[463] Od. xxiv. 309.
[464] Od. xiv. 93.
[465] Od. vi. 7-12.
[466] Od. xiv. 293-359.
[467] Od. xvi. 65. xvii. 525, and xix. 269-99.
[468] Od. xvi. 424-30.
[469] Od. xiv. 278-86.
[470] Strabo vii. p. 324.
[471] Herod. vii. 176.
[472] Dion. Hal. i. 18.
[473] Diod. Sic. v. 58.
[474] Od. vi. 266.
[475] 260-5.
[476] See inf. sect. viii.
[477] Od. xix. 522.
[478] Il. iv. 385, 388, 391. v. 804. 7. x. 208. xxiii. 680. Od. xi. 275.
[479] ix. p. 401.
SECT. V.
_On the Catalogue._
The Catalogue in the Second Book belongs more properly to the
Geography, than to the Ethnology of the poems. But I advert to it here
on account both of the historic matter it contains, and of the manner
in which it illustrates the general historic designs of the Poet.
It is perhaps, in its own way, nearly as characteristic and remarkable
a performance, as any among the loftier parts of the poem. Considered
as a portion of the Iliad, it would be more justly termed the Array
than the Catalogue; for it is a review, and not a mere enumeration.
Considered with respect to history, its value can scarcely be
overrated: it contains the highest title-deeds of whatever ancient
honour the several States might claim, and is in truth the Doomsday
Book of Greece.
We may consider the Greek Catalogue in three parts:
First, the Invocation or Preface.
Secondly, the Catalogue Proper.
Thirdly, the Postscript, so to call it, 761-779.
Before and after, he has graced the work with splendid similes. When
all is concluded and, as it were, marked off, he proceeds to append to
it the Trojan Catalogue; a work of less extent and difficulty, as also
of less penetrating interest to his hearers, but yet constructed with
much of care, and with various descriptive embellishments.
The Preface contains the most formal invocation of the Muses among the
few which are to be found in the poems. The others are,
Il. i. 1. Introduction to the Iliad: addressed to Θεά.
Il. ii. 761. In the Postscript to the Catalogue.
Il. xi. 218. Before the recital of the persons who were slain by
Agamemnon.
Il. xiv. 508. Before the recital of the Greek chiefs, who, on the
turn of the battle, slew various Trojans.
Il. xvi. 112. Before proceeding to relate, how the Trojans hurled the
firebrands at the Grecian ships.
Od. i. 1. Introduction to the Odyssey: addressed to Μοῦσα.
In the cases of the Eleventh and Fourteenth Books, the invocation of
the Muse stands in connection with a particular effort of memory; for
the recitals prefaced by it consist of names not connected by any
natural tie one with the other. But it is here that the Poet’s appeal
to the Muse most deserves attention.
If Homer was composing a written poem, the invocation is ill-timed and
unmeaning. He has already, by a series of fine similes, elevated the
subject to a proper level. Considered as a mere written Catalogue, it
does not deserve or account for the prayer for aid: in this point of
view, it was of necessity among the _sermoni propiora_, and was one of
the easiest parts of the poem to compose. But if we consider the poem
as a recitation, then the Catalogue was very difficult; because of the
great multitude of details which are included in it, and which are not
in themselves connected together by any natural or obvious link.
It is true that he begs the Muses to inform him, because they were
omnipresent and omniscient, whereas he is dependent on report only
(κλέος) for information. Now this was equally true of the whole
material of the poem: but the reason why he introduces the statement of
this truth in so marked a manner, must be from the arduous nature of
the task he was beginning; nor could it be arduous in any other way,
than as an effort of memory.
The invocation contains another proof that the poems were composed for
recitation in the words (vv. 489, 90)
οὐδ’ εἴ μοι δέκα μὲν γλῶσσαι, δέκα δὲ στόματ’ εἶεν
φωνὴ δ’ ἄρρηκτος, χαλκέον δέ μοι ἦτορ ἐνείη.
Nothing can be more proper than to refer to the insufficient ability
of the bodily organs of recitation, if he were about to recite: but
nothing less proper, if he were engaged on a written poem. It has been
a fashion however with poets to copy Homer in this passage, although
the reason and circumstances on which it is founded had become wholly
inapplicable: and their abusive imitation has blinded us to the
significance of the passage as it stands in the Iliad.
Now as regards the list itself.
_The Greek Array._
In this Catalogue, he had to go through the different States of Greece,
furnishing twenty-nine contingents of various strengths, all indicated
by the number of ships, to the army. These contingents are under
forty-five leaders, many of them with genealogies, and coming from one
hundred and seventy-one Greek towns. The proper names of the Greek
Catalogue, strictly so called, are three hundred and ninety-six, and
those of the Trojan one hundred and five, making in all five hundred
and one. These must have been a selection from a larger number, for
there were Greek towns (for example Φηραὶ of the Peloponnesus, Od. iii.
488, and the various towns named Ἐφύρη) not named in the Catalogue;
and this again increased the difficulty of keeping by memory to the
list throughout. Again, it was difficult to adopt any arrangement
that should not be wholly arbitrary, in displaying to us the parts of
an army which comprised so many divisions, and which was drawn from
sources so numerous, and dispersed over a territory of such extremely
irregular formation.
_The principle of arrangement._
Homer has however with great ingenuity adopted a geographical
arrangement in the Greek Catalogue, which, so far as the various
divisions were concerned, has enabled him to combine them into a kind
of whole.
The territory, which supplied the army, consisted partly of continent,
and partly of islands: and the islands again were partly such as, lying
about the coast of the mainland, might be most conveniently remembered
in conjunction with it, partly such as formed a group of themselves.
If we take the continent and islands together, we shall find that they
form part of a curvilinear figure, not indeed circular, but elliptical,
and more nearly approaching a circle than that group of islands in
the Ægean, which afterwards obtained the name of Cyclades. This name,
taken from the rude approximation to a geometrical figure, may possibly
have been at first suggested to the Greeks by Homer’s geometrical
arrangement in the Catalogue. I speak of Homer’s arrangement as
geometrical, because the principle he has adopted is that of mental
figure drawing: it is of course of the rudest kind, and he perhaps did
not even know the correct mode of constructing a circle.
The proportion of the figure formed by the mainland and islands is
about two-thirds of a complete circumference: the ends of the curve
being Thessaly to the north, and Calydnæ, with the other small
islands, in the south-east.
Let us now proceed to notice, firstly, the primary division of the
Catalogue into principal parts, and secondly, the subdivision in each
of those parts.
It is worth while to remark, that the Poet has not adopted the mode
of enumeration which might have been thought most obvious: namely, to
begin at one of the extremities of this semicircle (so to call it), and
then proceed towards the other. If the territorial subdivisions had
been regular, this would have been convenient: but from their utter
irregularity it would in this case have been wholly useless.
Again, he might have begun with Agamemnon, his immediate forces and
dominion; and might then proceed through the States according to the
political importance of their respective contingents. But to this
course there were two objections. First, their order could not on this
principle have been easily decided, especially after passing a few
of the most considerable. But, secondly, he appears to have avoided,
with a fixed purpose and with an extraordinary skill, both here and
elsewhere, whatever could have excited feelings of jealousy as between
the several States of Greece. Of course I do not refer to the admitted
supremacy of Agamemnon: but if he had attempted to place the forces
of Nestor, Diomed, Menelaus, of the Athenians, the Arcadians, the
Phthians, in an order thus regulated, it would have been at variance
with obvious prudence, and with his uniform rule of action. Perhaps,
however, we may rightly consider, that if Homer had been writing his
poems, he could not have failed to give Agamemnon the first place
in this description. He has not then followed the general form of
the territory, nor has he begun with the chief political member of
the armament. Nor, lastly, has he even treated the Peloponnesus as a
separate division of Greece: but he has introduced it, though it was
the most important part of the country, between the eastern parts
(Bœotia, with six other States) and the western parts (Ætolia, with two
other States) of Middle Greece.
There are therefore various modes of arrangement, which either
politically or geographically might be termed obvious, but which the
Poet has passed by. Why has he passed them by? and why has he begun the
Catalogue with the Bœotians? who were neither powerful, nor ancient,
nor distinguished in a remarkable degree; nor did they lie at any one
of the geographical extremities of the country.
Again, it might be asked, why has he not either divided all the
islands from Continental Greece, or none? Instead of that, he reckons
Eubœa, Cephallenia, Zacynthus, and Ithaca, in the same division with
Continental Greece, but begins a new division with Crete.
Let us now carefully note what he has done, and see whether it does not
suggest the reasons.
The three principal divisions of the Catalogue would appear to lie as
follows:
I. Continental Greece south of mount Œta, including the Middle and the
Southern division, with the islands immediately adjacent. This section
furnishes sixteen contingents. (Il. ii. 494-644.)
II. Insular Greece, from Crete to Calydnæ: these islands furnish four
contingents. (645-680.)
III. Thessalian Greece, from Œta and Othrys in the south, to Olympus in
the north: which furnishes nine contingents. (681-759.)
These three divisions completely sever the line of the semicircular
curve. It follows that in recitation he would be able to dispose of
each part severally, as each forms a compact figure of itself: and this
he could not have done, had he followed the seemingly more natural
division into continent and islands. At the interval between the first
and the second, he makes a spring from Ætolia to Crete: and another
between the second and the third, from the Calydnæ to Thessaly.
The _desideratum_ obviously was, to assist memory by such a
geographical disposition, that the different parts might be made by
association each to suggest that which was immediately to follow. So
distributed, they would supply a kind of _memoria technica_.
We see how he prepares for this operation by his distribution in chief,
which gives him the three sections of Greece, as they succeed one
another on the line of the (completed) figure.
And, though we may not yet have in view a reason for his beginning
with the Bœotians, we seem now at least to have a reason before us for
his beginning with the middle section instead of one of the extremes;
namely, that it was the principal one, as it not only supplied the
largest number of ships and men, and nearly all the greater commanders,
but also as it contains the seat of sovereignty, and supplied the
forces of the Chief of the army.
Having the three sections before us, let us now observe the manner in
which he manages the sub-distribution, so as to make each district of
territory lead him on to the next.
And here he seems evidently to proceed upon these two rules: first,
never to pass over an intervening territory, though he may cross a
strait or gulf.
And secondly, to throw the several States into rude circles or other
figures, round the arc or along the line of which his recollection
moves from point to point.
[Illustration:
MAP I.
_FOR THE CATALOGUE._
The Sections are the main divisions.
_The Figures are the Sub-divisions._
_The islands I, II, III, IV, make up the
Second Section and the Third Figure._
]
[Illustration:
MAP II.
_THE CATALOGUE._
FIGURE I.
I. Bœotia. (1)
II. Orchomenus,
(or Bœotia, 2.)
III. Phocis.
IV. Locris.
V. Eubœa.
VI. Attica.
VII. Salamis.
VIII. Argolis.
IX. Mycenæ.
FIGURE II.
I. Lacedæmon.
II. Pylus.
III. Arcadia.
IV. Elis.
V. Dulichians.
VI. Cephallenians.
VII. Ætolians.
FIGURE IV.
I. Territory of Achilles.
II. Protesilaus.
III. Eumelus.
IV. Philoctetes.
FIGURE V.
I. Podaleirius and Machaon.
II. Polypœtes.
III. Gouneus. (Perrhœbians and Dodona.)
IV. Prothous. (Magnesians.)
_N.B. A [cross] marks the place assigned by
Müller to Ormenium, which is
placed by Homer between I and II._
]
His first figure may be called a circle, being elliptical[480]; and it
includes nine contingents.
1. Bœotia.
2. Minyeian Orchomenus.
3. Phocis.
4. Locris.
5. Eubœa.
6. Attica.
7. Salamis.
8. Argolis.
9. Mycenæ.
His second is a zigzag, and includes seven contingents[481].
1. Lacedæmon.
2. Pylus.
3. Arcadia.
4. Elis.
5. The Dulichians.
6. The Cephallenians.
7. Ætolia.
We now part with the first section.
His third figure embraces the second section, or insular division of
the Catalogue, and is again part of a rude circle or ellipse[482].
1. Crete.
2. Rhodes.
3. Syme.
4. Cos and other islands. Carpathus is included, which lay between
Crete and Rhodes; being apparently in political union with Cos and
the Calydnæ, and contributing to the same contingent, it could not
but stand with them. Strabo observes that this principle of political
division, according to what he terms δυνάστειαι[483], has been adopted
by the Poet in his account of the Thessalian contingents.
By reference to the rude maps annexed, which mark the several
contingents by figures, the nature of this contrivance will be clearly
seen.
_The order for Thessaly._
It is more difficult to trace Homer’s method of proceeding with respect
to Thessaly.
This country furnishes nine contingents, which may best be described
by the names of their leaders. There is no difficulty as to the first
four, except that some of the boundaries are indeterminate. They form,
like the last or insular group, an incomplete circle[484]. The leaders
are;
I. Achilles (681-94).
II. Protesilaus (695-710).
III. Eumelus (711-15).
IV. Philoctetes (716-28).
There is more difficulty in describing the arrangement of the
remainder. Strabo, who has followed the Catalogue in Thessaly with
great minuteness, seems to have noticed the circular arrangement:
at least he speaks of the κύκλος τῆς Θετταλίας, and the περιόδεια
τῆς χώρας[485]. But when he comes to the sixth division, that of
Eurypylus, he appears to find it impossible to fix with any confidence
the site of Ormenium: and says, καὶ ἄλλα δ’ ἐστὶν ἃ λέγοι τις ἂν,
ἀλλ’ οὖν ὀκνῶ διατρίβειν ἐπὶ πλέον[486]. And further on he observes,
that the displacements and changes of cities, and mixtures of races,
have confounded the names and tribes[487], so as to make them in part
unintelligible to men of his day: where we are anew reminded of the
passage of Thucydides, in which he tells us, that the most fertile
tracts underwent the most frequent changes of population[488].
The δυναστεία of Eurypylus is in our maps commonly placed on the sea
coast, but as it appears, with little authority of any kind: while,
after all the proof we have seen of continuous arrangement, it seems
incredible that, in this instance alone, Homer could have followed an
order such that the δυναστεία should not march either with that which
precedes, or that which follows, but should be severed from them by a
line of territories intervening, which he has already disposed of.
To judge from analogy with the otherwise uniform rule of the Catalogue,
the dominions of Eurypylus must have been somewhere conterminous both
with those of the Asclepiads, and with those of Polypœtes. Waiving
however any effort to fix positively their site, we find the other four
remaining contingents connected by a zigzag line[489], like that which
was used in southern Greece. The leaders are as follows:
I. Podaleirius and Machaon (729-33). (Eurypylus 734-7, omitted.)
II. Polypœtes (738-47).
III. Gouneus (Enienes, Perrhæbi, and Dodona, 748-55).
IV. Prothous (the Magnesians, 756-9).
In this view Homer appears to subdivide Thessaly into two figures,
as he had done Southern Greece: and in both cases one of them is
curvilinear, in which the eastern parts are arranged: the other a
zigzag, which includes the western portions.
I have described this geometrical arrangement, as of great interest
in connection with the question, whether the poems were written or
recited; and also as it seems to be in itself highly ingenious.
It seems to distribute in rude but real symmetry before the eye of the
mind, an assemblage of objects between which it would at first sight
appear almost impossible to frame any link of connection.
But in Homer, though there is much that is ingenious, there is nothing
that is far-fetched: and the order he has followed might well, as to
many parts at least of Greece, have been that of his own itinerancy as
a minstrel. And, though complex in other respects, yet if it reduces
a complex physical arrangement to the form, in which it becomes
practically more manageable than in any other way for his purposes, it
is evidently the one which may best be justified on the principles of
common sense.
_Fresh proofs of historical intention._
The Greek Catalogue is also full of proofs of the historical intention
of Homer.
In the first place, such proof is afforded by the immense amount of its
details, which are _prima facie_ a load upon his verse, and which Homer
seems to have so regarded, from the care he has taken to relieve the
subject by the cluster of similes at the beginning. He must have had a
purpose in facing this disadvantage. It is quite at variance with his
own spirit, and the spirit of his age, to suppose that this purpose was
merely to flatter the vanity of hearers by wholesale fiction.
The use of supernatural machinery is agreeable to the genius of
the poet and his age, but not so the vulgar falsification of plain
terrestrial facts. If the supposition of wholesale fiction cannot be
maintained, there is no other alternative but that of an historical
purpose.
Viewed at large, the Catalogue is an answer to that normal question,
which expresses the anxiety of every Greek to make the acquaintance
of a man first of all through what are colloquially termed his
‘belongings.’
Τίς; πόθεν εἶς ἀνδρῶν; πόθι τοι πόλις; ἠδὲ τοκῆες[490];
The chief indication of departure from this purpose is in the case of
Nireus[491]. This paltry leader is almost the only person of legitimate
birth, both of whose parents are named: and while he is evidently
introduced for his beauty only, it is most suspicious that his father
should be named Χάροψ, and likewise his mother Ἀγλαΐη. This savours of
the names Δημόδοκος and Τερπιάδης, which Homer has given to his Bards
in the Odyssey. And again of his Phronius, son of Noemon, whom he
introduces to play the part of a considerate and serviceable Ithacan
citizen[492]. With the insignificant island of Syme Homer might, for
a special object, well take this liberty. And we may observe here, as
elsewhere, that what is probably a departure from literal truth, may
also be in a higher view historical: for doubtless his object is to
commemorate impressively the wonderful beauty of Nireus, and this he
does by inventing appropriate accessories.
Again, though an accurate geography would not of itself have proved
the personal parts of the narrative to be historical, it is scarcely
conceivable that he would have adopted one so minute and elaborate, as
well as exact, if he had meant to combine with it a string of merely
fictitious personalities.
_Genealogies of the Catalogue._
Thirdly, besides many simple patronymics, there are found thirteen
minor genealogies in the Catalogue, ten of them Greek, and three
foreign. They are of three generations only in every case, with the
single exception of the Orchomenian leaders, who have four: and in
every case they attach to secondary heroes, who are thus treated in a
mass, while provision is made in other parts of the poem for making
known to us the descent (with the exception of Ajax) of all the greater
heroes, as occasion serves to state it for each of them singly. Now
it is inconceivable, even on general grounds, that the poet should
have invented this mass of names; for they could surely have excited
no sort of interest among his hearers, except upon one ground. They
must have been true genealogical records of persons, who had played a
part in the great national drama; one not perhaps of high importance,
yet sufficient to be the basis of such traditions, as are justly
deemed worthy of local record among a people eminently strong in their
municipal, as well as their general patriotism. Over and above this,
many points of these minor genealogies coincide with, and illustrate
other historical notices in other parts of the poem.
Again, there are in all eight cases in the Catalogue, where the name of
a mother is mentioned. These are,
1. Astyoche, mother of Ascalaphus and Ialmenus, Mars being the father,
v. 513.
2. Aroura mother of Erechtheus, no father being mentioned, v. 548.
3. Astyochea mother of Tlepolemus, Hercules being the father, v. 658.
4. Aglaie mother of Nireus, Charops the father, v. 672.
5. Alcestis mother of Eumelus, Admetus the father, v. 715.
6. Rhene mother of Medon, Oileus the father, v. 728.
7. Hippodamia mother of Polypœtes, Pirithous the father, v. 742.
8. Venus is mentioned as the mother of Æneas, Anchises being the
father, v. 820.
The second of these cases, if we are to regard the passage containing
it as Homeric, must not be considered as an account of parentage, but
simply as a mode of asserting autochthonism. Again, the parents of
Nireus, whether true persons or not, are evidently named with reference
to the consideration of beauty only, which is the key to the whole
passage.
And the parentage of Æneas may also perhaps be named for the sole
purpose of embellishment.
Described by the words θεὰ βροτῷ εὐνηθεῖσα, it does not appear to stand
in the same class, or to be susceptible of the same explanations, as
those Greek cases where Greek chieftains born out of wedlock have
gods for their fathers; nor is there any case, among the Greeks, of
illegitimate birth from a goddess. Of the five other cases three (1,
3, and 6), are obviously illegitimate births, one at least of them
with a fabulous father. This raises the presumption that the name of
the mother was mentioned as the only remaining means of recording the
descent: inasmuch as the persons would otherwise have been οὐτίδανοι.
It may reasonably be conjectured, that all these births were out of
wedlock.
The epithets of the Catalogue are so accurately descriptive of the
country, that they have always been used as tests of the traditions
respecting the situations of the places to which they refer. They are
not less exactly in harmony with the descriptions in other parts of
the poem, and this in minor cases, where purposed fiction can hardly
be supposed, not less than in the greater ones. For instance, the
Arcadians of Il. vii. 134, are ἐγχεσίμωροι: those of the Catalogue
are ἀγχιμάχηται (604), and ἐπιστάμενοι πολεμίζειν (611). The Pelasgi
of Il. x. 429 are δῖοι, those of the Catalogue (840) are ἐγχεσίμωροι.
The Cephallenians of the Catalogue are μεγάθυμοι (631), those of Il.
iv. 330 are στίχες οὐκ ἀλαπαδναί. The Crete of the Odyssey (xix.
174) has ἐννήκοντα πόληες, the Crete of the Catalogue (v. 649) is
ἑκατόμπολις[493].