Chapter XLIV: Book V: of the Odyssey, but Il. XI. 2 occurs also in Il. XIX. 2

_Il_. XI. 42, 43, ἵππουριν· δεινὸν δὲ λόφος καθύπερθεν ἔνευεν,
εἵλετο δ' ἄλκιμα δοῦρε δύω, κεκορυθμένα χαλκῷ.

These two lines are found _Od_. xxii. 124, 125, but the first of them occurs three or four times elsewhere in the _Iliad_.

_Il_. XI. 181, ἀλλ' ὅτε δὴ τάχ' ἔμελλεν ὑπὸ πτόλιν αἰπύ τε
τεῖχος
ἵξεσθαι τότε δὴ.....
_cf_. _Od_. iv. 514, 515, ἀλλ' ὅτε δὴ τάχ' ἔμελλεν Μαλείαων ὄρος αἰπύ
ἵξεσθαι τότε δὴ.....

_Il_. xi. 201, προέηκε τεῒν τάδε μυθήσασθαι, _cf_. _Od_. iv. 829, where the same words occur.

_Il_. XI. 253, ἀντικρὺς δὲ δίεδχε φαεκνοῦ δουρὸς ἀκωκή. _cf_. _Od_. xix. 453, where the same line occurs but with διῆλθε for δίεσχε.

_Il_. XI. 531, ὧς ἄρα φωνήσας ἵμασεν καλλίτριχας ἵππους _cf_. _Od_. xv. 215, where the same line occurs but with ἔλασεν instead of ἵμασεν.

_Il_. XI. 624-639. The mess which Hecamedé cooked for Patroclus and Machaon was surely present to the mind of the writer of the _Odyssey_ when she was telling about the mess which Circe cooked for Ulysses' men, _Od_. X. 234, 235.

_Il_. XI. 668, 669.....οὐ γὰρ ἐμὴ ἲς
ἔσθ', οἵη πάρος ἔσκεν ἐνὶ γναμπτοῖσι μέλεσσιν
_cf_. _Od_. xi. 393, 394, ἀλλ᾿ οὐγάρ οἱ ἔτ᾿ ἦν ἲς ἔμπεδος οὐδέ τι κῖκυς
οἵη περ πάρος ἔσκεν ἐνὶ γναμπτοῖσι μέλεσσιν.

_Il_. XI. 678, 679.....ἀγέλας, τόσα πώεα οἰῶν
τόσσα συῶν συβόσια, τόσ' αἰπόλια πλατέ' αἰγῶν.

These lines occur _Od_. xiv. 100, 101 but with ἀγέλαι instead of ἀγέλας.

_Il_. XI. 742, τὸν μὲν ἐγὼ προσιόντα βάλον χαλκήρεϊ δουρί. This line is found _Od_. xiii. 267 but with κατιόντα for προσιόντα.

_Il_. XI. 777, στῆμεν ἐνὶ προθύροιστι ταφὼν δ' ἀvόρουσεν Ἀχιλλεύς, _cf_. _Od_. xvi. 12, ἔστη ἐνὶ προθύροιστι ταφὼν δ' ἀvόρουσε συβώτης.

Here we have only eleven well-marked passages common to both poems, in spite of the fact that Book XI. is nearly 300 lines longer than Book X., but I am precluded from referring to any passages that occur also in any other Book of the _Iliad_. Running my eye over the underlined lines in my copy of the _Iliad_, I do not find much, though I admit that there is some, difference between their frequency in Book XI., and in the other Books. Furthermore I own to finding Book XI. perhaps the least interesting and the most perfunctorily written in all the _Iliad_, and can well believe that the writer of the _Odyssey_ borrowed from it less because she was of the same opinion, but however this may be, the number of common passages above collected is ample to establish the fact that the writer of the _Odyssey_ had Book XI. in her mind as well as Book X.

I will now go on to examine the passages in _Il_. XVIII. which the writer of the _Odyssey_ has wholly or in part adopted. They are:--

_Il_. XVIII. 22-24, ὦς φάτο τὸν δ' ἄχεος νεφέλη ἐκάλυψε μέλαινα
ἀμφοτέρῃσι δὲ χερσὶν ἑλὼν κόνιν αἰθαλόεσσαν
χεύατο κὰκ κεφαλῆς χαρίεν δ' ᾔσχυνε πρόσωπον.

These lines are found _Od_. xxiv. 315-317 except that as they refer to an old man, instead of, as in the _Iliad_, to a young one, χαρίεν δ' ᾔσχυνε πρόσωπον has become πολιῆς ἀδινὰ στεναχίζων. The first of the three lines occurs also in _Il_. XVII. 591.

_Il_. XVIII. 108, καὶ χόλος ὅς τ' ἐφέηκε πολύφρονά περ χαλεπῆναι, _cf_. _Od_. xiv. 464, ἠλεός, ὅς τ' ἐφέηκε πολύφρονά περ μάλ' ἀεῖσαι.

_Il_. XVIII. 250, Πανθοΐδης· ὁ γὰρ οἶος ὅρα πρόσσω καὶ ὀπίσσω, _cf_ _Od_. xxiv. 452, where however Πανθοΐδης becomes Μαστορίδης.

_Il_. XVIII. 344-349,

ἀμφί πυρί στῆσαι τρίποδα μέγαν ὄφρα τάχιστα
Πάτροκλον λούσειαν ἄπο βρότον αἱματόεντα.
οἱ δὲ λοετροχόον τρίποδ' ἵστασαν ἐν πυρὶ κηλέῳ,
ἐν δ' ἄρ' ὔδωρ ἐχέαν, ὑπὸ δὲ ξύλα δαῖον ἑλόντες·
γάστρην μὲν τρίποδος πῦρ ἄμφεπε, θέρμετο δ' ὔδωρ
αὖτὰρ ἐπεὶ δὴ ζέσσεν ὕδωρ ἐνὶ ἤνοπι χαλκῷ,

_cf_. _Od_. viii. 434-437, ὄφρα τάχιστα becomes ὄττι τάχιστα.

_Il_. XVIII. 345 is omitted. In the following line οί becomes αί, and in the one after this ἑλόντες becomes ἑλοῦσαι·

The last line of the Iliadic passage is not given in _Od_. viii, but appears without alteration in _Od_. x. 360.

_Il_. XVIII. 363, ὅς περ θνητός τ' ἐστὶ καὶ οὐ τόσα μήδεα οἶδεν. This line occurs _Od_. xx. 46.

_Il_. XVIII. 385-387,

τίπτε Θέτι τανύπεπλε, ἱκάνεις ἡμέτερoν δῶ
αἰδοίη τε φίλη τε; πάρος γε μὲν οὔ τι θαμίζεις.
ἀλλ' ἕπεο προτέρω ἵνα τοι πὰρ ξείνια θείω·

_Il_. XVIII. 424-427,

τίπτε Θέτι τανύπεπλε, ἱκάνεις ἡμέτερὸν δῶ
αἰδοίη τε φίλη τε; πάρος γε μὲν οὔ τι θαμίζεις·
αὔδα ὅ τι φρονέεις· τελέσαι δέ με θυμὸς ἄνωγεν
εἰ δύναμαι τελέσαι γε καὶ εἰ τετελεσμένον ἐστίν.

The _Odyssey_ (v. 87-91) has both these passages combined as follows:--

Τίπτε μοι, Ἐρμεία χρυσόρραπι, εἰλήλουθας
αἰδοῖός, τε φίλος τε; πάρος γε μὲν οὔ τι θαμίζεις
αὔδα ὁ τι φρονέεις· τελέσαι δέ με θυμὸς ἄνωγεν
εἰ δύναμαι τελέσαι γε καὶ εἰ τετελεσμένον ἐστίν.
ἀλλ' ἕπεο προτέρω, ἵνα τοι πὰρ ξείνια θείω.

_Il_. XVIII. 389, 390.....ἐπὶ θρόνου ἀργυροήλου
καλοῦ δαιδαλέου· ὑπὸ δὲ θρῆνυς ποσὶν ἦεν·

These lines will be found _Od_. x. 314, 315.

_Il_. XVIII. 431, ὅσσ' ἐμοὶ ἐκ πασέων Κρονίδης Ζεὺς ἄλγε' ἔδωκεν·

_cf_. _Od_. iv. 722, 723.....πέρι γάρ μοι Ὀλύμπιος ἄλγε' ἔδωκεν
ἐκ πασέων,

_Il_. XVIII. 457, τούνεκα νῦν τὰ σὰ γούναθ' ἱκάνομαι αἴ κ'
ἐθέλησθα.

This line occurs _Od_. iii. 92 and _Od_. iv. 322.

_Il_. XVIII. 463, θάρσει, μή τοι ταῦτα μετὰ φρεσὶσῇσι μελόντων.

This line occurs _Od_. xiii. 362, xvi. 436, and xxiv. 357.

_Il_. XVIII. 486-489 Πληιάδας θ'.....

ἄρκτον θ', ἣν καὶ ἄμαξαν ἐπίκλησιν καλέουσιν,
ἥ τ' αὐτοῦ στρέφεται καί τ' Ωρίωνα δοκεύει
οἴη δ' ἄμμορος ἐστι λοετρῶν Ὠκέανοιο·

These lines occur _Od_. v. 272-275.

_Il_. XVIII. 533, 534, στησάμενοι δ' ἐμάχοντο μάχην ποταμοῖο
παρ' ὄχθας
βάλλον δ' ἀλλήλους χαλκήρεσιν ἐγχείῃσιν·

These lines are found _Od_. ix. 54, 55 with παρὰ νηυσὶ θοῆσιν instead of ποταμοῖο παρ' ὄχθας.

_Il_. XVIII. 604-606,

τερπόμενοι· μετὰ δέ σφιν ἐμέλπετο Θεῖος ἀοιδὸς
φορμίζων· δοίω δὲ κυβερνιστῆρε κατ' αὐτοὺς
μολπῆς ἐξάρχοντος ἐδίνευον κατὰ μέσον.

These lines occur _Od_. iv. 17-19.

To meet the possible objection that _Il_. XVIII. was written later than the _Odyssey_, and might therefore have borrowed from it, I will quote the context of line 108 as well as the line itself. The passage runs (XVIII. 107-110):--

ὦς ἔρις ἔκ τε θεῶν ἔκ τ' ἀνθρώπων άπόλοιτο
καὶ χόλος ὅς τ' ἐφέηκε πολύφρονά περ χαλεπῆναι,
ὅς τε πολὺ γλυκίων μέλιτος καταλειβόμενοιο
ἀνδρῶν ἐν στήθεσσιν ἀέξεται ἠύτε καπνός.

The context of the Odyssean line which I suppose to be derived from this noble passage is as follows (xiv. 462-465):--

κέκλυθι νῦν Ἐύμαιε, καὶ ἄλλοι πάντες εταῖροι·
εὐξάμενός τι ἔπος ἐρέω· οἶνος γὰρ ἀνώγει
ἠλεός, ὅς τ' ἐφέηκε πολύφρονά περ μάλ' ἀεῖσαι
καὶ θ' ἁπαλόν γελάσαι, καί τ' ὀρχήσαθαι ἀνῆκεν,

Which is the most likely--that the magnificent Iliadic lines were developed from _Od_. xiv. 464, or that this line is an unconscious adaptation from _Il_. XVIII. 108? For that the two lines are father and son will hardly be disputed.

Which again commends itself best--that the writer of _Il_. XVIII. took the heating of Ulysses' bath water to heat water for Patroclus, or that the writer of the _Odyssey_ omitted the line about Patroclus, and used the rest of the passage to heat water for Ulysses' bath?

As regards the two salutations to Thetis (_Il_. XVIII. 385-387, and 424-427), is it more likely that the writer of _Il_. XVIII. made two bites of the Odyssean cherry of v. 87-91, or that the writer of the _Odyssey_, wanting but a single salutation, combined the two Iliadic ones as in the passage above given?

Lastly, is the list of constellations which Vulcan put on to the shield of Achilles more likely to have been amplified from _Od_. v. 272-275, or these last-named lines to have been taken, with such modification as was necessary, from _Il_. XVIII. 486-489? Whatever may be the date of the _Odyssey_, I cannot doubt that _Il_. XVIII. must be dated earlier; and yet there is no Book of the _Iliad_ about which our eminent Homeric scholars are more full of small complaints, or more unanimous in regarding as an interpolation. If there is one part of the _Iliad_ rather than another in which Homer shows himself unapproachable, it is in his description of the shield of Achilles.

I will again assure the reader that all the Books of the _Iliad_ seem drawn from with the same freedom as that shown in those which I have now dealt with in detail, and also that I can find no part of the _Odyssey_ which borrows any less freely from the _Iliad_ than the rest of the poem; here and there difference of subject leads the writer to go three or four pages without a single Iliadic cento, but this is rare. One or two, or even sometimes three or four, Iliadic passages in a page is nearer the average, but of these some will be what may be called common form.

Their frequency raises no suggestion of plagiarism any more than the Biblical quotations in _Pilgrim's Progress_ would do if the references were cut out. They are so built into the context as to be structural, not ornamental; and to preclude the idea of their having been added by copyists or editors. They seem to be the spontaneous outcome of the fullness of the writer's knowledge of the _Iliad_. It is also evident that she is not making a resumé of other people's works; she is telling the story _de novo_ from the point of view of herself, her home, her countrymen, and the whole island of Sicily. Other peoples and places may be tolerated, but they raise no enthusiasm in her mind.

Nevertheless, a certain similarity of style and feeling between the _Odyssey_ and all the poems of the Epic cycle is certain to have existed, and indeed can be proved to have existed from the fragments of the lost poems that still remain. In all art, whether literary, pictorial, musical, or architectural, a certain character will be common to a certain age and country. Every age has its stock subjects for artistic treatment; the reason for this is that it is convenient for the reader, spectator, or listener, to be familiar with the main outlines of the story. Written literature is freer in this respect than painting or sculpture, for it can explain and prepare the reader better for what is coming. Literature which, though written, is intended mainly for recitation before an audience few of whom can read, exists only on condition of its appealing instantly to the understanding, and will, therefore, deal only with what the hearer is supposed already to know in outline. The writer may take any part of the stock national subjects that he or she likes, and within reasonable limits may treat it according to his or her fancy, but it must hitch on to the old familiar story, and hence will arise a certain similarity of style between all poems of the same class that belong to the same age, language, and people. This holds just as good for the medieval Italian painters as it does for the Epic cycle. They offer us a similarity in dissimilarity and a dissimilarity in similarity.

When we remember, however, that the style of the _Odyssey_ must not only perforce gravitate towards that of all the other then existing epic poems, but also that the writer's mind is as strongly leavened with the mind of Homer, let alone the other Cyclic poets, as we have seen it to be, it is not surprising that the veneer of virility thus given to a woman's work should have concealed the less patent, but far more conclusive, evidence that the writer was not of the same sex as the man, or men, from whom she was borrowing.

At the same time, in spite of the use she makes of Homer, I think she was angry with him, and perhaps jealous; on which head I will say more in my next Chapter. Possibly the way he laughs at women and teases them, not because he dislikes them, but because he enjoys playing with them, irritates her; she was not disposed to play on such a serious subject. We have seen how she retorts on him for having made a tripod worth three times as much as a good serviceable woman of all work. His utter contempt, again, for the gods, which he is at no pains to conceal, would be offensive to a writer who never permits herself to go beyond the occasional mild irreverence of the Vicar's daughter. Therefore, she treats Homer, as its seems to me, not without a certain hardness; and this is the only serious fault I have to find with her.

For example, she takes the concluding lines of Hector's farewell to Andromache, a passage which one would have thought she would have shrunk from turning to common uses, and puts it into the mouth of Telemachus when he is simply telling his mother to take herself off. She does this in i. 356-359 and again in xxi. 350-353. This is not as it should be. Nor yet again is her taking the water that was heated to wash the blood from the body of poor Patroclus (_Il_. XVIII. 344 &c.) and using it for Ulysses' bath (_Od_. viii. 434-437). Surely the disrespect here is deeper than any that can be found in Homer towards the gods.

But, whatever the spirit may have been in which the writer of the _Odyssey_ has treated the _Iliad_, I cannot doubt that that she knew this poem exceedingly well in the shape in which we have it, and this is the point which I have thought it worth while to endeavour to substantiate at such length in the foregoing Chapter.

[1] ἡυεῖς δέ κλέος οἷον ἀκούομεν, οὐδέ τι ἴδμεν, _Il_. II. 486.