{"collection":"myth-cosmogony","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_49858/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_49858","id":"gutenberg_49858","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/49858","summary":null,"tags":["Category: History - Ancient","Category: Mythology, Legends & Folklore","Category: Religion/Spirituality","Civilization, Homeric","Epic poetry, Greek -- History and criticism","Homer"],"text":"STUDIES ON HOMER\n AND\n THE HOMERIC AGE.\n\n BY THE\n RIGHT HON. W. E. GLADSTONE, D.C.L.\n M. P. FOR THE UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD.\n\n IN THREE VOLUMES.\n\n VOL. II.\n\n Plenius ac melius Chrysippo et Crantore.--HORACE.\n\n OXFORD:\n AT THE UNIVERSITY PRESS.\n M.DCCC.LVIII.\n\n\n\n\n STUDIES ON HOMER\n AND\n THE HOMERIC AGE.\n\n OLYMPUS:\n OR,\n THE RELIGION OF THE HOMERIC AGE.\n\n BY THE\n RIGHT HON. W. E. GLADSTONE, D.C.L.\n M. P. FOR THE UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD.\n\n Plenius ac melius Chrysippo et Crantore.--HORACE.\n\n OXFORD:\n AT THE UNIVERSITY PRESS.\n M.DCCC.LVIII.\n\n [_The right of Translation is reserved._]\n\n\n\n\nTHE CONTENTS.\n\nOLYMPUS:\n\nOR\n\nTHE RELIGION OF THE HOMERIC AGE.\n\n SECT. I.\n\n _On the mixed character of the Supernatural System,\n or Theo-mythology of Homer._\n\n\n Homer\u2019s method not systematic Page 1\n\n Incongruities of his Theo-mythology point to diversity of\n sources 2\n\n Remnants of primitive tradition likely to be found in the\n Poems 3\n\n Extra-judaical relations between God and man 6\n\n With tradition it combines invention 9\n\n It is a true Theology corrupted 9\n\n It has not its basis in nature-worship 10\n\n It could not have sprung from invention only 13\n\n Sacrifices admitted to be traditional 15\n\n Tendency of primitive religion to decay 17\n\n Downward course of the idea of God 18\n\n Decline closely connected with Polytheism 20\n\n Inducements to Nature-worship 21\n\n The deterioration of religion progressive 23\n\n Paganism in its old age 25\n\n The impersonations of Homer 26\n\n The nature of the myths of Homer 29\n\n Tradition the proper key to many of them 30\n\n He exhibits the two systems in active impact 32\n\n Steps of the downward process 33\n\n Sources of the inventive portions 35\n\n Originality of the Olympian system 37\n\n\n SECT. II.\n\n _The traditive element of the Homeric Theo-mythology._\n\n The channels of early religious tradition 39\n\n Some leading early traditions of Scripture 40\n\n As to the Godhead 42\n\n As to the Redeemer 42\n\n As to the Evil One 43\n\n Their defaced counterparts in Homer 43\n\n Deities of equivocal position 46\n\n Threefold materials of the Greek religion 48\n\n Messianic traditions of the Hebrews 49\n\n To be learned from three sources 49\n\n Attributes ascribed to the Messiah 51\n\n The deities of tradition in Homer 54\n\n Minerva and Apollo jointly form the key 55\n\n Notes of their Olympian rank 56\n\n Of their higher antiquity 57\n\n The Secondaries of Minerva 59\n\n The Secondaries of Apollo 60\n\n Argument from the Secondaries 63\n\n Picture of human society in Olympus 64\n\n Dignity and precedence of Minerva 66\n\n Of Apollo 69\n\n Minerva\u2019s relations of will and affection with Jupiter 70\n\n Those of Apollo 71\n\n Apollo the Deliverer of Heaven 72\n\n Power of Minerva in the Shades 73\n\n These deities are never foiled by others 74\n\n The special honour of the Trine Invocation 78\n\n They receive universal worship 79\n\n They are not localized in any abode 82\n\n They are objects together with Jupiter of habitual prayer 83\n\n Exempt from appetite and physical limitations 86\n\n Their manner of appreciating sacrifice 88\n\n Their independent power of punishment 90\n\n They handle special attributes of Jupiter 94\n\n They exercise dominion over nature 98\n\n Relation of Apollo (with Diana) to Death 101\n\n Exemption from the use of second causes 104\n\n Superiority of their moral standard 105\n\n Special relation of Apollo to Diana 108\n\n Disintegration of primitive traditions 108\n\n The Legend of Alcyone 111\n\n Place of Minerva and Apollo in Providential government 113\n\n It is frequently ascribed to them 115\n\n Especially the inner parts of it to Minerva 117\n\n Apollo\u2019s gift of knowledge 119\n\n Intimacy of Minerva\u2019s personal relations with man 121\n\n Form of their relation to their attributes 122\n\n The capacity to attract new ones 124\n\n Wide range of their functions 125\n\n Tradition of the Sun 126\n\n The central wisdom of Minerva 129\n\n The three characters of Apollo 130\n\n The opposition between two of them 131\n\n Minerva and Apollo do not fit into Olympus 133\n\n Origin of the Greek names 133\n\n Summary of their distinctive traits 134\n\n Explanation by Friedreich 138\n\n Treatment of Apollo by M\u00fcller 141\n\n After-course of the traditions 142\n\n The Diana of Homer 143\n\n Her acts and attributes in the poems 144\n\n The Latona of Homer 147\n\n Her attributes in the poems 149\n\n Her relation to primitive Tradition 153\n\n Her acts in the poems 154\n\n The Iris of Homer 156\n\n The At\u00e8 of Homer 158\n\n The \u1f00\u03c4\u03b1\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03bb\u03af\u03b7 of Homer 162\n\n Other traditions of the Evil One 162\n\n Parallel citations from Holy Scripture 165\n\n The Future State in Homer 167\n\n Sacrificial tradition in Homer 171\n\n He has no sabbatical tradition 171\n\n\n SECT. III.\n\n _The inventive element of the Homeric Theo-mythology._\n\n The character of Jupiter 173\n\n Its fourfold aspect.--1. Jupiter as Providence 174\n\n 2. Jupiter as Lord of Air 178\n\n Earth why vacant in the Lottery 179\n\n 3. Jupiter as Head of Olympus 181\n\n His want of moral elements 183\n\n His strong political spirit 185\n\n 4. Jupiter as the type of animalism 186\n\n Qualified by his parental instincts 189\n\n The Juno of Homer 190\n\n Juno of the Iliad and Juno of the Odyssey 191\n\n Her intense nationality 192\n\n Her mythological functions 193\n\n Her mythological origin 197\n\n The Neptune of Homer 199\n\n His threefold aspect 200\n\n His traits mixed, but chiefly mythological 201\n\n His relation to the Ph\u0153nicians 205\n\n His relation to the tradition of the Evil One 206\n\n His grandeur is material 209\n\n The Aidoneus of Homer 210\n\n His personality shadowy and feeble 211\n\n The Ceres or Demeter of Homer 212\n\n Her Pelasgian associations 213\n\n Her place in Olympus 215\n\n Her mythological origin 215\n\n The Proserpine or Persephone of Homer 217\n\n Her marked and substantive character 218\n\n Her connection with the East 220\n\n Her place in Olympus doubtful 223\n\n Her associations Hellenic and not Pelasgian 224\n\n The Mars of Homer 225\n\n His limited worship and attributes 226\n\n Mars as yet scarcely Greek 229\n\n The Mercury of Homer 231\n\n Preeminently the god of increase 233\n\n Mercury Hellenic as well as Ph\u0153nician 235\n\n But apparently recent in Greece 237\n\n His Olympian function distinct from that of Iris 238\n\n The poems consistent with one another in this point 241\n\n The Venus of Homer 243\n\n Venus as yet scarcely Greek 244\n\n Advance of her worship from the East 247\n\n Her Olympian rank and character 249\n\n Her extremely limited powers 249\n\n Apparently unable to confer beauty 251\n\n Homer never by intention makes her attractive 252\n\n The Vulcan of Homer 254\n\n His Ph\u0153nician and Eastern extraction 255\n\n His marriage with Venus 257\n\n Vulcan in and out of his art 259\n\n The \u1f28\u03ad\u03bb\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2 of Homer 260\n\n In the Iliad 261\n\n In the Odyssey 262\n\n Is of the Olympian court 263\n\n His incorporation with Apollo 264\n\n The Dionysus or Bacchus of Homer 266\n\n His worship recent 266\n\n Apparently of Ph\u0153nician origin 267\n\n He is of the lowest inventive type 269\n\n\n SECT. IV.\n\n _The Composition of the Olympian Court; and the\n classification of the whole supernatural order in Homer._\n\n Principal cases of exclusion from Olympus 271\n\n Case of Oceanus 273\n\n Together with that of Kronos and Rhea 274\n\n The _D\u00ee majores_ of the later tradition 275\n\n Number of the Olympian gods in Homer 275\n\n What deities are of that rank 277\n\n The Hebe and the Paieon of Homer 278\n\n The Eris of Homer 280\n\n Classification of the twenty Olympian deities 282\n\n The remaining supernatural order, in six classes 283\n\n Destiny or Fate in Homer 285\n\n Under the form of \u0391\u1f36\u03c3\u03b1 286\n\n Death inexorable to Fate or Deity alike 287\n\n Destiny under the form of \u039c\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c1\u03b1 290\n\n Under the form of \u03bc\u03cc\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2 293\n\n General view of the Homeric Destiny 294\n\n Not antagonistic to Divine will 297\n\n The minor impersonations of natural powers 298\n\n The \u1f09\u03c1\u03c0\u03c5\u1fd6\u03b1\u03b9 of Homer 300\n\n The Erinues of Homer 302\n\n Their office is to vindicate the moral order 305\n\n Their operation upon the Immortals 306\n\n Their connection with Aides and Persephone 308\n\n Their relation to Destiny 310\n\n Their operation upon man 310\n\n Their occasional function as tempters 312\n\n The translation of mortals 313\n\n The deification of mortals 314\n\n Growth of material for its extension 316\n\n The kindred of the gods (1) the Cyclopes 318\n\n (2) The L\u00e6strygones 319\n\n (3) The Ph\u00e6acians 320\n\n (4) \u00c6olus Hippotades 322\n\n\n SECT. V.\n\n _The Olympian Community and its Members considered in\n themselves._\n\n The family order in Olympus 325\n\n The political order in Olympus 326\n\n Absence of important restraints upon their collective\n action 327\n\n They are influenced by courtesy and intelligence 328\n\n Superiority of the Olympian Immortals 330\n\n Their unity imperfect 331\n\n Their polity works constitutionally 332\n\n The system not uniform 333\n\n They are inferior in morality to men 334\n\n And are governed mainly by force and fraud 335\n\n Their dominant and profound selfishness 337\n\n The cruelty of Calypso in her love 339\n\n Their standard of taste and feeling low 340\n\n The Olympian life is a depraved copy of the heroic 341\n\n The exemption from death uniform 342\n\n The exemption from other limitations partial 345\n\n Sometimes based on peculiar grounds 346\n\n Divine faculties for the most part an extension from the\n human 348\n\n Their dependence on the eye 350\n\n Their powers of locomotion 352\n\n Chief heads of superiority to mankind 353\n\n Their superiority in stature and beauty 354\n\n Their libertinism 355\n\n Their keen regard to sacrifice and the ground of it 357\n\n Their circumscribed power over nature 358\n\n Parts of the body how ascribed to them 359\n\n Examples of miracle in Homer 361\n\n Mode of their action on the human mind 363\n\n They do not discern the thoughts 365\n\n\n SECT. VI.\n\n _The Olympian Community and its Members considered\n in their influence on human society and conduct._\n\n Lack of periodical observances and of a ministering class 367\n\n Yet the religion was a real power in life 368\n\n The effect of the corruption of the gods was not yet\n fully felt 369\n\n They show little regard to human interests 371\n\n A moral tone is occasionally perceptible 373\n\n Prevalent belief as to their views of man and life 374\n\n It lent considerable support to virtue 377\n\n Their course with respect to Troy 378\n\n Bearing of the religion on social ties 380\n\n And on political relations 382\n\n The Oath 383\n\n Bearing of the religion on the poems 385\n\n As regards Neptune\u2019s wrath in the Odyssey 387\n\n As regards the virtue of purity 388\n\n As regards poetic effect 388\n\n Comparison of its earliest and latest form 390\n\n Gloom prevails in Homer\u2019s view of human destiny 392\n\n The personal belief of Homer 394\n\n\n SECT. VII.\n\n _On the traces of an origin abroad for the Olympian\n Religion._\n\n The Olympian deities classified according to local\n extraction 397\n\n Their connection as a body with the \u00c6thiopes 399\n\n Confirms the hypothesis of Persian origin 402\n\n Herodotus on the Scythian religion 402\n\n His report from Egypt about the Greek deities 404\n\n Four several bases of religious systems 405\n\n Anthropophuism in the Olympian religion 406\n\n Nature-worship as described in the Book of Wisdom 406\n\n Its secondary place in the Olympian religion 407\n\n In what sense it follows a prior Nature-worship 409\n\n The principle of Brute-worship 410\n\n Its traces in the Olympian religion 411\n\n Chief vestige: oxen of the Sun 412\n\n Xanthus the horse of Achilles 414\n\n\n SECT. VIII.\n\n _The Morals of the Homeric Age._\n\n The general type of Greek character in the heroic age 417\n\n The moral sense in the heroic age 418\n\n Use of the words \u1f00\u03b3\u03b1\u03b8\u03cc\u03c2 and \u03ba\u03b1\u03ba\u03cc\u03c2 421\n\n Of the word \u03b4\u03af\u03ba\u03b1\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2 423\n\n Religion and morals were not dissociated 425\n\n Moral elements in the practice of sacrifice 427\n\n Three main motives to virtue. 1. Regard to the gods 427\n\n 2. The power of conscience 428\n\n 3. Regard for the sentiments of mankind 430\n\n The force and forms of \u03b1\u1f30\u03b4\u1f7c\u03c2 431\n\n Other cognate terms 435\n\n Homicide in the heroic age 436\n\n Eight instances in the poems 437\n\n Why viewed with little disfavour 440\n\n Piracy in the heroic age 442\n\n Its nature as then practised 443\n\n Mixed view of it in the poems 444\n\n Family feuds in the heroic age 446\n\n Temperance in the heroic age 447\n\n Self-control in the heroic age 448\n\n Absence of the vice of cruelty 450\n\n Savage ideas occasionally expressed 451\n\n These not unfamiliar to later Greece 453\n\n Wrath in Ulysses 454\n\n Wrath in Achilles 455\n\n Domestic affections in the heroic age 456\n\n Relationships close, not wide 459\n\n Purity in the heroic age 460\n\n Lay of the Net of Vulcan 461\n\n Direct evidence of comparative purity 465\n\n Treatment of the human form 466\n\n Treatment of various characters 467\n\n Outline of Greek life in the heroic age 468\n\n Its morality, and that of later Greece 471\n\n Points of its superiority 472\n\n Inferior as to crimes of violence 475\n\n Some effects of slavery 476\n\n Signs of degeneracy before Homer\u2019s death 477\n\n\n SECT. IX.\n\n _Woman in the heroic age._\n\n The place of Woman generally, and in heroic Greece 479\n\n Its comparative elevation 480\n\n 1. State of the law and custom of marriage 481\n\n Marriage was uniformly single 483\n\n 2. Conceived in a spirit of freedom 483\n\n Its place in the career of life 485\n\n Mode of contraction 486\n\n 3. Perpetuity of the tie of marriage 487\n\n Adultery 488\n\n Desertion 489\n\n 4. Greek ideas of incest 489\n\n 5. Fidelity in married life 492\n\n Treatment of spurious children 494\n\n Case of Briseis 495\n\n Mode of contracting marriage 496\n\n Concubinage of Greek chieftains in Troas 497\n\n Dignity of conjugal and feminine manners 499\n\n Social position of the wife 500\n\n Force of conjugal attachments 502\n\n Woman characters of Homer 503\n\n The province of Woman well defined 505\n\n Argument from the position of the goddesses 506\n\n Women admitted to sovereignty 507\n\n And to the service of the gods 509\n\n Their household employments 511\n\n Their service about the bath 512\n\n Explanation of the presumed difficulty 515\n\n Proof from the case of Ulysses in Scheria 517\n\n Subsequent declension of Woman 518\n\n\n SECT. X.\n\n _The Office of the Homeric Poems in relation to that\n of the early Books of Holy Scripture._\n\n Points of literary resemblance 521\n\n Providential functions of Greece and Rome 523\n\n Of the Early records of Holy Scripture 524\n\n The Sacred Books are not mere literary works 525\n\n Providential use of the Homeric poems 527\n\n They complete the code of primitive instruction 529\n\n Human history had no visible centre up to the Advent 531\n\n Nor for some time after it 532\n\n A purpose served by the whole design 533\n\n\n\n\nOLYMPUS,\n\nOR\n\nTHE RELIGION OF THE HOMERIC AGE.\n\n\n\n\nSECT. I.\n\n_On the Mixed Character of the Supernatural System, or Theo-Mythology,\nof Homer._\n\n\nThough the poems of Homer are replete, perhaps beyond any others, with\nrefined and often latent adaptations, yet it may be observed in general\nof the modes of representation used by him, that they are preeminently\nthe reverse of systematic. Institutions or characters, which are in\nthemselves consistent, probably gain by this method of proceeding,\nprovided the execution be not unworthy of the design. For it secures\ntheir exhibition in more, and more varied, points of view, than can\npossibly be covered by the more didactic process. But the possession of\nthis advantage depends upon the fact, that there is in them a harmony,\nwhich is their base, and which we have only to discover. Whereas, if\nthat harmony be wanting, if in lieu of it there be a groundwork of\nfundamental discrepancy, then the conditions of effect are wholly\nchanged. The multiplied variety of view becomes a multiplication\nof incongruity; each new aspect offers a new problem: and the more\nmasterly the hand of the artist, the more arduous becomes the attempt\nto comprehend and present in their mutual bearings the pictures he has\ndrawn, and the suggestions he has conveyed.\n\nThus it has been with that which, following German example, I have\ndenominated the Theo-mythology of Homer. By that term it seems not\nimproper to designate a mixture of theology and mythology, as these two\nwords are commonly understood. Theology I suppose to mean, a system\ndealing with the knowledge of God and the unseen world: mythology, a\nsystem conversant with the inventions of man concerning them. In the\nHomeric poems I find both of these largely displayed: but with this\ndifference, that the first was in visible decline, the second in such\nrapid and prolific development, that, while Homer is undoubtedly a\nwitness to older fable, which had already in his time become settled\ntradition, he is also in this department himself evidently and largely\na Maker and Inventor, and the material of the Greek mythology comes out\nof his hands far more fully moulded, and far more diversified, than it\nentered them.\n\nOf the fact that the Homeric religion does not present a consistent and\nhomogeneous whole, we have abundant evidence in the difficulties with\nwhich, so soon as the literary age of Greece began, expositors found\nthemselves incumbered; and which drove them sometimes upon allegory\nas a resource, sometimes, as in the case of Plato, upon censure and\nrepudiation[1].\n\n[1] D\u00f6llinger Heid. u. Jud. v. 1. p. 254.\n\n~_Extended relations of God to man._~\n\nI know not whether it has been owing to our somewhat narrow jealousies\nconcerning the function of Holy Scripture, or to our want of faith in\nthe extended Providence of God, and His manifestations in the world, or\nto the real incongruity in the evidence at our command, or to any other\ncause, but the fact, at least, seems to me beyond doubt, that our modes\nof dealing with the Homeric poems in this cardinal respect have been\neminently unsatisfactory. Those who have found in Homer the elements of\nreligious truth, have resorted to the far-fetched and very extravagant\nsupposition, that he had learned them from the contemporary Hebrews,\nor from the law of Moses. The more common and popular opinion[2] has\nperhaps been one, which has put all such elements almost or altogether\nout of view; one which has treated the Immortals in Homer as so many\nimpersonations of the powers of nature, or else magnified men, and\ntheir social life as in substance no more than as a reflection of his\npicture of heroic life, only gilded with embellishments, and enlarged\nin scale, in proportion to the superior elevation of its sphere. Few,\ncomparatively, have been inclined to recognise in the Homeric poems the\nvestiges of a real traditional knowledge, derived from the epoch when\nthe covenant of God with man, and the promise of a Messiah, had not yet\nfallen within the contracted forms of Judaism for shelter, but entered\nmore or less into the common consciousness, and formed a part of the\npatrimony of the human race[3].\n\n[2] See Heyne ad Il. i. 603; Terpstra, Antiquitas Homerica, i. 3. And\nso late as the Cambridge Essays 1856. p. 149.\n\n[3] See \u2018Homerus, pt. i.\u2019 by Archdeacon Williams: \u2018Primitive\nTradition,\u2019 1843, by the same; Edinb. Rev. N^o. 155, art. Homerus, and\nthe reference, p. 50, to Cesarotti\u2019s Ragionamento Storico-Critico.\n\nBut surely there is nothing improbable in the supposition, that in\nthe poems of Homer such vestiges may be found. Every recorded form of\nsociety bears some traces of those by which it has been preceded: and\nin that highly primitive form, which Homer has been the instrument\nof embalming for all posterity, the law of general reason obliges us\nto search for elements and vestiges belonging to one more primitive\nstill. And, if we are to inquire in the Iliad and the Odyssey for\nwhat belongs to antecedent manners and ideas, on what ground can it be\npronounced improbable, that no part of these earlier traditions should\nbe old enough to carry upon them the mark of belonging to the religion,\nwhich the Book of Genesis represents as brought by our first parents\nfrom Paradise, and as delivered by them to their immediate descendants\nin general? The Hebrew Chronology, considered in connection with the\nprobable date of Homer, would even render it difficult or irrational\nto proceed upon any other supposition: nor if, as by the Septuagint\nor otherwise, a larger period is allowed for the growth of our race,\nwill the state of this case be materially altered. For the facts must\nremain, that the form of society exhibited by Homer was itself in\nmany points essentially patriarchal, that it contains, in matter not\nreligious, such, for instance, as the episode of the Cyclops, clear\ntraces of a yet earlier condition yet more significant of a relation\nto that name, and that there is no broadly marked period of human\nexperience, or form of manners, which we can place between the great\ntrunk of human history in Holy Scripture, and this famed Homeric\nbranch, which of all literary treasures appears to be its eldest born.\nStanding next to the patriarchal histories of Holy Scripture, why\nshould it not bear, how can it not bear, traces of the religion under\nwhich the patriarchs lived?\n\nThe immense longevity of the early generations of mankind was eminently\nfavourable to the preservation of pristine traditions. Each individual,\ninstead of being as now a witness of, or an agent in, one or two\ntransmissions from father to son, would observe or share in ten times\nas many. According to the Hebrew Chronology, Lamech the father of\nNoah was of mature age before Adam died: and Abraham was of mature\nage before Noah died. Original or early witnesses, remaining so long\nas standards of appeal, would evidently check the rapidity of the\ndarkening and destroying process.\n\nLet us suppose that man now lived but twenty years, instead of\nfourscore. Would not this greatly quicken the waste of ancient\ntraditions? And is not the converse also true?\n\n~_Sufficiently proved from Holy Scripture._~\n\nCustom has made it with us second nature to take for granted a\nbroad line of demarcation between those who live within the pale of\nRevelation, and the residue of mankind. But Holy Scripture does not\nappear to recognise such a severance in any manner, until we come to\nthe revelation of the Mosaic law, which was like the erection of a\ntemporary shelter for truths that had ranged at large over the plain,\nand that were apparently in danger of being totally absorbed in the\nmass of human inventions. But before this vineyard was planted, and\nlikewise outside its fence, there were remains, smaller or greater,\nof the knowledge of God; and there was a recognised relation between\nJehovah and mankind, which has been the subject of record from time to\ntime, and the ground of acts involving the admonition, or pardon, or\ncorrection, or destruction, of individuals or communities.\n\nThe latest of these indications, such as the visit of the Wise Men from\nthe East, are not the most remarkable: because first the captivity in\nBabylon, and subsequently the dissemination of Jewish groups through so\nmany parts of the world, could not but lead to direct communications\nof divine knowledge, at least, in some small degree. From such causes,\nthere would be many a Cornelius before him who became the first-fruits\nof the Gentiles. Yet even the interest, which probably led to such\ncommunications from the Jew, must have had its own root in relics of\nprior tradition, which attested the common concern of mankind in Him\nthat was to come. But in earlier times, and when the Jewish nation\nwas more concentrated, and was certainly obscure, the vestiges of\nextra-patriarchal and extra-judaical relations between God and man\nare undeniable. They have been traced with clearness and ability in a\npopular treatise by the hand of Bishop Horsley[4].\n\n[4] Horsley\u2019s Dissertation on the Prophecies of the Messiah dispersed\namong the heathen. See also Mr. Harvey\u2019s Observations on the Gnostic\nSystem, pp. iii and seqq., prefixed to his S. Iren\u00e6us, Cambridge, 1857.\nWilliams\u2019s Primitive Tradition, p. 9.\n\nLet us take, for instance, that case of extreme wickedness, which most\nseverely tries the general proposition. The punishment of Sodom and\nGomorrah for their sins was preceded by a declaration from the Most\nHigh, importing a direct relation with those guilty cities[5]; and two\nangels, who had visited Abraham on the plains of Mamre, \u2018came to Sodom\nat even.\u2019 Ruth the Moabitess was an ancestress, through king David,\nof our Lord. Rahab in Jericho, \u2018by faith,\u2019 as the Apostle assures us,\nentertained the spies of the Israelites. Job, living in a country\nwhere the worship of the sun was practised, had, as had his friends,\nthe knowledge of the true God. Melchizedek, the priest of On, whose\ndaughter Joseph married, and Jethro, the father-in-law of Moses, are\nother conspicuous instances. Later in time, Nineveh, the great Assyrian\ncapital, received the message of the prophet Jonah, and repented at his\npreaching. Here the teaching organ was supplied from among the Jews:\nbut Balaam exhibits to us the gift of inspiration beyond their bounds.\nOnce more; many centuries after the Homeric manners had disappeared,\nand during the captivity, we find not only a knowledge of God, but\ndreams and signs vouchsafed to Assyrian kings, and interpreted for\nthem by the prophet Daniel. We have, in short, mingling with the whole\ncourse of the Old Testament, a stream of evidence which shows the\npartial remnants of the knowledge of God, apart from that main current\nof it which is particularly traced for us in the patriarchal and\nMosaic histories. Again, many centuries after Homer, when all traces\nof primitive manners had long vanished, still in the Prometheus of\n\u00c6schylus, and in the Pollio of Virgil, we have signs, though I grant\nthey are faint ones, that the celestial rays had not even then \u2018faded\ninto the light of common day\u2019 for the heathen world. It would really\nbe strange, and that in a high degree, if a record like that of Homer,\nwith so many resemblances to the earliest manners in other points, had\nno link to connect it with them in their most vital part.\n\n[5] See Genesis xviii. 1, 20. xx. 1. Heb. xi. 31.\n\n~_The question one of history._~\n\nThe general proposition, that we may expect to find the relics of\nScriptural traditions in the heroic age of Greece, though it leads,\nif proved, to important practical results, is independent even of a\nbelief in those traditions, as they stand in the scheme of revealed\ntruth. They must be admitted to have been facts on earth, even by those\nwho would deny them to be facts of heavenly origin, in the shape in\nwhich Christendom receives them: and the question immediately before\nus is one of pure historical probability. The descent of mankind from\na single pair, the lapse of that pair from original righteousness,\nare apart from and ulterior to it. We have traced the Greek nation\nto a source, and along a path of migration, which must in all\nlikelihood have placed its ancestry, at some point or points, in close\nlocal relations with the scenes of the earliest Mosaic records: the\nretentiveness of that people equalled its receptiveness, and its close\nand fond association with the past made it prone indeed to incorporate\nnovel matter into its religion, but prone also to keep it there after\nits incorporation.\n\nIf such traditions existed, and if the laws which guide historical\ninquiry require or lead us to suppose that the forefathers of the\nGreeks must have lived within their circle, then the burden of proof\nmust lie not so properly with those who assert that the traces of them\nare to be found in the earliest, that is, the Homeric, form of the\nGreek mythology, as with those who deny it. What became of those old\ntraditions? They must have decayed and disappeared, not by a sudden\nprocess, but by a gradual accumulation of the corrupt accretions, in\nwhich at length they were so completely interred as to be invisible\nand inaccessible. Some period therefore there must have been, at which\nthey would remain clearly perceptible, though in conjunction with much\ncorrupt matter. Such a period might be made the subject of record, and\nif such there were, we might naturally expect to find it in the oldest\nknown work of the ancient literature.\n\nIf the poems of Homer do, however, contain a picture, even though a\ndefaced picture, of the primeval religious traditions, it is obvious\nthat they afford a most valuable collateral support to the credit of\nthe Holy Scripture, considered as a document of history. Still we must\nnot allow the desire of gaining this advantage to bias the mind in an\ninquiry, which can only be of value if it is conducted according to the\nstrictest rules of rational criticism.\n\n~_Invention combined with tradition._~\n\nWe may then, in accordance with those rules, be prepared to expect\nthat the Hellenic religion will prove to have been in part constructed\nfrom traditional knowledge. The question arises next, Of what other\nmaterials in addition was it composed? The answer can be but one;\nSuch materials would be supplied by invention. But invention cannot\nabsolutely create; it can only work upon what it finds already provided\nto its hand. The provision made in this instance was simply that with\nwhich the experience of man supplied him. It was mediate or immediate:\nmediate, where the Greek received matter from abroad, and wrought upon\nit: immediate, where he conceived it for himself. That experience lay\nin two spheres--the sphere of external nature, and the sphere of life.\nEach of these would afford for the purpose the elements of Power,\nGrandeur, Pleasure, Beauty, Utility; and such would be the elements\nsuited to the work of constructing or developing a system that was to\npresent objects for his worship. We may therefore reasonably expect\nto find in the religion features referable to these two departments\nfor their origin;--first, the powerful forces and attractive forms of\noutward nature; secondly, the faculties and propensities of man, and\nthose relations to his fellow-men, amidst which his lot is cast, and\nhis character formed.\n\nIf this be so, then, in the result thus compounded out of tradition\npurporting to be revealed, and out of invention strictly human, we\nought to recognise, so long as both classes of ingredients are in\neffective coexistence, not strictly a false theology, but a true\ntheology falsified: a true religion, into which falsehood has entered,\nand in which it is gradually overlaying and absorbing the original\ntruth, until, when the process has at length reached a certain point,\nit is wholly hidden and borne down by countervailing forces, so that\nthe system has for practical purposes become a false one, and both may\nand should be so termed and treated.\n\nI admit that very different modes of representing the case have been\nin vogue. Sometimes by those to whom the interest of Christianity\nis precious, and sometimes in indifference or hostility to its\nfortunes, it is held that the basis of the Greek mythology is laid in\nthe deification of the powers of nature. The common assumptions have\nbeen such as the following: That the starting-point of the religion\nof the heroic age is to be sought only in the facts of the world, in\nthe ideas and experience of man. That nature-worship, the deification\nof elemental and other physical powers, was the original and proper\nbasis of the system. That this system, presumably self-consistent,\nas having been founded on a given principle, was broken up by the\nintervention of theogonic revolutions. That the system, of which\nJupiter was at the head, was an imperfect reconstruction of a scheme of\ndivine rule out of the fragments of an earlier religion, and that it\nsupplanted the elder gods. In short, the Greek mythology is represented\nas a corrupt edition, not of original revealed religion, but of a\nNature-worship which, as it seems to be assumed, was separated by a\ngulf never measured, and never passed, from the primitive religious\ntraditions of our race. Further it seems to be held, that the faults\nand imperfections of the pagan religion have their root only in a\nradical inability of the human mind to produce pure deity; that they do\nnot represent the depravation of an ancient and divine gift, but rather\nthe simple failure of man in a work of invention. Indeed, we need not\nwonder that it should fail in a process which, critically considered,\ncan mean little else than mere exaggeration of itself and from its own\nexperience[6], and which must be so apt to become positive caricature.\n\n[6] See N\u00e4gelsbach, Homerische Theologie, i. 1. ii. 1. Also (if I\nunderstand it rightly), D\u00f6llinger\u2019s Heidenthum und Judenthum, ii. 1. \u00a7.\n1. p. 54.\n\n~_The basis was not in Nature-worship._~\n\nAgain, Dean Prideaux, in his Connection of Sacred and Profane History,\ngives the following genesis of the Greek mythology. From the beginning,\nhe says, there was a general notion among men, founded on a sense that\nthey were impure, of the necessity of a mediator with God. There being\nno mediator clearly revealed, man chose mediators for himself, and took\nthe sun, moon, and stars, as high intelligences well fitted for the\npurpose. Hence we find Saturn, Jupiter, Mars, Apollo, Mercury, Venus,\nand Diana, to be first ranked in the polytheism of the ancients: for\nthey were their first gods[7].\n\n[7] Prideaux, i. 3. vol. i. p. 198.\n\nThis theory is not in correspondence with the facts of the heroic age.\nThere is no sense whatever of an impurity disabling men from access\nto God; no clear or general opinion of the necessity of mediation; no\nglimpse even of a god superior to Jupiter and the rest with whom they\nwere on behalf of man to mediate.\n\nAnd, again, the opinion, that the origin of the religion lay in\nNature-worship, has had the support both of high and also of recent\nauthorities. The eminent and learned Dr. D\u00f6llinger, in his \u2018Heidenthum\nund Judenthum,\u2019 says, that the deification of Nature, its forces,\nor the particular objects it offered to the senses, constituted the\ngroundwork of the Greek, as well as of the other heathen religions. The\nidea of God continued to be powerful even when it had been darkened,\nand the godhead was felt as present, and active everywhere in the\nphysical order. In working out his general rule for each mythological\ndeity in particular, this author conceives the original form of their\nexistence to have been that of a Nature-power, even where the vestiges\nof such a conception have, under subsequent handling, become faint\nor imperceptible. Thus Juno, Minerva, Latona, Diana, and others in\nsuccession, are referred to such an origin[8].\n\n[8] Heidenthum und Judenthum, b. ii. sect. 1, 2. pp. 54-81.\n\nNow in dealing with this hypothesis, I would ask, what then has become\nof the old Theistic and Messianic traditions? and how has it happened\nthey have been amputated by a process so violent as to make them to\nleave, even while the state of society continued still primitive, no\ntrace behind them? But further. I would urge with confidence that the\nample picture of the religion of the heroic ages, as we have it in\nHomer, which is strictly for this purpose in the nature of a fact,\ncannot be made to harmonize with the hypothesis which refers it to\nsuch a source. The proof of this statement must depend mainly on the\nexamination which we have to institute in detail: but I am anxious\nat once to bring it into view, and to refer briefly to some of the\ngrounds on which it rests, because it is susceptible of demonstration\nby evidence as contradistinguished from theory. On the other hand,\nwhen I proceed farther, evidence and theory must of necessity be mixed\nup together; and dissent from a particular mode of tracing out the\nassociation between the traditional and inventive elements of the\nsystem might unawares betray the reader into the conclusion, that no\nsuch distinct traditional elements were to be found, but that all,\nor nearly all, was pure fable. I say, then, there is much in the\ntheo-mythology of Homer, which, if it had been a system founded in\nfable, could not have appeared there. It stands before us like one of\nour old churches, having different parts of its fabric in the different\nstyles of architecture, each of which speaks for itself, and which we\nknow to belong to the several epochs in the history of the art, when\ntheir characteristic combinations were respectively in vogue.\n\n~_Nor is the system from invention only._~\n\nWhile on the one hand it has deities, such as Latona, without any\nattributes at all, on the other hand, we find in it both gods and\ngoddesses, with an assemblage of such attributes and functions as have\nno common link by which invention could have fastened them together.\nThey are such, likewise, as to bring about cross divisions and cross\npurposes, that the Greek force of imagination, and the Greek love of\nsymmetry, would have alike eschewed. How could invention have set\nup Pallas as the goddess at once of peace and its industries, of\nwisdom, and of war? Its object would clearly have been to impersonate\nattributes; and to associate even distinct, much less conflicting\nattributes, in the same deity, would have been simply to confuse them.\nHow again could it have combined in Apollo, who likewise turns the\ncourses of rivers by his might, the offices of destruction, music,\npoetry, prophecy, archery, and medicine? Again, if he is the god of\nmedicine, why have we Paieon? if of poetry, why have we the Muses? If\nMinerva be (as she is) goddess of war, why have we Mars? if of the work\nof the Artificer, why have we also Vulcan? if of prudence and sagacity,\nand even craft[9], why Mercury?\n\n[9] Il. xxii. 247.\n\nAnd again, the theory is, that the chief personages of the mythology\nare representatives of the great powers of the physical universe. I\nask, therefore, how it happens that in the Homeric, or, as we may call\nit, primitive form of the system, these great powers of the universe\nare for the most part very indistinctly and partially personified,\nwhereas we see in vivid life and constant movement another set of\nfigures, having either an obscure or partial relation, or no relation\nat all, to those powers? Such a state of the evidence surely strikes\nat the very root of the hypothesis we are considering: but it is\nthe state of the evidence which we actually find before us. Take for\ninstance Time, Ocean, Earth, Sun, Moon, Stars, Air; all these prime\nnatural objects and agents are either not personified at all in Homer,\nor so indistinctly and mutely personified that they are the mere\nzoophytes of his supernatural world, of which the gorgeous life and\nbrilliant movement are sustained by a separate set of characters.\nOf these more effective agents, some are such as it is impossible\nrationally to set down for mere impersonations of ideas; while others\nare plainly constituted as lords over, and not beings derivative from,\nthose powers or provinces of nature, with which they are placed in\nspecial relations. It cannot for instance rationally be said that the\nHomeric Jupiter is a mere impersonation of the air which he rules, or\nthe Homeric Neptune of the sea, or the Homeric Aidoneus (or Aides) of\nthe nether world. For to the first of these three, many functions are\nassigned having no connection with the air. As for example, when he\ngives swiftness of foot to \u00c6neas on Mount Ida, that he might escape\nthe pursuit of Achilles[10]. In the case of the second, there is a\nrival figure, namely, Nereus, who never that we know of leaves the sea,\nwho is the father of the Sea-nymphs, and who evidently fulfils the\nconditions of Sea impersonated far better than does Neptune; Neptune,\nwho marched upon the battle-field in Troas, and who, with Apollo, had\nhimself built the walls of Ilium. Besides all this, the sea, to which\nNeptune belongs, is itself not one of the great elemental powers of\nthe universe, but is derived, like rivers, springs, and wells, from\nFather Ocean, who fears indeed the thunderbolt of Jupiter, but is not\nbound to attendance even in the great chapter of Olympus[11]. As\nto Aidoneus, he can hardly impersonate the nether world, because in\nHomer he does not represent or govern it, but only has to do with that\nportion of it, which is inhabited by the souls of departed men. For,\nas far beneath his realm as Earth is beneath Heaven, lies the dark\nTartarus of Homer, peopled with \u039a\u03c1\u03cc\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 and his Titans. Nor, on the\nother hand, do we know that the Elysian fields of the West were subject\nto his sway. The elemental powers are in Homer, though not altogether,\nyet almost altogether, extrinsic to his grand Olympian system.\n\n[10] Il. xx. 92.\n\n[11] Il. xxi. 195-9. xx. 7.\n\nWithout, then, anticipating this or that particular result from\nthe inquiry into the mode and proportions in which traditional and\ninventive elements are combined in the poems of Homer, it may safely\nbe denied that his picture of the supernatural world could have been\ndrawn by means of materials exclusively supplied by invention from the\nsources of nature and experience.\n\n~_Traditive origin of Sacrifice._~\n\nAnd indeed there is one particular with respect to which the admission\nwill be generally made, that the Greek mythological system stood\nindebted at least to a primitive tradition, if not to a direct command;\nI mean the institution of sacrifice. This can hardly be supposed to\nhave been an original conception in every country; and it distinctly\npoints us to one common source. Sacrifice was, according to Dr.\nD\u00f6llinger[12], an inheritance which descended to the Greeks from the\npristine time before the division of the nations. Without doubt the\ntransmission of ritual, depending upon outward action, is more easy\nthan that of ideas. But the fact that there was a transmission of\nsomething proves that there was a channel for it, open and continuous:\nand the circumstances might be such as to allow of the passage of\nideas, together with institutions, along it.\n\n[12] Heid. u. Jud. iv. 5. p. 202.\n\nIt cannot be necessary to argue on the other side in any detail in\norder to show, that for much of his supernatural machinery, Homer\nwas indebted to invention, whether his own or that of generations,\nor nations, which had preceded him. Had his system been one purely\ntraditional in its basis, had it only broken into many rays the\nintegral light of one God, it would have presented to us no such deity\nas Juno, who is wholly without prototype, either abstract or personal,\nin the primitive system, and no such mere reflections of human passions\nas are Mars and Venus: not to speak of those large additions, which\nwe are to consider as belonging not so much to the basis and general\noutline of the system, as to the later stages of its development.\n\nLet us now endeavour to inquire what mental, moral, and physical\ninfluences would be likely, in early times, to give form and direction\nto that alterative process, which the primitive ideas of religion, when\nremoved beyond the precinct of Revelation and the knowledge of the\nSacred Records, had to undergo.\n\nThis law of decline we may examine, first ideally, according to the\ninfluences likely to operate on the course of thought with respect to\nreligion: and then with reference to that which is specifically Greek,\nby sketching in outline the actual mode of handling the material at\ncommand, which resulted in the creation of the Homeric or Olympian\nsystem. The first belongs to the metaphysical genesis of the system:\nthe second to its historical formation.\n\n~_Tendency of primitive religion to decay._~\n\nSo long as either the Sacred Records, or the Light which supplied\nthem, remained within reach, there were specific means either in\noperation, or at least accessible, which, as far as their range\nextended, would serve to check error, whether of practice or\nspeculation, and to clear up uncertainty, as the sundial verifies\nor corrects the watch. But the stream darkened more and more, as it\ngot farther from the source. The Pagan religion could boast of its\nunbroken traditions; like some forms of Christianity, and like the\ngovernment of France until 1789. But its uninterrupted course was\nreally an uninterrupted aberration from the line of truth; and to\nboast of the evenness of its motion was in effect to boast of the\ndeadness of the conscience of mankind, which had not virtue enough even\nto disturb progressive degeneracy by occasional reproach. In later\ntimes, the Pagan system had its three aspects: it was one thing for\nthe populace, another for statesmen, and a third for philosophers.\nBut in Homer\u2019s time it had suffered no criticism and no analysis: the\nhuman self-consciousness was scarcely awakened; introspection had\nnot begun its work. Imagination and affection continually exercised\ntheir luxuriant energies in enlarging and developing the system of\npreternatural being and action. However copiously the element of\nfiction, nay, of falsehood, entered into it, yet for the masses of\nmankind it was still subjectively true[13].\n\n[13] Grote, Hist. Greece, vol. i. p. 467.\n\nAll was forward movement. Man had not, as it were, had time to ask\nhimself, is this a lie? or even, whither does it tend? His soul, in\nthose days of infancy, never questioned, always believed. Logical\ninconsistency, even moral solecism, did not repel it, nor slacken the\nardour of its energies in the work of construction: construction of\nart, construction of manners, construction of polity, construction of\nreligion. This is what we see, in glowing heat, throughout the poems of\nHomer, and it is perhaps the master key to their highest interest. They\nshow us, in the province we are now considering, heroes earning their\ntitle to the Olympian life, mute nature everywhere adjusting herself to\nthe scheme of supernatural impersonations, and religion allied to the\nhuman imagination, as closely as it was afterwards by Mahomet wedded\nto the sword. Everywhere we see that which is properly called myth,\nin the process of formation. Early mythology is the simple result of\nthe working of the human mind, in a spirit of belief or of credulity,\nupon the material offered to it by prior tradition, by the physical\nuniverse, by the operations of the mind, and by the experience of life.\n\nWe may, as follows, accompany the vicious series through which thought\nmight probably be led, with respect to the theory of religion.\n\nIf we begin with the true and pure idea of God, it is the idea of a\nBeing infinite in power and intelligence, and though perfectly good,\nyet good by an unchangeable internal determination of character, and\nnot by the constraint of an external law.\n\nSuch was the starting-point, from which the human mind had to run\nits career of religious belief or speculation. But the maintenance\nsubjectively of the original form of the image in its clearness\ndepended, of course, upon the condition of the observing organ; and\nthat organ, again, depended for its health on the healthiness of the\nbeing to whom it belonged. Hence we must look into the nature of man,\nin order to know what man would think respecting the nature of God.\n\n~_Downward course of the idea of God._~\n\nNow man, the prey of vicious passions, though he holds deeply rooted\nwithin himself the witness to an extrinsic and objective law of\ngoodness, which he needs in order to develop what he has of capacity\nfor good, and to bring into subjection the counteracting and rebellious\nelements, is nevertheless prevailingly under the influence of these\nlast. Hence, in the absence of special and Divine provision for the\nremedy of his inward disease, although both conscience and also the\ndispensations of Providence shadow forth to him a law of goodness from\nwithout, yet the sense of any internal law of goodness in himself\nbecomes, with the lapse of time, more and more dim and ineffectual.\n\nThus, as he reflects back upon his own image conceptions of the Deity,\nthe picture that he draws first fails in that, wherein he himself is\nweakest. Now, the perception of mere power depends upon intellect\nand sense: and as neither intellect nor sense have received through\nsin the same absolutely mortal wound which has reached his spiritual\nbeing, he can therefore still comprehend with clearness the idea and\nthe uses of power, both mental and physical. Accordingly, the Godhead\nis for him preternaturally endowed with intelligence and force. But\nhow was he to keep alive from his own resources the moral elements\nof the divine ideal? Coercive goodness, goodness by an external law,\ngoodness dependent upon responsibility, was, by the nature of the case,\ninapplicable to Deity as such: while of goodness by an internal law, he\nhad lost all clear conception, and he could not give what he had not\ngot.\n\nOf course it is not meant, that this was a conscious operation. Rarely\nindeed, in reflective and critical periods, does it happen that man can\nkeep a log-book of wind, weather, and progress, for the mind, or tell\nfrom what quarter of the heavens have proceeded the gales that impel it\non its course.\n\nBut, by this real though unconscious process, goodness would soon\ndisappear from his conception of the Godhead, while high power and\nintelligence might remain. And hence it is not strange, if we find\nthat Homer\u2019s deities, possessed of power beyond their faculty of moral\ndirection, are for the most part, when viewed in the sphere of their\npersonal conduct, on a lower level than his heroes.\n\nWhen therefore these latter charge, as is not unfrequent with them,\nupon the gods the consequences, and even in a degree the facts, of\ntheir own fault or folly, the proceeding is not so entirely illogical\nas we might at first suppose. For that great conception of an all-good\nand all-wise Being had undergone a miserable transmutation, bringing it\nmore and more towards the form of an evil power. Hence, perhaps, it is\nthat we find these reproaches to the Deity put into the mouth even of\nMenelaus, one of the noblest and purest characters among the heroes of\nHomer[14].\n\n[14] Il. iii. 365, and xiii. 631-5.\n\nAgain, this degradation of the divine idea was essentially connected\nwith the parcelling it out into many portions, according to the system\nof polytheism. That system at once brought down all the attributes from\ntheir supreme perfection to scales of degree: established finite and\nimperfect relations in lieu of the perfect and infinite: carried into\nthe atmosphere of heaven an earthy element. The disintegration of the\nUnity of God prepared the way for the disintegration of His several\nattributes, and especially for weakening and effacing those among them,\nwhich man had chiefly lost his capacity to grasp.\n\nWhen once we have substituted for the absolute that which is in degree,\nand for the perfect that which is defective, we have brought the\ndivine element within the cognizance of the human: the barrier of\nseparation is broken down, and, without any consciousness of undue\nlicense, we thenceforward insensibly fashion it as we please. Each\ncorruption, as it takes its place in the scheme of popular ideas, is\nconsolidated by the action of new forces, over and above those which,\neven if alone, were sufficient to engender it: for the classes, who\nworked the machinery both of priestly caste, and of civil government,\nfound their account in accumulating fable up to a mountain mass. Each\nnew addition found a welcome: but woe to him, who, by shaking the\npopular persuasion of any one article, endangered the very foundations\nof the whole.\n\nSuch is an outline, though a faint and rude one, of what may be called\nthe _rationale_, or the law of cause and effect, applicable to the\nexplanation of the progressive and, at length, total corruption of the\nprimitive religion.\n\n~_Inducements to Nature-worship._~\n\nWe may also endeavour to trace the motives which might determine the\ndownward movement of the human mind in the direction, partially or\nwholly according to circumstances, of what is called Nature-worship.\n\nOn the one side lay the proposition handed down from the\nbeginning--there is a God. On the other side arose the question--where\nis He? It was felt that on the whole He was not in man, though there\nwas in man what was of Him. It was obvious to look for Him in the\nmighty agencies, and in the sublime objects of Nature, which, though\n(so thought might run,) they did not reveal Him entirely, yet disclosed\nnothing that was not worthy to belong to Him. Here is a germ of\nNature-worship. Hence it is that we find Aristotle, at a period when\nthought was alike acute, deliberate, and refined, declare it to be\nbeyond all doubt that the heavenly bodies are far more divine than\nman[15].\n\n[15] \u039a\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u1f00\u03bd\u03b8\u03c1\u03ce\u03c0\u03bf\u03c5 \u1f04\u03bb\u03bb\u03b1 \u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u1f7a \u03b8\u03b5\u03b9\u03cc\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03b1 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03c6\u03cd\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd, \u03bf\u1f37\u03bf\u03bd \u03c4\u1f70 \u03c6\u03b1\u03bd\u03b5\u03c1\u03ce\u03c4\u03b1\u03c4\u03ac\n\u03b3\u03b5, \u1f10\u03be \u1f67\u03bd \u1f41 \u03ba\u03bf\u03c3\u03bc\u1f78\u03c2 \u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u03ad\u03c3\u03c4\u03b7\u03ba\u03b5\u03bd. Eth. Nicom. VI. vii. 4.\n\nNow this germ could not be one only. Trains of thought and reasoning,\nessentially alike, would, according to diversities of minds and\ncircumstances, lead one to place the God in one natural sphere or\nagency, and another to place him in another. There was no commanding\nprinciple either to confine or to reconcile these variations; thus the\nsame cause, which brought deity into natural objects, would also tend\nto exhibit many gods instead of one.\n\nSuch was the path by which man might travel from Theism to\nNature-worship. But other paths, starting from other points, would lead\nto the same issue.\n\nSuppose now the case of the mind wholly without the tradition of a\nGod. To such a mind, the vast and overmastering but usually regulated\nforces, and the beautiful and noble forms of nature, would of\nthemselves suggest the idea of a superior agency; yet, again, not\nof one superior agent alone, but of many. Thus some men would build\nupwards, while others, so to speak, were building downwards, and they\nwould meet on the way.\n\nAnd, again, a third operation could not but assist these two former,\nand combine with their results. For the unaided intellect of man seems\nnot to have had _stamina_ to carry, as it were, the weight of the\ntranscendent idea of one God, of God infinite in might, in wisdom, and\nin love. Again, it was awful as well as ponderous; because it was so\nremote from man, and from his actual state. He therefore lightened the\nidea, as it were, by dividing it from one into many; and he brought it\nnearer to himself, nearer to his sympathies, by humanizing its form and\nattributes. By this process he in time destroyed indeed his reverence,\nbut he also beguiled his fears, and created for himself objects not of\ndread, so much as of familiar association.\n\nYet once again; it may, I think, be shown that a kind of natural\nnecessity led man to denominate actual powers, which he saw and felt\nabout him, not through the medium of generalization by abstract names,\nbut by making them persons.\n\nThus easy, and almost inevitable, under mental laws, was the road\nto Nature-worship. The path, that led into the deeper corruption of\nPassion-worship, has been already traced.\n\n~_Progressive deterioration._~\n\nIt is then in entire accordance with what has preceded, that, when the\nPagan system has come into its old age, we should find it so wholly\ndeprived of all the lineaments of original beauty, grandeur, and\ngoodness, that we can read the destructive philosophy and poetry of the\natheistic schools, and of Lucretius in particular, without the strong\nsentiment of horror, which in themselves they are fitted to excite.\n\nMilton, in the First Book of Paradise Lost, treats the Pagan gods as\nbeing, under new names, so many of the fallen angels, who with Satan\nhad rebelled, and with him had been driven out from heaven, so that the\nworld of heathen from the first had simply\n\n \u2018devils to adore for deities.\u2019\n\nWhether this sentiment be poetically warrantable or not, (and for my\nown part I cannot but think it was one too much connected with a cold\nand lowered form of Christian doctrine,) it is not historically sound.\nWe should distinguish broadly between this assertion, that the Pagan\nreligion was an original falsehood, and the declaration of St. Paul,\n\u2018I say that the things which the Gentiles sacrifice, they sacrifice\nto devils, and not to God[16].\u2019 To the same class as the words of the\nApostle, belong, as I conceive, these (and other) sentences of Saint\nAugustine[17]; _non sunt dii, maligni sunt spiritus, quibus \u00e6terna\ntua felicitas p\u0153na est.... Proinde si ad beatam pervenire desideras\ncivitatem, devita d\u00e6monum societatem_. For these terrible descriptions\napply not to the infancy, but to the decrepitude of Paganism. The\ndifference between them was as the difference between the babe in arms,\nand the hoary sinner on the threshold of death: and while the one\nrepresentation summarily cuts man off from God, the other only shows to\nhow fearful a distance he had by degrees travelled away. As time went\non, and the _eidola_ of succeeding generations were heaped one upon\nanother, the truly theistic element in the Pagan mythology was more and\nmore hidden and overborne, until at length its association with evil\nwas so inveterate and thorough, that the images, which the citizen or\nmatron of the Roman empire had before the mind as those of gods, bore\nno appreciable resemblance to their divine original, but more and more\namply corresponded with that dark side of our nature, on which we are\naccessible to, and finally may assume the likeness of, the evil one.\n\n[16] 1 Cor. x. 20.\n\n[17] De Civ. Dei, ii. 29.\n\nBut the critical error that we seem to have committed may be thus\ndescribed; we have thrown back upon the Homeric period the moral and\nmythological character of the system, such as we find it developed in\nlater Greece and Rome: forgetful of the long and dim interval, that\nseparates Homeric religion from almost every subsequent representation,\nand not duly appreciating the title of the poems to speak with an\nalmost exclusive authority for their own insulated epoch.\n\n~_Paganism in its decay._~\n\nFurther, it is reasonable to remember that some of the powerful\nalteratives, which in subsequent ages told upon the form and substance\nof this wonderful mythology, had not begun to act in the time of Homer.\nThese alteratives were speculative thought, and political interests.\nPhilosophy, ever dangerous to the popular religion of Greece in the\ndays of its maturity and prosperity, became its ally in the period of\nits decline, when its original vitality had entirely ebbed away, and\nwhen the _Vexilla Regis_, raised aloft throughout the Roman empire,\ndrove it to seek refuge in holes and corners. Then the wit of man\nwas set to repair the tottering fabric; to apologize for what was\nprofligate, to invent reasons for what was void of meaning, to frame\nrelations between the depraved mythology, and the moral government of\nthe world. Even that corrupt and wicked system had, as it were, its\nepoch of death-bed repentance.\n\nThe services thus rendered by philosophers were late and ineffectual;\nbut it was the civil power, which had been all along the greatest\nconservator of the classical mythology. It felt itself to have an\ninterest in surrounding public authority with a veneration greater\nthan this world could supply: a commanding interest, with the pursuit\nof which its necessities forbade it to dispense. Whatever exercised an\ninfluence in subduing and enthralling the popular mind, answered its\npurpose in the view of the civil magistrate. Hence his multifarious\nimportations into religion, each successively introduced for this\npurely subjective and temporal reason, removed it farther and farther\nfrom the ground of truth. Every story that he added to the edifice made\nits fall more certain and more terrible. _Numerosa parabat excels\u00e6\nturris tabulata._ But in Homer\u2019s time there is no trace of this\nemployment of religion by governments, as a means of sheer imposition\nupon their subjects.\n\nSo likewise in Homer there is no sign that conscious speculation\non these subjects had begun. Indeed, of that kind of thought which\ninvolves a clear mental self-consciousness, we may perhaps say, that\nthe first beginning, at least for Europe and the West, is marked by the\nvery curious simile in the Iliad[18]--\n\n[18] Il. xv. 80.\n\n \u1f61\u03c2 \u03b4\u2019 \u1f45\u03c4\u2019 \u1f02\u03bd \u1f00\u0390\u03be\u1fc3 \u03bd\u03cc\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f00\u03bd\u03ad\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2 \u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb.\n\nHomer, then, spoke out in simplicity, and in good faith, the religion\nof his day, under those forms of poetry with which all religions have a\nwell-grounded affinity: for the imagination, which is the fountain-head\nof poetic forms, is likewise a genuine, though faint, picture, of that\nworld which religion realizes, through Faith its groundwork, \u2018the\nsubstance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen[19].\u2019\n\n[19] Heb. xi. 1.\n\nAnd, indeed, he had no other form in which to speak forth his soul.\nThat which we call the invention of the Greeks at work upon the\nsubject-matter of religion was, in fact, the voice of human nature,\ngiving expression in the easiest and simplest manner to its sense\nof the great objects and powers amidst which its lot was cast. It\nhas been well said by Professor M. M\u00fcller, in an able Essay[20] on\n\u2018Comparative Mythology,\u2019 that \u2018abstract speech is more difficult,\nthan the fulness of a poet\u2019s sympathy with nature.\u2019 Thus it was not\nso much that poetry usurped the office of religion, as that their\nrespective functions brought them of necessity to a common ground and\na common form of proceeding. Homer saw, heard, or felt the action of\nthe sun, the moon, the stars, the atmosphere, the winds, the sea, the\nrivers, the fountains, the soil; and he knew of family affections, of\ngoverning powers, of a healing art, of a gift and skill of mechanical\nconstruction. Action, in each of these departments, could not but be\nreferred to a power. How was that power to be expressed?\n\n[20] Oxford Essays, 1856, p. 36.\n\n~_On Impersonation in Homer._~\n\nAt least for the Greek mind, less subtle, as Aristotle has observed,\nthan the Oriental, it was more natural to deal with persons, than\nwith metaphysical abstractions. It was foreign to the mental habit of\nthe heroic age to conceive of abstract essences; as it still remains\ndifficult, more difficult perhaps than, in the looseness of our\nmental processes, we suppose, for the men of our own generation. Even\nnow, in the old age of the world, we have many signs of this natural\ndifficulty, which formerly was a kind of impossibility. Especially we\nhave that one which leads all communities, and above all their least\ninstructed classes, to apply the personal pronouns _he_ or _she_ to a\nvast multitude of inanimate objects, both natural, and the products of\nhuman skill and labour. These objects are generally such as stand in a\ncertain relation to action: they either do, suffer, or contain.\n\nIf then the Nature-forces could not be expressed, or at least could\nnot be understood as abstractions, to express them as persons was the\nonly other course open to the poet. It was not an effort to follow\nthis method: it would have required great effort to adopt any other.\nHow spontaneous was the impulse which thus generated the mythological\nsystem, we may observe from this, that it not only personified in cases\nwhere, an agency being seen, its fountain was concealed from view, but\nit likewise went very far towards personification even in cases where\ninanimate instruments were wielded by human beings, and where, as the\nsource of the phenomenon was perceived, there was no occasion to clothe\nit with a separate vitality. Hence that copious vivifying power which\nHomer has poured like a flood through his verse. Hence his bitter\narrow (\u03c0\u03b9\u03ba\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2), his darts hungry for human blood (\u03bb\u03b9\u03bb\u03b1\u03b9\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03b1 \u03c7\u03c1\u03cc\u03bf\u03c2\n\u1f06\u03c3\u03b1\u03b9), his ground laughing in the blaze of the gleaming armour (\u03b3\u03ad\u03bb\u03b1\u03c3\u03c3\u03b5\n\u03b4\u1f72 \u03c0\u1fb6\u03c3\u03b1 \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u03c7\u03b8\u1f7c\u03bd \u03c7\u03b1\u03bb\u03ba\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f51\u03c0\u1f78 \u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03c0\u1fc6\u03c2). Hence again his free use of\nsensible imagery to illustrate metaphysical ideas: for example, his\nblack cloud of grief, his black pains, his purple death[21]. Hence that\nsingularly beautiful passage on the weeping of the deathless horses of\nAchilles for Patroclus[22]. Hence too it is, that he does not scruple\nto carry imagery, drawn from the sphere of one sense, into the domain\nof another, an operation which later poets have found so difficult and\nhazardous. He has an iron din[23], a brazen voice[24], a brazen or iron\nheaven[25], a howling or shouting fire, a blaze of lamentation[26].\nHence, by a system of figure bolder perhaps than has been used by\nany other poet, he invests the works of high art in metal with the\nattributes of life and motion. This daring system reaches its climax\nin the damsel satellites[27] of gold, that support the limping gait of\nVulcan: in the dogs of metal, that guard the palace of Alcinous: in the\nelastic arms of Achilles, which, so far from being a weight upon him,\nthemselves lift him from the ground: and in the animated ships of the\nPh\u00e6acians, which are taught by instinct to speed across the sea, and to\npilot their own course to the points of their destination[28]. On every\nside we see a redundance of life, shaping, and even forcing, for itself\nnew channels: and thus it becomes more easy for us to conceive the\nimportant truth that, when he impersonates, he simply takes what was\nfor him the easiest and the most effective way to describe. Every where\nhe is carrying on a double process of action and reaction: on the one\nhand bringing Deity down to sensible forms; on the other, adorning and\nelevating humanity, and inanimate nature, with every divine endowment.\n\n[21] Il. v. 83. xvii. 591. xviii. 2, 4.\n\n[22] Il. xvii. 426-40.\n\n[23] Il. xvii. 424.\n\n[24] Il. xviii. 222: more strictly, a voice of bronze.\n\n[25] Il. xv. 328. xvii. 425, 565.\n\n[26] Od. xx. 353.\n\n[27] Il. xviii. 417. For the Shield, notice xviii. 539, 599-602. xix.\n386.\n\n[28] Od. viii. 556.\n\n~_Nature of the myths of Homer._~\n\nHomer, then, is full of mythical matter. But the word _myth_, of which\nin recent controversies the use has been so frequent, is capable of\nbeing viewed under either of two principal aspects.\n\nIn one of these, it signifies a story which is not contemporary with\nthe date of the facts it purports to relate, but is in reality an\nafter-view of them, which colours its subject, and exaggerates, _ad\nlibitum_, according to conditions of thought and feeling which have\narisen in the interval.\n\nIn the other of these senses, it is an allegory which has simply\nlost its counterpart: it was true, but by separation from that which\nattached it to fact, it has become untrue: being now of necessity\nhandled, if handled at all, as a substantive existence, it has passed\ninto a fable, and is only distinguished from pure fable, in that it\nonce indicated truths contemporary with itself, though probably truths\nlying in a different region from its own.\n\nIt is in this last sense that the term myth is chiefly, and most\nlegitimately, applicable to the religious system of the Homeric poems:\nbut they may also probably contain more or less of the mythical element\nin the former sense.\n\nWe, having obtained knowledge of the early derivation and distribution\nof mankind, and of the primitive religion, from sources other than\nthose open to Homer, shall find in this knowledge the lost counterpart\nof a great portion of the Homeric myths.\n\nThe theological and Messianic traditions which we find recorded in\nScripture, when compared with the Homeric theogony, will be found\nto correspond with a large and important part of it: and, moreover,\nwith a part of it which in the poems themselves carries a cluster of\ndistinctive marks, not to be explained except by the discovery of this\ncorrespondence. The evidence, therefore, of the meaning of this part of\nthe Homeric system is like that which is obtained, when, upon applying\na new key to some lock that we have been unable to open, we find it\nfits the wards, and puts back the bolt.\n\nIn his learned and acute Essay[29] on Comparative Mythology, Professor\nMax M\u00fcller undertakes to illustrate a doctrine that appears to be the\nexact opposite of Mr. Grote\u2019s \u2018Past which was never present.\u2019 If I\nunderstand him rightly, there was at some one time a present for every\nportion of the reputed past[30]: so that, by a reference to eastern\nsources, the nature of that present, and of the original consistent\nmeaning for what afterwards on becoming unintelligible is justly called\na myth, has in many cases been, and may yet in many more come to be,\nunveiled. Originally impersonations of ideas and natural powers, the\nheathen gods never represented demons or evil spirits[31], and were\n\u2018masks without an actor,\u2019 \u2018names without being:\u2019 while their reality,\nconsisting in their relation to the facts of the universe, faded and\nescaped from perception in the course of time. The myths of the Veda\nare still in the stage of growth: Hesiod and Homer too are of the\n\u2018later Greeks,\u2019 and not only the Theogony of Hesiod is \u2018a distorted\ncaricature,\u2019 but the poetry of Homer[32] is extensively founded on\nmyths fully grown, and in the stage of decay, that is to say, long\nsevered from their corresponding deities.\n\n[29] Oxford Essays, 1856.\n\n[30] Essays, p. 42.\n\n[31] Ibid. p. 48.\n\n[32] pp. 43, 47, 49, 55, 87.\n\nI do not doubt that in all mythology at its origin, there has been\nboth a shell and a substance: and that the tendency of the two to part\ncompany, which we see even under the sway of revealed religion, must\nhave operated with far more power, where ordinarily at least, man was\nthrown back, without other aid, upon his reason and his conscience,\nbeset as they were and are with overpowering foes.\n\nBut then, as it seems to me, we must anticipate great changes in the\nshell itself. It will not retain, when empty, the identity of the form;\nwhich has lost the support that it had from within when full. On the\ncontrary, it will become unlike its original self, as well as unlike\nits archetype or substance, so that probably much of it must always\nremain without a key.\n\nUpon the other hand, as there was already a true religion in the world\nwhen an untrue one began to gather upon and incrust it, there must\narise the question already put; what, according to the theory before\nus, became of this true religion? It did not disappear in a day:\nthere was no wilful renunciation of it by single or specific acts,\nno sharp line drawn between it and the false; but the human element\nwas gradually more and more imported into the divine, operating by\ncontinual and successive disintegrations of the original ideas. If\nso, then there seems to be nothing unreasonable in the belief that\nthe traces of them might long remain discernible in the adulterated\nsystem, even if only as the features of a man are discernible in the\nmask of a buffoon.\n\nNo doubt it would be unreasonable to look for such traces in Homer,\nif he were indeed, in the popular sense of the term, which probably\nProfessor M. M\u00fcller does not intend, a later Greek; a Greek dealing\nwith a mythological system of which his nation had already had its\nuse, from which the creative principle had departed, and which was on\nthe road from ripeness to decay. I am far from saying that there are\nno myths in Homer, where the original and interior meaning has ceased\nto be discernible: but I shall seek to show that the contrary may be\nconfidently averred, and fully shown, with respect to the great bulk\nof his mythology, and that we see in him two systems, both alive, and\nin impact and friction, though with very unequal forces, one upon the\nother; the first, that of traditional truth, and the second, of the\ninventive impersonation of nature both material and invisible. And\ncertainly it is very striking that, with one or two very insignificant\nexceptions, all those ancient fables, which Professor M\u00fcller treats as\nhaving become unintelligible without the key of the Veda, and which he\nexplains by means of it, are fables unknown to Homer, and drawn from\nmuch later sources.\n\n~_Steps of the downward process._~\n\nThe general view, then, which will be given in these pages of the\nHomeric Theo-mythology is as follows: That its basis is not to be\nfound either in any mere human instinct gradually building it up\nfrom the ground, or in the already formed system of any other nation\nof antiquity; but that its true point of origin lies in the ancient\nTheistic and Messianic traditions, which we know to have subsisted\namong the patriarchs, and which their kin and contemporaries must have\ncarried with them as they dispersed, although their original warmth\nand vitality could not but fall into a course of gradual efflux, with\nthe gradually widening distance from their source. To travel beyond the\nreach of the rays proceeding from that source was to make the first\ndecisive step from religion to mythology.\n\nTo this divine tradition, then, were added, in rank abundance, elements\nof merely human fabrication, which, while intruding themselves, could\nnot but also extrude the higher and prior parts of religion. But the\ndivine tradition, as it was divine, would not admit of the accumulation\nof human materials until it had itself been altered. Even before men\ncould add, it was necessary that they should take away. This impairing\nand abstraction of elements from the divine tradition may be called\ndisintegration.\n\nBefore the time of Homer, it had already wrought great havock. Its\nfirst steps, as far as the genesis of the mythology throws light upon\nthem, would appear to have been as follows: objectively, a fundamental\ncorruption of the idea of God; who, instead of an Omnipotent wisdom and\nholiness, now in the main represented on a large scale, in personal\ncharacter, the union of appetite and power; subjectively, the primary\nidea of religion was wholly lost. Adam, says Lord Bacon, was not\ncontent with universal obedience to the Divine Will as his rule of\naction, but would have another standard. This offence, though not\nexaggerated into the hideousness of human depravity in its later forms,\nis represented without mitigation in the principles of action current\nin the heroic age. Human life, as it is there exhibited, has much in\nit that is noble and admirable; but nowhere is it a life of simple\nobedience to God.\n\nThis disintegration of primitive traditions forms the second stage, a\nnegative one, in the process which produced the Homeric Theo-mythology.\n\nWhen the divine idea, and also the idea of the relation between man and\nhis Maker, had once been fundamentally changed, there was now room for\nthe introduction without limit of what was merely human into religion.\nInstead of man\u2019s being formed in the image of God, God was formed in\nthe image of man. The ancient traditions were made each to assume a\nseparate individual form; and these shapes were fashioned by magnifying\nand modifying processes from the pattern that human nature afforded.\n\nAgain, as man does not exist alone and individually, but in the family,\nso the _nexus_ of the family was introduced as the basis of a divine\norder. This we may call, resting on the etymology of the word, the\ndivine \u0152conomy of the Homeric religion.\n\nBut as with man, so with the supernatural world, on which his own\ngenius was now powerfully reflected, families themselves, when\nmultiplied, required a political order; and therefore, among the gods\nalso a State and government are formed, a divine polity. Human care, by\na strange inversion, makes parental provision for the good government\nof those deities whom it has called into being.\n\nThe propagation, for which a physical provision was made among men,\ntakes place within the mythological circle also, under the laws of his\nintelligent nature. The ranks of the Immortals are filled with persons\nmetaphysically engendered. These persons they represent concrete\nforms given to abstract ideas, or, to state nearly the same thing in\nother words, personal modes of existence assigned to powers which\nman saw as it were alive and at work in the universe, physical or\nintelligent, around him. But here too a distinction is to be observed.\nSometimes the deity was set above the natural power, as its governor\nand controller: sometimes he merely signified the power itself put in\naction. The former mode commonly points to tradition; the latter always\nto invention.\n\nAnd lastly, when a supernatural \u03ba\u03bf\u03c3\u03bc\u1f78\u03c2 or order had thus been\nconstructed, the principles of affinity between it and the order here\nbelow exercised a reciprocally attractive force. The gods were more and\nmore humanized, man was more and more invested with deity: deity was\nmade cheap and common among men, and the interval from earth to heaven\nwas bridged over by various means. These means were principally; first,\nthe translation of men into the company of the immortals; secondly, the\nintroduction of intermediate races; and, thirdly and most of all, the\ndeification of heroes.\n\nSubordinate to this general view, there arises another question: how\nare we to subdivide the inventive parts of the Homeric mythology? What\ngeneral statements can be propounded, or criteria supplied, to show how\nmuch Greece fabricated or moulded for herself, and what she owed to\nEgypt, or to Ph\u0153nicia, or to other lands in the East, whose traditions\nshe had either inherited or received?\n\n~_Sources of the inventive portions._~\n\nA deep obscurity hangs over this subject. We do not know all that\nwas contained in each of the various religions of the East at any\none epoch, much less at all the periods within which they may have\ncontributed materials to the gorgeous fabric of Homer. Many things\nwere probably common to several of them: and where this was so,\ncircumstantial evidence cannot avail for determining the source at\nwhich the Poet or his nation borrowed.\n\nBut several propositions may be laid down, which will tend towards\ndescribing the path of our inquiry.\n\nFirst, the accounts which, transmitted by Herodotus, represent Egypt as\nthe fountain-head of the Greek religion in its mass, are not sustained\nby the evidence of Homer. And even with respect to many points where\nthe nucleus of the Greek system has something corresponding with it\nin the Egyptian, it neither follows that it was originally drawn from\nEgypt by the Greeks, nor that those from whom the Greeks received\nit had obtained it there. Yet there remains room for very important\ncommunications, such, for example, as the oracle of Dodona, or the\nworship of Minerva, which may be an historic token of an Egyptian\ncolony at Athens.\n\nSecondly, the correspondences between the Homeric system and the\nEastern religions, as we know them, are commonly latent, rather than\nbroad or palpable. This may, in part, be owing to the circumstance that\nour accounts of these religions are in great part so much later than\nHomer; and a greater resemblance, than is now to be traced, may have\nsubsisted in his time.\n\n~_Originality of the Olympian system._~\n\nBut, thirdly, the differences are not differences of detail or degree.\nA different spirit pervades the Homeric creed and worship, from that\nwhich we find in Egyptian, or Median, or Persian systems. One has\ngrovelling animalism, another has metaphysical aspirations, that we\ndo not find in the Greek: but this is not all. If the Homeric scheme\nis capable of being described, as to its inventive part, by any one\nepithet, it will be this, that it is intensely human. I do not speak\nof the later mythology; nor of Hesiod, whose Theogony so marvellously\nspoils what it systematizes; but of Homer, in whom the ideal Olympus\nattained its perfection at a stroke. In his preternatural \u03ba\u03bf\u03c3\u03bc\u1f78\u03c2 there\nis, as far as I can see, much more of what is truly Divine, much more\nof the residue of primeval tradition, than we can find collected\nelsewhere: but there is also much more of what is human. The moral\nform is corrupt: but I am now also speaking of it as a work of human\ngenius, and certainly as one of the most wonderful and splendid of\nits products. The deep sympathy with Nature, the refined perception\nof beauty, the freedom, the buoyancy, the elastic movement of every\nfigure on the scene, the intimate sense of association between the\ndenizens of Olympus and the generations of mortal men, the imposing\ndevelopment of a Polity on high, the vivid nationality that riveted\nits hold on Greece, the richness and inexhaustible diversity of those\nembellishments which a vigorous fancy knows how to provide, combine to\nmake good the title I have asserted, and, if we are to believe that\nHomer, in no small part, made what he described, must place his share\nin the formation of the system in the very foremost rank even of his\nachievements.\n\nAt any rate, this one thing, I think, is clear; that whatever Greece\nborrowed from the East, she fairly made her own. All was thrown\ninto the crucible; all came out again from the fire recast, in such\ncombinations, and clothed in such forms and hues, as the specific\nexigencies of the Greek mind required. Hence we must beware of all\nprecipitate identifications. We must take good heed, for example,\nnot to assume, that because Athene may be Neith by metathesis,\ntherefore the features of the Homeric Pallas were really gathered\ntogether in the Egyptian prototype of her name[33]. The strong hand\nof a transmuting fancy and intelligence passed as a preliminary\ncondition upon everything foreign, not only to modify, but probably\nalso to resolve into parts, and then to reconstruct. So that the\npreternatural system of Homer is, above all others, both national and\noriginal, and has, by its own vital energies, helped to maintain those\ncharacteristics even in the deteriorated copies which were made from it\nby so many after-generations.\n\n[33] Bunsen\u2019s \u2018Egypt\u2019s Place in Universal History,\u2019 b. I. s. vi. A.\n\n\n\n\nSECT. II.\n\n_The traditive Element of the Homeric Theo-mythology._\n\n\nThe earliest Scriptural narrative presents to our view, with\nconsiderable distinctness, three main objects. These are, respectively,\nGod, the Redeemer, and the Evil One. Nor do we pass even through the\nBook of Genesis without finding, that it shadows forth some mysterious\ncombination of Unity with Trinity in the Divine Nature.\n\nFrom the general expectation which prevailed in the East at the\nperiod of the Advent, and from the prophecies collected and carefully\npreserved in Rome under the name of the Sibylline books, we are at\nonce led to presume, that the knowledge of the early promise of a\nDeliverer had not been confined to the Jewish nation. Their exclusive\ncharacter, and that of their religion; their small significance in the\npolitical system and intellectual movement of the world; and the false\nas well as imperfect notions which seem to have prevailed elsewhere\nrespecting them and their law[34]; all make it highly improbable that\nthese expectations and predictions should have been drawn from them\nand their sacred books exclusively. Further, Holy Scripture distinctly\nexhibits to us the existence of channels of traditional knowledge\nsevered from theirs. Thus much we learn particularly from the cases of\nJob, who was a prophet and servant of God, though he lived in a country\nwhere idolatry was practised[35]; and of Balaam, who, not being an\nIsraelite, nor an upright man, was nevertheless a prophet also. Our\nLord, in his answer respecting God as the God of Abraham[36], points\nto a great article of belief, not expressly propounded in the Mosaic\nbooks. And again, there are traditions adopted in the New Testament by\napostolic authority, which prove to us that there were some fragments\nat least of early tradition remaining, even at a late date, among the\nJews themselves, over and above what had been committed to writing\nin the older Scriptures. Such are those given by St. Jude respecting\nBalaam himself, the body of Moses, and the prophecy of Enoch[37]. Such\nis the record mentioned by St. Paul[38] of Jannes and Jambres, who are\nbelieved to have been the chief magicians of Pharaoh, referred to in\nExodus, c. vii: and whose names are mentioned by Pliny, and, according\nto Eusebius, by Numenius the Philosopher[39]. But it is not necessary,\nand it might not be safe, to make any large assumption respecting a\ntraditional knowledge of any parts of early revelation beyond what\nScripture actually contains.\n\n[34] See for example, in the Apocrypha, Esther xiii. 1-7.\n\n[35] Horsley\u2019s Dissertation, p. 69.\n\n[36] St. Matt. xxii. 32.\n\n[37] St. Jude, ver. 9, 11, 14.\n\n[38] 2 Tim. iii. 8.\n\n[39] Plin. H. N. xxx. 1. Euseb. Pr\u00e6p. Ev. ix. 8. Whitby, _in loc._\n\nDwelling therefore on what may be gathered from the Sacred Volume, we\nhave seen that at the very earliest date it has set before men the\nideas of God, the Redeemer, and the Evil One, and that it has spoken\nconcerning God as in some sense Three in One. When we take the whole\nof the older Sacred Records into view, we may add some particulars\nrespecting the other two great objects.\n\n~_Messianic traditions of Scripture._~\n\nAnd first, as to the Deliverer of man. The Redeemer promised was to\nbe human, for He was to be of human birth. As death was the type of\nthe primeval curse, so it was from death that He was to deliver.\nAgain, the woman became a portion of the prophecy, for He was to be\nthe seed of the woman: and while He is thus plainly indicated to us as\nincarnate, He is, on the other hand, mysteriously identified with the\n\u039b\u03cc\u03b3\u03bf\u03c2, the Divine Word or Wisdom, existing before the world and the\nrace with which He was to be numbered, and invested with the attributes\nof supreme Deity. Although from a certain period the Wisdom and the\nDeliverer appear to stand visibly identified, yet the earliest forms of\nthe traditions, as they stand in Holy Writ, are, to a certain extent,\nideally separate or separable; and the personality of the former is\nless clearly, or at least less sharply, marked than that of the latter.\n\nIt was always the prevailing tendency of the speculative religions of\nthe East to withdraw the Supreme Being from direct relations with the\nworld, and to assign its ordinary government to the Wisdom, more or\nless directly impersonated. \u2018This,\u2019 says Dean Milman, \u2018was the doctrine\nfrom the Ganges, or even the shores of the Yellow Sea, to the Ilissus:\nit was the fundamental principle of the Indian religion and Indian\nphilosophy; it was the basis of Zoroastrianism: it was pure Platonism:\nit was the Platonic Judaism of the Alexandrian School[40].\u2019\n\n[40] Milman\u2019s Hist. of Christianity, vol. i. p. 72.\n\nNeither were the traditions of the Evil One, more than those respecting\nthe Messiah, limited to a single aspect. On the contrary, they were\ntwofold, and they centred round two ideas: the one, that of force; the\nother that of fraud: the one, that of a rebellious spirit, whom the\nAlmighty had cast down, with his abettors, from bliss to torment[41];\nand the other, that of a deceiver, who lured man by the promise of what\nhe desired, and through the medium of his own free will, away from\nduty, to his own harm or destruction.\n\n[41] Calmet\u2019s Dict., art. Satan. 2 Pet. ii. 4. St. Jude, ver. 6.\n\n~_Sum of the primitive traditions._~\n\nWe may venture rudely to sum up these principal traditions of the first\nages as follows:\n\nFirst, with respect to the Deity.\n\n1. The Unity and supremacy of the Godhead.\n\n2. A combination with this Unity of a Trinity, in which Trinity the\nseveral Persons, in whatever way their personality be understood, and\nwhatever distinctions may obtain between them, are in some way of\ncoequal honour.\n\nSecondly, with respect to the Redeemer, or Messiah.\n\n1. A Redeemer from the curse of death, invested with full humanity,\nby whom the divine kingdom was to be vindicated and reestablished, in\ndespite of its enemies.\n\n2. A Wisdom, which is personal as well as divine, the highest and\nfirst in order, concerned in the foundation and continuing government\nof the world[42]. This is the Wisdom which \u2018the Lord possessed from\neverlasting, from the beginning, or ever the earth was[43].\u2019 \u2018I Wisdom\ndwell with prudence; and find out knowledge of witty inventions[44].\u2019\n\u2018This is with all flesh according to his gift: and he hath given her to\nthem that love him[45].\u2019\n\n[42] Proverbs i. 20-33.\n\n[43] Proverbs iii. 19.\n\n[44] See Proverbs viii. _passim_.\n\n[45] Ecclus. i. 8-10. iv. 11-19, _et alibi._ See also Wisdom of\nSolomon, i. 6. vi. 12, and seqq. vii.-x. _passim_.\n\n3. The connection of the Redeemer with our race through his descent\nfrom the woman.\n\nThirdly, with respect to the Evil One.\n\n1. A rebellion of great angels or powers against the Supreme Being; the\ndefeat of the rebels, and their being cast into the abyss.\n\n2. The going forth among men of a power who tempts them to their\ndestruction.\n\nA tradition of minor moment, but clearly declared in the earliest\nScripture, may be added: namely,\n\nThe announcement of the rainbow, as a token which was to convey an\nassurance or covenant from God to man, with respect to the annual order\nof nature; an order on which the continuance of the human race depends.\n\nIt is impossible to survey these traditions, in their outline, without\nseeing how easy it was to find a way from them, by the aid of ideas on\nwhich they seemed to border, and which they brought within easy reach\nof wayward thought, towards the principal corruptions of heathenism.\nThey shadow forth, as they stand, the great dogmas of the Trinity and\nthe Incarnation: but from the doctrine of the Trinity, thus shadowed\nforth, the next step might be into polytheism; while in the doctrine of\nthe Incarnation, similarly projected, seemed to be laid the foundation\nof the Greek anthropomorphism, or the reflection of humanity upon\nthe supernatural world. Abstract truth has not been found sufficient\nto sustain itself among mankind: and in the dispensations of the\nAll-Wise the promulgation of it has always been associated with the\nestablishment of a teaching organ, which should bear living witness to\nits authority.\n\nLet us now observe how these traditions severally find their imperfect\nand deranged counterparts in the heroic age of Greece.\n\nFirst, as to the Godhead.\n\nIts unity and supremacy is represented in Jupiter, as the administrator\nof sovereign power.\n\nThe combination of Trinity with Unity is reproduced in the three\nKronid brothers, Jupiter, Neptune, Pluto or Aidoneus; all born of the\nsame parents, and having different regions of the material creation\nseverally assigned to them by lot.\n\nNext as to the Redeemer.\n\nThe first form of this tradition is represented chiefly in Apollo.\nBut neither the various attributes which were conceived as belonging\nto the Deliverer, nor the twofold manifestation of his character\nas it appears in Holy Writ, could, we must conclude, be held in\ncombination by the heathen mind. The character, therefore, underwent a\nmarked disintegration by severance into distinct parts: and while it\ncontinues, in the main, to form the groundwork of the Homeric Apollo,\ncertain of its qualities are apparently transferred to his sister\nDiana, and others of them are, as it were, repeated in her.\n\nThe second form of the tradition is that of the Wisdom, or \u039b\u03cc\u03b3\u03bf\u03c2, of\nthe Gospel of Saint John; and this appears to be represented in the\nsublime Minerva of the Homeric system.\n\nLastly, Latona, the mother of the twin deities, Apollo and Diana,\nappears to represent the tradition of the woman, from whom the\nDeliverer was to descend.\n\nThirdly, with respect to the Evil One.\n\nAs the derivative idea of sin depended upon that of goodness, and as\nthe shadow ceases to be visible when the object shadowed has become\nmore dim, we might well expect that the contraction and obscuration of\nthe true idea of goodness would bring about a more than proportionate\nloss of knowledge concerning the true nature of evil. The impersonation\nof evil could only be upheld in a lively or effectual manner, as the\nopposite of the impersonation of good: and when the moral standard of\ngodhead had so greatly degenerated, as we find to be the case even in\nthe works of Homer, the negation of that standard could not but cease\nto be either interesting or intelligible.\n\n~_Traditions of the Evil One in Homer._~\n\nAccordingly we find that the process of disintegration, followed\nby that of arbitrary reassortment and combination of elements, had\nproceeded to a more advanced stage with respect to the tradition of the\nEvil One, than in the other cases.\n\nThe general form of the disintegration is this: that the idea of a\nrebellion, menacing the divine dominion with violence, is now clothed\nin a variety of detached and more or less conflicting forms: while\nthe far more subtle idea of an influence acting immediately on the\nspirit of man, and aiming a blow at the glory of the Deity through his\ncreatures, whose allegiance it seeks by the perversion of their own\nspontaneous agency to withdraw, remains in Homer, still indeed both\nvisible and single, but enfeebled and obscured to such a degree, that\nit, as it were, stands on tiptoe, ready for its final flight from the\nsphere of the common perceptions of mankind.\n\nThe first, the idea of evil acting by violence, is represented, not\nindeed exclusively, but most conspicuously, in the Titans and Giants.\n\nThe second, or the idea of evil acting by deceit, is represented in the\n\u1f0c\u03c4\u03b7 of Homer.\n\nLastly: the rainbow of Holy Scripture is represented in the Homeric\nIris.\n\nThese, then, speaking generally, are the principal remnants from\nprimitive traditions, of which, if of any thing of the kind, we may\nexpect to find the vestiges within the Olympian Court.\n\n~_Varying degrees of the traditive character._~\n\nIn order to throw a fuller light upon the subject, I shall chiefly\nexamine the characters of the Homeric deities, and of the more\nimportant among them in particular, not as a body but individually.\nAn opposite practice has for the most part prevailed. It has been\nassumed that they are homogeneous; they have been treated as a class,\nsubject to the same laws; and variations, not to be accounted for\nfrom mythological _data_, have been viewed as mere solecisms in the\nconception of the class. This has mainly tended, I believe, to thrust\nthe truth of the case into dark corners. But the properties which\ndistinguish the Homeric Immortals in common from men are in reality\nless important than those which establish rules of discrimination\nwithin their own body, and which point to the very different sources\nthat have supplied the materials incorporated into different portions\nof the scheme.\n\nIn the enumeration which it will be requisite to make, it might be\nallowable to treat Neptune and Pluto as traditive divinities, because\nin their relation to Jupiter, which abstractedly is one of equal birth\nand equal honour, they appear to share in representing the primitive\ntradition, which combined a trine personality with unity in the\ngodhead. Effect was given to this tradition by supposing the existence\nof three deities, who were united by the bond of brotherhood, and of\nwhom each had an important portion of the universe assigned to his\nimmediate superintendence. But for the assignment of attributes to\nthese personages, when severally constituted, tradition seems to have\nafforded no aid. Jupiter, as the eldest and most powerful, became heir\ngeneral, as it were, to whatever ideas were current respecting the one\nsupreme God: or the point might be otherwise stated, as for instance\nthus, that the conception which the Greeks derived from elsewhere of a\nsupreme God, they, on taking it over, shaped into the Eldest Brother of\ntheir Trinity. But the concentration of ideas of supremacy upon him was\nat variance with, and enfeebled the notion of, the trine combination.\nThe tradition itself, moreover, did not determine provinces for\nNeptune or Pluto; and consequently, though these deities may be\nconsidered traditional with regard to their basis, they belonged to\nthe invented class as respects character and attributes, and it is in\nconjunction with that class that I propose to consider them.\n\nAgain, Jupiter does not fully represent any one specific tradition: but\nhe assembles irregularly around him the fragments of such traditions as\nbelonged to the relation between men and the One Ruler of the universe.\nOn the one hand he is in competition with other impersonations; on the\nother hand, with abstractions, which, if they wanted the life, yet had\nnot forfeited the purity of godhead.\n\nLatona, again, will be known rather by relative and negative, than by\nabsolute and positive, signs; except as to the point of her maternity.\n\nSo Diana does not equally divide with Apollo, her twin brother, the\nsubstance of the tradition that they jointly represent; but rather is\nthe figure of a person on whom the residue, consisting of properties\nthat the Homeric Apollo could not receive, is bestowed. It is mainly in\nher ancillary relation to Apollo that she should be viewed.\n\nIt will of course be my object to bring out, as clearly and fully as\nI can, that portion of the evidence, which proves the presence of a\nstrong traditive element in the Theomythology of Homer.\n\nBut it is not free from difficulty to determine the best mode of\nproceeding with this view. The traditive part of the materials is not\nseparated by a broad and direct line from the inventive; nor has it\nbeen lodged without admixture in any of the members of the Olympian\nsystem. Like the fables of the East, it has undergone the transforming\naction of the Greek mind, and it is throughout the scheme variously\nmingled and combined with ideas of human manufacture. There is scarcely\nany element of the old revelation that is presented to our view under\nunaltered conditions: scarcely any personage of the divine order, as\nrepresented by the Poet, stands in the same relation of resemblance\nto those primeval traditions, which are to be traced in his figure\nand attributes. The ancient truths are not merely imperfect; they\nare dislocated, and, with heavy waste of material in the process,\nafterwards recast.\n\nOn account of this bewildering diversity, it will, I conceive, be most\nconducive to my purpose if I commence the inquiry with those deities in\nwhom the propositions I maintain are best represented: for the present\nputting aside others, in whom the representation of tradition, either\nfrom the overpowering presence of other elements, or from the general\ninsignificance of the character, is less effective.\n\nI have spoken, thus far, of the ancient traditions, as they are\ndelivered either in the ancient or in the more recent books of the\nBible. And I hope it will not be thought to savour of mere paradox,\nif the result of my search into the text of Homer shall be to exhibit\nthe religion of the Greeks, in the heroic age, as possessed of more\nresemblances to a primitive revelation, than those religions of the\nEast from which they must have borrowed largely, and which we presume\nto have stood between them and the fountain-head.\n\nWe have doubtless to consider the Greeks, as to their religion, in\nthree capacities: first, as receivers of the remains of pristine\ntradition; secondly, as having imported, along with it, from abroad\nthe depraved forms of human fable; thirdly, as themselves powerful\ninventors, working upon and adding to both descriptions of material.\nBut, before we conclude that the religion of Homer must needs be\nfarther from that of the patriarchs than the religions, as we now read\nthem, of Persia, Assyria, or Egypt, we ought to be assured that the\neditions, so to speak, in which we study those religions, are older\nthan the Homeric poems. Whereas, with respect to the great bulk of the\nrecords at our command, this, I apprehend, is the very reverse of the\ntruth.\n\n~_Messianic traditions of the Hebrews._~\n\nThere is, however, one source to which we may legitimately repair, as\nnext in authority to the Holy Scriptures themselves with respect to the\nforms of primitive tradition: I mean the earliest and most authentic\nsacred literature of the Hebrews. Not that in kind it can resemble\nthe sacred records; but that it is at least likely to indicate what\nwere the earliest forms of development, and the initial tendencies to\ndeviation.\n\nSince that nation became unhappily committed, through its chief\ntraditional authorities, to the repudiation of the Redeemer, a sinister\nbias has operated upon its retrospective, as well as upon its present\nand prospective theology. There are nevertheless three depositaries\nof knowledge from which we may hope to learn what were the views,\nentertained by the ancient Hebrews themselves, with regard to the\nall-absorbing subject of the Messianic traditions.\n\nIn the first place it would appear, from the very nature of the\nprophecies of the Old Testament, that there must, in all likelihood,\nhave existed along with them a system of authoritative contemporary\nexposition, in order that holy men might be enabled to derive from them\nthe consolation and instruction which, apart from their other purposes,\nthey were divinely intended to convey. The highly figurative character\nand frequent obscurity of their language supports, if it does not\nrequire, this belief: and the constant practice, attested by the later\nScriptures, of public explanation of the sacred Books, including the\nProphets, in the synagogues of the Jews, brings it as near as such a\ncase admits to demonstration.\n\nThese expositions of the Sacred Text began, as it appears, to be\ncommitted to writing about the time of the Babylonish captivity;\nwhen the Chaldee tongue became the vernacular, and the old Hebrew\ndisappeared from common use. They were collected in the Paraphrases\nor _Targumim_: and the fragments of the oldest of them, which had\nconsisted of marginal notes, were consolidated into a continuous Targum\nby Onkelos, Jonathan, and others[46].\n\n[46] Sch\u00f6ttgen\u2019s Hor\u00e6 Hebraic\u00e6 et Talmudic\u00e6, vol. ii. De Messi\u00e2, Pr\u00e6f.\nss. 3.4.12. and B. I. c. iii. 2, 3.\n\nApart from the Targumim, the sacred literature of the Jews appears,\nfrom the time of the captivity onwards, to have run in two main\nchannels. One class of teachers and writers rested chiefly on the dry\ntraditionary system condemned by our Saviour in the Gospels, and gave\nless and less heed, as time went on, to the doctrine of Scripture, and\nof their forefathers, concerning the Messiah. In the second century\nafter Christ, this traditionary system was reduced by the Rabbi Jehuda\ninto a volume called the Mischna. And in the sixth or seventh, there\nwas composed a larger work, the Gemara or Talmud, which purported\nin part to comment on the Mischna, and which also presented a more\nextensive and more promiscuous collection of Rabbinical traditions. In\nthe midst of the ordure of this work, says Sch\u00f6ttgen, are to be found\nhere and there certain pearls[47].\n\n[47] Sch\u00f6ttgen Pr\u00e6f. 17. B. I. c. iii. 7, 8. and Rabbin. Lect. B. I. c.\n5.\n\nParallel with this stream of chiefly spurious learning, there was a\nsuccession of pious writers, who both searched the Scriptures, and\nstudied to maintain and propagate the Messianic interpretations of\nthem. Of this succession the Rabbi Simeon Ben Jochai was the great\nornament; and by his disciples was compiled, some sixty years after\nhis death, or about A. D. 170, the work termed the Sohar, which is so\nChristian in its sense, as to have convinced Sch\u00f6ttgen that Simeon\nwas himself a Christian; although, perhaps from not being understood,\nhe was not repudiated by the Jews[48]. Upon this work was founded the\nCabbalistic or mystical learning.\n\n[48] Sch\u00f6ttgen Pr\u00e6f. 12-15. B. I. and II. c. ii. c. iii. 6, 7. Rabb.\nLect. I. c. vi.\n\nFrom these sources may be derived many Messianic ideas and\ninterpretations that were current among the ancient Jews.\n\nOf them I proceed to extract some, from the work of Sch\u00f6ttgen, which\nmay throw light upon the interior system of the Homeric mythology in\nits most important aspects.\n\n1. First and foremost, these traditions appear to bear witness to the\nextraordinary elevation of the Messiah, and they fully recognise his\ntitle to the great Tetragrammaton[49].\n\n[49] Sch\u00f6ttgen, I. i. 1.\n\n2. Next, that introduction of the female principle into the sphere\nof deity, which the Greeks seem to have adopted, after their\nanthropophuistic manner, with a view to the family order among the\nImmortals rather than as a mere metaphysical conception, appears to\nhave its prototype in the Hebrew traditions.\n\nWhen in the Holy Scriptures we find wisdom personified in the feminine,\nwe regard this only as a mode of speech, though as one evidently\ntending to account for the sex of Minerva. But the Jewish traditions\nwent far beyond this[50]. The two natures of our Lord would appear\nfrom the Sohar to have been distinguished under the figure of mother\nand daughter. The Schechina, or \u2018glory of God,\u2019 is of the feminine\ngender: and the relation of His divinity to His humanity is set forth\nunder the figure of a marriage. He is therefore called mother and\nmatron; _temporibus futuris omnes hostes tradentur in manus Matron\u00e6_,\nas Sch\u00f6ttgen renders the Sohar[51].\n\n[50] Sch\u00f6ttgen, I. i. 3.\n\n[51] Ibid. I. i. 12, 18.\n\nThe \u039b\u03cc\u03b3\u03bf\u03c2, or Word of the Lord, is also shown to have been, according\nto the genuine traditions of the Jews, a common expression for the\nMessiah. The relation thus exhibited is in marked analogy with that\nbetween Minerva and Jupiter. This expression of the Targums of Jonathan\nand Onkelos is also in correspondence with the language of Philo, De\nConfusione Linguarum, pp. 255, 267[52].\n\n[52] Ibid. I. i. 2.\n\n4. The ideas of sonship and primogeniture[53] are likewise recognised\namong the titles of the Messiah, according to the Sohar and other\nJewish authorities. We shall have to inquire what Homeric deities there\nare, who, by the distinction between their mode and time of birth, and\nthat of others, may appear to represent these characteristics.\n\n[53] Ib. I. i. 5, 9.\n\n5. The Lord of Hosts, or Zebaoth[54], is another title of the Messiah:\nand we may therefore expect, in any traditionary remnant found\nelsewhere, to discover some strong and commanding martial development.\n\n[54] Ib. I. i. 6.\n\n6. The Messiah was preeminently conceived of by the Jews as being the\nLight[55]. This property is in immediate connection with the idea of\nthe \u039b\u03cc\u03b3\u03bf\u03c2. It cannot fail to be observed, how vividly such an idea\nis represented in the ancient name \u03a6\u03bf\u1fd6\u03b2\u03bf\u03c2 attaching to Apollo, and\nprobably also in that of \u039b\u03c5\u03ba\u03b7\u03b3\u03ad\u03bd\u03b7\u03c2 or \u2018light-born.\u2019 The same idea\nappears in the characteristic epithet \u0393\u03bb\u03b1\u03c5\u03ba\u1ff6\u03c0\u03b9\u03c2, as it is now rightly\ninterpreted, for Minerva. This indeed is not merely an epithet, but it\nforms one of her titles: as in Il. viii. 406.\n\n[55] Ibid. II. Loc. Gen. xiii. xciv. _et alibi_, and I. iii. 10, 23.\n\n7. Again, the name Metatron[56] is one of those properly applied to\nthe Messiah by the Jews. It is supposed to have denoted originally the\nsense of the Latin word _metator_, as having reference to the guiding\nof the Israelites through the desert, and the marking or measuring out\nof their camps there. But it appears to have acquired afterwards the\nsense of Mediator, as implying that the Messiah was the organ, through\nwhom the counsels of the Most High God took effect upon man.\n\n[56] Sch\u00f6ttgen, I. i. 30.\n\n8. The performance of miracles was to be a peculiar mark of the\nMessiah[57].\n\n[57] Ibid. III. Thes. iii. 2.\n\n9. Another was the conquest he was to achieve over Satan, and the\nliberation of the dead from the grave and from the power of hell[58].\n\n[58] Ibid. III. Thes. ii.\n\nWith these great gifts and powers was associated an assemblage of the\nmost winning and endearing moral qualities. \u2018The Schechina (or Messiah)\nis the image of God; as He is gentle, so is She: as He is gracious, so\nis She: as He is mighty, so is She mistress over all nations: He is\ntruth, She is faith: He the prophet, She the prophetess: He the just,\nShe the just: He the king, She the queen: He wise, She wisdom: He\nintelligent, She His intelligence: He the crown, She the diadem[59].\u2019\n\n[59] From the translation of the Sohar by Sommer, in Sch\u00f6ttgen, III.\niii.\n\nThe central idea of these old traditions, as we conceive it, and as it\nstands apart from simple theism, was that of redemption by means of a\nperson clothed in the attributions of humanity, but also invested with\nthe nature and powers of Godhead. Of these two sides of the tradition,\none was exhibited in the Word or Wisdom of God, and the other in the\nSeed of the woman. The first is appropriated to Minerva, and the second\nin the main to Apollo. But as the divine and human could not in the\ntradition long continue completely harmonized and united, so neither\nare they wholly severed. The Wisdom assumes a human configuration: the\nSeed of the woman does not cease to be divine. Now Pallas and Apollo\npreserve, relatively to one another, the place of their prototypes in\nthese two cardinal respects. As the tradition of the \u039b\u03cc\u03b3\u03bf\u03c2 was more\nimmediately divine, so Pallas is more copiously invested with the\nhigher powers, prerogatives, and offices of deity. On the other hand,\nas the deliverance was to be wrought out by the immediate agency of the\nSeed of the woman, so Apollo is more human, and is invested with the\nlarger and more varied assemblage of active endowments, appertaining to\nthe health, welfare, safety, purification, and chastisement of mankind.\nAnd one main reason of the anthropomorphous character of the Greek\nmythology as a whole may very probably be found in the fact, that it\nwas an old and a pure tradition which first gave to men the idea of God\nin human form; the idea which, when once more purified, became that of\nEmmanuel, God with us[60].\n\n[60] Matt. i. 23.\n\nThe personages of the Homeric Theo-mythology who might most reasonably\nbe distinguished as having their basis in tradition are:\n\n 1. Jupiter.\n 2. Minerva.\n 3. Apollo.\n 4. Diana.\n 5. Latona.\n 6. Iris.\n 7. The Titans and kindred traditions.\n 8. \u1f0c\u03c4\u03b7, the Temptress.\n\nOf these, Jupiter is so mixed a conception, and has such important\nrelations to the whole genesis of the Greek mythology, that I place\nhim in another class, and postpone the attempt to give a view of his\nperson and offices until we have gone through the deities, in whom the\ntraditional element is less disguised and also less contaminated.\n\n~_Minerva and Apollo the key._~\n\nAnd of these I commence with Minerva and Apollo, not only because they\nare the most dignified, but also as they are the most characteristic\nrepresentatives of the class, and because it is in their persons that\nwe may best test the amount and quality of the evidence in support of\nthe assertion, that a traditional basis for the religion of the heroic\nage of Greece is still traceable in the poems of Homer.\n\nAgain: it is the effect of this evidence in general both to separate\nMinerva and Apollo by many important differences from the general mass\nof the Olympian deities, and likewise to associate them together in a\ngreat number of common signs and properties.\n\nFor these reasons I shall begin by considering them jointly: and I\nbelieve that in a just comprehension of their position lies the key to\nthe whole Homeric system.\n\nThe lines of description for these two deities will, however, cross and\nrecross one another. Their strong and pervading essential resemblances\ndo not preclude much diversity of detail; and it will not unfrequently\nbe found to happen, either that a given sign, perhaps even one of\npeculiar elevation, and thus of traditive origin, is found in one of\nthe two and not in the other, or else that such a sign is developed\nmore fully in one than in the other, or that the properties of an idea\nare divided between them, as if it was felt that, where the one was,\nthe other must in greater or less measure be.\n\nIt will also be remembered that I do not aim at including, even in this\ndetailed discussion, all that is ascribed by Homer to his Apollo and\nhis Minerva; but only at exhibiting, with such fulness and clearness as\nI can, the distinctive character which on the whole they may be said\nto possess in common, and which I believe to constitute both the most\ncurious, and by far the most important feature of the whole Homeric\nTheo-mythology.\n\nThe signs which appear to mark these great deities of tradition, and\nwhich accompany them with a deliberate consistency through the poems,\npresent themselves with various bearings. Some affect their position in\nthe Olympian system, others their individual characters; and lastly, a\nthird class appertain to their dealings with man, and to their place\nand power in regard to the sphere of nature both animal and inanimate.\nOr more briefly, we may regard them in their Olympian relations, their\npersonal characters, and their terrestrial aspects. We will begin with\nthe first of these three divisions.\n\n~_Their rank in the Olympian system._~\n\n1. Their position in the Olympian system, if we are to adopt the common\ngenesis of the Olympian system, is one of hopeless and unaccountable\nsolecism.\n\nThe gods of Olympus are arranged generally in two generations. If we\nput Apollo and Minerva out of view, then, with the exception of a deity\nlike Dione, introduced to serve as a mere vehicle of maternity, and\ninferior in weight, if not in rank, to her own offspring, the majesty\nand might of Olympus, following the order of nature, are entirely in\nthe elder of these generations, and reside with Jupiter, Juno, Neptune,\nand Aidoneus or Pluto. The greater spheres have been shared among\nthese divinities; nothing, except what is secondary, remains for the\nrest. But the position of Apollo and Minerva is in no respect inferior\nto those of the elder gods, save Jupiter alone: in many points it is\nhigher; it has approximations to the very summit, which they have\nnot; nay, in particular points, Jupiter himself is exceeded. It is so\nentirely different as a whole from that of the other deities of the\nsecond generation, that we must seek out a cause for the difference.\nNow it cannot be made to depend, at least in the case of Apollo, on the\nparamount magnitude of any one of his functions, such as the bow, the\nlyre, or even the gift of divination. It would have been natural to\nanticipate that war, which is the business of Mars, might have made a\ngreater deity than divination, had both started from the same point. In\nlater times, perhaps, it did so; but in Homer the inferiority of Mars\nis immeasurable. Now if we cannot account for this and other cases of\ninferiority to Apollo in the heroic age by function, we must, I think,\nof necessity look for it in difference of origin.\n\n2. Although the relation of Apollo and Minerva to Jupiter places them\nin the generation next to his, (all the Homeric divinities alike are\nsubject to the condition of being conceived to have a beginning,) yet\nthere are marked differences in antiquity between these two, and all\nthe other deities who, like them, stand as children to Jupiter: while\nthe simple fact, that they stand as his children, is precisely what the\nancient traditions would have led us to expect, with a difference which\nwe find represented in the respective modes of their derivation from\nhim.\n\nOf the other deities of the same generation, there are some so recent,\nas Greek deities, that their childhood is made matter of record: there\nis not one who bears any mark that will throw him back to the period\nwhen the Pelasgians ruled in Greece, like Jupiter as the father of the\nold Hellic houses and the Dodon\u00e6an worship, or Neptune as the parent\nof Neleus and of Actor; or indeed that in any manner suggests great\nantiquity. But now let us look at Minerva and Apollo. That Minerva was\nborn from the head of Jupiter, is a legend which I apprehend signifies\nthat, in the oldest mythology, she had no mother: that, even if not in\nthe Olympian order, yet in the history of her worship she was prior\nto Juno. She would otherwise have been the daughter of Juno, or of\nsome other mother; and the sole parentage of Jupiter is a proof, that\nthe tradition she represented was in vogue before motherhood among\nthe Immortals was invented. So strictly is this true, that, as the\nconstructive process went on, a mother was found for Minerva under\nthe name of Metis[61]; who was at the same time placed as the oldest\namong the wives of Jupiter. In Homer, whether Tritogeneia is to be\ninterpreted head-born[62] or not, it is indubitable that Minerva has no\nmother named, and is not the child of any known female divinity: and\nthe sole parentage of Jupiter appears to be declared with sufficient\nclearness in the expostulation of Mars to Jupiter[63];\n\n[61] See Hes. Theog. 886-900. Apollod. i. 3, 6.\n\n[62] Hes. Theog. 924.\n\n[63] Il. v. 880.\n\n \u1f10\u03c0\u03b5\u1f76 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1f78\u03c2 \u1f10\u03b3\u03b5\u03af\u03bd\u03b1\u03bf \u03c0\u03b1\u1fd6\u03b4\u2019 \u1f00\u0390\u03b4\u03b7\u03bb\u03bf\u03bd.\n\nThis is the only sense, so far as I can see, that can properly be given\nto the word \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03cc\u03c2.\n\nApollo, on the other hand, is the son of \u039b\u03ae\u03c4\u03c9 or Latona. For her name\nthere appears to be but one satisfactory meaning, and it is this; that\nher origin was before the memory of man, that is, before the period\nwithin which the Greek mythological system had been constructed.\n\nIt cannot fail to be remarked, that the relation between the mythical\norigin of Apollo and that of Minerva exhibit a difference entirely\nanalogous to that found in the traditions which they represent\nrespectively; and which would give to Apollo a mother, but to Minerva\nnone. In both, however, we may here trace a strong resemblance to the\nMessianic traditions of Holy Scripture and of the Jews.\n\n3. These deities have a great variety of functions, of which the\nsecondary forms, or the executive applications, are delegated to\nothers, of less power and pre-eminence, but still also in most cases\nstrictly Olympian gods. These satellite-divinities it may be convenient\nto designate by the name of Secondaries.\n\n~_The Secondaries of Minerva._~\n\nThe Secondaries of Olympus are so important a class, that they deserve,\nas a class, a distinct consideration.\n\nThey are as follows:\n\nFirst, for Minerva, in her great characters as goddess of wisdom, of\nwar, of polity, and of industrial art.\n\nIn the first, Mercury is her Secondary: for both are presiding\ndivinities or patrons of that calculating faculty applied to conduct,\nwhich, on the side of virtue, reads as prudence, and which in its\ndegenerate form is craft (\u03ba\u03ad\u03c1\u03b4\u03b5\u03b1 or \u03ba\u03b5\u03c1\u03b4\u03bf\u03c3\u03cd\u03bd\u03b7).\n\nIn treating the god Mercury, with respect to this capital particular,\nas a secondary of Minerva, I do not mean that he is nothing else:\nbut that the traditions about Hermes were found capable of, and were\nallowed to bear, such a form, that it is impossible to describe fully\nthe function of the one deity without including something that is also\nannexed to the other, or to draw any clear line between them.\n\nIn later times Mercury at Athens was, according to M\u00fcller[64], a\nSecondary also to Apollo, charged with the exoteric and material parts\nof several among his functions. And in Homer it seems probable, that\nhis office with respect to the dead ought to be viewed as ministerial\nto that of Apollo.\n\n[64] M\u00fcller\u2019s Dorians, II. vi. 56.\n\nIn the next of her great offices, as goddess of war, Mars is a\nSecondary to Minerva; and he is absolutely nothing more. It may be\nenough in this place to refer to what will be said of him in the next\nSection.\n\nThe Minerva of polity, the \u03bb\u03b1\u03bf\u03c3\u03c3\u03cc\u03bf\u03c2, \u1f00\u03b3\u03b5\u03bb\u03b5\u03af\u03b7, and \u1f10\u03c1\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9\u03c0\u03c4\u03cc\u03bb\u03b9\u03c2, is\nrepresented by Themis as a Secondary: whose name betokens her character\nas a simple personification of the idea of political and social rights,\nreflected from earth upon the Olympian life.\n\nIn the last of the four functions, Vulcan is her Secondary. It is\ntrue that the traditions do not exactly square. He is something more,\nbecause he is the element of fire, as well as the workman who operates\nby it: and he is also something less, because he has no concern with\ntissues, which fire has no share in creating, and which in Greece,\nbut not in Egypt[65], were exclusively the business of women. But the\nrelation between the two is indisputable: nor is it less plain that\nin that relation he fills, taken generally, the place of Olympian\nworkman, she of a presiding mind operating upon man. And again, she is\nthe goddess of construction; he has relations only with one particular\ndepartment of it.\n\n[65] See the curious passage in the \u0152dipus Coloneus, 336-41.\n\n~_The Secondaries of Apollo._~\n\nNext for Apollo, in his characters, first, of the Healer, and secondly,\nof the Bard, with that of the Seer or Prophet.\n\nIn the first of these he is, so to speak, assisted by a pure Secondary,\nPaieon; who disappears from the later and less refined Greek mythology,\nand is replaced by an \u00c6sculapius, reflected from the purely human\nAsclepius of Homer. Paieon is a simply executive officer, and exercises\nhis gift, or as we should now say practises, exclusively, as does\nVulcan, except on special occasions, for the benefit of the Olympian\ncommunity; while the original possession of the gift, and the power of\ndistributing it, is with Apollo.\n\nThere is a further and more subtle relation between this deity and\nApollo, indicated by the use of the name \u03c0\u03b1\u03b9\u03ae\u03c9\u03bd for the hymn of\nvictory[66]. Whatever be the ground of this usage, it supplies another\npoint, in which Paieon reflects Apollo the god of help, and so far\ntends to exhibit Apollo as also the god of victory. Paieon heals by the\nuse of his hands, like an ordinary surgeon; Apollo without personal\npresence, and without the use of second causes, in answer to prayer[67].\n\n[66] Il. xxii. 391.\n\n[67] Il. xvi. 527-9.\n\nIn the second of his great offices, the Muses are the derivative\ndeities, who conjointly form a Secondary divinity to Apollo.\n\nTheir relation to him, and the combination in themselves of the plural\nwith the singular, are very curious. His immediate concern is with\nthe lyre, theirs with the voice. They sometimes appear as one; for\ninstance, in the first verse of each of the poems: sometimes as many;\nfor instance, in the invocation before the Catalogue. Even their action\nis so combined, that what at one time they do as one, at others they do\nas many. It is the Muses who maim Thamyris: it is the Muse, who greatly\nloves Demodocus, who lays upon him the burden of blindness, but endows\nhim with the gift of song: and again, who instructs and loves the\ntribe of Bards in general[68].\n\n[68] Il. ii. 594, and Od. viii. 63 and 480.\n\nThe Muses are, with Homer, of Olympian rank; but we can hardly deal\nwith them as to many distinct impersonations: or at least we must not\nfollow out that idea to its consequences. And for this reason; they\nwere not in contact with the popular mind, and formed no part of the\npublic religion: they were formations of the Poet for his own purposes,\nwhom he might make and unmake at his will, and the conditions of whose\nexistence he might modify, without being bound to any further degree\nof consistency than might for the occasion answer the purpose of his\nart. We must not, then, ask him whether he really means his Muse to be\none or many, and if many, how many (it is, indeed, only in the second\n\u03bd\u03b5\u03ba\u03c5\u0390\u03b1 that he mentions them as nine[69]), but must simply take them as\na poetical, rather than mythological, impersonation of Vocal Music.\n\n[69] Od. xxiv. 60.\n\nAnd here we at once perceive both the ground of their plurality, and\ntheir ministerial relation to Apollo. The former, probably, lay in the\nnature of harmony, or simultaneous combination of tones, requiring,\nof course, a combination of different voices, to effect what on the\ninstrument is done by different strings. And if it did not spring from,\nit was at least suited to, that succession of alternate parts, which\nwas, as we know, used in Israel even more anciently than in Homer\u2019s\ntime, and which may, though I do not, for one, feel certain that it\nmust, have been signified by the term \u1f00\u03bc\u03b5\u03b9\u03b2\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9, a name clearly\nrelating to part-singing in one sense or another. Their subordinate\nrelation to Apollo is represented in the combination[70] of the voice\nwith the instrument. He, as the Original, remains in possession of\nthe indivisible gift: they assist him in one which is essentially\ndistributive. And as they share in his music, so also in his knowledge:\nbut only in that which relates to the past: with the future they have\nno concern[71]. But as either Minerva or Vulcan can teach a smith, so\neither Apollo or the Muse can inspire a bard[72].\n\n[70] Il. i. 604.\n\n[71] Il. ii. 485.\n\n[72] Od. viii. 488.\n\n~_Argument from the Secondaries._~\n\nSuch then are the Olympian Secondaries. None of them, it will be\nobserved, are properly derivative beings. All of them represent, in\nsome sense, traditions, or imaginations, distinct from those respecting\ntheir principal deity: nor are they in the same kind of subservience to\nthem as the Eilithui\u00e6 to Juno, who have no worship paid them, and are\nof doubtful personality; or as the metal handmaids to Vulcan himself.\nBut they are deities, each of whom singly in a particular province\nadministers a function, which also belongs to a deity of higher\ndignity. And though a difference is clearly discernible in the form of\nthe possession and administration, yet there still remains a clear and\nmanifest duplication, a lapping over of divinities, which is entirely\nat variance with the symmetry that we might reckon upon finding in an\nhomogeneous conception of the Greeks.\n\nThis irregular duplication is kept in some degree out of view, if\nwe set out with the determination to refer the Homeric deities to a\nsingle origin, to make a regular division of duties among them, and to\npare down this, or enlarge that, till we have brought them and their\nsupposed gifts into the requisite order. But as it stands in Homer,\nfree from later admixtures, and from prepossessions of ours, it is\na most curious and significant fact, and raises at once a serious\ninquiry as to its cause.\n\nI submit that it may be referred to the joint operation of two\ncircumstances. First, to the particular form of the early traditions\nthat were incorporated into the invented or Olympian system. Secondly,\nto the principle of economy, or family and social order, reflected back\nfrom the human community upon the divine.\n\nIf the primitive tradition, even when disfigured by the lapse of\ntime, yet on its arrival in Greece still visibly appropriated to one\nsublime person, distinguishable from the supreme God, and femininely\nconceived, the attributes of sovereign wisdom, strength, and skill;\nand to another, in the form of man, the gifts of knowledge, reaching\nbefore and after, and identified in early times with that of Song, as\nwell as that of healing or deliverance from pain and death; then we\ncan understand why it is that, when these great personages take their\nplaces as of right in the popular mythology, they continue to keep hold\non certain great functions, in which their attributes are primarily\ndeveloped.\n\n~_Picture of human society in Olympus._~\n\nBut on the other hand, the divine society must be cast into the form of\nthe human; and this especially must take effect in three great organic\nparticulars. First, by means of the family, which brings the members\nof the body into being: secondly, by political association, involving\nthe necessity of a head, and of a deliberative organ: thirdly, by the\nexistence of certain professions, which by the use of intellectual\ngifts provide for the exigencies of the community. The merely labouring\nclasses, in whose place and idea there is nothing of the governing\nfunction, are naturally without representation, in the configuration of\nthe divine community, as to the forms of their particular employments:\nthough the people at large bear a rude analogy to the mass of inferior\ndeities not included in the ordinary meeting of the gods, yet summoned\nto the great Chapter or Parliament. Olympus must, in short, have its\n\u03b4\u03b7\u03bc\u03b9\u03cc\u03b5\u03c1\u03b3\u03bf\u03b9.\n\nWho these were for an ordinary Greek community like that of Ithaca, we\nlearn from the speech of Eum\u00e6us[73].\n\n[73] Od. xvii. 383.\n\n \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03bf\u1f33 \u03b4\u03b7\u03bc\u03b9\u03bf\u03b5\u03c1\u03b3\u03bf\u1f76 \u1f14\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd,\n \u03bc\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03b9\u03bd, \u1f22 \u1f30\u03b7\u03c4\u1fc6\u03c1\u03b1 \u03ba\u03b1\u03ba\u1ff6\u03bd, \u1f22 \u03c4\u03ad\u03ba\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd\u03b1 \u03b4\u03bf\u03cd\u03c1\u03c9\u03bd,\n \u1f22 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b8\u03ad\u03c3\u03c0\u03b9\u03bd \u1f00\u03bf\u03b9\u03b4\u03cc\u03bd.\n\nHere, indeed, there is no representation of the principle of gain\nor commerce, which does not appear as yet to have formed a class in\nGreece, though the Ithacans habitually sacrificed to Mercury[74].\nBut that formation was on the way; for the class was already known,\ndoubtless as a Ph\u0153nician one, under the name of \u03c0\u03c1\u03b7\u03ba\u03c4\u1fc6\u03c1\u03b5\u03c2, men of\nbusiness, apt to degenerate into \u03c4\u03c1\u03c9\u03ba\u03c4\u03b1\u1f76, or sharpers. Nor was\nthere a class of soldiers; but every citizen became a soldier upon\noccasion. With these additions, it is curious to observe how faithfully\nthe Olympian copy is modelled upon the human original. The five\nprofessions, or demioergic functions, are,\n\n[74] Od. xiv. 435, and xvi. 471.\n\n 1. \u03bc\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03b9\u03c2, the seer.\n 2. \u1f30\u03ae\u03c4\u03b7\u03c1 \u03ba\u03b1\u03ba\u1ff6\u03bd, the surgeon.\n 3. \u03c4\u03ad\u03ba\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd \u03b4\u03bf\u03cd\u03c1\u03c9\u03bd, the skilled artificer.\n 4. \u1f00\u03bf\u03b9\u03b4\u1f78\u03c2, the bard.\n 5. \u03c0\u03c1\u03ae\u03ba\u03c4\u03b7\u03c1, the man of business or merchant.\n\nNow all these were actually represented in Apollo and Minerva; the\nfirst, second, and fourth by Apollo, the third and fifth by Minerva,\nwho was also the highest type of war. But this union of several\nhuman professions in one divine person would have been fatal to\nthe fidelity and effectiveness of the Olympian picture, to which a\ndivision of labour, analogous to the division existing in actual\nsociety, was essential. Therefore the accumulation was to be reduced.\nAnd in order to make this practicable, there were distinct traditions\nready, on which could be laid the superfluous or most easily separable\nattributes of Apollo and Minerva. So Apollo keeps unimpaired his gift\nof foreknowledge, and Minerva hers of sublime wisdom. With these no one\nis permitted to interfere. But the \u1f30\u03ae\u03c4\u03b7\u03c1 is represented in Paieon: the\n\u03c4\u03ad\u03ba\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd (into Olympus however no inferior material enters, and all work\nis evidently in metal, of which the celestial Smith[75] constructs the\nbuildings themselves, that on earth would be made of wood) is exhibited\nin Vulcan: the \u1f00\u03bf\u03b9\u03b4\u1f78\u03c2 in the Muses, the \u03c0\u03c1\u03ae\u03ba\u03c4\u03b7\u03c1 in Mercury, and the man\nof war in Mars.\n\n[75] Il. xv. 309.\n\n~_Dignity and precedence of Minerva._~\n\n3. Though Minerva cannot contest with Juno the honour of mere\nprecedence in the Olympian court, yet, as regards substantial dignity,\nshe by no means yields even to the queen of heaven. Sometimes,\nundoubtedly, when she moves in the interest of the Greeks, it is upon\nthe suggestion of Juno made to herself, as in Il. i. 195; or through\nJupiter, as in Il. iv. 64. But it is probable that this should be\nreferred, not to greater eminence or authority, but simply to the more\nintensely and more narrowly Hellenized character of Juno. There are, at\nany rate, beyond all doubt, some arrangements adopted by the poet, with\nthe special intent, to all appearance, of indicating a full equality,\nif not an actual pre-eminence, for Minerva. Twice the two goddesses\ndescend together from Olympus to the field of battle. Both times it\nis in the chariot of Juno. Now Iris, as on one occasion, at least,\nshe acts at Juno\u2019s bidding, and as on another we find her unyoking the\nchariot of Mars, might with propriety have been employed to discharge\nthis function at a moment when the two greatest goddesses are about\nto set out together. It is not so, however. Juno herself yokes the\nhorses, and also plays the part of driver, while Minerva mounts as the\nwarrior beside her[76]. To be the charioteer is generally, though not\nquite invariably, the note of the inferior. But irrespectively of this\nofficial distinction, Minerva with her \u00c6gis is the conspicuous, and\nJuno evidently the subordinate figure in the group.\n\n[76] Il. v. 745-8.\n\nIn the Odyssey, again, we have a most striking indication of the\nessential superiority of Minerva to the great and powerful Neptune.\nAttending, in the disguise of a human form, the sacrifice of Nestor at\nPylos to his divine ancestor, she does not scruple, on the invitation\nof the young prince Pisistratus, to offer prayer to that deity, in the\ncapacity of a courteous guest and a religious Greek. Her petitions\nare for Nestor, for his family, for his subjects, and for the errand\non which she, with Telemachus, was engaged. All are included in the\ngeneral words with which she concludes[77]:\n\n[77] Od. iii. 55-62. Vide Nitzsch in loc.\n\n \u03bc\u03b7\u03b4\u1f72 \u03bc\u03b5\u03b3\u03ae\u03c1\u1fc3\u03c2\n \u1f21\u03bc\u1fd6\u03bd \u03b5\u1f50\u03c7\u03bf\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9\u03c3\u03b9 \u03c4\u03b5\u03bb\u03b5\u03c5\u03c4\u1fc6\u03c3\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c4\u03ac\u03b4\u03b5 \u1f14\u03c1\u03b3\u03b1.\n\nBut at the close the poet goes on to declare that what she thus sought\nin prayer from her uncle Neptune, she forthwith accomplished herself:\n\n \u1f63\u03c2 \u1f04\u03c1\u2019 \u1f14\u03c0\u03b5\u03b9\u03c4\u2019 \u1f20\u03c1\u1fb6\u03c4\u03bf, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1f74 \u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1 \u03c4\u03b5\u03bb\u03b5\u03cd\u03c4\u03b1.\n\nYet once more. The same train of ideas, which explains how Olympus\nis fitted with a set of Secondaries, also shows to us why these\nSecondaries have only the lower or subsidiary form of their several\ngifts. It is because these gifts were already in the possession\nof higher personages, before the introduction of the more recent\ntraditions represented by the Secondaries: traditions, of which the\nwhole, (except that of Paieon, who is not worshipped at all, and exists\nonly in and for Olympus,) bear upon them, as received in Greece, the\nmarks of modernism[78]. They naturally submit to the conditions,\nanterior to themselves, of the hierarchy into which they are\nintroduced. But, on the one hand, their existence, together with the\npeculiar relation of their work and attributes, rather than themselves,\nto the great deities of tradition, Apollo and Minerva, constitutes\nof itself a strong argument for the separate and more ancient origin\nof those divinities. On the other hand, they bear powerful testimony\nto the force of that principle, which reflected on the Ach\u00e6an heaven\nthe experience of earth. For there is not a single dignified and\nintellectual occupation known to and in use among the Hellenic tribes,\nproperly so called, which has not, as far as may be, counterpart on\nOlympus. Not even the priesthood is a real exception; especially if\nI am right in believing it to be Pelasgian, and not yet to have been\nadopted in the time of Homer as one of the Hellenic institutions. But,\neven if it had been so adopted, it could not, from the nature of the\ncase, have been carried into the Olympian system, since there were no\nbeings above themselves to whom the gods could offer sacrifice, and\nsince, according to the depraved idea of it which had begun to prevail,\nin offering it they would have parted with something that was of value\nto themselves.\n\n[78] See the accounts of the several deities, in Sect. iii.\n\nWe do not hear a great deal respecting mere ceremonial among the\nOlympian divinities. To Jupiter, however, and to Juno, is awarded the\nconspicuous honour, that, when either of them enters the assembled\nCourt, all the other deities rise up[79]. It is plain that Homer\nincluded in the picture before his mental eye ideas relating to that\nexternal order which we term precedence: and it may be shown, that\nMinerva had the precedence over the other gods, or what we should term\nthe seat of honour; that place which was occupied, in the human family,\nby the eldest son. Juno we must presume, as the reflection of Jupiter,\nwould occupy the place of the mother.\n\n[79] Il. i. 533. xv. 85.\n\nWhen Thetis is summoned to Olympus in the Twenty-fourth Iliad, she\nreceives on her arrival the honours of a guest, in which is included\nthis distinguished place beside the chief person, and it is Minerva who\nyields it up to her;\n\n \u1f21 \u03b4\u2019 \u1f04\u03c1\u03b1 \u03c0\u1f70\u03c1 \u0394\u03b9\u1fd2 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c4\u03c1\u1f76 \u03ba\u03b1\u03b8\u03ad\u03b6\u03b5\u03c4\u03bf, \u03b5\u1f36\u03be\u03b5 \u03b4\u2019 \u1f08\u03b8\u03ae\u03bd\u03b7[80].\n\n[80] Il. xxiv. 100.\n\nAn exactly similar proceeding is recorded in the Third Odyssey. When\nTelemachus and the pseudo-Mentor approach the banquet of Nestor,\nPisistratus, the youngest son, first goes to greet them, and then\nplaces them in the seat of honour, between his father and his eldest\nbrother[81],\n\n[81] Od. iii. 39.\n\n \u03c0\u03ac\u03c1 \u03c4\u03b5 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03b3\u03bd\u03ae\u03c4\u1ff3 \u0398\u03c1\u03b1\u03c3\u03c5\u03bc\u03ae\u03b4\u03b5\u03ca \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c4\u03ad\u03c1\u03b9 \u1fa7\u00b7\n\nthat is, by the side of Nestor; Thrasymedes giving way to make room\nfor them, and remaining on the other side of them, like Minerva in the\nTwenty-Fourth Iliad.\n\n~_Of Apollo._~\n\nHomer has left no express record on this particular point with\nreference to Apollo. In the ancient Hymn, however, a part of which\nis quoted by Thucydides, this honour is distinctly assigned to that\ndivinity in these fine lines[82]:\n\n[82] Hymn. ad Apoll. 2-4.\n\n \u1f45\u03bd \u03c4\u03b5 \u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u1f76 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u1f70 \u03b4\u1ff6\u03bc\u03b1 \u0394\u03b9\u1f78\u03c2 \u03c4\u03c1\u03bf\u03bc\u03ad\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u1f30\u03cc\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u00b7\n \u03ba\u03b1\u03af \u1fe5\u03ac\u03c4\u2019 \u1f00\u03bd\u03b1\u0390\u03c3\u03c3\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03c3\u03c7\u03ad\u03b4\u03bf\u03bd \u1f10\u03c1\u03c7\u03bf\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9\u03bf\n \u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 \u1f00\u03c6\u2019 \u1f11\u03b4\u03c1\u03ac\u03c9\u03bd, \u1f45\u03c4\u03b5 \u03c6\u03b1\u03af\u03b4\u03b9\u03bc\u03b1 \u03c4\u03cc\u03be\u03b1 \u03c4\u03b9\u03c4\u03b1\u03af\u03bd\u03b5\u03b9.\n\n~_Intimacy of their relations with Jupiter._~\n\n4. More remarkable and important, however, than this precedence of\nMinerva in the Olympian Court, are the relations of will and affection\nbetween Jupiter and these two, as compared with his other children.\n\nTo these, and these only, does he ever use any term of positive\nendearment. Minerva is twice called \u03c6\u03af\u03bb\u03bf\u03bd \u03c4\u03ad\u03ba\u03bf\u03c2, and Apollo is twice\naddressed in the vocative as \u03c6\u03af\u03bb\u03b5 \u03a6\u03bf\u1fd6\u03b2\u03b5[83]. This is the more worthy of\nnote, because it might have been expected that other divinities rather\nthan these, for example, Mercury on account of his youth, or Venus for\nher beauty and blandishments, would have been the preferable objects of\nthese phrases. But there is nothing of the sort in the case of Mercury,\nand in that of Venus, the nearest approach is \u03c4\u03ad\u03ba\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd \u1f10\u03bc\u03cc\u03bd (Il. v. 428).\nShe is only addressed as \u03c6\u03af\u03bb\u03bf\u03bd \u03c4\u03ad\u03ba\u03bf\u03c2 by Juno, who was not her mother,\nand this at a moment when it was convenient to pass a gross deception\nupon her[84].\n\n[83] Il. viii. 40. xxii. 183. and Il. xv. 221. xvi. 667.\n\n[84] Il. xiv.\n\nMinerva is, indeed, sufficiently forward to place herself in opposition\nto Jupiter for purposes of her own: she does not exhibit the principle\nof full obedience, but then she is strong in the self-consciousness\nof right as well as in power. She goes all lengths in thwarting\nJupiter in the Iliad, excites his wrath, and draws down on herself\nhis menaces[85]. But her general aim is to give effect to a design\nso unequivocally approved in Olympus, that Jupiter himself has been\nconstrained to give way to it; namely, the vindication of justice by\nthe fall of Troy. And consequently, upon the slightest indication from\nher of a conciliatory disposition, Jupiter shows himself appeased, and\nseems to regret his own rigour[86].\n\n[85] Il. viii. 401-6 and 454-6.\n\n[86] Il. viii. 30-40.\n\nThe case of Apollo stands alone as an exhibition of entire harmony with\nthe will of Jupiter. On no single occasion does he act or speak in a\ndifferent sense from that of his parent. In the Olympian Council of the\nTwenty-Fourth Iliad, having to make a strong remonstrance respecting\nthe dishonoured condition of the body of Hector, he is careful to\naddress it not to Jupiter, but to the body of gods present[87];\n\n[87] Il. xxiv. 33.\n\n \u03c3\u03c7\u03ad\u03c4\u03bb\u03b9\u03bf\u03af \u1f10\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5, \u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u1f76, \u03b4\u03b7\u03bb\u03ae\u03bc\u03bf\u03bd\u03b5\u03c2.\n\nAnd consequently, when Juno follows with a sharp invective aimed at\nhim, Jupiter immediately checks her[88], and gives effect to the\ncounsel of Apollo. Generally throughout the poem he is the organ\nof Jupiter for all that is about to be effected on behalf of Troy,\nbut never for any purpose which is to prove abortive. When, under\nthe divine decree, Hector is about to be slain by Achilles, Apollo\nwithdraws from the doomed warrior, and Minerva joins the favoured one.\n\n[88] Ibid. 65.\n\nThis union of the will of Apollo with that of Jupiter must not be\nlightly passed by. It is in truth one of the very strongest arguments\nto show the presence of traditionary elements in this great conception.\nFor wide as is the prevalence of the law of discord upon earth, that\nevil is hardly less rife in Olympus. Not only do menaces form the\nsupreme sanction by which in many cases its government is carried\non, but every kind of personal grudge and quarrel abounds, as well\nas a general tendency to intrigue and insubordination. So that it\ndoes not sound strange to us, when Jupiter uses to his son Mars what\nnevertheless upon examination we must allow to be an astonishing\nexpression;\n\n \u1f14\u03c7\u03b8\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u03b4\u03ad \u03bc\u03bf\u03af \u1f10\u03c3\u03c3\u03b9 \u03b8\u03b5\u1ff6\u03bd, \u03bf\u1f33 \u1f4c\u03bb\u03c5\u03bc\u03c0\u03bf\u03bd \u1f14\u03c7\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd[89].\n\n[89] Il. v. 890.\n\nAmong all the rest of the prominent divinities, there is no single\ninstance of a positive harmony of will pervading the whole course of\naction, either as between any one of them and Jupiter, or as among\nthemselves. I therefore take it as a very strong indication that\nmaterials were brought for this tradition, so different in kind from\nwhat Olympus yielded, out of a source higher than Olympus.\n\n5. In the point next to be stated Apollo is chiefly concerned.\n\n~_Apollo the deliverer of heaven._~\n\nIt is the remarkable tradition, which makes that god the defender and\ndeliverer of heaven and the other Immortals.\n\nOtus and Ephialtes, twin grandchildren of Neptune, and the most huge\nin stature of all beings reared on earth, as also the most beautiful\nafter Orion, threaten even in their boyhood war against heaven, and\npropose to scale it by piling the mountains. And this they would have\naccomplished, had they attained to their proper age and full size\n(\u1f25\u03b2\u03b7): but Apollo destroyed them first[90].\n\n[90] Od. xi. 307-20.\n\nThis is a tradition which cannot properly belong to Greek invention:\nfor what has Apollo to do, when so regarded, either with the wielding\nof vast physical force, or with laying it prostrate? Neither as\nphysician, harper, poet, prophet, archer, nor angel of Death, does\nhe appear to have been the person who would have been chosen for\nthis purpose. The thunderbolt of Jupiter is the weapon we should\nhave expected to be employed in preference, or the mighty spear and\nterrifying \u00c6gis of Minerva, or even the brute bulk of Mars. The gentle\ndeath, which it was Apollo\u2019s mythological office to bring about, is\ntotally unsuited to the subject.\n\nIt is only when we expand that mild conception into the character\nof the Avenger, partially exhibited in the First Iliad, that Apollo\nbecomes the fitting destroyer of Otus and Ephialtes. This tradition in\naftertimes was apparently combined with a larger one relating to the\nGiants, at which Homer darkly glances[91].\n\n[91] Od. vii. 56, 60.\n\nOvid makes Jupiter his own defender[92]: a fine passage in Horace\nintroduces many divine combatants, but retains a rather prominent place\nfor Apollo, while it gives another to Minerva; and these two with\nJupiter appear to bear the brunt of the battle[93].\n\n[92] Ov. Met. i. 151.\n\n[93] Hor. Od. III. iv. 42-64.\n\nIt admits of but one satisfactory explanation, namely that, coming from\na source higher than the mythology, it does not, so to speak, wear the\nlivery of that system: and that this performance is assigned to Apollo,\neither because he represented the Person to whom all power was to\nbelong in heaven and earth both for destruction and for deliverance, or\nelse because tradition actually assigned to that same Person the glory\nof having already overcome a rebellion of powerful beings against the\nMost High.\n\nThere is no precise parallel supplied by Homer, in the case of\nMinerva, to the tradition which makes Apollo the destroyer of the\nrebels. But though not the defender of the divine order at large, she\nis the champion of Hercules, the favourite son of Jupiter, under\ncircumstances when apparently, but for her, his divinity would have\nbeen at fault. \u2018What!\u2019 says Minerva, when thwarted by her parent in\nthe Eighth Iliad, \u2018has he forgotten how many times I saved his son in\nthe labours imposed upon him by Eurystheus? Had I, at the time when\nHercules was sent by him to fetch Cerberus out of the under-world,\nknown how he would behave now, never should he have escaped the dread\nstreams of Styx[94].\u2019 We are left to infer from this curious legend\nthat Minerva had a power, available in the world below, which tradition\ndid not assign to Jupiter, and that he found her use of it on this\noccasion absolutely indispensable for the fulfilment of his wishes,\neven in regard to a favourite son.\n\n[94] Il. viii. 362-9; and also Od. xi. 623-6.\n\nEach of these functions, assigned to Apollo and Minerva respectively,\nrecalls to memory those Jewish traditions, which set forth the direct\nand especial power of the Messiah over the fallen angels and over the\ngrave.\n\n~_These deities are never foiled by others._~\n\n6. The last characteristic of the two peculiarly traditive deities\nwhich will be mentioned under this head is, that they are never foiled,\ndefeated, or outwitted by any other of the gods. In no single case has\nMinerva, where she is in action, to encounter any one of these forms\nof dishonour: nor has Apollo, in any instance except only when he is\npitted against Minerva. Of this class there are two cases: one, when\nthe Greeks are losing ground[95], and he is made to arrange with her\nfor stopping the general conflict, by prompting the personal challenge\nfrom Hector in its stead: a matter which was certain to end to the\ncredit of the Greeks. The other is in the Doloneia[96], when he causes\nan alarm just in time to find that Diomed and Ulysses, guided by\nMinerva, have accomplished the bloody purpose of their errand. Among\nmen, as among gods, Minerva touches nothing except what is destined to\ntriumph. She is not, therefore, invoked by the doomed Patroclus: and\nshe renders him no aid.\n\n[95] Id. vii. 20.\n\n[96] Il. x. 515.\n\nTo appreciate the importance of this consideration, we must bear in\nmind that there is no one of the purely invented deities, who is not\nat one time or another subject in some form to disparagement. Mars is\nworsted by Minerva, through Diomed, as well as directly subject to her\ncontrol; Vulcan is laughed at by the gods in general; Mercury dares not\nencounter Latona; Ceres sees her lover slain by Jupiter; Venus is not\nonly smitten to the ground by Minerva, but beaten by Diomed without his\nhaving any divine aid to strengthen him, and befooled by Juno; Juno\noutwits Jupiter himself; but Juno also, together with Aides, is wounded\nsorely by Hercules; and it is also recorded of her, that she had been\nsubjected by her husband to the ignominious punishment of hanging in\nchains, with an anvil at each foot[97].\n\n[97] Il. xv. 18.\n\nNeptune is no where subjected to personal ignominy; but he is baffled\nby Laomedon, and is also unable to avenge effectually the mutilation\nof his son Polyphemus. Nay, Jupiter himself, besides being deceived by\nJuno, was menaced by a formidable combination, who were about to put\nhim in fetters, when Briareus came to his aid[98].\n\n[98] Il. i. 398-406.\n\nOn the other hand, Apollo arrests with sudden shock the victorious\ncareer of Diomed[99], and again of Patroclus[100]. And in the destinies\nof Ulysses, Minerva, who protects him, effectually, though after a\nstruggle, prevails against Neptune, who does his uttermost against him.\nIn order, however, justly to estimate the weight of this consideration,\nwe must not omit to notice, that it has cost Homer an elaborate, and\nwhat we might otherwise call a far-fetched contrivance[101], to save\nApollo from dishonour in the Theomachy. He is there matched against\nNeptune, a deity of rank equal to that of Jupiter, and in force\ninferior to his elder brother alone. It was therefore inadmissible\nthat such a god should be subjected to defeat. But if Apollo were no\nmore than one of the ordinary deities of invention, no similar reason\ncould apply to him. He was junior: he was a son of Jupiter, like Mars\nor Mercury: he was on the losing side, that of the Trojans: why should\nhe not, like Mars, be well thrashed by his antagonist? It could only\nbe, I think, in consequence of some broad line of demarcation between\nthem: some severance which determines their characters and positions as\nradically and fundamentally, and not by mere accident, divided.\n\n[99] Il. v. 440.\n\n[100] Il. xvi. 707.\n\n[101] Il. xxi. 435.\n\nIf we consider the mere birth of these two deities according to the\nOlympian order, every consideration derived from that source would tend\nto assign to Mars a higher place than Apollo. His function was more\ncommanding: for in an age of turbulence, and among a people given alike\nto freebooting and to open war, what pacific office could compete,\nabstractedly, with that of the god of arms? Again, Mars is the son of\nJuno, who is the eldest daughter of Saturn, the original and principal\nwife of Jupiter, the acknowledged queen of Olympus: the coequal in\nbirth of the great trine brotherhood, and second in power to none\nbut Jupiter himself. Why should the child of Latona be placed so far\nabove the child of one so much his superior in birth, according to the\nmythological order? Why is his position so different from that enjoyed\nby the child of Dione, or the child of Ceres?\n\nBut so studiously does Homer cherish the dignity of Apollo, that he\ndoes not even throw on him the burden of taking the initiative in\nproposing the plan by which it is to be saved. This is managed with\ngreat care and art. \u2018Let us two fight,\u2019 says Neptune, \u2018but do you\nbegin, as I am the older, and know better.\u2019 And then, by bringing up\ntheir common grudge against Laomedon, he proceeds to show of what\nabsurdity Apollo would be guilty if he were to follow the ironical\nadvice, and thus makes it easy, indeed inevitable, for him to echo the\nsentiment, and say, let us leave them, hapless mortals, to themselves.\n\nWith this we may compare two other arrangements conceived in the same\nspirit. In the Fifteenth Iliad, Jupiter takes care that the mission\nof Apollo to assist the Trojans shall only begin when Neptune, the\nformidable friend of the Greeks, has already quitted the field of\nbattle[102]. And in the Fifth Odyssey, it is contrived that only when\nNeptune withdraws from the persecution of Ulysses, then at length\nMinerva shall instantly appear to resume her charge over him[103].\n\n[102] Il. xv. 218-20.\n\n[103] Od. v. 380-2.\n\nWhen we come to discuss the position of Latona, both generally and in\nthe Theomachy, further force will, I think, be added to the foregoing\nconsiderations. On the other hand, I admit that the legend of Apollo\nwith Laomedon, which represents that he and Neptune were deceived by\nthat king, is not, so far as I see, explained in any manner which\nshould place it in entire harmony with the general rule we have been\nconsidering, unless we may consider that he had his revenge in the\nopportunity afforded him by the Theomachy of refusing to fight for\nTroy. But this is a case of treatment by a mortal, not by a god; and it\nbelongs to a different order.\n\nI now proceed to touch upon the pre-eminence of Minerva and Apollo in\npoints connected with their terrestrial relations, and with what may be\ntermed the physical conditions of their existence.\n\n1. It is quite clear from Homer, that these two deities received from\nmen a special and peculiar honour: though it may be open to question,\nwhether this retained only the indeterminate form of a sentiment, or\nwhether it was embodied in some fact or usage.\n\nPallas and Apollo have the exclusive distinction of being invoked in\nconjunction with Jupiter, in the remarkable line\n\n \u0391\u1f32 \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1, \u0396\u03b5\u1fe6 \u03c4\u03b5 \u03c0\u03ac\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f08\u03b8\u03b7\u03bd\u03b1\u03af\u03b7 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f0c\u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03bb\u03bf\u03bd.\n\nThis verse meets us, not upon occasions having reference to any\npeculiar rite or function, but simply when the speaker desires to\ngive utterance with a peculiar solemnity or emphasis to some strong\nand paramount desire. Thus Agamemnon wishes, with this adjuration,\nthat he had ten such counsellors as Nestor[104]: and again, that all\nhis warriors had the same activity of spirit as the two Ajaxes[105].\nNestor with these words wishes himself young again[106]: as does old\nLaertes[107]. Achilles prays in this form, when exasperated, for\nthe destruction of Greeks and Trojans alike[108]: Menelaus for the\nappearance of Ulysses among the Suitors[109]; Alcinous thus expresses\nthe wish that Ulysses could be the husband of Nausicaa[110]: and\nlastly, Telemachus, that the Suitors were in a worse condition than the\ndisabled Irus[111].\n\n[104] Il. ii. 371.\n\n[105] iv. 288.\n\n[106] vii. 132.\n\n[107] Od. xxiv. 376.\n\n[108] Il. xvi. 97.\n\n[109] Od. iv. 341, and xvii. 132.\n\n[110] Od. vii. 311.\n\n[111] Od. xviii. 235.\n\n~_The Trine Invocation._~\n\nThe expression never is heard from the mouth of any Trojan; for Homer,\non whatever account, rarely allows them the use of the same formul\u00e6\nwith the Greeks. But the whole substance of it is contained, and in a\nshape even more restrictive, in the line twice spoken by Hector,\n\n \u03a4\u03b9\u03bf\u03af\u03bc\u03b7\u03bd \u03b4\u2019, \u1f61\u03c2 \u03c4\u03b9\u03ad\u03c4\u2019 \u1f08\u03b8\u03b7\u03bd\u03b1\u03af\u03b7 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u0391\u03c0\u03cc\u03bb\u03bb\u03c9\u03bd.\n\nThis language is indeed so pointed, that it suggests the question,\nwhether there must not have been some peculiar form of external honour,\nwhich in the Heroic age was rendered to these deities, and not to\nothers.\n\nAnd, singularly enough, of the temples of the Homeric poems, all\nthat we can point out as unequivocally named, and in existence, are\ntemples either to Apollo or to Pallas. But the phrases may also\nhave pointed towards others of their very numerous distinctions. I\ndo not, accordingly, venture to assert that this actually was the\nexclusive honour of the two deities; but there is nothing absurd in\nthe supposition that it may have been so. It would not have been\ninconsistent with a belief in Jupiter as the highest god, that those,\nwho were believed to be in a peculiar sense his ministers and organs\nfor the government of the world, should either have received at the\nhands of mankind a larger share of the substantial tributes of worship\nthan he did, or should have enjoyed it under a peculiar form and\nconditions.\n\n~_Their worship universal._~\n\n2. It would appear to be indubitable, that Apollo and Minerva were\nobjects not of partial but of universal worship, within the sphere of\nthe knowledge of Homer.\n\nEven without examination of details, the proof of this proposition\nmight rest upon their relative positions in regard to the two parties\nof Greeks and Trojans. Minerva, the great Hellenizing deity, is the\nobject of the supplicatory procession of Trojan women in the Sixth\nBook. She is the peculiar patroness at once of the highly Pelasgian\nAttica[112], and of the characteristic type of Hellenic character\nrepresented in Ulysses. On the other hand, Apollo, the one really\neffective champion of the Trojans, is acknowledged by every Greek\nchieftain, except Agamemnon, at the very outset of the poem[113].\nAgamemnon himself has only been misled by his own avarice and passion,\nand he shortly sends a solemn mission to appease the offended\ndivinity[114].\n\n[112] Il. ii. 546.\n\n[113] Il. i. 22.\n\n[114] Ibid. iv. 30.\n\nSetting aside the case of Jupiter, who stands on a different level,\nthere is nothing attaching to the other deities of the War, which\nat all resembles the position of command enjoyed in common by these\ntwo, both among their friends, and with those against whom they are\ncontending. There is not even a difference of degree to be traced\nbetween the reverence paid them on the one side, and on the other.\n\nWhen we turn to particulars, we find that Minerva has a temple in Troy,\na temple in Athens, a sacred grove in Scheria. She is worshipped by\nNestor on the sea-shore at Pylos, and, near the Minyeius; by Telemachus\nin Ithaca; by Ulysses and Diomed in the Greek camp. She accompanies\nUlysses every where, while he is within the circle of the Greek\ntraditions; only refrains of her own free will from going beyond it;\nand rejoins him when, near Scheria, he has at length again touched upon\nthe outermost border of the Greek world.\n\nThere is no deity, without excepting even Jupiter, with respect to whom\nwe have such ample evidence in the poems of the development of his\nworship in positive and permanent institutions, as is given in the case\nof Apollo. He has a priest at Chryse, a temple in Troy, a priest and\ngrove at Ismarus in Thrace, a grove and festivals in Ithaca, oracles at\nDelos and at Delphi.\n\nBesides these positive institutions, there are in Homer innumerable\nmarks of his influence. He worked for Laomedon, he is worshipped at\nCille; the name of Lycia seems to have been probably derived from him\nand his attributes; the Seers, whom he endows with vision, are found\nin Peloponnesus, and even among the Cyclops; he feeds the horses of\nAdmetus either in Pieria or in Pher\u00e6, claims the services of Alcyone,\nthe daughter of Marpessa, in \u00c6tolia, and slays the children of Niobe\nnear mount Sipylus. So far as the Homeric signs go, they would lead\nus to suppose that he was regarded by the Poet as a deity no less\nuniversal than that Scourge of Death, to which he stands in such a\nclose and solemn relation.\n\nWith the exception of Jupiter, there is no other deity of whom we\ncan so confidently assert that he receives an universal worship:\nand Neptune is the only other, with Minerva, in regard to whom the\nindications of the poems render it probable. Of him we may infer it,\nfrom his appearing to be known or to act at places so widely separated\nby distance; on the Solyman mountains, in Troas under Laomedon, in\nGreece near the Enipeus, in the land of the Cyclops, in the sea far\nnorth of Ph\u00e6acia. But this is entirely owing to the wide extent of the\n\u03b8\u03ac\u03bb\u03b1\u03c3\u03c3\u03b1, his portion of the great kingdom of external Nature, which,\nbeing as broad as the Ph\u0153nician traditions of the Odyssey, at once\ngives him a place in them. It is clearly not due to any thing more\ndivine in the conception of him, for he carries many chief notes of\nlimitation in common with the divinities of pure invention.\n\nThe wide extension of the class of Seers may of itself be taken as a\nproof of the equally wide recognition of the influence of Apollo: for\nhe it was who made Polypheides[115] to be first of that order, on the\ndeath of Amphiaraus. Now these Seers appear to have been found every\nwhere, under the form either of the \u03bc\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03b9\u03c2, or of the \u03bf\u1f30\u03c9\u03bd\u03af\u03c3\u03c4\u03b7\u03c2. Not in\nGreece only and in Troas proper; but in Percote, among the Mysians, and\neven among the Cyclops in the Outer Zone[116].\n\n[115] Od. xv. 252.\n\n[116] Il. ii. 831, 859. and Od. ix. 508.\n\n~_Not localized as to abode._~\n\n3. The next distinction I shall note in the traditive deities is,\nthat they are confined to no one spot or region for their abode; a\nlimitation, which is imposed, either more or less, upon every other\nprominent deity except Jupiter only.\n\nWith respect to some of them, this is made quite clear by positive\nsigns. Except when in Olympus, or else when abroad on a special\noccasion, Mars does not quit Thrace, nor Vulcan Lemnos, nor Venus\nPaphos. But even upon higher and older deities there are signs of\nsome kind of local limitation. The rigidly Argeian character of Juno,\nthough it does not express, yet implies it. Demeter would appear to\nhave a local abode, probably in Crete. Aidoneus and Persephone are\nordinarily confined to the Shades, where their proper business lies.\nNeptune himself, when dismissed from the battle-field, is desired to\nrepair either to the sea or to Olympus. His regular worship among\nthe Greeks was, as appears from a speech of Juno, at Helice and \u00c6g\u00e6\nin \u00c6gialos; which it is not easy to account for, except upon the\nsupposition that he resided peculiarly at these places[117]. Now it is\nexpressly declared that his palace was in \u00c6g\u00e6: from thence he sets out\nfor the plain of Troy, and thither he repairs when he desists from the\npersecution of Ulysses. The name \u00c6g\u00e6 is not mentioned in the Catalogue,\nand Helice, as it is called \u03b5\u1f50\u03c1\u03b5\u1fd6\u03b1, was evidently a district; thus\nit may have been the district in which \u00c6g\u00e6 stood, perhaps as its\nseaport[118]. Before the time of Strabo \u00c6g\u00e6[119] had disappeared.\n\n[117] Il. viii. 203.\n\n[118] Il. ii. 575. xiii. 20. Od. v. 381. Strabo, p. 387.\n\n[119] In accordance with the prevailing opinion, I take this to be the\n\u00c6g\u00e6 of \u00c6gialus, not of Eub\u0153a.\n\nNow Minerva has a peculiar relation to Athens, and is once mentioned\nas betaking herself thither[120]. Again, the epithet \u039b\u03c5\u03ba\u03b7\u03b3\u03ad\u03bd\u03b7\u03c2, rarely\ngiven to Apollo, has suggested a connection with Lycia. If, however we\nform our judgment from Homer, Lycia may derive its name from Apollo,\nbut not Apollo from Lycia.\n\n[120] Od. iii. 78-81. I may state, that were I not so fearful of\noffending on the side of license, I should be inclined to suspect the\nhand of the diaskeuast in this passage more than in almost any other of\nthe Poems.\n\nBut it is plain from the poems that the influence, the activity, and\nthe virtual, if not positive presence of Apollo and Minerva pervade the\nwhole Homeric world. This is shown partly by their universal action; in\nTroas, in Lycia[121], in Thrace, in Scheria, and all over Greece. It is\nalso demonstrated by the manner in which prayer is addressed to them:\nand neither the one nor the other is ever represented either as having\na palace or residence in any particular spot, or as showing, like Juno,\nan exclusive partiality to any particular race or city.\n\n[121] Il. v. 105.\n\n4. Although invocation of divinities is frequent in the poems of\nHomer, it does not seem to have been sufficiently observed, that the\nOlympian personages, to whom it is ordinarily addressed, are very few\nin number.\n\nIn the Twentieth Odyssey, Penelope beseeches Diana to put a period\nto her mournful existence. I presume that she is here invoked, not\non account of her superiority as a traditive deity, but because the\nsubject is connected with her especial office in regard to Death.\n\nNeptune again is occasionally addressed by mortals; as by his\ndescendant Nestor on the sea-shore at Pylus, and in like manner by his\nson Polyphemus, on the beach of the country of the Cyclops. So also he\nis invoked by the Envoys on their way to the encampment of Achilles:\nhere again their course lies along the sea-shore. I will assume\naccordingly, though with a good deal of doubt, that any Olympian deity\nmight be made the object of supplication under given circumstances\nof time, place, or person. But it is manifest from the poems that\nthe general rule is the other way. They are ordinarily not made the\nsubjects of invocation, even in connection with their own peculiar\ngifts. There is no invocation addressed in Homer to Venus, Mars,\nMercury, or Vulcan; nor even, which is more remarkable, to Juno.\n\nPrayer however is very usual in the poems: but it is confined to three\ndivinities only.\n\n~_Objects of habitual prayer._~\n\nJupiter, Apollo, and Pallas are addressed by persons in difficulty,\nnot with reference to any peculiar gift or office that they fill, but\nquite independently of peculiar rites, and local or personal relations.\nThus Ulysses and Diomed in the Doloneia invoke Minerva[122]. Menelaus,\nwhen about to attack Euphorbus, prays first to Jupiter[123]. Nestor,\ntoo, addresses Jupiter, and not his own ancestor Neptune[124], in\nthe great straits of the Greek army. Glaucus beseeches Apollo to\nheal his wound[125]; and if this address be thought to belong to his\nmedical function, it is still very remarkable from its containing a\ndirect assertion, that he is able both to hear and to act at whatever\ndistance. The same may be said of the prayer of Pandarus[126]. His\npriest Chryses offers prayer to him from the plain of Troas (Il. i.\n37): but this may be incidental to the office. The cases of prayer\nto Jupiter and Minerva are purely private petitions, without notice,\nsuggested by the circumstances of the moment: and they show that\nthough Homer had perhaps no abstract idea of omnipresence, he assigned\nto these deities its essential characteristic, that is to say, the\npossession of powers not limited by space.\n\n[122] Il. x. 278, 284, 462. Comp. 507.\n\n[123] Il. xvii. 19.\n\n[124] Il. iv. 119.\n\n[125] Il. xvi. 514.\n\n[126] Il. iv. 119.\n\nThe evidence that Apollo was invoked independently of bodily presence\nat a particular spot, and for the general purpose of help and\nprotection, not simply in the exercise of particular mythological\nfunctions, if it be less diversified is still, I think, not less\nconclusive. It is, in the first place, supplied by the trine invocation\nrepeatedly addressed to him together with Jupiter and Minerva[127]:\n\n[127] Il. ii. 371, _et alibi_.\n\n \u03b1\u1f32 \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1, \u0396\u03b5\u1fe6 \u03c4\u03b5 \u03c0\u03ac\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f08\u03b8\u03b7\u03bd\u03b1\u03af\u03b7, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f0c\u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03bb\u03bf\u03bd.\n\nBut the general capacity of Apollo, like Minerva, to receive prayer,\nis demonstrated by the language of Diomed to Hector in the Eleventh\nBook, when Apollo was not on the battlefield (363, 4); \u2018for this time,\nPh\u0153bus Apollo has delivered you: and doubtless you took care to pray to\nhim, when you ventured within the clang of spears:\u2019\n\n \u03bd\u1fe6\u03bd \u03b1\u1f56\u03c4\u03ad \u03c3\u2019 \u1f10\u03c1\u03cd\u03c3\u03c3\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf \u03a6\u03bf\u1fd6\u03b2\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f08\u03c0\u03cc\u03bb\u03bb\u03c9\u03bd,\n \u1fa7 \u03bc\u03ad\u03bb\u03bb\u03b5\u03b9\u03c2 \u03b5\u1f54\u03c7\u03b5\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9, \u1f30\u1f7c\u03bd \u1f10\u03c2 \u03b4\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c0\u03bf\u03bd \u1f00\u03ba\u03cc\u03bd\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd.\n\n5. We may now pass on to another head of special prerogatives.\n\n~_Exempt from appetite and limitations._~\n\nBoth Minerva and Apollo are generally exempt from the physical\nlimitations, and from the dominion of appetite, to which the deities of\ninvention are as generally subject. Though, when a certain necessity\nis predicated of the gods in general, they may be literally included\nwithin it, we do not find that the Poet had them in his eye apart\nfrom the rest, and the particular liabilities and imperfections are\nnever imputed to either of them individually. What is said of them\ninclusively with others, is in reality not said of them at all, but\nonly of the prevailing disposition of the body to which they belong:\njust as we are told in the Iliad (xi. 78), that all the gods were\nincensed with Jupiter because of his bias towards the Trojans, when\nwe know that it was in reality only some among them, of the greatest\nweight and power. Neither Apollo nor Minerva eats, or drinks, or\nsleeps, or is wearied, or is wounded, or suffers pain, or is swayed\nby passion. Neither of them is ever outwitted or deluded by any deity\nof invention, as Venus is, and even as Jupiter is, by Juno in the\nFourteenth Iliad. When Minerva, in the shape of Mentor, receives the\ncup in the Pylian festivities, she passes it on to Telemachus, but it\nis not stated that she drinks of it[128]. With this compare the meal of\nMercury on the island of Calypso[129], the invitation to Iris to join\nin the banquet of the Winds, and her own fear lest she should lose her\nshare of the Ethiopian hecatombs[130].\n\n[128] Od. iii. 51, 62.\n\n[129] Od. v. 92-6.\n\n[130] Il. xxiii. 207.\n\nTheir relations to animal sacrifice are different from those of the\nother, at least of the inventive, gods. Apollo, indeed, is charged by\nJuno with having attended at the marriage of Thetis together with the\nrest of the gods, where they all banqueted[131];\n\n[131] Il. xxiv. 63.\n\n \u1f10\u03bd \u03b4\u1f72 \u03c3\u1f7a \u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd\n \u03b4\u03b1\u03af\u03bd\u03c5\u2019 \u1f14\u03c7\u03c9\u03bd \u03c6\u03cc\u03c1\u03bc\u03b9\u03b3\u03b3\u03b1\u00b7\n\nand in the Third Odyssey Minerva comes to attend the gracious sacrifice\nof Nestor offered in her honour[132],\n\n[132] Od. iii. 435.\n\n \u1f26\u03bb\u03b8\u03b5 \u03b4\u2019 \u1f08\u03b8\u03ae\u03bd\u03b7\n \u1f31\u03c1\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f00\u03bd\u03c4\u03b9\u03cc\u03c9\u03c3\u03b1.\n\nChryses pleads the performance of the sacrificial rites, as one ground\nof favour with the god[133]: in which, however, he is, after all, only\nshowing that he has not failed to discharge the positive obligations\nof his office. And of course these two were the objects of sacrifice\nlike other deities. Had they not been so, the fact would have been in\nconflict with their traditional origin, instead of sustaining it. They\nstand in the same category with the rest of the Olympian company, in\nthat sacrifice is acceptable to them all: but first, it is plain that\nthey are never said to take a sensual pleasure in it; and secondly, it\ndoes not appear that their favour to individuals either was founded\nupon it, or when lost could be recovered by it. It is restitution, and\nnot sacrifice, which is sought and demanded in the case of Chryses. The\nmoral character of the whole of those proceedings is emphatically and\nauthoritatively declared by Calchas[134],\n\n[133] Il. i. 40.\n\n[134] Il. i. 93.\n\n \u03bf\u1f54\u03c4\u2019 \u1f04\u03c1\u2019 \u1f45\u03b3\u2019 \u03b5\u1f50\u03c7\u03c9\u03bb\u1fc6\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03bc\u03ad\u03bc\u03c6\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9, \u03bf\u1f54\u03b8\u2019 \u1f11\u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03cc\u03bc\u03b2\u03b7\u03c2\u00b7\n\nSo Diomed and Ulysses have the closest personal relations with\nMinerva; but are nowhere said to have acquired their place in her\ngood-will by sacrifices: though both Apollo for Hector, and Minerva\nfor Ulysses, plead in the Olympian court, before the other gods, the\nsacrificial bounty of those heroes respectively[135]. Nor do we here\nrest wholly upon negative evidence. In the First Book, the sacrifice\nof the Greeks to Apollo, by the hands of Chryses, is described in the\nfullest detail: and the Poet tells us what it was that the god did\ntake delight in; it was the refined pleasure of the mind and ear,\nafforded to him by the songs they chanted before him all the day in\nhis honour: \u1f41 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03c6\u03c1\u03ad\u03bd\u03b1 \u03c4\u03ad\u03c1\u03c0\u03b5\u03c4\u2019 \u1f00\u03ba\u03bf\u03cd\u03c9\u03bd[136]. Further, the contrast may\nbe drawn not with divinities of their own generation only, but with\nthe long journeys of Neptune[137] for a feast, and with the marked and\napparently unvarying language of Jupiter himself.\n\n[135] Il. xxiv. 33. and Od. i. 60.\n\n[136] Il. i. 472-4.\n\n[137] Od. i. 22-5.\n\nThey receive sacrifice with a dignity, which does not belong to the\nother deities. When prayer and offerings are presented to Jupiter by\nthe Greeks, and he means to refuse the prayer, it is added, that he\nnotwithstanding took the sacrifices[138]:\n\n[138] Il. ii. 420.\n\n \u1f00\u03bb\u03bb\u2019 \u1f45\u03b3\u03b5 \u03b4\u03ad\u03ba\u03c4\u03bf \u03bc\u1f72\u03bd \u1f31\u03c1\u1f70, \u03c0\u03cc\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd \u03b4\u2019 \u1f00\u03bc\u03ad\u03b3\u03b1\u03c1\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd \u1f44\u03c6\u03b5\u03bb\u03bb\u03b5\u03bd.\n\nIn the nearly parallel case of Minerva (Il. vii. 311.), it is simply\nstated that she refused the prayer of the Trojans, while no notice\nis taken of their promised offerings. Again, when Minerva had been\noffended by the Greeks, and Agamemnon sought to appease her with\nhecatombs, it is described as a proof of his folly that he could\nentertain such an idea[139]:\n\n[139] Od. iii. 143-6.\n\n \u03bf\u1f50 \u03b3\u03ac\u03c1 \u03c4\u2019 \u03b1\u1f36\u03c8\u03b1 \u03b8\u03b5\u1ff6\u03bd \u03c4\u03c1\u03ad\u03c0\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u03bd\u03cc\u03bf\u03c2 \u03b1\u1f30\u1f72\u03bd \u1f10\u03cc\u03bd\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd.\n\nWith this we may contrast the case of Neptune, who had threatened\nto overwhelm the city of the Ph\u00e6acians with a mountain; but who is\napparently diverted from his purpose simply by the sacrifice which,\nunder the advice of Alcinous, they offer to him[140].\n\n[140] Od. xiii. 167-83.\n\nMere attributes of bulk stand at the bottom of the scale of even human\nexcellence; and it is so that Homer treats them, giving them in the\ngreatest abundance to his Otus, his Ephialtes, and his Mars. Minerva\nhas them but indirectly assigned to her; and when arming for war,\nApollo never receives them at all. When his might is described, it\nis always described in the loftiest manner, that is to say, in its\neffects; and effort or exertion is never attributed to either of them.\n\nEven so with respect to locomotion. The highest picture by far is that\nwhich is most negative. In general, Apollo and Minerva move without the\nuse of means or instruments, such as wings, chariots, or otherwise.\nWhile Neptune steps, and Juno\u2019s horses spring, so many miles at each\npace, the journeys of Apollo and Minerva are usually undescribed,\nundistributed. Minerva is going from Olympus to Ithaca; when she has\ndeparted, then she has arrived:\n\n \u03b2\u1fc6 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u2019 \u039f\u1f50\u03bb\u03cd\u03bc\u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u03bf \u03ba\u03b1\u03c1\u03ae\u03bd\u03c9\u03bd \u1f00\u0390\u03be\u03b1\u03c3\u03b1\u00b7\n \u03c3\u03c4\u1fc6 \u03b4\u2019 \u1f38\u03b8\u03ac\u03ba\u03b7\u03c2 \u1f10\u03bd\u1f76 \u03b4\u03ae\u03bc\u1ff3, \u1f10\u03c0\u1f76 \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03b8\u03cd\u03c1\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2 \u1f48\u03b4\u03c5\u03c3\u1fc6\u03bf\u03c2[141].\n\n[141] Od. i. 102, 3.\n\nOnly within the last few years have the triumphs of natural philosophy\nsupplied us with an approximative illustration of these movements over\nspace, in the more than lightning speed of the electric telegraph.\n\nSo Apollo, too, has by personal dignity what the messenger gods have by\noffice. It is said of him and Iris, when in company, that their journey\nbegan; and that it ended:\n\n \u03c4\u1f7c \u03b4\u2019 \u1f00\u0390\u03be\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5 \u03c0\u03b5\u03c4\u03ad\u03c3\u03b8\u03b7\u03bd\u00b7\n \u1f3c\u03b4\u03b7\u03bd \u03b4\u2019 \u1f35\u03ba\u03b1\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd \u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03c5\u03c0\u03af\u03b4\u03b1\u03ba\u03b1[142].\n\n[142] Il. xv. 150.\n\nOn one occasion, however, Minerva is represented, even when unattended\nby any other deity, as employing the foot-wings which Mercury commonly\nused, and they are said to carry her[143]:\n\n[143] Od. i. 97.\n\n \u03c4\u03ac \u03bc\u03b9\u03bd \u03c6\u03ad\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd, \u1f20\u03bc\u1f72\u03bd \u1f10\u03c6\u2019 \u1f51\u03b3\u03c1\u1f74\u03bd\n \u1f20\u03b4\u2019 \u1f10\u03c0\u2019 \u1f00\u03c0\u03b5\u03af\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd\u03b1 \u03b3\u03b1\u1fd6\u03b1\u03bd, \u1f05\u03bc\u03b1 \u03c0\u03bd\u03bf\u03af\u1fc3\u03c2 \u1f00\u03bd\u03ad\u03bc\u03bf\u03b9\u03bf.\n\nBut there are no stages or intermediate points either here or elsewhere\nin her journey.\n\nWith the movements of Apollo and Minerva, thus conceived by the Poet,\nwe may do well to compare those of Mercury (Od. v. 50-8), Neptune (Il.\nxiii. 17-31), and Juno (Il. xiv. 225-30).\n\n~_Their independent power of punishment._~\n\n6. Again, an important difference prevails between the different\ndivinities, in regard to the conduct they pursue when offended by\nmortals. In general, this is one of the points that prominently\nexhibits the sovereignty of Jupiter; for the common course is to appeal\nto him, and to obtain retribution either with his permission or by his\nagency. Not from greater self-will or a spirit of rebellion, but from\nhigher dignity and a certain substantiveness of character and position,\nApollo and Minerva always appear as acting for and from themselves, in\nvindication of their offended prerogatives.\n\nEven Neptune, when he is incensed at the erection of the unconsecrated\nrampart of the Greek camp, and fearful that it will eclipse the renown\nof his own handiwork, the wall of Troy, appeals to Jupiter on the\nsubject, and receives from him the permissive suggestion, that he\nshould himself destroy it so soon as the war is over[144]. He pursues\na similar course, when he is anxious to chastise the over-boldness\nand maritime success of the Ph\u00e6acians[145]. Venus, wounded by Diomed,\ndoes not even by appeal attempt to obtain redress[146]. Mars, in the\nsame condition, makes his complaint, both of Diomed and of Minerva,\nto Jupiter. It is true that afterwards, on the death of his son, he\nproposes to appear on the field of battle: but then he is in a state of\nfury[147], and is aware that the act would be one of rebellion against\nJupiter: accordingly, it is rudely stopped by Minerva. Again, when\nDionysus and his nurses are attacked by Lycoorgus, it is Jupiter that\nstrikes the offender blind, and his life is short because he was become\nhateful to the gods[148]. Dionysus had made no appeal; but Jupiter\navenged the insult to his order. The Sun, after his oxen have been\neaten by the companions of Ulysses, lodges his appeal with Jupiter and\nthe Olympian Council: and in this case Jupiter himself undertakes to\ngive effect to the wishes of the offended luminary for vengeance[149].\nWhen Aides, or Pluto, repaired to Olympus after the wound he had\nreceived from Hercules, the presumption perhaps arises, that it may\nhave been not simply to obtain the healing hand of Paieon, but also to\nmove Jupiter for redress.\n\n[144] Il. vii. 445.\n\n[145] Od. xiii. 125-64.\n\n[146] V. 352. ibid. 871.\n\n[147] Il. xv. 113.\n\n[148] Il. vi. 135-40.\n\n[149] Od. xii. 377 and 387.\n\nThere are indeed a certain set of cases in which the rule is probably\ndifferent, that is to say, when a deity is thwarted or offended in the\nexercise of his or her own special function. Thus Neptune, though he\nwould not touch the rampart without leave, yet of his own mere motion\ndestroys Ajax when he is at sea. Venus threatens Helen with her summary\nvengeance, in case of prolonged resistance to the expressed command\nthat she should repair to the chamber of Paris. The Muses, offended by\nThamyris[150], proceed to maim him, probably in voice or hand, the\norgans connected with his profession. This power to punish within each\nparticular province appears to form an exception to the general rule.\nIt is probably under this exceptional arrangement, that Diana proceeds\ntowards the Curetes, in the Legend of the Ninth Iliad: but some doubt\nmay hang over her case on account of the fact, that she partakes\nradically of the traditional, as well as of the mythological character.\n\n[150] Il. ii. 594-600. It is common to render \u03c0\u03b7\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 blind: but it would\nbe strange that this should be meant, since blindness is associated in\nthe case of Demodocus with conferring the gift of song, which here is\ntaken away (Od. vii. 64). Apollodorus (i. 3. 3.) reports that the Muses\nhad the power of blinding him by a previous agreement between him and\nthem. The more natural construction of the passage seems to be such as\nI have ventured to point at in the text. For blindness did not maim\nBards, who neither wrote nor read their compositions.\n\nOffended by the omission to include her in the hecatombs offered to\nthe Immortals, she sends a wild boar to desolate the country. She puts\nAriadne to death on the application of Dionysus, without any notice of\nan appeal to Jupiter. In both these cases she may be acting in virtue\nof her particular powers. But when she is matched with Juno in the\nTheomachy, she appears as utterly unequal to her great antagonist.\n\nWhen Apollo comes into view, the mode of proceeding is very different\nfrom that of the deities of invention. Apollo and Diana at once destroy\nthe children of Niobe, to avenge the insult she had offered to their\nmother: and this case is the more worthy of note, because Jupiter, at\na later stage, participates in and extends the vengeance[151]. But\nthe most conspicuous instance of the independent retributive action\nof Apollo is in the Plague of the First Book; since here he wastes\nthe army of the Greeks, to the great peril of the enterprise promoted\nby so many powerful divinities, on account of what he esteemed a\nmoral offence, and an outrage to his priest Chryses. Now it is to be\nremembered that the damsel had suffered no peculiar wrongs: the whole\noffence consisted in this, that, being the daughter of a priest of\nApollo, at a place apparently insignificant, she had not been on that\naccount exempted from the common lot of women, but had been treated\njust as she would have been treated had she been a king\u2019s daughter. Nor\nmust we forget, in appreciating this act, that the families of priests\nhad no priestly privilege: and that Maron paid to Ulysses (Od. ix.\n201-5) a very handsome price for his own life, together with that of\nhis wife and child.\n\n[151] Il. xxiv. 605-9.\n\nIt is less easy to bring out the application of the rule now before\nus in the case of Minerva, from the paucity of clear instances in the\npoems where she personally has received offence.\n\nThere is one important case, where her wrath appears; and it is there\ndescribed as \u03bc\u1fc6\u03bd\u03b9\u03c2 \u1f40\u03bb\u03bf\u1f74, and as \u03b4\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd\u1f78\u03c2 \u03c7\u03cc\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2[152]. Her name, and\nher interest in this affair, are to some extent mixed with those of\nJupiter. The Poet tells us, that Jupiter designed for the Greeks a\ncalamitous Return, \u2018since they were not all upright, whereupon many\nof them miserably perished through the inexorable wrath of Minerva.\u2019\nAnd then the order is inverted: Agamemnon, we are told, projected the\nofferings, that he might appease the anger of Minerva, and thereupon\ndissension arose, for Jupiter suspended calamity over the host. It is\nclear that, so far as Minerva is to be regarded as having received\nseparate and personal offence in this proceeding, there is no sign\nof her referring to Jupiter for aid, or for permission to punish the\noffenders. But the case rather appears to be one in which the Poet is\ndescribing the Providential Government of the world, and in which the\nintermixture of the names of Jupiter and of his daughter belongs to\ntheir system of concurrent action, under which she shares with Apollo\nthe office of acting as his habitual organ in administering retributive\njustice to mankind. In one clear instance, however, we find it stated,\nthat when the Greeks offended Minerva, she punished them by a storm\n(Od. v. 108).\n\n[152] Od. iii. 135, 145.\n\n~_They use special attributes of Jupiter._~\n\n7. Apollo and Minerva carry this among other notes, that we find them\nadministering mythological or natural powers, which are otherwise the\nspecial property of Jupiter.\n\nNo other Olympian deity, but Juno, stands invested with a similar\nhonour. We sometimes find the aerial powers of Jupiter wielded by her\nhand. But, with the exception of the sort of precedence accorded to her\non Olympus, in virtue of which the gods rise from their seats when she\nenters their company, there is no one of the gifts that she exercises,\nwhich would not appear to lie within the range of the offices of\nMinerva, if not also of Apollo. In the remarkable case where she\nthunders in honour of Agamemnon just after he has armed, it is recorded\nthat this was the joint act of the two divinities, of whom, on this\noccasion, Minerva takes precedence[153]:\n\n[153] Il. xi. 45.\n\n \u1f10\u03c0\u1f76 \u03b4\u2019 \u1f10\u03b3\u03b4\u03bf\u03cd\u03c0\u03b7\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd \u1f08\u03b8\u03b7\u03bd\u03b1\u03af\u03b7 \u03c4\u03b5 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f2d\u03c1\u03b7,\n \u03c4\u03b9\u03bc\u1ff6\u03c3\u03b1\u03b9 \u03b2\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03bb\u1fc6\u03b1 \u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03c5\u03c7\u03c1\u03cd\u03c3\u03bf\u03b9\u03bf \u039c\u03c5\u03ba\u03ae\u03bd\u03b7\u03c2.\n\nThis association is to be observed in another passage, where these\ngoddesses jointly communicate courage to a warrior. But when we find\nthem associated in administering the powers of atmospheric phenomena,\nit is obvious that we must resort to different sources for the means\nof explaining the respective agencies. Juno, mythologically related to\nJupiter as a wife, in that capacity may, without exciting surprise,\ntake in hand what belongs, so to speak, to the _m\u00e9nage_. Minerva, as a\ndaughter, has no such claim; and her possession of a standing ground\nwhich enables her to use these powers can only be explained by a prior\nand more profound affinity of traditional character, which makes her\nthe organ of the supreme deity.\n\nBut while, in the highest marks of power adhering to Juno, Minerva\nseems everywhere to vie with her, there are others, and those among\nthe most strictly characteristic of the head of Olympus, in which both\nMinerva and Apollo share, but which are not in any manner imparted to\nJuno.\n\nOne of the high characteristic epithets of Jupiter is \u03b1\u1f30\u03b3\u03af\u03bf\u03c7\u03bf\u03c2. And\nwe never hear of the \u00c6gis out of the hands of Jupiter, except it be\nin those of Minerva, or of Apollo. The \u00c6gis is the peculiar arm of\nMinerva; apparently, it _belongs_ to her; and from the description\nof it in the Fifth Iliad, it appears to be the counterpart, on her\nside, of the chariot on the side of Juno[154]. The tunic she puts on,\nhowever, is the tunic of Jupiter, and the Gorgon head upon it is his\nsign: while the shield she carries is not to be assailed even by his\nthunderbolt[155]:\n\n[154] Il. v. 735-42.\n\n[155] Il. xxi. 401.\n\n \u1f23\u03bd \u03bf\u1f50\u03b4\u1f72 \u0394\u03b9\u1f78\u03c2 \u03b4\u03ac\u03bc\u03bd\u03b7\u03c3\u03b9 \u03ba\u03b5\u03c1\u03b1\u03c5\u03bd\u03cc\u03c2.\n\nAgain, the Fifteenth Book of the Iliad, Jupiter intrusts Apollo with\nhis own \u00c6gis, that he may wave it on the field of battle to intimidate\nthe Greeks[156].\n\n[156] Il. xv. 229.\n\nPartly in the relation of Minerva to Mars, whom she punishes or\ncontrols, but more peculiarly in the use of the magnificent symbol of\nthe \u00c6gis by Minerva and Apollo, we appear to find that development of\nthe martial character which has been mentioned above as included among\nthe Jewish ascriptions to the Messiah.\n\nProximate to, but extending beyond, the last named distinction,\nthere is a function mythologically confined to Jupiter throughout\nthe poems, with two exceptions only. The function is that of giving\nindications, palpable to men, of coming events, by the flight of birds\nin many instances, but likewise by atmospheric signs. This power is\ndistinguished, by its connection with the future, from a mere power\nover nature.\n\nThe exceptions are Apollo and Minerva. The former deity is in general\nmore largely endowed than Minerva in regard to the future, though a\nless conspicuous figure in the direction of the present. Still she\npartakes, with him and with Jupiter, of this peculiar honour.\n\nOn the return of Telemachus to Ithaca there appears to him the bird\ncalled the wheeling falcon[157],\n\n[157] Od. xv. 526.\n\n \u03ba\u03af\u03c1\u03ba\u03bf\u03c2, \u1f08\u03c0\u03cc\u03bb\u03bb\u03c9\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c4\u03b1\u03c7\u1f7a\u03c2 \u1f04\u03b3\u03b3\u03b5\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2,\n\nsent by Apollo as an omen of success to himself, and of confusion to\nthe Suitors.\n\nIn the final crisis of the Odyssey, which is doubtless meant to exhibit\na normal example of Providential retribution, it seems to have been\nthe object of the Poet to divide the theurgic action between Minerva\nand Apollo, as joint administrators of the general government of the\nworld. To Minerva, as the goddess of wisdom, falls what may be called\nthe intellectual share[158], the actual instruction and guidance of\nUlysses, Penelope, and Telemachus, as well as the bewildering and\nhardening operations on the minds of the Suitors. Special arrangements\nappear, however, to have been introduced, so as to make a corresponding\nplace for Apollo. Hence it is that Theoclymenus, as the representative\nof a great prophetic family, is brought into the company of Telemachus,\nthat he may become the organ of Apollo in the remaining part of the\ndrama. This is the more remarkable, because Theoclymenus does not repay\nthe friendly aid he had received by taking part in the final struggle\non the side of Telemachus; so that his share in the proceeding stands\nout the more conspicuously as one altogether theurgic. In cooperation\nwith this arrangement, it is provided that the crisis shall come to\npass on the festival of the god, and that the manner of trial, by the\nBow, shall place it especially under his auspices.\n\n[158] She has also minor interpositions: see Od. xxii. 205, 256, 273,\n297.\n\nIn the magnificent passage of the Twentieth Book[159], which describes\nthe phantasmagoria in the palace of Ulysses, immediately before the\ntrial of the Bow, there are two parts. First, the minds of the Suitors\nare befooled (\u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03ad\u03c0\u03bb\u03b1\u03b3\u03be\u03b5\u03bd \u03b4\u1f72 \u03bd\u03cc\u03b7\u03bc\u03b1). Secondly, the hall is filled\nwith sensible portents: preternatural night envelopes the company,\nthe walls and beams are blood-bespattered, phantoms glide along with\ndownward movement, as on their way to Erebus, the very meat they eat is\ngory, their eyes are charged with involuntary tears, their lips with\nunnatural smiles. Of all this the announcement is made by Theoclymenus,\na trait which I interpret as referring the array of the phenomena to\nhis master Apollo. To him is thus given that part of the operation\nwhich lies within the domain of sense: while the purely intellectual\none, that of stupefying the Suitors, is expressly assigned to Minerva.\n\n[159] Od. xx. 345-71.\n\nBut Minerva has likewise the power over signs, which is enjoyed by\nJupiter and Apollo. As Diomed and Ulysses are setting out on their\nnocturnal expedition in the Tenth Iliad, Minerva sends the apparition\nof a heron to cheer them[160]: they do not see it, on account of the\ndarkness; but they hear the flapping of its wings.\n\n[160] Il. x. 274. Minerva\u2019s patronage of the heron was probably\nconnected with her martial character: for it appears that in Sanscrit\nthe word _Scandha_ signifies both war and also the heron. (Welsford on\nthe English Language, p 152.)\n\nIt has accordingly attracted the attention of N\u00e4gelsbach[161], that\nthe power of exhibiting signs is confined to Jupiter, Juno, Apollo,\nand Minerva: though he has not proceeded to combine this with other\ndistinctions, at least equally remarkable, enjoyed by the two latter\ndivinities.\n\n[161] Hom. Theol. iv. 16, p. 147.\n\nI have not, it will be observed, reckoned as a \u03c4\u03ad\u03c1\u03b1\u03c2, or sign of the\nfuture, the case in which Juno endows the horses of Achilles with\nthe gift of speech: because it appears that the prediction of their\nmaster\u2019s death is their own; and that she only removes the barrier to\nits expression[162]. She stands, therefore, in a different position to\nthat of Apollo and Minerva.\n\n[162] Il. xix. 404-7. See inf. Sect. iii. on Juno.\n\n~_Their dominion over Nature._~\n\n9. This command, however, over natural portents may be viewed as\npart of a general dominion over nature, of which the most varied\nmanifestation is in Minerva.\n\nIt is true that, in common with most of the Olympian deities, she does\nnot extend her action from the inner, or Greek, into the general range\nof the outer, or Ph\u0153nician world. Nor does Apollo. But we have clear\nproof that this was by a poetical arrangement, and not from a lack\nof divine power: since (1) she does act in Scheria, and assists in\nbringing Ulysses to the shore of that island: (2) the class of \u03bc\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03b9\u03c2\nare found among the Cyclops: (3) Calypso is amenable to the command of\nthe Olympian court, and speaks of herself as belonging to the same wide\nclass of deities with Aurora and Ceres. (4) Minerva assigns a special\nreason, namely, regard towards her uncle Neptune, for not having\naccompanied Ulysses all along his voyage (Od. xiii. 341).\n\nThe power of Minerva over nature seems to be universal in kind as well\nas in place.\n\n1. She and Apollo assume the human form in common with other deities:\nbut I do not find that the gods in general become visible to one person\nwithout being visible to all. Minerva in the First Iliad (198) reveals\nherself only to Achilles. It seems as if, in Il. xvii. 321-34, Homer\nmeant that Apollo did the same to \u00c6neas. The recognition of Venus by\nHelen, I take as most probably a sign of nothing more than that the\ncase was one of disguise, rather than of transformation[163].\n\n[163] Il. iii. 396.\n\n2. Apollo frames an \u03b5\u1f34\u03b4\u03c9\u03bb\u03bf\u03bd, or image of a man, which moves and\nfights[164], representing \u00c6neas on the battle field: and Minerva frames\nan \u03b5\u1f34\u03b4\u03c9\u03bb\u03bf\u03bd of Iphthime, to appear in a dream to her sister Penelope,\nand to convey to her a revelation of Minerva\u2019s will[165]. This power is\nexercised by the two divinities exclusively.\n\n[164] Il. v. 449.\n\n[165] Od. iv. 796, 826.\n\n3. Minerva on many occasions assumes the shape of a bird[166]:\nsometimes in common with Apollo[167]. Ino Leucothee, the marine\ngoddess, becomes a water-bird, and \u1f5d\u03c0\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 takes the form of the bird\nChalcis, when he has to act upon Jupiter. Both these operations may\nprobably be considered as belonging to the special functions of these\nagents: with Apollo and Minerva, the power appears to belong to a\ngeneral supremacy over nature, which the other Olympian deities do not\nshare.\n\n[166] Il. xix. 351. Od. i. 320. _et alibi_.\n\n[167] Il. vii. 59.\n\n4. The transformations and retransformations of Ulysses in Ithaca by\nMinerva, appear to indicate some organic power over matter and life. It\nis not the appearance but the reality of his person that is stated to\nbe changed. Not only is the skin wrinkled and the eye darkened, but the\nhairs are destroyed. They are afterwards restored, and his stature is\nincreased. In like manner she gives increased height to Penelope, and\nagain to Laertes[168].\n\n[168] Od. xiii. 429-38. xvi. 172, 455. xviii. 69, and xxii. 156-62; Od.\nxviii. 195. xxiv. 369.\n\nAs respects power over inanimate nature, we have seen Minerva joined\nwith Juno in the act of thundering. She can order out a rattling\nzephyr (\u03ba\u03b5\u03bb\u03ac\u03b4\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1), or simply a toward breeze, or again a stiff Boreas\n(\u03ba\u03c1\u03b1\u03b9\u03c0\u03bd\u1f78\u03bd), to speed her friend across the main[169]: and, as Juno\naccelerated the setting of the sun before Troy, so Minerva forbids the\ndawn to appear in Ithaca, until, when she thinks the proper time has\ncome, she withdraws the prohibition[170].\n\n[169] Od. ii. 420. xv. 292. v. 385.\n\n[170] Od. xxiii. 243-6.\n\nNor is the power of Minerva over nature for purposes of wrath less\nclear than for purposes of favour: since Mercury tells Calypso that,\ninasmuch as the Greeks had offended her, she sent a storm upon\nthem[171],\n\n[171] Od. v. 108.\n\n \u1f08\u03b8\u03b7\u03bd\u03b1\u03af\u03b7\u03bd \u1f00\u03bb\u03af\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf,\n \u1f25 \u03c3\u03c6\u03b9\u03bd \u1f10\u03c0\u1ff6\u03c1\u03c3\u2019 \u1f04\u03bd\u03b5\u03bc\u03cc\u03bd \u03c4\u03b5 \u03ba\u03b1\u03ba\u1f78\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03ba\u03cd\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1 \u03bc\u03b1\u03ba\u03c1\u03ac.\n\nOn the other hand, when Ulysses and his companions have propitiated\nApollo on behalf of the Greek army, then he sends them a toward breeze\nfor their return to the camp[172]. But we have a still more notable\ninstance of miraculous power over nature ascribed to Apollo, over and\nabove the sublime portents of the Twentieth Odyssey, in the conversion\nof the mouths of the eight Id\u00e6an rivers for nine whole days to efface\nthe Greek rampart[173]. To Neptune is left the task of restoring them\nto their channels: perhaps on the same principle as the treatment\nof Juno, relatively to Minerva, in the preparation and use of the\nchariot[174].\n\n[172] Il. i. 479.\n\n[173] Il. xii. 24, 32.\n\n[174] Il. v. 7.\n\nWe have not yet, however, done with the subject of powers exercised\nover nature.\n\n~_Relation of Apollo together with Diana to Death._~\n\nThe most prominent and pointed characteristic of Apollo is one shared\nwith his sister Diana. It is the mysterious relation which these two\ndeities hold in common to death.\n\nThe Messianic tradition, first divided between Apollo and the great\nMinerva, is now subdivided between him and his sister Diana, who forms\na kind of supplement to his divinity. The bow and arrows, the symbol\nwhich they bear in common, marks the original union in character, out\nof which their twin peculiarities had grown.\n\nApollo, indeed, as we see in the first Book of the Iliad, could himself\nbecome, like his sister, the immediate agent in the destruction of\nanimals: but his principal function is with men. Hence the terrible\nslaughter of the Plague: hence his extraordinary and otherwise\nunsatisfactory participation in the death of Patroclus: hence, above\nall, though he is not the patron of Ulysses, and has no special\nconnection with him, yet the slaughter of the Suitors in the Odyssey\nis appointed to take place on his festival, and therefore, as well as\nbecause it is effected by the Bow, under his auspices. But again; his\noffice is not of a single aspect: he is a saviour from death, as well\nas a destroyer. Hence it is he, and not Venus, who saves \u00c6neas[175]:\nit is he who carries Hector out of danger[176]. Yet a third, and very\npeculiar form of his office do we discover, common to him and to his\nsister. She is upon occasion strong enough to exercise the office of\ndestruction properly so called[177], for sometimes she slays in wrath.\nBut more usually, as he does for men, so she more especially exercises\nfor women the mysterious function of administering painless and gentle\ndeath.\n\n[175] Il. v. 445.\n\n[176] Il. xv. 262.\n\n[177] Il. vi. 205, 428. xxi. 484. Od. xi. 324. xv. 478.\n\nThis singular and solemn relation of Apollo and Diana to death appears\nto have an entirely exclusive character attaching to it. There is a\nclear distinction between death inflicted by the symbolical arrows of\nthese twin deities, which are the symbols of an invisible Power, and\ndeath resulting from physical or any other palpable causes, whether\nit be violent, or what we term natural. I do not now speak of the\nagency of Apollo the destroyer in (what we call) the Plague, nor of\nhis slaying Eurytus on account of a personal insult (Od. viii. 227),\nbut of the much more distinctive and prominent office assigned to him\nand to Diana, that of (so to speak) taking the sting from Death. Death\nby disease, Death by a broken heart[178], Death by shipwreck, or by\nthe lightning of heaven[179], or by the fury of Scamander, whirling\nwarriors to the sea, and burying them in the sand and shingle[180], are\nmatters altogether distinct from this. Death through second causes,\neven man can bring about: Death without second causes is palpably\nDivine; and this it is that is assigned to Apollo and Diana only among\nthe Homeric gods. There is no instance, if I remember rightly, in which\nany other among them brings about the death of a mortal, otherwise than\nby means of second causes. And there is one curious passage, from which\nit would appear that some other deities had to apply to them in order\nto set in motion this Divine prerogative. For when Theseus was carrying\nAriadne to Athens, she did not reach her journey\u2019s end:\n\n[178] Od. xi. 198-203.\n\n[179] Od. v. 127.\n\n[180] Il. xxi. 318-21.\n\n \u03c0\u03ac\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2 \u03b4\u03ad \u03bc\u03b9\u03bd \u1f0c\u03c1\u03c4\u03b5\u03bc\u03b9\u03c2 \u1f14\u03ba\u03c4\u03b1\n \u0394\u03af\u1fc3 \u1f10\u03bd \u1f00\u03bc\u03c6\u03b9\u03c1\u03cd\u03c4\u1fc3, \u0394\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd\u03cd\u03c3\u03bf\u03c5 \u03bc\u03b1\u03c1\u03c4\u03c5\u03c1\u03af\u1fc3\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd[181].\n\n[181] Od. xi. 324.\n\nA period was put to her life in the island of Dia, by the goddess\nArtemis, at the instance of Dionysus. As if the tradition bore, that\nDionysus or Bacchus, desiring her death, and having at his command no\nnatural agency of mortal effect, was obliged to apply to Artemis or\nDiana to bring about this purpose.\n\nThe great enemy and scourge of mankind, under the treatment of the twin\ndeities, is stripped of his terrors; and the very verse of Homer, ever\nresponsive to his thought, changes to an easy and flowing movement as\nhe describes this mode of passage from the world[182]:\n\n[182] Cf. Il. xix. 59. Od. xviii. 201. xx. 61.\n\n \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03b4\u2019 \u1f0c\u03c1\u03c4\u03b5\u03bc\u03b9\u03c2 \u1f30\u03bf\u03c7\u03ad\u03b1\u03b9\u03c1\u03b1\n \u03bf\u1f37\u03c2 \u1f00\u03b3\u03b1\u03bd\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03b2\u03b5\u03bb\u03ad\u03b5\u03c3\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u1f10\u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u03c7\u03bf\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03b7 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03ad\u03c0\u03b5\u03c6\u03bd\u03b5\u03bd.\n\nNor is the expression casual; it is one of the regular Homeric\n_formul\u00e6_. Sometimes she discharges this office in actual concurrence\nwith Apollo. The happy island, where Eum\u00e6us passed his childhood, knew\nneither famine nor disease: but when its people reached the term of\ntheir old age, then[183]\n\n[183] Od. xv. 407-11.\n\n \u1f10\u03bb\u03b8\u1f7c\u03bd \u1f00\u03c1\u03b3\u03c5\u03c1\u03cc\u03c4\u03bf\u03be\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f08\u03c0\u03cc\u03bb\u03bb\u03c9\u03bd \u1f08\u03c1\u03c4\u03ad\u03bc\u03b9\u03b4\u03b9 \u03be\u1f7a\u03bd\n \u03bf\u1f37\u03c2 \u1f00\u03b3\u03b1\u03bd\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03b2\u03b5\u03bb\u03ad\u03b5\u03c3\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u1f10\u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u03c7\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03ad\u03c0\u03b5\u03c6\u03bd\u03b5\u03bd.\n\nAgain, when the corpse of Hector is by preternatural agency restored,\nafter the lacerations it had undergone, to integrity and freshness,\nit is said to have become like to the body of him upon whom Apollo\nhas come, and put him to death with his tender darts[184]. The god\nhas a sword, indeed, which must appertain to his destroying office.\nBut his sword, and his only, among all we hear of, is formed of gold,\n\u03c7\u03c1\u03c5\u03c3\u03ac\u03bf\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2. The epithet has probably been chosen from its affinity to\nLight.\n\n[184] Il. xxiv. 753.\n\nAmong the instances in which Diana ministers to death, there are many\nwhere she clearly exercises a mitigating and favouring agency; and\nthis may probably be signified in nearly all. Even of the children of\nNiobe[185] it may be meant, that they were thus gently removed, the\ninnocent causes of their mother\u2019s pride; while she was reserved for\nheavier punishment, and doomed to weep eternally in stone.\n\n[185] Il. xxiv. 606. Laodamia is an exception: see Il. vi. 205.\n\nIn considering what may have been the early traditional source of these\nremarkable attributes of the children of Latona, we should tread softly\nand carefully, for we are on very sacred ground. But we seem to see in\nthem the traces of the form of One, who, as an all-conquering King, was\nto be terrible and destructive to His enemies, but who was also, on\nbehalf of mankind, to take away the sting from Death, and to change its\niron band for a thread of silken slumber.\n\nThe share of Messianic tradition accorded in this particular province\nto Minerva appears, as has already been observed, to consist in her\npeculiar power within the realm of Aidoneus himself.\n\n~_Independence of second causes._~\n\n10. Lastly, we appear to find, that in the conduct of those operations\nin which their power over Nature is exhibited, Minerva and Apollo are\nnot tied down, or at least are not tied down in the same degree with\nthe other deities generally, to the use of instruments or symbols.\n\nWe find that Neptune, when he has to inspire courage into the two\nAjaxes, strikes them, (Il. xiii. 59.) As an accompanying significant\nact, of a nature tending by itself to produce the result, this greatly\nweakens the force of the passage in proof of divine or extraordinary\npower. In like manner, when the same divinity converts the ship of the\nPh\u00e6acians into a rock, he drives it downward with his hand[186].\n\n[186] Od. xiii. 164.\n\nBut Apollo performs no such outward act when he infuses courage into\nHector, or into Glaucus; or when he heals the wounds of the latter\nchieftain[187].\n\n[187] Il. xv. 262. xvi. 528-9.\n\nSo likewise, when Minerva alters the personal appearance of Telemachus,\nUlysses, Laertes, or Penelope, by improving it, she uses no sign or\nministrative act. Only when she effects an organic though partial\ntransformation in the case of Ulysses[188] does she strike him with\nher wand: but then this total transformation is an exercise of power,\nof which we have no other example among the Olympian deities. Again,\nwhen Minerva finally endows the hero with heightened beauty of figure\nand countenance, it is done without the use of any visible sign\nwhatever[189].\n\n[188] Od. xiii. 429. xvi. 172, 455.\n\n[189] Od. xxiii. 156-63.\n\nThis employment of instruments is, in fact, susceptible of two\nsignifications. They may be, like the tokens of Jupiter, intended to\nact upon the senses of men. But where they have not this meaning, there\nis a decided tendency to convey the conception of the instrument as\nbeing itself the power which the deity merely directs and applies. Thus\nit is in the cestus of Venus and the wand of Mercury that the divine\nenergy resides[190], not less than it is in the herbs of Paieon and in\nthe fire of Vulcan. So that any exemption from the use of these symbols\nis a sign of belonging to a high order of deity.\n\n[190] N\u00e4gelsbach, i. 25.\n\n~Superiority of their moral standard.~\n\nWe now approach the third and last division of this subject; namely,\nthose points of distinction which most essentially belong to the moral\ntone and personal character of these two great divinities.\n\nTheir moral standard is conspicuously raised above that of the Olympian\nfamily in general.\n\nIt partakes indeed, as we might expect, of taint. Each has begun to\ngive way; and each in the way adapted to their several relations with\nman and woman\u2019s nature respectively. Apollo\u2019s character has just begun\nto be touched by licentiousness: and the character of Minerva is not\nabove condescension to deceit.\n\nShe is nowhere, however, associated either directly or indirectly, in\nword or act, with anything impure. The contest of beauty, in which\nParis was the judge, is mentioned by Homer[191]: but the notice, a very\nsuccinct one, though not quite in keeping with her highest dignity,\ndoes not imply any deviation from her elevated chastity. Neither of\nJuno, nor of Thetis, can the same virtue be fully predicated: both of\nthem, though in different modes, are brought into immediate contact\nwith the subject of sensual passion.\n\n[191] Il. xxiv. 27-30.\n\nPallas is, in truth, no less chaste than Diana: but her purity is\nabsorbed in the dazzling splendour of her august prerogatives, while it\nis more observed in the Huntress-maid, because it is the most salient\nand distinguished point in her character.\n\nIn the post-Homeric, but yet early, hymn to Venus, three beings alone\nin the wide universe are declared to be exempt from her sway. One of\nthem is Hestie, who represents the impersonation of the marriage bond\nand the family life, and whose exemption therefore testifies directly\nto the nature of the dominion from which it frees her. The other two\nprivileged beings are Pallas and Diana[192].\n\n[192] Hymn. ad Ven. 8, 16.\n\nThe character of Apollo in this respect is by some degrees less\nelevated: for he is an enjoying spectator of the scene described by\nthe certainly licentious lay of Demodocus in the Eighth Odyssey, from\nwhich the goddesses in a body absent themselves. In the legend, too,\nof the Ninth Iliad we find that Apollo carried off the daughter of\nMarpessa, afterwards named by her parents Alcyone: but this passage, we\nshall see, is susceptible of an interpretation, which gives it another\nconstruction, and one certainly far more agreeable to the general\ncharacter of this divinity. The epithet enjoyed by the Homeric Diana,\nexpressive of purity, is accorded by \u00c6schylus[193] (whose accuracy and\ntruthfulness often recall those of Homer) to Apollo;\n\n[193] \u00c6sch. Suppl. 222.\n\n \u1f01\u03b3\u03bd\u03cc\u03bd \u03c4\u2019 \u1f08\u03c0\u03cc\u03bb\u03bb\u03c9 \u03c6\u03c5\u03b3\u03ac\u03b4\u2019 \u1f00\u03c0\u2019 \u03bf\u1f50\u03c1\u03b1\u03bd\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03b8\u03b5\u03cc\u03bd.\n\nAnd here the question arises, how did it happen that, while the element\nof purity was strictly preserved in the tradition of the Wisdom, it was\nlost in the twin tradition of the Seed of the woman?\n\nThe Wisdom naturally, when impersonated, assumed the feminine form.\nNow the character of woman seems to be in itself better fenced against\nimpurity than that of man. Her comparatively dependent condition,\nand the more direct operation of her failure in this respect on the\nmarriage tie through the disorganization of the family, have had a\nfurther influence in giving an additional stringency to the ideas of\nmankind with respect to her observance of this virtue; a stringency\nnot the less real, because it exemplifies the partial administration\nof a law essentially just, nor because it has become rather less\nconspicuous since the Gospel laid down with rigour, upon higher\ngrounds, one law for all. Thus it remained possible to conceive a\nwoman chaste, after the conditions of that idea had been almost lost\nin connection with the standard of excellence in the other sex: and\nthis virtue, banished from the earth in general, still found here and\nthere, even down to the f\u0153tid corruption of the time of Martial[194], a\nlast refuge in individual cases of untainted womanhood. This course of\nthought and feeling is exemplified in the Minerva of the Olympian Court.\n\n[194] Epigr. x. 63.\n\nYet the idea was not simply extinguished in the twin tradition, of\nwhich Apollo is the chief representative. Submerged in him, a home is\nfound for it in the appropriate form of Diana as his sister. The power\nand majesty of this form of the Messianic tradition fall chiefly to his\nshare: she retains what was then, to the shame of our race, thought\nits less precious ingredient, freedom from sensual taint. Apollo would\nhave been its natural vehicle: but in him, for the reason that he was\na man, it was perhaps to the Greek mind inconceivable: a new vehicle\nwas either framed, or adapted, in order to carry it: the idea of the\ngreat Deliverer that should be born was thus disintegrated, like other\ntraditions, and like other historical characters, which men could not\nso readily embrace in their integrity.\n\nAs this is the first point in the discussion at which we have\nencountered an actual instance of this disintegration, it may be well\nto explain the meaning I attach to the term.\n\n~_Disintegration of traditions._~\n\nIt seems indubitable, that moral combinations, which are intelligible\nas well as credible to one age, may become incredible to another.\nJust as there are individual men at every epoch, who cannot believe in\ngenerosity and elevation of character, because they have in themselves\nno mirror which can reflect such qualities; so a generation ruled\nby more debased ideas cannot comprehend what another, influenced by\nless impure tendencies, could readily embrace. On the same principle,\nthe Gospel gives not to the sagacious, but to the \u2018pure in heart,\u2019\nthe greatest triumph of mental vision, namely, that \u2018they shall see\nGod[195].\u2019\n\n[195] St. Matt. v. 8.\n\nAccordingly, when it happens that a tradition becomes unintelligible\nto the mind of a given people, it is lost. It may be lost by the\ndisappearance even of its outward form and shell. Or it may be lost by\nthe alteration of its meaning while its words are retained. Or the work\nof destruction may take another turn: it may be lost by being torn into\npieces; the effect being that one old tradition disappears, and more\nthan one partial substitute for it is created.\n\nThe highest fraud and the highest force appear to have been, according\nto original tradition, joined in the Evil One: they were separated in\nthe Grecian forms of[196] that tradition. The Apollo of Homer was still\none, with a great diversity of gifts; but mythological solecisms were\nalready apparent in his character, like cracks in a stately building.\nThis, too, was settled by disintegration; and in the later mythology\nthere were many Apollos: other causes probably concurring to extend the\nmultiplying process.\n\n[196] Inf. Sect. iii.\n\nThe same operation took effect upon the traditions of human character.\nHomer, with the finest powers of light and shade, has represented Helen\nas erring, and as penitent. The moral sense of later, less simple,\nand more deeply corrupted, times became impervious to a balanced\nconception of this kind. Accordingly, the one Helen was torn into two,\nand supplied material both for the guilty Helen, or \u03b5\u1f34\u03b4\u03c9\u03bb\u03bf\u03bd of Helen,\nat Troy, and for the innocent Helen detained in Egypt. In like manner,\nit became a question, probably first when Athens had grown great, how\nMinos could on the one hand be great and wise, and could on the other\nhave made war and imposed tribute upon Attica. Hence the fable of two\nMinoses[197]: so that those who venerated the ancient traditions of\nCrete might still be allowed to cherish their pious sentiment, while,\nupon the other hand, the Athenian dramatists might exercise a fertile\nimagination in inventing circumstances of horror for the biography of\nthe piratical enemy of their country.\n\n[197] H\u00f6ck\u2019s Creta, vol. ii.\n\nIt was, I conceive, an early example of this disintegration, which\ndivided between Apollo and Diana different members of a primitive\nMessianic tradition. And, when we again combine the two personalities\nof the brother and the sister in one, the tradition resumes its\ncompleteness and roundness.\n\nIt is likely that the same mental process, which thus deposited the\nelement of chastity in the person of the comparatively feeble Diana,\nalso conferred on her the figure of the Huntress-Queen. For thus she\nlived in seclusion from the ways and haunts of man: and it was only by\nseclusion that she could be kept in maiden innocence.\n\nBut although the logical turn of the Greek mind soon came to place\nApollo in morally disadvantageous contrast, under this particular head,\nboth with his sister and with Pallas, he may be favourably compared\nwith the other Homeric gods. There is something in the tradition that\nhe was unshorn (\u1f00\u03ba\u03b5\u03c1\u03c3\u03b5\u03ba\u03cc\u03bc\u03b7\u03c2), which is evidently intended to connect\nhim with the innocence of youth. And in Homer, unless it be by the\nlegend of the Ninth Iliad, he is unharmed by connection with any of\nthose relations which assign to Jupiter, Neptune, Mars, and Mercury,\nhuman children as the fruit of their indulgence.\n\n~_Legend of Marpessa._~\n\nThe reasons which lead me to suppose that the legend of Marpessa is not\nof a sensual character are these. The words used are[198];\n\n[198] Il. ix. 564.\n\n \u1f45\u03c4\u03b5 \u03bc\u03b9\u03bd \u1f11\u03ba\u03ac\u03b5\u03c1\u03b3\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f00\u03bd\u03ae\u03c1\u03c0\u03b1\u03c3\u03b5 \u03a6\u03bf\u1fd6\u03b2\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f08\u03c0\u03cc\u03bb\u03bb\u03c9\u03bd.\n\nNow none of the numerous intrigues of the mythical deities with women\ninclude violence: they always appear, so far as the language used\ngives them a specific character, to have been voluntarily accepted\nconnections[199]. It was not likely that the case of Apollo should have\nbeen the exception. Again, they are always mentioned as having led\nto the birth of children: but there is no such mention in this case,\nand Apollo has no human progeny. Lastly, the word used does not mean\n_ravished_, but _seized and carried up_. It nearly corresponds with the\nexpression in the case of Ganymede[200],\n\n[199] Il. ii. 513; xvi. 184, and other cases.\n\n[200] Il. xx. 234.\n\n \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f00\u03bd\u03b7\u03c1\u03b5\u03af\u03c8\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf \u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u1f76 \u0394\u03b9\u1f76 \u03bf\u1f30\u03bd\u03bf\u03c7\u03bf\u03b5\u03cd\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd,\n\nand it may have been either a case of translation, or one in which the\nmaid was conceived to have been taken for the service of the deity,\nperhaps at the neighbouring shrine of Delphi.\n\nAfter the part which the lay of Demodocus assigns to him, the most,\nperhaps the only, discreditable transaction assigned to Apollo in\nthe poems is the manner in which he disarms and partially disables\nPatroclus. Nothing can be more wretched than his operations on this\noccasion. The god comes up to the hero enveloped in cloud; strikes him\nfrom behind on the back; and knocks off his armour. I can conceive\nbut one explanation for this singular passage, which appears alike\nunsatisfactory from a poetical and from a mythological point of view.\nThat explanation I think is to be sought in intense nationality.\nThe main purpose of the poem required the sacrifice of a principal\nGreek hero: but no genuine Greek hero could be killed by fair means,\ntherefore it was necessary to dispose of him by such as were foul. It\nis perhaps also worth remark that the audacity of Patroclus in pushing\non to the city may perhaps have rendered him punishable (Il. xvi.\n698-711).\n\nIt is remarkable, however, that the character of each of the two great\ntraditive deities had begun to give way to corruption, and each in\nthe point at which, according to the respective sex, its yielding\nmight have been anticipated. As unchastity is more readily pardoned,\naccording to social usage, in the man, so is deceit in the woman. And\nin this point the standard had already fallen for Minerva.\n\nOf this we have one most clear indication, in her being commissioned\nto undertake the charge of inciting Pandarus to a very black act of\ntreachery, the breach of the Pact. So far from being unwilling in this\nmatter, she was even eager[201];\n\n[201] Il. iv. 73.\n\n \u1f63\u03c2 \u03b5\u1f30\u03c0\u1f7c\u03bd \u1f64\u03c4\u03c1\u03c5\u03bd\u03b5 \u03c0\u03ac\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2 \u03bc\u03b5\u03bc\u03b1\u03c5\u1fd6\u03b1\u03bd \u1f08\u03b8\u03ae\u03bd\u03b7\u03bd.\n\nBesides judgment and industrial skill, she gave \u03ba\u03ad\u03c1\u03b4\u03b5\u03b1 to\nPenelope[202]: and she describes herself[203] as excelling among the\ngods in craft as well as counsel;\n\n[202] Od. ii. 117.\n\n[203] Od. xiii. 299.\n\n \u03bc\u03ae\u03c4\u03b9 \u03c4\u03b5 \u03ba\u03bb\u03ad\u03bf\u03bc\u03b1\u03b9 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03ba\u03ad\u03c1\u03b4\u03b5\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd.\n\nWith the exception of this initial tendency to degenerate on the side\nof craft, we may say with truth that the highest moral tone, both of\nspeech and action, is reserved for Minerva in particular throughout\nthe poems, whether in the Olympian Court, or in her intercourse with\nmen. Alike in the Iliad and the Odyssey, her counsel, which prevails,\nundoubtedly also deserves to prevail. She is in both the champion of\nthe righteous cause. And when she states for the second time the case\nof Ulysses before the assembled gods, it is not now as before his\nliberality in sacrifice that she pleads, but, as a last resort, she\nmakes bold to urge the bad moral effect which will result, if they\ndiscourage virtue by permitting the ruin of this excellent man[204].\n\n[204] Od. v. 7.\n\n~_Their place in Providential Government._~\n\n2. It is in conformity with the expectations, which the superior\nmorality of Apollo and Minerva tends to raise, that we find them\noccupying a position such as is accorded to no other deity in the\nProvidential government both of the human mind and will, and likewise\nof the course of events external to it.\n\nThe origin of this position may, as I conceive, be found in the\ntraditions which they inherit, and according to which they would\nnaturally be exhibited as the administrators of the government of the\nworld, on behalf, if I may so speak, of the Godhead.\n\nBut there were, among the inborn tendencies of polytheism, two at\nleast which powerfully tended to give to these divinities a position\nnot only associated with that of Jupiter, but on the one hand more\npalpable and practical, and on the other of higher moral elevation.\nThese were the tendencies which, among the incidents of his supremacy,\non the one hand, blessed him with personal repose, and, on the other,\nendowed him with unbounded appetite. The first, by making Apollo and\nMinerva, as his organs, the practical governors of the world, tended\nto increase their importance at the expense of his, and the second\ngave them a moral title as it were to gain ground upon him. In the\ntime of Homer this process was considerably advanced; so that while\nthey seem to share with Jupiter the office of general direction, which\nthey hold subject to his control, it falls to one of them, to Minerva\nespecially, to conduct the highest of all the divine processes in the\nadministration of moral discipline, and in the exercise of influence\nover the human soul.\n\nIn the war before Troy, what is done by Juno or by Neptune is commonly\ndone in the way of unauthorized, or even of forbidden, interference.\nIn this, Minerva shares: for she has a less perfect conformity of\nwill with that of Jupiter than Apollo, though she has a more profound\nmoral resemblance of character to the ideal, from which the Homeric\nJupiter was a depravation. Of the action before Troy, however, as a\nwhole, thus much remains true: that, when the will of Jupiter is to be\nwrought out in favour of the Greeks, it is done entirely by Minerva,\nand when in favour of the Trojans it is done entirely by Apollo. Each\ntherefore appears as the proper minister of Jupiter, when willing, for\nconducting the government of mankind. One of them is always willing:\nand though the other is not equally acquiescent, still it is the view\nof the case taken by her, in common with other gods more weighty than\nnumerous, to which Jupiter ultimately gives way. Thus we may discern,\ngraven as it were upon the relation between themselves and Jupiter,\nthe mark which shows that it was originally derived from the office\nof Him, \u2018by whom God made the worlds[205].\u2019 Scarcely ever do we find\nHomer deviate from the general rule which exhibits them as the ordinary\nProvidence of the world for governing the detail of life. There is, I\nthink, but one part of the Iliad which exhibits to us any considerable\nassumption of this function by Jupiter himself. It is during the latter\npart of the day which was to be closed by a sunset fatal to Hector,\nthat, besides sending forth Apollo with the blinding \u00c6gis, he himself\ndescends to such acts of minute interference as breaking the bowstring\nof Teucer[206].\n\n[205] Heb. i. 2.\n\n[206] Il. xv. 463.\n\n~_It is frequently ascribed to them._~\n\nRegarded from without, these two deities appear to us as frequently\nreceiving from men the ascriptions of Divine Providence.\n\nThe idea of Divine Providence is frequently expressed by Homer under\nthe names \u03b8\u03b5\u1f78\u03c2, \u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u1f76, \u1f00\u03b8\u03ac\u03bd\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03b9, \u03b4\u03b1\u03af\u03bc\u03c9\u03bd. It is also often conveyed by\nthe name Jupiter alone, or by such an expression as \u2018Jupiter and the\nother immortal gods,\u2019 in which he appears at their head. In one place\nof the Odyssey, though only one, the day being the festival of Apollo,\nthis very extraordinary distinction is assigned to him: and the \u03c4\u03b9\u03c2 of\nthe Suitors thus places him at the head of the Olympian company[207];\n\n[207] Od. xxi. 364.\n\n \u03b5\u1f34 \u03ba\u03b5\u03bd \u1f08\u03c0\u03cc\u03bb\u03bb\u03c9\u03bd\n \u1f21\u03bc\u1fd6\u03bd \u1f31\u03bb\u03ae\u03ba\u1fc3\u03c3\u03b9 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f00\u03b8\u03ac\u03bd\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03b9 \u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u1f76 \u1f04\u03bb\u03bb\u03bf\u03b9.\n\nSometimes mortal men look to one of these deities for success in\ntheir enterprises, even without naming Jupiter: sometimes that name\nis conjoined with one of theirs. Apollo himself, appearing to Hector\nin the form of Asius his uncle, exhorts that chieftain to attack\nPatroclus, \u2018in the hope that Apollo may give him success[208].\u2019\nPresently, Patroclus, dying, attributes Hector\u2019s victory to Jupiter and\nApollo, his own death to Apollo and \u039c\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c1\u03b1[209]; Apollo, says Xanthus\nthe immortal horse, slew Patroclus, and gave glory to Hector[210]. This\ncannot well apply to the direct agency of the god in the matter, as he\nonly disarmed the Greek hero. Again, when Patroclus is slain, Minerva\ntakes no part in the proceedings. When Hector is about to be vanquished\nApollo retires, and Minerva straightway appears upon the field[211]. In\nthe Doloneia, Ulysses and Diomed succeed, because Jupiter and Minerva\nbefriend them[212]. Minerva rejoices, when she finds her name invoked\nfirst of all the gods[213]: and she instructs Laertes to call upon\nJupiter with herself, assuming for her own name the first place;\n\n[208] Il. xvi. 715.\n\n[209] Ibid. 845.\n\n[210] Il. xix. 413.\n\n[211] Il. xxii. 209-14.\n\n[212] Il. x. 552-3. Comp. xi. 736.\n\n[213] Cf. Il. x. 462.\n\n \u03b5\u1f50\u03be\u03ac\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 \u03ba\u03bf\u03cd\u03c1\u1fc3 \u0393\u03bb\u03b1\u03c5\u03ba\u03ce\u03c0\u03b9\u03b4\u03b9 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u0394\u03b9\u1f76 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c4\u03c1\u03af[214].\n\n[214] Od. xxiv. 518.\n\nAgamemnon feels that he is certain to take Troy, if only Jupiter and\nMinerva will it[215]. Ulysses expects to slay the Suitors \u2018by the\nfavour of Jupiter and Minerva[216].\u2019 But in fact, the whole scheme of\ndivine retribution, of which that hero is the organ, was planned by\nMinerva and not by Jupiter, as is twice declared to us from his own\nlips[217]. I must not, however, omit to notice one passage of peculiar\ngrandeur, in which Jupiter and Minerva are combined, as joint arbiters\nof great events. In the Sixteenth Odyssey, Telemachus exhorts his\nfather, amid their gloomy and doubtful prospects, to bethink him of\nobtaining some ally. He nobly replies as follows: \u2018I will tell you, and\ndo you answer me and say, whether Athene with Zeus her father will not\nsuffice for us, or whether I shall study to find some other defender.\u2019\nThe rejoinder of Telemachus is in the same exalted strain. \u2018Yes, these\nare good, though they be afar off, sitting on high; for they prevail\nover all others, whether they be men, or whether they be immortal\ngods[218].\u2019\n\n[215] Il. viii. 287.\n\n[216] Od. xx. 42.\n\n[217] Od. v. 23. xxiv. 479.\n\n[218] Od. xvi. 256-61, 262-5.\n\n~_Especially in the highest sense to Minerva._~\n\nIt should be observed, that they are not the lower and more external\nforms of providential action which devolve on Minerva, with a\nreservation of the higher parts to Jupiter. On the contrary, in what\nwe may call external and wholesale Providence, Jupiter is supreme;\nand in the conflict between Ulysses and the Ithacan rebels, as well\nas in various passages of the Iliad relating to external action,\nJupiter interposes to check her eager spirit. In the last Odyssey she\nasks his designs. He recommends a pacification. She thereupon exhorts\nand assists old Laertes to begin the battle. At length a thunderbolt\ndescends from Jupiter, and it falls at Minerva\u2019s feet. She then\ninterposes to make peace[219].\n\n[219] Od. xxiv. 472-86, 515-41.\n\nThus it is in battle and matters of the strong hand: but the higher and\ndeeper forms of providential action appear to be unheeded by Jupiter,\nand to fall to the lot of these two deities, more particularly of\nMinerva.\n\nIn the Odyssey, one of the Suitors, Amphinomus, better minded than\nthe rest, anticipates evil at an early juncture, and is disposed to\ntake the advice given him by Ulysses, that he should quit the palace,\nand return home. But he did not even now, says the Poet, escape\ndoom: for Minerva fettered him, that he should fall beneath the hand\nof Telemachus[220]. And further, she works inwardly on the minds of\nthe Suitors, \u2018not suffering them,\u2019 such is the remarkable phrase, \u2018to\nabstain from their biting insolence:\u2019 so that pain might yet more\ndeeply pierce the soul of Ulysses[221]:\n\n[220] Od. xviii. 151-7.\n\n[221] Od. xviii. 346.\n\n \u03bc\u03bd\u03b7\u03c3\u03c4\u1fc6\u03c1\u03b1\u03c2 \u03b4\u2019 \u03bf\u1f50 \u03c0\u03ac\u03bc\u03c0\u03b1\u03bd \u1f00\u03b3\u03ae\u03bd\u03bf\u03c1\u03b1\u03c2 \u03b5\u1f34\u03b1 \u1f08\u03b8\u03ae\u03bd\u03b7\n \u03bb\u03ce\u03b2\u03b7\u03c2 \u1f34\u03c3\u03c7\u03b5\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9 \u03b8\u03c5\u03bc\u03b1\u03bb\u03b3\u03ad\u03bf\u03c2, \u1f44\u03c6\u03c1\u2019 \u1f14\u03c4\u03b9 \u03bc\u1fb6\u03bb\u03bb\u03bf\u03bd\n \u03b4\u03cd\u03b7 \u1f04\u03c7\u03bf\u03c2 \u03ba\u03c1\u03b1\u03b4\u03af\u03b7\u03bd \u039b\u03b1\u03b5\u03c1\u03c4\u03b9\u03ac\u03b4\u03b7\u03bd \u1f48\u03b4\u03c5\u03c3\u1fc6\u03b1.\n\nThis passage is subsequently repeated; and it stands as one of those\nremarkable Homeric formul\u00e6, which are used with such extraordinary\ngrandeur of effect in the later books of the Odyssey; returning upon\nthe ear like the solemn tolling of a funeral bell.\n\nBut the sentiments which the passage contains are in themselves most\nremarkable, and perhaps only find a parallel in the awful language\nof Holy Writ; \u2018and the Lord hardened Pharaoh\u2019s heart, that he should\nnot let the people go[222].\u2019 They describe at once the doctrine of\nProvidence, and the essential laws of human nature, in their loftiest\nand severest form. They show us the hardening power of a long continued\ncourse of offences against the moral law, which at length converts the\nmost unbounded license into the most absolute slavery, under the iron\nyoke of habitual depravity; and they likewise exhibit the figure of\nDeity superintending this terrible, but natural as well as judicial\nretribution, which is the ultimate and effective sanction of the whole\nmoral code, alike in the earlier and in the later stages of the Divine\ndispensations. Besides all this, the passage exhibits to us pain\nadministered to the just man, in order to prove his resolution, and\nsteel him, that he may be the fitting minister of divine vengeance.\nNor does this process of probation cease here: for the conflict with\nthe Suitors is a prolonged one; and it is prolonged, because Minerva\nwas still making trial of the constancy of Ulysses and his son[223], as\nof metal in the fire.\n\n[222] Exod. x. 20.\n\n[223] Od. xxii. 236.\n\nIt is hard to find even approximations to such a picture in the later\nheathen literature, particularly after \u00c6schylus: and in Homer no\nfunction of this kind is ever attributed to an ordinary deity; nor even\nto Jupiter, whose place in the government of mankind, if estimated\nmorally, is lower than that of Minerva. I shall have occasion shortly\nto glance further at this subject.\n\nThe higher powers attaching to the character of the great Deliverer\nof man, besides being more or less obscured in each case, are by the\ndisintegration, with which we may now have become familiar, divided\nbetween Apollo and Minerva; so that while in some, and indeed in most,\npoints of view, it is a common character which distinguishes and severs\nthem from the deities of mere invention, in others we must combine the\ngifts of one with those of the other, in order to get at the entire\noutline of the ancient tradition.\n\nThus we have seen, that Minerva exercises higher functions in\nProvidential government, and in the administration of the general\nlaws of our nature, than are wielded even by the Homeric Jupiter.\nWe have also partially considered why it is, that she thus attains\na superiority which, undoubtedly, no pristine tradition could while\nunaltered accord to her. At present I proceed to observe, that we may\nfind a counterpart to this paramount prerogative of Minerva in the gift\nof fore and after knowledge, possessed most peculiarly and largely by\nApollo.\n\nCalchas, Seer of the Greek army, knew what was, what had been, and what\nwas to be, by the gift which Ph\u0153bus Apollo had conferred on him[224].\nIt is the business of this order, who are ministers of Apollo, to\ninterpret all signs and presages to men in virtue of the prerogative\nof that deity. In the Fifteenth Book, indeed, Apollo inquires of\nHector the cause of his evil plight: but he has not yet put off his\n_incognito_, as we see from the reply of Hector;\n\n[224] Il. i. 69-72.\n\n \u03c4\u03af\u03c2 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03c3\u03cd \u1f10\u03c3\u03c3\u03b9, \u03c6\u03ad\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5 \u03b8\u03b5\u1ff6\u03bd[225];\n\n[225] Il. xv. 247.\n\nAnd, while Jupiter has the single and remote oak of Dodona for the\ndelivery of oracles to men, Apollo has already his Pythian temple in\nthe very heart of Greece, and hard by the great highway across the\nCorinthian gulf, and has likewise a shrine at Delos for that purpose;\nfor we must presume that, when Ulysses[226] stopped to visit Delos on\nhis way home, it was in order to obtain information as to his fate.\nThus Apollo appears to stand first of the gods in regard to knowledge\nof events, as Minerva does with respect to the ordinary government\nof mankind. Nor does Homer scruple to call this favourite divinity\nthe first of the gods; an expression, however, which he employs with\nlatitude, and which must not be too rigidly construed[227]:\n\n[226] Od. vi. 163.\n\n[227] Il. xix. 413.\n\n \u03b8\u03b5\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f64\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2, \u1f43\u03bd \u1f20\u03b0\u03ba\u03bf\u03bc\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c4\u03ad\u03ba\u03b5 \u039b\u03b7\u03c4\u03ce.\n\nI have already observed that the abstract words \u03b8\u03b5\u1f78\u03c2 and \u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u1f76, which\nare generally used by Homer to convey the idea of Providence, are when\nso used commonly referable in the main to Jupiter, so far as we can\nconnect them at all with any of the Olympian personages. Sometimes,\nhowever, they are determined by the sense of the passage to signify\nMinerva or Apollo; but I think they never, when they relate to\nProvidential action, mean any other divinity.\n\nIt is by no means from any merely national, or even personal\npredilection, but it is mainly from the lofty standing ground of a\nProvidence, that Minerva follows Ulysses: it is in the same general\ncharacter that Apollo is made a party in the final crisis of the\nOdyssey through the introduction of his festival, and of the Bow.\n\nIn the Olympian assemblage, it is Minerva who really represents the\nelement of mind and its inborn supremacy over all other forces. She\nproceeds upon principles, when Juno acts upon partial attachments; and\nher superiority is so great, as to be wholly inexplicable under the\nhypothesis which would represent the characters and attributes of all\nalike as the mere products of invention.\n\n~_Intimacy of Minerva\u2019s personal relations._~\n\nThe offices of both these deities, but especially of Minerva, in\nrelation to the guidance of human conduct, are much higher than those\nof any other deity in their kind. Not only do they both act in the\nlargest and most free manner on the human mind by inward influence,\nbut, if there is any trace in the Homeric system of what may be called\nspiritual religion, of the tender and intimate relations which have\nfrom the first subsisted between the children of faith and their Father\nin Heaven, it is in Minerva that we must seek for it. It is indeed but\na faint resemblance that we shall find; the very application of the\nword may be disputable. Yet it is something, which appears to show that\nit was at any rate not of heathen origin: that it is a flower, sickly,\nbecause transplanted from a better to a less kindly soil; a shadow,\nor a wreck of something greater and better, and not a scheme built up\nfrom beneath. The mode in which Minerva cares for Ulysses deserves at\nleast thus much of honour. It is a contact so close and intimate, a\ncare so sleepless and so tender, embracing alike the course of events\nwithout, and the state of mind within; so affectionate in relation to\nthe person, yet so entirely without the least partiality or caprice; so\npersonal, yet so far from what Holy Scripture calls, with the highest\nperfection of phrase, respect of persons; so deeply founded on general\nlaws of truth and justice, even if some deviations can be detected,\nby a jealous eye, in the choice of subsidiary means; that, as it is\nwithout any thing like a parallel in the ruder and meaner relations\nof men with the deities of invention, so it makes its own audible and\nlegitimate claim to a higher origin. The principle at least of inward\nand sustained intercourse between the Deity and the soul of man is\nperceptibly represented to us by the literature of Greece in a case\nlike this, and, with the very partial and qualified exception of the\n\u03b4\u03b1\u03af\u03bc\u03c9\u03bd of Socrates, in such a case only.\n\nMinerva, again, can affect the mind with a friendly bewilderment;\nas when she paralyses for a moment the understanding of the nurse\nEuryclea, that she may not give an answer, which would be inconvenient,\nto the question of Penelope[228]. To her Ulysses looks for the right\nrearing of his son: and she assures him he need have no anxiety[229].\nEven as respects the human person, no powers so large are any where\nascribed by Homer to any other deity as those which she exercises,\nespecially in the transformation and re-transformation of Ulysses.\n\n[228] Od. xviii. 479.\n\n[229] Od. xiii. 359.\n\n~_Form of their relation to their attributes._~\n\n3. Another very remarkable distinction, or rather cluster of\ndistinctions, attaching to these deities, relates to the manner in\nwhich they bear their attributes. Speaking generally, the deities of\npure invention are the mere impersonations of a passion, or of an\nelemental or bodily power, or of a mental gift. They are, in the order\nof ideas, posterior and ministerial to their own attributes: the mere\nvehicles for carrying them into movement and action, so that in truth\nthe persons are the embellishments and the attributes of qualities,\nand not the qualities attributes of persons. To state it at the very\nhighest, the inventive divinity is the steward of his own gifts.\n\nNow the traditive god is their proprietor and master. In the case of\nthe two great traditive deities, Apollo and Minerva, the relation\nbetween function and person exactly reverses that which has been\ndescribed. Here the attribute is something attached to, something in\nthe possession and under the command of, the person; as much so, as\nthe unerring bow of Apollo, or the invincible spear of Minerva. It is\nnot Apollo, but it is the bow of Apollo, which stands in the relation\nto his office as minister of death, that Vulcan himself bears to the\nelement of fire and to the metallic art, or Mars to the passions and\nthe strong hand of war. If we except the single case of the choice\ngarment of Juno[230], Minerva neither spins nor hammers. Mars always\nappears fighting, but Apollo does not always appear prophesying or\nplaying the lyre, a function which he seems to perform only in the\ncompany of the gods.\n\n[230] Il. xiv. 178.\n\nThe difference is strongly marked in Homer, by the fact that the\ninvented divinities of the second order are identified in common\nlanguage with their offices. Ares is a synonym for a spear: fire\nis \u03c6\u03bb\u1f78\u03be \u1f29\u03c6\u03b1\u03af\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03b9\u03bf, or even simply \u1f2d\u03c6\u03b1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2[231]: the name \u1f28\u03ad\u03bb\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2 is\nabsolutely identified with a great natural object: corn is \u0394\u03b7\u03bc\u03ae\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2\n\u1f00\u03ba\u03c4\u03ae. But no analogous phrase is applicable to Apollo or to Minerva in\nHomer. As, with the lapse of time, the will and fancy of man did its\nwork more fully upon the idea of deity, the names of other divinities\nfell within the circle; and the remembrance of tradition having become\nfainter and fainter, in the time of Horace the word Minerva could be\nused for wit (Hor. Sat. II. ii. 3);\n\n[231] Il. ii. 426.\n\n Rusticus, abnormis sapiens, crass\u00e2que Minerv\u00e2.\n\nBut, as is often the case, in this change, external as it is, and\napparently slight, we have an outward sign of the profound alterative\nprocess, which in Homer\u2019s time had largely begun, and which continued\nuntil the incrustation and absorption of religious truth became entire.\n\n~_Their capacity to attract new ones._~\n\n4. In conformity with the last-named indication is another, which I\nhave next to notice. The traditive god is capable of receiving new\nfunctions; apparently because he is not the servant of the old ones:\nbut the deity who is a mere personal expression for a certain idea,\ncan, as a general rule, have no duty or prerogative beyond its bounds,\nmore than can a counter beyond the thing which it has been chosen to\nsignify. Hence Vulcan, Venus, Mars, Ceres, Bacchus, even Mercury,\nthe god of gain, continue, after as well as in Homer, to be devoted\nto and identified with their several functions. Only in the case of\nMercury, as traffic involves motion from place to place, and the\nacts of both honest and dishonest persuasion, he is in Homer, and he\nafterwards continues to be more generally, a messenger and conductor,\na negotiator and a rhetorician, as well as a thief. But even Juno,\nelevated as she is in station, yet, having been called into Olympus as\na vehicle for conveying the idea of maternity, continues to be charged\nwith that office, and is not specifically invested with any other.\nSuch attributions as are implied in the Venus Victrix, or other like\ndedications, are indeed at variance with these propositions; but they\nbelong to a later and greatly altered state of the old mythology, when\nit had reached to an immeasurable distance from its source, and had\nlost the traces even of its own early features. But in the cases of\nApollo and Minerva, we perceive that the traditive deity was not thus\n\u2018cabined, cribbed, confined.\u2019\n\nWe find the Apollo of Homer the deity of the following particular\nfunctions:\n\n1. The lyre and poetry, Il. i. 603.\n\n2. Divination, Il. i. 72.\n\n3. Healing, Il. xvi. 517.\n\n4. The bow, Il. i. 49. ii. 827.\n\n5. Death, either gentle and painless, or not referable to any known\ncause, such as ordinary disease or wounds.\n\nBesides all this, he may be called, with Pallas, the god of Help in\ngeneral; and, even within the range of single attributes, he shews an\nimmense diversity. He was the god at once of the severe and simple\nmusic of the Dorians[232], and of the rabid ecstasy of the Pythoness.\n\n[232] M\u00fcller\u2019s Dorians, II. viii. 12.\n\nIt is hardly possible that he could have begun his career in the Greek\nmythology with such an assemblage of functions, not only not united\nby any obvious tie, but some of them in apparent contradiction with\none another. Probably the constitutive ideas of the tradition he\nrepresented were fitted out by a gradual process with this outward\napparatus of prerogatives; each of which, when taken singly, was in\nharmony with them. Nor was the operation completed even in the time of\nHomer, as we see from the curious case of the Sun.\n\nWe may, I apprehend, view that case in either of two aspects. We\nmay consider what was historically the progress of the traditions\nconcerning the Sun from their source to their maturity, when they were\nincorporated into the comprehensive deity of Apollo: or we may examine\nthe moral affinities, which determined the direction and conclusion of\ntheir career.\n\nHistorically, I presume that the Homeric tradition of the Sun\nrepresents a separate and recent importation from a foreign country,\nwhich had not as yet been fitted into a place of its own in the Greek\nmythology. It therefore wanders as it were unappropriated, and hangs in\ntemporary suspense.\n\nThe Apollo had already undergone a formative process, and the ornaments\nof fancy had been embroidered upon the tissue of an ancient tradition.\nAfter Homer\u2019s time, the function of animating and governing the Sun was\nadded to the multifarious offices of that deity. As respects himself,\nthis is a proof that his receptiveness was not yet exhausted; that he\nwas independent and disengaged. As respects the \u1f28\u03ad\u03bb\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2, this result\nshows that there was some sympathy or moral gravitation, which led to\nthe absorption of this Homeric divinity in Apollo.\n\nThe oscillating condition of that conception in the Homeric poems, and\nthe indeterminate state of its affinities, will be considered in the\nnext Section.\n\n~_Wide range of their functions._~\n\nIn Homer the deities of invention are, without an exception, limited\neither to a single function (and this in the great majority of cases),\nor to functions which are connected, as in the case of Mercury,\nwith one common and central idea, itself such as may belong to a\nmythological formation. But there is no such idea on which, as on a\nstring, we can possibly hang all the various attributes of Homer\u2019s\nApollo: and the case becomes stronger when we find that it is this very\ngod, already (if he be mythological only) quite overstocked, who shows\na yet further capacity to absorb into his own person new powers of\ndivinity, which in Homer\u2019s time as yet stood apart from him.\n\nAs respects mere multiplicity and diversity of function, the case of\nMinerva is somewhat less marked than that of Apollo: for it may be\npracticable to associate together all her offices as they are described\nin Homer, around one grand combination of Power with Wisdom, as their\ncentral point. But even then, when we consider that she supremely\nadministers political society, personal conduct, war, and skilled\nindustry, in fact that the whole intelligence of the world, individual\nand collective, appears to be under her paramount guidance, besides all\nthe power she exercises over inanimate and animate nature, and even in\nthe innermost sphere of personal action, we perceive that, apart from\nthe elevation and glory of her position, the range of her gifts goes\nto an extent which, simply as such, could never have been assigned by\nmere human invention to any deity but the supreme one. The idea of\nthe goddess of Wisdom, conceived as largely as it must be in order to\ncover all Minerva\u2019s Homeric attributes, leaves no room for the other\nconceptions necessary to fit out a mythology.\n\nFor what a range do these attributes include!\n\nMinerva is in heaven armed with such power that to none of the gods,\nexcept Jove only, and to him scarcely, does she succumb. She is supreme\nin war, supreme in policy, supreme in art; supreme in prudence and\nthe practical business of life; supreme in manual skill; supreme in\nor over all contests of force: while at the same time the lower and\nexecutory parts of each of these functions, where she drops them, are\ntaken up, as we have seen, by deities far inferior to her, though still\nof the first or Olympian order. Even physical strength, if combined\nwith skill, is under her supreme management: for it is through her aid\nthat Tydeus wins in the games at Thebes[233], as well as Mecisteus on\nanother occasion, and that Nestor conquers Ereuthalion[234].\n\n[233] Il. iv. 327. xxiii. 678.\n\n[234] Il. vii. 154.\n\nWhen Jupiter admonishes Venus to abandon attempts at war, he adds[235],\n\n[235] Il. v. 430. Compare xvii. 398. xiii. 127. Od. xiv. 216.\n\n \u03c4\u03b1\u1fe6\u03c4\u03b1 \u03b4\u2019 \u1f0c\u03c1\u03b7\u03ca \u03b8\u03bf\u1ff7 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f08\u03b8\u03ae\u03bd\u1fc3 \u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1 \u03bc\u03b5\u03bb\u03ae\u03c3\u03b5\u03b9.\n\nThere can be no doubt which of these two war-divinities was superior\nand which subordinate; the exploit of Diomed alone would avail to\nsettle the question: but more direct evidence is to be found in the\nsingular passage which describes Minerva as invested with the charge\nof chastising Mars, and in the mode after which, in the Fifteenth and\nTwenty-first Books, she herself recognises and fulfils the obligation\nof her office. (Il. v. 766. xv. 123-42).\n\nAgain, her name is connected with that of Vulcan as to his own\nspecial and sole art of working in metals. Twice in the Odyssey the\nsilversmith is introduced in a simile, and he is called a man educated\nby these two[236];\n\n[236] Od. vi. 233. xxiii. 159.\n\n \u1f34\u03b4\u03c1\u03b9\u03c2, \u1f43\u03bd \u1f2d\u03c6\u03b1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u03b4\u03ad\u03b4\u03b1\u03b5\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03a0\u03b1\u03bb\u03bb\u1f70\u03c2 \u1f08\u03b8\u03ae\u03bd\u03b7\n \u03c4\u03ad\u03c7\u03bd\u03b7\u03bd \u03c0\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf\u03af\u03b7\u03bd.\n\nOnly in the arts of tissue and embroidery she seems to have no\ncoadjutor. This probably is on account of their purely feminine\ncharacter. But generally all the principles and foundations of art are\nhers. Thus she even teaches mensuration to the carpenter[237]:\n\n[237] Il. xv. 412.\n\n \u1f45\u03c2 \u1fe5\u03ac \u03c4\u03b5 \u03c0\u03ac\u03c3\u03b7\u03c2\n \u03b5\u1f56 \u03b5\u1f30\u03b4\u1fc7 \u03c3\u03bf\u03c6\u03af\u03b7\u03c2, \u1f51\u03c0\u03bf\u03b8\u03b7\u03bc\u03bf\u03c3\u03cd\u03bd\u1fc3\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u1f08\u03b8\u03ae\u03bd\u03b7\u03c2.\n\nAs some of her distinctive epithets, like \u1f10\u03c1\u03c5\u03c3\u03af\u03c0\u03c4\u03bf\u03bb\u03b9\u03c2, \u03c6\u03b8\u03b9\u03c3\u03af\u03bc\u03b2\u03c1\u03bf\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2\nrefer especially to war, so she has others which look either mainly\nor exclusively to the supreme care of political order. Such are\n\u1f00\u03bb\u03b1\u03bb\u03ba\u03bf\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03b7\u03b9\u03c2, \u03bb\u03b1\u03cc\u03c3\u03c3\u03bf\u03bf\u03c2, and \u1f00\u03b3\u03b5\u03bb\u03b5\u03af\u03b7 (collector or leader of a people).\nIt is the executory duty that is intrusted to Themis. She is the\nmessenger, who summons the deities, and she both collects and dissolves\nhuman assemblies[238]: thus discharging a subordinate function, where\nPallas is the presiding goddess. It is probably for this reason that,\nnotwithstanding the strong political spirit of Homer, we find Themis\nact so secondary a part in Olympus.\n\n[238] Od. ii. 69.\n\n~_The central Wisdom of Minerva._~\n\nThus Wisdom is the centre, and every thing that flows forth from it is\nhers, whether in peace or war.\n\nOver and above all these offices, which seem to have a connection with\nher ordinary attributes, she appears to share in the most recondite and\npeculiar functions of other deities. She enters into Apollo\u2019s knowledge\nof the future; for in the Ithacan cave she foretells to Ulysses all\nthat he has yet to suffer. Her power even descends, as we have seen,\ninto the nether world. It seems as if this power in the Shades were\nthe portion falling to her out of the supremacy over death, assigned\nby tradition to the Messiah. And she has also, if not the jurisdiction\nover death lodged peculiarly in her hands, a faculty yet more wonderful\nascribed to her, that of staying its approach; for Euryclea bids\nPenelope in her distress pray to Minerva, who can deliver Telemachus\nfrom death; that is, can raise him up again:\n\n \u1f21 \u03b3\u03ac\u03c1 \u03ba\u03ad\u03bd \u03bc\u03b9\u03bd \u1f14\u03c0\u03b5\u03b9\u03c4\u03b1 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f10\u03ba \u03b8\u03b1\u03bd\u03ac\u03c4\u03bf\u03b9\u03bf \u03c3\u03b1\u03ce\u03c3\u03b1\u03b9[239].\n\n[239] Od. iv. 750-3.\n\nIn truth it seems to be the distinctive character of Minerva in the\nHomeric theo-mythology, that though she is not the sole deity, yet\nthe very flower of the whole office and work of deity is every where\nreserved for her: and though she is not directly invested with the\nexternal form and body of every gift, yet she has the heart, essence\nand virtue of them all; insomuch that, practically, no limit can be\nplaced upon her powers and functions. The whole conception is therefore\nfundamentally at variance with the measured and finite organization of\nan invented system of religion, and by its own incongruities with that\nsystem it proves itself to be an exotic element.\n\nBy another path, we arrive at the very same conclusion for Apollo. He\ntoo has much of that inwardness and universality of function, which\nbelongs to Minerva, as well as a diversity of offices peculiarly his\nown. But the argument here admits of being presented in a different\nform. All his peculiar gifts in Homer are referable to one of three\ncharacters, those of Prophet, Deliverer, and Avenger, or Judge. In the\nfirst, gifted with all knowledge, he is also the God of Song, which was\nits vehicle. In the second, he is the hearer of prayer, the healer of\nwounds, the champion of Heaven itself against rebellion. In the third,\nhe punishes the guilty, and especially administers the one grand penal\nlaw of death. All this he does as the organ of one, with whom in will\nhe is perfectly united. The tangled thread runs out without knot or\nbreak, when we unravel it by primitive Messianic tradition; because it\nwas fundamental in that tradition, that the person who was the subject\nof it, should exhibit this many sided union of character and function.\nBut could Deliverance and Destruction, there combined, any where else\nhave been read otherwise than as contradictory to one another, and\nincapable of being united in the same being?\n\n~_The conflicting Characters of Apollo._~\n\nI know no other principle, on which we can satisfactorily explain\neither the double character of Apollo as Saviour and as Destroyer,\nor the apparently miscellaneous character of the attributes which\nsuccessively attached to him[240]. How strange in itself, that the\nGod, who alone has a peculiar office in bringing death, should also\nbe the God of deliverance from it! The contradiction is harmonized by\nthe supposition of a traditionary origin, but otherwise it obstinately\nremains a contradiction. Again, look at the nature of this peculiar\nrelation. Death by slow disease was not thought worthy to be referred\nto the agency of a god, (Od. xi. 200.): the calm death of old age, the\nsharp and agonizing death of a plague, both these were so, and both\nare referred to Apollo. How can this be, and what has become of the\nfine imaginative discrimination of the Greeks, and of their love for\nlogical consistency even in that domain, if we suppose that in all\nthis they were working by pure fancy? Now the difficulty vanishes, if\nwe suppose them to be the mere utterers of the disjointed fragments of\npristine tradition, when they had lost the key to their common meaning.\nFor then, He that was to grind his enemies to powder, was likewise\nto take the sting from death itself, and to make the king of terrors\ngentle and humane. Again, why was Apollo, thus associated with death,\nlikewise the god of foreknowledge? Why did he, and he only, partake\nof this privilege with Jupiter? Nay, he enjoyed knowledge apparently\nin a greater degree; for we are not furnished with any case in which\nApollo is grossly deluded like Jupiter by Juno. Why, again, should\nthe god of foreknowledge be the god of medicine? And why should the\ngod of medicine also absorb into himself the divinity of the sun,\nseparate from him in Homer, but afterwards identified with him? Why\ndoes his character, as compared with that of the other gods, approach\nto purity? As the dignity of Minerva is explained by our supposing\nher to impersonate the ancient traditions of the Wisdom; so in the\ncase of Apollo, we obtain a thread upon which each and all of these\notherwise incongruous notions may be hung, if we suppose that he, after\na certain severance of those shades of character, which could only find\nexpression for a Greek in the female order, represented the legendary\nanticipations of a person to come, in whom should be combined all the\ngreat offices, in which God the Son is now made known to man as the\nLight of our paths, the Physician of our diseases, the Judge of our\nmisdeeds, and the Conqueror and disarmer, but not yet abolisher, of\ndeath?\n\n[240] The character of Apollo the Destroyer is well represented in a\nfragment of Archilochus:\n\n \u1f64\u03bd\u03b1\u03be \u1f0c\u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03bb\u03bf\u03bd, \u03ba\u03b1\u03af \u03c3\u03c5 \u03bc\u1f72\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 \u03b1\u1f30\u03c4\u03af\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2\n \u03c0\u03ae\u03bc\u03b1\u03b9\u03bd\u03b5, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c3\u03c6\u1fb6\u03c2 \u1f44\u03bb\u03bb\u03c5\u2019, \u1f65\u03c3\u03c0\u03b5\u03c1 \u1f40\u03bb\u03bb\u03cd\u03b5\u03b9\u03c2.\n\n Archil. apud Macrob. Fragm. 79. Ed. Gaisford.\n\n~_They do not harmonize with Olympus._~\n\nAgain, as these great deities are anomalies in themselves, so are they\nlikewise in the Olympian order.\n\nIf we were to remove Minerva and Apollo from Olympus, we should\nindeed take away the breadth and boldness of its sublimity, but we\nshould add greatly to its mere symmetry: especially as some other\nminor figures would for the same reasons follow. There would then\nremain there the polygamous monarch of the skies, with his chief\nand secondary wives, the ranks of earth supplying him from time to\ntime with further satisfaction for his passions; and in his various\nchildren or companions would be represented the various essential\nfunctions, as they were then estimated, of an organized community.\nThemis would represent policy, Mercury gain, the Muses song, and with\nit all knowledge; Vulcan, manual skill; Mars, the soldier; Paieon, the\nsurgeon; Venus, that relaxed relation of the sexes to which mankind\nhas ever leaned. For corn there would be Demeter or Ceres, and for\nwine, Dionysus or Bacchus. I grant that there is here inserted one\nsingle ingredient not known to the Homeric Olympus. His Muses are not\nstated to have any foreknowledge. But, after allowing for this trifling\nexception, I think it remains clear that though the ethics and the\npoetry of that region would be fatally damaged by the removal of Apollo\nand Minerva, its mere statistics might be visibly improved.\n\nThe discussions which have arisen upon the etymology of the name\nApollo, are in themselves significant of the difficulty of accounting\nfor his origin mythologically. M\u00fcller mentions the derivation from the\nsun (\u1f28\u03dd\u03ad\u03bb\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2, \u0391\u03a0\u03ad\u03bb\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2) in order to reject it; as he repudiates (and\nvery justly) the whole theory, which treats this deity as an elemental\npower. Passing over others as unworthy of serious notice, he rejects\n\u1f00\u03c0\u03cc\u03bb\u03bb\u03c5\u03bc\u03b9[241], as \u2018founded on a partial and occasional attribute of\nthe god,\u2019 and adopts \u1f00\u03c0\u03ad\u03bb\u03bb\u03c9\u03bd the _averter_ (_sc._ of evil) or defender,\nas most expressive of his general function: in other words, though he\ndoes not go on to say so, he is the darkened shadow of the Saviour. But\nthe really characteristic name of Apollo he conceives to be \u03a6\u03bf\u1fd6\u03b2\u03bf\u03c2,\nthe bright and clear[242]. Clemens Alexandrinus, in the _Stromata_,\nfancifully derives the name from \u1f00 _privative_, and \u03c0\u03cc\u03bb\u03bb\u03c9\u03bd, and\ninterprets the name as signifying the negation of plurality, and thus\nthe unity of the Godhead[243].\n\n[241] Which however has the sanction of Euripides as well as\nArchilochus, (sup. p. 131 n.);\n\n \u1f66 \u03c7\u03c1\u03c5\u03c3\u03bf\u03c6\u03b5\u03b3\u03b3\u1f72\u03c2 \u1f25\u03bb\u03b9\u2019, \u1f65\u03c2 \u03bc\u2019 \u1f00\u03c0\u03ce\u03bb\u03b5\u03c3\u03b1\u03c2\n \u1f45\u03b8\u03b5\u03bd \u03c3\u2019 \u1f08\u03c0\u03cc\u03bb\u03bb\u03c9\u03bd\u2019 \u1f10\u03bc\u03c6\u03b1\u03bd\u1ff6\u03c2 \u03ba\u03bb\u03ae\u03c3\u03b5\u03b9 \u03b2\u03c1\u03bf\u03c4\u03cc\u03c2.\n\n Eurip. Phaeth. ap. Macrob. Sat. i. 17.\n\n[242] Dorians, II. vi. 6, 7.\n\n[243] Strom. L. i. p. 349 B.\n\nThe name of Athene would appear to be formed by transposition from the\nEgyptian Neith[244], to whom, according to ancient inscriptions, very\nhigh and comprehensive dignities were assigned. It does not follow that\nwe are to regard the Athene of Homer as an Egyptian divinity; though\nan Egyptian name may have been the centre, around which gathered the\nremarkable and even august fragments of the Messianic traditions that\nwe have found represented in her.\n\n[244] See Bunsen\u2019s \u2018Egypt\u2019s Place,\u2019 I. vi. A. 7.\n\n~_Summary of distinctive traits._~\n\nIn quitting a subject of so much importance, I will now endeavour\nto sum up, in the most concise form of which it is susceptible, the\nevidence to be drawn from Homer of the different position held by\nApollo and Minerva from that of the other Olympian deities.\n\nI. Points of distinction in their relations to the Olympian Court and\nits members.\n\n1. The dignity accorded to them is quite out of keeping with their\nrank, as belonging to the junior generation of the mythological family,\nwhich was, as such, inferior in rank and power to the senior one[245].\n\n[245] See the observation of Neptune, Il. xv. 195-8.\n\n2. They bear visible marks, even in the mythological order, of an\nantiquity greater than that of the other deities in general.\n\n3. The external administration, or subordinate parts of the functions\nassigned to them in the mythological system, are commonly devolved upon\nanother set of deities, here called Secondaries.\n\n4. A peculiar dignity, in the nature of precedence, is accorded\nespecially to Minerva.\n\n5. We have next noted the singular union of Apollo with Jupiter in\nwill and affection, and the relation of both to him, as the proper and\nregular ministers of the supreme dispensations of heaven, apart from\nthe partial and individual action of particular gods.\n\n6. The defence of heaven against rebellion is dimly recorded to have\nbeen the act of Apollo; and indispensable assistance was also rendered\non another occasion to Jupiter by Minerva.\n\n7. These great divinities are never baffled, disgraced, or worsted\nin any transaction between themselves and any other deity; nor ever\nexhibited by the Poet in a disadvantageous or disparaging position.\n\nII. Points of distinction in their terrestrial relations and their\nconditions of physical existence.\n\n1. They were known by men to be entitled, either alone, or in common\nwith Jupiter only, to a peculiar reverence or honour.\n\n2. They were the objects of worship in all parts of the Homeric world.\n\n3. Neither of them are bound to any local residence in particular; and\nfor Apollo there is no trace of any such residence at all.\n\n4. They are both the objects, Minerva more particularly, of general\ninvocation and prayer, irrespective of place and circumstances.\n\n5. They are exempted from the chief physical limitations, as of time,\nplace, and perceptive organs, which are generally imposed upon the\ndeities of invention.\n\n6. They have a separate and independent power to punish those who\noffend them, without any need of an appeal to Jupiter, or to the\nOlympian Court.\n\n7. They are admitted, exclusively, or in common with Juno only, to a\nshare in certain peculiar mythological functions of Jupiter himself.\n\n8. They have a power of making revelations to men, through signs or\nportents significant of the future.\n\n9. They have a general power of extraordinary or miraculous action upon\nnature, to which scarcely any other deity approaches.\n\n10. The peculiar and mysterious relation of Apollo, with his\nsister Diana, to death, cannot be understood or accounted for from\nmythological _data_.\n\n11. In the exercise of their power over nature, Minerva and Apollo are,\nmore than other deities, exempt from the need of resort to symbolic\nactions by way of cooperative means.\n\nIII. Points of distinction with regard to their personal characters.\n\n1. Their moral tone is far superior to that of the Olympian Court in\ngeneral.\n\n2. They are both peculiarly associated with Jupiter in the original\nadministration of Providential functions, and are particularly\nconcerned with the highest, most ethical, and most inward parts of\nthem.\n\n3. Their relation to their mythological attributes is different in kind\nfrom that of the ordinary Olympian divinities.\n\n4. They have a number and range of attributes quite without parallel in\nthe Olympian system: and yet with this a capacity of receiving new ones.\n\n5. Both in themselves, and in reference to that system, the whole\nconception of Apollo and Minerva, if it be viewed mythologically, is\nfull of inexplicable anomaly: and the only solution to be found is\nin the recognition of the traditional basis, on which the Homeric\nrepresentations of them must be founded.\n\nAlthough what I have built upon this evidence may be termed an\nhypothesis, the whole of the evidence itself is circumstantial: and\nI feel that the effect of it is not only to draw a broad line, but\nalmost to place an impassable gulf, between such divinities as the\nHomeric Minerva and Apollo, on the one hand, and the Homeric Mars,\nVenus, Vulcan, and Mercury on the other. The differences between\nthem are, however, graduated and shaded off by the interposition,\nfirst, of the minor traditive deities, such as Latona and Diana; and,\nsecondly, of the greatest among the Olympian personages chiefly or\nwholly mythological, such as Neptune and Juno: and it is probably this\ngraduation, running through the Olympian body, which has prevented our\nduly appreciating the immense interval that lies between its extremes.\n\nIt is to the indefatigable students of Germany that we, the less\nlaborious English, are, along with the rest of the world, indebted\nfor what may be called the systematic treatment of the Homeric poems\nwith respect to the facts they contain. To amass evidence is one\nthing; to penetrate into its heart and spirit, is another. The former\nwithout the latter is insufficient; but the former is to the latter an\nindispensable preliminary. The works of Homer should be viewed, and\ntheir testimony registered, like the phenomena of a geological period:\nso unencumbered is he with speculation or the bias of opinion; so true,\nclear, direct, and unmixed is his exhibition of historical and moral\nfact. This method of investigation, honestly pursued, carries with it\nan adequate and a self-acting provision for the correction of its own\nerrors.\n\n~_Explanation by Friedreich._~\n\nSince I commenced the examination of the question now before us, there\nhas appeared the second edition of a work, which I believe to be the\nlatest compendium of what may be called the facts of the Homeric poems,\nby J. B. Friedreich. I find that this writer has been struck by the\noverpowering evidence of the vestiges of an early revelation in the\ncharacters of the Homeric Minerva and Apollo[246]. He observes the\nseparate character of their relations both to Jupiter and to mankind;\nassigns to them an unbounded power over all events and the whole of\nhuman life; and says, \u2018This Triad of Zeus, Athene, and Apollo, bears\nan unmistakeable analogy to the Christian Trinity, of Father, Holy\nGhost, and Son: Jupiter answering to God the Father, Athene to the\nHoly Ghost, and Apollo to the Son of God, the Declarer of the will of\nHis Heavenly Father: like as, furthermore, the early Christians have\nlargely compared Christ with Apollo.\u2019\n\n[246] Die Realien in der Iliade und Odyssee von J. B. Friedreich.\nErlangen, 1856. In three parts. See P. iii. \u00a7. 194. p. 635, and \u00a7. 198.\np. 689. Mure observes on the sublimity of the Apollo of Homer: but his\naccount of the deities of the poems is brief and rather slight. B. II.\nch. xii. sect. 4.\n\nIn this representation I find a fundamental agreement with the\nviews expressed in the present work. But I venture to think that\nthe particular mode of the relation between the Homeric and the\nprimitive tradition, which has been set forth in this work, is more\nnatural and probable than that asserted by Friedreich. As it has\nbeen here represented, we are to consider the primitive tradition as\ndisintegrated and subdivided. First, that of the Redeemer is severed\nfrom that of the Holy Trinity. Next, its two aspects of the Wisdom and\nthe Messiah, become two impersonations. And then the impersonation\nwhich represents the tradition properly Messianic, is itself again\nsubjected to duplication. As the result of this threefold operation, we\nhave--\n\n1. The trine Kronid brotherhood.\n\n2. Minerva and Apollo.\n\n3. Apollo and Diana.\n\nThe principle of the severance always being, to get rid of some\ndifficulty, encountered by the human apprehension in embracing the\nintegral tradition.\n\nThe difficulty at the first step was to reconcile equality, or what\nthe Christian dogma more profoundly terms consubstantiality, with a\nministerial manifestation.\n\nThe difficulty at the second step probably was to combine in one\nimpersonation two groups of images, the one (the Wisdom), relating to\nfunction that dwells purely in the Godhead; the other, to function\ncontaining the element of humanity; it was, in short, to grasp the\ndoctrine, \u2018One altogether; not by confusion of Substance, but by unity\nof Person.\u2019\n\nThe difficulty at the third step apparently was, as has been stated,\nto associate the ideal of a strict and severe chastity with any but a\nfemale nature.\n\nThere is no question now before us as to Apollo: the point at issue is,\nwhether we are to regard the Athene, or Minerva, of Homer as derived\nfrom traditions of the Logos, or from traditions of the Holy Spirit.\n\nI urge the former, for the following reasons:\n\n1. Setting aside what was involved in the doctrine of a Trinity\n(which is otherwise represented), we have no evidence that there\nwas any such substantive body of primitive tradition respecting the\nHoly Spirit, as would be likely to form the nucleus of a separate\nmythological impersonation, and especially of one endowed with such\ncomprehensiveness, solidity, and activity of function as Minerva.\nWhereas it appears that there was that kind of substantive tradition\nwith respect to the \u039b\u03cc\u03b3\u03bf\u03c2, the Word or Wisdom of God.\n\n2. In the order of primitive tradition, the Son of God would precede\nthe Holy Spirit, as is the case in the order of the Christian dogma;\nand the fragments of such tradition, when carried into mythology, would\npreserve and probably exaggerate, at any rate would not invert, the\nrelation. But in the Homeric mythology, Minerva has a decided practical\nprecedence over Apollo, and above all, when they come into collision,\nit is Apollo that yields, as in the incidents of the Seventh and Tenth\nIliads, and in the general issue of the Trojan war.\n\n3. But this difference is just what might be expected to follow, upon\nthe natural divergence of the two traditions of the Word and the\nIncarnate Messiah respectively. The latter, as more human, would take\nrank after the former as more Divine.\n\n4. We have also found a greater tendency on the part of Minerva to\nact independently of Jupiter. This is no unnatural diversion from the\ntradition of the \u039b\u03cc\u03b3\u03bf\u03c2, but it would be hard to connect ideally with\nthe Holy Spirit, who has not, in the ancient tradition, the same amount\nor kind of separate development as the Messiah.\n\n~_M\u00fcller\u2019s treatment of Apollo._~\n\nThe functions of Apollo, and the nature, extent, and history of his\nworship have been investigated at great length by M\u00fcller, in the Second\nBook of his learned and able History and Antiquities of the Doric race.\nHe has shown the immense importance of this deity in Greek history\nand religion, reaching every where, and embracing every object and\npurpose. He recognises the apparent antagonism subsisting among his\ninfinitely varied functions; which he makes elaborate and ingenious,\nbut I think necessarily insufficient, efforts to trace ideally to an\nunion of origin within the mythological system. His hypothesis, that\nthe worship of Apollo was wholly due to Dorian influence, requires the\nsupport of the most violently strained assumptions; as for example,\nthat its prevalence, apparently at all points, in Troas is to be\naccounted for by Cretan influences there, which, at the most, tradition\nwould only warrant us in believing to have existed in a very contracted\nform, and with influence altogether secondary. Altogether, this sheer\nDorianism of Apollo is at variance with the whole spirit and effect\nof the Homeric testimony; for in Homer the Dorians are insignificant\nand undeveloped, while the power and worship of Apollo had attained,\nas we have seen, to an extraordinary height, and to the very broadest\nrange. Again, M\u00fcller[247] acknowledges the great difficulty of the\ndualism presented to us by the figures, concurring as they do in such\nremarkable functions, of Apollo and Diana: a difficulty, which he seems\nto think incapable of full explanation. While attaching great value\nto his treatise, I have the less hesitation in adopting conclusions\nthat he does not authorize, because his work is based in some degree\nupon that (as I presume to think) defective mode of appreciation of the\nHomeric as compared with the later traditions, against which I have\nventured to protest, and from the consequences of which it is one of my\nmain objects to effect at least a partial escape.\n\n[247] B. II. ch. ix. 2. and 9.\n\nIt will have appeared from this general account of the traditive\ncharacters of Apollo and Minerva, that the former represented the\ntradition of a person, and the latter of an idea. Accordingly, the\noriginal character of Apollo, which he bore during the infancy of the\nmythical system, is in many points the more significantly marked;\nas for example, by his share in the War with the Giants, and by his\nmysterious relation to Death.\n\nBut it was natural that, in the course of time, as tradition in general\ngrew weaker with the increasing distance from its source, and as the\ninventive system enlarged its development, those particular traditions,\nwhich were self-explained by having their root in an intelligible idea,\nshould hold their ground much better than such as had become mythical\nand arbitrary by having lost their key. The traditional Minerva had an\nanchorage in the great function of Wisdom; the traditional Apollo had\nno support equal to this in breadth and depth; and his attributes, the\nband of revelation being removed, lost their harmony and could ill be\nheld together.\n\nAccordingly we find that in the later ages of the mythology Apollo had\nlost much of what was transcendant in his importance, but that Minerva\nretained her full rank. One and the same Ode of Horace supplies the\nproof of both. He places Apollo on a level not only with Diana, but\nwith Bacchus[248]:\n\n[248] Hor. Od. I. xii. 21.\n\n Pr\u0153liis audax, neque te silebo,\n Liber: et s\u00e6vis inimica virgo\n Belluis; nec te mutuende cert\u00e2,\n Ph\u0153be, sagitt\u00e2.\n\nBut, after having described the supreme and transcendant dignity of\nJupiter, he at once proceeds to place Pallas before every other deity\nwithout exception[249]:\n\n[249] Ibid. 17. Compare the passages cited by N\u00e4gelsbach, Hom. Theol.\nI. ii. 21. Hesiod Theog. 896. Callim. Lav. Pall. 132. Plutarch. Sympos.\nii. p. 617. C. Pind. Fragm. xi. 9. and the Orphic Poet in D\u00fcntzer, p.\n9.\n\n Unde n\u00eel majus generatur ipso:\n Nec viget quicquam simile aut secundum;\n Proximos illi tamen occupavit\n Pallas honores.\n\nI will now pass on to consider the remaining vestiges of original\ntradition perceivable in Homer.\n\n~_The Diana of Homer._~\n\nLike the Moon to the Sun, an analogy maintained by their respective\nassumption of the two characters in the later mythology, Diana is a\nreflection, and in most respects a faint reflection, of Apollo.\n\nShe was worshipped, says M\u00fcller[250], in the character of \u2018as it were a\npart of the same deity.\u2019 He collects and reviews, from the whole circle\nof Greek history and mythology, the points of coincidence between them:\nand notices particularly, that like him she is both \u03bb\u03c5\u03ba\u03b5\u03af\u03b1 and \u03bf\u1f50\u03bb\u03af\u03b1,\nboth the destroyer and the preserver; that she administers her office\nas angel of Death, sometimes in wrath and sometimes without it; and\nthat her name Artemis, meaning, as he conceives, healthy and uninjured,\nis in close correspondence with those of Ph\u0153bus Apollo.\n\n[250] Dorians, ii. ch. 9.\n\nAll this is in conformity with what we gather from the poems of Homer:\nbut those poems have spared us many of the confused and perplexing\nphenomena, which are presented by the later mythology.\n\nOne side of the divided Messianic tradition, its purity, is best\nrepresented in Diana, through her severe and spotless chastity. Its\nforce and scope are much more largely developed in Apollo. But this\nhigh purity, and the double aspect of the ministry of Death, appear\nto be of themselves sufficient to stamp her beyond mistake with a\ntraditionary origin. Small resemblances, too, as well as great ones,\nare traceable in Homer between her and Apollo, such as her golden\nthrone and golden distaff, which may be compared to his golden sword,\nthe sword of primeval light: and even these minor correspondences may\nin their own degree bear witness to the original and integral shape of\nthe tradition.\n\nIf she is thus clothed in a sort of lunar light, and is in the main\na reflection of Apollo upon earth, such we may probably consider\nPersephone in the Shades[251].\n\n[251] See \u2018Persephone\u2019 in section iii.\n\nLet us, however, consider what can be gathered from Homer as to the\nattributes of Diana.\n\nThis deity would appear to have been, according to him, a deity\nof universal worship. We may perhaps safely infer thus much from\nthe single fact of her ministry of Death. She is also represented\nas extending her agency to Troy, where she taught Scamandrius to\nhunt[252]; probably to Crete, in the case of the daughters of\nPandareos; she is invoked in Ithaca by Penelope, puts Ariadne to death\nin Dia, exercises a similar function for the women in \u03a3\u03c5\u03c1\u03af\u03b7, sends the\nCalydonian boar for a defect of homage in \u00c6tolia, and is familiarly\nmentioned in connection with the Greeks generally, while her place in\nthe Theomachy may suffice to mark her as also a Pelasgian goddess.\nIn most points, however, she partakes largely, as might be expected,\nof the characteristics of the ordinary deities of invention. Had she\nrepeated all the chief notes of Apollo, and with any thing like an\nequal force, the question of traditional origin would perhaps have been\nmore doubtful than it now is.\n\n[252] Il. v. 49-52.\n\nWhen she is invoked by Penelope, it is in connection with her share of\nthe special ministry of death[253]. She is nowhere else made the object\nof prayer.\n\n[253] Od. xx. 61.\n\nIt is her deep resentment at the omission of sacrifice which provokes\nher to send the Calydonian boar[254]. In the Fifth Iliad, she and\nher mother Latona appear as deities purely subsidiary to Apollo. He\ndeposits \u00c6neas in his temple: there, not in a temple of their own,\nLatona and Diana attend upon and heal him[255].\n\n[254] Il. ix. 533-7.\n\n[255] Il. v. 444-7.\n\nIn the Theomachy, she is treated with the same ignominy as Mars and\nVenus, but by Juno instead of Minerva. Her railing address to Apollo is\nconceived in the lower and not in the higher spirit (Il. xxi. 472-7).\n\nShe never assumes a general power, either over man in mind or body, or\nover outward nature.\n\nShe has no share in the general movement of either poem, and is\nintroduced in the great majority of instances by way of allusion only.\n\nHer near relation to Apollo gives a certain grandeur to her position:\nbut the inventive elements of the representation greatly obscure and\neven partially overbear the traditional.\n\nHer side in the Trojan war is to be explained by her relation to\nApollo. In all other points she seems to be a goddess of associations\nmore properly Greek, perhaps in consequence of their greater addiction\nto hunting.\n\nIn treating the Homeric Diana as a personage principally ancillary\nto Apollo, and equipped with reflections, or stray fragments, of\nprerogatives chiefly belonging to him, I do not attempt to foreclose\nthe question what may have been the origin of her name, or whether she\nmay be connected with any mythological original in the religions of the\nEast or of Egypt.\n\nD\u00f6llinger conceives that the union of Diana with Apollo was Greek,\nand that they were not originally in relation with one another;\nwhile he justly observes, that this deity, like Apollo, has a great\nand inexplicable diversity of function. She, like other deities of\nGreece, has been thought to represent the Astarte of the Syrians.\nAgain, Herodotus[256] has given us most curious information respecting\nthe gods of the Scythians, whom we have found to be related to the\nPelasgi. They worship, he states, the Celestial Venus under the name\nof Artimpasa. This name, it has been ingeniously conjectured[257], is\ncomposed (1) of the name Mitra, which the Persians gave to Venus[258],\nand which reversed becomes Artim, and (2) of the Sanscrit _Bhas_,\nmeaning _shine_, and thus corresponding with the \u03a6\u03bf\u1fd6\u03b2\u03bf\u03c2 of Apollo,\nand the \u0393\u03bb\u03b1\u03c5\u03ba\u1ff6\u03c0\u03b9\u03c2 of Pallas: all of them being, as it were, shreds of\nthe tradition fully represented in the Shechinah of the Jews, and the\n\u2018Light\u2019 of Saint John. This also corresponds with the cluster of golden\nepithets, the \u03c7\u03c1\u03c5\u03c3\u03b7\u03bb\u03ac\u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2, \u03c7\u03c1\u03c5\u03c3\u03ae\u03bd\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2, and \u03c7\u03c1\u03c5\u03c3\u03cc\u03b8\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2, which Homer\napplies to Diana: and the very feebleness of Diana in the Theomachy\nsuggests that the Eastern prototype of Venus, the Mitra of the\nPersians, was originally no more than a degenerate derivation from a\nhigher tradition, which found a more natural, but still only a partial,\nexpression in the majestic and chaste, as well as beautiful, Artemis.\n\n[256] Herod, iv. 59.\n\n[257] Welsford on the English Language, chap. iii. p. 78.\n\n[258] Herod, i. 131.\n\n~_The Latona of Homer._~\n\nWe have next to consider the Homeric delineation of Latona, the mother\nof Apollo and of Diana.\n\nIt is scarcely possible to avoid being struck, on turning to this\nportraiture, with the contrast between the slightness of the outline\nand the real dignity of the features and position. This contrast,\nlike the greater one relating to Apollo, seems to have its key in the\ntraditional origin of the representation: and there is no one Homeric\ndeity, whose case, when fully considered, can afford a more marked\ntestimony to the hypothesis of a strong element of traditive theology\nin the religious system of the Poems.\n\nWhy has she a position so different from that of any other wife or\nconcubine of Jupiter: such, for example, as Dione or Demeter?\n\nWhy is it so much elevated above that of any among them, except only\nJuno?\n\nHow comes she to have a son so incomparably superior in rank, in power,\nand in the affections of his father, to any child of Juno herself, the\n\u03c0\u03c1\u03b5\u03c3\u03b2\u1f70 \u03b8\u03b5\u03ac?\n\nWhy, being thus great, is she wholly unfurnished with attributes or\nfunctions, either general or specific?\n\nWhy, on the other hand, does so much obscurity hang about her origin,\nand what are we to say as to her divinity, in answer to the question,\nwhether it was original or acquired?\n\nThe name of Latona appears to have been a perpetual puzzle to the\nexpounders of Greek mythology. It is taken to mean Night, which,\ncombined with Day, produces the Sun[259]; or \u2018obscure,\u2019 or \u2018concealed,\u2019\nas that from which issues the visible deity, the Sun in heaven.\nBut surely these explanations can have no bearing upon the Homeric\nmythology, where it is matter of question even whether Apollo and the\nSun have any mutual relations at all, and where it is quite clear\nthat the personality of Apollo is far older and riper, as well as far\nhigher and more comprehensive; which implies of necessity, that Latona\nmust have been known, and must have held her place, quite apart from\nany relation to the Sun. An explanation of this kind is simply an\nindication, that the problem has not yet been solved.\n\n[259] D\u00f6llinger Heid. u. Jud. p. 71. Smith\u2019s Dict. art. Leto.\n\nBut now, if we presume Apollo to be the representative of the Messianic\ntradition, that the Seed of the woman should crush the serpent\u2019s head,\nthe state of the case is entirely changed. And the explanation of\nthe name in particular, instead of being hopeless, becomes easy, and\neven auxiliary to the general hypothesis. For now Latona stands in\nthe tradition as a person anterior to the whole Olympian mythology:\na person for whose extraction that mythology does not and ought not\nto account. Its Jupiter and Juno are referred to a parentage, that of\n\u039a\u03c1\u03cc\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 and \u1fec\u03ad\u03b1, and through these perhaps afresh to Oceanus and Tethys\nas their ultimate source. Everything, again, that is connected with the\ngenesis of the Olympian system, properly so called, is made to conform\nto anthropomorphous ideas: but here are two of its deities, one of\nthem among its very greatest, who have a mother that forms part of the\nearliest known tradition respecting them, while that mother is herself\nwithout an origin. What could be more natural, than that a name should\nfasten itself upon her, simply importing that, illustrious as was her\nmotherhood, the fountain-head of her own life and destiny was lost in\noblivion? For it lay beyond the point from which all mythical knowledge\nwas held to spring. A certain motherhood was known of her, and that was\nall.\n\nAgain, the mother of the Deliverer was to be a woman. But in the\nGreek mythology it could not be, that a woman should stand as the\ngiver of life to one of its most august divinities. Yet the woman\nof the tradition could not be transferred from the tradition as a\ngreat substantive personage into the Greek mythology, because in the\ntradition she stood an unembellished figure, wholly without attributes.\nHence invention would, on taking over the tradition, be at fault; and\ncould not but present to us an ambiguous and inconsistent picture, such\nas now stands before us in the Latona of Homer.\n\nLet us next set forth the facts regarding Latona, as they stand in the\npoems.\n\nIn the first place, then, her divinity is beyond all doubt; for she is\none of those deities who take part in the war[260], and this although,\nalmost alone among them, she has no office whatever to associate\nher with it, and no part to play in the conduct of it. She ranges\nherself on the side of the Trojans; apparently, like Diana, drawn in\nthat direction by Apollo, the central and really important figure\nof the group. While Venus, who appears in the first enumeration, is\nomitted in the array[261] of deities for action, Latona has Mercury\nassigned to her for an antagonist. And, when the crisis comes, we\nobserve in her case a marked instance of that care, with which Homer\npreserves her, like the greater traditive deities, from anything like\ndiscredit. Mercury declines the combat, on the ground that it is\nhard to fight against the wives of Jupiter; and tells her she is at\nliberty to announce that she has vanquished him. Whence has this pale\nand colourless figure such very high honour so jealously asserted for\nher[262]?\n\n[260] Il. xx. 40.\n\n[261] Ibid. 72.\n\n[262] Il. xx. 497-501.\n\nWhen Niobe, proud of her numerous offspring, taunts Latona as the\nmother of only two children, summary and awful punishment follows: the\nchildren are slain, the unhappy mother is turned to stone. Yet she\nherself takes no part in the vengeance, a fact remarkably in harmony\nwith her place as defined by the primitive tradition of Holy Scripture.\nOf the three or four suffering figures in the Shades, only one has the\ncause of his punishment stated, and it is much the severest of all. It\nis Tityus, whose entrails are continually devoured by vultures, because\nhe offered violence to Latona as she was going to the Pythian temple of\nher son.\n\nWhen, in the Fourteenth Iliad, Jupiter recites the mothers of certain\nof his offspring, beginning with women and ending with goddesses,\nLatona appears in the latter category, after Ceres and before Juno:\nand, as the scale is an ascending one, she must clearly rank before the\nfirst and next to the last named deity.\n\nThere are, however, various indications that this had not always been\nso: but that, according to original tradition, she had been of the\nhuman order, and had undergone a sort of translation into the ranks of\nthe Immortals.\n\nThe first of these is the taunt of Niobe. The boast of richer\nfecundity is natural in a human mother\u2019s mouth, as against another\nmother reputed to be human[263]; but entirely strange and absurd, if\nwe suppose it directed against a deity. Dione and Demeter have but one\nchild each. Nor is there a marked difference in this respect between\nthe Latona and the Juno of Homer; for Juno\u2019s children are but two, or\nat most three[264].\n\n[263] Il. xxiv. 608.\n\n[264] I do not reckon the \u0395\u1f30\u03bb\u03b9\u03b8\u03c5\u1fd6\u03b1\u03b9, who appear to be purely poetical\nand figurative daughters of Juno, like the Muses of Jupiter; and as\nTerror is the son of Mars. Il. xi. 270. 1. ii. 491. xiii. 299.\n\nNext, we can account for the origin and parentage of all the great\nOlympian deities of Homer, with the single exception of Latona. She\nis no one\u2019s daughter, no one\u2019s sister: but is a wife (that also\nequivocally), and a mother only. When, indeed, we part company with\nHomer, the scene changes, and a father is found for her in the Hymns:\nshe is the daughter, according to one reading, of Saturn,\n\n \u03ba\u03c5\u03b4\u03af\u03c3\u03c4\u03b7 \u03b8\u03cd\u03b3\u03b1\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1 \u03bc\u03b5\u03b3\u03ac\u03bb\u03bf\u03b9\u03bf \u039a\u03c1\u03cc\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9\u03bf[265].\n\n[265] Hymn. ad Apoll. 62.\n\nIn Hesiod she is the daughter of a Titan: but even here she retains\nthis mark of a most ancient tradition, that she is said to have been\nmarried to Jupiter before the great Juno[266]: though she comes after\nMetis, or Wisdom, the oldest of all his consorts; an order not at\nvariance with the traditional ideas.\n\n[266] Theogon. 918-21.\n\n~_Her anomalous position in mythology._~\n\nBut there must have been some cause or process that brought her into\nthe Homeric Olympus, an anomaly alike among mortals and Immortals. What\ncould it have been, except an illustrious maternity, to account for her\nelevation, and at the same time her original womanhood to account for\nthe blank in the descent and consanguinity, and for her total want of\nattributes?\n\nIt must be granted that there is a certain degree of resemblance\nbetween Latona and Dione: turning mainly upon this, that Dione seems\nto be in Olympus without either dignity or power, and simply as the\nvehicle, through which her daughter Venus was brought into existence.\nBut then the want of basis is in her case immediately made evident by\nresults. Even in Homer she is not among the gods of the Theomachy; nor\nis she named among the mothers in the Fourteenth Book; and Hesiod,\nthough she is invoked in the suspected Proem of his Theogony, entirely\npasses her over in the body of it, and furnishes Venus with another\norigin. She remains all but a cipher ever after.\n\nAgain, the epithets attached to Latona are such as to leave her, and\nher alone among all deities of such dignity, wholly functionless, and\nalso wholly inactive. I distinguish the two, because Juno has only a\nlimited function, but she has power, and an immense activity. Latona\nhas beauty and majesty, qualities which appertain to every goddess as\nsuch: she is \u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u03bb\u03b9\u03c0\u03ac\u03c1\u1fc3\u03bf\u03c2, \u03b5\u1f50\u03c0\u03bb\u03cc\u03ba\u03b1\u03bc\u03bf\u03c2, \u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u03bb\u03b9\u03c0\u03bb\u03cc\u03ba\u03b1\u03bc\u03bf\u03c2, \u03c7\u03c1\u03c5\u03c3\u03bf\u03c0\u03bb\u03cc\u03ba\u03b1\u03bc\u03bf\u03c2,\n\u1f20\u03b0\u03ba\u03bf\u03bc\u03bf\u03c2, \u03ba\u03c5\u03b4\u03c1\u1f74, \u03c0\u03cc\u03c4\u03bd\u03b9\u03b1, and \u1f10\u03c1\u03b9\u03ba\u03cd\u03b4\u03b7\u03c2: and we may observe in the more\npersonal portion of these epithets how Homer, with his usual skill, has\navoided placing her in any kind of rivalry with Juno, who is usually\npraised for her eyes and arms, not her cheeks and hair. But they all\nleave her void of purpose; and she must stand as a sheer anomaly,\nunless there is some better explanation of her being and place in\nmythology, than mythology itself can supply.\n\n~_Her relation to primitive Tradition._~\n\nEven in the later tradition, Latona never gains a definite office: she\nremains all along without any meaning or purpose intrinsic to herself:\nshe shines only in the reflected glory of her offspring, and is\ncommonly worshipped only in union with them[267]. If therefore it has\nbeen shown, that the mythological character of Apollo is clearly the\nvehicle of the ancient tradition, known to us in the Book of Genesis,\nrespecting the Seed of the woman, it seems plain that in Latona is\nrepresented the woman from whom that Seed was to spring.\n\n[267] Smith\u2019s Dict., art. Leto.\n\nI do not presume to enter into the question whether we ought to\nconsider that the Latona of Homer represents the Blessed Virgin, who\nwas divinely elected to be the actual mother of our Lord; or rather our\nancient mother Eve, whose seed He was also in a peculiar sense to be.\n\nSo far as personal application is concerned, the same arguments might\nbe used upon the subject, as upon the interpretation of the original\npromise recorded in Scripture: and the question is one rather of the\ninterpretation of Scripture, than of Homer. The relation which appears\nto me to be proved from the text of the poems, is between the deity\ncalled Latona and the fifteenth verse of the third chapter of Genesis.\nAs to all beyond this, I should suppose it perhaps more just to regard\nher as a typical person, exhibiting through womanhood the truth of\nour Blessed Lord\u2019s humanity, than as the mere representative of any\nindividual personage.\n\nBackward as is the position of Latona in the practical religion\nof Homer, the universal recognition of the deity is sufficiently\nestablished: on the one hand by her place among the deities of the\nTrojan party; on the other, by the punishment of Niobe for an offence\nagainst her either in Greece, or at the least in a recognised Greek\nlegend; by the punishment of Tityus; and by her inclusion in the\nCatalogue of the Fourteenth Iliad.\n\n~_Her slightness of action._~\n\nTo this very remarkable deity no utterance of any kind is ever ascribed\nby Homer, and with, I think, three small exceptions, nothing of\npersonal and individual action. Even when she takes her place among\nthe deities in the array of battle, it is not said that she stood up\nagainst Mercury, but simply that Mercury stood up against her[268].\n\n[268] Il. xx. 72.\n\nThe three cases are as follows. First, when he makes over to her the\nvictory in waiving the fight, she offers no reply; but simply picks up\nher daughter Diana\u2019s bow and arrows, and goes after her, apparently\nwith the intention of offering her comfort. The next action[269]\nattributed to her is this: that when Apollo[270] has carried the\nbruised and stunned \u00c6neas into his temple on Pergamus, Latona and\nDiana tend him there. Thus both of these actions exhibit her in strict\nideal subordination, so to speak, to one of her children, as though\nby tradition she existed only for them. But the second is especially\nremarkable, and alike illustrative of the traditional basis of the\nMother and of the Son.\n\n[269] Il. xxi. 496-504.\n\n[270] Il. v. 445. _et seqq._\n\nIn the first place, as it appears to me, there can hardly be a\ncircumstance more singular, according to the principles of the Greek\nmythology, than that any one deity should be introduced as acting, not\nin her own temple, but in the temple of another. Such however is here\nthe case with Latona and Diana in the temple of Apollo.\n\nNext, they are acting as purely ministerial to him. They do not enter\ninto the fray: it is he who has been there, and who, having deposited\n\u00c6neas, immediately prosecutes the affairs of the battle-field, while\nthey, as his satellites, give effect to his purpose in setting about\nthe restoration of the disabled warrior.\n\nLastly, the significance of this action is raised to the highest point,\nwhen we recollect that this is a mother executing the design of her\nson. Latona\u2019s action in the Twenty-first Book, like that of Dione with\nVenus, can be accounted for by her maternal character. But there is\nno case in the Homeric poems besides this, where we see a parent-god\nthus acting ministerially in the execution of the plans of his or her\noffspring. The primeval tradition, once admitted as the basis of the\nmythological group, furnishes us with the key to what would otherwise\nbe another great anomaly.\n\nThe third case is in entire harmony with the other two. Tityus, the son\nof Earth, is tortured in the nether world for having offered violence\nto Latona, and the crime was committed when she was on her way through\nPanopeus to Delphi. This was probably the route from Delos to that\nplace: so that again the poet seems to represent Latona in close but\nsubordinate connection with her son, by making her travel between the\nseats of his two already famous oracles.\n\nApollo, then, with Latona and Diana, forms a group; and the origin\nof the combination is to be sought in primitive tradition. It is not\nnecessary to show that the personages thus associated maintained their\nassociation in all the religions of the East. I admit that we are not\nto suppose, that the idea of this combination passed direct from the\npatriarchs into Greece. The most natural place in which to seek for\ntraces of it would be, in the religion of the Persians, anterior to\nthe time of Homer. Unfortunately we have no accounts of it at any\nsuch date. But our failing to find these three deities in a company,\nor to find any germ which might have been developed into that company,\nin accounts later by probably five or six centuries at least, raises\nno presumption whatever against the hypothesis that we may owe the\nrepresentation, as it stands in Homer, to historical derivation through\nthe forefathers of the Hellic tribes, from some such period as that\nwhen, for example, Abraham dwelt in Ur of the Chaldees[271].\n\n[271] Gen. xi. 31. Acts vii. 2.\n\n~_The Iris of Homer._~\n\nIris, the messenger goddess, the last, and also by much the least\nimportant of the personages to whom I ascribe a traditive origin, is\nperhaps not the least clear in her title to it.\n\nHer title to rank as one of the deities of the ordinary Olympian\nassemblage is not subject to doubt. It depends partly on the fact that\nshe is always at hand there. But it is established more distinctly\nstill by the passage, which represents her as carrying to the palace\nof Zephyr the prayer of Achilles. She finds the Winds engaged in a\nbanquet, and they eagerly solicit her to sit and feast with them.\nShe answers them, like one desirous to escape from second-rate into\nfirst-rate company, to the effect that she has not time: the Ethiopians\nare just about supplying the greater gods with a banquet from their\nhecatombs; and she must repair to that quarter accordingly, as\notherwise she will lose her share of the offerings[272].\n\n[272] Il. xxiii. 198-212.\n\nWith respect to her position generally, we have no mark of her being\nforeign; and all the traditive deities, it may be observed, are\nsufficiently, though not exclusively national. Again, we have no mark\nof her being recent; on the contrary, she is without parents, and\nthis, though not conclusive, is a sign to the opposite effect.\n\nIris has no original action whatever, but is simply a willing servant\nof other deities; nor does she disdain spontaneously to officiate\non behalf of a distinguished human object of their favour, like\nAchilles[273]. Only once have we an account of her bringing an order\nwithout the name of the sender: it is when she appears to Helen, and\nexhorts her to repair to the Wall[274]. She is not, however, said even\nin this place to act on her own account; and we ought probably to\nunderstand that, according to the general rule, she comes from Jupiter.\nIt is added, that she inspired Helen with a longing sentiment towards\nher former husband and country, but this, as is most likely, is meant\nsimply to describe the effect of her words in the ordinary manner of\ntheir operation on the understanding. This ancillary character of\nIris is exactly what she would bear, if her origin really lay in the\nprimitive tradition of the rainbow.\n\n[273] Il. xxiii. 198-212.\n\n[274] Il. iii. 121.\n\nBut what seems decisively to establish her relation to that tradition\nis, that she is firmly connected in Homer with two things that have\nin themselves no connection whatever, and between which that ancient\ntradition is the only link.\n\nIn the first place, her identity of name is the witness to her original\nconnection with the rainbow[275]: which, however, as a standing and\nordinary phenomenon of nature, did not bear, apart from positive\nappointment, in any manner the character of a messenger: and hence we\nfind that by disintegration the two ideas had been entirely separated\nbefore the time of Homer, and the name itself is the only remaining\nwitness in the poems to their having been at some former period\nassociated. The function of the messenger was kept in action by the\noccasions of the Olympian family and polity. In this manner, as the\nstronger of the two ideas, it held its ground, and took possession of\nthe personal Iris, while the rainbow, though still conceived of as a\nsign to mortals[276], appears to have been regarded as separate.\n\n[275] Il. xi. 27.\n\n[276] Il. xi. 29.\n\nOf the character of the messenger we find that Iris had so completely\nbecome the model, that her name, only modified into Iros, is given to\nArn\u00e6us, the ribald and burly beggar of the Odyssey, only because he was\na go-between, or errand-carrier:\n\n \u03bf\u1f55\u03bd\u03b5\u03ba\u2019 \u1f00\u03c0\u03b1\u03b3\u03b3\u03ad\u03bb\u03bb\u03b5\u03c3\u03ba\u03b5 \u03ba\u03b9\u1f7c\u03bd, \u1f45\u03c4\u03b5 \u03c0\u03bf\u03cd \u03c4\u03b9\u03c2 \u1f00\u03bd\u03ce\u03b3\u03bf\u03b9[277].\n\n[277] Od. xviii. 7.\n\nThe hypothesis, then, of traditional origin is the key, and the only\nkey, to the position of the Homeric Iris.\n\n~_The At\u00e8 of Homer._~\n\nBefore quitting the precinct of the primeval tradition discoverable\nin Homer, we have yet one very remarkable group of impersonations to\nconsider, that in which the goddess \u1f0c\u03c4\u03b7 is the leading figure. Commonly\nregarded as meaning Mischief, the word is not capable of being fully\nrendered in English: but Guile is its primary idea, in the train of\nwhich come the sister notions of Folly and Calamity.\n\n\u1f0c\u03c4\u03b7 both wishes and suggests all ill to mortals; but she does not seem\nin Homer to have any power of injuring them, except through channels,\nwhich have been wholly or partially opened to her by their own volition.\n\nThe \u1f0c\u03c4\u03b7 of the later Greeks is Calamity simply, with a shadow of\nDestiny hanging in the distance; as in the magnificent figure of the\nlion\u2019s cub in \u00c6schylus[278]. But the word never bears in Homer the\nsense of calamity coming simply from without. This is evident even\nfrom the large and general description, where she appears in company\nwith the \u039b\u03b9\u03c4\u03b1\u03af[279]. Vigorous and nimble, she ranges over the whole\nearth for mischief. After her, slowly lag the Prayers or \u039b\u03b9\u03c4\u03b1\u1f76,\nhonoured however in being, like her, daughters of Jupiter. These are\nlimping, decrepit, and unable to see straight before them. The leading\nidea of \u1f0c\u03c4\u03b7 is not force, but cunning. She is the power that tempts\nand misleads men to their own cost or ruin, as they afterwards find\nout. Nay, she tempts the deity also: for she beguiles even Jupiter\nhimself[280] when Hercules is about to be born, and induces him\nthoughtlessly to promise what will, through Juno\u2019s craft, overturn\nhis own dearly cherished plans. For this excess of daring, however,\nshe herself suffers. Jupiter seizes her by the hair, and hurls her\nfrom Olympus, apparently her native seat. Thenceforward she can only\nexercise her function among men; who, when they have yielded to the\nseduction, and tasted the ashes under the golden fruit, at length set\nabout repentance or prayer:\n\n[278] \u00c6sch. Agam. 696-715.\n\n[279] Il. ix. 499-514.\n\n[280] Il. xix. 95 seqq.\n\n All lost! to prayers, to prayers! all lost![281]\n\n[281] Tempest, I. 1.\n\nNow though the impersonation of At\u00e8 in Homer is one of the\nindeterminate class, it is surely a mistake to treat it as representing\nthe mere poetical incorporation of an abstract idea. On the contrary,\nwe seem to find in it the old tradition of the Evil One as the Tempter;\nand it may be said that the word Temptress would best represent the\nHomeric idea of \u1f0c\u03c4\u03b7. In this sense it will supply a consistent meaning\nto the fine passage in the speech of Ph\u0153nix: for we are swift, so says\nthe Poet, to fall into temptation, and to offend, ingenious only in\nnot seeing our fault, and covering it with excuses: but slow, and like\nthe half-hearted, decrepit \u039b\u03b9\u03c4\u03b1\u03af, when we have to make our entreaties\nfor pardon, and to think of restitution and amendment. Yet as even the\ngods listen to their entreaties, \u2018so,\u2019 says Ph\u0153nix, \u2018shouldst thou, O\nAchilles: and if thou dost not, then mayest yet thyself fall.\u2019 But if\n\u1f0c\u03c4\u03b7 meant only misfortune, the passage loses all its harmony, and even\nbecomes absurd; for surely none will say that men are slow to discern\nadversity, or to offer petitions, wherever they have a prospect of\nbeing heard, for relief from it.\n\nThere is no passage which appears to me more characteristic of the true\ndistinctive character of the Homeric \u1f0c\u03c4\u03b7, than that in which Dolon\nconfesses his folly[282]:\n\n[282] Il. x. 390.\n\n \u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03bb\u1fc7\u03c3\u03af\u03bd \u03bc\u2019 \u1f04\u03c4\u1fc3\u03c3\u03b9 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u1f72\u03ba \u03bd\u03cc\u03bf\u03bd \u1f24\u03b3\u03b1\u03b3\u03b5\u03bd \u1f1d\u03ba\u03c4\u03c9\u03c1.\n\nHere we have Hector, the tempter: \u1f04\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9, the temptation: \u03bd\u03cc\u03bf\u03c2, the sound\nmind, from which temptation diverted the self-duped simpleton: \u1f24\u03b3\u03b1\u03b3\u03b5\u03bd,\nexpressive of the medium, namely, through volition, and not by force.\n\nThe elements combined in the idea of the Homeric \u1f0c\u03c4\u03b7, and the\nconditions of her action, may be presented together as follows:\n\n1. She takes the reins of the understanding and conduct of a man.\n\n2. She effects this not by force from without, but through the medium\nof his own will and inward consent, whether unconscious or express.\n\n3. Under her dominion he commits offences against the moral law, or the\nlaw of prudence.\n\n4. These offences are followed by his retributive sufferings.\n\nThe function of the Tempter is here represented with great precision;\nbut two essential variations have come to be perceptible in the idea\ntaken as a whole.\n\nThe first, that this \u1f0c\u03c4\u03b7 is herself sometimes prompted or sent by\nothers, as by \u1f18\u03c1\u03af\u03bd\u03c5\u03c2, (Od. xv. 234,) or by her with \u0396\u03b5\u1f7a\u03c2 and \u039c\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c1\u03b1, as\nin Il. xix. 87. And accordingly she too is a daughter, nay, the eldest\ndaughter, of Jupiter himself[283].\n\n[283] Il. xix. 91.\n\nThe second variation is this: that offences against the mere law of\nprudence find their way into precisely the same category with sins; or,\nin other words, the true idea of sin had been lost. \u1f0c\u03c4\u03b7 the person, and\n\u1f04\u03c4\u03b7 the effect, are, moreover, frequently blended by the Poet.\n\nAmong the principal \u1f0c\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 of Homer are those,\n\n1. Of Jupiter, Il. xix. 91-129.\n\n2. Of Dolon, Il. x. 391; leading him to accept the proposal of Hector.\n\n3. Of Melampus, Od. xv. 233, 4, causing him to undertake an enterprise\nbeyond his means on account of the daughter of Neleus.\n\nAll of which are against the law of prudence and forethought.\n\n4. Of Agamemnon, Il. xix. 88, 134-8.\n\n5. Of Paris, Il. vi. 356, xxiv. 28.\n\n6. Of Helen, Od. iv. 261. xxiii. 223.\n\n7. Of manslaughter, Il. xxiv. 480.\n\n8. Of the drunken centaur Eurytion, who had his ears and nose cut off\nfor his excesses, Od. xxi. 296-302.\n\nIn one place only of Homer, \u1f04\u03c4\u03b7 seems to mean calamity not imputable\nto the sufferer\u2019s fault, further than by some slight want of vigilance.\nThis is the \u1f04\u03c4\u03b7 charged upon Ulysses, when his companions destroy the\noxen of the Sun, Od. xii. 372. At least he had no further share in that\nmatter than that, by going to sleep, he left his comrades to act for\nthemselves.\n\nThe long continued misconduct of the Suitors is never described as\ntheir \u1f04\u03c4\u03b7: probably because the word properly signifies a particular\ntemptation followed by a particular act, rather than a continued course\nof action.\n\nThis, again, serves the more closely to associate \u1f0c\u03c4\u03b7 with the\nprimitive tradition of the Fall of Man.\n\nThe higher form of human wickedness, which is attended with deliberate\nand obstinate persistence in wrong, is not \u1f04\u03c4\u03b7 but \u1f00\u03c4\u03b1\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03bb\u03af\u03b7. Such is\nthe wickedness of \u00c6gisthus and of the Suitors; such also that of the\nGiants. The same phrase is applied to the crew of Ulysses, who devoured\nthe oxen of the Sun[284]: and this appears to conform to the view taken\nof their offence in the poems, however anomalous that view itself may\nbe.\n\n[284] Od. i. 7.\n\n~_Other traditions of the Evil One._~\n\nI will now gather into one view the dispersed fragments of tradition\nconcerning the Evil One which seem to be discernible in Homer.\n\n1. \u1f0c\u03c4\u03b7 is the first, and the one which comes nearest to presenting a\ngeneral outline.\n\n2. A second is found in \u039a\u03c1\u03cc\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2[285], who aims at the destruction of\nGodhead in its supreme representatives, and is thrust down to Tartarus\nby Jupiter. And we may here observe an important distinction.\n\n[285] Il. xiv. 203. viii. 478. where Iapetus is joined with \u039a\u03c1\u03cc\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2. Of\nhim we have no other mention in Homer.\n\nSome persons, like Tityus, offend against a particular person who had\ntaken a place in the Olympian Court; or else, apparently like Orion,\noffend the gods in general by their presumption. They are punished in\nthe Shades. But those who have aimed at the dethronement or destruction\nof Godhead itself are in the far deeper darkness of Tartarus[286].\nI suggest this as a possible explanation of the double place of\npunishment; which is otherwise apparently a gross solecism in the\nHomeric system.\n\n[286] Il. viii. 13-18.\n\n3. To the latter class of offenders belong the Titans, who most\npointedly represent the element of Force in the ancient traditions,\nwhile \u1f0c\u03c4\u03b7 embodies that of Guile.\n\nThese are the \u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u1f76 \u1f51\u03c0\u03bf\u03c4\u03b1\u03c1\u03c4\u03ac\u03c1\u03b5\u03bf\u03b9, or the \u1f10\u03bd\u03ad\u03c1\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03b9, or \u1f14\u03bd\u03b5\u03c1\u03b8\u03b5 \u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u1f76,\nwho form the infernal court of \u039a\u03c1\u03cc\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2; \u039a\u03c1\u03cc\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd \u1f04\u03bc\u03c6\u03b9\u03c2 \u1f10\u03cc\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 (Il.\nxiv. 274, 9. xv. 225). They are evidently themselves in a state of\npenal suffering; but they must also have the power of inflicting the\nseverest punishment on some other offenders; for they, and not Aides or\nPersephone, seem to be the persons called to be witnesses of the solemn\noath for the avoidance of perjury, taken by Juno in the Fourteenth\nBook[287].\n\n[287] Il. xiv. 273, 278.\n\n4. Of these Titans two are apparently named in the persons of Otus and\nEphialtes, children of Neptune.\n\n5. To the same class, in all probability, belong the Giants, led by\nEurymedon, and born of the same mythological father. Od. vii. 58.\n\n6. It is likely that Typhoeus may have been of the same company;\nfor although he is not stated to be in Tartarus, yet his position\ncorresponds with it in the essential feature of being under the earth.\n(Il. ii. 782. viii. 14). Homer does not indeed expressly say, that Otus\nand Ephialtes were Titans, nor that Eurymedon was of the same band; nor\nyet that the Titans were rebels against heaven. But his images are so\ncombined round certain points as to make this matter of safe and clear\ninference.\n\nFor the Titans are in Tartarus, and are with and attached to \u039a\u03c1\u03cc\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2,\nwhom Jupiter thrust down thither. And the giants under Eurymedon, for\ntheir mad audacity, are driven to perdition[288]. Lastly, Otus and\nEphialtes, who made war upon heaven, and whom Apollo quelled, not\nappearing, like their mother Iphimedea, in the Shades of the Eleventh\nOdyssey, can only be in Tartarus[289].\n\n[288] Od. vii. 60.\n\n[289] Od. xi. 305-20.\n\nFrom the scattered traditions we may collect and combine the essential\npoints. In Otus and Ephialtes the rebellion is clearly stated, and in\nEurymedon it is manifestly implied. In the Titans, who are called \u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u1f76,\nand in their association with \u039a\u03c1\u03cc\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2, as also in the high parentage of\nthe others, we have the celestial origin of the rebels. In the hurling\ndown of \u039a\u03c1\u03cc\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 to Tartarus, we have the punishment which they all are\nenduring, immediately associated with an act of supreme retribution.\n\n7. Elsewhere will be found a notice of the singular relation, which\nmay be traced between Neptune and the tradition of the Evil One. This\nrelation is mythological in its basis: but it seems to proceed upon the\ntradition, that the Evil One was next to the Highest.\n\n8. A more recent form of the tradition concerning the great war in\nheaven seems to be found in the revolt of the Immortals of Olympus,\nheaded by Juno, Neptune, and Minerva, against Jupiter, which was put\ndown by Briareus or \u00c6g\u00e6on of the hundred hands.\n\nWho this \u00c6g\u00e6on was, we can only conjecture: he is nowhere else named\nin Homer. From his having a double name, one in use among gods, and\nthe other among mortals, it might be conjectured that the immediate\nsource of this tradition was either Egypt, or some other country having\nlike Egypt an hieratic and also a demotic tongue. In its substance, it\ncan hardly be other than a separate and dislocated form of the same\nidea, according to which we see Apollo handed down as the deliverer of\nOlympus from rebellion. The expression that _all_ men (Il. i. 403.)\ncall him \u00c6g\u00e6on, tends to universalize him, and thus to connect him with\nApollo. He is also (v. 403.) a son of Jupiter, avowedly superior to him\nin strength:\n\n \u1f41 \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u03b1\u1f56\u03c4\u03b5 \u03b2\u03af\u1fc3 \u03bf\u1f57 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c4\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u1f00\u03bc\u03b5\u03af\u03bd\u03c9\u03bd.\n\n~_Citations from Holy Scripture._~\n\nIt is perhaps worth while to notice the coincidence between the\nlanguage of Homer as to the Giants, and that of the Books of the\nAncient Scriptures. Homer says of Eurymedon[290],\n\n[290] Od. vii. 59.\n\n \u1f45\u03c2 \u03c0\u03bf\u03b8\u2019 \u1f51\u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03b8\u03cd\u03bc\u03bf\u03b9\u03c3\u03b9 \u0393\u03b9\u03b3\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c3\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u03b2\u03b1\u03c3\u03af\u03bb\u03b5\u03c5\u03b5\u03bd\u00b7\n \u1f00\u03bb\u03bb\u2019 \u1f41 \u03bc\u1f72\u03bd \u1f64\u03bb\u03b5\u03c3\u03b5 \u03bb\u03b1\u1f78\u03bd \u1f00\u03c4\u03ac\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03bb\u03bf\u03bd, \u1f64\u03bb\u03b5\u03c4\u03bf \u03b4\u2019 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03cc\u03c2.\n\nEither the rebellion, or the punishment in hell, of a wicked gang under\nthe name of Giants is referred to in the following passages of the\nOld Testament and the Apocrypha. The allusion is not made evident, as\nto the former set of passages, in the Authorized Version; I therefore\nquote from the Septuagint or the Vulgate.\n\n1. Job xxvi. 5. _Ecce gigantes gemunt sub aquis, et qui habitant cum\neis._ Vulgate. \u03bc\u1f74 \u03b3\u03af\u03b3\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 \u03bc\u03b1\u03b9\u03c9\u03b8\u03ae\u03c3\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u1f51\u03c0\u03bf\u03ba\u03ac\u03c4\u03c9\u03b8\u03b5\u03bd \u1f55\u03b4\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd\n\u03b3\u03b5\u03b9\u03c4\u03cc\u03bd\u03c9\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6; LXX.\n\n2. Prov. ii. 18. \u1f14\u03b8\u03b5\u03c4\u03bf \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u1f70 \u03c4\u1ff7 \u03b8\u03b1\u03bd\u03ac\u03c4\u1ff3 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03bf\u1f36\u03ba\u03bf\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u1f70 \u03c4\u1ff7\n\u1f05\u03b4\u1fc3 \u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u1f70 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03b3\u03b7\u03b3\u03ad\u03bd\u03c9\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 \u1f04\u03be\u03bf\u03bd\u03b1\u03c2 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2. LXX.\n\n3. Prov. xxi. 16. _Vir, qui erraverit a vi\u00e2 doctrin\u00e6, in c\u0153tu gigantum\ncommorabitur._ Vulg. \u1f00\u03bd\u1f74\u03c1 \u03c0\u03bb\u03b1\u03bd\u03ce\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f10\u03be \u1f45\u03b4\u03bf\u03c5 \u03b4\u03b9\u03ba\u03b1\u03b9\u03bf\u03c3\u03cd\u03bd\u03b7\u03c2 \u1f10\u03bd \u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u03b1\u03b3\u03c9\u03b3\u1fc7\n\u03b3\u03b9\u03b3\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd \u1f00\u03bd\u03b1\u03c0\u03b1\u03cd\u03c3\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9. LXX.\n\nSee Gen. vi. 4, 5: in which we perhaps see the original link between\nthe Giants, and the rebellion of the fallen angels described by St.\nJude, ver. 6: \u2018And the angels which kept not their first estate, but\nleft their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under\ndarkness unto the judgment of the great day.\u2019\n\nWe have also the corresponding declaration of St. Peter: \u2018God spared\nnot the angels that sinned, but cast them down to hell, and delivered\nthem into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment; and spared\nnot the old world[291].\u2019\n\n[291] St. Pet. ii. 2. 4. 5.\n\nAgain, in the Apocryphal Books.\n\n1. Wisdom xiv. 6. \u2018In the old time also, when the proud giants\nperished, the hope of the world, governed by thy hand, escaped in a\nweak vessel.\u2019 Auth. Version.\n\n2. Ecclus. xvi. 7. \u2018He was not pacified toward the old giants, who fell\naway in the strength of their foolishness.\u2019 Auth. Version.\n\n3. Baruch iii. 26, 8. \u2018There were giants famous from the beginning....\nBut they were destroyed, because they had no wisdom, and perished\nthrough their own foolishness.\u2019 Auth. Version.\n\nWe thus appear to find in Homer many displaced fragments of the old\ntraditions of the Bible with respect to the Evil One. In the later\nGreek and the Roman literature, the traditions on the same subject had\nalmost entirely lost their likeness to their original. The figure of\n\u1f0c\u03c4\u03b7, and the idea of spiritual danger to man through guile tempting\nhim extrinsically but inwardly, entirely disappears. There remains\nonly the recollection of a contest waged by brute force, and a solitary\nremnant of forgotten truth in the fame still adhering to Apollo, that\nhe had been the deliverer and conqueror, who in the critical hour\nvindicated the supremacy of heaven. In the time of Horace even this\nrecollection had become darkened and confused.\n\nFrom the Homeric traditions of the Evil One and the fallen angels, we\nmay properly pass to those of a future state, which involves, partially\nat least, the idea of retribution.\n\n~_The Future State in Homer._~\n\nThe representations of the future state in Homer are perhaps the more\ninteresting, because it may be doubted whether they are, logically,\nquite consistent with one another. For this want of consistency becomes\nof itself a negative argument in support of the belief that, as they\nare not capable of being referred to any one generative idea or system,\nthey may be distorted copies or misunderstood portions of primitive\ntruth.\n\nAnother reason for referring them to this origin appears to be found in\ntheir gradual deterioration after the time of Homer. In his theology,\nfuture retribution appears as a real sanction of the moral law. In the\nlater history, and generally in the philosophy of Paganism, it has\nlost this place: practically, a phantasmagoria was substituted for\nwhat had been at least a subjective reality: and the most sincere and\npenetrating minds thought it absurd to associate anything of substance\nwith the condition of the dead[292]. The moral ideas connected with it\nappear before us in descending series; and thus they point backwards\nto the remotest period for their origin and their integrity.\n\n[292] Arist. Eth. I. 10, 11.\n\nLastly, it would appear that the traditions themselves present to us\nfeatures of the unseen world, such, in a certain degree, as Divine\nRevelation describes.\n\nThat world appears to us, in Homer, in three divisions.\n\nFirst there is the Elysian plain, apparently under the government of\nRhadamanthus, at which Menelaus, as the favoured son-in-law of Jupiter,\nis to arrive. It is, physically at least, furnished with all the\nconditions of repose and happiness.\n\nNext there is the region of Aides or Aidoneus, the ordinary receptacle\neven of the illustrious dead, such as Achilles, Agamemnon, and the\nolder Greek heroes of divine extraction. Hither, if we may trust the\nTwenty-fourth Odyssey, are carried the Suitors; and here is found the\ninsignificant Elpenor (Od. xi. 51).\n\nThirdly, there is the region of Tartarus, where \u039a\u03c1\u03cc\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 and \u1f38\u03ac\u03c0\u03b5\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2\nreign. This is as far below Aides, as the heaven is upwards from the\nearth[293].\n\n[293] Il. viii. 16, 479.\n\nThere appears to be some want of clearness in the division between the\nsecond region and the third as to their respective offices, and between\nthe second and the first as to their respective tenants.\n\nThe realm of Aides is, in general, not a place of punishment, but of\ndesolation and of gloom[294]. The shade of Agamemnon weeps aloud with\nemotion and desire to clasp Ulysses: and Ulysses in vain attempts\nto console Achilles, for having quitted \u2018the warm precincts of the\ncheerful day.\u2019 But though their state is one of sadness, neither they\nnor the dead who are named there are in general under any judicial\ninfliction. It is stated, indeed, that Minos[295] administers justice\namong them; but we are not told whether, as seems most probable, this\nis in determining decisively the fate of each, or whether he merely\ndisposes, as he might have done on earth, of such cases as chanced to\narise between any of them for adjudication.\n\n[294] Od. xi. 391, 488.\n\n[295] V. 569.\n\nThe only cases of decided penal infliction in the realm of Aides are\nthose of Tityus, Sisyphus, and Tantalus. Castor and Pollux, who appear\nhere, are evident objects of the favour of the gods[296]. Hercules,\nlike Helen of the later tradition, is curiously disintegrated.\n\n[296] Od. xi. 302-4.\n\nHis \u03b5\u1f34\u03b4\u03c9\u03bb\u03bf\u03bd meets Ulysses, and speaks as if possessed of his identity:\nbut he himself (\u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1f78\u03c2) is enjoying reward among the Immortals. The\nlatter of these images represents the laborious and philanthropic side\nof the character attributed to him, the former the reckless and brutal\none. Again it might be thought that the reason for the advancement of\nMenelaus to Elysium, while Castor and Pollux belong to the under-world,\nwas the very virtuous character of that prince. He is, however, not\npromoted thither for his virtues, but for being the son-in-law of\nJupiter by his marriage with Helen. And thus again, the son-in-law of\nJupiter is, as such, placed higher than his sons.\n\nThe proper and main business of Tartarus is to serve as a place of\npunishment for deposed and condemned Immortals. There were Iapetos\nand \u039a\u03c1\u03cc\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2, there the Titans[297]: there probably Otus and Ephialtes,\nwho not only wounded Mars but assaulted Olympus[298]: there too, were\nEurymedon and the Giants, who perished by their \u1f00\u03c4\u03b1\u03c3\u03b8\u03ac\u03bb\u03b9\u03b1\u03b9. Thither\nit is that Jupiter threatens to hurl down offensive and refractory\ndivinities[299]. Direct rebellion against heaven seems to be the\nspecific offence which draws down the sentence of relegation to\nTartarus. Still in the Third Iliad Agamemnon invokes certain deities,\nas the avengers of perjury upon man[300];\n\n[297] Il. xiv. 274, 9.\n\n[298] Il. v. Od. xi. 313.\n\n[299] Il. v. 897, 8. viii. 10-17. 401-6.\n\n[300] Il. iii. 278. cf. xiv. 274, 9.\n\n \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03bf\u1f31 \u1f51\u03c0\u03ad\u03bd\u03b5\u03c1\u03b8\u03b5 \u03ba\u03b1\u03bc\u03cc\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03c2\n \u1f00\u03bd\u03b8\u03c1\u03ce\u03c0\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 \u03c4\u03af\u03bd\u03c5\u03c3\u03b8\u03bf\u03bd, \u1f45\u03c4\u03b9\u03c2 \u03ba\u2019 \u1f10\u03c0\u03af\u03bf\u03c1\u03ba\u03bf\u03bd \u1f40\u03bc\u03cc\u03c3\u03c3\u1fc3.\n\nIt is not clear whether this passage implies that all perjurors are\npunished in Tartarus; or whether Aidoneus, Persephone, and the Erinues\nare the subterraneous deities here intended: but as the Titans are\nelsewhere only mentioned in express connection with Tartarus, and from\nthe description of the Erinues in Il. xix. 259, I incline to the latter\nopinion.\n\nOn the whole, then, there is some confusion between these compartments,\nso to speak, of the invisible world. The realm of Aidoneus seems to\npartake, in part, of the character both of Tartarus and of the Elysian\nplain. In common with the former, it includes persons who were objects\nof especial divine favour. In common with Tartarus, it is for some few,\nat least, a scene of positive punishment.\n\nStill, if we take the three according to their leading idea, they are\nin substantial correspondence with divine revelation. There is the\nplace of bliss, the final destination of the good. There is the place\nof torment, occupied by the Evil One and his rebellious companions:\nand there is an intermediate state, the receptacle of the dead.\nHere, as might be expected, the resemblance terminates; for as there\nis no selection for entrance into the kingdom of Aides, so there\nis no passage onwards from it. We need the less wonder at the too\ncomprehensive place it occupies, relatively to the places of reward\nand punishment proper, in the Homeric scheme, when we remember what\na tendency to develop itself beyond all bounds, the simple primitive\ndoctrine of the intermediate state has been made to exhibit, in a\nportion of the Christian Church.\n\nA further element of indistinctness attaches to the invisible world\nof Homer, if we take into view the admission of favoured mortals to\nOlympus; a process of which he gives us instances, as in Ganymedes\nand Hercules. In a work of pure invention it is unlikely that Heaven,\nElysium, and the under-world would all have been represented as\nreceptacles of souls in favour with the Deity. But some primitive\ntradition of the translation of Enoch may account for what would\notherwise stand as an additional anomaly.\n\nUpon the whole, the Homeric pictures of the prolongation of our\nindividual existence beyond the grave; the continuance in the nether\nworld of the habits and propensities acquired or confirmed in this;\nand the administration in the infernal regions of penalties for sin;\nall these things, though vaguely conceived, stand in marked contrast\nwith the far more shadowy, impersonal, and, above all, morally neutral\npictures of the invisible and future world, which alone were admitted\ninto the practical belief of the best among the Greek philosophers. We\nare left to presume that the superior picture owed its superiority to\nthe fact that it was not of man\u2019s devising, as it thus so far exceeded\nwhat his best efforts could produce.\n\n~_Sacrificial tradition in Homer._~\n\nThe nature, prevalence, and uniformity of sacrifice, should be regarded\nas another portion of the primeval inheritance, which, from various\ncauses, was perhaps the best preserved of all its parts among nations\nthat had broken the link of connection with the source.\n\nOf the sabbatical institution, which the Holy Scripture appears to fix\nat the creation of man, we find no trace in Homer. But it is easy to\nperceive that this highly spiritual ordinance was one little likely to\nsurvive the rude shocks and necessities of earthly life, while it could\nnot, like sacrifice, derive a sustaining force from appearing to confer\nupon the gods an absolute gift, profitable to them, and likely to draw\ndown their favour in return.\n\nThose who feel inclined to wonder at this disappearance of the sabbath\nfrom the record may do well to remember, that on the shield of\nAchilles, which represents the standing occasions of life in all its\ndepartments, there is no one scene which represents any observances\nsimply religious. The religious element, though corrupted, was far from\nbeing expelled out of common life; on the contrary, the whole tissue\nof it was pervaded by that element; but it was in a combined, not in a\nseparate, and therefore not in a sabbatical form.\n\nAnd again, in order to appreciate the unlikelihood that such a\ntradition as that of the sabbath would long survive the severance from\nDivine Revelation in this wintry world, we have only to consider how\nrapidly it is forgotten, in our own time, by Christians in heathen\nlands, or by those Christian settlers who are severed for the time at\nleast from civilization, and whose energies are absorbed in a ceaseless\nconflict with the yet untamed powers of nature.\n\n\n\n\nSECT. III.\n\n_The inventive Element of the Homeric Theo-mythology._\n\n\nI come now to that mass of Homeric deities, who are either wholly\nmythological, or so loaded with mythological features, that their\ntraditive character is depressed, and of secondary importance.\n\n_Jupiter._\n\nThe character of Jupiter, which commonly occupies the first place in\ndiscussions of the Greek mythology, has been in some degree forestalled\nby our prior examination of the position of other figures in the\nsystem, which are both more interesting and more important, from their\nbearing more significant resemblances to and traces of the truth of\nDivine Revelation.\n\nNevertheless, this character will well repay attention. To be\nunderstood and appreciated, it must be viewed in a great variety of\naspects. When so viewed, it will be found to range from the sublime\ndown to the brutal, and almost even down to the ridiculous. Upon the\nwhole, when we consider that the image which we thus bring before us\nwas during so many ages, for such multitudes of the most remarkable\nportion of mankind, the chief representative of Godhead, it must leave\na deep impression of pain and melancholy on the mind.\n\n \u2018If thou beest He; but Oh! how fall\u2019n, how changed!\u2019\n\nThe Jupiter of Homer is to be regarded in these four distinct\ncapacities:\n\n1. As the depository of the principal remnants of monotheistic and\nprovidential ideas.\n\n2. As the sovereign lord of meteorological phenomena.\n\n3. As the head of the Olympian community.\n\n4. As the receptacle and butt of the principal part of such earthly,\nsensual, and appetitive elements, as, at the time of Homer,\nanthropophuism had obtruded into the sphere of deity.\n\n~_Jupiter, as Providence._~\n\nThere are three modes in which Homer connects Jupiter with the\nfunctions of Providence.\n\n1. He procures or presides over the settlement, by deliberation in the\nOlympian Court, of great questions connected with the course of human\naffairs. In the Court of the Fourth Iliad, and in the Assembly of the\nEighth, he himself takes the initiative; in the Seventh and Twentieth\nBooks he listens to the proposals of Neptune; in the Twenty-fourth,\nApollo introduces the subject; in the First and Fifth Odyssey, Minerva\ndoes the like.\n\n2. He is a kind of synonym for Providence with reference to its common\noperations, to the duties and rights of man, and to the whole order\nof the world. Perhaps there are an hundred, or more, passages of the\npoems, where he appears in this manner. But they are all open to this\nobservation, that his name seems, in most of them, to be used as a mere\nformula, and to be a sort of a _caput mortuum_ without the enlivening\nforce of the idea that he is really acting in the manner or upon the\nprinciple described.\n\n3. On certain occasions, however, he appears as a supreme God, though\nsingle-handed, and not acting either for or with the Olympian assembly.\nThe grandest of these occasions is at the close of the Twenty-fourth\nOdyssey, where Minerva, stimulated by her own sympathizing keenness,\nseems to have winked at the passionate inclination of Ulysses to make\nhavock among his ungrateful and rebellious subjects. Jupiter, who\nhad previously counselled moderation, launches his thunderbolt, and\nsignificantly causes it to fall at the feet of Minerva, who thereupon\ngives at once the required caution to the exasperated sovereign. Peace\nimmediately follows[301].\n\n[301] Od. xxiv. 481. 525-41. 546.\n\nJupiter, with some of the substantial, has all the titular appendages\nof a high supremacy. He is habitually denominated the Father of gods\nand men. He is much more frequently identified with the general\ngovernment of the world, than is any other deity. He is universally\nthe \u03c4\u03b1\u03bc\u03af\u03b7\u03c2 \u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03ad\u03bc\u03bf\u03b9\u03bf. He governs the issue of all human toil, and gives\nor withholds success. It is on his floor that the caskets rest, which\ncontain the varying, but, in the main, sorrowful incidents of human\ndestiny[302]. He has also this one marked and paramount distinction,\nthat he does not descend to earth to execute his own behests, but in\ngeneral either sends other deities as his organs, to give effect to his\nwill, or else himself operates from afar, by his power as god of air.\nIf however he is more identified with the general idea of Providence\nthan are Apollo and Minerva, it is plain, on the other hand, that his\nagency is more external, abstract, and remote; theirs more inward and\npersonal: especially, the function of moral discipline seems, as we\nhave already found, to belong to Minerva.\n\n[302] Il. v. 91. xix. 223. iv. 34. i. 353, 408.\n\nN\u00e4gelsbach[303] considers that Jupiter alone can act from a distance:\nbut the prayer of Glaucus to Apollo, followed immediately by the\nhealing of his wounds, seems to prove the reverse conclusively. Again,\nMinerva reminds Telemachus that the deity can save even when at a\ndistance (Od. iii. 231): we have no authority for absolutely confining\nthis to Jupiter, and none for affixing a limit to the space within\nwhich Apollo or Minerva can act. That Jupiter always acts from far,\nmay be due in part to his representing the tradition of the one God;\nbut the argument is also in some degree incidental to the nature of\nhis special and mythological gifts, as god of the atmosphere and its\nphenomena.\n\n[303] Hom. Theol. Abschn. ii.\n\nUpon the whole, the marks of affinity to ancient tradition are stronger\nin the Homeric Minerva and Apollo than in Jupiter. He is the ordinary\nProvidence, but this is an external Providence. He undoubtedly excels\nthem in force, and in the majesty which accompanies it. But the highest\nof the divine prerogatives, of which we have but glimpses indeed in any\nof them, are hung more abundantly around these his favoured children,\nthan around himself. The secret government of the minds of men, the\ninvisible supremacy over natural laws, the power of unravelling the\nfuture (except perhaps as to the destinies of states), the faculty\nof controlling death, are scarcely to be discovered in Jupiter, but\nare oftener made clearly legible in Apollo or Minerva. Indeed Minerva\nappears always to have latent claims, which Homer himself could not\nfully understand or describe, to the very first place. It is only by\nsupposing the existence of vague traditions to this effect, that we can\nexplain such passages as that in which she delights, that Menelaus had\nprayed to her in preference to any other deity[304];\n\n[304] Il. xvii. 567.\n\n \u1f63\u03c2 \u03c6\u03ac\u03c4\u03bf\u00b7 \u03b3\u03ae\u03b8\u03b7\u03c3\u03b5\u03bd \u03b4\u1f72 \u03b8\u03b5\u1f70 \u03b3\u03bb\u03b1\u03c5\u03ba\u1ff6\u03c0\u03b9\u03c2 \u1f08\u03b8\u03ae\u03bd\u03b7,\n \u1f45\u03c4\u03c4\u03b9 \u1fe5\u03ac \u03bf\u1f31 \u03c0\u03ac\u03bc\u03c0\u03c1\u03c9\u03c4\u03b1 \u03b8\u03b5\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f20\u03c1\u03ae\u03c3\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf \u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd.\n\nThis sentiment may be accounted for in two ways. It may be due to\nthe vulgar vanity of a merely mythological divinity scuffling for\nprecedence. It may be a remnant of the tradition of a wisdom that knew\nno superior. The former cause would be scarcely suitable even to the\ndeities of invention in Homer. The latter seems wholly in keeping with\nthe character and position of his Minerva.\n\nIt may be asked, in which of the two capacities does Jupiter chiefly\ninfluence the government of the world? is it as the Supreme Deity,\nacting in the main by his own will and power? or is it as the head of\nthe Olympian community, to whose deliberate decisions he, in a species\nof executive capacity, gives effect?\n\nI think there can be no doubt that the activity of Jupiter is\nprincipally made available in the latter capacity. Not that the Poet\nhad defined for himself the distinction. But there were two processes,\neach of which had been actively advancing: the breaking up of Godhead\ninto fragments, which diminished the relative distance between Jupiter\nand the other Immortals: and the reflection of human ideas of polity\nupon Olympus, which gave a growing prominence to the element of\naristocracy.\n\nUpon the whole, then, I should say that the traditive ideas of\nmonotheism, and of a personal Providence represented in the Homeric\nJupiter, are on almost all occasions things of the past. They are like\nthe old jewels of a family, beautiful and imposing for occasions of\nstate: but they scarcely enter into his everyday life. Indeed, their\nchief effect is the negative one of withdrawing him, on the score of\ndignity, from immediate contact with mortals and with their concerns;\nand, were it not for his atmospheric prerogatives, this isolated\nsupremacy would carry him into insignificance as compared with a deity\nlike Minerva, who is ever in the view of man, and ever making herself\nfelt both in his mind and in his affairs.\n\nThere are occasions, but they are not very numerous, when, under\nthe influence of an unwonted zeal, we find Jupiter himself taking a\npart in the detailed action of the Iliad; his interferences being\nusually confined to the greater crises or indications, such as the one\nmentioned in Il. ii. 353, and such as the occasions when the \u03c4\u03ac\u03bb\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\nare produced. As examples of minor interposition, I may cite his\ninspiring Ajax with fear, his launching a thunderbolt in the path of\nDiomed, his breaking the bow-string of Teucer, and his advising Hector\nto avoid an encounter with Agamemnon[305].\n\n[305] Il. xi. 544. viii. 133-6. xv. 463. xi. 181-94.\n\n~_Jupiter as Lord of Air._~\n\nBut the position assigned to him in the mythology of Olympus, which\nprovides him with the second of his characters, is chosen with great\nskill. Although at first sight Sea may appear a more substantive and\nawful power than Air, and Earth a more solid and worthy foundation of\ndominion than either, yet consideration must readily show, that as\nthe king of the atmosphere, Jupiter is possessed of far more prompt,\neffective, and above all, universal means of acting upon mankind, than\nhe would have been had the lottery been so arranged as to give him\neither of those other provinces.\n\nThe tradition of a Trinity in the Godhead evidently leaves its traces\non the Greek mythology in the curious fable of the three Kronid\nbrothers. For the lottery of the universe, in which they draw on equal\nterms, is not founded upon, but is at variance with, Greek ideas. Those\nideas embodied the system, more or less defined, of primogeniture:\nand therefore, had the Olympian system been wholly inventive, the very\nleast it could have assigned to Jupiter would have been a priority\nof choice among the different portions of the universe. This lottery\nis evidently founded upon the idea of an essential equality in those\nwho draw. Happily the result is such as to coincide with the order\nof natural precedence: and the value and weight of the three charges\nis graduated according to the standing of the brothers, though their\nabstract equality is so rigidly asserted by Neptune, who declares\nhimself \u1f30\u03c3\u03cc\u03bc\u03bf\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f41\u03bc\u1fc7 \u03c0\u03b5\u03c0\u03c1\u03c9\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd \u03b1\u1f34\u03c3\u1fc3 (Il. xv. 209).\n\nThe exclusion of Earth from the lottery is singular: but it appears\nto have a double justification. In the first place, we must bear in\nmind the regularity of its operations, combined with the fact that it\nsensibly acts on nothing, but is passive under other agencies, such as\nthose of Sun, Wind, and Sea. This would have rendered the conception\nof it as a deity comparatively feeble in the Greek mind. In the second\nplace, it is probable that when the Olympian mythology took its shape,\nthat province was preoccupied: that the Eastern religions, observing\nits jointly passive and productive character, had personified it as\nfeminine. But even this did not content the Greek imagination. The\nconception of the bride of the chief deity was disengaged from brute\nmatter, and uplifted into a divinity having for its office the care and\ngovernment of a civilized and associated people. The Homeric Juno may\nalmost be defined as the goddess of Greece. There rose up in her place,\nlike a low mist of evening, from the ground, the comparatively obscure\nHomeric \u0393\u03b1\u1fd6\u03b1, who has no life or function, except in connection with\nthe idea of vengeance to be executed upon the wicked; and this she\nprobably derives from the belief, that the rebel spirits were punished\nin the subterranean prisons, of which she was as it were, by physical\nlaws, the necessary keeper.\n\nAs Lord of the air, Jupiter came to be endowed with a multitude of\nactive powers the most palpable, and the most replete with at least\noutward influence for man. The years are his years, the thunder and\nlightning his thunder and lightning, the rain his rain; the rivers, or\nthe most illustrious among them, the \u0394\u03b9\u03ca\u03c0\u03b5\u03c4\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03c0\u03bf\u03c4\u03b1\u03bc\u03bf\u1f76, are his: the\nclouds and tempests obey his compelling, the winds blow at his command.\nThe hail and snow come from him[306]: he impels the falling star[307],\nand, when he desires a more effective weapon or a more solemn lesson\nthan usual, he launches the scathing thunderbolt[308]. All signs and\nportents whatever, that appear in air, belong primarily to him; as does\nthe genial sign of the rainbow,\n\n[306] Il. x. 5.\n\n[307] Il. xiii. 242.\n\n[308] Od. xii. 415-17. xxiv. 539.\n\n \u1f05\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5 \u039a\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd\u03af\u03c9\u03bd\n \u1f10\u03bd \u03bd\u03ad\u03c6\u03b5\u03ca \u03c3\u03c4\u03ae\u03c1\u03b9\u03be\u03b5, \u03c4\u03ad\u03c1\u03b1\u03c2 \u03bc\u03b5\u03c1\u03cc\u03c0\u03c9\u03bd \u1f00\u03bd\u03b8\u03c1\u03ce\u03c0\u03c9\u03bd[309].\n\n[309] Il. xi. 27.\n\nAnd when these or any of them are used by other deities, it is only by\nsuch as have a peculiar relationship, either traditive or mythological,\nto him.\n\nBut as the tradition of the lottery adorns and strengthens, so\nin another view it circumscribes him. His sway is unknown in the\nregions of the dead, where his brother holds the sceptre, as the \u0396\u03b5\u1f7a\u03c2\n\u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03c7\u03b8\u03cc\u03bd\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2[310]. Accordingly, when Hercules is sent to fetch Cerberus,\nJupiter obtains for him the aid of Minerva. The more traditive deity\nescapes the circumscriptions of the less; the daughter eclipses the\nsire.\n\n[310] Il. ix. 457.\n\nMuch of the higher power exerted by Juno is in fact her use of the\natmospheric prerogatives of her husband.\n\n~_Jupiter as Head of Olympus._~\n\nBut the most considerable and characteristic manifestation of the\nHomeric Jupiter is that, in which he appears as Head of the Olympian\nFamily and Polity. Of this let us now consider so much, as is not more\nimmediately connected with the subject of the divine Polity.\n\nHe is carefully marked out as supreme in the mythological prerogatives,\nwhich are for Olympus as the Crown and Sword of State on Earth. He\nis the original owner of the \u00c6gis. To him the gods rise up at their\nmeetings[311]. He is not tied to swear by Styx[312], and invokes no\ninfernal power to be the sanction of his word, but condescends only to\nuse the symbol of a nod.\n\n[311] Il. i. 533.\n\n[312] Il. i. 524-30. See however xix. 113.\n\nOf omnipotence, as we understand the word, it would not appear that\nHomer had any idea. He had however the idea of a being superior in\nforce to all other gods separately, or perhaps even when combined. This\nbeing was Jupiter. But the conception in his mind was a wavering one,\nso that, though it was present to him, we cannot say that he embraced\nit as a truth. If by some parts of the poems it is supported, by others\nit is brought into question or overthrown. As respects Briareus, who\nwas not a god, his superiority in mere force to Jupiter is expressly\ndeclared (Il. i. 404).\n\nIn the Assembly of the Eighth Book, Jupiter loudly proclaims his\npersonal superiority in strength to all the other gods and goddesses\ncombined; and boasts that, while by a golden chain they could not\nunitedly drag him down to earth, he could drag them all, with earth and\nsea to boot behind them.\n\nAgain, when in the same Book Juno[313] suggests to Neptune the plan of\na combination among all the Hellenizing gods to restrain Jupiter, and\nto assist the Greeks in despite of him, Neptune replies that he at\nleast will have nothing to say to such a proceeding, for Jupiter is far\ntoo strong[314].\n\n[313] viii. 201.\n\n[314] Il. i. 209-11.\n\nBut in the First Book we learn that a rebellion headed by Juno,\nNeptune, and Minerva, was too much for him. It is, however, clear that\nhe had not actually been put in chains by these deities; but they were\nabout to do it, when Briareus came to the rescue, and by his mere\nappearance reestablished Jupiter in secure supremacy. This legend has a\nmark of antiquity in the fact that Briareus has two names; he is known\nas Briareus among the gods, and as \u00c6g\u00e6on among all mankind[315].\n\n[315] Il. i. 397-405.\n\nWhen, in the Fifteenth Book, Jupiter apprehends a stubborn resistance\nfrom Neptune, and the necessity of his personally undertaking the\nexecution of his own commands, he is far from easy. With the aid of\nJuno, his brother can, he thinks, easily be managed[316]. When he finds\nNeptune has retired, he frankly owns it is much better for them both;\nas to have put him down by force[317] would have been a tough business\n(\u03bf\u1f54 \u03ba\u03b5\u03bd \u1f00\u03bd\u03b9\u03b4\u03c1\u03c9\u03c4\u03af \u03b3\u2019 \u1f10\u03c4\u03b5\u03bb\u03ad\u03c3\u03b8\u03b7).\n\n[316] Il. xv. 49-52.\n\n[317] Il. xv. 228.\n\nJuno and Minerva, single or combined, he threatens freely, and the\nfirst of these he had once severely punished: but Neptune was stronger,\nthough in mind inferior; and we have no direct evidence that he was\npresent in the Assembly of the Eighth Book, when Jupiter bragged of\nhis being stronger than them all together. Neither he nor Juno obeyed\nthe command of Jupiter, to observe neutrality until his purpose of\nglorifying Hector should have been accomplished.\n\nOn the whole, the superiority of Jupiter to any one god is clear,\nthough not immeasurable. His superiority to the whole is doubtful. The\npoint in his favour is, that he never was actually coerced. The point\nagainst him is, that his will seems to give place, and this too on\nvery great occasions, to the sentiments of the weightiest part of the\nOlympian Court.\n\nIn his government of the other gods, the moral element disappears. He\ndoes not appeal to their sense of right, nor profess to be ruled in his\nown proceedings towards them by impartial justice. On the contrary, he\ndesires the wounded Mars not to sit whining by his side; and, before\nordering Paieon to heal his hurts, makes a distinct declaration,\nthat had he been the son of any deity other than himself, he should\nhave been ejected from heaven into a lower place, apparently meaning\nthe dark and dismal Tartarus, on account of his love of quarrels. A\nprofound attachment to ease and self-enjoyment lies at the root of his\ncharacter. He never disturbs the established order; and he is averse\nto movement and innovation, come from whence it may. The spirit of\nJuno[318], so restless on behalf of Greece, is vexatious to him in\nthe highest degree: and his love of Troy, if it has reference to any\nthing beyond liberality in sacrifices and the descent of Dardanus,\nmay perhaps be referred to its representing the stereotyped form of\nsociety. It is probably on account of this indolence of temperament\nthat, when he has brought Hector and the Trojans as far as the\nShips, he feels he has had enough for the moment of the spectacle of\nblood; and accordingly he turns his eyes over Thrace and the country\nof the Mysians, the Hippemolgians, and the righteous and therefore\npresumably peaceful Abii[319]. Wearied with the perpetual din, he finds\nsatisfaction in a change of prospect; but at another time, refreshed\nas we may suppose, he coolly states that he shall enjoy a sight of the\nbattle:\n\n[318] Il. v. 892.\n\n[319] Il. xiii. 1-6.\n\n \u1f14\u03bd\u03b8\u2019 \u1f41\u03c1\u03cc\u03c9\u03bd \u03c6\u03c1\u03ad\u03bd\u03b1 \u03c4\u03ad\u03c1\u03c8\u03bf\u03bc\u03b1\u03b9[320].\n\n[320] Il. xx. 23.\n\n~_His political spirit._~\n\nThe political element of Jupiter\u2019s character, reflected more narrowly\nand turbulently in Juno, is, however, that which deserves the greatest\nattention.\n\nIt was so deeply implanted in him, that it entered into his personal\nconduct even when he was not in immediate contact with the Olympian\nbody. For example, in the Sixteenth Iliad, Jupiter debates with himself\nwhether he shall save Sarpedon from death by the hand of Patroclus.\nJuno, to whom he had made a sort of appeal for approval, protests\naccording to the Olympian formula,\n\n \u1f14\u03c1\u03b4\u2019\u00b7 \u1f00\u03c4\u1f70\u03c1 \u03bf\u1f54 \u03c4\u03bf\u03b9 \u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c0\u03b1\u03b9\u03bd\u03ad\u03bf\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd \u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u1f76 \u1f04\u03bb\u03bb\u03bf\u03b9.\n\nShe suggests in preference a prompt rescue and disposal of the dead\nbody. Jupiter is not here in actual contact with any one but Juno. She,\nhowever, menaces him with the spleen of the Immortals, and he, averse\nto trouble, and fearful of shaking his own seat, acquiesces, though at\nthe cost of the utmost pain[321].\n\n[321] Il. xvi. 431-61.\n\nOver and above the mere insignia of sovereignty, Jupiter holds some of\nhis best prerogatives, both terrestrial and Olympian, in the capacity\nof head of the community of Immortals.\n\nHence it is that he is the steward of sovereignty, and the champion of\nsocial rights. All princes and rulers hold from him, and administer\njustice under his authority. He gave their sceptre to the family of\nPelops: even the heralds are his agents, \u0394\u03b9\u1f78\u03c2 \u1f04\u03b3\u03b3\u03b5\u03bb\u03bf\u03b9, and act in his\nname.\n\nOn Olympus it falls to him in this capacity, not only to conduct and\nsuperintend the proceedings of the whole body of Immortals, as a\nbody, but to exercise a very large influence over their relations\nindividually with men, and with one another. The Sun carries to Jupiter\nin full court, as head of the body, his complaint against the crew\nof Ulysses, and Jupiter at once undertakes to avenge it[322]. Juno,\nagain, appeals to him on the conduct of Mars[323], and he permits her\nto let loose Minerva on him. Mars, when wounded, goes to Jupiter with\nhis complaint[324], and Diana also, when requested, makes him privy to\nhers, after she has taken her seat upon his knee[325]. When any two\ndeities are in any manner at issue or in collision, or when any of the\nmore dependent gods have a quarrel with men, then Jupiter finds his\nplace as the natural arbiter, and from this source he obtains great\nsupport for his power. The surest of all its guarantees is indeed found\nin the skill with which, by making the will of Olympus his own, he\nmakes his own will irresistible.\n\n[322] Od. xii. 377.\n\n[323] Il. v. 753.\n\n[324] Il. v. 872.\n\n[325] Il. xxi. 505.\n\nThus then the Jupiter of Homer has varied elements of grandeur,\ntraditional, physical, and political. Something also accrues to him\nby the sheer necessity of the metaphysical order. Wherever the mind\ndemands a personal origin or cause, he alone can offer to supply\nits want. He still continues to represent, in a certain degree, the\nprinciple of unity; and he derives strength from that principle. Nor\ndoes the solid might of Destiny interfere with his claims to the same\nextent in Homer, as it does in the later Greek poetry.\n\nThus equipped with august prerogatives, the Jupiter of Homer is\nevidently, to the popular view, the most sublime object in the Olympian\nmythology. His breadth and grandeur of dimension commended him to the\nadmiring favour of the Greek artist, who made it his supreme effort\nto embody the conception of the Sovereign of Olympus: and we may judge\nof his elevation in the public apprehension over all other deities, by\nthe greater sublimity of the material forms, in which the idea of his\ndivinity has been enshrined.\n\nBut the figure of Jupiter, as it is the principal, so it is also the\nmost anomalous, in the whole Homeric assemblage. Although he is, and\neven because he is, the depository of so many among the most primitive\nand venerable ideas, he becomes also the butt alike of the infirmity,\nand the wantonness, and insolence of human thought, in the alterative\noperations which it continually prosecutes upon the ancient and pure\nidea of Godhead. Hence not only in his character, as in other cases,\ndoes the inventive power everywhere sap, corrode, invade, and curtail\nthe ancient traditionary conception of divine truths, but it is in\nhim that we find both systems culminating at once, both exhibiting\nin him, raised to the highest power, their separate and discordant\ncharacteristics.\n\nFrom one point of view Jupiter is the most sublime of all the deities\nof Homer, because he is the first personal source and origin of life,\nthe father of gods and men, the supreme manifestation of Power and\nknowledge, the principal, though imperfect living representation of a\nProvidence and Governor of the world.\n\nRegarded from another point of view, as we see disclosed the large\nintrusion of the human and carnal element into the ethereal sphere, the\ncharacter of Jupiter becomes the most repulsive in the whole circle of\nOlympian life[326]. The emancipation from truth, the self-abandonment\nto gross passion, the constant breach of the laws he administers, are\nmore conspicuous in the chief god than in any of the subordinate gods,\nand are more offensive in proportion to the majesty with which they are\nunnaturally associated.\n\n[326] Il. ii. 2, 12-15. xiv. 294-6, _et alibi_.\n\n~_Jupiter as the type of animalism._~\n\nThe ungovernable self-indulgence, which even so early as in the time of\nHomer has begun to taint through and through the whole human conception\nof the Immortals, rises to its climax, as was to be expected, in\nJupiter. The idea of the Supreme, or at least by far the First being\nof the universe, had not yet, indeed, descended so low as it did\nin after-times, when it was even associated with lusts contrary to\nnature. Of these there is no trace in Homer. But the law which governs\nthe relation of sex, as it exists among men, was utterly relaxed and\ndisorganized for him. In the first place, monogamy, established for all\nGreeks, for the chief god of Greece became polygamy; and in the second,\nmarriage was no bar against incessant adultery.\n\nA certain distinction between the wives, and the mere paramours, of\nJupiter is clearly traceable in Homer. Latona, for instance, is a wife,\nan \u1f04\u03bb\u03bf\u03c7\u03bf\u03c2 of Jupiter. Mercury says of her[327]--\n\n[327] Od. xi. 580. Il. xxi. 498.\n\n \u1f00\u03c1\u03b3\u03b1\u03bb\u03ad\u03bf\u03bd \u03b4\u1f72\n \u03c0\u03bb\u03b7\u03ba\u03c4\u03af\u03b6\u03b5\u03c3\u03b8\u2019 \u1f00\u03bb\u03cc\u03c7\u03bf\u03b9\u03c3\u03b9 \u0394\u03b9\u1f78\u03c2 \u03bd\u03b5\u03c6\u03b5\u03bb\u03b7\u03b3\u03b5\u03c1\u03ad\u03c4\u03b1\u03bf.\n\nBut the intrigues with the wife of Ixion, or with the daughter of\nPh\u0153nix, who bore to him the great Minos, mark mere adultery, and\ninvolve no kind of permanent relation between Jupiter and this class\nof the mothers of his children. Hence we do not find any such person\npossessed of an interest in him, like that which led him to take part\nin the vengeance inflicted on Niobe and her family by the children of\nLatona[328]. Again, as he is not a personal providence, and does not\ntake charge of the destiny or guide the conduct of individuals, nor\never touches the depths of human nature, so he has at once the largest\nshare of the passions and the smallest stock of the sympathies of man.\n\n[328] Il. xxiv. 611.\n\nFrom an intermediate point between the grandeur and the vileness of\nJupiter, we may observe how unequal the human mind had already proved\nto sustain its own idea. He ought to be supreme in knowledge; but he is\nthrice deluded by the cunning of Juno[329], who not only outwits him,\nbut sends Iris down to earth without his knowledge, just as Neptune\nmoves (\u03bb\u03ac\u03b8\u03c1\u03b7) on the plain of Troy unseen by him[330]. He ought to be\nsupreme in force, and he boasts that he could drag with ease all the\ndeities of Olympus, whom he addressed, but he is, notwithstanding, on\nthe point of being overpowered by a combination of inferior deities,\nwhen he is saved by the timely arrival of Briareus with the hundred\nhands. His faculty of vision does not seem to be limited by space when\nhe chooses to employ it[331], but it is subject to interruption, both\nvoluntary and involuntary, from sleep[332].\n\n[329] Il. xiv. xix. 97. xviii. 168.\n\n[330] Il. xiii. 352, 6.\n\n[331] Il. xiii. 1-7.\n\n[332] Il. i. 611. xiv. 352.\n\nAlthough there is great scenic grandeur in the part which he plays in\nthe Iliad, in the Odyssey he is until nearly the close practically a\nmute, and does little more than assent to the plans and representations\nof Minerva.\n\nIn the action, however, of the Iliad, the only glimpse of a personal\nattachment is to Hector; and this is founded simply on the abundance of\nhis sacrifices. Jupiter is the great propounder of the animal view of\nthat subject: and accordingly in the Odyssey[333], Minerva pleads the\ncase of Ulysses very much on this ground before Jupiter, though, in all\nher intercourse with that chief, there is no sign of her valuing the\nofferings on her own account. In every point of sensual susceptibility,\nJupiter leads the way for the Immortals.\n\n[333] Od. i. 66.\n\n~_Qualified by his parental instincts._~\n\nIn Jupiter, as in the almost brutal Mars, we find remaining that relic\nof personal virtue which depends least upon reflection, and flows most\nfrom instinct, namely, parental affection. Mars is wrought up to fury\nby learning the death of his son Ascalaphus; and Jupiter, after much\npainful rumination on consenting to the fall of Sarpedon, sheds gouts\nof blood over the dearest of his children[334]. This is singularly\ngrand as poetry, and far superior to the sheer mania of Mars. Indeed it\nis evident that Homer exerted himself to the utmost in adorning this\nmajestic figure, as a mere figure, with the richest treasures of his\nimagination.\n\n[334] Il. xvi. 458.\n\nWhen, in the Twenty-First Iliad, the great battle of the gods begins,\nJupiter has no part to take. He sits aloft in his independent security,\nwhile they contend together, even as he was afterwards supposed to\nkeep aloof from trouble and responsibility for human affairs. The same\nsentiment appears in the determination of Neptune and Apollo not to\nquarrel on account of mortals. But in the case of Jupiter, the selfish\nprinciple comes out with greater force: he is not merely indifferent,\nbut he absolutely rejoices in the strife of the Immortals:\n\n \u1f10\u03b3\u03ad\u03bb\u03b1\u03c3\u03c3\u03b5 \u03b4\u03ad \u03bf\u1f31 \u03c6\u03af\u03bb\u03bf\u03bd \u1f26\u03c4\u03bf\u03c1\n \u03b3\u03b7\u03b8\u03bf\u03c3\u03cd\u03bd\u1fc3, \u1f45\u03b8\u2019 \u1f41\u03c1\u1fb6\u03c4\u03bf \u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 \u1f14\u03c1\u03b9\u03b4\u03b9 \u03be\u03c5\u03bd\u03b9\u03cc\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03c2.\n\nUpon the whole it is certainly the Jupiter of Homer in whom, of all his\ngreater gods, notwithstanding his abstract attributes, we see, first,\nthe most complete surrender of personal morality and self-government\nto mere appetite; secondly, the most thoroughly selfish groundwork of\ncharacter: the germ, and in no small degree the development, of what\nwas afterwards to afford to speculation the materials for the Epicurean\ntheory respecting the divine nature, as it is set forth in the verse of\nLucretius, or in the arguments of the Ciceronian Cotta.\n\n_Juno._\n\n~_The Juno of Homer._~\n\nThe Juno of the Iliad is by far the most conspicuous and splendid, as\nshe is also the most evidently national, product of the inventive power\nto be found in the entire circle of the theo-mythology.\n\nNot that Greek invention created her out of nothing. On the contrary,\nshe represented abundant prototypes in the mythologies of the East.\nHer Greek name, \u1f2d\u03c1\u03b7, is, I apprehend, a form of \u1f14\u03c1\u03b1, the earth[335];\nand in her first form she probably represented one of its oriental\nimpersonations. But they all had to pass through the crucible, and they\ncame out in a form as purely Hellenic as if it had been absolutely\noriginal.\n\n[335] Welsford on the English Language, p. 165.\n\nIt is plain from the nature of the case, that she can have had no\nplace in primitive tradition. But it may be well before discussing her\nmythological origin, her dignity and positive functions, to refer to\ncertain indications from which we may make sure that Homer has handled\nthe character in the mode observed by him for deities of invention only.\n\nThere is, then, about Juno a liability to passion, and a want of moral\nelevation, which are among the certain marks of mythological origin.\nJupiter declares his belief that, if she could, she would eat the\nTrojans; nor does she resent the imputation[336]. When Vulcan is born,\nangry at the mean appearance and lameness of the infant, she pitches\nhim down into the sea[337]. These representations are entirely at\nvariance with the constant dignity and self-command, which mark the\ndeportment of the great traditive deities. Her whole activity in the\nIliad is not merely energetic, but in the highest degree passionate and\nardent.\n\n[336] Il. iv. 34-6.\n\n[337] Il. xviii. 395-9.\n\nSo again, taking into consideration the comparative purity attaching to\nher sex, which we see so fully maintained in Diana, her resort to the\nuse of sensual passion, in Il. xiv., even though only as an instrument\nfor an end, is a mark that the character is, in its basis, mythological.\n\nNor do we anywhere find ascribed to her ethical, or what may be\ncalled theistic sentiments: pure power and policy are her delight;\nand she nowhere enters individually within the line of the moral and\nProvidential order at all, nor takes any share in superintending\nit[338].\n\n[338] Hence the \u1f18\u03c1\u03b9\u03bd\u03cd\u03b5\u03c2 are in conflict with her in Il. xix. 418. On\nthis very curious subject see inf. sect. iv.\n\nIn the Iliad, of which the martial movement is appropriate to her,\nand where the Greek nationality is placed in sharp contrast with a\nforeign one, she plays a great part, is ever alert and at work, and\ncontributes mainly to the progress of the action. But in the Odyssey,\na poem more simply theistic and ethical, and without any opposition\nof nationalities, she has no share in the action, and may be said\npractically to disappear from view. To appreciate the force of this\ncircumstance, we must contrast it with Homer\u2019s treatment of another\ndeity, inferior to her in the Olympian community. The three greatest\ndeities, among those who embody much of primitive tradition, are\nJupiter, Minerva, and Apollo. Of these, Jupiter, in the character of\nProvidence, has everywhere a place ready made for him; Minerva, as\nthe guide and protectress of Ulysses, has ample opportunities for her\nactivity; but it is not so with Apollo: and in consequence Homer has\nbeen careful to supply in the poem points of contact with him, by the\nintroduction of Theoclymenus, and of the grand imagery of the second\nsight, which is his gift; by fixing the critical day at the new moon,\nwhich was sacred to him, and by causing the crisis to turn upon the\nbow, his famous weapon: as though these three, Jupiter, Minerva, and\nApollo, were the universal, permanent, and indispensable deities; but\nthe others occasional, and to be used according to circumstances. Juno\nhas no such place or office provided for her in the Odyssey, as they\nhave.\n\nThere is yet another mark adhering to Juno, which clearly separates\nbetween her and the Homeric deities of strongly marked traditional\ncharacter: namely, that she was not exempt from the touch of defeat and\ndishonour. For, in the course of her long feud with Hercules, that hero\nwounded her with an arrow in the left breast, and caused her to suffer\ndesperate pain[339]. Again, she was ignominiously punished by Jupiter;\nwho suspended her with her hands in chains, and with anvils hanging\nfrom her feet[340].\n\n[339] Il. v. 392.\n\n[340] Il. xv. 18-21.\n\n~_Her intense nationality._~\n\nHer strong and profound Greek nationality has obtained for her the\nname of Argeian Juno. The fervour of this nationality is most signally\nexemplified in the passage where Jupiter tells her, that she regards\nthe Greeks as her children[341]; and again, where she lets us know\nthat it was she[342] who collected the armament against Troy. She\nconducts Agamemnon the head of the Greek nation safely on the sea[343];\nand carries Jason through the \u03a0\u03bb\u03b1\u03b3\u03ba\u03c4\u03b1\u03af[344]. This is the vivifying\nidea of her whole character, and fills it with energy, vigilance,\ndetermination, and perseverance. Her hatred of Hercules cannot have\nbeen owing to conjugal jealousy, with which she is not troubled in\nHomer, for Jupiter recites his conquests in addressing her on Ida;\nindeed, had she been liable to this emotion, it must, from the frequent\nrecurrence of its occasions, have supplied the main thread of her\nfeeling and action. It was her identification in soul with the Perseid\ndynasty, the legitimate representative, in its own day, of the Hellenic\nrace, and in occupation of its sovereign seat, that made her filch, on\nbehalf of Eurystheus, the effect of the promise intended by Jupiter\nfor Hercules, and that engaged her afterwards in a constant struggle\nto bear down that elastic hero, whose high personal gifts still\nthreatened to eclipse his royal relative and competitor. So again,\nunlike Minerva[345], even while seeking to operate through Trojans,\nshe studiously avoids contact with them. Minerva is sent as agent to\nPandarus[346]; but this is on the suggestion of Juno. In truth, this\nintensely national stamp localizes the divinity of Juno, and, being\ncounteracted by no other sign, fixes on her the note both of invention,\nand of Greek invention.\n\n[341] Il. xviii. 358, 9.\n\n[342] Il. iv. 24.\n\n[343] Od. iv. 513.\n\n[344] Od. xii. 72.\n\n[345] Vid. Il. iv. 94.\n\n[346] Il. iv. 64.\n\nWith respect now to her dignity and positive functions, these are of a\nvery high order.\n\nThe Olympian gods rise from their seats to greet her (as they do to\nJupiter) when she comes among them[347].\n\n[347] Il. xv. 85.\n\nShe acts immediately upon the thoughts of men: as when, at the outset\nof the Iliad, she prompts Achilles to call the first Greek assembly;\n\u03c4\u1ff7 \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u1f10\u03c0\u1f76 \u03c6\u03c1\u03b5\u03c3\u1f76 \u03b8\u1fc6\u03ba\u03b5 \u03b8\u03b5\u1f70 \u03bb\u03b5\u03c5\u03ba\u03ce\u03bb\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f2d\u03c1\u03b7[348]. On various occasions,\nshe suggests action to Minerva, and it follows[349]: in the First Book,\nJuno is even said to send her, though by another arrangement the Poet\nhas provided against attaching inferiority to that goddess[350]. It\nmay be that in her seeming to employ Minerva, as in so many of her\nhighest functions, she is reflecting one of the high prerogatives of\nJupiter. Certain it is that by the side of her ceaseless and passionate\nactivity, even Minerva appears, except on the battle-field, to play,\nin the Iliad, a part secondary to hers. She was so powerful[351], not\nonly as to form one of the great trine rebellion against Jupiter, which\nso nearly dethroned him, but as to make him feel greatly relieved and\nrejoiced, in his differences with Neptune, when she promises to side\nwith him[352]: \u2018with your aid,\u2019 so thinks Jupiter, \u2018he will easily\nbe kept in order, and will have to act as _we_ could wish.\u2019 She is\ncertainly the most bold, untiring, zealous, and effective assistant to\nthe Greeks: while she never bates a hair of her wrath, in compassion or\notherwise, towards any Trojan.\n\n[348] Il. i. 55. Comp. viii. 218.\n\n[349] Il. ii. 156. v. 711. viii. 331.\n\n[350] Vid. supr. p. 66.\n\n[351] Il. i. 195.\n\n[352] Il. xv. 49-52.\n\n~_Her mythological functions._~\n\nLike Neptune and others, she assumes the human form[353], and evokes\na cloud of vapour this way or that: but she does much more. Her power\ndisplays itself in various forms, both over deities, and over animate\nand inanimate nature. In some of these particularly, her proceedings\nseem to be a reflected image of her husband\u2019s. Iris[354] is not only\nhis messenger, but her\u2019s. She not only orders the Winds, but she sends\nthe Sun to his setting[355], in spite of his reluctance. When, in\nher indignation at the boast of Hector, she rocks on her throne, she\nshakes Olympus[356]. She endows the deathless horses of Achilles with\na voice[357]. And conjoined with Minerva, she thunders in honour of\nAgamemnon when just armed. Except the case of the horse, all these\nappear to be the reflected uses of the power of Jupiter as god of air.\n\n[353] Il. v. 784-92.\n\n[354] Il. xviii. 168.\n\n[355] Ibid. 239.\n\n[356] Il. viii. 193.\n\n[357] Il. xix. 407.\n\nWe find from the speech of Ph\u0153nix, that with Minerva she can confer\nvalour[358]. In a curious passage of the Odyssey, Homer tells us how\nthe daughters of Pandarus were supplied by various goddesses with\nvarious qualities and gifts. Diana gave them size, Juno gave them \u03b5\u1f36\u03b4\u03bf\u03c2\n\u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c0\u03b9\u03bd\u03c5\u03c4\u03ae\u03bd. We should rather have expected the last to come from\nMinerva: but she endowed them with \u1f14\u03c1\u03b3\u03b1 or industrial skill, so that\nher dignity has been in another way provided for. But if the lines are\ngenuine, then in the capacity of Juno to confer the gift of \u03c0\u03b9\u03bd\u03c5\u03c4\u1f74\nor prudence, we see a point of contact between her powerful but more\nlimited, and Minerva\u2019s larger character[359].\n\n[358] Il. ix. 254.\n\n[359] Od. xx. 70-2.\n\nThe full idea of her mind is in fact contained in the union of great\nastuteness with her self-command, force, and courage: which, in effect,\nmakes it the reflection of the genius of the Greeks when deprived of\nits moral element: and places it in very near correspondence with that\nof the Ph\u0153nicians, who are like Greeks, somewhat seriously maimed in\nthat one great department. This full idea is exhibited on two great\noccasions. Once when she outwits Jupiter, by fastening him with an\noath to his promise, and then, hastening one birth, and by her command\nover the Eilithui\u00e6 retarding another, proceeds to make Eurystheus\nthe recipient of what Jupiter had intended for another less remote\ndescendant of his own. Again, in the Fourteenth Iliad, by a daring\ncombination, she hoaxes Venus to obtain her capital charm, induces\nSleep by a bribe to undertake an almost desperate enterprise, and then,\nthough on account of his sentiments towards Troy she felt disgust (Il.\nxiv. 158) as she looked upon Jupiter, enslaves him for the time through\na passion of which she is not herself the slave, but which she uses as\nher instrument for a great end of policy. She is, in short, a great,\nfervid, unscrupulous, and most able Greek patriot, exhibiting little\nof divine ingredients, but gifted with a marked and powerful human\nindividuality.\n\nIt may be worth while to observe in passing, an indication as to the\nlimited powers of locomotion which Homer ascribed to his deities. The\nhorses of Juno, when she drives, cover at each step a space as great\nas the human eye can command looking along the sea. But when she has\nthe two operations to perform on the same day, one upon the mother of\nEurystheus, and the other on the mother of Hercules, she attends to the\nfirst in her own person, and apparently manages the other by command\ngiven to the Eilithui\u00e6 (Il. xix. 119). If so, then she was evidently in\nthe Poet\u2019s mind subject to the laws of space and corporal presence: and\nhis figure of the horse\u2019s spring was one on which he would not rely for\nthe management of an important piece of business.\n\nThere are three places, and three only, in the poems, which could\nconnect Juno with the Trojans. One is the Judgment of Paris (Il. xxiv.\n29). The others are no more than verbal only. Hector swears by Jupiter\n\u201cthe loud thundering husband of Here[360].\u201d And again, he wishes he\nhad as certainly Jupiter for his father, and Juno for his mother[361],\nas he is certain that the day will bring disaster to the Greeks. We\ncannot, then, say that she was absolutely unknown to the Trojans in her\nHellenic form, while they may have been more familiar with her eastern\nprototypes[362]. It does not, however, follow, that she was a deity of\nestablished worship among them. There is no notice of any institution\nor act of religion on the one side, or of care on the other, between\nher and any member of their race. In the mention of her among the\nTrojans, we may perhaps have an instance of the very common tendency of\nthe heathen nations to adopt, by sympathy as it were, deities from one\nanother; independently of all positive causes, such as migration, or\nethnical or political connection.\n\n[360] Il. x. 329.\n\n[361] Il. xiii. 827.\n\n[362] See Il. iii. 104.\n\n~_Her mythological origin._~\n\nThe origin of Juno, which would thus on many grounds appear to have\nbeen Hellenic, appears to be referable to the principle, which I have\ncalled \u0153conomy, and under which the relations of deities were thrown\ninto the known forms of the human family. This process, according to\nthe symmetrical and logical turn of the Greek mind, began when it was\nneeded for its purpose, and stopped when it had done its work. Gods,\nthat were to generate or rear other gods, were coupled; and partners\nwere supplied by simple reflection of the character of the male,\nwhere there was no Idea or Power ready for impersonation that would\nserve the turn. Thus, \u1fec\u03ad\u03b1, Earth or Matter, found a suitable mate\nfor \u039a\u03c1\u03cc\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2, or Time. But to make a match for Oceanus, his own mere\nreflected image, or feminine, was called into being under the name\nof Tethys. Such was, but only after the time of Homer, Amphitrite\nfor Neptune, and Proserpine for Hades. In Homer the latter is more,\nand the former less than this. It was by nothing less than an entire\nmetamorphosis, that the Greek Juno was educed from, or substituted for,\nsome old deification of the Earth. She is much more a creation than\nan adaptation. What she really represents in Olympus, is supernatural\nwifehood; of which the common mark is, the want of positive and\ndistinct attributes in the goddess. With this may be combined a\nnegative sign not less pregnant with evidence; namely, the derivation\nand secondary handling of the prerogatives of the husband. The case of\nJuno is clear and strong under both heads. Her grandeur arises from her\nbeing clothed in the reflected rays of her husband\u2019s supremacy, like\nAchilles in the flash of the \u00c6gis. But positive divine function she has\nnone whatever, except the slender one of presiding over maternity by\nher own agency, and by that of her figurative daughters, the Eilithui\u00e6.\nShe is, when we contemplate her critically, the goddess of motherhood\nand of nothing else. And in truth, as the fire made Vulcan, and war\nmade Mars, her mythological children, so motherhood made Juno, and is\nher type in actual nature. She became a goddess, to give effect to the\nprinciple of \u0153conomy, to bring the children of Jupiter into the world,\nto enable man, in short, to construct that Olympian order, which he was\nto worship. Having been thus conceived, she assumed high powers and\ndignities in right of her husband, whose sister she was fabled to be,\nupon becoming also his wife, because either logical instinct, or the\nancient traditions of our race rendered it a necessity for the Greeks\nto derive the divine, as well as the human, family from a single pair.\n\nHowever strictly Hellenic may have been the position of Juno, we must\nreckon her as the sister of Jupiter to have been worshipped, in Homer\u2019s\ntime, from beyond the memory of man. For she carries upon her no token,\nwhich can entitle us to assign to her a recent origin. Recent, I mean,\nin her Hellenic form: apart from the fact that she was not conceived\nby the Greeks, so to speak, out of nothing; and that she, in common\nwith many other deities, represents the Greek remodelling, in this\ncase peculiarly searching and complete, of eastern traditions. The\nrepresentation in theology of the female principle was eastern, and,\nas we have seen, even Jewish. Had Juno been simply adopted, she would\nprobably have been an elemental power, corresponding with Earth in the\nvisible creation. In lieu of this she became Queen of Olympus, and, in\nrelation to men, goddess of Greece. Earth remains, in Homer, almost\nunvivified in consequence. But it may have been on account of this\naffinity, as well as of her relation to Jupiter, that she has been so\nliberally endowed with power over nature.\n\n_Neptune._\n\n~_The Neptune of Homer._~\n\nNeptune is one of three sons of \u039a\u03c1\u03cc\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 and \u1fec\u03ad\u03b1, and comes next to\nJupiter in order of birth. In the Fifteenth Iliad he claims an equality\nof rank, and avers that the distribution of sovereignties among the\nthree brothers was made by lot. The Sea is his, the Shades are subject\nto Aides, Jupiter has the Heaven and Air; Earth and Olympus are\ncommon to them all. Wherefore, says Neptune, I am no mere satellite\nof Jupiter: great as he is, let him rest content with his own share;\nand if he wants somebody to command, let him command his own sons\nand daughters. Perhaps there may here be conveyed a taunt at Jupiter\nwith respect to the independent and adverse policy of Minerva. This\nvery curious speech is delivered by Neptune in reply to the command\nof Jupiter, that he should leave the field of battle before Troy,\nwhich was backed by threats. Iris, the messenger, who hears him, in\nher reply founds the superiority of Jupiter on his seniority only.\nTo this Neptune yields: but reserves his right of resentment if\nJupiter should spare Troy[363]. Nor does Jupiter send down Apollo to\nencourage the Trojans, until Neptune has actually retired: he then\nexpresses great satisfaction at the withdrawal of Neptune without a\nbattle between them, which would have been heard and felt in Tartarus;\npossibly implying that Neptune would have been hurled into it[364], but\nreferring distinctly to the certain difficulty of the affair;\n\n[363] Il. xv. 174-217.\n\n[364] Vid. Il. viii. 13.\n\n \u1f10\u03c0\u03b5\u1f76 \u03bf\u1f54 \u03ba\u03b5\u03bd \u1f00\u03bd\u03b9\u03b4\u03c1\u03c9\u03c4\u03af \u03b3\u2019 \u1f10\u03c4\u03b5\u03bb\u03ad\u03c3\u03b8\u03b7[365].\n\n[365] Il. xv. 220-35.\n\nWe have now clearly enough before us the very singular combination of\nideas that entered into the conception of the Homeric Neptune, and we\nmay pronounce, with tolerable confidence, upon the manner in which each\none of them acquired its place there. They are these:\n\n1. As one of the trine brotherhood, who are jointly possessed of the\nhighest power over the regions of creation, he is part-representative\nof the primeval tradition respecting the Divine Nature and Persons.\n\n2. As god of the Sea, he provides an impersonation to take charge of\none of the great domains of external nature.\n\n3. As the eldest and strongest, next to Jupiter, of the Immortal\nfamily, he represents the nucleus of rivalry and material, or\nmain-force, opposition to the head of the Olympian family.\n\n~_His traits chiefly mythological._~\n\nWith respect to the first, the proposition itself seems to contain\nnearly all that can be said to belong to Neptune in right of primitive\ntradition, except indeed as to certain stray relics. One of these\nseems to hang about him, in the form of an extraordinary respect\npaid to him by the children of Jupiter. Apollo is restrained by\nthis feeling (\u03b1\u1f30\u03b4\u1f7c\u03c2) from coming to blows with him[366]: a similar\nsentiment restrains Minerva, not only from appearing to Ulysses in\nher own Ph\u00e6acian \u1f04\u03bb\u03c3\u03bf\u03c2[367], but even, as she says, from assisting\nhim at all during his previous adventures[368]. But this is all. The\nprerogatives which are so conspicuous in Apollo and Minerva, and which\nestablish their origin as something set higher than the lust of pure\nhuman invention, are but rarely and slightly discernible in Neptune. In\nsimple strength he stands with Homer next to Jupiter, for to no other\ndeity would Jupiter have paid the compliment of declaring it a serious\nmatter to coerce him. But there is no sign of intellectual or moral\nelevation about him. Of the former we may judge from his speeches; for\nthe speeches of gods are in Homer nearly as characteristic as those of\nheroes. As to the latter, his numerous human children show that he did\nnot rise above the mythological standard; and his implacable resentment\nagainst Ulysses was occasioned by a retribution that the monster\nPolyphemus had received, not only just in itself, but even relatively\nslight.\n\n[366] Il. xxi. 468.\n\n[367] Od. vi. 329.\n\n[368] Od. xiii. 341.\n\nIt does not appear that prayer is addressed to him except in connection\nwith particular places, or in virtue of special titles; as when\nthe Neleids, his descendants, offer sacrifice to him on the Pylian\nshore[369], or the Ph\u00e6acians[370] seek to avert threatened disaster, or\nwhen Polyphemus his son roars to him for help[371]. The sacrifices to\nhim have apparently a local character: at Onchestus is his \u1f04\u03bb\u03c3\u03bf\u03c2[372],\nand Juno appeals to him in the name of the offerings made to him by the\nGreeks at Helice and \u00c6g\u00e6[373]. The Envoys of the Ninth Iliad pray to\nhim for the success of their enterprise; but it is while their mission\nis leading them along the sea-beach[374]. He can assume the form of\na man; can carry off his friends in vapour, or lift them through the\nair[375]; can inspire fire and vigour into heroes, yet this is done\nonly through a sensible medium, namely, by a stroke of his staff[376].\nHe blunts, too, the point of an hostile spear[377]. But none of these\noperations are of the highest order of power. And when Polyphemus\nfaintly expresses the idea that Neptune can restore his eye, (which\nhowever he does not ask in prayer,) Ulysses taunts him in reply with\nit as an undoubted certainty, that the god can do no such thing.\nWith this we may contrast the remarkable bodily changes operated by\nMinerva upon Ulysses: they do not indeed involve the precise point of\nrestoring a destroyed member; but they are far beyond anything which\nHomer has ascribed to his Neptune. Nor does the Poet ever speak of any\noperation of this kind as exceeding the power of Minerva; who enjoyed\nin a larger form, and by a general title, something like that power of\ntransformation, which was the special gift and function of Circe and\nthe Sirens. The discussion of the prerogatives of that half-sorceress,\nhalf-goddess, will throw some further light upon the rank of Neptune.\n\n[369] Il. xi. 728. Od. iii. 5.\n\n[370] Od. xiii. 181.\n\n[371] Od. ix. 526.\n\n[372] Il. ii. 506.\n\n[373] Il. viii. 203.\n\n[374] Il. ix. 183.\n\n[375] Il. xiii. 43, 216. xiv. 135. xi. 752. xx. 321-9.\n\n[376] Il. xiii. 59.\n\n[377] xiii. 562.\n\nExcept, then, in his position as brother and copartner, Neptune is\nvery feebly marked with the traditional character. Again, in no deity\nis the mere animal delight in sacrifice more strongly developed.\nBy offerings, his menaced destruction of the Ph\u00e6acian city seems\nto be averted. His pleasure in the sacrifice of bulls is specially\nrecorded[378]: and his remarkable fondness for the Solyman mountains,\nand the Ethiopian quarter, is perhaps connected with the eminent\nliberality of that people at their altars.\n\n[378] Il. xx. 405.\n\nOne traditive note, however, we find upon him, when we regard him as\ngod of the sea: and it is this, that he is provided with a Secondary.\nIt seems as though it was felt, that he did not wholly satisfy the\ndemands of the mere element: and accordingly a god simply elemental\nhas been provided in the person of Nereus, who is the centre of the\nsubmarine court, and who appears never to quit the depths. Nereus is\nthe element impersonated: Neptune is its sovereign, has not his origin\nin it, but comes to it from without.\n\nNeither is his command over the waters quite exclusive. He can of\ncourse raise a storm at sea. He can break off fragments, as the sea\ndoes, from rocks upon the coast[379]: and he threatens to overwhelm\nthe Ph\u00e6acian city by this means[380]. In conjunction with his power\nover the sea, he can let loose the winds, and darken the sky. On the\nother hand, not Jupiter only, but Juno and Minerva, can use the sea\nindependently of him, as an instrument of their designs.\n\n[379] Od. iv. 506.\n\n[380] Od. xiii. 152.\n\nAgain, while not fully developed as the mere elemental sea-god, he has\nclinging to him certain traditions which it is very difficult to attach\nto any portion whatever of his general character. I do not find any key\nto his interest in \u00c6neas, whom he rescues from Achilles: unless it may\npossibly be, that the gods, in the absence of any particular motive the\nother way, took a common interest in the descendants of their race,\nor of Jupiter as its head. Still less is it feasible to explain the\nlegend of his service under Laomedon in company with Apollo, so as to\nplace it in any clear relation to the other traditions respecting him.\nHe has, again, a peculiar relation to the horse, for though a sea-god,\nhe employs the animal to transport him to Troas; and it was he, who\npresented Xanthus and Balius to Peleus[381]. Again, he, in conjunction\nwith Jupiter[382], conferred the gift of managing the horse on his\ndescendant Antilochus.\n\n[381] Il. xxiii. 277.\n\n[382] Ibid. 307.\n\nIn the legend of the Eighth Odyssey, he does not share the unbecoming\nlaughter of the other deities at the ridiculous predicament and\ndisgrace of Mars, but earnestly labours for his release, and actually\nbecomes his security for the damages due[383]. What was the cause of\nthis peculiar interest? It is difficult to conceive the aim of the Poet\nin this place. Some have suggested the comic effect[384] which he has\nproduced by putting the petition in the mouth of Neptune, whose mere\nopinion that Mars would pay was valueless, inasmuch as he was far too\npowerful to be called to account by Vulcan for any thing which he might\nhave said. It seems to me more likely that, as being, in the possible\nabsence of Jupiter as well as the goddesses, the senior and gravest of\nthe deities, he becomes the official guardian of Olympian decorum; and\nthat he acts here as the proper person to find an escape from a dilemma\nwhich, while ludicrous, is also embarrassing, and requires poetically\na solution.\n\n[383] Od. viii. 344-59.\n\n[384] Nitzsch in loc.\n\nAmphitrite, the wife of Neptune in the later mythology, is not so\nnamed in Homer, by whom she is but doubtfully personified. Yet there\nis, as it were, an anticipation of the union, in the passage where he\ntells us that she rears monster-fishes to do the will of Neptune. Or it\nmay be meant here, that she is the wife of Nereus.\n\n~_His relation to the Ph\u0153nicians._~\n\nThe connection of Neptune with the sea naturally raises the question,\nwhether the introduction of his worship into Greece can have been owed\nto the Ph\u0153nicians. For an auxiliary mark, we have the fact that Ino, of\nPh\u0153nician extraction, is a strictly maritime deity[385],\n\n[385] Od. v. 335.\n\n \u03bd\u1fe6\u03bd \u03b4\u2019 \u1f01\u03bb\u1f78\u03c2 \u1f10\u03bd \u03c0\u03b5\u03bb\u03ac\u03b3\u03b5\u03c3\u03c3\u03b9 \u03b8\u03b5\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f10\u03be\u03ad\u03bc\u03bc\u03bf\u03c1\u03b5 \u03c4\u03b9\u03bc\u1fc6\u03c2.\n\nThe very frequent intrigues of Neptune with women may be the mythical\ndress of the adventures of Ph\u0153nician sailors in this kind: such as\nthat which is recounted[386] in the story of Eum\u00e6us. We may notice,\ntoo, that in the Iliad, he does not particularly love the Greeks,\nbut simply hates the Trojans. He, with Jupiter, we are told, loved\nAntilochus[387]. Jupiter, no doubt, because he had a regard for him as\na Greek: Neptune, plainly, because he was his descendant. And in this\nway perhaps we may best explain the connection between Neptune and some\nabode in the East, far away from his own domain. He is absent from the\nAssembly of the First Odyssey[388], among the Ethiopians: and he sees\nUlysses, on his voyage homewards, from afar, namely off the Solyman\nmountains; with which we must suppose he had some permanent tie, as no\nspecial cause is stated for his having been there. It little accords\nwith his character as a marine god: but it is in harmony with the view\nof him as belonging to the circle of the Ph\u0153nician traditions, that he\nshould visit a nation, of which Homer, I believe, conceived as being\nbut a little beyond Ph\u0153nicia.\n\n[386] Od. xv. 420.\n\n[387] Il. xxiii. 277.\n\n[388] Od. i. 22.\n\nBut we have still to consider the fragments of information which\nconcern Neptune, under the third of the heads above given.\n\n~_And to the tradition of the Evil One._~\n\nNo ancient tradition appears to have been split and shivered into so\nmany fragments in the time of Homer, as that which related to the Evil\nPrinciple. This was the natural prelude to its becoming, as it shortly\nafterwards did, indiscernible to the human eye[389]. Among these\nrivulets of tradition, some of the most curious connect themselves with\nthe name of Neptune, who was, in his mythological character, prepared\nto be its recipient: for in that character he was near to Jupiter\nin strength, while his brotherly relation by no means implied any\ncorresponding tie of affection.\n\n[389] Vid. sup. Sect. ii. p. 44.\n\nWith Juno and Minerva, he took part in the dangerous rebellion recorded\nin the First Iliad. He refuses to join in a combination of Hellenizing\ngods against him, on the ground of its hopelessness: but afterwards,\nwhen all others acquiesce in the prohibition, he alone comes down to\naid and excite the Greeks. The Juno of the Iliad is the active and\nastute intriguer against her husband: but it is Neptune, on whom in\neffect the burden and responsibility of action chiefly fall. Still, his\nprincipal points of contact with the traditions of resistance to the\nSupreme Will are mediate; and the connection is through his offspring.\n\nIn his favourite son, the Cyclops, we have the great atheist of the\npoems. It is Providence, and not idols only, that he rejects, when\nsaying[390],\n\n[390] Od. ix. 275.\n\n \u03bf\u1f50 \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u039a\u03cd\u03ba\u03bb\u03c9\u03c0\u03b5\u03c2 \u0394\u03b9\u1f78\u03c2 \u03b1\u1f30\u03b3\u03b9\u03cc\u03c7\u03bf\u03c5 \u1f00\u03bb\u03ad\u03b3\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd,\n \u03bf\u1f50\u03b4\u1f72 \u03b8\u03b5\u1ff6\u03bd \u03bc\u03b1\u03ba\u03ac\u03c1\u03c9\u03bd\u00b7 \u1f10\u03c0\u03b5\u03b9\u1f74 \u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u1f7a \u03c6\u03ad\u03c1\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03af \u03b5\u1f30\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd.\n\nThe whole of this dangerous class, the kindred of the gods, seem\nto have sprung from Neptune[391]. The L\u00e6strygones, indeed, are not\nexpressly said to be his children. But they are called \u03bf\u1f50\u03ba \u1f04\u03bd\u03b4\u03c1\u03b5\u03c3\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd\n\u1f10\u03bf\u03b9\u03ba\u03cc\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2, \u1f00\u03bb\u03bb\u1f70 \u0393\u03af\u03b3\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd: and the Giants are expressly declared to be\ndivinely descended in a speech of Alcinous[392]:\n\n[391] Od. x. 120.\n\n[392] Od. vii. 205.\n\n \u1f10\u03c0\u03b5\u03af \u03c3\u03c6\u03b9\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u1f10\u03b3\u03b3\u03cd\u03b8\u03b5\u03bd \u03b5\u1f30\u03bc\u1f72\u03bd,\n \u1f65\u03c3\u03c0\u03b5\u03c1 \u039a\u03cd\u03ba\u03bb\u03c9\u03c0\u03ad\u03c2 \u03c4\u03b5 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f04\u03b3\u03c1\u03b9\u03b1 \u03c6\u1fe6\u03bb\u03b1 \u0393\u03b9\u03b3\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd.\n\nNeptune was the father of Nausithous and the royal house of Scheria,\nthrough Perib\u0153a: but she was daughter of Eurymedon, and Eurymedon\nwas king of the Giants, and was the king who led them, with himself,\nevidently by rebellion, into ruin[393];\n\n[393] Od. vii. 60.\n\n \u1f00\u03bb\u03bb\u2019 \u1f41 \u03bc\u1f72\u03bd \u1f64\u03bb\u03b5\u03c3\u03b5 \u03bb\u03b1\u1f78\u03bd \u1f00\u03c4\u03ac\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03bb\u03bf\u03bd, \u1f64\u03bb\u03b5\u03c4\u03bf \u03b4\u2019 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03cc\u03c2.\n\nThus we have Neptune placed in the relation of ancestor to the\nrebellious race, whom it is scarcely possible to consider as other than\nidentical with the Titans condemned to Tartarus[394].\n\n[394] Il. xiv. 274, 9.\n\nBut we have one yet more pointed passage for the establishment of this\nstrange relationship. In the \u03bd\u03b5\u03ba\u03c5\u0390\u03b1 of the Eleventh Odyssey, Ulysses\nsees, among other Shades, Iphimedea, the wife of Aloeus, who bore to\nNeptune two children[395], Otus and Ephialtes; hugest of all creatures\nupon earth, and also most beautiful, after Orion. They, the sons of\nNeptune, while yet children, threatened war against Olympus, and\nplanned the piling of the mountains: but Apollo slew them. Thus this,\nthe most characteristic of all the traditions in Homer relating to\nthe Evil One, hangs upon the person of Neptune, doubtless because his\nmythological place best fitted him for the point of junction. It must\nbe observed, that Homer has, in bringing these young giants before\nus, used a somewhat artificial arrangement. He does not place them in\nthe realm of Aides and Persephone, though he describes them to us, in\nconnection with the figures in that gloomy scene, as the children of\nIphimedea, who appears there in the first or feminine division. That he\ndoes not bring them before us in conjunction with Tityus and the other\nsufferers of that region, can only be because he did not intend them to\nbe understood as belonging to it: and it is clear, therefore, that he\nmeans us to conceive of them as having their abode in Tartarus, among\nthe Titans, doubtless by the side of Eurymedon and his followers.\n\n[395] Od. xi. 505-20.\n\nWe may perceive with peculiar clearness, in the case of Neptune, the\ndistinction between the elevated prerogatives of such a deity within\nhis own province, and his comparative insignificance beyond it. When\nhe traverses the sea, it exults to open a path for him, and the huge\ncreatures from its depths sport along his wake. Such is its sympathy\nwith him, that when he is exciting the Greeks to war, it too boils\nand foams upon the shore of the Hellespont. And not only is maritime\nnature thus at his feet, but he has the gift of vision almost without\nlimit of space, and of knowledge of coming events, so long as they are\nmaritime. He who knows nothing of the woes of his son Polyphemus till\nhe is invoked from the sea-shore, yet can discern Ulysses on his raft\nfrom the far Solyman mountains, and even is aware that he will escape\nfrom his present danger (\u1f40\u03ca\u03b6\u1f7a\u03c2 \u1f25 \u03bc\u03b9\u03bd \u1f31\u03ba\u03ac\u03bd\u03b5\u03b9) by reaching the shore of\nScheria. This knowledge is shared by the minor goddess Leucothee: and\ndoubtless on the same principle, namely, that it is marine knowledge.\nSo he can predict to Tyro that there will be more than one child born\nto her: here, too, he speaks of what is personal to himself. When we\ntake Neptune out of his province, we find none of these extraordinary\ngifts, no sign of a peculiar subjugation of nature or of man to him. He\nshares in the government of the world only as a vast force, which it\nwill cost Jupiter trouble to subdue. Even within his own domain some\nstubborn phenomena of nature impose limits on his power: for we are\ntold he would not be able, even were he willing, to save Ulysses from\nCharybdis[396].\n\n[396] Od. xii. 107.\n\nThus it was that the sublime idea of one Governor of the universe,\nomnipotent over all its parts, was shivered into many fragments, and\nthese high prerogatives, distributed and held in severalty, are the\nfragments of a conception too weighty and too comprehensive for the\nunassisted human mind to carry in its entireness.\n\n~_His grandeur is material._~\n\nUpon the whole, the intellectual spark in Neptune is feeble, and\nthe conception is much materialized. Ideally he has the relation\nto Jupiter, which the statue of the Nile bears to one of Jupiter\u2019s\nstatues. Within these limits, his position is grand. The ceaseless\nmotion, the unconquerable might, the wide extent, of the \u03b8\u03ac\u03bb\u03b1\u03c3\u03c3\u03b1,\ncompose for him a noble monarchy. At first sight, when we read of the\nlottery of the universe, we are startled at finding the earth left\nwithout an owner. It was not so in the Asiatic religions. But mark here\nthe influence of external circumstances. The nations of Asia inhabited\na vast continent; for them land was greater by far than sea. The\nGreeks knew of nothing but islands and peninsulas of limited extent,\nwhereas the Sea for them was infinite; since, except round the \u00c6gean,\nthey knew little or nothing of its farther shores. Thus the sceptre of\nNeptune reaches over the whole of the Outer Geography; while Earth, as\ncommonly understood, had long been left behind upon the course of the\nadventurous Ulysses.\n\n_Aidoneus._\n\n~_The Aidoneus of Homer._~\n\nThere is a marked contrast between the mere rank of Aides or Aidoneus,\nand his want of substance and of activity, in the poems. He is one of\nthe three Kronid Brothers, of whom Neptune asserts--and we are nowhere\ntold that it is an unwarrantable boast--that they are of equal dignity\nand honour. He bears the lofty title of \u0396\u03b5\u1f7a\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03c7\u03b8\u03cc\u03bd\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2: and he is the\nhusband of Persephone the Awful. It is plain that he belonged of right\nto the order of Olympian deities, because Dione states that he repaired\nto the divine abode, to have the wounds healed there by Paieon, which\nhe had received from Hercules: but it is very doubtful whether we\nought to understand him to have attended even the great Chapter, or\nAssembly, of the Twentieth Iliad. His ordinary residence is exclusively\nin the nether world. At the same time there is, in his position, and\nin that of Persephone, a remarkable independence. This the very title\nof subterranean Jupiter is enough to indicate. Neptune is never called\nthe Jupiter of the sea. And it is quite plain that the power of Jupiter\nover the dead was limited. We cannot say it was null: for Castor and\nPollux after death are still \u03c4\u03b9\u03bc\u1f74\u03bd \u03c0\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u0396\u1fc6\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f14\u03c7\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2, and they live\naccordingly on alternate days. But it was Minerva who interfered to\ncarry Hercules safely through the Shades, and bring him back; and it\nappears that but for her Jupiter would not have been able to give\neffect to his design[397].\n\n[397] Od. xi. 302, 626. Il. viii. 366-9.\n\nBut the share of action ascribed to this divinity in any part of the\npoems is a very small one. In the Twentieth Iliad, the tramp of the\nImmortals, when engaged in fight, and the quaking of the earth under\nthe might of Neptune, cause him to tremble. And his having received\nwounds from Hercules, though he shared this indignity with Juno,\ndetracts from his mythological greatness.\n\nLove of symmetry has sometimes led writers on the Greek mythology to\nfind matrimonial arrangements for Jupiter\u2019s brothers similar to his\nown, by giving to Neptune Amphitrite, and to Aidoneus Persephone,\nfor their respective wives. The former of these two unions has no\nfoundation in Homer; and the latter bears little analogy to that of\nJupiter and Juno. For Proserpine is the real Queen of the Shades below:\nall the higher traditions and active duties of the place centre around\nher, while he appears there as a sort of King-Consort. There is no\nsign whatever of his exercising any influence over her, far less of\nher acting in the capacity of his organ. And while she has a cult or\nworship on earth, he apparently has none.\n\nUnder these circumstances, we do not expect to find her exhibiting\nany tokens of derivation from, or ideal dependance on him. They would\nappear to be respectively derived from traditions of independent origin.\n\nHomer has not attached marks to Aidoneus which would enable us to\ntrace him to any particular source beyond the limits of the Olympian\nsystem. It would be natural to seek his prototype among the darkest\nand earthiest of the elemental powers. But he appears before us in the\npoems rather as an independent and Hellenic creation, metaphysical in\nkind, and representing little beyond (1), a place in the trine number\nof the Kronid Brothers, which appears to be the Hellenic form of a\ngreat primitive tradition of a Trinity in the Godhead; and (2), the\nconsciousness that there was a city and a government of the dead, and\nthat a ruler must be provided for them, while the idea of the Supreme\nDeity had not retained enough of force and comprehensiveness to seem\nsufficient for the purpose.\n\nAs the representative of inexorable death, Aidoneus was the opposite of\nthe bright and life-giving Apollo: and was naturally the most hateful\nto mortals of all the Olympian deities[398]. But the place in which the\nidea of punishment centres is the domain of \u039a\u03c1\u03cc\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 rather than that of\nAides: and he is the ruler over a state of the dead which is generally\nneither bliss nor acute suffering, but which is deeply overspread with\nchillness and gloom.\n\n[398] Il. ix. 159.\n\nI shall refer hereafter[399] to the peculiar relation which appears to\nsubsist between Aidoneus, together with Persephone, and the mysterious\n\u1f18\u03c1\u03b9\u03bd\u03cd\u03b5\u03c2.\n\n[399] Inf. sect. iv.\n\n_Demeter, or Ceres._\n\n~_The Ceres or Demeter of Homer._~\n\nThe goddess Demeter, the Ceres of the Latins, though afterwards of\nconsiderable dignity and importance, is but a feeble luminary in the\nHomeric heavens. That there are in the Iliad[400] only two distinct\nnotices of her personality, might of itself be compatible with a\ncontrary supposition: for in the _Troica_ he introduces his divine\npersonages on account of their relation to the subject, rather than\nfor their general importance; and corn, which feeds man, has little\naffinity with war, which destroys him. But her weight is, if possible,\neven smaller in the Odyssey, where she is noticed but once[401], and\nthat incidentally.\n\n[400] Il. ii. 696. xiv. 326.\n\n[401] Od. v. 125.\n\nThe use of the phrase \u0394\u03b7\u03bc\u03ae\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f00\u03ba\u03c4\u1f74 for corn, like the \u03c6\u03bb\u1f78\u03be \u1f29\u03c6\u03b1\u03af\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03b9\u03bf\nfor Vulcan, and \u1f0c\u03c1\u03b7\u03c2 for the spear, or for the battle, tends to\nindicate imperfect personality; to show that the deity was indistinctly\nrealized; that the personal name was either recent or at least\nunfamiliar; and that it was used, not so much to designate a being, as\nto give life to an idea.\n\nHomer has not asserted any connection between Demeter and Persephone:\nand the idea of it in later times may have arisen simply from the\nobservation that in the poems Demeter stands as a mother without a\nchild, and Persephone as a daughter without a mother.\n\nPossibly, however, the connection may have been suggested by the name;\nwhich seems manifestly to be equivalent to \u0393\u1fc6 \u03bc\u03ae\u03c4\u03b7\u03c1 or Mother-Earth.\nAnd though the original reference was to the production of food by\nwhich man lives, the word might be susceptible of another sense,\nconnecting it with the nether world, which had a material relation to\nEarth, and which, even in Homer, Tityus the son of \u0393\u03b1\u1fd6\u03b1, and in the\nlater tradition the earth-born race generally, were reputed to inhabit.\n\nThe name in its proper sense indicates first the idea, and then the\ngoddess of agriculture: and points to a Pelasgian, and perhaps farther\nback an Egyptian, rather than an Hellenic or a Ph\u0153nician connection. In\nEgypt, according to the reports collected by Diodorus[402], Isis was\nheld nearly to correspond with her.\n\n[402] Diod. i. 13.\n\nWith this supposition agree the only notices contained in the poems\nthat tend to attach the goddess Demeter to a particular locality. Her\nconnection with Iasion was probably in Crete or Cyprus, or at any rate\n(from the name) in some country occupied, and ruled too, by Pelasgians.\nHer \u03c4\u03ad\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2[403] or dedicated lands in Thessaly, the Pelasgic Argos,\nsuggest a similar presumption. In Middle Greece and Peloponnesus we\nnever hear of her. The very solemn and ancient observance of her\nworship in Attica, which was so eminently a Pelasgian state in the time\nof Homer, entirely accords with the indications of the Homeric text.\n\n[403] Il. ii. 696.\n\nThe slight notice she obtains from Homer, compared with the dignity to\nwhich other tokens would tend to show that she was entitled, may have\nbeen owing to the incomplete amalgamation in his time of Hellenic and\nPelasgian institutions.\n\nUpon this goddess, as upon so many others, sensual passion had laid\nhold. This is decidedly confirmatory of her Pelasgian or eastern, as\nopposed to properly Hellic associations. We see Venus coming from\nthe east and worshipped in Pelasgian countries: of the three persons\nwhom Aurora appropriates, Orion is pretty evidently the subject of a\nnaturalized eastern tradition, and Tithonus is Asiatic: Calypso and\nCirce belong to the east by Ph\u0153nicia: it is in Troas and Asia that no\nless than three Nymphs appear as the bearers of children, fighting\non the Trojan side, to human fathers[404]. Whereas among the more\nHellenic deities, we have Minerva and Proserpine wholly exempt; and\nJuno using sensual passion it is true, but only for a political end.\nThis assemblage of facts further confirms the supposition, that Ceres\nought to be set down as a Pelasgian deity. Orion and Ino, shining in\nthe heavens, seem to belong to the more astronomical form of eastern\nreligion: Ceres to that which was probably transmitted through fertile\nand well-cultivated Egypt.\n\n[404] Il. vi. 21, xiv. 444, and xx. 384.\n\n~_Her place in Olympus._~\n\nThe title of Demeter to rank with the Olympian deities of Homer is not\nso absolutely clear, as that of many among them: but it may on the\nwhole be sufficiently inferred from the arrangement of the passage in\nthe Fourteenth Odyssey, where Jupiter recites a list of the various\npartners to whom he owed his offspring. The three first are women,\nwho bore sons never deified, Pirithous, Perseus, and Minos: the two\nnext are women, of whom one gave birth to Dionysus a god, the other\nto the substantially deified Hercules. The sixth and seventh are\nDemeter, or Ceres, and Latona; the children of neither are mentioned.\nBesides that Demeter is called \u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u03bb\u03b9\u03c0\u03bb\u03cc\u03ba\u03b1\u03bc\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f04\u03bd\u03b1\u03c3\u03c3\u03b1, the two seem to\nbe coupled together as goddesses. The structure of the passage is not\nchronological, but depends upon dignity advancing regularly towards\na climax; so purposely indeed, that Dionysus, always an immortal,\nis mentioned after Hercules, a mortal born, though Semele had been\nnamed before Alcmene. All this appears to require the adoption of the\nconclusion, that Demeter was reckoned as an Olympian goddess in the\nHomeric system.\n\nThere is, however, another and more comprehensive solution of the\nquestion which arises out of the faint notices of \u0394\u03b7\u03bc\u03ae\u03c4\u03b7\u03c1 in Homer.\nWe ought, perhaps, to consider her as the Pelasgian, and Juno as\nthe Hellenic, reproduction of those eastern traditions, which gave\nmythological impersonation to the female principle. They naturally\ncentred upon the Earth as the recipient of productive influences, and\nas the great nurse and feeder of man, the \u03c4\u03c1\u03b1\u03c6\u03b5\u03c1\u1f74, the \u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03cd\u03c6\u03bf\u03c1\u03b2\u03bf\u03c2,\nthe \u03c0\u03bf\u03c5\u03bb\u03c5\u03b2\u03cc\u03c4\u03b5\u03b9\u03c1\u03b1, the \u03b6\u03b5\u03af\u03b4\u03c9\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2. The Pelasgic Demeter may be a very\nfair and close copy, in all probability, from these traditions as\nthey existed in Egypt. But when the same materials were presented to\nthe Hellenic mind, they could not satisfy its active and idealizing\nfancy. For the Hellene, man was greater than nature: so that the\ngreat office of Jupiter as king of air was subordinated to his yet\nmore august function as the supreme superintendent and controller of\nhuman affairs. As the political idea thus predominated in the chief of\nthe Hellenic Immortals, it was requisite that a similar predominance\nof the intellectual and organizing element should be obtained in\nhis divine Mate. Traditions, however, that had their root in earth,\nwere of necessity wholly intractable for such a purpose, although\nthe lighter and more spirit-like fabric of air was less unsuited to\nit. Earth was heavy, inactive; and was the prime representative of\nmatter as opposed to mind. Hence the personality of the tradition was\nsevered by the Greeks from its material groundwork; and Earth, the\nNature-power, remained beneath, while the figure of Juno, relieved\nfrom this incumbrance, and invested with majestic and vigorous\nattributes, soared aloft and took the place of eldest sister and first\nwife of Jupiter. Hence doubtless it is that the \u0393\u03b1\u1fd6\u03b1 of Homer is so\ninanimate and weakling: because she was but the exhausted residue of\na tradition, from which the higher life had escaped. But the \u1f2d\u03c1\u03b7 and\nthe \u0393\u03b1\u1fd6\u03b1, according to this hypothesis, made up between them a full\nrepresentation of the traditions from the East, relating to the chief\nfemale form of deity. This being so, no legitimate place was left in\nthe mythology of Homer for Ceres; as she had nothing to represent but\nthe same tradition in a form far less adapted to the Hellenic mind, a\nform indeed which it had probably repudiated. Hence while the Olympian\nsystem was young, and Juno not wholly severed from her Oriental origin,\nthe \u0393\u1fc6 \u03bc\u03ae\u03c4\u03b7\u03c1 could not but remain a mere outlier. But as the poetry of\nthe system was developed, and its philosophy submerged and forgotten,\nthis difficulty diminished, and the later mythology found an ample\nspace for Ceres as a great elemental power.\n\nI may, then, observe, in conclusion, that the whole of this hypothesis\nis eminently agreeable to the Homeric representation of Ceres in\nits four main branches, (1) as Pelasgian, (2) as subject to lustful\npassion, (3) as a secondary wife of Jupiter, and (4) as immediately\nassociated with productive Earth.\n\n_Persephone._\n\n~_The Persephone of Homer._~\n\nAlthough the Persephone of Homer is rarely brought before us, and\nour information respecting her is therefore slight, there seems to\nbe sufficient ground for asserting that she is not the mere female\nreflection of Hades or Aidoneus.\n\nIt is only for those deities from whom other deities are drawn by\ndescent, that we find in Homer a regular conjugal connection provided.\nThus Neptune, as we have seen, cannot be said to have a wife in Homer.\nAmphitrite appears in the poems with a faint and indeed altogether\ndoubtful personality, though she afterwards grew into his spouse.\nNow Neptune was a deity much more in view than Aides: and it is not\nlikely that we should have found Persephone more fully developed than\nAmphitrite, had she not represented some older and more independent\ntradition.\n\nAgain, in cases where the female deity is the mere reflection of\nthe male, we do not find her invested with a share in his dominion,\nalthough, as in the case of Juno, she may occasionally and\nderivatively exercise some of the prerogatives, which in him have a\nhigher and more unquestionable activity. Thus Tartarus is the region\nof \u039a\u03c1\u03cc\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2, not of \u1fec\u03ad\u03b1; air is the realm of Jupiter, not of Jupiter and\nJuno. But Persephone appears by the side of Hades as a substantive\nperson; she is invoked with him by Althea to slay Meleager, in the\nLegend of the Ninth Iliad[405]: and the region in which she dwells is\nnot less hers than his[406],\n\n[405] Il. ix. 569.\n\n[406] Od. x. 491.\n\n \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u1f08\u0390\u03b4\u03b1\u03bf \u03b4\u03cc\u03bc\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f10\u03c0\u03b1\u03b9\u03bd\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03a0\u03b5\u03c1\u03c3\u03b5\u03c6\u03bf\u03bd\u03b5\u03af\u03b7\u03c2.\n\nIndeed her personality is the better developed of the two: for\nno personal act is ascribed in the poems to Aides, except the\nindeterminate one of trembling, at the battle of the gods, lest the\ncrust of earth should be broken through: and the name given him in the\nIliad of \u0396\u03b5\u1f7a\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03c7\u03b8\u03cc\u03bd\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2, subterranean Jupiter, may possibly suggest\nthat he was sometimes viewed as hardly more than a form or function of\nthe highest god: whereas, in the under-world of the Eleventh Odyssey,\nall the active functions of sovereignty are placed in her hands. It\nis she who gathers the women-shades for Ulysses: and it is she who\ndisperses them when they have been passed in review. It is by her that\nUlysses apprehends the head of Gorgo may be sent forth to drive him\noff, should he linger too long; it is by her that he apprehends he may\nhave been deluded with an \u03b5\u1f34\u03b4\u03c9\u03bb\u03bf\u03bd or shade, instead of a substance;\nmost of all, it is she who endows Tiresias, alone among the dead, with\nthe character of the Seer[407]. In fine, the whole of the active duties\nof the nether kingdom appear to be in her hands.\n\n[407] Od. xi. 226, 385, 639, 213, and x. 494.\n\nThat she was generally worshipped by the Hellenic tribes we must infer\nfrom the cases mentioned in the Ninth Iliad, the one in \u00c6tolia, the\nother farther North[408]; as well as from her office in regard to the\nthoroughly national region of the Shades.\n\n[408] Il. x. 457, 569.\n\n~_Her marked and substantive character._~\n\nShe has her own strongly marked set of epithets. Of these, one is \u1f01\u03b3\u03bd\u1f74,\nthe severely pure; for with Homer \u1f01\u03b3\u03bd\u1f78\u03c2 is exclusively applicable to\ndivine womanhood, and is given only to Diana and Persephone: then she\nis \u1f00\u03b3\u03b1\u03c5\u1f74, the dread: and lastly, she is \u1f10\u03c0\u03b1\u03b9\u03bd\u1f74, an epithet appropriated\nto her exclusively, which appears to be Homer\u2019s favourite method for\nsharply marking out individuality of character. Buttmann has also well\nobserved, that she has this epithet only when mentioned along with\nHades, that is, when shown very strictly in her official character; and\nthat \u1f00\u03b3\u03b1\u03c5\u1f74 is used when she appears alone. Upon this he observes; \u2018this\nway of joining the name of Proserpine with that of Pluto was an old\nepic formula, handed down even to Homer and our oldest Greek poets from\nstill earlier times, and which they used unchanged[409].\u2019 He would read\n\u1f10\u03c0\u2019 \u03b1\u1f30\u03bd\u1f74, instead of \u1f10\u03c0\u03b1\u03b9\u03bd\u1f74, but this neither affects the sense (awful,\nterrible) nor the force of the exclusive appropriation.\n\n[409] Buttmann\u2019s Lexil. p. 62. _in voc._ \u03b1\u1f36\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2.\n\nThere is another sign confirmatory of the belief that the origin of\nthis mythical person must be sought, not in the necessity of finding a\nqueen for Aidoneus, but in an anterior and distinct tradition. Namely,\nthis; that, though she is a daughter of Jupiter[410], she is not\nprovided with a mother. Thus she seems as if she were older than the\nOlympian \u0153conomy. Venus, Mars, Vulcan, Mercury, are all equipped with a\nfull parentage. The later tradition, which made Persephone the daughter\nof Ceres, has no other support from Homer than this, that we are left\nto suppose that Ceres had some offspring by Jupiter, while none is\nnamed[411].\n\n[410] Od. xi. 217.\n\n[411] Il. xiv. 326.\n\nThe chain of presumptions appears to me to become complete, when we\ntake into view two other pieces of evidence supplied by the poems.\nIn the far East[412], beyond the couch of the morning Sun, some\ndistance up the stream of the great river Ocean, but to the south of\nthe point where it is entered, and at a spot where the shore narrows\nvery much--immediately, in short, before the point of descent--are the\ngroves of Persephone. According to the general rules of interpretation\napplicable to Homer, this appears to convey to us that the seat of her\nworship was in the far Southern East, and that her office, as there\nunderstood, was that of the goddess or queen of Death. And if she is\nindeed the reflection, in the mirror of the lower world, of any other\nknown deity, then, both from this great office, and from the peculiar\nepithet \u1f01\u03b3\u03bd\u1f74, it is most likely to be of Diana, with whom, in the later\nmythology, she was identified; and, again, through Diana, of Apollo,\nfrom whom the light of Diana herself was derived. Or, in other words,\nshe may be for the lower world that reflection of Apollo, which the\nHomeric Diana was for this earth: and it is worth observation, that the\ngift of second sight, which she allows to Tiresias, and which therefore\nis at her disposal beneath ground[413], is the peculiar and exclusive\nproperty of Apollo.\n\n[412] Od. x. 506 _seqq._ xi. 1 _seqq._ xii. _1 seqq._\n\n[413] Od. x. 492-5.\n\nLet us now lastly consider, what light the etymology of her remarkable\nname may afford us. Its meaning appears to be, either destruction by\nslaughter; from two roots, one that represented in \u1f14\u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03c3\u03b1, from the\nverb \u03c0\u03ad\u03c1\u03b8\u03c9, and the other \u03c6\u03cc\u03bd\u03b7; or else, that of the destruction or\nslaughter of Persians. In the former view, the evidence leaves us\nwhere we were, or brings us a point nearer to Diana, whose function\nwas not that of all death whatever, but of such death as might be\ncalled slaughter, because not due to disease, but brought about at the\nmoment by a sudden process, though often the mildest of all ways of\ndying[414]. But the other etymology may be worth some further attention.\n\n[414] Od. xv. 409.\n\n~_Her connection with the East_.~\n\nBesides that cluster of traditions, relating to remote places, which\nthe Greeks derived from the Ph\u0153nician navigators, and which cannot but\nhave included some eastward wanderings in the Black Sea, as well as\nwestward experience in the Mediterranean, they must in all likelihood\nhave had oriental traditions properly their own, brought by their\nHellic forefathers with them from their cradle. We have already seen\nthat that cradle was probably Persia; and we have found traces of the\nconnection in the name of the great pre-Ach\u00e6an hero, Perseus, and in\nthe continuing use of that name in the high Ach\u00e6an family of Nestor,\nas well as at much later historic dates. Another link, connecting the\nHomeric traditions with this name, and both with the East, is found in\nthe name of Perse, who was the mother of Circe, an Eastern goddess; and\nwho was the daughter of Ocean, and the wife of the Sun[415].\n\n[415] Od. x. 135-9.\n\nWe must take these circumstances into view along with the force of\nthe name Persephone, and with the evidence we have already had of the\nantiquity of the traditions relating to her. To this we have to add\nthe absence of any Homeric evidence connecting her with any other\nlocal source. There is no sign of any institution, that belonged to\nher worship, except in those groves planted in the far East; and no\nsign of any other particular locality marked as her peculiar abode,\nwhich we have found to be a mark of such invented deities generally as\nhad a well developed personality. There is no note of her whatever in\nTroas; and nothing to connect her with Egypt, or with the Pelasgians in\nany quarter. It is not likely that she came in with the Ph\u0153nicians, as\nshe would then have had signs of a recent origin, and would not have\nattained to so august and mysterious a position as she actually holds.\nThe two distinct notices of her worship are both in the Homeric Hellas;\nnot in Southern Greece, nor in the islands.\n\nIt seems, therefore, on every ground reasonable to suppose, that the\ntradition of Proserpine was an original Hellic tradition brought into\nthe country from the East, probably by the Hellic tribes, and from\namong their Persian forefathers; and that the name of the deity, as we\nfind it in Homer, affords a new indication of the extraction of the\nrace.\n\nAccordingly, the unusually substantive aspect of her position in\nthe nether world, which makes her relation to Aidoneus so different\nfrom that of the other mythological wives, or feminines, to their\nrespective husbands, is such, that it seems most reasonable, instead of\nderiving her from him, as Juno was derived from Jupiter, or Tethys from\nOcean, to consider them as representing the union of two independent\nimpersonations, associated together primarily by their common subject\nmatter. For there does not seem to be any thing improbable in the\nhypothesis, that Persephone may, in the belief of some country and age,\nhave served alone for the ruler of the region of the dead. Just as so\nmany subordinate ministers of Doom, the Fates, the Erinues, and the\nHarpies, assumed the female form in the process of impersonation, so\nit may have been with their sovereign. And if we are to look farther\nfor the metaphysical groundwork of such a tradition, we may perhaps\nfind it as follows. There is a relation of analogy between each\nfunction and its converse: and as in the pure mythology, all that gave\nlife was feminine, so conversely, all that represented the destroying\nagency might assume a similar form.\n\n~_Her relation to Olympus_.~\n\nIn her case, as in that of one or two others, it is difficult to\ndiscover whether Homer meant a particular deity to be included, or not,\namong the Olympian gods of the ordinary or smaller assembly. There is\nno indication in the poems, which directly connects Persephone with\nOlympus; and that celestial palace may seem to belong to the government\nof the living world, and to be almost incapable of relations with that\nof the departed. Nor is she connected specially with the Olympian\nsystem, like Aidoneus, by the position which birth confers. The \u1f04\u03bb\u03c3\u03bf\u03c2,\nand the worship paid her there, can hardly belong to the departed\nspirits on their way to their abode, and more probably indicate an\nancient tradition deriving her worship from the far East. On the other\nhand, her dignity and majesty in the poems are unquestionable, and\nindeed superior to those of any Olympian deity, after some five or six.\nI do not find materials for a confident judgment on the Homeric view\nof her place in his theo-mythology, with reference to this particular\npoint of connection with Olympus.\n\nFounding conjecture upon the facts before us, I venture, however, on\na further extension of these hypotheses with respect to Persephone.\nWe perceive in Persephone and Diana that kind of likeness which may\nbe due to their common origin; if, as we suppose, both were images of\nApollo. But it is not likely that two such images should have been\nformed by the same race for itself. Can we then, probably refer Diana\nand Persephone to different sources ethnically?\n\nIt is plain that Diana was worshipped in Troy and Greece. Persephone,\nso far as we know, in Greece only. This would agree with the\nsupposition that Diana was originally Pelasgian, Persephone only Hellic.\n\nAgain, Diana was an earthly, Persephone a subterraneous reflection of\nApollo. Now the Hellic tribes were lively believers in a future state:\nas we see from the communion of Achilles with the soul of Patroclus,\nand from many places in the Odyssey. But we have nowhere in Homer the\nslightest allusion among the Trojans to the belief in a future state,\nbeyond the mere formula of entering the region of A\u00efdes. Neither the\nsuccinct account of the funeral rites of Hector, nor any one of the\nthree addresses over his remains, contain the slightest allusion to his\nseparate existence as a spirit. There is, indeed, mention of wine used\nto extinguish the flame of the funeral pile, but none of invocation\nalong with it, as there is in the case of Patroclus[416]. And as we\nhave no less than an hundred lines spoken over or otherwise bestowed\nupon the dead Hector, the omission is singular. It becomes still more\nsignificant, when we recollect that the Greeks, and their goddess\nJuno, invoke the deities of the under-world, and the powers connected\nwith a future state, in their solemn oaths and imprecations[417]; but\nwhen Hector swears to Dolon, (our only example of a Trojan oath,) he\nadjures Jupiter alone[418]. Now it may be that the religion of Troy\ndid not include so distinct a reference to a future state, as that of\nGreece, and that the Trojans knew nothing of Persephone, or of any\ndeity holding her place. This hypothesis would at once accord with\nthe features of the Homeric portrait, and with the striking absence\namong the Trojans of all pointed reference to a future life, or to\nthe disembodied spirit. Nor need we consider it to be at all shaken\nby slight and formal allusions, or by the words in which Homer on his\nown part dismisses to Hades the spirit of the slain Hector[419]. The\nhypothesis which the circumstances appear to suggest is, not that\nthe Trojans disbelieved a future existence, but that they neither\nfelt keenly respecting it, nor gave a mythological development to the\ndoctrine.\n\n[416] Il. xxiii. 218-21.\n\n[417] Il. iii. 278. ix. 454. 569. xiv. 271-4. xv. 36-40. xix. 258-60.\n\n[418] Il. x. 329.\n\n[419] Il. xvi. 856, 7, and xxii. 362, 3.\n\n_Mars._\n\n~_The Mars of Homer._~\n\nEven in Homer, Mars is externally the most imposing figure among the\nmasculine deities of pure invention. The greatest of war-bards could\nnot but find him a fine subject for poetical amplification. But in the\nRoman period he had far outgrown the limits of his Homeric position.\nWith the lapse of time, the forces and passions, which gave to this\nimpersonation its hold upon human nature, were sure to prevail in a\nconsiderable degree over the finer elements from which Apollo was\nmoulded. It requires an effort of mind to liberate ourselves from the\nassociations of the later mythology, and contract our vision for the\npurpose of estimating the Mars of Homer as he really is.\n\nNotwithstanding his stature, beauty, hand and voice, which constitute,\ntaken together, a proud appearance, it seems as if Mars had stood lower\nin the mind of Homer than any Olympian deity who takes part in the\nTrojan war, except Venus only.\n\nThe Odyssey never once brings Mars before us, even by way of allusion,\nexcept in the licentious lay of Demodocus; and the spirit of that\nlay certainly seems to aim at making him ridiculous, especially in\nthe manner of his release and withdrawal. In the Iliad his part is,\nof course, more considerable; but on no occasion whatever does Homer\napparently seek to set him off, or give him a commanding attitude in\ncomparison with other deities.\n\nWe have nowhere any account of any act of reverence or worship done to\nhim, either in or out of Greece. For instance, he is never, even in the\ncontingencies of war, the object of prayer. He never shows command over\nthe powers of nature, or the mind of man; which he nowhere attempts\nto influence by suggestion. It is said, indeed, that he entered into\nHector, as that warrior was putting on the armour of Achilles;\n\n \u03b4\u1fe6 \u03b4\u03ad \u03bc\u03b9\u03bd \u1f0c\u03c1\u03b7\u03c2\n \u03b4\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd\u1f78\u03c2 \u1f18\u03bd\u03c5\u03ac\u03bb\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2[420].\n\n[420] Il. xvii. 210.\n\nBut no words could more conclusively fix his place in the Homeric\nsystem as the mere impersonation of a Passion. For with Homer no\ngreater deity, indeed, no other of the Olympian gods, is ever said to\nenter into the mind of a mortal man. In the Fifth Book he stirs up\nthe warlike passion of Menelaus; having, like Venus, a limited hold\nupon a particular propensity. His climax of honour in this department\nis his giving \u03b8\u03ac\u03c1\u03c3\u03bf\u03c2 to the Pseudo-Ulysses; but this he does only in\nconjunction with Minerva[421].\n\n[421] Od. xiv. 216.\n\n~_His limited worship and attributes._~\n\nHis possession of the attributes of deity appears to have been most\nlimited. The use of the word \u1f0c\u03c1\u03b7\u03c2 not only for the passion of war, but\neven for its weapons, shows us that the impersonation was in this case\nas yet very partially disengaged from the metaphysical ideas, or the\nmaterial objects, in which it took its rise.\n\nHis function as god of war was confined to the merely material side\nof war, and had nothing to do with that aspect, in which war enlists\nand exhausts all the higher faculties of the human mind; so much so,\nindeed, that to be a great general is almost necessary in order to\nenter the first rank of greatness at all. Even of war in the lower\nsense he had not, as a god, exclusive possession, but he administered\nhis office in partnership with a superior, Minerva. Besides being every\nthing else that she was, she presided, along with him, over war. On\nthe shield of Achilles, he and Minerva lead the opposing hosts[422].\nOver the body of Patroclus the struggle was one of which, says the\nPoet, neither Mars nor Minerva could think lightly[423]. Achilles, when\npursuing the Trojans, calls for assistance; for, says he, neither Mars\nnor Minerva could undertake to dispose of such a multitude[424]. Mars\nand Minerva, says Jupiter, will take charge of the concerns of war[425].\n\n[422] Il. xviii. 516.\n\n[423] xvii. 398.\n\n[424] xx. 359.\n\n[425] Il. v. 430.\n\nBut that in this partnership he was an inferior, and not an equal, is\nclear from the manner in which he is habitually handled by Minerva.\nShe wounds him through the spear of Diomed, when, unless saved by\nflight, he himself apprehends he might have perished[426]. In the\nTheomachy, she twice over strikes him powerless to the ground. In the\nOlympian meeting of the Fifteenth Book, when his intended visit to\nthe battlefield menaces the gods with trouble from the displeasure of\nJupiter, Minerva strips his armour off his back, scolds him sharply,\nand replaces him in his seat[427]. And she is pointed out by Jupiter\nas the person, whose habitual duty it was to keep him in order by the\nseverest means[428];\n\n[426] Il. v. 885-7.\n\n[427] Il. xv. 110-42.\n\n[428] Il. v. 766.\n\n \u1f25 \u1f11 \u03bc\u03ac\u03bb\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u2019 \u03b5\u1f34\u03c9\u03b8\u03b5 \u03ba\u03b1\u03ba\u1fc7\u03c2 \u1f40\u03b4\u03cd\u03bd\u1fc3\u03c3\u03b9 \u03c0\u03b5\u03bb\u03ac\u03b6\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd.\n\nIn the Fifth Iliad, he stirs up the Trojans, and envelopes the fight\nin darkness: but here he is acting under \u1f10\u03c6\u03b5\u03c4\u03bc\u03b1\u1f76, or injunctions from\nApollo[429], who thus appears, like Minerva, in the light of a superior\nto him, even in his own department.\n\n[429] Il. v. 508.\n\nWe learn, again, that he was overcome and imprisoned by the youths Otus\nand Ephialtes, whom Apollo subdued: he was in bondage for thirteen\nmonths, and would have perished, had not Mercury released him[430].\n\n[430] Il. v. 385.\n\nHe is able to assume the human figure, and, as we have seen, to bring\ndarkness over contending hosts: but, when in Olympus, he remains\nignorant[431] of the death of his son Ascalaphus, until he receives\nthe information from Juno; as it was only from his Nymphs that the\nSun learned the slaughter of his oxen. Nay, Minerva even puts on\na particular helmet, in order that it may secure her from being\nrecognised by Mars when within his view[432].\n\n[431] Il. xiii. 521. xv. 110 _et seqq._\n\n[432] Il. v. 845.\n\nMars in the Olympian court bears some resemblance to Ajax among the\nGrecian heroes. But the intellectual element, which appears to be\nsimply blunt in Ajax, in Mars seems to be wholly wanting: so that he\nrepresents an animal principle in its crudest form: and is not so much\nan Ajax, as a Caliban.\n\nWe are not told that he is greedy of sacrifices, for no _cultus_ is\nassigned to him: but he is represented as greedy of blood, and as\ncapable of being satiated with it[433].\n\n[433] Il. v. 289.\n\nExcept with Venus for his mere person, he has no favour with any other\nOlympian deities[434]. Juno describes him as lawless and as a fool: and\nJupiter tells him that, were he the son of any other deity but himself,\nhe would long ago have been ejected from his place in heaven[435].\n\n[434] Od. viii. 310.\n\n[435] v. 831, 97.\n\nOn one occasion, his name is associated with those of Agamemnon\nand Neptune: but the due relation between them is still preserved.\nAgamemnon is compared with Jupiter as to his face and head; with\nNeptune as to his chest; and with Mars as to his waist. The eyes of\nHector on the field of battle were like the Gorgon, and like Mars[436].\n\n[436] Il. ii. 478, and viii. 349.\n\nFrom the repeated allusions to contingencies in which he would have\nperished, there seems to be something more or less equivocal even about\nhis title to immortality. If more, he is also much less, than man. He\nis perhaps the least human of the Olympian family; and is a compound\nbetween deity and brute.\n\nThe exhibitions of Mars, as wounded by Diomed for the Iliad, and in\nthe lay of Demodocus for the Odyssey, seem to imply that this deity\ncould not, in the time of Homer, have become an object of general or\nestablished religious worship in Greece.\n\n~_Mars as yet scarcely Greek._~\n\nHe is a local deity, and his abode is in Thrace. From thence he issues\nforth with his mythical son Terror to make war upon the Ephyri: a\nrace whose name has a strong Greek savour, and whose hostile relation\nto Mars thus exhibited, tends, with other evidence, to place him in\nthe category of foreign deities, not yet naturalized in the country,\nthough made available by Homer for his Olympian Court. After the\ndetection in the palace of Vulcan, it is to Thrace that he again\nrepairs.\n\nWe are not to consider this paramount Thracian relation as absolutely\nseparating him from Greece: Thracians, like Pelasgi, had links with\nboth parties in the war, though the stronger ones are apparently those\nwhich connect them with Troy.\n\nHe has among the deities the nickname of \u1f00\u03bb\u03bb\u03bf\u03c0\u03c1\u03cc\u03c3\u03b1\u03bb\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2, or turncoat,\nbecause of his vacillation between the two parties. This singular\nepithet, applied to the Thracian god, conveys the idea that Homer,\nknowing of the sympathies of the name with both sides, was puzzled as\nto placing him decisively on either. Now the Thracians of Homer were\n\u1f00\u03ba\u03c1\u03cc\u03ba\u03bf\u03bc\u03bf\u03b9[437], while the Ach\u00e6ans were \u03ba\u03b1\u03c1\u03b7\u03ba\u03bf\u03bc\u03cc\u03c9\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2. And it is worth\nnotice that the Germans of Tacitus, among whom we find marked signs of\nresemblance to the Hellenic tribes, wore in general flowing hair, but\nthe Suevi, one particular tribe of them, on the contrary, gathered it\ninto a knot[438].\n\n[437] Il. iv. 533.\n\n[438] Tac. Germ. c. 38. Il. xx. 413.\n\nMars, however, incurs the particular wrath of Juno by abandoning the\nparty of the Greeks, and siding with the Trojans. But in the Fifteenth\nBook, where Juno acquaints him of the death of his son, who had fought\nin the Greek ranks, she evidently does it in the expectation that grief\nand resentment will once more make him a foe to the Trojans. And her\ncalculation is well founded: for he is setting out with that intention,\nwhen Minerva follows, and roughly brings him back.\n\nHe only appears once in a pre-Troic legend. This appearance, too, is\nbeyond the borders of Greece. In Lycia he, or, it may be, simply\nwarlike passion which he represents, slays Isander, the son of\nBellerophon and uncle of Glaucus, in battle with the Solymi. Still he\nis the father by Astyoche, of Ascalaphus and Ialmenus, somewhere in the\nneighbourhood of the Minyeian Orchomenus, or else farther towards the\nnorth of Greece.\n\nThe Homeric indications, on the whole, as well as the general\nconceptions of the character, represent Mars as neither a deity\nindigenous to the country, nor one belonging to the Hellenic\ntraditions: while the Poet perhaps intends us to understand that he\nhad points of contact or affinity with Greece, which are represented\nin his wavering attitude between the two parties to the war. It is\nprobable that the Poet himself may have been a principal agent in the\nintroduction of Mars to Hellenic worship. The machinery of the Iliad\nrequired him to find an array of gods, who should be champions on each\nside respectively. It also required that these gods should be united\nround a centre, which he provided for them in Olympus and in its Court,\nunder the presidency of Jupiter. Both Mars and Venus may thus have made\ngood a title, which before was doubtful and imperfect, through the\nplace to which they were promoted in the Iliad, combined with the place\nwhich the Iliad itself won for itself in the national understanding and\naffections.\n\n_Mercury._\n\n~_The Mercury of Homer._~\n\nThe Homeric signs respecting Mercury are sufficient to fix his\ncharacter and origin. The small part, which this deity plays in the\npoems, is indeed in remarkable contrast with the extended popularity to\nwhich at a later period he attained: but his character in Homer is one\nwhich accounts in a natural manner for the subsequent increase in his\nimportance.\n\nHe is the son of Maias, Od. xiv. 435; and of Jupiter, Od. viii. 335.\n\nHe is the man of business for the Olympian deities, \u03b4\u03b9\u03ac\u03ba\u03c4\u03bf\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2. Od.\nviii. 335. v. 28[439].\n\n[439] D\u00f6llinger, Heid. u. Jud. p. 74.\n\nHe is the giver of increase, \u03b4\u1ff6\u03c4\u03bf\u03c1 \u1f10\u03ac\u03c9\u03bd. Od. viii. 335. Il. xiv. 490.\n\nHe is the most sociable of deities, Il. xxiv. 334. \u03c3\u03bf\u1f76 \u03b3\u03ac\u03c1 \u03c4\u03b5 \u03bc\u03ac\u03bb\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03ac\n\u03b3\u03b5 \u03c6\u03af\u03bb\u03c4\u03b1\u03c4\u03cc\u03bd \u1f10\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03bd \u1f00\u03bd\u03b4\u03c1\u1f76 \u1f11\u03c4\u03b1\u03af\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c3\u03b1\u03b9.\n\nThe extraction of Mercury stands somewhat obscurely in Homer: his\nmother Maias is but once mentioned, and then without any clue. But,\nin the ancient hymn to Mercury, she is declared to be the daughter of\nAtlas: and if this be so, we shall be justified in considering him as\nthe child of a Ph\u0153nician tradition[440]. This is also clear on Homeric\ngrounds. Although Homer does not expressly connect him with Atlas, he\nmakes Calypso, the daughter of that personage, address him as \u03b1\u1f30\u03b4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03cc\u03c2\n\u03c4\u03b5 \u03c6\u03af\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c4\u03b5. These expressions are usually applied by him where there\nis some special relation of consanguinity, affinity, or guestship:\nas between Jupiter and his adopted child[441] and particular friend\nThetis. It is therefore probable that Homer took Mercury\u2019s mother Maias\nto be, as the after-tradition made her, the sister of Calypso, and the\ndaughter of Atlas. All the other Homeric signs of him are in complete\nharmony with this hypothesis of a Ph\u0153nician origin for Mercury.\n\n[440] See sup. Ethnology, sect. iv.\n\n[441] Il. xxiv. 111.\n\nWe thus understand how he becomes the general agent for the gods:\nbecause the Ph\u0153nicians supplied the first and principal means of\ncommunication between the several nations in the heroic age: they were\nthe men-of-business for the world[442].\n\n[442] Od. ix. 124.\n\nIt thus becomes plain, again, how he can with propriety be called the\ngiver of comforts or blessings; because the basis of commerce is this,\nthat each person engaged in it parts with something which he does not\nwant, and receives what he does want in return.\n\nThe apparent anomaly, which makes the god of increase also the god of\nthievery, is thus explained: because, from its nature, commerce is ever\napt to degenerate partially into fraud; and because, in days of the\nstrong hand, force as well as intelligence would often make it easy for\nthe maritime merchants to change their vocation, for the occasion, into\nthat of plunder[443].\n\n[443] Od. viii. 161-4. and xv. 416.\n\nHis proper office in regard to the \u1f14\u03c1\u03b3\u03b1 of men seems not to be\nindustry, nor skill in production or manufacture; but handiness and\ntidiness in the performance of services. He, says Ulysses, gives to the\n\u1f14\u03c1\u03b3\u03b1, which may mean both the deeds and the industrial productions of\nmen, their \u03c7\u03ac\u03c1\u03b9\u03c2 and \u03ba\u1fe6\u03b4\u03bf\u03c2, their grace and credit or popularity[444].\n\n[444] Od. xiv. 319.\n\n~_Mercury the god of increase._~\n\nThis idea of increase forms the common or central element of the\nvarious attributes assigned to Mercury. It takes two principal\nforms, one that of increase in material goods, the other that of the\npropagation of the race. This latter, which was elsewhere grossly\nexhibited, is veiled by Homer with his almost unfailing sense of\ndelicacy, and may not, indeed, have been fully developed in his time.\nIt is perhaps however traceable in two passages of the poems: first,\nthat of the Sixteenth Iliad, where we are told that he corrupted the\nvirgin Polymele[445], though she belonged to the train of Diana. The\nother is in the episode of Venus and Mars, where Apollo selects him as\nthe deity to whom to put the question, whether he would like to take\nthe place of the adulterer, and he replies in the affirmative[446].\nEach of these incidents seems to appertain to something distinctive in\nhis character.\n\n[445] Il. xvi. 179-86.\n\n[446] Od. viii. 334-42.\n\nThat character, again, imports the extended intercourse with mankind,\nand the knowledge of the world, which causes him to be chosen, in the\nTwenty-Fourth Iliad, for the difficult office of conducting Priam to\nthe abode of Ulysses. Moreover, the great balance of material benefit\nwhich commerce brings gives him, its patron, as a general rule, a\ngenial and philanthropic aspect. In Homer we have nowhere any sign of\nhis vengeance, anger, or severity. He neither punishes, hates, nor is\nincensed with any one. A passionless and prudent deity, he not only\ndeclines actual fighting with Latona, as she is a wife of Jupiter, but\nspontaneously gives her leave to boast among the gods that she has\nengaged and worsted him.\n\n~_Mercury Hellenic and Ph\u0153nician._~\n\nThe Ph\u0153nician origin of Mercury will also account for his position in\nthe poems, in relation to the Trojans and Greeks respectively. Not\nsimply is he one of the five Hellenizing deities: for his talents would\nnaturally with Homer tend to place him on that side. But he appears\nalmost wholly unknown to the Trojans. The abundance of the flocks of\nPhorbas is indeed referred to his love (Il. xiv. 490): and he reveals\nhimself to Priam by his name (Il. xxiv. 460): but it is remarkable, and\ncontrary to the general rule of the poems, that Priam, notwithstanding\nhis great obligations, takes no notice whatever of his deity, either\nupon his first revelation and departure, or when a second time he\nappears, and afterwards quits him anew (682-94).\n\nOn the other hand, we have abundant signs of his familiarity with the\nGreeks. He conveys the sceptre from Jupiter to Pelops: he carries the\nwarning of the gods to \u00c6gisthus: sacrifice is offered to him in Ithaca:\nand he is liberally treated with sacrifices by Autolycus in Parnesus,\nwhere he repays his worshipper by bestowing on him the arts of perjury\nand purloining[447].\n\n[447] Od. xiv. 435, and xix. 394-8.\n\nNow it is plain, from many places in the poems, that the Greeks had\nmuch intercourse with the Ph\u0153nicians. On the other hand, the Trojans,\nwealthy by internal products and home trade, seem to have known little\nor nothing of maritime commerce. Their intercourse with Thrace, the\nfertile Thrace that furnished a contingent of allies, required no\nmore than that they should have the means of crossing the Straits of\nGallipoli. We nowhere hear that they had a port or harbour. A Ph\u0153nician\ndeity would therefore, of course, be on the Ach\u00e6an side during the war.\n\nIndependently of such an origin, he might, in his usual capacity of\nagent, have been with perfect propriety sent to Calypso: but his\nmythical relationship to her as a nephew, and her evident connection\nwith Ph\u0153nician traditions, give a peculiar propriety to his employment\non this errand.\n\nAnother passage of the Odyssey seems, however, to place this\nrelationship beyond doubt. Ulysses, in the Twelfth Book, recounts\nto Alcinous the transaction that occurred in the Olympian Assembly\nafter his crew had slain the oxen of the Sun. On that occasion, the\noffended deity declared that, unless he got compensation, he would\ngo down and shine in the realm of Aides; upon which Jupiter at once\npromised to destroy the ship of Ulysses. \u2018This,\u2019 adds Ulysses, \u2018I\nheard from Calypso, and she told me that she had herself heard it from\nMercury[448].\u2019\n\n[448] Od. xii. 389, 90.\n\nNow this was no affair of Calypso\u2019s; none, that is, on which the gods\ncould make a communication to her in regard to Ulysses: but it was\none in which, from her passion for the hero, she would take a natural\ninterest, and on which she might well obtain information from a deity\nwho was her relative. Nor does it appear on what other ground Mercury\nshould be named, as the person who brought her this extra-official\nreport.\n\nAgain, it is probably on account of his Ph\u0153nician connection, that\nthe intervention of Mercury is employed in the Tenth Odyssey[449], to\nsupply Ulysses with the instructions that were necessary, in order to\nenable him to cope with Circe.\n\n[449] Od. x. 275-307.\n\nFor we are here in the midst of a cluster of traditions, which we have\nevery reason to presume to be wholly Ph\u0153nician[450]. It is the cluster,\nwhich occupies the outer circle of the geography of the Odyssey: and\nit is severed from the Grecian world and experience, not only by a\ngeographical line, but by an entire change in mythological relations.\nFrom the time when Ulysses enters that circle in the beginning of the\nNinth Book, until his appearance near Scheria, on the outskirt of the\nknown familiar sphere, his ancient friend Minerva nowhere attends him:\nand there are four whole books without even a mention of the goddess,\nwho, except for this interval, stands prominently forth in almost\nevery page of the Odyssey. The divine aid is given to him, during this\nperiod, through Circe and Calypso; while Mercury is appointed to\ncommand the latter, and to enable Ulysses to overcome the former. Both\nthe company and the traditions, amidst which Mercury is found, thus\ninvite us to presume that he is a deity of Ph\u0153nician importation into\nGreece.\n\n[450] See \u2018Ach\u00e6is, or Ethnology,\u2019 sect. iv.\n\n~_Mercury recent in Greece._~\n\nThere is one other point connected with him, which, tending to mark\nthat he had somewhat recently become known to the Greeks, agrees with\nother indications of his introduction from beyond sea. He figures,\nindeed, in legends as old as Hercules and Pelops[451]; and we do not\nreceive any account of his infancy, as we do of the infancy of Dionysus\nand of Vulcan. But we may observe that, whenever he assumes human form,\nit is the form of one scarcely emerging from boyhood. In the last\nIliad, he is a \u03c0\u03c1\u1ff6\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd \u1f51\u03c0\u03b7\u03bd\u03ae\u03c4\u03b7\u03c2, in the fairest flower of youth[452].\nAnd in the Tenth Odyssey, where he makes his second and only other\nappearance to a mortal, the same line is repeated in order to describe\nhis appearance, as if it were an established formula for himself, and\nnot merely adapted to a particular occasion. Indeed it may reasonably\nbe questioned, whether such adaptation exists at all. A very young\nperson was not the most appropriate conductor for Priam, on such an\nerrand as that which he had undertaken: nor the best instructor in the\nmode of coping with the formidable Circe. Therefore, without laying\ntoo much stress upon the point, the meaning of the youthful appearance\nseems to be, that he was young in the Greek Olympus.\n\n[451] Il. ii. 104. Od. xi. 626.\n\n[452] Il. xxiv. 348. Od. x. 279.\n\nThere is yet another sign by which I think we may identify Mercury\nas, in the estimation of Homer, a deity known to be of foreign\nintroduction. The list given by Jupiter in the Fourteenth Iliad of\nhis intrigues, includes no reference to Maias, the mother of Mercury,\nor to Diana the mother of Venus. Yet it is a large and elaborately\nconstructed list, ending with Juno herself: and the question arises,\non what principle was it constructed? I think the answer must be that,\nas it was addressed to Juno, the most Hellenic of all the Olympian\ndeities, with whom he wished to be on good terms at the moment, so also\nit was intended, if not to give a full account of his Greek intrigues,\nyet at any rate that no tradition should appear in it, except such as\nHomer considered to be either native, or fully naturalized. It contains\nno reference, for example, to the mother of Sarpedon, the mother of\nDardanus, the mother of Amphion and Zethus, the mother of Tantalus,\n(whom we have however only presumptions for reckoning as by Homeric\ntradition a son of Jupiter,) or even the mother of \u00c6olus; whom it is\npossible that Homer may have regarded as Hellic, rather than properly\nGreek, though the father of illustrious Greek houses. If this be the\nrule, under which the Poet has framed the list, then the exclusion of\nMaias and her son remarkably coincides with the other evidence that\ntends to define his position as a deity of known and remembered foreign\norigin.\n\n~_His Olympian office and that of Iris._~\n\nIt may be convenient to notice in this place the statement which is\ncommonly made, that Iris is the messenger of the gods in the Iliad,\nbut that Mercury, except only in the Twenty-fourth Book of that Poem,\nis confined in this capacity to the Odyssey: a statement, on which\nhas been founded a standing popular argument against the unity of\nauthorship in the two poems, and also against the genuineness of the\nTwenty-fourth Iliad itself.\n\nThe statement, however, appears to rest upon a pure misapprehension;\nfor it assumes the identity of the character of Iris and Mercury\nrespectively as messengers. Whereas there is really a difference,\ncorresponding with the difference in dignity between the two deities:\nand Homer is in regard to them perfectly consistent with himself.\n\nMercury is sometimes a messenger in the proper sense, and sometimes\nan agent, or an agent and messenger combined. It is not true that, so\nfar as the Iliad is concerned, he only appears in the last Book in\none of these capacities. For in the Second Book[453] we find, that he\ncarried the Pelopid sceptre from Jupiter to Pelops: which may mean\neither simply, that he was the bearer of it, or that by a commission\nhe assisted Pelops in acquiring, or rather in founding, the Ach\u00e6an\nthrone in the Peloponnesus. In the Twenty-fourth Iliad, Mercury is\nnot really a messenger at all[454]; but he is an agent, intrusted\nby Jupiter on the ground of special fitness with the despatch of a\ndelicate and important business, the bringing Priam in safety to the\npresence of Achilles, and afterwards the withdrawing him securely from\na position of the utmost danger. This is an office like that undertaken\nby Minerva in the Fourth Book, when, as she was commissioned to bring\nabout a breach of the Pact by the Trojans, she repaired to Pandarus\nfor the purpose. But the function of Iris is simply to carry messages,\nand chiefly from one deity to another; she is not only \u1f04\u03b3\u03b3\u03b5\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2, but\n\u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u03ac\u03b3\u03b3\u03b5\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2[455]; she is not intrusted in any case with the conduct of\ntransactions among men, or responsible for their issue, although in the\nFifteenth Book she spontaneously advises the god Neptune in the sense\nof the message she has brought. It is not for Jupiter only that she\nacts: she also conveys a message, and a clandestine one, for Juno[456].\nNay, on one occasion, without any divine charge, hearing the prayer\nof Achilles to two of the Winds, she spontaneously carries it to the\npalace, where they were all feasting together[457].\n\n[453] Il. ii. 104.\n\n[454] Il. xxiv. 334.\n\n[455] Il. xxiii. 199.\n\n[456] Il. xviii. 165-8.\n\n[457] Il. xxiii. 199.\n\nOnly in the Odyssey do we find Mercury unquestionably and simply\ndischarging the duty of a messenger; and this on two occasions: the\nfirst, when he brought to \u00c6gisthus the warning that his crimes, if\ncommitted, would be followed by retribution from the hand of Orestes;\nthe second, when he communicated to Calypso the command to release\nUlysses.\n\nBut there is in reality no discrepancy whatever between the two poems:\ninasmuch as Mercury and Iris, though both messengers, act in different\ncharacters. Iris is in one case the spontaneous messenger, who carries\na hero\u2019s wish to subordinate deities; but she uniformly has this\nmark, that she never rises higher than to be the personal messenger\nof Jupiter. On the other hand, Mercury in the Odyssey is the official\nmessenger, not of Jupiter individually, but in both cases of the\nAssembly of the gods: and the care, with which the distinction seems\nto be drawn, is very remarkable. It is true, the message to Calypso is\ncalled \u0396\u03b7\u03bd\u1f78\u03c2 \u1f00\u03b3\u03b3\u03b5\u03bb\u03af\u03b7: but it became the message of Jupiter, because it\nwas a proposal made by Minerva in the Olympian Assembly, and made on\nthe part of all in the plural number, which was then duly adopted by\nJupiter as the executive head of the body[458]:\n\n[458] Od. i. 84.\n\n \u1f19\u03c1\u03bc\u03b5\u03af\u03b1\u03bd \u03bc\u1f72\u03bd \u1f14\u03c0\u03b5\u03b9\u03c4\u03b1, \u03b4\u03b9\u03ac\u03ba\u03c4\u03bf\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd \u1f08\u03c1\u03b3\u03b5\u03b9\u03c6\u03cc\u03bd\u03c4\u03b7\u03bd,\n \u03bd\u1fc6\u03c3\u03bf\u03bd \u1f10\u03c2 \u1f68\u03b3\u03c5\u03b3\u03af\u03b7\u03bd \u1f40\u03c4\u03c1\u03cd\u03bd\u03bf\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd.\n\nThe message in the case of \u00c6gisthus is equally well defined[459]:\n\n[459] Od. i. 38.\n\n \u03c0\u03c1\u03cc \u03bf\u1f31 \u03b5\u1f34\u03c0\u03bf\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd \u1f21\u03bc\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c2\n \u1f19\u03c1\u03bc\u03b5\u03af\u03b1\u03bd \u03c0\u03ad\u03bc\u03c8\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2.\n\nIt would have been out of keeping, therefore, with the character\nand rank of the Homeric Iris, to give her the charge of the messages\ncarried by Mercury. The only case at all analogous in the Iliad is that\nof the decision in the Fourth Book: and there not Iris, but Minerva\nis employed. It is not, however, true that we have in the Odyssey no\nrecognition of the character of Iris as a messenger. We find one,\nand that the plainest of all, in the etymology of the name of \u1f3e\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2\nthe beggar. His proper name was Arn\u00e6us[460]; and he was called Irus,\nbecause he was a messenger:\n\n[460] Od. xviii. 6.\n\n \u1f3e\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd \u03b4\u1f72 \u03bd\u03ad\u03bf\u03b9 \u03ba\u03af\u03ba\u03bb\u03b7\u03c3\u03ba\u03bf\u03bd \u1f05\u03c0\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2,\n \u03bf\u1f55\u03bd\u03b5\u03ba\u2019 \u1f00\u03c0\u03b1\u03b3\u03b3\u03ad\u03bb\u03bb\u03b5\u03c3\u03ba\u03b5 \u03ba\u03b9\u1f7c\u03bd, \u1f45\u03c4\u03b5 \u03c0\u03bf\u03cd \u03c4\u03b9\u03c2 \u1f00\u03bd\u03ce\u03b3\u03bf\u03b9.\n\nThere is yet another illustration of the view which has here been\ngiven. In the Assembly of the Twenty-fourth Iliad, Jupiter, in order\nto give effect to the general desire of the gods, has occasion to wish\nfor the presence of Thetis: and it has at first sight an odd appearance\nthat he does not, as in other cases where he is acting singly, call\nIris and bid her go: but he says, with a mode of expression not found\nelsewhere,\n\n \u1f00\u03bb\u03bb\u2019 \u03b5\u1f34 \u03c4\u03b9\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u03ad\u03c3\u03b5\u03b9\u03b5 \u03b8\u03b5\u1ff6\u03bd \u0398\u03ad\u03c4\u03b9\u03bd....\n\nAnd Iris, hearing him, sets forth without being personally designated.\nThe peculiar language seems as if it had been employed for the especial\npurpose of keeping Iris within her own province, and of preventing the\npossibility of the confusion between her office and that of deities\nsuperior in rank, which might have arisen if she had regularly received\nan errand in the midst of the Olympian Court.\n\nThus, then, it would appear, that the apparent discrepancy between the\nvarious parts of the poems, when closely examined, really yields to us\nfresh evidence of their harmony. Nor let it be thought unworthy of\nHomer thus minutely to preserve the precedence and relative dignity\nof his deities. With our views of the Olympian scheme, it may require\nan effort to assume his standing-ground: but when he was dealing\nwith the actual religion of his country, it was just as natural and\nneedful for him to maintain the ranks and distinctions of the gods,\nas of men in their various classes. Mythology might, indeed, afford\nample scope to his fancy for free embellishment and enlargement of the\nestablished traditions; but these processes must always be in the sense\nof harmonious development, not of discord.\n\nAnother question may indeed be asked: whence came this idea of twofold\nmessengership, higher and lower? and would it not have been more\nnatural if the whole of this function had been intrusted to one deity?\nThis question is, I believe, just, and requires that a special account\nshould be given of an arrangement apparently anomalous. Such an account\nI have endeavoured to supply in treating of Iris, by shewing that she\nowes her place to a primeval tradition, while Mercury owes his to an\nideal conformity with the laws of the Olympian system.\n\nAnd in truth there is no single deity, on whom the stamp of that system\nhas been more legibly impressed. It might be said of the Homeric\nMercury, that he exceeds in humanism (to coin a word for the purpose)\nthe other Olympian gods, as much as they excel the divinities of any\nother system. His type is wholly and purely inventive, without a trace\nof what is traditional. He represents, so to speak, the utilitarian\nside of the human mind, which was of small account in the age of Homer,\nbut has since been more esteemed. In the limitation of his faculties\nand powers, in the low standard of his moral habits, in the abundant\nactivity of his appetites, in his indifference, his ease, his good\nnature, in the full-blown exhibition of what Christian Theology would\ncall conformity to the world, he is, as strictly as the nature of\nthe case admits, a product of the invention of man. He is the god of\nintercourse on earth; and thus he holds in heaven by mythological\ntitle, what came to Iris by primitive tradition. The proof must, I\nthink, be sufficiently evident, from what has been and will be adduced\npiecemeal and by way of contrast, in the accounts of other and, for\nthat period at least, more important divinities.\n\n_Venus._\n\n~_The Venus of Homer._~\n\nThere is no deity, except perhaps Dionysus, of whom the position and\nestimation in Homer are so vividly contrasted with those, to which he\nor she attained in later paganism, as Venus. The Venus of Virgil, the\nVenus of Lucretius, are separated by an immeasurable interval from the\nAphrodite of Homer. And the manner in which she is treated throughout\nthe Iliad and Odyssey is not only curious, as indicating the nature and\norigin of her divinity, but is of very high interest as illustrative of\nthe great Poet\u2019s tone of mind and feeling.\n\nThere is no act of worship or reverence, no sign of awe or deference,\nshown to her in any part of either of the poems. Yet her rank is\nindisputably elevated. It is beyond doubt that she belongs to the\nOlympian family. She appears in Olympus, not as specially sent for, but\nas entitled ordinarily to be there: she takes a side in the war: she\nmakes the birth of \u00c6neas more glorious on the mother\u2019s side than that\nof Achilles, who was sprung from Thetis, the daughter of Nereus, and a\ndeity of inferior dignity to hers. Not only is Jupiter her father, but\nher mother Dione is an Olympian goddess. Yet her Olympian rank is ill\nsustained by powers and prerogatives: and she probably owed it to the\npoetical necessity, which obliged Homer to have an array of divinities\non each side in the war, with some semblance of equality at least\nbetween the rival divisions.\n\nThe indications of the poem may lead us to believe that her name and\nworship were of recent origin. That a worship of her had begun is\nobvious: for in Paphos, a town of Cyprus, and the only one named by\nHomer, she had both an altar, and a \u03c4\u03ad\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2, or dedicated estate;\nand she bears the name of Cypris[461]. But we have only the very\nslightest mention of her, or of any thing connected with her, in\nGreece proper. We have seen much reason to assume that Cyprus was\nessentially Pelasgian, and ethnically more akin to Troy than to\nGreece. In Troy we find various signs of her influence. She sent to\nAndromache the marriage gift of her \u03ba\u03c1\u03ae\u03b4\u03b5\u03bc\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd[462]. She made to Paris\nthe fatal present of his lust[463]. She fell in love with Anchises,\nand became the mother of \u00c6neas[464]. She led Helen away from the roof\nof Menelaus[465], and was an object of dread to her when in Troy[466].\nMinerva, in taunting her bitterly about her wound, supposes she may\nhave got it by a scratch from a golden buckle, in undressing some\nGreek woman that she had persuaded to elope with one of the Trojans\nwhom she so signally loves[467]. Again, it appears from a speech of\nHelen, that she was worshipped in Phrygia and M\u00e6onia[468]. The only\ntoken of her influence in Greece is, that she is twice in the Odyssey\ncalled \u039a\u03c5\u03b8\u03ad\u03c1\u03b5\u03b9\u03b1. Thus we see her not strictly within Greece, but rather\nadvanced some steps on her way to it. And it is easy to suppose that,\nin the race of corruption, her worship would run among the fastest.\n\n[461] Il. v. 422 _et alibi_.\n\n[462] Il. xxii. 470.\n\n[463] Il. xxiv. 30.\n\n[464] Il. ii. 820.\n\n[465] Il. iii. 400.\n\n[466] Il. iii. 418; also 395, where \u1f40\u03c1\u03af\u03bd\u03c9, as most commonly in Homer,\nmeans to excite with fear.\n\n[467] Il. v. 422-5.\n\n[468] Il. iii. 402.\n\n~_Venus as yet scarcely Greek._~\n\nThe negative evidence, then, thus far tends to the belief that Venus\nwas not yet established among the regular deities of the Poet\u2019s\ncountrymen: and it is supported by positive testimony. For some of\nthe functions, that must in the post-Homeric view of her office have\nbelonged to her, Homer studiously makes other provision. Of this\nthere is a most remarkable case in the Odyssey. He designs that the\nSuitors, before they are put to death, shall be made to yield of their\nsubstance to the house of Ulysses, in the form of gifts to Penelope.\nFor this purpose he arrays her in all her charms, and brings her forth\nin appearance like Diana, or golden Venus[469]. It is not a common\npractice with Homer to compare a beautiful Greek woman to Venus;\nespecially when it is one so matronlike as Penelope. On the other hand,\nthe comparison of Cassandra to Venus[470] is entirely in keeping with\nthe Asiatic character of the deity. But the intention of the allusion\nhere is manifest: for when the Suitors see her, it is passion which\nprompts them to vie with one another in courting her favour through the\nmedium of costly gifts. How, then, came the sad Penelope thus to deck\nherself? It was not her own thought: it was the suggestion of a deity,\nand if Venus had been recognised by Homer as an established object of\nworship in Greece, Venus would most properly have made the suggestion:\nfor she, says Achilles, is supreme in beauty, as Minerva is in industry\nand skill[471]. But it is Minerva who instils this suggestion into\nthe mind of Penelope; though in a form which conveys no taint to her\nmind[472]. She goes, however, beyond this: for she sends Penelope to\nsleep, and then, to enhance her beauty, applies to her face a wash,\nof the kind that Venus herself uses when she goes among the Graces.\nYet this is not procured from Venus, as Juno in the Iliad procures the\n_cestus_ from her on Mount Olympus; nor is her agency or aid in any\nmanner employed. Thus she is not allowed, as it were, to have to do\nin any manner with Penelope; a clear indication, I think, that though\nknown, she was not yet worshipped in Greece proper.\n\n[469] Od. xvii. 37. xix. 54.\n\n[470] Il. xxiv. 699. I think the case of Hermione (Od. iv. 14.) is an\nexception.\n\n[471] Il. ix. 389.\n\n[472] Od. xviii. 158-68.\n\nShe appears, indeed, in the legend of the daughters of Pandareus[473]:\nbut the scene of this legend is not stated by Homer to be in Greece,\nand by general tradition it is placed in Crete or in Asia Minor.\n\n[473] Od. xix. 67, 73.\n\nAgain, the predicaments in which she is exhibited in the poems are\nof a kind hardly reconcilable with the supposition, that she was an\nacknowledged Greek deity at the time. In the lay of Demodocus, the Poet\nseems to intend to make the guilty pair ridiculous, from his sending\nthem off, when released, so rapidly and in silence. It is true that\nhe exhibits to us in the Iliad the sensual passion of Jupiter: but he\nhas wreathed the passage where it is described in imagery, both of\nwonderful beauty, and rather more elaborate than is his wont[474].\nBut whatever may be thought of the Eighth Odyssey, the Fifth and\nTwenty-first Iliad seem, so far as Venus is concerned, only to permit\none construction. In the former, she is, after being wounded, both\nmenaced and ridiculed by Diomed[475]. In the latter, for no other\noffence than leading the battered Mars off the field, she is followed\nby Minerva, and struck to the ground by a blow upon the breast. As\nin the case of Mars, so and more decidedly in the case of Venus, it\nappears as if the ignominious treatment in the Theomachy was difficult,\nand the wounding and treatment by Diomed quite impossible, to reconcile\nwith the idea that it could have been devised by a Poet, and recited\nto audiences, for whom the personages so handled formed a part of the\nestablished objects of religious veneration. Even Helen is permitted\nto taunt her bitterly: to recommend her becoming the wife, or even the\nslave, of Paris, and her ceasing to make pretensions to play the part\nof a deity:\n\n[474] Il. xiv. 346-51.\n\n[475] Il. v. 335, 348.\n\n \u1f27\u03c3\u03bf \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u2019 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u1f30\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c3\u03b1, \u03b8\u03b5\u1ff6\u03bd \u03b4\u2019 \u1f00\u03c0\u03cc\u03b5\u03b9\u03ba\u03b5 \u03ba\u03b5\u03bb\u03b5\u03cd\u03b8\u03bf\u03c5[476].\n\n[476] Il. iii. 406.\n\n~_Her advance from the East._~\n\nIn entire harmony with these suppositions is, first, the side taken\nby her in the war; and secondly, the geographical indications of her\nworship. It appears to have moved from the East along that double\nline, by which we have found it probable that the Pelasgians flowed\ninto Europe: one the way of the islands at the base of the \u00c6gean, the\nother by the Hellespont. We know, from other sources, that the East\nengendered at a very early date creations of this kind. Under the names\nof Astarte, Mylitta, Mitra, and the like, we seem to encounter so many\nseparate forms or versions of the Greek Venus. We may indeed observe\nthat Astarte was commonly associated with the Moon, and it would be a\nmatter of interest to know the original relation between the popular\nor promiscuous Venus (\u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03b4\u03b7\u03bc\u03bf\u03c2), and the celestial one. In Homer we\nfind them completely severed: we perceive Artemis with many traces of\nthe older, and Aphrodite fully representing the more recent and carnal\nconception. There still remains one sign of correspondence; it is the\nstanding epithet of \u03c7\u03c1\u03c5\u03c3\u03ad\u03b7 for Aphrodite, compared with the cluster\nof golden epithets[477] applied to Diana. We may not unreasonably, I\nthink, take Artemis as the probable prototype; and Aphrodite as the\nsensual image, into which the old and pure conception had already\ndegenerated, before the time when the two fell, as poetic material,\neach for its own purpose, into the moulding hand of Homer. While such a\nsource is every way probable, our reference to it is the more natural,\nbecause it is not very easy to attribute to the Greeks of the heroic\nage the original conception of such a divinity as Venus. For though\nthey were of social and therefore somewhat jovial habits, and though\nthey were a race of ready hand, given to crimes of violence, yet they\nwere not, on the whole, by any means a sensual race, in relation to the\nstandard which seems to have governed the Asiatic nations, whether we\nestimate these latter the Trojans, the Assyrians, or the Jews.\n\n[477] Sup. sect. ii. p. 146.\n\nThe marriage with Vulcan, and the relation to a mother Dione, invented\napparently for the purpose of maternity, are marks of recency. If I\nhave rightly referred Vulcan to the Ph\u0153nician order, this marriage may\nbe an indication that Venus likewise had a place in it: and again,\nconsidering her station in Troas, it seems not impossible that the\nworship of Vulcan may have been introduced there the more readily,\nbecause of his being reputed to be her husband.\n\nLike Maias the mother of Mercury, Dione, the mother of Venus, is\nexcluded from the list of Jupiter\u2019s amorous or matrimonial connections\nin the Fourteenth Iliad (312-28). This leads to the conclusion, either\nthat the tradition respecting her was known only as a foreign one, or\nelse that it was recent, slight, and as yet unauthenticated in popular\nbelief. In either view it coincides with the other indications as to\nVenus.\n\n~_Her rank and personal character._~\n\nThe primary function of Venus, apart from Asia, appears to lie among\nthe Olympian deities. That she was, as a member of that family,\nin actual exercise of her prerogatives, we see plainly from the\napplication made by Juno to her in order to obtain the grace and\nattractiveness, by which she hoped to act upon the mind of Jupiter. As\na mythological conception, she exhibits to us on the page of Homer the\nunion of the most finished material beauty with strong sensuality, and\nthe entire absence of all traces of the ethical element. She represents\ntwo things, form and passion; the former refined, the latter not so. In\nher character, as conceived by Homer, we see how that which is divine,\nwhen it has ceased to be divine, becomes, not human, but something\nmuch worse and baser: as he that falls from a height cannot stop\nhalf-way down the precipice at his will, but must reach the ground.\nEven feminine tenderness does not cling to the character of Venus. She\nis effeminate, indeed, for when wounded she lets her son \u00c6neas fall:\nbut gentle she is not, for in the scene of the Third Iliad with Helen\nher conduct is harsh even to brutality, and she drives the reluctant\nprincess into sensuality only by the cruel threat of violence and\ndeath[478].\n\n[478] Il. iii. 414-7.\n\nIn Venus we see the power of an Immortal reduced to its minimum. Even\nthe faculty of self-transformation seems to have been in her case but\nimperfectly exercised[479]. She does not pretend to give strength or\ncourage to her son \u00c6neas, but is represented simply as carrying him off\nin her arms. It is here worthy of remark, that she has not even the\nability, like the greater deities, to envelop him in cloud: she has\nno command over nature, only over the corrupt and rebellious impulses\nof man: she has power to carry \u00c6neas away, but he is folded in her\nmantle[480]. In fact, her privileges in general appear to be like those\nof the inferior orders of deity, held and used for her own enjoyment;\nbut they do not carry the power of acting upon man or nature, except\nin a particular and prescribed function. Her capacity of locomotion\nis limited in a peculiar degree. Mars, though no great deity, went,\nwhen wounded, up to heaven on the clouds. But Venus required to borrow\nthe disengaged chariot of Mars for the purpose, when in the same\npredicament[481].\n\n[479] Il. iii. 396.\n\n[480] Il. v. 311-18.\n\n[481] Il. v. 355-64. 363.\n\nIt is no wonder that the ancient, probably the earliest Greek, account\nof her origin which is given by Hesiod[482], should mark her as of\nentirely animal extraction.\n\n[482] Theog. 188-98.\n\nAnother peculiarity in the case of Venus is, that she already takes\nher name, and not only receives mere epithets, from two particular\nspots where she is worshipped. Cyprus makes her \u039a\u03cd\u03c0\u03c1\u03b9\u03c2 in the Iliad,\nand from Cythera she is also Cytherea in the Odyssey. She thus stands\ndistinct from Juno: to whom the Argeian name is simply an appendage,\nthough one of a most characteristic force, and one involving important\ninferences as to her origin. Nor is she less distinct from Minerva,\nwhose name is not derivative in form when she is called \u1f08\u03b8\u03ae\u03bd\u03b7, and whom\nwe must consider as the eponymist of Athens, and not its namesake. No\nindication could be of greater force, than this marked localism, in\nstamping the ideas about Venus as purely human in their origin.\n\n~_Venus unable to confer beauty._~\n\nIt would be an error to consider the Venus of Homer as even the goddess\nof beauty. She was endowed with it personally, and she possessed the\n_cestus_ of fascination and desire: but she had no capacity to make\nmortals beautiful, such as Minerva exercised upon Penelope and Ulysses,\nand Juno upon the virgin daughters of Pandareus. She is there passed\nby in such a manner as to make it plain that she did not possess any\npower of imparting this gift. Her \u03b4\u1ff6\u03c1\u03b1, in Il. iii. 65, do not appear\nto include it; or Paris would not say, \u2018no one would spontaneously seek\nthem.\u2019 For beauty of person was among the recognised and highly valued\ngifts of heaven[483].\n\n[483] Od. viii. 167-77.\n\nWe are told, in the Twentieth Odyssey, that Venus fed the orphan girls\nof Pandareus with cheese, honey, and wine; and, continues the passage,\nJuno gave them extraordinary beauty and prudence, Diana lofty stature,\nMinerva industrial skill. Afterwards, they being thus equipped, Venus\nwent up to Olympus to pray Jupiter that he would make arrangements for\ntheir marriage[484]. Thus her operations in a work of good are wholly\nministerial and inferior: and not only does she not confer beauty\nherself, but she sees it conferred by Juno. This again shows that the\nVenus of Homer, except for evil, has no power to work upon the body or\nmind of man.\n\n[484] Od. xx. 66-75.\n\nBut we must not omit to mark that sign of the real chastity of Homer\u2019s\nmind which he has given us by his method of handling the character of\nVenus; a deity whom the nature of his subject in the Iliad would have\nled almost any other heathen, and many Christian, poets to magnify.\n\nIn not a single instance does Homer exhibit this divinity to us in an\namiable or engaging light, or invest her with the attractions of power,\nglory, and success.\n\nWhen Minerva advises Diomed in the Fifth Iliad[485], she says, Do _not_\nattack any of the immortals; but if you happen to see Venus, her you\nmay wound. We seem to have a clear indication, that Homer introduced\nthis passage simply in order to throw contempt on Venus; because\nafterwards, when Mars is in the field, and Diomed pleads the inhibition\nhe had received as a reason for his inaction, Minerva at once removes\nit, and bids the warrior assail that god without scruple[486].\n\n[485] Il. v. 131. cf. 330.\n\n[486] Il. v. 818, 27.\n\nAgain, when Diomed wounds Mars, it is because Minerva invisibly directs\nand impels his lance[487]: but he wounds Venus without any aid. In the\nTheomachy, she appears upon the list of deities enumerated as taking\nthe Greek and Trojan side respectively; but when the Poet comes to\nmatch the others for fight, she disappears from his mind; as though it\nwould have been an insult to any other member of the Olympian family to\nbe pitted against her effeminacy. Accordingly, no antagonist is named\nfor her.\n\n[487] Il. v. 856.\n\nShe is sometimes made contemptible, as in the foregoing instances. She\nis at other times silly and childish, as under the bitter taunt of\nMinerva and the admonition of Jupiter[488], and again, when she falls\ninto the trap cunningly laid by Juno[489]. Odious in the interview with\nHelen in the Third Book, she is never better than neutral, and never\nonce so handled by the Poet as to attract our sympathies.\n\n[488] Il. v. 421-30.\n\n[489] Il. xiv. 190-224.\n\n~_Never made attractive in Homer._~\n\nAgain, there is not, throughout the Odyssey or Iliad, a single\ndescription of the beauty of Venus, such as Homer has given us of the\ndress of Juno, or the arms of Minerva. It is never, either directly or\nindirectly, set off for the purpose of creating interest and favour.\nOne exception may perhaps be alleged: but, if it is such, at least it\naffords the most marked illustration of the rule. Once he does praise\nthe exceeding beauteous neck, the lovely breast, the sparkling eyes of\nVenus; but it is when he has clothed her in the withered form of the\naged spinstress that had attended upon Helen from Sparta, and through\nwhose uninviting exterior such glimpses of the latent shape of Venus\nare caught by Helen as to enable her, but no one else, to recognise the\ndeity.\n\nHow different is this from the case of Virgil, who has introduced a\nmost beautiful and winning description of her in the Second \u00c6neid[490],\njust when he brings her into action that she may acquit both Helen\nand Paris of all responsibility for the fall of Troy. It would have\nbeen not only natural for Homer, but, unless he was restrained by some\nstrong reason, we may almost say it would have been inevitable, that he\nshould have done for Venus what has been done in our own day, with very\nhigh classical effect, by Tennyson in his \u0152none:\n\n[490] \u00c6n. ii. 589-93.\n\n Idalian Aphrodite beautiful,\n Fresh as the foam, new bathed in Paphian wells,\n With rosy slender fingers backward drew\n From her warm brows and bosom her deep hair\n Ambrosial, golden round her lucid throat\n And shoulder: from the violets her light foot\n Shone rosy-white, and o\u2019er her rounded form\n Between the shadows of the vine-branches\n Floated the glowing sun-light as she moved.\n\nUpon the whole, I should confidently cite the treatment of Venus in the\npoems as being among the most satisfactory indications of the state of\nheroic Greece, and one of the most honourable tokens of the disposition\nof her Poet.\n\n_Vulcan._\n\n~_The Vulcan of Homer._~\n\nBesides Juno and Bacchus, Heph\u00e6stus or Vulcan is the only Homeric\ndeity who bears upon him this unequivocal, or at least significant,\nmark of novelty, that we are supplied with a distinct tradition of his\nchildhood[491]. In his youth he was rickety and lame. His mother Juno\nwished to conceal him, and she let him fall into the sea. Here Thetis\nand Eurynome received him, and reared him in a submarine cave, not,\nhowever, under the Mediterranean, but the Ocean; and in that cave for\nnine years the boy-smith employed himself in making ornaments for women.\n\n[491] Od. viii. 311: and Il. xviii. 395.\n\nHe is thus associated by his traditions with the two opposing elements\nof water and fire; with water by the history of his childhood, and\nwith fire as the grand instrument and condition of his art. The latter\nwas by much the stronger association, for it was continually fed by\nthe history and progress of the art itself; so that he became the\nimpersonation of that element itself, and in the phrase \u03c6\u03bb\u1f78\u03be \u1f29\u03c6\u03b1\u03af\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03b9\u03bf\nit is his name which gives the distinctive force; for \u03c6\u03bb\u1f78\u03be in Homer\nseems to mean the flame or light of fire[492], and is not used to\nsignify fire proper, except with some other word in conjunction to it\nor near it. But the explanation of the seeming contrariety is probably\nto be found in the hypothesis, that his worship was of Ph\u0153nician\nintroduction; as the Ph\u0153nicians seem to have made the Greeks acquainted\nwith the use of fire in working metals. If they made the deity known\nto the Greeks, this will account for his association with the idea of\nfire: and as accounts and traditions, which they had supplied, were\nevidently the source of all the more remote maritime delineations of\nHomer, (since they alone frequented Ocean and the distant seas,) this\nis the natural and easy explanation for the tradition of his childish\narts in the oceanic cave. That he is thus, like the Ph\u0153nicians, for\nHomer, the meeting point of fire and water, appears clearly to stamp\nhim as Ph\u0153nician or oriental in his origin, relatively to Greece.\n\n[492] Thus, in Il. xviii. 206, it means that blaze without heat, as\nfrom shining armour, with which Minerva invested Achilles when he went\nforth unarmed. The name \u1f2d\u03c6\u03b1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 also stands alone for fire in Il. ii.\n426.\n\nAccordingly, true to the association between Ph\u0153nician and Hellenic\nelements, he is one of the five Hellenizing deities in the Trojan war;\nin which, as the element of fire, he opposes and subdues the river\nXanthus. He was not, however, unknown to the Trojans; for Dares, his\npriest, had two sons in their army. His introduction to Troas may have\nbeen due to his conjugal connection with Venus; or it may have been\ndue to the neighbourhood of Lemnos, the island on which, when hurled\nfrom Olympus by Jupiter, he fell, and which thenceforward formed his\nfavourite earthly habitation. With Lemnos and other isles Troy was in\ncommunication, at least from the time of Laomedon, for that prince\nthreatened to seize Apollo and to sell him, \u03bd\u03ae\u03c3\u03c9\u03bd \u1f14\u03c0\u03b9 \u03c4\u03b7\u03bb\u03b5\u03b4\u03b1\u03c0\u03ac\u03c9\u03bd[493].\nA regular commerce was established between Lemnos and the camp during\nthe Trojan war[494].\n\n[493] Il. xxi. 453.\n\n[494] Il. vii. 467.\n\nAmong the deities of Vulcan\u2019s generation we find but one married\ncouple, and they are a strangely assorted pair, Vulcan himself and\nVenus. Neither character nor occupation will account for this singular\nunion: on the contrary, there is no case in which the extremes of\nrepugnance must so decidedly be supposed. It is questionable whether\nthe hypothesis, that Venus represents the beauty which gives perfection\nto works of art, is in entire keeping with the tone of the Homeric\nsystem. Indeed Venus with Homer represents absolutely nothing, except\nsensual passion in a fine exterior form which can hardly be severed\nfrom it. One explanation, and one only, may suggest itself as more\nnatural. It is this: that the worship of Vulcan and that of Venus\ncame in, not distinctly connected with those of any other deity, at\nabout the same time, and from the same quarter. We have already seen\nupon Venus those marks of comparative modernism, and of an eastern\nextraction, which we now find in Vulcan; and here probably is to be\nfound, either wholly or in part, the actuating suggestion of their\nill-starred wedlock.\n\nThough we find the works of Vulcan scattered promiscuously abroad,\nthere is no notice of his worship, or of any site or endowment\nbelonging to him in the Greece of Homer. He was available to the Poet\nfor embellishment, but he probably had not become for the Greek nation\na regular object of adoration.\n\nI think we may trace the tokens of his eastern origin in the legend of\nhis infancy. It was into the sea that he was thrown: but, as we have\nseen, the cave in which he was reared was a cave of Ocean[495].\n\n[495] Il. xviii. 402.\n\n \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u03b4\u1f72 \u1fe5\u03cc\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f68\u03ba\u03b5\u03b1\u03bd\u03bf\u1fd6\u03bf\n \u1f00\u03c6\u03c1\u1ff7 \u03bc\u03bf\u03c1\u03bc\u03cd\u03c1\u03c9\u03bd \u1fe5\u03ad\u03b5\u03bd \u1f04\u03c3\u03c0\u03b5\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2\u00b7\n\nAlso, by a rather singular arrangement, there are two deities, not one\nonly, employed in taking him up and watching over his childhood. Nor\nare the two naturally associated together: for Thetis is a daughter of\nNereus, and belongs to the Thalassian family; Eurynome is a child of\nOcean. The connection with Thetis and the sea is appropriate enough in\nthe case of any child of Juno, for the wife of Peleus, as his nurse,\nseems to give him an Hellenic character: but it seems hard to explain\nthe appointment of a colleague belonging to the race of Ocean, and for\nthe situation of the cave in its bed, except as having been due to the\neastern origin of the divinity, of which the mark had not yet been\neffaced.\n\n~_His marriage with Venus._~\n\nThe marriage of Venus and Vulcan, metaphysically interpreted,\nrepresents the union of strength and skill in the production of works\nof art: but though this may have been a Greek application of eastern\ntraditions originally independent, there is no distinct trace of it in\nHomer; while it may seem strange that, if the Poet had had such an idea\nbefore his mind, his only picture of their conjugal relation should\nhave been the one given in the Eighth Odyssey. Still, he may have had\nthat idea.\n\nVulcan\u2019s other wife, Charis, represents an exactly similar conception;\nand here there is a more obvious probability that the combination was\nGreek, and was one intended, or even devised, by Homer.\n\nIt is common to treat the handling of this subject in the Iliad as in\ncontradiction with that of the Odyssey; and to use the assumption of\ndiscrepancy either in support of the doctrine of the Chorizontes, or in\nproof that the Olympian lay of Demodocus is spurious.\n\nWithout entering into that controversy, I venture to urge that the\nproof is insufficient. Why should the Vulcan of Homer be limited to\na single spouse? Jupiter has three, probably four; namely, Juno,\nLatona, Dione, and Ceres. No other Olympian deity, until we come down\nto Vulcan, has any. The question then arises, Why should the poets,\nor even the religion of the day, be limited in this case to monogamy,\nwhich has no place elsewhere in the Olympian family? Why should the\nreasons, which induced the framers of the religion to give him a wife\nat all, forbid them absolutely from giving him more than one? Nay more;\nwhy, if the original object of the Greek mind in this marriage was to\nsymbolize the union of manual skill and beauty, and if the materials\nof the received mythology were in a state of growth and progress,\nmight it not happen that in the youth of Homer Charis was, all things\nconsidered, suited to afford the most appropriate means of representing\nthe idea, and yet that in his later age he might amend his own plan,\nand make Venus the wife of Vulcan, without at all troubling himself\nto consider what was to become of the slightly sketched image that he\nhad previously presented in the Iliad? I say this, because the assumed\ncontradiction of these legends appears to me to proceed upon another\nassumption of a false principle; namely, that, though the mythology was\ncontinually changing with the progress of the country, yet each poet\nwas bound, even in its secondary and in its most poetical parts, to a\nrigid uniformity of statement. No one, I think, who considers how the\ncurrent of the really theistic and religious ideas runs upon a very\nfew of the greater gods, can fail to see that with Homer the religious\nmeaning of his Vulcan, and of the other gods of the second order, was\nvery slight. A sufficient proof of this may be found in the fact, that\nof no one of them, excepting Mercury alone, does he mention the actual\nworship in his own country.\n\nMoreover, two things may deserve remark with reference to the variation\nwhich makes Charis the wife of Vulcan in the Iliad, and Venus in the\nOdyssey.\n\nFirst, from the plan of the Iliad, which placed Venus and Vulcan in\nthe sharpest opposition, the conjugal relation between them would have\nbeen, for that poem, inadmissible. The Poet could not have introduced\nVenus, where he has introduced Charis: and he must thus have given up a\nstrikingly poetical picture, and one most descriptive of the works of\nhigh art in metal.\n\nSecondly, it may not be certain, but it is by no means improbable,\nthat the worship of Venus may have attained to much wider vogue in\nGreece when Homer composed the Odyssey, than at the period when he\ngave birth to the Iliad. We have seen already the signs that it was a\nrecent worship. We have seen it in Cyprus and then more advanced in\nCythera, not in continental Greece. Now it was in the Iliad that Venus\nhad the name of Cypris; in the Odyssey this is exchanged for Cytherea:\nthat is to say, she was known sometime before as a goddess worshipped\nin Cyprus and not properly Greek; but she was now, such is the\nprobable construction, known also as a goddess worshipped in Cythera,\nand therefore become Greek. On this account, as well as because the\nopposition between them had disappeared, she might with poetical\npropriety be made to bear a character in the Odyssey, which could not\nattach to her during the continuance of the great Trojan quarrel.\n\n~_Vulcan in and out of his art._~\n\nBeyond his own function as god of fire, and of metallic art in\nconnection with it, Vulcan is nobody. But within it he is supreme, and\nno deity can rival him in his own kind. His animated works of metal\nare among the boldest figures of poetry. Even his lameness is propped\nby bronze damsels of his own manufacture. And the lock, which he puts\nfor Juno on her chamber-door, is one that not even any other deity can\nopen[496]. But this is not so much an exemplification of the power\nand elevation of mythological godhead, as of the skill and exclusive\ncapacity of a professional person in his own art.\n\n[496] Il. xiv. 168.\n\nFinally, the Vulcan of Homer conforms in all respects to the inventive,\nas opposed to the traditional type of deity.\n\n\n_\u1f28\u03ad\u03bb\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2, or the Sun._\n\n~_The \u1f28\u03ad\u03bb\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2 of Homer._~\n\nIn the case of \u1f28\u03ad\u03bb\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2, or the Sun, as in various others, we appear to\nsee the curious process by which the Greek mythology was constructed,\nnot only in its finished result, but even during the several stages\nof its progress. It lies before us like the honeycomb in the glass\nbeehive; and it tends strongly to the conclusion that the Poet is\nhimself the queen bee. The Philosopher did not then exist. The Priest,\nwe know, was not a religious teacher. The Seer or Prophet interpreted\nthe Divine will only for the particular case, and did not rise to\ngeneralization. Who was it, then, that gathered up the thoughts and\narrested the feelings of the general mind, and that, reducing the crude\nmaterial to form and beauty, made it a mythology? The answer can only\nbe, that for the heroic age it was the Bard.\n\nIn some of the varying statements of the poems, where others have\nseen the proof of varying authorship, either for the whole or for\nparticular parts, I cannot but rather see the formative mind exercising\nits discretion over a subject-matter where it was as yet supreme:\nnamely, over that large class of objects which afforded fitting clay\nfor the hand of the artist, but which had not yet become a stamped and\nrecognised image for popular veneration. In the Charis, who is the wife\nof Hellenizing Vulcan, so long as Venus is at war with the Greeks;\nin the Winds, who, according to the Odyssey, inhabit a bag under the\ncustody of a living person, possibly a mortal, but who in the Iliad\nbeget children, enjoy banquets, and receive a _cultus_; we find Homer,\nas I conceive, following the genial flow of his thought, according\nas his subject prompted him, and awarding honour and preferment, or\nwithholding it, as occasion served. Perhaps Mercury or Vulcan, perhaps\neven Juno or Neptune, may owe him some advancement: but, at any rate,\nhe seems almost as distinctly to show us \u1f28\u03ad\u03bb\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2 in two different stages\nof manufacture, as a sculptor shows a bust in his studio this month in\nthe clay, and next month in the marble.\n\nIn the Iliad we find the Sun personified, though in the faintest\nmanner, and by inference only. His office of vision, which he enjoys\nhabitually in the Odyssey, and once in the Iliad[497], is inseparably\nwedded to a living intelligence by its combination with the function of\nhearing. He is addressed as the\n\n[497] Il. iii. 277.\n\n \u1f28\u03ad\u03bb\u03b9\u03cc\u03c2 \u03b8\u2019, \u1f43\u03c2 \u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u2019 \u1f10\u03c6\u03bf\u03c1\u1fb7\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u2019 \u1f10\u03c0\u03b1\u03ba\u03bf\u03cd\u03b5\u03b9\u03c2.\n\nNow poetry may, under the shield of custom, make the Sun see, by a\nfigure which shall not carry the full consequence of impersonation; but\nthe representation, that he also hears, seems necessarily to involve it.\n\nAgain, Jupiter has decreed, that Hector and the Trojans shall prevail\nuntil the setting sun. After that, there was to be no more of light\nor hope for them. Juno desires on this account to close the day, and\ndismisses the Sun prematurely to his rest. But this, as the Poet adds,\nwas done against his own will[498]:\n\n[498] Il. xviii. 239.\n\n \u1f28\u03ad\u03bb\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd \u03b4\u2019 \u1f00\u03ba\u03ac\u03bc\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1 \u03b2\u03bf\u1ff6\u03c0\u03b9\u03c2 \u03c0\u03cc\u03c4\u03bd\u03b9\u03b1 \u1f2d\u03c1\u03b7\n \u03c0\u03ad\u03bc\u03c8\u03b5\u03bd \u1f10\u03c0\u2019 \u1f68\u03ba\u03b5\u03b1\u03bd\u03bf\u1fd6\u03bf \u1fe5\u03bf\u1f70\u03c2 \u1f00\u03ad\u03ba\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1 \u03bd\u03ad\u03b5\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9.\n\nUpon the two words, \u1f00\u03ad\u03ba\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1 and \u1f10\u03c0\u03b1\u03ba\u03bf\u03cd\u03b5\u03b9\u03c2, rests, I think, the whole\ncase in the Iliad for the Sun\u2019s personality.\n\nBut in the Odyssey it is more advanced and developed. In the matter of\nthe intrigue of Mars with Venus, he acts as informer to the husband,\nand subsequently assumes the part of spy[499]. Although thus able,\nhowever, to discern what is passing even in the secret chambers of\nOlympus, when set on guard for the purpose, he cannot see so far as to\nThrinacia, any more than he can penetrate the cloud which envelopes\nJupiter and Juno[500].\n\n[499] Od. viii. 270, 302.\n\n[500] Il. xiv. 344.\n\nIt is from the Nymphs, Phaethusa and Lampetie, whom he had set to\nwatch, that he receives the intelligence of the slaughter of his oxen\nby the companions of Ulysses in their hunger. He immediately addresses\nJupiter and the assembled gods, in a passage which proves that Homer\nmeant to represent him as having a place in Olympus, for only if\nthere could he speak to them without undertaking a journey for the\npurpose[501]. He makes his appeal to them for retribution; and he backs\nhis application with the threat that, unless it is granted, he will go\ndown to the Shades, and shine there. A menace which to our ears may\nsound ludicrous enough; but it is perhaps well conceived in the case of\na chrysalis deity, not yet really worshipped by the Greeks: and there\nis a certain propriety in it, when we recollect that on the way to the\ndescent into the Shades lay his place of rest. He is the father of the\nNymphs, who watch on his behalf in Thrinacia; he is also the father of\nCirce and \u00c6etes, and his couch is at \u00c6\u00e6a[502].\n\n[501] Od. xii. 374-88.\n\n[502] Od. xii. 4.\n\nDuring the time when the slaughter of the oxen is effected, Ulysses is\nasleep: and it seems just possible that Homer may by this circumstance\nhave meant to signify that it was night when the catastrophe occurred,\nwhich would save the dignity of this deity in respect to vision.\n\n~_Is of the Olympian Court._~\n\nThe Olympian rank of the Sun is clear; but there seem to be ascriptions\nmade to him, which can only be reconciled by the supposition, in itself\nfar from improbable, that he was separately known of, as an object\nof worship, through two different sets of traditions; one of them\nreferable to Pelasgian sources, and entailing Trojan sympathies, the\nother of an Hellenic, or very probably a Ph\u0153nician, cast, and tending\nto rank him with the Hellenes. For in the Iliad his unwillingness to\nset, when his setting was to bring the glories of the Trojans to an\nend, seems very strongly to imply that he had a Pelasgian origin. In\nthe Odyssey, his siding with Vulcan against Mars and Venus would show,\nso far as it goes, a Hellenizing turn; but what is more important is\nthis, that, as the father of Circe and \u00c6etes, of whom the latter bears\nthe exclusively Ph\u0153nician epithet \u1f40\u03bb\u03bf\u03cc\u03c6\u03c1\u03c9\u03bd, and the former has her\nabode close by his \u1f00\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf\u03bb\u03b1\u1f76, or point of rising, he is at once thrown\ninto the Ph\u0153nician or the Persian connection. As the Sun-worship was so\ngeneral in the East, it seems quite possible that it might come into\nGreece by more channels than one: and as the process of personification\nmight in one set of traditions be more, and in another less complete,\nwe may here find a possible clue to Homer\u2019s reason for treating it\ndifferently in the two poems. Particularly as the poem where he is\nleast personal, the Iliad, is also that where he is most Pelasgian: for\nwe have found reason to ascribe to the Pelasgians less of lively and\ncreative power in the realms of the imagination, than to the Hellenes,\nand to such races as had stronger affinities with them.\n\nSo distinct is the Sun from Apollo in the Odyssey, that they appear\nas separate _dramatis person\u00e6_ in the Lay of Demodocus. Yet there are\nsome latent signs of sympathy between them. Apollo tends the oxen of\nLaomedon: the Sun delights, morning and evening, in his own oxen in\nThrinacie. It is difficult to avoid supposing some kind of relation to\nbe conveyed by Homer between the rays of the sun, and the arrows of\nApollo in the Plague. The extension of his sympathies to both races is\nanother sign of resemblance. Again, we have a promise from Eurylochus,\none of the crew of Ulysses, to build a temple to the Sun upon his safe\nreturn to Ithaca[503]. Now we have seen that the only instances of\ntemples, which we can certainly declare to be named in the poems, are\ntemples either of Minerva or of Apollo. Thus this vow of Eurylochus\nlooks like another anticipation of the subsequent absorption of the\nSun into the person and deity of Apollo: and on the whole, we are\nleft to infer that beginnings of that process may have been already\nvisible. Homer, perhaps, did not care to advance it. At least, it\ndoes not appear to me that either he or his nation were friendly to\nthe conception of mere elemental gods. Gods who preside over external\nnature he presents to us in abundance; but gods, who are the mere\norgans of external nature, are alien to the Greek genius as candidates\nfor the higher posts, and are relegated to subordinate places in the\nsystem. Only Vulcan and Ceres really appear with him to bear decisively\nthe stamp of this character: and both of them seem as if they were\nalready in part detached from it, and developing in another direction.\nFor in Vulcan the human faculty of skill already predominates over\nfire, and Ceres impersonates the vegetable product of Earth, and not\nthe mere dead mass.\n\n[503] Od. xii. 345.\n\nThe connection of the Sun with Pelasgian traditions according to the\nEgyptian type is, I think, strongly signified by the legend of the oxen\nand sheep, in which he takes so much delight.\n\nIn the time of Homer he was, as it were, a probationer in the \u1f04\u03b3\u03c9\u03bd of\nthe Grecian gods. The main facts before us are simply these: first,\nhis unformed separate state at that epoch; secondly, his absorption in\nApollo. The lesson taught by both is the repugnance of the Greeks to\nmere Nature-worship. The signification of the second, in particular,\nappears to be this, that as \u1f28\u03ad\u03bb\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2 could not stand alone, and needed to\nbe absorbed, so he could find no place for his absorption so fitting\nas in that deity, of whom, as well as of the more venerable traditions\nthat he represented, brightness was an inseparable and original\ncharacteristic.\n\n~_His incorporation with Apollo._~\n\nIn this view, the mythological absorption of the Sun in Apollo is a\nmost striking trait of the ancient mythology: and it even recalls to\nmind that sublime representation of the Prophet, \u2018The sun shall be no\nmore thy light by day, neither for brightness shall the moon give light\nunto thee; but the Lord shall be unto thee an everlasting light, and\nthy God thy glory[504].\u2019\n\n[504] Isaiah lx: compare Rev. xxi. 23.\n\n_Dionysus or Bacchus._\n\n~_The Dionysus of Homer._~\n\nThe Dionysus of Homer, or Bacchus, has all the marks of a deity, whose\nname and worship were of recent introduction into Greece, and were not\nyet fully established there; while in connection with the Trojans we\nhave no notice of him whatever.\n\nThe eastern origin of this god seems in an unusual degree to have been\nremembered in the later popular tradition: and from the slight Homeric\nnotices we may find confirmation for the common idea; inasmuch as the\npoems appear both to mark him as not originally Greek nor Pelasgian,\nand likewise rather faintly to connect him with the Ph\u0153nicians.\n\nHis father was Jupiter, and his mother Semele. Her name occurs in a\nCatalogue, of which the first part is composed of women, the second\nof goddesses; she appears among the women. The lines, in which she is\nmentioned may be rendered, \u2018nor when (I was enamoured) of Semele, nor\n(when) of Alcmene, in Thebes; and Alcmene had stout-hearted Hercules\nfor her son, but Semele bore Dionysus, joy of men.\u2019 These words appear\nprobably to mean that Semele, as well as Alcmene, was in Thebes: and\nthis supports the post-Homeric, but ancient, tradition of the hymn to\nBacchus[505], which makes Semele the daughter of Cadmus. Now, Cadmus,\naccording to every reasonable presumption, was Ph\u0153nician. We have thus\na fixed chronological epoch, to which the god was junior. That is, we\nhave a period fixed, which may be called historical, when his name and\nworship had not yet been brought into Greece.\n\n[505] Ver. 57.\n\nThe only note that we possess of the worship of Dionysus, as one\nestablished in Homer\u2019s time among the Greeks, is in the obscure\nallusion of the Eleventh Odyssey to Ariadne[506], who was put to death\nby Diana in the island of Dia, on her way from Crete to Athens, at\nthe instance of Dionysus, \u0394\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd\u03cd\u03c3\u03bf\u03c5 \u03bc\u03b1\u03c1\u03c4\u03c5\u03c1\u03af\u1fc3\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd. The most probable\ninterpretation of this passage seems to be, that Theseus, when on his\nvoyage, landed with Ariadne in Dia to consummate the marriage, just as\nParis[507], on his way from Sparta, landed in Cranae with Helen: but\nthat, since the island was dedicated to Dionysus, this was punished as\na desecration.\n\n[506] Od. xi. 322-5.\n\n[507] Il. iii. 445.\n\nWe thus see Dionysus taking root for the first time upon the natural\nline of communication, namely that by the islands, between Ph\u0153nicia\nand Greece: and his possession of this island is in harmony with the\ntradition of the Hymn, which represents him as having first been seen\nupon the sea-shore[508].\n\n[508] Hymn. ad Bacch. v. 2.\n\nIn the Twenty-fourth Odyssey we are told that Thetis supplied the\nGreeks with a gilded urn, in which to store the ashes of Achilles,\ntogether with wine and some unguent, probably fat. The passage to which\nthese verses belong is perhaps the least trustworthy in the poems: nor\nis it in complete agreement with the Iliad, which mentions fat only as\nused on the occasion. But I refer to it because it is stated there,\nthat this urn was reported by Thetis to be the work of Vulcan, and also\nto be the gift of Dionysus[509]. Her possession of a gift from him is\nin harmony with Il. v. 136, which represents her as having sheltered\nhim, when, through fear, he plunged into the sea: while his possession\nof a work of art in metal is best explained by the supposition that\nHomer regarded him as a Ph\u0153nician deity, since it was from that race\nthat such productions were commonly, though we cannot say exclusively,\nderived.\n\n[509] Od. xxiv. 74.\n\nIt is not difficult to understand why, as the god of wine and\ninebriety, Dionysus does not appear in the theotechny of the Iliad;\nbut it would seem that the feasts of the dissolute Suitors in the\nOdyssey afforded a series of occasions, upon any of which the mention\nof his name would have been highly suitable. We may perhaps even say\nthat it could hardly have been omitted, if his worship had been general\nand familiar in the country. Again, Dionysus is nowhere mentioned in\nconnection with Olympus.\n\nThe remaining Homeric notice of this deity which is also the most\ncurious, sustains what has already been advanced. The Arcadian king,\nLycoorgus, scourged, and pursued over the hill Nyseion, the \u03bc\u03b1\u03b9\u03bd\u03bf\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9\u03bf\n\u0394\u03b9\u03c9\u03bd\u03cd\u03c3\u03bf\u03b9\u03bf \u03c4\u03b9\u03b8\u03ae\u03bd\u03b1\u03c2, the nurses of the frantic Bacchus; they in dismay\ncast down their vine branches (\u03b8\u03c5\u03c3\u03b8\u03bb\u1f70), while he plunged into the\nsea, and Thetis gave him refuge[510]. Jupiter, in retribution, struck\nLycoorgus blind, and cut short his days. Whatever explanation may be\nadopted of its details, this legend seems to signify, beyond all doubt,\nthat some forty or fifty years before the _Troica_ (for Lycoorgus was\ncontemporary with the youth of Nestor[511]), the introduction of the\ndrunken worship of Bacchus was resisted by the Pelasgians of Arcadia,\nand was for a time, at least, expelled by them. The mention of Dionysus\nas a child probably imports a further reference to the recency of his\nworship: and there is something remarkable and significant in this\napparent commencement of violent opposition to it at the point when\nwomen were beginning to be corrupted by excess of liquor.\n\n[510] Il. vi. 130-40.\n\n[511] Il. vi. 132.\n\nEven the later tradition of Hesiod, which makes Dionysus the husband of\nAriadne, by thus giving him a Ph\u0153nician connection, so far sustains his\nPh\u0153nician origin[512].\n\n[512] Hes. Theog. 947.\n\n~_Dionysus is of the lowest inventive type._~\n\nAs Dionysus is one of the most recent of the Homeric deities, so\nlikewise is he one of the most purely heathenish[513]. He has not,\neven in Homer, a divine maternity assigned to him, and he is the only\none of the Homeric deities who stands in this predicament[514]. The\nanomaly was felt and provided for, in the later traditions at least,\nby the deification of Semele after death. But perhaps another mode of\nstatement may be adopted. As it is evident that the original tradition\nmade him the son of a woman, and as all those with whom he is classed\nin Homer are probably historical personages, it seems possible that\nhe may have been one of our own race, whose discovery or extension\nof the use of wine may, by its rapid and powerful effect upon the\ncountries which it had reached, have led to his adoption into the\norder of the Immortals, by a process more rapid than took place in the\ncase of Hercules or any other person. Upon this supposition, he stands\naltogether alone among the gods of Homer. But, be this as it may, he\nis, when considered in the capacity of a deity, the representation of\nan animal instinct in its state of gross excess, and of nothing more.\nHe is the god of drunkenness, as Mars is the god of violence, and Venus\nthe goddess of lust: and there are no three other deities, from whom\nHomer has so remarkably withheld all signs of his reverence.\n\n[513] D\u00f6llinger, Heid. u. Jud. p. 80.\n\n[514] See the accounts of Pindar, Pausanias, and Apollodorus.\n\nThough I state this as an historical possibility, I think it is certain\nthat, according to the Poet, Dionysus was from his birth one of the\nImmortals: but it is also very doubtful whether he was one, to whom a\nplace belonged in the smaller Olympian Assembly. Even in later times,\nhe was not one of the _Dii Majores_: and his being the son of a mortal\nin Homer would tend to make it probable that he was not invested by the\nPoet with Olympian dignity. Again, he is only four times mentioned in\nthe whole of the poems; nor is a single act of his manhood recorded,\nexcept his information against Ariadne. That information seems to\nimply, that a known Greek island was sacred to him; and it was followed\nby the death of Ariadne under the darts of Diana. These circumstances\nmay perhaps raise a presumption of his Olympian rank, equal to the\nadverse one which has been stated above. So far as this inquiry is\nconcerned, the question must remain unsolved. But little of interest\ncan attach to these, the shameful parts of the Greek mythology, which\nboast, as if it were our strength, of what can scarcely be excused as\nour weakness, and which treat our shame as our joy. The real point of\ninterest is to learn whether there was a time when man, even though he\nhad lost the clear view of the guiding hand from above, yet revolted\nagainst, or had not become familiar with, the deification of vicious\npassion. And we seem to find the note of such a time in Homer. Only one\nlaudatory phrase is applied throughout the poems to Dionysus; it is the\n\u03c7\u03ac\u03c1\u03bc\u03b1 \u03b2\u03c1\u03bf\u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd, and these words are not the sentiment of the Poet, or\nof any character that represents his mind; they are put into the mouth\nof Jupiter, when he is speaking under a paroxysm of sensual passion.\n\nI have not adverted to the tradition which places the Lycoorgus of\nIl. vi. in Thrace, but have simply followed what appears to be the\nsuggestion of the Homeric text.\n\n\n\n\nSECT. IV.\n\n_The Composition of the Olympian Court: and the Classification of the\nwhole Supernatural Order in Homer._\n\n\nIn the full Olympian Assembly, or Great Chapter of the Immortals, we\nfind a collection of deities, who are respectively the representatives,\nin the main, of Elemental Powers, of Human Passions or Ideas, and of\nHistorical Traditions, either single or intermixed. Among the simple\nexamples, we may cite the Rivers and Nymphs for the first, Mars and\nVenus for the second, the goddess Themis for the third, Latona and Iris\nfor the last. In Jupiter, the chief of all, these elements are blended\ntogether.\n\n~_Principal cases of exclusion from Olympus._~\n\nBut we must also consider those who do not appear in Olympus, and why\nthey are excluded. If, as is perhaps the case, Aidoneus and Persephone\nare not there, it is because of the separateness of their work, and the\nremoteness of their kingdom. They had servants, guards, and a judge, in\nshort, a sort of polity of their own. Atlas, Proteus, Calypso, Circe,\nand the other purely local deities, so far as we know, are not there;\nprobably because they do not enter into the national religion, but\nare little more than convenient symbols[515] of geographical points\nknown or conceived through maritime, that is, without doubt, through\nPh\u0153nician report. Again, we do not hear in Olympus of Destiny, Sleep,\nNight, Dream, Terror, Panic, Uproar, and the rest; probably because\nthese had not attained to practical impersonation in the religion\nof the people, but were merely objects of the poetical faculty. So\nlikewise with respect to the Winds, who stand as receivers of worship\nand sacrifice in Il. xxiii. 195. The different treatment which they\nreceive in the Iliad and Odyssey, like their non-appearance in the\nGreat Chapter[516] of Olympus, unless referable to the peculiarities\nof the Outer Geography, shows that they had not a developed and\nestablished godhead, but might be dealt with by the Poet at his will.\nIn these imperfect impersonations, it has been well observed, sometimes\nthe mere elemental power, sometimes the superinduced personality\nprevails. Again, \u1f0c\u03c4\u03b7 the temptress, and \u1f18\u03c1\u03b9\u03bd\u03cd\u03b5\u03c2 the avengers, might\nstand excluded, both on the same ground of inadequate impersonation,\nand on other grounds. Nereus and the purely elemental deities of the\nsea are not summoned to the Assembly, apparently because he too had\nhis own submarine palace. It answered to Olympus; and here he sat in\nstate amidst his numerous Court of Nymphs. Even Thetis was fetched from\nthence to attend the last Assembly of the gods in the Twenty-Fourth\nIliad. \u039a\u03c1\u03cc\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 and \u1fec\u03ad\u03b1 are not in the divine meetings, firstly, because\nhe, probably with her as his reflected image, is penally confined in\nTartarus; but secondly, because, the first representing Time, and\nthe second Matter, they are the primary ideas in the metaphysical\norder, which comprehended all others, and from which all others were\nderivative. And as they stood in the metaphysical _nexus_ of ideas, so\nstood Oceanus and his feminine, Tethys, in the terrestrial order; where\nOceanus was the all-inclosing, all-containing; the Form, within which\nevery terrestrial existence was cast, and beyond which even Thought\ncould not pass. Hence the curious and marked exception of him from the\nsummons of Themis to the Great Assembly of the Twentieth Book[517].\n\n[515] N\u00e4gelsbach, ii. 9.\n\n[516] Il. xx. 4-9.\n\n[517] Il. xx. 7.\n\n \u03bf\u1f54\u03c4\u03b5 \u03c4\u03b9\u03c2 \u03bf\u1f56\u03bd \u03a0\u03bf\u03c4\u03b1\u03bc\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f00\u03c0\u03ad\u03b7\u03bd, \u03bd\u03cc\u03c3\u03c6\u2019 \u1f68\u03ba\u03b5\u03b1\u03bd\u03bf\u1fd6\u03bf,\n \u03bf\u1f54\u03c4\u2019 \u1f04\u03c1\u03b1 \u039d\u03c5\u03bc\u03c6\u03ac\u03c9\u03bd.\n\nHe is the father of the rivers, and the feeder of the Sea. Even of\nthe gods he is the \u2018Genesis,\u2019 perhaps as their physical source, or\nas affording material for their formation; perhaps as the outer band\nof that world to which they belong, as much as we do, and outside of\nwhich there was no attempt to conceive them as existing. Lastly, it is\nperhaps because Homer meant to assign to Oceanus and Tethys the actual\nfirst parentage of the gods. This supposition is favoured by the fact\nthat Juno applies the name \u03bc\u03ae\u03c4\u03b7\u03c1[518] to Tethys, in a connection which\nmay make it equivalent to \u2018_our_ Mother Tethys.\u2019\n\n[518] Il. xiv. 201.\n\nIt is clearly on a principle that Oceanus is not summoned to Olympus,\nand not from mere defect or immaturity of personality. For in\nconjunction with his wife Tethys, he took over the infant Juno from\nRhea, at the time when there was trouble between Jupiter and his\nfather; and afterwards he reared the child in his own domain. He can be\nlulled into slumber by \u1f5d\u03c0\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 like any other deity: he has a daughter,\nEurynome[519]: and he is capable of conjugal quarrels[520].\n\n[519] Il. xviii. 398.\n\n[520] Il. xiv. 200. seqq. 245.\n\nAgain, Ocean is water, and Oceanus is the father of all the Rivers:\nbut yet he was not included in the great lottery which divided the\nworld between the Kronid brothers. This shows us afresh, that he is\noutside and independent of their rule: he forms the framework of the\nvisible creation, while they are parts of the picture that is within\nthe framework.\n\nThe same thing is true of \u039a\u03c1\u03cc\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 and \u1fec\u03ad\u03b1 in the metaphysical order.\nThey represent anterior conditions of thought and of existence to all\nother Beings, human and divine. Their personality is established; but\nit is, even more than that of Oceanus, in abeyance: for Oceanus is at\nleast ever-flowing, while Time, and Space, or Matter, are with Homer\nwholly passionless, mute, and still. When once the Kronid family has\nbeen brought into existence, and the attempt of Time to impose the law\nof death on Deity has been put down by Jupiter, then the impersonations\nare virtually withdrawn from him and his partner, and they relapse into\nthe torpid state of purely abstract ideas.\n\nThe Elemental Powers have nowhere what may be called a strong position\nin Homer, except in the invocations of solemn swearing; where they give\nforce to the Oath, because they are the avengers of perjury. Thus their\nconnection is not with deity in general, but with that nether world,\nwhich the ideas of mankind have always associated with the lower parts\nof the Earth[521].\n\n[521] Il. iii. 276-8. xix. 258-60.\n\nEven on grounds larger than those derived from a particular phrase,\nit may be probable, that we ought to consider Oceanus as the Homeric\nparent of all the deities, \u039a\u03c1\u03cc\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 and \u1fec\u03ad\u03b1 included. To a state of\nthe human mind not yet familiar with abstractions, Time and Place,\nimperfectly conceived, might be more limited, less comprehensive, than\nthe great all-infolding Ocean, which encircled and wrapped in the\nworld. And in this conception there may lie hid the embryo of what\nafterwards grew into the aquarian cosmogony, a system which appears not\nto be without support from other passages of the poem, especially from\nthe very curious verse (Il. vii. 99),\n\n \u1f00\u03bb\u03bb\u2019 \u1f51\u03bc\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03bc\u1f72\u03bd \u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 \u1f55\u03b4\u03c9\u03c1 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b3\u03b1\u1fd6\u03b1 \u03b3\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9\u03c3\u03b8\u03b5.\n\nIf, however, this idea was really in the mind of the Poet, still we\nshould consider it as having been with him an instinct rather than a\ntheory.\n\n~_D\u00ee majores of the later tradition._~\n\nThe Olympian deities of Pagan antiquity are commonly represented as\ntwelve in number; and the names are\n\n 1. Jupiter.\n 2. Juno.\n 3. Neptune.\n 4. Minerva, or Pallas Athene.\n 5. Ph\u0153bus Apollo.\n 6. Diana.\n 7. Mercury.\n 8. Histie, or Vesta.\n 9. Mars.\n 10. Venus.\n 11. Vulcan.\n 12. Ceres.\n\nBut Homer knows nothing of this number or arrangement of the gods;\nor of the distinction between _Dii majores_ and _Dii minores_. Nor\ndoes he enable us with precision to substitute any other number for\nit. He gives us, however, his idea, at least by approximation, of the\nnumber of the Olympian gods. For when Thetis visits Vulcan, to obtain\nnew armour for Achilles, she finds the deity at work upon twenty\n\u03c4\u03c1\u03af\u03c0\u03bf\u03b4\u03b5\u03c2[522], to stand round the wall of the well-built hall, which he\nis carefully fitting with wheels, in order that they may automatically\ntake their places in the assembly of the gods. Whatever these \u03c4\u03c1\u03af\u03c0\u03bf\u03b4\u03b5\u03c2\nbe, the number is probably meant to correspond with that of the\nordinary Olympian meeting for festivity or deliberation. They are\ncommonly supposed to be bowls or vessels for wine set on three-legged\nstands; but there are two reasons, suggested by the language of the\npassage, which seem to recommend our understanding the word to mean\nseats, such as that of the priestess of Apollo at Delphi: one is,\ntheir being intended to stand around the apartment, along the wall:\nand the other is, that they were to place themselves for the divine\nassembly[523];\n\n[522] Il. xviii. 373.\n\n[523] Il. xviii. 376.\n\n \u1f44\u03c6\u03c1\u03b1 \u03bf\u1f31 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03cc\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03b9 \u03b8\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bf\u03bd \u03b4\u03c5\u03c3\u03b1\u03af\u03b1\u03c4\u2019 \u1f00\u03b3\u1ff6\u03bd\u03b1,\n \u1f20\u03b4\u2019 \u03b1\u1f56\u03c4\u03b9\u03c2 \u03c0\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u03b4\u1ff6\u03bc\u03b1 \u03bd\u03b5\u03bf\u03af\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf.\n\nThis idea of the great bowls placing themselves, one apparently for\neach deity to draw from, does not correspond with the classical\nrepresentation of the cupbearer filling the cup of each, as he moves\nfrom the left towards the right. Nor does the word \u1f04\u03b3\u03c9\u03bd seem to be\nsuitable for a merely convivial meeting: and we ought, I presume, to\nconsider the meetings on Olympus as in theory political councils for\nthe government of the world, only relieved by meat and drink. If we\ntake \u03c4\u03c1\u03af\u03c0\u03bf\u03b4\u03b5\u03c2 as signifying the seats, it has of course a reference\nto the number of gods who constituted the ordinary Olympian family;\na reference which indeed it may probably have, even if the other\nsignification be preferred.\n\nAnd the text of the poems affords sufficient evidence, that twenty was\nabout the number of the Olympian gods of Jupiter.\n\n~_Deities of Olympian rank in Homer._~\n\nOf the Olympian twelve recognised in later times, all, except Vesta\nand Ceres, must at once and indubitably be pronounced Olympian in\nHomer. For all take part in the Trojan war, and likewise make their\nappearance in Olympus. Thus we have ten Olympian deities of Homer\nalready ascertained. And there are several others whom we can have no\ndoubt in adding to the list. These we will proceed to consider:\n\n1. Latona is clearly Olympian; from her great dignity as an\nunquestioned wife of Jupiter (\u1f04\u03bb\u03bf\u03c7\u03bf\u03c2 \u0394\u03b9\u1f78\u03c2, Il. xxi. 499); and from the\nfact that her position entitled her to take a side in the Trojan war,\nwhere none but Olympian deities were engaged, with the single exception\nof the formidable local power, Xanthus or Scamander. Another reason is,\nbecause the title of Dione, as we shall see, is clear; who is a deity\nin some respects similar, but decidedly inferior, to Latona.\n\n2. Dione the mother of Venus is in the same order. For she receives\nher child, when she repairs wounded to Olympus, and in her speech of\nconsolation distinctly describes herself as one of the \u1f48\u03bb\u03cd\u03bc\u03c0\u03b9\u03b1 \u03b4\u03ce\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u2019\n\u1f14\u03c7\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2, Il. v. 383. She is called in this passage \u03b4\u1fd6\u03b1 \u03b8\u03b5\u03ac\u03c9\u03bd: a title\ntwice given to Minerva, but also, sometimes, to very secondary deities,\nsuch as Calypso and Circe. Either as insignificant, or possibly as\nbeing foreign and not sufficiently naturalized, she finds no place in\nthe Catalogue of Mothers in the Fourteenth Iliad.\n\n3. Iris, the messenger-goddess. The grounds of her title may be found\namong the remarks upon this deity[524].\n\n[524] See sup. p. 156.\n\n4. Themis, although not a party in the war, has the office of\nPursuivant or Summoner to the Olympian Assembly: and her ordinary\npresence there is distinctly proved by the Fifteenth Iliad, where she\nis the first to welcome Juno on her entrance into the circle.\n\n5. It will be seen from a brief statement elsewhere relating to\nAidoneus or Aides, that he is clearly of Olympian rank and character.\n\n6. Next to Aidoneus, we may take the claim of Hebe. She is not indeed\nan important, nor a very prominent, person in the poems: but there is\nno room for doubt as to her Olympian dignity. We find her officiating\nas cupbearer in the Olympian Court of the Fourth Iliad. Her connection\nwith Olympus is further established by her assisting Juno in the\npreparation of her chariot: and by her assisting Mars in the bath,\nwhen that deity has betaken himself into the presence of Jupiter, to\ncomplain of his wound. Again, her personality is quite clear. Nor can\nher divinity be questioned. She is pronounced in the Eleventh Odyssey\nto be the daughter of Jupiter and Here. The verse is suspected; but\nthe suspicion itself may be suspected in its turn. Further, the case\nrests not on the particular account given of her parentage, but, in\nconnection with the context, on her appearing as the wife of Hercules\nat all. Nor is she anywhere connected with the idea of a mortal\norigin[525].\n\n[525] Il. iv. 2. v. 721, 905. Od. xi. 603.\n\n7. A second divinity of somewhat similar rank is Paieon. On two\noccasions, he heals in Olympus the wounds of deities; first of\nAidoneus, then of Mars. He is summoned to the exercise of his function\nas a person within call, and habitually present there. After the rebuke\nof Jupiter to Mars, the line that follows is[526],\n\n[526] Il. v. 899.\n\n \u1f63\u03c2 \u03c6\u03ac\u03c4\u03bf, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03a0\u03b1\u03b9\u03ae\u03bf\u03bd\u2019 \u1f00\u03bd\u03ce\u03b3\u03b5\u03b9 \u1f30\u03ae\u03c3\u03b1\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9.\n\nThere is no doubt therefore either of his personal, or of his Olympian\ncharacter; and none but divine persons are capable of bearing the\nOlympian offices. Ganymede, for instance, though carried up to dwell\namong the Immortals in order to pour out wine, has no function assigned\nto him in the poems. The Egyptians, indeed, are stated to be of the\nrace of Paieon[527]; but we must probably understand this with respect\nto their royal family, just as the same thing is said of the Ph\u00e6acians\nwith respect to Neptune, because their kingly house had sprung from\nhim[528]. In the later mythology he appears to be absorbed, like the\nSun, in Apollo; but in the Homeric poems there is no confusion, or\napproach to confusion, of the persons. Paieon has the relation to\nApollo with respect to surgery or medicine, which Vulcan has to Minerva\nwith respect to manual art: and, apparently by a mixture of distinct\ntraditions, he is also connected with Apollo, by being the synonyme for\nthe hymn of victory, of which Apollo is doubtless supposed to be in a\npeculiar manner the giver.\n\n[527] Od. iv. 232.\n\n[528] Od. xiii. 130.\n\nTo all these deities the poems appear to give a title to seats in\nOlympus, unquestionable as well as direct. By a somewhat less clear and\nsimple process, we may, I think, arrive at a similar conclusion as to\nthe views of Homer regarding two other deities.\n\n8. The first of these is Demeter, or Ceres, whose Olympian rank is\nconsidered, and I think established, in the remarks elsewhere upon her\nindividual divinity[529].\n\n[529] See sup. sect. iii. p. 215.\n\n9. The second is \u1f28\u03ad\u03bb\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2, the Sun. His share in the episode of Mars and\nVenus[530] does not indeed absolutely imply his residing on Olympus.\nBut this is clearly involved in the account of his receiving the\nintelligence, that his oxen had been consumed by the companions of\nUlysses. For, upon hearing it, he instantly proceeds to address the\ncompany of the Immortals assembled there[531], and is answered by\nJupiter. He must therefore unquestionably stand as one of the Olympian\ngods of Homer.\n\n[530] Od. viii. 270, 302.\n\n[531] Od. xii. 374-88.\n\nThere are but three other personages named in Homer, with respect to\nwhom there is room for the supposition, that he may have intended\nthem to rank as Olympian deities. They are Dionysus, Persephone, and\nEris. For Histie, or Vesta, is so entirely wanting in personality,\nthat she cannot possibly belong to that order. She is invoked indeed\nin company with Jupiter; but with these two is likewise combined the\n\u03be\u03b5\u03bd\u03af\u03b7 \u03c4\u03c1\u03ac\u03c0\u03b5\u03b6\u03b1, the table of hospitality. In the hymn to Venus[532] she\nhas become fully personified, and is celebrated as the eldest of the\ndaughters of \u039a\u03c1\u03cc\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2. But this imagery probably belongs to a different\nstage of Greek society and Greek poetry.\n\n[532] Hymn. v. 22.\n\n1. 2. The case of Dionysus and that of Persephone, very different, but\nboth on this point doubtful, have been stated elsewhere[533].\n\n[533] See sect. iii. pp. 269, and 223.\n\n~_The Eris of Homer._~\n\n3. The case of Eris is different. She is the sister and also the\nmistress of Mars[534]. And in the fierce battle of the Eleventh Book,\nEris alone is present to enjoy it, while all the other deities,\ninhibited from action by Jupiter, have betaken themselves to their\nseveral abodes on Olympus.\n\n[534] Il. iv. 440.\n\nAgain, Jupiter sends her down to the camp at the beginning of the\nEleventh Iliad, where she stands on the ship of Ulysses, and raises a\nmighty shout to stir up the Greeks for the contest[535]. The word is,\nindeed, the common and established word for strife in Homer, and it is\napplied even to the conflict of the gods[536], \u03b8\u03b5\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f14\u03c1\u03b9\u03b4\u03b9 \u03be\u03c5\u03bd\u03b9\u03cc\u03bd\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd.\nBut this use of it is probably to be compared with that of \u1f0c\u03c1\u03b7\u03c2 for a\nspear, and of \u1f08\u03c6\u03c1\u03bf\u03b4\u03af\u03c4\u03b7 (in later Greek) for the sensual function of\nthat deity. She is, on the whole, less a figure than a person, though\nstanding upon the border between the two respectively; and though, as\nshe never actually performs what may be called a personal action, she\nis only by a few degrees removed from the family of Terror, Din, Panic,\nand the rest. The first of these, \u03a6\u03cc\u03b2\u03bf\u03c2, as he is the son of Mars[537],\nand attends him in fight against the Ephyri, is as distinctly\npersonified as Eris in one passage; but the effect of it is neutralized\nby others, where he passes into sheer figure. She rejoices in seeing\nthe slaughter[538] wrought in battle: and an intense eagerness is\nimputed to her[539], of course meaning an eagerness for blood.\n\n[535] Il. xi. 3.\n\n[536] Il. xx. 66.\n\n[537] Il. xiii. 299.\n\n[538] Il. xi. 74.\n\n[539] Il. iv. 440.\n\nBut another form of this deity is probably exhibited to us under\nanother name, that of the \u03c0\u03c4\u03bf\u03bb\u03af\u03c0\u03bf\u03c1\u03b8\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f18\u03bd\u03cd\u03c9. Enuo is mentioned together\nwith Pallas as being a warlike deity, in contrast with the effeminate\nVenus[540]: and she leads the Trojans to the fight in concert with\nMars: but while he has a huge spear in his hands, she holds or leads,\ninstead, another form more shadowy than her own, that of \u039a\u03cd\u03b4\u03bf\u03b9\u03bc\u03bf\u03c2 or\nTumult. Yet the mode in which she is joined with Pallas proves her\nimpersonation. The fundamental identity of her name with \u1f18\u03bd\u03c5\u03ac\u03bb\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2, the\nsecond name of Mars, and her joining him in leading on the Trojans,\nplace her in some very close relation to him: and that close relation\ncannot well be other than the twofold one of sister and mistress, which\nhad been assigned to \u1f1c\u03c1\u03b9\u03c2.\n\n[540] Il. v. 333, 592.\n\nWhen it is said, that \u2018she alone of the gods was present, as the others\nhad retired to their respective mansions on Olympus,\u2019 the most natural\ninference certainly is, that she too is meant to be described as\nbelonging to the Olympian Court.\n\nUpon the whole, it seems pretty clear, that if the Poet intended to\nlimit absolutely the number of the Olympian Court or Minor Assembly\nto the exact figure twenty, then the choice for the twentieth place\nwill more justly fall on his Eris, than either his Dionysus, or even\nhis Persephone. It appears to me, however, that so strict a numerical\nprecision is not in the manner of Homer; that he intended the twenty\ntripods to be a general indication of the number of the Court, and\nthat with this indication the facts of the poems substantially, though\nindeterminately, agree.\n\nSuch is the composition of the Olympian Court, or smaller Assembly.\n\n~_Classification of the Supernatural Order._~\n\nThe Deities who, in virtue of belonging to that Court, may be most\nproperly called Olympian, may be divided into the following classes:\n\n I. Deities having their basis, and the general outline of their\n attributes and character, from tradition.\n\n 1. Pallas Athene, or Minerva.\n 2. Ph\u0153bus Apollo.\n 3. Latona.\n 4. Iris.\n\n II. Deities of traditional basis, but with development principally\n mythological or inventive.\n\n 1. Jupiter.\n 2. Neptune.\n 3. Aidoneus, or Pluto.\n 4. Diana.\n 5. Persephone.*\n\n III. Deities of invention, or mythology proper.\n\n 1. Juno.\n 2. Mars.\n 3. Mercury.\n 4. Vulcan.\n 5. Venus.\n 6. Demeter.\n 7. Themis.\n 8. \u1f28\u03ad\u03bb\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2.\n 9. Paieon.\n 10. Dione.\n 11. Hebe.\n 12. Eris, or Enuo.*\n 13. Dionysus.*\n\nThose three names, which are marked with an asterisk, appear to have\nonly a more or less disputable title to a seat in Olympus.\n\nOutside, so to speak, of Olympus and its Court, we may classify the\nsuperhuman intelligences of Homer as follows: observing, however,\nthat the minor deities who represent natural powers, if thoroughly\npersonified, give their attendance in Olympus on high occasions, and\nhelp to form its great Chapter or Parliament.\n\nThey may be thrown into the six following classes:\n\n1. The greater impersonations of natural powers, and of ideas; with\ntheir reflections, where such have been formed, in the feminine. These\nare\n\nOceanus and Tethys.\n\n\u039a\u03c1\u03cc\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 and \u1fec\u03ad\u03b1.\n\nOuranos and Gaia (not Earth, but rather Land).\n\nNereus and Amphitrite.\n\nWe are not authorized by Homer to associate either of these last\ncouples as husband and wife. We have to add:\n\n Destiny, (which also has a place in the fifth class,) Dream, Sleep,\n Death, Terror, Panic, Rumour, Din, Uproar.\n\nThe process of impersonation is with some of these fully developed,\nwith others scarcely begun, and wholly poetical; therefore as yet in\nno degree mythological. In one place, Il. xiii. 299, \u03a6\u03cc\u03b2\u03bf\u03c2 is the son\nof Mars, in another \u03a6\u03cc\u03b2\u03bf\u03c2 and \u0394\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bc\u03bf\u03c2 are his horses (xiii. 119.); and\nin a third they appear along with \u1f1c\u03c1\u03b9\u03c2, in a shape hovering between\npersonality and allegory. \u1f1c\u03c1\u03b9\u03c2 herself, at times fully personified,\nin one passage is simply a figure on the \u00c6gis of Minerva, perhaps,\nhowever, as an animated work of art, Il. v. 740. In all these cases we\nsee the work of poetical fabrication actually going on.\n\nPerhaps the best example of a merely poetical, as distinguished from a\nreligious or practical impersonation, is to be found in \u00c6schylus, who\nmakes Dust the brother of Mud[541].\n\n[541] \u00c6sch. Ag. 480.\n\nThis class was greatly augmented in the later Theogonies, beginning\nwith Hesiod.\n\n2. The minor impersonations of natural powers, such as\n\n (1) The Winds.\n (2) The Rivers.\n (3) The Nymphs of meadows.\n (4) The Nymphs of fountains.\n (5) The Nymphs of groves.\n (6) The Nymphs of hills.\n (7) The Sea Nymphs.\n\n3. I place in a different class all those deities, who appear in Homer\nas the subjects of foreign fable not fully naturalized. These are\nthey who dwell in the Outer sphere of the marvellous Geography in the\nOdyssey, and with whom Menelaus and Ulysses are brought into contact.\nThey are wholly exterior to the system of Homer, and we cannot safely\ngive them a position implying any defined relation to it. But there\nare certain links supplied by the Poet himself, as when he makes Circe\nchild of the Sun, and Mercury presumptively nephew of Calypso: by these\nhe shows us the connection of the Greek mythology with Eastern sources,\nand the partial assimilation of the materials they supplied.\n\nThese deities are:\n\n 1. Proteus.\n 2. Leucothee.\n 3. \u00c6olus (perhaps).\n 4. The Sirens.\n 5. Calypso.\n 6. Atlas.\n 7. Circe.\n 8. \u0152etes.\n 9. Maias.\n 10. Perse.\n 11. Eidothee.\n And several Nymphs[542].\n\n[542] Od. i. 71. xii. 132, 3.\n\n4. Those impersonations which represent, each in its several part,\nor its peculiar aspect, the tradition of the Evil One, have been\nconsidered along with the deities of tradition.\n\n5. Of ministers of doom or justice, real or reputed, and less than\ndivine, yet belonging to the metaphysical or moral order, we have in\nHomer:\n\n 1. The Fates, \u039a\u1fc6\u03c1\u03b5\u03c2, who fall within the range of ideas described by\n his \u0391\u1f36\u03c3\u03b1 and his \u039c\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c1\u03b1.\n\n 2. The \u1f09\u03c1\u03c0\u03c5\u1fd6\u03b1\u03b9.\n\n 3. The \u1f18\u03c1\u03b9\u03bd\u03cd\u03b5\u03c2.\n\n6. Besides all these, we have yet another class with subdivisions of\nits own, composed of beings who stand within the interval between Deity\nand Humanity.\n\nThere are some observations to be made on several of these classes.\n\n~_Destiny or Fate in Homer._~\n\nIt is much easier to obtain a just perception of the manner in which\nHomer handles the subject of Destiny or Fate, than to represent it in a\nsystem. The conflict which it involves, either of ideas, or at least of\nthe words denoting them, was certain to give occasion to argument and\ndifference of opinion in a case where a poet is of necessity called to\ntake his trial at the bar of philosophy[543].\n\n[543] The subject has been treated with great ability by N\u00e4gelsbach,\nHom. Theol., Abschnitt iii.\n\nBesides the \u03b8\u03ad\u03c3\u03c6\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd, on which I shall make a remark hereafter, there\nare five forms of speech which are employed by Homer to express the\nidea of Destiny; they are, \u039a\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03ba\u03bb\u1ff6\u03b8\u03b5\u03c2, \u039a\u03ae\u03c1, \u039c\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c1\u03b1, \u039c\u03cc\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2, and \u0391\u1f36\u03c3\u03b1:\nthe two last in the singular number only, the two preceding it in the\nsingular or plural, and the \u039a\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03ba\u03bb\u1ff6\u03b8\u03b5\u03c2 only in the plural.\n\nOf these, the \u039a\u1fc6\u03c1\u03b5\u03c2 and the \u039a\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03ba\u03bb\u1ff6\u03b8\u03b5\u03c2 have undergone the most\neffective process of personification; but, brought more distinctly into\nthe sphere of life and action, these phrases have a much less profound\nroot in the order of ideas, and scarcely touch the great questions,\nwhether destiny is a power separate from the human will, separate from\nthe Divine will, and superior to either or to both.\n\nThe fundamental idea both of \u039c\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c1\u03b1 and \u0391\u1f36\u03c3\u03b1, traced from their original\nsource, is not a part merely, but rather a portion or share allotted\naccording to some rule or law. But, though of similar origin, some\ndistinctions obtain between the uses of the two words. And first as to\n\u0391\u1f36\u03c3\u03b1.\n\n~_Under the form of \u0391\u1f36\u03c3\u03b1._~\n\nWe have in Il. xviii. 327, \u03bb\u03b7\u0390\u03b4\u03bf\u03c2 \u03b1\u1f36\u03c3\u03b1; in Od. xix. 24, \u1f10\u03bb\u03c0\u03af\u03b4\u03bf\u03c2 \u03b1\u1f36\u03c3\u03b1;\nin Il. ix. 378, \u03c4\u03af\u03c9 \u03b4\u03ad \u03bc\u03b9\u03bd \u1f10\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u03b1\u1f34\u03c3\u1fc3. In all these cases it is\nplain, that the word means not a mere part, but a part assigned upon\nsome given principle. Hence it comes to mean either the whole share or\nlot assigned to a man, or the law according to which it is assigned,\nthat is, the law under which the moral government of human life, and\nthe distribution of good and evil, are conducted. Accordingly, we have\nthese several senses in which it is employed.\n\n1. The \u03b1\u1f36\u03c3\u03b1, as the entire destiny, of an individual man, Il. i. 416.\n\u1f18\u03c0\u03b5\u03af \u03bd\u03cd \u03c4\u03bf\u03b9 \u03b1\u1f36\u03c3\u03b1 \u03bc\u03af\u03bd\u03c5\u03bd\u03b8\u03ac \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1, \u03bf\u1f54\u03c4\u03b9 \u03bc\u03ac\u03bb\u03b1 \u03b4\u03ae\u03bd.\n\n2. A notable part of that destiny, as his death: \u03a4\u1ff7 \u03bf\u1f31 \u1f00\u03c0\u03b5\u03bc\u03bd\u03ae\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76\n\u1f10\u03bd \u03b8\u03b1\u03bd\u03ac\u03c4\u03bf\u03b9\u03cc \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1 \u03b1\u1f34\u03c3\u1fc3. Il. xxiv. 428.\n\n3. The moral law for the government of conduct, as in \u1f1d\u03ba\u03c4\u03bf\u03c1, \u1f10\u03c0\u03b5\u03af \u03bc\u03b5\n\u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u2019 \u03b1\u1f36\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd \u1f10\u03bd\u03af\u03c0\u03b1\u03c0\u03b5\u03c2, \u03bf\u1f50\u03b4\u2019 \u1f51\u03c0\u1f72\u03c1 \u03b1\u1f36\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd. Il. iii. 59.\n\n4. That moral law as it is supposed to proceed from Jupiter; the \u0394\u03b9\u1f78\u03c2\n\u03b1\u1f36\u03c3\u03b1, or dispensation of Jupiter; the \u03b4\u03b1\u03af\u03bc\u03bf\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 \u03b1\u1f36\u03c3\u03b1, or dispensation of\nProvidence.\n\n5. That same law, as it is supposed to proceed from some other source,\nor to speak more correctly, for Homer, as the power which administers\nit is separately personified. This we have in the passage \u1f05\u03c3\u03c3\u03b1 \u03bf\u1f31 \u0391\u1f36\u03c3\u03b1\n\u03b3\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd\u03bf\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u1ff3 \u1f10\u03c0\u03ad\u03bd\u03b7\u03c3\u03b5 \u03bb\u03af\u03bd\u1ff3, \u1f45\u03c4\u03b5 \u03bc\u03b9\u03bd \u03c4\u03ad\u03ba\u03b5 \u039c\u03ae\u03c4\u03b7\u03c1, Il. xx. 127; or, again, as\nin Od. vii. 197; where \u0391\u1f36\u03c3\u03b1 is assisted in the spinning process by the\n\u039a\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03ba\u03bb\u1ff6\u03b8\u03b5\u03c2 \u03b2\u03b1\u03c1\u03b5\u1fd6\u03b1\u03b9, as if it was felt that she was not strong enough to\nmake a Destiny.\n\nUpon the whole it appears to me that there is in the word \u0391\u1f36\u03c3\u03b1 only the\nminutest savour of the proper idea of Fate. For Fate involves these\nthings: 1. a power dominant over man: 2. a power independent of the\ndivinity: and 3. a power standing ideally apart from right.\n\nNow \u03b1\u1f36\u03c3\u03b1 does not fully answer even to the first of these conceptions,\nsince \u03b1\u1f36\u03c3\u03b1, even when it is backed by the gods, may be overcome by the\nenergies of man. Jupiter in the Iliad[544] ordained glory to Hector and\nsuccess to the Trojans until the sunset of the day when the battle of\nthe ships was fought: yet just before the death of Patroclus the Greeks\nprevailed, Il. xvi. 780.\n\n[544] Il. xi. 192-4 and xviii. 455.\n\n \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u03cc\u03c4\u03b5 \u03b4\u03ae \u1fe5\u2019 \u1f51\u03c0\u1f72\u03c1 \u03b1\u1f36\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd \u1f08\u03c7\u03b1\u03b9\u03bf\u1f76 \u03c6\u03ad\u03c1\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03b9 \u1f26\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd.\n\nThe only instances in which we find \u03b1\u1f36\u03c3\u03b1 endowed with any thing in the\nnature of an inexorable force are such as that quoted from Il. xx.\n127. In this passage it is said by Juno, \u2018We will give Achilles glory;\nthereafter let him suffer what \u03b1\u1f36\u03c3\u03b1 has appointed for him.\u2019 Now this\nrefers not to a course of life that he was to pass through, but simply\nto the crisis of his death. In Od. vii, the speaker is Alcinous; and\nhis sentiment is, \u2018Let us carry our guest safe home and then leave him\nto whatever \u03b1\u1f36\u03c3\u03b1 and the \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03ba\u03bb\u1ff6\u03b8\u03b5\u03c2 have ordained for him.\u2019 Probably\nthis is only an euphemism, and means death, as Juno meant it; but,\nin any case, proceeding from another mortal, it is a mere form of\nspeech perfectly compatible in itself with the idea that the gods are\nsuperior to \u03b1\u1f36\u03c3\u03b1, nay, that man may upon occasion surmount it. In the\nother case it is not so; we must understand Juno to recognise the\n\u03b1\u1f36\u03c3\u03b1 or dispensation as absolute; but then it is the dispensation of\ndeath; and it is, I think, the clear doctrine of the poems that that\ndispensation cannot be cancelled or averted from mortals, though there\nare various modes in which it may be escaped or baffled: one of them,\nthat of postponement, which is temporary: another, that of translation\nout of the mortal state, as in the case of Ganymede: and a third, that\nof revival, as in the cases of Castor and Pollux. To Minerva alone is\nascribed a power over death: and this seems to be a power of subsequent\nrescue, and not one of absolute exemption. Euryclea comforts Penelope\nwith the exhortation to pray to Minerva about Ulysses[545], as she can\nafterwards deliver him;\n\n[545] Od. iv. 753.\n\n \u1f21 \u03b3\u03ac\u03c1 \u03ba\u03ad\u03bd \u03bc\u03b9\u03bd \u1f14\u03c0\u03b5\u03b9\u03c4\u03b1 \u1f10\u03ba \u03b8\u03b1\u03bd\u03ac\u03c4\u03bf\u03b9\u03bf \u03c3\u03b1\u03ce\u03c3\u03b1\u03b9.\n\nThe stress is evidently to be laid upon the word \u1f14\u03c0\u03b5\u03b9\u03c4\u03b1.\n\nAnother passage, which may at first sight present a different\nappearance, will, I think, on examination, be found to harmonize\ncompletely with what has been said. When in the Sixteenth Iliad,\nJupiter perceives that his cherished son Sarpedon is about to meet his\ndeath by encountering Patroclus, he laments that it should be the\ndestiny of one to him the dearest of men, to be slain by that warrior.\nThen he proceeds to consider whether he shall remove him from the scene\nof danger, though he was fated to die, or whether he shall subdue him\nby the hands of Patroclus[546],\n\n[546] Il. xvi. 438.\n\n \u1f22 \u1f24\u03b4\u03b7 \u1f51\u03c0\u1f78 \u03c7\u03b5\u03c1\u03c3\u1f76 \u039c\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9\u03c4\u03b9\u03ac\u03b4\u03b1\u03bf \u03b4\u03b1\u03bc\u03ac\u03c3\u03c3\u03c9.\n\nThus, in the space of a few lines, 1. he seems to recognise destiny as\na power superior to his own will; then, 2. he debates whether he shall\noverrule this superior power; and lastly, 3. he treats the execution\nof its decree as the act of that very will of his. And on this course,\nadvised by Juno, he finally decides.\n\nHe desists from executing this plan, not because it is impossible, but\napparently for two reasons: the first, that it may cause discontent and\nspleen among the gods; the second, that by similar interferences, on\nbehalf each of his own child, they too may trouble the order of nature.\nHis power, therefore, to execute the scheme is clearly implied. But\nwhat scheme? Not one for repealing the law of death, so far as Sarpedon\nis concerned[547]; but simply for adjourning the evil by removing him\nto his home, and so putting him far beyond the reach of the chances of\nthe war.\n\n[547] Il. xvi. 436.\n\nWhen Vulcan is asked by Thetis to provide arms for Achilles, he\nreplies, Would that I could hide him from his fated hour, even as I can\nand will provide him with arms! Here, indeed, the expression is not to\nsave, but to hide him; yet even this is beyond his power:\n\n \u03b1\u1f32 \u03b3\u03ac\u03c1 \u03bc\u03b9\u03bd \u03b8\u03b1\u03bd\u03ac\u03c4\u03bf\u03b9\u03bf \u03b4\u03c5\u03c3\u03b7\u03c7\u03ad\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f67\u03b4\u03b5 \u03b4\u03c5\u03bd\u03b1\u03af\u03bc\u03b7\u03bd\n \u03bd\u03cc\u03c3\u03c6\u03b9\u03bd \u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03ba\u03c1\u03cd\u03c8\u03b1\u03b9, \u1f45\u03c4\u03b5 \u03bc\u03b9\u03bd \u03bc\u03cc\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2 \u03b1\u1f30\u03bd\u1f78\u03c2 \u1f31\u03ba\u03ac\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9[548].\n\n[548] Il. xviii. 464.\n\nVulcan indeed is a deity of limited powers; but in this case he seems\nto express a general law.\n\n~_Death inexorable to Fate or Deity._~\n\nThe death, therefore, at some time within a given space, of every\nperson remaining in the state of a mortal man, was a point settled and\nimmovable, and so was accordingly the \u03b1\u1f36\u03c3\u03b1 of death: but it was that\nthe \u03b1\u1f36\u03c3\u03b1 was fixed, because death was fixed, and not that death was\nfixed, because \u03b1\u1f36\u03c3\u03b1 ordained it. We must distinguish between a single\nincident of a mortal career, an order which nothing can infringe,\nunchangeable but uncaused, and the supposition of a power, which causes\nthat, and likewise all other parts of it, irrespective of personal\nwill, whether in the gods or in men.\n\nIt appears, I think, on the whole, that \u03b1\u1f36\u03c3\u03b1 has but a limited and\nequivocal connection with the idea of fate; it seems never to mean more\nthan the fate of a single individual, never to signify the large-handed\ndestiny that grasps nations and the world. It may be overridden, as by\nthe Greeks, after the battle of the ships. And the reason of this seems\nto be that its meaning has so strong a bias to the side of a moral law,\nas opposed to a mere force. This comes out clearly in the sense of the\nword \u03b1\u1f34\u03c3\u03b9\u03bc\u03bf\u03c2: \u03b1\u1f34\u03c3\u03b9\u03bc\u03b1 \u03b5\u1f34\u03b4\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd is little less or more, than to be a good\nman. Its predominating sense is the ordained law of right; and as such,\nit is a law very liable to be broken.\n\n~_Destiny under the form of \u039c\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c1\u03b1._~\n\nIt is in the \u039c\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c1\u03b1, if anywhere, that we must seek for destiny, in the\nsense which approximates to fatalistic ideas. Here, far differently\nfrom \u03b1\u1f36\u03c3\u03b1, the moral idea is subordinate in nearly all cases, and in\nsome it is wholly suppressed.\n\nLike \u03b1\u1f36\u03c3\u03b1, \u03bc\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c1\u03b1, properly means a portion or share, a part accruing to\nsome one under a law. Thus we have \u03bf\u1f50\u03b4\u2019 \u03b1\u1f30\u03b4\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c2 \u03bc\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c1\u03b1\u03bd \u1f14\u03c7\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd Od. xx.\n171; and \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03ce\u03c7\u03b7\u03ba\u03b5\u03bd \u03b4\u1f72 \u03c0\u03bb\u03ad\u03c9\u03bd \u03bd\u1f7a\u03be \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03b4\u03cd\u03bf \u03bc\u03bf\u03b9\u03c1\u03ac\u03c9\u03bd, \u03c4\u03c1\u03b9\u03c4\u03ac\u03c4\u03b7 \u03b4\u2019 \u1f14\u03c4\u03b9 \u03bc\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c1\u03b1\n\u03bb\u03ad\u03bb\u03b5\u03b9\u03c0\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 (Il. x. 252). Thus it appears to pass into the following\nsenses, which may be usefully compared with those of \u03b1\u1f36\u03c3\u03b1.\n\nThe scope of its meaning is far wider: it hardly stoops to signify the\ndestiny of a single man; Homer could not well have said (see Il. i.\n416.) \u1f10\u03c0\u03b5\u03af \u03bd\u03cd \u03c4\u03bf\u03b9 \u03bc\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c1\u03b1 \u03bc\u03af\u03bd\u03c5\u03bd\u03b8\u03ac \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1: although he can make \u03bc\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c1\u03b1 as a\npower, appoint a destiny _for_ a man, (Il. xxiv. 209.) it is not the\n\u03bc\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c1\u03b1 _of_ a man. But it is\n\n1. The appointing power as separate from any thing else. It hovers\nbetween the state of an abstraction and of a person: and it comes\nnearer to the latter than \u03b1\u1f36\u03c3\u03b1. Not only have we \u03bc\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c1\u03b1 \u03ba\u03c1\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9\u1f74\n\u03b3\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd\u03bf\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u1ff3 \u1f10\u03c0\u03ad\u03bd\u03b7\u03c3\u03b5 \u03bb\u03af\u03bd\u1ff3, (Il. xxiv. 209.) but especially,\n\n \u03c4\u03bb\u03b7\u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u039c\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c1\u03b1\u03b9 \u03b8\u03c5\u03bc\u1f78\u03bd \u03b8\u03ad\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd \u1f00\u03bd\u03b8\u03c1\u03ce\u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd[549].\n\n[549] Il. xxiv. 49.\n\nA passage by which, unless its effect were modified from elsewhere,\nthe \u03bc\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c1\u03b1\u03b9 seem in principle to take the whole administration of moral\ngovernment into their hands, by fixing dispositions as well as outward\nactions.\n\n2. Besides being thus personal, \u03bc\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c1\u03b1 reaches to mankind at large, and\nexpresses a general law, in the passage last quoted.\n\nThis may be a law of good fortune, as in Od. xx. 76[550]:\n\n[550] Cf. Il. iii. 182, \u03bc\u03bf\u03b9\u03c1\u03b7\u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03ad\u03c2.\n\n \u03bc\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c1\u03ac\u03bd \u03c4\u2019 \u1f00\u03bc\u03bc\u03bf\u03c1\u03b9\u03ae\u03bd \u03c4\u03b5 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03b8\u03bd\u03b7\u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f00\u03bd\u03b8\u03c1\u03ce\u03c0\u03c9\u03bd.\n\n3. Or, with an epithet, it may mean ill fortune; as in \u03bc\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c1\u03b1 \u03b4\u03c5\u03c3\u03ce\u03bd\u03c5\u03bc\u03bf\u03c2,\nIl. xii. 116.\n\n4. It seems very strongly to signify death, when used simply, and\nwithout addition, as \u03c4\u03b5\u1fd2\u03bd \u03b4\u2019 \u1f10\u03c0\u1f76 \u03bc\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c1\u03b1\u03bd \u1f14\u03b8\u03b7\u03ba\u03b5, in Od. xi. 560.\n\n5. Or when in apposition, as \u03bc\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c1\u03b1 \u03b8\u03b1\u03bd\u03ac\u03c4\u03bf\u03b9\u03bf, Od. ii. 100, or again as\nin Il. iii. 101, \u03b8\u03ac\u03bd\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03bc\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c1\u03b1.\n\n6. Or any thing ordained for mankind at large, as Od. xix. 592, the\n\u03bc\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c1\u03b1 \u1f55\u03c0\u03bd\u03bf\u03c5. You must sleep, says Penelope; for the gods have so\nordained it, (\u1f10\u03c0\u1f76 \u03b3\u03ac\u03c1 \u03c4\u03bf\u03b9 \u1f11\u03ba\u03ac\u03c3\u03c4\u1ff3 \u03bc\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c1\u03b1\u03bd \u1f14\u03b8\u03b7\u03ba\u03b1\u03bd \u1f00\u03b8\u03ac\u03bd\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03b9 \u03b8\u03bd\u03b7\u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u1f10\u03c0\u1f76\n\u03b6\u03b5\u03af\u03b4\u03c9\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd \u1f04\u03c1\u03bf\u03c5\u03c1\u03b1\u03bd).\n\n7. \u039c\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c1\u03b1, like \u03b1\u1f36\u03c3\u03b1, may be the embodied will, decree, or dispensation\nof the gods. Thus we have \u03bc\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c1\u03b1 \u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u1fe6, Od. xi. 292, where \u03b8\u03b5\u1f78\u03c2 is either\nJupiter or possibly Apollo: and \u03bc\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c1\u03b1 \u03b8\u03b5\u1ff6\u03bd, Od. iii. 269, and xxii.\n413. Now the names \u03b8\u03b5\u1f78\u03c2 and \u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u1f76 seem to be higher with Homer than any\nmythological name. They are his most solemn forms for the expression\nof the idea of deity. Thus it is remarkable that he never attaches\n\u03bc\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c1\u03b1 directly to any Olympian person. This testifies to its signifying\nsomething larger than is conveyed by \u03b1\u1f36\u03c3\u03b1. But it also seems to\nindicate that, even if it were capable of being placed in antagonism to\nthe will of one of the mythological persons, into whose forms theistic\nideas had passed by degeneracy, yet it was not conceived as opposite to\nor separate from the divine principle, but rather as a power associated\nwith it.\n\n8. Though in general \u03bc\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c1\u03b1 means the thing ordained without reference\nto moral ideas, yet it is not always so. \u039c\u03cc\u03c1\u03c3\u03b9\u03bc\u03bf\u03c2 ordinarily means\ndestined, while \u03b1\u1f34\u03c3\u03b9\u03bc\u03bf\u03c2 means right. But the ideas of right and might\nwere not yet wholly parted. In Od. xxii. 413 it is plain that \u03bc\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c1\u03b1\n\u03b8\u03b5\u1ff6\u03bd, pronounced by Ulysses over the Suitors, contains a moral element:\nfor he goes on to say, \u03bf\u1f54\u03c4\u03b9\u03bd\u03b1 \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u03c4\u03af\u03b5\u03c3\u03ba\u03bf\u03bd \u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb.: and so Eurymachus,\nwhen he means to acknowledge that the death of Antinous was morally\njust, says,\n\n \u03bd\u1fe6\u03bd \u03b4\u2019 \u1f41 \u03bc\u1f72\u03bd \u1f10\u03bd \u03bc\u03bf\u03af\u03c1\u1fc3 \u03c0\u03ad\u03c6\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9[551].\n\n[551] Od. xxii. 54.\n\nThe presence of the moral element in this word is entirely adverse to\nthe theory, that it was used in the sense of fatalism. Power apart\nfrom a personal deity has been conceived by the human mind: but moral\npower, I think, in such a state of severalty, has never been made the\nsubject of serious speculation.\n\n9. \u039c\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c1\u03b1 has yet another sense, that of \u03ba\u03bf\u03c3\u03bc\u1f78\u03c2, order. The force of the\nterm \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u1f70 \u03bc\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c1\u03b1\u03bd is generally \u2018with propriety,\u2019 while \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u2019 \u03b1\u1f36\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd is\n\u2018with right.\u2019\n\nThus in Il. xix. 256 the Greeks sit still, \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u1f70 \u03bc\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c1\u03b1\u03bd, in order to\nhear Agamemnon: and we have an instance of \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u1f70 \u03bc\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c1\u03b1\u03bd meaning \u2018with\npropriety\u2019 in Il. x. 169. Here Nestor has been chidden by Diomed, not\nfor a moral offence, but for over-activity: and he replies,\n\n \u03bd\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b4\u1f74 \u03c4\u03b1\u1fe6\u03c4\u03ac \u03b3\u03b5 \u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1, \u03c6\u03af\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2, \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u1f70 \u03bc\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c1\u03b1\u03bd \u1f14\u03b5\u03b9\u03c0\u03b5\u03c2.\n\nHe could not here have said \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u2019 \u03b1\u1f36\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd.\n\n~_Under the form of \u03bc\u03cc\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2._~\n\nLastly, we come to the word \u03bc\u03cc\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2. There are several shades of\ndistinction between it and \u03bc\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c1\u03b1.\n\n1. It is never personified in Homer, nor even approaches to\nimpersonation.\n\n2. It draws peculiarly to the dispensation of death, in conformity with\nthe law by which in Latin it became _mors_. See Il. xviii. 465. xxi. 133:\nand, except in this connection, it does not seem to be used to express\nindividual destiny.\n\n3. Accordingly it is never associated with deity; in conformity with\nthe fixed character of the dispensation of death. We have no \u03bc\u03cc\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2\n\u03b8\u03b5\u1ff6\u03bd, \u03bc\u03cc\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2 \u0394\u03b9\u03cc\u03c2.\n\n4. Yet this is not because \u03bc\u03cc\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2 is stronger than \u03bc\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c1\u03b1. On the\ncontrary, we have no case in Homer of a thing done \u1f51\u03c0\u1f72\u03c1 \u03bc\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c1\u03b1\u03bd, though\nit is sometimes apprehended. Thus in Il. xx. 335 Neptune warns \u00c6neas to\nretire from before Achilles,\n\n \u03bc\u1f74 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f51\u03c0\u1f72\u03c1 \u03bc\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c1\u03b1\u03bd \u03b4\u03cc\u03bc\u03bf\u03bd \u1f0c\u03ca\u03b4\u03bf\u03c2 \u03b5\u1f30\u03c3\u03b1\u03c6\u03b9\u03ba\u03ae\u03b1\u03b9.\n\nBut \u03bc\u03cc\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2 receives the sense of \u03b1\u1f36\u03c3\u03b1 as the law of right: a\nrelationship curiously maintained in _mos_, _moris_, compared with\n_mors_, _mortis_. Men bring woe upon themselves \u1f51\u03c0\u03ad\u03c1\u03bc\u03bf\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd, by\nobstinate wickedness: and the crimes of \u00c6gisthus (Od. i. 35.) have been\ncommitted \u1f51\u03c0\u03ad\u03c1\u03bc\u03bf\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd.\n\n~_General view of the Homeric Destiny._~\n\nWe thus see that, on the whole, the force of destiny, as it appears in\nHomer, although it commonly prevails, is not uniformly irresistible.\nWe never find the deities actually fighting against it, or it against\nthem. So full and large were Homer\u2019s conceptions of the freedom of the\nhuman will, that fate is sometimes on the point of giving way before\nthe energy of his heroes, and this even when the strength of some god\nis brought in aid of it. Thus Jupiter fears, lest \u1f51\u03c0\u1f72\u03c1 \u03bc\u03cc\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd Achilles\nshould dash the Trojan walls[552] to the ground. Apollo enters the\ncity[553], lest the Greeks should take it \u1f51\u03c0\u1f72\u03c1 \u03bc\u03cc\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd on the day of\nthe battle with Hector. In the Second Book, after the rush from the\nassembly, the Greeks would \u1f51\u03c0\u03ad\u03c1\u03bc\u03bf\u03c1\u03b1 have returned home, unless Juno had\nurged Minerva to bestir herself by influence among them. Many things\nare done contrary to \u03b1\u1f36\u03c3\u03b1, or the ordained law of right; whereas,\nalthough \u03bc\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c1\u03b1 is not in the abstract insurmountable, yet in fact it\nrarely is surmounted. But then the Fate of Homer, the thing spoken, is\nnot in conflict with him that speaks it.\n\n[552] Il. xx. 30.\n\n[553] Il. xxi. 517.\n\nWe do not find in Homer the curious distinction which the speculative\nmind of the Greeks afterwards worked out, between a fate representing\nthe mere will of the gods, and a fixed fate higher and stronger than\nthey:\n\n \u03b5\u1f30 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03bc\u1f74 \u03c4\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b3\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03b1\n \u039c\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c1\u03b1 \u03c4\u1f70\u03bd \u1f10\u03ba \u03b8\u03b5\u1ff6\u03bd\n \u03b5\u1f36\u03c1\u03b3\u03b5 \u03bc\u1f74 \u03c0\u03bb\u03ad\u03bf\u03bd \u03c6\u03ad\u03c1\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd[554].\n\n[554] \u00c6sch. Ag. 993.\n\nAnd again in Herodotus[555]: \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03c0\u03b5\u03c0\u03c1\u03c9\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03b7\u03bd \u03bc\u03bf\u03af\u03c1\u03b7\u03bd \u1f00\u03b4\u03cd\u03bd\u03b1\u03c4\u03ac \u1f10\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03bd\n\u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03c6\u03c5\u03b3\u03ad\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b8\u03b5\u1ff7.\n\n[555] Herod. i. 91.\n\nWhile this, on the one side, was the course of speculation, the course\nof poetic thought was towards a complete impersonation of Destiny in\nthe three Fates, representing an image so congenial, as a poetic image\nonly, to the human mind, that it found its way into the romance poetry\nof Christian Italy.\n\nUpon the whole, it appears at any rate most probable, that Homer had\nnot formed the conception of a law extrinsic to all volition human and\ndivine, and so powerful as to override it.\n\nIt is hardly to be conceived that Homer would have treated a successful\nresistance to the laws of Destiny as lying within the possible reach of\nmankind, had he deemed it to be a power independent of, and superior\nto, the Divine Will; because he always represents the latter as\ndecisive and supreme over human fortunes.\n\nI think that the primary ideas conveyed in the terms \u03bc\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c1\u03b1 and Fatum\nwill not be found, when examined, to agree. _Fatum_ is the decree\nwithout reason; the _sic volo sic jubeo_; and the idea of it is the\nresult of the long, wearisome, despairing experience of bewildered man,\nafter the world has lost the freshness and the joy of its childhood.\nThe \u03bc\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c1\u03b1, or share, is a distribution made according to a law or moral\npurpose: it cannot, without parting from its nature, be blind: its\ntendency in Homer rather is, as we see in Il. xxiv. 49, to grow into a\nsort of rival Providence.\n\nThe arguments to an opposite effect are surely inconclusive[556]. The\nquestion raised by the Scales of Jupiter is, not what the springs may\nbe which determine the movement of the world, but simply what is his\nforeknowledge of the direction it will take. These representations\nwould be perfectly consistent with belief in the supremacy (so to\nspeak) of Chance: and while we may admit that, inasmuch as they are not\nproduced for the information of men, they must indicate a limitation in\nJupiter, we should not mistake the nature of that limitation.\n\n[556] Enumerated in N\u00e4gelsbach, iii. 7-9.\n\nAgain, we must not suppose that because some particular deity deplores\nthe course of destiny, therefore that course is in opposition to the\ngeneral deliberation and decision of Olympus.\n\nAnd when, as is commonly the case, we find the deities cooperating with\n\u03bc\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c1\u03b1, the assumption that they are its servants, seems to be wholly\nunwarranted. It seems much more natural to suppose that the \u03bc\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c1\u03b1, to\nwhich they are giving effect, is simply the divine will: especially as,\nthough we find single gods, Neptune or Apollo, for example, cooperating\nwith \u03bc\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c1\u03b1, I doubt whether this is ever represented of the gods at\nlarge and their supreme decrees.\n\nIn order to solve the general question, what after all can be more\nreasonable than to look to the main action of the poems, and inquire\nwhat power or what counsel it is which takes effect through the medium\nof their machinery as a whole? If this be the test, there is no room\nfor doubt upon the issue. In the Iliad it is the \u0394\u03b9\u1f78\u03c2 \u03b2\u03bf\u03c5\u03bb\u1f74 (Il. i. 5):\nthe determination of Olympus, into which Jupiter had wisely allowed\nhis own opposite inclinations to merge. In the Odyssey[557], it is\nthe decision of the same tribunal, at the instance of Minerva, and\nwith Neptune alone dissentient. Upon the whole, for the poems and the\nday of Homer, I cannot but think that both the supremacy of godhead\nas a whole, and the freedom of man remain, if somewhat darkened, yet\ncertainly unsubverted. The \u03bc\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c1\u03b1 of Homer may, it is probable, be no\nmore and no less in the main than that \u03b8\u03ad\u03c3\u03c6\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd, or divinely uttered\ndecree, which he sometimes uses in such a manner as to admit of the\nsupposition that they were really synonymous.\n\n[557] Od. i. 20, 45, 77. xxiv. 479.\n\nAt the same time we do not find, nor could we expect to find, in Homer\nany clear assertion of the majesty of the true Divine Will, as the\nmainspring that moves the universe. That is emphatically a Christian\nsentiment, which is conveyed in the lofty formula of Dante:\n\n Cos\u00ec si vuol col\u00e0, dove si puote\n Ci\u00f2 che si vuole.\n\n So is it willed above, where He, that wills,\n Can what he wills.\n\nThe Fate of Homer may indeed logically embrace a germ, which will\nafterwards expand into the idea of a power extrinsic to Deity, and\nable to overrule it. We may argue to show that the representation,\nperseveringly developed, means as much as this. But then such\nrepresentations in Homer are not perseveringly, much less are they\nunilaterally, developed. They have not been thought through even to\ntheir legitimate consequences, and far less to those which appear\nto arise from the following out, not of a full truth, but of some\nparticular and severed aspect of it. Taken at the worst, Destiny in\nHomer broods like a cloud in a distant quarter of the sky, silently\ngathering the might which, when ripe, is to engage in obstinate and\nunending conflict with deity. But for this work the material is not yet\nprepared; and practically neither \u03bc\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c1\u03b1 nor \u03b1\u1f36\u03c3\u03b1 much crosses the work\nof Divine government, such as it is conceived and exhibited in Homer.\nI pass on to the second Class.\n\n~_Minor impersonations from Nature._~\n\nAmong the Greeks, and even in Homer, every tree, every fountain, all\nthings inanimate, that either vegetated or moved, had their indwelling\ndeity. Homer, however, represents the infancy of that system, and\nthough he impersonates many other local agencies, he gives to none so\nactive a personality as to Rivers. Ulysses in his distress addresses\nthe god of the Scherian river[558]; and is answered by the staying\nof the current. Simois is addressed personally by Xanthus[559]; and\nXanthus himself, by virtue of his local power, is promoted to the\nhonour of contending with Vulcan, the god of fire, a member of the\nOlympian Court, and a son of Jupiter and Juno. So the Spercheus[560] is\ninvoked, and, what is more, invoked so far off as in Troas, by Achilles.\n\n[558] Od. v. 445. 451.\n\n[559] Il. xxi. 308.\n\n[560] Il. xxiii. 144.\n\nThe perpetual movement which inheres in the essence of a river,\ncombined with the visibility which separates it from mere atmospherical\ncurrents, seems to connect it more closely than any other natural\nobject with the idea of life. It is most interesting to observe how\nthe sentiment here expressed seems to have worked in ages widely\ndistant, upon great poets of differing nations, temperaments, and\ncircumstances, after their differing manners. Homer does not impute\nfeelings to a River; but he impersonates it with a treatment different\nto that which he applies to groves, fountain, or meadow. Now these\npersonifications though not yet disused (especially in the English\npoetry of the last century), have become far less real and effective\nfor the human mind, since the Gospel opened to us the unseen world\nwith its crowd of ethereal inhabitants. Observe, accordingly, how a\nfeeling identical with that of Homer, a tendency to invest outward\nnature with vitality and action, in these more recent times takes a\ndifferent form. The great Dante, more than two thousand years later in\nthe line of human descent, without personifying, yet ascribes feeling\nto a river; he imagines the Po, after its tumultuous headlong descent\nwith all its feeders from the mountains, longing for peace, and seeking\nit by repairing to the sea. Francesca da Rimini thus describes her\nbirth-place;\n\n Siede la Terra, dove nata fui,\n Sulla marina, dove \u2019l Po discende\n Per aver pace co\u2019 seguaci sui.\n\nAnd one of lesser indeed, (for who is not less than such as these?) but\nyet of both high and honoured poetic name, our own Wordsworth, in his\nSonnet[561] on the River Thames, seen from London Bridge at sunrise,\nhas the well known line,\n\n[561] Miscellaneous Sonnets, Part II. No. xxix.\n\n The river wanders at his own sweet will.\n\nHe may also be claimed as a witness to what has been said of the truth\nand power of these personifications to the ancients. For in another\nnoble Sonnet, where he complains of the deadening power and weight of\nworldly life, and intends to show that a system of shadows, when men\nreally appropriate and digest the truth it has, is better for them\nthan to have a system of substances around them, and yet to remain\nunpenetrated by it, he describes that system of shadows by recalling\ntwo of its vivid personifications[562].\n\n[562] Ibid. Part I. No. xxxiii:\n\n \u2018The world is too much with us.\u2019\n\nBut while Homer brings into action no personifications of this class,\nexcept those of Rivers, he peoples each with its appropriate Genius,\nthe fountains, the grassy meadows, and the groves. In the Great\nParliament of the supernal world at the beginning of the Twentieth\nIliad, all are represented. Even here, however, the distinction is\npreserved: the Rivers attend as it were in person; but the rest by\ndeputy, that is, by their proper indwelling and presiding Spirits;\n\n \u03bf\u1f54\u03c4\u03b5 \u03c4\u03b9\u03c2 \u03bf\u1f56\u03bd \u03a0\u03bf\u03c4\u03b1\u03bc\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f00\u03c0\u03ad\u03b7\u03bd \u03bd\u03cc\u03c3\u03c6\u2019 \u1f68\u03ba\u03b5\u03b1\u03bd\u03bf\u1fd6\u03bf,\n \u03bf\u1f54\u03c4\u2019 \u1f04\u03c1\u03b1 \u039d\u03c5\u03bc\u03c6\u03ac\u03c9\u03bd, \u03b1\u1f35\u03c4\u2019 \u1f04\u03bb\u03c3\u03b5\u03b1 \u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u1f70 \u03bd\u03ad\u03bc\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9,\n \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c0\u03b7\u03b3\u1f70\u03c2 \u03a0\u03bf\u03c4\u03b1\u03bc\u1ff6\u03bd, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c0\u03af\u03c3\u03b5\u03b1 \u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u03ae\u03b5\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1[563].\n\n[563] Il. xx. 7-9.\n\nThus the first are impersonations: the second only residences for\npersons to dwell in.\n\n~_The Harpies of Homer._~\n\nThe Harpies, \u1f09\u03c1\u03c0\u03c5\u1fd6\u03b1\u03b9, of Homer have been, I think, truly described as\n\u2018nothing but personified storm-winds[564].\u2019 They have no connection,\nwhen jointly viewed, with the moral order, except that they may,\nas mere carriers, take a subordinate part in the fulfilment of a\nmoral purpose, which is quite as true of the Winds, personified or\nunpersonified. The Harpy \u03a0\u03bf\u03b4\u03ac\u03c1\u03b3\u03b7 is personified individually, as the\nmother who bears to Zephyr the two deathless horses of Achilles,\nXanthus and Balius[565]; but apparently for no other purpose than one\npurely relative. The classical passage respecting the Harpies is that\nin Od. xx. 61-79, which forms a part of the prayer of Penelope to\nDiana. The object of the matron\u2019s petition is that, wearied out with\nher sorrows, she may die, and this in one of two modes: either by the\narrows of the goddess; or else, that a hurricane may seize her, and,\ndriving her along the paths of air, deposit her in the channels of\nOcean, that is to say, the place of the dead. Then she proceeds to\nillustrate this last mode of death, of which she has named \u03b8\u03cd\u03b5\u03bb\u03bb\u03b1 as\nthe instrument, by the tale of the daughters of Pandareus, who, having\nlost their parents, were in an extraordinary manner petted by the\ngoddesses. Aphrodite fed them, Here gave them sense and beauty, Artemis\nstature, Pallas endowed them with skill. And, lastly, Aphrodite went\nto Olympus to induce Jupiter to provide for their marriage. But while\nshe was away on this errand, the Harpies carried off these maidens, and\ngave them to the \u1f18\u03c1\u03b9\u03bd\u03cd\u03b5\u03c2, \u1f00\u03bc\u03c6\u03b9\u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03b5\u03cd\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd, to be their servants, as it\nis sometimes rendered, but, as I should venture to construe it, \u2018for\nthem, i. e. the \u1f18\u03c1\u03b9\u03bd\u03cd\u03b5\u03c2, to deal with.\u2019 It is evident that, in this\ncurious legend, the Harpies are introduced to exemplify nothing more\nthan the part which Penelope had previously referred to the \u03b8\u03cd\u03b5\u03bb\u03bb\u03b1;\nand these powers, who represent Hurricane or Squall, and in whose\nagency lies the gist of the story, appear to have been in this matter\nthe ministers of the \u1f18\u03c1\u03b9\u03bd\u03cd\u03b5\u03c2, beings of a very different order. These\nbeings are evidently introduced, though entirely beyond the parallel\nof the \u03b8\u03cd\u03b5\u03bb\u03bb\u03b1, in order to complete the moral. The only other case in\nwhich Homer introduces the Harpies is in a line, twice repeated, where\nPenelope supposes that they may have carried Ulysses off (\u1f00\u03ba\u03bb\u03b5\u03b9\u1ff6\u03c2)\ningloriously[566], i. e. so as to rob him in death of his due meed\nof fame. And this Friedreich well compares with part of a passage in\nthe Book of Job, which is as follows, chap. xxvii. 20, 21. \u2018A tempest\nstealeth him away in the night: the east wind carrieth him away, and he\ndeparteth; and as a storm hurleth him out of his place.\u2019\n\n[564] Smith\u2019s Dict. art. Harpyi\u00e6. On the same subject, see N\u00e4gelsbach\nHom. Theol. ii. 12. Friedreich, Realien, p. 667. Crusius on Od. xx. 77;\nand Voss as there quoted, whose opinion is, I think, quite erroneous.\n\n[565] Il. xvi. 150. xix. 400.\n\n[566] Od. i. 241. xiv. 371.\n\n~_The Erinues of Homer._~\n\nThe \u1f18\u03c1\u03b9\u03bd\u03cd\u03b5\u03c2 are of much greater importance; and their position\ndeserves the more careful inquiry, because it has, I think, been often\nmisunderstood, perhaps from being appreciated only through the delusive\nmedium of the later tradition, which appears to me to have let drop\nall the finer elements of the conception, by a process similar to that\nwhich it effected upon the great Homeric characters of Achilles, Helen,\nand Ulysses.\n\nIt is quite insufficient to say of these personages, by way of\ndescription, that they are the avengers of crime[567], or that they\ngrudge the bliss of mortals, or that they defend the authority of\nparents[568]: and it is wholly erroneous, in my opinion, to treat them\nas \u2018originally nothing but a personification of curses pronounced upon\na guilty criminal[569].\u2019\n\n[567] Friedreich, Realien, (p. 677.) \u00a7. 198.\n\n[568] Ibid. (p. 220.) \u00a7. 61.\n\n[569] Smith\u2019s Dict. art. Eumenides.\n\nLet us first collect the facts respecting their position in Homer.\n\n1. In the narrative of Ph\u0153nix we find that when, at the instigation\nof his mother, he had sought the embraces of a \u03c0\u03b1\u03bb\u03bb\u03b1\u03ba\u1f76\u03c2, for whom his\nfather had a passion, the father, incensed, invoked the \u1f18\u03c1\u03b9\u03bd\u03cd\u03b5\u03c2 to make\nhim childless. \u2018This curse,\u2019 he says, \u2018the gods (\u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u1f76) accomplished,\nand the subterranean Jupiter, and awful Persephone,\u2019 Il. ix. 449-57.\n\n2. The mother of Meleager, on account of his having slaughtered her\nbrother, invoked A\u00efdes and Persephone, beseeching them to slay that\nhero: whereupon the Erin\u016bs, here called \u1f20\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03c6\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c4\u03b9\u03c2, \u2018that walketh in\ndarkness,\u2019 heard her from Erebus, and the city was besieged. But here\nthe Erin\u016bs appears to act, if not wholly in favour of Meleager, yet\nagainst his mother. The city is assaulted, forced, and set on fire.\nThe family, including the mother who had cursed him, entreat Meleager\nto deliver them, and attempt to attract his favour by splendid promises\nof a demesne, to be conferred on him by the public. Only when the\npalace itself is assailed does he consent. He repels the enemy; the\ndemesne is not given him: and, on account of his thus relenting only at\nthe last moment, Ph\u0153nix quotes him as a warning example, for Achilles\nto avoid. (Il. ix. 565-603.)\n\n3. In Il. xv. 204, when Neptune seems inclined to be refractory, Iris\nreminds him that the Erin\u016bs will act with Jupiter, because he is the\nelder brother:\n\n \u03bf\u1f36\u03c3\u03b8\u2019, \u1f61\u03c2 \u03c0\u03c1\u03b5\u03c3\u03b2\u03c5\u03c4\u03ad\u03c1\u03bf\u03b9\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u1f18\u03c1\u03b9\u03bd\u03cd\u03b5\u03c2 \u03b1\u1f30\u1f72\u03bd \u1f15\u03c0\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9.\n\nAnd upon this hint Neptune at once alters his tone, allows that she has\nspoken \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u1f70 \u03bc\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c1\u03b1\u03bd, and complies with the command that she has brought.\n\n4. In Il. xix. Agamemnon, while he admits his \u1f04\u03c4\u03b7, (v. 87), throws,\nwe might say shuffles off, the blame of it upon Jupiter, Destiny, and\nErin\u016bs:\n\n \u1f10\u03b3\u1f7c \u03b4\u2019 \u03bf\u1f50\u03ba \u03b1\u1f34\u03c4\u03b9\u03cc\u03c2 \u03b5\u1f30\u03bc\u03b9,\n \u1f00\u03bb\u03bb\u1f70 \u0396\u03b5\u1f7a\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u039c\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c1\u03b1 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f20\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03c6\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c4\u03b9\u03c2 \u1f18\u03c1\u03b9\u03bd\u03cd\u03c2.\n\n5. In vv. 258-60 of the same Book, the same personage invokes as\nwitnesses to his asseveration concerning Briseis, 1. Jupiter, 2. the\nEarth, 3. the Sun, 4. the \u1f18\u03c1\u03b9\u03bd\u03cd\u03b5\u03c2, \u2018who dwell beneath the earth, and\npunish the perjured.\u2019\n\n6. In v. 418 of the same Book, after the horse Xanthus, receiving a\nvoice by the gift of Juno, has given to Achilles a dark indication\nof his coming fate, the Erinues interfere to prevent any further\ndisclosures:\n\n \u1f63\u03c2 \u1f04\u03c1\u03b1 \u03c6\u03c9\u03bd\u03ae\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f18\u03c1\u03b9\u03bd\u03cd\u03b5\u03c2 \u1f14\u03c3\u03c7\u03b5\u03b8\u03bf\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03b4\u03ae\u03bd.\n\n7. When, in the Theomachy, Minerva has laid Mars prostrate by a blow,\nshe taunts him by telling him he may in his overthrow recognise the\n\u1f18\u03c1\u03b9\u03bd\u03cd\u03b5\u03c2 of his mother Juno, invoked upon him for having changed sides\nin the contest (Il. xxi. 410-14).\n\n8. In the Odyssey (ii. 135), Telemachus apprehends that, if he\ndismisses his mother, he will have to encounter, among other evils, the\nErinu\u00ebs whom she will invoke upon him.\n\n9. Epicaste, the mother of \u0152dipus, is speedily removed from the face\nof earth for her hapless incest. \u0152dipus himself lives and reigns: but\nsuffers many sorrows, which the Erinu\u00ebs of Epicaste (\u03bc\u03b7\u03c4\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u1f18\u03c1\u03b9\u03bd\u03cd\u03b5\u03c2, as\nin Il. xx. 412) bring upon him.\n\n10. Melampus, a rich subject of Neleus in Pylos, is imprisoned for a\nwhole year in the house of Phylacus, and has his property seized or\nconfiscated, on account of the daughter of Neleus, and of his grievous\n\u1f04\u03c4\u03b7, which the goddess, the hard-striking[570] Erin\u016bs, brought into his\nmind (Od. xv. 233):\n\n[570] From \u03b4\u03b1 and \u03c0\u03bb\u03ae\u03c3\u03c3\u03c9: Liddell and Scott: also Schol. H. _in loc._\nOr, \u03bc\u03b5\u03b3\u03ac\u03bb\u03c9\u03c2 \u1f10\u03bc\u03c0\u03b5\u03bb\u03ac\u03b6\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b1, Schol. V. The meaning may be close-nearing,\nwith formidable inward action.\n\n \u03b5\u1f35\u03bd\u03b5\u03ba\u03b1 \u039d\u03b7\u03bb\u1fc6\u03bf\u03c2 \u03ba\u03bf\u03cd\u03c1\u03b7\u03c2, \u1f04\u03c4\u03b7\u03c2 \u03c4\u03b5 \u03b2\u03b1\u03c1\u03b5\u03af\u03b7\u03c2,\n \u03c4\u03ae\u03bd \u03bf\u1f31 \u1f10\u03c0\u1f76 \u03c6\u03c1\u03b5\u03c3\u1f76 \u03b8\u1fc6\u03ba\u03b5 \u03b8\u03b5\u1f70 \u03b4\u03b1\u03c3\u03c0\u03bb\u1fc6\u03c4\u03b9\u03c2 \u1f18\u03c1\u03b9\u03bd\u03cd\u03c2.\n\nBut he escaped from death, and paid, i.e. accomplished, the strange\nact that Neleus had imposed as the condition of obtaining the command\nover his daughter\u2019s hand. He thus procured it for his brother, termed\nin the post-Homeric tradition Bias. This condition was, that he should\nbring off to Pylos the cows which were the property of Iphicles (and\napparently of Phylacus). He was caught at Phylace in the attempt: but\nafter a year Iphicles released him, apparently in consideration of\nbenefit derived from his prophetic knowledge, Od. xv. 228-38, and xi.\n287-97.\n\n11. In Od. xvii. 475, 6, Ulysses, when Antinous had hurled the stool\nat him, invokes upon that Suitor in return the anger of the gods and\nErinu\u00ebs (\u03b5\u1f34 \u03c0\u03bf\u03cd \u03b3\u03b5 \u03b5\u1f30\u03c3\u1f76\u03bd, if such there be) of the poor.\n\n12. Lastly, in Od. xx. 78, as we have seen, the Harpies deliver the\ndaughter of Pandareus into the hands of the Erinu\u00ebs.\n\nWe have thus a very copious supply of information from Homer, in no\nless than twelve passages, every one of which represents the action of\nthese singular beings in a fresh and varied light: and the question is,\nwhat is the one common idea, which is sufficiently comprehensive to\ninclude them all, and is also in harmony with the purport of each?\n\n~_Vindicators of the moral order._~\n\nI answer, that the Erinu\u00ebs are, in the Homeric system, the\nnever-failing champions, because they are the practical avengers, of\nthe natural and moral order, at all times, under all circumstances,\nand against all persons whatsoever. They have nothing to do with the\nprevention of crime: but they appear to be the principal instruments\nfor its punishment, especially here, but likewise hereafter. This,\nhowever, is only a part of their function. They are the sworn servants\nof a fixed order of the universe, apart from, anterior to, and\nindependent of, all volition, divine or human: and they avenge the\ninfraction of that order, not merely as a law of right opposed to\nwrong, but as a law of order opposed to disorder; they are goddesses\nthemselves, but they are wholly apart from the Olympian dispensation,\nsometimes put in conjunction with deities of the mythology, sometimes\napart from, sometimes in opposition to them. They are, in short, an\nearly and poetical expression of that philosophy, which even in\nChristian times has seemed to seek a foundation for the supreme laws\nmore or less dissociated from, and wholly exterior to, the Divine Will:\nthe philosophy, not of Destiny, but of the \u2018Immutable Morality\u2019 of\nCudworth and his school: the philosophy harmonizing with the Ideas of\nthe Platonists: the philosophy of which we have a distant glimpse in\nthe words of St. Bernard, _incommutabile est, quod ne ipsi quidem Deo\nmutare liberum est_[571]: and which Butler has presented to us in the\nmild forms of his admirably balanced wisdom.\n\n[571] De Pr\u00e6cepto et Dispensatione, sect. 8.\n\nI will take first, as the criteria of this proposition, the remarkable\ncases in which we find the Erinu\u00ebs of Homer in qualified conflict\nwith Deity. It is commonly held, that in the Nineteenth Iliad the\nErinu\u00ebs interfere to prevent Xanthus from telling too much to Achilles.\nNo doubt Homer effects this purpose by their means: but they never\ninterfere with the aim of prevention. It is the natural order which had\nbeen broken by the act of Juno in conferring the gift of speech upon\na horse, and which they by their interposition mean to vindicate and\nreestablish.\n\nThey play the same part in the case of the daughters of Pandareus.\nIt is plain that the goddesses of Olympus had vied with one another,\nafter an unprecedented and abnormal manner, in loading these damsels\nwith an extraordinary accumulation of gifts. Everything, even food,\ncame to them by the direct and immediate agency of their Immortal\nhandmaids: and at last Jupiter was actually besought to find them\nhusbands. All this lay far beyond, and was therefore in derogation of\nthe ordinary laws for the government of the world: it left no space for\nhuman volition, effort, or discipline: it thus struck at the root of\nthe moral order; and on this ground the Erinu\u00ebs interfere, apparently\nemploying the Hurricanes as their agents, to remove these maidens from\nthe earth, and to deposit them upon the Ocean stream, by the place of\nthe dead.\n\n~_Their operation upon the Immortals._~\n\nI do not know whether, over and above the infraction of natural order\nwhich I have mentioned, there may not have been another cause for their\nintervention in the special manner in which the endowments had been\nconveyed: for where we find Juno granting to them \u2018beauty and sense\nbeyond all other women[572],\u2019 it appears as if she had travelled into\nthe province not only of Venus, but of the great Minerva, with whose\nprerogatives I doubt whether we ever find any similar interference\nallowed by Homer. It is therefore just possible that the Erinu\u00ebs may\nhere interpose on behalf of the laws and arrangements of Olympus, as\nwell as of those belonging to Earth.\n\n[572] Od. xx. 70.\n\nThe explanation which I have proposed will entirely fit the warning of\nIris to Neptune. The natural order, which assigns the prerogatives of\ngovernment to the elder, in other words, the right of primogeniture,\nis a rule for the Immortals, as well as for mankind, since it is taken\nto be founded upon a basis more profound than will, which was not,\nand could hardly be for Homer, even when divine, either the source or\nthe master of creation. But while the Erinu\u00ebs are thus on the side of\nJupiter, and while the recollection of them at once induces Neptune\nto succumb, they are not on that account in any sense or degree his\nministers.\n\nOn the same side with him we find them, where they are invoked by\nUlysses, as the Erinu\u00ebs, together with the gods, of the poor: or as\nwhen Agamemnon lays upon Erin\u016bs, along with Jupiter and Destiny, the\nblame of errors, for which notwithstanding the Greeks rightly held\nhim[573], and even he could not deny himself to be, responsible. Yet\nwe are never told that the Erinu\u00ebs move at the bidding of Jupiter, or\nof any other Olympian deity. Here we seem to have a glimpse into the\ndeeper truths of the heroic age. Theology had already wandered from\nits orbit: it was fast losing all the severity and majesty of truth;\nbut the deep roots which God had given to the sense of responsibility,\nand the expectation of retribution, in the human mind, had not yet\nbeen wholly plucked up; and Homer\u2019s fine sense of truth forbade him to\nconnect the most practical, and at the same time, the sternest parts of\nhis religious system, with the gorgeous glare of his Olympus, and with\nthe moral delinquencies of many among its inhabitants.\n\n[573] Il. xix. 85, 6.\n\nAs the seniority of Jupiter is upheld by the Erinu\u00ebs, so in like manner\nare the parental rights of Juno, which had been infringed by Mars, when\nhe changed sides in the war. Here again, however, it appears as if\nmore than the mere wish or influence of Juno had been set aside: for\nMars had given a positive promise to fight for the Greeks, and it is\nprobable that the breach of this engagement constituted the chief part\nof the offence that they were to punish[574].\n\n[574] Il. v. 832-4.\n\n~_Their connection with Aides and Persephone._~\n\nWhere the Erinu\u00ebs touch upon the province of other deities at all,\nit is upon that of Persephone and of A\u00efdes. If Homer associated\nPersephone, as I believe he did, with the Eastern nursery of his race,\nit was natural enough that, as has been the case, this part of his\ntheo-mythology should remain comparatively untainted. And certainly\nthe Homeric relation between the Erinu\u00ebs and the sovereigns of the\nnether world is a close one. When, in the Ninth Iliad, Althea, grasping\nthe earth in her vehemence, as if to lay the strong hand upon the\nobject of her prayer, invoked Aidoneus and Persephone to put her son\nto death, the Poet proceeds to say that the Erin\u016bs heard her: the\nErin\u016bs who stalks in the darkness heard her, and heard her out of\nErebus[575]. In the case of Ph\u0153nix and Amyntor we have exactly the\nconverse. Here the Erin\u016bs was invoked, and it was Aides with Persephone\nthat answered the prayer. In both these instances it must moreover be\nremembered, that the question is about present and even immediate,\nnot about posthumous retribution. We cannot, then, refuse to admit,\nthat in this manner Persephone with Aidoneus is placed in an intimate\nrelation with the administration of retributive justice on earth, and\nduring the course of human life there: and if the Erinu\u00ebs are to be\nconsidered as abstractions, having their basis only in some ulterior\nimpersonation, Persephone and Aidoneus offer the only objects on whom\nwe can suppose them to depend. It seems to me, however, that they are\nnot reciprocally identified, although they are profoundly connected,\nand although we read in the connection a very ancient testimony to a\nprimitive conviction in mankind, that they must look to the powers of\nthe other world to redress the deranged balances of this.\n\n[575] Il. ix. 569-72.\n\nConformably to these ideas, we find that, in the Nineteenth Iliad, the\nabode of the Erinu\u00ebs is fixed \u1f51\u03c0\u1f78 \u03b3\u03b1\u1fd6\u03b1\u03bd: and it is made clear from the\npassage (259, 60,) that their avenging office, which is so commonly\nexercised in this world, reaches also to the other.\n\nFrom the character of the Erinu\u00ebs, as vindicators of an order having\ndeeper foundations than those which any volition could either lay or\nshake, there arises that natural association of them with Destiny,\nwhich we see expressed in the speech of Agamemnon[576]. Both have in\ncommon this idea, that they are not dependent on mere volition. They\ndiffer in these points; that Destiny prescribes and effectuates action,\nwhile the Erinu\u00ebs only punish transgression; and that Destiny is but\nfeebly moral, whereas the Erinu\u00ebs are profoundly charged with ethical\ncolouring. They represent that side of the idea of Destiny which\nalone can, after being resolutely scrutinized, retain a hold upon our\ninterest.\n\n[576] Il. xix. 87.\n\n~_Their operation upon man._~\n\nAll the residue of the threads will, I think, run out easily. It\nfollows from what has been said, that in their aspect towards man, the\nErinu\u00ebs are not indeed administrators of the moral laws themselves,\nbut administrators of their sanctions. So they punish the infraction\nof the rights inhering in all natural relations: the rights of the\npoor, as Ulysses protests to Antinous; of a father, as in the case\nof Amyntor; of a mother, as in the case of Penelope. But they do\nmuch more than punish the infraction of the rights of persons; it is\nthe infraction of right as right, which they resent as a substantive\noffence. Let us accordingly notice the function of the Erin\u016bs in those\ncases where there has been fault on both sides. An offender is not\ntherefore secure, because the person who invokes the Erin\u016bs upon him\nis an offender too. The father of Ph\u0153nix gave the original occasion to\nhis offence, by an offence of his own: but Ph\u0153nix is punished at his\ninstance notwithstanding, because the thing which he implores is not\na personal favour, but is a vindication of the \u1f51\u03c8\u03af\u03c0\u03bf\u03b4\u03b5\u03c2 \u03bd\u03cc\u03bc\u03bf\u03b9[577],\nviolated by the incest of his son; a thing right to be done, whether\nasked or not. The case of Althea and Meleager illustrates this truth\nin a manner still more lively. When she obtained the intervention of\nthe Erin\u016bs, she at once suffered by it. The city of \u0152neus was all\nbut subjected to the horrors of capture: she was brought, in bitter\nhumiliation, to supplicate the aid of the son, on whose head she had\njust invoked the stroke of doom. From this we must conclude, which\nindeed is not difficult, that the Poet regarded her prayer as in itself\nunnatural and cruel; so that the fulfilment of it involved immediate\nsuffering to herself. But, on the other hand, Meleager had offended\ntoo, in the slaughter of a near relative. Therefore, although his pride\nmight well be gratified when he saw king, priest, and people, with\nhis humbled mother, at his feet, and proffering their choicest gift\nin order to appease him, yet for that original offence, and for his\nobstinately refusing to arm until fire was in the city, he must receive\nhis punishment likewise, in vindication of the moral laws; accordingly,\nafter he had repulsed the enemy, he never received the demesne[578].\n\n[577] Soph. \u0152d. Rex, 866.\n\n[578] Il. ix. 598.\n\nThe case of Meleager assists to illustrate that of \u0152dipus and Epicaste.\nBoth of these unhappy persons had offended against the moral laws,\nthough it was unwittingly (\u1f00\u03ca\u03b4\u03c1\u03b5\u03af\u1fc3\u03c3\u03b9 \u03bd\u03cc\u03bf\u03b9\u03bf); one, the mother-bride,\nwas immediately put out of the way: the survivor was still pursued by\nthe \u03bc\u03b7\u03c4\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u1f18\u03c1\u03b9\u03bd\u03cd\u03b5\u03c2. We see here how insufficient the idea of a curse,\ninvoked at will, is to explain the action of these remarkable Powers;\nfor it does not appear that there was any mother\u2019s curse in the case:\nbut, because the natural laws were broken in a matter where the mother\nwas the occasion, therefore, while both suffer, the sufferings of the\nson are attributed to the Erinu\u00ebs of the mother; the defenders, because\nthe avengers, of the sanctity of a mother\u2019s place in relation to her\nson.\n\nIn the case of Melampus, it appears that his undertaking to obtain\nthe cows of Iphicles or Phylacus was an \u1f04\u03c4\u03b7 \u03b2\u03b1\u03c1\u03b5\u1fd6\u03b1, a grave error,\nbeginning in a temptation suggested to him by the Erin\u016bs, and ending in\ncalamity. The seizure of these animals would probably be regarded as no\nmoral offence: and if so, any error that could lie in the engagement\nto seize them would be, according to Homeric estimate, in the nature\nof folly rather than of crime. We seem to see, then, in this place,\nthat the range of Erin\u016bs, like that of At\u00e8, embraced at a certain\npoint the prudential as well as the strictly moral laws: nor is there\ninvolved in this idea any violent departure from the true standard, for\ngreat imprudences are most commonly, and almost invariably, in near\nconnection with some form of moral defect.\n\nIt is however also to be observed, that in this place the Erin\u016bs\nsuggests the \u1f04\u03c4\u03b7. The idea lying at the root of this representation\nappears to be the profound one, that the exercise of an evil will is\nin itself penal: and that when the mind is already disposed to offend,\nretributive justice may take the form of a permission, encouragement,\nor incitement, to commit the offence. We have already seen a very\nremarkable development of this idea in the hardening agency of Minerva\nupon the Suitors[579].\n\n[579] Sup. sect. ii. p. 117-9.\n\nAccording to the view of them which has here been given, though I could\nnot class the Erinu\u00ebs with the traditive deities, it is clear that\nthey must represent, under metamorphosis, an important association of\nideas belonging to primitive tradition.\n\nLet us now turn to the Sixth Class.\n\n~_The translation of mortals._~\n\nThose for whom it was a mental necessity to animate with deity even the\nmute powers of nature, could not but find modes of associating man,\nwho stood nearer to the Immortals, with them and their conditions of\nexistence.\n\nThese modes were chiefly three:\n\nThe first, that of translation during life.\n\nThe second, that of deification after death.\n\nThe third, the conception of races intermediate between deity and\nhumanity.\n\nAnd it was perhaps not the simple working of a fervid imagination, but\nalso an offshoot from this profound and powerful tendency, which has\nfilled the pages of Homer with continual efforts to deify what was most\nexcellent, or most conspicuous, in the mind or in the person of living\nman.\n\nThe mode of translation during life was early in date, and was rarely\nused, for not only are the Homeric examples of it few, but he records\nno contemporary instance.\n\nGanymede[580], the son of Tros, was taken up to heaven by the Immortals\non account of his beauty, that he might live among them. Tithonus, his\ngrand-nephew, son of Laomedon, was, as we are left to infer, similarly\ntranslated during life, to be the husband of Aurora (in Homer Eos), or\nthe morning: for Homer makes him known to us in that capacity, though\nhe does not mention the translation. In like manner, she carried up,\nand placed among the Immortals for his beauty, Cleitus, one of the\ndescendants of Melampus[581]. A similar operation to that which was\nperformed upon Tithonus may have been designed in the case of Orion,\nwho was the choice of Aurora, and whose career, in consequence of the\njealousy of the Immortals, was cut short by the arrows of Diana[582].\nThe course of these legends seems to stop suddenly in the Greek\nmythology at the point where they are replaced by deification: and the\nconnection of Aurora, as the principal agent, with three out of the\nfour, (the other, too, is Asiatic, as being in the family of Dardanus,)\nseems to be an unequivocal sign of their eastern character. Homer\nplaces the dwelling of \u1f2c\u03c9\u03c2 at a distant point of the East, near the\nplace where \u03b8\u03ac\u03bb\u03b1\u03c3\u03c3\u03b1 communicates with Ocean.\n\n[580] Il. xx. 233.\n\n[581] Od. xv. 250.\n\n[582] Od. v. 120.\n\n~_The deification of mortals._~\n\nIn the age of Homer the very first names have hardly been entered\nin the class of deified heroes. Ino, the daughter of Cadmus, may be\nsaid to stand at the head of the list, from the distinct assertion of\nher translation, and from her being placed, as the ally of Ulysses,\nin continued relations with mortal men[583]. Of her also it is said\nthat she had obtained divine honours; and nearly the same assertion\nis made of Castor and Pollux. But they perform no offices towards man\nwhile yet in this life. Of this Ino is the only instance. She appears\nto be Ph\u0153nician rather than Greek, and thus to belong perhaps to an\nolder, clearly to a distinct mythology. Hercules, the only one of these\npersons who entirely fulfils the conditions of a hero, is admitted to\nthe banquets of the gods, and united with Hebe[584]: yet he is not\nall in Olympus, for his \u03b5\u1f34\u03b4\u03c9\u03bb\u03bf\u03bd, endowed with voice and feeling, and\nbearing martial accoutrements, is the terror of the Dead. It is not\neasy to explain fully this divided state. I cannot but think, however,\nthat we see here at work that principle of disintegration, which solved\nall riddles of character by making one individual into more than one:\nbeginning, at least for earth, with that Helen in Egypt, who was made\nthe depository of the better qualities that post-Homeric times could\nnot recognise in Helen of Troy. Although the son of Jupiter, Hercules\nhad on earth, through a sheer mistake, been subject to a destiny\nof grinding toil. His original extraction and personality stand in\nsharp contrast with the restless and painful destiny of his life.\nDeath severs these one from the other, but Homer, contemplating each\nas a whole, endows the last also with personality, and gives it a\nreflection in the lower world of its earthly course and aspect: while\nthe Jove-born Hercules, as it were by a natural spring, mounts up to\nheaven[585]. At the same time there is no more conspicuous example than\nHercules, of that counter-principle of accumulation, by which legendary\ntradition heaps upon favourite heroes all acts not distinctly otherwise\nappropriated, which appear to harmonize with their characters; and\nthus often makes an historical personage into one both fabulous and\nimpossible.\n\n[583] Od. v. 333, 461.\n\n[584] Od. xi. 601.\n\n[585] I have alluded elsewhere (sect. ii. p. 169) to another possible\nexplanation: two aspects of character may be exhibited in the two\nimages.\n\nIt must not be forgotten that this passage respecting Hercules was\nsharply challenged by the Alexandrian critics. This challenge is\ndiscussed, and its justice affirmed by Nitzsch[586]. Such authorities\nmust not be defrauded of their weight. But for my own part, I do not\nfind a proof of spuriousness even in the real inconsistencies of Homer,\nwhere he is dealing with subjects beyond the range of common life and\nexperience. Still less can it be universally admitted, that what are\ncalled his inconsistencies are really such. They will often be found to\nrequire nothing but the application of a more comprehensive rule for\ntheir adjustment.\n\n[586] ad Odyss. xi. 601-4.\n\nIt is more difficult still to understand the case of Orion, who is at\nonce a noted star in heaven, and a sufferer below in the Shades. There\nhe appears not wholly unlike the shade of Hercules, a dreamy image\nof the sufferings of earth, and at the same time he ranks among the\nsplendours at least of the material heaven.\n\nMinos, who is placed in the Shades to exercise royal functions there,\nand Rhadamanthus, who has his happy dwelling on the Elysian plain, are\napproximative examples of deification.\n\nIt would be hazardous to build any opinion exclusively on the two\nverses Il. ii. 550, 551, relating to the worship of Erechtheus: but\nthey are not altogether at variance with what we see elsewhere.\n\n~_Growth of material for its extension._~\n\nSuch is the rather slender list of personages in Homer, who approximate\nin any degree to what was afterwards the order of deified Heroes.\nThere are, however, some other indications, that belong immediately\nto the living, and that point the same way. Such is the promise to\nMenelaus[587], that instead of dying he should be translated to\nElysium, because he was the son-in-law of Jupiter. And this suggests\nother notes of preparation already found in Homer. Ulysses[588]\npromises Nausicaa that, when he has reached his own country, he will\ncontinue to invoke her all his life long, _like a god_. The invocation\nof the Dead was common. It was not practised only in illustrious\ncases like that of Patroclus. After their battle with the Cicones,\nUlysses[589] and his crews thrice invoked their slaughtered comrades.\nA system of divine parentage was the fit, one might almost say the\ncertain preparation for a scheme of divine honours after death; and of\nsuch parentage many of Homer\u2019s heroes could boast. Again, Peleus was\nmarried to a goddess, and the gods in mass attended the wedding. By\nthus bringing the inhabitants of Olympus down to the earth, Homer laid\nthe ground for bringing the denizens of earth into Olympus.\n\n[587] Od. iv. 561.\n\n[588] Od. viii. 467.\n\n[589] Od. ix. 65.\n\nThere is yet a further sign, which, though perhaps the least palpable,\nis, when well considered, the most striking of all. It is this; that\nsacrifice is offered, in the Odyssey, to the Shades of the departed.\nIt is not indeed animal sacrifice that is actually offered. The gift\nconsists of honey and milk, with wine, water, and flour[590]: but\nUlysses distinctly promises that, on his return to Ithaca, he will\nsupply this defect by offering a heifer in their honour, and a sheep\nall black to Tiresias in particular. Moreover, he distinctly recognises\nthe idea of worshipping them[591];\n\n[590] Od. xi. 26.\n\n[591] Od. xi. 29.\n\n \u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03bb\u1f70 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03b3\u03bf\u03c5\u03bd\u03bf\u03cd\u03bc\u03b7\u03bd \u03bd\u03b5\u03ba\u03cd\u03c9\u03bd \u1f00\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03b7\u03bd\u1f70 \u03ba\u03ac\u03c1\u03b7\u03bd\u03b1.\n\nIt does not destroy the force of this proceeding, that they were\nsupposed to need or to enjoy the thing sacrificed; for the Immortals\nof Olympus did the latter at least, and there are even traces of the\nformer. Together with the mixed offering above described, and the\npromise of a regular sacrifice on his return home, Ulysses permitted\nthe Shades to drink of the blood of the sheep which he immolated on\nthe spot to Aidoneus and Persephone, after he had fulfilled the main\npurpose of his visit by consulting Tiresias[592].\n\n[592] Od. xi. 153, 230.\n\nThe dead then have consciousness and activity. They are invoked by\nman. They can appear to him. They are capable of having sacrifices\noffered to them. They can confer benefit on the living. Here, gathered\nout of different cases, were the materials of full deification. All\nthat was yet wanting was, that they should be put together according to\nrule.\n\n~_The kindred of the gods._~\n\nWe have now, lastly, to consider the kindred of the gods, or races\nintermediate between deity and humanity, which Homer has introduced in\nthe Odyssey exclusively.\n\nThese are certainly three, perhaps four;\n\n 1. The Cyclopes.\n 2. The L\u00e6strygonians.\n 3. The Ph\u00e6acians.\n\nIt may also be probable that we should add\n\n4. \u00c6olus Hippotades and his family.\n\nAmong them all, the Cyclopes, children of Neptune, offer, as a work of\nart, by far the most successful and satisfactory result. In every point\nthey are placed at the greatest possible distance from human society\nand its conventions. Man is small, the Cyclops huge. Man is weak, the\nCyclops powerful. Man is gregarious, the Cyclops is isolated. Man, for\nHomer, is refined; the Cyclops is a cannibal. Man inquires, searches,\ndesigns, constructs, advances, in a word, is progressive: the Cyclops\nsimply uses the shelter and the food that nature finds for him, and is\nthoroughly stationary. Yet, while man is subject to death, the Cyclops\nlives on, or vegetates at least, and transmits the privileges of his\nrace by virtue of its high original. The relaxed morality of the divine\nseed, as compared with man, is traceable even in their slight customs.\nThey are polygamous:\n\n \u03b8\u03b5\u03bc\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03cd\u03b5\u03b9 \u03b4\u1f72 \u1f15\u03ba\u03b1\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2\n \u03c0\u03b1\u03af\u03b4\u03c9\u03bd \u1f20\u03b4\u2019 \u1f00\u03bb\u03cc\u03c7\u03c9\u03bd[593].\n\n[593] Od. ix. 115.\n\nFrom their personal characters the moral element has been entirely\ndismissed. Polyphemus is a huge mass of force, seasoned perhaps with\ncunning, certainly with falseness. This union of a superhuman life with\nthe brutal, that dwells in solitude, and has none of its angles rubbed\ndown by the mutual contact between members of a race, produces a mixed\nresult of extreme ferocity, childishness, and a kind of horrible glee,\nwhich as a work of art is most striking and successful. We may justly\nthink much of Caliban: but Caliban cannot for a moment be compared to\nPolyphemus. It is equitable, however, to remember that contrast with\nAriel, which must have been a governing condition in the creation of\nShakespeare, required a nature which should be fatuous and grovelling,\nas well as coarse.\n\nTo feed Polyphemus, what lies nearest him, namely, the L\u00e6strygonian\nadventure, has, perhaps, been starved. Again we are introduced to cruel\nGiants and to cannibalism, but with a great scantiness of detail. Their\nindividuality is scarcely established. Their only marked qualities they\nhold in common with the Cyclopes, except as to a single point, namely,\nthat they live gregariously. We see their city, and are introduced\nto their king, their queen, and their princess[594]. But a too great\nlikeness to the Cyclops still suggests itself; and it is probable that\nin both the one and the other Homer set before him, among the materials\nof his work, that old tradition of powerful beings, allied to the\ndeity, and yet rebellious against him, which meets us in so many forms,\ndispersed about the Homeric poems, and which the later tradition, by\nfurther multiplication and variety, resolved into a living chaos.\n\n[594] Od. x. 105-15.\n\nThe Ph\u00e6acians appear to stand quite in another category. While the\nCyclops has no trace of deity but in superhuman force, the Ph\u00e6acians\nhave no pretensions of this kind. They are not even immortal, nor\nare they wholly removed from man, for they are accustomed to carry\npassengers by sea; they seem really to be meant in a measure to\nrepresent the \u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u1f76 \u1fe5\u03b5\u1fd6\u03b1 \u03b6\u03ce\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2. We must not look too rigidly in them\nfor notes of the divine character, but rather for the abundance,\nopulence, ease, and refinement of the divine condition. Hence Homer\nlavishes all the simple wealth of his imagination upon the palace and\ngarden of Alcinous, which far exceeds any possessions he has assigned\nto ordinary men. This additional splendour of itself proves, if proof\nwere wanted, that the picture is ideal. The same amount of ornament\nassigned to the palace of Menelaus would, from the contrast with fact,\nprobably have been frigid to his hearers.\n\nFrom the games and athletic exercises of this people all the ruder and\nmore violent sports are excluded. Navigation, to others so formidable,\nfor them is conducted by a spontaneous force and intelligence residing\nin their ships; which annihilates distance, and at last excites even\nthe jealousy of Neptune (Od. viii. 555-69). We find in the island and\nin its history no poverty, no grief, no care, no want; all is fair to\nsee and to enjoy. But we feel thankful to Homer that he has not here,\nas in the case of the Cyclops, made kin with the gods entail a marked\nmoral or intellectual inferiority upon the sons of men; no purer or\nmore graceful piece of humanity is to be found among the creations of\nthe human brain, than his picture of Nausicaa. She combines in herself\nall that earth could suggest of bright, and pure, and fair. Still it\ncannot be denied that levity and vanity are rather conspicuous in the\nPh\u00e6acian men. They shew off, among other sports, their boxing and\nwrestling, before they know what Ulysses is made of. When they know\nit, Alcinous informs him in an off-hand way that they do not pretend\nto excellence in that class of sports[595]. After the dancers have\nperformed, Ulysses with great tact at once passes a high compliment\nupon them. Alcinous, delighted with the praise, cries aloud, \u2018Ph\u00e6acian\nchiefs! this stranger appears to me to be an extremely sensible\nman[596].\u2019\n\n[595] Od. viii. 102. 246.\n\n[596] Ibid. 378-88.\n\nIt appears, however, most likely that, besides the mythical element\nin two of them, Homer may have had some basis of maritime report, and\nthus of presumed fact, for his delineations of all these three races;\nthat, with an unlimited license of embellishment, he, nevertheless,\nmay have intended in each case to keep unbroken the tie between\nhis own tale, and the voyages of Ulysses, founded upon Ph\u0153nician\ngeography, as reported in his time. I form this opinion partly from\nsome singularities in the Ph\u00e6acian character, which, as they are not\nin keeping with any poetic idea, may probably have had an historic\naim, though I cannot be persuaded that they afford a foundation broad\nenough for the full theory of Mure[597], if he conceives the Ph\u00e6acians\nof the Odyssey to be strictly a portrait of the Ph\u0153nicians. Partly I\ndraw the inference from the want of clear severance in the ideals, on\nwhich the characters of the Cyclops and the L\u00e6strygones are severally\nfounded. The remarkable natural characteristic of L\u00e6strygonia which he\nhas given us, its perpetual day, supports the same hypothesis. What\nwould otherwise amount to poverty in the imagery is sufficiently\naccounted for, if we assume that he meant to describe two savage\ntribes, that inhabited the latitudes with which he was dealing; and\nthat, feeling himself bound to brutality in each case, he has, under\nthese unfavourable circumstances, varied it as much as he could. Unless\nit had been to preserve an historical or mythological tradition, the\nL\u00e6strygonian adventure might hardly have deserved introduction into the\nOdyssey. Plainly, on the other hand, he is not to be held responsible\nfor all that he has put down while he believed himself to be conforming\nto narratives of fact, in the same manner and degree as if he had been\npresenting us with a picture in which his fancy had only to work at\nwill.\n\n[597] Lit. Greece, vol. i. p. 510.\n\nThe remaining case is slight, and may speedily be dismissed. \u00c6olus\nis \u03c6\u03af\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f00\u03b8\u03b1\u03bd\u03ac\u03c4\u03bf\u03b9\u03c3\u03b9 \u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c3\u03b9, and is intrusted with the charge of the\nwinds; and his six sons are married to his six daughters, as \u03b1\u1f30\u03b4\u03bf\u03af\u03b1\u03b9\n\u1f04\u03bb\u03bf\u03c7\u03bf\u03b9[598]. The word \u03c6\u03af\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2 may bear the sense of relationship:\nimmortality seems to be of necessity involved in the charge over\nthe winds, who are themselves in the Iliad (in this point varying\npoetically from the Odyssey) invested with deity[599]: and the marriage\nof the sons to the daughters affords another absolute proof: for this,\nwhich would have been incest, \u03bc\u03ad\u03b3\u03b1 \u1f14\u03c1\u03b3\u03bf\u03bd, among men, is evidently set\ndown as in their case a legitimate connection. The great example in the\nKronid family would give it full sanction for the Immortals.\n\n[598] Od. x. 2, 21, 11.\n\n[599] N\u00e4gelsbach, Hom. Theol. II. 12, holds the opposite opinion.\n\nThe character of \u00c6olus, if he be human, is one kindly to his\nfellow-men; and he inquires carefully respecting the fate of the Greeks\nand their chieftains. But it is very difficult to understand his place\nin the poem, and the reasons of it. The gift of Zephyr, and the folly\nof the crew in letting out the whole pack of winds, end only in the\nreturn of Ulysses to \u00c6olia, and in his being dismissed from thence as\none hateful to the gods, which he was not. This \u00c6olus neither seems\nto be required for, nor to contribute to, the general purpose of the\npoem: nor to represent any ancient tradition: nor can we in any manner\nconnect him with \u00c6olus, the great national personage whose descendants\nwere so illustrious, for that \u00c6olus was clearly taken to be the son or\nimmediate descendant of Jupiter; so that he could not have been called\nthe son of Hippotas. Perhaps the origin of his place in the Odyssey\nwas to be found in some Ph\u0153nician report about storms in the northern\nseas, where \u00c6olia is evidently placed in complete isolation, figured\nby the sheer and steep rock of the coast, and by the metal wall which\nruns round it. It may have a partial prototype in Stromboli misplaced,\nthe appearance of which from a distance entirely accords with this\nparticular of inaccessibility. The whole picture, representing as it\ndoes, first, the ferocity of the winds, and, secondly, the existence\nof an efficient control over them, evidently embodies two features\nwhich could not but enter variously and prominently into the tales\nof Ph\u0153nician mariners; first, the fierceness of the gales prevailing\nin those outer latitudes, to deter others from attempting them; and\nsecondly, their successful contest with the difficulty thus created in\norder to glorify themselves.\n\n\n\n\nSECT. V.\n\n_The Olympian Community and its Members, considered in themselves._\n\n\nThe substitution of polytheism for the monotheistic principle not\nonly brought down deity in the measure of its attributes or faculties\ntowards man, but created a necessity for a divine economy or polity,\nwhich should regulate the relations of the Immortals. This polity could\nbe no other than human, and no other, as it seems, than a somewhat\ndeteriorated copy from its earthly original.\n\n~_The family order in Olympus._~\n\nAccordingly, the Olympian Immortals of Homer are combined in a\nsociety. They are not a mere aggregate of beings, classed together by\nthe mind in virtue of the possession of common properties, but they\nlive in twofold relations: first, those of the family, or at least of\ndescent and consanguinity; secondly, those established by a political\norganization, which is modelled according to the forms of the Greek\npolities subsisting in the Homeric age.\n\nThe government of Olympus is, though the use of the word may at first\nexcite a smile, in principle constitutional. Jupiter is its head. Its\nordinary council or aristocracy is represented by the body of such\ndeities as have palaces there, constructed for them by Vulcan, who\nexercises in the community the double function at once of architect and\nartificer[600].\n\n[600] Il. i. 606-8.\n\nThe immediate relationship of nearly all these divinities to Jupiter is\nrecorded.\n\nAs his brothers, we have Neptune, and Aidoneus, or Pluto.\n\nAs his wives, we have Juno, the chief; Latona, Dione, and probably\nDemeter, secondary.\n\nAs his children, we have Minerva, Apollo and Diana, Mars and Vulcan,\nVenus, Mercury, Hebe.\n\nOf the Nineteen Deities who appear to be certainly Olympian, there are\nonly four that do not fall at once into the family order: they are\nThemis, \u1f28\u03ad\u03bb\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2, Iris, and Paieon. There may have been a relationship\ncredited in these cases also, though it is not recorded. It should be\nobserved, that Jupiter is expressly invested with the title of Father\nof the gods. And perhaps the idea intended to be conveyed is that of\na family which has grown into a sept or clan, having this for its\ndistinctive character, that all the members of it, great and small,\nhave either a nearer or a more remote relationship to the head. Of the\nminor deities, in various cases it is recorded, that they are daughters\nof Jupiter; such as the Muses, the Prayers, and the Nymphs of most\norders. But these have the appearance of belonging to Homer\u2019s poetry,\nmore than to his mythology. Among male deities, the sons of Jupiter are\nall in Olympus: those of Neptune take lower rank.\n\nWhatever be its relation to the family _nucleus_, the community of\nOlympus is fully formed. Besides Jupiter the head, and the ordinary\nassembly, its Council or Court, which answers to the \u03b2\u03bf\u03c5\u03bb\u1f74 of the\nGreeks, it has its Agor\u00e8, a greater Assembly or Parliament called\ntogether upon crises of extraordinary solemnity, such as the decision\nby main force of the fate of Troy.\n\nBut as we have no example, except the factious and utterly odious\nThersites, of any one of the commonalty who takes an actual part in\ndebate among men, so the minor deities, too, are mute in heaven.\n\nNay, the resemblance is even closer than this. The Greek \u03b2\u03bf\u03c5\u03bb\u1f74, and\nalso the \u1f00\u03b3\u03bf\u03c1\u1f74, have their speaking or leading personages, and they\nlikewise have each their silent members. The leaders are Agamemnon,\nNestor, Ulysses, and Diomed; the last-named chieftain always with\nmodesty, as a person lately come to full age. Achilles doubtless would\nhave had to be added, if the action of the poem had permitted him\nto appear throughout its debates. But we never hear of the Ajaxes,\nIdomeneus, or chiefs like Eurypylus, as taking any active share in the\nproceedings. Even so the discussions of Olympus appear to be conducted\ncommonly by Jupiter, Juno, Neptune[601], Minerva, and Apollo[602]. Once\nVulcan interposes, in his mother\u2019s interest: possibly he may have been\nsuggested to the Poet by Thersites[603] as a terrestrial counterpart.\nThe Sun appeals to the Assembly in the Odyssey, as a party in his own\ncause: but neither he nor Venus, nor Mars, nor Mercury, nor any other\nsubordinate deity, ever appears as taking part in a discussion.\n\n[601] Il. vii. 445.\n\n[602] Il. xxiv. 33.\n\n[603] Il. i. 571.\n\nThe term \u1f00\u03b3\u03bf\u03c1\u1f74, or assembly, is used in Homer for the meetings of the\ndeities only on certain occasions: namely, at the openings of the\nEighth and Twentieth Books[604]. The other, or ordinary meetings, have\nno distinctive name. We may know them by their not depending on any\nsummons or introduction, and by the frequent mention, either of the\nbanquet as proceeding, or of the cup as in the hands of the deities.\nThey were standing assemblages of the deities, the law of whose life\nwas leisure, with prolonged though not intemperate feasting; and its\nordinary scene Olympus. Their correspondence with the \u03b2\u03bf\u03c5\u03bb\u1f74 must not\nbe pressed too far, for they do not, like the Greek \u03b2\u03bf\u03c5\u03bb\u1f74, commonly\nprecede an Assembly. It is to be remembered, that the \u03b2\u03bf\u03c5\u03bb\u1f74 was an\nHellenic institution, and that the gods were not exclusively Hellenic,\nthough Olympus was essentially national.\n\n[604] Il. viii. 2. and xx. 4.\n\n~_The political order in Olympus._~\n\nThe analogy between the divine and the human \u1f00\u03b3\u03bf\u03c1\u03b1\u1f76 is established in\na pointed form by the Poet himself; who makes Themis the pursuivant or\nSummoner[605] for the former; and also says of her, with respect to the\nlatter,\n\n[605] Il. xx. 4.\n\n \u1f25\u03c4\u2019 \u1f00\u03bd\u03b4\u03c1\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f00\u03b3\u03bf\u03c1\u1f70\u03c2 \u1f20\u03bc\u1f72\u03bd \u03bb\u03cd\u03b5\u03b9, \u1f20\u03b4\u1f72 \u03ba\u03b1\u03b8\u03af\u03b6\u03b5\u03b9[606].\n\n[606] Od. ii. 69.\n\nThe acknowledgment of a rule of right, extrinsic and superior to\nourselves, is general in the Assemblies of men in Homer, when meeting\nfor business. This there could not be in the Assemblies of the Olympian\ngods. Neither does respect for authority and for tradition well\nharmonize with the idea of beings, who are possessed of unbounded,\nor at the least of greatly extended intelligence. Thus, like the\nindividual deities, the divine Assemblies, and the entire Polity, are\ndeprived of the greatest moral safeguards of their counterparts on\nearth. The consequence is, that their ethical tone is much lower. Force\nis the only effective sanction of authority among the Immortals. This\nis curiously exhibited in the Theomachy: for that battle takes place\nwhen the fate of Troy, which formed the matter in dispute, has already\nbeen long ago decided. Whenever a difficulty arises, which will bear\nthat mode of treatment, Jupiter resorts to the threat of using it, even\nagainst divinities so dignified and powerful as Minerva, Neptune, and\nJuno. Sometimes, indeed, he parades it by anticipation, even when no\nsymptom of disaffection has yet been exhibited.[607] So, on the other\nhand, fraud is the resource of the weak, as violence is of the strong.\nJuno, unable to organize a combination against her husband, devises a\ntrick.\n\n[607] Il. viii. 10.\n\nThe deities, then, are not under any effective ethical restraint; and\nthe only instances in which the highly moral sentiment of \u03b1\u1f30\u03b4\u1f7c\u03c2 is\nmentioned as governing them in their reciprocal conduct are cases of\nthe two great traditive divinities, Minerva and Apollo, with reference\nto their uncle Neptune, and of Jupiter, in whose case it is a sentiment\nof politeness rather than of duty, with reference to Thetis[608].\n\n[608] Il. xxiv. 111.\n\nBut, although moral principle and religious reverence are absent, two\nprinciples of considerable value and utility remain. One of them is a\ncertain courtesy or comity, which prevails in the absence of strong\ncountervailing causes. Secondly, the power of intelligence is very\nvisible in the working of their polity. It is not the mere wish of\nJupiter, it is his counsel, which is fulfilled in the Trojan war. And\nagain, it is not his individual counsel, but it is the decision which\nhe adopts in compliance with the general sentiment of the gods[609]. He\ncould be well content to let Troy stand, because of the abundance of\nits offerings; but he sees that if he attempts to give effect to such\na plan as he would personally prefer, he must encounter the stubborn\nresistance of the three strongest deities, Neptune, Juno, and Minerva.\nPerhaps this difference of opinion might issue in the shape of a\nwar in heaven, and that war might follow the same course as the one\nhappily arrested by Briareus: therefore he avoids the issue, makes the\nconcession without letting himself seem to make it, and thus preserves\nhis general position at the head of the Olympian body.\n\n[609] Il. iv. 43.\n\n~_Courtesy and Intelligence among the Immortals._~\n\nSpeaking of mythological deity as such, the difference of celestial\nfrom human intelligence is a difference of degree rather than of kind.\nThe process of deliberation in the mind of a mortal, and the state of\nsuspense before decision, are frequent subjects of Homeric description.\nAnd he sometimes places individual deities before us with the same,\nor nearly the same, detail, as in cases occurring among men, of doubt\npreceding determination. The essence and foundation of the process\nare similar, as we see in the case of Juno, and again in the instance\nof Jupiter himself. She ponders the question how she shall delude\nJupiter[610]:\n\n[610] Il. xiv. 159-61.\n\n \u03bc\u03b5\u03c1\u03bc\u03ae\u03c1\u03b9\u03be\u03b5 \u03b4\u2019 \u1f14\u03c0\u03b5\u03b9\u03c4\u03b1 \u03b2\u03bf\u1ff6\u03c0\u03b9\u03c2 \u03c0\u03cc\u03c4\u03bd\u03b9\u03b1 \u1f2d\u03c1\u03b7\n \u1f45\u03c0\u03c0\u03c9\u03c2 \u1f10\u03be\u03b1\u03c0\u03ac\u03c6\u03bf\u03b9\u03c4\u03bf \u0394\u03b9\u1f78\u03c2 \u03bd\u03cc\u03bf\u03bd \u03b1\u1f30\u03b3\u03b9\u03cc\u03c7\u03bf\u03b9\u03bf.\n\nAnd then she decides;\n\n \u1f25\u03b4\u03b5 \u03b4\u03ad \u03bf\u1f31 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u1f70 \u03b8\u03c5\u03bc\u1f78\u03bd \u1f00\u03c1\u03af\u03c3\u03c4\u03b7 \u03c6\u03b1\u03af\u03bd\u03b5\u03c4\u03bf \u03b2\u03bf\u03c5\u03bb\u1f74, \u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb.\n\nSo he[611], in his turn, considers long, before determining that\nPatroclus shall carry the war from the ships to the walls. Again, for\nthe great decrees which are to have an extensive influence on human\ndestiny, to argue and consider seem to be a moral necessity among the\ngods, as much as important subjects require public debate among men.\n\n[611] Il. xvi. 646-55.\n\nThe method of reflecting Earth in the Olympian life is sometimes\ncarried by the Poet down to the details of social intercourse. Thus\nit is a terrestrial custom of the heroic age, that strangers are\nentertained before they are called upon to give an account of their\nbusiness[612]. And this hospitable practice extends even to the\ntreatment of those who are charged with important communications; so\nthat Bellerophon is entertained for nine full days by the king of\nLycia, while he has in his pocket the roll containing a request for\nhim to be put to death[613]. In exact conformity with this manner of\nproceeding, Mercury[614] is feasted by Calypso in Ogygia, before he\ndelivers the weighty message, with which he had been intrusted by\nJupiter in the name of the whole Olympian court.\n\n[612] Od. iii. 69.\n\n[613] Il. vi. 174.\n\n[614] Od. v. 91-6.\n\nAlthough we have found it difficult in one or two cases to pronounce\nwith respect to certain divine personages, whether they are Olympian\nor not, yet in principle the line is clearly drawn, which marks off\nthe superiority of the members of the Olympian Court. We find it in\nthe express declaration of Calypso[615]. We find it perhaps yet more\nclearly noted in the comparison between Venus and Thetis: for we have\nseen, as to the former of these deities, her extreme feebleness and\nincapacity in everything, except as regards the particular impulse that\nshe represents. Thetis, on the other hand, is full of activity and\nintelligence; and is gifted with bodily powers sufficient to fly like\na hawk from Olympus, when carrying the celestial arms (whose inherent\nbuoyancy, however, must not be forgotten[616]). Yet, doubtless because\nnot Olympian, she yields the palm to Venus: for Apollo says to \u00c6neas of\nAchilles[617];\n\n[615] Od. v. 169, 70.\n\n[616] Il. xix. 386.\n\n[617] Il. xx. 105.\n\n \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b4\u03ad \u03c3\u03ad \u03c6\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9 \u0394\u03b9\u1f78\u03c2 \u03ba\u03bf\u03cd\u03c1\u03b7\u03c2 \u1f08\u03c6\u03c1\u03bf\u03b4\u03af\u03c4\u03b7\u03c2\n \u1f10\u03ba\u03b3\u03b5\u03b3\u03ac\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u00b7 \u03ba\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03c7\u03b5\u03c1\u03b5\u03af\u03bf\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f10\u03ba \u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f10\u03c3\u03c4\u03af\u03bd.\n\n~_Their unity imperfect._~\n\nThough the body of \u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u1f76 serve as an unity to point a moral in the\nabstract, there is practically a wonderful want of unity and of common\nor corporate feeling among them. This is figured in the Judgment\nof Paris: in the love of Neptune for the Cyclops, who renounce the\nauthority of Jupiter: again in his aversion to the Ph\u00e6acians, who are\nso beloved by the gods in general, that they appear in their proper\nshape at the religious festivals of those favoured islanders[618].\n\n[618] Od. vii. 201-3.\n\nBut notwithstanding this want of the genuine corporate spirit, and\nnotwithstanding the prevalence of essentially selfish appetite as the\nrule of life with the greater part, at any rate, of the Immortals,\nit would not be just to say that the principle of unity in the\nDivine Government is wholly destroyed by the Homeric polytheism. The\nsuperiority of Jupiter, though it does not amount to supremacy in the\nstricter sense[619], is yet sufficiently decided to place him far above\nany other single deity in sheer power. Therefore, when considered\nas the executive of the Olympian system, he is upon the whole equal\nto his work. He may be deceived, and so baffled for a moment, as by\nJuno in the Fourteenth Iliad; but it is for a moment only. Or the\ninsubordination of some particular divinity may approach to resistance,\nlike that of Neptune in the Fifteenth: but, upon admonition, conscious\ninferiority soon brings the matter to a close. So much for the\nexecution of divine behests. As to the legislative process, however,\nheaven strictly follows earth, with only such exceptions as are\naccounted for by the difference in the constituent elements.\n\n[619] N\u00e4gelsbach carries it even to this point. Hom. Theol. Abschn. II.\n17.\n\nThe influence or even the menaces of a powerful leader, the moral force\nof persuasion, the comparison of the means of coercive action on this\nside and on that, and again the composition of wills and opinions\nto obtain a joint result, all these, the leading processes by which\nfree institutions work on earth, with substantial identity, though\nwith more awkwardness of form and less of genial freedom, as might be\nexpected in transplanted ideas, are also the processes by which supreme\nand providential decrees are arrived at. Of the degree to which this\nprinciple of free polity prevails, we can have no better criterion than\nin the fate of Troy. It fell, not merely from the personal prudence of\nJupiter, but because acting as a \u03b2\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03bb\u03b5\u1f7a\u03c2 in heaven, like Agamemnon\nupon earth, he yielded to the preponderating influence of that\nsection in Olympus, which was indeed apparently less numerous, but of\ncommanding strength, influence, and activity.\n\nNor would it be just to Homer and his Olympus to forget, that in\nyielding to the powerful party led by Juno, Neptune, and Minerva,\nJupiter was also yielding up the vicious, and sealing the triumph of\nthe virtuous cause.\n\nThus, then, while we see the spirit of anthropophuism breaking down the\nprinciple of the Unity of God, from its being too feeble and too blind\nto maintain the pure traditions in which it was conveyed, it is still\ncurious to the last degree to observe the order and symmetry of the\nGreek mind, even in its destructive processes. For, as we have found,\nit arranges its groups of deities around a centre, by the principle\nthat creates a Family: and then gives them community of counsel, and\nunity of action, by the principle that maintains a State. What is this,\nbut to bring in the resources and expedients, which our human state\nsupplied, to repair, after a sort, the havock which it had made in the\nDivine Idea?\n\n~_The system not uniform._~\n\nBut although symmetry was thus far, if not studied, yet spontaneously\nproduced, we have ample proof that Homer neither inherited nor invented\nfor his gods any uniform and consistent code of rules, intellectual,\nmoral, or political. Neither, again, in the region of sense did he\nmake any general provision to determine the conditions of divine being\nand action for his gods as an order, or even for particular classes\nof them. The want of such consistency is, indeed, among the striking\nproofs of the profound dualism of origin in his Theo-mythology. All\nthat we can do is to observe his prevailing modes of treatment, and\ncollect a general meaning from them. Proceeding thus, we shall find\nthat the class of Immortals enjoys in various ways a marked superiority\nto man; but the degrees of this superiority, as they are nowhere\nprecisely defined, so they vary greatly in the cases of the different\ndeities: and when, striking off all the particular characteristics of\nindividual members of the system, we attempt to embody what is common\nto them all, we leave but a slight and jejune residuum.\n\nNor is the classification of the differences a regular one. If we\ncompare his delineations of some lower with some higher deities,\nwe must be struck with finding considerable appearances of want of\nanalogy between them. Some inferior persons of the same order, as we\nshall see, may excel in particular gifts, even those who are on the\nwhole their superiors. Thus Circe, and even the Sirens, have powers\ngreater apparently than, in the same subject-matter, Mercury or Vulcan.\nHeterogeneous origin, and imperfect assimilation, afford the true\nexplanation of these phenomena.\n\nIt may be laid down as a general rule, that the divine life of Olympus,\nwherever it reproduces the human, reproduces it in a degraded form.\nEnjoyment and indulgence, when carried from earth to heaven, lose that\nlimit of honourable relation to labour as necessary restoratives, which\nalone makes them respectable on earth.\n\nIn general, the chief note of deity with Homer is emancipation from\nthe restraints of the moral law. Though the Homeric gods have not\nyet ceased to be the vindicators of morality upon earth, they have\npersonally ceased to observe its rules either for or among themselves.\n\nAs compared with men in conduct, they are generally characterised by\nsuperior force and intellect, but by inferior morality.\n\nThey do not appear to have been governed in their relations towards\none another by any motives drawn either from the law of right and\njustice, or from that of affection: unless--an exception which confirms\nthe rule--where the attachment belonging to the human relation of\nparent and child is faintly reflected among the Immortals, as when\nJupiter calls Minerva or Diana \u03c6\u03af\u03bb\u03bf\u03bd \u03c4\u03ad\u03ba\u03bf\u03c2[620], and Venus \u03c4\u03ad\u03ba\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd\n\u1f10\u03bc\u03cc\u03bd[621]: again, in the care taken of Venus after she is wounded by\nher mother Dione[622], and, more slightly indicated, in that of Diana\nby Latona[623]. In the conduct of Mars on the death of Ascalaphus,\nthe impulse is momentary, and it has a strong animal tinge which\nseems to overpower, like a fit of drunkenness, the little reason that\nhe possesses. The grief of Jupiter for Sarpedon is the only case\nof an intense affection among the Immortals. And it is remarkable,\nthat this is felt towards, not a brother or sister divinity, but a\nmortal; towards one of those Lycians, whom Homer regards with such\nextraordinary and unvarying favour.\n\n[620] Il. viii. 39. xxi. 509.\n\n[621] Il. v. 428.\n\n[622] Ibid. 370.\n\n[623] Il. xxi. 504.\n\n~_Force and fraud their chief instruments._~\n\nThe general principles of government, then, among the Immortals\nthemselves are simply those of force and terror, on the one hand, or\nfraud and wheedling on the other. For example, Terror subdues the\nadverse will of Juno[624] in the First Book, of Juno and Minerva in the\nEighth[625], and of Neptune, not without much reluctance on his part,\nin the Fifteenth. Thetis wheedles Jupiter in the First Book[626]; Juno\nentirely beguiles him, besides outwitting Venus, in the Fourteenth;\nMinerva entraps Apollo in the Seventh into the plan of a single combat,\nwhich saves the Greeks from an impending defeat. And the difference\nof opinion respecting Troy in the divine Assembly does not at the\nlast come to effect without a contest of main strength, although the\nvirtual decision of the Olympian body had long ago been taken. Nay,\nthese principles of force and fraud are the real principles of action,\neven when not altogether on the surface. When Mercury declines battle\nwith Latona, it is because he fears the consequences of a contest with\na wife of Jupiter[627]. In a manner still more curious, when Apollo\nhas declined battle with Neptune, professedly on the ground that it is\nnot worth the while of deities to fight about the affairs of wretched\nmortals, the Poet explains his conduct by a sentiment partly of\ndeference arising out of a relationship recognised among men:\n\n[624] Il. i. 568.\n\n[625] Il. viii. 457.\n\n[626] Il. i. 501.\n\n[627] Il. xxi. 499.\n\n \u03b1\u1f34\u03b4\u03b5\u03c4\u03bf \u03b3\u03ac\u03c1 \u1fe5\u03b1\n \u03c0\u03b1\u03c4\u03c1\u03bf\u03ba\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03b3\u03bd\u03ae\u03c4\u03bf\u03b9\u03bf \u03bc\u03b9\u03b3\u03ae\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9 \u1f10\u03bd \u03c0\u03b1\u03bb\u03ac\u03bc\u1fc3\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd[628].\n\n[628] Ibid. 468.\n\nBut here there may possibly have been some mixture of fear, because, as\nhe withdraws, he is reproached bitterly by Diana, called a baby for his\ncowardice, and reminded, that he had himself volunteered the boast in\nheaven, that he was ready to fight against Neptune.\n\nAs these moral elements had been almost wholly eliminated from the\ngeneral principles which govern the Homeric gods in their relations to\none another, so likewise we look almost in vain for the traces of them\nin their individual conduct. They observe, when acting for themselves,\nneither courage, justice, nor prudence; but it is in regard to moral\ntemperance or self-control, that they fall furthest below the standard\neven of human virtue. The Mahometan heaven of men was the heaven of\nthe Homeric gods. Their standing employment, except when troubled by\nhuman affairs, is simply in perpetual, though not drunken or brutal,\nfeasting; sometimes in grosser indulgences. If, says Vulcan to his\nmother, you quarrel about mortals, it will be a pestilent business,\nfor there will be no pleasure in our banquets[629]. If Neptune in the\nOdyssey is gone among the Ethiopians[630], it is for a hecatomb of\nbulls and lambs. If Jupiter and all the gods make a journey to the same\nquarter in the Iliad, it is for a feast[631], which apparently was to\nlast for eleven days. If Hercules has earned the reward of his labours\nby being taken up to heaven, his life there is described as a life\nentitling him to enjoy banquets among the Immortals[632]. If Ganymede\nis received into their company, it is that he may discharge for Jupiter\nthe duty of cup-bearer[633], in which it would appear that both Vulcan\nand Hebe were likewise employed. Of all the phrases characteristic of\nthe Homeric gods and their life, there is none that sits better than\nthe \u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u1f76 \u1fe5\u03b5\u1fd6\u03b1 \u03b6\u03ce\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2.\n\n[629] Il. i. 573-6.\n\n[630] Od. i. 22.\n\n[631] Il. i. 423.\n\n[632] Od. xi. 602.\n\n[633] Il. xx. 234.\n\n~_Their dominant selfishness._~\n\nDeeper, even than their collective devotion to mere enjoyment, lies\ntheir intense and profound selfishness. We cannot fail to note the\nabsence of those sentiments of justice and self-sacrifice, and those\nhigh enthusiastic emotions, which do so much to ennoble the human life\nof the heroic age. There is truth in the assertion that they establish\nand administer a one-sided law:\n\n \u1f63\u03c2 \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u1f10\u03c0\u03b5\u03ba\u03bb\u03ce\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf \u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u1f76 \u03b4\u03b5\u03b9\u03bb\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c3\u03b9 \u03b2\u03c1\u03bf\u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c3\u03b9,\n \u03b6\u03ce\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd \u1f00\u03c7\u03bd\u03c5\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2\u00b7 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1f76 \u03b4\u03ad \u03c4\u2019 \u1f00\u03ba\u03b7\u03b4\u03ad\u03b5\u03c2 \u03b5\u1f30\u03c3\u03af\u03bd[634].\n\n[634] Il. xxiv. 525.\n\nBut beyond this, there lies a deep meaning in the sentiment of an\nItalian poet, Guarini[635]:\n\n[635] Pastor Fido.\n\n Guarda, che nel disumanarti\n Non divenga una fera, anzi che un Dio.\n\nThe Greek mythology, departing from the very basis of the Divine idea\nin the conception of its gods, converts them, by a moral necessity, not\ninto man, but into something which is morally beneath man. There is not\namong all the deities what we can call one full unbroken development of\nnoble character. They are, as a general rule, except so far as they are\nmodified by the traditive element, Titanic creations of intellect or\npower, or both, without virtue. Even where, as in the cases of Minerva\nand Diana, they are pure, their purity does not inspire or impress\nthe Poet with half the force and fire which he must have felt when\nhe drew the matron Andromache, or the maid Nausicaa. But this is not\nthe common case. With great reservation indeed as to the traditional,\nin comparison with the mythical divinities, and likewise as to the\nfemale deities, in comparison with the gods, we must admit that, as a\ngeneral rule, the Immortals of Homer, when brought to the bar of a\ncool inquiry, are in their own personal conduct impure voluptuaries,\nand that the laws, which formed the basis of family life, and which in\nHomer\u2019s time still kept human society from total corruption, for them\nhad no restraining power, indeed no recognised existence.\n\nThere is no sense of shame accompanying the excesses of the gods, such\nas Homer has marked, not without tenderness, in regard to the trespass\nof Astyoche[636];\n\n[636] Il. ii. 514.\n\n \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b8\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 \u03b1\u1f30\u03b4\u03bf\u03af\u03b7, \u1f51\u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03ce\u03ca\u03bf\u03bd \u03b5\u1f30\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd\u03b1\u03b2\u1fb6\u03c3\u03b1.\n\nOn the contrary, Jupiter refers with marked self-satisfaction to his\naffairs of this kind in the Fourteenth Iliad; and shows the very\ntemper, described by Saint Paul as that of the most advanced depravity,\nwhich not only yields to temptation, but seals its own offence with\nhabitual and deliberate approval[637]: \u039f\u1f50 \u03bc\u03cc\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1f70 \u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd, \u1f00\u03bb\u03bb\u1f70 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76\n\u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u03b5\u03c5\u03b4\u03bf\u03ba\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c3\u03b9 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03c0\u03c1\u03ac\u03c3\u03c3\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd.\n\n[637] Rom. i. 32.\n\n~_Cruelty of Calypso in her love._~\n\nWe may take Calypso as no unfair specimen of the ethics of the\nImmortals. In the hope of sensual pleasure, she keeps Ulysses a\nprisoner in her far island. She sees him pining in wretchedness for his\nhome and family from day to day; and well knows the distress that his\nabsence must cause to a virtuous wife and son, as well as the public\nevils, sure to arise from the prolonged absence of a wise and able\nsovereign. Yet she never relents, but still in her odorous cavern she\nsings to the movement of her golden distaff. (Od. v. 59.) When Hermes\nmakes known to her the decree that she cannot resist for his return,\nshe complains of the cruelty of the upper gods, but adds, \u2018as I cannot\nhelp myself, let him perish if Zeus will.\u2019 She promises, however, to\nsend him off in safety, and keeps her word; but it is when she has\nbeen well warned by Mercury of the consequences of disobedience, and\nfirmly bound by Ulysses with the oath which was terrible even to the\nImmortals. (Od. v. 146, 184.)\n\nThe sentiment of envy, which they had begun to entertain towards men,\nappears also to have been felt towards members of the divine order. It\nwas envy with which the gods viewed the happiness enjoyed by Aurora\nin her union with Orion, till it ended with his death; and that moved\nJupiter to destroy Iasion, the object of the choice of Demeter[638].\nBut this (so says Calypso) was envy of the male towards the female\ndeities. There is no reciprocal sentiment: and it is curious here to\nobserve the inequality of the sexes, together with so many other signs\nand beginnings of corruption, established among the Immortals in a\nmanner unknown to human society at the time.\n\n[638] Od. v. 118-29.\n\nCalypso may or may not be justified in the charge she makes against the\ngods; but, at least, it seems clear that, though they have some regard\nto the prevalence of moral laws as between one man and another, they\nby no means impute any moral guilt to her in her cruel detention of\nUlysses, even while they rectify a wrong by their decree.\n\nThe inferiority of the moral standard, which marks the order of gods,\nis likewise traceable in the various races which are described by\nHomer as claiming a special relationship to them; the Cyclopes, the\nL\u00e6strygonians, and even perhaps the Ph\u00e6acians. Against the last of\nthese we can certainly charge no more than an epicurean and inglorious\nease: but the two former not only do not forfeit, they even prove,\ntheir relationship to the gods by being at once more strong and more\nvicious than common men.\n\nAnd, as it affects the kindred of the Immortals in common with\nthemselves, so also does it extend from the sphere of morals into that\nof manners. While Heph\u00e6stus was ministering to them the festal cup,\nthey laughed ungovernably at his personal deformity[639]. Now, the\nGreeks laugh at Thersites[640] when he has been beaten, but it is in\nimmediate connection with his misconduct, and it has nothing whatever\nto do with his ugliness. Laughter at mere deformity is nowhere found in\nHomer: and would entirely jar with the tone of feeling that pervades\nHomeric manners. The action that offers the nearest approach to it\nconfirms the spirit of this observation. It is the hurling of the stool\nby the Suitor Antinous[641] at the apparently decrepit Ulysses; which\nis sternly registered, along with the other outrages of that depraved\ncompany, for the coming day of retribution.\n\n[639] Il. i. 599.\n\n[640] Il. ii. 270-7.\n\n[641] Od. xvii. 465.\n\n~_Olympian as compared with heroic life._~\n\nIn a word, still setting aside in some considerable degree the deities\nof traditive origin, who enter little into the general picture, but\nhave their own portraiture apart, there are to be found in Olympus,\nas well as in the lower earth, the relations of degree in power and\nintelligence; and the gods with whom it is peopled, on the whole,\npossess it in large measure; but the law and purpose of their life\nis summed up in self-will and self-indulgence. They do not debate\ntheir own duties, or even those of men, to one another: rarely, if\never, those of men even towards themselves, except with reference to\nthe quantity of libation poured out, of flesh offered, and of steam\nreeking from the altars. There is a mixture in their enjoyments: some\nare refined, others sensual, but both are alike selfish, and the latter\nare wholly unrestrained. It is said by Heyne, and with much of literal\ntruth, that the description of the day\u2019s employment in Olympus, which\nthe first Iliad supplies, is a transcript of hero-life[642]; but it\nis of one part of hero-life only; it is of hero-life in its moments\nof indulgence and relaxation, which exhibit to us its lower and less\nnoble side, without any view of its great sentiments and great duties,\nits sense of honour, its fine feeling, its reciprocal affections\nas developed in the relations of consanguinity and affinity, of\nfriendship, of guestship, of sovereign and subject, and even of master\nand serf. What a wretched spectacle would Hector, Achilles, Diomed,\nNestor, Ulysses, and the rest present to us, were their existence\ndevoted simply to quaffing goblets and scenting or devouring the\nflesh of slain animals, even though with this there were present the\nmitigating refinement of perpetual harp and song. And yet such is the\npicture offered by the Homeric mythology.\n\n[642] Heyne on Il. i. 603.\n\nUpon the whole, while it remains true that the deification of heroes,\nor their promotion to a happy immortality, in Homer\u2019s time, depended\nupon virtue and merit; those who thus obtained admission to Olympus\nreally found themselves introduced to a new and far lower law of life,\nupon taking their places there, than that to which they had been\naccustomed upon earth. Thus, for example, it is with Hercules; he has\nindeed a reward beyond the grave; but it consists simply in a life\ndivested of the virtues of patience, obedience, valour, and struggle\nby which it had itself been earned.\n\nThe superiority, however, of the intellectual over the material\nelement, except in the matter of self-indulgence, is, as we might\nhave expected, decisively maintained in the Grecian mythology. It\nis exhibited most clearly, perhaps, in the triumph of Jupiter and\nOlympus over the brute might of the Titans. It is also palpable, when\nwe find that the strength of Mars, who represents nothing except\nfighting force, does not always insure his victory, even in contests\nof mere strength, but that he is overthrown by Minerva in the battle\nof the gods, corrected at will by her on all other occasions[643], and\nwounded, with her aid, by the hero Diomed beneath the walls of Troy.\nBut when we speak of intellect as opposed to matter, the case stands so\ndifferently with respect to different deities, that it is necessary to\nattempt a stricter appreciation than we have yet aimed at obtaining, of\ntheir common character.\n\n[643] Il. x. 765. 6.\n\n~_Their exemption from Death uniform._~\n\nThe great and perhaps only essential property by which the Homeric gods\nare distinguished, is that expressed in their very common appellation\nof \u1f00\u03b8\u03ac\u03bd\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2: they are immortal.\n\nThere is something curious in the question, why it is that they are\nendowed uniformly and absolutely with this gift, but not with others;\nwhy the limitation of Death is removed from them, and yet other\nlimitations are allowed in so many respects to remain.\n\nIt seems as if we had here an independent and impartial testimony to\nthe truth of the representation conveyed in Holy Writ, that death has\nbeen the specific punishment ordained for sin: and that therefore in\npassing beyond the human order we, as a matter of course, pass beyond\nits range.\n\nHad the preternatural system of the Poet exhibited to us only such\ndivinities as are the representatives of primeval tradition, it would\nhave been easy to account for the attribute of immortality. But here\nare a multitude of deities, the creatures of human invention; why\nwas this gift bestowed on them, when others were withheld? It may\nbe, again, because that which came last into man\u2019s condition should,\nin the logical and moral order, go first out of it: that in framing\nthe conception of an existence higher than that of man, the first\nstep properly was, before dealing with the more positive faults or\nimperfections inherent in his nature, to set aside that which did not\nbelong to it, but had been set upon it as a note of shame for a special\ncause, like letters branded on a deserter or a slave.\n\nIn Homer it appears that every deity, great and small alike, is exempt\nfrom death. A Fragment of Hesiod[644] proceeds on a basis abstractedly\ndifferent, and by an ingenious multiplication, from the term assigned\nto man upwards, ascribes to the Nymphs a life of 291,600 years. In\nall likelihood the meaning of this passage may be not to curtail\nimmortality, but to enlarge the practical conception of it, by carrying\nlife up to a number which would impress the minds of a generation\nrude in arithmetic far more, than a merely abstract assertion of\nimmortality: just as to us the sand of the sea, or even the hairs of\nthe head, may more impressively convey the idea of unlimited numbers\nthan does the phrase innumerable, although in reality the effect of\neither figure is to limit them.\n\n[644] Fragm. 50. ap. Plut. ii. 415 C.\n\nCalypso is of the lower and of the most earthy order of the Homeric\ndivinities. She recognises in plain terms her inferiority to the\nOlympian gods, by stating that she will send with Ulysses a favourable\nbreeze, which will carry him safely home, provided _they_ permit it,\nwho are so far her superiors, both in planning, and in executing what\nthey plan[645]:\n\n[645] Od. v. 169, 70.\n\n \u03b1\u1f34 \u03ba\u03b5 \u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u03af \u03b3\u2019 \u1f10\u03b8\u03ad\u03bb\u03c9\u03c3\u03b9, \u03c4\u03bf\u1f76 \u03bf\u1f50\u03c1\u03b1\u03bd\u1f78\u03bd \u03b5\u1f50\u03c1\u1f7a\u03bd \u1f14\u03c7\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd,\n \u03bf\u1f35 \u03bc\u03b5\u03c5 \u03c6\u03ad\u03c1\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03af \u03b5\u1f30\u03c3\u03b9 \u03bd\u03bf\u1fc6\u03c3\u03b1\u03af \u03c4\u03b5 \u03ba\u03c1\u1fc6\u03bd\u03b1\u03af \u03c4\u03b5.\n\nYet she distinctly contrasts herself with Penelope, in the very point\nthat she is immortal: and the reply of Ulysses recognises this as the\nessential difference[646];\n\n[646] Od. v. 213, 218.\n\n \u1f21 \u03bc\u1f72\u03bd \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u03b2\u03c1\u03bf\u03c4\u03cc\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9, \u03c3\u1f7a \u03b4\u2019 \u1f00\u03b8\u03ac\u03bd\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f00\u03b3\u03ae\u03c1\u03c9\u03c2.\n\nThe only cases, perhaps, in which Homer glances at the possibility\nof putting a period to the existence of a god, are two, in which the\nsemi-brutal Mars is concerned. When Otus and Ephialtes put him in\nchains, it seems that, but for Eeriboia, he would have perished[647]:\nthe expressions are,\n\n[647] Il. v. 388.\n\n \u03ba\u03b1\u03af \u03bd\u03cd \u03ba\u03b5\u03bd \u1f14\u03bd\u03b8\u2019 \u1f00\u03c0\u03cc\u03bb\u03bf\u03b9\u03c4\u03bf \u1f0c\u03c1\u03b7\u03c2 \u1f06\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03ad\u03bc\u03bf\u03b9\u03bf.\n\nAnd again, under the assault of Diomed, though the Poet does not bring\nthis last extremity into view, he might, had he not fled, perhaps have\nbeen as good as dead (\u03b6\u1f7c\u03c2 \u1f00\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03b7\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2, Il. v. 887). This is not death, but\nit is at any rate the suspension of life, apparently without limit.\nA third alternative is opened in the severe reply of Jupiter, who\nobserves to him, that he might have been thrust down into Tartarus, but\nfor the fortunate accident of his high parentage; veiling the idea\nunder the modest words[648],\n\n[648] Il. v. 898.\n\n \u03ba\u03b1\u03af \u03ba\u03b5\u03bd \u03b4\u1f74 \u03c0\u03ac\u03bb\u03b1\u03b9 \u1f26\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1 \u1f10\u03bd\u03ad\u03c1\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2 \u039f\u1f50\u03c1\u03b1\u03bd\u03b9\u03ce\u03bd\u03c9\u03bd.\n\nThus then the divine life, which, however, certainly with Ares\nis lodged in one of its least godlike receptacles, is liable to\ndegradation, and to abeyance, even possibly to a lingering, though\nprobably in no case to a rapid, process of extinction. But this last\nis rather the limit of calamity only, in the mathematical sense; that\nis to say, a limit which is never actually reached, though there is\nnothing short of it which may not be reached and even passed.\n\n~_Exemption from other limitations partial._~\n\nSo much for the great gift of immortality. With reference to all the\nother limitations imposed upon finite being, the position of the\nImmortals, infinitely diversified according to the two great classes,\nand to individual cases, has this one feature applying to it as a\nwhole, that it is a position of preference, not of independence.\n\nEvery deity has some extension of personal liberties and powers beyond\nwhat men enjoy. But it is in general such as we should conceive to be\nrather characteristic of intermediate orders of creation, than properly\nattaching to the divine nature. We must however distinguish between\nthese three things: 1. The personal exemptions of a divinity from the\nrestraints of time and place, and other limiting conditions; 2. The\ngeneral powers capable of being exercised over other gods, over man,\nover animal or inanimate nature; 3. The powers enjoyed within the\nparticular province over which a divinity presides.\n\nThus for example Calypso, though, as we have seen she is of inferior\nrank, yet exercises very high prerogatives. She sends with Ulysses a\nfavourable breeze: and she predicts calamity, which is to smite him\nbefore he reaches his home. Circe transforms men into beasts, and then\nrestores them to forms of greater beauty and stature[649]. She is\ncognizant of events in the world beneath, and of what will occur on the\narrival of Ulysses there. She then sends a favourable breeze to impel\nhis vessel[650]; and on his return predicts to him the circumstances\nof his homeward voyage[651]. And Proteus delivers a similar prediction\nto Menelaus, to which he adds a declaration of his destiny after\ndeath[652]: he also converts himself into a multitude of forms.\n\n[649] Od. x. 396, 490-5, 529.\n\n[650] Od. xi. 7.\n\n[651] Od. xii. 25, 37 _et seqq_.\n\n[652] Od. iv. 475 and 561.\n\nNow no Homeric deities order winds to blow, except Jupiter, Juno,\nApollo, and Minerva; none issue predictions to men except Minerva and\nApollo, the latter mediately, through Seers or through Oracles; of\nabsolute transformation we have no example; but Minerva, and she alone,\ntransforms Ulysses from one human form to another. I mean absolute\ntransformation effected upon others: all the deities, apparently,\ncan transform themselves at will; for even Venus appears to Helen\ndisguised, though it would seem imperfectly, in the form of an aged\nattendant[653].\n\n[653] Il. iii. 386.\n\nThis gift of knowledge of the future is the more remarkable, when we\nconsider that some of the Olympian deities were without knowledge\neven of what had just happened; as Mars, on the occasion of the death\nof his son Ascalaphus[654]. Even Jupiter, with the rest of the gods,\nwas wholly unaware of the clandestine mission of Iris by Juno to\nAchilles[655].\n\n[654] Il. xiii. 521.\n\n[655] Il. xviii. 165-8.\n\n~_Cases of minor deities with major powers._~\n\nThe great powers of these secondary deities may be accounted for, I\nthink, by two considerations:\n\n1. These divinities belong to the circle of outer or Ph\u0153nician\ntraditions, and the Poet is not therefore, in treating them, subject\nto the same laws as those by which he regulates the Olympian order.\nThey are brought upon the stage with reference to Ulysses or Menelaus,\nand in the Wanderings only; thus they are adopted by Homer for this\nspecial purpose, and endowed with whatever gifts they require for it,\njust as strangers, while they remain, are treated more liberally in a\nhouse than the children of the family, for the very reason that they\nare strangers, and have no concern with the regular organization and\ncontinuing life of the household.\n\n2. Another principle of the mythology conducts us by another road to\nthe same end. Every deity is liberally endowed within his own province.\nNow the province of Proteus, Calypso, and Circe, is the Outer sphere\nof Geography. Within the range of that sphere, the ordinary agency\nof the Olympian deities individually is suspended. Homer prefers to\nleave it to be governed by the divinities, whom he can frame out of\nhis Ph\u0153nician materials for the purpose. In this way he is enabled to\nenlarge the circle of variety, and to draw new and salient lines of\ndistinction between the two worlds. Neptune indeed is there perforce;\nfor navigation is the staple of its theme, and the \u03b8\u03ac\u03bb\u03b1\u03c3\u03c3\u03b1 pervades\nit, from no portion of which can he possibly be excluded. The Olympian\nCourt, too, oversee it, and their orders are conveyed thither by\nMercury their agent. But, except Neptune for the reason given, the\nordinary action of the deities individually is suspended[656], not\non account of any limitation of power, for instance in Minerva, but\nfor a poetical purpose, and with the excuse, that the whole sphere is\nremoved beyond common life and experience. Hence, just as Vulcan works\nprofessionally the most extraordinary miracles, though he is but a\nsecondary deity, because they are in the domain of metallic art, so\nCirce and the rest are empowered to do the like within a domain of\nwhich they are the rooted zoophytes and exclusive occupants.\n\n[656] See sup. sect. iii. p. 201.\n\nIt may be well, before passing to the general limitations upon divine\ncapacity in Homer, to illustrate a little farther this law of special\nendowment.\n\nVenus is among gods what Nireus was among men: \u1f04\u03bd\u03b1\u03bb\u03ba\u03b9\u03c2 \u1f14\u03b7\u03bd \u03b8\u03b5\u03cc\u03c2[657].\nYet she overcomes the resistance of Helen[658]: and we have also the\nexpress record of her girdle as invincible in its operation[659].\nThe case of Mars is peculiar: for he is brought upon the stage to be\nbeaten in his own province, as the exigencies of the poem require\nit: but inferior, nay pitiful, as he is in every point of mind and\ncharacter, yet as to imposing personal appearance, he is made to\ntake rank in a comparison with Jupiter and Neptune, between whose\nnames his is placed[660]. Neptune exhibits vast power, and on his\nown domain, the sea, appears even to have an inkling of providential\nforeknowledge[661]: he is conscious that Ulysses will reach Scheria.\nExcept upon the sea, he exhibits no such attributes of intelligence,\nthough he always remains possessed of huge force. Mercury, again,\nshows in locomotion a greater independence of the laws of place, than\nsome deities who are of a rank higher than his own: and doubtless it\nis because he is professionally an agent or messenger. Even so the\njourneys of Iris are no sooner begun than they are accomplished.\n\n[657] Il. v. 331.\n\n[658] Il. iii. 418-20.\n\n[659] Il. xiv. 198, 9.\n\n[660] Il. ii. 478, 9.\n\n[661] Od. v. 378.\n\n~_Divine faculties an extension of human._~\n\nBut the general rule is, that the divine faculties represent, in regard\nto all the conditions of existence, no more than an improvement and\nextension of the human[662]. Man is the point of origin: and from\nthis pattern invention strives to work upward and outward. The great\ntraditive deities indeed are on a different footing, and appear rather\nto be the reductions and depravations of an ideal modelled upon the\ninfinite. But the general rule holds good, in regard both to bodily and\nmental laws, for the mass of the Olympian Court.\n\n[662] Friedreich, Realien 187. p. 599.\n\nThus deities are subject to sleep, both ordinarily, and under the\nspecial influences of \u1f5d\u03c0\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2, the god of sleep. We are furnished with\na reason for Jupiter\u2019s not being asleep at a given moment[663]; it\nis the special anxiety which presses on him. He had been asleep just\nbefore. Their bodies are not ethereal, but are capable of constraint by\nmanacles. They are capable also of wounds; and they suffer pain even\nso as to scream under it: but their blood is ichor, and their hurts\nheal with great rapidity[664]. They eat ambrosia, and drink nectar.\nThey also receive a sensible pleasure from the savour of sacrifices\nand libations[665]. Nor is this pleasure alone, it is also nourishment\nand strength, for Mercury speaks of it as highly desirable for support\non any long journey. He, too, practises according to his precept, for\nhe seems greatly to relish the meal of ambrosia and nectar, which is\nafforded him by the hospitality of Calypso[666].\n\n[663] Il. ii. 1-4, and i. 609-11.\n\n[664] Il. v. 416, 900-4.\n\n[665] Il. xxiv. 69.\n\n[666] Od. v. 100-2.\n\nAs regards the percipient organs, the Olympian gods appear to depend\npractically on the eye. Minerva alone has a perfect and unfailing\nacquaintance with whatever it concerns her to know. For even Jupiter,\nas we have seen, is not exempt from limitation in this point[667]. Juno\nsends Iris to Achilles in the Eighteenth Iliad without his knowledge,\n\u03ba\u03c1\u03c5\u03b2\u03b4\u1f70 \u0394\u03b9\u1f78\u03c2 \u1f04\u03bb\u03bb\u03c9\u03bd \u03c4\u03b5 \u03b8\u03b5\u1ff6\u03bd. Apollo does not immediately perceive the\nexpedition of Ulysses and Diomed in the Doloneia. Being here opposed\nto Minerva, he could not but be worsted. Generally, even these great\ntraditive deities perceive not by a gift of universal vision, but by\nattention[668]:\n\n[667] Il. xviii. 166-8.\n\n[668] Il. x. 515.\n\n \u03bf\u1f50\u03b4\u2019 \u1f00\u03bb\u03b1\u03bf\u03c3\u03ba\u03bf\u03c0\u03af\u03b7\u03bd \u03b5\u1f36\u03c7\u2019 \u1f00\u03c1\u03b3\u03c5\u03c1\u03cc\u03c4\u03bf\u03be\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f08\u03c0\u03cc\u03bb\u03bb\u03c9\u03bd.\n\nJuno, keenly alive with anxiety, perceives from Olympus the slaughter\nthat Hector and Mars are making on the plain of Troy; and likewise\nfrom the same spot watches Jupiter sitting upon Ida[669]. These four\ndeities, Jupiter, Juno, Minerva, and Apollo, appear to be endowed with\nby far the largest range of vision. Even to Neptune no such powers\nare assigned, as to them; for we are never given to understand that\nany amount of mere distance is too great for their ken. But Neptune\nonly sees the state of the battle before Troy by coming to Samothrace,\napparently to bring it within view, and by looking from thence: nor is\nthe Poet content without adding the reason;\n\n[669] Il. v. 711, and xiv. 157.\n\n \u1f14\u03bd\u03b8\u03b5\u03bd \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u1f10\u03c6\u03b1\u03af\u03bd\u03b5\u03c4\u03bf \u03c0\u1fb6\u03c3\u03b1 \u03bc\u1f72\u03bd \u1f3c\u03b4\u03b7\n \u03c6\u03b1\u03af\u03bd\u03b5\u03c4\u03bf \u03b4\u1f72 \u03a0\u03c1\u03b9\u03ac\u03bc\u03bf\u03b9\u03bf \u03c0\u03cc\u03bb\u03b9\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03bd\u1fc6\u03b5\u03c2 \u1f08\u03c7\u03b1\u03b9\u1ff6\u03bd[670]\u00b7\n\n[670] Il. xiii. 13.\n\na passage which seems to imply, that his vision was much the same as\nthat of mankind even in degree.\n\n~_General prevalence of limitation._~\n\nIn the Odyssey, Ulysses pursues his voyage on the raft without the\nknowledge of Neptune, although on the proper domain of the god, until\nthe eighteenth day. Then he discovers him, but it is only because,\ncoming up from the Ethiopian country, on reaching the Solyman\nmountains, he is supposed to have got within view of the hero. Being\nhere, without special directions, in the zone of the Outer Geography,\nwe have no means of measuring the terrestrial distance with precision,\nand the Poet has not informed us what interval of space he intended us\nto suppose.\n\nThe inventive deities of the second order in Olympus are very slightly\ngifted in this matter. So much we perceive from the ignorance of Mars\nabout the death of his son Ascalaphus. When Venus observes, that \u00c6neas\nhas been wounded, Homer does not name the spot from which she looked;\nbut the general range of the powers of this divinity is so narrow, that\nwe must suppose he means to place her immediately over the field of\nbattle before Troy.\n\nOf the powers of Apollo or Minerva, as hearers of prayer irrespectively\nof distance, I have already spoken; but the local idea enters more\nfreely into the anomalous character of the head of Olympus. In the\nFirst Iliad, Thetis explains to her son that she cannot introduce to\nJupiter the matter of his wrongs, until he returns from the country of\nthe Ethiopians, whither he has repaired with the other Immortals to a\nbanquet[671]. This may mean either that he is too far off to attend\nto the business, or that he must not be disturbed while inhaling the\nodours of a hecatomb.\n\n[671] Il. i. 521-7.\n\nVery great diversity in individual cases, but at the same time\na general and pervading law of restraint, are evident in the\ndescriptions of the deities with respect to their powers of locomotion.\nFacility of movement accrues to them variously according to 1. their\npeculiar work and office; 2. their general dignity and freedom from\nmerely mythological traits; 3. the exigencies of the particular\nsituation. As to the first, I have noticed that Mercury and Iris have\na rapidity as messenger-gods, which in their simple capacity as gods\nthey could scarcely possess. Yet even Mercury follows a route: from\nOlympus he strikes across Pieria, and next descending skims the surface\nof the sea; then at length passes to the beach of the island, and so\nonwards to the cave of the Nymph[672]. Minerva, on the other hand,\nin virtue not of any special function, but of her general power and\ngrandeur, is conceived as swifter still. The journeys of Apollo, in\nlike manner, are conceived of as instantaneous: the rule in both cases\nbeing subject to poetical exceptions only. The chariots of Juno and of\nNeptune[673], again, proceed with measured pace. Each step of Juno\u2019s\nhorses covers the distance over which a man can see[674]. Neptune\nhimself passes in four steps from Samothrace to \u00c6g\u00e6[675]. The driving\nof Jupiter from Olympus to Ida is described in terms before used for\nJuno\u2019s journey[676]. Juno travels at another time from Olympus to\nLemnos by Pieria, Emathia, and the tops of the Thracian mountains. Here\nHomer seems to supply her with a sort of made road on which to tread:\nfor the route is a little circuitous[677]. Mars, when wounded, takes\nwing to Olympus: but Venus, though only hurt in the wrist, cannot get\nthither until she obtains the aid of his chariot, which happily for her\nwas then waiting on the field[678].\n\n[672] Od. v. 50-57.\n\n[673] Il. xiii. 29.\n\n[674] Il. v. 770.\n\n[675] Il. xiii. 20.\n\n[676] Il. viii. 41-6.\n\n[677] Il. xiv. 226.\n\n[678] Il. v. 864, 355-67.\n\nBut poetical utility, so to speak, enters very largely into the\nwhole subject of Olympian locomotion, and makes it difficult to\ndraw with rigour the proper mythological conclusions. This may be\nsufficiently illustrated by the following cases. We have seen the\nmajestic march of Juno from one hill top to another, and the measured\nthough speedy course of her chariot. Yet, under the pressure of\nurgent considerations, she flies from Ida to Olympus, as the bearer\nof Jupiter\u2019s message, with a rapidity that Homer illustrates by the\nremarkable simile of the travelling of Thought[679]. Again, where an\nimposing magnificence is the object, measure is introduced into the\nmovement of Apollo himself by the clang of the darts upon his shoulder\nas he goes[680]. And, even more, Venus, whom we have seen so impotent\non the field of Troy, after her exposure in the Eighth Odyssey, flies\nat once all the way to Paphos; as does Mars to Thrace[681]. This in\nboth cases is probably because the occasion did not admit of ornamental\nenlargements, such as befitted the journey of a god. And when Vulcan is\nrepresented as actually engaged in falling during the whole day from\nOlympus down into Lemnus[682], a poetical allusion to his lameness may\nprobably be intended.\n\n[679] Il. xv. 79-84.\n\n[680] Il. i. 44-8.\n\n[681] Od. viii. 361-3.\n\n[682] Il. i. 590-3.\n\n~_Chief heads of superiority to mankind._~\n\nThus we see not the mental only, but also the corporeal existence\nof the mythological god hemmed in on every side. A great force of\nappetite, and a disposition to give it unbridled indulgence, can hardly\nbe reckoned among elevating gifts. But if it be asked, wherein does\nHomer enlarge and improve for his mythical gods the human conditions of\nbeing, besides,\n\n(1.) The one grand point of immortality, I should answer, in\n\n(2.) An unlimited abundance of the means of corporal enjoyment, and a\ngeneral freedom from the interruptions of care.\n\n(3.) A liberal dispensation of the somewhat vulgar commodities of\nphysical strength and stature; and of the higher gift of absolute\nbeauty, into which the idea of stature, however, materially enters.\n\nThe former of these two we learn from the fact, that the banquet is\nthe habitual and normal occupation of the Olympian Court. In the First\nBook, the fray between Jupiter and Juno passes off naturally, and as a\nmatter of course, into a feast that lasts all day[683]. And when Juno,\nin the Fifteenth Book, reaches Olympus with a message from Jupiter,\nThetis, whom she meets first, salutes her by offering the cup[684].\n\n[683] Il. i. 596-604.\n\n[684] Il. xv. 87.\n\nThere is also among the gods a kind of \u2018high life below stairs.\u2019 When\nIris repairs on behalf of Achilles to the Winds, she finds them too\nbanqueting in the palace of Zephyr, probably their chief[685]; but she\nhastes away, when her message is delivered, to feast in preference\namong divinities of her own rank upon an Ethiopian sacrifice.\n\n[685] Il. xxiii. 300.\n\n~_Their stature and beauty._~\n\nAs regards size and stature, these gifts are so freely bestowed as to\nbe almost without measure: nor does the Poet even care in such cases\nto be at strict unity with himself. Mars, who in the Fifth Book, draws\nno very peculiar notice on the battle field from his size, in the\nTheomachy, when laid prostrate, covers seven acres. Eris, treading on\nthe earth, strikes heaven with her head. The helmet of Minerva would\nsuffice for the soldiery of a hundred cities; the golden tassels of\nher \u00e6gis, a hundred in number, and each worth a hundred oxen, after\nevery allowance for mere laxity in the use of numbers, would imply vast\nweight and bulk. Accordingly, the axle of Juno\u2019s chariot may well groan\nbeneath the weight of Pallas[686]. Apollo, without the smallest seeming\neffort, stops Diomed and Patroclus in mid-career; and overthrows the\nGreek wall as easily as a child overthrows his plaything heap of\nsand[687]. Other signs might be quoted, such as the tread that shakes\nthe earth, and the voices of Mars and Neptune, equal to those of nine\nor ten thousand[688] mortals.\n\n[686] Il. xxi. 407. iv. 443. v. 744. ii. 448. v. 837.\n\n[687] Il. v. 437. xvi. 774. xv. 361.\n\n[688] Il. v. 860. xiv. 148.\n\nWith the one marked exception of Vulcan, beauty is generally indicated\nas the characteristic of the Olympian deities. Among the gods, it\nextends even to Mars[689]. It is sufficiently indicated for the\ngoddesses by their habitual epithets. Even Minerva, in whom personal\ncharms are as it were eclipsed by the sublime gifts of the mind, is\nsometimes called \u1f20\u03b0\u03ba\u03bf\u03bc\u03bf\u03c2 and \u1f10\u03cb\u03c0\u03bb\u03cc\u03ba\u03b1\u03bc\u03bf\u03c2 (Il. vi. 92. Od. vii. 40): and\nCalypso declares the superiority of goddesses to women in beauty, as a\ngeneral proposition[690],\n\n[689] Od. viii. 310.\n\n[690] Od. v. 212.\n\n \u1f10\u03c0\u03b5\u1f76 \u03bf\u1f54\u03c0\u03c9\u03c2 \u03bf\u1f50\u03b4\u1f72 \u1f14\u03bf\u03b9\u03ba\u03b5\u03bd\n \u03b8\u03bd\u03b7\u03c4\u1f70\u03c2 \u1f00\u03b8\u03b1\u03bd\u03ac\u03c4\u1fc3\u03c3\u03b9 \u03b4\u03ad\u03bc\u03b1\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b5\u1f36\u03b4\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c1\u03af\u03b6\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd.\n\nThe mythological or invented deities generally, but none of the\nstrictly traditive deities, appear to be tainted with libertinism.\nAmong the former we may, however, observe degrees. Jupiter and Venus\nstand at the head. Neptune, Mars, Mercury, Ceres, Aurora, follow. Juno\nevidently treats the passion simply as an instrument for political\nends. Of this Homer has given us a very remarkable indication. For\nwhen she sees Jupiter on Ida, though she is just then conceiving her\ndesign, she views him with disgust: \u03c3\u03c4\u03c5\u03b3\u03b5\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u03b4\u03ad \u03bf\u1f31 \u1f14\u03c0\u03bb\u03b5\u03c4\u03bf \u03b8\u03c5\u03bc\u1ff7[691].\nSo careful is the Poet that we shall not imagine her to have been\nunder the gross influence of a merely sensual passion. Thetis suggests\na remedy of that nature to her son for his grief[692]. In mere\nimpersonations, not yet endowed with the strong human individuality\nof the Greek Olympus, such as Themis and Helios, we do not expect to\nfind this trait. But of all the fully personified deities of invention,\nVulcan alone, privileged by Labour and Ugliness, appears in Homer to\nbe exempt. The Hellenic goddesses generally do not, however, like the\nmore Pelasgian Venus, Ceres, and probably Aurora, debase themselves by\nintrigues with mortal men.\n\n[691] Il. xiv. 158.\n\n[692] Il. xxiv. 130.\n\nThe chastity of the traditive deities, Minerva, Diana, Latona, and\nprobably Apollo, I take for one of the noblest and most significant\nproofs of the high origin of the materials which they respectively\nembody.\n\nThere is also in the deities of Homer not merely a dependance upon\nphysical nourishment, but even a passion of gluttony connected with it.\nThe basis of this idea is laid in the conception which made feasting\nthe normal occupation of Olympus. It followed that they were not\nonly bound by something in the nature of necessity to food, but also\nenslaved to it by greediness as a rooted habit.\n\n~_Nature of their regard for sacrifice._~\n\nOf this we find traces all through the poems, in the course which\ndivine favour usually takes. When Homer speaks of the gods in the sense\nof Providential governors, it is the just man that they regard, and the\nunjust that they visit with wrath. But when he carries us into Olympus,\nand we behold them in the living energy of their individualities, it\nis sacrifice which they want, and which forms their share in the fruits\nof earth and of human labour, as we learn from the emphatic words of\nJupiter himself;\n\n \u03c4\u1f78 \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u03bb\u03ac\u03c7\u03bf\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd \u03b3\u03ad\u03c1\u03b1\u03c2 \u1f21\u03bc\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c2[693].\n\n[693] Il. iv. 49. xxiv. 70. xxii. 170.\n\nIt was the bounty of Autolycus in lambs and kids which induced Mercury\nto bestow on him in return the gifts of thievery and perjury[694].\n\n[694] Od. xix. 395-8.\n\nMoral retribution in Homer lags and limps at a great distance behind\nthe offence, but the omission to sacrifice is visited condignly and at\nonce. Again, in the case of Troy, liberality in this particular even\nseems to create a party in Olympus on behalf of an offending race. On\nthe erection of the rampart by the Greeks, Neptune immediately urges\nthe omission of the regular hecatombs against them. It is punished by\nDiana in \u00c6tolia, by the gods generally on the departure from Troas; and\nMenelaus in like manner is for this offence wind-bound in Pharos[695].\n\n[695] Il. ix. Od. i. iv.\n\nThe reason of this preeminence of sacrifices, both as to punishment\nand as to reward, may lie partly in the tendency of man (though, as\nwe shall presently see, the practice had its moral side also) to\nsubstitute positive observances for moral obedience; but partly,\nlikewise, in the importance of sacrifices to the anthropophuism of the\nOlympian deities themselves.\n\nPutting out of view what each deity can do in his particular domain, we\nshall find that but little of power over nature--whether human, animal,\nor inanimate--attaches to the Homeric gods as such. Juno conveys a\nsuggestion to the mind of Agamemnon[696], and gives, with Minerva,\ncourage to a warrior; but this is the whole of her immediate action,\nI mean action without a mean, in this department, exhibited by any\npassage in the Poems. Indeed, no other mythological deity ascends to\nagency of this kind at all.\n\n[696] Il. viii. 218. ix. 254.\n\nUpon animal and inanimate nature Juno exercises the highest powers.\nWhen she thunders with Minerva, sends cloud to impede the flying\nTrojans, retards the sunset, and assists the voyage of Jason, we may\nconsider her as in the reflex use of the atmospheric powers of her\nhusband: but the gift of a voice to the horse Xanthus, apparently can\nlie within her reach only by derivation from the higher or traditive\nelement in his character, as representing the idea of supreme deity.\n\nAmong the deities of invention, the general rule is, with respect\nto the exercise of power over nature or the human mind, that it\nis confined to matters in immediate connection with their several\nspecialties. Two extraordinary acts of power over nature appear,\nhowever, to be within the competency of them all. One is the production\nof a patch of cloud or vapour at will; the other is that of assuming\nthe human form for themselves, either generally or in the likeness of\nsome particular person. I do not, however, recollect any instance in\nwhich this power is exercised by a deity of invention in the manner\nin which Minerva employs it in the First Iliad[697], that is, under\nthe condition of being visible only to one person out of many who are\npresent. In that image we seem to find a figure, perhaps a traditionary\nremnant, of that inward and personal communication between the Almighty\nand the individual soul, which constitutes a high distinguishing note\nof the true religion.\n\n[697] Il. v. 198.\n\nThere would appear to have been certain visible marks which went to\ndistinguish a god, up to a certain point, from men. Hector in the\nFifteenth Iliad knows Apollo to be a god[698], but does not know what\ngod. Minerva clears the vision of Diomed, that he may be able to\ndiscriminate between gods and men[699]. Pandarus, eyeing Diomed, is\nuncertain whether he is a mortal or a god[700]. The recognition of\nVenus by Helen may, indeed, have been due to the imperfectness of her\npower of self-transformation[701]; but it may also have been owing\nto these general traces of resemblance to the divine order, which\nsubsisted even under the human disguise.\n\n[698] Il. xv. 246.\n\n[699] Il. v. 128.\n\n[700] Il. v. 183.\n\n[701] Il. iii. 396.\n\nHomer represents Minerva as weighing down the chariot of Diomed, and\nmaking the axle creak[702];\n\n[702] Ibid. 838.\n\n \u03bc\u03ad\u03b3\u03b1 \u03b4\u2019 \u1f14\u03b2\u03c1\u03b1\u03c7\u03b5 \u03c6\u03ae\u03b3\u03b9\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f04\u03be\u03c9\u03bd\n \u03b2\u03c1\u03b9\u03b8\u03bf\u03c3\u03cd\u03bd\u1fc3\u00b7 \u03b4\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd\u1f74\u03bd \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u1f04\u03b3\u03b5\u03bd \u03b8\u03b5\u1f78\u03bd, \u1f04\u03bd\u03b4\u03c1\u03b1 \u03c4\u2019 \u1f04\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd.\n\nThis passage may be taken as a proof, since it applies to the most\nspiritual of the Homeric divinities, how far the Poet was from\nconsidering that they were endowed with the properties of pure spirit.\n\n~_Parts of the body, how ascribed._~\n\nOf this he has given us farther proof by his free and constant\nreference, wherever occasion serves, to the parts and organs of the\nbody as appertaining to the gods.\n\nI think that references of this kind in Holy Scripture usually bear\na mark, which yields decisive witness to the fact that their use is\nwholly relative and analogical: as, for example, the eye of God,\nnamely, the instrument by which He watches us, the mouth of God,\nby which He instructs us, the hand and the arm of God, by which\nHe sustains, or delivers, or corrects, or crushes us. It does not\ntherefore appear that we could justly and fully draw our conclusions\nas to the corporeal constitution of an Olympic deity from the mere\ncircumstance that we are told of the knees or lap of the gods, by which\nit might be figuratively expressed, that the disposal of human affairs\nrests with them[703]; or because of that gorgeous description, which\nthe Poet has given us, of the head and nod, meaning the decree of\nJupiter. For all these allusions are capable of explanation on the same\nprinciple with those of Holy Scripture, namely, as being relative and\nexplanatory to man.\n\n[703] Mure, however, in his History of Greek Literature, refers the\norigin of the metaphor to the practice of representation by statues.\n\nBut he has a multitude of other references to parts of the body, which\ndo not at all belong to the use of them as organs for communication\nwith the imperfect apprehensions of mankind. Thus:\n\n1. Thetis takes hold of the chin of Jupiter, Il. i. 501.\n\n2. Diomed wounds Venus on the wrist, Il. v. 336.\n\n3. And Mars in the abdomen, Il. v. 857; whom Minerva likewise\noverthrows by a blow on the neck, Il. xxi. 406.\n\n4. Hercules wounds Juno in the right breast, Il. v. 393; and we have\nher hair, flesh, chest, and feet, in the toilette of Il. xiv. 170-86.\n\n5. Helen discovers the neck and breast as well as eyes of Venus, Il.\niii. 396. See Il. xxi. 424.\n\n6. The legs of Vulcan are weak, his neck strong, and his chest shaggy,\nIl. xviii. 411-15.\n\n7. Mercury attaches wings to his feet, Od. v.\n\n8. Juno seizes the wrists of Diana, takes the bow and arrows from her\nback, and beats her about the ears, Il. xxi. 489-91.\n\n9. The arrows rattle on the shoulder of Apollo, Il. i. 46.\n\n10. The arming of Minerva introduces her shoulders, head, and feet, Il.\nv. 738-45.\n\nWe need not, however, be surprised at failing to find in Homer any\nconception approaching to that of pure spirit, or any thing resembling\nthat refined discernment, which has led Christian Art to represent the\nfigure of our Lord alone as self-poised and self-supported in the air,\nwhile all other human forms, even when transfigured, have a ground\nbeneath their feet, though it be but made of cloud. Even in some of the\nvery highest among Christian writers, such as Dante and St. Bernard,\nthe human being, after the soul has gone through dismissal from the\nflesh, still appears to be invested with a lighter form and species of\nbody, apparently on the assumption that the two elements of matter and\nspirit are not only essentially, but inseparably wedded in our nature.\n\n~_Examples of miracle in Homer._~\n\nFull as they are of preternatural signs and operations, the poems of\nHomer do not, nevertheless, deal much with miracle, with the specific\npurpose of which he had no concern.\n\nBy miracle I understand, speaking generally, not the mere use of the\ncommon natural powers, accumulated or enlarged, but an operation\ninvolving what, I suppose, would be called medically an organic\ndeparture from her customary laws: an operation too, which must\nabsolutely be performed, upon man himself or some other object, after\nsome manner which shall be appreciable in its results by his faculties,\nand calculated to satisfy them, when in their greatest vigilance, that\nit is a real experience, and not a mere delusion of the senses.\n\nThus understood, the miracles of Homer are, I think, scarcely more\nnumerous than the following: for, under this definition, the ambrosia\nof Simois and the flowers of Ida are not miracles[704].\n\n[704] Il. v. 777. xiv. 347.\n\n1. The crawling and lowing of the oxen of the Sun after their death,\nOd. xii. 395, 6.\n\n2. The acceleration of the Sunset, Il. xviii. 239.\n\n3. The retardation of the dawn, Od. xxiii. 241.\n\n4. The speaking horse, Il. xix. 407.\n\n3. The \u03b5\u1f34\u03b4\u03c9\u03bb\u03bf\u03bd of \u00c6neas, Il. v. 449.\n\n6. The portents of the banquet night in Od. xx. 347-62. I feel some\ndoubt, however, whether this is objective, or whether it is only an\nimpression on the senses.\n\n7. The transformation and re-transformation of Ulysses[705], Od. xiii.\n398, 429, and xxiii. 156-63.\n\n[705] N\u00e4gelsbach, i. 10. p. 25.\n\n8. Perhaps, also, the \u03b5\u1f34\u03b4\u03c9\u03bb\u03bf\u03bd of Iphthime, Od. ix. 797.\n\n9. The gouts of blood, shed down from the air by Jupiter, Il. xi. 53.\n\n10. The transformation of the serpent into a stone in the sight of all\nthe Greeks; \u1f21\u03bc\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03b4\u2019 \u1f11\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u03cc\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 \u03b8\u03b1\u03c5\u03bc\u03ac\u03b6\u03bf\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd \u03bf\u1f37\u03bf\u03bd \u1f10\u03c4\u03cd\u03c7\u03b8\u03b7, Il. ii. 320.\n\nThe first seems due to the divine power as a whole; the second and\nfourth to Juno; the third and seventh and eighth to Minerva; the fifth\nand sixth are the works of Apollo; the ninth and tenth of Jupiter. I do\nnot add as an eleventh the conversion of the Ph\u00e6acian ship into a rock,\nby Neptune, in the sight of the people; because this is rather of the\nclass of marvels which appertained to other, even secondary gods, such\nas Vulcan, in their own particular domains, Od. xiii. 159-87.\n\nThe buoyant arms of Achilles (Il. xix. 386), and other works of Vulcan,\nmight at first sight seem to belong to the list, but it is doubtful\nwhether they are not poetical rather than mythological representations,\nand in any case they would appear as gifts strictly professional,\nexercised in the ordinary administration of his peculiar function.\n\nTelemachus appears to recognise the existence of miraculous powers in\nthe passage[706],\n\n[706] Od. xvi. 196.\n\n \u03bf\u1f50 \u03b3\u03ac\u03c1 \u03c0\u03c9\u03c2 \u1f02\u03bd \u03b8\u03bd\u03b7\u03c4\u1f78\u03c2 \u1f00\u03bd\u1f74\u03c1 \u03c4\u03ac\u03b4\u03b5 \u03bc\u03b7\u03c7\u03b1\u03bd\u03cc\u1ff3\u03c4\u03bf\n \u1fa7 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03b3\u03b5 \u03bd\u03cc\u1ff3, \u1f45\u03c4\u03b5 \u03bc\u1f74 \u03b8\u03b5\u1f78\u03c2 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1f78\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c0\u03b5\u03bb\u03b8\u1f7c\u03bd\n \u1fe5\u03b7\u03ca\u03b4\u03af\u03c9\u03c2 \u1f10\u03b8\u03ad\u03bb\u03c9\u03bd \u03b8\u03ae\u03c3\u03b5\u03b9 \u03bd\u03b5\u1f78\u03bd \u1f20\u1f72 \u03b3\u03ad\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1.\n\nBut this is spoken of the Godhead rather than of any particular deity,\nand cannot by Homeric analogy be applied except to those of the highest\nnatures.\n\n~_Their operation on the human mind._~\n\nIt will however be observed, that several of these prodigies are not\nstated to have challenged human observation when performed: and unless\nthey submit themselves to the test of the senses they are not properly\nmiracles at all. Others of them entirely comply with the condition, as\nespecially that of Il. ii. 320.\n\nThe retardation of sunset and sunrise, and the rain of blood, appear\nto pass wholly unobserved. Prodigies not setting out from a basis in\nnature, such as the tears of blood shed by Jupiter[707], are wholly\nbeyond the scope of these observations.\n\n[707] Il. xvi. 459.\n\nOn the whole, we find stringent limitation prevailing in this province,\nas regards the majority of the gods.\n\nIndeed the forces of nature, which the mythological divinities in part\nrepresent, were sometimes too strong for them: for Homer tells us that\nNotus and Zephyr[708] sometimes shatter vessels at sea without or\nagainst the will of the gods:\n\n[708] Od. xii. 290.\n\n \u03b8\u03b5\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f00\u03ad\u03ba\u03b7\u03c4\u03b9 \u1f00\u03bd\u03ac\u03ba\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd.\n\nEven man, and that without impiety, can occasionally think of\nresistance. When Menelaus, alone in the field, decides on retiring\nbefore Hector (who fights \u1f10\u03ba \u03b8\u03b5\u03cc\u03c6\u03b9\u03bd), rather than contend \u03c0\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u03b4\u03b1\u03af\u03bc\u03bf\u03bd\u03b1,\nhe looks around for Ajax, and observes that, could he but see him, they\ntwo would fight \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c0\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u03b4\u03b1\u03af\u03bc\u03bf\u03bd\u03ac \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1, even with the deity opposed to\nthem, in order to recover the body of Patroclus[709].\n\n[709] Il. xvii. 98-101.\n\nThere is, however, I think, another reason, besides feebleness in his\nconception of the gods, which prevents the Greek Poet from representing\nthem as omnipotent in regard to the operations of the human mind; and\nthat is, his profound sense of the free agency of man. This principle\nwith him, as it were, confronts the deity on every side; who respects\nits dignity, and never really invades its sphere, but pursues his work\nby means compatible with its essential character. The idea of the deity\npervading the poems is mainly that of a cooperative power, who helps\nus when and as we help ourselves. It is expressed with an unrivalled\nsimplicity when Telemachus, coming as a young man into the presence of\nNestor, feels oppressed with a nervous shyness; and Minerva encourages\nhim by telling him that he can of himself find something to say, and\nthat the divinity will prompt more to him[710],\n\n[710] Od. iii. 26.\n\n \u1f04\u03bb\u03bb\u03b1 \u03bc\u1f72\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1f78\u03c2 \u1f10\u03bd\u1f76 \u03c6\u03c1\u03b5\u03c3\u1f76 \u03c3\u1fc7\u03c3\u03b9 \u03bd\u03bf\u03ae\u03c3\u03b5\u03b9\u03c2,\n \u1f04\u03bb\u03bb\u03b1 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b4\u03b1\u03af\u03bc\u03c9\u03bd \u1f51\u03c0\u03bf\u03b8\u03ae\u03c3\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9.\n\nHeavenly influence never overpowers or suppresses the will, but\nsometimes suggests thoughts to the mind, and sometimes diverts it,\nnot perhaps from the thought of an object already perceived, but from\nthe chance of perceiving it. Thus, when Euryclea, through surprise\non beholding the scar, and so recognising Ulysses, oversets the\nfoot-bath, Penelope, who is present, might naturally have observed the\nmiscarriage; but Minerva interposes to abstract her attention from what\nwas passing, lest she should recognise her husband prematurely:\n\n \u1f21 \u03b4\u2019 \u03bf\u1f54\u03c4\u2019 \u1f00\u03b8\u03c1\u1fc6\u03c3\u03b1\u03b9 \u03b4\u03cd\u03bd\u03b1\u03c4\u2019 \u1f00\u03bd\u03c4\u03af\u03b7, \u03bf\u1f54\u03c4\u03b5 \u03bd\u03bf\u1fc6\u03c3\u03b1\u03b9,\n \u03c4\u1fc7 \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u1f08\u03b8\u03b7\u03bd\u03b1\u03af\u03b7 \u03bd\u03cc\u03bf\u03bd \u1f14\u03c4\u03c1\u03b1\u03c0\u03b5\u03bd[711].\n\n[711] Od. xix. 478.\n\nWith the exception of Juno, who in some sense reflects the majesty of\nJupiter, and becomes entitled as a wife to handle his prerogatives, it\nmay be stated generally respecting the deities of invention properly so\ncalled, that, except within the limits of their particular domain or\noffice, they scarcely at all modify the laws of nature, never set in\nmotion or direct her greater forces, nor act in an extraordinary manner\non the mind or body of man. Each in his own province can stimulate a\nparticular animal propensity, or improve a particular gift of mind or\nbody: and that is all.\n\nWhile therefore the strength of the Olympian deities lies in knowledge\nand in power, we find upon the whole that even in these particularly\nthey are subject to manifold limitation. They could translate mortals\nout of this world in which the rule of Death prevails, as we see in\nthe cases of Ganymede, and of Tithonus; but it does not appear that,\nif we except the traditive ideas represented in Minerva and Apollo,\nthey could either raise men from the grave, prevent their dying in\nthe course of nature, heal their wounds or diseases, or set their\nbroken limbs. When even Latona and Diana heal \u00c6neas[712], they do it\napparently with greater speed indeed, but in other respects much as it\nwould have been done by Podaleirius or Machaon.\n\n[712] Il. v. 488.\n\n~_They do not discern the thoughts._~\n\nNor, again, does it appear that even the most exalted of their number\nhad the knowledge of inward thoughts, otherwise than as they may be\ndiscovered by persons of particular sagacity. When Minerva detects the\nfalse accounts given of himself by Ulysses[713], no more is declared\nthan the simple fact that she has a sufficient knowledge of his\npersonal identity. Hence, with respect to the fraud of Laomedon upon\nNeptune and Apollo, Saint Augustine sarcastically wonders that even\nApollo the diviner should not have known that Laomedon meant to cheat\nhim[714]; and that one of such dignity as Neptune should have been\nin a like state of ignorance. With this we may compare the taunts of\nElijah[715] against the priests of Baal.\n\n[713] Od. xiii. 291.\n\n[714] De Civ. Dei, iii. 2.\n\n[715] 1 Kings xviii. 27.\n\nWhile, then, the gift of anything like general foreknowledge appears to\nbe withheld from all the deities of invention, that of the \u2018discerner\nof the thoughts and intents of the heart,\u2019 is nowhere found; nor was\nit believed of any member of the Olympian community, as it was said of\nOne greater than they[716]: \u2018He knew all men; and needed not that any\nshould testify of man, for he knew what was in man.\u2019\n\n[716] John ii. 24, 25.\n\nSuch, as far as I am able to present it, is the internal view of the\nOlympus of Homer: a scheme eminently national, and eminently poetical.\nEgypt, Persia, Ph\u0153nicia, the old Pelasgians, doubtless contributed\nmaterials towards its formation: but I have a lively conviction that\nHomer was (so to speak) the theo-mythologer who moulded these materials\ninto system, the substitute for unity, invested them with the forms and\ncolours of brilliant beauty, and gave them their hold in their historic\nshape upon the mind of his countrymen; with the sublime Olympus, so\nnear the old Dodona, of which he probably contrived it as the rival,\nfor their centre of life and power.\n\n\n\n\nSECT. VI.\n\n_The Olympian Community and its Members, considered in their influence\non human society and conduct._\n\n\nWe have thus far considered the deities of Homer as they are, or are\nrepresented by him to be, in themselves individually, and in their\nmutual relations. We have now to consider the relation which subsisted\nbetween them and the race of man, especially on its human side; the\nstate of religious sentiment and obligation, and of the moral law,\nboth as towards heaven and likewise as between man and man, so far as\nit is immediately associated with the system of which they are the\nrepresentatives. Another large part of morals, which was already in\ngreat part detached from visible relation to religion, will remain for\nseparate consideration.\n\nAnd here we may remark, that the Homeric Greeks apparently knew nothing\nof any periodical religious observance of commanding authority, such\nas to form a centre either for national union, or for the life of\nthe individual. Had there been such an observance, we must, without\ndoubt, have found a trace of it on the Shield of Achilles. The only\nfestival, of which we have clear information, is that of Apollo in the\nOdyssey, on the first day of the month. More obscurely, one of Minerva\nappears to be indicated in Il. ii. 551. No religious worship, properly\nto be so called, accompanied the funeral of Patroclus, or the games\nwhich followed it. The Winds[717] were called in aid for a special\npurpose. The invocation of Spercheus[718] is an apology for devoting\nto Patroclus the hair which Peleus had, on his son\u2019s behalf, vowed to\nthat River-god. Neither is there any notice whatever of religion in the\nbrief summary of the proceedings in Troy after the ransom of the corpse\nof Hector[719].\n\n[717] Il. xxiii. 194.\n\n[718] Ibid. 144.\n\n[719] Il. xxiv. 788-800.\n\nBut although not sustained or organized by the self-acting machinery\nof periodical celebrations, nor by the appropriation of the services\nof a particular class of society, the life, thoughts, and actions of\nthe better Greeks were in a close and pervading proximity, so to speak,\nto their religion. I say of the better Greeks; for there is an almost\ntotal absence of reference to the gods in the language, as well as in\nthe actions, of the profligate Suitors of the Odyssey. When it first\nappears, it is ironical[720]: and only in the last distress does it\nassume any other character.\n\n[720] Od. xviii. 37.\n\nIn general terms, every thing was ascribed to the gods. They know all\nthings, \u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u1f76 \u03b4\u03ad \u03c4\u03b5 \u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1 \u1f34\u03c3\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd[721]: They can do every thing, \u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u1f76\n\u03b4\u03ad \u03c4\u03b5 \u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1 \u03b4\u03cd\u03bd\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9[722]; and \u03b4\u03cd\u03bd\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u1f05\u03c0\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1[723] is said of\nJupiter, in the character of Providence. They are the givers of all\nblessings, mental as well as corporal[724]; the disposers of events;\nthe ordainers, or even authors of calamities. They are said also to\ndo for us what we ourselves have done for ourselves; as where Ulysses\ntells Eum\u00e6us, that the gods broke his bonds, and the gods hid him[725];\nacts which he himself had performed. Also what they effect, they\ncommonly effect with ease, as in both the last-mentioned cases.\n\n[721] Od. x. 306.\n\n[722] Od. iv. 379, 468.\n\n[723] Ibid. 237.\n\n[724] Od. xxiii. 11. This is fully set forth in N\u00e4gelsbach, i. 33, p.\n54 _et seqq._\n\n[725] Od. xiv. 348, 57.\n\n~_The Religion was still a real power._~\n\nHowever faulty, and however feeble, the religion of the Greeks had not\nyet ceased to be a religion; for it was believed in. Men might resent\nor fear the communications made to them on the part of the deity; but\nthey did not venture to repudiate their authority.\n\nIn Homer, except with the dissolute Suitors, (Od. ii. 180, 201.)\nthe Seer stands as the faithful exponent of the will of Heaven; and\nAgamemnon, even when smarting under the declarations of Calchas, and\nreviling him accordingly in his individual capacity (i. 106), does not\npresume to intimate any suspicion that what he has said is of his own\ninvention. But time passed on: corruption accumulated, and festered\nmore and more. Accordingly in Euripides, Agamemnon and Menelaus seem\nto speak of the whole class of prophets as if they deserved no belief.\nSee the Iphigenia in Aulis, v. 10, 11. So in the same play, vv. 783-9,\nthe Chorus speaks of the birth of Helen from Leda and Jupiter, with the\nproviso, \u2018whether it were true or whether fabulous.\u2019\n\nAgain, we have in the same play, vv. 945-7:\n\n \u03c4\u03af\u03c2 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03bc\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03b9\u03c2 \u1f14\u03c3\u03c4\u2019; \u1f00\u03bd\u1f74\u03c1\n \u1f43\u03c2 \u1f40\u03bb\u03af\u03b3\u2019 \u1f00\u03bb\u03b7\u03b8\u1fc6, \u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03bb\u1f70 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03c8\u03b5\u03c5\u03b4\u1fc6, \u03bb\u03ad\u03b3\u03b5\u03b9,\n \u03c4\u03c5\u03c7\u03ce\u03bd\u00b7 \u1f45\u03c4\u03b1\u03bd \u03b4\u1f72 \u03bc\u1f74 \u03c4\u03cd\u03c7\u1fc3, \u03b4\u03b9\u03bf\u03af\u03c7\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9.\n\nThe mind of man had travelled far onward in its career, and great\nchanges had passed upon his moral tone, before the place of the\nProphet, in the estimation of the public, could be so strikingly\nreversed as we find from these quotations.\n\nIn the Homeric age, religion was a real power; and the veneration paid\nto deity extended so far, at least, to the persons of its ministers,\nthat scarce any human thought could conceive the possibility of their\nfalsifying the awful communications of which they were the vehicles.\n\nBut it will be replied, if religion was a power, if whatever it covered\nwith its mantle was accepted and held in honour, then what a deluge\nof corruption must have spread over Greece from a religion of which\nJupiter was the head, and which had Venus for one of its recognised\ndivinities!\n\nNow the age of Homer shows us the religion of Olympus in a state, in\nwhich it had not yet become sufficiently the object of scrutiny to\nsuggest, on a large scale, either the depraved imitation which was to\nbe its too speedy result, or the unbelief which formed, in the moral\nchain of cause and effect, its necessary consummation.\n\n~_Corruptions of the gods not yet fully felt._~\n\nIn fact, we do not find that the corrupting influence of the Greek\nmythology on manners had been fully felt in the time of Homer. Though\nvices are in particular cases represented as the gifts of particular\ndeities to particular individuals, it does not appear that these were\nyet regarded as examples for general imitation[726]. But the beginnings\nof mischief, so vigorous and abundant, did not fail in time to produce\ntheir fruit: and in the historic ages of Greece, the models supplied by\nthe conduct of deities were freely pleaded in defence of debauchery and\ncrime[727].\n\n[726] N\u00e4gelsbach, Hom. Theol. on the case of Autolycus.\n\n[727] D\u00f6llinger, Heid. u. Jud. v. i. p. 255. Plato Legg. i. p. 636.\n\nThis is in conformity with ordinary experience. The vices of the great\nare first passed by, as if it were profane to suffer the eye to rest\nupon them; then they are regarded for a time with depraved admiration;\nand when the last stage is reached, they are too faithfully copied by\nthe small.\n\nIt was hardly possible that men could be effectually swayed for\na length of time by the moral government of deities, themselves\nprivileged by human invention for unbounded immorality: but it was\nnaturally the first stage of the destructive process to vitiate the\ncharacter of the gods, and the next and later one to break down the\ncredit of their administration of human affairs, which only became\nincredible even to the enlightened part of the community after their\nmoral worthlessness had been fully and long developed.\n\nThe Homeric poems expose to our view two standards not mutually\naccordant, the objective and the subjective. If we pay attention to\nthe impressions current among men respecting the gods, they are the\nguardians of some moral and social principles of the highest order.\nBut if we take their own word for it, the mere Olympian deities seem\nordinarily to appreciate no quality or conduct, except the practice\nof offering up numerous and well fed animals in sacrifice, each with\nthe accompanying tribute of the appointed portion; that so they may\ndraw, not a moral but a physical, though a comparatively refined,\ngratification from the savour and the taste[728].\n\n[728] Vid. Il. iv. 48. xxii. 170. xxiv. 69. and 33.\n\nThe protection, too, which the deities usually accord to man, is\nnot only given on selfish principles, but is liable to be withdrawn\nfor causes wholly independent of his deserts. Quarrels about men\nare settled, not by each foregoing his animosities, but by each\nsurrendering and abandoning his clients. \u2018I will give up Troy to\nyou,\u2019 says Jupiter; \u2018but mind that I shall be at liberty to destroy\nthe cities which you love, when I may be so minded[729].\u2019 \u2018You are\nquite welcome,\u2019 answers Juno, \u2018and indeed I could not prevent you: but\nlet me have Troy destroyed.\u2019 Why, says even Apollo to Neptune, should\nwe quarrel about miserable mortals? It is not worth our while: let us\nleave them to themselves[730]. No Homeric deity ever will be found to\nmake a personal sacrifice on behalf of a human client.\n\n[729] Il. iv. 39. and seqq.\n\n[730] Il. xxi. 461-7.\n\nIn the next Section, I shall endeavour to show that the practice of\nsacrifice was not so entirely disconnected from morality, as we are\nperhaps too apt to suppose. I think we may, on the contrary, find in it\nat least a witness to the essential harmony between morality and divine\nworship, and to the difficulty of tearing them asunder.\n\nWe are here met, indeed, by the case of Autolycus, which proves to us\nthat the better elements of this practice were already on their way\nto corruption, inasmuch as in that instance they had reached it. It\nwas a case, let it be remembered, of sacrifices, not to the gods in\ngeneral, nor to the higher or the better deities, but to Mercury, a\npurely mythical divinity; and therefore what we see in it is, a false\nreligion in a state of ripeness at one particular point. Now the\nworship of Mercury, the god of gain, was perhaps the first point at\nwhich the morality of the system might be expected to give way: and\nit is therefore quite in the natural course that a case like that of\nAutolycus should be presented to us without any corresponding case for\nany other deity[731]. As it stands in Homer, it represents what was\nthen the exception, though it was gradually to become the rule.\n\n[731] Od. xxiv. 514.\n\n~_A moral tone occasionally perceptible._~\n\nThere are, however, in particular connection with one of the great\ntraditive deities, glimpses of better things, even in Olympus. When\nurged by Minerva on behalf of Ulysses in the Odyssey, Jupiter half\nrebukes her for having insinuated a doubt, by replying, \u2018How could I\nforget Ulysses, who excels others both in his intellect, and in the\nsacrifices which he offers to the gods?\u2019[732]\n\n[732] Od. i. 65.\n\nIt may indeed be said that in this passage, if it be construed\nstrictly, it is mental power or intelligence, and not any moral\nquality, which, as second to liberality in sacrifice, is recognised as\nfit to be taken into account by the gods.\n\nStill it is, I think, manifest that Homer, like the Holy Scripture,\nincludes a moral element in the idea of wisdom, which is represented by\nthe word \u03bd\u03cc\u03bf\u03c2, commonly or always used of men in a good sense.\n\nAnd in the second divine Council of the Odyssey, the moral tone rises\nhigher. Minerva, grown more daring, pleads plainly the discouraging\neffect which the indifference of the gods, if continued, will have upon\nthe moral conduct of sovereigns. \u2018Let them,\u2019 she says, \u2018cast away all\nmoral restraint: for the virtuous Ulysses is forgotten by his people,\nand is detained in great affliction by Calypso[733].\u2019\n\n[733] Od. v. 7. and seqq.\n\nFor us, in the present inquiry, the main question evidently is, not\nwhat are the sentiments which the Poet has represented as proceeding\nfrom his divinities on Olympus, but what are those which the people at\nlarge believed them to entertain. There is a considerable difference\nbetween these two standards: and it is the latter one by which we have\nnow to abide.\n\n~_Prevalent belief concerning them._~\n\nThe deities of Homer, thus measured, are susceptible of various forms\nof sentiment in contemplating the fortunes and deeds of men.\n\n1. In general, they regard virtue and obedience with approbation.\n\n2. They regard crime with dissatisfaction and a disposition to punish\nit.\n\n3. But they also observe any excess, or marked continuity, of good\nfortune in the virtuous man with a kind of envy: as if they could not\npermit the human race, on any conditions, to attain to a prosperity or\nabundance which should have any semblance of rivalling their own.\n\nAs respects the first, it is indeed a pale and feeble sentiment; but\nstill it exists. They listen readily to those who obey them[734].\nPrayer appeases them, as well as sacrifice[735]. They love not\nperverse deeds like those of the Suitors, but they honour justice and\nrighteousness[736]. Upon the whole it may be observed, that much more\njust and elevated sentiments are predicated of the gods as a body, than\nwhen they appear as individuals. For it is as a body that they still\nretain a certain relation to true Godhead.\n\n[734] Il. i. 218.\n\n[735] Il. ix. 497.\n\n[736] Od. xiv. 83.\n\nAs respects the second proposition, they wander in disguise to examine\nthe conduct of men[737]. A man who is hardly used may become to\nhis oppressor a \u03b8\u03b5\u1ff6\u03bd \u03bc\u03ae\u03bd\u03b9\u03bc\u03b1, an occasion of divine vengeance. They\nview iniquity with a sentiment sometimes called by Homer \u1f44\u03c0\u03b9\u03c2, an\nafter-regard that remembers and avenges it. For this \u1f44\u03c0\u03b9\u03c2 the wicked\ndo not care[738], and such indifference is a chief sign of their\ndepravity. Especially they watch, backed by the \u1f18\u03c1\u03b9\u03bd\u03cd\u03b5\u03c2, over wrongs\ndone to the poor[739]; and Jupiter interferes by storm and flood to\ntestify his displeasure at unrighteous governors, who administer\ncrooked judgments[740]. \u00c6gisthus is warned and punished by them. It\nis Minerva who plans the vengeance upon the Suitors[741]. At the same\ntime, revenge for affronts is a much more powerful and common motive\nwith them, than zeal for the administration of justice. The latter is\nlazy and doubtful; but their sentiments in regard to the former are of\nkeen edge, and have an irrepressible promptitude and activity.\n\n[737] Od. xvi. 485.\n\n[738] Il. xvi. 388. Od. xiv. 82. xx. 215. xxii. 39. ii. 66, 134. iii.\n132.\n\n[739] Od. xvii. 475.\n\n[740] Il. xvi. 384-9.\n\n[741] Od. xxiv. 479.\n\nAs respects the third point, the gods grudged to Ulysses and Penelope\nan unbroken continuance of the blessings of their domestic life[742].\nIt is in like manner, as it would seem, that, after a long course of\nprosperity, the gallant and good Bellerophon became odious, on account\nof his good fortune only, to the gods[743]. And this same idea is\nperhaps the groundwork of the alternative destinies of Achilles, either\na long life without great glory, or transcendent glory and a short\ncareer[744].\n\n[742] Od. xxiii. 211.\n\n[743] Il. vi. 200.\n\n[744] Il. ix. 410-16.\n\nWhile in the later stages of heathen religion the former and nobler\nideas gradually lost ground, this less worthy one became more and more\npronounced; and Solon, in Herodotus, describes himself as knowing \u03c4\u1f78\n\u03b8\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bf\u03bd \u03c0\u1fb6\u03bd \u1f10\u1f78\u03bd \u03c6\u03b8\u03bf\u03bd\u03b5\u03c1\u03cc\u03bd \u03c4\u03b5 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u03b1\u03c1\u03b1\u03c7\u1ff6\u03b4\u03b5\u03c2[745].\n\n[745] Herod. i. 32.\n\nIn vague and general terms, the gods of Homer are represented as\ngivers of blessings, particularly of external goods. Sometimes they\nare rashly and wildly charged as the authors of calamities[746], which\nthe folly of man himself has caused. But according to the more grave\nand serious teaching of the day, they were conceived to enforce, as\nagainst mortals, laws from which they were certainly themselves exempt;\nand allow to mankind no alternative, except that of mixed good or else\nunmixed evil. Two caskets stand upon the floor by Jupiter: one of\nthem is filled with wretchedness and shame; the other is vicissitude,\nwhich oscillates incessantly between prosperity and sorrow. And there\nrankles in the mind of mankind a sentiment, which tells them that the\ngods, while they thus dispense afflictions upon earth which are neither\nsweetened by love, nor elevated by a distinct disciplinary purpose,\ntake care to keep themselves beyond all touch of grief or care[747]:\n\n[746] Od. i. 32.\n\n[747] Il. xxiv. 525.\n\n \u1f63\u03c2 \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u1f10\u03c0\u03b5\u03ba\u03bb\u03ce\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf \u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u1f76 \u03b4\u03b5\u03b9\u03bb\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c3\u03b9 \u03b2\u03c1\u03bf\u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c3\u03b9,\n \u03b6\u03ce\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd \u1f00\u03c7\u03bd\u03c5\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2\u00b7 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1f76 \u03b4\u03ad \u03c4\u2019 \u1f00\u03ba\u03b7\u03b4\u03ad\u03b5\u03c2 \u03b5\u1f30\u03c3\u03af\u03bd.\n\n~_It lent considerable support to virtue._~\n\nThe best thing that can be said for their fainthearted encouragement\nto virtue is, that the good man is certainly understood in most cases,\nthough not always, to prosper in the end: let us take, for example,\nNestor, Menelaus, or Ulysses. Ajax and Agamemnon meet unhappy ends;\nbut Ajax was stern and sullen, while Agamemnon cannot be acquitted of\ncupidity and selfishness. On the other hand, as punishers of wrong,\nthe gods of Olympus do not visit all wrongs and all vices alike.\nEspecially they take little notice, in their moral government as in\ntheir lives, of the law of purity: there is no express notice of their\ndispleasure against the crime of Paris; and Jupiter, the guardian\nof the judgment seat, the friend of the suppliant, the stranger, and\nthe poor, makes no pretension to defend the marriage bed from the\ncontamination he had himself so often wrought. However, in a very\naggravated instance, namely, that of \u00c6gisthus, his adulterous marriage\nwith Clytemnestra[748] is noticed explicitly in the Olympian Council,\nas contributing to the enormity of his offence. But in such a case many\nother elements, besides that of purity, are involved: the whole social\nand political order of the world is at stake.\n\n[748] Od. i. 37-40.\n\nThus upon the whole there was but little more in the sentiments than\nin the conduct of the Immortals, to maintain among men a sense of\npiety towards Heaven. Yet a good deal of authority and support were\nlent to important principles of relative duty, by the belief that the\ndeities would or might avenge its infraction. We must in short fully\nembrace the fact that man, as represented in Homer, was inconsistent\nwith respect to his religion, in the sense opposite to that in which\ninconsistency commonly affects that relation. He had more still\nremaining in him of ancient and natural morality, than his belief could\neither adequately account for in theory, or permanently sustain in\naction.\n\nIt should at the same time be borne in mind, that, while the vices\nof Olympus appertain to the individual deities, its obscure and\nqualified virtues, in the championship of duty, and the avenging of\ncrime upon earth, are not the properties of this or that mythological\nimpersonation, but either of the deities considered as a whole with\none united will, or else of those among them in whose characters Homer\nstill enables us to read the vestiges of primitive tradition.\n\n~_Their course with respect to Troy._~\n\nSaint Augustine observes[749], that some defenders of the Pagan\nmythology in later times quoted the fall of Troy as an instance of\nDivine retribution coming upon the descendants of Laomedon for his\nperjury, and some, to the same effect, as a punishment of the adultery\ncommitted by Paris. To which he replies truly, that the heathen deities\nhad no right to punish in Paris an act which had the sanction of Venus,\nas she bore \u00c6neas to Anchises, and of Mars as the father of Romulus:\n\u00c6neas and Romulus being the two great reputed fountain-heads of the\nhighest Roman lineage.\n\n[749] De Civ. Dei, iii. 3.\n\nNow, though Homer has practically represented the gods as avenging the\npollution of the nuptial bed, it may be observed that he nowhere seems\nto put prominently forward the adultery of Paris as the main gist of\nhis offence. In fact, the idea of adultery is very much absorbed, as we\nshall see, according to the poems, in the act of violent abduction. The\nGreeks on their side, with the single exception of Menelaus himself,\ntreat Paris as a robber, or else a coward; not as one who had, like\n\u00c6gisthus with Clytemnestra, corrupted the wife of one of their princes.\nAnd so Hector is, I think, not quite accurately criticized by Mure[750]\nfor failing to find fault with Paris on the ground of adultery. Hector\ndoes reproach his brother for having abused the friendly intercourse of\nlife to carry off another man\u2019s wife, and then not having the courage\nto meet the husband in the field. This seems to me in perfect keeping\nwith the ideas of the time, especially if I am right in the view, which\nI shall endeavour to sustain by argument, that Hector himself is not\nthe elder, but the younger brother of the two. What did the Greeks\naim at avenging? Not, we shall find, the wrong done to Menelaus in\nhis conjugal character, but the sorrows and sufferings of Helen were\nevidently the prominent and conspicuous idea in the mind of the Poet,\nand in the mind, as he represents it, of the Greeks. So that, while\nMenelaus himself is the only person who in the Iliad shows a resentment\nof his own conjugal wrongs, the Greeks appear to think partly of Helen,\npartly of their nation\u2019s honour, partly of their allegiance to the\nPelopids; and partly, perhaps chiefly, of the booty which, in requital\nof their arduous labours, they are to gain upon the sack of Troy[751].\n\n[750] Mure\u2019s Lit. Greece, vol. i. on the character of Hector, Il. iii.\n46-57.\n\n[751] Il. ii. 355.\n\nThe defence, therefore, of the heathen deities which St. Augustine\nnotices as having been put forward, was a late afterthought. The Poet\nappears indeed to treat the lustful effeminacy of Paris in general\nwith a grave and marked contempt; but this is rather his own personal\nsentiment, than a result directly connected with his religious belief\nor system. And, more at large, I do not find it clear that in any place\nof the Poems any deity appears, either as the guardian of purity, or as\nthe avenger of its infraction. Under these circumstances we shall have\nthe more cause to wonder, that that virtue could still have been held,\nas it was held, by Homer and the Greeks, in partial but evidently real\nadmiration.\n\nAlthough retribution was limited to public and social sins, and did not\ntouch the inner and finer parts of human conduct, it is not difficult\nto trace the advantages which flowed from that sensible remainder of\nreligion which still subsisted in the Heroic age; not from those parts\nof the system which were due to human invention, but from the elements\nwhich it still contained of the ancient theism, and which invention had\nnot yet wholly smothered.\n\nThus, for example, it was thought that the anger of the gods might be\nbrought down upon a country by the misconduct of its governors[752];\n\n \u03bf\u1f33 \u03b2\u03af\u1fc3 \u03b5\u1f30\u03bd \u1f00\u03b3\u03bf\u03c1\u1fc7 \u03c3\u03ba\u03bf\u03bb\u03b9\u1f70\u03c2 \u03ba\u03c1\u03af\u03bd\u03c9\u03c3\u03b9 \u03b8\u03ad\u03bc\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u03c2\u00b7\n\nand the fear of the temporal calamities thus to be incurred would,\nnaturally, tend to the maintenance of integrity in the administration\nof justice.\n\n[752] Il. xvi. 387.\n\nAs between governors and governed, so between rich and poor. We cannot\ndoubt that the worthy Eum\u00e6us expresses the general sentiment of his\nage, when, having been reproached by the haughty Suitor Antinous\nwith having invited a beggar into the palace of Ulysses, he answers,\nnot by denial, but by showing that the idea is self-condemned by its\nabsurdity. Those indeed, he replies, may be solicited to come to a\nhouse who exercise the agreeable or the useful professions; the Seer,\nthe Doctor, the Artificer, the Bard, these are the people who get\ninvited all over the world;\n\n \u03c0\u03c4\u03c9\u03c7\u1f78\u03bd \u03b4\u2019 \u03bf\u1f50\u03ba \u1f04\u03bd \u03c4\u03b9\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u03ad\u03bf\u03b9, \u03c4\u03c1\u03cd\u03be\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1 \u1f13 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03cc\u03bd;\n\n Who would be such a fool as to invite a beggar?[753]\n\n[753] Od. xvii. 382-7.\n\nWith this standard of sentiment, not peculiar to that age, except in\nthe simple frankness with which it is avowed, it was surely of the\nutmost importance for the needy and afflicted, that they should be\nplaced by the popular belief in the special charge of the deity;\n\n \u03c0\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u0394\u03b9\u03cc\u03c2 \u03b5\u1f30\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u1f05\u03c0\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2\n \u03be\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd\u03bf\u03af \u03c4\u03b5 \u03c0\u03c4\u03c9\u03c7\u03bf\u03af \u03c4\u03b5.\n\nSo that, though none would invite them, yet few would take the\nresponsibility of rejecting their supplications for what was needful to\nsupply their wants.\n\nAnd the standing distinction in the Odyssey between a virtuous\nand a vicious people is, that the former is insolent, fierce, and\nunrighteous, while the latter is kind to strangers and of god-fearing\nmind[754];\n\n[754] Od. vi. 120. viii. 576. ix. 176. xiii. 202.\n\n \u1f26 \u1fe5\u2019 \u03bf\u1f35\u03b3\u2019 \u1f51\u03b2\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u03af \u03c4\u03b5 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f04\u03b3\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03b9, \u03bf\u1f50\u03b4\u1f72 \u03b4\u03af\u03ba\u03b1\u03b9\u03bf\u03b9,\n \u1f20\u1f72 \u03c6\u03b9\u03bb\u03cc\u03be\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9, \u03ba\u03b1\u03af \u03c3\u03c6\u03b9\u03bd \u03bd\u03cc\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c3\u03c4\u1f76 \u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u03c5\u03b4\u03ae\u03c2;\n\n~_Bearing of the religion on social ties._~\n\nIt was thus a clear fact in the heroic age, that religious belief was\na foundation and support to the exercise of charitable offices between\nman and man. I think we may further assert, that it is a fact of all\ntime; that in all ages and countries the strength and liveliness of\nbelief in God is a measure which determines the aggregate amount and\nactivity of mutual love. Hence, as the Olympian religion became more\nand more hollow, public oppression increased, and private charity\nand hospitality declined. Yet, even in its most corrupt and decrepit\nperiod, it was on the steps of temples that the congregations of\nmendicants assembled; spontaneous and unconscious witnesses to the\nfact that, next to God their Friend in heaven, the reflection of God,\nhowever faint, in the mind of man, is their best friend on earth. And\nof the many great social results of Christianity, one standing in the\nvery foremost rank has been, that it has for the first time made the\nrights of the poor a social axiom, which, though it may in practice be\nevaded, none are hardy enough to deny. Perhaps the very strongest of\nall the proofs of the connection between religious belief, and duties\nto the needy, is to be found in the instinctive horror which is created\nin the minds of men, when a prominent profession of the first is\naccidentally and occasionally exhibited by persons, who show a palpable\ndisregard of the second.\n\nSide by side with the powerful obligation, of the indeterminate\nspecies, which binds man to man in the name of charity or brotherly\nkindness, stands the corresponding determinate principle of truth\nand justice, which aims at preserving entire to each individual the\ndefinite rights to which he is entitled.\n\nAn important part of these definite rights belongs immediately to\nthe relations between the private person and the civil power. But\nthe capacity of any human authority to do justice, even where the\nwill cannot be found fault with, is of necessity defective: and no\ngovernment can do its duties for a day, irrespective of the aid which\neach private person renders to it in reference to every other. Nor is\nthis enough; it wants, and cannot dispense with, the assistance of an\nauxiliary within the breast, in order to guard itself against delusion,\nand to secure the requisite conformity between thought, word, and act.\nIn other words, the state wants an instrument by which to induce men to\nspeak the truth.\n\nNo such end can be reached by force. Force, in the shape of torture,\nwill doubtless in the long run avail to make men asseverate that, be\nit what it may, by which they may obtain release from an intolerable\nsuffering. But the first effect of torture is to make the sufferer\nindifferent to the truth or falsehood of his confessions, so he can but\nobtain relief by means of them. The second, and still more detrimental\neffect, must be to undermine the very basis of inward truthfulness, and\nto create a mental habit of indifference as between what is true and\nwhat is false.\n\n~_And on political relations._~\n\nHence, the _desideratum_ for the state can only be found in some power\nwhich works in and with the will of the private person.\n\nIt has indeed been argued, and I believe with justice, that the atheist\nought on his own principles to speak the truth; that is, if he does not\nshut his eyes to the testimony borne by the daily experience of life\nto the existence of a moral government in the world, even on this side\nof the grave. But this supposes, at any rate, some degree of mental\nculture; and it is essential to public order to find the means of\noperating upon those who have received no such training.\n\nThe question is how to obtain the voluntary disclosure of truth,\nin cases where neither interest or inclination are of themselves\nsufficient to secure it.\n\nTo this question the experience of the world, up to this time, renders\none and but one answer. The requisite influence may be found, and\ncan only be found, in an appeal to the Majesty on high, and to the\nsanctions of a future life.\n\nHere, then, does the Venerable Oath stand forth in all its majesty. The\nact of calling the Deity in the most solemn of its various forms to\nwitness, has been found at once to make the word of a man the stoutest\nbond of human society: for the perjurer strips himself of all divine\naid[755];\n\n[755] Il. iv. 235.\n\n \u03bf\u1f50 \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u1f10\u03c0\u1f76 \u03c8\u03b5\u03c5\u03b4\u03ad\u03c3\u03c3\u03b9 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c4\u1f74\u03c1 \u0396\u03b5\u1f7a\u03c2 \u1f14\u03c3\u03c3\u03b5\u03c4\u2019 \u1f00\u03c1\u03c9\u03b3\u1f78\u03c2,\n\nand exposes himself to the most terrible penalties[756];\n\n[756] Il. xix. 264.\n\n \u03b5\u1f30 \u03b4\u03ad \u03c4\u03b9 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd\u03b4\u2019 \u1f10\u03c0\u03af\u03bf\u03c1\u03ba\u03bf\u03bd, \u1f10\u03bc\u03bf\u1f76 \u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u1f76 \u1f04\u03bb\u03b3\u03b5\u03b1 \u03b4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03b5\u03bd\n \u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03bb\u1f70 \u03bc\u03ac\u03bb\u2019, \u1f45\u03c3\u03c3\u03b1 \u03b4\u03b9\u03b4\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd, \u1f45\u03c4\u03b9\u03c2 \u03c3\u03c6\u2019 \u1f00\u03bb\u03af\u03c4\u03b7\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u1f40\u03bc\u03cc\u03c3\u03c3\u03b1\u03c2.\n\nUnder the operation of the oath, the chances, so to speak, are doubled\nin favour of the veracity of the witness: first, he may not be wicked\nenough to forswear himself; and secondly, if he is wicked enough, yet\nhe may not have the requisite amount of daring in his wickedness.\n\nThese views will, I think, receive material confirmation when we come\nto consider the relative positions of the oath in Greece and in Troy.\nFor the present, I leave the subject with the observation, that four\nshort words describe the props of human society: they are, \u03b3\u03ac\u03bc\u03bf\u03c2,\n\u1f45\u03c1\u03ba\u03bf\u03c2, \u03b8\u03ad\u03bc\u03b9\u03c2, \u03b8\u03b5\u03cc\u03c2.\n\nAll these sanctions, however partial and remote, thus given to human\nduty by belief in the gods, could not but be of great practical value.\n\nAnd indeed it may with truth be said, that the mere idea of the\npresence of an overruling power in the world was of inestimable\nadvantage in repressing human passion, in moderating desire, and in\nlimiting the excesses of caprice, wilfulness, and violence.\n\nBut it is obvious that these beneficial results from belief in the\ngods belonged not to the particular development, but to the theistical\nprinciple which lay within and under it. The idea of a moral Governor\nof the universe was, and ever will be, an unfailing seed of good\nwherever it may exist. The Pagan mythology, at every step of its\nunfolding into detail, enfeebled and degraded that great idea, but it\ncould not be destroyed all at once. _Nemo repente fuit turpissimus_;\nand a system, like a man, requires time to reach the extreme of\ndepravation. As, among men, a judge is not supposed to lose all regard\nfor justice, because it may be that in some particular of private life\nhe has transgressed, so the Olympian divinities might have credit\nas administrators of moral government, even after they had begun to\nbe charged with instances of immorality. But an unscrupulous order\nand succession of judges, would in time put an end to the idea of\npublic justice; and so the continuing and growing degradation of the\nImmortals, in time put an end to the sense of religion, and made even\nits fanes[757] smoky, and its pomps contemptible.\n\n[757] Propertius, El. II. v. 27. Hor. Od. III. vi. 3, 4. Sat. II. ii.\n103-5.\n\nAnd certainly, when we look at the evils, of which the mythological\nsystem was the source, we cannot but be struck with their overwhelming\nmagnitude, and with the highly instructive fact, that in every case\nthey so manifestly belong, not to the original principle of belief and\nworship due from man to his Creator, but to the departure from a pure,\nand the lapse into an impure belief.\n\n~_Moral bearing of the Religion on the poems._~\n\nThe credit for moral results, which has thus been allowed to the\nprobable operation of the Homeric Theo-mythology in the world, must\nbe steadily denied to its influence upon the poems, where it appears\nbefore us as in the main a lowering and corrupting agency. In fact,\nthe religion and the morality of the Homeric poems appear to separate,\nand to run in opposite directions. The rights of the question at\nissue, in an ethical point of view, are plainly with the Greeks: they\nvindicate by arms not one only, but two principles, both of them vital\nto the order of society, and to individual happiness and virtue: the\nsanctity, first, of the family and of marriage ties; secondly, of the\nrelation created by the rites of hospitality. And with the rights go\nthe fortunes of the cause. The capture and fall of Troy constitute a\ngreat triumph of justice over wrong.\n\nBut the mythological elements of the question are cast in a mould\nentirely different. The royal family of Troy has been all along\nin singular favour with the deities, notwithstanding the perjury\nof Laomedon; and that favour does not appear to be in any degree\ndiminished by the gross and shameful crimes that stand against Paris\nin the poem, or by the unfailing and extraordinary obtuseness of his\nmoral sense. Ganymede, Tithonus, Anchises, as well as Paris, have all\nbeen especial objects of divine regard. Not only did a full half of\nthe other deities take part with the Trojans in the war, but Jupiter\nhimself, apart from his concession to Thetis, was concerned for them,\nand says[758], \u2018They interest me even while they perish\u2019 (\u03bc\u03ad\u03bb\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03af \u03bc\u03bf\u03b9\n\u1f40\u03bb\u03bb\u03cd\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03af \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1).\n\n[758] Il. xx. 21.\n\nAgain, in the meeting of the gods, he describes Hector[759] as dear to\nthem for his regular and abundant sacrifices, taking no note whatever\nof his personal virtues. Of the three deities who were actively hostile\nto Troy, Neptune, Juno, and Minerva, all had personal causes of\noffence: the first, the fraud of Laomedon, which, however, was also an\noffence against the moral law; both the others had the _spret\u00e6 injuria\nform\u00e6_, and Juno had also special predilections to gratify. The fall\nof Ilios, and the death of Hector, are just: but the wonder is, with\nthe favourable relations that subsisted between the Trojans and the\nfather of gods, as well as men, which were in no respect impaired by\ncrime, how Hector came to die, or Troy to fall. While the fall of Troy\nis justice, it does not seem to come about because it is agreeable to\njustice, but rather as the result of the balance of force among the\ngods, and of their remembrance of personal injuries. It appears all\nalong, as though it were the right-mindedness of the Poet which keeps\nthe wheels of the machine going, while those who should be the drivers\nare at fault.\n\n[759] Il. xxiv. 66. xxii. 170.\n\nAgain, in the Odyssey, the Providence of the poem, if we may so speak,\nis on the side of Virtue; and a prosperous remainder of life, with\na happy death, is promised to the hero. Of this providence Minerva,\nwith the approval of Jupiter, is the wise and indefatigable organ. But\nwhile the general idea of providence moves in the right direction,\nthe polytheistic formations work powerfully in a wrong one. David and\nhis companions ate the show-bread in the temple, and were blameless,\nbecause it was to relieve a hunger that they had no other means of\nsatisfying: but even impending famine does not excuse or palliate the\noffence of the companions of Ulysses, who use for food a portion of\nthe oxen of the Sun. The jealousy and cruelty of Neptune, the gifts\nof Mercury to Autolycus, the savage crimes of Polyphemus, which do\nnot detract from his relation to a deity of the highest rank, the\ndisparagement of the highest human virtues in Calypso, the hostility\nto human peace and happiness in Circe and the Sirens, place the divine\nlife of the Odyssey on a much lower level than the human and heroic,\nand to a certain extent depress by their admixture the sound ethical\ntone of the poem. All along, while Homer luxuriates, poetically, in the\nabundance and brilliancy of his materials, he has morally to repair\ntheir deficiencies, and to contend with and overrule their bias.\n\nI cannot therefore but differ greatly from Nitzsch, who, in his Essay\non the Anger of Neptune[760], seems to elevate it to the dignity of a\nprovidential resentment, and to conceive of the sufferings of Ulysses\nas a punishment for a moral offence in the treatment of Polyphemus.\nIn this way I grant that a sort of parallel is established between\nhis case and the chastisements which Achilles receives in the Iliad,\nthrough the death of Patroclus, and the surrender of the body of\nHector. Both heroes seem thus to stand upon a level: both favoured\nchildren of the gods, honoured in the main, but chastised for their\nfaults. But even this seeming parallelism fails when we remember the\nrespective sequels. The curtain of the Iliad falls on the eve of the\npremature death of Achilles: as that of the Odyssey is dropping over\nthe head of Ulysses, we perceive, in perspective, the picture of his\nserene old age.\n\n[760] Nitzsch, Odyssee, Vol. III. p. xiv.\n\nAs regards the important question of purity, the impression made on\nmy own mind in reading the poems of Homer is this: that, but for his\nmythology, they would have been unimpeachable, at least in one point of\nvirtue; they would have been absolutely pure. Whatever is dissolute in\ntheir moral tendency as regards this particular subject, evidently and\ndirectly flows from that source. We rarely meet a sentiment that can\narouse anything like revulsion: the worst by far that has struck me is\nthe advice given to Achilles by his mother Thetis (Il. xxiv. 130), as\na mode of solace for his grief. The narrative of the Net of Vulcan in\nthe Odyssey is one, that Homer would have been far too modest to recite\nwith reference to human beings: and the only other passage, which seems\nto be marked with a tinge of grossness, is that which relates to the\nstratagem of Juno in the Fourteenth Iliad.\n\n~_Its bearing as to poetic effect._~\n\nWe may, however, justly distinguish between the influence of mythology\non the morality of the Poems, and its operation with regard to poetic\neffect. In this view the consequences of its introduction, though\nmixed, are upon the whole highly favourable. There is indeed more or\nless of descent from the usual grandeur of Homer, when we find his\ndeities mingling in actual conflict: because they never sustain in\nthe field of battle a part at all corresponding to their celestial\ndignity and presumed power. Nor is the Theomachy proper, in the\nTwenty-first book of the Iliad, among the most successful parts of\nthe poem. But the principal portion of their agency takes effect upon\nthe elements or other material objects, or upon animals, or upon the\nhuman mind by way of influence and suggestion: and its tendency is in\ngeneral to impart interest and variety, as well as poetic elevation,\nto the scenery and narrative. The plot of each epic is worked out\nsimultaneously in two different forms upon two different arenas: in\nOlympus by divine counsel, and on earth by human effort and execution.\nYet no confusion results from the double action, while the play and\ncounterplay of the divine and human elements communicate a remarkable\nelasticity to the movement of the poems. Their value is particularly\nfelt in the Iliad, which, from its limited scene and subject, lies in\ndanger of the sameness which, by this means among others, it on the\nwhole escapes. In particular, the relation between the assisting or\npatron deities, and the hero or protagonist of each poem, is conducted\nwith great consistency and effect: but the most sublime uses of\nsupernatural machinery to be found throughout the poems are those in\nwhich the traces of it are the most shadowy and faintly drawn. Take\nfor example the manner in which Achilles is sent out unarmed to the\nfield, and again, to the manner of his arming, in the Iliad: in the\nOdyssey, the wonderful picture of divine displeasure and incumbent\nmalediction seeming to gather around and hem in the Suitors of\nPenelope, concurrently with the preparations for human vengeance: as if\nthe scene were too dark for eyes like theirs to catch the true meaning\nof these lowering signals, which give a gloomy but majestic sanction to\nthe terrible swoop of retributive justice alighting upon crime.\n\n~_Its earliest and latest forms._~\n\nIt would be most interesting to pursue the comparison between the\nbelieving or credulous infancy of Paganism as we see it in Homer, and\nits cold and jealous decrepitude as we find it in the writers of its\nlatest period, when the light of the lamp was fading before the already\nrisen Sun.\n\nIn Homer we find the gods offering in their conduct every sort of\nexample of weakness, passion, and fraud. But they take an active\nshare in the government of the world, and men look up to them,\ncollectively or individually, with more or less of confusion indeed,\nboth intellectual and moral, but still truly and actually as exercising\nsome sort of providential government over the world. The mythology of\nthe time of Homer is a weak, faulty, and corrupt religion, I admit, but\nstill it is a religion, a bond which associates man with the unseen\nworld, and brings some, at least, of its influences to bear upon his\nconduct and character. And if the Greeks of Homer were not shocked by\nthose immoralities of the Immortals which afterwards came to be thought\nintolerable, it was not because they were more impure than their\nposterity, for they were far purer: but the principle of belief in the\ninvisible was in them alike lively and inconsequent; and it was not yet\neven conscious of a load which, in later times, with enfeebled force,\nand an augmented critical activity, it could not carry.\n\nIn the time of Plutarch, about one hundred years after our Lord\u2019s\nnativity, we find the change complete. There was now no principle of\nbelief in men\u2019s minds which could endure either the good or the evil\nof the ancient system: and a quickened intelligence, as well as the\nstreaming in of rays from Revelation, had made the human intellect\nmore painfully alive to its moral solecisms, without rendering it\nable to suggest a remedy. Accordingly, Plutarch relieves the Homeric\ndeities from the faults imputed to them by saying, that the Poet has\nmade use of these fictions to excite the fancy[761]: \u1f10\u03ba\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd\u03b1 \u03c0\u03ad\u03c0\u03bb\u03b1\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9\n\u03c0\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u1f10\u03ba\u03c0\u03bb\u1fc6\u03be\u03b9\u03bd \u1f00\u03bd\u03b8\u03c1\u03ce\u03c0\u03c9\u03bd. Or, again, it was, he says[762], because\nthe name of \u03a4\u03cd\u03c7\u03b7, Fortune or Chance, was not yet in use, that men\nreferred to the gods what they did not know how to account for in\nany other manner. Alas for mankind! sad is the state of those, who\nmust reckon the invention of that name among their blessings. In the\nfact, however, that Homer and his age knew nothing of the word or the\nidea, he discloses to us one of the many points in which infancy is\npractically wiser than old age. Let us, Plutarch goes on to say, cure\nthese errors by other passages of the Poet in which he gives us the\ntruth, the \u1f51\u03b3\u03b9\u03b1\u03af\u03bd\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u03b8\u03b5\u1ff6\u03bd \u03b4\u03cc\u03be\u03b1\u03b9 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f00\u03bb\u03b7\u03b8\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c2: but the passages,\nwhich he cites with this view, are not passages where the deities are\nrepresented as in any active relations of good towards the world: they\nare simply those which exhibit them as living in a repose undisturbed\nby care, while they leave for us a destiny of trouble: they are those\nwhich relate to the \u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u1f76 \u1fe5\u03b5\u1fd6\u03b1 \u03b6\u03ce\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2, the \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1f76 \u03b4\u03ad \u03c4\u2019 \u1f00\u03ba\u03b7\u03b4\u03ad\u03b5\u03c2 \u03b5\u1f30\u03c3\u03af\u03bd.\nStripped of active vice, but yet not adorned with virtue, they become\nmerely cold and selfish, hopeless and inaccessible abstractions.\n\n[761] De Aud. Poet. 20.\n\n[762] Ibid. 23.\n\nThere is in all this a certain logical sequence. The starting point is\nthat of belief in a moral Governor of the universe, good himself, and\nenjoining goodness upon others. But his own goodness fails, and his\nagency among men for the original purpose becomes more and more feeble\nand equivocal, while the human intellect, sharpened by discussion,\nand puffed up with knowledge, or with the supposition and phantasm\nof it, becomes more and more exacting: so that the abstract gods in\nCicero are (without doubt) far more elevated than the personal gods of\nHomer. But they are mere works of art: and, after all, the personal\ngods of Homer were the only ones that had been really worshipped by\nmen: and when their case becomes so bad that they can no longer be\nexhibited to the people as rulers of the world, a refuge is found in\nthe Epicurean theory, which relegates them to a heaven of enjoyment and\nabundance, and on pretence of mental ease denies them any prerogative\nof intervention in human affairs[763]. The gain of more careful and\ncomprehensive theory is much more than counterbalanced by the practical\nloss of the personal element, and therefore of the belief in a real\nProvidence, overseeing the affairs of men. So the next onward step\nis to the doctrine of the Academicians. In the _De Natur\u00e2 Deorum_,\nwhere that sect is represented by Cotta in the discussion with the\nchampions of the Epicureans and the Stoics, Cicero himself, and the\nruling tendency, if not opinion, of his day, are evidently exhibited\nto us under Cotta\u2019s name. The transition now made is from gods with a\nsinecure to no gods at all: and Paganism ends in nullity, just as a\nmoving mass finds its final equilibrium in repose.\n\n[763] Lucret. i. 57-62.\n\n~_Its gloomy view of human destiny._~\n\nEven while heroic Greece and its great Poet existed, the deepest\nproblems of our being were far too dark for man to penetrate. The\npicture which I have rudely drawn, and which is not wholly a joyless\npicture, was liable to be blackened, even for this world, by many a\nstorm of crime and of calamity; at the very best it was a picture for\nthis world only, for the mortality and not the immortality of man. But\nthat scene has its close: and most touching it is to see that, with\nall his creative power, with all his imaginative brightness, with all\nthe advantage he derived from living in the youth of the world, before\nmankind had fully sounded the depth of their own fall, or had begun to\naccumulate the sad records of their miseries and crimes; even Homer\ncould not solve the enigma of our condition, or disperse the clouds\nthat gathered round our destiny. There are two profoundly memorable\npassages in the poems, which have set their double seal on this truth.\nOne of them is in the Odyssey: it is a confession from the mouth\nof that Achilles, in whose mind and person, as they are delineated\nby Homer, our humanity has been carried perhaps to a higher point\nof grandeur, than it has ever since attained. \u2018Do not, illustrious\nUlysses, do not palter with me about death,\u2019 says the mournful shade.\n\u2018Rather would I serve for hire under a master, aye and a needy master,\nupon the face of earth, than be lord of the whole world of the\ndeparted[764]:\u2019\n\n[764] Od. xi. 488.\n\n \u03bc\u1f74 \u03b4\u03ae \u03bc\u03bf\u03b9 \u03b8\u03ac\u03bd\u03b1\u03c4\u03cc\u03bd \u03b3\u03b5 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b1\u03cd\u03b4\u03b1, \u03c6\u03b1\u03af\u03b4\u03b9\u03bc\u2019 \u1f48\u03b4\u03c5\u03c3\u03c3\u03b5\u1fe6\u00b7\n \u03b2\u03bf\u03c5\u03bb\u03bf\u03af\u03bc\u03b7\u03bd \u03ba\u2019 \u1f10\u03c0\u03ac\u03c1\u03bf\u03c5\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f10\u1f7c\u03bd \u03b8\u03b7\u03c4\u03b5\u03c5\u03ad\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd \u1f04\u03bb\u03bb\u1ff3\n \u1f00\u03bd\u03b4\u03c1\u1f76 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u2019 \u1f00\u03ba\u03bb\u03ae\u03c1\u1ff3, \u1fa7 \u03bc\u1f74 \u03b2\u03af\u03bf\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u1f7a\u03c2 \u03b5\u1f34\u03b7,\n \u1f22 \u03c0\u1fb6\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u03bd\u03b5\u03ba\u03cd\u03b5\u03c3\u03c3\u03b9 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03c6\u03b8\u03b9\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u1f00\u03bd\u03ac\u03c3\u03c3\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd.\n\nA trail of heavenly light indeed so far played upon the heroic world,\nthat we hear of those few who had already been translated to the skies;\nand of two more, one a son of Jupiter, already in the peaceful Elysian\nplains, and the other Menelaus, who, as his daughter\u2019s husband, was\nlikewise to be carried thither on his decease. But it is the mouth of\nAchilles, the illustrious, the godlike Achilles, which here utters, in\ntones so deeply mournful, the common voice of the children of Adam.\n\nIt was the very same conclusion which, as we find in another\nplace[765], this favoured mortal had formed on earth.\n\n[765] Il. xxiv. 525.\n\nThe second passage is one spoken by Jupiter himself. As the commonest\nepithets used by Homer for \u03b2\u03c1\u03bf\u03c4\u03bf\u1f76, mortals, are \u03b4\u03b5\u03b9\u03bb\u03bf\u1f76 and \u03bf\u1f30\u03b6\u03c5\u03c1\u03bf\u1f76, so\nthe highest god lays down the law of their condition, describing it as\nthat than which there is nothing more wretched among all that live and\nmove upon the earth[766]:\n\n[766] Il. xvii. 446. Compare Od. xvii. 129, where \u1f00\u03ba\u03b9\u03b4\u03bd\u03cc\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd is\nsubstituted.\n\n \u03bf\u1f50 \u03bc\u1f72\u03bd \u03b3\u03ac\u03c1 \u03c4\u03af \u03c0\u03bf\u03cd \u1f10\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03bd \u1f40\u03ca\u03b6\u03c5\u03c1\u03ce\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd \u1f00\u03bd\u03b4\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2\n \u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd, \u1f45\u03c3\u03c3\u03b1 \u03c4\u03b5 \u03b3\u03b1\u1fd6\u03b1\u03bd \u1f14\u03c0\u03b9 \u03c0\u03bd\u03b5\u03af\u03b5\u03b9 \u03c4\u03b5 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f15\u03c1\u03c0\u03b5\u03b9.\n\nSuch as we have seen, and so glorious, was the wisdom, and the valour,\nand the beauty, and the power, that dwelt in man; but only that through\nlife he might, upon the whole, be paramount in woe above all meaner\ncreatures, and then that he might die in a gloom unrelieved by hope.\nNone have illustrated this piercing truth by contrasts so sharp as\nHomer, between the chill and dismal tone of the general destiny of man\non the one hand, and on the other, the joy and cheerfulness which the\neffort of an elastic spirit can for a time create. But the woe which he\ncould only exhibit, it was reserved for One greater than he, yet only\nby sorrow and suffering, to remove.\n\n~_The personal belief of Homer._~\n\nI have forborne in this Essay from entering at large into the often\nagitated question, whether Homer believed in the deities of whom he\nspeaks so largely. He may express his own childlike creed; and such\na creed by no means requires for its support in the individual mind,\nthat it should have been visibly represented by facts within its own\nexperience. Or he may use as the material of poetry that which, without\napproving itself to his own heart, was, nevertheless, to his hearers\nin general, a real and substantial system of religion. Nay, he might\neven be dealing with what had ceased to be believed in his day, but\nhad still a retrospective life, because it had been the hearty, and\nwas still the conventional, worship of the people. The truth may lie\nin, or it may lie between, any of these suppositions. The one thing\nof which I feel most assured is, that he was not, as to his religion,\na mere allegorist when speaking of his Jupiter and Minerva, any more\nthan he was a mere hypocrite, when he ascribed occurrences in human\nlife to Providence under the name of \u2018the deity,\u2019 or \u2018the deities.\u2019 He\nrepresents what either was or had been, for his people, a belief in the\nunseen under particular forms, and what still in some way represented\na reality for them and for himself. It is this belief of which I have\nspoken throughout, and which, under any of the suppositions I have\nmade, seems to me to warrant all the stress I have laid upon it.\n\nTo attempt a formal solution of the question, whether he believed or\nnot in the dress of his religion, as well as in the religion itself,\nwould, I fear, be frivolous. It is a case in some degree parallel to\nthe disputes whether Shakspeare adhered, in the controversies of the\nsixteenth century, to the side of the Romish or the Reformed. Neither\nShakspeare nor Homer ought to be judged as if they had been theologians\n_ex professo_. Both followed the law of their sublime art, and\nrepresented in forms of beauty and delight, or of majesty and gloom, as\nthe case required, such materials as they found ready to hand. Critical\nanalysis, nice equipoises, strict definitions, were for neither the\none nor the other. But in the works of neither do the cold tones of\nscepticism find an echo: and probably the mental frame of both with\nreference to the substance of their religion may have been not very\ndifferent from that of the poor, the maidens, and the children of their\nday.\n\n\n\n\nSECT. VII.\n\n_On the traces of an origin abroad for the Olympian Religion._\n\n\nLet me now attempt to divide the principal deities of Homer with\nreference to their origin, or to the channel of their introduction into\nGreece; premising, however, that all such classification of them is\nadmitted to be founded upon evidence, at best presumptive, and often\nalso slight.\n\nThe classes will be as follows:\n\n1. Of those who were worshipped by the Hellenic and Pelasgian races,\nand probably by all others known in the inner Homeric world.\n\nThese were,\n\n 1. Jupiter.\n 2. Minerva.\n 3. Apollo.\n 4. Latona.\n 5. Diana.\n 6. Neptune.\n\nThe three first of these may be considered as deities of immemorial and\nuniversal worship. Neptune was far more Hellenic than Pelasgian: and\nindeed his place in the list is doubtful.\n\n2. Of immemorial Hellenic worship.\n\n 1. Juno.\n 2. Persephone.\n 3. Pluto or Aidoneus.\n\n3. Of established Pelasgian worship.\n\n 1. Demeter or Ceres.\n 2. Venus, more recent than the former.\n\n4. Of worship introduced to the Greek races within the memory of man.\n\n_a._ Brought in from Ph\u0153nicia, or through the channel of the Ph\u0153nicians.\n\n 1. Hermes, or Mercury.\n 2. Heph\u00e6stus, or Vulcan.\n 3. Dionysus, or Bacchus.\n\n_b._ From Thrace.\n\n Mars.\n\n_c._ Paieon has no note of country, except in so far as he may be\nconnected with Egypt by the declaration that the Egyptians were of his\nrace.\n\n\u1f28\u03ad\u03bb\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2, the Sun, appears to be placed in connection, by the various\nnotes he bears, both with Egypt and with the Persian name.\n\nAll these deities were, with some others, more or less naturalized\namong the Greeks within Homer\u2019s lifetime. Themis was probably a pure\nHellenic creation, as Vesta seems to have been Pelasgian: the latter\nexhibiting the genius of domestic order, the former, its fuller\ndevelopment in political society. But Vesta is, though an Homeric idea,\nnot an Homeric goddess.\n\nNow while Homer fails, or more probably avoids, to give us any direct\ninformation about the derivation of the Greek races or deities, he\nnotwithstanding establishes by partial and incidental notices many\ntraces of exterior affinity, not always the less secure and trustworthy\nbecause they are negative.\n\nWhile going through the divinities in detail, I have remarked upon such\ntraits of their character, history, or worship, as appeared to connect\nthem with any particular origin; but the question remains, can we find,\nthrough however rude a resemblance, any general model abroad for the\nOlympian system, or, in the absence of such a model, any presumptive\nevidence from Homer, which may serve to connect it with any national or\nlocal root or roots in particular?\n\n~_The Olympian Gods and the Ethiopians._~\n\nIt is well worthy of remark, that he has associated the body of the\nGreek deities, as a body, with one, and one only, point, exterior to\nthe Greek nation. That point is the country of the Ethiopians.\n\nHomer has shown a peculiar interest in these Ethiopians. They are\n\u1f00\u03bc\u03cd\u03bc\u03bf\u03bd\u03b5\u03c2: an epithet which he appears to connect especially with purity\nof blood. In the First Iliad, the whole body of the gods are absent\nfrom Olympus for eleven days, to enjoy the sacrifices offered by that\npeople. In the Twenty-second Iliad, the statement is less express as\nto time; but again they are apparently enjoying themselves in the same\nquarter, during the funeral rites of Patroclus, and Iris is in haste\nto go thither, that she may not lose her share. In the First Odyssey,\nNeptune is among the same people for the same purpose, while the other\ndeities are in Olympus. In the Fifth Odyssey, he is coming from among\nthem, when he espies Ulysses on his raft. The time intervening is so\nconsiderable, that we must presume the two last-mentioned passages to\nrefer to two separate visits.\n\nThe following points may be considered as established:\n\n1. The Ethiopians, visited as above, must be supposed by Homer in the\nmain to worship the same body of deities as the Greeks.\n\n2. The Ethiopians extend from the rising to the setting sun; but those\nEthiopians of whom Homer speaks particularly, are in connection with\nsacrifices in the East; for the Solyman mountains[767], as conceived by\nhim, probably border upon Lycia, and they are on Neptune\u2019s route[768],\nfrom the Ethiopian country back to the sea, which, as I hope to show\nelsewhere, runs along the double line of the Mediterranean and the\nEuxine.\n\n[767] Il. vi. 184.\n\n[768] Od. v. 282.\n\n3. They are further fixed in a southern country by their name, which\nindicates darkness or swarthiness of countenance, and by the visit of\nMenelaus to them in the course of his adventures, which lay exclusively\nto the southward.\n\n4. They are evidently distinguished by great liberality or high favour\nin the sacrificial service of the gods.\n\n5. They are defined to be by the Ocean, and thus in the farthest\nsituation to the South-east that was conceived of by Homer and the\nGreeks.\n\n6. At the same time, although they are the farthest men in that\ndirection[769], they are nowhere described as lying at a very great\nabsolute distance. They are simply \u03c4\u03b7\u03bb\u03cc\u03b8\u2019 \u1f10\u03cc\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2.\n\n[769] Od. i. 23.\n\nNow it is not only possible, but on every ground likely, that in his\nconception of the South-eastern Ethiopians, Homer mixed up together\nvarious traditions, belonging to different places and nations. Even as,\nin his conception of the Mouth of Ocean, which is with him always one\nsingle mouth, he seems to have blended and amalgamated geographical\nreports founded upon more than one original, or prototype, in nature.\n\nThe Solyman name has suggested to some critics a connection with the\nSalem of the Hebrews. But the name is much more likely to be derived\nfrom the Soliman Koh, a ridge of mountains running to the south-west\nfrom Caubul, and sometimes defined as extending into Persia. The\nliberality in sacrifice ill accords with the early Persian religion,\nbut finds a probable original in that of the Medes with their order\nof Magians. But upon the whole, it would seem that Homer must have\nhad a reason for the peculiar prominence he has given to these\nSouth-eastern Ethiopians, in connection with the gods of Olympus; for\nthe association, unless suggested by a reason, is neither natural, nor\nin the manner of the Poet. Could it have been any other than this,\nthat he regarded their country, however indeterminate its place in his\nimagination, as the original seat of the religion of his own, and that\nhe therefore referred it thither bodily without notice of details?\nNow this would mean as the original seat, also, of the ancestors of\nthe Hellenic tribes. We are not, in the event of accepting such a\nsupposition, to imagine that he intended to make the assertion that the\nOlympian system had been derived from Persia and Media as it stood,\nbut only to imply that there, according to national tradition, lay its\nroot. The Trojans, it will be remembered, have their not Olympian but\nId\u00e6an Jove: and the Ethiopians are the only foreign race, with whom he\nassociates Olympus and its band of Immortals.\n\nI have already stated elsewhere grounds for supposing that the Ach\u00e6ans,\nas they were immediately an Hellenic, were also primarily, as well as\nthe other Hellenes, a Persian race. We have seen the existence of the\nPersian name in Greece, and its connection, according to Homer, with\nwhat Homer thought the remotest East, by the shore of Ocean. We have\nalso seen its connection with the Sun, the prime deity of the Persians.\nThis visible head of creation, standing next to the Supreme Being, we\nfind that the Greeks speedily identify with their Apollo, who is so\nprominent as the son of Jupiter, in dignity, in obedience, and in his\nfather\u2019s favour, as to stand in a class entirely distinct from that of\nhis other sons.\n\nOn the one hand, we seem to find here matter confirmatory of the\nPersian origin of the Hellenic tribes; and on the other, a general\nindication of the derivation of the earliest Greek religion from a\ncertain part of the East. But still we must beware of any over-broad\ninference. The religion, it is likely, grew largely as it travelled,\nand was developed freely after it had reached its home in the Greek\npeninsula. And it would be contrary to all reason to suppose that\nHomer was in a condition to refer back to each of the Eastern races\ntheir proper contribution towards the aggregate, though we may justly\nsuppose him able to draw some kind of line between the system as it\nwas flourishing in Greece, with all its additions, elaborations and\nrefinements, and the crude undigested materials as they had been\nimported from abroad; perhaps we might say, between the system as he\nfound it, and the same system as he left it.\n\nConsidering, however, that Homer had a quasi-geographical knowledge\nof Egypt, I do not suppose that that country enters at all into his\nconception of the Ethiopians. If so, then the representation of\nan unity of religion with the Ethiopians, affords a presumption,\nconformable undoubtedly to such other presumptions as we have been\nable to gather from the poems, that Homer did not regard Egypt as the\nprincipal source of the religious system of Greece.\n\n~_Herodotus on the Scythian religion._~\n\nI do not pretend to find, in any ancient system handed down to us,\neven a skeleton of the Olympian scheme; and I conclude it to be most\nprobable, that the Greeks had to form, or to reform, various members of\nit, as well as merely to clothe and embellish them. Yet it appears well\nworth while to refer to the account of the Scythian religion given by\nHerodotus, whose works form the great depository of knowledge of this\nkind beyond the borders of Greece.\n\nThe ordinary Scythians, it will be remembered, seem to be of the same\nrace with the Medes, and to form the stock from which the Pelasgians\nseparated to turn towards the south of Europe for settlements. They\nlived in that pastoral state, anterior to tillage, which Mommsen\nobserves, through the forms of the Latin language, to have marked the\npoint before the severance[770]. From the sign of feeding on milk, the\nGlactophagi and Hippemolgi of Il. xiii. 5, 6, would appear to belong to\nthem, and the peaceful habits of the Pelasgians are also represented\nin the character that Homer gives, in the same passage, to their\nneighbours the Abians.\n\n[770] Mommsen, R\u00f6mische Geschichte, vol. I. ch. ii.\n\nThe gods of the Scythians, according to Herodotus[771], were:\n\n[771] Herod. iv. 59.\n\n 1. Vesta.\n 2. Jupiter.\n 3. Earth, the supposed wife of Jupiter.\n 4. Apollo.\n 5. Celestial Venus.\n 6. Hercules.\n 7. Mars.\n\nEven in this very late picture, we find a strong resemblance to what,\nfrom the Homeric text, would appear to have been the primitive cluster\nof the Pelasgian divinities. Earth is represented in Demeter, (\u0393\u1fc6\n\u03bc\u03ae\u03c4\u03b7\u03c1,) who appears in Il. xiv. 326 as one of the wives of Jupiter. The\nCelestial Venus may include traditions of Minerva, and of Artemis,--for\nthe Scythians called her Artimpasa,--along with those which came to be\nrepresented in the Greek \u1f08\u03c6\u03c1\u03bf\u03b4\u03af\u03c4\u03b7. All the deities, which from Homer\u2019s\ntext have appeared to be especially Hellenic, are also, it will be\nobserved, absent from this list: Juno, Neptune, Aidoneus, Persephone,\nVulcan, and Mercury.\n\nBut there were among these Scythians a tribe, called the \u0392\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03bb\u03ae\u03ca\u03bf\u03b9\n\u03a3\u03ba\u03cd\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9. It would seem plain from the name, that these must have held\namong the Scythians a position, in great measure analogous to that of\nthe Hellenic tribes among the mass of the Pelasgian population. And\ncertainly it is not a little curious, that these kingly Scythians added\nto the list of properly Pelasgian deities the worship of Thamimasidas,\na god of the sea, apparently equivalent to the Hellenic Poseidon.\n\nAgain, let us take the account given by Herodotus of the information\nhe obtained in Egypt about the Greek mythology. He states to us that,\nwith certain exceptions, the names of the Greek deities had been known\nin Egypt from time immemorial. His exceptions are, Neptune and Juno,\nthe Dioscuri, Vesta, Themis, the Graces and the Nereids. The statement\nmay at least be accepted as good to this extent, that the deities here\nnamed were not drawn from Egypt. They include, as will be seen, only\none personification of an idea which we have found cause to consider\nPelasgian, namely, \u1f39\u03c3\u03c4\u03af\u03b7 or _home_; with this Neptune and Juno, who\nwere Hellic deities; the Dioscouroi, representing in an early stage\nthe deification of national heroes; the Graces, or the impersonations\nof ideas; and the Nereids, or the personification of natural objects.\nAll of these persons and processes we have already referred to the\ninfluence of the Hellic tribes.\n\nUpon the whole, we appear to have in these accounts a much clearer\nrepresentation of the contribution made by the Pelasgian part of the\nnation to the Olympian system than we can find gathered elsewhere.\nThe Egyptian resemblances are chiefly isolated, though it may have\nbeen from that quarter that Pelasgian Attica learned the name and\nworship of the deity, which was afterwards developed into the Homeric\nPallas-Athene: but among these Scythians we appear to find a group, who\nexhibit to us in combination nearly all that we have reason to believe\nspecially Pelasgian, and, with the obscure exception of Hercules,\nnothing besides. While this group, as being Scythian, would have the\nArian country for its point of origin, it may still be probable that\nother parts of the Olympian religion, besides the worship of Neptune,\nsuch as the Juno and the Persephone in particular, had come from the\n\u2018Kingly\u2019 Arians of the hills.\n\nThus far as to the relation between the Homeric theo-mythology and\nany religious system or combination to be found elsewhere. Let us\nnow consider how it stands with reference to each of the principal\nelements, out of which the religions of the world were habitually\nformed.\n\n~_Four several bases of religious systems._~\n\nThere appear to be four leading forms in which, either single or\ncombined, religion has attracted, and more or less commanded, the\nmind of man. It is scarcely needful to add that one alone of these\nis genuine, and that the three others are essentially depraved, and\nfinally self-destructive.\n\nThe first is the worship of the Divine Being: of which the Holy\nScriptures form, down to the period with which they close, the\nprincipal record.\n\nThe second is the worship of man; founded, of course, upon his\ndeification. Of this the Greek mythology affords the most conspicuous\nand weighty instance.\n\nThe third is the worship of external and inanimate nature, which I\nmention next, not because of its place in the order of ideas, but\nbecause of its great extension and influence over races of vast\nnumerical strength, antiquity, and importance.\n\nThe fourth is the worship of the inferior creation, or of animate\nnature in its lower ranks.\n\nWe have considered, in a former section, how far the Greek mythology\nwas indebted to the first of these sources, the true and pure one.\n\nThe second, or anthropophuism, appears to have formed its most proper\nand distinctive characteristic. Further, it was the intellectual\nrather than the carnal nature of man, which originally determined a\nlaw for the construction of the Olympian system. The great traditive\ndeities were remodelled according to what Scripture calls the \u2018lust of\nthe mind,\u2019 long before the \u2018lust of the flesh\u2019 had touched them. We\nsee, too, that, of the deities of invention, those which were purely\nHellenic, such as Juno and Themis in particular, represent either noble\nand commanding, or else pure, ideas, connected with the development\nof human life and society; while it is generally in deities that have\nnot undergone a full Hellenic remodelling, that we see animal passion\nprevail; such as Mars, Venus, Ceres, and Aurora.\n\n~_Nature-worship._~\n\nThe third basis of religion is admirably described, together with its\napology, and its condemnation, in the Book entitled the Wisdom of\nSolomon[772]:\n\n[772] Wisdom xiii. 1-9.\n\n \u2018Neither by considering the works did they acknowledge the\n workmaster; but deemed either fire, or wind, or the swift air, or the\n circle of the stars, or the violent water, or the lights of heaven,\n to be the gods which govern the world. With whose beauty if they\n being delighted took them to be gods; let them know how much better\n the Lord of them is: for the first author of beauty hath created\n them. But if they were astonished at their power and virtue, let them\n understand by them, how much mightier he is that made them. For, by\n the greatness and beauty of the creatures, proportionably the maker\n of them is seen. But yet for this they are the less to be blamed;\n for they peradventure err, seeking God, and desirous to find him.\n For, being conversant in his works, they search him diligently, and\n believe their sight: because the things are beautiful that are seen.\n Howbeit, neither are they to be pardoned. For if they were able to\n know so much, that they could aim at the world; how did they not\n sooner find out the Lord thereof?\u2019\n\nAnd then the Wise Man proceeds to show, that far inferior, again, to\nthis, is the worship of mere images as gods.\n\nThe worship of the elemental powers enters, I think, only as a very\nsecondary ingredient into the Homeric or Olympian system: it is\neverywhere surmounted and circumscribed by developments drawn from\ntradition or from the principle of anthropophuism.\n\nIt is true that most of the great physical agents are either\npersonified by him, or else are in immediate connection with some\none of his deities: but there is every appearance that the Greeks\nsometimes expelled, sometimes reduced and depressed the principle of\nNature-worship, in their adaptation of foreign materials to Hellenic\nuses.\n\n1. Jupiter and Neptune, as we have seen, preside over elements, but\nthey are not elemental. Their relations to air and sea are entirely\ndifferent from those of Vulcan to fire, and yet even he very greatly\ntranscends the dimensions of a merely elemental god. Their brotherhood\nwith Aidoneus, who is not elemental at all, indicates, together\nwith all other signs, that the air and sea are their respective\nterritories, and are not the basis of their divinity.\n\n2. It seems quite impossible but that, if Nature-worship had been the\nbasis of the system, the Sun, as the visible king of nature, must\nhave had a prominent and commanding position in the system; whereas\nhis place in Homer is even less than secondary. Looking at the realm\nof nature, to search out a varied organism, which would supply a\npowerful apparatus of instruments operative upon man to a presiding\nintelligence, the Greek naturally made \u0396\u03b5\u1f7a\u03c2 the king of Air. But had he\nmerely wanted a symbol by which nature itself was to speak, how could\nhe have forborne to choose the Sun?\n\n3. There is, indeed, an extended use in Homer of the imagery of\nNature-Powers. But however prominent as poetry, this is altogether\nsubordinate as religion. His Nymphs and River-gods people the unseen,\nadorn his verse, and even supply a kind of drapery to the scheme\nof religious observances; but it is not by them that the world is\ngoverned. And with them may very well be classed, as far as the present\nargument is concerned, the crowd of Homer\u2019s metaphysical impersonations.\n\n4. That Neptune in particular is not properly an elemental power, seems\nto be made clear by three things at the least:\n\na. He can act by land as well as sea; witness his building the wall of\nTroy, and appearing as a warrior on the battle-field.\n\nb. The \u03b8\u03ac\u03bb\u03b1\u03c3\u03c3\u03b1, with which he is connected, is decidedly inferior, in\nits merely elemental character, to Oceanus; yet Oceanus has no share in\nthe government of the world, and no moral personality, while Neptune\nhas equal dignity with Jupiter, and is not far behind him in strength.\n\nc. The true elemental gods of the \u03b8\u03ac\u03bb\u03b1\u03c3\u03c3\u03b1, it is plain, according to\nHomer, are Nereus and Amphitrite; of whom the first is locally confined\nto the depths of the sea, and the other is scarcely a person, and\ncannot ideally be disengaged from the curly-headed billows.\n\n5. In the Olympian Court, which is the real centre, according to Homer,\nof the government of the world, there is scarcely to be found a pure\nexample of a Nature-power; there is no one leading deity, in whom that\nidea is not wholly subordinate; and in many of the leading deities,\nsuch as Minerva, Apollo, and even Juno, it is hardly to be perceived at\nall.\n\n6. As to Juno in particular. When we compare the Greek with the\nEastern religions, it appears that, if the former had been conceived\nin the same spirit as the latter, Juno ought to have been the earth,\ncontinually impregnated by the heaven, and yielding those fruits which\nwould then stand as the proper results of her maternity.\n\nBut instead of this, in the great lottery of the universe, earth is\nactually left out, and remains undisposed of. It never appears in\nHomer, except in a formula of adjuration, in which we may naturally\nenough look to find antique ideas; and this seems like a stray vestige\nof another system, really founded on Nature-worship. But there \u0393\u03b1\u1fd6\u03b1\nremains, so far as the Greeks are concerned, isolated and undeveloped.\n\nMeantime, for the vegetative life of Earth, wedded to the Heavens, and\nbearing herbs and fruits, the Greek mind substitutes the intelligent\nlife of a Queen-divinity, who with her husband becomes the nucleus of\nthe Olympian order, and marks the transition from elemental religion to\nanthropophuism.\n\n~_Secondary in the Olympian religion._~\n\nThere is then a greatly qualified sense, in which assent may be given\nto the proposition, that the Olympian dynasty of Homer sits enthroned\nupon the ruins of a more ancient Nature-worship, and the sense is\nthis: that, before Hellenism had an historical existence, there were\nsystems founded on Nature-worship in the east; that these systems were\ntributary to the religion of Olympus, and that its framers made such\nuse of them as they found convenient.\n\nBut from Homer we are not authorized to believe that such a system of\nNature-worship ever preceded in Greece the Olympian system. On the\ncontrary, the \u039a\u03c1\u03cc\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 and \u1fec\u03ad\u03b1, the Oceanus and Tethys of Homer, appear\nto be younger and not older than his chief Olympian gods; that is, they\nappear to be metaphysical creations, called into being to supply an\nideal basis, a _matrix_ or mould, walled in with time and space, for\nJupiter and his wife and brothers to be cast in.\n\nIt is not before, but after the time of Homer, namely, in Hesiod, that\nwe see such development given to this pseudo-archaic system as can\nalone allow it to be taken for the image of something that had really\nexisted as a religion. For example, it would be quite out of keeping\nwith the tone of Homer were we to find in him the sentiment which is\ncontained in a fragment of Euripides[773];\n\n[773] Eurip. Fr. i.\n\n \u1f41\u03c1\u1fb6\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u1f51\u03c8\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c4\u03cc\u03bd\u03b4\u2019 \u1f04\u03c0\u03b5\u03b9\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd \u03b1\u1f30\u03b8\u03ad\u03c1\u03b1;\n \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd \u03bd\u03cc\u03bc\u03b9\u03b6\u03b5 \u0396\u1fc6\u03bd\u03b1.\n\n~_Brute-worship._~\n\nWe have still to consider the relation of the Olympian scheme to the\nlast of the four \u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03b9\u03c7\u03b5\u1fd6\u03b1. The principle of brute-worship was so marked\na characteristic of the Egyptian idolatry, that it seems to lie at\nthe very foundation of the system. Perhaps we should be justified in\nassociating with this principle the inability of the Egyptians to\nattain to any high conceptions of beauty. They scarcely could soar\nin this respect above the standard of that which they regarded as a\ntabernacle meet for divinity to dwell in.\n\nThe same principle appears to have found its way into Persia probably\nat a late date, and from the Median, not the Eteo-persian, source\nof the religious traditions of the country. Malcolm[774] has given\nus the copies, from remains found in the country, of the Persian\nrepresentations, probably however late ones, of their divinities,\nexhibiting strange mixtures of human form with that of the brute.\n\n[774] Malcolm\u2019s Hist. of Persia, vol. i.\n\nIt would therefore be wonderful if we failed to find in the Greek\nmythology some traces, however faint, of an element that not only\nexisted in Asia, but displayed so much vigour there, as to have entered\ndeeply into the religion that even now sways a considerable portion\nof its population, if not, indeed, to form the one really capital and\noperative article of that religion.\n\nD\u00f6llinger[775] has noted the points connected with the state and being\nof animals, which might suggest ideas capable of being developed into\nthis repulsive system. Such are the unity and tranquillity of animal\nlife--it being borne in mind that domesticated animals were those\nwhich supplied the chief type of deity. Such, again, is the instinct\nof the future, bearing a nearer outward resemblance to foreknowledge\nthan would any anticipations founded on forethought, reasoning, and\nexperience. Above all, there seems to be force in the remark that man,\nby his marked individuality, and by the freedom of the will, is, as it\nwere, disabled from becoming the mere organ of another existence. The\ngods in assuming human form, assumed in a great degree human nature\nalso. But the passive and neutral nature of animals offered itself as\na medium without taste or colour, such as needed not in any manner to\nalter or modify the powers of which it was to be the vehicle.\n\n[775] D\u00f6llinger, Heid. u. Jud. b. vi. 130. p. 424.\n\nHad the idea been in its origin that of an inherent sacredness of\nanimals as such, it is not probable that we should have seen such\nextraordinary anomalies in its development as those which permitted the\nsame animal to be adored in one province of Egypt, and immolated in the\nnext[776].\n\n[776] D\u00f6llinger, ibid. 132.\n\n~_Its vestiges in the Olympian religion._~\n\nThe grossness of brute-worship was completely refined away by the\nGreeks during the process of transfer to their own mythology. The\nvestiges of the system, and they are no more than vestiges, still\ntraceable in the Homeric poems, are apparently as follows:\n\n1. I find the chief note of it in the extraordinary sacredness of the\noxen of the Sun: a sacredness inconsistent and inexplicable, if it be\ntried only by the circumjacent incidents of the Odyssey, and by the\nlaws of the Greek mythology.\n\nThe offence of the crew of Ulysses consisted simply in this; that[777],\nafter exhausting every effort to maintain themselves, when they have\nat length no alternative before them except that of starving, they\nconsumed some of the best among these oxen for food. They observed,\nas far as they could, all the proper religious rites, but they used\nleaves instead of barley, and water for wine, inasmuch as neither of\nthe usual requisites were forthcoming. They promised a temple also to\nthe Sun, to be built on their return, and to be enriched with abundant\nvotive offerings. Lastly, I think, any one who reads the manly and\njust speech of Eurylochus, in which he proposes the sacrilege, will\njudge that the sympathies of the Poet are with him. In this speech, he\nstates the necessity; he next proceeds to vow the erection of a temple,\nand dedication of its ornaments in the event of safe return. Then he\nconcludes by declaring, that if vengeance is, notwithstanding, to be\ntaken on them, he for his part would far rather die once for all like\na man than famish in the solitary island. There is not in the tone of\nthe speech the slightest indication of impiety[778].\n\n[777] Od. xii. 352-65.\n\n[778] Od. xii. 339-51.\n\nThe terrible punishment inflicted was prefigured by extraordinary\nportents. The empty hides of the animals crawled about[779], and the\nflesh lowed on the very spits. Here we see at its climax the fine Greek\nimagination, working upon the foundation supplied by the Egyptian\nsuperstition, and extracting from the coarsest earthy matter the means\nof true poetical sublimity.\n\n[779] 394-6.\n\nIt is impossible to conceive a case, in which the offence committed is\nmore exclusively of the kind termed positive, or more entirely severed\nfrom moral guilt, until we include the element to which the poems do\nnot expressly refer, of the elevated sanctity attaching to the animal\nitself. The Homeric fiction is[780], that they were the playthings of\nthe Sun in his leisure hours. But to forbid the use of any of these\nanimals for food, even under the direst necessity, would have been\nsimply to caricature the nature of positive commands, in the very same\nspirit as that which would have had, not the sabbath made for man, but\nman made for the sabbath. Still, when once we let in the assumption\nthat these animals had essentially sacred lives, which might not\nbe taken away, then the offence becomes a moral one of frightful\nprofanation, and the vengeance so rigorously exacted is intelligible.\n\n[780] 379-81.\n\nI do not mean that Homer recognises that dogma which the Egyptians then\naffirmed, and which at this present epoch, after the lapse of three\nthousand years, has wrought myriads of Hindoos to madness. The religion\nof Greece included no such idea, and the religious practice of the\nGreeks wholly precluded it. But in this instance we see a part of the\nEgyptian religion _in transitu_, in the very process of transmutation\nthat it was to undergo when passing into the Greek mythology, which\nutterly repudiated its substance, but strove to retain an image of\nit under poetic forms, betraying by their inconsistency their exotic\norigin.\n\nThe consummation of the whole tale lies in this: that the vengeance\nis not the mere personal act of the Sun, but is inflicted by Jupiter\nhimself on behalf of the whole Olympian Court, to which the appeal had\nbeen already made[781].\n\n[781] Od. xii. 377, 405, 415.\n\n2. Another instance, confirmatory of the statement of D\u00f6llinger as to\nthe _rationale_ of brute-worship, is to be found in the curious passage\nof the Iliad where Xanthus, the horse of Achilles, is endowed with\nspeech. The gift is from Juno, but the limit of the gift is carefully\ndefined[782]:\n\n[782] Il. xix. 407.\n\n \u03b1\u1f50\u03b4\u03ae\u03b5\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1 \u03b4\u2019 \u1f14\u03b8\u03b7\u03ba\u03b5 \u03b8\u03b5\u1f70 \u03bb\u03b5\u03c5\u03ba\u03ce\u03bb\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f2d\u03c1\u03b7.\n\nIt was utterance that Juno gave, not intelligence. The matter to be\nspoken was not a gift. The horse proceeds, evidently by a native\ninsight into the future, to intimate to Achilles his coming fate; at\nfirst more darkly (v. 409); but when he comes nearer the point and\nglances at a man as the ordained instrument of doom (416),\n\n \u1f00\u03bb\u03bb\u1f70 \u03c3\u03bf\u1f76 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1ff7\n \u03bc\u03cc\u03c1\u03c3\u03b9\u03bc\u03cc\u03bd \u1f10\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9 \u03b8\u03b5\u1ff7 \u03c4\u03b5 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f00\u03bd\u03ad\u03c1\u03b9 \u1f36\u03c6\u03b9 \u03b4\u03b1\u03bc\u1fc6\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9\u00b7\n\nthen, I suppose lest the animal should proceed to particularize, and,\nthough prophetic yet unwise, should break the current of the hero\u2019s\nthought and action at the critical moment by naming Paris--the \u1f18\u03c1\u03b9\u03bd\u03cd\u03b5\u03c2\nare made to interfere; they restore the order of nature, and stay the\nexercise of Juno\u2019s irregular and abnormal gift.\n\n3. The immortality of these horses is probably conceived in the same\nspirit. We may the more easily understand it to be a poetical rendering\nof the Egyptian belief in the divinity of many animals, when we\nrecollect that exemption from death is, with Homer, the one and perhaps\nonly essential characteristic of deity, so that his gods are ordinarily\ndefined by it as \u1f00\u03b8\u03ac\u03bd\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03b9.\n\n4. We have another indication of relation to the same ideas, in the\nassumption by deities of the forms of various birds: namely, by\nMinerva, as Od. i. 320; iii. 372; Il. vii. 59; Od. xxii. 240; by\nApollo, Il. vii. 59; by Sleep, Il. xiv. 290; and by Ino Leucothee, Od.\nv. 353. In this instance we again see the refining power of the Greek\nimagination. It is only the forms of birds which are assumed by Homeric\ndeities: creatures more ethereal, though not more intellectual, than\nthe other brute races; and whose figure, when assumed, at once bestows\nin visible form an attribute of high superiority to man, namely, the\nincreased facility and speed of locomotion.\n\n5. One or two other traces may be suggested, but they are slighter\nand more dubious. It is possible that Homer drew from this source the\nOlympian horses of Juno (Il. v. 720, 768-72) and the sea-horses of\nNeptune (Il. xiii. 23). A similar notion may be involved, when the\nPoet makes Apollo stoop to feed the horses of Admetus in Pieria, and\nthe oxen of Laomedon on Ida (Il. ii. 766, and xxi. 448). The serpent\n(\u03b4\u03c1\u03b1\u03ba\u1f7c\u03bd) appears in Homeric portents as a symbol, but without peculiar\nmeaning.\n\nThe horse was not one of the sacred animals of Egypt; and when Homer\nplaced it in such near relations with deity, as he has done in these\nplaces and elsewhere, he may not only have indulged a personal\npredilection, but he also may have been converting the crudity of\nEgyptian material to the form and uses of the Greek religion, in the\nnormal exercise of his vocation.\n\nOne concluding word may be said in extenuation of the indignity which,\naccording to our ideas, attaches to the worship of the inferior\nanimals. In the worship of the elemental powers we see error, but in\nthe worship of beasts we see shame, and even brutality. Perhaps this\ndistinction may be due as much to pride as to pious susceptibility.\n\nOver animals, man has thoroughly obtained the mastery; but Elemental\npowers are still in many cases masters over us, and we lie like babes\nin the lap of their strength and vastness. It does not appear clear why\nwe should consider the worship of that which is more highly organized,\nand which comes half-way to intelligence, as essentially more shameful\nthan the worship of inferior organizations without life or instinct\nof any kind. If it be said that, by its negations, inanimate Nature\nbecomes a fitter shrine of deity than the brutes, the same argument\napplied to the brutes, compared with man, might equally avail to give\nclaims to brute-worship as compared with anthropophuism, against which,\nnotwithstanding, nature summarily revolts.\n\n\n\n\nSECT. VIII.\n\n_The Morals of the Homeric Age._\n\n\nWe have now considered at some length the state and tendencies of\nreligion, both objective and subjective, among the Greeks of the heroic\nage: let us proceed to attempt a sketch of their morality; which rested\nin part upon acknowledged relations to the Olympian deities, but which,\nit is clear, had likewise other supports and sanctions.\n\nIn general outline it may be thus summed up. An high spirited,\nenergetic, adventurous, and daring people, they show themselves prone\nto acts of hasty violence, and their splendid courage occasionally even\ndegenerates, under the influence of strong passion, into ferocity,\nwhile their acuteness and sagacity sometimes, though more rarely, take\na decided tinge of cunning. Yet they are neither selfish, cruel, nor\nimplacable. At the same time, self-command is scarcely less conspicuous\namong them than strong, and deep, and quick emotion. They are in the\nmain a people of warm affections and high honour, commonly tender,\nnever morbid: they respect the weak and the helpless; they hold\nauthority in reverence; domestic purity too is cherished and esteemed\namong them more than elsewhere, and they have not yet fallen into the\ndepths of sensual excess.\n\nThe Greek thanks the gods in his prosperity; witness Laertes. In his\nadversity he appeals to them for aid; or, if he is discontented, he\ncomplains of them; for he harbours no concealed dissatisfaction. Ready\nenough to take from those who have, he is at least as ready to give to\nthose who need. He represents to the life the sentiment which another\ngreat master of manners has given to his Duke of Argyle, in the \u2018Heart\nof Midlothian;\u2019 \u2018It is our Highland privilege to take from all what\n_we_ want, and to give to all what _they_ want[783].\u2019 Distinctions\nof class are recognised, but they are mild and genial: there is no\narrogance on the one side, nor any servility on the other. Reverence is\npaid to those in authority; and yet the Greek thinks in the spirit, and\nmoves in the sphere, of habitual freedom. Over and above his warmth and\ntenacity in domestic affections, he prizes highly those other special\nrelations between man and man, which mitigate and restrain the law of\nforce in societies as yet imperfectly organized. He thoroughly admires\nthe intelligence displayed in stratagem; whether among the resources of\nself-defence, or by way of jest upon a friend, or for the hurt or ruin\nof an enemy; but life in a mask he cannot away with, and holds it a\nprime article of his creed, that the tongue should habitually represent\nthe man[784].\n\n[783] Scott\u2019s Novels and Tales, 8vo Ed., x. 238.\n\n[784] Il. ix. 312.\n\n~_The moral sense in the heroic age._~\n\nBefore proceeding, however, to examine the morality of the Greek heroic\nage, as to its particular sanctions, or in any of its applications to\nthe regulation of human conduct, we are met by a preliminary question:\nhad the Greeks any idea of a fixed and substantive rule of morals at\nall? were they believers in goodness as apart from strength? did they\nrecognise a law of right as between man and man, or were their notions\nof relative duty entirely founded on a more or less far-sighted\nself-love, and on a prudential calculation of the consequences which\nwould follow to society, and to each individual, if the rights of\nothers were to be held in universal or in general disregard?\n\nWhen we consider how hard it is to keep the moral standard high, even\nafter religion has placed before our view a Divine pattern for man to\nfollow, and how among the Greeks religion, first corrupted itself, had\nalready begun to pour out its own corruption upon morals, we shall not\nventure to pitch our expectations very high: optimism and pessimism are\nhere alike out of place: we want the clear, dispassionate, and direct\ndiscernment of the facts. And when we observe how, down to this day,\nthe epithets which ought to designate virtue only, and in particular\nthe word _good_, tend irresistibly to attach themselves to other gifts,\nsuch as genius, rank, wealth, skill, and power, we must not hastily\nconclude, from finding a similar use in Homer, that there was no idea\nor standard of goodness except that belonging to preeminence in the\nparticular kind, according to which a clever thief is a good thief;\ngood, that is, by doing effectually what he professes to do, or good,\nlike the unjust steward of the parable, in respect of the intelligence\nhe displays, though evil in respect of the direction which he gives to\nit[785].\n\n[785] Luke xvi. 1-9.\n\nHomer, in speaking of different classes of society, uses the line[786],\n\n[786] Od. xv. 323.\n\n \u03bf\u1f37\u03ac \u03c4\u03b5 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u1f00\u03b3\u03b1\u03b8\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c3\u03b9 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b1\u03b4\u03c1\u03ce\u03c9\u03c3\u03b9 \u03c7\u03ad\u03c1\u03b7\u03b5\u03c2.\n\nBut after all we can translate this, without much verbal change, or any\ndeparture from our own idiom, \u2018such services as the lower orders render\nto good society,\u2019 or \u2018to the better classes.\u2019\n\nMr. Grote[787] says, that \u2018the primitive import\u2019 of the words \u1f00\u03b3\u03b1\u03b8\u1f78\u03c2,\n\u1f10\u03c3\u03b8\u03bb\u1f78\u03c2, and \u03ba\u03b1\u03ba\u1f78\u03c2 relates \u2018to power and not to worth;\u2019 and that the\nethical meaning of them is a later growth, which \u2018hardly appears until\nthe discussions raised by Socrates, and prosecuted by his disciples.\u2019\nI ask permission to protest against whatever savours of the idea that\nany Socrates whatever was the patentee of that sentiment of right and\nwrong, which is the most precious part of the patrimony of mankind. The\nmovement of Greek morality with the lapse of time was chiefly downward,\nand not upward. It is admitted, that what we may call the dynamical\nsense of the epithets has held its ground in later times along with\ntheir ethical signification: the important question to be determined\nis, whether the latter signification was an improvement introduced by\ncivilization into the code of barbarism, or whether it indicates a\nprinciple of human nature on its better, which is also its weaker side,\nand one which we see, all along the course of history, struggling to\nassert itself against the tyrannous invasion of other propensities and\npowers.\n\n[787] Grote\u2019s Hist. of Greece, vol. ii. p. 88 n.\n\nThe word \u1f10\u03c3\u03b8\u03bb\u1f78\u03c2 is found in combination with what is absolutely\nvicious, in the remarkable case of Autolycus:\n\n \u03bc\u03b7\u03c4\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u1f11\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c4\u03ad\u03c1\u2019 \u1f10\u03c3\u03b8\u03bb\u1f78\u03bd, \u1f43\u03c2 \u1f00\u03bd\u03b8\u03c1\u03ce\u03c0\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 \u1f10\u03ba\u03ad\u03ba\u03b1\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\n \u03ba\u03bb\u03b5\u03c0\u03c4\u03bf\u03c3\u03cd\u03bd\u1fc3 \u03b8\u2019 \u1f45\u03c1\u03ba\u1ff3 \u03c4\u03b5[788].\n\n[788] Od. xix. 395.\n\nBut the meaning of \u1f10\u03c3\u03b8\u03bb\u1f78\u03c2 appears to be, one who excels; the\napplication of it to Autolycus is not at all unlike the commendation of\nthe unjust steward; and the epithet did not in the later Greek acquire\nany essentially different force, or any exclusive appropriation to\nmoral excellence. Its use in Homer may be compared with his application\nof \u03b4\u1fd6\u03b1 to Clytemnestra. Yet it leans peculiarly to moral excellence.\nFor the \u1f00\u03bc\u03cd\u03bc\u03c9\u03bd is opposed to the \u1f00\u03c0\u03b7\u03bd\u1f74\u03c2, who is certainly a moral\ndelinquent; and the highest honour of the \u1f00\u03bc\u03cd\u03bc\u03c9\u03bd is, that men proclaim\nhim \u1f10\u03c3\u03b8\u03bb\u03cc\u03c2 (Od. xix. 329-34).\n\nAgain, with respect to \u03c7\u03b5\u03af\u03c1\u03c9\u03bd and its opposite \u03ba\u03c1\u03b5\u03af\u03c3\u03c3\u03c9\u03bd, with other\nwords similar to both. In searching for the signs of a standard in its\nown nature absolute, we can expect little from a class of terms, which\nby their very structure bear witness that they are simply comparative.\nEspecially the etymology of \u03c7\u03b5\u03af\u03c1\u03c9\u03bd, directing us to the word \u03c7\u03b5\u1f76\u03c1 as\nits root, exhibits force as its most commanding and essential idea.\nYet, when the aristocracy of Ithaca are called (Od. xxi. 325) \u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u1f7a\n\u03c7\u03b5\u03af\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd\u03b5\u03c2 \u1f04\u03bd\u03b4\u03c1\u03b5\u03c2, must we not admit that even in this word there inheres\na strong moral element?\n\n~_Use of the words \u1f00\u03b3\u03b1\u03b8\u1f78\u03c2 and \u03ba\u03b1\u03ba\u03cc\u03c2._~\n\nBut as to the words \u1f00\u03b3\u03b1\u03b8\u1f78\u03c2 and \u03ba\u03b1\u03ba\u1f78\u03c2, the case is far more clear: and\nhere I ask, can it be shown that Homer ever applies the word \u1f00\u03b3\u03b1\u03b8\u1f78\u03c2 to\nthat which is morally bad? or the word \u03ba\u03b1\u03ba\u1f78\u03c2 to that which is morally\ngood? If it can, _cadit qu\u00e6stio_; if it cannot, then we have advanced\na considerable way in proving the ethical signification. For it is on\nall hands admitted, that besides their proper sense, \u1f00\u03b3\u03b1\u03b8\u1f78\u03c2 and \u03ba\u03b1\u03ba\u1f78\u03c2,\nlike our _good_ and _bad_, have a derivative meaning, in which they\nare employed to denote what is agreeable, or what is preeminent in its\nkind, and the reverse respectively; qualities which bear an analogy\nto goodness on the one hand, and to badness on the other, according\nto the universal testimony of human speech. Now, if the use of this\nderivative sense stops short, in the case of \u1f00\u03b3\u03b1\u03b8\u1f78\u03c2, when it comes to\nborder on what is positively bad, and in the case of \u03ba\u03b1\u03ba\u1f78\u03c2, when it\ncomes to touch upon what is positively good, there must be a reason\nfor the abrupt cessation, at that point, of the function of the words;\nand it can be none other than that nature herself revolts from a\ncontradiction in terms; as we never say a good villain, or a bad saint.\nBut the contradiction would not exist, unless the ethical sense were\ninherent in the words.\n\nNow, I venture to state, with as much confidence as can well exist in\nthe case of a negative embracing such a number of instances, that we do\nfind this limitation throughout the poems of Homer, in the secondary\nuse both of \u1f00\u03b3\u03b1\u03b8\u1f78\u03c2 and of \u03ba\u03b1\u03ba\u03cc\u03c2. In one passage there is at first sight\nsome obscurity in the meaning of the latter term, \u03ba\u03b1\u03ba\u1f78\u03c2 \u03b4\u2019 \u03b1\u1f30\u03b4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03bf\u03c2\n\u1f00\u03bb\u03ae\u03c4\u03b7\u03c2[789]. Here however the context plainly shows it to be, \u2018it will\nnot do for a mendicant to be shy.\u2019\n\n[789] Od. xvii. 578.\n\nBut the positive sense of both words can be clearly and indisputably\nmade out from a number of passages, of which I will quote a portion.\n\nAlthough it is true, that in Homer the word \u1f00\u03b3\u03b1\u03b8\u1f78\u03c2 very often refers\nmore to the ideas of particular excellences and of power, than to that\nof moral worth; yet in some passages we find a latent bias, as it were,\ntowards the last named idea, and in others we have a clear and full\nexpression of it.\n\nAs an example of the first, I quote the description of Agamemnon[790],\n\u1f00\u03bc\u03c6\u03cc\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd, \u03b2\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03bb\u03b5\u03cd\u03c2 \u03c4\u2019 \u1f00\u03b3\u03b1\u03b8\u1f78\u03c2 \u03ba\u03c1\u03b1\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03cc\u03c2 \u03c4\u2019 \u03b1\u1f30\u03c7\u03bc\u03b7\u03c4\u03ae\u03c2, \u2018A good king, and\na brave warrior.\u2019 Now the word \u1f00\u03b3\u03b1\u03b8\u1f78\u03c2 here evidently has a special\nregard to the moral element. Homer surely intends to describe, by\nthe epithets he applies to each of the two substantives, a special\nexcellence suitable to each character respectively. The goodness, so\nto speak, of a warrior consisted in bravery: the goodness of a king,\npartly indeed in prudence, but chiefly in justice, in mildness, and in\nliberality. If \u1f00\u03b3\u03b1\u03b8\u1f78\u03c2 in this place meant merely \u2018good in the virtue of\nits kind,\u2019 then it might as well stand with \u03b1\u1f30\u03c7\u03bc\u03b7\u03c4\u03ae\u03c2 as with \u03b2\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03bb\u03b5\u1f7a\u03c2,\nand therefore the antithesis would be a bad and pointless one.\n\n[790] Il. iii. 179.\n\nIn other cases the moral colouring of the term is full and indubitable.\nBellerophon[791], when he resists the seduction of the wife of Pr\u0153tus,\nis \u1f00\u03b3\u03b1\u03b8\u1f70 \u03c6\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd\u03ad\u03c9\u03bd. Jupiter, when incensed, is described by Minerva\nthus, \u03c6\u03c1\u03b5\u03c3\u1f76 \u03bc\u03b1\u03af\u03bd\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u03bf\u1f50\u03ba \u1f00\u03b3\u03b1\u03b8\u1fc7\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd[792]. To follow good advice is \u1f41\n\u03b4\u1f72 \u03c0\u03b5\u03af\u03c3\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u1f00\u03b3\u03b1\u03b8\u03cc\u03bd \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1[793]. A man who is \u1f00\u03b3\u03b1\u03b8\u1f78\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f10\u03c7\u03ad\u03c6\u03c1\u03c9\u03bd,\nis also the one who must necessarily have regard and affection for\nhis wife[794]. And Clytemnestra, before she was corrupted, had good\ndispositions; \u03c6\u03c1\u03b5\u03c3\u1f76 \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u03ba\u03ad\u03c7\u03c1\u03b7\u03c4\u2019 \u1f00\u03b3\u03b1\u03b8\u1fc7\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd[795].\n\n[791] Il. vi. 162.\n\n[792] Il. viii. 360.\n\n[793] Il. xi. 788.\n\n[794] Il. ix. 341.\n\n[795] Od. iii. 266.\n\nThe word \u03ba\u03b1\u03ba\u1f78\u03c2 again, in a majority of cases, refers to defect or\ncalamity in things, or to poltroonery, or other baseness of that kind,\nin persons: but it directly indicates moral badness in such passages\nas the following. Leiodes pleads that he tried to keep the Suitors\nfrom doing wrong, \u03ba\u03b1\u03ba\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f04\u03c0\u03bf \u03c7\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c1\u03b1\u03c2 \u1f14\u03c7\u03b5\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9[796]. Telemachus warns the\nSuitors that the gods will turn upon them in wrath, \u1f00\u03b3\u03b1\u03c3\u03c3\u03ac\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9 \u03ba\u03b1\u03ba\u1f70\n\u1f14\u03c1\u03b3\u03b1[797]. Jupiter views such deeds with indignation, \u03bd\u03b5\u03bc\u03b5\u03c3\u03c3\u1fb7\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u03ba\u03b1\u03ba\u1f70\n\u1f14\u03c1\u03b3\u03b1[798]. And Juno reproaches Apollo for giving countenance to the\nTrojans, as \u03ba\u03b1\u03ba\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f15\u03c4\u03b1\u03c1\u2019 \u03b1\u1f30\u1f72\u03bd \u1f04\u03c0\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5, where our finding faithlessness in\nthe immediate context, points to moral depravity as the signification\nof the word \u03ba\u03b1\u03ba\u1ff6\u03bd[799].\n\n[796] Od. xxii. 316.\n\n[797] Od. ii. 67.\n\n[798] Od. xiv. 284.\n\n[799] Il. xxiv. 63.\n\n~_Use of the word \u03b4\u03af\u03ba\u03b1\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2._~\n\nIn the word \u03b4\u03af\u03ba\u03b1\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2, however, we have an instance of an epithet never\nemployed except in order to signify a moral or a religious idea. Like\nthe word _righteous_ among ourselves, it is derived from a source which\nwould make it immediately designate duty as between man and man, and\nalso as it arises out of civil relations. But it is applied in Homer to\nboth the great branches of duty. And surely there cannot be a stronger\nproof of the existence of definite moral ideas among a people, than the\nvery fact that they employ a word founded on the observance of relative\nrights to describe also the religious character. It is when religion\nand morality are torn asunder, that the existence of moral ideas is\nendangered.\n\nMinerva, in the form of Mentor, is pleased with Telemachus for handing\nthe cup first to her at the festival in Pylos, because it is a tribute\nof reverence to superior age. For this he is called \u03c0\u03b5\u03c0\u03bd\u03c5\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2\n\u1f00\u03bd\u1f74\u03c1[800] \u03b4\u03af\u03ba\u03b1\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2, and the idea is that of relative duty. Again, when\nshe advises him for a while to let the Suitors alone, it is \u1f10\u03c0\u03b5\u1f76 \u03bf\u1f54\u03c4\u03b9\n\u03bd\u03bf\u03ae\u03bc\u03bf\u03bd\u03b5\u03c2 \u03bf\u1f50\u03b4\u1f72 \u03b4\u03af\u03ba\u03b1\u03b9\u03bf\u03b9[801]; and they do not know the retribution that\nhangs over them. In this case the meaning must be either \u2018just\u2019 or\n\u2018pious.\u2019\n\n[800] Od. iii. 52.\n\n[801] Od. ii. 282.\n\nIn another case, where the very same phrase is employed, \u03b4\u03af\u03ba\u03b1\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2 can\nonly mean \u2018pious.\u2019 \u2018Jupiter,\u2019 says Nestor, \u2018ordained calamities for the\nGreeks on their return, because they were not all either intelligent or\nrighteous[802]:\n\n[802] Od. iii. 132-6.\n\n \u1f10\u03c0\u03b5\u1f76 \u03bf\u1f54\u03c4\u03b9 \u03bd\u03bf\u03ae\u03bc\u03bf\u03bd\u03b5\u03c2 \u03bf\u1f50\u03b4\u1f72 \u03b4\u03af\u03ba\u03b1\u03b9\u03bf\u03b9\n \u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 \u1f14\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd.\n\n\u2018Wherefore many of them perished\u2019 (he continues) \u2018through the wrath of\nMinerva, who set the two Atrid\u00e6 at variance.\u2019 Now here it appears that\nthe original offence of the Greeks could only have consisted in the\nomission of the usual sacrifices, while the passage has no reference\nwhatever to relative duties: \u03b4\u03af\u03ba\u03b1\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2 therefore must refer simply to\nduty towards the gods. And, however imperfect may be that notion of\ndivine duty which made it consist in sacrifice wholly or mainly, yet\nplainly the neglect to sacrifice was for the Greeks of the heroic age\na moral offence, although it consisted only in the breach of a law\nof the class termed positive. A passage yet more fatally adverse to\nthe position of Mr. Grote is, I think, that where Homer describes the\n\u1f0c\u03b2\u03b9\u03bf\u03b9[803] as \u03b4\u03b9\u03ba\u03b1\u03b9\u03cc\u03c4\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03b9 \u1f00\u03bd\u03b8\u03c1\u03ce\u03c0\u03c9\u03bd. For there he appears to be speaking\nof persons clearly less advanced in civilization, more rude, less\nwealthy and intelligent, than the Greeks; and yet he applies to them an\nepithet which proclaims them to have been, in his opinion, either the\nmost just, or the most pious of mankind.\n\n[803] Il. xiii. 6.\n\n~_Religion and morals not dissociated._~\n\nMoreover, it does not appear that anywhere among the Greeks were\nreligion and morals as yet effectually dissociated. It is true that\nthe language of mere mythology treats the religious character of man\nas established by bounty in sacrifice. But this is one of the points,\nand a very vital one, in which the theistic system of the Greeks was\nworse than their ethical instinct, and became, therefore, a positive\nsource of corruption. While the Scriptures of the Old Testament rigidly\ncontrolled the propensity of man to substitute perfunctory observances\nfor the service of the heart, by saying, \u2018to obey is better than\nsacrifice,\u2019 the Jupiter of the Greeks tells them, that to sacrifice\nis better than to obey. And it is only in the mouth of a traditive\ndeity that we find any more elevated sentiment. To a certain extent,\nindeed, yet not effectually, this representation may be qualified, if\nwe recollect that in these passages the deities of Olympus, conceived\naccording to the laws of anthropophuism, when they have occasion to\nspeak of human piety, speak of it in that aspect under which it was\npeculiarly beneficial to themselves, but do not on that account intend\nwholly to set aside its other parts, while they undoubtedly disturb\nthe scale of relative importance in the moral order.\n\nBut man, the handiwork of God, was less depraved than the idols which\nwere the handiwork of man. Among the Greeks, the pious man is nowhere\nseparated from the just or moral man. Not in words, for the question\nof a stranger always is, whether men are, on the one hand, insolent,\nfierce, _and_ unrighteous, or, on the other, hospitable _and_ pious to\nthe gods[804];\n\n[804] Od. vi. 120.\n\n \u1f26 \u1fe5\u2019 \u03bf\u1f35\u03b3\u2019 \u1f51\u03b2\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u03af \u03c4\u03b5 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f04\u03b3\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03b9 \u03bf\u1f50\u03b4\u1f72 \u03b4\u03af\u03ba\u03b1\u03b9\u03bf\u03b9,\n \u1f20\u1f72 \u03c6\u03b9\u03bb\u03cc\u03be\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9, \u03ba\u03b1\u03af \u03c3\u03c6\u03b9\u03bd \u03bd\u03cc\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c3\u03c4\u1f76 \u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u03c5\u03b4\u03ae\u03c2;\n\nNor are they in any instance separated in deeds. We hear of no\nreligious observances by the Suitors in Ithaca; but Nestor and Menelaus\nare both found engaged in them. The wicked \u00c6gisthus, having corrupted\nClytemnestra and gained the throne, then offered many sacrifices to the\ngods in the hope of keeping it, and suspended many decorations in their\nhonour[805]; but he is not on this account spoken of with less horror,\nnor indeed did this extorted profession save him from divine vengeance,\nsent by the hand of Orestes. Nor does it appear that he had ever been\nliberal in sacrifice before. The persons who are extolled, obviously\nor expressly, on this ground in the Odyssey are, the illustrious\nUlysses[806], and the trusty Eum\u00e6us in his humble cottage[807]. So\nthat on the whole, as between Greek and Greek, regularity in divine\nworship by sacrifice was neither taken for the substance of morality,\nnor allowed as a substitute for it, but was a test of it, and was\nhabitually found in union with it. The connection is clearly set out in\nthe case of Eum\u00e6us[808]:\n\n[805] Od. iii. 272-5.\n\n[806] Od. i. 65-7.\n\n[807] Od. xiv. 420.\n\n[808] Ibid.\n\n \u03bf\u1f50\u03b4\u1f72 \u03c3\u03c5\u03b2\u03ce\u03c4\u03b7\u03c2\n \u03bb\u03ae\u03b8\u03b5\u03c4\u2019 \u1f04\u03c1\u2019 \u1f00\u03b8\u03b1\u03bd\u03ac\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd\u00b7 \u03c6\u03c1\u03b5\u03c3\u1f76 \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u03ba\u03ad\u03c7\u03c1\u03b7\u03c4\u2019 \u1f00\u03b3\u03b1\u03b8\u1fc7\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd.\n\n~_Moral elements in Sacrifice._~\n\nNor must we forget that, had it been otherwise, a constant moral\nprofanation, abhorred by the feeling of the time, would have been\ninvolved. For sacrifice, as ought to be the case with all ritual, had a\nmoral character and adjuncts. It was either ordinary, as at the common\nmeal, or solemn. In the former case the surrender by man of a portion\nof his food was a witness to God as the giver, and an expression of\nthankfulness intelligible to an unsophisticated age. In the latter\ncase, and even in the former[809], prayer or thanksgiving were commonly\ncombined with the rite. The spirit of man, when he approached the\naltar, was bowed down before the powers of heaven; and though it was a\nheavy sin in nations who had a clear knowledge of God to lapse into the\npractices of those who could but feebly grope (to use the language of\nsaint Paul[810]) for Him, yet the use of religious observances, when\nit is ordinarily combined, as we find it combined in Greece, with the\npossession in other respects of virtuous character, is in effect one of\nthe strongest testimonies to the existence of a substantive standard\nof morals, which it associates at once with the unseen world, and not\nwith any mere reckoning of results, drawn from the life and experience\nof man.\n\n[809] Od. xiv. 423.\n\n[810] Acts xvii. 27.\n\nIf then the Greeks of the heroic age recognised a real type of good and\nevil in human action, the next question is, what were the motive powers\nby which they were drawn towards the practice of virtue?\n\nThese powers proceeded from three sources.\n\nOne was a regard to the gods; to their rewarding the good, and\npunishing the bad. Of this we have already treated in regard to some\nof the most important points. The general proof rests upon almost every\npage of the poems, especially as regards the punishment of the unkind,\nunjust, and cruel. The Homeric representations of a future state\nobscurely, but sensibly, add strength to the same class of sanctions.\n\nThe second was the voice of conscience, speaking for each man within\nhis own breast[811].\n\n[811] N\u00e4gelsbach Hom. Theol. vi. 15.\n\nThe third was a sentiment ranging between reverence and fear, which\nled to the performance of duty, and to the avoidance of crime, in\nconsideration of the general authority and established opinion of\nmankind.\n\nWe may consider those examples from bygone days, which are so often\nadduced either for warning or for imitation, as belonging to this third\ndivision of moral powers.\n\nThe finer forms of this third class of sentiments pass by imperceptible\nshades into the second.\n\n~_The principle of conscience._~\n\nAfter his conquest of Hypoplacian Thebes, Achilles would not despoil\nthe body of the slain Eetion, \u03c3\u03b5\u03b2\u03ac\u03c3\u03c3\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u03c4\u03cc\u03b3\u03b5 \u03b8\u03c5\u03bc\u1ff7: accordingly\nhe burnt him, with his precious armour on. Now it would have been no\ncrime to strip him of this valuable booty, and therefore would have\ndrawn down no vengeance: but the high standard of his own chivalrous\nfeelings would not suffer the act. We have no reason to suppose that in\nthis instance he had any regard to the general opinion of the Greeks.\nFor as when they gathered round the corpse of Hector, every one of\nthem inflicted a wound upon it, and as it was the common custom of\nthe war to strip the dead of their arms, nothing can be more unlikely\nthan that the army would have resented a similar proceeding on the\npart of Achilles towards Eetion. It was therefore to his own mind that\nhe deferred. Here there was a conscience not only taking notice of\nthe broader and, so to speak, coarser, outlines of duty, but likewise\nexhibiting a refined and tender sense of it.\n\nAgain, Telemachus says, by way of appeal to the good feeling of the\nSuitors themselves (Od. ii. 138.),\n\n \u1f51\u03bc\u03ad\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2 \u03b4\u2019 \u03b5\u1f30 \u03bc\u1f72\u03bd \u03b8\u03c5\u03bc\u1f78\u03c2 \u03bd\u03b5\u03bc\u03b5\u03c3\u03af\u03b6\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd,\n \u1f14\u03be\u03b9\u03c4\u03ad \u03bc\u03bf\u03b9 \u03bc\u03b5\u03b3\u03ac\u03c1\u03c9\u03bd.\n\nIn this place he seems to refer to the sense of right within each man,\nand by no means to their regard for appearances as before each other;\nwhile that, from which he exhorts them to abstain, is a purely moral\nwrong. So Glaucus appears to aim at the individual conscience, when he\nimpresses on Hector and the Trojans the duty of recovering the body\nof Sarpedon, lest the Myrmidons should deface his remains (Il. xvi.\n544-6). Again, Menelaus addresses a similar exhortation to the Greeks,\nand here expressly exhorts each person to feel and act for himself (Il.\nxvii. 254),\n\n \u1f00\u03bb\u03bb\u03ac \u03c4\u03b9\u03c2 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1f78\u03c2 \u1f34\u03c4\u03c9, \u03bd\u03b5\u03bc\u03b5\u03c3\u03b9\u03b6\u03ad\u03c3\u03b8\u03c9 \u03b4\u2019 \u1f10\u03bd\u1f76 \u03b8\u03c5\u03bc\u1ff7\n \u03a0\u03ac\u03c4\u03c1\u03bf\u03ba\u03bb\u03bf\u03bd \u03a4\u03c1\u03c9\u1fc7\u03c3\u03b9 \u03ba\u03c5\u03c3\u1f76\u03bd \u03bc\u03ad\u03bb\u03c0\u03b7\u03b8\u03c1\u03b1 \u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03ad\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9.\n\nIn one passage particularly, Telemachus distinguishes with great\nclearness the three kinds of motive by the terms proper to them\nrespectively (Od. ii. 64-7);\n\n (1) \u03bd\u03b5\u03bc\u03b5\u03c3\u03c3\u03ae\u03b8\u03b7\u03c4\u03b5 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1f76,\n (2) \u1f04\u03bb\u03bb\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 \u03c4\u2019 \u03b1\u1f30\u03b4\u03b5\u03c3\u03b8\u1fc6\u03c4\u03b5 \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03b9\u03ba\u03c4\u03af\u03bf\u03bd\u03b1\u03c2 \u1f00\u03bd\u03b8\u03c1\u03ce\u03c0\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2,\n \u03bf\u1f33 \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03b9\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9\u03b5\u03c4\u03ac\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9\u00b7 (3) \u03b8\u03b5\u1ff6\u03bd \u03b4\u2019 \u1f51\u03c0\u03bf\u03b4\u03b5\u03af\u03c3\u03b1\u03c4\u03b5 \u03bc\u1fc6\u03bd\u03b9\u03bd.\n\nThat is \u03bd\u03ad\u03bc\u03b5\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2, for the self-judging conscience: \u03b1\u1f30\u03b4\u1f7c\u03c2, for human\nopinion: and lastly, fear, in regard to the divine wrath.\n\nThe existence of the moral standard within a man is also, I think,\nvery strongly implied in the word \u1f00\u03c4\u03b1\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03bb\u03af\u03b7, which is applied to deep,\ndeliberate, habitual, or audacious wickedness. For when it is intended\nto let in any allowance for mere weakness, or for solicitation from\nwithout, or for a foolish blindness, then the word \u1f04\u03c4\u03b7 is used. And\nI doubt whether, in any one instance throughout the poems, these two\ndesignations are ever applied to one and the same misconduct. It is\ncertainly contrary to the general and almost universal rule. The\n\u1f00\u03c4\u03b1\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03bb\u03af\u03b7 is something done with clear sight and knowledge, with the\nfull and conscious action of the will: it is something regarded as\nwholly without excuse, as tending to an entire moral deadness, and as\nentailing final punishment alike without notice and without mercy.\nNothing can account for the introduction into a moral code of a form\nof offence conceived with such intensity, and ranked so high, except\nthe belief that the man committing it had deliberately set aside that\ninward witness to truth and righteousness, supplied by the law of our\nnature, in the repudiation of which the universal and consentient\nvoice of mankind has always placed the most awful responsibility, the\nextremest degree of guilt that the human being can incur.\n\n~_Regard for general opinion._~\n\nThe high place assigned throughout the poems to public opinion as a\nmoral check is visible at every turn. And this check applies variously\nto various classes. With the most abandoned, like the Suitors, it is\nfeeble; and is only invoked on special occasions, as when Telemachus\ncombines it, in the passage lately cited, with the other moral\nsanctions. Even Paris is represented as quite beyond the reach of it:\nand Helen meekly wishes, that if the gods had determined she should\nlive, she could have been the husband of a man more open to the\ninfluence of the public sentiment[812]:\n\n[812] Il. vi. 349-51.\n\n \u1f43\u03c2 \u1fe5\u2019 \u1f94\u03b4\u03b7 \u03bd\u03ad\u03bc\u03b5\u03c3\u03af\u03bd \u03c4\u03b5 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b1\u1f34\u03c3\u03c7\u03b5\u03b1 \u03c0\u03cc\u03bb\u03bb\u2019 \u1f00\u03bd\u03b8\u03c1\u03ce\u03c0\u03c9\u03bd.\n\nBut upon characters less frivolous and less corrupt, this power acts\nwith great efficacy: so much so, that Ph\u0153nix says he was restrained,\nwhen in his passion, from killing his father by some benevolent deity,\nwhose mode of proceeding was, we shall perceive, very remarkable: for\nthe suggestion he made to Ph\u0153nix with such good effect was, not that he\nwould be punished by the gods for the offence, but that he would become\nan offence and scandal among men[813]:\n\n[813] Il. ix. 459-61.\n\n \u1f00\u03bb\u03bb\u03ac \u03c4\u03b9\u03c2 \u1f00\u03b8\u03b1\u03bd\u03ac\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd \u03c0\u03b1\u1fe6\u03c3\u03b5\u03bd \u03c7\u03cc\u03bb\u03bf\u03bd, \u1f45\u03c2 \u1fe5\u2019 \u1f10\u03bd\u1f76 \u03b8\u03c5\u03bc\u1ff7\n \u03b4\u03ae\u03bc\u03bf\u03c5 \u03b8\u1fc6\u03ba\u03b5 \u03c6\u03ac\u03c4\u03b9\u03bd, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f40\u03bd\u03b5\u03af\u03b4\u03b5\u03b1 \u03c0\u03cc\u03bb\u03bb\u2019 \u1f00\u03bd\u03b8\u03c1\u03ce\u03c0\u03c9\u03bd,\n \u1f61\u03c2 \u03bc\u1f74 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c4\u03c1\u03bf\u03c6\u03cc\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 \u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u2019 \u1f08\u03c7\u03b1\u03b9\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u03b5\u03bf\u03af\u03bc\u03b7\u03bd.\n\nThe \u03b4\u03ae\u03bc\u03bf\u03c5 \u03c6\u03ac\u03c4\u03b9\u03c2, or public opinion, weighs even with the matron\nPenelope among the motives to her virtuous and heroic conduct; and the\nmaid Nausicaa, no less circumspect than artless, finds in the \u03c6\u1fc6\u03bc\u03b9\u03c2\n\u1f00\u03b4\u03b5\u03c5\u03ba\u1f74\u03c2, the bitter gossip, of Scheria, an apology for desiring Ulysses\nnot to enter the city in her company[814].\n\n[814] Od. vi. 273-7.\n\nBut the sentiment of regard to general opinion comes out in other and\nyet finer forms as a practical regulator of conduct in the heroic age.\n\nPerhaps we might venture to rely upon the uses of the single word\n\u03b1\u1f30\u03b4\u1f7c\u03c2, with the cognate verb and adjective, in Homer, for proof\nthat the condition of the Greeks of his age was a condition of high\ncivilization, in that which constitutes its most essential part,\nnamely, that which relates to the affections and passions of man; the\nexpansion by moral forces of the one, and the compression of the other.\n\nShame, in all its many forms, has more than one pervading\ncharacteristic to mark it as an agent alike powerful and delicate in\nits influence upon human conduct.\n\nFirst, it essentially involves this idea: that while it refers to an\nexternal standard, independent of ourselves though able to act upon\nus, still the power thus invoked is one altogether distinct from the\nidea of force. So sensitive indeed is the feeling of shame, that at\nthe first moment when force comes into view, it alters its nature,\nand passes into fear. That which it apprehends is something, which\ndwells only in the ethereal region of opinion; and yet this, by the\nfineness of its appreciation, it converts into an agent effective both\nto excite and to restrain. Thus it exhibits to us the human spirit\nguided by silken reins, and in this way bears emphatic witness to the\nhigh training, by which alone it can become susceptible of so gentle a\nguidance.\n\nSecondly, it embraces not only the character of acts as they are\nin themselves or appear to us, but also the aspect which they will\nnaturally present to others. It therefore essentially involves the\nrecognition of a high form of relative duty: it obliges us, in\nregulating the whole tenour of our conduct, to make the feelings of\nothers an element in our own decisions. This principle of a mutual\nregard, not confined to certain positive acts of relative duty, but\npervading the whole course of moral action, lies at the root of all\ngenuine and high civilization.\n\nShame must have reference to some standard exterior to ourselves, and\nit therefore tends towards uprooting the law of selfishness. In one\nof its highest forms, the one perhaps most familiar to us in Homer,\nit is termed self-respect. But self-respect does not mean a regard to\nself: it means a virtuous regard to a standard established by adequate\nconsent and authority, and owned, not set up, by the individual\nconscience; together with a determination that \u2018self\u2019 shall be made to\nconform to it.\n\nThe \u03c6\u03b8\u03bf\u03c1\u1f70 of this sentiment is what we term false shame: which does\nevil, or refrains from good, in submission to a depraved standard of\nopinion external to us, and in defiance of our own knowledge of right.\nThis kind of shame is treated with no respect in Homer: for examples\nof it we must look to Amphimachus and Leiodes, two better-minded but\ncomplying Suitors, who end by perishing with the rest.\n\n~_The force and forms of \u03b1\u1f30\u03b4\u03ce\u03c2._~\n\nThe numerous forms of the sentiment of \u03b1\u1f30\u03b4\u1f7c\u03c2 in the heroic age are\na proof of the large and varied development to which it had already\nattained.\n\nHow fine a feeling is that according to which, as with Homer, the bold\nmen are also the shamefaced ones! as in his line,\n\n \u03b1\u1f30\u03b4\u03bf\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03c9\u03bd \u03b4\u2019 \u1f00\u03bd\u03b4\u03c1\u1ff6\u03bd \u03c0\u03bb\u03ad\u03bf\u03bd\u03b5\u03c2 \u03c3\u03cc\u03bf\u03b9 \u1f20\u1f72 \u03c0\u03ad\u03c6\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9.\n\nThis line, as it is repeated, seems to have the character of a \u03b3\u03bd\u03ce\u03bc\u03b7 in\nthe poems[815].\n\n[815] Il. v. 531. xv. 563.\n\nThe most marked and frequent use of \u03b1\u1f30\u03b4\u1f7c\u03c2 is in the sense of\nself-respect as applied to military honour and bravery. The words\n\u03b1\u1f30\u03b4\u1f7c\u03c2, \u1f08\u03c1\u03b3\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bf\u03b9, which are employed as an exhortation to fight,\nconstitute one of the Homeric formul\u00e6. Homer does not permit this use\nof the word to the Trojans: but once it is employed for his gallant\nfavourites, the Lycians. (Il. xvi. 422. xvii. 336.)\n\nOnce, indeed, the term is applied to Trojans, but this is in the\nconverse of the usual sense. It would be \u03b1\u1f30\u03b4\u1f7c\u03c2, a disgrace, says \u00c6neas,\nwere we to let Troy be taken through our want of manhood. This is a\nlower signification. And again, as we shall see, the established\nformula of military incitement for the Trojans is different and less\nrefined[816].\n\n[816] Il. vi. 112 et alibi.\n\nSometimes \u03b1\u1f30\u03b4\u1f7c\u03c2 is an excess of deference, or what we might call\nscrupulosity; the feeling which carries the fastidious observance of\nsome right sentiment towards others up to the point where it threatens\nto interfere with a public or other clear duty. So Telemachus begs of\nNestor, \u2018tell me the truth,\u2019\n\n \u03bc\u03b7\u03b4\u03ad \u03c4\u03af \u03bc\u2019 \u03b1\u1f30\u03b4\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 \u03bc\u03b5\u03b9\u03bb\u03af\u03c3\u03c3\u03b5\u03bf, \u03bc\u03b7\u03b4\u2019 \u1f10\u03bb\u03b5\u03b1\u03af\u03c1\u03c9\u03bd[817].\n\n[817] Od. iii. 96.\n\nIn the Doloneia, Agamemnon, fearful that Diomed will choose Menelaus as\na companion out of deference, says, \u2018Do not let \u03b1\u1f30\u03b4\u1f7c\u03c2 influence you:\nchoose the best man.\u2019 Sometimes it is compassion, or ruth; as when\nAchilles, before the ransom, is said to show no \u03b1\u1f30\u03b4\u1f7c\u03c2 towards the body\nof Hector. But here \u03b1\u1f30\u03b4\u1f7c\u03c2 includes the idea of shame and self-respect.\nSometimes it is reverence towards a superior, as in Od. xiv. 505, and\nin \u03b1\u1f30\u03b4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03bf\u03c2 applied by Helen to Priam in Il. iii. 172. In this manner it\nbecomes applicable to the sentiments a man should entertain towards the\ngods,\n\n \u1f00\u03bb\u03bb\u2019 \u03b1\u1f30\u03b4\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bf \u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2, \u1f08\u03c7\u03b9\u03bb\u03b5\u1fe6[818].\n\n[818] Il. xxiv. 503.\n\nAnd this is a very remarkable use of the term, because Priam certainly\ndoes not mean to urge upon Achilles a dread of the gods, but something\nquite distinct. Sometimes it is applied by a superior to an inferior;\nand means \u2018his or her dues,\u2019 as among the Immortals, where Jupiter says\nto Thetis, that he reserves the honour of the ransom for Achilles,\n\n \u03b1\u1f30\u03b4\u1ff6 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c6\u03b9\u03bb\u03cc\u03c4\u03b7\u03c4\u03b1 \u03c4\u03b5\u1f74\u03bd \u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u03cc\u03c0\u03b9\u03c3\u03b8\u03b5 \u03c6\u03c5\u03bb\u03ac\u03c3\u03c3\u03c9\u03bd[819].\n\n[819] Ibid. 111.\n\nIt may also be felt towards an inferior among men: Agamemnon is\nexhorted to feel it towards Chryses[820], for it is not a personal\nsentiment, but implies an object, outside the mere person who is the\nimmediate occasion of it. So Achilles is intreated to revere (\u03b1\u1f34\u03b4\u03b5\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9)\nLycaon, a vanquished and suppliant enemy[821].\n\n[820] Il. i. 23. 377.\n\n[821] Il. xxi. 74.\n\nSometimes it signifies the constitution of a special relation, over and\nabove the general bond between man and man. A person\u2019s \u03b1\u1f30\u03b4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03bf\u03b9 are his\nrelations, friends, guests, and the like. Even so a wanderer is \u03b1\u1f30\u03b4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03bf\u03c2\nto the gods (Od. v. 447). Sometimes it means purely mental modesty, as\nin Od. viii. 171, \u1f41 \u03b4\u2019 \u1f00\u03c3\u03c6\u03b1\u03bb\u03ad\u03c9\u03c2 \u1f00\u03b3\u03bf\u03c1\u03b5\u03cd\u03b5\u03b9 \u03b1\u1f30\u03b4\u03bf\u1fd6 \u03bc\u03b5\u03b9\u03bb\u03b9\u03c7\u03af\u1fc3; he speaks with\nthat engaging bashfulness and careful indication of respect for his\naudience, which forms a principal grace of the orator. Sometimes the\nphysical, as well as mental, quality of modesty; as when \u03b1\u1f30\u03b4\u1f7c\u03c2 kept the\ngoddesses at home (Od. viii. 324). Sometimes, again, simply shyness; as\nwhen Telemachus is exhorted by Minerva to put away \u03b1\u1f30\u03b4\u1f7c\u03c2 in Od. iii.\n14; or as in the phrase \u03ba\u03b1\u03ba\u1f78\u03c2 \u03b4\u2019 \u03b1\u1f30\u03b4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f00\u03bb\u03ae\u03c4\u03b7\u03c2; \u2018it will never do for\na beggar to be shy.\u2019\n\nNo finer shading of sentiment, I think, can be found in the language of\nthe most civilized nations, nor any case so remarkable of a high and\ntender, and at the same time largely developed state of feeling at a\ntime when material progress was so partial, rude, and slight. And of\nthe vital importance of this element of the Greek moral code, we find a\nproof in the representation of Hesiod, who gives it as a characteristic\nof his iron, or post-Homeric, age, that \u03b1\u1f30\u03b4\u1f7c\u03c2 along with \u03bd\u03ad\u03bc\u03b5\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2 had\nfled from the earth.\n\n~_Other cognate terms._~\n\nThere are other words, the use of which in Homer approximates\noccasionally to the sense of \u03b1\u1f30\u03b4\u03ce\u03c2. The nearest of them is \u03c3\u03ad\u03b2\u03b1\u03c2 (as\nin Il. xviii. 178), with its verb \u03c3\u03ad\u03b2\u03bf\u03bc\u03b1\u03b9; which, as we have seen, is\nsometimes applied simply to an internal standard recognised by the\nconscience. But in Il. iv. 242, \u03bf\u1f54 \u03bd\u03c5 \u03c3\u03ad\u03b2\u03b5\u03c3\u03b8\u03b5; seems to be equivalent\nto \u03bf\u1f50\u03ba \u03b1\u1f30\u03b4\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c3\u03b8\u03b5; or \u2018for shame.\u2019\n\nThe word \u03bd\u03ad\u03bc\u03b5\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2, too, is sometimes used in a sense akin to that of\n\u03b1\u1f30\u03b4\u03ce\u03c2: as when Neptune exhorts the Greeks, \u1f10\u03bd \u03c6\u03c1\u03b5\u03c3\u1f76 \u03b8\u03ad\u03c3\u03b8\u03b5 \u1f15\u03ba\u03b1\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u03b1\u1f30\u03b4\u1ff6\n\u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03bd\u03ad\u03bc\u03b5\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd (Il. xiii. 121): compare vi. 351. Again, in Od. i. 263, ii.\n136, xxii. 40. But this sentiment is usually half way between \u03b1\u1f30\u03b4\u1f7c\u03c2\nand fear, because what it apprehends, though it is not force, yet\nneither is it simple disapproval; rather it is disapproval with heat,\ndisapproval into which passion enters. It contributes, however, to\ncomplete a very remarkable picture of the human mind.\n\nThe comparison between Greeks and Trojans, or Europeans and Asiatics,\nwill prove, we shall find, greatly in favour of the former as to most\nparts of their morality. We have now to touch upon a feature in Greek\nmanners which is unfavourable.\n\n~_Homicide in the heroic age._~\n\nWith regard to the practice of homicide, the ordinary Greek morality\nwas extremely loose; while we have no evidence of a similar readiness\nfor bloodshedding among the Trojans: and enough is told us of Trojan\nlife and manners to have probably brought out this characteristic, had\nit existed.\n\nAmong the Greeks, to have killed a man was considered in the light\nof a misfortune, or at most a prudential error, an \u1f04\u03c4\u03b7 \u03c0\u03c5\u03ba\u03b9\u03bd\u1f74[822],\nwhen the perpetrator of the act had come among strangers as a fugitive\nfor protection and hospitality. On the spot, therefore, where the\ncrime occurred, it could stand only as in the nature of a private\nand civil wrong, and the fine payable was regarded, not (which it\nmight have been) as a mode, however defective, of marking any guilt\nin the culprit, but as, on the whole, an equitable satisfaction to\nthe wounded feelings of the relatives and friends, or as an actual\ncompensation for the lost services of the dead man. The religion of the\nage takes no notice of the act whatever[823].\n\n[822] Il. xxiv. 480.\n\n[823] Friedreich, Realien, sect. 139.\n\nThe ordinary practice, we learn from the blunt speech of Ajax to\nAchilles[824], was to accept the established fine upon the loss even\nof a brother or a son, if offered, and then to let the slayer remain\nunharmed. If he would not pay, or if the relations would not accept\nthe payment, the alternative was flight: but it does not appear that\nthis entailed any loss of character, perhaps rather otherwise. It\nwas, however, the most common issue of such an affair, and, as such,\nit furnishes Homer with a simile. Priam, appearing before Achilles by\nsurprise, is compared to a man who, having had the misfortune to kill\nsomebody, appears unexpectedly in a strange place[825].\n\n[824] Il. ix. 632-6.\n\n[825] Il. xxiv. 480-2.\n\n~_Eight instances in the poems._~\n\nWe will proceed to examine the cases of homicide recorded in the poems,\nwhich are alike numerous and remarkable.\n\nI. Medon[826], the illegitimate brother of Oilean Ajax, migrates from\nLocris to Phylace, having, in the usual phrase, killed a man, \u1f04\u03bd\u03b4\u03c1\u03b1\n\u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03ba\u03c4\u03ac\u03c2. This man was a kinsman, not improbably a brother, (for\n\u03b3\u03bd\u03c9\u03c4\u1f78\u03c2 may mean brother, as in Il. iii. 174, and xxii. 234), of his\n\u2018stepmother,\u2019 as she is called; that is, of Eriopis, the lawful wife of\nhis father. And yet he retains or improves his position in Phylace, and\nappears, in the Thirteenth Iliad, as the commander of all the Phthians\nexcept the Myrmidons.\n\n[826] Il. xiii. 659-7. xv. 333-6.\n\nII. Theoclymenus[827], of the prophetic family of Melampus, suddenly\nmakes his appearance before Telemachus, when he is about to embark\nfrom the Peloponnesus for Ithaca. He inquires of Telemachus who he\nis[828]; and, on finding that the youth is not in his own country, but\na stranger, he says, \u2018So am I: I have killed a man, and am flying from\nthe vengeance of his family: they are powerful, and I am in fear lest\nthey should take my life.\u2019 Telemachus immediately promises to take\nhim on board, and entertain him hospitably. He does not seem at all\nshocked at the intimation he has received. He does not think it worth\nwhile to ask the fugitive, whether he killed the man wantonly, or under\nprovocation. But he forthwith assigns to him the place of honour[829]:\n\n \u03c0\u1f70\u03c1 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03bf\u1f37 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1ff7\n \u03b5\u1f37\u03c3\u03b5 \u0398\u03b5\u03bf\u03ba\u03bb\u03cd\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd.\n\n[827] Od. xv. 220 _et seqq._\n\n[828] Od. xv. 260.\n\n[829] Ibid. 285.\n\nIII. The next is an instance not less remarkable than the one last\nnamed. Tlepolemus, the son of Hercules and Astyoche, kills Licymnius\nthe maternal uncle of his father, and his own grand-uncle. The sufferer\nis, moreover, in his old age, or he could hardly be the grand-uncle\nof an adult person; and no plea or palliation is mentioned for the\nact. The children and grandchildren of Hercules prepare to levy war\nupon him: but so far is he from having suffered in character for what\nhardly can have been other than a barbarous and brutal action, that he\nis enabled to raise a large body of emigrants, who accompany him to\nRhodes. When distributed there in three settlements, they are blessed\nby the peculiar favour of Jupiter; and Tlepolemus appears before Troy\nas the commander of the Rhodian contingent[830].\n\n[830] Il. ii. 658-70.\n\nIV. Again, the friendship of Achilles and Patroclus had its origin\nin the circumstance that Men\u0153tius delivered over his son into the\nprotection of Peleus, because, being a youth, he had quarrelled with\nanother youth, the son of Amphidamas, over a game of dice, and had\nslain him, \u03bd\u03ae\u03c0\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2, \u03bf\u1f50\u03ba \u1f10\u03b8\u03ad\u03bb\u03c9\u03bd, as the Poet says; that is, of course,\nwithout malice prepense[831]. This is the more worthy of notice,\nbecause it is evident that the character of Patroclus, partly perhaps\nfor the sake of contrast with that of Achilles, and therefore of relief\nto it, is meant to be represented as one of peculiar gentleness[832]; a\nquality in which no one of the great Greek chieftains, except Menelaus,\ncan compete with him.\n\n[831] Il. xxiii. 86.\n\n[832] Il. xix. 282-300.\n\nV. In the Fifteenth Iliad, Hector slays Lycophron, son of Mastor, when\nhe is aiming at Ajax. This was an inhabitant of Cythera who had quitted\nhis country for homicide, \u2018but whom,\u2019 says Ajax to Teucer, \u2018we honoured\nas if he had been a beloved parent[833].\u2019\n\n[833] Il. xv. 429-40.\n\nVI. Again, the case of Epeigeus is remarkable; for he had been lord of\nBudeum:\n\n \u1f45\u03c2 \u1fe5\u2019 \u1f10\u03bd \u0392\u03bf\u03c5\u03b4\u03b5\u03af\u1ff3 \u03b5\u1f50\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9\u03bf\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u1ff3 \u1f24\u03bd\u03b1\u03c3\u03c3\u03b5\u03bd\n \u03c4\u1f78 \u03c0\u03c1\u03af\u03bd\u00b7\n\nBut having slain a cousin, apparently also of the higher order, he had\nto fly to Peleus and Thetis for protection[834].\n\n[834] Il. xvi. 571.\n\nVII. In the Thirteenth Odyssey, Ulysses, after being deposited in\nIthaca, gives a fabulous account of himself to the disguised Minerva,\nin which we may be sure that he includes nothing which was deemed\nessentially dishonourable. In this account he represents himself as\na fugitive from Crete on account of homicide. Orsilochus, the son of\nIdomeneus, had endeavoured, as he says, to deprive him of his share\nof the Trojan booty: for this cause he waylaid him by night, took\naway his life without being perceived by any one as he was returning\nfrom the country, and then embarked, to avoid the consequences, in a\nPh\u0153nician ship[835].\n\n[835] Od. xiii. 256-75.\n\nVIII. An anonymous \u00c6tolian, having slain a man, fled to Ithaca, visited\nEum\u00e6us, and as a matter of course was entertained, nay petted, by him;\n\u1f10\u03b3\u1f7c \u03b4\u03ad \u03bc\u03b9\u03bd \u1f00\u03bc\u03c6\u03b1\u03b3\u03ac\u03c0\u03b1\u03b6\u03bf\u03bd (Od. xiv. 379-81).\n\nEven this great number of instances do not so fully illustrate the\nfamiliarity of the practice, and its thorough disconnection from the\nidea of moral turpitude, as the mode in which it furnishes the material\nof general illustration or remark. When Homer desires to represent\non the shield of Achilles the ordinary form of public business in an\nassembly, he chooses a trial for homicide[836]. And so Ulysses, when\nexplaining to Telemachus the formidable difficulties with which, after\nthe slaughter of the Suitors, he has to contend, observes that those\nwhom he has slain were the very flower of the community; whereas, in\nordinary cases, a man flies his country after having put but a single\nperson to death, and this even though he be one who has few to take up\nhis quarrel[837].\n\n[836] Il. xviii. 479.\n\n[837] Od. xxiii. 118-22.\n\nNow if we knew these facts concerning the Greeks of the heroic age,\nand knew nothing else, we should at once conclude that they were an\ninhuman and savage people, who did not appreciate the value of human\nlife. But this is not so. They are not a cruel people. There is no\nwanton infliction of pain throughout the whole operations of the Iliad,\nno delight in the sufferings of others. The only needless wounds are\nwounds given to the dead[838]; a mode of action which imputed nothing\nbrutal or degrading, in times when mankind had not yet learned from the\nChristian Revelation the honour due to the human body.\n\n[838] Il. xxii, 371.\n\nIt is not then mere savageness, and the low estimate put upon life,\nwhich determines the view of the heroic age with respect to homicide.\nAnd if not, then it can only be an unbalanced appreciation of some\nother quality, such as courage, which was commonly implied and\nexhibited in such cases.\n\n~_Why viewed with little disfavour._~\n\nIt seems as though the display of force and spirit of daring, which\naccompany crimes of violence in a rude age, had such a value in the\nestimation of the early Greeks, as to excuse proceedings which would\notherwise have been visited with the severest censure. We shall find\nreason to believe that Paris may have had a certain credit in their\neyes for carrying off Helen by the strong hand, which went to redeem\nor mitigate his adultery, and breach of hospitable rights. This idea,\nwhich is undoubtedly startling, is supported by the strange narrative\nof Hercules and Iphitus. Iphitus was the possessor of certain fine\nmares. Hercules, determined to possess them, visited him, received his\nhospitality, slew him, and carried off the animals. Now it may indeed\nbe the mixed character of Hercules, which places his \u03b5\u1f34\u03b4\u03c9\u03bb\u03bf\u03bd in the\nShades, while he is himself among the Immortals; but still the scale\nis cast on the whole in his favour. Yet surely the story of Iphitus\nexhibits a crime of the blackest dye; and the only palliation of it\nthat is conceivable seems to lie in this, that he probably did not use\nstratagem, but proceeded by main force. The crime of \u00c6gisthus, the\nblackest in the poems, appears to derive its highest intensity from the\nfact, that he slew Agamemnon like an ox at the stall, in the friendly\nfeast itself, without notice or the opportunity of defence, and by a\nplot deliberately laid. Such is the effect of all the three passages in\nwhich this outrage is described[839]. The most favourable supposition\nwhich the case of Hercules admits is, that he came for plunder, and put\nthe possessor of the horses to death, without premeditation, upon his\nrefusal to yield them up; and that such an act, though a proper object\nof divine resentment, was yet not black enough to destroy his title to\nhonour and a celestial abode[840].\n\n[839] Od. i. 35-7. iv. 524-35. xi. 409-20.\n\n[840] Od. xxi. 22-38. xi. 601-4.\n\nWe will now pass on to a kindred subject.\n\n~_Piracy in the heroic age._~\n\nThucydides has stated that in the earlier ages of Greece the practice\nof piracy was alike widespread and honourable: \u03bf\u1f50\u03ba \u1f14\u03c7\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03cc\u03c2 \u03c0\u03c9 \u03b1\u1f30\u03c3\u03c7\u03cd\u03bd\u03b7\u03bd\n\u03c4\u03bf\u03cd\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f14\u03c1\u03b3\u03bf\u03c5, \u03c6\u03ad\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u03b4\u03ad \u03c4\u03b9 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b4\u03cc\u03be\u03b7\u03c2 \u03bc\u1fb6\u03bb\u03bb\u03bf\u03bd[841]. In support\nof this opinion he refers to the questions then usually addressed to\nstrangers on their arrival in a country; such as that by Nestor to the\npseudo-Mentor and Telemachus, in order to learn what their business\nwas, or whether they were pirates[842];\n\n[841] Thuc. i. 5.\n\n[842] Od. iii. 72.\n\n \u1f22 \u03bc\u03b1\u03c8\u03b9\u03b4\u03af\u03c9\u03c2 \u1f00\u03bb\u03ac\u03bb\u03b7\u03c3\u03b8\u03b5,\n \u03bf\u1f37\u03ac \u03c4\u03b5 \u03bb\u03b7\u03ca\u03c3\u03c4\u1fc6\u03c1\u03b5\u03c2, \u1f51\u03c0\u03b5\u1f76\u03c1 \u1f05\u03bb\u03b1, \u03c4\u03bf\u03af\u03c4\u2019 \u1f00\u03bb\u03cc\u03c9\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9\n \u03c8\u03c5\u03c7\u1f70\u03c2 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b8\u03ad\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9, \u03ba\u03b1\u03ba\u1f78\u03bd \u1f00\u03bb\u03bb\u03bf\u03b4\u03b1\u03c0\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c3\u03b9 \u03c6\u03ad\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2;\n\nNow I think that the last line seems to explain the favourable view\nwhich was taken by the Greeks of the practice of piracy. For it\ncombined with the hazards of navigation, then so much more serious than\nat present, the chance of desperate encounters. It appealed, in the\nvery highest degree, to the spirit of adventure; a spirit congenial\nespecially to the earliest youth of a people full of unsatisfied and,\nso to speak, hungry energies. The mischief inflicted was inflicted\non \u1f00\u03bb\u03bb\u03cc\u03b4\u03b1\u03c0\u03bf\u03b9, on those with whom there was no close tie, either as\ncompatriots or as \u03be\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9. Now we must bear in mind that the law which,\neven in the time of Thucydides, governed the relations of the Greek\ntribes among themselves, during the period of their high civilization,\nwas a permanent or ordinary state of hostility suspended from time\nto time by conventions for so many or so many years[843]. The same\nprinciple, applied to a period when political organization was less\nmature, and when men lived rather in knots and companies than in\nstates, involves the Homeric view of piracy. And that view, entertained\nin such times, should occasion far less surprise, than our finding\nThucydides inform us that the same system continued throughout whole\ndivisions of Greece in his day; \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03bc\u03ad\u03c7\u03c1\u03b9 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6\u03b4\u03b5 \u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03bb\u1f70 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u1f19\u03bb\u03bb\u03ac\u03b4\u03bf\u03c2\n\u03c4\u1ff7 \u03c0\u03b1\u03bb\u03b1\u03b9\u1ff7 \u03c4\u03c1\u03cc\u03c0\u1ff3 \u03bd\u03ad\u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9, \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03af \u03c4\u03b5 \u039b\u03bf\u03ba\u03c1\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 \u1f48\u03b6\u03cc\u03bb\u03b1\u03c2, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u0391\u1f30\u03c4\u03ce\u03bb\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2,\n\u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f08\u03ba\u03b1\u03c1\u03bd\u1fb6\u03bd\u03b1\u03c2, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03c4\u03b1\u03cd\u03c4\u1fc3 \u1f24\u03c0\u03b5\u03b9\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd[844]. The gains of the pirate\u2019s\nlife were in some sense fairly balanced by its dangers. The piracy\nof that age was not like piracy in ours, the strong and well-armed\nwaiting for the feeble and defenceless; it was a game of more even\nchances, and the real resemblance for it is to be found, not among the\nAlgerine corsairs, not even in the Highland clans sweeping down from\nthe mountains upon the Lowland Scots, but most properly in the more\neven-handed forays of the border warfare between England and Scotland.\n\n[843] It seems, however, possible that the sense of the \u1f11\u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03b5\u03c4\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c2\n\u03c3\u03c0\u03bf\u03bd\u03b4\u03b1\u1f76 might be the same as that which we attach to a lease for nine\nhundred and ninety-nine years.\n\n[844] Thuc. i. 5.\n\nThere is indeed yet a higher authority for this kind of piracy, than\nthat to which Thucydides has referred. Ulysses, when he has destroyed\nthe Suitors, considers, in conversation with his wife, not only how he\nis to preserve his remaining property in live stock, but how he is to\nreplace what his enemies have destroyed. Part he thinks his subjects\nwill make up to him by presents, but great part he will himself obtain\nby freebooting[845];\n\n[845] Od. xxiii. 357.\n\n \u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03bb\u1f70 \u03bc\u1f72\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1f78\u03c2 \u1f10\u03b3\u1f7c \u03bb\u03b7\u0390\u03c3\u03c3\u03bf\u03bc\u03b1\u03b9.\n\nWe can hardly, I think, restrain the meaning of the word to the booty\nof legitimate and successful war. Sometimes, as in the case of the\nCicones, piracy is scarcely distinguishable from war; but Ulysses\nfairly relates of himself a piratical attack upon Egypt, which can\nleave us no room for scruple in supposing, that he might without\nhesitation think of doing again what he thought it worth while to\npretend that he had done before. Both these last-named instances may\nserve, however, to show that, in times when preparedness for war was\nhabitual, the pirate took no great advantage in such attacks as these.\nFor with the Cicones Ulysses had the worst of it at last[846]; and in\nthe case of Egypt, according to his fable, the whole party were taken\nprisoners or slain. Kidnapping, however, such as that of Eum\u00e6us stolen\nin his childhood, is not, I presume, to be regarded as equal in honour\nto freebooting with the strong hand, thus apparently stamped with the\nsanction of Ulysses.\n\n[846] Od. ix. 59.\n\nAnd yet this model-man had been stung to the very quick by Euryalus\nin Ph\u00e6acia, who said to him, \u2018You do not look like a man to compete\nin athletic games; but rather like one of the captains of merchant\nvessels, who looks after the cargo and makes rapacious profits[847]!\u2019\n\n[847] Od. viii. 159-64.\n\nNor, after all, is this so strange as at first sight it might appear;\nfor the Ph\u0153nicians, the merchants of those days, were also kidnappers\nand slave-dealers: and if their transactions were not, like those of\nthe pirates, uniformly bad, they were, when exceptionable, double-dyed\nin guilt, because they involved fraud as well as robbery.\n\n~_Mixed view of it in the poems._~\n\nAgain, as to piracy, it by no means appears that it was attended with\nrespect, nor is the language of the poems quite uniform regarding it.\nIn the \u03bd\u03b5\u03ba\u03c5\u03af\u03b1 of the Twenty-fourth Odyssey, and also in that of the\nEleventh, the shade of Agamemnon calls freebooters of this description\n\u1f00\u03bd\u03ac\u03c1\u03c3\u03b9\u03bf\u03b9 \u1f04\u03bd\u03b4\u03c1\u03b5\u03c2[848]. The Cretan piracy of the pseudo-Ulysses in Egypt\nis mentioned as an act of \u1f55\u03b2\u03c1\u03b9\u03c2, an outrage deservedly punished by\nJupiter[849]. On the other hand, Greek trade, like Ph\u0153nician, embraced\nkidnapping. At least the Taphians carried away from her country the\nPh\u0153nician nurse, who in her turn carried off the young Eum\u00e6us.\n\n[848] Od. xxiv. 111.\n\n[849] Od. xiv. 262.\n\nUpon the whole, after allowing liberally for the masculine character\nand redundant energies of the Hellenic people, we shall best explain\ntheir favourable view of piracy by remembering the near relation it\nthen bore both to war, which we know may be just and honourable, as\nwell as to trade, which we regard as in itself both innocent and\nbeneficial. Since Homer\u2019s time the character of war has been softened,\nand that of trade has been elevated, almost immeasurably; while that of\npiracy has been lowered; hence there is now a wide gulf, where there\nwas then scarcely even a seam discernible; and Homer might have sung\nthe expressive words of Go\u00ebthe in Faust,\n\n Krieg, Handel, und Piraterie\n Dreieinig sind sie, nicht zu trennen.\n\nWe may also, I think, find among the Greeks a tendency to family\nfeuds, beyond certain limits, of which the poems do not afford any\ninstance on the Trojan side.\n\nOf these, two have already been noticed among the homicides. Medon\nkills his father\u2019s wife\u2019s kinsman. Tlepolemus kills his grand-uncle.\nBut also Ph\u0153nix for a quarrel flies from his father\u2019s home and settles\nin Dolopia. Phyleus, the father of Meges, for a similar reason migrates\nto Dulichium[850]. Eurystheus, as the great grandson of Jupiter, is of\nreputed kin to Hercules his son; but persecutes him through life with\nthe imposition of cruel and endless toils. Meleager has a fierce feud\nwith his family, which is recited by Ph\u0153nix as a warning to Achilles.\nBellerophon is expelled from Greece by a family quarrel. \u00c6gisthus\nhimself is the cousin of Agamemnon.\n\n[850] Il. ii. 629.\n\nAs with families, so with communities. The pre-Troic legends are almost\ninvariably legends of the internal raids and wars of Greece. They were\na people of the strong and the red hand, marvellously combined with\nhigh refinement, true love of art and song, and an unexampled political\ngenius.\n\nBut although the Homeric age had not ceased to be as yet an age of\nviolence, it was as far as possible from being one marked by a general\nsway either of unbridled appetite, or of ungovernable passion; and if\nit is sometimes mistakenly supposed to have borne this character, the\nappearances which produce the illusion are due only to the fact, that\nvice of all kinds then went straight forward to its work, and had not\nyet learned, in the school of the wisdom of this world, how much it\nmight gain from method, order, and reserve.\n\n~_Temperance in the heroic age._~\n\nWe have ample signs of that regard for temperance, bodily as well as\nmental, which Homer united with his thoroughly convivial spirit. By\nthe mouth of Ulysses, he reprehends even that mild form of excess in\nwine which does no more than promote garrulity (Od. xiv. 463-6). When\nthe Greeks were about to suffer great calamities on their return, he\nmakes them proceed in a state of drunkenness to the Assembly[851].\nWhen Elpenor dies by an accidental fall, he assigns drunkenness as\nthe cause, and takes care to inform us that he was young, and neither\nvaliant nor sensible[852]. Ulysses encourages the brutal Polyphemus\nto drink, with a view to his own liberation. And the proceedings of\nthe monster, when intoxicated, are certainly more revolting than\nthose of Stephano, if not than those of Caliban, in the Tempest.\nAgain, though it is certainly true, that the most vivid denunciation\nof excess in liquor to be found throughout the poems is put into the\nmouth of the Suitor Antinous[853], yet I think it was plainly meant\nto be accepted as spoken in earnest, and as expressing the sense of\nHomer. Wine, we thus learn, caused the Centaur Eurytion to lose his\nears and nose. In no single case does the Poet permit liquor to act\nin the slightest degree upon the self-possession of his heroes, or\nof any character whom he esteems; or represent them as either doing,\nor leaving undone, any act through excess in drink[854]. The only\nallusion to its influence, in connection with a practical result, is\none very faint, and perfectly innocent. It is when, dissatisfaction\nhaving prevailed among the Grecian kings and army, as we see from the\nspeech of Diomed, Nestor recommends Agamemnon to treat his Council to a\nsupper, before proceeding to obtain their advice; and observes to him,\nthat he can readily do it, for he has wine and all other provision in\nabundance. The intention apparently is to lay the ground for concord,\nnot in excess, nor even here in hilarity, but at least in amicable\nhumour[855]. To the Immortals, indeed, it is conceded to abide at the\nbanquet for the livelong day, but not to men; for the pseudo-Mentor\nobserves to Nestor in the Third Odyssey, that it is not seemly to sit\nlong at the sacred (that is, regular and public) feast[856].\n\n[851] Od. iii. 139.\n\n[852] Od. x. 552-60. xi. 61.\n\n[853] Od. xxi. 293-304.\n\n[854] Even Scott, one of the most refined, as well as greatest, among\nimaginative writers, once allows his hero to commit himself grossly in\npoint of manners, under the influence of intoxication. It is in Rob Roy\n(chap. xii.), at Osbaldiston House.\n\n[855] Il. ix. 69.\n\n[856] Od. iii. 335.\n\nIt is much to be regretted that Horace, who in many cases has shown\nhimself an accurate reader of Homer, has in this point grossly mistaken\nhim:\n\n Laudibus arguitur vini vinosus Homerus[857].\n\n[857] Hor. Ep. i. 19, 6.\n\nAnd this summary character, unfortunately false, has saved men the\ntrouble of collecting the true one from the works of the Poet himself.\n\n~_Self-control in the heroic age._~\n\nWhen we turn to another form of temperance or self-government, namely,\nthat which we call self-control, we find it eminently exemplified\namong Greeks. It appears as a pervading and national quality in that\nsilence on the field of battle, which they combined with such an inward\nenergy of determination. In Ulysses it is carried up to its perfection.\nPerhaps the only occasions on which he even seems to relax it are those\nof the answer to Euryalus in the Eighth Odyssey, and the reply to\nAgamemnon in the Fourth Iliad.\n\nSo much, however, of emotion as he suffers to escape him in those\npassages, only serves to heighten the effect of his words, not to make\nhim deflect by one jot or tittle, though in undoubted warmth, from\nthe true rule of reason. But we find this quality not only developed\npowerfully in a pattern-man like Ulysses; it is also strongly infused\ninto such a warrior as Diomed. This is proved by the manner in which\nhe bears[858] the chiding of Agamemnon on his rounds, and rebukes\nSthenelus for having been provoked into a petulant answer. At the\nsame time it is highly illustrative of the national character, that\nthis young and ardent warrior, who could thus bear a reprimand on\nthe field, stored up the recollection of it within his breast: and\nwhen, at the beginning of the Ninth Book, Agamemnon showed his own\nfaint-heartedness by advising the abandonment of the enterprise, then\nDiomed, having watched his opportunity, recalled the circumstances, and\nquietly but effectively replied upon Agamemnon[859]. Nay more, perhaps\nthe most striking proof of the abundance of this high quality among\nthe Greeks is in the very case where it is on the whole outmatched by\nthe passion that it ought to master, namely, in the case of Achilles.\nThere is something indeed sublime in the manner in which, many times\nover, when he feels the tide of wrath rising within him, he eyes his\nown passion, even as a tiger is eyed by its keeper, and puts a spell\nupon it, so that it dare not spring. Thus it is, when he parleys with\nhimself on the question, whether he shall end the strife with Agamemnon\nby slaying him, in the Assembly of the First Book. And thus again,\nwhen he feels that the words which Priam has incautiously let drop\nare kindling a flame which, if further fed, would consume the aged\nand sorrowing suppliant, he is conscious of the rising tempest, and\nbefore it has swollen to such force as to disturb his self-command, he\nsternly, but yet not unkindly, bids him to desist. It is by trying them\nin mental conflicts like these, that Homer shows us of what mettle his\nGreek kings were made. It would be curious to draw out a list of the\nmultitude of words in which he describes, under every possible aspect,\nthe power and habit of self-control. But perhaps one of his slightest\nis also one of his most effective touches. The applause of the Greeks\nin their Assembly is always described by a word different from that\nemployed to describe the very same indication of feeling by the\nTrojans. He usually says \u1f10\u03c0\u1f76 \u03b4\u2019 \u1f34\u03b1\u03c7\u03bf\u03bd \u03c5\u1f37\u03b5\u03c2 \u1f08\u03c7\u03b1\u03b9\u1ff6\u03bd for the Greeks: for\nthe Trojans it is \u1f10\u03c0\u1f76 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03a4\u03c1\u1ff6\u03b5\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b5\u03bb\u03ac\u03b4\u03b7\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd. The Greeks shout forth their\nenergetic approval: the Trojans clatter, as if their tongues could not\nbear restraint.\n\n[858] Il. iv. 411-18.\n\n[859] Il. ix. 32-49.\n\nYet we must not suppose, either on account of the self-command of\nthe Greeks that they were apathetic, or on account of their frequent\nhomicides that they were inhuman, and savagely indifferent to the\ninfliction of pain on their fellow-creatures.\n\nNeither the Greeks nor the Trojans appear to have been ferocious in\nthe treatment of enemies. The extreme point to which they go is that\nof giving no quarter: but they never, even in the exasperation of\nbattle, inflict torture with their weapons. The immolation of twelve\nTrojan youths over the dead Patroclus is doubtless cruel: but it falls\nfar short of what the passions of war have produced in other times and\ncountries. With the manner of inflicting death, passion never has to do.\n\n~_Savage ideas occasionally expressed._~\n\nAn inquiry, however, which seems to be most curious, is suggested by\nthe passages in which Hecuba wishes that she could eat Achilles[860],\nAchilles that he could find it in his heart to devour Hector[861];\nand again in which Jupiter[862] suggests to Juno, that nothing could\nsatiate her spite against Troy so well as if she were to eat up Priam\nand his whole family. For the question arises, how is it that we find\nthese remains of the wildest savagery in company with a refinement of\nmanners and feeling, which the poems very frequently exhibit, and which\neven reaches in some important points to a degree never exceeded in any\ncountry or any period of the world?\n\n[860] Il. xxiv. 212.\n\n[861] Il. xxii. 345-8.\n\n[862] Il. iv. 35.\n\nThe answer I presume to be this: that the civilization of the Greeks\nin the heroic age, though as to the mind it was really a very high,\nwas yet also a very young civilisation. Its path was marked and\ndecided, but it had not had time to travel far from barbarism. It was\nnot safe by distance, nor defended by the ramparts of long tradition,\nnor strengthened by the force of continuing bent, and consolidated\nimmemorial habit. The Homeric gentleman, with his civilization, stood,\nin respect to barbarism, like him who voyages by sea,\n\n digitis a morte remotus\n Quatuor aut septem;\n\nonly the thickness of the plank is between him and the wilderness which\nhe has left: and if passion makes a breach, the mood of the wild beast\nreappears. We may account for the cannibalish observation of Jupiter by\nthe fact that he has no self-control in Homer: but that of Hecuba is to\nbe accounted for on the principle I have endeavoured to describe. So\nit is with Achilles: and so, too, when the wise Ulysses, slaughtering\nthe wretched women of his household who had erred, seems tinged for\nonce with a flush of barbarism. When _we_ let loose the tiger within\nus, his range is limited not by any force springing from our own will\nor choice, but by the strong dikes and barriers of social wont, and by\nhabits of thought as well as action, which have been accumulated by the\nlong labours of many successive generations of mankind.\n\nWe have already[863] noticed something that will well bear comparison\nwith this state of things in the reports which are made to us\nrespecting modern Persia, the cradle in all likelihood of the family of\nAchilles.\n\n[863] Ach\u00e6is or Ethnology, sect. x. p. 570.\n\nAt the same time it is to be borne in mind that this cannibalism,\nof which we have glimpses in Homer, in the first place was limited,\neven in speculation, to enemies; and in the second place, existed in\nspeculation only. Of this we have pretty strong proof from the case\nof the crew of Ulysses in the Twelfth Odyssey. They did not touch the\noxen of the Sun, until death from hunger stared them in the face. Then\nEurylochus made a manful speech on the subject of the option before\nthem, between dying on the one side, and the slaughter of some of the\nanimals on the other. But those circumstances of the last extremity,\nto which they were reduced, were the very circumstances in which the\nfortitude even of Christians[864] has given way, and with respect to\nwhich no prudent man dares to pronounce a judgment upon persons that so\nsuccumb. Yet there is not in the case before us the slightest hint at\na resort to this most horrible remedy.\n\n[864] The awful \u2018Ugolino\u2019 of Dante ends with the line\n\n Poscia pi\u00f9 che \u2019l dolor pot\u00e8 \u2019l digiuno.\n\nI am free to own that I cannot dismiss from my mind the suspicion that\nwhat the poet means to convey to us in these darkly veiled expressions\nis the devouring of the wretched children by their parent. (Inferno,\nxxxiii. 75.)\n\n~_Not unfamiliar to later Greece._~\n\nBesides the circumstance, that in Homer the cannibal _dicta_,\nabstractedly so shocking, are the mere words of phrensied passion, and\nthat there are no corresponding acts, we have to observe that the Poet\nis never found exhibiting the sentiment of joy in connection with the\npositive infliction of suffering upon an enemy. It was by no means so\namong the later Greeks. Too many instances might, indeed, be supplied\nof the increase of cruelty with the lapse of time.\n\nHomer, again, has nowhere made woman to be even the sorrowing minister\nof justice: as if he felt that there was a radical incompatibility\nbetween the proper gentleness of her nature, and the use of the sword\nof punishment. But in the Hecuba of Euripides, after the aged matron,\nexasperated by the treacherous murder of her son Polydorus, has put to\ndeath the two children of the assassin Polymestor, and has likewise put\nout his eyes, he addresses to her these words (v. 1233),\n\n \u03c7\u03b1\u03af\u03c1\u03b5\u03b9\u03c2 \u1f51\u03b2\u03c1\u03af\u03b6\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u2019 \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u1f14\u03bc\u2019, \u1f66 \u03c0\u03b1\u03bd\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c1\u03b3\u03b5 \u03c3\u03cd\u00b7\n\nand she, no way shrinking from the imputation, replies\n\n \u03bf\u1f50 \u03b3\u03ac\u03c1 \u03bc\u03b5 \u03c7\u03b1\u03af\u03c1\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd \u03c7\u03c1\u1f74, \u03c3\u1f72 \u03c4\u03b9\u03bc\u03c9\u03c1\u03bf\u03c5\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03b7\u03bd;\n\nIn one place Homer has taken an opportunity of showing us, what he\nthinks of the principle of exultation over fallen enemies. When\nEuryclea is about to shout over the fallen Suitors, Ulysses, though he\nhas not yet ended the bloody work of retribution, gravely checks her.\n\u2018It is wrong,\u2019 he says, \u2018to exult over the slain. These men have been\novertaken by divine providence, and by their own perverse deeds: for\nthey regarded no human being, noble or vile, with whom they had to do:\nwherefore they have miserably perished in their wickedness.\u2019 The whole\ntone and language of this rebuke, so grave and earnest as it is, and\nmore sad even than it is stern, is worthy of any moral code that the\nworld has known.\n\n~_Wrath in Ulysses and in Achilles._~\n\nThere is indeed a terrible severity in the proceedings of Ulysses\nagainst the Suitors, the women, and his rebellious subjects. But\nit is plain that the case, which Homer had to represent, was one\nthat required the hero to effect something like a reconquest of the\ncountry. It is also plain that Homer felt that these stern measures\nwould require a very strong warrant. Hence without doubt it is, that\nthe preparations for the crisis are so elaborate; the insults offered\nto the disguised master of the palace so aggravated; and the direct\nagency of Minerva introduced to deepen his sufferings. Hence, again,\nwhen the incensed warrior is about to pursue with martial ardour the\nflying insurgents, his eagerness is mildly marked as excessive, and\nis effectually checked by the friendly but decisive intervention of\nJupiter. Some critics have objected to this passage, and have argued\nthat it could not be genuine. They surely must forget, that Homer does\nnot seek to present us in his protagonists with a faultlessness which\nwould have carried them out of the sphere, such as it was conceived\nby him and by his age, of life either divine or human. Both Ulysses\nand Achilles may err. But where they err, it is in measure and degree.\nUlysses is the minister of public justice, and of divine retribution.\nBut he is composed, like ourselves, of flesh and blood, and he carries\nhis righteous office, in a natural heat, to the verge of cruelty. Then\nthe warning voice is vouchsafed to him, and he at once dutifully obeys.\nAnd is, then, a thing like this so new and strange to us? And has\nneither our philosophy nor our experience of life taught us that there\nare no circumstances, in which a good and just man runs so serious a\nrisk of becoming harsh and cruel unawares, as when he is hurried along\nby the torrent of an originally righteous indignation?\n\nEven so with Achilles. He is, no more than Ulysses, merely vengeful,\nbut he resents a wrong done to justice, to decency, and to love, in\nhis person. Upon the stream of this resentment he is carried, until\nit threatens to become a torrent. Then, by an admirable design, he is\nchastised in the yet deeper passion of his soul, his friendship for\nPatroclus; and so is recalled within the bounds of his duty to his\nsuffering countrymen.\n\nBut in both cases the foundation of conduct is just and sound: by\nneither is any sanction given to the principle which the Gospel\nrebukes, \u2018an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth.\u2019 For a wrong done\nto principles of public morality and justice is in each case alike the\nthing chiefly resented, although in each case the person who resents it\nis also a person that had greatly suffered by it.\n\nAgain, we should misunderstand Homer\u2019s picture of the Greek character,\nif we conceived that he left no room in it for those accesses of\nemotion, with respect to which it may be difficult to say whether they\ncontributed most to its strength or its weakness, while it seems clear\nthat they are in near association with both.\n\nThe Poet\u2019s intention does not oblige him to place his protagonists\nbeyond the reach of human infirmity, as we see in the stubborn wrath\nof Achilles, and in the awakened keenness of Ulysses for the blood of\nhis rebellious subjects[865]. And though he never exhibits them as\nvicious, still, in the case of Ulysses, as well as in that of Achilles,\nhe has introduced into his picture great quickness of temper, which is\nindeed nearly, though not necessarily, connected with sensitiveness\nof honour. On two occasions in particular is this observable: in the\nsharp answers namely of Ulysses, first to Agamemnon, who on his circuit\naccuses him of remissness in military duty[866]; and secondly to the\n\u03b8\u03c5\u03bc\u03bf\u03b4\u03b1\u03ba\u1f74\u03c2 \u03bc\u1fe6\u03b8\u03bf\u03c2 of Euryalus[867], who has taken him for a \u03c0\u03c1\u03ae\u03ba\u03c4\u03b7\u03c1 or\nmerchant, and a rogue to boot.\n\n[865] Od. xxiv. 526, 37.\n\n[866] Il. iv. 350.\n\n[867] Od. viii. 185, 162.\n\n~_The Domestic affections._~\n\nThe point in which the ethical tone of the heroic age stands highest of\nall is, perhaps, the strength of the domestic affections.\n\nA marked indication of the power of this principle among mankind is\nto be found in its prevalence even among the Olympian deities. For\nits appearance there has no relation to divine attributes properly so\ncalled; it is strictly a part of the mythology; a sentiment copied\nfrom the human heart and life, and transferred to these inventive or\nidealized formations. Indeed we always find it in connection with that\nin which they are most human, namely, the indulgence of their sensual\npassions, and the results of that indulgence in their human progeny. It\nis not, therefore, among the higher or traditive deities that we find\nthe sentiment; it does not exist in Apollo or Minerva, whose love is\nalways of a different kind, and is grounded in the gifts or character\nof the person who is the object of it, as for instance, the great\nUlysses[868], or, in a smaller sphere, the skilful Phereclus, who built\nthe ships of Paris[869]. It is in Jupiter over Sarpedon, in Neptune for\nthe blindness of his brutal son Polyphemus, in Mars over Ascalaphus,\nin Venus about \u00c6neas; and these two last are the two deities whose\nethical and intellectual standard is the lowest of all[870].\n\n[868] Od. iii. 221.\n\n[869] Il. v. 59.\n\n[870] Il. xvi. 431, 59. Od. i. 68-71. Il. xv. 115; and Il. v. 311-17.\n\nWhen we come down to earth, we find the sentiment strong everywhere.\nAmong the Trojan royal family, where there is but little sense of the\nhigher parts of morality, this feeling is intense alike with Priam\nand with Hecuba. The latter is not passionate, she is \u1f20\u03c0\u03b9\u03cc\u03b4\u03c9\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2[871].\nYet on the death of Hector we see her become a tigress, and wish she\ncould devour the conqueror[872]. Ulysses chooses for the title by which\nhe would be known that of the Father of Telemachus[873]. It is true\nindeed that, then as now, the imperiousness of bodily wants made itself\nfelt; and it was then more ingenuously acknowledged. Hence Telemachus,\nattached to his father, when he explained the double cause of his grief\nand care to the Ithacan assembly, first named the death or absence of\nhis father, but then proclaimed as the chief matter, the continuing\nwaste and threatened destruction of his property[874]:\n\n[871] Il. vi. 251.\n\n[872] Il. xxiv. 212.\n\n[873] Il. ii. 260.\n\n[874] Od. ii. 48.\n\n \u03bd\u1fe6\u03bd \u03b4\u2019 \u03b1\u1f56 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u1f7a \u03bc\u03b5\u1fd6\u03b6\u03bf\u03bd \u1f43 \u03b4\u1f74 \u03c4\u03ac\u03c7\u03b1 \u03bf\u1f36\u03ba\u03bf\u03bd \u1f05\u03c0\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\n \u03c0\u03ac\u03b3\u03c7\u03c5 \u03b4\u03b9\u03b1\u03c1\u03c1\u03b1\u03af\u03c3\u03b5\u03b9, \u03b2\u03af\u03bf\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd \u03b4\u2019 \u1f00\u03c0\u1f78 \u03c0\u03ac\u03bc\u03c0\u03b1\u03bd \u1f40\u03bb\u03ad\u03c3\u03c3\u03b5\u03b9.\n\nAnd the gist of his complaint against the Suitors was, not their\nurging Penelope to marry, but their living upon him while prosecuting\nthe suit[875]. But then this is a father, whom he has never known or\nconsciously seen. The Shade of Achilles in the nether world is anxious\nupon one subject: it is that he may know if old Peleus is still held\nin honour. In another he is also deeply interested; it is the valour\nof his son: and the gloom of his chill existence is brightened into an\nexulting joy, when he learns that Neoptolemus is great in fight[876].\nThe mother of Ulysses died neither of disease nor of old age, but of\na broken heart for the absence of her son[877]. But the most signal\nproof of the power of the instinct is in its hold upon the self-centred\ncharacter of Agamemnon, which, as a general rule, leaves no room in\nhis thoughts for anything, except policy alone, that lies beyond the\nrange of his personal propensities and especially his appetite for\nwealth. But when the gallant Menelaus, ashamed of the silence of his\ncountrymen, accepts the challenge of Hector[878], Agamemnon seizes\nhim by the hand, and beseeches him not to run so terrible a hazard.\nAnd again, in the \u0394\u03bf\u03bb\u03ce\u03bd\u03b5\u03b9\u03b1, when Diomed has to select a companion,\nAgamemnon, in dread lest his choice should fall on Menelaus, desires\nhim to take not the man of highest rank, but the most valiant and\neffective companion for an enterprise of so critical a kind. His motive\nwas apprehension for the safety of his brother[879]:\n\n[875] Ibid. 50 and seqq.\n\n[876] Od. xi. 494, 538.\n\n[877] Od. xi. 198-203.\n\n[878] Il. vii. 92-119.\n\n[879] Il. x. 234-40.\n\n \u1f63\u03c2 \u1f14\u03c6\u03b1\u03c4\u2019, \u1f14\u03b4\u03b4\u03b5\u03b9\u03c3\u03b5\u03bd \u03b4\u1f72 \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u03be\u03b1\u03bd\u03b8\u1ff7 \u039c\u03b5\u03bd\u03b5\u03bb\u03ac\u1ff3.\n\nThe war too is full of the most pleasing instances of attachment\nbetween brothers; Ajax and Teucer, Glaucus and Sarpedon, and many\nother instances less illustrious, might be quoted. It is the sad end\nof Polydorus which at the last works up Hector into the most daring\nheroism; and again in the Odyssey, the advantage is set forth of having\nbrothers, who defend a man while he is living, and avenge him when he\nis dead[880].\n\n[880] Od. viii. 585, xxiv. 434, and xvi. 97, 115-21.\n\nAnd hence it is that, even though Greeks were hot of head and ready\nof hand, we find no instance where, in consequence of a broil, one\nmember of a family inflicts violence or death upon another of the same\nhousehold. The horrible idea of parricide, and the execration with\nwhich public opinion would brand such a crime, restrain Ph\u0153nix at the\nvery height of his passion from laying hands upon his father[881]:\n\n[881] Il. ix. 461.\n\n \u1f61\u03c2 \u03bc\u1f74 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c4\u03c1\u03bf\u03c6\u03cc\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 \u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u2019 \u1f08\u03c7\u03b1\u03b9\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u03b5\u03bf\u03af\u03bc\u03b7\u03bd.\n\nDirectly that we pass beyond the household and its affections\nintertwined by habit, the aspect of the case alters. Out of six\ninstances of unpremeditated homicide in Homer, three[882] are committed\nupon relations by blood or by affinity, though not very near ones.\nMedon, the bastard of Oileus, kills a relation of the lawful wife.\nTlepolemus the son of Hercules kills his grand-uncle Licymnius.\nEpeigeus of Budeum kills his cousin.\n\n[882] Il. xiii. 695-7. ii. 658-70. xvi. 57.\n\n~_Relationships close, not wide._~\n\nThis marked line of distinction, between the homicides of crime\nand the homicides of misfortune, illustrates another point in the\nstructure of Greek society. Relationships do not appear to have been\nreckoned by them as subsisting beyond a rather narrow range. We cannot\ntrace any defined idea of kin more remote than the first cousin. The\nlexicographers treat the term \u1f00\u03bd\u03ad\u03c8\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2 as capable of a wider sense; but\nthe only individuals named as \u1f00\u03bd\u03ad\u03c8\u03b9\u03bf\u03b9 by Homer, whose relationships\nwe can follow, are first cousins: namely, Caletor son of Clytius, and\nDolops son of Lampus, both first cousins of Hector[883]. There are also\npersons named in the poems, whose consanguinity we can trace, while it\nis nowhere noticed by the Poet: for instance, Eumelus is first cousin,\nonce removed, to Nestor. Priam and Anchises are second cousins: \u00c6neas\nand Hector third. These relationships are never referred to. Thus\nthen society is not arranged in clans, but in tribes, united by the\ngeneral sense of a common name, a common abode, a common history, a\ncommon religion, and a remote sense of a common tribal stock, without\nany sense of personal affinity in each individual case. Again, it is\ncurious to observe that the xenial relation was not less vivacious\nthan that of blood. The tie of blood subsists in the second generation\nfrom the common ancestor; and Diomed and Glaucus similarly own one\nanother as \u03be\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9, because two generations before \u0152neus had entertained\nBellerophon[884].\n\n[883] Il. xv. 419, 22; 525, 54.\n\n[884] Il. vi. 215.\n\n~_Purity in the heroic age._~\n\nThe elevated and free social position of womankind in the Homeric\ntimes of itself implies a great purity of ideas respecting them. This\nsubject, however, will receive a separate discussion.\n\nThere is a passage of Athen\u00e6us which conveys to us a tradition of\nno ordinary beauty, and effectually severs for us ideas and objects\nwhich only a corrupt bias has associated. He tells us that Zeno of\nCitium[885], whatever the practice of the Stoic leader may have been,\nconceived of \u1f1c\u03c1\u03c9\u03c2, the God of Love, as a deity of friendship, liberty,\nconcord, and public happiness, and of nothing else. So likewise his\nantecessors in philosophy taught that this deity was as a being\nperfectly pure: \u03c3\u03b5\u03bc\u03bd\u03cc\u03bd \u03c4\u03b9\u03bd\u03b1 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c0\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u1f78\u03c2 \u03b1\u1f30\u03c3\u03c7\u03c1\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03ba\u03b5\u03c7\u03c9\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd. This idea\ntook refuge in the Venus \u039f\u1f50\u03c1\u03b1\u03bd\u03af\u03b1, the opposite one in the \u03a0\u03ac\u03bd\u03b4\u03b7\u03bc\u03bf\u03c2, or\npromiscuous[886]. In the later ages of Greece, the distinction of these\ntwo characters one from the other feebly lived on: but there was no\nsubjective basis for the separate existence of the former, and it was\npractically eclipsed, if not absorbed. The true severance of the ideas\nprobably was effected before the time of Homer; and they were lodged\nin separate impersonations. The effective form of the Celestial Venus\nis to be sought most probably in Diana, though it was natural for Plato\nand the philosophers to keep alive the memory of the distinction by\nway of apology for the popular religion. The traces of this unstained\nconception were in later times only to be found in the sphere of art,\nand were even there not always visible: but in the Homeric poems, and\nprobably in the Homeric period, this purity of admiring sentiment\ntowards beautiful form appears to have been a living reality.\n\n[885] Athen. b. xiii. c. xii. p. 56.\n\n[886] D\u00f6llinger, Heid. u. Jud. II. ii. 41. Plato Sympos. 8. (180 C.)\n\nOur inquiry on this subject must have reference partly to the Poet,\nand partly to his period and nation. I will first deal with the points\nwhich have a bearing upon the age as well as the bard: and will\nthereafter subjoin what appears to touch Homer only.\n\n~_Lay of the Net of Vulcan._~\n\nLet us commence, then, by considering that one and only case, in the\nwhole compass of twenty-eight thousand lines, which might lead to an\nopposite conclusion: the case of the second Lay of Demodocus, or the\nadultery of Mars and Venus[887].\n\n[887] Od. viii. 266-366.\n\nOf course it is impossible to justify this single passage upon its\nown merits: but there are many circumstances that ought to be borne\nin mind by those who wish to form an accurate judgment upon it in its\nconnection with the morals either of the Poet himself, or of the age to\nwhich he belonged.\n\nOf these the most important, in my view, is the tendency which the\nPagan religion already powerfully showed to become itself the positive\ncorrupter of morality, or, to speak perhaps more accurately, to\nafford the medium, through which the forces of evil and the downward\ninclination would principally act for the purpose of depraving it.\nEven in Homer\u2019s time, the existing mythology contained ample warrant\nfor the scene of indulgence here laid bare; and we see the remaining\nmodesty and delicacy of mankind feebly resisting the torrent of\npassion, which ought to have been counteracted, but which, on the\ncontrary, was principally swollen and impelled, by the agency of the\nacknowledged religion of the country.\n\nIt was impossible for Homer to be altogether above the operation of\ninfluences so closely allied with an origin believed to be celestial:\nnor could it be easy for the popular Poet wholly to disregard the\ntastes of his hearers: the Poet, whose strains swept over the whole\nheight and depth of life and nature, both human and divine, could\nnot absolutely shut out from his encyclop\u00e6dic survey so marked a\ncharacteristic of Olympian habits. He has not omitted to mark as\npeculiar, in more ways than one, the licence he has assumed. The lay\nis sung in an assembly attended by men only: and it purports also to\ndescribe a scene, from which the goddesses intentionally kept away.\nThe amusement of the deities present is not universal: Neptune, the\nsenior one among them, does not laugh[888], but takes the matter\ngravely, and desires to put an end to the scandal, by promising to\nmake to the injured husband a pecuniary reparation[889]. He evidently\nappears to act under an impulse of offended dignity at least, though\nnot of modesty. Again, the Poet endeavours to give a ridiculous air,\nnot only a laughable one, to the whole proceeding, through the extreme\nmortification of the guilty persons; who, when released, are made\nto disappear in real dismay and discomfiture[890]. In this point he\naltogether differs, undoubtedly, from the generality of the writers of\nlicentious pieces, as materially as he does in the simplicity of his\ndetails; and that supposition of a partially moral aim on which some\nhave ventured, is not so extravagant as to deserve total and absolute\nrejection.\n\n[888] The translation in Pope\u2019s Odyssey, which in the most material\nparts has a more highly charged colouring than the Greek original, here\nreverses the sense. Homer says Neptune did not laugh, \u03bf\u1f50\u03b4\u1f72 \u03a0\u03bf\u03c3\u03b5\u03b9\u03b4\u03ac\u03c9\u03bd\u03b1\n\u03b3\u03ad\u03bb\u03c9\u03c2 \u1f14\u03c7\u03b5: Pope says, \u2018even Neptune laughs aloud.\u2019 Pope\u2019s work is a\ngreat work: but it is not a good rendering, nor a bad rendering, of\nHomer: it is no rendering at all. Od. viii. 244.\n\n[889] Od. viii. 347, 356.\n\n[890] Od. viii. 361, 2.\n\nIt has been common to employ, in vindication of Homer, the supposition\nthat the passage is spurious. There is something rather more marked\nin the personal agency of the Sun than the poems elsewhere present;\nand undoubtedly Apollo is made to assume a tone wholly singular, and\nunsupported by what is told of him in the rest of the poems. These\nare arguments, so far as they go, against it. But I do not venture\nto adopt this alluring expedient: for the general character of the\ncolouring, diction, and incidents, appears to be Homeric enough. And\nagain, if licentiousness was to come in, this was exactly the way\nfor its entrance, because it was after a banquet; because it was\namong men exclusively, and not in the presence of women; because of\nthe connection with mythology; and because the tale is thoroughly in\nkeeping with the mythological character of the personages chiefly\nconcerned.\n\nThe direct reference however of the evil to the influence of a\nperverted religion can be supported by distinct evidence from other\nparts of the poems. In the Iliad there appear to be but two passages,\nwhich can fairly be termed indelicate. One is the account of the\nproceeding of Juno, with the accompanying speech of Jupiter, in the\nFourteenth Book[891]. This relation belongs strictly to the mythology\nof the poem, and it is evidently handled in an historical manner; for\nJupiter\u2019s details, at least as it seems to me, are introduced for the\npurpose of fixing ancient national legends, as much as the stories of\nNestor and Ph\u0153nix. The other passage is that, which in a few words\ncontains the sensual advice given by Thetis, as a mother, to her son\nAchilles in his grief, by way of comfort;\n\n[891] Il. xiv. 312-28. 346-53.\n\n \u1f00\u03b3\u03b1\u03b8\u1f78\u03bd \u03b4\u1f72 \u03b3\u03c5\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9\u03ba\u03af \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1 \u1f10\u03bd \u03c6\u03b9\u03bb\u03cc\u03c4\u03b7\u03c4\u03b9\n \u03bc\u03af\u03c3\u03b3\u03b5\u03c3\u03b8\u2019[892].\n\n[892] Il. xxiv. 130.\n\nThis precisely exemplifies the relation of which I speak. The deity\nteaches the debased lesson: the human hero passes by the recommendation\nin silence. Homer would have put no such language as this into the\nmouth of one of his matrons.\n\nWhen we come to pass sentence upon Homer, we must remember that, since\nin the Odyssey he represents the comic as well as the serious side of\nlife, he ought in justice to be first compared with his successors.\nAnd here we not only shall find he gains by the comparison with\nAristophanes or with Horace, but that he gains yet much more when tried\nby the standard of the other great school of poets which followed him\nin associating heroic subjects with wit and with amusement, namely,\nthe poets of the Italian romance. There is hardly, perhaps, one of\nthat whole school of Christian writers, who has not descended to\nlicentiousness of far more malignant type. Nor let it be supposed that\nthe \u00c6neid shows in this respect any superiority in Virgil or in his\nhearers. As to Virgil, and as to his poems, if we take the whole of\nthem into view, I am afraid that whatever the veil of words may do,\nthe case was in reality bad enough: as to the hearers of the \u00c6neid,\nwe must remember that they were not a people, but a court: we must\ncompare his Roman auditors with the hearers of Homer, not as to that\nparticular only of their public amusements, but as to the whole; that\nis, we must compare the Homeric poems not with the \u00c6neid alone, but\nwith the \u00c6neid and the Floralia. In Homer\u2019s time, men had not learned\nto screen their vices behind walls which also serve to fortify them.\nAnd it still remains more than doubtful whether the appetite of Homeric\nGreece would have endured the garbage on which Christian Florence was\ncontent to feed, during its carnivals, in the period of its most famous\ncivilization.\n\n~_Evidence of comparative purity._~\n\nFrom this scene let us turn to consider the evidence for asserting the\ncomparative purity of Homer\u2019s age, and the peculiar purity of his mind.\n\n2. We find in Homer no trace whatever of the existence of those\nunnatural vices, which appear to have deeply tainted the lives of\nmany of the most eminent Greeks of later days[893]; which drew down\nthe blasting sentence of St. Paul[894]; which in early times had been\nvisited on the Cities of the plain; and which, it is no less strange\nthan horrible to think, have left their mark upon more than one period\nor portion even of the literature of Christendom, in a manner and\ndegree such as must excite scarcely less of surprise than shame.\n\n[893] Athen\u00e6us, b. xiii. c. 77-84.\n\n[894] Rom. i. 24-7.\n\nThe seizure of Ganymedes became in later times the basis of a tradition\nof this kind: but there is not a trace of it in Homer. The intense love\nand admiration of beauty to which his pages bear constant witness is\nwholly disconnected from animal passions, and in its simplicity and\nearnestness is, for its combined purity and strength, really nearer the\nfeeling of some of the early Italian painters, and of Dante, than any\nthing else I can recall.\n\nThis is the more remarkable when we bear in mind what had already, and\nlong before his time, happened in the East, and is recorded for us in\nthe Book of Genesis.\n\nHomer most rarely alludes to what is unbecoming in the human form: in\nthe case of woman not once, and in the case of men only where he has\na legitimate and sufficient purpose. Thus when Ulysses[895] threatens\nto strip Thersites to the skin in the event of his repeating his\nturbulence and insolence, it is plainly with an honest view to inflict\nupon him the last extremity of shame, and to make him an object of\ngeneral and wholly unmixed disgust. Again, when Priam refers to the\nlikelihood that his own body may be stripped naked, and then mangled\nby animals after his death, every one feels that the insult to natural\ndecency, which he anticipates, contributes only to enhance the agony\nof his feelings. And the scene in the Odyssey, where Ulysses emerges\nfrom the sea upon the coast of Scheria, will always be regarded as one\nof the most careful, and yet most simple and unaffected, examples of\ntrue modesty contained in the whole circle of literature. Now these\nappear to be, not peculiarities, but samples of the general manners. We\nshould look in vain for the proofs of an equal truth and fineness of\nperception among the Hebrews or among their forefathers, unless it be\namong a very few individuals, who, under a direct teaching from above,\nbecame select examples of virtue.\n\n[895] Il. ii. 262. See also on this subject, Il. v. 429. vi. 357. Od.\nv. 149-59, 227.\n\nMany other indications in the poems converge upon the same point.\nThe horror with which incest was regarded is one. The deep grief and\nhumility stamped on the character of Helen is a second. The manner\nin which the chastity of Bellerophon is held up to admiration, and\nfollowed by reward, is a third[896]. The high-toned living widowhood of\nPenelope is of itself conclusive on the point before us.\n\n[896] Il. vi. 161, 2.\n\nHomer\u2019s subject in the Iliad was one, which tempted and almost forced\nhim into indecency, where he had to refer to the original crime of\nParis or to describe his private life. The manner in which he has\nhandled it is deserving of all praise. He treats as an evil gift the\noriginal promise and temptation to Paris. The scene in the end of the\nThird Book was necessary in order to complete the view of the character\nof that bad prince: and it could not have been drawn in a manner\nless calculated to seduce the mind, whether by the management of its\ndetails, or by the sentiments of loathing which it raises against the\nprincipal actor.\n\nUndoubtedly we must, as regards the whole morality of the poems,\nascribe much to the praise of Homer personally: yet it is plain that he\nrepresented his age in no small degree. First, because, as a popular\nand famous minstrel, he could not have been in sharp or general\ncontrast with the feeling of his contemporaries. Secondly, because we\nperceive remains of this seriousness and purity in the older Greek\nwriters junior to Homer. Thirdly, because we find from Thucydides\nthat, at the time when the original Olympian games were instituted,\nit was still the custom carefully to avoid the exposure of the human\nform, and that a different practice was introduced afterwards by the\nLaced\u00e6monians, probably without evil intention, and for gymnastic ends\nalone (Thuc. i. 6).\n\nAnd now, if we contemplate the belief, ideas, and institutions of\nthe heroic period, as they would work upon an individual, we shall,\nperhaps, find that they fully justify the outline with which this\nsection began. We may, indeed, see in the Homeric pictures of that age\nmuch to condemn or to deplore; but we may also be led to believe that\nif, through God\u2019s mercy, there have been happier, there also have been\nless happy forms, for human destiny to be cast in.\n\n~_Life of the high-born Greek._~\n\nThe youth of high birth, not then so widely as now separated from\nthe low, is educated under tutors in reverence for his parents, and\nin desire to emulate their fame: he shares in manly and in graceful\nsports, acquires the use of arms, hardens himself in the pursuit,\nthen, of all others the most indispensable, the hunting down of wild\nbeasts, gains the knowledge of medicine, probably also of the lyre.\nSometimes, with many-sided intelligence, he even sets himself to\nlearn how to build his own house or ship, or how to drive the plough\nfirm and straight down the furrow, as well as to reap the standing\ncorn[897]. And when scarcely a man, he bears arms for his country or\nhis tribe, takes part in its government, learns by direct instruction\nand by practice how to rule mankind through the use of reasoning and\npersuasive power in political assemblies, attends and assists in\nsacrifices to the gods. For all this time he has been in kindly and\nfree relations, not only with his parents, his family, his equals of\nhis own age, but with the attendants, although they are but serfs, who\nhave known him from infancy on his father\u2019s domain.\n\n[897] Od. xviii. 366-75.\n\nHe is indeed mistaught with reference to the use of the strong hand.\nHuman life is cheap; so cheap that even a mild and gentle youth may\nbe betrayed, upon a casual quarrel over some childish game with his\nfriend, into taking it away. And even so throughout his life, should\nsome occasion come that stirs up his passions from their depths, a wild\nbeast, as it were, awakes within him, and he loses his humanity for\nthe time until reason has re-established her control. Short, however,\nof such a desperate crisis, though he could not for the world rob his\nfriend or his neighbour, yet he might be not unwilling to triumph over\nhim to his cost, for the sake of some exercise of signal ingenuity:\nwhile, from a hostile tribe or a foreign shore, or from the individual\nwho has become his enemy, he will acquire by main force what he\ncan, nor will he scruple to inflict on him by stratagem even deadly\ninjury[898]. He must, however, give liberally to those who are in need;\nto the wayfarer, the poor, the suppliant who begs from him shelter and\nprotection. On the other hand, should his own goods be wasted, the\nliberal and open-handed contributions of his neighbours will not be\nwanting to replace them.\n\n[898] Od. xiii. 259-70.\n\nHis early youth is not solicited into vice by finding sensual excess in\nvogue, or the opportunities of it staring in his eye and sounding in\nhis ear. Gluttony is hardly known; drunkenness is marked only by its\ndegrading character and the evil consequences that flow so straight\nfrom it, and is abhorred. But he loves the genial use of meals, and\nrejoices in the hour when the guests, gathered in his father\u2019s hall,\nenjoy a liberal hospitality, and the wine mantles in the cup[899].\nFor then they listen to the strains of the minstrel, who celebrates\nbefore them the newest and the dearest of the heroic tales that stir\ntheir blood, and rouse their manly resolution to be worthy, in their\nturn, of their country and their country\u2019s heroes. He joins the dance\nin the festivals of religion; the maiden\u2019s hand upon his wrist, and\nthe gilded knife glancing from his belt, as they course from point to\npoint, or wheel in round on round[900]. That maiden, some Nausicaa or\nsome Hermione of a neighbouring district, in due time he weds, amidst\nthe rejoicings of their families, and brings her home to cherish her,\n\u2018from the flower to the ripeness of the grape,\u2019 with respect, fidelity,\nand love.\n\n[899] Od. viii. 5-11. xiv. 193-8.\n\n[900] Il. xviii. 594-602.\n\nWhether as a governor or as governed, politics bring him, in ordinary\ncircumstances, no great share of trouble. Government is a machine, of\nwhich the wheels move easily; for they are well oiled by simplicity\nof usages, ideas, and desires; by unity of interest; by respect for\nauthority, and for those in whose hands it is reposed; by love of the\ncommon country, the common altar, the common festivals and games, to\nwhich already there is large resort. In peace he settles the disputes\nof his people, in war he lends them the precious example of heroic\ndaring. He consults them, and advises with them, on all grave affairs;\nand his wakeful care for their interests is rewarded by the ample\ndomains which are set apart for the prince by the people[901]. Finally,\nhe closes his eyes, delivering over the sceptre to his son, and leaving\nmuch peace and happiness around him[902].\n\n[901] Il. ix. 578. xii. 313.\n\n[902] Od. xxiii. 281-4.\n\nSuch was, probably, the state of society amidst the concluding phase of\nwhich Homer\u2019s youth, at least, was passed. But a dark and deep social\nrevolution seems to have followed the Trojan war: we have its workings\nalready become visible in the Odyssey. Scarcely could even Ulysses cope\nwith it, contracted though it was for him within the narrow bounds of\nIthaca. On the mainland, the bands of the elder society are soon wholly\nbroken. The Pelopid, Neleid, \u0152neid houses are a wreck: disorganization\ninvites the entry of new forces to control it: the Dorian lances\nbristle on the \u00c6tolian beach, and the primitive Greece, the patriarchal\nGreece, the Greece of Homer, is no more.\n\n~_Ethics of earlier and later Paganism._~\n\nWhen we take a general survey of the practical morality of the Heroic\nage, and compare it with that of later times, we must at once be struck\nwith the great superiority of the former, in all that most nearly\ntouches the moral being of man. The mere police of society, indeed,\nimproves with the advance of civilization. The law of determinate\nrights to property, which we rather dangerously call the law of _meum_\nand _tuum_, whereas it is but a limited part of that great ordinance,\ncomes to be better understood in later times, and better defended by\npenal sanctions. A clearer ideal, as well as actual, distinction, is\ngradually established between force and civil right. But who will\nventure to say that the duties of man to the Deity, or the larger\nclaims of man upon man, were better understood in the age of Pericles\nor Alexander, of Sylla or of Augustus, than in the days of Homer?\n\nIt is to be expected that, when the elements of wealth are for the\nmost part such as nature offers, when man has hardly left the mark\nof his hand upon the earth, when little has been appropriated, and\nthat little indeterminately, then the description of right which is\nleast understood should also be least respected; namely, the law which\nwithdraws things from original community of use into individual\ndominion. To this day we dispute, what was the pristine foundation of\nthe law of property. Why do we not perceive that this is equivalent\nto an admission, that in the first periods of political society, the\nwhole idea of property must of necessity have been more or less vague?\nAnd consequently, that even plunder in primitive times is a different\nthing from plunder in later times, not only as to public estimation,\nbut as to the moral colour of the act, and that it should be judged\naccordingly?\n\n~_Points of superiority in the former._~\n\nLet us then consider the notes of moral superiority which the Heroic\nage of Greece presents to us.\n\nHuman sacrifices were not then offered upon bloody altars to the gods.\nNot even the direst extremity of suffering suggested the thought of\ncannibalism as an alternative of escape from death[903]. Wailing\ninfants were not then exposed to avoid the burden of their nurture.\nThe grey hairs of parents were treated with reverence and care; and if\ntheir weakness brought down insult upon them, it stung the souls of\ntheir children, even after death. To age in general a deep and hearty\nreverence was paid by the young. Woman, the grand refining element of\nsociety, had not then been put down in the estimation of any man, far\nless of the wisest men, to the level of persons degraded by the habits\nof captivity, and was not held to be a \u03b6\u1ff6\u03bf\u03bd \u1f14\u03bc\u03c8\u03c5\u03c7\u03bf\u03bd. Slavery itself was\nmild and almost genial. It implied the law of labour, and possibly,\nin ordinary cases, a prohibition to rise in life: but of positive\noppression, and of suffering in connection with it, or of any penal\nsystem directed to its maintenance, we have no trace whatever. Marriage\nwas the honourable and single tie between man and his helpmate[904].\nConnections with very near relations were regarded with horror; the\nwife was the representative, the intelligent companion and friend, of\nher husband; adultery was held in aversion, a crime rarer then than in\nmost after-periods: and the sacred bond between husband and wife was\nnot liable to be broken by the poor invention of divorce.\n\n[903] Od. xii. 327-51.\n\n[904] On this and the kindred points, see inf. sect. ix.\n\nOrganized unchastity had not then become a kind of devil\u2019s law for\nsociety. The very name and nature of unnatural lusts appear to have\nbeen unknown in Greece, centuries after Sodom had been smitten for\nits crimes. The detestable invention, which set gladiators to kill\none another for the amusement of enraptured spectators, was reserved\nfor times more vain of their philosophy and their artificial culture.\nThe rights of the poor were acknowledged in the form of an unlimited\nobligation to relieve them, under pain of the divine displeasure: and\nno stranger or suppliant could be repelled from the door of any one,\nwho regarded either the fear of God or the fear of man.\n\nAs respects the gods, the remains of ancient piety still in some degree\nchecked the activity of the critical faculty, and the reverence for the\nPower that disposes events and hates the wicked was not yet derided\nby speculation, nor wholly buried beneath fable and corruption. True,\nsacrifice was regarded as the indispensable and effective basis of\nreligion: but in general, as between Greek and Greek, those who were\nmost careful of virtue were also most regular in their offerings. Men\nwere believers in prayer: they thought that, if in need they humbly\nbetook themselves to supplication, they would be heard and helped.\nIn short, they kept their hold upon a higher power, which we see\nto have been real, because they resorted to it at those times when\nhuman nature eschews illusion, and cries out for reality. Ulysses, in\naffliction or in need, addresses himself to the gods: even \u00c6gisthus,\nwhen alarmed, begins to think much of them: but Cicero or Quintilian,\nwhen the arrow of grief has touched them to the quick, seek for comfort\nin philosophical calculations on the great woe and little weal of life.\n\nYet, even while all this was so, there lay in the accumulating\nmythology the thickly scattered seeds of destruction, both for belief\nand for duty. How could marriage continue single, pure, or permanent,\nin the face of the promiscuous lusts of Jupiter? Why should not\nhelpless infants be exposed, when Juno, disgusted with the form of\nVulcan, threw him down into the sea? Why should not man make a joyous\nspectacle of blood and wounds, when they were already beheld with\namusement by the highest of the gods? The examples of rebellion, of\ndiscord, of luxury and selfish ease, were all of them ready to forward\nthe process of corruption among men; and this armoury of curses was\nprepared too in the very quarter, where his eye should behold nothing\nbut what is august and pure.\n\nAgain. In all descriptions of tender feelings the Greeks of the Homeric\nage are much nearer than those of later times to the standard of truth\nand nature.\n\nThe heroes of Homer weep freely; but, says the Agamemnon of\nEuripides[905], while he complains of the restriction, weeping is the\nrecognised privilege of humble life only;\n\n[905] Iph. in Aul. 446.\n\n \u1f21 \u03b4\u03c5\u03c3\u03b3\u03ad\u03bd\u03b5\u03b9\u03b1 \u03c4\u2019 \u1f61\u03c2 \u1f14\u03c7\u03b5\u03b9 \u03c4\u03b9 \u03c7\u03c1\u03ae\u03c3\u03b9\u03bc\u03bf\u03bd\u00b7\n \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u03b4\u03b1\u03ba\u03c1\u03cd\u03c3\u03b1\u03b9 \u1fe5\u1fb3\u03b4\u03af\u03c9\u03c2 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u1f14\u03c7\u03b5\u03b9\n \u1f10\u03b3\u1f7c \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u1f10\u03ba\u03b2\u03b1\u03bb\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd \u03bc\u1f72\u03bd \u03b1\u1f30\u03b4\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bc\u03b1\u03b9 \u03b4\u03ac\u03ba\u03c1\u03c5.\n\nAnd Aristotle thought, as is thought now, that weeping was unfit for\nmen. The wise man, he conceives[906], cannot incite others to mourn\nwith him, \u03b4\u03b9\u1f70 \u03c4\u1f78 \u03bc\u03b7\u03b4\u2019 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1f78\u03c2 \u03b5\u1f36\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9 \u03b8\u03c1\u03b7\u03bd\u03b7\u03c4\u03b9\u03ba\u03cc\u03c2: but women, and woman-like\nmen, \u03b3\u03cd\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9\u03b1 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03bf\u1f31 \u03c4\u03bf\u03b9\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c4\u03bf\u03b9 \u1f04\u03bd\u03b4\u03c1\u03b5\u03c2, are glad of such companionship in\nsorrow.\n\n[906] Aristot. Eth. IX. xi. 4.\n\nThere are indeed three most important points of the Homeric poems, in\nwhich it would appear that the Greek character greatly hardened, and\ngreatly sank, as the nation advanced in its career. One of them is the\nprinciple of sympathy. Another is that of placability, which Homer has\nvery powerfully exhibited in Achilles. The third is that of humility,\nof which we have an example in Helen, in the Helen of Troy and the\nHelen of Sparta, such as heathenism nowhere else, I believe, presents\nto us.\n\nIt has thus appeared that if we take the state of morality as it\nappears among mankind in the poems of Homer, and compare it with that\nof Greece in its highest civilization, we find before us two grand\ndifferences. Those offences against the moral law, which constitute\ncrimes of violence, were more justly appreciated at the later period;\nbut as to those which constitute, in the language of Christianity, the\nlusts of the mind and of the flesh, a great preference is due to the\nformer.\n\nWe are naturally led to inquire, Whence these two movements in opposite\ndirections? That mankind should either lose ground or gain it, in\nmorality as a whole, is far less startling at first sight, than that,\nat one and the same time, with respect to one great portion of the\nmoral law there should be progress, and with respect to another,\nretrogression.\n\nIn reality, however, this was the condition of man: retrogression as to\nhis spiritual life, but advance and development, up to a certain point,\nwith regard to the intellectual and the social career. Sins of the\nflesh lay chiefly between God and the individual conscience: the social\nresults did not palpably and immediately reach beyond the persons\nimmediately concerned. But crimes of violence struck directly at the\nfabric of society by destroying security of person and property; and\nrobbed mankind, especially the ruling part of mankind, of the immense\nadvantages and enjoyments which they reaped from civilized life. Thus,\nthe moral sense was quick, and even grew quicker with the lapse of\ntime, when it was fed and prompted by such motives of self-interest\nas lay within its appreciation, like those which the desire to enjoy\nthe commodities of life supplied. But it languished and all but died,\nwhen its business was to maintain those virtues which involve severe\nself-denial, and of which the reward never can be fully appreciated\nexcept by those who are so favoured as to practise them in the highest\ndegree.\n\nNor must we overlook some special bearings of the institution of\nslavery upon this question. As it grew and was consolidated, it of\ncourse entailed an increased necessity for laws to defend life and\ngoods against violence. But as regarded the other class of offences,\nits influence was all in the sense of more and more relaxation. For\nbeauty and defencelessness, when they were combined in slaves, at once\nwrought up attraction to the uttermost, and removed all obstacles to\nenjoyment. While at the same time the partial indulgence, which at all\nperiods has commonly attended such commerce between slaves and their\nmasters, operated as a safety valve to let off the political dangers\nof that system: so that, on the one hand, slavery was a feeder to lust,\nand, on the other, lust was a buttress to slavery.\n\nThat it was not on moral grounds that in the later times of Greece life\nand property were better defended than in the former, we may partly\njudge from finding that, though it is in the nature of all society that\na nation should rather incline to gild the days of its forefathers\nwith ornaments beyond the truth, the later Greek traditions crammed\nthe heroic age with a mass of crimes of which Homer knows nothing.\nHe sets Minos and Rhadamanthus before us as characters positively\ngood: Thyestes and others are at worst neutral in character: but all\nthese, according to the later tradition, were either accessory to, or\ncontaminated with, the most horrible enormities.\n\n~_Notes in the Poems of commencing decline._~\n\nIt seems, indeed, as if Homer had himself lived to note the signs\nof moral degeneracy. In part, we may perhaps say, it is inseparably\nassociated with that deterioration in the character and idea of\ngovernment, which begins to be traceable in the Odyssey. But in that\npoem he has given us another indication of it, unlike any thing in the\nIliad, where he never contrasts the present unfavourably with the past,\nexcept as to mere corporal strength. For he makes Minerva as Mentor\ndeliver to Telemachus the sentiment, that among sons a small number\nonly are equal to their fathers[907], a very few indeed excelling them,\nbut the greater part falling short of them. In later times, we have\ncome to associate threnodies of this kind with the notion that they\nare complaints of course, formul\u00e6 taken up and reiterated successively\nfrom generation to generation. It may or may not be just thus to view\nthem: but whether it be just or not for later times, I think that we\nought not so to limit the force of the idea when it meets us in the\nage of Homer: the world was then young, and human society had not so\nlearned its \u2018ancient saws or modern instances,\u2019 as to separate them\nfrom the truths of experience and of observation. The greatest ornament\nof the poems of Hesiod, the series of the Ages declining from gold to\niron, probably expresses the actual state of the facts, as it seems to\nmove on the same line with the narrative of the early Scriptures: and\nHomer\u2019s lamentation on degeneracy in all likelihood may belong to a\nreal portion of the same descending process.\n\n[907] Od. ii. 276.\n\n\n\n\nSECT. IX.\n\n_Woman in the Homeric age._\n\n\nNo view of a peculiar civilization can on its ethical side be\nsatisfactory, unless it include a distinct consideration of the place\nheld in it by woman. And, besides, the position of the Greek woman of\nthe heroic age is in itself so remarkable, as even on special grounds\nto require separate and detailed notice. It is likewise so elevated,\nboth absolutely and in comparison with what it became in the historic\nages of Greece and Rome amidst their elaborate civilization, as to form\nin itself a sufficient confutation of the theories of those writers\nwho can see in the history of mankind only the development of a law\nof continual progress from intellectual darkness into light, and from\nmoral degradation up to virtue.\n\nThe idea and place of woman have been slowly and laboriously elevated\nby the Gospel: and their full development has constituted the purest\nand most perfect protest, that the world has ever seen, against the\nsovereignty of force. For it is not alone against merely physical, but\nalso against merely intellectual strength, that this protest has been\nlodged. To the very highest range of intellectual strength known among\nthe children of Adam, woman seems never to have ascended, but in every\nor almost every case to have fallen somewhat short of it. But when we\nlook to the virtues, it seems probable both that her average is higher,\nand that she also attains in the highest instances to loftier summits.\nCertainly there is no proof here of her inferiority to man. Now it is\nnowhere written in Holy Scripture that God is knowledge, or that God is\npower; while it is written that God is love: words which appear to set\nforth love as the central essence, and all besides as attributes. Woman\nthen holds of God, and finds her own principal development in that\nwhich is most God-like. Thus, therefore, when Christianity wrought out\nfor woman, not a social identity, but a social equality, not a rivalry\nwith the function of man, but an elevation in her own function reaching\nas high as his, it made the world and human life in this respect also\na true image of the Godhead.\n\nWithin the pale of that civilization which has grown up under the\ncombined influence of the Christian religion as paramount, and of what\nmay be called the Teutonic manners as secondary, we find the idea of\nwoman and her social position raised to a point even higher than in the\npoems of Homer. But it would be hard to discover any period of history\nor country of the world, not being Christian, in which they stood so\nhigh as with the Greeks of the heroic age.\n\nThere are various heads under which we may inquire into the subject\nbefore us.\n\nOne is the law of marriage in the heroic age, and the state of the\nspecific relation between the sexes.\n\nA second is the employments assigned to women; how high did they reach,\nand how low did they descend?\n\nA third is the social footing on which they stood, as tested by\nmanners.\n\nA fourth is the general outline of the woman\u2019s character, as it is to\nbe estimated from the varied specimens which Homer has set before us.\n\n~_Law and custom of marriage._~\n\nFirstly; a main criterion of the general condition of woman in a given\nstate of society is to be found in the view which it may exhibit of\nthe great institution of marriage. In proportion as that institution\nis purified and elevated by just restraint, the condition of woman\nis honourable, free, and happy. In proportion as it is relaxed, in\naccommodation to human infirmity or appetite, the condition of woman\nis degraded and servile; for where desire is the law, strength is its\nappropriate and only sanction, and the cause of the weaker fails. Just\nas a strict and efficient police is most important to the unprotected,\nso a strict law of marriage is most for the interest of the woman.\n\nThe general position of womankind in the Homeric age is high on both\nsides of the Archipelago; but, as respects marriage, its chiefest\npillar, it is perceptibly even higher among the Greeks than among\nthe Trojans. Among the multitude of cases, that either directly or\nincidentally come before us in the poems, there is nothing that at\nall resembles the Asiatic household of Priam, or that seems to favour\npolygamy. Nor have we any instance where a wife is divorced or taken\naway from her husband, and then made the wife of another man during\nhis lifetime. The froward Suitors, who urge Penelope to choose a new\nhusband from among them, do it upon the plea that Ulysses must be\ndead, and that there is no hope of his return: a plea not irrational,\nif we presume that the real term of his absence came to even half the\nnumber of years which Homer has assigned to it. The ancient law of\nEngland, while it repudiated the principle of divorce, recognised the\npresumption of the husband\u2019s death, when brought near to certainty by\na long term of absence, as equivalent to death itself for the purpose\nof exempting the wife from civil penalty in case of her marriage.\n\u00c6gisthus, again, finds it extremely difficult to corrupt Clytemnestra:\nand his success in inducing her to marry him entails, as if a matter\nof course, the murder of her former husband. The crime is mentioned\nby Jupiter, in the Olympian Court, as consisting of the two parts, of\nwhich he by no means specifies the latter as the more atrocious[908];\n\n[908] Od. i. 36.\n\n (1) \u03b3\u1fc6\u03bc\u2019 \u1f04\u03bb\u03bf\u03c7\u03bf\u03bd \u03bc\u03bd\u03b7\u03c3\u03c4\u1f74\u03bd, (2) \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03b4\u2019 \u1f14\u03ba\u03c4\u03b1\u03bd\u03b5 \u03bd\u03bf\u03c3\u03c4\u03ae\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1.\n\nThe law of marriage differs from most other human laws in a very\nimportant particular. It is their excellence to impose the _minimum_\nof restraint, which will satisfy the absolute wants of society: but\nthe aim and the criterion of a good law of marriage is to impose the\n_maximum_ of restraint that human nature can be induced _bon\u00e2 fide_ to\naccept. Doubtless there is here also a conceivable excess: but it would\nbe and has been indicated by the general withholding of submission,\nor evasion of obedience. Up to that point, the restrictions of the\nmarriage law are not evils to be endured for the sake of a greater\ngood, but are good in themselves.\n\nIn order that this great institution may thoroughly fulfil its ends, it\nis especially requisite,\n\n1. That it should not be contracted between more than one man and one\nwoman.\n\n2. That it should on both sides be, in the main and as a general rule,\ndeliberate and spontaneous.\n\n3. That the contract, once made, should not be dissolved.\n\nAnd closely allied to these there is yet a fourth negative:\n\n4. That nuptials should not be contracted between persons who stand\nwithin certain near degrees of relationship.\n\n5. It is always requisite that this engagement should exclude not only\nthe possibility of marriage for either partner with a third person, but\nalso any other fleshly connection without marriage.\n\nOf these propositions, the first, third, and fourth, are heads of\nrestraint on marriage. Every one of the three was acknowledged by the\nGreeks of the heroic age.\n\n~_Marriage always single._~\n\nThe rule of conjugal fidelity was admitted, though not wholly without\nrelaxation, to be as applicable to men as to their wives. This, and\nall the other restrictions, were applied to women with undeviating\nstrictness.\n\n1. As regards the first, it is plain, from a mass of evidence so large\nas to amount, in spite of its being negative, to demonstration, that\nthe uniform practice of the Greeks required the marriage union to be\nsingle. This, however, of itself, is saying little; but it imports much\nbesides what is on the surface: it implies, that, with due allowances,\nthe spirit of the marriage contract is a spirit of equity and of well\nadjusted rights, as between those who enter into it.\n\n2. This relation was also conceived by the Greeks in a spirit of\nfreedom.\n\nIt held a central place in life thoroughly European, as opposed to\nthe Oriental ideas. Nay, it approximated very much to the ideas\nprevailing in our own country as well as age. We do not find in the\npoems any instance of a marriage enforced against the will of a young\nmaiden, or contracted when she was of years too tender to exercise a\njudgment. Nausicaa fears that if she is seen with Ulysses, censorious\ntongues will immediately put it about that she is going to be married\nto him. They will say, \u2018Who is this tall and handsome stranger with\nNausicaa?\u2019[909] Surely she is going to become his bride. Truly she\nhas picked up some gallant from afar, who has strayed from his ship:\nor some god has come down to wed her. Better it were if she found a\nhusband from abroad, since, forsooth, she looks down upon her Ph\u00e6acian\nsuitors, though they are many and noble. Then continues this model of\nmaidens; \u2018Thus I shall come into disgrace; and indeed I myself should\nbe indignant with any one who should so act, and who, against the will\nof her parents, frequented the company of men before being publicly\nmarried.\u2019 In this remarkable passage we have such an exhibition of\nwoman\u2019s freedom, as scarcely any age has exceeded. For it clearly shows\nthat the marriage of a damsel was her own affair, and that, subject to\na due regard freely rendered to authority and opinion, she had, when of\ndue age, a main share in determining it. That is to say, to the extent\nof choosing a mate among the competitors. The expression of giving\naway or promising a daughter, by parents, is often used[910], but we\nperceive the limits of its meaning from the passage just quoted. The\nmore so, because similar expressions as to the proceedings of parents\nare applied in Homer to the marriages of sons[911]. I do not suppose it\nwould have been open to any maiden to remain single. That all should\nmarry, that there should be no class living in celibacy, was a kind\nof law for society in its infant state, even as now it may be said to\nbe almost a law for the most numerous classes of society. Above all I\nsuppose it to be clear that a marriageable widow could not ordinarily\nremain in widowhood. No reproach arises to Helen, on account of the\nrenewal of her irregular union with Deiphobus; and when Penelope,\nor others in her behalf, contemplate the death of Ulysses, and her\nconsequent release from the marriage state, that change is always\ntreated as the immediate preface to another crisis, namely, the choice\nof a second husband.\n\n[909] Od. vi. 275-88.\n\n[910] Il. xi. 296. xix. 29. ix. 141. vi. 191. Od. vii. 311. iv. 6.\n\n[911] Il. ix. 394. Od. iv. 10.\n\nAlthough social intercourse with man might not, as Nausicaa says, be\nsought by damsels, it might innocently come on occasions such as those\nafforded by public festivities, or by an ordinary calling[912].\n\n[912] Il. xviii. 567, 593, and xxii. 126.\n\n~_Freedom of the woman._~\n\nBut again, the persecution of Penelope by the Suitors bears emphatic\ntestimony to the freedom of woman within the limits I have described.\nThe utmost of their aim is to coerce her into marrying some one; even\nas their sin lies in bringing this pressure to bear upon her before\nthe death of Ulysses has been ascertained. On the other hand, the\npressure is a moral one: her violent removal is never thought of; and\nthe absolute silence of the poem on the subject proves that it would\nhave been at variance with the prevailing manners, had any cabal been\nformed, in order even to constrain her choice towards a particular\nperson. The very presents, by which the profligate Suitors endeavoured\nto ingratiate themselves with the women of the household of Ulysses,\nspeak favourably of the free condition of the sex, and seem to show,\nthat it descended even into lower stations.\n\nFor the Greek in the heroic age, marriage was the pivot of life. It\ntook place in the bloom of age: hence[913] the beautiful expression,\n\u03b8\u03b1\u03bb\u03b5\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u03b3\u03ac\u03bc\u03bf\u03c2, Od. vi. 66, xx. 74. It even marks of itself the age of\npersons; Alcinous has five sons, three \u1f20\u0390\u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u03b9, and two \u1f40\u03c0\u03c5\u03af\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2, (Od.\nvi. 63): three youths or bachelors, and two married.\n\n[913] Friedreich, Realien, \u00a7. 57. p. 200.\n\nPresents were usually brought by the bridegroom, and dowries sometimes\ngiven with the bride. Where the two concurred, the presents may have\nbeen either in the nature of compliments, or intended to meet the\nexpense of the wedding festivities. The absence of the former, and the\noccurrence of the latter, seem each to be more or less in the nature of\nan exception. With a wife returning to her parents, the dowry returned\nalso[914]. On the other hand, to judge from the story of Vulcan and\nVenus, wherever adultery was committed, the guilty man was bound to pay\na fine[915]. The poems give us several instances where personal gifts\nand energy served instead of wealth, as recommendations in suing for a\nwife[916]. The drawing of the Bow affords a conspicuous example of the\nprevailing ideas.\n\n[914] Od. ii. 132.\n\n[915] Od. viii. 329.\n\n[916] Od. xi. 287. xiv. 210. Il. xiii. 363.\n\nUpon the whole, then, in all that related to forming engagements by\nmarriage, there seems to have been preserved a large regard to the\nfreedom and dignity of woman[917]. War was doubtless in this respect\nher great enemy; she then became the prey of the strongest, and it\nis probable that this may have been the most powerful instrument in\npromoting the extensive introduction of concubinage into Greece.\n\n[917] Friedreich, Realien, c. III. ii. p. 204.\n\nWith respect to the ceremonial of marriage, and the nature of its\nformal engagement, the Homeric poems furnish us with scanty evidence.\nThere is no mention, in fact, of any promise or vow attending it. The\nexpression \u03b4\u03b1\u03b9\u03bd\u03cd\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9 \u03b3\u03ac\u03bc\u03bf\u03bd, in Od. iv. 3, seems to contain all that\nwould be included by us when we speak of celebrating marriage. Not\nthat it was the mere banquet that created the conjugal relation: it\nwas doubtless the \u1f00\u03bc\u03c6\u03ac\u03b4\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2 \u03b3\u03ac\u03bc\u03bf\u03c2, the solemn public acknowledgment, to\nwhich relatives and friends, and, in such a case as that of Hermione,\nthe public or people of the state, thus became witnesses. This subject\nwill be further considered in connection with the case of Briseis.\n\n~_Perpetuity of the tie of marriage._~\n\n3. If the mode of entry into the obligations of married life was\nas simple and indeterminate as we have supposed, such a want of\nformalities greatly enhances the strength of the testimony borne by the\nfacts of the heroic age to what may be called the natural perpetuity of\nthe marriage contract.\n\nIt is a very remarkable circumstance, that, of the two great poems\nof Homer, each should in its own way bear emphatic testimony to this\ngreat, and, for all countries that can bear it, this most precious law.\n\nNeither poem presents us with any case of a divorced wife; of a couple\nbetween whom the marriage tie, after having once been duly formed,\nhad ceased to subsist. And each poem in its own way raises this\nnegative evidence to a form of the greatest cogency, from its happening\nto present the very circumstances under which, if under any, the\ndissolution of the bond would have been acknowledged.\n\nIn the Iliad, the wife of Menelaus, his \u03ba\u03bf\u03c5\u03c1\u03b9\u03b4\u03af\u03b7 \u1f04\u03bb\u03bf\u03c7\u03bf\u03c2, has been\nliving for many years in _de facto_ adultery with Paris. The line\nbetween marriage on the one hand, and continued cohabitation together\nwith public recognition on the other, being faintly drawn, Helen is\nfamiliarly known in Troy as the wife of Paris; so she is called by the\nPoet, and so she calls herself[918]. Menelaus, too, is described as\nher former husband[919]. Whether this was a mere acquiescence in a\ncertain state of facts, or the regular result of more relaxed usages\nrespecting marriage in Troy, may be doubtful. But it is clear that the\nview of the Greeks was directly opposite. They never speak of Paris as\nthe husband of Helen. In their estimation, all the rights of Menelaus\nremained entire; and, as we shall see, it appears that, even while\nthe possession of them was withheld from him, he acknowledged the\nreciprocal obligations. Nay, Hector himself seems to describe Helen\nas still the wife of Menelaus; \u03b3\u03bd\u03bf\u03af\u03b7\u03c2 \u03c7\u2019 \u03bf\u1f35\u03bf\u03c5 \u03c6\u03c9\u03c4\u1f78\u03c2 \u1f14\u03c7\u03b5\u03b9\u03c2 \u03b8\u03b1\u03bb\u03b5\u03c1\u1f74\u03bd\n\u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03ac\u03ba\u03bf\u03b9\u03c4\u03b9\u03bd[920]. The war was (so to speak) juridically founded on the\nfact, that the lawful marriage was not dissolved by adultery, even\nwith the addition of all that followed: that the relation of Helen to\nher ancient husband was unchanged. Accordingly, Agamemnon recollects\nwith pain, that if his brother should die, he will no longer be in a\ncondition to demand her restoration, and to enforce it by arms, for his\nsoldiers will forthwith return home[921].\n\n[918] Il. iii. 427. xxiv. 763.\n\n[919] Il. iii. 140. Of Deiphobus, we are never told that he was Helen\u2019s\nhusband: and he could only for a very short time have had possession of\nher. The only trace of the connection is that, when Helen went down to\nthe horse, Deiphobus followed her. Od. iv 276.\n\n[920] Il. iii. 53.\n\n[921] Il. iv. 169-75.\n\nThe result is in full conformity with this view. When the war ends,\nHelen resumes her place as a matter of course in the house of Menelaus.\nShe bears it with unconstrained and perfect dignity; and her relations\nto her husband carry no mark of the woful interval, except that its\ntraces indelibly remain in her own penitential shame.\n\nIt is plain that the Greeks heartily detested the crime of adultery:\nfor one of the three great chapters of accusation against the Suitors\nis, that they wooed the wife of Ulysses in his lifetime[922]. But it\nis not less plain that they knew nothing of the idea, that by that\ncrime it was placed in the power of any person to obtain or to confer\na release from the obligations of marriage.\n\n[922] Od. xxii. 38.\n\nNext to adultery, desertion or prolonged absence has afforded the most\nfavoured plea for the destruction, so far as human law can destroy it,\nof the marriage bond. And indeed it is hardly possible to push the\nopposite doctrine to its extreme, and to say that no married person\nmay remarry, except with demonstrative evidence of the death of the\noriginal husband or wife respectively. Probably, however, no period of\nthe world has exhibited a more stringent application of the doctrine\nof indissolubility to the case of desertion, than that on which the\nplot of the Odyssey is founded; where, after an absence of the husband\nprolonged to the twentieth year, Penelope still waits his return; prays\nthat death may relieve her from the dread necessity of making a new\nchoice; and, thus directed by her own conscience and right feeling,\nlikewise apprehends condemnation by the public judgment in the event of\nher proceeding to contract a new engagement[923].\n\n[923] Od. xvi. 75.\n\nThe Heroic age has left no more comely monument, than its informal, but\ninstinctive, and most emphatic sense, thus recorded for our benefit,\nof the sanctity of marriage, of the closeness of the union it creates,\nand of the necessity of perpetuity as an element of its capacity to\nattain its chief ends, and to administer a real discipline to the human\ncharacter.\n\n~_Greek ideas of incest._~\n\n4. A further proof of the elevated estimate of marriage among the\nGreeks is afforded by their views, so far as they can be traced, of the\noffence termed incest.\n\nThe Homeric deities, indeed, were released in this respect, as in\nothers, from all restraint. Eris, or Enuo[924], was both the sister\nand the concubine of Mars: Juno, the sister and the wife of Jupiter.\n\u00c6olus[925], though called \u03c6\u03af\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f00\u03b8\u03b1\u03bd\u03ac\u03c4\u03bf\u03b9\u03c3\u03b9 \u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd, must have been more\nthan man; because Jupiter had made him warden of the Winds, which it\nwas his prerogative to confine or to let loose[926]. And in virtue,\nI suppose, of belonging to the class of superior beings, his six\ndaughters were, without any consciousness of offence, the wives, the\n\u03b1\u1f30\u03b4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03b1\u03b9 \u1f04\u03bb\u03bf\u03c7\u03bf\u03b9, of his six sons[927].\n\n[924] Il. iv. 441.\n\n[925] Od. x. 2.\n\n[926] Od. x. 20.\n\n[927] Od. x. 7.\n\nIn Troy, Helen apparently becomes the wife of two brothers in\nsuccession. We must not overrate the force of merely negative evidence,\nbut it will be observed that Homer does not furnish us with any trace\nof this usage among the Greeks. The story of Ph\u0153nix probably implies,\nthat the connection of the same woman with a father and a son was\nincestuous; for the full efficacy of the remedy proposed by his mother\nturns on the supposition, that there would remain to his father no\nalternative but incest after Ph\u0153nix had gained his object, and that\nsuch an alternative would at once deter him from the love of the\nstranger.\n\nIn Scheria, Alcinous is married to Arete, the daughter of his elder\nbrother Rhexenor[928]. Tyro was the wife of Cretheus, and was\napparently also his niece[929]. Again, we appear to find in the Iliad\nan example of a marriage, by one shade yet less desirable, that of\na man with his aunt. Tydeus, the father of Diomed, was married to a\ndaughter of Adrastus: and \u00c6gialeia the wife of Diomed, as she is called\n\u1f08\u03b4\u03c1\u03b7\u03c3\u03c4\u03af\u03bd\u03b7, was probably his aunt likewise[930].\n\n[928] Od. vii. 65, 6.\n\n[929] See Ach\u00e6is, sect. ix. Od. xi. 235-7.\n\n[930] Il. iv. 121.\n\nWe have also among the Trojans an example of a man\u2019s marriage with his\naunt. Iphidamas, son of Antenor[931], was brought up in the house of\nCisses his maternal grandfather; and he contracted a marriage with his\nmother\u2019s sister just before proceeding to the war.\n\n[931] Il. xi. 220-6.\n\nAt the same time, the law of incest is clearly a progressive one from\nthe infancy of mankind onwards, and what we have to consider is not\nso much its precise extent, as the degree of genuine aversion with\nwhich the violation of it is regarded. Upon this subject there can be\nno doubt, when we read the passage in the Eleventh Odyssey respecting\nthe \u03bc\u03ad\u03b3\u03b1 \u1f14\u03c1\u03b3\u03bf\u03bd of \u0152dipus and Epicaste, and the fearful consequences\nwhich, though it was done in ignorance, it entailed upon them[932]. In\nprinciple, then, that restriction of the field of choice, which adds\nso greatly to the intimacy and firmness of the marriage tie, was fully\nrecognised in Greece.\n\n[932] Od. xi. 271-80.\n\nNeither do we want traces in Homer of that remarkable effect of the\nunifying power of marriage, which confers upon each partner in the\nunion an equal and common relation to the family of the other, by a\nconvention which has so much of the moral strength of fact. The most\nremarkable of all the indications upon this subject in the poems is\nthat, which relates to the future life of Menelaus. He is said to\nbe elected to the honour of a place in the region of Elysium after\nthis life, not in virtue of his own merits, but as being, through his\nmarriage with Helen, the son-in-law of Jupiter.\n\nThe recognition of relationships through the wife or husband to the\nhusband or wife respectively, and the existence of names to describe\nthem, is a sign of the completeness of the union effected by the\nmarriage tie. That these terms were not merely formal and ceremonious,\nwe may judge from the speech of Alcinous:\n\n \u1f26 \u03c4\u03af\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u03b9 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c0\u03b7\u1f78\u03c2 \u1f00\u03c0\u03ad\u03c6\u03b8\u03b9\u03c4\u03bf \u1f38\u03bb\u03b9\u03cc\u03b8\u03b9 \u03c0\u03c1\u1f78\n \u1f10\u03c3\u03b8\u03bb\u1f78\u03c2 \u1f10\u1f7c\u03bd, \u03b3\u03b1\u03bc\u03b2\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u1f22 \u03c0\u03b5\u03bd\u03b8\u03b5\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2, \u03bf\u1f35\u03c4\u03b5 \u03bc\u03ac\u03bb\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\n \u03ba\u03ae\u03b4\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03b9 \u03c4\u03b5\u03bb\u03ad\u03b8\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9, \u03bc\u03b5\u03b8\u2019 \u03b1\u1f37\u03bc\u03ac \u03c4\u03b5 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b3\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd[933].\n\n[933] Od. viii. 581-3.\n\nNow of these words we have the following;\n\n\u03c0\u03b7\u1f78\u03c2, for any relative by affinity;\n\n\u1f10\u03ba\u03c5\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2, \u03c0\u03b5\u03bd\u03b8\u03b5\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2, father-in-law;\n\n\u1f10\u03ba\u03c5\u03c1\u1f74, mother-in-law;\n\n\u03b4\u03b1\u1f74\u03c1, brother-in-law;\n\n\u03b3\u03b1\u03bb\u03bf\u1f7c\u03c2, sister-in-law;\n\n\u03b3\u03b1\u03bc\u03b2\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2, son-in-law;\n\n\u03bd\u03c5\u1f78\u03c2, daughter-in-law;\n\n\u03bc\u03b7\u03c4\u03c1\u03c5\u03af\u03b7, stepmother; or the lawful wife, in relation to a spurious son.\nThere is but one real example, Eerib\u0153a, of a stepmother in Homer (Il.\nv. 389).\n\nAnd, lastly, we have \u03b5\u1f30\u03bd\u03b1\u03c4\u03b5\u1f76\u03c1, husband\u2019s sister-in-law, a relationship\nnot expressed by any word in the English and many other languages. The\n\u03b5\u1f30\u03bd\u03b1\u03c4\u03ad\u03c1\u03b5\u03c2 are always separate from the \u03b3\u03b1\u03bb\u03cc\u1ff3.\n\nThe formation of this large circle of relationships by affinity is the\ncorrelative to a well-defined strictness in the marriage law. For these\nrelationships would mean nothing, but would simply betoken and even\nbreed confusion, unless marriage were perpetual and incest eschewed.\n\nFriedreich[934] truly observes, that the law of incest, instead of\nbeing tightened, was relaxed at a later period in Greece; a very\ndecided mark of moral retrogression, which cannot be cancelled by all\nthe splendours of her history.\n\n[934] Realien, c. III. ii.\n\n~_Fidelity in married life._~\n\n5. We come now to the remaining question; how was this great\nobligation practically observed in the Greece of the heroic age?\n\nPart, at least, of the answer is easy to give. By women it was observed\nadmirably. Except only in the case of Anteia, two generations old,\nthere is no instance in Homer of a woman who seeks the breach of\nit. The forcible or half forcible seduction[935], and progressive\ncontamination, of a part of the unmarried women who belong to the\nhousehold of Ulysses, is one of the three great crimes which draw\ndown from Heaven such fearful vengeance upon the Suitors. Of the\n\u03c0\u03b1\u03bb\u03bb\u03b1\u03ba\u1f76\u03c2, we hear but twice in the poems; nor can we say that this word\nmeant more than a concubine[936]. Among the Greek chieftains, cases\nof homicide are more frequent than those of bastardy. And when such\ninstances are mentioned, it is not in the hardened manner of later\ntimes.\n\n[935] Od. xxii. 37, \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b5\u03c5\u03bd\u03ac\u03b6\u03b5\u03c3\u03b8\u03b5 \u03b2\u03b9\u03b1\u03af\u03c9\u03c2.\n\n[936] Il. ix. 449. Od. xiv. 203.\n\nIt is something at least that, in such matters, a nation should be\nalive to shame. We have various signs that this was so in Greece. One\nof them is the tender expression[937]:\n\n[937] Il. ii. 514, cf. xvi 184.\n\n \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b8\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 \u03b1\u1f30\u03b4\u03bf\u03af\u03b7, \u1f51\u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03ce\u03ca\u03bf\u03bd \u03b5\u1f30\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd\u03b1\u03b2\u1fb6\u03c3\u03b1.\n\nIt must be remembered, when we touch upon these morbid parts in human\nlife and nature, that the society of that period did not avail itself\nof the expedient of the professional corruption of a part of womankind\nin order to relieve the virtue of the residue from assault.\n\nAmong the Greek chieftains and their families, Polydore, a sister of\nAchilles, had a spurious son[938]. Nestor[939] sprang from a father of\nspurious birth. Each Ajax had a spurious brother. Only Menelaus of all\nthe chiefs is mentioned as having himself had an illegitimate son. This\nson, who has the touching name of Megapenthes, was born to him by a\nslave, evidently after the rape of Helen; he was apparently recognised\nin part; his marriage was celebrated at the same time with that of his\nlegitimate sister Hermione, but it was contracted with a person of\nlower station. He was \u03c4\u03b7\u03bb\u03cd\u03b3\u03b5\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2, the last as well as the first; though\nHelen, owing, as the Poet intimates, to a divine decree, had no more\nchildren, with whom to console her husband, after her return from the\nabduction.\n\n[938] Il. xvi. 175.\n\n[939] Od. xi. 254.\n\nThe superior rank conferred by lawful birth is in every case strongly\nmarked; and this perhaps is the reason why we never find the succession\nto sovereignty in Greece disturbed by illegitimate offspring.\n\nThe great majority of illegitimate births in Homer are those ascribed\nto the paternity of deities. It is probable that this extraction\nmay be pleaded to cover sometimes marriages which were conceived to\nbe beneath the station of the woman; sometimes instances like that\nof Astyoche[940], when war had both excited passion, and provided\nopportunities and victims for its gratification[941]. Setting these\ncases aside, the cases of illegitimacy in heroic Greece appear to be\nrare.\n\n[940] Il. ii. 658-60.\n\n[941] Ach\u00e6is, or Ethnology, Sect. ix. p. 534.\n\nAt the same time, instances are found[942] in which a spurious\nchild (only, however, I think in the case of a son) is brought up\nin a manner approaching to that of the legitimate offspring: and a\ncertain relationship is acknowledged to exist, for the wife is said\nto be \u03bc\u03b7\u03c4\u03c1\u03c5\u03af\u03b7, or step-mother, to the illegitimate son. In the case\nof Ped\u00e6us, it was Theano, Antenor\u2019s wife, who herself educated the\nbastard: but it is plain that in Troas concubinage was far more fully\nrecognised, than in Greece.\n\n[942] Il. v. 69-71. Od. xiv. 203.\n\nAgamemnon in the First Iliad, as we have seen, when announcing his\nattention to make Chryseis a partner of his bed, by no means treats\nthis concubinage as being what it would have been with Priam, a matter\nof course and requiring no apology, but founds it upon his preferring\nher to his wife Clytemnestra[943].\n\n[943] Il. i. 112.\n\nIn the camp before the walls of Troy it certainly appears as if by\nthe use of the word \u03b3\u03ad\u03c1\u03b1\u03c2, prize, Homer might, as it is commonly\nassumed, mean to indicate, for most of the principal chiefs, that they\nhad captives taken in war for concubines. But the point is far from\nclear; and at any rate Menelaus, as is observed by Athen\u00e6us, forms\nan exception[944]. This circumstance affords rather a marked proof\nof Greek ideas with respect to the durability of the marriage tie;\nfor that author is probably right in ascribing it to his being, as it\nwere, in the presence of his wife Helen. This concubinage, however,\nappears to have been single in each case where it prevailed; or, if it\nwas otherwise, Homer has at least deemed the circumstance unfit to be\nrecorded. There is no sign that the seven Lesbian damsels of Il. ix.\n128 were concubines.\n\n[944] Athen. xiii. 3. \u1f45\u03c4\u03b9 \u03bf\u1f50\u03b4\u03b1\u03bc\u1ff6\u03c2 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u1f38\u03bb\u03b9\u03ac\u03b4\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f4d\u03bc\u03b7\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c0\u03bf\u03af\u03b7\u03c3\u03b5 \u039c\u03b5\u03bd\u03b5\u03bb\u03ac\u1ff3\n\u03c3\u03c5\u03b3\u03ba\u03bf\u03b9\u03bc\u03c9\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03b7\u03bd \u03c0\u03b1\u03bb\u03bb\u03b1\u03ba\u03af\u03b4\u03b1, \u03c0\u1fb6\u03c3\u03b9 \u03b4\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 \u03b3\u03c5\u03bd\u03b1\u1fd6\u03ba\u03b1\u03c2.\n\nAchilles, after the removal of Briseis, had Diomede[945] for the\ncompanion of his couch. But Briseis appears to have had his attachment\nin a peculiar degree. He calls her his \u1f04\u03bb\u03bf\u03c7\u03bf\u03bd \u03b8\u03c5\u03bc\u03ac\u03c1\u03b5\u03b1[946]. It is said\nthat the word \u1f04\u03bb\u03bf\u03c7\u03bf\u03c2 may mean a concubine[947]. I do not find any\npassage in Homer, except this of Il. ix., where it may not with the\nmost obvious propriety be translated \u2018wife.\u2019 It has its highest force,\nno doubt, in such expressions as \u03bc\u03bd\u03b7\u03c3\u03c4\u1f74 \u1f04\u03bb\u03bf\u03c7\u03bf\u03c2 and \u03ba\u03bf\u03c5\u03c1\u03b9\u03b4\u03af\u03b7 \u1f04\u03bb\u03bf\u03c7\u03bf\u03c2:\neven as we say intensively \u2018wedded wife.\u2019 But the term is the standing\nphrase for wife, as much as \u03c4\u03ad\u03ba\u03bd\u03b1 for children; and it is impossible,\nconsistently with what we see of the usages of marriage among the\nGreeks, to suppose that the same term was alike applicable to wives\nand concubines. Nor is it necessary to draw such a conclusion from\nthis passage. We might be tempted to suppose, that Achilles here puts\na strain as it were upon the use of the word, and for the moment calls\nBriseis his wife, in order to prepare the way for the tremendous and\npiercing sarcasm which immediately follows[948]:\n\n[945] Il. ix. 664.\n\n[946] Ibid. 336.\n\n[947] Damm, Liddell and Scott. In Od. iv. 623, Nitzsch considers that\n\u1f04\u03bb\u03bf\u03c7\u03bf\u03b9 must mean wives of the \u03b4\u03b1\u03b9\u03c4\u03cd\u03bc\u03bf\u03bd\u03b5\u03c2. In Od. ix. 115, I find no\nreason for departing from the plain meaning of wives. It would be\ngiving too much credit to the Cyclopes for civilization, were we to\nsuppose that they recognised a distinction between wife and concubine.\n\n[948] Il. ix. 340.\n\n \u1f26 \u03bc\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9 \u03c6\u03b9\u03bb\u03ad\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u2019 \u1f00\u03bb\u03cc\u03c7\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 \u03bc\u03b5\u03c1\u03cc\u03c0\u03c9\u03bd \u1f00\u03bd\u03b8\u03c1\u03ce\u03c0\u03c9\u03bd\n \u1f08\u03c4\u03c1\u03b5\u1fd6\u03b4\u03b1\u03b9;\n\nBut we may, I think, more justly, and without any resort to figure,\nobserve, that the whole argument of this passage turns upon and\nrequires us to suppose his having treated Briseis as he would have\ntreated a wife. So likewise his declaration, that every good man loves\nand cares for his wife, becomes insipid, and the whole comparison with\nthe case of Menelaus senseless, unless we are to give the force of wife\nto the name \u1f04\u03bb\u03bf\u03c7\u03bf\u03c2.\n\nProbably the explanation may be, that she was designated for marriage\nwith him; for in the Nineteenth Book, where she utters a lamentation\nover Patroclus, she declares how that chief kindly encouraged her to\nbear up in her widowhood and captivity, promising that she should\nbe the wife of Achilles, and that the banquets, which, with their\nattendant sacrifices, seem to have constituted for the Homeric Greeks\nthe ceremonial of marriage, should be celebrated on their return to\nPhthia[949]. I should therefore suppose that we might with strict\njustice render \u1f04\u03bb\u03bf\u03c7\u03bf\u03c2, in Il. ix. 336, \u2018my bride;\u2019 always remembering\nthat we are dealing with a relation that was not governed by rules, and\nthat might virtually inure by usage only.\n\n[949] Il. xix. 295-9.\n\nThe subsequent passage[950], in which the hero speaks of marrying some\ndamsel of Hellas or Phthia, is quite consistent with this construction,\nfor, as it is plain that no actual marriage had been concluded between\nthem, his relation to Briseis terminated with her removal _de facto_.\nThe same passage, as well as the custom of Greece, makes it reasonable\nto understand that the mother of Neoptolemus, whoever she may have\nbeen, was now dead.\n\n[950] Il. ix. 395-7.\n\n~_Mode of contracting marriage._~\n\nIndeed it is to be remembered all along, that we are speaking of\na state, rather than an act. We know nothing of a ceremonial of\nHomeric marriage beyond the exchange of gifts and the celebration of\nfestivities in connection with the domicile, neither of which could\nordinarily have place in the case of a captive while continuing such.\nShe would grow into a wife in virtue of intention on the part of her\nlord, confirmed by habit, and sealed by a full recognition when the\ncircumstances, that would alone admit of it, should have arrived.\n\nThe concubinage of the Greek chiefs, practised as it was during a long\nabsence from home, bears an entirely different domestic and social\ncharacter from that of Priam. It clearly constitutes, especially if the\nconnections were single, the mildest and least licentious of all the\nforms in which the obligations of the marriage tie could be relaxed.\n\nThe presence of a concubine within the precinct of the family seems to\nhave been differently viewed by the Greeks; for here, and here only,\ndo we find the disparaging word \u03c0\u03b1\u03bb\u03bb\u03b1\u03ba\u1f76\u03c2 (whence the Latin _pellex_)\napplied to a person in that position. The two cases of it are as\nfollows. In one of them Ulysses feigns a story of his having been a\nson of the Cretan Castor, born of a \u03c0\u03b1\u03bb\u03bb\u03b1\u03ba\u1f76\u03c2, but (which he mentions\nas a departure from the general rule) regarded by his father as much\nas were his legitimate children[951]. The other is the instance of\nPh\u0153nix in the Ninth Iliad. Amyntor his father had an intended or actual\nconcubine; and, bestowing his affections on her, slighted the mother\nof his child. She, in resentment or self-defence, entreated her son\nPh\u0153nix to cross or anticipate his father[952], and win the woman to his\nown embraces[953]. He complied; and thus drew down upon himself the\ndire wrath and curses of his father, which kindled his own anger in\nreturn; but he restrained himself from the act of parricide, and became\na fugitive instead. This legend is somewhat obscure; but it appears\nto indicate plainly that concubinage was not a recognised institution\namong the Greeks, as it seems to have been among the Trojans.\n\n[951] Od. xiv. 199-204.\n\n[952] The expression is \u03c0\u03b1\u03bb\u03bb\u03b1\u03ba\u03af\u03b4\u03b9 \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03bc\u03b9\u03b3\u1fc6\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9.\n\n[953] Il. ix. 447, and seqq.\n\nSo again, when Laertes had purchased Euryclea[954], we are told that he\nnever attempted to make her his concubine, anticipating the resentment\nof his wife. It is plain, therefore, that this would have been an\nadmitted offence on his part; and accordingly, that concubinage was\ncontrary to the ideas of Greece respecting conjugal obligation.\n\n[954] Od. i. 433.\n\n~_Dignity of conjugal manners._~\n\nWithin the precinct of the Greek marriages, which was secured and\nfenced in the manner we have seen, there prevailed that tenderness,\nfreedom, and elevation of manners, which was the natural offspring\nof a system in the main so sound and strict. The general tone of the\nrelations of husband and wife in the Homeric poems is thoroughly\nnatural; it is full of dignity and warmth; a sort of noble deference,\nreciprocally adjusted according to the position of the giver and\nthe receiver, prevails on either side. I will venture to add, it is\nfull also of delicacy, though we must be content to distinguish,\nin considering this point, between what is essential and what is\nconventional, and must make some allowance for the directness and\nsimplicity of expression that characterized an artless age[955].\n\n[955] See Friedreich, Realien, c. ii. \u00a7. 56. pp. 196-200, where this\nsubject is excellently treated.\n\nWith this delicacy was combined a not less remarkable freedom in the\nGreek manners with respect to women. We find Penelope appearing in\nher palace at will, on all ordinary occasions, before the Suitors;\nalthough, on the other hand, no woman would be present where any thing\nlike license was to be exhibited, as we may judge from the case of the\nlay of Demodocus in the Eighth Odyssey. The general freedom of woman is\nhowever most fully exhibited in the case of Nausicaa. She goes forth\ninto the country with her maidens unattended. When Ulysses appears\nthere is no fear of him as a man, or even as a stranger, but only from\nhis condition at the moment. This difficulty she surmounts with a\ndignity which she could not have possessed by virtue of her personal\ncharacter only, nor except in a case where great liberty was habitually\nand traditionally enjoyed by women.\n\nHer arrangement of the manner in which he is to enter the city apart\nfrom her, and her regard in this matter to opinion, both rest upon the\nsame presumption of her freedom from petty control, as does her playful\ndemand upon Ulysses for \u03b6\u03c9\u03ac\u03b3\u03c1\u03b9\u03b1, or salvage.\n\nAgain, how remarkable it is that Alcinous, far from being surprised\nthat his maiden daughter should have entered into conversation with\na stranger, is actually on the point of finding fault with her for\nnot having shown a greater forwardness, and brought him home in\nher own company: a reproach, from which Ulysses saves her by his\nintercession[956].\n\n[956] Od. vii. 298, 307.\n\n~_Social position of the wife._~\n\nIt is not only from this or that particular, but it is from the whole\ntone of the intercourse maintained between men and women, that we are\nreally to judge what is the social position of the latter.\n\nAnd this tone it is which supplies such conclusive evidence with\nrespect to the age of Homer. Achilles observes, that love and care[957]\ntowards a wife are a matter of course with every right-minded man.\nLove and care, indeed, may be shown to a pet animal. It is not on the\nmere words, therefore, that we must rest our conclusions; but upon\nthe spirit in which they are spoken, and the whole circle of signs\nwith which they are associated. It is on the reciprocity of all those\nsentiments between man and wife, father and daughter, son and mother,\nwhich are connected with the moral dignity of the human being. It is\non the confidence exchanged between them, and the loving liberty of\nadvice and exhortation from the one to the other. The social equality\nof man and woman is of course to be understood with reserves, as is\nthat other equality, which nevertheless indicates a political truth of\nthe utmost importance, the equality of all classes in the eye of the\nlaw. There are differences in the nature and constitution of the two\ngreat divisions of the race, to be met by adaptations of treatment\nand of occupation; without such adaptations, the seeming equality\nwould be partiality alike dangerous and irrational. But, subject to\nthose reserves, we find in Homer the fulness of moral and intelligent\nbeing alike consummate, alike acknowledged, on the one side and on the\nother. The conversation of Hector and Andromache in the Sixth Iliad,\nof Ulysses and Penelope in the Twenty-third Odyssey, the position of\nArete at the court of Alcinous, and that of Helen in the palace of\nMenelaus, all tell one and the same tale. Ulysses, for example, where\nhe wishes to convey his supplication in Scheria to the King, does it by\nfalling at the Queen\u2019s feet: but she does not supplicate her husband:\nthe address to her seems to have sufficed. And Helen appears, in the\npalace of Menelaus, on such a footing relatively to her husband, as\nwould perfectly befit the present relations of man and woman. Nay, we\nmay take the speech of Helen in the Sixth Iliad, addressed to Hector,\nwhere she touches on the character of Paris, as equal to any of them\nby way of social indication. What we there read is not the sagacity or\nintelligence of the speaker, but it is the right of the wife (so to\ncall her) to speak about the character of her husband and its failings,\nher acknowledged possession of the standing ground from which she can\nso speak, and speak with firmness, nay, even with an authority of her\nown.\n\n[957] Il. ix. 341.\n\nWhen we see Briseis, the widow of a prince, sharing the bed of\nAchilles, and delivered over as a slave into the hands of Agamemnon,\nwhen we find Hector anticipating that Andromache might be required to\nperform menial offices for a Greek mistress, and Nestor encouraging\nthe army not to quit Troy until they had forced the Trojan matrons\ninto their embraces, we are struck with pity and horror. But we must\nseparate between the danger and suffering which uniformly dogs the weak\nin times of violence, most of all, too, after the sack of a city, and\nwhat belongs to the age of Homer in particular. After this separation\nhas been effected, there remains nothing which ought to depress our\nviews of the position of woman in the heroic age. The sons of Priam,\nprinces of Troy, were sold into captivity by Achilles as he took\nthem[958]: of course the purchasers put them to menial employments.\nNot only so, but Eum\u00e6us, the faithful swineherd and slave of Ulysses,\nwas by birth royal: his father Ctesios was king of two wealthy and\nhappy cities[959]. From the name \u0395\u1f50\u03c1\u03c5\u03bc\u03ad\u03b4\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b1, it would appear probable\nthat she also, the chamber-woman of the palace of Alcinous, though a\ncaptive, was of noble birth[960].\n\n[958] Il. xxi. 40.\n\n[959] Od. xv. 413.\n\n[960] Od. vii. 8.\n\nThere is not in the whole of the poems an instance of rude or abusive\nmanners towards woman as such, or of liberties taken with them in\nthe course of daily life. If Melantho gets hard words, it is not as\na woman, but for her vice and insolence. The conduct of the Ithacan\nSuitors to Penelope, as it is represented in the Odyssey, affords the\nstrongest evidence of the respect in which women were held. Her son had\nbeen a child: there was no strong party of adherents to the family; yet\nthe highflown insolence of the Suitors, demanding that she should marry\nagain, is kept at bay for years, and never proceeds to violence.\n\n~_Force of conjugal attachments._~\n\nWe find throughout the poems those signs of the overpowering force\nof conjugal attachments which, from all that has preceded, we might\nexpect. While admitting the superior beauty of Calypso as an Immortal,\nUlysses frankly owns to her that his heart is pining every day for\nPenelope[961]. It is the highest honour of a hero to die fighting\non behalf of his wife and children. The continuance of domestic\nhappiness, and the concord of man and wife, is a blessing so great,\nthat it excites the envy of the gods, and they interrupt it by some\nadverse dispensation[962]. And no wonder; for nothing has earth to\noffer better, than when man and wife dwell together in unity of spirit:\ntheir friends rejoice, their foes repine: the human heart has nothing\nmore to desire[963]. There is here apparently involved that great and\ncharacteristic idea of the conjugal relation, that it includes and\nconcentrates in itself all other loves. And this very idea is expressed\nby Andromache, where, after relating the slaughter of her family by\nAchilles, she tells Hector, \u2018Hector, nay but thou art for me a father,\nand a mother, and a brother, as well as the husband of my youth[964].\u2019\nTo which he in the same spirit of enlarged attachment replies, by\nsaying that neither the fate of Troy, which he sees approaching, nor of\nHecuba, nor of Priam, nor of his brothers, can move his soul like the\nthought, that Andromache will as a captive weave the web, and bear the\npitcher, for some dame of Messe or of Hypereia[965].\n\n[961] Od. v. 215.\n\n[962] Od. xxiii. 210.\n\n[963] Od. vi. 180-5.\n\n[964] Il. vi. 429, 30. Compare the following: _Domino suo, im\u00f2 Patri;\nconjugi suo, im\u00f2 Fratri; ancilla sua, im\u00f2 filia: ipsius uxor, im\u00f2\nsoror; Ab\u00e6lardo, Heloissa_. Ab\u00e6l. Opp.\n\n[965] Il. vi. 450-7.\n\n~_Woman-characters of Homer._~\n\nWith the pictures which we thus find largely scattered over the poems,\nof the relations of woman to others, the characters which Homer has\ngiven us of woman herself are in thorough harmony. Among his living\ncharacters we do not find the viragos, the termagants, the incarnate\nfiends, of the later legends. Nay, the woman of Homer never dreams\nof using violence, even as a protection against wrong. It must be\nadmitted, that he does not even present to us the heroine in any more\npronounced form, than that of the moral endurance of Penelope. The\nheroine proper, the Joan of Arc, is certainly a noble creation: but\nyet one perhaps implying a state of things more abnormal, than that\nwhich had been reached by the Greeks of the Homeric age. The pictures\nof women, which Homer presents to us, are perfect pictures; but they\nare pictures simply of mothers, matrons, sisters, daughters, maidens,\nwives. The description which the Poet has given us of the violence\nand depravity of Clytemnestra, is the genuine counterpart of his high\nconception of the nature of woman[966]:\n\n[966] Od. xi. 427.\n\n \u1f63\u03c2 \u03bf\u1f50\u03ba \u03b1\u1f30\u03bd\u03cc\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03ba\u03cd\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd \u1f04\u03bb\u03bb\u03bf \u03b3\u03c5\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9\u03ba\u1f78\u03c2,\n \u1f25\u03c4\u03b9\u03c2 \u03b4\u1f74 \u03c4\u03bf\u03b9\u03b1\u1fe6\u03c4\u03b1 \u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u1f70 \u03c6\u03c1\u03b5\u03c3\u1f76\u03bd \u1f14\u03c1\u03b3\u03b1 \u03b2\u03ac\u03bb\u03b7\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9.\n\nFor, in proportion as that nature is elevated and pure, does it become\nmore shameful and degraded when, by a total suppression of its better\ninstincts, it has been given over to wickedness.\n\nOf the minor infirmities of our nature, as well as of its grosser\nfaults, the women of Homer betray much less than the men. Nowhere has\nhe introduced into a prominent position the character of a vicious\nwoman. The only instance of the kind is among a portion of the female\nattendants in the palace of Ulysses, where, out of fifty, no more\nthan twelve were at last the willing tools, having at first[967]\nbeen the reluctant victims, of the lust of the proud and rapacious\nband of Suitors. Clytemnestra, indeed, appears as a lofty criminal\nin the perspective of the poem, but her wickedness, too, is wholly\nderivative. \u00c6gisthus corrupts her by a long course of effort, for,\nas Homer informs us, she had been a right-minded person; \u03c6\u03c1\u03b5\u03c3\u1f76 \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1\n\u03ba\u03ad\u03c7\u03c1\u03b7\u03c4\u2019 \u1f00\u03b3\u03b1\u03b8\u1fc7\u03c3\u03b9[968]. On the one side we have only to place her and\nthe saucy slut Melantho; on the other, we have Andromache, Hecuba, and\nBriseis in the Iliad; in the Odyssey, Penelope and Euryclea, Arete\nand Nausicaa; the slightly drawn figures, such as that of the mother\nof Ulysses in the Eleventh Odyssey, are in the same spirit as the\nmore full delineations. There is not a single case in the poems to\nqualify the observation, first, that the woman of Homer is profoundly\nfeminine: secondly, that she is commonly the prop of virtue, rarely the\ninstrument, and (in this reversing the order of the first temptation)\nnever the source, of corruption.\n\n[967] Od. xxii. 37.\n\n[968] Od. iii. 266.\n\nIn company with all that we have seen, we likewise find that the\nlimits of the position of woman are carefully marked, and that she\nfully comprehends them. There is nowhere throughout the poems a single\neffort at self-assertion: the ground that she holds, she holds without\ndispute. If at any point a stumblingblock could be likely to be found,\nit would be between a mother just parting with her authority, and\na son newly come of age. Yet Penelope and Telemachus never clash,\nand thoroughly understand one another. Again, the Homeric man, even\nthe Homeric good man, is sometimes the subject of hasty, vehement,\nand tumultuous passions; the woman never. She finds her power in\ngentleness; she rules with a silken thread; she is eminent for the\nuniformity of her self-command, and for the observance of measure in\nall the relations of life. The misogynism which marked Euripides and\nother later writers has, and could have, no place in Homer: the moral\nstandard of his women is higher than that of his men; their office,\nwhich they perform without fault, is to love and to minister, and their\nreward to lean on those whom they serve.\n\nThe lower aspect of the relation between the two sexes is in the poems\nwholly secondary. All that tends to sensualize it is commonly repelled\nor hidden, and, when brought into mention at all, is yet carefully and\nanxiously depressed. Even the cases of exception, which lie beyond the\npale of marriage, are kept in a certain analogy with it, and are as\nfar as possible removed from the promiscuous and brutal indulgence,\nwhich marked the later Pagan ages, including those of the greatest\npride and splendour, and which still so deeply taints the societies of\nChristendom.\n\nWe may find, if it be needed, some further evidence of the high\nposition of woman upon earth in the relation subsisting between the\nHomeric gods and goddesses respectively. For that relation approaches\nas nearly as may be to equality in force and intelligence, while in\npurity the latter are on the whole superior. After Jupiter, the deities\nmost elevated in Homer are, Juno and Minerva, Neptune and Apollo; and\nof all these, I think, we must consider Minerva to have stood first in\nhis estimation. This arrangement could not but harmonize with, while it\nalso serves to measure, his ideas of the earthly place and character of\nwoman.\n\nA similar inference is suggested by the tendency of the Greeks to\nenshrine many ideas, sometimes great, and occasionally both great and\ngood, in feminine impersonations.\n\nWe will, lastly, inquire into the employments of women in the heroic\nage; both to ascertain how nearly they could approach to the summits\nof society, and also what was their general share in the division of\noccupations.\n\n~_Women were admitted to sovereignty._~\n\nAmong nations where war, homicide, and piracy so extensively prevailed,\nit is certainly deserving of peculiar consideration, that we should\nfind any traces of the exercise of sovereignty by a woman. There are\nhowever three cases in the poems, which in a greater or less degree\nserve to imply that it was neither unknown nor wholly unfamiliar.\n\n1. Andromache states, that her mother was queen in Hypoplacian Thebes.\nThe word is \u03b2\u03b1\u03c3\u03af\u03bb\u03b5\u03c5\u03b5\u03bd[969]. It implies more than being the mere wife of\na king; though, as it was during the life time of her husband Eetion,\nwe cannot justly infer from it that there was here any exercise of\nindependent sovereign power. It is the only instance in the Iliad,\nwhere we have any word, that has \u03b2\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03bb\u03b5\u1f7a\u03c2 for its basis, applied to a\nwoman.\n\n[969] Il. vi. 425.\n\n2. The common tradition is, that Jason acquired possession of Lemnos\nby marriage with Hypsipyle its queen. This is so far supported by\nHomer that, while Jason clearly appears in the poems as a Greek,\nwe notwithstanding find his son sovereign of Lemnos, without any\nindication of a conquest or regular migration, and Hypsipyle is\nmentioned as his mother. The simple fact that the mother, contrary\nto Homer\u2019s usual practice, is in this case named as well as the\nfather, raises a presumption that it is because she had reigned in the\nisland[970].\n\n[970] Il. vii. 468, 9.\n\nIn the Eleventh Odyssey we are told that Neleus, the younger of the two\nillegitimate sons of Tyro, came to dwell in Pylos, and that he married\nChloris, the youngest daughter of Amphion an Iasid, giving large\npresents to obtain her hand[971]. The text proceeds,\n\n[971] Od. xi. 254-7, 281-5.\n\n \u1f21 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03a0\u03cd\u03bb\u03bf\u03c5 \u03b2\u03b1\u03c3\u03af\u03bb\u03b5\u03c5\u03b5, \u03c4\u03ad\u03ba\u03b5\u03bd \u03b4\u03ad \u03bf\u1f31 \u1f00\u03b3\u03bb\u03b1\u1f70 \u03c4\u03ad\u03ba\u03bd\u03b1.\n\nThis may mean that she became his queen when he was king of Pylos: or\nit may mean that he became her husband when she was already queen there.\n\nThe Odyssey discloses to us the manner in which, under circumstances\nlike those of the Trojan war, sovereign power would naturally pass into\nfemale hands otherwise than by inheritance.\n\nIt would appear that, when Agamemnon set sail for Troy, he left\nClytemnestra in charge of his affairs as well as of his young son\nOrestes, only taking the precaution to provide her with a trustworthy\ncounsellor in the person of his Bard[972]. As it was by inveigling\nClytemnestra that \u00c6gisthus obtained the sovereign power, she must\nevidently have been its depository.\n\n[972] Od. iii. 263-8.\n\nIn like manner it would appear, that Penelope was left in charge\nof Telemachus by Ulysses when he went to Troy, and that Mentor was\nappointed to perform for her some such friendly office, as that which\nthe Bard undertook for Clytemnestra. The statement here is, that\nUlysses committed to him authority over his whole household[973].\nBut it is plain that Penelope had the indoor management; since\nTelemachus speaks of the mode in which she regulated the reception of\nstrangers[974], and we hear of her rule in other matters[975]. Here we\nsee openings for the natural formation of the word \u03b2\u03b1\u03c3\u03af\u03bb\u03b9\u03c3\u03c3\u03b1, which\nseems originally to have meant, not a king\u2019s wife merely, but a woman\nin the actual exercise of royal authority; and which first appears in\nthe Odyssey.\n\n[973] Od. ii. 225-7.\n\n[974] Od. xx. 129-33. comp. xix, 317. sqq.\n\n[975] Od. xxii. 426, 7.\n\nThe ordinary occupation of women of the highest rank in the poems is\nundoubtedly to sit engaged, along with their maidens of the household,\nin spinning, weaving, or embroidery. Thus we find it with Helen,\nPenelope, and Andromache. But when Hector bids Andromache retire to\nthese duties, he speaks of them in contradistinction not to all other\nduties, but to war, which, as he says, is the affair of men. Even this\nrule, however, was subject to exception. The Bellerophon of Homer\nfights with the Amazons[976]; and the part taken by the goddesses in\nthe Theomachy shows, that the idea of women-soldiers was not wholly\nstrange to his mind; as it is in fact to this day, I believe, less\nattractively exemplified in the African kingdom of Dahomey. But manual\nemployments, taken alone, would not afford a just criterion. The\ndialogues of the speeches clearly show that then, as now, the woman was\nconcerned in all that concerned her husband.\n\n[976] Il. vi. 186.\n\n~_And to the service of the gods._~\n\nNext to political supremacy, we may naturally inquire how far women\nwere qualified for the service of the gods.\n\nWe have various signs, more or less clear, of their sharing in it. The\nreference to the Nurses of Dionysus cannot be wholly without force in\nthis direction. The abstraction of Alcyone by Apollo has probably a\nmore positive connection with female ministry. But we are provided,\nas far as Troy at least is concerned, with one clear and conclusive\ninstance. The Sixth Iliad affords us a glimpse of a female priesthood,\nand a worship confined to women, that subsisted among the Trojans.\nHelenus, alarmed at the feats of Diomed, urges Hector to desire Hecuba\nto collect the aged women for a procession to the temple of Athene,\nwith a robe for a gift, and with the promise of a hecatomb (Il. vi.\n75-101). Hector then acquaints the troops, that he was going to\ndesire the old counsellors and the matrons of the city to supplicate\nthe deities, and to promise hecatombs (iii. 15). There seems to be\nsomething of policy in the way in which he thus generalizes, for the\narmy, his account of the design: perhaps afraid of the effect that\nmight be produced by its peculiar character. When he finds Hecuba, he\nlays upon her precisely the injunction that Helenus had recommended.\nShe sends her female servants to collect the aged women through the\ncity (286, 7). She leads them to the temple of Athene in the citadel.\nThey are there received by Theano, who had been appointed, apparently\nby the Trojan public[977], priestess to that deity. Theano takes the\nrobe from Hecuba, and herself offers it and prays. Her prayer is for\nthe city, and not for the men by name, but for the wives and infants:\nand her promise is, _we_ will sacrifice, \u1f31\u03b5\u03c1\u03b5\u03cd\u03c3\u03bf\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd, twelve, not oxen,\nbut heifers, yearlings, untouched by the goad (Il. vi. 296-310). Thus\nthe feminine element runs apart through the whole.\n\n[977] Eustath. in loc.\n\nWe have no reason to conclude that this order of things was\nexceptional; for though the time was one of peculiar danger and\nemergency, the temple, the worship, and the priesthood stand before us\nas belonging to the regular institutions of Troy.\n\nWe have no case like that of Theano among the Greeks. It could, indeed,\nhardly be expected; as priesthood had not yet grown to be an Hellenic\ninstitution. Yet, while the direct force of the narrative speaks for\nTroy alone, we are justified in giving it a more general significance,\nbecause the Greek woman is apparently rather before than behind the\nTrojan one in influence, and in the substantiveness of her position.\n\nIn the Trojan genealogy[978] no notice is taken of women; nor have\nwe any means of judging whether they were regarded as capable of\nsuccession to the throne, or what was their political and historical\nimportance. But among the Greek races this was clearly great. The large\nnumber of women whom Homer has introduced in the realm of Aides, and\nthe parts assigned to them, are plain indications of their important\nshare in the movement of Greek history.\n\n[978] Il. xx. 215-40.\n\n~_Their household employments._~\n\nThe apportionment of the ordinary employments of women appears to have\nbeen managed in general accordance with the suppositions, towards which\nall the foregoing facts would lead us.\n\nWe have them indicated in a great variety of passages of the poems,\nfrom among which we may select two in particular.\n\nThe first relates to Circe and her attendant Nymphs; but we may take it\nas an exact copy of the arrangements of a prince\u2019s household.\n\nCirce has four female servants, who are called \u03b4\u03c1\u03ae\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03b9\u03c1\u03b1\u03b9. The first\nprovides the seats with the proper coverings; the second prepares and\nlays the tables; the third mixes the wine and brings the goblets; the\nfourth carries water, and lights the fire to boil it[979].\n\n[979] Od. x. 348-59.\n\nThe second passage exhibits to us the household of Ulysses at the break\nof day, when the in-door and out-door servants are setting about their\nmorning duties.\n\nThere were fifty women servants. Of these twelve were employed as\nflour-grinders (\u1f00\u03bb\u03b5\u03c4\u03c1\u03af\u03b5\u03c2); and this appears to have been the most\nlaborious employment among all those assigned to women. Eleven of\nthe twelve have finished their task and retired to rest; the twelfth\nremains till the morning at her work, and curses the Suitors who cause\nher such fatigue[980].\n\n[980] Od. xx. 105. Cf. xxii. 421.\n\nIt is now dawn[981]. Part of the maid-servants are lighting the fire.\nThe old but active Euryclea is up betimes, and has[982] the place of\nhousekeeper. She desires a part of them to set smartly about sweeping\nthe house, and putting the proper covers on the furniture; another part\nare to wipe the tables and the cups; a third bevy, no fewer than twenty\nin number, are dispatched for water[983].\n\n[981] Od. xx. 122.\n\n[982] Od. xxii. 425.\n\n[983] Ibid. 149-56, 158.\n\nMeantime the men-servants (\u03b4\u03c1\u03b7\u03c3\u03c4\u1fc6\u03c1\u03b5\u03c2 or \u03b8\u03b5\u03c1\u03ac\u03c0\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2)[984] of the Suitors\nhave made their appearance, and they set about preparing logs for the\nfire. Then come in from the country the swineherd with his swine, the\ngoatherd with his goats; and, from over the water, the cowherd with his\ncow, and with more goats.\n\n[984] Od. xvi. 248, 53. xx. 160.\n\nTaking the general evidence of the poems, it stands thus. Of\nagricultural operations, we find women sharing only in the lighter\nlabours of the vintage[985]; or perhaps acting as shepherdesses[986].\nThe men plough, sow, reap, tend cattle and live stock generally; they\nhunt and they fish; and they carry to the farm the manure that is\naccumulated about the house[987].\n\n[985] Il. xviii. 567.\n\n[986] Such seems to be the most probable meaning of Il. xxii. 126-8.\n\n[987] Od. xvii. 299.\n\nWithin doors, the women seem to have the whole duty in their hands,\nexcept the preparation of firewood and of animal food. The men kill,\ncut up, dress, and carve the animals that are to be eaten. The women,\non the other hand, spin, weave, wash the clothes, clean the house,\ngrind the corn, bake the bread and serve it[988], with all the\nvegetable or mixed food, or what may be called made dishes[989] (\u03b5\u1f34\u03b4\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\n\u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03bb\u03ac). They also prepare the table, and hand the ewer with the basin\nfor washing. And a portion of them act as immediate attendants to the\nmistress of the palace, Andromache, Penelope, or Helen.\n\n[988] Od. iv. 623.\n\n[989] Od. vii. 172-6, et alibi.\n\n~_Their service about the bath._~\n\nThus far all is easy and becoming; but an apparent difficulty confronts\nus when we find, that it was the usage for women to undertake certain\nduties connected with the bathing of men. Sometimes this was done by\nservants; thus it was managed for Telemachus and Pisistratus in the\npalace of Menelaus, and for Ulysses in that of the Ph\u00e6acian king. On\nthe other hand, it was sometimes an office of hospitality rendered by\nwomen, and even by young damsels, of the highest rank, to distinguished\nstrangers of their own age or otherwise. Polycaste, the young and fair\ndaughter of Nestor, (as the text is commonly interpreted,) bathed\nand anointed Telemachus, and put on him a cloak and vest[990]. Helen\nherself, when she was living in Troy, performed the like offices for\nUlysses, on the occasion of his mission thither in the disguise of a\nbeggar[991]:\n\n[990] Od. iii. 464-8.\n\n[991] Od. iv. 252.\n\n \u1f00\u03bb\u03bb\u2019 \u1f45\u03c4\u03b5 \u03b4\u03ae \u03bc\u03b9\u03bd \u1f10\u03b3\u1f7c \u03bb\u03cc\u03b5\u03bf\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c7\u03c1\u1fd6\u03bf\u03bd \u1f10\u03bb\u03b1\u03af\u1ff3,\n \u1f00\u03bc\u03c6\u1f76 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03b5\u1f35\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1 \u1f15\u03c3\u03c3\u03b1....\n\nAnd lastly, the goddess Circe discharged the very same function, with\nsome addition to the description, on behalf of Ulysses her visitor. For\nhere it is explicitly stated, that she poured water over his head and\nshoulders[992]:\n\n[992] Od. x. 361.\n\n \u1f14\u03c2 \u1fe5\u2019 \u1f00\u03c3\u03ac\u03bc\u03b9\u03bd\u03b8\u03bf\u03bd \u1f15\u03c3\u03b1\u03c3\u03b1 \u03bb\u03cc\u2019 \u1f10\u03ba \u03c4\u03c1\u03af\u03c0\u03bf\u03b4\u03bf\u03c2 \u03bc\u03b5\u03b3\u03ac\u03bb\u03bf\u03b9\u03bf,\n \u03b8\u03c5\u03bc\u1fc6\u03c1\u03b5\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b5\u03c1\u03ac\u03c3\u03b1\u03c3\u03b1, \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u1f70 \u03ba\u03c1\u03b1\u03c4\u03cc\u03c2 \u03c4\u03b5 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f64\u03bc\u03c9\u03bd.\n\nThis usage has given occasion, as was perhaps to be expected, to much\ncriticism[993] upon the immodest habits of Homer and his age. Pains\nhave also been taken in their defence[994]. And certainly, if there be\nneed of a defence, Eustathius does not supply one by pleading, that\nit was the custom of the time, and that the Pylian princess doubtless\nacted by the command of her father[995]. What is wanted appears to me\nnot to be defence, but simply the clearing away of misapprehensions as\nto the facts.\n\n[993] See Pope on Od. iii. 464-8.\n\n[994] N\u00e4gelsbach, Hom. Theol. v. 34.\n\n[995] Eustath. in loc. 1477.\n\nIt would assuredly be strange, were we to detect real immodesty\namong such women of the heroic age as Homer has described to us; or\neven among such men. At a period when the exposure, among men only,\nof the person of a man constituted the last extremity of shameful\npunishment[996], and when even in circumstances of the utmost necessity\nUlysses exhibited so much care to avoid anything of the kind[997], it\nis almost of itself incredible that habitually, among persons of the\nhighest rank and character, and without any necessity at all, such\nthings should take place. And, as it is not credible, so neither, I\nthink, is it true.\n\n[996] Il. ii. 260-4.\n\n[997] Od. vi. 126-8.\n\nIt may be observed, that there is no case of ablution thus performed\nin the Iliad. But this appears to be only for the same reason, as that\nwhich makes the meals of the camp more simple, than those which were\nserved in the tranquillity of peace and home.\n\n~_Explanations of the presumed difficulty._~\n\nThe words commonly employed by Homer in this matter refer to two\nseparate parts of the operation: first, the bathing and anointing, then\nthe dressing. They are commonly for the first \u03bb\u03bf\u03cd\u03c9 and \u03c7\u03c1\u03af\u03c9: for the\nsecond \u03b2\u03ac\u03bb\u03bb\u03c9, with the names of the proper vestments added (Od. iii.\n467);\n\n \u1f00\u03bc\u03c6\u1f76 \u03b4\u03ad \u03bc\u03b9\u03bd \u03c6\u1fb6\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2[998] \u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u1f78\u03bd \u03b2\u03ac\u03bb\u03b5\u03bd \u1f20\u03b4\u1f72 \u03c7\u03b9\u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd\u03b1.\n\n[998] Or \u03c7\u03bb\u03b1\u1fd6\u03bd\u03b1\u03bd, as in Od. x. 365.\n\nBut the whole question, in my view, really depends upon this: whether\nthe verbs used mean the performance of a particular operation, or the\ngiving to the person concerned the means of doing it for himself.\nJust as by feeding the poor, we mean giving them wherewithal to feed\nthemselves. This is the suggestion of Wakefield[999], and I believe it\nto be the satisfactory and conclusive solution of the whole question.\nWe might be prevailed upon to travel a good way in company with Heroic\nsimplicity, and yet not quite be able to reach the point which the\nopposite interpretation would require.\n\n[999] On Pope, Od. iii. 464-8.\n\nI think that the construction, which I have indicated as the proper\none, is conclusively made good, first by the general rules for the\nsense of the words \u03bb\u03bf\u03cd\u03c9, \u03bb\u03bf\u03cd\u03bf\u03bc\u03b1\u03b9, and kindred words in Homer: and\nsecondly, by the detailed evidence of facts.\n\nWhen the guests at a feast wash their hands, the standard expression\nis in the middle voice, \u03c7\u03b5\u03c1\u03bd\u03af\u03c8\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf \u03b4\u2019 \u1f14\u03c0\u03b5\u03b9\u03c4\u03b1. When Ulysses and Diomed\nwashed in the sea, the expression is \u1f31\u03b4\u03c1\u1ff6 \u1f00\u03c0\u03b5\u03bd\u03af\u03b6\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf: when they\nafterwards bathed and anointed themselves, it is \u03bb\u03bf\u03cd\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf, \u03bb\u03bf\u03b5\u03c3\u03c3\u03b1\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03c9,\n\u1f00\u03bb\u03b5\u03b9\u03c8\u03b1\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03c9[1000]. To smear arrows with poison is \u1f30\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 \u03c7\u03c1\u03af\u03b5\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9\n\u03c7\u03b1\u03bb\u03ba\u03ae\u03c1\u03b5\u03b1\u03c2[1001]. For the maidens of Nausicaa, when they bathe and are\nanointed, we have \u03bb\u03bf\u03b5\u03c3\u03c3\u03ac\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9 and \u03c7\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03ac\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9[1002]. In fact the usage\nis general.\n\n[1000] Il. x. 572-7.\n\n[1001] Od. i. 262.\n\n[1002] Od. vi. 96; cf. 219, 20.\n\nThe case stands rather differently with \u03b2\u03ac\u03bb\u03bb\u03c9. Here the active usage\nis, I believe, the common one. But there is ample authority for the\nconverse or active use of the middle voice, which corresponds with the\nmiddle use of the active. As for instance,\n\n \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03af\u03ba\u03b1 \u03b4\u2019 \u1f00\u03bc\u03c6\u2019 \u1f64\u03bc\u03bf\u03b9\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u1f10\u03b2\u03ac\u03bb\u03bb\u03b5\u03c4\u03bf \u03ba\u03ac\u03bc\u03c0\u03c5\u03bb\u03b1 \u03c4\u03cc\u03be\u03b1[1003].\n\n[1003] Il. x. 333. Cf. Od. xi. 427.\n\nThere can therefore surely be no reason to doubt that \u03b2\u03ac\u03bb\u03bb\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd in this\nplace follows the inclination of the leading words of the passages,\nand signifies, that as the water and the oil, so likewise the fresh\nclothing to put on, were given by the damsel for the purpose, but by no\nmeans that the operations, or any of them, were actually performed by\nher.\n\nIf the word \u03b2\u03ac\u03bb\u03bb\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd meant \u2018to put on,\u2019 there would be, as\nEustathius[1004] observes, an \u1f51\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03bb\u03bf\u03b3\u03af\u03b1, for the \u03c7\u03af\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd was as a\nmatter of course put on before the \u03c6\u1fb6\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2. But if it means \u2018to give for\nthe purpose of putting on,\u2019 then there is no solecism in the mode of\nexpression.\n\n[1004] On Od. iii. 467.\n\nWe must not, however, pass by the case of Circe in the Tenth Odyssey,\nwhere, as we have seen, it is stated that the water was actually poured\nby the Sorceress over the head and shoulders of Ulysses. It is also\ntrue that the old word \u03bb\u03bf\u03ad\u03c9, equivalent to \u03bb\u03bf\u03cd\u03c9, is used there in the\nactive voice.\n\nUpon this I observe three things:\n\n1. The statement that the water was poured over his head and shoulders,\nas he sat in the bath, evidently implies that what may be called\nessential decency was preserved.\n\n2. Even if it were not so, we could not in this point argue from the\nmanners or morals of a Ph\u0153nician goddess to those of a Greek damsel.\n\n3. The meaning probably of \u03bb\u03bf\u03ad\u03c9 is middle, in this as well as in the\nother cases: she gave him water to wash with, pouring it over his head\nand shoulders, and then leaving to him the substance of the operation,\nwhich was not completed by this mere act of affusion.\n\n~_Case of Ulysses landed in Scheria._~\n\nFinally, let us consider the evidence from the case of Ulysses in\nScheria, which appears of itself conclusive.\n\n1. In Od. vii. 296. Ulysses says that Nausicaa (according to the\npopular construction of the term) bathed him: \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03bb\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c3\u2019 \u1f10\u03bd \u03c0\u03bf\u03c4\u03b1\u03bc\u1ff7.\n\n2. But from Od. vi. 210, we find that what she did was not to\nbathe him, but to give orders to her attendants that he should be\nbathed,--that is, should be provided with the requisites for bathing.\nHer words were, \u03bb\u03bf\u03cd\u03c3\u03b1\u03c4\u03ad \u03c4\u2019 \u1f10\u03bd \u03c0\u03bf\u03c4\u03b1\u03bc\u1ff7, \u1f45\u03b8\u2019 \u1f10\u03c0\u1f76 \u03c3\u03ba\u03ad\u03c0\u03b1\u03c2 \u1f14\u03c3\u03c4\u2019 \u1f00\u03bd\u03ad\u03bc\u03bf\u03b9\u03bf.\n\n3. Upon this they took him to a recess, gave him clothing and oil,\nand bid him bathe himself, \u1f24\u03bd\u03c9\u03b3\u03bf\u03bd \u03b4\u2019 \u1f04\u03c1\u03b1 \u03bc\u03b9\u03bd \u03bb\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9: upon which he\nrequested them to stand off, as otherwise he could not proceed: \u1f04\u03bd\u03c4\u03b7\u03bd\n\u03b4\u2019 \u03bf\u1f50\u03ba \u1f02\u03bd \u1f10\u03b3\u03ce\u03b3\u03b5 \u03bb\u03bf\u03ad\u03c3\u03c3\u03bf\u03bc\u03b1\u03b9 (ibid. 218-22).\n\nIt would appear therefore, that the statements of Homer give no ground\nwhatever for sinister or disparaging imputation. His pictures do not\nentirely correspond with modern ideas: but they may well leave on our\nminds the impression that, in the period he described, if the standard\nof appearances in this department was lower, that of positive thought\nand action was higher, as well as simpler, than in our own day.\n\nWe have now concluded what it seemed needful to say on the employments\nof women.\n\n~_Subsequent declension of the place of woman._~\n\nIt was, however, little likely that a state of things, such as has been\ndescribed, should last.\n\nThe idea of marriage was in aftertimes greatly lowered, together with\nthe moral tone in general; and the very name of \u03b3\u03ac\u03bc\u03bf\u03c2, with its kindred\nwords, underwent a change of sense, and was made applicable to such a\nrelation as that established between the Greek chieftains in the war of\nTroy and their captives in cases where they had wives already[1005].\n\n[1005] The case of Achilles, who calls Briseis his wife, and who had no\nother, has been already discussed.\n\nThus, in the Hecuba of Euripides, as the mother of Cassandra, she\nintercedes with Agamemnon to avenge the murder of her son Polydorus,\non the ground that the youth had become a \u03ba\u03b7\u03b4\u03b5\u03c3\u03c4\u1f74\u03c2, or relation by\naffinity to Agamemnon, who had a wife already[1006]:\n\n[1006] Hecuba, 817.\n\n \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u1ff6\u03c2 \u03b4\u03c1\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f44\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1 \u03ba\u03b7\u03b4\u03b5\u03c3\u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03c3\u03ad\u03b8\u03b5\u03bd\n \u03b4\u03c1\u03ac\u03c3\u03b5\u03b9\u03c2.\n\nAnd, in the Troades, Cassandra has with Agamemnon certain \u03c3\u03ba\u03cc\u03c4\u03b9\u03b1\n\u03bd\u03c5\u03bc\u03c6\u03b5\u03c5\u03c4\u03ae\u03c1\u03b9\u03b1 (258); and again,\n\n \u03b3\u03b1\u03bc\u03b5\u1fd6 \u03b2\u03b9\u03b1\u03af\u03c9\u03c2 \u03c3\u03ba\u03cc\u03c4\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd \u1f08\u03b3\u03b1\u03bc\u03ad\u03bc\u03bd\u03c9\u03bd \u03bb\u03ad\u03c7\u03bf\u03c2[1007].\n\n[1007] Ibid. 44. cf. ver. 358.\n\nSimilar language is used in the case of Andromache[1008]. The ideas of\nthe heroic age would have admitted no such depravation of marriage.\n\n[1008] Ibid. 724.\n\nIn truth it would seem not only as if, before Christianity appeared,\nnotwithstanding the advance of civilization, the idea and place of\nwoman were below what they should have been, but actually as if, with\nrespect to all that was most essential, they sank with the lapse of\ntime.\n\nThe contrast between the views of the marriage state entertained in\nthe heroic age, and at the period which we regard as the acm\u00e8 of the\nGreek civilization, will, perhaps, be best conceived by referring to\nthe passage ascribed to Demosthenes, as it is quoted by Athen\u00e6us,\nwhich explains succinctly the several uses of prostitutes, concubines,\nand wives, apparently as classes all alike recognised, and without\nany note of a moral difference in their social position and repute\nrespectively. The first are for pleasure, the second for daily use, the\nlast for legitimate offspring, and for good housekeeping[1009].\n\n[1009] Athen\u00e6us xiii. 31. D\u00f6llinger Heid. u. Jud. ix. 31.\n\nAnd yet it continued to be, in the time of Aristotle, a favourable\ndistinction of Greece as compared with the barbarians, that the woman\nwas not with them equivalent to the slave. Throughout their history\nthey continued to be a nation of monogamists, except where they became\nlocally tainted with oriental manners[1010].\n\n[1010] Arist. Pol. I. ii. 4. D\u00f6llinger ix. 25.\n\nAgain, Aristotle, in the Nicomachean Ethics, taking a general survey\nof the relation between man and wife, describes it as a government\nindeed, but as analogous to that natural and perfect form of government\nwhich he terms aristocracy. It is founded on merit and fitness. The man\nleaves to the woman all for which she is best suited, and each kind\ncontributes its particular gifts to make up the common stock.\n\nThere was much, then, of solidity, and permanence in the ground secured\nfor the Greek woman by the heroic age. But the philosopher, sagacious\nand dispassionate as he is, had still a much less elevated view of her\nposition than Homer had exhibited.\n\nThere may[1011], he says, be in a tragedy a good or bad woman, a good\nor a bad slave; there is room for variety even in these; \u03ba\u03b1\u03af \u03c4\u03bf\u03af\u03b3\u03b5 \u1f34\u03c3\u03c9\u03c2\n\u03c4\u03bf\u03cd\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd \u03c4\u1f78 \u03bc\u1f72\u03bd \u03c7\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd \u03c4\u1f78 \u03b4\u1f72 \u1f45\u03bb\u03c9\u03c2 \u03c6\u03b1\u1fe6\u03bb\u03cc\u03bd \u1f10\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9. No such classification,\nno such comparison, could have found place in the heroic age. Yet more\nremarkable is the little postscript assigned to the widows of the\ndead in the funeral oration assigned by Thucydides to Pericles: \u201cIf I\nmust also say a few words, for you that are now widows, concerning\nwhat constitutes the merit of a woman, I will sum up all in one short\nadmonition. It will be much for your character not to sink beneath your\nown actual nature (\u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u1f51\u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03c7\u03bf\u03cd\u03c3\u03b7\u03c2 \u03c6\u03cd\u03c3\u03b5\u03c9\u03c2 \u03bc\u1f74 \u03c7\u03b5\u03af\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u03b9 \u03b3\u03ad\u03bd\u03b5\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9); and to\nbe as little talked about as possible among men, whether for praise or\nfor dispraise[1012].\u201d\n\n[1011] Aristot. Poet. c. 28.\n\n[1012] Thuc. ii. 45.\n\n\n\n\nSECT. X.\n\n_The office of the Homeric Poems in relation to that of the early Books\nof Holy Scripture._\n\n\nEven if they are regarded in no other light than as literary treasures,\nthe position, both of the oldest books among the Sacred Scriptures,\nand, next to them, of the Homeric poems, is so remarkable, as not\nonly to invite, but to command the attention of every inquirer into\nthe early condition of mankind. Each of them opens to us a scene, of\nwhich we have no other literary knowledge. Each of them is, either\nwholly or in a great degree, isolated; and cut off from the domain of\nhistory, as it is commonly understood. Each of them was preserved with\nthe most jealous care by the nation to which they severally belonged.\nBy far the oldest of known compositions, and with conclusive proof\nupon the face of them that their respective origins were perfectly\ndistinct and independent, they, notwithstanding, seem to be in no\npoint contradictory, while in many they are highly confirmatory\nof each other\u2019s genuineness and antiquity. Still, as historical\nrepresentations, and in a purely human aspect, they are greatly\ndifferent. The Holy Scriptures are like a thin stream, beginning from\nthe very fountain-head of our race, and gradually, but continuously\nfinding their way through an extended solitude, into times otherwise\nknown, and into the general current of the fortunes of mankind. The\nHomeric poems are like a broad lake outstretched in the distance, which\nprovides us with a mirror of one particular age and people, alike full\nand marvellous, but which is entirely dissociated by an interval of\nmany generations from any other records, except such as are of the\nmost partial and fragmentary kind. In respect of the influence which\nthey have respectively exercised upon mankind, it might appear almost\nprofane to compare them. In this point of view, the Scriptures stand\nso far apart from every other production, on account of their great\noffices in relation to the coming of the Redeemer, and to the spiritual\ntraining of mankind, that there can be nothing either like or second to\nthem.\n\nBut undoubtedly, after however wide an interval, the Homeric poems thus\nfar at least stand in a certain relation to the Scriptures, that no\nother work of man can be compared to them. Their immediate influence\nhas been great; but that influence which they have mediately exercised\nthrough their share in shaping the mind and nationality of Greece,\nand again, through Greece upon the world, cannot readily be reduced\nto measure: _Les vraies origines de l\u2019esprit humain sont l\u00e0; tous les\nnobles de l\u2019intelligence y retrouvent la patrie de leurs p\u00e8res_[1013].\nInsomuch that, passing over the vast interval between those purposes\nwhich concern salvation, and every other purpose connected with man,\nthis remains to be admitted, that there is a relative parallelism\nbetween the oldest Holy Scriptures and the works of Homer. For each\nof them stands at the head of the class of powers to which they\nrespectively belong; and the minor seems to present to our view, as\nwell as the major one, the indications of a distinct Providential aim\nthat was to be attained through its means.\n\n[1013] Renan, \u00c9tudes d\u2019Histoire Religieuse, p. 40.\n\nThe relation, however, of the Homeric poems to the earlier portion of\nthe Sacred Scriptures, appears to me to be capable of being represented\nin a more determinate form than it assumes when they are merely\ncompared as being respectively the oldest known compositions, and as\neach confirming the testimony of the other by numerous coincidences of\nmanners.\n\n~_Providential functions of Greece and Rome._~\n\nFor the Eastern world, it is, I suppose, generally acknowledged that\nwe ought to regard Mahometanism as having had, no less than Judaism,\na place, though doubtless a very different place, in the determinate\ncounsels of God. So in the West, we must view the extraordinary\ndevelopments, which human nature received, both individually and in\nits social forms, among the Greeks and Romans, as having been intended\nto fulfil high Providential purposes. They supplied materials for the\nintellectual and social portions of that European civilization, which\nderives its spiritual substance from the Christian Faith. And they\nwrought out solutions apparently conclusive for the questions which\nabsolutely required an answer, as to the capacity or incapacity of man,\nwhen without the aid of especial divine light and guidance, to work out\nhis own happiness and peace. That Divine Word, which tells us that the\nRedeemer came in the fulness of time, indirectly points to the great\ntransactions which filled the space of ages since the Fall, when time\nwas not yet full; and the greatest of all those great transactions\nsurely were the parts played by Greece and Rome, as the representatives\nof humanity at large in its most vigorous developments. They too, as\nwell as the discipline of the Jewish people, doubtless belonged to the\nDivine plan. All these varied manifestations may differ much in their\ncharacter and rank, but yet, like the body, soul, and spirit of a man,\nthey are to be referred to one origin, and they are integrants to one\nanother.\n\nJust in the same manner with the parallel currents of historical\nevents, it would appear that the early Scriptures and the Homeric\npoems combine to make up for us a sufficiently complete form of the\nprimitive records of our race. The Scriptures of the Old Testament give\nus the history of the line, in which the promise of the Messiah was\nhanded down. But the intellectual and social developments of man are\nthere represented in the simplest and the slightest, nay, even in the\nnarrowest forms. With the exception of Solomon, who, in spite of his\nwisdom, was enticed away from God by lust, and of the two illustrious\nspecimens of uncorrupted piety in the midst of dangerous power, Joseph\nand Daniel, I know not whether we can, on the authority of Holy\nScripture, point to any character of the Mosaic or Judaic history as\ngreat in any other sense, than as the organs of that Almighty One,\nwith whom nothing human is either great or small. It is plain that if\nwe bring the leading characters of that history into contrast with the\nAchilles or the Ulysses of Homer, and with his other marked personages,\nthese latter undoubtedly give us a representation and development of\nhuman nature, and of man in his social relations, that Scripture from\nits very nature could not supply. Each has its own function to perform,\nso that there is no room for competition between them, and it is\nbetter to avoid comparison altogether; and to decline to consider the\nlegislation of Moses as a work to be compared either with the heroic\ninstitutions, or with systems like those of Lycurgus or of Solon. We\nthen obtain a clear view of it as a scheme evidently constructed not\nalone with human but with superhuman wisdom, if only we measure it in\nreference to its very peculiar end. That end was not to give political\nlessons to mankind, which are more aptly supplied elsewhere. It was to\nfence in, with the ruder materials of the ceremonial and municipal law,\na home, within which the succession of true piety and enlightened faith\nmight be preserved; a garden wherein the Lord God might, so to speak,\nstill walk as He had walked of old, and take His delight with the sons\nof men. But this high calling had reference only to chosen persons,\na few among the few. Over and above this interior work, there was a\nnational vocation also. The aim of that vocation seems to have been\nto isolate the people, so as to stop the influences from without that\nmight tend in the direction of change; and so far to crystallize, as it\nwere, its institutions within, that they might preserve in untainted\npurity the tradition and the expectation of Him that was to come.\n\nWhen the Almighty placed his seal upon Abraham by the covenant of\ncircumcision, and when He developed that covenant in the Mosaic\ninstitutions, in setting the Jewish people apart for a purpose the most\nprofound of all His wise designs, He removed it, for the time of its\ncareer, out of the family of nations.\n\n~_Sacred Books not mere literary records._~\n\nShould we, like some writers of the present day, cite the Pentateuch\nbefore the tribunal of the mere literary critic, we may strain our\ngenerosity at the cost of justice, and still only be able to accord\nto it a secondary place. The mistake surely is to bring it there at\nall, or to view its author otherwise than as the vehicle of a Divine\npurpose, which uses all instruments, great, insignificant, or middling,\naccording to the end in view, but of which all the instruments are\nperfect, by reason not of what is intrinsic to themselves, but, simply\nand solely, of their exact adaptation to that end[1014].\n\n[1014] To show with what jealousy believers in revelation may justly\nregard the mere literary handling of the Older Scriptures, I would\nrefer to the remarkable work of M. Ernest Renan, \u2018_\u00c9tudes d\u2019Histoire\nReligieuse_.\u2019 This eloquent and elastic writer treats the idea of a\nrevealed religion as wholly inadmissible; highly extols the Bible as a\nliterary treasure; but denies that the general reading of the Bible is\na good, except in so far as _il vaut beaucoup mieux voir le peuple lire\nla Bible que ne rien lire_ (pp. 75, 385).\n\nIf, however, we ought to decline to try the Judaic code by its merely\npolitical merits, much more ought we to apply the same principle to the\nsublimity of the Prophecies, and to the deep spiritual experiences of\nthe Psalms. In the first, we have a voice speaking from God, with the\nmarks that it is of God so visibly imprinted upon it, that the mind\nutterly refuses to place the prophetical books in the scale against any\nproduction of human genius. And all that is peculiar in our conception\nof Isaiah, or of Jeremiah, does not tend so much to make them eminent\namong men, as to separate them from men. Homer, on the other hand, is\nemphatically and above all things human: he sings by the spontaneous\nand the unconscious indwelling energies of nature; whereas these are as\nthe trumpet of unearthly sounds, and cannot, more than Balaam could,\ndepart from that which is breathed into them, to utter either less or\nmore.\n\nBut most of all does the Book of Psalms refuse the challenge of\nphilosophical or poetical competition. In that Book, for well nigh\nthree thousand years, the piety of saints has found its most refined\nand choicest food; to such a degree indeed, that the rank and quality\nof the religious frame may in general be tested, at least negatively,\nby the height of its relish for them. There is the whole music of the\nhuman heart, when touched by the hand of the Maker, in all its tones\nthat whisper or that swell, for every hope and fear, for every joy and\npang, for every form of strength and languor, of disquietude and rest.\nThere are developed all the innermost relations of the human soul to\nGod, built upon the platform of a covenant of love and sonship that had\nits foundations in the Messiah, while in this particular and privileged\nBook it was permitted to anticipate His coming.\n\nWe can no more then compare Isaiah and the Psalms with Homer, than\nwe can compare David\u2019s heroism with Diomed\u2019s, or the prowess of the\nIsraelites when they drove Philistia before them with the valour of the\nGreeks at Marathon or Plat\u00e6a, at Issus or Arbela. We shall most nearly\ndo justice to each by observing carefully the boundary lines of their\nrespective provinces.\n\n~_Providential uses of the Homeric poems._~\n\nIt appears to be to a certain extent agreed that Rome has given us the\nmost extraordinary example among all those put upon record by history,\nof political organization; and has bequeathed to mankind the firmest\nand most durable tissue of law, the bond of social man. Greece, on the\nother hand, has had for its share the development of the individual;\nand each has shown in its own kind the rarest specimen that has been\nknown to the world, apart from Divine revelation. The seeds of both\nthese, and of all that they involved, would appear to be contained in\nthe Homeric poems[1015]. The condition of arts, manners, character,\nand institutions, which they represent, is alike in itself entire, and\nwithout any full parallel elsewhere. It is for the bodily and mental\nfaculties of man, that which the patriarchal and early Hebrew histories\nare for his spiritual life.\n\n[1015] In the Roman History of Mommsen is contained a masterly\ncomparison between those two rival developments of human life, the\ncollective and the individual, which are represented by Rome, and by\nlater or historic Greece, respectively. (Mommsen R\u00f6m. Gesch. I. 2. pp.\n18-21.) Both of them are open to criticism. In the one we may notice\nand brand the characteristic of an iron repression, in the other that\nof a lawless freedom. But the age which ended with the war of Troy, and\ncast the reflection of its dying beams upon its noble but chequered\nepilogue in the Odyssey, appears to make no fundamental deviation\nfrom the mean of wisdom in either direction: on the whole, it united\nreverence with independence, the restraint of discipline with the\nexpansion of freedom: and it stood alike removed, in the plenitude of\nits natural elasticity, from those extremes which in modern religion\nhave, on the one side, absorbed the individual, and on the other (so to\nspeak) excommunicated him by isolation.\n\nOf the personal and inward relations of man with God, of the kingdom\nof grace in the world, Homer can tell us nothing: but of the kingdom\nof Providence much, and of the opening powers and capabilities of\nhuman nature, apart from divine revelation, everything. The moral law,\nwritten on the tables of stone, was in one sense a schoolmaster to\nbring us to Christ, because it demonstrated our inability to tread the\nway of righteousness and pardon without the Redeemer. And perhaps that\nceremonial law, which indulged some things to the hardness of heart\nthat prevailed among the Jews, was by its permissions, as some have\nconstrued a very remarkable passage in Ezekiel[1016], a schoolmaster in\nanother sense; because it witnessed to the fact that they had greatly\nfallen below the high capacities of their nature. And again, in yet\na third sense, we may say with reverence that these primeval records\nare likewise another schoolmaster, teaching us, although with another\nvoice, the very same lesson: because they show us the total inability\nof our race, even when at its maximum of power, to solve for ourselves\nthe problems of our destiny; to extract for ourselves the sting from\ncare, from sorrow, and above all, from death; or even to retain without\nwaste the vital heat of the knowledge of God, when we have become\nseparate from the source that imparts it.\n\n[1016] Ezek. xx. 25.\n\n~_They complete the code of primitive instruction._~\n\nIt seems impossible not to be struck, at this point, with the contrast\nbetween the times preceding the Advent, and those which have followed\nit. Since the Advent, Christianity has marched for fifteen hundred\nyears at the head of human civilization; and has driven, harnessed to\nits chariot as the horses of a triumphal car, the chief intellectual\nand material forces of the world. Its learning has been the learning of\nthe world, its art the art of the world, its genius the genius of the\nworld, its greatness, glory, grandeur, and majesty have been almost,\nthough not absolutely, all that in these respects the world has had to\nboast of. That which is to come, I do not presume to portend: but of\nthe past we may speak with confidence. He who hereafter, in even the\nremotest age, with the colourless impartiality of mere intelligence,\nmay seek to know what durable results mankind has for the last fifteen\nhundred years achieved, what capital of the mind it has accumulated and\ntransmitted, will find his investigations perforce concentrated upon,\nand almost confined to that part, that minor part, of mankind which has\nbeen Christian.\n\nBefore the Advent, it was quite otherwise. The treasure of Divine\nRevelation was then hidden in a napkin: it was given to a people who\nwere almost forbidden to impart it; at least of whom it was simply\nrequired, that they should preserve it without variation. They had\nno world-wide vocation committed to them; they lay ensconced in a\ncountry which was narrow and obscure; obscure, not only with reference\nto the surpassing splendour of Greece and Rome, but in comparison with\nAssyria, or Persia, or Egypt. They have not supplied the Christian\nages with laws and institutions, arts and sciences, with the chief\nmodels of greatness in genius or in character. The Providence of\nGod committed this work to others; and to Homer seems to have been\nintrusted the first, which was perhaps, all things considered, also the\nmost remarkable stage of it[1017].\n\n[1017] I must frankly own that, for one, I can never read without pain\nthe disparaging account of the Greek mind and its achievements which,\nin the Fourth Book of the Paradise Regained, so great a man as Milton\nhas too boldly put into the mouth of our Blessed Lord. We there find\nour sympathies divided, in an indescribable and most unhappy manner,\nbetween the person of the All-wise, and the language and ideas, on\nthe whole not less just, which are given to Satan. In particular, I\nlament the claim, really no better than a childish one, made on the\npart of the Jews, to be considered as the fountainhead of the Greek\narts and letters, and the assumption for them of higher attainments in\npolitical science. This is a sacrifice of truth, reason, and history to\nprejudice, by which, as by all such proceedings, religion is sure to be\nin the end the loser.\n\n~_Christianity supplied a centre to history._~\n\nWithout bearing fully in mind this contrast between the providential\nfunction of the Jews and that of other nations, we can hardly embrace\nas we ought the importance of the part assigned, before the Advent of\nour Lord, to nations and persons who lived beyond the immediate and\nnarrow pale of Divine Revelation. The relation of the old dispensation\nto those who were not Jews, was essentially different from that of\nChristendom to those who are not Christians. Only the fall of man\nand his recovery are the universal facts with which Revelation is\nconcerned; all others are limited and partial. The interval between\nthe occurrence of the first, and the provision for the second, was\noccupied by a variety of preparations in severalty for the revelation\nof the kingdom of God. Until the Incarnation, the world\u2019s history was\nwithout a centre. When the Incarnation came, it showed itself to be the\ncentre of all that had preceded, as well as of all that was to follow:\nand since the withdrawal of the visible Messiah, the history of man has\nbeen grouped around His Word, and around the Church in which the effect\nand virtue of His Incarnation are still by His unseen power prolonged.\n\nThe picture thus offered to our view is a very remarkable one. We see\nthe glories of the world, and that greatest marvel of God\u2019s earthly\ncreation, the mind of man, become like little children, and yield\nthemselves to be led by the hand of the Good Shepherd: but it seems as\nthough the ancient promise of His coming, while just strong enough to\nlive in this wayward sphere, was not strong enough to make the conquest\nof it; as if nothing but His own actual manifestation in the strength\nof lowliness and of sorrow, and crowned by the extremity of contempt\nand shame, was sufficient to restore for the world at large that symbol\nof the universal duty of individual obedience and conformity, which is\nafforded by the establishment of the authority of the spiritual King\nover all the functions of our nature, and all the spheres, however\nmanifold and remote they may seem to be, in which they find their\nexercise. Nor is this lesson the less striking because this, like other\nparts of the divine dispensations, has been marred by the perversity of\nman, ever striving to escape from that inward control wherein lies the\ntrue hope and safety of his race.\n\nBut, even after the Advent, it was not at once that the Sovereign\nof the new kingdom put in His claim for all the wealth that it\ncontained. As, in the day of His humiliation, He rode into Jerusalem,\nforeshadowing his royal dominion to come, so Saint Paul was forthwith\nconsecrated to God as a kind of first fruits of the learning and\nintellect of man. Yet for many generations after Christ, it was still\nthe Supreme will to lay in human weakness the foundations of divine\nstrength. Not the Apostles only, but the martyrs, and not the martyrs\nonly, but the first fathers and doctors of the Church, were men of whom\nnone could suspect that they drew the weapons of their warfare from the\narmouries of human cultivation: nor of them could it be said, that by\nvirtue of their human endowments they had achieved the triumphs of the\ncross; as it might perhaps have been said, had they brought to their\nwork the immense popular powers of St. Chrysostom, or the masculine\nenergy of St. Athanasius, or the varied and comprehensive genius of St.\nAugustine.\n\nNor, again, if we are right in the belief that we are not to look\nfor the early development of humanity in the pages of Jewish and\npatriarchal history, but rather to believe that it was given to\nanother people, and the office of recording it to the father, not only\nof poetry, but of letters, does it seem difficult to read in this\narrangement the purpose of the Most High, and herewith the wisdom of\nthat purpose. Had the Scriptures been preserved, had the Messiah been\nIncarnate, among a people who were in political sagacity, in martial\nenergy, in soaring and diving intellect, in vivid imagination, in the\ngraces of art and civilized life, the flower of their time, then the\ndivine origin of Christianity would have stood far less clear and\ndisembarrassed than it now does. The eagle that mounted upon high,\nbearing on his wings the Everlasting Gospel, would have made his first\nspring from a great eminence, erected by the wit and skill of man;\nand the elevation of that eminence, measured upward from the plain\nof common humanity, would have been so much to be deducted from the\ntriumph of the Redeemer.\n\n~_Purpose served by the design._~\n\nThus the destructive theories of those, who teach us to regard\nChristianity as no more than a new stage, added to stages that had\nbeen previously achieved in the march of human advancement, would have\nbeen clothed in a plausibility which they must now for ever want. \u2018God\nhath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and\nGod hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things\nwhich are mighty; and base things of the world, and things which are\ndespised, hath God chosen, yea, and things which are not, to bring to\nnought things that are[1018].\u2019 An unhonoured undistinguished race,\nsimply elected to be the receivers of the Divine Word, and having\nremained its always stiffnecked and almost reluctant guardians, may\nbest have suited the aim of Almighty Wisdom; because the medium,\nthrough which the most precious gifts were conveyed, was pale and\ncolourless, instead of being one flushed with the splendours of Empire,\nIntellect, and Fame.\n\n[1018] 1 Cor. i. 27, 8.\n\n\n\n\nTranscriber's Note\n\n\nPage headers in the printed book have been converted to headings, and\nare marked with ~swung dashes~.\n\n\nThe following apparent errors have been corrected:\n\np. xiv \"sovereignity\" changed to \"sovereignty\"\n\np. 42 (note) \"vii-x.\" changed to \"vii.-x.\"\n\np. 79 \"unequivocially\" changed to \"unequivocally\"\n\np. 118 \"insolence:\" changed to \"insolence:\u2019\"\n\np. 165 \"\u1f64\u03bb\u03b5\u03c4\u03cc\" changed to \"\u1f64\u03bb\u03b5\u03c4\u03bf\"\n\np. 173 \"attention,\" changed to \"attention.\"\n\np. 192 \"exemplfied\" changed to \"exemplified\"\n\np. 277 \"order\" changed to \"order.\"\n\np. 285 \"Hom Theol.\" changed to \"Hom. Theol.\"\n\np. 288 \"Ganymed\" changed to \"Ganymede\"\n\np. 291 \"\u1f00\u1fd6\u03c3\u03b1\" changed to \"\u03b1\u1f36\u03c3\u03b1\"\n\np. 299 \"peoples,\" changed to \"peoples\"\n\np. 320 \"\u1fe5\u03b5\u03af\u03b1\" changed to \"\u1fe5\u03b5\u1fd6\u03b1\"\n\np. 328 in \"disaffection has yet been exhibited.[607]\", the footnote\nanchor has been added to the text.\n\np. 336 \"\u1fe5\u03b5\u03af\u03b1\" changed to \"\u1fe5\u03b5\u1fd6\u03b1\"\n\np. 352 \"subject so\" changed to \"subject to\"\n\np. 354 \"2.\" changed to \"(2.)\"\n\np. 356 \"\u03b4\u1f72\" changed to \"\u03b4\u03ad\"\n\np. 364 \"it sessential\" changed to \"its essential\"\n\np. 365 in \"\u03bd\u03cc\u03bf\u03bd \u1f14\u03c4\u03c1\u03b1\u03c0\u03b5\u03bd[711].\", the footnote anchor has been added to\nthe text.\n\np. 377 \"purity, of\" changed to \"of purity,\"\n\np. 383 (note) \"264\" changed to \"264.\"\n\np. 403 (note) \"Romische\" changed to \"R\u00f6mische\"\n\np. 404 \"elswehere\" changed to \"elsewhere\"\n\np. 410 \"devolopment\" changed to \"development\"\n\np. 420 \"\u1f14\u03c3\u03b8\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2\" changed to \"\u1f10\u03c3\u03b8\u03bb\u1f78\u03c2\"\n\np. 426 \"morality.\" changed to \"morality,\"\n\np. 436 \"\u1f00\u03c4\u1f74\" changed to \"\u1f04\u03c4\u03b7\"\n\np. 460 \"\u1f1d\u03c1\u03c9\u03c2\" changed to \"\u1f1c\u03c1\u03c9\u03c2\"\n\np. 474 \"\u1f14\u03b3\u03c9\" changed to \"\u1f10\u03b3\u1f7c\"\n\np. 494 in \"Ajax had a spurious brother\", a footnote anchor has been\nremoved from the text.\n\np. 499 (note) \"in excellently\" changed to \"is excellently\"\n\np. 505 \"\u03c6\u03c1\u03ad\u03c3\u03b9\" changed to \"\u03c6\u03c1\u03b5\u03c3\u1f76\"\n\np. 517 \"\u1f14\u03b3\u03c9\u03b3\u03b5\" changed to \"\u1f10\u03b3\u03ce\u03b3\u03b5\"\n\n\nThe following are used inconsistently in the book:\n\naftertimes and after-times\n\nbattlefield and battle-field\n\nbowstring and bow-string\n\ncupbearer and cup-bearer\n\ndependence and dependance\n\nD\u00ee and Dii\n\nDioscuri and Dioscouroi\n\nErinu\u00ebs and Erinues\n\nfountainhead and fountain-head\n\nHistie and Hestie\n\ni. e. and i.e.\n\nindoor and in-door\n\npreeminence and pre-eminence\n\nreestablished and re-established\n\nstepmother and step-mother\n\nsynonym and synonyme\n\nTheomythology and Theo-mythology","title":"Studies on Homer and the Homeric Age, Vol. 2 of 3: Olympus; or, the Religion of the Homeric Age","tradition":"myth-cosmogony","translated_text":null,"word_count":161533}