occurrence _elsewhere_ of a description which is undoubtedly only
another version of the ‘Shield of Achilles.’ The ‘Shield of Hercules’
occurs in a poem ascribed to Hesiod. But whatever opinion may be
formed respecting the authorship of the description, there can be
no doubt that it is not Hesiod’s work. It exhibits no trace of his
dry, didactic, somewhat heavy style. Elton ascribes the ‘Shield of
Hercules’ to an imitator of Homer, and in support of this view points
out those respects in which the poem resembles, and those in which it
is inferior to, the ‘Shield of Achilles.’ The two descriptions are,
however, absolutely identical in many places; and this would certainly
not have happened if one had been an honest imitation of the other. And
those parts of the ‘Shield of Hercules,’ which have no counterparts
in the ‘Shield of Achilles,’ are too well conceived and expressed
to be ascribed to a very inferior poet—a poet so inferior as to be
reduced to the necessity of simply reproducing Homer’s words in other
parts of the poem. Those parts which admit of comparison—where, for
instance, the same objects are described, but in different terms—are
certainly inferior in the ‘Shield of Hercules.’ The description is
injured by the addition of unnecessary or inharmonious details. Elton
speaks, accordingly, of these portions as if they were expansions of
the corresponding parts of the ‘Shield of Achilles.’ This appears to
me a mistake. It seems far more likely that both descriptions are by
the same poet. It is not necessary for the support of my theory that
this poet should be Homer, but I think both descriptions show undoubted
traces of his handiwork. Indeed, all known imitations of Homer are so
easily recognisable as the work of inferior poets, that I should have
thought no doubt could exist on this point, but for the attention which
the German theory respecting the ‘Iliad’ has received. Assigning both
poems to Homer, the ‘Shield of Hercules’ may be regarded, not as an
expansion (in parts) of the ‘Shield of Achilles,’ but as an earlier
work of Homer’s, improved and pruned by his maturer judgment, when
he desired to fit it into the plan of the ‘Iliad.’ Or rather, each
poem may be looked on as an abridgment (the ‘Shield of Hercules’ the
earlier) of an independent work on a subject presently to be mentioned.
It is next to be shown that in the events preceding the ‘Oplopœia,’
there is a preparation for the introduction of a separate poem.
In the first place, every reader of Homer is familiar with the
fact that the poet constantly makes use, when occasion serves, of
expressions, sentences, often even of complete passages, which have
been already applied in a corresponding, or occasionally even in a
wholly different relation. The same epithets are repeatedly applied
to the same deity or hero. A long message is delivered in the very
words which have been already used by the sender of the message. In
one well-known instance (in Book II.), not only is a message delivered
thus, but the person who has received it repeats it to others in
precisely the same terms. In the combat between Hector and Ajax (Book
VI.), the flight of Ajax’s spear and the movement by which Hector
avoids the missile, are described in six lines, differing only as to
proper names from those which had been already used in describing the
encounter between Paris and Menelaus (Book III.).
This peculiarity would be a decided blemish in a written poem.
Tennyson, indeed, occasionally copies Homer’s manner—for instance, in
‘Enid,’ he twice repeats the line—
As careful robins eye the delver’s toil;—
but with a good taste which prevents the repetition from becoming
offensive. The fact is, that the peculiarity marks Homer as the
_singer_, not the _writer_, of poetry. I would not be understood as
accepting the theory, according to which the ‘Iliad’ is a mere string
of ballads. I imagine that no one who justly appreciates that noble
poem would be willing to countenance such a theory. But that the whole
poem was sung by Homer at those prolonged festivals which formed a
characteristic peculiarity of Achaian manners seems shown, not only by
what we learn respecting the later ‘rhapsodists,’ but by the internal
evidence of the poem itself.[20]
Homer, reciting a long and elaborate poem of his own composition,
occasionally varying the order of events, or adding new episodes,
extemporized as the song proceeded, would exhibit the peculiarity
invariably observed in the ‘improvisatore,’ of using, more than once,
expressions, sentences, or passages which happened to be conveniently
applicable. The art of extemporizing depends on the capacity for
composing fresh matter while the tongue is engaged in the recital of
matter already composed. Anyone who has watched a clever improvisatore
cannot fail to have noticed that, though gesture is aptly wedded to
words, the thoughts are elsewhere. In the case, therefore, of an
improvisatore, or even of a rhapsodist reciting from memory, the
occasional recurrence of a well-worn form of words serves as a relief
to the strained invention or memory.
We have reason then for supposing that if Homer had, in his earlier
days, composed a poem which was applicable, with slight alterations,
to the story of the ‘Iliad,’ he would endeavour, by a suitable
arrangement of the plan of his narrative, to introduce the lines whose
recital had long since become familiar to him.
Evidence of design in the introduction of the ‘Shield of Achilles’
certainly does not seem wanting.
It is by no means necessary to the plot of the ‘Iliad’ that Achilles
should lose the celestial armour given to Peleus as a dowry with
Thetis. On the contrary, Homer has gone out of his way to render
the labours of Vulcan necessary. Patroclus has to be so ingeniously
disposed of, that while the armour he had worn is seized by Hector, his
body is rescued, as are also the horses and chariot of Achilles.
We have the additional improbability that the armour of the great
Achilles should fit the inferior warriors Patroclus and Hector. Indeed,
that the armour should fit Hector, or rather that Hector should fit the
armour, the aid of Zeus and Ares has to be called in—
To this Jove’s sable brows did bow; and he made fit his limbs
To those great arms, to fill which up the war-god enter’d him
Austere and terrible, his joints and every part extends
With strength and fortitude.—_Chapman’s_ Translation.
It is clear that the narrative would not have been impaired in any way,
while its probability and consistency would have been increased, if
Patroclus had fought in his own armour. The death of Patroclus would in
any case have been a cause sufficient to arouse the wrath of Achilles
against Hector—though certainly the hero’s grief for his armour is
nearly as poignant as his sorrow for his friend.
It appears probable, then, that the description of Achilles’ Shield is
an interpolation—the poet’s own work, however, and brought in by him
in the only way he found available. The description clearly refers to
the same object which is described (here, also, only in part) in the
‘Shield of Hercules.’ The original description, doubtless, included all
that is found in both ‘shields,’ and probably much more.
What, then, was the object to which the original description applied?
An object, I should think, far more important than a warrior’s shield.
I imagine that anyone who should read the description without being
aware of its accepted interpretation, would consider that the poet was
dealing with an important series of religious sculptures, possibly
that he was describing the dome of a temple adorned with celestial and
terrestrial symbols.
In Egypt there are temples of a vast antiquity, having a dome, on which
a zodiac—or, more correctly, a celestial hemisphere—is sculptured with
constellation-figures. And we now learn, from ancient Babylonian and
Assyrian sculptures, that these Egyptian zodiacs are in all probability
merely copies (more or less perfect) of yet more ancient Chaldæan
zodiacs. One of these Babylonian sculptures is figured in Rawlinson’s
‘Ancient Monarchies.’ It seems probable that in a country where
Sabæanism, or star-worship, was the prevailing form of religion, yet
more imposing proportions would be given to such zodiacs than in Egypt.
My theory, then, respecting the shield of Achilles is this—
I conceive that Homer, in his eastern travels, visited imposing
temples devoted to astronomical observation and star-worship; and
that nearly every line in both ‘shields’ is borrowed from a poem
in which he described a temple of this sort, its domed zodiac, and
those illustrations of the labours of different seasons and of
military or judicial procedures which the astrological proclivities
of star-worshippers led them to associate with the different
constellations.
I think there are arguments of some force to be urged in support of
this theory, fanciful as it may seem at a first view.
In the first place, it is necessary that the constellations recognised
in Homer’s time (not necessarily, or probably, _by_ Homer) should be
distinguished from later inventions.
Aratus, writing long after Homer’s date, mentions forty-five
constellations. These were probably derived, without exception, from
the globe of Eudoxus. Remembering the tendency which astronomers have
shown, in all ages, to add to the list of constellations, we may
assume that in Homer’s time the number was smaller. Probably there
were some fifteen northern and ten southern constellations, besides
the twelve zodiacal signs. The smaller constellations mentioned by
Aratus doubtless formed parts of larger figures. Anyone who studies the
heavens will recognise the fact that the larger constellations have
been robbed of their just proportions to form the smaller asterisms.
Corona Borealis was the right arm of Bootes, Ursa Minor was a wing of
Draco (now wingless, and no longer a dragon), and so on.
Secondly, it is necessary that the actual appearance of the heavens,
with reference to the position of the pole in Homer’s time should be
indicated. For my present purpose, it is not necessary that we should
know the exact date at which the most ancient of the zodiac-temples
were constructed (or to which they were made to correspond). There are
good reasons, though this is not the proper place for dwelling upon
them, for supposing that the great epoch of reference amongst ancient
astronomers preceded the Christian era by about 2200 years. Be this
as it may, any epoch between the date named and the probable date at
which Homer flourished—say nine or ten centuries before the Christian
era—will serve equally well for my present purpose. Now if the effects
of equinoctial precession be traced back to such a date, we are led to
notice two singular and not uninteresting circumstances. First, the
pole of the heavens fell in the central part of the great constellation
Draco; and, secondly, the equator fell along the length of the great
sea-serpent Hydra, in one part of its course, and elsewhere to the
north of all the ancient aquatic constellations,[21] save that
one-half of the northernmost fish (of the zodiac pair) lay north of
the equator. Thus, if a celestial sphere were constructed with the
equator in a horizontal position, the Dragon would be at the summit,
Hydra would be extended horizontally along the equator—but with his
head and neck reared above that circle—and Argo, Cetus, Capricornus,
Piscis Australis, and Pisces—save one-half of the northernmost—would
lie _below_ the equator. It may also be mentioned that all the
bird-constellations were then, as now, clustered together not far from
the equator—Cygnus (the farthest from the equator) being ten degrees or
so nearer to that circle than at present.
Now let us turn to the two ‘shields,’ and see whether there is anything
to connect them with zodiac-temples, or to remind us of the relations
exhibited above. To commence with the ‘Shield of Achilles,’ the opening
lines inform us that the shield showed—
The starry lights that heav’n’s high convex crown’d,
The Pleiads, Hyads, with the northern team,
And great Orion’s more refulgent beam.
And here, in Achilles’ shield, the list of constellations closes;
but it is remarkable that in the ‘Shield of Hercules,’ while the
above lines are wanting, we find lines which clearly point to other
constellations. Remembering what has just been stated about Draco,
it seems at the least a singular coincidence that we should find the
centre or boss of the shield occupied by a dragon:—
The scaly horror of a dragon, coil’d
Full in the central field, unspeakable,
With eyes oblique retorted, that aslant
Shot gleaming flame.[22]—_Elton’s_ Translation.
We seem, also, to find a reference to the above-named relations of the
aquatic constellations, and specially to the constellation Pisces:—
In the midst,
Full many dolphins chased the fry, and show’d
As though they swam the waters, to and fro
Darting tumultuous: two[23] of silver scale
Panting above the wave.
For we learn from both ‘shields’ that the waves of ocean were figured
in a position corresponding with the above-mentioned position of the
celestial equator, beneath which—that is, _in the ocean_, on our
assumption—the aquatic constellations were figured. The description
of the ocean in the ‘Shield of Hercules’ contains also some lines, in
which we seem to see a reference to the bird-constellations close above
the equator:—
Rounding the utmost verge the ocean flow’d
As in full swell of waters, and the shield
All variegated with whole circle bound.
Swans of high-hovering wing there clamour’d shrill,
Who also skimm’d the breasted surge with plume
Innumerous; near them fishes midst the waves
Frolick’d in wanton bounds.
In the ‘Shield of Achilles’ no mention is made of Perseus, but in the
‘Shield of Hercules’ this well-known constellation seems described in
the lines—
There was the knight of fair-hair’d Danae born,
Perseus; nor yet the buckler with his feet
Touch’d nor yet distant hover’d, strange to see,
For nowhere on the surface of the shield
He rested; so the crippled artist-god
Illustrious fram’d him with his hands in gold.
Bound to his feet were sandals wing’d; a sword
Of brass, with hilt of sable ebony,
Hung round him from the shoulders by a thong.
. . . . . . . . The visage grim
Of monstrous Gorgon all his back o’erspread;
. . . . . . . . the dreadful helm
Of Pluto clasp’d the temples of the prince.
I think that one may recognise a reference to the twins Castor and
Pollux (the wrestler and boxer of mythology) in the words—
But in another part
Were men who wrestled, or in gymnic fight
Wielded the cestus.
Orion is not mentioned by name in the ‘Shield of Hercules,’ as in the
other; but Orion, Lepus, and the two dogs seem referred to:—
Elsewhere men of chase
Were taking the fleet hares; two keen-toothed dogs
Hounded beside; these ardent in pursuit,
Those with like ardour doubling in their flight.
In each ‘shield’ we find a reference to the operations of the
year—hunting and pasturing, sowing, ploughing, and harvesting. It is
hardly necessary to point out the connection between these operations
and astronomical relations. That this connection was fully recognised
in ancient times is shown in the ‘Works and Days’ of Hesiod. We find
also in Egyptian zodiacs clear evidence that these operations, as well
as astronomical symbols or constellations, were pictured in sculptured
domes.
The judicial, military, and other proceedings described in the ‘Shield
of Achilles’ were also supposed by the ancients to have been influenced
by the courses of the stars.
If there were no evidence that ancient celestial spheres presented
the constellations above referred to, I might be disposed to attach
less weight to the coincidences here presented; but the ‘Phenomena’ of
Aratus affords sufficient testimony on this point. In the first place,
that work is of great antiquity, since Aratus flourished two centuries
and a half before the Christian era; but it is well known that Aratus
did not describe the results of his own observations. The positions
of the constellations, as recorded by him, accord neither with the
date at which he wrote nor with the latitude in which he lived. It is
generally assumed—chiefly on the authority of Hipparchus—that Aratus
borrowed his knowledge of astronomy from the sphere of Eudoxus; but we
must go much farther back even than the date of Eudoxus, before we can
find any correspondence between the appearance of the heavens and the
description given by Aratus. Thus we may very fairly assume that the
_origin_ of the constellations (as distinguished from their association
with certain circles of the celestial sphere) may be placed at a date
preceding, perhaps by many generations, that at which Homer flourished.
Indeed, there have not been wanting those who find in the ancient
constellations the record of the early history of man. According to
their views, Orion is Nimrod—the ‘Giant,’ as the Arabic name of the
constellation implies—the mighty hunter, as the dogs and hare beside
him signify. The Centaur bearing a victim towards the altar is Noah;
Argo, the stern of a ship, is the ark, as of old it might be seen on
Mount Ararat. Corvus is the crow sent forth by Noah, and the bird
is placed on Hydra’s back to show that there was no land on which
it could set its foot. The figure now called Hercules, but of old
Engonasin, or the kneeler, and described by Aratus as ‘a man doomed to
labour,’ is Adam. His left foot treads on the dragon’s head, in token
of the saying, ‘It shall bruise thy head; ‘and Serpentarius, or the
serpent-bearer, is the promised seed.
Of course, if we accept these views, we have no difficulty in
understanding that a poet so ancient as Homer should refer to the
constellations which still appear upon celestial spheres. And, in any
case, the mere question of antiquity presents, as we have already
shown, little difficulty.
But there is one difficulty, a notice of which must close this paper,
already carried far beyond the limits I had proposed to myself:—It may
be thought remarkable that heroes of Greek mythology, as Perseus and
Orion, should be placed by Homer, or even by Aratus, in spheres which
are undoubtedly of eastern origin.
Now it may be remarked, first, of Homer, that many acute critics
consider the whole story of the ‘Iliad’ to be, in reality, merely an
adaptation of an eastern narrative to Greek scenes and names. It is
pointed out, that, whereas the Catalogue in Book II. reckons upwards
of 100,000 men, only 10,000 fought at Marathon; and, whereas there are
counted no less than 1,200 ships in the Catalogue, there were but 271
at Artemisium, and at Salamis but 378. However this may be, we have the
distinct evidence of Herodotus that the Greek mythology was derived
originally from foreign sources. He says, ‘All the names of the gods
in Greece were brought from Egypt,’ an opinion in which Diodorus and
other eminent authorities concur. But it is the opinion of acute modern
critics that we must go beyond Egyptian—to Assyrian, or Indian, perhaps
even to Hebrew sources—for the origin of Greek mythology. Layard has
ascribed to Niebuhr the following significant remarks: ‘There is a want
in Grecian art which neither I, nor any man now alive, can supply.
There is not enough in Egypt to account for the peculiar art and the
peculiar mythology which we find in Greece. That the Egyptians did not
originate it I am convinced, though neither I, nor any man now alive,
can say who were the originators. But the time will come when, on the
borders of the Tigris and Euphrates, those who come after me will live
to see the origin of Grecian art and Grecian mythology.’
(From _The Student_, June 1868.)
LONDON: PRINTED BY
SPOTTISWOODE AND CO., NEW-STREET SQUARE
AND PARLIAMENT STREET
FOOTNOTES:
[19] Another well-known instance, where ‘Patroclus, sent in hot haste
for news by a man of the most fiery impatience, is button-held by
Nestor, and though he has no time to sit down, yet is obliged to endure
a speech of 152 lines,’ is accounted for by Gladstone in a different
manner.
[20] Besides Homer’s reference, both in the ‘Iliad’ and ‘Odyssey,’ to
poetic recitations at festivals, there is the well-known invocation in
Book II. To what purpose would the mere writer of poetry pray for an
increase of his physical powers? Nothing could be more proper, says
Gladstone, if Homer were about to recite; nothing less proper if he
were engaged on a written poem.
[21] We may exclude Delphinus as probably later than Homer’s time,
though mentioned by Aratus.
[22] Compare the description of the constellation Draco by Aratus:—
Swol’n is his neck—eyes charg’d with sparkling fire
His crested head illume. As if in ire
To Helice he turns his foaming jaw
And darts his tongue, barb’d with a blazing star.
—_Lamb’s_ Translation.
[23] It is scarcely necessary to remark that, no importance is to
be attached to the numerical relations in this and other passages.
In the original work describing a zodiac-dome, the exact number of
constellations representing fishes, dogs, or the like, would of
course be mentioned; but any changes necessary to Homer’s purpose in
describing a shield would unhesitatingly have been introduced by him
subsequently. It is singular, however, that we should have here, and
in the passage quoted farther on as referring to Orion and the Dogs,
the number _two_ specially mentioned. The latter instance is the more
remarkable inasmuch as the mention of men and hares would lead one to
expect that more than two dogs would be introduced. I would suggest as
a sufficient reason for this peculiarity that the verbal alterations
necessary to pluralise some of the objects in the dome would be more
easily effected than those necessary to undualise others.
THE
‘KNOWLEDGE’ LIBRARY.
EDITED BY
RICHARD A. PROCTOR.
SCIENCE BYWAYS. A Series of Familiar Dissertations on Life in Other
Worlds. By RICHARD A. PROCTOR. Crown 8vo. 6_s._
The POETRY of ASTRONOMY. A Series of Familiar Essays on the Heavenly
Bodies. By RICHARD A. PROCTOR. Crown 8vo. 6_s._
NATURE STUDIES. Reprinted from ‘Knowledge.’ By GRANT ALLEN, ANDREW
WILSON, THOMAS FOSTER, EDWARD CLODD, and RICHARD A. PROCTOR. Crown
8vo. 6_s._
LEISURE READINGS. Reprinted from ‘Knowledge.’ By EDWARD CLODD, ANDREW
WILSON, THOMAS FOSTER, A. C. RUNYARD, and RICHARD A. PROCTOR. Crown
8vo. 6_s._
The STARS in their SEASONS. An Easy Guide to a Knowledge of the Star
Groups, in Twelve Large Maps. By RICHARD A. PROCTOR. Imperial 8vo.
5_s._
London: LONGMANS, GREEN, & CO.
WORKS BY R. A. PROCTOR
The SUN; Ruler, Light, Fire, and Life of the Planetary System. By R.
A. PROCTOR, B.A. With Plates and Woodcuts. Crown 8vo. 14_s._
The ORBS AROUND US; a Series of Essays on the Moon and Planets,
Meteors and Comets, the Sun and Coloured Pairs of Suns. With Chart and
Diagrams. Crown 8vo. 7_s._ 6_d._
OTHER WORLDS than OURS; the Plurality of Worlds Studied under the
Light of Recent Scientific Researches. With 14 Illustrations. Crown
8vo. 10_s._ 6_d._
The MOON: her Motions, Aspects, Scenery, and Physical Condition. With
Plates, Charts, Woodcuts, and Lunar Photographs. Crown 8vo. 10_s._
6_d._
UNIVERSE of STARS; Presenting Researches into and New Views respecting
the Constitution of the Heavens. With 22 Charts and 22 Diagrams. 8vo.
10_s._ 6_d._
LIGHT SCIENCE for LEISURE HOURS; Familiar Essays on Scientific
Subjects, Natural Phenomena, &c. 3 vols. crown 8vo. 7_s._ 6_d._ each.
NEW STAR ATLAS for the Library, the School, and the Observatory, in 12
Circular Maps (with 2 Index Plates). Crown 8vo. 5_s._
LARGER STAR ATLAS for the Library, in Twelve Circular Maps, with
Introduction and 2 Index Plates. Folio, 15_s._, or Maps only, 12_s._
6_d._
ESSAYS on ASTRONOMY. A Series of Papers on Planets and Meteors, the
Sun and Sun-surrounding Space, Stars and Star Cloudlets. With 10
Plates and 24 Woodcuts. 8vo. 12_s._
TRANSITS of VENUS; a Popular Account of Past and Coming Transits, from
the First Observed by Horrocks in 1639 to the Transit of 2012. With
20 Lithographic Plates (12 Coloured) and 38 Illustrations engraved on
Wood. 8vo. 8_s._ 6_d._
STUDIES of VENUS-TRANSITS; an Investigation of the Circumstances of
the Transits of Venus in 1874 and 1882. With 7 Diagrams and 10 Plates.
8vo. 5_s._
PLEASANT WAYS in SCIENCE, with numerous Illustrations. Crown 8vo. 6_s._
MYTHS and MARVELS of ASTRONOMY, with numerous Illustrations. Crown
8vo. 6_s._
London: LONGMANS, GREEN, & CO.
* * * * *
Transcriber's Notes
Obvious typographical errors have been silently corrected. Variations
in hyphenation and all other spelling and punctuation remain unchanged.
Italics are represented thus _italic_.