THE HOMERIC POEMS.
It has been mentioned that, according to the theory now most commonly
accepted, the Homeric poems were not the work of one author or even
of one generation--that on the contrary they grew up gradually in the
course of several hundred years, reaching their final form (in the case
of the Odyssey) perhaps not before the middle of the seventh century.
We must now review briefly the evidence on which this theory is based.
The earliest historical references to the poems reach back only to
the beginning of the sixth century, and even these are not altogether
satisfactory. Cleisthenes, tyrant of Sicyon, according to Herodotus (V
67) prohibited rhapsodists from reciting the Homeric poems, because
they were full of the praises of Argos and its people. But the
reference here is perhaps rather to the Thebais or Epigonoi than the
Iliad. Again, it is said that when Athens and Megara were disputing
about the possession of Salamis, both parties appealed to the authority
of Homer in support of their contentions. If this story may be trusted
it is of importance as showing that the poems were generally venerated
at such an early date. And though all the evidence is late[292], the
form in which the passage in question (Il. II 557 f.) has survived does
clearly suggest Athenian influence.
References in the works of other poets carry us back to a considerably
earlier period. It has already been mentioned that Callinos is said
to have attributed the Thebais to Homer, from which we may infer
that poems under this name were already known. Archilochos, who
likewise flourished before the middle of the seventh century, seems
to have attributed the Margites to Homer[293]. The extant fragments
of his works also contain several passages which apparently show
Homeric influence[294]. Terpandros, probably an older contemporary
of Archilochos, is said to have invented a musical accompaniment
for the Homeric poems[295]. In Hesiodic poetry we find a number of
references to heroic subjects. The Catalogue appears to have dealt with
certain adventures of Odysseus, which were probably derived from the
Odyssey[296].
This evidence, vague and somewhat uncertain as it is, renders it
probable that Homeric poetry was in existence before the seventh
century. Further than this we cannot hope for any direct external
evidence, for the authors cited are the earliest of whom we know
anything worth mention. Indeed the age of the various Hesiodic poems
themselves is very problematical. It is customary now to attribute the
Theogony and the Works and Days to the close of the eighth century and
the other poems to the seventh. But Herodotus (II 53) referred Hesiod,
as well as Homer, to a period about 400 years before his own time, i.e.
to about the middle of the ninth century.
Turning now to the internal evidence, we may at all events regard one
fact as established, namely that the subject-matter was determined at a
period considerably anterior to those of which we have been speaking.
It is not merely that the persons mentioned are uniformly referred to
the Heroic Age, for we have yet to discuss the possibility that all the
characters of this age are fictitious. But we have also to take into
account the ethnographical indications contained in the poems. There
is no hint of the presence of Dorians in the Peloponnesos, nor of the
existence of Ionic states in Asia Minor or even in the Cyclades[297];
indeed the scheme of tribal or political geography which they present
is far removed from anything we find even in the earliest records of
the historical period. We shall see later that the same remark holds
good with regard to the system of government depicted in the poems,
e.g. in the universal prevalence of kingship, and so also with their
indications as to social organisation, religion and even ethical
standards. Then there is the fact that in references to weapons bronze
is far more frequently mentioned than iron; yet it is generally agreed
that iron must have been in common use by the tenth century, while
some scholars would refer its introduction to a much earlier date.
Lastly, we may take note of certain passages and expressions which
seem to contain reminiscences of the prehistoric civilisation of the
Aegean--a civilisation which, as we have seen, had passed its zenith
in the fourteenth century and which was probably altogether submerged
in the convulsions which accompanied the Dorian and Ionic migrations.
Among such reminiscences we may probably count the descriptions of the
palaces of Menelaos and Alcinoos and the use of such terms as κύανος.
Of course it is not to be supposed that any part of the poems goes
back to the period of the early civilisation. Yet the features noted
above seem to me to point quite clearly to a time when some of the
ancient palaces were still known and perhaps still inhabited. Hence it
is not merely the case that the poems are concerned exclusively with
characters of the Heroic Age. We are bound to conclude further that the
environment in which these characters are placed is in general such as
belonged to the same period. This of course involves the existence of
a verbal tradition practically from the Heroic Age itself. Indeed, we
may say that it probably involves a poetic tradition, for we have no
evidence for the existence of traditional prose narratives, whereas
references to the cultivation of poetry in early times are fairly
numerous.
Now it is generally agreed that the Heroic Age--or perhaps we should
say the type of civilisation and the ethnographical conditions with
which this age is associated--cannot have lasted much beyond the close
of the eleventh century. Hence the date accepted by many scholars for
the completion of the Odyssey (cf. p. 169) involves a period of more
than three centuries, during which the Homeric poems were in process
of formation. That is a long period for continued composition in one
subject, and it will be well now to review briefly the evidence on
which this theory rests.
Kirchhoff[298] dated the 'later redaction' of the Odyssey between Ol.
30 and Ol. 50, or at all events not much before Ol. 30 (B.C. 656). To
this conclusion he was led primarily by the reference to the voyage of
the Argo in XII 59-72. It is probable enough that this passage implies
acquaintance with a poem dealing with Iason's adventures; but the same
can hardly be said of Kirchhoff's further suggestion, viz. that this
lost poem must have been composed some considerable time after the
colonisation of Cyzicos[299]. The accounts which we have of the travels
and adventures of the Argonauts can scarcely be said to indicate
that the earliest poems on this subject were composed at a time when
the Black Sea was already familiar to the Greeks; on the other hand
travellers from time to time may have penetrated into that region
centuries before the foundation of Cyzicos[300].
Others have sought to show that the later parts of the poem betray an
intimate acquaintance with the western seas, such as would be possible
only after the development of Corinthian maritime enterprise about the
close of the eighth century, whereas the knowledge of the same regions
shown by the earlier parts is of the vaguest description[301]. Here the
evidence is derived chiefly from the references to Sicily (Σικανίη)
and the Siceloi, Alybas (traditionally placed in the Gulf of Otranto,
but perhaps rather a coined name) and Temesa, which is identified with
Tempsa in Calabria. This theory seems to me to be open to much the same
objections as the other. It is clear now that in prehistoric times the
south of Italy was intimately connected with the eastern coast of the
Adriatic, and we have no ground for denying that the former may have
been known to Greek traders or pirates long before the date of the
earliest colonies.
A third argument, and one which has exercised a much wider influence,
is based on the relationship of certain portions of the poems to the
lost Cyclic poems (Cypria, etc.). It is held for instance that the
Catalogues in Il. II, at all events the Trojan catalogue, were taken
from the Cypria, and again that in the Nekyia (Od. XI) and elsewhere
use has been made of the Little Iliad and the Nostoi, as well as
the Cypria. But, granting the correctness of these hypotheses, no
conclusions as to date can be drawn from them unless the dates of the
lost poems themselves are established. We have seen however that such
is not really the case; it is admitted that the attribution of these
poems to Arctinos, Lesches and others does not occur until very late
times. All that can be said is that they appear to have contained
certain 'post-Homeric' features, such as purification for manslaughter
(in the Aithiopis). With these we shall have to deal later. There is no
need however to suppose that the lost poems were any more homogeneous
than the Iliad and Odyssey.
Again it is thought that certain passages betray the influence of
Hesiodic poetry, while others indicate genealogies or relationships
which are at variance with statements contained in the latter[302].
Among the former we may note especially the list of women in the Nekyia
(Od. XI 235-327[303]), which is compared with the Hesiodic Catalogue
of heroines. This evidence would be useful for chronological purposes
if we knew (i) when Hesiod lived, (ii) that he was the first to
compose catalogues of this kind. But unfortunately neither of these
propositions can be admitted. To the first we have already referred.
The majority of scholars hold that Hesiod cannot have lived much after
the end of the eighth century. But there is nothing to show that he did
not live before that time; for no sound argument can be founded on the
last verses of the Theogony. As for the Catalogue it belongs to a class
of poetry of which the beginnings may go back to a remote antiquity.
The presumption is that it originated in times when descent was still
traced through the mother.
On internal grounds many arguments have been brought forward for the
purpose of showing that the poems in their present form have undergone
a long process of development. With discrepancies in the narrative
itself we need not concern ourselves. They are doubtless of importance
for determining the question of single or composite authorship,
but they do not necessarily point to authorship of quite different
ages. For instance, one poet may have conceived of the Achaean camp
as fortified, another as without fortifications. But that does not
prove that the two poets were not contemporary, for it will not be
disputed that the people of the Heroic Age were capable of building
fortifications. Again, it may be that the original poem on the 'Wrath
of Achilles' did not originally contain Books II-VII. But, apart from
one or two details which we shall discuss presently, there is nothing
to suggest that these books are the product of an entirely different
period.
We may even take what is perhaps the most extreme case, that of the
Doloneia. This book is joined on very loosely to what precedes, and its
contents are practically disregarded in the rest of the Iliad[304].
Some critics even in ancient times seem to have believed that it did
not originally belong to the poem. Moreover it contains a number of
features peculiar to itself and several expressions which are regarded
as indications of lateness. In particular there are some striking
parallels to the passages in the Odyssey, and it is held that in
certain cases they are due to direct influence from the latter[305].
But, granting all this, we are still not in a position to decide
whether the chronological difference between the Doloneia and the
earlier parts of the Iliad is to be reckoned at three centuries or two
or one[306].
As no definite results can be attained from such considerations as
these we will now confine our attention to arguments which are founded
upon real or supposed differences of culture. The most important class
of evidence for our purpose is that which relates to the use of the
metals. Both bronze and iron are frequently mentioned and there can
be no doubt that both were well known. But it has been observed that
weapons are nearly always said to be of bronze (χαλκός, χάλκεον ἔγχος,
etc.[307]), whereas iron is usually mentioned either as a substance
or in reference to tools, especially hatchets[308]. Only in seven
verses do we hear of iron weapons, even if we include in this category
the knives mentioned in Il. XVIII 34 and XXIII 30. Two verses (_ib._
VII 141, 143 f.) speak of an iron club and one (_ib._ IV 123) of an
arrowhead, while the other two (Od. XVI 294, XIX 13) refer to the arms
in Odysseus' house collectively.
The obvious inference from the statistics is that iron tools came into
use before iron weapons, and though this was long thought incredible it
has recently been shown that there is some evidence for the prevalence
of such conditions in Palestine[309]. Moreover a somewhat striking
confirmation of the Homeric evidence was furnished by the excavations
at Troy, where a small lump of unwrought iron was found among deposits
belonging apparently to the fifth stratum[310]. It has been compared,
and doubtless rightly, with the lump mentioned in Il. XXIII 826 ff.,
though the latter must have been much larger. The presumption is that,
like this, it was intended for some tool or agricultural implement;
for all the weapons found at Troy--few as they were unfortunately--up
to the seventh stratum were of bronze. It is probable therefore that
the use of the metals not only in the fifth stratum but also in the
sixth--the great Mycenean fortress--was similar to that which is
indicated in the Homeric poems.
For those who believe that these poems are the work of a single author
the words "Iron does of itself attract a man[311]" (Od. XVI 294, XIX
13) present a serious difficulty. I cannot believe in view of the
evidence given above that iron weapons were regularly employed in the
Heroic Age[312] and that the use of the word χαλκός is a piece of
traditional poetic archaism. Otherwise however there is no alternative
but to regard the Odyssey verse as an interpolation[313]. But in
reality it is no great step from iron knives and arrow-heads to the use
of the same metal for spears or even swords. If we were to adopt the
view that the age of the composition of the Homeric poems coincides
with the period of transition between the first use of iron for cutting
and piercing instruments to its general employment for weapons of all
kinds, we should not necessarily require much more than a century for
their development. Indeed the presence of iron swords in graves of the
sub-Mycenean period in Crete (cf. p. 185) would seem to show that the
transition had begun within what may be regarded practically as the
Heroic Age itself.
Again, it is held that many anachronisms or chronological
inconsistencies appear in the battle scenes of the Iliad. Sometimes
we find descriptions of armour and tactics which are thought to be
copied from those of Ionic hoplites in early historical times and to
be irreconcilable with the type of warfare depicted in other passages.
Many of the chief men are represented as armed with breast-plates,
for which, it is said, there is no evidence in the Mycenean
age[314]--though this statement is more than doubtful[315]. In regard
to the form of the shield also there is a discrepancy. Sometimes it
is described as being of great length, 'like a tower' or 'reaching to
the feet'--terms which would suit the long shields often depicted on
objects of the Mycenean age. Sometimes on the other hand we hear of
'round' shields, which suggest the comparatively small circular shield
of the historical period.
These inconsistencies only concern us in so far as they are supposed
to point to widely different ages. Unfortunately our information
regarding the geometrical period is still very defective and we do not
know how far its characteristics were the same in all parts of Greece.
The same remarks apply with still greater force to the preceding or
sub-Mycenean age. Hence, though it may be true that the round shield
does not make its appearance in Attica till the close of the eighth
century, we cannot argue from this that it was unknown in other parts
of Greece[316]. In the more northern parts of Europe it appears to
be the earliest form of shield which has been found. More important
however is the fact that the Shardina and their confederates used the
round shield as far back as the thirteenth century, while the shields
represented on the Warrior Vase and the Stele from Mycenae (cf. p. 185)
can hardly be regarded otherwise than as a variety of the same type.
Hence, whatever may be the connection between the disappearance of
the long shield and the growing use of body armour, there is not the
slightest justification for supposing that the round variety was not
used in the Heroic Age itself.
The commonest type of Mycenean shield, the oval type contracted in the
middle, belongs to a class of shields which occur in various parts of
the world. It is probably akin to the Zulu shield, though in this the
lateral contraction has lost its meaning and almost disappeared. The
primary purpose of the whole class appears to be for defence against
missile weapons (ἕρκος ἀκόντων), whether light javelins or arrows.
But the special characteristic of the Mycenean variety is the use of
a suspending strap (τελαμών[317]) in place of a handle. The object
of this was to leave both hands free for the use of a long spear in
fighting at close quarters--as we see in the representation of a
lion-hunt engraved on a dagger-blade found at Mycenae. But it is to
be observed that the method of fighting most commonly employed by
Homeric warriors is of quite a different character. First the spear
was hurled--apparently with one hand (cf. Il. XXII 320)--and then an
attack was made with the sword. For both these movements the Mycenean
shield was obviously ill adapted. Indeed for the second, which required
agility above everything, it would be more of an encumbrance than a
protection. But even when the spear was used for thrusting there is
nothing to show that it was usually held in both hands[318]. Hence we
can hardly avoid concluding that the Homeric tactics were due to the
use of a different type of armature, which included a comparatively
small and mobile shield. We need not suppose of course that the
Mycenean shield was unknown or even uncommon. It seems fairly clear
that Aias the son of Telamon uses one of this type[319], and so also
Periphetes the Mycenean whose shield reached to his feet and caused
him to stumble (Il. XV 645 ff.)[320].
A further suggestion is that the Homeric use of the chariot was due to
the long shield[321]. The argument in this case is that such shields
could not be carried on horseback, while their weight was too great to
allow them to be borne for any distance on foot. This is an extremely
dubious theory for two reasons. In the first place the Homeric use
of the chariot is a problem which concerns not Greece alone but a
considerable part of Europe, including countries where there is no
evidence for the Mycenean shield[322]. Secondly, it may be regarded as
a general rule that those peoples which use the long shield not only
fight but also go to battle on foot. Moreover the evidence of the poems
themselves does not really bear out the suggested connection. Thus
there is no instance of the long shield more clear than that belonging
to Aias the son of Telamon, and this hero is one of the few leading men
who are never said to wear breast-plates. But he is also apparently one
of the very few who do not possess chariots. Indeed a better case could
probably be made out for connecting the chariot with the breast-plate.
The Homeric use of the chariot gives rise to another question which
probably deserves more careful consideration. In the action itself
driving appears to be universal; at most we have only one doubtful
case of riding (Il. X 513). But there are at least two incidental
references (Il. XV 679 ff., Od. V 371) which betray acquaintance with
the latter art. It is quite possible therefore that the knowledge
of riding was a comparatively recent accomplishment which the poet
or poets knew to have been foreign to the Heroic Age. Unfortunately
the history of equitation is a very obscure subject. In more eastern
countries the use of chariots--which here were war-chariots in the true
sense--continued until quite late times. In Cyprus we hear of them at
the beginning of the fifth century; and in Italy they were introduced,
or re-introduced, still later. But we do not know when riding began.
In the wall-sculptures at Karnak[323] which commemorate the victories
of Sety I and date from towards the close of the fourteenth century
several Hittites are shown on horseback. The scene represents a battle,
and it may have been the artist's intention to depict what was not a
normal custom but the last resource of fugitives whose chariots had
broken down. But even then the possibility remains that in emergencies
or under special conditions riding may have been practised by the
Greeks long before it was in regular use. The whole subject however
requires further investigation, in particular the question whether
there is reason for supposing the Hittites to have been more skilled in
horsemanship than other nations.
Another series of inconsistencies has been pointed out in references to
marriage customs, particularly in regard to the use of the word ἔεδνα
(ἕδνα). In several passages this word evidently denotes the sum paid
by the bridegroom to the bride's guardian; but in others it seems to
mean presents given to the bride at marriage by her own relatives. We
can scarcely doubt that a difference of custom is involved in these
usages; but it does not necessarily follow that the second group
of passages belong to a later period than the first. Account must
be taken of local divergencies, for there is hardly any subject in
which early Teutonic custom varied so much as in this, even from the
time of our oldest records. Again, it has been suggested[324] with
considerable probability that the inconsistencies of the Odyssey are to
be attributed to a change of custom--not in the sense that the earlier
parts of the poem reflect one form and the later parts another, but
that the poem as a whole belongs to an age of transition when different
forms of matrimonial arrangements were in vogue. This is a question
with which we shall have to deal more fully in a later chapter.
We have yet to consider certain inconsistencies in regard to religious
observances. Once only (Il. VI 303) is mention made of the figure--a
seated figure--of a deity, and consequently it is held that the passage
in question must be late. Recent discoveries however have tended to
throw doubt on this view; for a number of statuettes, apparently
representing deities, have come to light in deposits belonging both to
the Mycenean and Geometrical periods, while primitive female figures,
often in a sitting position, are quite common. The finding of a larger
image would now scarcely call forth much surprise, though it cannot be
supposed that such statues were of frequent occurrence.
In references to sanctuaries we sometimes hear of temples (νηοί), but
more frequently only of shrines or sacred groves. The most certain
examples[325] of the former are those of Apollo and Athene at Troy
(Il. V 446, VI 88, VII 83, etc.) and another of Athene at Athens (Il.
II 549, Od. VII 81). The sanctuary of Apollo at Chryse is also once
described as a temple (Il. I 39), though the account of the sacrifice
(_ib._ 440 ff.) suggests an open-air shrine. Besides these we have
a general reference to temples among the Phaeacians (Od. VI 10) and
a vow made by Odysseus' followers to construct a temple to Helios
on their return home (_ib._ XII 346). Now it is held that all these
passages belong to a late stage in the growth of the poems and that in
their original form temples were unknown. Sanctuaries of the earlier
period are described only by such terms as ἄλσος or τέμενος βωμός τε
θυήεις. There can be little doubt that the grove and the open-air
shrine represent more primitive types of sanctuary than the temple.
But the advocates of this theory seem to have overlooked the fact that
among many peoples the more primitive and the more developed forms of
sanctuary are found existing side by side[326]. Thus beside the great
temple at Upsala, the chief sanctuary of the North, there stood a grove
which appears to have been regarded with still greater veneration,
even down to the very end of heathen times. Close by was a spring in
which human victims were sacrificed[327]. This case shows how entirely
unjustifiable it is to assume the non-existence of a temple, when
only a shrine or sacred grove happens to be mentioned. We may cite
as an example the proposed sacrifice to Spercheios in Il. XXIII 145
ff.[328] In general however the Homeric evidence clearly suggests
that temples--and the same may possibly be the case with images--were
chiefly to be found in cities, while the more primitive forms of
sanctuary remained in less populous places.
I cannot but think that to any student of comparative religion the
argument derived from the references to sanctuaries will appear
entirely worthless. The argument against the antiquity of the round
shield also can hardly be maintained. Of the rest all except the one
based on the use of the metals contain a certain element of doubt.
But even if we grant their validity in every case it cannot be said
that either individually or collectively they necessitate the lapse
of a long interval between the earlier and later portions of the
poems. If the interval had amounted to anything like three centuries
discrepancies of a far more striking character must have come to light.
* * * * *
As yet we have taken no account of linguistic inconsistencies. The
poems as we have them present a medley of forms belonging to different
ages and different dialects. But these inconsistencies appear
everywhere; it is not the case that certain portions of the poems
contain only early forms and others only late ones. The Odyssey is
said to contain a certain number of apparently late usages, especially
of prepositions and conjunctions, which are wanting or only occur
rarely in the Iliad. It is held also that within the poems themselves
earlier and later portions can be distinguished to a certain extent by
similar differences of usage. But the evidence on the whole is slight
and generally somewhat ambiguous[329]; and consequently linguistic
criteria have as a rule played only a subordinate part in the attempts
which have been made to determine the stratification of the poems. We
must conclude then either that the later parts were composed in an
artificial type of language, thoroughly permeated with archaisms, or
that the earlier parts have undergone a very considerable amount of
modernisation. Indeed the latter explanation must be admitted to some
extent in any case; for relatively modern forms occur frequently in
what are usually regarded as the very earliest parts of the poems. But
if the preservation of the poems was dependent on oral tradition for
any considerable length of time it is very difficult to set a limit to
the operations of such a process. In Anglo-Saxon poems--even in those
which were not entirely dependent on oral tradition--modernisation
prevailed to such an extent that archaic forms disappeared practically
everywhere, while substitutions of one word for another were very
frequent. The more elaborate character of Greek metre doubtless acted
as a check on this tendency to change, but at the same time I cannot
help thinking that its importance in the history of Homeric poetry has
been greatly underrated.
On the question of dialect something more must be said. It is true no
doubt that the language of the poems as we have them must be regarded
as Ionic--but only with certain reservations. In the first place
we have to note the regular preservation of _h-_, which in strict
Ionic--the language of the Asiatic coast--was lost in the seventh
century, if not earlier. Again, we find a considerable number of forms
which cannot be assigned to any Ionic dialect, e.g. such as contain
_-ā-_ (λαός, Ἀτρείδαο, αἰχμητάων). Special attention must be paid to
forms which are definitely Aeolic, such as πίσυρες, ἄμμε, ἐρεβεννός.
Whatever may be the explanation of the preservation of _h-_, it is
universally agreed that the Aeolic element is deeply rooted in the
history of Homeric poetry. Some scholars indeed hold that the poems
were originally composed in Aeolic and that their present form is
practically an Ionic translation. The more general view however is that
Ionic was the language of epic composition from the beginning and that
such forms as πίσυρες and ἄμμε are derived from early Aeolic lays on
which the epics were for the most part based.
The legends as to Homer's birthplace are perhaps not without
significance for this question. In ancient times, from Pindar[330]
downwards, Smyrna's claim to this honour was the one most generally
recognised, and the majority of modern scholars are inclined to the
view that the birthplace of Homeric poetry is to be sought in or
around that city. Now Smyrna was originally an Aeolic state, but was
captured by the Ionians of Colophon[331], apparently towards the close
of the eighth century, from which time onwards it appears as Ionic.
The mixture of dialect found in the poems--an older stratum of Aeolic
underlying a later stratum of Ionic--would therefore be perfectly
in accord with what we know of the history of the city, although
unfortunately no early inscriptions are extant[332].
The most serious competitor of Smyrna was Chios, the claim of which
found favour with several of our earliest authorities. Especially
important is the fact that in a fragment published among the remains of
Simonides of Ceos (fragm. 85, Bergk), but now frequently attributed to
Semonides of Samos, who lived about the middle of the seventh century,
a verse of the Iliad (VI 146) is ascribed to the 'man of Chios.' In
this island also there dwelt in later times a clan called Ὁμηρίδαι[333]
who claimed descent from the poet. But here again there is a tradition
that the population was at least in part Aeolic[334]. Moreover, though
the language of the earliest extant inscriptions is Ionic in its main
features, it possesses certain Aeolic characteristics, especially
the change of _ō̆n_ to _ō̆i_[335] before _s_ (e.g. πρήξοισι, λάβωισι
against Ion. πρήξουσι, λάβωσι). There is no record of an Ionic conquest
of the island, as in the case of Smyrna, but we know that it did not
enter the Ionic confederation until a comparatively late period,
probably the seventh century[336].
It appears then that the peculiarities of Homeric language can be
satisfactorily accounted for by the history of either Smyrna or
Chios[337]. But now we are confronted with a very grave difficulty.
The same scholars who hold that Smyrna was the birthplace of Homeric
poetry yet insist that the language of the epics themselves was never
anything else than Ionic, although they allow that the Iliad was nearly
complete some considerable time before the conquest of Smyrna. This
position is quite incomprehensible to me. The only explanation offered,
so far as I am aware, is that the language of this district may have
been of a mixed character[338]. It is no doubt true that when the coast
was first occupied settlers may have come from many different quarters.
But when Mimnermos speaks of the capture of 'Aeolic Smyrna' we are
surely not justified in assuming that the city had become Ionicised
before that time. On the other hand the supposition that the two
dialects were not yet differentiated to any considerable extent appears
to me to be irreconcilable with the evidence of the poems themselves as
well as with all that we know of the history of the Greek dialects.
The question which we are discussing is one which concerns not only
the Iliad and Odyssey, together perhaps with certain Hymns and other
Homeric poems, but also the various works attributed to Hesiod. In
particular we may note the Works and Days and the Theogony, both of
which claim to be of Boeotian origin. Whether by chance or not they
contain few forms[339] which are peculiar to Aeolic proper, i.e. the
dialect of Asiatic Aeolis. But in all other respects their language is
of the Homeric type, i.e. generally speaking Ionic, though with certain
reservations, notably that ϝ is generally kept and _ᾱ_ frequently
occurs before ο, ω. Now it cannot be contended seriously that this
extraordinary mixed dialect sprang up naturally on both sides of the
Aegean. The only alternative however is to suppose that Boeotian poets
borrowed it from Asia. But is this really probable at such a time?
Before leaving this subject we must notice briefly the alternative
theory that the Homeric poems were originally composed in Aeolic.
According to the form in which this theory has become most widely known
they were translated into Ionic at a comparatively late date--towards
the close of the sixth century[340]. It is rather a serious objection
to this hypothesis that the poems contain no trace of late Aeolic
characteristics, such as the change of _n_ to _i_ before _s_ (e.g.
τοίς, παῖσα). Further, if the poems had been known so long in Aeolic,
though doubt might have prevailed as to Homer's birthplace, the fact
that he was an Aeolian could never have been called in question. Above
all it is difficult to see how the need of a translation could have
arisen at such a date, for the Aeolic dialect was then well known
throughout the Greek world through the poems of Alcaeus and Sappho.
On the other hand there can be no possible objection in principle to
the idea that the poems have undergone a change of dialect. We have
seen that a large proportion of Anglo-Saxon poetry has passed through
a similar process, generally from one English dialect to another,
but occasionally, as in the case of Genesis (vv. 235-851), from a
continental to an English dialect. In some few cases we still have
parallel texts preserved in different dialects[341]. Indeed, when
the poetry of one community becomes current in another community, it
would seem that under certain conditions such changes were not merely
possible but even inevitable. This is a question to which we shall have
to return in the course of the next few pages.
* * * * *
There is still one vexed question which we have not as yet touched
upon, namely the relationship of the Homeric poems to the art of
writing. Wolf and his immediate successors held that the art was
unknown when these poems came into existence. Among more recent
scholars however the general tendency has been to regard this view as
mistaken. Some leading authorities even hold that considerable portions
of the poems were written down from the time of their composition.
The poems themselves contain only one reference to writing, namely in
Il. VI 168 ff., where it is stated that Proitos sent Bellerophon to
Lycia "and gave him baneful tokens, writing many deadly things in a
folded tablet, which he bade him show to his (Proitos') father-in-law,
with a view to his own destruction[342]." So long as no further
evidence was forthcoming there was a natural inclination either to
regard this passage as an interpolation or to interpret it as denoting
something which could not properly be called writing. But of late years
archaeological investigation has brought to light, especially in Crete,
numerous inscriptions dating from very remote times, and there cannot
now be any question as to the antiquity of writing in the southern
Aegean. Moreover the Homeric poets themselves can hardly have been
ignorant of the existence of such an art, for rock-hewn figures with
inscriptions dating from pre-Homeric times--including one which has
been identified with the figure of 'Niobe' mentioned in Il. XXIV 614
ff.--are to be found quite close to the Asiatic coast.
Yet in spite of all this it is a very remarkable fact that the whole
28,000 verses of the Iliad and Odyssey contain only one reference to
writing. The significance of this may be appreciated by turning to
modern Servian poetry, which abounds with allusions to letters and
written orders, although the minstrels themselves are quite ignorant
both of reading and writing. It is true that in Beowulf we find only
one direct reference to writing. But the Iliad and Odyssey together
contain nearly nine times as many verses as Beowulf.
On the whole it seems to me that the evidence for the antiquity
of writing given above does not prove exactly what it is commonly
supposed to do. The inscriptions on the rock-hewn figures are Hittite.
The ancient Cretan inscriptions have not yet been deciphered, and
in view of the later inscriptions found at Praisos the probability
as yet is distinctly against their being in the Greek language. But
in any case they date from ages long anterior to Homeric times, and
there is nothing to prove their continuity with the writing of the
historical period. With regard to the passage in Il. VI 168 ff. it
is to be observed firstly that Proitos is one of the very earliest
persons mentioned in the poems--some three generations removed from
the characters of the Trojan story--and secondly that the curious
phraseology seems rather to suggest that the poet was speaking of
something which he did not clearly understand. On the whole then it is
much to be doubted whether writing was a current and native practice
during the period when the poems were composed.
A reservation should perhaps be made with regard to the latest elements
in the poems. Although definite evidence is wanting, the beginnings of
the Greek alphabet may quite probably go back to the ninth century, and
it may very well be that the poems had not then attained their final
form. But it should not be assumed that the alphabet was introduced
simultaneously throughout the Greek world. Some districts may have
acquired it generations before others, and Aeolis (including even Chios
and Smyrna) was probably not one of the more advanced. Further, we must
admit that in all probability its use was at first very limited. From
all analogies we should expect that it was employed for inscriptions,
correspondence, etc. for a very long time before it was made to serve
any literary purpose. Such apparently was the case with the alphabet of
ancient Rome and with the Runic alphabet almost throughout its history.
Unless the conditions in Greece were quite exceptional we should not
expect the alphabet to come into contact with heroic poetry for a
considerable time.
The theory that certain portions of the poems were written down from
the beginning presupposes of course a use of writing quite different
from that which is brought before us in the story of Bellerophon. This
theory[343] is, and necessarily must be, bound up with another theory,
which we have already discussed, that these portions date from a period
not earlier than the seventh century. Our discussion has led us to the
conclusion that the evidence for the latter theory is unsatisfactory.
But, apart from this, it is inconceivable that the 'literary' portions,
which are said to amount to several thousand verses, should contain no
reference, direct or indirect, to the use of writing. In Beowulf we
find only one direct reference to writing (v. 1694 f.)--an inscription
in Runic letters such as had long been in use. But in the Christian
additions or 'interpolations' we meet with three examples of the verb
_scrifan_ (_forscrifan_, _gescrifan_--from Lat. _scribere_), which
of course is indirect evidence for the use of writing, though in a
different language[344]. If large portions of the Homeric poems were
really of literary origin the authors could scarcely have failed to
betray themselves by usages of this kind, even though they deliberately
avoided all mention of writing.
In addition to this general consideration we have to take account of
the linguistic difficulties discussed above. We have seen that Hesiod's
works show almost the same form of language as the Homeric poems,
although the Boeotian dialect was quite different from anything spoken
on the other side of the Aegean. Did Hesiod, who lived in the eighth
century, probably before the Ionian conquest of Smyrna, really employ
the 'impure Ionic' in which his poems have come down to us? He himself
says (W. and D. 650 ff.) that he had never crossed the sea except
(once apparently) to Chalcis. Presumably then his knowledge of heroic
poetry was derived either from Boeotia, where he lived, or from Cyme in
Aeolis, from whence his father had emigrated. But Cyme never came into
Ionian hands. Are we to suppose then that either here or in Boeotia
poets were already employing as their vehicle a form of language which
according to the theory under discussion owed its existence (whether
in ordinary speech or only in poetry) to certain political changes in
a third district--changes too which had hardly begun much before the
time of Hesiod? This hypothesis seems to me quite incredible[345].
On the other hand if Hesiod's poems have undergone a change of dialect
since their original composition may not the Homeric poems have
passed through the same process? In this case of course such a change
would come about quite naturally if Smyrna or Chios was the original
home of the poems. But here we must notice a curious feature in the
'epic dialect' to which we have already referred. Except in Aeolic
forms--and this exception deserves to be remarked--the poems almost
always preserve initial _h-_[346]. This is a characteristic which the
'epic dialect' shares with western or European Ionic but not with the
language of the Asiatic coast[347]. Its presence raises a distinct
difficulty in the way of supposing that the poems were Ionicised in
their original home.
Now if the Homeric poems had been written down in Aeolic and preserved
in literary form we can hardly doubt that they would have retained
their original dialect, just like the works of Alcman, Alcaeus, and
Sappho. It must not be argued that Ionic was the proper language of
the epic, Doric and Aeolic of the lyric; for if the Homeric poems had
become generally known in Aeolic nothing could have prevented this
dialect from becoming the language of the epic also. We may assume then
that they were not transmitted in written Aeolic. But the same argument
really militates against the theory that they were written in Asiatic
Ionic[348], though in this case the difference of dialect is less
striking.
A form of language practically identical with that of the epics
appears in the remains of several poets of the seventh and sixth
centuries, such as Archilochos and Solon. The only noticeable
difference is in the proportion of non-Ionic forms which they use. Now
since these authors belonged to quite different districts we must, if
we are to trust our evidence, infer the existence of a kind of literary
language at this time. Its difference from Asiatic Ionic is of course
comparatively slight, and in the texts which have come down to us it is
not always carefully observed[349]. Still there is a sufficient amount
of regularity to show that it was generally recognised.
The true home of this literary language must not be sought in Athens,
but rather in Euboea or the Cyclades; and we may probably attribute
its spread, in part at least, to the influence of the poems of
Archilochos. But it certainly affected the writing of Attic for some
two centuries, and there can be little doubt that it was thoroughly
domiciled in Athens at quite an early date--probably in the seventh
century. I cannot see any objection therefore to supposing that it
was in Athens that both the Homeric and Hesiodic poems acquired those
peculiar linguistic characteristics which we comprehend under the
term 'epic dialect.' This of course brings us back to the story that
the poems were collected or written down by order of Peisistratos.
The evidence for the story is late, and its truth is hotly contested
by many scholars. But at all events it has the merit of providing a
satisfactory explanation of the linguistic phenomena.
Certainly, if we may judge from the analogy of other peoples, heroic
poetry would not by any means be among the first species of literature
to get committed to writing. There is no reason whatever for supposing
that anything of this kind was written down in England before the
eighth century, i.e. at least a century after the language was first
applied to literary purposes, in Aethelberht's time. The same remark
seems to be true of Ireland, Germany and the North, while Bosnian
heroic poetry is being written down only in our own generation, and not
by natives of the country. It is only natural therefore to expect that
the Homeric poems would be written down according to an orthography
which was already well established.
This orthography no doubt represents more or less truly the form in
which the poems were recited in Athens at the time. But does it also
represent the form in which they were recited at (let us say) Sicyon?
That is a question upon which we have no direct evidence. But it is
worth noting that in Doric and other non-Ionic states we find a number
of ancient inscriptions in hexameters or elegiacs which contain epic
words and forms. We may note especially the Gen. sg. ending -οιο, e.g.
κασιγνετοιο, οδοιο, Αραθθοιο, and above all false imitations of epic
forms, such as Τλασκιαϝο[350]. But in all these inscriptions Ionic
characteristics are conspicuously absent[351]. Does this mean that
wherever the heroic poems were introduced the rhapsodists tried to
accommodate them, as far as possible, to the language of the district?
But if so, is it possible that the Ionic element in our texts is
wholly due to the rhapsodists? A Chalcidian or Naxian or Athenian
audience would certainly experience at least as much difficulty in
following a purely Aeolic Iliad as a southern English audience would
have in listening to a purely Northumbrian or Mercian Beowulf. On the
other hand an Iliad Ionicised in Chalcis or Naxos would be easily
intelligible in Athens[352].
At all events we have seen that there is a very serious objection on
chronological grounds to the view that Hesiod's poems were composed
in a form of 'impure Ionic' borrowed from the Asiatic coast. In this
case it is surely far more probable that the Ionic element is due
to the rhapsodists, whether in Chalcis or Athens. But is there any
real reason for denying that the Homeric poems may have had a similar
experience? This is a question which I do not feel qualified to answer.
But it seems to me to deserve more attention from scholars than it has
received as yet.
* * * * *
In this chapter we have seen that the Homeric poems contain elements
of great antiquity. Although we have no means of fixing an exact date
for these elements, we can hardly doubt that they originated at a
time before iron had come into general use for weapons. According to
the prevailing opinion of archaeologists this innovation cannot have
taken place after the tenth century. We need not suppose that any
considerable portions of the poems in their present form date from such
an early period. But the 'type' must have been fixed by that time, and
to a considerable extent also the subject-matter.
Still more clearly we have seen that there is no ground for supposing
that the earlier and later elements are separated from one another
by a wide interval. For the idea that the earlier elements reflect
the conditions of the last age of Mycenean splendour--probably about
the thirteenth century--while the later elements betray acquaintance
with conditions of the seventh century, we have not been able to find
any justification. The period intervening between the Mycenean age
and the beginning of the classical age is certainly one which has as
yet yielded comparatively little to archaeological research. But our
discussion has led us to infer that the conditions of life reflected
in the poems throughout belong to some part of this period, rather
than that they are due to a combination taken from the preceding and
following ages[353] with a more or less blank interval of some five or
six centuries.
I have spoken advisedly of earlier and later 'elements' rather than of
earlier and later 'portions' in the poems. Elaborate analyses, such as
that proposed for the Odyssey by Prof. von Wilamowitz-Möllendorff, are
admittedly hopeless unless we assent to the hypothesis that the person
responsible for the final form of the poem possessed a written text;
and we have seen that this hypothesis is open to grave objections. The
existence of different strata in the work must doubtless be conceded.
We may even allow that it is built up out of shorter epics. But I
cannot admit that such a poem as the Odyssey can be successfully
constructed out of shorter ones by stringing the latter together,
even if we do grant that the additions made by the editor amount to
a sixth part of the whole[354]. It is questionable therefore whether
we are justified in regarding the last stratum as the work of an
'editor'--whether we ought not rather to regard this person as the
'author' of our poem. He must have used earlier pieces, and he may have
incorporated them in large mass in his work. But we have no guarantee
that he did not greatly expand his materials as well as provide
connecting links between them.
In the Iliad we are confronted to a certain extent with the same
problems. But the process of unification does not appear to have
been carried out so thoroughly and the proportion of early matter
incorporated is probably much greater. The point however which I would
especially emphasise in both cases alike is that the unification
process cannot be used as an argument for lateness of date. If we bear
in mind the undoubtedly archaic character of both poems, the paucity of
inconsistencies points to an entirely opposite conclusion. The greater
the amount of matter which we attribute to the last strata, the shorter
must be the period during which the poems grew until they reached their
final form.
Lastly we have seen that though the linguistic evidence agrees very
well with the tradition that 'Homer' belonged to Smyrna (or Chios),
there are very serious objections to the view that the poems were
originally composed in the Ionic dialect[355]. They may have been
subsequently Ionicised in their original home, but even that is
scarcely certain. The form in which they have come down to us belongs
properly to the western Ionic of the islands, which in early times was
used as a literary language in Athens.
FOOTNOTES:
[292] Plutarch, _Solon_, cap. 10; Diogenes Laertius, _Solon_, cap. 48,
etc. In some form or other the story was known to Aristotle (_Rhet._ I
15).
[293] Archilochos, Fragm. 153 (in Bergk's _Poetae Lyrici Graeci_).
[294] Cf. Croisset, _Rev. des deux Mondes_, 1907, 5, p. 605.
[295] Plutarch, _De Musica_, III 9.
[296] Hesiod, Fragm. 65 f. (in Rzach's edition, 1902).
[297] In Od. VI 162 ff. there is a reference to the sanctuary of Apollo
in Delos.
[298] _Die Composition der Odyssee_, p. 85 f.; _Die hom. Odyssee_², p.
287 ff.
[299] The references to the spring Ἀρτακίη (cf. Od. X 107 f.) cannot
be regarded as conclusive, since such connections are capable of more
than one explanation--even if we bear in mind the name of the adjacent
mountain (Ἀρτάκη). The mountain itself may have been known to the
Greeks from early times.
[300] In view of the evidence pointed out at the close of the last
chapter one will do well to hesitate before denying the possibility of
such distant expeditions in early times. But any communication which
may have existed must have been interrupted by the invasions of the
Bithynoi and Treres, probably in the ninth and eighth centuries. Note
may also be taken here of what is said about the Cimmerioi in Od. XI
14-19; cf. Meyer, _Geschichte des Alterthums_, II, pp. 367 f., 445 f.
[301] Cf. especially Wilamowitz-Möllendorff, _Hom. Unt._ p. 24 ff. The
theory that the Ephyre of II 328 must be a different place from the
Ephyre of I 259 seems to me very problematical if the author of the
second book had only a vague knowledge of the geography of western
Greece. Again, if Ilos Mermerides (I 259) is taken from the story of
the Argo, is it really necessary that the source should be a different
one from that referred to in XII 69 ff.?
[302] From this it has been argued that the 'Odyssey' known to Hesiod
must have differed greatly from the poem which has come down to us. But
it is to be remembered that there are quite as noticeable discrepancies
between the Odyssey and the Iliad.
[303] We shall have occasion later to notice more than one point in
which this passage departs from the customary Homeric standards.
[304] Except probably in XIV 9 ff., as has been ingeniously pointed
out by Mr Lang (_Homer and his Age_, p. 276 ff.). In the same chapter
Mr Lang shows that several features in the Doloneia which have been
interpreted as marks of lateness may very well be due to the peculiar
circumstances of the situation.
[305] Gemöll, _Hermes_, XV 557 ff. (cf. XVIII 308 ff.). Cf. also
Shewan, _Class. Quarterly_, IV 73 ff., where this view is rejected.
[306] Mr Lang (_Homer and his Age_, p. 265 ff.) has called attention to
the fact that in v. 261 ff. Odysseus is represented as wearing a cap
of a type which appears to have been in use during the Mycenean age.
If it could be shown that the article in question was peculiar to that
period, the lateness of the book would certainly be open to serious
question.
[307] Bronze is mentioned 279 times in the Iliad and 80 times in the
Odyssey. In a large proportion of these cases the reference is to
weapons. Cf. Helbig, _Das homerische Epos_, p. 329 ff.
[308] Iron is mentioned altogether 48 times. In nine cases it is spoken
of merely as a substance--a possession or article of trade. To these
we may add fifteen more in which the word is used metaphorically as
a standard of hardness, etc., and one (Od. IX 393) which refers to
the testing of iron in water. Iron tools or implements are mentioned
thirteen times, apart from the two references to knives given above. We
hear also of iron chains (Od. I 204), the iron axle-tree of a (divine)
chariot-wheel (Il. V 723), and the iron door of Tartarus (_ib._ VIII
15); cf. Cauer, _Grundfragen der Homerkritik_², p. 281 ff.
[309] Cf. Macalister, _Palestine Expl. Fund, Quart. Rep._, 1903, p.
199; Lang, _Class. Rev._ XXII, p. 47.
[310] Cf. Dörpfeld, _Troja und Ilion_, p. 368.
[311] αὐτὸς γὰρ ἐφέλκεται ἄνδρα σίδηρος. Cf. Burrows, _The Discoveries
in Crete_, p. 214 ff.
[312] Cf. Ridgeway, _The Early Age of Greece_, p. 294 f. Prof.
Ridgeway allows the occasional use of bronze swords, e.g. in the case
of Euryalos the Phaeacian (Od. VIII 403-6). But the swords of Paris,
Patroclos, Achilles and Odysseus (Il. III 334 f., XVI 135 f., XIX 372
f., Od. X 261 f.) are described in very similar terms (ξίφος ἀργυρόηλον
χάλκεον). Further, the tendency of bronze swords to snap off short at
the hilt is well illustrated by the case of Lycon in Il. XVI 338 f.
[313] Cf. Lang, _Homer and his Age_, p. 192 f.
[314] Cf. Reichel, _Über homerische Waffen_ (Abh. d. arch.-epigr.
Seminares d. Univ. Wien, Heft XI), p. 79 ff.
[315] Cf. p. 191 and Evans, _Journal of the Anthropological Institute_,
XXX 213 f.
[316] Cf. Ridgeway, _op. cit._ pp. 324 f., 475.
[317] This strap seems to have been used for carrying even
comparatively small shields down to a much later period. It is not
found apparently in the representations of the Shardina, though they
have an arm-strap as well as a handle.
[318] The Shardina on the temple of Medinet Habu and the warriors
represented on the Stele hold their spears poised in their right hands,
precisely at the same angle. But it is not quite clear to me whether a
cast or thrust is intended.
[319] φέρων σάκος ἠΰτε πύργον (Il. XII 219, etc.). There is a reference
no doubt to the hero's great stature.
[320] Very recently the history of Greek shields has been treated
at length by Dr G. Lippold (_Münchener Archäologische Studien_, pp.
399-504). This work is largely taken up with a criticism of Reichel's
theories, and in the course of the discussion it is pointed out that
the latter are in many points insufficiently supported by evidence.
Dr Lippold (pp. 406, 474) seems to have no hesitation in assigning
the Warrior Vase and its congeners to the late Mycenean age--he does
not distinguish between 'Mycenean' and 'sub-Mycenean'--and he also
recognises (p. 461 ff.) that two kinds of shields figure in the Homeric
poems. The 'tower' shield however is identified by him with the Dipylon
shield, from which he believes the 'Boeotian' shield to be descended.
He holds that the round shield was of Oriental origin, since it was
used by the Assyrians in the ninth century, and that it was first
introduced into Greece towards the end of the Mycenean period; then,
after being banished for a while from the Greek mainland by the Dipylon
shield, it was re-introduced, in a somewhat modified form, towards the
end of the Dipylon (Geometrical) period. The Homeric poems are held to
reflect the time of transition when it was re-introduced; but no date
appears to be given except that it was before the eighth century (p.
468). This explanation seems to me to be open to a serious objection,
namely that the Homeric shields will then have to reflect a different
age from that indicated by the Homeric evidence on the use of the
metals; for the latter clearly belongs to the close of the Mycenean--or
rather 'sub-Mycenean'--period. So far as I can see, it is only by Dr
Mackenzie's equation of the Homeric poems with the Warrior Vase and
certain East Cretan graves (cf. p. 185) that we can obtain a consistent
and intelligible sequence. Of course it may very well be that the round
shield was banished for a time from the Greek mainland by the Dipylon
type. On the other hand the suggestion that the former was of Assyrian
origin surely requires evidence earlier than the ninth century; for
we find it used by the Shardina, who cannot properly be regarded as
Oriental, as far back as the thirteenth century. I have to thank Mr A.
B. Cook for calling my attention to Dr Lippold's work.
[321] Cf. Reichel, _op. cit._ p. 53 f.
[322] Long shields were regularly used during the La Tène period by
the Celtic peoples, and also by many of the Teutonic peoples probably
much later. But they seem to have been of a totally different type
from the Mycenean. In late times they were certainly of great length
(cf. Diodorus, V 30, and the figures on the bowl of Gundestrup); but
the earliest examples (e.g. the oval shields depicted on the Hallstatt
sword-sheath) may really be modifications of the round shield.
[323] Cf. Ridgeway, _The Origin and Influence of the Thoroughbred
Horse_, p. 510. A similar case occurs in a painting representing the
victory of Rameses II over the Hittites, figured in Meyer's _Geschichte
des alten Aegyptens_ (plate following p. 290).
[324] Cauer, _Grundfragen d. Homerkritik_², p. 294 ff.
[325] It is uncertain whether the sanctuaries of Apollo at Pytho
(Delphoi) and of Poseidon at Scheria (Il. IX 404 f., Od. VIII 79 ff.,
VI 266 f.) are regarded as temples; cf. Cauer, _op. cit._ p. 301 f. In
the former case however it is decidedly probable.
[326] Many well-known survivals of such usage occur in Greece itself.
[327] Adam Brem. IV 27: _corpora autem suspenduntur in lucum qui
proximus est templo. is enim lucus tam sacer est gentilibus ut singulae
arbores eius ex morte uel tabo immolatorum diuinae credantur._ Cf. also
the (contemporary) schol. 134: _prope illud templum est arbor maxima
late ramos extendens, semper uiridis in hieme et aestate, cuius illa
generis sit nemo scit. ibi etiam est fons ubi sacrificia paganorum
solent exerceri et homo uiuus immergi. qui dum non inuenitur ratum erit
uotum populi._
[328]
Σπερχεί', ἄλλως σοί γε πατὴρ ἠρήσατο Πηλεὺς
κεῖσέ με νοστήσαντα φίλην ἐς πατρίδα γαῖαν
σοί τε κόμην κερέειν ῥέξειν θ' ἱερὴν ἑκατόμβην,
πεντήκοντα δ' ἔνορχα παρ' αὐτόθι μῆλ' ἱερεύσειν
ἐς πηγὰς ὅθι τοι τέμενος βωμός τε θυήεις.
[329] The Appendices in Miss Stawell's _Homer and the Iliad_ (pp.
238-326) suggest that many of the instances commonly cited are due to
insufficient consideration.
[330] Fragm. 189, Boeckh.
[331] Cf. Mimnermos, fragm. 9. 5 f. (Bergk), Herodotus, I 150, etc.
According to Pausanias (V 8. 7) Smyrna had become Ionic before the year
688; cf. Wilamowitz-Möllendorff, _S.-B. der Akad. der Wiss. zu Berlin_,
1906, p. 52, note.
[332] Acquaintance with the district round Smyrna is shown by the
reference to the figure of 'Niobe' on Mt Sipylos in Il. XXIV 614 ff.,
although the identification of this figure is still disputed.
[333] On the problems connected with this name see Allen, _Classical
Quarterly_, I 135 ff.
[334] Stephanus Byzant. s. v. Βολισσός.
[335] But not the corresponding change of _an_ to _ai_ (cf. τάς, πᾶσα).
[336] Cf. Wilamowitz-Möllendorff, _op. cit._ p. 52 f.
[337] The Ionic states of Clazomenai and Phocaia, to the west and
north-west of Smyrna, seem to have been founded at a comparatively late
period, though probably in the eighth century. Since the promontory
of Ἄργεννον opposite Chios and to the south-west of Erythrai, has an
Aeolic name, it is possible that the whole of the coast north of Teos
was once occupied by Aeolians.
[338] Cf. Wilamowitz-Möllendorff, _op. cit._ p. 75 and (for a
criticism) Cauer, _Grundfragen_², p. 181 ff.
[339] The Shield of Heracles contains a number of clearly Aeolic forms
(ἄμμες, ὔμμι, etc.).
[340] Cf. Fick, _Die homerische Odyssee_ (1883), and _Die homerische
Ilias_ (1886), where the poems are reconstructed in their original
Aeolic form.
[341] E.g. the two texts of Riddle XXXVI (both printed in Sweet's
_Oldest English Texts_, p. 150 f.) and the texts of Caedmon's Hymn
from the Moore MS. of Bede's Eccles. History (_ib._ p. 149) and the
Anglo-Saxon version (IV 24). Reference may also be made to the Dream
of the Cross and the extracts given in the inscription on the Ruthwell
Cross. A portion of the Old Saxon Genesis is printed, together with
the Anglo-Saxon version, in Cook and Tinker's _Translations from Old
English Poetry_, p. 184 f.
[342]
πέμπε δέ μιν Λυκίηνδε πόρεν δ' ὅ γε σήματα λυγρὰ,
γράψας ἐν πίνακι πτυκτῷ θυμοφθόρα πολλὰ,
δεῖξαι δ' ἠνώγειν ᾧ πενθερῷ ὄφρ' ἀπόλοιτο.
[343] The analysis of the Odyssey given by Prof. v.
Wilamowitz-Möllendorff admittedly postulates a written text (_Hom.
Untersuch._ p. 293). But I cannot assent to the proposition that the
Catalogue of Ships in itself must come from a written source. This list
scarcely differs in principle from the catalogues of Widsith.
[344] Further indirect evidence, of native origin, is supplied by the
word _facenstafas_ (O. Norse _feiknstafir_) in v. 1018, if the original
meaning of this compound was 'harmful runes' (used magically). Cf. also
vv. 317, 382, 458, 1753.
[345] It may be added that we really know nothing of the Ionic of
Hesiod's time. It is quite uncertain how far it had already developed
those characteristics which we find in our texts.
[346] The few exceptional forms such as (τ') οὖλον (Od. XVII 343) may
be due to fairly late scribes familiar with (eastern) Ionic texts.
[347] We may note also the absence of the literary Ionic forms κότε,
κῶς, etc.
[348] It is true that we do not know exactly when _h-_ was lost.
But before that change took place Η cannot have been used for _ē_;
consequently a wholesale μεταγραμματισμός would be involved (doubtless
also affecting the representation of _ō_), just as in the case of
Athens.
[349] Cf. Hoffmann, _Griech. Dial._ III, p. 549 f.; Fick, _Neue
Jahrbücher_, I 504 ff.
[350] Cauer, _Delectus Inscr. Graec._ 83, 84, 91. We may compare also
such epic expressions as ευρυχορο, γαιας απο πατριδος, πολυμελο,
κλεϝος απθιτον (_ib._ 54, 83, 445, 202), and, more particularly, an
inscription on a bronze discus from Cephallenia (cf. Cook, _Class.
Review_, XIII 77 f.):
Εχσοιδα μ ανεθεκε Διϝος ϙοροιν μεγαλοιο
χαλκεον hοι νικασε Κεφαλανας μεγαθυμος
(cf. Hom. Hymn. XXXIII 9; Il. II 631).
[351] The same remark is true of heroic names occurring in Doric
inscriptions, e.g. Ϝεκαβα, Κεβριονας, Δαιφοβος on a vase (Cauer, _op.
cit._ 78) found near Caere. So also with the heroic names used by
Pindar and other non-Ionic poets--not to mention the Latin forms. Yet
these poets use the Ionic forms of foreign names, such as Μῆδοι (Cypr.
_Ma-to-i_), which had come to them presumably through Ionic channels.
On the other hand we find in inscriptions on Chalcidian vases more
purely Ionic forms, e.g. Αινεες (_ib._ 545), than those preserved in
our text. These seem to count against any place except Athens as the
home of the final form of the 'epic dialect.'
[352] From the fact that Pindar and other non-Ionic authors use what is
apparently an Ionic form--indeed, strictly speaking, a western Ionic
form--in the poet's name (Ὅμηρος), while they give the names of the
heroes themselves in non-Ionic form, we are justified in concluding
that they had acquired the former from a different (presumably
literary) source. Certainly the earliest references to the poet come
from Ionic authors. Again, Thucydides (III 104) is clearly recording
a generally accepted opinion when he quotes the Hymn to the Delian
Apollo under Homer's name; and I can see no reason for doubting the
identity of Semonides' Χῖος ἀνήρ (cf. p. 209) with the author of this
poem (v. 172: τυφλὸς ἀνὴρ, οἰκεῖ δὲ Χίῳ ἔνι παιπαλοέσσῃ). The Hymn
dates probably from the period when Chios was in process of becoming
Ionicised. At such a time the repertoire of a Chian minstrel would have
an exceptionally favourable opportunity of gaining currency (naturally
under his own name) in Ionic circles--in the Cyclades probably as well
as in Ionia itself.
[353] Cf. Reichel, _op. cit._ p. 59: "Das Epos schildert, wie in allen
Dingen, auch hier die ältere Prachtzeit," and pp. 63, 102 f., where
the first appearance of the round shield (of which the knowledge is
granted, p. 55 ff.) is referred to the middle of the eighth century,
and that of breast-plates to about the beginning of the seventh century.
[354] Prof. v. Wilamowitz-Möllendorff holds that the editor was a
person of inferior ability and that the poem as a whole is not a
success; but this view is scarcely in accordance with the generally
received opinion.
[355] It is worth noting that these objections apply even to what
are commonly regarded as among the latest parts of the poems. Thus
in Od. XXIV 305, where Odysseus describes himself as υἱὸς Ἀφείδαντος
Πολυπημονίδαο ἄνακτος, the point is entirely spoilt by the Ionic form.
That the true form should be Aeolic (-παμμον-) is rendered more than
probable by such names as Ἁλιθέρσης, Πολυθερσεΐδη--of which at least
the second likewise belongs to the 'later' portions of the poem.