l^>^':<;^:.g'^:;;^^;ii?; :7--^Zr^^Ssiz-!^^^. ^/ 3 7 7 CORNELL UNIVERSITY LIBRARY DATE DUE 3 1924 026 671 069 Cornell University Library The original of tiiis book is in tine Cornell University Library. There are no known copyright restrictions in the United States on the use of the text. http://www.archive.org/details/cu31924026671069 4 031 UNP'^'RSiTY: y OXFORD : BY E. PICKARD HALL, M,A., AND J. H, STACY, Printers to the University. PREFACE. The following book contains the results of an ex- tensive investigation into the two great Homeric poems, the object being to determine, if possible, from the internal evidence alone, their mutual relation and connection. How far I may have succeeded in throwing light on the Homeric question, or in solving the problem in all its parts and intricacies, others must determine ; but I may claim the credit of having faced the question fairly, and of having contributed materials that may be instrumental towards its ulti- mate decision. In such a question, concerning poems of so high antiquity and such remoteness, if not mysteriousness, of origin, the solution must always remain hypo- thetical ^ but the hypothesis that fits the great facts and explains the largest number of phenomena is the one that possesses the best title to acceptance. The phenomena to which I appeal, many of them now for the first time disclosed, throw considerable light on the question, and whatever may be the fate of my hypothesis, the facts on which it is ' ' Die Losung der Homerischen Frage kann immer nur eine hypothetische seyn. Diejenige Hypothese kommt aber der Wahrheit am nachsten, die die meisten Schwierigkeiten beseitigt und die wenigsten Bedenken gegen sjch hat.' L. Fried- lander, Homerische Kritik, p. 71. iv PREFACE. founded will require account to be taken of them in any subsequent criticism of the Homeric Question. As the result of the investigation, I have been led, by the pure force of the evidence, and not at all in accordance with my own early prepossessions, to accept Mr. Grote's view regarding the composite struc- ture of the Iliad as the only one scientifically tenable. That there is a double authorship in that poem, an Achilleid within the Iliad, forming its kernel, and by a different author from that of the surrounding integu- menta, I believe the facts not only indicate but demon- strate, and I may claim to have brought out new confirmations of the soundness of Mr. Grote's views and of the acuteness of his critical divination ^. In pursuing the subject beyond the initial stage at which it was left by Mr. Grote, I have found a close connection to subsist between the Odyssey and the non- Achillean books of the Iliad, and a remarkable convergence of the evidence to associate both of these with the one personal Homer of tradition. If I have succeeded in my proof, the result is not only that a Homer is revealed to us with his personal surroundings more clearly traced out than has till now ^ Dr. J. W. Donaldson, in his notes to K. O. Miiller's 'History of Greek Literature,' claims the duplex-structure-theory as being properly and originally that of Karl O. Miiller, and gives his own adhesion to ' Mr. Grote's modification of the views of Miiller ' in the following words : — ' Midler's distinction between the two parts of the Iliad, namely, an original part referring mainly to Achilles and a. superinduced part embracing the exploits of the other heroes and the general conduct of the war, has been enforced and extended by Mr. Grote, in his History of Greece, vol. ii. ch. xxi. He has shown that the Iliad was originally an Achilleis built on a narrower plan, and then enlarged ; that from the second book to the seventh Achilles is scarcely alluded to ; that the Greeks not only do not miss his absence, but that Diomedes is exalted to a pitch of glory, in his contests with the gods, which Achilles never obtains, and is even placed above Achilles by the Trojan Helenus; consequently that the primitive Achilleis included only Books I, VIII, XI-XXII.' PREFACE. V been possible, but that glimpses are obtained into an earlier period of Poetry, and we can see beyond Homer into a Prehomeric age. Considerable light has been found to be thrown on critical questions as to disputed readings in the Homeric text. These investigations, however, belong rather to the department of linguistica, and will fall to be treated afterwards in a separate work as to the language of the Homeric poems. A considerable amount of confirmatory evidence pointing to the same conclusion is obtainable from this source, such as the remarkable distribution of the ^olic Siairpvaiou, found only in the older area, the Achilleid, and there seven- times ; but the bulk of the notable phenomena under this department must be in the meantime reserved. The argument, as developed, is of course a cumu- lative argument. Its force depends not on one or two or several coincidences, which might be set aside as accidents, but upon the united force and weight of those that are far reaching, comprehensive, and de- cisive. Those that seem to me to carry most weight, and to deserve most attention, are the following : — 1. The dual representation of Ulysses. 2. The dual representation of Hector. 3. The dual representation of Helen. 4. The difference as to hieratic Epithets ^. 5. The contrast as to ' Boasting over the Dead.' 6. The contrast as to Olympus. 7. The contrast as to local mint-marks. ' Some of my conclusions, particularly on this head, as acknowledged on p. 148, had been already reached on independent investigation by Mr. Fleay. The basis on which he proceeded was an examination of the treatment of certain epithets such as KevK(ii\evos, 'Apyvpdro^os, and, though the basis was narrow, his conclusion appears to have been practically on the same lines. vi PREFACE. 8. The presence of the Ionian local mint-marks in one continuous series throughout the non- Achillean books, and their limitation to that area of the Iliad. 9. The consonance of Ethical purpose discernible in the Odyssey, discernible also as a leading element in the structure of the non-Achillean books of the Iliad. In some of the statistical enumerations, it is possible that there may not in every instance be absolute accuracy of summation, owing perhaps to various readings or some clerical error on my part of omission or otherwise. Of such inaccuracies, however, I do not think the number is large, and although another inves- tigator might produce some variation in the numerical detail, I do not believe that, proceeding on the same general lines, he could produce any alteration in the general result. The evidence is drawn from too many and varied sources, and the convergence of proof advances upon too many lines to admit of any ma- terial departure from the belief that a harmonising theory which promises to explain the most important facts has been attained. In making this statement, I by no means wish to affirm that the proof is always equally strong or even always, apart from concurring circumstances, sufficient for a positive verdict. Moreover, if criticism should hereafter succeed in proving K or Book Ten of the Iliad to be from a later author, and not truly Homeric, as George Curtius, on philological grounds, seems inclined to pronounce it, the argument would not suffer in its main lines, even after such an amputation PREFACE. vii of K from the corpus of the Iliad, although it might lose some important illustrations. To prevent misunderstanding, it may be proper to observe that I have used the word Canto or Book to denote such and such sections of the Iliad, merely for convenience. No implication is thereby intended that the poet or poets composed in cantos or mapped out his or their work into sections, much less numerical sections. On the contrary, he or they simply com- posed poetic narratives more or less extensive of con- tinuous sequence, and the arrangement into Books or Cantos was altogether an affair of the literary and critical time. At the same time the poet or poets have left occasional traces of resting-places or pauses which are adopted by the Grammarians as natural signs of division and mark off the separate Cantos *. I have not thought it necessary to enter on an examination of the Homerica Minora, such as the Hymns and the sporadic fragments. These lie out- side the proper domain of the Homeric question, for it is in an examination of the two Epics themselves that the secret of their origin must be found, if it is found at all. Among many subsidia that I have found useful, I wish to particularise the very valuable Concordance to the Iliad by Mr. Prendergast, a work which, along with old Seber's ' Index Homericus,' has proved of much service in verifying rapidly and surely the various statistical enumerations. It is gratifying to think that, under the liberality of the Clarendon Press, * The opening lines of many Books frequently contain a retrospective ' Thus,' and so indicate continuation and the resumption of a former thread of narration. Compare the openings of Iliad H, I, M, n, 2, T, X, 'P, and in Odyssey, f, t], v. vlii PREFACE. we may look forward to possessing a similar Con- cordance to the Odyssey and the Minora, on the same sumptuous scale, by Dr. Henry Dunbar, who has undertaken the laborious but most meritorious task. Regarding the orthography of Greek proper names, I have not thought it incumbent on me to follow the modern fashion of attempting what by the way it is impossible to effect completely, entire Hellenising of them. I have done so only where historical and scientific accuracy requires it, as, e. g. in Mythological names, where the attributes and associations of Greek Gods might be obscured or inadequately represented by giving them under Roman appellations. In some cases, such as Zeus and yove, where the words and ideas are fundamentally the same, this is quite legitimate, as it is certainly often convenient to use yove for Zeus ; but in the case of such as Here com- pared with ytmo and of Athene compared with Minerva, where the names are etymologically distinct, it is better to maintain a distinction. There is also an advantage in retaining the Greek ending in what are Greek Geographical names, such as Samos, unless, like Cyprus, the word has been in its Latin form already naturalised. But as to deserting old familiar names like Ajax or Ulysses to substitute Aias and Odusseus, it appears to me that nothing is to be gained by finical precision of this sort. For in the first place it disturbs old associations, and in the next place the object aimed at cannot be carried out con- sistently. To write, for example, Klutaimnestra for the old Clytemnestra, is doubtful spelling, for our ti does not answer precisely to the Greek f, and though il may come nearer to it, the Germanising which PREFACE. ix would thence result would be intolerable, whereas there is no harm in our retaining the y of the Romans, which was the vowel with which the Ro- mans, in introducing the heroine first to our acquain- tance, thought proper to spell her name. Besides, where is this to end ? If we are to say Klutaim- nestra, should we not go on to change mythes into muthes, and, instead of Hades, are we to confuse eyes and ears by Haides ("/4i(S?;y), and how are we to deal with other ' iotas subscript,' and are we to speak no longer of Homer and Athens, as Shak- spere, Milton, Wordsworth, Byron spoke, but only of Homeros and Athenai ? As it would be pedantic cruelty to condemn us, when dealing with Italian Literature, to speak only of Firenze, or Venezia, or Roma, instead of Florence, Venice, Rome, so I think it would be a confession that Greek Literature was a mere exotic in our soil, if it were to be severed, as by such a process it would virtually be severed, from the roots which it has already struck deep and abundant in our country's literature. Acknowledgments are specially due to my friend and former pupil Mr. Robert A. Neil, Fellow of Pem- broke College, Cambridge, for the care and courtesy with which he has looked over the sheets while the book was passing through the Press. To the Rev. Professor Wm. Robertson Smith I am also indebted for valuable elucidations and corroborations from the Semitic area of thought. Mr. Henry Stephen, M.A., has likewise rendered important service in drawing up the Index of the book. Invernauld, Sutherland, May 1th, 1878. CONTENTS. CHAPTER I. Introductory. SECTION X. Statement of Subject . . . . . , 2. The two Epics of Greece compared with other Epics 3. Traditional view as to Origin— Schools of Alexandria and Per- gamus ........ / 4. Separatist School or Ancient Chorizontes .... /' 5- 6. 7- 8. 9- 10. II. 12. 13- 14. 15. 16. 17- 18. 19. 20. ^/ CHAPTER II. The ■Wolflan Theory. Epoch-making position of Wolf Strength of Wolfian Theory . Reception in Germany Services of Wolf to Homerology Failure to carry out dissection into Lays Dissection attempted by Lachmann . Reaction under Nitzsch and O. Miiller Attitude of Gbthe .... Prevalence of Wolfian Theory in Germany . Discordance of its champions Drawn battle between Traditionalists and Wolfians Wolfian Theory in France Wolfian Theory in Britain Mediating position of Grote . Chorizontes reappearing in England . Frederick A. Paley's Theory . PAGE 9 10 II II 12 13 13 14 15 15 16 17 18 CHAPTER III. A ' Via Media.' 2 1 . Present position of the Question .... 22. Bergk's attempt at a ' Via Media ' .... 23. His difficulty as to accounting for the Odyssey 24. Weakness of Chorizontic position in the same respect 25. Asiatic origin of the two Poems, when first historically discernible 26. Peloponnesian or European origin not tenable 27. Roots of Greek Mythology and Poetry in Thessaly . 28. Probability of a basis in older poems 20 21 21 22 23 24 25 26 xii CONTENTS. CHAPTER IV. The Two Epics compared. SECTION 29. Anteriority of Iliad in whole or in part to the Odyssey 30. Unity of Odyssey ...... 31. Apparent flaws in its perfect unity 32. Conclusion as to its unity . . . • • 33. Complexity of Iliad ....•• 34. Contrast with Odyssey which acknowledges a single Hero . 35. Complexity of Iliad with variety of centre . 36. „ „ from repeated Invocations of the Muse 37. „ „ beyond the limits of its Proem . 38. „ „ with woes to Trojans superinduced 39. „ „ with glory to Diomed overpassing Achilles 40. „ „ through enlargement of ground-plan 41. Consequent difficulty felt by critics as to the plan of the Iliad 42. Mure's statement of its Scheme — Schubarth's Theory CHAPTER VII. Criterion as to Geographical Knowledge. 57. Cognation of Odyssey with the younger series of the Books of the Iliad. — Characteristics of the Odyssey 58. Geographical horizon of the Odyssey 69. Same geographical horizon in the Ulyssean Cantos . 60. Sidon and Egyptian Thebes familiar in both 61. Attitude same to outer nations 62. Aggregation begun in both into Northern and Southern Hellenic PACE 28 29 3' 33 33 34 35 36 36 38 39 4' 42 44 CHAPTER V. Outline of New Grouping. 43. Double stream or series in the Books of the Iliad . . .46 44. Author of one series identical with author of the Odyssey . . 47 45. AlcEeus's Epigram implies dual subject in Iliad . . .48 46. First preliminary objection considered — Importance affirmed of the Odyssey as critical starting-point . . . .49 47". Second preliminary objection considered — Indication of a safer Chorizontic doctrine than the old one . . .51 CHAPTER VI. Failure of old Chorizontic Grouping. 8, 49. Examples of futility in linguistic arguments of Chorizontes . . 52 50. Example of futility in mythologic argument — Charis and Aphrodite 54 51. Example of futility in mythologic argument — Iris and Hermes 52. Hermes as messenger .... 63. Iris as messenger ..... 54. Limitation as to Iris who is chiefly visible messenger 55. Employment of Hermes, mainly as invisible messenger 56. Iris and Hermes as allied Powers 65 56 56 58 58 59 61 62 63 65 66 groups 6^ 63. Narrowness of horizon of Achilleid 69 CONTENTS. CHAPTER VIII. Criterion as to Humour and Pathos. SECTION 64. Plaintiveness and Humour — where diffused . 65. Localisation of expressions signifying the ' luxury of grief ' 66. Humour — Traces of . . . 67. Absence of Humour or Pathos in the Achilleid XIU PAGE 73 74 CHAPTER IX. Criterion as to Conjugal Honour and Aflfeetion. 68. Elements in Odyssey as to Domestic Affections 69. Parallel elements in TJlyssean Books of Iliad 70. Absence of such elements in Achilleid 71. 'EffTia — where prominent ? 72. Conclusion as to Domesiica . 77 78 79 79 80 CHAPTER X. Ulysses. 73 Ulysses the type of spirit and intelligence 74 Ulysses in Iliad B . 75 Ulysses in Iliad V 76 Ulysses in Iliad A . 77 Ulysses in Iliad E, Z, H 78 Ulysses in Iliad I, K 79 Ulysses in Iliad V, n. 80 Ulysses in Iliad © (Achillean) 81. Ulysses in other Achillean Books 81 82 8s 86 87 90 92 93 94 CHAPTER XL Latent Sympathies and Antipathies. 82. Latent rivalry between North and South 83. Pindar's attitude to Ulysses .... 84. Achilles — Double aspect of 85. Agamemnon — Double aspect of . 86. Hector — Double aspect of . 87. Helen — Double aspect of . 88. Menestheus and the Athenians — Double aspect of . 89. Ajax the Less — Double aspect of . 90. Teucer — Double aspect of . 91. Ajax Telamonius — Double aspect of — General remarks 92. Ajax Telamonius in Achilleid 93. Ajax Telamonius in Ulyssean cantos 94. Ajax Telamonius — Was he cousin of Achilles ? 95. Ajax Telamonius — Pindar's attitude towards him 96. Minor Personages. Divergence regarding — (i) Panthoidse, (2) Polydamas, (3) Helenus, (4) Kebriones, (5) Akamas, (6) Pseonians, (7) Locrians, (8) Mekisteus, (9) Cassandra, (10) Eury- bates, (11) Eurymedon, (12) Paris . . . . 100 lOI i°3 104 108 III III "3 113 115 116 118 120 XIV CONTENTS. CHAPTER XII. Archaica. — Beligion and Mythology. SECTION 97. General remarks on the subject of .drcAa/ca . 98. Fields of investigation for such phenomena . 99. Oldest Traditions chiefly in Achilleid . . ■ ■ loo-i. Olympian Dynasty under two representations 102. Zeus under two aspects— Emergence of ethical adjuncts — Apollo and Artemis under two aspects . . • 103. Life of the gods and their worship— Aspects of (a) Blood and Ichor, (/3) Athene, (7) Aphrodite, (5) Dionysus, («) Demeter,— The World of Shades . . ... 104. Rise of Festivals and Votive Offerings 105-6. Hieratic Words and Epithets undergoing Transformation . PAGE 126 129 129 130 134 140 143 144 CHAPTER XIII. Archaioa. — Psyoliology and Bthies. 107. Psychology — Divergence in . 108. Ethical Feeling — Divergence in 109. Contrast as to Boasting over the Dead no. Contrast as to Vociferation . 149 155 157 III 112 "3 114, 115 116 117 118 119 120. 121 CHAPTER XIV. Manners and Customs and Social Appliances. General Remarks — A. Architecture .... B. House Furniture and Dress .... C. General Artistic Advancement, (i) Colour, (2) Material — Ivory D. Amusements and Pastimes E. Comfort and Diet F. Hospitality G. Arts and Inventions H. Labour and Commerce I. Rites and Formalities K. Marriage . L. Modes of Thought and Expression 160 163 166 170 170 172 174 183 185 189 197 CHAPTER XV. Personal Idiosyncrasies. — Attitude to the Horse. 122. General remarks as to the Horse in Achilleid 123. Minor facts as to Horse in Achilleid 124. The Horse in Ulyssean cantos 125. The Horse in relation to Ulysses 126. The Horse in the Odyssey . 126*. 'Ayipaxos — Naming of Steeds 205 209 210 212 214 216 127. 128. CHAPTER XVI. Personal Idiosyncrasies. — Attitude to the Dog. General remarks as to the Dog .... Aspect of Dog in the Achilleid .... 219 220 CONTENTS. XV SECTION pj^^E 1 29. Shades on the Dog common to all sections of the Poems . 221 130. Kindly touches as to the Dog in the Odyssey . . .223 131. Minor evidences of contrast . . . . . -225 132. Ulyssean cantos in same vein with the Odyssey . . .236 CHAPTER XVII. Spilogue as to Horse and Dog. 133. Mfrn'ma as to the Horse . . . . . .229 134. Minima as to the Dog . . . . . .232 135- General conclusion under this branch of inquiry . . .234 CHAPTER XVIII. Local Mint-marks. — Acliilleid. 136. Under a dual authorship — Which is the Homer of Tradition ? . 236 137. Local evidence desiderated — Description of the kind of . .237 138-9. Ancient belief as to Homer's locality . . . 239 140. A Thessalian theory ...... 241 141. Probable historical nucleus, with Thessalian hero as centre . 242 142. Familiarity shown in Achilleid with Thessaly generally . . 244 143. Three special features of Achilleid explicable from Thessalian influence. I. Prominence of the Horse. II. Silvan Scenery. III. Olympus as a mountain ..... 245 144. Prominence of the Horse in Thessalian Legend . . . 246 145. Prominence of the Horse in Thessalian History . . . 247 146. Prominence of the Horse as the symbol of Thessaly on its coins . 248 147-8. Silvan images and scenery ...... 248 149-50. Epilogue on climatic features and meteorology . . .252 151. Mountains and Sea as rival elements in forming Greek character . 255 152. Prominence of Mountains in Achilleid, and especially of Olympus . 256 153. Simile as to Olympus with Mint-mark of Thessaly . . 258 154. Confirmatory observations ...... 259 155-6. Olympus in Achilleid and Olympus in Odyssey — Contrast of . 260 157. Olympus in Ulyssean cantos — General summary as to Olympus . 263 158. Minor Thessalian touches in the Achilleid .... 264 CHAPTER XIX. Objections and Difficulties considered. 159. Objections to a European origin of Achilleid. I. The Locust-simile 267 268 269 270 271 273 160. 2. The similes as to Lions . . . . t6i. Argument for Achilleid as a separate poem from Xfs (lion) 162. Difficulty as to mention of the ' Heliconian god ' . 163. Difficulty as to Horses of Diomed . . . . 164. Difficulty as to the goddess Dione . CHAPTER XX. Local Mint-marks. — TTlyssean Cantos. 165. General observations— Robert Wood on Ionian origin of Homer . 276 1 66. Local Mint-marks in the Ulyssean Books . . . 278 167. Conclusion from the evidence ..... 288 XVI CONTENTS. CHAPTER XXI. SECTION 168-9. General remarks Local Mint-marks — Odyssey. 170. 171. 172. Peloponnesian origin or Attic origin less probable Positive indications of origin in Ionia Corroborations .... PAGE 291 292 297 CHAPTER XXn. Glimpses of a Personal Homer. 173. Theory of Homer as an .^olian 174. Theory of Homer as an Athenian 1 7S-6. Difficulties of the Athenian Theory . 177-9. Menestheus and Athenians — Double aspect of 180-4. jEolo-Dorian feeling in Achilleid— Ionian feeling in non-Achilleid and Odyssey ... 185. The Ionic (p/yrirpr] . . , . 186. The Attico-Ionic Oath .... 187. General result of the evidence 188-9. Ionian Theory explains much otherwise inexplicable 190. Traditions as to Personalia of the Poet 299 300 300 303 306 312 312 315 316 318 CHAPTER XXIII. Symmetry in Ethical Purpose. 191-2. Achilleid — Probable genesis of — Moralised by the additional Ulyssean cantos .... . . 193. How far legitimate to suppose Ethical purpose in Poetical creation 194-6. Ethical purpose manifest in Ulyssean cantos 320 322 323 CHAPTER XXIV. Conclusion. 197-9. Ethical content and purpose in the Odyssey 200. Elements of grandeur in the Odyssey 201. The greatness of its literary influence 328 331 333 APPENDIX. Note A. On the Antiquity of the Iliad and Odyssey B. On the arjuaTa \vypa C. Details as to "Iitttos and its Derivatives . D. On the Horse and the Dog in Literature E. The Story of the Dog Argus F. On the elements of an Achilleid surviving in Thessaly and Albania .... Explanatory Additions Index I, Words and Epithets Index II, Matters and Authors 335 337 341 343 347 348 353 369 364 THE PROBLEM OF THE HOMERIC POEMS. B- iroWci yap iroWa XiXeKTar vmpcc S" k^ivpovra So/iev ^aadvf is eXey)(ov anas kIvSwos. THE PROBLEM OF THE HOMERIC POEMS. CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTORY. tIs 5^ (TV efftxit ^pi(TT€, KaTa$vi]Taiv dvOp^iruv ; I . The Homeric question, or the problem as to the genesis and mutual relation of the Iliad and Odyssey, is the subject that I propose to deal with in the following pages. It is one that has exercised much and long the foremost scholars in many lands, and, notwithstanding a vast amount of ingenious research and laborious investigation expended upon these poems with a view to determine their authorship, sequence, and veritable connection, it must be confessed that the results have been for the most part unsatisfactory, and the real relation of these poems remains still to be discovered. No consensus of opinion has been attained capable of command- ing general assent, and though valuable contributions have from time to time been made towards its determination, the controversy is very far from being settled, and so the struggle over Homer has been, like one of his own battles, a scene of wavering fortune, TToXKa S" dp evda Kal evff iOvae iJi-d-^r] neSioio. In the course of long-continued Homeric study, the writer has come to the conclusion that there are in these poems important elements yet unobserved, which promise a clue B 2 4 THE PROBLEM OF THE HOMERIC POEMS. to the solution, phenomena which prove with remarkable clearness dififerent tracts of authorship and enable us to approach the problem with fair hope of a successful elucida- tion. Before proceeding to unfold the evidence on which the proposed view is built, I premise a brief historical r^sum^ of the leading phases of the question. a. Two great poems have come down to us under the name of the Iliad and Odyssey i. They are not only the most valuable and interesting of the literary products of Greece, but they are among the most ancient, if not the most ancient, works of the human spirit in a European tongue. They are what is known as Epic poems, being the perfect type of that species of poem, and they remain still unsurpassed as models of their kind. Each consists of twenty-four Books or Cantos, and constitutes a great and comprehensive and sustained narrative of heroic actions, presenting severally a vast panorama, full of grand and beautiful detail, of a splendid Foretime, brilliant with noble action, sentiment, and adventure, in which the facts of Life and the objects of Nature stand out revealed with the brightness of Painting and the solidity of Sculpture. To any other race than that of Greece, one of these poems would have been a great heritage descending from the child- hood of its memories, but to possess two such poems is an honour almost unique among the nations of the world ^. ' They are not the only poems that appear before us as Homeric, but they are sufficiently differentiated from all others by their vastness of compass and architectonic power to form a group alone and apart, and the nature of our investigation, which is mainly an interrogation of the Epics themselves, forbids an examination of the minora professing to be Homeric. ^ The Mahabharata and Ramayana of Sanskrit Literature are the sole ex- ample comparable to the twin Epics of Greece. It is remarkable also that they present the same contrasted relation as to complexity and unity. The Maha- bharata answers to the Iliad in the multiplicity of its heroes, the RSmiyana to the Odyssey in having only one (cp. M. Williams, Ind. Epic Poetry, pp. 41-2). Accord- ing to Weber, the Ramayana is, like the Odyssey, the later poem of the two, but this point is still subjudice (Ibid. p. 65). The parallel holds, also, regarding their internal structure. ' Es kann keine Frage seyn, dass wir in Mahabharata Stiicke aus sehr verschiedenen Zeiten, wie sehr verschieden an Inhalt imd Farbe, vor uns haben. Das Ramayana ist dagegen aus einem Gusse.' Lassen (Ind. Alt. i. 584). The chief unlikeness between the Odyssey and the Ramayana seems to be the greater width of Geographical range in the former, in conformity with the freer and more roaming spirit of the Greek, whereas the Ramayana is comparatively narrow and confined. INTRODUCTORY. (^ Many nations have no such early inheritance at all, and those that have anything distantly approaching in value and signi- ficance, can boast of only one Epic, as the Finns in their ' Kalewala,' and the Germans in their ' Nibelungen Lied.' It is one of the peculiarities of the case that Greece has a pair of early Epic poems, a circumstance not sufficiently explained by referring it to the richness of Greek genius, and which appears to us to point to a Dualism in the Greek race whereof these two poems are the joint, yet divergent, expression. 3. The question then is. What account can we give of these Forty-Eight Cantos, all and whole, of the Homeric Corpus, as to their authorship and probable connection ? For a long period the accepted answer was. They are, one and all, the work of an old Bard, called Homer, but, as to anything further, when he lived, where he was born, or how he composed, there is no knowledge, but only vague and contradictory opinion. This, which may be called the Traditional view, was virtually the answer given to the question by the Greek race itself. For, in the progress of time, these poems came to be regarded with a singular veneration, an intense interest and admiration, by the Greek people generally, and after their own productive energy and artistic faculty in literature had passed away, they began to inquire into these records of their own Past, and great was their energy in commenting upon them, their erudition in expounding them, and their ingenuity in reinterpreting them under the lights of a new age. C Fore- most among these was the group of erudite and laborious scholars at Alexandria, of whom Aristarchus may be taken as the leading name, and next to these, though far inferior in literary influence, was the rival school of Pergamus, Crates being, in this group, the most distinguished name3\.-A.ll these vied with each other in their critical investigations of the text, laborious discussions of ' various readings,' attempts at reconciliation of discordances and removal of crucial per- plexities, and their labours to this day form the basis from which all criticism of the Homeric text proceeds^[ These critics adopted the Traditional view of the authorship and believed they were dealing in the two poems with the work of a single mindZj 4. While adhering to the Traditional view, they had to i '§■•• THE PROBLEM OF THE HOMERIC POEMS. defend their opinion against an adverse Theory which arose to dispute the common opinion both of the people and of the Schools. fThis was the doctrine of the ' Chorizontes,' or Separatists, as they were called ; a party of critics, who said the two Poems were by different authors and of different ages. [The most famous of these were Xenon and Hellanicus. It is remarkable that the ingenuity of these last seems to have been entirely expended in finding and pressing discordances between the two poems, and whatever may be the ultimate value or scientific truth of their proposition, there can be no question that the Chorizontes contributed nothing to the criticism and understanding of the Homeric text at all com- parable to the matter furnished by their opponents the ortho- dox TraditionalistsTliLrhey cannot be said to have earned a right to be heard on their particular question, and though there was a considerable basis of fact in what they averred, they were virtually silenced, and Antiquity refused to listen to them *rA| In point of fact it is from incidental notices in the notes of their opponents that we come to know that there once existed at all such a school of opinion. That opinion, however, was counted rather a paradox for debate than a sober conclusion, and under the great authority of Aristarchus, it almost disappeared from view, so that in the Greco-Roman period it is hardly ever alluded to except once in a casual way by Seneca, and then only as one of the vagaries of disputation. \ Thereafter it became entirely dormant and was revived only ^by the discovery of the Venetian Scholia (1788), a body of ancient annotations upon Homer, out of which so much both of precious and worthless has been, in these latter days, exhumed. Among other things, the existence of the sect of the Chorizontes was discovered, and the doctrine which Aristarchus was thought to have exploded was taken up by some modern Scholars and, fostered by them, revived under new auspices after two thousand years^x, ^ Hence Suidas (in 'O/^ripos) unites together as ' the undisputed (wo^iXtKra) poems of Homer,' the Iliad and Odyssey. CHAPTER II. THE WOLFIAN THEORY. Tots Si navriiifpiois IpiSos /leya vcTkos opiipei, / 5. There were therefore two theories in the old Greco- Roman world as to the Homeric poems, but one of these was practically extinguished. The Traditional view reigned with unbroken sway through modern times until a comparatively recent period. CThe next stage in the development of the question ^ brings us to the great name of Friedrich August Wolf, who was the first to subject the poems to the ordeal of a critical examination, and introduces the new era of Homeric investigation.\ This representative scholar of North Germany, professor at Halle, afterwards at Berlin, first stirred the question, whether one Homer is enough or even two Homers to have given birth to the Homeric poems, whether we do not require a number of Homers to account for poems of such compass in a primitive age.Si He accordingly put forth the famous doctrine in his Prolegomena (1795) that Homer was not a single poet, as' the Traditionalists declared, nor two poets, as the Chorizontes affirmed, but was an ' Eponymous name ' for the poetic activity of the early Epic age, and represented a congeries of poets and not an indi- vidual^. ~\This poetic activity had manifested itself in the ' I have not thought it necessary to enter into any detail as to prior antici- pations of the Wolfian theory, such as Vice's or Bentley's. They were notable as vaticinations, but, as they rested on instinct rather than evidence, may be here passed by as unessential. Bentley's, in particular, was far off from the Wolfian position, as he affirmed not only a personal Homer, but that he wrote songs, two propositions which Wolf denied. " The nearest approach in an ancient authority to the Wolfian notion of 8 THE PROBLEM OF THE' HOMERIC POEMS. creation of a number of lays originally independent or con- nected only by reference to a common theme, and these lays had been subsequently gathered together and compacted into a unity in the time of Pisistratus (about B.C. 5'5o)- 6. The strength of this famous Theory consisted in the follow- ing facts : — /. It explained or seemed to explain certain dis- crepancies of the two poems with each other and of each poem with itself, i. It supplied an easy explanation of the phenomenon of long poems in a simple and primitive age destitute of literary appliances, where poets had to compose by the aid of memory alone. 3^ It professed to bring the Homeric poems under the analogies of early primitive poetry, the essence of which is believed to be impersonal, not bound or attached to any personality, belonging to the tribe or race, rather than to an individual.' tlhese were the main supports of the theory drawn from internal evidence, and as for external evidence the great critic rested his case on certain testimonies of ancient authors, Cicero, Josephus, and others, which went to affirm that the Homeric poems were not always in the condition in which they are now found, and that they had passed through a certain shaping and disposing process which was referred to the time of Pisistratus ?^ 7. This Theory on its first promulgation met with remark- ably wide and rapid acceptance in the country of its birth. It was received with favour not only among the scholars of Germany, such as Heyne and Niebuhr, but also in the general circles of Literature, where Herder had prepared the way for its reception by his views as to popular Poetry and early 'many Homers,' is probably the statement of Proclus (a.u. 412), the commentator on Hesiod (Gaisf. Poet. Min. Gr. iii. Scholia, p. 6), "O/irjpoi yaip ttoWo! yey6vacri (r/Kiji ToC TTA\ai rf/v KKrjaiv \aii.pivovT(s. He wishes to make a wide interval of time between the golden Homer and Hesiod, and supposes it was a Phocian and later "Ompos that contended with Hesiod in the famous ' Agon ' or contest of the Poets. These ' many Homers ' of Proclus were not however conceived by him, like those of Wolf, as contributing to the Iliad and Odyssey.— Compare also Eustath. 4, iis Si Kai TroWol "Oia;pot, Hal airb laropovaiv crepoi. = Lehrs in his Aristarchus makes little of the tradition as to Pisistratus, 'De Pisistratea opera ne notam quidem his antiquis et Aristarcho videri famam fuisse ostendam' (p. 334). It is a stumbling-block to the Wolfians to explain how a concocted Homer would have been accepted emanating from the Athens of B.C. 560, for the literary influence of Pisistratean Athens is not to be measured by its ascendancy in the Periclean time (cp. Grote H. i. 458). THE WOLFIAN THEORY. 9 primitive Literature. Indeed Herder and Heyne both at- tempted to claim property in the discovery, a claim that Wolf resented in the case of Heyne with some asperity. (_.The adhesion of Wieland, of the Schlegels, of Fichte, of William von Humboldt, of almost all the young thinkers of that time except Schiller, is an evidence of the immense influence which it exerted on the young mind of Germany^ That influence was greatly increased by a number of predisposing causes which rendered the acceptance of the Theory both easy and rapid. It was a time when the French Revolution was in full career, when the air was full of paradox and innovation, and what is of more importance it appeared at a time when a vast interest had been excited by the discovery, in diff'erent parts of Europe, of considerable corpora of popular poetry, giving evidence of the remarkable vitality of such poetry even under its most anonymous and uncertified character, and that too, as if to exemplify the Wolfian Theory in its main position, with no literary appliances but only oral transmission as its vehicle, ^he Ossianic controversy, in particular, had opened up large vistas of vague possibility in this direction, and thus in a fortunate hour, by a most dexterous handling of the evi- dence and a masterly marshalling of the phenomena, Wolf forged the thunderbolt that shattered, in the view of Germany, the unity of the Homeric poems O 8. In estimating the work of Wolf, it would, however, be unfair to represent him as simply a destructive critic :^the service which he rendered to Homer was immense, and those who diff'er most widely from his main conclusion . cannot fail to acknowledge that he laid bare many phenomena essential to a right theory and initiated the scientific study of the Homeric poemsT^t was Wolf that first taught us to study those poems, in the only way in which for scientific purposes they should be studied, under the light of the historic con- ditions in which they were produced, and with a survey of the mode in which they were composed, preserved, and trans- mitted. To realise the age in which they first appeared, to investigate the social, historical, ethical conditions in which * Wolf mentions Ossian in his forty-ninth chapter and in a note to his twenty- fourth. Heyne' on 11. n 53 (Ed. Min.) refers to Ossianic similes as parallel to Homer's. 10 THE PROBLEM OF THE HOMERIC POEMS. they were grounded and rooted, to discover what the soil was on which grew flowers of such perennial beauty and significance, to determine the surroundings of the Bard or Bards in his own or their time and their relation to and influence upon subsequent forms of Literature — this was the great Problem ^ put forward by Wolf as an essential pre- liminary to any right understanding or true scientific ap- preciation of these Poemii>^Hence the generally admitted completeness of his victory as'^to the standard of comparison, that the Homeric poems, though examples of the 'Kunst- Epos,' are to be classed only with the 'Volks-Epos' or Popular Epic, belong therefore to a non-literary age, and are not to be compared or confounded with the Epics of an advanced period of society like the ^neid or the ' Jerusalem Delivered,' where the Poet composes, pen in hand, poems to be read, whereas the Homeric Bard sings or recites in the ear of a simple primitive people?^ 9. This great service to science is the fruit of Wolf's in- vestigations, and no one will grudge him the spolia opima which he has won. At the same time it is worthy of note that the great critic did not carry out his theory to any com- pleteness ; for he never exhibited in outline a scheme of the Component Lays out of which according to him the frame- work of each poem was put together. ^That he failed or omitted to do so in the course of a tolerably long life^ in the vigour of his powers, after the publication of the Prole- gomena, is a fact which suggests the doubt whether he be- lieved in the possibility of a re-dissection, such as his Theory implied. In all probability he was restrained by the con- sciousness that the process, if performed, would yield larger a-ggregates '', more solid masses of song, than was suitable for his Theory.""^ ' ' Testes ordine interrogare.' Wolf. Proleg. ch. i. « Nearly thirty years. Prolegomena in 1795. Death in 1824 (Blackie, i. 193). ' Cp. Blackie's statement on this point; Homer, i. 246-7. Friedliinder (Homerische Kritik von Wolf bis Grote, p. 17) asks regarding Wolfs subsequent silence, 'SoUte nicht vielmehr im spatem Alter die Ueberzeugung sich ihm aufgedriingt haben, dass eine Untersuchung der Gedichte selbst niemals das Resullat ergeben wiirde, welches er allein fur das richtige hielt?' THE WOLFIAN THEORY. II 10. The war, so grandly begun by Wolf, was continued by Godfrey Hermann and William Miiller, who carried on a vigorous polemic, more especially against the unity of the Iliad. The former scholar modified so far the Wolfian position by taking up separate ground of his own, in his doctrine of an ' Ur-Ilias ' and an ' Ur-Odyssee ' — a minor original nucleus to each poem, around which the congeries of lays had been, so to speak, deposited. Substantially, however, he stands on the Wolfian basis. ^ Next to him in importance among the later Wolfians, and, m the opinion of many, the greatest of the Wolfian school after Wolf him- self, stands Karl Lachmann, who (in his ' Betrachtungen,' 1843) gave a new direction, as well as a new impetus, to the controversy, and from him the modern Wolfians are often styled ' die LachmannianeLl3w[is work was especially aimed at carrying out what Wolf left unperformed — the dissection of an Epic into the supposed original Lays|_and for this purpose he attempted to break down the somewhat vulnerable corpus of the Iliad, exhibiting the sutures and callidae juncturae much in the same way as he operated on the comparatively ' vile corpus' of the 'Nibelungen Lied' with his apprentice hand. Under Lachmann's operation, the Iliad fell asunder into a group of Eighteen primary Lays and the Lachmann view is therefore known as the 'Klein-Lieder-Theorie*.' 11. Meantime a powerful reaction had arisen , against the extreme conclusions of the Wolfians, and, even before the Lachmann period, a school of critics of a more conservative character had made themselves felt by a splendid ' polemik ' against the Wolfian Theory. Among these may be named ' After all, these separate Lieder are liable to new dissections on Lach- mannian principles. The first of his Lieder is not perfectly self-consistent, for Agamemnon said he would go ' himself and fetch Briseis. He does not, but sends heralds, and yet Achilles speaks of him as having fulfilled his threat ' in person ' {avTbs anovpas A 366). Thus the unity of even the first it'ed would be dissolved. Hypercriticism of this kind would break down any unity. It is worth noting that Agamemnon afterwards speaks of having done the deed 'himself (T 89), and Thersites, in B 240, so accuses him. — A man does not always act up to his pro- fessions, and many a threat in actual life is unfulfilled. Thus Achilles in I 357 threatens to set sail next day, but in the same book (1. 650) admits a supposition entirely inconsistent with his departure. Hence Socrates finds fault with his logical . inconsistency (PI. Hippias Minor, 370 B), but the logical inconsistency of the actors does not prove a plurality of dramatists. 12 THE PROBLEM OF THE HOMERIC POEMS. especially Ottfried Muller^ Welcker, and Gregor W. Nitzsch, who were able, by a more thorough survey of the historical conditions of the case, to reconquer not indeed all, but many, of the apparently lost positions. The first of these did good service by his emphasising the necessity of an organic as against an atomic theory of the poems ; the second by his investigation of the Epic Cycle, rendering it certain that poems of great compass, which presupposed the presence of the Iliad and Odyssey, had existed long before the age of Pisistratus ; and the last named scholar, by his voluminous and weighty works, dealt very powerful blows at the Wolfians, so that he may well be called ' Malleus Wolfianorum i".' 12. Besides the powerful diversion effected by this group of scholars, there was an anti-Wolfian breeze which sprang up in the higher regions of Literature. Voss, the great trans- lator of Homer, was an ' Irreconcilable.'C^Schiller had always opposed the. Theory as what he called' barbaric,' and the great authority of Gothe", — upon a question of organic unity, of immense weight — though less uniformly consistent, was on the whole in the anti-Wolfian scale. In a letter to Schiller soon after the appearance of the ' Prolegomena,' he characterized the theory as arbitrary and subjective, and he seemed to resent the intrusion of this ' wild boar ' into, what he called ' the fairest gardens of the aesthetic worldly Sub- sequently, however, he seems to have wavered in his opinion, but finally came round to the old belief, as we learn from his interesting little sketch ' Homer noch einmal,' which repre- ' In his ' Kleine Schriften,' i. 399, O. MUUer speaks as if the Victory was secure. ' Uns nun den Epigonen jener alten Homerischen Streiter, erscheint diese ganze Aesthetische Ansicht roh, ausserlich, atomistisch; eine andere, die organische Entwickelung, hat im Stillen den Platz erobert.' '" DUntzer (Abhandl. 1872, p. 409), although himself a Wolfian, puts a high value on Nitzsch's labours in a scientific point of view, and adds, regarding him, ' Si Pergama dextra defendi possent, etiam hac defensa fuissent.' '' In December, 1796, Gothe was under the Wolfian spell, for he proposed a toast to the Man 'der endlich vom Namen Homeros kiihn uns befreiend uns auch ruft in die vollere Bahn.' The spell soon vanished. In May 16, 1798, he writes to Schiller regarding the Iliad, ' Ich bin mehr als jemals von der Einheit und Untheilbarkeit des Gedichts iiberzeugt .... Die Ilias scheint mir so nmd und fertig, man mag sagen, was man will, dass nichts dazu noch davon gethan werden kann.' A full account will be found as to the waves of opinion in Ger- many in Wolfs own time in Volkmann's ' Geschichte und Kritik der M'olfschen Prolegomena' (Leipzig, 1874). THE WOLFIAN THEORY. \-^ sents his matured opinion, when, at the period of the reaction, he was able to realise a ' Homer once more,' after ' the sun- dering and dissecting process of the Eighteenth century ' was over and the harmonizing spirit, as he called it, of the Nine- teenth had begun. 13. The vaticinations of Gothe have in this matter not been fully confirmed. The Germany of the Nineteenth cen- tury is after all very largely Wolfian, and, notwithstanding the strong reaction a generation ago, the bulk of her scholars in the present day is to be found in the Wolfian camp. According to Nutzhorn^^, the stream of opinion is flowing strongly in that direction^ and there is a continuation of the school of Lachmann (among whom is included the dis- tinguished name of George Curtius, who may be styled a Wolfian on philologic grounds, founding upon the variety of philologic phenomena in the poems), and these new ' Lach- mannianer,' in diverse ways, not always very accordant with either of their great masters or themselves, parcel out the primary lays of the Iliad and even of the Odyssey, with the most confident precision. Foremost among these may be named Arminius Kochly, who is usually looked on as re- cently the most pronounced exponent of the dominant Wolfian theory. In particular, he has, with more of valour than dis- cretion, put in type a text of the Iliad upon Wolfian prin- ciples, in which, by the ejection of the line containing the A lbs jSouXtj of the Exordium and by other similar operations, the Iliad falls asunder into sixteen independent lays ^. 14. The influence of this school, we are inclined to think, cannot in the nature of things be permanent. It might have been otherwise if the Kochly doctrine had been confirmatory of the Lachmann, so as to exhibit the same cleavage of strata as prevailing in the structure of the poems ; but when each leading champion exhibits sections of his own, and there is no real unanimity in the Wolfian camp (witness the ex- tensive and very effective polemic of the Wolfian Diintzer ^' ' Zwar haben Nitzsch und Baumlein auch ihre Anhanger, aber der IStrom geht doch immer in der von Lachmann an gegebenen Richtung.' Nutzhom (die Entstehungsweise der Homerischen Gedichte, 1869, p. 143). •5 ' Iliadis Carmina XVI. Restituta edidit Arminius Kochly, Turicensis.' Teub- ner, 1861. 14 THE PROBLEM OF THE HOMERIC POEMS. against both Lachmann and Kochly), it is not likely that the extreme section of the school will be in the end victo- rious. J 15. To any candid mind, however, it must be apparent, from the imijiense hold which the Wolfian view has obtained of the patient and honest and persevering mind of Germany, that it is no baseless speculation, but one that can produce a large amount of, at all events, prima facie evidence in its favour. In point of fact, the difficulties involved in the Homeric Question are about equally great whether one adopts the Traditionalist or the Wolfian supposition 1*- [The. former credits a single poet with an enormous mass of poetic pro- duction, not confined to the Iliad and Odyssey, under what seem to be impossible conditions, antecedent to all literary appliances ; the latter supposes a number of poets to have produced, in the exercise of independent activity, separate lays relating to a great action which afterwards combined into an architectonic whole of remarkable symmetry JLThe former explains unity, but does not account for discrepancies and diversities ; the latter explains discrepancies, but it ex- plains nothing else ; it cannot account for unity and sym- metry ^^3 These constitute the Scylla and Charybdis of Homeric speculation between which the critic, who wishes to give a scientific survey of the facts, will have to steer. That survey must be obtained entirely from the poems themselves, and from them alone. Those poems are, in the view of all, the only source of evidence, final and sufficient, upon the question. Unfortunately, they are all but dumb as to them- selves and their authorship. Inferences may, no doubt, be drawn, but there is no direct and conscious evidence addu- cible, and the two Epics appear on the horizon of time so purely objective that they seem projected into this visible " Nitzsch has left a remarkable confession of his experiences in the whirlpool of Homeric controversy (' Sagenpoesie,' p. 293). After having composed a laborious work, which had for its object to establish the separate authorship— a view which has the advantage of lightening the difficulty of accounting for two Epics of such magnitude— he subsequently wrote a refutation of himself and pro- nounced in favour of the joint authorship of both poems. ^ ' Lachmann hat auf Incongruenzen und Widerspriiche zu viel Gewicht gelegt, und Nitzsch zu wenig.' Friedlander (Hom. Krit. p. 27). THE WOLFIAN THEORY. 15 diurnal sphere with hardly a subjective trace adhering to them, and are silent as the stars concerning their own genesis and mutual relation. Such is the present position, upon German soil, of the Homeric question, and such the leading points in the his- tory of the Wolfian Theory. When applied to the twin stars of the Homeric poems, it has, by a reverse operation from that of the astronomers who resolve nebulae into stars, converted stars into nebula. How has it fared in other countries, and has it affected opinion equally powerfully elsewhere ? 16. ^he Wolfian Theory has not moved, so powerfully as it has in Germany, the learned world either in England or in France?^ In the latter country the chief fruit which can be traced to it of much scientific value is the Essay of M. Burnouf (Revue des Deux Mondes, 1866), which contains many ingenious, though not always satisfactory, suggestions. Far from adopting Wolfs ultimate conclusions, the Essayist adopts a ' chorizontic ' or separatist position, and an attempt is made to differentiate the Iliad from the Odyssey in age and authorship, by classing the former with the chanson de gestes of medieval French literature and ^ the latter with the compara- tively more modern roman d'aventures. The analogy, though interesting and important, is however insufficient to justify the conclusion or to demand the separation from each other, under different genera, of two poems so cognate in tone and structure, when the differences that exist can be satisfactorily accounted for on a less violent hypothesis 1^. ly.QRegarding opinion in this country, it cannot be said that the Wolfian Theory has, except in a limited degree^'', modified or materially affected the old traditional belief, that " Wolf himself may be claimed as a witness against the ' Chorizontes,' as he strongly emphasises the unity of tone and colouring in both poems. ' Immo con- gruunt in iis omnia ferme in idem ingenium, in eosdem mores, in eandem for- mulam sentiendi et loquendi.' Prolegomena, ch. 50. He elsewhere speaks of this as a ' mirificus concentus,' though he endeavours to convert it into an argument for his theory of an artificial unity. It is not without reason therefore that Nagelsbach speaks with such contempt of the opinion of Benjamin Constant — ' die Chorizonten- manie welche Benjamin Constant verleitet hat zu sagen, dass der Sanger der Odyssee eben so wenig die Ilias habe dichten konnen, als ein Alexandrinischer Jude die Psalmen oder den Hiob (Tome iii. 435).' Homerische Theologie, p. xvi. " Coleridge, in his ' Table Talk,' seems to have at one time accepted the Wolfian doctrine. i6 THE PROBLEM OF THE HOMERIC POEMS. each poem was from the first a unity Z^ British scholarship has been for the most part content to acquiesce in the conser- vative views of Colonel Mure, whose investigation of the question constitutes the most important exposition in defence of that belief which English scholarship can show. He has endeavoured, not unsuccessfully, to meet the Wolfian positions point by point, and his examination of the question is of importance as it produced, in his own case, a conversion from an early belief in the Wolfian doctrine. Mr. Gladstone, who has been so fervent a student of Homer, and who, notwith- standing Diintzer's insinuations as to his ' unscientific ' ideas, has added not a little to our scientific knowledge of the Homeric poems, disdains to enter upon the question and, with a lofty indiff"erence to such critical inquiries, never allows a Wolfian scruple, just or unjust, to interfere with his homage and veneration. Perhaps he is right. It is better to enjoy the full bloom and aroma of the Eden of Greek song, asking no questions, and accepting in implicit faith, where we may not have the means or power to prove. Very different is the attitude of an equally fervent Homeric scholar, Professor Blackie, inasmuch as he not only discusses the Wolfian ques- tion largely, but pronounces the discussion of it to be essen- tial to any right understanding of the Homeric poems as the flower of early popular poetry. With strong Wolfian leanings, and an immense appreciation of Wolfs work and genius, Professor Blackie declares against and substantially sums up adversely to the doctrine that the Iliad and Odyssey are a congeries of lays. 1 8. The greatest name that can be quoted on the Wolfian side among our English scholars is that of Grote. Not that he is a Wolfian — on the contrary, no one has shown more clearly and incisively the difficulties inherent in the extreme Wolfian position ^^; but he has also shown, in the fairest and most judicial of statements, the difficulties of the traditional view, in so far at least as the Iliad is concerned. The case '» Friedlander (Horn. Krit. p. 22), who accepts Grote's mediating position, states this point as follows — ' Die Merkmale planmassiger Auflage, auf der die ganze Odyssee uud grosse Theile der Ilias beruhen, sind so tief in die Handlung verflochten, dass es unmoglich ist zu glauben, sie seien nachtraglich von aussen hinzugethan worden.' THE WOLFIAN THEORY. 17 which he has made out in favour of two streams of narrative in that poem, and, in particular, regarding the Books from the second to the seventh as not part of the original current ", is remarkably complete, and he errs chiefly in this that he performs excision upon some of the most splendid portions of the poem, and assigns these loose gems to no authorship in particular. He has, however, pointed out the path in which the solution of the question seems to lie, and he has done special service in familiarising the English mind with the notion of an ' Achilleid ' as the inner kernel of the Iliad and distinct from the Iliad as a whole — a view towards which the whole available evidence seems more and more to converge. Among the scholars "of Germany, it is worth noting that Diintzer occupies the same ground as to the Six Books above referred to, and indeed claims to have anticipated Grote in this particular discovery (Abhandl. pp. 46 and 492). 19. While rejecting the Wolfian principle in its most pro- nounced form, partially regarding the Iliad, entirely regarding the Odyssey, Mr. Grote was disposed, though somewhat doubtfully, to accept the chorizontic doctrine of the separate authorship, a view to which the English ' Left,' if we may so call it, has generally inclined. As early as i8ao, Richard Payne Knight, though a decided opponent of the WolAan principle, pronounced in favour of the chorizontic view, and the arguments which he used produced a certain effect on English opinion. They moved J-fpnrj/- N pi son- Gnleridge, in his work on Homer, to adopt that position, and constrained Clinton (Fasti Hell. i. p. 381) to express a modified adhesion. More recen^tly, the usual chorizontic arguments have been presented again in a new and expanded form in an article in the Edinburgh Review (April 1871). This article purports to be a review of the treatise of Thiersch (' iiber das Vater- land Homers') who, though he separated the authorship, held the poems to be of the same age, whereas the Reviewer attempts to make out a great gulf of time between the Iliad and the Odyssey, and against the main probabilities " O. Miiller had a glimpse of this position, when he admits the existence within the poem of ' a preparatory part, consisting of the attempts of the other heroes to compensate for the absence of Achilles.' Cp. Grote (H. ii. 256-7), who criticises the statement, and shows that O. Miiller did not conceive the true relation clearly or develope it consistently. C l8 THE PROBLEM OF THE HOMERIC POEMS. of the case, as we hope afterwards to show more at large, assigns only the Iliad to Homer. 20. In this rapid review of the leading phases of English opinion, it would be unfair to omit notice of the peculiar position occupied by one of our greatest living scholars upon the question. I refer to Frederick A. Paley, who has given us an edition of the Iliad, in which he has accumulated a con- siderable amount of argument to show, among other things, the precarious condition of the Homeric text philologically. The view he has found himself compelled to adopt is to the effect that the Homer that we now ha:ve is a comparatively late production 2", that it can be discerned as existing only from about the time of Herodotus, that the Homer of Pindar was a different Homer from ours, with other and more varied legends about the ' Troica,' and that the poems, as we now have them, must have been put into their present shape in or about the Periclean time^^ The scepticism of Wolf did not proceed to this extremity. He allowed to the Honieric poems a duration in their present shape of at least a century longer, from the time, namely, of Pisistratus ^^. Mr. Paley, however, considers these poems, which belong to the first period of Greek literature, to have been in a molluscous '"' Dr. Donaldson, in his Cratylus, p. 71, uses similar language without indicating his grounds, but he affirms that 'the Iliad and Odyssey, as we have them, are little more than a rifacimento of the original worlcs.' ^' Yet, in spite of the accidents of time, and after passing through the crucible of Athenian ' editing ' and Alexandrian recension, is there any text of any early ballad poet that is in a better state than Homer's ? After three thousand years it stands, in the main, as clear and firm as the other after as many hundreds. Hesiod, though generally reputed more recent, and possessing not a tithe of the same bulk, is really in a worse condition (Lehrs' Aristarchus, p. 441). It is singular that the text of Euripides, and perhaps of Sophocles also, is in a firmer state than Shak- spere's at this hour. If the Triposes of the future should come to turn upon the Ballad poetry of England instead of Homer, or Shakspere instead of Euripides, the exchange will not be justified by the greater critical security of the ground in such ' pastures new.' ^ ' Habemus nunc Homerum in manibus, non qui viguit in ore Graecorum suorum, sed inde a Solonis temporibus usque ad haec Alexandrina mutatum varie, interpo- latum, castigatum et emendatum,' Wolf, Proleg. ch. 49 ad fin. He adds, however, in ch. 50, the caveat, ' Neque vero ita deformata et difficta sunt carmina,' etc. — ■nnf)f 344 of the latter, is couched in the same terms as the precept to Andromache in Iliad Z 490, but the expression, ety oXkov iovaa, is on the whole more appro- priate in the latter, Andromache being then abroad on the public way. This serves to mark the passage in the Iliad, according to Duntzer, as the primary location. Further, we have only to recall the fact that the whole case of the Chorizontes, ancient and modern, turned upon the recency and subsequence of the Odyssey, and their arguments are not capable of presentation and could never claim a hearing, unless on this postulate of the posteriority of the Odyssey. Without any formal presentation of the evidence we think ourselves entitled to assume to the Iliad anteriority in execution. 30. We now come to consider the question of Unity, re- garding which we must enter more into detail. And first, as to the younger poem. That the Odyssey is in its structure remarkably firm and compact, though composed of many parts, yet with each part concurring to constitute a whole that is one and indivisible ; that, with all its variety of sub- ject, it is fairly uniform in tone with remarkable continuity of plan, homogeneous purpose, and sustained consistency of conception ; that it has come from the mind of its author ' moulded at one projection ^,' are facts, which only extreme scepticism can deny. Wolf himself was forward to confess that the framework of the Odyssey, with its elaborate ad- justment of parts and exquisite and complicated preparation for the denouement, was most skilful ^, and he speaks in high '^ The expression is Mr. Grote's, regarding the Odyssey. Like Homer's own a6\os in the Games, it is, as a. poem, avToxiaivos, which the Scholiast ad loc. (T 826) well explains, (5 naff kavrbv aexM'eu/ifi'os, ko! litjSiv Ix'U!' eireiaaKTov, ' cast in the mould by itself and with no mixture or alloy.' — This however does not exclude the possibility of the mass so moulded having suffered from the rust of time and from tinkering of alien hands (cp. Porson, Orest. 5). Certain insertions seem to have been added to or wedged into it in after time, such as the doubtful portions of the Nekyia in A., and the after portion subsequent to the denouemeni, viz. ai, and a part of €iW "Aya- nkjivmi Tjna elSdrj, ' if royal Agamemnon were mollified towards me,' we should rather expect, ei (yuv ' A-jafie/ivovi Sim ^ma elSiiriv, 'if /were mollified toward noble Agamemnon;' Nutzhorn, Entstehungslehre, p. 174-5. — A similar argument is derived from Achilles' words in A Cog, and from Poseidon's recommendation to the Greeks to make atonement (N 116), implying that no attempt had been made to appease the injured chief, and so ignoring the previous Book of the ' Embassy." —The reference in S 448 is not to be relied on as proof that the author of the Achilleid knew of the supplication to Achilles. 43 THE PROBLEM OF THE HOMERIC POEMS. Are there, now, any other Books, besides those recently named, that seem to be outside the primary plan? None that can be called discordant, but there are two that are ex- trinsic, viz. the two closing Books, XXIII. and XXIV. (Grote, H. ii. pp. 466-7). The case regarding these is of another kind. They form a most natural sequeP* and can hardly be said to disturb the original ground-plan, as presented in the Exor- dium, though they develope and expand it. These two Books are necessary to satisfy the requirement, not perhaps of an Epos, but certainly of a 'Kunst-Epos ;' which could never be complete, as J. S. Mill remarked upon this point (Discussions, ii. p. 321), 'until the two heroes whose successive deaths formed the catastrophe of the poem, had received the accus- tomed funeral honours.' They are, however, as the Iliad now stands, outside the lines of its original projection, and stand in some respects like the CEdipus Coloneus, subjoined to, not contained within, the scope of the CEdipus Rex. The oracle in the latter gives no note of the milder prophecy out of which the second drama has to spring, for the old prophecy has to be remodelled in the second play and altered to admit of the subsequent development (cp. CEd. Rex 789 with CEd. Col. 88 ff.). Moreover, those two closing cantos present so many features in tone and language different from the books immediately preceding them, but accordant with those of books II.— VII, IX, and X, that we are justified in classing them also with the Books not belonging to the primary nucleus of the Poem. 41. We have thus obtained from a survey of the Iliad this result, that certain Books represent the primary structure as described in the proem, others are enlargements and acces- sions, more or less consistent, but not acknowledged in the primary ground-plan. Before proceeding to deal with these two sections with a view to further comparison, it is proper to ad- vert here to the fact, that a consciousness more or less clear of a peculiar structure in the Iliad has been felt in different ways " According to Mr. Grote, the reappearance in Book XXIII. of the two wounded chiefs, lately cripples, viz. Dioraed and Ulysses, without any reference to their recovery, implies the hand of a continuator, not the creator of the story. The surprising recuperative powers of the heroes generally may, however, justify the silence, and explain the apparent obliviousness of the poet. THE TWO EPICS COMPARED. 43 and from different points of view by various observers. Blair, in his Lectures on ' Rhetoric,' gave expression in a mild vague way to the peculiarity if not deficiency of the Iliad in respect of unity. In like manner Blackie admits that the subject of the Iliad is formally double, though he represents it as also intrin- sically one. A still more remarkable admission is that made by Colonel Mure, who says that the Iliad, unlike other Epics, con- tains no great event within the poem towards which the whole progression moves ^^. The death of Hector appears to him an inadequate dhiouement for the previous array of preparation, and he is no doubt constrained to this admission by the extent to which the original plan has been seemingly overweighted. The fall of Troy would no doubt form a catastrophe worthy of being the close of an Epic poem, but it is an event that lies outside and beyond the range of the horizon, however near it may be felt to be, when Hector, the bulwark of the city, falls ^'*. Hence Col. Mure has to devise a special theory for the Iliad, which we give as follows in his own words : — ' In the " Odyssey " the restoration of Ulysses to his home and royal authority, in the "^neid " the establishment of the Trojan dominion in Latium, in the '' Jerusalem " the reconquest of the Holy Sepulchre, in the " Paradise Lost " the fall of our first parents, offer each a distinct historical object on which the action is from the first steadily advancing, by however tortuous a course. In the " Iliad " no such object can be dis- covered. Although the limits of the action are as clearly 2= Jean Paul Richter expressed a wish for a twenty-fifth Canto of the Iliad, as far at least as to the death of Achilles. A similar feeling has produced a Thirteenth Book of the ^neid, and Gothe has given us his Torso of the ' Achilleis,' a sequel to the Iliad. The desideratum which he wished to supply pressed upon him, when a boy, in reading the Prose Translation. ' I found great fault with the work (the Iliad) for affording us no account of the capture of Troy, and breaking off so abruptly with the death of Hector' (Gothe's Autob. i. 29). 26 Forebodings of the ultimate fall of Troy are found not only in A 164, Z 448, n 243 and 728, but aUo in the remoter AchiUeid, as O 71. The sinews of its strength were cut by Achilles' spear, whence Pindar's Tpwfas iras cKra/ii,^ So/,i (Isth 7 53), said of Achilles. Yet the actual capture is not by him, and so it is prophesied by Apollo in n 709- Another posterior event alluded to, but outside the action, is the invitation to Philoctetes, t^x" S« l>.y^oia6ai ^^AXov #iAo«T^Tao (B 724).— In the Odyssey, with all its compact concentration, one prophetic announcement is found which is not fulfilled within it (Od. X 127), and so, though not to such an extent, the Odyssey, like the Iliad, looks out beyond itself. 44 THE PROBLEM OF THE HOMERIC POEMS. marked out as in any of the above cases, yet its progress can- not be said to have in view, nor does its conclusion involve, any distinct historical consummation. The fall of Troy^ the grand catastrophe of the whole train of events celebrated in the poem, is extraneous to its own narrative. As little does the reconciliation of the chiefs on the death of Hector, form its definitive scope. The selection, therefore, of this particular series of events was owing obviously to its moral rather than its historical importance ; to the opportunities it afforded for portraying the great qualities of one extraordinary character with the conception of which the poet's mind was teeming. The genius of the " Iliad," consequently, is superior to that by which those other heroic poems are animated, in so far as the mind of man, in all the depth and variety of its passions and affections, is a more interesting object of study than the vicis- situdes of human destiny or worldly adventure ' (Mure, Hist, of Gr. Lit. i. p. 293). 42. The above extract will indicate the straits to which able men are reduced in upholding the perfect unity of the Iliad. In order to obtain a satisfactory theory of its plan and pur- pose, it will be observed that we have here on the part of the critic a strategic movement backward towards high ethical ground, or rather the question has been carried up into the re- gion of the invisible ; and so (as with Hecat^us in Herodotus, ii. 33) there can be no ' elenchus,'— no possibility of either proof or disproof. Col. Mure has, however, virtually left the Iliad without an adequate denouement, and one is prepared now to understand, when it is thus ' disboned,' how all manner of paradoxical theories as to the purpose of the Iliad could be put forth with a show of plausibility. Among these the most notable is that of Schubarth (in his ' Ideen uber Homer,' Breslau, 1821), that it is not Achilles that is the hero of the Iliad, but Hector 2'', with whose obsequies the poem ends (just as some have thought that Satan and not Adam was the hero in Paradise Lost), and, as a corollary, that Homer was a court- ^ It is remarkable that Hector is the only Trojan who receives the epithet Ai(>\os, and that none even among the Greeks receives it more than once, except the two protagonists, Achilles and Ulysses. Achilles receives it five times, Hector four times (cp. also H 204), Ulysses thrice, Patroclus, Phcenix, Phyleus, each THE TWO EPICS COMPARED. 45 poet at the court of the descendants of ^neas, whose dynasty- is prophesied to survive the downfall of Troy (T 307), so that the author of the Iliad was a Trojan ! If Schubarth had contented himself with the contention that Homer was pro- bably an Asiatic* his position would have been more secure^*. '^ Schubarth's theory of the Odyssey is that it was the work of an Asiatic, exhibiting the misfortunes that had befallen the invaders of his country. A similar idea seems to have moved Virgil to catalogue the calamities of the Greek heroes after Troy as retributions (^n. xi. 255-270). CHAPTER V. OUTLINE OF NEW GROUPING. fivBos 5* bs ix\v vvv vyi7]S, elpijf^evos iOTOj, 43. The Iliad being thus a poem of complex elements in contrast with the Odyssey, the next step in our investigation is to endeavour to disentangle these elements according to the cantos of primary and those of non-primary character, and, this process once accomplished, to inquire whether any link of connection can be discerned attaching the non-primary cantos to each other, and what affinity these groups thus eliminated severally exhibit. The primary cantos, then, are those detailing the ' Wrath of Achilles ' and the working out of the promise of Zeus to Thetis, and the Aios ^ovX-q, which is the original kernel of the poem. They are Books I, VIII, XI— XXII, or (taking their desig- nations in Greek letters, henceforth used for convenience), A 9 /I on to X. These constitute what Mr. Grote calls the ' Achilleis,' and are all that are really necessary to complete the Programme in the opening proem of the Poem. This Achillean stream is one that may be said to flow on continuously from A to X, but the upper part of its course, to use a happy comparison of Mr. Grote, is now found becalmed in two lakes A and 9, lying at some distance apart from each other. Over against these we have to put the books which (with the exception of one, /), are universally admitted not to be OUTLINE OF NEW GROUPING. 47 provided for in the opening Exordium, to which books the one excepted (/) must on other grounds be appended ; viz. B,r,A,E,Z,H, I, K, Y,n. Otherwise, Books II, III, IV, V, VI, VII, IX,X, XXIII, XXIV. Here a sort of reverse condition of the arrangement occurs, for of this stream the continuous portion comes first, and the gatherings into lakes come later. This is of no moment as an argument, and it is merely put forward to give one a clear conception of the cross mode in which these duplex elements in the Iliad are interwoven and interplaited with each other 1. It is especially the Books of the Iliad in this last group which have long attracted attention — we may even say excited suspicion— -as having little direct coherence organically with the main structure. They have been in fact the quarry from which the weapons of the Wolfians have been mainly drawn ; in connection with them the ^ia^tBi/j'aiTroAAai' ascribed to Homer by Josephus, and the hiantes cominissurae et jwtc- turag paruvi callidae, on which Wolf founded, are chiefly to be found. -In particular, they contain few, if any, clear references to the 4 JOS ^ovX-fj, so prominent in the Exordium, and dis- tinctly referred to in the Achillean area (N 347, O 593, U 103). The explanation of this phenomenon will appear in the sub- sequent reasoning. 44. The proposition which I now mean to advance and lead evidence to prove, regarding these two groups, is the following : that the primary cantos or Achilleid are by a more ancient author, being what may be called palaeozoic ; that the other group of cantos is on a different projection, and by a less ancient author, containing elements more neozoic, and ' The above division will form a sufficiently good provisional line of de- marcation. It does not follow, however, that every portion in the books named as Achillean is as ancient as the main portion, and in particular there is reason to believe that this applies to the long discourse of Nestor in (A) the Eleventh Book, the portion of X subsequent to the Death of Hector, and the episode of the Shield in 2 or the Eighteenth ; the latter especially in its language and tone suggesting the stiller life and artistic calm of the Odyssey rather than the ' Sturm und Drang ' characteristic of the Achilleid (cp. GiOte, ii. 255, on 'the Shield' episode, and Gladstone, Horn. Synchr. p. 54, on the kindred artistic feeling of Od. t 226).— Besides these parts, which are probably of high authorship, there remain portions- of the Achilleid, which are of very questionable origin, especially the second Theo- machy in *, and occasional minor interpolations. 48 THE PROBLEM OF THE HOMERIC POEMS. further that this last group manifests special kinship and affinity with the Odyssey and has proceeded from the same author in the same age. Apart from interpolations and in general terms it may be said that the Horneric Corpus of Iliad and Odyssey falls asunder into two great sections, on the one hand the Achilleid, and, on the other, the non-Achilleid, plus the Odyssey, and the theory which I have to put forth is that a poet, who is also the author of the Odyssey, has en- grafted on a more ancient poem, the Achilleid, splendid and vigorous saplings of his own, transforming and enlarging it into an Iliad, but an Iliad in which the engrafting is not absolutely complete, where the ' sutures ' are still visible ^. 45. In the Epigram on Homer by Alcaeus the Messenian (Anth. Pal. vii. i), there occurs a grouping of his works which suits as a point of departure, and is convenient for making clear the exact orientation, so to speak, of the scene. Homer is there celebrated, OTTi Qkriv KvSrjve kol vlea, Kal fiodov aXKcov rjpaxov, lOaKov t 'ipyjiara AapridSov. ' As having glorified Thetis and her son, and the struggles of other heroes, and the exploits of the Ithacan son of Laertes.' Here we have the contents of the two Epics in happy and just delineation. The Odyssey is of course manifest, but, as for the Iliad, it receives a twofold description and falls into two groups, — one Achillean, the other non-Achil- lean, concerned with the struggles of other heroes than Achilles. It is regarding this portion, answering to the /xo^os aXkmv r]pa>aiv, that I propose to show that it belongs to the author of the Odyssey and is not from the author of the Achilleid. It will be incumbent on me to adduce evidence on the one hand separating and differentiating the Achilleid, and, on the other, evidence associating the non-Achilleid with the Odyssey. The proof will nat be complete unless the = It will be observed that I have not retained in my hypothesis the alter- native that the enlargement of the Achilleid into an Iliad may be due to a later alteration or expansion by the same author. The evidence about to be adduced contains so many and striking divergences that we must exclude this supposition, and it is one s^.- little compatible with the phenomena that I need not retain it for sustained consideration. OUTLINE OF XEW GROUPING. 49 negative arm of the Elenchus as well as the positive be equally plied. It may not follow that in all the area to be traversed the proof will be equally strong, and in certain obscurities we may not always be able to trace the lines clearly all through ; but for the most part it will become clear where they trend, and their general direction is entirely unmistakable. 46. And here may be considered one or two possible pre- liminary objections. It may in the first place be thought that this theory reverses our usual conceptions of the relation of the Homeric poems and involves a hysteron proteron, inasmuch as it gives the criti- cal precedence to what is sometimes assumed to be the less important and inferior poem. A few remarks are therefore due regarding this point of precedence with a view to put- ting the matter in a light more accordant with the facts than the common opinion implies. So far from being a hysteron proteron procedure, it is the only procedure that is scientifically safe ; viz. to begin with the known and proceed towards the unknown or the less known, and, this being so, the Odyssey, which is the poem nearer to us in point of time and is simpler in structure, becomes the point of departure, and a standing ground is obtained from which we feel our way back into the obscurities of the prior poetry. In adopt- ing this course we are following the counsel of Mr. Grote,. whose sagacious eye perceived that the Odyssey ought to be the critical starting-point in Homeric study. But further, it is not only scientifically safe, but it is also aesthetically just, to give the younger poem this precedence. It is a common impression that the Iliad is superior to the Odyssey, and Mr. Gladstone has expressed himself in its favour as the poem of vaster scope and profounder genius ; but there are not a few considerations that move me to call for a different verdict, if assent to that proposition involves a belief that the Iliad is the greater poem. It may be freely admitted that the Iliad has unrivalled passages, and the theory propounded in this book supplies a clue to understand the genesis of many of the most notable of them ; yet it remains true that the Odyssey is the greater poem, as being, first, the more finished work of art ; and, secondly, the poem of the Greek E 50 THE PROBLEM OF THE HOMERIC POEMS. race, par excellence, \n its best and most typical characteristics ^. If we inquire wliat it is that distinguishes Greece in the annals of the world, any reply will be inadequate unless it embrace two things — that she is the mother of that inquiring intelligence which has given the world Science,; and that she is, further, the fountain of Art. Looked at from this point of view across the ages of history, which of the two poems is the one that possesses the most significance ? We can hardly doubt that the verdict would be in favour of the Odyssey, whose hero is the incarnation of that spirit of eager inquiry that Greece awakened on the earth, and which, in its struc- ture, so sharp and clear of outline, and yet so broad and grand, is itself a prefiguration of that Art, whose inspiration and glory were bestowed on the people of Greece. For, however great may be the character of Achilles — and we cannot be blind to the glory with which he is invested, as gaining the victory not only over foes and friends, over Greeks and Trojans together, but finally over himself and his own impetuous passion — it yet remains true that Achilles is not the representative of the Greek race as a whole ; Achilles is not TroXvTponos as was the Greek people, and as their typical hero Ulysses was * ; for to accept Achilles in that character would involve our looking to Sparta instead af Athens as the glory of Greece, and would install Alexander over Pericles in the temple of Greek fame. That would be an entire inversion of the justice of the case, and would involve a hysteron proteron, from which not only the critical judgment but the historical conscience must recoil. ^ ' In keinem (der Helden'> wiederspiegelt sich der griechische National-character so treu wie in ihm (Od)sseus)' Preller, Gr. M. \\\. 284). * Not only in his virtues but in his faults, Ulysses exhibits a type of the Greek people in their special weakness. To be iroA-urpoTTos was akin to euT^aTreAos, and many an unscrupulous Themistocles as well as inquiring Socrates lay hid in germ in this great character of the Epic time. A range of epithets belongs to him far beyond any other hero. He shares the epithet iroXvippaiv with Hephaestus alone, is coupled by Athene along with herself in /liyris or counsel (Od. v 296), and is credited with a variety of accomplishments to the number of sixteen (cp. list in the Venetian Scholiast, II. 93). He is the only one, except Nestor, that bears the appellation ' great glory of the Achaeans ' (/i^7a kvSos 'Axaiuiv), an appellation not bestowed upon Achilles himself. Hence it may be remarked, Nero knew very well what he was about when he selected from among the Greek heroes the statue of Ulysses to carry off to Rome (Pausanias, v. 25. 8-9). He could have chosen none more significant as the symbol of ' Graecia capta,' OUTLINE OF NEW GROUPING. 51 47. A second preliminary objection is of the following kind. It may be said, ' In this new theory which you propound, you give us a Dual authorship, and in so doing introduce a new Xcopia-fio^. In what respect is your view better than that of any of the ancient or modern {Xwpi(ovTi^) Separatists? Why not fall back on that theory as the best explanation of the phenomena ? ' The answer to this is a simple one. The doctrine of the Separatists, in the crude way of simply dis- joining the Iliad from the Odyssey, is insufficient to explain the phenomena. The two poems cannot be made to part asunder in this easy way, large sections of the Iliad being cognate in tone, language, sentiment and ethical views with the Odyssey, and hence, under any candid investigation, the theory of the Chorizontes uniformly breaks down, point after point, for it is possible to produce from certain parts of the Iliad (always keeping away, however, from the Achilleid), evidences of recency, improvement in manners, of higher social feeling, in almost every case parallel to those producible from the Odyssey. Most of the proofs on which the Chorizontes relied are either worthless or, where relevant, favour an entirely different theory. Yet these separatist critics have this merit that they attained to a certain dim discernment of the pheno- mena. They had an instinct that a valid or scientific differen- tiation was in some form possible, but they set about the finding of it in a rough superficial way, and hence the cleavage which they proposed was manifestly false, for in separating the whole Iliad from the Odyssey, they laid themselves open to a flank fire with weapons drawn from the neozoic books of the Iliad which are cognate with those of the Odyssey, in both of which areas we find entirely parallel phenomena, such as the same range of geographical knowledge, the same artistic products, similar social usages, kindred views of human life and, generally, the same ethical undertones characteristic of an individual author. E 3 CHAPTER VI. FAILURE OF CHORIZONTIC GROUPING. (V jteSio; laTat/TO, Siappataai /jf^aSrcs. 48. It is not our intention to enter into any formal refuta- tion of the Chorizontic doctrine, which will be sufficiently proved, in our after investigation, to proceed upon an in- adequate view of the facts, but it is proper to give one or two illustrations of our meaning as to the general futility of the Chorizontic weapons. These weapons were drawn partly from linguistic, partly from ethical and social, partly from mytho- logical phenomena. A specimen of the first and third class may here be introduced ; the second will come up for illus- tration, more conveniently, at an after stage. Among the linguistic arguments of the ancient Separatists (Ven. Schol. K 476) was that turning on the word TrpoTrdpoiOey. It was alleged that it was used of place or local position in the Iliad, but of fiine in the Odyssey, and the argument was that, since the progression of language is from outward space first and then secondarily to (wie, the Iliad represents an older condition of speech, the Odyssey a more advanced, and consequently the Iliad must be considerably older than the Odyssey, and so by a different author. The reasoning is specious and would be good if the facts were well established. Though long ago refuted by a critic (Ven. Schol. ut supra), supposed to be no less a person than Aristarchus, it has been revived by the recent expositor of the Chorizontic doctrine in Ed. Review 1871 (p. 360-1), and therefore demands careful examination. But when we look into the matter, what do FAILURE OF CHORIZONTIS GROUPING. 53 we find ? Not that the word is always, as we are led to infer from the way in which the statement is put, possessed of the secondary temporal sense in the Odyssey. On the contrary the local sense is there still the normal one, largely predominant (e.g. 8 aa5) P'^ll^ etc.), and, in fact, while only one indubitable instance of a temporal application is producible from the Odyssey (viz. A 483), fifteen (or, with a var. lect., sixteen) are producible from it in the local sense. The argument thus re- futes itself, for it would not be strange, if, among many, there should emerge one, occasional and exceptional, instance of the temporal sense, the ease of the transition being seen in our English word bef ore, v^hich has passed through exactly the same stages. This application to the temporal sense is manifestly not the rule in the Odyssey, but the exception, and the data in the case will simply warrant this conclusion that the Odyssey contains a very ancient form of speech, in which the objective notions of space predominate over the more abstract subjective notions of time. The Chorizontes were, however, too precipitate. Not only were they wrong regarding the Odyssey, but they were in error regarding the Iliad. The temporal sense of TrpoTrapoiOeu is found even in the Ihad^- One instance is in K 476, and is so acknowledged, as early as Apollonius, to relate to time {enl xpovov in v. ndpoLOev, Lex. of Apollonius). But K is one of the books which on other grounds can be shown to be cognate with the Odyssey. Thus their argument not only falls to the ground, but is converted to serve a new and more exact division, whereby a portion of the Iliad comes out as cognate with the Odyssey. 49. Again, the occurrence of 6vpr] (door) in the singular in the Odyssey, instead of the plural, was appealed to by the Edinburgh Reviewer as a peculiarity either of language or of ' Lehrs in his ' Aristarchus ' (p. 115) states the matter thus: 'Upo^ipoiei in Iliade etiam invenitur de tempore, non tantum in Odyssea, ut Chorizontes volunt. He refers to three passages, that mentioned above in K 476, also A 734, X 197. With deference to Lehrs, however, this appears to be an overstatement. The last, viz X 197 will not stand the test, for the ancient critics allowed that it could be understood TO««as, i. c. of place, and Fasi admits that view. The other, in A 734, occurs in the long speech of Nestor, which is believed not to be so old as the mam texture of the book where it is found. This last occurrence, therefore, will not serve the Chorizontes.-The simple Trdpo.eer has already a tempoml sense even in the AchiUeid, as O 227, and in * 20, 180, as well as in the Odyssey. 54 THE PROBLEM OF THE HOMERIC POEMS. simpler social appliance differentiating the Odyssey from the Iliad. His induction, however, was incomplete. He failed to note its occurrence twice in the singular in il 317, 4^3> o''"^^ °f a Qakaiio's, again of an avX-f). This book, however, is one of those marked out as cognate with the Odyssey. So, regarding ivvXai, which is so often plural, the nearest ap- proach to a singular is that found in E 397, kv nvXm, which Aristarchus took to mean 'at the Gate,' viz. of Hades. But Book E belongs to the same group as 12 and the Odyssey. These arguments of the Chorizontes are no doubt trivial, turning upon mere incidents, riot to say accidents, of phrase, and such also, it may be thought, is their refutation. Their arguments from mythology may be thought more weighty, but it is not difficult to show that they share the same fate. The most famous of these are the apparent discrepancies between the poems as to the wife of Hephaestus and the office of messenger to the Gods. 50. In the Iliad Charis is the name given to the spouse of Hephaestus (2 383) : in the Odyssey, according to a certain portion of it, it is Aphrodite''-. Moreover Charis seems in the latter poem to have multiplied into Charites (known also to the Iliad, E 267), and these have further subsided into handmaids to Aphrodite (Od. Q 564 and o- 194). It would therefore appear that Hephaestus in the Iliad had married one who was the handmaid to his Odyssean wife, and the Chorizontes thought the relation was an awkward one ^. It is upon the lay of Demodocus in book eighth of the Odyssey ' The Ven. Schol. on $ 416 endeavoured to remove the difficulty by suppos- ing that different times of conjugal relation were referred to {Kk-^tiv 6e Sei" on oix 0' avTol XP'5''°' ^cof ttjs av/j-Pidiaeais). Mr. Gladstone (Homer, it. 258) says HephjEStus may have been like Zeus, with more wives than one, and he has endeavoured further (Juv. Mundi, p. 213) to get over the difficulty by restricting the sense of anrvif in 2 383 to belrothmeiit, which leaves the matter where it was, Charis being evidently already housekeeper to Hephaestus, cp. ^liirepov Su in 424. ' The Chorizontes, with their usual precipitateness, did not perceive that, if the Iliad had represented Aphrodite as his wife, the relation might have been more awkward, for husband and spouse would in that case have been on opposite sides of the combat. Aphrodite being on the Trojan side, Hephaestus on the Grecian (T 36-40 and 73). The Ulyssean Book E (563, 883) coincides with the eighth of the Odyssey in representing Ares and Aphrodite as mutually interested in each other. FAILURE OF CHORIZ.OXTIC GROUPING. 55 that the opinion rests as to Aphrodite being spouse of Hephaestus, and it is well known that doubts have been entertained regarding this lay ; but supposing it accepted as genuine, the discrepancy is in the case of a Deity, who is the subject of various treiditions, being credited with a variety of spouses, much as Zeus is in the Theogony of Hesiod. In the Theogony (945) it is Aglaie, one of the Charites, who is mated with Hephzestus ; in the Roman mythology the god- dess Maia is so associated ; and both Charis and Aglaie and Aphrodite represent the same Spirit of Beauty wedded to Art, personified in Hephsestus. 51. A much more formidable crux is the alleged discrepancy as to the office of Messenger to the Gods. It has been argued, both by ancient and by modern Chorizontes, that the Iliad and Odyssey must be from different authors, because in the Iliad Iris discharges that function, in the Odyssey Hermes. Regarding this point, the first remark that I may make is that, while the premises are in a loose and general way correct, the conclusion is somewhat precipitate, inasmuch as not only would the Iliad and Odyssey be thereby severed, but the undoubted unity of a much smaller poem would, on that principle, be in danger of disruption. The hymn to Demeter (315 and 336) brings before us Iris and Hermes both as Messengers, the latter with the significant addition (e/y "Epe/Soy), the reason of which will afterwards appear. No one, however, would seriously propose to attribute this hymn to a pair of authors on this account. This is a case in point, and therefore the statement of the Chorizontes must be looked to more narrowly, for, although in a general way correct, it does not embrace all the facts of the case, which are much more multiform. It is not correct to say that either of these deities is the invariable Messenger. Other beings also act in that capacity on certain occasions, as e. g. Athene in A 715, ' Rumour ' in B 94, ' Sleep ' in H 356 *, Thetis {AMiv d'yyeAoj) in i2 561 ; and Zeus in i2 74 seems to specify no deity in particular (el' rt j /caXeVeie Qt&v). We confine ourselves, however, to the cases of Iris and Hermes. * Also Themis is the summoner of the i.'^opl. of the gods in T 4, on which Heyne remarks, 'Notabile autem quod Themis nunc deos convocat ; non Ins aut Mercurius.' Again, Thetis (P 409) ■1^77'''^^''^'" ^'"» ''"'?^' 56 THE PROBLEM OF THE HOMERIC POEMS. 53. And first, of the Odyssey. The occurrences of Hermes as messenger in this poem amount to only two, viz. a 38 and e 29, with which last the proposal in a 85 is identical. The former concerns the story of Agamemnon's death, and therefore, though narrated in the Odyssey, is incidental, no necessary part of its machinery. The other is a very different case, being the mission to Calypso's far-away isle, and the hinge of Ulysses' movements. There is also the apparition of Hermes to Ulysses to present him with the Moly-root [k 307) ; but this is not a case in point, as Hermes seems to be acting of his own accord, and is not said to be deputed or spoken of as a messenger. Thus the instances in the Odyssey practically reduce themselves to 07ie °. Now it so happens that just the same number is producible from the Iliad. It is the instance in Si 333-5, where the night journey of Priam is performed under the escort of Hermes, who there acts as the messenger of Zeus ". Some of the modern Separatists have felt the force of this fact and have endeavoured to get rid of it by denying i2 to form a part of the Iliad. It is not a part of the Achilleid, certainly ; but it is one of those books that help to make the Iliad ; only it is one of the neozoic cantos and so is cognate with the Odyssey. The weapon is thus wrested from the hands of the Chorizontes, and made to serve in building up a different theory. 53. The point remains as to the employment of Iris. And first as to the Odyssey. No example of her actual employment is producible, but there is an allusion which shows that her function of ayyeAoy was not unknown, viz. in the line as to Irus the beggar, of whom it is said that he got his appellation of Irus (Od. o- 7), ovv^k dnayyiXKidKe kicov, 'because he went and delivered messages,' i.e. Iris-like (cp. Gladstone, H. ii. 241). If, however, her rival Hermes appears so comparatively seldom in the Odyssey in the capacity in question, — practically, as we have seen, in only one instance, " The case of Lampetie as S.-iy(\os to the sun, in ;i 375, though she acts spontaneously, is valid to show that Hermes is not, as the Chorizontes affirm, sole ajyiKos in the Odyssey. Cp. 9 270. « A second example is virtually producible from n 24 in the unrealised mission of Hermes there proposed.— It is not improbable that there is one latent in B 104, where the displacement of the Perseida; by the Pelopidie— a work of craft, and therefore appropriate to Hermes— seems darldy indicated. FAILURE OF CHORIZONTIC GROUPING. 57 — it is not just to assume a discrepancy, as the Chorizontes do, on the strength of a single occurrence, since there is evidence that the function in the case of Iris is in the Odyssey virtually acknowledged. We now turn to the Iliad. The occasions in which Iris is there represented as messenger are frequent, and are, on the whole, more frequent in the Achilleid, than in the non-Achilleid. In the latter, the number of in- stances is not great, after we have deducted such as those in r 1^9 and * 196, where Iris is not spoken of as acting under direction, but seems to proceed spontaneously. The great question, however, is : What account can be given of the fact which is admitted, and which the Chorizontes press upon us, that in the battlefield at Troy and generally in the scenes of the Iliad, v/e have Iris and not Hermes as messenger? It might be suggested that Hermes, as his after-symbol of the Caduceus signified (cp. &f.5>v Krjpv^ of Hermes in Hesiod, Op. et Di. 80), was the Messenger of Peace, and therefore was not well suited to the scenes of warfare. This opinion, joining Iris and epis, finds support in the passage in Hesiod, Theog. 780, and comes up clearly in Servius on ^neid (ix. 2), where the commentator, no doubt following Zenodotus, who we know (Ven. Schol. A 27) confounded "Eols and '/pty, states that Iris indicates Strife : ' Iris quasi epis dicta est, nunquam enim ad conciliationem mittitur sed ad disturbationem.' Another view has been suggested, that Iris delivers messages and announce- ments, whereas Hermes being the SiaKTopos, or, as he is called in the Anthology, Oewv VTrrjpeTrjs (Anth. xi. 176)1 transacts busi- ness and executes orders ''. These explanations, though inge- nious, do not cover all the facts, and the key to the phenomenon must be sought for in the following considerations. ' This is the view pressed by Mr. Gladstone in endeavouring to grapple with the Chorizontes. It is true that the epithet Sia/crmp or StdicTopos (pursuivant), is never found applied to Iris, but nevertheless she is more than the mere message bearer, for fiytiT is used of her in CI 96, and, in O 200, she gives advice over and above the verbal tenor of her message. — It is worth noting also how peculiarly the occurrences of this SmicTopos are distributed. It comes up in the Odyssey nine times ; in n of the Iliad six times ; in B of the Iliad, once. The only instance of it in the Achilleid is that in $ 497, in the peculiar and doubtful section known as the Second . Achilleid, non-Achilleid, Odyssey, Theomachla. The occurrences therefore are , which is in favour of the affinity we presume to exist between the non-Achilleid and the Odyssey. 58 THE PROBLEM OF THE HOMERIC POEMS. 54. Iris is the ordinary celestial messenger, but with a limitation. This limitation is due to the nature of her visible representation — the Rainbow. The Bow in the cloud, as the most brilliant of all aerial phenomena, was early regarded as the descent of a celestial messenger, and the same name Tpty is given, even in the oldest part of the Iliad, sometimes to the personified Messenger, sometimes, as in P 547, to the simple visual sign. Iris, then, is a being associated with the Rainbow, and it is remarkable that we find the association closer the further, we ascend, for it is in the Achilleid that we find her epithets reflecting most clearly her physical symbol ^. ^^. A similar affirmation holds regarding the deity of whom she is most frequently the messenger. The physical and atmospheric associations attaching to Zeus, as will be shown at a later stage, accumulate similarly as we ascend, and in the palaeozoic portion of the Iliad the conception of that god will be found to be closely associated with the Firmament, as doming over all earthlj' things. If, then, Zeus is primarily the Firmament and Iris the Rainbow personified, what may we expect as to the occasions for the manifestations of Iris ? The Rainbow is a diurnal, not a nocturnal, phenomenon, and we may be sure that a poet who thought of Iris as the rainbow would not commit the physical solecism of sending her on night errands. The lunar rainbow is too rare a phenomenon to count upon for this purpose '. In the course of a pretty long life a man may perhaps see one, many have never seen one at all, and we may therefore assume that when the early poets spoke of Iris, they had in view only the diurnal phenomenon ^^. Accordingly, in what may be called the daylight of common life, Iris is the ' The epithets iroSiyi'f^os and afWlmos suggestive of her physical attributes are equally distributed, occurring ieven times in Achilleid, in the non-Achilleid also seven times. Her most characteristic epithet of xpt'o'iSTTTtpos, golden-winged, evidently allusive to the hue of the rainbovif, is found twice and (apart from an instance in the hymn to Demeter) only in the Achilleid (0 39S, A 185). ° The subtlest of modem poets, Robert Browning, in his 'Christmas Eve' (§ vi.), has ventured on the introduction of a Lunar rainbow. — The Aurora Borealis does duty as a celestial ' Nuntius ' in Dryden's ' Hind and Panther' (Part II.). ™ Ilesiod shows less perception of the fundamental character of Iris when he tells of Zeus making her fetch from beneath the world a flagon of water from the Styx (Theog. 780, etc.), a river which flows ' in dark night.' This may be reckoned one of the indications that Hesiod was later than Homer. FAILURE OF CHORIZONTIC GROUPING. 59 ordinary messenger, but in the night-time", when 'the ways are dark,' it is some other god, such as Hermes, as in the night-journey of Priam to the tent of Achilles, or Athene, who is d'yyeXoy .... 'ivvv\os in II. A 716, 'messenger by night! Even in the day-time, when Athene is the goddess actually sent, upon an occasion where Zeus has to interfere more actively than by a mere visual spectacle, the simile, in which Athene's descent is described, is drawn from the rainbow, as in P 547, and is therefore suggestive of Iris. Moreover distant or dangerous expeditions are regarded as in the same category with night-journeys, and hence it is Hermes that is sent to the distant Ogygian isle of Calypso — both names suggestive of mystery and darkness — to release the hero of the Odyssey. That this view of Hermes as the undertaker of dangerous and difficult expeditions is the correct one (witness his naive complaint about the discomforts of his salt-sea journey to Ogygia in Od. e 100), is further borne out by the evidence of II. E 390, where he rescues Ares from prison, and the word employed (e^e/cXei/rei^) suggests a task of hazard. Hence he is thought of by certain gods to steal away the body of Hector (12 24, Kkk^ai). So also, in the case of Herakles going down for the ' Dog of Hades,' we hear not only of Athene but of Hermes as helping him (Od. A. 6a6) ; but as the passage occurs in a doubtful part of the Nekyia, less weight is to be attached to it. Enough has been advanced to prove that, in the old Epic poetry. Iris and Hermes are, both of them, messengers of the Gods, but under different circum- stances ; and there is, therefore, no ground for differentiating the whole Iliad from the whole Odyssey in this regard. ^6. Thus disappears the once formidable difficulty as to Iris and Hermes. Into the more recondite relations of these two deities I do not enter farther than to observe in cor- roboration (1) how the office of \jrvxo7rofin6s or conductor of the Shades (which is post-Homeric though coming up in " That Iris is not suitable to act as an invisible messenger is clear from the fundamental conception, and is borne out by II. n 337, where Zeus requires Hermes to conduct Priam invisibly, so as not to be seen or noticed on the way (w» ^L^T• Up Tts Uxi mr ap T« coTiffj,). To the xpf (ovoi. This brings us to the evidence of the latent feeling of Hellenic nationality as beginning to ' A discussion of the point, which is not directly material to our main argument, will be found in an Appendix, Note B. ° The Achillean poet acknowledges diversity of speech, but it is mainly diversity between the language of Gods and that of men, not the diversity of speech among the different races of mankind. Miporrfs, which is diffused in all parts of the Homeric poems, seems to differentiate the speech of man from the cries of animals. CRITERION AS TO GEOGRAPHICAL KNOWLEDGE. 67 appear, of a differentiation commencing, such as afterwards produced the sharp distinction in the historic time between Greeks and Barbarians. Thucydides, it is true, has given it as his judgment that in Homer's time the line is not yet formally drawn between them ^^, and probably his observation is correct if applied to the Achilleid, but his judgment on this point 'as well as his picture of the social condition of early Greece which is drawn in too dark colours, must be appealed against, and that mainly on the evidence of the Odyssey and the Ulyssean books of the Iliad, which concur in this regard. The specially Greek feeling for /cocr/zos in order and beauty, and that in a region above that of the ^warrior, has already begun to show itself. It discountenances the aKoa/xou in speech and thought (B 213), and commends /lopcprj in the use of 'i-n-rj (Od. A 367), while the utterance of the Cyclop is pro- nounced to be /lars/i ((pdoyyos ^apvs Od. t 257). So even in military details, the sense of order is seen on the Greek side in I 66, compared with the loose arrangements of the Trojans in K 417 (cp. Doederlein ad loc), and there is no mis- taking the pulse of the poet's own feeling in T as distinctly national, when he describes the Trojans as coming on 'with a whoop and a scream like cranes,' while the Greeks he por- trays as marching 'in silence breathing forth energy.' The full illustration of this point will come up after, under the more barbarian characteristics of the Achilleid. 62. Under these circumstances we are justified in looking out for more formal indications of the feeling of nationality in the neozoic area. Such we think we discover in the ap- pearance of aggregations like FlaveWrfve^ (B 530) and es- pecially navaxa-LoL The latter appears about eleven times in Iliad and Odyssey, and with one doubtful exception they are uniformly Ulyssean ". Conformably with this view, we '» Thucydides might with more truth have added that the notion of opposing continents, a Europe and an Asia, has not yet been formulated in Homer. Archilochus, however, mentions Asia, much as we now do, in opposition to Europe. , ^ , Achilleid, Ulyssean, Odyssey, " The occurrences of nava)(aioi therefore are ^ ^^^ ^ 2 viz. II. B 404, H 73, IS9, 3^7. I 301, K I, T 193 (?), -V 236 (also 272 as var. lect. Ven Schol.) ; and in Od. a 239, and £ 369 (besides a, 32). That m T belongs to a part of the poem which has generally been the subject of dubitation. It happens to be in a speech addressed to Ulysses. F 'i 68 THE PROBLEM OF THE HOMERIC POEMS. are prepared for symptoms of a widening of the name ' Hellas,' so that it should no longer be restricted to its original area — a corner of Thessaly — but be seen to extend its domain. It is still far removed from the extension which it attains as early as Theognis (247) and Pindar (Nem. vi. 37) to embrace the Peloponnesus, and even, in the latter author, Magna Graecia (Pind. Pyth. i. 75), yet it is evidently on the march to that extension. Accordingly most critics, including Bergk, Ebel- ing, Gladstone, Blackie (II. iv. 106), and Doederlein (on B 530) follow Strabo (viii. 370 and xiv. 661) in holding that 'EXXds in the Odyssey has obtained a more extended application, and that it there embraces Northern Greece as far as to the Gulf of Corinth. The range of a hero's fame is spoken of as extending KaO' 'EWdSa kol jxiaov "Apyos (Od. a 344 and 80) equivalent to saying ' over Northern Greece and the Peloponnesus,' that is, ' famous on either side of the gulf,'' as we might say, ' on either side of the Tweed ^^.' Is the same tendency to extension exemplified in the Iliad ? Such an in- stance occurs in I 447, where ' Hellas' is spoken of as outside the dominion of Peleus, within whose domain we know the primitive Hellas was contained ^*- Also, in the Catalogue {^ 53°)> we find as a universalising expression FlaveWr^vas Koi '/Ixaiouy, for which reason the line was doubted in ancient times. Fasi, however, justly remarks that here we have a distribution of people parallel to that of the territory in KaO' 'EWdSa KOL fiia-oy ''Apyos, and both Fasi and La Roche re- tain the line unbracketed, notwithstanding the scruples of the ancient Alexandrians ^^. Thus there is a remarkable convergence on various lines of evidence to show an identity of mental horizon between the author of the Odyssey and the author of the non-Achil- '^ Fasi is inclined to give the same comprehensive interpretation to "Apyos koX 'XxaiiSa in V 75, as meaning Greece both South and North.— H 363 is proof that more than Argolis was included under Aigos, the abduction of Helen being properly from Sparta. '= If we can assume Amyntor in I 448 and K 266 to be one person, as Mr. Glad- stone tloes (Gl. Homer, i. 269), we have then a further proof that Hellas has begun to include Boeotia, Eleon being certainly in Boeotia (B 500). '■' naviXXrjvis is manifestly national and not tribal in Hesiod, Op. 526, opposed to the Kvavim, i. e. Ethiopians. It is found also, in fragment of Hesiod in Strabo, regarding the suitors for the Proetides-an ante-Trojan legend. Cp. also liaveK- Kr)i/(s as early as Archilochus, Ir. 47. Hellas in wide sense in Hesiod, Op. 651. CRITERION AS TO GEOGRAPHICAL KNOWLEDGE. 6g leid. Let us now turn to the books of the A;chilleid and endeavour to understand the horizon of their surroundings. 6^. The range of the Achillean poet's vision is found to be much more circumscribed. Far from being co-extensive or concentric with that of the poet of the Odyssey or of the Ulyssean books, it is narrow and confined, though in one quarter very precise, and its main region is concentrated round the Northern Egean. Dodona is the only oracle of the Greek race to which he refers, from which we may infer that Delphi and Delos were yet in obscurity. Cyprus is the most distant locality known to him, if we may rely on A 21, and Lycia in the South of Asia Minor seems the boundary, practically, of his vision to the East. The ^Ethiopians and the ' Ocean' belong rather to mythology than to geography, and even Egypt seems not to be within his ken. Phoenicia and Sidon are not named, but the mention of Kaaa-irepoi, if it means tin, points to knowledge of Phoenician commerce, although the occurrence of (poLfiKi (paeifos in O 538 ^^ does not necessarily imply trading with Phoenicia. If, however, his acquaintance with the South and East is greatly inferior, on the Northern frontier, and especially in what may be called the Thracian or afterwards the Scythian area, his acquaintance is close and minute (N 5, 301, E 235). He names the Hippemolgi, or ' mare- milkers,' evidently a tribe of Scythian Nomads, and speaks of the Ephyri with the Phlegyes, tribes whose habitat was placed near the northern frontier, and on the soil of what was after- wards Thessaly. In one or two points he seems to be more precise, if not more accurate, than the more recent poet. In particular it may be mentioned that he recognises the Ache- lous as the king of rivers ( 194), which would be natural for a Northern Greek, as we take the first shaper of the Achilleid to have been, much as Virgil's compliment of ' Fluviorum rex Eridanus' was natural homage to the Po from a native of '= A Schol. ad loc. takes it to mean ' red with blood-colour ' as if from c^oVos, interpreting as ^efia/j/j-evos epvBpa t£ ai/xaTi. Compare ipoii-imcrTepdTTas of Pindar, an epithet of Zeus, which does not imply any reference to Phoenicians. In Hesiod ^Scut. 194) we have oiimti cjioivikSus.— The Cyprian Kinyras of A 20 is probably a name of Phoenician origin (Preller, Gr. M. i. 220), and Assaracus of T 232 is said by Ernst Curtius (H. i. 79) to be found on Assyrian monuments, but p,-ofer names do not imply knowledge of the countries to which they may philologically belong. 7o THE PROBLEM OF THE HOMERIC POEMS. Cisalpine Gaul. What renders the fact more notable is that the poet of the Ulyssean book SI speaks of an Achelous in an entirely different quarter, near Mount Sipylus, which must indicate an Asiatic locality, and seems to ignore by his silence the great river of Epirus. It may be hazardous to affirm that the poet of the Odyssey has not the same familiarity with Pieria which the Achillean poet shows (H 225-30), but it is doubtful whether the former did not consider Pieria to be bounded by sea to the North, when he makes, or seems to make, Hermes drop into the deep (Od. e 5°) in setting out from Olympus. This -argument is not in itself of much weight, but it derives strength from what we shall find to be the case when we come to compare their divergent representations of Mount Olympus, which belongs geographically to this region of Pieria, and with which the Achillean poet shows a fuller familiarity. Except on the Northern frontier of Greece, the Achilleid shows inferior range and clearness of geographical vision. On the other hand the Ulyssean cantos and the Odyssey exhibit a radius of vision mutually identical and indirections different from the vision of the Achilleid. CHAPTER VIII. CRITERION AS TO HUMOUR AND PATHOS. daKpvSfv yeKiaaaa. 64. The next criterion which we proposed to apply was that drawn from the alhed quahties of Humour and Pathos, which are marked characteristics of the Odyssey. Are the two sections of the Ihad upon an equality in this respect, or can we trace in the one more than in the other a closer rela- tion, of kinship to the Odyssey.? The kinship is not difficult to discover, for it is in the Ulyssean books of the Iliad that we find those elements in the same pleasing and attractive form as we find them in the Odyssey. There is this difference, however,, that, in conformity with the pervading tone of each poem, the pathos is more marked in the Ulyssean cantos of the Iliad, the humour in the Odyssey itself. As examples of tender pathos, we have only to name the parting of Hector and Andromache and the supplication of Priam for the dead body of his son ^. These are the masterpieces of the Iliad in pathetic tenderness. They occur in Ulyssean books, viz. Z and 12. It is difficult, in the face of the internal evidence, to separate the authorship of these two books, and, if 12 on the linguistic evidence is closely connected with the Odyssey, it follows that the kindred book Z must be so ' According to Col. Mure (H. of Gr. Lit. i. p. 358), the funeral lamentation in the same book n (723 seq.) by the three dames of Troy, is also a masterpiece in oratory as well as tenderness. He considers it worthy of being classed with the debate in Achilles' tent for the felicity with which different veins of oratory are adapted to different speakers. Book n would thus resemble Z in pathos, and I in oratorical power. 73 THE PROBLEM OF THE HOMERIC POEMS. likewise. In the Odyssey, it is true, there is no pathetic scene on such a scale or so long sustained as those we have named ; but, as miniature sketches, the great simile in Od. 6 533 of the weeping widow over her slain patriot husband, and the picture of the death-scene of the dog Argus, in its tender tone and its touches of glorious power, reveal to the full the same master hand ^. In dealing with this point of Pathos, it falls to be remarked that the Ulyssean poet has interwoven with at least two of his characters an element of tenderness not present elsewhere in the same characters as portrayed in the Achillean books. This tenderness is conspicuous in the case both of Hector and Achilles, all the softening touches belonging to the portrait of each having come from the Ulyssean poet. This will appear more fully afterwards when the treatment of the different heroes comes under review. In like manner, the gentle plaintiveness with which the bloom and evanescence of the generations of men are touched, in the same book Z, with no inferior power — a plaintiveness which very early drew forth the admiration of the greatest subsequent master of pathos in the ancient world, Simonides — harmonizes with the tones of the Odyssey, where symptoms appear of the rise of that melancholy view of life which culmi- nated afterwards in the doctrine of the ^66vos 6eS>v, ' the envy of the gods ^.' The lament over the vanity of human life, race succeeding race like the leaves of the forest and fading away, is put appropriately into the mouth of Glaucus, who inherits ' Mr. Gladstone is truly eloquent in his fine characterisation of this Argus-scene (Homer, iii. 410). Mr. Ruskin has censured the ' cruelty' of letting the dog die without a caress or counter-recognition, but he has forgotten the tributary tear (p 304), which was all that Ulysses, with safe neck, could then bestow. ' The occurrence in the Odyssey of (rj\ij fioves {Oi. c 118) and dydaavro (Od. 8 181, >^ 211, cp. 9 228), as descriptive of the dispensations of the gods, is parallel to the ethical feeling of ipSoi/os on their part, which pervades the story of Bellerophon. In the AchjUeid, in the excitement of a battle, we hear of some deity interfering to frustrate {ayiaaaTO ^oi0os 'AirSWwv P 71, and /iiyfipas in N 563 and O 473), but these are not instances of settled jealousy, and do not colour the view of Life as an ethical whole in -the same manner as the expressions referred to in the Odyssey and Ulyssean books of the Iliad. Hence Lehrs in his popular Essays (Popul. Aufsiitze, p. 39), when giving his list of proofs as to the 'Neid der Gotter' or ' Envy of the Gods ' in the Homeric poems, formally excepts these three passages as iioi involving any moral condition or implying any theory of human life. They are all Achillean. * 83 is an instance of 'hate ' rather than 'envy.' CRITERION AS TO HUMOUR AND PATHOS. 73 a touch of the melancholy of his ancestor Bellerophon, the man on whom the blight fell so that he was loojced on as ' hated by all the gods.' Alongside of this plaintiveness of tone there also occurs a touch of the never very distant quality of humour, humour and pathos being twin aspects of the same emotional faculty. The same poet who thrills us with the tender lament of Glaucus over the fading existence of man winds up the description of his adventure with an account of the bad bargain he made i^the exchange of arms, giving gold armour for bronze, as if the^ poet felt an internal glow of satisfaction that the cunning Greek had got the better of the lordly Asiatic. In point of fact, this gleam of quiet humour at the close of the Glaucus episode is one of the features that has drawn against it the arrows of certain Wolfians, and, along with the (jfjiiaTa Xvypd and the reference to the cultus of Dionysus, elsewhere little known to either poem, has caused that exquisite episode to be pronounced an interpolation. It is a magnificent bit of painting, however, mainly in honour of Ulysses' brother-chief, Diomed, and will be found to contain in small compass the pathos, somewhat of the humour and much of the spirit of romantic adventure distinguishing the Epos of the Odyssey. 65. Perhaps the most satisfactory proof under this head is that derived from a remarkable group of expressions significant of indulgence in grief. It is now a familiar phrase to speak of 'the luxury of grief and of the Ossianic charm of Melan- choly — the 'Wonne der Wehmuth' — and philosophers have endeavoured to analyse the conditions under which grief becomes a pleasure (Hamilton, Metaph. ii. p. 482-3)- It is singular how this idea should emerge largely in the Odyssey and the later Ulyssean books, and be absent, almost or al- together, from the Achillean area. Colonel Mure dwelt at considerable length on the phraseology referred to as an argument against the Wolfians (H. of G. L. ii. 37-4i)> and he showed easily that there was a remarkable harmony be- tween the tone of the Odyssey and that of certain books of the Ihad in this regard. A glance at his citations will show that he is entirely indebted for his proofs from the Iliad to certain Ulyssean cantos, in which (*, O), at the close of 74 THE PROBLEM OF THE HOMERIC POEMS. the poem, the pent up fountain of tears was finally allowed to flow *- In the Odyssey the recognition scene between the long lost father and the son is characterised by this outbreak of the 'ijiipo^ yooio, by affection that can scarcely ' know itself from grief. The same master of pathos is also at work in the recognition scene by Eumseus in (^ 226, and he describes, in the case of Eurycleia in t 471, the presence together of ajxa x^PI^^ '^«' d'Ayoy, a mingled feeling that found vent in tears. 66. Under the head of Humour proper, the Odyssey may be generally cited as containing a strong vein of playfulness and delicious half-conscious naivete, which is among the chief charms of the poem. Colonel Mure has drawn out pretty fully the main lines of proof in this regard. The humour culminates in the scene with Irus in the Eighteenth Odyssey, to which it is difficult to produce a companion picture, unless we take the Thersites scene in the Second Iliad — a Ulyssean canto. Ulysses is the protagonist in both^ administering sharp * The following gives a view of the chief details : — Ach. Ul. Od. repneadat ySoio, ySqj, d\y€(Xi u 3 6 Biaai y6oio I I'fxtpos y6oio 4 4 i'/ifpos KXav&fxov I ifxepSets y6os I €pOS yoov I d(T€(Tde K\av6fioio I TTprj^iS y6oio, fivpo^evoKTiv I 2 HOpOS yooto I KOpiffffaro fcXaiovaa I Oil 16 SaXfp&s y6os might have been added from Od. « 45 7, but it is balanced by arvyepbs KXavSjios in Od. p 8. Compare also X 427 Kopiaai/ifSa xKaiovrf, which is subse- quent to Hector's death and to the proper close of the Achilleid. The expression in P 37 apTjTos jdos (used also in CI 741'), is employed only in the sense of detestabilis. Thus there is a notable absence of the tender element in the Achilleid, but a large amount of evidence as to the tender sympathies of the author of the Odyssey and the closing books of the Ulyssean series, showing that with him the Muse had opened ' the fount of sympathetic tears.' Other plaintive expressions and formula; belonging to the vocabulary of Pathos are thus distributed : — Ach. Ul. Od. al t' iKirjari (or-ps) 061 u nor' t7}v yi 022 h\ov^v6s 021 voKvvfvBijS 012 CRITERION AS TO HUMOUR AND PATHOS. 75 chastisement, and although there is somewhat of a severer tone in the handling of the Thersites-scene ^ — as befits the general surroundings where it is placed — the same powerful pencil may be detected at work in both pictures. Once, in the Odyssey, the humour overflows into the burlesque in the scene in the Eighth Book — the ' Amour of Ares and Aphrodite.' Stronger exception has been taken to this scene on ethical grounds than to almost any other in either poem, from the freedom with which the gods seem to be treated, and the levity that appears to prevail. It is to be observed, however, that it is not in Ithaca but in the quaint fairy realm of Phseacia, where it is rehearsed, and further it has a certain relevancy to the whole poem, in which it serves as obverse, or counterpart to the picture of conjugal faithfulness, — the main subject of the Epos where it is found. The most important point, however, for observation is that it is the same two deities figuring disreputably in the Eighth Odyssey, that are subjected to disgrace from the spear of Diomed in the Ulyssean book E of the Iliad. Other two portions of the Iliad may be mentioned as characterised by a strong infusion of humour. The one is the scene in Olympus at the end of the first book, where Hephaestus makes mirth as the limping cupbearer. This occurs, no doubt, at the point of junction with a Ulyssean book, yet as the first book must be pronounced in the main Achillean, we are not entitled to claim it as an illustration. It savours more of the somewhat rough and barbaric form in which the mirth of the Achillean poet is found to express itself. The other is the misadventure which befalls Ajax the Less, when in the contest in the footrace (against Ulysses, as his fellow competitor), he stumbles and meets with mishap 5 The tradition that Thersites, who was chastised for his insolence by Ulysses, was a kinsman of Diomed, has no warrant in the Homeric poems. The Scholiast (B L. in Ven. Schol. on 11. B 212) argues against the kinship and says, 'If he had been in fact a kinsman of Diomed, Ulysses would not have struck him,' a remark which is founded on the close connection subsisting between Diomed and Ulysses. —Thersites is named without any parentage, as if the poet did not wish to affix to any of the Greek tribes the responsibility of his disgrace. The most brutal of the suitors in the Odyssey is the son of one with kindred name to Therutes, Ctesippus the son oi Polythenes, in Bunyan phrase, ' son of Mr. Much-Impudence.' The extreme of rudeness in both poems is indicated by analogous nomenclature. 76 THE PROBLEM OF THE HOMERIC POEMS. among ' cowdung,' and the crowd ' laughs merrily o'er him.' This occurs, significantly, in a Ulyssean canto (* 777 ")• 67. We have now to ask, What is the position of the Achilleid in regard to these elements of Humour and Pathos? The answer is a simple one. There is nothing that can be called Pathos, and the Humour, where it appears, is simply Sarcasm, very grim and barbaric. The few flashes that emerge are dark and lourd, not playful and lambent, Hke the humour prevailing in the Odyssey and the Ulyssean books. To say, as the poet himself does, of warriors fallen, that ' vultures would be fonder of them now than their wives would ' (A 163), or to threaten by the mouth of a warrior, ' that there would be more birds than brides around them ' (A 395), are specimens of the kind of grim humour that we meet with in the Achilleid ^ Nothing fairly parallel to these is producible from the Odyssey and the non-Achilleid. The differentiation which we found under the former head is therefore shown to be a valid one, upon this second line of investigation. " In support of this view it is important to note that the attitude of the crowd to Ajax the Less recalls that adopted towards Thersites, lir' aiyw 17611 -fiKaaaav. The phrase ytKav im Tin occurs six times in the Homeric poems equally dis- tributed, three Ulyssean, viz. B 270, Y 784 and 840, and three in Odyssey (y 358, 374, and

>■ 76, 433, cf. 255 r 363 H 87 a 302, 7 200 oipiyovaiv o 2 How this peculiarity comes up as a valuable index of character ^nd national affinity will afterwards appear. 86 THE PROBLEM OF THE HOMERIC POEMS. oath-scene, and, though expressly said to be smaller in stature and king of only a barren rock, he is yet made to fill the field of vision so fully that out of seventy lines appropriated to the description of the Greek chiefs, the little Ithacan occupies thirty-four, or about half the space ^. Further, it is to be remarked that in the tribute to his eloquence the palm is bestowed in so marked a manner that it seems to clash with or endanger the pre-eminence in this respect of Achilles himself. Nothing, however, can be more natural, if we con- sider the poet of the Odyssey as already indulging an un- conscious partiality for the insular hero in whom the genius of the Ionian race, to which he himself probably belonged, is more or less consciously prefigured. 76. Passing to book A, we find two important particulars to note in his honour. He is represented as performing an important exploit ^'', slaying a son of Priam (A 5°°); ^ f^^t which has this effect, that it turns the fortune of the day, and rouses Apollo's indignation so that the god immediately thereafter addresses reproaches to his baffled Trojans, at the same time inciting them by telling them of Achilles' absence. The second is a more subtle and recondite point, but the evidence it presents is of a deep and far-reaching significance. It is drawn from the manner in which he is represented in the great scene of the ' ETj-LncoXriais, when Agamemnon passes along, reviewing the different chiefs and bands. He is there placed alongside of one who is leader of Athenians, Menestheus ; and Agamemnon couples Ulysses and Menestheus together in addressing to them certain ° Note also the following peculiarities in r regarding Ulysses. 1. He is the only one honoured by a simile, and that one probably indicating a. sort of pet interest (ktIKos), V 196. 2. He is said ktnirojKeiffOai (rrixas dvbpwv {T 196), words of honour, signifying something like the inspectorial style of a Field-marshal. It is given to Agamemnon twice (A 231, 250), and never to any other chief. (Its use in the Achilleid — A 264 and 540— is different, for, as Heyne remarks on the latter, the use there is ' animo iu/eilo, aliter ac r iy6, A 231,' whereas in the Ulyssean books it indicates a friendly visiting ; otxtSM""" 5' liri ndvras seems to be the Achillean phrase for the visit of a general on survey, cp. B 381 ; also kiroix6ii.(vos arixat AvSpiHv in O 279, while irAvTrj or iravroa' iiroix^fifvos is diffused.) '" The expression ivSpds aKovriaaavTos (A 498), as if Ulysses were the civfip pre- eminent (cp. § 34 n), as in the opening line of the Odyssey, is worth noting, but seems to be accidental. It occurs again only in O 575, of an exploit of Antilochus, where no such lofty sense is necessarily intended. CRITERION AS TO HONOUR TO ULYSSES. 87 words of censure ". The special point to be observed is that Ulysses, who replies, is made the mouth-piece not only of his own insular troops but of the Athenians, in answering the taunts of Agamemnon 12. And why is this? Becausfe the Ionian poet (if we may be allowed to anticipate what will afterwards be more clearly shown), has chosen to bring Ulysses into the closest connection with the Athenians, the reputed heads or ancestors of the Ionian race^ and has made him therefore, with a felicity which the poet did not and could not fully discern, the representative and spokesman of the great sea people of the historic time. The further proof of this point will be more appropriately given when we come to deal with the traces of predilections and national sympathies in the two sections of the Iliad. 77. In the remaining three books of the continuous Ulys- sean section, E, Z, and H, the position of Ulysses is not so pro- minent as in the three preceding. In E he is, for the time, overshadowed by Diomed, but the overshadowing is by one who is remarkably associated with Ulysses not only in the Ho- meric poems, but in the non-Homeric traditions of theTroica, as in the capture of the Palladium ^3. The fullest evidence of this companionship is given in book K, where, however, they are already at the outset looked on as brothers in arms (1. 109), and the relation is one acknowledged also in the Odyssey, where Menelaus couples the two warriors together in close companionship within the 'Wooden Horse,' avrap kya> Kal TvSeiSt]? Kai Sios 'OSvaa-evs (6 380)1*. There is therefore a prima facie case to consider them not as rivals but as confederates 1^, and, in point of fact, they are so linked together, inasmuch as the special favour of Athene " It is worth noting that, in Xenophon's list of ' hunting heroes,' Menestheus stands between Ulysses and Diomed (Xen. de Ven. ch. i.). '^ The reply of Ulysses has the effect of calling forth a retractation on the part of Agamemnon. To him alone an apology for sharp words is tendered by Aga- memnon, a point omitted in the case of Diomed and Sthenelus, who protest similarly but receive no apology. '^ Diomed is said to have founded a new Argos in Apulia, and resembles Ulysses in being one of the Eponymous heroes conjoined with him by the Sagas in Italian colonisation. Compare on their conjunction in Italy, Preller, R. Myth. p. 663. " Diomed is mentioned in other two passages of the Odyssey (7 167 and 181). '* Hayman (Od. i. p. 47 of Pref.) almost overstates the point when he says, ' Odysseus in the Iliad has Diomedes as an alter ego, his subordinate and executive half.' 88 THE PROBLEM OF THE HOMERIC POEMS. is bestowed on both warriors in book E (cp. 1. 519 and 669-676), as it is also again in book * in the adventures of the Games. This throws considerable light upon the point, and shows that the glory of Diomed, which seems in this book to transcend that of Achilles at its highest, diffuses a part of its radiance also on Ulysses i". Accord- ingly Ulysses is similarly raised to a position of rival eminence by performing a parallel exploit to that which is afterwards given to Achilles, but which Achilles, the hero of the whole, does not overpass. He slays in suc- cession seven Lycian warriors in lines that are exactly parallel to the exploit of Achilles in slaying (* an) the seven Paeonians. The position of Lycians in the war pictures of the Iliad is in reahty nobler than that of the Paeonians, so that, in this respect, the author of E has brought Ulysses, like Diomed, into close competition with the hero of the whole poem. The manner in which this exploit of Ulysses is introduced is also worthy of attention. It is introduced at the point where the greatest exploit of the Trojans in these early cantos has been performed, viz. after Sarpedon's slaying of Tlepolemus, and it is to Ulysses therefore that the poet here attributes the stroke counter- balancing that achievement. He is further described as rX-qfiova Ovfibv i-)(a>v^'', a notable characteristic, for he is the only single hero who is called tXtj/ioov in the Iliad, K 231 '^ The only instances in which the name of Achilles is introduced in the incidents of the First Battle (A — Z) are in connection with exploits, either of Ulysses, or of Diomed (A 512 and Z 99). — Also, the only PriamidiE, who fall in the First Battle, are given to their spears, and the first falls by Ulysses (A 499 ubi Schol., and E 159). " This expression TKri/iav 9vix6s recalls a combination largely developed except in the Achilleid. The following gives a view of the facts ; — t€tA.?;i5ti Sw/xS, nine times in Odyssey. Cp. Merry on Od. \ 181. KpaSirj TSTXrjvTa, once in Odyssey (y 23). rKTjfioiv and TToXvTKiiixcov Bv/xU, twice in Ulyssean (E 670 of Ulysses, H 152). T) TITOS evn6s, once in Ulyssean (n 49). ( once m Odyssey (p 284 of Ulysses). When it is further added that t\t;//£ui/ and jroXurXiyjuaii' (without 6vn6s) are as personal epithets given especially to Ulysses (viz. in K 231 and 498, and Od. a 319), we obtain a synthesis which binds together the whole group of expressions (eighteen in all) as bearing the mint of a family likeness. It will be difficult to account for this distribution in special areas on the theory of single authorship. CRITERION AS TO HONOUR TO ULYSSES. 89 and 498, in the former of which the explanation is subjoined, marking it out as a specialty of the man, at'et yap oi kv\ (ppeat 6v/ibs eroX/ia. In Z and H there is less of specialty to note regarding Ulysses. The former canto is one closely linked on to the preceding, and was indeed in ancient times cited along with it under a common title (AiofirjSovs dpLdTeia). One exploit, however, is mentioned, the slaying of Pidytes (Z 30). There is ample evidence, in other parts, of affinity to the Odyssey, although, owing partly to the scene being chiefly within the Trojan walls, there are fewer traces of homage to its hero. Neither is there any special homage to him in H, except that he figures as one of the ' Nine Worthies ' that start forth to accept Hector's challenge to single combat. That he is in the poet's eye a marked personage is manifest from the mode in which his name is introduced, namely, at the close of the list, which is a point of great significance, just as we found in B 407. Ulysses is so important a person that he must stand in some way marked out by himself, and hence he is not lumped in with the rest, but, since he could not head the list, or take precedence of Agamemnon, the next place of honour is assigned to him, so that his name comes last and is therefore the climax or copestone ^^ (H 168). That this interpretation of the poet's intention is the correct one, rather than another which might explain his coming last upon prudential principles, is shown by the manner in •' The place of honour in a poetic enumeration is generally, as in the position of the ^akids in the Camp at Troy, at the extremes, either first or last. Among nine instances of the latter are these four, B 407, H 168, 1 169, and K 231, all examples of honour to Ulysses. (In the Achilleid Ulysses is generally thrown in, as it were, in the middle, almost like Nestor's Kaicoi (A 299, kukovs S' is iiiuaov iXaaatv'). Cp. A 145, S 29, T 48, 310). Yet in E 519 he occupies the middle place. He also occupies the middle place in the ship-camp, according to 223 and A 6 (Achillean parts). The remaining five instances are these : (5) Zeus is third in list of Kronid Brothers in O 192 ; (6) Diomed is last in list of competitors in * 357, where he is expressly called ox' dpiciTos; (7) Pisistratus last of six Nestoridce in Od. 7 415, as being the most prominent surviving son of Nestor ; (8) Euryalus last in list of Phseacians, in Od. fl 115, where Naubolides is his patronymic and not, as some have thought, a new individual, otherwise we should have an anticlimax of an unknown person ; (9) Klytoneus, last among sons of Alcinous, but victor in foot-race {9 iig, 123). Compare the position of Achilles, named last among twenty-one, in Xenophon's list of 'Hunting Heroes' (Xen. Ven. ch. i), and the order of arrangement of the three gods in B 478, where the middle place is that of the inferior deity. 90 THE PROBLEM OF THE HOMERIC POEMS. which the hero elsewhere resents the imputation of ' coming last ' as if with a view to safety (A 354). Thus it has been shown that, in the continuous section B to H, which is generally regarded even by those inclined to the Wolfian view as a fairly uniform sequence, the position occupied by Ulysses is in four of them transcendant, and, in the remaining two, which cannot be separated from the others, remarkably prominent. 78. Turning to the next group of non- Achillean cantos, I and K, we find him, if possible, in still greater eminence. In I he is selected to be the spokesman of the Greek chiefs in the supplicatory embassy to Achilles. He is therefore in a position for the time second only to that of Achilles. The hero of the Odyssey addresses the hero of the Iliad. The latter in his reply addresses himself mainly to Ulysses, whom he names twice, and who is the only one of the envoys so addressed in the great speech of denunciation^'. He leads the way when they enter, is the first to rise when taking leave of Achilles (I 657), and gives in the report on his return. This high position, it may be said, is nowise peculiar ; he owed it to the reputation he enjoyed in epic tradition of being an adroit and powerful speaker. It is important to note, however, that his eminence is highest in those cantos that are least firmly attached to the nucleus of the Achil- leid, and among such cantos the Ninth or I is generally numbered. The fact is strengthened by the proximity of K, still more decidedly external to the primitive Achilleid, in which canto the prominence assigned to him cannot be accounted for, except on the theory previously advanced. The judicious commentator Fasi, in his notes on the opening of K, joins together I and K as peculiar in the position they hold in the poem, and mentions as one of what he calls the ' difficulties ' attaching to the position of these cantos in the poem of the Achilleid, that Ulysses has in both of them the 1° It is remarkable that the effect of Achilles' speech is described in a formula first applied to the eloquence of the Thunderer in © 28. The formula occurs once of Zeus, once of Achilles, and of none else with certainty, unless of Ulysses, who is credited according to some interpreters with a similar compliment in I 696. This last line, however, is doubtful, and it is not clear that, if it were genuine, it expresses the effect of Ulysses' speaking. CRITERION AS TO HONOUR TO ULYSSES. 91 Hauptrolle or chief role ^". Under the theory we are advancing, these 'difficulties' disappear. When we examine K, we find that Ulysses is there drawn with especial care, and, though he is coupled with Diomed in the night adventure, the real direction of the enterprise is bestowed upon him as the pivot of the action, so that we consider Payne Knight (Prolegom. 26, 37) and Mr. Gladstone to be justified in calHng this canto the true dpLaTeia of Ulysses, that is, the canto celebrating his prowess ^^. The manner in which he is introduced last in the list of volunteers among the heroes (1. 231), with a special * addition ' appertaining only to himself, and the mode in which the poet invests him with interest by the long history of the casque ^^, which he dons for the occasion, more ample than the account given of Diomed's armour in the same expedition, combine to render him the hero of the hour. How different the relation in which we find him standing to Diomed in a canto almost contiguous but not Ulyssean (viz. ©), is a crucial difficulty on any other hypothesis than '" The fact that in K Ulysses is described as arming himself with the Bow, is an important link uniting this book to the Odyssey, where he is represented in the supreme moment of the action, when commencing the attack on the Suitors, as so armed. Without this incidental mention in book K, we might have difficulty in identifying the hero of the Odyssey as the one who figures in the scenes of the Iliad, and therefore K is an important link to connect the Iliad and Odyssey. ^' Apuleius (de Deo Socr. ch. 18), referring to this nocturnal expedition, speaks of Ulysses as the mens, Diomed as the manus, of the enterprise. Doederlein on K 349 remarks that Ulysses has only to speak, and Diomed complies. — Contrast also Nestor's respectful demeanour to Ulysses with the somewhat cavalier style of wakening Diomed (1, 158). ■ Z'^' "^ The history of the Helmet in 'k 260-71 is a characteristic piece of minute description, paralleled in the Homeric poems only by the descent of the Sceptre in Iliad B and the Bow of Eurytus in the Odyssey. The moment chosen by the poet for introducing his descriptive history of these three instrumenta, is, remarkably enough, the moment when Ulysses takes them into his hands to handle them. The bow of Pandarus in A, the armour of Ereuthalion in H, and the shield of Ajax in H 220, are similarly invested with interest, though less sustained than in the former instances by an array of gradations of transmission. They happen to be all in Ulyssean cantos. Behind these little bits of deflTrati^e description, it looks as if we could almost discern looking out upon us the glance of a keen and loving eye like that with which his nearest compeer in modem times, Walter Scott, would fasten on and kindle over some piece of ancient armour that had passed through many a hand and known many a bloody field.— Against these six examples, greater or smaller, in the non- Achillean area, it is right V note one approach to a parallel in the Achilleid, in the eaprj^ of Meges (O 530). 92 THE PROBLEM OF THE HOMERIC POEMS. that which concludes in favour of two different strata of authorship in the Ihad. 79. There remain only two presumably non-Achillean cantos, * and 12. In one of these, viz. £l, we do not find any special reference or homage to him, and the proofs whereby that book appears to be Ulyssean, though we believe sufficient, are mainly linguistic and ethical. It is as if the poet felt that there was no need to decorate a hero who was so near the horizon and about to appear as the rising sun in a new hemisphere. In *, the canto of the games, his position is remarkable. In the first place, there is no reference to his recent wound and disablement, our knowledge of that being only from the Achilleid^^ His most important appearance is in the foot-race. That he is not in the chariot race competing with the grander kings, is in accordance with his humble status in the camp, in so far as pomp and state are concerned, for he is without an equipage. In the footrace, however, he is the popular favourite (1. 766), and he wins the prize ^*. This may not mean much, but when we consider that it is through the special favour of Athene, who limits her favour in these games to Ulysses and Diomed, we discern an analogy to the scene in the Eighth Canto of the Odyssey, when Ulysses astonishes the minds of the Phseacians, through the help of the same goddess. The prize too is one that has come from far, from Sidon, and is the only one in all the bestowments in the games that has a special history (1. 743). It is over Ajax, the swift son of Oileus, that the victory is won, under circumstances of great mortification to him, and the success of Ulysses is more marked that his rival was regarded as without a peer in nimbleness (H 521). This last passage, however, is in an Achillean canto. The full significance of ''' The Schol. on T 709, either naively or sarcastically, remarks, that ' perhaps the wounds were healed by Athene.' ^' He also enters the lists against Ajax the Telamonian in the wrestling match — the little man, as he seems to have been conceived by the poet, against the giant. The battle is a drawn one, but he is evidently the popular favourite (1. 728), and according to the Scholiast, (II. T 736), was really first in the contest {rivts "72, 1237 Io6 THE PROBLEM OF THE HOMERIC POEMS. He actually produces the impression of being, like them, ' a child of Zeus ' (N 54) Accordingly, he is frequently insolent and even truculent to his adviser Polydamas (M 245, and 2 293-6), on the former of which passages Doederlein remarks, ' Atrocior haec est minitatio (Hectoris),-" and Heyne, ' Invidiose dicta et amare.' What is remarkable is that this harshness should come immediately after his famous utterance, efy oiuivo's dpiaros K.T.X., which has become a household word, 'The one best omen is our country's cause.' It is far from clear, how- ever, that the poet intends it as a sentiment entirely praise- worthy, however it may appear so to the modern mind. On the contrary, it appears to partake of the recklessness of CEdipus jeering at the KXa^ovras opvLS (CEd. Rex, 966), and accord- ingly the Scholiast on the passage (M 237) thinks it indicates in Hector a lack of piety, and he goes on, in a remarkable note, to contrast the Hector so speaking with Ulysses who no- where utters any such sentiment (cp. also A 398, Z 183). The most suspicious point is that the same sentiment towards omens appears in the Odyssey, but it is there in the mouth of one of the impious suitors [ji 181), and the inference is that it has really an equally sinister tone in the mouth of Hector in Iliad M. The Ulyssean Hector, on the contrary, is not only modest as to himself (Z 479) but speaks in a religious tone (Z 269). One of the unfavourable impressions we obtain of him from the Achilleid, is that he seems to be, if not a toper, a companion of such (P 577, cp. Schol. ad loc), but in Z 264 he produces the very opposite impression. Further, the denunciations of the Achillean Hector to others besides Polydamas are not only harsh but brutal in tone (N 831, O 349). On the other hand the Ulyssean injunction in the mouth of Nestor, parallel to O 349, ' not to mind the stripping of the arms,' is firm but comparatively mild in tone (Z 68-70). The Achillean Hector denounces the coming of the Greeks as being against the will of the gods (O 720), a feeling very different from that perceptible in the pensive warrior of the Ulyssean area. The author of the Achilleid has also given him qualities in great measure such as make him a fit victim for the prowess of Achilles, and, with this view, he speaks of now been replaced by tixtTai (boasts), on the ground that the latter is suitable to Hector {KavxruJ-arias'ycip a "ExTap. Schol. ad loc). LATENT SYMPATHIES AND ANTIPATHIES. 1 07 him as an antagonist even to Poseidon (E 390) and as 5e/tay Kol elSos dyrjTov (X 370), magnifying Hector in order to magnify the conqueror of Hector, to whom Hector, before his death, is made to concede the pre-eminence (T 434) ^^. In sharp contrast with the uniform strain of the Achilleid will be found the prevailing notes in the counter strain of the Ulyssean books regarding this hero. The tenderness which he there shows to Andromache is akin to the brotherliness which he shows even to Paris, whose conduct before and during the war he does not commend (Z 531), and to Helenus, com- plying with his directions in Z 102, and similarly in H 54, two instances in which his conduct contrasts strongly with the be- haviour of the Achillean Hector to kis monitor Polydamas. He is not excepted, it is true, from the censure passed on Priam's sons of being aVtcrrot and virep^iaXoi, but on the other hand he is not put forward as the exulting victor in the event of Grecian defeat, which is a part assigned to Tpcocoi/ Tis in A 176, and is not specialised to Hector, as we may be sure would have been the case in the Achilleid. The only instance in which the Ulyssean Hector approaches the boastful style of the Achillean is in the challenge given in H 67-91, but it is no more than Ulysses, upon occasion, is represented as claiming for himself when he says kui /xev /cAeoy ovpavov iicei (Od. I ao). The circumstances are very peculiar, for we find that the soothsayer Helenus has immediately before promised Hector safety, if not victory, in the coming single combat, and this as ' the voice of the everliving gods,' and Hector is naturally enough stimulated, by such a prophetic encouragement, to give the challenge with a brave heart. Before this prophetic announcement, however, he is downhearted and melancholy, as we see in r, when he is full of moral indignation at Paris's poltroonery (41-57), and in E he seems strangely paralysed, possibly by forebodings of evil resulting from the treachery of Pandarus, until he is roused to action by the reproaches of Sarpedon (471, 493), while in the following book Z his !• The epithet a,vlfO(^6vot, which is given to Hector only among warriors at ' Troy, is peculiarly localised. It is bestowed seven times in Achilleid, and on him only, except in the formula dvdpocp6vovs x"P<^^> °f Achilles in 2 317. It is given to Hector (no doubt as a traditive epithet from the Achilleid), ihrice in Ulyssean Books, where he has to share it with Ares and Lycurgus. In the Odyssey it does not occur except as an «pithet of (pap/mKov. Io8 THE PROBLEM OF THE HOMERIC POEMS. pensive melancholy reappears in the most winning and gracious form". In 12 (77a) we hear of his ' gentleminded- ness ' [dyavo^poa-vvr]), and, except Ulysses, he is the only hero to whom that quality is ascribed in either poem. 4. Helen. 87. In the Achilleid it is remarkable how seldom this heroine is referred to, and then somewhat disparagingly. Apart from the formal title, r]VKOfios ^^ there is an entire ab- sence of the special complimentary epithets of state and dignity which she enjoys abundantly in the non-Achilleid and in the Odyssey, but, what is more significant, there is the occur- rence of the only decidedly repulsive epithet which is ever applied to her. Once she is called piyeSavrj, i.e. 'gruesome, horrible, odious,' as if her name could only be mentioned with a shudder. It is found in T ^%6, in the mouth of Achilles, after the Reconciliation, and though not coming directly from the Achillean bard himself, must be regarded as indicative of his feeling toward her. Elsewhere we may discern an indifference, at least on the part of the great Thessalian chief, to the recovery of Helen. A northern chief was naturally less interested in the honour and restoration of the southern princess, and less concerned in the quarrel with the Trojans, and there is very early expression given to this comparative indifference, in A 150-160 (cp. afterwards, § 106, 6). On the other hand, when we pass to the Odyssey and Ulyssean cantos, there comes quite an efflorescence of epithets in her honour, and we seem to pass into an entirely new zone of sentiment regarding her. She is portrayed in the most affecting situations, and under the most agreeable and moving incidents, and the only disparaging epithets she " Compare Schubarth's panegyric on Hector, quoted in Nitzsch (Sagen-poesie, p. 207), and the remark of Dr. Arnold in Hist, of Rome, iii. p. 64. " The description of Paris as 'husband of fair-haired Helen' ('EA.eV)7S -nSais I'/vicdiioio) seems a stereotyped formula. It contains the only epithet of praise to Helen, common to bolh sections of the Iliad, occurring four times in the Achil- leid, and thrice in the non-Achilleid. The word fjvKonos has, however, very lofty associations. It is given to Athene, Leto, Thetis, Here, and in the Odyssey to Calypso, among goddesses ; among mortals only to Niobe and Briseis. That rjVKiixoio was a stereotyped phrase applied to Helen appears from its occurrence in Hesiod (Op. et Di. 164). LATENT SYMPATHIES AND ANTIPATHIES. 109 receives are those employed by herself '^ What bestows on her especial lustre is the circumstance that she bears in this area the epithet of the 'Lady of Argos,' or the 'Argive,' and this epithet she shares with Her6, the celestial consort of Zeus, and with Her6 alone ^''. There are fourteen oc- currences of this word 'Apydrj, and these only in the Odyssey and Ulyssean cantos. Twice it is given to Her^, the remaining twelve are bestowed on Helen. A fact of this kind is sufficient to show that we are not taking up arbitrary ground, but have pierced through to the core of scientific fact, and that we were justified in predicating, as we did, a special interest in Argos, i.e. the Peloponnesus, in the case of the Ulyssean bard. The following table exhibits the special epithets of Helen, with their various occurrences : — Ach. Ul. Od 'Apyei'j) .... 9 3 Ato? exyeyavia 2 2 bla yvvaiKav . 3 2 evTrarepeia I I KaWiKOflOS I Kovprj Atos I KaWtirdptjos I XevKotXevos I I TavvKeTrXoe I 2 o 18 13 Thirty-one occurrences of decorative epithets (without reckoning the var. lect. iroXvqpaTos in Od. o 126) can thus be cited, and of these the Achilleid contributes none. Moreover there is not only a singular divergence in the case of the Achilleid, but a remarkable balance of practical equality, and therefore conformity of sentiment, between the Odyssey and the Ulyssean cantos. There is^ in truth, a real equality of distribution, for the apparent minority of instances in the " Mr. Grote (H. i. 415) remarks on Homer's chivalry towards Helen, in never allovfing reproaches against her except from her own lips ; very different from the treatment she receives from Stesichonis and Euripides. The remark is quite justified, provided we eliminate the Achillean evidence as shown in T 326. ''" In one passage Here is represented as herself applying her own epithet 'Afyydij to Helen (B 161). no THE PROBLEM OF THE HOMERIC POEMS. Odyssey is quite in keeping with the circumstances of the poem, in which she performs a much less prominent part, compared with what the Ulyssean cantos, from the nature of their subject, have assigned to her. There is a further inference which we may draw incidentally from the above, bearing on one of the weapons of the Chorizontes. They alleged that the Iliad and Odyssey diverged in regard to Helen's abduction ; the Iliad, according to them, implying that she was an unwilling victim, the Odyssey representing her as consenting to the abduction. The passages on which they founded were B 356, repeated again in B 590, where mention is made of 'EAej'?;? opiMrjixard re aToua)(^ds re, which they held to mean, not unnaturally, ' the violences to Helen and her groans.' Hence they argued, she is a victim in the . Iliad, for she goes to Troy 8v(Tava 282) and a7raXoTpe(pr]9 criaXos in 't> 363, expressions that imply their inclusion among the ancient stock of a household in that age. Also, regarding the goose, the actual domestication of it, according to Pictet (Orig. Ar. i. p. 389), must extend much ' The passage in Od. v 105 seems to me to show the reverse. I have allowed the statement, however, to stand, as Buchholz in his ' Realien ' claims TiSaiBiiaaio as so indicating. — Another argument equally fallacious would be ; vultures wild in Iliad, but in Odyssey acting as falcons, according to the common view of Od. X 302. — The revelations of Philology regarding the life of the Aryan race ages before the Iliad and Od) ssey throw great doubt on what may be called ' snap- arguments ' of this kind. If domestication of various animals is as old as the time of Aryan unity, the Greek race had originally partaken in this knowledge, and, accordingly, we find them both in the Iliad and the Odyssey in possession of a fair measure of such knowledge. * Even axis dypios itself, of © 338, implies that there was a crCs nol dyptos. ARCHAICA— RELIGION AND MYTHOLOGY. 129 higher than either Iliad or Odyssey, since it is among birds, what the ox is among animals, the oldest domesticated creature ^. 98. Passing from these incidental and fallacious arguments, I come to consider evidences of a more weighty character, from which we may infer a certain difference of age and may predicate anteriority of one poem, posteriority of another. It is generally admitted that the Greek race passed through a certain stadium of thought and opinion, with certain phases of manners and ideas succeeding each other in a determinable sequence, and we can discern their progress along the arc of the evolution-process historically cognisable, for although the commencement of the circle is beyond our view, we can mark the different segments of the arc that are visible, and can dis- tinguish these as posterior and anterior, relatively to each other. This progression is apparent in their Religion and Mythology, in their Ethical Ideas and in their Manners and Customs, and although, owing to various disturbing causes, great care must be exercised in estimating age in such matters, a certain amount of substantial and sound evidence is obtainable, after careful sifting under these heads, to justify a certain differentiation between the Odyssey and the older portion of the Iliad. That differentiation rests, however, more upon evidence that implies diversity of authorship and involves a different ethical point of view rather than any great separation in respect of age. 99. In the first place, though it hardly amounts to proof but only to a presumption, it is in the Achilleid that we find the most notable remembrances of primitive tradition, 'anklange' out of a remote primeval time, from a period when Aryan and Semite were not yet severed. As echoes of this most ancient time appear (a) the mention of the Rainbow twice spoken of as a 'sign' (repm) in the cloud (A 38, P 548), and (,8) the association of a ' flood ' of waters with the punishment for wickedness (n 386), expressions that recall, under a certain variation, the oldest traditions of the Book of Genesis, even those pre-Abrahamic. It is singular ' According to Pictet (ibid.), the name of the goose (which is not onomatopoetic) is shown to extend, beyond the Aryan circle proper, to Japan and the Malay area.. K 130 THE PROBLEM OF THE HOMERIC POEMS. that these remote reminiscences from hoary antiquity should be found only in the Achilleid. Further, (y) it is to be observed that the Achilleid remains very much on the ancient ethical basis common to the oldest Semitic thought, with its theory of Life complete within the orb of the present world and void of any distinct doctrine of Retribution in a Future life, whereas the Ulyssean cantos and Odyssey present a wider horizon of mental vision and recognise Retribution and a Future, though shadowy, life'' I proceed now to adduce more tangible grounds, derived from the Mythology of the Achilleid. This can be shown to be in a very archaic condition, and among the traces of archaism may be specified the following. 100. I. The Olympian dynasty of Zeus, though in possession of supremacy, is regarded in the Achilleid as having recently acceded to this supremacy and only after a struggle -with re- bellious and not yet entirely subjugated powers. In the Odyssey and Ulyssean cantos of the Iliad, the dynasty of Zeus is in undisputed possession of the world, and the 7'eferences to rebel- lioiis pozvers are all but e7itirely vanished. That there is a distinct difference under this head may be indicated from the following considerations. While Zeus is everywhere styled the son of Kronos, it is only in the Achilleid that this Kronos is conceived and felt as a dis- tinct personality. In the Odyssey and Ulyssean cantos the name of KpoviSrjs is purely titular, and Kronos has faded into a shadow. There is in these hardly an indication of the comparative recency of the Olympian dynasty, scarcely a suggestion that there had been a time when that dynasty was not. Apart from the solitary and, in the view of some critics, doubtful instance of Ovpavtaives in E 898 ', if it is taken to mean not Olympians but sons of Uranus, there is no allusion outside the Achilleid to any ante-Olympian dynasty, whereas such allusions are there found in comparative fre- quency, leading to the belief that the dynasty of Zeus is but a ' parvenu ' in the succession of the ages. In so far as the Homeric poems are concerned, the evidence for such a " The evidence as to this point will be given in a subsequent section, § 103, t. ' Nagelsbach (Horn, Theol. p 78) denies even this instance, and accepts it here in the sense of 'OXu^moi. If this is so, the argument above becomes all the stronger. ARCHAIC A— RELIGION AND MYTHOLOGY. I3I position is entirely confined to the Achilleid. In proof let it be noted, (i) Tartarus is the state-prison of the Olympian dynasty, for the confinement of what may be called their state-enemies. It occurs only in the Achilleid (0 13, 481, H 279). It is not once referred to in the Ulyssean books or in the Odyssey, even in situations that might have naturally led to some reference, as in the picture of Hades in the Eleventh Odyssey, where, however, it is strangely absent. (2) The chief occupants of this state-prison are lapetos and Kronos. The former is known to us only from the Achilleid (0 479); the latter, as an active personality^, appears likewise only in the Achilleid (0 479, E 203, 274, O 225). (3) The symptoms of possible rebellion against Zeus, like the memories of opposition in the past against Zeus, are confined to the Achilleid. In evidence may be mentioned the mythe of Briareus in A ^, the threatened disaffection of Athene in ©, the secret plotting of Poseidon in N. All these phenomena suppose the resistibility of Zeus, a notion of which it would be difficult to find a trace outside the Achilleid. (4) The mysterious reference to Oceanus as the father of all, the origin even of Gods (E 201 and 244) '°, also Achillean, implies that the Olympian rule was comparatively young. According to Hesiod in the Theogony, Oceanus comes fore- most among the sons of Uranus, among whom Kronos comes last, and to this extent the Achillean poet seems to occupy ground akin to that of the Boeotian poet in this matter of dynastic succession among the elder Gods, nearer cer- tainly than that occupied by the poet of the Odyssey and Ulyssean books ^^ ' A 59 is the nearest approach to a recognition of the personality of Kronos in the Ulyssean area. ' ' The age of conflicts among the Gods {as Gods and not as interested in spectacles of earth) has passed away, but here, in the Briareus legend, we have an echo of the element of Titanic wars.' Cox, Mythol. i. 336- '» This Achillean passage about Oceanus has mythologically such an archaic look about it that Professor Blackie compares it to a ' knob of primeval granite cropping up in a sandstone country ' (H. iv, p. 312). '1 Not only is there an entire absence of the Kronos and lapetos mythe, as well as of the Prometheus mythe, with their suggestions of antagonism to Zeus, but various rebellious powers seem, in the Odyssey at least, to wear a milder aspect. Thus Atlas in Hesiod and in ^schylus is represented as suffermg his doom from his connection with the Titan-fight (Hes. Th. 514); in the Odyssey there is no K. 2 132 THE PROBLEM OF THE HOMERIC POEMS. loi. II. The conception of the Olympians in the Achilleid is one full of unrest, with little of the calm quiescence in which they are aftertvards portrayed, and, as in all primitive mythologies, hyperbole is made the main expression of the godlike and divine. In the Odyssey and Ulyssean cantos, they are represented wider more of a quiescent aspect and with the hyperbolic element com- paratively subdued. A parallel argument to this has been a favourite weapon of the Chorizontes, as between the Iliad and the Odyssey. They aver, what is true, that Olympus in the Odyssey is a much more serene region than in the Iliad, and that the storms and feuds that once raged in it are now at rest^. Those critics forgot, however, to make allowance for the inherent exigencies of each poem, and failed to observe that the unrest of the Iliad is mainly within a certain well- defined area, and that the quiescence of Olympus in the Odyssey is in keeping with the calmer character of its theme. Under this head it may be noted (i) the 'scenes' as they may be called of domestic strife in Olympus are apparently only Achillean (A 586, H 250, O 18 1»). There does not appear to be elsewhere a repetition of them on the same scale, for the opening of A cannot be said to indicate domestic disorder in so pronounced a form, and indeed the aspect of Olympus at the opening of this Ulyssean book is comparatively quies- cent. Those Achillean ' scenes ' were among the most repulsive and indefensible in an ethical point of view, and from them was drawn in after time many a bitter arrow against the literal upholders of the Greek mythology. allusion to his Titan fight, and it is by no means clear that his position (in a 52) is one of doom or of pure punishment. So the 7i7afT6s or Giants of the Odyssey are not identical with the 77;7ei'€rs or rebellious giants of Hesiodic legend, and the Cyclopes of the Odyssey are entirely different from the Cyclopes of the Hesiodic poem vPreller, Or, M. i. 38S, 9). " There is a considerable basis for H. N. Coleridge's clever statement as to four gradations of Mythology in ancient Epics. ' The gods in the Iliad are never dii ex machi?us ; they are providential and governing. The difference even in the Odyssey is very discernible ■, in the ^neid the mythology is little else than ornamental, and in the Pharsalia there is none at all' (Col. Introd. p. 188). " The above is Preller's enumeration (Gr. Myth. ii. 105), who refers to them as ' diese furchtbar leidenschaftliche Scenen zwischen Zeus und Here.' He does not include, apparently, as so marked, the incident in A 20, which is from the Ulyssean area. — 'O-xS-^aav, applied to the Gods as a whole, occurs twice and only in Achilleid. ARCHAIC A — RELIGION AND MYTHOLOGY. 133 (2) The deceptions of Zeus by Here are only Achillean (E 360, 2 168, T 97), The last is only narrated and does not belong to the plot of the action. The other two, how- ever, are instances of undoubted deception and in connection with the actual scheme of the Achilleid. (3) The hyperbolic element, though appearing also in the Odyssey and Ulyssean cantos, abounds in the Achilleid. Thus, as examples of the gigantic in the representations of the Gods ■^*, we have of Zeus — 1. Olympus shaking with the nodding of his eyebrows and the waving of his locks (A 528). 2. Able to push all the Gods from their seats (A .580). 3. Tossing the Gods around the hall and putting them in mortal terror '^ (E 357, with which compare O 1 1 7, 136, 181, 224). 4. Suspending Here with anvils at her feet (O 19)., 5. Hurling Hephaestus over the celestial battlements (A 590). 6. Able to draw Gods and Earth and Sea aloft into the sky (© 23). 7. Threatening to inflict wounds on Her^ and Athene, such as ten years should not heal (0 418). Of Her^ we have these hyperboles — 1. Olympus reeling by the rocking of her chair (0 199). 2. Grasping Sea with one hand and Earth with the other in oath to Hypnos (E 272). Of Poseidon — 1. Roaring like nine or ten thousand men (S 148). 2. Making the sea dash up to ships and tents (S 392). 3. Advancing at four strides from Samothrace, whereat hills and woods tremble (N 17, 21). About a dozen hyperboles as to the Gods are thus producible, without reckoning in those from the second Theomachy in (cp. 1. 407) and the portents of Hephaestus burning up Scamander. These last are among what Grote calls ' the vast " Among hyperboles in the human area may be named the gigantic weapon of Ajax (twenty-two cubits long), which belongs to the Achilleid (,0 677). That of Hector is of more modest dimensions in O 494 as well as Z 319. " .These strange incidents, Nos. 3, 4, 5, are only narrated from some more ancient legends. Regarding the incident in B 257, Heyne remarks, 'Expressit mores radium aetatium, in quibus irae intemperantia regnat.' 134 THE PROBLEM OF THE HOMERTC POEMS. and fantastic conceptions' of superhuman agency, crowded into the closing scenes of the Achilleid ". Against these there can be produced hardly any parallel examples from the Ulyssean books, except the one in E (1. 859) as to the roar of Ares, which is modelled after E 148, that as to the ^gis of Athene (E 744), and that as to the motion of the steeds of Her6 (E 770), springing at once as far as a man can gaze across the dim deep. The conclusion under this branch of the subject will be further strengthened by the after evidence as to the aspects under which the mountain Olympus is regarded. In the meantime I need only mention the important fact, bearing on the greater quiescence of Olympus in the Odyssey and the Ulyssean cantos, that the famous expression ' the Gods who live at ease ' never occurs but outside the Achilleid '''. It is found only in Z 138 and in Od. 6 805 and e 122". 102. III. The conception of Zeus in the Achilleid is accord- ingly more primitive, with less of the ethical, more of the violent physical, force. In especial, though recognised as FlaTrip, which may -mean either Father or Possessor, he is represented more as an atmospheric than a spiritual Being. This view of his character, without being foreign to, is less prominent in, the Odyssey and Ulyssean cantos. The considerations stated above in § 100 as to the recency of the rule of Zeus, fit in and harmonise with this primitive conception of him. A dynasty, which is regarded as established by force, is naturally maintained by it, and hence harsh and fierce energies are ascribed to Zeus. How far we can discern in the Achilleid violent atmospheric phenomena may after- wards more fully appear. There is no mistaking, however, the elemental rdle of Zeus in the Achilleid as pre-eminently an atmospheric God, and the four passages, which Preller in his " Grote, Hist, of Gr. ii. p. 264. — 'The 'speaking horses' belong only to the Achilleid. Areion is mentioned only once, viz. in the Ulyssean book f, but he is not there vocal, though sometimes elsewhere, as in Propertius, so represented. " Zenodotus sought to introduce it into T 114, but it has not been accepted. — The term 'ixrjKoi, applied to their enforced inaction in A 75, is notevcorthy, but it is only for the special situation, not a characteristic epithet like p^ia {6jovTii. " To these might be added, as a fourth example, d«7;8efs of n 526, being an equivalent expression. Ma/tapfs is an older epithet belonging to both areas, and meant originally, big, or powerful (cp. Benfey, Lex.), earlier than blest. ARCHAICA— RELIGION AND MYTHOLOGY. ^'t.S 'Greek Mythology' (i. p. 77), adduces as marking this primi- tive conception of the God, are supplied by the Achilleid (M 353, N 795, n 295, 364) 19. To these might have been added, as almost equally significant, M 279, N 243, and T 357. Alongside of these seven examples of what may be called Jupiter Pluvius in the Achilleid, may be mentioned, as existing contemporaneously, though not so fully developed, the idea of Zeus as a righteous governor (cp. fl 387, a passage where the ethical and physical attributes are curiously interwoven), and as protector of sacred social relations, whence we hear of him as Zeus E^ivio^, as in N 625. What is more remarkable, while often and everywhere spoken of as Zeis narrip, he is known as Flarrip, simply and alone, in the Achillean area. This occurs eight times and is a peculiar phenomenon, un- exampled except in the Achilleid ^°. In the Odyssey, on the other hand, while the atmospheric character of Zeus is still frequently acknowledged, though with less amplitude of form (t 67, fx 313,405,415, ^303, o 397, 475, V 103), the ethical conception becomes more and more prominent. Hence we hear not only of Ziijs ^eivios (t 2,'ji, i 284, 389), but also of Zevs iKerija-ios (v 213), as the protector of suppliants. Although the Ulyssean cantos are without these titles of Zeus, the idea underlying these titles is there virtually present in the extended allegory of the ' Litse ' or Supplications, as daughters of Zeus (I 502). The extent to which the atmospheric and elemental con- " In the Achilleid we have in fact so ancient a representation of Zeus that it may be said Zeus is there the Firmament itself as much as the God of the Firmament, and there is a strong leaning to what may be called the old Pelasgian OeoXoyia which regarded Elemental Powers rather than Persons. It is significant that the expression ai$ipt vaiaiv, 'dwelling in ether' (cp. K 16), does not appear among his titles in the Achilleid. It occurs only in Odyssey and Ulyssean books. Ach. Ul. Od. I Ul. I Od. aWepi yaiav 021 I 8412,^166. I 623- It is true that the preparation for this expression has begun in the Achilleid, viz. O 610 (unless the ancient dOeTrjats of the lines 610-4 be sustained) and especially O 192, and we hear also of Aios SSfM or Sii/iaTa (A 222, 533, T 10, etc., much as in E 398), though only in the Odyssey we hear of Aios av\ri (8 74) ; (Ss inripTaTa daifiara yaUi is in Hesiod (Op. et Di. 1. 8), who has also aiOepi vaiaiv (ibid. 1. 18)). ''" Od. ft 65 is the nearest approach, but the precedence of Aii narpi a little before makes a peculiarity. So Od. v 324 is probably ' ihy father,' not ' the father.' The eight examples of iraTrjp alone = Z€{is in the Achilleid are A 579, 69, 245, A 80, H 352, n 250, P 648, X 209, recurring with remarkably broad and equable uni- formity. 136 THE PROBLEM OF THE HOMERIC POEMS. ception of Zeus prevails in the Achilleid as compared with the ethical and spiritual, and the extent to which out of the Achilleid this relation is either modified or reversed, may be seen in the following groups of phenomena : — Atmospheric and Physical. I. Nature-forces under Zeus. Ach. Ul. Od. Aihs avyal^^ ( = ovpavos Schol.) .... I Ai66€v jScXe/ii/ov . . I AlOS ^poPTTj . I Aios Kfpavnos . . ■ 4(?] I Aio? iiaari^ . I Albs vi<^€\ai I Aios m^dSes . . . I Alos ofijipos .... 2 I 2 Atos ovpos or €K Alos . I 2 Albs TrK-qyi] ( = light- ning, V. 1. piJri)) I Aios a-Tfponrj . . . I I Aimerris (of rivers) . 4 3^3 Aiorpeiprjs (of the Scamander) . . . I ov TiKero Zevs (of the ri-ver Xanthus) . , 2 I? Ach. Ul. N 837 O489 N 796 S 417, 117, * 198, 401 (?) N 812 B 146 T357'' A 493, M 286 E 91 S19 S 414 A 66 K154 n 174, P 263 s * 268, 326 ■!> 223 S 434, * 2 [0693?] Od. ^ 3°6 I III, 358 e 176, o 296 477,581,7)284 "* In this remarkable expression Zeus is made to include the function of Helios and to be the one comprehensive God. Elsewhere we hear of 01171} or 01170! ^«\ioio, which is also common to Achilleid, as a synonym for oipav6s. ''' The regimen of Aiis by vi(pi,Sfs is by some thought doubtful. If it is rejected, the proof as to the atmospheric character of Zeus becomes stronger, since Atbs ex TTOTeovToi must then be taken to mean, with Eustathius, e( aipos. Cp. Ebeling's Lexicon in l«TroTeo/xoi. '^ Two of the three instances of Aiiir«T^s in the Odyssey are of the Nile, to which it was entirely appropriate. I have not included IvSios, occurring in the debatable portion of A 735 and only elsewhere in ! 450, as also the expression Aios hiavToi in B 134, which, along with rjpara ix Aicis (in Od. f 93) are possibly remnants of atmospheric conceptions. Against these would have to be reckoned the peculiar expression Aibs aiyis, which is more clearly atmospheric in the Achilleid than any- where else (cp. O 308, P .S93). It has, however, obtained a hieratic and traditional sense, so that no conclusion can be drawn from its occurrences or from those of ai7ioxos. 'T:fii(vyos and eipioira or eipv6ira (the latter occurring very frequently in Achilleid) are, likewise, not so distinctly almospherie as to be fairly included in these enumerations. ARCHAICA— RELIGION AND MYTHOLOGY. 137 II. Physical Epithets of Zeus. apyiKepavvos epi^pffieTric ipiybovnos vepriv, and (ppives, expressions in which there is no strictly ethical content, we come to a class of expressions bearing on his moral relations and providential ordering. °' If T 121 is reckoned in, there are three instances of dpyivipawos, '^ Among the minor peculiarities of the Achilleid is the occurrence of Kviveai ocppiifs attributed to Zeus in A 528, P 209, and to Here, O 102. The expression is one .that might be added to the atmospheric associations of the Achilleid, as it is in origin meteorological. — Here is also more distinctly an Elemental power in Achilleid, sends thunder A 45, storms and clouds O 26, # 6, these citations being those given in proof by Preller (Gr. M. i. p. iii). The character of Ares, who was originally an elemental power, the Thracian storm-god, appears likewise most clearly from the Achilleid (Gr. M. i. p. 203). 138 THE PROBLEM OF THE HOMERIC POEMS. I. Moral Forces or Products. Atos aicra .... Aios e', as limited to the house of Zeus, occurs twice in the Achilleid (four times, if the second Theomachy is reckoned in). In the Odyssey, while still used of the house of Zeus, in 6 331, it is transferred to less lofty scenes, and we hear of it in the case of the palace of Alcinous (v 4). (a) 7Aaoy, of a God only, in the Achilleid (A 583). In the Ulyssean book (I 635) we read of it in connection with a mortal (i'Aaoy eV^eo 6v/a.6v, where the Schol. says, OeoirouT, i. e. the poet treats Achilles as a god). Except the doubtful T 178, these are its only occurrences. (3) Aiorpecp'^s, originally of the ^aa-ikevs only, has come to be applied more laxly to larger aggregates of men, other than ^aaiXfjes. Hence SLOTpe(pecov al^r^wv, in B 660, and (with V. 1.) A 380, besides a similar expression in E 463, with which compare Od. e 378 avQpmiroia-L SioTpecpeea-ai, of the Phaeacians. (A loyevrjs, being nowhere found in "Csy^plural in Homer, does not supply any parallel illustration.) Cp. Mure, H. G. L. ii. p. 79. (4) 'y4t5j7y, always a person or being in the Achilleid, which it often is also in the Ulyssean cantos and the Odyssey, appears as a place or region only in the neozoic area, in * 344. (5) The title "A va^, simpliciter, in the vocative of address, without appendages or regimen, was used specially of Apollo. It is found so, twice, in the Achilleid (n 514, 533), but in Ulyssean cantos it is five times given to a hero (B 384, 360, I 33, 376, * 588, apart from T 177), in the Odyssey thrice to a hero (Od. A. 71, 144, ^61), and once to another God than Apollo (e 450). A further departure from hieratic usage is seen in the frequency with which the word is, as it were, secularized to signify master or owner oi property (4' 417, 446, 517, i2 734, and in the Odyssey in such as a 397, and many other examples). This coordination is confirmed by the use of dvdcra-co as applied to things, viz. in B 108 (with a general " On Arjit/jTepos oktiJ in Achilleid and d«TiJ without Arju-qrtpos elsewhere, see afterwards § n?, 7. ARCHAICA— RELIGION AND MYTHOLOGY. 147 class-name v^aoLo-i), and in Od. with Smjiaaiv and Krearecro-ti/, as in a 117 and 8 93. (6) '/yv/co/ioy seems to have belonged properly to Goddesses. It is given to Athene, Here, Leto, Thetis, and in the Odyssey to Calypso. These usages may be said to be ' diffused.' Helen is the only mortal who is so styled in the AchiUeid. Her traditional position, however, is so lofty that, although the author of the Achilleid does not style her anywhere ' a daughter of Jove,^ and is not specially rapt into admiration regarding her (cp. § 87), he so far associates her with God- desses. Mere mortals get the epithet ^vKoyio^ only in Ulyssean cantos, as Briseis in B 689, and Niobe in i2 466. (7) 'Afi^poairj 3^ in Achilleid is chiefly, if not entirely, an unguent used by the celestials. Four, if not five, instances are producible (fl 670, 680, T 38, 347, 353). No other clear instance exists of this older sense, except that a/i/Spocrtos as adj. occurs in '^ 187, to which Od. 6 445 presents an analogy. The newer sense of ' celestial food ' is found with clearness only in the neozoic portion, viz. E 777 (for Herd's steeds), and Od. e 93, 199, ix 6^. (In E 369 and N ^5, the presence of €TSap = ' food,' makes evidence from them doubtful.) The state of the case appears thus to be : — Ach. Ul. Od. dix^poa-ir) as ' odorous unguent '.511 „ as ' food for celestials ' .013. (8) The solemn expression eir' 6pvcn veva-e is confined in the Achilleid to the nod of Zeus. It occurs there twice (A 528, P 209). In the Ulyssean canto (I 616), it is given to Achilles, and, as if to put Ulysses on the same high pedestal as Achilles, once in Od. 43^ (cp. t 468). To none else is it given, even to Zeus, except once to Athene (w 164). (9) 'ApyvpoTo^os is nowhere applied but to Apollo. It sometimes stands independent as virtually a Proper name. At other times it is an epithet and has 'AttoXXcov subjoined. It is only in the Ulyssean cantos and Odyssey that it occurs as an epithet, and is divested of its lofty independence. »• In Hesiod (Theog. 640) it is defined, along with vUrap, as the food of the gods. In the Hymn to Demeter (238), ii^ppoatri is found in its archaic AchiUean sense (xP'«f«' a/iepociv). It is remarkable that 'unguents' are a feature of celestial life in the Vedic mythology. L 2 148 THE PROBLEM OF THE HOMERIC POEMS. Ach. UI. Od. 'Apyvp6To^os alone, as Proper name 320 „ with 'A7r 167, and this is its sole application in the Ulyssean area (A 140, E 798). (Regarding epiySovnos, see § 133. 5.) As a corollary confirming the whole argument, it is significant of advancing freedom in the treatment of divine personalities that hardly any formal comparisons are instituted between them and individuals in the Achilleid, but these emerge not unfrequently when we pass beyond its zone. Hence, with the exception of Ares in such as N 398 (cp. X 132), and the doubtful instance of Aphrodite in T 383, the gods are not employed to furnish mythologic similes in the Achilleid (Saifiovi laos not being of an individual god), but elsewhere they serve to supply material for comparison. Whether from the com- mencement of artisticj possibly sculptured, representations of the gods supplying such similes, or from a greater freedom of treatment than was possible under the old unplastic Pelasgian (§ III. fin.) time of the Greek religion, these comparisons become more frequent in the newer area. In proof may be mentioned B478, H 308, and Od. Ci03, perhaps Z513. Com- pare also I 386, i2 699, Od. 8 J33, p 37, r 54, all neozoic. " The instances when it is an epithet are very broadly distributed, B 766, E 449, 760, H 58, K 515, n 758, and Od. 17 64, o 410, p 251. It is due to the ingenuity and acuteness of Mr. Fleay, the Shakspere critic, to" state, that, by an analysis of the localities of this and other epithets, he had arrived at nearly the same con- clusions regarding the Homeric poems, and this by research entirely independent of mine, about the time when ray views were first published upon the subject. CHAPTER XIII. ARCHAICA— PSYCHOLOGY AND ETHICS. udo/ifv ^v Tiva lirjTiv ivl aTrjSeaai xkHivBtv. The next branch of the subject brings us to examine the Psychology and Ethics of the Homeric Poems. It is hardly to be supposed that any so marked differentiation is possible in this region as in that of mythology, but the following are the most important cognate phenomena. 107. In the Achilleid we find a psychology which is mainly corporeal, a conception of Human Life more physical and material, whereas beyond the Achilleid there is an indication of greater freedom, in the conception of it, as more exempt from, physical and m.aterial conditions. The keynote to the psychology of the Achilleid is found in the opening Proem, where, among the dire things to flow from the wrath of Achilles, we hear of ' the souls of heroes hurled to Hades, and themselves made the prey of dogs and fowls of the air.' It is clear from this that the author of the Achilleid regarded the Body as the Man's self, the proper avroy constituting individuality \ This view is kept ' There is no departure from this view, though occasionally outiSs is taken to mean the body as opposed to its armour, as in P 163. — Whately has referred to this feature of the oldest Homeric psychology as diametrically opposite to the Christian conception. ' We should be apt to say that such a man's body is here, and that he, properly the man himself, is departed to the other world ; but Homer uses the very opposite language in speaking of the heroes slain before Troy; viz. that their souls were despatched to Hades, and that they themselves were left a prey to dogs and birds' (Essay on Peculiarities of Christian Religion). The arc traversed by the human mind between these two conceptions can be best measured by the contrast of Iliad A 5 and the lines of Prudentius on a Christian martyr : 'Sic corpus; ast ipsum Dei Sedes receptum continet,' the one utterance at the I50 THE PROBLEM OF THE HOMERIC POEMS. up by him throughout and reappears at the close, in X 351, where cp. Doederlein. In the Odyssey and Ulyssean books, on the other hand, while there still remains a certain conformity to the primitive Achillean conception, as in * 6^, we find indications appearing that point to a higher psychology and to a feeling that the Mind is the Man, in a nearer stricter sense than the Body. This expresses itself in the magnificent passage to which we shall afterwards have occasion to refer, of the ' Heart ' writhing like a hound in the leash and commanded to be under law and self-restraint (Od V 13, where the ' Heart ' must be taken to mean the whole emotional physical frame). The man himself, the avToy, is spoken of as having this KpaSirj, or 'heart,' under control, and though we hear of this avros as iXia-crofievos 'ivda Kal 'iuda, we must understand this not so much of physical as of mental condition, as is shown by the poet's own inter- pretation, fiepii-qpi^mv {v a8), not to mention that, ii a. physical sense is given to eXia-aero, the behaviour thus imputed to Ulysses might have led to a discovery and to death as the consequence ^- Again, the remarkable expression in the mouth of Apollo (12 54), Ka>c})rj yaia, as applied to the body of Hector, indicates a point of view different from that implied in the avrd^ of the Achilleid. The exit of the soul or spirit is more than once represented, in the Achilleid, as taking place through a wound. The soul flies out at the opening made by the sword, and four examples are quoted by Nagelsbach of this phenomenon, all Achillean (H 51 8, n 504, 856, X 362). How far the author of the non-Achillean opening, the other at the close, of the old Ethnic Literature. Cp. the Sanskrit ' atman,' soul, also self, and its exact psychological parallel, the Hebrew nephesh. " There is one passage in the present text of the Odyssey which, if we could bring it into evidence, would demonstrate the matter. It is that concerning the t'iSmKov of Heracles dwelling in Hades, whereas the avrus is expressly said to be in high estate with the gods {K 602-3). A mode of thought has thus begun which seems a midway step between the Achillean position and that of Pindar, who contrasts the bodily remains of Heracles with the emancipated airos of the Hero (Nem. i. 100). This passage about Heracles, though it comes in not inappropriately at the close of the entire procession of the Shades — he being the greatest of the heroes — is, however, generally regarded as a later interpolation. — There is some ground for believing that viKvs, which is usually corpse, and always so in the Achil- leid, begins to receive elsewhere the sense of 'shade,' and therefore is disembodied, e.g. in H 409, and frequently in the Odyssey. Even veicp6s undergoes the same transference in Od. k 526. Compare the parallel as to KO/trfi/rts, in § 103 e. ARCHAICA— PSYCHOLOGY AND ETHICS. 15 1 cantos has attained to a different view may be doubtful. In one instance he speaks of the soul in death as ' quitting the portal of the teeth ' (1 409), but this may be understood of a natural death, where there is no wound necessarily involved. Both poets speak of the soul leaving ' the limbs/ N 673, 11 607, X 68, 36a parallel to H 131, * 880, Od. X 301, 354, and leaving ' the bones,' M 386 and n 743, conformably to Od. y 455, A. aai, etc. Still the circumstance that nowhere do we find in the Ulyssean cantos and the Odyssey the notion of the soul ' flying out at a wotind' seems to mark a more hoary antiquity to the Achilleid. The grim remark by Gibbon that Jupiter of the Iliad in his lament for Sarpedon shows an imperfect idea of the happiness of a future state, and a melancholy ignorance of the consolations of Elysium, finds a certain justification in the fact that it is in the Achilleid that the silence as to Elysium, and generally as to a future life (cp. § 103, e), prevails. It is worthy of note, as to the corporeal character of the Achillean psychology, that the word ^pkves is still mainly physical and has scarcely disengaged itself from its primary physical sense. Such a sense it bears manifestly in the expression rirop hi ^peai, occurring only in © 413, n 34a, P III, T 169 (?), and in elsewhere dispenses with that defining addition*. Though the Achilleid has in various passages this verb yiyvSaKm alone, the fact of the adherence of (ppeaiv in a manner so marked, is a note of antiquity. The only similar instances of archaic usage outside the Achilleid seem to be iXiroiiai kvl (ppeai Od. t 419 (cp- '^'^'r^ ^^f^^" '"^ ^ 355)'> and arivdeo (crvi^eero) OvfiZ (in Od. o 37, r 368, compare H 44 and Od. a 338), whereas a-vvOeo, which already stands 3 ipfalv ^Top in Od. v 320, and '^> Tf" 476)> and the wounded warrior with his ' entrails ' lacerated in his dying agony (evTepa in N 507, P 314, S 517, T 418, 430}. So (/3) the analogous word eyKara figures mainly in Achillean scenes (A 1 76, 438, P 64), and there as a normal feature. Elsewhere it is introduced as a graver touch only in scenes abnormally terrible, as in Od. I 293, [t. 363, and possibly S 583. Again, (y) the convul- sive clutching of the ground by dying warriors, whether with teeth or hands, is a comparatively normal feature of the Achilleid. The Ulyssean cantos have two instances with oBd.^ (B 418, i2 738, cp. E 75, not including A 748), against probably two in the Achilleid (X 17 and T 61), whereas the Achilleid has, besides these, two formulce all its own, e'Ae yaiav dyoaTco occurring five times, and kovios 8eSpay/j,euos atfiaToeo-a-rjs, oc- curring twice. Which side does the Odyssey take in this case ? It seems carefully to avoid the specially Achillean formulae and adopts the formula of the Ulyssean cantos with 6Sd^, which, in conformity with its greater softness of tone, it uses only once, viz. in x 269. Its affinity is thus clearly manifest. 154 THE PROBLEM OF THE HOMERIC POEMS. Also (8) the slapping of one's thighs in agony {TrenXriyeTo lirjpco), which Heyne (on O 113) characterises as 'hominum rudiorum more,' a gesture with which the much less sensitive Romans were offended in the oratory of Caius Gracchus, is almost limited to the Achilleid, occurring four times against one elsewhere (in Od. v 198). Again, (e) for the insanity of grief (' insanus dolor,' Heyne) we naturally turn to the Achilleid (S 22, where see Heyne). The expression {QvqXeh ^/lap seems a favourite with the Achillean poet. He uses it seven times as against two occurrences in the much larger non- Achillean area (Od. d 525, i 17). Lastly, incidents (r;, e, I, K, A) of the peculiarly horrible in the battle-field are these from the Achilleid. (1) Playing at bowls, as it were, (a-^aiprfSof) with the severed head of a foe (N 204), or with the severed trunk, tumbling it like a mortar (A T47), or split- ting the severed head and holding it up on a pole ' like a poppy-head ' (H 499). (2) Using a dead body, as a butcher uses his block (A 261, ubi Schol.). (3) Dismembering a fallen warrior by the wheels of a chariot (T 394). (4) Inflicting of gratuitous wounds (X 375) ^. (5) Wanton cruelty in dragging the dead body of a foe at the wheels of one's chariot (X 397) ''. All these acts are attributed without scruple to Grecian warriors. Thus nearly twelve examples of atrocia * are producible from the Achilleid, some of them unique in cruelty. Against these it would be difficult to put in array anything fairly parallel out of the much larger area of the rest of the poems. The slaughter of the sleeping Thracians at night in K 484 is pro- bably the most repulsive act outside the Achilleid, and the ^ The stabbing of the dead Hector by the other Greeks is the only example of needless wounds in either poem ; (Gladst., Juv. Mundi, p. 380 and Blackie, Iliad, i. p. 161). — FalstafFs treatment of the dead Hotspur is a parallel on the English stage. ' The Scholiast on X 397 states that this was aThessalian custom down into the historic time. The occurrence of the same cruelty in n 1 5 is merely the repetition of the same, in conformity with the tradition. It is narrated but not necessarily there approved. ° The instances of apparent 'cannibalism,' at least in metaphorical language, belong to both sections. The worst, however, is Achillean, viz. X 347. Zeus it is true, in A 35, taunts Heii with cannibal propensities, but the reproach by an adversary is not so damnatory as the uttered threat. As for Hecuba's wild word in n 212, it is not to be pressed any more than Beatrice's cannibal-like exclamation in ' Much Ado about Nothing ' (iv. sc. i) ; ' O that I were a man, I would eat his heart in the market-place,' or Theognis's about his foes, tuv itrj ixi\av oifia meiv (1. 349). ARCHAICA— PSYCHOLOGY AND ETHICS. 155 punishment of the scoundrel Melanthius and of the female slaves as well as of the Suitors in the Odyssey is no doubt grim and terrible, but so is every execution of retributive justices- Trampling on the breast of a fallen warrior to extract one's spear is found in E 6ao and Z 6^, and Ulysses does so to a stag (k 164), but the same phenomenon occurs thrice in the smaller area of the Achilleid (N 618, n 503, 863). Thus, in cases where the dark feature belongs to both sections, the in- tensity of the darkness is found concentrated in the Achilleid. The stripping of the slain, for example, as an actual occur-, rence in the battle-field, is almost confined to the Achilleid. It is forbidden by Nestor in Z 7 1 for strategic rather than humane reasons, and, though in a previous book (A 466) Elephenor in- dulges in the practice before Nestor's warning, Diomed does so in a book now standing subsequent, viz. A (368-73). The latter, however, is in the Achillean area. So the archaic expression Tivyjia 5' i^ivdpL^e ^^, as describing an actual feature of contem- porary battle, belongs only to the Achilleid, where it occurs thrice (N 619, P 537, 183). In H 146 it is only in a narrative and belongs there to an ante-Trojan scene. 109. Among the evidences of inhumanity is to be included the custom of the victor to shout over the dead or the wounded a yell of triumph.. The word for bluster and imprecation of this Goliath sort is specially apiir\. It occurs thrice, and only in the Achilleid. The state of the case in regard to this whole point is of peculiar interest, because it so happens that we have in the Odyssey an authoritative declaration, express- ing what must be taken as the poet's own feeling on the point. In the mouth of the hero, but substantially as from the poet himself, is found the following remarkable utterance : — ov\ oa-iT] KTafievoiaiv kir dvSpdcriv (.vy^^TaacrQai (Od. x 412). ' 'Tis an impious thing over men that are slain to utter the vaunt of Pride.' This is the moral verdict of the Odyssey, where it is sub- ' The case of Agamemnon's craelty to Adrastus in Z 37-65 will come under review in a subsequent section. " IfvX'^a avK^aai belongs to both areas, and continued into the historic time. — As regards mutilation by cutting off ears or noses, Laomedon in * 455 may balance Echetus in Od. tr 86. Both are practically outside the Hellenic area. The vrord de<«ifaj occurs five times in Achilleid, thrice elsewhere, with an appropriate pre- ponderance, therefore, in the Achillean area. 156 THE PROBLEM OF THE HOMERIC POEMS. stantially sustained", and a criterion or touchstone is thus supplied to us of the utmost value and security. When we turn to the Iliad what do we find ? One large tract in which the maxim is maintained, one large tract in which it is abun- dantly violated i^. The former is the region of the Ulyssean cantos, the latter, where it is violated, the Achilleid. In the Achilleid the victor, as a rule, breaks out into a ' loud boast' over his victim [k-rr^v^aro /laKpbv dvaas), sometimes into a ' tremendous yell ' (eKirayXov enev^aTo). Achilles, e. g. does so at the slaying of Hector. The instances in the Achilleid of this verb ewevxofiai in this sense amount to sixteen, and that too without distinc- tion of race, for Greeks as well as Trojans are so described, and the act is one quite normal in the former (M 391). How many are producible from the Ulyssean cantos ? None, in the case of a Greek ^*, and only one in the case of a Trojan, who turns out to be the detested Pandarus, represented as ktii.v\d- '' There is an exception in the Odyssey (x 286), but it goes to prove the rule. I. It is antecedent to the utterance of Ulysses. 2. It is over the most-brutal of the Suitors (Ctesippus). 3. It is in the mouth of the rustic herdsman. — Similar remark applies to the case in x 194- ^ Mr. Grote (Hist, of Gr. ii. p. 1 2 5), remarking on the traces of humane feeling dawn- ing among the Greek people, calls attention to this memorable utterance (Od. x 41 2), but adds, ' It is an ethical maxim abundantly violated in the Iliad.' If he had said, ' abundantly violated in the Achilleid,' he would have touched the marrow of the matter and so discerned an important proof of that division of the Iliad, which he may be said to have been the first to divine. The normal feeling of the Achilleid is expressed in the Goliath threat Kophis Kvvas rjS' oiaivovs, of which more in a. subsequent section (J 129). It occurs thrice and only in that area. " 'Eirfv£aiievos in K 367 is not in point, as it is directed not so much against the victim as against a rival claimant of the spoil. The presence of tuxoiA.^ alongside of ol/Miyq in the general description of a battle (A 451) is an ancient form surviving from the Achilleid (0 64), and is too vague to form a valid exception to the above argument, which concerns the case of individual warriors. Neither is the censure of fixoif^ri in P 19 in point, for when examined, it resolves itself into a, general condemnation of excessive boasting and does not stigmatise in the same way as the line in the Odyssey (x 412) condemns the offensive form of it, that over the dead. Moreover it is in the mouth of Menelaus, who himself indulges in the euxiuA^i forbidden by the Odyssey, under harsh circumstances to his victim (N 619). — An historical analogy to the tux'"^'? of tlie Achillean area may be discerned in the conduct of the Thebans. The exaltation (lirixo'V'"') o^^'' their victims, of which they make no secret (Thuc. iii. 67) is in conformity with their character as &yaia$rjToi (Demosth.), and it is in such an jEolo-Dorian and now- Ionian region that we expect to find survivals of Achillean sentiment in the historic time. Compare the kindred behaviour of Romulus over Remus (' verbis quoque increpitans,' Livy), and Queen Tomyris over the head of Cyrus. ARCHAICA— PSYCHOLOGY AND ETHICS. 157 ^livo^ (E 119), no doubt to render him more detestable'*. It is a clear proof that we are on scientific ground in these investigations, to find that we have such a crucial confirma- tion of our theory, in respect that the idiosyncrasy of feeling expressing itself thus directly and palpably in the Odyssey can be clearly detected in the Ulyssean books of the Iliad and in none beyond, so that we may say regarding the union of the Odyssey and Ulyssean cantos- Toil's e^rjKcoTai Topcos y6n(j)os Sia^nrd^, «y jieveiv dpaporois. As if to render assurance doubly sure, this maxim of Ulysses in the Odyssey, abundantly violated by other war- riors, is violated by Ulysses himself (A 449) '^ ; but it is the Ulysses of the Achilleid, . who appears entirely ignorant of the ethical injunction of the Ulysses of the Odyssey, and so shouts lustily over a fallen foe. The inference seems in- evitable that we have in the Iliad two distinct strata of authorship, one conformable to the Odyssey, the other not conformable. no. Parallel to this fact is another of almost equal signi- ficance. The same pathetic feeling which has mitigated and even expelled the inhuman boast over the dead at the close of a combat, has modified the war-whoop indulged in at the opening of a battle. The Achillean poet makes no distinction, or at least no marked distinction, between Greeks and Trojans in this respect. With him, bo(k hosts indulge in a huge roar " The nature of Pandanis's punishment seems to suggest that he was punished for his boasting as well as for his treachery (yKuicrcrav wpviivjjv rdfte x"^"^' arup-qs = 'the tongue to the root was shorn away by the ruthless bronze,' E 292). The Scholiast on A 146 cites it as an instance oi appropriate retribution. Compare Dante (Inferno, c. 28), where he represents Curio, ' who spake that hardy word ' impelling Caesar to his bold deed, as having his tongue cut from his throat. — The case of Pedaeus, losing his tongue (in E 74), seems to have no such significance. ^ The Scholiast, on Od. x 41 2, is sorely troubled to obtain consistency between the conduct of the Ulysses in II. A 449 and the Ulysses of Od. x 412, and tries to twist evx^T6tafiaTa . u I iptSovTTos of aWova-a I 6 aldoKoeu of fiekadpov I I reyeos ' of BoKafios I o 7 13. It may be doubted whether the Achillean poet knows of the artistic treatment of stone. He describes well what may- be called the Cyclopean style of architecture, apparently without cement and not necessarily isodomous (fl aio). It is true he once mentions ^€(tt6s in referring to the aidova-ai ^ of Jove's palace (T 11), but this is rare compared with the frequency with which this term — usually of timber-work — is elsewhere applied to stone-work, viz. four times in Ulyssean parts (Z 243-4-8, S 504) and as often in Od. (7406, 6 6, a 311, ^53)- In general, however, architectural terms become much more frequent, when we go beyond the Achilleid, as, e. g. : — Ach. Ul. aldovora ....15 7rp68ofios - virepoitov ) VTvepaov ) BpiyKos and derivatives Kiav (pillar) The familiarity with architectural terms is thus found to increase when once we leave the Achilleid for the Ulyssean cantos. It is true that the Ulyssean cantos do not equal the of the Iliad there were upper stories, and the passages with virep^ov occurring he suspected of interpolation. It occurs once in each section of the Iliad (n 184 and B 514). It is frequent in the Odyssey. " In x^P^fr' firi vrtiv ip(\pa A 39, the probability is that x<"P'«>"'' is not a descriptive epithet of vrjis, but an adverbial adjunct to (p(fa. ' Although riyeos as adj. is not found in the Odyssey, there is an equivalent for it of frequent occurrence, viz. riytos irvxa iroiriTOto (Od. a 333 and other four times). — ai$a\6(v in B 415, is probably not strictly ornamental. Od. 12 6 19 frequent. ARCHAIC A — MANNERS AND CUSTOMS. 163 proportion contained in the Odyssey, but there is no real dis- proportion when we remember that the Ulyssean cantos are only half the area of the Odyssey and that their theme is less concerned with the domestica, and consequently gives less scope for such phraseology. On the other hand, it is diiiScult to understand the rarity of such terms in Achillean cantos, which ought, under a common authorship, to present the same proportion of occurrences as the Ulyssean cantos, since the theme is in both the same. It has sometimes been doubted whether the Homeric Greeks were acquainted with statues of the gods, and it would cer- tainly be difficult to establish their existence from the Achil- leid. As with the Romans in the time of Numa, there seem to have been no statues or images of the gods in the Achillean time, and this finds corroboration in the account Herodotus gives of the old Pelasgian worship (n 52). Whatever be the truth as to images *, there is evidence of greater elaboration in the structure of temples when we enter the Ulyssean area, for "there we hear not only of placing a votive offering ' on the knees of a goddess,' an expression implying some kind of statue, but we read of a vao's of Apollo where there is a sub- division called an dSvTov (E 446 and cp. H 83), in other words, an inner shrine, such as in later times was regarded as ap- propriate to oracles and mysteries. Reviewing the evidence on this head, we come to the con- clusion that the Achilleid is not on the same platform of architectural advancement as the Ulyssean cantos and the Odyssey, while these last keep each other in countenance and in the main stand upon an equality. ua*. B. — House Furniture and Dress. That a certain richness of terms describing the furni- ture of a house and the appliances of a domestic estab- lish ment appears in the non-Achillean parts is not dif- ficult to show. While Opopos and Opfjws belong to both areas, it is noticeable how large a number of terms for c/iair, * The figures of Sp&KovTes in A 26, if the part is genuine, would imply formative art in some form in the Achillean area. M 2 i64 THE PROBLEM OF THE HOMERIC POEMS. indicating different varieties, comes up outside the Achillean area. Kkia'u] ( = chair) kKivttjp 8i'(^pos ( = chair Ach. 2 O O O Ul. 2 O O 3 Od. II 2° I 3- So in regard to couches and bedsteads, especially with epithets of artistic elaboration. TprjTOLS X^x^eaiTt . trvKLvov Xe;^os Respecting decorative coverlets, etc. raj7T)s . . . prjyea . . . Kaias XlvoLO XcTrrov aaroVy olhs aoiTov for sleeping Ach. o o o o o Ach. I o o o Ul. 2 2 Ul. 4 Od. 12' 5 I 4 o. Od. 5 14 12 As to articles of dress, apart from the essential xt^f (with its compound x^^'^oX''''®''^ ^^^ ^^^° arfxeTTTb^ X'-'^^'^)' ^'^'^ apart from the archaic iauos, which are common to both areas of the Iliad, the vocabulary becomes more largely illustrated when we pass beyond the Achilleid. (jiapos napSoKerj TreVXoff , eXK60"/7rf7rXoff tspoKoneirXos Ach. I 2 O I I 2 Ul. Od. 7 2 2 lO 2 2 51 20 O 5 ° KXiffft; (= chair) in Od. S 123, t 55. ' A(i/ajT(5s is of a shield in Achilleid (N 407), and therefore warlike. The artistic decoration of the Ulyssean cantos and Odyssey appropriates it to furniture, in the one to a KMaii] or chair for reclining (t 56), in the other to a bedstead (r 391), therefore in both, domestic. The kindred artistic term auxbtSiviai occurs, ' ^ ' oil, ' The TAirrjs of the Achilleid (n 224) is called oi\os, ' of thick wool,' i. e., with- out decoration. Beyond the Achilleid, it begins to receive decorative epithets, iroptpvptos being added to it in I 200, and Od. v 150. ARCHAICA— MANNERS AND CUSTOMS. 165 TavvTvcnKos ei'TTeTrXoy oBovai (TTreipov (as robe) TTiXof Ach. o o o o o Ul. I 5 2 o I Od. 4 2 I 4 o. As to shoes or sandals, besides VTroSTj/iara twice in Odyssey, we hear once in the Achilleid of Ka\a niSiXa, but they belong to Her6. In the Odyssey and Ulyssean cantos (without counting xRvcToniSiXos of A 604), the KaXa niSiXa are more frequently given to men than to gods. KaXa iTfbiKa to deities „ „ to men Other domestic appliances. Ach. Ul. I I ° 3 Od. o 3 O O o o I II 7 27 14 4 9 3 9 np6)(oos KprjT^p « X€'^r,£ » I SatSfs ' Xafinrrip iatrdfiivdos TTobaVLTTTpa rdXapos . Kai/eov irelptvs ' A considerable preponderance, therefore, of terms indicating ' Achilles in the great libation-ceremony of n 226 seems to have only a Siiras, but he is credited with a KprjTrip as well as Siiras in the Ulyssean books (I 202, T 219). In the libation-ceremony of r 295, mention is made both of Seiras and KpriTtip, and we may infer the same in the libation of K 578. The KprjTTjp with KvireWa is present in Olympus in A 598. " Tpiirovs belongs to all sections, and so ayyos. " The Achilleid knows of derai, 'faggots' (A 553, P 663), occurring twice, but it is not for domestic use ; it is part of /iKnisman's weapons in dealing with wild beasts, — another note of archaic time. So Sa\6s {torch) is twice warlike in Achil- leid, twice domestic in Odyssey. — A minor argument of a modem Chorizont (Ed. Rev., April 1871, p. 368) was to afi&rm a knowledge of chimneys in the Odyssey (a 27), to deny them to the Iliad. Yet it is proper to observe that the fire where Patroclus roasted the food in I 212 is lit coram, and so implies a smoke-exit of some kind, and that the expression Kdirviaaav Karci K\iaias of B 399 seems to imply that the fires of the camp were not outside the xKiaiai. It is accordingly in two Ulyssean books that we meet with those indications of presumable approxi- mation to the social arrangements of the Odyssey, " Omitting the debatable A 629. 1 66 THE PROBLEM OF THE HOMERIC POEMS. a variety of domestic resources and appliances appears in the Odyssey, and to a certain extent also in the Ulyssean books ; a comparative paucity of such terms is noticeable in the Achilleid. Much of this divergence may, however, be due to the nature of the respective poems and to the subject with which they severally deal '^, and the argument is not one on which much stress could be laid in the absence of more rele- vant and prevailing ones. At the same time the contrast between the two sections of the Iliad, in regard to richness of domestic appliances, is very marked, and, seeing that these sections deal both with a common subject, it is difficult to explain, on any other theory than that we are expounding, the affinity subsisting between the Ulyssean cantos and the Odyssey, and the disparity of both from the Achilleid. 113. C. — General Artistic Advancement. I. Firstj in Colour. According to the speculations of Drs. Geiger and Magnus, commented on by Mr. Gladstone ('Nineteenth Century,' Oct. 1877), the sense of positive colour is only gradually attained by the races of mankind and the perception of distinctions between the primary colours is slowly acquired. Without presuming to pronounce on the truth or ultimate value of these speculations, we can certainly affirm that there is a richer development or efflorescence of epithets suggestive of positive colour occurring in the neozoic portions of these poems. The Achilleid, while recognising brilliancy and general effects of light, as in irafi- (pavocov; (TLyaXoeLs, and the like, equally with the non- Achillean sections, is almost devoid of terms for the finer specialising of colour, such as come up in the neozoic area. Even where the same artistic term appears in both sections, the range of its application is found greatly widened outside the Achil- lean area, as e. g. TroXvSaiSaXos only of an/is in Achilleid, in Ulyssean cantos oiartns and a kXlo-ixos, in Odyssey of QdXafios, )(PV(t6s, op/xos. '^ The Odyssey, from the nature of its subject, contains a good many nautical and also domestic terms peculiar to itself. Among these last are KtjkvBos, icaKms, KtaavPiov, x°''''i' ""f^o*. "Kinaf, ivrea SanSs, etc., but the presence of these is easily intelligible from the subject of the story. ARCHAICA— MANNERS AND CUSTOMS. 167 In the Achilleid ships are known almost entirely as black, with hardly any other indication of colour. Elsewhere, we meet with traces of decoration, for, alongside of the typical /j.e\aivai ufjes, descriptive of the whole hull of the vessel, we read of ships having a part, such as the prow, lit up with positive colour. The contrast is very marked, inasmuch as it is the ships of the same chief (Ulysses) that figure only as dlack in the Achilleid (0 223, A 5), but appear with features of colour superadded, ahke in the Ulyssean area (B 637) and in the Odyssey. Ach. Ul. Od. Kuaxdn-papos'^ (once -etoj Od. y 299) . i 2 10 litKroTrdprjos ..... o i i (jioiviKondpTjos . . . , .0 o 2. In vestments, and objects of art, the epithets of colour and decoration multiply in the neozoic sections. Ach. Ul. Od. rrop^vpeos (of textures) ..138 oKiiToptjJvpos ( „ ) ..003 (poiuiKoeis^* ( J) ) . . o 2 toSve0^s (of wool) ...002 dvdf/ioecs (of scenery and art-objects) 032 ayKaos in dyXaa epya ..005 kXuto, dp,vp.oi>a, irepiKaXKea epya . i 3 3. The effect of variegatioit in colour is expressed by ttolklKos. This belongs, even in metaphorical usages, as ■rToiKiKoyir\Tr]'s, " Kvavovpaipos, though it came to suggest colour, probably signified originally the metallic substance {xvayos) with which the prows of ships were armed or decorated. " The reading myaXoevra has rightly displaced ... 2 iTral^Qj ..... o (pi\o7raiyfj,aiv . . . . o Also, while mere tumbling (Kv^ia-Tdo)}, like araXXo), is found in both sections^ dancing, properly so called, belongs mainly to the neozoic area. Ach. Ul. Od. opx^oixai, and derivatives . . 3 212 ^rjTapiimv . . . • o o ^. 115. E. — Comfort and Diet. Among the most remarkable traces of antiquity in the Achil- leid is the astonishing disregard of all that men now consider personal comfort and even sanitary safety. Plato makes much mirth out of the fine healthy condition of the heroes who when wounded are treated to a bowl of wine without suffering any inflammatory consequences, and among other customs that would make a modern physician stare is the practice of drying themselves, when hot and perspiring, by standing in the wind. ' Their tunics sweat-imbued they ventilated.' — Cov^per. Of this last there are three examples, all in the Achilleid, viz. A 6ai, X a, 4> 561. Whether, by the time of the Ulyssean poet, the Greeks had changed their hygiene in this respect does not ARCHAICA— MANNERS AND CUSTOMS. 17 1 appear ; at all events no such hard usage of the Spartan kind comes up outside the Achilleid. On the other hand, the ap- pHances for domestic comfort are distinctly multiplied in the neozoic area ; the bath, even the warm bath (9 450), comes into prominence (cp. do-dfiiv6os in § 11 a), and Nestor in K75, and Phoenix in I 621, 659, both repose 'in a soft couch,' of which we hear nowhere else in the Iliad except in X 504, occurring, however, in the Odyssey, x i9<5. Ach. UI. Od. evvq fiaXaKTj . . . . o 3 i. Hence it is not strange that we should come upon an abstract term equivalent to luxury, viz. QoKit]. It is found only in the neozoic area, viz. in I 143 (repeated in I 385), and in a doubtful passage in A. 603. A similar advance is marked by the negative term for want of comfort, aKonia-TLT], in 4> 384. Compare with this the remarkable analogy as to the distri- bution of the epithets of Sleep in a later section (§ 183). Regarding diet there is not much to remark, except that (a) salt appears as an article of food only in the neozoic area, (^) that ' accompaniments ' to give ' relish' to food there begin to be known as o'^ov, Ach. UI. Od. Ul. Od. aXs (in eating) 013 I 214 X 123, p 455, >|^ 270 o\jfov" 013 1485 y 480, f 267, f 77. It would appear that fish as an article of diet was not much prized by the Homeric heroes, any more than by the Ossianic, and it was long ago a remark of Eubulus, the comic poet (Athenseus, 35, cp. Plato, Rep. iii. p. 404 B), that the Homeric heroes did not at Troy, at all events, though with the Helles- pont near, make fish an article of food. The evidence is not conclusive in favour of the comic poet's negation. In the Achilleid, although fish eat men ( 123), we have no very clear instances of men eating fish, but we find the following traces. (a) It describes a mode of fishing, by line and metal instru- ment, with some detail, of which more afterwards in § 1 1 7 /3. (/3) It speaks of a ' fish-abounding ' river (T 392). The Ulyssean " The occurrence of oipov in A 629 is probably to be added to the Ulyssean enumeration. 173 THE PROBLEM OF THE HOMERIC POEMS. cantos and Odyssey have, however, more and clearer traces. Capture (o) by a net (probably, though not certainly, z.fishing- net, rather than a hunting-net, E 487)^^; (^) fish as food in desperate straits (Od. 8 368^ fj. 331); (y) the sea praised as furnishing fish to make a land happy (r 113), and (e) capture of fish with a casting- net (x 384). It would be rash to con- clude from these incidental notices anything except simply that the Odyssey seems to show a superiority in appliances for the capture of fish, and in frequency of their use as food. This, however, is in favour of a strong Ionian element in that poem, and, accordingly, E. Curtius, in his History (i. 157), finds a contrast between the maritime or Ionian and the inland Greeks in this matter of food ^^. ' The former,' he remarks, ' fed principally on fish, which the latter disliked : accordingly the Ionian bard never wearies in insisting upon the mighty meat- banquets of the Achseans.' 116. F. — Hospitality. The prominence attaching to the virtue of Hospitality out- side the Achillean area is a noticeable feature, and, a fact is thus furnished, which, though insufficient of itself to build a structure, supplies a stone to the building. The wider outlook and larger horizon of the Odyssey prepare us for a consider- able development in this direction. What is to be noted is that the Ulyssean cantos quite go along with the Odyssey rather than with the Achilleid in this respect. Though hos- pitality is exercised in the Achilleid, it has not yet assumed a form so systematic as it did afterwards, when it had a certain code of usages attaching to it, modifying even the exigencies " Athenaeus (25 c) accepts it oi fishing only. " I have not made use of a possible argument from the archaic use of iepiSs as applied to a fish in n (407). It was once supposed that because fish were called Upo'i, there was some religious scruple preventing their use as food, and hence was explained their supposed absence fiom the table in Homeric times. It is true that a very effectual as well as not unusual device forbidding the use of any creature as food has been to assign it a place among sacred animals, but it is doubtful whether this notion can be here sustained. The sense of -'holy' or ' sacred ' is now given up in the above passage, and we must give the word a primi- tive sense, which would make it equivalent to its SansliX6Tr)ra TTapaaxelv comes up simultaneously in the Odyssey and Ulyssean cantos to signify the offering of hospitality. Com- pare r 354 (where Schol. explains fiXoTrji by ^evla) with Od. o ^^, 158. Further, ^elvos, in the neozoic area, comes to signify ' foreign folk ' simply, as in i2 202 and Od. p 485, for which ^elvos in A 387 as ' stranger' is a preparation. Ach. Ul. Od. ifviCo) 3 6 ^eivocrivt] .... I (f)L\6^eivos .... 4 KaKo^eipos .... I ^civoSoKOS ^^ . I 5 <^iXoTi;Ta napaa-xe'i-v I 2 ^elvos as ' stranger,' and ^e'lvot as ' foreign folk ' 2 I doiVTjd^vai (5 36) . 1. ^ The less definite ^iKeai seems to serve in the Achilleid as the expression for hospitality, viz. in N 627, an application continued also in the Ulyssean cantos and Odyssey. In Od. f 322 vpe find ^avlaai fjdi 257), likewise threshing (by feet of oxen as in T 495), winnowing as in N 590, but there is no mention of manure except in the Odyssey. So, Art, in the sense of the artificer's, is known in the Achilleid, and we hear of TiKTcov, kXvtot€xi'^s, and even, in a metaphorical sense, KaKorexvos. The more advanced derivatives of reKTcav and re^vri, however, belong to the Ulyssean area and the Odyssey. Ach. Ul. Od. TCKTaivofiai 1 TrapaTeKTaijJo^at ) I 2 I TCKToa-ivr] I TfxV'ioiJ,ai I 3 Te)(vrjeis .... 2 Te^prjevTws I. The hunting and fishing stage of the Savage, the pastoral stage of the Nomad, in so far as these may have formed part of the experience of the Greek people, have therefore both been left behind. A few of the great groups of stars have received names ; the Achillean poet knows of Orion and his ^' It is singular that the most important term in ancient fortification, enaX^is (with its verb (iraXi^ai, which is found twice), should be confined to the Achilleid, but there it occurs ten times. It may be said, however, that the mention of ktraK^eis could not come till after thft construction of the wall of the Greek camp, which is true, and accounts so far for the phenomenon ; but it is strange that the poet of H, who describes that construction, makes no mention of the kwaK^us, so promi- nent in the Achillean narrative. It is corroborative to find that the cognate iiraXe^ou seems confined to the Achilleid, where it occurs, with or without tmesis, at least thrice. The local distribution of this word IwaK^is is thus very remarkable. ARCH AICA— MANNERS AND CUSTOMS. 175 Dog. The Ulyssean poet adds a few names to the astrono- mical nomenclature ; but there is this notable fact that while the star-names are still mainly associated with hunting, there is, in the neozoic area, a cluster of synonyms or double names now arising, which are taken not from hunting but from agriculture. The ' Bear ' is now found to have a super-name the ' Wain ; the ' Bearwarden ' appears as the ' Ox-driver ' (Bo6tes) ; that is to say, to the hunter's name there has been added the husbandman's name for the great northern constel- lation ('Ajia^a in S 487, e 372 ; Bootes in e 37a}. A certain interval would be required for the rise and spread of this second series of names, and the Achilleid, in which the agri- cultural names of the stars are absent, must be held to, reflect the features of an older period. At this point it may be proper to introduce a singular cir- cumstance in regard to the Reckoning of Time. The Achilleid seems hardly to know any other term for a ' year ' than the archaic and somewhat indefinite term kviavros. In the Odyssey and Ulyssean cantos, while ivLavros is still familiar, there is large use made of the younger and seemingly more definite eVos. This last was the term that ultimately came to the front and became the Hellenic term for a ' year,' to the exclusion of its rivals in which last we probably discern a cousin of the Latin annus. The traces of the rivalry are discernible in the neozoic area, but kviavros is dominant, without a rival, in the palaeozoic. The occurrences of eVos are — Ach. Ul. Od. eVor simple . . . . o 3^' 14 „ compound . . . o 4*" i5 o 7 29. Regarding the divisions of the diurnal revolution, it is worth noting that while the Achilleid exhibits the division of Day into three parts (* m), the Night seems to be as yet 25 Including A 691. '^* The occurrence of ciVacrcs in 2 400 favours the conclusion that the close of that canto is Ulyssean. — Regarding the displacement of ivmvros by ctos, it might be worth inquiring whether a rectification or adjustment of the Calendar had not taken place in Greece similar to what we are traditionally told took place among the sister race of the old Italians, when the old year of ten months had to be dis- carded. Compare Hesiod, Theog. £9, where tviavris seems to mean no more than a ten month cycle. 176 THE PROBLEM OF THE HOMERIC POEMS. undivided. In the Ulyssean area and in the Odyssey, how- ever, we hear of the division of Night into three sections, or watches (R 253, Od. fx 31a). This is an advance, although the division seems to us an awliward one. It had the advantage of allowing not indeed a middle point but a middle section in the division. The Orientals had in early time the same division (cp. Old Test., Judges vii. 19 and 'Records of the Past,' i. p. 158). In after time the division into four watches was found more convenient ; and in the Roman time became predominant (New Test., Mark xiii. 2)S)- The Homeric division of the Night, though in the neozoic area, is, therefore, still archaic. (/3) We have already touched upon the appliances for fishing in § 115. It is interesting to note that while all modes, rude as well as ingenious, appear in the Odyssey and Ulyssean cantos, only a rude and primitive mode appears in the Achilleid. Thus, we hear only in the former, of fishing by hooks [ayKicrrpa Od. 8 369, perhaps ^ 332), with ingenious con- trivance of a horn-sheath to keep the line from being bitten through (/cepay in 12 80 as in Od. ^^, 251), and the device of nets seems in ordinary use (x 384 and probably E 487). In the Achilleid, whether by accident or otherwise, if we may judge from the singular simile in 11 407, as interpreted by the act of war it shadows forth, the mode of fishing seems to have been by spear and line, rather than by hook and line, and, if so, was a sort of 'harpooning,' a mode of action which the Odyssey relegates to savage Lsestrygonian regions [k i 24) ^^. (y) Among the inventions which afford a criterion of time, may be reckoned the preparation of CoRN, according as it is by the use of oKiioi {mortars) or nvXai {millstones). Apart from the case of the /MoXtoj/e and the mention of yLxika^ in the somewhat questionable passage (M 161), it is doubtful =5 The Ed. Reviewer (April 1871) founds a Chorizontic argument on n 407, and adduces the example of the Arowauk Indians, who follow the exact mode de- scribed, and stand on crags or boulders to fling prongs or darts with strings attached, at the finny tribe as they swim along. The argument is a fair one rightly used, but it is capable of serving another division than that of the Chorizontes The stress is to be laid less upon the fact itself than the circumstance that it occurs in the portion otherwise judged to be archaic. As a mode of fishing, ix6v^o\ia seems to have survived, even among the Greek race, down into the period of the Anthology, and the Trident of Poseidon seems a relic of the archaic time. ARCHAICA— MANNERS AND CUSTOMS. 177 if any clear instance of the use of the millstone is discernible in the Achilleid. The method then seems to have been by the mortar and pestle, much as in Hesiod, who in this respect appears on a less advanced platform of the arts '^^. Hence the occurrence of o\yio^ (A 147 z= mortar), only in the Achilleid. So the archaic phrase Ar)ij.rjTepos aKTrj is found only in that old area, an expression which belongs to the oXfios period rather than to the /ivXr] period, though uKTrj continued long as a poetic expression down into the later time, often without the hieratic addition (ArifirJTepos) being subjoined. On the other hand, the indications of grinding by means of stones made to revolve, i. e. by /J.v\r], come up frequently, at least in the Odyssey, while those of the other mode seem to disappear. PalcBozoic mode. • Ach. Ul. Od. oX/tor 100 6\oi-Tpoxos (?) ...100. ArjfirjTepos aRTrj ...200 4 0. Neozoic mode. Ach. Ul. Od ^ivkr) ..... 4 livXoeiSris .... I f /liXa^ (M 161) I livKri(f>aTOS .... I aKTrj '" without Arjiifirepos 2 dXea ^' and derivatives . 3 I I 10. Thus the balance of archaism under these heads is decidedly in favour of the Achilleid. The greater richness of terms in the Odyssey, compared with the Ulyssean cantos, is explicable by the nature of its theme, as bringing us more into the region of domestica. ^^ Hence )3ios aKriKinhos continued, in the Attic time, to signify a civilised life. " The occurrence of aKTi] with Up6s still attached, in A 632, is probably Ulys- sean. Cp. occurrence of orf/ov and § 115. '* The a\eTpls works at the /n5\ai (u 105), and therefore, in the Odyssey, we may regard d\iu and its derivatives as indicating the neozoic mode. — In O. T., Numbers, ch. xi. 8, mills and mortars are contemporaneous. — There is some difficulty as to dKoidoi and dn-a\otAa, each of which occurs once in Ulyssean parts, whether the reference is to grinding or perhaps rather to threshing, a view which is favoured by the ancient occurrence of dAawJ, a threshing floor, where oxen had been used to tread out the com. These, therefore, have not been used as' evidence. N lyS THE PROBLEM OF THE HOMERIC POEMS. (6) Arboriculture, in relation to fruit-yielding trees, is distinctly more prominent in the Odyssey. In the Achilleid, though Kr\T{OL and opyaToi are familiar (4> 358, H 133), the prevailing ' feeling ■" as to landscape is one of forest wildness, a feature to which I shall afterwards have occasion to refer (§ 148) ; we need to go elsewhere to find distinct traces of the training of fruit-yielding trees. The gardens of Alcinous are rich in trees that are dyXaoKapiroi, including pear trees and apple trees, fig trees and vines, pomegranates and olive trees. So likewise, though we do not lay much stress on the fact, it may be considered significant that the palm tree, probably of Phoenician origin, comes up once in the Odyssey (C 163), and though wine, by its name olvos, belongs to all parts of the Homeric poems, the name for vine {dinreXos) is strangely limited to the neozoic area ^''. The Achilleid acknowledges the old Indo-Germanic word oTvo^, but not the new and specially Hellenic word dfjunXoi, which last marks a vine- culture peculiar to the Greek race alone. The dXcorj of 2 and the Odyssey clearly contains vines : it is not so clear that the aAcoTj of;, the Achilleid contained such ^'', at least under the name d/xweXos. Ach. Ul. Od. (fiolvi^ {2iS palm-tree) ..001 afjiweXos and dfm^Xoeis . . o 4 ^. Regarding forest trees it is to be noted that while ^vXoi/ belongs to both areas, and is especially of felled wood (cp. d^vXos vXrj), vXr] in the Achilleid is only of wood in its natural growth, forest, whereas in the Ulyssean area (* 50, iii, Od. t 334) it has attained, without relinquishing this first sig- nification, a secondary one, timber or felled wood. Accord- ingly in the same area we find emerging vXorofios as ' wood- cutter,' an expression not known to the Achilleid, where the sole term is the more primitive Spvrofio?, from a time when the word Spvs had not become limited to the species of oak, but was generic for tree^^. ApvTOfios therefore which occurs ^ It is quite possible that the Achillean word for vine' had been, like vilis, a cognate of oTvos. Cp. vtijv Tfjv aianXov Hesych. '" Cp. Ebeling's Lexicon on aXaii), who gives the order of meanings—' I. Area. 2. Fundus, ager consitus plantis, hortus. 3. Ager vitibus consitus, vinea.' The examples which he cites of the last (3) are only from the Odyssey. "' So tpvjiis and Spioxos, also 56pv as an arbor viva (f 167), are relics of a time ARCHAICA— MANNERS AND CUSTOMS. 179 twice in the AchiUeid, once only beyond, is a relic from a time when the Hellenic variety of the Indo-Germanic speech was still under process of becoming specialised, and had not yet assumed its own peculiar features. (e) In regard to the arts of Sewing, Spinning, Weaving, and Embroidery, it is not possible to establish any criterion of ' before ' and ' after,' inasmuch as these arts, in something like regular hand-fabrics, seem familiar in the oldest cantos. The Achilleid knows of sewing or stitching, {paTrreLv M 296), and so familiar is the operation that it has passed into a meta- phorical sense and become applicable to plotting, as in 2 367. Compare KaKoppacpirj as early as O 16. This latter usage, begun in the Achilleid, is extended in the Odyssey. In the end of M (433), mention is made, in a simile, of a yvvfi x^p- vrJTis, who earns a living for her children painfully by ' wool- working.' The antiquity of the simile lias been doubted as suggesting rather the wool-manufactures of Miletus in an after time (Bergk, H. of Gr. Lit. p. 413, and cp. Weissenborn in Buchholz, p. 302). The presence, however, of x^alvai and other woollen fabrics in the chest of Achilles in 11, a part which has all the marks of hoary antiquity, is sufficient voucher for a tolerably advanced condition of such arts, and Hesiod (Op. 600) keeps the Achilleid in countenance, when he recommends his model farmer to employ as a servant a female 'ipiOos that has no following of children. If 'ipi6os is primarily a wool-worker, from ipiov, as the tradition has it, this Hesiodic passage throws light on the Achillean in M 433, and no employment was more feasible for a Ofja-cra in a remote time. One or two circumstances, however, point to a certain dif- ferentiation. In the neozoic portion we hear not only of the concrete product, yfjp.a, ' spinning,' but of ' fine spinning.' when Spvs had the Indo-Germanic sense of tree, and these remained not only in the palaeozoic and the neozoic sections of Homer, but through all Greek literature without specialisation to the oai. It is remarkable that the passages where the simple word Spvs seems to retain the pristine Indo-Germanic sense, generic not specific, are Achillean (N 390, n 483 ; cp. Aristarchus in Schol. inA86, =7rai/ Sevdpov), whereas in V 328 of the Ulyssean area it has become specific. The emergence of the neozoic vXot6ij.os only in the Ulyssean area, just as Spvs be- gins to be specialised, shows the balance of archaism in favour of the Achilleid. N 2 i8o THE PROBLEM OF THE HOMERIC POEMS. Ach. Ul. Od. ivvvryroi . . , . . .o 2 I vr\}i,a ..... o, o 3. So the traces of figure-weaving and embroidery become more frequent in the neozoic area. Apart from the Qpova of X 441, the most important evidence is that of Helen's figure- weaving in r 136, and while Ki.a[pa> (wea-ve), literal . „ „ metaphl. i50aj/Tot, vopp.i^a} . Ach. Ul. Od I 5 14 jSS I 3 I I u 3 =" The line where xieapis occurs in Achilleid (N 731) is doubtful, and has been expunged by Bekker andLa Roche. " Olympiodorus (on Plato, Ph^do, p. i8) interprets the presence of the ai\6s as a sign of greater barbarism, since it is given to the Trojans only, not to the Greeks, in the Homeric poems. It is probable, however, that this interpretation is a transference of the feeling regarding the av\6s out of the historic time back into the prehistoric, where it had as yet no proper existence. ARCHAICA— MANNERS AND CUSTOMS. i8l Ach. Ul. Od. 1 , • Contd. 2 8 20 1-1 e 1 [ aaXiriy^, traXn-ifa) 2 o O c S ■ < avXdf o 2 O |2 ( OTjpiyl *^ . o 2 O The a-dXvLy^ seems to have been introduced among the Greeks from the West, and, if we may judge by the epithet of Tvpa-rjVLKos in the Attic time, through the Etrurians or Tvp- a-qvoi, its reputed inventors (Athen., 184 A). It is remarkable that it is only in the Achilleid where it appears in Homer, in the poem which seems to have proceeded from the re- gion of Greece lying nearest to that people geographically ^^. All other instruments and their arts seem to have entered Greece from the South and East, e.g. the formative arts symbolised by Daedalus, who appears in Crete ^^, and hence the Odyssey and Ulyssean cantos are the areas where artistic influence generally is found most diffused. (jj) Under the head of ARMATURE ^^, the following facts may be observed. Fighting with clubs or maces {Kopwai) is tra- ditionally known to the Ulyssean poet as in H 141, but is not introduced in either section into the actual battle-field. The use of the dow may be regarded as on the whole archaic : it is given especially to Trojans, but it is found assigned also to Greeks, and among others to Ulysses himself in certain supreme moments of his adventures, as in K of Iliad and the 3* ^vpiyl in Achilleid is not a musical instrument, but a 'spear-ease' (T 387). So ai\6s in the Achilleid (cp. avKwiris) is only military, a ' socket of spearhead' (P 297), a meaning which it retains in the Odyssey (t 227; cp. » 156). It is right to note that these military applications may be held to presuppose the musical. The argument in the text, therefore, is good to show, not that these musical terms were unknown in the older poem, but only that they have obtained a, greater diffusion in the newer poems. — As to the somewhat savage class of musical instruments, those viz. of Percussion, the sole trace, besides KporaXtCa), seems to be that latent in draxufi^oA.iiifai (H 379). Both are Achillean. ^ Talthybius has been explained by Schwenck as equal to ©aAxu'iSiot, from TrjKov and r^Pr;, i.e. tuba, like Ti]\eirop6v ti p6aim (Welck. Ep. Ky. ii. p. 15). ss Preller (Gr. M. ii. 345), ' Die alteste Technik dieser Kiinste [viz. Scxilpture and Architecture] kam den Griechen gewiss aus dem Orient.' " In defensive armature, it is singular that irqXri^ (probably waving helmet with plumes, from rnXKa) is almost entirely confined to the Achilleid. It occurs there nine times, and appears only once in Od. a 256, the paucity in the Odyssey being in harmony with its entire absence from the Ulyssean area. iSa THE PROBLEM OF THE HOMERIC POEMS. slaughter-scene of the Odyssey. Apart from these traditional archaisms, it is in the Achilleid that we meet with the really rude armature in actual use. Thus d^Tvai ^^ or ' battle-axes/ we hear of only in that area, viz. N 6i3 and O 71 1 ; and slings (a-cpei'Sovai) appear only in N 599 and 716-8. So, although ■n-eXems, is known in all the sections for felling trees and slaughtering animals, it is used in battle only in the Achilleid (O 711), and it is in harmony with this to find that /cea^w \ = cleave) \5 always of splitting 'skulls' in Achilleid (four times), whereas in the Ulyssean books it does not occur at all, and in the Odyssey is applied, and that not unfrequently, only to the cleaving of ' timber.' It may be noted among the archaica under this head that Kr^Xa is only of the missiles of Zeus or Apollo, and is limited to the Achilleid, where it is found thrice ; ovpiayo^, the ' end ' of a spear, occurs thrice in Achilleid, but elsewhere we hear of a-avpooTrip (K 153), as the name for the same part of a spear ; and ^vo-tov, which is five times in Achilleid, is found only once in a Ulyssean canto, but disappears altogether in the Odyssey. {6) Regarding the traces of the Art of Writing, it would be false to assert that either poem indicates a familiar use of it or even a distinct acquaintance with it. The evidences that it was practically unknown are very strong. We have entered into some of the leading points regarding the question in an appendix. The chief point to be noted here is, that the verb ypd4)a>, which in the historic time signified to write, travelled through two stages to reach that signification. The first was, to wound or ' scratch ' for aggressive purposes, the second was, to ' mark ' or to affix a sign to anything, and the third was, to indicate by alphabetical characters, that is, to write. The first of these senses is the only one known to the Achilleid ; the second comes up only outside the Achilleid, and, for sure evidence of the third, we must wait till a period subsequent to the Homeric Epos. '' Mr. Gladstone (Horn. Synch, p. 47) is inclined to identify the a^ivai with certain stone axes found by Dr. Schliemann at Hissarlik, The epithet eoyaXKos in N 612 seems adverse. ARCHAICA— MANNERS AND CUSTOMS. 183 Palceozoic. Ach. Ul. Od. I I o ypd(j)a> = scratch or ivound imypa^a, = scratch or ivound .210 fTnypa^Srjv ■=as a scratch . i o Neozoic. ypd(j)m = mari or affix a sign . o i einypd(j)ai = mark . . . o Ach. Ul. Od. o I o Thus the preponderance of the archaic use is with the Achilleid, while the neozoic use belongs to the Ulyssean area. 118. H.— Labour and Commerce. (a) Under this head there is not much evidence that can be called decisive, though there is a certain amount that is corro- borative. The antiquity of the two Homeric poems necessarily excludes commerce in our sense of the word, and it would be vain to look for traces of such in either epic, seeing that both poems descend from times when there was no coined money, when transactions were by exchange in kind, and when, as in the Zendavesta, values were reckoned by the worth of oxen. Still a preparation may be discerned for -the rise of commerce, and an approach to greater specialisation of crafts, or what is called the division of Labour. If our theory is correct, these should appear mainly in the neozoic area. Accordingly, while the reKTcov and )(^aXKevs are everywhere acknowledged, since they belong to the fundamental necessities of society, it will be found that the evidence for the existence of the more specialised arts, such as Kepao^oos, the horn-polisher, Kepa/ievs, the potter, apfiaTOTrrjyos, the chariot-maker (cp. o-kvtoto/io?, Xpva-oxoos), is chiefly drawn from the Ulyssean cantos and the Odyssey. Thus the citations given by Mr. Grote (H. of G. ii. p. 131, n. i) illustrating the 'crafts' belonging to the society of the Homeric age, are furnished by the neozoic area, viz. Od. p 384, r 135, and II. A 187, H 331, in which 184 THE PROBLEM OF THE HOMERIC POEMS. grouping he has unconsciously supplied an argument in favour of his own differentiation of the Achilleid as a separate poem. (/3) Regarding the initia of commerce, we find these chiefly in the neozoic area. The Achilleid recognises transactions of sale (cp. dirpiccTrjv, wvos, Trepvafieva), imposts as penalty (d(orj), the burden of a ship (dxOos), and stores of accumulated pre- cious metal (cp. noXvxpvcros, 7roXi'X'''^'^°y^')> ^^ 'well as KTrj/iarec and KTfj(Tif, also KeijiriXia, possessions and property in kind, substance. In the Odyssey we hear for the first time of XP^/iara, goods, for use and disposal, rather than for acquire- ment (/cT^o-iy), and, though the word is not yet in its Attic sense of money, riches, it is so far on the way to that abstract sense. It so happens that no example of XPW"^'''^ in this inter- mediate meaning of goods is producible from the Iliad, and the Chorizontes have used the circumstance as one of their argu- ments. It is among the best they have advanced, but it is not clear that there is proper ground for differentiation, seeing that in "P 834 we find xprniara virtually present in xP^^f-^^os, which there signifies ' having goods in use.' This, however, occurs in a Ulyssean canto, and so keeps the Odyssey in countenance. Further, while a rich man is still known as voXvxpva-os and iroXvxC'^Ko^i additional designations now appear, and he comes to be styled as noXvKTrt/jioov and TroXvirdfuov, both in the Ulyssean area (E 613, A 433 ; cp. aKTrificav, 1 136). Mention is made in the Odyssey of a new word for ' burden,' viz. 06proy, or cargo, also, wares for traffic (oSala), and the freighting of a ship is spoken of familiarly in the Ulyssean canto I (137, 279) a^\ while we hear, as a feature no doubt advantageous, of certain cities, that they are situated 'near the sea' (I 153}. Presents for leave to trade (the germ of our customs duties) are incidentally noticed in H 467-75, and in v 8-1 1, an inter- esting link between the Odyssey and Ulyssean cantos. A similar link is the attempt after an abstract standard of price or value, without the intervention of oxen, discernible in the phrase woXios Si ol d^Lov earai. It occurs in * 56a and Od. 405, and a similar phrase is in a 318. Not the least remark- It is remarkable that wo\vapyvpos does not occur in any of the sections of the Homeric poems. ARCHAICA— MANNERS AND CUSTOMS. 185 able is the emergence of (ScotjV?? in connection with dues to a superior, very suggestive of the euphemism ' benevolences ' in the middle ages. It comes up only in the Ulyssean canto I, and twice in the Odyssey. Apart from the indefinite jua-Oos, which belongs to all sections, the nearest approach to what we might call money- stipulations is in the mention of eiri^adpov, ' passenger's fee' or ' passage money' (o 449), but in the Ulyssean canto (I 156) we have something parallel in reXeova-i de/xiaTas, where certain stipulations are spoken of, which had to be made good to the ruler by the people in the currency ' in kind' of the time. We have thus shown under this head, in a number of par- ticulars, a certain conformity between the Odyssey and Ulyssean cantos. The conformity is all the more remark- able that the subject of the Odyssey brings us so closely in contact with navigation, and implies considerable intercourse between different countries and nations, while that of the Iliad supplies very few points of contact in this respect. Still, even in the Odyssey, notwithstanding the occurrence of kyino- \do]iai, irprjKTijp in sense of trader (Lat. tzegotiator), we can hardly speak of commerce as existing, but only a certain rude traffic, for eiinopos is not yet the merchant, but simply a pas- senger by sea, any one who travels in another person's ship, and the words kymopLov and kfinopir} *", which the Greek race was to send on the tour of the world, are as yet remote. 119. I. — Rites and Formalities. It might be hazardous to affirm that the social condition portrayed in the Achillean cantos displays any marked dif- ferences from that appearing in the Odyssey and Ulyssean cantos in respect of religious ritual or state and ceremonial, certainly not more than can be accounted for by the nature of either poem. In so far as barbaric splendour is concerned, one might almost give the precedence to the Achilleid, if only because of the extent to which the element of charioteering predominates, a point of some importance to which I must *> 'Eniroplrj appears first in Hesiod, Op. 644, in sense of trade. 1 85 THE PROBLEM OF THE HOMERIC POEMS. afterwards recur (§ 12a), but in general we find the balance of archaism preponderating here also in favour of the Achilleid. (a) In comparing the two sections together, although both give great value to omens from the flight of birds, we find the older part assigns a higher position to the professional auspex. Thus Calchas, the Seer, though no fighter, is pro- minent mainly in the Achilleid, remarkably so in A, and, to a certain extent, in N, where Poseidon assumes his likeness as a disguise. He is no doubt named, and a vaticination of his is quoted in B, but he is not himself introduced upon the scene anywhere in the Ulyssean cantos, even on occasions that might seem to call for his presence, as in the Oath-scene of r (cp. as to Polydamas, § 96. %). It is worth noting, in this regard, the occurrences of the word for auspex or augur. Ach. Ul. Od. I I 2 I 0. oltavfmoKos olavicTTris In the Odyssey and in K 377 Ulysses seems to be his own augur, much as Agamemnon in T acts as his own priest. Theoclymenus, indeed, as a fiavm, interprets omvol, as in o 531, but he is nowhere styled by the special name olcovKrTrjs answering to augur. The Achillean poem, therefore, seems to occupy a standing-ground not far removed from the original Grseco-Italian position, when the augur proper, as was the case in Rome, had great honour ; a feature, in fact, of the Pelasgian foretime, when the hieratic and priestly element had more sway (Welcker, Gotterl. i. p. 26). The art of the augur, as concerned with birds, never attained the same degree of importance in Greece as it did in Rome (Smith's Diet, of Ant. in ' Divinatio '), and we can trace the signs of diminished importance commencing in the neozoic area of the Homeric poems ". " On the other hand, though the importance of augury proper decreases, the importance of Dreams in divination seems to increase. It is to be noted that while we hear, in the Achilleid, of 'ovufoniKos and of the ovaf being from Zeus (A 64), the ' Dream ' is nowhere introduced as a part of the mechanism of that Poem. On the other hand, the machinery of Dreams plays a prominent part in the contrivances of the Poet both in the Ulyssean cantos and in the Odyssey. Compare Mure on this matter (H. G. Lit. i. p. 492), where the illustrations given of this mechanism are B 20, T 68, and, from the Odyssey, S 803, f 21, v 32 (to these might be added K 496, where iniarq is parallel with i(ptari\Kii in the apparition of 'P 106). It will be noted that these illustrations are all from the homogeneous area. It is not ARCHAICA— MANNERS AND CUSTOMS. 187 In the Achilleid prominence is given to the term 6eonp6wo^ and its cognates, generally in connection with augury. The occurrences are — Ach. UI. Od. 6eonp6tTos ....201 oeorrpoTreto . . . . i i i deoirpoTrir) ....502 SeOTTpOTTlOV .... I I o In process of time the jidvTLs and dvoaKoos appear to have gained upon the oIcoulo-ttjs or augur proper*^, according to the following enumeration, and a larger use of the term (lavrevo/j-ai supervened, whereby it could be applied to com- mon foresight, without reference to ' divination ' proper. Ach. Ul. Od fiavTis 6 I 10 liavrfjiov I IxavToavvrj 2 I I fiavTeiofim 3 I 9 6vo(tk6os [ 2 23. The systematic giving forth of ' oracles ' at particular shrines appears mainly in the neozoic area. In proof may be men- tioned the existence of an aSvrov in temples, a feature which improbable that this feature of the neozoic area is Hellenic rather than Pelasgic, for ' the Romans paid little attention to Dreams, and hardly any to inspired prophets [i.e. /idvTeis] and seers' (Smith's Diet, of Ant., in 'Augur'). — Along with the machinery of Dreams, we find poetic use made of the terrors of distracted sleep, and the wife of Diomed in the Iliad is threatened with those troubled slumbers which are experienced by the wife of Ulysses in the Odyssey. II. E. 41 2 is thus in harmony with Od. t 515, t; 58. *^ Contemporaneously with the greater prominence of the jiAvtis as distinguished from the olaivoTioXos comes up the more frequent use of ' lots,' which happens, strangely enough, to be resorted to mainly in the neozoic area. In r, H, V, CI such instances occur, and the frequency of KKijpos is an indication of the fact. Ach. Ul. Od. K\TJpot as 'lot' {oT decision . . . o 12 4. It is true that KKijpos in the sense of 'lot' in inheritance belongs to both areas, and the casting of lots by the Kronid brothers (O 191) is a very archaic example referred to in the Achilleid. It is, however, the fact that no occurrence of the formality of ' lots' occurs in the human action of the older poem. 1 88 THE PROBLEM OF THE HOMERIC POEMS. is specially suggestive of oracles, and the occurrence of yjpdm. Epic xpuca, points in the same direction. Ach. Ul. Od. &bvTov o I o Xpfiaii' (of a god) . . . o o I ■)(pr]pa on the occasion of marriage. These seem especially to be per- sonal presents to the bride, ornaments offered by the suitor or suitors, and consequently perquisites of the bride. It is re- markable, that, while we hear of only 'iSva in the Achilleid, we meet with fidXia and SS>pa,, alongside of 'iSva, in the Non- Achilleid, in which case we have this differentiation that in the Achilleid, the rights of the father or the disposing party are alone dominant, and anything bestowed is upon him, while, outside the Achilleid, the rights and feelings of the daughter, the bride, are an element in the case, and we hear of things bestowed by the father upon her and the bridegroom. (i3) Regarding fieiXia, as to the meaning and destination of which there is no dispute, the case is quite clear. We have one instance in which it occurs in the Iliad, and one, by impH- cation, in the Odyssey. The former is in I 147 (repeated in 289), where the gifts so designated are bestowed by a father on a daughter when married. The passage is in a pro- minent Ulyssean canto. The other is in Od. /3 133, where things bestowed, by a father, i. e. /xeiXia, are capable of being reclaimed by him, when the daughter leaves the house to which she came as a bride and contracts a new marriage. (y) As to Swpa, the examples are not unfrequent in the Odyssey, viz. 18, where they are distinguished from eSpa, and especially a 2,86, 291, where they are personal presents to the expected bride. In u 343 dcnreTa Swpa SiScofii, if the reading is correct, the Sapa, though not from the suitors, are to accompany the bride. There is also the epithet -rroXvSeopos in certain passages of the Iliad, regarding which hereafter. (6) There remains the term eSpa, regarding which there is for afiS-vov it : is probably from the same origin as -qSis, which is the same word as Slit, svadus and our sweet. Kiihner (Gr. i. p. 82) prefers to connect Uva with Skt. vadaniya = ' liberal,' ' free-giving.' ARCHAIC A — MANNERS AND CUSTOMS. 191 more dubitation as to the direction of its destination. In so far as the Achilleid is concerned, there is no room for doubt : it is there unmistakably the gifts to the father or the dis- posing party, and therefore the ' purchase price.' Two clear instances are producible from the Achilleid, where we hear of a husband having got a wife, kird Trope fivpia eSua, or as iropodv d7repec 79). No less clear is the instance in Od. Q 318-9, where Hephaestus MANNERS AND CUSTOMS. 193 wants to get back from the father of his faithless spouse the Uva 'which he had bestowed on him for the sake of the wicked-eyed girl.' Among the Gods, naturally, the archaic style of things would be represented as prevailing. Two other instances *8 are in Od. o 367 and n- 379, which look like cases of recompense, if not to the father, at least to the family of the bride. The latter passage runs in Cowper's version — ' Such was not heretofore The suitors' customed practice; all who chose To engage in competition for a wife Well qualified and well-endowed, produced From their own herds and fatted flocks, a feast For the Bride's friends and splendid presents made.' (Od, a 279.) There are various other instances of eSi/a appearing ; V 378, o 18, IT 391, r 539, 161. According to Cobet these are all cases of 'purchase price' bestowed on the father or the family. The ancient critics regarded them as bestowed upon the bride, and, as she would bring these along with her, the old eSva would, when so converted, serve as the neozoic dowry. Under Cobet's view, they are cases of 'survival;' under the other view, they are instances preparatory for the more recent state of things. (rj) At this point we may recall the conditions of the case among the ancient Germans, who form in many respects a close parallel to the case of the Homeric Greeks. From the description given by Tacitus (Germ. ch. 1 8), we can infer that, in their marriage relations, the offered presents that had come from the bridegroom, were, at the pleasure of the father and the friends, returned to accompany the bride, and so became part of her outfit and dowry. An example of something similar is in Od. a 277, where, according to the common read- ing *^, the eSva is now spoken of as provided by the bride's " The instances of Chloris and Pero (\ 282, 290) are in the doubtful part of the Nekyia. They are good evidence as to the practice of ' purchase ' in the early epic time. *" Cobet (Misc. Crit. p. 239), who holds that i'Sra is always in Homer the 'bride price,' wishes to expel the line ttoW^ fid\', oaaa ioixe irj once in O 412, \6yoi in sense of ' discourse ' in O 393, and a.\oyia> = lo be reckless, in O 162. It is somewhat strange to find ao6s, which comes up so largely in the Attic time, absent from the Iliad and Odyssey, except in the above instance, where, however, it contains no intellectual suggestions, but is simply with reference to handicraft. The word is Indo-Germanic, a congener of the Latin sapiens, and it seems to be an accident that it should crop up only once distinctly (apart from Sl-avcpos and a.-av(p-ri\os') in the Homeric poems. As for \6yoi, the presence of //.uSoKoyeva in the Odyssey, of K6yoi in Od. a 57 and of \iyai, both act. and mid., in sense of recount, fell, tends to account for its occurrence so early as the Achilleid; Akoyiai is a. greater puzzle, inasmuch as it appears to come from a time when \6yos not only has the sense of ' discourse ' or ' speech ' but of ' reason,' of which last sense we have no example in the Homeric poems. In reality, however, i\oyccu springs from the stem A.e7 ^62, X 132, 385). On the other hand, the formulated results of Reflective Thought are for the most part confined to the neozoic area. In particular, the formal explanations of phenomena, and the attempts at rendering a reason for certain statements are mainly in the Ulyssean cantos and in the Odyssey. Ac- cording to Spitzner in his note on II. E 343, ' Invenies . . . vel rerum vel nominum interpretamenta ab Homero passim sub- jecta,vid. II. 4.477, 9.563 ; Od. 18. 7.' The examples to which he refers (including E 342) are all four from one area. (2) Among the more subtle notions, difficult to the simple primitive mind, as it still is to young children, is that of ' Number ' in the abstract. It is remarkable, accordingly, that a/ji^yuoy and its derivatives belong only to the neozoic section, and while single numbers appear in the Achilleid, the idea of ' Number /^r .f^' does not appear to have been realised, and substantives for the aggregate under any number are not found to emerge. Hence — Ach. Ul. Od. dpi6fi6s, dpid/ifai, ivapi^jxios ...028 &eKas (an aggregate number) . . o 2 i. This constitutes a distinct advance upon the Achillean position. That ten occurrences of the abstract word dpidfios should be found beyond the Achilleid and none within, is a circumstance that indicates two different stadia of mental pro- gression. It is true that there is still much inabihty to handle Sie\4^aTo, above referred to, is, however, too peculiar to be classed with these idioms. The following are variations of the same notion, though not confined to the Achil- leid, having become formulae of Epic speech. Ach. Ul. Od. oxBri(ras S' apa ehf irpbs tv fieya\riTOpa evfidv 7 o 4 (all 4 within book f) Kwriaas Si Kapri npos tv imBijaaro Bvplv 202. The latter formula is remarkable as being used in the Achilleid only of Zeus, in the Odyssey only of the other Kronid brother, viz. Poseidon. Regarding the former line, it is to be remarked that it sins against the Digamma in its present shape ; c7rrc Fov or feov without TTp6s is the probable correction, for iltit is found frequently dispensing with the preposition, in the sense of ' addressed ' or ' bespoke,' and more especially in the Achilleid, of which it is a kind of idiom. 400 THE PROBLEM OF THE HOMERIC POEMS. number, and yAipioi does not seem to have reached the stage of a definite number ; yet a near approach to a ratio of comparison, expressing ' as 9 is to 100,' is found in Z 236, also neozoic. A corroboration of this view is obtained in the pecuharity attaching to the first numeral adverb. It is singular to find that while three occurrences appear of aira^ and KaOdna^ in the Odyssey, the expression for once is, in the Achilleid, by a compound, eVa xpovov (O 511), ' at one time.' Other numeral adverbs are no doubt known in the Achilleid, especially rpt'y, but aira^ happens not to occur. (3) Very quaint and primitive are the modes of thought and forms of imagery appearing in the Achilleid. It almost looks as if we could discern the human mind imping its young wings for flight and striving to body forth the unseen, and we feel, as it were, ' a motion toiling in the gloom ' to ex- press the unexpressed and the obscure. Among the most instructive and peculiar archaica of the Achilleid are the following. The notion of ' deliberation ' is conveyed under the image of a balance, and we catch it at the period where the ' Libra ' or balance is introduced as the mental machine for determi- nation of solutions. Zeus himself is supposed to act by such an instrument, and hence we have the famous image of the ' weighing ' of the Krjpes or fates of rival heroes or peoples. It is only in the Achilleid that we discover this operation (0 69, X 209), in connection with which we hear four times of TaXavra or A LOS TokavTa in the hands of Zeus, solely Achillean {ibidem, also n 658, T 323). It must be owing to his favour for this image that this poet uses pkirco and kTrippk-acti, (which are terms origi- nally of the momentum of the balance,} thrice metaphorically to describe what we may call the descending scale of Fate (0 72, X 212, E 99). This cluster of images is entirely homo- geneous, unique, and only Achillean. So likewise we speak still of the ' tug ' of war, and the image is both an ancient and expressive one. It is a favourite and characteristic one of the Achilleid, and in more than one instance we hear of a Rope or Chain as being the normal trial of all strength, the instrument for testing a challenge between competitors. The great challenge of Zeus in to all the Gods turns upon this idea. The letting down of the MANNERS AND CUSTOMS. 30 1 'golden chain' is for the purpose of a 'tug' of strength i^*, and the Achilleid, in which this challenge forms perhaps the most imposing scene, is, accordingly, replete with imagery as to the strain of war and the tension of struggle *^. (4) Among the most unequivocal traces of archaism must be classed the remains of what some would call Fetichism «", others a primitive and poetic mode of Thought, attributing animation to objects in external nature. A remarkable in- stance of this is found in the combat between Achilles and the River Scamander. The river is there represented as an animated being ' growing wroth in his heart,' ' meditating in his mind ' (4> 136-7), and 'speaking ' with a voice ' out of the deep whirlpool' (313)". So rivers are 'valiant' (i(pOiiJ.oi) in P 749 ; waves and shores not only resound but bellow and roar as animated beings (l3od(o, E 394, P 2,65) ; and what is more remarkable, the sea is spoken of as sentient, for it is described 2.s prescient of a coming storm (H 17)^*- Again, there is in the Achilleid a great number of instances in which weapons of war are represented as animated ; thirsting for blood, eager for the fray, and the like. Thus XiXaiojxeva (or -r}) xpoos aaai occurs thrice, and only in Achilleid ; alxf^^ (or kyx^LT]) ie/j.ei'r] occurs four times with the same limitation of area (cp. Spitzner on II. M 185). If we except alxfJ-V /xaLficocoa-a, which belongs to both sections (O 542, E 661), °' ' Sehr alterthiimlichen Charakter hat eine allegorische Erfindung in der Ilias, die Kette nach dem Vorbild elnes Ziehspiels.' Welcker, Gotterl. i. p. 85. '' Ten examples occur of reiva, ravvai, etc. in this connection, A 336, M 436, N 359, O 413, H 389, n 663, P 401, 543, 736, Y loi. The great challenge of the •golden chain 'makes an eleventh, and all are Achillean. Beyond the Achilleid, the nearest approach, but with Tfivai dropped out, is in the expression Trfipar' dKeSpov efTJTTTai H 402 (occurring also in M 79, and cp. H 102), and Od. x 33i 41. where the verb etpdiTToi = knit, requiring us to understand irclpara as ' rope-ends,' seems to recall in so far the favourite Achillean image. '^ It is somewhat suggestive of Fetichism that bKo6ippm> in the Achilleid belongs only to beasts, in the Ulyssean canto B is similarly applied to i/'5pos, but in the Odyssey is no longer so applied, but is given to men or mythical persons conceived as men. "' The nearest approach, elsewhere, to this fetichistic view of rivers is in Od. i 449, where there is a curious mixture of naturalism and personification {a6v re p6ov aa re yovvaS' txAfa). The river in the Odyssey is, however, not represented as ' speaking,' as that in the Achilleid is. '' oaa6iiivov is the word here, on which Fasi remarks ; ' von einem leblosen Gegenstand, wie von einer Person, ahxend,' 203 THE PROBLEM OF THE HOMERIC POEMS. we shall hardly find, apart from A I25«^ more than one clear instance of the same outside the Achilleid. The same tendency to personification seems to be at work in determin- ing the predominance of the following expressions : — Ach. Ul. Od. 6pa or KrjXem, an ancient epithet of fire, appears in Achilleid Jive times, only twice in Odyssey, and not at all in Ulyssean area, (e) The famous formula, ' Thus they fought like blazing fire,' is, literally, ' with the bodj/ of ' blazing fire '^. It occurs only in the Achilleid, and there four times (A 596, N 'j6^, P 366, Si). These groups of phenomena, which are well nigh unique, suffice to show that the Achillean poet has shown a special homage, poetically, to the element of Fire. (7) Less notable, but still significant, is the kindred feature of his homage to Night and Darkness. The enemies of the Greeks seem to him to advance ' like Night,' and both Apollo who sends the pestilence and Hector who is the manslayer are described in images drawn from the ' Gloom of Night ' (A 47, M 463). In curious conformity with this, Hector is spoken of as i/e sentiment ^^ ' regarding the Horse appearing in the Ulyssean area at all comparable in kind or degree to those in the Achilleid ; but besides the diminution of interest regarding that animal, there is an accession of new rivals among the animal creation, viz. the Mule and the Dog, so that in these Ulyssean books we have a distinct approxima- tion to the position of the Odyssey, where the Ship takes the place of the Horse as the usual vehicle, the Mule ^'^ rivals it as a beast of burden, and the Dog appears as the chief com- panion and favourite of Man. The diminution of interest in the Horse is further indicated by the decrease in the number of equestrian similes. The Achilleid contains, within its limited area, four formal similes (O 263, 679, X 22, 162). Only two are found in the much larger non- Achillean area, apportioned equally, as if for mutual consistency, viz. one in Ulyssean canto Z (506), and one in Od. v 81, the latter being intended as an image of the fleetness of Ph^acian navigation. 125. It is in connection with the character of Ulysses that this decrease of interest in the equestrian element is especially noticeable, and it is a strong confirmation of our hypothesis that the Ulysses of the Ulyssean cantos is drawn with features that are cognate, if not preparatory, to those attaching to him in the Odyssey. In the first place let it be noted that he always fights on foot as a Tre^oy, and that, Ajax excepted, he is the of Ulysses, for he has married a sister of Penelope (Od. S 798), a circumstance which may have something to do with the interest which surrounds him, although a Thessalian and Northern hero, in book T. '" It is not necessary to remark that vaphpfaaav St 01 ?inroi, of E 295, means simply, ' his steeds shyed ' or ' started to the side,' not, as Mr. Gladstone (H. iii. 414) has interpreted it, 'with a fine feeling trembled by the corpse.' " The occurrences of the mule are (;^iuovos and oipevs) ' _ ' The breeding of mules connects itself in early times especially with Western Asia (Kitto, Bib. Cyc. in < Ass,' and cp. ' mules frOm Togarmah,' i.e. Armenia, in Eiek. xxvii. 14). PERSONAL IDIOSYNCRASIES. 213 only Greek hero at Troy of the first rank that is without an equipage. Hence he takes no part in the chariot race of *, the honours of which could not therefore fall to him, and room is thus left for the decoration of Diomed. Even in the capture of the splendid steeds of Rhesus, though he has there done his part, he does not fall into any rapt admi- ration for them (K ^^^6) as does the Poseidonian Nestor, whose high panegyric he rather tones down in colour, and he claims no share in them when captured but resigns them to his companion (X 568). The explanation of this singularity is partly due, no doubt, to the circumstance of his being an islander (Schol. II. A 488), and that too from a small island with little scope for horsemanship, a fact which applies also to the Telamonian Ajax. This inference is a fair one from what occurs in Od. 8 590-609, where Telemachus politely de- clines the offer of a fine equipage (although acknowledging it to be an dyaXjia), on the ground that rocky Ithaca was no field for steeds. On that craggy isle the prince of ' ancient mariners ' had as much need of a horse as a merchant prince of Venice among the lagoons of the Adriatic. Therefore there is much significance in his appearing at Troy without an equipage. Further, we discern some peculiar touches in his portraiture, which go to show that Ulysses was an object of interest suf- ficiently great to be able to dispense with, perhaps to despise, such an appendage. On one occasion, when made to feel keenly the humbleness of his retinue, we find that hero speaking with a slight tinge of scorn for the arrogance that generally characterised the LTnroSaixoi ". In A ■^^i we can discern a ripple of this feeling in the manner in which, in an irritated mood, he introduces the iTnToSafioi Tpmes twice in six lines, as if to em- phasize, Antony-like, their being thereby surely honourable men, foemen worthy of his steel, but ' for all that and all that ' he would dare to meet them ". Accordingly the first of his " It would almost appear as if the poet himself shaved the feeling about ' horse- taming,' that is, ' proud-prancing,' warriors. The Trojans he characterises as Irmilajuii when he comes to bring Ulysses on the stage (A 333), and there is a sting in the epithet as used by Apollo in so addressing them in A 509. Pandarus in E 102 seeks to stir them up by calling them ' spurrers of steeds,' as if reminding them that ' noblesse oblige.^ " The Ulysses of the Achilleid already possesses the germ of this anti-equestrian feeling (A 450 3. 2wx', 'iTtmaov vl\ 5ai(s, dyearpaTos, and the like. The derivation presents no difficulty except in the lengthening of o of oxos, but this is probably due to the Digamma, as it is properly f6xos, answering to the root of our waggon. Germ. Wagm. Compare the same phenomena of Digamma slipped and vowel lengthened in omaixalov { = contimo) Hes. Theog. 690, and in the no doubt ^olic c5^cuxe'™( itoi of Thuc. iv. 97, ex- plained as 6iioffx€Tai. and thus a complete analogy. '^ The Asiatic races receive the bulk of these equestrian epithets. The Trojans PERSONAL IDIOSYNCRASIES. 217 connects itself with his Neleid descent and therefore Poseido- nian origin (cp. § 124, n. 13)^''. Therefore, in seven out of the eight occurrences ^'^ the presumption is otherwise justified of an equestrian reference. Regarding the eighth (Rhodians), without raising the question of the genuineness of the passage, there is the difficulty, that they are islanders. It is to be ob- served, however, that, besides occupying a large island, they are signalised as possessing ' marvellous wealth ■" (B 670), which is a feature often associated with ancient equestrianism ^''. The contrast which we have found subsisting between the Achilleid and the rest of the Homeric Corpus is borne out by what we find as to the naming of Steeds. It is remarkable that we have in the Achilleid two equipages, embracing, ac- cording to the common texts and interpretations, Seven Steeds all with individual names — that of Achilles in T 400, and that of Hector in 185. All these are/r^.f^«^at Troy. Mention is made besides of the steed Podarge (n 150). In the Ulys- sean cantos mention is made of a mythical steed, Areion, in connection with the legends of Thebes and Argos, but only two are named as presettt at Troy, viz. ^tke, the steed of and Phrygians are in twenty-four places lirniSaiioi. the Mseonians once iTnoKopvaral, the Phrygians once m.o\6iiaKoi. The Pjeonians, who are on the Trojan side, are twice InnoKopvcrTat, and only the inferior epithet TaxinrwKoi is given to Greek races, viz. to the Danai frequently, and to the Myrmidons. '^ Compare dyavoTaros applied to Neleus in Od. f 229, as if an interpretation of the ayepwxos of his son Periclymenus ; d7auos is also of his other son, Nestor, 2 16. — It will be found that ayavos is given largely to lirirdrai, whether individual heroes or tribes. In the Iliad it is given to no races except the hir6Safiot TpSies and the 'IwnrjiioKyoi. In the Odyssey it seems to be set free from equestrian associations, for it is there given to no race but Phjeacians and Phoenicians. It is once given to Ulysses himself, but it is in the mouth of ^ Suitor (/3 308), and is meant in malam partem. As applied to the Suitors, it is undoubtedly of sinister import. ^* In H 343, as applied to the Trojans coming ' storming on ' with their chariots (cp. ImPpiaji), it is an epithet peculiarly appropriate. ^' In the historic time the connection of pride and equestrianism is in the Greek world largely recognised. Cp. Imr^s at Athens, the opening scene of the ' Nubes,' the horse as the dya\pi.a Trjs iinpirXovTov x^'Siys in j^isch. Prom. V. 474, the JEschylean use of memTrd^eaeat, ' to ride rough-shod over,' in what we might call cavalier fashion, and the sneer of Antisthenes against the magnificence of Plato, whom he called a ' snorting steed' (iWos (ppvaKT'/js, Diog. La. vi. i. 7). All these illustrate the use of ifr-n6Saiios as symbolical of affluence (cp. B 230, A 145), and oi viipOvpios as belonging for the most part either to equestrians or to reckless and violent men. Compare (v-qytv-qs, used only of the l-n-nuSa/ioi TpSfs, and the case ol the brutal KrijiriirTros, expressly said to be ' proud of his grand possessions ' (u 289). 2,i8 THE PROBLEM OF THE HOMERIC POEMS. Agamemnon, and Podargus that of Menelaus (* 396) ^''. In the Odyssey no horse is named except the mythical steeds of E6s, but we find a Dog so honoured, the immortal Argus. Thus in the Achilleid, we meet with (assuming © 185 to be admis- sible) Seven Steeds bearing a name and no Dog : in the non- Achilleid, two Steeds named upon the stage of action, and one Dog, a circumstance which brings us to the second part of this investigation ^^ '" Pindar, in conformity (cp. note on § 95) with his generally Achillean ten- dencies, introduces two steeds by name, Pherenikus belonging to Hiero and Phrikias, a Thessalian steed, the latter in the tenth Pythian. ^' Some notices of the Horse and the Dog in Literature, ancient and rnodern, will be found in Appendix, Note D. CHAPTER XVI. PERSONAL IDIOSYNCRASIES.— PREDILECTIONS AS TO THE DOG. Xpvireioi S' iicArfpee koX dpyvpeoi Kvyes ^aav. lay. We have shown that Ulysses was conceived as not standing in any marked relation to the Horse, as having, in fact, almost every variety of association except equestrian ones. The loss of interest thus arising is, however, remarkably compensated by the near and frequent association, if not always of himself, yet of his household, with an animal in some respects more attractive, though not more noble — the Dog. In the great Epic, where the war element is pre- dominant, it is natural that the great war-animal should be in the ascendant and especially in cantos where the storm rises fiercest and wildest. In the equally great Epic where the charm of I/ome gleams out so pleasingly, it is no less fitting that the guardian of the Hearth should meet with due recognition ^ The Dog has received many such recognitions in literature. He has even, as was proper in the ' philosophic animal ' — ^^so styled by Plato — penetrated into the region of Philosophy, and given name to a respectable, though not very amiable ^ sect of Philosophers. As the only creature that ' The Romans placed the figure of a dog beside those of the domestic Lares, and so it is found in the denarii of the Gens CcEsia (Ov. Fasti, v. 129, where the reason is given for this remarkable honour). The Romans, however, were not always so complaisant to that animal. Their Flamen Dialis was defiled, if touched by a dog, and the goose was thought to have proved a better watch of the capitol (Prell. R. Myth. p. 255). " According to Athenseus (xiii. 6n. b.c.) the balance on the score of philosophic 220 THE PROBLEM OF THE HOMERIC POEMS. prefers the society of man to the society of its own kind, as an animal which has attained in the service of man to a species of 'worship,' which a modern French philosopher, Comte, has thought worthy of the name ' anthropolatry,' as the most complete and the most useful conquest man has made among the animal creation, and as the instrument which has been of the most signal service in helping him to his other con- quests over the animal world, the Dog is by pre-eminence the creature that has come into the most frequent and close relation to Man, rejoicing with him in life and mourning over him in death. This relation we can discern the Dog to have sustained from a time the most remote, before the Aryan races were separated in the depths of the past. Nowhere, however, along the whole page of human story, has this com- panion of Man obtained more loving recognition than in the cantos of the Odyssey ^- To put this matter in a proper critical light it will be proper to glance first at a few points of the aspect in which he appears in the Achilleid. 128. The Dog, while well known in the Achilleid, hardly any- where appears except in a sinister aspect. He comes before us in the very proem of the poem, but it is not in an amiable light, for he is there associated with fowls of the air, (probably vultures), and is represented as having something wild in his nature preying on the bodies of the dead, not so much the friend as an enemy of man*. From this opening keynote amiability is thought to lie rather with the dogs than the Cynics, so that the dogs have more reason to complain than to be proud of the association! — The Scholiast on II. A 335 has the facetious remark on their philosophic powers being limited, like those of other philosophers, since they often confound the instrument with the cause, and bite the stone instead of the stone-thrower. — Other instances in which the dog is brought en rapport with philosophy are the case of the Ephesian Heracleitus, who is made to speak of himself as a ' growler ' in this foolish world (vKaKiSiv, Anth. Pal. vii. 79), and the delightful simile of Plato comparing destructive novices in Dialectics to ' young barkers ' that mu&t worry and devour (PI. Rep. vii. 53g B). — Another member of the Sooatic school makes a still nobler application of the simile in the case of the young Cyrus (Cyrop. i. 4. 15), when he compares the eager prince to a axv\a^, or 'young dog,' in his youthful glee. ' It is interesting to find that, according to Diogenes Laertius, Anlisthenes, the founder of the Cynic sect, wrote a treatise on the Odyssey. He was probably at- tracted to the poem by the homage which it shows to his favourite animal, the dog. ' The dogs under Turkish rule seem to have returned to Achillean fierceness, if PERSONAL IDIOSYNCRASIES. 221 there is no departure, at least no marked departure, within the Achilleid. The Dog is known as a denizen of the camp (A 50), without apparently any individual associations. He is known also as assisting shepherds (M 303), more frequently, as helping the huntsman (A 292, 325, 414, N 475, O 579). In many of the similes of the Achilleid, the combat is por- trayed under hunting images, and it is a curious, if not signi- ficant circumstance that, in by far the greater number, it is the Trojan side that answers to the Dogs (© 338, A 292, 325, 414, and in part 549, M 147, N 198, P 6$, no, 282, 658, 725). In canto M there is this variation, that in one simile and partly in another the Greeks stand in that position (M 41, 303) s, and in X 189 Achilles in pursuit of Hector is likened to a hound chasing a fawn. There is no instance in the Achilleid of the Dog being admitted to a Greek hero's hut or tent, and, although, in the older and established society of Troy, it tells us of rpane^rjes (X 66), ' dogs feeding at the table,' even these are described as (ofLTja-Tai, an epithet far from complimentary. The passage is not one that could be cited as proof of loving appreciation of the Dog. It is the famous one where Priam amid his woes forebodes that the very dogs he has ' fed at his table ' will devour his dead body, anticipating as well as illustrating that unloving prophecy, to which Byron once, in a misanthropic moment, gave expression : — 'Perchance my Dog will whine in vain Till fed by stranger hands; But long ere I come back again, He'd tear me where he stands V 129. This, in the Achilleid, may be said to be the climax we may judge from the grim representation of them in Byron's ' Siege of Corinth.' Compare Macaulay's description of the Irish dogs after the carnage at Aghrim (Hist, of Eng. iii. 439). '' In O 272 the Greeks answer to Kvvfs tc ml dvepes together. In O 579 Anlilochus eirSpovae Kvaiv Sis, but this is balanced by O 587, where the xvav is a foe of Antilochus. « Theognis is similarly sceptical of the faithfulness of the horse, and almost seems to hint a contradiction to the Iliad or rather to the Achilleid :— ovre yap 'iirrros ^vioxov leXaiei icdufvov kv Kovirj, dA.\(J Tov voTfpov K.T.\. (Theog. 1. 1268). aaa the problem of the Homeric poems. of malediction regarding the canine race, and there is no per contra of redeeming association. As to the scornful asso- ciations by which the Dog figures as the symbol of im- pudence and a nickname of contempt ', these appear deeply ingrained in the whole texture of the poems. The pre- ponderance of examples will, however, be found again to weigh down the scale of the Achilleid. Thus kvov, Kwdfivia and Kvvwira, in the vocative of address, are found about six times in the Achilleid (A 159, © 423, A 362, T 449, X 345, and Kvvt^ in voc. plur. N 633, without reckoning * 394 and 481). In the Ulyssean cantos, no instance of the vocative so occurs. The nearest approach is that of Helen regarding herself (Z 344), but self-accusation never has intensity like the taunt of another. In the Odyssey, three instances of this vocative of contempt occur ^; two of kvov (a- ^^y and r 91), both times to the detested Melantho ; the other, Kwes (\ 35), to the crew of the Suitors. There is therefore, on the whole, a preponderance of the scornful associations in the smaller area of the Achilleid, and a diminution of them alike in the Odyssey and in the Ulyssean area. Another dark spot upon the character of the Dog is his devouring propensity exercised on the dead. Again, the shadow is darkest in the Achilleid. About twenty-four in- stances can be reckoned up in which that propensity js referred to as a familiar thing. In the Ulyssean cantos, if the same proportion were to hold, under a common authorship, there ought to be sixteen instances ; there are only seven (B 393, X 509,* 183, 185, 12 aiT, 409,411)1 In the Odyssey, the diminution is still greater. The references to their devouring ' Mahommedan and Christian have equally abused the name of the dog, apply- ing it each to the other. ' II sepolcro di Cristo h in man di cani,^ Petrarca (Trionfo della Fama, ch. 2). 'AireSarc OKvXi (a dog is dead) is the exclamation of a modern Greek when a Turk dies, and vice versa (Lord Broughton s Travels, ii 2). ° A fourth, practically in address, occurs in the mouth of Melanthius (p ■248), and Penelope has the offensive term regarding the wicked B/jcuai (t 154). These, however, are balanced by two similar instances in Achilleid, 299, 527. — The derivative Kiicrepos is, singularly enough, thrice in the Odyssey, as against a single instance in the Achilleid and one of kuj/totos in the Ulyssean area. ° It is only in the Achilleid that we find 7i!;rcs and Kwts coupled in the work of devouring (2 271, X 42). Vet here also the 7S7rfs are found alone as in A 132, n 836. In the Odyssey and Ulyssean area the -Yvnes always appear alone wiihout icvpes associated in such company (A 237 and x 3°). PERSONAL IDIOSYNCRASIES. 2,2^ propensities are about five in number; (i) y 259 and x 476, regarding the cases of supreme villains, ^gisthus and Melan- thius, and only one of these cases belongs to the action of the Odyssey, that of ^gisthus being merely narrated and no part of the plot. (2) Other two are blackguard threats in the mouth of the Suitors {^ 363 and o- 86) and savour more of traditional Epic style, whereas in the Achilleid they are the grim reality. (3) A fifth is a dark surmise on the part of Eumaeus (f 133)1 lending intensity to the horror as to the apprehended fate of the absent Ulysses. Still more remark- able is the state of the case as to the savageness of the terms in which the fact is referred to. It is only in the Achilleid that the grim terms occur ; for there we hear of 'glutting the dogs {Kopii.iv) with flesh,' and of making one's remains a 'tid- bit' or 'plaything' to the Dogs (neXnrjOpa or Kvpfj.a); three instances of the former (0 379, N 831, P 241), four of the latter (N 233, P 255, 272, 2 179). It is in the Achilleid also that the terrible d\va-a(o is once used regarding them (X 70). To balance against these eight atrocissima as to the Dog, there is none producible from the Odyssey nor any from the Ulyssean books ^°. In the Achilleid, therefore, the sinister associations regard- ing the Dog are numerous and dark, and, what is more, they are unrelieved by any kindly reference. When we pass be- yond the Achilleid, the sinister references sensibly diminish, and we seem to have passed into a new zone of feeling re- garding the Dog. I proceed now to enter upon the remark- able cluster of happy and kindly associations with which the Dog is invested in the non-Achillean area of the Homeric poems. 130. To begin with the Odyssey. In the first place (a), the young prince Telemachus making his debut in the agora has no personal followers or depaTrovre^, but ' two fleet hounds ' attend him" (Od. ^3 11). The same escort recurs twice w The nearest approach in the Odyssey is e 474. tut the mention of Kucuy is spared (SeiSai n^i 0-ljpfaaiv eKaip koI Kvp/xa y4vaiiiai).—It is singular that d\>5oar or pig ; dpyioSovs Is, as it were, carefully assigned to the pig in three Ulyssean cantos, I, K, *, and the Odyssey follows suit seven times, as if avoiding the association of the Dog with a less noble animal^. * The ancient grammatical schools used to make it a subject of disputation ' whether the Cyclop had dogs ' {d tcvms €?x^ KvKKanf/) . Cp. Epigr. Anthol. xi. 3 2 1 . The Scholiast on i 211 thinks the reason, of their absence was that their barking would have disconcerted Ulysses ! " The conjunction of avis and Kvves in ^^^ have similar precedence. ' The dog is not Argus, as we might have expected, but one of Actseon's, the painter having chosen conditions requiring a dog in Hades that was already deceased at the time of Ulysses' visit to the under-world. — In modem art probably the nearest parallel, though in a single picture, to this combination by Polygnotus is that of Rubens in the ' Elevation of the Cross.' To the right of the picture, in front of the group of the weeping daughters of Jerusalem, is a dog evidently howling, and to the left is the horse of Pilate, which is turning its head away. " Hesiod, though without any specially equestrian sympathy, shares the Achillean mal-impression as to the dog. Hermes gives to Pandora Kivi6v re v6ov ual f-irmkoTTov ^$os (Works and Days, 67'), but Hesiod, though he knows the value of a ' housedog with sharp teeth ' (ibid. 603), is misogynous and misokynic together. EPILOGUE AS TO HORSE AND DOG. 235 pronounced equestrian sympathies. He rings the changes upon irriros very loudly, and is almost silent as to Kixi^v. The oc- currences of the former (without including compounds) amount to twenty-nine in the Odes, besides six in the fragments ; of the latter, two in the Odes, with four in the fragments. Moreover, (as already indicated, § 130) Pindar introduces steeds into the delights of Elysium (frag. 95. 4), a feature which is adopted by Virgil (^n. vi. (>$%), and is an honour transcending even the Achillean ideals. An objection may naturally occur that the sympathy for the two animals may very well coexist in the same individual and may show itself at different times, and so the same author may in the Iliad show affection for the horse and in the Odyssey for the dog. It is admitted that in general the two sympathies may both coexist and coalesce, as in the case of Horace's young noble, ' gaudet equis caiiibusque,' or the squire in Locksley Hall who counts his wife ' something better than his dog, a little dearer than his horse,' and Xenophon in historic times stands out as a remarkable instance of the combined attachment^". The above objection, however, does not touch the main points of the case, inasmuch as it is not a case of sympathies only, but of antipathies also, re- curring under a certain law of polarity, and a theory is wanted which will explain how the sympathies for the two animals came to be so singularly distributed, and how the sympathy for the one creature seems in each case to be accompanied by a corresponding shrinking from, if not antipathy to, the other. Any theory assuming unity of authorship will not account for the distribution of the phenomena, and this investigation therefore has yielded a valuable confirmation of a thesis on other grounds sufficiently probable. " Solon acknowledges the double attachment : 6\0ios (S iratdes re oi^ov )(^pfj Xi^ai TTivvTas d/i(paSa fiavToawas, irdrpa ^^ ^^ Avd6v, oi S' 'AOrjvaTov, ol d' 'WaK^idLOV, ot 8\ HvtrpioPt ot SI Xa\afj.iviov, ol 5e Kvwfffftov, ol S^ Mv/CTjvaiov, ol 5e AiyiunrioVt ot 5^ @eTTa\6v, ol Si 'IraXiiiTrjv, ot Se A€VKav6v, ol Si Tpvuiov, ot Si 'Vaiimov, ol Si 'PdSioy. A less copions and more reasonable list is that given by Proclus, the grammarian, in his Chrestomathia, ot ptiv KoXotpajvtov avrov avrjyopevcav, ol Si XtoVy ot Si 'Sp.vpvaiov, ol Si 'lijTrjv, dXXoi Si KvpLoTov. Compare with the foregoing the common Latin couplet and the three Greek epigrams subjoined, the last of which (5) was used by Varro for a bust of Homer (Aul. Gell. iii. 11): — (a) Smyrna, Chios, Colophon, Salamis, Rhodos, Argos, AthenjE, Orbis de patria certat, Homere, tua. (iS) i-nrcL ipiSpLaivovai trdXeis Sici pi^av 'Opi-qpov, Kvfir], ^fwpva, Xios^ KoXorpdtv, UvXos, "Apyos, 'AOTjvai. (Anth. Plan. iv. 297.) (7) IrrTct ir({X€is ptApvavTO (Toip^v Stdi piiov 'OpTipov, ^pLvpva, Xios, Ko\o(p6;v, ^W&ktj, I1v\os, ''Apyos, 'ABjjvai. (Anth. Plan. iv. 298.) (8) ItttA Tr6\(is Stepi^ovffi irepl pi^av 'Oji-qpov, Sptvpva, 'P(55os, Ko\oKd(ovTa noXvcpXoia-^oio QaXdacn]^ forms one of the gems adorning his cantos. This familiarity of the Thessalians with the sea is in fact greater in the prehistoric time than in the historic. In the historic time they have no fleet, and Pagasas seems their sole seaport ^. In the former time, the expedition of the Argonauts and the fame of the Minyae, who are both a ' Ritter-volk ' and a ' Schiffer-volk,' belong especially to Thessaly. 15:?. The poet of the Achilleid is in this respect the repre- sentative of prehistoric Thessaly. While the Sea is familiar to him, as it was more or less to every Greek, his special love is with the mountains ^', and in particular with the mountain that is king over his country, the regal Olympus. There is the clearest evidence as to the dominance of Olympus in the landscape of the Achillean bard. It can be shown to have been to him a visible presence under distinct, almost palpable, recognition, as a veritable mountain and that in Thessaly. That his Olympus is the one in Thessaly is demonstrable, partly from the Pierian traditions at the basis of Greek mythology which connect themselves with Olympus as their centre, partly from the indubitable evidence, as for- merly adverted to (§ 27), of the Fourteenth Iliad, an Achillean ^' So Niebuhr (Lect. on Anc. Geog. i. 167). ^° The occurrences of opus and its derivatives and compounds (not proper names) are thus distributed : — Ach. UI. Od. Archaic forms from oEpos . . .16 5 2 Less archaic forms from o/jos . . • 36 10 33 52 15 35- It so happens that while the oblique cases of opos are well diffused, the form Spo$ itself as nom. or ace. comes up only in the neozoic area, four in Ulyssean cantos (of which three are topographical, being in Catalogue) and eleven in Odyssey. The apparently larger proportion in Odyssey is partly due to the recurrence of certain stereotyped formuloe, as, &pos Karaeiiiivov v\rj, occurring twice, and Spos ttoAci a.nmaX{iipai, which happens to occur five times. — It is worth noting how the balance of archaismus, as seen above, under ovpos, weighs down the Achillean scale. LOCAL MINT-MARKS— ACHILLEID. 257 canto. Secondly, that it is the real mountain which he has in view is shown by the epithets bestowed upon it. In par- ticular that of dyduui^os, ' exceedingly snowy,' is applied to it twice, and we do not discover this epithet assigned to it except in the Achilleid *°. The poet of the Odyssey, as we sha'U find, seems to discard this epithet, for he prefers to impart a more sunny and comfortable view of the divine abode, which he represents as 'exempt from snow' (cp. § 156). Again, the familiarity with which the piov (liorn or peak) of Olympus is referred to seems to indicate an ' autotype ' from the spot *^ While the many Kaprjva of Olympus and of other mountains passed into a typical commonplace, there is never mention of more than one piov of Olympus. It occurs at least thrice in the Achilleid. The manner in which this piov is re- ferred to in a concrete form shows that it was not only a visible but commanding object in the poet's landscape, so much so that it embarrasses his physical speculations and con- ceptions of the Cosmos, since it is made the pinnacle on which the world of sea and land is to be suspended by the golden chain (0 25). The piov here, however, must be a part of the veritable mountain, not any idealised Olympus. So we may infer it is from the top of the Thessalian Olympus that Hephaestus is supposed to be precipitated when he -falls on the not distant Lemnos (A 59a). Similarly, in the magnificent line, aKpoTdrj] Kopv(Pfj TroXvSeipaSos OvXv/nroio, we may re- cognise the mint-mark of some Pierian bard in Thessaly. Its proper area is, as we might expect, the Achilleid, where it occurs twice. The only non-Achillean instance is E 754, where it seems traditional. Thessalian influence is also discernible in the line N 523, aKpf'OXvfnro)*^ inrb xpva-eoia-L ve(j)e(Tcn. The stamp of Thessaly is likewise seen in the iteration of 'Olympian' as the epithet of the Muses. It is remarkable that this should occur thrice in the smaller area, viz. the Achilleid (A 218, H 508, n 112), only once elsewhere (B 484), » Ni6us, applied to Olympus in 2 616, is probably an echo/jf the traditional " Probably the ridge of Olympus now called ' Semavat Evi," which is interpreted ' Heavenly House.' Cp. Vblcker, Horn. Geog. p. 16. *'' The only instance of inpos 'OWhttos, but we hear twice of Tapyipv &itp 449, X 171). So the cognate TiTvyjz^ (apart from one instance in the Odyssey, as to Par- nassus, r 432), occurs only in the Achillean area, and of the whole seven occurrences of this family of words, as applied to mountain scenery, six are in the Achilleid and four of these six are given to the mountain Olympus. 153. The foregoing indications of locality are only strong presumptions, but they become more than presumptions by the evidence now to be adduced. In the great simile of n 364, forming one of his war-images, the following lines occur : — '/2s S 6t oltt OvXvjnrov vecpos e.p)(tTai oiipavov ei'(7CB aidepos kn Strji^ ore re Zeis XaiXaira reiurj, k.t.X. 'And as -when from Olympus a cloud comes forth into the depths of the sky out from the divine Ether, what time Zeus launches forth the tempest, so, etc' *' In the Hesiodic ' corpus ' we find in the Theogony, 113, noXv-mvxov iaxov "OXv^-wov. *' It is noticeable that only in the Achilleid is Ida spoken of as a cluster of mountains. The mention of 'ISaiav opiaiv occurs only in the Achilleid, and thert ten times (including M 19). The name of its peak, Gargarus, comes up twice, and we hear of Kopv(pal 'ISrjs only in the same area. The occurrences, therefore, are — Ach. Ul. Od. 'I5aW dp^aiv . . lo o o Vdpyapos .... 200 ^Ibrjs Kopvcpal .... 500 17 o o. When we contrast with this the peculiar localisation of nipyafM as found only in the reore-Achillean area, and there six times, we find ourselves constrained to accept the theory of a double authorship in the structure of the Iliad. LOCAL MINT-MARKS— ACHILLEID. 359 The minstrel is describing the gathering of a cloud as it forms itself out of the depths of air upon the battlement of a huge mountain, before it advances to invade the plain below. If the poet in such a case names the mountain, we may be certain it will be one familiar to himself, familiar also to his first auditors. For, the more primitive the minstrel, the more may we rely on his illustrations as ' autotypes ' from the spot, and so autochthonal. His images are not fetched from far away objects but spring up unbidden from local illustrations, drawn from his immediate surroundings*^. Bearing this principle of primitive poetry in mind, we cannot doubt that ' Olympus,' named under such circumstances, is a veritable mint-mark of Thessaly, and trustworthy evidence of the Thessalian origin of the Achilleid. Thus leaps into view one fact which lights up the whole field of survey. 154. It is hardly necessary to remark that in this instance (whatever may be the case in other passages about to come under review) the word ^OAkjutto? cannot be idealised into ' Heaven.' If that were so, the preposition would have been t^, not aiTo, but it so happens that the word is clearly distin- guished from both ovpavoi and alOr/p, and therefore there is no escape from the conclusion *'' that Olympus is here a mountain, and that too, regard being had to the character of primitive poetry as rooted and grounded in localities, the great moun- tain of Thessaly. The extent to which ^'OXv/iTroy enters into the vocabulary of the two sections is, in this point of view, important. Though recognised in the neozoic area, it is not so pervasively diffused as we find it to be in the much smaller area of the Achilleid. The following gives a rough census of the occurrences. *= A parallel case, quite in Tpoint regarding this same Olymfus, is found in the frag- ment of Simonides (Bergk, frag. 1 70), where the poet at a feast calls for a ' morsel of Olympus' snows to cool the wine,' an impromptu which we may suppose to have been called forth by the sight of Olympus as seen from the mansion of the Scopadse, his entertainers in Thessaly. Accordingly, Schneidewin (fr. 148, Lyrici Grgeci) infers the ' occasion and scene as Thessalian, ' In Thessalorum tyrannorum compotatione, conjeci. « The Scholiast (Ven. Schol. ad loc) discusses the question, and comes to the same conclusion as the only one possible («aTa\eiVcra< roivw rb Spos arn^aiviaem). —A kindred simile is found in n 297, where, though the word'0\«/i™s does not appear, 6pos does, and that with the epithet ixtyiKow, which adds to the probability that Olympus is the mountain intended in this latter passage also, for i^iyas, as an epithet of Olympus, is confined to the Achilleid (A 530, 443)- S 2 iSo THE PROBLEM OF THE HOMERIC POEMS. Ach. Ul. Od. 12 "OXvfmos . . . . 26 i6 Oi'\v/«ros . , . . 30 1 1 3 56 27 15. Again, the preponderance of archaisimis *'' , as shown in the form OxiXviiiros, is notably in favour of the Achilleid. 155. Let us now turn to the occurrences of Olympus in the Odyssey. What do we find to be its position in the thoughts and vision of this minstrel ? Does it come before us with the same firmness of topographical detail and configuration, with which we find it etched into the texture of the Achilleid ? It cannot be so affirmed. Apart from the otherwise doubtful passage of the Nekyia (\ 313), where it is no doubt a mountain and a Thessalian mountain, there is no indubitable instance of its being conceived as a mountain with a definite localisation. On the contrary there is an increasing number of passages in which it seems to fade away into invisibility and be con- founded with the blue heaven itself. In the Achilleid, on the other hand, it everywhere preserves its individuality and, though conjoined with ovpavos, is not confounded with it. This is manifest in A 497, © 394, O 192 *^ n 364, and T ia8 *'. " In particular, the distribution of Q\iKv\t.Ti6v%t alone is remarkable, as showing at once the mutual conformity of Ulyssean cantos and Odyssey, -and the archaism of Achilleid. Ach. Ul. Od. Ou\i;/i7r(5v5e . . . lo i i. The expression naxp&s 'OXv/xttos is found as often in the Achilleid as in the Ulyssean cantos and Odyssey together. The occurrences are ^'^^' ^^' *^'^- „,.,,,. 743. The epithet evpvs is never found with 'OKv/iwos, but only with ovpavos, and oipav&s eiipvs seems to increase in the area where imxpbs "OKv/iiros retires into the distance : Ach. Ul. Od. ovpavos eiipvs . . . 7 g 22. *' Heyne remarks on this passage, ' Vides oipav6v et 'OA.w^ttoj'. discemi.' *' Aristarchus (Lehrs, § 1 75) laid it down as a rule that 'OKvfnros in Homer was always the mountain of that name. The great critic was right, if he had limited his observation to the Achilleid. In O 193 there is a clear distinction between it and OipavSs, as well as in n 364, and further the peculiarly Achillean expression, ' made big Olympus reel ' (/iiyav S' kXiXi^fv 'OKv/iwov, cp. ire\(iil(eT' "OKvfjmos, ® 443). is intelligible only on the supposition of Olympus being a mountain. The nearest approach, within the Achilleid, to the neozoic view is 411, where we hear of irikai Oi\vfiwoio soon after TtiiXat oipavov. The epithet mMjwTvxos, occurring there, applicable only to mountains, is a sufficient barrier to prevent the identifica- LOCAL MLNT-MARKS—ACHILLEID. 261 156. How marked the differentiation is in this respect may best be seen in the picture given of Olympus, now merely a poetic mountain, which we find in a famous passage of the Odyssey (C 42). It is the beautiful passage, where, though still described as a mountain, it is sublimed out of the region of the visible, no longer a cloud-wrapt, snow-clad mountain, but rather a charmed region of the Empyrean, ' unvisited by rain or any S7iowl (ovre ^Loip kinniXvaTai) — a startling de- parture from, if not contradiction to, the representations of it in the Achilleid as 'exceedingly snowy' (dydvvLcpos), and as reposing ' under golden clouds ' (utto ')(^pva-ioL(Ti vecpea-a-t). The passage has been thus rendered :■ — 'Olympus, where they say the blessed gods Repose for ever in secure abodes; No stormy blasts athwart those summits sweep; No showers or snow bedew the sacred steep ; But cloudless skies serene above are spread, And golden radiance plays around its head™.' The ancient critics tortured themselves sorely to find an explanation that would reconcile this representation with the "OXvfiTTos ay a wt^oy of the Iliad, and their crude attempts may be seen in Apollonius' Lexicon (in dyavvKpos). It is manifest, however, that the true explanation is that the mountain in each case is regarded from a different stand-point of vision. The Olympus of this passage is no longer a topographical presence in the landscape, but is a picture in the mind's eye, and the minstrel who thus sings has come to regard it as a tradition or inheritance. The introduction of the phrase ((pa 267). The seat of the gods, Olympus, appears in the Iliad as a mountain situated in Pieria, and consequently with epithets which can be given only to a mountain. In the Odyssey, the representation of it has be- come generalised or idealised to the conception of an exalted Divine Region, and approximates near to that of Ovpavoi, "heaven," so that Ovpavos a.nd" OXv/inos interchange synony- mously. (Cp. Od. u 31 compared with 55 and 103 compared with 113).' The above statement by Fasi is, on the whole, both full and accurate, and confirms remarkably the view which the internal criticism reveals. It deserves to be noted, however, (i) that the strength of the proof for Olympus being in the Iliad a ' mountain in Pieria ' depends entirely on the Achilleid. (3) There is no just ground for his incidental remark as to 01 ovpavov evptii/ e^ovcni' occurring only in later books of the Iliad. The phrase ovpavos evpvs, though in another connec- tion, comes up in at least two other passages of the Achilleid in earlier books (0 74 and O 192).. (3) An additional ex- ample of the fusion of "OXv/inos and oipavos in the Odyssey is seen in i; 103, where, after alyX-qevTos 'OXvfnrov, is added v-^oOev (.K re^ecor, thus identifying it still more with ovpavos. A similar interchange may be quoted from t 40 and 43. Fci/r examples of the identification of the two terms are thus producible from the Odyssey. LOCAL MINT-MARKS— ACHILLEID. %6o^ The whole matter may be summed up in the words of Ihne, (Smith's Diet, of Biog., in ' Homer,' p. 510) who, with- out discerning the cause, describes fairly the phenomena. ' The gods of the Iliad [Achilleid] live on Mount Olympus ; those of the Odyssey are further removed from the earth ; they inhabit the wide heaven. There is nothing [in the Odyssey] which obliges us to think of the Mount Olympus.' \il- Thus far as to the position of Olympus in the Achilleid and in the Odyssey. It remains to inquire regarding the Ulyssean cantos, to which of these two areas that section is conformable. There is not much evidence on either side, but on the whole it is in favour of our general conclusion. Oiipavos and "OXvfiiTos are conjoined once in E 750, which, however, may be an echo of the Achillean © 394. The clearest evi- dence upon the point is (1) that of i2 97 compared with 104, which shows that in one at least of the Ulyssean cantos the position of the Odyssey has been reached, and Ovpauos and "OXvfinos are interchangeable terms ^^ (2) The remark- able expression regarding Zeus, "ISrjOev fieSemu, looks as if the Pierian Olympus was not now so essential as the seat of the gods. It occurs yb«r times, and only in the Ulyssean cantos. Compare also (3) the remarkable expression atdepi vaia>v, (formerly treated of, § loa^ n. 19), as if Olympus was not now necessary as a 'iSos to the gods. It is found thrice, °' In Hesiod the epithet vi 334). If the sense given to 'Apyea-Trjs is ' blowing clear,' from dpyos, ' white,' we might find an analogy in Horace's ' Albus Notus,' (perhaps from Apulia, in a latitude nearly the same as that of Thessaly), which wind is described as "■ detergens nubila coelo.' There is this difficulty, however, that the wind is spoken of in the Achilleid as collecting clouds rather than dispersing them, and hence some critics, as Merry in Od. ju, 290, interpret the word as ' raising a white squall.' What- ever view is taken of it, the epithet marks a peculiarity, whether referable to Thessaly or not, in the meteorology of the Achilleid. (t)) Patroclus, who is properly a Locrian by birth, is assumed as a Myrmidon and therefore a Thessa- lian (II. S 8, where cp. Heyne). (9) A warrior, Leonteus, is once styled ^poroXoiySi Tcros "Aprji (M 130). This honour he alone shares with Achilles, who has it once, and with Hector, °' Hayman (Od. vol. i. Pref. p. 97) would deny to the author of the Catalogue in B an intimate knowledge of Thessaly. ' It is clear from the Catalogue in B 681 ff. that the poet knew locally but little of Thessaly, as compared with many other regions which furnished his contingents.' It might, however, be rash to accept entirely such a conclusion, although it may be true that his knowledge of the northern frontier of Thessaly was somewhat vague, and the Catalogue in B does show a diminution in the proportion of epithet-bearing towns in Thessaly compared with Southern and Middle Greece. It seems to be an accident that the river Peneus is not mentioned in the Achilleid, but occurs only in the Catalogue in B. Ossa is named nowhere but in a doubtful passage of the Nekyia in the Odyssey (^ 315)- 266 THE PROBLEM OF THE HOMERIC POEMS. who has it twice. It is a comparison never found outside the Achilleid (cp. § xo8). This hero, however, is a Lapith from Thessaly. (i) In the northern oracle of Dodona, Zeus was believed to communicate his will without delegation to Apollo as his mouthpiece. It is in harmony with this that the epithet TravofLCpaios, marking him out as the fountain of augury, is given to Zeus in the Achilleid (0 2^0). (k) Patroclus is thrice hrjrjs in Achilleid (P 204, including 670, $ 96), and he is the onfy one so designated. Elsewhere, however, the epithet is not thus limited, and is shared by him with Nestor and Ulysses (* 252, 648, Q 200). Lastly (A), if the passage is genuine, it is an interesting Thessalian touch to find the roll of the sons of Zeus by mortal mothers commence with a Thessalian hero, viz. Pirithous It is in the Achilleid, therefore, that the traces of Thessa- lian influence appear in the greatest copiousness and fresh- ness^ and the general strain of evidence is in favour of its Thessalian origin. " It is remarkable that the elements for a poem like the Achilleid, in character and sentiment, still exist in several of its features very largely in the Thessaly and Albania of the present day, more largely than could now be found exemplified in any other part of Europe. Illustrations of this point will be found in an Appendix. CHAPTER XIX. OBJECTIONS AND niFFICULTIES CONSIDERED. dW a7' dvi/p dcr' dvSpos 'ha, fi.(ji.ln!ii i\ fiaxfaSai. 159. There are one or two objections that might be taken against the ThessaHan and indeed against the European origin of the Homeric poems, either in whole or in part, and with these objections we ought now to deal. They are connected with the Fmma of the poem, and turn upon certain similes as to animals. I refer to the simile of the Locusts and the multiplied similes of the Lion. If the Achilleid is claimed as Thessalian, it might be regarded as a difficulty, how it has arisen that the Lion appears so frequently and once the Locust, in its poetic imagery? The prominence of the Horse, it may be said, is natural and intelligible, but what account can be rendered of the presence of the Lion ? At first sight the objection has a formidable look, but the gravity of it, as also of the other, soon disappears. In the first place as to the Locusts ( la). It is true that, according to the Scholiast, some who claimed the poet as a Cyprian appealed to that simile, making him in fact more of an Oriental than the evidence will allow. It is not necessary to account for the simile by supposing that the knowledge of the locust may have been sufficiently familiar even beyond its proper habitat to admit of its being used in a simile, neither shall we claim for an old Epic bard such a licence as that used by Lord Byron, who introduced jackals into a European scene and afterwards apologised for the liberty (Works, p. 130). The fact is that locusts are known in European Greece at the present day, and there is evidence a68 THE PROBLEM OF THE HOMERIC POEMS. that under the name of ■trapvoins they were often a plague in the region of Thessaly in ancient times ^ 1 60. In the second place, as to the Lions. It has been some- times argued that the famiharity with the Hon is an argument for the Asiatic origin of the poems as a whole, including, of course, the Achilleid. It would, however, be quite fallacious, and, unless we can produce better and sounder arguments for their Asiatic origin, it would be wise to be discreetly silent. The Asiatic origin of a considerable stratum of these poems is scientifically certain, but it is made out independently of any help from the position of the lion. It so happens that we have the best of evidence, such as has satisfied the most cautious historical critics, that the lion was not confined to Asia in the period when these poems were composed, and that he was found in Thessaly down into the historic time. Herodotus records (vii. 125-6) that a part of Xerxes' army in marching through Thessaly (b. C. 480) was attacked by lions. Nor is this any fiction or mythe, much less a traveller's tale, for the historian goes on to define, in the most matter of fact way, the region or area where lions in his day were still found, and of the region so defined lying between the Nestus and the Achelous, Thessaly may be said to form the centre ^. ' As to ancient authorities, cp. Pausanias (i. 24. 8), regarding a statue of Apollo as Trapvdnos, 'locust-killer,' and Strabo (xiii. 6i3),as to the CEtjeans honouring Hera- kles for a similar service by the name of KopvoTriaiv^ Kipvones being the northern and more antique name for iripvowes. The CEtseans are on the south border of Thessaly. — Regarding modem authorities consult Dodwell (^Travels, i. 213, 243), who gives a bas-relief containing a: figure of a man holding out a locust to a dog (copied in Wordsvi'orth's Greece, p. 42, and referred to in Miiller's Ancient Art, § 96. 28). The same traveller states that ' locusts, not quite so large as the Asiatic ones, are sufficiently numerous in European Greece to become a plague.' Again, regarding Libadea in Boeotia, he states, ' This place, and indeed most parts of Greece, is infested by locusts, the Gryllus migratorius, -v/hich destroy great part of the produce of the land.' — A more recent traveller, Professor Blackie, informs us (Homer, iv. 391) that he had to encounter a snowstorm of vermilion locusts in a walk across the isthmus of Corinth. The difficulty as to the locusts, whether we call them cLKpiSis or nipvoiris, is thus disposed of without calling in Theocritus (i. 52) to give evidence as to Sicilian locusts (cp. Leake, N. Greece, iv. 565, as to locusts at Arta in Southern Albania). ° Additional evidence on the point, if such were necessary, is furnished by Xenophon in his De Venatione (ch. 11), who states that, besides other localities such as PangKUS in Macedonia, Acorrcs, TrapSaXeis «at roiavra Orjpia ahiaKCTai kv Ylivicj). Pindus is the mountain-backbone separating Epirus from Thessaly. — On the coins of Acanthus we find an ox seized by a lion, possibly a local emblem. — Also Pausanias (vi. 5. 4), as late as the middle of the second century after Christ, OBJECTIONS AND DIFFICULTIES CONSIDERED. 269 Aristotle, who belonged by birth to that territory, twice con- firms the statement of Herodotus (H. Anim. vi. 31, viii. 38). If the case was so in the historic time, much more may we presume it to have been in the pre-historic, when the fauna of Europe was still in its early uncircumscribed luxuriance. There is, therefore, no ground for doubting the Thessalian origin of the Achilleid on account of the frequency of similes taken from the lion. 161. But we go further and say there is positive evidence in the Achilleid of acquaintance with lions upon European soil. It so happens that there is one Homeric proper name commencing with Aicav, vlz.Leonteus, and his nationality ought to throw light upon the question. It may be a surprise to find that he is neither a Trojan nor an Asiatic, but a Thessa- lian. He is in fact a Lapith from Thessaly (M 130). This circumstance alone is sufficient to demolish the presumption that the lion was familiarly known only in Asia. And here I may submit, by way of epilogue on this point of the lions, a philological phenomenon which will prove rather a criix to any critic who upholds the absolute unity of the Iliad and denies the dualism of its structure. It is a curious circumstance that while the name Ximv for ' lion ' is diffused in all sections of the Homeric poems, there is a pecu- liar variation of the name given to him in the Achilleid and occurring nowhere else in either Iliad or Odyssey. I refer to the probably archaic Xh, which comes up five times, but only in Achillean cantos ^. It is called ' JEolic ' by the Scholiast on speaks of lions as still in Tlirace, which is a country in the same zone and con- tiguous to Thessaly. — The presence of lions in Sicily is assumed by Euripides in the Cyclops, and, what is more remarkable, by Theocritus, i. 72, and the town Leontini seems to receive its name from the circumstance ; but, like Shakspere's lion in the forest of Arden, these last are probably a mere poetical figment. Pindar, however, in his Education of Achilles, makes no dif&culty as to the presence of lions in Thessaly (Nem. iii. 46). Plura in Notes and Queries, second Ser. viii. 81-4, ix. 57-9, xi. 310, from the pen of Sir G. C. Lewis. — In dealing with the Fauna of the Homeric poems, it is singular that we nowhere catch sight of the aXdiwr;^ or Fox, which, one might have thought, would have been occasionally appropriate to describe the character of Ulysses, at least as he is usually conceived. The poet Archilochus (b. c. 700) mentions the cunning creature, but it is a sign of the antiquity of the structure of the Odyssey, that neither the Fox is the emblem nor Hermes the immediate patron-deity of Ulysses. ' This term \is for lion seems to be unknown not only in the Odyssey, but also in the minor Homeric poems. It occurs in the Hesiodic poem of the ' Shield ayo THE PROBLEM OF THE HOMERIC POEMS. P 109, and it is possible that ^olic here may mean Thessalian, ^olis being one of the old names for Thessaly; but, at all events, whatever account be given of Xls, it supplies a cogent minor argument for the separation of the Achilleid as forming an individual poem within the ' corpus ' of the Iliad. 162. There remain three other possible difficulties, which it is right to consider before leaving the proof for the separa- tion of the Achilleid and for its Thessalian origin *. These are (1) The simile as to the sacrifice to the ' Heliconian God' in T 404. (a) The difficulty as to the Horses of Diomed in © being the same as those captured in the Ulyssean book E. (3) The position of Dione as an Olympian goddess. (i) The simile, now found in the Achilleid, as to the roaring bull offered to the Heliconian God, has by some been taken to indicate an Asiatic origin, because Poseidon is known to have been worshipped under that name among the Ionian communities in Asia Minor. It was an old controversy, as we see from Strabo (viii. p. 589), whether the rite described in T 404 was that of the Panionian festival in Asia or from some older festival, of which that was a copy, in European Greece. Further, the supporters of the European origin of the name 'EXiKcovios were divided as to whether it came from Helike in Achaia, or Helikon in Boeotia ^ both of which, and especially the former, were in some way seats of the cultns of Poseidon ^. The objection founded upon ' EXikcovlos, however, is one that cannot be sustained. It may be regarded as proved that the rite as celebrated in Asia was not native but a transference, having first existed in Europe. The Scholiast on the passage of Herakles ' (1. 172), and there it is quite in keeping with the Achillean usage, the story of that poem being localised in Thessaly near Pagasse. It comes up also long after in Theocritus, but is in him an archaism revived. It is hardly necessary to remark that a his is found in the Odyssey, but it is there the equivalent of Maari, and is the epithet of a rock, having no connection with the lion, and almost imply- ing that that appellation had ceased to be familiar regarding the lion. * I have not included the case of the KviavSts—a name for a bird among the 'lavis, as Aristotle observes (H. of Anim. ix. 12. 5), and yet occurring in the Achilleid (B 291) — as it is too obscure for a conclusion either way. ' Doederlein (Horn. Gloss., 466) connects all these words with i\iKri, salix, and would render 'EMkoiv as ' willow-hill.' The affinities of the willow with low moist ground may have associated it with places sacred to Poseidon. " It is not improbable that we have an Ionian trace in the sacrifice of twelve bulls to Poseidon in v 182 of Odyssey, that being the number of states in the federation of the Asiatic lonians. OBJECTIONS AND DIFFICULTIES CONSIDERED. 371 states this distinctly (cp. Pausanias, vii. 24. 4), that Neleus the son of Codrus, in colonising Miletus, 'founded a temple in honour of Heliconian Poseidon in imitation of that in Helike of Achaia' {Kara fj.i/x7](nv rov kv 'EXikt) rijs " Axaia^). A minor difficulty is how, in that case, the form is 'EXiKwyios and not 'EXiki^ios'^ (cp. 'ISriios;). The major difficulty, how- ever, is thereby removed, for the cultus is thus shown to have been primarily European. It was therefore cognisable by a Thessalian bard such as we suppose the author of the Achil- leid to have been. 163. (a) The passage © 105-8 is one that contains a state- ment by Diomed as to the virtues of certain steeds of the Troian breed ' which once,' he says, ' I captured from ^neas, inspirers of flight.' There is a scene in E which answers to this description, for there Diomed is represented as capturing the steeds of ^neas, which steeds are said to be of the Troian breed. But E belongs to the Ulyssean cantos, which are younger, and, the Achilleid being older, ©, which is Achillean, seems to presuppose the occurrence in the Ulyssean canto. The dilemma is critical, and it is a misfortune that Mr. Grote had not directed his attention to it and shown how it could be removed, since it is the most formidable argument that seems capable of being advanced against his doctrine of the severance of the Achilleid. Let us therefore approach the matter carefully and see what is really the position of the case. Is it so theft that there are references in the Achilleid to passages in the Ulyssean cantos ? If so, and if there is no doubt as to the genuineness of the passages, the doctrine of an Achil- leid separate and prior could not be maintained. It is, how- ever, in the first place, remarkable how few possible references are producible and how self-contained and independent in its unity the Achilleid is. Among these possible references, it might be alleged that A 366 contains an allusion to Athene's having aided Diomed, as described in E. The same line, however, occurs in the mouth of Achilles (T 453), where there is no specific reference to assistance on any particular occasion. Therefore in T 453 the reference is vague and general, which may be and is probably the case with A 366. It is not neces- sary therefore upon such a ground to infer that E was in origin ' Steph. Byz. on 'EXinrj says 6 iroXh-qs, 'E\i«d>vws. %fi THE PROBLEM OF THE HOMERIC POEMS. antecedent to A'. As to the cmx regarding the steeds of Diomed, it is to be remarked, (i) That the Tradition or Saga concerning him made him famous as a capturer of steeds from the Trojans. Those of ^neas are not the only ones captured by him : he takes horses from the sons of Dares (E 25), also from certain sons of Priam (E 165), and he is the possessor of Rhesus' steeds after their capture (K 567). (a) If the author of © did refer to E, it is somewhat strange that he should not have referred also to the companion book Z, where Diomed becomes the possessor of a suit of golden armour^. Yet in he comes forth equipped with apparently the usual armour of a Greek, possessing a Ocoprj^ (© 194), which, though of brilliant character, is not the golden one he had got from Glaucus in Z (O. Miiller, Lit. ch. v. 7), and there is no allusion to the suit recently acquired. Neither in A do we gather that Diomed had received any but the ordinary armour. Therefore © and A agree in making no reference to the great acquisition by Diomed in Z. It may, however, be argued that this is a weapon that tells two ways, for there is no reference to the ' golden armour ' afterwards, even in the Ulyssean cantos. The answer to this is that there was no proper or necessary occasion for its introduction, since, (except the night expe- dition of K, where such accoutrements would have been out of place), there is no warfare in which he is afterwards en- gaged. (3) If the reference in © 105 is presumed to be to canto E, it is singular to find an event, which in the present chronology of the poem, belongs to the previous day, dated not, as we should expect, x^^S' (yesterday), but Trore {whilome or once on a time). It may, no doubt, be answered that irori seems to mean yesterday in two other places, 3 45 and Od. X 290. In the latter passage, however, ttotI is naturally enough interpreted in its ordinary sense, and in the other, ' The taunt of Ares to Athene in * 396, reproaching her with' stirring up Diomed to fight— seemingly a reminiscence of E — is not to be relied on as counter evidence since it belongs to the second Theomachy, a section of the Achilleid peculiarly suspicious. A similar remark applies to * 411. — The speech of Diomed in B 109 contains no clear reference to the incident of A 402, but I 34, which is Ulyssean, does show a knowledge of A. — No argument can be drawn from ^toi iipriv ye in n 61 as a reference to I 650, since it is not clear that ftfriv here means dixi, but rather StevorjSrjv, as the Scholiast interprets it (cp. Grote, H. ii. 241). » Nonnus (Dion. 15. 165) does not omit to refer to the dazzling brilliancy of Diomed's golden armour. OBJECTIONS AND DIFFICULTIES CONSIDERED. 373 it may denote a general reference to the boastful utterances of the Achillean Hector without being necessarily referred back to © 178-182. (4) The line, however, in in which ttotI appears, and upon which the whole case of an ob- jector would rest, is not above question as to genuineness. Aristonicus among ancient critics expunged it, owing to the awkwardness of the apparent allusion to a transaction of the previous day. Lehrs, among modern critics (Arist. p. 43 t), considers it spurious, and holds it to be an after accretion, modelled upon the line in "t 391, where ttotI as a particle of time is quite appropriate. La Roche, however, does not bracket the line, and therefore we cannot, without stronger reasons, adopt the easy plea of spuriousness. (5) The real state of the case seems to be, as indicated in the outset of these remarks, that the allusion ^° in © is to the traditional event or exploit, and not to the narration in E. This is the view of Friedlander, who thus treats of the matter. ' We can assume that the poet of the Achilleid has here (i. e. in ©), interwoven for the nonce an earlier deed of Diomed, without referring to anything in the previous narrative that has preceded, and that the poet of the Iliad (that is, of the cantos B to H) — whether the same or another — has subse- quently availed himself of this ' motive ' to be the groundwork of a complete narration. In the insertion of the Iliad into the Achilleid, the declaration of Diomed fell on the day after the acquisition of the horses, and the word once-on-a-time (iTOTe) came not to suit the circumstances. This is a supposi- tion made only to show that the passage does not compel us to suppose in the poet of © a prior knowledge of £.■" (L. Fried- lander, Homerische Kritik, p. 34)- The general result is that no conclusion can be drawn from this passage in © adverse to the independence and separate individuality of the Achilleid. 164. A third (3) objection, that might naturally be made, relates to the position of Dione. If the Achilleid is Thes- salian and if the worship of Zeus at Dodona is especially '" An analogous case would be that in B 71, where reference is made to interpositions of Zeus in behalf of the Greeks, which cannot be explained by the existing Iliad, but by the traditions of the war before the ' Wrath ' begins. So in O 721-3 Hector complains of a state of things, for which there is no adequate explanation within the existing poem. Similar remark applies to Z 436, T 374 THE PROBLEM OF THE HOMERIC POEMS. prominent, how comes it that his Pelasgian consort Dione appears, not in the Achillean, but in the Ulyssean, area ? This is, also, an important point, and requires careful elucidation. The only occurrence of Dione in the Iliad and Odyssey is the incident of E 370, in the reception which she gives to her daughter Aphrodite, when returning wounded to Olympus. She is there a personage of high rank, being styled hla Qedoav. If this is the Dodonean Dione, it is certainly singular that she should figure only in a Ulyssean canto, and not in the part of the poem where Thessalian elements are interfused. Although it has been usual to identify Dione of E with the Dodonean Dione, there is little doubt that this is a mere assumption, and in fact there are insuperable barriers to that view. In the first place, the Dione of Dodona was identical with lier6^^ (' H pr) Alcovij (v. 1. Aiaivrj) irapa AcoScopaiois, Schol. Od. y 91, and so Strabo, vii. § 329). But the Dione of E is certainly distinct from Her6. Secondly, the Thessalian legends of the Argonautic cycle acknowledged Jove's chief consort by the name of Her6. It is Her6, not Dione, that figures in the story of Jason ^^. Therefore there is no pre- liminary necessity that a Thessalian poet should style the consort of Zeus by the name of Dione. Hence it is Her^ that appears, in Achillean as in Ulyssean cantos, as the consort of Zeus, and there is no mention of Dione among the secon- dary consorts in the long list of the same (if we may take it as evidence), in 3 317. On the contrary, the Achillean poet leaves no room for Dione when he seems to make Herd mother of Aphrodite, if we may infer as much from the (piXov tskos of E 190. Thirdly, the Dodonean Dione, though the most famous, is not the only Dione. In the very ancient, and, according to Thucydides, Homeric, hymn to Apollo (1. 93) a Dione figures among the goddesses, at apia-rai eaau, being named first in a list consisting of Rhea, Themis, Amphitrite, and is specially distinguished from Herd. This is in the Delian legend of the birth of Apollo, which legend is entirely Ionic, and has " The Italian name Juno stands philologically in much the same relation to ' Jupiter ' or ' Jovis,' as Aiiivr] does to Zets. Hence Fasi speaks of Dione as a ' Neben-gestalt ' of Here. — It is singular that Herodotus, in his account of the cultus of Dodona (ii. 52-55), makes no mention of Dione. " "Hpri n^^jKryis is acknowledged in the Argonautics of ApoU. Rhod. i. 14. OBJECTIONS AND DIFFICULTIES CONSIDERED. 375 no Dodonean affinities. As for the Dione of H esiod (Theog. 1 7), she is also distinct from Her6. There are no epithets attaching her to any locaHty, but since she appears only in the suspected proem, and is not acknowledged in the body of the Theogony, where the poet assigns to Aphrodite another origin, there is no light thence derivable. The name Dione is found, how- ever, on Asiatic soil in the legend of Tantalus, whose children are Pelops and Niobe, ' born from Dione i^.' This mention of Dione, though the evidence for it is post-Homeric, is believed to appertain to the cultus of Zeus on Mount Sipylus in Western Asia, the same mount Sipylus which figures in the Ulyssean canto 12 and is contiguous to many of the spots which we shall find studded with personal associations of the Ulyssean poet. There is therefore evidence to show that the name Atcovt] does nof necessarily imply Dodonean affinities. But the daughter of this Dione, namely. Aphrodite, is, as we had occasion to show in a previous section (§ 103, 7)1*, uni- formly, in the Ulyssean cantos and in the Odyssey, in close connection with Phoenicia and the East. Therefore we must inquire whether there is any other Dione than the Dodonean that could account for this apparition. In the mythology of the Phoenicians, according to Philo of Byblus, there are two chief deities, Kronos, as he calls him, and Dione. There is little doubt that these two formed a pair of the same character as Jupiter and Juno in Italian, and as Zeus with his ordinary consort Her6, in Greek mythology. Further, in Diodorus Siculus (i. 13. 4) we find that Egyptian deities answering to Zeus and Her^ and so styled by him, have, among other children. Aphrodite. So in Cretan legends, the same author " Preller (Gr. M. ii. 268) has the following regarding Tantalus, ' Seine Kinder sind Pelops und Niobe, geboren von der Dione, deren Name gleichfalls auf die nahe Beziehung dieser Sagen zum Zeusdienste vom Sipylos hinweist.' " ' Tochter der Dione ist in der Ilias Aphrodite, die sich verwundet ihr in den Schooss wirft (II. v. 370, 428), was Phidias im Westgiebelfelde des Parthenon nachgeahmt hat. Die Homerische Aphrodite aber ist ein Kind Asiatischen Cults und der Pierischen Poesie, also nicht nachweislich Pelasgischen Stammes: sie ist nicht durch inneren Zusammenhang der Bedeutung oder natiirliche Entwicklung Tochter des Zeus und der Dione, sondern durch dichterische Absicht und Ver- knupfung.' Welcker, Gr. Gbtterlehre, i. 355.— Ernst Curtius (Hist, of Gr. i. 105, E. Tr.) makes the Dione of Dodona ' a transplantation from the distant east,' and appeals to her symbol the dove, from which her priestesses were called Tliku<s. If this is accepted, the whole difficulty as to Dione vanishes at once. T % 376 THE PROBLEM OF THE HOMERIC POEMS. (v. 7a), after telling us of the nuptials of Zeus and Her^ says that among the offspring of Zeus was Aphrodite. It will generally be allowed that Her6, when represented as mother to Aphrodite, as in these two passages of Diodorus, answers to the Dione of the Fifth Iliad ^^- Enough has thus been advanced to show that Dione as the mother of Aphrodite is not necessarily to be referred to the Pelasgian cul^us at Dodona, and that her absence from the Achillean area and presence in the Ulyssean area can be otherwise sufficiently accounted for, through the southern and eastern associations which we have shown to predominate among those of the Ulyssean Bard. The difficulties and objections have thus been fairly met and disposed of, so that, in so far as they are concerned, the conclusion formerly reached remains untouched. " It is notable that it is Dione that relates, among other things, the legend in E of Otus and Ephialtes. According to the Scholiast on E 385, these were connected with Adonis-worship and Mount Lebanon. She is also the speaker who uses the curious word Kepa/ios, said to- be Cyprian for a prison, which is appropriate enough, seeing her affinities were Eastern. — According to Strabo (vii. p. 329), in his account of Dodona, the worship of Dione alongside of Zeus as his aiivvaos was not from immemorial time. It almost looks as if the Achilleid was antecedent to the asso- ciation of the cultus of Dione with that of Zeus at Dodona. CHAPTER XX. LOCAL MINT-MARKS— ULYSSEAN CANTOS. fliri 5c /loi •yatdv tc tetJi', Sijn6v -rt n6Mv re. 165. The local mint-marks of the non-Achillean parts of the Iliad will next engage our attention. In the two immediately preceding chapters, we have given a rhwmd of the evidence for a Thessalian origin to the Achil- leid, and we have also refuted some objections that might be made to such an hypothesis. In a poem so remote, and one that has been subjected to so many shaping, moulding, and varying influences of time and criticism, the wonder is that there are distinct traces of origin still remaining, or any determinable indications yet visible of its probable locality. In groping one's way in such obscurity, one has the feeling that the conclusion thus reached as to the Achilleid is, after all, not proved, but only a strong probability. In the inquiry, how- ever, which I am now to institute, the proof is not only more abundant but more circumstantial, and the conclusion under this branch of the investigation is one that may be looked upon as established on a due measure of satisfactory evidence. The evidence regarding the local origin of the Ulyssean cantos will be found to be, in variety, force, and frequency, of the utmost cogency, so cogent as to be overwhelming. .It is true that Mr. Gladstone, with the vehemence that characterises him in defence of certain cherished propositions, has lately re- committed himself to the doctrine that Homer was a native of European Greece, and he denounces in no measured terms any other doctrine as untenable and false, and as a blind 278 THE PROBLEM OF THE HOMERIC POEMS. ' mechanical assent ' to a current tradition ^. When a splendid racer goes wrong, his very virtues lead him farther astray, and it would be an entire perversion of the truth to accept Mr. Gladstone's obstinate asseverations on the point. To insist on Homer being prior to the Ionic migration with a view to square with certain preconceived notions as to the date of the Troica, is to do despotic violence to the whole conditions of the case ; for it involves the absurdity of supposing that the in-that-case European poet, living before the Ionic migra- tion, and therefore previous to any widespread popular ac- quaintance with the scenery of the Asiatic coast, drew his favourite illustrations from phenomena that were localised in a then alien region, and that became familiar only after the Ionian migration had obtained a footing on that shore. It is to these illustrations that I now address myself, to gather up and piece together the fragments of evidence as to local origin. They all point to the Asiatic shore. In enterihg on this part of the subject I follow in the foot- steps of Robert Wood, who, in his elegant and thoughtful Essay 'on the Original Genius of Homer' (1775), with much geographical and historical insight, first presented the evidence in favour of his Ionian origin in a scientific and satisfactory form. That treatise, notwithstanding Mr. Gladstone's slight- ing remarks, still remains ' classic ' upon this question, and nothing could in general be more fair and judicial than its presentation of the various points of evidence ^. That evidence has received large accessions of strength since the time of Wood, and there ought to be no reasonable doubt to any ordinary mind as to the locality in which the Iliad received its comple- tion — which it did by the accession of the Ulyssean cantos. 166. Let us proceed to examine that series of cantos to ascertain what are the local indications they contain. (i). The first of the series is canto B or the second book, and there we meet with several notable indications. At line 145 ■ ' At the point to which my endeavours to examine the text of the poems have led me, when I confront the opinion that he was an Asiatic Greek born after the Dorian conquest, I can only say to it " aroint thee." I could almost as easily believe him an Englishman or Shakspeare a Frenchman, or Dante an American.' Gladstone (Horn. Synchronism, p. 72). ^ Professor Blackie (i. 201) does not share Mr. Gladstone's depreciatory opinion of Wood's Essay. A hint in its pages produced the Wolfian Theory. LOCAL MINT-MARKS— ULYSSE AN CANTOS. 279 we read that 'the assembly was moved like the big waves of the sea in the Icarian deep, waves which Eurus and Notus have roused, swooping down from the clouds of Father Zeus.' This is in a simile, and a simile is, of course, a condescension or an approximation on the part of the poet to his audience, an attempt to body forth the invisible by something visible, something less known by what is better known. Hence, in a popular poet, such as Homer, the similes are the nearest approach to a throwing off the mask, a sort of familiar ' asides^ confidential and confessional, and we may rely upon them as the genuine expression of the poet^s personality. What then is the deduction from the above simile? The mention of the winds does not help us, as the scene is at sea. Yet it is no vague description, as to the waves of the sea generally, for a portion of the world of waters is clearly defined. The poet names ' the Icarian deep.' Where does it lie .' It is a part of the Eastern Egean round the islands of Icaria and Samos, and washes the Ionian seaboard ^- Some one might perhaps imagine that the poet, if an Ionian, would name a sea more remote, and so the Icarian deep would be less appropriate to an Ionian bard. Distance may now lend enchantment to the view ; but, in old Epic song, that which was near was sufficiently real to be poetic, and the objectivity of Greek Epic poetry was and is its most delightful charm. Even poets much more subjective than Homer have left parallel traces of themselves which are quite in keeping with this mention of the ' Icarian deep.' Theognis, the poet of Megara, when speaking allegorically of the ruin 'of his country drifting like a ship at sea, speaks of the storms (AItjAwv €/c tvovtov) ' from out the Melian deep.' The ' Melian deep ' is the stretch of sea on which his native Megara looked out as part of the Egean. The Sicilian Theocritus speaks of the adjoining Sea as the Sicilian, a fact which one might have inferred, without specification, from the scenes of his chief pastorals. So, to take a modern instance, Spenser, in his Faery Queen, which was composed in Ireland, gives note of his actual surroundings in the following parallel : — ' It is important to note what seems a neozoic feature, viz., a section of the sea re- ceiving a special name. Similar examples are E 145, * 230, and (if M€i\aj/i is read) n 79,allUlyssean, and showing, so to speak, nawrfcaZ familiaritywith the whole Egean. 38o THE PROBLEM OF THE HOMERIC POEMS. • As when two billows in the Irish soundes, Forcibly driven with contrarie tides, Do meet together, each aback rebounds With roaring rage.' — F. Queen, iv. i. 42. This simile, therefore, as to the ' Icarian deep,' corroborated as it is by a cluster from the same neighbourhood, is one of considerable value and conclusiveness, and we therefore accept Strabo's judgment upon the point : evenifopcos SI e'xet ('O/irjpos) TrphsTfji' eyyvTaTTjv Kal yueopifiaiTdTrjj/ eavra OdXarrau, and in proof he quotes this passage about the ' Icarian deep.' (3). In a subsequent passage of B (1. 147), we have a simile drawn from the violent action of Zephyrus (the West Wind), sweeping over a cornfield and making it wave with all its army of ears. This then is a scene on land, not by sea, and the wind prevailing may thus afford an indication of locality. The inference is that the poet's country was a land where the Wesi wind was the formidable one, and this we know to have been the case in Ionia*. This will appear more clearly in subsequent instances. (3). The next glimpse of locality obtainable is from B 461. Mention is made of the ' Asian meadow,' (irt another reading, ' meadow of Asias '), round the ' streams of Cayster,' and reference is made to the wild fowls swarming in the marshes, ' geese, cranes, and long-necked swans ^.' Cayster is one of the streams on the Ionian seaboard, near Ephesus, and this is no doubt a photograph from the poet's own personal environment. The passage contains the oldest mention known to us of the name Asia, whatever view be taken of the origin or form of the name as there appearing. (4). A very interesting note of locality is found in B 535. ' On the other hand Nolus or the South Wind, when breaking on the coast, is described as exerting its power not on a line of beach, but on a projecting pro- montory (B 396), a description quite suitable to promontories like Mimas in Ionia. ^ Swans, we know, haunted the Peneus also (Hom. Hym. 20. i). It is difficult to understand how, if Homer was, as Mr. Gladstone affirms, a European, he should have drawn his local illustrations so persistently from Asia, when they were readily obtainable in Europe. The poet of B speaks of the Cayster when the Peneus might have served, the reason being that the Cayster was known to him neither by hearsay nor by travel, but was native and familiar to his thoughts and eye. Pro- fessor Blackie remarks accordingly as to this passage about the swans (Homer, iv. p. 68), ' Here the bard is evidently painting scenes as familiar to his eye as the whirr jpf the partridge on Tweedside was to the ear of Walter Scott.' LOCAL MINT-MARKS— ULYSSEAN CANTOS. a8i In describing the geographical situation of the Locrians, he speaks of them as ' dwelling beyond sacred Euboea ' {yaiovai ■nkpr]v tepfjs EvjSoirjs). This was a note of locality to which R. Wood attached special value, as indicating that the poet's stand-point lay East of Euboea, and Heyne followed him with a verdict clear and unwavering, justifying the reasoning ^ If the above translation is correct, there can be no question that, to an Ionian, the orientation, so to speak, is the most perfect that can be conceived. To one standing on a head-land of Asiatic Ionia, Locris would lie precisely behind and beyond the long isle of Euboea, and no description could be more suitable. The leading translators (except Blackie and Newman) have accordingly taken this view'' : as, for example, the two German translators : — 'Lokrer, die jenseils wohnen dem heiKgen Lande Euboea.' — Voss. ' Lokrer, die jenseils wohnen der heiUgen Insel Euboea.' — Conner. It is argued, however, or rather asserted, among others, by Mr. Gladstone, that Treprjv here means nothing more than ' over against,' or 'opposite*' and so conveys no intimation of the speaker's stand-point. If, however, the majority of translators ' ' Arguunt haec,' says Heyne in his note on the line, ' poetam non in Graecia sad in insulis ^Egaei maris vel in ora maritima Asiae degentem, cui trans Euboeam esset Locris.'— So Diintzer (Horn. Abh. p. 146) holds that it is clear from this passage that ' the poet's stand-point was outside European Greece.' ' Compare Cowper's : — 'Next from beyond Euboea's happy isle In forty ships conveyed, stood forth well armed The Locrians.' Brandreth's ; — 'And with him forty sable vessels went Of Locrians who beyond Euboea dwell.' Lord Derby: — ' Him from beyond Euboea's sacred isle Of Locrians followed forty dark-ribb'd ships.' Herschel's : — ' Locrians these from the coast beyond Euboea the sacred.' * This would require avriov, not neprjv, and hence the lines of Theolytus, an epic poet of uncertain age, regarding this very coast :— 'AvdrjSdiiy vv Hs koTiv itil irKivpfjffi BaKacra'qa dvTiov Ev 13 oirj s. Compare also in Geogr. Gr. Minores (p. 219, ed. Didot), d^ivavTi 8' Ei0oias Karoiicodaiv Aoxpoi. 'Avriov and dircVaj/Tt, unlike iriprtv, convey no intimation of the standpoint of the speaker.— TTf'pijy and avriov are contrasted in Herod, i. 201. 38a THE PROBLEM OF THE HOMERIC POEMS. are right in rendering it beyond, it does convey such intimation, and the question therefore is, in the first place, what is the primary meaning of Treprju? Curtius, in his ' Etymologie,' gives as the etymon of it the Sanskrit para-m, which he renders y^wj^zVj, i. e. 'beyond.' Hesychius rendered it by kiri- Kiiva, which means ' on the further side' Fortunately we are under no dubiety as to this being the sense and the only sense in another passage of Homer, viz. ii 75a TrepvacrKe iriprjv aXos, where no ingenuity could extract the sense ' sold over against the sea.' People sell slaves beyond sea or across the sea, not opposite sea '. That is one indubitable instance, and it contains an intimation of direction, and of progression from a terminus . a quo to a terminus ad quern. There is only one other instance in Homer of the disputed word, viz. in B 6a6, regarding the Echinades islands, which are described as lying TTeprjv dXos, "HXiSos dvTa. No one could contend for the meaning here being * opposite the sea,' instead of ' beyond ' or ' across sea,' if for no other reason than because the pre- sence of dvra is proof that iriprjv had not the sense of opposite, for that belongs to dvTa. It may, indeed, be doubtful whether here, and in avrnripaL of B 635, the Ionian poet does not fall into what may be called a Peloponnesian mode of speech ; but this is of no consequence, for his point of view and relation toward these islands of the western sea does not differ from the Peloponnesian ; only it is a point of view more distant. Is there then any reason for deserting the sole sense which Treprjv can be shown to bear in the Homeric poems and intro- ducing a new and unnecessary interpretation ? None within the two Homeric poems, and, though Crusius and Ebehng, following Buttmann (Lexil. § 91)", both attempt to relegate 7repr]v of this passage into the sense of opposite, they do so ° When the Titans are described as dwelling sifrif/ Xieos (o, k,t.\., where dvw seems to mean north- wards. This is very intelligible from an Ionian stand-point, but it is also intel- ligible without such a supposition, since, Lesbos being south of Troy and the speaker being in the Troad, it is easily understood of ' what Lesbos northwards from itself confines.' I have therefore laid no stress on these passages. — Similarly, viTflp &\a iciSvaTai ■^ws in f 227 and n 13 affords no clue either way, and the passage as to the flight of the cranes (r 6), though u. feature of Ionia (cp. Lord Broughton's Travels, ii. 53, regarding Smyrna), is too indefinite to be relied on as evidence. iie\aS(iv6s of Zephyrus in * 208 is probably an Ionian touch. LOCAL MINT-MARKS— ULYSSEAN CANTOS. 289 which it will be difficult if not impossible to controvert. There is no counter evidence, for all the passages fairly ad- ducible have been enumerated, and we may say they all point in one direction — vestigia nulla retrorsum. It will be observed, further, that they are not only confined to the Ulyssean cantos, but well diffused throughout them ; out of ten books, there are only three (E, K, and ■^) that contribute no decided evidence of localia. The remarkable circumstance, however, is this, that these localick should be limited to one out of the two areas of the Iliad, while the other area not only exhibits no mint-marks of the same character, but localia that point to an entirely different region. No corroboration of our theory could be stronger than to find that two extensive series of local mint-marks pointing to two different regions, and these series mutually exclusive of each other, pervade crosswise the corpus of the Iliad. The divergence is therefore com- plete between the two sections of that poem, and the same demarcation is discernible under this as under former heads of inquiry; a demarcation explicable only by the hypothesis of separate authors expressing themselves with a certain independent individuality^^. The question now rises before us, if two authorships are dis- cernible in the Iliad, one Achillean,' the other Ulyssean, which of them is the one best entitled to bear the great name of Homer? Is it the seemingly Thessalian poefj or is it the certainly Ionian author, to whom appertains the right to be considered the Epic genius called Homer ? We have already seen that there was some show of belief (§ 139), founded, no doubt, on certain phenomena in the Achilleid, that he might have been a Thessalian ; but there was no semblance of any body of tradition to that effect, for it remained a mere unsupported supposition. On the other hand^ we find a con- siderable mass of traditions, more or less accredited, agreeing mainly in this, that Homer had his birth, life, and history upon the eastern shore of the Egean, either on the islands, or the mainland, or both. This has generally been regarded as "' Uschold (Gesch. des Troj. Krieges, Stuttgardt, 1836) seems to have been, in so far, on the right track, since he considered ' the Iliad to be by a Myrmidon, the Odyssey to be from a native of ^olis,' which is the district in Asia adjoining Ionia. U 290 THE PROBLEM OF THE HOMERIC POEMS. traditionally true ^*, but it may also be considered scientifically certain from the internal evidence furnished by a large section of the poems themselves^ — evidence deeply imbedded in their structure. " Regarding the opinion of Aristarchus, who was in favour of Athens as the birth-city of Homer, it will be proper to enter into that point somewhat later. Apart from him, the evidence as to the testimony of ancient belief, including such names as Pindar, Simonides, Thucydides, Aristotle, Theocritus (vii. 47, xvi. 57, xxii. 128), is remarkably complete in favour of Asiatic Ionia, and hence Heyne says, ' Homerum lonem fuisse et in Ionia vixisse, constans est antiquitatis fama' (II. vol. viii. 826). Wolf virtually makes Ionia his birthplace: he defines Homer (Proleg. ch. 49) as meaning to him, ' antiqua carmina lonum' So Preller (Gr. M. ii. 344), who says, ' durch die vielen, aber meist auf Kleinasien und die Inseln beschrankten Sagen von seinem Ursprunge, seinem Leben, seiner Kunstiibung und der Tradition seiner Gedichte, wird immer bestimmt auf Kleinasien gedeutet.'- — Some excellent remarks, from a literary point of view, may be found in Landor, ii. 364, 386-8, on Homer as an Asiatic. — I need hardly add that the name Mxonides becomes an absurdity and Melesigenes — a name probably as old as Asius e.g. 700 (Welcker, Ep. K. p. 1 36) — unintelligible, unless upon the assumption of the Asiatic origin of Homer. Mr. Gladstone will find it difficult, upon the hypothesis to which he has committed himself, to give any rational account of these two appellations as surnames for Homer. It is hardly necessary to ask whether the assertion is true which he has hazarded (Hom. Synchr. p. 79) that, ' of Asia Minor, except at the extreme north- western comer, the scene of the war, he has shown very little knowledge indeed.' One might venture to ask our scholarly statesman to point out a single simile in the Iliad, specifying locality or in which locality can be in any direct way detected (apart from the Achillean n 364), that is not based on personal knowledge of the western coast of Asia Minor. CHAPTER XXI. LOCAL MINT-MARKS— ODYSSEY. (M 5e /ioi yaiiv re tc^v, Sfjiiiv Tf tt6\i.v re. 168. It only remains to apply the same inquiry to the Odyssey, and to investigate its local affinities and associa- tions. To which of the sections of the Iliad does it incline, and can it be regarded as in this matter keeping the Ulyssean cantos in countenance or diverging from them ? The question is not one that can be answered authorita- tively or offhand. It so happens that the traces o( personalia in similes and descriptive notices generally are more rare, because the similes themselves are fewer, and owing to the wide extent over which the action of the Odyssey ranges in space, the stand-point of the author is not so easy to deter- mine. The evidence which I have to adduce under this head is by no means equal in value and clearness to that produced from the Ulyssean sections of the Iliad ; but, taken in connec- tion with the other internal evidence of cognate origin, is sufficient to justify an affirmative conclusion. 169. The action of the Odyssey, apart from the imagina- tive sphere of the Wanderings, is mainly in Ithaca and the Peloponnesus, and lies away from Ionia and the Eastern Egean. Hence the local knowledge of the author is more largely and frequently conversant, because of the nature of the subject, with scenes and spots in the south-west of Euro- pean Greece. The journey of Telemachus from Pylos to Lacedsemon in two stages is described in such a way as to U 2 392 THE PROBLEM OF THE HOMERIC POEMS. indicate a topographical and not a mere vague acquaintance with the route pursued ; epithets are bestowed on Sparta and Lacedaemon of special interest {v 412, 414; compare also the list of towns in ^ 108) ; and the simile regarding Nausicaa, comparing her to Artemis walking the mountains, shows a familiarity with Taygetus and Erymanthus, mountains of the Peloponnesus (C 103). This familiarity, however, is not neces- sarily one of nativity; in such a poem as the Odyssey, it may be the result of travel and experience : for had the familiarity been one of nativity upon the western coast of European Greece, it would have been more complete in that region than it happens in point of fact to be, and a native of Ithaca or Elis would have known more exactly as to the counter-adjacent countries of Italy and Sicily than the author of the Odyssey seems to have done ^. Ithaca, though within his experience to a certain extent, is not at the centre but at the circumfer- ence of that experience. Along with Ithaca, the same author speaks of Delos with marked minuteness, and compares by the mouth of Ulysses the same princess Nausicaa to a famous palm-tree which was to be seen growing there (f 163). It is evident, therefore, that the range of his illustrations is far from limited to Ithaca or to the PeU^ponnesus ; and there are some considerations that make it highly improbable that the Odyssey proceeded from a native of either of these regions. 170. (i) In the first place, it is to be noted that there is, in the Odyssey, a singular silence as to the dominant local deity of the Peloponnesus, Her6. Though known to be interested in Agamemnon (8 513), she has no part assigned to her in the plot or action of the poem, and she is not once styled by the epithet 'Apyeir], which is in the Odyssey bestowed upon Helen alone. This seems hardly consistent with a Pelopon- nesian origin to the Odyssey. The Iliad, however, acknow- ledges 'Apyeirj or ' Peloponnesian ' as among the titles of Her6, and this, though the Peloponnesus is not the scene of the action ; while, in several of the books of the Odyssey, on the other hand, that country is the actual arena where the thread ' Volcker (Horn. Geogr. p. 49) denies to the poet intimate knowledge even of the Grecian region north of Ithaca, ' Dass ihm die Westgegenden Griechenlands sehr entfernt waren, und von Akarnanien an aufwarts ziemlich unbekannt, werden virenige leugnen. Es zeugt dafiir sein fabelhaftes Corcyra oder Scheria.' LOCAL MINT-MARKS— ODYSSEY. 393 of the story is evolved, and the virtual silence of the Odyssey as to Her^ is therefore doubly remarkable. (2) In the second place, the associations, in which a per- sonal element is discernible, are not all in the direction of the Peloponnesus, but partly also towards Athens "and Attica ^ Marathon and Sunium as well as the shrine of Athene on the Acropolis are particularised with something like personal partiality without any urgent poetical necessity. This, how- ever, does not necessitate an Attic origin, any more than the simile in ^ 103 as to Artemis requires a Peloponnesian origin, for it fits in entirely with the Asiatic or Ionian hypothesis. 171. In the third place (3) there are, in the Odyssey, cer- tain positive phenomena, some of which cannot be accounted for at all, and others only vaguely, upon the Peloponnesian hypothesis. (a) The singular importance attached to Euboea in the in- dication of topographical relations. This is explicable on the Ionian hypothesis, not on the Peloponnesian. The evidence on this head has been already anticipated. It may be found in § 166, 4. ((3) The remarkable description of the vfi(TO's Ivpi-q, if we may assume it to be the ancient Syros or the modern island Syra, seems to be from an Ionian standpoint. It occurs in 403, where the disguised Ulysses relates to Eumsus some of his tales, and the passage runs — vfjaos ris ZvpiT] KiKXrja-KeTai, ei wov UKOveis 'OpTvyirjs KaOvTTipOev, 061 Tponal rjeXioLo. ' There is an island called Syria, if may-hap thou hast heaid of it, away above Ortygia, where are the turnings of the Sun.' 'Eines der Meereiland' heisst Syria, wenn du es hortest, Ueber Ortygia hin, wo die Sonnenwende gesehn wird.' — (Voss.) The passage is one of some difficulty, partly from the ob- scurity of what is meant by the ' turnings of the Sun,' partly by the ambiguity of Ortygia as a local designation, as to whether it answered to an island at Syracuse or to one among ' From the Eleventh Book or Nekyia, as we now have it, a case might be made out for a third claimant, viz, Boeotia. The importance of Tiresias,. the Theban seer, and the prominence of the legends of Thebes, which is called woXviipaTos in 275, are very notable in the framework of that book (cp. Mure, G. L. ii. p. 217-8). 294 THE PROBLEM OF THE HOMERIC POEMS. the Cyclades. If Ortygia is here the Delian and not the Syra- cusan, everything is clear. The ' Syrian isle ' is then the is- land ' Syros,' one of the Cyclades. The ' turnings of the Sun ' must mean either the diurnal turning, i.e. setting (for which TrporpaTrrjTaL in X i8 is an analogy), or the annual turning at the solstitial seasons ^- The former, or the diurnal turning, is too indefinite as a mark of locality. The latter view affords a more definite indication, as marking a limit of the Sun's ad- vance or regression, most probably his regression at the winter solstice. In this way the island would be pointed out as the point in the horizon where the sun sank at the shortest day, that is, at the cardinal period of the winter solstice. On this supposition, the whole becomes intelligible, the only difficulty being how Ulysses, sitting in the cabin of Eumseus in Ithaca of the western sea, has shaped his story as a sailor's yarn so as to suit the coast of Ionia. The probability is that it was a story transferred into the Odyssey from its native habitat in Ionia without any new adaptation to the locality where it is supposed to be uttered. On any other supposition, grave and almost insuperable difiiculties arise. To suppose the Ortygia * of the passage to be the Syracusan, would assume the poet's knowledge of Sicily, which many have doubted and Niebuhr denied ; but, apart from this, there would be no sure clue to know what was meant by Ivpir}, or why that name should have been chosen. Moreover, Tponal r]e\ioio would become merely the Sva-is or region of the sun's disappearance in the West, a meaning which, according to Fasi and others, it bears, but which, if accepted, by no means excludes or is inconsistent with the Ionian hypothesis ^. On the whole, the most tenable ° The Tponal -qiXioio ia Hesiod. Theog. 477, 661, is clearly one of the solstices. The other interpretation ' sunset ' would in Hesiod make utter absurdity fuMTa irevTTjKovTa lard. rpoiTcis jjiKloio. * ' Mit recht versteht O. MUUer unter diesem Ortygia Delos ' Welcker (G. G. i. 699). * Several modern commentators, including Fasi and Autenrieth, adopt the notion that the scene is in the furthest west, and that rpowai ijfXioio means only ' the change of direction when at evening the sun turns round his car eastvrard.' Cp. Merry on Od. k. 81. The chief objection to this is that '60i Tponal ^cAtoio, ' where are the turnings of the sun,' loses its edge and sharpness when it is inter- preted into ' where lies the West,' and that which is evidently meant as a dis- tinctive note 0/ place becomes poor and bald. WTien poets give definitions of the LOCAL MINT-MARKS— ODYSSEY. 295 view of the passage is still that of Robert Wood (Essay, pp. 9 and 17), viz. that the description is one from the stand- point of Ionia or ' from the heights of Chios,' where the sun is seen to set at the winter solstice over the Cyclades in the direction of Syros. It was the winter solstice that was looked upon as the Tpoirrj by preeminence, the return of the sun to the larger circuit being watched with special interest and even emotion, so that the different recurrences would be marked as important seasons, and thus the Tpowai rjeXioio came to form a familiar point in the horizon. (y) The vanishing position of Olympus, as no longer a mountain with a definite localisation, is a feature of the Odyssey already remarked upon (§ 1 55-6). This feature is, in the early time, hardly consistent with a European origin, and, among non-European regions, no other locality can show pretensions equal to those of Ionia. (8) The manner in which Delos is spoken of with its altar of Apollo and famous Palm-tree (t i^a) is in keeping with what we know of it as a special seat of Ionian worship and a meeting place of the Ionian peoples. The very ancient Hymn to Apollo shows that the Delian festival was one flocked to by the Asiatic lonians. (e) One of the important indications regarding the Ulyssean cantos of the Iliad we found to be the repeated and frequent characterisation of Zephyrus as the dominant sea-sweeping and especially shore-lashing Wind. The same character' West, they do so with more amplitude of circumstance. As examples we adduce a beautiful pair, one ancient, the other modem. opov ajjufii /ity de\iov Kvetpaiav ' hnSaTaaiv aiSipa t&v MoKoaawv TifleTai. Eur. Ale. 594. This is spoken from the stand-point of Pherje, and marks out the western boundary of Admetus' rule, as being ' where the sun stables his steeds in the dusk of eve in the Molossian clime.' Again — ' That course she (Luna) journeyed, which the sun then warms When they of Rome behold him at his set Betwixt Sardinia and the Corsic isle.' Dante, Purgatorio, Canto 18 (Gary's Tr.) Hence the expression rpoval ^eXioio must be credited with a more pregnant meaning than that which renders it simply equivalent to the West.— A case in point as to the position of the sun at the winter solstice being taken as a regulative point in indicating direction, is that in Herod, i. 193, npds ijXioy TfTpai^iihrj rbv Xf^l^^piv6v, where it makes no difference that the solstitial rising is spoken of and not the setting. 296 THE PROBLEM OF THE HOMERIC POEMS. belongs to the West Wind in the Odyssey, and that in a very notable measure and degree ^- It is true that the West coast of European Greece would supply this climatic experience ; but in the absence of any strong evidence associating the birthplace of Homer with the Western shore of European Greece '', we are entitled to refer the climatic phenomena as to Zephyrus in the Odyssey to the same region to which they undoubtedly belong in the Ulyssean cantos of the Iliad. That Ionia is that region is clear from the similes with which those Ulyssean books are studded, and.it is a considerable confirma- tion of our general position to find Zephyrus bearing exactly the same character in the Odyssey, (i) In one simile in r 306, it is the snow-bringing wind, Eurus being the snow-melting wind, and (a) there are frequent testimonies betokening its prominence in the poet's mind, so that it is credited with a leading share in Ulysses' shipwreck (,8 421, 8402 ^, e 332, k 25, \k 408). (3) It is further described as ' always rain-bringing,' al\v '4(j)vSpos in £ 458, and (4) in two other instances is spoken of as Svcrarji, ' wildly blowing ' (e 295, ^ 289). Some of these passages are indecisive as they refer to the action of Zephyrus at sea, but the first example is not liable to that objection, as it refers to its action in a snow shower by land. Taken to- gether, they go far to prove that the author of the Odyssey described the same climatic experience as the author of the " Strabo had no doubt about the topographical evidences of Homer's stand- point. He remarks that even in regard to winds at sea, where Zephyrus receives, (as in E 295 which he cites), an epithet singling out that wind as a special acquaint- ance, Homer 'preserves his own stand-point' {orav oiJtcu ', which he thought more consistent with tradition (La Roche, Text-kritik, 15). 8 xiie grove in Phaeacia said to be sacred to Athene is one not of olives, but of poplars (a?7«/>o., f 292)- Yet Upf, ^l^air, in y 37^ >= the tree under which Athene and Ulysses concert their plans. 302 THE PROBLEM OF THE HOMERIC POEMS. interpretation of YXavKmiri^, as ' owl-eyed,' or ' owl-faced,' is not yet sufficiently established to be relied on as evidence on such a point, and the affinities of Athene in the Iliad would seem to be rather with the vulture (H 58, a passage which Mr. Gladstone takes as proof that the Poet was unaware of any special connection of Athene with the owl), or with the heron (K 274)', a bird not found in connection with Athene on coins (Class. Mus. iv. p. 260), and one that is more probably ' Caystrian ' in its associations than Athenian. Fourthly, the silence of the poems, as to Eleusis and the worship of Demeter in Attica, is hardly intelligible, upon the Athenian hypothesis. In reviewing the whole subject, one cannot but come to the conclusion at which Wolf arrived upon this matter, and which he has expressed in the following words : — ' Ausgemacht ist dass er (Homer) nur in lonien entstehen konnte, und es ist Unkunde, wenn die Athener ihn zu ihrem Landsmanne machen ' (F. A. Wolf, Vorlesungen, ii. p. 145). ' It is proved that Homer could have arisen only in Ionia, and the claim of the Athenians to reckon him their country- man is an entire mistake.' Lastly, the Athenians of the historic time advanced no claim of the sort, for how should we hear of such a statement as that which we meet with in a dialogue of Plato's school, that ' Hipparchus first brought to Athens the poems of Homer' (Plato, Hipparch. p. 228 B) ? The region whence the poems were so brought was no doubt Ionia, which was in Hippar- chus' time the fountain of literature, from which country he is known to have fetched to Athens the living Anacreon. 176. And here we come upon the historical fact that the Athenians in the historic time felt sore at the scanty recogni- tion which they obtained in the Homeric poems, and notwith- standing all their interest in the poems and services towards their preservation and elucidation, they could not but feel that they had, as a nation, but a very small share in the glories of the Homeric age ^''. The other Greeks accused them, or at least ° ' The common n/g-A^-heron, with its pencil of white feathers in the crest, is a species not uncommon in tlie marshes ofWestem Asia.' Kitto (Bib. Cyc. in 'Bittern'). '» Preller (Gr. M. ii. 91) says, ' Das Homerische Epos bekiimmert sich bekannt- lich von alien Griechischen Landern am wenigsten um Attica.^ GLIMPSES OF A PERSONAL HOMER. 303 suspected them, of having in their diasceuastic work interpo- lated some few lines at different points in honour of Athenian memories (see a list of suspected lines in Merry, Od. X 565) ; but they used their opportunity, not to say liberty, very sparingly, and passed by occasions (such as Od. A 458}, when a tribute to Athens would neither have offended nor have been misplaced. At all events these Diasceuasts did not succeed in satisfying the Athenians with the part assigned to them, and Pericles in fact virtually concedes the point, by claiming for Athens that the glories of her present time enable her to dispense with the lustre which he felt to be lacking in the Homeric age. Moreover it is evidence of the comparative honesty of Pisistratus and his associates, that they not only inserted no interpolations or next to none in honour of Athens or its ruler ^^ but they did not retrench or modify certain uncomplimentary passages of the Achilleid that reflect severely on Athenian honour ^^- 177. The evidence as to this point may best be given in Mr. Gladstone's words : — 'The Athenian soldiers are declared in II. iv. 328 to be valiant, nrja-roapes dvrfjs, but the character of their commander is worse than negative. Though of kingly parentage he (Menestheus) nowhere appears among the governing spirits of the army .... and on the only occasion when we find him amid the clash of arms — namely, when the brave Lycians are threatening the part of the rampart committed to his charge, he shudders and looks about him for aid (xii. 331). The inferiority extends to the other Athenian chiefs — Pheidas, Stichios, Bias, lasos (xiii. 691, xv. ^^y, etc.), of whom all are undistinguished, and two — Stichios and lasos — are " food for powder," slain by Hector and iEneas respectively. Here then there seems to have been bravery without qualities for command, and all this tends to exhibit the Athenians as in a " The name Pisistratus in the Odyssey afforded a fine handle to ingenious Greeks to insert a compliment to the living namesake and reputed descendant. A prophecy by Theoclyraenus at parting from Pylos, after the fashion of ' Tu Marcellus eris,' would have been easily concocted, if currency could have been secured for it, but the Virgil who could have framed it was not contemporary with the Greek Augustus. " Compare Col. Mure's statement as to the inferior position of Athens in the Homeric poems (Travels in Greece, ii. 53. also in H. of G. L. ii. p. 210.) 304 THE PROBLEM OF THE HOMERIC POEMS. marked degree Pelasgian at this epoch, stout but passive, without any of the ardour or the KiKVi of the Hellenic cha- racter' (Juv. Mundi, pp. 81-2). Although the reason thus assigned for the Athenian infe- riority, is somewhat questionable, as belonging to what the Germans would call ' the subjective criticism,' the facts of the case are precisely as represented by Mr. Gladstone, that the Athenians are either ignored or made mere ' food for powder ' in such books as M, N, and O, whereas they seem to hold a high position in other books of the poem — viz. in B and A ^^ It has always been felt to be a difficulty, and has even raised, though unjustly, a suspicion of Athenian honesty in the treatment of the text, how Athens should have so great apparent promi- nence in the Catalogue of the Ships in B, and why Menestheus, their commander, should be praised as a good tactician, and as commanding troops who are called ' inspirers of the war-cry,' while yet there is a singular absence of any exploit in justifi- cation of these distinctions. The whole matter becomes clear, however, when we come to perceive that the books in which '' In N 195 Menestheus and Stichius officiate less as heroes than as benevolent 'ambulance-men' (rfi/es 5^ y\^va^QV(nv ojs yeicpO(p6povs, Schol. on N 195), a circum- stance which moved the mirth of ancient anti-Athenian critics. It is tine that the Ajaces are represented (N 201) as bearing aloft the body of Imbrius, but he was a foe to be despoiled, and Meriones and Menelaus are bearers of the body of Patroclus (P 717), while the Ajaces bear the brunt of the attack. The position of ambulance-man is manifestly secondary and inferior, and we are not surprised to find that one of them, viz. Stichius, is not long after despatched by Hector (O 329), and though Menestheus is called dpx^s 'A6T]vaiav, and is styled STos, he has no place among the nine captains {■^yeiidves AavaSiv) who perform exploits in the part called ' Patrocleia' (n 307-350). The inferiority of his position is very clearly seen in the desperate straits to which he is reduced in M 331-41, where he puts himself under the protection of Ajax. It would be unfair to press the fact that he is said to have shuddered at the approach of the Lycians, and was not even ' good at the war-cry,' since, owing to the din, he has to send a herald to ask Ajax's aid. The notable thing, however, is this, that we have here the relation of the two warriors reversed, from what the Catalogue represents it. In M Menestheus puts himself under Ajax's wing. In the Catalogue in B, if line 558 is genuine, Ajax seems to range himself imder the wing of Menestheus and of the Athenians. — Another point to note is that in the Achilleid the lonians have the epithet iKxex^Taves (N 685), ' tunic-trailing,' ' with sweepmg robes,' probably not as a compliment, but in disparagement for effeminacy, as the kindred eKKeainenXos is always of females, and those only Asiatic (TpydSes). The only other occurrence of the word is in the hymn to Apollo, where, however, it is complimentary, but the author of that is himself an Ionian, and according to Thucydides was Homer himself. GLIMPSES OF A PERSONAL HOMER. 305 the Athenians figure disadvantageously are Achillean, while those in which they have any encomiums bestowed upon them are Ulyssean. In the former we discern the traces of non-Ionian feeling, in the latter the pulsations of the Ionic heart of a poet who has interwoven among the Troica remembrances of his Athenian progenitors. Yet he has done so with great moderation by confining his encomiums to description rather than exhibiting them as won in action. 178. The main reason, however, why Menestheus does not receive a greater share of distinction is because Ulysses is practically the representative of lonismus, the typical em- bodiment of all the qualities that rendered the Eastern lonians of the early day supreme in eloquence, ingenuity, and love of naval adventure. Hence it happens, that, in the section of the imTTcoXria-LS where Menestheus and his troops figure to advantage, they are associated with Ulysses 1*, and Ulysses accordingly becomes the mouth-piece of the Athenians as well as of his own insular warriors in replying to the censures of Agamemnon i« How easily under these circumstances Athenians came to be included under the wing of Ulysses, and how naturally therefore the great Athenian goddess appears as the special patroness of this hero, any one can readily perceive. Mr. Gladstone finds it hard to under- stand how there is no mention of any special protection to Menestheus by Athene, but when we remember that Ulysses is really the representative of the Ionian people, " It is singular that the island of Ithaca bears the epithet in Homer, so often given to Attica in the historic time, viz. Kpaviij, and (apart from the proper name Kpavdri in T 445) no other place receives it in Homer. Its occurrences are Ulyssean, once (r 201) and in Odyssey, four times (a 247, 509, it 124,

= The whole passage (A 327-64) in which Menestheus and Ulysses are grouped together contains so strong indications of lonismus, that Franke pronounces it an addition by some Auic poet ('ab Attico quodam additos esse'), cp. Ebelmg m V aKovdC^aeoy. The considerations in the text will show that there is no necessity for so violent a supposition, and will give the key to understand what attracted the attention of the Alexandrian critics, viz. the partnership in this instance be- tween Menestheus and Ulysses (,r«AX,^T«ffl. rd rS, -QSva^yu cr„^.^.^,«o. «a. .m ToC M.v.ceia^^ ««o.ro,ro£,«v. Schol. Ven. A 343)- Unless this view is taken, . discrepancy arises between A 343 and B 404-7, but, if Ulysses is considered as representing Athens as well as Ithaca, the discrepancy is modified, if not entirely removed. X 3o6 THE PROBLEM OF THE HOMERIC POEMS. and that he enjoys in largest measure the aid of the Athenian goddess, the difficulty is entirely removed ^^. 179. The duality in the representations of Menestheus and the Athenians is thus satisfactorily accounted for, and a new and important argument has been developed for Duality of authorship in the Iliad, completing and consolidating the former arguments derived from the divergent treatment of the greater Heroes (cp. § 84-96). This Duality has been shown to connect itself with certain national affinities and susceptibilities, so that a clue has been obtained to coordinate phenomena otherwise entirely discordant. If we have found, through the sure index of Pindar, ^olo-Dorian affinities in the Achilleid, we are now able to discern Ionian affinities, with a certain leaning towards Athens, in the non-Achilleid and in the Odyssey. The proofs of the latter fact, which have been as yet adduced, are mainly founded on the character of Ulysses,, who certainly prefigures, and in one instance is the actual representative of and spokesman for, the Athenians, partly also on the local mint-marks appearing in the non- Achilleid, which are conclusive as to origin on the Ionian sea-board. These two, however, are not all the branches of proof, and though perhaps the strongest, they are not the only evidences of Ionic origin and associations. 180. It will be generally admitted, even by the most superficial students of Greek History, that there was a duality in the character of the Greek people, according as it partook of ^olo-Dorian affinities on the one hand or Ionian affinities on the other. Sparta and Athens represent the two poles of Hellenic character, the former the representative of .^Eolo- Dorismus, the latter of lonismus, with the several virtues and weaknesses of each phase of character. The former element was strong, repellent, and severe, inclining to hardness and rigidity ; the latter was yielding, susceptible, and subtle, in- clining to softness and luxury. The former indicated the cha- racter of Mountaineers or of a people whose lines of thought were formed originally among mountains — immobility; " It is only from the Ulyssean or neozoic parts of the Homeric poems that we gather there was any connection between Athens and Athene at all. They are ^ 547-551 and Od. T] 81, possibly, A. 323, all Ulyssean or neozoic. GLIMPSES OF A PERSONAL HOMER. 307 the latter that of a maritime sea-loving people — flexibility^ mobility" (cp. § 151). The differentiation of these elements, so complete and palpable in the historic time, is only latent in the Homeric time. The separation is yet to come, but the signs of its coming are not undiscernible. The force and sternness of Sparta we find already prefigured in the majestic Achilles; the genius and manifold aptitude of Athens, in the all-accom- plished Ulysses^* (§ 125). This is no arbitrary coordination, for it is one supported by a multitude of evidences, and the philosophic eye of Plato discerned its validity and correctness when he directs us, in order to obtain an idea of what the epic hero Achilles had been in the ancient time, to turn to such an historic figure as that of the Spartan Brasidas in the recent time (Plato, Sympos., 221 C). There is therefore full justification for regarding Achilles as an early type of what we know to have been the ^olo-Dorian character in the historic time ^^- Such also are the characteristics of the Achilleid. It is, like the Dorian character, self-contained and full of tremendous force, for the intensity is like that of Pindar and the self- containedness like that of Hesiod^"— both of them more or less typical representatives of ^olo-Dorian feeling. '' Mr. Gladstone (H. iii. 276) has remarked that Homer is great in sea-distances, measured by so many days, but does not give a hint of measure in journeys by land. The examples of sea-distances will be found to be either in the Odyssey or Ulys- sean parts (I 363). Compare the nautical simile, evidently from the life, in H 4, the nautical touches in B 293, A 76, and note on § 166. i, as to naming sections of the sea. " Welcker (Ep. Kyk. p. 275) remarks on the Ionian partiality for such a character as Ulysses : ' Dem lonischen Character und dem zunehmenden biirger- lichen Geiste (der auch durch den Namen Demodokos sich verkiindigt) ist die Vorliebe fur den Odysseus gemass." Compare the important remarks of E. Curtius (H. i. 153-3), where lie considers the life in the a-^opa and the spirit of the Demos to have first shown themselves in the Ionian seaports, and holds it to be manifest ' that the traditions of the heroic times received their last form among an Ionian population.' 1' Cp. Preller (Gr. M. ii. 174), ' Die Dorier, die Erben der Heilenischen Myr- midonen.' ' The Dorians, the heirs of the Hellenic Myrmidons' (i. e. of the warriors under Achilles). According to E. Curtius (H. i. no) the Dorian character was formed not only in a mountain region, but in the region near Olympus, which was at one time their proper home. =» Compare the interesting observations of Pausanias (i. 2. 3) contrastmg the confined semi-Dorian spirit of Hesiod with the freer Ionian spirit of Homer. There is little doubt that it was to the non-Achillean parts of Homer that he would look for illustrations of the latter. X a 3o8 THE PROBLEM OF THE HOMERIC POEMS. i8i. We have already seen that the geographical horizon of the author of the Achilleid is comparatively narrow and confined, in marked contrast with that of the author of the Ulyssean cantos and of the Odyssey. So his mental vision over time seems to share the narrowness of his vision over space, for his eyes seem to be almost entirely in the Present or the Past, and he seldom looks to the Future and then not always hopefully or far. Not so the author of the Odyssey and non-Achilleid, for he is not so deeply absorbed in the Pre- sent or the Past, as to lack, at the same time, a distinct outlook to the Future. The indications under these heads have been already given in . former sections and need not now be recapitulated (cp. § 74. n. 7, 8). It will be admitted that the contrast is one that applies also to the ^olo-Doric and Ionic races in the historic time. The Achillean poet shows a certain premonition of Spartan affinities in his estimate of what constitutes the virtues of a man. It is in battle that he finds his proper sphere, and hence strong fighting is more prominent in the thoughts of the Achillean poet than good speaking. No doubt the epithet KvSLaveipa is found once regarding dyopri (A 490), but it is found four times regarding fidxij, the same number of occur- rences as KvSidveipa shows with fidxv in Ulyssean cantos ^^, where dXKrj is also Kpdros /leyia-Tov (1 39). So likewise /ivOoi are acknowledged as a source of honour (S 352), also an in- strument of craft (X 281), and kpi^eiv irepl fivdcov is attributed to a hero as an accomplishment (O 284) ; but oratory cannot be said to have the prominence which it receives in the non- Achillean sections, where it stands as the climax of accom- plishments (Od. Q 168). On the contrary, in the Achilleid, the \oyo'S or ambush, rather than Xoyoy, seems to stand as the test of a man's dperrj or worth (N 277). The praise of firjris, 'counsel,' is mainly Ulyssean, as in 4* (315), and the value of persuasive speech' is shown in that area by its being put on an equality with action and warfare (I 441 and 443). Hence, while dprwco is in the Achilleid entirely military, in association only with /iax*? ^'^'^ va-fiivrj, it has attached to it ^' It is curious, but seemingly accidental, that KvSt&veipa is not found with Ayo/y^, where we should have most expected it, viz. outside the Achilleid. An equivalent is found for the lack of it in the Ulyssean I 441. GLIMPSES OF A PERSONAL HOMER. 309 in the Ulyssean area (B f^^, K 302) ^ovX-f^ 22, and in the Odyssey we hear even of yjrevSea dprvvovTas. Further, the Achilleid shows a certain narrow and stereo- typed form of conception, premonitory of the rigid type familiar to us in Spartan thought, while the largeness of view and liberality of thought, which afterwards distinguished the Athenian and Ionian peoples, are already present in germ in the Ulyssean area and in the Odyssey. 183. It may be proper to recall here the statements ad- vanced under a previous section (§ 105-6), when we had occa- sion to show that the Achilleid exhibits a rigid and almost Spartan fixedness of conservatism regarding certain hieratic epithets, whereas the moment we pass beyond the zone of the Achilleid we meet with freedom and even luxuriance of fancy in the treatment of those epithets. A similar fact holds regarding the occurrence of other epithets not originally hieratic, some of which we find strictly confined to a single application in the Achilleid ; but, whether from enlargement of view, or greater richness of thought, or comparative recency of age, or from all these influences concurring, these are widened and expanded in their applications outside the Achilleid. Thus the beautiful and solemn word 6/j.ouos, 'all-levelling,' 'unsparing,' belongs to both areas. The Achillean poet, however, who is mainly concerned with war, confines it to TToXefios, on which he bestows it Jive times. The Ulyssean poet widens the scope of it, as if discerning that there were things in the world equally 'unsparing' with 'war/ and so, while using it once of noXefios, he bestows it also upon yfjpas, 'old age,' and feiKos, 'feud,' and in the Odyssey we find it applied to Odvaros, ' death,' as well as to iroXe/xo^. Therefore, while each poet uses the epithet five times, the Achillean poet limits it to ' war ' : the other bard, with larger outlook, finds various other powers or elements in the world that receive from him the epithet. Ach. Ul. Od. S/ioUos, of war . . • 5 ' ' o/iouos, of other powers . . o 2 ' • The treatment of Trenvvfieyos is an example in the same 22 'Emcj>paaaaa0ai /SouAtjc is an expression common to both the Achillean and Ulyssean sections. Ach. 4 Ul. 7 Od. Frequent o I I 0° I I o 7 310 THE PROBLEM OF THE HOMERIC POEMS. direction. In the Achilleid it occurs not unfrequently, but is nowhere found except in connection with persons. In the non- Achilleid and Odyssey, it is an epithet applied not merely to men but to things. Further, the Achillean poet has not ventured beyond the participle, whereas outside the Achilleid we meet with forms like TreirvvtraL, TrenvvaQai. I. Tren-w/iecos of persons .... TTcnvviihos of things — (a) firjSea ...... ((3) without subst., absolutely {neirvvfieva pd^ets) o (y) other usages II. TTeirvvfiM in other parts than participle ..021. 183. The next illustration which I shall take is a double proof of our proposition, inasmuch as it shows where lonismus is to be looked for in two of its aspects, viz. in its greater freedom and richness of pictorial designations and also in its tendency towards bonhomie and easy indulgence rather than to Spartan austerity. It concerns the treatment of vnvos, 'sleep,' as a phenomenon of human life. Apart from the archaic vrjSvixos, there is hardly one epithet attached to it in the Achilleid, that conveys the idea of delicious rest. Epithets of this class abound the moment we pass beyond the severe zone of the Achilleid. Omitting the examples of " Yttvo^ as the god of Sleep personified^ examples that prove nothing either way, we find the darker associations of Sleep mainly in the Achilleid. In the first place Sleep is thrice styled ' Brother of Death,' and all the examples are Achillean ^^. So death is once spoken of as yakKio's vnvos (A 341). It is doubtful if there are any asso- ciations so gloomy connected with sleep in the sunnier region of the Ionian poet. The darkest epithet in the Ulyssean cantos of the Iliad is navSandTmp (X2 4, occurring also in Od. t 373), but that is not necessarily one of sinister import. In the Odyssey the sinister instances are special, not normal, because of some culpability or other, as in k 68 and /x 372. But when we look for epithets denoting the ' sweetness ' of sleep, we find them few and far between in the Achilleid, abundant elsewhere. == The extraordinary sleep of Ulysses on arriving in Ithaca is described as ' like to Death,' but at the same time as ^Sioros (c 80). This is the nearest approach to the Achillean representation. GLIMPSES OF A PERSONAL HOMER. 311 Ach. Ul. Od. I. "Yttvos in sinister aspects "Yirvof in pleasing aspects — 4 i(? ) 2 II airriiioud re \iap6v re I afi^pcmos I y\vKvs . I 2 12 yXvKipos 3 4 ^dlCTTOS . I riSis I 6 p.^XiTj8r}s I )X(\'i.v I Xvuiv fieXfSi'jfiaTa Bvfiov . I I IxaKaKos .... 2 I v-nvov ^5>pov TKovto . 2 2 navvv^ov vttvov aarelv ykvKvv VTTVOV aatTeiv I I aireipova vttvov I ko'ltos fjSvS ■ I 14 31. There is thus a marked contrast between the Achilleid and the rest of the Homeric poems, so that we find again the same demarcation under this aspect as in those preceding, with the result that the Ulyssean cantos of the Iliad find their congeners in the cantos of the Odyssey. 184. Other arguments might be adduced, of more or less value, pointing uniformly to the same issue. I only allude to such phenomena as the occurrence (a) of Srj/xLoepyos in its Ionic ijidustrial sense, not in its Dorian application as a civil magistrate,- (fi^ of the t€ttl^, with its Ionian and old Attic associations (Preller, Gr. M. i. 300), (y) of Kepa/j.os and Kfpa- fievs, pottery being an art especially Attic or old Ionian, (8) of the Xea-xV) whence came the dSoXecrx^a of the Ionic race generally, (e) aicrv/j.i'rjTrjp, a term whose historic occurrences are chieily in relation to the Asiatic shore, (0 ^ap^apocfxovoi, re- garding the Carians, involving a touch of Ionic sensitiveness and jealousy, cp. Strabo, xiv. 661. All these traces ol lonismus are found to emerge only in the Ulyssean cantos or in the Odyssey, in either or both, and thus by their distribution constitute important confirmations. Without dwelling on these, I must particularise with more detail two groups of 312 THE PROBLEM OF THE HOMERIC POEMS. phenomena which are of high significance, as showing ' the beat of an Ionic heart ' in the breast of Homer. 185. (i) Among the pecuHar institutions of the Ionic race, the ' AnaTovpia, we know, occupied a prominent place. ' They are all lonians,' says Herodotus (i. 147), ' who are sprung from Athenian descent and hold the festival of Apaturia.' In this festival, the family divisions celebrating it were called (f>paTpiat and the term (pparpia or (ppiJTpr] was thus in fact an Ionian term for a special group in their social system. It is therefore a technical word of great importance, and the occurrences of it are tests of high significance. It accordingly comes up precisely in the area where we look for lonismus, and only there, for ^prJTpr] and dcpprjrcop appear twice in Ulyssean cantos, viz. in B 363 and I 6^. The peculiar insti- tutions of the Ionic race are thus alluded to in such a way as to indicate that those cantos were composed among and for the Ionic people. 186. (a) Another institution, as it may be called, of the Ionic race^ was the oath by a certain Triad of Gods, Zeus, Athene and Apollo. The formula, in which this adjuration appears, is one of high interest and importance. Mr. Glad- stone has laid great stress upon it in his attempt to show that the Greeks possessed, latent among them and de- scending from patriarchal times, something answering to the Doctrine of the Trinity. The formula referred to occurs so frequently and is altogether so remarkable that it deserves the closest attention, and indeed it forms the main support of his hypothesis, which otherwise would be a mere airy though beautiful vision. The adjuration or exclamatory ejaculation runs in these words: — at yap, Zev re ndrfp Kal ' AOrjvair] /cat " AiroXkov. •Would that, O father Zeus and Athene and Apollo.' Without delaying to inquire whether we can find the lofty doctrine which Mr. Gladstone discovers therein contained, we can safely pronounce it a formula of frequent recurrence and of great significance. But it is not the only Triad in the Homeric poems. Thus in O 187 we find a Triad o'f the Kronid Brothers, Zeus, Poseidon, and Hades, and, in T 87, we come upon another Triad, not quite like a Trinity, Zeus, Mcera, GLIMPSES OF A PERSONAL HOMER. 313 and Erinnys. These two last Triads are probably Achillean. A peculiar grouping of three gods is found in B 478, where Zeus, Ares, and Poseidon are combined, and further we have the rebellious Triad of A 400 who conspire against Zeus. These last mentioned Triads, however, are in a different category, because they occur only once and are not appealed to in adjuration^^, whereas the formula we are dealing with is frequent as an adjuration in a certain area and in fact stands unique in the Homeric poems. The important point to observe is this, that a formula with the same Triad of Gods (cp. ^sch. Eum. 728-30) is known to have been a favourite oath with the original branch of the Ionic race, the Athenian. It was one of those employed in Athenian courts of law^ and in the speech of Demosthenes 'against Meidias' (p. 578) there appears the adjuration, v^ Tov A La /cat TOf 'AttoXXco kol t7]v 'A$r]vdv, where the ancient commentator Ulpian tells us in his annotations, that ' this is the Attic oath ^\' The conjunction of these deities is the more remarkable that two of them take opposite sides in the struggle at Troy, Apollo on the side of the Trojans, Athene on that of the Greeks. Both of them, however, stand out in many respects separate from the other deities, and their exceptional position is seen in this that the ^gis of Zeus is wielded sometimes by the one and sometimes by the other, but by none else of the Olympian Gods ^^ They stand out, therefore, apart-from the ^* A kind of Triad in adjuration is that in A 339, showing how common was the triple form of appeal. According to Pollux (viii. 142), Tpers 8iovs o/xviivai KeAcCci 2oAttjr, iKetnov KaSdpaLOV e^aKear^pa. '^ It was not the only Triad in Athenian oaths, for we hear of a Triad used by Draco (Schol. II. O 36), another in the Heliastic oath, a third proposed by Plato, Legg. xi. 276. A fourth appears in Demosth., p. 1238, and Aristoph. Eq. 941. ^* The vjarliie appearance of Apollo with the ^gis bestowed for the time by Zeus belongs only to the Achilleid (O 229, 308, 361, n 704), all referring to one bestowing of the ^gis. In the Ulyssean area, Apollo is not invested with so tremendous a power, but is perched on Pergamus (A 508, E 460, H 21), and seems to leave that post only to rescue .i^neas (E433), or to confer with Athene (H 22), or to counteract her (K 517). In this Ulyssean area his chief agency is by ' shouting' from Pergamus (A 508). Once we find him in the Ulyssean area (n 20) having the jEgis, but it is for the peaceful purpose of protecting Hector's corpse. There seems ground for the affirmation that there is one representation of Apollo in the Achilleid, and another considerably different in the Ulyssean books (cp. also § 102). — Regarding Athene (apart from 2.204), she seems to have charge of the'^gis chiefly in the Ulyssean area (B 447, E 738), and in this respect the Odyssey 314 THE PROBLEM OF THE HOMERIC POEMS. general circle of the Olympiahs, as entitled to be conjoined with the supreme ^gis-bearer. It is not so clear how this combination of Gods should have been a favourite one with the Ionian stem of the Greek people. Athene, it is true, was the patron goddess of their primal city, and Apollo, under the title of TTarpmos, was claimed as in a special manner associated with Athens. Whatever was the real cause of the conjunction of these deities, thei-e is ground for believing that the conjunction indicated an advance in Hellenic civilization and marked a distinct stadium of pro- gression, whereby the Greek race overleapt the barbaric level and entered on what may be called the Hellenic, as dis- tinguished from the Pelasgian, platform ^'. Hence the observa- tion of Preller (Gr. M. i. p. 4), on this group of deities : ' Zeus, Athena, und Apollon bilden gleichsam einen engeren Aus- schuss aus dieser himmlischen Gotterwelt, Zeus als Herrscher und Vater aller Gotter und Menschen, Athena und Apollo, als seine Lieblingstochter und sein Lieblingssohn.' What then are the occurrences of this Ionian formula ? They are all in the same area where we find the other traces of lonismus, viz. in the Odyssey and Ulyssean cantos. They are as follows : — Ach. Ul. Od. o^' 3 4 I B 371, A 288, H 132 I.Od. S 341, , 311, p 132, <7 235. It is worthy of observation that the number of occurrences is (X 297) concurs. She seems, however, to take the ^gis propria motu, and she does so especially in the area where lonismus is most apparent. '^ The formula is assigned to no Trojan, and to no northern Greek. Except in the case of Alcinous, it is only in the mouth of southern heroes, Agamemnon (twice), Nestor, Menelaus, Telemachus (twice). — The only point in which there is any obscurity in the proof is the want of clear evidence that it belonged to the eastern as well as to the European lonians. It so happens that our authorities for it are mainly as to its existence at Athens ; but the antiquity of the cultus of Apollo Trarpwos, makes it probable that the formula was old enough to have pre- ceded the Ionic migration, and so have been transferred to the Asiatic shore. E. Curtius (H.i. p. 324) connects the prevalence of the formula at Athens with the influence of Solon. ' The oath holiest to all the Athenians was now sworn by Zeus, Athene, and Apollo, such being an express ordinance ever since the time of Solon.' ^' The apparent occurrence of the formula in n 97 is an interpolation con- demned by ancient critics, and, though retained by La Roche, is bracketed by Fiisi and Spitzner. No nearer approach to the combination is producible from the Achilleid than that in N 827, which, however, is not a direct adjuration and concerns only two of these deities.— The instance in Od. cu 376 seems post-Homeric. GLIMPSES OF A PERSONAL HOMER. 'i,i^ in fair proportion as between the Odyssey and the Ulyssean cantos, and that the distribution is spread equably over the whole area of the Odyssey. Here we conclude our survey of the local mint-marks of the Iliad and the Odyssey. 187. On a review of the whole evidence, and judging from the manner in which the phenomena group themselves in far reaching ramifications, piCljo-ii' jueyaAr/o-t Bi-qveKeiaa-' dpapviai, an impartial mind will have little difficulty in coming to the conclusion, that the weight of evidence is in favour of a Dual authorship to the Iliad, that the older or palaeozoic portion is probably of Thessalian origin, and that the younger or neozoic portion is certainly from Asiatic Ionia. Regarding the Odys- sey, the evidence of local origin is less decisive, but the paucity of its local mint-marks is amply compensated by the multitude of analogies, idiosyncrasies, affinities, which attach it to the neozoic area of the Iliad, and authenticate it under what may be called the sign-manual of the same genius. If we are right in affirming these propositions, we can be in no doubt that this Ionian genius, whose handiwork and personality we have been tracing out carefully and reverently, is none other than the Homer whom all ages have conspired to reverence. We can now discern the great builder of epics shaping his work and leaving on it an impress of his own individuality, so that he becomes more to us than a mere misty Eidolon, and has grown a living . personality. That personality speaks to us most clearly in one passage where he comes nearest to the unveiling of himself — viz. in the proem of the Odyssey, where the solitary \iol of dvSpa fioi 'ivveTre is a personal and conscious utterance. It is true that owing to the objective nature of his poetry, we get fewer glimpses of his countenance than we obtain, for example, of Hesiod, yet, as it would argue hopeless scepticism to doubt the personal existence of Hesiod, or to disbelieve that in the ' Works and Days ' we have the utterances of an actual historic man, so, in the same kind though not in equal measure, we have the assurance of a genuine historic personality shaping the architecture of the Odyssey. The other and more dis- tant poet, who sings ' the Wrath of Achilles,' retires further 3i6 THE PROBLEM OF THE HOMERIC POEMS. back into invisibility, for he does not in his proem favour us with even a jioi for science or sentiment to fasten on ^''- t88. One or two remarks may be required in order to justify the ascription or restriction of the name Homer to the author of the neozoic poems. In the first place^ the name Homer belongs in all proba- bility to the work which is, in a poetic point of view, the largest and most massive phenomenon. It involves less diffi- culty to suppose that the name of the author of the more distant poem, the Achilleid, has perished than that the^ name of the author in the case of the larger, and in some respects more notable, poems, should have vanished, especially as these last were from an age lying nearer to the literary period when personal remembrances had a chance of being in some form preserved. There is, from the tradition of antiquity, only one Homer to be accounted for, and, if we have established the Dual authorship, it follows, from the internal evidence, that it is the younger bard that is to be identified with Homer. (2) The internal evidence of lonismus is 'manifest in the sections thus ascribed to him, completely manifest in the Iliad in its Ulyssean sections, partially manifest in the Odyssey; and on this basis we can understand the remarkable uniformity with which antiquity referred him to the Asiatic shore of the Egean, and ascribed to him the otherwise inexplicable titles of Mseonides and Melesigenes, names belonging only to the region of Ionia. 189. Under the foregoing supposition as to Ionia we are able to give a satisfactory account of six things which are otherwise difficult to understand, (i) The iiiitia of Elegiac poetry, which is a variation of the Heroic Hexameter, are referable to the land and soil where the Epic muse of Homer has previously appeared. Callinus has the best claim to be considered the earliest Elegiac poet, and he belonged to Ephesus, one of the Ionian cities. (3) The best known and most important of the Cyclic poets ^° are referable to the ™ The passage in M 176, where he complains of the hardness of his task, is generally bracketed as spurious, though La Roche retains it unbracketed. '" Welcker, after comparing the position of Agias and Eumelus, Cyclic poets though from Doric communities, to that of Herodotus and Hippocrates, who though Dorian in origin came to own the superior power and attractiveness of lonismus. GLIMPSES OF A PERSONAL HOMER. 317 same region. Arctinus, who is said to have been iia6riTfjs 'Ofxripov, and whose date is as early as 775 B.C., was of Miletus, Creophylus of Chios or Samos, Cinsthus of Chios, all Ionic cities of Asia, without reckoning in the less known Diodorus from Erythrse, or Lesches of Pyrrha in Lesbos, both from the Asiatic shore. The locality of Stasinus is not known. The rest of the Cyclics appear in various parts of the Greek world, but they are more recent, and therefore more remote from the common centre of origin. (3) The Ionic-speaking race manifested the greatest interest in the text of the Poet, as if they considered it their own pecu- liar patrimony. Four out of the six so-called ' Civic ' editions, referred to in the critical notes of the Alexandrian scholars, belong to Ionic cities either in Ionia or of Ionic population, viz. the Chian, Massilian, Sinopic and Salaminian or Cyprian. The Argive and Cretan are the only ones non-Ionian. Further, in the scholia fifty-two citations are found from the four Ionian editions, as against nine from the non-Ionian (La Roche, Text-Kritik, p. 18), a fact which may be looked upon as both an index and a measure of the greater patrimonial interest in these poems felt and claimed by the lonians. (4) The Rhapsode lingers longest on the soil of Ionia, and the one that figures in Plato is called Ion, as if in allusion to the land where the rhapsode was especially a native. (5) The name "Ofivpos is always in an Ionic form. There appears to be no trace of "Ofiapos. (6) The literary Epic, called Cyclographic, flourishes on the Asiatic shore where the early epic had first app'eared, and forms a continuation of the same. The most important of these is Antimachus of Colophon, with whom may be asso- ciated Panyasis of Halicarnassus, Peisander of Camirus, Asius of Samos, Choerilus of Samos. The epic poetry of Greece may thus be said to have remained rooted upon the Asiatic shore ^i goes on to enumerate the localities claiming a share in the Cyclic or post-Homeric heroic poetry:-' Die betheiligten Orte sind die ^olischen Stadte Neonteichos bey Kyme, Bolissos auf Chios, Mitylene und Pyrrha auf Lesbos; die lomschen Milet, Samos, Chios, los, Phok^a, Kolophon ; dann Halikarnass, die A tische Salamis m Cypem, Sparta. Troezen, Korinth und spat Kyrene. Es ergieb srch von selbst der Zug der kes,: von Asien und seinen Inseln her nach dem Peloponnes (Eprsche '"- H;iod!^being originally of Kyme, is hardly an exception. The statement 3l8 THE PROBLEM OF THE HOMERIC POEMS. down even to the Alexandrian period, when it sought to find a habitat on other shores. Before that period of diffusion, the successive shoots from the old epic stem, which are known as first the Cyclic and then the Cyclographic, show clearly what was the primary locality of the parent stem. 190. The traditions of the poet's personalia, although in themselves of small critical value, are yet found, singularly enough, so far as they meet with corroboration in the poems, to associate themselves entirely with the Odyssey and the Ulyssean sections, apparently never with what is found in the Achilleid. The 'Life of Homer' by the Pseudo-Herodotus is the main storehouse of these traditions, and, except the incidental name QearopiSris, there seems to be no name or tradition preserved regarding him that suggests the Achil- leid, but many are preserved that are now imbedded in the sections that are to be associated with the Ionian bard — viz. the Odyssey and Ulyssean area. Among the friends of the reputed Homer we find mention made of — I. Phemius, the schoolmaster. a. Mentes, the ship-captain. 3. Mentor, the Ithacan gentleman. 4. Tychius, the shoemaker. Accordingly the analoga to these are to be found in — 1. Phemius, the bard. (Odyssey.) 2. Mentes, the mariner. (Odyssey.) 3. Mentor, the Ithacan gentleman. (Odyssey.) 4. Tychius, the leather-maker. (Ulyssean, H %'i\). Again, (5), the blind bard Demodocus was generally re- garded in antiquity (Schol. on Od. Q 6^, 1 1, and Max. Tyrius, 38. i) as an image of himself from his own hand. He belongs to the Odyssey. (6) One Thersites is said to have been his unfaithful emTpoTros or guardian (Ven. Schol. B aia). Hence the satire in Book B of the Iliad was accounted for. (7) Among these personalia, it is interesting to include the curious story as to Glaucus and his Dogs. It was related that in above is well sustained by a reference to the canon of Epic poets as made up by the Alexandrian critics. It embraced the following five, Homer, Hesiod, Peisander, Panyasis, Antimachus (Welck. Ep. Kyk., p. 22), the last three being clearly of Asiatic origin. GLIMPSES OF A PERSONAL HOMER. 319 his wanderings the bhnd bard was once in danger from a goatherd's dogs that came barking round him. He cried out for help, whereupon the owner of them, one Glaucus, ran forward nimbly and chased away the dogs. Leading him to his shieling, the goatherd entertained him kindly. The en- joyment of the entertainment was interfered with by the dogs which went on barking, whereupon the bard is said to have uttered some impromptu lines recommending 'friend Glaucus to provide first good entertainment for the dogs at the door of the court -yard. For a dog so fed is the first to get note of any one approaching, be it man or beast, that enters the fences ^^.' The incident of the assault of the dogs is one that resembles ^ The fondness for the dog does not afford any clue to locality, as the attitude toward the horse in the Achillean bard pointed toward Thessaly. On the Ionian shore, no doubt, the worship of the huntress Artemis at Ephesus had close association with the dog, which is very prominent in connection with the an- cient figure of the Ephesian Diana, and- ample proof could be obtained from the later historic time as to yier patronage of that animal. In the absence of any reference in Homer to the Asiatic cultus of Artemis, which seems to have been in its origin rather barbarian than Greek, we must remain ignorant of any special cause of attraction to that domestic animal other than its useful companionship. Regarding his colder attitude, which I think has been estab- lished, toward the horse, one can render no adequate reason, but simply appeal to the facts, which may point to a condition of things on the Ionian sea-board, in which the Greeks found themselves outshone by their barbarian neighbours in this respect, an inference which we are inclined to draw from the marked association of equestrian epithets with barbarian Asiatics, such as Trojans, Phry- gians, Mseonians, and the like (cp. § 126 n.). It is a mere conjecture, but it seems a not improbable one, that Homer, whose name Maeonides implies a connection with that region, derived his ideas of horsemanship, and probably his aversion to it, from the spectacle of the Mffionians, whom he calls. tmroKopvcTTai, and of the Phrygians, who have the unique epithet alo\6ww\oi (T 185). ' Immer werden,' says Preller (Gr. M. ii. 273), ' die Lyder und uberhaupt die Asiatischen Volker als poviovTis, brr(piaKot).—The • pannus ' in O 550, is condemned by all the critics from the want of external evidence, not being in the MSS, and only stitched in by Barnes from the Akib. n. of the Platonic corpus; but it is also condemned by the internal evidence, smce it shows a moral antagonism to the Trojans, not according to the tone of the Achilleid, in which it happens to be now included. Y a 324 THE PROBLEM OF THE HOMERIC POEMS. violence, and the Trojans as hopelessly in the wrong. The result attained by the poet is that the doom of Troy is seen to be prepared and the sentence of retributive justice already virtually pronounced. It is upon the Ulyssean books B to H that this conclusion rests, and, through these and these alone, is an ethical purpose communicated to the Iliad. 195. Regarding the Odyssey, it has always been felt that an ethical purpose adverse to violence and usurpation is there discernible, and it is seen from the first to be the intention of the poet in his plot to represent the Suitors as doomed men for their reckless audacity. So likewise the Trojans, in that group of Books (B — H) in the Iliad, are similarly seen to be, in the poet's intention, doomed men; and this parallelism between the Trojans of B — H and the Suitors in the Odyssey is a powerfwl mark of congruity and a strong confirmation of the theory we have been maintaining. It is in F that this intention of the poet first becomes apparent. The Trojans are there represented as coming under solemn oaths, conducted with all due ceremonial; to abide the issue of a single combat. The single combat goes against them, but they resile from their compact, under circumstances of gross treachery. Pan- darus, during truce, shoots an arrow at Menelaus and wounds him, and the Trojans do not protest against but condone his atrocity, and become parties to what was in fact assassination. 196. But it may be asked, is it clear that the Poet himself has any feeling of moral reprobation ? May it not be that he simply narrates, as matter of fact, objectively without any subjective feeling ? It is true that the moral is not obtruded, and there is nothing like moralising even over the fall of trai- tors. Yet the poet's own feeling is unmistakable, flashing out occasionally in actual objective condemnation, even though it is the goddess Athene that figures as the prime mover and temptress of the Trojans in luring them to their doom. The same or a similar function she performs to the Suitors in the drama of the Odyssey (cr 346, and cp. o- 155). (i) The poet's attitude toward the traitorous Pandarus is not indifferent, or after any Gothe-type of ethical equilibrium ; Pandarus is pronounced a ' fool ' at the time when he does the dastard deed, t£ 5e (ppevai dcppovi rreidei' (4 104). SYMMETRY IN ETHICAL PURPOSE. 325 This is the poet's own judgment, and there is no doubt that d^pmv here implies moral condemnation. {%) The Trojan heroes are represented as having a bad conscience and fearful misgivings as to the future. /Eneas so speaks in E 177 ; Hector utters the famous lines of fore- boding over the city (Z 447); and Antenor is similarly touched with fear (H 351); which last utterance is expressly connected with the falsehood in the oaths of V. Moreover the real feeling of the Trojans in the Ulyssean cantos is one of detestation to Paris (F 454), and even Hector, though he condones his deeds, condemns the man (Z 282). The Achil- lean Hector, until his final hour, has no misgivings. (3) The Greek heroes on the other hand are confident that the disfavour and vengeance of the gods are now to track the Trojans. Agamemnon gives utterance to this confidence in remarkable words in A 158-168, when he speaks of Zeus as being about to ' dash his dark ^gis in the Trojans' eyes, wroth because of this falsehood!" Again, in A 235, he tells his Argives that ' Zeus will never be the helper of false men.' Idomeneus in A 370 echoes the assurance that the Trojans are doomed men, because of their perfidy. (4) The harshness of Agamemnon (in Z 62) in hewing down the suppliant Adrastus when Menelaus was willing to spare him and take ransom, is a startling phenomenon. It is ex- plicable only by remembrance of the perjury in which the Trojan people was involved, and which even Hector en- deavoured to excuse by throwing the blame on Zeus (H 69). This Adrastus is spoken of as having an equipage, and he is therefore one of the rich but guilty 'nrnoSanoL of Troy. What is more strange, Agamemnon's harsh words are com- mended by the Poet, who says of him aia-ijia Trapn-rrcov, ' rightly advising,' — a gleam of personal indignation thus flashing forth, akin to the feeling of satisfaction with which, as we shall find, he follows the Suitors to their doom. (5) That the Trojans are in the same ethical position as the Suitors, may be further inferred from the circumstance that two epithets of dark import are shared by them both, and virtually by them alone ''. (a) The expression, vneprjvo- ' "tTr(pr}vop€aiv, in the singular, is given to Deiphobus in N 258, but it seems to imply no more than /iiya cppoviojv, of the same Trojan, in N 156. 326 THE PROBLEM OF THE HOMERIC POEMS. peovres, so characteristic in the Odyssey, as the special desig- nation of the Suitors (once of the Cyclopes, C 5)= comes up similarly in the Iliad as the epithet of a class, but only in a Ulyssean part (A 176), and there it is applied to the Trojans l 0) Probably the worst epithet in the Homeric vocabulary is dXeiTrjs { = scelestus). It is used twice, and is distributed between the Suitors in the Odyssey (i; lai) and Paris in a Ulyssean canto (r a8). Regarding the last instance, although the expression may be thought to indicate simply Menelaus's feeling, it can also be interpreted as containing the poet's own condemnation of the faithless Paris, (y) The epithet dyrjvopes is given to the Suitors, and to none else, about twelve times in the Odyssey. It has come to have a sinister sense, notwith- standing its use twice by the suitors regarding themselves (o- 43, V 393). There is only one parallel occurrence of it, as given, namely, to a class of persons, in the Iliad. It Is given to the Trojans in the Ulyssean canto K 399 ^- (6) In H 403, after a message had been received from the Trojans declining to grant the Greek demands, Diomed is represented as saying, ' Even a child might understand that the toils of death are knit for the Trojans.' This can be explained only with reference to the repeated acts of insolent faithlessness. Now, the remarkable thing is this, that this vaticination of Diomed is not verified, but rather falsified by the success of the Trojans in the Book that now stands next in order (©), which book is Achillean, and indeed is not verified within the Iliad as regards the Trojan people, though the fall of Hector prepares the way. The poet's eye, however, who constructed books B — H, glances outside the scope of the Iliad and dis- cerns the vision of the great Retribution that came upon ° It is a minor ' Anklang ' between the Odyssey and the Ulyssean cantos that the appearance of Penelope among the suitors, whereby Athene contrives to tantalise them on the eve of their destruction {a i6o), is parallel, in so far, to the appearance of Helen fluttering the hearts of the Trojan Elders on the towers of the doomed city (r 155). ° It is worthy of note that a.yTjvaip is twice given to individuals; to Achilles (I 699) and to Laomedon (* 443), in both instances with touch of blame. Ebeling remarks on the peculiarity of the word : ' Homines hoc adjectivum praedicare Odysseae potissimum est proprium Iliadisque librorum, quorum sermo etiam caete- roquin propior est Odysseae.' The remark is justified at all events regarding Books I and K, in which ayljvwp so occurs. SYMMETRY IN ETHICAL PURPOSE. 337 the perjured city. Further, in the Achillean cantos that now follow these cantos B — H, there is no reference to the oaths and their violation by the Trojans, and although they are spoken of as haughty and insolent, it does not appear that the author of the Achilleid conceived the Trojans as truce- breakers and oath-violators. This silence is the more remark- able, inasmuch as the clearest subsequent opportunity for re- ferring to such deeds occurs in an Achillean canto (N 620), where Menelaus has occasion to describe the character of the Trojans, but seems to have forgotten what would have been the climax of their offending, the wounding he had himself received recently from the bow of a perjured truce- breaker. The faithless character of the Priamidiz generally, except Hector, is a feature common to V (106), and to 12 (260, cp. H 352), where Priam utters the malediction over them as being ' liars ' (yp-fvarai), a probable allusion to the violation of the oaths in A, and, if so, a link between these various Ulyssean cantos. There is, therefore, ample ground for the conclusion that it is by the cantos B — H, forming the largest integer of the Ulyssean cantos ■"', that the Iliad becomes moralised. In other words, a conformity is obtained between the Iliad which was originally without ethical purpose and the Odyssey, which is the poem par excellence ethical in its tone and purpose. The conclusion seems irresistible that under evidence, on so many lines, showing conformity to the Odyssey, disconformity to the Achilleid, the tract of cantos B — H has proceeded from the same author as the Odyssey, whose ethical character we next proceed to consider. "> In considering B — H as one integer in the formation of the Iliad, one can appeal to the Wolfian Diintzer regarding the tiact r— H. ' Buch r bis H mit ausschluss einzelner Interpolationen urspriinglich ein selbstandiges Gedicht bildet. Dagegen sieht Lachmann hier vier verschiedene Lieder' (Diintzer, Horn. Abh. p. 46). Elsewhere Diintzer appears to include B, for he speaks of ' miser grosses Gedicht von B— H' (p. 292). CHAPTER XXIV. CONCLUSION. ovTos iilv Sr) di9\os daaros licTtriKfcrTm, 197. That the Odyssey is preeminently ethical in its character is clear from the whole contour of its structure. It is richer than any other single poem the world has seen in tales and fantasies that have become the vehicle of allegory, and have furnished the staple texts of the moralist in all after time. The vast burden of Thought with which it comes laden to us is seen in the bare mention of such names as the ' song of the Sirens,' ' the cup of Circe,' ' the den of the Cyclop,' the 'Suitors' who aspire to the queen but grovel with the maids \ and, although it would be. a transcending of the evidence to affirm in the Poet himself a conscious purpose in ' It is unfortunate for the theory that moral instruction was intended primarily by these stories, that the hero is not represented as exercising the self-denial we should expect, for in the Siren song he is saved in his own despite, and in the Circe-scene, he owes his safety not to any self-command in the highest sense, but to a previous divine warning and to a special antidote not granted to the rest (cp. Grote, H. ii. 278). In these narrations, according to Lord Bacon (Adv. of Learning), the fable came first and the moral or exposition after, and, if this was so, the poet will get the credit simply of happy instinct in shaping and selection. Some modern critics will not allow him even this credit, but impute to him igno- rance of the original sense of the mythes he has preserved to us, especially of the Cyclop story, of which they say he had lost the key, which, however, they have discovered. Notwithstanding the impossibility of proving that the poet wished to represent Ulysses as in mir sense a moral hero, it remains true that he intended to represent him as a hero in that form of self-restraint, which consists in mastery of the feelings, and is best understood as ' pluck and patience ' combined. The value of this kind of discipline is taught expressly in the Odyssey in such passages as S 282-S; A. 105, V 307-10, T 42, 347, and is virtually taught in the changes rung upon the epithets appropriated to the hero, itoKvTXas, TaKaalfptav, rhrjixap, and in such expressions as d\\' enero^iirjae, (ppecrl 8' laxfTo (p 238). This mastery of his CONCLUSION. 329 composing the narrations, or any discernment of the rich mine of Instruction he was providing, it remains a matter of historic fact that the Odyssey was the poetic field that moralists in ancient times found most fruitful in ethical suggestions. Socrates in the Memorabilia (i. 3. 7, ii. 6. 11-31), Herakleides (Grote, H. i. p. 567), Horace (Epp. i. %. 26), and Cicero (de Fin. v. 18), draw from it as the main fountain- of illustration. It is not, however, to these elements in the Odyssey that we make appeal in claiming for it an ethical purpose. That purpose is discerned in the structure of the plot, in the sympathy of the narrator with the exhibition of a great Retribution, carried out upon a great and imposing scale with every 'moving' circumstance and after all hope of redress seemed gone. The care with which the position of the Suitors is marked out as a usurpation, the expedients by which they are exhibited as ' shameless ' (a 255, and more objectively spoken, v 29, 386), as rude and coarse (a 108), yet luxurious ((|) 151), reckless and unscrupulous (\// 65-7), not hesitating to plot murder against the son of her whom they are wooing, the device by which they receive, near the outset of the poem, the fullest warning, first informally (a 380), then form- ally and openly (/3 145), with all the publicity and solemnity of the Agora ^, and, above all, the frequency with which, in no uncertain flickering form, the poet's own feeling flashes forth like a subterranean flame against, the evil-doers, are features that at once compose and demonstrate the ethical purpose inseparable from any just theory of the Odyssey. There is, at the outset in a, the preparatory keynote in the Re- tribution described as befalling the evil-doer .^Egisthus, who is named as having been fully warned of his iniquity ; thereafter comes the actual warning given to the Suitors in /3, a canto which is essential to the moral economy of the poem ; there is further in y and 6 the anticipation of their fate in the feelings is seen especially in his interview with his mother's shade, and his reticence and self-control in the presence of his spouse, and during the whole period of the disguise as a beggar. Compare the previous section, § 78, n. on the rX'^ji.av Bv/xda of Ulysses. ^ Grote (H. ii. 92-3) points out the importance of this proceeding ethically, and consequently of the book containing it, to the framework of the Odyssey. 330 THE PROBLEM OF THE HOMERIC POEMS. mouth of Nestor and then of Menelaus, the vaticination of their doom in A from the Hps of Tiresias in the Under-world, the mantle of mystery thrown around the hero's Return by Athene, for the express purpose that he might exact sure vengeance (v 193), and, above all, there are the reiterated expressions of personal reprobation regarding them, such as T! 448, p ai5, V 394, ^ 418, objective condemnations, on the poet's part, approving of their fate — all these being only dreadful notes of preparation marking the nearer and nearer advance of the thunder-cloud of Doom. 198. It is this idea of justice and vindicated moral order that may be said to pervade the Odyssey and renders it unique among the poems of the ancient world. In this point of view there is ground for the affirmation that the poet of the Odyssey has struck a note in wonderful harmony with the Christian Ideal of the Kingdom of Righteousness and its Triumph of Justice and victory over Oppression ^. A very frequent, if not the most frequent, image of that kingdom in the New Testament, brings before us a king who had gone into a far country returning to claim his own, to reward the good and to recompense the evil among his subjects *. It is a kindred image that is mirrored in the Odyssey, and if it is true that the action of the poem thus moves in an orbit concentric with the movement and progression of the great drama of the world, this epic becomes invested with a dignity and grandeur to which there is no parallel in human literature. ' One of the deepest utterances of the Odyssey is the wail of one of the twelve women, kept grinding at the mill for the sake of the Suitors (u 105). It is the nearest approach to a ' Quousque Domine,' in ethnic thought, and goes far to show how deeply the Odyssey is pervaded by the idea of retribution, and by the fore- boding of a day of account, in which, very remarkably, kindness or benevolence is proclaimed the test (Od. p 362). — It may be proper to note that the special voca- bulary of relribution comes up in the Odyssey or Ulyssean area. Thus, while t'ivoi and Ti'iris with diroTiVoi are found diffused, the compounds oititos and iraXlvTiTOS belong only to the neozoic area. They occur four times in the Odyssey, and once in n 213 (with a var. led. &v titiSs). Compare the remarkable phrase in Od. t 92 equivalent to iraKhriTos. * The image is occasionally presented to us in words that recall in remarkable felicity the action of the Odyssey. Compare especially St. Matthew xxiv. 48 ad fin., words in which we seem to hear the argument of the Odyssey. CONCLUSION. 331 199. It was under a perception both fine and true of the ethical burden of the Odyssey that Alcidamas the rheto- rician (420 B.C.) bestowed upon it the famous appellation of the 'Mirror of human life,' an expression which Aris- totle (Rhet. iii. 4) strangely censured, not for the idea, but seemingly for some fault in the image by which it was conveyed. The voyage of Ulysses through snares and dangers, betwixt fears and pleasures, among Cyclopes and Sirens, through enchanted realms of Circe and Calypso, commended itself theUj as it commends itself still, as an apt image of the voyage of human life ^. And, if it shadowed forth the life of the individualj it could also symbolise the life of a Nation in its grandest moments. It was with the finest instinct that Polygnotus, in decorating the temple of Athene at Plataese, chose for the subject of his fresco the slaughter of the Suitors from the Odyssey. The victory at Plataese over Persia ap- peared to the Greeks a re-enacting of the drama of the Odyssey, the little nation^ contending against the giant em- pire, just as the hero of the Odyssey contended with and foiled, almost alone, the huge gang of the Suitors. aoo. If the ethical content of the Odyssey is so weighty and the scope of it- thus broad and grand in full equality with its admitted perfection of structure and artistic harmony, what shall we say of the judgment of those who regard it as the inferior poem, or of the criticism of the Chorizontes who, ' So^Dionys. Hal., de Rhetorica, p. 398, Reiske, Siamep kv fffdrptti, tS /3ia) Sid Tov 0il3\iov TTopivar}. ° One of the explanations of the name 'OSutrtrf iJs, Lat. Ulixes, connects it with oKiyos, a kind of suggestion that he was in person the liltle man, as he was king of a lillle island. As to the smallness of the island, there can be no doubt; 'a sergeant and seven men,' according to Lord Byron, took over the kingdom of Ithaca when it came under British sway. Whether we are to conceive the hero as correspondingly diminutive may be doubtful, though Tydeus (E 801) will in that case, Uke many great men who have been ' in person contemptible,' keep him in countenance. ' Er ist von mittelmassigen Wuchse, aber kraftig und gedrungen ' (Buchholz, i. 2. 68). In Italic legends he was known as Nanus, or the dwarf, i. e. the dwarf that overthrew the giant, and even in the Homeric poems he is spoken of as none of the tallest (r 211), though of reverend look (r 212), and the Cyclop seems disappointed with the size and aspect of his enemy (i 513). Through hardships he is spoken of as having a woebegone look (9 182), and the first im- pression regarding him was unfavourable, but the second that he. was ' like the gods ' (f 242). 332 THE PROBLEM OF THE HOMERIC POEMS. by denying it to Homer, in effect degrade this masterpiece to the rank of an unacknowledged Cyclic poem ? The position of the latter is scientifically untenable, that of the former is aesthetically unsound, proceeding, as it does, on an over- estimate of turmoil and storm as an indication of strength, in forgetfulness of the profound truth embodied in the maxim, — ' The Gods desire the depth and not the tumult of the Soul.' Just as there are many that prefer the shaggy Esau, the unchanged and unchangeable son of the desert, to the smooth and cautious Jacob, who surrounds himself with "flocks and comfortable tents, (much as Lord Byron was drawn to celebrate Saul instead of David among the Jewish kings,) so there are not a few who will with Hippias the Sophist (Plato, Hipp. Min. 363 B.) exalt the short-lived hurricane- like hero of the 'unapproachable hands' above the longer- living calmer-natured hero of the sagacious mind and the inexhaustible counsel. Yet those who so judge must admit that the future of the Greek people, as of the Hebrew race, lay entirely with the heroes whom they would depreciate and disown. The expansive force of the Greek intellect is represented potentially not by Achilles, but by Ulysses of ' the manifold counsel.' It is true there is less of the ' Sturm und Drang ' of impetuous passion, more of the calm strength that controls passion, in the Odyssey than in the Iliad. There is, however, not less of real animation in the scenes and incidents, and it may be doubted whether the grandest things in Homer are not such gems in the Odyssey as the apparition of the ghosts of Achilles and Ajax, with the subhme silence of the latter and the august impetuousness of the former, or the weird pro- phecy of the seer Theoclymenus on the eve of the slaughter, or the scene, magnificent in its moral grandeur '', where Ulysses is described as standing indignant yet patient amid the disorders and indignities of his hearth and home. But the crowning proof that the Odyssey was not inferior in the qualities that give spirit and animation is the fact that when Plato is in search of an example of a spirit-stirring ' Already remarked upon in § 131. CONCLUSION. 333 scene and examines the repertoire^ of the Rhapsode for the most 'tingling' piece at his command, he lights first upon a scene in the Odyssey— that, namely, where Ulysses rises up bow in hand, and springs upon the threshold, no longer the suppliant Beggar but the Avenger. 20 1. The considerations above advanced are entirely in harmony with the actual influence on literature which the Odyssey can be shown to have exerted. That iniluence has been immense in extent and unequalled in kind, not for splendour and richness only, but still more for subtlety, and the fruitfulness which flowed from it in the past seems still unexhausted. Tennyson, if we may judge from his ' Lotus-eaters ' and his ' Ulysses,' has found it, among the old classic fields, a favourite hunting-ground of his Muse, and to Gothe the inspiration from the Odyssey during his tour in Sicily, where the vision of Phjeacia seemed to him to be realised, resulted in one of the most classic of his poems, the domestic epic of ' Hermann and Dorothea.' Our own Milton owes much to both the Iliad and the Odyssey in his Paradise Lost ; but it is doubtful whether he does not owe more largely to the Odyssey that poem which is at once the most finished and the subtlest work of his genius, the Mask of Comus. In the splendid succession of its progeny, the greatest has yet to be named. The first six Books of the ^neid are the glory of the Roman Epic muse. They are, properly and strictly, in subject and setting, the counterpart not of the Iliad but of the Odyssey. To one of its cantos, the eleventh, we owe, in par- ticular, the sixth ./Eneid, and to the sixth ^Eneid the world owes the first poem of modern literature, first in time and, in the opinion of many, first in power, the Divine Comedy of Dante. The eleventh Odyssey can thus lay claim to the most illustrious line of progeny, in the literature of the world. ' Compare the instructive passage in Plato's Ion, ch. 6. Lander's judgment (vol. ii. 639) regarding the two ' scenes supreme ' in Homer is worth noting. Both of these scenes are outside the Achilleid, viz. in n and Od. A. ' Twice is almighty Homer far above Troy and her towers, Olympus and his Jove. First, when the God-led Priam bends before Him, sprung from Thetis, dark with Hector's gore : A second time, when both alike have bled. And Agamemnon speaks among the dead.' 334 THE PROBLEM OF THE HOMERIC POEMS. How it has influenced the romantic literature of all lands, from the Arabian Nights to the Faery Queen of Spenser, belongs more to the archaeology of Thought than to the domain of criticism^ and therefore lies beyond the limits of our survey. Enough has been said to vindicate the claim of the Odyssey to occupy a place equal to the highest, and to be associated, under a clearer title than any other single poem can show, with the great name and personality of Homer. APPENDIX. NOTE A. On the Antiquity of the Iliad and Odyssey. The position assumed and the arguments advanced by Mr. Paley have been partly touched upon in the 20th section. The full con- sideration of them would require a special work to itself, and the following remarks are therefore given only provisionally, as reasons of dissent. They are sufficient, however, to ' sist procedure ' in that direction and to lead up to a verdict of ' not proven ' in the case as raised and pleaded by Mr. Paley'. 1. His hypothesis ignores the fact that the Homeric poems had been commented on in written lucubrations before the date when according to Mr. Paley they assumed their present shape. Theagenes of Rhegium, who is contemporary with Cambyses (about 500 e.g.), writes observations on Homer, which are quoted or referred to by the critics of the Alexandrian age and bear upon passages in our Homer. Now it is impossible to suppose a Homer unwritten and nebulous and at the same time written commentaries upon this nebulous Homer coexisting. A written commentary on a work itself unwritten is surely, as Col. Mure remarks, a thing unheard of (i. p. 207). As soon, however, as commentaries are possible, interpolation and designed alteration become impossible, and it is a maxim in Sanskritology that no unprinted literary production is safe from minor alteration until it has been commented on (Colebrooke, i. p. 98). 2. The hypothesis in question is untenable if we look to the manner in which Pericles speaks of Homer in his great speech in Thucydides (ii. 41), about the very time when, according to Mr. Paley, the poems are being put into the shape in which we now have them. In his eulogy of Athens, the statesman professes to dispense with any reflected ' Some excellent remarks, by Mr. D. B. Monro on Mr. Paley's theory will be found in the 'Academy' (May i, 1873). 33^ -APPENDIX. glories to the Athenian people from the poetry of Homer, but he does so in a style of regret under a kind of sour grape feeling, showing conclusively that the poems were no longer growing, but had long been a rounded orb of song which no hand could reach to tamper with or in a serious way to modify. The Athenians of the historic time felt sore at the poor figure which they made as a warrior people in the Homeric poems, and there is evidence to show that the associates of Pisistratus, and even Solon himself, were accused of attempting in a much earlier age than the Periclean to remedy the deficiency. This they were said to have done by inserting in one or two passages a line or two suggestive of Athenian associations. But they were not ac- cused of doing more thaninserting the smallest chips (cp. § 176, 177), and they seem to have shrunk from using largely that liberty, a proof that the function performed by Pisistratus was only ministerial, not the magisterial and architectonic one which the Wolfian theory ascribes to him. Had their service to Homer been of that high constructive or even regulative character, the chirp of the Athenian grasshopper in aftertime over the performance would have been incessant, and the world would never have heard the end of it. 3. The evidence of Herodotus is intelligible only on the supposition that the poems of the Iliad and Odyssey were already traditionally a corpus of known consistency. His attempt to fix the distance between himself and their author as an interval of just four centuries is unintel- ligible unless the poems were already well-recognised and firm deposits among the boulders of a by-gone age. Further, his silence as to the most wonderful achievement ascribed by Wolf to Pisistratus, when he framed the Epics of Homer, becomes an unaccountable omission in his history, seeing that it was devoted to the recording of the tp-^a fieydXa Koi davfiaa-To. of the Greeks and Barbarians, an omission fatal to the Wolfian theory and a fortiori to the Paleyan form of it. 4. The existence of a Teacher or Schoolmaster class, with Homer presumably as Textbook, can be recognised previous to the Periclean or even the Solonian age. Without relying on the story told of Alcibiades, that he once chastised a Schoolmaster because he had not in his pos- session a complete copy of the Iliad, it is clear that the tradition as to Tyrtasus presupposes instruction, not perhaps in a school but in the houses of the great (like Ennius in the early Roman time in the family of the Scipios), and that, too, instruction in the text of Homer; for, as early as Xenophanes, who flourished about 538 e.g., in what seems a genuine fragment, we find Homer virtually a school-book : ef opx'js KO^' "Ofj.r]poi> fTtii ixeiJ.a6riKa(n irdvTfs. (cp. Welcker, Ep. Ky. i. p. 172.) ON THE arijiaTa Xvypd. 337 5. If the poems had been, in the period of Pericles, still under pro- cess of evolution, such as Mr. Paley's view supposes possible, it is difBcult or rather impossible to understand how the representative of Homeric song in the Periclean time had so litde honour accorded to him ^ The Rhapsode had, by that time, sunk into a kind of contempt as an effete relic of by-gone time (cp. Xen. Mem. iv. 2. 10, and the banter of Plato's Ion), a treatment from which he ought to have been secure, if a certain halo of creative genius or at least extensive discre- tionary powers in shaping and reconstructing still belonged, or had lately appertained to him. Among other things we may remark that a Homer ' concocted ' at Athens in the Periclean age would have had a stronger flavour of the democratic element, and, in particular, there would have been a toning down, if not an expurgation, of the Thersites-scene. This was a portion of Homer that rather gravelled the democrats of that age, and, much in the same way as the Coriolanus of Shakspere is not particularly acceptable in America, quotations from or allusions to that scene were scarcely popular at Athens in the historic time (Xen. Mem. i. 2. 58-9). NOTE B. On the arrjiiaTa Xvypd. The 'baleful signs' in a 'folded tablet' occur in z 168. They are a means of communication between persons at a distance. What are we to understand by those signs ? The Wolfians deny that they imply a knowledge of the art of writing. The anti- Wolfians affirm they do. The following are the chief facts of the case. On the one hand, apart from the passage in dispute, there is the silence elsewhere of both Iliad and Odyssey as to the art of writing. There is the silence also of Hesiod, but, since the Boeotian poet represents a more primitive though not necessarily a more ancient condition of things than the author of the Odyssey reveals, who knows of advanced appliances unknown to the Bceotian farmer, such as the manuring (Od. p 299) of fields and the use of the mill for grinding corn instead of the old mortar and pestle, this silence of ' Regarding the arguments from the subjects on ' painted Greek vases,' it is im- portant to note that high authorities, who are specialists in the Archeology of Art, dispute the interpretations. According to A. S. Murray in Cont. Rev., 1874, p. 219, ' The evidence brought forward by Mr. Paley .... fails under examination.' Z 338 APPENDIX. Hesiod, in his narrow and circumscribed sphere, is less significant and important than the reticence, if such it be, of the singer or singers of the Iliad and Odyssey. What renders the reticence more remarkable is the fact that there is no allusion to writing or any cognate kind of memorial in the circumstances that seem most to call for it, such as in the erection of pillars or monuments to mark the resting-places of the dead. These are spoken of as raised to be an undying glory to cer- tain men (H 89-91), but there seems no security taken in connection with the monument itself as to the fidelity of the transmission. Another negative argument of importance is the fact that the word for writing has as yet no proper'or clear existence. The term which in the literary period of the Greek tongue denoted the art of writing, viz. 7pa(^o>, is familiar enough in the Homeric time, but it belongs not to the Muse but to Mars, and signifies, in the peaceful Odyssey (x 280), just as much as in the warlike Iliad, to scratch or graze. Compare the remarks in § 117, 5. This is one of Wolf's strongholds, from which, in fact, he has never been dislodged. It was from this, as a sallying-point, that he directed his assaults against the fabric of the poems, which, therefore, he concluded must have been not only . preserved for a long period without the aid of writing, but must have been also — a more formidable diflSculty — memorially composed. Very ingenious and interesting is the attempt of Bergk (Lit. Gesch., p. 202) to carry up the knowledge of writing to a high antiquity by an argument founded on the use of xp°<» in oracular responses. This use he connects with xpo-'"'^^^<^ratch and xap«o'o'<«, and he argues that the art of writing in some rude form must have existed before Xpaa could have signified to ' give an oracle.' It is so used in Od. 679. It is doubtful, however, whether the argument is a just one, since the impersonal xph already exists in the oldest parts of the poems, and this, on Bergk's theory of the connection, would require long familiarity with the art, and we should certainly expect to find in that case clearer traces of its existence. Moreover, if xP"'^ is connected with xP'^^'^t it is not easy to see how the God is said xpSv, when he is not the tran- scriber. Bergk's argument would require a reversal of the relation which subsists between the active xpa^ which is applied to the God and the middle xP"°P'"' which is applied to the consulter or, on his theory, the transcriber. To attempt to turn Wolf's position by the introduction of ex post facto interpretations, such as the ascription of the art of writing to the heroic ages by the Attic Tragedians, is both futile and illegitimate, and the same fate must befall any arguments from apparently ancient cyclic stories, such as that concerning Palamedes, that he communicated to ON THE arjixara Xvypd. 339 his friends the story of his death by scrakhings on oars which were tossed overboard to drift ashore (Arist. Thesmoph., 770).' The Wolfians may justly reject all such ex pod facto inferences and may claim to have the question decided on the ground of their own choosing— the Homeric poems alone— and therefore the view limits itself to the passage about the ' baleful signs.' The 'signs' are represented as having been 'scratched on a folded tablet' and are then given to a bearer, in whose case they are to be an instrument of intended death. They are carried from a country on one side of the Egean to a country on the other; and after being exhibited in the new country, they produce this effect that, though at first the bearer was welcomed and feasted, imme- diately on their presentation he is put in the way of ' being killed.' These 'signs'' were therefore intended to be a message or sentence of death ; and the conclusion seems irresistible that here we have a communication made between two parties at a distance by means tantamount to, or identical with, the art of writing. The more candid Wolfians give up the point and say the Episode of Glaucus and Diomed, where the passage is found, is an interpolation of a later date. On Wolfian principles, it is diflBcult to understand what is an ' interpolation,' if the whole is a mere congeries ; but it is unfortunate that this so-called interpolation should be, in execution and tone, one of the most finished portions of the poem. Those Wolfians, how- ever, who perceive that among documents of presumably equal anti- quity, they are not entitled on their own principles to presume upon interpolations, boldly face the question and pronounce the signs to be some kind of picture-writing, like the ancient Mexican, or some conventional sign, fixed upon between friends by which, as by a species of freemasonry (cp. Schol. on Eur. Med. 613 on partition of daTpdyaXoi. in separations), a friend could be introduced and treated accordingly. Neither of these suggested analogies will suit the exi- gencies of the case. What is wanted is a species of freemason sign that will indicate, not a friend, but a foe, or rather that will suddenly convert into a foe one received at first as a friend. There is not only information to be conveyed, which is all that either of the above suggested explanations will cover; there is also a message to do this or that, which neither the picture-writing nor the freemason or other conventional sign seems capable of conveying. The whole description of the affair is mysterious, precisely as we > The so-called 'letter' of David to Joab sent by Uriah the Hittite is in some respects an exact parallel. 340 APPENDIX. might expect the first mention of writing to appear to an unlettered people, and there may be some truth in Dr. Hayman's suggestion that the tablet with its ' signs ' was supposed to work on the mind of its receiver by some magic power and to possess some taKsmanic influence akin to poison^. It is certainly strange that the 'signs' are not exhibited on arrival, for they are not delivered till asked for, and so they seem to be ' credentials ' rather than a ' letter ' in our sense. Yet the question recurs. Why is the tablet said to have been folded^. Is not the reasonable explanation simply this, that it was folded to prevent the bearer from looking into it and getting a notion of its hostile contents, that is, reading it ' .? In these circumstances the evidence seems clear that it was a message conveyed by writing, whether in the early and rudimentary stage of hieroglyphics, after the manner of Egypt, or in the more advanced form of alphabetical writing, after the fashion of Phcenicia. On the whole, therefore, the natural, and, until the time of Wood and Wolf, universal, interpretation of the ' signs ' as signifying writing is the most suitable one, and it is remarkable that the passage occurs in a portion of the Iliad where frequent mention is made of that Phoenician race from whom the art of writing is known to have come into the Hellenic world. Book z, where it occurs, contains a reference to the cunning works of the Sidonians (1. 290), and cannot be sepa- rated in authorship from books A and E, in both of which we hear of the Cadmeans * who represent a Phoenician element in Greece. The view which we have taken, becomes irresistible when we take into account the juxtaposition at a very early time of the Phoeni- cian and Egyptian peoples alongside of the Greek race, according to the evidence of both poems. It is easy and even necessary to concede to the Wolfians that it was long before the art of writing became familiar — compare the timid way, for instance, in which a single initial letter (a Koppa on early Corinthian coins or * on Phocaeans) .was edged in upon the Greek coinage — and, that it was an art practically unknown, for ordinary literary purposes, during a ' eviio:p06poi Doederlein (in loco) would interpret into 'mind-corrupting' or 'poisoning,' that is, the mind of the receiver. ' Cp. AvaiTTiuaaav of Croesus, when he opens the secret missives (Hdt. i. 48) ; also Avaax^^fiv of Cyrus, when he opens the strange packet of Harpagus (Hdt. i. 143-4). ' Mr. Gladstone (Juventus Mundi, p. 130) suggests that the art of writing may have been an occult possession of a few Phoenician families settled in Greece. The affinities of Proetus, who sends the mysterious ' tablet ' to Lycia, seem accordingly to be Eastern. He has married a princess from Lycia, and, according to the post- Homeric genealogies, is himself connected with Egypt by his descent from Danaus, who is brother of .^gyptus. DETAILS AS TO miros AND ITS DERIVATIVES, ETC. 341 considerable period after the Homeric poems had been composed. It is, however, hardly possible to admit that, in the extensive inter- course carried on with Phoenicia and Egypt, the inquisitive and pene- trating Greeks should have caught no glimpse of the alphabetic writing of the one nation or the hieroglyphics of the other. The mariners who brought from Egypt the drug of 'Nepenthe' (8 220), who handled ropes made of the papyrus ( 391), and who were able to report of the river of Egypt and its ' very fair fields,' must have obtained some notion of the art of writing in viewing the monu- ments on its banks, and may have described the same with a vague sense of wonder, much as the descendant of Hiawatha would de- scribe the doings of the electric wire °- The evidence is not suflScient to justify the conclusion that Homer himself used the art of writing, but it is sufficient to enable us to afiirm that it was becoming familiar in his time, and that the poems, though probably memorially composed, were soon committed to writing and were not long subjected to the accidents of memorial transmission". The famous inscription in Greek characters on the statue at Abou- simbel in Upper Egypt (Psampolis in Nubia) by the Greek soldiers, mercenaries under Psammetichus, which has been compared to our modern inscriptions by wandering tourists on the rocks of the Brocken or the Rigi, shows that as early as 590 b.c. (Ludwig Ross says, as early as the first Psammetichus, and if so about the middle of the seventh century b.c), the art of writing was familiar to the Greek people even in its least cultured sections (cp. Ludwig Ross as quoted in Volkmann, p. 220). The only other observation I shall add is that the two passages in which ypaipa receives the sense of ' afiixing a mark ' for recognition and so approximates to its historic sense are contained in the neozoic books of the Iliad (z 169, H 187, and cp. § 117 6). NOTE C. Details as to Itttvos and its Derivatives, etc (cp. p. 209). The following are the chief details as to the proper names com- pounded with or based upon timos, as a prefix : — 5 O. Miiller (Dor., i. p. 148) remarks on the early imperfection of writing in Greece at a time when other Arts were already in even brilliant form. « Colonel Mure (Hist, of Gr. L., i. p. 512) goes beyond the probabiUties of the case when he attributes to Homer not only a knowledge and use of writing, but acquaintance with the Phoenician, that is, the Hebrew tongue I 342 APPENDIX. Solely Achillean. Common to Ach. and VI. Solely Ulyssean, Solely in Odyssey. Hippasus Hippodameia i Hippocoon i Hippotades Hippodamus Hippothous Hippodamas 3 Hippolochus Hippomachus Hipponous 6 Hippotion The instances of mitos forming the second member of a compound in a proper name are not so many as those when it is a prefix. Melanippus is the most common, and there are four persons of that name, mentioned seven times in all. The four are all in the Achilleid. Euippus is another, making five persons in the Achilleid so designated. There does not appear to be more than one in each of the other sections, viz. Pheidippus in the Ulyssean area, and Ctesippus in the Odyssey. As to common words compounded with tn-iror in the second member, the only example seems to be no'KinrjTos. It is Achillean (N 171). Regarding common words in which Imros is the prefix, we may begin with iTTTToavvrj. In the Achilleid it is ascribed to individual Trojans, viz. Hector, Euphorbus, Kebriones, and occurs thrice. In the Ulyssean cantos it occurs thrice also, being given to Eumelus, Antilochus, and to Nestor's troops, to each once. The associations of these last names with the Horse are deeply rooted in tradition (cp. § 124, n. 13), and therefore the equality is easily explicable. The distribution of 'nriroSafios is as follows : — Ach. Ul. 1. As national Epithet of Trojans and Phrygians. . . 11 13 2. As Epithet of Individual Heroes 8 14. The apparent preponderance in the Ulyssean cantos requires further investigation. 'iTnrdSa^os of Individual Heroes, I. Trojan Heroes. Ach. Ul. Antenor i i Hector 32 Hippasus ...... 1 o Hyperenor 10 6 3- II. Greek Heroes. (a) Present at Troy. Ach. Ul. Diomed 16 Thrasymedes 10 2 6. ON THE HORSE AND THE DOG IN LITERATURE. Atreus 343 (fi) Not present at Troy. Ach. Ul. o 2 Tydeus ... ..02 Castor ••....01 05- It is important to note that the traditional use, as seen in this last hst {&), is in the Ulyssean and not in the Achillean area. This circumstance, taken in connection with the frequency of the applica- tion of the term to Diomed, accounts for the apparent preponderance in the Ulyssean area. The Odyssey may be said to know only the traditional use, once of the dead Castor, once of the absent Diomed, and once of the almost vanished Nestor, who, as a Poseidon- worshipper, is entitled to the name iirn-o'Sajtioj : iirnoTr]! and ImrriXdTrjs are diffused similarly to i7r7rdSa/ios under a preponderance of merely traditional associations. The ordinary compounds of ittttos are mostly the following : — Ach. UI. Od. InnoxeKevBe (of Patroclus only) .300 ttrnoSaffcia ..... 4 3 3 tiTirovpis ..... 421 Inirotcofjios .....500 tniroKopvffTai .....230 tmrioxairrjs, l-niTLOxdpfiijs . .020 18 10 3. The epithets of Iwttos itself seem to be peculiarly distributed. A good many, it is true, are diffused and belong to both areas, but it is singular that special ones emerge in each area and do not appear in the other. Thus while TroSmKcc?, axcees, and some others are common to both, the following are peculiar to the one area or to the other : — Achillean only. Ulyssean only, epvffdpfjares 2 occurrences de/xriiroSes 2 occurrences XO^KiSifoSc 2 „ vi/iTjx^^^ 2 „ uiKVTTfTa 2 „ tirpix^s 3 ,, fvaicapBiioi I occurrence Kvavoxairqs I „ NOTE D. On the Horse and the Dog in Literature. The following are a few gleanings in a rapid and by no means exhaustive survey. The Horse in the Old Testament is generally regarded with dis- favour as the great war-animal associated with and therefore suggestive 344 APPENDIX. of Pride and Oppression. Egypt with her war-chariots had produced the mal-impression with which the mention of the horse is regarded, and it is remarkable that the oldest stage of Hebrew oriental life seems not to acknowledge it (Gen. xii. i6), and, in the Decalogue, it is the ox and the ass that are taken as the types of property, while there is no mention of the horse. The glory of his haughty motions is magnificently rendered in the picture in the book of Job, but that is the creature of the Arabian ^ desert rather than of the land of Judah. Deuteronomy xvii. i6 may be said to express the normal feeling of the Old Testament as to the Horse, and this feeling is not materially departed from in the New Testament. As to the Dog in the Old Testament, he is either wild and without masters, or is employed as the friend and helper of man, for his useful quahties to defend and to watch. In this respect he can occasionally, in poetry at least, sustain a comparison with man in usefulness and energy (Job xxx. i). In general, however, the associations are sinister ; his name is the symbol of Impudence and of Voracity — ' Is thy servant a Dog ? ' and so forth, and these sinister associations were so deep that they passed into the currency of religious symbolism, so that the Dog became branded as a creature mysteriously unclean. In the period after the Old Testament canon is closed, we find the Dog in closer and more loving relation to man, as in Tobit^ (vi. i, xi. 9) of the Apocrypha. In the New Testament the Dog is still under the disfavour arising from mal-associationSj and he remains the symbol of heathen impurity. He suffers also from the general neglect and aversion which follow the creature in most countries of the East. Apart, however, from these ' shades ' of evil days, a new light breaks out in the New Testament. The milder spirit which it enshrines shows itself in their admission to companionship at table, ' to eat of the crumbs,' and in what appears to be the recognition of their kindliness, when, in the absence of all human friends, in the case of the most miserable of men, ' the dogs came and licked his sores.' In other Oriental literature, such as that of the Hindoos, the Horse is acknowledged with high honour, and is not ecUpsed by ' Among the most curious compositions in literature must have been the Arabian tributes to the Horse, ' when Ben-zaid of Cordova and Abul-Monder of Valencia wrote a serious history of celebrated horses, as did Alasueco, of camels which had risen to distinction ' (Sismondi, Lit. of S. of Eur. i. p. 66, E. Tr.) " Possibly this was an influence from the Medes and Persians, the story of Tobit being laid in Media. The prejudice regarding the Dog does not appear to have prevailed in the Zoroastrian region, for the Dog is in the Zendavesta the special animal of Ormuzd, and is still regarded with peculiar reverence by the Parsees (Rawlinson's Herodotus, i. ch. 141). ON THE HORSE AND THE DOG IN LITERATURE. 345 the Elephant in the affections of the early Aryan race. This fact has been already alluded to in § 122, n. i. Compare the story in Herodotus as to the neighing of the horse of Darius Hystaspes as the omen of Empire, and, also on Persian soil, the story of Rustum and his horse Ruksh (§ 122, n. 5). The Dog is also acknowledged, as adverted to in § 132, n. 21, where the canonized animals of the Mahommedan faith are briefly enumerated. It is worth noting also, from a more ancient period, that the 'dog and man' are coupled together as exempt from the sacrificial knife of a Magian priest (Hdt. i. 140). In ancient Egypt, as we might infer from the Old Testament, the Horse was in high esteem. In one of the Ancient Texts, ' Records of the Past' (vol. ii. p. 91), we have a parallel in one feature to the Argus story ; only it is of the Horse, not of the Dog. ' The king went forth to visit the stud of brood-mares and the stables of the young steeds : he saw that they had famished them. Then said he. By my life, so may Ra [the sun-god] love me, I loathe the youth, wretched creatures are they to my heart, who have starved my steeds : (this is) more than any abomination thou (Nimrod) hast done to- gether.' The ' Latrator Anubis ' is the most prominent honour to the Dog in ancient Egyptian mythology. The Dog occurs with Hermes on the coins of Alexandria (Eckhel, Doct. Num. iv. p. 68). In medieval legends of the Saints we have the dogs of St. Hubert ■ and the dog of St. Roch. In Gaelic, Norse, and medieval heroic legends, we meet with Bran the dog of Fingal, Sam the dog of Gunnar in Burnt Njal, a grand creature, and Hodain the hound of Sir Tristrem. In Welsh legends we find the touching story of the dog Gellert, which may be a western version of an eastern tale, but is certainly evidence of a love for the Dog among the Cymric race. According to the Welsh Triads, the three signs of a gentleman are the Horse, the Hawk, and the Hound. Dante, in his allegory of the three vices of Youth, Mid Age, and Old Age, gives the place of honour over Panther, Lion, and She-wolf, to the ^r^-hound, that is, to the years that bring grey hairs and ' the philosophic mind ' (Inferno, c. i). In the literature of England, as distinct from that of Scotland, a larger space and a higher place are accorded to the Horse than to the Dog. The English are among all modern races the fondest of horses, and it is natural that we should find great prominence given to the ' bellator equus ' in their literature. 346 APPENDIX. Thomas Fuller, in his ' Holy and Profane State,' thus remarks on Horses as characteristic of the gentleman : — ' He delights to see himself and his servants well-mounted ; there- fore he loveth good horsemanship. ... It were no harm if in some needless suits of intricate precedency betwixt equal gentlemen, the priority were adjudged to him who keeps a stable of most serviceable horses' (Fuller, H. and P. State, ch. 40). (The Dog, apparently, does not enter into his calculations among the evidences of gentility.) Shakspere, on the whole, in conformity with his generally 'lordly' associations, stands very much in the position already indicated by the words of Fuller ^ Saving the dog Crab and the dogs of Theseus, which are ' marvels,' he has hardly any ' canine portraits,' and Crab is not in connection with a genlleman, but with a lackey. In his Sonnets (No. 91) he acknowledges the delight in dogs where he speaks of the various passions in which men glory, and among others, ' Some in their hawlcs and hounds, some in their horse.' A little after, the hounds are dropped out, when he describes a joy ' Of more delight than hawks or horses be.' In his ' Venus and Adonis,' although the Dog comes in for a minor share of the honours, the strength of his painting is given to the Horse, a glorification unequalled since the Achilleid, unless Browning's ' Ride to Aix ' in its pre-Raphaelite minuteness dispute the palm. Among the Dii Minorum Gentium the Dog has fared better. We may instance, besides Cowper's 'Beau' and Mrs. Browning's 'Flush:'— Chaucer's Prioresse with her ' smale houndes.' Spenser's ' Lowder ' in ' Shepherd's Calendar ' (September). Marston's picture of the Spaniel yclept ' Delight.' Herrick, in his verses to his Spaniel 'Tracy' (ii. pp. 107, 127). Pope, in his letter to H. Cromwell. Somerville, in the ' Chase.' Southey's ' Theron ' in ' Roderick.' Wordsworth's (i) Terrier, the great 'Nameless,' Prelude, p. 89. (2) Dog watching his dead master on Helvellyn. Byron, Inscription on ' Boatswain.' Longfellow, the Dog in Evangeline. ' The 'lordly' associations and predilections of Shakspere render him no favourite with certain modem Republicans. In America he is, among certain sections, less the poet of the people than Robert Burns. Compare, as formerly alluded to (p. 337), the position of Homer in the eyes of the most thorough-going democrats of Athens in the ancient days (Xen. Memor. i. 2. 58). THE STORY OF ARGUS. 347 It is, however, in the Scottish branch of English Literature that the fullest expression has been given to the ' Delight in the Dog ' as the companion of man. Sir David Lindsay long ago nobly led the way. Then comes Burns, with whom the horse is rather the sorry over-wrought slave of the husbandman than the fleet-footed com- panion of the chase, whereas his dogs are genuine jubilant rejoicing creatures. The Ettrick Shepherd follows at a respectful distance, with his ' Address to the shepherd-dog Hector,' and the living author of the delightful tale of ' Rab ' has added another perennial honour to the literature in praise of the Dog. Above all names, in this respect, since the time of Homer, stands a fifth Scottish name, that of Walter Scott. Homeric to the core he is in this, that, while honouring ' Gustavus ' and his race, he has bestowed the might of his affection on the humbler companions of the hearth, on such as ' Bevis ' and ' Maida,' ' Pepper and Mustard,' and ' Elfin ' in ' Old Mortality,' the nearest approach to the ancient Argus. NOTE E. The Story of Argus. Odyssey XVII (p 290-327). Ulysses disguised as the Beggar and EumcEUs approach the palace in company. The Swineherd does not as yet recognise his master. 'TwAS thus they talked and as they walked, ere long the hall appears. Meantime a Dog that lay apart pricked up alert his ears. Old Argus crouching in his lair, once prized o'er all his peers, A hound the King himself of yore right tenderly had bred, But never to the chase had seen the goodly creature led, For ere the Dog was fully grown, the chief had gone to Troy. Long time the youths had fetched him to the huntsman's wild employ To chase the mountain goats, to hunt the harts, and hinds, and hares ; But now he lies neglected and for him no creature cares. There's little luck about the house, when the true goodman 's away. So on the dunghill near the doors the pining Argus lay, Where cows and mules made litter and the dung was trodden down, TiU Ulysses' hinds should spread it o'er the acres of the town. There lay the dog, old Argus, to swarms of tiques a prey. But when his Master neared the place where the noble creature lay. 348 APPENDIX. At once he knew and wagged his tail, then flapped down both his ears, But no step nearer to his lord, although his voice he hears. Could Argus move. Ulysses saw and deftly turned aside To brush the rising tear away, from the Swineherd's eye to hide ; Then turned and asked with eager look, ' My good friend, that's most strange ! A hound upon the dunghill, such as o'er the mountains range 1 Fine dog he seems in lith and limb, and I should like to know. If fleet and fell he used to run, as his form would seem to show. Or was he like the worthless breed that proud men like to feed. About their tables, more, I ween, for ornament than speed ?' To this then, good Eumsus, thou good answer mad'st indeed: ' I tell thee, Friend, that gallant dog of the man we see no more. Were he in hmb and doughty deeds what once he was of yore. In days before Ulysses took his journey from our shore. To see at once his speed and strength would fill thine eyes with glee, For never in the forest depths was Argus known to flee, No, not from aught with hairy skin, whate'er the beast might be : Once on their track to hunt them out, most deadly scent had he. But now he's fallen on evil days, for his master's dead and gone. And now the careless female slaves neglect him sad and lone. For servants, when their rightful lord no longer bears the sway, Soon learn to take things easy and make all a holiday, And when the great wide-thundering Jove brings under slavery's ban, O then, I trow, he takes away full half his worth from man.' He spake and slowly paced along to reach the echoing hall. Right through the court he strode 'mong the suitors proud and tall. Old Argus then did droop his head beneath Fate's mighty Doom At a glimpse of his old master after twenty years of gloom. NOTE F. On the Elements of an Achilleid surviving in Thessaly and Albania. In the annotation on p. 266 I have hazarded the assertion that the elements of an Achilleid exist to this day in the region of Thessaly and Albania, probably in larger measure than any other part of Europe could now exemplify. Tenacity of adherence to ancient manners and customs has always been a feature of character among mountain peoples, but it may be doubted whether anywhere in Europe there is THE ELEMENTS OF AN ACHILLEID, ETC. 349 a larger body of 'survivals' continued down from the prehistoric into comparatively recent days, equal to what the above-named region can supply. I. The character of Achilles, as portrayed in the Achilleid, seems in its main features indigenous to the mountain ranges of Northern Greece. Among these features may be specially named (i) a capa- city for Friendship strong and intense, and (2) an equal capacity for inextinguishable Revenge. Among the Morlachs (lUyrian Scla- vonians) the Abb6 Fortis (Travels in Dalmatia, pp. 55-8, quoted by Grote, H. ii. p. 11 8-9) describes the state of manners as follows : — 'Friendship is lasting among the Morlacchi. They have even made it a kind of religious point, and tie the sacred bond at the foot of the altar. The Sclavonic ritual contains a particular bene- diction for the solemn union of two male or female friends in presence of the whole congregation. The male friends thus united are called Pohratimi, and the females Posestreme, which means half- brothers and sisters. The duties of the Pobratimi are, to assist each other in every case of need and danger, to revenge mutual wrongs, etc. ; their enthusiasm is often carried so far as to risk and even lose their life Btit as the friendships of the Morlacchi are strong and sacred, so their quarrels are commonly unextinguishable A Morlach is implacable if injured or insulted. With him revenge and justice have exactly the same meaning, and truly it is the primitive idea, and I have been told that in Albania ' the effects of revenge are still more atrocious and more lasting.' Similar evidence as to the passionate attachment of adopted brothers like Patroclus and Achilles may be found in Tozer's Re- searches, i. p. 309, in his account of the Miridites : — ' The custom of forming fraternal friendships {poiratim), is common among the Miridites, as it is also among some of the other races of European Turkey. . . . This relationship, which reminds us of some of the passionate attachments of ancient history, such as those of David and Jonathan, of Achilles and Patroclus, is regarded as of the most sacred and inviolable character.' This occurs in connection with the manners and customs of an Albanian tribe, and alongside of this singular custom the Vendetta prevails as a natural antithesis. 2. In the same region the Horse is prominent as the great com- panion of the warrior, and portents and hyperboles similar to those in ' The Amaouts or Albanian soldiers retain the habits of the ancient Sc^^Xoi of the country as 'sleeping on the ground' {xanmiwai) (Dodwell, i. p. 139)- 350 APPENDIX. the Achilleid emerge in the local legends and traditions regarding that animal. In Lord Byron's picture of the court of Al^ Pacha, the terrible ruler of Albania, the troops of steeds are a striking feature : — 'Richly caparisoned, a ready row, Of armed horse, and many a warlike store, Circled the wide-extending court below; Above, strange groups adorned the corridore ; And oft-times through the area's echoing door, Some high-capped Tartar spurred his steed away.' (Childe Harold, ii. st. S?.) So Hughes, in his Travels in Albania (vol. ii. p. 382), becomes enthusiastic in praise of certain ' cream-coloured chargers ' of AI/ Pacha : — 'They were the most picturesque animals I ever beheld, and in their broad haunches and chests, thick-curved necks and waving manes, small heads and eyes of fire, finely illustrated that splendid description of the oriental war-horse in the Book of Job.' Regarding the horses of Thessaly in modern times, Dodwell informs us (i. p. 339) that they retain as a characteristic feature to this day the thick full neck of Bucephalus and of the Phidian chargers in the frieze of the Parthenon. As to the friendly relations subsisting between the Horse and his Rider, it may be doubted if there is anything nearer the Achillean type of attachment to the horse than the following from the same area. The first is a Romaic ballad, the scene of which is laid in Macedonia. It is thus referred to by Tozer (Researches, ii. p. 259) : — ' When Demos [the dying Kleft or Brigand] is lying outstretched on the plains of the Vardar, it is his Horse that urges him to rise and follow the rest of the company; and when he (Demos) feels his strength is failing, he commits to him as to a faithful friend the ring and other tokens, which are to be borne to his lady-love, and bids him to dig for him a grave on the spot with his silver-plated hoofs *. In these and innumerable other instances the marvellous element is introduced with such perfect simplicity, and withdraws the narrative so completely from the course of ordinary occurrences, as to appear perfectly natural, and by no means to outstep the licence of poetic treatment.' The next is from the lay in honour of the patriot warrior Scan- '^ Tlae sentiment in this ballad, which is remarkably"Achillean, contrasts with the disparaging name of the horse' in Romaic, viz. aXoyov, as of the irrational animal. No doubt iTTTTOs remains in use alongside of it, but the emergence of dKoyov in modem Greek is a singular plienomenou. THE ELEMENTS OF AN ACHILLEID, ETC. 351 derbeg, also in Tozer (Researches, i. p. 217). In reading it we are reminded now of Ossian and Fingal, now of Sophocles and his Ajax parting with Eurysaces, and again we feel in the warrior's affectionate remembrance of his horse a touch entirely Achillean. The lay receives a new interest in these days when the soul of Prince Alexander (Scanderbeg) seems to have revived among the Montenegrins : — ' My trusty warriors, the Turk will conquer all your country, and you will become his slaves. Ducadjin, bring hither my son, my lovely boy, that I may give him my commands. Unprotected flower, flower of my love, take with thee thy mother, and prepare three of thy finest galleys. If the Turk knows it, he will come and lay hands on thee and will insult thy mother. Descend to the shore ; there grows a cypress dark and sad. Fasten the horse to that cypress, and unfold my standard upon my horse to the sea breeze, and from my standard hang my sword. On its edge is the blood of the Turks, and death sleepeth there. The arms of the dreaded champion— say, will they remain dumb beneath the dark tree ? When the north wind blows furiously, the horse will neigh, the flag will wave in the wind, the sword will ring again". The Turk will hear it, and trembling, pale, and sad, will retreat, thinking on death.' 3. Among the prominent features of the Achillean character were found to be fierceness and a certain grim revelry in blood and wounds. It is remarkable that the mountain fastnesses of Albania and its neighbourhood should still exemplify these features, for there is certainly more of atrocity, murder, and mutilation, as a familiar normal thing, in that wild region than could be met with in any equal area within Europe. The name of Al^ Pacha, the terrible hero of Albania, still preserves a fearful pre-eminence in barbarity, so that Byron's words are not overcharged : — ' For crimes that scorn the tender voice of ruth, Beseeming all men ill, but most the man In years, have marked him with a tiger's tooth ; Blood follows blood, and, through their mortal span, ' In bloodier acts conclude those who with blood began.' (Childe Harold, ii. St. 63.) It is remarkable that a poem in honour of Mj Pacha and his exploits sprang up even in his lifetime, bearing a certain resemblance to the Achilleid. It was composed in modern Greek by an illiterate Mussulman Albanian who could not write, and, so far as ?5os is con- cerned, is replete with Achillean sentiment. In proof may be adduced the following, quoted from Col. Leake's 352 APPENDIX. account of the Poem in his Note i to the first volume of his ' Nor- thern Greece : ' — ' The people of Khormovo, whom h^j had ordered to submit, send him a message of defiance, upon which he mounts his horse Beliosi, swifter than a flying bird, and falls upon Khormovo, sword in hand.' 'S.av rd inpaxTcL arh \aaaTiib k6<1>tovv Kot it€\(kovv(, aK6^i 6&ppos ^xovve Kal 5^r rbv trpoffKvvovvc aclv icX6aais jii noWd, novXiA irov 0Kinovv to aatvi, er^i (pwva^ovv ol irtKpol icaX ^6x i\v Tohs kStSu* ifipiiKe airb rf/v /xia ixipia Kal a-nb Trjv aWrj Py(VU, TToSoiraTaet tA tcopfxid. koI aKofxt Slv x^P'^^'-^^'-' 'A.\fi BfX^s ^ovX-qB-qicf fvx^ va, n^iv cup-qari, Kal x^^V^^^ laUKipnov crd, fiavtcufj-ivoi \vK0i. ' They cut and hew them like sheep in the butchery, Yet they still have courage, and do not submit ; Like hens with many chickens, who perceive the falcon. So they bitterly cry out while he gives them no quarter ; He entered on one side and came out at the other : He treads on the bodies and is not yet satisfied ; (For) Aly Vely resolved to leave not a soul, His troops poured down like hungry wolves'.' (Leake's Northern Greece, i. p. 469-70.) Similiar atrocia will be found in the same author on pp. 481-3, and the Achillean ap^ir] over a subjugated or a fallen foe is not absent, as may be seen on p. 480. In conclusion I subjoin the account which Col. Leake gives of the nature and composition of this Poem, simply remarking that the description is in many respects analogous to what may be supposed to have been, mutatis mutandis, the state of things when the Achilleid was similarly composed in honour of Achilles : — ' As poetry in a rude state of society generally precedes prose as a record of events, or of the exploits of individuals, it is not surprising to find among the Albanians, that the actions of their hero Alf , have been committed to writing in verse. This composition, of which I procured a copy in MS, consists of about 4500 (ttIxoi ttoXitikoI, and although as barbarous in versification, phrase, and sentiment, as the manners which it depicts, is probably, as far as it goes, the most authentic memoir of the life of Al;^ which can be procured. The author was a Mussulman Albanian, acquainted only with the colloquial Greek of Albania and its borders, without the smallest tincture of Greek learning, and not even able to write his own verses.' " Compare the great Achillean simile of the Myrmidons as wolves in n 156. EXPLANATORY ADDITIONS. Page 2 2. With reference to the statement that the Odyssey is before the close yet near to the end of the Epic time, it is important to note that Ulysses is the last of the Heroes in Hellas who is represented as consorting with a Goddess (Mayor's Odyssey, i 29). Page 36. Regarding repeated Invocations of the Muse, it may be right to remark that the Paradise Regained has but one Invocation, whereas the Paradise Lost, like the Faery Queen, has at least three (Books I, III, VII, four including Book IX). This does not imply diversity of authorship within the Paradise Lost but, simply, variety of parts, whereas the Paradise Regained, like the Odyssey, is con- centrated to a single event and formed upon one projection. Page 36, n. 14. The peculiar eminence of the epithet nroKiiropBos is further evinced by the circumstance that, except Achilles and Ulysses, no h'm'ng hero receives it in either poem (Mure, H. of G. L. ii. 81), a fact which attaches to Oe'ws, as is remarked on p. 83 n. Page 40. On the Zeus of Book IV, Dr. Ihne remarks (' Homer ' in Diet, of Biog. p. 505), 'In an assembly of the Gods the glory of Achilles is no motive ' influencing deliberations as to the fate of Troy. Page 68. Clinton (F. H. i. p. 45) may be added to the authorities who consider that Hellas in the Odyssey is wider than the primitive Hellas. Page 69. The view stated as to (polviKt ipaeivov, that it does no- necessarily imply intercourse with Phoenicia, is supported by Kenrick's statement on the same point : ' Homer celebrates the bronze and the embroidery of Sidon but says nothing of the dyes. The name cjiolvi^ given by him to purple colour is no proof that the dye of the FAce- nician "purpura" is meant, as it is a Greek word denoting the colour, and given by the Greeks to Phoenicia, not derived from U' (Kenrick's Phoenicia, p. 245.) Page 72. It is remarkable that the examples of mortals suffering A a 354 EXPLANATORY ADDITIONS. at the hands of the Gods for haughty or rash words are in the same area where the traces of the ^66vos 6e!ov appear. They are — Thamyris in B 595, Niobe in O 607, Ajax Minor in Od. 8 504, and Eurytus in Od. ^225, viz. two in the Ulyssean cantos and two in the Odyssey, as if equally distributed in what seems a homogeneous area. Page 84. An Achillean touch is the ascending honour reflected back on the father Telamon by the son Teucer in e 283. So Achilles, in conformity to the traditional type, is represented in Q (486) as in Od. X, as moved by the remembrance oi\i\% father . Page 94 n. Regarding ia-aKova-ev in II. e, it is worth noting that the Ionic of Herodotus, which preserves largely the influences of Epic style, frequently uses this verb, and apparently always in the sense claimed for it, viz. ' pay heed to.' Page 106. On Hector's contempt for Augury, see Mure, H. of G. L. i. 496, and on his ferocity and egotism. Id. i. 282, 352. His prospective enjoyment of fame is Ulyssean (Id. i. 353). Kinder feeling toward Hector appears in H 204-5. Page 112. Traditional affinities of Ajax Oilei are with Thessaly and the Amphictyonic League (Clinton, F. H. i. p. 67). Page 114. The fame of Ajax Telamonius was common ground between Dorians and lonians. (Duncker, Gesch. d. Alt., p. 290-1.) Page 118. Ajax addresses himself respectfully to Ulysses in i 624, but this is after Phoenix no longer belongs to the Embassy, being detained by Achilles. Page 120. The first distinct authority for cousinship between Ajax and Achilles is a fragment of the Alcmseonis (fr. 5 in Didot Edition of the Cyclus). This is a poem reputed of the 8th or 9th century. Compare Duncker, Gesch. d. Alt., p. 289. Page 150 n. In comparing Hindoo and Greek belief as to the condition of disembodied spirits, Monier Williams (Ind. Wisdom, p. 431) cites the following Homeric passages (II. * 72, 104; Od. X 213, 476 ; V 353, a 14). They are all Ulyssean or in the Odyssey. Page 156. Compare Mure's citations as to boasting over the Dead (i. p. 248). Page 156. A parallel to the Achillean style of sarcasm is such as Milton uses in Paradise Lost, but only in the mouths of Satan or Belial, as in Book VI. 609-27. Page 166-8. Regarding Early Greek Art, the Homeric examples cited by A. S. Murray in his interesting and important paper (Cont. Rev. 1874) are these: — (i) The figure of Pallas, z 302. (2) The maidens of gold, 2 407. EXPLANATORY ADDITIONS. 355 (3) Dogs of gold and silver in Odyssey. (4) Figures of torchbearers in Odyssey. These he considers explicable without supposing Statuary proper, that IS Statuary in the round, and he regards them as only figures in relief or very rude images. He further calls attention to the fact that the personal names of artists are now mentioned with defined trade or profession. His instances are Tvxlos the leather-cutter, who made the shield for Ajax, and 'iK/^dXtos-, maker of the chair for Penelope. The former is in II. H 222, the latter in Od. t 57. His examples oi foreign Art are Sidonian crater of bronze, * 743, Sidonian robes (Z 290), and Egyptian spinning-basket (Od. S 125). A 20, if genuine, is the only approach to formative Art from the Achilleid. A Sidonian crater is spoken of as a work of Hephaestus (Od. 8 617). It will be observed that the bulk of these examples, whether of foreign or Hellenic Art, is furnished by the Ulyssean area or by the Odyssey. Page 172 n. A case of prohibition because of sacredness is that regarding fish in Syria, which were consecrated to Venus, and hence were forbidden to her worshippers. Authorities in Kenrick's Phoe- nicia, p. 306. Page 189. As to the 'Bride-price' among savage races, details will be found in such works as McLennan on ' Primitive Marriage.' Com- pare Schweinfurth's ludicrous account of the Bongo tribe in his ' Heart of Africa,' i. p. 302 : — ' The very poorest must pay a purchase price to the father of the bride in the form of a number of plates of iron : unless a man could provide the premium, he could get only an old woman for a wife.' Page 194, n. 50. The conversion of eSra from the ' Bride-price ' to the ' Dowry ' going with the bride, if it can be scientifically made out to be a fact, is an important and interesting phenomenon. It can certainly be shown that the word eSva, at different periods of Greek literature, bears first the one sense and then the other. This conversion of the 'Bride-price,' in whole or in part, which we illustrated on p. 193, from the case of the ancient Germans, is well indicated in the following remarks of Sir H. S. Maine on this institution : — ' Part of the price which was paid by the bridegroom either at the wedding or the day after it, went to the bride's father as compensation for the Patriarchal or Family authority which was transferred to the husband, but another pari went to the bride herself, and was very generally enjoyed by her separately and kept apart from her husband's property.' H. S. Maine, Hist, of Institutions, p. 324. A a 2 35(5 EXPLANATORY ADDITIONS. To a similar effect Dr. Dasent writes in his account of old Norse family life : — ' The wife came into the house, in the patriarchal state, either stolen or bought from her nearest male relations ; and though in later times when the sale took place it was softened by settling part of the dower and portion on the wife, we shall do well to bear in mind, that originally dower was only the price paid by the suitor to the father for his good will; while portion, on the other hand, was the sum paid by the father to persuade a suitor to take a daughter off his hands.' ' Burnt Njal,' p. xxvi. As an Epilogue on the whole subject of eSca, the following parallel from the Semitic area is remarkable as showing a similar conversion of ' Bride-price ' into ' Dowry ' given with the bride. The Hebrew mohar corresponds precisely to ihva in the first stage. It is the price paid to the father by the suitor (Exodus xxii. 17, with which compare, in ver. 16, ^ endow her for his wife,' literally, 'buy her for his wife.') In Genesis xxxiv. 1 2 we hear of ' gifts,' that is, Smpa, alongside of the mohar, the ' gifts ' being to the bride, the mohar to the bride's father. In I Sam xviii. 25 David receives Michal without mohar, that is, In the more advanced period of Hebrew society we find an equiva- lent to fiei'Xm appearing. In i Kings ix. 16, Pharaoh's daughter receives a city as ' dismissal-gift,' answering to /^t iXm. In Arabic, which represents the later Semitic stage, the word corre- sponding to mohar has altered its signification. Gesenius (Lex., in mohar) after stating it as in Hebrew the ' bride-price,' then adds : ' Different from this is the use of the Arabic word corresponding, i.e. a spousal gift promised to the future wife, and the Latin dos, i.e. the gift given by the parents to their "daughter who is about to be married.' Page 211, n. 13. By an inadvertence, the use of the expression hfmvov for horses (in B 383) is attributed to Nestor. It occurs, how- ever, in a speech not of Nestor but of Agamemnon. Page 226. Regarding Ulysses under the figure of a noble mastiff, it is a singular coincidence that Sophocles in the Ajax (8, 19) happens to represent Ulysses as receiving from Athene and as accepting .the comparison to a Spartan hound. Page 226 n. On the occurrences of BvnoXeav, it is right to remark, as Col. Mure has pointed out, that both instances regarding Ulysses are in the mouth of Penelope, and are therefore not objective by the EXPLANATORY ADDITIONS. 357 poet himself,^ but subjective in the mind of his spouse. Compare the interesting remarks on this epithet by Mure, ii. p. 82-3. Page 235. This point as to the prominence of the Horse in the one poem and of the Dog in the other has not escaped the keen eye of Mr. Mahaffy, who in a recent work has virtually anticipated me in this branch of my inquiry. He states the matter thus : — ' Throughout the whole Iliad [? Achilleid] the poets seem to be full of sympathy with the energy and fire of the war-horses. In the Odyssey the dog Argus takes the place of the horses of Achilles. . . . The wonderful picture of the old broken down hound recognising his master after twenty years and dying of joy on the dunghill where he lay helpless with age and neglect — this affecting trait could never have been drawn except by men who themselves knew and loved dogs and appreciated their intelligence.' Mahaffy, . ' Rambles and Studies,' pp. 56-7. Page 239-40. It has been suggested by Clinton (F. H. i. 363) that one cause of the multiplicity of claimants may have been that 'Homer was an inhabitant, perhaps a citizen, of several cities.' In the historical time it is possible to produce instances of persons who belonged to several cities, and one occurs in Boeckh's Inscr. Gr. (i. 845) of a citizen of seven cities. It might be doubtful, however, whether such variety was possible in the pre-historic age. Page 240. To these Lists may be added that found in the 'Kyav or ' Contest of Hesiod and Homer.' It is remarkable as specifying only the three Ionian claimants, Smyrna, Chios, Colophon. This curious composition, in which occurs the name of the Emperor Hadrian, is from the later Roman period and is of no authority, except as a storehouse of traditions. It may be found in Goettling's Edition of Hesiod. Page 255. The predominance of the Mountains in the scenery of Thessaly is well illustrated by Apollonius Rhodius' description of it (iii. 1084) in the line, fWi m ameii>ol6v(os, 104. ayivviipos, 2^'j. dyavoU i3€\ee(rfft, 140. ayavotppoffvvrjf 108. dy&ffavTOf 72. dyavSs, 217. dyyfKos, 56. ay ipcoxos, 216. dy^vcopf 326. ay Kia irof/jevTa, 251. dyKiarpa, 176. dyKv\oiiriTris, 136. dyKv\6ro^os, 123. dy\a6s, 167. dyop&f 250. dypt6;\os, Il7- 'A%s, 146. aiffoAiici', 162. ai9l/)£ vaimv, 1 35, 285. aWouo-a, 161-2. aiiia and (Xos 7(5ou, 74. kpvffdpfxares, 343. kffdfcovffc, 94, 354. kfftTOfiivoiai, 85. 'ECTia or 'Itrrirj, 79-80. eros, 6i/tauT(5s, 175. tvrjycv^s^ 217. evvofxiTj^ 250. einraTepcia, 109. WORDS AND EPITHETS. 361 fiJireirXos, 165. iv7r\6Ka/^os, 141. fviT6(XTlOS, 79. ((piTjial Aids, 138. Ceiii, 127. fei5(wpos dpovpa, 128. Zfis 'iKirqaios, Btivios, HaTqp, 135. — nature-forces under, 136. — physical epithets of, 137. — moral influences of, 138. — ethical epithets of, 138. ^riK-qnovis, 72. fiKfKTpos, 168. ■qpiiovos, 212. "Hpj;, epithets of, 145. ?Top (vl (ppeai, 151. ^XV Ofaina'nj, 158. ijX'7f>''''a, 162. rivKOjios, 108,. 147. BiXa/ios, 54, 161. SaXir], 171. &&fivpis, Bafivpi^w, 26. ^cfos, 83. ee/uares Aids, 138. deonpSvos^ Beotrpotricu, Oeonpoirirf, $€07Tp6- mov, 187. Bfpairwv, 188. ©eo'ffa^oj' ffSipiafui, 76. ^eCTmSa^s ttu/), 203. 6T]prjT^p, 225. doivqSrjvai, 173. Oovpis, 202, Bpaaiis, 105, 202. 6piyic6s, 162. 0p6va, 1 80. 6p6vos, Bprjvvs, 163. flu/tds, 88, 198; 224, 226. BvpioXioiv, 226, 356. 6vfiO(p66pos, 340. 6vo(Tk6oSj 187. Si'P'?. S3- flScs, 96. ea«^, 184. 10x17, lax'wi', 159- 'ISaicuv opiajVy 258. 'ISrjOiV iifUaiv, 263, 285. ie/)5j' ^p^p, KV€(pas, 204. ff/)(5s, 172. lUETiJtnos, of Zeus, 135, 138. fXaos, 146. i'tiepos ySoio, K\av9p^v, 74- ioSvfcjnis, 167. iV>r?7, iirmjuoKyoi, 209. ijTTrd/SoTOS, 245. iTTirdSa/Aos, 211-216, 342-3. iTrnoiciv fcal 6xf(T I19- Kihpivo&, 162. Kiivos, (Keivos, of Ulysses, 35. KeK\riy6is, 158. KekaScLVTj, 159. Kc^aii'e^s, 137, 148. Ke\i]5, 242. K£/iis, 96. fc4vT0p€S IttITCUV, 3I9. K€pap,os and tcepa^evs, 183, 276, 311. K€pao^6os, 183. Kipas, 176. Kepavvos Aids, 136, 253, KCffrds, iro\vK€(rTos, tpids, 180. «^A.a, 182. Kr]\kw, KT]\eiq>, 203. KTJpes, 200. Krjuieis, 162. KiOapis, Ki6api^co, Kt9api(TTvs, 180. /cioji/, 162. K\aioj, K\av$pL6s, 74* /cA.6a av^pSjv, 26. KKrjpos, 187. K\lVT7]p, 164. KXlffit], 164. K\lOS TToXilXOlOj 303. yi)\e Js ^Mop, 154. VTJfia, ivyvTjTos, 179, 180. vitpdeis, 257, 263. rij/ios (law), 250. vios Ai(5s, 137. j/oCcros AiiJs, 138. i/u/fT^s afw\y^, 204. vif dfiPpoTos, aiifipoairj, 6\ori, 204. f eiVos, ^€ivoS6kos, i 73, Hfyios (of Zeus), 138. (iiKov, 178. fuAoxos iSaSefa, 182. ^vffTiJy, 182. d&pifJLOTT&Tprj, 141, oSafa, 1 84. o$($i'ai, 165. '06/)uoytus, 244. or^os, 178. oiaiciffTiJs, otan/ov6\os, 186. oKfioi, 176-7. 6\o6'5e, 259- 264. oiiffpos Ai6s, 136. diw'uos, 309. dirXrjt 209. OTTvifU, 54. o/}Kta Atds, 138. Spiicvos, 202. opos, odpos, 256. 5pinj^, 250. opxioimi, 170, OTpvvca, 229. OvpaviojveSj 130. ovpavds, 260-4. ovpiaxos, 182. oS/JO(, 60. oSpos Aii$s, 136. oxBeai, 132. oTpiyovoi, 85. 3;I'0i', 171. jrai'fcu, 76, 170. Ilafofes, 123. iraX^iTtTos, 330. naix(j>av6ojv^ 166. nai/axaioi, 67. nweXXTji/cs, 67, 68. ndf^oos, nac9oi'Sijs, 122. irai'($/t0aios, 266. napbakiTj, 164. irap-fiopos, vapr/opia, 229. vdpoiiev, 53. irarfip, of Zeus, 135. ttcSt;, 209. TTcfoi, 212, 214, 215. WORDS AND EPITHETS. 3^3 neipivs, 165. ireKcKvs, 182. TrejrXos, 164. TTiiTvvixivos, 310. Xi4p-/ana, 258. Tepr/v, 281-2. ■nepvaneva, 184. ■ntpoVT], 234. ■irri\r]^, 180. iriXos, 165. w\7;7^ Ai6s, 136. vKiiiwr], 231. ir\i7£t7riT-os, 319. 7ro5(ii't7rT/)a, 165. TTod^vefios, 58, 60. 7roi«i\Aai, 7roi«(\os, etc., 168. 7ri5\is, 250. iToAuafi/os, 95. jroA.u^oi;Aos, 141. Tro\vSaiSa\os, 166. iroXuStupos, 195. TTOXvKTijIMV, 184. •no\vp.iix°'VOs, 96. iroXuTrii^cui', 184. TTOXVTTCJ'^JJS, 74. ToAuiTTUXos, jrrixfs, 258, 260. iroA{/TAas, 96. ttoXvtXtiiicov^ 88. iTQ\hrpoTTOSf 50, iro\iu(ppojv, 50. Tro\{jxci^/ios, 184. iro\vxpvff05, 184. JTO/iTT^CS, 60. iropijwpeos, 167. TrptiTTiSej, 152. irpetri, 197. ffTTUpov, 165. (TTepoirii, affTcpoirq, 136, 253. CTCpoTTTjyepeTTjs, 137. aipiy^, 1 80-1. 'Xvpitj VTJaoSf 293. av(pop$6s, 128. o-cfcvS^rai, 182. TcJA.aj'Ta, 2CO. Ta\apos, 165. 1a\ev0ios, 181. Tai'iiirCTrXos, 109, 165. TtiTTT^s, 164. Taxi^TTwAot, 217. T67€0S, 162. reivoj, TaviiQJ, 20I. t4ktcov, TCKTaivopai, 174. TepireaOai ySoio, 74. T€pmKlpavvos, 137. TcVrif, 311.^ Tcuxfct (TuA.^ffai, i^ivapi^iLV, 155. TiBaiPaiaaai, 138. Tii'i/fffloi', 143. TX7)pwv, etc., 88. rpaTre^es, 221. Tpofieoj^ 151. Tpoirai ^eAioto, 294-5. CXi;, i\oT(5/jos, 178, 251. KA.?) 0a9era, 251. viT€p6vpos, 217. VTTepT]vopia}v, 326. virepfX€V7js, 137. vtrepwov, 162. virqpiT^s 6eaiv, 57- Bttcos and epithets, 310-11. vTTodTjfiaTa, 165. v^aTm, 164, 167, 179. Xpao), xpi"", X<^P^<'<'0', 338. XP^'""V, xpifSfevos, 188. XP^fara, 184. Xpva66povos, 145. INDEX I. Xpv(T6irTepos, 58-9. "X-ajpi^ovres, 51. Xaipos Tipoa\ris, 250. i^i/X^, 149- tpvxovo/jnrSs, 59. dixvirera, 343. dilirjaTai, 221. Svos. 184. INDEX II. MATTERS AND AUTHORS. Achilleid, 47. — horizon of, 69, 'jo. — absence of pathos in, 74. — sarcasm of, 76, 354. — Thessalian feeling of, 99. — ethical tone of, 105. — no ethical purpose in, 323. Achilles, how far typical hero of Greece, 5°- , ^ c — in what sense 'nTo\nrop0os, 30, 83. — epithets of, 44, 83, 226. — character of, loi, 307, 358. ^gis. 38. 313- ^neas, 125, 159. yEolis, connection of with early epic poetry, 23. — claim of, 299, 323. ^olo-Dorismus, 84, 100, 121, 255 307-8. Agamemnon, character of, 103. — pathos of his fate, 104. Ajax, the Telamonian, epithets of, 115, 116. — relationship to Achilles, 118, 354. Ajax, the Less, 75, 111-12. Ajaxes, relation of to Ulysses, 92, II2-I8. Amazons, 127, 284, 357. Andromache, 78, 192, 195. Aphrodite and Charis as wives of Hephaestus, 54., Aphrodite and Ares, 54, 75. Aphrodite, epithets of, 141-2. Apollo as minister of Death, 140. — as 'ApyvpoTo^os, 147-8. Apostrophe, in address, 36. Arboriculture, 178. Archaica, 126 £f. Archilochus, 239. Architecture, 160-2. Ares, generally discredited, 117, 152. Argos, see Peloponnesus. Argus, death of, 72, 347. Aristarchus, 5, 290 and passim. Aristotle, 23 and passim. Armature, 181. Art, 174-83. 3.';4- ^^ ^, Artemis as minister of Death, 140. — epithet of, 169- Asia, beginning of the name, 67, 280. Astronomy, 177. Athene, epithets of, 141. — connection of with Athens, 306. Athenians, position of, 85, 87, 302-5. Athens, claim of, 293, 300-2. Atlas, 131. Augury, 186. Barbour's ' Bruce,' 284. Benlley, 7, 299. Beowulf, 322. Bergt, 21 and passim. Birth-place of Homer, cities contending for honour of, 239-40, 357. — probably in Asiatic Ionia, 260. Blachie, Prof., 16 and. passim. Blair, 43. Boasting, 105, 155-7. Bceotia, importance of, 242, 245, 293. Briareus, 131, Browning, Robert, 58, 208. Burnouf, 15. Buttmann, 95, 282-4. Cannibalism, metaphorical, 154. Cassandra, 124. Centaurs, 246-7. Cerberus, 233. Charis and Aphrodite as wives of Hephaestus, 54. Chios, claims of, 240, 288. Chorizontes or Separatists, 6, 15, 17. 2 1 sq. and passim. Chronometer, Primitive, 249-50. Chthonian Deities, 143. Climate, indications of, 252-4. Cobet, 191, 193, 208. Coleridge, Henry Nelson, 17, 132, 237. Coleridge, S. T., 15. Colophon, claims of, 240. Colour, decoration by, 166-8, 285-6. Commerce, Iniiia of, 184. Constant, Benjamin, 15. Crates, 5. Curtius, George, 13, 28, 189, 282. Curtius, Ernst, 69 and passim. Cyclic Poets, 12, 316-18. Cyclographic Poets, 317. Cynics, 294. DEedalus, 181. Deliberation, early mode of expressing, 200. Demeter, cultus of, 142-3 366 INDEX II. Democracy, attitude toward, 337. Description, minute decorative, 91. Deucalion, 245. Diodes, 215. Diomed, prominence of, 39. — compared with Achilles, 40, 232. — association with Ulysses, 87, 91, 96, 211. — horses of, 270-4. Dione, question as to, 273-6. Dionysus, cultus of, 142. Divination, 186, 202. Doederlein, 68 and passim. Dog, phenomena as to, 219-28, 232-5, 319. 344- 356-7- Doloneia, 28, 41. Domestica, 79, 163-6. Domestication of animals, 128. Donaldson, y. W., 18, 84. Dorian irruption, relation to the, 64. Dowry, customs regarding, 189-197. Dreams, 186. Diintzer, 1 2 and passim. Egypt, acquaintance with, 63-5. Electros, 168. ' Envy of the gods,' traces of, 72, 354. Epics of the world, 4. Epithets, traditional and already old, 27. — in Achilleid, 58. Eratosthenes, 23. Ethical purpose, how far discernible, 322-30. Eubcea in Homeric geography, 281-4. Eumelus, 112, 211. Euripides, 18, 109, no. Eurybates, 124. Eurymedon, 124. Eurypylus, 99. Eustathius, 8 and passim. Fairbairn, A. M., 143. Fdsi, 60 and passim. Fauna of the Poems, 267-9. ' Fears of the brave,' 94, 95. Fetichism, possible traces of, 201. Fickle, 9. Fire, imagery from, 202-3. Fish, as food, etc., 171-2, 176, 355. Fleay, Mr., 148. Fox, absence of the, 269. Friedldnder, lo and passim. Ganymede, 125. Gibbon, 151. Gladstone, 1 6 and passim. Gods ' who live at ease,' 134, 261. Goethe, 12, 43, 243, 323. Goose, 128-9. Greece, with two epics, 4; two heroes, 34. — dualism in its history, 100, 306. — instinct for order and decorum, 67. Grote, 1 7 and passim. Harpyes, 60, Hayman, 87 and ^assm. Hebe, 125. Hebrew Literature, illustrations from, 129, 150, 169, 176. Hector, character of, 104-8, 354. — epithets of, 44, 105, 107. ' Hectoring fellow,' 105. Helen, epithets of, 108-10. Heliconian God, 270. Hellanicus, 6. Hellas, extension of the name, 68. Heracles, 27 axii passim. Heralds, 188. Herder, 8. Here, epithets of, 109, 145. Hermann, Godfrey, II, 157. Hermes and Iris as messengers, questions as to, 55-60. Hermes as a Wind-God, 60. Hesiod, touches in, akin to Achilleid, 131, 140, 159, 177, 207, 234, 242, 244, 263, 269, 307. Hestia, 79. Heyne, 8 and passim. Hindoos, analogies from literature of, 4, 127, 147, 150, 206, 233, 247-8, 354- Historical sense dawning in Homer, 242-3. Homer, the name contains (5/ioC, 20. — traces of ' many Homers ' in ancient authorities, 8. — Bards before, 26, 321. Homerids, 23. Horace, 34, loi, 238. Horse, phenomena as to, 205-18, 229- 30, 245-8, 319, 342-6, 350, 342-6. Hospitality, 172-3. Humboldt, 9. Hume, David, 37. Hunting, vocabulary of, 165, 174-5, 225. Hypercriticism dissolves any unity, 1 1, 33- lapetos, 131. Ida, 258, 263, 285. Ihne, 263. Iliad, question as to its unity, 33. — double structure of, 37-43, 48. Interpolations, possibility of, 29, 335. Invocation of Muse, 36, 353. Ionia, connection of, with early Epic poetry, 23. — claims of, 240, 278-290. lonians, character of, 304, 306-7. lonismus, 85, 86, 87, 121, 172, 250, 255, 270, 295-8, 307, 308, 310-15. Iiis and Hermes as messengers, question as to, 55-60. Iris, epithets of, 58. Ivory, 169. MATTERS. AND AUTHORS. 367 Josephus, 8, 47. yortin, loi. Kalewala, 5. Keary^ 60. Kebriones, 123. Kinyias, 69. Knight, R. P., 17, 91. K'ochly, Arminius, 13. Kronos, 130-1, 246, 275. Lackmann, Karl, 11, 13, 327. Laodike, 124. La Roche, 23 and passim. Lassen, 4. Lehrs, 8 and passim. Leonteus, 152, 265. Lepsius, 168. Leto, 147. Lion, familiarity with, 267-9. Locality, from internal evidence, 237-9. Locrians, in armature, 123. Locusts, simile as to, 267-8. Longfellow, 77- Longinus, 28. Lots, 187. Love, element of, in ancient literature, 7 7. Lucian, 240. Lycurgus, 23. Mseonides, argument from name, 290. Magnus, Br., 166. Mahabharata, 4, 227. Marriage, phenomena regarding, 189- 97. 356-6- Mekisteus, 124. Melancholy, sentiment of, 73. Memnon, 119. Menelaus, 36 and passim. Menestheus, 86, loi, :ii, 305. Meriones, 113. Merry, 31 arA passim. Messengers of the Gods, 55-60. Metronymics, 84. Mill, J. S., 42. Milton, 144, 233, 333. Mimnermus, 24. Movers, 65. Mountain and sea as rival influences, 255- Mule, 212. Midler, 0., 12 s.nd passim. Miiller, W., 11. Mure, Colonel, 16 and passim. Music, instruments of, 180-1. Ndgelsbach, 15 and passim. Nausicaa, 79, 122, 145, 292. Nestor, 47 and passim. — equestrian associations of, 211, 217. Newton, Ch. T., 242. Niebuhr, 8 and passim. Night, imagery from, 203-4. Nitzsch, Gregor, 10 and passim. Nonnus, 38, 238. Number, inability to handle arith- metical, 32, 199. Nutzhorn, 13, 41, 94. Oceanus, as father of Gods, 131. Odyssey, unity of, 29, 30. — apparent discrepancies in, 31. ■ — perfection of, 34, 332-4. — importance of, critically, 49. — characteristic of the Greek race, 50. — supposed inferiority of, considered, 49. 331-4- — ■ local mint-marks of, 291-8. — Ethical elements of, 328-31. Qidipus Rex and Col., connection of, 42 . Olympus, 25, ■255-64. Omens, attitude toward, 106. Oracles, 187. Order of honour in poetic enumeration, 89. Ossian, Ossianic controversy, etc., 9, 73, 171. 351- P^donymics, 84. Pseonians, 123. Paley, Frederick 4., 18 and passim. Pan, silence as to, 245. Panthoidse, family of, 122. Paris, 107-8, no, 125, 153, 208, 326. Patronymics, 84. Pausanias, 50 and passim. Pelasgic traces, 123, 135, 148, 163, 244. Pelopidse and Perseidse, ,i;6, 64, 243. Peloponnesus, connection of with Epic song, 24, 245. — heroes of, where prominent, 98-9. — claim of, 292-3. Penelope, 28 and passim. Pergamus in Troy, 258. Periclymenus, 216. Persephone, cuUus of, 143. ' Personalia,' traditions of, 318. Personification of natural objects, 201. Phaiacia, 284, 297. Phoenicia, acquaintance with, 64-6, 69. Piclet, 128-9. Pieria, 25, 70, 241. Pindar, 2 3 and passim. Pisistratus, 8 and passim. Plato, 170, 226, 237, 307. Polydamas, 122-3, 204. Polygnotus, 234, 331. Porson, 29. Portents, 134. Poseidon, 107 and passim. Preller, 2 2 and ^ass:m. Prudentius, 149. Psychology, Primitive, 149-51, 198. Ramayana, 4. Retribution, idea of, prominent in the Odyssey, 330. 368 INDEX II. Rhapsodes, decline in fame of, 337. Rhode, 33. Richter, Jean Paul, 43. ' Rumour,' 55. Ruskin, 72, 225, Rustum, 102, 208. Salt in food, 171. Sanskrit, see Hindoo. Sappho, 25. Schiller, 12. Schlegels, 9. Schliemann, 168, 182, 242. Schubarlh, 44, 108. Scott, Sir Walter, 30, 78, 91, 347. Sea and mountain influences, 255. Sea, naming sections of, 279, 307. Sea-distances, 307. Seneca, 6. Shaltspere, 18, 35, 78, 238. Sidney, Sir Philip, 102. Silence, arguments from, 64. — single instances of, 122. Silvan scenery, 249-53. Simile, an approximation on the poet's part to his audience, 279. Similes, 96, 115, 208, 212, 220-1, 225, 251. Simonides, 23. 'Sleep,' epithets of, 310-11. Smyrna, weight of evidence in favour of, 240, 288. Sophocles, 18, 30. Speech, diversity of, beginning to be observed, 66. Stesichorus, 26, 77, 109. Strabo, 63 and passim. Suitors, epithets and character of, 117, 324. 329- ' Survivals,' 127. Tartarus, 131. Telemachia, as a separate poem, not possible, 30. Telemachus, 30 and passim. — in relation to Ulysses, 30, 84. Tennyson, 77, 333. Teucer, loi, 113, 124. Text (Homeric), state of, philologically, etc., 18, 29. Thamyris, 26. Themis, 148. Theognis, 68, 154, 235, 279. Thersites, scene with, 74-5. Theseus, 301. Thessaly, its importance in early Greek mythic lore, 25, 241. — land of Homer's traditional an- cestors, 26, 322. — traces of in feelings and customs, 76, 154. 241 • — in Achilleid, 98, 99, 241-69. Thiersch, 17, 24. Thirlwall, 24. Thought, modes of primitive, T98. Thucydides, 67 and passim. Tiresias, 31, 123, 293. Titanic wars, 131. Traditions, primeval, 129. Triads of deities, 312-3. Trojan War, how to be regarded, 242-3. Trojans, character of, 325-7. ' Tug of war,' expressions regarding, 200-1. Ulysses, preeminence of in the Odyssey, 30. — the 'Afan' preeminent, 35,83,86,358. — how far the typical hero of Greece, 6°. 305- — epithets of, 36, 50, 83, 95, 96, 226. — impersonation of intelligence, 80. — impersonation of spirit and endur- ance, 88, 226, 328. — matched with Achilles (see also under epithets of ' Ul.'), 88, 90. — as a Bowman, 91, 127. — not with an equipage, 92, 212-4. — as probably of small stature, 86, 92, 331- — in the Achilleid, 93-6, 157. — in Pindar, 100. Unity, forms and aspects of, 11, 12, 42, Unity of the Odyssey, 21, 29. Uschold, 289. Vaticination of dying men, 202. Vedic analogies, see Hindoos. Vico, 7. Virgil, 45, 69, 209, 223, 235. Volcker, 263, 293. Volkmann, 12. Voss, 12. Weber, 4. Welcher, 1 2 and passim. Whately, 149. Wieland, 9. Williams, M., 4, 354. Wilson, Prof., 102. Wolf, F. A., 7-19 and passim. Wood,R., 'Essay' of, 278, 281, 295, 297. Writing, art of, 182, 337-41. Xenon, 6. Xenophon, 87, 89. Zend, illustration from, 183. Zenodotus, 32 and passim. Zephyrus, 252, 280, 286-7, 296, 300. Zeus, epithets of, 1 35-8. — hyperboles regarding, 133.