Such is the "action" ([Greek: praxis]) which in Aristotle's opinion
showed the superiority of Homer to all later epic poets. But the proof
that his scheme was the work of a great poet does not depend merely upon
the artistic unity which excited the wonder of Aristotle. A number of
separate "lays" might conceivably be arranged and connected by a man of
poetical taste in a manner that would satisfy all requirements. In such
a case, however, the connecting passages would be slight and weak. Now,
in the _Iliad_ these passages are the finest and most characteristic.
The element of connexion and unity is the story of the "wrath of
Achilles"; and we have only to look at the books which give the story of
the wrath to see how essential they are. Even if the ninth book is
rejected (as Grote proposed), there remain the speeches of the first,
sixteenth and nineteenth books. These speeches form the cardinal points
in the action of the _Iliad_--the framework into which everything else
is set; and they have also the best title to the name of Homer.
The further question, however, remains,--What shorter narrative piece
fulfilling the conditions of an independent poem has Lachmann succeeded
in disengaging from the existing _Iliad_? It must be admitted that when
tried by this test his "lays" generally fail. The "quarrel of the
chiefs," the "muster of the army," the "duel of Paris and Menelaus,"
&c., are excellent beginnings, but have no satisfying conclusion. And
the reason is not far to seek. The _Iliad_ is not a history, nor is it a
series of incidents in the history, of the siege. It turns entirely upon
a single incident, occupying a few days only. The several episodes of
the poem are not so many distinct stories, each with an interest of its
own. They are only parts of a single main event. Consequently the type
of epic poem which would be produced by an aggregation of shorter lays
is not the type which we have in the _Iliad_. Rather the _Iliad_ is
itself a single lay which has grown with the growth of poetical art to
the dimensions of an epic.
But the original nucleus and parts of the incidents may be the work of a
single great poet, and yet other episodes may be of different
authorship, wrought into the structure of the poem in later times.
Various theories have been based on this supposition. Grote in
particular held that the original poem, which he called the Achilleis,
did not include books ii.-vii., ix., x., xxiii., xxiv. Such a view may
be defended somewhat as follows.
Of the books which relate the events during the absence of Achilles from
the Greek ranks (ii.-xv.), the last five are directly related to the
main action. They describe the successive steps by which the Greeks are
driven back, first from the plain to the rampart, then to their ships.
Moreover, three of the chief heroes, Agamemnon, Diomede and Ulysses, are
wounded, and this circumstance, as Lachmann himself admitted, is
steadily kept in mind throughout. It is otherwise with the earlier books
(especially ii.-vii.). The chief incidents in that part of the poem--the
panic rush to the ships, the duels of Paris and Menelaus, and of Hector
and Ajax, the Aristeia of Diomede--stand in no relation to the
mainspring of the poem, the promise made by Zeus to Thetis. It is true
that in the thirteenth and fourteenth books the purpose of Zeus is
thwarted for a time by other gods; but in books ii.-vii. it is not so
much thwarted as ignored. Further, the events follow without sufficient
connexion. The truce of the third book is broken by Pandarus, and
Agamemnon passes along the Greek ranks with words of encouragement, but
without a hint of the treachery just committed. The Aristeia of Diomede
ends in the middle of the sixth book; he is uppermost in all thoughts
down to ver. 311, but from this point, in the meetings of Hector with
Helen and Andromache, and again in the seventh book when Hector
challenges the Greek chiefs, his prowess is forgotten. Once more, some
of the incidents seem to belong properly to the beginning of the war.
The joy of Menelaus on seeing Paris, Priam's ignorance of the Greek
leaders, the speeches of Agamemnon in his review of the ranks (in book
iv.), the building of the wall--all these are in place after the Greek
landing, but hardly in the ninth year of the siege.
On the other hand, it may be said, the second book opens with a direct
reference to the events of the first, and the mention of Achilles in the
speech of Thersites (ii. 239 sqq.) is sufficient to keep the main course
of events in view. The Catalogue is connected with its place in the poem
by the lines about Achilles (686-694). When Diomede is at the height of
his Aristeia Helenus says (_Il._ vi. 99), "We did not so fear even
Achilles." And when in the third book Priam asks Helen about the Greek
captains, or when in the seventh book nine champions come forward to
contend with Hector, the want of the greatest hero of all is
sufficiently felt. If these passages do not belong to the period of the
wrath of Achilles, how are we to account for his conspicuous absence?
Further, the want of smoothness and unity which is visible in this part
of the _Iliad_ may be due to other causes than difference of date or
authorship. A national poet such as the author of the _Iliad_ cannot
always choose or arrange his matter at his own will. He is bound by the
traditions of his art, and by the feelings and expectations of his
hearers. The poet who brought the exploits of Diomede into the _Iliad_
doubtless had his reasons for doing so, which were equally strong
whether he was the poet of the Achilleis or a later Homerid or
rhapsodist. And if some of the incidents (those of the third book in
particular) seem to belong to the beginning of the war, it must be
considered that poetically, and to the hearers of the _Iliad_, the war
opens in the third book, and the incidents are of the kind that is
required in such a place. The truce makes a pause which heightens the
interest of the impending battle; the duel and the scene on the walls
are effective in bringing some of the leading characters on the stage,
and in making us acquainted with the previous history. The story of
Paris and Helen especially, and the general position of affairs in Troy,
is put before us in a singularly vivid manner. The book in short forms
so good a _prologue_ to the action of the war that we can hardly be
wrong in attributing it to the genius which devised the rest of the
_Iliad_.
The case against the remaining books is of a different kind. The ninth
and tenth seem like two independent pictures of the night before the
great battle of xi.-xvii. Either is enough to fill the space in Homer's
canvas; and the suspicion arises (as when two Platonic dialogues bear
the same name) that if either had been genuine, the other would not have
come into existence. If one of the two is to be rejected it must be the
tenth, which is certainly the less Homeric. It relates a picturesque
adventure, conceived in a vein more approaching that of comedy than any
other part of the _Iliad_. Moreover, the language in several places
exhibits traces of post-Homeric date. The ninth book, on the other hand,
was rejected by Grote, chiefly on the grounds that the embassy to
Achilles ought to have put an end to the quarrel, and that it is ignored
in later passages, especially in the speeches of Achilles (xi. 609;
xvi. 72, 85). His argument, however, rests on an assumption which we are
apt to bring with us to the reading of the _Iliad_, but which is not
borne out by its language, viz. that there was some definite atonement
demanded by Achilles, or due to him according to the custom and
sentiment of the time. But in the _Iliad_ the whole stress is laid on
the anger of Achilles, which can only be satisfied by the defeat and
extreme peril of the Greeks.[12] He is influenced by his own feeling,
and by nothing else. Accordingly, in the ninth book, when they are still
protected by the rampart (see 348 sqq.), he rejects gifts and fair words
alike; in the sixteenth he is moved by the tears and entreaties of
Patroclus, and the sight of the Greek ships on fire; in the nineteenth
his anger is quenched in grief. But he makes no conditions, either in
rejecting the offers of the embassy or in returning to the Greek army.
And this conduct is the result, not only of his fierce and inexorable
character, but also (as the silence of Homer shows) of the want of any
general rules or principles, any code of morality or of honour, which
would have required him to act in a different way.
Finally, Grote objected to the two last books that they prolong the
action of the _Iliad_ beyond the exigencies of a coherent scheme. Of the
two, the twenty-third could more easily be spared. In language, and
perhaps in style and manner, it is akin to the tenth; while the
twenty-fourth is in the pathetic vein of the ninth, and like it serves
to bring out new aspects of the character of Achilles.
Dr E. Kammer has given some strong reasons for doubting the
genuineness of the passage in book xx. describing the duel between
Achilles and Aeneas (79-352). The incident is certainly very much out
of keeping with the vehement action of that part of the poem, and
especially with the moment when Achilles returns to the field, eager
to meet Hector and avenge the death of his friend. The interpolation
(if it is one) is probably due to local interests. It contains the
well-known prophecy that the descendants of Aeneas are to rule over
the Trojans,--pointing to the existence of an Aenead dynasty in the
Troad. So, too, the legend of Anchises in the Hymn to Aphrodite is
evidently local; and Aeneas becomes more prominent in the later epics,
especially the _Cypria_ and the [Greek: Iliou persis] of Arctinus.
_Structure of the Odyssey._--In the _Odyssey_, as in the _Iliad_, the
events related fall within a short space of time. The difficulty of
adapting the long wanderings of Ulysses to a plan of this type is got
over by the device--first met with in the _Odyssey_--of making the hero
tell the story of his own adventures. In this way the action is made to
begin almost immediately before the actual return of Ulysses. Up to the
time when he reaches Ithaca it moves on three distinct scenes: we follow
the fortunes of Ulysses, of Telemachus on his voyage in the
Peloponnesus, and of Penelope with the suitors. The art with which these
threads are woven together was recognized by Wolf himself, who admitted
the difficulty of applying his theory to the "admirabilis summa et
compages" of the poem. Of the comparatively few attempts which have been
made to dissect the _Odyssey_, the most moderate and attractive is that
of Professor A. Kirchhoff of Berlin.[13]
According to Kirchhoff, the _Odyssey_ as we have it is the result of
additions made to an original nucleus. There was first of all a
"Return of Odysseus," relating chiefly the adventures with the
Cyclops, Calypso and the Phaeacians; then a continuation, the scene of
which lay in Ithaca, embracing the bulk of books xiii.-xxiii. The poem
so formed was enlarged at some time between Ol. 30 and Ol. 50 by the
stories of books x.-xii. (Circe, the Sirens, Scylla, &c.), and the
adventures of Telemachus. Lastly, a few passages were interpolated in
the time of Peisistratus.
The proof that the scenes in Ithaca are by a later hand than the
ancient "Return" is found chiefly in a contradiction discussed by
Kirchhoff in his sixth dissertation (pp. 135 sqq., ed. 1869).
Sometimes Ulysses is represented as aged and worn by toil, so that
Penelope, for instance, cannot recognize him; sometimes he is really
in the prime of heroic vigour, and his appearing as a beggarly old man
is the work of Athena's wand. The first of these representations is
evidently natural, considering the twenty eventful years that have
passed; but the second, Kirchhoff holds, is the Ulysses of Calypso's
island and the Phaeacian court. He concludes that the aged Ulysses
belongs to the "continuation" (the change wrought by Athena's wand
being a device to reconcile the two views), and hence that the
continuation is the work of a different author.
Ingenious as this is, there is really very slender ground for
Kirchhoff's thesis. The passages in the second half of the _Odyssey_
which describe the appearance of Ulysses do not give _two_ well-marked
representations of him. Sometimes Athena disguises him as a decrepit
beggar, sometimes she bestows on him supernatural beauty and vigour.
It must be admitted that we are not told exactly how long in each case
the effect of these changes lasted. But neither answers to his natural
appearance, or to the appearance which he is imagined to present in
the earlier books. In the palace of Alcinous, for instance, it is
noticed that he is vigorous but "marred by many ills" (_Od._ viii.
137); and this agrees with the scenes of recognition in the latter
part of the poem.
The arguments by which Kirchhoff seeks to prove that the stories of
books x.-xii. are much later than those of book ix. are not more
convincing. He points out some resemblances between these three books
and the Argonautic fables, among them the circumstance that a fountain
Artacia occurs in both. In the Argonautic story this fountain is
placed in the neighbourhood of Cyzicus, and answers to an actual
fountain known in historical times. Kirchhoff argues that the Artacia
of the Argonautic story must have been taken from the real Artacia,
and the Artacia of the _Odyssey_ again from that of the Argonautic
story. And as Cyzicus was settled from Miletus, he infers that both
sets of stories must be comparatively late. It is more probable,
surely, that the name Artacia occurred independently (as most
geographical names are found to occur) in more than one place. Or it
may be that the Artacia of the _Odyssey_ suggested the name to the
colonists of Cyzicus, whence it was adopted into the later versions of
the Argonautic story. The further argument that the _Nostoi_
recognized a son of Calypso by Ulysses but no son of Circe,
consequently that Circe was unknown to the poet of the _Nostoi_, rests
(in the first place) upon a conjectural alteration of a passage in
Eustathius, and, moreover, has all the weakness of an argument from
silence, in addition to the uncertainty arising from our very slight
knowledge of the author whose silence is in question. Finally, when
Kirchhoff finds traces in books x.-xii. of their having been
originally told by the poet himself instead of being put in the mouth
of his hero, we feel that inaccuracies of this kind are apt to creep
in wherever a fictitious story is thrown into the form of an
autobiography.
Inquiries conducted with the refinement which characterizes those of
Kirchhoff are always instructive, and his book contains very many just
observations; but it is impossible to admit his main conclusions. And
perhaps we may infer that no similar attempt can be more successful.
It does not indeed follow that the _Odyssey_ is free from
interpolations. The [Greek: Nekuia] of book xi. may be later (as Lauer
maintained), or it may contain additions, which could easily be
inserted in a description of the kind. And the last book is probably
by a different hand, as the ancient critics believed. But the unity of
the _Odyssey_ as a whole is apparently beyond the reach of the
existing weapons of criticism.
_Chorizontes._--When we are satisfied that each of the great Homeric
poems is either wholly or mainly the work of a single poet, a question
remains which has been matter of controversy in ancient as well as
modern times--Are they the work of the same poet? Two ancient
grammarians, Xeno and Hellanicus, were known as the "separators"
([Greek: oi chorizontes]); and Aristarchus appears to have written a
treatise against their heresy. In modern times some of the greatest
names have been on the side of the "Chorizontes."
If, as has been maintained in the preceding pages, the external evidence
regarding Homer is of no value, the problem now before us may be stated
in this form: Given two poems of which nothing is known except that they
are of the same school of poetry, what is the probability that they are
by the same author? We may find a fair parallel by imagining two plays
drawn at hazard from the works of the great tragic writers. It is
evident that the burden of proof would rest with those who held them to
be by the same hand.
The arguments used in this discussion have been of very various calibre.
The ancient Chorizontes observed that the messenger of Zeus is Iris in
the _Iliad_, but Hermes in the _Odyssey_; that the wife of Hephaestus is
one of the Charites in the _Iliad_, but Aphrodite in the _Odyssey_; that
the heroes in the _Iliad_ do not eat fish; that Crete has a hundred
cities according to the _Iliad_, and only ninety according to the
_Odyssey_; that [Greek: proparoithe] is used in the _Iliad_ of place, in
the _Odyssey_ of time, &c. Modern scholars have added to the list,
especially by making careful comparisons of the two poems in respect of
vocabulary and grammatical forms. Nothing is more difficult than to
assign the degree of weight to be given to such facts. The difference of
subject between the two poems is so great that it leads to the most
striking differences of detail, especially in the vocabulary. For
instance, the word [Greek: phobos], which in Homer means "flight in
battle" (not "fear"), occurs thirty-nine times in the _Iliad_, and only
once in the _Odyssey_; but then there are no battles in the _Odyssey_.
Again, the verb [Greek: rhegnymi], "to break," occurs forty-eight times
in the _Iliad_, and once in the _Odyssey_,--the reason being that it is
constantly used of breaking the armour of an enemy, the gate of a city,
the hostile ranks, &c. Once more, the word [Greek: skotos], "darkness,"
occurs fourteen times in the _Iliad_, once in the _Odyssey_. But in
every one of the fourteen places it is used of "darkness" coming over
the sight of a fallen warrior. On the other side, if words such as
[Greek: asaminthos], "a bath," [Greek: chernips], "a basin for the
hands," [Greek: lesche], "a place to meet and talk," &c., are peculiar
to the _Odyssey_, we have only to remember that the scene in the _Iliad_
is hardly ever laid within any walls except those of a tent. These
examples will show that mere statistics of the occurrence of words prove
little, and that we must begin by looking to the subject and character
of each poem. When we do so, we at once find ourselves in the presence
of differences of the broadest kind. The _Iliad_ is much more historical
in tone and character. The scene of the poem is a real place, and the
poet sings (as Ulysses says of Demodocus) as though he had been present
himself, or had heard from one who had been. The supernatural element is
confined to an interference of the gods, which to the common eye hardly
disturbs the natural current of affairs. The _Odyssey_, on the contrary,
is full of the magical and romantic--"speciosa miracula," as Horace
called them. Moreover, these marvels--which in their original form are
doubtless as old as anything in the _Iliad_, since in fact they are part
of the vast stock of popular tales (_Marchen_) diffused all over the
world--are mixed up in the _Odyssey_ with the heroes of the Trojan war.
This has been especially noticed in the case of the story of Polyphemus,
one that is found in many countries, and in versions which cannot all be
derived from Homer. W. Grimm has pointed out that the behaviour of
Ulysses in that story is senseless and foolhardy, utterly beneath the
wise and much-enduring Ulysses of the Trojan war. The reason is simple;
he is not the Ulysses of the Trojan war, but a being of the same world
as Polyphemus himself--the world of giants and ogres. The question then
is--How long must the name of Ulysses have been familiar in the legend
(_Sage_) of Troy before it made its way into the tales of giants and
ogres (_Marchen_), where the poet of the _Odyssey_ found it?
Again, the Trojan legend has itself received some extension between the
time of the _Iliad_ and that of the _Odyssey_. The story of the Wooden
Horse is not only unknown to the _Iliad_, but is of a kind which we can
hardly imagine the poet of the _Iliad_ admitting. The part taken by
Neoptolemus seems also to be a later addition. The tendency to amplify
and complete the story shows itself still more in the Cyclic poets.
Between the _Iliad_ and these poets the _Odyssey_ often occupies an
intermediate position.
This great and significant change in the treatment of the heroic legends
is accompanied by numerous minor differences (such as the ancients
remarked) in belief, in manners and institutions, and in language. These
differences bear out the inference that the _Odyssey_ is of a later age.
The progress of reflection is especially shown in the higher ideas
entertained regarding the gods. The turbulent Olympian court has almost
disappeared. Zeus has acquired the character of a supreme moral ruler;
and although Athena and Poseidon are adverse influences in the poem, the
notion of a direct contest between them is scrupulously avoided. The
advance of morality is shown in the more frequent use of terms such as
"just" ([Greek: dikaios]), "piety" ([Greek: hoshie]), "insolence"
([Greek: hubris]), "god-fearing" ([Greek: theoudes]), "pure" ([Greek:
hagnos]); and also in the plot of the story, which is distinctly a
contest between right and wrong. In matters bearing upon the arts of
life it is unsafe to press the silence of the _Iliad_. We may note,
however, the difference between the house of Priam, surrounded by
distinct dwellings for his many sons and daughters, and the houses of
Ulysses and Alcinous, with many chambers under a single roof. The
singer, too, who is so prominent a figure in the _Odyssey_ can hardly be
thought to be absent from the _Iliad_ merely because the scene is laid
in a camp.
_Style of Homer._--A few words remain to be said on the style and
general character of the Homeric poems, and on the comparisons which may
be made between Homer and analogous poetry in other countries.
The cardinal qualities of the style of Homer have been pointed out once
for all by Matthew Arnold. "The translator of Homer," he says, "should
above all be penetrated by a sense of four qualities of his author--that
he is eminently rapid; that he is eminently plain and direct, both in
the evolution of his thought and in the expression of it, that is, both
in his syntax and in his words; that he is eminently plain and direct in
the substance of his thought, that is, in his matter and ideas; and,
finally, that he is eminently noble" (_On Translating Homer_, p. 9).
The peculiar rapidity of Homer is due in great measure to his use of the
hexameter verse. It is characteristic of early literature that the
evolution of the thought--that is, the grammatical form of the
sentence--is guided by the structure of the verse; and the
correspondence which consequently obtains between the rhythm and the
grammar--the thought being given out in lengths, as it were, and these
again divided by tolerably uniform pauses--produces a swift flowing
movement, such as is rarely found when the periods have been constructed
without direct reference to the metre. That Homer possesses this
rapidity without falling into the corresponding faults--that is, without
becoming either "jerky" or monotonous--is perhaps the best proof of his
unequalled poetical skill. The plainness and directness, both of thought
and of expression, which characterize Homer were doubtless qualities of
his age; but the author of the _Iliad_ (like Voltaire, to whom Arnold
happily compares him) must have possessed the national gift in a
surpassing degree. The _Odyssey_ is in this respect perceptibly below
the level of the _Iliad_.
Rapidity or ease of movement, plainness of expression and plainness of
thought, these are not the distinguishing qualities of the great epic
poets--Virgil, Dante, Milton. On the contrary, they belong rather to the
humbler epico-lyrical school for which Homer has been so often claimed.
The proof that Homer does not belong to that school--that his poetry is
not in any true sense "ballad-poetry"--is furnished by the higher
artistic structure of his poems (already discussed), and as regards
style by the fourth of the qualities distinguished by Arnold--the
quality of _nobleness_. It is his noble and powerful style, sustained
through every change of idea and subject, that finally separates Homer
from all forms of "ballad-poetry" and "popular epic."[14]
But while we are on our guard against a once common error, we may
recognize the historical connexion between the _Iliad_ and _Odyssey_ and
the "ballad" literature which undoubtedly preceded them in Greece. It
may even be admitted that the swift-flowing movement, and the simplicity
of thought and style, which we admire in the _Iliad_ are an inheritance
from the earlier "lays"--the [Greek: klea andron] such as Achilles and
Patroclus sang to the lyre in their tent. Even the metre--the hexameter
verse--may be assigned to them. But between these lays and Homer we must
place the cultivation of epic poetry as an art.[15] The pre-Homeric lays
doubtless furnished the elements of such a poetry--the alphabet, so to
speak, of the art; but they must have been refined and transmuted before
they formed poems like the _Iliad_ and _Odyssey_.
A single example will illustrate this. In the scene on the walls of
Troy, in the third book of the _Iliad_, after Helen has pointed out
Agamemnon, Ulysses and Ajax in answer to Priam's questions, she goes on
unasked to name Idomeneus. Lachmann, whose mind is full of the ballad
manner, fastens upon this as an irregularity. "The unskilful transition
from Ajax to Idomeneus, about whom no question had been asked," he
cannot attribute to the original poet of the lay (_Betrachtungen_, p.
15, ed. 1865). But, as was pointed out by A. Romer[16], this is exactly
the variation which a _poet_ would introduce to relieve the primitive
_ballad-like_ sameness of question and answer; and moreover it forms the
transition to the lines about the Dioscuri by which the scene is so
touchingly brought to a close.
_Analogies._--The development of epic poetry (properly so called) out of
the oral songs or ballads of a country is a process which in the nature
of things can seldom be observed. It seems clear, however, that the
hypothesis of epics such as the _Iliad_ and _Odyssey_ having been formed
by putting together or even by working up shorter poems finds no support
from analogy.
Narrative poetry of great interest is found in several countries (such
as Spain and Servia), in which it has never attained to the epic stage.
In Scandinavia, in Lithuania, in Russia, according to Gaston Paris
(_Histoire poetique de Charlemagne_, p. 9), the national songs have been
arrested in a form which may be called intermediate between contemporary
poetry and the epic. The true epics are those of India, Persia, Greece,
Germany, Britain and France. Most of these, however, fail to afford any
useful points of comparison, either from their utter unlikeness to
Homer, or because there is no evidence of the existence of anterior
popular songs. The most instructive, perhaps the only instructive,
parallel is to be found in the French "chansons de geste," of which the
_Chanson de Roland_ is the earliest and best example. These poems are
traced back with much probability to the 10th century. They are epic in
character, and were recited by professional _jongleurs_ (who may be
compared to the [Greek: aoidoi] of Homer). But as early as the 7th
century we come upon traces of short lays (the so-called cantilenes)
which were in the mouths of all and were sung in chorus. It has been
held that the chansons de geste were formed by joining together
"bunches" of these earlier cantilenes, and this was the view taken by
Leon Gautier in the first edition of _Les Epopees francaises_ (1865). In
the second edition, of which the first volume appeared in 1878, he
abandoned this theory. He believes that the epics were generally
composed under the influence of earlier songs. "Our first epic poets,"
he says, "did not actually and materially patch together pre-existent
cantilenes. They were only inspired by these popular songs; they only
borrowed from them the traditional and legendary elements. In short,
they took nothing from them but the ideas, the spirit, the life; they
'found' (ils ont trouve) all the rest" (p. 80). But he admits that "some
of the old poems may have been borrowed from tradition, without any
intermediary" (ibid.); and when it is considered that the traces of the
"cantilenes" are slight, and that the degree in which they inspired the
later poetry must be a matter of impression rather than of proof, it
does not surprise us to find other scholars (notably Paul Meyer)
attaching less importance to them, or even doubting their existence.[17]
When Leon Gautier shows how history passes into legend, and legend again
into romance, we are reminded of the difference noticed above between
the _Iliad_ and the _Odyssey_, and between Homer and the early Cyclic
poems. And the peculiar degradation of Homeric characters which appears
in some poets (especially Euripides) finds a parallel in the later
chansons de geste.[18]
The comparison of Homer with the great literary epics calls for more
discursive treatment than would be in place here. Some external
differences have been already indicated. Like the French epics, Homeric
poetry is indigenous, and is distinguished by this fact, and by the ease
of movement and the simplicity which result from it, from poets such as
Virgil, Dante and Milton. It is also distinguished from them by the
comparative absence of underlying motives or sentiment. In Virgil's
poetry a sense of the greatness of Rome and Italy is the leading motive
of a passionate rhetoric, partly veiled by the "chosen delicacy" of his
language. Dante and Milton are still more faithful exponents of the
religion and politics of their time. Even the French epics are pervaded
by the sentiment of fear and hatred of the Saracens. But in Homer the
interest is purely dramatic. There is no strong antipathy of race or
religion; the war turns on no political event; the capture of Troy lies
outside the range of the _Iliad_. Even the heroes are not the chief
national heroes of Greece. The interest lies wholly (so far as we can
see) in the picture of human action and feeling.
BIBLIOGRAPHY.--A complete bibliography of Homer would fill volumes.
The following list is intended to include those books only which are
of first-rate importance.
The _editio princeps_ of Homer, published at Florence in 1488, by
Demetrius Chalcondylas, and the Aldine editions of 1504 and 1517, have
still some value beyond that of curiosity. The chief modern critical
editions are those of Wolf (Halle, 1794-1795; Leipzig, 1804-1807),
Spitzner (Gotha, 1832-1836), Bekker (Berlin, 1843; Bonn, 1858), La
Roche (_Odyssey_, 1867-1868; _Iliad_, 1873-1876, both at Leipzig);
Ludwich (_Odyssey_, Leipzig, 1889-1891; _Iliad_, 2 vols., 1901 and
1907): W. Leaf (_Iliad_, London, 1886-1888; 2nd ed. 1900-1902); Merry
and Riddell (_Odyssey_ i.-xii., 2nd ed., Oxford, 1886); Monro
(_Odyssey_ xiii.-xxiv. with appendices, Oxford, 1901); Monro and Allen
(_Iliad_), and Allen (_Odyssey_, 1908, Oxford). The commentaries of
Barnes, Clarke and Ernesti are practically superseded; but Heyne's
_Iliad_ (Leipzig, 1802) and Nitzsch's commentary on the _Odyssey_
(books i.-xii., Hanover, 1826-1840) are still useful. Nagelbach's
_Anmerkungen zur Ilias_ (A, B 1-483, [Gamma]) is of great value,
especially the third edition (by Autenrieth, Nuremberg, 1864). The
unique _Scholia Veneta_ on the _Iliad_ were first made known by
Villoison (_Homeri Ilias ad veteris codicis Veneti fidem recensita,
Scholia in eam antiquissima ex eodem codice aliisque nunc primum
edidit, cum Asteriscis, Obeliscis, aliisque signis criticis, Joh.
Baptista Caspar d'Ansse de Villoison_, Venice, 1788); reprinted, with
many additions from other MSS., by Bekker (_Scholia in Homeri
Iliadem_, Berlin, 1825-1826). A new edition has been published by the
Oxford Press (_Scholia Graeca in Homeri Iliadem_, ed. Gul.
Dindorfius); six volumes have appeared (1875-1888), the last two
edited by Professor E. Maass. The vast commentary of Eustathius was
first printed at Rome in 1542; the last edition is that of Stallbaum
(Leipzig, 1827). The Scholia on the _Odyssey_ were published by
Buttmann (Berlin, 1821), and with greater approach to completeness by
W. Dindorf (Oxford, 1855). Although Wolf at once perceived the value
of the Venetian Scholia on the _Iliad_, the first scholar who
thoroughly explored them was C. Lehrs (_De Aristarchi studiis
Homericis_, Konigsberg, 1833; 2nd ed., Leipzig, 1865). Of the studies
in the same field which have appeared since, the most important are:
Aug. Nauck, _Aristophanis Byzantii fragmenta_ (Halle, 1848); L.
Friedlander, _Aristonici_ [Greek: peri semeion 'Iliados] _reliquiae_
(Gottingen, 1853); M. Schmidt, _Didymi Chalcenteri fragmenta_
(Leipzig, 1854); L. Friedlander, _Nicanoris_ [Greek: peri Iliakes
stigmes] _reliquiae_ (Berlin, 1857); Aug. Lentz, _Herodiani Technici
reliquiae_ (Leipzig, 1867); J. La Roche, _Die homerische Textkritik im
Alterthum_ (Leipzig, 1866) and _Homerische Untersuchungen_ (Leipzig,
1869); Ad. Romer, _Die Werke der Aristarcheer im Cod. Venet. A._
(Munich, 1875); A. Ludwich, _Aristarch's Homerische Textkritik_ (2
vols. Leipzig, 1884-1885); and _Die Homervulgata als
vor-Alexandrinisch erwiesen_ (Leipzig, 1898).
The literature of the "Homeric Question" begins practically with
Wolf's _Prolegomena_ (Halle, 1795). Of the earlier books Wood's _Essay
on the Original Genius and Writings of Homer_ is the most interesting.
Wolf's views were skilfully popularized in W. Muller's _Homerische
Vorschule_ (2nd ed., Leipzig, 1836). G. Hermann's dissertations _De
interpolationibus Homeri_ (1832) and _De iteratis apua Homerum_ (1840)
are reprinted in his _Opuscula_. Lachmann's two papers (_Betrachtungen
uber Homer's Ilias_) were edited together by M. Haupt (2nd ed.,
Berlin, 1865). Besides the somewhat voluminous writings of Nitzsch,
and the discussions contained in the histories of Greek literature by
K. O. Muller, Bernhardy, Ulrici and Th. Bergk, and in Grote's _History
of Greece_, see Welcker, _Der epische Cyclus oder die homerischen
Dichter_ (Bonn, 1835-1849); on Proclus and the Cycle reference may
also be made to Wilamowitz-Mollendorf p. 328 seq.; E. Bethe, _Rhein.
Mus._ (1891), xxvi. p. 593 seq.; O. Immisch, _Festschrift Th. Gomperz
dargebracht_ (1902), p. 237 sq.; Lauer, _Geschichte der homerischen
Poesie_ (Berlin, 1851); Sengebusch, two dissertations prefixed to the
two volumes of W. Dindorf's _Homer_ in the Teubner series (1855-1856);
Friedlander, _Die homerische Kritik von Wolf bis Grote_ (Berlin,
1853); Nutzhorn, _Die Entstehungsweise der homerischen Gedichte, mit
Vorwort von J. N. Madvig_ (Leipzig, 1869); E. Kammer, _Zur homerischen
Frage_ (Konigsberg, 1870); and _Die Einheit der Odyssee_ (Leipzig,
1873); A. Kirchhoff, _Die Composition der Odyssee_ (Berlin, 1869);
Volkmann, _Geschichte und Kritik der Wolf'schen Prolegomena_ (Leipzig,
1874); K. Sittl, _Die Wiederholungen in der Odyssee_ (Munchen, 1882);
U. v. Wilamowitz-Mollendorf, _Homerische Untersuchungen_ (Berlin,
1884); O. Seeck, _Die Quellen der Odyssee_ (Berlin, 1887); F. Blass,
_Die Interpolationen in der Odyssee_ (Leipzig, 1905). The interest
taken in the question by English students is sufficiently shown in the
writings of W. E. Gladstone, F. A. Paley, Henry Hayman (in the
Introduction to his _Odyssey_), P. Geddes, R. C. Jebb and A. Lang (see
especially the latter's _Homer and his Age_, 1907).
The Homeric dialect must be studied in the books (such as those of G.
Curtius) that deal with Greek on the comparative method. The best
special work is the brief _Griechische Formenlehre_ of H. L. Ahrens
(Gottingen, 1852). Other important works are those of Aug. Fick: _Die
homerische Odyssee in der ursprunglichen Sprachform wiederhergestelt_
(Gottingen, 1883); _Die homerische Ilias_ (_ibid._, 1886); W. Schulze,
_Quaestiones epicae_ (Guterslohe, 1892). On Homeric syntax the chief
book is B. Delbruck's _Syntactische Forschungen_ (Halle, 1871-1879),
especially vols. i. and iv.; on metre, &c., Hartel's _Homerische
Studien_ (i.-iii., Vienna); Knos, _De digammo Homerico quaestiones_
(Upsala, 1872-1873-1878); Thumb, _Zur Geschichte des griech. Digamma,
Indogermanische Forschungen_ (1898), ix. 294 seq. The papers reprinted
in Bekker's _Homerische Blatter_ (Bonn, 1863-1872) and Cobet's
_Miscellanea Crilica_ (Leiden, 1876) are of the highest value.
Hoffmann's _Quaestiones Homericae_ (Clausthal, 1842) is a useful
collection of facts. Buttmann's _Lexilogus_, as an example of method,
is still worth study.
The antiquities of Homer--using the word in a wide sense--may be
studied in the following books: Volcker, _Uber homerische Geographie
und Weltkunde_ (Hanover, 1830); Nagelsbach's _Homerische Theologie_
(2nd ed., Nuremberg, 1861); H. Brunn, _Die Kunst bei Homer_ (Munich,
1868); W. W. Lloyd, _On the Homeric Design of the Shield of Achilles_
(London, 1854); Buchholz, _Die homerischen Realien_ (Leipzig,
1871-1873); W. Helbig, _Das homerische Epos aus den Denkmalern
erlautert_ (Leipzig, 1884; 2nd ed., ibid., 1887); W. Reichel, _Uber
homerische Waffen_ (Vienna, 1894); C. Robert, _Studien zur Ilias_
(Berlin, 1901); W. Ridgeway, _The Early Age of Greece_ (Cambridge,
1901); V. Berard, _Les Pheniciens et l'Odyssee_ (Paris, 1902-1903); C.
Robert, "Topographische Probleme der Ilias," in _Hermes_, xlii., 1907,
pp. 78-112.
Among other aids should be mentioned the _Index Homericus_ of Seber
(Oxford, 1780); Prendergast's _Concordance to the Iliad_ (London,
1875); Dunbar's _id._ to the _Odyssey and Hymns_ (Oxford, 1880);
Frohwein, _Verbum Homericum_, (Leipzig, 1881); Gehring, _Index
Homericus_ (Leipzig, 1891); the _Lexicon Homericum_, edited by H.
Ebeling (Leipzig, 1880-1885) and the facsimile of the cod. Ven. A
(Sijthoff; Leiden, 1901), with an introduction by D. Comparetti.
(D. B. M.)