 
 supplemenary matter. 
 
 Without going into detail here, we may state that 
 there is among all this mass of documents, a striking 
 uniformity, not absolute, but without more variation 
 than we usually expect to find in MSS. of classical 
 authors. So far considered, our evidence does not reach 
 back further at most than the tenth century, a.d. We 
 must now proceed to consider the evidence of a much 
 earlier date. 
 
 Intermediate between the MSS. we have been con- 
 sidering and the recent Egyptian papyri come certain 
 important fragments of earlier MSS. 
 Earlier evidence : jhese are uncials (all considered hitherto 
 
 fragmentary u ■ x ■ i ■ \ 
 
 MSS. and^papyri. bemg, of course, mmuscule or cursive). 
 The first of these is a portion of a Codex 
 Ambrosianus at Milan which probably dates from the 
 sixth century, a.d., with about 800 lines from various 
 parts of the Iliad : it does not show very important 
 variations from the vulgate as evidenced by the later. 
 MSS. There is also a Syrian palimpsest in the British 
 Museum, with nearly 4,000 lines from Books xii. to 
 xxiv. of the Iliad, belonging to about the same period 
 as the last mentioned, but rather later and not quite so 
 good. It also confirms the reliability of the complete 
 codices. 
 
 We must give a little more attention to the papyri, 
 especially as some years ago it was widely believed that 
 the information they gave seriously threatened the 
 authority of previously existing texts. We shall see, 
 however, that this has not been their actual effect. 
 
■ -^^ 
 
 \>J^l^:k;lL■^^^^;T'''■' -i^V^" 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 -=7p-vw•^■*r^'■■'*^''^•■'^'■*''.'^ 
 
 ' ■---;4«'/<7ir--3v>;*ri''.-ii^*-f-.-"''^T'S. ■ 
 
 elf umf ^Uvifi'f^i ■ni<rtlin<A<^A'*f-!^}i''^.P' '\ I 
 
 ■"Sr:.uj:;^^ 
 
 Pl-IH. CODEX OF ILIAD. VENETUS A. 
 
 (Ist page of Book xi., reduced, shou-inr/ jwinmry and secondary Scholia 
 and AinstarchUin Signs.) 
 

 
 
 1 r 
 
sec. 5] Our Homeric Text 55 
 
 The new papyri vary from very small fragments of a 
 few lines to whole books of the Iliad, and Odyssey, and 
 in date range from the third century, B.C., to the seventh 
 or eighth century, a.d. In all there are 108 Homeric 
 fragments forming about one-third of all the literary 
 papyri, and about a half of those of known authorship. 
 The comparative popularity of the Iliad is shown by the 
 fact that of the 108 only 23 give portions of the Odyssey. 
 The disproportion is greater if lines are enumerated, for 
 of these 6,526 belong to the Iliad and only 915 to the 
 Odyssey. 
 
 On the whole the effect of these fragments is to con- 
 firm the validity of our text. But four of them (three 
 belonging to the third and second centuries, B.C.) do 
 show considerable discrepancy, chiefly in the addition 
 of new lines ; for instance, Brit. Mus. Pap. 689 {II. viii.) 
 gives three new to eight old lines, while 486 {II. xi.) 
 in a space of thirty- six lines gives five new, besides 
 omitting three old ones. In such papyri it has been 
 estimated that the average of different (chiefly inserted) 
 lines is as high as thirteen per cent, of the whole.' 
 
 Two of these fragments, one of which we reproduce, 
 are not more than a few square inches in size, yet their 
 discovery caused quite a flutter of excitement in the 
 world of scholarship, as they seemed to point to the vogue 
 in Egypt in the Ptolemaic era of different texts from 
 ours. It has since been proved that their significance 
 was overrated, partly owing to the discovery of new 
 papyri which, being more in accordance with our text, 
 tended to counteract the evidence of those in question, 
 and partly because it was found that the added lines 
 are of no independent value, but mere padding often 
 borrowed from elsewhere, or else palpably worthless 
 interpolations. Lastly, it was pointed out that the 
 existence of such interpolated texts would agree with 
 
 1 There is a beautifully written papyrus in the Bodleian Library 
 at Oxford which was discovered in the Fayum by Mr. Flinders 
 Petrie, consisting of minute portions of a few linea of Book i., and 
 over ICO lines of Book ii. of the Iliad. It contains an early 
 manuscriptal example of the signs of Aristarchus, as well as 
 some fragmentary scholia of Didymus. 
 
56 The Homeric Poems [chap. I 
 
 what we might have suspected on independent grounds, 
 as will be clear from the following paragraphs. 
 
 The importance of the scholia, especially of those con- 
 veying the views of the great Alexandrians, has been 
 
 already made clear to the reader. It 
 The Scholia. wUl not, however, be out of place here 
 
 to describe them somewhat more fully. 
 Of the Codex A scholia, besides Villoison's edition of 
 1788, important editions were given by Bekker (Berlin, 
 1825) and by Dindorf (Oxford Clarendon Press, 1875-7) ; 
 these including the scholia not merely of Codex A, but 
 of Venetus B, the Townleianus, certain Leipsic MS., etc. 
 It may be remarked that there are certain codices con- 
 taining scholia only without any text. In Codex A the 
 scholia occur in two distinct forms, some being written 
 in the usual way in a broad margin, the other briefer and 
 written in very small characters between the text and 
 the ordinary ones. The secondary ones were apparently 
 added as an afterthought, but are of considerable im- 
 portance in some cases though in others they merely 
 give the substance of the original scholia. After each 
 book the names of the four authors of the Epitome, from 
 which the more important criticisms are taken, are re- 
 peated ; besides which the work of each can be dis- 
 tinguished from that of the others by their style and 
 subject matter. 
 
 The evidence of the scholia on the whole is in favour 
 of our text as being substantially identical with the 
 vulgate in the time of Aristarchus and the other great 
 Alexandrian critics. We can trace indeed divergencies 
 between their text and ours just as we know they found 
 divergencies in the codices which they had at hand. 
 But the differences are of detail, and frequently of very 
 minute detail, such as the omission of a Sc, the divisions 
 of words and the question of a roiigh or smooth breath- 
 ing, and similar points. So that although we have not 
 got either of the recensions of Aristarchus in its entirety, 
 we are able, by means of the scholia and the arificta, to 
 form a very clear idea of what they were like, and that 
 in essentials they must have closely corresponded with 
 our own text. Before going more closely into detaiJ 
 
sec. 5] Our Homeric Text 57 
 
 we will here describe our last remaining source of 
 knowledge. 
 
 Another class of evidence regarding the value of our 
 text is one that presents a certain difficulty, namely, 
 the quotations from Homer in Greek 
 _ Extant qaota- authors which have come down to us. 
 tions in classical ^ very curious phenomenon exists, 
 an ors. namely, that Plato, whose works are 
 thoroughly well authenticated and who quotes Homer 
 very freely, shows a surprising correspondence with 
 our text, whereas both those before him and those 
 who come after him, even including his own disciple 
 Aristotle, apparently used a text which varied somewhat 
 from ours. This variation might be accounted for to 
 some extent by the fact that such quotations were fre- 
 quently made from memory, and that possibly the 
 ancients were less careful than we of verbal accuracy 
 when quoting. But this will hardly account for an 
 explicit statement like that of Aeschines that a par- 
 ticular phrase,^ which is strange to us, occurs frequently 
 in the poems. Moreover, the same orator elsewhere 
 quotes passages from the eighth and twenty- third books 
 of the Iliad, in which the sequence of lines is different 
 from the same passages in our text. This seems to 
 prove that in the fifth century there were versions 
 current in Greece which were somewhat wide apart, 
 displaying more than mere verbal discrepancies in the 
 text. 
 
 On the other hand we have the evidence referred to 
 in the writings of Plato which tends to prove that at 
 least the text which he preferred (and he was no mean 
 judge) was practically identical with our own.^ It has 
 been maintained that the copyists of Plato may some- 
 times have brought the texts into conformity with the 
 vulgate version of the poems : on the other hand, it is 
 hard to see why this should have operated more on the 
 text of Plato than of Aristotle. Those who would 
 
 1 The phrase in question is (j)rifai 8' es arparov ^\de. This 
 does not occur in our Homer. 
 
 a We need not take into account the ■paendo-Pla.XoaK AlcibiadM 
 U. 
 
58 The Homeric Poems [chap. I 
 
 magnify the influence of Alexandria plausibly maintain 
 that Plato had a text of his own from which he quoted, 
 and which got into the hands of the grammarians.* 
 
 It is easy to exaggerate the evidence of the quotations 
 in the direction of divergence. Ludwich ^ has taken the 
 trouble to make a very exact computation of them, and 
 finds that out of 480 lines quoted in the extant authors, 
 not more than eleven, or at most twelve, are foreign to 
 our text ; and Monro ' computes that this is nothing like 
 the proportion of strange lines in the most divergent 
 of the papyrus fragments, which would involve about 60 : 
 (instead of 12 :) 480. 
 
 We are now in a better position to draw conclusions 
 
 regarding our text. The data that have been adduced 
 
 regarding Codices, Papyri, Scholia 
 
 drawn from *^"* Quotations, combine to establish 
 
 above data, ^^^ conclusions. First, there was at 
 least in pre-Alexandrian times, but 
 even earlier, a vulgate text very like our own ; and 
 secondly, there were other texts in vogue differing 
 somewhat from ours in several details, but mostly in 
 the addition of lines, which are easily recognisable as 
 clumsy interpolations or simple padding.* 
 
 Now, it is remarkable that a large part of the criticism 
 of the Alexandrians consisted in the retrenchment of 
 superfluous lines, sometimes by omission, but more 
 often by the process of obelising (or, as it is also called, 
 athetesizing ") passages usually of one line or very few. 
 
 1 Grote points out that great care was taken of Plato's MSS. 
 by his school, and suggests that they would be the first to be 
 obtained by Demetrius Phalereus, who was employed by Ptolemy 
 in the founding of the Alexandrian Library. See Grote's Plato, 
 vol. i., pp. 134 and 152. 
 
 ' Homervulgata (heipsic, 1898), pp. 138 ff. 
 
 s Odyssey ( 1 3-24), p. 429, where he also points out that Aristotle 
 in particular quoted frequently from memory, which may account 
 for a good deal of the difficulty arising from his quotations which 
 form a large proportion of the total. 
 
 * We need not discuss the theory (which is not without some 
 probabiUty) that these instances of padding were due to inferior 
 rhapsodes, who wished to give value for their money. 
 
 ' From the atifulov called obelus ; and from ddereiv, ' to set 
 aside.' 
 
sec. 5] Our Homeric Text 59 
 
 And we have pointed out that Aristarchus had about 
 fourteen editions of quite various ' provenance,' which 
 certainly differed among themselves, inasmuch as his 
 work consisted in great part in comparing their differ- 
 ences and choosing between them. One of these 
 editions was even named the ttoXuotixos, which may have 
 been the very text which is responsible for the curious 
 redundancies of the papyrus fragments. Moreover, he 
 refers as it were in contrast to his picked editions (the 
 Kara n-oX«r were from the most distant parts of the 
 Greek world) to a set of texts which he saw reason to 
 depreciate, referring to them as the vulgate^ (itoivrj), and 
 sometimes as vulgar (Pt]piaSeis), careless (tlKaiorcpai), and 
 
 worthless ((/)auXdTepm). 
 
 But it may be asked how we prove that this text, 
 which is recognised by Aristarchus as a vulgate (and 
 which therefore existed in pre- Alexandrian times), is in 
 any true sense to be identified with our text ? Is it not 
 a priori improbable that, after all the work done by 
 Aristarchus, and all his efforts to purify a particular 
 kind of text from errors and corruptions, that very text 
 which was by him condemned as worse than faulty 
 should yet have come down to us practically in the same 
 form in which it was known to him ? 
 
 This is a serious difficulty which must be met by asking 
 a question very pertinent to our argument. 
 
 The inquiry we are now to make will bring us to the 
 very heart of our subject. For the great importance 
 What real effect which has always been attached to the 
 had Alexandrian Alexandrian, especially the Aristar- 
 oriticism on the chian, recension — even the fact that the 
 Vulgate? 'signs' are found in so many MSS. 
 ranging over a long period of time — naturaJly bred the 
 belief that the vulgate was profoundly influenced by 
 
 ^ The reason for these opprobrious epithets will appear later. 
 However Monro does not admit that these texts were the • vulgate ' 
 in our sense. He thinks the ' padded * texts would be called 
 Koivai (see Odyssey, p. 448, n.). Mr. T. W. AUen.who follows 
 Nauck and Ludwich, argues very powerfully for the view we 
 are maintaining. See Classical Review, xiii. pp. 324 and 425 ; 
 xiv. pp. 242, 290 ; XV. p. 241. 
 
6o The Homeric Poems [chap, I 
 
 these grammarians. If we can prove that this view is 
 quite groundless, that as a matter of fact Aristarchus 
 left his vulgate just where he found it, there will be no 
 room left for doubting that the pre- Alexandrian text 
 has reached us substantially intact. 
 
 By a very careful and original method of computing 
 the readings of seventy-nine Italian MSS. (considered in 
 groups) Mr. Allen* has tabulated their correspondence 
 on the one hand with the ancient Koivrj as revealed to 
 us by the Alexandrian scholia, and on the other hand 
 with the recorded readings of Zenodotus, Aristophanes, 
 and Aristarchus. One of the groups, consisting of about 
 ten MSS., to the importance of which Mr. Leaf" first 
 drew attention, is peculiar in showing traces of a special 
 Alexandrian influence, but even this group is otherwise 
 distinguished by the large number of peculiar readings 
 it contains from other and unknown sources.' Leaving 
 then this group out of count, also neglecting cases of 
 athetesis, rearrangement of lines, and accentuation, the 
 statistics are as follows :■— 
 
 I. Taking explicit notices of the koivt] in the scholia, 
 our MSS. wholly agree with it in fifty-seven per cent. ; 
 and wholly disagree with it in twenty-three per cent, (in 
 twenty per cent, they are divided). 
 
 II. Taking implied notices in the scholia, our MSS. 
 agree wholly with the Koim/ in sixty per cent. ; disagree 
 wholly in sixteen per cent, (in twenty-four per cent, 
 they are divided). 
 
 III. Taking, on the other hand, the recorded readings 
 of Aristarchus, we find in eighteen per cent, they have 
 affected the MSS. absolutely ; in forty-six per cent, 
 practically not at all (in thirty-six per cent, the MSS. 
 are divided). 
 
 These results are striking enough ; but we mnst 
 remember that the criticism of Aristarchus was most 
 
 ^ Classical Review, loc. cit. 
 
 ^ In Journal of Philology, xviii. p. i8lff. Article by Leaf, 
 who suggests that on account of three important MSS. belonging 
 to it, the name ' Paris group ' would describe it best. 
 
 3 Out of 221 special readings, fifty- two only can be traced 
 to the Alexandrians. 
 
sec. 5] Our Homeric Text 6i 
 
 remarkable for the number of lines he condemned by 
 afl&xing the obelus (a case excluded from the above com- 
 putations.) Now, it is true that the MSS. have retained 
 this mark in great part, but on the other hand the lines 
 have never been expunged from the text (with trifling 
 exceptions). So that by putting all the facts together, 
 and allowing something for the element of chance, if 
 we weigh the influence of the Alexandrians on our 
 vulgate, we are forced to conclude that at least it has 
 been by no means overmastering, not even excepting 
 the specially-marked group of MSS., where we can 
 recognize the high-water mark of agreement with 
 Aristarchus. 
 
 We have supplied the above statistics, because we 
 thought it would be indispensable for the student to 
 The Dre-ilex- h^"^® some direct idea of the effect pro- 
 andrian Canon' duced by the Ptolemaic school on our 
 text. But even if the view be rejected, 
 which identifies our vulgate with the Koivai, irniaScK, 
 (^avXdrepoi, k.t.X. of Aristarchus (and we admit it is 
 not quite certain) ; even if the influence of the school be 
 thereby somewhat magnified ; yet plenty of evidence 
 remains that the changes in the text which the Alex- 
 andrians advocated, and indeed the very differences 
 indicated by the copies which they had collected, were 
 concerned to a great extent with points of accentua- 
 tion, spelling, and grammatical form, rather than with 
 matters which would seriously modify the meaning or 
 even the style of the poetry. 
 
 With regard, however, to these minor and formal 
 variations a very important observation has been made 
 by Mr. Allen.' He has compared one class of vulgate 
 readings with the Aristarchian, and finds the former 
 represent a later age of linguistic growth, as evidenced 
 by assimilation of consonants, contraction of vowels and 
 crasis, addition of augments, preference of a-forms of 
 aorist, and even neglects of digamma. This phenomenon, 
 
 ^ See Classical Review, xv. p. 4 ff, and 241 fi. The readings in 
 question amount to about 100, or one-sixth of those which his 
 method has enabled him to claim as recorded readings of the 
 
62 The Homeric Poems [chap. I 
 
 which is what we might expect to find in a more 
 popular as compared to more hterary versions, will quite 
 account for the grammarian's contempt for the vulgate 
 text ; but it does not prove, nor does our evidence tend 
 to show, that in other respects the ra™ n-dXew and the 
 KOT^ avSpa editions beloved of Aristarchus were really 
 better in regard to what we might call substantial varia- 
 tions. This, however, is beside the mark : we are con- 
 cerned not with the goodness or the reverse of the pre- 
 Alexandrian text, but merely with its history. We are 
 now in a position to ask, what was this Koivfj, this popular 
 text, which Aristarchus despised and yet which has had 
 such a marvellous vitality that it is still being printed 
 in the school editions of Homer in every corner of the 
 known world which possesses a printing press and a 
 fount of Greek type ? A very little reflexion will suggest 
 that it was the text of that city where Homer was most 
 recited because literature was most cultivated, a city 
 far removed indeed from Cyprus and Sinope and Mar- 
 seilles and Crete and jEolis and Chios,* because the 
 centre is far from the circumference, the city whose 
 dialect had been and was eating into the text. We see 
 now why the Alexandrians, with all their appeals to 
 rare and uncommon texts, never so much as refer to the 
 Attic. We also discern, perhaps, a reason for the very 
 curious opinion of Aristarchus, who rejected the current 
 opinion that Homer was born in Ionia in order to maintain 
 that he was a child of Athens. Whether the tari Trohcis 
 editions were all officially sanctioned in their various 
 localities is a question we cannot decide — but at least 
 everything points to the probability that the koiv^ of 
 the scholia represented an Athenian official text, which, 
 from constant use in the hands and mouths of the 
 citizens, was tending in orthography and grammar to 
 become unduly modernized in an Athenian direction. 
 In our Section on Homeric dialect we stumbled upon 
 the presence of a Neo-Ionian, Athenian, possibly even 
 
 1 The student will hardly need to be reminded that the places 
 mentioned are, along with Argos, those whence the eK86<reis Kara 
 ToXfir had been imported. 
 
sec. 5] Our Homeric Text 63 
 
 a Hellenistic element in the text, which then appeared 
 an almost insurmountable difficulty to any theory of a 
 truly archaic origin. Now we see at once the reason 
 of this element, and how it moreover becomes a most 
 important link in our chain of continuity. 
 
 We claim then to have established so far on cumula- 
 tive grounds that our vulgate is substantially identical 
 
 if 'tv f ^^^^ '^^^ which the Ptolemaic critics 
 AtheniM^l|ate.f°i^"d holding the field, and tried un- 
 successfully to expel — no other than the 
 one which was regarded in Athens as authorised. And 
 what do we know as to its antiquity ? 
 
 First of all, it went back at least to the Golden Age 
 of Athens, the age of Pericles. This can be easily 
 seen by a comparison with the other texts into which 
 it is put in competition in the scholia. They were 
 chiefly of two sorts, the kot' SvSpa and the kotA 7roXe«. 
 We do not know the age of the latter except in so 
 far that they were certainly not notably later than 
 the Kar avbpa texts ; far more probably they were earlier, 
 better, and more official. But at least the kot' S.vbpa 
 texts take us back to the fifth century. Among others 
 of later date, one of them was named from Antimachus 
 the friend of Plato, and another (though not certainly 
 used by Aristarchus) from Euripides, the nephew of 
 the great tragedian.' But such texts — editions as we 
 should say — aimed at preserving or restoring the purity 
 of the vulgate, which was so far from being constit\ited 
 by them that it was probably far less affected by them 
 them than it was by the critics who wrote two hundred 
 years later. Even had the differences between one 
 text and the others been far greater than we know 
 them to have been, we should still have been justified 
 in arguing from the antiquity of its competitors to 
 that of the vulgate. 
 
 But we have a case where the date of the text in 
 question is guaranteed not merely by the texts of 
 
 ' Mr. Allen suggests a brilliant h)rpothesis regarding this MS., 
 namely, that it was followed in the Iphigenia in AuHs which 
 shows discrepancies from our text regarding the Catalogue: 
 see Classical Review, xv. p. 347 S. 
 
64 The Homeric Poems [chap. I 
 
 individual Athenian citizens, but by the co-existence 
 all through the Greek world of texts which, while they 
 differed from the Athenian sufficiently to prove that 
 they represented each an independent tradition, yet 
 their differences were on the whole slight — regarding in 
 some cases grammatical forms, in others single words 
 or phrases, or at most the insertion or rejection of one 
 or more lines which were usually of very little import- 
 ance to the poetry. 
 
 Under these circumstances we are undoubtedly jus- 
 tified in pushing back the date of the formation of our 
 vulgate to a still earlier period. Starting with the 
 fifth century, and allowing a few generations as a mini- 
 mum for the formation of wide-spread and independent 
 traditions, we come to the date of Peisistratus. We 
 have argued his case already, and need not cover the 
 ground again. ^ Suffice it here to say that whether he 
 did much or little towards settling the text of the 
 vulgate, in any case it cannot have been seriously 
 modified very much after his time. And that is all 
 that we are concerned to maintain in the present section. 
 We had assigned a latest date long prior to this (850- 
 800 B.C.) to the epics in some shape or form. We can- 
 not now say that in our form they go back so far — but 
 roughly speaking our text goes back certainly well 
 into the fifth, and in all probability into the sixth 
 century, B.C. That it also goes back further might 
 possibly be maintained, but not on the direct evidence 
 of our existing codices, papyri, scholia, and classical 
 quotations. 
 
 Peisistratus was accused, at least in later times, of 
 giving an Attic colouring to the poems. If he, or any 
 other ruler of Athens in the sixth century, really pre- 
 pared and adopted an official text for public use, the 
 result would be that involuntarily and imperceptibly 
 that text would be to some extent Atticised in its 
 dialectical forms. This process is what we have seen 
 was really at work on the vulgate, and it is analogous 
 
 1 See § 3 of this chapter, " The Poems among the Greeks," 
 pages 25-6. 
 
■Ci. 
 
 
 :2; 
 
 
 rt 
 
 
 u 
 
 . 
 
 ^ 0) 
 
 i::^ 
 
 
 " s 
 
 tn rt 
 
 
 S.i 
 
 
 *- v- 
 
 riE 
 
 C !< 
 
 o > 
 u O 
 
 
 
 ^ X 
 
 >, v: 
 
 c-5 
 
 en fC 
 
 ^'1 
 
 ^ ^ 
 
 s.l 
 
 <h ^ 
 
 . o 
 
 od. 
 ast 
 iss 
 
 U:i1 
 
 ■c PX 
 
 
 5S- 
 
 ■9.'^% 
 
 <2 ci-?i 
 
 
 (SSg 
 
 5 feS 
 
 
 >. 1-, <u 
 
 Q C 1 
 
 da" .. 
 
 1^1 
 
 
 
 O rt r; 
 
 I •■ T) 
 
 *" C V 
 
 1 CO rt 
 a 'j^ 
 O w VI 
 
 It^' 
 
 
 1 ""t^ 
 
 
 
 en CJ- r 
 
 S o >^ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ■cHjf 
 
 
 &..y fe 
 
 IH O - 
 
 
 •^ ^2 
 
 0-3 ° 
 
 eolitl 
 —ear 
 of sp 
 
 ci' ^ .S 
 
 ^5 2 c 
 
 '^.^S. 
 
 ^ ^ 2 
 
 «..-s 
 
 2§§ 
 
 W^ 
 
 ^ £ 
 
 fet^-g 
 
 O 1 
 
 . "M U 
 
 ^i 
 
 B.C 
 
 ce a 
 Int 
 
 
 ".a 
 
 c3 bo 
 
 
 ojW 
 
 0, - 
 
 o ^^ 
 
 >-d 
 
 ^ o 
 
 >- c 
 
 «: 
 
 ■3 ° 
 
 ^ 
 
 S-" 
 
 
 •^^ 
 
 
 n 
 
 
 *-■ 
 
 
 C *- rt 
 
 *j n o 
 
 ■" c S 
 
 ^ > ^ 
 
 S — 4 
 
 S 5;" -t; S 
 'P. 5 ^ '" 
 
 o ii 8 s 
 
 '^^^^ g 
 
 ii n 
 
 ^ J^ tii c" 
 
 
 :^« 
 
 I s^g 
 
 o ;= ^fi^ 
 
 C4 . ^ I— I 
 , en '^^ h- < 
 
 o I X 
 
 V tn 
 
 " b 
 
 w 
 
 ^2-2 o 
 rt >" 
 
 Qj 13 "^ 
 O " 
 
 rt b » 
 
 o i8 
 
 c 
 
 a; 
 
 a 
 ^° 
 
 ■" rt 
 
 a. C 
 
 O — 
 
 T) 5? 
 o in 
 
 .2 >> 
 
 io 
 
 C en 
 p rt 
 
 at 
 
 J. -2 
 
 W CI, 
 
 •S rt 
 
 H.2 
 
 < a 
 o 
 
 'o 
 o 
 
 « i 
 
 O 
 
 Sa-s-s 
 
 HH O O - 
 
 < > C a 
 
 5 -S w L? 
 
 as 2 
 
 Z 
 bn en 
 
 o S 
 
 rr' 5 
 
 3° 
 
 si 
 
 O a 
 <««!.2o 
 
 o 
 
 fa 
 
 « 
 
 < 
 
 o 
 o 
 1- 
 
 s; 
 
 D =^ 
 
 5a 
 «s 
 
 %^ 
 
 .3S 
 
 O =•= 
 
 °s2 . 
 
 — a; n - 
 
 C ^ rt 
 
 S .b > '■" 
 
 
 
 
 •^ 2z 
 
 0. w 
 
 School of PRIMI- 
 TIVE EPIC. 
 (Achaean) 
 
 [School of 
 vEolic epic 
 (Probable).] 
 
 BLOOJI OF 
 IONIAN 
 SCHOOL. 
 
 3 
 O 
 
 y 
 
 Q 
 
 o 
 Q 
 
 o 
 
 
 .T 
 
 
 rO 
 
 
 
 
 
 o 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ■c 
 
 
 o 
 
 
 
 
 O 
 
 
 J 
 
 
 O 
 
 ;< 
 
 O 
 
 4> 
 
 X . 
 
 <•-. 
 
 '-' s 
 
 o 
 
 z s 
 
 71 
 
 f> 
 
 S'H. 
 
 r 
 
 . fV ° 
 
 
 
 so 
 rt 
 
 apyn 
 AND 
 
 c 
 
 "-'/ ,, 
 
 
 
 
 
 3 
 O 
 
 « 
 
 D 
 X 
 o 
 
 pi 
 
 
 3 
 
 . b 
 Z ^ 
 
 a 3- 
 
 tsJ i 
 
 < '^ 
 X i 
 
 T. ■ 
 
 3,i 
 
 
 DECADENCE OF 
 
 IONIAN EPIC. 
 
 (Rhapsodes). 
 
 PERIOD OF ORAL TRANSMISSION. 
 
 SLISHT CH.ANGES in text 
 (mostly dialectical). 
 
 OF WRITTEN TRANSMISSION. 
 
 LATE MYCEN/EAN 
 AGE 
 
 DARK AGE 
 
 HELLENIC AGE 
 
 a 
 
 H 
 O 
 
 z 
 
 a 
 
 < 
 
 o 
 Z 
 
 ■a 
 . a 
 
 • HI "■" 
 
 ,„hX M 
 afe^w 
 
 h2 
 
 - o 
 
 > rt 
 
 a 2,2 
 rtO.2 
 
 HELLENISTIC 
 AGE 
 
 o 
 o 
 
 Z 
 < 
 
 O 
 
 o 
 
 fa 
 o 
 
 z 
 
 o 
 
 > 
 Z 
 
 J:! ■ c 
 cO ■" 
 
 *^ **-( ^^ 
 H>' otg 
 
 toO ffiX 
 
 o 
 o 
 
 ■'■a 
 
 a '^ 
 
 o J3 
 
 .3 ..3 
 c o 
 o a 
 ^^ ^s 
 
 o'o 
 
 csi« 
 
 2' 
 
 ■a 
 
 c 
 
 ti! 
 
•a ^ 
 
 tfi 
 
 W 
 
 a O 
 
 is 
 
 Qrt 
 1-9 '■" 
 
 < 
 
 'RIMI- 
 PIC. 
 
 m) 
 
 as 
 So 
 
 .£3 o 
 
 23 
 
 H.2 
 
 o 
 
 8 
 
 8 
 
 8 
 
 g 
 
 R 
 
 
 
 1^ 
 
 •c 
 
 ITi 
 
 
 
 in 
 
 1 — 
 
 
 
 
 p ti 
 5§ 
 
 
 1 
 
 Prig's "^ 
 
 En's 
 
 
 
 < > « a 
 
 
 .W 3 
 
 
 .g 
 
 «^s'i 
 
 gOn-g 
 
 
 
 
 
 §11 
 
 t/1 o 
 
 
 e 
 
 w-,, ~ 
 
 " M '^ 
 
 
 ) ILIAD 
 
 <a 3-2 
 
 
 
 
 S 
 
 a^a 
 
 o K>,cn 
 
 
 '-J 
 
 it '^ 
 
 3 3^ 
 
 <s;ii,o 
 
 
 S 
 
 S g 
 
 §g- 
 
 SS 
 
 
 CO 
 
 00 c- 
 
 f^» 
 
 ■>« 
 
 
 [School of 
 ^olic epic 
 (Probable).] 
 
 BLOOM OF 
 IONIAN 
 SCHOOL. 
 
 o 
 
 - s 
 
 « o 
 
 £ S . 
 
 O wg 
 S <g. 
 
 .... a< 
 c a>< . 
 
 ■" -2 5 5 
 .a Sog 
 
 3 
 O 
 « 
 
 D 
 
 < 
 
 O 
 
 s 
 
 N S 
 
 at 
 
 ":< 
 
 in- 
 
 3 •- 
 
 9 £ 
 
 DECADENCE OF 
 
 IONIAN EPIC. 
 
 (Rhapsodes). 
 
 PERIOD OF ORAL TRANSMISSION. 
 
 SLIGHT CHANGES in text 
 (mostly dialectical). 
 
 OF WRITTEN TRANSMISSION. 
 
 EAN 
 
 DARK AGE 
 
 HELLENIC AGE 
 
 ^ . 
 
 'n 
 
 
 < 
 
 ■*H 
 
 iv; 
 
 eo«_ 
 
 O 
 
 ^■o 
 
 o 
 
 ^OJ 3 
 
 fc< 
 
 S< a. 
 
 o 
 
 > rt 
 
 
 c/l ■^ " 
 
 V^ 
 
 [ESE 
 JAN 
 teof 
 
 o 
 
 -f 
 
 ■SOS 
 
 > 
 
 <f^ - 
 
 «H 
 
 HELLENISTIC 
 AGE 
 
 o 
 o 
 
 0\ 
 
 D 
 
 o 
 
 D 
 
 o 
 
 
 
 t^ 
 
 d 
 
 
 ^ 'a. 
 
 
 '^ « 
 
 
 
 
 fa 
 
 M>0 
 
 o o 
 
 Sij 
 
 S. ■" 
 
 "o ^ 
 
 d tn 
 
 2K 
 
 '^ e 
 
 O.X3 
 
 l5'-5 
 
 "^■^^ 
 
 aditio 
 MPIA 
 f Bneo 
 lOD. 
 
 "So 
 
 6 [Ti 
 OLY 
 
 ise o 
 HES 
 
 o o 
 
 (!> 0) 
 Ul C/l 
 
 P « 
 
 «« 
 
 ;o 
 
 ; O 
 
 
 o 
 
 8 
 
 
 8° 
 
 C 
 
 t/i 
 
 2g 
 oS 
 
 o:: 
 
 o 
 a, 
 g 
 
 c 
 ■3 
 
 o 
 
 3 
 o 
 
 OT3 
 -I 
 
 §3 
 
 ^1 
 
 u 
 z 
 a 
 > 
 
 X 
 
 'A 
 Q 
 O 
 
 Q 
 < 
 
sec. 5] Our Homeric Text 65 
 
 to the process by which, according to our theory during 
 the organic formation of the poems, the eariier portions 
 lost the old Achaean colouring and gradually acquired 
 an Ionic tinge. This was inevitable before the epics 
 were written down ; and even after they were fixed 
 in MS. form, the copyists appear to have continued 
 the gradual process of modernisation^ — at least until 
 the time of the Alexandrian grammarians, who drew 
 the attention of students to the text and thus tended 
 to fix it. Henceforth the poems became a mere lite- 
 rary inheritance instead of the living vehicle of a 
 nation's consciousness : henceforth their breath was 
 of a past that had faded, and they could be handed 
 down to future ages as ' a possession for ever ' without 
 the possibility of change. 
 
 We think the evidence given in this Section clearly 
 establishes the view that after the time of Peisistratus 
 (or thereabouts) there has been no creation of a Homeric 
 text. It has been continually traditional, and though 
 modification of detail must be admitted, tradition has 
 been, on the whole, conservative, leaving unimpaired 
 the spirit and the substance of the poems. 
 
[ 66 ] 
 
 § 6. Homeric Grammar, Style, 
 and Metre 
 
 It would not be possible within our limits to append 
 a complete and detailed view of the grammatical forms 
 occurring in Homer. Nor will the student find it neces- 
 sary. Plenty of useful treatises in convenient form 
 already exist; moreover, it would be needless for the 
 student to commit to memory lengthy grammatical rules 
 and lists of exceptional forms, some of which he may 
 hardly ever meet, and if he does it will then be time 
 enough to learn them with less effort. On the other 
 hand to possess a slight preliminary knowledge of certain 
 principles underlying the grammar and the metre of 
 Homer will be a useful thing for the beginner, and will 
 put him in a position to notice, and to some extent 
 account for, the peculiarities which will meet him at 
 every step in his study. The aim therefore of the 
 present section is not to give an exhaustive tabulation 
 of Homeric forms or constructions, but to notice some 
 of the more typical phenomena, or those which are 
 widely diffused throughout the text. 
 
 It will help towards an understanding of Homeric 
 grammar to bear in mind two things which will have 
 been brought before the reader of the 
 General prin- Section on the Homeric Dialect. First, 
 oiples of Homeric ,, , j- , j. ■ j.- n -i. 
 
 grammar. ^"^^ dialect is essentially composite, 
 though not in the erroneous sense that 
 its formation was due to purposed selection from 
 previously known varieties of speech. Secondly, Homer 
 represents an early stage of the Greek language, on the 
 whole earlier than that represented by any other extant 
 literature. Therefore we find on the one hand a great 
 multiplicity of forms — on the other, a preponderance 
 of archaic ones, such as case-endings less worn away, 
 or a less pronounced tendency to contraction, than in 
 later Classical Greek. Moreover, Grammar, and espe- 
 cially Syntax, has become less stereotyped than it is. 
 
sec. 6] Grammar, Style, Metre 67 
 
 for instance, in Attic. For there is a marked freedom 
 in the use of cases; the original, adverbial use of pre- 
 positions is less obscured ; and certain well-defined con- 
 structions of later Syntax are just coming into use in at 
 most a half-developed stage. It is true that, side by 
 side with these indications of archaism, we find for- 
 mations which are apparently very late, and a confusing 
 disposition on the part of bards or editors to attempt 
 new forms on a supposed analogy with the old. The 
 result of this erroneous neologising is that we occasion- 
 ally find monsters, forms which are philologically impos- 
 sible, but of which it would be now hopeless to attempt 
 to purge the text. A large number of them are appa- 
 rently due to metrical exigencies ; and it has even been 
 said that some of the innovators were prepared to 
 admit almost any forms, particularly in the case of 
 verbs and participles, provided they could scan ! Hence 
 the student of Homeric grammar, while he can derive 
 the utmost assistance from scientific philology in ex- 
 plaining numerous groups of formations, should feel 
 profound distrust for those who push theory to such an 
 extent as to try, as many have done, to force the 
 explanation of forms which are really due to false 
 analogy or mere metrical expedience. As an instance 
 of what is meant, forms like opduo-o, opduvrcs used to be 
 explained by assimilation, a theory which is now but 
 rarely if at all maintained. It is generally accepted as 
 much more probable that so far from being inter- 
 mediate, uncontracted forms, these participles are the 
 result of an affected resolution of the later contracts, 
 opaaa and opavris- The form Tip(SovT6s (= ij^aovTes) is per- 
 haps a more extreme case of this tendency, which is 
 seen in the case of nouns also, e.g. o-irefows, wrongly con- 
 tracted from o-ire'eos, k.t.X. 
 
 It has been stated above that the contraction of 
 
 vowels is generally less carried out than in later Greek. 
 
 _ ., , With regard to contract verbs, it will be 
 
 oStVactionin ^^'^ ^'^^^ ^o add here that the state- 
 
 Homeric grammaF. uient apphes most fully to verbs m -«», 
 
 and least to those in -ow, which last are 
 
 usually contracted. A large number of syllables, chiefly 
 
68 The Homeric Poems [chap. I 
 
 in nouns, used to be, and are often still, printed as con- 
 tracted into diphthongs, because they were so treated in 
 later Greek, even where metrical considerations lead us 
 to suppose that in the Homeric poems the concurrent 
 vowels are stUl intended to be pronounced apart. For 
 instance, the form 'Ap^etos occurs some 400 times in the 
 poems, and never once in such a position that 'Ap-yfios is 
 impossible.^ The law of probability would exclude 
 our supposing that such a fact could be the result of 
 mere chance, therefore we must assume that open pro- 
 nunciation is the true cause. As the word must have 
 been originally 'Apyi{<T)ioi, this theory is the more 
 certain. So KotXos can be treated as a trisyllable with 
 a single exception in its 68 occurrences, and the 
 common word fl«tos very frequently. In such cases it 
 is better to be guided by scientific induction than by 
 our MSS., which are scarcely authoritative in matters 
 of spelling. 
 
 With regard to the collocation -«», it may be noticed 
 that though it does not suffer contraction proper, it 
 is very frequently pronounced as a single syllable by 
 synizesis. So iw^iv, 4(U<<>v, which could not otherwise find 
 place in the hexameter, are pronounced as dissyllables. 
 
 Notice also that the Attic ti is in Homer generally H •■ 
 so ols is 8is, and wats is irAis- Patronymics like 'ArpetStis 
 and IlnXeiav have the central vowels uncontracted. 
 
 Some important peculiarities which appear to belong 
 to the iEolic dialect have been noted,* In addition to 
 such we may remark the following : 
 
 i. Certain archaic affixes, especially -<|>i.(v), originally 
 an instrumental termination, but used also as a locative 
 and even a true ablative, taking the 
 Noan-formation. place in both singular and plural of the 
 genitive and dative cases, as ^+1 pCi+t, 
 with his own might ; if crriie6<r<|)tv, from the breast ; 
 8pe(r<j)iv, on the mountains. It usually comes at the end 
 
 ' Pointed out first by Nauck. Modem editors (e.g. Leaf, and 
 Monro and Allen) commonly refuse to accept Nauck's spelling, 
 apparently on the ground that the resolved pronunciation was 
 out of date at the time when our text was first written down. 
 
 ' See § 4 of the present chapter, pp. 42-4. 
 
sec. 6] Grammar, Style, Metre 6g 
 
 of a verse, and is not used with words indicating persons. 
 Note also that adverbial suifixes are used more loosely 
 than in Attic. Thus iyv>h iyyi6i, iyyidiv appear to be used 
 equivalently. The dative plural of the -a stems is in 
 -n<ri(v) or sometimes us. but not -ais (except very rarely, 
 probably owing to mistake of copyists). The genitive 
 in -010 (from -o stems) is very common in Homer. It 
 is from this form that -ov was derived through -oo (the 
 iota having dropped out), and it is metrically certain 
 that the form in -oo should be restored for the Attic 
 form (as in AUXoo fieyoKTjTopos, where AidXou will not 
 scan.)'. The above are specimens of special termi- 
 nations, of which many more are left to the student's 
 own observation. 
 
 ii, In the declension of nouns and even of adjectives 
 there are a large number of by-forms. For instance 
 vl6s occurs as in Attic, but also forms as though derived 
 from vh (as wlor, vUs k.t.\-) and others as though from vieiis 
 
 (as uWoy, vUa jcr.X.) In like manner yarrpriy (cp. yaarTrjp) 
 8Xki\ (cp. dXici) ifivXaKas (cp. ^uXditow) lidoTiv (cp. /iaoriyj). 
 
 Proper names, as 'Apiis . (which gives 'Ap^os and 'Apuo), 
 and 'AC8t]s, MtiK^vT], etc., show great multiplication and 
 confusion of forms. IloXis is heteroclits even in Attic, 
 but to a much greater extent in Homer, as both iroXv- 
 and iroXXo- give nearly complete sets of forms. 
 
 iii. Many adjectives of 3 terminations (in Attic) 
 have only two in Homer, as l+fli'pvs ^jnixas, do-irdo-ios 7^. 
 On the other hand compound adjectives may have three 
 terminations, as oOavdni, ■<ro\.v[kvi\<m\, and many others. 
 The stems used for comparatives and superlatives are 
 often special and sometimes duplicated; as, KOKdrtpos 
 
 and KaxCuv, <|i(XTEpos and <|>CXCci>v, i>KiKaros and &Kurroi : iraXis 
 
 has the comp. irX«C«v and irX^«>v with the irregular irX&s 
 in the plmral. There are also forms from noun-stems, 
 as K<ivT«pos (Kvav), K<l8io-Tos (kuSoi), and many other eccen- 
 tricities of grammar, 
 iv. Note in the nom. pi. of 6 ^j rd, the earlier forms 
 
 ^ In like manner it is better, though not absolutely necessary, 
 to read ^iSa Slav rather than ^S> Slav for the reason given below 
 (notes on Metre, p. j;f.) 
 
70 The Homeric Poems [chap. I 
 
 To£ and To£, and that in the dat. pi. the longer forms 
 Toio-i and Toto-i are preferred (as is the case also in all 
 other dative plurals of the -o and -» stems). 
 
 i. Many of the laws regulating noun-formation apply 
 
 also to the pronouns. The forms epeto, i\^°, ^v-^v, ifuiiv 
 
 are among those for the ist pers. sing. 
 
 Frononn-forms. genitive. The nom. ey^v has been given 
 
 already. The pi. Hv-f-^i, with gen. ■iffim/, 
 
 i\f.flav and dat. tt|i|" may be noted. There is no dual ; 
 
 but o-<|>wi is in use for the 2nd pers. dual. 
 
 ii. The possessives are t«i5s, o|i(Ss, iii6s, and a form 
 o-Fds, €<Ss or 8s, the same word as the Latin suus, but 
 used sometimes for the ist and 2nd persons as well as 
 the 3rd. Notice Sns for Sj-rts, and So-o-os k.t.X. for Sa-os. 
 
 iii. Here we may mention among the numerals to 
 (= /ita) fem. for ' one ' ; irCo-upes and «Ckoo-i, have been 
 already mentioned; irpiiTaTos, tpCtotos and other odd 
 forms among the ordinals. 
 
 i. The auiment is frequently dispensed with, and is 
 hardly ever found with iteratives. The initial con- 
 sonant if a liquid and sometimes when 
 yerb-formation. S may be doubled before the augment 
 to express that such a consonant has a 
 lengthening effect, e.g. SXXoPe, KSao-ev, etc. For some 
 reason the ,<r of the future and ist aorist is frequently 
 doubled in like manner, as T«Xi<roT], tfjioiro-ov, KoXio-o-aro, etc. 
 There are also pecuharities in regard to reduplication : 
 aorists are more frequently reduplicated than in Attic, 
 as ireirWoiiisv, lKX^a6ov, t^tXoBi, rera-yAv, etc. (K€Kdna is 
 doubtful, as it may possibly be « (cd/t<a.) 
 
 ii. Tense-endings. Forms belonging to -i^i verbs are 
 common, as iBwiii, 46«Xti(ri. The ending -o-Oa occurs in the 
 indie, as <|>*loreo in the subjunctive, as dlirTio-Bo, and even 
 rarely in the optative, as pdXoio-ea. The older form in 
 •ea for the 1st pers. sing, pluperf. survives, as jSeo (Attic 
 b8i?). Active infinitives (exc. ist aorist) end in -i"voi, 
 which can be shortened to -jiev, but generally before a 
 vowel (which looks like elision). The pass. aor. infin. 
 may end in -ntvoi, as San^cvai (Sa/i^vm.) 
 
 The 3rd pi. plup., and opt. ends in -aTai -aro for i^"*' ■y"' 
 (which was remarked above as an Aeolism.) 
 
sec. 6] Grammar, Style, Metre 71 
 
 iii. The short subjunctive form must be carefully 
 noticed as older than the more familiar long form. 
 p^(ro|i€v (not fiT)<ran{v) so £i£So|»£v, io|i.tv, k.t.X. Sometimes we 
 get what looks like vowel compensation as peConev (for 
 
 ^e'co/iev = ^m^xf i»), SO Tpoir«£onev. 
 
 iv. Many verbs commonly occurring, such as ^v-^, &v-^, 
 otSo, K.T.X., have a special set of Homeric forms, which 
 will be learned from reading, or may be found in the 
 grammars. 
 
 Notice the forms *Tttl, imAp, irapal, irporl or 'totI (=irpbs) 
 
 PFepoBition- «lv, Ivi, «lvi, and a few other strange 
 
 forms. forms. 
 
 We may usefully append here some few syntactical 
 
 illustrations of the freedom of Homeric grammar as 
 
 compared with later Greek. 
 
 Syntax of i- A notable instance of this principle 
 
 Hoods. is the use of the subjunctive with a 
 
 sort of vague and remote idea of 
 
 futurity ; ov yap jna toIovs iSov Suepas ov8c Ida/juu, " I never 
 
 yet saw such men, nor am I likely to see them ; " which 
 is not quite so strong as oiU Syjfoiiat, " nor shall I see them." 
 
 What is also remarkable is the use of k^v or 4v with 
 the subjunctive in this construction — a collocation 
 which is of course impossible in Attic — as, 6 fie kcv 
 KexoKaaerai ov Kev "nuoitm. (It is not SO certain that Sv 
 can be used with the future indicative itself, though 
 the MSS. give a few instances.) On the other hand 
 simple «l (without 4v or k^v) can be followed by the 
 subjunctive, where iav {— el Sv) is required in Attic. 
 
 ii. When we look at the uses of the optative we find 
 similar contrasts. This mood can by itself have a 
 hypothetical or potential force in Homer, and does not 
 need the addition of Sv to give it this meaning. Again 
 the optative with S.v can be used, equivalently to the 
 indicative with S.v in Attic, to express an impossible and 
 
 past supposition, as, f"' "^ K-^v €vd' arroXolTO ava^ avbpav 
 
 'Alveias k.t.X., " then Aeneas, king of men, would have 
 perished," etc. 
 
 iii. It may be noted here that the use of the infinitive 
 for imperative, which also occurs in later Greek, is fairly 
 common in Homer. 
 
72 The Homeric Poems [chap. I 
 
 iv. The construction of &<rTe with infinitive had not 
 been developed in Homeric times : it occurs in only two 
 places, which are possibly corrupt. 
 
 V. In similes, the subjunctive mood is very commonly 
 used, being introduced by "s, As 8 »«, &s h'ir&v, &i ct 
 K.T.X. (not «s by itself). 
 
 i. The so-called Dativus Commodi has a wide range 
 
 in Homeric grammar, being often used where the genitive 
 
 might be expected, as, Seivoi Se ol So-o-t 
 
 Syntax of ^davSev, " terribly did her (for her the) 
 
 Cases. eyes gleam." Again, of things, where a 
 
 genitive absolute would be used in later 
 
 Greek KfXa-dcrDm 8e vrjvcA KadelXofiev larla ■Kdvra ; " when the 
 
 ships were beached {for the beached ships) we took down 
 all the sails." 
 
 ii. The genitive absolute was only beginning to be 
 evolved out of the ordinary genitive — ^whether of time 
 or of circumstance is not clear. Many apparent cases 
 of gen. abs. can be simply explained as ordinary 
 genitives.' The use of the mere participle without a 
 subject hardly occurs (if at all) ; and in general the aorist 
 participle is much less common than the present in the 
 absolute construction. 
 
 iii. The use of prepositions is more extended in 
 Homeric grammar, perhaps because they were still felt 
 to be adverbs. Hence as prefixes they are compounded 
 loosely, and are used separately by what is erroneously 
 styled tmesis. Again, ustA, avd, and ajji+i are found 
 frequently with the dative, and «wC with the dative to 
 express hostility. The accusative occurs without a 
 preposition, as in iivr)<TTrjpas a<^UeTo, " she came to the 
 suitors." 
 
 iv. The nominative plural neuter may take a plural 
 verb more commonly than in later Greek. 
 
 In Homer the so-called article is mostly used as a 
 demonstrative (its original meaning) or else as a relative 
 (its derived meaning). It is true, indeed, that occa- 
 
 ' e.g., Od. i. 390, icai K€v tovt' iBiXoiiu iiiog yc SiBovros dpecBai 
 though apparently a gen. abs. might be rendered " from the 
 hands of Zeus " as a true genitive of separation. 
 
sec. 6] Grammar, Style, Metre 73 
 
 sionally the later use of 4 Jj t<5 as a 
 
 Use of the real article does occur in Homer, but 
 
 BO-called article, in many places this may be naturally 
 
 ») ^> ■"*■ explained as a demonstrative with noun 
 
 in opposition. This is clear from the 
 
 order of the words in : rd S'eVwxf™ k^Xo 6co~u>, " but they 
 
 came on — the darts of the god." ' 
 
 Thus the absence of the article is the ordinary thing, 
 and does not, as we might suppose, imply indefiniteness. 
 OS, % i has a demonstrative as well as a relative force, 
 especially if occurring with o4S^, f.rfii, Ka£, or y&p. But 
 this is almost or quite confined to the Iliad. 
 
 Particles are very frequent in Homer, and a knowledge 
 
 of them may often be necessary for the understanding 
 
 of the text, though on the other hand 
 
 Uses of there are numerous instances in which 
 
 Particles. they either do not carry any special 
 
 meaning, or else one which it is hardly 
 
 possible clearly to trace. 
 
 i. For instance, one use of « much insisted on by 
 grammarians is adverbial, and has the effect of marking 
 a clause as indefinite. Hence its use in gnomic clauses 
 and similes. On the other hand, as ■" is also used as a 
 mere connective, its force is obscured, and indeed it is 
 probable that its use is sometimes determined by 
 metrical reasons. 
 
 ii. Contrariwise, one of the uses of Ke(v) is to make 
 a clause definite, and this force can very often be 
 clearly discerned. 
 
 But as K«{v) is practically identical with &v, it has 
 many other uses, some of which have been already 
 discussed. 
 
 iii. The most common conjunction to introduce a 
 final clause is fi<|>po, but Birus, ivo, k..t.\., are also found, 
 iv. The use of 8^ as in Attic is to emphasise the 
 introduction of an apodosis (called 8f in apodosi). H has 
 
 ' On the other hand it is not always possible to distinguish 
 clearly between the demonstrative and the relatival use. But 
 this is common to English in the use of ' that,' and to other 
 
74 The Homeric Poems [chap. I 
 
 also its Attic emphasising force ; but in Homer it can 
 stand first in its clause. 
 
 V. irptv has both an adverbial and conjunctive force — 
 sometimes the two uses answer one another, as in 
 Iliad i. 95-6. 
 
 ovb^ 5 ye irpXv atpt^ei • . . , irpiv boiixvat, 
 
 vi. o2v has not the strong illative meaning it bears in 
 later Greek. It merely adds a slight emphasis to a 
 word, as JirtV o2v, when now : so also w. 
 
 vii. A (at) has sometimes a sort of exclamatory force, 
 el 8' tt^e, come now I 
 
 viii. ^v^ . . . . i\U answer one another in the sense of 
 loth . . . and : ^S^ (ISO can be also used by itgelf, and 
 means and. 
 
 Many other points might be remarke.d, but perhaps 
 the above will suffice. 
 
 i. A figure of speech which is eminently characteristic 
 of Homeric style as illustrating the primitive simplicity 
 of its structure is that known as para- 
 Characteristic taxis. It consists in the multiplication 
 figures of speecli. of co-ordinate clauses when subordinate 
 ones would be more natural in developed 
 language. Thus the relation of cause and effect is left 
 to be assumed or implied without being stated. The 
 evolution of the relative from the demonstrative illus- 
 trates one stage of progress from parataxis to subordi- 
 nation. There is a good instance of this figure in the 
 fifth line of the Iliad, Aioj SlrfXeiiTo ^ouXij, " JFMle (lit. 
 but) the will of Zeus was being accomplished." The 
 paratactic clause frequently takes the place of a par- 
 ticipial clause. 
 
 ii. Side by side with parataxis we notice in Homer 
 an indifference as to change of subject in clauses 
 — a thing avoided in the maturer Greek style. 
 
 iii. Stereotyped expressions are common, a love of 
 them being peculiar to children and child-like audiences. 
 They are also a relief to the memory of one reciting. 
 Speeches in particular are introduced by set phrases 
 which always comprise a single and complete verse. 
 There are also many stereotyped phrases for recurring 
 
sec. 6] Grammar, Style, Metre 73 
 
 actions, such as eating and drinking, retiring to rest, 
 putting on armour, falling in battle, etc. 
 
 iv. Another peculiarity is periphrasis, or substitution 
 of a complete phrase for a simple name, such as npCo|ioio 
 pCil. "the might of Priam," for Priam. So nv\oi|j.^veos 
 Xdo-iov Kijp. We may compare ^e^flcpov ^|iap for freedom, 
 and other similar expressions. 
 
 V. Special emphasis is imparted by the repetition of 
 words and phrases. This repetition will always be 
 found to occur at the beginning of a new verse, where of 
 course it is more marked. 
 
 Many other figures, as zeugma, litotes, chiasmus, etc., 
 occur, but are common to Homeric and to later Greek, 
 and therefore do not require further mention here. 
 
 One very marked feature of the poems is the use of 
 
 epithets. They are frequently stereotyped or stock 
 
 epithets, referring to some general attri- 
 
 Homeric Epi- bute, as vijes 6oaC, iroXvif'^oCirpoio ea\d<rirr]s, 
 thets. even though the ships are stationary and 
 
 the sea calm. So proper nouns have 
 special epithets more or less appropriated to themselves, 
 till they become sometimes like part of the proper 
 names. This is so common that it is unnecessary to 
 give examples. It is also common in Homer to find a 
 multiplication of epithets with the same noun, especially 
 at the commencement of a verse. There are a large 
 number of elaborate epithets, some of them frequently 
 occurring, of which the etymology and even the exact 
 meaning is much disputed. The progress of philology 
 tends to reduce their number, but it is probable that a 
 large residuum wiU resist final analysis. Some of them 
 are no doubt due to an admixture of early, non-Hellenic, 
 forms of speech in the Homeric language. 
 
 The Homeric vocabulary is remarkable for its size 
 
 and variety, and there are a considerable number of 
 
 words used only once and others not 
 
 Vocabulary and ^^^^^ ^ged. Notwithstanding this fact 
 
 "word!. tliere are very many words that we 
 
 might expect to find in Homer which 
 
 are conspicuous by their absence, including such common 
 
 words as Xo'yor, SoOXor, fiifos, a6<j)os, ^dpfiapos, cuaBavofuu, iijrS, 
 
76 The Homeric Poems [chap. I 
 
 oTTJipM. (Some of these, however, occur in derivatives 
 or compounds.) 
 
 It is also necessary for the student to remark that 
 many, even common, words which are found in Homer, 
 occur there with a different meaning from the ordinary 
 one in later Greek, For instance, <|k!Pos means, not 
 fear, but ' panic ' or ' flight ' ; <r&iui. is used only of a 
 corpse, not of a living body ; iro\«|ios is ' battle,' rather 
 than 'war'; irif.tta to escort, rather than 'to send'; 
 fryxos means ' spear,' never ' sword ; ' and so with a host of 
 others which will be learned best by observation. In 
 the use of certain words, too, as will be noted later, 
 there is a distinction betweed the Iliad and the Odyssey. 
 
 As quantities vary in Homer, and some words have a 
 different quantity from what they hold in Attic, the 
 accent may be affected, as lo-os in Homer is written to-os. 
 
 It should hardly be necessary to point out the im- 
 portance of close attention to metrical questions in the 
 study of Homer. For one reason the de- 
 Homeric Ycrse — cision of questions regarding dialect and 
 The Pause, the text generally must in great measure 
 depend not merely on the strict exigencies 
 of the metre, but also on what can be shown to be the 
 preferences of those who used it. Among such con- 
 siderations the rules for the Pause' hold a foremost place. 
 
 i. The principal pause comes near the centre of the 
 verse ; but it must be a caesura, i.e., it must cut one of 
 the feet. Being near the centre of the line, it nearly 
 always cuts the third foot.* There are strong reasons 
 for maintaining that the hexameter was formed out of 
 the two halves which are separated by this central caesura. 
 
 ii. Another rather important pause frequently occurs 
 at the end of the fourth foot, and is called by gram- 
 marians the Bucolic Diaeresis." It is a favourite but of 
 course not a necessary division, and is marked like the 
 
 ' By a Pause is meant a division between words. 
 
 " This caesura is called penthemimeral, and it occurs in every 
 line of Homer with the exception of 256 verses. If absent there 
 must then be a hephthemimeral caesura, that in the fourth foot. 
 
 • This sort of pause is called a diseresis, not a caesura, because 
 it does not cut a foot. 
 
sec. 6] Grammar, Styje, Metre 77 
 
 central cfesura by a tendency to admit hiatus, or the 
 non- elision of a final vowel. 
 
 iii. Diaeresis after the 3rd foot (or precisely in the 
 middle of the verse) is not permitted. Neither is it 
 common to admit a trochaic caesura in the 4th foot.' 
 In the 5th foot on the other hand, the trochaic caesura 
 is preferred. Thus we must write in the fourth line of 
 the Iliad ^cSpia t6«x« Kvvfo-aiv (not eXwpt' ereuxe) whereas in 
 the second line 4X7«' '^i^^ is preferalsle to SKyta GriKiv. 
 
 iv. Spondaic verses, i.e., verses whose 5th foot is a 
 spondee, are more common in Homer than in Virgil 
 (where they also occur); but where there is Bucolic 
 Diaeresis two spondees may not follow* Thus 'HS Slav at 
 the end of a verse should be uncontracted, 'Hda SJov. 
 
 v. Notice that the principal caesura of the verse 
 generally corresponds with a break ifl the sense, which 
 is frequently shown by the punctuation. 
 
 Elision is the cutting off a final vowel or diphthong 
 
 before a following vowel ; and half-elision the shortening 
 
 of a final long vowel or diphthong in 
 
 Elision and such a way that half appears to be 
 
 Hiatus, elided. This latter occurs regularly and 
 
 quite frequently when the final long 
 
 vowel or diphthong is in the second half of the foot; and 
 
 so without ictns.^ Thus it occurs in three successive 
 
 feet in Iliad i. 299 : 
 
 oilre <roC, | o*re t^ | AW^ i | ire\ iia(j)e\e(rdi ye 86vTes. 
 
 On the other hand a long syllable with ictus ' will not 
 suffer half-elision, but wUl remain long before another 
 vowel. 
 
 But when a short vowel, or a long vowel in the second 
 half of a foot, irregularly fails to be elided, we have 
 what is called metrical hiatus. This is chiefly due to 
 one of two causes-^the loss of an initial consonant of 
 
 ' By trochaic caesura is meant caesura after the second syllable 
 of a dactyl, thus | — — > — J This caesura is also termined /emwine. 
 The other caesura after the first syllable, thus | _, _ — | or 
 I — , — I is called masculine. In the princ^al pause the femi- 
 nine caesura is sUghtly the more frequent of the two. 
 
 » Called in arsi. 
 
 3 Called in thesi. 
 
^8 The Homeric Poems [chap. I 
 
 the following word (generally the Digamraa) ; or the 
 pause, as has been already explained. Other cases which 
 are not covered by these two explanations may 
 occasionally occur, but not frequently. We shall see, 
 moreover, that some vowels which are usually short 
 were not so originally, and there are a few vowels not 
 subject to elision. Hiatus in these cases need not 
 surprise us. 
 
 i. A certain number of root syllables are common in 
 Homer, more particularly in the case of proper names. 
 Thus the first syllable of 'AirdXXmi' may 
 Yowel-quantity. be long or short according to necessity. 
 (So we have 'Axi^evs and AxtXXms, 'OSuo-ris 
 and 'OSoTxreis, which is convenient.) Again, though 
 np£o|i.os has its first syllable short, it is regularly 
 lengthened in npra|i£ST|s. So we have deavaros, 9vy6,rtpa 
 (cf. 6vydrtip) for three short syllables cannot come 
 together.' 
 
 ii. Among final vowels that are commonly short but 
 sometimes long are : — 
 
 (a) Final -i in dat. sing. The corresponding -i in 
 Latin is long, and in Greek it is seldom elided. 
 
 (/3) The final -a of neuter plur. It is probable though 
 perhaps not certain that its original quantity was long. 
 ' iii. Short final vowels can be regularly lengthened 
 before the liquids \ V; v, p, and sometimes before <r and 
 before certain words commencing with S, as S&s, ^v. 
 (Words of this kind may have had a second initial con- 
 sonant originally.) 
 
 iv. Vowels are regularly lengthened before a double 
 consonant and before two consonants (except some 
 cases of a mute followed by p and ^), and tiiis rule 
 (unlike Latin) applies to a final vowel followed by a 
 word commencing with two consonants. There are 
 some exceptions, mostly in the case of a proper noun, 
 like ZdKwBos, which could not occur unless preceded by 
 a. short. 
 
 ' Quite irrespective of metre we see a tendency even in Attic 
 to avoid a collocation of short syllables — thus is explained the 
 rule of comparison of adjectives which gives us o-orfxiTfoor. 
 
sec. 6] Grammar, Style, Metre 79 
 
 V. A few verses seem to begin with a short syllable, 
 but in many cases an explanation can be given. 
 
 vi. The most frequent cause of the lengthening of 
 short syllables, as of apparent hiatus, is the loss of a 
 consonant, mentioned above. This is so important a 
 matter that it will receive a separate treatment. 
 
 i. The existence of the Digamma in early Greek can 
 be proved partly by inscriptions, and partly by com- 
 parison with cognate languages, such as 
 
 Loss of Digamma Sanskrit, Latin, German and English. 
 and otnep ^jr, , . ,. , , ° ■ 
 
 consonants. What is more pertment to our enquiry 
 is the direct evidence from our poems of 
 the former presence of the Digamma in Homeric Greek. 
 It consists partly of traces in the formation of words, 
 and of what we may call positive traces in other letters 
 which have sometimes replaced the Digamma ; but these 
 cases are comparatively rare. The more common cases 
 are those of the complete disappearance of the letter, 
 leaving only a trace in the metre. 
 
 ii. Such metrical traces are two-fold ; consisting of 
 hiatus where the digamma occurred by itself ; and of 
 length by position where the digamma occurred along 
 witii anotiier consonant. If these two phenomena were 
 found regularly and consistently wherever the same 
 digammated words occur in the Homeric verse, there 
 would be no great trouble. But what makes the pheno- 
 mena very confusing is a certain irregularity in the oper- 
 ation of the lost sound, and the fact that some words 
 show more irregularity than others. It was stated 
 above that the antiquity of the poems as compared 
 with the hymns may be established (among other 
 proofs) by the fact that the effect of the Digamma is 
 more uniformly felt in the former than in the latter. 
 Yet about 600 places occur in the poems where the 
 digamma is treated as non-existent in the metre. Some 
 editors reduce these by various easy emendations — on 
 the supposition that the MS. readings are due to scribes 
 who did not understand the effect of the lost sound and 
 tried to make their text metrical without it. If these 
 emended readings are accepted, the non-observances 
 might be reduced without violence to about half, or 
 
8o The Homeric Poems [chap. I 
 
 one-eleventh of the 3,300 places where the Digamma is 
 observed. ^ 
 
 iii. Several theories have been propounded by Homeric 
 scholars to account for the above facts regarding the 
 traces of the Digamma in Homer.^ It is hardly possible 
 at present to decide anything very positively on the 
 subject, but what it seems at least to point to, is the 
 gradual formation of the poems at least in their present 
 shape. On the other hand it is usually admitted that 
 the presence or absence of traces of the Diganmia 
 cannot be adopted to any great extent as a test for 
 distinguishing earlier from later work. 
 
 iv. The consonant t had a tendency to disappear in 
 Greek, both from the initial position and between two 
 vowels, where it becomes r in Latin. (Thus |j.ovo-a(«r)»v, 
 iwv<T'oi' is equivalent to musarum.) In addition to this 
 letter there was a y (yod) sound which disappeared ; and 
 very often two consonants have both gone, as in <i8ws 
 compared with suavis (for suadvis). So 8s possessive 
 was o-Fos, and is equivalent to suus : the rough breath- 
 ing being all that is left of the initial double consonant. 
 
 A few remarks may be made on crasis and synizesis, 
 
 though there is perhaps nothing very special to Homeric 
 
 Greek in the use of them. 
 
 Synizesis Crasis is comparatively rare, being 
 
 most common in compounds of •"■p<5, and 
 
 being sometimes due to late copyists of the text. 
 
 On the other hand synizesis is rather characteristic of 
 Homer, especially in the last foot of the verse. It is 
 also used as in the case of iw^av to escape a combination 
 of syllables otherwise impossible. The most common 
 use of this expedient is to unite -««, also -«» and -» in a 
 single syllable. Combinations of Iwel and 8^ with a 
 following vowel, and phrases like (if| dXXoi also occur as 
 in the tragedians. 
 
 1 Where the Digamma is observed, the cases of hiatus are more 
 common than those of position by about 4^ to i. 
 
 ' It is interesting to note that the English scholar Bentley 
 ■was the first to account for the metrical peculiarities of Homer 
 by the loss of the Digamma, and he printed it in a quotation 
 as early as 1732. It was quite unknown to Aristarchus and the 
 Alexandfians. 
 
[ 8i ] 
 
 Chapter 1 1 
 
 The Homeric Bards 
 
 § I . Traditional belief in a personal 
 Homer 
 
 After more than a century of investigation the author- 
 ship of the Homeric poems still remains a difficult and 
 complex problem. Whether the con- 
 How we approach troversy aroused by the publication of 
 
 ConteoYersy. Wolfs Prolegomena in 1795 will ever 
 be finally closed it is now impossible to 
 predict ; all that we can safely assert is that we know a 
 good deal more of Homeric subjects^than did our pre- 
 decessors of more than a century age. Much that was 
 bitterly argued is now admitted ; the tendency to 
 acquiesce in certain definite theories appears to be a 
 progressive one ; and, what is most important, we are 
 in a position to form clearer views as to what is now 
 reasonably certain, and what still vague and specu- 
 lative. 
 
 The subject of the Homeric authorship and the con- 
 troversy about it is a large one, and admits of almost 
 infinite variety of treatment. On the one hand, as it 
 seems to the present writer, the important thing for 
 beginners is to be told clearly and even emphatically 
 what is tenable with a moderate degree of certitude as 
 to the Homeric bards : on the other hand, in a treatise 
 which aims at even the relative completeness of a Hand- 
 book, some account of the Homeric controversy from 
 an historical point of view will be probably expected by 
 those who consult it. It might have been attempted 
 to combine these two sorts of information into a single 
 chapter, but I have thought it would conduce to 
 
82 The Homeric Bards [chap. II 
 
 clearness and intelligibility to separate the dogmatic from 
 the historical treatment, and to give each of them a 
 chapter to itself. In the present one on the Homeric 
 Bards, it is my intention to state what, to the best of 
 my belief, appears, to be fairly well established even 
 though not in every case capable of the most rigid 
 demonstration. Everyone who thinks long and 
 earnestly about a large and complex subject, must, no 
 doubt, have his own way of viewing arguments and 
 basing conclusions upon them. But the views that are 
 set forth in the present chapter are, I believe, those which 
 more or less prevail among modern scholars. For this 
 reason I put them forth with something like confidence, 
 and not because they are my own private opinions. I 
 neither expect nor desire that my statements shall 
 escape criticism ; but as I endeavour to keep to the 
 beaten track, and not to give arbitrary decisions on 
 what is still matter of controversy, I hope that nothing 
 very extravagant will be detected, at least in the main 
 outlines of the following statement. 
 
 During antiquity and down to the end of the 
 
 eighteenth century, it was almost universally taken 
 
 for granted that the Homeric poetry 
 
 «^^-!fff ?i_ » was the outcome of a single mind just 
 eviaence for a . , , , „ ? •". . 
 
 persoual Homer. ^ *"^ works of any well-known writer 
 of ancient or modern times. It is 
 true that an occasional doubt may have been ex- 
 pressed on the subject,^ but hardly so as to interfere 
 with what was practically a consensus of opinion. We 
 are now to consider what arguments have been advanced 
 in support of the single personahty of Homer. They 
 may be conveniently considered under two headings — 
 the external evidence of the tradition itself ; and the 
 internal evidence supposed to be detected in the structure 
 and style of the poems. We shall treat of these subjects 
 separately, and show that the evidence is not so strong 
 as it may look. 
 
 ' For instance the Paradox of Xenon, who held that the 
 author of the Iliad was a distinct poet from the author of the 
 Odyssey. Those who held this view were called, by the Alex- 
 andrians, 01 xwpi'fovrfr. 
 
sec. i] Traditional belief in personal Homer 83 
 
 We may at once say boldly that there is not really 
 any external evidence even for the existence of Homer, 
 much less for his authorship of the poems. This is an 
 important point, for many who cling to the older and 
 uncritical belief in the personality of Homer think that 
 scepticism on the point is like scepticism, as to the 
 works attubuted to Virgil, Dante, or any other historical 
 writer. [Whereas we can prove that the tradition as to 
 a personal Homer has no independent existence, but is 
 wholly bqsed on the evidence supplied by the poems 
 themselvesTl It must be remarked that we are not deny- 
 ing the existence of the tradition nor (as yet) its signi- 
 ficance. What we are maintaining is merely that its 
 significance is not the same as it would be, if it even 
 alleged any independent information about Homer 
 except the statement that he composed the poems in 
 question. An illustration will make this clearer. 
 Certain theological writings were traditionally attributed 
 to Denis the Areopagite ; now he at least was a man 
 of whose existence we have historical testimony inde- 
 pendent of the works in question. Whatever may be 
 thought of the attribution to him of those works, it is 
 certainly less shadowy than it would be if nothing what* 
 ever were known or alleged about him except the state- 
 ment that he composed the treatises bearing his name. 
 But is it true that antiquity does not bear testimony 
 to anything about Homer except that he composed the 
 «,,. i_ j-i- . poems ? Nothing really, except what 
 
 mereWwpaMnt. ^^ ^^^^^ ^^°^ *^^ Homeric poems or 
 * hymns which were all attributed to 
 the same individual. Various cities claimed to be the 
 birth-place of Homer — they were mostly Ionian cities 
 of Asia, and there was a more or less unanimous opinion 
 that he lived in Ionia ; but the fact of the existence of 
 the poems in the Ionian dialect would sufficiently 
 account for that belief. In any case the conflict of 
 claims as to the place of his origin cannot of itself be 
 appealed to as an evidence of historical reality — though 
 it is of course by no means inconsistent with it. 
 
 Again, Homer was frequently spoken of as the ' blind 
 bard who dwelt in rocky Chios ',; a phrase occurring in 
 
84 The Homeric Bards [chap. II 
 
 the hymn to the Dehan Apollo,^ and expressly con- 
 nected with Homer by Thucydides^ when treating of 
 the history of Delos. This can scarcely be considered 
 independent testimony. Once grant that the ancients, 
 including Thucydides, implicitly and unquestioningly 
 accepted the current tradition (which included the 
 hymns and other admittedly spurious poems in the 
 same authorship), and the application of the phrase in 
 question iiaturally followed as a matter of course. All 
 that we can assert is that the author of the hymn used 
 the phrase of himself, and that Thucydides believed 
 that author to have been Homer, and that (in any case) 
 he was wrong. 
 
 Other phrases have been, in like manner, attributed 
 to Homer, and one or two facts related of him (as the 
 name of his father) in late forgeries of the Christian 
 era, which, however, can throw no light on a tradition 
 which is traced back to nearly seven hundi-ed years 
 before Christ. Hence we repeat there is no external 
 evidence for the tradition, nothing indeed for the 
 tradition beyond the fact of the tradition itself, and 
 this merely asserts that the poems were the work of 
 one man, whose name was Homer. It seems hardly 
 necessary, therefore, to discuss the question whether 
 ' Homer ' is a proper name or not. Certain authorities 
 have contended that the Greek form '0/«i;por » simply 
 means the ' Compiler.' But many grammarians deny 
 the possibility of this, and it is scarcely worth while to 
 lay stress upon the possible meaning of the name. On 
 the other hand the tradition is of less value in testifying 
 to a personal Homer when we consider the propensity 
 of the Greeks to attribute effects of every sort to definite 
 and personal causes. To this tendency may be traced 
 many of their ideas not merely in the domain of mytho- 
 logy proper, but of history also. The Achaens were all 
 descended from one Achaeus ; the demesmen of Colonus 
 from a man of the name ; the Athenian laws came from 
 Solon, the Spartan from Lycurgus, and so on. Possessing 
 
 * 1. 172. ° Book iii., ch. 104. 
 
 » Connected with oiuni, together. Dr. Jebb argues that 'Oiirjpos 
 should have a passive sense = ' fitted together.' 
 
seel] Traditional belief in personal Homer 85 
 
 a great national heirloom, thoroughly appreciating its 
 grandeur, knowing that it was utterly distinct in dialect, 
 metre, and ideas from everything else they knew, they 
 took it for granted that the poetry was all the work of 
 a single, and a supreme, bard. But we may view the 
 question on other and broader grounds. 
 
 It is impossible, under these circumstances, for us to 
 see any real evidence of a personal Homer in the fact of 
 such a vague tradition of antiquity. Does it then prove 
 nothing ? It confirms the view which we can surmise 
 on other grounds, namely, that the Greeks received the 
 poems from Ionia. We might perhaps add that it lends 
 a certain probability to the supposition that at Smjnrna, 
 Chios and Colophon (which cities were believed to have 
 the best claims to Homer), there were bards of eminence, 
 or perhaps schools of epic poetry, in the period imme- 
 diately preceding that to which the tradition of a 
 personal Homer can be still followed back. 
 
 It remains for us therefore to turn to the poems them- 
 selves, and to see if they contain any internal evidence 
 as to the unity of their authorship. 
 Internal eiridence We may or may not by this method 
 for Homer the i. i_i ^ • j. ,.■ 1 1. 
 
 only test. "^ ^"^^ ^o arrive at a satisfactory con- 
 clusion ; but at least no other rational 
 method of inquiry is open to us. It will be necessary 
 to divest ourselves of all prejudice before entering on 
 this study. The minds of some, not merely young 
 people, revolt, at what appears to them like the van- 
 dalism of disruptive criticism, and they scornfully point 
 to the excesses committed by some in their attempts to 
 undermine the claims of accredited authors to their 
 writings. Such good souls deprecate as reckless any 
 attempts to solve the Homeric question except on the 
 ground of sentiment and loyalty to the greatest name in 
 literature. Moreover, they appeal to the grandeur of 
 Homer's epic style as an evident proof not merely of his 
 existence, but of his personal supremacy over all other 
 poets. Now, it cannot be denied that this attitude has, 
 on the face of it, a certain reasonableness. As for the 
 ancients, so for us, the Homeric poems are impressed 
 with a certain homogeneity of style and treatment which 
 
86 The Homeric Bards [chap. II 
 
 makes for unity of authorship. They are so utterly 
 unlike all else in the literature not merely of Greece, but 
 of the world, that it is easy to be blind to the enormous 
 divergencies they contain, and to forget that they are 
 not merely a couple of sublime poems, but also a dis- 
 tinct literature* In like manner lovers of the English 
 Bible, whose minds have been trained and nurtured in 
 it as in the atmosphere they breathe, come to rega,rd the 
 authorized version as a book rather than a compilation 
 of the literary records of a people, and yet they know 
 that the Scriptures contain not merely philosophy and 
 literature in prose and verse, but history extending over 
 a very long space of time. If it were all homogeneous 
 in form as well as (to some extent) in spirit, we may 
 guess how much more difficult it would be for them to 
 divest themselves of their false impression. The fact 
 is that when groups of objects or even of persons are 
 separated from their natural surroundings, we are apt 
 to forget their individual differences in the contrast they 
 present to what is palpably of a diverse order. Now 
 the Homeric poems come down to us from a remote 
 epoch of which we have but few other traces. They 
 express a certain set of ideas, in language and metre of a 
 definite and traditional type. If they are not the work 
 of an individual they are certainly the work of a school, 
 and that a comparatively primitive school with a very 
 limited experience and range of thought, and therefore 
 working in what is to us a narrow groove. We need not, 
 then, be surprised if on closer inspection we find that 
 our first impressions of unity need correction. We 
 must rather be prepared to find that the sort of unity 
 which we detect, and which undoubtedly exists in 
 Homeric poetry, is the unity which must characterise 
 a primitive school of high creative power, and not neces- 
 sarily the unity'of an individual poetic mind. 
 
 In the present Section we claim to have shown merely, 
 1° that outside the poems there is no evidence worth 
 considering for the existence of the Homer of tradition ; 
 and 2°, that although there may appear to be a sort of 
 internal evidence for the tradition, this cannot possibly 
 stand in face of conclusive evidence to the contrary. 
 
§ 2. Gradual Composition of the 
 Poems 
 
 The point of view of modern Homeric scholarship is 
 not the same as that of the critics whom we hear of in 
 Alesiandrian times under the name of 
 Our point ^he Chorizontes. They refused indeed 
 defined. ^^ believe that the Iliad and the Odyssey 
 were the work of a single bard, because 
 they recognised discrepancies in the language and treat- 
 ment of the poems such as betokened at least duality of 
 authorship. In this they were right — we also discern 
 a vast gulf which seems to separate the older work in 
 the poems from the later — and it will be the business" 
 of the present Section to illustrate the width and the 
 nature of that gulf, and to demonstrate, if possible, 
 that so far from its being bridged over by a single life- 
 time it stretches over a period which must include 
 several generations or more probably even several ages 
 of human thought and civilisation. 
 
 But the distinction is not for us between the Iliad 
 and the Odyssey as perfect wholes. We take the two 
 poems together and find in them a line of cleavage 
 between the early and the late ; and although it is true 
 we find that the Odyssey as a whole is certainly on one 
 side of the line, it is not so with regard to that which 
 is in many respects rightly classed as the more primitive 
 poem. In the following Sections we shall see, first, 
 that right through the heart of the Iliad this cleavage 
 runs— splitting it into its component portions ; and 
 secondly, that the later portion (and this is very inter- 
 esting and perhaps unexpected) not merely is easily 
 dissociated from the earlier, but also shows strong 
 and striking affinities with the Odyssey, suggesting 
 irresistibly that it originated with the Odyssey and 
 must be referred with it to a single epoch as well 
 as to a single locality for its composition. 
 
88 The Homeric Bards [chap. II 
 
 Bearing in mind this complex character of the Iliad, 
 and that it is not all equally primitive, we may for 
 purposes of general contrast regard it as earlier than the 
 Odyssey, for the latter on the whole betokens a much 
 more advanced stage of human development than the 
 Iliad regarded from the side of its more obvious indic- 
 ations of early date. And we are in this Section not 
 professedly dealing with the unity of the Iliad as such, 
 but with the unity (of authorship) of the Homeric poems 
 taken together. 
 
 In order that the reader may at the outset under- 
 stand at least the general force of the propositions 
 which are to be submitted to him, he 
 Analogy of argu- jg requested to recall the line of argu- 
 ™ate of Cyclic ni^iit by which we sought to establish 
 Poems. the lateness of the Cyclic as compared 
 with the Homeric poems proper. We 
 saw that there was a general and superficial similarity 
 which had caused the ancients sometimes to class all 
 this mass of literature as the outcome of a single 
 author. And we remarked that although the loss of 
 the Cyclic poems precluded us from adopting a lin- 
 guistic test to prove a separate authorship, yet we 
 knew enough of their contents from the summaries of 
 Proclus to be able to assure ourselves that although 
 they treated of Homeric myth they did so 
 in a'way that betrayed a much later stage of mytho- 
 logical evolution, and therefore on the whole a notably 
 later epoch, than that of the Iliad and the Odyssey. This 
 argument is irrefragable, and moreover, its acceptance 
 is practically universal. 
 
 But in the present instance having the text of the 
 literature which is to be compared before us on both 
 sides, our task should be easier. Now, we can take not 
 merely the contents of the poems and compare them 
 in regard to mythology (and other more important 
 matters), but we have the language also, and by sub- 
 mitting it to a careful, though not over-abstruse, 
 analysis, we have abundant means of proving that 
 there is at least one line of cleavage running through 
 the poems, namely that which we have indicated 
 
sec. 2] Gradual Composition of the Poems 8g 
 
 splitting off the earlier portions of the Iliad from all 
 the rest of the Homeric epic which has reached us. 
 We say at least one cleavage, because we prefer to keep 
 here to what is plain and palpable. Some critics go 
 much further and insist with great minuteness on indi- 
 cations of comparative date in individual passages of 
 the poems, which theories may or may not be capable 
 of proof. In the case of some very celebrated theories 
 we shall give a brief outline of them when dealing with 
 the history of the controversy. But for the beginner 
 it is much more important that he should see clearly 
 the reeisons for holding what may be called the great 
 and fundamental truths of Homeric criticism, than that 
 his memory should be overburdened and his mind 
 bewildered by minute and complex theories. Besides, 
 when comparatively unimportant details are brought 
 forward, they are apt to distract the learner and to 
 destroy his sense of proportion which is essential to 
 grasping the force of such arguments. On the other 
 hand the reader must bear in mind that our argument 
 will be essentially of a cumulative nature, and there- 
 fore to overthrow it, it would not be enough to show 
 that it has somewhere a weak point or even two. 
 
 It may be as well to premise before proceeding with 
 
 the argument that it will not be based upon what 
 
 may be called minor discrepancies. By 
 
 HinoF diBcrep- these are meant chiefly detailed incon- 
 
 anciesmaybe sistencies in the story, as for instance, 
 
 neglected. when a hero whohas been killed in an early 
 book is found alive and uninjured in a 
 later one.' Upon such points of detail it would be unwise 
 to found an argument. Possibly when a large number 
 occur together, their united force may have a certain 
 weight, though the famihar Horatian phrase 'bonus 
 dormitat Homerus ' might fairly account for a great 
 deal. Moreover, it has been pointed out by such a severe 
 critic as Mr. Walter Leaf tbat it is remarkable that 
 more errors do not occur in poems of such length and 
 
 ' This refers to Pulsetnenes who is slain in the fifth book of 
 the Iliad, I. 576, and appears as a mourner at his son's funeral 
 in the thirteenth book 1. 658. 
 
go The Homeric Bards [chap. II 
 
 complexity, especially if we believe they were trans- 
 mitted by memory. 
 
 There is another consideration of importance which 
 we may mention here as -excluding any insistence on 
 the minor discrepancies in question. Supposing we 
 were to grant for the sake of argument that the Iliad 
 and Odyssey, even in their present form, were substan- 
 tially the work of a single mind, yet the theory would 
 be in no way inconsistent with the admission of short 
 interpolations, and indeed critics of all schools take it 
 for granted that single lines or even considerable pas- 
 sages (of a minor sort) may have crept into our text 
 of Homer as of the classics in general. It is necessary 
 to distinguish between such minor interpolations and 
 interpolations or rather expansions on a grand scale — 
 such as would interfere with the character and tone of 
 the poems when considered as organic wholes. Now, 
 when we meet slight or verbal discrepancies such as 
 we think are not due to the original author, we might 
 still account for them on the score of interpolation in 
 the more limited sense. 
 
 Putting aside, therefore, debatable questions of 
 detail, the position we take up on larger grounds is that, 
 taking them as substantial wholes, the poems in their 
 present state absolutely exclude the theory of single 
 authorship. Nor is it merely a question of materials 
 antecedent to a work of art and introduced into it. Those 
 who have to account for the facts of the Homeric prob- 
 lem sometimes try to evade the real issue by vague 
 admissions that before Homer's time there may have 
 been rude ballad-mongers who supplied the great poet 
 with materials which were worked by him into his 
 epic much as, for instance, large sections of North's 
 translation of ' Plutarch's Lives ' were incorporated 
 into the historical plays of Shakespeare. It is impos- 
 sible to deal adequately here with this theory without 
 anticipating a great deal that has to be laid down 
 later about the structure of the Iliad and the Odyssey. 
 We merely refer to it in order to define the position 
 that is to be maintained in the present Section, which 
 is that the epoch of genuine poetic creativeneBS 
 
sec. 2] Gradual Composition of the Poems 91 
 
 during which the poems were composed lasted during, 
 at least one, or far more probably more than one, 
 century.' 
 
 We may take the linguistic argument first, as it is 
 of great moment. The technicalities of the Homeric 
 dialect have been already treated of, 
 DeTelopment of though from a different point of view ; 
 language during ^jj^j ^g have also described some 
 """"po'ems? of the leading features and principles 
 of Homeric grammar. That we may 
 not weary the reader by going over the same ground 
 again, we can here simply remind him of two special 
 characteristics which Homeric language bears on its 
 very surface. As compared with other forms of Greek 
 it is antique ; and it is a literary, not a spoken d ialect. 
 That it is antiqiie is qtff fe dear ii y SD. who kno^~tfae 
 merest rudiments of historical Greek grammar, and 
 indeed this science is largely built upon our knowledge 
 of Homeric forms. That it is also literary, and even 
 depends to a great extent upon metrical expedients, 
 is also sufficiently evident. For instance, there are 
 five forms, with as many metrical values, for the simple 
 idea ' to be,' namely, 8H.(i«vai, ^nevai, etvoi, tv^v^v, and *i*ev. 
 That these, or even more numerous variants should 
 exist successively in a single dialect would cause no 
 surprise to the philologist, but it would be very hard 
 to persuade him that they could exist simultaneously 
 in a spoken dialect. Many similar examples could of 
 course be added, but are unnecessary. In the above 
 instance the forms are in themselves natural, but we 
 have seen the existence of other forms which the bards 
 invented to suit the metre, and in some instances made 
 egregious mistakes in inventing. 
 
 Now the mere fact of the composite character of 
 Homeric poems agrees very well with the theory of 
 the gradual formation of the poems, though it does not 
 by itself necessitate it. Pindar's dialect is probably 
 
 ". We may, of course, take it for granted that the later Homeric 
 work was to some extent imitative of the earlier: but critics 
 who admit this are 'yet agreed that some of the later work in 
 both poems is of the finest and most genuinely Homeric quality. 
 
g2 The Homeric Bards [chap. II 
 
 composite — ^that of modem English poets certainly is, 
 although there is no question of composite authorship. 
 Still the Homeric poets were simple and did not work 
 from external models as did Pindar, who, like ^Eschylus, 
 was specially under Homer's spell. 
 
 What we must do is look beneath the surface and 
 examine whether in the Odyssey, or even in those portions 
 of the Iliad which we have other grounds for believing 
 to be late, we can clearly detect any progressive tend- 
 ency towards the use of speech which is less genuinely 
 archaic and more literary and artificial.* The mere 
 occurrence of simpler or more developed dialectical 
 forms will hardly help us here, as there can be little 
 doubt, apart from any special theories as to the com- 
 position of the poems, that the text must have been 
 dialectically modified in transmission especially in 
 early times. 
 
 But we may consider the matter under three distinct 
 heads ; namely (i.) use of words ; (ii.) rules of syntax ; 
 and (iii.) metrical peculiarity. 
 
 The enormous number of words found in Homer 
 is very remarkable, including an abnormal list of 
 arra^ Xeyo/itvaj this might of itsclf raise 
 (i.) ¥ocaIiuIaFy. a suspicion that the poetry is not the 
 outcome of a single epoch. What is, 
 however more directly to our purpose is to consider the 
 marked distinction between the older and the later 
 poetry in the use of words. There are not merely a 
 large number of words which are found only in the 
 Odyssey, apparently because they came into use com- 
 paratively late, some of them expressing advanced 
 ideas or civilisation ;'' but many words, especially 
 epithets, found frequently in the Iliad had either 
 
 ' In this treatment of Homeric linguistic, it is hardly necessary 
 to acknowledge our obligation to Dr. Monro, the great English 
 authority on Homeric grammar. The comparison between the 
 language of the Iliad and Odyssey is very ably worked out both in 
 in his Homeric Grammar, and more explicitly in his later work 
 (Odyssey xiii-xxiv.), where he refers to the German authorities 
 Sittl and Friedlander. See appendix 324 £f. 
 
 ^ Vid. infra. The list of his words peculiar to the Odyssey is a 
 very long one. 
 
sec, 2] Gradual Composition of the Poems 93 
 
 become obsolete or were tending to do so when the later 
 poetry was being composed. Certain hieratic epithets, 
 such as AuSuvotos, IleXocrviKJis (of Zeus) or S|jiiv9rfs (of 
 Apollo) occur but once and always in the Iliad ; others 
 are more frequent, pofiins (of Hera), IXCKwires (often 
 of the Achseans), and a long list of others which hardly 
 occur except in the Iliad. Sometimes a word occurs' 
 in the Odyssey, but with a changed meaning as 6oC<j>pMv, 
 or in a variant form as iXeyfivw instead of dXpyifm. 
 
 What is more remarkable still is the presence of 
 late forms like ofivato (in the sense of that) ;' v^v o«v 
 in the Odyssey only, whereas [i^v (or p^v) is very common 
 in the Iliad,^ but hardly occurs in the Odyssey, The 
 same is true of the reflexive fc ot k.t.X. 
 
 We have purposely refrained from instancing words 
 whose occurrence might depend to a great extent on 
 the subject matter of the poems, e.g. the vocabulary 
 of fighting, or of seamanship. 
 
 When we turn to syntax, which is such an important 
 test of the growth of language, we are on firm ground. 
 The distinction between Homeric and 
 (il.) Syntax, later Greek in the use of the so-called 
 Article is most interesting, and of itself 
 shows what a chasm may exist between two simple 
 stages of S3mtactical development. Originally there 
 was no article proper — the form did duty for personal, 
 demonstrative, and relative pronouns. Now it is well 
 known that occasionally traces are found in Homer 
 of the more modern use of o ^ rd as a real article, or 
 as something approaching it. According to Monro 
 we can not merely detect a difference between earlier 
 and later work ; but in the tenth Iliad which is con- 
 sidered the latest of all the books, " the use of the article 
 appears clearly later than in any other part of Homer."* 
 Again, syntactical constructions, which cannot but 
 denote a comparatively late period of linguistic growth 
 
 1 In the Iliad ' warlike,' in the Odyssey ' prudent ;' this is 
 according to Buttmann. 
 
 ' After verbs of saying, 14 times in the Odyssey, only twice in 
 the Iliad. 
 
 * It occurs 32 times in all. * Homeric Grammar § 265. 
 
94 
 
 The Homeric Bards [chap. II 
 
 are found in the Odyssey, and hardly if at all in the 
 Iliad,. To these belong relative clauses with a final or 
 quasi-final sense as : 
 
 a/i(/)i S« \ai(j>os 
 €<T(ra> o Kc aTVyegoriv iba>v avBpunros exovra? 
 
 The same tendency can be traced in clauses of « 
 after verbs of ' saying and thinking,' a definitely modern 
 idiom; and what is most remarkablej the use of kcv 
 in hypothetical clauses is approximating to later syntax 
 in the Odyssey} 
 
 The use of prepositions differs in the later work from 
 that in the earlier, in having a wider range and in some 
 respects in approximating towards Hellenic (e.g. Attic) 
 usage. Such, for instance, is the use of « = ' in con- 
 sequence of ; '" so irpoTl (ytphi) with dative in sense of 
 ' in addition to ;' wtpl is not (as in the Iliad) restricted 
 to a contest about anything. 
 
 The supposed presence of the Digamma in the Homeric 
 
 poems is an extremely complicated subject, upon which 
 
 a great variety of views have been and 
 
 (iil.) Metrical are still in vogue among scholars. It 
 Peculiarity, has been already stated that the ob- 
 servances and neglects of this consonant 
 when computed have given valuable results with regard 
 to the age of the Hymns as compared with the Homeric 
 poems; and it is rather disappointing to find that it 
 does not throw as clear a light as we might have ex- 
 pected upon the relative age of the Poems themselves. 
 There are, however, certain digammated words which 
 show the presence of the digamma more regularly in 
 the Iliad than in the Odyssey. For instance, Fapvo 
 
 ' Od. xiii., 399. Of these constructions seventeen out of 
 twenty-four occur in the Odyssey. Of a similar group called 
 sometimes subjunctives of willing eleven out of thirteen occur 
 in the Odyssey, and the other two in Iliad ix. and xxiv., two of 
 the latest books. 
 
 ^ That is to say, the optative with xev to express an unfulfilled 
 condition is found chiefly in the Iliad. 
 
 " Also once in the Iliad, but in Book ix. which strengthens 
 the argument. 
 
sec. 2] Gradual Composition of the Poems 95 
 
 shows five cases of observance all in the Iliad, and 
 none in the Odyssey — the violations are equal in number 
 in the two poems. So FtpBov shows even a clearer 
 difference in the same direction. And even if these 
 indications of difference are somewhat slight, yet the 
 phenomena of the Digamma in general seem to point 
 to the gradual formation of the poetry during a process 
 of linguistic change. 
 
 When we look to the question of Hiatus in general 
 the facts are striking, for in the Bucolic diaeresis — where 
 we have stated above* hiatus is frequently permitted, 
 we find this is about twice as common in the Odyssey 
 as in the Iliad ; and in the latter the instances occur in 
 the last two books, which are known to be late work 
 on other grounds. As a rule there is more metrical 
 license as epic proceeds, especially with regard to 
 lengthening of a vowel placed before two consonants, 
 till in the decadence, as is proved not merely by the 
 ' Hymns ' and Hesiod, but even by our scanty frag- 
 ments of the Cyclic poems, the rule becomes quite lax. 
 The difference here between the Iliad and Odyssey is 
 remarkable. If cases of metrical necessity" are elimi- 
 nated the ratio in the later as compared with the earlier 
 work is 3 : 1. 
 
 The reader will easily understand from the above 
 that all taken together the modernising tendencies of 
 the epic language becomes very marked, even before 
 the end of the creative period. This is more signifi- 
 cant if we remember that on the one hand the epic 
 tradition was strict in its conservatism ; and on the other 
 hand that the long period of oral transmission down to 
 and including the Hellenic period must have strongly 
 operated' to obliterate linguistic distinctions which 
 existed between parts of the Homeric ' corpus.' For- 
 tunately for science many shades of expression which 
 it can still detect, escaped the notice of the Greek 
 rhapsodes and ' literati.' 
 
 K. 0. Miiller, himself an advocate of single authorship, 
 
 ' See remarks on Metre, chap, i., § 6, p. y6. 
 ^ That is when a word cannot be admitted into a hexameter 
 without a licence. 
 
96 The Homeric Bards [chap. II 
 
 but treating half-a-century ago of the opinion, now 
 antiquated, that each poem proceeded 
 Development of as a complete work from a single 
 d-«^*Jfir«at^n ^ough a separate mind, made the fol- 
 of Poems. lowing significant admission. it is 
 clear,'' ^ he wrote, " that in the Odyssey 
 (as distinct from the Iliad) many differences are apparent 
 in the character and manners both of men and gods. 
 The latter appear in milder form and act in unison, 
 without dissension or contest, for the relief of mankind, 
 not, as is so often the case in the Iliad, for their destruc- 
 tion." 
 
 We have stated that modern criticism does not 
 satisfy itself with the crude device of contrasting merely 
 the Odyssey with the Iliad. Yet it is certain the two 
 poems even taken as units present sharp contrasts 
 in their subject matter as well as in their language, 
 and not least in the things of religion. This particular 
 point is a representative one, and what makes it of 
 first-rate importance is that with an anthropomorphic 
 conception of higher power such as the Homeric bards 
 possessed, the character and actions of their gods are 
 a true index of their views, and therefore of their experi- 
 ence, of human life. The defenders of the old theory 
 of unity seek to account for the contrasts presented 
 by the poems by pointing to the difference of subject, 
 and indeed Miiller proceeds to argue thus in the passage 
 from which we have quoted. 
 
 It is true indeed that not merely the treatment but 
 also the subject of the later work, or of much of it, 
 are different from those of the earlier ; but may we not 
 argue that the subject treated by the bards is in itself 
 an index of their spirit and of their degree of civilisa- 
 tion ? No doubt the Iliad (what we believe to be the 
 primitive part especially) breathes fire and blood and 
 slaughter — whereas the Odyssey deals to a larger extent 
 with the arts of peace, domestic affection, and foreign 
 travel. If to choose these subjects in preference to the 
 other is not a positive proof of a more advanced 
 
 ' Literature of Ancient Greece, ch. v., § 13. 
 
sec. 2] Gradual Composition of the Poems 97 
 
 civilisation, at least it is suggestive of it : and on the 
 other hand, both the earlier and the later work are 
 sufl5ciently complex and all-round in the pictures they 
 present of human life to give us a very good idea of 
 the times in which the authors respectively lived. 
 
 To return for a moment to the subject of religion, 
 not only do we find in the poems a marked progression 
 
 towards a finer and more spiritual con- 
 Ideas of ception of the divinity, but the very 
 Seligion. j^jga, of Zeus, the father of the gods 
 
 himself, undergoes a significant change. 
 At the earlier period he is considered supreme indeed, 
 but only as the result of a struggle that has lately ended, 
 and still in danger of rebellion from the powers he has 
 subdued. In the later work he is in calm and un- 
 disturbed possession of undisputed sovereignty. More 
 than this, Zeus is at first really an elemental god repre- 
 senting the awful and destructive aspects of natural 
 forces. The distribution of epithets in the various 
 parts of Homer show that as time progressed this view 
 was, to say the least, less prominent. The expression 
 ve<l)e\tryep4Ta (cloud-compelling) occurs more than four 
 times as often in the primitive books of the Iliad as in 
 the Odyssey (and so on with similar epithets) ; and 
 expressions like " the thunders of Zeus," " the clouds," 
 and " the rain of Zeus," occur far more frequently in 
 the (supposed) primitive than in the later work. In 
 like manner the gods are first represented as dwelling 
 on Olympus an ordinary and well-known mountain of 
 Thessaly described as though known personally to the 
 bards. Later the same Olympus is referred to, but 
 now as a far-off, very shadowy and supra-mundane 
 abode— something like what is meant in modern Eng- 
 lish poetry by allusions to Olympus. " It standeth 
 fast for ever — not by winds is it shaken nor ever wet 
 with rain, nor doth the snow come nigh it, but a clear 
 air cloudless is spread about it and a white light floateth 
 over it, and there are the blessed gods gladdened for 
 all their days." Again, we are told at an early stage 
 that the gods have blood like ordinary human beings — 
 later another liquid flows in their veins, not blood but 
 
 H 
 
98 The Homeric Bards [chap. II 
 
 what is named «x»/'. These are small touches in them- 
 selves, but when we view them concurrently we read 
 in them a progress (and one that must have repre- 
 sented a considerable epoch) towards a less strictly 
 anthropomorphic view of divine persons. 
 
 This argument from the growth of religious ideas 
 is strengthened when we advert to the views the later 
 bards had on the interference of the gods in human 
 affairs. They no longer conceive of them merely as 
 taking our shape and exercising their power over our 
 bodies ; they guide the mind by inspiring it with a 
 thought at a critical moment : " When Athene, of deep 
 counsel shall put it into my heart, I shall nod to thee," 
 says Odysseus to his son.^ Dr. Jebb treating of this 
 adds, " While the notion of the gods has been thus 
 spiritualized the notion of the supernatural genereilly 
 takes many fantastic forms, associated with that outer 
 Wonderland beyond the iEgean Zone." 
 
 But the progress made during the Homeric period 
 
 was not confined to ideas about religion. The same 
 
 tendency is observable regarding moral 
 
 Ethical concepts in general. Here again we 
 
 progress. cannot do better than quote from Jebb, 
 
 who treats this subject admirably. 
 
 " The Odyssey, in comparison with the Iliad shows 
 more traces of reflexion on questions of right and 
 wrong. There are some additions to the stock of 
 words for expressing the religious or moral feelings."' 
 Such words are 6covStjc, god-fearing ; voifnav, right- 
 minded ; dyv^, holy ; arid even SiKtuos, just. Of 
 these the first three do not occur at all in the Iliad, 
 and the last only three times, and then only in the com- 
 parative or superlative degree, though it is rather 
 frequently found in the later poem. But arguments 
 from the occurrence of epithets do not represent the 
 full force of the difference between the earlier and the 
 later spirit. It is not easy to define it. It must be 
 felt to be realized, and it is difficult for one who has 
 
 ' Od. xvi. 282 (taken from Jebb's Homer, p. 52). 
 ' Homer p. 55. 
 
sec. 2] Gradual Composition of the Poems 99 
 
 felt it to understand how any unprejudiced person 
 could read large parts of the earlier and the later work 
 continuously without assuring himself that they must 
 have been composed not merely at different, but at 
 widely different, stages of development. 
 
 With regard to more detailed mythology a distinct 
 
 advance can be noted in the later work. For instance, 
 
 in the Iliad the Muse or Muses are spoken 
 
 SYOlution of the of in general without any hint of a special 
 
 ^ number. But in the Odyssey ' we have 
 
 Movo-at S*cvi/ca n-ao'ai d/ietjSa'juei/ai otti xaXij. 
 
 In like manner although the three Fates of later 
 Mj^hology {e.g. Hesiod) are not definitely fixed, the 
 Fate, Aura, of the primitive bards has already become 
 personified in the plural, as Molpat, in the last book of 
 the Iliad' which is not primitive, and, in the Odyssey 
 we already hear of KXSfley* [v.L. KaraieKliBes] in the sense 
 of spinners, from which the name Clotho, one of the 
 three Fates, was manifestly derived. There is a strong 
 tendency towards the end of the Homeric period to 
 multiply personifications of the simplest ideas. Thus 
 we have the Harpies, originally of the winds, the 
 Snatchers ; Litae, Prayers, " wrinkled and of eyes 
 askance " following after Ate, Insolence or Infatuation. 
 We have in the whirlpools Skylla and Charybdis fully 
 developed personalities, for the former's mother who is 
 named-' is said to have brought her forth as a bane to 
 mortal men. ^; 
 
 A very important matter is that in the later poem, 
 we hear of local oracles, especially in the case of Apollo\ 
 in his celebrated Greek shrines of Delos and even] 
 Pytho, afterwards known as Delphi. This is more 
 remarkable because in the Iliad Apollo is chiefly con4 
 nected with a local non-oracular shrine at Tenedos,\ 
 
 ' Book xxiv. 60. 
 
 " II. xxiv. 49. 
 
 » Od. vii. 197. 
 
 * Ti-parauv fofrtpa ttjs 2/cuXXijf, Od. xii. I24"S' 
 
 '' In the opening of the Iliad there is something like an oracular 
 response, but it is given in the ordinary way by a soothsayer. 
 Sep II. i., 71-2. 
 
loo The Homeric Bards [chs^. II 
 
 near the Troad, and as was remarked previously he 
 was something of a Trojan divinity. But in the Odyssey 
 there is a regular word for the responses of the Oracle, 
 flt>(OT«,' which in the earlier period means simply 
 Precedents, or what ought to be done. The later use 
 of the word also occurs in the Hymn to Apollo,' which 
 makes it all the more significant. 
 
 We may mention here that in geographical knowledge 
 a huge advance was made during the period of bloom 
 of epic poetry. When we come to treat of Homeric 
 geography, and indeed of Homeric life in general,' we 
 shall find it necessary for simplicity's sake to ignore 
 the very differences which we have been insisting on 
 in the present section. Suffice it here to point out 
 that what is sometimes called the Outer geography of 
 Homer really belongs almost exclusively to the period 
 of the later school. 
 
 It would be unnecessary to go at grfeat length into 
 
 all the evidences of social and materisd progress during 
 
 the Homeric period. The subject is 
 
 Material treated of admirably by the late Dr. 
 
 oiiriUgation. Geddes in his work The Problem of the 
 Homeric Poems. He proves abund- 
 antly that there is in the later work a pathos and a 
 humour, but especially a sort of conscious relief in the 
 expression of sorrow— ^all of which are signs of the 
 further development of the Greek character. The 
 references which he gives to the last'mentioned char- 
 acteristic of delighting in grief are instructive ; standing 
 as they do, in the earlier books none, in the later (Iliad) 
 eleven, and [Odyssey) sixteen. 
 
 There is again more attention in the later work to 
 conjugal affection ; to the domestic hearth as the centre 
 of the home ahd of family hfe, to the duties and privi- 
 leges of hospitality ; to a less corporal conception of 
 the human soul and its higher faculties ; to a less 
 primitive form of marriage ; and to many improve- 
 ments in art, commerce, agriculture, and mechanical 
 
 1 Od. xvi. 403. 
 
 ' 1- 394i Bitutrtas "Poi/Sou 'AjroAXmvof xpVfad/jov. 
 8 For Ridgeways argument from Land-tenure, however, see 
 chap. IV. § 3. 
 
sec. 2] Gradual Composition of the Poems ( 101"^) 
 
 contrivance. For instance, the use of ivory, of 
 stringed instruments, of wind instninients, of weaving 
 (sometimes spoken of metaphorically). Again, it 
 is proved that whereas the horse originally had a 
 positicp of special prominence, he is fairly supplanted 
 in thef'l^ter Homeric poetry by the dog, which has 
 become, instead of a ravening beast of prey feeding 
 on human carnage, the trusted and beloved com- 
 panion of his master. Finally in the Odyssey there are 
 several references to dmSol, or professional minstrels, 
 and in more than one passage, to the Trojan war as an 
 ordinary and conventional subject of song. This would 
 lead us to surmise that since the Iliad had been in 
 existence in some shape or form, epic poetry had re- 
 ceived a great impulse, and moreover that the subject 
 of the poem (in which no hint of the professional min- 
 strel occurs) had exercised a special influence over the 
 trend and development of the rising art. 
 
 We have still remaining a fairly decisive criterion of 
 lateness in th fi_bQ rrowing of pass ages from one ggation 
 ~ in the poems. tQ~an5Her. Quite inde- 
 Sf^/later ^^^^t^y °^ t^°^« conventional repeti- 
 Basda. tions which are so characteristic of the 
 
 Homeric style (and which serve perhaps 
 more than anything else to give to it a superficial and 
 false impression of unity) there are repetitions of 
 another sort du e to an attem pt a t imitat ion, which is 
 sometimes too" patSit, and even, as we" sKall show, 
 clumsily introduced. It does not always require a 
 very close inspection to discover which was the original 
 location of a passage or a phrase, and where it is due to 
 patchwork. The borrowings are always found to be 
 iTomJhs,.lHad iQ..tHeTl^^piever"' viee^wrsa.' "li 
 tEere were only one'dr two" such" "cases they could be 
 easily explained as late interpolations, and some of 
 the borrowings are so unintelligently managed that they 
 must really be attributed to the period of the Rhap- 
 sodes, the decadence of epic. For there are some 
 instances where the rules of grammar are scarcely ob- 
 served, to say nothing of complete misapplication of 
 the original sense. 
 
I02 The Homeric Bards [chap. II 
 
 Without then attending to extreme cases of infeli- 
 citous borrowings which are not the work of true 
 Homeric bards, we may give one or two instances 
 where it is still clear that the passages have been re- 
 moved out of a natural to a forced context. Now, 
 clearly the strength of such an argument depends upon 
 the number of decisive passages, which is very great.' 
 
 Therefore the reader will understand that the follow- 
 ing instances are merely given by way of illustration. 
 We only take two. In the Iliad " one of the best known 
 and admired passages is Hector's farewell to his wife, 
 where he bids her not trouble about him, but to "go 
 and mind her loom and distaff, and other household 
 duties," adding, 
 
 iroXc/ior b' avhpecrai peXiyVfi 
 iraaiv, ifioi be fioKuTTa, roi 'IXtra cyyeyda<Tiv. 
 
 " but war shall be a care to men. 
 
 To all men, but chiefly to me of all that are in Ilium." 
 
 Twice do these noble lines occur in the Odyssey, but in 
 how different a context, and with how significant a 
 change ! In both places ' it is Telemachus addressing 
 his mother. In one passage he says, " Go and mind 
 your business, but talking shall be the care of men, but 
 especially of me, for mine is the power in the house." 
 
 Tov yap Kp&Tos eor' iv\ oikq). 
 
 These last words seem to be inserted as a tag to 
 fill up the metre more than from any real necessity for 
 them. At least the effect is very different from that 
 of the other passage which is quite clearly more original. 
 In the other passage Telemachus says, " Go and mind 
 your business, but the bow {t6^ov) shall be the care of 
 men, etc., etc.," including the same weak ending to the 
 
 1 Munro (following Sittl who did good work in this department 
 of criticism) gives 24 strong instances of borrowing from the Iliad 
 to the Odyssey, and adds " in other cases the spirit of parody is 
 shown by the use of a loftr epic formula when the subject is 
 unworthy of it." 
 
 * II. vi. 490-3. 
 
 3 Od. i. 356-9, and xxi. 330-3. 
 
sec. 2] Gradual Composition of the Poems lo^ 
 
 line. Monro, in commenting on this passage, speaks of 
 it as a parody, which is perhaps a little strong. 
 
 The second instance is taken from the words of 
 Achilles,* who says to the envoys of Agamemnon in a 
 speech than which no finer, perhaps, has ever^been 
 written — in fact, a burst of indignation : 
 
 " Hateful to me even as the Gates of Hell is the man 
 Who should conceal one thing within his breast and say 
 another." 
 
 Very different do the words sound in the mouth of 
 Odysseus " when he is in the guise of a beggar, and is 
 warned by Eumseus to avoid the ordinary tales that 
 beggars tell. In his reply he uses other very emphatic 
 protestations, and adds : 
 
 " Hateful to me even as the Gates of Hell does the man 
 Become, who, yielding to poverty, utters wily words." 
 
 r The consideration of such passages' caiinot but 
 Strongly confirm the view that these^jepics contain 
 elements of varying age and originalityT' 
 
 '//. ix. 312-13. 
 
 ^ Od. xiv. 156-7. 
 
 * It will be noticed that neither of the illustrations given above 
 of borrowing are taken from the Achilleid, but from the later 
 books of the Iliad. As we have said, on the whole, the Iliad is 
 earlier than the Odyssey, 
 
[ I04 ] 
 
 § 3- The Evolution of the I Had 
 
 Hitherto our argument has been engaged in laying 
 down the lines along which we may seek to detect the 
 work of earlier and later schools in that body of literature 
 which is still called by the venerated name of Homer. 
 Incidentally it was hinted that the marks of comparative 
 lateness are by no means confined to the poem, which 
 is on the whole the less primitive of the two, but that in 
 the Iliad itself there are earlier and later parts. It is 
 now fully time to inspect the structure of this poem and 
 to lay down clearly the reasons for regarding it as the 
 result of a gradual poetic evolution. 
 
 We can start our argument from the name of the 
 
 poem, probably the most glorious name in all literature. 
 
 . . In one sense the title ' Iliad,' which 
 
 scope'Sl'the "^^^"^ ^ P°^"^ regarding the city of 
 ' Iliad '—its hero. Iliiini or Troy, describes the subject 
 treated of. No doubt the scene of the 
 action is the city, within or without the walls, even 
 though the destruction of the city is not recorded in 
 the poem. But what is the real theme of the poem? 
 It is Achilles, his exploits, but above all his wrath_ 
 and its' cbnseqiiences. Tl is noteworthy the first word 
 of the first book (perhaps the finest of all the books)," 
 emphasises this : — 
 
 Mrjviv SfiBe Bed, IlriXtjiaSeto 'AxtX^oi 
 oiiXofievTjv 
 
 " The wrath of Peleus' son Achilles, sing O goddess, 
 the woeful wrath " — — ' 
 
 Assuredly if the Iliad has any unity, any plat,Jf it is 
 a poem and not a congeries of confused scenes _qL war- 
 fare, here is the indication. As a work of art the 
 so-called Iliad deals with Achilles and Achilles alone." 
 
 ' It has been also remarked that in like manner the opening 
 word of the Odyssey gives its key-note 
 
 'AvSpa fioi fvnejTf, Movira, noKvTpowov 
 
sec. 3] Evolution of Iliad 105 
 
 There may he embellishment, expansion, digression if 
 you will, but what Hamlet is to Hamlet, what Satan is 
 to the Paradise Lost, in fine, what Odysseus is to the 
 Odyssey, that (and more than that) is Achilles to the 
 so-called Iliad. 
 
 _This, then, is our first fact, >nd thesecond one surely is 
 startling ! There are large pqrtionsjof_the_poems (not 
 merely one "book or even two, but large sequences of 
 books) in which the hero does not appejir^^and which 
 have hardly the slightest or perhaps no bearing what- 
 ever upon the working out of the plot. Critics may try 
 to explain this fact away, but there it remains staring 
 them in the face. Is there anything like this in litera- 
 ture ? It may be said the unity of epic is not so close 
 as that of drama, but has it not also a unity of its own ? 
 The only possible conclusion is that what we have in 
 our Iliad is a poem enshrined in another poem — not 
 however as a crystal is enshrined in its matrix, but rather 
 as a fossil is enclosed in the surrounding rock. The 
 outlines of the organic form may be, to some extent, 
 hidden and merged in its bed, nor can it be detached 
 without fracture— yet its form can still be discerned 
 and its limits, even if dimly, traced. 
 
 Before going on to develop this theory and apply it 
 in further detail, it may be well to point out that it 
 
 constitutes a sort of via media between 
 l^hm"!-" *^° opposing theories— that of the 
 a 'via media.' extreme conservatives who like Miiller, 
 
 Gladstone and Arnold have striven to 
 defend the absolute unity of Homer, and that of the 
 extreme innovators .who would break up the poems into 
 a series of more or less disconnected lays. This last 
 theory is to the prevalent one explained in this chapter, 
 what the cosmical theory of a fortuitous concourse of 
 atoms would be to that of a gradual and organic evolu- 
 tiori. It may not be possible to trace each individual 
 step in the process of growth— it is something to be able 
 to indicate directions and tendencies, to show what is 
 earlier and what later, and to settle on the criteria by 
 which the relative ages of various parts can be deter- 
 mined. It is prima facie probable that the Iliad is 
 
1 06 The Homeric Bards [chap. II 
 
 complex in its authorship, not merely on account of its 
 want of unity of subject (in its present form), but also 
 because of its great length, its repetitions, its incon- 
 sistencies, its varieties of style. Even Aristotle, though 
 taking the poems of Homer as types of what an epic 
 should be, yet hints that they are too long — for he says 
 that if they were shorter they would fall better within 
 his standard of unity. This criticism must clearly 
 apply with much greater force to the Iliad than the 
 Odyssey, because it is longer by more than a third, and 
 its unity is far less apparent. 
 
 And if we consider what Aristotle's criterion of unity 
 is, we shall have to conclude that the Iliad falls short of 
 it — seemingly even to a greater extent than he clearly 
 understood. Although^hejadnaits that the rule of epic 
 unity is not so rigid as that of dramatic, yet in the main 
 it follows the same principles. It must be concerned 
 with a " single and complete action, having a beginning, 
 a middle and an end, in order that like a singje and com- 
 plete living thing it may provide the pleasure which is 
 proper to it.'" Nothing could be clearer or more just, 
 and nothing more unlike the Iliad in which there are 
 long portions which have no relation to the thread of 
 the story. Again he says that one tragedy or at most 
 two could be constructed out of each of the two Homeric 
 poems, at the same time contrasting in this point the 
 later cyclic poems which he states cannot bear the test, 
 and are not by Homer.^ Now all this criticism could 
 hardly be applied to the Iliad in its expanded form, but 
 it applies well enough to the Odyssey, and evidently 
 Aristotle is thinking more of the shorter and better com- 
 pacted poem. Most of his illustrations regarding the 
 principles of epic are taken from the Odyssey, and when 
 he does refer to the Iliad, the praise he bestows on it is 
 equivocal." But what is most noticeable is that when 
 he gives a concrete illustration of the quasi-dramatic 
 unity of epic (after it is stript of its In-tio-dfita) he naturally 
 
 ' Arist., Poetics, ch. xxiii. § i. 
 
 ^ Ibid. § 4. 
 
 ' See chap. xxiv. § 8. 
 
sec. 3] Evolution of Iliad " 107 
 
 turns to the Odyssey, describing its plot in a few words, 
 but without saying a single word about the Iliad. Prob- 
 ably he felt in a vague kind of way that somewhere in the 
 Iliad there is a plot ; but yet that it is by no means easy 
 to disentangle from the foreign matter which obscures 
 it. At least if we want to find out what the Iliad ought to 
 be (and was once but now is not), we have only to take 
 the principles clearly enunciated in the Poetics and 
 apply them to the poem. No doubt it will be shortened, 
 but Aristotle's instinct told him it was too long ! And 
 it will be at the same time reduced to proper epic form — 
 form which is essential to literature, and especially Greek 
 literature. If, indeed, we had no reason for believing 
 that Aristotle's Homeric text was substantially the 
 same as our own, and if we merely considered his 
 criticism in itself, we might be tempted to surmise that 
 it refers not to the Iliad as we have it, but to the 
 poem about Achilles, and to the Odyssey, which is of 
 course a poem about Odysseus. We do not of course 
 mean to imply that for a drama or epic to deal with a 
 single hero is sufficient to satisfy Aristotle's standard 
 of unity. He requires niore, namely, unity of action — 
 but it is clear t hat when the hero complet ely disapp ears 
 fro m ou r vieW) till dxauialic ui quaiji-diamatic unity 
 ceases for tEe~time; ' ■ -r^ 
 
 Having^et^rth some of the most obvious grounds 
 
 for accepting what we call the ' Evolution ' theory of 
 
 the Iliad, the question at once arises. 
 
 Limits of the ^an we discern, with any approach to 
 PrimitiYe Poem, confidence, the limits of the primitive 
 poem, which we may term the Achilleid ? Here 
 we come to the difficult part of the subject. If, 
 indeed, we had only to apply the criterion of The Plot, 
 the matter would be simple enough. Supposing, for 
 convenience, that we keep to the division into books, 
 the books which treat of or bear closely upon the story 
 of Achilles should be regarded as primitive, the rest as 
 late. But unfortunately a disturbing element comes 
 in. Once grant that additions to the original poem 
 were made by later bards, there is no evident necessity 
 that such additions should be all extraneous to the plot. 
 
io8 The Homeric Bards [chap. II 
 
 It is only too probable that the plot would be encroached 
 upon by those who added to the poem — and this is 
 precisely what we claim to have been the case. Con- 
 siderations about style and language have led the 
 majority of critics to decide, for instance, that the last 
 "two books of the Iliad are not by the earliest hand, and 
 yet they treat of the funeral of Patroclus, Achilles' 
 friend, and tell us how the latter yielded up the body 
 of Hector to Priam, thus giving a very fitting and 
 glorious sequel to the primitive story. Even without 
 descending to matters of detail, we cannot deny that 
 there is, and perhaps always will be, a border line where 
 sound criticism will guard itself against dogmatic 
 assertion. In fact it would be an exaggeration to say 
 that at the present time all controversy has ceased as 
 to relatively important points in the Homeric question. 
 All that is maintained here is that we have now clear 
 light on many critical matters, and that our principles 
 of criticism will not lead us astray provided we do not 
 press them unduly. 
 
 In discussing the limits of the Achilleid, it will be con- 
 venient to treat as far as possible of whole books, though 
 these give only a rough method of dissection : and the 
 most we can do to make the matter clear to the beginner 
 is first to state what books are widely recognised as 
 belonging more or less to the primitive poem, and then 
 to indicate those which are, for various reasons, more 
 doubtful. To the first category belong Book I. (giving 
 the quarrel between Achilles and Agamemnon ; and the 
 -prayer of Thetis to Zeus for vengeance). Book XL [the 
 defeat of the Greeks ; and the request to Achilles to send 
 Patroclus), Books XVI., XVII., XVIII., XIX., XX., 
 XXI., XXII. (the arming of Patroclus ; his death at the 
 hands of Hector ; the rescue of his body ; the bringing of 
 the news to Achilles ; the reconciliation of the latter with 
 his chief ; his exploits in the battle-field ; and the vengeance 
 he takes upon Hector)} 
 
 1 Not, of course, to the exclusion of short passages ; which may 
 sometimes be viewed as interpolations (perhaps of very late date), 
 as the making of new armour for Achilles, Book xviii. 
 
sec, 3] Evolution of Iliad log 
 
 But what of all the rest ? We have already said the 
 last two books, which form a noble sequel to the poem, 
 are in all probability later work, and (we will now add) 
 later even than some of the books which do not touch 
 the story of Achilles at all. To the period of Books 
 XXIII. and XXIV. probably belong also Book IX. {the 
 Embassy, or the sending of Odysseus by Agamemnon to 
 Achilles to offer reparation). This is also a magnificent 
 interlude, but not primitive. Some critics have held, 
 however, that Book VIII. (the Book preceding the 
 Embassy, and describing the discomfiture of the Greeks 
 by the action of Zeus) is primitive and should come 
 immediately after Book I. (in which Zeus promises 
 Thetis to intervene). 
 
 Again the four books betwfeen XI. and XVI. (including 
 the Battle about the Ships, and much of the divine 
 action of the Iliad) are supposed by some to contain 
 elements of the original poem more or less inextricably 
 interwoven with later work. 
 
 It will be observed that in the earlier half of the Iliad 
 there are a large number of books hitherto unmentioned 
 
 _. ^^especially a long sequence imme- 
 
 Exnansiona diately after the opening, namely, 
 ^ ' Books II., III., IV.. v., VI., and VII. 
 
 This is a considerable portion of the Iliad which has no 
 direct connection with the chief hero of the poem, and, 
 as it stands, interferes more than anything else with the 
 appearance of substantial unity. This series of books, 
 dealing mostly with scenes of carnage and with the 
 prowess of various Greek and Trojan chieftains, yet 
 contains in Book VI. the touching and celebrated scene 
 of the parting of Hector from Andromache. The 
 general character of the poetry is such as might have 
 been strung together from separate lays, and no doubt 
 Wolf's theory was largely based upon the consideration 
 of this portion of the Iliad. On the other hand, parts 
 to this long expansion may be accounted among the 
 noblest of Homeric poetry ; so that this is a good place 
 to insist emphatically on the important principle that 
 when we distinguish between earlier and later work we 
 do not necessarily imply that the latter is inferior. There 
 
1 lo The Homeric Bards [chap. II 
 
 are, no doubt, different degrees of lateness, as will be 
 gradually made clear to the student, but although we 
 believe the primitive Achilleid to have been of sovereign 
 excellence, the theory we are expounding by no means 
 denies — nay, it maintains— that at least a great deal of 
 the later work, and notably of the long sequence follow- 
 ing the first book, is of fine and truly Homeric work- 
 manship, though not of the earliest period. 
 
 Along with this sequence, we may consider that which 
 was above indicated as doubtful, namely, the books 
 which came after XI. and before XVI., and which 
 contain primitive elements, though they are not neces- 
 sary to the development of the main thread of the 
 story. 
 
 In point of language and style these expansions are 
 not absolutely disconnected with what we regard as 
 certainly primitive. They must have been the first 
 additions made to the Achilleid (perhaps, as we have 
 already hinted, in part from separate lays which had an 
 independent origin). Indeed so closely do they resemble 
 the work of the primitive bard of the Achilleid, that the 
 question has been raised, whether these greater expan- 
 sions ought not to be attributed to the original bard 
 as a sort of after-thought. Such a hypothesis is, how- 
 ever, as incapable of proof as it is perhaps of refutation. 
 The chief ground for maintaining it, as it seems, 'is the 
 dislike to attribute to more than a single author the 
 choicest parts of Homer, a principle which could not be 
 carried out consistently, even if it did not rest upon a 
 quite gratuitous assumption. For, it has been already 
 stated that Books VIII., IX., XXHI., and XXIV., 
 which can be shown to be considerably later even than 
 the longer sequences, and which are in fact excluded 
 from the hypothesis in question, also contain some fine 
 and in every sense Homeric work. 
 
 The only book we have not considered is Book X. 
 It recounts the exploits of Odysseus and Diomede, and 
 is in every way disconnected in subject treatment 
 and language from the rest of the poem. Mr. Leaf 
 
 ' Iliad, vol. i., p. 324. 
 
sec. 3] 
 
 Evolution of Iliad 
 
 in 
 
 TABULAR SCHEME OF BOOKS 
 
 To Illustrate the Evolution of the Iliad accord- 
 ing TO widely accepted Theory. 
 
 *Book I 
 
 A. 
 
 AchiUeid. 
 
 Book II 
 
 B. 
 
 early expansion (exc. Catalogue, very 
 late). 
 
 Book III 
 
 r. 
 
 early expansion. 
 
 Book IV 
 
 A. 
 
 early expansion. 
 
 BookV 
 
 E. 
 
 early expansion. 
 
 Book VI 
 
 z. 
 
 early expansion. 
 
 Book VII 
 
 H. 
 
 early expansion. 
 
 Book VIII 
 
 e. 
 
 late (Odyssean). 
 
 *Book IX 
 
 I. 
 
 LATE (Odyssean). 
 
 Book X 
 
 K. 
 
 very late {barely Homeric). 
 
 ""Book XI 
 
 A. 
 
 Achilleid. 
 
 Book XII 
 
 M. 
 
 doubtfully Achilleid. 
 
 Book XIII 
 
 N. 
 
 doubtfully Achilleid. 
 
 Book XIV 
 
 
 doubtfully Achilleid. 
 
 Book XV 
 
 0. 
 
 doubtfully Achilleid. 
 
 *Book XYI 
 
 n. 
 
 AohiUeid. 
 
 Book XYII 
 
 p. 
 
 Achilleid. 
 
 *Book XYIIl 
 
 2. 
 
 Achilleid (with important exceptions). 
 
 *Book XIX 
 
 T. 
 
 Achilleid. 
 
 *Book XX 
 
 Y. 
 
 AchiUeid. 
 
 *Book XXI 
 
 $. 
 
 Achilleid. 
 
 *Book XXII 
 
 X. 
 
 AchiUeid. 
 
 *Book XXIII ^. 
 
 LATE (Odyssean). 
 
 ♦Book XXIV 
 
 fl. 
 
 LATE (Odyssean). 
 
 The * is attached to all the Books, whether primitive^ryate, 
 which belong to the 'Story of Achilles.' The fact tJxat the 
 supposed • AchiUeid ' does not exactly tally with the Books 
 containing the ' Story of Achilles ' might appear a drawback 
 to the theory as on tuned above, but this, comparatively slight 
 discrepancy should, perhaps, be rather considered as a confirma- 
 tion of its truth. 
 
112 The Homeric Bards [chap. II 
 
 says of it, " the attentive student can hardly fail to 
 
 perceive that he has passed in this book into an entirely 
 
 different atmosphere of thought and 
 
 ^^""^••terpo- language," and points out that even the 
 
 lattons. ancient critics, though they believed 
 
 that Homer was the author of it, yet recognised that 
 
 it was a mere excrescence upon the Iliad, forming no 
 
 part of its proper design. 
 
 This book, therefore, is certainly much later than the 
 greater expansions. The same may be said, for many 
 reasons, of the Catalogue (the latter part of Book II., 
 which is remarkable as having a separate invocation 
 of the muse), and of other lesser passages. The descrip- 
 tion of the forging of Achilles' armour is in all probability 
 a late interpolation, among other reasons, because it 
 seems to pre-suppose a somewhat late development of 
 the arts of working metal.^ It would be beyond our 
 scope to deal here with such interpolations, except to 
 repeat that, as a rule, they may be supposed to be later 
 than the greater expansions. We may, however, note 
 in passing that the advocates of unity of authorship are 
 the last to deny the existence of late and comparatively 
 large interpolations, for they have recourse to them 
 when pressed with difficulties as to the substantial 
 unity of the Iliad. But though lesser interpolations 
 undoubtedly exist, they will not explain all the facts of 
 the Homeric poems. 
 
 In the second Section of this Chapter we enumerated 
 
 many of the features which distinguish later from 
 
 earlier portions of the Homeric poemS. 
 
 Some distingnish- Such instances as we gave of lateness, 
 
 ing features of whether in point of mythology, Ian- 
 later vork. guage or civilisation, were taken in 
 great measure from the Odyssey. It 
 would be possible now, but rather wearisome, to go 
 over the same ground again, applying the criteria in 
 question to the non-Achillean books of the Iliad. 
 
 1 This argnment, however, should not be pressed. The subject 
 will recur in later chapters when we are dealing With Homedc 
 Archeology. 
 
sec. 3] Evolution of Iliad 1 13 ?* 
 
 Monro shows ' abundantly that at least in regard to 
 Books IX., X., XXIII., and XXIV., the test of syntax 
 would confirm our statement as to their later origin than 
 the books of the Achilleid. 
 
 Refraining, therefore, from further repetition of pre- 
 vious statements, we may pass on to new aspects of the 
 later parts of our Iliai. It has been noticed that there 
 are differences in the drawing of the same characters 
 by the earlier and later bards. In the Achilleid they are, 
 as a rule, fiercer and more elemental : in the later work 
 these characteristics are softened. 
 
 This is trueof^AganaeHinon : in the primitive books 
 he is the rivSTandtyrant of Achilles, and is depicted 
 generally in an unfavourable light ; in the later ones 
 much more favourably, and it is said of him that he is 
 ' a good king and a brave warrior.' The divergence in 
 the case of HectOTJs-still more remarkable. In truth 
 he has a duaTcharacter in Homer, which makes it 
 dif&cult to get a clear and consistent mental picture of 
 ! his real position and worth. At times we think of him 
 as the blustering braggart, harsh and domineering even 
 in his patriotism. And this we must admit is the con- 
 ception of his original creator, and it has passed into 
 our ordinary vocabulary in the phrases ' hectoring,' 
 ' to hector.' Yet we have him also pictured as the 
 generous and modest champion of a failing cause, 
 the loving husband and father, the dutiful son — 
 in a word, the grand hero of the Trojans, and a not 
 unworthy counterpart of his still greater vanquisher. 
 This, is one of the inconsistencies which our theory 
 amply explains, for analysis tells us that the nobler 
 features of Hector were bestowed on him by the later 
 bards who wished to create a sympathy for the Trojans, 
 and so add a new and different pathos to the story of 
 their fight for existence. 
 
 But it is in the delineation of Helen that the contrast 
 is, perhaps, the most interesting. Of her, Mr. Gladstone 
 has remarked that " she is not the t5rpe of a depraved 
 
 ' See Index to Homeric Grammar, under ' Characteristics of 
 particular Books,' p. 339. 
 
 I 
 
114 The Homeric Bards [chap. II 
 
 character. . . . She is spoken of in the poem generally, 
 by all persons, without disrespect. . . . With ' beauty 
 such as woman never wore,' and with the infirmity of 
 purpose which chequered her career, she unites not only 
 grace and kindliness, but a deep humility, and a peculiar 
 self-condemnation, which come nearer to the grace of 
 Christian repentance than anything, in my opinion, that 
 has come down to us with the ancient learning." But 
 this enthusiastic admirer of everything Homeric omitted 
 to notice in what cantos the praises of Helen occurs. In 
 the Achillean books, there is scant attention and less 
 sympathy bestowed upon her. While in the later books, 
 epithets are heaped on one another, as if it is nigh im- 
 possible to hpnour her too highly. The most remark- 
 able is that of 'Apyei-rj " the Argive lady," a term applied 
 to none else, except to Hera, the queen of heaven herself. 
 And what are the occurrences of this honourable title ? 
 There are twelve of them in all, and they show a very 
 unequal distribution, for they occur only in the non- 
 Achillean books, or in the Odyssey, with which their 
 authorship is closely associated. . But this is not all. 
 If we add other epithets, as ' divine among women,' 
 ' daughter of Jove,' ' the lovely-cheeked,' and the 
 ' white-armed,' we get a still more demonstrative result, 
 for now we have no less than forty-one occurrences, and 
 all in the same portions of the poems.' 
 
 And what is most remarkable of all is that even in 
 the character of^^Achilles himself, we can detect in the 
 work of the later bards a certain modification in the way 
 of refinement, while at the same time he loses something 
 of his predominance. 
 
 We must here give the actual words of Dr. Geddes : — 
 '' Achilles is in the Achilleid the ' most tremendous of 
 allmen,' irdvriav iyKayXoraT av^pZv with no touch of ?i6os 
 ofKeling for aught beyond himself and his own honour, 
 and apart from his intense love for his second self, 
 Patroclus. XiwS tremendous being who is an object of 
 terror in^jdie Achillean books, comes to be, in the 
 Ulyssean books, softened and humanized, and made an 
 
 ' See Geddes, Problem of Homeric Poems, p. io8 fE, 
 
sec. 3] Evolution of Iliad 115 
 
 object of admiring, though not perhaps loving, interest. 
 The touches thus added do not alter the original lines 
 yet subdue their harshness, so that we can gaze on the 
 picture with no feeling of repulsion." Our critic goes 
 on to refer to his humanity towards enemies,' his singing 
 and accompanying himself on the harp,' his conduct as 
 ' president of the games, in the penultimate, and his 
 reception of Priam, in the last book of the expanded 
 poem.' 
 
 Hitherto we have sought to prove the contrast which 
 exists between the later work of the Iliad, and the 
 OdyBsean primitive poem about Achilles. Now 
 affinities we are to compare that later work with 
 of later work, the later Homeric poem, the Odyssey. 
 The question of linguistic affinity has already been 
 touched upon more than once ; but here we are dealing 
 with a deeper affinity, that of tone and spirit, as mani- 
 fested in the treatment of character. 
 
 We have seen that in the non-AchUlean books of the 
 Iliad, Achilles either does not appear at all, as is the 
 case in Books II., III., IV., V., VI., VII., or else he 
 appears, with a somewhat softened character, as in 
 Books IX., XXIII., XXIV. But what is even more 
 significant is that in this part of the Iliad there is a 
 tendepcjLJtQ supplant Achilles as the chief hero, by 
 puttmg in his place the liero of the Odyssey. Th point 
 of fact Odysseus becomes a rival, and more than a rival, 
 of Achilles. The indications of this are very varied, 
 and we can only glance at a few of them. There are 
 certain epithets which are given only to Odysseus, 
 and they occur only in the non-Achillean books. But 
 the most important epithet is the term Beios or ' divine,' 
 which is bestowed only on Achilles and on Odysseus.* 
 The distribution of the epithet 6^s stands mathe- 
 matically as follows. In the case of Achilles we find 
 
 '. //. vi. 407. 
 
 ' n. ix. 186. 
 
 ' Problem of Homeric Poems, p. loi. 
 
 * The epithet tHos, which is sometimes translated " divine," 
 though it properly means " bright," is, on the • contrary, of 
 common application. 
 
ii6 The Homeric Bards [chap. II 
 
 four occurrences, all of which are in the Achilkid, 
 whereas in the case of Odysseus there are twenty in the 
 Odyssey, and four in the non-Achillean books of the 
 Iliad} Another epithet used strikingly is irroMiropeos ; 
 and the use of tX^huv, with 6v|iJis or corresponding word, 
 is instructive.' But it is not only in the case of epithets 
 that the prominence of Odysseus in the non-Achillean 
 parts of Homer is so strongly marked. In the descrip- 
 tions he gets a very important degree of notice, and 
 some phrases occur of him which are given in the 
 Achillean part only to Agamemnon. One fact also 
 speaks volumes. In the scene in Book III. of the Iliad, 
 where Helen points out and describes to Priam and the 
 Trojans the Greek chieftains, who are marshalling their 
 troops under the walls of the beleagured city, out of the 
 seventy lines bestowed on all the heroes of her nation, 
 she devotes no less than thirty-four, or all but half, to 
 the wily Ithacan. If we turn now to the Achillean 
 books, we find quite a contrast. For not only is 
 Odysseus represented there as a very much less im- 
 portant (though not, of course, altogether unimportant) 
 personage, but on one or two occasions his conduct 
 appears almost ignoble. He is likened ' to a stag after 
 receiving a wound in battle — the very reproach flung 
 by Achilles at Agamemnon.* On another occasion ^ his 
 conduct in battle is the reverse of chivalrous. 
 
 We cannot here go further into this curious pheno- 
 menon, but probably enough has been stated to show 
 that there is a close affinity between the later poem and 
 the later portion of the earlier poem. Dr. Geddes, to 
 whom we owe the calculations which throw so much 
 light on the point, has justly remarked that the ancient 
 Chorizontes were wrong in their grouping. The modem 
 grouping, which a view of the af&nities in the Iliad 
 renders imperative, has this special advantage for 
 
 ' There is a doubt about one passage, however, which perhaps 
 belongs to the Achilkid. The epithet is also bestowed on the 
 dead, and on heralds on account of their office. 
 
 ' See Riddell on Od. xi. i8i. 
 
 ' II. jd. 475- 
 
 * //. 1. 225. 
 
 • //. viii. 92-98, 
 
sec. 3J Evolution of Iliad 117 
 
 purposes of comparison, that it shows a fissure— ^not 
 between two poems on very diverse subjects — ^but, in 
 part, at least, between portions of a poem wherein one 
 subject (that of war) is treated continuously. 
 
 Our next Section will reinforce, from another stand- 
 point, these conclusions regarding the stratification of 
 the Iliad. For we have now to consider a new class of 
 evidence to prove that the later parts of the Iliad have 
 close af&nity with the Odyssey not merely viewing the 
 criterion of age and of latent sympathies, but also that 
 of local origin. And the more we associate these books 
 of the Iliad with the Odyssey, the wider becomes the 
 gulf which separates them from the Achilleid. 
 
[ ii8 
 
 § 4. Local origin of the Poems 
 
 Even before the great controversy was started by 
 Wolf's Prolegomena, and among those who still held 
 to the theory of a single author, there has been at 
 all times much discussion as to the locality in which 
 the poems took their rise — or, as it was put in old- 
 fashioned language, as to the birth-place of Homer. 
 Was it in Hellas proper, or in the Greek colonies beyond 
 the Aegean ? In other words. Was Homer a European 
 or an Asiatic ? 
 
 On the one hand, tradition was strong and decisive' 
 
 for the opinion that Homer was an Ionian Greek. 
 
 Several cities no doubt competed for 
 
 Asiatic theory the honour of his nativity, but there 
 
 ofHomer'B was a strong consensus in favour of 
 
 birth-place, some one of the cities on the coast of 
 
 Asia Minor, as we have already stated. 
 
 It, is, moreover, an undoubted fact that, historically 
 
 speaking, the poems were first heard of on the Aegean 
 
 coast, and the oldest traditions asserted that they 
 
 were brought thence to Hellas by means of Lycurgus, 
 
 Sparta's legislator. Pindar and Simonides, as well as 
 
 the oldest historians, confirm the tradition. Not to 
 
 discuss again the fraternity of bards in the island of 
 
 Chios, who called themselves Homeridae on the ground 
 
 of descent from the poet—in Smyrna there was from 
 
 time immemorial a veneration for him, which approached 
 
 the character of a religious cult. Add to this, the 
 
 dialect of the poems, at least in their present form, 
 
 is, as we have seen, undoubtedly Ionian. So that 
 
 Thirlwall, speaking of this question, says:' "This is 
 
 not a case where we have to balance two arguments of 
 
 a similar kind one against another ; but where we have, 
 
 on the one side, a mass of positive testimony ; on the 
 
 other, some facts, which, through our very imperfect 
 
 ' History of Greece, vol. i., p. 276. 
 
sec. 4] Local origin of Poems t ig 
 
 knowledge of the poet's life and times, we are unable 
 to account for. When this is so, there can be little 
 doubt which way the principles of sound criticism 
 require us to decide." 
 
 And yet the arguments supplied on the other side 
 of the controversy were neither few nor unimportant. 
 
 Mr. Gladstone worked at them with 
 
 ArgumentB great care, being a most uncompromis- 
 
 onthe ing advocate of the European theory. 
 
 European side. He even went so far as to say^ that he 
 
 could as easily believe that Shake- 
 speare was a Frenchman as that Homer was an Asiatic 
 Greek. Elsewhere he gave no less than sixteen distinct 
 reasons, drawn from the most various considerations, 
 to prove that the poems must have been made before 
 the Doric conquest of the Peloponnese, and conse- 
 quently before the Greek settlements 'in Asia, which 
 were the result of that disturbing event. Some of the 
 sixteen arguments are of a purely negative kind, and so 
 not very convincing : others are rather an attempt to 
 meet the position of adversaries than to establish his 
 own thesis directly : the argument on which he says 
 he personally lays most stress, but which he also says 
 it is diificult to appreciate, seems to us to be very much 
 of the nature of an assumption : yet, on the whole he 
 certainly shows that the position of Thirlwall could 
 hardly be secure, if the discussion were to be limited to 
 the simple issue as he considers it. 
 
 But it is not to be so limited. If the single author- 
 ship is gone, the single locality may go with it. The 
 poems of Homer do not belong to Europe or to Asia. 
 For they belong to both. The Achilleid, was composed 
 in Continental Greece before the Ionian migration : this 
 much of the work went with the emigrants as their 
 imperishable heirloom, their national birthright : they 
 did the rest of the work in their new country and under 
 its new influences. We repeat that all the evidence 
 which we are about to allege is not merely good for 
 the proposition in hand, but new evidence for the main 
 
 ^ Homeric Synchronism, p. 72. 
 
I20 The Homeric Bards [chap. II 
 
 theory of composite authorship. Nay more. It is 
 only by realizing the strength of this part of the case- 
 that is, the sohdity of the reasons for attributing the 
 Achilleid to Thessaly, and the Odyssean books of the 
 Iliad and the Odyssey to Ionia — that the reader can 
 fairly estimate the statement we have made that the 
 theory of an Achilleid is almost a demonstrated con- 
 clusion. 
 
 Before considering in detail the proofs that have been 
 discovered in regard to the respective claims of Europe 
 and Asia, we may say something about 
 Intrinsio the intrinsic probability which the 
 twofold oK theory contains. If early Greek history 
 divides itself into two parts — ^that before 
 the migration of vast numbers to the sea-board and the 
 islands of Asia Minor, and that subsequent to the skme 
 event — if one part of the Homeric poems (that, namely, 
 which we have called the Achilleid) has been proved to 
 have been composed at a separate date and under sepa- 
 rate influences from the rest of the poems, what more 
 likely than that the part which certainly belongs to an 
 earlier, probably to a much earlier, date shoidd have 
 been composed before the Migration, and the rest after- 
 wards ? At least no improbability can be shown to 
 inhere in this supposition. We do not need to appeal 
 to what is dubiously called the scientific imagination to 
 realize the case. And we do not follow Professor Jebb 
 in his suggestion that it may have been the original 
 poet of the Achilleid, who migrated along with his poem 
 ready made, and who gave to it its first expansion on 
 Ionian soil. We decline to entertain this suggestion, 
 not because there is in it any absurdity or impossibility^ 
 but for other reasons. First, because some real evidence 
 ought to be offered on behalf of such a statement (and 
 we shall offer plenty of evidence for the position we are 
 defending), whereas there is none. Secondly, there is 
 evidence of some sort on the other side. For the dis- 
 crepancy of style and of thought which exists between 
 the Achilleid and the rest of the Iliad points to a wider 
 divergence than a single life could bridge over. Even 
 supposing that the primitive man progressed at a much 
 
sec. 4] Local origin of Poems 121 
 
 higher rate of speed than his more cultivated descen- 
 dant ; yet we could hardly allow that within a single 
 generation an amount of development could have taken 
 place like that displayed in the Odyssey as compared 
 with the style of the Achilleid. It is not easy for us 
 to realize a state of things when so much as the word 
 " just " or " holy " does not exist ; but given this 
 state of things, surely it takes time to explicitly evolve 
 such abstract, even though elementary, notions. The 
 primitive expressions for the deepest truths of humanity 
 could not have been constructed in a brief period. 
 Lastly, the suggestion that the poet, after having given 
 a complete expression of himself in a noble poem, 
 should afterwards retouch the work so as to change its 
 lineaments, seems to belong to the ideas of a literary 
 age. It is to little purpose to remind us that Goethe 
 gave a second redaction of his masterpiece, and left 
 the seams visible which the later additions had made ; 
 the primitive poet was too simple-minded to do anything 
 of the sort. To his mind his work was always com- 
 plete, because it was simply true. He had made it 
 thus because he could not have made it otherwise. 
 He was himself projected on the screen, and it would 
 never dawn on him that he could alter his own features, 
 or even that the photograph could be taken from a 
 different angle. So that without disputing the opinion 
 of many critics that some of the later books are quite 
 as vivid and as noble as the Achillean ones, especially 
 those that are inserted near the opening of the Achilleid ; 
 still we must insist that they come from a different 
 source — different in time and different in place — that 
 they belong, indeed, to the same stream of epic poetry, 
 but that they represent a distinct stage of the Hellenic 
 civilisation which that stream traversed and re- 
 freshed. 
 
 And not merely a distinct stage. They represent 
 also, a distinct type. Hellenic culture has its unity, of 
 course, but it has also its distinctions ; and in those 
 distinctions, perhaps lies its secret. Among the soldiers, 
 artists, poets, orators, philosophers, statesmen of Greece, 
 we find not merely men of various gifts, but men of 
 
122 The Homeric Bards [chap. II 
 
 distinct types of Greek nationality. Now all the types, 
 all the tribes, can be reduced to two principal ones — 
 the Dorian and the Ionian tribes, — the type of Brasidas 
 and Epaminondas, and the type of Pericles and Plato. 
 The Aeolians, who dwelt in Thessaly in the earliest 
 historical era, to whom also belonged the Boeotian 
 tribe, had close affinities with the Dorians, who also 
 had their original habitat in the mountains of Northern 
 Greece, from whence they emerged, like the Vandals 
 and Goths of a later date, to overrun and subdue the 
 lowlands of the South, and establish themselves at 
 Sparta, Argos, and Aegina. And the lonians, who did 
 the greater part of colonizing the islands and. the coast- 
 towns of the Aegean, always claimed a close relation- 
 ship to the Athenians, whom they resembled in many 
 points of character. 
 
 The Doric or ^ohan character is exactly presented 
 in the austerity, the heroism, the intense passion of 
 AchDles. But what a contrast does Odysseus supply ! 
 He, too, is a soldier, and a good one ; but it is as the 
 irokvrpoirot, the man of many wiles ; the nroXiVopfloj 
 the real Sacker of Ilium ; 
 
 jroXXSv h^avBpanrav iSfv acTfa Kai vdoi' fyvo), 
 
 " who saw the cities of many men and learnt their 
 wisdom ; " the man who wandered over the known 
 world and beyond it out of love for a lowly home and 
 a faithful wife ; the incarnation of prudence, of self- 
 control, of calm, dispassionate, resourceful intellect; 
 always true to his purpose ; battered by fortune but 
 never quite subdued by her ; overcoming other men 
 more by the power of speech than by might of arm ; 
 truly delos, a reflection of the divinity even in a higher 
 sense than the other to whom the epithet is given — 
 it is by all the nobler qualities of the Greek, and especi- 
 ally of the Attic or Ionian Greeks (who, like the Ithacan, 
 were adventurers by sea), that the character of 
 Odysseus stands out not merely in the Odyssey, but to 
 some extent in the Iliad also. 
 
 We have seen that one of the marks by which we can 
 distinguish the non-Achillean books of the Iliad is the 
 
sec. 4] Local origin of Poems 123 
 
 relative prominence given to the hero of the Odyssey 
 over the hero of the Achilleid. We may now see that 
 this is no accident, as of course it could not have been. 
 Achilles, who it will be remembered, is the King of 
 Phthiotis, a region of Thessaly,* is the hero of the 
 poem which concerns him, because the poem belongs 
 to the country. How should it be otherwise ? And 
 of course he represents the ideals of the race who drew 
 his portrait. In like manner Odysseus (and it must 
 be remembered he belongs to part of the Iliad as well 
 as to the Odyssey) is the creation of the Ionic race, and 
 reflects their capabilities and their achievements. And 
 this is perfectly natural, for early poets have quite 
 enough to do to express the thought that is most akin 
 to their own experiences and their own aspirations ; 
 and if it were otherwise Homer would not be quite 
 what it is for us. 
 
 These general considerations must now be supple- 
 mented by more tangible evidence, without which they 
 would give some sort of probability, but nothing more. 
 They were inserted at this stage in the argument, because 
 we thought they would perhaps add to the reader's 
 interest in the case which is now to be briefly sub- 
 mitted. 
 
 And first the arguments for the Thessalian origin of 
 the Iliad in its earlier form. 
 
 (i.) Of these the most striking and 
 ThesBalian origin conclusive was unavoidably touched 
 
 of <Acliilleid.' upon in another connection. It is the 
 conception of Olympus, a mountain of 
 Thessaly, as the abode of the gods. We pointed out 
 that the distribution of the term as applied to heaven 
 shows an enormous preponderance of instances in the 
 Achilleid ; and that while there it represents an indivi- 
 dual and well-defined mountain — in the later work, it 
 is still used, but only as a literary survival, that is, 
 
 ' We follow most writers in speaking of Thessaly in connection 
 with Achilles. It is convenient to do so, but it is in reality a 
 misnomer — because the Thessalians did not come into the country 
 till about the time of- the Great Migrations, which were certainly 
 after the original composition of th« Achilleid., 
 
124 The Homeric Bards [chap. II 
 
 in a highly idealized way, and along with other terms 
 expressing the same meaning. This point must be 
 here illustrated somewhat further as we are basing upon 
 it a new and very important conclusion. 
 
 An objection has to be, however, forestalled. There 
 is another mountain of the same name in Asia Minor, 
 almost due west of the Troad ; and some authorities 
 have contended that Homer may refer to it. For- 
 tunately we have clear evidence that it is not so. There 
 is the tradition clearly discernible in early Greek 
 mythology connecting Pieria and the Thessalian Olym- 
 pus with the origins of the Greek hierarchy ; but there 
 is even something stronger. In one of the Achillean 
 books of the Iliad, Hera journeys* to Ida from Olympus, 
 and she goes right across the sea, and touches at two 
 intermediate points, Athos, and the island of Lemnos, 
 which are nearly in a direct line between the European 
 Olympus and Mount Ida. And there are several 
 touches which go to prove that to the poet, or poets, 
 of the AcMlleid, the mountain was a distinct and per- 
 fectly familiar object. It is spoken 6i as a single peak 
 (only in the Achilleid) ; as snow-capped (though in the 
 Odyssey we are distinctly told that neither snow nor 
 rain goes near the Olympian and etherial abode of the 
 gods) ; as TroXwrrvxor, with many a fold or dark ravine ; 
 and it is used^ to supply the beautiful simile of a cloud 
 gathering on its brow to invade the plain below, when 
 Zeus hurls forth the tempest against his victims. Nor 
 is there anything in the non-Achillean parts of Homer 
 at all corresponding to these marks of a personal ac- 
 quaintance with Olympus. 
 
 Another point of less importance, but worth noting, 
 is the consciousness that always remained among the 
 Greeks that Pieria and Olympus were the original 
 source of their poetical inspiration (though they had 
 derived their literature immediately from the lonians), 
 or as they expressed it, there was the abode of the 
 divine Muses. 
 
 1 11. xiv. 225-285. 
 ^ //. xvi. 364-5. 
 
sec. 4] Local origin of Poems 125 
 
 (ii.) Thessaly is the most picturesque and moun- 
 tainous part of Greece. Now it so happens that in the 
 Achilleid we see clearly the traces on the mind of its 
 author of the scenery amid which his home lay. Moun- 
 tain woodland is its special note, both in simile and 
 phraseology, and in the remarkable oath of Achilles at 
 the opening of the first book. Certain phrases con- 
 nected with scenery, chiefly woodland, have, by means 
 of tabulation, given the following result : twenty-three 
 instances in the Achilleid, none in the Odyssey or the 
 Odyssean books of the Iliad. Another remarkable 
 instance of the same influence is seen in the fact that 
 the older poet gives the midday meal of the wood- 
 cutter, " what time he has tired his arms with felling 
 the tall trees," * as, to him, the most natural way of 
 marking the hour. This is, of course, a note of primi- 
 tive poetry, as well as of a picturesque and woody 
 locality. 
 
 (iii.) We have already mentioned that one of the 
 signs of cleavage between the Achillean books and the 
 rest of Homer is the relative prominence given to the 
 horse as compared to the dog. This is in reality also 
 a strong proof of the Thessalian origin of the Achilleid. 
 Thessaly was supposed to have witnessed the origin 
 and training of the horse, and it was always the great 
 equestrian country of Greece, though Argos and Boeotia 
 were also celebrated for their steeds. But a strong 
 hint in confirmation of our thesis is, that the horses of 
 Achilles, called immortal, are distinctly stated to be 
 of Thessalian breed. 
 
 Other arguments, chiefly connected with climate and 
 other more subtle considerations, might be added ; but 
 we must refer the reader who wishes to prosecute the 
 siibject further to the work of Professor Geddes to which 
 we have so frequently referred, where there is also some 
 attention bestowed on certain objections to the 
 Thessalian theory, which, however, are not of a 
 serious nature. 
 
 Now we have to discuss the othei branch of the 
 
 1 //. Jri. 86. 
 
126 The Homeric Bards [chap. II 
 
 theory, which is quite as important in its own way, 
 
 namely, the view that both the Odyssey, 
 
 Ionian origin a-nd in its later form the IliaA, were 
 
 ofOdyssean elaborated in Asia Minor. 
 portions. We have drawn attention above to 
 
 the strong historical or traditional evid- 
 ence for this view, and we need not insist further on 
 that side of the argument. It is one of the strong 
 points of our position that it harmonizes tradition with 
 the European and truly Greek origin of Homer. Pos- 
 session is nine-tenths of the law, or as the 'lawyers 
 express it, " Better is the condition of the possessor," 
 and really it is hard to see how such a consistent and 
 obstinate tradition could have arisen among the cul- 
 tured Greeks of Europe, unless there some facts behind 
 it. To insist on the tradition of a personal Homer is, 
 of course, quite another matter. One can easily see 
 how naturally the belief in a single author of the poems 
 would gather round their venerated and strange in- 
 dividuality. But why the inhabitants of Hellas should 
 have gratuitously renounced all claim tp the immortal 
 poems to which they had given birth, would be indeed 
 an insoluble Homeric problem. 
 
 There are, however, some rather clear topographical 
 proofs with which to support the second part of the 
 theory we are expounding. Although we might offer 
 a distinct set of arguments for the non- Achillean books 
 and for the Odyssey, it is hardly now necessary to do 
 so, as we have so abundantly proved, in a former 
 section, the close connection that exists between these 
 two parts of Homer. We shall therefore present the 
 whole body of proof, so far as we have space to present 
 it, under a single group of headings. 
 
 (i.) Perhaps the most striking topographical proof is 
 the way in which the Locrians are described ^ : — 
 
 AoKpav, o» vaiovcri Triprjv Ifprjs Evfioias. 
 
 The Locrians, who dwelt beyond sacred Eubpea. Now 
 to one standing in Ionia, no description could be so 
 
 ' II. d. 535. 
 
sec. 4] Local origin of Poems 127 
 
 natural : the Locrians do dwell just beyond, or behind 
 the island of Eubcea, and to those crossing over from 
 Asia Minor to Greece proper, Euboea is the most obvious 
 and important locality — indeed it would be better 
 known to the lonians than any other European country. 
 In the Odyssey, moreover, there are proofs that the 
 hearers were specially familiar with it : for Alcinous 
 uses it in much the same way as the Ilian poet, to 
 express a distant place. He says' he would have 
 Odysseus conveyed home " even though it were much 
 farther than Eubcea, which place, those of our people 
 who have seen it, declare to be the most remote." 
 Alcinous is indeed in the far West, in Phaeacia, but he 
 is made to speak of an island that is distant from the 
 Asiatics, to show how very far indeed removed from 
 them is his own country. 
 
 So strong is the above argument from the second 
 book of the Iliad, that Mr. Gladstone was driven to 
 support the view that 7rfpt]v Ei/Somi does not mean 
 beyond, but only over against Eubcea. This is, however, 
 most arbitary and is contrary to the Homeric use, and 
 to the usual interpretation of this particular passage. 
 Liddell and Scott do indeed seem to support Mr. 
 Gladstone's view, by making a clear distinction between 
 TTcpa and iripav. But even granting that such a dis- 
 tinction did exist in late Attic Greek, we should require 
 very strong evidence indeed to admit that in the 
 dialect, where there is no corresponding form to n^pa, 
 the term iripr/v is not to be taken in its primitive sense 
 of beyond. There are indeed two passages where no 
 ingenuity can torture it into any other meaning. One 
 of these is in the same book (1. 626), jrepijK dXor, across 
 the sea ; the other is in the last book of the Iliad? 
 
 (ii.) Another interesting note of locality is the fre- 
 quent mention of the West wind, Zi<f>vpos, as a cold, 
 boisterous, and shore-lashing wind. It is even said to 
 bring snow.' This may not be thought by some a 
 
 ' Od. vii. 321. 
 
 ' 1. 752. TTcpvaax ov nv' eXeo-M, weprjv dXit arpvyeroio- 
 
 ' Od. xix. 300. 
 
128 The Homeric Bards [chap. II 
 
 very decisive argument ; but to say the least, it is 
 evident that the west side of Asia Minor would explain 
 such a character of a West wind (or even a North-west 
 wind), much better than the east side of Continental 
 Greece. This is from one point of view a stronger 
 argument than the last, inasmuch as it rests on a rather 
 common mode of speech, and not on one or two isolated 
 phrases. 
 
 (iii.) Various similes, and other expressions point to 
 the same conclusion. Again, in the second book of 
 the Iliad, comes one of the most striking instances.' 
 " The assembly was moved like the big waves of the 
 sea in the Icarian deep," — a sea just south of Ionia, 
 and on the same coast line. Now such an expression 
 seems to be an appeal to something well-known by the 
 persons addressed — and therefore an unconscious note 
 of the poet's nationality. The " streams of Cayster" 
 are again mentioned in a similar way ; this time remind- 
 ing us actually of a river in Ionia. 
 
 (iv.) Some mythological arguments are also given by 
 the authorities who treat of this subject. For instance, 
 the term ^oippans, uncertain as to its meaning, may 
 possibly be connected with the " Erinnys," who was 
 worshipped at Smyrna under the name. But here again 
 we must leave such Minora to be dealt with by those 
 who have more space at command. 
 
 We consider the evidence we have produced is quite 
 enough to prove our point, and that it gives indica- 
 tions, perhaps small when taken separately, but of 
 great concurrent weight in establishing the existence 
 of two successive Homeric schools of epic, the earlier 
 in Thessaly and the later in Ionia. 
 
 In a section of our first chapter entitled " The Homeric 
 
 Dialect," we discussed the question of an Aeolic element 
 
 Question of ^° Homer, the arguments in favour of 
 
 Aeolismsin which were stated to be fairly con- 
 
 Homcpic vincing. The subject is one of extreme 
 
 language. difficulty, for the best authorities on 
 
 linguistic science are by no means agreed on the point, 
 
 =5 J,- , . . ^1- HS. ... . 
 
sec. 4] Local origin of Poems 129 
 
 yet it is fair to add that the balance of authority is on 
 the affirmative side not only in Germany, but even in 
 this country; unless the name of Dr. Monro, who 
 perhaps is inclined to err on the side of extreme 
 caution, is sdlowed to counterbalance nearly all the 
 other names of weight.' 
 
 Fick " has worked out a very elaborate theory based 
 upon the Aeolisms in Homer, maintaining that the 
 earlier portions of the poems, originally existed in the 
 Aeolic dialect. If his position is in any degree sound 
 it is quite evident that we should find there a very 
 strong support for the theory of the evolution of the 
 Iliad. For this Aeolic theory postulates a pre-Ionic 
 school of poetry to which we are indebted for the 
 earlier Homeric poetry, the later having been elabo- 
 rated as we maintain in Ionia by Ionic bards. 
 
 But let us suppose for a moment that Fick's position 
 as to the presence of Aeolisms in Homer is wholly un- 
 tenable, and that Sittl and Monro are right in explain- 
 ing the supposed Aeolic element as mere archaisms 
 which were originally common to all the dialects, the 
 old Ionic as much as the Aeolic. We have stated 
 already that this position is difficult of strict refuta- 
 tion, though it appears to us to be unduly sceptical. 
 But let it be admitted for the sake of the argument, 
 and let us see if we cannot still argue from it though 
 more indirectly. What does it amount to ? 
 
 This theory appears to imply that the Homeric 
 dialect can be traced back to a period prior to the 
 differentiation of local varieties of the Greek language. 
 Surely this period must be also prior to the Great Migra- 
 tions ; for no one, we presume, will maintain that such 
 differentiation of dialect took place on Asiatic soil, 
 and that the first colonizers of Lesbos for instance were 
 nowise distinct in their speech from those of Chios and 
 
 ' Merry, Leaf, Bayfield, Jebb, Mahafiy, Warr, Sayce, Giles, 
 Se3niiour, Ridgeway, Bury, G. Murray, F. B. Jevons, are among the 
 English writers who seem to recognise the presence of Aeolisms in 
 Homer. 
 
 ^ For more detailed account of Fick's theory see next chapter, 
 which deals with the question from a historical point of view. 
 
 K 
 
I30 The Homeric Bards [chap. II 
 
 Miletus. This is quite enough. So long as we can be 
 sure on dialectical evidence that there is what we may 
 call a pre- Asiatic element in Homer, and therefore that 
 the poetry in some shape dates back beyond the Migra- 
 tions, it matters very Uttle whether we call that element 
 Aeolic or pre-Ionic (in the sense of specialised Ionic), or 
 as we prefer to call it for clearness' sake, merely Achaean. 
 
 For there is undoubtedly great danger of confusion. 
 
 Pick, Leaf, Jebb, and many other writers speak of an 
 
 Aeolic school of bards in a strict sense, 
 
 Theory of an meaning a school on Asiatic soil in the 
 
 Aeolic School northerly district known as AeoUs in 
 Bo-cafled. Hellenic times, a school which existed 
 prior to the Ionian school and was 
 indeed the medium through which the bards of Ionia 
 inherited the old traditions of Thessaly and Argolis, 
 including of course the Achilleid. Now this theory is 
 worthy of all consideration ; it is most tempting and 
 seems to carry with it a very high degree of probability ; 
 but in our opinion it is unwise to complicate matters 
 by assuming that it is equally certain with our simpler 
 proposition, viz., that the epic of Homer was originated 
 in European Greece by Achaean bards, and subsequently 
 elaborated by Ionian ones in their own country. 
 
 The fact is the exact relation of the Aeolian Greeks 
 to those of pre-Hellenic times is really obscure. The 
 name hloKtvs does not occur in Homer ; ^ whereas after 
 the Dark age we do not hear of the Achaeans (except 
 as dwelling in a definite stirip of North Peloponnese) ; 
 so that it is natural enough to suppose that the Aeolians, 
 who certainly came from the mainland of Greece,' re- 
 present Achaean immigrants. To assume, however, as 
 Fick has done that even the two names are identical 
 appears to be unjustifiable and rash ; ^ and if we honestly 
 
 ' Aeolus however, from whom the later Aeolians claimed 
 descent, is mentioned in Homer (see Leaf on II. vi. 154). The 
 Keeper of the Winds (Od. x. 2) is another person of the same name. 
 
 ^ The so-called Aeolic dialect had a close affinity with those of 
 Thessaly and Boeotia. Since Argolis became Doric in Hellenic 
 times we cannot argue from it. 
 
 ' Others derive MoKeus from the root of aioXos in the sense 
 of ■ quick ' or ' gleaming ' which does not appear unreasonable. 
 
sec. 4] Local origin of Poems 131 
 
 acknowledge the difficulty attaching to the identifica- 
 tion, we shall not find our case materially weakened 
 with regard to the transference of the Achsean epic 
 from Europe to Asia, or even with regard to the signi- 
 ficance of apparent Aeolisms in Homer. We doubt if 
 there is any direct evidence for an Aeolic school of 
 Homeric epic in the narrower sense : but this does not 
 prevent us from holding it to be probable. 
 
 Nor does it follow from the view we have advocated 
 that the poems (or parts of them) were taken in hand 
 by an individual baird, and literally translated out of 
 one dialect into another, as though we were to take 
 Chaucer and deliberately translate him into the spoken 
 English dialect of to-day. It is quite sufficient to 
 hold that a process of gradual, perhaps half-uncon- 
 scious, change went on as the poems were passed 
 on from one bard to another, and from one gener- 
 ation to another, The original author (or rather, we 
 should say, school of authors) very probably migrated 
 from Thessaly to the north coast of Asia Minor, and 
 there probably the work was further elaborated as they 
 handed it down to their sons and grandsons. Later 
 the poems and the art of the Homeric hexameter per- 
 colated towards the south as far as the Ionic brethren 
 of the Northern colonists.^ Here the work was taken 
 up with fresh enthusiasm, and it necessarily followed 
 that when the Ionic bards adopted the practice of 
 reciting and embellishing the poems, they gradually 
 gave to them the cast and the colour of their own 
 dialect. That the bards, when introducing expansions 
 or changes into the poems, sought as far as possible 
 not to modernise them, is proved partly by the fact of 
 the pseudo-archaisms which they introduced, and partly 
 by the fact that they carefully and very skilfully ex- 
 cluded all reference to the Dorian invasion of the 
 Peloponnesus and to the Migrations which had brought 
 the poems to Asia. 
 
 I It has been pointed out that Smyrna (to which Homer was 
 said to belong) was the meeting place of Aeolians and lonians. 
 Its people themselves even went through the Ionizing process, 
 just as th? poems are said to have done. 
 
[ 132 ] 
 
 § 5- Is the Odyssey composite? 
 
 We have now to consider the question of the unity of 
 the Odyssey taken by itself. As a whole it is later than 
 the Iliad and very much later than the Achilleid, and 
 it has a much better appearance of unity than the 
 longer poem. It may be said to present a steady and 
 continuous development of its plot, which contrasts 
 strongly with the loosely-constructed and at times 
 almost conflicting congeries of events which are in- 
 cluded under the name of the Iliad. How far may 
 this appearance of unity both as to story and as to 
 treatment be taken as a guarantee of unity of author- . 
 ship ? 
 
 Now we are free to confess that if we had the Odyssey 
 alone claiming to come from a single source, there 
 would have been but slight reason to suspect it of 
 being in any sense a composite work. Yet the con- 
 clusions we have formed about another work which 
 originally claimed unity of authorship with the Odyssey 
 does raise in the mind a certain suspicion about this 
 poem ; at least we feel disposed to scan it closely before 
 deciding that it is the work of a single artist. For 
 although, as we have stated, the appearance it presents 
 is wholly unlike that of the Iliad, and the reasons for 
 doubting the singleness of its authorship are of a far 
 less obvious kind, yet on the other hand the fact that 
 it, is distinctly later, that it belongs to a more conscious "\ 
 and imitative literary era, might conceivably account / 
 for more artistic and studied effects than could be looked 
 for in the case of a more primitive workmanship. 
 
 In point of fact any conclusions we can reach on 
 
 this subject must be very hypothetical, far more so than 
 
 has been the case with our previous 
 
 asto Odywey °".^^- . '^7^^ ^^^^ ^^^'^ '^ *he <=^se of the 
 mnBtbenncertain/^**'^' ^s ^^ possible to apply the Wolfian 
 . . theory to the Odyssey, to maintain that 
 
 it is an artfully compacted cento of disconnected 
 
sec. 5] Is the Odyssey composite? 133 
 
 lays. It is possible . that there are in the poem as 
 we have iflbltig passages- (whole books, for instance, 
 suoh as the Story of the Cyclops and the Visit to the 
 Dead) which originally existed in a separate state, and 
 were afterwards incorporated into the elaborate epic. 
 But large admissions in this direction could presumably 
 be made by the advocates of substantial or epic unity. 
 For such a view would only involve the supposition that 
 a single epic poet had found certain materials ready to 
 hand of which he could of course avail himsefl without 
 shame or hesitation. 
 
 On the other hand any fatal attack on the simple 
 authorship of the Odyssey can only be made on the 
 ground that the Odyssey like the Iliad is due to^a process 
 ■ ■ uf Evolution, that is, to the expansion of a.sKbr£6r"and 
 simpler work by those who took pains to preserve the 
 unity, at the expense of the simplicity, of the story. 
 And it is clear that in regard to the work of a some- 
 what late and artificial literary editor, such a hypo- 
 thesis is by no means extravagant or even forced ; so 
 that those who would maintain the unity of authorship 
 of the Odyssey have a deal more to do than merely to 
 harp on the harmonious appearance of the existing 
 poem. The problem under discussion is not whether 
 the Odyssey in its present state exhibits superficial 
 unity (for the thing is quite patent) but whether beneath 
 the surface there is evidence still remaining that this 
 unity is due not to single authorship but to clever 
 accommodation. 
 
 The German school of critics, from Nitzsch down to 
 Cauer, Kirchhoff and Fick, have laboured on various 
 grounds to show that the apparent unity of the Odyssey 
 is artificial rather than genuine : in England ' scholars 
 have been and are much divided on the subject. In 
 another chapter the views of Kirchhoff which are the 
 most celebrated will be described somewhat in detail. 
 Here it will suf&ce to present in a more general way the 
 
 ' Probably the very ingenuity and completeness of the reasons 
 alleged by KirchhofE and the German School raises a prejudice 
 against them in the minds of many. But we should take care 
 not to reject the wheat along with the chafi. 
 
134 The Homeric Bards [chap. II 
 
 reasons which make it difficult to believe that the 
 Odyssey as we read it proceeded from a single hand. 
 At the same time it will be made abundantly clear to 
 the student that the question is a complicated one 
 and that we hardly possess the data for arriving at 
 quite definite conclusions. 
 
 Let us consider the question first on the ground of 
 antecedent probability. So far we claim to have settled 
 two limits* of date with more or less 
 Period of exactness — i.e., the middle of the ninth 
 decadence century, B.C., for the Iliad and Odyssey 
 of Ionian epic, in some truly epic form; and the middle 
 of the sixth century, B.C., for the text as 
 we read it. Here is evidently a lacuna, a period of 
 three centuries (roughly speaking), during which the 
 poems were handed down, and in all probability at 
 least during the earlier portion of the period, not by 
 writing so much as by oral transmission. 
 M^ This was also the period of epic decadence, as evid- 
 enced by what we know of the Cyclic poems, the school 
 of Hesiod, and the homeric Hymns. Now taking the 
 above statement as approximately true (and no more 
 is claimed for it) we see at once the antecedent prob- 
 ability that the poems would be affected to some extent. 
 Oral transmission, especially in a productive though 
 decadent period, could not help leaving its mark on 
 Homer. We have already seen that even in the later 
 period of transmission by writing (from the sixth cen- 
 tury onwards) when the poems were becoming more 
 stereotyped as they receded farther from the time of 
 their composition, even the vulgate text was inclined 
 to take colour as to dialect and perhaps as to vocabu- 
 lary from its Athenian association. 
 
 And that in the period prior to the sixth century 
 even large modifications could be admitted is almost 
 universally recognised, for the influence of later ideas 
 and notably of Boeotian (or Hesiodic) workmanship in 
 the Catalogue of the Iliad stands outside of controversy. 
 
 1 In both cases inferior limits, for our arguments only proved 
 that no later dates would suffice. 
 
sec. 5] Is the Odyssey composite ? 135 
 
 But the case of the Odyssey which bears clear 
 evidence of being later (on the whole) than the Iliad, 
 is even stronger. The most severe advocates of unity 
 of authorship from the Alexandrian critics to Monro 
 are forced to admit that in addition to the ' Catalogue ' 
 in the Iliad, the whole of the last book and part of the 
 twenty-third book of the Odyssey is late work patched 
 on to the end of the poem (much the same as what we 
 have maintained happened earlier to the Iliad). 
 And these conservative critics would not see much 
 difificulty in admitting in the body of the Odyssey 
 serious interpolations as, for instance, the ' Lay of 
 Demodocus.' ' 
 
 It is true, indeed, that mere interpolations, even serious 
 ones, stand on quite a different footing from a large 
 and general recasting of the poem by a later editor. 
 But what it is necessary to insist upon is this, that if 
 whole books, or substantial portions of books, could be 
 added to or foisted into the poems in the period of 
 decadence, there is not so much difficulty in going 
 further and admitting that our Odyssey is a re-mould 
 and an enlargement of a somewhat simpler epic. More- 
 over, the known existence of Nostoi or stories of the 
 Returns of the Achseans from Troy certainly gives 
 strength to the probability that this very elaborate 
 Nostos once existed in the form of a shorter and less 
 developed story. 
 
 So far we have been stating the probabilities of the 
 
 Odyssey being composite (in spite of an external 
 
 appearance of unity), apart from the 
 
 P*>s»^|e *'*"«* question of positive evidence that it is 
 
 < Redaction.' ^°" Without committing ourselves here 
 to the details of disintegrating theories, 
 which will always impress minds differently according 
 to their pre-dispositions, we must draw the attention 
 of the student to two alleged important features of the 
 Odyssey, the reality of which he will be in a position 
 
 ' Od. viii. 266-366. In spite of what has been alleged to the 
 contrary, this Lay has every appearance of being an inter- 
 polation, and its introduction is very abrupt and unexpected. 
 
136 The Homeric Bards [chap. II 
 
 to judge for himself after acquiring some slight famili- 
 arity with the poem. 
 
 Anyone who will honestly compare, we do not say 
 the Iliad, but the earlier portion of the Odyssey^ with 
 the later, can scarcely fail to realize something of a 
 difference. The interest towards the end of the story 
 of Odysseus, if kept up at all, is distinctly kept up at 
 a different level. The great length of each of the 
 Homeric poems makes it difficult for readers to feel 
 the full force of this test and to compare the general 
 effect of one large mass of Homer with the rest. Be- 
 sides it cannot be denied that in the most doubtful 
 portions there is something approaching the truly 
 Homeric quality, and this makes it far easier to com- 
 pare Homer with other literature than with itself. 
 But one test we can easily make use of, a criterion 
 supplied by Matthew Arnold himself, whose criticism 
 on the genuine Homeric style will be easily admitted 
 as the best. Arnold as a poet had persuaded himself 
 of the unity of authorship not merely of the Odyssey, 
 but of both poems, so he will not be discredited as a 
 witness partial to the late ' Redaction ' theory. Among 
 the qualities, then, which Arnold postulated as vital to 
 the ' grand ' style of Homer is that of Rapidity. The 
 poet never lingers ; never says a word too much ; gives 
 a clear impression often with a few touches, and imme- 
 diately passes on. Anyone familiar with the elemental 
 work in the story of Achilles, especially in the first 
 book of the Iliad, will feel the justness of this criticism. 
 Now apply this to the second half of the Odyssey. The 
 fact is that the hero takes only twelve books to go 
 all through the wanderings, exploits and sufferings of 
 the Return, for he reaches Ithaca in the first hundred 
 lines of the thirteenth book ; all he has then is to make 
 himself known in his home, to assert his authority — 
 and he takes just twelve books more to do so ! All the 
 insults and conversations, and recognitions and other 
 artifices for delaying the end may be cleverly con- 
 trived, but taken together become somewhat tedious, 
 and are certainly as far removed from Rapidity of style 
 as anything that could be possibly imagined. All we 
 
sec, 5] Is the Odyssey composite? 137 
 
 can say is, if the Odyssey had been seriously affected by 
 the Rhapsodes of the Decadence ; if their additions 
 had accumulated in the form of a sedimentary deposit 
 towcirds the close of the poem — the result that should 
 be anticipated from such a process could not in its 
 main features be very unlike parts of the poem 
 which has been actually transmitted to us. 
 
 The second peculiarity of the poem to which the 
 attention of critics has been drawn, and which may 
 quite properly arouse suspicion, is a 
 Duplication of somewhat frequent duplication (as it 
 incidents in tlie seems) of the same incident, with only 
 Odyssey. slight changes of form. When this 
 occurs it might very well seem to be 
 due either to imitation or to a clever combination of 
 separate versions which originally existed as alternatives. 
 The most striking instance of such parallelism is found 
 perhaps in the two sojourns of Odysseus in the islands 
 ' of the two goddesses, Circe and Calypso, both of whom 
 tried to retain him against his will. Though both ladies 
 are represented as goddesses, the circumstances are, it 
 is true, not quite the same. We cannot discuss the 
 minute points involved, but to say the least the coin- 
 cidence is remarkable. Again, in connection with the 
 rescue of Odysseus from Calypso there are two distinct 
 meetings of the Olympian deities, — another matter which 
 has been largely discussed by the advocates of different 
 theories. 
 
 Again in Book VIII., twice Demodocus sings about 
 the Achseans and both times Odysseus is moved to 
 tears and thus begins to reveal his identity. Moreover, 
 here there are, as we have seen above, independent 
 reasons for suspecting interpolation and therefore some 
 degree of accommodation. 
 
 Especially towards the end of the poem this class of 
 repetition becomes noticeable. There are double plots 
 of the suitors against the life of Telemachus, both of 
 which end in failure ; ' not to speak of the repeated 
 quarrels between Odysseus and the serving-maids, and 
 
 1 In Book xvi. and again in Book xx. 
 
138 The Homeric Bards [chap. II 
 
 frequent Recognition-scenes with various persons. 
 Lastly, the so-called ' Nekuia ' or ' Visit to the Dead ' 
 in Book XXIV. is almost certainly an imitation of that 
 in Book XL which is also held on fairly good grounds 
 ±0 be either late or seriously interpolated. 
 
 These are some of the general grounds on which the 
 theory of a composite Odyssey appears to be not un- 
 reasonable. The exact criteria which have been 
 devised by the Germans, particularly Kirchhoff, for 
 distinguishing more clearly the later from the earlier 
 work, are of course open to question. 
 
 Note on Plate VI. (opposite). 
 
 [We show opposite a photograph of the celebrated Rhodian 
 Pinax in the British Museum, representing the contest between 
 Hector and Menelaus over the dead body of Euphorbus. It 
 is generally assumed (and is indeed stated in a notice placed 
 under the plate in the Museum) that there is a remarkable 
 discrepancy between the scene as pictured here and as de- 
 scribed in the text (Iliad xvii. 106 ff). 
 
 We think the difficulty is more apparent on a superficial 
 than on a closer reading of the passage. For though the poet 
 says that Menelaus did not dare to wait for Hector's onslaught 
 — yet he insists that it was a very deliberate retirement in face 
 of superior strength. Now even granting that the design on 
 the plate would not of itself make the above situation clear 
 (for it shows the heroes as if actually fighting) ; if we assume 
 that the artist was not merely familiar with -the Homeric ac- 
 count, but was also working for others who also knew it, we 
 think it fair to maintain that his rendering of the text is not 
 merely allowable but even meritorious, taking into account 
 the necessary limitations of early vase-painting. How better 
 could the psychological moment of this deliberate retreat be 
 emphasised than by representing the weaker warrior as holding 
 his ground until he actually felt the touch of his enemy's spear ? 
 See also p. 158.] 
 
[ 139 ] 
 
 § 6. What then we mean by 
 * Homer' 
 
 We have still to put a natural and pertinent query : — 
 
 What, then, has become of Homer the Bard ? And it 
 
 is important that we should ask this 
 
 Is no place question, if only to secure that our ideas 
 
 left for about it are not confused and confusing. 
 'Homer the ,it j ■ • •j.-i. 
 
 Bard '7 **^ commenced our inquiry with a 
 
 statement regarding the wide and long- 
 standing tradition concerning a personal Homer, and 
 even if we now see that the tradition cannot be 
 allowed in its full extent yet we have never asserted 
 that it was to be entirely neglected, which would be 
 quite unscientific. Even if we are obliged, however 
 reluctantly to admit that Homer cannot justly claim 
 all that was credited to him before the evidence for the 
 claim was sifted, yet can he not have done something 
 — and if so, what ? Because his empire is to be neces- 
 sarily curtailed owing to the exigency of modern criti- 
 cism, does it follow that he is to be entirely dethroned 
 and cast out, as the father of Zeus was dethroned and 
 put out of sight at the advent of the ruthless Olympians 
 (who, by the way, according to Aristotle's statement 
 largely owed their position and power to Homer) ? 
 
 This question, we repeat it, deserves our most careful 
 attention, if we would not fall into a very serious fallacy 
 which it seems to us some writers do actually fall into. 
 On the one hand, nothing that we have advanced 
 militates against the idea to which many even en- 
 lightened critics cling, that in some stage of what we 
 have called the evolution of the poems — whether it 
 was the beginning, the middle or the end of the true 
 creative epoch (for the period of decadence does not 
 come into the question) — a master mind arose who 
 more perhaps than any other of the long line of bards 
 breathed his soul into the epic, and made it what it is. 
 
140 The Homeric Bards [chap. 11 
 
 To some this will seem a sensible, to others a necessary 
 proposition. But, on the other hand, in whatever 
 form we admit the proposition there is still, to my 
 mind at least (and I know good authorities who agree 
 with the view), an insuperable difficulty in going further 
 and asserting that such a bard, even though supreme, 
 can be justly accounted the Homer of tradition. 
 
 What exactly are the results we have so far reached 
 in our inquiry ? We saw that no evidence for Homer 
 
 could be trusted except internal evi- 
 
 Our position dence, and the internal evidence appears 
 
 reYiewed. to show that the poems are wanting in 
 
 each of the Three Unities which would 
 be necessary to verify the existence of the Personal 
 Homer who, as it used to be universally supposed, was 
 known to us by tradition. They are wanting in Unity 
 of Time,^ for their composition extends over more than 
 one age. They are wanting in Unity of Place, for they 
 represent the work of two schools, two countries, two 
 continents. Above all they are wanting (one of them 
 certainly) in the Unity of Subject, which is essential to 
 epic poetry, for the Iliad is, and is not, concerned with 
 its own plot and its own hero. In speaking of two 
 schools of Homeric poetry we must however guard 
 against misconception. In a certain sense, as it is 
 perfectly patent, there is but one school of Homeric 
 epic, a school with a very distinct character, a single 
 style, a single metre, a single theme — the gods and 
 heroes of the Trojan epoch. But as we can speak of 
 Plato and Aristotle as representing a single school of 
 philosophic thought, with the same principles expounded 
 in the same terminology — and yej; we can draw a very 
 sharp distinction, and even contrast, between the 
 Academic and the Peripatetic spirit — ^so in like manner 
 within the scope of Homeric epic we can trace similarity 
 and diversity as well. The primitive school of Thessaly 
 and the Achilleid is more fresh, more creative, more 
 unconscious ; the later school of Ionia, of the Odyssey 
 
 ' It is hardly needful to point out we are not here speaking of 
 the three unities in the conventional dramatic sense. 
 
sec. 6] ' Homer ' 141 
 
 and the Odyssean books of the Iliad, has preserved 
 enough of the original impulse and the primitive manner 
 to be truly Homeric^ (we have no other word), while by 
 making good use of its inheritance and developing 
 itself along its proper lines it has found in a larger 
 field of observation and of experience a new and maturer 
 beauty, so that many good judges of poetry have pro- 
 claimed the Odyssey to be superior to the Iliad ! It all 
 depends upon the standpoint. If you look for senti- 
 ment, for artistic effect, for more developed style, and 
 for all the qualities of the literary epic, certainly the 
 Ionic school is finer. But if you want elemental passion, 
 the ' Sturm und drang ' of human life just emerging 
 from savagery, and yet loving all that is high and 
 noble, manly and pure — if you would drink of the 
 waters of Greek life at their limpid and unsullied foun- 
 tain head (which is also the ultimate source, as far 
 as we can trace it, of our complex intellectual life) — if 
 (to express the idea in another way) you are drawn less 
 to the man than to the boy, to the boy whose voice and 
 gesture and every glance of his eye speaketh the man 
 that is in him — then to you the story of Achilles is more, 
 much more, than Odysseus and Nausicaa and Penelope 
 and the Suitors. 
 
 Accordingly, if we are still to cling to the idea of a 
 personal Homer in the sense explained, namely, that 
 
 there must have been a great bard at 
 
 Two views of some One epoch of Homeric develop- 
 
 • Homep • ment far more powerful, more original, 
 
 considered, and more Homeric than the rest — and 
 
 that this is the Homer whom we seek, 
 the Homer of history and tradition, the supreme Day-star 
 of European literature — we grant the hypothesis is 
 attractive, but it seems to contain a fallacy. Does 
 this great Homeric Homer represent the early school 
 or the later ? Was he a Thessalian or an Ionic Greek ? 
 
 ' We liave maintained above that part of our ' Homer ' is 
 late and belongs to the period of Decadence. This clearly would 
 not come in any sense into the present consideration unless to 
 confuse the issue still further. 
 
142 The Homeric Bards [chap. II 
 
 Nearly all the great critics from Wolf downwards incline 
 to one side or the other, and thus we might be led into 
 a discussion of a new controversy just when we seem 
 to be escaping from the old one. 
 
 But consider whether it would not be useless ? If 
 you assume, as you clearly do assume, that there is an 
 element of historic basis in the tradition of Homer, 
 surely in consistency you are bound to admit that he 
 was an Ionic Greek. This is the one point about which 
 the tradition is fairly clear (though we remarked above 
 that it may be reasonably explained, or rather explained 
 away, by the Ionic dialect clothed in which the poems 
 have come down to us). Besides, as far as our theory 
 is concerned, in the later work, especially in the Odyssey, 
 there is far clearer trace of personal influence evidenced 
 by unity and elaboration than in the more primitive 
 poem which is for us enshrined in a longer and more 
 elaborate one. Hence those who put Homer at the end 
 of the period of Homeric evolution can allege strong 
 arguments and, as a matter of fact, make out a good 
 case for their opinion. 
 
 But, then, what becomes on this, which we admit 
 is a plausible hypothesis of the earlier school ? Had 
 they no great poet, or at least no commandingly repre- 
 sentative one who could put in a claim to the name 
 of Homer ? If the creator of Achilles, the founder at 
 least of the Iliad, is to be left out of the count ; if he 
 is not Homeric, surely the name loses its spell, and 
 it matters very little whether you restrict the name to 
 one particular bard of Ionia or allow that it belongs 
 in varying degrees to several. To my mind, as hinted 
 above, the primitive school is of far higher interest 
 than the later, not merely because it is primitive, but 
 because within its own limitations its work is of a higher 
 order. The first book of the Iliad is to me more than 
 any book of the Odyssey, nay, than the whole twenty- 
 four of them taken together. But I have no right to 
 press this preference on others. All I need maintain, 
 and have a right to maintain with regard to the early 
 work is this, that it has excellences which are distinc- 
 tive, and that it made the later work possible and gave 
 
sec. 6] ' Homer ' 143 
 
 it at least, in a general way, its character. Hence, if 
 you reserve the name Homer to the bard who gave its 
 later form to the Homeric poetry, you are at the same 
 time depriving him of half, and more than half, his 
 glory. 
 
 From these reasons it seems to follow necessarily 
 
 that for those who accept modern theories in any shape 
 
 or form, to use the name ' Homer ' as 
 
 The only sure applied to any single person is worse 
 meaning of the than futile, because it is misleading. 
 name of « Homer.' • Homer ' in Hellenic times meant simply 
 the author of the poems as they had 
 received them, without any special theory as to the 
 source whence they emanated. It was an accident 
 that the ancients believed, what was never questioned 
 (or only in a very academical sort of way), that Homer 
 was a single person, one and undivided. And it 
 seems to us that it is but right to pay this compliment 
 to tradition that we should not change its whole 
 meaning and spirit while clinging to what becomes 
 on the hypothesis in question the deadest of dead 
 letters. 
 
 Let us scrupulously retain the appellation ' Homer ' 
 for the author of the poems, as we have received them, 
 regarding it as a mere accident that unlike the ancients 
 we are, perhaps unfortunately, aware that he was not 
 one but many, or at least more than one. It is, possible 
 that there was one Bard above all the others of his own 
 or any other age or school. It is possible, and to me 
 seems most probable, that there was one belonging to 
 each of the two schools. But we are not now in a 
 position to prove that he was only two— certainly he 
 was not less than two — and as far as strict evidence 
 will take us there may have been very many Homers. 
 
[ 144 ] 
 
 Chapter III 
 
 Historical Outlines of the 
 Homeric Controversy 
 
 Codex A, with the Scholia, was pubhshed in Venice, 
 by Villoison, in the year 1788. This event was one 
 
 of the most memorable in the annals of 
 Controversy Greek scholarship, not least because it 
 Wolfs*"" ^^^ ^° *^® Prolegomena, which was pub- 
 Prolegomena, lished in 1795. Even as early as 1783, 
 
 Wolf had edited both the Iliad and 
 Odyssey and in the prefaces had given some slight indi- 
 cation of his sceptical tendencies. Then he had set to 
 work collecting matter bearing on the subject, with in- 
 finite labour, when he found his trouble suddenly n iper- 
 seded by Villoison's publication of the Venetian MS. 
 He meditated for seven years on the new information 
 contained in the Scholia, and then woke up an unsus- 
 pecting world by exploding in it the bomb-shell of his 
 theory. He declared boldly that Homer consists of 
 a collection of lays or short poems composed in a rather 
 disconnected sort of manner, transmitted orally through 
 several ages, and finally recast in their present form 
 by Peisistratus, about the middle of the sixth century, 
 B.C. The argument on which he laid most stress was 
 the impossibUity of writing, at least for literary pur- 
 poses, as early as the reputed date of the first com- 
 position of the poems. But Wolf did not altogether 
 deny the existence of a personal Homer. On the con- 
 trary, he laid a good deal of stress on the belief that 
 among the authors of the short lays there was one of 
 surpassing genius — to whom, perhaps, the greater 
 number of the lays in their disconnected form are due,' 
 
 ' Prolegomena, p. cxxxv. 
 
Historical Outlines 145 
 
 while the remainder are due to Homeridae, bards who 
 were associated with Homer, and who worked under 
 his influence and along the lines he had traced out. 
 But the key-note of Wolf's position was the denial of 
 anything like constructive power or the art of framing 
 an epic poem, in our sense of the word, to the primitive 
 poets. This could only have been the work of a later 
 and more artificial era. 
 
 Before estimating this view it will be well to set down 
 one or two remarks concerning it. 
 
 And, first of all, we must not suppose that the attempt 
 of Wolf, such as it was, to account for the origin of the 
 poems was wholly original. Certainly Bentley had in 
 great part anticipated his view. Early in the same 
 century, Vico, of Naples, about the same time as 
 Bentley, put forward some views about the Iliad and 
 Odyssey — especially their place of composition — which 
 come surprisingly near the best results of latest criti- 
 cism ; and another Englishman, Robert Wood, who 
 wrote about a generation before Wolf, started the 
 theory about writing which has made Wolf's name so 
 famous. But the great German, if he did not in all 
 respects originate his theory, gave life to it, and brought 
 it vividly before the minds of men ; and so became to 
 all pratical intent the father of Homeric criticism. 
 
 Another point which has been overlooked, and which 
 is greatly to the credit of Wolf, is the conservative 
 tendency of his mind. He is so well known as the 
 destroyer of the ancient belief about Homer that it is 
 difiicult to realise how he shrank from doing any injury 
 to that honoured name. In fact, his whole mind re- 
 volted against the conclusions to which the facts, as 
 they presented themselves to his mind, drove him to 
 assent. He was moved by his feeling for the poetry 
 to ascribe the whole of it to one author as far as pos- 
 sible, but external considerations about Greek history 
 and the nature of poetical art wrung from him his 
 theory in spite of himself. He says ^ : " When I plunge 
 into the stream of epic story running on like a clear 
 
 ' Preface to the Iliad, p. xxii. 
 
146 The Homeric Controversy [chap. Ill 
 
 and rapid river, and think how there is in the poems, 
 if one takes a large view of them, a unity of colouring 
 [unus color] scarcely anyone could feel more rage and 
 indignation against me than I feel against myself." 
 I- Wolf refrained from applying this his theory to a 
 complete dismemberment of the Iliad and Odyssey, 
 though he had threatened to do so in 
 The Wolfian the Prolegomena. In fact he was very 
 in Germany, cautious in his method, and stated his 
 theory in the most elastic way, so that 
 it could be, and in fact was, developed on different lines 
 by later writers. The actual dismembering was carried 
 out by Lachmann, who gives us no less than eighteen 
 distinct lays in the Iliad, perhaps due to as many 
 distinct composers. Others have since tried the same 
 feat, but always with surprisingly different results. 
 Hermann attributed more than even Wolf had done, 
 to the prominent bard, declaring that to Homer is due 
 the original sketch both of the Iliad and of the Odyssey 
 as we possess them. 
 
 'if? It would be wearisome to trace all the modifications 
 which Wolfs views received at the hands of his suc- 
 cessors. So we shall merely consider some of the weak 
 points of the whole theory, before tracing the history 
 of the reaction against it. 
 
 It will be necessary first to say something on the 
 question of the transmission of the poems. We re- 
 marked that the impossibility of transmission, owing 
 to the non-existence of writing (at least literary writing), 
 was a point on which Wolf laid the greatest stress. 
 After he wrote many treatises were published on the 
 subject, which is an obscure one — so many that it would 
 sometimes seem as if the whole question of the author- 
 ship of the poems was supposed to hang oh this slender 
 thread, which was of course a very exaggerated view. 
 The general result, indeed, of the enquiry seems to be 
 that Wolf was premature in denying the existence of 
 writing among the Greeks earlier than 750 B.C. His 
 argument proceeded too much on our knowledge of 
 inscriptions, as though carving on stone and other sorts 
 of writing must necessarily have gone hand in hand. 
 
Historical Outlines 147 
 
 But even granting that the poems could not have been 
 written down at the date of their first composition, or 
 even soon afterwards, we are still far from any sound 
 conclusion as to the impossibility of their existence 
 even in a connected form. We have now pretty well 
 made up our minds that we are not in a position to 
 judge of the capacity of the human memory before 
 writing was common. And in fact instances have been 
 recorded of feats of memory as extraordinary as would 
 be involved in the oral transmission even of the Homeric 
 poems in their present form. 
 
 Wolf's second argument about the recension of Peisis- 
 tratus need not be discussed here as the question has 
 been already treated. It is enough to remind the 
 reader that it is now generally admitted that if the 
 tyrant did anything it was merely to establish a vulgate 
 text of the poems, by restoring them to their original 
 form and purifying them from corruptions. 
 
 Lastly, his argument as to the opposition between 
 nature and art must be condemned as a piece of un- 
 authorised Uterary dogmatism. Wolf knew little or 
 nothing of the internal arguments which disprove the 
 unity of authorship ; he simply laid it down as an 
 a priori impossibility in an early age for anything like 
 constructive power to exist. His own age was a time 
 of reaction against all artificiality, when people invented 
 their own ideals of the primitive man, and then pro- 
 ceeded to argue from those ideals. But they forgot 
 that when the poems were cut up the stipreme excel- 
 lence even of the mutilated fragments would still have 
 to be accounted for. The crystal when shattered into 
 smaller crystals has not yet given any clue to the mode 
 of its formation. The fact is we must take the poems 
 as they are, as a certain fact, and then see if they can 
 be made to give any evidence about themselves ; but 
 we have no right to formulate abstract rules about 
 possibilities of which we know next to nothing. 
 
 We have indicated the weak points in Wolf's position, 
 but it must always be granted that his contributions 
 to Homeric science were immense. He not only 
 drew attention to the subject, and prepared the way 
 
148 The Homeric Controversy [chap. Ill 
 
 for the work of others, but by his true appreciation of 
 the worth of the poetry ; by his insisting so much on 
 the conditions under which the poems were produced ; 
 and by his masterly exposition of his views, which really 
 contained many valuable elements of truth, he earned 
 a right to be classed among the very greatest of Homeric 
 scholars. 
 
 Wilhelm Nitzsch, of the University of Kill, wrote 
 various essays chiefly between 1830 and 1840. He is 
 known best as the originator of a re- 
 The reaction action against Wolf, whose theory he 
 against the attacked with a good deal of vehemence 
 Wolflan School, and a certain measure of success. In 
 his writings the question is still about 
 the personality of the poet Homer, an aspect of the 
 enquiry which we do not consider to be very fruitful, 
 For we must deal rather with the poems themselves, 
 and see what evidence they give as to the time, place, 
 and mode of their composition, and thus we shall be 
 more likely to make valuable discoveries than by start- 
 ing from preconceived notions about a person whose 
 supposed name is all that we really have about 
 him. 
 
 Nitzsch began by attacking Wolf's position, and 
 especially the argument he had based upon the late 
 introduction of writing. He also made a good point 
 as to the early origin of the poems, in something like 
 their present form, by pointing to the Cyclic poems which 
 belong at least to the earlier half of the eighth century, 
 B.C., and of which he says " we must allow that when 
 they were written the Iliad and the Odyssey must have 
 existed as to their general form and compass quite the 
 same as we have them now."' For which assertion 
 he gives the reason that the Cyclic poems were evidently 
 designed as supplements or introductions to the Iliad 
 and Odyssey. 
 
 But of course the polemic of Nitzsch, important 
 though it really is, is not his chief claim to a special 
 mention in a short outline of Homeric criticism. He 
 
 ' He Historia Homeri meletemata, p.. 152, 
 
Historical Outlines 149 
 
 formulated a view of his own, which we must briefly 
 describe. Wolf, as we saw, put Homer far back at 
 the very beginning of the period of epic poetry. Nitzsch 
 put him at the end of a literary epoch. Homer founded, 
 indeed, a new epoch, of a far higher kind than any that 
 had preceded him, but he was a great and constructive 
 artist in the sense denied vehemently by the Wolfian 
 school. To insist on this is the chief merit of Nitzsch, 
 not because of his views about a personal Homer, but 
 because he rescued criticism from the arbitrary assump- 
 tions of the earlier theory. No matter who, or how 
 many were the authors of the Iliad and the Odyssey — 
 no matter where or when they lived — the poems are 
 great poems, and their composer or composers were 
 great poets in the highest sense of the word. Unless 
 we recognise the facts of the case, and shkpe our theories 
 accordingly, we cannot make any real progress. And, 
 surely, no fact is more salient than a certain meed of 
 unity of conception and treatment that pervades the 
 poems. There may be, and are, many discrepancies and 
 even sutures here and there ; but turn and twist the 
 matter how we may, there is a striking and a superb 
 design manifested throughout the work, blurred, per- 
 haps, but never effaced. It is not the parti-coloured 
 patchwork of many shattered fragments, like the famous 
 rose-window of Lincoln Cathedral, where the broken 
 sunlight combines into a rude and not unpleasing har- 
 mony as it passes through the fantastic combination 
 of re-assorted colours. It is rather the perfect picture 
 expressed in the glass, the transparent glory of the 
 saints of old, the masterpiece of handiwork, in which 
 the artist speaks to us through his materials. The 
 tinted sun-ray may soothe the eye, and majestic groups 
 of colour strike us with a sense of beauty ; but to be 
 awe-struck at the sight is to feel that there is a design 
 fraught with a deep meaning, and that mere harmony 
 of form and colour is not even the whole design, much 
 less that it is the effect of a chance combination of 
 separate elements. 
 
 Bijt to return to Nitzsch. Feeling as he did that the 
 separate-lay theory must be wrong, he attributed con- 
 
I50 The Homeric Controversy [chap. Ill 
 
 structive work to the poet. Homer found a number 
 of short lays by other bards treating of the Trojan war, 
 and himself built out of them a new poem, longer and 
 more complex — ^in a word, a real epic poem — ^not, 
 indeed, the IliaA and the Odyssey quite in their modern 
 form (more especially the former), but still something 
 very different from the pre-existing materials. The 
 original form of the Iliad was a long poem on the 
 Wrath of Achilles ; the Odyssey may have been from the 
 same poet, who had made it more complete and filled 
 in with details than the other poem. Thus, to make 
 clear the essential distinction between the views of 
 Wolf and Nitzsch, the latter realised that constructive 
 and artistic unity is essential to the poems, and is the 
 work of their chief author or authors. According to 
 Wolf that unity is something accidental, and, so to 
 speak, imposed on the poems from without. It is 
 hardly necessary to point out that this view, as a 
 corrective to exaggeration, marks a very distinct step 
 in advance towards a sane and satisfactory theory of 
 Homeric authorship. But it was only a step. 
 
 After this preparation new ideas arose which, unlike 
 those of the Wolfian school, have found support and 
 
 even large development in England and 
 
 Constrnctive ^"^°"g English-speaking peoples. What 
 
 school In roay be called a constructive method of 
 
 England — criticism was warmly and successfully 
 
 Grote. advocated by Grote in his History of 
 
 Greece. The theory of an Achilleid 
 enshrined in a longer poem (as the pearl is embedded 
 in the oyster) is often spoken of, and not unjustly, as 
 Grote's theory. Like Nitzsch, he spent a good deal of 
 labour in demolishing the position of the Wolfians. 
 The following passage puts his reasons so clearly that 
 it is worth while quoting it : — 
 
 " What evidence is sufificient to negative the sup- 
 position that the Iliad or the Odyssey is a poem originally 
 and intentionally one ? Not simply gaps and contra- 
 dictions, though they be ever gross and numerous, 
 but the preponderance of them ; proofs of undesigned 
 
Historical Outlines 151 
 
 coalescence over the other proofs of designed adaptation, 
 scattered throughout the whole poems.'" 
 
 Again, after discussing the question of the Odyssey, 
 but referring to the Iliad, he writes "*: — 
 
 " There is some plausibility in these [the Wolfian] 
 reasonings, so long as the discrepancies are looked upon 
 as the whole of the case. But they are not the whole 0/ 
 the case ; for it is not less true that there are large 
 portions of the Iliad which present positive and un- 
 deniable evidences of coherence as antecedent and 
 consequent, though we are occasionally perplexed by 
 inconsistencies of detail. To deal with these latter is 
 a portion of the duties of the critic. But he is not to 
 treat the Iliad as if inconsistency prevailed everywhere 
 throughout its parts ; for coherence of parts — sym- 
 metrical antecedence and consequence — is discernible 
 throughout the larger half of the poem. Now, the 
 Wolfian theory explains the gaps and contradictions 
 throughout the narrative, but it explains nothing else." 
 
 With regard to Grote's positive theory for an Achilleid, 
 it will not be necessary to give his arguments, as this 
 would be merely to repeat what has been already 
 explained regarding ' The Evolution of the Iliad ; ' 
 moreover the History of Greece is in the hands of a large 
 number of English readers. Besides, as is natural in 
 a space of over half a century, many of Grote's state- 
 ments are now somewhat antiquated, and some of the 
 reasons which he advanced for his theory must be 
 considered invalid, even though the theory itself, 
 which on the whole he maintained with great acumen 
 and originality, remains substantially untouched by 
 later criticism. It is, moreover, but fair to record that 
 at least in England Grote's influence was very powerful 
 in breaking down obstinate prejudice. In fact he did 
 for the English-speaking world what Wolf had not 
 succeeded in doing, that is to force it fearlessly to free 
 the real difficulties of the Homeric problem. Grote 
 
 ' Hist, of Greece, vol. ii. (ed. 1869), p. 165. The italics are ourg. 
 ''Ibid., -p. 175. 
 
152 The Homeric Controversy [chap. Ill 
 
 treated of broad issues rather than questions of minute 
 scholarship, just as was best suited for readers who had, as 
 it were, to open their minds and undertake a new branch 
 of study. At the same time the great historian perhaps 
 unduly trusted his own critical faculty in deciding 
 very complex problems, a charge he brings incidentally 
 against the German critics whom he had set himself 
 to refute. In particular he decided that the eighth 
 book of the Iliad was primitive, a conclusion ably 
 refuted by Professor Jebb,' though he expresses agree- 
 ment with Grote's contentions in the main. Another 
 point in which Grote was hasty was in assuming the 
 absolute unity of authorship of the Odyssey, perhaps 
 because of the contrast presented by the poem to the 
 Iliad in regard to the compactness of its plot. 
 
 We may now proceed to consider another contribu- 
 tion towards the solution of the Homeric Problem, 
 more important than the one we have 
 Imnortant been discussing, and by far the most 
 
 advance made original and convincing piece of work 
 
 by Professor done by the English school. This is 
 Geddes. the book of Dr. Geddes, Professor (after- 
 wards Principal) of Aberdeen University, 
 entitled Problem of the Homeric Poems (published in 
 1878). Working under Grote's influence, and following 
 his conclusions implicitly. Professor Geddes set himself 
 to test them by a peculiar method of his own with a 
 view to finding a more scientific basis than was pro- 
 vided by Grote's comparatively superficial treatment.* 
 
 Taking then the theory of an Achilleid — and more- 
 over following Grote's view as to its original limits, 
 Geddes instituted a threefold comparison — that, namely, 
 between the two portions of the Iliad thus formed, and 
 the whole of the Odyssey. Adopting various tests, 
 
 1 See Introduction to Homer, pp. 122-125. 
 
 ' Professor Geddes own view of his relation to Grote is 
 interesting. He says (in his Preface) : " I claim to have brought out 
 new confirmations of the soundness of Grote's views, and of the 
 acuteness of his critical divination." He adds, however, that he 
 was led to undertake this rfile by the pure force of the evidence 
 ajid not at all in accordance wjth his own early prepossessions- 
 
Historical Outlines 153 
 
 chiefly consisting of the numerical occurrences of phrases 
 (especially of epithets) and other indications of differ- 
 ences of geographical and other knowledge ; of manners 
 and customs ; of religious views ; of ethical advance- 
 ment ; of latent sympathies and of local affinities ; 
 he was able to establish conclusions by a striking 
 series of arguments, which even when taken separately 
 carry great weight, though of course in varying degrees, 
 but when considered as cumulative reasoning appear 
 at least to the present writer to be wholly irresistible. 
 In stating our own views in the preceding chapter, we 
 have borrowed so freely from Professor Geddes' ysrork 
 and in many cases have even followed his method so 
 closely that it is unnecessary here to go over the ground 
 again in detail. 
 
 The important conclusions arrived at by Geddes' 
 method of enquiry are : — 
 
 I. The old Chorizontic line of cleavage between the 
 Iliad and Odyssey was hasty and unscientific — the true 
 line of cleavage being between the Achilleid on the one 
 hand, and on the other the Odyssey and the non-Achil- 
 lean books of the Iliad ; which are not only demonstrably 
 later than the Achillean, hut also Odyssean in tone and 
 sympathy. 
 
 II. The Achilleid certainly emanated from Thessaly, 
 and was the work of an early Achaean school prior to 
 the great migrations, owing to which it was taken from 
 Thessaly to Asia Minor. 
 
 ^ III. The non-Achillean work (including the Odyssey) 
 was composed in Ionia, and the whole of the -poems 
 were given their present shape by a later school 
 working in Ionia, of course subsequent to the great 
 Migrations. 
 
 The above conclusions appear to be fully warranted 
 by the evidence which Geddes tabulated in a Mathe- 
 matical form, and believing them to be 
 Part of Geddes' widely accepted, we have incorporated 
 theory not well them in our own attempted (partial) 
 established, solution of the Problem. 
 
 But Geddes had other views relating 
 
154 The Homeric Controversy [chap. Ill 
 
 to the personality of Homer which seem far from 
 demonstrated. Assuming, as Grote did before him, 
 that the Odyssey is wholly the work of a single bard, 
 and having established a striking connection between 
 it and the non- Achillean books of the Iliad, it was not 
 wonderful that he should insist that the bard who 
 composed all this ought to be called Homer. It was 
 perhaps natural or even inevitable that the learned 
 critic should use his method of induction as a means 
 of giving a new lease to what looks like the old tradi- 
 tional theory of Homer, though as we stated above, 
 it must be in reality something very different from it. 
 What concerns us now, however, is that the evidence 
 adduced by Geddes proves nothing whatever as to the 
 personality of Homer — nothing in fact as to the later 
 body of poetry except that it is diverse from the 
 Achilleid and that it belongs to the Ionian school. 
 How that school was constituted, what or how many 
 bards it contained may or may not be a suitable sub- 
 ject for speculation ; but certainly in the arguments 
 adduced regarding the poetry itself there is nothing to 
 throw any real light on the point, much less to decide 
 it finally. 
 
 Mr. Leaf, in his scholarly edition of the Iliad, agrees 
 in the main with the views of Grote and Geddes regard- 
 ing the Achilleid, except that he rejects 
 Mr. Walter Leaf f^m it Book VIII., as consisting in great 
 *" jebb." P^""* °^ imitation and repetition and for 
 
 other reasons. Moreover, in other points 
 he worked out the theory on distinct lines with great 
 detail in his first edition of the Iliad (volume ii., 1888). 
 In particular he thought he had discovered a criterion 
 for deciding the primitive parts included in the sequence 
 of Books XII., XIIL, XIV., XV.— this being the 
 absence of a walled-in camp for the Grecian ships, such 
 a wall being apparently foisted into the early work by 
 a later bard in a way that causes disturbance and con- 
 fusion in this part of the poem. Details of this sort 
 are not of a nature to commend themselves to ordinary 
 readers ; and indeed Mr. Leaf subsequently felt so 
 doubtful of some of his theories that in his later edition 
 
Historical Outlines 155 
 
 (1902) he decided to withdraw portions of his criticism 
 including, very wisely, the Tabular View which he had 
 originally printed, showing no less than eight distinct 
 strata of periods which he had previously beheved he 
 could discern in the structure of the Iliad. This with- 
 drawal of Leaf in no way weakens his adhesion to the 
 doctrine of the Achilleid. 
 
 Sir Richard Jebb, in the little book (1887) to which 
 I have so often expressed my indebtedness, agrees with 
 Leaf in the main, and puts the arguments for his views 
 clearly and strongly, though without committing himself 
 to the detailed criticism just mentioned. We have also 
 referred above to Professor Jebb's suggestion that the 
 great sequence of Books II., III., IV., V., VI., VII. of 
 the Iliad possibly has been inserted at a later date by 
 the original author of the Achilleid; and have char- 
 acterised the theory as one which contains grave in- 
 herent difficulty. However, as he does not insist on 
 it, but rather puts it forward tentatively, it is evidently 
 unnecessary to say anything further about it in the 
 present Chapter. 
 
 In 1866 Professor Paley commenced to propound^ 
 his celebrated and extraordinary theory about the 
 origin of the Iliad and Odyssey, a theory 
 Professor which met with much attention from 
 Foley's scholars — especially in Germany — and 
 Paradox. which, extravagant as it may appear 
 to many, yet can hardly be said to 
 have been without marked influence on the course of 
 Homeric learning. Paley's view, which is far more 
 revolutionary than that of Wolf, is as follows. Down 
 to the later classical period — after Herodotus and 
 Thucydides and the Tragedians and Aristophanes, that 
 is to the period of Plato, or, say, the beginning of the 
 fourth century, b.c. — there was nothing in existence 
 corresponding to our Homeric poems. What existed 
 was the traditional mass of mythological ballads dealing 
 with the story of Troy, covering a much larger field 
 
 ' In the first vol. of his edition of the Iliad, and later invarious 
 articles from 1875 to 1879. 
 
156 The Homeric Controversy [chap. Ill 
 
 than our poems, including the so-called cyclic epics, 
 and generically known by the vague and traditional 
 name of ' Homer.' It is to this confused mass of 
 epic that the references in Greek literature to Homer 
 apply, and from this was taken the themes of the 
 Greek poets, and especially the Attic dramatists. 
 
 Sometime previous to the end of the fifth century, 
 an unknown and anonymous writer, perhaps Anti- 
 machus of Colophon, compiled the Iliad and the 
 Odyssey out of the pre-existing mass of material, and 
 by the time Plato wrote these new poems were 
 beginning to supplant the older ' Homer ' in general 
 estimation. 
 
 This is tantamount to maintaining that our Homer 
 is a very audacious but very successful piece of literary 
 imposture. No doubt such cases have occurred (per- 
 haps hardly on such a gigantic scale), but we are asked 
 to believe that this took place without a murmur, 
 without a question, among a people which has been 
 justly called a nation of critics, a conservative and 
 jealous people in all that touched their own history 
 and traditions, and at the most intensely intellectual 
 period of their national life, or indeed of the life of the 
 world. Surely there should have been some trace of 
 this event, which Mr. Paley certainly would admit was 
 an important event ? Plato himself, according to the 
 hypothesis, knew our Homer, frequently quotes him, 
 without a sign of hesitation or doubt that he was the 
 true Homer, which had come down from time imme- 
 morial as the precious heirloom of the Hellenic race. 
 This is not a question of a Recension, a new Edition of 
 the text, but of a substantially new literary work ; 
 though based upon preexisting un-written ballad songs 
 and those merely a fragment of the great mass of ballad 
 literature which up to the date we are considering had 
 passed under the venerated name of Homer. 
 
 Without discussing further the truth of what we 
 think we are fairly entitled to call a Paradox, it must 
 be admitted that the learned Professor not merely 
 showed great ingenuity in propounding it, but that 
 some of his arguments are really not quite easy to 
 
Historical Outlines 157 
 
 dispose of. And not merely in Germany did he impress 
 his arguments on the minds of scholars, but even within 
 the last few years Professor Sayce of Oxford has declared 
 that as a result of the controversy as to the antiquity 
 of our Homer which he carried on against Dr. Monro, 
 he has finally persuaded himself of the truth of Paley's 
 position.^ 
 
 The arguments deduced to prove the Paradox are 
 three-fold, being based on philology, literature, and 
 art. We must consider them briefly. 
 Paley's The argument from philology depends 
 
 arguments, on the presence of late pseudo-ai-cha- 
 isms in our text. In this department 
 Paley, whose philology was often very weak and un- 
 authorised, yet did good service to Homeric scholar- 
 ship by the attention he drew to the subject. The 
 question is very technical, and has been sufficiently 
 dealt with elsewhere.' 
 
 The argument from literature is of greater importance. 
 Paley noticed that the tragedians who frequently dealt 
 with the Trojan myths, yet borrowed more from the 
 cyclic poets, than from our Homer, and that there is 
 a general absence of allusion, not merely to the text 
 but even to the special subjects of our poems. And 
 regarding the historians he remarks': "Whereas the 
 prose writers before Plato, e.g., Herodotus and Thucy- 
 dides, make only the most scant allusions to our Homeric 
 poems (Herodotus only twice under the name of the 
 Iliad), they become quite household words in the writ- 
 ings of Plato ; he quotes them continually with the same 
 freedom and fanjiliarity as modern essayists would 
 quote Shakespeare."* Perhaps Mr. Paley exaggerates, 
 not of course with regard to Plato, but with regard 
 to his predecessors. Moreover, the avoidance by the 
 Tragedians of borrowing from Homer is probably due 
 
 1 See Appendix (contributed by Sayce) to MahafEy's Greek 
 Classical Literature, vol. i., part i, p. 256, footnote. See also his 
 edition of Herodotus, i.-iii., p. 157. 
 
 ^ See ' The Homeric Dialect,' § 4 of chap. i. 
 
 ' Iliad, vol. i., p. xxvi. 
 
 * See Iliad, vol. i., p. Ixii. 
 
158 The Homeric Controversy [chap. Ill 
 
 to their reverence for him and to the familiarity of their 
 audiences with his work. Plato himself says that 
 Homer (our Homer ex hypoihesi) was the father and 
 the originator of the Tragedians. Finally, even if we 
 admit the argument (as it stands) to be impressive, 
 yet at best it is a negative one and as such could not 
 bear the strain of so impossible a theory.^ 
 
 The argument from art is not so negative, but yet is 
 inconclusive. It is based upon the remarkable corre- 
 spondence between the life depicted in the poems and 
 that depicted in the vase-paintings of the late Peri- 
 clean era. This is essentially a topic for experts in 
 archaeology to deal with.^ Here there is only one 
 remark to make on the point. Mr. Paley thinks that 
 those who disagree with him must " suppose that in 
 defiance of all that we know of the necessary law of 
 progress in civilized communities the military art was 
 for five or four centuries absolutely stationary." 
 
 We must remember that in the poems we have side 
 by side various types of military accoutrements de- 
 scribed belonging to th6 different ages of composition. 
 If some of these types correspond more or less generally 
 with later types, we may think it strange, but there is 
 no manifest impossibility. Whereas, when we come 
 to matters of detail (even on Professor Paley's own 
 showing), there are many obscure questions regarding 
 the interpretation of Homeric descriptions of Homeric 
 dress and armour ; and it is more than likely in certain 
 cases that the interpreters may have been influenced 
 in their views by vase-paintings which represent things 
 generically similar to some of the types of the poems. 
 This consideration ought to give us caution, and the 
 whole subject appears to be a good instance of the 
 extreme difficulties which surround any attempt to 
 
 1 Another answer to the difficulty is that it would prove too 
 much, namely, that not merely were the Iliad and Odyssey non- 
 existent, but also the materials out of which according to 
 Professor Paley they were compiled. 
 
 • He also argues, as we think wrongly, from the Rhodian 
 Pinax, figured above, opposite p. 138. See note on that page. 
 
Historical Outlines 159 
 
 settle the origin or the date of the poems. But 
 whatever comes out in the end, surely it will not be 
 Professor Paley's Paradox ! 
 
 Hardly any theory since the time of the Prolegomena 
 has created so much interest both in Germany and else- 
 where as that of Kirchhoff. Being con- 
 Kirchhoffs vinced that the analysis of the Iliad into 
 work upon its component parts had been carried out 
 
 the QdyBsey. on the whole convincingly, Kirchhoff 
 believed that the time had arrived for 
 applying a similar method of criticism to the later and 
 more compact poem. We have already pointed out 
 that there is an undoubted difference between the two 
 cases, and that we believe it is no easy task to dis- 
 integrate the Odyssey, though portions of the poem 
 contain evidence of late and even decadent work. 
 
 However, Kirchhoff's attempt cannot be passed over 
 here lightly — at least the student may expect some 
 outline of his views and of his proposed criteria for 
 distinguishing the purer metal from the alloy.' 
 
 His endeavour, then, being to discover the sutures 
 which separate what is primordial from what is adven- 
 titious, two divisions seemed to commend themselves 
 to him as, at least, plausible. One of these would 
 separate the early books of the poem, the part known 
 as the Telemacky, from the succeeding books, which 
 deal directly with Odysseus. It is certain that the con- 
 nection of the Telemacky with the rest of the poem 
 is a loose one, and that the poem would lose compara- 
 tively little of its surpassing interest if the early books 
 were withdrawn. At. the same time, the fact that such 
 interest as they have is wholly subordinated to the 
 hero of the Odyssey, fairly disposes of the rash hypo- 
 thesis that the Telemacky ever existed as a separate 
 poem. 
 
 The second attempted division is of a more subtle 
 
 ■' As the whole Odyssey is undoubtedly late (in comparison 
 with most of the Iliad) the latest additions to it will naturally 
 betray inferior workmanship, a principle which we studiously 
 warned the reader against assuming in the case of the older 
 poem. 
 
i6o The Homeric Controversy [chap. Ill 
 
 nature. The story of the Odyssey is the story of the 
 
 return of Odysseus from the Trojan 
 
 'Kostos ' war, and of his vengeance on the suitors 
 
 and two who had been annoying his wife and 
 
 ' RedaotiouB.' wasting his substance. Now the ex- 
 tremely compHcated nature of the plot, 
 which is pointed to so triumphantly by the defenders 
 of the single authorship theory, is precisely the cir- 
 cumstance that raises suspicion. The theory we are 
 considering proceeds on the hypothesis that the 
 original poem was a mere Nostos, or Return of a 
 Hero, like those which were afterwards embedded in 
 five books of the Cyclic poems, and which seem to have 
 been in vogue even before the Odyssey was completed.' 
 This Nosfos contained most of the adventures of the 
 hero down to his landing in Ithaca ; and it was enlarged 
 probably at a later date, by what was practically a 
 distinct poem, dealing chiefly with the suitors and the 
 vengeance taken on them by Odysseus. But we have 
 not yet got the poem in its final form. The original 
 Nostos with its sequel constituted what is called by 
 Kirchhoff the ' older Redaction' of the Odyssey, and 
 this has been put back as much as one hundred and 
 fifty years earlier than the ' second Redaction,' or the 
 present form of the poem, into which also the Telemachy 
 has been incorporated. 
 
 And what are supposed to be the main characteristics 
 of the later and inferior as contrasted with the earlier ? 
 They are chiefly two. 
 
 (i.) The prominent part played by the Suitors in the 
 latter half of the poem, and the scenes of unbridled 
 insolence and dissipation in which they figure, are sup- 
 posed to belong to the interest centred in Telemachus, 
 whose adventures have been prefixed to the poem. 
 
 (ii.) Connected with this development of the plot, 
 the disguise of Odysseus as a beggar by the action of 
 Athena, and with it the degradation and insult which 
 
 ' Odysseus, e.g., states that he was asked by ^olos to relate 
 • Ilium and the ships of the Argives, and the Return of the A chaans,' 
 l\iov 'Apyeiav re veas Koi voittov 'Axatav. — Od. X. 15. 
 
Historical Outlines i6i 
 
 is heaped upon the hero, and which, being recounted 
 at such length, appears to detract not a little from his 
 dignity as the central figure of a great epic poem. 
 
 So that a great deal of the latter part of the Odyssey, 
 including the scenes with Eumaeus, the trial with the 
 bow, and the slaying of the Suitors (not to speak of 
 some scenes — as the final episode of the descent of the 
 Suitors into Hades — ^which were later additions still) 
 along with the Telemachy are to be considered the work 
 of the later bards. In its original form the Nostos, — or 
 the Return, would have commenced with the arrival of 
 the Odysseus at the land of the Phseacians ; would have 
 been continued by a good part of the long narrative to 
 Alcinous, which now comprises Books IX. to XII. — 
 though not the whole of it ; and would have concluded 
 with the arrival at Ithaca by the help of the Phseacians, 
 the conversation with Penelope in Book XIX,, and the 
 Recognition scene in Book XXIII. 
 
 Another point insisted on is the greater compression 
 and rapidity noticeable in the style of what looks like 
 earlier work ; the later artists being inclined to run into 
 expansiveness and greater detail. As a single instance 
 of what is meant : — in the older parts the companions 
 of Odysseus are very lightly touched on ; later they 
 become more strongly marked characters, with an 
 important action of their own.* We have already 
 discussed the argument based on the frequent repeti- 
 tions in the story, and we need not give a new illustra- 
 tion of it by repeating all we said in the last Chapter 
 on this subject. 
 
 Such, in outline, are the views of our modern critics 
 of the Odyssey. We have not done more than briefly 
 expound this opinion, without discussing its claims on 
 our acceptance. We are quite satisfied to quote Pro- 
 fessor Jebb's criticism which strikes one as marked by 
 all the sobriety and justness that we should expect 
 from that eminent scholar. He says,^ " Even those 
 
 ' For instance, Eurylochus in Book x. This, and some other 
 points, are taken from Mr. George Wilkins' Growth of the Homeric 
 Poems, a work which gives a good summary of Kirchhofi's theory. 
 
 ' Introduction to Homer, p. 131 (the italics are mine). 
 
 M 
 
i62 The Homeric Controversy [chap. Ill 
 
 who cannot accept his [Kirchhoff's] theory in detail 
 must (I think) allow that he has proved two general 
 propositions, or at least has shown them to he in the highest 
 degree probable, (i.) The Odyssey contains distinct 
 strata of poetical material from different sources and 
 periods. (2.) The poem owes its present unity of form 
 to one man ; but under this unity of form there are 
 perceptible traces of a process by which different com- 
 positions were adapted to each other. " 
 
 Even so. Kirchhoff can be hardly said to have 
 demonstrated his propositions, though he has shown 
 some of them to be in the highest degree probable: 
 There is much in the nature of his arguments which 
 makes them if not arbitrary, at least to some ex- 
 tent dependent on our modern standard of taste, 
 and even the peculiar feeling of the individual 
 critic. What we seem to need is something like an 
 application to the Odyssey of the mathematical method 
 which Dr. Geddes applied so successfully to the Iliad. 
 Although we do not admit this theory of the Evolu- 
 tion of the Odyssey to be on the same level as that of 
 the evolution of the Iliad (which we believe is very 
 widely accepted), we have thought it would be useful 
 for the student to see on the page opposite a tabular 
 view of the books of the Odyssey arranged according 
 to Kirchhoff. 
 
 Christ, in the edition of the Iliad which he published 
 in 1884, expounded a view which has met with con- 
 siderable attention, and has been popu- 
 larised in France by Croiset * who added 
 YiewB of Christ to it a further elaboration of his own. 
 
 ^ar^^\ These writers and tfiose who follow 
 ana uroiset m , . t. j.i. i. . x j- 
 
 France. them approach the subject from a 
 
 rather different standpoint from Kirch- 
 hoff, as they revert to the theory of 
 short lays from which an epic was evolved. They are 
 not, however, opposed to the opinion advocated in 
 this handbook, and characterised as a via media between 
 an extreme assertion of unity and an extreme disin- 
 
 ' In his Histoire de la Litterature Grecque (1890), vol i., ch. 4. 
 
Historical Outlines 163 
 
 TABULAR SCHEME OF BOOKS 
 To Illustrate the ' Redactions ' of the Odyssey 
 
 ACCORDING TO KiRCHHOFF'S HYPOTHESIS. 
 
 Book I. o Introduction — Telemachy — 2nd 
 
 Redaction. 
 
 Book II. a Telemachy — Second Redaction, 
 
 Book III. y Telemachy — Second Redaction. 
 
 Book IV. S Telemachy — Second Redaction. 
 
 Book Y. c Original Nostos. 
 
 Book ¥1. C Original Nostos. 
 
 Book ¥11. n Original Nostos (with exceptions). 
 
 Book VIII. Late Nostos — Second Redaction. 
 
 Book IX. ' Original Nostos. 
 
 Book X. K Late Nostos — Second Redaction. 
 
 Book XI. A. Original Nostos {with exceptions) 
 
 Book XII. II Late Nostos — Second Redaction. 
 
 Book XIII. V Original Nostos to Une 184 (then 
 Continuation — First Redac- 
 tion). 
 
 Book XIV. i Continuation— First Redaction. 
 
 Book XV. o Telemachy — Second Redaction. 
 
 Book XVI. ^ Continuation — First Redaction 
 (with exceptions). 
 
 Book XVII. p Continuation — First Redaction 
 (with exceptions). 
 
 Book XVIII. o- Continuation — First Redaction. 
 
 Book XIX. T, Continuation — First Redaction. 
 
 Book XX. V Continuation— First Redaction. 
 
 Book XXI. c/> Continuation — First Redaction. 
 
 Book XXII, X Continuation — First Redaction. 
 
 Book XXIII. f^ Continuation to line 296 — First 
 Redaction (then Second Redac- 
 tion). 
 
 Book XXIV. ft) Second Redaction. 
 
 N.B.— According to Kirchhoff, the date of the First Redac- 
 tion was before 800 B.C. ; that of the Second Redaction about 
 660 B.C. (The date of the Originai. Nostos would have been 
 much earlier.) 
 
i64 The Homeric Controversy [chap. Ill 
 
 tegration of the poems. Accepting the doctrine of the 
 EngUsh constructive school of Grote and Geddes that 
 the original form of the Iliai was a shorter and simpler 
 poem on Achilles, yet they are so far in harmony with 
 the earlier Wolfian doctrine that they maintain that 
 the Achilleid was a collection of popular lays with a 
 sort of logical interdependence rather than a thoroughly 
 organic epic poem in the modern sense. Their chief 
 argument is the dif&culty that critics find in clearing the 
 Achillea from its later accretions, and if we consider 
 the difficulty of separating earlier from later work in 
 the Odyssey (supposing the existence of such) we see 
 at once the plausibility of this argument if applied to 
 the more compact poem. Such speculations, dealing 
 as it is clear they do, with a secondary and at the same 
 time difficult question need not be further discussed, 
 though they undoubtedly have much interest for the 
 intelligent student of Homer. 
 
 In England there has always been a disposition to 
 
 be sceptical about the science of criticism. In regard to 
 
 Homeric scholarship this should hardly 
 
 Beoent reaction ^^ attributed to insular prejudice, since 
 
 in England we have seen that Englishmen, from 
 against scientific Bentley down to the living generation, 
 
 criticism. have been conspicuous for their sohd 
 contributions to the solution of the 
 aeepest difficulties. In the last generation, however, 
 two great names — those of Gladstone and Matthew 
 Arnold — were ranged on the side of extravagant con- 
 servatism. We could not refer in any terms but those 
 of the deepest reverence and gratitude to them both 
 for the influence they undoubtedly exercised for good 
 in making their countrymen enter more fully into the 
 spirit of Homer and worship more intelligently at his 
 shrine. But it must be owned that in their chivalrous 
 loyalty to the poet and their generous refusal to admit 
 the mythological basis of his incarnation, they were led 
 by sentiment more than by sober reasoning. One of 
 them was a poet, and the other not unlike a poet in 
 the warmth of his imaginative faculty, and by such 
 persons dry philology and critical science is very easily 
 
Historical Outlines 165 
 
 brushed 'aside as a mere impertinence. But every 
 day science progresses, and it is strange that even 
 now writers are found who pretend that Homeric 
 questions are to be approached not in the ' scien- 
 tific,' but in the ' literary ' spirit. A more false 
 antithesis could hardly be imagined, unless by science 
 they mean ' science falsely so called.' Still we must 
 admit that recent scholars of note (among them Mr. 
 Andrew Lang, who did good service in his joint trans- 
 lation of both the Iliad and Odyssey) have adopted this 
 strange and to us unconvincing method of argument. 
 A hterary feeling which trusts to itself is of little avail 
 for discussing the Homeric Problem ; neither will 
 critics who abjure critical science succeed in putting 
 back the hands of the clock. 
 
 We argued, in our last Chapter, from the presence of 
 ^olisms in Homer to the supposition that the poems 
 (or rather parts of them) were originally 
 Fick'siEolic composed in the Molic dialect, or at 
 Theory. least one akin to that spoken by the 
 Achsean Greeks. This theory was pro- 
 pounded in a very elaborate manner by Auguste Fick, 
 and holds a very important place in the Homeric 
 criticism of the past twenty years. Professor Mahaffy, 
 who follows him, though not closely, remarks of him,* 
 " Fick has never left a subject he grasped in the place 
 where he found it ; but always carried it with him in 
 his advance." Some of his views, however, have not 
 obtained wide credence in their extremest form. 
 
 He beheves, in the first place, that he has discovered 
 the law governing the retention of ^Eohsms in the Iliad 
 and the Odyssey. They are due to the fact that when 
 the present mainly Ionic text was obtained by a pro- 
 cess of translating, or modernising, the original iEolic 
 text, the particular forms in question were left because 
 metrically they did not admit of taking an Ionic sub- 
 stitute. In other words the Ionic part (or the main 
 body of the poems) could be put back into the original 
 ^olic form. Fick has even set himself, and has carried 
 
 'Vol. i., part i., p. 173. 
 
1 66 The Homeric Controversy [chap. Ill 
 
 out, the task of recasting the Odyssey and part of the 
 Iliad} in original ^olic form, doing this more, perhaps, as 
 an illustration of his theory than with confidence that he 
 could absolutely recover the original wording of the 
 poems. 
 
 Up to this point we have been considering Pick's 
 theory in its larger bearings, and it is evident that 
 while it falls in with the general trend of the Homeric 
 criticism, the particular method adopted in pro- 
 pounding it is much calculated to throw useful light 
 on the origin of the poems from the linguistic side. But 
 Pick has gone much further, and that in two directions. 
 
 First of all he maintains that the change from one dia- 
 lect to another was sudden, the work of a single hand, and 
 that he (Pick himself) is able to give us the name of the 
 translator, and the date at which he did his work, namely, 
 Cynsethus, a rhapsode of Chios, in the year B.c.?540. 
 
 Secondly, he holds that his system is sufficiently 
 definite to be used as a criterion for the relative date 
 of portions of the poems. We must give a separate 
 consideration to each of these positions, neither of 
 which are as yet generally accepted. 
 
 Pick himself originally did not put forward the part 
 of his theory relating to Cynsethus. What we know 
 about this rhapsode would not prejudice us in his 
 favour. Part of the Hymn to Apollo has been attri- 
 buted to him ; but on the whole he is said to have been 
 a poor sort of epic poet. The theory is built on the 
 very inadequate foundation of a Pindaric scholium, 
 which states that he was the first to recite epic poetry 
 at Syracuse about the year 540." Most critics are agreed 
 in refusing to believe that the change into Ionic Greek 
 (even supposingly arbitrarily that it was the work of a 
 single bard) could have occurred as late as the end of 
 the sixth century, and without leaving any historical 
 trace of the event. Paley's theory has been rejected 
 because of the demand it makes on the stupidity of 
 Plato's contemporaries : Pick's theory must also be 
 
 ' In his editions of 1883 and 1885. 
 
 * Fick would date our text by this event : he supposes it a 
 later ' redaction ' of the original translation. 
 
Historical Outlines 167 
 
 rejected for a similar though not quite so cogent a 
 reason. One of the most recent arguments for Cynse- 
 thus put forward by Fick is worth stating. He noticed 
 that, after the year 540, ^olisms are met with in the 
 Ionic poets (lyric or elegaic) such as Theognis, whereas 
 in the older Ionic poets such as Archilochus, Anacreon, 
 Tj^taeus, etc., they do not occur, or to a smaller extent. 
 This is a very important fact as bearing on the general 
 question of the iEolic element in Homer ; and Fick, 
 perhaps too ingeniously, argues that the difference 
 is due to the Ionic tran^ation. As long as the poems 
 were in a strange dialect, they did not influence the 
 Ionic poets ; when they had them in their own, they 
 began to imitate them, and with them the foreign 
 element which they still contained. 
 
 This subtlety of Fick is exemplified most strangely 
 in the second part of his theory, which is mentioned 
 above, namely, that he can use it as a criterion of late 
 composition. He finds portions of the poems which 
 do not admit of re-translation into iEolic, and these 
 he believes were originally composed by native bards 
 of Ionia. This might indeed be admitted as a rough 
 criterion for using along with others, but Fick by means 
 of it has presumed to break up the poems into distinct 
 and original parts, and to find in this way passages of 
 a symmetrical length, or symmetrical multiples of 
 numbers, a proceeding in its nature exceedingly arbit- 
 rary, and one which is hardly likely to find acceptance 
 with my readers. In spite, however, of what we can- 
 not help considering exaggerations, Fick is undoubtedly 
 to be classed in the highest rank of living scholars who 
 have contributed to place Homeric criticism on a 
 scientific basis, and his name is a fitting one to come 
 at the end of a chapter on a controversy which is as 
 yet far from the end. 
 
 If the reader will now revert for a moment to the 
 views about the Homeric question which we advo- 
 cated as being fairly certain or of wide acceptance — 
 he will see how they borrow something (while they also 
 have to reject something) from most of the great 
 Homeric critics of the nineteenth century. 
 
i68 The Homeric Controversy [chap. Ill 
 
 We borrow from Wolf and the Wolfians 
 
 A final the doctrine that the poems could not 
 
 vaSXories. Possply have been the work of a single 
 
 bard : we reject the theory of absolutely 
 
 disconnected lays with no intrinsic principle of unity, 
 
 and also nearly all Wolf's arguments. 
 
 We borrow from Grote (and Nitzsch) in postulating 
 an earlier form of the Iliad dealing with Achilles : we 
 could not accept Grote's treatment of the Achilleid, 
 nor quite implicitly his definition of its limits. 
 
 We borrow from Gladstone in insisting on the Euro- 
 pean origin of the Iliad (in its original form) : we cannot 
 accept Gladstone's opinion that the poems as we read 
 them are purely a European production. 
 
 We borrow from Geddes in connecting the Odyssey 
 with the later part of the Iliad, in tone, in date, and 
 above all in locality of origin : we refuse to follow him 
 in postulating one single author for all the Odyssean 
 work — still more in giving this author the name of 
 Homer. 
 
 We borrow from Sir Richard J ebb in many points of 
 detail : only venturing to question what he does not 
 rea!lly insist upon, the identity of the first expander of 
 the Achilleid with its originator. 
 
 We hardly borrow from Paley : but yet we have to 
 acknowledge a debt to him for his linguistic researches, 
 and especially for his having drawn attention to prob- 
 able Atticisms in our text. 
 
 We acknowledged the truth of Kirchhoff's main con- 
 tention as to the composite nature of the Odyssey : 
 but could not admit as proved all his detailed expositioii. 
 
 We admit the possibility of Christ's and Croiset's 
 view: without admitting, however, that it demon- 
 strably supersedes that of Grote and Geddes as to 
 the Achilleid, or even that it is inconsistent with it. 
 
 Finally, the view we advocate is in complete accord 
 with Pick as to the original /Eolic (or Achaean) com- 
 position of the poems in their earliest form : but it sees a 
 great difficulty in admitting the theory of translation 
 by Cynaethus, nor can it accept the late date to which 
 Pick appears to relegate the poems. 
 
[ i69 ] 
 
 Chapter IV 
 
 Homeric Life 
 
 § I. Geography and Commerce 
 
 It can hardly be expected that the beginner will feel 
 allured to the study of Homeric geography and still 
 
 less of Homeric Ethnology. Yet if 
 
 Special ^Vott- ^e would do more than enjoy his 
 
 ^^Bubject. * Homer as a beautiful dream, if he 
 
 would enter into it as a reality and 
 get a grip of its essential truth, undoubtedly this subject 
 will repay his best attention. It has its difficulties 
 and complexities no doubt ; it has been said " the 
 investigator may feel at times as though he were climb- 
 ing a hill of sand or wading through a deep morass,' 
 but with perseverance a vantage ground of security 
 will be ultimately reached. Of late years our know- 
 ledge of the subject has been enlarged so vastly and 
 so rapidly that the very multiplicity of new details is 
 bewildering to the learner ; nor must we ever fail to 
 bear in mind that many of our conclusions are at present 
 only tentative. Yet amid the haze of distance and of 
 our own speculations two great facts will stand forth 
 clear and unmistakable — one that Homer's views of 
 geography are thoroughly consistent and real, the 
 other that the picture he gives us of his surroundings 
 is utterly unlike what we meet at the threshold of the 
 so-called historical period of Greek national life. In 
 some cases we can learn almost as much from his 
 omissions as from his statements, and, indeed, we 
 shall find that the marked discrepancy between Homeric 
 and Hellenic geography, confirmed as it is by various 
 
 ' Professor Percy Gardiner, in an essay entitled " The Tread 
 and Phryjia." See New Chapters in Greek History, p. 37. 
 
170 Homeric Life [chap. IV 
 
 scientific data, is what gives its importance to the 
 former, being a convincing proof both of the historical 
 rehability and of the high antiquity of the poems. 
 Many of those who write on this subject draw a dis- 
 tinction between the geographical knowledge displayed 
 in the Catalogue, in the rest of the Iliad, and in the 
 Odyssey ; and this arrangement no doubt has clear 
 advantages, because it rests on an assumption which 
 we have stated to be valid and even capable of proof, 
 namely, that different portions of the poems belong 
 to different periods and display different stages of 
 knowledge. Indeed arguments for this view have 
 been based on the knowledge of geography displayed 
 in the various portions of Homer, nor should we be 
 disposed to deny that such arguments possess cogency. 
 But to insist on the differences is hardly necessary 
 here, whereas to do so would seem to add a fresh 
 coniplexity to a subject which ought not to be needlessly 
 made more uninviting than it is at best. After all 
 there is some unity about the picture given in Homer 
 of the world as he conceived it, and it seems to us 
 far more important for the beginner to seize the salient 
 features of the picture and to try to understand them, 
 than to seek for comparatively trifling discrepancies 
 even though they might appear important were it 
 still our business to treat of the time and place of 
 Homer. 
 
 Another distinction, also in a sense valid, has been 
 drawn between the inner and the outer geography of 
 Homer, that is between what he really knows and what 
 he more or less imagines. This is however rather a 
 question of degree, as is plain from the fact that some 
 writers make a third division of the geography which 
 is intermediate between the inner and outer. It 
 appears, therefore, more simple to follow such a classifi- 
 cation broadly but without drawing any artificial 
 line. 
 
 Accordingly we shall commence with what is most 
 clear and definite in Homeric geography, and starting 
 from this point as from a centre we shall gradually 
 enlarge our horizon until we reach the outer limits 
 
sec. I] Geography and Commerce 171 
 
 . of the experience and knowledge of the 
 Homeric bards; and this is the very manner 
 
 Cosmography, in which the ancients themselves were 
 accustomed to consider the world when 
 they reflected upon its configuration. That is, they 
 looked out as from a centre towards a distant circum- 
 ference, and this may explain their idea of the universe. 
 As the horizon appears more or less circular from any 
 vantage-point, they naturally supposed the whole 
 world to be shaped like a disc. Moreover most of their 
 explorations were by water, they found themselves 
 in them always bounded by water — accordingly at the 
 farthest limits they put a band of water which they 
 imagined as a river encircling a plane surface, which 
 river they called the Ocean. In the Homeric age 
 the Mediterranean and its surrounding territories con- 
 tained on the whole the navigable and the known 
 world ; but a certain knowledge of outlets to the 
 Atlantic on the West, and to the Euxine on the East, 
 must have confirmed them in their doctrine of the 
 Ocean, which it was possible for them to conceive 
 vaguely and indifferently both as a wide expanse of 
 water and as a limiting and encircling stream. Here, 
 however, we must guard against confusion between the 
 ideas of the Homeric bards, and further developments 
 of the same ideas made by later mythologists. For in- 
 stance. Homer speaks of Atlas as holding the pillars 
 which support the firmament'; but there is no evidence 
 that he conceived of Atlas himself as holding the world 
 on his head and shoulders, nor yet that he connected 
 Atlas with the mountain which later bore his name. 
 
 The first question, then, that meets us regards the 
 
 central district of the Troad, about which to a certain 
 
 extent the interest of both poems 
 
 The Troad and revolves. Scarcely has any of the num- 
 
 its Topography, erous Homeric controversies been more 
 strenuously waged than the debate 
 
 concerning the true site of the city of Priam. And 
 
 ' /Z. i. 534:^ eX^t 8e re Kiovas airos 
 
 fiaKpas, at yaldv re Kai ovpavitv afu^\s fX"^"*- 
 
173 
 
 Homeric Life 
 
 [chap. IV 
 
 THETROAO 
 
 incidentally the question has been raised as to whether 
 in the Iliad, there is any real and personal knowledge 
 of the district manifested. Before discussing this 
 latter question, so pertinent to an account of Homeric 
 geography, we must give a brief outline of the con- 
 flicting claims of two sites to represent the Troy of the 
 Iliad. 
 
 The city known in historical times as the New Ilium 
 was placed on a small and rather abrupt eminence 
 called Hissarlik near the angle of the Hellespont, and 
 about three miles from either sea ; and there was a 
 general tradition among the ancients that this was 
 also the site of the pre-historic city of Troy or Ilium. 
 
 But from Alex- ^ 
 
 andrian times on- I ° . ■ .., -t -TT — ^ 
 
 wards among lit- 
 erary people a 
 different opinion 
 was prevalent. 
 On grounds which 
 appear to us very 
 inadequate, and 
 chiefly perhaps be- 
 cause Hissarlik is 
 not a very com- 
 manding position, 
 it was decided to 
 look elsewhere for 
 a site, and by 
 degrees a position 
 near Bundrbashi, 
 on a 'considerable 
 eminence some 
 five or six miles further from the sea, [towardsj the 
 South-west, was fixed upon as the most likely spot. 
 Some slight signs of a former, but not necessarily 
 very ancient, fortification were detected on this 
 height; which is in reality a spur running out from 
 Mount Ida, the famous lofty mountain range still 
 further towards the South. Another reason for fixing 
 this as the position of the Homeric city was the dis- 
 
sec. I] Geography and Commerce 173 
 
 covery of certain springs, including a warm one, which 
 were supposed to agree with the description in the 
 Iliad} The springs in question are not, however, two, 
 but many, for they are known as the " forty eyes." 
 
 On the whole, the Bundrbashi theory has very little 
 in its favour — whereas the difficulties against it are 
 simply fatal and overwhelming. The whole conception 
 of the war, which was carried on in a plain and near 
 the Achaean ships, with frequent battles surging between 
 the city and the sea, to say nothing of incidents like 
 the pursuit of Hector round the city or the journey 
 of the aged Priam to Achilles' tent, makes it impossible 
 to identify the mountain fortress with the descriptions 
 given in the poem. 
 
 As to Hissarlik, since the discoveries made there by 
 Schliemann and Dorpfeld," at least we know that from 
 the earliest times it has been an important centre, 
 and its position near the Hellespont which gave it the 
 command of the most important trade-route between 
 two continents' would dispose us to believe that it was 
 perhaps more than once the fighting-ground of rival 
 nationalities. 
 
 But does the Homeric description of Troy tally with 
 our modern knowledge of Hissarlik, and does it show 
 that the bards wrote about the district from an ac- 
 quaintance with, it at first hand ? First of all we 
 must certainly allow something here, as often elsewhere, 
 for the natural exaggeration of the poet. Hissarlik 
 is to the modern eye a small place, and certainly when 
 it is spoken of as containing a huge palace and three 
 temples on a grand scale, the description must be dis- 
 
 ^ II. xxii. 147 : — 
 
 tvBa Se tnyyai, 
 Soiai avat<r(rov(ri SKafidvdpov Sivrjevros 
 ri iiev yap 6' vbari Xiap^ piei, aju^t 8e Kmrvht 
 yivfTai i^ ovr^c tas « wupos ai6o)iivoio. 
 
 » See below chap, v., § 2, p. 246. 
 
 * Besides which it was also the key to the sea-route between 
 the Mediterranean and the Euxine (including, of course, the 
 approach to the N.W. via the Danube). 
 
174 Homeric Life [chap. IV 
 
 counted. Still the dimensions of the walled town are 
 the same as those of Tiryns and almost as large as 
 that of the Acropolis of Athens. 
 
 It has not been possible to identify all the features 
 of the Homeric description. With regard to the course of 
 the rivers, it is supposed there have been changes in the 
 lapse of three thousand years, and an attempt has been 
 made to trace the former course of both the Simois 
 and the Scamander in accordance with the poetic 
 account. From the very wealth of self-consistent detail 
 found in the Iliad, which is on the whole in accordance 
 with the facts, one can hardly help believing that the 
 poets knew what they were talking about, even though 
 they may have combined or borrowed, as a modern 
 painter might do, certain accidents of scenery. More- 
 over, there are undesigned coincidences which have 
 struck modern travellers as signs of the eye-witness. 
 Among these is the mention of Samothrace as the 
 watch-tower whence Poseidon viewed the battle. Now 
 Samothrace on the map appears to be hidden away 
 by intervening land. But when you stand upon the 
 plain of Troy, there is Samothrace visible to the eye; 
 for its peak towers above all else and stands out clear 
 against the sky. 
 
 By the Hellespontine area is meant not merely the 
 Hellespont itself, but all the Eastern part of Thrace 
 
 which extends from it in a N.-W. direc- 
 
 The Hellespont tion towards the Chersonese. This dis- 
 
 and its area. trict is evidently familiar at least to the 
 
 author of the Catalogue ; and what is 
 remarkable is that the cities and tribes belonging to 
 this region, and even the Peeonians further back and 
 to the North of Macedonia, are enumerated among the 
 allies of the Trojans, being indeed mentioned immedi- 
 ately after the Trojans themselves and their near 
 neighbours the Dardanians. Now this alliance between 
 European tribes of Thrace and the Phrygians of the 
 Troad points to an afi&nity between them, and gives 
 support to the theory, for which there is considerable 
 independent evidence, that the Phrygians came from 
 Thrace. That they were not very far removed in 
 
sec. i] Geography and Commerce 175 
 
 blood evpn from the Achaeans is also probable from 
 the general tenor of the Iliad} 
 
 Considering, first, the Asiatic side, we find among 
 the peoples to the South and West of the Troad at the 
 Homeric epoch, most of the names which were promi- 
 nent later, with, however, a notable exception. This 
 is the Bithynians, who are subsequently found near 
 the North-west corner of Asia Minor. Do they represent 
 a new thrust, a people who arrived too late to take 
 their place in Priam's confederacy ? ^ When we 
 turn to the European side we find that there is a great 
 gap in the Homeric geography. Though Western 
 Thrace is so well described, Macedonia represents a 
 complete blank, but south of this again the geography 
 of the mainland becomes unusually explicit. 
 
 This gap in the Homeric record occurs in a remarkable 
 spot, being over against the Troad, and is so important 
 that it can hardly fail of arresting our attention when 
 it has been called to it.' Mr. J. L. Myres, to whom I 
 am indebted for bringing it under my notice, himself 
 lays much stress upon it. His theory of a Great 
 Diagonal Line splitting the area of Homeric Geography 
 from the direction of the North-west is familiar to the 
 listeners at his annual course of lectures, which when 
 he submits them to a larger audience, as we hope he 
 will do shortly, can hardly fail to meet with due attention. 
 
 This North-west gap, then, might be taken to indicate 
 that along some such diagonal line a thrust of Bar- 
 barians was exerting pressure, consisting of persons 
 whom the bards either did not know or at least pre- 
 ferred not to recognise. Moreover, such a state of 
 affairs would be no isolated phenomenon, but would 
 represent a tendency more or less constant in history. 
 For instance, the original advance of the Phrygians from 
 Thrace was a similar event, whereas we find later the 
 Dorians, who probably came from the same direction 
 
 1 In Book iii. of the Iliad (184 fE.) Priam himself remarks that 
 he had seen nothing like the Achseans except the Phrygians. 
 
 ' Herod, vii. 75, distinctly states that the Bithynians were 
 immigrants from Europe. 
 
 * See below, chap, v., § 5, p, 282. 
 
176 Homeric Life [chap. IV 
 
 of the North-west at the opening of Hellenic history, 
 even settled in Rhodes and Caria, precisely the point 
 they would reach if they had followed the diagonal line. 
 
 The bards have evidently a good knowledge of 
 
 Aegean topography, but yet they seem to attach very 
 
 little importance to the islands. If we 
 
 Hmwic view consider the relative position of these 
 
 Geography. ^^ *^® early Hellenic period, and 
 especially that of the Ionian Islands, 
 we cannot help being struck by the contrast. The 
 islands near the Troad are indeed quite familiar, but 
 Delos is mentioned only once, and then in an out-of- 
 the-way' manner: the Cyclades not at all : Eubcea is 
 well known, at least is often referred to. The name 
 Ionian occurs once in the Iliad,^ but probably referring 
 to the Athenians. 
 
 On the mainland of Asia Minor the same silence is 
 remarked. No mention of great cities like Ephesus, 
 Smyrna, Sardis. Miletus is mentioned, but as a Carian 
 town only (not Ionian). It has been remarked, and 
 it is significant, that in general the knowledge of Asia 
 Minor displayed in the lUixd is only slight. 
 
 When we turn to the Western mainland of Hellas 
 proper we find there is a wide-spread and detailed 
 knowledge shown, but of a very different geography 
 from the Hellenic. The chief cities are Mycenae 
 (Argos), Tiryns, Orchomenus :" Sparta is merely men- 
 tioned along with Pharis, Amyclse, and other towns 
 of Laconia ; Corinth is a dependency of Mycenae. 
 Athens is heard of, though hardly prominent in the 
 early Hellenic period ; Eretria is not yet important, 
 though it occurs in the Catalogue among the towns, 
 of Eubcea. Boeotia is very prominent in the Catalogue 
 and a very plausible explanation of this is that it is 
 
 1 Odysseus says he saw a palm-tree there, as though it wefft 
 a great curiosity, Od. vL 162. The first Homeric Hymn is 
 addressed to the Delian Apollo. 
 
 '^ In the Odyssey not at all (which is most remarkable). 
 
 8 In Iliad ix. 381, when Achilles spurns Agamemon's offer, he 
 says neither the riches of Orchomenus nor of Egyptian Thebes 
 would tempt him to accept them. 
 
sec. I] Geography and Commerce 177 
 
 (like similar compositions) the work of a Boeotian 
 bard. Neither Delphi nor Olyrapia is as yet important ; 
 on the other hand Dodona is mentioned with great 
 respect more than once, and this is a matter of sig- 
 nificance as it bears on the origin of the Achaeans. 
 
 A somewhat important problem regarding the 
 geography of the Peloponnese is discussed in reference 
 to the journey of Telemachus to 
 TheVeBtern Menelaus at Sparta via Pylus.' He 
 PeloponneBe. went by boat to the latter plaec from 
 whence he drove in a chariot to Sparta. 
 Now the well-known Pylus, which was the theatre of 
 important operations in the Peloponnesian War (B.C. 
 425), is nearly opposite Sparta, on the map, and it has 
 frequently been taken for granted that the Odyssean 
 bard intended this as the landing-place of Telemachus. 
 But there was another Pylus much farther up the 
 coast, close to the later Olympia, and it has been 
 recently shown in a brilliant work ' of a French Pro- 
 fessor, M. Victor B6rard, that this northern Pylus 
 is the one really meant. He writes from first-hand 
 experience of the country, having travelled it with 
 his wife whose camera was requisitioned to illustrate 
 the book. The treatment of Pylus (in the opening 
 chapter) is thought, by competent judges, to be the 
 most illuminating portion of the two volumes, which 
 in spite of their length (running into over 1,200 closely 
 printed pages) are quite fascinating. 
 
 Bdrard shows first that to get from the Southern 
 or Messenian Pylus by land to Sparta, a traveller 
 would have to cross two high ranges of mountains, 
 manifestly an impossibility in a chariot ; whereas from 
 the Northern, or Elean, Pylus after a somewhat stiff 
 though short climb at the start, a valley with a gradual 
 ascent along the bed of the Alpheus brings you to high 
 ground, whence there is also a gentle descent along the 
 valley of the Eurotas to Sparta. It is true the whole 
 distance traversed by land is somewhat long ; but on 
 
 * In Book iii. of the Odyssey. 
 
 ' Let Phiniciens duns I'OH^sh (vol i.| i902)< 
 
178 
 
 Homeric Life 
 
 [chap. IV 
 
 the other hand the voyage would be curtailed, and 
 this was the more important point for the primitive 
 mariners in their open boats. It is argued that this 
 must have been the regular trade route to the North 
 and West from the earliest times. . The whole theory is 
 worked out in detail, and compared with the text of 
 the Odyssey, in a convincing manner. We cannot 
 
 
 *iap«*fai«Mii'MMH 
 
 prosecute the subject further; but it throws in- 
 cidentally a strong side-light on our own enquiry, and 
 teaches us that deep and scientific research may confirm 
 our respect for the Homeric bards by tending to show 
 that when they, dipped into geography they sometimes 
 knew what they were talking about. 
 
 We now come to another much-debated question, 
 and that is the descriptions in the Odyssey of Ithaca^ 
 
sec. I] Geography and Commerce 179 
 
 and the adjacent islands. Are they 
 Ithaoa and its properly described ? Can they even 
 BorroundiugB., be certainly identified ? Into this 
 controversy Gladstone, Schliemann, 
 Merry, as well as Volcker, Hercher, and many other 
 scholars have plunged, and indeed it goes back at least 
 as far as Strabo. It may be regarded as somewhat 
 of a test question, for with the exception of the Troad, 
 the region in question is the only one which is des- 
 cribed with great detail in Homer. Without pretend- 
 ing to decide the controversy, the following points 
 regarding it may be indicated :— 
 
 I. Those who defend the Homeric descriptions of 
 the island point out many congruities while they perhaps 
 slur over difficulties ; whereas, those who find fault 
 with the descriptions can hardly deny that there are 
 points of agreement although they insist on apparent 
 discrepancies. 
 
 II. Homer mentions four islands : three (Zacynthus, 
 Same, Ithaca) can be recognised without difficulty — 
 there still remains Dulichium, and various attempts 
 have been made (not perfectly satisfactory) to decide 
 its identity. We may mention, however, that Professor 
 Dorpfeld is convinced that the real Ithaca is represented 
 by the later Leucadia, and he has been engaged for 
 some time in excavations with a view of proving his 
 theory. 
 
 III. Ithaca is said to be the most Westerly' of the 
 group : this is not absolutely correct, but the error 
 can be fairly accounted for in a case where maps were 
 still unknown. 
 
 IV. It is said to be " low-lying " {xdaiMS.rjf a more 
 
 ' np&s fd^oy {Od. ix. 22) which may mean to the N.-W., but 
 this will not make the phrase much easier. (A great deal 
 has been written on this passage, which has been variously 
 understood). 
 
 " This is the great "crux" of the question according to many ; 
 but here again Berard comes to our assistance. He says that 
 as you sail up from a distance the mountains of Same are so 
 conspicuous that relatively to them Ithaca may be called " low- 
 lying/' for its mountains, though considerable, do not come 
 into sight till you get comparatively near. 
 
i8o 
 
 Homeric Life 
 
 [chap. IV 
 
 serious error. On the other hand there are plenty of 
 indications in the Homeric text that it was (as it really 
 is) steep, rugged and mountainous. 
 
 V. A roqky islet is said to lie between Ithaca and 
 Same ; and this cannot be satisfactorily identified. 
 
 VI. In spite of un- 
 doubted difficulties, the 
 description is ?o minute, 
 and is said by eye- 
 witnesses to agree so 
 closely with the real 
 topography of Ithaca, 
 that we cannot reason- 
 ably doubt it is, on 
 the whole, based on 
 actual knowledge. But 
 whether this knowledge 
 comes from personal 
 acquaintance or from 
 hearsay may be still 
 considered doubtful. 
 We may perhaps sup- 
 pose that either the 
 poet had been there 
 before a long interval 
 of time, and that in 
 some points his memory 
 betrayed him, or else 
 tha,t he had at least 
 heard clear and graphic accounts of the placejfrom 
 several eye-witnesses.^ 
 
 The drawing of Dodwell which we reproduce ■' shows 
 the Modern Port Vathi in the Gulf of Molo on the east 
 side of the island. It is commonly maintained that 
 Odysseus disembarked here and traversed the island 
 by land to reach his home at Port Polls.' 
 
 In view of the renewed importance which recent 
 
 1 (See excursus in Riddell, Odyssey, and, from the opposite 
 point of view, Shuckhardt, p. 303). 
 
 2 Plate vii. opposite 
 
 » See also below, chap, v., f 4, p. 280. 
 
 iTHACA t 
 

 Vl.K% 
 
sec. 1] Geography and Commerce i8i 
 
 discoveries have conferred on Crete, it is not without 
 interest to consider its relative rank in 
 Crete ancKits the Homeric age. It is described at 
 Inhabitants, some length in two passages * in the 
 Oiyssey, and is stated in one of these 
 to be populous and to have ninety cities, while in the 
 Catalogue of the Iliad more roundly it is called «rard^- 
 noKis. To its capital Knossus, and to it alone, does 
 Homer apply the epithet ^eyaXi;, a feature well borne 
 out by Dr. A. J. Evans' excavations. The inhabitants 
 of the island are enumerated at length, as Achaeans, 
 Eteocretans, Cydonians, Dorians and Pelasgians. The 
 Eteocretans, or ' genuine Cretans ' were of the aboriginal 
 Pelasgian stock, and must have been pushed by the 
 later arrivals towards the East of the Island. Very 
 Uttle is known of their language, for although there 
 are extant three fragmentary inscriptions, they cannot 
 be deciphered. The Cydonians were near the West, 
 for their city became celebrated in after times ; they 
 had a good number of Aeginetan colonists among 
 them. As to the Pelasgians, it is not unimportant 
 to note they were stated to exist in Crete, though in 
 what way they differed, if at all, from the Eteocretans 
 is not clear. But the chief point of all is the presence 
 in the Island of the Dorians, along with the Achaeans, 
 and apparently as speaking a different tongue.' It 
 is the solitary exception to the absolute silence in Homer 
 of, all allusion to the Dorians, and commentators have 
 been driven to various expedients to account for this 
 reference to Dorians in Crete at a time when there is 
 no trace for instance of their presence in the Pelo- 
 ponnese. However in the Catalogue they are equiva- 
 lently mentioned ; as it is said that a contingent came 
 from Rhodes with nine ships under Tlepolemus the 
 Heracleid.' It is also significant that these are men- 
 
 ' Book iii. 291 and Book xix. 172. 
 
 ' It is stated by Strabo (quoting Staphylus) that the Dorians 
 were on the East and the Eteocretans on the South of the Island. 
 This seems unlikely. 
 
 ' There is, however, much dispute about this passage. The 
 Rhodians of later date were certainly Dorians, but possibly this 
 passage refers to a pre-Dorian colony. 
 
1 82 Homeric Life [chap, iv 
 
 tioned immediately after the Cretans, and that they, 
 are said to be rpixa KoaiiriQivres, which may possibly 
 be a misunderstanding of the epithet Tpix&Kes (Iliad 
 xix. 177).' If we suppose, as we must, that there 
 was in Crete an advance body of the great Dorian 
 immigration of later history, it is still strange that 
 they should first appear in so southerly a position. 
 Mr. J. L. Myres, however, suggests to me that they may 
 have come by sea, perhaps through accidental causes 
 (for they were never remarkable as navigators). It 
 is a most curious problem. 
 
 Before extending our enquiry regarding Honieric 
 geography to more distant lands, we cannot avoid 
 
 touching upon a difficult and com- 
 Tiade?51 plicated question. What was the 
 
 position of Phoenician trade during 
 the Homeric period, and to what extent was the civil- 
 isation depicted in the poems dependent upon Phoe- 
 nician influence ? Many considerations may be brought 
 to bear on this problem — and there is hardly any 
 question more keenly debated at the present time. 
 The importance, too, of the controversy from an ethno- 
 logical point of view is at once apparent, if we consider 
 that the Phoenicians were the Semites of the West, 
 and that to discuss the history and the importance 
 of Phoenician activity in early times is to enter upon 
 the question as to the debt which we Aryans owe to 
 a people whom we are naturally inclined to hate. 
 Moreover, the problem in question regards the Phoe- 
 nicians almost exclusively as engaged in what we now 
 call the carrying trade. So far as we know, they were 
 entirely devoted to this, so much so that they had little 
 time or energy to expend on anything else. Though 
 a powerful and enterprising people they do not appear 
 to have originated the religion, the civilisation or the 
 art which they carried with them in their distant 
 voyages, We long believed indeed that the European 
 alphabet was due to their initiative, but that view 
 
 ^I would rather agree with Monro {Od. xii.-xxiv., p. 157) that 
 this means " with waving locks," an epithet vety characteristic 
 of early Dorians. ^_, 
 
sec. I] Geography and Commerce 183 
 
 will have to be modified in the light of the most recent 
 discoveries. 
 
 But if the Phoenicians were not the originators of 
 new forms on a large scale, their country was well 
 placed for bringing them into contact with what was 
 best and most influential in the East. Besides looking 
 towards the West, they were about equidistant between 
 Chaldaea and Egypt, and perhaps it was first as inter- 
 mediaries between these two countries that they 
 learnt the art of land travel. It is supposed that at 
 least as early as B.C. 1000, they were in touch with 
 the Arabs, and through them with East India, and 
 even according to some authorities with the gold- 
 mines which have been again discovered in Rhodesia. 
 
 Upon their prowess as sea-farers, however, their 
 renown chiefly depended. They had plenty of good 
 timber at their disposal in the Hinterland of Lebanon 
 and early they became adventurous sailors. They 
 are said to have first directed navigation by the pole- 
 star, and Herodotus relates a story of their circum- 
 navigating Africa about 600 b.c.^ It is their activity 
 in the Mediterranean which concerns us, and the 
 fact that this, generally speaking, extended over a 
 long period, makes it the more difficult to decide what 
 were the limits and the channels of that activity at 
 any special epoch, especially when the epoch in question 
 is not itself very clearly defined. 
 
 Perhaps the best plan to follow here will be first 
 briefly to explain some of the conflicting views which 
 have prevailed, or now prevail, regarding Phoenician 
 trade in pre-Homeric and Homeric times ; and then 
 to indicate what clear evidence is supplied by the poems 
 themselves regarding this subject. 
 
 In the early Victorian era very exaggerated views 
 of Phoenician influence were common. Anything archaic 
 which was not understood was at once attributed to 
 this source, perhaps because very little was really 
 known regarding it. The Greeks themselves were 
 
 1 There is a good reason for believing this story, though 
 Herodotus was himself sceptical. See Grote, vol. iii., p. 28 4.. 
 
184 Homeric Liie icaap. iv 
 
 credited with hardly any originality ; all their art, 
 religion, philosophy and culture was supposed to 
 be borrowed either from the Phoenicians or through 
 them from the East atid from Egypt. These extreme 
 views can hardly be held in face of the modern archae- 
 ological and ethnological learning, but so far as Homeric 
 civilisation is concerned it is still maintained by the 
 great authority of Helbig,' and has been defended with 
 great earnestness and ingenuity in the work to which 
 we referred above ^ by Victor Berard. The latter 
 argues chiefly from place-names, and especially from 
 what he calls Doublets, i.e., the co-existence in Homer 
 of two names, one Greek and the other Semitic, for the 
 same place. 
 
 This school of critics not merely attribute the 
 Homeric civilisation to Phcenieia, but (when they trouble 
 themselves at all about archeeology) boldly refer to 
 the same source the remains which are usually styled 
 Mycenaean. They take it for granted that the Achaeans 
 were indebted to Phoenicia not merely for the luxuries, 
 but for many of the necessities of life, in particular 
 for purple dye ; for weapons and metal ornaments ; 
 for linen and papyrus, and various kinds of fabrics ; 
 probably for wine and oil ; and especially for such 
 eastern products as drugs, perfumes, and spices; and 
 everything in the text which can be tortured to bear 
 an oriental interpretation is freely appealed to in 
 support of the Phoenician theory. 
 
 Many of these extreme opinions no longer remain 
 tenable, for a great deal which was formerly believed 
 to be Phoenician can now be proved to have had nothing 
 to do with them." A reaction has accordingly set in, 
 which is strongly voiced by the great French archae- 
 ologist, M. Solomon Reinach.* The view maintained 
 
 ^ La Question Mycenienne, 1896. See also a review of the 
 same by Mr. Myres in th« Clas. Rev., vol. x., p. 350 ff. 
 " On p. 177. 
 
 * For the crucial question of the Keftiu in Egypt see below 
 chap, v., § 3, on Mycenaean Chronology, pp. 273-4. 
 
 * See Le Mirage Oriental, reprinted from the Revue Arche- 
 ologiqtte. 
 
sec. I] Geography and Commerce 185 
 
 by this more modern school is that the Greeks them- 
 selves (see Herodotus i., i, and passim) were inclined 
 to exaggerate the debt they owed to the Phoenicians, 
 and to ante-date by many centuries the period of. their 
 great activity in the Mediterranean. In any case 
 during the " dark age " (the nth and loth centuries, 
 B.C.) they did good service in keeping the sea-ways 
 open ; but in the previous, so-called Mycenaean age, 
 evidence is accumulating which must lead to a complete 
 revision of the older views of their influence on the be- 
 ginnings of the Greek race. How far this reaction 
 \v^l carry us ultimately we cannot yet know — Dr. W. 
 M. Ramsay thinks that it is already carrying us too 
 far, and fears that later on there will be another reaction 
 in the opposite direction.' However this may be, 
 we shall be treading on somewhat firmer ground when 
 we ask, what is the bearing of the Homeric Poems 
 on this great Phoenician question ? 
 
 The following points regarding the influence of 
 Phoenicia as recorded directly by Homer are worthy 
 
 of note. 
 Evidoice in the i°' I" the first place it is remark- 
 Foemi regarding able that there no mention of Tyre 
 the PhcenioiauB. and the Tyrians, and yet this city* which 
 
 in after times gained such wide renown, 
 is said to have become powerful about the year 1000 
 B.C., owing to a migration of the people from Sidon, 
 the more ancient capital. It is to this earlier city 
 and to its people and manufactures that we find refer- 
 ence in the poems." The use of this name might of 
 course be explained as a survival ; it is in any case 
 notable. 
 
 2°i The imports mentioned as coming from the 
 city of Sidon, are chiefly metal work, as ornaments 
 and trinkets of gold and silver and bronze," and the 
 
 1 See a veyy able review on Bfirard's work cited above in th.e 
 Clas. Rev. of April, 1904 (p. 166). 
 
 ^ In one passage the country is called by the name Sidonia^ 
 of 8' €S Sifioviiji' tv paionivr]v dva^dvres axovTo. — Od. xiii., 285. 
 
 ^ In Od. xiv. 425, Sidon is called TroXv^a^xor. 
 
1 86 Homeric Life [cnap. iv 
 
 brightest and most elaborate products of the loom.* 
 Although it is generally believed that the purple dye 
 for which the. Phoenicians afterwards became so famous 
 was also a staple article of their trade in Homeric 
 times, there is no direct evidence for this in the poems, 
 the purple being attributed to the Maeonians and 
 Carians only. On the other hand it appears possible 
 that the name ^oiviKet is derived from the word 
 (jioivtf, which is used even in Homer of this dye, 
 
 3°. Where the Phoenicians occur under this name 
 (as distinct from the expression StSSnoi avSpes) they are 
 always spoken of as carriers only, and not as manu- 
 facturers. This distinction in the names appears to 
 some to be significant, and certainly ought not to be 
 overlooked. They are represented as Corsairs or 
 pirates rather than as law-abiding merchants, and 
 are spoken of as being treacherous and deceitful. The 
 expressions used "seem to imply that they were too well 
 known as a bane to the Homeric people. 
 
 4°. On the other hand the evidence in the poems 
 shows that the Achaeans did not depend wholly on the 
 Phoenicians for their knowledge of foreign countries, 
 For although sea-faring is spoken of with a certain 
 dread, yet the Achaeans are described as travelling on 
 their own account and trading even with distant 
 countries. Not to speak of Odysseus himself, 
 Menelaus spent eight years wandering about the 
 Eastern Mediterranean, where he even visited Phoe- 
 nicia itself, and certainly did not come, back empty 
 handed.' We referred above to the journey of Paris 
 to Sidon, 
 
 5°. A very interesting question may be considered 
 here regarding the Phaeacians. The description of 
 this people* with whom the wanderings of Odysseus 
 
 1 It is also significant that Paris is said to have brought with 
 him from Sidon women skilled at the loom. //. vi. 290. 
 
 " See {Od. xiv. 388) the expression dvqp dTrarijXm* flSas, and 
 TpaKTTjS, Oi hrj jToK'Kh KiK avOpwirourtv iitpyei, (Od. XV. 415) and 
 (4 19) "tot'wKfr TToKvnamaKoi, 
 
 sSee Od. m. 301, 302, and iv. 30, 128, 131, 228, and 617. 
 
 * In the 6th, 7th, and 8th Books of the Odyssey. 
 
sec. i] Geography and Commerce 187 
 
 terminated is one of the most interesting passages 
 in the poem of which he is the central figure. Some 
 critics think that these people are not merely intended 
 to represent the Phcenicians, but that the very name 
 given them implies it. Without accepting this as 
 certain, we may call it a plausible theory. The 
 Phseacians are strange half-supernatural sea-men, and 
 there is not merely a foreign but even a distinctly 
 Semitic air about them, especially in the. prominence 
 given to Arete, wife of Alcinous, who dispenses justice 
 to the people.' They are rich, abound, in metal-work, 
 are devoted to the gods, especially Poseidon, and they 
 are in their present settlement because they have 
 been, driven away from their own home. 
 
 From what has been said, it appears to follow that 
 
 it is by no means safe to assume, when there is question 
 
 of contact with Egypt or the countries 
 
 Notices in the of the East, that all the knowledge of 
 ^E^t'^^d'th"^ *^^ Homeric people came from their 
 ^^a*fe, ^ dealings with Phoenician sailors. Still 
 it is significant that there is no men- 
 tion of Chaldaea or Babylon in the poems, and the 
 knowledge displayed in them of Egypt, Cyprus and 
 the Levant is slight, and such as could no doubt be 
 naturally accounted for by hearsay. 
 
 With regard to Egypt, at least it is mentioned fairly 
 familiarly. The Nile (though not its name) is known 
 as a " well-flowing " river of Eg37pt, and the greatness 
 of its city, Thebes, is mentioned in exaggerated terms, 
 as possessing one hundred gates and 20,000 chariots. 
 Libya is also mentioned ; also a tribe of pigmies in the 
 interior of Africa ; and it is stated that there are two 
 sets of Aethiopians, i.e., dark-faced men — one towards 
 the East and the other towards the West — presumably 
 of Egypt. 
 
 Cyprus is mentioned but not frequently.' We read 
 
 1 The fact that Arete is spoken of as closely related to her 
 husband (it is disputed whether she is sister or only niece) has 
 been thought to imply- a reference to Oriental or Egyptian 
 custom. 
 
 * Od. iv. 83 5. 
 
i88 Homeric Life [chap. IV 
 
 that its hero Cinyras gave to Agamemnon a valuable 
 cuirass,* showing tiie fame of the island for elaborate 
 metal-work was established. The question of Cyprus 
 looms largely in the Phoenician question. If in the 
 later J)art of the bronze age (say the second half of the 
 second Millenium b.c.) their colonizing activity had 
 been greats it is in the archceological record of Cyprus 
 above all that we should expect to find evidence of it. 
 But the contrary appears to be the fact.' 
 
 At last we come to our concluding, and by no means 
 
 an unimportant, branch of Homeric geography. The 
 
 question of the West pretty exclusively 
 
 The Western concerns the main theme of the Odyssey, 
 Mediterranean, namely, the wanderings of its much- 
 suffering hero. He was driven to the 
 West, no doubt because it was to the early Greeks a 
 land of romance — the Great Unknown. Yet the ques- 
 tion arises how much of the wanderings of Odysseus 
 reflect at least in a dim sort of way such knowledge 
 of facts as the Greeks possessed — whether derived 
 through Phoenician traders or in any other way may 
 be treated as of secondary moment — or how far the 
 story was purely the work of the bardic imagination ? 
 
 Several attempts have been made, one only recently 
 by M. Bdrard, to map out the route followed cleariy— 
 either according to modern geography, or at least ac- 
 cording to a supposed plan ' which though imaginary 
 was yet consistently pictured in the mind of the singer 
 as he told the tale. Others again suppose that there 
 is nothing more intended than to connect with a certain 
 vraisemblance a series of marvellous stories, some of 
 which were certainly legendary, for they occur independ- 
 ently in the folk-lore of other Aryan nations. 
 
 There does not appear to be any obligation to tie 
 ourselves down in detail to any one of the above theories 
 — there may be elements in truth in different views, 
 all of which possess some plausibility. It is most 
 
 1 II. xi. 19, ff. 
 
 i* See below, chap, v., § a, 'The Triumph of the Spade,' p. 252. 
 " This was Mr. Gladstone's view, and he expended on it much 
 erudition and ingenious argument. See Juventus Munii, 
 
BERARD'S THEORY 
 
 OF THB 
 
 WANDERINGS of ODYSSEUS. 
 
 (. —Till Lot, iT'iia.:! 
 ! 1 1, \Nij OP, Cyclops. 
 
 Ill I OF ,i:..LIA 
 
 I V,— L tSl KVGONl 1, 
 
 v.— Ci);cii s Island. 
 V"I. I'XTR.NNXL TO Hades. 
 
 VII. — Land of Sirens. 
 
 VIII.— SCYLLA AND ChaR^'BDIS. 
 
 IX.— Ogvgia (Calypso). 
 
 X— pH/EACrA. 
 
 XI. — Ithaca. 
 
 '^r 
 
 "/. 
 
 ^/. 
 
 ? 'M 
 
 A'.s 
 
 B Y 
 
 THEBE 
 
sec. i] Geography and Commerce 189 
 
 probable a priori that along with much which is imagin- 
 ation there should also be mirrored in the Odyssey 
 the recollection or tradition of early — not necessarily, 
 we repeat, Phoenician — ^voyagers. And this antecedent 
 likelihood is strongly confirmed by the impression of 
 any average reader of the Odyssey, who amid all the 
 marvels of the poet's fairy-domain will yet feel an 
 inward conviction that there is some truth at the 
 bottom of it all. 
 
 M. B6rard would place Calypso on the very confines 
 of the then known world, in a little islet on the African 
 coast just inside the Pillars of Hercules; others would 
 bring her nearer to Charybdis — which is commonly 
 understood to mean the straits of Messina — from which 
 Odysseus had drifted to the home of the Enchantress. 
 Sicily or its inhabitants are mentioned in both poems, 
 though only cursorily and without any description. 
 With regard to Phasacia (which is, we have said, of 
 importance), there is also considerable unanimity ; 
 for it was certainly more remote than Ithaca, and not 
 apparently at great distance from it, since Odysseus 
 passed from one place to the other in a single night ; 
 hence the claim of Corcyra to be intended is not an 
 improbable one. Such claims, however, in later timesj 
 and they were very numerous and sometimes con- 
 flicting, need not necessarily compel assent. To identify 
 the Lotus-eaters vaguely with some tribe on the N.-W. 
 coast of Africa would be very reasonable ; and to see 
 in the floating island an iceberg reported by mariners 
 who had been driven north by a gale, and to account 
 for the absence of real night in Laestrygonia on similar 
 principles is hardly to travel beyond the bounds of 
 sane conjecture. Many other theories on this subject 
 could be related, but for fuller information the student 
 will have to consult commentaries on the text of Homer 
 or special treatises on Homeric geography. 
 
[ I90 1 
 
 § 2. Religion and Ethics 
 
 Greek religion cannot be wholly disconnected from 
 Greek mythology, and yet it is quite proper to dis- 
 tinguish between the two. Religion 
 
 Beligion and underlies Mythology, and because it is 
 Mythology, the fundamental element it is also the 
 permanent. We may say that, speak- 
 ing generally, mythology deals with speculation, 
 religion with practice. The student of Homer must 
 necessarily give some attention to the Homeric gods, 
 their history, their functions and attributes ; but he 
 will do well to seek through them to attain to a knowledge 
 of the faith which their worship presupposed and of 
 the character which it tended to produce in their clients. 
 As starting points in our investigation we may lay 
 down clearly two principles, which must be carefully 
 borne in mind : — 
 
 I. The Homeric religion by no means represents a 
 primitive stage in the cult of the unseen. On the con- 
 trary, it contains diverse and complicated elements of 
 religion and mythology, and is evidently the result of 
 a long and probably tedious evolution. 
 
 II. Even though highly developed in its growth 
 Homeric religion must not be confused or identified 
 with the further stages of myth and of cult which we 
 meet with in later Greek literature. 
 
 All through the long history of Greek religion we can 
 trace cults of a special kind, which were certainly primi- 
 tive. The gods to whoni they belong 
 are called CfUhonian, as distinct from 
 ChtoiSiancuTte. O^y^^^.a^ and these had not merely 
 special titles but also a ntual quite 
 distinct from that of the gods above. 
 Isocrates states very clearly that the Olympians (as 
 the Romans said, the Superi) give good things, whereas 
 the Chthonian deities (or the Inferi) have to do with 
 
sec. 2] Religion and Ethics igi 
 
 punishments and calamities, and that their worship 
 consists not so much in honourable sacrifice as in cere- 
 monies of riddance. When victims were ofered to 
 them, they were usually black instead of white, and the 
 service was often performed at dead of night amid the 
 most gloomy associations. It is true that in later 
 times, according to one theory, the Dread Goddesses — 
 known to Athens as the Erinyes — changed their char- 
 acter, and according to ^schylus became Eumenides 
 or the Kindly Ones. Sophocles, too, in the CEMpus 
 Coloneus depicts the same as deities most propitious 
 and even lovable. But this is only an instance of the 
 extreme changefulness and pliability of Greek cults, 
 especially when coming under the magic sway of the 
 poets. At Athens, especially, there was a strong tend- 
 ency to cultivate the brighter side of religion. But all 
 religions have necessarily a darker side, and especially 
 the more primitive forms. That of the Greeks was 
 certainly no exception to the law. An element of 
 nature-worship, which was earlier than the Olympian 
 beliefc and rituals, remained side by side with them. 
 WcTSiay accept as true the statement of Miss J. E. 
 Harrison,' that these forms were much more prominent 
 in the minds of the common folk and in their personal 
 devotions than they were even in the more stately 
 ceremonial of public worship ; and that they displayed 
 a marvellous tenacity, appearing (though considerably 
 transformed) in the later mysticism which outlived, in 
 the Periclean era, the decay of Olympianism as a living 
 faith. According to the same theory, which is very 
 ably maintained in the work referred to, even in what 
 we are accustomed to rank as Olympian ceremonies, 
 and which were ranked as such in the festivals of the 
 historical period, there really lurked under a false and 
 later garb clear reminiscences of the more primitive 
 and gloomy ritual of Chthonian worship. 
 
 If, then, in the Greek religion of later times we find 
 large traces of primitive beliefs and rituals, we must 
 not be surprised to find in the Homeric age side by 
 
 ' In her Prolegomena to Greek Religion, 1904, chap i. 
 
192 Homeric Life [chap. IV 
 
 side with fully developed Olympianism 
 Traces in Homer (implying, as it does, an advanced 
 ofPrlmitiye and anthropomorphic conception of 
 Religion. the divinity) traces of nature cults, 
 worship of the dead, even human 
 sacrifices and other forms of savagery commonly found 
 in connection with primitive forms of religion. We may 
 also look in Homer for reminiscences of beliefs which 
 existed prior to the formation of the Olympian pantheon, 
 in the form of dynastic powers formerly operative but 
 now subdued and superseded ; and along with survivals of 
 an early marriage-system we may expect to see re- 
 flected in the supernatural economy the early state of 
 society known as matriarchal, in which the mother was 
 paramount in the family, all descent being traced 
 through her rather than through the father. 
 
 To discuss such large and complicated matters fully 
 would be clearly beyond our limits ; we cannot do more 
 than indicate a few illustrations of the above classes 
 of survivals which occur in the Homeric poems. 
 
 I. Nature-cults. The epithet /3o5jr« as aajg^'^d 
 to Hera has been thought not improbably to point to 
 a primitive animalism. No doubt it need not neces- 
 sarily imply more than ' with large, round eyes,' and 
 possibly the later bards meant no more by the use of 
 the term. Still, considering the importance attached 
 to cow-worship in the Egyptian and Hindoo systems, 
 the phrase is significant.' Again, the ^gis of Athena 
 and of Zeus, consisting of serpents, which were probably 
 intended to terrify their foes, points to snake-worship 
 (which we know survived till a late period in the 
 Erectheum on the Acropolis of Athens). So in later 
 art we find associated with many of the Oljmipian 
 deities emblems which are not easy to account for 
 
 ' Those who agree with Schliemann that y\avK&mi as applied 
 to Athena means owl-eyed will see in this a confirmation of the 
 above view. The point, however, is doubtful, and I thought it 
 better not to introduce it into the text. However, we must not 
 forget that while the slaughter of the Suitors is being carried out 
 Athnea retires to one of the rafters qi the roof, where she sits in 
 the form of a swallow. 
 
sec. 2] Religion and Ethics 193 
 
 except on the principal of survival. Besides Athena's 
 snake there is the ram of Hermes, the bear of Artemis, 
 the wolf and mouse of Apollo. The sacred oak of 
 Dodona, with its doves, may very probably point to 
 an early form of religion when animated things were 
 in general regarded as the special haunts of the 
 divinity.* 
 
 2. Worship of the Dead. This included, in primi- 
 tive times, the pouring of blood into their graves as a 
 nutriment for the departed spirits. In the Odyssey, 
 Book XI., the sacrifice to the dead gives a clear picture 
 of Chthonian worship, Odysseus is about to visit 
 Hades : he makes a trench, and pours into it the blood 
 of prescribed victims, among which is a quite black 
 ewe, and this blood is lapped up by the ghosts before 
 they have strength enough to hold converse with the 
 living. 
 
 3. Hnman Sacrifice. It is remarkable that in Homer 
 there is no trace of the sacrifice of Iphigenia by her 
 father Agamemnon — an event which became so cele- 
 brated later. On the other hand, in the Iliad we find 
 Achilles sacrificing a batch of Trojan captives to placate 
 the soul of Patroclus, his beloved companion and 
 friend. Connected with this we may note the mutila- 
 tion of the dead, and a certain savagery in the character 
 of Achilles who is, notwithstanding, the highest type of 
 perfect Achaean chivalry. 
 
 4. Earlier Dynasties. We are told that Zeus had 
 displaced his father Cronos, having bound him in chains 
 after a severe contest, and this is the most striking 
 evidence of the recent triumph of Olympianism over 
 an earlier system. But there are other indications in 
 references to the Titans almost suggesting Prometheus. 
 In the first book of the Iliad, it is stated that Zeus 
 was assisted against Poseidon and the other gods of 
 Olympus by Briareus, who " came and sat down by 
 Zeus, so that the blessed gods were afeared nor did they 
 
 ' Mr. Cook would connect the Double Axe of the Cretan Zeus 
 with the oak-cult. See Clas. Rev. vol. xvii,, series of articles 
 entitled " Zeus, Jupiter, and the Oak." 
 
 O 
 
194 Homeric Life [chap. IV 
 
 bind their sire." [ It is certain that the cult of Poseidon 
 was a comparatively early one among the Ionian Greeks. 
 In Homer he claims a sort of equality with Zeus, and 
 was never, like the other Olympians, affiliated to 
 him. What is also mysterious is a reference to Oceanus 
 as the father of the gods.' 
 
 5. SnrYiYals of a Matriarchal period (?) We may 
 note that the cults both of Hera and of Demeter were 
 very ancient and probably belonged to the earlier 
 strata of Greek religion. Hera is very prominent in 
 Homer. Demeter less so, but it is remarkable that 
 Persephone, her daughter, is addressed as " daughter 
 of Zeus," " which, perhaps, implies that Demeter was 
 his spouse in the under-world. Her very name implies 
 that she is the earth-mother, and even in the Iliad,* 
 bread is spoken of as the " bruised corn of Demeter." 
 Again, the great prominence given to Athena in both 
 poems, but more particularly in the Odyssey, has been 
 considered a proof of matriarchal influence. For a 
 fuller treatment of this interesting question, the 
 student should consult Miss Harrison's Prolegomena 
 already referred to.' 
 
 The second principle which we premised must be 
 
 borne in mind regarding Homeric religion is a simpler 
 
 one. Though containing elements of 
 
 Homer and primitiire and Chthonian ritual, that 
 
 later religion religion, on the whole, represents an 
 contrasted, advanced stage of Greek anthropo- 
 morphic faith which is aptly termed 
 Olympian ; but yet it must be carefully distinguished 
 from still later developments and changes which never 
 ceased to be introduced into the beliefs of the highly 
 susceptible and imaginative Greeks. 
 
 For instance, Pheidias, in the central tableau of his 
 Parthenon frieze, introduces the seated court of Olym- 
 pian deities, which he regards as fixed at twelve, and 
 
 ' II. i. 405-6. * II. xiv, 201 and cp. 1. 344. 
 
 ' Od. xi. 217. * Book xiii. 322. 
 
 • There are some references in the Iliad to the Amazons, and 
 they perhaps point to the greater importance and power of 
 ■women in very early times. 
 
sec. 2] Religion and Ethics 195 
 
 perhaps this was the convention at the period.* It 
 must be remarked, however, that at Olyniipia itself, 
 the principal seat of the cultus of Zeus, there were 
 also twelve altars to the chief gods, but these were 
 widely different from those recognised at Athens. 
 Whatever may have been the case as to unity of belief 
 in the Hellenic period, certainly the Homeric pantheon 
 must be considered as something by itself apart. Of 
 Dionysus, who looms so largely in the Athens of Pericles 
 and Sophocles, there is hardly any trace in Homer. 
 The same has already been remarked about Demeter 
 who, with Persephone became so important in later 
 times in regard to the Mysteries. Ares and even Aphro- 
 dite are still regarded somewhat as foreigners. Hermes 
 and Thetis are very prominent. There are an enor- 
 mous number of Mythological personages, some of whom 
 must be regarded as half- developed, perhaps more or 
 less tentative, impersonations of abstract ideas. On 
 the whole the distinction between greater and lesser 
 deities is not so clearly marked in Homer as it became 
 at a later period. The characters, however, of the 
 different gods, heroes, and supernatural powers is most 
 vivid and clear-cut, as indeed is everything which is 
 delineated in the poems. 
 
 The three great Olympians in Homer, as also in Greek 
 
 literature generally, are Zeus, Athena, and Apollo. 
 
 ,H?ra, it has been already remarked, is 
 
 Homer'B great prominent as the queen of heaven, but 
 
 Divinities. ^^^ importance appears to be more 
 
 official than personal. She is the spouse 
 
 of Zeus, and though she is not by any means in constant 
 
 agreement with him, the role she has to play depends 
 
 ajmost entirely on her relation to the supreme god. 
 
 She is in the Iliad a sort of dramatic necessity, and 
 
 neither in character nor in action does she display a 
 
 striking individuality, unless, perhaps, in her faithful 
 
 * Plato (Phtsdr. 247 A) speaks of the Princely Twelve ; but the 
 only divinity he names in addition to Zeas is Hestia, who pro- 
 bably was not represented in the frieze, though there is 
 Considerable uncertainty as to the identification of some of the 
 figures. 
 
,196 Homeric Life [chap. IV 
 
 adherfince^to ±he cause of the Achaeans. With Athena 
 and Apollo the case is very different. Their action is 
 most vital to the plot of both poems, and. their per- 
 sonality is always strongly marked. Besides their 
 importance in the mind of the Homeric bards is felt in 
 this, that their names are used in conjunction in the 
 most solemn asseverations. It is true that oaths 
 were very often taken by the older divinities, " the 
 Sun, the Earth, and Rivers," ' the " Sun, the Earth, 
 and the Erinyes," " or by the " hospitable table and 
 hearth." " The gods themselves swore by the Styx, 
 or by the Titans. But when the Olympian gods are 
 named for the purpose of solemnity the commonly- 
 recurring formula was pronounced : 
 
 m yap Zev Tt Trarep koI 'ABijvairi Koi AttoWov. 
 
 And what is equally remarkable is that prayer for 
 special blessings in Homer is almost invariably offered 
 to one of these deities, never to the other Olympians, 
 not even to Hera.* 
 
 I ". The importance of Apollo largely depends on the fact 
 Uhat his association with Zeus, his sire, is of the closest ; 
 for when the ruler of Olympus has determined on a 
 course of action he turns as though instinctively to 
 this among his other sons and daughters for the execu- 
 tion of his will. But Apollo has also a marked policy 
 and will of his own, though he never opposes the will 
 of his sire in the same way as the other Olympians are 
 wont to do. It has been remarked above that Apollo 
 is at enmity with the Achaeans, and that his anger is 
 the original mainspring of the plot of the Iliad. Though 
 possibly owing his origin to a solar myth, it must be 
 observed that in Homer he is not, as in later mythology, 
 the sun-god proper, who makes a distinct appearance in 
 Homer under the name of Helios. Nor is the character 
 
 ' //. iii. 277-8. 
 
 ^ II. xix. 259. 
 
 ' Od. xiv. 159, 
 
 ■* Poseidon is, however, an exception, but he is hardly an 
 Olympian in the fullest sense, standing rather apart, and very 
 probably belonging to the older stratum of religion. 
 
sec. 2] Religion and Ethics 197 
 
 of, Apollo, as the god of all brightness, purity, and joy, 
 fully developed in the Homeric period, for he deals 
 death with his sharp arrows,. and is a god of justice 
 rather than' orriiefcy ; however, he is fiill of dignity : 
 aiid"6f greatness, aiid his oracular character is already ', 
 showing signs of manifestation. • It is then little wonder 
 that at a later period the Dorians chose him for their 
 special favourite. 
 
 Athena is in many things the female double of Apollo, 
 certainly far more so than his twin-sister Artemis, the 
 moon-goddess. We associate the thought of Athena 
 with her own city and its great festival, when later she 
 became to Athens and all the lonians what Apollo 
 was to Sparta and the Dorian tribes. But Athena'sl 
 majesty is also beginning to shine forth even in the!' 
 Iliad, while in the Odyssey she stands fully revealed | 
 as a wondrous type of female divinity — already, like her I 
 sire, a proper subject for the art of Pheidias. She is I 
 more. than gnai:diaii- angel to.Qd3rssem»,. whgjl^fadeed 
 heE-cQ]interMrt rather^thanamere_client. For fiS~is 
 inspired?~wiIF°15sf "'courage^and ISiypo^essed by her 
 wisdom, and depends, as does Telemachus also, wholly 
 on her guidance and protection. • This theme might 
 repay a fuller treatment, but we must pass on to some 
 consideration of the Homeric presentment of Zeus,, 
 the ' father of gods and men.' 
 
 The principal interest of the Olympian system centres? 
 
 of course in Zeus. His personality has in it something^ 
 
 of grandeur and of littleness, for he is,*" 
 
 The Homeric ''.s Gladstone well remarked, at once the' 
 
 conception of most divine and the most human of all 
 
 Zeus. the Homeric gods. . In him the strength 
 
 and the weakness of, anthropomorphic 
 
 .^vinity.is clearly displayed, a view which will supply 
 
 a key "to all the seeming inequalities in his character. 
 
 Moreover, the Homeric mind sees in the gods_as in^human 
 
 beings chiefly the attribute of power, .sa .that the supre^ 
 
 macy of Zeus over his children consists "rather, in power 
 
 than in goodrieffi;;^cQnception.-M_IdiKinity- which is 
 
 perhap&-4e;"qutcoS2pfjnaturer thought. Zeu§.,then , 
 
 reflects on a graiidlose scale human nature as it really ) 
 
igS Homeric Life [chap. V 
 
 exists, with all its passions magnified just, as much as 
 its higher qualities and nobler aims. We must not, 
 therefore, judge him harshly nor try him by a standard 
 not his own. . And if we make necessary allowances we 
 shall find in Zeus many elements of real grandeur,t 
 goodness, and divinity. First, however, it may be well 
 to recall what has been already stated.^ Zeus was, in 
 his origin, an atmospheric god, the lord of the upper 
 air, the ' Cloud-compeller,' ' Wielder of the thunder- 
 bolt,' ' Rejoicing in the thunder-clap.' It has been 
 maintained" that he was originally the Firmament 
 rather than its god ; and we have seen that in the poems 
 themselves it is possible to trace his progress from the 
 elemental to a more spiritual view of his divinity, and 
 to find in this one of the strongest arguments for the 
 gradual evolution of the poems though long periods of 
 time. The very name of Zeus, which is of Indo- 
 European origin, points to his connection with the sky ; ' 
 and it would seem as though in his case anthropo- 
 morphic development was not so much due to conta- 
 mination of a foreign element, but was, so to say, in- 
 herent and personal to himself. However this may be, 
 at the end of the Homeric period we find him com- 
 bining a rugged human grandeur with a quite un- 
 approachable splendour of divinity. 
 
 The question of the supremacy of Zeus among the Im- 
 mortals is important because it appears to imply a strong 
 
 tendency towards monotheistic religion. 
 
 I8 Zens really But at first sight his supremacy is not 
 
 a Supreme so evident. , The other gods oppose him, 
 
 Ruler? .fliera entraps him, and he is depicted, 
 
 especially in the Iliad, as involved in the 
 general struggle on whi6h:the plot revolves. We must 
 remember, however, that this very struggle is required 
 by the poetical exigencies of the case ; moreover, that 
 
 ' See page 97. 
 
 ' See Geddes, I.e. p. 135, note. 
 
 s It is also remarkable that many of the earliest seats of the 
 worship of Zeus were on high mountains. Olympus ; Mt. Ida and 
 the Dictsean Mt. in Crete ; Mt. Ida in Phrygia ; Mt. Aetna ; Oeta 
 in Thessaly were all celebrated in this way. 
 
sec. 2] Religion and Ethics 199 
 
 ■"the very opposition to the will of Zeus is always such 
 \ as to bring out the fact of his power and, in the long 
 run, of hxs absolute supremacy. We have already 
 pointed out that he should be viewed from a stand- 
 point which might be called dynamical rather than 
 statical. In other words it is a growing supremacy — 
 one which is ever tending to become more and more 
 stable, rather than starting from a position of absolute 
 security. The question is sometimes asked, whether the 
 will of Zeus is regarded as subordinate to Fate or as 
 superior to it ? /This is a question which the Homeric 
 5 bard could never have answered — but neither would he 
 I have asked it, for he had not yet been troubled with 
 r modern controversies about Free-will and Determinism. 
 ', The Homeric poets hardly considered Fate as really 
 \ distinct from the will of Zeus — neither did they con- 
 "sider them explicitly as identical. They view them 
 ;'from different standpoints, and if the two are set in 
 what looks like momentary opposition tO one another, 
 •it is merely a dramatic expedient for bringing out 
 j their abiding and essential, harmony. Homeric religion 
 \ is based not so much upon logic as upon imagination, 
 a fact which it is easy for literary criticism to overlook. 
 What is worth drawing attention to is the close 
 relation existing between Zeus and Themis. This,' 
 abstraction-goddess signifies human right, based indeed 
 upon convention, but also involving the principle of 
 pure justice. . "Ati; or Infatuation, is another principle 
 which is bound up with the idea of Fate or Destiny in 
 an evil sense. In so far as it is supposed to come upon 
 men as a punishment for crime, this idea has a dis- 
 tinctly ethical value. Without fixing a special relation 
 between "Att; and the gods, we may say that the 
 Homeric mind conceived the former vaguely as in 
 harmony with the divine will. 
 I From what has been stated, the student will under-,' 
 I stand that the Olympians in Homer are not regarded 
 i solely as workers of beneficence. Everything m the 
 I world which could not be obviously understood was 
 i referred to supernatural, and usually to divine, 
 \ agency. There is no distinct principle of evil (as in 
 
200 Homeric Life [chap. IV 
 
 many religious systems) to account for' 
 Do the Homeric the drawbacks of human life. As in^ 
 gods work evil? men good and evil tendencies are inter-' 
 
 mingled ; so the ^ods, beings viewed as 
 men on a grander and somewhat higher scalcj^ are neitKief| 
 exempt from suffering evil nor incapable of doing it?^ 
 They may use fraud as well as force,^ and just like men' 
 require to be bound by oaths. ,Badluck as well as good 
 comes froin the gods, and all sorts of dreanis, and most 
 of all sudden madness and aberration. Moreover, it is to 
 be tolerated and even expected in the gods that with 
 their greater power and less external responsibility, 
 many actions shall pass unquestioned which would 
 bring shame upon poor weak humanityy^Hence Homer 
 and his Olympians were commonly reprobated by mora- 
 lists, especially among the ancients. Plato, we have 
 seen, was inexorable in banishing Homer from his 
 ideal state, and mainly on account of what he con- 
 sidered an immoral picture of the divinity. For Plato 
 had reached a higher plane of Religious thought than 
 the anthropomorphic. Though he did not reject either 
 tbe ritual or all the teaching of the State religion, he 
 rejected its theological basis. Being one of the greatest 
 apostles of monotheism that the world has known, he 
 could not tolerate a less advanced and less perfect 
 system of faith, at least as a vehicle of education. 
 From his point of view he was justified. He excluded 
 Homer from the school, as we should have to exclude 
 him, if he were offered there as a guide and standard 
 for our own morality and religion. But if we are to 
 judge of the poems as literature, we must judge them 
 according to the standards of their own age and the 
 degree of enlightenment which their own authors could 
 boast of. Viewed in this light, we cannot hesitate 
 about admitting that the poems, taken as a whole, are 
 healthy, pure, and invigorating, and that with all their 
 limitations they have exercised an enormous influence 
 for good upon the mind of Hellas, and therefore of 
 humanity. 
 
 We may' refer to a statement of Herodotus bearing 
 on this subject which is frequently quoted. He says 
 
sec 2] Religion and Ethics 201 
 
 (in Book ii. chap. 53) that Homer together with Hesiod 
 
 actually created the Greek theogony. 
 
 Influence of deciding the number of the gods. 
 
 Homer on Greek their origin, titles, prerogatives (ri/iai) 
 
 mythology. faculties (tex""") and their personal 
 
 characteristics (ffflea). Now there is a 
 sense in which this statement is true enough. It 
 it impossible to exaggerate the religious influence on 
 the Greek mind of the great epics, and especially of 
 Homer whom Hesiod merely follows " magno intervallo." 
 But the bards gave what they got. To say they created 
 the Theogony may be misleading. They dealt with 
 popular legends, selecting, purifying, transforming them 
 if you will, by their art, but they did not invent them 
 at will. Mythology is a gradual growth of. the mind 
 of the people, and the primitive poet may have ventured 
 to interpret, but not to create in the full sense of the 
 word. What Homer did was, perhaps consciously to 
 suppress one legend and to stereotype another for all 
 time, and in this sense alone is it fair to call him the 
 creator of Greek mythology. 
 
 The gods are depicted in Homer as being very near I 
 their clients, and in the closest relations to all the events 1 
 
 of life. Even what we should think' 
 
 istics of the " ordinary occurrences the Homeric man , 
 
 Homeric Cult, naturally referred to Zeus, and some- ! 
 
 times more than that god cared for.^ 
 At least he is made to complain,' " Alas ! how greatly 
 do mortal men find fault with the gods — for they say 
 that their troubles come on them from us, whereas it 
 is from their own folly that they suffer woes beyond 
 what is destined them." However this might be,, 
 these .believers in the Olympic powers lived as it were 
 continually in their presence, and nothing makes this , 
 plainer than their habits in regard to sacrifice. Theyf-, 
 undertook nothing, did nothing, small or great, without 't 
 some sacrificial rite, at least that of libation, which ] 
 was of course the simplest. It may be well to recall/* 
 here a few of the characteristic details of the ceremonies, 
 
 »0d. i. 33-s. 
 
202 Homeric Life [chap. IV 
 
 though as they are constantly being repeated, they will 
 soon become familiar to the student of the poems. 
 Sacrifice was a simple thing ; as we shall see in our next 
 Section,! it ^^ not require a professional priest, and to 
 sit down to the chief meal of the day without a pre- 
 liminary offering to the gods would have been, if not 
 an impious act, at least equivalent to partaking of 
 refection without a blessing. For not merely on the 
 occasion of a solemn sacrifice, but even in the case of 
 a large meal, involving the slaughter of an animal, 
 this was itself treated as a divine victim, and was slain 
 in a sacrificial manner. The sacrificer washed his 
 hands symbolically, barley grains were " thrown 
 forward " (probably on the head of the victim)," 
 prayer was offered with hands outstretched, the throat 
 of the victim was turned upward (if the sacrifice was 
 to an Olympian) and was then cut with a knife. Cer- 
 tain portions of the thigh-bones, wrapped in fat, were 
 burnt in honour of the divinity, with a libation of wine 
 poured on them. Then there was a ceremonial tasting 
 of the vitals, and after that the ordinary meal com- 
 menced on the bulk of the meat. But even during the 
 meal no one presumed to drink unless all had been 
 first supplied with a few drops of wine to pour out in 
 libation to the god. At all times libation was most 
 frequent among the Greeks : when wine could not be 
 had, they used water. To the Chthonian deities honey, 
 mead, and water, but not wine, were offered. 
 
 The Homeric people believed that at death, the soul! 
 
 issued from the body, sometimes with the life-blood 
 
 in case of a mortally wounded hero,| 
 
 The Bupposed ^^^ that it continued to lead a sort of 
 
 condition of the phantom life in the nether world. The' 
 
 Dead. conception of this departed shade was 
 
 itself of a very shadowy sort. We are 
 
 told distinctly that unless the dead were, so to speak, 
 
 ' See below, pages 207 and 215. 
 
 ' In some cases, but apparently not as a rule, the hair of the 
 victim was ceremonially cut and cast into the fire. SeeOd. iji. 
 446 and //. xix. 254. 
 
sec. 2] Religion and Ethics 203 
 
 revived and resuscitated by a draught of fresh-flowing 
 blood, they were, with a single exception,* deprived of 
 consciousness. Yet no doubt the bards imagined that 
 the dead were capable of different degrees of happiness, 
 and that this depended in great measure upon the 
 treatment accorded to their lifeless corpses. Hence 
 the mutilations of dead foes through anger, and the 
 many important conflicts waged over the bodies of the 
 slain, as those of Sarpedon and Patroclus. And the 
 greatest misfortune that could befall a warrior was to 
 be torn by dogs and birds of prey, without receiving 
 due burial. Even to die by drowning, or to be buried 
 at sea, was a sadder occurrence than it would be 
 with us. 
 
 Funerals, therefore, were carried out with great 
 elaboration and at large expense. When cremation 
 was had recourse to, as it usually was, it was under 
 the idea that fire, while it effectually bars the way to 
 all mutilation or defilement, has also a purifying effect 
 which indirectly benefits the soul of the departed. The 
 burning was of course carried out ceremoniously, the 
 corpse being laid in the fat of victims, and copious 
 libations of wine and honey were poured out upon it. 
 The bones were reverently collected, covered with 
 linen, and placed in a mortuary urn. This was often 
 buried in the earth, and over a super-incumbent mound, 
 a memorial stone (or^Xi;) was set, probably with some 
 rough symbolism at least marked on it, though this 
 point is not recorded in the poems." 
 
 ' That of Teiresias, to whom alone was granted mnvvadai. 
 
 ' We shall have to recur to the Homeric aTrjKm below in con- 
 nection with the four discovered over the shaft-graves at Mycense. 
 See pages 250 and 286. 
 
[ 204 ] 
 
 § 3* Social Organisation 
 
 Before trying to construct from the poems a picture 
 of Homeric society it might be wise to enquire how 
 far is such a process justifiable ? This 
 ^M ^^^ ^t*"lf ^^ ^°^ ^^^ question, on which opinions 
 of real society 7 must necessarily differ, as to the amount 
 of historic truth contained in the poems 
 as narratives of actual events. For even though 
 we granted for the sake of argument — what we 
 should by no means be disposed to grant in reality — 
 namely, that the poems are pure romance, say like 
 the Arabian Nights, yet even in that supposition we 
 should still maintain that, to a certain extent, they 
 would necessarily reflect the experience of the author. 
 Moreover, though this is true of all literature, it will 
 be so especially in the case of that which is, as Homer 
 confessedly is, marked by naturalness and simplicity. 
 Be we need not argue the point, for not even the most 
 sceptical writers on Homer have dreamed of denying 
 that the Iliad and Odyssey may be legitimately used 
 for the construction of at least the general outlines of 
 pre-Hellenic social organisation. 
 
 What is perhaps more necessary is to enter a caution 
 against the possibility of our being misled by the very 
 vividness of the picture presented to us, and so allow- 
 ing ourselves to forget that after all Homer is litera- 
 ture, and therefore does contain an element of rhetoric 
 and imagination. What is related, even when it is true, 
 yet may be exceptional and indeed may be pourtrayed 
 therefor. Achilles in his passion may utter strange 
 words, which perhaps we should do well to take with 
 at least ' a grain ' of salt ; a brutal Achaean has the 
 bad manners to hurl an ox-foot at the disguised 
 Odysseus, but this hardly proves that all Achaeans 
 were intolerably savage. 
 
 Another little caution is this. We have seen that 
 
sec. 3] Social Organisation 205 
 
 the Homeric people were certainly in touch, (whether 
 directly or possibly through the Phoenicians), with 
 oriented systems of culture more advanced than their 
 own. We may conclude from this not merely that a 
 foreign element was introduced into their actual civilisa- 
 tion, but there must have been a temptation to the 
 bards to embroider, or to interweave the texture of 
 their work with allusions to foreign grandeur^with which 
 they may perhaps have been but slightly acquainted. 
 
 Lastly, so far from starting with the express assump- 
 tion, as a recent writer has done,* that the Homeric 
 poems represent a single culture-epoch, we hope the 
 reader has been already convinced that they do nothing 
 of the sort. It is true that, as, in the last Section on 
 Homeric geography, so in considering Homerk social 
 institutions, it may be permitted for convenience sake 
 to view the subject from a single standpoint, and to 
 regard the picture as if painted by a single hand. But 
 we shall do well continually to remember that this is 
 something of a makeshift, and that in the poems we 
 have multifarious elements both of time and place, of 
 which the resultant unity is less real than apparent. 
 
 Proceeding therefore cautiously, and admitting the 
 difficulty of the task, yet endeavouring to avoid what 
 is controversial and to keep to what is clearly delineated, 
 we may hope to construct a fairly just portrait of many 
 of the conditions of social life in the Homeric period. 
 
 The Iliad, and Odyssey agree in uniformly presenting 
 
 a picture of a people who though not primitive were in a 
 
 rude stage of progress. In all organised 
 
 Society poDghly life there must be a double basis — the 
 
 org^sed but physical and the ethical — but comparing 
 
 ari^ocra^c Homeric with modern or even with Hel- 
 lenic society we at once see that the 
 material element preponderates. Ihe law most in 
 evidence all through is the rule of tha stronger : the 
 principle of right as against might is by no means absent, 
 but it is only struggling to come to the front. We need 
 
 ' A. G. Keller in Homeric Society (see Introduction, p. 5), a 
 book, however, of much value, to which I am glad to be able to 
 express my many obligations. 
 
2o6 Homeric Life [chap. IV 
 
 not insist too much on occasional acts of extreme 
 brutality, especially in regard to incidents which may 
 be introduced partly for poetic effect. But from the 
 way in which theft, adultery, rapine, and homicide are 
 usually spoken of we can learn that'they were not fully 
 reprobated. With regard to murder, indeed, the guilty' 
 party suffered this disadvantage, that he was expected 
 to compromise matters by a money payment to the 
 relatives of the deceased. But the acceptation of this 
 was voluntary, and if it was refused, the injured party 
 were permitted, or perhaps we should say, expected to 
 inflict adequate private vengeance for the bloodshed. 
 
 The way piracy is spoken of is very instructive. It 
 was the ordinary thing, when accosting travellers, to 
 ask them, ' Who are you ? Whence do you come ? Are 
 you engaged in trade, or do you rove at adventure as 
 sea-robbers who wander at hazard of their lives bringing 
 bane to strangers ? ' ' ' Cattle-lifting ' in particular was 
 quite a respectable employment, and indeed was a 
 service which a suitor for a bride might offer to per- 
 form for his father-in-law as an inducement. We 
 gather, moreover, that the lot of the orphan was re- 
 garded as a hard one, that his rights were liable to 
 infringement : however, this need not imply that such 
 rights were non-existent. 
 
 .The family tie was very strong : anything approach- 
 ing parricide or incest (except among the gods) is 
 viewed with horror. The idea of the State is but that of 
 an extended family, and altliough the ethical andTegal 
 c5de was not elaborate, such as it was, to protect, it 
 devolved on the father and the king respectively. And 
 not merely is it the king's duty to see that the rules 
 are kept,* but he does this as the representative of 
 Zeus, and those who give ' crooked judgments ' are 
 said not to regard the vengeance of the gods.' 
 
 By stating that Homeric society is distinctly aristo- 
 
 ' Od. iii. 71 and ix. 252. 
 
 » The word is de/jmrres or ' precedents,' which is almost the 
 Homeric equivalent to our idea of ' law and order.' 
 
 ' oi (TKn^jor KpivexTi Oijua-Tat . . . 6e&v &mv oiiK oKeyuvrts, 
 
sec. 3] Social Organisation 207 
 
 cratical we mean that the Achaean nobility constitute 
 its chief element. They are not much more than 
 nominally subject to the king ; whereas in contrast to 
 the common people their position is paramount. Both 
 in peace and in war they are depicted in the poems as 
 living a splendid life, owning spacious palaces and 
 accumulated wealth, and endowed (like the Hellenic 
 cities of later date) with local autonomy and practically 
 ^qyereignxights. Achilles, Menelaus, Odysseus, m B,ct 
 ^I the leading chieftaiiis~are spoken of as 'divinely- 
 nurtured kings, ^'though it is true that Agamemnon, 
 as the Leader of the Hosts in the Trojan war, is recog- 
 nised as having very marked attributes of respect. 
 The poems have been called. Court poems, so strongly 
 do they paint the superiority of the chieftains over the 
 common soldiery ; and it is to be noted that any occur- 
 rence in the poems of professional bards represents 
 them as retainers in the palaces of kings. 
 
 The king (it has been already hinted) is to the State 
 
 on a larger scale what the patriarch is to his own family. 
 
 His great function is of course to lead 
 
 Patriarchal ill war — in fact we may suppose him to 
 
 constitation of bold the office in virtue of his higher 
 the State. strength and fighting capacity — qualities 
 not dimly expressed by the conven- 
 tional assumption that he is the descendant of the 
 gods, often (like Achilles, ^neas, or Sarpedon) their 
 son. But besides his military duty, the king has two 
 other offices which are distinctly patriarchal : he must 
 sacrifice to the gods for his people, and he must preside 
 over the dispensation of justice to them. Thus he is 
 General, High Priest, and Supreme Judge, all in one. 
 
 Moreover, there are certain forms of the State fully 
 recognised as already in being. These are the Council 
 and the Agora or general assembly of thepeople. The 
 Council' consists of the nobles or subordinate kings who 
 
 ' Sir Richard Jebb appears quite to have disposed of Mr. 
 Gladstone's contention that the expression S.va^ dvdpav as 
 applied to specified individuals carried with it any special signi- 
 fication. — See Homer, p. 47, note. 
 
2C38 Homeric Life [chap. IV 
 
 meetjtQ-discuss matters of^ jiolic^;^_The^ctiu;e given 
 us in the poems represents theTtoiglalone^ as engowed 
 with directyaptitiority ; the members of the CQuncil are 
 competent to offer their, opinions — whidi they do 
 with great freedom though with absolute respect to 
 the presiding sovereign — and it then devolves solely 
 on the latter to give a final decision. The power of 
 thejjeoplejn the Agora (as in the Spartan Assembly of 
 a later era) is merely passive. They meet to receive 
 their orders and have nollternafrve" but T:o accept 
 them, and, if they like, to express their approval by 
 acclamation. Hence we might perhaps sum up the 
 position of the king by remarking that, whereas with 
 ourselves the pre-eminence of the sovereign is social 
 rather than political p^ut none the less weightjiron that 
 account), . in Homeric times his nominal power was 
 fairly unlimited, while his real influence was com- 
 paratively small. 
 
 To return to the chieftains, or lesser kings, there is 
 an important fact to be noted. . From the way they 
 are spoken of in the poems, it is clear that to the poets' 
 mind they represent a recent and not a long-standing 
 political organisation. The people, though wholly sub- 
 ordinated to their rulers, are not always in complete 
 Harmony with them, and are perhaps purposely shown 
 in the poems as of a distinct and inferior breed. The 
 very genealogies of the Kings (even Agamemnon him- 
 self J show that' they had not been long rooted in the 
 soil ; when traced back a very few generations they lead 
 either to a foreign {e.g. Phrygian or Thracian) source, 
 or else to a divine progenitor as Zeus.^ Again, Menelaus 
 speaks to Telemachus, offering to settle him in Laconia, 
 " we will sack a town for you," as though it would cost 
 him very little to leave his own home and seek a new 
 one. Besides we have distinct traces of a traditional 
 pre- Achaean stage in Tiryns, Laconia, and Crete. This 
 is a matter of much significance, but we cannot dwell on 
 
 ' Thisjparticular characteristic belongs quite as much to the 
 Trojan as to the Achaean Confederacy, and is illustrated |by 
 Priam's own genealogy. 
 
sec. 3] Social Organisation 209 
 
 it here. For there are other aspects of Homeric society 
 which, for the present, demand our attention. 
 
 The question of land-tenure in Homeric times is one 
 
 which is much debated, and it is not easy to give a simple 
 
 statement on the subject which will 
 
 System of certainly cover all the references to it 
 
 Land-Ienure. in the poems. In primitive times among 
 many, perhaps among most, peoples, 
 the communal or tribal possession of land prevailed, 
 private tenure being wholly unknown. The people 
 or tribe not merely possessed but often cultivated the 
 land in common ; or if they had plots allotted to them, 
 these were merely divisions of a common field which 
 were by no means regarded as private property, even 
 though the individual's right to cultivate a portion 
 might be regarded as personal. The king or chieftain 
 alone owned a special division of land, but even in his 
 case the possession was merely official and would not 
 descend in case of elective succession to his children 
 as a family inheritance. 
 
 Now, in Homer we have many clear traces of this 
 Common Field system of land-tenure, which is specially 
 mentioned in the Iliad,} The Royal demense {rifuvosy 
 is frequently referred to in both poems, and such a 
 royal field (unlike the ordinary citizen's) had a hedge 
 round it. Such a rifitvos is also distinctly spoken 
 of as a gift from the people, to whom the ultimate 
 dominion of land appears to have appertained. 
 
 It is not, however, so certain that all the allusions 
 in Homer to property in land can be satisfactorily 
 explained on the Common Field system of tenure. 
 Professor Ridgeway who has gone far in defending 
 this view,' and has tried to explain several expressions * 
 
 ' Book^xii. 422. im(vva iv apovpji. 
 
 » This expression is also'used to denote the Demesne of a god 
 or goddess. 
 
 » See Article entitled The Homiric Land System in J.H,S., 
 vol. vi., p. 319, and Early A^e of Greece, vol. i., p. 678. 
 
 *For instance, he maintains that iroKvXriios (Iliad v. 613) 
 means not ' rich in corn-fields ' from X^'toi', but ' rich in posses- 
 sions ' from yteia. He also deals with wo\vK\rjpos and a/cXijpor, 
 ■which occur in the Odyssey only. 
 
 P 
 
2IO Homeric Life [chap. IV 
 
 in the Iliad in harmony with it, yet admits that in the 
 Odyssey at least private property in land is beginning 
 to creep in ; but that there is a clear contrast between 
 the state of things described therein, and that of the 
 Works and Days of Hesiod when private estates are 
 spoken of as being ordinarily bought and sold. He 
 even adds " this has an important bearing on the 
 chronology of the Poems." As however the subject 
 is somewhat obscure, we thought it better not to in- 
 troduce it at length when treating of the date and 
 origin of the poems (see above page lOo). 
 
 The treatment of guests, even when they are perfect 
 strangers, is one of the most interesting and pleasing 
 features of Homeric life. Naturally 
 The law of there is more of it in the more peaceful 
 Hospitality. and domestic of the two poems. The 
 central and by far the most attractive 
 portion of the Odyssey is taken up largely with the 
 reception of Odysseus (at first as a perfect stranger, 
 thrown up naked from the sea) at the court of Alcinous, 
 where he is received, first by the king's daughter and 
 then by the king himself, with royal kindness, and is 
 most sumptuously entertained. But this action is de\ 
 picted as normal : any lack of hospitality would have 
 been an outrage against good breeding and religion ; 
 would involve the scorn of men as well as the vengeance 
 of Zeus Herkeios, Zeus of the Hospitable Hearth. Guests 
 are called ' revered ' persons, and it is said that Zeus 
 specially attends on them.' The guest often took the' 
 guise of a suppliant by sitting in the ashes of the hearth, 
 but this was in order to obtain special grace, and was 
 by no means universally expected of the stranger 
 under ordinary circumstances. There is nothing causes 
 more horror than the violation of hospitality. It is 
 a crime attributed to the most savage and murderous 
 peoples, and is reprobated as an aggravating circum- 
 stance on the part of the cannibal Polyphemus, who 
 
 1 See Od. ix. 270-1 : — 
 
 Zeiy t'emrifiriTap iKfrdav re ^civav re 
 
sec. 3] Social Organisation 211 
 
 devoured in his cave the companions of Odysseus. 
 A guest, too, of course had reciprocal obligations, and 
 it is noteworthy that the Trojan war was undertaken 
 to avenge the treachery of Paris when Menelaus was 
 entertaining him. When the Acaehans were sick of 
 the struggle it was enough to remind them that the 
 high principle of hospitality was at stake. , In the 
 Iliad, too, there is given a beautiful instance of two 
 guest-friends meeting in the battle-field as opponents, 
 and on their mutual recognition refusing to. fight and 
 exchanging arms as a sign of their amity. ^ . 
 
 It has been suggested" that this love of hospitality 
 indicates a reaching forth of the Homeric people 
 towards the outside world, and was a product of their 
 contact with higher civilisations than their own. It 
 cannot be denied that the prevalence of such customs 
 would operate in favour of travel, exploration, and 
 commerce, though it would be easy to exaggerate in 
 seeking to explain artificially the wide-spread generous 
 instincts of a scattered race. 
 
 Nothing can give a more clear and at the same time 
 favourable view of Homeric society than to under- 
 stand fully the place which women held 
 
 Woman's high jn jt. And this is more remarkable 
 
 ^Influence" because it is the one point in which we 
 cannot help recognising a very unpleas- 
 ing retrogression in the descendants of these peoplfe 
 as revealed to us in later Greek literature. . In Homer 
 woman is very nmch in evidence and almost invariably 
 in what we should now call her proper sphereT She 
 was not excluded, put out of sight ; she held a very 
 prominent "position in family life, and held it very well! 
 Asjwife,. as mother, and as queen she is depicted as 
 uniformly exercising a noble but gentle sway over the 
 stronger sex, so that down to our own day the names 
 of Athena, Nausicaa, Penelope, and Andromache are 
 
 ' They were Diomedes the Achaean warrior and Glaucus of 
 Lycia, whose grandfather had been entertained by the grand- 
 father of Diomedes. This was, therefore, an instance of here- 
 ditary friendship merely. See II. vi. 145 ff. 
 
 ' See Keller, Homeric Society, p. 303. 
 
212 Homeric Life [chap. IV 
 
 household words to us, standing for all that is pure in 
 girlhood and lovable in matronly virtue. It is ac- 
 knowledged that lapses from the standard occur : 
 Aphrodite is a seductive goddess and brings Helen to 
 ruin ; nor is the story of Potiphar's wife without its 
 analogue in Homer : but the higher ideal is simply and 
 surely delineated, and carries with it its own evidence 
 that it is based on reality and truth. 
 
 Except among the Trojans and their allies, the only 
 system of marriage known to the Homeric people is 
 monogamy. A wife is purchased by bride-gifts, but 
 she has her rights which her blood-relatives will safe- 
 guard. If for a just reason she is put away, the bride- 
 gift must be duly returned to the husband. A widow 
 might re-marry, but in case of doubt of the husband's 
 death she was to remain faithful, and should not re- 
 marry at least during the minority of the heir. Even 
 the story of Clytemnestra's falseness to her husband, 
 and the crime which it entailed, is an additional proof, 
 if one were needed, of the high rank of woman and of 
 her domestic power, terribly abused in this instance. 
 
 It must be allowed that side by side with a strict 
 juridical monogamy the poems testify to considerable 
 latitude in regard to the possession by the husband of 
 inferior women or concubines. This is clear, for 
 instance, from the story of Briseis with which the 
 Iliad opens. But it is necessary to bear in mind that 
 Homeric society was based upon a system of slavery, 
 in which women were bought and sold just like cattle ' 
 or other articles of commerce, a practice which must tend 
 towards sexual laxity on the part of the rich. More- 
 over, some allusions in Homer to this subject would 
 appear to indicate that the custom was not so depraved 
 as might have been expected.' 
 
 On the whole we may fearlessly assert that the poems 
 present a high standard of moral feeling for the social 
 conditions which prevailed. There is no sort of sign 
 
 ' The price of a female slave Varied from four to twenty head 
 of cattle. Once one hundred head of cattle are spoken of, but 
 clearly by exaggeration. 
 
 * See //. ix. 133 and 275 ; Od. i. 432. 
 
sec. 3] Social Organisation 2X$ 
 
 or hint of gross or perverted passion, and while sexual 
 matters are treated of with absolute frankness and 
 freedom from affectation, there is evidenced a certain 
 indefinable delicacy of mind which can only have been 
 the outcome of a natural and wholesome existence. 
 If a single exception to this rule can be detected in the 
 Odyssey, it is in the doings of certain of the Olympians 
 who were Asiatic importations, and represent a more 
 unbridled lustfulness than the Homeric people claimed 
 for themselves or even for their own native divinities. 
 
 Slaves were of course mere chattels, and their lot 
 cannot appear enviable to us. Still the picture we 
 get of slavery in Homer has its mitigat- 
 ''^ Sla**e8 ta "' ^^^ features. Both male and female 
 Hnner. slaves held, in some cases, positions of 
 
 honourable trust, and were almost on a 
 par with the rest of the household.* Many of them 
 were captives in war, and thus they may have been not 
 merely free but even of noble blood. The tasks per- 
 formed by them were not degrading ; the female slaves 
 in particular worked immediately under the eye of 
 their mistress and even in company with her. 
 
 As to the numbers of slaves, in a few individual cases 
 they are spoken of as being large, but in these cases we 
 might allow something for poetical amplification, as 
 the evidence on the whole points the other way. In 
 a society like the one we are considering very large 
 numbers, at least of able-bodied male slaves, would 
 constitute a real danger," and there is reason to 
 believe that the tendency was to put to death the 
 males captured in battle rather than to enslave them. 
 They might, however, be sometimes kept for ransome, 
 or be sold to others who happened to require additional 
 slaves. 
 
 There are indications of a regular slave-trade, which 
 
 ' For instance Eumans the Swine-herd of Odysseus was 
 himself the owner of a slave whom he had bought. See Od. xiv. 
 449-52. 
 
 * It has been pointed out that there is no instance recorded 
 of any rising of slaves during the long absence of the Achaeans 
 before Troy. 
 
214 Homeric Life [chap. IV 
 
 of course involved kidnapping, as part of the com- 
 merce of the ^gean. Some will be dispbsed to main- 
 tain this was carried on chiefly by the Phoenicians, but 
 even they would look to the natives to supply them 
 with slaves in return for other commodities. But we 
 doubt if there is sufficient reason for thinking that 
 the Phoenicians had anything like a monopoly of the 
 slave-trade. The Taphians ' certainly practised it, and 
 when opportunity offered it is most probable that the 
 Achaeans would do the same, though the fact is evidence 
 on the subject is scanty. 
 
 The above view as to the comparative fewness of 
 
 slave-men, is borne out by references to a very poor 
 
 class of free-men, called Thetes, who 
 
 Industrial appear to have been not much better off 
 
 Organisation, than slaves. No doubt many of them 
 may have been emancipated, as Eumseus 
 thought he had a right to be.' These men appear to 
 have been agricultural labourers, and at a later date 
 Hesiod speaks of their being hired for a short period 
 only, which certainly would not conduce to their 
 comfort. 
 
 In the later Homeric period at least, agriculture 
 appears to have been well advanced. The people, 
 who must have been originally nomadic and probably 
 still contained among them tribal elements who lived 
 chiefly by cattle-raising if not by wilder pursuits, are 
 pourtrayed not merely as raising a large variety of 
 sown crops, but also possessing very elaborate vine- 
 yards and orchards stocked with many varieties of 
 fruit. Even allowing plentiful discount for imagina- 
 tion, we shall safely conclude that they were really 
 advanced in agricultural science. Besides the use of 
 wine seems to be almost universal, which we cannot 
 believe was anything but home-made. 
 
 With regard to the advancement of handicraft, our 
 conclusions will be similar. In one passage we have 
 
 1 See Od. xv. 427. The Taphians were acknowledged free- 
 booters : their race is very uncertain. 
 •^ Od. xiv. 61-67. 
 
sec. 3] Social Organisation 315 
 
 certain public workmen enumerated in which there is 
 only one handicraft mentioned, the ' Fashioner of 
 timber ' (by which is chiefly meant the ship-carpenter) 
 — the others being the Soothsayer, the Doctor, and the 
 Bard.* These are spoken of as being the sort of work- 
 men who are likely to be imported from foreign lands. 
 Before discussing them we may point out that elsewhere 
 other trades are mentioned, notably the Potter, the 
 Leather-cutter, and the Smith. It is to be noticed 
 with regard to this last term (xaA.K«us) that although 
 it properly means Copper-smith it is used indiffer- 
 ently for any worker in metals, including the jeweller. 
 But we must remember that a great deal of what we 
 should call skilled labour was done by ordinary people. 
 Division of labour was still in its infancy. The women 
 did the weaving ; the men could put their hands to 
 nearly everything ; Odysseus was very skilful with the 
 plough, besides being well able, in an emergency, to 
 build himself a sea-going vessel or raft. 
 
 Homeric surgery appears to have been simple and 
 effectual. It was not unconnected with charms and 
 incantations, but in addition to these good work was 
 done by cleansing wounds and treating them with 
 dried herbs before binding them strongly. Wine was 
 given as a stimulant to the wounded man, which Plato 
 takes as a proof of strong constitutions. 
 
 We have already seen that the Homeric warrior was 
 his own famUy priest, as also the king for the whole 
 people. Hence, there were no professional priests, 
 except certain guardians at the oracles or shrines of 
 the gods, those of Dodona being mentioned with a 
 certain awe. The soothsayer and dream-interpreter 
 were required to interpret the will of heaven, and were 
 certainly held in deep respect. Most of all were the 
 bards beloved, who were supposed to be under the 
 direct inspiration of the gods, especially Apollo. To 
 kUl a bard was regarded as a terrible misfortune : their 
 
 ^04. xviii. 384-s : — 
 
 jjidi'Tiv ij lep^a KaK&v ^ TeKTOVa Sovponv 
 
 fj Km 6i(Tiny aoihov, o Kec TipTTTj<ni' aelStDV. 
 
2i6 Homeric Life [chap. IV 
 
 presence was required at marriages and funerals 
 as well as at harvest and other festivals : they were 
 attached to the palaces of the great Achaean nobles. 
 
 There is no mention of money in the pbems. The 
 usual medium or standard of barter was the ox ; but 
 also bars of metal may perhaps have been in use, as 
 we hear of a talent,' i.e., a definite weight, of gold as 
 having a fixed value. In the way commodities are 
 spoken of it is often possible to form an estimate of 
 their relative value. Thus Agamemnon when praising 
 Teucer for his bravery " promises if Troy is sacked to 
 give him " either a tripod or a pair of horses with a 
 chariot or a female slave to be a companion." Again,' 
 a valuable tripod is said to be worth twelve oxen, 
 while a skilful woman is only rated at four. 
 
 Writing can hardly have been in very general use, 
 as it is only mentioned once, and then doubtfully, in 
 the poems. 
 
 ^ Properly a pair of scales, and used also in this sense in 
 Homer. 
 
 ^11. viii. 287 ff. 
 ^11. xxiii. 179. 
 
[ 317 ] 
 
 § 4- Material Civilisation 
 
 What we regard as the precious metals appear to 
 have been plentiful with the Homeric people, but most 
 
 plentiful, according to the poems, at 
 
 Knowledge and Thebes (Egypt), Sidon, and Cyprus; 
 
 nse of HetalB. from which we might suppose that gold 
 
 and silver was obtained chiefly from 
 southern sources. However, it is almost certain that 
 there was a good gold supply from Lydia ; and we are 
 distinctly told * that the birth-place of silver is Halybe, 
 which has been generally identified with the country 
 of the Chalybes on the far N.-E. coast of Asia Minor. 
 In addition to gold and silver, they certainly were 
 acquainted with and possessed copper, tin, lead, and 
 iron.' Lead is used merely for weights ; to iron we 
 shall have to give special consideration later. 
 
 The metal most often referred to is x"^«or, which 
 means bronze, or an alloy of copper, which was got 
 from Cyprus, and tin, which was got from the West, 
 probably from Cornwall. There is some difiiculty in 
 understanding how the ancients with their appliances 
 could fuse the metals together, and some authorities 
 have maintained that x'^*o* was either pure copper, 
 or perhaps some natural alloy which was harder than 
 pure copper. We may take it as certain, however, 
 that although in the South ^gean the pure copper 
 age lasted for a longer time than in the Hellespontine 
 area, long before the Homeric period bronze was fully 
 understood and in common use for weapons, tools, and 
 house ornamentation. For in the descriptions of 
 Homeric palaces, especially that of Alcinous, which is 
 
 ^ In the Catalogue, II. ii. 857. 
 
 3 With regard to the so-called Electron (or Electros), a sup- 
 posed alloy of gold and silver, there is no clear evidence of its 
 occurrence in Homer. I take the references in Homer to refer 
 uniformly to natural amber. 
 
3i8 Homeric Life [chap. IV 
 
 perhaps the grandest, we are told that the very walls 
 were coated with bronze, " from the threshold right 
 through to the inmost corner," while the frieze was 
 made of cyanos,^ and the doors plated with gold. As 
 has been frequently stated, we must make some allow- 
 ance for the poet's imagination, but there was also a basis 
 of fact for these wonderful stories of Homeric splendour. 
 
 From the descriptions of the bards we should con- 
 clude not merely that the metals were used in high 
 profusion, but also that they were worked with great 
 dexterity. The brooch of Odysseus is said to represent 
 a hound holding a fawn in its forepaws which was 
 writhing in its grasp. This would rather suggest that 
 the bard had sometimes seen very elaborate, though 
 of course not necessarily native, metal-work. But the 
 shield of Achilles far surpasses anything else in the 
 poems (or almost outside of them) for its wonderful 
 representations of life. It was supposed to be of 
 divine workmanship, but that is not inconsistent with 
 some basis of reality in its delineation.' What is most 
 to be noted is the effect produced by overlaying of one 
 metal on another, as of silver or tin upon a field of 
 gold. Such a treatment of the metals certainly suggests 
 that the poet's imagination had been stimulated by a 
 real acquaintance with the gold and silver-smith's 
 achievements. 
 
 In early civilisations just as the. " Stone Age " is 
 
 supplanted by that of metals and especially of Bronze, 
 
 so the " Bronze Age " in its turn gives 
 
 Do the Poems ^^Y to that of iron. By the Bronze 
 
 deal with an Age we mean of course not that the 
 
 « Age of Iron ' 7 use of stone has ceased altogether, but 
 
 that tools and especially weapons of 
 
 ' The exact meaning of this will be explained further when 
 we come to the archaeological record. 
 
 a See /I. xviii. 478 ff. The shield of Achilles has been so 
 often described (in fact there is almost a literature concerning 
 it) that it hardly seems necessary to give a full account of the 
 various scenes depicted by the artist. It is doubtful whether 
 the shield is conceived as round or oblong. For the latter view, 
 see an interesting note in Leaf and Bayfield's Iliad vol. ii. 
 p. 448. 
 
sec. 4] Material Civilisation 219 
 
 bronze are at least gradually and as far as is prac- 
 ticable coining into general use. In like manner the 
 Iron Age implies not the complete absence even of 
 bronze weapons, but that the superiority of iron 
 implements is becoming more and more recognised, 
 and thus the general use of bronze is tending to become 
 .obsolete. Taking the words in this sense it is not easy 
 to decide at once whether the Homeric age is one of 
 bronze or of iron, and it is the more difficult because 
 of the gradual composition of the poems, and the fact 
 that undoubtedly when they were finally put into 
 their present form the use of iron was fully established. 
 This question is of enormous importance, and is highly 
 controversial, but all we need do here is to state the 
 facts, without as yet determining what conclusions 
 may be fairly drawn from them. 
 
 In the first place then it goes without saying that in 
 Homer the use of bronze is much more general than 
 that of iron. For instance in the Iliad bronze is men- 
 tioned two hundred and seventy-nine times as against 
 fourteen occurrences of iron. It has been argued that 
 in many of the references to bronze weapons the ex- 
 pressions may be conventional and that we should 
 understand them of iron, as when we speak of ' coppers ' 
 and really mean ' bronzes.' Although such an assump- 
 tion could not perhaps be demonstrated to be false, it 
 would be even more difficult to prove it true. Is it not 
 most unlikely that bards whose vision was clear, and 
 their delight in simplicity and realism, should fail to 
 distinguish between two very dissimilar metals, one 
 of which was coming into use and the other getting 
 antiquated ? If iron had really come in, if it were 
 in ' full swing ' in the civilisation known to the bards, 
 they who loved to tell of the best they knew of, and 
 of the latest grandeurs of their times, would hardly 
 have felt any attraction to supply their heroes, at 
 least habitually, with a panoply of bronze. 
 
 But without imaginary arguments like the above, 
 the case for an iron civilisation is still not to be de- 
 
220 Homeric Life [chap. IV 
 
 spised. Mr. F. B. Jevons^ has shown that the refer- 
 ences to iron are considerably numerous, and that 
 they occur almost as frequently in the Iliad as in the 
 Odyssey, and in the supposed earlier just as much as 
 in the later parts of the earlier poem. Moreover, 
 several of the notices of iron treat it as a well-known 
 familiar thing, as a type of what is strong, and in 
 certain proverbial phrases, which would imply that 
 the metal had a long-established, almost dominant, 
 position in the world. And even though the mention 
 of bronze is far more frequent, yet there is an abundant 
 mention of iron to satisfy our definition of an ' Iron 
 Age ' — not, namely, one in which bronze has gone 
 out — ^but one in which iron is coming in. 
 
 It will conduce to a clearer view of this important 
 problem if we make a short analysis of the references 
 in question. They may be conveniently grouped into 
 three classes : — 
 
 I. Those which allude to iron as an ore or something 
 rare and valuable. 
 
 II. Proverbial expressions which assume that iron is 
 well-known as the type of strength and hardness. 
 
 III. Those which speak simply of iron weapons as 
 though in common use. 
 
 Now the first class of references hardly bears on the 
 question. It is certain that iron as an article of com- 
 merce was known from very early times. It occurs in 
 Egypt as early as the Fourth Dynasty, though there is 
 no native supply in the country. Our problem regards 
 not the knowledge of iron, but the knowledge required 
 to turn it to account. Of the'second class of references 
 there are eleven instances (some of them, however, 
 mere repetitions), and almost equally distributed 
 between the two poems. Now, if what we assume to 
 be the case is true, namely, that the poems were either 
 put together or re-cast in Ionia at a time when the 
 use of iron was well advanced, a few proverbial ex- 
 
 ' In an article entitled] " Iron in Homer" in the J.H.S., xiii., 
 p. 25. 
 
sec. 4] Material Civilisation 221 
 
 pressions * of this sort could very easily find their way 
 into the poems and need cause us no surprise. 
 
 Of the third class of references, i.e., to iron weapons, 
 there are seven in the Iliad and three in the Odyssey. 
 These are no doubt more difficult to account for, on 
 the supposition that the poems deal simply with bronze 
 civilisation. Even the later bards might have been 
 expected to avoid a patent anachronism in describing 
 the Homeric armour. On the other hand, none of these 
 cases occur in the more primitive portions of the Iliud.* 
 And remembering how little we actually know of the 
 early history of the poems, the question remains 
 whether this small residuum of really difficult allusions 
 is sufficient to outweigh all the arguments on the other 
 side. The archaeological evidence must be deferred. 
 
 The form of the Homeric house is also a much-debated 
 question, and one that is far from finally decided. Here, 
 
 rr1.11 ^ ^^ ^° often, the most we can hope to do 
 
 P^Me. ^'^^ *^^ student is to indicate the points 
 
 which appear certain, or nearly so ; and 
 
 then with regard to what is problematical, merely to 
 
 state the difficulties without attempting to solve them. 
 
 Fortunately these mostly concern matters of detail. 
 
 In the poems there are descriptions of three royal 
 palaces, giving an idea of great size and splendour, on the 
 combination of which all attempts to reconstruct the 
 Homeric house will necessarily depend. It is true 
 that only one of the three, that of Odysseus, belongs to 
 an Achaean ' ; the others are the dwellings of the Trojan 
 
 " One of these expressions'iis " the gates of Tartarus are of iron 
 and the threshold of brass." In Hesiod, Theog. 732, the ex- 
 pression is exactly the same, except he has cvda re iiapfidpem 
 instead of evOa a-i8rip€iai re. May we not reasonably hold that 
 this is the original version, and that our Homeric text is a later 
 improvement made in the Iron Age ? 
 
 ^ They occur mostly in Books iv. to vii., or in Book xxiii., 
 which are all late. One occurs in Book xviii. of which the age is 
 more doubtful. 
 
 ' The palace of Menelaus at Sparta is also described, but only 
 in general terms, as " gleaming with gold, amber {^tKTpov), 
 silver, and ivory." 
 
222 
 
 Homeric Life 
 
 [chap. IV 
 
 Priam and the Phaeacian Alcinous. Still in many 
 respects they follow a common plan. 
 
 Entering the court- 
 yard (aCXi?), which is 
 enclosed by a strong 
 and high wall, i,and 
 into which cattle, and 
 even horses with 
 chariots, could enter, 
 the visitor would see 
 opposite him a Vesti- 
 bule or verandah open 
 at the front and sup- 
 ported b^ wooden 
 pillars (called the 
 aWova-a). Here lived 
 the slaves ; part of it 
 served the purpose of 
 out-houses, and in it 
 slept visitors and even 
 the younger male 
 members of the 
 family. Off this 
 vestibule opened 
 an Ante-chamber 
 (jrp6Sofios), beyond 
 which again was 
 the Great Hall (licyapov). This had a roof supported by 
 pillars, and sometimes some kind of an upper-story. In 
 the centre of the hall was the family Hearth (f<rxap>/) 
 which was the centre of family life and round which 
 its members with their guests were grouped. If, as we 
 have reason to believe, the hall was square, and its roof 
 supported by pillars, they would be round the hearth, 
 and it is natural to find that the state-throne of Arete, 
 queen of Alcinous, was set against one of the pillars. 
 At the centre the Great Hall was open to the sky, or, to 
 be more accurate, was perhaps covered by an open 
 canopy, or lantern-like structiu^e, which would keep off 
 
sec. 4I Material Civilisation 223 
 
 rain while allowing smoke to issue.' The floor was 
 formed, like many modern ones, of clay beaten down to 
 a smooth surface. The hearth in the centre was raised 
 to a shghtly higher level, and this was deco rated with a 
 simple ornamentation of colour. 
 
 Among the other apartments, of which there were 
 evidently several, was certainly one containing arrange- 
 ments for the bath, which was an important feature in 
 Homeric life. Strangers arriving at a house were invited 
 to bathe as a preparation for the meal which promptly 
 followed. 
 
 It has been previously remarked that the bards attri- 
 bute the highest splendour to the Homeric palace ; that 
 of Alcinous being especially extravagant in its gorgeous- 
 ness. It has walls of bronze, a frieze of cyanos, doors 
 of gold, doorposts and lintel of silver, and silver figures 
 representing dogs as guardians of the threshold. No 
 wonder that it gleamed as with the glory of the sun and 
 the moon ! Is this grandeur, then, merely the outcome 
 of the bards' imagination, or at most is it but a blurred 
 reflection of some stories they have heard of the palaces of 
 Egyptian and Oriental kings ? The answer to this 
 question depends upon the view taken upon the 
 archaeological evidence. 
 
 One great controversy regarding the Homeric house 
 regards the women. Had they a part of it to them- 
 selves, and if so where was it situated ? 
 The position of The theory which long prevailed was 
 
 the Women's that behind the Great Hall, and leading 
 Quarters. directly from it, was the apartment 
 which, in Hellenic times, was called the 
 Gynaeconltis. But in Homeric times the position of 
 women was at once far freer and more honourable 
 than in later times. There is no trace of that 
 seclusion of women, that thrusting of them away 
 into the back-ground which unfortunately charac- 
 terised the Athenian society of Pericles and of Plato. 
 The Homeric woman mixes freely with the opposite 
 
 * We are told that Athena in the form of a swallow flew 
 away from the Miyapov, Od. xxii. 240. 
 
224 Homeric Life [chap. IV 
 
 sex without losing aught of her dignity or her charm ; 
 she is ready at every occasion to lend encouragement 
 or help to her husband, her children, and even 
 outsiders. This difference in the social status of woman 
 cannot decide for us questions of architecture ; but it 
 may caution us against assuming that in this depart- 
 ment later customs will unlock for us the secrets of 
 Homeric life. 
 
 We cannot be sure of allocating their proper quarters 
 to the women of the Homeric family ; but we may at 
 least regard the fundamental reason for the theory men- 
 tioned above as quite defective. It used to be supposed 
 that the mention of two thresholds, the Ashen and the 
 Stone, implied an important distinction — that whereas 
 the former led from the Ante-chamber to the Great 
 Hall, the latter led from the Great Hall to the women's 
 quarters.' The distinction always seemed rather point- 
 less, and it has now been cleared up on archaeological 
 grounds. There was a wide stone threshold, or broad 
 raised step, passing into the hall, and over this was a 
 wooden frame-work for a door, which made a complete 
 vertical quadrangle, and of which the bottom joist gave 
 an opportunity for fitting the pivot on which the 
 Homeric door turned." This bottom joist could be 
 spoken of as the ashen threshold though it was placed 
 upon the stone one, and thus the two expressions were 
 practically convertible. 
 
 If then we reject the chief ground for putting the 
 women's quarters at the back of the men's, it seems 
 quite reasonable to accept the theory, for which there 
 is literary as well as archaeological evidence, that the 
 Megaron of the women was, like most other apartments 
 of the house, included in a distinct building with a 
 roof of its own ; though in some cases it may have 
 been, as we are told it was at Ithaca, upstairs. 
 
 ' See for the oiSos ficKivos, Od. xvii. 339 ; and for the ouSAr 
 "Kaivos, XX. 258. 
 
 ' This view put forward in a brilliant article by Mr. J. L. 
 Myres (J.H.S.,yo\. xx. p. 136), has been accepted by Dr. Monro 
 (Odyssey, xiii.— xxiv. p. 497) and on this point at least con- 
 troversy is likely to die away. 
 
sec. 4] Material Civilisation 225 
 
 The expression Recess (jivxos io/iov) probably was 
 used vaguely for any very retired apartment or even 
 portion of the house, and not for a distinct location. 
 There still remain other complicated questions, espe- 
 cially as to the Palace of Odysseus, some of which have 
 not received, and perhaps will never receive, a satis- 
 factory explanation. 
 
 The student will best acquire a full and detailed 
 
 knowledge of the domestic habits of 
 
 mStary *^^ Homeric people from the reading 
 
 arrangemrats. of the poems : but it will be useful here 
 to append to what has been already 
 stated a few features of the picture. 
 
 It has been remarked that the dog, as a domestic 
 faithful animal, appears late on the scene. In the Iliad 
 it is spoken of more commonly as a beast of prey, whereas 
 in the Odyssey it is petted and loved as among ourselves. 
 Horses, cattle, sheep, swine, and mules are all domesti- 
 cated : we read little of asses, and among poultry of 
 geese alone. 
 
 ilunting was of course much in vogue, and there was 
 plenty of ' big ' game, especially the lion, which is con- 
 stantly mentioned as a very familiar institution. The 
 skins of animals were in great request, being no doubt 
 used as garments in winter, as well as for rugs and 
 bedding. But woven materials are very common, and 
 every house of importance had its loom, or several of 
 them as the case might be. Woollen fabrics most 
 comnionly, but also linen ones, were in use. Nor should 
 we gather that there was any lack of furniture in the 
 latgef houses at least. We read of tables which were 
 probably quite small and easily moved ; of chairs, some 
 of which seem to have had round backs ; of footstools. 
 Of metal utensils there were bathing pans, bowls, goblets, 
 ewers and basins, and quite a profusion of cooking 
 utensils, besides many elaborate ornaments. It is 
 remarkable, however, that though they had boiling 
 apparatus' they seem not to have used this for purposes 
 
 ' Water, at least, was commonly boiled in order to warm' the 
 bath. 
 
 Q 
 
226 Homeric Life [chap. IV 
 
 of cooking — ^meat, as well as other sorts of food, were 
 either roasted or baked in the hot embers of the hearth. 
 Before speaking of the food eaten in the poems, we may 
 draw attention to an interesting incident in the Odyssey, 
 which gives perhaps a little touch of the home-life of the 
 Achseans. In the island of Circe, Odysseus lost one 
 of his companions, Elpenor,^ owing to his accidentally 
 falling from the roof of the house when suddenly called 
 on to descend. He had been sleeping there, and we may 
 gather that this was not an unusual occurrence, which 
 would point to the use of flat roofs, although we know 
 that gabled roofs were also adopted 
 
 Elpenor's fall brings in another point of great interest. 
 He was ' heavy with wine,' and yet his fall is not im- 
 puted to drunkenness so much as to forgetfulness and 
 to extreme youthfulness and levity combmed. Now, in 
 the poems we read a great deal about drinking, but 
 hardly ever of drunkenness, except in the case of the 
 brutal Cyclops. The fact is the Homeric people (and 
 the same is true of the later Greeks) were fond of hilarity, 
 but not beyond measure. They drank plenty of wine, 
 it is true, and the continual practice of libation to the 
 gods tended to increase wine-drinking ; but it was 
 always watered, and, as we gather, freely.' 
 
 The most common word for food in Homer is (rXns, 
 properly corn, which shows that cereals were largely 
 used. Of these they had both wheat and barley — the 
 latter being used sacrificially as well as for diet. Flesh 
 meat was, however, the standard ; its use, like that of 
 wine, was encouraged by the religious observances 
 already alluded to. They ate from the table without 
 dishes, and apparently without forks, though these were 
 certainly used (at least ritually) in cooking. Fish was 
 not thought much of but was eaten by the poorest or 
 only under necessity. Molluscs were, perhaps, in more 
 
 ' See Od. xi. 5S2ff. 
 
 ° It is said of Maron's wine {Od. ix. 209) that it was usually 
 mixed in the proportion of i to 20 I Even allowing for fabulous 
 exaggeration to heighten the value of this wine, yet the state- 
 ment would tend to show that large quantities of water could be 
 taken with wine. 
 
sec. 4] Material Civilisation 227 
 
 request.' Honey, too, was a very staple article of diet, 
 and was used ako as a sweetening condiment. Salt 
 appears to have been only partially required, and not 
 among those at a distance from the sea. Vegetable 
 diet is occasionally mentioned ; and with plenty of milk" 
 and cheese to boot, the^^heroes must have been very 
 fairly catered for. " i 
 
 Odysseus gives a very good and clear account of his 
 own costume when as the Beggar in disguise he de- 
 scribes his own ordinary appearance 
 Male and Female ^g t^e incredulous Penelope.' He says 
 Appare . j^^ ^^^.^ ^ chlaina, crimson and woolly, 
 also called in the same passage a Diplax, and fastened 
 by an elaborate gold pin ;* also a bright-shining Chiton, 
 which fitted his body close ' like the skin of a dried 
 onion,' and was furnished with tassels (no doubt, round 
 the bottom edge, as we see it represented on the warrior 
 vase). Of these the Chiton (or Tunic) being the inner 
 garment, was the more indispensable. This name 
 ' Chiton,' being used in Greek for the under-garment, 
 no matter what its form, may have very various mean- 
 ings, and could easily mislead us. The Doric chiton, 
 for instance, which was almost universally adopted 
 throughout Greece, in Hellenic times, was just the 
 reverse of close-fitting. It was merely an oblong piece 
 of stuff caught on the shoulders and hanging in loose 
 folds to the feet, being worn by men and women, but if 
 by the latter of much greater length. Clearly it had no 
 sleeves, and in this it was not unlike the Ionic chiton, 
 which was more elaborate. Even in Homer's time the 
 Ionian warriors were characterised by the greater length 
 of their chiton. Probably the ordinary Homeric chiton 
 had sleeves, but was shorter than the Ionian. It has 
 
 -^ It is interesting to note that at Mycense unopened oysters 
 were found in one of the royal graves. They must have been 
 put there as food for the dead, whose tastes were not supposed 
 to have undergone any change. 
 
 « It is not certain, however, that milk was plentiful. Poly- 
 phemus had no lack of either milk or cheese ; and it would seem 
 strange if the Homeric people had not a copious supply if they 
 cared for milk diet. 
 
 ^ Od. xix, 225-343. * See above, page 318. 
 
228 Homeric Life [chap. IV 
 
 been plausibly maintained that this garment was gradu- 
 ally evolved from a simple girdle or loin-cloth which was, 
 no doubt, the primitive form of garment. 
 
 The ' Chlaina ' was originally a skin of an animal, 
 thrown over the back and shoulders ; and when of woven 
 stuff, it required some sort of fastening to keep it on, 
 the most natural form of which was the brooch or safety- 
 pin (jrfp<Jwj). It was used especially as a covering at 
 night, and would be laid aside in case of battle or the 
 chase or any violent exercise. Probably in the summer 
 it was not wanted at all, except at night. 
 
 The chief garment of the Homeric woman was a 
 ' Peplos' which was probably like the Ionic chiton in 
 falling to the feet, but it may have been wider and there- 
 fore fuller in its folds, and in other ways more orna- 
 mental. It is probable, moreover, that it was made 
 warm and thick, and that the women did not wear 
 anything over it except the veil (««4XvnTpo or KpjjScuvw), 
 which at least with ladies of distinction was a very 
 important article of attire. It more or less enveloped 
 them, at least it was large enough to hold up in front of 
 the breast which would otherwise be partially exposed. 
 The veil hung down from the head, over which was 
 sometimes a stiff cap or coif (if this is the meaning of 
 KeKpi(t>a\oi), which was itself ornamented by a twisted 
 band and a gold coronal or plaque. Of course the 
 queens wore rich and costly ornaments. On the peplus 
 offered to Penelope there were as many as twelve 
 brooches, each with a separate sheath for its pin. 
 Necklaces made of amber set in gold were worn, also 
 bracelets, and very probably ear-rings. Even the 
 peplus itself was embroidered in many colours, and 
 perhaps with pictorial designs interwoven.* 
 
 Lastly, we hear of girdles worn by the women and 
 the goddesses, which articles also are described as 
 being bright and beautiful. 
 
 In order to make our treatment of the following intel- 
 
 ' In //. iii., I2S S, we are told that Helen was embroidering 
 a Diplax with pictures of the Trojan war when Iris came to 
 fetch her to see an actual battle, 
 
sec. 4] Material Civilisation a 29 
 
 ligible it will be needful to premise that there are two 
 leading types of equipment forming a 
 
 Panoply of striking contrast to each other. By 
 
 Warrior clearly understanding these types and 
 
 by seeing to which of them the Homeric 
 
 armour conforms, we shall learn best its character and 
 
 be in a position to deal later with conflicting theories 
 
 concerning it. 
 
 The older and rougher type of defensive armour 
 consisted chiefly in a large shield, made of ox-hide, very 
 unwieldy no doubt, but an excellent defence against 
 arrows, javelins, and even hand-to-hand attacks. It 
 could not be used at all on horseback, but was not 
 unsuitable for fighting from chariots. Being a complete 
 body-covering, those using it did not require body- 
 armour such as a cuirass, greaves, or even elaborate 
 helmets. These, in fact, constitute the second and later 
 type of armour ; with these we are familiar as forming 
 the equipment of the Hellenic Hoplite of historic times, 
 who we know carried along with them a smaller round 
 shield which was easily carried on the left arm, thus 
 leaving the other free for purposes of offence. It is 
 hardly necesssary to point out that the larger body? 
 shield could not be carried in one hand — though it 
 could be slung across the shoulder by a strong leather 
 
 strap (reXa/ifflv). 
 
 These two classes of panoply being so different and 
 even opposed in every particular, we might expect that 
 it would not be difficult to decide under which of them 
 the Homeric armour is to be included. As a matter of 
 fact we have first-rate authorities seeking to identify 
 the Homeric shield with the large body-shield, and 
 equally good ones maintaining it was a small round one. 
 One school declare that the Achaean hero had a large 
 bronze helmet, metal cuirass, belt and greaves ; their 
 opponents maintain he wore a leather cap and linen 
 corslet only, and leather gaiters used chiefly to protect 
 his legs from the edge of the huge shield which alone 
 protected the whole body. This, of course, is only a part 
 —but a very important part— of the great controversy, 
 ' Who were the Homeric People ? '—the real issue being, 
 
230 Homeric Life [chap. IV 
 
 Do the so-called Mycensean remains belong to the 
 Achaeans or not ? 
 
 Without anticipating all that must be said on this 
 the greatest of all Homeric questions, we may state 
 here boldly that in the poems both classes of defensive 
 armour occur side by side. To prove this it will suffice 
 to show that Homer certainly contemplates his heroes 
 with large shields of the Mycenaean sort ; and secondly 
 he speaks of them as being equipped with metal accoutre- 
 ments such as should properly go with smaller shields. 
 The conclusion we are suggesting may not at first sight 
 appear satisfactory — ^but it will be seen on consideration 
 to naturcilly follow from what has been maintained 
 regarding the evolution of the poems through long 
 periods of time. If we find evidences of different 
 epochs of theological, ethical, syntactical progress, we 
 must not be surprised to find side by side descriptions 
 of earlier and of later types of military equipment also. 
 
 There are several passages in the poems, in which the 
 large shield is clearly meant. In Iliad, xiii. 403, 
 _ , , , .. Idomeneus crouched behind it, so that 
 larZ^BWew!''' ^e was wholly (^a.) covered. Again in 
 Odyssey, xiv. 475, Odysseus says he 
 slept within the shield, thinking that he would not 
 find it cold, even in the snow which was thick upon 
 it. The shield of Aj ax is said to be like a tower.' Again, 
 the shield of . Periphetes of Mycenae is said to have 
 reached his feet, so that he was tripped up by it, and thus 
 lost his life. There is also evidence that both hands 
 could be used together manipulating the lance, as though 
 the shield could be slung from the shoulder, and althpngh 
 it is perhaps not certain that this applies only to the 
 large leather shield, it seems to point in that direction. 
 
 On the other hand, the shield is called ' a good circle ' 
 and ' equal in every direction.' Can these expressions 
 refer to the large Mycensean shield ? There were appar- 
 
 ^ Ridgeway tries to minimize this expression, saying it 
 might refer merely to the strength of the shield. Surely this 
 is strained, especially as Ridgeway himself confesses that the 
 large shield may have survived in some cases. — Early Age of 
 Greece, p. 309. 
 
sec. 4] Material Civilisation 231 
 
 ently two forms of this — one oblong, and the other a 
 circle with the edges bent in, to form something like a 
 figure-of-eight. It has been maintained that this latter 
 form might take the epithets in question. However, 
 they may also be due to the confusion which certainly 
 exists in the poems between the. older and later style of 
 shield. This will become clearer if we now consider the 
 other features of the Homeric panoply. 
 
 We may consider the points separately, and take the 
 
 Breastplate first. There are many references to the 
 
 dapr)^ in the Iliad (not in the Odyssey, 
 
 EYidencefoF though the verb eapfitra-ea-dai frequently 
 
 ■^"""^e"***' °^*^^''®' ^^^^^ seems to presuppose it). 
 ^^ * It appears strained to understand this 
 
 of a mere linen tunic, and also the more because the 
 Egyptians are called XwodapijKer, and appear to be 
 specialized in this way. Again, the expression xo'^fox'™"** 
 is commonly used of the Achseans. Now, it is very 
 simple to understand this of a bronze breastplate, 
 although the expression has been explained to refer to 
 buttons or scales of bronze ornamenting the tunic. 
 On the other hand, the references to the breastplate 
 seem to indicate great confusion in the minds of the 
 bards, as it is brought in as it were sporadically and 
 without due consistency even of individual passages. 
 On the whole the evidence seems to point to transition, 
 and what may be called ' contamination ' of two dif- 
 ferent styles of defence. It has been pointed out that the 
 most frequent mention of the Baprf^ in the Iliad is in 
 the form of an oft-repeated formula (8/a 6a>pr]Kos wokvSai, 
 Sd\ov fipripetiTTo) which is significant when taken with 
 the absence of the Oapri^ from the Odyssey. Moreover, 
 when it is described at length, it comes as a present to 
 Agamemnon from Cyprus, as though it were something 
 rare and foreign. This would agree very well with the 
 theory of its being a late importation towards the end 
 of the Homeric period. Without, therefore going so far 
 as to say that all passages implying the 6aipri$ are inter- 
 polations, we may believe that they are due to the fact 
 that later work co-exists with earlier in the poems, even 
 in single passages, and that the expressions referring 
 
232 Homeric Life [chap. IV 
 
 to greaves, to helmets, and to belts or body guards, 
 all seem to point in the same direction. One of the 
 most frequent epithets of the Achaeans is ' well-greaved,' 
 and although we cannot demonstrate that this refers to 
 defensive armour, and not merely to gaiters protecting 
 the shin, yet it is certainly far more obvious and natural 
 to understand it so. Moreover, as Ridgeway well 
 observes, the expression seems to mark out the Achseans 
 themselves as specially distinguished for their greaves. 
 The expression ' bronze-greaved ' occurs once, and only 
 once.' On the other hand, the greaves which Hephaestus 
 makes for Achilles are formed out of tin. As this is a 
 soft metal the incident is claimed as favourable by the 
 advocates of both theories. The greaves (of whatever 
 material) were fastened by bands of metal called eVio- 
 ^ipia, sometimes made of silver. (See PI. xiv. p. 251.) 
 
 The Homeric Helmet is a subject of much difficulty. 
 The numbers of phrases concerning it are multifarious 
 and in many cases of disputed meaning. What con- 
 cerns us ihost is that there is evidence for the simple 
 helmet of leather (with or without bronze adjuncts). 
 The very name Kvv4ri would imply that it was some- 
 times made of dog-skin. On the other hand, the helmet 
 was called irdyxc^Kos, and was said to ring when it fell 
 on the ground. These facts, as well as others which 
 point in the same direction, certainly imply a regular 
 bronze helmet such as we know was in use later, and 
 even at the date when the poems received their present 
 form. Hence we see here again evidence of transition. 
 What is certain is that the helmet, of whatever material, 
 possessed long horse-hair plumes, and ^oXot, which were 
 in all probability horn-like projections, arranged in 
 different ways according to taste. We must always 
 remember that many nationalities met at Troy accord- 
 ing to the story, and therefore we must not be surprised 
 to find many discrepancies in points of detail. 
 
 There are three expressions for the warrior's belt 
 
 ' In //. vii. 41. It is only right to add that this line with 
 the following one has every appearance of being a tag, and that 
 they include another strange and doubtful word. 
 
sec. 4] Material Civilisation 233 
 
 or belts. These include the fm/ia, the iihpt] and the 
 Caxrnip. Probably the first was a loin-cloth of linen, 
 sometimes in the form of short and loosely-fitting 
 drawers ; the second was a defensive belt, either made of 
 metal or strongly-plated, broad in front, but narrower 
 where it was fastened ' at the small of the back.' Coirrrip 
 is probably a girdle of a simpler kind, of leather only. 
 
 With regard to offensive weapons the warrior usually 
 had two long spears for hurling, and a shorter sword 
 which could be used either for thrusting or cutting. 
 We must guard against accepting the statement that 
 a long, cutting sword is necessarily of iron.' We should 
 not gather, at least from the Iliad, that the bow and 
 arrow was much in repute with the Greeks as weapons 
 of war. It is characteristic of the Trojan Paris, and 
 generally of the Trojans and their allies the Lycians. 
 On the other hand, it was by no means unusual to hurl 
 stones. So far from this being undignified, to be able to 
 hurl a large and crushing mass of rock was a standard 
 test of martial prowess. 
 
 By speaking of the Homeric Chariot as a war chariot, 
 we do not mean to imply that its use is excluded in time 
 w °^ peace, but merely that it is strongly 
 
 Chariot' characteristic of Homeric fighting." 
 They were simply made but must have 
 been very strongly built. Two horses only were the 
 rule, with pole and yoke attachments. Rarely, how- 
 ever, a third, or trace horse, was added. As the form 
 of chariot is very like that in use in Egypt, it is not 
 unlikely that it was borrowed from that quarter. The 
 body consisted of a little box or rather platform, which 
 could be removed at will from the sub- structure of 
 wheels and axle. It had a rail running round the front 
 and sides, by which those standing in it could steady 
 themselves, and at the back, which was open, the rail 
 ended in vertical supports which could be grasped in 
 
 ^ Mr. T. L. Mjnres has pointed out that bronze swords of 
 considerable length go back well into the Mycenaean period. 
 
 ' It will be hardly necessary to point out, even for the tyro, 
 that cavalry, as we understand it, is unknown to Homer. There 
 is no riding in any shape or form. 
 
234 Homeric Life [chap IV 
 
 ascending or descending, which in the battle-field had 
 to be done often and while the horses were running. The 
 warrior, who fought not so much from the chariot as 
 after leaving it, had with him a charioteer who remained 
 aboard, as his proper work consisted merely in driving. 
 He was, however, liable to be frequently attacked, and 
 without, it would seem, much power to defend himself. 
 The chariot was substantially made of wood, though 
 it also had certain fittings of metal and apparently of 
 leather. In the case of Hera's car, all the parts were of 
 bronze, silver, gold, and iron (the axle-tree), but of 
 course this is not to be taken seriously as a description 
 of a real chariot. In like manner her wheels are said to 
 have had eight spokes, which is certainly an exaggera- 
 tion as even in Hellenic times there is no evidence of 
 eight, though sometimes six spokes were inserted, as 
 in the Egyptian and Assyrian chariot. (See Plate.) 
 
 The method of attaching the yoke to the pole was 
 complicated and has given commentators trouble. Mr. 
 Leaf, following Helbig, explains it very clearly as con- 
 sisting of a ring (KpUos) permanently attached to the 
 yoke, which was passed over a peg (eo-Toap) fixed upright 
 in the pole. There was also a lashing (Cvyobia-iiov) of a 
 knob (o/i(^aXor) on the yoke to the turned-up end (jrEfij) 
 of the pole,' thus giving a double security. But there 
 would, of course, be varieties of method, and it is not 
 certain but that there is ' contamination ' here. 
 
 A few notes on sea-craft and the use made of it will 
 conclude our description of Homeric life. To have 
 . some idea of what sea-voyages meant 
 
 Hanjation. jj^ ^j^ggg times is necessary to the 
 understanding of both the poems, which have little 
 in common as to their plots except that they turn 
 upon sea-faring expeditions. 
 
 The Homeric ship was not unlike a modern whaler, 
 except that it was far more primitive, and perhaps in 
 some cases larger. It was certainly not decked except 
 partially fore and aft : it carried one mast and probably 
 
 1 See Leaf on //. xxiv. 266 ff. The explanation is also given 
 with cuts in Bayfield's Iliad, vol. ii. pp. 585-6. 
 
PI. IX. ANCIENT FORMS OF VESSELS. 
 
 A.— Odyssciis and the Si?-cns /7-o7n Vase-painting. 
 
 B.— Model of Boat in terra -cotta found in Cyprus, showiiiff tcTTofic'zr/. 
 
 C.~Go:d l\/odel of Boat found in Ef/mit, showmy use of puddle. 
 
sec. 4] Material Civilisation 235 
 
 one sail, though the plural form is generally used. The 
 ships had not even a fixed rudder, but used a hand- 
 paddle (TTtiBdKiov^) for steering, and consequently they 
 could only sail before the wind, so that ' making points,' 
 and much more ' tacking,' was out of the question. 
 Under these circumstances we shall not be surprised 
 that a long voyage was a very adventurous undertaking. 
 The great thing was never to lose sight of land, and at 
 the first signal of bad weather or an adverse wind they 
 at once put in to shore to wait for better luck. They 
 could row moderate distances provided the wind was 
 not strong against them, in which case they were com- 
 pletely at its mercy. We read that both Odysseus and 
 Menelaus were driven past Cape Malea (the south-east 
 point of the Peloponnese) — ^with the result, which seemed 
 to them quite natural, that they were driven right across 
 the Mediterranean, one of them to the coast of Libya, 
 and the other to Crete and so later to Egypt. 
 
 We read that a distance of about two hundred miles 
 could be traversed in three days, which would imply 
 fair wind and weather. The Achseans frequently sailed 
 by night, but this was where it was necessary to avail 
 themselves of a special breeze. Otherwise, when at all 
 possible, they put in to the land to bivouac. The ship 
 was sometimes beached ; at other times sleeping-stones 
 (ewat) were let out from the bow, to serve as an anchor,' 
 and stem hawsers (jrpu/iM/o-w) were made fast to the land 
 by rocks, trees, or pegs driven down for the purpose. 
 The mast was a movable one, and could be let down into 
 a sort of crutch in the stern (JtrToSoKi;). Its base was in 
 a three-sided frame (lorojreSij) ;» it was supported by 
 stays fore and aft (tt/jotoi/oi, ewlrovoi). The mast was 
 
 * It is also called olfiiov, or perhaps this is the handle only. 
 It is possible that it worked on a peg, which would give more 
 purchase. 
 
 " In the Arran Islands, on the west coarst of Galway, stone 
 anchors, which act by weight only, are still in use. 
 
 s According to Riddell, ^eadSfiT, is another name for this, but 
 the exact meaning of this last is very uncertain. See ex- 
 haustive appendix entitled 'The Homeric Ship,' Riddell, Odyssey, 
 i.-xii.p.S37fi. 
 
236 Homeric Life [chap. IV 
 
 usually made of fir, as also the oars. These worked 
 in leathern loops which were passed through holes in 
 the gunwale, a system still said to prevail with Greek 
 boatmen.' The oars must have been very broad in 
 the blade, as they are likened to a winnowing-shovel. 
 This may help to account for the difficulty they ex- 
 perienced in rowing against the wind. 
 
 We have in the fifth book of the Odyssey (243-255), 
 a very elaborate account of the building of a craft by 
 Odysseus, and though the point has been controverted,' 
 we incline to believe that the poet is describing the 
 ordinary work of the ship-wright, for on the whole 
 so many technical terms are introduced that it seems 
 less natural to understand the whole operation as the 
 putting together of an emergency raft. The argu- 
 ments, however, for the contrary view have been very 
 clearly and forcibly stated by Dr. Warre, the Head 
 Master of Eton, in an article " On the Raft of Ulysses."" 
 
 'Col. 'Leake's Attica, p. 139, quoted by Riddell on Od. iv. 782. 
 
 " The term used is arxeSlri, and this word from its use in later 
 authors might appear to indicate a raft rather than a true ship. 
 But it does not necessarily follow that the elaborate description 
 given by the poet would not apply to ordinary ship-building. 
 
 ' J.H.S., vol. v., p. 209. Dr. Warre is followed by Butcher and 
 Lang in their translation of the Odyssey. For the view we have 
 adopted see RiddeU, Odyssey, i. -xii. Excursus, p. 557. 
 
«! 
 
 Q 
 
 K 
 H 
 H 
 
 M! 
 
 O 
 O 
 
 w! 
 
 a 
 
 u 
 
 » 
 
 X 
 
 S 
 
[ 237 ] 
 
 Chapter V 
 
 Who were the Homeric 
 People ? 
 
 § I. The Problem Stated 
 
 In the preceding Chapter we have endeavoured to 
 
 bring together the more important elements of human 
 
 society which are pourtrayed in Homer, 
 
 Historical basis ot but without attempting to prejudice 
 
 the Poems worth the grand question whether this picture 
 
 consideration, is an imaginary one, or what sort of 
 
 basis it may have in the facts of real 
 
 life. In this Chapter we shall deal with this question, 
 
 or at least with a new set of considerations which seem 
 
 to bear most strongly upon it. 
 
 It is possible that an objection might be made here 
 which, though not of great importance, may yet be 
 briefly stated. It might be urged that we read the 
 poems as literature, and that from such a point of 
 view it matters very little whether they are true or not 
 as history, for Aristotle says avovbaiArtpov nohja-n iaroplas 
 itrriv. And is there not a real danger that we shall 
 spoil the effect of supreme poetry if we treat it as the 
 dry bones of history are apt to be treated ? 
 
 No doubt there is a danger, if people get absorbed 
 in scientific and especially in speculative questions 
 relating to the poems, of their forgetting that they are 
 dealing with literature and with literature which is 
 unique. But on the other hand it is part of the dis- 
 tinction of Homer that it has many aspects for us 
 as it had for the Greeks themselves, and we cannot 
 
238 Who were the Homeric People ? [chap. V 
 
 quite dissociate its historical from its poetical worth. 
 Its very supremacy precludes our being wholly indif- 
 ferent to its real objective truth, though it warns us 
 to cultivate a sense of proportion in conducting our 
 investigations. And of a truth — if we do not inter- 
 change the means with the end, if we always bear in 
 mind that the kernel is better than the husk and the 
 spirit is more than the letter — so far from weakening 
 our appreciation of the poetry, it will strengthen it 
 indefinitely to ask ourselves, and to take some trouble 
 about the answer, what the poems are about and 
 who were the people who made them ? 
 
 And for ourselves, as we are writing for the Homeric 
 student, and not for the mere casual reader of the 
 poetry, we should consider that our 
 Hew data for the t^'Sk was poorly attempted did we 
 inyestigation fail to bring forward the new data 
 of this question, which modern archaeological science 
 has collected for judging not merely 
 as to the objective reality of the Homeric people, 
 but also in some sense as to their identity. But 
 the questions we have again to raise are thorny 
 ones, not less difficult than those which we have already 
 tried to deal with relating to the authorship of the 
 poems, and to the time and place of their composition. 
 There are still before us questions which can be asked 
 more easily than answered ; nor do we dream for a 
 moment that we can give a final, perhaps hardly a 
 tolerable, solution to all such problems. But we shall 
 think we have done something for the student of 
 Homer if we state the difficulties fairly and squarely, 
 and at the same time help him to understand the 
 bearing of modern archaeology upon them, and perhaps 
 put him in a position to form some provisional judg- 
 ments of his own. 
 
 What would be best of all (and would it were not 
 beyond our power) would be to stimulate him with 
 a desire to carry on the search for himself, and to show 
 him, at least, the direction in which he should look 
 for clearer lights 
 In order to approach the subject from the new point 
 
sec. i] The Problem Stated 239 
 
 of view, we may first try to realize the old one. We 
 may put ourselves for a moment in the position of 
 those who had no help from archaeology because the 
 spade of the excavator had not, as yet, been put to its 
 task. We shall not have to travel back so many years 
 in order to find ourselves in a sort of dark, prehistoric 
 age, typical of the Homeric age as it then presented 
 itself to our minds. Nothing could be more Cimmerian, 
 more mysterious. It was the fashion to treat of Homeric 
 times and Homeric people as something wholly my- 
 thical, unintelligible and unreal. So that there was a 
 strange and startling opposition assumed to exist 
 between the Hellenic era and the so-called mythical 
 age, which was supposed to have got there somehow, 
 but nobody knew how — nor did it betoken a well- 
 regulated mind to be disposed to enquire ! 
 
 It is hardly necessary to remind the reader that by 
 the Hellenic period is meant the later so-called his- 
 torical age of Greece when her people 
 First beginnings not only had a common name but a 
 
 of Hellenic common consciousness of their national 
 period, unity. The beginnings of this period 
 
 are sometimes dark, but the haze is 
 never impenetrable. The date usually assumed 
 for its commencement is that of the First Olympiad, 
 776 B.C. Without emphasising the exactness of 
 the Olympian chronology,^ surely we may fairly 
 state that from the eighth century B.C. onwards, 
 we find ourselves on safe ground when dealing with 
 the history of a united Hellas. For instance, there 
 were the poems of Hesiod, of whom we know at least 
 some leading facts about his parentage, birth, and 
 life. There is no practical doubt about the authen- 
 ticity of some of his extant works, nor that they were 
 written by him hardly later than the eighth century. 
 Hesiod was a Boeotian, but Professor Bury has warned 
 us, wisely, that the early history of Hellas belongs 
 far more to the Islands and eastern coast of the iEgean 
 
 ' Seriously attacked by Professor Mahafiy, see Problems of 
 Greek History (Appendix). 
 
240 Who were the Homeric People ? [chap. V 
 
 than to what we, judging by later times, are accustomed 
 to think of as Greece. In Ionia, then, somewhat later 
 than the age of Hesiod, important literature took its 
 rise, some of which has come down to us though the 
 best has perished ; but in any case we know a good deal 
 historically about these schools and their leaders, the 
 early poets and prose writers of Lesbos, Ionia and Greece 
 generally. And what is true of the literary, is more 
 or less so of the political, history of these ages. We 
 know something, at least in outline, of their aristo- 
 cratical spirit, their revolutions, above all their coloni- 
 sing activity. The picture of all this may be imperfect, 
 sometimes hazy, but it is never unreal. Even the 
 early chronicles of important cities like Athens, Sparta, 
 Corinth, Thebes, Syracuse, and Cyrene, from what 
 is sometimes called the dawn of history onwards, are 
 known to us, and not perhaps with less particularity 
 than we might reasonably expect in the case of first 
 beginnings. 
 
 But now we come to what is peculiar. The import- 
 ance of the so-called Legendary Period was not over- 
 looked, but historians treated of it in a 
 The Bo-called most indecisive manner. Certain sahent 
 period'^ facts were taken for granted. Imme- 
 diately before the dawn of history it 
 was understood there had been a dark period owing 
 to the descent of the Dorian tribes from the North of 
 Greece. They had found a more advanced civilisa- 
 tion than anything they knew of and had indeed de- 
 stroyed it. Of that early pre-historic age there were 
 still certain vestiges to be seen above the face of the 
 earth — remains of huge ruined structures of somewhat 
 uncouth aspect, said to be the work of the Cyclopes, 
 mythological monsters born of ignorance and child- 
 like awe. Yet certain relics of art could be discerned, 
 as in the Lion Gate of which the upper portion still 
 remained in view and had been described by iriany 
 an admiring traveller. And the literature, especially the 
 poetry, of all the Greeks teemed with allusions to 
 this queer pre-historic age, to the expeditions and 
 wars of its heroes, many of whom had been worshipped 
 
sec. I] The Problem Stated 241 
 
 as demi-gods. But whatever history there was in it 
 was so embedded in a mass of impossible legends and 
 fantastical folk-lore, that there seemed little prospect 
 of extricating the truth. One school of historians, 
 represented by Grote, frankly rejected all the legends 
 as hopeless ; others, as Thirlwall, maintained that they 
 contained a kernel of truth, but what that was they 
 hardly dared to define. Nor was this view of early 
 Greek history due to any peculiar twist of the modern 
 mind in the Victorian Era. It has always prevailed 
 because it was very much the view of the Greeks them- 
 selves in Hellenic times. They had gone through a 
 dark time, a time of general disturbance and upheaval, 
 during which some of the various tribes had been 
 ejected forcibly from their ancient seats by strangers 
 who, though of kindred blood, had dispossessed them 
 of their inheritance and entered into it themselves. 
 The old order had broken up, old ties had been severed, 
 and as this period of change had lasted for many genera- 
 tions at least, it was no great wonder if they had lost 
 all clear remembrance of the past, or anything, except 
 that it had been a grand one. Therefore, whatever 
 was known in pre-archaeological days of early Greek 
 history was so hazy and uncertain, so mixed up with 
 legendary lore and vague hypothesis as to be quite 
 unsatisfying to the inquisitive. 
 
 And we could not help enquiring. Out of the dim 
 shadowy haze one great fact emerged: the Homeric 
 
 poems were there and had to be ac- 
 
 Tet the Poems counted for. It is true they were the 
 
 existed— where subject of many an ' obstinate ques- 
 
 bid they come tioning,' but in spite of it all, one 
 
 from? thing could not be questioned — they 
 
 existed, these superb masterpieces of 
 human utterance. And in a way they seemed to 
 tell their own story. There was a sort of con- 
 vincingness about them which it was hard to get 
 over, though harder still to define. The rape of Helen, 
 the siege of Troy, the swift-footed Achaean hero. 
 Hector and Andromache, and Priam and Cassandra, 
 Odysseus and his home in Ithaca, with Penelope and 
 
 B 
 
242 Who were the Homeric People ? [chap. V 
 
 the suitors aiid Telemachus seeking his much-afflicted 
 father — all this or much of it we could easily believe 
 to be fiction, but the setting of the poems is so real, 
 so life-like, so absorbing, especially to those who reflect 
 that here, as far as we can tell, we are gazing at Euro- 
 pean civilisation in its cradle. The study of origins 
 is to us moderns always interesting, and our own the 
 most. Introspection is, perhaps, our bane ; but the 
 study of Homer, while it touches us closely, has also 
 a cure for this very malady, for the intensity of Homeric 
 realism has a charm to steal us away from our own sur- 
 roundings into a past which veritably throbs with life. 
 And no ordinary life. The picture presented to us 
 of the Homeric heroes and their surroundings is not 
 merely vivid and complete ; it is grand, though with a 
 grandeur which is homely and simple. Hence the 
 fascination which we find in the subject of the poems 
 as distinct from the poems themselves. It may be 
 that this effect is due to the art of the bards which 
 well knew how to efface itself in order to ravish the 
 listener the more. But allowing much to the power 
 of art, the mind was not yet satisfied. We have said 
 the poems seemed to carry with them their own 
 evidence that they were not undiluted fiction, but 
 contained at least an element of objective perhaps 
 traditional truth. It was a beautiful world they told 
 of, and yet it was a world apart. Agamemnon in the 
 field and Achilles in his tent ; Priam in his palace ; 
 Odysseus in his travels ; Alcinous with his retainers 
 and Arete with her daughter ; Penelope and Telemachus 
 in the midst of the wicked suitors, and the old swine- 
 herd and the faithful nurse ; the very shades of the 
 Dead beyond the streams of Oceanus — how could the 
 bards describe all these wonders if they had not lived 
 in a world of their own, or at least acquired the know- 
 ledge of it from their immediate predecessors ? The 
 gorgeous palaces of the kings, with their walls of bronze, 
 their gold and silver ewers and basins, and their carven 
 bedsteads and chairs of state and footstools ; and all 
 the glittering raiment and the golden-studded sceptres 
 and golden-hilted swords and silvern anklebands and 
 
sec. I] The Problem Stated 243 
 
 the ivory and amber and inlaid metal work, and the 
 iron-axled chariots with eight spokes to the wheel, and 
 the crimson-cheeked ships and the fair-cheeked maidens, 
 and the stateliness and grace amid the splendour of 
 it all — why should we obstinately refuse to believe 
 that these bards knew more than we — that they 
 had seen the vision with their mortal eye before they 
 took the brush in hand to paint the picture ? 
 
 An impression is one thing, science is another ; and 
 science alone could justify us in a determination to 
 believe in the objectivity of the Homeric 
 Could we not vision. But science has unlocked many 
 ^anrsefthe a mystery of our own Ufe. Could it 
 Tision? do nothing to remove this impenetrable 
 veil which hid from us at once the life 
 of Homer and the beginning of European history ? 
 Our position in pre- archaeological days was not unlike 
 that of the simple folk who gazed on the marble or 
 sandstone fossils in days before science had unfolded for 
 mankind the record of the rocks. These things looked 
 like the relics of once living organisms — but when and 
 how did they get into their stony existence ? Much 
 could be surmised, and many strange things were 
 believed. One thing was certain — that is, that the 
 fossils did exist in the rocks, just as did the Homeric 
 poems, with their story of the kings in their palaces, 
 and the simple folk eating and drinking and pouring 
 out libations to the gods and loving and fighting and 
 dying and being buried. After all, was it not excus- 
 able to ask what is the secret of it all ? 
 
 Archaeology had already, even in the early nineteenth 
 century, done much for another literature of even a 
 ■higher and wider interest. All the world knew that in 
 Egypt and the Holy Land, in Assyria and Babylon and 
 Asia Minor, the spade had wrested from the earth many 
 a secret which its green sod had perhaps too long kept 
 hidden from our ken. So that the time had come when 
 it might reasonably be hoped that on Greek soil, also, 
 the spade would do something great for the lovers of 
 Homer. The opportunity was not wanting — if only 
 the man should be forthcoming. 
 
[ 344 3 
 
 § 2. Triumph of the Spade 
 
 The record of Heinrich Schliemann's life reads more 
 
 like romance than sober narrative. His achievements 
 
 were due mainly to his own insight 
 
 Ihe Btory of ^^^ dogged determination, but his 
 
 SchliemanD. good fortune, too, was surprisingly 
 great. From, his earliest years he had 
 set himself the task of verifying the truth of Homer. 
 He had neither money, friends, nor scholarship. His 
 father was a Lutheran minister,' and from him in his 
 infancy he had heard the tale of Troy ; later he had 
 a picture-book given him as a present on his seventh 
 birthday which gave an illustration of iEneas bearing 
 his father on his shoulders from the burning city while 
 he led the boy Ascanius by the hand. Even then his 
 enthusiasm was fired, and he longed to see what re- 
 mained of the pictured scene. Being told the print 
 was only imaginary he asked if the walls were ever of 
 the size shown in the book, and getting an affirmative 
 . answer he cried, " Then there must be something re- 
 Si^maining of them : I shall go and find it." 
 
 After nearly half a c entury his childish enthusiasm 
 remained, and iFTFTedTrimriTi-to many errors for which 
 he sometimes incurred the ridicule of the learned, it 
 also made him the founder of a new era in scholarship. 
 
 We cannot trace his early years, during which he 
 was amid great difficulties preparing himself for his 
 life-work. The first step towards carying it out was 
 to learn Greek, and his circumstances did not allow of 
 his commencing the subject till he was beyond thirty- 
 five years of age. For he had commenced his career 
 as a humble shop-boy, selling across the counter sugar, 
 herrings, and tallow-candles. At this very time we are 
 told that he once exhausted his slender store of pock&t 
 
 * Young Schliemana was bom in Mecklenburg in lizi. He 
 died in 1890. 
 
sec, 2] Triumph of the Spade 245 
 
 money in bribing a miller's man, who had come into the 
 shop, and who had had some classical education, to 
 recite to him three times about one hundred lines of 
 Homer which he knew by heart. The young shop-boy 
 could not understand a word, but he was so moved at 
 hearing the lines that lamenting his own state of 
 ignorance he burst into bitter tears. 
 
 The first requirement, therefore, towards his pro- 
 jected excavations was to make money. To this end 
 he would now devote himself, and thus later on he 
 would have the wherewithal for his work. So it turned 
 out that in after years, when he had become a merchant- 
 prince and had amassed a colossal fortune, his ideals 
 remained unchanged. And as he remained constant 
 to his early enthusiasm, so Fortune, usually so fickle, 
 remained constant to him. 
 
 There were two cardinal points in Schliemann's 
 Homeric faith, both of which he held in contradiction 
 to the views prevailing among_Jthe 
 Troy and learned. One was that the Troy"^?-^ 
 Uycense. the Iliad was on the site of the modern y 
 Hissaj:likj_the_hill on which the more^'^ 
 recent to wn of Ili upi had beeiQaiiLt ; wheTe^as" fhe 
 majority ^ modernscholars located it (if anywhere) 
 at Bundrbashi, a higher elevation to the south-east, 
 and a spur of the celebrated Ida range of mountains. 
 His other obstinate conviction was that the historian 
 Pausanias was right in declaring that Agamemnon had 
 been buried at Mycense, within the walls of the "5ily~ ~ 
 AcropoHs — in regard to which he again ran counter 
 to modem critics of the text. 
 
 But he would appeal to the evidence which lay 
 beneath the green turf, and there his faith was abund- 
 antly vindicated. As to Hissarlik, the world has long 
 been convinced that Schliemann was right ; and on 
 the Acropolis of Mycenae he discovered the Shaft- 
 graves, making one of the most remarkable finds in 
 history. It does not follow that because some of his 
 views have been since corrected our debt to the man 
 is less. We must not estimate his work merely by 
 its material success (which was, indeed, stranger than 
 
246 Who were the Homeric People ? [chap. V 
 
 a dream) but rather by the impetus he gave to the 
 science of archaeology, and above all to the study of 
 pre-historic Greece. 
 
 As science progresses, its conclusions tend to become 
 more and more unified ; in regard to early chrono- 
 logy the Egyptian tombs and inscriptions supply us 
 with data by which we can sometimes fix it within 
 limits of moderate variation. Our knowledge of what 
 is usually called Mycenaean culture starts ' from Schlie- 
 mann^s^ finds at T roy (1870^ and Mycenae (1876) ; 
 but it has Iseen 'largely TeiSlorced by new explorations 
 not merely in Greece and the j^gean, but elsewhere. 
 It will be appropriate here to give a brief account of 
 some of these excavations and their results. 
 
 Schliemann's diggings at Hissarlik brought him face 
 to face with seven distinct layers of human remains which 
 he named the seven cities of Troy. The 
 The so-called second lowest gave signs of great wealth 
 Mycensean city and a certain grandeur : it also had 
 of Troy. evidently been destroyed by fire. Ac- 
 cordingly he naturally identified it with 
 the city of the Iliad, Priam's Troy. However, in this 
 he was soon proved to. be wrong ; for it became known 
 that the style of this city and its contents betrayed 
 a far earlier date than the supposed date of the Trojan 
 War.' Later the mystery was solved partly by Schlie- 
 mann in the very year of his death (1890), and more 
 fully by Professor W. Dorpfeld, who completed the 
 investigations which he published, first in the year 
 1893, and again in a monumental form in the year 
 1902. After the great fortresses of the Argive Plain, 
 which we are next to describe, had been discovered, 
 and principally by means of pottery and its develop- 
 ment, some knowledge of (relative) chronology had 
 become possible, and the result of the new investigations 
 
 ' We do not mean to deny that any traces of the Mycenaeans had 
 come to light, for under Ruskin important finds had been made 
 at lalysus in Rhodes. But they were practically neglected before 
 Schliemann's discoveries. 
 
 ^ See Percy Gardner's New Chapters of Greek History, which 
 appeared before Dorpfeld's Troja. 
 
sec. 2] Triumph of the Spade 247 
 
 established almost the certainty that the supposed city 
 of Priam had been post-dated by Schliemann by about 
 one thousand years. It was found that a much later 
 city (the sixth of Schliemann's series) had really corre- 
 sponded with the age of Mycenae ; for it contained 
 true Mycenaean vases, and even its very structure, 
 which was of huge blocks of stone, was found to corre- 
 spond with the Argive work. Its centre had entirely 
 disappeared owing to a later levelling process ; the 
 walls, however, which had covered fully twice the 
 extent of the second city (which had been built of 
 brick) were sufficient to prove the theory now pro- 
 pounded. Dorpfeld has indeed pointed out several 
 technical points in which the walls he disclosed betray 
 non-Mycenaean — as he believes, Phrygian — ^influences. 
 He also holds that in all probability the Mycenaean 
 objects had been imported from the opposite main- 
 land or the iEgean islands. These are, however, details 
 which we need not enter into. For it is enough to 
 know that, although Schliemann's first impressions 
 were not exactly confirmed by later and more scientific 
 explorations ; yet upon Hissarlik, the site he chose for 
 his earliest efforts at illustrating the scene of the Iliad, 
 a comparatively large and splendidly-built city has 
 been discovered which certainly synchronizes with the 
 supposed date of the Trojan War. 
 
 There is a certain interest attaching to the discoveries 
 at Troy on account of their, direct connection with 
 Homer, but their scientific import is 
 Great Argive less perhaps than that of the later dis- 
 FortresBes. coveries at Tiryns and Mycenae. The 
 existence of important pre-historic for- 
 tresses at both these sites was always understood, but 
 Schliemann was the first, by exploring them, to reveal 
 at once their contents and their signficance. Tiryns was 
 not finally excavated till 1884, or eight years after the 
 celebrated find of the shaft-graves at Mycenae, which 
 occurred in 1876 ; but as the Tiryns fortress is both 
 the older and better preserved of the two, we may take 
 it first, following the example of many other writers. 
 It is built close to the sea on a low hill of nearly a hundred 
 
248 Who were the Homeric People ? [chap. V 
 
 feet high ; and is of spialler dimensions than the later 
 fortress, which is built upon a much higher eminence 
 nearly half-way across the mountain belt which sepa- 
 rates the gulf of Argos from that of Corinth— so 
 that it commands an important pass between two 
 seas.^ 
 
 From these facts Schuchhardt, who believed that 
 Mycenaean culture centred in the islands of the iEgean, 
 argued that it was spreading towards the west at the 
 time these sites were occupied. The traces of several 
 pre-historic roads from Mycenae to Corinth confirms 
 this view, and it gives a special point to the prominence 
 of Ithaca as the home of one of the great Achaean chiefs. 
 The fortress of Tiryns is built on a lime-stone ridge, 
 which is but little less in area than the Athenian Acro- 
 polis (though of much lower elevation) ;' being over 
 three hundred yards in length. It has various terraces 
 with circumvallation, the highest containing merely the 
 royal palace. The walls, which at one point are still 
 standing to a height of twenty-four feet, are of enormous 
 strength, varying in thickness from sixteen to fifty- 
 seven feet, and are built of huge blocks of stone, roughly 
 worked, some of them measuring over ten feet in length 
 by a yard square. They contain, moreover, a very 
 remarkable feature in the galleries which are built in 
 the width of the wall with great stones overlapping 
 and meeting at the top so as to form a sort of improper 
 arch. There is a tradition that Tiryns was fortified 
 by Lycians, and this would be an interesting confir- 
 mation of the theory that the Mycenaean culture was 
 passing from east towards west. A marked similarity, 
 moreover, has been traced between the structure of 
 the galleries and certain Phoenician work which has 
 been discovered in North Africa ; we are still in doubt 
 
 ^ See plan below, p. 279. 
 
 ^ The Athenian Acropolis was also fortified in Mycenaean times, 
 and portions of the primitive walls are still remaining ; see plan 
 in Ancient Athens, by Harrison and Verrall. 
 
 3 The object of the galleries is disputed. As their exterior 
 walls are pierced it was long thought they were for purposes of 
 defence, but this is denied by Dorpfeld and others. 
 
sec. 2] Triumph of the Spade 249 
 
 whether one was a copy of the other, or whether both 
 were originally derived from a common model. 
 
 The great feature of Tiryns is of course the Palace 
 on the topmost plateau of the citadel. It is excellently 
 preserved, at least as to its foundations and lower 
 courses ; its relation to the Homeric house has been 
 the subject of much controversy which we omit for 
 the present. 
 
 The fortress of Mycenae, which is considerably larger, 
 differs from Tiryns not merely in being later as a whole, 
 but also as containing much more indication of a long 
 period of habitation, and of successive styles of build- 
 ing. When it was first built, Tiryns may have been 
 already falling into decay, or at least decadence ; on 
 the other hand its own importance continued quite 
 late into what we may now call, in a wide sense, the 
 Mycenaean Age. 
 
 The glorious Gate of Lions is too well-known to need 
 a lengthened description here, and we need only say 
 that it is part of a later addition to the walls, probably 
 belonging to the same date as the Tholos or Bee-hive 
 tombs, which represent the widest diffused and most 
 developed phase of Mycenaean art. 
 
 It will be suitable here to give a passing hotice of 
 a third fortress of the same general era, though it is 
 some distance to the north of Argolis, namely, that 
 of Gha, or Gla, on the north-east shore of Lake Copais 
 in Boeotia. Being an island surrounded by cliffs, it 
 is a natural strong-hold, but its fortifications are re- 
 markable for their extent, as they enclose a space fully 
 ten times the size of Tiryns. An attempt has been 
 made to identify the place with "Apvij," a Boeotian 
 town, but this appears speculative. The fortress is 
 supposed to have been the work of the Minyae, who also 
 built the celebrated Orchomenus on the opposite side 
 of the lake. Gha contains a palace which is, in some 
 important respects, quite unlike the Argive or Trojan 
 ones. 
 
 If the importance of Tiryns lies in its fortress and 
 
 I Mentioned in the Iliad ii., 507, and called 7roKvrrd(t)vXos. 
 
250 Who were the Homeric People ? [chap. V 
 
 the royal dwelling-place, that of Mycenae lies in its 
 dwelling-places of the dead. There are 
 The Shaft and two classes of tombs very distinct in 
 ThoIoB-tombs age and character, and it will be useful 
 of Mycena. here to give a brief description of both. 
 The Shaft-tombs are inside the acro- 
 polis walls, surrounded by a double ring of upright 
 stones about which there are several conflicting theories. 
 The graves when unearthed were covered with a mound 
 of earth, so that possibly the ring stones were placed 
 to help to keep it together. They are six in number, 
 cut down, like the smaller and much earlier narrow cist 
 graves/ into the living rock, but utterly unlike them 
 in their dimensions. They are very spacious, varying 
 from ten to over twenty feet in length, and nearly 
 square in shape. Over the graves were found memo- 
 rial stones standing erect (o-T^Xm), covered, of course, 
 by the superincumbent mound of earth. Their average 
 height is five feet, and their breadth over three. Only 
 three of these were sculptured, but the work on them, 
 though rude, is spirited. In each of the three a 
 chariot is depicted, probably with the intention of 
 representing battle scenes, although the meaning is 
 imperfectly brought out. (See PI. xxi. p. 286.) 
 
 Another very important feature was a circular altar 
 built with stones laid horizontally. It was immedi- 
 ately over one of the graves, about three feet from the 
 top, and certainly points to a sacrificial cult of the 
 dead. A similar sort of structure was found at Tiryns 
 in the chief court-yard of the palace, where, however, 
 there is no positive reason for supposing the existence 
 of a grave. 
 
 But the chief interest in the shaft-graves was in 
 their contents. They had never been rifled, and the 
 wealth of objects they contained almost baffles our 
 imagination. The number of corpses in each grave 
 varied from one to five, and every one of them was 
 supplied with an immense profusion of ornaments, and 
 
 ' Sometimes called Cycladic, because they are characteristic of 
 Thera, Melos, Amorgos and others of the Cyclades. 
 
sec. 2] Triumph of the Spade 251 
 
 in the case of the men of weapons. For instance, 
 one grave alone contained no less than sixty swords 
 and daggers ; another grave, in which women only were 
 buried, contained six diadems, fifteen pendants, eleven 
 neck-coils, eight hair-ornaments (including gold comb 
 with bone teeth), ten gold grass-hoppers' with gold 
 chains, one butterfly, four griffins, four lions, ten orna- 
 ments (each consisting of two stags), ten with lions 
 (in each case two lions attacking an ox), three fine 
 intaglios, two pairs of gold scales, fifty-one embossed 
 ornaments, and more than seven hundred ornaments 
 for attaching to clothes ! These were among the 
 treasures of gold, but in addition there were objects 
 of silver, or silver plated with gold, also bronze, and 
 last, but not least, beads cut from amber. 
 
 TheTholos-tombs are quite different, being stately 
 structures, with central chamber, domed (whence the 
 name), and possessing a very elaborate vestibule with 
 beautiful fa9ade. As these tombs had been ransacked,' 
 perhaps at a quite early date, they did not yield a 
 rich harvest of contents like the shaft-graves, which 
 were of a decidedly earlier date. So their importance 
 consists in their structure and architectural features, 
 which in many instances have been wonderfully well 
 preserved. A similar tholos-tomb at Orchomenus, of 
 much the same date and style as the best at Mycenae, 
 contained the fallen blocks belonging to a very beauti- 
 fully carved stone ceiling, thus adding an important 
 testimony to the original grandeur of these chambers 
 of the dead. 
 
 The work done in Cyprus since the British annexa- 
 tion, of which the results were published in 1890, must 
 
 have a passing mention. Many causes 
 
 Excavations in combine to make the archaeology of this 
 
 Cyprus. enchanting island important ; but it is 
 
 also very complicated, and it will be 
 
 ' According to Schuchhardt. 
 
 'These tombs were known as Treasuries, and for long there 
 was much uncertainty as to their tru e character, but the question 
 is no longer debated. 
 
252 Who were the Homeric People ? [chap. V 
 
 possible here only to draw attention to certain con- 
 clusions which vitally affect our judgments as to the 
 Mycenaean culture generally. I have the authority 
 of Mr. Myres, who was himself present in 1894 during 
 part of the excavations, for saying that the tendencies 
 of recent yeeirs favour the view that long before 
 Phoenician inscriptions occur in Cyprus the ^Egean 
 people had free access to the island as to the Levant 
 generally, and that they were even sending colonies 
 to Cyprus. On the other hand, we do not find the 
 art products in the earliest period at all equal to those 
 of the eastern iEgean in point of technique. C5T)rus 
 was, therefore, in the early period (to a great extent) 
 independent both of Semitic and of Mycenaean influence. 
 But later it fell under strong Mycenaean influence. 
 This can be proved, among other things, by the excava- 
 tions made at Enkdmi (near Salamis), where the most 
 important find of Mycenaean objects, since the opening 
 of the shaft -graves in 1876, was made. The things are 
 in the British Museum, and it is difficult to understand 
 how anyone who has even cursorily examined the gems 
 and pottery, to say nothing of the ivory work including 
 a very elaborate draft-box exquisitely carved in true 
 Mycenaean style, could entertain a doubt that they 
 belong to the same school, and generally speaking to 
 the same era, as the objects which are admittedly 
 Mycenaean.' 
 
 There is, however, considerable evidence that, as in 
 the island of ^gina, so in Cyprus, when the rest of 
 the Mycenaean world was wrecked by the incursions 
 of the Dorians, the Mycenaean school of art lingered 
 on, though in a somewhat decadent form. 
 
 We now come to our own day, and strange as was 
 the triumph of the spade in the past, we shall see that 
 it has been equalled, if not surpassed, by the recent 
 
 ' It is perhaps only right to state that the late lamented Mr. 
 A. S. Murray, who was in charge of the excavations, tenaciously 
 maintained a late date for the Enkomi finds (though without 
 denying their Mycenaean character), but he was misled by pre- 
 conceived views which have never made many adherents and 
 have now practically died out. 
 
sec. 2] Triumph of the Spade 353 
 
 Importance of astounding discoveries made in Crete, 
 late discoTeries It is no exaggeration to say that on 
 in Crete. the shoulders of Dr. A. J. Evans, the 
 mantle of the great German explorer 
 has worthily fallen. After the surprises of the last 
 generation our capacity for wonder at the revela- 
 tions of archaeology had become somewhat impaired. 
 Schliemann had this advantage that he was a 
 pioneer. The field he tilled was, practically speaking, 
 virgin soil — and indeed he may be said to have opened 
 up a new chapter in European history. Since his time 
 a new science had come into being, which consisted of 
 the careful recording and interpreting of all archaeolo- 
 gical facts which could bear upon what had come to be 
 called the Mycenaean Era. And so just at the end of 
 the nineteenth century we had laboriously arrived at 
 the point of getting a tolerably clear view of what 
 Mycenaean culture meant in many of its aspects (in- 
 cluding the important ones of its distribution in time 
 and space), and some dim prognostications of its origin 
 were beginning to dawn upon our minds. The new 
 excavations, however, have changed all that, they 
 have cleared up so many difficulties. 
 
 Dr. Evans had been of opinion that until the island 
 of Crete should be asked to deliver up its secrets re- 
 garding the pre-historic culture of Hellas, " the spring 
 was taken out of the year." And this dictum has 
 proved io be prophetic in more ways than one. The 
 lesults of his researches at Knossus are so momentous 
 that it may be rash to state what is most important 
 about them ; but what appears specially illuminating 
 is the way that they take us back to a far earlier point 
 than we could Iiave had any idea of for the origin of 
 ^gean culture, and that in an unbroken line of 
 development with the Mycenaean civilisation. What 
 had previously appeared to be very early, and at the 
 same time in some way unaccountable, if not spas- 
 modic, now turns out to be a comparatively late, or 
 almost (as Dr. Evans seems to think) a decadent deve- 
 lopment of an Mgean cidture which had not only sprung 
 up in Crete, but had attained there a truly giant growth 
 
354 Who were the Homeric People ? fchap. V 
 
 at least far back in the Third Millenium before the 
 Christian Era ! 
 
 Hence we may consider that Schliemann's work 
 directly paved the way for that of Evans, at least in 
 the sense that the Cretan discoveries have for us at 
 the commencement of the twentieth century, a far 
 higher interest and a more connected meaning than they 
 could have possessed had they not been preceded by 
 knowledge gradually gained since the starting point 
 of a generation ago. These preliminary remarks will 
 perhaps be our apology (if one seems to be needed) 
 for laying before the Homeric student a somewhat 
 fuller account of the Knossian excavations than might 
 appear to be necessary for. him. We shall confine our- 
 selves to Knossus, though the work there has been 
 preceded or accompanied by other excavations in 
 various centres of the east of Crete, the Dictaean Cave, 
 Prsesus, Palaeokastro, Zakro — and especially at Phaestus 
 and Hagia Triada, where important palaces have been 
 laid open by the Italian mission ; and also outside of the 
 palace area at Knossus, where Mr. Hogarth, Director 
 of the British School of Athens, has been engaged. 
 
 Up to the date of writing five campaigns have been 
 completed at Knossus, four of which have been pub- 
 lished by Dr. Evans in the Annual of 
 BxcaYations of ^^^ British School, in articles which are 
 Dp. a. J. Eyans models of lucid exposition, richly en- 
 atEnoBBus. hanced by excellent plans, elevations, 
 photographs, and coloured drawings.' 
 The first excavation was in 1900, which though it 
 revealed only about half the palace area, gave us a 
 
 ' These Annual Reports are merely preliminaiy to a fuller 
 publication which will follow later. I must express my thanks to 
 Dr. Evans and his publishers (Messrs. Macmillan & Co.) for 
 allowing me to anticipate the coming work by reproducing here 
 two very important photographs illustrative of MinSan civili- 
 sation. (See Pis. XV. and xvi.) The Royal Gaming Board, 
 which is almost a yard long, must have been a magnificent 
 piece of work. It is a mosaic of gold-plated ivory, rock-crystal, 
 and artificial lapis lazuli (cyanos), with silver plaques in some 
 cases behind the crystal, the whole set in a frame of gold, 
 s^ubsequently certain pieces like chess-men were found which 
 peared to fit the larger circles. 
 

 
 \» . *^. 
 
 
 
 [iiiiiiiinrinmiirriiiiinmiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii.ii i inininniiirinnniiiiniTrnnmirinfiill 
 
 ■ - „ ™ ™,^ mJMM""""'"'''' Jii -inL 
 
 iHinrniBfflirrHfflmtKfffiffiiriiinmiiliiiiiiiiiiiiiriiii i.i nrininmiiiiiirnimmniiimiig 
 
 ill 
 Is 
 
 
 1 
 
 ■'.'/ 
 
 
 i 
 
 ''■\ 
 
 ■1 
 ■f. 
 
 iffluiiiiniiitiiiim 
 mmrnnnnnMHiSSJ 
 
 iicr; 
 
 ^^jlPilJjjjiMpigPjjfrnu^^^^^^ 
 
 [ r Ji 
 
 N 
 
 1 ■)] 
 
 
 ^'■■W^,M'^^^M%^'0^^S^^ 
 
sec. 2] Triumph of the Spade 255 
 
 very good knowledge of its character and that of the 
 life which it once enshrined. Yet the discoveries have 
 since proceeded along an ascending scale of interest, at 
 least for the three following years of 1901, 1902, and 1903.' 
 
 We may give a brief outline of some of the leading 
 features of the several excavations, beginning with 
 those of the first year. Very near the surface the 
 ruins were discovered on the whole in excellent pre- 
 servation. The ground plan of the palace is remark- 
 able for the multiplicity of its walls and chambers. 
 As it afterwards turned out, this is due to the fact 
 that it was a sort of basement story — the larger apart- 
 ments being mostly in the superstructure. But on 
 this ground floor a very beautiful audience chamber was 
 found, with gypsum throne in position, flanked by stone 
 seats on either side, and an entrance hall as well as 
 other rooms containing consecrated pillars, with a 
 ritual significance ; also near this an apartment for 
 (apparently) ritual ablutions. The remains of beautiful 
 frescoes and plaster reliefs came to light, giving proof 
 of artistic power far beyond anything we could have 
 had the least idea of at this epoch. There were also 
 rows of long magazines " cdl opening off a long gallery, 
 containing huge earthen jars, some of them nearly 
 five feet in height, and beneath them rows of sunken 
 cavities which had, however, been very well rifled of 
 their contents. A handsome portico, with long and 
 highly ornamental corridors, had given access to this 
 which was only one particular section of the palace. 
 Already it appeared how far larger, and grander the 
 whole design was than the palaces which had been 
 previously discovered as already described. 
 
 The following year (1901) was remarkable for the open- 
 ing up of the other side of the building on the east. 
 
 ' The campaign of last year (1904) has not yet been fully pub- 
 lished, but we learn that its results were by no means barren, 
 and the discoveries were such as to render necessary at least 
 another dig in the coming season. 
 
 * Afterwards discovered to be eighteen in number. Other 
 magazines of importance were found later elsewhere, though not 
 on quite such a large scale. 
 
256 Who were the Homeric People ? [chap. V 
 
 For there had been a large central court which had 
 been originally mistaken for an outside boundary on 
 the eastern side. And in many respects this was the 
 more interesting region and better preserved than the 
 western side. For under part of it, where the ground 
 sloped away and the clay had been further cut into, 
 was found not merely a complete under story, but the 
 remains of a quadruple staircase giving access, first to 
 the second story and then to a third, of which latter 
 even some of the flooring was actually in position and 
 more (which had fallen) was easily replaced. This 
 feature of the palace was confirmed later by a find of 
 pictured tiles representing a whole series of three- 
 storied houses, which appeared to belong to a street 
 of the out-lying town. 
 
 Now there came to light fresh treasures of pottery, 
 especially in the beautiful polychrome style,' which 
 is quite distinct from the Mycenaean, and indeed much 
 earlier. Its ornament is geometrical rather than 
 naturalistic, but not in the least like the more com- 
 monly known and somewhat debased geometric ware 
 of the Dark Age. One marked peculiarity of this early 
 fabric is its extreme delicacy of shape, being often of 
 egg-shell fineness and imitating both the forms and 
 sometimes the ornament of metal ware. The import- 
 ance of this Min6an pottery (in addition to its intrinsic 
 beauty) is, that in many cases it has given invaluable 
 aid for fixing at least relative chronology, to which 
 subject we shall return again. 
 
 In 1902 new discoveries of great moment were made, 
 including that of the domestic quarter of the palace, 
 with the Queen's Megaron, and a large suite of private 
 apartments containing a special and private staircase 
 of their own, which was well preserved. One of the 
 curious features of this excavation was a very large 
 and elaborate system of drainage, including house- 
 sanitation on thoroughly modern principles. A small 
 shrine, with many 01 the accessories of worship of the 
 Double Axe sacred to the Carian and Cretan Zeus, 
 
 ■ Seme instances of this style had been unearthed at Knossus 
 in 1900 and at least as early at Phaestus. 
 
sec. 2] Triumph of the Spade 257 
 
 came to light ; also proofs of great antiquity in im- 
 portant contacts with the early Egyptian Dynasties. 
 
 In some respects the finds of 1903 were even more 
 remarkable. Among these was a royal villa just out- 
 side the enceinte of the palace proper, containing 
 a second throne and architectural features specially 
 well preserved, and gorgeous examples were found, 
 for the first time, of the Cretan bronze ware in the 
 shape of bowls and ewer. It was known that some- 
 thing of the sort must have existed, but such treasures 
 had been hitherto conspicuous by their absence, owing 
 to the way the palace had been specially looted for 
 its metal objects at the time of its sudden destruction. 
 Everywhere the signs of this and of the attendant 
 conflagration were at hand. Again the contents of 
 another shrine were discovered in a different quarter 
 from the one referred to above, among them very 
 wonderful faience statuettes of a Snake-goddess and her 
 votary. These are particularly valuable as throwing 
 light on the Cretan cults. With regard to the latter, 
 there is evidence that the Min6an kings had a sacred 
 character, and were in fact priests of the cult of Zeus 
 and of a female deity like to Rhea. Finally a very 
 interesting stepped theatral area was uncovered (PI. 
 XV.) which may possibly be the dancing- ground (xopos) 
 of Ariadne referred to in Iliad xviii. 590-2. 
 
 Dr. Evans commenced his Cretan researches with 
 
 the view of confirming a belief which he (like Schlie- 
 
 mann) had formed, namely, that there 
 
 DiscoveFy of was in the ^gean area a method of 
 
 early Cretan writing long anterior to that Phoeni- 
 forms of Writing, cian script from which our own alphabet 
 is derived through the Greek and Roman. 
 In fact he did not begin with the spade — for several 
 years he had been collecting seal-stones in the island, 
 and the first results of his investigations were published 
 as early as the year 1894. 
 
 But the excavations in the Knossian palace gave a 
 far richer harvest in the form of clay tablets, to the 
 number of over a thousand, inscribed with a linear 
 script. These tablets have not as yet been deciphered, 
 
258 Who were the Homeric People ? [chap. V 
 
 but it is clear that many of them are catalogues of 
 treasures ; and the accompanying enumerations can 
 be made out as well as in some cases the nature of 
 the hoard from pictorial signs. 
 
 I. It has now been discovered that pictographic 
 writing, which was not altogether unlike the Egyptian 
 hieroglyphs, was in use among the Eteocretans, or 
 Cretan aborigines, who lived in the eastern part of 
 the island. It never spread beyond this very limited 
 area, where it was developed, though it must have been 
 originated elsewhere and have been imported. There 
 are about eighty signs known to us, and some of them 
 have affinities with the so-called Hittite system of writ- 
 ing. It was both extremely early and also lived on (in 
 its own particular locality) long after the linear and 
 later script had come into use. 
 
 II. The second or linear system was of much wider 
 vogue. It is found not only through Crete, but in the 
 islands, and (to a very limited extent as far as we know) 
 throughout the whole iEgean area, and also in Egypt 
 and Syria. It existed long before the Mycenaean 
 period proper, as well as through it. About thirty- 
 two * symbols of this script have been discovered, and 
 of these fifteen are the same as the Cypriot Syllabary, 
 from which it is pretty certain that the signs had a 
 syllabic as distinct from an alphabetic value. This 
 script occurs in two forms, an earlier and later. The 
 earlier was evidently used with a hieratic import, as 
 it occurs on buildings, whereas the latter is used for 
 ordinary writing. Although very slight traces have as 
 yet been found of its use in the Western ^gean and on 
 the Greek mainland, it is difficult to suppose that the 
 Mycenaeans, who were certainly in contact with this 
 form of writing, should not have used it much more 
 
 ' Tsountas shows that at least six additions can be made to 
 Dr. Evans' thirty-two Cretan symbols of similar marks on objects 
 found in the iEgean area ; and that one of these, as well as twenty 
 of Cretan symbols, occur on Mycensan pottery found by Flinders- 
 Petrie in Egypt ; and Evans himself points out that in Syria 
 (Tell-el-Hessy) six of these signs were discovered by Bliss on 
 pottery which the latter thinks is prior to 1 500 B.C. (See Tsountas 
 and Manatt, The Mycenisan Age, chap, xi.) 
 
sec. 2] Triumph of the Spade 259 
 
 freely than our direct evidence warrants us in asserting. 
 A good side-light has been thrown on this question (a 
 very interesting one for the Homeric student) by the 
 discovery in the palace of a cup with writing inscribed 
 on it, apparently with a pen and ink, and in a slightly 
 more cursive style than that of the inscribed tablets 
 where pointed instruments were used. The conclusion 
 is that ordinary writing was in use, but that the mate- 
 rials (probably palm-leaves) have disappeared. 
 
 This discovery is of such vast significance for the 
 history of Greece, and even of Europe, that if it had 
 been made by itself it would still have marked an epoch. 
 But coming with so many other wonders its importance 
 is somewhat liable to be overlooked. 
 
 It will be allowed before leaving this subject to point 
 
 out a few of the general results which seem to be 
 
 implied in the Cretan finds. First, they 
 
 Further aspects afford an unlooked-for justification for 
 
 of Cretan many a hoary legend about which 
 
 discoYeries. scepticism was only too natural — legends 
 of Minos and his sea-power, the Laby- 
 rinth and its Minotaur, Theseus and the tribute of 
 Athenian youths and maidens. We need not here 
 follow the discoverer of the palace in all his detailed sug- 
 gestions as to the way several particular legends may be 
 accounted for in the very shape and appearance of the 
 buildings unearthed. But it is not too much to say 
 that the net result of Evans' work is that for the future 
 Greek legends will be viewed with changed eyes, and 
 that a death-blow has been dealt at the extreme scepti- 
 cism which has hitherto held the field. No doubt 
 Schliemann's discoveries had previously effected some- 
 thing in this direction, but his own lack of moderation 
 and science, perhaps, tended to blur the impression 
 which he made on the miiids of his contemporaries. 
 
 Another important aspect of our new knowledge, 
 which we alluded to already, is the high antiquity it 
 confers on European culture. Formerly the prevailing 
 idea was that when we had traced our ancestry through 
 mediaeval and Roman times back to the Hellenic, or 
 at most the Homeric Era, we had reached the limit of 
 
26o Who were the Homeric People ? [chap. V 
 
 our genealogical record. Back of the First Millenium 
 B.C. there was either unfathomable darkness, or if an 
 attempt was made to pierce the gloom it was in the 
 spirit of old Herodotus, who was quite satisfied if he 
 thought he could trace the origins or Greek life and 
 Greek religion in some Egyptian or Mesopotamian 
 analogy. Then, if any further difficulty arose, we 
 had always the Phoenicians to fall back upon; they 
 were so ubiquitous, so pretematurally clever, and above 
 all so indefinite as to our knowledge of their life and its 
 origins that they could be conveniently credited with 
 anything ! 
 
 All these fallacies about the extraneous derivation 
 of our civDisation were already being weakened by 
 our growing knowledge of Mycenaean culture, but it 
 did not as yet take us back so very far. Now it is no 
 longer a question of the end of the Second Millenium 
 B.C. At Knossus we are going back (and the evidence 
 is daily growing more and more irresistible) right 
 through the Second into the Third, nay very probably 
 into the Fourth, Millenium, for the beginning of our 
 distinct and traceable intellectual life. And what 
 beginnings ! What grandeur, what beauty, what indi- 
 viduality has been disclosed by the spade of the circhae- 
 ologist. For what is now established with regard not 
 merely to the Mycenaean, but even more undeniably 
 the Min6an, culture is that though it was in close, 
 direct contact with Egypt (and this is of course the 
 basis of the new chronology), and was strongly in- 
 fluenced by that contact, yet it was a thing quite apart 
 with a strongly defined character of its own, and that 
 it amply repaid the debt which it contracted. We 
 shall almost directly offer a few illustrations of this 
 statement. 
 
 But before passing on we must refer briefly to another 
 point, and that is the possible modification of our'views 
 as to the Mycenaean period proper. Dr. Evans himself 
 now maintains ^ that our use of the word ' Mycenaean ' 
 
 ' In a paper read before the Anthropological Section of the 
 British Association on Ang. 83rd, 1904. (See Times of Aug 34th.) 
 
sec. 2] Triumph of the Spade 261 
 
 requires radical revision. He proposes to call every- 
 thing down to 1500 by the name of Min6an, and believes 
 that the Mycenaean culture was in all its main features 
 a subsidiary growth of the Mindan style when this was 
 already in its decadence. If this is to be a discussion 
 merely about names it is of comparatively little im- 
 portance, and would be in any case out of place here. 
 Besides, it is quite too soon to hope that we can arrive 
 at any final conclusion on this difficult question.' 
 
 At an opportune moment (considering the results 
 
 obtained in Crete) we have now the publication, in a 
 
 sumptuous volume, by the Hellenic 
 
 The British |°9i?ty °u *,^^ ^^'"'li, "^"^f T^ *^® 
 School at British School at Phylakopi.' In some 
 
 Fhylakopi very important points these excava- 
 
 (Melos). tions afford analogies, and in others 
 
 contrasts with the Cretan discoveries. 
 
 Perhaps the most significant fact is that here, as in Crete, 
 
 the ^gean culture can be traced, chiefly of course by 
 
 means of the pottery, in an unbroken succession from 
 
 the later stone age. The oldest settlements have not 
 
 been, however, exhausted, as the excavations were 
 
 broken ofE in 1899,' to be resumed when circumstances 
 
 shall allow. 
 
 ' There has been at all times much confusion observable in the 
 use of the term ' Mycenaean,' especially as regards the earlier 
 stages of the culture. Some archaeologists use the term proto- 
 Mycenaean, others speaking of prae-Mycensean, and others (as 
 Petrie) eschew the term altogether and treat only of £gean 
 things. If we might presume to ofier any opinion, we think it 
 would be a pity to do away with so honoured and signiAcant a 
 term, though it would seemingly be desirable to have it properly 
 defined. But certainly if it is kept it should not be restricted 
 to the late and decadent period of the tholos-tombs, though it is 
 true that this was the period of widest diffusion of Mycenaean 
 art. In our Chronological Table we distinguish between Late 
 and Early Mycenaean, which latter partly corresponds with 
 Dr. Evans' Late Min6an. (See p. 64.) 
 
 * The book has more authority because it is the joint pro- 
 duction of eight members of the School, several of the names 
 being those of great authority, and they are apparently at one 
 as to the more general conclusions, though they treat individually 
 of separate branches of the subject. 
 
 ' They commenced in 1896. 
 
262 Who were the Homeric People ? [chap. V 
 
 Apart from these very primitive and partially ex- 
 plored strata, the remains of three distinct but super- 
 imposed cities have been excavated. Both the first 
 and second cities ended suddenly and violently, but 
 the character of the deposit proves that there was not 
 any general ethnic break at any time. The second 
 city was remarkable for being fortified, a small section 
 of the walls being well preserved. The third city, 
 however, which belongs to the Mycenaean age proper, 
 shows indications of an invasion from the mainland. 
 New rulers came who built a palace very much on the 
 model of those of Mycenae and Tiryns, and unlike those 
 at Crete whether at Knossus, Phaestus or Hagia Triada. 
 For it had a central hearth (though not apparently 
 central pillars) and was lit from above, not by means 
 of a light-well at the back. But the bulk of the popu- 
 lation still lived on and in their old way. An interesting 
 discovery was that of houses in the town with rooms 
 containing consecrated pillars (in this case monolithic) 
 similar to those at Knossus and other Cretan sites. 
 
 Mr. Duncan Mackenzie, who is responsible for the 
 article on pottery, reports that the beautiful middle 
 Mindan polychrome ware from Crete was found in the 
 upper strata of the second city. Hence he argues that 
 this period at Phylikopi (allowing five centuries which 
 he believes must be postulated for the lower deposit 
 of the same second city) must go back to about 3000 
 B.C. If this can be maintained, we should have to put 
 the first city into the Fourth Millenium, and thus Dr. 
 Evans' chronology is likely to receive a very striking 
 confirmation. A glance on the map will show that 
 Phylakopi is a most favourable port for breaking the 
 voyage between Crete and the Greek mainland. It 
 was also an important site on account of its obsidian 
 supply, which was, at the early date in question, well 
 distributed over the Mediterranean and beyond it. 
 What gives interest to this is that no other source existed, 
 as far as we know, in the Mediterranean. Altogether 
 these excavations cannot but have much significance. 
 The frescoes were of particular importance, especially 
 on account of their striking similarity "to those of Crete. 
 
sec. 2] Triumph of the Spade 263 
 
 It has been assumed that there is evidence to prove 
 that the whole system of culture which has been re- 
 vealed to us within the last generation 
 In what sense is ^^ indigenous to the .Egean, and that it 
 
 Hycenaan is no mere offshoot of neighbouring richer 
 
 onltare civilisations. We may now consider 
 
 indigenous? this question somewhat more closely, 
 
 especially as the contrary doctrine has 
 
 not been without numerous and powerful adherents. 
 
 This is a question of prime importance, whether the 
 Greeks were indebted to outsiders for the first begin- 
 nings of their artistic and intellectual life. It is quite 
 a secondary though interesting discussion touching 
 their communication with Egypt and the East — 
 whether it existed by means of the Phoenician traders 
 or through other channels — ^but if we cannot prove that 
 the Mycenaean art was a thing by itself, that it was 
 not a mere second-hand imitation, we need not trouble 
 very much about it. 
 
 Now, the later Greeks themselves were prone to 
 accentuate their debt to their neighbours. We men- 
 tioned the case of Herodotus already. The simple man 
 had travelled in Egypt and was truly delighted when 
 he could assure himself that he found there the expla- 
 nation of what was often a dark mystery to the men 
 of his time. We also know that Herodotus was often 
 wrong, as when he stated that the Greeks owed their 
 gods to Egypt. On the other hand, we have no diffi- 
 culty in believing that the Greeks, even in the time of 
 Herodotus or later, did really borrow many of their 
 ideas and institutions from Egypt. Would it not 
 appear absurd to attribute a degree of originality to 
 a pre-historic age like that of the Mycenaeans which 
 could not be maintained in the case of those who came 
 long after them and entered into their inheritance ? 
 
 Let us then make our position clear. There is no 
 question whatever of denying the influence of foreign 
 and especially Egyptian art upon the Mgea.n people, 
 whether we take them in the Mindan or in the Mycen- 
 aean period. With regard to the former, there is 
 abundant evidence of Egyptian contact and of direct 
 
264 Who were the Homeric People ? [chap. V 
 
 Egyptian influence not merely at Knossus and Crete 
 generally, but in the Northern area also, though it may 
 of course be plausibly maintained that Crete was chiefly, 
 if not entirely, the medium of communication.' 
 
 Very notable instances of Egyptian influence on 
 Mycenaean art are the celebrated dagger blades of the 
 shaft-graves at Mycenae, and the beautiful ceiling of 
 carved stone which we have already stated was found 
 in the tholos-tomb at Orchomenus, previously known 
 as the Treasury of Minyas. In both these cases very 
 similar work is said to be familiar to Egyptologists in 
 connection with the great outburst of magnificence 
 after the expulsion of the Shepherd Kings in the time 
 of the Eighteenth Dynasty. 
 
 And with regard to the inlay work of the dagger 
 blades, not merely is the method Egyptian, but even 
 the subject — in one case notably, where we have the 
 characteristic features of a water-hunt in the midst of 
 lotus plants in which the local cat or otter (called 
 Ichneumon) is pursuing its winged prey, which was a 
 recognised form of Nilotic sport. The extraordinary 
 similarity between the Keftian processions painted on 
 the wall-tombs of Thebes and those of the Minoan 
 palace are of special importance, but the subject will 
 recur in the following Section when we deal directly 
 with the question of chronology. 
 
 It is very remarkable that in point of fact in the 
 later Mycenaean period the foreign influence was more 
 strongly marked than in the Minoan period, but even 
 then there can be no doubt whatever that at Knossus 
 and elsewhere the artists must have been well acquainted 
 with Egyptian methods of decoration. 
 
 What, then, becomes of the claim of Mycenaean art 
 to originality ; or, as we have expressed it, to be an 
 indigenous and not a borrowed style ? 
 
 ' It would be beyond our scope to consider the question 
 raised by Mr. H. R. Hall in the Oldest Civilisation of Greece, 
 whether the Cretans communicated with Egypt by sea direct 
 to the African coast, or (as Mr. Hall maintains) by the coast 
 line of Asia Minor, Cyprus, and the Levant. In a later article 
 in the Annual (B.S.A.) No. viii., he has somewhat modified his 
 attitude on this question. 
 
sec. 2] Triumph of the Spade 265 
 
 The answer is plain. Art is original not because it 
 does not borrow, but because it borrows intelligently. 
 Slavish imitation can never be original. Mycenaan 
 art was creative, and none the less so because it made 
 use of all the aids which it found to its hand. No 
 great school of art ever disdained to borrow. Mycen- 
 aean art borrowed dead forms and put into them the 
 breath of life and was therefore great. It was great 
 in itself, and great because it had within it the potency 
 of the later schools of that Hellas, which we have seen 
 was never too proud to acknowledge but was rather 
 inclined to exaggerate her debt to foreign culture. 
 
 The full realization of this truth regarding ^gean 
 art could only be gained by familiarity with Minoan 
 and Mycenaean objects , and their general contrast with 
 Egyptian, Assyrian, and Phoenician forms. Fortu- 
 nately in many published works easily accessible* 
 there is ample material for making the comparison, 
 though of course visits to the Museum collections would 
 be still better. What is remarkable is, that often 
 where we least expect it, we can recognise the Mycen- 
 aean spirit most strongly expressed. For instance, 
 the extraordinary life and vigour of the lion-hunt on 
 the otherwise Egyptian dagger blade is a clear indi- 
 cation that the Mycenaean metal-worker was no servile 
 copyist but a true artist, with his mind and heart in 
 his work even when measuring himself with the achieve- 
 ments of the foreigner. The same is true of Mycenaean 
 gem-cutting which is at once strongly influenced by 
 Oriental and Egyptian design, and yet absolutely free 
 from the shackles of servile imitation. Nor did these 
 Mycenseans shrink from the most difficult subjects for 
 their intaglios, which it has been proved were chiefly 
 
 ' We may mention the works of Cbipiez-PeitotJJ Art de la 
 Grice Pri-historique (also translated into English by Sir Walter 
 Armstrong) ; Tsountas and Manatt also give a good idea of 
 Mycensean art. For pottery, see especially the monumental 
 work by Furtwangler-Losche. The few specimens of Mycenaean 
 art which we have been able to introduce into our own pages 
 are rather with the view of encouraging the student to look 
 further, than with the hope of giving him any adequate idea 
 of these matters. 
 
266 Who were the Homeric People ? [chap. V 
 
 used for purposes of sealing. They represented scenes 
 from life, such as fighting or the chase, in a truly 
 delightful manner. With regard to the Orchomenus 
 ceiling, there is no doubt that the designer had seen 
 Eighteenth Dynasty work in the tombs. Yet Dr. 
 Evans informed me that the general principle of com- 
 bined spiral decoration is not imported ; for he has 
 found instances of this motif in Crete, at an earlier 
 date than it is known to exist in Egypt. Hence there 
 must have been waves of action and reaction between 
 Egypt and the .^gean from the earliest times. Of 
 the importation of Cretan metal-work, as well as of 
 pottery, there is the most direct evidence, as well as 
 of the importance attached to it by the Egyptians, 
 as we shall show later. 
 
 By far the most beautiful instance of Mycenaean 
 metal-work occurs in the gold repouss6 cups found 
 at Vaphio, near Sparta. For a long time there was 
 much scepticism as to the possibility of their being 
 real Mycenaean work. As the designs on both relate 
 to bull-taming (though very different in spirit), and as 
 we now know of the existence of bull-fighting at 
 Knossus, there can be little doubt that they are Cretan 
 work of the latest period before the break up, which 
 is presumed to have been somewhere near the middle 
 of the Second Millenium B.C. 
 
 So far as we know Egypt could have produced not' ing 
 of the sort. With the exception of the earliest proto- 
 dynastic period the Egyptians were not advanced in 
 naturalistic art. Their aims were not in this direction. 
 What they sought, together with religious conven- 
 tional art, which no doubt had a certain stateliness 
 often on a scale of huge grandeur, was scrupulous 
 fidelity to detail in the spirit of extreme realism. Their 
 imagination thus got little scope, and their love of beauty 
 was not developed because narrowed to a single tj^pe. 
 Whereas we trace in Mycenaean art that freedom, that 
 sensibility, that daring coupled with restraint which, 
 after years of decay and of renaissance, culminated 
 in the vases of Euphronius and the Panathenaic frieze. 
 
 We find the same principles exemplified in Mycenaean 
 
XYII. MYCENJEAN GOLD VASES. 
 
 A..— Part of Design of VaplUo Cup. 
 
 B. & C— Vases foxmd in Shaft-grave, Mycenoi. 
 
 Vf.— Va.se found in Shaft-grave, 3Ii/cence, showing Egyptian Design. 
 
 E— Nestor's Gold Cup (II. xi. 632.) 
 
sec. 2J Triumph of the Spade 267 
 
 architecture. While on the one hand it borrows 
 not merely in structural forms ' but especially in the 
 methods of colotir decoration and relief design — on the 
 other hand it had a distinct character, and many of 
 the features of Greek architecture, as the Doric pillar 
 and the architrave, can be traced to Myceneean and 
 possibly even to Minoan types. These are technical 
 points which would take us too far from our special 
 subject. We must not, however, close this Section 
 without a few remarks on the most decisive indication 
 of Mycenaean life which the spade of the excavator 
 has revealed to us. This is the pottery and metal vases. 
 
 Mycenaean pottery has a very distinct character, 
 
 and in its later phases its decoration betokens the 
 
 naturalistic tendency of the period. 
 
 MycenEBan Between this, however, and the far 
 
 vases easily earlier middle Mindan polychrome style 
 
 recognisable, there was an interval during which the 
 true Mycenaean (naturalistic) style was 
 only growing up. The subjects chosen for its decoration 
 were nearly always marine, especially the polypus, 
 but also shells, fishes, and so on. The different 
 schemes of geometrical decoration are also frequently 
 distinctive, especially when consisting of parallel lines 
 with bands of rosettes and the spirals, which are 
 never more beautiful than in this fabric. 
 
 But apart from decorative patterns the pottery has 
 two other unmistakeable characters which are peculiar 
 to it, and yet can be grasped by those least initiated in 
 the jargon of art-schools. One of these is a very 
 beautiful, bright and lustrous paint, varying in tint but 
 reddish, laid on a properly prepared surface. This 
 glaze is readily distinguished ; it exists all over the 
 Myceneean area from Sicily in the West to Cyprus in 
 the East and absolutely nowhere else." It is a quite 
 
 ' In treating of the Argive fortresses, and especially of 
 Tirjms, we remarked the supposed close analogy with Phoeni- 
 cian work in Africa. See above, page 248. 
 
 " It was first discovered at Mycenae, and for long was 
 thought to belong to that city exclusively, and was probably 
 one of the reasons for the adoption of the term Mycenaean. 
 
268 Who were the Homeric People ? [chap. V 
 
 probable supposition that this glaze prepared the way 
 for that used later for the figure painting of the 
 Attic school of potters, as it is also certain that many 
 of their most characteristic forms of vase can be 
 traced directly to their Mycenaean fore-runners. 
 
 The other characteristic pertains to a certain class 
 of vases, or rather serves to distinguish between two 
 classes — one of an earlier, the other of a later period. 
 This, again, is quite an intelligible feature referring, 
 as it does, to the external shape of the vases. The 
 earlier phase pf the art produced a sort of jug or beaker, 
 with a protruding lip ' (sometimes very long) for pouring 
 out the liquid. The later form is much more striking. 
 It consists in a false-necked * form of vase — ^that is, the 
 neck though originally the channel for the liquid, is 
 closed and merely supports the handles. A distinct 
 opening is made in the body of the vase, which was, 
 perhaps, first made for convenience in drinking, before 
 the neck came to be sealed up in the making. 
 
 Besides these celebrated forms, there are others 
 which are immediately recognised as favourite patterns. 
 Among them is the mug-form like the Vaphio cups. 
 It is found chiefly in metal, but the potters also imi- 
 tated it. Another form is the ' trichter ' or ' beer- 
 warmer,' which was sometimes perforated and was 
 used as a strainer. There is a peculiar cylix or 
 drinking cup, with a tall stem, usually made with two 
 handles, and often referred to, not inaptly, as the 
 ' champagne-glass ' type of vase. Lastly the ' pithos,' 
 or large stone jar, was much used in Crete and had 
 often a peculiar character by which it can be easily 
 known in its metal form in the wall-paintings of 
 Thebes where it occurs. 
 
 ^ Called by the Germans Schndbclkanne, ' beak-jug.' These 
 vases also extend into the later period, but are not so character- 
 istic of it. 
 
 " Called byj the Germans Bugelkanne, ' stirrup- vase, ' from 
 the form of the handles. It is certain that the wide extension 
 of these forms could not have been due to fortuitous causes. 
 
XYIII. CHARACTERISTIC MYCENjEAN POTTERY (mostly Stirrup vises). 
 A.- ^chnahelkanne (or Beak-Jug) found at HUsarlik. 
 H.B.—Chamjxigne-glass Vases. 
 C— Octopus Stirruv-vasc. 
 
[ 269 ] 
 
 § 3* Mycenaean Chronology 
 
 In attempting to form a judgment as to the relation 
 between the archaeological monuments and the civilisa- 
 tion depicted in Homer, questions of 
 
 Conclusions chronology must naturally receive atten- 
 Indirect, bnt well tion. It is evident that as the Mycen- 
 gronnded. aeans have left no writing which we 
 can decipher, even approximate con- 
 dusions must be indirect ; but thanks to our existing 
 knowledge of Egyptian and Assyrian chronology, we 
 find ourselves in possession of evidence which is neither 
 scanty nor unavailing. For the points of contact are 
 not merely numerous, but we shall see that they 
 mutually support one another. When it is a question 
 of the later Mycenaean period we are dealing in Egypt 
 with the Eighteenth Dynasty onward ; and at that 
 particular epoch the chronology of Egypt, partly owing 
 to Assyrian contacts, becomes more exact than the 
 earlier portion which is (within certain limits) more 
 liable to dispute. 
 
 The student will, perhaps, like to see a somewhat 
 complete conspectus of Mycenaean and Minoan chrono- 
 logy, as proposed in view of recent discovery ; and we 
 shall perhaps be permitted to start from what we have 
 called the Dark Age and to work our way backwards 
 towards first beginnings. 
 
 Proceeding thus in the inverse order, the traditional 
 date of B.C. iioo has hardly been seriously disputed 
 for the incursion of the Dorians, who worked such havoc 
 with their new iron ' weapons, that the existing civilisa- 
 tion was submerged, and the disruption and barbarism 
 of the Dark Age followed. With regard to the date 
 mentioned, it is one on which there is practical unani- 
 
 ' The question of iron is not vital to our argument, and we 
 venture to assume it for the present. 
 
27 o Who were the Homeric People ? [chap. V 
 
 mity, or if it were put slightly lower, it would still be 
 at or near the end of the First Millenium, B.C., which 
 is abundantly suf&cient. One argument must suffice. 
 If there was a Dark Age, such as we have all along 
 assumed, it cannot have been much later than iioo or 
 1000, because we must leave some centuries to allow 
 for the Great Migrations and the period between them 
 and the Hellenic Renaissance of the ninth or eighth 
 century. On the other hand, there can be no tempta- 
 tion to put the Dorian conquest earlier than the tra- 
 ditional date on account of the remarkable fact that 
 their name is barely mentioned in the Iliad} 
 
 At Tiryns, Mycenae, Knossus," and generally in the 
 ^gean area the Dorian crash appears to have been 
 sudden and complete. On the other hand, in certain 
 places, especially Cyprus, the Mycenaean style of art 
 continued to flourish, if not in its purest form still 
 unmistakably, till a much later date. This point is 
 of some importance, for it has led to a denial by some 
 authorities of the early date of Mycenjean culture. 
 They argue, if its products were late in one region, 
 they may have been late in others. On the other 
 hand it seems much more reasonable to see in the 
 survival of the Mycensan art in non-Dorian localities 
 a confirmation of the theory that its general disappear- 
 ance was connected with the Dorian conquest. From 
 ^gina, which was not reached at first by the new- 
 comers, Mycenaean objects of a certainly decadent 
 type are among the more recent acquisitions of the 
 British Museum. They have been dated as low as the 
 eighth or seventh century B.C. 
 
 ' Professor Bury thinks the coming of the Dorians was not the 
 sole cause of the decay of ^gean civilisation, but was partly 
 caused by it and by the migrations to Asia (which he supposes 
 partly ante-dated the Doric invasion) and the rise of the Phoenician 
 sea power. This has not been the prevailing view, but certainly 
 deserves consideration. (See Bury, History of Greece, p. 60, 1900.) 
 
 ' I learn from Dr. Evans that the latest discoveries of graves at 
 Knossus tend decidedly to modify this view with regard to that 
 region. Perhaps we may have to regard Crete as one of the 
 islands where the Dorian invasion was comparatively giadual and 
 non-destructive. 
 
sec. 3] Mycenaean Chronology 271 
 
 It is very remarkable that in Egypt, where there 
 are so many evidences of Mycenaean culture in its prime, 
 in the Twenty-second Dynasty which lasted for the 
 greater part of the ninth century B.C. such evidence 
 practically ceases.' Eg57pt was, however, itself in a dis- 
 organised state during part of this period." On the 
 other hand, a very beautiful stirrup-vase was found in 
 a tomb as late as the end of the Twenty-first Dynasty 
 (about 1000 B.C.). 
 
 If we now travel backwards in our quest and ask 
 at what period should be fixed the acme of the Myce- 
 nsean age, we shall do well to remember there is a 
 distinction to be made between two very marked 
 periods of Mycenaean art, both of them being specially 
 represented at Mycenae. 
 
 We must first consider the later Mycenaean period, 
 
 that of the tholos-tomb and the stirrup-vases. Our 
 
 evidence goes to show that this was 
 
 The later t^^ epoch of the widest diffusion of 
 
 HycenaanAge. Mycenaean culture — but it was also an 
 
 epoch of decline, for the art represented 
 
 in the shaft-graves is unmistakably of a higher order 
 
 than that which followed it. 
 
 Taking the stirrup-vase as the simplest test, this 
 begins to occur in the tombs of the Eighteenth and 
 early Nineteenth Dynasty, roughly speaking, 1500 to 
 1350 B.C. This would be enough ; but we can fix 
 dates more closely. King Amenhotep III lived to- 
 wards the later of the two limits mentioned. His 
 name has been found inscribed on pottery, and that of 
 his wife on a scarab in the tholos-tombs of Mycenae. 
 This, by itself, would be doubtful, except as giving a 
 superior limit of date (inasmuch as the cartouches of 
 kings and queens often occur in graves of much later 
 date than their reigns). But it so happens in this case 
 there is strong reason for thinking the evidence is 
 
 ' At Enkomi a scarab of the ninth century was found ; but it 
 has been proved that it was not really associated with Mycenaean 
 remains. 
 
 ' See Hall's Oldest Civilization of Greece, p. 62, and Addenda, 
 P- 313- 
 
272 Who were the Homeric People ? [chap. V 
 
 contemporary, since the scarabs of Amenhotep and 
 his wife have been found at Rhodes and Cj'prus, while 
 none of any other Egyptian monarchs have been dis- 
 covered in the ^gean area.' 
 
 But we have other and better evidence bearing on 
 this later Mycenaean chronology, namely, the sculp- 
 tures and wall-paintings of the Egyptian temples and 
 tombs. Such evidence is plainly contemporary, 
 whereas that depending on isolated archaeological finds 
 can only be satisfactory if such finds are sufficiently 
 numerous to produce a cumulative argument, the force 
 of which it is frequently difficult to estimate. 
 
 During the later part of tbe period in question, in 
 the reigns of Rameses II (1300), Meremptah (1230), 
 and Rameses III (1200), attacks were made on the 
 Egyptians by the Northerners from the Isles of the 
 Very Green Sea — which is taken to mean the Medi- 
 terranean. They appeared first in company with the 
 old enemies of the Egyptians, the Kheta or Hittites, 
 and then by themselves. They were also leagued with 
 the Rebu (or Libyans from the African coast on the 
 West). Rameses III won three great victories over 
 them, partly owing to some of those foreign troops 
 having joined with him as mercenaries. Many of these 
 peoples are named on the inscriptions and have been 
 identified, with great probability, as Sardians' (from 
 Sardis), Lycians, Dardanians, Teucrians, Danaans, and 
 even Achaeans' and Philistines.* The appearance of 
 these various Peoples of the Sea is represented in a 
 fine set of sculptures in the small temple of Medinet 
 Haboo, near Thebes. Their faces are often of the 
 distinctly European type, and their accoutrements are 
 
 ' With the exception of a cartouche of a much earlier date found 
 recently at Knossus. Scarabs of King Khufa, and of Thothmes 
 III. have turned up in Rhodes and Cyprus, but are believed to 
 be forgeries. 
 
 'The original is Shairetana, which was for long thought to mean 
 Sardinians, but the island of Sardinia is probably too far to the 
 West. 
 
 ' Achaiusha (in the reign of Meremptah). 
 
 * Pulesatha. 
 
sec. 3] Mycenaean Chronology 273 
 
 also distinctive. In the slab, of which we give a photo- 
 graph, the horned- helmet is noticeable, but the round 
 shield and short sword had come in, and elsewhere some- 
 thing very like a plated cuirass is seen. These are 
 not unlike the sort of arms we should expect to find 
 among the Mycenaeans at this period (1300-1200 B.C.). 
 But there is other evidence of a more direct kind. In 
 the tomb of Rameses III himself at Thebes there 
 are very clear representations of Mycenaean vases, 
 especially of the characteristic stirrup-vases. Thus 
 the Egyptian evidence for the later Mycenaean Age 
 as being roughly between the limits of 1300 and 
 1200 (or iioo) B.C. appears to be both plentiful and 
 convincing. 
 
 It will have been observed that so far the best evi- 
 dence (that from the tomb-paintings) has been far 
 down in the late Mycenaean Age. When we go back 
 to the earlier period, to the time of 
 
 The early Thothmes III, just beyond 1500 B.C., 
 Mycenaean (op we come to the remarkable frescoes of 
 J[ate Uindan) Age. the tomb of Rechmara. Here, moreover, 
 we have pictured not merely the 
 products of the Mycenaean people in the greatest 
 profusion, but most unmistakably the men them- 
 selves. They are named as Keftians (' Keftiu ' or 
 or perhaps the ' Men of Keftiu ') and although there 
 has been much controversy on the subject we need have 
 no hesitation in asserting that the name is the Egyp- 
 tian for the Scriptural ' Caphtor,' and that by this is 
 meant not Cappadocia, still less Phoenicia,* but the 
 island o'f*Crete. Whatever doubt might have existed 
 previous to the Knossian excavations, since the dis- 
 covery of the frescoes there we cannot see any room 
 for dispute. The processions pictured in the two palaces 
 do not bear merely a general likeness, but the resem- 
 blance down to the smallest particulars is most striking, 
 and seems not merely to show that the Keftians and 
 
 ' It is true that in very late times the Egyptians themselves 
 identified the Keftians with Phoenicians. But this was a very 
 natural error, and cannot stand for an instant in face of the over- 
 whelming evidence to the contrary. 
 
 T 
 
274 Who were the Homeric People ? [chap. V 
 
 Knossians were the same men, but also that their 
 portraits were painted in both places about the same 
 time. And inasmuch as in both cases the frescoes 
 belong to the zenith of the respective Mindan and Eigh- 
 teenth Dynasty Egyptian revivals, we get the note- 
 worthy result that the acme of these two civilisations 
 appears to have been singularly contemporaneous. 
 
 The frescoes at Thebes consist of men bringing the 
 richest and most various offerings of tribute or gifts 
 from the four ends of the world.^ Those of the Keftians 
 mostly • consist of rich metal- ware, much of it either 
 gold," or silver ornamented with gold. We can easily 
 recognise these as Mycenaean both by their shapes, 
 and schemes of decoration. There are the ' trichters ;' 
 cups of general form like the Vaphio cups (which are 
 of gold), exactly like silver ones found at Mycenae and 
 Enkomi ; also very elegant QEnochosi, pithoi and others. 
 A glance at the illustrations given by Mr. Hall will show 
 the unmistakable resemblance." In the decorations, 
 not merely do the spirals and rosettes occur, and the 
 wavy lines characteristic of Mycenaean work, but, 
 strangest of all, the rosette between the horns of the bull, 
 which precise collocation occurred in the shaft-graves. 
 
 The resemblance of the men themselves is equally 
 striking. There is nothing Semitic about them; but 
 the ornamental loin-cloth, with belt, as sole garment 
 for the body ; the sandals or shoes tied half way up 
 the leg with open bands ; the long hair down the back 
 with tufts on the top of the head, can all be confirmed 
 from the Mycenaean frescoes, intaglios, or metal worki 
 We have already said there are traces of a similar 
 procession carrying the same sort of vases in the same 
 manner in the palace of Knossus.* 
 
 ' There are negroes irom Punt (Somaliland) in the South ; 
 Syrians (and perhaps Phcenicians) from the East ; Ethiopians 
 from the S.W. ; and Keftians (Cretans) from the N.W. 
 
 " Not merely shown by the colour, but mentioned as such in the 
 hieroglyphics, 
 
 ' See Oldest Civilisation of Greece, pp. 54-5. 
 
 *The tufts or top-knots are also seen in miniature frescoes at 
 Knossus, and on the fisherman-vase at PhyUkopi. 
 
1. XX. A.—Kcftu(}i {in Myccncean costume], frcnco in Tomb of 
 nechmara, Thebes. 
 B— Cretan, fresco in palace of Knossus. 
 
sec. 31 Mycenaean Chronology 275 
 
 Taking, therefore, the bloom of Mycenaean art as 
 1550 to 1300 B.C., and placing the previous period of the 
 shaft-graves behind this date — where are we to fix 
 the earlier limit of the Mycenaean culture ? We may 
 be certain it was not earlier than 2000 B.C. But if 
 this stage was slow in reaching its prime, five cen- 
 turies does not seem excessive to allow. In the present 
 stage of our knowledge with regard to the earlier limit, 
 as we know that this culture was developed from a still 
 earlier style, namely, the Middle Min6an, we may adopt 
 2000 as a convenient date, for this (or 1900) according 
 to Evans dates the beginning of what he calls the Late 
 MinSan or Great Palace period. In other words, we 
 provisionally suppose that the Mycenaean period more 
 or less corresponded with the Later Palace at Knossus, 
 at least in the sense that it fell within its period, though 
 possibly the building, say of Tiryns, may have been 
 later than the building of the Later Palace at Knossus. 
 
 In order to complete our scheme of approximate 
 
 chronology we shall take it back to still earlier periods 
 
 as far as they can at present be determined by the 
 
 help of Egyptian contacts. Ever since 
 
 Middle Hindan the original discoveries of Schliemann 
 
 and Early at Hissarlik evidence has been accumu- 
 
 Hindan Ages, lating for an early form of pre- 
 Mycenaean culture throughout the^gean 
 area, characterised by the use of stone and obsidian 
 implements, or at best, copper without alloy ; the 
 narrow cist graves in which the bodies are buried in 
 a cramped position ; a peculiar sort of fiddle-shaped 
 stone idol ; and primitive pottery like that of the 
 early strata of Hissarlik which is easily recognisable.* 
 We have already given some description of the recent 
 work done at Phylikopi in Melos, which has an 
 important bearing on this subject. But there could have 
 been no attempt beyond the merest guess-work at 
 
 ' The gold ornaments of the so-called ' Great Treasure ' were 
 stated by Schliemann to belong to the 2nd stratum. There is 
 perhaps a growing disposition to disbelieve the possibility ot this. 
 On the other hand, the objects though rich and grandiose are 
 thought by many to indicate an early style and technique. 
 
276 Who were the Homeric People ? [chap. V 
 
 settling dates for the pre-Mycsnaean epoch had it not 
 been for the late discoveries at xvnossus of well-marked 
 stages both in the palace structure and in the pottery, 
 along with frequent sidelights thrown upon the dates 
 of these owing to the regular communication which, 
 as we know, existed between Egypt and Crete, and 
 through Crete with the rest of the ^gean. Hence, 
 Dr. Evans has now rightly adopted the term Min6an to 
 express the pre-Mycesean periods of culture in the 
 Mgea.n. His discoveries have been also confirmed by 
 Petrie's excavations in Egypt, where the latter claims 
 to have found Greek pottery, not merely in the First- 
 Dynasty tombs (4300-4000 B.C.), but even in the pre- 
 Dynastic period. To discuss these matters would be 
 beyond our scope ; all we can say is, that evidence is 
 accumulating which disposes the minds of many lead- 
 ing archaeologists to admit that European civilisation 
 of an inaigenous type is as old as that of Egypt — a 
 conclusion which no one could have dreamed of a few 
 years back. 
 
 Dr. Evans finds many important proofs of the con- 
 temporaneity of his Middle Min6an period with the 
 Twelfth Dynasty, which brings it back to about 2500 
 B.C., or half a Millenium behind the beginning of the 
 Later Palace and the Rechmara paintings (1550). 
 The reader knows already that this Middle style was 
 not merely the forerunner of the Myceneean, but it 
 had its own polychrome pottery, which united very 
 advanced workmanship with distinct and exquisite 
 decorative schemes. Then we mentioned very beau- 
 tiful metal work, especially in bronze. Besides these 
 features the earlier (pictographic) script of the Eteo- 
 cretans belongs to this age. At Phylikopi the second 
 (walled) town was found to contain Middle Minoan 
 pottery. As to the second town of Hissarlik, its date 
 is more conjectural, but perhaps this period would 
 be as plausible as any other for the gold ornaments 
 referred to above. 
 
 The Early Mindan period has been put at least as 
 early as 3500 B.C., allowing a millenium to elapse 
 between its commencement and the Middle Minoan, 
 
sec. 3] Mycenaean Chronology 277 
 
 The Cretan pictographic seals also belong to the same 
 period ; and to it must be attributed certain early strata 
 of masonry at Knossus, which indicate some sort of 
 palace, though no doubt of a rude construction. The 
 contacts with the Early Egyptian kingdom are said 
 to be very clear and unmistakable, particularly those 
 of the Sixth and Eleventh Dynasties. But contacts 
 with the very earliest Dynasties are also claimed. Below 
 this immediately are the Neolithic remains, which to 
 judge from the deposit must represent several mil- 
 leniums. 
 
 It appears, therefore, that Mycenaean chronology 
 (even when only approximate) is on the whole well 
 
 founded, while that of the later age 
 
 Conclusions niay be regarded as quite clearly estab- 
 
 from above state- lished. And what effect will this 
 
 ments. chronology have upon our views of 
 
 the relation of the Homeric people to 
 the Mycenseans ? On the one hand, if we allow 
 that the more primitive school of Homeric epic pre- 
 ceded the Dorian invasion and the Dark Age, the 
 chronological evidence seems to show that that 
 school existed at a time when Mycenaean culture 
 was still alive as to its characteristic features. On 
 the other hand, in the eleventh and twelfth cen- 
 turies Mycenaean art was in its decadence, and there 
 is room for many changes to have come in within the 
 Mycenaean area since the zenith of its culture in the 
 sixteenth century, when the best representations we 
 have of the Mycenaean people were painted at Knossus 
 and Thebes. 
 
[ 278 ] 
 
 § 4- Homer and the Mycenaean 
 People 
 
 It now remains to compare somewhat in detail the 
 remains of Mycenaean life which the spade has recovered 
 for us with the picture of Homeric Life which was given 
 in a preceding Chapter. We must not expect to find 
 coincidences only, nor be disappointed at the occur- 
 rence of difficulties in the way of identification. Our 
 object must be to discover whether there is any pre- 
 ponderance in either, and if so in which, direction. At 
 present we shall consider the affirmative side of tho 
 question, reserving the objections for a separate 
 section. 
 One of the strongest reasons for identifying to a certain 
 extent the Homeric people with the Mycenaeans is the 
 remarkable correspondence which un- 
 Diatribution of doubtedly exists between the geography 
 Culture?" °^ *^® poems and th^t of the distribu- 
 tion of the remains of the Mycenaean 
 civilisation. The importance of this is more evident 
 when we compare the Mycenaean area with the earliest 
 properly so-called Hellenic geography, and find there 
 is a vast discrepancy between the two. 
 
 At the very outset we are met with a striking corre- 
 spondence which is, indeed, suggested by the name 
 ' Mycenaean,' a name, which rightiy or wrongly seems 
 to be more and more established in use. It need not, 
 however, imply more than what the archaeological 
 /evidence certainly proves, namely, that at least at the 
 pehod before the final crash, Mycenee was really in the 
 position which Homer attributes to her, namely, a 
 centre of political power possessing a quasi-imperial 
 opulence and grandeur. It is true that even in Homer 
 
sec. 4] Homer and the Mycensean People 279 
 
 (it is much more noticeable in Hellenic literature*) 
 there is a tendency to speak less of Mycenae than of 
 Argos as the royal capital of the Achaean federation. 
 But if we remember that Argos means, and may have 
 always meant, Argolis (when it was not still further 
 extended in its scope) ; 
 that the capital had been 
 removed from its more 
 ancient seat of Tiryns, 
 perhaps at a not very 
 remote period, and that 
 in order to be nearer 
 Corinth (which is men- 
 tioned in the Catalogue 
 next after Mycenae as 
 its dependency) ; and 
 finally that the religious 
 capital, the Heraeon, 
 was distinct from, and 
 intermediate between, 
 the other sites ; ^e can- 
 not wonder at the preva- 
 lence of a name which 
 did not positively exclude 
 any of these important 
 places while yet it was 
 a sufficiently distinctive 
 appellation of the politi- 
 cal centre of the allied 
 forces. Finally, when 
 Homer does speak of My cense, he attaches to the name 
 epithets which are peculiarly justified by the monuments. 
 He calls it ' golden ' and ' broad-wayed ' and is there any 
 prehistoric site in Greece to which these terms could be 
 
 ' For instance, in the Agamemnon of iEschyhis though the 
 scene is really laid in Mycenae, the city is never once mentioned 
 by its own name, but is called Argos throughout. There may 
 have been a political reason for this, but /Eschvlus certainly 
 knew lys Homer well, and he would not have done violence to its 
 tradition in such a vital point, 
 
28o Who were the Homeric People ? [chap. V 
 
 so appropriate as the city of the shaft-graves and that 
 ruled by the monarch of the Acropolis ? 
 
 Next to Mycenae, Orchomenus^ stands out in Homer 
 as a rich and powerful city, as has been already indi- 
 cated ; here also the knowledge of the bards has been 
 amply vindicated by archaeology. Pylus — the true 
 Pylus in Elis — and Lacedsemon, which are prominent 
 in the poems, have also yielded Mycenaean antiquities ; 
 indeed, the Vaphio " cups are among the most precious 
 finds on the whole area. Attica, and especially Athens 
 is well represeiited — though little is heard of it in 
 proto-Hellenic days. Corinth, again as we might have 
 expected, is said to have yielded comparatively small 
 traces of a settlement. These coincidences are re- 
 markable, and the more so if we allow for the fortuitous 
 element which necessarily enters into evidence obtain- 
 able by excavation. 
 
 If now we turn to the islands, we see the story is 
 much the same. Ithaca, unfortunately, has not been 
 systematically excavated, though frequently visited by 
 archaeologists (including Schliemann and Shuchhardt) 
 so that we cannot yet say that it certainly contains 
 Mycenaean remains. There are, however, several traces 
 above the soil of a pre-historic settlement, especially 
 at a Port which is still called ' Polls,' which name, in 
 the absence of modern buildings may be thought signi- 
 ficant.' Reisch detected there the remains of a terrace- 
 wall built of huge roughly-hewn blocks. Future work 
 may clear up the mystery which still surrounds the 
 abode of Odysseus. And what is important is, that 
 on the opposite island of Cephallenia, mentioned so 
 often in the Odyssey in connection with Ithaca, there 
 is very good evidence of a Mycenaean settlement in the 
 shape of Tholos-tombs with the regular Dromos, or 
 entrance passage — both being cut out of the rock. 
 
 ' See above, p. 176. 
 
 ' Vaphio is close to AmyclEE, which is a very few miles south of 
 Sparta. Bnttniann has made it clear that Lacedsemon in Homer 
 means not the town of Sparta so much as the whole valley of the 
 Eurotas. 
 
 ' See above, pp. 179, 180, 
 
sec. 4] Homer and the Mycenaean People 381 
 
 Salamis has yielded important evidence, apparently 
 (from the difference of burial) belonging to two distinct 
 periods. Anyhow, there was plenty of regular Mycen- 
 aean pottery found, including stirrup-vases which 
 are small. 
 
 ^gina has been mentioned more than once. Its 
 remains are late ; and it also comes in at the end of 
 the Homeric period, being mentioned in the Catalogue 
 only. 
 
 It was stated that there is a bare mention of Sicily 
 and its inhabitants in the poems : similarly, we now 
 know that Syracuse at least was the home of Mycen- 
 sean culture, as Dr. Paolo Orsi's excavations have 
 proved.' 
 
 So much space was given above to the remarkable 
 contemporary discoveries at Knossus, and other im- 
 portant sites of Crete, that all we have to do now is to 
 remind the reader of what we stated on page 181, 
 namely, that in the poems there- is proportional evi- 
 dence of the prominent position of this island in Homeric 
 times. Crete is spoken of as the centre of a distinct 
 Hegemony ; it is also noteworthy that Knossus and 
 Phcestus are both referred to, these also being the 
 chief centres of interest for the modern excavator. 
 
 Again, with regard to Schliemann's and Dorpfeld's 
 discoveries in the Troad, it would be wearying to the 
 reader, as well as superfluous, to do more than point 
 out how strongly they confirm the view that the literary 
 and the archaeological monuments go hand in hand, 
 and are mutually illustrative of each other. For the 
 size and strength of the so-called Mycenaean (the sixth) 
 city of Hissarlik shows that at least at the date when a 
 confederacy could have existed at Mycenae, there existed 
 an important fortress in the Troad such as could easily 
 have been the scene of an international contest. 
 
 If we go further afield, we find Mycenaean remains 
 in Cyprus and Syria, and Egypt, on the one hand, and 
 on the other in Libya, Sicily, Sardinia, Italy, even 
 
 *See Ridgeway, Early Age of Greece, i. 6g. 
 
282 Who were the Homeric People ? [chap. V 
 
 including the head of the Adriatic.^ On the coast of 
 Spain, as in Boetica, there are also traces of communica- 
 tion with the Eastern Mediterranean. But these are 
 the very directions in which the Homeric people, with 
 more or less definiteness, are said to have travelled. 
 
 But it is when we turn to the negative evidence that 
 we find the undesigned correspondences the most 
 striking. The absence of all reference to Ionia," to 
 Eretria, to Olympia, almost to Thebes (and the list 
 could be lengthened) is very significant. But most 
 of all we noted the great gap in Homeric geography 
 between the Confederacy of Priam and that of Aga- 
 memnon, the long coast line of what was later known 
 as Macedonia, and which we supposed to be due to a 
 thrust from the north-west. This is also a blank 
 to the archaeologist. A glance at our geographical 
 chart will make quite plain the position we are main- 
 taining. 
 
 We may now proceed to look at the general character 
 
 of the civilisation which was fairly distributed over 
 
 the Homeric area, and ask how far 
 
 The Mycensean it corresponds to the descriptions which 
 Palace in Homer, we read in the poems. 
 
 Our first enquiry will relate to the 
 great pre-historic dwellings of the living and of the 
 dead. The general lines of the Homeric house need 
 not be repeated. We attempted in our description 
 of it* to keep as far as possible to the points which 
 have been thoroughly established, and which can in 
 the main be abundantly proved from the text of the 
 poems, purposely refraining from the discussion of 
 controversial questions. Yet all the structural fea- 
 tures described, the court- yard with its altar to Zeus 
 and trench for sacrifices ; the vestibule ; the ante- 
 chamber ; the Hall with its fire-place and its pillars ; 
 the bath-room with passage from the Hall ; the upper 
 story sometimes containing the women's quarters; 
 
 ' See article in the Journal of Hellenic Studies (1904) by Mr. 
 R. M. Dawkins on ' Mycenaan verses at Torcello.' 
 ' Miletus is known, but as a Carian (not Ionian) city. 
 ' See chap, iv., § 4, p. 221 ff. 
 
CHART SHOWING 
 
 RANGE OF IMPORTANT 
 
 MYCEN^AN FINDS. 
 
 '°^/. 
 
 THE 
 
. 3 FAdt PAGE ZSZ. 
 
sec. 4j Homer and the Mycenaean People 283 
 
 the spaciousness ; the decoration ; even the furniture 
 have been most wonderfully identified at Tiryns and 
 Mycenae, and in Crete.* Any impartial person who 
 has looked into the evidence, must certainly admit 
 that at least in this department of Homeric study, 
 and it is a difficult one, our understanding of the text 
 has been wonderfully quickened and enlightened by 
 the revelations of the spade. 
 
 But we may go further. There are certain expres- 
 sions which were not merely unintelligible, they were 
 absolutely incredible, except for the discoveries of 
 Tiryps and Mycenas. One of these is the dpiyKos Kvavoto 
 of the palace of Alcinous. It so happens that vestiges 
 of most beautiful friezes were found at both places, 
 and that at Tiryns,^ though not made of kvcpos, yet 
 still shows particles of an artificial opaque blue glass 
 which not merely justifies but also explains the phrase. 
 Again, the walls of bronze— could anything seem more 
 extravagant to a modern mind ? Yet, in the great 
 Tholos-tomb of Mycense we have certain evidence that 
 the inner wall of the dome from floor to ceiling was 
 decorated, and most probably with rosettes of bronze 
 attached to the wall by bronze nails, many of which 
 after more than three thousand years were found still 
 remaining fixed in their position. 
 
 The fact is, that it is difficult for us now with our 
 improved knowledge to realize the attitude of readers 
 of the poems scarcely a generation back. What is a 
 sober and familiar reality to those acquainted even 
 superficially with the palaces of Tiryns and Knossus, 
 
 ' It has been already mentioned (on p. 262) that the Cretan 
 type of Megaron, as seen not merely at Knossus but at Pbaestus 
 was radically different from that of the mainland. As there was 
 already an upper story, the light could not come from above, so 
 there was a light-well at the back. On the other hand, there are 
 features in common. In particular, the view of the existence of a 
 Queen's Megaron in a separate quarter of the palace has received 
 abundant confirmation at Knossus, and is suggested at Phaestus, 
 
 ' This frieze is figured on our cover. Though frequently 
 occurring in books as an illustration of the best Mycensean work, 
 it has not so far as We know been hitherto adopted for decorative 
 purposes. 
 
284 Who were the Homeric People? [chap. V 
 
 and the great Tholos-tombs of Mycenae then looked more 
 like a chapter from the Arabian Nights or the descriptions 
 of M. de Rougemont, than an honest attempt to describe 
 graphically the recent glories of a parting epoch. 
 
 The Homeric aspects of the treasure which the earth 
 was forced to surrender are not confined to traits of 
 architectural structure. We can, how- 
 General featureB ^ver, put in a brief form what remains 
 
 of Mycenaau to be considered. In the poems we 
 culture. find many references to metal work of 
 various kinds, sometimes it is true with 
 an evident exaggeration of the bards almost to the 
 verge of the fantastic, but often in a way so vivid as 
 to arrest the attention and force the mind to ask what 
 exactly the poet was thinking of ? The brooch of 
 Odysseus has been alluded to, as well as the armour 
 of Agamemnon ; the armour, and especially the shield 
 of Achilles forged by Hephaestus^ is so extraordinary, 
 and at the same time so well known, that we need not 
 describe it at any length here. The very elaborateness 
 of the description and the character and movements 
 of the scenes depicted by the artist put quite out of the 
 question any intended reference to the mere achieve- 
 ments of a mortal artist. But what was so surprising 
 in regard to the metal-work of the dagger blades found 
 in the shaft- graves ^ is not merely that they depict with 
 incredible skill and spirit scenes of life and movement, 
 but they do it by means of the precise. technique attri- 
 buted to Hephsestus, that is by superimposing metals 
 of a different quality and colour, and thus bringing out 
 with realistic effect the details of the picture. Thus 
 in the lion-hunt blade (which we reproduce in PI. xxi. 
 B. p. 286) the bodies of the huntsmen are worked in 
 gold, and their loin-cloths and shields in silver, upon 
 a bronze ground ; just as in the shield of Achilles this 
 clever device was carried a little further, for we are 
 told the vineyard was made of gold, the grapes were 
 
 ' See 77. xviii. 478 fi. 
 
 ' Or rather re-found several years later, when on cleaning'the 
 weapons their real character was accidentally revealed. 
 
sec. 4] Homer and the Mycenzean People 285 
 
 black (perhaps of iron ?), the vine-poles were of silver, 
 the surrounding ditch of Kvavos, and the outer fence 
 of tin. Now it is not necessary to suppose that such 
 a method of metal-working was purely indigenous to 
 the Mycenaean area. Modern Japanese work follows 
 the same principles. The style of the lion-hunt is 
 certainly original — but the point is, if the bard had 
 seen work of this sort (or even far more extensive and 
 elaborate examples of it) we can quite understand 
 what he meant by the inlay of Hephaestus, though 
 when describing its divine application he gave full 
 rein to his imagination. 
 
 The most startling coincidence of all is of course the 
 case of the cup of Nestor with its four irvBiUves, its 
 doves feeding on the handles, its golden rivets holding 
 it together. Now, we might have safely defied any 
 scholar to say what these rruBfieves (supports) exactly 
 were. But in one of the shaft-graves the very prototype 
 of this wonderful cup was found. It was all golden 
 (probably Nestor's was silver) but it had only two 
 handles with two supports (very simple and character- 
 istic), two doves with beaks protruding over the interior 
 as though feeding." And it had the golden rivets.^ 
 
 We may remark there are many other features in 
 the metal-work preserved in the shaft-graves which 
 seem to illustrate the Homeric text. We have alluded 
 to gold imiT^ipta (they are silver in Horner).^ There are 
 also baldricks, sceptres, swords with silver-studded 
 hilts and pommels. Metal greaves have so far been 
 found only at Cyprus, where the reader knows Mycen- 
 aean influence lingered longer than on the mainland 
 of Greece. 
 
 An interesting illustration of the Homeric text occurs 
 in the sculptural or^Xai found in the ring of the shaft- 
 graves at Mycenae. We have already described them, 
 
 ' One Alexandrian treatise was entirely devoted to their eluci- 
 dation, but the Alexandrian critics were not so well off as we are. 
 ' Leaf on II. xi. 364. 
 ' See PI. xvii. E. p. 266. 
 *See PI. xiv. B. p. 251 . 
 
286 Who were the Homeric People? [chap. V 
 
 and it is only necessary to remind the reader, that 
 after the burial of a Homeric chieftain, the concluding 
 honour consisted in planting a or^X"? over his grave. 
 But what was its shape, size,, or character, no scholar 
 could have ventured to surmise had it not been for 
 the discovery of these interesting stones in their original 
 position.^ ^See Plate opposite.) 
 
 The leading points of similarity being considered, 
 we have now forthwith to take account of the discrep- 
 ancies between Homer and the Mycenaean culture ; 
 which subject we were to reserve for a new section. 
 
 ' In regard to this statement Mi. Myres in writing to me has 
 kindly warned me that the question of Cremation may be raised 
 here. He asks, ' If the Homeric warriors were cremated 
 what have the Mycenaean ittjjXui. to do with the Homeric ? ' I 
 admit there is a difficulty here ; but it seems to me that it would 
 be quite wrong to assume that the introduction of cremation 
 necessarily changed the character of all the traditional accom- 
 paniments of burial. And the Homeric bards were presumably 
 familiar with the type of or^Xai referred to in the text. When 
 therefore they talk about arijXai, we may reasonably assume that 
 they mean at least the same general type until some positive 
 reason is adduced for a contrary view. We deal immediately 
 with the question of Cremation. 
 
A.— One of the. <jTJ]kai found over the Shaft-graves at Myceiim. 
 B.— The Lion-hunt dagger-blade. 
 
b* ■ 
 
 o , 
 K 
 
 o 
 
 S5 
 M 
 
 t 
 
 X 
 
[ 287 ] 
 
 § 5* Difficulties of Mycenaean 
 Theory 
 
 The burial customs of the Achaeans form a very obvious 
 and fundamental difficulty in the way of identifying 
 them with the Mycenaeans. In the 
 Homeric method poems Cremation is spoken of ordinarily 
 of Burial. as the regular method of disposing of 
 dead bodies, and in more than one 
 passage it is implied that upon this depends the 
 happiness of the departed. There are no doubt, as 
 would be expected, traces in Homer of the contrary 
 custom of inhumation and even embalment of the 
 dead. On the other hand, in the royal Mycenaean 
 sepulchres, both of the shaft and tholos type, there is 
 no real evidence of cremation, though at first a rash 
 claim was put in for certain indications of fire, such as 
 the presence in the graves of charred wood and other 
 similar remains. At the end of the Mycenaean period, 
 in the island of Salamis, some bodies were found cre- 
 mated ; and Salamis was specially connected with one 
 of the Achaean leaders, Ajax, son of Telamon, who 
 belonged to the same great clan of the Aeacidae which 
 produced the hero of the Iliad, Achilles himself. This 
 would be merely an exceptional and sporadic instance 
 of a practice which afterwards became very general. ~ 
 For, if we turn to Hellenic times, we find that the 
 older system of inhumation survived, yet cremation was 
 very commonly practised. For instance, in the Dipylon 
 graves of Athens, which are generally supposed to belong, 
 to the period succeeding the Dorian invasion, we find 
 cremation the rule, while several bodies have been 
 also buried unburnt. 
 
 Now it must be carefully noted, in order to feel the 
 force of this discrepancy between the Mycenaean and 
 Achaean modes of sepulture, that burial customs are 
 taken by anthropologists as a sure index not merely 
 
288 Who were the Homeric People? [chap. V 
 
 of race, but often of religious ideas. It is claimed with 
 much persistence and apparent reason that, as a rule, 
 corpses are buried unburnt in elaborate tombs — ^with 
 their full panoply and many offerings of food, drink, 
 and other sacrifices — when the spirit of the departed 
 is expected to hover about the body, waiting, perhaps, 
 for some sort of re-incarnation. In Mycenaean times we 
 have seen how many proofs have survived of this 
 system down to the round altar and trench for blood 
 over the shaft-grave at Mycenae. And, as we have ad- 
 mitted the existence of Egyptian influence, it is perhaps 
 to be detected here, since embalment and elaborate 
 tomb-structures are most typical of the civilisation and 
 religion of Egypt. 
 
 The idea underlying cremation is quite different. 
 It is supposed to import that the soul has done with 
 the body, except for a sort of mystical bond which is 
 a drawback to its complete happiness, and which can 
 be broken only by the purifying flames through which 
 the soul is freed from the defilements contracted in 
 life and is enabled to soar to a better sphere. . To discuss 
 such theories fully would, of course, be entirely beyond 
 our scope ; but it was necessary to mention them here, 
 in order to warn the student that this apparent discrep- 
 ancy between the Mycenaeans and the Homeric people ' 
 is no slight matter which could be easily glossed over. 
 
 The significance of cremation and the likelihood of 
 its implying a special phase of religious belief is con- 
 siderably enhanced, if it is considered 
 Cult of Olympian in the light of the history of the Olym- 
 Divinities in pian cult as treated of in Chapter IV. 
 Homer. Jo search for any direct and reasoned 
 
 connection between a custom of burn- 
 ing corpses before interment and an anthropomor- 
 phic conception of the deity would appear fanciful, 
 and would certainly be inconsistent with a plan of 
 inquiry which aims at keeping clear of doubtful 
 speculations. All that is insisted on here is the incon- 
 trovertible fact, that in the case of the Homeric people 
 
 ' This difficulty was first pointed out by Dummler in Germany. 
 
sec. 5] Difficulties of Mycenaean Theory 289 
 
 these two tenets did go hand in hand. And should we 
 iind it necessary to admit the claim of those who 
 assert that in the ^Egean area, the Olympianism of 
 Homer was a comparatively recent introduction un- 
 known to the earlier inhabitants — and, moreover, that 
 it was a faith peculiarly characteristic of the Achseans — 
 we should also be constrained to dlow some force to 
 the argument which pre-supposes these latter to be 
 new-comers, and seriously militates against their identi- 
 fication with the Mycenaeans. On the other hand, it 
 appears also that strength would be added to the 
 opinion that cremation, which is also characteristic of 
 the Achseans, was not a chance introduction into the 
 jEgean, but connotes a profound change in religion, 
 and presumably the advent of a new race. 
 
 We have, then, to revert to the description given 
 above of the Homeric pantheon. We saw that it cer- 
 tainly marks the fusion of various and more or less 
 conflicting elements. When comparing the earlier with 
 later Homeric poetry, we saw that it was possible 
 to trace a notable change in the position of Zeus, and 
 much more are there indications that in the period 
 antecedent to the Homeric poems, he was anything 
 but supreme. Among a large section of the Greek 
 race, even in Hellenic times, Poseidon was recognise-d 
 as the national patron, and we found it significant 
 that even in Homer he has not been affiliated to Zeus, 
 as were other originally alien deities, but he is put on 
 a sort of par with the ' Father of gods and men ' as his 
 brother, so that in one instance he claims complete 
 equality with him.^ Moreover, it is generally held that 
 the fettering of Kronos implied that the worship of 
 Zeus had conquered his, probably by dint of arms. 
 It is also probable that the relationship of Zeus to 
 
 ' We may mention in this context the Calaurian League which 
 formed an interesting sort of link between Mycenaean and Hel- 
 lenic times. This was a confederacy of various peoples (all of 
 the mainland except ^gina) who were organised to popularise 
 the cult of the sea-god. They met for the worship of Poseidon 
 at Calauria near Argos, where he had a very ancient temple. 
 Neither Argos nor Corinth were admitted as being too recent in 
 their origin. 
 
2qo Who were the Homeric People? [chap. V 
 
 Minos, this time as father, is to be explained in 
 a similar way, namely, as the supplanting of an 
 older by a newer cult. According to one view, Zeus 
 was not merely an interloper (and this is evidently true 
 of others of the Olympian circle) ; he came also late. 
 For the leading Achaean heroes trace their descent 
 from Zeus, and the line of generation is not a long one. 
 For instance, the fathers of Achilles and Idomeneus, 
 and the grandfather of Agamemnon and Menelaus, are 
 all represented as having Zeus for their grandfather. 
 But in view of the recently discovered Min6an cult of 
 a deity which there is every reason for identifying with 
 Zeus, this view can hardly be now maintained with the 
 same degree of plausibility. 
 
 On the whole many indications combine to show that 
 Olympianism, especially indicated by the supremacy 
 of Zeus over the rest of the Homeric pantheon, is prob- 
 ably regarded by the Homeric bards as the result of a 
 process which was of comparatively late incidence — 
 one which was not even fully accomplished — for side 
 by side with the Olympian beliefs, which are at the 
 time becoming more and more developed and stereo- 
 typed, we find abundant traces of an earlier faith which, 
 though smitten, is not finally crushed, but will one day 
 again emerge into prominence while Olympianism is 
 falling into decay.' 
 
 But can we not regard this tendency merely as part 
 of the proper development of Greek thought and feel- 
 ing, and by no means as due to the introduction of a 
 new racial element, much less to anything in the form 
 of an ethnic revolution ? As a matter of fact was not 
 the process gradual rather than sudden — especially as 
 we have argued to the gradual composition of the 
 poems (among other considerations) from the develop- 
 ment of the Olympian system towards Monotheism ? 
 
 ' We repeat what we stated above, that we are much indebted 
 to Miss Harrison's new work Prolegomena of Greek Religion. We 
 may note in passing that this learned writer is of opinion that 
 the conclusions she has arrived at will powerfully contribute 
 towards establishing a radical diversity between the Achaan 
 folk and the Mycenasans. 
 
sec. 5] Difficulties of Mycenaean Theory 291 
 
 This is a difficult question, and one which we cannot 
 hope to clear up completely. If there were not a sepa- 
 rate set of reasons for thinking the Achseans were re- 
 garded by the bards as new-comers, the mere fact of 
 their Olympian proclivities would hardly prove the 
 point. But if the reader will turn back to our section 
 entitled ' Social Organisation ' (of Homeric Life) he will 
 see there, besides the genealogies just referred to, 
 other strong and convincing reasons for regarding the 
 Achaeans as chieftains who have not been long rooted 
 to the soil of Argolis and Phthiotis, Ithaca and Crete, 
 And they are so fully steeped in Olympianism, in the 
 worship of Zeus, Apollo, and Athena, that if they are 
 late-comers and also these Olympians, it seems impos- 
 sible to resist the conclusion that they came together. 
 It is true that Zeus and Apollo favour the Trojans, but 
 there are special reasons, ethnic as well as poetical, 
 for this ; and the strange persistent hostility of Poseidon 
 — who is an Ionian rather than an Achaean deity — to 
 Odysseus, finds an easy explanation in the hypothesis 
 which we have been striving to put as clearly as possible. 
 To sum up this difficulty against the Mycenaean 
 theory. The Achaeans of Homer appear to have come 
 late to the iEgean and to have brought their religion 
 with them. In some way (how far we do not attempt 
 to decide) cremation was a part of their religion. But 
 the Mycenaean people do not seem to have used 
 cremation. Therefore the Achaeans were a radically 
 different people, professing a different religion, from 
 the Mycenaeans. 
 
 We may add a few remarks on the existing evidence 
 as to the religion of the Mycenaeans, considered in itself 
 as well as in its relation to the Olympian hierarchy. 
 The nude female statuettes with the characteristic 
 doves point to a sort of prototype of Aphrodite. It 
 used to be supposed that these things were direct proofs 
 of the Phoenician influence. Now, however, it is found 
 that they go back too far into the Mindan period to 
 allow of that hypothesis. The conception of this 
 Nature-goddess was in all probability indigenous to 
 the iEgean area. In Crete we have seen the deity with 
 
292 Who were the Homeric People? [chap. V 
 
 the Double Axe — who was almost certainly identical 
 with the Carian and Cretan Zeus of later times — is also 
 prominent. But we cannot argue as to the Homeric 
 pantheon from these or still fainter indications. 
 
 On the whole it would seem that, as in other things 
 so in matters of religion, most of the Mycenaean remains 
 belong to earlier and less developed epochs than the 
 state of things delineated in Homer. Before suggesting 
 how these views can be in any degree reconciled with 
 the Mycenaean theory of the Achaeans, we must pass 
 on to expound several other difficulties, most of which, 
 it must be confessed, are to the writer's own mind 
 far less formidable than the one we have been con- 
 sidering above. 
 
 When describing the material civilisation ol the 
 Homeric people, and especially what regards the im- 
 portant question of metal-working, it 
 Questions regard- was unavoidable to introduce somewhat 
 
 ing Material at length the question of iron which 
 
 CiYilisation. enters so largely into our present topic. 
 It is evident that as the Mycenaeans 
 were living in the Bronze Age, if it can be really estab- 
 lished that the Achaeans were in the " fully-fledged " 
 Iron Age, all controversy as to their identity is ended. 
 But the case is not so clear. In the first place the 
 Mycenaeans, as known to us by their remains, were not 
 absolute strangers to iron. For at the end of the 
 period, the metal appears in a worked form, in rings 
 which were on the persons of the deceased warriors. 
 It was, however, even at this time, probably very 
 precious, even more so than gold, and its occurrence 
 with such rarity does not mark its possessors ofi as 
 iron-users in the sense of employing the metal ordinarily 
 at least for weapons of offence.' It is contended, then, 
 that this is quite inconsistent with the notorious fact 
 that the mention of iron is by no means infrequent in 
 
 ' It must of course be borne in mind tliat as iron rusts more 
 readily tlian gold, silver, copper, or tin, its occurrence will be 
 comparatively obscure in remains dug from the earth. But the 
 rust itself may sometimes remain as evidence. This, however, 
 is a matter which can be left to the archaeologists safely. 
 
sec. 5] Difficulties of Mycensan Theory 293 
 
 the poems, and not merely for warlike weapons, but 
 even for implements of industry such as the plough- 
 Connected with this discrepancy concerning the use 
 of iron, or at least obviously associated with it as be- 
 longing to a period of further development in civilisation, 
 it will be convenient here to enumerate a series of 
 difficulties arising out of accoutrements and form of dress. 
 We have already seen, though we did not allude to 
 its controversial import, that in the poems there are 
 represented two utterly distinct and opposite sorts of 
 armament, the one, which may be called the large 
 tower-shield type in which all body-armour proper is 
 dispensed with, except a small leather cap, protecting 
 the top of the head ; the other, the hoplite type of 
 body-armour, involving a smaller (usually round) shield 
 and including a large helmet, cuirass, metal belt, and 
 metal greaves. 
 
 In the shaft-graves a profusion of ornamental plates 
 or films of gold leaf were found, more or less in the 
 form of breast-plates, baldricks and belts from which 
 it was at first thought that the owners might have had 
 more substantial metal armour of which the gold orna- 
 ments were more or less imitative substitutes. Further 
 consideration, however, tended to dispel this view; 
 whereas from the enchased metal work and gem draw- 
 ings it may be safely concluded that the accoutrements 
 of the Mycenaean folk were extremely simple, especially 
 as on a fragment of a silver cup there is very graphically 
 depicted a siege-scene in which the defenders are almost 
 or quite naked ; and usually all the warriors wear is a 
 simple loin-cloth with belt. The large body-shield is 
 clearly seen in several beautiful scenes, including the 
 celebrated lion hunt on the dagger-blade.^ About the 
 shape — they show variety, sometimes the shield is cir- 
 cular but caught in at the sides, sometimes it is a semi- 
 cylinder.'' 
 
 ' See Plate xxi. B. p. 286. 
 
 ' Reichel has been taken severely to task for explaining the 
 epithet wavroa ilirri, of this shield — but anyone who will care 
 to look at the picture on the gemtfigured in Schuchhardt, p. 196 
 (fig. 178) will, I think, agree that it is not inappropriate. The 
 phrase jjvre Tripyos would, of course, suit the more oblong or 
 Semi-cylindrical form admirably. 
 
294 Who were the Homeric People ? [chap. V 
 
 It is only at the very end of the Mycenaean age that 
 representations of the hoplite style of armour with the 
 round shield occur, not only on the celebrated warrior 
 vase, but also on a painted Stele at Mycenae and on 
 a fragment of rather late pottery found at Tiryns. It 
 is this last which touches the nearest on the Mycenaean 
 age, but it merely shows that, at the end of the period, 
 the new style of accoutrements was being introduced. 
 Moreover, we find instances of the round shield depicted 
 on the walls of the temple at Medinet Haboo, referred 
 to already as belonging to the Peoples of the Sea, and 
 the Shairetana.* Another tribe supposed to be Danaans 
 (Tannauna) is depicted in the same identical fashion. 
 They are included among the allies of the Egyptians. 
 It is remarkable that with the exception of the round 
 shield the accoutrement is fully Mycenaean — the small 
 helmet with horns, the loin-cloth, the long spear with 
 short sword ; in some cases a sort of tunic which appears 
 to be either of pleated linen or covered with horizontal 
 bands of metal ; but no metal belt or greaves. Thus 
 these sculptures have some importance as they seem 
 to show a period of transition between the diverse 
 types of accoutrement. 
 
 The dress of the Mycenaean women was much more 
 elaborate than that of the men. They wore long skirts 
 from the waist to the feet always ornamented by 
 flounces, and with this a sort of blouse or jacket open in 
 front. The flounced skirt is particularly constant, and 
 it is remarkable that it is worn by the only woman 
 included in the Egyptian painting just referred to. It 
 is not common in Egyptian costumes but finds its 
 prototype in Assyrian designs. There is some reason 
 for thinking the flounces were actually separate attach- 
 ments not forming part of the groundwork— whether 
 this can be identified with the Homeric peplos is uncer- 
 tain, but no evident incongruity appears; and, as we 
 have seen, there is evidence that the Homeric woman 
 wore an open bodice. 
 
 What is more serious as regards both sexes is an 
 almost total absence of brooches, or even safety-pins, 
 from the Mycenaean relics. It is not always allowed 
 
 •See Plate xix. p. 272. 
 
sec. 5] Difficulties of Mycenaean Theory 295 
 
 to argue from negative evidence of this sort, but if we 
 remember the quantity and variety of metal ornaments 
 included in the shaft-grave finds, the absence of the 
 brooch is certainly remarkable, especially as it begins 
 to appear at the end of the period. The reader will 
 remember in our description of the Homeric costume, 
 the brooch or fastening-pin is mentioned as prominent 
 both in female and male costume. 
 
 The above discrepancies mostly consist of the absence 
 of objects which we find described in Homer and do 
 not find in the archaeological remains. Now we must 
 give a passing mention to a difficulty of the converse 
 sort — namely a class of objects which occurs very fre- 
 quently in the finds but is absent from the poems. 
 These are the cut seals, of gold sometimes but more com- 
 monly of precious stones, pebbles, or crystal, known 
 as the island gems. We have referred to them so often 
 that no further description is needed. The fact that 
 they are not mentioned in Homer in any connection 
 is certainly curious, and though of course its significance 
 could be easily exaggerated, yet it may be classed 
 among confirmatory arguments as a new point of 
 divergence. 
 
 We hope now we have done justice to this branch 
 Of our subject, and have made it plain to the student 
 that although there is undoubtedly much that is 
 common to the Mycenaean and the Homeric civilisation 
 there are also many grave reasons to prevent our 
 assuming their identity to be proved. 
 
 It is less the aim of this Handbook to lay down con- 
 clusions for the acceptance of the student of Homer 
 than to put before him the materials 
 Prof. Bldgeway's for forming his own conclusions. And 
 Celtic theory of surely any discussion of the question : 
 
 the Homeric ' Who were the Homeric People ? ' 
 people. would be very incomplete which did 
 not include some exposition of Professor 
 Ridgeway's brilliant though complicated attempt 
 to settle the question on lines which we venture 
 to say were never so much as thought of before he 
 formed his theory. This theory is on the one hand 
 
296 Who were the Homeric People ? [chap. V 
 
 marked by great completeness as well as originality, 
 and has been supported by an amazing wealth of 
 erudition and closely-reasoned argument. On the other 
 hand, it is also extremely revolutionary, and involves 
 several conclusions regarding history, archjeology, and 
 philology which, in the present state of our knowledge, 
 are certainly premature, and possibly misleading. 
 
 Mr. Ridge way's argument may be considered as in- 
 volving two distinct positions. He seeks to dissociate 
 the Achseans from the Mycenseans, laying stress on the 
 difficulties we have already enumerated ; and he con- 
 tends that the former were immigrants of Celtic blood 
 coming down into Greece from beyond the Alps. It 
 is evident that this new hypothesis, so far as it could 
 be established, would finally clinch the other argu- 
 ments ; whereas these would lose none of their force by 
 the possible refutation of the hypothesis. 
 
 One important qualification of Mr. Ridgeway's position 
 should be stated at the outset to preclude confusion. 
 In designating the Achaeans as a Celtic tribe he under- 
 stands the term as it was applied in ancient times, 
 which he maintains was to a race of Gauls practically 
 identical with those we call German or Teutonic' And 
 now we may proceed to summarize the arguments of 
 the learned professor. 
 
 There are several indications that the Homeric bards 
 
 considered the Achseans as a tribe marked by physical 
 
 characteristics which distinguished them 
 
 The » fair-haired from friend and foe alike. All the con- 
 
 ichseang.' federates on the Greek side are at times 
 
 called Achseans, but the name seems to 
 
 be applied, in a more primary sense, to the chieftains 
 
 and leading warriors — whereas the common crowd are 
 
 perhaps more properly styled Argives or Danaans, 
 
 However this may be, there is something evidently 
 
 honourable attaching to the term Achaean. This is 
 
 ' It is not, however, easy to reconcile Mr. Ridgeway's linguistic 
 arguments with this position. If Greek labiaUsation is due to 
 Celtic influence, all Teutonic connexion may be so far neglected. 
 Perhaps, however, the Professor would not wish undue stress to 
 be laid on this part of his theory. 
 
sec. 5] Difficulties of Mycenaean Theory 297 
 
 shown by the epithets ' divine ' or ' glorious '; ' beloved 
 by Ares,' ' high-souled,' etc. And what we are now 
 specially concerned with is they have a set of epithets 
 which betoken a splendid physique ; ' fair-haired,' 
 ' wearing long hair," perhaps ' bright-eyed ;' and are 
 also spoken of usually as men of great stature ; 
 and although in the case of heroes this might obviously 
 be attributed to the bardic imagination, yet it is men- 
 tioned so pointedly and consistently that taken in 
 connection with other marked traits it might easily be 
 accounted for on anthropological grounds. And what 
 gives plausibility to the theory is that we know there is 
 among European types one which is marked by large- 
 ness of limb, fair or reddish hair which is sometimes 
 worn long, and bright blue eyes. And these tribes live 
 towards the North. 
 
 The view that the Achseans had, previous to the 
 time we meet them in Greece, travelled thither by a 
 North-west route, would be strongly supported by 
 evidence that they themselves looked to Epirus as one 
 of their ancient seats of residence. Now Dodona in 
 Epirus was among the most ancient and venerable 
 shrines of the Greeks, containing as it did the celebrated 
 oracular oak-grove of Zeus who, as we have seen, was 
 an especially Achaean god. Moreover, in the Iliad, 
 this shrine is described in terms which point to a great 
 and venerable antiquity, and is employed to give 
 sanction to a most solemn oath. Yet it is far from the 
 seats occupied by the Achseans in the Peloponnese and 
 separated by mountains from those in Thessaly and 
 Boeotia ; so their veneration for it certainly looks very 
 like a memory of the past, and thus supports the view 
 that it had been at, or near, their halting place on 
 their southward journey. Lastly, the priests of 
 Dodona are named in the IliaA Selloi or Helloi,^ and 
 Hellas, the Achaean seat in Thessaly (from which the 
 whole nation was subsequently named), may be prob- 
 ably connected with this etymology. 
 
 The above argument is strengthened by considerations 
 
 ' The reading is a little doubtful. 
 
298 Who were the Homeric People? [chap. V 
 
 as to trades route from the most ancient times and 
 by the fact that at various points in history new popu- 
 lations have poured down into the southern penin- 
 sulas of Europe from the North, and very frequently 
 from the Northern Alps. Even the Dorian incursion, 
 which was only separated from the Achaean by a few 
 generations, or perhaps centuries, may have followed 
 the same general lines, though all we know is that 
 they came from the North. But the student is re- 
 minded that we cannot do more here than attempt a 
 very bare outline of the arguments we are considering.' 
 So far there has been nothing advanced which is 
 difficult of acceptance. But we now come to the 
 arguments by which Ridgeway attempts 
 Alleged ilpine positively to prove that the Achseans 
 
 Habitat of are a Celtic (or Germanic) offshoot. 
 
 AchseauB. He would trace them back vik Epirus 
 to the head of the Adriatic, and 
 thence to a position in the Austrian, or as they 
 were formerly called the Norican, Alps. Here with- 
 in a day's march of Noreia, the central station from 
 which they are named, is the celebrated necropolis 
 of Hallstatt, the discovery of which about the middle 
 of the last century gave such an extraordinary impetus 
 to the study of European archaeology. The remains 
 of nearly a thousand graves, when examined, were 
 found to belong chiefly to the Bronze, though they also 
 came down as far as the early Iron, Age. Hitherto the 
 authorities dated these remains vaguely between the 
 limits of B.C. 400 and b.c. 800, or at most 1000. Ridge- 
 way, on the other hand, is convinced that here has been 
 unearthed a pre-Homeric civilisation, and undertakes 
 to prove that from it the Achseans derived those char- 
 acteristic features by which he holds them to be dif- 
 
 * It may be remarked here that the arrangement of Professor 
 Ridgeway' s most valuable book makes it difficult reading for those 
 who desire to get a complete conspectus of his theory in all its 
 bearings. Most of the work appeared previously in the form 
 of separate articles, and we think it is regrettable that they were 
 not rewritten or at least rearranged for final publication. But 
 the book is a mine of facts which are often handled in a masterly 
 and intuitive manner. 
 
sec. S] Difficulties of Mycenaean Theory 299 
 
 ferentiated from the Mycenaeans, whom he regards as the 
 aborigines of the ^gean. 
 
 It will be convenient for the student to see here, in 
 a tabulated form, the particulars by which it is sought 
 to identify the Achseans with the peoples of Hallstatt 
 and other neighbouring cemeteries which belong, gener- 
 ally speaking, to the same civilised type. 
 
 i. The Physiqae of the Homevie People. We 
 have seen that they were fair-haired and large-limbed. 
 These were certainly characteristics of the Gauls and 
 Celts in general. In particular the size of the Hallstatt 
 people is marked, among other things, by the size of 
 the sword-hilts, which are far larger than those found 
 at Mycenae. The Gauls were also known to wear their 
 hair long, which was apparently the vogue of the 
 Achaeans. 
 
 II. The practice of Cremation. There is plenty of 
 evidence of this at Hallstatt, though the practice was by 
 no means universal, as in Greece after its introduction 
 cremated bodies are found side by side with those 
 buried unburnt. On the whole the use of cremation 
 seems to have been the practice of the richer persons 
 (cremation involving expense), and this, too, would agree 
 very well with the Achaean custom. 
 
 III. The use of Iron. It was stated above that 
 iron comes in at the end of the Hallstatt period. In 
 Roman times Noricum became very celebrated for its 
 iron supply, since it was even exported beyond the 
 shores of Italy. As it is an essential point in Mr. 
 Ridgeway's theory that iron came first from the North 
 to Greece (contrary to the hitherto prevailing belief), 
 he naturally insists on this fact of the Norican supply. 
 This is a question which can hardly be decided, and 
 it is obviously beyond our scope to discuss it further. 
 Later we shall try to show that it is not permissible 
 to assume that the Achaeans were in the Iron Age. 
 
 IV. The Round Shield and Hopllte Equipment. 
 In the graves of Hallstatt and throughout the central 
 European area the round shield appears to have pre- 
 vailed at such times as they used bronze equipment. 
 Moreover, the shields are usually supplied with a 
 
300 Who were the Homeric People ? [chap. V 
 
 central boss, and Homer speaks frequently of bossy 
 shields. Regarding the Mycenaean shield there has 
 been much difference of opinion, but the point is one 
 of only minor importance. Greaves of bronze have 
 been found at Glasinatz (though not at Hallstatt), also 
 large helmets at both sites, and plates of bronze which 
 might have been parts of breastplates. The spears had 
 butt-pieces, and other Homeric traits were noticed. In 
 a word, Ridgeway thinks the Gaulish and Homeric 
 chieftains followed the one type, and that the 
 Northern one was the prototype. 
 
 V. The Brooch or Fibula. This was very common 
 in the Alpine area — nearly every grave yielding some 
 specimens. One of these happened to be ornamented 
 with the figure of a hound, recalling the brooch of 
 Odysseus. The student will remember the importance 
 of this article, as it is supposed to indicate a method 
 of dress generically different from clothes worn without 
 it. As a rule the latter are close fitting — the former 
 more like the Scotch plaid, which is still worn with a 
 brooch on the shoulder. 
 
 VI. Labialisation in Greek. By this is meant a 
 tendency, somewhat sporadic, to substitute a labial for 
 a guttural, or sometimes even a dental consonant. It 
 occurs in Latin, and in that tongue has been attributed 
 to Celto-Germanic influence.* In Greek the tendency 
 appears perhaps more than in Latin (c/. ittwos with 
 equus), but it is often seen chiefly in dialecticd varieties 
 (as in Attic Smv, k.tX, cf. the closely allied Ionic Skou 
 of Herodotus). Ridgeway then proposes to account for 
 this phenomenon in Greek by contact with the same sort 
 of peoples.'' His theory is, that the Achaeans adopted 
 the language they found among the Greeks, but imparted 
 to it certain peculiarities of their own tongue. He 
 
 ' Compare Petoc-ritum with quatuor : so in Greek there arc 
 dialectical forms of this^word (TriViJper, k.t.A.) showing labialisa- 
 tion. 
 
 'Dr. Monro {Od. xii.-xxiv., p. 487, severely criticises Prof. 
 Ridgeway's argument, adducing reasons to show that he has 
 confused distinct sets of phenomena. It is only right to add that 
 Ridgeway proposed this part of his theory only tentatively. 
 
sec. S] Difficulties of Mycenaean Theory 301 
 
 shows that this often happens in the case of a victorious 
 race, especially when they are in a minority and inter- 
 marry with the native women. 
 
 VII. Other subsidiary Arguments. Of these we 
 may mention one of the most interesting, namely, that 
 while some of the Achaean proper names — such as 
 Agamemnon and Menelaus — ^have a Greek sound, the 
 names of several very important heroes, as Achilles, 
 Odysseus, Ajax, etc., appear to be foreign. In later 
 times, it is true, generally, names of persons were 
 significant ; in the pre-historic age we are, perhaps, 
 prepared for more variety. However, the point was 
 worth calling attention to. 
 
 We now claim to have put before the student a 
 clear and honest statement on the one hand of the 
 chief difficulties in the way of recognising in the 
 Mycenaean remains the solution of the problem, ' Who 
 were the Homeric people ? ' and on the other hand the 
 many and subtle arguments for seeking a solution in 
 a very different direction. 
 
 So far the tangle is worse than when we commenced 
 our investigation. Nor must we as yet expect to see 
 our way quite clear of difiiculties. We shall, however, 
 in a concluding section of this chapter make bold to 
 lay down certain propositions which will go some 
 distance, as we hope, towards reconciling theories 
 which at first sight appear wholly incompatible. 
 
[ 302 ] 
 
 § 6. Some Hints towards Recon- 
 -■ ciliation 
 
 After what has been stated of the opposing theories 
 
 regarding the Homeric people and their interpretation 
 
 by modern archaeology, it looks like a 
 
 PoBBibilUy of hopeless task to seek for a via media 
 
 ""'ria media!"* ^^^^'^ ^hall, even to a -small extent, 
 satisfy the difficulties which fall on both 
 sides. On the other hand, it appears to the present 
 writer not merely that it is possible to find a basis of 
 reconciliation, but that it is absolutely imperative for 
 us to do so. The reasons which we have alleged for 
 recognising the Mycenaean civilisation as the true 
 objective of the Homeric bards are too manifold and 
 weighty to allow us to treat of them as merely imaginary 
 or accidental coincidences. On the other hand, the 
 difficulties advanced by Professor Ridgeway (even if 
 we assume, as we do, that his hypothesis contains 
 its weak points, and that it would be rash for us to 
 accept it in its entirety) are not such as can be disposed 
 of by a mere wave of the hand. Individually the points 
 which he raises in opposition to the Mycensan school 
 might be perhaps explained or got rid of. But his 
 argument (at least if considered under its negative 
 rather than its positive aspect) can hardly be treated 
 fairly unless it is considered as a piece of cumulative 
 reasoning. A chain is snapped if you break any of 
 its single links ; a rope depends for its hold on the united 
 strength of the twisted strands — for they act together. 
 Now, we wish to make it clear that we are fully alive to 
 the collective force of the difficulties we have enume- 
 rated as contained in Ridgeway's treatise. 
 
 In order that the reader may be in a position to under- 
 stand the basis of reconciliation which is to be here 
 proposed, though not without a certain shrinking from 
 the evident difficulty of the task, we shall commence 
 
sec. (5] Some Hints towards Reconciliation 303 
 
 by pointing out certain opinions on either side which 
 we think undeniable evidence warrants our rejecting 
 as extreme ; and thus the ground will be cleared for 
 our attempt to construct a via media, at least as a 
 working hypothesis. 
 
 Some of the views which we are going to clear out 
 of the way may not be really held by responsible writers. 
 It is enough to make us consider them 
 ^**hfTo°ffto" *^^* *^®y ^^^ supposed to be current 
 "be'rejelrted. ^Y those most opposed to them. And 
 in cases of acute controversy it may, 
 of course, happen that the advocates of a cause through 
 excess of zeal give a handle to the enemy to credit 
 them with more extreme opinions than they really 
 hold. Now, among the archaeological school from the 
 time of Schliemann onwards there has been a good deal 
 of enthusiasm with perhaps a tendency to insist strongly 
 on one-sided truths, and to treat solid difficulties (and 
 those who propound them) with something perilously 
 near contempt. The result is, the cause they have at 
 heart — and we believe it is a good and worthy cause — 
 sufiers from such lack of prudence. 
 
 It is one thing to hold that modern archaeological 
 discoveries are of the greatest use to the student of 
 Homer, to maintain that the prehistoric civilisation 
 revealed by the spade at Hissarlik, Mycenae, Tiryns, 
 and Knossus is, in the main, the long-lost prototype 
 of the Iliad and (to a certain extent) the Odyssey — and 
 quite another thing to press the identity so far as to 
 refuse to recognise any points of discrepancy, even to 
 the point of doing violence to the Homeric text. Pre- 
 sumably the Mycenaean remains (especially if taken in 
 a wide and commonly-used sense) cover a large period 
 of time. They certainly on the whole represent an 
 early stage of society, one less developed, we should 
 say, than the civilisation portrayed in Homer. Yet, 
 in spite of clear and patent divergencies certain writers 
 have got into the habit of speaking of the Mycenaeans 
 as absolutely identical with the Homeric people, not 
 merely in the sense that they refuse to admit any 
 generic or ethnic distinction between them, but also 
 
304 Who were the Homeric People ? [chap. V 
 
 as though the date of our remains exactly corresponded 
 with the date of the Iliai and Odyssey. So great an 
 authority as Tsountas,^ for instance, would even date 
 the arrival of the Homeric Achseans in Greece by the 
 changes in Mycenaean culture represented by the 
 tholos-tombs, the lion-gate style of architecture, and 
 (I suppose) the stirrup-vase class of pottery. No 
 doubt this, if it could be maintained, would be a most 
 satisfactory as well as interesting hypothesis — but 
 what is the use of trying to maintain it in the teeth 
 of common sense ? How is it that we have not a trace 
 of cremation (to take one obvious difficulty) till long 
 after the tholos-tomb period, when it becomes quite 
 common ? This particular view (it seems to me, 
 though I was long attracted by it) could only be held 
 by those who are either quite insufficiently acquainted 
 with the facts, or whose minds are somewhat warped 
 by a predetermined theory. 
 
 On the other hand, we have no intention of giving 
 the Mycenaean theory away. It is the incautiousness 
 of some of its defenders — ^though every day they are 
 becoming more guarded and moderate in their language 
 — which gave its opponents the opening to treat it with 
 scathing ridicule. Professor Ridgeway in particular, 
 though he quite admits that he has a large phalanx 
 in front of him, treats his opponents with very little 
 mercy, as though they were nearly lost to the sense of 
 truth and justice. His own contribution to Homeric 
 questions is so immense that we may forgive a little 
 harshness towards the bulk of his predecessors ; but we 
 must take notice when he appears to misinterpret the 
 views of those whom we have called the Mycenaean 
 school of Homeric critics. Moreover, in his manner of 
 stating his case he tends to exaggerate discrepancies, 
 which we are quite willing to allow exist between 
 the Achaean and the Mycenaean civilisation. ' All through 
 
 • That is, if we can trust Professor Manatt as a safe exponent of 
 his views : but this is very uncertain, as the latter tells us he took 
 great liberties as a translator: see Tsountas and Manatt, The 
 Mycentean Age, chap. xiv. 
 
sec. 6] Some Hints towards Reconciliation 305 
 
 his book he creates the impression that he is exhausting 
 every device to establish an impassable gulf between the 
 two, and the impression is by no means removed when, 
 at the very end of the treatise, he informs us that he 
 meant something very different. 
 
 We should have supposed that his view of the coming 
 of the Achseans was not altogether unlike the hitherto 
 prevailing belief regarding the incursions of the Dorians 
 — namely, that it was a cataclysmic event which 
 swept away existing institutions and left the history 
 of Greece a blank for several centuries. On the contrary. 
 Professor Ridgeway admits almost on the last page of 
 his book that the Achaeans were immensely indebted 
 to their predecessors, not merely for much of their 
 material civilisation, and for their language and litera- 
 ture, but even for the very medium in which their own 
 epic was cast — the high-sounding, immortal hexameter. 
 
 But, we repeat, the tendency of his theory and of 
 the manner he has chosen to elaborate it, is to institute 
 the strongest contrast of race, language, physique, 
 religion, and civilisation between the Homeric warriors 
 and the Mycenaean folk. This, then, is an extreme 
 view which we need not and should not accept, any 
 more than the extreme view on the opposite side. 
 And we shall now proceed to explain and give reasons 
 for the opinion which we have called a via media. 
 
 The first point to make clear is, that when we speak 
 
 of the relation between the Mycenaean and the Homeric 
 
 civilisation we refer to the civilisation 
 
 The Principle of iiot of the Homeric bards, but of the 
 
 Contamination— people I they sang about. This is, of 
 
 not Interpolation, course, a mere truism, and yet it is one 
 
 that is too often clearly overlooked, or 
 
 at least its consequences are not rightly estimated. 
 
 We must consider its bearings closely, and before 
 
 doing so beg leave to apprize the reader that this 
 
 question is not unconnected with the position we took 
 
 up regarding the Homeric bards in our second chapter. 
 
 While dispensing ourselves from deciding minute 
 questions as to the different strata of composition in 
 the Iliad and the Odyssey,' vfe took it as certainly proved 
 
3o6 Who were the Homeric People ? [chap. V 
 
 (if any literary question is capable of proof) that there 
 is discernible in the poems at least one great structural 
 fissure dividing what we called the creative from the 
 imitative work. The earlier portion (consisting mainly 
 of the AcMUeid) must be dated before, the later portion 
 after, the coming of the Dorians and the great Migra- 
 tions. Again, our system of accounting for the present 
 state of the poems was by a process of evolution, not 
 aggregation — in which process they were transmitted 
 orally, passing through the minds and mouths, not 
 merely of many men, but probably of distinct bardic 
 schools. 
 
 How does this theory affect, say, the crucial question 
 of the iron references in Homer, on the supposition, 
 which we are prepared to maintain, that iron came in 
 with the Dorians, and not, as Professor Ridgeway 
 would have it, with the Achjeans ? 
 
 We have seen how the references to iron stand. 
 Taken in the aggregate they are fairly numerous as 
 well as spread over the whole ' corpus ' of Homeric 
 poetry ; but taking the references to iron weapons and 
 instruments by themselves, they are not plentiful in the 
 Iliad, and mostly belong to the less primitive strata 
 of that poem.* Surely, on our supposition, it is not 
 surprising to find that (perhaps quite unconsciously) 
 the later Ionian bards, who were every day familiar 
 with the use of iron implements, should introduce the 
 mention of them chiefly into their own newer additions 
 to the older work, but even occasionally into their 
 recitations of the more primitive strata. 
 
 An instance of the sort of way that changes in the 
 text could naturally come about occurs in a passage 
 of the Odyssey, to which as far as I am aware, attention 
 has not been previously called. Towards the end of the 
 poem" (which part we suppose on the whole contains 
 a good deal of comparatively late work) the poet is 
 going to relate the contest of the bow, and for some 
 reason he has decided that the arrows used on the 
 occasion shall be tipped with iron, and so they are 
 
 ' See p. 220. ' Od. xxi. init. 
 
sec. 6] Some Hints towards Reconciliation 307 
 
 described. So Penelope goes to the chamber iBdKaiios) 
 in which the treasures are kept, and which had been pre- 
 viously described at the commencement of the poem.^ 
 In both places these treasures are described, and especi- 
 ally the store of metal goods. In the earlier passage 
 gold and bronze only are mentioned, but in the latter 
 place is added n-oXuK/xijrds re o-iSiipos. Now, how easy 
 it would have been for this later passage to react, in 
 recitation, on the earlier. As a matter of fact it did not 
 which, perhaps, witnesses to the conservative spirit o'i 
 the bards. But at least the point serves to illustrate 
 what we mean by Contamination, as distinct from 
 ordinary Interpolation. We have no idea of finding 
 fault with our text, nor wish to expunge anything 
 from it. But we recognise that it combines different 
 elements — ^pre-Dorian and post-Dorian— just as a ' con- 
 taminated ' play of Terence combines into a single 
 plot elements from two distinct Greek comedies. 
 
 Now, it may be urged, how can we assume that the 
 Ionian, i.e., post-Dorian, school introduced into the 
 poems references to their own style of civilisation, and 
 especially the use of iron, which they ought to have 
 known, according to our theory, was introduced by the 
 Dorians — while they carefuUy avoided every mention ^ 
 of the Dorians themselves, and even their own sur- 
 roundings in Ionia, whither their ancestors had been 
 driven by Dorian pressure ? They certainly appear to 
 have known that the Homeric age proper was one of 
 bronze. We freely admit that there is a difficulty here 
 (we do not desire even to minimize it) and yet we think 
 the difference can, to a certain extent, be accounted for. 
 The one omission, which is really remarkable, can be 
 thought to be due to national pride, than which no 
 motive is stronger — aiid hatred of the Dorian name 
 might induce a conscious effort to archaize consistently 
 in matters of ethnology. We might, indeed,, have 
 expected them to be still further consistent by applying 
 
 , '.Excppt the one in Od, ix., to which reference has frequently 
 been made. 
 
3o8 Who were the Homeric People ? [chap. V 
 
 the same principle to matters of ordinary life ; but we 
 simply find they did not do so, and we must be content 
 with the fact. This ' contamination ' of the older by 
 the newer ideas and experience, is no theory invented 
 here to account for discrepancies between the poems 
 and archaeology. On the contrary, it enters so vitally 
 into our whole conception of the poems that we put it 
 forward in an earlier chapter dealing with the question 
 of authorship as a palmary and convincing proof of 
 the gradual evolution of the poems. 
 
 And although we have considered this principle 
 chiefly in reference to the iron question, it will evidently 
 allow of a much wider application. In considering the 
 descriptions met with in the poems of Homeric armour, 
 we have already seen abundant evidence of a twofold 
 type co-existing in the minds of the bards, and that in 
 certain passages there is even engendered a confusion 
 of the new with the old. In this case, at all events, 
 not merely may the theory of contamination be in- 
 voked with effect, but the phenomenon is so patent 
 that it is not easy to see how it can be explained on 
 any other principle. The efforts of Reichel and his 
 school to expel from the text the references to Hoplite 
 armour appear to many to be very violent. But neither 
 can we agree with those who would practically shut 
 their eyes to the presence of the Mycenaean shield in the 
 ranks of the Homeric warriors and all that it imports. 
 If the Achaeans had brought with them into Greece a 
 new type of armour exactly the same as that used by 
 the later Celts we should expect that they would have 
 been able to give a more simple and consistent account 
 of it than we find in Homer. ' , 
 
 This subject of the armour-type hangs very well with 
 the introduction of iron weapons, for it is only likely that 
 one involved the other. And the havoc caused by the 
 Dorian invasion certainly lends great plausibility to 
 the theory that the Dorians were an iron-using race, 
 swooping down on a people who had not yet laid aside 
 their trust in weapons of bronze. And this theory is, 
 to our mind, thoroughly borne out by the evidence 
 contained in the poems ; for they are just what might be 
 
sec. 6] Some Hints towards Reconciliation 309 
 
 expected from authors thoroughly habituated to iron, 
 but trying to describe, and in great part faithfully 
 describing, the age of bronze. 
 
 It has been objected, however, that the fighting in 
 Homer implies iron swords, because the heroes use 
 them for the cutting stroke much more frequently than 
 for the thrust ; and that bronze swords being shorter 
 and weaker are only suitable for the thrust. This 
 argument is specious, but as a matter of fact, at least 
 towards the end of the Mycenaean period, a longer type 
 of bronze sword came in which could be used well 
 enough for cutting, a type which is sufficiently repre- 
 sented even in the shaft-grave finds.' And it should be 
 noted that the Mycenaean people, perhaps, knew how 
 to temper bronze better than we do._ Anyhow they 
 used bronze razors. 
 
 Lastly, this view of the later post-Dorian influences ■ 
 on the Homeric text will perhaps account for the refer- 
 ences to later attire as represented by the use of the 
 brooch or safety-pin for fastening garments. 
 
 The references to irepovi) and eVenj taken together are 
 not more than three or four in all ; in the Iliad 
 each word occurs but once, and certainly not in the 
 supposed primitive parts,^ so that to account for 
 them on the principle of post-Dorian contamination 
 does not seem difficult. If the later bards really be- 
 longed to a different and much more developed civilisa- 
 tion then the earlier, they would require to be very 
 much on the alert to keep out all anachronisms. That 
 they admitted fewer, on the whole, than we might have 
 expected shows that they adverted to the matter, 
 whereas, perhaps, much of the life and colour of the poems 
 is due to the fact that their authors, living as they did 
 in a transition period, were eager to describe what they 
 knew and saw with their eyes. 
 
 It may now finally be objected that our principle of 
 Contamination merely comes to this — that one element 
 
 ' See Schuohhardt, p. sjSs, where the swords are figured, one 
 broken and one at full length. 
 " The reference to irepdvrj is 11. v. 425, and to eWri), II. xiv. iSo. 
 
310 Who were the Homeric People ? [chap. V 
 
 in the poems reflects Mycenaean life and another does 
 not — and that as we have no certain criterion for dis- 
 tinguishing these elements, we might as well follow 
 Ridgeway frankly, and (practically) deny any more 
 than a chance correspondence between the poems and 
 the Mycenaean remains. 
 
 Before, however, going further with this particular 
 subject it will be necessary to view the whole subject 
 from another, and a broader, point of view. For there 
 is yet a second far-reaching principle to be applied 
 to the whole question of correspondence or divergence 
 between Homer and the Mycenaeans. 
 
 We have been hitherto dealing with these traits in 
 
 the material civilisation depicted in Homer, which 
 
 appear to be fairly kttributable to a 
 
 Discrepancies J^^e redaction of the poems. We have 
 not acconnted for m particular sought to exempt ourselves 
 
 by post-Dorian from the necessity of attributing the 
 
 Contamination, introduction of iron to the immigration 
 of the Achaeans from the North. But 
 we also saw above that there is another set of features 
 which are far more ingrained in the essential texture of 
 the poetry than a mere chance reference to iron- 
 headed arrows, bronze greaves, or even the fibula of 
 Odysseus' cloak. We mean, of course, the references to 
 cremation and the belief in the Olympian system, 
 which appear to be common to the earliest stratum 
 of the poems — for without Zeus and his family circle 
 we could scarcely imagine a line of Homer to be possible. 
 How, then, do we propose to deal with these features 
 of Homer ? If they have to be given away as foreign 
 to Mycenaean civilisation, why strain any point to 
 explain references to material things ? 
 
 We must ask the reader to reconsider for a moment 
 the nature of the problem we are discussing. We seek 
 a working hypothesis which will explain all the facts 
 equally. It would be most easy to construct a theory 
 that would explain points of contact And leave dis- 
 crepancies to take care of themselves — or to account 
 for the latter while ignoring the arguments on the 
 other side, or while dismissing them contemptuously^ 
 
sec. 6] Some Hints towards Reconciliation 311 
 
 Now, it seems to us that the only way we can steer 
 a middle course between Scylla and Charybdis is to 
 be very carefid about keeping distinct from one another 
 aspects of the question which may veryproperly be placed 
 in separate categories. For the use of iron and the other 
 commodities which may easily be supposed to have 
 come in with iron are so essential to a definite system 
 of civilisation, that to attribute them simply to the 
 Homeric people would be absolutely to sever their con- 
 nection with Mycenaean times, and thus we should have, 
 as we believe Ridgeway to have, a plausible but one- 
 sided h3T)othesis. 
 
 On the other hand, we are quite satisfied if we can 
 show that the Achseans, being in the bronze age, belonged 
 essentially to Mycenaean (rather than to Hellenic) 
 civilisation. They did not necessarily belong precisely 
 to the same stage of national growth. This becomes 
 a question of dates, not absolute indeed, but relative. 
 Now is seen the importance of attending to the question of 
 Mycenaean chronology. Our information on the subject 
 seemed to prove that the Mycenaean era extended itself 
 over many centuries at least ; and there is hardly any 
 sane authority on the Mycenaean side but would put the 
 Homeric period at the very end of that era. We would 
 go a little further, and gladly allow that the Homeric 
 Achaeans are somewhat later than the bulk of our more 
 important Mycenaean remains.* At first sight this will 
 appear a very fatal concession, but it is not really in- 
 compatible with the view we are seeking to defend. 
 An interval of time on the one hand would leave room 
 for the development of religious thought, and the intro- 
 duction of certain changes of a semi-religious nature, 
 which are on a wholly different footing from an organic 
 social and material revolution, such as we believe the 
 Dorian, but not the Achaean, invasion to have involved. 
 Our contention is, in other words, that the changes 
 we must admit in the true Homeric economy, when 
 it is compared with the Mycenaean, are such as time will 
 
 ' Mr. J. L. Myres seems clearly to recognise this principle. Ebr 
 he speaks of Homer as Sub-Mycenaean Epic. See (article on 
 Helbig) Clas. Rev., vol. x. 
 
312 Who were the Homeric People ? [chap. V 
 
 naturally work without postulating any great or sudden 
 catastrophe shaking the foundations of society. 
 
 From this point of view many of Ridgeway's hjT)0- 
 thetical statements are harmless. Let us grant for the 
 sake of argument that the Achaeans were a new and 
 distinct race ; that they came from the North ; that 
 they had marked physical characteristics as well as 
 religious tenets ; even that they were of Celto-Ger- 
 manic blood, and that Greek labialisation is due to their 
 influence ; yet all this is quite compatible with a com- 
 paratively peaceful, or at least undestructive, advents 
 They may have passed into the heritage which they 
 found prepared for them without more noise than 
 water causes by falling upon a sponge. We know that 
 in any case Agamemnon, their great chief according to 
 the Homeric statement, was something of a foreigner, 
 for he belonged to the house of Pelops, which had im- 
 migrated from Phrygia' not more than two or three 
 generations before the scenic date of the Trojan 
 War. 
 
 Our hypothesis is then a simple as it is also some- 
 thing of a mediatising, one. The civilisation described 
 for us by Homer as that of the Greeks under Achaean 
 rule, is substantially the same as to distribution, char- 
 acter, and (widely speaking) epoch, as that of the 
 remains recovered by archaeological search. At the same 
 time (even after we have made allowance for post- 
 Dorian contamination) we still find in the poems many 
 indications that on the whole they picture for us a 
 somewhat late and highly developed stage of social, 
 and a somewhat modified character of religious, ideas. 
 We believe those modifications indicate the presence 
 of natural growth, rather than of volcanic and destruc- 
 tive agencies. Whether such changes as we recognise 
 were due to the invasion of ideas or of an armed force 
 
 ' Pindar (Ol. i. 24) says Lydia. Thucydides (i. 9) quoting, as 
 he says, the best authorities, is more vague, for he only asserts 
 that Pelops came from Asia. Another tradition, which is claimed 
 by some authorities as the most genuine one, made out the 
 Pelopidae to be natives of Hellas. But the view given in the 
 text was certainly prevalent in later times. 
 
sec. 6] Some Hints towards Reconciliation 313 
 
 is a secondary question. Many reasons can be urged, 
 and have been urged, for the latter, but it must not 
 be assumed as certain, nor does it materially affect our 
 hypothesis. 
 
 What we have to insist on, if we would explain all 
 the evidence, is this. No matter who the Achseans 
 were, no matter when they came, or from which quarter 
 of the globe, they may have brought something of 
 their own, certain new ideas about the gods, and even 
 new burial-customs into Greece — ^but they did not 
 introduce a completely brand-new civilisation which 
 was utterly subversive of the glorious art and splendid 
 surroundings which they found awaiting them in their 
 new home. They may have come gradually, as it is 
 known that even the destro5dng Dorians did, so that 
 even their descent into Thessaly and Argolis may have 
 covered long periods of time. We know now that the 
 iEgean civilisation reaches to a very distant period, 
 for it can be traced back, with almost unbroken con- 
 tinuity, through the very beginnings of metal right 
 up to the neolithic man. No one ever dreamed of 
 attributing all the pre-historic civilisation of Greece 
 to the Achseans of the Trojan War and after. What 
 we maintain is, that they entered into, belonged to, 
 and essentially participated in that civilisation. And 
 their poets, even the original, creative school, depict a 
 state of things when that system which took long ages 
 — not merely centuries, but miUeniums — to evolve itself 
 had reached its zenith and was already, after the 
 fashion of human things, beginning to decay. There 
 was thus provided a tempting bait for the semi- 
 barbarous invader from the North who had at his 
 command new weapons, and who already possessed an 
 incipient civilisation which should finally, by fusion 
 and the renaissance of the old, produce what may be 
 conveniently called the Proto-Hellenic type. 
 
 There is no evidence, we repeat, that the Achsan 
 invasion, for such there probably must have been, 
 was of this revolutionary character. Take away from 
 the picture all the features which have been borrowed 
 from the Dorian invasion, give the post-Dorian poets 
 
314 Who were the Homeric People ? [chap. V 
 
 the credit of the references to iron and other post- 
 Dorian things, and nothing remains to disprove the view 
 of those who hold that Schliemann found — not indeed 
 the tomb of Agamemnon — but the tomb of that Homeric 
 life which Agamemnon represents to us. In the Myce- 
 naean remains we have uncovered before our eyes the 
 material form of that impulse of which we had already 
 met the spiritual in the Homeric page. We find there 
 is a kinship, and we delight to trace it, between the 
 first achievements of Greek art and of Greek literature. 
 In both cases there is more to come, maturer work, 
 further and more finished development ; but in neither 
 case do we lack aught of perfection ; for Homer and 
 Mycenaean art alike are delightful in what they do as 
 well as in what they promise, — they are both instinct 
 with life, with truth, and with beauty. 
 
 Professor Ridgeway has not, we believe, proved all 
 of his theory. Parts of it regarding the ethnic affini- 
 ties of the Achseans, the Northern source of iron in the 
 Mediterranean, the extended habitat of the Pelasgian 
 tribes, the Celtic origin of the round shield, and many 
 debatable questions, though they must have immense 
 interest for us modern students of Homer, -fet do not 
 directly concern us, and could easily be admitted 
 without gravely affecting our views. But, we repeat 
 it, these various hypotheses as treated by the learned 
 Professor have thrown the greatest light on the question 
 which does concern us, namely, that regarding the 
 identity of the Homeric people. It is a distinct gain 
 to the student to be put on his guard against taking 
 for granted a closer correspondence between our ex- 
 isting literature and archaeological remains than the 
 facts warrant, and to have his attention called to points 
 of divergence, which are important, if for nothing else 
 at least because they may yet serve to fix a closer date 
 for Homer than has been hitherto established. And 
 further than this we do not think the evidence will at 
 present carry us. 
 
[ 315 ] 
 
 Chapter VI 
 
 The Epic Art of Homer 
 
 Anything like criticisjn of Homeric art is difficult to 
 
 attempt. For though no one has been more written 
 
 about than Homer, no one seems so 
 
 Dlfflcnlty of this 1:horoughIy to elude the critic. Not that 
 
 part of OOP the analysis generally strikes one as 
 
 subject. being untrue, but it is so inadequate. 
 
 We are told that Homer has the rare 
 
 ^ft of combining simplicity with grandeur, the 
 
 Weal with the real. Or, again, that Homer is 
 
 Essentially rapid, clear in thought, plain in diction, and 
 
 noble. How true are these judgments — shall we say 
 
 truistic ? — but how little they enable us to discern 
 
 what is the true grandeur of Homer, the true idea, 
 
 . the true dearness, the true nobility ! 
 
 Other writers, again, take the characters of the poems, 
 Achilles, Hector, Odysseus, Nestor, Andromache, Priam, 
 and the rest, and subjecting their actions and history 
 to severe examination try to reach the secret of the 
 beauty and the majesty of the poems, and of the thral- 
 dom under which they have ever held the human mind. 
 Much of this sort of criticism may contain elements of 
 truth, and yet it is far from satisfying to the lover of 
 Homer. 
 
 Now if we discover the reason why literary criticism 
 fails to explain the fascination of Homer we may also 
 discover one reason for that fascination. In literature, 
 as in all art, there is a twofold element — the natural 
 and the acquired — or in other words what we call 
 ' genius ' and what we call ' technique.' Both these 
 elements are of great, though of course unequal, import- 
 ance in the production of masterpieces. Criticism 
 
/hi 
 
 316 Epic Art of Homer [chap. VI 
 
 deals with both, but necessarily it deals more with 
 that element which is the product of rule, or at 
 least of tradition, and which, just because it seems to 
 border upon the artificial lends itself somewhat readily 
 to an artificial analysis. 
 
 Now, without denying that there is a technique in 
 Homer, for the poetry represents a regular literiy 
 tradition and is far too elaborate to be regarded as 
 the production of mere untrained genius, yet iF is 
 evident that if we compare Homer with any of the 
 other great literatures of the West — whether Greek, 
 Roman, English, French, German, or Italian — we see 
 at once that it is far more primitive and, so to say, 
 u^rtificial thalTthe rest. 
 
 /Homer comes down to what is most elemental in 
 human nature, and this appeals to us all. The chief 
 interest in Homer (I do not refer to the 
 The character Odyssey) is round Achilles ; anyone who 
 
 of Achilles. cannot feel this may be capable of 
 criticising Honier, but need not be argued 
 with. The fate of Troy and the Trojans, of Hector 
 and Andromache, which many have strangely main- 
 tained is nearest to the poet's heart, is made 
 interesting, no doubt, but all this is mere by-play — a 
 foil to the real vital centre of the poems, which must 
 necessarily be the action and the character of its hero. 
 But what should we say of the character of Achilles ? 
 It has been subjected to the most minute discussion ; 
 everything imaginable has been said about it generally in 
 laudation, but sometimes otherwise. But in reality 
 is there what we can really call a character of Achilles 
 at all ? It may seem paradoxical, but I hold he has 
 no quality except one, and that is vvopev, the quality.. 
 /of TVT;^n]^];^g<^g ^ Cottipare Achilles, for instance, with the 
 / gr^ creation of Shakespeare, Coriolanus. In many 
 points he is very similar to Achilles. Both are 
 proud, passionate, generous, unyielding. But you feel 
 you could recognise Coriolanus if you should meet him 
 in a crowd. He has a personality, a particularity of 
 his own. Not so, perhaps, with the Homeric creation. 
 As the Zeus of Pheidias was simply Divinity in stone, 
 
Epic Art of Homer 
 
 ^17 
 is to*. 
 
 so Achilles is simiJly Humanity in verse. He __ 
 typical to be particulax. He is personal it is true- 
 because he is not vague or nebuious — but he is simply >. 
 the poet's conception of what Man (when stript of aU^^ 
 his vulgar limitations) must be. Being Man, he must ' 
 be a soldier ; and being a soldier he must be — Achilles ! 
 His creator portrayed him as he did, not because he 
 chose to do so, but because in his heart he knew that 
 he was so. Achilles was swift-footed as a matter of 
 course. His armour would not fit anyone else, hoV 
 could it ? He _ could not forgive, because, as in hi^ 
 armour, so in his hate there was no weak spot. It was 
 stronger than all the claims of his countrymen — it might 
 yield to naught but his love. This is man — elemental 
 man — in his naked intensity, at once strong and weak. 
 He has a touch of the Divinity in him, but he is human 
 in the last resort. We call Achilles super-human : that 
 is our littleness. Homer was greater — to him ^chilles 
 was only man, man after his own heart, man according 
 to his own intuition of him. 
 
 The essence of Homeric art is that its intuitions are 
 like that of a child. It sees everything in its own way, 
 it finds delight in it all, it has no more self-consciousness 
 than had Alice in Wonderland. She is delightful because 
 she is delighted at everything she sees, even if they are, 
 as we know, absurdities. The Homeric bard does not 
 deal in unrealities, but his mind is like that of Alice, 
 in that it is as limpid as the child's, and he takes the 
 . same simple pleasure in his vision that she did in hers. 
 
 This view of Homer is most applicable if we regard 
 
 the older of the two poems. In the Odyssey we are 
 
 conscious of a distinct advance upon the 
 
 The Iliad and IH^d towards elaboration of plot and 
 OdysBey a less fresh because more literary and 
 compared. self-conscious standpoint. If I may 
 be allowed to differ from many worthy 
 critics, I should say the Odyssey is less Homeric than 
 the Iliad. To me the greater part of it when com- 
 pared with the Iliad is mere Homer-and-water. I 
 should not wish to imply that the process of sophis- 
 tication is gone so far as to ruin the manner of 
 
3i8 Epic Art of Homer [chap. VI 
 
 the Odyssean bards. The Odyssey compared with any- 
 thing else but the Iliad, is Homeric enough.' 
 
 This, then, is what makes it difficult to subject Homer 
 especially the primitive Homer, to criticism. He is 
 native genius, pure and unadorned, too primitive to 
 come under the laws of art, though himself a law to 
 artists. It were hard to criticise a sweet innocent 
 child, frank, sportive, gay,, full of wonder and of love, 
 light as air, yet earnest all the while. You know he 
 must be educated, even though you fear he may lose 
 more than he gains. Anyhow, it were hard to criticise 
 him now. 
 
 But if it is nugatory to institute a comparison between 
 
 Homer and the literary epic of highly advanced and 
 
 cultured peoples, yet there is a term of 
 
 The Homeric comparison which it is worth our while 
 
 Poems to adopt. I mean the body of Greek 
 thoroughly literature in its later maturity. In 
 
 Greek. spirit rather than in form Hellenic 
 poetry, as every other branch of Hellenic 
 literature and art, derived its inspirations from Homer. 
 It could hardly be otherwise ; the fountain was inex- 
 haustible ; moreover, the Greeks went to school to 
 Homer to learn not merely culture, but history, patriot- 
 ism, and religion. Their minds were fed on Homer, 
 from the cradle up. Plato is saturated with Homer ; so 
 is iEschylus ; so is Pindar ; and of course Herodotus, 
 who used the later Homeric dialect almost unchanged 
 as his own medium. But if we leave externals to dive 
 down into the very heart of Greek culture, we can still 
 trace it back to Homer. Take Thucydides for instance, 
 perhaps the most truly representative of all Greek 
 writers. Externally his style is unlike nothing more 
 than Homeric poetry. It is complex, artificial, in- 
 volved, almost heavy. But what is the inner character 
 of his mind and wondrous art ? Surely his objectivity 
 of vision — I mean a clear, calm intuition of his subject ; 
 
 ' Of course ' de gustibus non est disputandum.' There is an 
 interesting passage in Kinglake's, Eothen (to which my attention 
 has been called by a friend) in which he speaks of the power of 
 the Iliad over his mind from earliest childhood. See chap. iv. init. 
 
Epic Art of Homer 319 
 
 a vivid imagination which while it hurries him along, 
 never disturbs him in his course ; a stately dignity, 
 which prevents his ever saying a word too much. He 
 prefers to put the facts before the reader and to leave 
 him to draw his own conclusions. We call this Greek 
 reserve — it is a true indication of strength. Strength 
 nobly wielded — this is the real root of Thucydides ; and 
 what is this but to say that he, if any Greek, is 
 Homeric ? 
 
 We know that Greek Drama was developed in great 
 part from the recitation of the Homeric poems, and it 
 goes without saying that these are in- 
 'I'^'ent'hi tensely dramatic. At every possible 
 * Itomer. t^^° the poet makes his characters speak 
 ^ for themselves, and generally with the 
 utmost animation. The ancients remarked this char- 
 acter of the poems, and Plato found fault with 
 it as a form of imitation and therefore of unreality. 
 Though he loved his Homer, and owed to him that 
 element of poetic inspiration which makes his philo- 
 sophy instinct with life and with interest for the 
 modern mind, yet such was his devotion to the true 
 and the absolute that he condemned Homer for his 
 dramatic gift, which to him was but the mimicking of 
 this world of shadows. He would, consequently, drive 
 Homer with the rest of the poets clean away from his 
 Ideal State — among other reasons because the poet 
 speaks not in his own person but in the person of the 
 various characters whom he introduces. 
 
 Aristotle, on the other hand, revolted from this 
 doctrine. To him all poetry and all art is essentially 
 the imitation of the real ; and in answer to Plato's 
 strictures he replies that Homer is to be ,praised for 
 many reasons but for nothing more than this, that he 
 knows his own place — for he says as little as possible 
 in his own person, since when he does so he is 
 not an Imitator ! And he points out not merely that 
 his characters speak for themselves but that they do 
 so with the utmost propriety. JVIr. Gladston&_re-marks 
 4hat no two characters_in.^Bojner ever repeat them- 
 „siJxis._j;achone^ and they are exceedingly numerous, is 
 
320 Epic Art of Homer [chap. VI 
 
 distinct, clear-cut, and drawn with a firm hand, and what 
 is most wonderful,, this is particularly true of the women. 
 
 In dealing with the dramatic character of the poemsT* 
 we may briefly refer to them as containing the germ 
 and more of the germ of Greek Oratory. In nothing is 
 Homer's power more evident than in the genuine simple 
 eloquence of his. speeches, and even of the shorter bnesi 
 There is no single branch of Oratory — pathos, inveclTve.J 
 sarcasm, exhortation, entreaty, of which he does not 
 possess the easy mastery; and here perhaps less than 
 elsewhere can we make a distinction between the 
 excellences of the two poems. 
 
 We may now descend to furth&r particulars of Homeric 
 
 art, and notice Homer's similes. He used them very 
 
 constantly, and his poetic power in 
 
 The Homeric using them is truly marvellous. We 
 BlmileB. notice in them the utmost range of 
 
 observation and of thought; they come 
 in at every turn, but especially when poetic emphasis 
 is necessary. Here, too, is seen the childlike simplicity 
 of treatment combined with masculine grasp of the 
 subject. It is remarkable (as bearing out our con- 
 tention that the Iliad is more intensely Homeric 
 than the Oiyssey) that the former, even in proportion 
 to its greater length, contains more than three times as 
 many similes than the latter. It is, however, evident 
 that the IliaA being a poem of war presents many 
 opportunities for, and with a view to variety perhaps 
 necessitates the use of, the simile. 
 
 It has frequently been remarked that Homer, like other 
 poets, embellishes his simile ; that is, he does not 
 'restrict his description of it to the points for which the 
 comparison is introduced. Pope expresses this by 
 saying that Homer does not ' scruple to play with the 
 circumstances.' On the other hand such embellishment 
 need not be merely ornamental or rhetorical ; for in order 
 to let the simile do its work of illustration, it must call 
 up before the mind a clear, vivid, and striking picture. 
 An example will make this clear. In the eleventh 
 IliaA,^ Odysseus in the battle is likened to a boar that 
 
 ' Line 416. 
 
Epic Art of Homer 321 
 
 comes forth from a deep lair surrounded by hounds and 
 young men in their bloom who rush round him, and he 
 is whetting his " white tusk between crooked jaws," 
 and the sound of gnashing tusks arises. Here the whet- 
 ting of the tusk appears to be wholly ornamental, and 
 yet who does not feel that it adds immensely to the 
 force and the effectiveness of the picture ? 
 
 There is even a strong tendency in Homer to accumu- 
 late similes in passages of special excitement and stress. 
 They come one after another in great profusion, some- 
 times one picture apparently suggesting another and 
 as it were dragging it after. There is a celebrated 
 passage in the second Iliad, just before the Catalogue 
 of Ships, in which the marshalling of the Greek hosts 
 is described by means of similes. Here there are five 
 comparisons one after another. Professor Jebb ^ points 
 out that each picture marks a distinct phase in the action ; 
 he seems, moreover, to imply that these phases are 
 indicated according to their proper development in order 
 of time. In a matter like this, one is very loth to differ 
 from a critic of such approved judgment and authority. 
 Still the suggestion appears to me to be too complicated 
 and artificial, and to have been introduced to destroy 
 an irresistible impression of redundancy and over- 
 elaboration. So that, ,while agreeing with Sir Richard 
 Jebb in his main contention, I am still of opinion that 
 this particular passage in our text is an instance of the 
 mingling of later with earlier work, and is not as it stands 
 an instance of true Homeric Art. 
 
 The blending by Homer of divine and human action 
 is very essentia to his art, although it has been strongly 
 objected to by modern critics writing 
 Snpernatnral from their own literary standpoint. ..In 
 inteFvention. the. ZWarf we find^at the niost crucial 
 "points of th.e. .action,, -divine „_ inter- 
 vention is invoked and without apparent necessity. 
 
 " ApoUo strikes Patroclus before he is slaia by Hector ; 
 
 and the latter in his. turn is 'tricked - by ^Athena. 
 
 who, taking the form of his comrade and brother, 
 
 ' Homer, p. 32. 
 
322 Epic Art of Homer [chap. VI 
 
 Deiphobus, makes him the easy prey pf the Greek 
 champion. Certainly from the modern point of view 
 this is in both cases to deprive the victor of his glory, 
 and to snatch from him the prize when it is in hi^ 
 very grasp. As an indignant French critic,^ following 
 Croiset, says, " The heroes become merely instruments! 
 in the hands of the gods as a lance is in the hands of ai 
 warrior. This intervention shocks us, and it is wanting!" 
 in literary taste, since it is inopportune and badly! 
 managed." And the conception of the gods formed 
 by the poet is objected to, as mechanical, uninteresting! 
 or vulgar. 
 
 From its own standpoint, we repeat, such criticism 
 is unanswerable. But what is the use of reading Homes 
 if we do not take the trouble to understand the poet's 
 standpoint ? In the view of the primitive bard it is; 
 precisely the supernatural which counts. It is because 
 his gods are very human that he depicts his heroes as 
 half-divine. Achilles was the son of a goddess — and 
 that another and a greater goddess should stand b;^ 
 him at a supreme moment, and use her own methods 
 in assisting him finally to dispose of his enemy, does 
 not detract from his prowess, but rather adds infinitely 
 to its dignity and importance. We are not to ask 
 (what is taken for granted) whether Achilles could 
 have slain Hector unaided ; what we are simply to 
 note is the fact that he does slay Hector and that '' 
 in doing so he is closely associated with divine agency. 
 ' We might maintain that this is a primitive way of ex- 
 pressing belief in Destiny, whether you call it Kismet 
 or Providence. But a truce to philosophy — it is . 
 enough to repeat that the supernatural is essential to , 
 Homer, and that therefore to try to separate the divine * 
 from the human betrays not merely want of imagina- 
 tion, but even a false standard. 
 
 It has been, not unreasonably, maintained that, 
 steeped as the Greeks were in the love of the Beautiful, 
 yet they did not appreciate, as we do, the aspects of 
 external nature and her scenic charms. To discuss 
 
 ' P. Sortais, I Has et IKade, p. 324-5. 
 
Epic Art of Homer 323 
 
 this]{question widely would be for us 
 Homer's love beside the mark, but we may consider 
 of nature. how far it is true that the Homeric 
 poems betray any insensibility to the 
 beauties of nature and of scenery of nature. We may 
 certainly admit that in Homer there is no conscious 
 effort to describe, much less to interpret, natural beauty, 
 nor could we justly expect to find in poetry which is 
 essentially^ spontaneous and objectiye^ the modern 
 tendency to search for and reflect upoiTthat which in 
 nature delights and refreshes us. But if Homer does 
 ■ not discuss the beautiful, he constantly seizes it. This 
 is merely to say that he is a poet ; and to no poet was 
 it given to have a finer intuition of nature, to describe 
 its beauty more unerringly or more unaffectedly. His 
 directness of speech is as marvellous as his clearness of 
 vision. He sees truth and beauty, and simply tells us 
 what he sees. In the compass of a single epithet he 
 can describe the morning laying hold of the sky by 
 streaking it with lines of crimson fire—" When the 
 ' rosy-fingered ' Dawn appeared." . . . The lights and 
 shadows seen through the clear Greek air on the rugged 
 slope of Olympus are vividly recalled by the phrase 
 ' many-folded ; ' the sea is word-photographed in aJl 
 its varying moods, from the shock of the tempest to 
 the ripple lapping the pebbles on the beach. The most 
 common epithet of the sea is perhaps ' boisterous ' 
 (7r6Kv<p\o[<rfioio 6akair<nii) ; it is also called ' violet-hued ' 
 and ' wine-dark,' and has an infinity of other epithets. 
 Homer's love of nature is, however, not manifested 
 chiefly in his gift of characterising its various aspects 
 by means of beautiful adjectives. He shows a deep 
 sympathy with nature in never shrinking from describ- 
 ing what is in itself repellant, yet with such simplicity 
 and truth that we are thrilled with the pathos without 
 feeling disgust at the realism of his battle scenes. 
 
 Lessing, whose theory of poetry is based very largely 
 on Homer, points out that in the poems lengthy word- 
 painting in the modern sense is generally avoided. 
 According to this great critic, while it is the function 
 of the pamter (or the sculptor), to pourtray beauty — it 
 
324 Epic Art of Homer [chap. VI 
 
 is that of the poet not to describe it merely but to make 
 us feel it by describing its effects.^ The pahnary instance 
 he gives of this principle is the scene in the Third Book ^ 
 of the Iliad, where Helen is introduced in the presence 
 of the Trojan chieftains who are constrained by her 
 beauty to speak forgivingly of the woe she is bringing on 
 them. But her beauty itself is summed up in a single 
 epithet 'white-armed.' 
 
 A few words may be added about Homer's love of 
 nature as she is manifested in animal life. It has been 
 frequently remarked that the bards display a surprising 
 knowledge of the habits and characters of all sorts of 
 brute creatures, from the lion and the panther and the 
 wild boar to the quieter and more domestic animals. 
 The same applies to all sorts of birds, and these as well 
 as the beasts form the great repertory for his ever- 
 varying and expressive similes. We may, perhaps, 
 account for this by the love of movement- and energy 
 which is one of the chief Homeric traits, and indeed in 
 the Iliad, where such similes most abound, such move- 
 ment is the very life of the poetry, springing as it does 
 directly out of the subject. But if Homer's mind and 
 art directly tend to the description of animal life, he 
 never forgets for an instant that human life is the real 
 theme of the epic bard. Consequently, we shall find 
 on examination of the Homeric portraiture of animals 
 that they are not found alone. Man is recognised as 
 their true master and usually finds himself associated 
 with them ; thus the poet, though he clearly revels in 
 drawing the pictures, uses them as backgrounds to lend 
 emphasis to his proper subject, which is man. 
 
 ' See Laocoon, chaps, xxi.-xxii. ^ II. 139-160. 
 
INDEX 
 
Index 
 
 Pago 
 Absence of Dorism in Homer 45 
 Achseans, advent of . .291 
 
 (the ' Fair-haired '), 
 
 Ridgeway on . . 296 
 Achilles, story of , 2, iii 
 
 character of . 114, 316 
 
 Achilleid, Grote's theory of 150 
 
 theory of . . 105 
 
 original limits of 107-8 
 
 Addition of lines to Vulgate 
 
 text . . .55 
 
 Aegean geography in Homer 176 
 Aegina . 252,270,281 
 
 Aeolians, the . . .130 
 
 character of . .122 
 
 AeoUc school of Homeric 
 
 poetry . . .130 
 — — school of lyric poetry 20 
 
 theory of Fick 41, 165 
 
 Aeolisms in Homer 41, 128, 165 
 Aeschines quoting Homer . 57 
 A ethiopis, the . .11 
 
 Agias of Troezen . .13 
 Alexandria, library of .32 
 
 fire at library of. 35, note 
 
 Alleged Hellenistic forms in 
 
 Homer . . .47 
 
 Allegorising school of inter- 
 preters . . .30 
 Allen and Sikes on the Ho- 
 meric Hymns . . 8 
 Allen, Mr. T. W. . . 37 
 
 on the Kourq, . 59, 60-1 
 
 Alphabet, the Attic . . 28 
 Alpine habitat ascribed to 
 
 Achseans . . 298 
 
 Alternative forms . .91 
 Ambrosianus Codex . -54 
 ' Analogies ' of Homeric 
 
 vocabulary . . 35 
 
 ' Anomalies ' of . 35 
 
 Anchors, stone . .235 
 
 Anthropomorphism in 
 
 Homer . . .197 
 
 Antimachus of Colophon 27, 
 
 63, 156 
 
 Page 
 Antiquity of Athenian Vul- 
 gate . . .63 
 dotSoi, mentioned by 
 
 Homer . 29, loi, 215 
 Aphrodite, cult of 5, 195, 212,291 
 Apollo, conception of .196 
 
 Apparel, male . . 227, 294 
 
 ■ female . 227, 294 
 
 Archaism (false) in Homer 47 
 Archilochus, date of . .44 
 
 Arctinus of Miletus . .12 
 
 Argive fortresses . . 247 
 
 Argive Plain, the cities of . 279 
 "Apyos lUXaoyiKov 3^ 
 
 „ 'AxaiKov 36 
 
 Aristarchian school 33 fi 
 
 signs . . .36 
 
 Aristarchus, forerunners of 33 
 linguistic labours of . 34 
 
 general criticism of . 36 
 
 his influence* on text 59 
 
 Aristeiai ... 4 
 
 Aristophanes of Byzantium 34 
 Aristotle on plot of Homeric 
 
 poems ... 6 
 
 on unity of epic . 106 
 
 quoting Homer 57-8 
 
 Armour, Homeric tjrpes of 158, 
 
 229, 293, 299, 308 
 Arnold, Matthew . 136,164 
 Arrangement into books . 38 
 Article (d, 17, to), 69, 73 
 
 Athena as patron-goddess 7, 195 
 Athetosis (obelising) . 58 
 
 Atlas, Pillars of . .171 
 
 Attic element in Homer . 45 
 
 Background (scenic) of Iliad 3 
 Bards, mention of 29, loi, 215 
 Batracho-myo-machia, the . 10 
 Battle of the Mice, the . 10 
 Beak-jug form of vase . 268 
 Bentley on composition of 
 
 Iliad . . .145 
 on the digamma 80 note 
 
328 
 
 Index 
 
 i'age 
 Berard, M. Victor . 177,188 
 
 on the PhcBnicians . 184 
 
 Birthplace of Homer, 83, 1 18, 142 
 Bithyiiians, the . -175 
 
 Bceotia in the Catalogue . 176 
 Books, arrangement of -38 
 Borrowings from earlier pas- 
 sages . . 101-3 
 
 Brooch, the, 227, 294, 300, 309 
 Bucolic diaeresis . 76, 95 
 
 Biigalkanne, see Stirrup- 
 vase. 
 Bunirbashi (Troad) . 172-3 
 Buttmann's Lexilogus 48-9 
 
 Caesura, in Homeric hexa- 
 meter . . -76 
 
 Trochaic . . yy 
 
 Calaurian League, The . 289 
 Cases, syntax of . -72 
 Castigator of Homer (Xeno- 
 
 phanes) . . -31 
 ' Catalogue,' the 112, 135, 176 
 Celestial counterplot of Iliad 5 
 Celtic theory, see Ridgeway. 
 XaX/tof, . . . 217 
 
 Champagne-glass type of 
 
 cylix . . . 268 
 
 Chariots . . .233 
 
 Chios, bard of . -83 
 
 XptcTOfiadeia ypafinaTiKfj, II, S3 
 Christ, criticism of . .162 
 
 Chronology, early Mycenaean, 
 
 see late Minoan. 
 
 later Mycenaean . 271 
 
 late Min6an . . 273 
 
 middle Min6an . 275 
 
 early Min6an . 276 
 
 Chthonian cults . .190 
 
 Cleisthenes of Sicyon . 24 
 
 Codex Venetus A . -53 
 
 Codices, Homeric . .52 
 
 Commodities, relative value 
 
 of ... 216 
 
 Confusion of words in Homer 48 
 Constructive school of criti- 
 cism in England . 150 
 Contamination, see post- 
 Dorian. 
 Contract forms of Verbs . 67 
 
 Contrast between Iliad and 
 
 Odyssey ... 5 
 Controversy, outlines of 
 
 Homeric . . -144 
 Corcyra, possible identifica- 
 tion of . . . 189 
 Cosmography, Homeric , 171 
 Council of Homeric chiefs . 208 
 Counterplot of Iliad, see Ce- 
 lestial. 
 Crasis . . .80 
 
 Cremation203, 286, 287, 299, 310 
 Crete, excavations in . 253 
 
 Homeric description 
 
 of . 181, 281 
 
 Cretan forms of writing . 257 
 Critical signs of Aristarchus 36 
 Croiset, criticism of . . 162 
 
 Cults, Chthonian . . 190 
 
 Cycle of Mythology . •. 15 
 
 Trojan . . .14 
 
 'Cyclic' poems, the 10, 134 
 
 connected with Iliad 11 
 
 with Odyssey 1 3 
 
 Cyclops, story of . .133 
 C3maethus of Chios 27, 166 
 Cypria, the . . .11 
 Cyprus, excavations in . 251 
 Homeric knowledge of 187 
 
 Dark Age, the . . 240 
 
 Date of our Homeric text . 64 
 
 of Iliad and Odyssey . 19 
 
 Dead, worship of the . 193 
 
 condition of the . 202 
 
 Decadence, period of .134 
 
 Demodocus, Lay of .135 
 
 Development of civiUsation 96 
 
 of Homeric language . 91 
 
 Diaeresis, the Bucolic 76, 95 
 Dialect, the Homeric . 40 
 Didymus, the Brazen . 37 
 Diet, articles of . . 226 
 Dieuchidas of Megara . 26 
 Difficulties of Mycenaean 
 
 theory of Homeric folk 287 
 Digamma, use of . .79 
 
 traces of . .43 
 
 development in use of 94 
 
 Discrepancies (minor) in 
 
 Homer . . .89 
 
Index 
 
 329 
 
 Pago 
 Distribution of Mycenaean 
 
 culture . . .278 
 Dodona, oracle of . 177,297 
 Dorians, the . . 181,3056 
 
 Dorism, , absence of in 
 
 Homer . . -45 
 
 Dorpfeld's excavations at 
 
 Troy . . . 246 
 
 Dramatic element in Homer 319 
 Drinking, habits of . .226 
 
 Duplication of incidents in 
 
 Odyssey . . .137 
 
 Editions of Homeric Scholia 56 
 Education, Homer in Greek 30 
 Egypt, mention of in Homer 187 
 Egjrptian influence in Aegean 
 
 art 
 papjn:! 
 
 23 
 
 2633 
 
 • 52 
 
 34 
 
 35,62 
 
 63 
 
 77 
 
 7S 
 
 252 
 
 285 
 
 75 
 
 93 
 
 156 
 
 98 
 
 13 
 
 fKdoaeis of Aristarchus 
 
 „ Kara iroKcis,' 
 
 „ Kar' av8pa 
 
 Elision and Hiatus . 
 Emphasis of repetition 
 Enkomi, excavations at 
 'Eiria-(j)vpia 
 Epithets, use of stock, 
 
 hieratic . 
 
 Epitome of Didymus 
 Ethical progress 
 Eugammon of Cyrene 
 Euhemerus and his school 
 
 of interpretation . 
 Eumaeus, scenes with 
 Euripides the Younger 
 Evans (Dr. Arthur J.), ex 
 cavations at Knossus . 
 Evolution of the Myth 
 
 of Iliad . 
 
 Expansions (the greater) of 
 
 Iliad 
 External evidence for per- 
 sonal Homer 
 
 False analogy in Verb-for- 
 mation 
 False archaisms 
 False-necked vases . 
 Fate, in relation to Zeus 
 Feminine caesura, the 77 note 
 
 31 
 161 
 
 63 
 
 253 ff 
 
 99 
 104 
 
 109 
 
 82 
 
 48 
 
 47 
 268 
 199 
 
 Page 
 
 Fibula, see Brooch. 
 
 Fick's Aeolic theory 41,165 
 
 Figures of speech, charac- 
 teristic . . -74 
 
 Final syllables, lengthening 
 
 of ... 78 
 
 Fragmentary codices and 
 
 papyri . . . 54 
 
 to 
 
 Geddes, contribution 
 
 Homeric criticism 
 on distinguishing 
 
 features of later work . 
 Gems, Mycenaean . 265, 
 Genealogies of kings 
 Geography (Homeric), Inner 
 
 and Outer 
 Gladstone on European 
 
 origin of poems 119, 
 Gladstone's criticism 
 Gradual composition of 
 
 poems 
 Grammar (Homeric) general 
 
 principles of 
 Greaves 229, 232, 285, 293 
 Grote's theory of the Iliad . 150 
 Plato . . .58 
 
 152 
 
 114 
 29s 
 208 
 
 170 
 
 127 
 
 164 
 
 87 
 66 
 
 Half-elision (so-called) . 77 
 Hallstatt, cemeteries of . 298 
 Harrison (Miss J. E.) on 
 
 Homeric religion 191, 290 
 Hector, character of . 113 
 
 Helbig on the Phoenicians . 1 84 
 Helen, Gladstone on char- 
 acter of . . -US 
 Helmets . . 232, 293 
 Hellenic literature influ- 
 enced by Homer . 318 
 Hellenistic, alleged forms in 
 
 Homer . . -47 
 Hellespontine area, the . 174 
 Herodian on prosody, etc. 38 n. 
 Herodotean forms in Homer 41 
 Herodotus, on Theogony . 201 
 
 on date of Homer 24 
 
 Hesiod, Works and Days . 2 1 
 
 date of . . .22 
 
 Hiatus, metrical . . 77 
 Hieratic epithets . . 93 
 
330 
 
 Index 
 
 Page 
 Hipparchtis, Tyrant of 
 
 Athens . . -25 
 Hipparchus, the, of Plato . 25 
 Hissarlik . . 172. 245 
 
 Historical basis of poems, 237 
 Homer in Greek education 30 
 'Homer ' what we mean by 1 39 
 
 two views of .141 
 
 Homeridse of Chios . . 28 
 
 Horse, its prominence in 
 
 Iliad . . .125 
 
 Hospitality, law of . .210 
 Human sacrifice . -193 
 Humorous pieces . . 9 
 ' Hymns,' the Homeric 8, 29, 95 
 
 Ideal State of Plato . 32 
 
 Iliad, original scope of .104 
 Imports of Phoenicians 185 fi 
 Industrial organisation . 214 
 Infinitive for imperative . 71 
 Inflexional forms (iEolic) . 42 
 Influence of Aristarchus on 
 
 Homeric text . ■ 59 fi 
 
 Internal evidence for unity 
 
 of authorship . 85-6 
 
 Interpolations (lesser) of 
 
 Iliad . . .112 
 
 Ion, Plato's . . .29 
 Ionia, school of elegiac 
 
 poetry , . 20, 167 
 
 Ionian origin of part of 
 
 poems . . .126 
 lonians, character of . 122 
 
 Ionic dialect of Homer . 41 
 Iron in Homer 218, 292, 299,306 
 Ithaca . .179. 280 
 
 Jebb, on expansions of 
 
 Iliad . no, 120, 155 
 on Kirchhofi's theory i6i 
 
 Keftians . 273, 276-7 
 
 Keller's Homeric Society 205 
 Kirchhoff on the Odyssey 159,163 
 Knossus, excavations at 254 ff 
 Koivr), the . , 60-1-2 
 
 Page 
 Labialisation in Greek 300, 312 
 Land tenure . . . 209 
 ' Layof Demodocus ' . 135 
 
 Leaf (Walter) theory of the 
 
 Iliad . . . 154 
 
 Legendary, or Dark Age . 240 
 Length by position (with 
 
 digamma) . . 79 
 
 Lengthening of final syllables 78 
 Lesches of Mitylene . .12 
 Lessing's theory of poetry . 323 
 Lion-gate at Mycenae . 249 
 Liquids (lengthening before) 78 
 Little Iliad, the . 11,12, 14 
 
 Locrians, geographical posi- 
 tion of . . . 126 
 Lndwich, criticism of -58 
 
 Lycurgus . . .24 
 
 MSS. of Iliad and Odyssey , $2 
 Marginal Scholia . 52, 56 
 Margites, the . . 9 
 
 Marriage laws . . .212 
 Material civilisation, pro- 
 gress of . . . 100 
 Matriarchal period, possible 
 
 survivals of . .194 
 Miyapov (or Great-Hall) 222, 
 262, 282 
 Mediaeval MSS. . . 52 
 
 Mediterranean, Western 188 9 
 Medtnet Haboo . . 294 
 
 Melos, see Phylakopi. 
 Metals, knowledge of .217 
 
 Metal-work 218, 264, 266, 284 
 Metre, notes on . 76-9 
 
 Metrical hiatus . . jy 
 
 necessity . . 95 note 
 
 Minoan civilisation . . 256 
 pottery (polychrome) 
 
 256, 262 
 Money, substitues for . 216 
 Monro (Dr.) on Aeolisms in 
 
 Homer . . .129 
 Moods, syntax of . .71 
 Mycenae . 176, 245, 278 
 
 Mycenaean culture, how far 
 
 indigenous . . 263 
 
 distribution of , 278 ff 
 
 Myomachia, the . . 10 
 
Index 
 
 331 
 
 Page 
 Myths, development of i8, 
 
 99. 201 
 Mythology, Homer's influ- 
 ence on . . . 201 
 
 Nature, Homer's love of . 323 
 Nature cults, traces of . 192 
 Nausicaa . . 7,211 
 
 Navigation . . .234 
 
 Nekuia, the . . 133,138 
 Nestor's cup . . . 285 
 
 New-Ionic forms . 45, 62 
 Nicanor on punctuation, 38 note 
 Nitzsch, Wilhelm . .148 
 Nosioi, the . 13, 17, 135 
 
 Nostos, germ of Odyssey . 160 
 Noun-formation . . 68 
 
 Obelus, the . . 37, 58 
 Observance of digamma 79, 80 
 Ocean, Homeric view of .171 
 Odysseus, prominence of in 
 
 paitsoi Iliad . 115,122 
 Odyssey, composite nature 
 
 of . . .132 
 
 Old-Ionic dialect . . 41 
 Olympus, Mount . . 97 
 
 —^position of . .124 
 
 Olympianism, cults of . 191, 
 194, 288, 310 
 'Onripos (meaning of name) . 84 
 Onomacritus of Athens . 26 
 Orchomenus, importance 
 
 of . . . 176, 280 
 
 tholos-tomb of . . 264 
 
 Optative, use of . -71 
 
 Palace, the Homeric 22 1 , 262, 282 
 Paley (Professor), paradox 
 
 of ... 154 
 
 Panathenjea, Homenc reci- 
 tations at the . .27 
 Panoply, the Homeric 229, 293 
 Papyri, Homeric . . 54 
 Parataxis . . .74 
 Particles, Homeric use of . 73 
 Paradox of Zenon . 82 note 
 na6t)TtKJi (of Iliad) . . 6 
 nddos in Iliad and Odyssey 6 
 Patriarchal state of society 207 
 
 312 
 261 
 
 Page 
 Pause in Homeric verse . 76 
 Peisistratus, alleged recen 
 
 sion of Homer 25, 64, 147 
 Peloponnese, the . . 1 77 
 Peoples of the Sea . . 294 
 Pergamum, Homeric school 
 
 of ... 36 
 
 Periphrasis in Homer . 75 
 
 Pelasgians (in Crete) . .181 
 Pelopidae, the . .312 
 
 Phaeacia . . .189 
 
 Phaeacians, the . .186 
 
 Phcenicians 182 fi, 205, 214, 273 
 
 imports of . .184 
 
 Physical characteristics of 
 
 Achaeans . 296, 229, 
 Phylakopi, excavations at 
 Pinax (Rhodian) in British 
 
 Museum . . 138, 158 
 Pindar on the ' H5rmns ' . 8 
 Plato's attitude towards 
 
 Homer . 31, 200, 319 
 
 quotations of Homer 57 
 
 Plot of Iliad ... 3 
 Ilo\v(TTi)(Os (sK^otrts), • 59 
 
 Popularity of Iliad in Hel- 
 lenistic period . 5i, 55 
 Poseidon's hostility to 
 
 Odysseus , . 7, 291 
 
 cult of . 194, 289 
 
 Post-Dorian contamination 
 Pottery, see Vases 
 Pre-Alexandrian canon 
 Preludes (the ' Hymns ') . 
 Priesthood . 207,215 
 Primitive cults in Homer . 
 Proclus, author of XprjToiia6eia 
 
 11. 53 
 Prolegomena of Wolf . .144 
 Prolegomena to Greek Reli- 
 gion . . 191,290 
 Pronoun-forms . . .70 
 npooifua (the ' Hymns ') . 8 
 Pseudo-archaisms . 47, 157 
 Pylus, site of . . .177 
 
 Quotations from Homer . 52 
 
 Raft of Odysseus . .236 
 
 305 
 
 61 
 
 8 
 
 I 297 
 
 190 
 
332 
 
 Index 
 
 Page 
 Rapidity as test of primitive 
 
 style . . .136 
 
 Recognition scene . .160 
 'Redactions' of Odyssey 135, 
 160, 163 
 Reichel's theory . 293, 308 
 Religious ideals, develop- 
 ment of . 97, 194, 201 
 
 Rhapsodes . . . 28 fi 
 Rhapsodising of Homer . 30 
 Rhodian Pinax . 138, 158 
 
 Ridgeway (Professor), Celtic 
 
 theory of, 295, 305, 312, 314 
 on land tenure . 209 
 
 II 
 
 193 
 202 
 
 174 
 
 157 
 244 
 
 Sach of Troy, the 
 Sacrifice, human 
 
 ceremonial of 
 
 Samothrace and the Troad 
 Sayce (Professor) on Ho- 
 meric forms . 41, 
 Schliemann, Heinrich 
 Schnabelkanne, see Beak-jug. 
 Scholia, Homeric . 56, 144 
 Schools (two) of Homeric 
 
 epic 119 £f, 128, 140, 307 
 (TTjiieia of Aristarchus . 36 
 
 Shaft-graves of Mycenas . 350 
 Shield, the Homeric 229 ff, 
 292, 293, 299 
 Ship, the Homeric . . 234 
 StSdwoi Svbpes . . .186 
 
 Simile, the Homeric . .320 
 
 Sittl on .^oUc forms . 42 
 
 on the digamma . 44 
 
 Slavery . . .213 
 
 Smyrna . . 85, 131 
 
 Solon, connection with 
 
 poems 
 Soothsayers 
 Sparta 
 
 Spondaic verses 
 Stasinus of Cyprus . 
 aTTJKai at Mycenje 250. 285 
 Stereotyped expressions . 74 
 Stirrup-vase (Bugelkanne) 268, 
 27I1 273, 281 
 Stock epithets , . -75 
 
 Subject, change of in clauses 74 
 Subjunctive (with av otKtv) 71 
 
 25 
 
 215 
 
 176 
 
 77 
 
 12 
 
 286 
 
 Supernatural intervention . 
 
 Surgical skill . 
 
 Synizesis 
 
 S3mtactical development 93 
 
 Syntax of Cases 
 
 of Moods . 
 
 Page 
 
 321 
 
 21S 
 
 80 
 
 . "3 
 
 72 
 
 71 
 
 Tabular scheme of books of 
 
 Iliad . . .Ill 
 
 Odyssey . 163 
 
 Talent, the Homeric . . 216 
 
 Telegony, the . . -13 
 
 Telemachy, the . -159 
 
 Text, our Homeric . 51 
 
 date of . . .64 
 
 authorities for . .52 
 
 Textual criticism, founda- 
 tion of . . • . 32 
 Thebais, the . 24 (note) 27 
 Qeios, as epithet of heroes . 115 
 Theognis . . . -30 
 Theogony, Homer's influ- 
 ence on . . . 201 
 Thessalian origin oiAchilleid 123 
 Thessaly, character of its 
 
 scenery , . .125 
 
 Thirlwall on Homer's birth- 
 place . . .118 
 Thdkis- tombs . . 250-1 
 Thrace, Homeric knowledge 
 
 of . . 175, 282 
 
 Threshblds in Homeric 
 
 Palace . . . 224 
 Thucydides as interpreter . 31 
 Tiryns . . 248, 283 
 
 Townley Codex of Iliad . 54 
 Tradition of ' Homer ' 82, 142 
 Transmission of poems . 146 
 Triad (great) of divinities . 195 
 Troad, topography of 171, 281 
 Trochaic cjesura, the . 77 
 
 Trojan cycle . . .14 
 
 Troy, excavations at . 245 
 
 Tyre (not mentioned in 
 
 poems) . . .185 
 
 Vaphio gold cups . . ■ 266 
 
 Vase-painting, arguments_i;5. jr 
 
 from . . .158 
 
 Vases, Mycenaean . . 267 
 
Index 
 
 3J3 
 
 Venetus A, Codex 
 Verb-formation 
 Verse (Homeric) rules of . 
 Villoison's edition Codex A 
 Violations of digamma 
 Vocabulary (Homeric) 
 Vocalization of Digamma . 
 Vowel quantity 
 
 substitution (in Aeolic) 
 
 Vulgate (Athenian), anti- 
 quity of . 
 
 Page Page 
 
 53 Western Mediterranean, the i88 
 
 70 Wolf's Prolegomena . . 144 
 
 76 if conservative ten- 
 
 53 dencies . . .145 
 
 79 Wolfian school of criticism . 146 
 
 75 Women, position of . .211 
 
 43 quarters of, 223,256,283 
 
 78 apparel of . 228, 294 
 
 42 Wood (Robert) on Homer . 145 
 
 Works and Days of Hesiod . 21 
 
 63 Writing, mention of, . 216 
 
 Warr (Professor) on Aeolic 
 
 forms . . -45 
 
 Welckler on the cycle . 14 
 West wind, criterion of 
 
 locality . . .127 
 
 Xenophanes of Colophon . 31 
 
 Zeus, an elemental god 97, 198 
 
 cult of . . 292, 297 
 
 supremacy of . 198, 289 
 
 Printed by Browne And Nolan, Ltd., Dublin.