ARTICLES IN THIS SLICE:

HOME, DANIEL DUNGLAS HOPKINS, ESEK

HOME, JOHN HOPKINS, MARK

HOMEL HOPKINS, SAMUEL

HOME OFFICE HOPKINS, WILLIAM

HOMER HOPKINSON, FRANCIS

HOMER, WINSLOW HOPKINSON, JOHN

HOMESTEAD HOPKINSVILLE

HOMESTEAD AND EXEMPTION LAWS HOPPNER, JOHN

HOMEYER, KARL GUSTAV HOP-SCOTCH

HOMICIDE HOPTON, RALPH HOPTON

HOMILETICS HOR, MOUNT

HOMILY HORACE

HOMOEOPATHY HORAE

HOMONYM HORAPOLLON

HOMS HORATII and CURIATII

HO-NAN HORATIUS COCLES

HONAVAR HORDE

HONDA HOREB

HONDECOETER, MELCHIOR D' HOREHOUND

HONDURAS HORGEN

HONE, NATHANIEL HORIZON

HONE, WILLIAM HORMAYR, JOSEPH

HONE HORMISDAS

HONEY HORMIZD

HONEYCOMB HORMUZ

HONEY-EATER HORN, ARVID BERNHARD

HONEY-GUIDE HORN, PHILIP DE MONTMORENCY

HONEY LOCUST HORN (English hero)

HONEYMOON HORN (of animals)

HONEYSUCKLE HORN (wind instrument)

HONFLEUR HORNBEAM

HONG-KONG HORNBILL

HONITON HORNBLENDE

HONNEF HORN-BOOK

HONOLULU HORNBY, SIR GEOFFREY THOMAS PHIPPS

HONORIUS HORNCASTLE

HONORIUS, FLAVIUS HORN DANCE

HONOUR HORNE, GEORGE

HONOURABLE HORNE, RICHARD HENRY, or HENGIST

HONTHEIM, JOHANN NIKOLAUS VON HORNE, THOMAS HARTWELL

HONTHORST, GERARD VAN HORNELL

HOOCH, PIETER DE HORNEMANN, FREDERICK

HOOD, JOHN BELL HORNER, FRANCIS

HOOD, SAMUEL HOOD HORNER, LEONARD

HOOD, SIR SAMUEL HORNES, MORITZ

HOOD, THOMAS HORNFELS

HOOD, TOM HORNING, LETTERS OF

HOOD OF AVALON, ARTHUR HOOD HORNPIPE

HOOD HORNSEY

HOOFT, PIETER CORNELISSEN HOROWITZ, ISAIAH

HOOGSTRATEN, SAMUEL DIRKSZ VAN HORREUM

HOOK, JAMES CLARKE HORROCKS, JEREMIAH

HOOK, THEODORE EDWARD HORROCKS, JOHN

HOOK, WALTER FARQUHAR HORSE

HOOKAH HORSE LATITUDES

HOOKE, ROBERT HORSE-MACKEREL

HOOKER, JOSEPH HORSEMANSHIP

HOOKER, SIR JOSEPH DALTON HORSENS

HOOKER, RICHARD HORSE-POWER

HOOKER, THOMAS HORSE-RACING

HOOKER, SIR WILLIAM JACKSON HORSERADISH

HOOLE, JOHN HORSE-SHOES

HOOLIGAN HORSETAIL

HOOPER, JOHN HORSHAM

HOOPOE HORSLEY, JOHN

HOORN HORSLEY, JOHN CALLCOTT

HOOSICK FALLS HORSLEY, SAMUEL

HOP HORSLEY, WILLIAM

HOPE, ANTHONY HORSMAN, EDWARD

HOPE, THOMAS HORST

HOPEDALE HORT, FENTON JOHN ANTHONY

HOPE-SCOTT, JAMES ROBERT HORTA

HOPFEN, HANS VON HORTEN

HOPI HORTENSIUS, QUINTUS (Roman orator)

HOPKEN, ANDERS JOHAN HORTENSIUS, QUINTUS (dictator of Rome)

HOPKINS, EDWARD WASHBURN

HOME, DANIEL DUNGLAS (1833-1886), Scottish spiritualist, was born near

Edinburgh on the 20th of March 1833, his father being said to be a

natural son of the 10th earl of Home, and his mother a member of a

family credited with second sight. He went with his mother to America,

and on her death was adopted by an aunt. In the United States he came

out as a spiritualistic medium, though, it should be noted, he never

sought to make money out of his exhibitions. In 1855 he came to England

and gave numerous seances, which were attended by many well-known

people. Robert Browning, the poet, went to one of these, but without

altering his contempt for spiritualism, and he subsequently gave his

impression of Home in the unflattering poem of "Sludge the Medium"

(1864); Home, nevertheless, had many disciples, and gave seances at

several European courts. He became a Roman Catholic, but was expelled

from Rome as a sorcerer. In 1866 Mrs Lyon, a wealthy widow, adopted him

as her son, and settled L60,000 upon him. Repenting, however, of her

action, she brought a suit for the return of her money, on the ground

that it had been obtained by "spiritual" influence. It was held that the

burden of establishing the validity of the gift lay on Home, and as he

failed to do so the case was decided against him. He continued, however,

to give seances, mostly on the Continent, and in 1871 appeared before

the tsar of Russia and two Russian scientists, who attested the

phenomena evoked. Returning to England he submitted to a series of

experiments designed to test his pretensions before Professor

(subsequently Sir William) Crookes, which the latter declared to be

thoroughly genuine; and Professor von Boutlerow, of the Russian Academy

of Science, after witnessing a similar series of experiments, expressed

the same opinion. Home published two volumes of _Incidents of my Life

and Lights and Shadows of Spiritualism_. He married successively two

well-connected Russian ladies. He died at Auteuil, France, on the 21st

of June 1886.

HOME, JOHN (1722-1808), Scottish dramatic poet, was born on the 22nd of

September 1722 at Leith, where his father, Alexander Home, who was

distantly related to the earls of Home, filled the office of town-clerk.

He was educated at the grammar school of his native town, and at the

university of Edinburgh, where he graduated M.A. in 1742. Though he

showed a fondness for the profession of arms, he studied divinity, and

was licensed by the presbytery of Edinburgh in 1745. In the same year he

joined as a volunteer against the Pretender, and was taken prisoner at

the battle of Falkirk (1746). With many others he was carried to the

castle of Doune in Perthshire, but soon effected his escape. In July

1746 Home was presented to the parish of Athelstaneford,

Haddingtonshire, vacant by the death of Robert Blair, the author of _The

Grave_. He had leisure to visit his friends and became especially

intimate with David Hume who belonged to the same family as himself. His

first play, _Agis: a tragedy_, founded on Plutarch's narrative, was

finished in 1747. He took it to London and submitted it to Garrick for

representation at Drury Lane, but it was rejected as unsuitable for the

stage. The tragedy of _Douglas_ was suggested to him by hearing a lady

sing the ballad of _Gil Morrice_ or _Child Maurice_ (F. J. Child,

_Popular Ballads_, ii. 263). The ballad supplied him with the outline of

a simple and striking plot. After five years' labour he completed his

play, which he took to London for Garrick's opinion. It also was

rejected, but on his return to Edinburgh his friends resolved that it

should be brought out in that city. It was produced on the 14th of

December 1756 with overwhelming success, in spite of the opposition of

the presbytery, who summoned Alexander Carlyle to answer for having

attended its representation. Home wisely resigned his charge in 1757,

after a visit to London, where _Douglas_ was brought out at Covent

Garden on the 14th of March. Peg Woffington played Lady Randolph, a part

which found a later exponent in Mrs Siddons. David Hume summed up his

admiration for _Douglas_ by saying that his friend possessed "the true

theatric genius of Shakespeare and Otway, refined from the unhappy

barbarism of the one and licentiousness of the other." Gray, writing to

Horace Walpole (August, 1757), said that the author "seemed to have

retrieved the true language of the stage, which has been lost for these

hundred years," but Samuel Johnson held aloof from the general

enthusiasm, and averred that there were not ten good lines in the whole

play (Boswell, _Life_, ed. Croker, 1848, p. 390). In 1758 Home became

private secretary to Lord Bute, then secretary of state, and was

appointed tutor to the prince of Wales; and in 1760 his patron's

influence procured him a pension of L300 per annum and in 1763 a

sinecure worth another L300. Garrick produced _Agis_ at Drury Lane on

the 21st of February 1758. By dint of good acting and powerful support,

according to Genest (_Short Account_ &c., iv. 513 seq.), the piece kept

the stage for eleven days, but it was lamentably inferior to _Douglas_.

In 1760 his tragedy, _The Siege of Aquileia_, was put on the stage,

Garrick taking the part of Aemilius. In 1769 his tragedy of _The Fatal

Discovery_ had a run of nine nights; _Alonzo_ also (1773) had fair

success in the representation; but his last tragedy, _Alfred_ (1778),

was so coolly received that he gave up writing for the stage. In 1778 he

joined a regiment formed by the duke of Buccleuch. He sustained severe

injuries in a fall from horseback which permanently affected his brain,

and was persuaded by his friends to retire. From 1767 he resided either

at Edinburgh or at a villa which he built at Kilduff near his former

parish. It was at this time that he wrote his _History of the Rebellion

of 1745_, which appeared in 1802. Home died at Merchiston Bank, near

Edinburgh, on the 5th of September 1808, in his eighty-sixth year.

_The Works of John Home_ were collected and published by Henry

Mackenzie in 1822 with "An Account of the Life and Writings of Mr John

Home," which also appeared separately in the same year, but several of

his smaller poems seem to have escaped the editor's observation. These

are--"The Fate of Caesar," "Verses upon Inveraray," "Epistle to the

Earl of Eglintoun," "Prologue on the Birthday of the Prince of Wales,

1759" and several "Epigrams," which are printed in vol. ii. of

_Original Poems by Scottish Gentlemen_ (1762). See also Sir W. Scott,

"The Life and Works of John Home" in the _Quarterly Review_ (June,

1827). _Douglas_ is included in numerous collections of British drama.

Voltaire published his _Le Caffe, ou l'Ecossaise_ (1760), _Londres_

(really Geneva), as a translation from the work of Mr Hume, described

as _pasteur de l'eglise d'Edimbourg_, but Home seems to have taken no

notice of the mystification.

HOMEL, or GOMEL, a town of Russia, in the government of Mogilev, and 132

m. by rail S.S.E. of the town of Mogilev, on the Sozh, a tributary of

the Dnieper. Pop. (1900) 45,081, nearly half of whom are Jews. It is an

important junction of the railways from Vilna to Odessa and from Orel to

Poland, and is in steamer communication with Kiev and Mogilev. In front

of Prince Paskevich's castle stands an equestrian statue of the Polish

general Joseph Poniatowski, and in the cathedral is the tomb of the

chancellor Nikolai Petrovich Rumantsev, by Canova. The town carries on a

brisk trade in hops, corn and timber; there are also paper-pulp mills

and oil factories. Homel was founded in the 12th century, and after

changing hands several times between Poles and Russians was annexed to

Russia in 1772. In 1648 it suffered at the hands of the Cossack

chieftain Bogdan Chmielnicki.

HOME OFFICE, a principal government department in the United Kingdom,

the creation of which dates from 1782, when the conduct of foreign

affairs, which had previously been divided between the northern and

southern secretaries, was handed over to the northern department (see

FOREIGN OFFICE). The home department retained control of Irish and

colonial affairs, and of war business until 1794, when an additional

secretary of state was re-appointed. In 1801 the colonial business was

transferred from the home department, which now attends only to domestic

affairs. The head of the department, the principal secretary of state

for home affairs, or home secretary, is a member of the government for

the time being, and of the cabinet, receiving a salary of L5000 a year.

He is the proper medium of communication between the sovereign and the

subject, and receives petitions addressed to the crown. He is

responsible for the maintenance of the king's peace and attends to the

administration of criminal justice, police and prisons, and through him

the sovereign exercises his prerogative of mercy. Within his department

is the supervision of lunatic asylums, reformatories and industrial

schools, and it is his duty to see after the internal well-being of the

country, to enforce the rules made for the health or safety of the

community generally, and especially of those classes employed in special

trades or dangerous occupations. He is assisted by a permanent

under-secretary, a parliamentary secretary and several assistant

under-secretaries.

See Anson, _Law and Custom of the Constitution_. (1907).

HOMER[1] ([Greek: Homeros]), the great epic poet of Greece. Many of the

works once attributed to him are lost; those which remain are the two

great epics, the _Iliad_ and the _Odyssey_, thirty-three _Hymns_, a mock

epic (the _Battle of the Frogs and Mice_), and some pieces of a few

lines each (the so-called _Epigrams_).

_Ancient Accounts of Homer._--Of the date of Homer probably no record,

real or pretended, ever existed. Herodotus (ii. 53) maintains that

Hesiod and Homer lived not more than 400 years before his own time,

consequently not much before 850 B.C. From the controversial tone in

which he expresses himself it is evident that others had made Homer more

ancient; and accordingly the dates given by later authorities, though

very various, generally fall within the 10th and 11th centuries B.C. But

none of these statements has any claim to the character of external

evidence.

The extant lives of Homer (edited in Westermann's _Vitarum Scriptores

Graeci minores_) are eight in number, including the piece called the

_Contest of Hesiod and Homer_. The longest is written in the Ionic

dialect, and bears the name of Herodotus, but is certainly spurious. In

all probability it belongs to the time which was fruitful beyond all

others in literary forgeries, viz. the 2nd century of our era.[2] The

other lives are certainly not more ancient. Their chief value consists

in the curious short poems or fragments of verse which they have

preserved--the so-called _Epigrams_, which used to be printed at the end

of editions of Homer. These are easily recognized as "Popular Rhymes," a

form of folk-lore to be met with in most countries, treasured by the

people as a kind of proverbs.[3] In the Homeric _epigrams_ the interest

turns sometimes on the characteristics of particular localities--Smyrna

and Cyme (_Epigr._ iv.), Erythrae (_Epigr._ vi., vii.), Mt Ida (_Epigr._

x.). Neon Teichos (_Epigr._ i.); others relate to certain trades or

occupations--potters (Epigr. xiv.), sailors, fishermen, goat herds, &c.

Some may be fragments of longer poems, but evidently they are not the

work of any one poet. The fact that they were all ascribed to Homer

merely means that they belong to a period in the history of the Ionian

and Aeolian colonies when "Homer" was a name which drew to itself all

ancient and popular verse.

Again, comparing the "epigrams" with the legends and anecdotes told in

the Lives of Homer, we can hardly doubt that they were the chief source

from which these Lives were derived. Thus in Epigr. iv. we find a blind

poet, a native of Aeolian Smyrna, through which flows the water of the

sacred Meles. Here is doubtless the source of the chief incident of the

Herodotean Life--the birth of Homer "Son of the Meles." The epithet

Aeolian implies high antiquity, inasmuch as according to Herodotus

Smyrna became Ionian about 688 B.C. Naturally the Ionians had their own

version of the story--a version which made Homer come out with the first

Athenian colonists.

The same line of argument may be extended to the _Hymns_, and even to

some of the lost works of the post-Homeric or so-called "Cyclic" poets.

Thus:--

1. The hymn to the Delian Apollo ends with an address of the poet to his

audience. When any stranger comes and asks who is the sweetest singer,

they are to answer with one voice, the "blind man that dwells in rocky

Chios; his songs deserve the prize for all time to come." Thucydides,

who quotes this passage to show the ancient character of the Delian

festival, seems to have no doubt of the Homeric authorship of the hymn.

Hence we may most naturally account for the belief that Homer was a

Chian.

2. The _Margites_--a humorous poem which kept its ground as the reputed

work of Homer down to the time of Aristotle--began with the words,

"There came to Colophon an old man, a divine singer, servant of the

Muses and Apollo." Hence doubtless the claim of Colophon to be the

native city of Homer--a claim supported in the early times of Homeric

learning by the Colophonian poet and grammarian Antimachus.

3. The poem called the _Cypria_ was said to have been given by Homer to

Stasinus of Cyprus as a daughter's dowry. The connexion with Cyprus

appears further in the predominance given in the poem to Aphrodite.

4. The _Little Iliad_ and the _Phocais_, according to the Herodotean

life, were composed by Homer when he lived at Phocaea with a certain

Thestorides, who carried them off to Chios and there gained fame by

reciting them as his own. The name Thestorides occurs in _Epigr._ v.

5. A similar story was told about the poem called the _Taking of

Oechalia_ ([Greek: Oichalias Halosis]), the subject of which was one of

the exploits of Heracles. It passed under the name of Creophylus, a

friend or (as some said) a son-in-law of Homer; but it was generally

believed to have been in fact the work of the poet himself.

6. Finally the _Thebaid_ always counted as the work of Homer. As to the

_Epigoni_, which carried on the Theban story, some doubt seems to have

been felt.

These indications render it probable that the stories connecting Homer

with different cities and islands grew up after his poems had become

known and famous, especially in the new and flourishing colonies of

Aeolis and Ionia. The contention for Homer, in short, began at a time

when his real history was lost, and he had become a sort of mythical

figure, an "eponymous hero," or personification of a great school of

poetry.

An interesting confirmation of this view from the negative side is

furnished by the city which ranked as chief among the Asiatic colonies

of Greece, viz. Miletus. No legend claims for Miletus even a visit from

Homer, or a share in the authorship of any Homeric poem. Yet Arctinus of

Miletus was said to have been a "disciple of Homer," and was certainly

one of the earliest and most considerable of the "Cyclic" poets. His

_Aethiopis_ was composed as a sequel to the _Iliad_; and the structure

and general character of his poems show that he took the _Iliad_ as his

model. Yet in his case we find no trace of the disputed authorship which

is so common with other "Cyclic" poems. How has this come about? Why

have the works of Arctinus escaped the attraction which drew to the name

of Homer such epics as the _Cypria_, the _Little Iliad_, the _Thebaid_,

the _Epigoni_, the _Taking of Oechalia_ and the _Phocais_. The most

obvious account of the matter is that Arctinus was never so far

forgotten that his poems became the subject of dispute. We seem through

him to obtain a glimpse of an early post-Homeric age in Ionia, when the

immediate disciples and successors of Homer were distinct figures in a

trustworthy tradition--when they had not yet merged their individuality

in the legendary "Homer" of the Epic Cycle.

_Recitation of the Poems._--The recitation of epic poetry was called in

historical times "rhapsody" ([Greek: rhapsodia]). The word [Greek:

rhapsodos] is post-Homeric, but was known to Pindar, who gives two

different explanations of it--"singer of stitched verse" ([Greek:

rhapton hepeon aoidoi]), and "singer with the wand" ([Greek: rhabdos]).

Of these the first is etymologically correct (except that it should

rather be "stitcher of verse"); the second was suggested by the fact,

for which there is early evidence, that the reciter was accustomed to

hold a wand in his hand--perhaps, like the sceptre in the Homeric

assembly, as a symbol of the right to a hearing.[4]

The first notice of rhapsody meets us at Sicyon, in the reign of

Cleisthenes (600-560 B.C.), who "put down the rhapsodists on account of

the poems of Homer, because they are all about Argos and the Argives"

(Hdt. v. 67). This description applies very well to the _Iliad_, in

which Argos and Argives occur on almost every page. It may have suited

the _Thebaid_ still better, but there is no need to understand it only

of that poem, as Grote does. The incident shows that the poems of the

Ionic Homer had gained in the 6th century B.C., and in the Doric parts

of the Peloponnesus, the ascendancy, the national importance and the

almost canonical character which they ever afterwards retained.

At Athens there was a law that the Homeric poems should be recited

([Greek: rhapsodeisthai]) on every occasion of the Panathenaea. This law

is appealed to as an especial glory of Athens by the orator Lycurgus

(_Leocr._ 102). Perhaps therefore the custom of public recitation was

exceptional,[5] and unfortunately we do not know when or by whom it was

introduced. The Platonic dialogue _Hipparchus_ attributes it to

Hipparchus, son of Peisistratus. This, however, is part of the

historical romance of which the dialogue mainly consists. The author

makes (perhaps wilfully) all the mistakes about the family of

Peisistratus which Thucydides notices in a well-known passage (vi.

54-59). In one point, however, the writer's testimony is valuable. He

tells us that the law required the rhapsodists to recite "taking each

other up in order ([Greek: ex hypolepseos ephexes]), as they still do."

This recurs in a different form in the statement of Diogenes Laertius

(i. 2. 57) that Solon made a law that the poems should be recited "with

prompting" ([Greek: ex hypoboles]). The question as between Solon and

Hipparchus cannot be settled; but it is at least clear that a due order

of recitation was secured by the presence of a person charged to give

the rhapsodists their cue ([Greek: hypoballein]). It was necessary, of

course, to divide the poem to be recited into parts, and to compel each

contending rhapsodist to take the part assigned to him. Otherwise they

would have chosen favourite or show passages.

The practice of poets or rhapsodists contending for the prize at the

great religious festivals is of considerable antiquity, though

apparently post-Homeric. It is brought vividly before us in the Hymn to

Apollo (see the passage mentioned above), and in two Hymns to Aphrodite

(v. and ix.). The latter of these may evidently be taken to belong to

Salamis in Cyprus and the festival of the Cyprian Aphrodite, in the same

way that the Hymn to Apollo belongs to Delos and the Delian gathering.

The earliest trace of such contests is to be found in the story of

Thamyris, the Thracian singer, who boasted that he could conquer even

the Muses in song (_Il._ ii. 594 ff.).

Much has been made in this part of the subject of a family or clan

([Greek: genos]) of Homeridae in the island of Chios. On the one hand,

it seemed to follow from the existence of such a family that Homer was a

mere "eponymus," or mythical ancestor; on the other hand, it became easy

to imagine the Homeric poems handed down orally in a family whose

hereditary occupation it was to recite them, possibly to add new

episodes from time to time, or to combine their materials in new ways,

as their poetical gifts permitted. But, although there is no reason to

doubt the existence of a family of "Homeridae," it is far from certain

that they had anything to do with Homeric poetry. The word occurs first

in Pindar (_Nem._ 2. 2), who applies it to the rhapsodists ([Greek:

Homeridai rhapton epeon aoidoi]). On this a scholiast says that the name

"Homeridae" denoted originally descendants of Homer, who sang his poems

in succession, but afterwards was applied to rhapsodists who did not

claim descent from him. He adds that there was a famous rhapsodist,

Cynaethus of Chios, who was said to be the author of the Hymn to Apollo,

and to have first recited Homer at Syracuse about the 69th Olympiad.

Nothing here connects the Homeridae with Chios. The statement of the

scholiast is evidently a mere inference from the patronymic form of the

word. If it proves anything, it proves that Cynaethus, who was a Chian

and a rhapsodist, made no claim to Homeric descent. On the other hand

our knowledge of Chian Homeridae comes chiefly from the lexicon of

Harpocration, where we are told that Acusilaus and Hellanicus said that

they were so called from the poet; whereas Seleucus pronounced this to

be an error. Strabo also says that the Chians put forward the Homeridae

as an argument in support of their claim to Homer. These Homeridae,

then, belonged to Chios, but there is no indication of their being

rhapsodists. On the contrary, Plato and other Attic writers use the word

to include interpreters and admirers--in short, the whole "spiritual

kindred"--of Homer. And although we hear of "descendants of Creophylus"

as in possession of the Homeric poems, there is no similar story about

descendants of Homer himself. Such is the evidence on which so many

inferences are based.

The result of the notices now collected is to show that the early

history of epic recitation consists of (1) passages in the Homeric hymns

showing that poets contended for the prize at the great festivals, (2)

the passing mention in Herodotus of rhapsodists at Sicyon, and (3) a law

at Athens, of unknown date, regulating the recitation at the

Panathenaea. Let us now compare these data with the account given in the

Homeric poems. The word "rhapsode" does not yet exist; we hear only of

the "singer" ([Greek: aoidos]), who does not carry a wand or

laurel-branch, but the lyre ([Greek: phormigx]), with which he

accompanies his "song." In the _Iliad_ even the epic "singer" is not met

with. It is Achilles himself who sings the stories of heroes ([Greek:

klea andron]) in his tent, and Patroclus is waiting (_respondere

paratus_), to take up the song in his turn (_Il._ ix. 191). Again we do

not hear of poetical contests (except in the story of Thamyris already

mentioned) or of recitation of epic poetry at festivals. The _Odyssey_

gives us pictures of two great houses, and each has its singer. The song

is on a subject taken from the Trojan war, at some point chosen by the

singer himself, or by his hearers. Phemius pleases the suitors by

singing of the calamitous return of the Greeks; Demodocus sings of a

quarrel between Ulysses and Achilles, and afterwards of the wooden horse

and the capture of Troy.

It may be granted that the author of the _Odyssey_ can hardly have been

just such a singer as he himself describes. The songs of Phemius and

Demodocus are too short, and have too much the character of

improvisations. Nor is it necessary to suppose that epic poetry, at the

time to which the picture in the _Odyssey_ belongs, was confined to the

one type represented. Yet in several respects the conditions under which

the singer finds himself in the house of a chieftain like Odysseus or

Alcinous are more in harmony with the character of Homeric poetry than

those of the later rhapsodic contests. The subdivision of a poem like

the _Iliad_ or _Odyssey_ among different and necessarily unequal

performers must have been injurious to the effect. The highly theatrical

manner of recitation which was fostered by the spirit of competition,

and by the example of the stage, cannot have done justice to the even

movement of the epic style. It is not certain indeed that the practice

of reciting a long poem by the agency of several competitors was

ancient, or that it prevailed elsewhere than at Athens; but as

rhapsodists were numerous, and popular favour throughout Greece became

more and more confined to one or two great works, it must have become

almost a necessity. That it was the mode of recitation contemplated by

the author of the _Iliad_ or _Odyssey_ it is impossible to believe.

The difference made by substituting the wand or branch of laurel for the

lyre of the Homeric singer is a slighter one, though not without

significance. The recitation of the Hesiodic poems was from the first

unaccompanied by the lyre, i.e. they were confessedly _said_, not

_sung_; and it was natural that the example should be extended to Homer.

For it is difficult to believe that the Homeric poems were ever "sung"

in the strict sense of the word. We can only suppose that the lyre in

the hands of the epic poet or reciter was in reality a piece of

convention, a "survival" from the stage in which narrative poetry had a

lyrical character. Probably the poets of the Homeric school--that which

dealt with war and adventure--were the genuine descendants of minstrels

whose "lays" or "ballads" were the amusement of the feasts in an earlier

heroic age; whereas the Hesiodic compositions were non-lyrical from the

first, and were only in verse because that was the universal form of

literature.

It seems, then, that if we imagine Homer as a singer in a royal house of

the Homeric age, but with more freedom regarding the limits of his

subject, and a more tranquil audience than is allowed him in the rapid

movement of the _Odyssey_, we shall probably not be far from the truth.

_Time and Place of Homer._--The oldest direct references to the _Iliad_

and _Odyssey_ are in Herodotus, who quotes from both poems (ii. 53). The

quotation from the _Iliad_ is of interest because it is made in order to

show that Homer supported the story of the travels of Paris to Egypt and

Sidon (whereas the Cyclic poem called the _Cypria_ ignored them), and

also because the part of the _Iliad_ from which it comes is cited as the

"Aristeia of Diomede." This was therefore a recognized part of the poem.

The earliest mention of the name of Homer is found in a fragment of the

philosopher Xenophanes (of the 6th century B.C., or possibly earlier),

who complains of the false notions implanted through the teaching of

Homer. The passage shows, not merely that Homer was well known at

Colophon in the time of Xenophanes, but also that the great advance in

moral and religious ideas which forced Plato to banish Homer from his

republic had made itself felt in the days of the early Ionic

philosophers.

Failing external testimony, the time and place of the Homeric poems can

only be determined (if at all) by internal evidence. This is of two main

kinds: (a) evidence of history, consisting in a comparison of the

political and social condition, the geography, the institutions, the

manners, arts and ideas of Homer with those of other times; (b) evidence

of language, consisting in a comparison with later dialects, in respect

of grammar and vocabulary. To these may be added, as occasionally of

value, (c) much evidence of the direct influence of Homer upon the

subsequent course of literature and art.

(a) The political condition of Greece in the earliest times known to

history is separated from the Greece of Homer by an interval which can

hardly be overestimated. The great national names are different: instead

of Achaeans, Argives, Danai, we find Hellenes, subdivided into Dorians,

Ionians, Aeolians--names either unknown to Homer, or mentioned in terms

more significant than silence. At the dawn of Greek history Mycenae is

no longer the seat of empire; new empires, polities and civilizations

have grown up--Sparta with its military discipline, Delphi with its

religious supremacy, Miletus with its commerce and numberless colonies,

Aeolis and Ionia, Sicily and Magna Graecia.

While the political centre of Homeric Greece is at Mycenae, the real

centre is rather to be found In Boeotia. The Catalogue of the Ships

begins with Boeotia; the list of Boeotian towns is much the longest; and

they sail, not from the bay of Argos, but from the Boeotian harbour of

Aulis. This position is not due to its chiefs, who are all of inferior

rank. The importance of Boeotia for Greek civilization is further shown

by the ancient worship of the Muses on Mount Helicon, and the fact that

the oldest poet whose birthplace was known was the Boeotian Hesiod. Next

to Boeotia and the neighbouring countries, it appears that the

Peloponnesus, Crete and Thessaly were the most important seats of Greek

population.

In the Peloponnesus the face of things was completely altered by the

Dorian conquest, no trace of which is found in Homer. The only Dorians

known in Homer are those that the _Odyssey_ (xix. 177) places in Crete.

It is difficult to connect them with the Dorians of history.

The eastern shores of the Aegean, which the earliest historical records

represent to us as the seat of a brilliant civilization, giving way

before the advance of the great military empires (Lydia and afterwards

Persia), are almost a blank in Homer's map. The line of settlements can

be traced in the Catalogue from Crete to Rhodes, and embraces the

neighbouring islands of Cos and Calymnos. The colonization of Rhodes by

Tlepolemus is related (_Il._ ii. 661 ff.), and seems to mark the

farthest point reached in the Homeric age. Between Rhodes and the Troad

Homer knows of but one city, Miletus--which is a Carian ally of

Troy--and the mouth of one river, the Cayster. Even the Cyclades--Naxos,

Paros, Melos--are unknown to the Homeric world. The disposition of the

Greeks to look to the west for the centres of religious feeling appears

in the mention of Dodona and the Dodonaean Zeus, put in the mouth of the

Thessalian Achilles.

To the north we find the Thracians, known from the stories of Thamyris

the singer (_Il._ ii. 595), and Lycurgus, the enemy of the young god

Dionysus (_Il._ vi. 130). Here the Trojan empire begins. It does not

appear, however, that the Trojans are thought of as people of a

different language. As this is expressly said of the Carians, and of the

Trojan allies who were "summoned from afar," the contrary rather is

implied regarding Troy itself.

The mixed type of government described by Homer--consisting of a king

guided by a council of elders, and bringing all important resolutions

before the assembly of the fighting men--does not seem to have been

universal in Indo-European communities, but to have grown up in many

different parts of the world under the stress of similar conditions. The

king is the commander in war, and the office probably owed its existence

to military necessities. It is not surrounded with any special

sacredness. There were ruling families, laying claim to divine descent,

from whom the king was naturally chosen, but his own fitness is the

essence of his title. The aged Laertes is set aside; the young

Telemachus does not succeed as a matter of course. Nor are any very

definite rights attached to the office. Each tribe in the army before

Troy was commanded by its own king (or kings); but Agamemnon was

supreme, and was "more a king" ([Greek: basileiteros]) than any other.

The assembly is summoned on all critical occasions, and its approval is

the ultimate sanction. A king therefore stands in almost as much need of

oratory as of warlike skill and prowess. Even the division of the spoil

is not made in the _Iliad_ by Agamemnon, but by "the Achaeans" (_Il._ i.

162, 368). The taking of Briseis from Achilles was an arbitrary act, and

against all rule and custom. The council is more difficult to

understand. The "elders" ([Greek: gerontes]) of the _Iliad_ are the same

as the subordinate "kings"; they are summoned by Agamemnon to his tent,

and form a small council of nine or ten persons. In Troy we hear of

elders of the people ([Greek: demogerontes]) who are with Priam, and are

men past the military age. So in Ithaca there are elders who have not

gone to Troy with the army. It would seem therefore that the meeting in

Agamemnon's tent was only a copy or adaptation of the true

constitutional "council of elders," which indeed was essentially

unfitted for the purposes of military service. The king's palace, if we

may judge from Tiryns and Mycenae, was usually in a strong situation on

an "acropolis." In the later times of democracy the acropolis was

reserved for the temples of the principal gods.

Priesthood in Homer is found in the case of particular temples, where an

officer is naturally wanted to take charge of the sacred inclosure and

the sacrifices offered within it. It is perhaps an accident that we do

not hear of priests in Ithaca. Agamemnon performs sacrifice himself, not

because a priestly character was attached to the kingly office, but

simply because he was "master in his own house."

The conception of "law" is foreign to Homer. The later words for it

([Greek: nomos], [Greek: rhetra]) are unknown, and the terms which he

uses ([Greek: dike] and [Greek: themis]) mean merely "custom." Judicial

functions are in the hands of the elders, who "have to do with suits"

([Greek: dikaspoloi]), and "uphold judgments" ([Greek: themistas

eiryatai]). On such matters as the compensation in cases of homicide, it

is evident that there were no rules, but merely a feeling, created by

use and wont, that the relatives of the slain man should be willing to

accept payment. The sense of anger which follows a violation of custom

has the name of "Nemesis"--righteous displeasure.

As there is no law in Homer, so there is no morality. That is to say,

there are no general principles of action, and no words which indicate

that acts have been classified as good or bad, right or wrong. Moral

_feeling_, indeed, existed and was denoted by "Aidos"; but the numerous

meanings of this word--shame, veneration, pity--show how rudimentary the

idea was. And when we look to practice we find that cruel and even

treacherous deeds are spoken of without the least sense that they

deserve censure. The heroes of Homer are hardly more moral agents than

the giants and enchanters of a fairy tale.

The religious ideas of Homer differ in some important points from those

of later Greece. The Apollo of the _Iliad_ has the character of a local

Asiatic deity--"ruler of Chryse and goodly Cilla and Tenedos." He may be

compared with the Clarian and the Lycian god, but he is unlike the

Apollo of Dorian times, the "deliverer" and giver of oracles. Again, the

worship of Dionysus, and of Demeter and Persephone, is mainly or wholly

post-Homeric. The greatest difference, however, lies in the absence of

hero-worship from the Homeric order of things. Castor and Polydeuces,

for instance, are simply brothers of Helen who died before the

expedition to Troy (_Il._ iii. 243.)

The military tactics of Homer belong to the age when the chariot was the

principal engine of warfare. Cavalry is unknown, and the battles are

mainly decided by the prowess of the chiefs. The use of the trumpet is

also later. It has been supposed indeed that the art of riding was known

in Homer's own time, because it occurs in comparisons. But the riding

which he describes (_Il._ xv. 679) is a mere exhibition of skill, such

as we may see in a modern circus. And though he mentions the trumpet

(_Il._ xviii. 219), there is nothing to show that it was used, as in

historical times, to give the signal for the charge.

The chief industries of Homeric times are those of the carpenter

([Greek: tekton]), the worker in leather ([Greek: skutotomos]), the

smith or worker in metal ([Greek: chalkeus])--whose implements are the

hammer and pincers--and the potter ([Greek: kerameus]); also spinning

and weaving, which were carried on by the women. The fine arts are

represented by sculpture in relief, carving in wood and ivory,

embroidery. Statuary is later; it appears to have come into existence in

the 7th century, about the time when casting in metal was invented by

Rhoecus of Samos. In general, as was well shown by A. S. Murray,[6]

Homeric art does not rise above the stage of _decoration_, applied to

objects in common use; while in point of style it is characterized by a

richness and variety of ornament which is in the strongest contrast to

the simplicity of the best periods. It is the work, in short, not of

artists but of skilled workmen; the ideal artist is "Daedalus," a name

which implies mechanical skill and intricate workmanship, not beauty of

design.

One art of the highest importance remains. The question whether writing

was known in the time of Homer was raised in antiquity, and has been

debated with especial eagerness ever since the appearance of Wolf's

_Prolegomena_. In this case we have to consider not merely the

indications of the poems, but also the external evidence which we

possess regarding the use of writing in Greece. This latter kind of

evidence is much more considerable now than it was in Wolf's time. (See

WRITING elsewhere in these volumes.)

The oldest known stage of the Greek alphabet appears to be represented

by inscriptions of the islands of Thera, Melos and Crete, which are

referred to the 40th Olympiad (620 B.C.). The oldest specimen of a

distinctively Ionian alphabet is the famous inscription of the

mercenaries of Psammetichus, in Upper Egypt, as to which the only doubt

is whether the Psammetichus in question is the first or the second, and

consequently whether the inscription is to be dated Ol. 40 or Ol. 47.

Considering that the divergence of two alphabets (like the difference of

two dialects) requires both time and familiar use, we may gather from

these facts that writing was well known in Greece early in the 7th

century B.C.[7]

The rise of prose composition in the 6th century B.C. has been thought

to mark the time when memory was practically superseded by writing as a

means of preserving literature--the earlier use of letters being

confined to short documents, such as lists of names, treaties, laws, &c.

This conclusion, however, is by no means necessary. It may be that down

to comparatively late rimes poetry was not commonly read, but was

recited from memory. But the question is--From what time are we to

suppose that the preservation of long poems was generally secured by the

existence of written copies? Now, without counting the Homeric

poems--which doubtless had exceptional advantages in their fame and

popularity--we find a body of literature dating from the 8th century

B.C. to which the theory of oral transmission is surely inapplicable. In

the Trojan cycle alone we know of the two epics of Arctinus, the _Little

Iliad_ of Lesches, the _Cypria_, the _Nostoi_. The Theban cycle is

represented by the _Thebaid_ (which Callinus, who was of the 7th

century, ascribed to Homer) and the _Epigoni_. Other ancient

epics--ancient enough to have passed under the name of Homer--are the

_Taking of Oechalia_, and the _Phocais_. Again, there are the numerous

works attributed to Hesiod and other poets of the didactic,

mythological and quasi-historical schools--Eumelus of Corinth, Cinaethon

of Sparta, Agias of Troezen, and many more. The preservation of this

vast mass can only be attributed to writing, which must therefore have

been in use for two centuries or more before there was any considerable

prose literature. Nor is this in itself improbable.

The further question, whether the _Iliad_ and _Odyssey_ were originally

written, is much more difficult. External evidence does not reach back

so far, and the internal evidence is curiously indecisive. The only

passage which can be interpreted as a reference to writing occurs in the

story of Bellerophon, told by Glaucus in the sixth book of the _Iliad_.

Proetus, king of Corinth, sent Bellerophon to his father-in-law the king

of Lycia, and gave him "baneful tokens" ([Greek: semata lugra], i.e.

tokens which were messages of death), "scratching on a folded tablet

many spirit-destroying things, and bade him show this to his

father-in-law, that he might perish." The king of Lycia asked duly (on

the tenth day from the guest's coming) for a token ([Greek: hetee sema

idesthai]), and then knew what Proetus wished to be done. In this

account there is nothing to show exactly how the message of Proetus was

expressed. The use of writing for the purpose of the token between

"guest-friends" (_tessera hospitalis_) is certainly very ancient.

Mommsen (_Rom. Forsch_. i. 338 ff.) aptly compares the use in treaties,

which are the oldest species of public documents. But we may suppose

that tokens of some kind--like the marks which the Greek chiefs make on

the lots (_Il._ vii. 175 ff.)--were in use before writing was known. In

any system of signs there were doubtless means of recommending a friend,

or giving warning of the presence of an enemy. There is no difficulty,

therefore, in understanding the message of Proetus without alphabetical

writing. But, on the other hand, there is no reason for so understanding

it.

If the language of Homer is so ambiguous where the use of writing would

naturally be mentioned, we cannot expect to find more decisive

references elsewhere. Arguments have been founded upon the descriptions

of the blind singers in the _Odyssey_, with their songs inspired

directly by the Muse; upon the appeals of the poet to the Muses,

especially in such a place as the opening of the Catalogue; upon the

Catalogue itself, which is a kind of historical document put into verse

to help the memory; upon the shipowner in the _Odyssey_, who has "a good

memory for his cargo," &c. It may be answered, however, that much of

this is traditional, handed down from the time when all poetry was

unwritten. Moreover it is one thing to recognize that a literature is

essentially oral in its form, characteristic of an age which was one of

hearing rather than of reading, and quite another to hold that the same

literature was preserved entirely by oral transmission.

The result of these various considerations seems to be that the age

which we may call the Homeric--the age which is brought before us in

vivid outlines in the _Iliad_ and _Odyssey_--lies beyond the earliest

point to which history enables us to penetrate. And so far as we can

draw any conclusion as to the author (or authors) of the two poems, it

is that the whole debate between the cities of Aeolis and Ionia was wide

of the mark. The author of the _Iliad_, at least, was evidently a

European Greek who lived before the colonization of Asia Minor; and the

claims of the Asiatic cities mean no more than that in the days of their

prosperity these were the chief seats of the fame of Homer.

This is perhaps the place to consider whether the poems are to be

regarded as possessing in any degree the character; of historical

record. The question is one which in the absence of satisfactory

criteria will generally be decided by taste and predilection. A few

suggestions, however, may be made.

1. The events of the _Iliad_ take place in a real locality, the

general features of which are kept steadily in view. There is no doubt

about Sigeum and Rhoeteum, or the river Scamander, or the islands

Imbros, Lemnos and Tenedos. It is at least remarkable that a legend of

the national interest of the "tale of Troy" should be so definitely

localized, and that in a district, which was never famous as a seat of

Greek population. It may be urged, too, that the story of the _Iliad_

is singularly free from the exaggerated and marvellous character which

belongs as a rule to the legends of primitive peoples. The apple of

discord, the arrows of Philoctetes, the invulnerability of Achilles,

and similar fancies, are the additions of later poets. This sobriety,

however, belongs not to the whole _Iliad_, but to the events and

characters of the war. Such figures as Bellerophon, Niobe, the

Amazons, which are thought of as traditions from an earlier

generation, show the marvellous element at work.

2. Certain persons and events in the story have a distinctly mythical

stamp. Helen is a figure of this kind. There was another story

according to which she was carried off by Theseus, and recovered by

her brothers the Dioscuri. There are even traces of a third version,

in which the Messenian twins, Idas and Lynceus, appear.

3. The analogy of the French epic, the _Chanson de Roland_, favours

the belief that there was some nucleus of fact. The defeat of

Roncevaux was really suffered by a part of Charlemagne's army. But the

Saracen army is purely mythical, the true enemy having been the

Gascons. If similarly we leave, as historical, the plain of Troy, and

the name Agamemnon, we shall perhaps not be far wrong.

(b) The dialect of Homer is an early or "primitive" form of the language

which we know as that of Attica in the classical age of Greek

literature. The proof of this proposition is to be obtained chiefly by

comparing the grammatical formation and the syntax of Homer with those

of Attic. The comparison of the vocabulary is in the nature of things

less conclusive on the question of date. It would be impossible to give

the evidence in full without writing a Homeric grammar, but a few

specimens may be of interest.

1. The first aorist in Greek being a "weak" tense, i.e. formed by a

suffix ([Greek: -sa]), whereas the second aorist is a "strong" tense,

distinguished by the form of the root-syllable, we expect to find a

constant tendency to diminish the number of second aorists in use. No

new second aorists, we may be sure, were formed any more than new

"strong" tenses, such as _came_ or _sang_, can be formed in English.

Now in Homer there are upwards of 80 second aorists (not reckoning

aorists of "Verbs in [Greek: mi]," such as [Greek: hesten], [Greek:

eben]), whereas in all Attic prose not more than 30 are found. In this

point therefore the Homeric language is manifestly older. In Attic

poets, it is true, the number of such aorists is much larger than in

prose. But here again we find that they bear witness to Homer. Of the

poetical aorists in Attic the larger part are also Homeric. Others are

not really Attic at all, but borrowed from earlier Aeolic and Doric

poetry. It is plain, in short, that the later poetical vocabulary was

separated from that of prose mainly by the forms which the influence

of Homer had saved from being forgotten.

2. While the whole class of "strong" aorists diminished, certain

smaller groups in the class disappeared altogether. Thus we find in

Homer, but not in the later language:--

(a) The second aorist middle without the "thematic" [epsilon] or

[omicron]: as [Greek: eble-to], _was struck_; [Greek: ephi-to],

_perished_; [Greek: al-to], _leaped_.

(b) The aorist formed by reduplication: as [Greek: dedaev], _taught_;

[Greek: lelabesthai], _to seize_. These constitute a distinct

formation, generally with a "causative" meaning; the solitary Attic

specimen is [Greek: egagon].

3. It had long been known that the subjunctive in Homer often takes a

short vowel (e.g. in the plural, [Greek: -omen], [Greek: -ete] instead

of [Greek: -omen], [Greek: -ete], and in the Mid. [Greek: -omai], &c.

instead of [Greek: -omai], &c.). This was generally said to be done by

"poetic licence," or _metri gratia_. In fact, however, the Homeric

subjunctive is almost quite "regular," though the rule which it obeys

is a different one from the Attic. It may be summed up by saying that

the subjunctive takes [omega] or [eta] when the indicative has

[omicron] or [epsilon], and not otherwise. Thus Homer has [Greek:

i-men], _we go_, [Greek: i-o-men], _let us go_. The later [Greek:

i-o-men] was at first a solecism, an attempt to conjugate a "verb in

[Greek: mi]" like the "verbs in [omega]." It will be evident that

under this rule the perfect and first aorist subjunctive should always

take a short vowel; and this accordingly is the case, with very few

exceptions.

4. The article ([Greek: ho, he, to]) in Homer is chiefly used as an

independent pronoun (_he, she, it_), a use which in Attic appears only

in a few combinations (such as [Greek: ho men ... ho de], _the one ...

the other_). This difference is parallel to the relation between the

Latin _ille_ and the article of the Romance languages.

5. The prepositions offer several points of comparison. What the

grammarians called "tmesis," the separation of the preposition from

the verb with which it is compounded, is peculiar to Homer. The true

account of the matter is that in Homer the place of the preposition is

not rigidly fixed, as it was afterwards. Again, "with" is in Homer

[Greek: syn] (with the dative), in Attic prose [Greek: meta] with the

genitive. Here Attic poetry is intermediate; the use of [Greek: syn]

is retained as a piece of poetical tradition.

6. In addition to the particle [Greek: an], Homer has another, [Greek:

ken], hardly distinguishable in meaning. The Homeric uses of [Greek:

an] and [Greek: ken] are different in several respects from the Attic,

the general result being that the Homeric syntax is more elastic. And

yet it is perfectly definite and precise. Homer uses no constructions

loosely or without corresponding differences of meaning. His rules are

equally strict with those of the later language, but they are not the

same rules. And they differ chiefly in this, that the less common

combinations of the earlier period were disused altogether in the

later.

7. In the vocabulary the most striking difference is that many words

appear from the metre to have contained a sound which they afterwards

lost, viz. that which is written in some Greek alphabets by the

"digamma" [digamma] Thus the words [Greek: anax, asty, ergon, epos],

and many others must have been written at one time [Greek: Fanax,

Fasty, Fergon, Fepos]. This letter, however, died out earlier in Ionic

than in most dialects, and there is no proof that the Homeric poems

were ever written with it.

These are not, speaking generally, the differences that are produced by

the gradual divergence of dialects in a language. They are rather to be

classed with those which we find between the earlier and the later

stages of every language which has had a long history. The Homeric

dialect has passed into New Ionic and Attic by gradual but ceaseless

development of the same kind as that which brought about the change from

Vedic to classical Sanskrit, or from old high German to the present

dialects of Germany.

The points that have been mentioned, to which many others might be

added, make it clear that the Homeric and Attic dialects are separated

by differences which affect the whole structure of the language, and

require a considerable time for their development. At the same time

there is hardly one of these differences which cannot be accounted for

by the natural growth of the language. It has been thought indeed that

the Homeric dialect was a mixed one, mainly Ionic, but containing Aeolic

and even Doric forms; this, however, is a mistaken view of the processes

of language. There are doubtless many Homeric forms which were unknown

to the later Ionic and Attic, and which are found in Aeolic or other

dialects. In general, however, these are _older_ forms, which must have

existed in Ionic at one time, and may very well have belonged to the

Ionic of Homer's time. So too the digamma is called "Aeolic" by

grammarians, and is found on Aeolic and Doric inscriptions. But the

letter was one of the original alphabet, and was retained universally as

a numeral. It can only have fallen into disuse by degrees, as the sound

which it denoted ceased to be pronounced. The fact that there are so

many traces of it in Homer is a strong proof of the antiquity of the

poems, but no proof of admixture with Aeolic.

There is one sense, however, in which an admixture of dialects may be

recognized. It is clear that the variety of forms in Homer is too great

for any actual spoken dialect. To take a single instance: it is

impossible that the genitives in [Greek: -oio] and in [Greek: -ou]

should both have been in everyday use together. The form in [Greek:

-oio] must have been poetical or literary, like the old English forms

that survive in the language of the Bible. The origin of such double

forms is not far to seek. The effect of dialect on style was always

recognized in Greece, and the dialect which had once been adopted by a

particular kind of poetry was ever afterwards adhered to. The Epic of

Homer was doubtless formed originally from a spoken variety of Greek,

but became literary and conventional with time. It is Homer himself who

tells us, in a striking passage (_Il._ iv. 437) that all the Greeks

spoke the same language--that is to say, that they understood one

another, in spite of the inevitable local differences. Experience shows

how some one dialect in a country gains a literary supremacy to which

the whole nation yields. So Tuscan became the type of Italian, and

Anglian of English. But as soon as the dialect is adopted, it begins to

diverge from the colloquial form. Just as modern poetical Italian uses

many older grammatical forms peculiar to itself, so the language of

poetry, even in Homeric times, had formed a deposit (so to speak) of

archaic grammar. There were doubtless poets before Homer, as well as

brave men before Agamemnon; and indeed the formation of a poetical

dialect such as the Homeric must have been the work of several

generations. The use of that dialect (instead of Aeolic) by the Boeotian

poet Hesiod, in a kind of poetry which was not of the Homeric type,

tends to the conclusion that the literary ascendancy of the epic dialect

was anterior to the _Iliad_ and _Odyssey_, and independent of the

influence exercised by these poems.

What then was the original language of Homer? Where and when was it

spoken? [The answer given to this question by Aug. Fick (in 1883) and

still held, with modifications, by some European scholars can no longer

be maintained. Fick's original statement was that in or about the 6th

century B.C. the poems, which had originally worn an Aeolic dress, were

transposed into Ionic. To this it is easily answered that such an event

is not only unique in history, but contrary to all that we know of the

Greek genius. At the period in question an Aeolic literature, the lyrics

of Sappho and Alcaeus, were in existence. If it was found necessary to

transpose the Aeolic Homer, why did the Aeolic lyric verse escape? If,

however, as is the view of some of Fick's followers, the transposition

took place several centuries earlier, before species of literature had

appropriated particular dialects, then the linguistic facts upon which

Fick relied to distinguish the "Aeolic" and "Ionic" elements in Homer

disappear. We have no means of knowing what the Aeolic and Ionic of say

the 9th century were, or if there were such dialects at all. Certain

prominent historical differences between Aeolic and Ionic (the digamma

and alpha) are known to be unoriginal. The view that Homer underwent at

any time a passage from one dialect to another may be dismissed. The

tendency of modern dialectologists is to divide the Greek dialects into

Dorian and non-Dorian. The non-Dorian dialects, Ionic, Attic and the

various forms of Aeolic, are regarded as relatively closely akin, and go

by the common name "Achaean." They formed the common language of Greece

before the Doric invasion. As the scene which Homer depicts is

prae-Dorian Greece, it is reasonable to call his language Achaean. The

historical divergences of Achaean into Aeolian and Ionic were later than

the Migration, and were due to the well-known effects of change of soil

and air.

To what local variety of Achaean Homeric Greek belonged it is idle to

ask. Thessaly, Boeotia and Mycenae have equal claims. It seems clearer

that when once this local variety of Achaean had been used by poets of

eminence as their vehicle for national history, it established its right

to be considered the one poetical language of Hellas. As the dialect of

the Arno in Italy, of Castille in Spain, by the virtue of the genius of

the singers who used them, became literary "Italian" and "Spanish," so

this variety of Achaean elevated itself to the position of the _volgare

illustre_ of Greece.[8]] (T. W. A.)

(c) The influence of Homer upon the subsequent course of Greek

literature is a large subject, even if we restrict it to the centuries

which immediately followed the Homeric age. It will be enough to observe

that in the earliest elegiac poets, such as Archilochus, Tyrtaeus and

Theognis, reminiscences of Homeric language and thought meet us on every

page. If the same cannot be said of the ancient epic poems, that is

because of the extreme scantiness of the existing fragments. Much,

however, is to be gathered from the arguments of the Trojan part of the

Epic Cycle (preserved in the _Codex Venetus_ of the _Iliad_, a full

discussion of which will be found in the _Journal of Hellenic Studies_,

1884, pp. 1-40). An examination of these arguments throws light on two

chief aspects of the relation between Homer and his "cyclic" successors.

1. The later poets sought to complete the story of the Trojan war by

supplying the parts which did not fall within the _Iliad_ and

_Odyssey_--the so-called _ante-homerica_ and _post-homerica_. They did

so largely from hints and passing references in Homer. Thus the

successive episodes of the siege related at length in the _Little

Iliad_, and ending with the story of the Wooden Horse, are nearly all

taken from passages in the _Odyssey_. Much the same may be said of the

_Nosti_.

2. With this process of expansion and development (so to speak) of

Homeric themes is combined the addition of new characters. Such, in the

_Little Iliad_ (e.g.), are the story of the Palladium and of the

treachery of Sinon. Such, too, in the _Cypria_ are the new legendary

figures--Palamedes, Iphigenia, Telephus, Laocoon. These new elements in

the narrative are evidently due not only to the natural growth of legend

in a people highly endowed with imagination, but in a large proportion

also to the new races and countries with which the Greeks came into

contact, as well as to their own rapid advance in wealth and

civilization. It will be observed that the two poems of Arctinus are

remarkable for the proportion of new matter of the latter kind. The

_Aethiopis_ shows us the allies of Troy reinforced by two peoples that

are evidently creations of oriental fancy, the Amazons and Memnon with

his Aethiopians. The _Iliu Persis_, again, was the oldest authority for

the story of Laocoon and of the consequent escape of Aeneas--a story

which connected a surviving branch of the house of Priam with the later

inhabitants of the Troad. On the other hand the fate of Creusa (_sed me

magna deum genetrix his detinet oris_) is a link with the worship of

Cybele. The journey of Calchas to Colophon and his death there, as told

in the _Nosti_, is another instance of the kind. These facts point to a

familiarity with the Greek colonies in Asia which contrasts strongly

with the silence of the _Iliad_ and _Odyssey_.

_Study of Homer._--_The Homeric Question._--The critical study of

Homer began in Greece almost with the beginning of prose writing. The

first name is that of Theagenes of Rhegium, contemporary of Cambyses

(525 B.C.), who is said to have founded the "new grammar" (the older

"grammar" being the art of reading and writing), and to have been the

inventor of the allegorical interpretations by which it was sought to

reconcile the Homeric mythology with the morality and speculative

ideas of the 6th century B.C. The same attitude in the "ancient

quarrel of poetry and philosophy" was soon afterwards taken by

Anaxagoras; and after him by his pupil Metrodorus of Lampsacus, who

explained away all the gods, and even the heroes, as elementary

substances and forces (Agamemnon as the upper air, &c.).

The next writers on Homer of the "grammatical" type were Stesimbrotus

of Thasos (contemporary with Cimon) and Antimachus of Colophon,

himself an epic poet of mark. The _Thebaid_ of Antimachus, however,

was not popular, and seems to have been a great storehouse of

mythological learning rather than a poem of the Homeric school.

Other names of the pre-Socratic and Socratic times are mentioned by

Xenophon, Plato and Aristotle. These were the "ancient Homerics"

([Greek: hoi archaioi Homerikoi]), who busied themselves much with the

hidden meanings of Homer; of whom Aristotle says, with his profound

insight, that they see the small likenesses and overlook the great

ones (_Metaph._ xii.).

The text of Homer must have attracted some attention when Antimachus

came to be known as the "corrector" ([Greek: diorthotes]) of a

distinct edition ([Greek: ekdosis]), Aristotle is said himself to have

made a recension for the use of Alexander the Great. This is unlikely.

His remarks on Homer (in the _Poetics_ and elsewhere) show that he had

made a careful study of the structure and leading ideas of the poems,

but do not throw much light on the text.

The real work of criticism became possible only when great collections

of manuscripts began to be made by the princes of the generation after

Alexander, and when men of learning were employed to sift and arrange

these treasures. In this way the great Alexandrian school of Homeric

criticism began with Zenodotus, the first chief of the museum, and was

continued by Aristophanes and Aristarchus. In Aristarchus ancient

philology culminated, as philosophy had done in Socrates. All earlier

learning either passed into his writings, or was lost; all subsequent

research turned upon his critical and grammatical work.

The means of forming a judgment of the Alexandrine criticism are

scanty. The literary form which preserved the works of the great

historians was unfortunately wanting, or was not sufficiently valued,

in the case of the grammarians. Abridgments and newer treatises soon

drove out the writings of Aristarchus and other founders of the

science. Moreover, a recension could not be reproduced without new

errors soon creeping in. Thus we find that Didymus, writing in the

time of Cicero, does not quote the readings of Aristarchus as we

should quote a _textus receptus_. Indeed, the object of his work seems

to have been to determine what those readings were. Enough, however,

remains to show that Aristarchus had a clear notion of the chief

problems of philology (except perhaps those concerning etymology). He

saw, for example, that it was not enough to find a meaning for the

archaic words (the [Greek: glossai], as they were called), but that

common words (such as [Greek: ponos, phobos]) had their Homeric uses,

which were to be gathered by due induction. In the same spirit he

looked upon the ideas and beliefs of Homer as a consistent whole,

which might be determined from the evidence of the poems. He noticed

especially the difference between the stories known to Homer and those

given by later poets, and made many comparisons between Homeric and

later manners, arts and institutions. Again, he was sensible of the

paramount value of manuscript authority, and appears to have

introduced no readings from mere conjecture. The frequent mention in

the Scholia of "better" and "inferior" texts may indicate a

classification made by him or by the general opinion of critics. His

use of the "obelus" to distinguish spurious verses, which made so

large a part of his fame in antiquity, has rather told against him

with modern scholars.[9] It is chiefly interesting as a proof of the

confusion in which the text must have been before the Alexandrian

times; for it is impossible to understand the readiness of Aristarchus

to suspect the genuineness of verses unless the state of the copies

had pointed to the existence of numerous interpolations. On this

matter, however, we are left to conjecture.

Our knowledge of Alexandrian criticism is derived almost wholly from a

single document, the famous _Iliad_ of the library of St Mark in

Venice (_Codex Venetus_ 454, or _Ven. A_), first published by the

French scholar Villoison in 1788 (_Scholia antiquissima ad Homeri

Iliadem_). This manuscript, written in the 10th century, contains (1)

the best text of the _Iliad_, (2) the critical marks of Aristarchus

and (3) Scholia, consisting mainly of extracts from four grammatical

works, viz. Didymus (contemporary of Cicero) on the recension of

Aristarchus, Aristonicus (fl. 24 B.C.) on the critical marks of

Aristarchus, Herodian (fl. A.D. 160) on the accentuation, and Nicanor

(fl. A.D. 127) on the punctuation, of the _Iliad_.

These extracts present themselves in two distinct forms. One series of

scholia is written in the usual way, on a margin reserved for the

purpose. The other consists of brief scholia, written in very small

characters (but of the same period) on the narrow space left vacant

round the text. Occasionally a scholium of this kind gives the

substance of one of the longer extracts; but as a rule they are

distinct. It would seem, therefore, that after the manuscript was

finished the "marginal scholia" were discovered to be extremely

defective, and a new series of extracts was added in a form which

interfered as little as possible with the appearance of the book.[10]

The mention of the Venetian Scholia leads us at once to the Homeric

controversy; for the immortal _Prolegomena_ of F. A. Wolf[11] appeared

a few years after Villoison's publication, and was founded in great

measure upon the fresh and abundant materials which it furnished. Not

that the "Wolfian theory" of the Homeric poems is directly supported

by anything in the Scholia; the immediate object of the _Prolegomena_

was not to put forward that theory, but to elucidate the new and

remarkable conditions under which the text of Homer had to be settled,

viz. the discovery of an _apparatus criticus_ of the 2nd century B.C.

The questions regarding the original structure and early history of

the poems were raised (forced upon him, it may be said) by the

critical problem; but they were really originated by facts and ideas

of a wholly different order.

The 18th century, in which the spirit of classical correctness had the

most absolute dominion, did not come to an end before a powerful

reaction set in, which affected not only literature but also

speculation and politics. In this movement the leading ideas were

concentrated in the word Nature. The natural condition of society,

natural law, natural religion, the poetry of nature, gained a singular

hold, first on the English philosophers from Hume onwards, and then

(through Rousseau chiefly) on the general drift of thought and action

in Europe. In literature the effect of these ideas was to set up a

false opposition between nature and art. As political writers imagined

a patriarchal innocence prior to codes of law, so men of letters

sought in popular unwritten poetry the freshness and simplicity which

were wanting in the prevailing styles. The blind minstrel was the

counterpart of the noble savage. The supposed discovery of the poems

of Ossian fell in with this train of sentiment, and created an

enthusiasm for the study of early popular poetry. Homer was soon drawn

into the circle of inquiry. Blackwell (Professor of Greek at Aberdeen)

had insisted, in a book published in 1735, on the "naturalness" of

Homer; and Wood (_Essay on the Original Genius of Homer_, London,

1769) was the first who maintained that Homer composed without the

help of writing, and supported his thesis by ancient authority, and

also by the parallel of Ossian. Both these books were translated into

German, and their ideas passed into the popular philosophy of the day.

Everything in short was ripe for the reception of a book that brought

together, with masterly ease and vigour, the old and the new Homeric

learning, and drew from it the historical proof that Homer was no

single poet, writing according to art and rule, but a name which stood

for a golden age of the true spontaneous poetry of genius and nature.

The part of the _Prolegomena_ which deals with the original form of

the Homeric poems occupies pp. xl.-clx. (in the first edition). Wolf

shows how the question of the date of writing meets us on the

threshold of the textual criticism of Homer and accordingly enters

into a full discussion, first of the external evidence, then of the

indications furnished by the poems. Having satisfied himself that

writing was unknown to Homer, he is led to consider the real mode of

transmission, and finds this in the Rhapsodists, of whom the Homeridae

were an hereditary school. And then comes the conclusion to which all

this has been tending: "the die is cast"--the _Iliad_ and _Odyssey_

cannot have been composed in the form in which we know them without

the aid of writing. They must therefore have been, as Bentley had

said, "a sequel of songs and rhapsodies," "loose songs not collected

together in the form of an epic poem till about 500 years after." This

conclusion he then supports by the character attributed to the

"Cyclic" poems (whose want of unity showed that the structure of the

_Iliad_ and _Odyssey_ must be the work of a later time), by one or two

indications of imperfect connexion, and by the doubts of ancient

critics as to the genuineness of certain parts. These, however, are

matters of conjecture. "Historia loquitur." The voice of antiquity is

unanimous in declaring that "Peisistratus first committed the poems of

Homer to writing, and reduced them to the order in which we now read

them."

The appeal of Wolf to the "voice of all antiquity" is by no means

borne out by the different statements on the subject. According to

Heraclides Ponticus (pupil of Plato), the poetry of Homer was first

brought to the Peloponnesus by Lycurgus, who obtained it from the

descendants of Creophylus (_Polit._ fr. 2). Plutarch in his _Life of

Lycurgus_ (c. 4) repeats this story, with the addition that there was

already a faint report of the poems in Greece, and that certain

detached fragments were in the possession of a few persons. Again, the

Platonic dialogue _Hipparchus_ (which though not genuine is probably

earlier than the Alexandrian times) asserts that Hipparchus, son of

Peisistratus, first brought the poems to Athens, and obliged the

rhapsodists at the Panathenaea to follow the order of the text, "as

they still do," instead of reciting portions chosen at will. The

earliest authority for attributing any work of the kind to

Peisistratus is the well-known passage of Cicero (_De Orat._ 3. 34:

"Quis doctior eisdem temporibus illis, aut cujus eloquentia litteris

instructior fuisse traditur quam Pisistrati? qui primus Homeri libros,

confusos antea, sic disposuisse dicitur ut nunc habemus"). To the same

effect Pausanias (vii. p. 594) says that the change of the name

Donoessa to Gonoessa (in _Il._ ii. 573) was thought to have been made

by "Peisistratus or one of his companions," when he collected the

poems, which were then in a fragmentary condition. Finally, Diogenes

Laertius (i. 57) says that Solon made a law that the poems should be

recited with the help of a prompter so that each rhapsodist should

begin where the last left off; and he argues from this that Solon did

more than Peisistratus to make Homer known. The argument is directed

against a certain Dieuchidas of Megara, who appears to have maintained

that the verses about Athens in the Catalogue (_Il._ ii. 546-556) were

interpolated by Peisistratus. The passage is unfortunately corrupt,

but it is at least clear that in the time of Solon, according to

Diogenes, there were complete copies of the poems, such as could be

used to control the recitations. Hence the account of Diogenes is

quite irreconcilable with the notices on which Wolf relied.

It is needless to examine the attempts which have been made to

harmonize these accounts. Such attempts usually start with the tacit

assumption that each of the persons concerned--Lycurgus, Solon,

Peisistratus, Hipparchus--must have done _something_ for the text of

Homer, or for the regulation of the rhapsodists. But we have first to

consider whether any of the accounts come to us on such evidence that

we are bound to consider them as containing a nucleus of truth.

In the first place, the statement that Lycurgus obtained the poems

from descendants of Creophylus must be admitted to be purely mythical.

But if we reject it, have we any better reason for believing the

parallel assertion in the Platonic _Hipparchus_? It is true that

Hipparchus is undoubtedly a real person. On the other hand it is

evident that the Peisistratidae soon became the subject of many

fables. Thucydides notices as a popular mistake the belief that

Hipparchus was the eldest son of Peisistratus, and that consequently

he was the reigning "tyrant" when he was killed by Aristogiton. The

Platonic _Hipparchus_ follows this erroneous version, and may

therefore be regarded as representing (at best) mere local tradition.

We may reasonably go further, and see in this part of the dialogue a

piece of historical romance, designed to put the "tyrant" family in a

favourable light, as patrons of literature and learning.

Again, the account of the _Hipparchus_ is contradicted by Diogenes

Laertius, who says that Solon provided for the due recitation of the

Homeric poems. The only good authorities as to this point are the

orators Lycurgus and Isocrates, who mention the law prescribing the

recitation, but do not say when or by whom it was enacted. The

inference seems a fair one, that the author of the law was really

unknown.

With regard to the statements which attribute some work in connexion

with Homer to Peisistratus, it was noticed by Wolf that Cicero,

Pausanias and the others who mention the matter do so _nearly in the

same words_, and, therefore, appear to have drawn from a common

source. This source was in all probability an epigram quoted in two of

the short lives of Homer, and there said to have been inscribed on the

statue of Peisistratus at Athens. In it Peisistratus is made to say of

himself that he "collected Homer, who was formerly sung in fragments,

for the golden poet was a citizen of ours, since we Athenians founded

Smyrna." The other statements repeat these words with various minor

additions, chiefly intended to explain how the poems had been reduced

to this fragmentary condition, and how Peisistratus set to work to

restore them. Thus all the authority for the work of Peisistratus

"reduces itself to the testimony of a single anonymous inscription"

(Nutzhorn p. 40). Now, what is the value of that testimony? It is

impossible of course to believe that a statue of Peisistratus was set

up at Athens in the time of the free republic. The epigram is almost

certainly a mere literary exercise. And what exactly does it say? Only

that Homer was _recited in fragments_ by the rhapsodists, and that

these partial recitations were made into a continuous whole by

Peisistratus; which does not necessarily mean more than that

Peisistratus did what other authorities ascribe to Solon and

Hipparchus, viz. regulated the recitation.

Against the theory which sees in Peisistratus the author of the first

complete text of Homer we have to set the absolute silence of

Herodotus, Thucydides, the orators and the Alexandrian grammarians.

And it can hardly be thought that their silence is accidental.

Herodotus and Thucydides seem to tell us all that they know of

Peisistratus. The orators Lycurgus and Isocrates make a great deal of

the recitation of Homer at the Panathenaea, but know nothing of the

poems having been collected and arranged at Athens, a fact which would

have redounded still more to the honour of the city. Finally, the

Scholia of the _Ven. A_ contain no reference or allusion to the story

of Peisistratus. As these Scholia are derived in substance from the

writings of Aristarchus, it seems impossible to believe that the story

was known to him. The circumstance that it is referred to in the

_Scholia Townleiana_ and in Eustathius, gives additional weight to

this argument.

The result of these considerations seems to be that nothing rests on

good evidence beyond the fact that Homer was recited by law at the

Panathenaic festival. The rest of the story is probably the result of

gradual expansion and accretion. It was inevitable that later writers

should speculate about the authorship of such a law, and that it

should be attributed with more or less confidence to Solon or

Peisistratus or Hipparchus. The choice would be determined in great

measure by political feeling. It is probably not an accident that

Dieuchidas, who attributed so much to Peisistratus, was a Megarian.

The author of the _Hipparchus_ is evidently influenced by the

anti-democratical tendencies in which he only followed Plato. In the

times to which the story of Peisistratus can be traced, the 1st

century B.C., the substitution of the "tyrant" for the legislator was

extremely natural. It was equally natural that the importance of his

work as regards the text of Homer should be exaggerated. The splendid

patronage of letters by the successors of Alexander, and especially

the great institutions which had been founded at Alexandria and

Pergamum, had made an impression on the imagination of learned men

which was reflected in the current notions of the ancient despots. It

may even be suspected that anecdotes in praise of Peisistratus and

Hipparchus were a delicate form of flattery addressed to the reigning

Ptolemy. Under these influences the older stories of Lycurgus bringing

Homer to the Peloponnesus, and Solon providing for the recitation at

Athens, were thrown into the shade.

In the later Byzantine times it was believed that Peisistratus was

aided by seventy grammarians, of whom Zenedotus and Aristarchus were

the chief. The great Alexandrian grammarians had become figures in a

new mythology. It is true that Tzetzes, one of the writers from whom

we have this story, gives a better version, according to which

Peisistratus employed four men, viz. Onomacritus, Zopyrus of Heraclea,

Orpheus of Croton, and one whose name is corrupt (written [Greek:

epikogkylos]). Many scholars (among them Ritschl) accept this account

as probable. Yet it rests upon no better evidence than the other.

The effect of Wolf's _Prolegomena_ was so overwhelming that, although

a few protests were made at the time, the true Homeric controversy did

not begin till after Wolf's death (1824). His speculations were

thoroughly in harmony with the ideas and sentiment of the time, and

his historical arguments, especially his long array of testimonies to

the work of Peisistratus, were hardly challenged.

The first considerable antagonist of the Wolfian school was G. W.

Nitzsch, whose writings cover the years 1828-1862, and deal with every

side of the controversy. In the earlier part of his _Meletemata_

(1830) he took up the question of written or unwritten literature, on

which Wolf's whole argument turned, and showed that the art of writing

must be anterior to Peisistratus. In the later part of the same series

of discussions (1837), and in his chief work (_Die Sagenpoesie der

Griechen_, 1852), he investigated the structure of the Homeric poems,

and their relation to the other epics of the Trojan cycle. These epics

had meanwhile been made the subject of a work which for exhaustive

learning and delicacy of artistic perception has few rivals in the

history of philology, the _Epic Cycle_ of F. G. Welcker. The confusion

which previous scholars had made between the ancient post-Homeric

poets (Arctinus, Lesches, &c.) and the learned mythological writers

(such as the "scriptor cyclicus" of Horace) was first cleared up by

Welcker. Wolf had argued that if the cyclic writers had known the

_Iliad_ and _Odyssey_ which we possess, they would have imitated the

unity of structure which distinguishes these two poems. The result of

Welcker's labours was to show that the Homeric poems had influenced

both the form and the substance of epic poetry.

In this way there arose a conservative school who admitted more or

less freely the absorption of pre-existing lays in the formation of

the _Iliad_ and _Odyssey_, and also the existence of considerable

interpolations, but assigned the main work of formation to prehistoric

times, and to the genius of a great poet. Whether the two epics were

by the same author remained an open question; the tendency of this

group of scholars was decidedly towards separation. Regarding the use

of writing, too, they were not unanimous. K. O. Muller, for instance,

maintained the view of Wolf on this point, while he strenuously

combated the inference which Wolf drew from it.

The _Prolegomena_ bore on the title-page the words "Volumen I."; but

no second volume ever appeared, nor was any attempt made by Wolf

himself to carry his theory further. The first important steps in that

direction were taken by Gottfried Hermann, chiefly in two

dissertations, _De interpolationibus Homeri_ (Leipzig, 1832), and _De

iteratis Homeri_ (Leipzig, 1840), called forth by the writings of

Nitzsch. As the word "interpolation" implies, Hermann did not maintain

the hypothesis of a congeries of independent "lays." Feeling the

difficulty of supposing that all the ancient minstrels sang of the

"wrath of Achilles" or the "return of Ulysses" (leaving out even the

capture of Troy itself), he was led to assume that two poems of no

great compass dealing with these two themes became so famous at an

early period as to throw other parts of the Trojan story into the

background, and were then enlarged by successive generations of

rhapsodists. Some parts of the _Iliad_, moreover, seemed to him to be

older than the poem on the wrath of Achilles; and thus in addition to

the "Homeric" and "post-Homeric" matter he distinguished a

"pre-Homeric" element.

The conjectures of Hermann, in which the Wolfian theory found a

modified and tentative application, were presently thrown into the

shade by the more trenchant method of Lachmann, who (in two papers

read to the Berlin Academy in 1837 and 1841) sought to show that the

_Iliad_ was made up of sixteen independent "lays," with various

enlargements and interpolations, all finally reduced to order by

Peisistratus. The first book, for instance, consists of a lay on the

anger of Achilles (1-347), and two continuations, the return of

Chryseis (430-492) and the scenes in Olympus (348-429, 493-611). The

second book forms a second lay, but several passages, among them the

speech of Ulysses (278-332), are interpolated. In the third book the

scenes in which Helen and Priam take part (including the making of the

truce) are pronounced to be interpolations; and so on. Regarding the

evidence on which these sweeping results are founded, opinions will

vary. The degree of smoothness or consistency which is to be expected

on the hypothesis of a single author will be determined by taste

rather than argument. The dissection of the first book, for instance,

turns partly on a chronological inaccuracy which might well escape the

poet as well as his hearers. In examining such points we are apt to

forget that the contradictions by which a story is shown to be untrue

are quite different from those by which a confessedly untrue story

would be shown to be the work of different authors.

_Structure of the Iliad._--The subject of the Iliad, as the first line

proclaims, is the "anger of Achilles." The manner in which this subject

is worked out will appear from the following summary in which we

distinguish (1) the plot, i.e. the story of the quarrel, (2) the main

course of the war, which forms a sort of underplot, and (3) subordinate

episodes.

I. Quarrel of Achilles with Agamemnon and the Greek army--Agamemnon,

having been compelled to give up his prize Chryseis, takes Briseis

from Achilles--Thereupon Achilles appeals to his mother Thetis, who

obtains from Zeus a promise that he will give victory to the Trojans

until the Greeks pay due honour to her son--Meanwhile Achilles takes

no part in the war.

II. Agamemnon is persuaded by a dream sent from Zeus to take the

field with all his forces.

His attempt to test the temper of the army nearly leads to their

return.

Catalogue of the army (probably a later addition).

Trojan muster--Trojan catalogue.