Chapter II: Part 2

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.

III. Meeting of the Armies--Paris challenges Menelaus--Truce made.

"Teichoscopy," Helen pointing out to Priam the Greek leaders.

The duel--Paris is saved by Aphrodite.

IV. Truce broken by Pandarus.

Advance of the armies--Battle.

V. Aristeia of Diomede--his combat with Aphrodite.

VI.--Meeting with Glaucus--Visit of Hector to the (1-311) city, and
offering of a peplus to Athena.

(312-529) Visit of Hector to Paris--to Andromache.

VII. Return of Hector and Paris to the field.

Duel of Ajax and Hector.

Truce for burial of dead.

The Greeks build a wall round their camp.

VIII. Battle--The Trojans encamp on the field.

IX. Agamemnon sends an embassy by night, offering Achilles
restitution and full amends--Achilles refuses.

X. Doloneia--Night expedition of Odysseus and Diomede (in all
probability added later).

XI. Aristeia of Agamemnon--he is wounded--Wounding of Diomede and
Odysseus.

Achilles sends Antilochus to inquire about Machaon.

XII. Storming of the wall--the Trojans reach the ships.

XIII. Zeus ceases to watch the field--Poseidon secretly comes to the
aid of the Greeks.

XIV. Sleep of Zeus, by the contrivance of Hera.

XV. Zeus awakened--Restores the advantage to the Trojans--Ajax alone
defends the ships.

XVI. Achilles is persuaded to allow Patroclus to take the field.
Patroclus drives back the Trojans--kills Sarpedon--is himself killed
by Hector.

XVII. Battle for the body of Patroclus--Aristeia of Menelaus.

XVIII. News of the death of Patroclus is brought to Achilles--Thetis
comes with the Nereids--promises to obtain new armour for him from
Hephaestus.

The shield of Achilles described.

XIX. Reconciliation of Achilles--His grief and desire to avenge
Patroclus.

XX. The gods come down to the plain--Combat of Achilles with Aeneas
and Hector, who escape.

XXI. The Scamander is choked with slain--rises against Achilles, who
is saved by Hephaestus.

XXII. Hector alone stands against Achilles--his flight round the
walls--he is slain.

XXIII. Burial of Patroclus--Funeral games.

XXIV. Priam ransoms the body of Hector--his burial.

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.