{"collection":"philosophy-ethics","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_53004/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_53004","id":"gutenberg_53004","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/53004","summary":null,"tags":["Category: Classics of Literature","Category: History - Ancient","Category: Philosophy & Ethics","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 VOL. III.\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\n STUDIES ON HOMER\n AND\n THE HOMERIC AGE.\n\n I. AGOR\u00c8:\n POLITIES OF THE HOMERIC AGE.\n\n II. ILIOS:\n TROJANS AND GREEKS COMPARED.\n\n III. THALASSA:\n THE OUTER GEOGRAPHY.\n\n IV. AOIDOS:\n SOME POINTS OF THE POETRY OF HOMER.\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\nADVERTISEMENT.\n\n\nSince the Sections which relate to Ethnology passed through the Press,\nthe First Volume of Mr. Rawlinson\u2019s Herodotus has appeared. Earlier\npossession of this important Publication would have emboldened me\nto proceed a step further in the attempt to specify the probable or\npossible form of the original Ethnic relation between the Pelasgians\nand the Hellenes of the Greek Peninsula, but designating the latter\nas pure Arian, and the former as Arian, with a residue or mixture of\nTuranian elements.\n\nIt has also been since the \u2018Olympus\u2019 was printed, that I have become\nacquainted with Welcker\u2019s recent and unfinished \u2018_Griechische\nG\u00f6tterlehre_,\u2019 (G\u00f6ttingen, 1857.) I could have wished to refer to it\nat various points, and especially to avail myself of the clearer view,\nwhich the learned Author has given, of the position of \u039a\u03c1\u03cc\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2.\n\nFounding himself in part on the exclusive appropriation by Homer of the\nterm \u039a\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd\u03af\u03b4\u03b7\u03c2 to Jupiter, he enables us to see how Jupiter may have\ninherited the sole use of the title as being \u2018the Ancient of days;\u2019\nand how \u039a\u03c1\u03cc\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 was a formation in the Mythology wholly secondary and\nposterior to his reputed son. (Welcker, sectt. 27, 8. pp. 140-7.)\n\nAnother recent book, M. Alfred Maury\u2019s _Histoire des Religions de la\nGr\u00e8ce Antique_, undertakes the useful task of unfolding largely the\nrelations of the Greek religion to the East. But the division of it\nwhich deals with Homer specifically is neither complete nor accurate,\nand affords a new illustration of the proposition which I chiefly\ndesire to establish, namely, that Homer ought to be treated as a\nseparate and independent centre of study.\n\n 11, CARLTON HOUSE TERRACE, LONDON,\n March 15, 1858.\n\n\n\n\nTHE CONTENTS.\n\n\n I. AGOR\u00c8:\n OR\n THE POLITIES OF THE HOMERIC AGE.\n\n Political ideas of later Greece Page 1\n Their strong development in Heroic Greece 2\n Germ of the Law of Nations 4\n Grote\u2019s account of the Heroic Polities 5\n Their peculiar features, Publicity and Persuasion 6\n Functions of the king in the Heroic Polities 8\n Nature of the Pelopid Empire 9\n Degrees in Kingship and in Lordship 10\n Four forms of Sovereignty 12\n First tokens of change in the Heroic Polities 12\n Shown by analysis of the Catalogue 14\n Extended signs in the Odyssey 17\n Altered sense of \u0392\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03bb\u03b5\u1f7a\u03c2 or King 18\n New name of Queen 20\n Disorganization caused by the War 21\n Arrival of a new race at manhood 22\n Increased weight of the nobles 24\n Altered idea of the kingly office 25\n The first instance of a bad King 27\n Further change in the time of Hesiod 28\n Veneration long adhering to the name 31\n Five distinctive notes of \u0392\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03bb\u1fc6\u03b5\u03c2 in the Iliad 32\n The nine Greek \u0392\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03bb\u1fc6\u03b5\u03c2 of the Iliad 35\n The case of Meges 36\n Of Ph\u0153nix 37\n Of Patroclus and Eurypylus 38\n Conditions of Kingship in the Iliad 39\n The personal beauty of the Kings 40\n Custom of resignation in old age 40\n Force of the term \u03b1\u1f34\u03b6\u03b7\u03bf\u03c2 41\n Gymnastic superiority of the Kings 44\n Their pursuit of Music and Song 45\n Ulysses as artificer and husbandman 46\n The Kings as Gentlemen 47\n Achilles in particular 48\n Tenderness and tears of the Greek chiefs 49\n Right of hereditary succession 50\n Right of primogeniture 52\n The Homeric King (1) as Priest 55\n (2) as Judge 56\n (3) as General 57\n (4) as Proprietor: the \u03c4\u03ad\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 58\n His revenues, from four sources in all 59\n Burdens upon them 61\n The political position of Agamemnon 62\n The governing motives of the War 64\n Position of Agamemnon in the army 66\n His personal character 67\n The relation of sovereign and subject a free one 67\n The personal attendants of the King 69\n The Aristocracy or chief proprietors 69\n The Trades and Professions 70\n The Slaves of the Homeric age 72\n The \u03b8\u1fc6\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 or hired servants 74\n Supply of military service 75\n Whether there was a peasant-proprietary 77\n Political Economy of the Homeric age 78\n The precious metals not a measure of value 81\n Oxen in some degree a measure of value 82\n Relative scarcity of certain metals 84\n Mode of government of the Army 85\n Its military composition 88\n Chief descriptions of fighting men 91\n The Battle and the Ambuscade 92\n The \u0392\u03bf\u03c5\u03bb\u1f74 or Council of the Greeks 94\n It subsisted in peace and in war 97\n Opposition in the \u0392\u03bf\u03c5\u03bb\u1f74 98\n Agamemnon\u2019s proposals of Return 99\n The influence of Speech in the Heroic age 102\n It was a subject of regular training 103\n Varied descriptions of oratory in Homer 104\n Achilles the paramount Orator 105\n The orations of the poems 106\n The power of repartee 108\n The power of sarcasm 109\n The faculty of debate in Homer 111\n The discussion of the Ninth Iliad 111\n Function of the Assembly in the Heroic age 114\n The formal use of majorities unknown 116\n The great decisions of the War taken there 117\n It was not summoned exclusively by Agamemnon 118\n Opposition in the Agor\u00e8 by the chiefs 119\n Opposition by Thersites 120\n Grote\u2019s judgment on the case of Thersites 123\n How that case bears witness to the popular principle 126\n As does the Agor\u00e8 on the Shield 126\n Mode of addressing the Assembly 129\n Its decisions in the Seventh and Ninth Iliads 129\n Division in the Drunken Assembly 130\n Appeal of Telemachus to the Ithacan Assembly 132\n Ph\u00e6acian Assembly of the Eighth Odyssey 134\n Ithacan Assembly of the Twenty-fourth 136\n Councils or Assemblies of Olympus 137\n Judicial functions of the Assembly 139\n Assembly the central point of the Polity 140\n The common soul or \u03a4\u1f76\u03c2 in Homer 141\n Imperfect organization of Heroic Polities 143\n\n II. ILIOS.\n THE TROJANS COMPARED AND CONTRASTED WITH THE GREEKS.\n Relationship of Troy and Greece twofold 145\n Greek names of deities found also in Troas 147\n Include nearly all the greater deities 150\n Worship of Vulcan in Troas 151\n Worship of Juno and Gaia in Troas 153\n Worship of Mercury in Troas 154\n Worship of Scamander 155\n Different view of Rivers in Troas 158\n Essential character of Trojan River-worship 160\n Trojan impersonations from Nature rare 162\n Poverty of Mythology among the Trojans 165\n Their jejune doctrine of a Future State 166\n Redundance of life in the Greek system 168\n Worship from hills 169\n The nations compared as to external development of religion.--\n 1. Temples 170\n 2. As to endowments in land, or \u03c4\u03b5\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03b5\u03b1 172\n 3. As to Groves\u2019 \u1f04\u03bb\u03c3\u03b5\u03b1 173\n 4. As to Statues of the Gods 174\n 5. As to Seers or Diviners 177\n 6. As to the Priesthood: Priesthood in Greece 179\n Priesthood in later Greece 183\n Priesthood among the Trojans 184\n Comparative observance of sacrifice 187\n The Trojans more given to religious observances 189\n Homer\u2019s different modes of handling for Greece and Troy 190\n Moral superiority of his Greeks on the whole 192\n Homer\u2019s account of the abduction of Helen 193\n The Greek estimate of Paris 197\n Its relation to prevailing views of Marriage 200\n And to Greek views of Homicide 202\n The Trojan estimate of Paris 205\n Public opinion less developed in Troy 206\n The Trojans more sensual and false 207\n Trojan ideas and usages of Marriage 210\n The family of Priam 211\n Stricter ideas among the Greeks 215\n Trojan Polity less highly organized 216\n Rule of Succession in Troy 217\n Succession to the throne of Priam 219\n Paris, most probably, was his eldest son 221\n Position of Priam and his dynasty in Troas 223\n Meaning of \u03a4\u03c1\u03bf\u03af\u03b7 and of \u1f3c\u03bb\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2 224\n Evidence from the Trojan Catalogue 225\n Extent of his sovereignty and supremacy 228\n Polity of Ilios: the \u0392\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03bb\u03b5\u03cd\u03c2 232\n The Assembly 232\n The greater weight of Age in Troy 234\n The absence of a \u0392\u03bf\u03c5\u03bb\u1f74 in Troy 236\n The greater weight of oratory in Greece 239\n Trojans less gifted with self-command 242\n And with intelligence generally 244\n Difference in the pursuits of high-born youth 245\n Difference as to \u03b1\u1f30\u03b4\u1f7c\u03c2 246\n Summary of differences 247\n\n III. THALASSA.\n THE OUTER GEOGRAPHY OF THE ODYSSEY.\n Why it deserves investigation 249\n Principal heads of the inquiry 251\n The two Spheres of Inner and Outer Geography 252\n Limits of the Inner Geography 255\n The intermediate or doubtful zone 257\n The Sphere of the Outer Geography 260\n The two Keys of the Outer Geography 261\n The traditional interpretations valueless 262\n Manifest dislocations of actual nature 263\n Postulates for examining the Outer Geography 264\n The Winds of Homer 265\n Special notices of Eurus and Notus 267\n Of Zephyr and Boreas 268\n Points of the Compass for the two last 270\n For the two first 272\n Scheme of the four Winds 273\n Signification of Eurus 273\n Homeric distances and rates of speed 275\n Particulars of evidence on speed 277\n The northward sea-route to the Euxine 280\n Evidence from Il. xiii. 1-6 281\n From Od. vii. 319-26 282\n From Od. v. 44-57 283\n From Od. xxiv. 11-13 285\n Amalgamated reports of the Ocean-mouth 287\n Open-sea passage to the Ocean-mouth 289\n Homeward passage by the Straits, why preferred 290\n Three maritime routes to the Ocean-mouth 291\n Its two possible originals in nature 292\n Straits of Yenikal\u00e8 as Ocean-mouth 294\n Summary of facts from Ph\u0153nician reports 295\n Two sets of reports are blended into one 296\n The site of \u00c6\u00e6a; North-western hypothesis 298\n North-eastern hypothesis 300\n Argument from the \u03a0\u03bb\u03b1\u03b3\u03ba\u03c4\u03b1\u1f76 302\n From the Island Thrinacie 302\n Local notes of \u00c6\u00e6a 303\n Site of Ogygia 304\n Argument from the flight of Mercury 305\n From the floatage of Ulysses 306\n From his homeward passage 308\n Site of Scylla relatively to the Dardanelles 309\n Why \u00c6\u00e6a cannot lie North-westward 311\n Construction of Od. xii. 3, 4 312\n Construction of Od. v. 276, 7 315\n Genuineness of the passage questionable 316\n Its real meaning 317\n Homer\u2019s indications of geographical misgivings 318\n Stages of the tour of Ulysses to \u00c6\u00e6a (i-vi.) 320\n \u00c6\u00e6a and the Euxine (vi-viii.) 325\n Remaining stages (viii-xi.) 327\n Directions and distances from \u00c6\u00e6a onwards 329\n Tours of Menelaus and Ulysses compared 331\n The earth of Homer probably oval 334\n Points of contact with Oceanus 337\n The Caspian and Persian Gulf belong to Oceanus 338\n Contraction and compression of the Homeric East 340\n Outline of Homer\u2019s terrestrial system 342\n Map of Earth according to Homer 343\n\n EXCURSUS I.\n _Parentage and Extraction of Minos._\n On the genuineness of Il. xiv. 317-27 344\n On the sense of the line Il. xiv. 321 346\n Collateral testimony to the extraction of Minos 347\n\n EXCURSUS II.\n _On the line Odyss. v. 277._\n Points of the question stated 349\n Senses of \u03b4\u03b5\u03be\u03b9\u1f78\u03c2 and \u1f00\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 350\n Illustrated from Il. xiii 352\n On the force of the Homeric \u1f10\u03c0\u1f76 354\n Force of \u1f10\u03c0\u1f76 with \u1f00\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u1f70 356\n Illustrated from Il. ii. 353. Od. xxi. 141 358\n From Il. i. 597. vii. 238. xii. 239, 249 359\n From Il. xxiii. 335-7 360\n From Il. ii. 526 362\n Application to Od. v. 277 364\n Another sense prevailed in later Greek 365\n\n IV. AOIDOS.\n SECT. I.\n _On the Plot of the Iliad._\n The Theory of Grote on the structure of the poem 366\n Offer related in the Ninth Book and its rejection 369\n Restitution and gifts not the object of Achilles 371\n The offer was radically defective 373\n Apology needed in particular 375\n Consistency maintained in and after Il. ix 377\n Skilful adjustment of conflicting aims 379\n Glory given to Achilles 380\n Glory given to Greece 380\n Trojan inferiority mainly in the Chiefs 382\n But it pervades the poem 384\n In the Chiefs it is glaring 385\n Conflicting exigencies of the plan 387\n Greeks superior even without Achilles 388\n Harmony in relative prominence of the Chiefs 389\n Retributive justice in the two poems 392\n The sufferings of Achilles 394\n Double conquest over his will 395\n\n SECT. II.\n _The Sense of Beauty in Homer: human, animal, and inanimate._\n His sense of Beauty alike pure and strong 397\n Degeneracy of the popular idea had begun 398\n Illustrated by the series of Dardanid traditions, (1) Ganymede 398\n (2) Tithonus, (3) Anchises 400\n (4) Paris and Venus 401\n Homer\u2019s sense of Beauty in the human form 402\n His treatment of the Beauty of Paris 402\n Beauty among the Greek chieftains 404\n Ascribed also to the nation 405\n Beauty of Nireus 406\n Of Nastes and of Euphorbus 407\n Beauty placed among the prime gifts of man 408\n Homer\u2019s sense of Beauty in animals 409\n Especially in horses 410\n As to their movements 411\n As to their form and colour 413\n Homer\u2019s sense of Beauty in inanimate nature 416\n The instance of Ithaca 417\n Germ of feeling for the picturesque in Homer 419\n Close relation of Order and Beauty 420\n Causes adverse to the development of the germ 421\n Beauty of material objects absorbed in their Life 423\n\n SECT. III.\n _Homer\u2019s perception and use of Number._\n The traditional character of aptitudes 425\n Conceptions of Number not always definite in childhood 427\n Nor even in manhood 428\n No calculations in Homer 430\n Greek estimate of the discovery of Number 431\n Enumerative addition in Od. iv. 412, 451 432\n Highest numerals of the poems 432\n The three hundred and sixty fat hogs 434\n The Homeric \u1f11\u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03bc\u03b2\u1f74 435\n The numerals expressive of value 436\n His silence as to the numbers of the armies 439\n Especially in the Greek Catalogue 440\n Case of the Trojan bivouac 442\n Case of the herds and flocks in Od. xiv. 443\n Hesiod\u2019s age of the Nymphs 444\n Case of the cities of Crete 445\n No scheme of chronology in Homer 446\n Case of the three Decades of years 448\n Meaning of the \u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03b5\u1f74 of Homer 449\n Homer reckons time by generations 451\n Some difficulties of the Decades taken literally 452\n Uses of the proposed interpretation 455\n\n SECT. IV.\n _Homer\u2019s Perceptions and Use of Colour._\n Modern perceptions of colour usually definite 457\n Signs of immature perception in Homer 458\n His chief adjectives of colour 459\n His quasi-adjectives of colour 460\n Applications of \u03be\u03b1\u03bd\u03b8\u1f78\u03c2, \u1f10\u03c1\u03c5\u03b8\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2, \u03c0\u03bf\u03c1\u03c6\u03cd\u03c1\u03b5\u03bf\u03c2 460\n Of \u03ba\u03cd\u03b1\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 and \u03ba\u03c5\u03ac\u03bd\u03b5\u03bf\u03c2 462\n Of \u03c6\u03bf\u03af\u03bd\u03b9\u03be 465\n Of \u03c0\u03cc\u03bb\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2 466\n The quasi-adjectives of colour; \u03c7\u03bb\u03c9\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 467\n The \u03b1\u1f30\u03b8\u03b1\u03bb\u03cc\u03b5\u03b9\u03c2 of Homer 468\n The \u1fe5\u03bf\u03b4\u03cc\u03b5\u03b9\u03c2 and \u1fe5\u03bf\u03b4\u03bf\u03b4\u03ac\u03ba\u03c4\u03c5\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2 469\n The \u1f30\u03cc\u03b5\u03b9\u03c2, \u1f30\u03bf\u03b5\u03b9\u03b4\u1f74\u03c2, \u1f30\u03bf\u03b4\u03bd\u03b5\u03c6\u1f74\u03c2 470\n The \u03bf\u1f34\u03bd\u03bf\u03c8 and \u03bc\u03b9\u03bb\u03c4\u03bf\u03c0\u03ac\u03c1\u03b7\u03bf\u03c2 472\n \u0391\u1f34\u03b8\u03c9\u03bd and its cognates; also \u1f00\u03c1\u03b3\u1f78\u03c2, \u03b1\u1f34\u03bf\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2 473\n \u0393\u03bb\u03b1\u03c5\u03ba\u1f78\u03c2, \u03b3\u03bb\u03b1\u03c5\u03ba\u1ff6\u03c0\u03b9\u03c2, \u03b3\u03bb\u03b1\u03c5\u03ba\u03b9\u03cc\u03c9\u03bd 474\n \u03a7\u03ac\u03c1\u03bf\u03c0\u03bf\u03c2, \u03c3\u03b9\u03b3\u03b1\u03bb\u03cc\u03b5\u03b9\u03c2, \u03bc\u03b1\u03c1\u03bc\u03ac\u03c1\u03b5\u03bf\u03c2, \u1f20\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03b5\u03b9\u03b4\u1f74\u03c2 475\n Conflict of the colours assigned to the same object 475\n Great predominance of white and black 476\n Remarkable omissions to specify colour 477\n In the case of the horse among others 479\n In the case of human beauty, and of Iris 482\n In the case of the heavens 483\n Causes of this peculiar treatment of colour 483\n License of poetry in the matter of colour 484\n Illustrated from Shakespeare 485\n Homer\u2019s contracted means of training in colour 487\n His system one of light and dark 488\n Colour in the later Greek language 491\n Greek philosophy of colour 493\n Nature of our advantage over Homer 495\n\n _Note on \u03ba\u03cd\u03b1\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 and \u03c7\u03b1\u03bb\u03ba\u03cc\u03c2._\n Meanings for \u03ba\u03cd\u03b1\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 heretofore suggested 496\n Probably a native blue carbonate of copper 497\n \u03a7\u03b1\u03bb\u03ba\u1f78\u03c2 to be understood as hardened copper 499\n\n SECT. V.\n _Homer and some of his successors in Epic Poetry; particularly\n Virgil and Tasso._\n Milton\u2019s place among Epic poets 500\n Difficulty of comparing him with Homer 501\n The same as to Dante 501\n \u00c6neid and Iliad; their resemblances and contrasts 502\n Contrast between form and spirit in the \u00c6neid 503\n Catalogue in the Iliad and in the \u00c6neid 504\n Character of \u00c6neas in the \u00c6neid 505\n Character of \u00c6neas in the Iliad 507\n The fine character of Turnus 508\n The false position of Virgil before Augustus 509\n Difficulty of learning the poet from the poem 510\n His false position as to religion, liberty, and nationality 511\n Untruthfulness hence resulting 512\n Homer is misapprehended through Virgil 513\n In minor matters, e. g. Simois and Scamander 513\n \u039d\u03b5\u03ba\u03c5\u0390\u03b1 of Homer and of Virgil 515\n Ethnological and genealogical dislocations 516\n Action of the Twelfth \u00c6neid 520\n Unfaithful imitations of details 521\n Maltreatment of the Homeric characters 522\n And of the Homeric Mythology and Ethics 523\n \u00c6neas and Dido in the Shades beneath 525\n The woman characters of Homer and Virgil 527\n Virgil\u2019s insufficient care of minor proprieties 528\n And of the order of natural phenomena 529\n Use of exaggeration in Homer and in Virgil 530\n Contrast of principal aims respectively 531\n Character of the Bard; not found in Virgil 532\n Post-Homeric change in the idea of the Poet\u2019s office 533\n Virgil\u2019s poetical disadvantages 534\n Comparison of the Trojan War with the Crusades 535\n Rinaldo and Achilles 535\n Exaggerations of bulk in Homer and in Tasso 536\n Mr. Hallam\u2019s judgment on the Jerusalem 537\n Tasso\u2019s poetical disadvantages 538\n The man Achilles in relation to the Iliad 539\n Liberation of the Sepulchre in relation to the _Gerusalemme_ 540\n Intrusion of incongruous elements 542\n Relative prominence of Tancredi and Rinaldo 543\n The Woman-characters of Tasso 544\n The Armida of Tasso 545\n Her resemblances and inferiority to Dido 546\n Her passion ill-sustained 546\n Obtrusiveness of the amatory element 548\n The Affront of Gernando 549\n Difference in modes of describing personages 551\n Battles and Similes of Tasso 552\n Inferiority of the Return in the _Gerusalemme_ 553\n Tasso\u2019s greatness except as compared with Homer 554\n\n SECT. VI.\n _Some principal Homeric Characters in Troy.\n Hector: Helen: Paris._\n Homer\u2019s character-drawing power 555\n Corruption of the later tradition 556\n Why specially destructive in his case 557\n Mure\u2019s treatment of the Homeric characters 558\n The character of Hector set off with generalities 558\n It became the basis for that of Orlando 559\n The martial heroism of Hector second-rate 559\n His boastfulness his only moral fault 561\n Hectoring and Rodomontading 562\n Hector\u2019s sense of the guilt and shame of Paris 563\n His responsibilities beyond his strength 565\n Brightness of his character as to the affections 567\n His piety, gentleness, and equity 568\n Inequality of his character as a whole 569\n Apparent reason for it 569\n Opposite views of the character of Helen 571\n Homer\u2019s intention with respect to it 572\n Two adverse mentions of her only 574\n Homer\u2019s epithets and simile for Helen 575\n The case of Bathsheba 576\n As to the free agency of Helen 577\n Picture of Helen in Il. iii. 572\n In Il. vi., Il. xxiv., Od. iv. 581\n The marriage with Deiphobus 583\n General estimate of the Homeric Helen 584\n The character of Paris 585\n His apathy, levity, and selfishness 586\n His place in the War 587\n Relation of his intellect to his morality 588\n\n SECT. VII.\n _The declension of the great Homeric Characters\n in the later Tradition._\n Physical conditions of the Greek Theatre 590\n Absolute dependence on the popular taste 592\n General obliteration of the finer distinctions 593\n Mutilation of the Helen of Homer 593\n The Helen of Euripides 595\n Of Isocrates and of Virgil 597\n Characters of Achilles and Ulysses in Homer 598\n Mutilation of the Ulysses of Homer 601\n Of the Achilles of Homer 602\n The Achilles of Statius 604\n Homeric characters in Seneca 605\n New relative position of Trojans and Greeks 606\n Trojanism in England 608\n Imitations of Homeric characters by Tasso 609\n The Troilus and Cressida 610\n Shirley\u2019s Ajax and Ulysses 612\n Racine\u2019s Iphig\u00e9nie 613\n Racine\u2019s Andromaque 614\n CONCLUSION 615\n\n\n\n\nI. AGOR\u00c8.\n\nTHE POLITIES OF THE HOMERIC AGE.\n\n\nIt is complained, and perhaps not without foundation, that the study of\nthe ancient historians does not supply the youth of England with good\npolitical models: that, if we adjust our sympathies and antipathies\naccording to the division of parties and classes offered to our view\nin Rome, Athens, or Sparta, they will not be cast in an English mould,\nbut will come out in the cruder forms of oligarchic or democratic\nprejudice. Now I do not wait to inquire how far these defects may\nbe supplied by the political philosophers, and in particular by the\nadmirable treatise of Aristotle. And it certainly is true, that in\ngeneral they present to us a state of political ideas and morals\ngreatly deranged: the choice lies between evil on this side in one\nform, and on that side in another form: the characters, who can be\nrecommended as examples, are commonly in a minority or in exile. Nor\ndo I ask how far we ought to be content, having an admirable range,\nso to speak, of anatomical models in our hands, to lay aside the idea\nof attaching our sympathies to what we see. I would rather incite the\nobjector to examine and judge whether we may not find an admirable\nschool of polity, and see its fundamental ideas exhibited under the\ntruest and largest forms, in a quarter where perhaps it would be the\nleast expected, namely, in the writings of Homer.\n\nAs respects religion, arts, and manners, the Greeks of the heroic age\nmay be compared with other societies in the infancy of man. But as\nrespects political science in its essential rudiments, and as respects\nthe application of those principles by way of art to the government of\nmankind, we may say with almost literal truth that they are the fathers\nof it; and Homer invites those who study him to come and view it in its\ncradle, where the infant carries every lineament in miniature, that we\ncan reasonably desire to see developed in manhood.\n\n~_Strong development of political ideas._~\n\nI cannot but deprecate the association established, perhaps\nunintentionally, by Grote, where, throwing Homer as he does into\nhotch-pot, so to speak, with the \u2018legendary age,\u2019 he expresses\nhimself in his Preface[1], as follows. \u2018It must be confessed that\nthe sentimental attributes of the Greek mind--its religious and\npoetical vein--here appear in disproportionate relief, as compared\nwith its more vigorous and masculine capacities--with those powers of\nacting, organizing, judging, and speculating, which will be revealed\nin the forthcoming volumes.\u2019 If the sentimental attribute is to be\ncontra-distinguished from the powers, I will not say of speculating,\nbut of acting, organizing, and judging, then I know of nothing less\nsentimental in the after-history of Greece than the characters of\nAchilles and Ulysses, than the relations of the Greek chiefs to one\nanother and to their people, than the strength and simplicity which\nlaid in those early times the foundation-stones of the Greek national\ncharacter and institutions, and made them in the social order the\njust counterparts of the material structures that are now ascribed\nto the Pelasgians; simple indeed in their elements, but so durable\nand massive in their combination, as to be the marvel of all time.\nThe influences derived from these sources were of such vitality and\ndepth, that they secured to an insignificant country a predominating\npower for centuries, made one little point of the West an effective\nbulwark against the East, and caused Greece to throw out, to the right\nand left, so many branches each greater than the trunk. Even when the\nsun of her glory had set, there was yet left behind an immortal spark\nof the ancient vitality, which, enduring through all vicissitudes,\nkindled into a blaze after two thousand years; and we of this day\nhave seen a Greek nation, founded anew by its own energies, become\na centre of desire and hope at least to Eastern Christendom. The\nEnglish are not ashamed to own their political forefathers in the\nforests of the Northward European Continent; and the later statesmen\nwith the lawgivers of Greece were in their day glad, and with reason\nglad, to trace the bold outline and solid rudiments of their own and\ntheir country\u2019s greatness in the poems of Homer. Nothing in those\npoems offers itself, to me at least, as more remarkable, than the\ndeep carving of the political characters; and what is still more, the\nintense political spirit which pervades them. I will venture one step\nfarther, and say that, of all the countries of the civilized world,\nthere is no one of which the inhabitants ought to find that spirit so\nintelligible and accessible as the English: because it is a spirit,\nthat still largely lives and breathes in our own institutions, and, if\nI mistake not, even in the peculiarities of those institutions. There\nwe find the great cardinal ideas, which lie at the very foundation of\nall enlightened government: and then we find, too, the men formed under\nthe influence of such ideas; as one among ourselves, who has drunk into\ntheir spirit, tells us;\n\n[1] Page xvii.\n\n Sagacious, men of iron, watchful, firm,\n Against surprise and sudden panic proof.\n\nAnd again,\n\n The sombre aspect of majestic care,\n Of solitary thought, unshared resolve[2].\n\n[2] Merope; by Matthew Arnold, pp. 94, 135.\n\nIt was surely a healthful sign of the working of freedom, that in\nthat early age, despite the prevalence of piracy, even that idea of\npolitical justice and public right, which is the germ of the law of\nnations, was not unknown to the Greeks. It would appear that war could\nnot be made without an appropriate cause, and that the offer of redress\nmade it the duty of the injured to come to terms. Hence the offer of\nParis in the Third Iliad is at once readily accepted: and hence, even\nafter the breach of the Pact, arises Agamemnon\u2019s fear, at the moment\nwhen he anticipates the death of Menelaus, that by that event the claim\nto the restoration of Helen will be practically disposed of, and the\nGreeks will have to return home without reparation for a wrong, of\nwhich the _corpus_, as it were, will have disappeared[3].\n\n[3] Il. iv. 160-82.\n\nBefore proceeding to sketch the Greek institutions as they are\nexhibited in Homer, I will give a sketch of the interesting account of\nthem which is supplied by Grote. I cite it more for contrast than for\nconcurrence; but it will assist materially in bringing out into clear\nrelief the points which are of the greatest moment.\n\n~_Grote\u2019s account of the Heroic Polities._~\n\nThe Greek States of the historic ages, says Grote, always present\nto us something in the nature of a constitution, as the condition\nof popular respect towards the government, and of the sense of an\nobligation to obey it[4]. The man who broke down this constitution,\nhowever wisely he might exercise his ill gotten power, was branded by\nthe name of \u03c4\u03cd\u03c1\u03b1\u03bd\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2, or despot, \u201cas an object of mingled fear and\ndislike.\u201d But in the heroic age there is no system, still less any\nresponsibility[5]: obedience depends on personal reverence towards the\nking or chief. Into those \u2018great individual personalities, the race\nor nation is absorbed[6].\u2019 Publicity indeed, through the means of the\ncouncil and assembly, essentially pervades the whole system[7]; but it\nis a publicity without consequences; for the people, when they have\nheard, simply obey the orders of the king[8]. Either resistance or\ncriticism is generally exhibited as odious, and is never heard of at\nall except from those who are at the least subaltern chiefs: though\nthe council and assembly would in practice come to be restraints\nupon the king, they are not so exhibited in Homer[9], but are simple\n_media_ for supplying him with information, and for promulgating his\nresolves[10]. The people may listen and sympathize, but no more. In the\nassembly of the Second Iliad, a \u2018repulsive picture\u2019 is presented to us\nof \u2018the degradation of the mass of the people before the chiefs[11].\u2019\nFor because the common soldiery, in conformity with the \u2018unaccountable\nfancy\u2019 which Agamemnon had propounded, made ready to go home, Ulysses\nbelabours them with blows and covers them with scornful reproofs[12];\nand the unpopularity of a presumptuous critic, even when he is in\nsubstance right, is shown, partly by the strokes that Ulysses inflicts\nupon Thersites, but still more by the hideous deformities with which\nHomer has loaded him.\n\n[4] Grote\u2019s Hist. Greece, vol. ii. p. 83.\n\n[5] Ibid. p. 84.\n\n[6] Ibid. p. 102.\n\n[7] Ibid. p. 101.\n\n[8] Ibid. p. 86.\n\n[9] Ibid. pp. 90, 102.\n\n[10] Ibid. p. 92.\n\n[11] Ibid. p. 95.\n\n[12] Grote\u2019s Hist. Greece, vol. ii. pp. 94, 96.\n\nIt is, I think, in happy inconsistency with these representations,\nthat the historian proceeds to say, that by means of the \u0392\u03bf\u03c5\u03bb\u1f74 and\n\u1f08\u03b3\u03bf\u03c1\u1f74 we are enabled to trace the employment of public speaking, as the\nstanding engine of government and the proximate cause of obedience,\n\u2018up to the social infancy of the nation[13].\u2019 But if, in order to make\nthis sentence harmonize with what precedes and follows it, we are to\nunderstand that the Homeric poems present to us no more than the dry\nfact that public speaking was in use, and are to infer that it did not\nacquire its practical meaning and power until a later date, then I must\ninclude it in the general protest which I beg leave to record against\nthe greater part of the foregoing propositions, in their letter and in\ntheir spirit, as being neither warranted in the way of inference from\nHomer, nor in any manner consistent with the undeniable facts of the\npoems.\n\n[13] Ibid. p. 105.\n\n~_Their use of Publicity and Persuasion._~\n\nPersonal reverence from the people to the sovereign, associated with\nthe duties he discharges, with the high attributes he does or should\npossess, and with the divine favour, or with a reputed relationship to\nthe gods, attaching to him, constitutes the primitive form in which\nthe relation of the prince and the subject is very commonly cast in\nthe early stages of society elsewhere than among the Greeks. What is\nsentimental, romantic, archaic, or patriarchal in the Homeric polities\nis common to them with many other patriarchal or highland governments.\nBut that which is beyond every thing distinctive not of Greece only,\nbut of Homeric Greece, is, that along with an outline of sovereignty\nand public institutions highly patriarchal, we find the full, constant,\nand effective use, of two great instruments of government, since and\nstill so extensively in abeyance among mankind; namely, publicity\nand persuasion. I name these two great features of the politics and\ninstitutions of the heroic age, in order to concentrate upon them\nthe marked attention which I think they deserve. And I venture to\ngive to this paper the name of the \u1f08\u03b3\u03bf\u03c1\u1f74, because it was the Greek\nAssembly of those days, which mainly imparted to the existing polities\ntheir specific spirit as well as features. Amid undeveloped ideas,\nrude methods, imperfect organization, and liability to the frequent\nintrusion of the strong hand, there lies in them the essence of a\npopular principle of government, which cannot, I believe, plead on its\nbehalf any other precedent so ancient and so venerable.\n\nAs is the boy, so is the man. As is the seed, so is the plant. The dove\nneither begets, nor yet grows into the eagle. How came it that the\nprime philosophers of full-grown Greece gave to the science of Politics\nthe very highest place in the scale of human knowledge? That they,\nkings in the region of abstract thought, for the first and perhaps the\nonly time in the history of the world, came to think they discerned in\nthe turbid eddies of state affairs the image of the noblest thing for\nman, the noblest that speculation as well as action could provide for\nhim? Aristotle says that, of all sciences, \u03a0\u03bf\u03bb\u03b9\u03c4\u03b9\u03ba\u1f74 is \u1f21 \u03ba\u03c5\u03c1\u03b9\u03c9\u03c4\u03ac\u03c4\u03b7 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76\n\u03bc\u03ac\u03bb\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1 \u1f00\u03c1\u03c7\u03b9\u03c4\u03b5\u03ba\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd\u03b9\u03ba\u03ae[14]; and that ethical science constitutes but\na branch of it, \u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03b9\u03c4\u03b9\u03ba\u03ae \u03c4\u03b9\u03c2 \u03bf\u1f56\u03c3\u03b1. Whence, I ask, did this Greek idea\ncome? It is not the Greece, but it is the Rome of history, which the\njudgment and experience of the world has taken as its great teacher in\nthe mere business of law and political organization. For so lofty a\ntheory (a theory without doubt exaggerated) from so practical a person\nas Aristotle, we must assume a corresponding elevation of source. I\ncannot help believing that the source is to be found rather in the\ninfancy, than in the maturity, of Greek society. As I read Homer, the\nreal first foundations of political science were laid in the heroic\nage, with a depth and breadth exceeding in their proportions any\nfabric, however imposing, that the after-time of Greece was able to\nrear upon them. That after-time was in truth infected with a spirit of\npolitical exaggeration, from which the heroic age was free.\n\n[14] Ar. Eth. Nic. i. 2.\n\nWe shall have to examine the political picture presented by the heroic\nage with reference to the various classes into which society was\ndistinguished in its normal state of peace: to the organization of the\narmy in war, and its mixture of civil with military relations: to the\ninstitutions which embodied the machinery of government, and to the\npowers by which that machinery was kept in motion.\n\n~_Functions of the King._~\n\nLet us begin with the King; who constituted at once the highest class\nin society, and the centre of its institutions.\n\nThe political regimen of Greece, at the period immediately preceding\nthe Trojan war, appears to have been that described by Thucydides,\nwhen he says that the tyrannies, which had come in with the increase\nof wealth, were preceded by hereditary monarchies with limited\nprerogatives[15]: \u03c0\u03c1\u03cc\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd \u03b4\u1f72 \u1f26\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd \u1f10\u03c0\u1f76 \u1fe5\u03b7\u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03b3\u03ad\u03c1\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c4\u03c1\u03b9\u03ba\u03b1\u1f76\n\u03b2\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03bb\u03b5\u1fd6\u03b1\u03b9. And again by Aristotle; \u03b2\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03bb\u03b5\u03af\u03b1 ... \u1f21 \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u03c4\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 \u1f21\u03c1\u03c9\u03b9\u03ba\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2\n\u03c7\u03c1\u03cc\u03bd\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 ... \u1f26\u03bd \u1f11\u03ba\u03cc\u03bd\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd \u03bc\u1f72\u03bd, \u1f10\u03c0\u1f76 \u03c4\u03b9\u03c3\u1f76 \u03b4\u1f72 \u1f61\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2\u00b7 \u03c3\u03c4\u03c1\u03b1\u03c4\u03b7\u03b3\u1f78\u03c2 \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u1f26\u03bd\n\u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b4\u03b9\u03ba\u03b1\u03c3\u03c4\u1f74\u03c2 \u1f41 \u03b2\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03bb\u03b5\u1f7a\u03c2, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u03c4\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 \u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 \u03ba\u03cd\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2. The threefold\nfunction of the King was to command the army, to administer justice\nchiefly, though not exclusively, between man and man, and to conduct\nthe rites of religion[16].\n\n[15] Thuc. i. 13.\n\n[16] Ar. Pol. III. xiv. xv. V. x.\n\nIndependently of sovereignties purely local, we find in Homer traces\nof a maritime Cretan empire, which had recently passed away: and we\nfind a subsisting Pelopid empire, which appears to have been the first\nof its kind, at least on the Greek mainland. For the Pelopid sceptre\nwas not one taken over from the Perseids: it was obtained through\nMercury, that is, probably through contrivance, from Jupiter: and the\ndifference probably consisted in one or both of these two particulars.\nIt comprehended the whole range of continental Greece, \u03c0\u1fb6\u03bd \u1f0c\u03c1\u03b3\u03bf\u03c2, to\nwhich are added, either at once or in its progressive extension, the\n\u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03bb\u03b1\u1f76 \u03bd\u1fc6\u03c3\u03bf\u03b9 (Il. ii. 108) of the Minoan empire. Besides this, it\nconsisted of a double sovereignty: one, a suzerainty or supremacy over\na number of chiefs, each of whom conducted the ordinary government of\nhis own dominions; the other, a direct, though perhaps not always an\neffective control, not only over an hereditary territory, but over\nthe unclaimed residue of minor settlements and principalities in the\ncountry. This inference may, I think, be gathered from the fact that\nwe find the force of Agamemnon before Troy drawn exclusively from his\nMycenian dominions, while he had claims of tribute from towns in the\nsouth-west of Peloponnesus, which lay at some distance from his centre\nof power, and which apparently furnished no aid in the war of Troy.\n\nThe Pher\u00e6 of Diocles lay on the way from Pylos to Sparta: and Pher\u00e6\nis one of the towns which Agamemnon promised to Achilles. It should,\nhowever, be borne in mind that, as the family of names to which Pher\u00e6\nbelonged was one so largely dispersed, we must not positively assume\nthe identity of the two towns.\n\n~_Degrees in Kingship and in Lordship._~\n\nKingship in Homer is susceptible of degree; it is one thing for the\nlocal sovereignties, such as those of Nestor or Ulysses, and another\nfor the great supremacy of Agamemnon, which overrode them. Still the\nGreek \u03b2\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03bb\u1fc6\u03b5\u03c2 in the Iliad constitute a class by themselves; a class\nthat comprises the greater leaders and warriors, who immediately\nsurround Agamemnon, the head of the army.\n\nOf by much the greater part even of chiefs and leaders of contingents,\nit is plain from the poem that though they were lords (\u1f04\u03bd\u03b1\u03ba\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2) of a\ncertain tribe or territory, they were not \u03b2\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03bb\u1fc6\u03b5\u03c2 or kings.\n\nThese chiefs and lords again divide themselves into two classes: one\nis composed of those who had immediate local heads, such as Ph\u0153nix,\nlord of the Dolopes, under Peleus at Phthia, probably Sthenelus under\nDiomed, and perhaps also Meriones under Idomeneus: the other is the\nclass of chieftains, to which order the great majority belong, owning\nno subordination to any prince except to Agamemnon. Among these, again,\nthere is probably a distinction between those sub-chiefs who owned him\nas a local sovereign, and those who were only subject to him as the\nhead of the great Greek confederation.\n\nIt is probable that the subordination of the sub-chief to his local\nsovereign was a closer tie than that of the local sovereign to the head\nof Greece. For, according to the evidence supplied by the promises of\nAgamemnon to Achilles[17], tribute was payable by the lords of towns\nto their immediate political superior: not a tribute in coined money,\nwhich did not exist, nor one fixed in quantity; but a benevolence\n(\u03b4\u03c9\u03c4\u03af\u03bd\u03b7), which must have consisted in commodities. Metals, including\nthe precious metals, would, however, very commonly be the medium of\nacquittance. Again, we find these sub-chiefs invested with dominion by\nthe local sovereign, residing at his court, holding a subaltern command\nin his army. All these points are combined in the case of Ph\u0153nix. On\nthe other hand, as to positive duty or service, we know of none that\na sovereign like Nestor owed to Agamemnon, except it were to take a\npart in enterprises of national concern under his guidance. But the\ndistinction of rank between them is clear. Evidently on account of\nhis relation to Agamemnon, Menelaus is \u03b2\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03bb\u03b5\u03cd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2, higher in mere\nkingship, or more a king, than the other chiefs: Agamemnon boasts[18]\nthat he is greatly the superior of Achilles, or of any one else in the\narmy; and in the Ninth Book Achilles seems to refer with stinging, nay,\nrather with slaying irony, to this claim of greater kingliness for\nthe Pelopids, when he rejects the offer of the hand of any one among\nAgamemnon\u2019s daughters; No! let him choose another son-in-law, who may\nbe worthy of him, and who is more a king than I[19];\n\n[17] Il. ix. 297.\n\n[18] Il. i. 186.\n\n[19] Il. ix. 392.\n\n \u1f45\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03c2 \u03bf\u1f37 \u03c4\u2019 \u1f10\u03c0\u03ad\u03bf\u03b9\u03ba\u03b5, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f43\u03c2 \u03b2\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03bb\u03b5\u03cd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03cc\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03bd.\n\nBut although one \u03b2\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03bb\u03b5\u1f7a\u03c2 might thus be higher than another, the rank\nof the whole body of \u0392\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03bb\u1fc6\u03b5\u03c2 is, on the whole, well and clearly marked\noff, by the consistent language of the Iliad, from all inferior ranks:\nand this combination may remind us in some degree of the British\npeerage, which has its own internal distinctions of grade, but which\nis founded essentially upon parity, and is sharply severed from all\nthe other orders of the community. We shall presently see how this\nproposition is made good.\n\nIt thus far appears, that we find substantially, though not very\ndeterminately, distinguished, the following forms of larger and lesser\nGreek sovereignty:\n\nI. That held by Agamemnon, as the head of Greece.\n\nII. The local kings, some of them considerable enough to have other\nlords or princes (\u1f04\u03bd\u03b1\u03ba\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2) under them.\n\nIII. The minor chiefs of contingents; who, though not kings, were\nprinces or lords (\u1f04\u03bd\u03b1\u03ba\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2), and governed separate states of their own:\nsuch as Thoas for \u00c6tolia, and Menestheus for Athens.\n\nIV. The petty and scattered chiefs, of whom we can hardly tell how far\nany account is taken in the Catalogue, but who belonged, in some sense,\nto Agamemnon, by belonging to no one else.\n\n~_First tokens of change in the Heroic Polities._~\n\nThere are signs, contained in the Iliad itself, that the primitive\nmonarchies, the nature and spirit of which will presently be examined,\nwere beginning to give way even at the time of the expedition to Troy.\nThe growth of the Pelopid empire was probably unfavourable to their\ncontinuance. In any case, the notes of commencing change will be found\nclear enough.\n\nMinos had ruled over all Crete as king; but Idomeneus, his grandson,\nis nowhere mentioned as the king of that country, of which he appears\nto have governed a part only. Among obvious tokens of this fact are\nthe following. The cities which furnish the Cretan contingent are all\ncontained in a limited portion of that island. Now, although general\nwords are employed (Il. ii. 649.) to signify that the force was not\ndrawn from these cities exclusively, yet Homer would probably have been\nmore particular, had other places made any considerable contribution,\nthan to omit the names of them all. Again, Crete, though so large and\nrich, furnishes a smaller contingent than Pylos. And, once more, if it\nhad been united in itself, it is very doubtful whether any ruler of so\nconsiderable a country would have been content that it should stand\nonly as a province of the empire of Agamemnon. In the many passages\nof either poem which mention Idomeneus, he is never decorated with a\ntitle implying, like that of Minos (\u039a\u03c1\u03ae\u03c4\u1fc3 \u1f10\u03c0\u03af\u03bf\u03c5\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2), that he was ruler\nof the whole island. Indeed, one passage at least appears to bear\npretty certain evidence to the contrary. For Ulysses, in his fabulous\nbut of course self-consistent narration to Minerva, shows us that even\nthe Cretan force in Troy was not thoroughly united in allegiance to a\nsingle head. \u2018The son of Idomeneus,\u2019 he says, \u2018endeavoured to deprive\nme of my share of the spoil, because I did not obey his father in\nTroas, but led a band of my own:\u2019\n\n \u03bf\u1f55\u03bd\u03b5\u03ba\u2019 \u1f04\u03c1\u2019 \u03bf\u1f50\u03c7 \u1fa7 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c4\u03c1\u1f76 \u03c7\u03b1\u03c1\u03b9\u03b6\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 \u03b8\u03b5\u03c1\u03ac\u03c0\u03b5\u03c5\u03bf\u03bd\n \u03b4\u03ae\u03bc\u1ff3 \u1f14\u03bd\u03b9 \u03a4\u03c1\u03ce\u03c9\u03bd, \u1f00\u03bb\u03bb\u2019 \u1f04\u03bb\u03bb\u03c9\u03bd \u1f26\u03c1\u03c7\u03bf\u03bd \u1f11\u03c4\u03b1\u03af\u03c1\u03c9\u03bd[20].\n\n[20] Od. xiii. 265.\n\nSo likewise in the youth of Nestor, two generations back, Augeias\nappears as the sole king of the Epeans; but, in the Catalogue, his\ngrandson Polyxeinus only commands one out of the four Epean divisions\nof ten ships each, without any sign of superiority: of the other\nthree, two are commanded by generals of the Actorid family, which\nin the earlier legend appears as part of the court or following of\nAugeias[21]. And wherever we find in the case of any considerable\nGreek contingent the chief command divided among persons other than\nbrothers, we may probably infer that there had been a breaking up of\nthe old monarchical and patriarchal system. This point deserves more\nparticular inquiry.\n\n[21] Il. xi. 709, 39, 50.\n\n~_Shown by analysis of the Catalogue._~\n\nIn the Greek armament, there are twenty-nine contingents in all.\n\nOf these, twenty-three are under a single head; with or without\nassistants who, where they appear, are described as having been\nsecondary.\n\n 1. Locrians with 40 ships.\n 2. Eub\u0153ans 40\n 3. Athenians 50\n 4. Salaminians 12\n 5. Argives 80\n 6. Mycenians 100\n 7. Laced\u00e6monians 60\n 8. Pylians 90\n 9. Arcadians 60\n 10. Dulichians &c. 40\n 11. Cephallenians 12\n 12. \u00c6tolians 40\n 13. Cretans 80\n 14. Rhodians 9\n 15. Symeans 3\n 16. Myrmidons 50\n 17. Phthians of Phylace 40\n 18. Phereans, &c. 11\n 19. Phthians of Methone &c. 7\n 20. Ormenians &c. 40\n 21. Argissans &c. 40\n 22. Cyphians &c. 22\n 23. Magnesians 40\n -----\n 966 ships.\n\nUnder brothers united in command, there were four more contingents:\n\n 1. Of Aspledon and Orchomenus, with 30 ships.\n 2. Of Phocians 40\n 3. Of Nisuros, Cos &c. 30\n 4. Of Tricce &c. 30\n -----\n 130 ships.\n\nIn all these cases, comprising the whole armament except from two\nstates, the old form of government seems to have continued. The two\nexceptions are:\n\n 1. B\u0153otians; with 50 ships, under five leaders.\n 2. Elians; with 40 ships, under four leaders.\n\nIt is quite clear that these two divisions were acephalous. As to the\nElians, because the Catalogue expressly divides the 40 ships into four\nsquadrons, and places one under each leader, two of these being of the\nActorid house, and a third descended from Augeias. As to the B\u0153otians,\nthe Catalogue indicates the equality of the leaders by placing the five\nnames in a series under the same category.\n\nAn indirect but rather strong confirmation is afforded by the passage\nin the Thirteenth Book[22], where five Greek races or divisions are\nengaged in the endeavour to repel Hector from the rampart. They are,\n\n[22] Il. xiii. 685-700.\n\n1. B\u0153otians.\n\n2. Athenians (or Ionians), under Menestheus, seconded by Pheidas,\nStichios, and Bias.\n\n3. Locrians.\n\n4. Epeans (of Dulichium &c.) under Meges, son of Phyleus, with Amphion,\nand Drakios. The addition of the patronymic to Meges seems in this\nplace to mark his position; which is distinctly defined as the chief\none in the Catalogue, by his being mentioned there alone.\n\n5. Phthians, under Medon and Podarces. These supplied two contingents,\nnumbered 17 and 19 respectively in the list just given; and they\nconstituted separate commands, though of the same race.\n\nIt will be remarked that the Poet enumerates the commanders of the\nAthenians, Epeans, and Phthians; but not of the Locrians and B\u0153otians.\nObviously, in the case of the Locrians, the reason is, that Oilean\nAjax, a king and chief of the first rank, and a person familiar to us\nin every page, was their leader. Such a person he never mixes on equal\nterms with secondary commanders, or puts to secondary duties; and\nthe text immediately proceeds to tell us he was with the Telamonian\nAjax[23]. But why does it not name the B\u0153otian leader? Probably, we\nmay conjecture, because that force had no one commander in chief,\nbut were an aggregation of independent bodies, whom ties of blood or\nneighbourhood drew together in the armament and in action.\n\n[23] Il. xiii. 701-8.\n\nHaving thus endeavoured to mark the partial and small beginnings of\ndisorganization in the ancient form of government, let us now observe\nthe character of the particular spots where they are found. These\ndistricts by no means represent, in their physical characteristics, the\naverage character of Greece. In the first place, they are both on the\nhighway of the movement between North and South. In the second, they\nboth are open and fertile countries; a distinction which, in certain\nlocal positions, at certain stages of society, not only does not favour\nthe attainment of political power, but almost precludes its possession.\nThe Elis of Homer is marked by two epithets having a direct reference\nto fertility of soil; it is \u1f31\u03c0\u03c0\u03cc\u03b2\u03bf\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2, horse-feeding, and it is also\n\u03b5\u1f50\u03c1\u03cd\u03c7\u03bf\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2, wide-spaced or open. Again, the twenty-nine towns assigned\nin the Catalogue to the B\u0153otians far exceed in number those which\nare named for any other division of Greece. We have other parallel\nindications; such as the wealth of Orchomenos[24]; and of Orestius\nwith the variegated girdle. He dwelt in Hyle, one of the twenty-nine,\namidst other B\u0153otians who held a district of extreme fertility[25],\n\u03bc\u03ac\u03bb\u03b1 \u03c0\u03af\u03bf\u03bd\u03b1 \u03b4\u1fc6\u03bc\u03bf\u03bd \u1f14\u03c7\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2. Now when we find signs like these in Homer,\nthat Elis and B\u0153otia had been first subjected to revolution, not in the\nshape of mere change of dynasty, but in the decomposition, so to speak,\nof their ancient forms of monarchy, we must again call to mind that\nThucydides[26], when he tells us that the best lands underwent the most\nfrequent social changes by the successions of new inhabitants, names\nB\u0153otia, and \u2018most of Peloponnesus\u2019 as examples of the kind of district\nto which his remark applied.\n\n[24] Il. ix. 381.\n\n[25] Il. v. 707-10.\n\n[26] Thuc. i. 2.\n\nUpon the whole, the organization of the armament for Troy shows us the\nancient monarchical system intact in by far the greater part of Greece.\nBut when we come to the Odyssey, we find increasing signs of serious\nchanges; which doubtless were then preparing the way, by the overthrow\nof old dynasties, for the great Dorian invasion. And it is here worth\nwhile to remark a great difference. The mere supervention of one race\nupon another, the change from a Pelasgian to an Hellenic character,\ndoes not appear to have entailed alterations nearly so substantial in\nthe character and stability of Hellenic government, as did the Trojan\nexpedition; which, by depriving societies of their natural heads,\nand of the fighting men of the population, left an open field to the\noperation of disorganizing causes.\n\nStrabo has a remarkable passage, though one in which he makes no\nparticular reference to Homer, on the subject of the invasions and\ndisplacements of one race by another. These, he says[27], had indeed\nbeen known before the Trojan war: but it was immediately upon the\nclose of the war, and then after that period, that they gained head:\n\u03bc\u03ac\u03bb\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1 \u03bc\u1f72\u03bd \u03bf\u1f56\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u1f70 \u03c4\u1f70 \u03a4\u03c1\u03c9\u03b9\u03ba\u1f70, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u1f70 \u03c4\u03b1\u1fe6\u03c4\u03b1, \u03c4\u1f70\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c6\u03cc\u03b4\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 \u03b3\u03ad\u03bd\u03b5\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9\n\u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1f70\u03c2 \u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03bd\u03b1\u03c3\u03c4\u03ac\u03c3\u03b5\u03b9\u03c2 \u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u03ad\u03b2\u03b7, \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03c4\u03b5 \u03b2\u03b1\u03c1\u03b2\u03ac\u03c1\u03c9\u03bd \u1f05\u03bc\u03b1 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f19\u03bb\u03bb\u03ae\u03bd\u03c9\u03bd \u1f41\u03c1\u03bc\u1fc7\n\u03c4\u03b9\u03bd\u1f76 \u03c7\u03c1\u03b7\u03c3\u03b1\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03c9\u03bd \u03c0\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f00\u03bb\u03bb\u03bf\u03c4\u03c1\u03af\u03c9\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03ac\u03ba\u03c4\u03b7\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd. Of this the Odyssey\naffords some curious indications.\n\n[27] B. xii. 8, 4. p. 572.\n\n~_Extended signs in the Odyssey._~\n\nAmong many alleged and some real shades of difference between the\npoems, we may note two of a considerable political significance: the\nword _King_ in the Odyssey has acquired a more lax signification, and\nthe word _Queen_, quite unknown to the Iliad, has come into free use.\n\n~_Altered meaning of \u2018King.\u2019_~\n\nIt will be shown how strictly, in the Iliad, the term \u03b2\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03bb\u03b5\u1f7a\u03c2, with\nits appropriate epithets, is limited to the very first persons of the\nGreek armament. Now in the Odyssey there are but two States, with\nthe organization of which we have occasion to become in any degree\nacquainted: one of them Scheria, the other Ithaca. Of the first we do\nnot see a great deal, and the force of the example is diminished by the\navowedly mythical or romantic character of the delineation: but the\nfact is worthy of note, that in Scheria we find there are twelve kings\nof the country, with Alcinous[28], the thirteenth, as their superior\nand head. It is far more important and historically significant that,\nin the limited and comparatively poor dominions of Ulysses, there are\nnow many kings. For Telemachus says[29],\n\n[28] Od. viii. 391. vi. 54.\n\n[29] Od. i. 394.\n\n \u1f00\u03bb\u03bb\u2019 \u1f24\u03c4\u03bf\u03b9 \u03b2\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03bb\u1fc6\u03b5\u03c2 \u1f08\u03c7\u03b1\u03b9\u1ff6\u03bd \u03b5\u1f30\u03c3\u1f76 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f04\u03bb\u03bb\u03bf\u03b9\n \u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03bb\u03bf\u1f76 \u1f10\u03bd \u1f00\u03bc\u03c6\u03b9\u03ac\u03bb\u1ff3 \u1f38\u03b8\u03ac\u03ba\u1fc3, \u03bd\u03ad\u03bf\u03b9 \u1f20\u03b4\u1f72 \u03c0\u03b1\u03bb\u03b1\u03b9\u03bf\u03af.\n\nHis meaning must be to refer to the number of nobles who were now\ncollected, from Cephallonia and the other dominions of Ulysses, into\nthat island. The observation is made by him in reply to the Suitor\nAntinous, who had complained of his bold language, and hoped he never\nwould be king in Ithaca[30]:\n\n[30] Ibid. 386.\n\n \u03bc\u1f74 \u03c3\u03ad \u03b3\u2019 \u1f10\u03bd \u1f00\u03bc\u03c6\u03b9\u03ac\u03bb\u1ff3 \u1f38\u03b8\u03ac\u03ba\u1fc3 \u03b2\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03bb\u1fc6\u03b1 \u039a\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd\u03af\u03c9\u03bd\n \u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u03ae\u03c3\u03b5\u03b9\u03b5\u03bd, \u1f45 \u03c4\u03bf\u03b9 \u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03b5\u1fc7 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c4\u03c1\u03ce\u03ca\u03cc\u03bd \u1f10\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03bd.\n\nIt is, I think, clear, that in this place Antinous does not mean\nmerely, \u2018I hope you will not become one of us,\u2019 which might be said in\nreference merely to the contingency of his assuming the controul of his\npaternal estates, but that he refers to the sovereignty properly so\ncalled: for Telemachus, after having said there are many \u03b2\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03bb\u1fc6\u03b5\u03c2 in\nIthaca, proceeds to say, \u2018Let one of them be chosen\u2019, or \u2018one of these\nmay be chosen, to succeed Ulysses;\u2019\n\n \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03ba\u03ad\u03bd \u03c4\u03b9\u03c2 \u03c4\u03cc\u03b4\u2019 \u1f14\u03c7\u1fc3\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd, \u1f10\u03c0\u03b5\u1f76 \u03b8\u03ac\u03bd\u03b5 \u03b4\u1fd6\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f48\u03b4\u03c5\u03c3\u03c3\u03b5\u03cd\u03c2.\n\n\u2018but let me,\u2019 he continues, \u2018be master of my own house and property.\u2019\nThus we have \u03b2\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03bb\u03b5\u1f7a\u03c2 bearing two senses in the very same passage.\nFirst, it means the noble, of whom there are many in the country, and\nit is here evidently used in an improper sense; secondly, it means\nthe person who rules the whole of them, and it is here as evidently\nemployed in its original and proper signification. It seems very\ndoubtful, however, whether, even in the Odyssey, the relaxed sense\never appears as a simple title in the singular number. The only signs\nof it are these; Antinous is told that he is _like_ a king[31] in\nappearance; and he is also expressly called \u03b2\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03bb\u03b5\u1f7a\u03c2 in the strongly\nand generally suspected \u03bd\u03b5\u03ba\u03c5\u0390\u03b1 of the Twenty-fourth Book[32]. So\nagain, the kingly epithet \u0394\u03b9\u03bf\u03c4\u03c1\u03b5\u03c6\u1f74\u03c2 is not used in the singular for\nany one below the rank of a \u03b2\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03bb\u03b5\u1f7a\u03c2 of the Iliad, except once, where,\nin addressing Agelaus the Suitor, it is employed by Melanthius, the\ngoatherd, one of the subordinate adherents and parasites of that\nparty[33].\n\n[31] Od. xvii. 416.\n\n[32] Od. xxiv. 179.\n\n[33] Od. xxii. 136.\n\nThis relaxation in the sense of \u03b2\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03bb\u03b5\u1f7a\u03c2, definite and limited as is\nits application in the Iliad, is no inconsiderable note of change.\n\n~_New name of Queen._~\n\nEqually, or more remarkable, is the introduction in the Odyssey of the\nwords \u03b4\u03ad\u03c3\u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u03bd\u03b1 and \u03b2\u03b1\u03c3\u03af\u03bb\u03b5\u03b9\u03b1, and the altered use of \u1f04\u03bd\u03b1\u03c3\u03c3\u03b1.\n\n1. \u03b4\u03ad\u03c3\u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u03bd\u03b1 is applied, Od. iii. 403, to the wife of Pisistratus, son\nof Nestor; to Arete, queen of the Ph\u00e6acians, Od. vii. 53, 347; to\nPenelope, Od. xiv. 9, 127, 451; xv. 374, 7; xvii. 83; xxiii. 2.\n\n2. \u1f04\u03bd\u03b1\u03c3\u03c3\u03b1 is applied in the Iliad, xiv. 326, to Ceres only; but in the\nOdyssey, besides Minerva, in Od. iii. 380, Ulysses applies it twice\nto Nausicaa, in Od. vi. 149, 175; apparently in some doubt whether\nshe is a divinity or a mortal. I would not however dwell strongly on\nthis distinction between the poems; for we seem to find substantially\nthe human use of the word \u1f04\u03bd\u03b1\u03c3\u03c3\u03b1 in the name of Agamemnon\u2019s daughter,\n\u1f38\u03c6\u03b9\u03ac\u03bd\u03b1\u03c3\u03c3\u03b1, which is used in Il. ix. 145.\n\n3. \u0392\u03b1\u03c3\u03af\u03bb\u03b5\u03b9\u03b1 is used many times in the Odyssey; and is applied to\n\n _a._ Nausicaa, Od. vi. 115.\n _b._ Tyro, daughter of Salmoneus, Od. xi. 258; but only in the phrase\n \u03b2\u03b1\u03c3\u03af\u03bb\u03b5\u03b9\u03b1 \u03b3\u03c5\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9\u03ba\u1ff6\u03bd, which seems to resemble \u03b4\u1fd6\u03b1 \u03b3\u03c5\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9\u03ba\u1ff6\u03bd.\n _c._ Arete, queen of the Ph\u00e6acians, Od. xiii. 59.\n _d._ Penelope, Od. xvi. 332, 7: and elsewhere.\n\nNow it cannot be said that the use of the word is forborne in the\nIliad from the want of fit persons to bear it; for Hecuba, as the wife\nof Priam, and Helen, as the wife of Paris, possibly also Andromache,\n(though this is much more doubtful[34],) were all of a rank to have\nreceived it: nor can we account for its absence by their appearing only\nas Trojans; for the title of \u03b2\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03bb\u03b5\u1f7a\u03c2 is frequently applied to Priam,\nand it is likewise assigned to Paris, though to no other member of the\nTrojan royal family.\n\n[34] See inf. \u2018Ilios.\u2019\n\nWe have also two other cases in the Iliad of women who were queens of\nsome kind. One is that of Hypsipyle, who apparently exercised supreme\npower[35] in Lemnos, but we are left to inference as to its character:\nthe other is the mother of Andromache[36],\n\n[35] Il. vii. 469.\n\n[36] Il. vi. 395-7. 425.\n\n \u1f23 \u03b2\u03b1\u03c3\u03af\u03bb\u03b5\u03c5\u03b5\u03bd \u1f51\u03c0\u1f78 \u03a0\u03bb\u03ac\u03ba\u1ff3 \u1f51\u03bb\u03b7\u03ad\u03c3\u03c3\u1fc3.\n\nShe was what we term a Queen consort, for her husband Eetion was alive\nat the time. In the Odyssey we are told that Chloris, whom Neleus\nmarried, reigned at Pylos; \u1f21 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03a0\u03cd\u03bb\u03bf\u03c5 \u03b2\u03b1\u03c3\u03af\u03bb\u03b5\u03c5\u03b5, Od. xi. 285. In this\nplace the word \u03b2\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03bb\u03b5\u03cd\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd may perhaps imply the exercise of sovereign\npower. Be this as it may, the introduction of the novel title of Queen\nbetokens political movement.\n\nThere are other signs of advancing change in the character of kingship\ndiscernible from the Odyssey, which will be more conveniently\nconsidered hereafter. In the meantime, the two which are already before\nus are, it will be observed, exactly in the direction we might expect\nfrom the nature of the Trojan war, and from the tradition of Strabo. We\nhave before us an effort of the country amounting to a violent, and\nalso an unnaturally continued strain; a prolonged absence of its best\nheads, its strongest arms, its most venerated authorities: wives and\nyoung children, infants of necessity in many cases, remain at home. It\nwas usual no doubt for a ruler, on leaving his country, to appoint some\nguardian to remain behind him, as we see from the case of Agamemnon,\n(Od. iii. 267,) and from the language of Telemachus, (Od. xv. 89);\nbut no regent, deputy, or adviser, could be of much use in that stage\nof society. Again, in every class of every community, there are boys\nrapidly passing into manhood; they form unawares a new generation,\nand the heat of their young blood, in the absence of vigorous and\nestablished controul, stirs, pushes forward, and innovates. Once more,\nas extreme youth, so old age likewise was ordinarily a disqualification\nfor war. And as we find Laertes and Peleus, and Men\u0153tius, with Admetus,\nbesides probably other sovereigns whom Homer has not named to us, left\nbehind on this account, so there must have been many elderly men of the\nclass of nobles (\u1f00\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u1fc6\u03b5\u03c2, \u1f14\u03be\u03bf\u03c7\u03bf\u03b9 \u1f04\u03bd\u03b4\u03c1\u03b5\u03c2) who obtained exemption from\nactual service in the war. There is too every appearance that, in some\nif not all the states of Greece, there had been those who escaped from\nservice on other grounds; perhaps either from belonging to the elder\nrace, which was more peculiarly akin to Troy, or from local jealousies,\nor from the love of ease. For in Ithaca we find old men, contemporaries\nand seniors of Ulysses, who had taken no part in the expedition; and\nthere are various towns mentioned in different parts of the poems,\nwhich do not appear from the Catalogue to have made any contribution to\nthe force. Such were possibly the various places bearing the name of\nEphyre, and with higher likelihood the towns offered by Agamemnon to\nbe made over to Achilles[37].\n\n[37] There is a _nexus_ of ideas attached to these towns that excites\nsuspicion. It would have been in keeping with the character of\nAgamemnon to offer them to Achilles, on account of his having already\nfound he could not control them himself. No one of them appears in the\nCatalogue. Nor do we hear of them in the Nineteenth Book, when the\ngifts are accepted. It seems, however, just possible that the promise\nby Menelaus of the hand of his daughter Hermione to Neoptolemus may\nhave been an acquittance of a residue of debt standing over from the\noriginal offer of Agamemnon, out of which the seven towns appear to\nhave dropped by consent of all parties.\n\n~_Disorganization caused by the War._~\n\nAgain, as Cinyres[38] the ruler of Cyprus, and Echepolus[39] the son\nof Anchises, obtained exemption by means of gifts to Agamemnon, so\nmay others, both rulers and private individuals, have done. But the\ntwo main causes, which would probably operate to create perturbation\nin connection with the absence of the army, were, without much doubt,\nfirst, the arrival of a new race of youths at a crude and intemperate\nmanhood; and secondly, the unadjusted relations in some places of the\nold Pelasgian and the new Hellenic settlers. Their differences, when\nthe pressure of the highest established authority had been removed,\nwould naturally in many places spring up afresh. In conformity with\nthe first of these causes, the Suitors as a body are called very\ncommonly \u03bd\u03b5\u03bf\u1f76 \u1f51\u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03b7\u03bd\u03bf\u03c1\u03ad\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2[40], \u2018the domineering youths.\u2019 And the\ncircumstances under which Ulysses finds himself, when he has returned\nto Ithaca, appear to connect themselves also with the latter of the\nabove-named causes. But, whatever the reasons, it is plain that his\nposition had become extremely precarious. Notwithstanding his wealth,\nability, and fame, he did not venture to appeal to the people till he\nhad utterly destroyed his dangerous enemies; and even then it was only\nby his promptitude, strength of hand, and indomitable courage, that he\nsucceeded in quelling a most formidable sedition.\n\n[38] Il. xi. 20.\n\n[39] Il. xxiii. 296.\n\n[40] Od. ii. 324, 331, _et alibi_. The epithet is, I think, exactly\nrendered by another word very difficult to translate into English, the\nItalian _prepotenti_.\n\nNothing, then, could be more natural, than that, in the absence of the\nsovereigns, often combined with the infancy of their children, the\nmother should become the depositary of an authority, from which, as we\nsee by other instances, her sex does not appear to have excluded her:\nand that if, as is probable, the instances were many and simultaneous,\nthis systematic character given to female rule should have its formal\nresult on language in the creation of the word Queen, and its twin\nphrase \u03b4\u03ad\u03c3\u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u03bd\u03b1, or Mistress. The extension of the word \u1f04\u03bd\u03b1\u03c3\u03c3\u03b1 from\ndivinities to mortals might result from a subaltern operation of the\nsame causes.\n\nIn the very same manner, the diminished force of authority at its\ncentre would increase the relative prominence of such among the nobles\nas remained at home. On reaching to manhood, they would in some cases,\nas in Ithaca, find themselves practically independent. The natural\nresult would be, that having, though on a small scale, that is to say,\nso far probably as their own properties and neighbourhoods respectively\nwere concerned, much of the substance of sovereignty actually in\ntheir hands, they should proceed to arrogate its name. Hence come the\n\u03b2\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03bb\u1fc6\u03b5\u03c2 of Ithaca and the islands near it; some of them young men,\nwho had become adult since the departure of Ulysses, others of them\nold, who, remaining behind him, had found their position effectively\nchanged, if not by the fact of his departure, yet by the prolongation\nof his absence.\n\nThe relaxed use, then, of the term \u03b2\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03bb\u03b5\u1f7a\u03c2 in the Odyssey, and the\nappearance of the term \u03b2\u03b1\u03c3\u03af\u03bb\u03b5\u03b9\u03b1 and of others in a similar category,\nneed not qualify the proposition above laid down with respect to the\n\u03b2\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03bb\u03b5\u1f7a\u03c2 of the Iliad. He, as we shall see from the facts of the poem,\nstands in a different position, and presents to us a living picture of\nthe true heroic age[41].\n\n[41] I need hardly express my dissent from the account given of the\n\u03b2\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03bb\u03b5\u1f7a\u03c2 and \u1f04\u03bd\u03b1\u03be in the note on Grote\u2019s History of Greece, vol. II.\np. 84. There is no race in Troas called \u03b2\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03bb\u03b5\u03cd\u03c4\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd. Every\n\u03b2\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03bb\u03b5\u1f7a\u03c2 was an \u1f04\u03bd\u03b1\u03be; but many an \u1f04\u03bd\u03b1\u03be was not a \u03b2\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03bb\u03b5\u03cd\u03c2. It is true\nthat an \u1f04\u03bd\u03b1\u03be might be \u1f04\u03bd\u03b1\u03be either of freemen or of slaves; but so he\nmight of houses (Od. i. 397), of fishes (Il. xiii. 28), or of dogs (Od.\nxvii. 318).\n\n~_Altered idea of the Kingly office._~\n\nThis change in the meaning of the word King was accompanied by\na corresponding change in the idea of the great office which it\nbetokened. It had descended from a more noble to a less noble type. I\ndo not mean by this that it had now first submitted to limitations. The\n\u03b2\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03bb\u03b5\u1f7a\u03c2 of the Greeks was always and essentially limited: and hence\nprobably it was, that the usurper of sole and indefinite power in the\nstate was so essentially and deeply odious to the Greeks, because it\nwas felt that he had plundered the people of a treasure, namely, free\ngovernment, which they and their early forefathers had possessed from\ntime immemorial.\n\nIt is in the Odyssey that we are first startled by meeting not only\na wider diffusion and more lax use of the name of king, but together\nwith this change another one; namely, a lower conception of the kingly\noffice. The splendour of it in the Iliad is always associated with\nduty. In the simile where Homer speaks of corrupt governors, that draw\ndown the vengeance of heaven on a land by crooked judgments, it is\nworthy of remark, that he avoids the use of the word \u03b2\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03bb\u03b5\u03cd\u03c2[42]:\n\n[42] Il. xvi. 386.\n\n \u1f45\u03c4\u03b5 \u03b4\u03ae \u1fe5\u2019 \u1f04\u03bd\u03b4\u03c1\u03b5\u03c3\u03c3\u03b9 \u03ba\u03bf\u03c4\u03b5\u03c3\u03c3\u03ac\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c7\u03b1\u03bb\u03b5\u03c0\u03ae\u03bd\u1fc3,\n \u03bf\u1f33 \u03b2\u03af\u1fc3 \u03b5\u1f30\u03bd \u1f00\u03b3\u03bf\u03c1\u1fc7 \u03c3\u03ba\u03bf\u03bb\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 \u03ba\u03c1\u03af\u03bd\u03c9\u03c3\u03b9 \u03b8\u03ad\u03bc\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u03c2.\n\nThe worst thing that is even hinted at as within the limits of\npossibility, is slackness in the discharge of the office: it never\ndegenerates into an instrument of oppression to mankind. But in the\nOdyssey, which evidently represents with fidelity the political\ncondition of Greece after the great shock of the Trojan war, we find\nthat kingship has come to be viewed by some mainly with reference to\nthe enjoyment of great possessions, which it implied or brought, and as\nan object on that account of mere ambition. Not of what we should call\nabsolutely vicious ambition: it is not an absolute perversion, but it\nis a clear declension in the idea, that I here seek to note\n\n \u1f26 \u03c6\u1fc2\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c4\u03bf \u03ba\u03ac\u03ba\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd \u1f10\u03bd \u1f00\u03bd\u03b8\u03c1\u03ce\u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u03c3\u03b9 \u03c4\u03b5\u03c4\u03cd\u03c7\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9;\n \u03bf\u1f50 \u03bc\u1f72\u03bd \u03b3\u03ac\u03c1 \u03c4\u03b9 \u03ba\u03b1\u03ba\u1f78\u03bd \u03b2\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03bb\u03b5\u03c5\u03ad\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u00b7 \u03b1\u1f36\u03c8\u03ac \u03c4\u03ad \u03bf\u1f31 \u03b4\u1ff6\n \u1f00\u03c6\u03bd\u03b5\u03b9\u1f78\u03bd \u03c0\u03ad\u03bb\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u03b9\u03bc\u03b7\u03ad\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03cc\u03c2.[43]\n\n[43] Od. i. 391-3.\n\nThis general view of the office as one to be held for the personal\nenjoyment of the incumbent, is broadly distinguished from such a\ncase as that in the Iliad, where Agamemnon, offering seven cities\nto Achilles[44], strives to tempt him individually by a particular\ninducement, drawn from his own undoubtedly rather sordid mind;\n\n[44] Il. ix. 155.\n\n \u03bf\u1f35 \u03ba\u03ad \u1f11 \u03b4\u03c9\u03c4\u03af\u03bd\u1fc3\u03c3\u03b9 \u03b8\u03b5\u1f78\u03bd \u1f63\u03c2 \u03c4\u03b9\u03bc\u03ae\u03c3\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd.\n\nThe moral causes of this change are in a great degree traceable to the\ncircumstances of the war, and we seem to see how the conception above\nexpressed was engendered in the mind of Mentor, when he observes[45],\nthat it is now useless for a king to be wise and benevolent like\nUlysses, who was gentle like a father to his people, in order that,\nlike Ulysses, he may be forgotten: so that he may just as well be\nlawless in character, and oppressive in action. The same ideas are\nexpressed by Minerva[46] in the very same words, at the second Olympian\nmeeting in the Odyssey. It would therefore thus appear, that this\nparticular step downwards in the character of the governments of the\nheroic age was owing to the cessation, through prolonged absence,\nof the influence of the legitimate sovereigns, and to consequent\nencroachment upon their moderate powers.\n\n[45] Od. ii. 230-4.\n\n[46] Od. v. 8-12.\n\n~_Instance of a bad King._~\n\nAnd it is surely well worthy of remark that we find in this very same\npoem the first exemplification of the character of a bad and tyrannical\nmonarch, in the person of a certain king Echetus; of whom all we know\nis, that he lived somewhere upon the coast of Epirus, and that he was\nthe pest of all mortals that he had to do with. With great propriety,\nit is the lawless Suitors who are shown to be in some kind of relation\nwith him; for in the Eighteenth Odyssey they threaten[47] to send Irus,\nwho had annoyed them in his capacity of a beggar, to king Echetus, that\nhe might have his nose and ears cut off, and be otherwise mutilated.\nThe same threat is repeated in the Twenty-first Book against Ulysses\nhimself, and the line that conveys it reappears as one of the Homeric\n_formul\u00e6_[48];\n\n[47] Od. xviii. 83-6 and 114.\n\n[48] Od. xxi. 308.\n\n \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u1f1c\u03c7\u03b5\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd \u03b2\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03bb\u1fc6\u03b1, \u03b2\u03c1\u03bf\u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03b4\u03b7\u03bb\u03ae\u03bc\u03bf\u03bd\u03b1 \u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd.\n\nProbably this Echetus was a purchaser of slaves. It is little likely\nthat the Suitors would have taken the trouble of sending Irus away,\nrather than dispose of him at home, except with the hope of a price; as\nthey suggest to Telemachus to ship off Theoclymenus and Ulysses (still\ndisguised) to the Sicels, among whom they will sell well[49].\n\n[49] Od. xx. 382, 3.\n\n~_Kingship in the age of Hesiod._~\n\nThe kingship, of which the features were so boldly and fairly defined\nin the Homeric age, soon passed away; and was hardly to be found\nrepresented by any thing but its \u03c6\u03b8\u03bf\u03c1\u1f70, the \u03c4\u03c5\u03c1\u03b1\u03bd\u03bd\u1f76\u03c2 or despotism,\nwhich neither recognised limit nor rested upon reverence or upon usage,\nbut had force for its foundation, was essentially absolute, and could\nnot, according to the conditions of our nature, do otherwise than\nrapidly and ordinarily degenerate into the positive vices, which have\nmade the name of tyrant \u2018a curse and a hissing\u2019 over the earth. In\nHesiod we find what Homer nowhere furnishes; an odious epithet attached\nto the whole class of kings. The \u03b8\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bf\u03b9 \u03b2\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03bb\u1fc6\u03b5\u03c2 of the heroic age have\ndisappeared: they are now sometimes the \u03b1\u1f30\u03b4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03bf\u03b9 still, but sometimes\nthe \u03b4\u03c9\u03c1\u03cc\u03c6\u03b1\u03b3\u03bf\u03b9, the gift-greedy, instead. They desire that litigation\nshould increase, for the sake of the profits that it brings them[50];\n\n[50] Hesiod \u1f1c\u03c1\u03b3. i. 39. 258. cf. 262.\n\n \u03bc\u03ad\u03b3\u03b1 \u03ba\u03c5\u03b4\u03b1\u03af\u03bd\u03c9\u03bd \u03b2\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03bb\u1fc6\u03b1\u03c2\n \u03b4\u03c9\u03c1\u03bf\u03c6\u03ac\u03b3\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2, \u03bf\u1f33 \u03c4\u03ae\u03bd\u03b4\u03b5 \u03b4\u03af\u03ba\u03b7\u03bd \u1f10\u03b8\u03ad\u03bb\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9 \u03b4\u03b9\u03ba\u03ac\u03c3\u03c3\u03b1\u03b9.\n\nThe people has now to expiate the wickedness of these corrupted kings;\n\n \u1f40\u03c6\u03c1\u2019 \u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03c4\u03af\u03c3\u1fc3\n \u03b4\u1fc6\u03bc\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f00\u03c4\u03b1\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03bb\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 \u03b2\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03bb\u03ad\u03c9\u03bd\u00b7\n\nA Shield of Achilles, manufactured after the fashion of the Hesiodic\nage, would not have given us, for the pattern of a king, one who stood\nsmiling in his fields behind his reapers as they felled the corn[51].\nYet while Hesiod makes it plain that he had seen kingship degraded\nby abuse, he has also shown us, that his age retained the ideas both\nthat justice was its duty, and that persuasion was the grand basis of\nits power. For, as he says in one of his few fine passages[52], at\nthe birth of a king, the Muses pour dew upon his tongue, that he may\nhave the gift of gentle speech, and may administer strict justice to\nthe people. He then, or the ancient writer who has interpolated him,\ngoes on to describe the work of royal oratory, in thoughts chiefly\nborrowed from the poems of Homer. But the increase of wealth, and the\nmultiplication of its kinds through commerce, mocked the simple state\nof the early kings, and tempted them into a rapacity, before which\nthe barriers of ancient custom gave way: and so, says Thucydides[53],\n\u03c4\u1f70 \u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03bb\u1f70 \u03c4\u03c5\u03c1\u03b1\u03bd\u03bd\u03af\u03b4\u03b5\u03c2 \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u03b1\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03c0\u03cc\u03bb\u03b5\u03c3\u03b9 \u03ba\u03b1\u03b8\u03af\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf, \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u03cc\u03b4\u03c9\u03bd \u03bc\u03b5\u03b9\u03b6\u03cc\u03bd\u03c9\u03bd\n\u03b3\u03b9\u03b3\u03bd\u03bf\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03c9\u03bd. The germ of this evil is just discernible in the Agamemnon\nof the Iliad: and it is marked by the epithet of Achilles, who,\nwhen angry, still knows how to strike at the weakest point of his\ncharacter, by calling him \u03b4\u03b7\u03bc\u03cc\u03b2\u03bf\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2 \u03b2\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03bb\u03b5\u1f7a\u03c2[54], a king who eat up,\nor impoverished, those under his command. Whether the charge was in\nany great degree deserved or not, we can hardly say. Helen certainly\ngives to the Ach\u00e6an king a better character[55]. But however that may\nbe, the reproach was altogether personal to the man. The reverence due\nand paid to the office must have been immense, when Ulysses, alone, and\narmed only with the sceptre of Agamemnon, could stem the torrent of\nthe flying soldiery, and turn them back upon the place of meeting.\n\n[51] Il. xviii. 556.\n\n[52] Hes. Theog. 80-97.\n\n[53] Thuc. i. 13.\n\n[54] Il. i. 231.\n\n[55] Il. iii. 179.\n\n~_Veneration long adhering to the name._~\n\nEven in the Iliad, indeed, we scarcely find the strictly patriarchal\nking. The constitution of the state has ceased to be modelled in any\ndegree on the pattern of the family. The different classes are united\ntogether by relations which, though undefined and only nascent, are\nyet purely political. Ulysses, in his character of king, had been\ngentle _as_ a father[56]; but the idea which makes the king even\nmetaphorically the father of his people is nowhere, I think, to\nbe found in Homer: it was obsolete. Ethnical, local, and dynastic\nchanges, often brought about by war, had effaced the peculiar traits\nof patriarchal kingship, with the exception of the old title of \u1f04\u03bd\u03b1\u03be\n\u1f00\u03bd\u03b4\u03c1\u1ff6\u03bd; and had substituted those heroic monarchies which retained,\nin a larger development, so much of what was best in the still older\nsystem. As even these monarchies had begun, before the Trojan war, to\nbe shaken here and there, and as the Odyssey exhibits to us the state\nof things when apparently their final knell had sounded, so, in the age\nof Hesiod, that iron age, when Commerce had fairly settled in Greece,\nand had brought forth its eldest-born child Competition[57], they had\nbecome a thing of the past. Yet they were still remembered, and still\nunderstood. And it might well be that, long after society had outgrown\nthe forms of patriarchal life, men might nevertheless cling to its\nassociations; and so long as those associations were represented by old\nhereditary sovereignties, holding either in full continuity, or by ties\nand traditions not absolutely broken, much of the spirit of the ancient\nsystem might continue to subsist; political freedom respecting the\ntree, under the shadow of which it had itself grown up.\n\n[56] Od. ii. 47.\n\n[57] Hesiod. \u1f1c\u03c1\u03b3. 17-24.\n\nIt should be easier for the English, than for the nations of most other\ncountries, to make this picture real to their own minds; for it is the\nvery picture before our own eyes in our own time and country, where\nvisible traces of the patriarchal mould still coexist in the national\ninstitutions with political liberties of more recent fashion, because\nthey retain their hold upon the general affections.\n\nAnd, indeed, there is a sign, long posterior to the account given\nby Hesiod of the heroic age, and distinct also from the apparently\nfavourable notice by Thucydides of the \u03c0\u03b1\u03c4\u03c1\u03b9\u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b2\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03bb\u03b5\u1fd6\u03b1\u03b9, which might\nlead to the supposition that the old name of king left a good character\nbehind it. It is the reverence which continued to attend that name,\nnotwithstanding the evil association, which events could not fail to\nestablish between it and the usurpations (\u03c4\u03c5\u03c1\u03b1\u03bd\u03bd\u03af\u03b4\u03b5\u03c2). For when the\noffice of the \u03b2\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03bb\u03b5\u1f7a\u03c2 had either wholly disappeared, as in Athens,\nor had undergone essential changes, as in Sparta, so that \u03b2\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03bb\u03b5\u03af\u03b1 no\nlonger appears with the philosophical analysts as one of the regular\nkinds of government, but \u03bc\u03bf\u03bd\u03b1\u03c1\u03c7\u03af\u03b1 is substituted, still the name\nremained[58], and bore for long long ages the traces of its pristine\ndignity, like many another venerable symbol, with which we are loath\nto part, even after we have ceased either to respect the thing it\nsignifies, or perhaps even to understand its significance.\n\n[58] The title is stated to have been applied in Attica even to the\ndecennial archons. Tittmann, Griechische Staatsverfassungen, b. ii. p.\n70.\n\nSuch is a rude outline of the history of the office. Let us now\nendeavour to trace the portrait of it which has been drawn in the Iliad\nof Homer.\n\n~_Notes of Kingship in the Iliad._~\n\n1. The class of \u03b2\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03bb\u1fc6\u03b5\u03c2 has the epithet \u03b8\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bf\u03b9, which is never used by\nHomer except to place the subject of it in some special relation with\ndeity; as for (_a_) kings, (_b_) bards, (_c_) the two protagonists,\nAchilles and Ulysses, (_d_) several of the heroes who predeceased the\nwar, (_e_) the herald in Il. iv. 192; who, like an ambassador in modern\ntimes, personally represents the sovereign, and is therefore \u0394\u03b9\u1f78\u03c2\n\u1f04\u03b3\u03b3\u03b5\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f20\u03b4\u1f72 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f00\u03bd\u03b4\u03c1\u1ff6\u03bd, Il. i. 334.\n\n2. This class is marked by the exclusive application to it of the\ntitular epithet \u0394\u03b9\u03bf\u03c4\u03c1\u03b5\u03c6\u03ae\u03c2; which, by the relations with Jupiter which\nit expresses, denotes the divine origin of sovereign power. The word\n\u0394\u03b9\u03bf\u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u1f74\u03c2 has a bearing similar to that of \u0394\u03b9\u03bf\u03c4\u03c1\u03b5\u03c6\u1f74\u03c2, but apparently\nrather less exclusive. Although at first sight this may seem singular,\nand we should perhaps expect the order of the two words to be reversed,\nit is really in keeping; for the gods had many reputed sons of whom\nthey took no heed, and to be brought up under the care of Jupiter was\ntherefore a far higher ascription, than merely to be born or descended\nfrom him.\n\n3. To the \u03b2\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03bb\u03b5\u1f7a\u03c2, and to no one else, is it said that Jupiter has\nintrusted the sceptre, the symbol of authority, together with the\nprerogatives of justice[59]. The sceptre or staff was the emblem of\nregal power as a whole. Hence the account of the origin and successive\ndeliveries of the sceptre of Agamemnon[60]. Hence Ulysses obtained\nthe use of it in order to check the Greeks and bring them back to the\nassembly, ii. 186. Hence we constantly hear of the sceptre as carried\nby kings: hence the epithet \u03c3\u03ba\u03b7\u03c0\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c7\u03bf\u03b9 is applied to them exclusively\nin Homer, and the sceptre is carried by no other persons, except by\njudges, and by herald-serjeants, as their deputies.\n\n[59] Il. ii. 205.\n\n[60] Il. ii. 101.\n\n4. The \u03b2\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03bb\u1fc6\u03b5\u03c2 are in many places spoken of as a class or order by\nthemselves; and in this capacity they form the \u03b2\u03bf\u03c5\u03bb\u1f74 or council of\nthe army. Thus when Achilles describes the distribution of prizes by\nAgamemnon to the principal persons of the army, he says[61],\n\n[61] Il. ix. 334.\n\n \u1f04\u03bb\u03bb\u03b1 \u03b4\u2019 \u1f00\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03ae\u03b5\u03c3\u03c3\u03b9 \u03b4\u03af\u03b4\u03bf\u03c5 \u03b3\u03ad\u03c1\u03b1, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b2\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03bb\u03b5\u1fe6\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd.\n\nIn this place the Poet seems manifestly to distinguish between the\nclass of kings and that of chiefs.\n\nWhen he has occasion to speak of the higher order of chiefs who usually\nmet in council, he calls them the \u03b3\u03ad\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2[62], or the \u03b2\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03bb\u1fc6\u03b5\u03c2[63]:\nbut when he speaks of the leaders more at large, he calls them by\nother names, as at the commencement of the Catalogue, they are \u1f00\u03c1\u03c7\u03bf\u1f76,\n\u1f21\u03b3\u03b5\u03bc\u03cc\u03bd\u03b5\u03c2, or \u03ba\u03bf\u03af\u03c1\u03b1\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9: and, again, \u1f00\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u1fc6\u03b5\u03c2[64]. In two places, indeed,\nhe applies the phrase last-named to the members of that select class\nof chiefs who were also kings: but there the expression is \u1f00\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u1fc6\u03b5\u03c2\n\u03a0\u03b1\u03bd\u03b1\u03c7\u03b1\u03b9\u1ff6\u03bd[65], a phrase of which the effect is probably much the same\nas \u03b2\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03bb\u1fc6\u03b5\u03c2 \u1f08\u03c7\u03b1\u03b9\u1ff6\u03bd: the meaning seems to be those who were chief over\nall orders of the Greeks, that is to say, chiefs even among chiefs.\nThus Agamemnon would have been properly the only \u03b2\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03bb\u03b5\u1f7a\u03c2 \u03a0\u03b1\u03bd\u03b1\u03c7\u03b1\u03b9\u1ff6\u03bd.\n\n[62] Il. ii. 53 _et alibi_.\n\n[63] Il. xix. 309. ii. 86.\n\n[64] Il. ii. 487, 493. xx. 303.\n\n[65] Il. ii. 404, and vii. 327. On the force of \u03a0\u03b1\u03bd\u03b1\u03c7\u03b1\u03b9\u03bf\u1f76, see Ach\u00e6is,\nor Ethnology, p. 420.\n\nThe same distinction is marked in the proceedings of Ulysses, when he\nrallies the dispersed Assembly: for he addressed coaxingly,\n\n \u1f45\u03bd\u03c4\u03b9\u03bd\u03b1 \u03bc\u1f72\u03bd \u03b2\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03bb\u1fc6\u03b1 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f14\u03be\u03bf\u03c7\u03bf\u03bd \u1f04\u03bd\u03b4\u03c1\u03b1 \u03ba\u03b9\u03c7\u03b5\u03af\u03b7,\n\nwhatever king _or_ leading man he chanced to overtake[66].\n\n[66] Il. ii. 188.\n\n5. The rank of the Greek \u03b2\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03bb\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c2 is marked in the Catalogue by this\ntrait; that no other person seems ever to be associated with them on an\nequal footing in the command of the force, even where it was such as to\nrequire subaltern commanders. Agamemnon, Menelaus, Nestor, Ulysses, the\ntwo Ajaxes, Achilles, are each named alone. Idomeneus is named alone as\nleader in opening the account of the Cretans, ii. 645, though, when he\nis named again, Meriones also appears (650, 1), which arrangement seems\nto point to him as only at most a quasi-colleague, and \u1f40\u03c0\u03ac\u03c9\u03bd. Sthenelus\nand Euryalus are named after Diomed (563-6), but it is expressly added,\n\n \u03c3\u03c5\u03bc\u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd \u03b4\u2019 \u1f21\u03b3\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c4\u03bf \u03b2\u03bf\u1f74\u03bd \u1f00\u03b3\u03b1\u03b8\u1f78\u03c2 \u0394\u03b9\u03bf\u03bc\u03ae\u03b4\u03b7\u03c2.\n\nThus his higher rank is not obscured. Again, we know that, in the case\nof Achilles, there were five persons, each commanding ten of his fifty\nships (Il. xvi. 171), of whom no notice is taken in the Catalogue\n(681-94), though it begins with a promise to enumerate all those who\nwere in command of the fleet (493),\n\n \u1f00\u03c1\u03c7\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 \u03b1\u1f56 \u03bd\u03b7\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f10\u03c1\u03ad\u03c9 \u03bd\u1fc6\u03ac\u03c2 \u03c4\u03b5 \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c0\u03ac\u03c3\u03b1\u03c2;\n\nand in the case of the Elians he names four leaders who had exactly the\nsame command, each over ten ships (618). It thus appears natural to\nrefer his silence about the five to the rank held by Achilles as a king.\n\nSo much for the notes of this class in the Iliad.\n\nThough we are not bound to suppose, that Homer had so rigid a\ndefinition of the class of kings before his mind as exists in the case\nof the more modern forms of title, it is clear in very nearly every\nindividual case of a Greek chieftain of the Iliad, whether he was a\n\u03b2\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03bb\u03b5\u1f7a\u03c2 or not.\n\n~_The Nine Greek Kings of the Iliad._~\n\nThe class clearly comprehends:\n\n 1. Agamemnon, Il. i. 9, and in many places.\n\n 2. Menelaus } from Il. xix. 310, 311, where they remain\n 3. Nestor } with Achilles, while the other\n 4. Ulysses } \u03b2\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03bb\u1fc6\u03b5\u03c2, ver. 309, are sent away.\n 5. Idomeneus } Also for Ulysses, see xiv. 379; and\n } various places in the Odyssey.\n\n 6. Achilles, Il. i. 331. xvi. 211.\n\n 7. Diomed, Il. xiv. 27, compared with 29 and 379.\n\n 8. Ajax Telamonius, Il. vii. 321 connected with 344.\n\n 9. Ajax, son of Oileus.\n\nAmong the indications, by which the last-named chief is shown to have\nbeen a \u03b2\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03bb\u03b5\u1f7a\u03c2, are those which follow. He is summoned by Agamemnon\n(Il. ii. 404-6) among the \u03b3\u03ad\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 \u1f00\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u1fc6\u03b5\u03c2 \u03a0\u03b1\u03bd\u03b1\u03c7\u03b1\u03b9\u1ff6\u03bd: where all the\nabovenamed persons appear (except Achilles), and no others. Now the\n\u03b3\u03ad\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 or elders are summoned before in ver. 53 of the same book,\nand are called in ver. 86 the \u03c3\u03ba\u03b7\u03c0\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c7\u03bf\u03b9 \u03b2\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03bb\u1fc6\u03b5\u03c2. Another proof of\nthe rank of Oilean Ajax is the familiar manner in which his name is\nassociated on terms of equality, throughout the poem, with that of Ajax\nTelamonius.\n\nBut the part of the poem, which supplies the most pointed testimony as\na whole with respect to the composition of the class of kings, is the\nTenth Book.\n\nHere we begin with the meeting of Agamemnon and Menelaus (ver. 34).\nNext, Menelaus goes to call the greater Ajax and Idomeneus (53), and\nAgamemnon to call Nestor (54, 74). Nestor awakens Ulysses (137); and\nthen Diomed (157), whom he sends to call Oilean Ajax, together with\nMeges (175). They then conjointly visit the \u03c6\u03cd\u03bb\u03b1\u03ba\u03b5\u03c2 or watch, commanded\nby Thrasymedes, Meriones, and others (ix. 80. x. 57-9). Nestor gives\nthe watch an exhortation to be on the alert, and then reenters within\nthe trench, followed by the Argeian kings (194, 5);\n\n \u03c4\u03bf\u1f76 \u03b4\u2019 \u1f05\u03bc\u2019 \u1f15\u03c0\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf\n \u1f08\u03c1\u03b3\u03b5\u03af\u03c9\u03bd \u03b2\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03bb\u1fc6\u03b5\u03c2, \u1f45\u03c3\u03bf\u03b9 \u03ba\u03b5\u03ba\u03bb\u03ae\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf \u03b2\u03bf\u03c5\u03bb\u03ae\u03bd.\n\nThe force of the term \u03b2\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03bb\u1fc6\u03b5\u03c2, as marking off a certain class, is\nenhanced by the lines which follow, and which tell us that with them,\nthe kings \u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03b4\u2019 \u1f05\u03bc\u03b1, went Meriones and Thrasymedes by special\ninvitation (196, 7);\n\n \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1f76 \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u03ba\u03ac\u03bb\u03b5\u03bf\u03bd \u03c3\u03c5\u03bc\u03bc\u03b7\u03c4\u03b9\u03ac\u03b1\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9.\n\nNow in this narrative it is not stated that each of the persons, who\nhad been called, joined the company which visited the watch: but all\nwho did join it are evidently \u03b2\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03bb\u1fc6\u03b5\u03c2. But we are certain that Oilean\nAjax was among them, because he is mentioned in ver. 228 as one of\nthose in the Council, who were anxious to accompany Diomed on his\nenterprise.\n\nAjax Oileus therefore makes the ninth King on the Greek side in the\nIliad.\n\nThese nine King-Chiefs, of course with the exception of Achilles,\nappear in every Council, and appear either absolutely or almost alone.\n\nThe line between them, and all the other chiefs, is on the whole\npreserved with great precision. There are, however, a very few persons,\nwith regard to whom the question may possibly be raised whether they\npassed it.\n\n~_Certain doubtful cases._~\n\n1. Meges, son of Phyleus, and commander of the Dulichian Epeans, was\nnot in the first rank of warriors; for he was not one of the ten who,\nincluding Menelaus, were ready to accept Hector\u2019s challenge[67].\nNeither was he a member of the ordinary Council; but on one occasion,\nthat of the Night-council, he is summoned. Those who attended on this\noccasion are also, as we have seen, called kings[68]. And we have seen\nthat the term has no appearance of having been loosely used: since,\nafter saying that the kings followed Nestor to the council, it adds,\nthat with them went Meriones and Antilochus[69].\n\n[67] Il. vii. 167-70.\n\n[68] Il. x. 175, connected with 195.\n\n[69] Il. x. 196, 7.\n\nBut when Diomed proceeds to ask for a companion on his expedition, six\npersons are mentioned (227-32) as having been desirous to attend him.\nThey are the two Ajaxes, Meriones, Thrasymedes, Menelaus, and Ulysses.\nIdomeneus and Nestor are of course excepted on account of age. It\nseems plain, however, that Homer\u2019s intention was to include the whole\ncompany, with those exceptions only. He could not mean that one and one\nonly of the able-bodied warriors present hung back. Yet Meges is not\nmentioned; the only one of the persons summoned, who is not accounted\nfor. I therefore infer that Homer did not mean to represent him as\nhaving attended; and consequently he is in all likelihood not included\namong the \u03b2\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03bb\u1fc6\u03b5\u03c2 by v. 195.\n\n2. Ph\u0153nix, the tutor and friend of Achilles, is caressingly called\nby him \u0394\u03b9\u03bf\u03c4\u03c1\u03b5\u03c6\u1f74\u03c2[70] in the Ninth Book; but the petting and familiar\ncharacter of the speech, and of the whole relation between them, would\nmake it hazardous to build any thing upon this evidence.\n\n[70] Il. ix. 607.\n\nIn the Ninth Book it may appear probable that he was among the elders\nwho took counsel with Agamemnon about the mission to Achilles, but it\nis not positively stated; and, even if it were, his relation to that\ngreat chieftain would account for his having appeared there on this\noccasion only (Il. ix. 168). It is remarkable that, at this single\njuncture, Homer tells us that Agamemnon collected not simply the\n\u03b3\u03ad\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2, but the \u03b3\u03ad\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 \u1f00\u03bf\u03bb\u03bb\u03ad\u03b5\u03c2, as if there were persons present,\nwho did not belong to the ordinary Council (Il. ix. 89).\n\nAgain, in the Nineteenth Book, we are told (v. 303) that the \u03b3\u03ad\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2\n\u1f08\u03c7\u03b1\u03b9\u1ff6\u03bd assembled in the encampment of Achilles, that they might urge\nhim to eat. He refused; and he sent away the \u2018other kings;\u2019 but there\nremained behind the two Atreid\u00e6, Ulysses, Nestor, and Idomeneus, \u2018and\nthe old chariot-driving Ph\u0153nix.\u2019 The others are mentioned without\nepithet, probably because they had just been described as kings; and\nPh\u0153nix is in all likelihood described by these epithets, for the reason\nthat the term \u03b2\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03bb\u1fc6\u03b5\u03c2 would not include him (xix. 303-12).\n\nOn the whole then, and taking into our view that Ph\u0153nix was as a lord,\nor \u1f04\u03bd\u03b1\u03be, subordinate to Peleus, and that he was a sub-commander in\nthe contingent of Achilles, we may be pretty sure that he was not a\n\u03b2\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03bb\u03b5\u03cd\u03c2; if that word had, as has I think been sufficiently shown, a\ndeterminate meaning.\n\n3. Though Patroclus was in the first rank of warriors he is nowhere\ncalled \u03b2\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03bb\u03b5\u1f7a\u03c2 or \u0394\u03b9\u03bf\u03c4\u03c1\u03b5\u03c6\u03ae\u03c2; but only \u0394\u03b9\u03bf\u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u1f74\u03c2, which is a word\napparently used with rather more latitude. The subordinate position of\nMen\u0153tius, the father of Patroclus, makes it improbable that he should\nstand as a king in the Iliad. He appears to have been lieutenant to\nAchilles over the whole body of Myrmidons.\n\n4. Eurypylus son of Eu\u00e6mon[71], commander of a contingent of forty\nships, and one of the ten acceptors of the challenge, is in one place\naddressed as \u0394\u03b9\u03bf\u03c4\u03c1\u03b5\u03c6\u03ae\u03c2. It is doubtful whether he was meant to be\nexhibited as a \u03b2\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03bb\u03b5\u1f7a\u03c2, or whether this is a lax use of the epithet;\nif it is so, it forms the only exception (apart from ix. 607) to the\nrule established by above thirty passages of the Iliad.\n\n[71] Il. ii. 736, 7. vii. 167. xi. 819.\n\nUpon the whole, then the evidence of the Iliad clearly tends to\nshow that the title \u03b2\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03bb\u03b5\u1f7a\u03c2 was a definite one in the Greek army,\nand that it was confined to nine persons; perhaps with some slight\nindistinctness on the question, whether there was or was not a claim to\nthat rank on the part of one or two persons more.\n\n~_Conditions of Kingship in the Iliad._~\n\nUpon viewing the composition of the class of kings, whether we include\nin it or not such cases as those of Meges or Eurypylus, it seems to\nrest upon the combined basis of\n\n 1. Real political sovereignty, as distinguished from subaltern\n chiefship;\n\n 2. Marked personal vigour; and\n\n 3. _Either_, _a._ Considerable territorial possessions, as in the case\n of Idomeneus and Oilean Ajax;\n\n _b._ Extraordinary abilities though with small dominions,\n as in the case of Ulysses; or, at the least,\n\n _c._ Preeminent personal strength and valour, accepted in\n like manner as a compensation for defective political\n weight, as in the case of Telamonian Ajax.\n\nAlthough the condition of commanding considerable forces is, as we\nsee, by no means absolute, yet, on the other hand, every commander of\nas large a force as fifty ships is a \u03b2\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03bb\u03b5\u1f7a\u03c2, except Menestheus only,\nan exception which probably has a meaning. Agapenor indeed has sixty\nships; but then he is immediately dependent on Agamemnon. The B\u0153otians\ntoo have fifty; but they are divided among five leaders.\n\nAmong the bodily qualities of Homeric princes, we may first note\nbeauty. This attribute is not, I think, pointedly ascribed in the\npoems to any person, except those of princely rank. It is needless to\ncollect all the instances in which it is thus assigned. Of some of\nthem, where the description is marked, and the persons insignificant,\nlike Euphorbus and Nireus[72], we may be the more persuaded, that Homer\nwas following an extant tradition. Of the Trojan royal family it is the\neminent and peculiar characteristic; and it remains to an observable\ndegree even in the case of the aged Priam[73]. Homer is careful[74]\nto assert it of his prime heroes; Achilles surpasses even Nireus;\nUlysses possesses it abundantly, though in a less marked degree; it is\nexpressly asserted of Agamemnon; and of Ajax, who, in the Odyssey, is\nalmost brought into competition with Nireus for the second honours; the\nterms of description are, however, distinguishable one from the other.\n\n[72] Il. xvii. 51. ii. 673.\n\n[73] Il. xxiv. 631.\n\n[74] Il. ii. 674. Od. xvi. 175. Il. iii. 224, 169, 226, and Od. xi. 469.\n\nAgain, with respect to personal vigour as a condition of sovereignty,\nit is observed by Grote[75] that \u2018an old chief, such as Peleus and\nLaertes, cannot retain his position.\u2019 There appears to have been some\ndiversity of practice. Nestor, in very advanced age, and when unable to\nfight, still occupies his throne. The passage quoted by Grote to uphold\nhis assertion with respect to Peleus falls short of the mark: for it\nis simply an inquiry by the spirit of Achilles, whether his father\nis still on the throne, or has been set aside on account of age, and\nthe question itself shows that, during the whole time of the life of\nAchilles, Peleus, though old, had not been known to have resigned the\nadministration of the government. Indeed his retention of it appears\nto be presumed in the beautiful speech of Priam to Achilles (Il. xxiv.\n486-92).\n\n[75] Hist. vol. ii. p. 87.\n\n~_Custom of resignation in old age._~\n\nAt the same time, there is sufficient evidence supplied by Homer to\nshow, that it was the more usual custom for the sovereign, as he grew\nold, either to associate his son with him in his cares, or to retire.\nThe practice of Troy, where we see Hector mainly exercising the\nactive duties of the government--for he feeds the troops[76], as well\nas commands them--appears to have corresponded with that of Greece.\nAchilles, in the Ninth Iliad, plainly implies that he himself was not,\nas a general, the mere delegate of his father; since he invites Ph\u0153nix\nto come and share his kingdom with him.\n\n[76] Il. xvii. 225.\n\nBut the duties of counsel continued after those of action had been\ndevolved: for Priam presides in the Trojan \u1f00\u03b3\u03bf\u03c1\u1f74, and appears upon the\nwalls, surrounded by the \u03b4\u03b7\u03bc\u03bf\u03b3\u03ad\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2, who were, apparently, still its\nprincipal speakers and its guides. And Achilles[77], when in command\nbefore Troy, still looked to Peleus to provide him with a wife.\n\n[77] Il. ix. 394.\n\nI find a clear proof of the general custom of retirement, probably\na gradual one, in the application to sovereigns of the term \u03b1\u1f34\u03b6\u03b7\u03bf\u03b9.\nThis word is commonly construed in Homer as meaning youths: but the\nreal meaning of it is that which in humble life we convey by the term\nable-bodied; that is to say, those who are neither in boyhood nor\nold age, but in the entire vigour of manhood. The mistake as to the\nsense of the term has created difficulties about its origin, and has\nled D\u00f6derlein to derive it from \u03b1\u1f34\u03b8\u03c9, with reference, I suppose, to\nthe heat of youth, instead of the more obvious derivation form \u03b1 and\n\u03b6\u03ac\u03c9, expressing the height of vital power. A single passage will, I\nthink, suffice to show that the word \u03b1\u1f34\u03b6\u03b7\u03bf\u03c2 has this meaning: which is\nalso represented in two places by the paraphrastic expression \u03b1\u1f30\u03b6\u03ae\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2\n\u1f00\u03bd\u03ae\u03c1[78]. In the Sixteenth Iliad, Apollo appears to Hector under the\nform of Asius (716):\n\n[78] Il. xvii. 520. Od. xii. 83.\n\n \u1f00\u03bd\u03ad\u03c1\u03b9 \u03b5\u1f30\u03c3\u03ac\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 \u03b1\u1f30\u03b6\u03b7\u1ff7 \u03c4\u03b5 \u03ba\u03c1\u03b1\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u1ff7 \u03c4\u03b5.\n\nNow the Asius in question was full brother to Hecuba, the mother of\nHector and eighteen other children; and he cannot, therefore, be\nsupposed to have been a youth. The meaning of the Poet appears clearly\nto be to prevent the supposition, which would otherwise have been a\nnatural one in regard to Hector\u2019s uncle, that this Asius, in whose\nlikeness Apollo the unshorn appeared, was past the age of vigour and\nmanly beauty, which is designated by the word \u03b1\u1f34\u03b6\u03b7\u03bf\u03c2.\n\n~_Force of the term \u03b1\u1f34\u03b6\u03b7\u03bf\u03c2._~\n\nThere is not a single passage, where this word is used with any\nindication of meaning youths as contra-distinguished from mature men.\nBut there is a particular passage which precisely illustrates the\nmeaning that has now been given to \u03b1\u1f34\u03b6\u03b7\u03bf\u03c2. In the Catalogue we are told\nthat Hercules carried off Astyoche[79]:\n\n[79] Il. ii. 660.\n\n \u03c0\u03ad\u03c1\u03c3\u03b1\u03c2 \u1f04\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03b1 \u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03bb\u1f70 \u0394\u03b9\u03bf\u03c4\u03c1\u03b5\u03c6\u03ad\u03c9\u03bd \u03b1\u1f30\u03b6\u03b7\u1ff6\u03bd.\n\nPope renders this in words which, whatever be their intrinsic merit,\nare, as a translation, at once diffuse and defective:\n\n \u2018Where mighty towns in ruins spread the plain,\n And saw their blooming warriors early slain.\u2019\n\nCowper wholly omits the last half of the line, and says,\n\n \u2018After full many a city laid in dust\u2019....\n\nChapman, right as to the epithet, gives the erroneous meaning to the\nsubstantive:\n\n \u2018Where many towns of princely youths he levelled with the ground.\u2019\n\nVoss, accurate as usual, appears to carry the full meaning:\n\n \u2018Viele St\u00e4dt\u2019 austilgend der gottbeseligten M\u00e4nner.\u2019\n\nThis line, in truth, affords an admirable touchstone for the meaning\nof two important Homeric words. The vulgar meaning takes \u0394\u03b9\u03bf\u03c4\u03c1\u03b5\u03c6\u03ad\u03c9\u03bd\n\u03b1\u1f30\u03b6\u03ae\u03c9\u03bd as simply illustrious youths. What could Homer mean by cities\nof illustrious youths? Is it their sovereigns or their fighting\npopulation? Were their sovereigns all youths? Were their fighting\npopulation all illustrious? In no other place throughout the Iliad,\nexcept one, where the rival reading \u1f00\u03c1\u03b7\u03b9\u03b8\u03cc\u03c9\u03bd is evidently to be\nadopted, does the Poet apply \u0394\u03b9\u03bf\u03c4\u03c1\u03b5\u03c6\u1f74\u03c2 to a mass of men[80]. If,\nthen, the sovereigns be meant, it is plain that they could not all be\nyouths, and therefore \u03b1\u1f34\u03b6\u03b7\u03bf\u03c2 does not mean a youth. But now let us\ntake \u0394\u03b9\u03bf\u03c4\u03c1\u03b5\u03c6\u1f74\u03c2 in its strict sense as a royal title only; then let us\nremember that thrones were only assumed on coming to manhood, as is\nplain from the case of Telemachus, who, though his father, as it was\nfeared, was dead, was not in possession of the sovereign power. \u2018May\nJupiter,\u2019 says Antinous to him, \u2018never make you the \u03b2\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03bb\u03b5\u1f7a\u03c2 in Ithaca:\nwhich is your right,\u2019 or \u2018which would fall to you by birth[81]:\u2019\n\n[80] Nor is it applied in the Odyssey to any bodies more numerous\nthan the thirteen \u2018kings\u2019 of Scheria, Od. v. 378; and to them in the\ncharacter of kings.\n\n[81] Od. i. 386.\n\n \u1f45 \u03c4\u03bf\u03b9 \u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03b5\u1fc7 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c4\u03c1\u03ce\u03ca\u03cc\u03bd \u1f10\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03bd.\n\nWhen Telemachus answers, by proposing that one of the nobles should\nassume the sovereignty. Lastly, upon declining into old age, it\nwas, for the most part, either as to the more active cares, or else\nentirely, relinquished. Then the sense of Il. ii. 660 will come out\nwith Homer\u2019s usual accuracy and completeness. It will be that Hercules\nsacked many cities of prince-warriors, or vigorous and warlike princes.\n\nThus, then, it was requisite that the Homeric \u03b2\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03bb\u03b5\u1f7a\u03c2 should be a\nking, a _k\u00f6nig_, a man of whom we could say that actually, and not\nconventionally alone, he _can_, both in mind and person. Such was the\ntheory and such the practice of the Homeric age. There is not a single\nGreek sovereign, with the honourable exception of Nestor, who does\nnot lead his subjects into battle; not one who does not excel them\nall in strength of hand, scarcely any who does not also give proofs\nof superior intellect, where scope is allowed for it by the action of\nthe poem. Over and above the work of battle, the prince is likewise\npeerless in the Games. Of the eight contests of the Twenty-third Book,\nseven are conducted only by the princes of the armament. The single\nexception is remarkable: it is the boxing match, which Homer calls\n\u03c0\u03c5\u03b3\u03bc\u03b1\u03c7\u03af\u03b7 \u1f00\u03bb\u03b5\u03b3\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd\u1f74[82], an epithet that he applies to no other of the\nmatches except the wrestling.\n\n[82] Il. xxiii. 653.\n\nBut his low estimation of the boxing comes out in another form, the\nvalue of the prizes. The first prize is an unbroken mule: the second,\na double-bowled cup, to which no epithet signifying value is attached.\nBut for the wrestlers (a contest less dangerous, and not therefore\nrequiring, on this score, greater inducement to be provided,) the first\nprize was a tripod, worth twelve oxen; and the second, a woman slave,\nworth four. What, then, was the relative value of an ox and a mule not\nyet broken? Mules, like oxen, were employed simply for traction. They\nwere better, because more speedy in drawing the plough[83]; but, then,\noxen were also available for food, and we have no indication that the\nformer were of greater value. Without therefore resting too strictly on\nthe number twelve, we may say that the prize of wrestling was several\ntimes more valuable than that of boxing. Again, the second prize of the\nfoot-race was a large and fat ox, equal, probably, to the first prize\nof the boxing-match[84]. Epeus, who wins the boxing-match against the\nprince Euryalus, third leader of the Argives, was evidently a person\nof traditional fame, from the victory he obtains over an adversary of\nhigh rank. But Homer has taken care to balance this by introducing\na confession from the mouth of Epeus himself, that he was good for\nnothing in battle[85];\n\n[83] Il. x. 352.\n\n[84] Il. xxiii. 750.\n\n[85] Il. xxiii. 670.\n\n \u1f26 \u03bf\u1f50\u03c7 \u1f05\u03bb\u03b9\u03c2, \u1f45\u03c4\u03c4\u03b9 \u03bc\u03ac\u03c7\u03b7\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03b4\u03b5\u03cd\u03bf\u03bc\u03b1\u03b9;\n\nan expression which, I think, the Poet has used, in all likelihood,\nfor the very purpose of shielding the superiority of his princes, by\nshowing that this gift of Epeus was a single, and as it were brutal,\naccomplishment.\n\n~_Accomplishments of the Kings._~\n\nAs with the games, so with the more refined accomplishments. There\nare but four cases in which we hear of the use of music and song from\nHomer, except the instances of the professional bards. One of these is\nthe boy, who upon the Shield of Achilles plays and sings, in conducting\nthe youths and maidens as they pass from the vineyard with the grapes.\nIt is the bard, who plays to the dancers; but his dignity, and the\ncomposure always assigned to him, probably would not allow of his\nappearing in motion with such a body, and on this account the \u03c0\u03b1\u1f76\u03c2 may\nbe substituted; of whose rank we know nothing. In the other cases, the\nthree persons mentioned are all princes: Paris is the first, who had\nthe lighter and external parts of the character of a gentleman, and\nwho was of the highest rank, yet to whom it may be observed only the\ninstrument is assigned, and not the song. The second is the sublime\nAchilles, whose powerful nature, ranging like that of his Poet through\nevery chord of the human mind and heart, prompts him to beguile an\nuneasy solitude by the Muse; and who is found in the Ninth Iliad[86] by\nthe Envoys, soothing his moody spirit with the lyre, and singing, to\nstrains of his own, the achievements of bygone heroes. Again, thirdly,\nthis lyre itself, like the iron globe of the Twenty-third Book, had\nbeen among the spoils of King Eetion.\n\n[86] Il. ix. 186.\n\nBut the royal and heroic character must with Homer, at least when\nexhibited at its climax, be all comprehensive. As it soars to every\nthing above, so, without stooping, must it be master of every thing\nbeneath it. Accordingly, the Poet has given it the last touch in the\naccomplishments of Ulysses. As he proves himself a wood-cutter and\nship-builder in the island of Calypso, so he is no stranger to the\nplough and the scythe; and he fairly challenges[87] Eurymachus the\nSuitor to try which of them would soonest clear the meadow of its\ngrass, which drive the straightest furrow down a four-acre field.\n\n[87] Od. xviii. 366-75.\n\nSo much for the corporeal accomplishments of the Greek kings and\nprinces; of their intellectual powers we shall have to treat in\nconsidering the character of the governments of the heroic age.\n\n~_The Kings as Gentlemen._~\n\nBut these accomplishments, mental and bodily, are not vulgarly\nheaped upon his characters by Homer, as if they were detailed in a\nboarding-school catalogue. The Homeric king should have that which\nincorporates and harmonizes them all: he should be emphatically a\ngentleman, and that in a sense not far from the one familiar to the\nChristian civilization of Europe. Nestor, Diomed, Menelaus, are in a\nmarked manner gentlemen. Agamemnon is less so; but here Homer shows his\nusual discrimination, for in Agamemnon there is a sordid vein, which\nmost of all mars this peculiar tone of character. It is, however, in\nthe two superlative heroes of the poems, that we see the strongest\ndevelopment of those habits of feeling and action, which belong to the\ngentleman. It will be admitted that one of these traits is the love of\nthat which is straightforward, truthful, and above-board. According to\nthe vulgar conception of the character of Ulysses, he has no credit\nfor this quality. But whatever the Ulysses of Virgil or of Euripides\nmay be, the Ulysses of Homer, though full of circumspection, reserve,\nand even stratagem in dealing with enemies and strangers, has nothing\nabout him of what is selfish, tricky, or faithless. And, accordingly,\nit is into his mouth that Homer has put the few and simple words,\nwhich rebuke the character of the informer and the tale-bearer, with\na severity greater perhaps even than, under the circumstances, was\nnecessary. When he is recognised by Euryclea, he strictly enjoins upon\nher the silence, on which all their lives at the moment depended. Hurt\nby the supposition that she could (in our homely phrase) be likely to\nblab, she replies that she will hold herself in, hard as stone or as\niron. She adds, that she will point out to him which of the women in\nthe palace are faithful, and which are guilty. No, he replies; I will\nobserve them for myself; that is not your business[88]:\n\n[88] Od. xix. 500-2.\n\n \u03bc\u03b1\u1fd6\u03b1, \u03c4\u03af\u03b7 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03c3\u1f7a \u03c4\u1f70\u03c2 \u03bc\u03c5\u03b8\u03ae\u03c3\u03b5\u03b1\u03b9; \u03bf\u1f50\u03b4\u03ad \u03c4\u03af \u03c3\u03b5 \u03c7\u03c1\u03ae\u00b7\n \u03b5\u1f56 \u03bd\u03c5 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1f78\u03c2 \u1f10\u03b3\u1f7c \u03c6\u03c1\u03ac\u03c3\u03bf\u03bc\u03b1\u03b9 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b5\u1f34\u03c3\u03bf\u03bc\u2019 \u1f11\u03ba\u03ac\u03c3\u03c4\u03b7\u03bd\u00b7\n \u1f00\u03bb\u03bb\u2019 \u1f14\u03c7\u03b5 \u03c3\u03b9\u03b3\u1fc7 \u03bc\u1fe6\u03b8\u03bf\u03bd, \u1f10\u03c0\u03af\u03c4\u03c1\u03b5\u03c8\u03bf\u03bd \u03b4\u1f72 \u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd.\n\n~_Achilles as a Gentleman._~\n\nAs Homer has thus sharply exhibited Ulysses in the character of a\ngentleman with respect to truth[89], so he has made the same exhibition\nfor Achilles with respect to courtesy: protesting, as it were, in this\nmanner by anticipation against the degenerate conceptions of those\ncharacters, which were to reproduce and render current through the\nworld Achilles as a brute, and Ulysses as a thorough knave. But let us\nsee the residue of the proof.\n\n[89] In Od. xxii. 417, he applies to Euryclea for the information,\nwhich he had before declined. This is after the trial of the Bow: the\nother was before it was proposed, and when the Chief probably reckoned\non having himself more time for observation than proved to be the case.\n\nIn the first Iliad, when the wrath is in the first flush of its heat,\nthe heralds Talthybius and Eurybates are sent to his encampment, with\nthe appalling commission to bring away Briseis. On entering, they\nremain awe-struck and silent. Though, in much later times, we know that\n\n The messenger of evil tidings\n Hath but a losing office,\n\nhe at once relieves them from their embarrassment, and bids them\npersonally welcome;\n\n \u03c7\u03b1\u03af\u03c1\u03b5\u03c4\u03b5, \u03ba\u03ae\u03c1\u03c5\u03ba\u03b5\u03c2, \u0394\u03b9\u1f78\u03c2 \u1f04\u03b3\u03b3\u03b5\u03bb\u03bf\u03b9, \u1f20\u03b4\u1f72 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f00\u03bd\u03b4\u03c1\u1ff6\u03bd\u00b7\n \u1f06\u03c3\u03c3\u03bf\u03bd \u1f34\u03c4\u2019[90]\u00b7\n\n[90] Il. i. 334.\n\nAnd he desires Patroclus to bring forth the object of their quest. More\nextraordinary self-command and considerateness than this, never has\nbeen ascribed by any author to any character.\n\nAgain, when in the Ninth Book he is surprised in his seclusion by the\nenvoys Ph\u0153nix, Ulysses, and Ajax, though he is prepared to reject every\noffer, he hails them all personally, without waiting to be addressed\nand with the utmost kindness[91], as of all the Greeks the dearest to\nhim even in his wrath; he of course proceeds to order an entertainment\nfor them. But the most refined of all his attentions is that shown\nto Agamemnon in the Twenty-third Book. Inferior to Ajax, Diomed, and\nUlysses, Agamemnon could not enter into the principal games, to be\nbeaten by any abler competitor, without disparagement to his office:\nwhile there would also have been a serious disparagement of another\nkind in his contending with a secondary person. Accordingly, Achilles\nat the close makes a nominal match for the use of the sling--of which\nwe never hear elsewhere in the poems--and, interposing after the\ncandidates are announced, but before the actual contest, he presents\nthe chief prize to Agamemnon, with this compliment; that there need be\nno trial, as every one is aware already how much he excels all others\nin the exercise.\n\n[91] Il. ix. 197.\n\nYet these great chiefs, so strong and brave and wise, so proud and\nstern, so equipped in arts, manners, and accomplishments, can upon\noccasion weep like a woman or a child. Ulysses, in the island of\nCalypso daily pours forth his \u2018waterfloods\u2019 as he strains his vision\nover the sea; and he covers up his head in the halls of Alcinous,\nwhile Demodocus is singing, that his tears may flow unobserved. And so\nAchilles, fresh from his fierce vengeance on the corpse of Hector,\nyet, when the Trojan king[92] has called up before his mind the image\nof his father Peleus, at the thought now of his aged parent, and now\nof his slaughtered friend, sheds tears as tender as those of Priam\nfor his son, and lets his griefs overflow in a deep compassion for\nthe aged suppliant before him. Nor is it only in sorrow that we may\nremark a high susceptibility. The Greek chieftains in general are\nacutely sensible of praise and of blame. Telemachus[93] is delighted\nwhen \u00c6gyptius commends him as a likely looking youth: and even Ulysses,\nfirst among them all in self-command, is deeply stung by the remark of\nthe saucy Ph\u00e6acian on his appearance, and replies upon the offender\nwith excellent sense, but with an extraordinary pungency[94]. A similar\ntemper is shown in all the answers of the chieftains to Agamemnon when\nhe goes the round of the army[95].\n\n[92] Il. xxiv. 486.\n\n[93] Od. ii. 33, 5.\n\n[94] Od. viii. 159. and seqq.\n\n[95] Il. iv. 231 and seqq.\n\n~_Rights of Hereditary Succession._~\n\nThe hereditary character of the royal office is stamped upon almost\nevery page of the poems; as nearly all the chiefs, whose lineage we are\nable to trace, have apparently succeeded their fathers in power. The\nonly exception in the order, of which we are informed, is one where,\nprobably on account of the infancy of the heir, the brother of the\ndeceased sovereign assumes his sceptre. In this way Thyestes, uncle to\nAgamemnon, succeeded his father Atreus, and then, evidently without any\nbreach of regularity, transmitted it to Agamemnon.\n\nAnd such is probably the reason why, Orestes being a mere child[96],\na part of the dignity of Agamemnon is communicated to Menelaus. For\nin the Iliad he has a qualified supremacy; receives jointly with\nAgamemnon the present of Euneus; is more royal, higher in rank, than\nthe other chieftains: we are also told of him[97], \u03bc\u03ad\u03b3\u03b1 \u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd \u1f08\u03c1\u03b3\u03b5\u03af\u03c9\u03bd\n\u1f24\u03bd\u03b1\u03c3\u03c3\u03b5; and he came to the second meeting of \u03b3\u03ad\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 in the Second\nBook \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03cc\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2, without the formality of a summons.\n\n[96] Od. i. 40.\n\n[97] Il. x. 32.\n\nIn a case like that of Thyestes, if we may judge from what actually\nhappened, the uncle would perhaps succeed instead of the minor, whose\nhereditary right would in such case be postponed until the next turn.\n\nThe case of Telemachus in the Odyssey is interesting in many ways,\nas unfolding to us the relations of the family life of the period.\nAmong other points which it illustrates, is that of the succession\nto sovereignty. It was admitted by the Suitors, that it descended to\nhim from his father[98]. Yet there evidently was some special, if not\nformal act to be done, without which he could not be king. For Antinous\nexpresses his hope that Jupiter will never make Telemachus king of\nIthaca. Not because the throne was full, for, on the contrary, the\ndeath of Ulysses was admitted or assumed to have occurred[99]; but\napparently because this act, whatever it was, had not been performed in\nhis case.\n\n[98] \u1f45 \u03c4\u03bf\u03b9 \u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03b5\u1fc7 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c4\u03c1\u03ce\u03ca\u03cc\u03bd \u1f10\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03bd, Od. i. 387.\n\n[99] Od. i. 396. ii. 182.\n\nPerhaps the expressions of Antinous imply that such a proceeding\nwas much more than formal, and that the accession of Telemachus to\nthe supreme dignity might be arrested by the dissent of the nobles.\nThe answer too of the young prince[100] (\u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03ba\u03ad\u03bd \u03c4\u03b9\u03c2 \u03c4\u03cc\u03b4\u2019 \u1f14\u03c7\u1fc3\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd)\nseems to be at least in harmony with the idea that a practice,\neither approaching to election, or in some way involving a voluntary\naction on the part of the subjects or of a portion of them, had to\nbe gone through. But the personal dignity of the son of Ulysses was\nunquestioned. Even the Suitors pay a certain regard to it in the midst\nof their insolence: and when the young prince goes into the place of\nassembly[101], he takes his place upon his father\u2019s seat, the elders\nspontaneously making way for him to assume it.\n\n[100] Od. i. 396.\n\n[101] Od. ii. 82.\n\n~_Rights of primogeniture._~\n\nIt may, however, be said with truth, that Telemachus was an only son,\nand that accordingly we cannot judge from his case whether it was the\nright of the eldest to succeed. Whether the rights of primogeniture\nwere acknowledged among the Greeks of the heroic age, is a question of\nmuch interest to our own. For, on the one hand, there is a disposition\nto canvass and to dispute those rights. On the other hand, we live\nin a state of society, to which they probably have contributed more\nlargely than any other specific cause, after the Christian religion,\nto give its specific form. Homer has supplied us with but few cases\nof brotherhood among his greater characters. We see, however, that\nAgamemnon everywhere bears the character of the elder, and he appears\nto have succeeded in that capacity to the throne of Atreus, while\nMenelaus, the younger, takes his inheritance in virtue of his wife.\nTyro, in the Eleventh Odyssey, is said to have borne, on the banks of\nthe Enipeus, the twins Pelias and Neleus. In this passage the order\nin which the children are named is most probably that of age[102].\nWe find Pelias reigning in Iolcus, a part of the original country of\nthe \u00c6olids: while Neleus emigrates, and, either by or before marrying\nChloris, becomes king of Pylos in the south of Greece[103]. Of the\ntwo brothers Protesilaus and Podarces, the former, who is also the\nelder, commands the force from Phylace. He was, however, braver, as\nwell as older. This statement of the merits, ages, and positions of\nthe two brothers raises a question applicable to other cases where two\nbrothers are joined without ostensible discrimination in command. Of\nthese there are four in the Catalogue. The first is that of Ascalaphus\nand Ialmenus, whom their mother Astyoche bore clandestinely to Mars,\n\u1f51\u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03ce\u03ca\u03bf\u03bd \u03b5\u1f30\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd\u03b1\u03b2\u1fb6\u03c3\u03b1. The expression seems to imply, that it was at a\nsingle birth. But even by this supposition we do not get rid of the\nidea of seniority in this case; nor can we suppose all the pairs to\nhave been twins. We naturally therefore ask, whether this conjunction\nimplied equality in command? We may probably venture to answer,\nwithout much doubt, in the negative. On the one hand, there is nothing\nunlikely in the supposition that the first named of two brothers was\nthe eldest, and had the chief command. While on the other hand it is\ncertain, that there is no case of two coequal commanders except it be\namong these four, which are all cases of brothers; and which, under the\ninterpretation which seems the most natural one they can receive, would\nbear fresh testimony to the prevalence of the custom of primogeniture.\nAgain, among the sons of Nestor, who are exhibited to us as surrounding\nhim in the Third Odyssey, we may perhaps find, from the offices\nassigned to them at the solemn sacrifice and otherwise, decisive signs\nof primogeniture. Pisistratus steps forward to greet Telemachus on\nhis arrival, and leads him to his seat[104], sleeps near him under\nthe portico, and accompanies him on his journey. But these functions\nappertain to him because he was the bachelor (\u1f20\u0390\u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u03c2) of the family,\nas we are appropriately told in reference to his taking a couch near\nthe guest, while the married persons always slept in some separate\nand more private part of the palace[105]. Pisistratus, therefore, was\nprobably the youngest son. But it is also pretty clear that Thrasymedes\nwas the eldest. For in the sacrifice he strikes the fatal blow at the\nox: while Stratius and Echephron bring it up, Aretus holds the ewer\nand basin, Perseus holds the lamb, Pisistratus cuts up the animal and\nNestor performs the religious rites of prayer and sacrifice[106].\n\n[102] Od. xi. 254, 6.\n\n[103] Od. xi. 281.\n\n[104] Od. iii. 36.\n\n[105] Od. iii. 402. Il. vi. 242-50.\n\n[106] Od. iii. 439-46 and 454.\n\nAnd again, when Pisistratus brings up Telemachus and the disguised\nMinerva, he places them, evidently as in the seat of honour, \u2018beside\nhis brother Thrasymedes and his father.\u2019\n\nThis is in perfect consonance with our finding Thrasymedes only,\ntogether with Antilochus who fell, selected for service in the Trojan\nwar.\n\nUpon this question, again, an important collateral light is cast by\nHomer\u2019s mythological arrangements. They are, in fact, quite conclusive\non the subject of primogeniture among the Hellenes. The Olympian order\nis founded upon it. It is as the eldest of the three Kronid brothers,\nand by no other title, that Jupiter stands at the head of the Olympian\ncommunity. With respect to the lottery, he is but one of three. His\nbeing the King of Air invests him with no right to command the King of\nSea. In the Fifteenth Book, as he is of nearly equal force, Neptune\ndeclines to obey his orders until reminded by Iris of his seniority.\nThe Erinues, says the Messenger Goddess, attend upon the elder. That\nis to say, his rights lie at the foundation of the moral order. Upon\nthis suggestion, the refractory deity at once succumbs[107]. And,\nreciprocally, Jupiter in the Thirteenth Odyssey recognises the claim of\nNeptune to respect as the _oldest_ and best (of course after himself)\nof the gods[108].--\n\n[107] Il. xv. 204-7.\n\n[108] Od. xiii. 141.\n\nThus exalted and severed in rank, thus beautiful in person, thus\npowerful in hand and mind, thus associated with the divine fountain of\nall human honours, the Greek \u0392\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03bb\u03b5\u03cd\u03c2 of the Iliad has other claims,\ntoo, to be regarded as representing, more nearly perhaps than it has\never been represented by any other class of monarchs, a benignant and\nalmost ideal kingship. The light of these great stars of heroic society\nwas no less mild than it was bright; and they might well have supplied\nthe basis of that idea of the royal character, which has given it so\nextraordinary a hold over the mind of Shakspeare, and led him to adorn\nit by such noble effusions of his muse.\n\n~_Function of the King as Priest._~\n\nThe Homeric King appears before us in the fourfold character of Priest,\nJudge, General, and Proprietor.\n\nIt has already been remarked, that no priest appears among the Greeks\nof the Troic age; and, in conformity with this view, we find Agamemnon\nin the Iliad, and Nestor in the Odyssey, charged with the actual\nperformance of the rite of sacrifice; nor is it apparently committed to\nany other person than the head of the society, assisted by his \u03ba\u03ae\u03c1\u03c5\u03ba\u03b5\u03c2,\nofficers who acted as heralds and as serjeants, or by his sons.\n\nBut while this was the case in regard to what may be called state\nsacrifices, which were also commonly banquets, we likewise learn,\nas to those of a more private character, that they must have been\nperformed by the head of the household. To slay an animal for food\nis in every case to sacrifice him (\u1f31\u03b5\u03c1\u03b5\u03cd\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd) whether in the camp, the\npalace of Nestor, the unruly company of the Suitors, or the peaceful\ncottage of Eumelus; and every animal ready for the knife was called an\n\u1f31\u03b5\u03c1\u03ae\u03ca\u03bf\u03bd[109].\n\n[109] Od. xiv. 74. 94.\n\n~_As Judge and as General._~\n\nThe judicial office of the king is made known to us, first, by the\ncharacter of Minos. While on earth, he had direct communications from\nJupiter, which probably referred to the administration of justice;\nand, in the Shades beneath, we find him actually exercising the office\nof the judge. Nothing with which we become acquainted in Homer has\nthe semblance of criminal justice, except the fines for homicide; and\neven these have no more than the semblance only. The punishment was\ninflicted, like other fines, as an adjustment or compensation[110]\nbetween man and man, and not in satisfaction of the offence against\npublic morality, peace, or order.\n\n[110] Il. xviii. 498.\n\nIn the Second Iliad, the remonstrance of Ulysses with the commonalty\ndeclares that it is the king, and to the king alone, to whom Jupiter\nhas committed the sceptre and the administration of justice, that by\nthese he may fulfil his regal office[111]:\n\n[111] Il. ii. 204.\n\n \u03b5\u1f37\u03c2 \u03ba\u03bf\u03af\u03c1\u03b1\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f14\u03c3\u03c4\u03c9,\n \u03b5\u1f37\u03c2 \u03b2\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03bb\u03b5\u1f7a\u03c2, \u1fa7 \u1f14\u03b4\u03c9\u03ba\u03b5 \u039a\u03c1\u03cc\u03bd\u03bf\u03c5 \u03c0\u03b1\u1fd6\u03c2 \u1f00\u03b3\u03ba\u03c5\u03bb\u03bf\u03bc\u03ae\u03c4\u03b5\u03c9\n \u03c3\u03ba\u1fc6\u03c0\u03c4\u03c1\u03cc\u03bd \u03c4\u2019 \u1f20\u03b4\u1f72 \u03b8\u03ad\u03bc\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u03c2, \u1f35\u03bd\u03b1 \u03c3\u03c6\u03af\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u1f10\u03bc\u03b2\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03bb\u03b5\u03cd\u1fc3.\n\nNow the sceptre is properly the symbol of the judicial authority, as we\nknow from the oath of Achilles[112]:\n\n[112] Il. i. 237.\n\n \u03bd\u1fe6\u03bd \u03b1\u1f56\u03c4\u03ad \u03bc\u03b9\u03bd \u03c5\u1f37\u03b5\u03c2 \u1f08\u03c7\u03b1\u03b9\u1ff6\u03bd\n \u1f10\u03bd \u03c0\u03b1\u03bb\u03ac\u03bc\u1fc3\u03c2 \u03c6\u03bf\u03c1\u03ad\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9 \u03b4\u03b9\u03ba\u03b1\u03c3\u03c0\u03cc\u03bb\u03bf\u03b9, \u03bf\u1f35\u03c4\u03b5 \u03b8\u03ad\u03bc\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u03c2\n \u03c0\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u0394\u03b9\u1f78\u03c2 \u03b5\u1f30\u03c1\u03cd\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9.\n\nFrom the combined effect of the two passages it is clear that the\nduties of the judicature, the determination of relative rights between\nthe members of the community, constituted, at least in great part, the\nprimary function of sovereignty. Still the larger conception of it,\nwhich includes the deliberative office, is that presented to us in the\nspeech of Nestor to Agamemnon, on the occasion of the Council which\nfollowed the Night-assembly[113].\n\n[113] Il. ix. 98.\n\n \u03ba\u03b1\u03af \u03c4\u03bf\u03b9 \u0396\u03b5\u1f7a\u03c2 \u1f10\u03b3\u03b3\u03c5\u03ac\u03bb\u03b9\u03be\u03b5\u03bd\n \u03c3\u03ba\u1fc6\u03c0\u03c4\u03c1\u03cc\u03bd \u03c4\u2019, \u1f20\u03b4\u1f72 \u03b8\u03ad\u03bc\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u03c2, \u1f35\u03bd\u03b1 \u03c3\u03c6\u03af\u03c3\u03b9 \u03b2\u03bf\u03c5\u03bb\u03b5\u03cd\u1fc3\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1.\n\nThe judicial function might, however, even in the days of Homer, be\nexercised by delegation. For in the Assembly graven on the Shield,\nwhile the parties contend, and the people sympathize some with one\nand some with the other, it is the \u03b3\u03ad\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2, or elders, who deliver\njudgment[114]. Of these persons each holds the sceptre in his hands.\nThe passage, Il. i. 237, seems to speak of one sceptre held by many\npersons: this scene on the Shield exhibits to us several sceptres.\nIn the simile of the crooked judgments, a plurality of judges[115]\nare referred to. But as we never hear of an original and independent\nauthority, like that of Il. ii. 204, in the senators or nobles, it\nseems most likely that they acted judicially by an actual or virtual\ndelegation from the king.\n\n[114] Il. xviii. 506.\n\n[115] Il. xvi. 386.\n\nThe duty of the king to command his troops is inscribed on every page\nof the Iliad; and the only limit to it seems to have been, that upon\nthe approach of old age it was delegated to the heir, or to more than\none of the family, even before the entire withdrawal of the sire from\npublic cares. The martial character of the sovereign was indeed\nideally distinguishable from his regal one; for Agamemnon was[116]\n\n[116] Il. iii. 179.\n\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.\n\nStill, martial excellence was expected of him. When Hippolochus\ndespatched his son Glaucus to Troy, he enjoined him always to be\nvaliant, and always to excel his comrades in arms[117].\n\n[117] Il. vi. 207.\n\nLastly, the king was a proprietor. Ulysses had very large landed\nproperty, and as many herds and flocks, says Eum\u00e6us in a spirit of\nloyal exaggeration, as any twenty chiefs alive[118]. And Homer, who\nalways reserves his best for the Lycians, has made Sarpedon declare,\nin an incomparable speech, the virtual condition on which estates like\nthese were held. He desires Glaucus to recollect, why it is that they\nare honoured in Lycia with precedence at banquets, and with greater\nportions than the rest, why looked upon as deities, why endowed with\ngreat estates of pasture and corn land by the banks of Xanthus; it is\nthat they may the more boldly face the burning battle, and be great\nin the eyes and in the minds of their companions. So entirely is the\nidea of dignity and privilege in the Homeric king founded upon the sure\nground of duty, of responsibility, and of toil[119].\n\n[118] Od. xiv. 98.\n\n[119] Il. xii. 310-28.\n\nWhat Hippolochus taught, and Sarpedon stated, is in exact\ncorrespondence with the practical part of the narrative of Glaucus in\nthe Sixth Book. When Bellerophon had fully approved himself in Lycia by\nhis prowess, the king of the country gave him his daughter in marriage,\ntogether with one half of his kingdom; and the Lycians presented him\nwith a great and fertile demesne.\n\n~_As proprietor; the \u03c4\u03ad\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2._~\n\nThis estate is called \u03c4\u03ad\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2; a name never applied in Homer but to the\nproperties of deities and of rulers. He uses the word with reference to\nthe glebe-lands of\n\n Spercheius, Il. xxiii. 148.\n Venus, Od. viii. 362.\n Ceres, Il. ii. 696.\n Jupiter, Il. viii. 48.\n\nAnd to the domains of\n\n Bellerophon, Il. vi. 194.\n \u00c6neas (promised by the Trojan community if he should slay\n Achilles), Il. xx. 184.\n Meleager, Il. ix. 574.\n Sarpedon and Glaucus, Il. xii. 313.\n The \u03b2\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03bb\u03b5\u1f7a\u03c2 on the Shield, Il. xviii. 550.\n Iphition (\u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03ad\u03c9\u03bd \u1f21\u03b3\u03ae\u03c4\u03c9\u03c1 \u03bb\u03b1\u1ff6\u03bd), Il. xx. 391.\n Alcinous, Od. vi. 293.\n Ulysses, Od. xi. 184, and xvii. 299.\n\nOn the other hand, the merely rich man (Il. xi. 68) has an \u1f04\u03c1\u03bf\u03c5\u03c1\u03b1, not\na \u03c4\u03ad\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2; and the farm of Laertes is called \u1f00\u03b3\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2, not \u03c4\u03ad\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2. And\nwhy? Because it was a private possession, acquired by him apparently\nout of savings (Od. xxiv. 206);\n\n \u1f45\u03bd \u1fe5\u03ac \u03c0\u03bf\u03c4\u2019 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1f78\u03c2\n \u039b\u03b1\u03ad\u03c1\u03c4\u03b7\u03c2 \u03ba\u03c4\u03b5\u03ac\u03c4\u03b9\u03c3\u03c3\u03b5\u03bd, \u1f10\u03c0\u03b5\u1f76 \u03bc\u03ac\u03bb\u03b1 \u03c0\u03cc\u03bb\u03bb\u2019 \u1f10\u03bc\u03cc\u03b3\u03b7\u03c3\u03b5\u03bd.\n\nThe word \u03c4\u03ad\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 is probably from \u03c4\u03ad\u03bc\u03bd\u03c9, or from the same root with\nthat verb, and signifies land which, having been cut off from the\noriginal common stock, available for the uses of private persons, has\nbeen set apart for one of the two great public purposes, of government\nor of religion.\n\n~_Revenues and burdens on them._~\n\nBesides their great estates, the kings appear to have had at least two\nother sources of revenue. One of these was not without resemblance\nin form to what we now call customs\u2019-duties, and may have contained\ntheir historical germ. In the Book of Genesis, where the sons of Jacob\ngo down to buy corn in Egypt, they carry with them a present for the\nruler; and doubtless the object of this practice was to conciliate the\nprotection to which, as foreigners, and perhaps as suspected persons,\navowedly seeking their own gain, they would not otherwise have had a\nclaim. \u2018Take of the best fruits of the land in your vessels, and carry\ndown the man a present; a little balm, and a little honey, spices, and\nmyrrh, nuts, and almonds[120].\u2019 In conformity with the practice thus\nexemplified, when Euneus in the Seventh Iliad despatches his ships from\nLemnos to sell wine to the Greek army, in return for which they obtain\nslaves, hides, and other commodities, he sends a separate supply, \u03c7\u03af\u03bb\u03b9\u03b1\n\u03bc\u03ad\u03c4\u03c1\u03b1, as a present to the two sons of Atreus[121]. Agamemnon indeed\nis, in the Ninth Book, slily twitted by Nestor with the largeness of\nthe stores of wine, that he had contrived to accumulate.\n\n[120] Gen. xliii. 11.\n\n[121] Il. vii. 467-75.\n\nSo likewise we find that certain traders, sailing to Scheria, made a\npresent to Alcinous, as the sovereign, of the captive Eurymedusa. When\nwe compare this with the case of Euneus, the gift obviously appears to\nhave been a consideration for permission to trade[122].\n\n[122] Od. vii. 8-11.\n\nThe other source of revenue traceable in the Iliad was one sure to\nlead to the extensive corruptions, which must already have prevailed\nin the time of Hesiod. It consisted in fees upon the administration of\njustice. In the suit described upon the shield, the matter at issue is\na fine for homicide. But quite apart, as it would seem, from this fine,\nthere lie in the midst, duly \u2018paid into court,\u2019 two talents of gold, to\nbe given at the close to him, of all the judges, who should deliver\nthe most upright, that is the most approved, judgment[123]:\n\n[123] Il. xviii. 508.\n\n \u03c4\u1ff7 \u03b4\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd \u1f43\u03c2 \u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u1f70 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c3\u03b9 \u03b4\u03af\u03ba\u03b7\u03bd \u1f30\u03b8\u03cd\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1 \u03b5\u1f34\u03c0\u03bf\u03b9.\n\nHowever righteous the original intention of a payment in this form, it\nis easy to estimate its practical tendencies, and curious to remark how\nearly in the course of time they were realized.\n\nOn the other hand, the great possessions of the king were not given\nhim for his own use alone. Over and above the general obligation of\nhospitality to strangers, it was his duty to entertain liberally the\nprincipal persons among his subjects. Doubtless this provided the\nexcuse, which enabled the Suitors to feast upon the stores of Ulysses,\nwithout the shame, in the very outset, of absolute rapine. And it would\nappear from the Odyssey that Alitherses[124] and other friends of the\nroyal house, frequented the table there as well as its enemies, though\nnot perhaps so constantly.\n\n[124] Od. xvii. 68.\n\nIn the Seventh Iliad, after his fight with Hector, Ajax[125] repairs,\nnot invited, but as if it were a matter of course, to share the\nhospitality of Agamemnon. In the Ninth Book, Nestor urges Agamemnon to\ngive a feast to the elders, as a duty of his office:\n\n[125] Il. vii. 313.\n\n \u1f14\u03bf\u03b9\u03ba\u03ad \u03c4\u03bf\u03b9, \u03bf\u1f54\u03c4\u03bf\u03b9 \u1f00\u03b5\u03b9\u03ba\u03ad\u03c2[126],\n\n[126] Il. ix. 70.\n\nadding,\n\n \u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03ad\u03b5\u03c3\u03c3\u03b9 \u03b4\u2019 \u1f00\u03bd\u03ac\u03c3\u03c3\u03b5\u03b9\u03c2[127],\n\n[127] Ibid. 73.\n\nand then to take their counsel. But perhaps the ordinary exercise of\nthis duty is best exhibited in the case of Alcinous, who is discovered\nby Ulysses on his arrival entertaining his brother kings in his\npalace[128].\n\n[128] Od. vii. 49, 108.\n\nI have not here taken specific notice of the \u03b4\u03ce\u03c4\u03b9\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9, or tributes,\nwhich, as Agamemnon promised, Achilles was to receive, from the\nseven cities, that it was proposed to place under his dominion. The\nexpression is[129],\n\n[129] Il. ix. 155.\n\n \u03bf\u1f35 \u03ba\u03ad \u1f11 \u03b4\u03c9\u03c4\u03af\u03bd\u1fc3\u03c3\u03b9 \u03b8\u03b5\u1f78\u03bd \u1f63\u03c2 \u03c4\u03b9\u03bc\u03ae\u03c3\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd,\n \u03ba\u03b1\u03af \u03bf\u1f31 \u1f51\u03c0\u1f78 \u03c3\u03ba\u03ae\u03c0\u03c4\u03c1\u1ff3 \u03bb\u03b9\u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u1f70\u03c2 \u03c4\u03b5\u03bb\u03ad\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9 \u03b8\u03ad\u03bc\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u03c2.\n\nThe connection of the ideas in the two lines respectively would appear\nto show, that the \u03b4\u03ce\u03c4\u03b9\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9 may be no more than the fees payable to the\nsovereign on the administration of justice.\n\nThus then the king might draw his ordinary revenues mainly from the\nfollowing sources:\n\nFirst and principally, the public \u03c4\u03ad\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2, or demesne land.\n\nNext, his own private acquisitions, such as the \u1f00\u03b3\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 of Laertes.\n\nThirdly, the fees on the administration of justice.\n\nFourthly, the presents paid for licenses to trade.\n\n~_The position of Agamemnon._~\n\nThe position of Agamemnon, the greatest king of the heroic age,\nconstitutes in itself too considerable a feature of Greek polity at\nthat period to be dismissed without especial notice.\n\nHe appears to have united in himself almost every advantage which could\ntend to raise regal power to its _acm\u00e8_. He was of a house moving\nonward in its as yet unbroken career of accumulating greatness: he was\nthe head of that house, supported in Laced\u00e6mon by his affectionate\nbrother Menelaus; and the double title of the two was fortified\nwith twin supports, by their marriages with Clytemnestra and Helen\nrespectively. This family was at the head of the energetic race\nwhich ruled, and deserved to rule, in the Greek peninsula; and which\napparently produced such large and full developments of personal\ncharacter, as the world has never seen, either before or since, at\nso infantine a stage of civilization. There were various kings in the\narmy before Troy, but among them all the race of Pelopids was the most\nkingly[130]. Agamemnon possessed the courage, strength, and skill of a\nwarrior, in a degree surpassed only by the very greatest heroes of his\nnation; and (according to Homer) evidently exceeding that of Hector,\nthe chief Trojan warrior opposed to him. He must have been still in\nthe flower of his age; and though neither gifted with extraordinary\ntalents, nor with the most popular or attractive turn of character, yet\nhe possessed in a high degree the political spirit, the sense of public\nresponsibility, the faculty of identifying himself with the general\nmind and will. Avarice and irresolution appear to have been the two\nmost faulty points in his composition.\n\n[130] Il. x. 239.\n\nHis dominions were the largest which, up to that time, had been known\nin that portion of the world: including Greece, from Mount Olympus to\nthe Malean Cape, reaching across to the islands on the coast of Asia\nMinor, and even capable of being held to include the island of Cyprus.\nBefore Troy, his troops were \u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u1f7a \u03c0\u03bb\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03b9 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f04\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03b9 (Il. ii. 577),\nwhich must imply, as his ships were not greatly more numerous than\nthose of some other contingents, that they were of large size; and\nhe also supplied the Arcadians, who had none of their own, (v. 612.)\nLastly, he bore upon him the mellow brightness of the patriarchal age,\nsignified by the title \u1f04\u03bd\u03b1\u03be \u1f00\u03bd\u03b4\u03c1\u1ff6\u03bd.\n\nThucydides was not an antiquarian, or he would have left on his history\nmore marks of his researches in that department. But he seems to have\nformed with care the opinions which he expresses on archaic Greece, in\nthe admirable introduction to his great work. Among them he says that,\nas he conceives, the fear of Agamemnon operated more powerfully than\nthe oath given to Tyndareus[131], or than good will, in the formation\nof the confederacy which undertook the war of Troy.\n\n[131] Thuc. i. 9.\n\nIt seems clear from Homer, that the name and fame of Agamemnon were\nknown far beyond the limits of Greece, and that the reputation of\nbeing connected with him was thought to be of value. For Menelaus, on\nhis return from Pharos to Egypt, erected there a funeral mound in his\nhonour[132], \u1f35\u03bd\u2019 \u1f04\u03c3\u03b2\u03b5\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd \u03ba\u03bb\u03ad\u03bf\u03c2 \u03b5\u1f34\u03b7; which he would not have done in a\ncountry, to whose inhabitants that monarch was unknown. And again, when\nUlysses is challenged by the Cyclops to declare, to what and to whom he\nand his crew belong, he makes the reply, that they are the subjects of\nAgamemnon, the son of Atreus[133]:\n\n[132] Od. iv. 584.\n\n[133] Od. ix. 263.\n\n \u03bb\u03b1\u03bf\u1f76 \u03b4\u2019 \u1f08\u03c4\u03c1\u03b5\u03af\u03b4\u03b5\u03c9 \u1f08\u03b3\u03b1\u03bc\u03ad\u03bc\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 \u03b5\u1f50\u03c7\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03b8\u2019 \u03b5\u1f36\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9,\n \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03b4\u1f74 \u03bd\u1fe6\u03bd \u03b3\u03b5 \u03bc\u03ad\u03b3\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd \u1f51\u03c0\u03bf\u03c5\u03c1\u03ac\u03bd\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd \u03ba\u03bb\u03ad\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c3\u03c4\u03af\u03bd.\n\nUlysses evidently conceives the fame of the great monarch, thus\nenhanced by success, to have been likely to supply any one who belonged\nto him with a defence against the formidable monster, before whom he\nstood.\n\n~_Governing motives of the War._~\n\nThe statements of Homer respecting the position of Agamemnon and the\nmotives of the war, fall short of, but are not wholly at variance\nwith, the opinion which has been expressed by Thucydides. Of the\noath to Tyndareus Homer knows nothing: but he tells us of the oath,\nby which the Greek chieftains had bound themselves to prosecute the\nexpedition. Before setting out, they had a solemn ceremonial at Aulis;\nthey offered sacrifices, they made libations, they swore, they pledged\nhands[134], they saw a portent, and had it interpreted by Calchas[135].\nBut all this only shows that the Atreid\u00e6 were conscious how formidable\nan enterprise they were about, and how they desired accordingly that\ntheir companion kings should, after having once embarked, be as deeply\npledged as possible to go forward. It does not tell us what was the\noriginal inducement to enter into the undertaking. Again, it does not\nappear that the Greeks in general cared much about the abduction or\neven the restoration of Helen. The only passage directly touching the\npoint is the one in which Agamemnon[136] expresses his opinion that, if\nMenelaus should die of his wound, the army would probably return home.\nIt seems as if Agamemnon thought, that without doubt they would then be\nin honour released from their engagement, and that they would at once\navail themselves of their freedom. The hope of booty, however, would do\nmuch; and the members of a conquering race unite together with great\nfacility for purposes of war, through a mixture of old fellow-feeling\nand the love of adventure, as well as through anticipation of spoil.\nOn the other hand, it was evidently no small matter to organize the\nexpedition: much time was consumed; a friendly embassy to Troy had been\ntried without success; the ablest princes, Nestor and Ulysses, were\nemployed in obtaining cooperation. The general conclusion, I think, is,\nthat a combination of hope, sympathy, respect, and fear, but certainly\na very strong personal feeling, whatever its precise ingredients may\nhave been, towards the Pelopid house, must have operated largely in\nthe matter. And it is in this spirit that we should construe the\nvarious declarations of Homer respecting those who came to the war, as\ncourting the Atreid\u00e6, and as acting for their honour; namely these,\n\n[134] Il. ii. 303-7. 339-41.\n\n[135] Ibid. 308, 322.\n\n[136] Il. iv. 169-72.\n\n \u03c7\u03ac\u03c1\u03b9\u03bd \u1f08\u03c4\u03c1\u03b5\u03af\u03b4\u1fc3\u03c3\u03b9 \u03c6\u03ad\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2. Od. v. 307.\n \u1f08\u03b3\u03b1\u03bc\u03ad\u03bc\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd\u03b9 \u1f26\u03c1\u03b1 \u03c6\u03ad\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2. Il. xiv. 132.\n \u03c4\u03b9\u03bc\u1f74\u03bd \u1f00\u03c1\u03bd\u03cd\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9 \u039c\u03b5\u03bd\u03b5\u03bb\u03ac\u1ff3 \u03c3\u03bf\u03af \u03c4\u03b5, \u03ba\u03c5\u03bd\u1ff6\u03c0\u03b1. Il. i. 159.\n\nBefore Troy, Agamemnon is always regarded by others as responsible for\nthe expedition, and it is plain that he so regards himself. The use of\nhis sceptre by Ulysses in the great effort to stem the torrent of the\nretiring multitude, is highly significant of the influence belonging\nto his station; and when Ulysses argues with the leaders, he rests his\ncase on the importance of knowing the whole mind of Agamemnon, while he\nstrongly dwells on his royal authority, and on the higher authority of\nheaven as its foundation.\n\nHis position, however, did not place him above the influence of\njealousy and fear: for he was gratified when he saw Achilles and\nUlysses, the first of his chieftains, at variance[137]. And his weight\nand authority depended for their efficacy on reason, and on the free\nwill of the Greeks. Agamemnon takes Briseis from Achilles by an act\nof force; but he nowhere seeks to move the army, or the individuals\ncomposing it, upon that principle; nor does the prolongation of\nthe service appear to have been placed beyond the judgment of the\nparticular chiefs and of the troops. Achilles not only declares that\nhe will go, but says he will advise others to go with him[138], and\nasks Ph\u0153nix to remain in his tent for the purpose. The deference paid\nto the Head is a deference according to measure; and the measure is\nthat of his greater responsibility, his heavier stake in the war[139].\nHis functions in regard to the host are, to think for and advise it in\ncouncil, and to stimulate it by exhortation and example in the field.\nIf we may rely on Homer, it was essentially, so far as regarded the\nrelation between the general in chief and the rest of the body, a free\nmilitary organization.\n\n[137] Od. vii. 77.\n\n[138] Il. ix. 356-63, 417-20.\n\n[139] Il. iv. 415-8.\n\n~_Personal Character of Agamemnon._~\n\nThe Agamemnon of Homer does not appear to be intended by the Poet for\na man of genius. But on this very account, the dominance of political\nideas in his mind is more remarkable. On political grounds he is ready\nto give up Chryseis[140]. On political grounds he quells his own\navarice, and slays Trojans instead of taking ransom for them[141]. He\ndeeply feels the responsibilities of his station, and care banishes\nhis sleep. The amiable trait in his character is his affection for\nMenelaus, and in this, as in many other respects, he recalls the\nJupiter of Homer, whose selfishness is nowhere relieved, except by\npaternal affection.\n\n[140] Il. i. 117.\n\n[141] Il. vi. 45-62.\n\nFurther, Agamemnon, though without genius, is a practitioner in\nfinesse. In his love of this art, I fear, he resembles the tribe of\nlater politicians. He resembles them, too, in outwitting himself by\nmeans of it: he is \u2018hoist upon his own petard.\u2019 This seems to be, in\npart at least, the explanation of his unhappy device in the Second\nIliad, to prepare the people for an attack on Troy, by counselling them\nto go home forthwith. The breakdown of his scheme is, as it were, the\nfirst-fruits of retribution for his \u1f04\u03c4\u03b7 in the First Book.----\n\nAs, upon the whole, there is no idea of selfishness involved in the\nprerogatives of the Homeric king, so is it clear that, except as\nagainst mere criminals, there is no general idea of coercion. The\nHomeric king reigns with the free assent of his subjects--an assent\nindeterminate, but real, and in both points alike resembling his\nkingly power. The relation between ruler and ruled is founded in the\nlaws and condition of our nature. Born in a state of dependence, man,\nwhen he attains to freedom and capacity for action, finds himself the\ndebtor both of his parents and of society at large; and is justly\nliable to discharge his debt by rendering service in return. Of\nthis we have various indications in Homer, with respect to parents\nin particular. Those who die young, like Simoeisius by the hand of\nAjax[142], die before they have repaid to their parents the cost, that\nis the care, of their education (\u03b8\u03c1\u03b5\u03c0\u03c4\u03c1\u03ac). In a most remarkable and\ncharacteristic passage. Ph\u0153nix describes how, when he was young, some\ndeity restrained his wrath against his father, and shows the infamy\nthat would attend the taking away of that life, in a country where\nvoluntary homicide, in general, was regarded more as a misfortune than\na crime[143]:\n\n[142] Il. iv. 473-9.\n\n[143] Il. ix. 459.\n\n \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 reciprocal obligations of father and son are beautifully shown by\nAndromache in her lament over Hector, when she speaks of her child[144]:\n\n[144] Il. xxii. 485. Od. xxiv. 434.\n\n \u03bf\u1f54\u03c4\u03b5 \u03c3\u1f7a \u03c4\u03bf\u03cd\u03c4\u1ff3\n \u1f14\u03c3\u03c3\u03b5\u03b1\u03b9, \u1f1d\u03ba\u03c4\u03bf\u03c1, \u1f44\u03bd\u03b5\u03b9\u03b1\u03c1, \u1f10\u03c0\u03b5\u1f76 \u03b8\u03ac\u03bd\u03b5\u03c2, \u03bf\u1f54\u03c4\u03b5 \u03c3\u03bf\u1f76 \u03bf\u1f57\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2.\n\n~_The relation of sovereign and subject free._~\n\nAs to the relation between the subject and the sovereign authority,\nit seems everywhere to be taken for granted. In the Twenty-fourth\nOdyssey, the object of those who march against Ulysses is not to put\ndown authority, but to avenge the deaths of their sons and brothers.\nBut there appears nowhere in Homer the idea that in this relation\ncould be involved a difference of interest, or even of opinion, between\nclass and class, between governors and governed. The king or chief\nwas uplifted to set a high example, to lead the common counsels to\ncommon ends, to conduct the public and common intercourse with heaven,\nto decide the strifes of individuals, to defend the borders of the\nterritory from invasion. That the community at home, or any regularly\nsubsisting class of it, could require repression or restraint from the\ngovernment, was an idea happily unknown to the Homeric times.\n\nThose classes, indeed, were few and simple. There was, first of all,\nthe king; and round him his family and his \u03ba\u03ae\u03c1\u03c5\u03ba\u03b5\u03c2, the serjeants or\nheralds, who were his immediate, and apparently his only immediate,\nagents. They conveyed his orders; they assisted him in the Assembly,\nin sacrifice, and in banquets. They appear to be the only executive\nofficers that are found in Homer. With these was the Bard, apparently\nalso an indispensable member of royal households. Both were recognised\namong the established professions.\n\nNext to the kings and other sovereigns, we must place the chief\nproprietors of the country. In the Odyssey, we find the members of the\naristocracy having their own estates and functions, and sustaining the\npart of \u03b3\u03ad\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2, or leaders in the Assembly. The judicial office,\nas we have seen from the Shield and otherwise, was in their hands,\nprobably by delegation. But it would appear, that the distinction\nbetween them and the sovereign family was rather a broad one; since,\nin almost every case, we seem to find the prince contracting a\nmarriage beyond his own borders. Laertes brings Anticlea[145] from\nthe neighbourhood of Parnassus; Theseus marries Ariadne from Crete;\nAgamemnon and Menelaus, belonging to Mycen\u00e6, are united to the\ndaughters of the king of Sparta; of the two daughters of Icarius,\nUlysses in Ithaca married Penelope, and Eumelus in Pher\u00e6 married\nIphthime (Od. iv. 797); one of the two, at least, and perhaps both,\nmust have married from a considerable distance; Menelaus sends his\nbeautiful daughter Hermione to be the wife of Neoptolemus in Thessaly:\nand the only instance, even apparently in the opposite sense, seems\nto be that of his son Megapenthes, who married a Spartan damsel, the\ndaughter of Alector. But then Megapenthes was not legitimate; he was\nborn of a slave-mother, and therefore he was not a prince[146]. All\nthese facts seem to show us that the royal houses formed a network\namong themselves, spread over Greece, and keeping pretty distinct from\nthe aristocracy: a circumstance which may, in some degree, help to\nexplain the wonderful patience and constancy of Penelope.\n\n[145] Od. xi. 85.\n\n[146] Od. iv. 10-12.\n\n~_Other classes of the community._~\n\nNext to the nobles, and in the third place, we may class what we should\nnow call trades and professions: observing, however, that, in Homer\u2019s\ntime, both the useful arts and the fine arts had a social dignity, as\ncompared with that of wealth and station, which the former have long\nago lost, and which the later have not retained in as full manner as\nperhaps might be desired, not for their own advantage merely, but to\nsecure due honour for labour, and the humanizing effect of this kind of\nlabour in particular for society at large. I draw the proof of their\nestimation in the heroic age, first, from the manner in which they are\ncombined under the common designation of \u03b4\u03b7\u03bc\u03b9\u03bf\u03b5\u03c1\u03b3\u03bf\u1f76, and arranged\nin a mixed order, the preference being only given by a more emphatic\ndescription to the bard[147]:\n\n[147] 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\u1f78\u03bd, \u1f45 \u03ba\u03b5\u03bd \u03c4\u03ad\u03c1\u03c0\u1fc3\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u1f00\u03b5\u03af\u03b4\u03c9\u03bd;\n\nHere I take \u03c4\u03ad\u03ba\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd\u03b1 \u03b4\u03bf\u03cd\u03c1\u03c9\u03bd to represent the entire class of artificers,\nof whom many are named in Homer; in a poor country like Ithaca,\ndepending very much on the use of boats for fishing and for its\ncommunications, the carpenters might naturally represent the whole.\n\nAnd next, from the manner in which these arts were practised by\nprinces, it seems plain that there was nothing in the pursuit of them\ninconsistent with high rank. The physicians, or surgeons rather, of\nthe Greek army, Podaleirius and Machaon, were themselves princes and\ncommanders of a contingent: and even Paris, who was not the man to\ndemean himself by employments beneath his station, seems to have taken\nthe chief share in the erection of his own palace[148]:\n\n[148] Il. vi. 314.\n\n \u03c4\u03ac \u1fe5\u2019 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1f78\u03c2 \u1f14\u03c4\u03b5\u03c5\u03be\u03b5 \u03c3\u1f7a\u03bd \u1f00\u03bd\u03b4\u03c1\u03ac\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd, \u03bf\u1f33 \u03c4\u03cc\u03c4\u2019 \u1f04\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03b9\n \u1f26\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd \u1f10\u03bd\u1f76 \u03a4\u03c1\u03bf\u03af\u1fc3 \u1f10\u03c1\u03b9\u03b2\u03ce\u03bb\u03b1\u03ba\u03b9 \u03c4\u03ad\u03ba\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd\u03b5\u03c2 \u1f04\u03bd\u03b4\u03c1\u03b5\u03c2.\n\nAgain, the bard of Agamemnon was appointed quasi-guardian[149] to\nClytemnestra in her husband\u2019s absence: and Phemius, the bard of\nUlysses[150], proceeded to the Assembly of the Twenty-fourth Odyssey\nin order to prevent any tumult, together with Medon the herald, who\naddressed the people accordingly. The heralds, or serjeants, are also\nrecognised as \u03b4\u03b7\u03bc\u03b9\u03bf\u03b5\u03c1\u03b3\u03bf\u03af[151]. Again, Alitherses, being the \u03bc\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03b9\u03c2 or\nseer of the island, and apparently the only one, takes part in the\ndebates both of the Second and of the Twenty-fourth Books.\n\n[149] Od. iii. 267.\n\n[150] Od. xvii. 263. xxiv. 439.\n\n[151] Od. xix. 135.\n\nThe professions, then, thus far are five:\n\n 1. Seers.\n 2. Surgeons.\n 3. Artificers.\n 4. Bards.\n 5. Heralds.\n\nWe may remark the absence of priests and merchants. Not that merchants\nwere unknown: we find them mentioned by Euryalus the Ph\u00e6acian, as\n\u03c0\u03c1\u03b7\u03ba\u03c4\u1fc6\u03c1\u03b5\u03c2, but their business was esteemed sordid; it too much\nresembled that of the kidnapper or swindler, and it is the reproach of\nseeming to belong to this class that smartly stings Ulysses[152]. And\neven the merchant Mentes, whose form was assumed by Pallas, belonged\nto the Taphians, a tribe of pirates[153]. As yet, neither the order\nof priests would seem to have been completely taken over from the\nPelasgians, nor the class of merchants formed in imitation of the\nPh\u0153nicians.\n\n[152] Od. viii. 161.\n\n[153] Od. i. 183.\n\n~_Slaves in the Homeric age._~\n\nAfter the classes we have named, come the great mass of the population,\nwho till the ground and tend the live stock for themselves or their\nemployers, if free, and for their lords if slaves. The fisherman, too,\nis distinctly noticed[154] in Ithaca. Mr. Grote classes with the free\nhusbandmen the artisans[155], and separates both of them from the\n\u03b8\u1fc6\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2, or hired labourers, and the slaves. It appears to me, however,\nthat we ought to distinguish the artisans from the mere husbandmen, as\nhaving been in a higher station. On the other hand, I see no passage\nin Homer which clearly gives to the husbandmen as a class a condition\nsuperior to that of the hired servants, or even, perhaps, the slaves.\nThe evidence of the poems is not clear as to the existence or extent of\na peasant proprietary. We must beware of confounding those conceptions\nof a slavery maintained wholesale for the purposes of commerce, which\nour experience supplies, with its earliest form, in which the number\nof slaves would seem to have been small, and their ranks to have\nbeen recruited principally by war, with slight and casual aid from\nkidnapping. In those times, the liability to captivity would seem to\nhave affected all men alike, independently of all distinctions whether\nin rank or in blood. The sons of Priam were sold into slavery like any\none else: the only difference was, that, in proportion to the wealth of\nthe parents, there was a better chance of ransom. It would appear that\nthe slaves of Homer were properly, even when not indoor, yet domestic.\nThe women discharged the indoor and household offices: except that a\nfew men performed strictly personal services about their masters, as\n\u03b4\u03c1\u03b7\u03c3\u03c4\u1fc6\u03c1\u03b5\u03c2 and as carvers[156] (\u03b8\u03b5\u03c1\u03ac\u03c0\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5 \u03b4\u03b1\u03ae\u03bc\u03bf\u03bd\u03b5 \u03b4\u03b1\u03b9\u03c4\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u03ac\u03c9\u03bd). But\nthe men-slaves were more largely employed out of doors in the care\nof flocks and herds, fields and vineyards. Thus, the slaves were in\na different position apparently from the freemen, for they seem to\nhave been gathered as servants and attendants round the rich. It would\nappear, however, from the case of Eum\u00e6us, who had a slave of his own,\nMesaulios[157], that they might hold property for themselves. Again,\nnot Eum\u00e6us only, but in the Twenty-fourth Odyssey Dolius and his six\nsons, sit down to table together with Ulysses, and fondly clasp his\nhands. They bear arms too; and this could not have been very strange,\nfor Homer describes the arming of the sons without remark, while he\ncalls both the father and Laertes, on account of their old age[158],\n\u1f00\u03bd\u03b1\u03b3\u03ba\u03b1\u1fd6\u03bf\u03b9 \u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03b5\u03bc\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u03af. The moral deterioration of slaves is noticed very\nstrongly by Eum\u00e6us himself[159], though not with reference to himself.\nWe have, however, no reason to suppose that their outward condition was\ninferior to that of the free labouring population in any thing, except\nthat we must presume they did not take part in the assemblies or in\nwar. When Achilles[160] in the infernal regions compares the highest\ncondition there with the lowest on earth, he does not choose the slave,\nbut the labourer for hire (\u03b8\u03b7\u03c4\u03b5\u03cd\u03b5\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd is his expression), as the type\nof a depressed condition upon earth. The state of the hired servant\nprobably resembled that of the slave in being dependent upon others,\nand fell beneath it in the point of security. This is the more likely,\nbecause the point of the passage turns on the poverty of the employer,\n\n[154] Od. xxiv.\n\n[155] Hist. Greece ii. p. 84.\n\n[156] Od. xvi. 248, 253, also \u03b4\u03b1\u03b9\u03c4\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2, Od. i. 141. There were likewise\nin Scheria nine \u03b1\u1f30\u03c3\u03c5\u03bc\u03bd\u1fc6\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9, who made arrangements for the dance. These\nwere public officers (\u03b4\u03ae\u03bc\u03b9\u03bf\u03b9) and may fairly be rendered \u2018masters of\nthe ceremonies.\u2019 (Od. viii. 258.)\n\n[157] Od. xiv. 449-52.\n\n[158] Od. xxiv. 498.\n\n[159] Od. xvii. 320-3.\n\n[160] Od. xi. 489-91.\n\n \u1f00\u03bd\u03b4\u03c1\u1f76 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u2019 \u1f00\u03ba\u03bb\u03ae\u03c1\u1ff3, \u1fa7 \u03bc\u1f74 \u03b2\u03b9\u03bf\u03c4\u1f78\u03c2 \u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u1f7a\u03c2 \u03b5\u1f34\u03b7,\n\nas constituting the misery of the servant.\n\nIndeed, if we consider the matter a little further, we shall perhaps\nsee the greater reason to think, that the expression \u03b8\u03b7\u03c4\u03b5\u03cd\u03b5\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd has been\nchosen otherwise than at random. What do we mean by a hired servant, at\na period in the movement of society when money did not exist? We can\nonly mean one who was paid by food, clothes, and lodging, like a slave,\nbut who was not, like a slave, permanently attached to his master or\nhis master\u2019s estate. The difference between the two would thus lie in\nthe absence of the permanent tie: a difference much more against the\n\u03b8\u1f74\u03c2, than in his favour.\n\nThe position, then, of the slaves was probably analogous to that of\ndomestic servants among ourselves, who practically forfeit the active\nexercise of political privileges, but are in many respects better off\nthan the mass of those who depend on bodily labour. It doubtless grew\nout of the state of things in which slaves were practically servants,\nand servants of the rich, that masters, or \u1f04\u03bd\u03b1\u03ba\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2[161], were regarded\nas constituting the wealthy class of the community.\n\n[161] Od. xiii. 223.\n\n~_Supply of military service._~\n\nI stop for a moment to observe, that the view here taken of the\ncomparatively restricted numbers and sphere of the slaves in heroic\nGreece may serve in some degree to answer the question, why do we not\nhear of them in the army of the Iliad? As men of equal blood with the\nGreeks themselves, they would perhaps be dangerous comrades in arms.\nAs persons established in charge of the property of the lord, there\nwould be a strong motive to leave them behind for its care. It is\nvery difficult to judge how far the state of heroic Greece bore any\nresemblance to the feudal system of the later middle ages, and whether\nit did not present a more substantial correspondence with the allodial\nsystem of the earlier. We have before us a large number of independent\nproprietors, each bound by usage probably to render personal service,\nbut we have nothing that resembles the obligation to bring so many\nretainers into the field with reference to the size of the estate.\nAnd accordingly, in the Iliad we do not find many merely personal\nretainers. The menial services in the tent of Achilles are performed\nby the women-captives, or by Patroclus in person. After Patroclus was\ndead, his tent was attended only by Automedon, his charioteer, and by\none other warrior. Agamemnon had no other male attendants that we hear\nof, except his two herald-serjeants, Talthybius and Eurybates, who\ndischarged a double function[162]:\n\n[162] Il. i. 321.\n\n \u03c4\u03ce \u03bf\u1f31 \u1f14\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd \u03ba\u03ae\u03c1\u03c5\u03ba\u03b5 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f40\u03c4\u03c1\u03b7\u03c1\u1f7c \u03b8\u03b5\u03c1\u03ac\u03c0\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5.\n\nWe may infer from the poems, that each independent family\nfurnished one or more of its members, drawn by lot, to serve in the\nexpedition[163]. Such is the declaration of the pseudo-Myrmidon to\nPriam: and again, in the Odyssey we find \u00c6gyptius[164] of Ithaca had\nsent one son to Troy, while he kept three at home. The inference\nis strengthened[165] by the negative evidence of the Twenty-fourth\nOdyssey. There[166] Dolius the slave appears with no less than six\nsons: but no mention is made of any member of his family as having\nattended Ulysses to Troy, although, if there had been such a person,\nsome reference to him here, in the presence of Ulysses just returned,\nwould have been most appropriate. Indeed, the six are introduced as\n\u2018the sons\u2019 of Dolius, which of itself almost excludes the idea of his\nhaving sent any son to the war.\n\n[163] Il. xxiv. 396-400.\n\n[164] Od. ii. 17.\n\n[165] Ibid. 474.\n\n[166] Od. xxiv. 387. 497.\n\nAgain, we see that the whole mass of the soldiery attended the\nassemblies, and were there addressed by kings and chiefs in terms\nwhich seemed to imply a brotherhood. They are \u2018friends, Danaan heroes,\nsatellites of Mars[167],\u2019 and it is hard to suppose such words could\nbe addressed to persons held in slavery, however mild, familiar, or\nfavourable. The employment of these terms may suggest a comparison\nwith our own modes of public address, according to which the word\n\u2018Gentlemen\u2019 would be commonly used, though the audience should be\ncomposed in great part of the humbler class. But all these words are so\nmany proofs of that political freedom, pervading the community and the\nspirit of its institutions as a whole, which exacts this kind of homage\nfrom the great and wealthy on public occasions.\n\n[167] Il. ii. 110.\n\nIt was a natural and healthful sign of the state of political society,\nthat slavery was held to be odious. But it was odious on account\nof its effects on the mind, and not because it entailed cruelty or\noppression. There is not, I think, a single passage in the poems which\nin any degree conveys the impression either of hardship endured, or of\nresentment felt, by any slave of the period.\n\n~_As to a peasant proprietary._~\n\nNeither, as has been said, is there any thing in Homer, which clearly\nexhibits to us a peasant-proprietary; or entitles us positively\nto assert that the land was cultivated to a great extent by small\nproprietors, each acting independently for himself. On the one hand, as\nhas been remarked, we do not find large numbers of personal retainers\nand servants about the great men: but, on the other hand, Homer does\nnot paint for us a single picture of the independent peasant. In the\nsimiles, in the legends, on the Shield of Achilles, in Ithaca, we\nhear much of large flocks and herds, of great proprietors, of their\nharvest-fields and their vineyards, but nothing of the small freeman,\nwith property in land sufficient for his family, and no more. The rural\nlabour, which he shows us in action, is organized on a large scale.\n\nThe question, what after all was the actual condition of the Greek\npeople in the age of the _Troica_, is thus left in great obscurity.\nIt is indeed at once the capital point, and the one of which history,\nchronicle, and poem commonly take the least notice. Upon the whole\nit would appear most reasonable, while abstaining from too confident\nassertion, to suppose,\n\n1. That, as respected primogeniture and the disposition of landed\nproperty, society was aristocratically organized.\n\n2. That this aristocratic organization, being founded on military\noccupation, embraced a rather wide range of greater and of smaller\nproprietors.\n\n3. That these proprietors, by superior wealth, energy, and influence,\nled the remainder of the population.\n\n4. That there may have existed a peasant-proprietary class in\nconsiderable numbers, neither excluded from political privilege nor\nexempt from military service, but yet not combined, under ordinary\ncircumstances, by any community of interest or of hardship; led, not\nunwillingly, by the dominant Ach\u00e6an race; and by no means forming a\nsocial element of such interest or attractiveness, in the view of\nthe Poet, as to claim a marked place or vivid delineation, which it\ncertainly has not received, on his canvass.\n\n5. That the cultivation of the greater estates was carried on by hired\nlabourers and by slaves, between which two classes, for that period, no\nvery broad line of distinction can be drawn.\n\nIt is not within the scope of this work to enter largely upon the\n\u2018political economy\u2019 of the Homeric age. But, as being itself an\nimportant feature of polity, it cannot be altogether overlooked; and\nthis appears to be the place for referring to it.\n\n~_Political Economy of the Homeric age._~\n\nThere has been, of late years, debate and research respecting the\nname given to the important science, which treats of the creation and\ndistribution of wealth. The phrase \u2018political economy,\u2019 which has been\nestablished by long usage, cannot be defended on its merits. The name\nChrematistic has been devised in its stead; an accurate, but perhaps\nrather dry definition, which does not, like the names \u03a0\u03bf\u03bb\u03b9\u03c4\u03b9\u03ba\u1f74 and\n\u1f28\u03b8\u03b9\u03ba\u1f74, and like the exceptionable title it is meant to displace, take\nthe human being, who is the real subject of the science, into view.\nHomer has provided us beforehand with a word which, as it appears\nto me, retrenches the phrase \u2018economy\u2019 precisely in the point where\nretrenchment is required. The Ulysses of the Fourteenth Odyssey, in one\nof his fabulous accounts of himself as a Cretan, states[168],\n\n[168] Od. xiv. 222.\n\n \u1f14\u03c1\u03b3\u03bf\u03bd \u03b4\u03ad \u03bc\u03bf\u03b9 \u03bf\u1f50 \u03c6\u03af\u03bb\u03bf\u03bd \u1f14\u03c3\u03ba\u03b5\u03bd\n \u03bf\u1f50\u03b4\u2019 \u03bf\u1f30\u03ba\u03c9\u03c6\u03b5\u03bb\u03af\u03b7, \u1f25\u03c4\u03b5 \u03c4\u03c1\u03ad\u03c6\u03b5\u03b9 \u1f00\u03b3\u03bb\u03b1\u1f70 \u03c4\u03ad\u03ba\u03bd\u03b1.\n\nAnd I believe that, were it not too late to change a name, \u2018political\n\u0153cophely\u2019 precisely expresses the idea of the science, which, having\nits fountain-head in good housekeeping, treats, when it has reached its\nexpansion and maturity, of the \u2018Wealth of Nations.\u2019\n\nIt was not surprising, that the Greeks of the heroic age should have\na name for the business of growing wealthy; for it was one to which\nHellenes, as well as Pelasgians, appear to have taken kindly. Of this\nwe find various tokens. Though the spirit of acquisition had not\nyet reached the point, at which it becomes injurious to the general\ndevelopment of man, we appear to have in the distinguished house of\nthe Pelopids at least one isolated example of its excess. We have\nthe friendly testimony of Nestor, as well as the fierce invective of\nAchilles[169], to show that in Agamemnon it constituted a weakness: and\nhe is distinguished in war from the other great chieftains[170], by\nhis habit of forthwith stripping those whom he had slain. But Ulysses\nalso, to whom we may be certain that Homer did not mean in this matter\nto impute a fault, was, according to Eum\u00e6us[171], richer than any\ntwenty; and after making every allowance for friendly exaggeration, we\ncannot doubt that Homer meant us to understand that, in the wealth of\nthose days, he was very opulent. The settlement from time to time of\nPh\u0153nicians in Greece, and the ready docility of the Hellenes in the\nart of navigation, are signs to the same effect. The idea of wealth\nagain is deeply involved in the name of \u1f44\u03bb\u03b2\u03bf\u03c2, which appears to mean\na god-given felicity: and \u03bc\u03ac\u03ba\u03b1\u03c1 is the epithet in common of the gods,\nthe rich man, and the happy man[172]. Not that the Greeks of those\ntimes were, in a greater degree than ourselves, the slaves of wealth,\nbut that they spoke out in their simplicity, here, as also with other\nmatters, what we keep in the shade; and thus they made a greater show\nof particular propensities, even while they had less of them in reality.\n\n[169] Il. ix. 70-73, 330-3. i. 121.\n\n[170] Il. xi. 100, 110.\n\n[171] Od. xiv. 96-104.\n\n[172] The gods, Il. i. 599 _et alibi_. The rich man, Il. xi. 68. Od. i.\n217. The happy man, Od. vi. 158. xi. 482. Il. iii. 182. xxiv. 377.\n\nBut, even more than from particular signs, I estimate the capacity\nof the Homeric Greeks for acquisition from the state of facts in the\npoems. Here we observe a remarkable temperance, and even a detestation\nof excess, in all the enjoyments of the senses, combined with the\npossession, not only of a rude abundance in meat, corn, and wine,\nbut with the principle of ornament, largely, though inartificially,\nestablished in their greater houses and gardens; with considerable\nstores of the precious as well as the useful metals, and of fine\nraiment; and with the possession of somewhat rich works of art, both in\nmetal and embroidery. This picture seems to belong to a stage, although\na very early one, in a process of rapid advance to material wealth and\nprosperity. The wealth and the simplicity of manners, taken together,\nwould seem to imply that they had not yet had time to be corrupted\nby it, and consequently that, by their energy and prudence, they had\ngathered it promptly and with ease.\n\n~_The precious metals not a measure of value._~\n\nThe commercial intercourse of the age, however, was still an\nintercourse of barter. There can hardly be a stronger sign of the\nrudeness of trading relations, than the Homeric use of the word \u03c7\u03c1\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bf\u03c2.\nIt signifies both the obligation to pay a debt regularly contracted for\nvalue received (Od. iii. 367), and the liability to sustain retaliation\nafter an act of rapine (Il. xi. 686, 8). The possession of the precious\nmetals was probably confined to a very few. Both these, and iron, which\napparently stood next to them in value, formed prizes at the Games; in\nwhich, speaking generally, only kings and chiefs took part. A certain\napproximation had been made towards the use of them as money, that\nis, as the measure of value for other commodities. For, as they were\ndivided into fixed quantities, those quantities were in all likelihood\ncertified by some mark or stamp upon them. Nor do we ever find mere\nunwrought gold and silver estimated or priced in any other commodity.\nThe arms of Glaucus are indeed \u1f11\u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03bc\u03b2\u03bf\u1fd6\u03b1[173], and they are \u03c7\u03c1\u03cd\u03c3\u03b5\u03b1.\nBut this means gilded or adorned with gold; an object made of gold\nwould with Homer be \u03c0\u03b1\u03b3\u03c7\u03c1\u03cd\u03c3\u03b5\u03bf\u03c2. Such are the \u03b8\u03cd\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9, the gold drops\nor tassels of Minerva\u2019s \u00c6gis; each of which is worth an hundred oxen.\nThus gold, when manufactured, even if not when in mass, had its value\nexpressed in oxen[174].\n\n[173] Il. vi. 236.\n\n[174] Il. ii. 448, 9.\n\nIt is possible that gold and silver may, to a limited extent, have\nbeen used as a standard, or as a medium of exchange. The payment of\nthe judge\u2019s fee in the Eighteenth Iliad suggests, though it does not\nabsolutely require, this supposition. Like writing in the Homeric age,\nlike printing when it was executed from a mould among the Ancients, the\npractice may have existed essentially, but in a form and on a scale\nthat deprived it of importance, by limiting its extent.\n\n~_Oxen in some degree a measure of value._~\n\nThe arms of Glaucus and Diomed, and the drops of Minerva\u2019s \u00c6gis, are,\nas we have seen, valued or priced in oxen. The tripod, which was the\nfirst prize for the wrestlers of the Twenty-third Book, was valued at\ntwelve oxen: the captive woman, who was the second, accomplished in\nworks of industry, was worth four[175].\n\n[175] Il. xxiii. 702-5.\n\nBut Laertes gave for Euryclea no less than twenty oxen, or rather the\nvalue of twenty oxen (\u1f10\u03b5\u03b9\u03ba\u03bf\u03c3\u03ac\u03b2\u03bf\u03b9\u03b1 \u03b4\u2019 \u1f14\u03b4\u03c9\u03ba\u03b5\u03bd, Od. i. 431). We need not\nascribe the difference in costliness to the superior merit of Euryclea;\nbut we may presume the explanation to be, that Laertes, in time of\npeace, paid for Euryclea the high price of an importing market; whereas\nthe Greeks, in a state of war before Troy, had probably more captives\nthan they knew how to feed. They were, at any rate, in the country of\nproduction: and the price was low accordingly.\n\nWhen we find it said that a woman slave was estimated at four oxen, we\nare not enabled at once to judge from such a statement whether oxen\nwere a measure of value, or whether the meaning simply was, that a man,\nwho wanted such a slave, would give four oxen for her. But the case of\nEuryclea clears up this point. For what Laertes gave was not the twenty\noxen, but something equal to them, something in return for which they\ncould ordinarily be had. Again, Lycaon brought Achilles the value of a\nhundred oxen, a hundred oxen\u2019s worth[176]. In this case, then, oxen are\nused as a medium for the expression of value.\n\n[176] Il. xxi. 79.\n\nIn a passage of the Odyssey, we find that the Suitors, when they try\nto make terms with Ulysses in his wrath, promise as follows by the\nmouth of Eurymachus[177];\n\n[177] Od. xxii. 57-9.\n\n \u03c4\u03b9\u03bc\u1f74\u03bd \u1f00\u03bc\u03c6\u1f76\u03c2 \u1f04\u03b3\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 \u1f10\u03b5\u03b9\u03ba\u03bf\u03c3\u03ac\u03b2\u03bf\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd \u1f15\u03ba\u03b1\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2,\n \u03c7\u03b1\u03bb\u03ba\u03cc\u03bd \u03c4\u03b5 \u03c7\u03c1\u03c5\u03c3\u03cc\u03bd \u03c4\u2019 \u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03b4\u03ce\u03c3\u03bf\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd, \u03b5\u1f30\u03c3\u03cc\u03ba\u03b5 \u03c3\u1f78\u03bd \u03ba\u1fc6\u03c1\n \u1f30\u03b1\u03bd\u03b8\u1fc7.\n\nThis has been rendered as a double engagement to pay the oxen and the\nmetals. It seems to me, from the construction of the passage, as if it\nwould be more properly understood to be a declaration, that they would\neach of them bring him a compensation of the value of twenty oxen in\ngold, and in copper. If Eurymachus had meant to express the restoration\nof the live stock of Ulysses, it is not likely that he would have\nspoken of oxen only, especially in the goat-feeding and swine-feeding\nIthaca.\n\nThere is another passage in the poems, which seems to carry a similar\ntestimony one point further. When Euneus sends ships with wine to the\nGreek camp, the Greeks pay him for his wine, some with copper, some\nwith iron, some with hides, some with slaves, and some with oxen.\nSlaves, as we have seen, would probably be redundant in the camp. The\nsame would be eminently the case with respect to hides; since they\nwould be redundantly supplied by the animals continually slaughtered\nfor the subsistence of the army. Even as to the metals, we need not\nfeel surprise at the passage; for they were acquired largely by spoil,\nand not greatly needed by the force, since wear and tear scarcely\nconstitute an element in the question of supply for those times. But\nit is certainly more startling that any of the Greeks should have sold\noxen to the crews of Euneus. Neither in that age nor in this would any\nmerchants carry away oxen from a vast and crowded camp, where they\nwould be certain to be in the highest demand. I therefore presume the\nmeaning to be as follows; that those particular Greeks, who happened to\nhave more oxen than they wanted at the moment, sold them to the people\nof the ships; and that the people of the ships took these oxen, in\nexchange for wine, not intending to carry them away, but to sell them\nagain, perhaps against hides or slaves on the spot, as the live cattle\nwould be certain to find a ready and advantageous market among other\nGreeks of the army.\n\nOxen therefore, in that age, seem to have come nearer, than any other\ncommodity, to the discharge of the functions now performed by the\nprecious metals: for they were both used to express value, and probably\npurchased not for use only, but also with a view to re-sale. Thus the\nHomeric evidence, with respect to them, is in conformity with the\ntestimony of \u00c6schylus in the Agamemnon, who seems to represent the ox\nas the first sign imprinted upon money[178].\n\n[178] Agam. 37.\n\nThe precious metals themselves were much employed for both personal\nornament and for art. This was, no doubt, their proper and established\napplication; and when they are stored, they are stored in common with\nother metals not of the same class, and with a view, in all likelihood,\nto manufacture.\n\n~_Relative scarcity of metals._~\n\nIt appears clear, from the Homeric poems, that silver was more rare\nthan gold. It is used, when used at all, in smaller quantities: and\nit much more rarely appears in the accounts of stored-up wealth. A\nlike inference may be drawn, perhaps, from the books of Moses; and\nit corresponds with the anticipations we should reasonably form from\nthe fact that gold is found in a native state, and, even when mixed\nwith other material, is more readily fitted for use. The extensive\nemployment of silver only arrives, when society is more advanced, and\nwhen the use of money is more familiar and minute. Payments in the\nprecious metals on a somewhat large scale precede those for smaller\ntransactions. We are not however to infer, from the greater rarity of\nsilver, that it was more valuable than gold: the value depending, not\non the comparative quantities only, but upon the compound ratio of the\nquantities as compared with the demand. It would however appear from a\npassage in the account of the funeral games, that gold, if not silver,\nwas then much less esteemed than it now is. For, while a silver bowl\nwas the first prize of the foot-race, a large and fat ox (perhaps worth\nthree ordinary ones) was the second, and a half talent of gold was only\nthe third[179].\n\n[179] Il. xxiii. 740-51.\n\nThe position of iron, however, relatively to the other metals, was very\ndifferent in the heroic age from what it now is: and probably its great\nrarity was due, like that of silver, to the difficulty of bringing the\nmetal into a state fit for use; which could more readily be effected\nwith copper, with tin, or with \u03ba\u03cd\u03b1\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2, in whatever sense it is to be\ninterpreted. Iron, however, would appear to have been more valuable\nthan these metals; greatly more valuable, in particular, than copper,\nwhich is now worth from fifteen to twenty times as much as iron. A\nmass of crude iron is produced at the funeral games as a prize; and\niron made into axe-heads forms another. No other metal, below the rank\nof gold and silver, is ever similarly employed in an unmanufactured\nstate.--\n\nLet us now turn to a brief view of the polity and organization of the\narmy.\n\nWe perceive the organization of the Greek communities in a double form:\nboth as a community, properly so called, in time of peace, a picture\nsupplied by the Odyssey; and likewise as an army, according to the\ndelineations of the Iliad.\n\n~_Mode of government of the army._~\n\nThe differences are worth noting: but they do not seem to touch\nfundamental principles. Agamemnon governed the army by the ordinary\npolitical instruments, not by the rules of military discipline.\nAristotle[180] quotes from the Iliad of his own day and place, and as\nproceeding from the mouth of Agamemnon, the words,\n\n[180] Pol. iii. 14. 5.\n\n \u03c0\u1f70\u03c1 \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u1f10\u03bc\u03bf\u1f76 \u03b8\u03ac\u03bd\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2\u00b7\n\nand Grote founds upon this citation the remark, that \u2018the Alexandrian\ncritics effaced many traces of the old manners.\u2019 But was this really a\ntrace of the old manners? Is there a single passage now remaining of\nthe Iliad, a single thought, a single word, which at all corresponds\nwith the idea that Agamemnon had in his own hands, in the shape of\na defined prerogative, the power of capital punishment? Aristotle\ncertainly accepts the passage, and contrasts this military power of\nAgamemnon with the restraints upon him in the peaceful sphere of the\n\u1f00\u03b3\u03bf\u03c1\u03ae; but I am by no means sure that English institutions do not\nafford us the aid of far more powerful analogies for appreciating\nthe real political spirit of the Homeric poems, than any that even\nAristotle could draw in his own day from the orientalizing government\nof Alexander. I do not, however, so much question the passage, as\nthe construction put upon it. The prerogatives of the Greek kings\nwere founded in general duty and feeling, not in law. When Ulysses\nbelaboured Thersites, it was not in the exercise of a determinate\nright, but in obedience to the dictates of general prudence, which,\nupon a high emergency, the general sense approved. Doubtless, if\nAgamemnon had caught a runaway from the ranks, he might have slain him;\nbut is it supposed that Ulysses might not? What was the meaning of the\nadvice of Nestor, to put the poltroons in the middle of the ranks,\nbut that their comrades about them should spear them if they should\ntry to run? There is no criminal justice, in the proper sense of the\nterm, though there is civil justice, in either of the Homeric poems;\nthe wrongs of man to man are adjusted or requited by the latter form\nof remedy, but the ideas on which the former rests were unknown: there\nis no king\u2019s peace, more than there is a king\u2019s highway: the sanctions\nof force are added upon occasion to the general authority of office by\nthose who bear it, according to the suggestions of their common sense.\nHad it been otherwise, Ulysses would never have put the wretched women\nin his household, who could not, like the Suitors their paramours, be\npolitically formidable, to a death, which fully entitled him to say\nwith the Agamemnon of the citation, \u03c0\u1f70\u03c1 \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u1f10\u03bc\u03bf\u1f76 \u03b8\u03ac\u03bd\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2. The general\nreverence for rank and station, the safeguard of publicity, and the\ninfluence of persuasion, are the usual and sufficient instruments\nfor governing the army, even as they governed the civil societies of\nGreece. In the Assembly of the army, the quarrel with Achilles takes\nplace: in the Assembly arises the tumultuary impulse to return home:\nin the Assembly, that impulse having been checked, it is deliberately\nresolved to see what they can do by fighting: in the Assembly it is\ndetermined to ask a truce for burials, and to erect the rampart: in the\nnocturnal Assembly that Council is appointed to sit, which sends the\nabortive mission to Achilles. Every great measure affecting the whole\nbody is, as we shall find, adopted in the Assembly: and, finally, it\nis here that Agamemnon explicitly confesses and laments his fault, and\nthat the reconciliation with Achilles is ratified.\n\nWe may therefore take the polity, so to speak, of the Greek army into a\ncommon view with that of the Ithacan \u1f00\u03b3\u03bf\u03c1\u03ae; but first it will be well\nto sketch its military organization.\n\n~_Its military composition._~\n\nNext to the \u03b2\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03bb\u1fc6\u03b5\u03c2 came the \u1f14\u03be\u03bf\u03c7\u03bf\u03b9 \u1f04\u03bd\u03b4\u03c1\u03b5\u03c2 (Il. ii. 188), or \u1f00\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u1fc6\u03b5\u03c2,\nof the Greek army. They are pretty clearly distinguished from the\nkings in the speech of Achilles (ix. 334); when, after describing the\nniggardliness of Agamemnon with respect to booty, he goes on to say,\n\n \u1f04\u03bb\u03bb\u03b1 \u03b4\u2019 \u1f00\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03ae\u03b5\u03c3\u03c3\u03b9 \u03b4\u03af\u03b4\u03bf\u03c5 \u03b3\u03ad\u03c1\u03b1 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b2\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03bb\u03b5\u1fe6\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd\u00b7\n\nwhich I understand to mean, he gave to these two classes prizes\ndifferent, i. e. proportioned to their respective stations.\n\nThe language of the Catalogue pointedly marks the same distinction in\nother words. At the beginning, the Poet invites the Muses to tell him\n(ver. 487),\n\n \u03bf\u1f35\u03c4\u03b9\u03bd\u03b5\u03c2 \u1f21\u03b3\u03b5\u03bc\u03cc\u03bd\u03b5\u03c2 \u0394\u03b1\u03bd\u03b1\u1ff6\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03ba\u03bf\u03af\u03c1\u03b1\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9 \u1f26\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd,\n\nand at the close he says (ver. 760),\n\n \u03bf\u1f57\u03c4\u03bf\u03b9 \u1f04\u03c1\u2019 \u1f21\u03b3\u03b5\u03bc\u03cc\u03bd\u03b5\u03c2 \u0394\u03b1\u03bd\u03b1\u1ff6\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03ba\u03bf\u03af\u03c1\u03b1\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9 \u1f26\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd.\n\nThese two verses appear to be in evident correspondence with each\nother: and if so, we may the more confidently rely on the language\nas carefully chosen to describe the two classes, first the kings\nas \u03ba\u03bf\u03af\u03c1\u03b1\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9 (cf. Il. ii. 204, 207), and, secondly, the \u1f00\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u1fc6\u03b5\u03c2 as\n\u1f21\u03b3\u03b5\u03bc\u03cc\u03bd\u03b5\u03c2.\n\nThis class, it is probable, consisted,\n\nFirst, of the leaders of the minor and less significant contingents.\n\nSecondly, of lieutenants, or those who are named in the Catalogue as\nholding inferior commands under the great leaders (such as Meriones,\nSthenelus, and Euryalus).\n\nBut, below the \u1f21\u03b3\u03b5\u03bc\u03cc\u03bd\u03b5\u03c2 of the Catalogue, there would appear to\nhave been several grades of minor officers, in command of smaller\nsubdivisions of the army. These would seem to have been described by a\ngeneral name, \u1f21\u03b3\u03b5\u03bc\u03cc\u03bd\u03b5\u03c2. When Nestor (ii. 362) advises the distribution\nof the army according to \u03c6\u1fe6\u03bb\u03b1 and \u03c6\u03c1\u03ae\u03c4\u03c1\u03b1\u03b9, it will, he says, have the\nadvantage of showing not only which of the soldiers, but which of\nthe officers were good, and which bad. Probably therefore there were\nofficers of each \u03c6\u1fe6\u03bb\u03bf\u03bd, if not even, under these, of each \u03c6\u03c1\u03ae\u03c4\u03c1\u03b7.\n\nOf the Greeks nine are named in Il. xi. 301-3, who were slain by Hector\nat once, before he went among the privates (\u03c0\u03bb\u03b7\u03b8\u03cd\u03c2). Of these nine no\none is mentioned in any other part of the poem; and since at the same\ntime they are expressly declared to be \u1f21\u03b3\u03b5\u03bc\u03cc\u03bd\u03b5\u03c2, we may safely look\nupon them as examples of the class of minor or secondary officers. From\ntheir names, which have a strong Hellenic colour[181], we may venture\nat least to conjecture, that this class was chiefly Ach\u00e6an, or of\nAch\u00e6an rank, and that the Pelasgian blood of the army was principally\namong the common soldiers.\n\n[181] Vid. Ach\u00e6is or Ethnology, p. 574.\n\nThe maritime order of the armament, which required a commander for each\nvessel, necessarily involved the existence of a class of what we may\ncall subaltern officers.\n\nWhen Helen describes the chieftains to Priam from the tower, of whom\nIdomeneus is one, she proceeds (Il. iii. 231);\n\n \u1f00\u03bc\u03c6\u1f76 \u03b4\u03ad \u03bc\u03b9\u03bd \u039a\u03c1\u03b7\u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f00\u03b3\u03bf\u1f76 \u1f20\u03b3\u03b5\u03c1\u03ad\u03b8\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9.\n\nAgain, when Achilles went with fifty ships to Troy, he divided his 2500\nmen under five \u1f21\u03b3\u03b5\u03bc\u03cc\u03bd\u03b5\u03c2, whom he appointed to give the word of command\n(\u03c3\u03b7\u03bc\u03b1\u03af\u03bd\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd) under him. The force thus arranged formed five \u03c3\u03c4\u03af\u03c7\u03b5\u03c2 or\nranks, Il. xvi. 168-72: and here the private persons are expressly\ncalled \u1f11\u03c4\u03b1\u1fd6\u03c1\u03bf\u03b9 (ver. 170). Most probably these \u1f00\u03b3\u03bf\u1f76 of the Cretans,\nand these five Myrmidon leaders, are to be considered as belonging to\na class below the \u1f00\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u1fc6\u03b5\u03c2, yet above the subalterns.\n\nLastly, we have to notice the privates, so to speak, of the Greek army,\nwho are called by the several names of \u03bb\u03b1\u1f78\u03c2 (Il. ii. 191. i. 54), \u03b4\u1fc6\u03bc\u03bf\u03c2\n(ii. 198), and \u03c0\u03bb\u03b7\u03b8\u1f7a\u03c2 (ii. 278).\n\nIn their military character they are indeed a mass of atoms,\nundistinguishable from one another, but yet distinguished by their\nsilence and order, which was founded probably on confidence in their\nleaders.\n\n~_The descriptions of fighting men._~\n\nNo private or nameless[182] person of the Greek army, however, on any\noccasion performs any feat, either great or small: these are always\nachieved by the men of birth and station: and the three designations\nwe have mentioned, the only ones which are used to designate the whole\nmass of the soldiery, represent them to us as a community bearing arms,\nrather than as an army in any sense that is technical or professional.\n\n[182] Even the instance, in Il. xiii. 211, of a nameless person who had\nsimply been wounded is a rare, if not indeed the single, exception.\n\nAll these were entitled to attend the \u1f00\u03b3\u03bf\u03c1\u1f74, or Assembly, if they\npleased. And accordingly, on the first Assembly that Achilles attended\nafter renouncing his wrath, we find that, from the great interest\nof the occasion, even those persons were present who did not usually\nappear: namely, the pilots of the ships, and others who probably\nhad charge of them while ashore, together with those who managed\nthe provisioning of the force (\u03c4\u03b1\u03bc\u03af\u03b1\u03b9), or, in our language, the\ncommissariat (Il. xix. 42-5).\n\nIn their strictly military capacity they were, however, divided into\n\n1. \u1f31\u03c0\u03c0\u1fc6\u03b5\u03c2, who fought in chariots, commonly (Il. xxiii. 334-40) with\ntwo horses. When there were three (xvi. 467-75), the outrunner was\ncalled \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03ae\u03bf\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2. The chariot of Hector was drawn by four horses (viii.\n185), but we have no such case among the Greeks. Two persons went in\neach chariot; of whom the inferior (\u1f20\u03bd\u03af\u03bf\u03c7\u03bf\u03c2) drove, and the superior\n(\u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03ad\u03b2\u03b1\u03c3\u03ba\u03b5) stood by him free to fight. But probably none of these\n\u1f31\u03c0\u03c0\u1fc6\u03b5\u03c2 were of the mere \u03c0\u03bb\u03b7\u03b8\u1f7a\u03c2 of the army, or common soldiery.\n\n2. \u1f00\u03c3\u03c0\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u03af, the heavy-armed, of the \u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u03b4\u03af\u03b7 \u1f51\u03c3\u03bc\u03af\u03bd\u03b7. These use the\nlonger spear, the axe, the sword, or the stone.\n\n3. \u1f00\u03ba\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03af\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9, using the lighter spear (Il. xv. 709. xxiii. 622. Od.\nxviii. 261).\n\n4. \u03c4\u03bf\u03be\u03cc\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 (Il. ii. 720. iii. 79).\n\nAgain, the men are distinguished by epithets according to merit; each\nbeing \u1f14\u03be\u03bf\u03c7\u03bf\u03c2, \u03bc\u03b5\u03c3\u03ae\u03b5\u03b9\u03c2, or \u03c7\u03b5\u03c1\u03b5\u03b9\u03cc\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2 (Il. xii. 269), or even \u03ba\u03b1\u03ba\u03cc\u03c2;\nand with the last-named the precaution is taken to place them in the\nmidst of their comrades.\n\nThe policy of Nestor, which recommended the muster of the whole army,\nwith a view to stronger mutual support among those who had peculiar\nties, was entirely in harmony with what we meet elsewhere in the\npoems. For instance, in the defence of the rampart in the Thirteenth\nBook, we find B\u0153otians, Athenians, and Locrians[183], who were\nneighbours, all mentioned as fighting side by side.\n\n[183] Il. xiii. 685.\n\nAll ranks apparently went to the Assemblies as freemen, and were\ntreated there by their superiors with respect. It was not those of\nthe common sort in general, but only such as were clamorous for the\ntumultuary breaking up of the Assembly, that Ulysses went so far as\nto hit (\u1f10\u03bb\u03ac\u03c3\u03b1\u03c3\u03ba\u03b5) with the staff he bore, the supreme sceptre of\nAgamemnon. In addressing them he used the word \u03b4\u03b1\u03b9\u03bc\u03cc\u03bd\u03b9\u03b5, the same\nword which he employed to their superiors, the kings and chiefs (Il.\nii. 190, 200). When they heard a speech that they approved of, they\nhabitually and immediately shouted in applause[184],\n\n[184] Il. ii. 333.\n\n \u1f08\u03c1\u03b3\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bf\u03b9 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03bc\u03ad\u03b3\u2019 \u1f34\u03b1\u03c7\u03bf\u03bd ...\n \u03bc\u1fe6\u03b8\u03bf\u03bd \u1f10\u03c0\u03b1\u03b9\u03bd\u03ae\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 \u1f48\u03b4\u03c5\u03c3\u03c3\u1fc6\u03bf\u03c2 \u03b8\u03b5\u03af\u03bf\u03b9\u03bf\u00b7\n\nand they commented freely among themselves on what occurred (Il. ii.\n271 and elsewhere).\n\nThe modes of warfare in the heroic age were very simple: the open\nbattle was a battle of main force, as regarded both the chieftains and\nthe men, relieved from time to time by a sprinkling of panics. But\nbesides the battle, there was another and a more distinguished mode of\nfighting: that of the \u03bb\u03cc\u03c7\u03bf\u03c2 or ambuscade. And the different estimate of\nthe two, which reverses the popular view, is eminently illustrative of\nthe Greek character.\n\n~_The \u03bb\u03cc\u03c7\u03bf\u03c2 or ambuscade._~\n\nIn that epitome of human life, which Homer has presented to us on the\nShield of Achilles, martial operations are of course included. The\ncollective life of man is represented by two cities, one for peace\nand the other for war. Two armies appear beneath the walls of the\nlatter; and one of these takes its post in an ambush[185]. Whenever\npersons were to be appointed out of an army for this duty, the noblest\nand bravest were chosen. Hence Achilles launches the double reproach\nagainst Agamemnon, that he has never had spirit enough to arm either\nwith the soldiery at large for battle, or with the chiefs and prime\nwarriors for ambuscade[186]. And the reason why the ambuscade stood\nthus high as the duty and the privilege of the best, is explained in\nan admirable speech of Idomeneus. It is simply because it involves a\nhigher trial, through the patience it requires, of moral as opposed to\nanimal courage.\n\n[185] Il. xviii. 509, 13, 20.\n\n[186] Il. i. 226.\n\nThe Cretan leader supposes the case to have occurred, when all the\nflower of the army are picked for an ambush. \u2018There,\u2019 he says, \u2018is the\ntrue criterion of valour;\n\n \u1f14\u03bd\u03b8\u03b1 \u03bc\u03ac\u03bb\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u2019 \u1f00\u03c1\u03b5\u03c4\u1f74 \u03b4\u03b9\u03b1\u03b5\u03af\u03b4\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u1f00\u03bd\u03b4\u03c1\u1ff6\u03bd\u00b7\n\nand there it soon appears who is the hero, and who the coward; for\nthe flesh of the poltroon turns to one colour and another, nor can he\nsettle his mind so as to sit quiet, for his knees yield under him, and\nhe shifts from resting on one foot to resting on the other; his heart\nis fluttering in his breast, and his teeth chatter, as he gives himself\nup for lost: but the brave man, from the moment when he takes his place\nin the ambush, neither changes colour, nor is over nervous; but only\nprays that the time may soon come for him to mingle in the fearful\nfight[187].\u2019 Then he goes on to commend Meriones as one suited for such\na trial.\n\n[187] Il. xiii. 276-86.\n\nIn exact conformity with what we should expect from these descriptions,\nit appears that Ulysses was the warrior who was preeminent in the\n\u03bb\u03cc\u03c7\u03bf\u03c2, while Achilles towered so immeasurably above all others in the\nfield. When the Greeks were concealed in the cavity of the Horse,\nand Helen came down from the city imitating the voices of their\nwives, Menelaus and Diomed were on the point of either going forth,\nor answering; but Ulysses restrained them. One Anticlos was still\nunwilling to be silent; and Ulysses, resolutely gagging him with his\nhand, \u2018saved the lives of all the Ach\u00e6ans[188].\u2019 In all this we again\nsee how the poems of Homer are, like the Shield, an epitome of life.\nAll the points of capital and paramount excellence, for which he could\nfind no place in the hero of the one poem, he has fully represented in\nthe hero of the other; and he has so exhausted, between the two, the\nresources of our nature, and likewise its appliances as they were then\nunderstood, that, had he produced yet a third Epic, not even he could\nhave furnished a third protagonist to form its centre, who should have\nbeen worthy to count with Achilles and Ulysses among the undying ideals\nof human greatness.\n\n[188] Od. iv. 277-88.\n\nWe have now considered the Greek community of the heroic age, as it\nwas divided in time of peace into classes, and as in time of war it\nresolved all its more potent and energetic elements into the form of a\nmilitary order.\n\nWe have also examined the position and functions of the king; who\nwas at once a person, a class, and a great political institution.\nIt remains to consider two other political institutions of heroic\nGreece, which not only, with the king, made up the whole machinery both\nof civil and military administration for that period, but likewise\nsupplied the essential germ, at least, of that form of constitution,\non which the best governments of the continent of Europe have, two of\nthem within the last quarter of a century, been modelled, with such\ndeviations as experience has recommended, or the change of times has\nrequired. I mean the form of government by a threefold legislative\nbody, having for one of its members, and for its head, a single person,\nin whose hands the executive power of the state is lodged. This\nform has been eminently favoured in Christendom, in Europe, and in\nEngland; and it has even survived the passage of the Atlantic, and the\ntransition, in the United States of America, to institutions which are\nnot only republican, but highly democratic.\n\n~_The Greek \u0392\u03bf\u03c5\u03bb\u1f74 or Council._~\n\nOf these two Greek institutions, we will examine first the \u03b2\u03bf\u03c5\u03bb\u1f74, or\nCouncil.\n\nIt was the usage of the Greeks to consider, in a small preliminary\nmeeting of principal persons, which was called the \u03b2\u03bf\u03c5\u03bb\u1f74, of the\nmeasures to be taken in managing the Assembly, or \u1f00\u03b3\u03bf\u03c1\u03ae.\n\nTo the persons, who were summoned thither, the name of \u03b3\u03ad\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 appears\nto have been officially applied. It had thus become dissociated from\nthe idea of age, its original signification: for Nestor was the only\nold man among the Greek senators. Idomeneus, indeed, was near upon\nold age: Ulysses was elderly (\u1f60\u03bc\u03bf\u03b3\u03ad\u03c1\u03c9\u03bd[189]), apparently not under\nfifty. The majority would seem to have been rather under middle life;\nso that \u03b3\u03ad\u03c1\u03c9\u03bd was, when thus employed, a title, not a description. The\n\u03b2\u03bf\u03c5\u03bb\u1f74 was composed of the men of greatest rank and weight; and no more\nrequired an advanced age among the qualifications for it, than does the\npresbyterate of the Christian Church, though it too signifies eldership.\n\n[189] Il. xxiii. 791.\n\nBefore the great assembly of the Second Book, we are told, not\nthat Agamemnon thought it would be well, as it were for the nonce,\nto consult the kings or seniors of the expedition; but, in language\nwhich indicates a fixed practice, that the choice of the place for the\nmeeting was on this occasion by the ship of Nestor, whose great age\npossibly either made nearness convenient, or entitled him to this mark\nof honour:\n\n \u03b2\u03bf\u03c5\u03bb\u1f74 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03c0\u03c1\u1ff6\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd \u03bc\u03b5\u03b3\u03b1\u03b8\u03cd\u03bc\u03c9\u03bd \u1f37\u03b6\u03b5 \u03b3\u03b5\u03c1\u03cc\u03bd\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd\n \u039d\u03b5\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03c1\u03ad\u1fc3 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u1f70 \u03bd\u03b7\u1fd2 \u03a0\u03c5\u03bb\u03b1\u03b9\u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03ad\u03bf\u03c2 \u03b2\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03bb\u1fc6\u03bf\u03c2. Il. ii. 53.\n\nThese \u03b3\u03ad\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 were summoned[190] again by Agamemnon before the\nsacrifice of the Second Book, which preceded the enumeration. On this\noccasion they are not called a \u03b2\u03bf\u03c5\u03bb\u03ae; probably because they were not\ncalled for consultation.\n\n[190] Il. ii. 408-9.\n\nThe Council meets again in the Ninth Book[191], by appointment of the\nAssembly, and sends the mission to Achilles[192]. In the same night,\nand perhaps under the same authority, the expedition of Ulysses and\nDiomed is arranged.\n\n[191] Il. ix. 10. 89.\n\n[192] Il. x. 195.\n\nThere is no \u03b2\u03bf\u03c5\u03bb\u1f74 indeed in the First Book, and none in the great\nAssembly of the Nineteenth: but then both of these were summoned\nby Achilles, not by Agamemnon, and neither of them were called for\nproperly deliberative purposes[193].\n\n[193] Il. i. 54. xix. 41.\n\nAgain, Ulysses, in urging the Greeks not to quit the assembly of the\nSecond Book prematurely, reminds them that they ought to know fully the\nviews of Agamemnon, and that they have not all had the advantage of\nlearning those views in the \u03b2\u03bf\u03c5\u03bb\u03ae.\n\nIn the Seventh Book, the Council held under the roof of Agamemnon\nforms the plan for a pause to bury the dead, and erect the rampart.\nAccordingly, when just afterwards a herald arrives with a proposal\nfrom Troy, he finds the Greeks in their Assembly, doubtless an Assembly\nheld to sanction the project of the kings. That this amounted to an\ninstitution of the Greeks, we may further judge from the familiar\nmanner, in which Nestor mentions it in the Odyssey to Telemachus, on\nseeing him for the first time, (Od. iii. 127). \u2018Ulysses and I,\u2019 he\nsays, \u2018never differed:\u2019 \u03bf\u1f54\u03c4\u03b5 \u03c0\u03bf\u03c4\u2019 \u03b5\u1f30\u03bd \u1f00\u03b3\u03bf\u03c1\u1fc7 \u03b4\u03af\u03c7\u2019 \u1f10\u03b2\u03ac\u03b6\u03bf\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd, \u03bf\u1f54\u03c4\u2019 \u1f10\u03bd\u1f76\n\u03b2\u03bf\u03c5\u03bb\u1fc7[194].\n\n[194] Il. vii. 344, 382.\n\nAmong other causes, which might tend to promote the establishment of\nthe Greek \u03b2\u03bf\u03c5\u03bb\u1f74 or Council, we may perhaps reckon with propriety the\ninability of the old to discharge the full duties of sovereignty in\nthe heroic age. Bodily force usually undergoes a certain amount of\ndecay, before the mind has passed out of its ripeness; and both kings\nand subordinate lords, who had ceased to possess the strength that was\nrequisite for bearing the principal burdens of government, might still\nmake their experience available for the public good in the Council;\neven as we find that in Troas the brothers of Priam, with others\nadvanced in life, were the principal advisers of the Assembly[195].\n\n[195] Il. iii. 146-53.\n\n~_The \u03b2\u03bf\u03c5\u03bb\u1f74 in time of peace._~\n\nI admit that we have no example to give of the use of the \u03b2\u03bf\u03c5\u03bb\u1f74 by\nthe Greeks during peace, so precise as those which the Iliad supplies\nfor time of war. But even in war we do not find it except before\nAssemblies, which had deliberative business to transact. Now the only\ndeliberative Greek \u1f00\u03b3\u03bf\u03c1\u1f74 which we meet with in time of peace is that of\nthe Twenty-fourth Odyssey. The absence of a sovereign and a government\nin Ithaca at that time, and the utter discord of the principal persons,\nmade a Council quite impossible, and left no measure open except a\ndirect appeal to the people.\n\nIt appears however clear, that the action of the \u03b2\u03bf\u03c5\u03bb\u1f74 was not\nconfined to war. For we not only find the \u03b3\u03ad\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 on the Shield[196],\nwho sit in the \u1f00\u03b3\u03bf\u03c1\u1f74, exercising exclusively the office of judges,\nbut they are also distinctly noticed as a class or order[197] in the\nIthacan Assembly, who had a place in it set apart for themselves.\nNor are we without a proof which, though conveyed in few words, is\ncomplete, of the conjunction of the Council with the sovereign in acts\nof government. For when Ulysses in his youth undertook the mission to\nMessene, in the matter of the sheep that had been carried off from\nIthaca, he did it under the orders of Laertes, together with his\ncouncil[198]:\n\n[196] Il. xviii. 506.\n\n[197] Od. ii. 14.\n\n[198] Od. xxi. 21.\n\n \u03c0\u03c1\u1f78 \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u1f27\u03ba\u03b5 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c4\u1f74\u03c1 \u1f04\u03bb\u03bb\u03bf\u03b9 \u03c4\u03b5 \u03b3\u03ad\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2.\n\nAnd Nausicaa meets her father Alcinous, on his way to the \u03b2\u03bf\u03c5\u03bb\u1f74 of the\nPh\u00e6acians.\n\nUpon the whole, the \u03b2\u03bf\u03c5\u03bb\u1f74 seems to have been a most important auxiliary\ninstrument of government; sometimes as preparing materials for the\nmore public deliberations of the Assembly, sometimes intrusted, as a\nkind of executive committee, with its confidence; always as supplying\nthe Assemblies with an intellectual and authoritative element, in a\nconcentrated form, which might give steadiness to its tone, and advise\nits course with a weight adequate to so important a function.\n\n~_Opposition in the \u03b2\u03bf\u03c5\u03bb\u03ae._~\n\nThe individuals who composed this Council were of such a station\nthat, when they acted separately, King Agamemnon himself might have\nto encounter resistance and reproof from them in various instances.\nAccordingly, upon the occasion when Agamemnon made a survey of the\narmy, and when he thought fit to rebuke Ulysses for slackness, that\nchieftain remonstrated with him something more than freely (\u1f51\u03c0\u03bf\u03b4\u03c1\u1f70\n\u1f30\u03b4\u1f7c\u03bd) both in voice and manner. So far from trusting to his authority,\nAgamemnon made a soothing and even an apologetic reply[199]. Again,\nwhen on the same occasion he reproved Diomed[200], Sthenelus defended\nhis immediate Chief in vainglorious terms. These the more refined\nnature of Diomed himself induced him at once to disclaim, but they\ndo not appear to have been considered as involving any thing in the\nnature of an offence against the station of Agamemnon. Again, though\nDiomed on this occasion restrained his lieutenant, yet, when he meets\nAgamemnon in the Assembly of the Ninth Book, he frankly tells him that\nJupiter, who has given him the honours of the sceptre, has not endowed\nhim with the superior power that springs from determined courage[201];\nand even the passionate invectives of Achilles in the First Book bear a\nsimilar testimony, because they do not appear to have been treated as\nconstituting any infringement of his duty.\n\n[199] Il. iv. 329-63.\n\n[200] Ibid. 385-418.\n\n[201] Il. ix. 37.\n\nIn the \u03b2\u03bf\u03c5\u03bb\u1f74[202], Nestor takes the lead more than Agamemnon. As to\nthe Assembly, the whole plan in the Second Iliad is expressly founded\nupon the supposition, that the army was accustomed to hear the chiefs\nargue against, and even overthrow, the proposals of Agamemnon. His\nadvice that they should return home, which Grote[203] considers only an\nunaccountable fancy and a childish freak, is however capable of being\nregarded in this view, that, before renewing active operations without\nAchilles, it was thought wise to test the feeling of the army, and\nthat it could not be more effectually tried than by a recommendation\nfrom the commander-in-chief that they should re-embark for Greece.\nThe plan was over-refined; and it may even seem ridiculous, because it\nfailed, and simply kindled an ungovernable passion, which would not\nlisten to debate. But the proposal does not bear that character in the\nNinth Book, where the same suggestion is renewed, without the previous\nknowledge of the chiefs, in the same words, and at a time when the\nGreeks were in far worse condition.\n\n[202] Cf. Od. xi. 512.\n\n[203] Hist. of Greece, vol. ii. 95, 97.\n\nWhen Agamemnon made it in order to be overruled it took effect: when\nhe made it in good earnest, it failed. If then the Greeks could be\nretained contrary to his wish in the Ninth Book, it might be misjudged,\nbut could hardly be absurd, to expect a similar result in the Second,\nwhen they had less cause for discouragement.\n\nAnd why did it take effect? Simply because the Assembly, instead of\nbeing the simple medium[204] through which the king acted, was the\narena on which either the will of the people might find a rude and\ntumultuary vent, or, on the other hand, his royal companions in arms\ncould say, as Diomed says, \u2018I will use my right and resist your foolish\nproject in debate; which you ought not to resent.\u2019\n\n[204] Grote ii. 104.\n\n \u1f08\u03c4\u03c1\u03b5\u03af\u03b4\u03b7, \u03c3\u03bf\u1f76 \u03c0\u03c1\u1ff6\u03c4\u03b1 \u03bc\u03b1\u03c7\u03ae\u03c3\u03bf\u03bc\u03b1\u03b9 \u1f00\u03c6\u03c1\u03b1\u03b4\u03ad\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b9,\n \u1f23 \u03b8\u03ad\u03bc\u03b9\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c3\u03c4\u1f76\u03bd, \u1f04\u03bd\u03b1\u03be, \u1f00\u03b3\u03bf\u03c1\u1fc7\u00b7 \u03c3\u1f7a \u03b4\u1f72 \u03bc\u03ae \u03c4\u03b9 \u03c7\u03bf\u03bb\u03c9\u03b8\u1fc7\u03c2.\n\nThe proposal of Agamemnon had been heard in silence[205], the mode\nby which the army indicated its disinclination or its doubt. But the\ncounter proposal of Diomed, to fight to the last, was hailed with\nacclamation[206];\n\n[205] Il. ix. 30.\n\n[206] Ibid. 50.\n\n \u03bf\u1f31 \u03b4\u2019 \u1f04\u03c1\u03b1 \u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c0\u03af\u03b1\u03c7\u03bf\u03bd \u03c5\u1f37\u03b5\u03c2 \u1f08\u03c7\u03b1\u03b9\u1ff6\u03bd,\n \u03bc\u1fe6\u03b8\u03bf\u03bd \u1f00\u03b3\u03b1\u03c3\u03c3\u03ac\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9 \u0394\u03b9\u03bf\u03bc\u03ae\u03b4\u03b5\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f31\u03c0\u03c0\u03bf\u03b4\u03ac\u03bc\u03bf\u03b9\u03bf\u00b7\n\nso that the Assembly was then ripe for the plan of Nestor, which at\nonce received its approval[207]:\n\n[207] Il. ix. 79.\n\n \u1f63\u03c2 \u1f14\u03c6\u03b1\u03b8\u2019\u00b7 \u03bf\u1f31 \u03b4\u2019 \u1f04\u03c1\u03b1 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03bc\u03ac\u03bb\u03b1 \u03bc\u1f72\u03bd \u03ba\u03bb\u03cd\u03bf\u03bd, \u1f20\u03b4\u2019 \u1f10\u03c0\u03af\u03b8\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf.\n\nSubsequently, in the \u03b2\u03bf\u03c5\u03bb\u1f74 of the same Book, Nestor tells Agamemnon\nthat it is his duty to listen as well as to speak, and to adopt the\nplans of others when they are good (100-2). At the same time, the aged\nchieftain appears to submit himself to the judgment of Agamemnon in the\nCouncil[208]. His expressions are perhaps matter more of compliment\nthan of business; and at any rate we do not find any like terms used in\nthe Assembly.\n\n[208] Ibid. 97.\n\nIt was a happy characteristic of heroic Greece, that while she abounded\nin true shame, she had no false shame. It was not thought that a king,\nwho had done wrong, compromised his dignity by atonement; but, on the\ncontrary, that he recovered it. So says Ulysses, in the Assembly of the\nNineteenth Iliad[209];\n\n[209] Il. xix. 182.\n\n \u03bf\u1f50 \u03bc\u1f72\u03bd \u03b3\u03ac\u03c1 \u03c4\u03b9 \u03bd\u03b5\u03bc\u03b5\u03c3\u03c3\u03b7\u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03b2\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03bb\u1fc6\u03b1\n \u1f04\u03bd\u03b4\u03c1\u2019 \u1f00\u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03ad\u03c3\u03c3\u03b1\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9, \u1f45\u03c4\u03b5 \u03c4\u03b9\u03c2 \u03c0\u03c1\u03cc\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c7\u03b1\u03bb\u03b5\u03c0\u03ae\u03bd\u1fc3.\n\nThis passage at once establishes in the most pointed manner both the\nright to chide the head of the army, and the obligation incumbent on\nhim, as on others, where he had given offence to make amends.\n\nThus then a large liberty of speech and judgment on the part of the\nkings or chiefs, when they differed from Agamemnon, would appear\nto be established beyond dispute, a liberty which in certain cases\nresulted in his being summarily overruled. I cannot therefore here\nsubscribe even to the measured statement of Mure, who, admits the\nliberty of remonstrance, but asserts also the sovereignty of the will\nof Agamemnon. Much less to the very broad assertions of Grote, that the\nresolutions of Agamemnon appear uniformly to prevail in the Council,\nand that the nullity of positive function is still more striking in the\nAgor\u00e8[210].\n\n[210] Grote\u2019s Hist. vol. ii. pp. 90, 2.\n\nTo that institution it is now time for us to turn.\n\n~_Influence of Speech._~\n\nThe trait which is truly most worthy of note in the polities of\nHomeric Greece, is also that which is so peculiar to them; namely,\nthe substantive weight and influence which belonged to speech as an\ninstrument of government; and of this power by much the most remarkable\ndevelopment is in its less confined and more popular application to the\nAssembly.\n\nThis power of speech was essentially a power to be exercised over\nnumbers, and with the safeguards of publicity, by man among his\nfellow-men. It was also essentially an instrument addressing itself to\nreason and free will, and acknowledging their authority. No government\nwhich sought its power in force, as opposed to reason, has at any\ntime used this form of deception. The world has seen absolutism deck\nitself with the titles and mere forms of freedom, or seek shelter under\nits naked abstractions: but from the exercise of free speech as an\ninstrument of state, it has always shrunk with an instinctive horror.\n\nOne mode of proving the power of speech in the heroic age is, by\nshowing what place it occupied in the thoughts of men, as they are to\nbe gathered from their language. Another mode is, by pointing to its\nconnection, in practical examples, with this or that course of action,\nadopted or shunned. A third is, by giving evidence of the earnestness\nwith which the art was prosecuted, and the depth and comprehensiveness\nof the conceptions from which it derived its form.\n\nWe shall presently trace the course of public affairs, as they were\nmanaged by the Greeks of the heroic age in their public assemblies.\nFor the present, let us endeavour to collect the true sense of Homer\nrespecting oratory from his language concerning it, from the characters\nwith whom he has particularly connected it, and from the knowledge\nwhich he may be found to have possessed of its resources.\n\nAlthough it is common to regard the Iliad as a poem having battle for\nits theme, yet it is in truth not less a monument of policy than of\nwar; and in this respect it is even more broadly distinguished, than in\nmost others, from later epics.\n\nThe adjectives in Homer are in very many cases the key to his inner\nmind: and among them all there is none of which this is more true, than\nthe grand epithet \u03ba\u03c5\u03b4\u03b9\u03ac\u03bd\u03b5\u03b9\u03c1\u03b1. He confines it strictly to two subjects,\nbattle and debate, the clash of swords and the wrestling of minds. Of\nAchilles, he says in the First Book[211], (490)\n\n[211] He uses the epithet for battle in Il. iv. 225, 6. 124, 7. 113, 8.\n448, 12. 325, 13. 270, 14. 155, and 24. 391.\n\n \u03bf\u1f54\u03c4\u03b5 \u03c0\u03bf\u03c4\u2019 \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u1f00\u03b3\u03bf\u03c1\u1f74\u03bd \u03c0\u03c9\u03bb\u03ad\u03c3\u03ba\u03b5\u03c4\u03bf \u03ba\u03c5\u03b4\u03b9\u03ac\u03bd\u03b5\u03b9\u03c1\u03b1\u03bd,\n \u03bf\u1f54\u03c4\u03b5 \u03c0\u03bf\u03c4\u2019 \u1f10\u03c2 \u03c0\u03cc\u03bb\u03b5\u03bc\u03bf\u03bd.\n\nIn every other passage where he employs the word, it is attached to the\nsubstantive \u03bc\u03ac\u03c7\u03b7. Thus with him it was in two fields, that man was to\nseek for glory; partly in the fight, and partly in the Assembly.\n\nThe intellectual function was no less essential to the warrior-king of\nHomer, than was the martial; and the culture of the art of persuasion\nentered no less deeply into his early training. How, says Ph\u0153nix to\nAchilles, shall I leave you, I, whom your father attached to you when\nyou were a mere child, without knowledge of the evenhanded battle, or\nof the assemblies, in which men attain to fame,\n\n \u03bf\u1f54\u03c0\u03c9 \u03b5\u1f30\u03b4\u03cc\u03b8\u2019 \u1f41\u03bc\u03bf\u03b9\u0390\u03bf\u03c5 \u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03ad\u03bc\u03bf\u03b9\u03bf\n \u03bf\u1f50\u03c4\u2019 \u1f00\u03b3\u03bf\u03c1\u03ad\u03c9\u03bd, \u1f35\u03bd\u03b1 \u03c4\u2019 \u1f04\u03bd\u03b4\u03c1\u03b5\u03c2 \u1f00\u03c1\u03b9\u03c0\u03c1\u03ad\u03c0\u03b5\u03b5\u03c2 \u03c4\u03b5\u03bb\u03ad\u03b8\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd.\n\nSo he sent me to teach you the arts both of speech and fight[212],\n\n[212] Il. ix. 438-43.\n\n \u03bc\u03cd\u03b8\u03c9\u03bd \u03c4\u03b5 \u1fe5\u03b7\u03c4\u1fc6\u03c1\u2019 \u1f14\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9, \u03c0\u03c1\u03b7\u03ba\u03c4\u1fc6\u03c1\u03ac \u03c4\u03b5 \u1f14\u03c1\u03b3\u03c9\u03bd.\n\nEven so Ulysses, in the under-world, relates to Achilles the greatness\nof Neoptolemus in speech, not less than in battle, (Od. xi. 510-16.)\n\nNay, the \u1f00\u03b3\u03bf\u03c1\u1f74 of little Ithaca, where there had been no Assembly for\ntwenty years, is with Homer the \u1f00\u03b3\u03bf\u03c1\u1f74 \u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03cd\u03c6\u03b7\u03bc\u03bf\u03c2[213]. In a description,\nif possible yet more striking than that of Ph\u0153nix, Homer places before\nus the orator at his work. \u2018His hearers behold him with delight;\nhe speaks with tempered modesty, yet with confidence in himself\n(\u1f00\u03c3\u03c6\u03b1\u03bb\u03ad\u03c9\u03c2); he stands preeminent among the assembled people, and while\nhe passes through the city, they gaze on him as on a god[214]. From a\npassage like this we may form some idea, what a real power in human\nsociety was the orator of the heroic age; and we may also learn how and\nwhy it was, that the great Bard of that time has also placed himself in\nthe foremost rank of oratory for all time.\n\n[213] Od. ii. 150.\n\n[214] Od. viii. 170-3.\n\nIt is in the very same spirit that Ulysses, in the same most\nremarkable speech given in the Odyssey[215], sets forth the different\naccomplishments by which human nature is adorned. The three great\ngifts of the gods to man are, first, corporeal beauty, strength and\nbearing, all included in the word \u03c6\u03cd\u03b7; secondly, judgment or good sense\n(\u03c6\u03c1\u03ad\u03bd\u03b5\u03c2), and thirdly, the power of discourse, or \u1f00\u03b3\u03bf\u03c1\u03b7\u03c4\u03cd\u03c2. To one man,\nthe great gift last named is the compensation for the want of corporeal\nexcellence. To another is given beauty like that of the Immortals;\nbut then his comeliness is not crowned by eloquence: \u1f00\u03bb\u03bb\u2019 \u03bf\u1f54 \u03bf\u1f31 \u03c7\u03ac\u03c1\u03b9\u03c2\n\u1f00\u03bc\u03c6\u03b9\u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03ad\u03c6\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u1f10\u03c0\u03ad\u03b5\u03c3\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd. For \u03c7\u03ac\u03c1\u03b9\u03c2 in Od. xi. 367 we have \u03bc\u03bf\u03c1\u03c6\u1f74 \u1f10\u03c0\u03ad\u03c9\u03bd.\n\n[215] Od. viii. 166-85.\n\n~_Varied descriptions of Oratory._~\n\nIn full conformity with this strongly developed idea, the Poet\nplaces before us the descriptions of a variety of speakers. There is\nThersites[216], copious and offensive, to whom we must return. There\nis Telemachus, full of the gracious diffidence of youth[217], but\ncommended by Nestor for a power and a tact of expression beyond his\nyears. There is Menelaus, who speaks with a laconic ease[218]. There\nare the Trojan elders, or \u03b4\u03b7\u03bc\u03bf\u03b3\u03ad\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2, who from their experience and\nage chiefly guide the Assembly, and whose volubility and shrill small\nthread of voice[219] Homer compares to the chirping of grasshoppers.\nThen we have Nestor the soft and silvery, whose tones of happy and\nbenevolent egotism flowed sweeter than a stream of honey[220]. In\nthe hands of an inferior artist, Ph\u0153nix must have reproduced him;\nbut an absorbing affection for Achilles is the key-note to all he\nsays; even the account in his speech of his own early adventures is\nevidently meant as a warning on the effects of rage: this intense\nearnestness completely prevents any thing like sameness, and thus the\ntwo garrulities stand perfectly distinct from one another, because\nthey have (so to speak) different centres of gravity. Lastly, we have\nUlysses, who, wont to rise with his energies concentrated within him,\ngives no promise of display: but when his deep voice issues from\nhis chest, and his mighty words drive like the flakes of snow in\nwinter[221], then indeed he soars away far above all competitors.\n\n[216] Il. ii. 212.\n\n[217] Od. iii. 23, 124.\n\n[218] Il. iii. 213.\n\n[219] Il. iii. 150.\n\n[220] Il. i. 248.\n\n[221] Il. iii. 216, 23.\n\nIt is very unusual for Homer to indulge thus largely in careful and\ndetailed description. And even here he has left the one superlative,\nas well as other considerable, orators, undescribed. The eloquence of\nAchilles is left to describe itself; and to challenge comparison with\nall the choicest patterns both of power and beauty in this kind, that\nthree thousand years since Homer, and all their ebbing and flowing\ntides, have brought within the knowledge of man. Although he modestly\ndescribes himself as beneath Ulysses in this accomplishment, yet in\ntruth no speeches come near to his. But Homer\u2019s resources are not even\nnow exhausted. The decision of Diomed, the irresolution of Agamemnon,\nthe bluntness of Ajax, are all admirably marked in the series of\nspeeches allotted to each. Indeed Homer has put into the mouth of\nIdomeneus, whom he nowhere describes as an orator at all, a speech\nwhich is quite enough to establish his reputation in that capacity.\n(Il. xiii. 275-94.)\n\nIn reviewing the arrangements Homer has made, we shall find one feature\nalike unequivocal and decisive. The two persons, to whom he has given\nsupremacy in oratory, are his two, his only two godlike heroes (\u03b8\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bf\u03b9),\nthe Achilles and the Ulysses, each of whom bears up, like the Atlas of\ntradition, the weight of the epic to which he principally belongs.\n\nHow could Homer have conceived thoughts like these, if government\nin his eyes had rested upon either force or fraud? Moreover, when\nhe speaks of persuasion and of strength or valour, of the action of\nthe tongue and that of the hand, he clearly does not mean that these\nelements are mixed in the ordinary conduct of a sovereign to his\nsubjects: he means the first for peace, the latter for war; the first\nto be his sole instrument for governing his own people, the latter for\ntheir enemies alone.\n\nIf, again, we endeavour to estimate the importance of Speech in the\nheroic age by the degree in which the faculty was actually cultivated,\nwe must take the achievements of the Poet as the best indicators of\nthe capacities of the age. The speeches which Homer has put into the\nmouths of his leading orators should be tolerably fair representatives\nof the best performances of the time. Nor is it possible that in any\nage there should be in a few a capacity for making such speeches,\nwithout a capacity in many for receiving, feeling, and comprehending\nthem. Poets of modern times have composed great works, in ages that\nstopped their ears against them. \u2018Paradise Lost\u2019 does not represent the\ntime of Charles the Second, nor the \u2018Excursion\u2019 the first decades of\nthe present century. The case of the orator is entirely different. His\nwork, from its very inception, is inextricably mixed up with practice.\nIt is cast in the mould offered to him by the mind of his hearers. It\nis an influence principally received from his audience (so to speak)\nin vapour, which he pours back upon them in a flood. The sympathy\nand concurrence of his time is with his own mind joint parent of his\nwork. He cannot follow nor frame ideals; his choice is, to be what his\nage will have him, what it requires in order to be moved by him, or\nelse not to be at all. And as when we find the speeches in Homer, we\nknow that there must have been men who could speak them, so, from the\nexistence of units who could speak them, we know that there must have\nbeen crowds who could feel them.\n\n~_The orations of the Poems._~\n\nNow if we examine those orations, we shall, I think, find not only\nthat they contain specimens of transcendent eloquence which have never\nbeen surpassed, but likewise that they evince the most comprehensive\nknowledge, and the most varied and elastic use, of all the resources of\nthe art. If we seek a specimen of invective, let us take the speeches\nof Achilles in the debate of the First Iliad. If it is the loftiest\ntone of terrible declamation that we desire, I know not where (to\nspeak with moderation) we can find any thing that in grandeur can\nsurpass the passage (Il. xvi. 74-9) beginning,\n\n \u03bf\u1f50 \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u03a4\u03c5\u03b4\u03b5\u03b9\u03b4\u03ad\u03c9 \u0394\u03b9\u03bf\u03bc\u03ae\u03b4\u03b5\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f10\u03bd \u03c0\u03b1\u03bb\u03ac\u03bc\u1fc3\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd\n \u03bc\u03b1\u03af\u03bd\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u1f10\u03b3\u03c7\u03b5\u03af\u03b7, \u03ba. \u03c4. \u03bb.\n\nBut if it is solemnity that is sought, nothing can, I think, excel the\n\u03bd\u03b1\u1f76 \u03bc\u1f70 \u03c4\u03cc\u03b4\u03b5 \u03c3\u03ba\u1fc6\u03c0\u03c4\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd. (Il. i. 233-44.)\n\nWhat more admirable example of comprehensive statement, which exhausts\nthe case, and absolutely shuts up the mouth of the adversary, than in\nthe speech of Ulysses to Euryalus, who has reproached him with looking\nlike a sharper? That speech consists of twenty lines: and I think any\none who attempts to give a really accurate summary of it will be apt to\nfind that his epitome, if it be at all complete, has become unawares\na paraphrase. Nor is Homer less successful in showing us, how he has\nsounded the depths of pathos. For though the speeches of Priam to\nAchilles in the Twenty-fourth Iliad are spoken privately, and from man\nto man only, and are therefore not in the nature of oratory properly so\ncalled, they are conclusive, _a fortiori_, as to his knowledge of the\ninstruments by which the human affections might be moved so much more\neasily, when the speaker would be assisted at once by the friendliness\nand by the electric sympathies of a multitude.\n\n~_Repartee and Sarcasm._~\n\nAll these are direct instruments of influence on the mind and actions\nof man. But of assaults in flank Homer is quite as great a master. He\nshows a peculiar genius for that which is properly called repartee; for\nthat form of speech, which flings back upon the opponent the stroke of\nhis own weapon, or on the supplicant the plea of his own prayer. There\nwas one Antimachus, a Trojan, who had grown wealthy, probably by the\nbribes which he received from Paris in consideration of his always\nopposing, in the Trojan Agor\u00e8, the restoration of Helen to the Greeks.\nHis sons are mastered by Agamemnon in the field. Aware that he had a\nthirst for money, they cry, \u2018Quarter, Agamemnon! we are the sons of\nrich Antimachus: _he_ will pay well for our lives.\u2019 \u2018If,\u2019 replies the\nking, \u2018you are the sons of that Antimachus, who, when Menelaus came\nas envoy to Troy, advised to take and slay him, here and now shall ye\nexpiate your father\u2019s infamy[222].\u2019 Compare with this the yet sharper\nturn of Ulysses on Leiodes in the Odyssey: \u2018Spare me, Ulysses! I have\ndone no ill in your halls; I stopped what ill I could; I was but Augur\nto the Suitors.\u2019 Then follows the stern reply. \u2018If thou dost avow that\nthou art Augur to the Suitors, then often in prayer must thou have\naugured my destruction, and desired my wife for thine own; wherefore\nthou shalt not escape the painsome bed of death[223].\u2019\n\n[222] Il. xi. 122-42.\n\n[223] Od. xxii. 310-25.\n\nBut the weapons of sarcasm, from the lightest to the weightiest, are\nwielded by Homer with almost greater effect than any others. As a\nsample of the former, I take the speech of Ph\u0153nix when he introduces,\nby way of parable, the Legend of Meleager. \u2018As long as Meleager fought,\nall was well; but when rage took possession of him--which (I would just\nobserve) now and then bewilders other great minds also--then,\u2019 and so\nonward.\n\nBut for the great master of this art, Homer has chosen Achilles. As\nwith his invectives he grinds to powder, so with the razor edge of\nthe most refined irony he cuts his way in a moment to the quick. When\nGreece, in the person of the envoy-kings, is at his feet, and he has\nspurned them away, he says, \u2018No: I will go home: you can come and see\nme depart--if you think it worth your while.\u2019\n\n \u1f44\u03c8\u03b5\u03b1\u03b9, \u1f22\u03bd \u1f10\u03b8\u03ad\u03bb\u1fc3\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b1\u1f34 \u03ba\u03ad\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u03b9 \u03c4\u1f70 \u03bc\u03b5\u03bc\u03ae\u03bb\u1fc3.\n\nOf this passage, Il. ix. 356-64, the following translation may give a\nvery imperfect idea[224]:\n\n[224] The version of Voss is very accurate, but, I think, lifeless. The\nversion of Cowper is at this point not satisfactory: he weakens, by\nexaggerating, the delicate expression \u03bc\u03b5\u03bc\u03ae\u03bb\u1fc3:\n\n Look thou forth at early dawn,\n And, if such spectacle _delight_ thee aught,\n Thou shalt behold me cleaving with my prows, &c.\n\nThe version of Pope simply omits the line!\n\n Tomorrow we the favouring gods implore:\n Then shall you see our parting vessels crowned,\n And hear with oars the Hellespont resound.\n\n\n Of fight with Hector will I none;\n Tomorrow, with the rising sun,\n Each holy rite and office done,\n I load and launch my Phthian fleet;\n Come, if thou thinkest meet,\n See, if thou carest for the sight,\n My ships shall bound in the morning\u2019s light,\n My rowers row with eager might,\n O\u2019er Helle\u2019s teeming main.\n And, if Poseidon give his grace,\n Then, with but three revolving days,\n I see my home again;\n My home of plenty, that I left\n To fight with Troy; of sense bereft!\n\nThe plenty of his house (\u1f14\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9 \u03b4\u03ad \u03bc\u03bf\u03b9 \u03bc\u03ac\u03bb\u03b1 \u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03bb\u1f70) is the finishing\nstroke of reply on Agamemnon, who had thought that his resentment,\nunsatisfied in feeling, could be appeased with gifts.\n\nIn the same speech occurs the piercing sarcasm[225]:\n\n[225] 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\nThe Greeks had come to Troy to recover the wife of Menelaus: and while\nthey were there, Agamemnon took for a concubine the intended wife of\nAchilles. Was it, he asks, the privilege of the sons of Atreus alone\namong mankind to love their wives? Agamemnon, too, being the chief\nof the two; who had laid hold on Briseis, as he had meant to keep\nChryseis, in disparagement of his own marriage bed. Nor can the reader\nof this passage fail, I think, to be struck with the wonderful manner\nin which it combines a stately dignity, and an unimpeachable solidity\nof argument, with the fierceness of its personal onslaught.\n\n~_The faculty of debate in Homer._~\n\n~_The discussion of the Ninth Iliad._~\n\nIf the power of oratory is remarkable in Homer, so likewise is the\nfaculty of what in England is called debate. Here the orator is a\nwrestler, holding his ground from moment to moment; adjusting his\npoise, and delivering his force, in exact proportion to the varying\npressure of his antagonist. In Homer\u2019s debates, every speech after\nthe first is commonly a reply. It belongs not only to the subject,\nbut to the speech that went before: it exhibits, given the question\nand the aims of the speaker, the exact degree of ascent or descent,\nof expansion or contraction, of relaxation or enhancement, which\nthe circumstances of the case, in the state up to which they were\nbrought by the preceding address, may require. In the Assembly of\nthe First Book, five, nay, six, successive speeches of Achilles and\nAgamemnon[226] bring their great contention to its climax. But the\ndiscussion with the Envoys deserves very particular notice. Ulysses\nbegins a skilled harangue to the offended hero with a most artful\nand well-masked exaggeration of the martial fury of Hector. He takes\ncare only to present it as part of a general picture, which in other\nparts is true enough; but he obviously relies upon it as a mode of\ngetting within the guard of Achilles. He next touches him upon the\npoint, to which Priam afterwards made a yet higher appeal; the tender\nrecollection of his father Peleus, who had warned him how much more\narduous was the acquisition of self-command, than that of daring.\nHe then recites the gifts of Agamemnon: and, encouraged perhaps by\nthe kind greeting that, with his companions, he had received, he\ncloses by urging that, however hateful Agamemnon may be, yet, in\npity for the other Greeks, both high and low, and in anticipation\nof their gratitude, he ought to arm. I shall not attempt to analyse\nthe wonderful speech of Achilles which follows, and to which some\nreferences have already been made. Suffice it to say, that it commences\nwith an intimation to Ulysses that it will, in the opinion of the\nspeaker, be best for all parties if he tells out his mind plainly: an\nindirect and courteous reproof to Ulysses for having thought to act\nupon him by tact and by the processes of a rhetorician. After this\nfollows such a combination of argument, declamation, invective, and\nsarcasm as, within the same compass, I do not believe all the records\nof the world can match. But the general result of the whole is the\nannouncement that he will return to Phthia the very next morning;\ntogether with an absolute, unconditional rejection of all gifts and\nproffers, until the outrage of Agamemnon is entirely wiped away[227]:\n\n[226] Il. i. 106-244.\n\n[227] Il. ix. 387.\n\n \u03c0\u03c1\u03af\u03bd \u03b3\u2019 \u1f00\u03c0\u1f78 \u03c0\u1fb6\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd \u1f10\u03bc\u03bf\u1f76 \u03b4\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9 \u03b8\u03c5\u03bc\u03b1\u03bb\u03b3\u03ad\u03b1 \u03bb\u03ce\u03b2\u03b7\u03bd.\n\nWhen he has concluded, all his hearers, abashed by his masculine wrath,\nare silent for a while. Then Ph\u0153nix, in the longest speech of the\npoem, pours forth his unselfish and warm, but prolix and digressive\naffection. This speech displays far less of rhetorical resource,\nthan that of Ulysses. Ulysses had conceded, as it were, the right of\nAchilles to an unbounded resentment against Agamemnon (300): Ph\u0153nix, on\nthe contrary, by parable, menaces him with retribution from the Erin\u016bs,\nunless he shall subdue the mighty soul within him. But Achilles,\ntouched in his better nature, gives way a little to the more ethical\nappeal, where he had been inflexible and invulnerable before the\nintellectual and rhetorical address. He now bids Ph\u0153nix come himself,\nand sleep in his encampment: there they can consider together, in the\nmorning, whether to go or to stay (618). Still he announces, that\nnothing will induce him to quit the ships for the field (609). Next\ncomes blunt Ajax into the _pal\u00e6stra_; deprecates the wasting of time;\nis for taking back the answer, bad as it may be: Achilles has evidently\nmade up his mind; and cares not a rush for all or any of them. \u2018What,\u2019\nsays the simple man-mountain, \u2018the homicide of a brother or child is\natoned for by a fine, and yet here is all this to-do about a girl. Aye,\nand a single girl; when we offer seven of the very best, and ever so\nmuch besides.\u2019 Having thus reached the _acm\u00e8_ of his arts, he now aims\nat the friendly feeling of Achilles, and in a single word bids him be\nplacable to men whom he has admitted beneath his roof, and whom he owns\nfor as loyal friends as the whole army could find him.\n\nThe leverage of this straightforward speech, which is only saved by\nkindliness from falling into rudeness, again produces an initial\nmovement towards concession on the part of the great hero. He replies\nin effect to Ajax, \u2018You have spoken well: I like your way of going\nto work: but my heart swells and boils with the shame inflicted on\nme before the Greeks by Agamemnon. Tell them then\u2019--there is now no\nannouncement of setting sail; nay, there is no longer any need for\ndebate in the morning whether to set sail or not--\u2018tell them that I\nfight no more, till Hector, carrying slaughter and fire, shall reach\nthis camp, these ships. Keen as he may be, it will then be time enough\nfor ME to stay his onward path.\u2019\n\nSuch is the remarkable course of this debate. But Ulysses, when they\nreturn to Agamemnon--meaning probably to bring him and all the Greeks\nfairly to bay--takes no notice of the partial relaxations of the iron\nwill of Achilles, but simply reports that he has threatened to set\nsail. Then comes the turn of Diomed. \u2018You were wrong to cringe to him.\nOf himself, he is arrogant enough: you have made him worse. Let him\nalone; he will come when he thinks proper, or when Providence wills it;\nand no sooner. My advice is that we sleep and eat now, and fight at\ndawn. I, at any rate, will be there, in the foremost of the battle.\u2019\n\n~_Function of the Assembly._~\n\nWe will now proceed to consider the nature and place of the \u1f00\u03b3\u03bf\u03c1\u1f74 or\nAssembly, in the heroic age: and a view of the proceedings on several\noccasions will further illustrate the great and diversified oratorical\nresources of the Poet.\n\nA people cannot live in its corporate capacity without intermission,\nand the king is the standing representative of the community. But yet\nthe \u1f00\u03b3\u03bf\u03c1\u1f74, or Assembly, is the true centre of its life and its vital\nmotion, as the monarch is of its functional or administrative activity;\nand the greatest ultimate power, which the king possesses, is that\nof influence upon his subjects collected there, through the combined\nmedium of their reverence for his person, and of his own powers of\npersuasion. In the case of the army before Troy, to the strength\nof these ordinary motives is added, along with a certain spirit of\nresentment for injury received in the person of Helen, the hope of\na rich booty on the capture of the city, and the principle of pure\nmilitary honour; never perhaps more powerfully drawn than in the Iliad,\nnor with greater freedom from extravagances, by which it is sometimes\nmade to ride over the heads of duty and justice, its only lawful\nsuperiors.\n\nFirst, it would appear to have belonged to the Assembly, not indeed to\ndistribute the spoil, but to consent to its distribution by the chief\ncommander, and his brother-leaders. To the former it is imputed in the\nNinth Book. But in the First Book Achilles says to him in the Assembly,\nWe the Greeks (\u1f08\u03c7\u03b1\u03b9\u03bf\u1f76) will requite you three and four-fold, when Troy\nis taken[228]. It is probable that he here means to speak of the chiefs\nalone, (but only so far as the act of distribution is concerned,)\nbecause Thersites uses the very same expression (\u1f05\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u03b9 \u1f08\u03c7\u03b1\u03b9\u03bf\u1f76 \u03c0\u03c1\u03c9\u03c4\u03af\u03c3\u03c4\u1ff3\n\u03b4\u03af\u03b4\u03bf\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd[229]) in the Second Book. Therefore the division of booty was\nprobably made on the king\u2019s proposal, with the aid of the chiefs, but\nwith the general knowledge and consent of the army, and in right of\nthat consent on their part.\n\n[228] Il. i. 127.\n\n[229] ii. 227.\n\nIt must be remembered all along, that the state of political society,\nwhich Homer represents to us, is that in which the different elements\nof power wear their original and natural forms; neither much altered\nas yet by the elaborate contrivances of man, nor driven into their\nseveral extremes by the consequences of long strife, greedy appetite,\nand furious passions, excited by the temptations which the accumulation\nof property presents.\n\nIn those simple times, when the functions of government were few, and\nits acts, except perhaps the trial of private causes, far between,\nthere was no formal distribution of political rights, as if they could\nbe made the object of ambitious or contentious cupidity: but the grand\nsocial power that moved the machine was in the determinations of the\n\u1f00\u03b3\u03bf\u03c1\u1f74, however informally declared.\n\nGrote has observed, that in the Homeric \u1f00\u03b3\u03bf\u03c1\u1f74 no division of\naffirmative and negative voices ever takes place. It would require\na volume to discuss all that this remark involves and indicates. I\nwill however observe that the principle surely cannot be made good\nfrom history or in philosophy, that numbers prevail by an inherent\nright. Decision by majorities is as much an expedient, as lighting by\ngas. In adopting it as a rule, we are not realizing perfection, but\nbowing to imperfection. We follow it as best for us, not as best in\nitself. The only _right_ to command, as Burke has said, resides in\nwisdom and virtue. In their application to human affairs, these great\npowers have commonly been qualified, on the one hand by tradition and\nprepossession, on the other hand by force. Decision by majorities has\nthe great merit of avoiding, and that by a test perfectly definite,\nthe last resort to violence; and of making force itself the servant\ninstead of the master of authority. But our country still rejoices in\nthe belief, that she does not decide all things by majorities. The\nfirst Greeks neither knew the use of this numerical dogma, nor the\nabuse of it. They did not employ it as an instrument, and in that they\nlost: but they did not worship it as an idol, and in that they greatly\ngained. Votes were not polled in the Olympus of Homer; yet a minority\nof influential gods carry the day in favour of the Greeks against the\nmajority, and against their Head. There surely could not be a grosser\nerror than to deny every power to be a real one, unless we are able\nboth to measure its results in a table of statistics, and to trace at\nevery step, with our weak and partial vision, the precise mode by which\nit works towards its end.\n\n~_Great decisions all taken there._~\n\nWe have seen, in the first place, that all the great decisions of\nthe War were taken in the Assembly of the Greeks. And here the first\nreflection that arises is, how deeply this method of political action\nmust have been engrained in their habits and ideas, when it could\nsurvive the transition from peace to war, and, notwithstanding its\npalpable inconveniences in a camp, form the practical rule of its\nproceedings under the eye of the enemy.\n\nThe force of this consideration is raised to the utmost height by the\ncase of the Night Assembly in the Ninth Book. The Trojans, no longer\nconfined to their walls, are lying beside a thousand watch-fires, just\noutside the rampart. Some important measure is absolutely demanded on\nthe instant by the downcast condition of the less than half-beaten,\nbut still thoroughly discouraged army. Yet not even under these\ncircumstances would Agamemnon act individually, or with the kings\nalone. He sends his heralds round the camp (Il. ix. 11),\n\n \u03ba\u03bb\u03ae\u03b4\u03b7\u03bd \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u1f00\u03b3\u03bf\u03c1\u1f74\u03bd \u03ba\u03b9\u03ba\u03bb\u03ae\u03c3\u03ba\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd \u1f04\u03bd\u03b4\u03c1\u03b1 \u1f15\u03ba\u03b1\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd,\n \u03bc\u03b7\u03b4\u1f72 \u03b2\u03bf\u1fb6\u03bd\u00b7\n\nto summon an Assembly noiselessly, and man by man. Can there be a more\nconclusive proof of the vigour, with which the popular principle\nentered into the idea of the Homeric polities? If it be said that\nsuch an operation could hardly be effected at night without stir, I\nreply that if it be so, the argument for the power and vitality of the\nAssembly is but strengthened: for Homer was evidently far more careful\nto speak in harmony with the political tone of his country than to\nmeasure out time by the hour and minute, or place by the yard, foot,\nand inch; as valuing not the latter methods less, but the former more.\n\nThe Greek army, in fact, is neither more nor less than, so to speak,\nthe State in uniform. As the soldier of those days was simply the\ncitizen armed, so the armament was the aggregate of armed citizens,\nwho, in all except their arms and the handling of them, continued to\nbe what they had been before. But when we find that in such great\nemergencies political ideas did not give way to military expediency, we\ncannot, I think, but conclude that those ideas rested on broad and deep\nfoundations.\n\nIt further tends to show the free nature of the relation between the\nAssembly and the Commander-in-chief, that it might be summoned by\nothers, as well as by him. We are told explicitly in the First Book,\nthat Achilles called it together, as he did again in the Nineteenth\nfor the Reconciliation. On the second of these occasions, it may\nhave been his purpose that the reparation should be as public as had\nbeen the insult: at any rate there was a determination to make the\nreconciliation final, absolute, and thorough. But, at the former\ntime, the act partook of the nature of a moral appeal from Agamemnon\nto the army. It illustrated, in the first place, the principle of\npublicity so prevalent in the Greek polities. That which Calchas had\nto declare, he must declare not in a \u2018hole and corner,\u2019 but on his\nresponsibility, liable to challenge, subject to the \u03b4\u03ae\u03bc\u03bf\u03c5 \u03c6\u03ac\u03c4\u03b9\u03c2 if he\ntold less than the truth, as well as to the resentment of the sovereign\nif he should venture on divulging it entire. But secondly, it shows\nthat Achilles held the Greeks at large entitled and bound to be parties\nto the transaction. He meant that the Greeks should see his wrong.\nPerhaps he hoped that they would intercept its infliction. This at\nany rate is clear: he commenced the debate with measured reproofs of\nAgamemnon[230]; but afterwards he rose, with a wider scope, to a more\nintense and a bitterer strain[231].\n\n[230] Il. i. 121-9.\n\n[231] Ibid. 149-71.\n\nWhen he found that the monarch was determined, and when he had\nrepressed the access of rage which tempted him to summary revenge, he\nbegan to use language not now of mere invective against Agamemnon, but\nof such invective as tended to set him at odds with the people. Then\nfurther on, perhaps because they did not echo back his sentiments,\nand become active parties to the terrible fray, he both taunts and\nthreatens them. For he begins[232], \u2018Coward that thou art! Never\nhast thou dared to arm with the people for the fight, or with the\nleaders for the ambush.\u2019 And then[233]. \u2018Devourer of the people! over\nwhat nobodies thou rulest! or surely this would be the last of your\nmisdeeds.\u2019 Again, in the peroration[234], \u2018By this mighty oath, every\nman among you shall lament the absence of Achilles.\u2019\n\n[232] Ibid. 225.\n\n[233] Ibid. 231.\n\n[234] Ibid. 239.\n\n~_Opposition in the Agor\u00e8._~\n\nIt has often been asserted that the principle of popular opposition\nin debate is only represented by Thersites. But let us proceed step\nby step. It is at any rate clear enough that opposition by the\nconfederate kings is at once sufficiently represented in Achilles; and\nthat it is not represented by him alone, since in the Assembly of the\nNinth Book, Diomed both strongly reprehended Agamemnon, and proposes\na course diametrically the reverse of his; which course was forthwith\nadopted by the acclamations of the army.\n\n~_The case of Thersites._~\n\nLet us now pass on to Thersites. There is no more singular picture\nin the Iliad, than that which he presents to us. It well deserves\nexamination in detail.\n\nHomer has evidently been at pains to concentrate upon this personage\nall that could make him odious to the hearers of his song, while\nnevertheless he puts into his mouth not only the cant of patriotism,\nbut also a case that would perhaps have been popular, had he not\naverted the favour of the army by his insolent vulgarity.\n\nUpon its merits, too, it was a tolerable case, but not a good one;\nfor he was wrong in supposing Achilles placable; and again wrong in\nadvising that the Greeks, now without Achilles, should give way before\nthe Trojans, to whom they were still superior in war.\n\nHe is in all things the reverse of the great human ideals of Homer. As,\nin the pattern kings and heroes, moral, intellectual, and corporeal\nexcellences, each in the highest degree, must be combined, so Thersites\npresents a corresponding complication of deformities to view. As to\nthe first, he is the most infamous person (\u03b1\u1f34\u03c3\u03c7\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2) in the army;\nand he relies for his influence, not on the sense and honour of the\nsoldiers, but on a vein of gross buffoonery; which he displays in the\nonly coarse allusion that is to be found in all the speeches of the\npoems. As to the second head, his voluble speech is as void of order\nas of decency[235]. As to the third, he is lame, bandy-legged[236],\nhump-backed, round-shouldered, peak-headed, and lastly, (among the\n\u03ba\u03b1\u03c1\u03b7\u03ba\u03bf\u03bc\u03cc\u03c9\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2,) he is bald, or indeed worse, for on his head a hair is\nplanted here and there[237]. Lastly, hateful to all[238], he is most of\nall hateful to, as well as spiteful against, the two paramount heroes\nof the poems, Achilles and Ulysses: an observation inserted with equal\ningenuity and significance, because Homer, by inserting it, effectually\ncuts off any favour which Thersites might otherwise have gained with\nhis hearers from seeming to take the side of the wronged Achilles. It\nis also worthy of note, as indicating how Homer felt the strength of\nthat bond which unites together all great excellences of whatever kind.\nUpon a slight and exterior view, the two great characters of Achilles\nand Ulysses appear antagonistic, and we might expect to find their\nlikes and dislikes running in opposite directions. But as, in the Ninth\nBook, Ulysses is declared by Achilles to be one of those whom he loves\nbest among the Greeks[239], so here they are united in carrying to the\nhighest degree a common antipathy to Thersites.\n\n[235] Il. ii. 213.\n\n[236] \u03c6\u03bf\u03bb\u03ba\u03cc\u03c2. See Buttmann, Liddell and Scott. Commonly rendered\n\u2018squinting.\u2019\n\n[237] Il. ii. 214-19.\n\n[238] Ibid. 275, 220.\n\n[239] Il. ix. 198.\n\nWhile depriving the wretch of all qualities that could attract towards\nhim the slightest share of sympathy, Homer has taken care to leave\nThersites in full possession of every thing that was necessary for his\ntrade; an ample flow of speech (213), and no small power of vulgar\ninvective (215).\n\nAgain, the quality of mere scurrility assigned to Thersites, and well\nexemplified in his speech, stands alike distinguished in Homer from the\nvein of fun, which he can open in the grave Ulysses of the Odyssey,\neven while he is under terror of the Cyclops; and from that tremendous\nand perhaps still unrivalled power of sarcasm, of which we have found\nthe climax in Achilles.\n\nIn the short speech of Thersites, Homer has contrived to exhibit\nstriking examples of malice (vv. 226, 234), coarseness (232), vanity\n(vv. 228, 231, 238), cowardice (236); while it is a tissue of\nconsummate impudence throughout. Of this we find the finest stroke at\nthe end of it, where he says[240],\n\n[240] In 237 he appears to follow what Achilles had said i. 170.\n\n \u1f00\u03bb\u03bb\u1f70 \u03bc\u03ac\u03bb\u2019 \u03bf\u1f50\u03ba \u1f08\u03c7\u03b9\u03bb\u1fc6\u03ca \u03c7\u03cc\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c6\u03c1\u03b5\u03c3\u1f76\u03bd, \u1f00\u03bb\u03bb\u1f70 \u03bc\u03b5\u03b8\u03ae\u03bc\u03c9\u03bd\u00b7\n \u1f26 \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u1f02\u03bd, \u1f08\u03c4\u03c1\u03b5\u03af\u03b4\u03b7, \u03bd\u1fe6\u03bd \u1f55\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1 \u03bb\u03c9\u03b2\u03ae\u03c3\u03b1\u03b9\u03bf[241].\n\n[241] Il. ii. 241, 2.\n\nFor here the wretch apes Achilles, whom (for the sake of damaging\nAgamemnon) he affects to patronize, and, over and above the pretension\nto speak of his feelings as if he had been taken into his confidence on\nthe occasion, he actually closes with the very line which Achilles, at\nthe moment of high passion, had used in the Assembly of the First Book\n(i. 232).\n\nIf we consider the selection of topics each by themselves, with\nreference to effect, the speech is not without a certain \u03b5\u1f50\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03c7\u03af\u03b1: he\nhits the avarice of Agamemnon hard (226); and his responsibility as\na ruler (234): while pretending to incite the courage of the Greeks\n(235), he flatters their home-sickness and faint-heartedness by\ncounselling the return (236); and, in supporting Achilles, he plausibly\nreckons on being found to have taken the popular side. But if we\nregard it, as every speech should be regarded, with reference to some\nparamount purpose, it is really senseless and inconsequent. Dwelling as\nhe does upon the wrong done to Achilles, and asserting the placability\nof that chieftain, he ought to have ended with recommending an attempt\nto compensate and appease him; instead of which he recommends the\nReturn, which had been just abandoned. But the real extravagance of\nthe speech comes out only in connection with his self-love; when, like\nmany better men, he wholly loses whatever sense of the ridiculous he\nmight possess. It is not only \u2018the women whom we give you\u2019 (227); \u2018the\nservice which we render you\u2019 (238), but it is also \u2018the gold[242] that\nsome Trojan may bring to ransom his son, whom I, or else some other\nGreek, may have led captive.\u2019 I, Thersites, or some other Greek! The\nonly Greek, of whom we hear in the Iliad as having made and sold on\nransom captives during the war, is Achilles[243]; and it is with him\nthat Thersites thus couples himself. Upon this, Ulysses, perceiving\nthat he stands in opposition to the prevailing sentiment of the\nAssembly, silences him by a judicious application of the sceptre to his\nback and shoulders: yet not even Thersites does he silence by force,\nuntil he has first rebuked him by reasoning[244].\n\n[242] Il. ii. 229-31.\n\n[243] xxi. 40, 79. xxii. 44.\n\n[244] 246-56.\n\nSuch are the facts of the case of Thersites. Are we to infer from it,\nwith Grote, that Homer has made him ugly and execrable because he was a\npresumptuous critic, though his virulent reproaches were substantially\nwell founded, and that his fate, and the whole circumstances of this\nAssembly, show \u2018the degradation of the mass of the people before the\nchiefs[245]?\u2019\n\n[245] Grote\u2019s Hist. Greece, vol. ii. 95, 6.\n\nIn rallying the Greeks, says the distinguished historian[246], Ulysses\nflatters and soothes the chiefs, but drives the people with harsh\nreprimand and blows. Now surely, as to the mere matter of fact, this is\nnot quite so. It is not the people, but those whom he caught carrying\nthe matter by shouts, instead of returning to hear reason in the\nAssembly, that he struck with the sceptre[247]:\n\n[246] Ibid. pp. 96, 98.\n\n[247] Il. ii. 198.\n\n \u1f43\u03bd \u03b4\u2019 \u03b1\u1f56 \u03b4\u03ae\u03bc\u03bf\u03c5 \u03c4\u2019 \u1f04\u03bd\u03b4\u03c1\u03b1 \u1f34\u03b4\u03bf\u03b9, \u03b2\u03bf\u03cc\u03c9\u03bd\u03c4\u03ac \u03c4\u2019 \u1f10\u03c6\u03b5\u03cd\u03c1\u03bf\u03b9\u00b7\n\nand it may be observed, that he addresses all classes alike by the word\n\u03b4\u03b1\u03b9\u03bc\u03cc\u03bd\u03b9\u03b5[248]; which, though a term of expostulation, is not one of\ndisrespect.\n\n[248] Ibid. 190, 200.\n\nIf Thersites represented the principle of reasoning in the public\nAssembly, we might well see in the treatment of him the degradation of\nthe people. But it is railing, and not reasoning, that he represents;\nand Homer has separated widely between this individual and the mass\nof the army, by informing us that in the general opinion Ulysses had\nrendered a service, even greater than any of his former ones, by\nputting down Thersites. \u2018Ulysses has done a thousand good things in\ncouncil and in war: but this is the best of all, that he has stopped\nthe scoundrel in his ribaldry[249].\u2019\n\n[249] vv. 271-8.\n\nThersites spoke not against Agamemnon only, but against the sense of\nthe whole army (212); and the ground of the proceeding of Ulysses is\nnot laid in the fact of his having resisted Agamemnon, or Agamemnon\nwith the whole body of the kings; but in the manner of his speech, and\nin his having acted alone and against the general sentiment. Above\nall, we must recollect the circumstances, under which Ulysses ventured\nto chastise even this rancorous and foul-mouthed railer. It was at a\nmoment of crisis, nay, of agony. The rush from the Assembly to the\nships did not follow upon an orderly assent to a proposal, such as was\ngenerally given; but it resulted from a tumultuous impulse, like that\nof blasts tossing the sea, or sweeping down upon the cornfield (Il.\nii. 144-54). If therefore Ulysses employs the sceptre of Agamemnon to\nsmite those who were shouting in aid of this ruinous tumult (ii. 198),\nwe need not take this for a sample of what would be done in ordinary\ncircumstances, more than the fate of Wat Tyler for a type of British\nfreedom under the Plantagenets. Odious too as was Thersites, yet the\narmy, amidst a preponderating sentiment of approval, still appear to\nhave felt some regret at his mishap[250];\n\n[250] Il. ii. 270.\n\n \u03bf\u1f31 \u03b4\u1f72, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f00\u03c7\u03bd\u03cd\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03af \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1, \u1f10\u03c0\u2019 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1ff7 \u1f21\u03b4\u1f7a \u03b3\u03ad\u03bb\u03b1\u03c3\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd\u00b7\n\nfor the first words would suggest, that they knew how to value the\nliberty of thought, which had been abused, disgraced, and consequently\nrestrained, in his person. Surely it would be most precipitate to\nconclude, from a case like this, that the debates of the Assemblies\nwere formal, and that they had nothing to do but to listen to a sham\ndiscussion, and to register or follow decrees which were substantially\nthose of Agamemnon only.\n\nI believe that the mistake involved in the judgment we have been\ncanvassing is a double one: a mistake of the relation of Agamemnon\nto the other kings and chiefs; and a mistake of the relation of the\nsovereigns generally to their subjects. Agamemnon was strong in\ninfluence and authority, but he had, as we have already seen, nothing\nlike a despotic control over the other kings. The kings were strong\nin personal ability, in high descent, in the sanction of Jupiter, in\npossession, and in tradition: but all their strength, great as it was,\nlay as a general rule in the direction of influence, and not in that of\nviolence.\n\nI do not think, however, that we ought to be contented with the merely\nnegative mode of treatment for the case of Thersites. I cannot but\nconceive that, upon an impartial review, it may teach more, than is\ndrawn from it by merely saying that it does not prove the Assembly to\nhave been an illusion. We must assume that Homer\u2019s picture, if not\nhistorical, at least conformed to the laws of probability. Now, what is\nthe picture? That the buffoon of the army, wholly without influence,\ncapable of attracting no respect, when the mass of the people had\novercome their homeward impulse, had returned to the Assembly, and\nwere awaiting the proposition of the kings, first continues to rail\n(\u1f10\u03ba\u03bf\u03bb\u1ff4\u03b1) while every one else is silent, and then takes upon himself\nthe initiative in recommending the resumption of the project, which\nthey had that moment abandoned. If such conduct could be ascribed by\nthe Poet to a creature sharp-witted enough, and as careful as others of\nhis own back, does not the very fact presuppose that freedom of debate\nwas a thing in principle at least known and familiar?\n\n~_Agor\u00e8 on the Shield in Il._ xviii.~\n\nIn the scene depicted on the Shield of Achilles, new evidence is\nafforded us that the people took a real part in the conduct of public\naffairs. The people are in Assembly. A suit is in progress. The matter\nis one of homicide; and the guilty person declares that he has paid the\nproper fine, while his antagonist avers that he has not received it.\nEach presses for a judicial decision. The people sympathizing, some\nwith one, and some with the other, cheer them on.\n\n \u039b\u03b1\u03bf\u1f76 \u03b4\u2019 \u1f00\u03bc\u03c6\u03bf\u03c4\u03ad\u03c1\u03bf\u03b9\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u1f10\u03c0\u03ae\u03c0\u03c5\u03bf\u03bd, \u1f00\u03bc\u03c6\u1f76\u03c2 \u1f00\u03c1\u03c9\u03b3\u03bf\u03af\u00b7\n \u03ba\u03ae\u03c1\u03c5\u03ba\u03b5\u03c2 \u03b4\u2019 \u1f04\u03c1\u03b1 \u03bb\u03b1\u1f78\u03bd \u1f10\u03c1\u03ae\u03c4\u03c5\u03bf\u03bd[251].\n\n[251] Il. xviii. 502.\n\nI understand the latter words as declaring, not that the heralds\nforbade and put a stop to the cheering of the people, but either that\nthey kept it within bounds, or rather that, when the proper time\ncame for the judges to speak, these, the heralds, procured silence.\nAccording to the meaning of \u1f10\u03c1\u03b7\u03c4\u03cd\u03c9 in Il. ii. 211,\n\n \u1f04\u03bb\u03bb\u03bf\u03b9 \u03bc\u03ad\u03bd \u1fe5\u2019 \u1f15\u03b6\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf, \u1f10\u03c1\u03ae\u03c4\u03c5\u03b8\u03b5\u03bd \u03b4\u1f72 \u03ba\u03b1\u03b8\u2019 \u1f15\u03b4\u03c1\u03b1\u03c2.\n\nNow of the cheering of the people I venture to say, not that it\nraises a presumption of, but that it actually constitutes, their\ninterference. The rule of every tolerably regulated assembly, charged\nwith the conduct of important matters, is to permit no expressions of\napproval or otherwise during the proceedings, except from the parties\nimmediately belonging to the body. The total exclusion of applause in\njudicial cases belongs to a state of mind and manners different from\nthat of the heroic age. But the exclusion of all applause by mere\nstrangers to the business rests upon a truth common to every age;\nnamely, that such applause constitutes a share in the business, and\ncontributes to the decision. It will be remembered how the cries of the\nGalleries became one of the grievous scandals of the first revolution\nin France, and how largely they affected the determinations of the\nNational Assembly. The irregular use of such a power is a formidable\ninvasion of legislative or judicial freedom: the allowed possession of\nthe privilege amounts to participation in the office of the statesman\nor the judge, and demonstrates the substantive position of the \u03bb\u03b1\u1f78\u03c2, or\npeople, in the Assemblies of the heroic age.\n\nBut apparently their function was not completed by merely encouraging\nthe litigant, with whom each man might chance to sympathize. For we are\ntold not only that the Judges, that is to say, the \u03b3\u03ad\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2, delivered\ntheir opinions consecutively, but likewise that there lay in the sight\nof all two golden talents, to be given to him who should pronounce the\nfairest judgment (xviii. 508);\n\n \u03c4\u1ff7 \u03b4\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd, \u1f43\u03c2 \u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u1f70 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c3\u03b9 \u03b4\u03af\u03ba\u03b7\u03bd \u1f30\u03b8\u03cd\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1 \u03b5\u1f34\u03c0\u03bf\u03b9.\n\nThus it is plain that the judge who might do best was to get the\ntwo talents: but who was to give them? Not the \u03b3\u03ad\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 or elders\nthemselves, surely; for among them the competition lay. There could\nbe but one way in which the disposal of this fee could be settled:\nnamely, by the general acclamation of the people, to be expressed,\nafter hearing the respective parties, in favour of him whose sentiments\nthey most approved. And those, to whom it may seem strange to speak of\nvote by acclamation, should remember, that down to this day, in all\ndeliberative assemblies, an overpowering proportion of the votes are\nvotes by acclamation, or by the still less definite test of silence.\nThe small minority of instances, when a difference of opinion is\nseriously pressed, are now settled by arithmetic; they would then have\nbeen adjusted by some prudent appeal to the general will, proceeding\nfrom a person of ability and weight. Indeed even now, in cases when\nthe numbers approximate to those of the Greek army, there can be\nno _bon\u00e2 fide_ decision by arithmetic. The demand, however, that\ndissension shall be the only allowed criterion of liberty, is one which\nreally worsens the condition of human nature beyond what the truth of\nexperience requires.\n\n~_Decisions in Assemblies of Il._ vii. _and_ ix.~\n\nAnd finally, what shall we say to the direct evidence of Agamemnon\nhimself? Id\u00e6us[252], the Trojan herald, arrives with the offer to\nrestore the stolen property, but not Helen. He is received in dead\nsilence. After a pause, Diomed gives utterance to the general feeling.\n\u2018Neither will we have the goods without Helen, nor yet Helen with the\ngoods. Troy is doomed.\u2019 The Assembly shouts its approbation. Agamemnon\nimmediately addresses himself to the messenger; \u2018Id\u00e6us, you hear the\nsense of the Ach\u00e6ans, how they answer you; and I think with them.\u2019 At\nthe least this is a declaration as express as words can make it, and\nproceeding out of the mouth of the rival authority, to the effect that\nthe acclamation of the Assembly was, for all practical purposes, its\nvote, and that it required only concurrence from the king, to invest it\nwith the fullest authority. In the Ninth Iliad, as we have seen, the\nvote held good even without that concurrence[253].\n\n[252] Il. vii. 381.\n\n[253] Sup. p. 100.\n\nWe may now, I hope, proceed upon the ground that we are not to take\nthe ill success of a foulmouthed scoundrel, detested by the whole\narmy, as a sample of what would have happened to the people, or even\na part of them, when differing in judgment from their king. But what\nshall we say to the argument, that no case is found where a person\nof humble condition takes part in the debates of the Assemblies? No\ndoubt the conduct of debates was virtually in the hands of those whose\nbirth, wealth, station, and habits of life gave them capacity for\npublic affairs. Even in the nineteenth century, it very rarely happens\nthat a working man takes part in the proceedings of a county meeting:\nbut no one would on that account suppose that such an assembly can be\nused as the mere tool of the class who conduct the debate, far less of\nany individual prominent in that class. If we cannot conceive freedom\nwithout perpetual discord, the faithful performance of the duty of\ninformation and advice without coercion and oppression, it is a sign\neither of our narrow-mindedness, or of our political degeneracy; but\na feeble eye does not impair the reality of the object on which it may\nhappen to be fixed.\n\nStill we may admit that among the numerous assemblies of the Iliad,\nthere is no instance where assent is given by one part of the Assembly,\nand withheld by the other. There is, as we have seen, a clear and\nstrong case where the opinion of the commander-in-chief is rejected,\nand that of an inferior commander adopted in its stead. This in my\nopinion goes far to prove all that is necessary. We have from the\nOdyssey, however, the means of going further still.\n\nOnly, before leaving the Iliad, let us observe the terms in which the\nGreek Assemblies are addressed by the kings: they are denominated\nfriends and heroes; names which at least appear to imply their title\nto judge, or freely to concur, at least as much as such a title was\nrecognised in the ancient councils and assemblies of the Anglo-saxons.\nWas this appearance a mockery? I do not say we should compare it with\nthe organized, secure and regular privileges of a few nations in modern\ndays. But it would be a far greater mistake to treat it as an idle\nform, or as otherwise than a weighty reality.\n\n~_Division in the Drunken Assembly._~\n\nFrom what is related in that poem to have occurred after the capture\nof Troy, it becomes abundantly clear that the function of the Greek\nAssembly was not confined to listening. The army met in what, for the\nsake of distinction, we may call the Drunken Assembly[254]. Now, the\ninfluence of wine upon its proceedings is amply sufficient to show that\nits acts were the acts of the people: for Homer never allows his chiefs\nto be moved from their self-possession by the power of liquor.\n\n[254] Od. iii. 139.\n\nThere was a marked difference of opinion on that occasion: the people\ntook their sides; \u03b4\u03af\u03c7\u03b1 \u03b4\u03ad \u03c3\u03c6\u03b9\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u1f25\u03bd\u03b4\u03b1\u03bd\u03b5 \u03b2\u03bf\u03c5\u03bb\u03ae (Od. iii. 150). One\nhalf embarked; the residue staid behind with Agamemnon (155-7). The\nmoiety, which had sailed away, split again (162); and a portion of\nthem went back to Agamemnon. We see, indeed, throughout the Odyssey,\nhow freely the crews of Ulysses spoke or acted, when they thought fit,\nin opposition to his views. If it be said, we must not argue from the\nunruly speeches of men in great straits at sea, the answer is, first,\nthat their necessities might rather tend to induce their acquiescence\nin a stricter discipline; and secondly, that their liberty, and even\nlicense, are not out of keeping with the general tone of the relations\nbetween freemen of different classes, as exhibited to us elsewhere in\nthe Homeric poems.\n\nIt may, indeed, be said, that the divisions of the Greeks in the final\nproceedings at Troy were divisions, not of the men, but of the chiefs.\nThis, however, upon the face of the text, is very doubtful. We see from\nthe tale of the Pseudo-Ulysses, in the Thirteenth Odyssey (265, 6),\nthat there were parties and separate action in the Greek contingents:\nand it is probably to these that Nestor may allude, when he recommends\nthe Review in order that the responsibility of the officers may be\nbrought home to them individually. Now, in the case before us, the\nfirst division is thus described. Menelaus exhorted all the Greeks\n(\u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03c2 \u1f08\u03c7\u03b1\u03b9\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2) to go home: Agamemnon disagreed (141, 3): while they\nwere contesting the point, the Assembly rose in two parties (vv. 149,\n50);\n\n \u03bf\u1f31 \u03b4\u2019 \u1f00\u03bd\u03cc\u03c1\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd \u1f10\u03cb\u03ba\u03bd\u03ae\u03bc\u03b9\u03b4\u03b5\u03c2 \u1f08\u03c7\u03b1\u03b9\u03bf\u1f76\n \u1f20\u03c7\u1fc7 \u03b8\u03b5\u03c3\u03c0\u03b5\u03c3\u03af\u1fc3\u00b7 \u03b4\u03af\u03c7\u03b1 \u03b4\u03ad \u03c3\u03c6\u03b9\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u1f25\u03bd\u03b4\u03b1\u03bd\u03b5 \u03b2\u03bf\u03c5\u03bb\u03ae.\n\nThere is no intimation here that the people in dividing simply\nfollowed their chiefs. Nay, the tone of the description is such as\nobliges us to understand that the movement was a popular one, and took\nits rise from the debate: so that, even if the chiefs and their men\nkept together respectively, as they may have done, still the chiefs\nmay probably have followed quite as much as they led. Again, when the\nsecond separation takes place, it is thus described, \u2018One portion\nreturned, under Ulysses, to Agamemnon. Prognosticating evil, I made\nsail homewards with the whole body of my ships, which followed me.\nDiomed did the same, and (\u1f66\u03c1\u03c3\u03b5 \u03b4\u2019 \u1f11\u03c4\u03b1\u03af\u03c1\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2) invited his men (to do it).\nAnd after us at last came Menelaus.\u2019 (vv. 162-8). Now here instruction\nis given us on three points:\n\n1. Diomed urged his men; therefore it was not a mere matter of course\nthat they should go.\n\n2. Nestor mentions especially that his division all kept together (\u03c3\u1f7a\u03bd\n\u03bd\u03b7\u03c5\u03c3\u1f76\u03bd \u1f00\u03bf\u03bb\u03bb\u03ad\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd); therefore this did not always happen.\n\n3. It is very unlikely that the part, which is first named as having\nreturned with Ulysses, should have been confined to his own petty\ncontingent.\n\nThus it is left in great doubt, whether the chiefs and men did\nuniformly keep together: and the tenour of the narrative favours the\nsupposition, that the men at least contributed materially to any joint\nconclusions.\n\n~_Ithacan Assembly of Od._ ii.~\n\nAs, in the first Assembly of the Iliad, Achilles acts his personal\nquarrel in the public eye, and lodges a sort of tacit appeal against\nAgamemnon, so, in that of the Odyssey, Telemachus does the like\nwith reference to the Suitors. It is there that he protests against\ntheir continued consumption of his substance; that he rejects their\ncounter-proposal for the dismissal of his mother on their behalf, and\nthat he himself finally propounds the voyage to the mainland[255].\nThere too we find a most distinct recognition by Mentor, his guardian,\nof the powers and rights of the people; for he loudly complains of\ntheir sitting silent, numerous as they are[256], instead of interposing\nto rebuke the handful of Suitors that were the wrongdoers. But if,\naccording to the genius and usages of the heroic age, the people had\nnothing to do but to listen and obey their betters, the expectation\nthat they should have risen to defend a minor against the associated\naristocracy of the country would have been absurd, and could not have\nbeen expressed, as we find it expressed, by Mentor.\n\n[255] Od. ii. 212.\n\n[256] Od. ii. 239-41.\n\nIt is true indeed, as has been observed by Tittmann[257], that this\nAssembly makes no effective response to the appeal of Telemachus; and\nthat the Suitor Antinous is allowed to declare in it his own intention,\nand that of his companions, to continue their lawless proceedings.\nBut what we see in the Odyssey is not the normal state of the heroic\npolities: it is one of those polities disorganized by the absence\nof its head, with a people, as the issue proves, deeply tainted by\ndisloyalty. Yet let us see what, even in this state of things, was\nstill the weight of the Agor\u00e8. First, when Telemachus desires to make\nan initial protest against the acts of the Suitors, he calls it to his\naid. Secondly, though at the outset of the discussion no concession\nis made to him, yet he gains ground as it proceeds. The speech of\nAntinous, the first Suitor who addresses the Assembly (Od. ii. 85-128),\nis in a tone of sheer defiance, and treats his attempt as a jest and as\nan insult (v. 86). The next is that of Eurymachus; who, while deriding\nthe omens, yet makes an advance by appealing to Telemachus to take the\nmatter into his own hands, and induce his mother to marry one among\nthem (178-207). The third, that of Leiocritus, contains a further\nslight approximation; for it conveys an assent to his proposed voyage,\nand recommends that Mentor and Alitherses shall assist him in making\nprovision for it (242-56). Thus even here we see that progression,\nwhich may always be noticed in the Homeric debates; and the influence\nunder which it was effected must surely have been an apprehension of\nthe Assembly, to which both Telemachus, and still more directly Mentor,\nhad appealed.\n\n[257] Griech. Staatsv. b. ii. p. 57.\n\nThirdly, however, we perceive in this very account the signs of the\ndisordered and distracted state of the public mind. For, beyond a\nsentiment of pity for Telemachus when he bursts into tears (v. 81),\nthey make no sign of approval or disapproval. We miss in Ithaca the\nwell-known cheers of the Iliad, the\n\n \u03bf\u1f31 \u03b4\u2019 \u1f04\u03c1\u03b1 \u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c0\u03af\u03b1\u03c7\u03bf\u03bd \u03c5\u1f37\u03b5\u03c2 \u1f08\u03c7\u03b1\u03b9\u1ff6\u03bd.\n\nThey are dismissed without having made a sign; just as it is in the\nAssembly of the First Iliad (an exception in that poem); where the mind\nof the masses, puzzled and bewildered, is not in a condition to enable\nthem to interfere by the distinct expression of their sympathies[258].\n\n[258] Od. ii. 257. Il. i. 305.\n\nThere are, however, two other instances of Assemblies in the Odyssey.\n\n~_Ph\u00e6acian Assembly of Od._ viii.~\n\nThe first of these is the Assembly of the Ph\u00e6acians in the Eighth Book;\nwhich we may safely assume to be modelled generally according to the\nprevailing manners.\n\nThe petition[259] of Ulysses to Alcinous is, that he may be sent\nonwards to his home. The king replies, that he will make arrangements\nabout it on the following day[260]. Accordingly, the Assembly of the\nPh\u00e6acian people is called: Minerva herself, under the form of the\nherald, takes the pains to summon the principal persons[261]. Alcinous\nthen proposes that a ship shall be got ready, with a crew of fifty-two\npicked men[262]. For his part he will give to this crew, together with\nthe kings, an entertainment at the palace before they set out[263].\nThis is all done without debate. Then comes the banquet, and the first\nsong of Demodocus. The company next return to the place of assembly,\nfor the games. It is here that Ulysses is taunted by Euryalus[264]. In\nhis reply he appeals to his character as a suppliant; but he is the\nsuppliant of the king and all the people, not of the king, nor even of\nthe king and his brother kings, alone[265];\n\n[259] Od. vii. 151.\n\n[260] Od. vii. 189-94, 317.\n\n[261] Od. viii. 7-15.\n\n[262] The number deserves remark. Fifty, as we know from the Catalogue,\nwas a regular ship\u2019s crew of rowers. What were the two? Probably a\ncommander, and a steersman. The dual is used in both the places where\nthe numbers are mentioned (\u03ba\u03c1\u03b9\u03bd\u03ac\u03c3\u03b8\u03c9\u03bd, ver. 36, \u03ba\u03c1\u03b9\u03bd\u03b8\u03ad\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5, 48,\n\u03b2\u03ae\u03c4\u03b7\u03bd, 49). There are other passages where the dual extends beyond the\nnumber two, to three and four. See Nitzsch, in loc. But the use of it\nhere with so large a number is remarkable, and may be best explained\nby supposing that it refers to the \u03b4\u03cd\u03c9, who were the principal men of\nthe crew, and that the fifty are not regarded as forming part of the\nsubject of the verb. If this be so, the passage shows us in a very\nsimple form the rudimentary nautical order of the Greek ships.\n\n[263] Od. viii. 38.\n\n[264] Od. viii. 158-64.\n\n[265] Od. viii. 157.\n\n \u1f27\u03bc\u03b1\u03b9, \u03bb\u03b9\u03c3\u03c3\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 \u03b2\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03bb\u1fc6\u03ac \u03c4\u03b5, \u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1 \u03c4\u03b5 \u03b4\u1fc6\u03bc\u03bf\u03bd.\n\nWe must therefore assume that Alcinous, in his proposal, felt that he\nwas acting according both to precedent and the general opinion. He does\nnot order any measure to be taken, but simply gives his opinion in the\nAssembly about providing a passage, which is silently accepted (ver.\n46). Yet I cannot but take it for a sign of the strong popular infusion\nin the political ideas of the age, when we find that even so slight a\nmeasure, as the dispatch of Ulysses, was thought fit to be proposed and\nsettled there.\n\nBut we have weightier matter disposed of in the Twenty-fourth Odyssey,\nwhich affords us an eighth and last example of the Greek Assembly, its\npowers, and usages.\n\nThe havock made of the Suitors by Ulysses is at last discovered after\nthe bodies have been disposed of; and upon the discovery, the chiefs\nand people repair in a mass to the open space where Assemblies were\nheld, and which bears the same name with them[266]. Here the people are\naddressed on the one side by Eupeithes, father of the leading Suitor\nAntinous, on the other, by Medon the herald, and Alitherses, son of\nMastor the Seer. And here we are supplied with further proofs, that\nthe Assemblies were not wholly unaccustomed to act according to their\nfeelings and opinions. There is no sign of perplexity or confusion; but\nthere is difference of sentiment, and each party acts upon its own.\nMore than half the meeting loudly applaud Alitherses, and break up,\ndetermined not to meddle in the affair[267]. The other party keep their\nplaces, holding with Eupeithes; they then go to arm, and undertake the\nexpedition against Ulysses. Having lost their leader by a spear\u2019s throw\nof Laertes, for which Minerva had supplied him with strength, they fall\nlike sheep before the weapons of their great chief and his son. Yet,\nthough routed, they are not treated as criminals for their resistance;\nbut the poem closes by informing us that Minerva, in the form of\nMentor[268], negotiated a peace between the parties[269].\n\n[266] Probably the strictly proper name of the Assembly, as\ndistinguished from the place of meeting, is \u1f04\u03b3\u03c5\u03c1\u03b9\u03c2 or \u03c0\u03b1\u03bd\u03ae\u03b3\u03c5\u03c1\u03b9\u03c2\n(as Od. iii. 131), but the name common to the two prevails.\n\n[267] Od. xxiv. 463.\n\n[268] Od. xxiv. 546.\n\n[269] Besides all the particulars which have been cited, we have\nincidental notices scattered about the poems, which tend exactly in the\nsame direction. For example, when Chryses prays for the restitution of\nhis daughter, his petition is addressed principally to the two Atrid\u00e6,\nbut it is likewise addressed to the whole body of \u1f08\u03c7\u03b1\u03b9\u03bf\u1f76 (Il. i. 15),\nthat is, either to the entire army, or at any rate to all the kings;\nor, to all the members of the Ach\u00e6an race. This we may compare with the\napplication of the prayer of Ulysses in Scheria to the king and people.\n\n~_Councils or Assemblies of Olympus._~\n\nSince the Assemblies of Olympus grow out of the polytheistic form of\nthe Greek religion, we must treat them as part of its human element,\nand as a reflection of the heroic life. There will therefore be an\nanalogy perceptible between the relation of Jupiter to the other\nImmortals in the Olympian Assembly, and that of the Greek Sovereign\nto all or some of those around him. But as the deities meet in the\ncapacity of rulers, we should seek this analogy rather in the relation\nbetween Agamemnon and the kings, or between the local sovereign and his\nelders (\u03b3\u03ad\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2), than between either of the two respective heads,\nand the mass of those whom he ruled. This analogy is in substance\nsustained by the poems. The sovereignty of Jupiter undoubtedly stands\nmore elevated, among the divinities of Olympus, than that of Agamemnon,\nor any other of his kings, on earth. It includes more of the element\nof force, and it approximates more nearly to a positive supremacy.\nAccordingly, whatever indicates freedom in Olympus will tend _a\nfortiori_ to show, that the idea of freedom in debate was, at least as\namong the chiefs, familiar here below. Yet even in Olympus the other\nchief deities could murmur, argue, and object. The power of Jupiter\nis exhibited at its zenith in the Assembly of the Eighth Iliad, when\nhe violently threatens all that disobey, and challenges the whole pack\nto try their strength with him. The vehemence with which he spoke\nproduced the same intimidatory effect upon the gods, as did the great\nspeech of Achilles upon the envoys: and the result upon the minds of\nthe hearers in the two cases respectively, is described in lines which,\nwith the exception of a single word, precisely correspond[270]. Still,\nimmediately after Jupiter has given the peremptory order not to assist\neither party, Minerva answers, Well, we will not fight--which she never\nhad done--but we will advise; and this Jupiter at once and cheerfully\npermits[271]. But there is more than this. Be the cause what it may,\nthe personal will of Jupiter, fulfilled as to Achilles[272], is not\nfulfilled as to Troy. The Assembly of the Fourth Book is opened with a\nproposal from him, that Troy shall stand[273]. From this he recedes,\nand it is decided that the city shall be destroyed; while the only\nreservation he makes is not at all on behalf of the Trojans, but simply\non behalf of his own freedom to destroy any other city he may mislike,\nhowever dear it may chance to be to Juno.\n\n[270] Il. viii. 28, 9. ix. 430, 1.\n\n[271] Il. viii. 38-40.\n\n[272] Il. i. 5.\n\n[273] Il. iv. 17-19.\n\nThe position of Agamemnon, of which Jupiter is in a great degree a\nreflection, bears a near resemblance to that of a political leader\nunder free European, and, perhaps it may be said, especially under\nBritish, institutions. Its essential elements are, that it is worked in\npart by accommodation, and in part by influence.\n\nBesides its grand political function, the \u1f00\u03b3\u03bf\u03c1\u1f74 is, as we have seen,\nin part a judicial body. But the great safeguard of publicity attends\nthe conduct of trials, as well as the discussion of political affairs.\nThe partialities of people who manifest their feelings by visible signs\nis thus prevented, on the one hand, by the cultivation of habitual\nself-respect, from passing into fury, and on the other hand, from\ndegenerating into baseness.\n\nIt is perhaps worthy of notice, as assisting to indicate the\nsubstantive and active nature of the popular interest in public\naffairs, that where parties were formed in the Assemblies, those who\nthought together sat together. Such appears to be the intimation of the\nline in the Eighteenth Iliad (502),\n\n \u03bb\u03b1\u03bf\u1f76 \u03b4\u2019 \u1f00\u03bc\u03c6\u03bf\u03c4\u03ad\u03c1\u03bf\u03b9\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u1f10\u03c0\u03ae\u03c0\u03c5\u03bf\u03bd, \u1f00\u03bc\u03c6\u1f76\u03c2 \u1f00\u03c1\u03c9\u03b3\u03bf\u03af.\n\nAs the \u1f00\u03bc\u03c6\u1f76\u03c2 \u1f00\u03c1\u03c9\u03b3\u03bf\u1f76 expresses their sentiments, \u1f00\u03bc\u03c6\u03bf\u03c4\u03ad\u03c1\u03c9\u03b8\u03b5\u03bd can hardly\nsignify any thing other than that they sat separately on each side\nof the Assembly. A similar arrangement seems to be conveyed in the\nTwenty-fourth Odyssey, where we find that the party of the Suitors\nremained in a mass (\u03c4\u03bf\u1f76 \u03b4\u2019 \u1f00\u03b8\u03c1\u03cc\u03bf\u03b9 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03cc\u03b8\u03b9 \u03bc\u03af\u03bc\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd, v. 464.) I think this\ncircumstance by no means an unimportant one, as illustrative of the\ncapacity, in which the people attended at the Assemblies for either\npolitical or judicial purposes.\n\n~_Judicial functions of the Assembly._~\n\nThe place of Assemblies is also the place of judicature. But the\nsupremacy of the political function is indicated by this, that the\nword \u1f00\u03b3\u03bf\u03c1\u1f74, which means the Assembly for debate, thus gives its own\ndesignation to the place where both functions were conducted. At the\nsame time, we have in the word Themis a clear indication that the\noriginal province of government was judicial. For that word in Homer\nsignifies the principles of law, though they were not yet reduced to\nthe fixed forms of after-times; but on the other hand Themis was also\na goddess, and she had in that capacity the office of summoning and of\ndissolving Assemblies[274]. Thus the older function, as often happens,\ncame in time to be the weaker, and had to yield the precedence to its\nmore vigorous competitor.\n\n[274] Od. ii. 68, 9.\n\nBut in Homer\u2019s time, though they were distinguished, they were not yet\ndivided. On the Shield of Achilles, the work of Themis[275] is done in\nfull Assembly: and this probably signifies the custom of the time. But\nin the Eleventh Iliad, Patroclus passes by the ships of Ulysses[276],\n\n[275] Il. xviii. 497.\n\n[276] Il. xi. 807.\n\n \u1f35\u03bd\u03b1 \u03c3\u03c6\u2019 \u1f00\u03b3\u03bf\u03c1\u03ae \u03c4\u03b5 \u03b8\u03ad\u03bc\u03b9\u03c2 \u03c4\u03b5\n \u1f24\u03b7\u03bd.\n\nAnd, in the description of the Cyclopes, the line is yet more clearly\ndrawn; for it is said[277],\n\n[277] Od. ix. 112-15.\n\n \u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u03b4\u2019 \u03bf\u1f54\u03c4\u2019 \u1f00\u03b3\u03bf\u03c1\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b2\u03bf\u03c5\u03bb\u03b7\u03c6\u03cc\u03c1\u03bf\u03b9, \u03bf\u1f54\u03c4\u03b5 \u03b8\u03ad\u03bc\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2.\n\nIn that same place, too, the public solemnities of religion were\nperformed: and though in the Greek camp it was doubtless placed at the\ncentre of the line with a view to security, its position most aptly\nsymbolized also its moral centrality, as the very heart of the national\nlife. At the spot where the Assemblies were held were gathered into a\nfocus the religious, as well as the patriotic sentiments of the country.\n\nThe fact is, that everywhere in Homer we find the signs of an intense\ncorporate or public life, subsisting and working side by side with\nthat of the individual. And of this corporate life the \u1f00\u03b3\u03bf\u03c1\u1f74 is the\nproper organ. If a man is to be described as great, he is always great\nin debate and on the field; if as insignificant and good for nothing,\nthen he is of no account either in battle or in council. The two grand\nforms of common and public action are taken for the criteria of the\nindividual.\n\nWhen Homer wished to describe the Cyclopes as living in a state of\nbarbarism, he says, not that they have no kings, or no towns, or\nno armies, or no country, but that they have no Assemblies, and no\nadministration of justice, which, as we have seen, was the primary\nfunction of the Assemblies. And yet all, or nearly all the States had\nKings. The lesson to be learned is, that in heroic Greece the King,\nvenerable as was his title, was not the fountainhead of the common\nlife, but only its exponent. The source lay in the community, and the\ncommunity met in the Agor\u00e8. So deeply imbedded is this sentiment in\nthe mind of the Poet, that it seems as if he could not conceive an\nassemblage of persons having any kind of common function, without their\nhaving, so to speak, a common soul too in respect of it.\n\n~_The common Soul or \u03a4\u1f76\u03c2 in Homer._~\n\nOf this common soul the organ in Homer is the \u03a4\u1f76\u03c2 or \u2018Somebody;\u2019\nby no means one of the least remarkable, though he has been one of\nthe least regarded, personages of the poems. The \u03a4\u1f76\u03c2 of Homer is, I\napprehend, what in England we now call public opinion. We constantly\nfind occasions, when the Poet wants to tell us what was the prevailing\nsentiment among the Greeks of the army. He might have done this\ndidactically, and described at length the importance of popular\nopinion, and its bearings in each case. He has adopted a method more\npoetical and less obtrusive. He proceeds dramatically, through the\nmedium of a person, and of a formula:\n\n \u1f67\u03b4\u03b5 \u03b4\u03ad \u03c4\u03b9\u03c2 \u03b5\u1f34\u03c0\u03b5\u03c3\u03ba\u03b5\u03bd, \u1f30\u03b4\u1f7c\u03bd \u1f10\u03c2 \u03c0\u03bb\u03ae\u03c3\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd \u1f04\u03bb\u03bb\u03bf\u03bd.\n\nIt may, however, not seem worthy of remark, considering the amount of\ncommon interest among the Greeks, that he should find an organ for it\nin his \u03a4\u03af\u03c2. But when he brings the Greeks and Trojans together in the\nPact, though it is only for the purpose of a momentary action, still he\nmakes an integer _pro h\u00e2c vice_ of the two nations, and provides them\nwith a common \u03a4\u1f76\u03c2 (Il. iii. 319):\n\n \u1f67\u03b4\u03b5 \u03b4\u03ad \u03c4\u03b9\u03c2 \u03b5\u1f34\u03c0\u03b5\u03c3\u03ba\u03b5\u03bd \u1f08\u03c7\u03b1\u03b9\u1ff6\u03bd \u03c4\u03b5 \u03a4\u03c1\u03ce\u03c9\u03bd \u03c4\u03b5.\n\nWe find another remarkable exemplification in the case of the Suitors\nin the Odyssey. Dissolute and selfish youths as they are, and\ncompetitors with one another for a prize which one only can enjoy, they\nare nevertheless for the moment banded together in a common interest.\nThey too, therefore, have a collective sentiment, and a ready organ for\nit in a \u03a4\u1f76\u03c2 of the Odyssey (Od. ii. 324), who speaks for the body of\nSuitors:\n\n \u1f67\u03b4\u03b5 \u03b4\u03ad \u03c4\u03b9\u03c2 \u03b5\u1f34\u03c0\u03b5\u03c3\u03ba\u03b5 \u03bd\u03ad\u03c9\u03bd \u1f51\u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03b7\u03bd\u03bf\u03c1\u03b5\u03cc\u03bd\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd.\n\nAll these are, in my view, most striking proofs of the tenacious hold,\nwhich the principle of a public or corporate life for all aggregations\nof men had taken upon the mind of Homer, and upon Greece in the heroic\nage. Nor can I help forming the opinion, that in all probability we may\ndiscern in the Homeric \u03a4\u1f76\u03c2 the primary ancestor of the famous Greek\nChorus. It is the function of the Chorus to give utterance to the\npublic sentiment, but in a sense apt, virtuous, and pious. Now this is\nwhat the Homeric \u03a4\u1f76\u03c2 usually does; but of course he does on behalf of\nthe community, what the Chorus does as belonging to the body of actors.\n\nIt is then surely a great error, after all we have seen, to conclude\nthat, because the political ideas and practices of those times did not\nwear the costumes now in fashion, they were without their own real\nvitality, and powerful moral influence upon the minds and characters of\nmen.\n\n~_Imperfect organization of the Heroic Polities._~\n\nBut, on the other hand, in repelling these unsound and injurious\nnotions, we must beware of assuming too much of external resemblance\nbetween the heroic age and the centuries either of modern Christendom\nor even of historic Greece and Rome. All the determinate forms of\npublic right are the growth of long time, of dearbought experience, and\nof proved necessity. Right and force are supplements to one another;\nbut the proportions, in which they are to be mingled, are subject to\nno fixed rule. If the existence of rights, both popular and regal,\nin the heroic age is certain, their indeterminateness is glaring and\nconspicuous. But the shape they bore, notwithstanding the looseness\nof its outline, was quite adequate to the needs of the time. We must\nnot, in connection with the heroic age, think of public life as a\nprofession, of a standing mass of public affairs, of legislation\neternally in arrear, of a complex machinery of government. There were\nno regular regencies in Greece during the Trojan war. There was no\nAssembly in Ithaca during the long absence of Ulysses[278], before\nthe one called by Telemachus, and reported in the Second Book of the\nOdyssey. We have seen, however, in what way this lack of machinery\ntold upon the state of Greece by encouraging faction, and engendering\nrevolution. The strain of the Trojan expedition was too great for a\nsystem so artless and inorganic. The state of Ithaca in the Odyssey\nis politically a state almost of anarchy; though the symptoms of that\ndisease were milder by far then, than they could now be. The condition\nof the island shows us what its polity had been, rather than what it\nwas. But for all ordinary occasions it had sufficed. For Assemblies\nmet only when they had something to do; and rarely indeed would such\njunctures arrive. Infractions of social order and social rights, which\nnow more commonly take place by fraud, were then due almost wholly to\nviolence. And violence, from its nature, could hardly be the subject\nof appeal to the Assembly: as a general rule, it required to be repaid\non the instant, and in the same coin. Judicial questions would not\noften be of such commanding interest, as to divide a people into two\nopinions; nor the parties to them wealthy enough to pay two talents\nto the successful judge. Great controversies, affecting allegiance\nand the succession, must of necessity in all ages be rare; and of a\ndisputed succession in Greece the poems can hardly be said to offer\nus an instance. We find, however, in the last Book of the Odyssey,\nthat, according to the ideas of that period, when a question as to\nthe sovereignty did arise, the people needed no instructor as to the\nfirst measure they were to take. They repaired, as if by a common and\ninstinctive impulse, to the Agor\u00e8; in which lay deposited their civil\nrights and their old traditions, like the gems of the wealth of Greece\nin the shrine of the Archer Apollo[279].\n\n[278] Tittmann Griech. Staatsv. b. ii. p. 56.\n\n[279] Il. ix. 404.\n\n\n\n\nII. ILIOS.\n\nTHE TROJANS COMPARED AND CONTRASTED WITH THE GREEKS.\n\n\nWe have perhaps been accustomed to contemplate the Trojans too\nexclusively, either as enemies of the Greeks, or else as constituting,\ntogether with them, one homogeneous chapter of antiquity, which we\nmight be content to examine as a whole, without taking notice of\nspecific differences. Let us now endeavour to inquire what were the\nrelations, other than those of mere antagonism in the war, between the\ntwo nations; what points they embraced, and what affinities or discords\nthey disclose. The direct signs of kindred between Troy and Greece have\nalready been considered; but the examination into points of contrast\nand resemblance as respects religion, polity, and character, will\nassist us in judging how far a key to those affinities and discords is\nto be found in the different interfusion and proportion, in the two\ncases, of ethnical elements which they possessed in common.\n\nWe have seen in another place[280] that the Greeks, or Ach\u00e6ans, and the\nTrojans, were akin by the Hellic element, which appears to establish\na connection chiefly as regarded the royal house, and other ruling\nhouses, of Troy. On the other hand it has seemed clear, from many\nsources, that the main affinity between the bulk of the two nations\nwas Pelasgian. As respects the ethnological question, the supposition\nmost consonant to the evidence as a whole appears to me to be, that\nin Troas we find Hellic families, possessed of dominion over a\nPelasgian people: in Greece we find Hellic tribes, placed in dominant\njuxtaposition with Pelasgic tribes, of prior occupancy; constituting,\nas is probable, whole classes of the community, and mingling with and\npowerfully modifying the aggregate composition so as to produce a\nmixed result; while in Troy, though the ruling houses are probably a\ndifferent order, and there may be found here and there the tokens of\nthis influence, yet the general face of society, and the substance of\nmanners and institutions, are Pelasgian. It will be recollected, that\neven in Greece we trace two forms of Hellic diffusion. Sometimes the\ndescendants of the Helli appear as single families, like the \u00c6olids;\nsometimes as races, like the Ach\u00e6ans. The state of facts here supposed\nas to Troy is in accordance with the former class of indications within\nGreece itself.\n\n[280] Ach\u00e6is, or Ethnology, sect. ix. p. 496.\n\nUpon the footing supplied by these assumptions, I shall treat the\ncomparison of the two countries as to religion, policy, social usages,\nand moral ideas and practice.\n\nWe have already been obliged, in considering the respective shares of\nthe Hellenic and Pelasgian factors in the compound Greek character, to\nanticipate in some degree the conclusions with regard to the religion\nof the Trojans in its general character, which I will now proceed more\nfully to explain and illustrate.\n\nWe have found three conspicuous deities, of worship apparently supreme\nand universal: Jupiter, Minerva, and Apollo. After these comes Neptune,\nof a more doubtful position when we pass out of the Hellenic and\nPh\u0153nician circles; and Latona with Diana, who, doubtless from the\nvantage ground of early tradition, take rank alike with an Hellenic and\na Pelasgian people. We have also supposed Ceres to be of immemorial\nstanding as a deity of the Pelasgians; and Venus to have made great way\namong them.\n\n~_Greek names of deities found also in Troas._~\n\nPassing on from the consideration of Pelasgian religion at large, it\nwill now be requisite to show, with particular reference to Troy, how\nfar we find the names of the Greek divinities recognised there; nor\nmust we omit to consider, in what degree identity of name implies\nidentity of person and function.\n\n1. Jupiter had a \u03c4\u03ad\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2, or portion of consecrated land, on Mount\nGargarus; and there Onetor was his priest[281]. He is, with the\nTrojans as with the Greeks, the first and greatest of the gods[282].\nHe himself attests their abundant liberality in sacrifices offered\nto himself[283]. The Greek Jupiter is Olympian; the Trojan Jupiter\nis Jupiter of Ida. Except as to abode, there is no difference to be\ndiscerned between the features of the two.\n\n[281] Il. viii. 47, 8.\n\n[282] Il. iii. 298.\n\n[283] Il. iv. 48.\n\n2. We have no direct indication, in the Iliad, of the worship of\nNeptune by the Trojans. But the legend of his employment under Laomedon\nmust be taken to imply that his divinity was acknowledged in that\ncountry: confirmed as it is by his sharing with Jupiter and Apollo the\ndestruction of the Greek rampart after the conclusion of the war[284].\n\n[284] Il. xxi. 442 seqq. vii. 459. xii. 17.\n\n3. In the case of Juno, I have elsewhere noticed[285] the three\npassages, which alone appear to establish a faint connection between\nher and the Trojans.\n\n[285] Olympus, sect. iii. p. 197.\n\n4. Minerva had a temple on Pergamus; and was served there by a\npriestess, Theano; who, as the wife of Antenor, was of the very\nnext rank to Priam and his house. The goddess is addressed, on the\noccasion of the procession of the Sixth Book, in a strain which seems\nto acknowledge her possession of supreme power[286]: the defender of\ncities, excellent among goddesses, she is entreated to have pity on\nTroy, to break the lance of Diomed, and to grant that he himself may\nfall.\n\n[286] Il. vi. 298-300. 305-10.\n\n5. Apollo would appear to be the favourite among the great deities\nof the country. He, like Minerva, has a temple in the citadel[287].\nChryses is his priest at Chryse, and there too he has a temple. He is\nthe special protector of Cilla and of Tenedos[288]. With Minerva, he\nis indicated as the recipient of supreme honour[289]. The Lycian name,\nso prevalent in Troas, establishes a special connection with him. In\nthe Iliad, he seems to be the ordinary and immediate Providence to the\nTrojan chiefs, as Minerva is to the Greek ones. At the same time, he\ncarries no sign of exclusive nationalism; he bears no hatred to the\nGreeks; but, after the restitution and propitiation, he at once accepts\nthe prayer, and stays the pestilence[290].\n\n[287] Il. v. 446.\n\n[288] Il i. 37-9.\n\n[289] Il. vii. 540. xiii. 827.\n\n[290] Il. i. 457.\n\n6. Latona must have been known among the Trojans; because Homer has\nrepresented her as contending on the Trojan side in the war of the\ngods, and as engaged in tending the wounded \u00c6neas within the temple of\nApollo on Pergamus.\n\n7. The same reasons apply also to Diana: and we moreover find, that she\ninstructed the Trojan Scamandrius in the huntsman\u2019s art[291].\n\n[291] Il. v. 49.\n\n8. Venus is eminently Trojan. Her relation to this people is marked\nby her favour towards Paris: her passion for Anchises: her sending a\npersonal ornament as a marriage gift to Andromache; her ministerial\ncharge over the body of Hector (Il. xxiii. 184-7); her being chosen\nas the model to which Trojan beauties are compared, while Diana is\nthe favourite standard for the Greek woman. It is also marked by\nher zealous, though feeble, partizanship in favour of Troy among\nthe Immortals: and by the biting taunts of Pallas, of Helen, and of\nDiomed[292].\n\n[292] Il. v. 421-5. 348-51. iii. 405-9.\n\n9. Vulcan is not only known, but has a _cult_ in Troy: for Dares is his\npriest, and is a person of great wealth and consideration; one of whose\nsons he delivers from death in battle, to comfort the old man in his\ndecline[293].\n\n[293] Il. v. 9. and 20-4.\n\n10. Mars. Of this deity it would seem, that he has been given by\nHomer to the Pelasgians, mainly because of his so strongly marked\nThracian character, and his want of recognition among the Hellenes,\nwho had a higher deity of war in Minerva. I have touched elsewhere\nupon his equivocal position as between the two parties to the war. It\ncorresponds with that of the Thracians, who appear to form a point of\nintersection, so to speak, for the Hellic and Pelasgian races. Those of\nthe plain of Adrianople are, like the Pelasgi, horse-breeders, dwelling\nin a fertile country: the ruder portion are among the mountains to the\nnorth and west.\n\n11. Mercury. One sign only of the ordinary agency of this deity in\nTroas is exhibited; he gives abundant increase to the flocks of\nPhorbas[294].\n\n[294] Il. xiv. 490.\n\n12. Earth (\u0393\u03b1\u1fd6\u03b1) would appear to have been recognised as an object of\ndistinct worship in Troas: for when Menelaus proposes the Pact, he\ninvites the Trojans to sacrifice a black lamb to her, and a white one\nto the Sun; while the Greeks will on their part offer up a lamb to\nJupiter. The proposal is at once accepted; and the heralds are sent by\nHector to the city for the lambs[295], which seems to be conclusive as\nto the acknowledgment of these two deities in Troy.\n\n[295] Il. iii. 103. 116.\n\n13. The Sun. Besides that the passage last quoted for Earth is also\nconclusive for the Sun, we have another token of his relation to Troy,\nin the unwillingness with which he closes the day, when with his\nsetting is to end the glory of Hector and of his country[296].\n\n[296] Il. xviii. 239.\n\nWe have thus gone through the list of the greater Greek deities,\nand have found them all acknowledged in Troas, with the following\nexceptions: 1. of Ceres, whom we may however suspect, from her\nPelasgian character, to have been worshipped there under some name or\nform; 2. of Aidoneus; and 3. of Persephone. These exceptions will be\nfurther noticed.\n\nAgain, among the thirteen who have been identified as objects of Trojan\nworship, we find one, namely, \u0393\u03b1\u1fd6\u03b1, of whom we can hardly say that she\nwas worshipped in Greece; though she was invoked, as by Agamemnon in\nthe Nineteenth Book, and by Althea in the Ninth, to add a more solemn\nsanction to oaths.\n\n14. Together with her, we may take notice of a fourteenth deity,\napparently of great consideration in Troy, namely, the River Scamander.\nHe bears a marked sign of ancient worship, in having a divine\nappellation, Xanthus, as well as his terrestrial one, Scamander. He\nhad an \u1f00\u03c1\u03ae\u03c4\u03b7\u03c1, by name Dolopion. To him, according to the speech\nof Achilles, the Trojans sacrificed live horses. He enters into\nthe division of parties among the gods about the war, and fights\nvigorously against Achilles, until he is at length put down by\nHeph\u00e6stus, or Vulcan. As a purely local deity, however, he has of\ncourse no place in the Greek mythology.\n\n15. Though we have no direct mention of the translation of Tithonus\nby \u1f28\u1f7c\u03c2, or Aurora, yet, as Homer gives Tithonus a place both in the\ngenealogy of the Dardanid\u00e6, and likewise by the side of Aurora, we may\nconsider that, by thus recognising the translation, he also points out\nAurora as an acknowledged member of the supernatural order in Troas.\n\nSeveral among these names call for more particular notice: especially\nthose of Vulcan, Earth, and Scamander.\n\n~_Worship of Vulcan in Troas._~\n\nThe case of Vulcan, and his place in Troy, may serve to remind us of\na proposition somewhat general in its application; this namely, that,\nin classifying the Trojan divinities, Homer need not have intended\nto imply that the same name must in all cases carry exactly the same\nattributes. We must here bear in mind, that probably all, certainly\nalmost all, of the properly Olympian gods, were Greek copies modified\nfrom Oriental or from traditive originals. But as these conceptions\nwere propagated in different quarters, each country would probably add\nor take away, or otherwise alter, in conformity with its own ruling\ntendencies. Hence when we find a Vulcan in Greece, and a Vulcan in\nTroas, it by no means follows, that each of them presented the same\nfeatures and attributes. If Homer believed them to be derived from a\ncommon original in Egypt or elsewhere, that would be a good and valid\nreason for his describing them by the same name, though the Trojan\nVulcan might not present all the Hellenic traits, nor _vice vers\u00e2_.\nIn some cases, such as those of Jupiter, Apollo, Minerva, Diana, and\nVenus, there is such a correspondence of attributes entering into the\nportraiture of the respective deities in the two countries, that their\nidentity, at least so far as the evidence goes, seems quite unimpaired\nand unequivocal. But we have no means of showing from the poems, that\nthe Trojan Heph\u00e6stus corresponded with the Greek one. Indeed when we\nfind no mention of his being actually worshipped in Greece, and at the\nsame time learn that he had a priest in Troas, the presumption arises,\nthat different conceptions of him prevailed in the two countries.\nAgain, there is nowhere assigned to him as a Greek deity any such\nexercise of power, as that by which he saves Id\u00e6us, a son of his priest\nDares, from imminent death on the field of battle.\n\nThese general considerations, which tend to show that the identity\nof name in a Trojan and a Greek deity may be compatible with much\nof dissimilarity in the popular development of the functions, will\nrelieve us from difficulties, which we should otherwise have had to\nmeet, in accounting for the place of some of the Olympian divinities\nin Trojan worship. We have found reason to suppose, that Vulcan may\nhave come into Greece through Ph\u0153nicia. But the Trojans appear to\nhave had very little connection with Ph\u0153nicia. The precious \u03ba\u03b5\u03b9\u03bc\u03ae\u03bb\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd\nof Priam, the cup that he carried to Achilles, was not Ph\u0153nician but\nThracian[297]. The only token of intercourse mentioned is, that Paris\nbrought textile fabrics from Sidon[298]. Again, Vulcan was especially\nworshipped in Lemnos, and had his terrestrial abode there. But this\ngoes more naturally to account for the works of metal in Thrace, than\nfor the position of Vulcan in Troas; higher as it was, apparently,\nthan in Greece. Again, it is worth notice, that the Vulcan of the\nRomans was, like their Mars, one of the old gods of Etruria, a country\nstamped with many Pelasgian characteristics. It may be, that we ought\nto look back to Egypt for the origin of all these Vulcans. In the time\nof Herodotus[299], the Egyptian priests claimed him as their own: and\nPhtah, the principal deity of Memphis, was held by the later Greeks\nto correspond with their \u1f2d\u03c6\u03b1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2. Even the two names carry tokens of\nrelationship. From that fountain-head might be propagated diverging\ncopies of the deity: and, as far as we can judge, the Vulcan worshipped\nin Troy was much more like the common ancestor, than the highly\nidealized artificer of Olympus, upon whom the Poet has worked out all\nhis will[300].\n\n[297] Il. xxiv. 234-5.\n\n[298] Il. vi. 289-92.\n\n[299] Herod. ii. 50.\n\n[300] D\u00f6llinger Heid. u. Jud. VI. iii. p. 411.\n\n~_Worship of Juno and Gaia in Troas._~\n\nThere is another of its points of contact with the Olympian system, in\nwhich this list of Trojan deities is remarkable. While investigating\nthe Greek mythology, we have found reason to suppose that Juno, Ceres,\nand Gaia are but three different forms of the same original tradition\nof a divine _feminine_: of whom Ceres is the Pelasgian copy, Juno\nthe vivid and powerful Hellenic development, and Gaia the original\nskeleton, retaining nothing of the old character, but having acquired\nthe function of gaol-keeper for perjurors when sent to the other\nworld[301]. In the retention however of all three within the circle of\nreligion, we see both the receptiveness and the universalism of the\nGreek mythology. Now, in Troy, where there was less of imaginative\npower, the case stands very differently. Of Ceres, who represents\nthe Pelasgian impression of the old earth-worshipping tradition, we\nhear nothing in Troas. Probably she was not there, because Gaia, her\noriginal, was still a real divinity for the Trojans. But how are we\nto explain the fact that Gaia and Juno are both there? I venture to\nsuggest, that it is because these are different names, the foreign and\nthe domestic one, for the same thing. When Hector swears to Dolon, it\nis by Jupiter, \u2018the loud-thundering husband of Here:\u2019 which almost\nappears as if Juno held, in the Trojan oath, a place more or less\nresembling the place occupied in the Greek oaths (where Juno does not\nappear at all) by Gaia.\n\n[301] Rhea (\u1f14\u03c1\u03b1) shows us the fourth and cosmogonic side of the same\nconception.\n\nAgain, it is obvious that, if this relation exists between Gaia and\nJuno, it explains the fact that we do not find both, so to speak,\nthriving together. In Troas Gaia is worshipped, but Juno scarcely\nappears. In Greece Juno is highly exalted, but Gaia has lost all body,\nand has dwindled to a spectral phantasm. It is the want of imagination\nin the Trojan mythology, which makes it a more faithful keeper of\ntraditions, stereotyped in the forms in which they were had from their\ninventors.\n\n~_Worship of Mercury in Troas._~\n\nNext, as to Mercury. I have already adverted to the fact that\nPriam[302], notwithstanding his obligations to Mercury in the\nTwenty-fourth Iliad, takes no notice of his divinity. I think that\na close examination of the narrative tends to show, that the Greek\nMercury was not worshipped in Troy; and leaves us to conclude that\nHomer uses a merely poetical mode of speech in saying that this god\ngave increase to the flocks of Phorbas[303]: even as when he makes\nPriam call Iris an _Olympian_ messenger[304].\n\n[302] Olympus, sect. iii. p. 234.\n\n[303] Il. xiv. 490.\n\n[304] Il. xxiv. 194.\n\nHe appears before Priam and his companion Id\u00e6us, when they are on\ntheir way to the Greek camp, in the semblance of a young and noble\nMyrmidon. There were, we know[305], certain visible signs, by which\ndeities could in general be recognised or, at least, guessed as\nsuch. Both Id\u00e6us, however, and Priam himself, saw nothing of this\ncharacter in Mercury, and simply took him for a Greek enemy[306].\nMercury, after some genial conversation, conducts his chariot to\nthe quarters of Achilles, and then, before quitting him, announces\nhimself. Not, however, like Apollo to Hector (Il. xv. 256), and Minerva\nto Ulysses (Od. xiii. 299), simply by giving his name: but he also\ndeclares himself to be an Immortal, \u03b8\u03b5\u1f78\u03c2 \u1f04\u03bc\u03b2\u03c1\u03bf\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 (460). This unusual\ncircumstance raises a presumption, that he was not already known as a\ndivinity to Priam; and the presumption seems to become irrefragable,\nwhen we find that Priam, though given to the observances of religion,\nuses no act or expression of reverence or even recognition to his\nbenefactor, either on his first declaration and departure (460, 7), or\nupon his second nocturnal appearance (682), followed by a second and\nfinal flight to Olympus (694).\n\n[305] Olympus, sect. v.\n\n[306] Il. xxiv. 347, 355, 358-60.\n\nThe case of Scamander will require particular notice: because it is\nimmediately connected with the question, whether the Trojans partook of\nthat tendency to a large imaginative development of religion, which so\neminently distinguishes the Grecian supernaturalism.\n\nWe will therefore consider carefully the facts relating to this deity,\nand such other kindred facts as Homer suggests.\n\nHe speaks of Dolopion as follows[307];\n\n[307] Il. v. 77.\n\n \u1f51\u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03b8\u03cd\u03bc\u03bf\u03c5 \u0394\u03bf\u03bb\u03bf\u03c0\u03af\u03bf\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2, \u1f45\u03c2 \u1fe5\u03b1 \u03a3\u03ba\u03b1\u03bc\u03ac\u03bd\u03b4\u03c1\u03bf\u03c5\n \u1f00\u03c1\u03b7\u03c4\u1f74\u03c1 \u1f10\u03c4\u03ad\u03c4\u03c5\u03ba\u03c4\u03bf, \u03b8\u03b5\u1f78\u03c2 \u03b4\u2019 \u1f63\u03c2 \u03c4\u03af\u03b5\u03c4\u03bf \u03b4\u03ae\u03bc\u1ff3.\n\nThis is entirely in keeping, as to particulars, with the Pelasgian\nand Trojan institutions. The \u1f00\u03c1\u03b7\u03c4\u1f74\u03c1 of Homer is apparently always the\npriest. Dolopion was a man in very high station and honour, like the\npriests of Rome, and of early \u00c6tolia[308]; but not like those of later\nGreece. And he had been \u2018made\u2019 or \u2018appointed\u2019 priest; as Theano was\nchosen to be priestess by the people. The priesthood of the Homeric age\nnever appears as a caste in these latitudes. The only approximation to\ncaste is in the gift of the \u03bc\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03b9\u03c2, which, as we find from the Odyssey,\nwas hereditary in the family of Melampus[309]. Thus far, then, the\nevidence respecting Scamander certainly would appear to belong to the\ncategory of Homer\u2019s historical statements.\n\n[308] Il. ix. 575.\n\n[309] Od. xv. 223 and seqq.\n\nBeyond this, everything assumes a figurative stamp. Scamander fights\nas a deity with Achilles, and his waters are so powerful that they can\nonly be subdued by the immediate action of the god of fire. The hero,\ntoo, is aided by the powerful blasts of Zephyr and of Notus, whom Juno\nrouses up to scorch the Trojans[310]. As we can hardly doubt, that\nthe plague in the First Book represents some form of marsh-fever, so\nhere it appears likely that the Poet takes very skilful advantage of a\nflood, caused by summer rains, which had annoyed the Greeks, and which\nhad been followed by the subsidence of the waters upon the return of\nhot weather.\n\n[310] Il. xxi. 331 and seqq.\n\nScamander is very great in the Iliad, but with a purely local\ngreatness. As a person, he speaks both to men and to gods. He addresses\nSimois as his beloved brother; but it is entirely on the affair of the\ndeluge and the heat. Though he takes part in the war, the distinction\nis not awarded to him of being a member of the smaller and select\nOlympian community: he merely stands included by presumption in the\ngeneral category of Rivers[311].\n\n[311] Il. xx. 7.\n\n~_Worship of Scamander._~\n\nWe have a description from the mouth of Achilles of certain sacrifices,\nas belonging to the worship of Scamander[312]:\n\n[312] Il. xxi. 130-2.\n\n \u03bf\u1f50\u03b4\u2019 \u1f51\u03bc\u1fd6\u03bd \u03c0\u03bf\u03c4\u03b1\u03bc\u03cc\u03c2 \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1 \u1f10\u03b0\u1fe4\u1fe5\u03bf\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f00\u03c1\u03b3\u03c5\u03c1\u03bf\u03b4\u03af\u03bd\u03b7\u03c2\n \u1f00\u03c1\u03ba\u03ad\u03c3\u03b5\u03b9, \u1fa7 \u03b4\u1f74 \u03b4\u03b7\u03b8\u1f70 \u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03ad\u03b1\u03c2 \u1f31\u03b5\u03c1\u03b5\u03cd\u03b5\u03c4\u03b5 \u03c4\u03b1\u03cd\u03c1\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2,\n \u03b6\u03c9\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 \u03b4\u2019 \u1f10\u03bd \u03b4\u03af\u03bd\u1fc3\u03c3\u03b9 \u03ba\u03b1\u03b8\u03af\u03b5\u03c4\u03b5 \u03bc\u03ce\u03bd\u03c5\u03c7\u03b1\u03c2 \u1f35\u03c0\u03c0\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2.\n\nThis offering of live horses is peculiar, and unlike anything else\nrepresented to us in the Homeric poems. Not only the youths, but even\nthe dogs, whom Achilles offers to the Shade of Patroclus, are slain\nbefore they are cast into the fire. The same thing is not mentioned\nwith respect to the four horses, who are also among the victims; but\nit is probably, even from the physical necessities of the case, to be\npresumed.\n\nIt may, perhaps, be argued, that this speech of Achilles partakes\nof the nature of a sarcasm. The fine Trojan horses were reared and\npastured on the river banks; taunts often pass between the warriors of\nthe two sides: the \u03b4\u1f74 \u03b4\u03b7\u03b8\u1f70 may have had the force of _forsooth_. Some\ndoubt may attach to the evidence, which the passage gives, on this\nground; and also from the singularity of the practice that is imputed.\nIt is, on the whole, however, safest to assume that it is trustworthy.\n\nThe case will then stand thus; that we have apparently one single case\nin Troy of a pure local impersonation of a power belonging to external\nnature. Now this might happen under peculiar circumstances, and yet a\nvery broad distinction might subsist between the religion of the two\nnations as to imaginative development.\n\nScamander was indeed a great power for the Trojans; it was the great\nriver of the country, the \u03bc\u03ad\u03b3\u03b1\u03c2 \u03c0\u03bf\u03c4\u03b1\u03bc\u1f78\u03c2 \u03b2\u03b1\u03b8\u03c5\u03b4\u03af\u03bd\u03b7\u03c2. The child of the\ngreat Hector was named by him Scamandrius, while Simoeisius[313]\nwas the son of a very insignificant person. Another Scamandrius was\na distinguished huntsman, taught by Diana, in a country where the\naccomplishment was rare[314]. His floods, however useful in time of\nwar, would in time of peace do fearful damage. It is possibly the\ntrue explanation of the last among the lines quoted from the speech\nof Achilles, that he carried away, in sudden _spates_, many of the\nhorses that were pastured on his banks. The Trojans, then, may have had\nstrong motives for deifying Scamander, and particularly for providing\nhim with a priest, who might beseech him to keep down his waters. And\nit will be remembered, from the case of Gaia, that the Trojan religion\nwas, without doubt, favourable to the idea of purely elemental deities:\nwhat lacked was the vivid force of fancy, that revelled in profuse\nmultiplication.\n\n[313] Il. iv. 474, 488.\n\n[314] Il. v. 49.\n\n~_Different view of Rivers in Troas._~\n\nFor we cannot fail to perceive, that the idea of a river-god did not\nenter into the Trojan as it did into the Greek life. Ulysses, when in\ndifficulty, at once invokes the aid of the Scherian river[315], at\nwhose mouth he lands. Now the Trojans are driven in masses into the\nScamander by the terrible pursuit of Achilles, and they hide and sculk,\nor come forth and fight, about its banks and waters. Yet no one of\nthem invokes the River, although that River was a deity contending on\ntheir side. So entirely was he without place in their consciousness as\na power able to help, even though he may have been publicly worshipped\nin deprecation of a calamity, which he was known to be able to inflict.\n\n[315] Od. v. 445.\n\nWith this remarkable silence we may compare, besides the prayer and\nthanksgiving of Ulysses, the invocation of Achilles to Spercheius[316].\nOn his leaving home, his father Peleus had dedicated his hair as an\noffering to be made to the River on his return, and to be accompanied\nby a hecatomb. This would have been a thank-offering; and as such, in\naccordance with the prayer of Ulysses, it implies the power of the\nRiver deity to confer benefits. Nor is that power rendered doubtful\nby the fact, that in the particular case the prayer is not fulfilled,\nand that the hair is therefore devoted to the remains of Patroclus. We\nmay remark, again, the sacrifice offered, apparently almost as matter\nof course, by the Pylian army to Alpheus, on their merely reaching\nhis banks[317]. And, as a whole, the multitudinous impersonations of\nnatural objects in the Greek mythology are, both with Homer and in the\nlater writers, of a benign and genial character. This bright and sunny\naspect is in contrast with the formidable character of Scamander, and\nof the worship offered to him.\n\n[316] Il. xxiii. 144.\n\n[317] Il. xi. 728.\n\nThere is, perhaps, enough of resemblance between the Scamander of the\nTrojan mythology, and the Spercheus or Alpheus of the Greek, to suggest\nthe question, whether the deification of this river may possibly have\nbeen due to the Hellic influences, which resided in the royal houses\nof the country. There are not wanting signs, that the family of Priam\nwas closely connected with the river and its banks. The name given\nto Hector\u2019s child is one such token; and we know that the mares of\nErichthonius were fed upon the marshes near Scamander[318]. It is also\nworth observation that the Priest of Scamander was called Dolopion,\nwhile Dolops was the name of a son of Lampus, a Trojan of the highest\nrank, brother to Priam, and one of the \u03b4\u03b7\u03bc\u03bf\u03b3\u03ad\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 of Troy[319].\n\n[318] Il. xx. 221.\n\n[319] Il. iii. 147-9. xv. 525-7.\n\nBut though there may be a special relation between the worship\nof Scamander, and the influence of the royal family, I think the\nexplanation is chiefly to be sought in the specific differences which\nseparate it from River-worship, as generally conceived in the Olympian\nsystem.\n\nThere is another aspect of River-worship in Greece, with which it\nseems to have more affinity. There is the terrible adjuration of Styx,\nwhich implies its vindictive agency[320]. This river is represented on\nearth by a branch from itself, called Titaresius, near the Perrh\u00e6bian\nDodona[321]. The Rivers are expressly invoked, in this character, by\nAgamemnon in the adjuration of the Pact: and are associated with the\ndeities that punish perjury after death. Moreover, it is curious that,\nwhen Agamemnon makes an adjuration before Greeks alone, he omits the\nappeal to the Rivers, whom he had named when he was acting for the two\npeoples jointly[322]. This seems to show that the invocation of Rivers,\nor of some class of Rivers, in a retributive capacity, was familiar,\nand may have been peculiar, to the Trojans.\n\n[320] Il. xiv. 271. xv. 37.\n\n[321] Il. 2. 751-5.\n\n[322] Compare Il. iii. 276. xix. 258.\n\n~_True aspect of Trojan River-worship._~\n\nIn effect, then, the grand distinction seems to be this. The worship of\nScamander in Troas belonged to the elemental system and earth-worship,\nwhich the Greeks, for the purposes of their Olympus, had refined away\ninto a poetical vivifying Power, replete with more bland influences:\nretaining it, more or less, for the purpose of adjuration, in the\ndarker and sterner sense. Accordingly, while Scamander, who is also\ncalled Xanthus, has, as a god, a mark of antiquity in the double\nname[323], he shows none of the Greek anthropophuistic ingredients.\nEven for speech and action, he does not take the human form; but he is,\nsimply and strictly, the element alive.\n\n[323] Il. xx. 74.\n\nThe species of deification, implied in earth-worship, scarcely lifted\nthe objects of it in any degree out of the sphere of purely material\nconceptions. Thus, while Scamander, from his superior power, is no\nmore than Nature put in action, all the other Rivers of Troas exhibit\nto us Nature purely passive, a blind instrument in the hand of deity.\nThe total silence and inaction of Simois[324], after the appeal of\nScamander, makes his impersonality more conspicuous, than if he had\nnot been addressed. Again, when the Greeks have quitted the country,\nApollo takes up the streams of the eight rivers that descend from Ida,\nincluding great Scamander, like so many firemen\u2019s hose, and turns them\nupon the rampart to destroy it. We have no example in Homer of this\nmechanical mode of handling Greek rivers.\n\n[324] Il. xxi. 308.\n\nThe distinction of treatment seems to be due to a difference in the\nmythology of the two countries as its probable source. And I find an\nanalogous method of proceeding with reference to the Winds. In the\nIliad they are deities, addressed in prayer, and capable of receiving\nofferings. In the Odyssey they are mere senseless instruments of\nnature, under the control of \u00c6olus. But then in the Iliad Homer deals\nwith them for a Greek purpose (for I do not except the impersonation\nof Boreas, Il. xx. 203, where the Dardanid family is concerned): it is\nAchilles who prays to them: it is the Greek war-horse that they beget.\nIn the Odyssey he introduces them amidst a system of foreign, that is\nto say, of Ph\u0153nician traditions.\n\nTurning now to other objects, let us next see whether further inquiry\nwill confirm the suggestions, which I have founded on the cases of Gaia\nand of Scamander.\n\nAt the head of Scamander are two fountains, and hard by them are the\ncisterns, which the women of the city frequent for washing clothes.\nThus the spot is one of great notoriety; yet there is not a word\nof any deity connected with these fountains. This is in remarkable\ncontrast with what we meet in Homer\u2019s Greek topography. Ulysses[325],\nimmediately on being aware that he has been disembarked in Ithaca,\nprays to the Nymphs of the grotto, which was dedicated to them. There\nthey had their bowls and vases, and their distaffs of stone, with which\nthey spun yarn of sea-purple[326]. And the harbour, in which he was\nlanded, was the harbour of Phorcys, the old man of the sea[327]. So\nagain at the fountain, where the people of the town drew water, there\nwas an altar of the Nymphs that presided over it, upon which all the\npassers-by habitually made offerings[328]. Nor could this be wonderful,\nas all groves, all fountains, all meadows, and probably all mountains,\nhad their proper indwelling Nymphs according to the Greek mythology;\nwhile the Rivers were impersonated as deities, and the sea too teemed\nat every point with preternatural life.\n\n[325] Od. xiii. 356.\n\n[326] Od. xiii. 103.\n\n[327] Ibid. 96.\n\n[328] Od. xvii. 208-11.\n\n~_Trojan impersonations from Nature rare._~\n\nHomer has named many, besides Scamander, of the rivers of Mount\nIda; but to none, not even to Simois, nor again to Ida or Gargarus\nthemselves, does he assign any of these local inhabitants.\n\nThere are, however, three curious cases of Nymphs assigned by him\nto Troas. The \u03bd\u03cd\u03bc\u03c6\u03b7 \u03bd\u03b7\u1fd2\u03c2, called Abarbaree, bears two sons to\nBucolion[329], a spurious child of Laomedon; and another nymph of\nthe same class bears Satnius to Enops[330]. A third similar case is\nrecorded in the Twentieth Book[331]. These would appear to be simple\ncases of spurious births, and to have no proper connection with\nmythology. For the mother of Satnius is called \u1f00\u03bc\u03cd\u03bc\u03c9\u03bd; a name never\napplied by Homer to the Immortals. If, however, the Nymphs be deities,\nthey mark another difference between Greece and Troy: for Homer never\nattributes lusts to the Nymphs of the Greek Olympus.\n\n[329] Il. vi. 21.\n\n[330] Il. xiv. 444.\n\n[331] Il. xx. 384.\n\nAmidst the whole detail of the Iliad, in one instance only have we\nTrojan Nymphs conceived after the Greek fashion: it is when those of\nthe mountains, according to the speech of Andromache, planted elms\nround about the fresh-made tomb of her father Eetion.\n\nAs a general rule, no Trojan refers in speech either to any legend,\nor to any intermediate order, of supernatural beings. Destiny, named\nby Hecuba, is, as we have seen, a metaphysical idea, rather than a\nperson[332].\n\n[332] Il. xxii. 435. xxiv. 209.\n\nThe very name of Olympus itself is a symbol of nationality; and around\nit are grouped the forms, which either the popular belief, or the\nimagination of the Poet, incorporated into the company of objects\nfor worship. They form a body wonderfully brilliant and diversified.\nThey pervade the Greek mind in such a way, as to appear alike in its\ndidactic, and its most deeply pathetic moods. The speech of Ph\u0153nix\ngives us the Parable of \u1f0c\u03c4\u03b7 and the \u039b\u03b9\u03c4\u03b1\u03af: then the episode of\nMeleager, which is founded on the wrath of Diana: but into this legend\nitself, inserted into the speech, is again interpolated the separate\nlegend of Apollo and Alcyone[333]. The speech of Agamemnon, in the\nNineteenth Book, affords us another example[334]. The case is the same\nin the most pathetic strains. Achilles, in the interview with Priam,\nexhorts him to take food by the example of Niobe, and appends her\ntale[335]: Penelope, praying to Diana in the extremity of her grief,\nrecites the tale of the daughters of Pandareus[336]. Even the Suitor\nAntinous points his address to Ulysses with the semi-divine legend of\nthe Centaurs and Lapith\u00e6[337]. Everywhere, and from all the receptacles\nof thought, mythology overflows. But in Troy the case is quite\ndifferent. There the human mind never seems to resort to it, either\nfor food or in sport. We find deities, priests, prophets, ceremonial,\nall apparently in abundance: in all of these, except the first, the\nGreeks are much poorer; but each of them, in and for himself, is in\ncontact with an entire supernatural world, the creation of luxuriant\nand energetic fancy, which ranges alike over the spheres of sense and\nof metaphysics. Andromache, virtuous and sincere as Penelope, has no\nsuch mental wealth; her thoughts, and those of Hecuba and Priam, both\nordinarily and also on the death of Hector, are limited to topics the\nmost obvious and primitive, with which society, however undeveloped, is\nfamiliar. From this limitation, and from the nature of those legends\nrespecting deities, of which the scene is laid in Troas, it seems\nreasonable to believe that the mythological dress is of purely Hellenic\norigin.\n\n[333] Il. ix. 559.\n\n[334] Il. xix. 90-133.\n\n[335] Il. xxiv. 602-17.\n\n[336] Od. xx. 66.\n\n[337] Od. xxi. 295-304.\n\nThe dedication to Jupiter of the lofty and beautiful chestnut-tree[338]\nnear Troy, is in correspondence with the oak of Dodona, and indicates\nquite a different train of thought from those which conceived the\nGreek Olympus. It is probably both a fragment of nature-worship in\nits Oriental form, and likewise a portion of the external and ritual\ndevelopment, in which the religion of Troy was evidently prolific\nenough. And in this case the negative evidence of Homer is especially\nstrong; because the great number of the particular spots on the plain\nof Troy, which he has had occasion to commemorate, constitute a much\nmore minute topography there, than he has given us on any other scene,\nnot even excepting Ithaca: so that he could hardly have avoided showing\nus, had it been the fact, that the religion of Troy entered largely\ninto what Mr. Grote has so well called \u2018the religious and personal\ninterpretation of nature.\u2019\n\n[338] Il. v. 697, and vii. 60.\n\nNext as to those divine persons of the second order, who are so\nabundantly presented to us by Homer in relations with the Greeks. Iris\nvisits the Trojans thrice. First, she repairs to their Assembly in the\nform of Polites. Secondly, she appears to Helen, as her sister-in-law\nLaodice. She delivers her message to Priam in the Twenty-fourth Book\nwithout disguise; perhaps because it was necessary[339] that he should\nhave the assistance of a deity seen and heard, in order to embolden\nhim for a seemingly desperate enterprise. But there is nothing in his\naccount of the interview, which requires us to suppose that the person\nIris was known to Priam. The expression he uses is[340]\n\n[339] Il. xxiv. 220.\n\n[340] Il. xxiv. 223, 194.\n\n \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1f78\u03c2 \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u1f04\u03ba\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b1 \u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f10\u03c3\u03ad\u03b4\u03c1\u03b1\u03ba\u03bf\u03bd \u1f04\u03bd\u03c4\u03b7\u03bd.\n\nAnd again, he calls her an Olympian messenger[341] from Jupiter.\nAnother passage carries the argument a point further, by showing us\nthat the appearance of this benignant deity was alarming, doubtless\nbecause it was strange, to him. When she arrives, she addresses him\nvery softly \u03c4\u03c5\u03c4\u03b8\u1f78\u03bd \u03c6\u03b8\u03b5\u03b3\u03be\u03b1\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03b7 (170): but he is seized with dread;\n\n[341] Sup. p. 155.\n\n \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03b4\u1f72 \u03c4\u03c1\u03cc\u03bc\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f14\u03bb\u03bb\u03b1\u03b2\u03b5 \u03b3\u03c5\u1fd6\u03b1\u00b7\n\nan emotion, which I do not remember to have found recorded on any\napparition of a divinity to a Greek hero.\n\n~_Poverty of Trojan Mythology._~\n\nThus far then it would appear probable, that in the Trojan mythology\nthe list of major deities was more contracted than in Greece, and that\nthe minor deities were almost unknown. But perhaps the most marked\ndifference between the two systems is in the copious development on the\nGreek side of the doctrine of a future state, compared with the jejune\nand shadowy character of that belief among the Trojans.\n\n~_Jejune doctrine of a Future State._~\n\nIn the narrative of the sack of Hypoplacian Thebes, and again in her\nfirst lament over Hector, Andromache does indeed speak of her husband,\nfather, and brothers, respectively, as having entered the dwellings of\nAides[342]. But these references are slight, and it may almost be said\nperfunctory. Not another word is said either in the Twenty-second Book,\nor in the whole of the Twenty-fourth, about the shade of Hector.\n\n[342] Il. vi. 422. xxii. 482.\n\nWhen Pope closed his Iliad with the line\n\n And peaceful slept the mighty Hector\u2019s shade,\n\nit probably did not occur to him, that he was not merely altering\nthe poetry of Homer, but falsifying also his picture of the Trojan\nreligion; which had indeed its funeral rites, but so described as to\nleave us no means of concluding, that they were in any degree directed\nto procuring the comfort and tranquillity of the dead. The silence\nobserved about the spirit of Hector is remarkable from the contrast\nwith the case of Patroclus. Both are mourned for passionately, by\nthose who love them best: but the shade of Patroclus is the great\nfigure in the mourning of Achilles, while Hector\u2019s existence after\ndeath is but once owned, faintly and in the abstract. Nor, as we\nsee from the Odyssey, was this homage to the shade of Patroclus a\nthing occasional or accidental. We there meet the souls of all the\ngreat departed of the War, in the under-world. That region, opened\nto Ulysses, had formerly been opened to Hercules. Even the dissolute\nSuitors cannot be dismissed from life, without our being called to\naccompany their spirits past the Leucadian rock to the place of their\ndestination. The warriors slain in battle with the Cicones are thrice\ninvoked by the survivors[343]. Nay Elpenor himself, most insignificant\nof men, is duly brought before us in his last home[344].\n\n[343] Od. ix. 65.\n\n[344] Od. xi. 51.\n\nWe are, however, enabled to open another chapter of evidence, that\nbears upon this interesting subject. It is obtained through the medium\nof the oaths of the two nations respectively.\n\nDisplacing the elemental powers from their ordinary religion, the\nGreeks made them gaolers, as it were, of the under-world, and gave\nthem this for their proper business. Hence they are paraded freely in\nthe Greek oaths[345]. Agamemnon before the Pact invokes, with Jupiter,\nthe Sun, the Rivers, the Earth, the infernal gods. In the Nineteenth\nbook, the same; omitting however the Rivers, and naming, instead of\nsimply describing, the Erin\u00fces[346]. In the Fourteenth Iliad, Juno\napparently swears by Styx, Earth, Sea, and the infernal gods[347]. In\nthe Fifteenth, by Earth, Heaven, Styx, the head of Jupiter, and their\nmarriage bed[348]. Calypso swears, for the satisfaction of Ulysses,\nand according to his fashion as the _imponens_, by Earth, Heaven, and\nStyx[349]. Thus the Greeks made an effective use of these earthy and\nmaterial divinities, in connection with their large development of the\nFuture State, by installing them as the official punishers of perjury.\nNow the Trojans appear, from what we have seen, to have worshipped this\nclass of deities; but as super-terranean, not as sub-terranean gods.\nHad they not been _thus_ worshipped at the least, Agamemnon could not\nhave included them in the Invocation of the Pact, where he had to act\nand speak for both nations[350]. And while we see they sacrificed lambs\nto Earth and Sun, still we have a curious proof that these deities were\nnot worshipped in Troy as avengers of perjury. For when in the Tenth\nBook Hector swears to Dolon, he invokes no divinity, except Jupiter\nthe loud-thundering husband of Juno. There may, as we have seen here,\nbe a faint reference to the earthy character of the Trojan Juno; but\nthere is no well-developed system, which uses a particular order of\npowers for the punishment of perjurors in a future state. We can hardly\ndoubt that this was primarily because the doctrine of the Future State\nwas wanting in deep and practical roots, so far as we can see, among\nthe Trojans. A materializing religion seems essentially hostile to the\nfull development of such a doctrine. And it is not a little curious to\nfind that in this same country, where the oath was less solemn than\nin Greece, and the life after death less a subject of practical and\nenergetic belief, perjury and breach of faith should have been, as we\nshall find they were, so much more lightly regarded.\n\n[345] Il. iii. 276.\n\n[346] Il. xix. 258.\n\n[347] Il. xiv. 271-4, 278, 9.\n\n[348] Il. xv. 36-40.\n\n[349] Od. v. 184.\n\n[350] Il. iii 264-75.\n\nFor the sake of realizing to ourselves the contrast between the\nreligious system of Troy, as we thus at least by glimpses seem\nto perceive it, and the wonderful imaginative richness of the\npreternatural system of the Greeks as exhibited in Homer, it may be\nwell to point briefly to a few cases, which are the more illustrative,\nbecause they are the accessories, and not the main pillars of the\nsystem. Take, then, the personifications of all the forms of Terror in\nthe train of Mars: the transport, by Sleep and Death, of the body of\nSarpedon to his home; the tears of blood wept by Jupiter; the agitation\nof the sea in sympathy with Neptune\u2019s warlike parade; the dread of\nAidoneus lest the crust of earth should give way under the tramp of\nthe gods in battle; the mourning garb of Thetis for the friend of her\nson\u2019s youth; the long train of Nymphs, rising from the depths of the\nsea to accompany her, when she mounts to visit the sorrowing Achilles;\nthe redundant imagery of the nether world; the inimitable tact with\nwhich he preserves the identity of his great chieftains when visited\nbelow, but presents each under a deep tint of sadness. All this makes\nus feel not only that war, policy, and poetry, are indissolubly blended\nin the great mind of Homer, and of his race, but that the harmonious\nassociation of all these with the Olympian religion was the work of a\nvivifying imagination, which was a peculiar and splendid part of their\ninheritance.\n\n~_Worship from the hills._~\n\nThere is a more marked trace in the Trojan worship, than is to be found\namong the Greeks, of the practice of the Persian; who paid homage to\nthe Deity,\n\n To loftiest heights ascending, from their tops,\n With myrtle-wreathed tiara on his brow[351].\n\n[351] Wordsworth\u2019s Excursion, b. iv.\n\nFor Hector offered to Jupiter sometimes (which may be referred to a\ndifferent cause) on the highest ground of the city, sometimes on the\ntops of Ida[352]:\n\n[352] Il. xxii. 171.\n\n \u1f3c\u03b4\u03b7\u03c2 \u1f10\u03bd \u03ba\u03bf\u03c1\u03c5\u03c6\u1fc7\u03c3\u03b9 \u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03c5\u03c0\u03c4\u03cd\u03c7\u03bf\u03c5, \u1f00\u03bb\u03bb\u03cc\u03c4\u03b5 \u03b4\u2019 \u03b1\u1f56\u03c4\u03b5\n \u1f10\u03bd \u03c0\u03cc\u03bb\u03b5\u03b9 \u1f00\u03ba\u03c1\u03bf\u03c4\u03ac\u03c4\u1fc3.\n\nAt all events we may say, that the only sign remaining in Greece of\nthis principle of worship, was one common to it with Troy, and seen in\nthe epithet \u1f51\u03c8\u03af\u03b6\u03c5\u03b3\u03bf\u03c2 applied to Jupiter, as well as in the association\nbetween the seats of the gods, and the highest mountains.\n\nOn the other hand, the religion of the Trojans appears to have abounded\nmore in positive observance and hierarchical development, than that of\nthe Greeks.\n\nThis subject may be considered with reference to the several subjects\nof\n\n 1. Temples.\n 2. Endowments (\u03c4\u03b5\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03b5\u03b1).\n 3. Groves.\n 4. Statues.\n 5. Seers or Prophets.\n 6. The Priesthood.\n\n~_Troy and Greece as to Temples._~\n\nIt has been debated, whether the Greeks of the Homeric age had yet\nbegun to erect temples to the gods.\n\nThe only case of a temple, distinctly and expressly mentioned as\nexisting in Greece, is in the passage of the Catalogue respecting the\nAthenians, on which there hangs a slight shade of doubt. But another\npassage, though it does not contain the word, seems to be conclusive as\nto the thing. It is that where Achilles mentions treasures, which lie\nwithin the stony threshold of Apollo at Pytho[353]:\n\n[353] Il. ix. 404. Ld. Aberdeen\u2019s Essay, p. 86.\n\n \u03bf\u1f50\u03b4\u2019 \u1f45\u03c3\u03b1 \u03bb\u03ac\u03ca\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 \u03bf\u1f50\u03b4\u1f78\u03c2 \u1f00\u03c6\u03ae\u03c4\u03bf\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f10\u03bd\u03c4\u1f78\u03c2 \u1f10\u03ad\u03c1\u03b3\u03b5\u03b9,\n \u03a6\u03bf\u03af\u03b2\u03bf\u03c5 \u1f08\u03c0\u03cc\u03bb\u03bb\u03c9\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2, \u03a0\u03c5\u03b8\u03bf\u1fd6 \u1f14\u03bd\u03b9 \u03c0\u03b5\u03c4\u03c1\u03ae\u03b5\u03c3\u03c3\u1fc3.\n\nThough there may have been treasuries which were not temples, they\ncould hardly have been treasuries of the gods: for in what sense could\ntreasures be placed under their special protection, unless by being\ndeposited in places which were peculiarly theirs?\n\nIn the Odyssey, Eurylochus promises to build a temple to the Sun,\non getting safe to Ithaca[354]; and Nausithous[355], the father of\nAlcinous, built temples of the gods in Scheria. Now Scheria was not\nGreece; yet it was more akin to Greece than to Troy.\n\n[354] Od. xii. 345.\n\n[355] Od. vi. 10; vii. 56.\n\nIt is, on the other hand, observable that, though under these\ncircumstances we can hardly deny that temples existed among the Greeks,\nyet we have no case in Homer of a temple actually erected to a purely\nHellic deity.\n\nOur clear instances are, in fact, confined to the temples of Minerva at\nTroy and Athens, and the temples of Apollo at Troy, Chryse[356], and\nPytho: and when we see old Nestor performing solemn sacrifice in the\nopen air at Pylos, himself, too, a reputed grandchild of Neptune, we\ncannot suppose that it was usual with the Hellenes to worship Hellenic\ngods in temples. It is possible, though I would not presume to say\nmore, that Apollo and Minerva may have been the only deities to whom it\nwas usual in that age to erect temples, whether in Greece or Troy.\n\n[356] Il. i. 39.\n\nI must not, however, presume to dismiss this subject without noticing\nthe line, Od. vi. 266;\n\n \u1f14\u03bd\u03b8\u03b1 \u03b4\u03ad \u03c4\u03ad \u03c3\u03c6\u2019 \u1f00\u03b3\u03bf\u03c1\u1f74, \u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u1f78\u03bd \u03a0\u03bf\u03c3\u03b9\u03b4\u03ae\u03ca\u03bf\u03bd \u1f04\u03bc\u03c6\u03b9\u03c2.\n\nThis verse is often interpreted as \u2018the place of assembly round about\nthe beautiful temple of Neptune.\u2019 So Eustathius[357]: so one of the\nscholiasts: the other interprets it to mean a \u03c4\u03ad\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 only. Nitzsch,\nTerpstra[358] and Crusius take it for a temple. The word \u03a0\u03bf\u03c3\u03b9\u03b4\u03ae\u03ca\u03bf\u03bd\nwithout a substantive is a form found nowhere else in Homer: so that\nwe have only the aid of reason to interpret it. Now, this \u1f00\u03b3\u03bf\u03c1\u1f74 was the\nplace of the public assemblies for business. It is surely improbable,\nthat there could have been a roofed temple in the midst of it, which\nwould interrupt both sight and hearing. On the other hand, we know\nthat before Troy the altars were in the \u1f00\u03b3\u03bf\u03c1\u1f74 of the camp[359]: and\nthis would cause no inconvenience. It would seem then, that \u03a0\u03bf\u03c3\u03b9\u03b4\u03ae\u03ca\u03bf\u03bd\nmeans not a covered temple, but a consecrated spot, in all likelihood\ninclosed, on which an altar stood.\n\n[357] In loc.\n\n[358] Terpstra, c. iii. 4.\n\n[359] Il. xi. 807, 8.\n\nI would not, however, argue absolutely upon the word \u03bd\u03b7\u1f78\u03bd, in cases\nwhere it is found without a word signifying to construct, or other\nsigns marking it as a building. For its resemblance to \u03bd\u03ae\u03ca\u03bf\u03bd raises\nthe question, whether it may not originally have meant the consecrated\nland which passed under the name of \u03c4\u03ad\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2. If so, it may have had\nthis sense in a passage like that of the Catalogue; where the epithet\njoined to it (\u1f11\u1ff7 \u1f10\u03bd\u1f76 \u03c0\u03af\u03bf\u03bd\u03b9 \u03bd\u03b7\u1ff7) is one more suitable to the idea of a\npiece of ground, than of a temple; though applicable by Homeric usage\nto the latter too, and though sufficiently supported by \u03bc\u03ac\u03bb\u03b1 \u03c0\u03af\u03bf\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f10\u03be\n\u1f00\u03b4\u03cd\u03c4\u03bf\u03b9\u03bf. (Il. v. 512.)\n\n2. The derivation of \u03c4\u03ad\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 is supposed, by some philologists, to be\nthe same with that of _templum_. And if so, there is a marked analogy\nbetween this association and that of \u03bd\u03b7\u03cc\u03bd with \u03bd\u03ae\u03ca\u03bf\u03bd. Each would seem\nto indicate the customs of a race, which had both dedicated lands and\na priesthood, before it began to raise sacred edifices.\n\n~_As to endowments in land._~\n\nAs respects the endowment in land, which was sometimes consecrated to\nthe gods, and was called \u03c4\u03ad\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2, I presume we must conclude that,\nwherever such an endowment was found, there must have been a priesthood\nsupported by it. For it is difficult to conceive what other purpose\ncould have been contemplated, at such a time, by such an appropriation\nof land. And again we may assume that, where the \u03c4\u03ad\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 or glebe\nexisted, there would be if not a temple yet at least an altar,\nsomething which localized the worship in the particular spot.\n\nIt is indeed much more easy to suppose a temple without a priesthood,\nthan a glebe. And here it is again remarkable, that we meet with no\nexample in Homer of a glebe set apart for an exclusively Hellic god.\n\nThe cases of glebes, with which he supplies us, are these:\n\n1. Of Ceres, a Pelasgian deity, in Thessaly, Il. ii. 696;\n\n2. Of Jupiter, on Mount Gargarus in Troas, together with an altar, Il.\nviii. 48;\n\n3. Of Venus, a Pelasgian deity, at Paphos in Cyprus, with an altar, Od.\nviii. 362;\n\n4. Of Spercheius in Thessaly, with an altar, Il. xxiii. 148. As\nrespects this case, we have indeed found, that the imaginative\ndeification of Nature appears to have been Hellenic, and not Pelasgian.\nStill, with the case of Scamander before us, and considering that we\nfind the \u03c4\u03ad\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 attached to Spercheius in an eminently Pelasgian\ndistrict, while there is no example of such an inheritance for the\ndeities among the Hellic tribes, it seems most rational to consider the\nappropriation of it as belonging to the Pelasgian period, and as having\nsimply lived over into the Hellenic age.\n\n3. The \u1f04\u03bb\u03c3\u03bf\u03c2 of Homer appears to be quite different from the \u03c4\u03ad\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2:\nand to mean rather what we should call a site for religious worship, as\ndistinguished from an endowment which, as such, would produce the means\nof subsistence. Such places were required by the spirit of Hellenic\nreligion, as much as by the Pelasgian worship, and we find them\naccordingly disseminated as follows: we have\n\n1. In Scheria, the \u1f04\u03bb\u03c3\u03bf\u03c2 of Minerva, Od. vi. 291, 321.\n\n2. At Ismarus, the \u1f04\u03bb\u03c3\u03bf\u03c2 of Apollo, in which dwelt Maron the priest,\nOd. ix. 200.\n\n3. In Ithaca, the \u1f04\u03bb\u03c3\u03bf\u03c2 of the Nymphs, with an altar, beside the\nfountain, where all passers-by offered sacrifice, Od. xvii. 205-11.\n\n4. In Ithaca again, the \u1f04\u03bb\u03c3\u03bf\u03c2 of Apollo, where public sacrifice was\nperformed in the city on his feast-day, Od. xx. 277, 8.\n\n5. In B\u0153otia, Onchestus is called the \u1f04\u03b3\u03bb\u03b1\u03bf\u03bd \u1f04\u03bb\u03c3\u03bf\u03c2 of Neptune, Il. ii.\n506.\n\n6. The \u1f04\u03bb\u03c3\u03b5\u03b1 of Persephone are on the beach beyond Oceanus, and are\ncomposed of poplars and willows, Od. x. 509.\n\n7. In the great Assembly of gods before the Theomachy, all the Nymphs\nare summoned, who inhabit \u1f04\u03bb\u03c3\u03b5\u03b1 as well as fountains and meadows, Il.\nxx. 8. But here the meaning includes any grove, dedicated or not. And\nagain,\n\n8. The attendants of Circe are such as inhabit \u1f04\u03bb\u03c3\u03b5\u03b1, groves, or\nfountains, or rivers, Od. x. 350.\n\nThus the \u1f04\u03bb\u03c3\u03bf\u03c2, when used in the religious sense, means a grove or\nclump of trees, sometimes with turf, or with a fountain; set apart\nas a place for worship, and inhabited by a deity or his ministers,\nyet quite distinct from a property capable of supporting them. These\nclumps appear to be so appropriated more commonly by Hellenic, than by\nPelasgian practice.\n\n~_As to statues of the gods._~\n\n4. We will take next the case of statues of the gods.\n\nIn the opinion of Mure, the metaphor which represents human affairs\nas resting in the lap of the gods (\u03b8\u03b5\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f10\u03bd \u03b3\u03bf\u03cd\u03bd\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9), gives conclusive\nevidence that the custom of making statues of the deities prevailed\namong the Greeks. I do not however see why this particular figure\nshould bear upon the question, more than any of the other very numerous\nrepresentations which treat them as endowed with various members of the\nbody. If this evidence be receivable at all, it is overwhelming. But\nit is open to some doubt, whether, because gods are mentally conceived\naccording to the laws of anthropomorphism, we may therefore assume that\nthey were also materially represented under the human form.\n\nWe have, I believe, no more than one single piece of direct evidence on\nthe subject, and it is this; that, when the Trojan matrons carry their\nsupplication to the temple of Minerva, together with the offering of a\nrobe, they deposit it on her knees (Il. vi. 303), \u1f08\u03b8\u03b7\u03bd\u03b1\u03af\u03b7\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c0\u1f76 \u03b3\u03bf\u03cd\u03bd\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd\n\u1f20\u03cb\u03ba\u03cc\u03bc\u03bf\u03b9\u03bf. This appears to be quite conclusive as to the existence of a\nstatue of Minerva at Troy: but it leaves the question entirely open,\nwhether it was an Hellenic, as well as a Pelasgian, practice thus to\nrepresent the gods.\n\nIt is quite plain, I think, that the practice was not one congenial\nor familiar to the mind of Homer. Had it been so, he surely must have\nmade large poetic use of it. Whereas on the contrary it is by inference\nalone, though certainly by unavoidable inference, from language which\nhe uses without that intention, that we become assured even of their\nexistence in his time. He speaks, indeed, more than once of placing\n\u1f00\u03b3\u03ac\u03bb\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1 in temples, or of suspending them in honour of the gods[360]:\nbut our title to construe this of statues appears to be wholly\nconjectural.\n\n[360] Od. iii. 438. xii. 347.\n\nIt would seem inexplicable that a poet, who enlarges with so much\npower, not only on the Shield of Agamemnon and the Arms of Achilles,\nbut on the ideal \u00c6gis of Minerva, the chariot of Juno, the bow\nof Apollo, and the metallic handmaids of Vulcan, should entirely\navoid description of the statues of the Olympian gods, if they were\nhabitually before his eyes.\n\nI have argued elsewhere that we see in Homer the Hellenic, not the\nPelasgian, mind. And if it be so, then I think we are justified\nin associating with his Hellenism, as one among many signs, this\nremarkable silence. The ritual and external development of Pelasgian\nreligion would delight in statues as visible signs: the Hellenic\nidealism would not improbably eschew them. Hence we may treat this\npractice of the period as belonging to Pelasgian peculiarities.\n\nIf this be so, then I think we may pass on to the conclusion, that the\noriginal tendency to produce visible forms of the Divinity was not\nowing to, and formed no part of, the efforts of the human imagination,\nso largely developed in Homer, to idealize religion, and to beautify\nthe world by its imagery. But, on the contrary, so far as we can judge\nfrom Homer, it first prevailed among a race inclined to material and\nearthy conceptions in theology, and from them it spread to others of\nhigher intelligence. It was a crutch for the lameness of man, and not\na wing for his upward aspirations.\n\nAnd indeed, as it appears to me, this proposition is sustained even\nby the past experience and present state of Christendom. When faith\nwas strongest, images were unknown to the faithful. Nor is it art,\nwhich produces them: it is merely a kind of corporal and mechanical\nimitation. No considerable work of art is at this moment, I believe, in\nany Christian country, an object of religious worship. The sentiment\nwhich craves for material representations of such objects in order\nto worship them, appears also commonly to exact that they should be\nsomewhat materialized. The higher office of art, in connection with\ndevout affection, seems to be that it should point our veneration\nonwards, not arrest it. It holds out the finger which we are to follow,\nnot the hand which we are to kiss.\n\n~_As to Seers or Diviners._~\n\nThe order of Seers or Diviners was common to Greeks, Trojans, and\nprobably we may add, from its being known among the Cyclopes, to all\ncontemporary races. It is singular that we should find here, and not\namong the priesthood, the traces of caste, or the hereditary descent\nof the gift. In all other points, this function stands apart from\nhierarchical developments. For the \u03bc\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03b9\u03c2, except as to his gift,\nis like other men. Melampus engages to carry off oxen. Polypheides\nmigrates upon a quarrel with his father. Cleitus is the lover of\nAurora. Theoclymenus has committed homicide[361]. Teiresias is called\n\u1f04\u03bd\u03b1\u03be, a lord or prince[362]. We do not know that Calchas fought as\nwell as prophesied, but it may have been so, since Helenus, the son\nof Priam, and Eunomus, the Mysian leader, were seers or augurs not\nless than warriors. But the most instructive specimen of this order\namong the Greeks is the Suitor Leiodes[363], who was also \u03b8\u03c5\u03bf\u03c3\u03ba\u03cc\u03bf\u03c2,\nor inspector of sacrifices, to the body of Suitors. Now Ulysses had,\nin consideration of a ransom, spared Maron the priest of Apollo at\nIsmarus[364]. But, far from recognising in the professional character\nof Leiodes a title to immunity, he answers the plea with characteristic\nand deadly repartee. And this, notwithstanding that Leiodes was, as\nwe learn, distinguished from the rest of the Suitors by the general\ndecency of his conduct.\n\n[361] Od. xv. 224 _et seqq._\n\n[362] Od. xi. 150.\n\n[363] Od. xxii. 310-29. xxi. 144.\n\n[364] Od. ix. 197-201.\n\nThe \u03b8\u03c5\u03bf\u03c3\u03ba\u03cc\u03bf\u03c2 apparently inspected sacrifices, but did not offer them;\nfor this character is clearly distinguished in the Iliad[365] from\nthat of the priest. Indeed, the word \u03b8\u03cd\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd in Homer appears properly\nto apply to those minor offices of sacrifice, which did not involve\nthe putting to death of victims; as in Il. ix. 219, where, it may be\nobserved, the function is not performed by the principal person, but\nis deputed by Achilles to Patroclus. The inspection of slain animals\nwould probably stand in the same category, among divine offices, as the\ninterpretation of other signs and portents.\n\n[365] Il. xxiv. 221.\n\nThe members of this class are, upon the whole, as broadly distinguished\nfrom the priests in Homer, as are the prophets of the Old Testament\nfrom the Levitical priesthood.\n\nThey were called by the general name of \u03bc\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03b9\u03c2, or by other names,\nsome of them more limited: such as \u03b8\u03b5\u03cc\u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c0\u03bf\u03c2, \u1f51\u03c0\u03bf\u03c6\u03ae\u03c4\u03b7\u03c2, \u03bf\u1f30\u03c9\u03bd\u03cc\u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2,\n\u1f40\u03bd\u03b5\u03b9\u03c1\u03cc\u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2. They sometimes interpreted from signs and omens;\nsometimes, as in Il. vi. 86, and vii. 44, without them.\n\nThe diffusion of the gift among the royal house of Troy, where\nPolydamas had it as well as Helenus, and possibly also Hector, is less\nmarked than the great case of the family of Melampus. The augur was\nin all respects a citizen, while possessed of a peculiar endowment:\nand the \u1f51\u03c0\u03bf\u03c6\u1fc6\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9[366] mentioned in the invocation of Achilles, whether\nthey were the royal house, or persons dispersed through the community,\nevidently formed a more conspicuous object among the Helli than we find\nin any Pelasgian race. Again; in Greece we find the oracles of Delphi\nand Delos, as well as of Dodona; but there is no similar organ for the\ndelivery of the divine will reported to us in Troy.\n\n[366] Il. xvi. 235.\n\n~_As to the Priesthood._~\n\nWe come now to the last and most important point connected with the\noutward development of the religious system, that of the priesthood:\nand here I shall endeavour to describe distinctly the evidence with\nregard to both nations. First, let us consider the case of priesthood\nas it respects the Greeks.\n\nWe have at least one instance before us in the Iliad, where a combined\nreligious action of Greeks and Trojans is presented to us. In the\nThird Book, Priam comes from Troy to an open space between the armies,\nand meets Agamemnon and Ulysses. The honour of actually offering\nthe sacrifice is allotted to the Greeks. No priest appears; and the\nfunction is performed by the King, Agamemnon. It is therefore natural\nto suppose that the Greeks have with them in Troas no sacrificing\npriest. On every occasion, the Greek Sovereign offers sacrifice for\nhimself and for the army. So also do the soldiery[367] at large for\nthemselves;\n\n[367] Il. ii. 400.\n\n \u1f04\u03bb\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2 \u03b4\u2019 \u1f04\u03bb\u03bb\u1ff3 \u1f14\u03c1\u03b5\u03b6\u03b5 \u03b8\u03b5\u1ff6\u03bd \u03b1\u1f30\u03b5\u03b9\u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03b5\u03c4\u03ac\u03c9\u03bd.\n\nThere was an altar[368] for the very purpose in the part of the\ncamp appropriated for Assemblies; a fact which, though it does not\ndemonstrate, accords with the union of the regal and sacerdotal\nfunctions. Nor can we account for the absence of priests from the\ncamp, on the same principle as for that of bards; since poems\nwere a luxury, but sacrifices a necessity. And we find Calchas\nrepresenting the class of religious functionaries that the Greek nation\ndid acknowledge; namely, the Seers, who interpreted the divine will,\nwithout any fixed ministry belonging to any particular place, although\nthe gift was generally derived from Apollo, as one among his peculiar\nattributes.\n\n[368] Il. xi. 807, 8.\n\nIn the remarkable passage, which enumerates for us the principal\ntrades and professions of Greece in the heroic age[369], we find\nmentioned the prophet, the physician, the artificer, the divinely\nprompted bard; but not the priest. Yet, had such an order existed, it\ncould not well, on account of its importance, have been omitted. For in\ntruth this enumeration is, as we have before seen, nearly exhaustive,\nas applied to an age when there was no professional soldier, when the\nhusbandman, fisherman, or herd, could not be called a \u03b4\u03b7\u03bc\u03b9\u03bf\u03b5\u03c1\u03b3\u1f78\u03c2,\nfor he had no relation to the public, and when commerce was confined\nto foreigners like the Ph\u0153nicians, or pirates like the Taphians, and\nformed no part of the business of the settled communities of Greece.\n\n[369] Od. xvii. 384-6.\n\nOn the other hand, in the Legend of Ph\u0153nix concerning Meleager, we\nhave a notice of priests as having existed at that time in \u00c6tolia. The\nembassy, which was sent to conciliate Meleager, consisted of elders and\nof the best, or most distinguished, among the priests;\n\n \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03b4\u1f72 \u03bb\u03af\u03c3\u03c3\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf \u03b3\u03ad\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2\n \u0391\u1f30\u03c4\u03c9\u03bb\u1ff6\u03bd, \u03c0\u03ad\u03bc\u03c0\u03bf\u03bd \u03b4\u1f72 \u03b8\u03b5\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f31\u03b5\u03c1\u1fc6\u03b1\u03c2 \u1f00\u03c1\u03af\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2. Il. ix. 574.\n\nNow, the word \u0391\u1f30\u03c4\u03c9\u03bb\u1f78\u03c2, I apprehend, indicates an Hellenic race, for\nTydeus is \u0391\u1f30\u03c4\u03ce\u03bb\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2; and it is worth notice, that in this passage the\nelders are called \u00c6tolian, but not the priests.\n\nAgain, this event took place during the reign of \u0152neus, two generations\nbefore the Trojan war[370]. At that time the Hellenic influence was\nquite recent in Middle and in Southern Greece. The family of Sisyphus\nhad indeed arrived there at least two generations before, but it\ndisappeared, and it had never risen to great power. It was the date\nof Augeias, of Neleus, and of Pelops; all of them, apparently, the\nfirst of their respective families in Peloponnesus. So again the name\nPortheus, assigned to the father of \u0152neus, probably marks him as the\nfirst Hellenic occupant of the country.\n\n[370] Il. ix. 535.\n\nPlato observes, that new settlers might naturally remain for a time\nwithout religious institutions[371] of their own.\n\n[371] Legg. vi. 7.\n\nThe Hellenes, then, had recently come into \u00c6tolia at the time, and\neven on this ground were less likely to have had priests of their own\ninstitution. But it is not to be supposed that, finding a hierarchy\namong the Pelasgian tribes, devoted to the worship of such deities\n(Minerva and Apollo for example) as they themselves acknowledged, they\nwould extirpate such a body. The most probable supposition is, that\nit would continue in all cases for a time. The person of Chryses,\nthe priest of Apollo, was respected, at least for the moment, even\nby Agamemnon[372] in his displeasure. Fearless of his threats, the\ninjured priest immediately appealed to his god for aid. We cannot doubt\nthat interests thus defended would be generally left intact. Still,\nas priests were, in the language of political economy, unproductive\nlabourers, and as they seem to have held their offices not by descent\nbut by election, we can easily perceive a road, other than that of\nviolence, to the extinction of the order among a people that set no\nstore by its services.\n\n[372] Il. i. 28.\n\nThere is yet another place, in which the name is mentioned among the\nGreeks. It is in the Assembly of the First Iliad, held while the plague\nis raging. Achilles says, \u2018Let us inquire of some prophet, or priest,\nor interpreter of dreams (for dreams too are from Jupiter), who will\ntell us, why Apollo is so much exasperated[373].\u2019 But the allusion here\nseems plainly to be to Chryses, who had himself visited the camp, and\nhad appeared with the insignia of his priestly office in a previous\nAssembly of the Greeks[374]. Being now in possession of the whole open\ncountry, they of course had it in their power to consult either him or\nany other Trojan priest not within the walls. We cannot, therefore,\nargue from this passage, that priesthood was a recognised Hellenic\ninstitution at the period.\n\n[373] Il. i. 62.\n\n[374] Il. i. 15.\n\nIn the Odyssey, we find Menelaus engaged in the solemn rites of a great\nnuptial feast; and Nestor in like manner offering sacrifice to Neptune,\nhis titular ancestor, in the presence of thousands of the people. In\nneither of these cases is there any reference to a priest: and on the\nfollowing day Nestor with his sons offers a new sacrifice, of which the\nfullest details are given.\n\nAgain, had there been priests among the Homeric Greeks, it is hardly\npossible but that we must have had some glimpse of them in Ithaca,\nwhere the order of the community and the whole course of Greek life are\nso clearly laid open.\n\nAn important piece of negative evidence to the same effect is afforded\nby the great invocation of Achilles in the Sixteenth Iliad. It will be\nremembered, that we there find the rude highland tribe of the Helli in\npossession of the country where Dodona was seated, together with the\nworship of the Pelasgian Jupiter; and themselves apparently exercising\nthe ministry of the god. Now that ministry was not priesthood, but\ninterpretation; for they are \u1f51\u03c0\u03bf\u03c6\u1fc6\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9, not \u1f31\u03b5\u03c1\u1fc6\u03b5\u03c2[375].\n\n[375] Il. xvi. 235.\n\nIt therefore appears clear, that the Hellenic tribes of Homer\u2019s day did\nnot acknowledge a professional priesthood of their own; that there was\nno priest in the Greek armament before Troy; that the priest was not\na constituent part of ordinary Greek communities: and that, if he was\nany where to be found in the Homeric times, it was as a relic, and in\nconnection with the old Pelasgian establishments of the country.\n\nAt a later period, when wealth and splendour had increased, and when\nthe increased demand for them extended also to religious rites, the\npriesthood became a regular institution of Greece. It is reckoned by\nAristotle, in the Politics, among the necessary elements of a State;\nwhile he seems also to regard it as the natural employment of those,\nwho are disqualified by age from the performance of more active duties\nto the public, either in war or in council. The priest was, even in\nHomer\u2019s time, a distinctly privileged person. Like other people, he\nmarried and had children: but his burdens were not of the heaviest. He\nwould live well on sacrifices, and the proceeds of glebe-land: and it\nis curious, that Maron the priest had the very best wine of which we\nhear in the poems[376]. The priest formed no part of the teaching power\nof the community, either in this or in later ages. D\u00f6llinger makes the\nobservation[377], that Plutarch points out as the sources of religious\ninstruction three classes of men, among whom the priests are not even\nincluded. They are (1) the poets, (2) the lawgivers, and (3) the\nphilosophers: to whom Dio Chrysostom adds the painters and sculptors.\nSo that Isocrates may well observe, that the priesthood is anybody\u2019s\naffair. Plato[378] in the \u039d\u03cc\u03bc\u03bf\u03b9 requires his priests, and their parents\ntoo, to be free from blemish and from crime: but carefully appoints\na separate class of \u1f10\u03be\u03b7\u03b3\u03b7\u03c4\u03b1\u1f76, to superintend and interpret the laws\nof religion; as well as stewards, who are to have charge of the\nconsecrated property.\n\n[376] Od. ix. 205.\n\n[377] D\u00f6llinger, Heid. u. Jud. iv. 1.\n\n[378] Plat. Legg. vi. 7. (ii. 759.)\n\nThe priest of the heroic age would however appear to have slightly\nshared in the office of the \u03bc\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03b9\u03c2, although the \u03bc\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03b9\u03c2 had no special\nconcern with the offering of sacrifice. The inspection of victims would\nfall to priests, almost of course, in a greater or a less degree; and\nthere is some evidence before us, that they were entitled to interpret\nthe divine will. It is furnished by the speech of Achilles[379], which\nappears to imply some professional capacity of this kind: and, for\nTroy at least, by the declaration[380] of Priam, who mentions priests\namong the persons, that might have been employed to report to him a\ncommunication from heaven.\n\n[379] Il. i. 62.\n\n[380] Il. xxiv. 22.\n\nWe have now seen the case of priesthood among the Greeks. With the\nTrojans it is quite otherwise. We are introduced, at the very beginning\nof the Iliad, to Chryses[381] the priest (\u1f31\u03b5\u03c1\u03b5\u1f7a\u03c2) of Apollo. In the\nfifth Iliad we have a Trojan[382], Dares, who is priest of Vulcan; and\nwe have also Dolopion, who, as \u1f00\u03c1\u03b7\u03c4\u1f74\u03c1[383] of the Scamander, filled\nan office apparently equivalent. Chryses the priest is also called an\n\u1f00\u03c1\u03b7\u03c4\u03ae\u03c1[384]; and though, on the other hand, it was the duty of Leiodes\nin the Odyssey to offer[385] prayer on behalf of the Suitors, yet\nhe is never termed \u1f00\u03c1\u03b7\u03c4\u03ae\u03c1. In the Sixth Iliad appears Theano, wife\nof Antenor, and priestess of Minerva[386]. And in the Sixteenth, we\nhave Onetor[387], priest of Id\u00e6an Jupiter. Again, while Eum\u00e6us in the\nOdyssey does not recognise the priest among the Greek professions, but\nsubstitutes the prophet, Priam, on the contrary, in the Twenty-fourth\nIliad, says he would not have obeyed the injunction to go to the\nGreek camp if conveyed to him by any mortal, of such as are in these\nprofessions[388],\n\n[381] Il. i. 23.\n\n[382] Il. v. 9.\n\n[383] Ibid. 76.\n\n[384] Il. i. 11.\n\n[385] Od. xxii. 322.\n\n[386] Il. vi. 298.\n\n[387] Il. xvi. 604.\n\n[388] Il. xxiv. 221.\n\n \u1f22 \u03bf\u1f33 \u03bc\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03b9\u03ad\u03c2 \u03b5\u1f30\u03c3\u03b9, \u03b8\u03c5\u03bf\u03c3\u03ba\u03cc\u03bf\u03b9, \u1f22 \u1f31\u03b5\u03c1\u1fc6\u03b5\u03c2,\n\nwhere it might be questioned, whether \u03bc\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03b9\u03c2 and \u03b8\u03c5\u03bf\u03c3\u03ba\u03cc\u03bf\u03c2 are different\npersons, or whether he speaks of the \u03bc\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03b9\u03c2 \u03b8\u03c5\u03bf\u03c3\u03ba\u03cc\u03bf\u03c2; but in either\ncase it is equally clear that he names the priest, \u1f31\u03b5\u03c1\u03b5\u1f7a\u03c2, apart from\neither. The speech of Mentes, in Od. i. 202, probably suffices to draw\nthe line between the \u03bc\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03b9\u03c2 and the \u03b8\u03c5\u03bf\u03c3\u03ba\u03cc\u03bf\u03c2.\n\nIt further appears that among the allies of Troy, as well as in the\ncountry, the priest was known; for in the Ninth Odyssey we find\nMaron, son of Euanthes the priest of Apollo at Ismarus[389], among\nthe Cicones. The city they inhabited was sacked by Ulysses on his way\nfrom Troy, and on this account we must infer that, as they were allies\nof Troy (Il. ii. 846), so likewise they belonged to the family of\nPelasgian tribes.\n\n[389] Od. ix. 196-9.\n\nTo these priests, personally engaged in the service of the deities, a\npersonal veneration, and an exemption from military service, appear to\nhave attached, which were not enjoyed by the \u03bc\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03b9\u03b5\u03c2. This is plainly\ndeveloped in the case of Chryses. The offence is not that of carrying\noff a captive, for there could be no guilt in the act, as such matters\nwere then considered, but rather honour: it is the insult offered to\nApollo in the person of his servant, by subjecting his daughter to the\ncommon lot of women of all ranks, including the highest, that draws\ndown a frightful vengeance on the army. So, again, the priest never\nfought; Dolopion, Dares, and Onetor, all become known to us through\ntheir having sons in the army, whose parentage is mentioned. And as\nto the priest Maron, Ulysses says he was spared from a feeling of awe\ntowards the god, in whose wooded grove, or portion, he resided[390]:\n\n[390] Ibid. 199-201.\n\n \u03bf\u1f55\u03bd\u03b5\u03ba\u03ac \u03bc\u03b9\u03bd \u03c3\u1f7a\u03bd \u03c0\u03b1\u03b9\u03b4\u1f76 \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c7\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03b8\u2019 \u1f20\u03b4\u1f72 \u03b3\u03c5\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9\u03ba\u1f76\n \u1f01\u03b6\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9\u00b7 \u1fa4\u03ba\u03b5\u03b9 \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u1f10\u03bd \u1f04\u03bb\u03c3\u03b5\u03ca \u03b4\u03b5\u03bd\u03b4\u03c1\u03ae\u03b5\u03bd\u03c4\u03b9\n \u03a6\u03bf\u03af\u03b2\u03bf\u03c5 \u1f08\u03c0\u03cc\u03bb\u03bb\u03c9\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2.\n\nBut it does not appear that the \u03bc\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03b9\u03c2, though he was endowed with a\nparticular gift, bore, in respect of it, such a character, as would\nsuffice to separate him from ordinary civil duties, and to make him,\nlike the priest, a clearly privileged person.\n\nUpon the other hand, we should not omit to notice that we are told\nin the case of Theano, though she was of high birth and the wife of\nAntenor, that she was made priestess by the Trojan people. The same\nfact is probably indicated in the case of Dolopion, who, we are told,\nhad been made or appointed \u1f00\u03c1\u03b7\u03c4\u1f74\u03c1 to Scamander (\u1f00\u03c1\u03b7\u03c4\u1f74\u03c1 \u1f10\u03c4\u03ad\u03c4\u03c5\u03ba\u03c4\u03bf Il. v.\n77). And the appearance of the sons of priests in the field appears to\nshow, that there was nothing like hereditary succession in the order;\nwhich was replenished, we may probably conclude, by selections having\nthe authority or the assent of the public voice. Thus the body was\npopularly constituted, and was in thorough harmony with the national\ncharacter. It does not, on that account, constitute a less important\nelement in the community, but rather the reverse.\n\nNow, whatever might be the other moral and social consequences of\nhaving in the community an order of men set apart to maintain the\nsolemn worship of the gods, it must evidently have exercised a very\npowerful influence in the maintenance of abundance and punctuality in\nritual observances. There can be no doubt, that the priest lived by\nthe altar which he served, and lived the better in proportion as it\nwas better supplied. Besides animals, cakes of flour too, and wine,\nwere necessary for the due performance of his office[391]; and in the\ncase of Maron this wine was so good, that the priest kept it secret\nfrom his servants, and that it has drawn forth the Poet\u2019s most genial\npraise[392]:\n\n[391] Il. i. 458, 462.\n\n[392] Od. ix. 205.\n\n \u1f21\u03b4\u1f7a\u03bd, \u1f00\u03ba\u03b7\u03c1\u03ac\u03c3\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd, \u03b8\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bf\u03bd \u03c0\u03bf\u03c4\u03cc\u03bd\u00b7\n\nHe was rich too; for he had men and women servants in his house. So\nwas Dares, the priest of Vulcan[393]. So probably was Dolopion, priest\nof Scamander; at any rate his station was a high one; as we see from\nthe kind of respect paid to him (\u03b8\u03b5\u1f78\u03c2 \u03b4\u2019 \u1f61\u03c2 \u03c4\u03af\u03b5\u03c4\u03bf \u03b4\u03ae\u03bc\u1ff3); and we have\nanother sign in both these cases of the station of the parents, from\nthe position of the sons in the army, which is not among the common\nsoldiery (\u03c0\u03bb\u03b7\u03b8\u1f7a\u03c2), but among the notables. The sons of Dares fight in\na chariot; and the name of Hypsenor, son of Dolopion, by its etymology\nindicates high birth.\n\n[393] Il. v. 9, 78.\n\n~_Comparative observance of Sacrifice._~\n\nIn point of fact the Homeric poems exhibit to us, together with the\nexistence and influence of a priestly order, a very marked distinction\nin respect to sacrifice between the Trojans and the Greeks: a state of\nthings in entire conformity with what we might thus expect.\n\nIn no single instance do we hear of a Trojan chief, who had been\nniggardly in his banquets to the gods. Hector[394] is expressly\npraised for his liberality in this respect by Jupiter, and \u00c6neas\nby Neptune[395]. The commendation, however, extends to the whole\ncommunity. In the Olympian Assembly of the Fourth Book, Jupiter says\nthat, of all the cities inhabited by men, Troy is to him the dearest;\nfor there his altar never lacked the sacrifice, the libation and the\nsavoury reek, which are the portion of the gods[396]:\n\n[394] Il. xxii. 170. xxiv. 168.\n\n[395] Il. xx. 298.\n\n[396] Il. iv. 48.\n\n \u03bf\u1f50 \u03b3\u03ac\u03c1 \u03bc\u03bf\u03af \u03c0\u03bf\u03c4\u03b5 \u03b2\u03c9\u03bc\u1f78\u03c2 \u1f10\u03b4\u03b5\u03cd\u03b5\u03c4\u03bf \u03b4\u03b1\u03b9\u03c4\u1f78\u03c2 \u1f10\u0390\u03c3\u03b7\u03c2,\n \u03bb\u03bf\u03b9\u03b2\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03c4\u03b5 \u03ba\u03bd\u03af\u03c3\u03b7\u03c2 \u03c4\u03b5\u00b7 \u03c4\u1f78 \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u03bb\u03ac\u03c7\u03bf\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd \u03b3\u03ad\u03c1\u03b1\u03c2 \u1f21\u03bc\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c2.\n\nBut the Greeks, thus destitute of priests, often fail, as we might\nexpect, in the regularity of their religious rites. Ulysses[397],\nindeed, is in this, as in all the points of excellence, unimpeachable.\nBut his was not the rule of all. \u0152neus, two generations before the\n_Troica_, while sacrificing to the other deities, either forgot or did\nnot think fit (\u1f22 \u03bb\u03ac\u03b8\u03b5\u03c4\u2019 \u1f22 \u03bf\u1f50\u03ba \u1f10\u03bd\u03cc\u03b7\u03c3\u03b5\u03bd) to sacrifice to Diana[398];\nhence the devastations of the Calydonian boar. Nor is his the only case\nin point.\n\n[397] Od. i. 61.\n\n[398] Il. ix. 523.\n\nThe account given by Nestor to Telemachus in the Third Odyssey is\nsomewhat obscure in this particular. He says that, after the Greeks\nembarked, the deity dispersed them; and that then Jupiter ordained the\nmisfortunes of their return, since they were not all intelligent and\nrighteous[399]. It appears to be here intimated, that the Greeks in\nthe first flush of victory forgot the influence of heaven; and that an\nomission of the proper sacrifices was the cause of the first dispersion.\n\n[399] Od. iii. 131.\n\nAfter they collect again in Troas, the Atreid brothers differ, as\nMenelaus proposes to start again, and Agamemnon to remain, and offer\nsacrifices in order to appease Minerva; but, as Nestor adds, the\ndeities are not so soon appeased. Agamemnon, therefore, seems to have\nbeen too late with his celebration; and Menelaus, again, to have\nomitted it altogether.\n\nThe party who side with Menelaus offer sacrifices on their arrival at\nTenedos, seemingly to repair the former error: but Jupiter is incensed,\nand causes them to fall out anew among themselves. A portion of them\nreturn once more to Agamemnon[400].\n\n[400] Ibid. 164.\n\nMenelaus finds his way to Lesbos, and then sails as far as Malea. Here\nhe encounters a storm, and with part of his ships he gets to Egypt:\nwhere he is again detained by the deities, because he did not offer up\nthe proper hecatombs[401]. Such remissness is the more remarkable,\nbecause Menelaus certainly appears to be one of the most virtuous\ncharacters in the Greek host.\n\n[401] Ibid. 135.\n\nThe course, however, of the siege itself affords a very marked\ninstance, in which the whole body of the Greeks was guilty of omitting\nthe regular sacrifices proper to be used in the inauguration of a great\nundertaking. In the hasty construction of the trench and rampart, they\napparently forgot the hecatombs[402]. Neptune immediately points out\nthe error in the Olympian Court; and uses it in aid of his displeasure\nat a work, which he thinks will eclipse the wall of Troy, executed\nfor Laomedon by himself in conjunction with Apollo. Jupiter forthwith\nagrees[403], that after the siege he shall destroy it. And the Poet,\nreturning to the subject at the commencement of the Twelfth Book,\nobserves that the work could not last, because it was constructed\nwithout enlisting in its favour the good will of the Immortals[404].\nThis omission of the Greeks is the more characteristic and remarkable,\nbecause the moment when they erected the rampart was a moment of\napprehension, almost of distress.\n\n[402] Il. vii. 450.\n\n[403] Ibid. 459.\n\n[404] Il. xii. 3, 9.\n\nThus, then, it appears that, as a nation, the Trojans were much\nmore given to religious observances of a positive kind, than the\nGreeks. They were, like the Athenians[405] at a later epoch,\n\u03b4\u03b5\u03b9\u03c3\u03b9\u03b4\u03b1\u03b9\u03bc\u03bf\u03bd\u03ad\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03b9. And, again, as between one Greek and another,\nthere is no doubt that the good are generally, though not invariably,\nscrupulous in this respect, and the bad commonly careless. Thus much\nis implied particularly in Od. iii. 131, as well as conclusively shown\nin the general order of the Odyssey. But, as between the two nations,\nwe cannot conceive that the Poet had any corresponding intention.\nAlthough a more scrupulous formality in religion marks the Trojans\nthan the Greeks, and although in itself, and _c\u00e6teris paribus_, this\nmay be the appropriate sign of piety, yet it is a sign only; as a sign\nit may be made a substitute, and, as a substitute, it becomes the\ncharacteristic of \u00c6gisthus and Autolycus, no less than it is of Eum\u00e6us\nand Ulysses. As between the two nations, the difference is evidently\nassociated with other differences in national character and morality.\nWe must look therefore for broader grounds, upon which to form an\nestimate of the comparative virtue of the two nations, than either the\npopulousness of Olympus on the one side, or the array of priests and\ntemples on the other.\n\n[405] Acts xvii. 22.\n\nNowhere do the signs of historic aim in Homer seem to me more evident,\nthan in his very distinct delineations of national character on\nthe Greek and the Trojan part respectively. But this is a general\nproposition; and it must be understood with a certain reservation as to\ndetails.\n\n~_Two modes of handling for Greece and Troy._~\n\nIt does not appear to me that Homer has studied the more minute points\nof consistency in motive and action among the Trojans of the poem, in\nthe same degree as among the Greeks. He has (so to speak) man\u0153uvred\nthem as subsidiary figures, with a view to enhancing and setting\noff those in whom he has intended and caused the principal interest\nto centre; not so as to destroy or diminish effects of individual\ncharacter, but so as to give to the collective or joint action on the\nTrojan side a subordinate and ministerial function in the machinery\nof the poem. As Homer sung to Greeks, and Greeks were his judges and\npatrons as well as his theme, nay rather as his heart and soul were\nGreek, so on the Greek side the chain of events is closely knit; if\nits direction changes, there is an adequate cause, as in the vehemence\nof Achilles, or the vacillation of Agamemnon. But he did not sing to\nTrojans; and so, among the Trojans of the Iliad, there are as it were\nstitches dropped in the web, and the connection is much less carefully\nelaborated. Thus they acquiesce in the breach of covenant after the\nsingle combat of the Third Book, although the evident wish among\nthem, independent of obligation, was for its fulfilment[406]. Then\nin the Fourth Book, after the treachery of Pandarus, the Trojans not\nonly do not resent it, but they recommence the fight while the Greek\nchiefs are tending the wounded Menelaus[407]; which conduct exhibits,\nif the phrase may be permitted, an extravagance of disregard to the\nobligations of truth and honour. Hector, in the Sixth Book, quits the\nbattle field upon an errand, to which it is hardly possible to assign\na poetical sufficiency of cause, unless we refer it to the readiness\nwhich he not unfrequently shows to keep himself out of the fight.\nAgain, there is something awkward and out of keeping in his manner of\ndealing with the Fabian recommendations of Polydamas when the crisis\napproaches. Some of these he accepts, and some he rejects, without\nadequate reason for the difference, except that he is preparing himself\nas an illustrious victim for Achilles, and that he must act foolishly\nin order that the superior hero, and with him the poem itself, may not\nbe baulked of their purpose.\n\n[406] Il. iii. 451-4.\n\n[407] Il. iv. 220.\n\nThus, again, Homer has given us a pretty clear idea even of the\nrespective ages of the Greek chiefs. It can hardly be doubted that\nNestor stands first, Idomeneus second, Ulysses third: while Diomed\nand Antilochus are the youngest; Ajax and Achilles probably the next.\nBut as to Paris, Helenus, \u00c6neas, Sarpedon, Polydamas, we find no\nconclusion as to their respective ages derivable from the poem.\n\nYet though Homer may use a greater degree of liberty in one case,\nand a lesser in another, as to the mode of setting his jewels, he\nalways adheres to the general laws of truth and nature as they address\nthemselves to his poetical purpose. Thus there may be reason to doubt,\nwhether he observed the same rigid topographical accuracy in dealing\nwith the plain of Troy, as he has evinced in the Greek Catalogue: but\nhe has used materials, all of which the region supplied; and he has\narranged them clearly, as a poetic whole, before the mental eye of\nthose with whom he had to do. Even so we may be prepared to find that\nhe deals with the moral as with the material Troas, allowing himself\nsomewhat more of license, burdening himself with somewhat less of\ncare. And then we need not be surprised at secondary or inferential\ninconsistencies in the action, as respects the Trojan people, because\nit has not been worth his while to work the delineation of them, in\nits details, up to his highest standard; yet we may rely upon his\ngeneral representations, and we are probably on secure ground in\ncontemplating all the main features of Trojan life and character as\nnot less deliberately drawn, than those of the Greeks. For, in truth,\nit was requisite, in order to give full effect among his countrymen to\nthe Greek portrait, that they should be able, at least up to a certain\npoint, to compare it with the Trojan.\n\n~_Moral superiority of his Greeks._~\n\nRegarding the subject from this point of view, I should say that Homer\nhas, upon the whole, assigned to the Greeks a moral superiority over\nthe Trojans, not less real, though less broad and more chequered, than\nthat which he has given them in the spheres of intellectual and of\nmilitary excellence. But, in all cases alike, he has pursued the same\nmethod of casting the balance. He eschews the vulgar and commonplace\nexpedient of a formal award: he decides this and every other question\nthrough the medium of action. The first thing, therefore, to be done\nis, to inquire into the morality of his contemporaries, as it is\nexhibited through the main action of the poems.\n\nIt is admitted on all hands that, in the ethical picture of the\nOdyssey, the distinctions of right and wrong are broad, clear, and\nconspicuous. But the case of the Iliad is not so simple. The conduct\nof Paris, which leads to the war, is so flagrant and vile, and the\nconduct of the Greeks in demanding the restoration of Helen before they\nresort to force, so just and reasonable, that it is not unnaturally\nmade matter of surprise that any war could ever have arisen upon such a\nsubject, except the war of a wronged and justly incensed people against\nmere ruffians, traitors, and pirates. The Trojans appear at first sight\nsimply as assertors of a wrong the most gross and aggravated, even in\nits original form; their iniquity is further darkened by obstinacy, and\ntheir cause is the cause of enmity to every law, human and divine. Yet\nthe Greeks do not assume to themselves, in connection with the cause of\nthe war, to stand upon a different level of morality: and the amiable\naffections, with the sense of humanity, if not the principles of honour\nand justice, are exhibited in the detail of the Iliad as prevailing\namong the Trojans, little less than among the Greeks.\n\nNow, let us first endeavour to clear away some misapprehensions that\nsimply darken the case: and after this let us inquire what exhibition\nHomer has really given us of the moral sense of the Greeks and the\nTrojans respectively, in connection with the crime of Paris.\n\nIn the first place, something is due to the falsification by later\npoets of the Homeric tradition: and to the reflex affiliation upon\nHomer of those traits which, through the influence first of the Cyclic\npoets, probably exaggerating the case in order to conceal their\nrelative want of strength, and then of the tragedians and Virgil,\nhave come to be taken for granted as genuine parts of the original\nportraiture.\n\nAccording to the Argument of the \u039a\u03cd\u03c0\u03c1\u03b9\u03b1 \u1f1c\u03c0\u03b7, as it has been handed down\nto us, Paris, having been received in hospitality by Menelaus, was left\nby him under the friendly care of his wife, on his setting out for\nCrete. He then corrupted Helen; and induced her, after being corrupted,\nto elope with him, and with the greater part of the moveable goods of\nMenelaus.\n\nUpon this tale our ideas have been formed, and, this being so, we\nmarvel why Homer does not make the Greeks feel more indignation at a\nproceeding which simply combined treachery, robbery, and adultery. As\nhe prizes so highly the rights of guests, and pitches their gratitude\naccordingly, we cannot understand how he should be so insensible to the\ngrossest imaginable breach of their obligations.\n\n~_Homer\u2019s account of the abduction._~\n\nHomer is here made responsible for that which, in part, he does not\ntell us, and which is positively, as well as inferentially, at variance\nwith what he does tell us. He tells us absolutely, that Helen was not\ninveigled into leaving Sparta, but carried off by force: and that the\ncrime of adultery was committed after, and not before, her abduction.\n\nThis difference alters the character of the deed of Paris, in a\nmanner by no means so insignificant according to the heroic standard\nof morality, as according to ours. As it seems plain from Homer\u2019s\nexpression, \u1f01\u03c1\u03c0\u03ac\u03be\u03b1\u03c2[408], that Paris carried off Helen in the first\ninstance by an act of violence, so also it is probable that, when\nthe first adultery was committed in the island of Cranae, he was her\nravisher much more than her corrupter. Her offence appears to have\nconsisted mainly in the mere acceptance, at what precise date we know\nnot, of the relation thus brought into existence between them, and in\ncompliances that with the lapse of time naturally followed, such as\nthe visit to the Trojan horse. It would have been, however, under all\nthe circumstances, an act of superhuman rather than of human virtue,\nif she had refused, through the long years of her residence abroad, to\nrecognise Paris as a husband: and accordingly the light, in which she\nis presented to us by the Poet, is that of a sufferer infinitely more\nthan of an offender[409].\n\n[408] Il. iii. 444.\n\n[409] See inf. Aoidos, sect. vi.\n\nWhen we regard Helen from this point of view, we perceive that Homer\u2019s\nnarrative is at least in perfect keeping with itself. The Greeks have\nmade war to avenge the wrongs of Helen not less than those of Menelaus:\nnay, Menelaus himself, the keenest of them all, is keen on her behalf\neven more than on his own[410]. He regards her as a person stolen from\nhim: and the Greeks regard Paris only as the robber.\n\n[410] Il. ii. 589.\n\nWe have no reason to suppose the Cyprian Epic to be a trustworthy\nsupplement to the narrative of Homer. We have seen some important\npoints of discrepancy from the Iliad. And there are others. For\ninstance, this poem makes Pollux immortal and Castor only mortal, while\nHomer acquaints us in the Iliad with the interment of both, and in the\nOdyssey with their restoration on equal terms to an alternate life. It\ngives Agamemnon four daughters, the Iliad but three. It brings Briseis\nfrom Pedasus, the Iliad brings her from Lyrnessus. And there is other\nmatter in the plot, that does not appear to correspond at all with the\nmodes of Homeric conception[411]. Had Homer told us the same story as\nthe Cyprian Epic, he would perhaps have made his countrymen express all\nthe indignation we could desire.\n\n[411] D\u00fcntzer, pp. 9-16. Fragm. iv. xi. xv.\n\nAnd now let us consider what is the view taken of the abduction in the\nIliad by the various persons whose sentiments are made known to us:\nand how far that view can be accounted for by the general tone of the\nage, or by what was peculiar to the character and institutions of each\npeople respectively.\n\nHelen herself nowhere utters a word of attachment or of respect to\nParis. Even of his passions she appears to have been the reluctant,\nrather than the willing instrument. She thinks alike meanly of his\nunderstanding[412] and of his courage[413]: and he shares[414] in the\nrebukes which she everywhere heaps upon herself; though, with the\ndelicacy and high refinement of her irresolute but gentle character,\nshe never reproaches him in the presence of his parents, by whom he\ncontinued to be loved.\n\n[412] Il. vi. 352.\n\n[413] Il. iii. 428-36, and vi. 351.\n\n[414] Il. vi. 356.\n\nTo the Trojan people he was unequivocally hateful[415]. They would have\npointed him out to Agamemnon, if they could: for they detested him like\nblack Death. It was by a mixture of bribery and the daring assertion\nof authority, that he checked those movements in the Assembly, which\nhad it for their object to enforce the restoration of Helen to\nMenelaus[416]. Of all his countrymen, Hector appears to have been most\nalive to his guilt, and is alone in reproaching him with it[417]. It is\nunder the influence of a sharp rebuke from Hector, that he proposes to\nundertake a single combat with Menelaus[418].\n\n[415] Il. iii. 453.\n\n[416] Il. vii. 354-64, and xi. 123.\n\n[417] Il. iii. 46-53.\n\n[418] Ibid. 68-75.\n\n~_The Greek estimate of Paris._~\n\nThe only persons on the Greek side, who utter any strong sentiment\nin respect to Paris, are Diomed and Menelaus. This is singular; for\nwhen we consider what was the cause of war, we might have expected,\nperhaps, that recurrence to it would be popular and constant among the\nGreeks. Nor is this all that may excite surprise. Diomed is unmeasured\nin vituperating Paris, but it is for his cowardice and effeminacy.\nThe only word, which comes at all near the subject of his crime, is\n\u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b8\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03c0\u1fd6\u03c0\u03b1: and by mocking him as a dangler after virgins, the brave\nson of Tydeus shows how small a place the original treachery of Paris\noccupied in his mind.\n\nMenelaus, indeed, has a keen sense of the specific nature and malignity\nof the outrage. He beseeches Jupiter to strengthen his hand against the\nman who has done such deadly wrong, not to him only, but to all the\nlaws which unite mankind:\n\n \u1f44\u03c6\u03c1\u03b1 \u03c4\u03b9\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c1\u03c1\u03af\u03b3\u1fc3\u03c3\u03b9 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f40\u03c8\u03b9\u03b3\u03cc\u03bd\u03c9\u03bd \u1f00\u03bd\u03b8\u03c1\u03ce\u03c0\u03c9\u03bd\n \u03be\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd\u03bf\u03b4\u03cc\u03ba\u03bf\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u03ba\u1f70 \u1fe5\u03ad\u03be\u03b1\u03b9, \u1f45 \u03ba\u03b5\u03bd \u03c6\u03b9\u03bb\u03cc\u03c4\u03b7\u03c4\u03b1 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03ac\u03c3\u03c7\u1fc3[419].\n\n[419] Ibid. 351-4.\n\nBut then Homer has already, in the Catalogue, introduced Menelaus to\nus as distinguished from the rest of his countrymen, by his greater\nkeenness to revenge the wrongs and groans of Helen[420]. Accordingly,\nthe injured husband returns on other occasions to the topic: calls the\nTrojans \u03ba\u03b1\u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03ba\u03cd\u03bd\u03b5\u03c2, and invokes upon them the anger of \u0396\u03b5\u1f7a\u03c2 \u03be\u03b5\u03af\u03bd\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2,\nthe Jupiter of hospitality[421];\n\n[420] Il. ii. 588-90.\n\n[421] Il. xiii. 620-7.\n\n \u03bf\u1f35 \u03bc\u03b5\u03c5 \u03ba\u03bf\u03c5\u03c1\u03b9\u03b4\u03af\u03b7\u03bd \u1f04\u03bb\u03bf\u03c7\u03bf\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03ba\u03c4\u1fc4\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1 \u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03bb\u1f70\n \u03bc\u1f70\u03c8 \u03bf\u1f34\u03c7\u03b5\u03c3\u03b8\u2019 \u1f00\u03bd\u03ac\u03b3\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2, \u1f10\u03c0\u03b5\u1f76 \u03c6\u03b9\u03bb\u03ad\u03b5\u03c3\u03b8\u03b5 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u2019 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1fc7.\n\nThus it is plain, that Menelaus resents not only a privation and an\nact of piracy, but a base and black breach of faith. It is quite\nplain, on the other hand, that in this respect he stands alone among\nhis countrymen. They, regarding the matter more crudely, and from a\ndistance, appear to see in it little beyond a violent abduction, which\nit is perfectly right, for those who can, to resent and retrieve, but\nwhich implies no extraordinary and damning guilt in the perpetrator.\n\nHence probably that singular appearance of apathy on the part of the\nGreeks, which might at first sight seem to entail on them a moral\nreproach, in some degree allied to that which justly attaches itself\nto the Trojan community. It is not possible, indeed, to take a full\nmeasure of their state of mind in regard to the crime of Paris,\nwithout condemning the views and propensities to which it was due.\nBut the causes were various: and the blame they may deserve is both\nvery different from that which must fall upon the Trojans, and is\nalso different in a mode, which may help to illustrate some main\ndistinctions in the two national characters.\n\nI speak here, as everywhere, of the adjustment of acts and motives\nin the poem as poetical facts, that is to say, as placed relatively\nto one another with care and accuracy in order to certain effects;\nand as liable to be tried under the law of effect, just as, in a\nsimple history, all particulars alleged are liable to be tried under\nthe law of fact. The assumption of truth or fable in the poem does\nnot materially widen or narrow the field of poetical discussion. The\ncritic looks for consistency as between motive and action, causes and\neffects, in the voyage to Lilliput or Laputa, as well as in Thucydides\nor Clarendon. The difference is that, in the one case, our discussion\nterminates with the genius of the inventor; in the other we are\nverifying the life and condition of mankind.\n\nIf then we admit the abduction, and inquire for what probable cause it\nis that the wrong, being so obvious and gross, was not more prominent\nin the mind of the people who had endured it, a part at least of the\nanswer is this. We do not require to go back three thousand years in\nthe history of the world in order to learn how often it happens that,\nwhen a conflict has arisen between nations, the original causes of\nquarrel tend irresistibly to become absorbed and lost in its incidents.\nAs long as honour and security are held to depend more on strength than\non right, relative strength must often prevail over relative right\nin the decision of questions, where the arbitrement of battle has\nbeen invoked. Both the willingness of the Trojans to restore, and the\nwillingness of the Greeks to accept the atonement, may be expedients of\nthe Poet to give a certain moral harmony to his work; of which it is\na marked feature that it artfully divides our sympathies throughout,\nso far at least as is needed for the interest of the poem. On the one\nside, the ambition and rapacity of Agamemnon may have induced him not\nonly not to seek, but even to decline or discourage accommodation;\nwhich, we may observe, he never promotes in the Iliad. Having got a\nfair cause of war, he may have been bent on making the most of it,\nand confident, as Thucydides believes he was, in his power to turn it\nto account. While, on the other hand, Troy was not so far from or so\nstrange to Greece, as to be exempt from the fear of appearing afraid;\nand, until it had become too late, she may have thought her safety\nwould be compromised by the surrender of Helen.\n\nHere may be reasons why restitution was neither given on the one side,\nnor steadily kept in view on the other: especially as it was of course\nincluded in the idea of the capture of the city. But it is not clear\nthat this was enough to account for the apathy of the Greeks in general\nwith respect to the crime of Paris, which we might have expected to\nfind a favourite and familiar topic with his enemies at large, instead\nof being confined, as it is, to the immediate sufferer by the wrong.\n\n~_Its relation to prevailing views of marriage._~\n\nNow, the answer to this question must after all be sought partly in\nthe prevalent ideas of the heroic age; and partly in those which were\npeculiar more or less to the Greek people.\n\nAccording to Christian morality, the abduction and appropriation of a\nmarried woman is not simply a crime when committed, but it is a crime\nthat is aggravated by every day, during which her relation with her\nseducer or ravisher is continued. This was not so in the heroic age.\n\nWe have examples in the poems of what Homer considers to be a continued\ncourse of crime. Such is the conduct of the Suitors in the Odyssey,\nwho for years together waste the substance of Ulysses, woo his wife,\noppress his son, and cohabit with the servants. This was habitual\ncrime, crime voluntarily and deliberately persevered in, when it might\nat any time have been renounced.\n\nThis vicious course of the Suitors is never called by Homer an \u1f04\u03c4\u03b7; it\nis described by the names of \u1f00\u03c4\u03b1\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03bb\u03af\u03b1\u03b9 and \u1f51\u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03b2\u03b1\u03c3\u03af\u03b7[422]. So likewise\nthe series of enormities committed by \u00c6gisthus, the corruption of\nClytemnestra, the murder of her husband, the expulsion of Orestes and\nprolonged usurpation of the throne; these are never called by the name\nof \u1f04\u03c4\u03b7; but \u1f04\u03c4\u03b7, and not one of the severer names quoted above, is the\nappellation always given by Homer to the crime of Paris.\n\n[422] Od. xxi. 146. xxiii. 67. xiii. 193. xxii. 64. See Olympus, sect.\nii. p. 162.\n\nThe \u1f04\u03c4\u03b7 of a man is a crime so far partaking of the nature of error,\nthat it is done under the influence of passion or weakness; perhaps\nexcluding premeditation, perhaps such that its consequences follow\nspontaneously in its train, without a new act of will to draw them,\nso that the act, when once committed, is practically irretrievable.\nSomething, according to Homer, was evidently wanting in the crime of\nParis, to sink it to the lower depths of blackness. Perhaps we may find\nit partly in the nature of marriage, as it was viewed by his age.\n\nHaving taken Helen to Troy, he made her his wife, and his wife she\ncontinued until the end of the siege. We should of course say he did\nnot make her his wife, for she was the wife of another man. But the\ndistinction between marriage _de facto_ and marriage _de jure_, clear\nto us in the light of Divine Revelation, was less clear to the age of\nHomer. Helen was to Paris the mistress of his household; the possessor\nof his affections, such as they were; the sole sharer, apparently,\nof his dignities and of his bed. To the mind of that period there\nwas nothing dishonourable in the connection itself, apart from its\norigin; while, to our mind, every day of its continuance was a fresh\naccumulation of its guilt. The higher wrong of wounded and defrauded\naffections was personal to Menelaus. In the aspect it presented to the\ngeneral understanding, the act of Paris, once committed, and sealed by\nthe establishment of the _de facto_ conjugal relation, remained an act\nof plunder and nothing else.\n\n~_And to Greek views of homicide._~\n\nTo comprehend these notions, so widely differing from our own, we may\nseek their further illustration by a reference to the established view\nof homicide. He, who had taken the life of a fellow creature, was\nbound to make atonement by the payment of a fine. If he offered that\natonement, it was not only the custom, but the duty, of the relations\nof the slain man to accept it. So much so, that the blunt mind of\nAjax takes this ground as the simplest and surest for argument with\nAchilles, whom he urges not to refuse reparation offered by Agamemnon,\nin consideration that reparation (\u03c0\u03bf\u03af\u03bd\u03b7) covers the slaughter of a\nbrother or a son. Beforehand, the Greek would have scorned to accept a\nprice for life. But, the deed being done, it came into the category of\nexchangeable values. Even so the abstraction of Helen, once committed,\nassumed for the common mind the character of an act of plunder,\ndiffering from the case of homicide, inasmuch as the thing taken could\nbe given back, but not differing from it as to the essence of its moral\nnature, however aggravated might have been the circumstances with which\nit was originally attended.\n\nNow, wherever the moral judgment against plunder has been greatly\nrelaxed, that of fraud in connection with it is sure to undergo a\nsimilar process; because, in the same degree in which acts of plunder\nare acquitted as lawful acquisition, fraud is sure to come into\ncredit by assuming the character of stratagem. We may, I think, find\nan example of this rule in the Thirteenth Odyssey; where, with an\nentire freedom from any consciousness of wrong, Ulysses feigns to have\nslaughtered Orsilochus at night by ambush, in consequence of a quarrel\nthat had previously occurred about booty[423].\n\n[423] Od. xiii. 258 et seqq.\n\nHere then we reach the point, at which we must take into view the\npeculiar ideas and tendencies of the Greek mind in the heroic age,\nas they bear necessarily upon its appreciation of an act like that\nof Paris. The Greeks, of whom we may fairly take Diomed as the type,\ndetest and despise him for affectation, irresolution, and poltroonery:\nthese are the ideas uppermost in their mind: we are not to doubt that,\nbesides seeking reparation for Menelaus, they condemned morally the\nact which made it needful; what we have to account for is, that they\ndid not condemn it in such a manner as to make this moral judgment the\nruling idea in their minds with regard to him.\n\nWe have seen that, according to Homer, instead of Helen\u2019s having been\noriginally the willing partner of the guilt of Paris, he was, under her\nhusband\u2019s roof, her kidnapper and not her corrupter. Her offence seems\nto have consisted in this, that she gave a half-willing assent to the\nconsequences of the abduction. Though never escaping from the sense of\nshame, always retaining along with a wounded conscience her original\nrefinement of character, and apparently fluctuating from time to time\nin an alternate strength and weakness of homeward longings[424], the\nspecific form of her offence, according to the ideas of the age, was\nrather the preterite one of unresisting acquiescence, than the fact\nof continuing to recognise Paris as a husband during the lifetime of\nMenelaus. It was the having changed her husband, not the living with a\nman who was not her husband; and hence we find that she was most kindly\ntreated in Troy by that member of the royal house, namely Hector, who\nwas himself of the highest moral tone.\n\n[424] See Il. iii. 139. Od. iv. 259-61.\n\nThe offence of Paris, though also (except as to the mere restitution\nof plundered goods) a preterite offence, was more complex. He violated\nthe laws of hospitality, as we find distinctly charged upon him by\nMenelaus[425]. He assumed the power of a husband over another man\u2019s\nwife. This he gained by violence. Now, paradoxical as it may appear,\nyet perhaps this very ingredient of violence, which we look upon as\neven aggravating the case, and which in the view of the Greeks was the\nproper cause of the war, (for their anxiety was to avenge the forced\njourney and the groans of Helen,) may nevertheless have been also the\nvery ingredient, which morally redeemed the character of the proceeding\nin the eyes of Greece. This it might do by lifting it out of the\nregion of mere shame and baseness, into that class of manful wrongs,\nwhich they habitually regarded as matters to be redressed indeed by\nthe strong hand, but never as merely infamous. Hence, when we find the\nGreeks full of disgust and of contempt towards Paris, it is only for\nthe effeminacy and poltroonery of character which he showed in the war.\nHis original crime was probably palliated to them by its seeming to\ninvolve something of manhood and of the spirit of adventure. So that we\nmay thus have to seek the key to the inadequate sense among the Greeks\nof the guilt of Paris in that which, as we have seen, was the capital\nweakness of their morality; namely, its light estimation of crimes of\nviolence, and its tendency to recognise their enterprise and daring as\nan actual set-off against whatever moral wrong they might involve.\n\n[425] Il. iii. 354.\n\nThe chance legend of Hercules and Iphitus, in the Odyssey, affords the\nmost valuable and pointed illustration of the great moral question[426]\nbetween Paris and Menelaus, which lies at the very foundation of the\ngreat structure of the Iliad. For in that case also, we seem to find\nan instance of abominable crime, which notwithstanding did not destroy\nthe character of its perpetrator, nor prevent his attaining to Olympus;\napparently for no other reason, than that it was a crime such as had\nprobably required for its commission the exercise of masculine strength\nand daring.\n\n[426] Vid. Od. xxi. 22-30.\n\nThere remained, however, even according to contemporary ideas, quite\nenough of guilt on the part of Paris. The abduction and corruption of\na prince\u2019s wife, combined with his personal cowardice, his constant\nlevity and vacillation, and his reckless indifference to his country\u2019s\ndanger and affliction, amply suffice to warrant and account for Homer\u2019s\nhaving represented him as a personage hated, hateful, and contemptible.\nBut while the foregoing considerations may explain the feelings and\nlanguage of the Greeks, otherwise inexplicable, there still remains\nenough of what at first sight is puzzling in the conduct, if not in the\nsentiments, of the Trojans.\n\n~_The Trojan estimate of Paris._~\n\nWe ask ourselves, how could the Trojans endure, or how could Homer\nrationally represent them as enduring, to see the glorious wealth and\nstate of Priam, with their own lives, families, and fortunes, put upon\nthe die, rather than surrender Helen, or support Paris in withholding\nher? The people hate him: the wise Antenor opens in public assembly the\nproposal to restore Helen to the Greeks: Hector, the prince of greatest\ninfluence, almost the actual governor of Troy, knew his brother\u2019s\nguilt, and reproached him with it[427]. How is it that, of all these\nelements and materials, none ever become effective?\n\n[427] Il. iii. 46-57.\n\nWe must, I think, seek the answer to the questions partly in the\ndifference of the moral tone, and the moral code, among Greeks and\nTrojans; partly in the difference of their political institutions.\n\nWe shall find it probable that, although the ostensible privileges\nof the people were not less, yet the same spirit of freedom did not\npervade Trojan institutions; that their kings were followed with a more\nservile reverence by the people; that authority was of more avail,\napart from rational persuasion; that amidst equally strong sentiments\nof connection in the family and the tribe, there was much less of moral\nfirmness and decision than among the Greeks, and perhaps also a far\nless close adherence to the great laws of conjugal union, which had\nbeen violated by the act of Paris. Indeed it would appear from the\nallusion of Hector to a tunic of stone[428], that Paris was probably by\nlaw subject to stoning for the crime of adultery: a curious remnant, if\nthe interpretation be a correct one, of the stern traits of pristine\njustice and severity, still remembered amidst a prevalent dissolution\nof the stricter moral ties.\n\n[428] Il. iii. 57.\n\nAlthough it results from our previous inquiries that the plebeian\n_substratum_, so to speak, of society, was perhaps nearly the same in\nboth countries, yet the opinions of the masses would not then have the\nsame substantiveness of character, nor so much independence of origin,\nas in times of Christianity, and of a more elaborate development of\nfreedom and its main conditions. Then, much more than now, the first\npropelling power in the formation of public opinion would be from the\nhigh places of society: and in the higher sphere of the community, if\nnot in the lower, Greece and Troy were, while ethnically allied, yet\nmaterially different as to moral tone. It is remarkable, that there is\nno \u03a4\u1f76\u03c2 in Troy.\n\n~_The Trojans more sensual and false._~\n\nIf we may trust the general effect of Homer\u2019s representations, we\nshall conclude that the Trojans were more given to the vices of\nsensuality and falsehood, the Greeks, on the other hand, more inclined\nto crimes of violence: in fact, the latter bear the characteristics of\na more masculine, and the former of a feebler, people. In the words\nof Mure, the contrast shadows forth \u2018certain fundamental features of\ndistinction, which have always been more or less observable, between\nthe European and Asiatic races[429].\u2019\n\n[429] Greek Lit. vol. i. p. 339.\n\nOn looking back to the previous history of Troy, we find that Laomedon\ndefrauded Neptune and Apollo of their stipulated hire: and Anchises\nsurreptitiously obtained a breed of horses from the sires belonging to\nLaomedon, who was his relative[430]. The conditions of the bargain,\nunder which Paris fought with Menelaus, are shamelessly and grossly\nviolated. Pandarus, in the interval of truce, treacherously aims at\nand wounds Menelaus with an arrow; but no Trojan disapproves the deed.\nEuphorbus comes behind the disarmed Patroclus, and wounds him in the\nback; and even princely Hector, seeing him in this condition, then only\ncomes up and dispatches him. That these were not isolated acts, we may\njudge from the circumstance that Menelaus, ever mild and fair in his\nsentiments, when he accepts the challenge of Paris, requires that Priam\nshall be sent for to conclude the arrangement, because his sons--and\nhe makes no exceptions--are saucy and faithless, \u1f51\u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03c6\u03af\u03b1\u03bb\u03bf\u03b9 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76\n\u1f04\u03c0\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03b9[431]. This must, I think, be taken as characteristic of Troy;\nthough he mildly proceeds to take off the edge of his reproach by a\n\u03b3\u03bd\u03ce\u03bc\u03b7 about youth and age. But the most scandalous of all the Trojan\nproceedings seems to have been the effort made, though unsuccessfully,\nto have Menelaus put to death, when he came on a peaceful mission to\ndemand the restoration of his wife[432].\n\n[430] Il. v. 269.\n\n[431] Il. iii. 105.\n\n[432] Il. xi. 139.\n\nNothing of this admiration for fraud apart from force appears either in\nthe conduct of the Greeks during the war, or in their prior history:\nand the passage respecting Autolycus, which, more than any other,\nappears to give countenance to knavery, takes his case out of the\ncategory of ordinary human action by placing it in immediate relation\nto a deity; so that it illustrates, not the national character as it\nwas, but rather the form to which the growing corruptions of religion\ntended to bring it. Yet, while Homer gives to the Trojans alone the\ncharacter of faithlessness, he everywhere, as we must see, vindicates\nthe intellectual superiority of the Greeks in the stratagems of the\nwar. And if, as I think is the case, I have succeeded in proving above\nthat the doctrine of a future state was less lively and operative among\nthe Trojans than among the Greeks, it is certainly instructive to view\nthat deficiency in connection with the national want of all regard\nfor truth. This difference teaches us, that the imprecations against\nperjurers, and the prospects of future punishment, were probably no\ncontemptible auxiliaries in overcoming the temptations to present\nfalseness, with which human life is everywhere beset.\n\nAs respects sensuality, the chief points of distinction are, that we\nfind a particular relation to this subject running down the royal line\nof Troy; and that, whereas in Greece we are told occasionally of some\nbeautiful woman who is seduced or ravished by a deity, in Troas we\nfind the princes of the line are those to whose names the legends are\nattached. The inference is, that in the former case a veil was thrown\nover such subjects, but that in the latter no sense of shame required\nthem to be kept secret. The cases that come before us are those of\nTithonus, who is said to become the husband of Aurora; of Anchises, for\nwhom Venus conceives a passion; and of Paris, on whom the same deity\nconfers the evil gift of desire[433], and to whom she promises the most\nbeautiful of women, the wife of Menelaus. All these are stories, which\nseem to have tended to the fame of the parties concerned on earth, and\nby no means to their discredit with the Immortals. And again, if, as\nsome may take to be the case, we are to interpret the three \u03bd\u03cd\u03bc\u03c6\u03b1\u03b9[434]\nof Troas as local deities, how remarkable is the fact that Homer should\nthus describe them as tainted with passions, which nowhere appear among\nthe corresponding order within the Greek circle! There, male deities\nalone are licentious. Juno, Minerva, Diana, and Persephone, whom alone\nwe can call properly Greek goddesses of the period, have no such impure\nconnection with mortals, as the goddesses both of the Trojan and of the\nPh\u0153nician traditions.\n\n[433] Il. xxiv. 30.\n\n[434] Sup. p. 162.\n\nWe hear indeed of Orion[435], who was also the choice of Aurora: but we\ncannot tell whether he belonged more to the Trojan than to the Greek\nbranch of the common stem. To the Greek race he cannot have been alien,\nas he is among Greek company in the Eleventh Odyssey: but then he is\nnot there as an object of honour; he appears in a state of modified\nsuffering, engaged in an endless chase[436]. We also find Iasion,\nprobably in Crete, who is reported to have been loved by Ceres[437]:\nbut he was immediately consumed for it by the thunderbolt of Jupiter.\nAnd so the detention of Ulysses by the beautiful and immortal Calypso\nis not in Homer a glory, but a calamity; and it allays none of the\npassionate longings of that hero for his wife and home.\n\n[435] Od. v. 121.\n\n[436] Od. xi. 572.\n\n[437] Od. v. 128.\n\nThe marked contrast, which these groups of incidents present, is\nperhaps somewhat heightened by the enthusiastic observation of the\nTrojan Elders on the Wall in the Third Iliad[438]. Though susceptible\nof a good sense, yet, when the old age of the persons is taken into\nview, the passage seems to be in harmony with the Trojan character at\nlarge, rather than the Greek: and perhaps it may bear some analogy\nto the licentious glances of the Suitors[439]. If so, it is very\nsignificant that Homer should assign to the most venerable elders\nof Troy, what in Greece he does not think of imputing except to\nlibertines, who are about to fall within the sweep of the divine\nvengeance.\n\n[438] Il. iii. 154-60.\n\n[439] Od. xviii. 160-212.\n\nThe difference between the races in this respect seems to have been\ndeeply rooted, for there is evidently some corresponding difference\nbetween their views and usages in respect to marriage.\n\n~_Trojan ideas and usages of marriage._~\n\nThe character of Priam, which has been so happily conceived by\nMure[440], undoubtedly bears on its very surface the fault of over\nindulgence, along with the virtues of gentleness and great warmth\nand keenness of the affections. But it may be doubted, whether the\npoems warrant our treating him as individually dissolute. His life\nwas a domestic life: but the family was one constructed according to\nOriental manners. According to those manners, polygamy and wholesale\nconcubinage were in some sense the privilege, in another view almost\nthe duty, of his station; confined, as these abuses must necessarily be\nfrom their nature (and as they even now are in Turkey), to the highest\nranks wherever they prevail. The household of Priam, notwithstanding\nhis diversified relations to women, is as regularly organized as that\nof Ulysses: and when he speaks of his vast family, constituted as it\nwas, he makes it known to Achilles, in a moment of agonizing sorrow,\nand evidently by way of lodging a claim for sympathy[441], though\nthe effect upon modern ears may be somewhat ludicrous. \u2018I had,\u2019 he\nsays, \u2018fifty sons: nineteen from a single womb: the rest from various\nmothers in my palace.\u2019 He might have added that he had also twelve\ndaughters[442], whom he probably does not need to mention on the\noccasion, as in this department he was not a bereaved parent.\n\n[440] Lit. Greece, vol. i. p. 341 and _seqq._\n\n[441] Il. xxiv. 493-7.\n\n[442] Il. vi. 248.\n\nHecuba, the mother of the nineteen, was evidently possessed of rights\nand a position peculiar to herself. The very passage last quoted\ndistinguishes her from the \u03b3\u03c5\u03bd\u03b1\u1fd6\u03ba\u03b5\u03c2, and throughout the poem she moves\nalone[443].\n\n[443] See particularly vi. 87 and seqq. 364 and seqq.\n\n~_The family of Priam._~\n\nOf the children of Priam we meet with a great number in various places\nof the poem.\n\nThere are, I think, five expressly mentioned as children of Hecuba.\n\n Hector, Il. vi. 87.\n Helenus, ibid.\n Laodice, vi. 252.\n Deiphobus, Il. xxii. 333.\n Paris, (because Hecuba was \u1f11\u03ba\u03c5\u03c1\u1f74 to Helen,) Il. xxiv.\n\nNext, we have two children of Laothoe, daughter of Altes, lord of the\nLelegians of Pedasus.\n\n Lycaon, Il. xxi. 84.\n Polydorus, ibid. 91.\n\nNext Gorgythion, son of Kastianeira, who came from Aisume, (Il. viii.\n302).\n\nThen we have, without mention of the mother,\n\n Agathon }\n Pammon } Il. xxiv.\n Antiphonos } 249-51.\n Hippothoos }\n Dios }\n Cassandra, xxiv. 699.\n Mestor, xxiv. 257.\n Troilos, Il. xxiv. 257.\n Echemmon[444], v. 159.\n Chromios[444], ibid.\n Antiphos, iv. 490. xi. 101.\n Cebriones, viii. 318.\n Polites, ii. 791.\n\n[444] Possibly one of these is \u03bd\u03cc\u03b8\u03bf\u03c2, illegitimate: for they are\ntogether in the same chariot, as Antiphus and Isus were. One of the\ntwo would be the charioteer; who was commonly, though not always, an\ninferior.\n\nAnd, lastly, illegitimate (\u03bd\u03cc\u03b8\u03bf\u03b9),\n\n Isos, Il. xi. 101.\n Doryclos, xi. 489.\n Democoon, iv. 499.\n Medesicaste, xiii. 173.\n\nThe most important conclusion derivable from the comparison of the\nnames thus collected is, that the children of Priam, and consequently\ntheir mothers, fell into three ranks:\n\n1. The children of Hecuba.\n\n2. The children of his other wives.\n\n3. The children of concubines, or of chance attachments, who were,\n\u03bd\u03cc\u03b8\u03bf\u03b9, bastards.\n\nThe name \u03bd\u03cc\u03b8\u03bf\u03c2 with Homer, at least among the Greeks, ordinarily marks\ninferiority of condition. The mothers of the four \u03bd\u03cc\u03b8\u03bf\u03b9 are never\nnamed. This may, however, be due to accident. At any rate Lycaon\nappears to have the full rank of a prince: he was once ransomed with\nthe value of a hundred oxen, and, when again taken, he promises thrice\nas much; again, in describing himself as the half-brother of Hector,\nhe avows nothing like spurious birth. The reference to him by Priam\nexplains his position more clearly, and places it beyond doubt that\nLaothoe was recognised as a wife, for she brought Priam a large\ndowry[445]; and if her sons be dead, says the aged king, \u2018it will be\nan affliction to me and to their mother.\u2019 The language used in another\npassage about Polydorus is also conclusive[446]. He is described as the\nyoungest and dearest of the sons of Priam, which evidently implies his\nbeing in the fullest sense a member of the family. Again, in the palace\nof Priam there were separate apartments, not for the nineteen only, but\nfor the fifty. Thus they seem to have included all the three classes.\nSo that it is probable enough that the state of illegitimacy did not\ndraw the same clear line as to rank in Troy, which it drew in Greece.\n\n[445] Il. xxii. 51, 3.\n\n[446] Il. xx. 407. xxi. 79, 95.\n\nLaothoe, mother of Lycaon and Polydorus, was a woman of princely rank:\nand when Lycaon says that Priam had many more besides her[447],\n\n[447] Il. xxi. 88.\n\n \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03b4\u2019 \u1f14\u03c7\u03b5 \u03b8\u03c5\u03b3\u03b1\u03c4\u03ad\u03c1\u03b1 \u03a0\u03c1\u03af\u03b1\u03bc\u03bf\u03c2, \u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03bb\u1f70\u03c2 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f04\u03bb\u03bb\u03b1\u03c2,\n\nhe probably means many more of the same condition, wives and other\nwell-born women, who formed part of his family.\n\nSo that Homer, in all likelihood, means to describe to us the threefold\norder,\n\n1. Hecuba, as the principal queen.\n\n2. Other wives, inferior but distinctly acknowledged.\n\n3. Either concubines recognised as in a position wholly subordinate, or\nwomen who were in no permanent relation of any kind with Priam.\n\nBeyond the case of Priam, we have slender means of ascertaining the\nusages and ideas of marriage among the Trojans. We have Andromache,\nwife of Hector; Helen, a sort of wife to Paris; Theano, wife to\nAntenor, and priestess of Minerva; who also took charge of and brought\nup his illegitimate son Ped\u00e6us[448]. The manner in which this is\nmentioned, as a favour to her husband, certainly shows that the mark\nof bastardy was not wholly overlooked, even in Troy. But, besides this\nPed\u00e6us, we meet in different places of the Iliad no less than ten\nother sons of Antenor, all, I think, within the fighting age. This is\nnot demonstrative, but it raises a presumption that some of them were\nprobably the sons of other wives than Theano; who is twice described as\nTheano of the blooming cheeks, and can hardly therefore be supposed to\nhave reached a very advanced period of life[449].\n\n[448] Il. v. 71.\n\n[449] Il. vii. 298. xi. 224.\n\nBut it is clear from the important case of Priam, even if it stands\nalone, that among the Trojans no shame attaches to the plurality of\nwives, or to having many illegitimate children, the birth of various\nmothers. It is possible that the manners of Troy, with regard to\npolygamy, were at this time the same (unless as to the reason given,)\nwith those which Tacitus ascribes to the Germans of his own day:\n_Singulis uxoribus contenti sunt; exceptis admodum paucis, qui, non\nlibidine, sed ob nobilitatem, plurimis nuptiis ambiuntur_[450]. We\nmust add to this, that Paris, in detaining as his wife the spouse of\nanother man still living, does an act of which we have no example,\nto which we find no approximation, in the Greek manners of the time.\nIts significance is increased, when we find that after his death she\nis given to Deiphobus: for this further union alters the individual\ntrait into one which is national. Her Greek longings, as well as her\nremorse for the surrender of her honour to Paris, afford the strongest\npresumption that the arrangement could hardly have been adopted\nto meet her own inclination; and that it must have been made for\nher without her choice, as a matter of supposed family or political\nconvenience.\n\n[450] Tac. Germ. c. 18.\n\nWe seem therefore to be justified in concluding that, as singleness\ndid not enter essentially into the Trojan idea of marriage, so neither\ndid the bond with them either possess or even approximate to the\ncharacter of indissolubility. The difference is very remarkable between\nthe horror which attaches to the first crime of \u00c6gisthus in Greece,\nthe corruption of Clytemnestra, though it was analogous to the act of\nParis, and the indifference of the Trojans to the offence committed\nby their own prince. We have no means indeed of knowing directly how\n\u00c6gisthus was regarded by the Greeks around him, during the period\nwhich preceded the return and murder of Agamemnon. But we find that\nJupiter, in the Olympian Court, distinctly describes his adultery as a\nsubstantive part of his sin[451];\n\n[451] Od. i. 35.\n\n \u1f61\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03bd\u1fe6\u03bd \u0391\u1f34\u03b3\u03b9\u03c3\u03b8\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f51\u03c0\u03ad\u03c1\u03bc\u03bf\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd \u1f08\u03c4\u03c1\u03b5\u03af\u03b4\u03b1\u03bf\n \u03b3\u1fc6\u03bc\u2019 \u1f04\u03bb\u03bf\u03c7\u03bf\u03bd \u03bc\u03bd\u03b7\u03c3\u03c4\u1f74\u03bd, \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03b4\u2019 \u1f14\u03ba\u03c4\u03b1\u03bd\u03b5 \u03bd\u03bf\u03c3\u03c4\u03ae\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1.\n\nAnd I think we may rest assured, that Jupiter never would give\nutterance on Olympus to any rule of matrimonial morality, higher than\nthat which was observed among the Greeks on earth.\n\nSo again, it was a specific part of the offence of the Suitors in\nthe Odyssey, that they sought to wed Penelope while her husband was\nalive[452]; that is to say, before his death was ascertained, though it\nwas really not extravagant to presume that it had occurred.\n\n[452] Od. xxii. 37.\n\n~_Stricter ideas among the Greeks._~\n\nFrom both these instances, and more especially from the last, we must,\nI think, reasonably conclude that the moral code of Greece was far\nmore adverse to the act of Paris, considered as an offence against\nmatrimonial laws, than the corresponding rule in Troy.\n\nIn connection with this topic, we may notice, how Homer has overspread\nthe Dardanid family, at the epoch of the war as well as in former\ntimes, with redundance of personal beauty. Of Paris we are prepared\nto hear it as a matter of course; but Hector has also the \u03b5\u1f36\u03b4\u03bf\u03c2\n\u1f00\u03b3\u03b7\u03c4\u03cc\u03bd[453]; and, even in his old age, the \u1f44\u03c8\u03b9\u03c2 \u1f00\u03b3\u03b1\u03b8\u1f74 of Priam was\nadmired by Achilles[454]. Deiphobus again is called \u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u03b5\u03af\u03ba\u03b5\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2 and\n\u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u03b5\u03b9\u03b4\u1f74\u03c2[455], and on two of Priam\u2019s daughters severally does Homer\nbestow the praise of being each the most beautiful[456] among them\nall. With this was apparently connected, in many of them, effeminacy,\nas well as insolence and falseness of character; for we must suppose\na groundwork of truth in the wrathful invective of their father, who\ndescribes his remaining sons as (Il. xxiv. 261.)\n\n[453] Il. xxii. 370.\n\n[454] Il. xxiv. 632.\n\n[455] Il. xii. 94. and Od. iv. 276. See also the case of Euphorbus, Il.\nxvii. 51.\n\n[456] The sense of \u1f04\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 in Homer, though emphatic, is not absolute.\n\n \u03c8\u03b5\u03c5\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u03af \u03c4\u2019 \u1f40\u03c1\u03c7\u03b7\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u03af \u03c4\u03b5, \u03c7\u03bf\u03c1\u03bf\u03b9\u03c4\u03c5\u03c0\u03af\u1fc3\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u1f04\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03b9,\n \u1f00\u03c1\u03bd\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f20\u03b4\u2019 \u1f10\u03c1\u03af\u03c6\u03c9\u03bd \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03b4\u03ae\u03bc\u03b9\u03bf\u03b9 \u1f01\u03c1\u03c0\u03b1\u03ba\u03c4\u1fc6\u03c1\u03b5\u03c2.\n\nAn invective, which completely corresponds with the Greek belief\nconcerning their general character in the Third Book[457]. The great\nGreek heroes are also beautiful; but their mere beauty, particularly in\nthe Iliad, is for the most part kept carefully in the shade.\n\n[457] Il. iii. 106.\n\n~_Trojan polity less highly organized._~\n\nWe will turn now to the political institutions of Troy. Less advanced\ntowards organization, and of a less firm tone than in Greece, they will\nhelp to explain how it could happen that a people should bear prolonged\ncalamity and constant defeat, and could pass on to final ruin, for the\nwicked and wanton wrong of an individual prince.\n\nIt has been noticed, that the idea of hereditary succession was\ndefinite, as well as familiar, in Greece. In Troy it appears to have\nbeen less so. And this is certainly what we might expect from the\nrecognition in any form, however qualified, of polygamy. It tends to\nconfound the position of any one wife, although supposed supreme, with\nthat of others; and in confounding the order of succession, as among\nthe issue of different wives, it altogether breaks up the simplicity of\nthe rule of primogeniture.\n\nAnd again, if, as we shall presently see, the Trojan race had a less\ndeveloped capacity for political organization, they would be less\nlikely to establish a clear rule and practice of succession, which is\na primary element of political order in well-governed countries.\n\nThe evidence as to the Asiatic rule of inheritance is, I admit,\nindirect and scanty: nor do I attempt to place what I have now to offer\nin a rank higher than that of probable conjecture.\n\n1. Sarpedon was clearly leader of the Lycians, with some kind of\nprecedence over Glaucus.\n\nThe general tenour of the poem clearly gives this impression. He speaks\nand acts as the person principally responsible[458]. But by birth he\nwas inferior to Glaucus; for he was the grandson of Bellerophon only\nin the female line through Laodamia, while Glaucus stood alone in the\nmale line through Hippolochus. I do not venture to rely much on the\nmere order of the names; and therefore I do not press the fact, which\nindeed is not needed for the argument, that it makes Laodamia junior\nto Hippolochus. It will be said that Sarpedon was in chief command,\nbecause he was of superior merit. But among the Greeks we have no\ninstance in which superior merit gives preeminence as against birth.\nAnd the reputation of divine origin clearly could not put aside the\nprior right of succession.\n\n[458] See Il. v. 482.\n\nAgain, both Sarpedon and Glaucus are both expressly called\n\u03b2\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03bb\u1fc6\u03b5\u03c2[459], kings. Now, they were first cousins, and they belonged\nto the same kingdom. Hippolochus was perhaps still alive[460]; for\nhe gave Glaucus a parting charge, and his death is not mentioned. In\nGreece we find the heir apparent called king, namely, Achilles: but\nthe title is never given to more than one person standing in the line\nof succession. A possible explanation, I think, is, that the Lycian\nkingdom had been divided[461]: but if this be not so, then the use of\nthe term seems to prove that in Asia all the children of the common\nancestor stood, or might stand, upon the same footing by birth: and as\nif it was left to other causes, instead of to a definite and single\nrule, to determine who should succeed to the throne.\n\n[459] Il. xii. 319.\n\n[460] Il. vi. 207.\n\n[461] Il. vi. 193.\n\n2. In a former part of this work[462], I have stated reasons for\nsupposing that \u00c6neas represented the elder branch of the house of\nDardanus. But, whether he did so or not, it is sufficiently clear from\nthe Iliad that he was not without pretensions to the succession. The\ndignity of his father Anchises is marked by his remaining at Dardania,\nand not appearing in the court of Priam. \u00c6neas habitually abstains\nfrom attending the meetings or assemblies for consultation, in which\nPriam, where they are civil, and Hector, where they are military,\ntakes the lead. Achilles taunts him expressly with looking forward to\nthe succession after the death of Priam, and with the anticipation of\npublic lands which he was to get from the Trojans forthwith, if he\ncould but slay the great Greek warrior. The particular succession, to\nwhich the taunt refers, is marked out; it is the dominion, not over the\nmere Dardanians, but over the \u03a4\u03c1\u1ff6\u03b5\u03c2 \u1f31\u03c0\u03c0\u03cc\u03b4\u03b1\u03bc\u03bf\u03b9[463]. In following down\nthe genealogy, \u00c6neas does not adhere to either of the two lines (from\nIlus and Assaracus respectively) throughout, as senior, and therefore\nsupreme; but, after putting the line of Ilus first in the earlier part\nof the chain, he places his own birth from Anchises before that of\nHector from Priam.\n\n[462] On the \u1f04\u03bd\u03b1\u03be \u1f00\u03bd\u03b4\u03c1\u1ff6\u03bd, see Ach\u00e6is, sect. ix.\n\n[463] xx. 180.\n\nApart from the question _which_ was the older line, the effect of all\nthese particulars, taken together, is to show an indeterminateness\nin the rule of succession, of which we have no indication among the\nGreeks. Even the incidental notice of the right of Priam to give it\nto \u00c6neas, if he pleased, is as much without example in anything Homer\ntells us of the Greek manners, as the corresponding power conferred by\nthe Parliament on the Crown in the Tudor period was at variance with\nthe general analogies of English history and institutions.\n\n~_Succession to the Throne of Priam._~\n\n3. The third case before us is one in the family of Priam itself. It\nappears extremely doubtful whether we can, upon the authority of the\npoems, confidently mark out one of his sons as having been the eldest,\nor as standing on that account in the line of succession to the throne\nof Priam. The evidence, so far as it goes, seems rather to point to\nParis; while the question lies between him and Hector.\n\nTheocritus[464] indeed calls Hector the eldest of the twenty children\nof Hecuba. But this is an opinion, not an authority; and the number\nnamed shows it to be unlikely that he was thinking of historic\naccuracy, for Homer says, Hecuba had nineteen sons, while she had also\nseveral daughters[465].\n\n[464] Idyll. xv. 139.\n\n[465] Il. xxiv. 496. vi. 252.\n\nThere can be no doubt whatever, that Hector was the most conspicuous\nperson, the most considerable champion of the city. He was charged\nexclusively with the direction of the war, and with the regulation of\nthe supplies necessary to feed the force of Trojans and of allies.\nPolydamas, who so often takes a different view of affairs, and\nSarpedon, when having a complaint to make, alike apply to him. \u00c6neas\nis the only person who appears upon the field in the same rank with\nhim, and he stands in a position wholly distinct from the family of\nPriam. As among the members of that family, there can be no doubt of\nthe preeminence of Hector. He was, indeed, in actual exercise of the\nheaviest part of the duties of sovereignty. \u00c6neas, in the genealogy,\nfinishes the line of Assaracus with himself; and, to all appearance,\nas not less a matter of course, the line of Ilus with Hector[466].\nAgain, the name Astuanax, conferred by the people on his son, appears\nto show that the crown was to come to him. But all this in no degree\nanswers the question, whether Hector held his position as probable\nking-designate by birth, or whether it was rather due to his personal\nqualities, and his great and unshared responsibilities and exertions.\nThere are several circumstances, which may lead us to incline towards\nthe latter alternative.\n\n[466] Il. xx. 240.\n\n(1.) When his parents and widow bewail his loss, it is the loss of\ntheir great defender and chief glory[467], not of one who by death had\nvacated the place of known successor to the sovereignty.\n\n[467] Il. xxii. 56, 433, 507. xxiv. 29.\n\n(2.) Had Hector been by birth assured of the seat of Priam, his right\nwould have been sufficient cause for giving to his son at once the\nname of Astuanax. But this we are told the people did for the express\nreason, that Hector was the only real bulwark of Troy. It seems\nunlikely that in such a case his character as heir by birth would have\nbeen wholly passed by. The name, therefore, appears to suggest, that it\nwas by proving himself the bulwark of the throne that Hector had become\nas it were the presumptive heir to it[468].\n\n[468] Il. vi. 402, and xxii. 506.\n\nWhen Hector takes his child in his arms, he prays, on the infant\u2019s\nbehalf, that he may become, like himself[469],\n\n[469] Il. vi. 477.\n\n \u1f00\u03c1\u03b9\u03c0\u03c1\u03b5\u03c0\u03ad\u03b1 \u03a4\u03c1\u03ce\u03b5\u03c3\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd,\n \u1f67\u03b4\u03b5 \u03b2\u03af\u03b7\u03bd \u03c4\u2019 \u1f00\u03b3\u03b1\u03b8\u1f78\u03bd, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f38\u03bb\u03af\u03bf\u03c5 \u1f36\u03c6\u03b9 \u1f00\u03bd\u03ac\u03c3\u03c3\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd\u00b7\n\nthat is, that he may become distinguished and valiant, and may mightily\nrule over the Trojans. This seems to point to succession by virtue of\npersonal qualities rather than of birth.\n\n~_Paris most probably the eldest-born._~\n\nThere are also signs that Paris, and not Hector, may have been the\neldest son of Priam, and may have had that feebler inchoate title to\nsuccession, which, in the day of necessity, his brother\u2019s superior\ncourage and character was to set aside.\n\nThis supposition accords better with the fact of his having had\ninfluence sufficient to cause the refusal of the original demand for\nthe restitution of Helen, peacefully made by the Greek embassy; and the\nendurance of so much evil by his country on his behalf.\n\nIt explains the fact of his having had a palace to himself on Pergamus;\na distinction which he shared with Hector only[470], for the married\nsons as well as daughters of Priam in general slept in apartments\nwithin the palace of their father[471]. And also it accords with his\noriginal expedition, which was evidently an affair of great pains and\ncost; and with his being plainly next in military rank to Hector among\nthe sons of Priam.\n\n[470] Il. vi. 313, 317, 370.\n\n[471] Ibid. 242-50.\n\nFurther, it would explain the fact, otherwise very difficult to deal\nwith, that alone among the children of Priam, Paris or Alexander is\nhonoured with the significant title of \u03b2\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03bb\u03b5\u03cd\u03c2. Helenus is called\n\u1f04\u03bd\u03b1\u03be, and Hector \u03c0\u03bf\u03af\u03bc\u03b7\u03bd \u03bb\u03b1\u1ff6\u03bd, but neither expression is of the same\nrank, or has a similar effect. This exclusive application of the term\n\u03b2\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03bb\u03b5\u1f7a\u03c2 is a very strong piece of evidence, if, as I believe to be\nthe case, it is nowhere else applied in the Iliad to a person thus\nselected, without indicating either the possession, or the hereditary\nexpectancy of a throne.\n\nAnd indeed, even if we could show that Homer had applied the name\n\u03b2\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03bb\u03b5\u1f7a\u03c2 to two brothers in one family, the result would be the\nsame, as far as the main argument is concerned, for there is no such\npronounced mark of equality found among brothers in any of the royal\nfamilies of Greece.\n\nAgain; in considering the law of succession among the Greeks, we have\nfound four cases in the Catalogue, where contingents were placed under\nthe command of two leaders seemingly co-ordinate; they are in every\ninstance brothers, and the four dual commands occur in a total of\ntwenty-nine. Or let us state the case in another form, so as to include\nthe cases of B\u0153otia and Elis. Among sixteen Trojan contingents, there\nare but six where the chief authority is plainly in a single hand; out\nof twenty-nine Greek contingents, there are twenty-three, and, of the\nremaining six, four are the cases of brothers. This fact is material,\nas tending to show a looser and less effective military organization in\nthe ranks of the Trojans and their allies, than in those of the Greeks;\na circumstance which does not prove, but which harmonizes with, the\nhypothesis that they were wanting also in a defined order of succession\nto the seat of political power.\n\nThere are other reasons, immediately connected with Hector, for\nsupposing that Homer intended to represent Paris as older than his\nbrother[472]. Paris had been in manhood for at least twenty years,\naccording to the letter of the poem, which must at least represent a\nlong period of time. But Hector has one child only, a babe in arms,\nwhich is in itself a presumption of his being less advanced in life.\nAgain, we must suppose his age probably to be not very different from\nthat of Andromache. But it is quite plain that she was a young mother;\nsince after the slaughter of Eetion, her father, Achilles shortly\ntook a ransom for her mother, who thereupon went back to the house of\nher own father, Andromache\u2019s maternal grandfather, and subsequently\ndied there[473]. If then the grandfather of Andromache was alive when\nThebe was taken, and Hector\u2019s age was in due proportion to her own,\nhe must in all likelihood have been younger than Paris. Again, it may\nbe noticed that the term \u1f25\u03b2\u03b7 is nowhere ascribed to Paris, but it is\nassigned to Hector at his death[474]. Notwithstanding its complimentary\nuse for Ulysses in Od. viii. 135, that word has a certain leaning to\nearly life. But we have a stronger, and indeed I think a conclusive\nargument in the speech of Andromache after his death[475];\n\n[472] Il. xxiv. 765.\n\n[473] Il. vi. 426-8.\n\n[474] Il. xxii. 363.\n\n[475] Il. xxiv. 725.\n\n \u1f06\u03bd\u03b5\u03c1, \u1f00\u03c0\u2019 \u03b1\u1f30\u1ff6\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 \u03bd\u03ad\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f64\u03bb\u03b5\u03bf.\n\nThus he is distinctly called young. And we may consider it almost\ncertain, under these circumstances, that Paris was the first-born son\nof Priam[476], but that his right of succession oozed away like water\nfrom a man\u2019s hand.\n\n[476] Possibly Horace meant to convey this opinion in the words _Quid\nParis? ut salvus regnet, vivatque beatus, Cogi posse negat_. Epist. I.\nii. 10.\n\nThe relations of race between the Trojans and the Greeks have already\nbeen examined, in connection with the great Homeric title of \u1f04\u03bd\u03b1\u03be\n\u1f00\u03bd\u03b4\u03c1\u1ff6\u03bd[477]; under some difficulties, which resolve themselves into\nthis, that Homer, on almost every subject so luminous a guide, is in\nall likelihood here, as it were, retained on the side of silence; and\nthat we have no information, except such as he accidentally lets fall.\nBut he was under no such preoccupation with regard to the institutions\nof Troy; so that, while he had no occasion for the same amount of\ndetail as he has given us with reference to the Greeks, or the same\nminute accuracy as he has there observed, enough appears to supply a\ntolerably clear and consistent outline.\n\n[477] Ach\u00e6is, sect. ix. p. 492.\n\nWe have been accustomed too negligently to treat the Homeric term Troy,\nas if it designated only or properly a single city. But in Homer it\nmuch more commonly means a country, with the city sometimes called Troy\nfor its capital, and containing many other cities beside it. The proper\nname, however, of the city in the poems is \u1f3c\u03bb\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2, not \u03a4\u03c1\u03bf\u03af\u03b7. Ilios\nis used above an hundred and twenty times in the Iliad and Odyssey,\nand always strictly means the city. The word \u03a4\u03c1\u03bf\u03af\u03b7 is used nearly\nninety times, and in the great majority of cases it means the country.\nOften it has the epithets \u03b5\u1f50\u03c1\u03b5\u1fd6\u03b1, \u1f10\u03c1\u03af\u03b2\u03c9\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2, \u1f10\u03c1\u03b9\u03b2\u03ce\u03bb\u03b1\u03be, which speak for\nthemselves. But more commonly it is without an epithet; and then too it\nvery generally means the country. When the Greeks speak, for example,\nof the voyage \u03a4\u03c1\u03bf\u03af\u03b7\u03bd\u03b4\u03b5, this is the natural sense, rather than to\nsuppose it means a city not on the sea shore, and into which, till the\nend of the siege, they did not find their way at all[478].\n\n[478] One only of the epithets of the word Ilios seems to point out\nthat it may too mean the district. It is \u03b5\u1f54\u03c0\u03c9\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2, used Il. v. 551, and\nin four other places.\n\n~_Priam and his dynasty in Troas._~\n\nAccording to the genealogical tree in the Twentieth Iliad, Dardanus\nbuilt Dardania among the mountains: his son Erichthonius became\nwealthy by possessions in the plain; and Tros, the son of Erichthonius,\nwas the real founder of the Trojan state and name[479].\n\n[479] Il. xx. 230.\n\n \u03a4\u03c1\u1ff6\u03b1 \u03b4\u2019 \u1f18\u03c1\u03b9\u03c7\u03b8\u03cc\u03bd\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c4\u03ad\u03ba\u03b5\u03c4\u03bf \u03a4\u03c1\u03ce\u03b5\u03c3\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u1f04\u03bd\u03b1\u03ba\u03c4\u03b1.\n\nThus the name of Troes at that time covered the whole race. But the\ntown of Ilios must, from its name, have been built not earlier than\nthe time of Ilus, the son of Tros. And now the dynasty separates into\ntwo lines, as Assaracus, the brother of Ilus, continues to reign in\nDardania. Thus the local existence of the Dardanian name is prolonged;\nfor it is plain that the Dardanian throne was associated, at least in\ndignity, with a rival, and not a subordinate, sovereignty. Still it\ndoes not extend beyond the hills. It was over these that \u00c6neas fled\nfrom Achilles[480]. But even the Dardanians did not wholly cease to be\nknown by the appellation of Trojans; for not only does Homer frequently\nuse the dominant name Troes for the entire force opposed to the Greeks,\nwhich is naming the whole from the principal part, but he also uses the\nword Troes to signify all that part of the force, which was under the\nhouse of Dardanus in either branch; and he distinguishes this portion\nfrom the rest of the force described under the name \u1f10\u03c0\u03af\u03ba\u03bf\u03c5\u03c1\u03bf\u03b9, at the\nopening of the Trojan Catalogue:\n\n[480] Ibid. 189.\n\n \u1f14\u03bd\u03b8\u03b1 \u03c4\u03cc\u03c4\u03b5 \u03a4\u03c1\u1ff6\u03ad\u03c2 \u03c4\u03b5 \u03b4\u03b9\u03ad\u03ba\u03c1\u03b9\u03b8\u03b5\u03bd, \u1f20\u03b4\u2019 \u1f10\u03c0\u03af\u03ba\u03bf\u03c5\u03c1\u03bf\u03b9[481].\n\n[481] Il. ii. 815. So likewise Il. vi. 111. xiii. 755. xvii. 14. xviii.\n229.\n\nThis line is followed by an account of the whole force opposed to the\nGreeks, in sixteen divisions. Of these the eleven last bear each their\nown national name, beginning with the Pelasgians of Larissa, and ending\nwith the Lycians; and they are under leaders, whom the whole course\nof the poem marks as not being Trojan, but independent. These eleven\nevidently were the \u1f10\u03c0\u03af\u03ba\u03bf\u03c5\u03c1\u03bf\u03b9 of ver. 815.\n\nThe five first contingents are introduced and commanded as follows:\n\n1. Troes under Hector[482]:\n\n[482] Ver. 816.\n\n \u03a4\u03c1\u03c9\u03c3\u1f76 \u03bc\u1f72\u03bd \u1f21\u03b3\u03b5\u03bc\u03cc\u03bd\u03b5\u03c5\u03b5 \u03bc\u03ad\u03b3\u03b1\u03c2 \u03ba\u03bf\u03c1\u03c5\u03b8\u03b1\u03af\u03bf\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f1d\u03ba\u03c4\u03c9\u03c1.\n\n2. Dardanians, under \u00c6neas, with two of the (ten) sons of Antenor,\nArchelochus and Acamas, for his colleagues[483]:\n\n[483] Ver. 819.\n\n \u0394\u03b1\u03c1\u03b4\u03b1\u03bd\u03af\u03c9\u03bd \u03b1\u1f56\u03c4\u2019 \u1f26\u03c1\u03c7\u03b5\u03bd \u1f10\u1fe2\u03c2 \u03c0\u03b1\u1fd6\u03c2 \u1f08\u03b3\u03c7\u03af\u03c3\u03b1\u03bf.\n\n3. Trojans of Zelea, at the extreme spur of Ida, under Pandarus[484]:\n\n[484] Ver. 824-6.\n\n \u03bf\u1f33 \u03b4\u1f72 \u0396\u03ad\u03bb\u03b5\u03b9\u03b1\u03bd \u1f14\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd \u1f51\u03c0\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c0\u03cc\u03b4\u03b1 \u03bd\u03b5\u03af\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd \u1f3c\u03b4\u03b7\u03c2\n \u03a4\u03c1\u1ff6\u03b5\u03c2.\n\n4. People of Adresteia and other towns, under Adrestus and Amphius,\nsons of Merops of Percote[485]:\n\n[485] Ver. 828.\n\n \u03bf\u1f33 \u03b4\u2019 \u1f08\u03b4\u03c1\u03ae\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03b9\u03ac\u03bd \u03c4\u2019 \u03b5\u1f36\u03c7\u03bf\u03bd, \u03ba. \u03c4. \u03bb.\n\n5. People of Percote and other towns, under Asius:\n\n \u03bf\u1f33 \u03b4\u2019 \u1f04\u03c1\u03b1 \u03a0\u03b5\u03c1\u03ba\u03ce\u03c4\u03b7\u03bd, \u03ba. \u03c4. \u03bb.\n\nAnd then begins the enumeration of the Allies, each under their\nrespective national names.\n\nIt seems evident, that these five first-named contingents comprise the\nwhole of the subjects of the race of Dardanus. First come the Trojans\nof the capital and its district, under Hector. Then, taking precedence\non account of dignity, the Dardanian division of \u00c6neas. In the third\ncontingent the Poet returns to the name Troes, which, I think, plainly\nenough overrides the fourth and fifth, just as in the Greek Catalogue\nthe name Pelasgic Argos[486] introduces and comprehends a number of\ncontingents that follow, besides that of Achilles.\n\n[486] ii. 681.\n\nThere are several reasons, which tend plainly to this conclusion.\nThe sense of \u03b4\u03b9\u03ad\u03ba\u03c1\u03b9\u03b8\u03b5\u03bd (815) and the reference to the diversity of\ntongues spoken (804) almost require the division of the force between\nTroes and allies; it is also the most natural division. The fourth\nand fifth contingents are not indeed expressly called Troes, but this\nname, already given to the third, may include them. We must, I think,\nconclude that it does so, when we find clear proof that they were\nnot independent national divisions: for the troops of Percote were\nin the fifth, but the sons of Percosian Merops command the fourth, a\nfact inexplicable if these were the forces of independent States, but\nnatural enough if they were all under the supremacy of Priam and his\nhouse.\n\nIn the great battle of the Twelfth Iliad, the Trojans are \u03c0\u03ad\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03c7\u03b1\n\u03ba\u03bf\u03c3\u03bc\u03b7\u03b8\u03ad\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 (xii. 87). Sarpedon commands the allies with Glaucus\nand Asterop\u00e6us (v. 101), thus accounting for eleven of the sixteen\ndivisions in the Catalogue. \u00c6neas, with two sons of Antenor, commands\nthe Dardanians, thus disposing of a twelfth. Again, Hector, with\nPolydamas and Cebriones, commands the \u03c0\u03bb\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03b9 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f04\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03b9, evidently\nthe division standing first in the Catalogue. This makes the number\nthirteen. The three remaining contingents of the Catalogue are\n\n 1. Zelean Troes, under Pandarus, (since slain,) Il. ii. 824-7.\n\n 2. Adresteans &c. under Adrestus and Amphius, (828-34,) both slain,\n Il. v. 612. vi. 63.\n\n 3. Percotians &c. under Asius (835-9).\n\nThese three remaining divisions of the Catalogue evidently reappear\nin the second and third of the five Divisions of the Twelfth Book.\nThe Second is under Paris, with Alcathous, son-in-law of Antenor, and\nAgenor, one of his sons. In the command of the Third, Helenus and\nDeiphobus, two sons of Priam, are associated with, and even placed\nbefore, Asius. The position given in these divisions to the family of\nPriam appears to prove, that the troops forming them were among his\nproper subjects.\n\nAgain, the territorial juxtaposition of these districts, between\nPhrygia, which lay behind the mountains of Ida, on the one side, and\nthe sea of Marmora with the \u00c6g\u00e6an on the other, perfectly agrees with\nthe description in the Twenty-fourth Iliad[487] of the range of country\nwithin which Priam had the preeminence in wealth, and in the vigour and\ninfluence of his sons. Strabo quotes this passage as direct evidence\nthat Priam reigned over the country it describes, which is rather more\nthan it actually states; and he says that Troas certainly reached to\nAdresteia and to Cyzicus.\n\n[487] Il. xxiv. 543-5.\n\nAgain, we have various signs in different passages of a political\nconnection between the towns we have named and the race of Priam.\nMelanippus, his nephew, was employed before the war at Percote[488].\nDemocoon[489], his illegitimate son, tended horses at Abydus;\ndoubtless, says Strabo[490], the horses of his father.\n\n[488] Il. xv. 548.\n\n[489] Il. iv. 99.\n\n[490] P. 585.\n\nThe partial inclusion of the Dardanians within the name of Troes is\nfurther shown by the verse[491],\n\n[491] Il. xiii. 463.\n\n \u0391\u1f30\u03bd\u03b5\u03af\u03b1, \u03a4\u03c1\u03ce\u03c9\u03bd \u03b2\u03bf\u03c5\u03bb\u03b7\u03c6\u03cc\u03c1\u03b5\u00b7\n\nand by the appeal of Helenus to \u00c6neas and Hector jointly, as the\npersons chiefly responsible for the safety of the Troes and Lycians:\nthe name Lycians being taken here, as in some other places[492], to\ndenote most probably a race akin to and locally interspersed with the\nTrojans.\n\n[492] See Il. iv. 197, 207. xv. 485.\n\nBut the Dardanians have more commonly their proper designation\nseparately given them. It never includes the Troes. And we never find\nthe two appellations, Troes and Dardans, covering the entire force.\nWhenever the Dardans are named with the Troes, there is also another\nword, either \u1f10\u03c0\u03af\u03ba\u03bf\u03c5\u03c1\u03bf\u03b9, or \u039b\u03cd\u03ba\u03b9\u03bf\u03b9.\n\nThe word Troes, it is right to add, is sometimes confined strictly to\nthe inhabitants of the city: but the occasions are rare, and perhaps\nalways with contextual indications that such is the sense.\n\nAnother sign that Priam exercised a direct sovereignty over the\nterritory which yielded the five contingents may perhaps be found in\nthe fact, that we do not find any of his nephews in command of them.\nThey were led by their local officers, while the brothers of Priam\nconstituted a part of the community of Troy, and chiefly influenced the\nAssembly: and their sons, though apparently more considerable persons\nthan most of those local officers in general, simply appear as acting\nunder Hector without special command. The brothers of Priam are Lampus,\nClytius, and Hiketaon. His nephews and other relatives are Dolops the\nson of Lampus; Melanippus the son of Hiketaon; Polydamas, Hyperenor,\nand Euphorbus, the sons of Panthous and his wife Phrontis.\n\nHad the senior members of the family held local sovereignties, we\nshould have found their sons in local commands. But we find only two\nsons of Antenor in command, as either colleagues or lieutenants of\n\u00c6neas, over the Dardans, whom we have no reason to suppose they had\nany share in ruling.\n\nStrabo, indeed, contends, that there are nine separate \u03b4\u03c5\u03bd\u03b1\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u1fd6\u03b1\u03b9\nimmediately connected with Troy[493], besides the \u1f10\u03c0\u03af\u03ba\u03bf\u03c5\u03c1\u03bf\u03b9. Of these\nstates one he thinks was Lelegian, and was ruled over by Altes,\nfather of Laothoe, one of Priam\u2019s wives. Another by Munes, husband of\nBriseis. Another, Thebe, by Eetion, father of Andromache. Others he\nconsiders to be represented by Anchises and Pandarus: but this does\nnot well agree with the structure of the Catalogue. He refers also\nto Lyrnessus and Pedasus; which are nowhere mentioned by Homer as\nfurnishing contingents, but they had apparently been destroyed, as well\nas taken, by Achilles. He places several of the dynasties in cities\nthus destroyed: and they all, according to him, lay beyond the limits\nmarked out in the Twenty-fourth Iliad.\n\n[493] Strabo xiii. 7. p. 584.\n\nThis assemblage of facts appears to point to a very great diversity of\nrelations subsisting between Priam, with his capital, and the states,\ncities, and races, of which we hear as arrayed on his side in the war.\nThere are first the cities of Troas, or Troja proper, furnishing the\nfive, or if we except Dardania four out of the five, first contingents\nof the Catalogue. Over these Priam was sovereign.\n\nThere are next the cities, so far as they can be traced, under the\n\u03b4\u03c5\u03bd\u03b1\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u1fd6\u03b1\u03b9 mentioned by Strabo, such as Thebe, and the cities of Altes\nand Munes. These were probably in the same sort of relation to the\nsceptre of Priam, as the Greek states in general to that of Agamemnon.\n\nThirdly, there are the independent nations. Of these eleven named\nin the Catalogue; others are added as newly arrived in the Tenth\nBook[494], and further additions were subsequently made, such as the\nforce under Memnon, and the Keteians under Eurypylus[495]. Nothing\nperhaps tends so much, as the powerful assistance lent to Priam by\nnumerous and distant allies, to show how justly in substance Horace has\ndescribed the Trojan war as the conflict between the Eastern and the\nWestern world. The two confederacies, which then came into collision,\nbetween them absorbed the whole known world of Homer; and foreshadowed\nthe great conflicts of later epochs.\n\n[494] Il. x. 428-30.\n\n[495] Od. xi. 519-22.\n\n~_Political institutions of Troy._~\n\nWe may now proceed to consider the political institutions of the\nkingdom of Priam, which has thus loosely been defined.\n\nThe \u0392\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03bb\u03b5\u1f7a\u03c2 of the Trojans is less clearly marked, than he is among\nthe Greeks: for (as we shall find) they had no \u0392\u03bf\u03c5\u03bb\u1f74, and therefore we\nhave not the same opportunities of seeing the members of the highest\nclass collected for separate action in the conduct of the war. Still,\nhowever, the name is distinctly given to the following persons on the\nTrojan side, and to no others.\n\n 1. Priam, Il. v. 464, xxiv. 630.\n 2. Paris, iv. 96.\n 3. Rhesus, x. 435.\n 4. Sarpedon, xii. 319. xvi. 660.\n 5. Glaucus, xii. 319.\n\nAmong the Trojans, as among the Greeks, it was the custom for the\nkings, as they descended into the vale of years, to devolve the more\nactive duties of kingship on their children, and to retain, perhaps\nonly for a time, those of a sedentary character. Hence Hector at least\nshares with Priam the management of Assemblies, as it is he[496] who\ndissolves that of the Second Book, and calls the military one of the\nEighth. Hence, too, he speaks of himself as the person responsible for\nthe burdens entailed by the war upon the Trojans. \u2018I did not,\u2019 he says\nto the allies, \u2018bring you from your cities to multiply our numbers,\nbut that you might defend for me the wives and children of Trojans;\nwith this object in view, I exhaust the people for your pay and\nprovisions[497].\u2019 Hence we have \u00c6neas leading the Dardanians, while his\nfather Anchises nowhere appears, and, as it must be presumed, remains\nin his capital. Hence, while ten or twelve sons of Antenor bear arms\nfor Troy, and two of them are the colleagues of \u00c6neas in the command of\nthe Dardanian contingent, their father appears among the \u03b4\u03b7\u03bc\u03bf\u03b3\u03ad\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2,\nwho were chief speakers in the Assembly within the city. We do not know\nthat Antenor was a king; more probably he held a lordship subordinate\nto Priam, in a relation somewhat more strict than that between\nAgamemnon and the Greek chieftains, and rather resembling that between\nPeleus and Men\u0153tius; but the same custom of partial retirement seems to\nhave prevailed in the case of subaltern rulers, as indeed it would be\ndictated by the same reasons of prudence and necessity.\n\n[496] Il. ii. 808. viii. 489.\n\n[497] Il. xvii. 223-6.\n\nThe \u03b2\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03bb\u03ae\u03ca\u03c2 \u03c4\u03b9\u03bc\u1f74 of Troy was not, any more than those of Greece, an\nabsolute despotism. In Troy, as in Greece, the public affairs were\ndiscussed and settled in the Assemblies, though with differences, which\nwill be noticed, from the Greek manner of procedure. It was in the\nAssembly that Iris, disguised as Polites, addressed Priam and Hector to\nadvise a review of the army[498]. And it was again in an Assembly that\nAntenor proposed, and that Paris refused, to give up Helen: whereupon\nPriam proposed the mission of Id\u00e6us to ask for a truce with a view to\nthe burial of the dead, and the people assented to the proposal[499];\n\n[498] Il. ii. 795.\n\n[499] Il. vii. 379.\n\n \u03bf\u1f31 \u03b4\u2019 \u1f04\u03c1\u03b1 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03bc\u03ac\u03bb\u03b1 \u03bc\u1f72\u03bd \u03ba\u03bb\u03cd\u03bf\u03bd \u1f20\u03b4\u2019 \u1f10\u03c0\u03af\u03b8\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf.\n\nIt was in the Assembly, too, that those earlier proposals had been\nmade, of which the same personage procured the defeat by corruption.\n\nLastly, in the Eighth Book, Hector[500], as we have seen, holds a\nmilitary \u1f00\u03b3\u03bf\u03c1\u1f74 of the army by the banks of the Scamander. At this he\ninvites them to bivouac outside the Greek rampart, and they accept\nhis proposal by acclamation. This Assembly on the field of battle is\nan argument _a fortiori_ to show, that ordinary affairs were referred\namong the Trojans to such meetings. We have, indeed, no detail of any\nTrojan Assembly except these three. But we have references to them,\nwhich give a similar view of their nature and functions. Id\u00e6us, on his\nreturn, announces to the Assembly that the truce is granted[501]. It\nis plain that the restoration of Helen was debated before, as well as\nduring the war, in the Assembly of the people; because Agamemnon slays\nthe two sons of Antimachus on the special ground that the father had\nthere proposed that Menelaus, if not Ulysses, should be murdered[502],\nwhen they came as Envoys to Troy, for the purpose of demanding her\nrestoration. This Antimachus was bribed by Paris, as the Poet tells us,\nto oppose the measure[503]. Again, Polydamas, in one of his speeches,\ncharges Hector with having used him roughly, when he had ventured\nto differ from him in the Assemblies, upon the ground that he ought\nnot, as a stranger to the Trojan \u03b4\u1fc6\u03bc\u03bf\u03c2, to promote dissension among\nthem[504].\n\n[500] Il. viii. 489, 542.\n\n[501] Il. vii. 414-7.\n\n[502] Il. xi. 138.\n\n[503] Ibid. 123.\n\n[504] Il. xii. 211-14.\n\nTrojan institutions do not, then, present to our view a greater\nelevation of the royal office. On the contrary, it is remarkable, that\nthe title of \u03b4\u03b7\u03bc\u03bf\u03b3\u03ad\u03c1\u03c9\u03bd, which Homer applies to the chief speakers of\nthe Trojan Assembly, not being kings, is also used by him to describe\nIlus the founder of the city[505]. It is, however, possible, perhaps\neven likely, that this title may be applied to Ilus as a younger son,\nif his brother Assaracus was the eldest and the heir[506].\n\n[505] Il. xi. 37.\n\n[506] Il. xx. 232.\n\nBut although it thus appears that monarchy was limited in Troy, as it\nwas in Greece, and that public affairs were conducted in the assemblies\nof the people, the method and organization of these Assemblies was\ndifferent in the two cases.\n\n1. The guiding element in the Trojan government seems to have been age\ncombined with rank; while among the Greeks, wisdom and valour were\nqualifications, not less available than age and rank.\n\n2. The Greeks had the institution of a \u03b2\u03bf\u03c5\u03bb\u1f74, which preceded and\nprepared matter for their Assemblies. The Trojans had not.\n\n3. The Greeks, as we have seen, employed oratory as a main instrument\nof government; the Trojans did not.\n\n4. The aged members of the Trojan royal family rendered their aid to\nthe state, not as counsellors of Priam in private meetings, but only in\nthe Assembly of the people.\n\nA few words on each of these heads.\n\n~_The greater weight of Age in Troy._~\n\n1. The old men who appear on the wall with Priam, in the Third Book,\nare really old, and not merely titular or official \u03b3\u03ad\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2; they\nare[507],\n\n[507] Il. iii. 150.\n\n \u03b3\u03ae\u03c1\u03b1\u03ca \u03b4\u1f74 \u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03ad\u03bc\u03bf\u03b9\u03bf \u03c0\u03b5\u03c0\u03b1\u03c5\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9.\n\nThere are no less than seven of them, besides Priam. Three are his\nbrothers, Lampus, Clytius, Hiketaon; the others probably relatives,\nwe know not in what precise degree: Panthous, Thym\u0153tes, Ucalegon,\nAntenor. They are called collectively the \u03a4\u03c1\u03ce\u03c9\u03bd \u1f21\u03b3\u03ae\u03c4\u03bf\u03c1\u03b5\u03c2, as well as\nthe \u1f00\u03b3\u03bf\u03c1\u03b7\u03c4\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f10\u03c3\u03b8\u03bb\u03bf\u03af; and they were manifestly habitual speakers in the\nAssembly.\n\nThere is nothing in the Greek life of the Homeric poems that comes near\nthis aggregation of aged men. Now we have no evidence, that their being\nthus collected was in any degree owing to the war. Theano, wife of\nAntenor, was priestess of Minerva in Troy; which makes it most probable\nthat he resided there habitually, and not only on account of the war.\n\nThe only group at all approaching this is, where we see Men\u0153tius and\nPh\u0153nix at the Court of Peleus; but we cannot say whether this was a\npermanent arrangement. Ph\u0153nix, as we know, was lord of the Dolopians,\nand if so, could not have been a standing assistant at the court of\nPeleus; we do not know that the Trojan elders held any such local\nposition apart from Troy, even in any single case; and on the other\nhand, we have no knowledge whether Ph\u0153nix and Men\u0153tius, even when at\nthe court of Peleus, took any share in the government of his immediate\ndominions. The name \u03b3\u03ad\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2, as usually employed among the Greeks to\ndescribe a class, had no necessary relation to age whatever.\n\nOf the respect paid to age in Greece, we have abundant evidence; but we\nfind nothing like this gathering together of a body of old men to be\nthe ordinary guides of popular deliberation in the Assemblies.\n\nIt is true that we hear by implication of both Hector and Polydamas,\nwho were not old, as taking part in affairs: but all the indications\nin the Iliad go to show that Hector\u2019s share in the government of Troy,\nthough not limited to the mere conduct of the forces in the field,\nyet arose out of his military office, and probably touched only such\nmatters as were connected with the management of the war. Polydamas\nevidently was treated as more or less an interloper.\n\nBut even if it were otherwise, and if the middle-aged men of high\nstation and ability took a prominent part in affairs, the existence of\nthis grey-headed company, with apparently the principal statesmanship\nof Troy in their hands, forms a marked difference from Greek manners.\nFor in Greece at peace we have nothing akin to it; while in Greece at\nwar upon the plain of Troy, we see the young Diomed as well as the old\nNestor, and the rather young Achilles and Ajax, as well as the elderly\nIdomeneus, associated with the middle-aged men in the government of the\narmy and its operations.\n\n~_The absence of a \u0392\u03bf\u03c5\u03bb\u1f74 in Troy._~\n\nFirst then, I think it plain that the Trojans had no \u03b2\u03bf\u03c5\u03bb\u1f74, for the\nfollowing reasons:\n\n1. That although we often hear of deliberations and decisions taken on\nthe part of the Trojans, and we have instances enough of their holding\nassemblies of the people, yet we never find mention of a \u03b2\u03bf\u03c5\u03bb\u1f74, or\nCouncil, in connection with them.\n\n2. In the Second Book, Homer describes the Trojan \u1f00\u03b3\u03bf\u03c1\u1f74 thus (Il. ii.\n788, 9):\n\n \u03bf\u1f31 \u03b4\u2019 \u1f00\u03b3\u03bf\u03c1\u1f70\u03c2 \u1f00\u03b3\u03cc\u03c1\u03b5\u03c5\u03bf\u03bd \u1f10\u03c0\u1f76 \u03a0\u03c1\u03b9\u03ac\u03bc\u03bf\u03b9\u03bf \u03b8\u03cd\u03c1\u1fc3\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd\n \u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 \u1f41\u03bc\u03b7\u03b3\u03b5\u03c1\u03ad\u03b5\u03c2, \u1f20\u03bc\u1f72\u03bd \u03bd\u03ad\u03bf\u03b9 \u1f20\u03b4\u1f72 \u03b3\u03ad\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2.\n\nThis latter line is only to be accounted for by the supposition, that\nHomer meant to describe a difference between the usages of the Trojans,\nand those of the Greeks; whose \u03b3\u03ad\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 were recognised as members of\nthe \u03b2\u03bf\u03c5\u03bb\u1f74, even when in the Assemblies.\n\nOf the separate place of the Greek \u03b3\u03ad\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 in the Assemblies, we have\nconclusive proof from the Shield of Achilles (xviii. 497, 503):\n\n \u03bb\u03b1\u03bf\u1f76 \u03b4\u2019 \u03b5\u1f30\u03bd \u1f00\u03b3\u03bf\u03c1\u1fc7 \u1f14\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd \u1f04\u03b8\u03c1\u03bf\u03bf\u03b9\u00b7\n\nand afterwards,\n\n \u03bf\u1f31 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03b3\u03ad\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2\n \u03b5\u1f35\u03b1\u03c4\u2019 \u1f10\u03c0\u1f76 \u03be\u03b5\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c3\u03b9 \u03bb\u03af\u03b8\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2, \u1f31\u03b5\u03c1\u1ff7 \u1f10\u03bd\u1f76 \u03ba\u03cd\u03ba\u03bb\u1ff3.\n\nAnd again, where the Ithacan \u03b3\u03ad\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 make way for Telemachus, as he\npasses to the chair of his father.\n\nBut in Troy the \u03b3\u03ad\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 (such is probably the meaning of Il. ii. 789.)\nhave no separate function: the young and the old meet together: while\nin Greece, besides distinct places in the Assembly, the \u03b3\u03ad\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 had an\nexclusive function in the \u03b2\u03bf\u03c5\u03bb\u1f74, at which they met separately from the\nyoung.\n\n3. It would appear that the \u1f00\u03b3\u03bf\u03c1\u1f74 was with the Trojans not occasional,\nas with the Greeks, for great questions, but habitual. And this agrees\nwith the description in Il. ii. 788. For when Jupiter sends Iris to\nTroy, she finds the people in Assembly, but apparently for no special\npurpose, as she immediately, in the likeness of Polites, begins to\naddress Priam, and we do not hear of any other business. So, when\nId\u00e6us came back from the Greeks, he found the Trojan Assembly still\nsitting. All this looks as if the entire business of administering the\ngovernment rested with that body only.\n\nI draw a similar inference from the remarkable expression in Il. ii.\n788, \u1f00\u03b3\u03bf\u03c1\u1f70\u03c2 \u1f00\u03b3\u03cc\u03c1\u03b5\u03c5\u03bf\u03bd. This seems to express that there was a standing,\nprobably a daily, assembly of the Trojans, not formally summoned, and\nopen to all comers, which acted as the governing body for the state.\nThe line would then mean, not simply \u2018the Trojans were holding an\nassembly,\u2019 but \u2018the Trojans were holding their assembly as usual.\u2019\n\nThe names \u03b2\u03bf\u03c5\u03bb\u03b5\u03c5\u03c4\u1f74\u03c2 and \u1f00\u03b3\u03bf\u03c1\u03b7\u03c4\u1f74\u03c2 appear to have been merely\ndescriptive, and not titular. Both are applied to the Trojan elders.\n\nAnd so \u03b2\u03bf\u03c5\u03bb\u03b1\u1f76, \u03b2\u03bf\u03c5\u03bb\u03b5\u03cd\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd, \u03b2\u03bf\u03c5\u03bb\u03b7\u03c6\u03cc\u03c1\u03bf\u03b9, are constantly used without any,\nso to speak, official meaning. In Il. x. 147, the expression \u03b2\u03bf\u03c5\u03bb\u1f70\u03c2\n\u03b2\u03bf\u03c5\u03bb\u03b5\u03cd\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd can hardly mean \u2018to attend the \u03b2\u03bf\u03c5\u03bb\u1f74,\u2019 for the singular\nnumber would be the proper term for the \u03b2\u03bf\u03c5\u03bb\u1f74 specially convoked: and\nI interpret it as meaning, to attend at or to hold the usual council.\nThis is among the Greeks. Among the Trojans, in Il. x. 415-17, Dolon\nsays,\n\n \u1f1d\u03ba\u03c4\u03c9\u03c1 \u03bc\u1f72\u03bd \u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u1f70 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd, \u1f45\u03c3\u03bf\u03b9 \u03b2\u03bf\u03c5\u03bb\u03b7\u03c6\u03cc\u03c1\u03bf\u03b9 \u03b5\u1f30\u03c3\u1f76\u03bd,\n \u03b2\u03bf\u03c5\u03bb\u1f70\u03c2 \u03b2\u03bf\u03c5\u03bb\u03b5\u03cd\u03b5\u03b9 \u03b8\u03b5\u03af\u03bf\u03c5 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u1f70 \u03c3\u03ae\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b9 \u1f3c\u03bb\u03bf\u03c5,\n \u03bd\u03cc\u03c3\u03c6\u03b9\u03bd \u1f00\u03c0\u1f78 \u03c6\u03bb\u03bf\u03af\u03c3\u03b2\u03bf\u03c5.\n\nNow the word \u03b2\u03bf\u03c5\u03bb\u03b7\u03c6\u03cc\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2 is applied, Il. xii. 414, to Sarpedon, as well\nas in xiii. 463 and elsewhere to \u00c6neas. Neither were among the \u03b3\u03ad\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2\n\u03b2\u03bf\u03c5\u03bb\u03b5\u03c5\u03c4\u03b1\u03af. But further, it is applied, Od. ix. 112, to the \u1f00\u03b3\u03bf\u03c1\u1f74 itself:\n\n \u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u03b4\u2019 \u03bf\u1f54\u03c4\u2019 \u1f00\u03b3\u03bf\u03c1\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b2\u03bf\u03c5\u03bb\u03b7\u03c6\u03cc\u03c1\u03bf\u03b9, \u03bf\u1f54\u03c4\u03b5 \u03b8\u03ad\u03bc\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2\n\nAnd therefore the word, though it means councillor in a general sense,\ndoes not mean officially member of a \u03b2\u03bf\u03c5\u03bb\u1f74, as opposed to an \u1f00\u03b3\u03bf\u03c1\u1f74 or\nAssembly.\n\nThe phrase \u03b2\u03bf\u03c5\u03bb\u1f70\u03c2 \u03b2\u03bf\u03c5\u03bb\u03b5\u03cd\u03b5\u03b9, in the passage Il. x. 415-17, does not\noppose, but supports what has now been said. It is quite plain that\nthis of Hector\u2019s was a small military meeting, or council of war,\njust as in viii. 489 he held an \u1f00\u03b3\u03bf\u03c1\u1f74, or assembly of the army, both\nTrojans and allies; it was not a meeting of a \u03b2\u03bf\u03c5\u03bb\u1f74 of Troy, because\nit was held in the field, far from the city, and without any of the\nElders, who were the great \u1f00\u03b3\u03bf\u03c1\u03b7\u03c4\u03b1\u1f76 and \u03b2\u03bf\u03c5\u03bb\u03b5\u03c5\u03c4\u03b1\u1f76 of Troy; for Hector\nhad already arranged (Il. viii. 517-19) that the old men should remain\nin the city, to defend the walls from any night attack: most of all\nhowever because, as we hear of no \u03b2\u03bf\u03c5\u03bb\u1f74 before the military Assembly\nin the Eighth Book, so we hear of no Assembly following the meeting\nfor deliberation in the Tenth. Generals in modern times hold councils\nof war: but no parallel can be drawn between them, and Councils for\ndispatching the affairs of a State.\n\nAs we never have occasion to become acquainted with Trojan politics in\npeace, we can only argue the case as to the nonexistence of a council\nfrom the state of war. But in Greece, it will be remembered, both war\nand peace present their cases of the use of this institution, as one\nregularly established, and apparently invested with both a deliberative\nand an executive character.\n\n~_The greater weight of oratory in Greece._~\n\nIt is next to be inquired, whether the Trojans, like the Greeks,\nemployed eloquence, detailed argument as furnishing, and the other\nparts of oratory, a main instrument of government.\n\nI think it is plain, that the decisions of their Assemblies were\ngoverned rather by simple authority; by the \u1f00\u03bd\u03b1\u03c0\u03bf\u03b4\u03b5\u03b9\u03ba\u03c4\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c6\u03ac\u03c3\u03b5\u03b9\u03c2, the\nsimple declarations, of persons of weight.\n\nThe report of the re-assembled \u1f00\u03b3\u03bf\u03c1\u1f74 of the Greeks in the Second\nBook begins with the 211th line, and ends with the 398th: occupying\n188 lines. But the Trojan \u1f00\u03b3\u03bf\u03c1\u1f74 of the same Book is despatched in\ntwenty-one lines (788-808).\n\nA more remarkable example is afforded by the second Trojan Assembly\n(Il. vii. 345-379). For this \u1f00\u03b3\u03bf\u03c1\u1f74 is described as \u03b4\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd\u1f74, \u03c4\u03b5\u03c4\u03c1\u03b7\u03c7\u03c5\u1fd6\u03b1;\nand well it might be, in circumstances so arduous. The Elders in the\nThird Book were of opinion that, beautiful as Helen was, it was better\nto restore her, than to continue the sufferings and dangers of the\nwar. Accordingly, Antenor urged in this Assembly that she should be\nrestored, together with the plundered property. He referred also to the\nrecent breach of a sworn covenant on the Trojan side, and said no good\ncould come of it. This he effects in a speech of six lines; the first\nof which is the mere vocative address to the Assembly, and the last is\nmarked as surplusage with the _obelos_ (348-53).\n\nParis, the person mainly concerned, replies. He does not address\nhimself to the Assembly at all, but to Antenor: and he disposes of the\nsubject of debate in eight lines (357-64). Four of them are given to\nthe announcement of his intentions, and four to abuse of Antenor.\n\nIt was impossible to conceive a subject more likely to cause debate;\nand excitement we see there was, but after the speech of Paris, nothing\nmore was said about Helen, either for or against the restoration. Priam\nthen arose, and in a speech of eleven lines (368-78) laid down another\nplan of proceeding, namely, by a message to the Greeks for a truce with\na view to funeral obsequies, which was at once accepted.\n\n~_Oratory of greater weight in Greece._~\n\nNowhere, in short, among the Trojans have we any example, I do not\nsay of multiplied or lengthened speeches, but of real reasoning and\ndeliberation in the conduct of business: though Glaucus tells his story\nat great length to Diomed on the field of battle (Il. vi. 145-211),\nand \u00c6neas to Achilles (Il. xx. 199-258) nearly equals him. Indeed, it\nmay almost be said, the Trojans are long speakers when in battle, and\nshort when in debate: the Greeks copious in debate, but very succinct\nin battle.\n\nAgain, we may observe the different descriptions which the Poet\nhas given of the elocution of Nestor, and of that of the Trojan\n\u03b4\u03b7\u03bc\u03bf\u03b3\u03ad\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 in their respective \u1f00\u03b3\u03bf\u03c1\u03b1\u03af. To Nestor (Il. i. 248, 9)\nhe seems to assign a soft continuous flow indefinitely prolonged.\nTheirs he describes as resembling the \u1f44\u03c0\u03b1 \u03bb\u03b5\u03b9\u03c1\u03b9\u03cc\u03b5\u03c3\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd of grasshoppers\n(Il. iii. 151, 2), a clear trill or thread of voice, not only without\nany particular idea of length attached to it, but apparently meant\nto recall a sharp intermittent chirp. Yet there is an odd proof that\nto Priam at least, as one of these old men, there was attached, by\nthe younger ones, the imputation of favouring either too many or else\ntoo long orations. For, in the \u1f00\u03b3\u03bf\u03c1\u1f74 of the Second Book, Iris in the\ncharacter of Polites, though there is no account of what had preceded\nher arrival, objurgates Priam as both then encouraging what may be\ncalled indiscriminate speaking, and as having formally, before the war,\nbeen addicted to the same practice[508];\n\n[508] Il. ii. 796.\n\n \u1f66 \u03b3\u03ad\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd, \u03b1\u1f30\u03b5\u03af \u03c4\u03bf\u03b9 \u03bc\u1fe6\u03b8\u03bf\u03b9 \u03c6\u03af\u03bb\u03bf\u03b9 \u1f04\u03ba\u03c1\u03b9\u03c4\u03bf\u03af \u03b5\u1f30\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd,\n \u1f65\u03c2 \u03c0\u03bf\u03c4\u2019 \u1f10\u03c0\u2019 \u03b5\u1f30\u03c1\u03ae\u03bd\u03b7\u03c2.\n\nUpon the whole, I think it must have been Homer\u2019s intention, while\nrepresenting both Trojans and Greeks as carrying on public affairs in\ntheir public Assemblies, to draw a very marked distinction between them\nin regard to the use of that powerful engine of oratory, which played\nso conspicuous a part in the former, as well as in the later stages of\nthe Greek history.\n\nAnd it is important, that nowhere does a sentiment escape the lips of\na Trojan chieftain, which indicates a consciousness of the political\nvalue of oratory. Ulysses, in a state of peace, describes before the\nPh\u00e6acians beauty and eloquence as the noblest gifts of the gods to\nman[509]: and employs \u1f14\u03c0\u03b5\u03b1 and \u03bd\u03cc\u03bf\u03c2, eloquence and intelligence, as\nconvertible terms. Polydamas, when rebuking Hector in the Thirteenth\nIliad, delivers a passage in many respects strikingly analogous. He\nspeaks, however, of \u03bd\u03cc\u03bf\u03c2 and \u03b2\u03bf\u03c5\u03bb\u1f74, mind and counsel[510]; he does not\ndrop a word relating to public speech or to eloquence as instruments of\ngovernment, though he describes the mental quality and the habit which\nhe names as of priceless value for the benefit of States.\n\n[509] Od. viii. 170, 5, 7.\n\n[510] Il. xiii. 726-34.\n\nThe phrases applied to the Trojan elders appear to indicate, that they\nderived their political character from taking a prominent part in the\nAssembly, and from that alone. For the word \u03b4\u03b7\u03bc\u03bf\u03b3\u03ad\u03c1\u03c9\u03bd indicates an\nelder acting in and among the \u03b4\u1fc6\u03bc\u03bf\u03c2, or people. And this name the Poet\nuses but twice: once in Il. iii. 149, where he enumerates the eight\npersons, who bore that character in Troy; and once with reference to\nIlus (Il. ii. 372). Homer nowhere employs this term for any of the\nGreeks.\n\nThe want of the \u03b2\u03bf\u03c5\u03bb\u1f74 shows us, that there was no balance of forces\nin the Trojan polity, less security against precipitate action, more\nliability to high-handed insolence and oppression of the people, and,\non the other hand, unless the danger had been neutralized by mildness\nor lethargy of character, likewise in all likelihood to revolutionary\nchange.\n\n~_Trojans less gifted with self-command._~\n\nAgain, on the Trojan side we do not find the silence and\nself-possession of the Greeks. After the enumeration in the Third Book,\nat its opening, we find that the Trojans marched with din and buzz:\n\n \u03a4\u03c1\u1ff6\u03b5\u03c2 \u03bc\u1f72\u03bd \u03ba\u03bb\u03b1\u03b3\u03b3\u1fc7 \u03c4\u2019 \u1f10\u03bd\u03bf\u03c0\u1fc7 \u03c4\u2019 \u1f34\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd, \u1f44\u03c1\u03bd\u03b9\u03b8\u03b5\u03c2 \u1f65\u03c2\u00b7\n\nbut as to the Greeks, we are told that they marched in profound\nsilence: and the Poet skilfully heightens the contrast by mentioning\nthat they breathed forth what they did not articulate, and that they\nwere steeled with firm resolution to stand by one another[511]:\n\n[511] Il. iii. 2, 8.\n\n \u03bf\u1f31 \u03b4\u2019 \u1f04\u03c1\u2019 \u1f34\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd \u03c3\u03b9\u03b3\u1fc7 \u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03b5\u03b1 \u03c0\u03bd\u03b5\u03af\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 \u1f08\u03c7\u03b1\u03b9\u03bf\u1f76,\n \u1f10\u03bd \u03b8\u03c5\u03bc\u1ff7 \u03bc\u03b5\u03bc\u03b1\u1ff6\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 \u1f00\u03bb\u03b5\u03be\u03ad\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd \u1f00\u03bb\u03bb\u03ae\u03bb\u03bf\u03b9\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd.\n\nWe are finally told that each leader indeed gave the word to his men,\nwhile all beside were mute[512]:\n\n[512] Il. iv. 429.\n\n \u03bf\u1f31 \u03b4\u2019 \u1f04\u03bb\u03bb\u03bf\u03b9 \u1f00\u03ba\u1f74\u03bd \u1f34\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd, \u03bf\u1f50\u03b4\u03ad \u03ba\u03b5 \u03c6\u03b1\u03af\u03b7\u03c2\n \u03c4\u03cc\u03c3\u03c3\u03bf\u03bd \u03bb\u03b1\u1f78\u03bd \u1f15\u03c0\u03b5\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9 \u1f14\u03c7\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u2019 \u1f10\u03bd \u03c3\u03c4\u03ae\u03b8\u03b5\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03b4\u1f74\u03bd,\n \u03c3\u03b9\u03b3\u1fc7 \u03b4\u03b5\u03b9\u03b4\u03b9\u03cc\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 \u03c3\u03b7\u03bc\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf\u03c1\u03b1\u03c2\u00b7\n\nbut from the Trojans there arose a sound, like that of sheep bleating\nfor their lambs[513]:\n\n[513] Ibid. 436.\n\n \u1f63\u03c2 \u03a4\u03c1\u03ce\u03c9\u03bd \u1f00\u03bb\u03b1\u03bb\u03b7\u03c4\u1f78\u03c2 \u1f00\u03bd\u1f70 \u03c3\u03c4\u03c1\u03b1\u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03b5\u1f50\u03c1\u1f7a\u03bd \u1f40\u03c1\u03ce\u03c1\u03b5\u03b9.\n\nAnd, again, we find the relation of the burning of the dead given with\nthe usual consistency of the Poet. The men of the two armies met: and\non both sides they shed tears as they lifted their lifeless comrades on\nthe wagons: but, he adds, there was silence among the Trojans,\n\n \u03bf\u1f50\u03b4\u2019 \u03b5\u1f34\u03b1 \u03ba\u03bb\u03b1\u03af\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd \u03a0\u03c1\u03af\u03b1\u03bc\u03bf\u03c2 \u03bc\u03ad\u03b3\u03b1\u03c2\u00b7\n\nand it was because the king had felt that there would be indecency in a\nnoisy show of sorrow: while the Greeks needed not the injunction (Il.\nvii. 426-32), from their spontaneous self-command.\n\nWhen the Poet speaks of the Trojan Assembly in the Seventh Book as\n\u03b4\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd\u1f74 \u03c4\u03b5\u03c4\u03c1\u03b7\u03c7\u03c5\u1fd6\u03b1, he evidently means to describe an excitement tending\nto disorder: and one contrasted in a remarkable manner with the\ndiscipline of the Greeks, who were summoned to meet silently in the\nnight, that they might not, in gathering, arouse the enemy outside the\nramparts. Even in their respective modes of expressing approbation,\nHomer makes a shade of difference. When the Greeks applaud, it is\n\u1f10\u03c0\u03af\u03b1\u03c7\u03bf\u03bd \u03c5\u1f37\u03b5\u03c2 \u1f08\u03c7\u03b1\u03b9\u1ff6\u03bd, or what we call loud or vehement cheering: but\nwhen the Trojans, it is \u1f10\u03c0\u1f76 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03a4\u03c1\u1ff6\u03b5\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b5\u03bb\u03ac\u03b4\u03b7\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd, which signifies a more\nmiscellaneous and tumultuous noise.\n\nIn short, it would appear to be the intention of Homer to represent\nthe Greeks as possessed of a higher intelligence throughout. In the\nOdyssey, we find that Ulysses made his way into Troy disguised as\na beggar, communicated with Helen, duly informed himself (\u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u1f70 \u03b4\u1f72\n\u03c6\u03c1\u03cc\u03bd\u03b9\u03bd \u1f24\u03b3\u03b1\u03b3\u03b5 \u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03bb\u03ae\u03bd[514]), and contrived to despatch certain of the\nTrojans before he departed. In the Iliad we are supplied with abundant\ninstances of the superior management of the Greeks, and likewise of\ntheir auxiliary gods, in comparison with those of the Trojans. Juno\noutwits Venus in obtaining from her the cestus, and then proceeds\nto outwit Jupiter in the use of it. Minerva, on observing that the\nGreeks are losing, (Il. vii. 17) betakes herself to Troy, where Apollo\nproposes just what she wants, namely, a cessation of the general\nengagement, with a view to a personal encounter between Hector and some\nchosen chieftain: she immediately adopts the plan; and he causes it to\nbe executed through Helenus. It both stops the general havoc among the\nGreeks, and redounds greatly to the honour of their champion Ajax. At\nthe end of the day, however, Nestor suggests to the Greek chiefs, on\naccount of their heavy losses (Il. vii. 328), that they should, on the\noccasion of raising a mound over their dead, likewise dig and fortify\na trench, which might serve to defend the ships and camp. In the mean\ntime the Trojans are made to meet; and they send to propose the very\nmeasure, namely, an armistice for funeral rites, which the Greeks\ndesire, in order, under cover of it, to fortify themselves (Il. vii.\n368-97). And this accordingly Agamemnon is enabled to grant as a sort\nof favour to the Trojans (Il. vii. 408):\n\n[514] Od. iv. 258.\n\n \u1f00\u03bc\u03c6\u1f76 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03bd\u03b5\u03ba\u03c1\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03ba\u03b1\u03b9\u03ad\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd \u03bf\u1f54\u03c4\u03b9 \u03bc\u03b5\u03b3\u03b1\u03af\u03c1\u03c9.\n\nThis superior intelligence is probably meant to be figured by the\nexchange of arms between Glaucus and Diomed. And, again, when Hector\nattempts anything in the nature of a stratagem, as the mission of\nDolon by night, it is only that he may fall into the hands of Diomed\nand Ulysses. But there does not appear to be in any of these cases\na violation of oath, compact, or any absolute rule of equity by the\nGreeks.\n\nOf all these traits, however, it may be said, that they are of no\nvalue as evidence, if taken by themselves. They are means which would\nobviously occur to the Poet, zealous for his own nation. It is their\naccordance with other indications, apparently undesigned, which\nwarrants our relying upon them as real testimonies, available for an\nhistoric purpose.\n\n~_Difference in pursuits of high-born youth._~\n\nAlthough, on the whole, we seem to have the signs of greater wealth\namong the Trojans than the Greeks, yet in certain points also their\nusages were more primitive and simple. Thus we find the youths of the\nhouse of Nestor immediately about his person; and Patroclus, as well\nas Achilles, was apparently brought up at the court of Peleus. Again,\nthe youthful Nestor travels into Thessaly for a campaign: Ulysses\ngoes to hunt at the Court of his grandfather Autolycus. The Ithacan\nSuitors employ themselves in manly games. But we frequently come upon\npassages where we are incidentally informed, that the princes of the\nhouse of Dardanus were occupied in rustic employments. Thus Melanippus,\nson of Hiketaon, and cousin of Hector, who was residing in Priam\u2019s\npalace, and treated as one of his children, had before the war tended\noxen in Percote[515]. \u00c6neas, the only son and heir of Anchises, had\nbeen similarly occupied among or near the hills, at the time when he\nhad a narrow escape from capture by Achilles[516]. Lycaon, son of\nPriam, was cutting the branches of the wild fig for the fellies of\nchariot-wheels when Achilles took him for the second time: on the first\noccasion, he had been at work in a vineyard[517]. Antiphos and Isos,\nsons of Priam, had been captured by Achilles whilst they were acting\nas shepherds[518]. Anchises was acting as a herdsman, when he formed\nhis connection with Venus[519]. The name of Boucolion, an illegitimate\nson of Laomedon, seems to indicate that he was bred for the like\noccupation[520].\n\n[515] Il. xv. 546-51.\n\n[516] Il. xx. 188.\n\n[517] Il. xxi. 37. 77.\n\n[518] Il. xi. 105.\n\n[519] Il. ii. 821. v. 313.\n\n[520] Il. vi. 25.\n\nFrom the force, variety, and extreme delicacy of his uses of the\nword, it is evident that Homer set very great store by the sentiment\nwhich is generally expressed through the word \u03b1\u1f30\u03b4\u03ce\u03c2, and which ranges\nthrough all the varieties of shame, honour, modesty, and reverence.\nThough a minute, it is a remarkable circumstance, that he confines\nthe application of this term to the Greeks; except, I think, in one\npassage, where he bestows it upon his particular favourites the\nLycians[521], and a single other one, where \u00c6neas[522] employs it under\nthe immediate inspiration of Apollo, with another sense, in an appeal\nto Hector and his brother chiefs, not to the soldiery at large.\n\n[521] Il. xvi. 422.\n\n[522] Il. xvii. 336.\n\nWith the Greeks it supplies the staple of military exhortation[523]\nfrom the chiefs to the army; \u0391\u1f30\u03b4\u1f7c\u03c2, \u1f08\u03c1\u03b3\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bf\u03b9.\n\n[523] Il. v. 787. viii. 228. _et alibi_.\n\nBut quite a different form of speech is uniformly addressed to the\nTrojans proper: it is\n\n \u1f00\u03bd\u03ad\u03c1\u03b5\u03c2 \u1f14\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5, \u03c6\u03af\u03bb\u03bf\u03b9, \u03bc\u03bd\u03ae\u03c3\u03b1\u03c3\u03b8\u03b5 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03b8\u03bf\u03c5\u03c1\u03af\u03b4\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f00\u03bb\u03ba\u1fc6\u03c2,\n\nwhich is below the other, and appeals to a less peculiar and refined\nframe of intelligence and of sentiment.\n\n~_Summary of differences._~\n\nWhatever may be thought of the degree of detail into which (guided as\nI think by the text) I have ventured to carry this discussion, and of\nthe particularity of some of the inferences that have been drawn, I\nventure to hope few will quit the subject without the conviction that\nHomer has worked with the purpose and precision which are his wont, in\nthe diversities which mark the general outline of his Greeks and his\nTrojans, and of the institutions of each respectively; and that he has\nnot altogether withheld from his national portraits the care, which he\nis admitted to have applied to his individual characters on both sides\nwith such extraordinary success. If we look to the institutions of the\ntwo countries, although the comparison is diversified, we must upon\nthe whole concede to the Greeks, that they had laid more firmly than\ntheir adversaries those great corner stones of human society, which are\nnamed in their language, \u03b8\u03ad\u03bc\u03b9\u03c2, \u1f45\u03c1\u03ba\u03bf\u03c2, and \u03b3\u03ac\u03bc\u03bf\u03c2. In the polity of Troy\nwe find more scope for impulse, less for deliberation and persuasion;\nmore weight given to those elements of authority which do not depend\non our free will and intelligence, less to those which do; less of\norganization and of diversity, less firmness and tenacity of tissue, in\nthe structure of the community. We are told of no \u03c6\u1fe6\u03bb\u03b1 and no \u03c6\u03c1\u1fc6\u03c4\u03c1\u03b1\u03b9,\nno intermediate ranks of officers in the army; no order of nobles or\nproprietors, such as that which furnished the Suitors of Ithaca. There\nare, in short, fewer secondary eminences; it is a state of things, more\nresembling the dead level of the present Oriental communities subject\nto a despotic throne, though such was not the throne of Priam. Among\nthe people themselves, there is more of religious observance and\napparatus, but not more of morality: less tendency indeed to crimes\nof violence and turbulence, but also less of truth, of honour, above\nall of personal self-mastery and self-command. The Greeks never would\nhave produced the Paris of the Iliad; for on behalf of no such dastard\nwould they have been induced to bleed. But if they had engendered\nsuch a creature, they would not have paid the penalty: for man in\nthe Trojan type would not have had the energy to recover it from the\nwarrior-statesmen of the Ach\u00e6an race, and under no circumstances could\nthe really extravagant sentiment put by Virgil into the mouth of\nDiomed[524] have been fulfilled:\n\n[524] \u00c6n. xi. 286.\n\n ultro Inachias venisset ad urbes\n Dardanus, et versis lugeret Gr\u00e6cia fatis.\n\n\n\n\nIII. THALASSA.\n\nTHE OUTER GEOGRAPHY OF THE ODYSSEY.\n\n\nThe legendary Geography of the Odyssey may in one sense be compared\nwith that of Ariosto, and that of Bojardo. I should be the first,\nindeed, to admit that a disquisition, having for its object to\nestablish the delimitation of the Geography of either of those poets,\nand to fix its relation to the actual surface of the earth, was but\nlabour thrown away. For two thousand years, however, perhaps for more,\nthe Geography of the Odyssey has been a subject of interest and of\ncontroversy. In entering upon that field I ask myself, why the case of\nHomer is in this respect so different from that of the great Italian\nromancers? It is not only that, great as they were, we are dealing with\none before whom their greatness dwindles into comparative littleness.\nNor is it only, though it seems to be in part, because the adventures\nof Ulysses are, or appear to be, much more strictly bound up with\nplace, than those of Orlando, Rinaldo, or Ruggiero. The difference, I\nthink, mainly lies in this, that an intense earnestness accompanies\nHomer every where, even through his wild and noble romance. Cooped up\nas he was within a narrow and local circle--for such it was, though\nit was for so many centuries the centre of the whole greatness of the\nworld--here is his effort to pass the horizon \u2018by strength of thought;\u2019\nto pierce the mist; to shape the dim, confused, and conflicting\nreports he could pick up, according to the best of his knowledge and\nbelief, into land and sea; to people its habitable spots with the\nscanty material he could command, every where enlarged, made good, and\nadorned out of the wealth of his vigorous imagination; and to form,\nby effort of the brain, for the first time as far as we know in the\nhistory of our race, an idea of a certain configuration for the surface\nof the Earth.\n\nHence, perhaps, may have flowed the potency of the charm, which has\nattended the subject of Homer\u2019s Outer Geography. The subject has,\nhowever, in my belief, its utility too. It is rarely otherwise than\nwell worth while to trace even the erroneous thoughts of powerful\nminds. But, moreover, in the present instance, I apprehend we can\nlearn, through the Outer Geography of Homer, important and interesting\nmatter of history, which is not to be learned from any other source.\nFor the Poet has embedded into his imaginative scheme a multitude of\nreal geographical and physical traditions; and by means of these, upon\ncomparing them with their proper originals, we can judge with tolerable\naccuracy what were the limits of human enterprise on the face of earth\nin the heroic age.\n\nThe question before us is, what map of the earth did Homer shape in\nhis own mind, that he might adjust to it the voyages and tours of his\nheroes Menelaus and Ulysses, particularly the latter? And in order to a\nlegitimate inquiry the first step to be taken is negative. Do not let\nus engage in the vain attempt to construct the Geography of the Odyssey\nupon the basis of the actual distribution of the earth\u2019s surface. Such\na process can lead to no satisfactory result. Whatever materials Homer\nmay have obtained to assist him, we must consider as so many atoms;\nI speak of course, as to all that lay beyond the narrow sphere of his\nGreek knowledge and experience. He had no adequate means of placing\nthe different parts of the accounts which reached him in their true\ngeographical relations to one another. The outer world was for him\nbroken up into fragments, and these fragments were rearranged at his\npleasure, with the aid of such lights only, as his limited physical\nknowledge could afford him.\n\n~_Principal heads of the inquiry._~\n\nAssuming for the present that the Ph\u0153nicianism of the Outer Geography\nhas been on the whole sufficiently proved, I proceed to a more exact\nexamination of the subject itself; and I propose to inquire into the\nfollowing questions.\n\n1. Has Homer two modes of dealing with the subject of locality,\nconsidered at large? if so, can it be shown that he applies them to two\ndistinct geographical regions; one the circumscribed central tract of\nland and sea within which he lived, the other a wider and larger zone,\nwhich lay beyond it in all directions; and can a line be drawn with\nreasonable confidence and precision between these geographical regions\naccordingly?\n\n2. If it be established that Homer has a system of Outer Geography,\nsevered by a sufficiently-defined barrier from his Inner Geography,\nthen are there any, and if so what, keys, or leading ideas of local\narrangement for the former scheme, which, themselves derived from the\nevidence of his text, should be used for the adjustment of its details?\n\n3. Under the system thus ascertained, what was the route of Menelaus,\nand more especially of Ulysses, as these presented themselves to the\nmind of Homer?\n\nI set out from the proposition, which, as I conceive, rests upon\nuniversal consent, that within a certain sphere the poems may be\nconsidered as a record of experimental geography; and one sometimes\ncarried down into detail with so much of accuracy, that it embraces\neven the miniature of that branch of knowledge, to which we usually\ngive the name of topography.\n\nBy way of example for the former, I should say that when Homer\ndescribes the B\u0153otian towns, when he measures the distance over the\n\u00c6gean, nay, when he makes Ulysses represent that he floated in ten\ndays from some point near Crete to the Thesprotian coast, he is a\ngeographer. Again, in his variously estimated account of the interior\nof Ithaca, he is a topographer. He is the same on the whole, though\nprobably with greater license, when he is dealing with the Plain of\nTroy.\n\n~_The two spheres of Geography._~\n\nIn speaking of the experimental geography of Homer, of course I do\nnot intend to imply that he had, even within his narrow sphere, the\nmeans that later science has afforded of establishing situations and\ndistances with absolute precision. He could only proceed by the far\nruder testimony of the senses, trained in the school of experience.\nNeither do I mean that the experience was in every case his own, though\nto a great extent his geographical information was probably original,\nand acquired by him principally in the exercise of his profession as an\nitinerating Bard. But by the experimental and real geography of Homer,\nI mean these two things; first, that the Poet believed himself to be\ndescribing _pro tanto_ points upon the earth\u2019s surface as they actually\nwere; secondly, that his means of information were for practical\npurposes adequate. The evidence of the passage containing the simile of\nthe Thought (Il. xv. 580) would suffice, were there none other, to show\nthat he was himself a traveller; he also lived among a people already\naccustomed to travel, and familiar with the navigation of a certain\nportion of the earth\u2019s surface. In a former part of this work I have\ngiven several instances to illustrate the disposition of the early\nGreeks with respect to travel[525]. A people of habits like theirs was\nwell qualified to supply a practical system of geography for the whole\nsphere with which it was habitually conversant.\n\n[525] Ach\u00e6is, or Ethnology; sect. vii. p. 336.\n\nBut the boldness and maturity of navigation may be measured pretty\nnearly by the length of its voyages. The geographical particulars of\nthe Wanderings, however dislocated and distorted, show us that the\npeople who had supplied them had acquired a considerable acquaintance\nwith all the waters within, and probably also, nay, I should be\ndisposed to say certainly, some that were without, the Straits of\nGibraltar. But in all the poems of Homer we find the traces of Greek\nknowledge and resort become fainter and fainter, as we pass beyond\ncertain points. On the Greek Peninsula, to the south of the Ambracian\ngulf on the west and of Mount Olympus on the east, we have the signs\nof a constant intercourse to and fro. The same tokens extend to the\nislands immediately surrounding it, and reaching at least as far as\nCrete. Indeed, apart from particular signs, we may say that, without\nfamiliar and frequent intercourse among the members that composed it,\nthe empire of Agamemnon could not have subsisted.\n\nBut, at certain distances, the mode of geographical handling becomes\nfaint, mistrustful, and indistinct. Distances are misstated, or cease\nto be stated at all. The names of countries are massed together in such\na way as to show that the Poet had no idea of a particular mode of\njuxtaposition for them. Topographical or local features, of a character\nsuch as to identify a description with some particular place or\nregion as its prototype in nature, are erroneously transposed to some\nsituation which, from general indications, we can see must be upon a\ndifferent and perhaps distant part of the surface of the globe. Again,\nby ceasing to define distances and directions, he shows from time to\ntime that he has lost confidence in his own collocation, that he is\nnot willing to challenge a comparison with actual nature, and that,\nfrom want of accurate knowledge, he feels he must seek some degree of\nshelter in generalities.\n\nIt is obvious that, under the circumstances as they have thus far been\ndelineated, the geography of the poems, with a centre fixed for it\nsomewhere in Greece, say at Olympus or Mycen\u00e6, might be first of all\ndivided into three zones, ranging around that centre. The first and\ninnermost would be that of the familiar knowledge and experience of\nhis countrymen. The second would be that of their rare and occasional\nresort. The third would be a region wholly unknown to them, and with\nrespect to which they were wholly dependent on foreign, that is on\nPh\u0153nician, report; much as a Roman, five hundred years ago, would\npractically depend upon the reports of Venetians and Genoese mariners\nfor all or nearly all his ultra-marine knowledge.\n\nNow, though we may not be able to mark positively at every point of the\ncompass the particular spot at which we step from the first zone to the\nsecond, and from the second to the third, yet there is enough of the\nsecond zone discernible to make it serve for an effectual delimitation\nbetween the first and the third; between the region of experience and\nthat of marvel; of foreign, arbitrary, unchecked, and semifabulous\nreport. Just as we are unable to fix the moment at which night passes\ninto dawn, and dawn into day; but yet the dawn of morning, and the\ntwilight of evening are themselves the lines which broadly separate\nbetween the day and the night, lying respectively at the extremities of\neach. So with the poems of Homer, it may be a question whether a given\nplace, say Ph\u0153nicia, is in the first or the second zone; or whether\nsome other, such as Scheria, or as the Bosphorus, is in the second or\nthe third; but it will never be difficult to affirm of any important\nplace named in the poems _either_ that it is not in the zone of common\nexperience, or else that it is not in the zone of foreign fable.\n\n~_Limits of the Inner Geography._~\n\nLet me now endeavour to draw the lines, which thus far have been laid\ndown only in principle.\n\n1. And first it seems plain, that the experimental knowledge of Homer\nextended over the whole of the continental territory embraced within\nthe Greek Catalogue, including, along with the continent, those islands\nwhich he has classed with his mainland, and not in his separate insular\ngroup[526].\n\n[526] Il. ii. 645-80.\n\n2. It may be slightly doubtful whether he had a similar knowledge of\nthe islands forming the base of the \u00c6gean. There is a peculiarity in\nthe Cretan description (Il. ii. 645-52), namely, that after enumerating\ncertain cities he closes with general words (649),\n\n \u1f04\u03bb\u03bb\u03bf\u03b9 \u03b8\u2019, \u03bf\u1f33 \u039a\u03c1\u03ae\u03c4\u03b7\u03bd \u1f11\u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03cc\u03bc\u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03b9\u03bd \u1f00\u03bc\u03c6\u03b5\u03bd\u03ad\u03bc\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf.\n\nStill he uses characteristic epithets: and in another place (Od. xiv.\n257), he defines (of course by time) the distance from Crete to Egypt.\nSo again in Rhodes (656), Camirus has the characteristic epithet of\n\u1f00\u03c1\u03b3\u03b9\u03bd\u03cc\u03b5\u03b9\u03c2. On the whole we may place this division within the first\nzone of Homeric geography.\n\n3. Homer would appear to have had an accurate knowledge of the\npositions of the islands of Lemnos, Samothrace, Imbros, Lesbos, Samos,\nand Chios[527]. These we may consider, without further detail, as\nanswering practically for the whole \u00c6gean sea.\n\n[527] Il. xiv. 225-30. xiii. 10-16, 33. xiv. 281. xxiv. 78, 753, 434.\nOd. iii. 169-72.\n\n4. Homer knew the positions of Emathia and Pieria, relatively to one\nanother and to Greece; and the general course of the southern ranges of\nthe Thracian mountains[528]. The Trojan Catalogue appears to show that\nhe also knew the coast-line westward from the Dardanelles, as far as\nto the river Axius. There we may consider that his Pieria begins, with\nGreece upon its southern and western border.\n\n[528] Il. xiv. 225-30. Od. v. 50.\n\n5. It would appear that Homer had a pretty full knowledge of the\nsouthern coast-line of the Propontis. He seems to place the Thracians\nof the Trojan Catalogue on the northern side of that sea, but his\nlanguage is quite general with respect to this part of it. On the south\nside, however, and in the whole north-western corner of Asia Minor,\nwe appear to find him at home[529]. Thus much we may safely conclude\nfrom the detail of the Trojan Catalogue; from the particular account\nof the Id\u00e6an rivers in the Twelfth Iliad[530]; from the latter part\nof the journey of Juno in the Fourteenth[531]; and from the speech of\nAchilles in the Twenty-fourth[532], which fixes the position of Phrygia\nrelatively to Troy.\n\n[529] Forbiger thinks he knew the southern coast of the Black sea to a\ncertain extent. Handbuch der Alten Geographie, sect. 4. p. 10.\n\n[530] Il. xii. 17-24.\n\n[531] Il. xiv. 280-4.\n\n[532] Il. xxiv. 543-6.\n\n6. From the point of Lectum to the southward, Homer shows a knowledge\nof the coast-line as far as Lycia in the south-western quarter of Asia\nMinor. But here we must close his inner sphere. The Solyman mountains\nsupply the only local notice in the poems which can be said to belong\nto the interior country, and of these his conceptions are evidently as\nfar as possible from geographical. In the Sixth Iliad[533] he appears\nto conceive of the Solyman people as bordering upon Lycia. Although\nthe name has suggested to some a connection with Jerusalem, we ought\nto consider it as representing that for which it stands in geography,\na part of the grand inland mass of Asiatic mountains. But from the\nproximity of the Solymi to Lycia, Homer would appear to have moved them\ngreatly westward. Again, when Neptune in the Fifth Odyssey sees Ulysses\nfrom the Solyman mountains on his way from Ogygia, we must suppose\nthat Homer conceived them to command some point of a neighbouring and\ncontinuous line of sea, which would allow of such a prospect. He would\nhardly have made Neptune see Ulysses from Lycia, or from a point across\nthe mountains of Thrace, or from one on the other side of the actual\nMount Taurus.\n\n[533] Il. vi. 184.\n\nWe have now, I think, made the circuit of the whole zone, and it is a\nsmall one, of the real or experimental geography of Homer.\n\n~_The intermediate or doubtful Zone._~\n\nLet us take next the intermediate zone, which marks the extreme and\ninfrequent points of Greek resort.\n\nBeginning in the west and north-west, we have found Sicania (now Upper\nCalabria), Epirus, and the country of the Thesprotians[534], marking\nthe points of this intermediate region. To the northward, we may\nfix it at Emathia. In the north-east, it seems to be bounded by the\nnorthern shore of the Sea of Marmora. The Thracians of Homer inhabit a\ncountry which he calls \u1f10\u03c1\u03b9\u03b2\u03ce\u03bb\u03b1\u03be, Il. xx. 485, and which the Hellespont\nenclosed (\u1f10\u03ad\u03c1\u03b3\u03b5\u03b9), that is to say, washes on two sides at least. The\nHellespont, as in this place it is termed \u1f00\u03b3\u03ac\u1fe4\u1fe5\u03bf\u03bf\u03c2, signifies to the\nEastern part of its waters in particular; and the name probably\nincludes the Propontis (which he might well suppose to have a strong\ncurrent throughout, like the Straits of Gallipoli), together with the\nnorthern \u00c6gean between Chalcidice and the Thracian Chersonese. He has\ndescribed these Thracians in very vague terms[535], and without any\nlocal circumstance, in the Catalogue: but the form of the coast-line\napparently implied in the word \u1f10\u03ad\u03c1\u03b3\u03b5\u03b9, and the epithet of fertility,\nappear to indicate the plain of Adrianople and the Maritz. But this\ninclosure on two sides terminates when the northern shore begins to\ntrend directly to the eastward: and the \u03a0\u03bb\u03b1\u03b3\u03ba\u03c4\u03b1\u1f76, or Bosphorus, which\nno man but Jason ever succeeded in passing, are to be considered as in\nthe zone of a semifabulous or exterior chorography.\n\n[534] Ach\u00e6is, or Ethnology, sect. iv. p. 235.\n\n[535] Il. ii. 844, 5.\n\nWhen we pass into the south-east, we find that Cyprus, Ph\u0153nicia, and\nEgypt may perhaps most properly be placed in the doubtful zone. We have\nseen that Cyprus was known as a stage on the passage to the East, and\nas within the possible military reach of Agamemnon. But its lord did\nnot join in the war: and Homer has no details about the island, beyond\nthe specification of Paphos as the seat of the residence, and of the\nprincipal worship, of Venus.\n\nWe have no instance of any visit paid by Greeks to Ph\u0153nicia under\nordinary circumstances. The tour of Menelaus is, like that of Ulysses,\noutside the sphere of ordinary life. He describes himself in it to\nTelemachus as \u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03bb\u1f70 \u03c0\u03b1\u03b8\u1f7c\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c0\u03cc\u03bb\u03bb\u2019 \u1f10\u03c0\u03b1\u03bb\u03b7\u03b8\u03b5\u1f76\u03c2[536], which may be\ncompared with Od. i. 4. respecting Ulysses. We hear of the Taphians\nthere; for it was at Sidon that they kidnapped the nurse of Eum\u00e6us.\nPiracy in those times probably reached somewhat further than trade.\nThese same Taphians appear to be of doubtful Hellenism. On the one\nhand, Mentes their leader was a \u03be\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 to Ulysses[537]. But (1) we thus\nfind them in Ph\u0153nicia[538], which is not a place of usual Greek resort.\n(2) They sail to Temese in foreign parts, \u1f10\u03c0\u2019 \u1f00\u03bb\u03bb\u03bf\u03b8\u03c1\u03cc\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 \u1f00\u03bd\u03b8\u03c1\u03ce\u03c0\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 (Od.\ni. 183), which we do not find elsewhere said of Greeks. The case of\nthe pseudo-Ulysses cannot stand as a precedent for the rest of Greece,\nnor even for the rest of Crete[539]. (3) The father of Mentes had\ngiven Ulysses poison for his arrows, which Ilus, the Hellene, had from\nmotives of religion refused him. This at once supplies a particular\nreason for the xenial bond between them, and suggests that this Taphian\nprince may have been, though a \u03be\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2, yet of a different religion and\nrace. (4) The absence of the Taphians from the war, especially as a\ntribe so much given to navigation, further strengthens the presumption\nthat they were not properly Greeks.\n\n[536] Od. iv. 83.\n\n[537] Od. i. 105.\n\n[538] Sup. Ethnology, sect. iv.\n\n[539] Ibid.\n\nPh\u0153nicia, then, hangs doubtfully on the outer verge of the Greek\nworld, and belongs to the intermediate zone. Yet more decidedly is\nthis the case with Egypt. For Ulysses means something unusual, when\nhe describes the voyage as one lasting for five days across the open\nsea, even with the very best wind all the way, from Crete; and it is\nelsewhere described as at a distance formidably great. Such is the idea\napparently intended by the statement, that the very birds do but make\nthe journey once a year over so vast a sea[540]. No ordinary Greek ever\ngoes to Egypt: and when the pseudo-Ulysses planned his voyage thither,\nit was under a sinister impulse from Jupiter, who meant him ill[541]:\n\n[540] Od. iii. 320-2.\n\n[541] Od. xiv. 243.\n\n \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1f70\u03c1 \u1f10\u03bc\u03bf\u1f76 \u03b4\u03b5\u03b9\u03bb\u1ff7 \u03ba\u03b1\u03ba\u1f70 \u03bc\u03ae\u03b4\u03b5\u03c4\u03bf \u03bc\u03b7\u03c4\u03af\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1 \u0396\u03b5\u03cd\u03c2.\n\nAgain, the Poet appears to have entirely misconceived the distance\nof Pharos from the coast. He places it at a day\u2019s sail from \u0391\u1f34\u03b3\u03c5\u03c0\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2,\nmeaning probably by that name the Nile. Vain attempts have been made to\nget rid by explanation of this geographical error. Nitzsch[542] says\ntruly, that for the geography of this passage Homer was dependent on\nthe gossip of sailors, and compares it with that of Ogygia, Scheria,\nand the rest. When Menelaus went to Egypt, it was involuntarily, as we\nare assured by Nestor[543];\n\n[542] On Od. iv. 354.\n\n[543] Od. iii. 299.\n\n \u1f00\u03c4\u1f70\u03c1 \u03c4\u1f70\u03c2 \u03c0\u03ad\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5 \u03bd\u03ad\u03b1\u03c2 \u03ba\u03c5\u03b1\u03bd\u03bf\u03c0\u03c1\u1ff3\u03c1\u03b5\u03af\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2\n \u0391\u1f30\u03b3\u03cd\u03c0\u03c4\u1ff3 \u1f10\u03c0\u03ad\u03bb\u03b1\u03c3\u03c3\u03b5 \u03c6\u03ad\u03c1\u03c9\u03bd \u1f04\u03bd\u03b5\u03bc\u03cc\u03c2 \u03c4\u03b5 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f55\u03b4\u03c9\u03c1.\n\nBeyond the circumscriptions which have thus been drawn, lie the\ncountries of the Outer Geography. Outwards their limit in the mind of\nHomer was either the great River Ocean, or else the land immediately\nbordering upon it. Their inner line, that is, the line nearest to the\nknown Greek or Homeric world, may be defined by a number of points\nspecified in the poems. We have, for example, the Lotophagi and Libya\nin the south; the land of the Cyclops on the west; (I pass by Sicily,\nbecause it can, I think, be shown, that Homer transplanted it into\nanother quarter;) Scheria to the north-west, the Abii, Glactophagi,\nand Hippemolgi, to the north. Then come the Strait of the \u03a0\u03bb\u03b1\u03b3\u03ba\u03c4\u03b1\u1f76, or\nBosphorus, pretty accurately conceived as to its site; next towards\nthe east, the Amazons and the Solymi with their mountains; in the\nsouth-east the \u1f18\u03c1\u03b5\u03bc\u03b2\u03bf\u1f76, and then the widely spread \u0391\u1f30\u03b8\u03af\u03bf\u03c0\u03b5\u03c2. All the\nplaces and people visited by Ulysses after the Lotophagi, that have not\nbeen named, must be conceived to lie yet further outwards.\n\nI have now explained the grounds on which I assume the existence\nof two great zones, the one of a real, the other of an imaginative,\nfluctuating, and semi-fabulous Geography in Homer; and of a third zone,\ndrawn as a somewhat indeterminate border-ground between them.\n\n~_Sphere of the Outer Geography._~\n\nI come now to consider what are the keys or leading ideas of local\narrangement which we can first obtain from the particulars of the Outer\nGeography of Homer, and which we may then apply to the solution of such\nquestions of detail as it presents.\n\nIt is plain that we have real need of some such keys. To ascertain the\ngeneral direction of the movements of the Wanderings of Ulysses, and\nthe general idea entertained by the Poet of the distribution of land\nand sea, is an essential preliminary to the solution of such questions\nas, Where were the Sirens? or, Where were the L\u00e6strygones? According to\nthe statement I have recently given, many of the points, that Ulysses\nin the Wanderings visited by sea, would appear to have been so fixed by\nHomer, as to imply his belief that the chieftain sailed over what we\nknow to be the European continent.\n\nThe two propositions, which I have already ventured to state as being\nthe keys to the Outer Geography of the Odyssey, are in the following\nterms[544]:\n\n[544] See Ethnology, sect. iv. p. 304.\n\n1. That Homer placed to the northward of Thrace, Epirus, and the\nItalian peninsula, an expanse, not of land, but of sea, communicating\nwith the Euxine; or, to express myself in other words, that he greatly\nextended the Euxine westwards, perhaps also shortening it towards\nthe East; and that he made it communicate, by the gulfs of Genoa and\nVenice, with the southern Mediterranean.\n\n2. That he compounded into one two sets of Ph\u0153nician traditions\nrespecting the Ocean-mouth, and fixed the site of it in the North-East.\n\nIn the first place, I assume that it would be a waste of time to enter\nupon an elaborate confutation of the traditional identifications, which\nthe pardonable ambition of after-times has devised for the various\npoints of the wanderings. According to those expository figments,\nwe must believe that the land of the Cyclops is an island, that it\nis the same island which reappears at a later date as Thrinacie,\nthat \u00c6olia is Stromboli in sight of that island of the Cyclops,\n(though it took Ulysses nine days of fair wind to sail from it to\nwithin sight of Ithaca,) and that Ulysses could sail straight across\nthe sea from \u00c6olia to Ithaca. We must look for the L\u00e6strygones and\ntheir perpetual day in the latitudes of the Mediterranean. We must\neither place the ocean northward, (but wholly without any prototype\nin nature,) and the under-world on the west coast of Italy, where\nthere is no stream whatever, and seek, too, for fogs and darkness in\nthe choicest atmospheres of the world; or else we must remove the\nOcean-mouth to a distance about four times as far from the island\nof Circe, as that island is from Greece, whereas the poem evidently\npresumes their comparative proximity. But in truth, it is useless to go\non accumulating single objections, for it is not upon these that the\nconfutation principally depends. The confutation of these pardonable\nbut idle traditions rests on broader grounds. The grounds are such as\nreally these, that in no one particular do these Italian fables--for\nsuch I must call them, notwithstanding the partial countenance they\nreceive from the chaotic and seemingly adulterated parts of the\nTheogony of Hesiod[545]--satisfy the letter of the text of Homer; that\nin the attempt to give it a geographical character, they misconceive\nits spirit; and that they oblige us to override and nullify not only\nthe facts of actual geography, for that we might do without violating\nany law of reason and likelihood under the conditions of the case, but\nalso the positive indications which Homer has given us from phenomena\nthat lay within his knowledge and experience. In fact, they would\noblige us to condemn Homer as geographically unworthy of trust, within\nthe sphere of the every day life and resort of the Greeks, as well as\nin regions, which he and his countrymen never visited.\n\n[545] Hes. Theog. 1011-15.\n\nAnd the result of all the violence thus done to Homer would be, that we\nshould have sacrificed at once his language and his imagination, in the\nattempt to struggle with contradictions to the actual geography which\ndefy every attempt at reconciliation.\n\nAt the outset, according to my view, both admissions must be made, and\nprinciples must be laid down, as cardinal and essential to the conduct\nof the inquiry we have now in hand.\n\n~_Dislocation of actual nature._~\n\nIt must, I think, be admitted,\n\n1. That Homer has dislocated or transplanted the traditions he\nhad received. For example, he has either carried the Bosphorus\nwestwards[546], or else the Straits of Messina eastwards.\n\n[546] M\u00fcller\u2019s Orchomenos, p. 274.\n\n2. That therefore as we are on this occasion inquiring not into the\ngeographical information Homer can give us, but into the errors he\nhad embraced, we must not be surprised if we fail to arrive at any\nconclusions, either wholly self-consistent or demonstratively clear. We\nmust exact from his text, with something less than geographical rigour,\neven the conditions of inward harmony.\n\nIt may then reasonably be asked, if this be so, how are we to find any\nclue to his meaning.\n\nMy answer is, by laying down rules which will enable us to\ndiscriminate between his primary and his secondary statements; between\nthe results of his knowledge, and the fruits of his fancy.\n\nBy his knowledge I mean, what he had seen, what he had travelled over,\nwhat was familiarly and habitually known to his countrymen, so as to\ngive him ample opportunities of refreshing recollection, of enlarging\nknowledge, and of correcting error.\n\nBy the fruits of his fancy I mean, the forms he has thought fit to\ngive to statements of geography lying outside the world of his own\nexperience, and that of the Greeks in general. These statements,\ngathered here and there as time and opportunity might serve, he could\nhardly have moulded into a correct and consistent scheme. Emancipating\nhimself wholly from obligations which it was impossible for him to\nfulfil, he has treated them simply as the creatures of his poetic\npurpose, and has analysed, shifted, and recombined them into a world of\nhis own, in the creation and adjustment of which, the principal factor\nhas of necessity been his own will.\n\n~_Postulates for the inquiry._~\n\nI therefore lay down the following postulates:\n\n1. That, Homer having an Inner or known and an Outer or imagined world,\nbetween which a line may be drawn with tolerable certainty, the voyage\nof Ulysses, from the Lotophagi to Scheria inclusive, lies in the Outer\nworld.\n\n2. That we may not only implicitly accept the geographical statements\nof Homer, when they lie within his own horizon or the Inner world, but\nmay fearlessly argue from them.\n\n3. That arguments so drawn are available and paramount, as far as\nthey go, for governing the construction of passages relating to the\ngeography of the Outer world.\n\n4. That we have no title to argue, when we find a point in the Outer\nworld described in such a manner as to correspond with some spot now\nknown, that Homer gave to that tract or region in his own mind, the\nsite which we may now know it to occupy, but that he is quite as likely\nto have placed it elsewhere.\n\n5. That arguments grounded on the physical knowledge of the Poet are\nto be trusted. I would name by way of example, (subject only to a\ncertain latitude for inexactness,) such arguments as are drawn from the\ndirections of winds, and from other patent and cardinal facts of common\nexperience, for example, the distances which may be traversed within\ngiven times.\n\n6. So likewise are the indications, which harmonize with known or\nreasonably presumed historical and ethnological views, to be trusted as\ngood evidence on questions relating to his geographical meaning.\n\nIn order, however, to be in a condition to make use of indications\nsupplied by the Winds, we must consider what the Winds of Homer are.\n\n~_The Winds of Homer._~\n\nThe Winds of Homer are only four in number, and the manner of their\nphysical arrangement is rude. It by no means corresponds with our own,\nbut varies from it greatly, just as his points of the compass varied\nfrom ours. And though he names only four winds, yet I apprehend we must\nconsider that upon the whole he uses them with such latitude, as to\nexpress under the name of some one of them every gale that blew.\n\nAs to some of these winds, Homer has provided us with an abundance of\ntrustworthy _data_ for their point of origin: and through them the\nevidence as to the rest may be enlarged.\n\nHomer\u2019s governing points, from which to measure arcs of the horizon\nwere, as is evident, the sunrise and the sunset. This is clearly shown\nby his expressions, such as \u03c0\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u1f20\u1ff6 \u03c4\u2019 \u1f20\u03ad\u03bb\u03b9\u03cc\u03bd \u03c4\u03b5, for the east, and\nthen in opposition to this, \u03c0\u03bf\u03c4\u1f76 \u03b6\u03cc\u03c6\u03bf\u03bd \u1f20\u03b5\u03c1\u03cc\u03b5\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1[547] for the west.\nAgain, when Ulysses urges upon his companions that he has lost all\nmeans of forming a judgment of their position, his mode of expression\nis this, that he does not know where is dusk or where is dawn; where\nthe joy-giving sun rises, or where he sinks[548]. We must therefore\ndismiss from our minds the four cardinal points to which we are\naccustomed. They were not cardinal points for Homer. We must also\nremember not only (1) that Homer had only two[549], but also (2) that\nhis two did not correspond with any of our four, and (3) that from the\nvariation of sunrise and sunset with the seasons of the year a certain\namount of vagueness was of necessity introduced into his conceptions of\nthe point of origin for each of the different winds.\n\n[547] Il. xii. 239, 40.\n\n[548] Od. x. 190-2.\n\n[549] Wood (Genius of Homer, p. 23,) says, \u2018only four,\u2019 meaning only\nfour winds. But it is pretty clear that Homer\u2019s four winds were not at\nanything like ninety degrees from one another. There is in Homer no\nword meaning strictly either south, or north. _Daksha_, however, from\nwhence is derived \u03b4\u03b5\u03be\u03b9\u1f78\u03c2, means _southerly_ as well as _on the right_:\nbut probably S. E. rather than S. Pott, Etymolog. Forschungen, II. 186,\n7.\n\nWe should not, however, exaggerate this vagueness. It had its cause in\nthe variations of the ecliptic, and, like its cause, it was limited.\nI suppose, however, that the eye guesses rudely at the deviations of\nthe ecliptic, and that we must take N.W. and S.E. for the two cardinal\npoints of Homer.\n\nHomer\u2019s west then ranged to the north of west, and Homer\u2019s east to\nthe south of east. But although this must be borne in mind when we\ntranslate his winds into our language, yet of course the winds\nthemselves were arranged, not technically so as each to cover a certain\narc on the horizon, but with reference to the directions in which they\nwere found by experience commonly to blow. And in associating each wind\nwith a particular point of the horizon, we must bear in mind that such\na point is to be regarded as its centre, and that the same name would\nbe given to a wind within a number of points on either side of it.\n\nAs to the respective prevalence of the different winds, the criterion\nis certainly a rude one, still it is a criterion, which is provided\nfor us by the comparative frequency of the occasions on which they are\nmentioned. Eurus is mentioned in the poems seven times, Notus fifteen;\nBoreas twenty-seven, subject to a small deduction for cases where he is\nsimply a person; and Zephyr twenty-six. The latter pair are the leading\nWinds of the poem: not necessarily that they indicated the prevailing\ncurrents of air, but that they represented such currents of air as\nusually prevailed with force sufficient to make them good poetical\nagents.\n\nWe may also learn, from the epithets given to the winds, the\nimpressions which they respectively made upon the mind of Homer.\n\nEurus never has a character attached to it. Notus seldom has any\nepithet; but still it is mentioned, by the comrade of Ulysses in Od.\nxii. 289, as one of the most formidable winds. This may probably\nhave been on account of its direction relatively to the place of the\nspeaker; because from that point it blew right upon Scylla[550]. Again,\nas Zephyr and Notus are nowhere else associated by the Poet, the\npresumption arises on that ground also that here Notus is put in for a\nspecial and local reason. It is called \u1f00\u03c1\u03b3\u03ad\u03c3\u03c4\u03b7\u03c2, and is so essentially\nallied with the idea of moisture, that \u03bd\u03cc\u03c4\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2 stands simply for wet\n(\u03bd\u03cc\u03c4\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f31\u03b4\u03c1\u1f7c\u03c2, Il. xi. 810).\n\n[550] Od. xii. 427.\n\nThe characteristic epithets of Boreas are \u03bc\u03ad\u03b3\u03b1\u03c2, \u1f40\u03c0\u03ce\u03c1\u03b9\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2, and\n\u03b1\u1f30\u03b8\u03c1\u03b7\u03b3\u03ad\u03bd\u03b7\u03c2. The first of these indicates that he blew hard: and we know\nthe same thing from the facts, that Achilles desired him to contribute\ntowards rapidly consuming the pyre of Patroclus, and that he is often\nused for a storm[551].\n\n[551] Il. xxiii. 194.\n\nBut, of all the winds, the Zephyr evidently was the most prominent in\nthe view of Homer. It is \u03bc\u03ad\u03b3\u03b1\u03c2 (Od. xiv. 458), \u03bb\u03b1\u03b2\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c0\u03b1\u03b9\u03b3\u03af\u03b6\u03c9\u03bd (Il.\nii. 148), \u03ba\u03b5\u03bb\u03b1\u03b4\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd\u1f78\u03c2 (Il. xxiii. 208), \u03b4\u03c5\u03c3\u03b1\u1f74\u03c2 (Il. xxiii. 200, and Od.\nxii. 289), \u03ba\u03b5\u03ba\u03bb\u03b7\u03b3\u1f7c\u03c2 (Od. xii. 408); and it alone of the winds roars,\n\u03b6\u03b5\u03c6\u03cd\u03c1\u03bf\u03b9\u03bf \u1f30\u03ce\u03b7 (Il. iv. 276). In Od. xii. 289, it is mentioned with\nNotus: they are the winds most apt to destroy ships even despite or\nwithout the gods. For Notus, as I have said, this character seems to\nbe local: but the Zephyr is here called \u03b4\u03c5\u03c3\u03b1\u1f74\u03c2, and the sense of the\npassage is in accordance with his general reputation. He, with Boreas,\nis invoked for the pyre of Patroclus: and these two are the only winds\nwhich are ever employed singly to make foul weather. Homer\u2019s other\nmodes of creating a tempest by the agency of the winds are (1) to make\na combination of all or several of them, (2) to cover the matter in a\ngenerality by speaking of the \u1f40\u03bb\u03bf\u03bf\u1f76 \u1f04\u03bd\u03b5\u03bc\u03bf\u03b9 without distinction.\n\nThere is, however, in Homer a faint trace of the milder character,\nwhich was afterwards more fully recognised in Zephyr, when he had moved\ndown from the north, and become a simple west wind. In the description\nof the Elysian plain, we find that it is never vexed with tempest or\nwith rain, but that the happy spirits dwelling there are incessantly\nrefreshed with the Zephyrs which spring from Ocean[552]. But even here\nthe breezes are \u03bb\u03b9\u03b3\u03c5\u03c0\u03bd\u03b5\u03af\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2: and this word means what is called\nblowing _fresh_. And the conception of the wind here is rather as a\nsea-wind, and therefore not a cold one, than as being soft and gentle.\n\n[552] Od. iv. 565-9.\n\nOf these four Winds, Homer has made, on various occasions, two couples.\nHe repeatedly associates Boreas and Zephyr in the same work[553]:\n\n[553] Il. ix. 4.\n\n \u1f61\u03c2 \u03b4\u2019 \u1f04\u03bd\u03b5\u03bc\u03bf\u03b9 \u03b4\u03cd\u03bf \u03c0\u03cc\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd \u1f40\u03c1\u03af\u03bd\u03b5\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd \u1f30\u03c7\u03b8\u03c5\u03cc\u03b5\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1,\n \u0392\u03bf\u03c1\u03ad\u03b7\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u0396\u03ad\u03c6\u03c5\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2, \u03c4\u03ce\u03c4\u03b5 \u0398\u03c1\u1fc4\u03ba\u03b7\u03b8\u03b5\u03bd \u1f04\u03b7\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd.\n\nAnd again, for the purposes of Achilles, the two come together over the\nsea, and quickly fall to, that the pyre may be consumed; even as the\nprayer of the hero had been addressed to them in common[554].\n\n[554] Il. xxiii. 194, 212.\n\nIn the same way, Eurus and Notus are associated together as exciting\nthe Icarian Sea. This passage is curiously illustrative of Homer\u2019s\ndistinctions between the winds. He has two successive similes, both\ndescribing the agitation of the same Assembly[555]. In the first it is\ncompared to the Icarian Sea lashed by Eurus, and by Notus charging from\nthe clouds. In the second, to a corn-field, on which Zephyr powerfully\nsweeps down[556].\n\n[555] Il. ii. 144-6, 147-9.\n\n[556] The arrangement of these similes tells powerfully against the\ningenious argument of Mr. Wood concerning the birthplace of Homer.\nGenius of Homer, pp. 7-33.\n\nFrom a just consideration of these passages, it becomes clear that the\nfour winds of Homer were not at equidistant points of the compass,\nbut that each two of them were capable of association, while neither\nmember of one pair is ever described, except in a single passage,\nwhich I will presently notice, as cooperating with one of the other.\nOf course I do not refer to those cases, where the Poet raises all the\nfour winds at once, simply to create a hurricane; no bad conjecture, I\nwill add, for those times, in anticipation of the modern discovery that\nhurricanes are eddies, and that it is their circular motion which makes\nthem seem to blow almost simultaneously in all directions[557].\n\n[557] See General Reid\u2019s Law of Storms and Variable Winds. London. 1849.\n\nLet us now inquire what can be done towards ascertaining more\nparticularly the leading points of these winds, of which we have\nsurveyed the general descriptions.\n\n~_Points of origin for Zephyr and Boreas._~\n\nI begin with the more prevailing pair, Zephyr and Boreas.\n\nThere can, I think, be no hesitation in deriving \u0396\u03ad\u03c6\u03c5\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2 from \u03b6\u03cc\u03c6\u03bf\u03c2.\nIt may be well to remind the reader that \u03b6\u03cc\u03c6\u03bf\u03c2 is the same word in\nsubstance with \u03ba\u03bd\u03ad\u03c6\u03b1\u03c2 and \u03bd\u03ad\u03c6\u03bf\u03c2[558].\n\n[558] Buttmann. Lexil. voc. \u03ba\u03ad\u03bb\u03b1\u03b9\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2.\n\nThus the north-west is his cradle. But he is so closely associated\nwith Thrace and with Boreas, the former being his residence, and\nthe latter[559] his companion, that though he may mean any wind\nfrom west up to north, we must consider him as usually leaning from\nthe north-west towards the north, while he properly belongs to the\nnorth-west rather than any other given point of the compass.\n\n[559] Il. xxiii. 214.\n\nThe position of Boreas is the best defined of all the winds of Homer.\nHe cannot come from any point to the west of due north: for all that\nspace is appropriated to Zephyr. He is equally well defined on the\nother side. For he blows from Thrace, both generally, as in Il. ix.\n5, and particularly on the Plain of Troy[560]. I hold to be of no\nauthority, as fixing the direction of this wind, the Boreas which\ncarries the pseudo-Ulysses from Crete to Egypt[561]: for there Homer\nis already beyond the Inner World, and he only knows the position of\nEgypt from Ph\u0153nician report. But we have other trustworthy indications\nfrom within the sphere of Greek nautical knowledge, in his carrying\nHercules from Ilium to Cos[562], in his preventing a voyage from Crete\nto Ilium[563], and in the fate of Ulysses, who, in rounding Malea,\nis carried off by Boreas to the westward of Cythera[564]. All these\noperations can be performed only by a wind blowing from the quarter\nbetween east and north-east.\n\n[560] Il. xxiii. 214, as above.\n\n[561] Od. xiv. 253.\n\n[562] Il. xiv. 255. xv. 26.\n\n[563] Od. xix. 200.\n\n[564] Od. ix. 81.\n\nPutting together these indications, I think we must conclude that the\nBoreas of Homer is a wind to the east of north. But it seems plain that\nhe does not embrace nearly the whole quadrant from north to east. For,\nlike and even more than Zephyr on the other side of the pole, he has a\nleaning towards the polar side, and, in the absence of more particular\nmarks, Homer should be taken to mean by him a N.N.E. wind, that is, a\nwind ranging principally or wholly from N. to N.E.\n\nI take the line Il. ix. 5, which many have treated as a difficulty, for\na sound and valuable geographical indication. Boreas and Zephyr blow\nfrom Thrace. To a Greek, say at Mycen\u00e6, Thrace, which reaches from the\nAdriatic to the Euxine, covers more than ninety degrees of the horizon.\nIt is from within those ninety degrees that every Boreas, and probably\nevery Zephyr, of Homer can be shown to blow. These are facts which\nwe may hold in deposit, ready for service in the explanation of the\nmovements of the Outer Geography.\n\nAnd along with them we must keep in mind the Homeric affinity and\nsympathy established between Boreas and Zephyr. It is so considerable,\nand they are especially in such local proximity, that practically\nwe should not go far wrong were we to say Homer divides the whole\ncircumference of his horizon into three nearly equal arcs of 120\ndegrees, more or less. The first of these, beginning from due west,\nis given to Zephyr and to Boreas. The next, reaching to within 30\u00b0 of\nthe South Pole, to Eurus: and the third, embracing the residue of the\ncircle, to Notus.\n\n~_Points of the Compass for Notus and Eurus._~\n\nNotus is the great southern wind, Eurus being comparatively of little\naccount. Now, one of the chief _data_ applicable to determining the\ndirection of these winds is the passage Il. ii. 144-6. Here they are\ndescribed as disturbing the Icarian Sea, which was within the sphere of\nGreek navigation. Now the position of that sea, on the coast of Asia\nMinor to the south of Samos, shows,\n\n1. That both these winds in Homer have a decidedly southern character.\n\n2. That one, of course Eurus, must come from the east, and the other,\nNotus, in that place, from the west of south. Because the conflict of\nthe two winds presumes a considerable space between the points from\nwhich they blow, while the position of the Icarian Sea requires both\nto be southern. But in the Fifth Odyssey, too, Notus is treated as the\nproper antagonist of Boreas. His centre therefore lies a little to the\nwestward of due south; but Eurus does not approach the South Pole,\nand every wind from about S.S.E. to W. will probably fall within the\nHomeric description of Notus.\n\nThe associations of Notus and Eurus are frequent[565]. On one\noccasion, however, Notus is combined with Zephyr, though there is no\ncorresponding case of junction between Eurus and Boreas. Notus and\nZephyr are sent from the sea by Juno to blast the Trojan army with\nheat. Boreas would of course be a cold wind: and Eurus would be cold on\nthe plain of Troy, from passing over the chain of Ida: though in Greece\nhe melts the snow that Zephyr has brought. Differences of season, as\nwell as of situation, may have to do with these varieties of operation.\n\n[565] Il. ii. 144-6. xvi. 765. Od. v. 330. xii. 326.\n\nThough less strong than Zephyr and Boreas, Notus is a stronger wind\nthan Eurus. And though generally the counterpart of Boreas, his power\nof cooperating with Zephyr shows that he must reach over the quadrant\nfrom the South pole to West, whereas we have no Boreas coming down from\nthe North pole as far as East.\n\nAs the opposite of Zephyr, Eurus blows principally from the\nsouth-eastern quarter; and hence is in frequent cooperation with Notus,\nbut never with any other wind. He must, however, be understood to cover\nthe whole space from the rigidly northern Boreas down to Notus, or\nfrom about N.E. to within 30\u00b0 of the South pole. Boreas is inflexibly\nconfined by all the evidence of the poems to a very narrow space: and\nEurus, his neighbour eastward, does not much frequent those points of\nthe compass that lie nearest to him.\n\n [Illustration: winds and directions]\n\nThe accompanying sketch expresses what I believe to be in the main\nHomer\u2019s arrangement of the Winds. At the same time, I do not know that\nwe have any practical example of any wind in Homer which blows from\nwithin forty-five degrees on either side of due East, or from within\nabout the same number of degrees on either side of due West. Perhaps it\nwas from their local infrequency, that he does not appear to have put\nsuch winds in requisition[566].\n\n[566] Friedreich has discussed the winds of Homer (Realien der Il. und\nOd. \u00a7. 3). His results are to me unsatisfactory: but the fault seems\nto lie in his basis. For (1) he fixes the four Winds of Homer as the\nfour cardinal points: and (2) he finds _data_ for ascertaining the\nWinds in the Passages of the Outer Geography, instead of determining\nthose Passages themselves by the Winds, after these latter have been\nascertained from evidence belonging to the sphere of Homer\u2019s own\nexperience.\n\nThe name Eurus is further attached to the point of sunrise by the root\n\u1f14\u03c9\u03c2, to which it is traced[567]. The tracts of Aides are with Homer\n\u03c3\u03bc\u03b5\u03c1\u03b4\u03ac\u03bb\u03b5\u03b1 \u03b5\u1f50\u03c1\u03ce\u03b5\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1 (Il. xx. 65). May not this \u03b5\u1f50\u03c1\u03c9\u03b5\u1f76\u03c2 come from the\nsame source? The Cimmerian darkness of Homer is close to the mouth\nof Ocean, and _near_ that chamber of the Sun, which is at \u00c6\u00e6a[568].\nViewing dawn as the middle point between night and day, Homer possibly\nconnected it with each. It seems further possible, that he connected\nthe Eastern with the Western darkness: both because this would bring\nhis two regions of the future world into relations with each other, and\nbecause he makes the Sun disport himself with his oxen on the same spot\nin Thrinacie after his setting in the evening, and before his rising in\nthe morning: a passage, which for its full explanation might require\nthe supposition, that Homer believed the earth to be cylindrical in\nform, and thus the extremes of East and West to meet[569]. There will\nshortly be occasion to revert to this subject, in further considering\nwhat were the constituent parts of Homer\u2019s East.\n\n[567] Liddell and Scott _in voc._\n\n[568] Od. xi. 13-16. xii. 1-4.\n\n[569] See Friedreich, Realien, \u00a7. 9. p. 19.\n\n_Homeric distances and rates of speed._\n\nI shall trust mainly then to winds, thus ascertained from Homer\u2019s Inner\nworld, as the means of indicating the directions of the movements\ndescribed in his Outer one. But besides directions, we have distances\nto consider. And here too we have some evidence, supplied by his\nexperimental knowledge, to guide us.\n\nBy combining the inner-world _data_ of distance with those of\ndirection, we shall obtain the essential conditions of decision for the\nouter-world problems. Conditions both essential and sufficient, when we\ncan lay hold upon them; but we shall still have to contend with this\ndifficulty, that in one or two remarkable cases the Poet takes refuge\nin language wholly vague, and leaves us no guide for our conjectures,\nexcept the rule of making the unascertained conform in spirit to what\nhas been made reasonably certain.\n\nThe distances of which I now speak are sea-distances. It is a somewhat\nremarkable fact, that Homer scarcely gives us land-distances at all.\nTelemachus and Pisistratus drive in two days from Pylus to Sparta: but\nit is not the wont of the Poet to describe places, which communicate\nover land, by the number of days occupied in travelling between them.\nThis circumstance is illustrative of a trait, which assumes great\nimportance in Homer\u2019s Outer Geography, namely, the miniature scale of\nhis conceptions as to all land-spaces; a trait, I may add, to which we\nshall have occasion to revert.\n\nThe sea-distances of Homer are performed in no less than six different\nmodes.\n\n 1. By ordinary sailing.\n 2. By ordinary rowing.\n 3. By rafts, Od. v. 251.\n 4. By drifting on a timber, Od. xiv. 310-15.\n 5. By floating and swimming, Od. v. 374, 5, 388, 399.\n\nSixthly, and lastly, the ships of the Ph\u00e6acians perform their voyages\nby an inward instinct, and with a rapidity described as marvellous.\n\n~_Evidence as to rates of motion._~\n\nThe language of the poems nowhere takes cognizance of any difference in\nspeed as between sailing and rowing. For example, when Achilles speaks\nof the time of his voyage to Phthia as dependent upon \u03b5\u1f50\u03c0\u03bb\u03bf\u03af\u03b7, which\nthe favour of Neptune could give, he evidently means a good sea and\nthe absence of tempest, and does not at all bargain for a wind from\na particular quarter, which was not a matter lying within Neptune\u2019s\nespecial province. Nor does there seem to be, on general grounds, any\ncause for assuming a difference between the average speeds of rowing\nand of sailing, when we consider, in favour of the first, that the\ncrew rowed almost to a man, with little cargo to carry; and, to the\nprejudice of the second, that the science and art of building quick\nsailers could not then have been understood. I therefore take rowing\nand sailing as equal in celerity. So that we have in reality no more\nthan five different cases to consider.\n\nBut, again, I think there is no reason why we should assume a\ndifference in speed between drifting on a piece of timber, and making\nway by floating and swimming only. In practicability there may be a\nconsiderable difference: but that is not the point before us.\n\nThe four methods now remaining seem to require the assumption of\ndifferent speeds respectively.\n\nNow Homer has supplied us with the times necessary for performing known\ndistances in two cases; and has also given us a third case, which may\nbe used for checking one of the other instances.\n\nA case of known distance is that from the mouth of the Straits\nof Gallipoli to Phthia. This, according to Achilles in the Ninth\nIliad[570], would, with favourable weather, be performed so as to\narrive on the third day. It may amount to a little more than three\ndegrees, and may be taken at two hundred and twenty miles. The time is\nthree days and two nights. So that, for ordinary sailing or rowing, a\nday and a night may be taken at about ninety miles, of course without\nany pretension to minute accuracy.\n\n[570] Il. ix. 362.\n\nSecondly. With a good passage, a ship sailing from Crete to Egypt\narrives on the fifth day (Od. xiv. 257). But we cannot consider Homer\u2019s\nopinion of the distance between Crete and Egypt as entitled to the\nfull weight of his experimental knowledge. Again, it is to be borne in\nmind, that here the north wind, which carries the ship, was a prime one\n(\u1f00\u03ba\u03c1\u03b1\u1f74\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u1f78\u03c2, 253). Lastly, much might depend on the part of Crete,\nfrom which we suppose the vessel to have sailed.\n\nAs respects the last-named question, we must, from the habits of\nancient navigation, suppose the eastern extremity of the island to have\nbeen the point of departure; because no sailor would have committed\nhimself to Boreas on the open sea, as long as he could make way under\ncover of a shore lying to windward.\n\nThe distance between the eastern point of Crete and the western mouth\nof the Nile is about three hundred and fifty miles; the time five days\nand four nights. This would give a somewhat less rate of progress _per\ndiem_ than the last case; but then it is likely that Homer took the\ndistance to be greater in that almost unknown sea (see Od. iii. 320.)\nthan it really is; so that we have cause to view the two computations\nas in substance accordant. And even if they had clashed, the former\nwould still be entitled to our acceptance.\n\nWhat, however, does appear to be the case is, that Homer mistook the\ncourse from Crete to Egypt. It is really S. W.: he has defined it by\nthe wind Boreas, which never blows from a point westward, or at the\nvery uttermost never from one materially westward, of N. So that the\ncourse must have been about S. Now, as Homer knew the position of\nCrete, this would show that he brought Egypt too much to the westward,\nby shortening the eastern recess or arm of the Mediterranean; an error\nin exact conformity, I conceive, with all his operations in imagining\nthe geography of the east. But this by the way.\n\nThe third test of sea-distances is supplied by the pretended passage\nof Ulysses, on a mast, from a point just out of sight of Crete[571] to\nThesprotia[572]. He arrives on the tenth night. The distance exceeds,\nby about one half, the voyage from Troas to Phthia. The time is nearly\nfour times as long. But then some allowance may be made for delay on\nthe score of the irregular winds (\u1f40\u03bb\u03bf\u03bf\u1f76 \u1f04\u03bd\u03b5\u03bc\u03bf\u03b9) which prevailed. We may\ntherefore justly calculate the rate of a floating or drift-passage at\nabout one half that of a sailing passage, or two miles an hour instead\nof four. And here our direct evidence closes.\n\n[571] Od. xiv. 301.\n\n[572] Ibid. 310-15.\n\nAt an intermediate point between these, we may place the mode of\npassage by raft, which brought Ulysses from Ogygia. For merchant ships\nwere built broad in the beam; and the raft was as broad as a merchant\nship[573]. Thus constructed, and with its flat bottom, it must have\nbeen very greatly slower than an ordinary sailing vessel, and I venture\nto put it by conjecture as low as two and a half miles an hour.\n\n[573] Od. v. 249-51.\n\nLastly, we have to consider the rates of the Scherian ships. About\nthese the only thing that is clear is, that Homer meant to represent\nthem as far exceeding all known speed of the kind. They went, says\nAlcinous, to Eub\u0153a, or as the verse may be rendered, to Eub\u0153a and back,\nin a day[574]: they are like a chariot with four horses scouring the\nplain; the hawk, swiftest of birds, could not keep up with them[575].\nWe cannot, I think, pretend to appreciate with great precision Homer\u2019s\nmeaning in this point; but it is plain that, as he had a map of some\nkind in his head, he must have had some meaning with respect to the\ndistance performed by the ship from Scheria, though probably a vague\none. I think we may venture to take it at three times the speed of the\nordinary sailing vessel, or at about twelve miles an hour.\n\n[574] Od. vii. 325.\n\n[575] Od. xiii. 81, 86.\n\nThus, taking drift-speed for our unit, we have the following scale\napproximately established:\n\n1. Drift = 2 miles per hour = 48 miles per day of 24 hours.\n\n2. Raft = 1\u00bc drift = 2\u00bd miles per hour = 60 miles per day of 24 hours.\n\n3. Sailing or rowing ship = 2 drift = 4 miles per hour = 96 miles per\nday of 24 hours.\n\n4. Hawk-ship of Scheria = 3 sailing ship = 6 drift = 12 miles per hour\n= 288 miles per day of 24 hours.--\n\nLet us next proceed to consider, whether there are any cardinal ideas\nof particular places or arrangements in the Outer Geography of Homer,\nwhich govern its general structure. For such ideas may, together\nwith the _data_ that we have now drawn from the circle of his Inner\nor Experimental Geography, assist us in the examination of what\nundoubtedly at first sight appear to be almost chaotic details.\n\n~_Northward sea-route to the Euxine._~\n\nSetting out from this point, my first business is to show, that Homer\nbelieved in a sea-route from the Mediterranean to the Euxine, other\nthan that of the Straits of Gallipoli and the Bosphorus. This route\nwas formed in his mind, as I shall endeavour to prove, by cutting off\nthe land from east to west, a little to the north of the Peninsula\nof Greece, all the way from the Adriatic to the Euxine. Thus we\npractically substitute an expanse of sea for the mass of the European\ncontinent; and we must not conceive of any definite boundary to this\n\u03b8\u03ac\u03bb\u03b1\u03c3\u03c3\u03b1, other than the mysterious one which may finally separate\nit from Ocean. Or, in other words, we must give to the Black Sea\nan indefinite extension to the west and north-west, perhaps also\nshortening it in the direction of the East. This is the one master\nvariation from nature in Homer\u2019s ideal geography[576]; and, when his\nbelief on this subject has been sufficiently proved, almost every thing\nelse will fall into its place with comparative ease.\n\n[576] On this hypothesis is founded the Homeric _Erdkarte_ of Forbiger,\nHandbuch der Alt. Geogr. I. 4.\n\nI will endeavour to illustrate and sustain this hypothesis from\nthe positive evidence, either direct or inferential, of the poems:\nand I hope to show that it stands upon grounds independent of the\nnegative argument, that it is absolutely necessary in order to supply\na key to the Wanderings. At the same time, I hold that that negative\nargument, if made good, would suffice: for, though we do no violence\nto probability in imputing to the geography of the Odyssey any amount\nof variance, however great, from actual nature, yet we should sorely\noffend against reason, if we supposed that Homer had constructed a\nroute so elaborate and detailed, without laying it out before his own\nmental vision, and presenting it to that of his hearers, after the\nfashion of something like a map. This was alike demanded by the realism\n(so to speak) of the time, and needful for the complete comprehension\nand easy enjoyment of the romance.\n\nThe indications on this subject, apart from the evidence of the\nWanderings themselves, are as follows:\n\n1. When, in the Thirteenth Iliad[577], Jupiter turns away his eyes\nfrom the battle by the Ships, he turns them towards the north-east: in\nthe direction, that is, in which, according to the hypothesis above\nstated, there was for Homer not, as we now know to be the case, a\nwide expanse of land capable of containing a countless multitude of\ntribes, but, after a certain interval, a vast and unexplored sea. Now\nthe Poet tells us, not that Jupiter looked over an indefinite mass of\ncontinent, or the \u1f00\u03c0\u03b5\u03af\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd\u03b1 \u03b3\u03b1\u1fd6\u03b1\u03bd; but that he looked over the country\nof the Thracians, the Mysians, the Hippemolgi, the Glactophagi, and\nthe Abii. Moreover, he indicates, by giving characteristic epithets to\neach of these nations, that they lay more or less within the sphere\nof contact with Greek intercourse and experience, and therefore at no\ngreat distance to the northward: for not only are the Thracians riders\nof horses, but the Mysians are fighters hand to hand, the Hippemolgi\nare formidable or venerable, and the Abii are the most righteous of\nmen. The Glactophagi are defined by their name as feeders upon milk.\nThis limited and characteristic enumeration is in conformity, at the\nvery least, with the hypothesis, that Homer imagined in that direction\nno continuous succession of land and of inhabitants, but a sea\ncircumscribing the country of Thrace to the north.\n\n[577] Il. xiii. 1.\n\n2. A more marked indication is, I think, yielded by the passage of the\nOdyssey, in which Alcinous says to Ulysses, \u2018We will convey you to your\nhome, even though it should be more distant than Eub\u0153a, the furthest\npoint that has been visited by our people; of whom some saw it, when\nthey carried Rhadamanthus thither, in the matter of Tityus, son of the\nEarth[578].\u2019\n\n[578] Od. vii. 19-26.\n\nIt appears to me evident, that Homer means in this place to suppose a\nmaritime route between Scheria and Eub\u0153a, to the North of Thrace. He is\nnot, we must remember, experimentally informed as to the position of\nScheria itself, and probably he conceived it to lie quite outside the\nsphere of Greece, at a considerable distance to the northward. Though\nhe brings Ulysses from thence to Ithaca in a day, this is effected\nby the privileged and miraculous rapidity of passage, which was the\ndistinguishing gift of the Ph\u00e6acians, as the kin of the Immortals.\nThey are indeed in contact, according to the poem, with the habitable\nworld, but they are strictly upon the outer line of it. They are of\nthe race of Neptune: related to the Cyclops and the Giants: their\nordinary life and their maritime routes could not, without doing\nutter violence to the conceptions of the Poet, be brought within the\nsphere of ordinary Greek experience. We cannot, therefore, be intended\nto suppose them to have carried the ancient Rhadamanthus past every\nknown town, port, and point in Greece; past Ithaca, Dulichium, the\nCephallenes, Pylus, and the rest. Nor would Eub\u0153a, thus approached,\nbe to Ulysses, who had himself visited Aulis on his way to Troy, a\ngood type of remoteness: nor does it answer that description for the\nPh\u00e6acians themselves, if we consider it according to geographic prose;\nfor though the way to it is long, it is not so distant in a direct line\nas other parts of Greece, Crete for example; and any people who had\nmade a voyage to Eub\u0153a by sea, round the peninsula, would know very\nwell that the proper way to it was by land. We must, in short, presume\nsuch a position for the Scheria of Homer, as to imply a communication\nby sea between it and Eub\u0153a, other than that through the known waters\nof Greece.\n\nBut if we suppose a maritime passage from the Adriatic round Thrace\nto exist, then we keep the Ph\u00e6acians entirely in their own element,\nas borderers between the world of Greek experience, and the world of\nfable. They still, when they carry Rhadamanthus, as in all other cases,\nhang upon the skirt, as it were, of actual humanity. And, thus viewed,\nEub\u0153a might fairly stand for a type of extreme remoteness.\n\n3. Another passage of Homer, when understood according to its\ngeographical bearings, appears to me, of itself, nearly conclusive upon\nthis question.\n\nWhen Mercury is ordered to carry the message of the gods from Olympus\nto Calypso[579], his proceedings are carefully described. He equipped\nhimself with his foot-wings (Od. v. 44), took in hand his wand (47),\nand got upon the wing (49). The next step in the narrative is,\n\n[579] Od. v. 43-58.\n\n \u03a0\u03b9\u03b5\u03c1\u03af\u03b7\u03bd \u03b4\u2019 \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03b2\u1f70\u03c2, \u1f10\u03be \u03b1\u1f30\u03b8\u03ad\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f14\u03bc\u03c0\u03b5\u03c3\u03b5 \u03c0\u03cc\u03bd\u03c4\u1ff3\u00b7 (50.)\n\nHe then bounded along the wave (51), reached the remote island (55),\nlanded on the beach (56), and finally arrived at the cave (57). I think\nno one can read this description, which extends over sixteen verses,\nwithout feeling that it is meant to convey to us, that Mercury moved\nwith great rapidity in a right line, the shortest by which he could\nreach his destination. But now, if this be so, then, as Pieria lies to\nthe northward of Olympus, we have only to ask how does he pursue his\nfurther route? From Pieria he sweeps down upon the sea, and rides upon\nthe waves (54) all the way to Ogygia. It is hopeless to fit this even\nby a moderate deviation either way to any existing sea: we have only,\ntherefore, to conclude, in conformity with the other indications, that\nHomer believed in a \u03b8\u03ac\u03bb\u03b1\u03c3\u03c3\u03b1 to the northward of Pieria. We cannot take\nrefuge in the plea, that Homer did not know where Pieria lay. First,\nbecause it was on the Olympian border of Thessaly, and as Homer knew\nthat region well, he must have known that Pieria lay to the north of\nit. Secondly, it was probably within the circle of Greek traditions;\nsince it is sometimes read for \u03a0\u03b7\u03c1\u03b5\u03af\u1fc3 in Il. ii. 766, and at any\nrate they seem to be in all likelihood different forms of the same\nword. Thirdly, a complete proof is given by the route of Juno in the\nFourteenth Iliad. She passes, in accordance with the actual geography,\nfrom Olympus to Pieria, from Pieria (apparently verging eastwards) to\nEmathia, and so by the Thracian mountains, evidently of Chalcidice, to\nLemnos[580].\n\n[580] Il. xiv. 225-30.\n\n4. There is another passage which may be cited in direct corroboration\nof these views[581]. The spirits of the Suitors passed (1) the stream\nof Ocean, and (2) the Leucadian rock; and also passed (3) the gates of\nthe Sun, and (4) the people of Dream Land.\n\n[581] Od. xxiv. 11.\n\n~_Northward route to the Euxine._~\n\nNow it may be observed, that to pass the Leucadian rock is not the way\nfrom Ithaca to the Straits of Gibraltar: the course would lie round\neither the north or the south point of Cephallonia. Neither is it the\nway to the Bosphorus and Black Sea; which must be sought by steering\nfirst in a southerly direction. But it is the way to Ocean, and the\nnether Shades, if I am correct in my belief that Homer believed the\nroute to lie along the Adriatic, and round the north of Thrace. Nor\nam I aware of any other view of his geography, on which this passage\ncan be explained. The evidence, which it affords, is at first sight\nconclusive in support of the proposition, that Homer\u2019s route to the\nOcean-mouth lay up the Adriatic. But there are two grounds, on which a\nscruple may be felt about its reception. First, it stands in the second\n\u039d\u03b5\u03ba\u03c5\u0390\u03b1, the only considerable portion of either poem which appears,\nto me at least, open to the suspicion that it may have been seriously\ntampered with. Secondly, the order of the passage is singular, as it\nruns thus: they passed, or they went towards, the channels of Ocean,\nand the Leucadian rock, and the gates of the Sun: while, according to\nHomer\u2019s geography, the Leucadian rock would come first, the gates of\nthe Sun second, and Ocean-mouth would be the last of the three points.\n\nBut in answer to the first, the suspicions affecting this passage are\ntoo vague and indeterminate to warrant our rejecting its evidence,\nwhere it is in harmony with the general testimony of Homer. Even if\nthese lines were interpolated, they would be remarkable as embodying an\nancient, probably a very ancient opinion, as to Homer\u2019s geographical\nview on the point at issue.\n\nAs regards the second, we may cite the parallel case of Menelaus in\nhis narrative of his own tour. After Cyprus and Ph\u0153nicia, he describes\nhis visits in the following order: (1) Egypt, (2) Ethiopians, (3)\nSidonians, (4) Erembi, (5) Libya. It is evident that this cannot be\nintended to be understood as the order in which the several places were\nactually visited[582].\n\n[582] Od. iv. 83-5.\n\nWe have thus, I hope, secured for Ulysses, without drawing upon the\nWanderings for testimony, what seamen call a good or wide berth; room\nenough for the disposition of his marvels, and the mystery of the\ndistances between them. In this northern division of the \u03b8\u03ac\u03bb\u03b1\u03c3\u03c3\u03b1 we\nmay imagine Homer to have placed, without any impropriety, or any\nviolence done to his experience of his own latitude, both the double\nday of the L\u00e6strygones, and the fogs of the Cimmerians. Into it he\nmight well drive Ulysses by the force of the south wind[583], and from\nit bring him back by the strength of Zephyr or of Boreas[584]. Lastly,\nby means of this \u03b8\u03ac\u03bb\u03b1\u03c3\u03c3\u03b1, we can avoid placing Circe and the Sunrise\nto the west of Homer\u2019s own country; and we are not obliged to find his\nrepresentation of the \u03a0\u03bb\u03b1\u03b3\u03ba\u03c4\u03b1\u1f76 involving him in the hopeless absurdity\nof contradiction to his own experimental knowledge of the general\ndirection of Jason\u2019s course with the ship Argo.\n\n[583] Od. xii. 325, 427.\n\n[584] Od. v. 485. x. 25. xii. 407.\n\n~_Amalgamated reports of the Ocean-mouth._~\n\nI now pass on to the second of the two propositions, on which it\nappears to me that a reasonable interpretation of the Outer Geography\nis to be founded.\n\nIt is this: that the Poet has compounded into one two sets of Ph\u0153nician\ntraditions respecting the Ocean-mouth, one of them originally\nproceeding from, or belonging to, the West, and the other to the\nNorth-east: and that he has chosen the north-eastern site as the ground\non which to fix the scene of his amalgamated representation.\n\nThe argument, which has recently been adduced for another purpose from\nthe Twenty-fourth Odyssey, is available to show that the Ocean-mouth\nof Homer is towards the north: but it does not suffice to decide the\nquestion between North-east and North-west, nor does it decide whether\nHomer simply transplanted the Straits of Gibraltar, or whether he mixed\ntogether the accounts of it and of some other strait, and welded them\ninto one.\n\nThis question we must examine from the evidence concerning the\nOcean-mouth supplied by the Wanderings themselves.\n\nUlysses and his companions, when they enter the great River Ocean,\nenter it at a point far north, by the city and country of the\nCimmerians, who are enveloped in cloud and vapour[585]: and they\nare carried up or against the stream (\u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u1f70 \u1fe5\u03cc\u03bf\u03bd), by the breath of\nBoreas[586], to the mouth of the _Inferno_. Returning from thence, they\ncome down the stream (\u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u1f70 \u1fe5\u03cc\u03bf\u03bd Od. xi. 639) back to the sea (\u03b8\u03ac\u03bb\u03b1\u03c3\u03c3\u03b1);\nand they there find themselves at the isle of Circe, where is the\ndwelling of \u1f28\u1f7c\u03c2, and where is also the couch, from which the sun rises\nin the morning.\n\n[585] Od. xi. 13, 21.\n\n[586] Od. X. 507.\n\nIn this account it is not difficult to trace certain outlines of\ntruth. The ideas of Homer respecting the gates of Ocean would be drawn\nfrom reports which may have related _prim\u00e2 facie_ to any one of several\ngeographical points; to the Straits of Gibraltar, to the Bosphorus, to\nthe Straits of Yenikal\u00e8 leading into the Sea of Azof, or to all the\nthree. At one and all of these there appears to be a continual stream\nflowing inwards in the direction of the Mediterranean or \u03b8\u03ac\u03bb\u03b1\u03c3\u03c3\u03b1. One\nand all, as sea-straits, present the character of a vast marine river.\nIn exact accordance with these physical facts, Homer makes the ship\nof Ulysses, entering the great River Ocean, sail up the stream. We\nmay observe in passing, that he describes his \u03b8\u03ac\u03bb\u03b1\u03c3\u03c3\u03b1 as \u03b5\u1f50\u03c1\u03cd\u03c0\u03bf\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2,\nin evident contrast with the Ocean, which is marked, therefore, by a\ncontraction of shores.\n\nFurther, Homer had conceived the existence of what we may call\nultra-terrene parts, both westwards and eastwards. On the one hand,\nMenelaus, after death, is to be carried to the Elysian plain, where\nZephyrs continually blow, springing fresh from the bed of western\nOcean. On the other hand, the groves of Persephone are on the beach of\nOcean, but in the furthest East.\n\nStill it does not at all follow from this, that he had in his mind\nthe idea of a double egress from the Mediterranean, or, the \u03b8\u03ac\u03bb\u03b1\u03c3\u03c3\u03b1\nat large, to the Ocean. On the contrary, we never hear of any mode of\naccess to it except one; and his placing the point where Ulysses enters\nit amidst mist and cloud, and his calling in the aid of Boreas to carry\nthe ship to the groves of Persephone and mouth of the Shades (which\nhe probably intended to be the exact counterpart in position of the\nElysian plain), lead to the belief that his egress from sea to Ocean\nwas in the north, and that the further route to the Shades lay, for\nthe most part, in a southerly direction.\n\n~_Open-sea Passage to Ocean-mouth._~\n\nThe reader of the Odyssey will observe, that Ulysses encounters on his\npassage tempests indeed, but yet nothing in the nature of a dangerous\nmaritime passage, before he has entered the Ocean-river, and then,\ncompleting his excursion to the nether world, has returned to the\nisland of Circe[587]. Therefore we may say with certainty, that the\nmouth of Oceanus is, according to the ideas of Homer, accessible by the\nbroad and open sea. Thus we have attained a first condition for the\ndetermination of its site.\n\n[587] Od. xii. 3.\n\nBut, before he sets out a second time from \u00c6\u00e6a, Circe, now his friend,\ndirects him as to his onward and homeward course. First, he was to\nreach the island of the Sirens[588]. After passing beyond this, the\ndeity no longer lays before him a single and continuous route[589]:\nbut indicates to him two alternatives, each involving a most dangerous\npassage. The first is described in the lines Od. xii. 59-72, beginning\n\u1f14\u03bd\u03b8\u03b5\u03bd \u03bc\u1f72\u03bd \u03b3\u03ac\u03c1. The second, which she recommends in vv. 73-110, begins\nwith \u03bf\u1f31 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03b4\u03cd\u03c9 \u03c3\u03ba\u03cc\u03c0\u03b5\u03bb\u03bf\u03b9: where the \u03b4\u1f72 is the _apodosis_ to the \u03bc\u1f72\u03bd of\nv. 59. Now, it must be remembered, that physically there was nothing\nto prevent his returning by the way he came, and thus avoiding both of\nthese passages. Why then does Homer expose him to such extraordinary\ndanger, leaving him no option but either total destruction, or the\ncertain loss, at the least, of six men of his crew[590]?\n\n[588] Ibid. 39, 167.\n\n[589] Ibid. 56.\n\n[590] Ibid. 109, 10.\n\nThe voyage of Ulysses might have been given us by the Poet as the\nexecution of a divine plan, comprehensively premeditated as a whole:\nbut it is not so: it is shown us as simply prolonged from time to time\nby some error of his own or of his companions, or by the spite of\nNeptune, or by the vengeance which the Sun demanded and obtained[591].\nAt \u00c6\u00e6a he has nothing to do, but to take the best way home. Tiresias\nhad indeed prophesied that he would come to Thrinacie[592], but nowhere\nintimates that he was to be divinely compelled to do this, or that he\nwould take that route for any other reason than according to his own\nbest judgment. Why then does he not return, as he had come, by the open\nsea, instead of tempting either of the two passages of peril?\n\n[591] Od. i. 75. xii. 373 _et seqq._\n\n[592] Od. xi. 104-7.\n\nThe answer I believe to be this. He was subject to the resentment of\nNeptune, who operates by storm in the open sea. Otium divos rogat in\n_patenti_ prensus \u00c6g\u00e6o. As in the heroic age, every wound, generally\nspeaking, is death, so storm either invariably or commonly means\nfoundering or shipwreck. Thus then Ulysses might prudently keep to\nlandlocked waters and narrow seas, even with a crisis of great danger\nbefore him, rather than face the angry Sea-god on the long passages\nover the open main, by which he had come to the land of the Cyclops,\nand so onwards to \u00c6\u00e6a.\n\nRationalized, and reduced to its simplest form, this seems to imply\nthat the routes pointed out to him by Circe, and perhaps especially\nthat which he was to prefer, were short cuts either to his home, or at\nleast back into the Inner or Greek world. And in conformity with this\nsupposition, the whole prediction of Circe appears to presume that a\npassage of moderate length would bring him back within the known world;\nfor it never speaks of the breadth of any unknown sea to be crossed,\nwhich to the navigators of that day was always its most formidable\nfeature.\n\nIn the mental view of Homer, then, the passage of Scylla could not lie\nmuch beyond the horizon of his own Greek world and of geography proper.\nThis was the more eligible of the two routes. The other was that of\nthe \u03a0\u03bb\u03b1\u03b3\u03ba\u03c4\u03b1\u1f76, or Bosphorus. It was rejected as involving certain\ndestruction: for only Jason had safely passed it by the aid of Juno,\nand Pallas was not now at hand to succour Ulysses; since he was outside\nthat Greek world, to which her action has been restricted, generally\nspeaking, and in all likelihood for poetical reasons, in the Odyssey.\nNow, since both these passages are spoken of as apparently lying near\nthe island of the Sirens, which is itself separated, as far as we can\njudge, by no long interval from \u00c6\u00e6a and Circe, the next inferences\nwe have to draw are two of very great importance. The first is, that\nalthough the one strait of Homer physically corresponds with the\nStraits of Messina, while by the other he plainly means the Bosphorus,\nyet he conceived of these as within no great distance of one another.\nThe second inference is that, according to the belief of Homer, the\nwaters beyond the Bosphorus were accessible by some channel other than\nthat of the Dardanelles and Sea of Marmora: for otherwise Ulysses could\nnot have placed himself on the farther side of those terrible narrows,\nexcept by navigating one of them.\n\n~_Three maritime routes to Ocean-mouth._~\n\nThere were therefore three maritime routes by which Homer conceived\nthat mouth of Ocean, which Ulysses entered, to be approachable:\n\n1. The route by which the hero actually arrived there:\n\n2. The route of Scylla and Charybdis, by which he returned from it:\n\n3. The route of the Bosphorus, by which Jason had passed, and which\nUlysses might, according to the description of Circe, have attempted.\n\nBut now, what in the view of Homer was this mouth of Ocean? that is,\non what geographical basis rested the reports or descriptions which he\nadopted for the groundwork of his picture? We cannot but admire, as we\npass along, the manner in which the Ph\u0153nicians guarded the treasures of\ntheir distant markets: no way lay to them except through a choice of\nterrors; terror in the boundless expanse of devouring waters; terror\nin shipwreck by the \u03a0\u03bb\u03b1\u03b3\u03ba\u03c4\u03b1\u1f76, which none but Jason (so says Circe, the\nPh\u0153nician witness) had escaped; terror in certain loss of men by the\nvoracious maw of Scylla. What, however, was this Ocean-mouth that lay\nbeyond them?\n\nMy answer is, that there are two mouths of Ocean, either of which\nmight tolerably correspond with the Homeric picture, if tried only by\nits relation to the intermediate points that are represented by these\ndangerous passages.\n\nFirstly, the Straits of Gibraltar, leading to the Atlantic.\n\nSecondly, the Straits of Kertch or Yenikal\u00e8, leading to the Sea of Azof.\n\n~_Straits of Gibraltar as Ocean-mouth._~\n\n1. As regards the Straits of Gibraltar, they correspond with the\nHomeric description in respect of their great distance from Ithaca: of\ntheir current ever setting inwards to the Mediterranean: of their being\naccessible, without previously leaving the wide or open sea for any\nnarrow passage: of their being, we may confidently believe, within the\nmaritime experience of the Ph\u0153nicians. Further, on the route to them\nthere lies an island triangular in form, which was already described\nby the name Thrinacie[593]. Again, it would appear that there were\nother islands between Thrinacie and this Ocean-mouth. For both Circe\nand the Sirens inhabit islands. Even the nearest of the Balearic isles,\nnamely, Ibiza, is from the Straits of Gibraltar about as far as Crete\nfrom Egypt, which we know to have been estimated by the Poet at five\ndays\u2019 sail. It seems, however, not unlikely that Homer, having received\na notice of the Balearic isles in the Ph\u0153nician reports concerning the\nPillars of Atlas, carried them over, together with Atlas himself, into\nthe eastern situation, where he blends two sets of traditions into one.\nHe may therefore have been supplied from this source with materials for\nhis island of Circe and island of the Sirens.\n\n[593] Od. xii. 127.\n\nLastly, although the misty Cimmerians are close by the Ocean-mouth,\nwhile the atmosphere of Gibraltar is warm and sunny, yet even the\nfogs may find their prototype in St. George\u2019s Channel[594], or in the\nStraits of Dover, and it may also be said that, in the hazy distance of\na Ph\u0153nician captain\u2019s tale, they might from Homer\u2019s point of view seem\nto stand nearly together. But still this is a difficulty. There are\nother more serious impediments, which make it absolutely impossible for\nus to say that the Homeric mouth of Ocean corresponds with the Straits\nof Gibraltar. This one especially: that he has, by a multitude of ties,\nfastened down his mouth of Ocean to an eastern rather than a western\nsite; for there, at least hard by, is the dwelling of Aurora; there is\nthe morning couch of the Sun; there is Circe, sister of \u00c6etes, to whose\ncountry Jason sailed through the Bosphorus; and these both have had the\nSun for their father, and Perse, daughter of Ocean, without doubt an\neastern and not a western personage, for their mother[595]. The site\nof \u00c6\u00e6a will, however, together with that of Ogygia, receive presently\na fuller consideration.\n\n[594] Quart. Rev. vol. 102. p. 324.\n\n[595] Od. x. 135-9, and xii. 1-4.\n\n~_Straits of Yenikal\u00e8 as Ocean-mouth._~\n\nLet us turn then to the other alternative in the inquiry.\n\n2. As the Straits of Gibraltar offer a resemblance to the Homeric\npicture, by their lying beyond the Straits of Messina, so do the\nStraits of Yenikal\u00e8, by their lying beyond the Bosphorus. The perpetual\ncurrent inwards[596] is another feature of correspondence, such as may\napply to both the cases, and such as probably assisted the process at\nwhich I shall presently glance. The whole group of Oriental conditions,\nattaching to Homer\u2019s Ocean-mouth, appear to be exactly realized in the\nstraits of Yenikal\u00e8.\n\n[596] Danby Seymour\u2019s Black Sea and Sea of Azof, ch. xvii.\n\nThe Cimmerian country of Homer is represented down to the present day\nby the Crimea, one of the most ancient passages from Asia into Europe,\nand probably known to the Ph\u0153nicians, who could well enough pass the\nBosphorus themselves, while making it a bugbear to others. The cloud,\nin which these Cimmerians are wrapped, finds its counterpart in the\nnotoriously frequent winter fogs of the Euxine. The peninsula, lying\non the very Straits themselves, is in exact correspondence with the\npassage (Od. xi. 13),\n\n \u1f21 \u03b4\u2019 \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u03c0\u03b5\u03af\u03c1\u03b1\u03b8\u2019 \u1f35\u03ba\u03b1\u03bd\u03b5 \u03b2\u03b1\u03b8\u03c5\u03c1\u03c1\u03cc\u03bf\u03c5 \u1f68\u03ba\u03b5\u03b1\u03bd\u03bf\u1fd6\u03bf\u00b7\n \u1f14\u03bd\u03b8\u03b1 \u03b4\u1f72 \u039a\u03b9\u03bc\u03bc\u03b5\u03c1\u03af\u03c9\u03bd \u1f00\u03bd\u03b4\u03c1\u1ff6\u03bd \u03b4\u1fc6\u03bc\u03cc\u03c2 \u03c4\u03b5 \u03c0\u03cc\u03bb\u03b9\u03c2 \u03c4\u03b5.\n\nThe only point of the description which is less faithfully represented\nat this point than at the other, is the epithet \u03b2\u03b1\u03b8\u03cd\u03c1\u03c1\u03bf\u03bf\u03c2. This agrees\nbetter with the deep water of Gibraltar, than with the (now at least)\nshallow current of Yenikal\u00e8[597].\n\n[597] Ibid. The _minimum_ appears to be fourteen feet: but it seems to\nhave been much deeper in old times.\n\nNor is it unnatural, that near the Cimmerian darkness he should place\nthe home of Aurora and the Eastern Sun: for it is out of darkness that\ndawn and day must ever rise; and we have occasion to notice, in various\nforms, the association in Homer\u2019s mind of ideas belonging to darkness\nwith the East. Again, there is a combination of a northerly with an\neasterly direction in the conditions of the Homeric description, which\nis exactly met by the position of these Straits relatively to Greece.\n\nBut if we say, that these Straits form the single prototype of the\nHomeric description, we are again met by hopeless contradictions.\nFor there does not lie any triangular island close by the Bosphorus,\nwhich might answer to Thrinacie: and there is no free maritime passage\nwhatever, other than the Bosphorus, by which the Ocean-mouth, that is,\nthe mouth of the _Palus M\u00e6otis_, can be attained by a person who has\nTroy for his point of departure.\n\nThese facts appear to direct us plainly towards one satisfactory, and\nas it seems inevitable, conclusion. It is exhibited in the sentences\nthat immediately follow.\n\nFirst, it seems at once clear that Homer either knew, or else dimly\nfigured to himself by Ph\u0153nician report, certain geographical facts,\nincluding those which follow:--\n\n1. That there was an island, whose figure was defined by a word\nsignifying three promontories, and which was accessible by a passage on\nthe western side of Greece.\n\n2. That near this island, there lay on one side the jaw of a dangerous\nnarrow.\n\n3. That either on the other side of it or in some other neighbouring\nquarter lay the open sea, and a route along it, by which the further\nside of the island might be reached, without traversing the narrow.\n\n4. That at a point beyond both these openings (I say nothing for the\npresent of the points of the compass) there lay a great stream such\nas he called \u1f68\u03ba\u03b5\u03b1\u03bd\u1f78\u03c2, flowing always inwards to the \u03b8\u03ac\u03bb\u03b1\u03c3\u03c3\u03b1, which he\nsupposed to be fed by it (Il. xxi. 196).\n\n5. That there was likewise a passage, which Homer called the \u03a0\u03bb\u03b1\u03b3\u03ba\u03c4\u03b1\u1f76,\naccessible from the eastern side of Greece; and through which Jason,\nand as he believed Jason alone, had sailed.\n\n6. That at a point beyond this passage too, there lay an expanse of\nsea, \u03b8\u03ac\u03bb\u03b1\u03c3\u03c3\u03b1, and again a great stream, such as he called \u1f68\u03ba\u03b5\u03b1\u03bd\u1f78\u03c2,\nflowing always inwards to the \u03b8\u03ac\u03bb\u03b1\u03c3\u03c3\u03b1.\n\nNow we have seen that he gives us in the poem one mouth, and one\nmouth only, of \u1f68\u03ba\u03b5\u03b1\u03bd\u1f78\u03c2, which corresponds with every one of these\npropositions taken singly: it is, according to him, beyond Thrinacie,\nbeyond the Straits of Scylla and Charybdis, attainable by an open sea\npassage, and beyond the \u03a0\u03bb\u03b1\u03b3\u03ba\u03c4\u03b1\u1f76 or Bosphorus.\n\nIt seems to follow almost mathematically, that he believed in an open\nsea route, which must have lain to the north, and which established a\ncommunication, independent of the Bosphorus, between the Mediterranean\nand the Euxine.\n\n~_He blends two sets of reports into one._~\n\nIt also hereby appears that he had received from the Ph\u0153nicians\ntwo sets of reports, one relating to western, and the other to\nnorth-eastern navigation, but both involving a description of a great\ninward flowing stream as an ultimate point, agreeably to his idea of\nthe River Ocean. These two ulterior points, obtained respectively\nfrom each set of reports, Homer, led by the similarity of features,\nhas blended into one. We can even now take his untrue representation\nto pieces, and can see where and how it separates into two, each of\nthem geographically true. In his one mouth of Ocean he has combined\nthe conditions, that in nature belong to two separate geographical\npoints. Both the north-eastern report and the western report he\nhas amalgamated, by carrying the remote point of the former round,\nso to speak, in order to meet the latter: and having thus made his\nOcean-mouth northern, as well as eastern, he consistently calls in\nBoreas to take the ship of Ulysses to the mouth of the Shades below, so\nas to fix that point in the east, because it was the counterpart to his\nElysian fields which lay in the west. The two sets of Ph\u0153nician reports\nare in this way oddly brought to integrate one another. The Ocean mouth\nin the Euxine gets the benefit of the open sea route; and the Ocean\nmouth at Gibraltar has credit for being placed in a northern latitude\nand eastern longitude; each report thus throwing its own separate\nattributes into the common stock.\n\nThe effect of thus forcing Yenikal\u00e8 and Gibraltar to meet, naturally\nenough brings the Faro of Messina and the Bosphorus near to one\nanother: and hence Circe, in the Twelfth Book, names them to Ulysses as\nalternative routes, both apparently lying in the same region.\n\nBut again I say, that in order to comprehend the Outer or imaginary\ngeography of the Odyssey, we must entirely dismiss from our minds the\nmap of Europe as it is. We must treat as having been a real map to\nHomer only the little sphere which was embraced within the resort of\nordinary Greek navigation. Beyond that narrow range, we must consider\nhim as distributing land and sea in the manner he best could, by\nthe aid of reports, necessarily in that age most indistinct, and in\nall likelihood exaggerated, and even wilfully darkened to boot, by\ntrading craft. Sometimes therefore he puts a people upon poetical\n_terra firma_ at points, where it fortunately but accidentally turns\nout that nature has provided an antitype for the imagery of the Poem.\nSometimes he lodges them where there is none; _ubi n\u00eel nisi pontus et\naer_. But though details are to be thus disposed of, still the one\nmaster variation from actual nature is this; the sea extended from\nthe Mediterranean to the Euxine, behind, i. e. to the north of, the\nBosphorus and of Thrace. This gives us that open passage into the\nEuxine, by which Homer supposed Ulysses to have reached the maritime\nregion, that Jason had sought and found through the Bosphorus.\n\nIn sum; it is too plain to require much of the detailed proof which I\nhave tried to give, that Homer believed in a great expanse of waters\nlying somewhere to the north. The probability is, that from some\nPh\u0153nician source he had heard rumours of the great German Ocean. It\nneed not to us appear strange that his mind did not readily conceive\nan extent of land like that of the continent of Europe, when we notice\nthat his experience made him conversant partly with islands, partly\nwith countries in minute subdivisions, and of small breadth from sea\nto sea. This great imaginary mass of waters he included within the\n\u03b8\u03ac\u03bb\u03b1\u03c3\u03c3\u03b1, to which everything belonged as far as the point where the\ngreat River Oceanus was reached.\n\nI think then that we have now found the two keys to the Outer Geography,\n\n1. In the sea-route north of Thrace;\n\n2. In the amalgamation of the western with the north-eastern report of\nthe Ocean-mouth.\n\nFrom the site of the Ocean-mouth of Homer, we may most naturally\nproceed to examine the site of \u00c6\u00e6a; which, as being within one day\u2019s\nsail, is a kind of porter\u2019s lodge to it[598], and is a point of the\nutmost importance in the system. Hitherto I have proceeded only by\nassertion, so far as the site of the Homeric \u00c6\u00e6a is conceived. But to\ndefend the second main proposition or key to the system, in the face of\ncounter-theories, it will be necessary to examine, with as much care as\nmay be, all the Homeric evidence that bears either upon this question,\nor upon the kindred one of the site of Ogygia.\n\n[598] Od. xii. 10-13.\n\nWe have then to inquire, subject to the rules which have been laid\ndown, first, whether \u00c6\u00e6a, the island of Circe, is to be placed, its\nnorthward direction being generally admitted, in the north-west or in\nthe north-east?\n\nSecondly, as dependent very much upon the prior question, and as\nentering at the same time largely into the proof of it, what is the\nsite of Ogygia, the island of Calypso?\n\n~_North-western hypothesis for the site of \u00c6\u00e6a._~\n\nNow I think that the arguments, which have been used for the\nnorth-western theory, have been principally founded,\n\n1. Upon precipitate inferences, drawn from some one or more of Homer\u2019s\nouter-world statements, and then illegitimately used in order to govern\nthe rest of them;\n\n2. Upon the course of the later tradition, which was led, probably by\nthe course of colonization, to identify and appropriate the particulars\nof the Outer Geography rather in the West than in the East. For Sicily\nand Italy became at an early period familiar to the Greeks; but it was\nlong before they grew to be well acquainted with the more dangerous,\nremote, and isolated navigation of the Black Sea[599]. Perhaps,\nindeed, the main reason for placing the tour of Ulysses all along in\nthe West has been no better than this; that Homer has given us an\naccount of an island apparently corresponding in form with Sicily;\nwhich it may very well do, and yet the conception of the site may be\ntotally erroneous. Again, with respect to traditional authority, I\napprehend it may be asserted, that the Fragment of Mimnermus[600],\nwhich carries Jason to the East, to the chamber of the Sun, and to the\ncity of \u00c6etes, as to one and the same point, expresses an universal\ntradition, so far as the voyage of the Argonauts is concerned. And I\nwould also observe, that the current local appropriations about the\ncoast of Italy seem to be given up on all hands as geographically\nworthless: the only question is, not so much that of removal, as\ninto which of two quarters they shall be transplanted. On the other\nhand, the principal arguments for the north-eastern hypothesis are,\nas I conceive, founded upon legitimate inferences, drawn from the\ninner-world or experimental statements of Homer, and then applied, by a\nlaw essentially sound, to determine the cardinal problems of his Outer\nGeography.\n\n[599] M\u00fcller\u2019s Orchomenos, p. 269.\n\n[600] Mimn. Fragm. x. quoted in Strabo, i. p. 67.\n\n~_North-eastern hypothesis._~\n\nFor example, much will depend upon the answer to the question, whether\nwe are to carry the Straits of Messina, or rather the fable of Scylla\nand Charybdis, taken to represent them, eastwards, or whether we are in\npreference to move the Bosphorus westwards.\n\nI answer without hesitation, that it is much more reasonable to\nconstrue Homer as shifting essentially the site of Scylla and\nCharybdis, than the site of the Bosphorus; and for the following\nreasons.\n\nWe have not the slightest reason to suppose that either Sicily or the\nScylla passage came within the experimental knowledge of Homer and the\nGreeks of his time, either as to the island and the Strait themselves,\nor as to the direction in which they lay.\n\nWe find indeed that a continuance of winds, which ranged between E.\nand S. W. detained Ulysses in Thrinacie or Trinacria. It has from this\nbeen, as I think by much too hastily, inferred that Thrinacie lay to\nthe north-west of Ithaca[601]. Even if it did so, we should still\nmiss the true bearing of Sicily, which is west, with all inclination\nto the south, and not north-west, from Ithaca. But the assumption is\nin fact unwarranted. The wind, which principally held Ulysses fast in\nThrinacie, was, as is evident from the passage, Notus, a southerly\nwind. Eurus plays a secondary part there[602]. Besides this, the wind,\nwhich Ulysses needed, may have been needed to bring him not to Ithaca,\nbut to some point on his way to Ithaca, from whence his bearings would\nbe known; to some point at which, from the Outer, it would have been\npracticable for him to re-enter the Inner or Greek world. The needful\nconditions would be satisfied if, for instance, Thrinacie lay either\nnorth-west or north-east from the Dardanelles; and then Ulysses would\nwant either Zephyr or else Boreas to get there. And the opposite theory\nproceeds upon the entirely arbitrary, nay, untrue, assumption, that the\nway back through the Narrows was, like the way by which Ulysses had\ncome to \u00c6\u00e6a, an open-sea route, and not one in which the course would\nhave to be governed by fixed points of land lying along the course.\n\n[601] M\u00fcller\u2019s Orchomenos, p. 272. Nitzsch, Od. xii. 361.\n\n[602] Od. xii. 325, 6.\n\nThere is then no middle term between Thrinacie and any fixed point of\nthe Inner Homeric world, from which we can by direct inference argue as\nto its site. And the winds, which detain Ulysses in Thrinacie, go far\nof themselves to show that this island is not on the site of Sicily.\n\nThe case is far otherwise in regard to the Bosphorus, or \u03a0\u03bb\u03b1\u03b3\u03ba\u03c4\u03b1\u1f76, of\nthe Odyssey. For here we know,\n\n1. That Homer was familiar with the Dardanelles, a stage on the way to\nit, and not very far from it:\n\n2. That he makes Jason pass the Bosphorus:\n\n3. That he also makes Jason settle at Lemnos, and become sovereign of\nthe island, evidently in connection with his route from Thessaly to the\nEast.\n\nBut Thessaly, and Lemnos too, are places of the inner world: with\nLemnos the Poet appears to have been accurately acquainted; and the\nline between that island and the home of Jason determines absolutely\nso much as this; that the general direction of his voyage was known by\nHomer, at least up to this point, to have lain to the north-eastward\nthrough the Straits of Gallipoli.\n\nI hold therefore that the passage of the \u03a0\u03bb\u03b1\u03b3\u03ba\u03c4\u03b1\u1f76 is fixed immovably,\nby known-world evidence, as to its general direction: that to\ntransplant it to the west, is to break up the foundations of Homer\u2019s\nexperimental knowledge, which is always to be trusted: whereas to move\nhis Thrinacie eastward is merely to suppose that he gave the site which\nwas poetically most convenient to a tradition which, as it came to him,\nhad no site at all, no positive local or geographical determination.\n\n~_Character and site of Thrinacie._~\n\nAgain, I take the island Thrinacie by itself; and I contend that,\nalthough the report on which this delineation was founded may probably\nhave had its origin in Sicily, yet the Thrinacie of Homer is associated\nrather with the East than with the West.\n\nFor, though he has given us no geographical means for directly\ndetermining the site, he has supplied us with other means that belong,\nnot to Ph\u0153nician rumour or fireside tale, but to his own knowledge and\nexperience. Since nothing can be more certain, than that the leading\nlocal association of the Sun, for Homer as for all mankind, is with the\neast. It is true that he is in the west just as often as in the east;\nbut we certainly hold Napoleon to belong more to Corsica than to Saint\nHelena; and so the mind connects the Sun with the place of his daily\nbirth, and not with that of his daily death. Now, without entering upon\nany other question for the present, I only observe, that in Thrinacie\nare the oxen with which the Sun disports himself when not engaged in\nhis daily labours; that is, as he himself supplies the explanation,\nboth before they begin, and after they are ended[603]. In deference,\nthen, to those associations, founded on actual nature, which for the\npresent purpose are strictly facts, I cannot hesitate to maintain, that\nthe island of Thrinacie is upon the whole, relatively to Greece, an\neastern island.\n\n[603] Od. xii. 380.\n\nA like inference may be drawn from the names Lampetie (\u03bb\u03ac\u03bc\u03c0\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd) and\nPhaethusa (\u03c6\u03ac\u03bf\u03c2), which he has given to the Nymphs of the Sun. Had the\nisland been in his intention western, he would have called them by\nnames of a different etymology.\n\nAnd as the Scylla passage, which is on its coast, is near the \u03a0\u03bb\u03b1\u03b3\u03ba\u03c4\u03b1\u1f76,\nI think we shall pretty closely conform to the views of Homer, if\nwe make Thrinacie form the western side of the Bosphorus, and if we\nseparate it by an imaginary or poetical Scylla from the main land of\nTurkey in Europe.\n\nAgain, it is admitted that \u0391\u1f30\u03ae\u03c4\u03b7\u03c2 has his name from \u0391\u1f30\u03b1\u03af\u03b7. From the\npersonal relations of \u00c6etes, as well as from those of his daughter\nCirce, we may therefore argue respecting the site of \u00c6\u00e6a, provided we\ncan attach them to any known and fixed point of the system of Homeric\nideas.\n\nNow their parentage furnishes a point of this kind, on both the\nfather\u2019s and the mother\u2019s side. Their father is the Sun: a divinity\nnot, like the Apollo or Minerva[604], de-localized, but one having his\ndaily sojourn (out of work-hours) in the east. The mother is Perse: and\nenough, I think, has been shown with respect to the import of this name\nfor the Ach\u00e6an mind[605], to make it pretty certain that, when Homer\ngives a residence to the children of Perse, he intends it to be in the\neast.\n\n[604] See Olympus, sect. iii. p. 82.\n\n[605] See Ach\u00e6is, or Ethnology, sect. x; and Olympus, sect. iv. p. 220,\non Persephone.\n\nIt is now time to bring more directly into the discussion a point much\ncontested--the situation of the island of Calypso. The usual modes of\nsolution, which place the original of this picture on the Bruttian\ncoast or in Malta[606], are inadmissible in spirit as well as in the\nletter. For very great remoteness is the most essential point in the\ndescription, and to bring it near would wholly change its character. It\nrequires eighteen days of favourable wind[607] to come by raft within\nsight of Scheria from Ogygia: while even the distance from Crete to\nEgypt, a greater one than from the Bruttian coast to Greece, might\nbe performed, as Homer thinks, in five[608]. It is the midpoint, or\n\u1f44\u03bc\u03c6\u03b1\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2[609], of a vast expanse of sea: and Mercury, passing thither\nfrom Olympus, mentions the route as one which traverses a mighty space\nof water, without habitations of men between[610]. Again, the name\nof Calypso (\u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u03cd\u03c0\u03c4\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd) places it wholly beyond the circle of Greek\nmaritime experience: as does her relation to Atlas, who holds the\npillars, that is, stands at the extremity, of earth and sea. The first\nand cardinal point to be fixed therefore is its decided, if not extreme\nremoteness.\n\n[606] Sch\u00f6nemann de Geogr. Hom. p. 20. Nitzsch on Od. v. 50, n.\n\n[607] Od. v. 268-75.\n\n[608] Od. xiv. 257.\n\n[609] Od. i. 50.\n\n[610] Od. v. 100-2.\n\nNext, if it is thus remote, we find by a process of exhaustion that it\nmust be in the north. As far as we know, Homer recognised the African\ncoast by placing the Lotophagi upon it, and the Ethiopians inland from\nthe East all the way to the extreme West. In that direction there is no\nmore \u03b8\u03ac\u03bb\u03b1\u03c3\u03c3\u03b1, or sea. And again, as Nitzsch truly remarks, Scheria is\non the proper homeward line of the voyage of Ulysses[611]. Consequently\nhe cannot pass, nor can he even approach, Ithaca while on his way to\nScheria: I add, he must come to it down the Adriatic on his way to\nIthaca.\n\n[611] Nitzsch on Od. v. 276-8.\n\n~_Site of Ogygia to the East of North._~\n\nNow we are provided with an important argument, drawn, like some\npreceding ones, from what we may fairly call Homer\u2019s experience, and\ntending to fix the site of Ogygia in the north or north-east. It is\nderived from the route taken by Mercury, when he carries the message\nof the Immortals to Calypso, which in another point of view we have\nalready had to examine[612]:\n\n[612] Od. v. 50.\n\n \u03a0\u03b9\u03b5\u03c1\u03af\u03b7\u03bd \u03b4\u2019 \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03b2\u1f70\u03c2, \u1f10\u03be \u03b1\u1f30\u03b8\u03ad\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f14\u03bc\u03c0\u03b5\u03c3\u03b5 \u03c0\u03cc\u03bd\u03c4\u1ff3.\n\nWe are obliged to suppose, as has been observed, that Mercury, who\ndoes not march, but flies like a bird wont to hunt for fish[613], must\nmove in a direct line towards his object. But Pieria is a district\nstretching along the shore of Macedonia; it begins in the south, to\nthe eastward of Olympus, and then extends due north of it. Its limits\nare variously defined[614]; but the only question about it could be,\nwhether it verges, not to the westward, but to the eastward of North.\nAgain, from the route of Juno in the Fourteenth Iliad[615], no question\ncan arise, except what would tend to give Pieria an eastward turn.\n\n[613] Ibid. 51-3.\n\n[614] Cramer\u2019s Greece, i. 204.\n\n[615] Il. xiv. 226.\n\nA line drawn from Olympus over the centre of Pieria would carry Mercury\nto the North. It might, consistently with the condition of crossing\nPieria, diverge a little either to the east or the west of due North,\nbut only a little. Consequently the island of Calypso may be affirmed\nto be, according to the intention of Homer, in the North, and not very\nfar from due North.\n\nThis conclusion is confirmed by two other arguments; which are both\nof the class which I have described as legitimate, because they are\nfounded on Homer\u2019s physical knowledge of the direction of the winds.\n\nAfter the storm has destroyed the ship of Ulysses to the south of\nThrinacie, Notus, a wind of decidedly southerly character, carries him\nback again to Scylla, Od. xii. 426: and again, when he has passed it,\nhe proceeds thus[616]:\n\n[616] Od. xii. 447.\n\n \u1f14\u03bd\u03b8\u03b5\u03bd \u03b4\u2019 \u1f10\u03bd\u03bd\u1fc6\u03bc\u03b1\u03c1 \u03c6\u03b5\u03c1\u03cc\u03bc\u03b7\u03bd, \u03b4\u03b5\u03ba\u03ac\u03c4\u1fc3 \u03b4\u03ad \u03bc\u03b5 \u03bd\u03c5\u03ba\u03c4\u1f76\n \u03bd\u1fc6\u03c3\u03bf\u03bd \u1f10\u03c2 \u1f68\u03b3\u03c5\u03b3\u03af\u03b7\u03bd \u03c0\u03ad\u03bb\u03b1\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd \u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u03af.\n\nNow there is no mention between these two passages either of any change\nof wind, or of any particular wind. Consequently it seems rational to\nassume that Homer meant us to understand a continuance of the wind just\nnamed, namely Notus. Even independently of this collocation, we should\nbe thrown back upon the general rule of the Wanderings, which is that\nsoutherly winds blow Ulysses away from home, while northerly ones bring\nhim back again.\n\nConsequently, the natural construction to put upon the passage is, that\nit was a south wind, whether a little east or west of south matters\nnot much, which continued to blow, and which drifted Ulysses away\nfrom Ithaca to the island of Calypso. This is in entire accordance\nwith the passage which describes him as windbound by Eurus and Notus\nat Thrinacie; since the way from home is presumably the exact reverse\nof the way towards it. But it will be said, this implies that he\nmade westing on his way to Ogygia from \u00c6\u00e6a. I answer, that this is\nprobably so: for Circe is described as immediately connected with the\neast, while Calypso is far, as Mercury complains, from all land and\nhabitation: so that apparently her island is, in the intention of\nHomer, materially to the westward, as well as greatly to the northward,\nof \u00c6\u00e6a. But the main direction taken from Scylla is northward; and,\nsince Scylla is near the \u03a0\u03bb\u03b1\u03b3\u03ba\u03c4\u03b1\u1f76, and the \u03a0\u03bb\u03b1\u03b3\u03ba\u03c4\u03b1\u1f76 are the Bosphorus\nof actual nature, it must be taken from a point near the Bosphorus,\nalong the imaginary expanse of an enlarged and westward-reaching Euxine.\n\nAccording to this argument, then, Ogygia might lie upon a line drawn\nfrom Mount Olympus in a direction not very wide either way of St.\nPetersburgh.\n\nNor are we wholly without means of measuring the distance. He floats\n(from Scylla) for nine days, and arrives on the tenth. Now this is just\nwhat happened to the pseudo-Ulysses[617], who in the same space of time\ndrifted from a point near Crete to the country of the Thesprotians. We\nmay therefore fix Ogygia as (in the intention of the Poet), at about\nthe same distance from Scylla, which we measure from the south of\nEpirus to a point near, yet not in sight of, Crete. But this in passing.\n\n[617] Od. xiv. 310-15. 301-4.\n\nThe corresponding argument is derived from the homeward passage of\nUlysses, and stands as follows:\n\nFor seventeen days Ulysses pursues his raft-voyage from Ogygia to\nScheria; and the raft threatens to founder on the eighteenth. He then\nfloats, by the aid of the girdle he had received from Ino. Up to this\npoint there is no positive indication of the wind; the argument from\nthe relation between his course and the stars I will consider shortly.\nBut after he has put on the girdle, and when Neptune withdraws his\npersecution, since he is now approaching the horizon of the Inner\nworld again, Minerva\u2019s agency revives, and she sends a north wind or a\nnorth-north-east wind, Boreas, to bring him to Scheria.\n\nNow there is no reason for our supposing that Homer meant to represent\nUlysses as changing his general direction at this particular point. The\norders of Circe with respect to the stars all indicate a single right\nline from Ogygia to Scheria, and neither the wind nor his course alter,\nuntil he has seen the island on the far horizon. The natural inference\ntherefore is, that Boreas, the N. or N. N. E. wind, which at last\ndrifted him in, was the wind which had brought him all the way from the\nisland of Calypso, over an unbroken and unincumbered expanse of sea.\n\nWe appear to have seen, thus far, that Ogygia is greatly to the\nnorthward, and probably somewhat to the westward, of the Strait of\nScylla. We shall obtain further light upon the site of that island, if\nwe can more precisely define the position of Scylla with regard to\nwhat lay southward, as well as with respect to what lay northward, from\nit.\n\nOur _data_ are as follows:\n\n1. Thrinacie appears to be close to Scylla, for it is reached \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03af\u03ba\u03b1\n(xii. 261).\n\n2. The comrades of Ulysses, when they arrive at the island, and when\nhe attempts to dissuade them from landing, reply by asking what is to\nbecome of them if they set sail at night, and are then caught by a\nsquall of Eurus or of Zephyr (284-93).\n\n3. The ship is windbound in Thrinacie for a month by Eurus and Notus;\nwhich may be taken in Homer as the winds that cover the whole horizon\nfrom a point north of east to the western quarter[618].\n\n[618] See sup. p. 274.\n\n4. When they finally set sail, we are not told with what wind it was:\nbut, after they have got out of sight of the island, the sky darkens,\nand mischief follows[619];\n\n[619] Od. xii. 403-8.\n\n \u03b1\u1f36\u03c8\u03b1 \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u1f26\u03bb\u03b8\u03b5\u03bd\n \u03ba\u03b5\u03ba\u03bb\u03b7\u03b3\u1f7c\u03c2 \u0396\u03ad\u03c6\u03c5\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2, \u03bc\u03b5\u03b3\u03ac\u03bb\u1fc3 \u03c3\u1f7a\u03bd \u03bb\u03b1\u03af\u03bb\u03b1\u03c0\u03b9 \u03b8\u03cd\u03c9\u03bd\u00b7\n\nand the ship goes to pieces in the tempest. At length Zephyr ceases,\nand Notus blows Ulysses back upon Scylla.\n\n5. If it was the intention of Homer to place Thrinacie by the\nBosphorus, then the next point which Ulysses had to make was the\nDardanelles.\n\n~_Scylla and the Dardanelles._~\n\nThe question therefore is, what conclusion can we draw from the\nevidence now before us as to the position of Scylla relatively to the\nDardanelles? I think a pretty clear one.\n\nWe have at least two of those statements, which may be called\nexperimental, now before us. Homer knew the position of the mouth of\nthe Dardanelles. He knew the nature of the wind Notus. And there is a\nthird piece of evidence not unimportant, which we may here properly\nbring into view. We have seen that, in Il. ii. 845, Homer confines\nor contains his Thracians (\u1f14\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f10\u03ad\u03c1\u03b3\u03b5\u03b9) by the Hellespont: and the\nHellespont with him means all the waters from the Sea of Marmora to the\nnorthern \u00c6g\u00e6an inclusive. Now by this he intends only a part of the\nThracians, those, say, of the plain of Adrianople. It is presumable\ntherefore that he believed the configuration of the coast at the two\nextremities of the Dardanelles to be something like at least two of the\nsides of a square, running N. and W. respectively: for unless it formed\na portion of some marked figure, it would not answer his description of\nincluding a certain district, and the words would become applicable to\nthe whole of Thrace alike. Therefore it appears that Homer thought the\nnorthern coast of the Sea of Marmora trended, from its western point,\nmore rapidly to the north, than is really the case.\n\nThe most decisive evidence, however, is that which had been previously\nnamed.\n\nWhen the storm came, which shattered the ship, Ulysses was on the true\ncourse from Thrinacie to the Dardanelles. But if we know the point for\nwhich he was making in a right line from point _x_, and if we also\nknow the wind which carried him back to point _x_, then the line on\nwhich point _x_ itself lies is also known. In other words, as Notus,\nor say the S.S.W. wind, carried him back upon Scylla, Scylla lies to\nthe N.N.E. of the inner mouth of the Dardanelles: and the unnamed wind\nwhich takes him back to Scylla is Notus, which we are entitled to\nconsider as blowing (even as Boreas, its counterpart, blows from due N.\nto the eastward) from any point between the limit of Eurus on the East\nof South, and 45 or even 90 degrees beyond South to the westward.\n\n\u00c6\u00e6a, then, is in the East; with somewhat of an inclination, as measured\nfrom Greece, towards the north. Ulysses has much westing to make, in\norder to get to Scheria. Part of this is made on his passages between\n\u00c6\u00e6a and Ogygia in the farther north. The rest in the course of his\nlong seventeen days\u2019 voyage from the north, which is propelled, as it\nwould appear, by Boreas, and therefore includes also a slight westerly\ninclination.\n\nAll these arguments converge towards the same conclusions, and all of\nthem are mainly founded, not on Homer\u2019s outer-world representations,\nbut upon indications drawn from his knowledge of nature, or else from\nhis experimental or otherwise familiar acquaintance with the Inner\nworld: that is, they are built not on the figures of his fancy, but on\nthe facts of his own and his countrymen\u2019s every-day experience.\n\nAnd now let us consider the adverse construction put upon the text of\nthe Odyssey; particularly with regard to the island of \u00c6\u00e6a.\n\n~_Why \u00c6\u00e6a cannot lie North-westward._~\n\nIt is quite plain, from the accounts given of the route both ways, that\nthe Ocean-mouth is meant by Homer to be near the island of \u00c6\u00e6a; that\nis, within a day\u2019s sail[620] of that island. How is this reconcilable\nwith the doctrine, which places the island in the far north-west? In\nthe north-east we have an Ocean-mouth, the situation of which the Poet,\nguided up to a certain point by his inner-world knowledge, has not very\ninaccurately conceived. In the north-west there is no Ocean-mouth. The\nStraits of Gibraltar, though they lie rather to the south of west from\nIthaca, must be carried far into the north for the purpose; in what\nform, or with what accompaniments, it is hard to conceive. To attempt\nsuch a transposition would involve the complete abandonment of all\nactual geography, and would after all leave us involved in hopeless\nconfusion in the effort to construct any tolerable scheme from the text\nof Homer.\n\n[620] Od. xi. 11.\n\n~_Construction of_ Od. xii. 3, 4.~\n\nAt the mere transportation, indeed, we need not scruple overmuch, if\nwe could justify the proceeding by other clear indications of Homer\u2019s\nintention. But there is no such justification. It is hardly possible\nto exaggerate the violence done to the text of Od. xii. 3, 4, by the\ninterpretation which Nitzsch (following, as I admit, Eustathius), puts\nupon it. The ship, leaving the stream of Ocean, reaches the sea and the\nisland[621]:\n\n[621] Od. xii. 3.\n\n \u03bd\u1fc6\u03c3\u03cc\u03bd \u03c4\u2019 \u0391\u1f30\u03b1\u03af\u03b7\u03bd, \u1f45\u03b8\u03b9 \u03c4\u2019 \u1f28\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c2 \u1f20\u03c1\u03b9\u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03b5\u03af\u03b7\u03c2\n \u03bf\u1f30\u03ba\u03af\u03b1 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c7\u03bf\u03c1\u03bf\u03af \u03b5\u1f30\u03c3\u03b9, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f00\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf\u03bb\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f28\u03b5\u03bb\u03af\u03bf\u03b9\u03bf.\n\nThe \u1f00\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf\u03bb\u03b1\u1f76, the rising, or rising-point of the sun, does not, he says,\nmean the east, but only the first appearance of the sun on their return\nfrom darkness, which is a kind of dawning on them. And the dwelling of\nthe early-born Dawn, and the place (such appears to be the meaning of\n\u03c7\u03cc\u03c1\u03bf\u03b9) of the Dances of her kindred or attendant Nymphs--who in later\nmythology became the virgin train of Hours, that now delight us in the\nfrescoes of Guido and Guercino--not only do not mean anything eastern,\nbut apparently in this place are conceived to have no meaning whatever,\nand to be an idle, indeed a most inconvenient and bewildering,\npleonasm. And thus the magic poetry of this passage and all the curious\ntraditions it involves, are destroyed, in order to make room--for what?\nFor the hypothesis that Homer places the dwelling of Morning and the\nchamber of the rising Sun far to the westward of the country that he\nhimself inhabited[622]!\n\n[622] In the well known case of a noble description in the Antiquary,\nWalter Scott has made the sun set on the east coast of Great Britain:\nbut _this_ was unawares and not on purpose. Had he recited instead of\nwriting, the error could not have escaped correction.\n\nThere is, I confess, something almost of _na\u00efvet\u00e9_ in the confession\nof Nitzsch, that \u2018it sounds rather strange to interpret \u1f00\u03bd\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03bb\u03b1\u1f76\nwithout any reference to sunrise, since it is the customary counterpart\nto \u03b4\u03cd\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2, the sunset.\u2019 But fortunately there is no Homeric evidence\nagainst it: as indeed there cannot well be, since the word occurs in\nno other passage. With respect to \u1f28\u1f7c\u03c2, Nitzsch contends that it means\nnot dawn, but light: and he quotes the passages which say, \u2018your glory\nshall reach as far as \u1f28\u1f7c\u03c2,\u2019 and \u2018horses, the best to be found beneath\nthe Sun and \u1f28\u03ce\u03c2.\u2019 Certainly it is most allowable, (though I by no means\nthink the sense of dawn inadmissible in these two passages,) especially\nas day goes nowhere except preceded by dawn, to generalize the word\n\u1f28\u1f7c\u03c2 so as to make it equivalent to light. But the fatal flaw in the\ninterpretation is this, that when \u1f28\u1f7c\u03c2 is thus used, it is invariably\napart from any circumstances which can give a local colour to its\nmeaning. But wherever there is any thing local implied, as is admitted\nto be in the case before us, the \u1f20\u1f7c\u03c2 uniformly means the east, though\nwith a certain indefiniteness perhaps as to northward and southward\ninclination. For instance, when Homer speaks of omen-birds flying\neastwards, he describes them as flying \u03c0\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u1f20\u03ce \u03c4\u2019 \u1f20\u03ad\u03bb\u03b9\u03cc\u03bd \u03c4\u03b5, and the\nopposite movement as \u03c0\u03bf\u03c4\u1f76 \u03b6\u03cc\u03c6\u03bf\u03bd, which here evidently means north-west,\nalthough it too may signify darkness in general. The whole aim of the\npassage (Od. xii. 1-5) is, to fix locality; and it is in the teeth of\nall Homeric usage to deprive \u1f20\u1f7c\u03c2 in such a passage of local force,\nwhile it confessedly can have no local meaning but an eastern one.\n\nTo me, I confess, it appears that Homer has nowhere done more,\nand rarely so much, in a single passage, as in this, with a view\nof declaring his intention. The island \u00c6\u00e6a, irrespective of all\ngeographical argument, is, as we have seen, directly bound and fastened\nto an eastern site by four separate cords. First, as the rising point\nof the Sun. Secondly, as the residence of Dawn. Thirdly, because\nCirce, its mistress, has the Sun, the most eastern of all mythological\nconceptions except the Dawn, for her father. Fourthly, because she has\nalso Perse, whose name indicates a trans-Ph\u0153nician origin, for her\nmother. And further, I am convinced we cannot alter the place of \u00c6\u00e6a\nwithout uprooting the whole Ph\u0153nician scheme of the Outer Geography.\n\nThe scope and range thus given to the adventures of Ulysses confines\nthem without doubt to the northern semi-circle, but allows them to\nreach, within that semi-circle, to its eastern and to its western\nextremities, as they are imagined by the Poet. \u00c6olus and the\nL\u00e6strygonians are evidently placed by him in the north-west. The\nhypothesis, which has here been maintained for \u00c6\u00e6a and Calypso,\nsupplies an effectual counterpart, and properly fills up the eastern\ncorner. But, independently of all other objections, the north-western\nhypothesis for these islands jumbles them, if I may so speak, in one\nheap with the others, and leaves the eastern quarter towards the North\nwholly unoccupied. And yet that East was, for a Greek, the source and\nthe scene of the richest legendary and mythological representations.\nSuch an incongruous view of the question would not, I think, be at all\nin keeping with Homer\u2019s ordinary modes of conceiving, handling, and\npresenting his materials.\n\n~_Construction of_ Od. v. 276, 7.~\n\nBut I am aware that, up to this time, we have left out of view a\npassage, of which I freely admit that the prevailing, and in so far\nthe most obvious, interpretation is against me. Ulysses sails over\nthe sea from Ogygia, governing the rudder of his raft with art, and\nwatching the stars, especially the Great Bear; which at that period, I\nbelieve, was nearer the Pole, and was a more conspicuous and splendid\nastronomical object, than it now is. It was with respect to this\nconstellation that he had received a particular order from Calypso[623]:\n\n[623] Od. v. 276.\n\n \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u03b4\u03ae \u03bc\u03b9\u03bd \u1f04\u03bd\u03c9\u03b3\u03b5 \u039a\u03b1\u03bb\u03c5\u03c8\u1f7c, \u03b4\u1fd6\u03b1 \u03b8\u03b5\u03ac\u03c9\u03bd,\n \u03c0\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf\u03c0\u03bf\u03c1\u03b5\u03c5\u03ad\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9 \u1f10\u03c0\u2019 \u1f00\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u1f70 \u03c7\u03b5\u03b9\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u1f14\u03c7\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1.\n\nOr, according to the common construction of the words, he was to keep\nthat constellation on the left during his voyage. But if his course lay\nin the direction of a right line drawn from St. Petersburgh to Corfu,\nit appears that Arctus, when visible to him, would be visible on the\nright, and not on the left.\n\nI could not, however, accommodate myself to this passage at such a\ncost as that of oversetting an interpretation of the general scheme,\nwhich is so deeply rooted both in the letter and spirit of the poem,\nas is the eastern, and likewise somewhat north-eastern, hypothesis\nfor \u00c6\u00e6a, together with a northern site for Ogygia. These two, it may\nbe observed, stand together. It is plain, from the times occupied by\nthe several stages between \u00c6\u00e6a and Ogygia, and from the language used\nwhere no precise time is stated, that the Poet conceived the distance\nbetween them to be limited, though very considerable. And indeed the\nnorth-western hypothesis for \u00c6\u00e6a would do nothing for the passage I\nhave quoted, unless we also carry Ogygia into the north-west, in order\nthat Ulysses, on his way home from it, may have Arctus on his left.\nInasmuch, however, as the admission of the received sense for the lines\nwould involve us in a new series of the most complicated and hopeless\ncontradictions, we must look for relief in some other direction.\n\n~_On the genuineness of the passage._~\n\nI desire to eschew, as a general rule, the dangerous and seductive\npractice of questioning the genuineness of the text because it seems to\nstand in conflict with a favoured interpretation. I may however state,\nwithout unduly relying on them, one or two particulars which, drawn\nfrom the poem itself, may show that these two lines are not unjustly\nopen to the suspicion of interpolation.\n\n1. The two lines are wholly void of any necessary connection with what\nprecedes and follows them, and the text is complete without them.\nWe should not break up the passage generally by removing them. This\nargument, however, is one purely negative.\n\n2. These lines tell us, that Calypso had bid Ulysses keep Arctus on his\nleft. Now Homer has given us a speech of Calypso[624] on the subject of\nthis voyage, in which she promises to send, from behind him, a breeze\nwhich shall carry him home. But there is in this speech no order to\nhim whatever about observing the stars; and the promise of the wind in\nsome degree, though not perhaps quite conclusively, tends to show that\nno such injunction was needed. For it is plain that, if the wind blew\nfair across the open sea, he did not depend at all upon the helm, and\nnoticing the stars would be of no assistance to him. I rely, however,\nmore upon this, that there is here a sort of patchwork, very unlike\nHomer\u2019s usual method, in the mode in which the injunction is recorded.\nClearly, if Calypso gave a direction respecting the stars, the proper\nplace for it was in the speech where she delivered to Ulysses what may\nbe called his general instruction for the voyage. And I am not sure\nwhether another instance can be found in the whole of the poems, where\nan omission of something relevant and material in one of the speeches\nis supplied by a recital in the subsequent narrative. It is wholly\ncontrary to the manner of Homer, who so uniformly throws into speech\nand the dramatic form whatever is susceptible of being thus handled.\n\n[624] Od. v. 160-70.\n\n3. The expression \u1f10\u03c0\u2019 \u1f00\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u1f70 \u03c7\u03b5\u03b9\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 is found nowhere else in Homer,\nthough the phrase \u1f10\u03c0\u2019 \u1f00\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u1f70 occurs many times.\n\n4. There is no other passage in the Wanderings, or elsewhere in the\npoems, which describes the conduct of navigation by means of the\nstars. In the Iliad we have the mention of a star in connection with\nsea-travelling; but it is simply as a portent, (\u03bd\u03b1\u03cd\u03c4\u1fc3\u03c3\u03b9 \u03c4\u03ad\u03c1\u03b1\u03c2, Il. iv.\n76). On this, however, if it stood alone, I should place no commanding\nstress: and it should also be observed that the objection is one which,\nif admitted, would displace eight lines.\n\nSo much for the genuineness of the passage.\n\nAs respects the grammatical meaning of the phrase, I have endeavoured\nto discuss it at large in a separate paper; and to show that its real\nsense is in fact the reverse of that which is ordinarily assumed. It\nmeans, I believe, a star looking _towards_ the left, and therefore a\nstar looking _from_ and situated _on_ the right hand in the sky.\n\nIn no case, however, can I admit it to be the true meaning of Homer,\nthat Ulysses is to follow a south-westward course from Ogygia to\nScheria; because this is at variance with all the trustworthy, I must\nadd with the consentient, indications of Homer\u2019s intention in the whole\narrangement of the tour, as well as in the particular description of\nCirce\u2019s island. It is also in contradiction to those indications, drawn\nfrom his inner or experimental geography, which determine at certain\npoints the bearings applicable to the Outer or Ph\u0153nician sphere.\n\nBefore proceeding to draw up in propositions the whole outline of the\ninterpretation which I venture to give to the route of Ulysses, I would\ncall attention to the means, which the Poet has adopted to signify to\nus his own doubt and incertitude respecting its actual bearings at\nseveral important points.\n\nBy means of the wind Boreas he indicates to us the direction, not\nhowever the distance, of the Lotophagi. After leaving them, he tells\nus nothing either of distance or direction between their country and\nthat of the Cyclopes. From this point he provides us with certain aids\nuntil we reach \u00c6olia. When in \u00c6olia, Ulysses is to the north-west of\nIthaca: for the Zephyr given by \u00c6olus, he says, would have carried\nhim home. From this isle, six days of rowing take him to L\u00e6strygonia.\nAnother passage of indefinite length next carries him to \u00c6\u00e6a; and,\narriving here, he is entirely out of his bearings; he cannot tell where\nis east or west[625], the point of dusk or the point of dawn, until he\nhas been duly instructed by Circe: but he sees an unbounded sea (\u03c0\u03cc\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2\n\u1f00\u03c0\u03b5\u03af\u03c1\u03b9\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2) on every side of him.\n\n[625] Od. x. 190.\n\n~_Homer\u2019s geographical misgivings._~\n\nThis expression of ignorance, put into the mouth of Ulysses, probably\nconveys the true sense of the Poet; who, more or less puzzled\nwith even his own method of harmonizing the Ph\u0153nician reports, and\nsuspecting that it might not bear the test of application to actual\nnature, shielded himself by anticipation, through giving us to\nunderstand that he did not mean to submit Circe\u2019s isle to the strict\nrules of geographical measurement.\n\nAnd indeed it was no wonder that he felt some diffidence, when we\nrecollect that he had to concentrate in a single point facts or\ntraditions that embraced east, north, and west. Eastern his site must\nbe to allow of the rising of the sun, and the accompanying legends:\nhe may have had misgivings, lest his Thrinacie, and also other\ntraditions of which he had to work up the materials, should in reality\nlie westward from Greece: lastly, an appreciable northern element\nwas involved in the general direction of the navigation through the\nBosphorus, which in fact supplies a kind of meeting-point for the two\nformer. The remedy is, thus to hang the island of Circe in a vague and\nshadowy distance, which gives the nearest practicable approach to an\nexemption from the laws imposed by any determinate configuration of the\nearth.\n\nNor are these the only cases, in which Homer has afforded us tokens\nof his own want of clear knowledge and confidence in regard to the\nscenes through which he has carried his hero. On the contrary, he has\nindicated the haziness of his views, and the insecurity of the ground\nhe trod, by forbearing in several other instances to fix with precision\nthe particular winds which favoured or opposed the voyage of Ulysses,\nor to particularize the distances he travelled.\n\n~_Homeward route of Ulysses._~\n\nWe are now at liberty to approach the last portion of our subject. We\nhave, I trust, fixed the distinction of the Inner and Outer Geography;\nascertained the keys of the outer system, and fixed its governing\npoints. It remains to inquire what, according to the data ascertained,\ndid the Poet intend to be the route of Ulysses over the face of his\nideal map; and then, finally, to show its relation to that of Menelaus,\nand to Homer\u2019s general conception of the configuration and distribution\nof the surface of the earth.\n\nI. His first halting-place, after quitting Troy, is with the Cicones,\nin Thrace. This visit was paid with scarcely a deviation from his\nhomeward route: and therefore it does not belong to the Outer\nGeography. The Cicones of the Odyssey were probably placed near the\nnorthernmost point of the \u00c6g\u00e6an sea (Od. ix. 39).\n\nII. From the country of the Cicones, he sails southward, under a\nheavy north-north-east gale (Od. ix. 67), which lasts for three days.\nHe has then fair weather, till he gets to Cape Malea. But, as he is\nrounding Cape Malea, the north-north-easter returns, and drives him\ndown the west coast of Cythera (now Cerigo), and so out to sea (79-81).\nAfter nine days\u2019 sail, with \u1f40\u03bb\u03bf\u03bf\u1f76 \u1f04\u03bd\u03b5\u03bc\u03bf\u03b9, he reaches the land of the\nLotophagi (82-4). Now, as it took five days of the best possible wind\nto sail from Crete to Egypt (Od. xiv. 253), we may perhaps assume that,\nin the ten days of veering gales, about an equal distance was made\nin the general direction of south-south-east indicated for us by the\nBoreas of v. 82. This will place the Lotophagi on the Syrtis Major, now\nthe Gulf of Sidra. Here the region of the marvel-world begins: and the\nmention of the \u1f40\u03bb\u03bf\u03bf\u1f76 \u1f04\u03bd\u03b5\u03bc\u03bf\u03b9, in lieu of the pure Boreas, may be taken\nas fair notice from the Poet, that he had no precise knowledge on what\nportion of the coast of Africa Ulysses was to set his foot.\n\nThe Lotophagi are full of Egyptian resemblances: and it appears that,\nas Egypt and Ph\u0153nicia were for Homer the two greatest border-lands\nbetween the real and the imagined worlds, therefore Ulysses makes his\nfirst step into the Outer world through a quasi-Egyptian people, and\nhis last step out of it among a quasi-Ph\u0153nician people.\n\nIII. The voyage from the land of the Lotophagi to the next stage, the\ncountry of the Cyclopes, is without the smallest indication either\nof distance or direction (103-5). But as, within the Outer sphere,\nnorthern winds are always homeward, and southern ones carry Ulysses\noutward, we may assume that Homer here intended some southern wind;\nthough, as he breaks at this juncture the last link with the known\nworld, he could not venture to state any thing like the precise point\nof the compass.\n\nShall we place the Cyclopes of Homer on any point of _terra firma_, or\nmust we imagine a country for them?\n\nTradition has answered this question by commonly placing them in\nSicily. But a vague tradition, as we have seen, is of little authority\nin regard to Homeric questions; and in this instance, I think, it may\nbe shown to be in error, for the following reasons:\n\n1. The country of the Cyclopes is not an island: it is mainland (\u03b3\u03b1\u03af\u03b7\n\u039a\u03c5\u03ba\u03bb\u03ce\u03c0\u03c9\u03bd, 106), with an island near to it, 105. By the expression \u03b3\u03b1\u03af\u03b7,\nHomer sometimes means a great island such as Crete: but we have no\nauthority for supposing he would apply it to Sicily.\n\n2. It can hardly be doubted that the little which Homer probably did\nknow of Sicily is represented to us by his Thrinacie. And all this\nconsists in two points: the first, that it was an island (Od. xii.\n127): the second, that it was triangular, and derived its name from\nits form. But his Thrinacie he has given to the oxen of the Sun: and\ntherefore he certainly does not mean it to be the land of the Cyclopes,\nor he would have given it the same name on both occasions. Indeed, on\nthe contrary, he has actually given another name to the land of the\nCyclopes: it is the \u03b5\u1f50\u03c1\u03cd\u03c7\u03bf\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f59\u03c0\u03ad\u03c1\u03b5\u03b9\u03b1 of Od. vi. 4. I may add, that\nthe epithet \u03b5\u1f50\u03c1\u03cd\u03c7\u03bf\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2 is not generally applicable to Sicily, which is\nchannelled all through with hill and dale, and which nowhere, unless\nperhaps between Syracuse and Catania, seems to present any great\nbreadth of plain.\n\n3. Besides this, Ulysses traverses very long distances[626], in order\nto reach \u00c6\u00e6a from Hypereia: but Thrinacie, on the other hand, is very\nnear \u00c6\u00e6a, so that he has not retraced his distance, and therefore\ncannot be in Sicily.\n\n[626] See Od. x. 28 and 80.\n\nWhere then were situated these Cyclopes, to whose country Ulysses came\nafter quitting the Lotophagi? It is plain that they were not within the\nGreek maritime world, or Homer would, we may be sure, have indicated\ntheir position by the time of the voyage, or by the quarter from which\nthe wind blew to take him there.\n\nI submit that Homer meant to place the Cyclopes in Iapygia, the heel of\nItaly; a region nearly corresponding, on the west of the Ionian sea,\nwith the position of Scheria on the east. This hypothesis is consistent\nwith the whole evidence in the case, and might well stand on that\nground only. But it is, I think, also sustained by a separate argument\nfrom the migration of the Ph\u00e6acians[627].\n\n[627] Od. vi. 4.\n\nThe Ph\u00e6acians, descended like the Cyclopes from Neptune, were recent\ninhabitants of Scheria; they formerly dwelt near the Cyclopes in\nHypereia, and were dislodged from thence by the violence of their\nbrutal neighbours. They removed under Nausithous, and settled in\nScheria.\n\nThey were flying from a race who had no ships with which to follow\nthem. If Hypereia in which they lived was Iapygia, any place in the\nsituation of Scheria, or near it, would be a natural place of refuge\nfor them. But if they had been in Sicily, Homer in all likelihood would\nnot have carried them beyond the neighbouring coast of Italy, which\nwould have afforded them the security they desired.\n\nIV. From Iapygia or Hypereia, the country of the Cyclopes, Ulysses\nproceeds to pay his double visit to \u00c6olia. We are not assisted in\nthe first instance (Od. ix. 565. x. 1.) by any indication of wind or\ndistance. It is not unfair to presume that Stromboli, with its active\nvolcano, was the prototype of this gusty island. But, like other\nplaces, it is not on the site of its prototype. For \u00c6olus gives Ulysses\na Zephyr or north-west wind, which would have carried him home, had it\nnot been for the folly of his comrades (Od. x. 25, 46). The \u00c6olia of\nHomer then must conform to these two conditions:\n\n1. It must lie north-west of Ithaca.\n\n2. There must be a continuous open sea between them; and one\nuninterrupted by land, so that one and the same wind may carry a ship\nall the way.\n\nTo meet these conditions, we have only to move \u00c6olia northward. For the\nnorthern part of Italy has no existence in the Outer Geography. It is\nswept away, along with the great mass of the European continent, and\nthe \u03b8\u03ac\u03bb\u03b1\u03c3\u03c3\u03b1 covers all.\n\nAfter the opening of the bag (x. 48, 54) the ship is driven back by a\n\u03b8\u03cd\u03b5\u03bb\u03bb\u03b1 upon \u00c6olia. But here we have had another valuable indication.\nThey had enjoyed the Zephyr nine full days, and they were in sight of\nhome on the tenth (v. 28, 9), when the folly was committed. Therefore\n\u00c6olia is between nine and ten days\u2019 sail to the north-west of Ithaca:\nor, with an allowance of fifty miles for the distance to the horizon,\nthere will be about one thousand miles between them.\n\nV. The fifth stage is L\u00e6strygonia: and it is reached after seven days\u2019\nrowing (x. 80). There is no indication of direction in the voyage: but\nwe have a sure proof that the prototype of this place was far north;\nnamely, that there is here perpetual day;\n\n \u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03b1 \u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u03bc\u1f74\u03bd\n \u1f20\u03c0\u03cd\u03b5\u03b9 \u03b5\u1f30\u03c3\u03b5\u03bb\u03ac\u03c9\u03bd, \u1f41 \u03b4\u03ad \u03c4\u2019 \u1f10\u03be\u03b5\u03bb\u03ac\u03c9\u03bd \u1f51\u03c0\u03b1\u03ba\u03bf\u03cd\u03b5\u03b9.\n\nIt cannot, I think, be doubted that Homer obtained information of a\nregion displaying this natural peculiarity from Ph\u0153nician mariners,\nwho had penetrated into the German Ocean to the northward of the\nBritish Isles. His retentive mind has, then, made an early record of\nthis, along with so many other singular reports, out of which a large\nproportion have been verified.\n\nThere is another proof that we are here nearly, or rather quite, at\nthe furthest bound of distance ever reached by Ulysses. For the united\ndistances (1) from within sight of Ithaca to \u00c6olia, and (2) from \u00c6olia\nto L\u00e6strygonia, make seventeen days, the same number occupied in a much\nslower craft on the voyage from Ogygia to Scheria.\n\nIt will be found, under the rules of calculation which have been\nadopted, that we may place L\u00e6strygonia at near seventeen hundred miles\nfrom Iapygia. If we are to suppose that by the name Artacie, given to\nthe fountain in L\u00e6strygonia, he means an allusion to a place of that\nname in the Euxine, I take this as a new sign of his dim and confused\nextension of that sea to the westward.\n\nThe name L\u00e6strygonia appears to belong to a city, not to a country.\nIt is \u03c4\u03b7\u03bb\u03ad\u03c0\u03c5\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2, and it is also \u039b\u03ac\u03bc\u03bf\u03c5 \u03b1\u1f30\u03c0\u1f7a \u03c0\u03c4\u03bf\u03bb\u03af\u03b5\u03b8\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd. Homer avoids\ncalling it either a land (\u03b3\u03b1\u03af\u03b7) or an island (\u03bd\u1fc6\u03c3\u03bf\u03c2). By the former\nterm he sometimes designates large islands as well as portions of a\ncontinent. The epithet \u03b1\u1f30\u03c0\u1f7a points to a steep and rocky site: but\nhis forbearing to fix it as continent or island seems to show, that\nhe was himself in doubt upon the point. The trait of perpetual day,\nhowever, speaks most explicitly for the _bona fides_ of the tradition\non which the Poet proceeds, and for the latitude from whence it came:\nand it seems far from improbable that Iceland may have been the dimly\nperceived original of L\u00e6strygonia; of which the site in the Odyssey is\nnear the actual site of Denmark.\n\nVI. The sixth stage is \u00c6\u00e6a. This could only be reached by a long\npassage from L\u00e6strygonia. The Poet has not ventured to define its\nextent or direction. But he leaves himself an ample margin by the\ndeclaration from the mouth of Ulysses, that he knew nothing on his\narrival of the latitude or longitude (Od. x. 190-2): and he is content\nwith planting it immovably near the point of sunrise, though with a\ngreat vagueness of conception (Od. x. 135-9; xii. 1-4).\n\nThere is indeed something near a verbal contradiction between the\ndeclaration of Ulysses in Od. x., that he, being then at \u00c6\u00e6a, did not\nknow where to look for sunrise or for sunset, and his narrative in\nxii. 3, 4, where he so directly associates the island with the land of\nsunrise. But he had remained there a full year in friendly company with\nCirce (x. 466-9), and he was instructed by her as to his movements,\nso that we may, I presume, fairly consider that during that time he\nlearned what on his first arrival was strange to him.\n\nThe course from L\u00e6strygonia to \u00c6\u00e6a is _prim\u00e2 facie_ conjectural: but\nit is not really so, for L\u00e6strygonia is fixed by the times and winds\nfrom Hypereia; and \u00c6\u00e6a is practically determined by its local relations\nto Ocean-mouth, Thrinacie, and the Bosphorus.\n\nThe Euxine does not abound in islands, such as we might appropriate to\nCirce and the Sirens: for it is little likely that a rock like the Isle\nof Serpents, which on a recent occasion acquired a momentary notoriety,\nshould have been noticed particularly in the navigation of the heroic\nage. It is much more likely, that Homer brought his islands for the\nEuxine from among the materials provided by his western traditions. We\nmay however reasonably presume that Homer meant to place \u00c6\u00e6a at the\neast end of the Euxine, not far perhaps from the Colchis of \u00c6etes: and\nin that neighbourhood I shall venture to deposit three islands, vaguely\ncorresponding with the Baleares, which may have been transplanted\ninto this vicinity together with the other traditions of the western\nOcean-mouth.\n\n(1) From hence, under the directions of Circe, they sail for one day\nwith a toward breeze, to the Ocean-mouth, hard by that abode of the\nCimmerians, which is wrapt in perpetual mist and night (Od. xi. 1-19).\nCirce promised them the aid of Boreas, when Ulysses, alarmed at the\nunusual journey he was to make, asked who would guide him. I therefore\ninfer that Boreas was to blow not before, but after, they had entered\nthe Ocean-mouth, and was to carry them up the stream. Before reaching\nit, we may assume that, as usual on his way outwards, he was sailing\nwith a wind from some southern quarter.\n\n(2) In the Ocean-river, they haul their vessel high and dry, and\nproceed by land up the stream to the mouth of the Shades or under-world\n(Od. xi. 20-2).\n\n(3) From the mouth of the Shades they return to their ship, and in it\ndown (\u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u1f70) the Ocean stream, and to the \u00c6\u00e6an island. They go first by\nrowing, and then by a favourable breeze, of which the direction is not\nmentioned (Od. xi. 638-40; xii. 1-3: also xxiii. 322-5.)\n\nVII. \u03a3\u03b5\u03b9\u03c1\u03ae\u03bd\u03c9\u03bd \u03bd\u1fc6\u03c3\u03bf\u03c2. This island is reached with an \u1f34\u03ba\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 \u03bf\u1f56\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2; the\nquarter is not named, nor is the distance, but from the terms of the\npassages it would appear to have been very short. (Od. xii. 149-54,\n165-7; also 39, and xxiii. 326.)\n\nVIII. Avoiding the \u03a0\u03bb\u03b1\u03b3\u03ba\u03c4\u03b1\u1f76, the hero passes between Scylla and\nCharybdis, to Thrinacie, the island of the Sun. The strait is reached\nforthwith, \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03af\u03ba\u03b1 (Od. xii. 201), after leaving the island, and\nThrinacie is reached forthwith in like manner (\u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03af\u03ba\u03b1 v. 261) after\nleaving the strait (Od. xi. 106, 7; xii. 262; xxiii. 327-9. The last\npassage appears to place the \u03a0\u03bb\u03b1\u03b3\u03ba\u03c4\u03b1\u1f76 and the Scylla passage close\ntogether, as it says that he came to them both, though he passed only\nthrough Scylla).\n\nIn Thrinacie he is detained by Notus, blowing for a month, and by\nthe total absence of any wind but Notus and Eurus. The common point\nof these winds is, that they are chiefly in the southern hemisphere.\nAlso it would seem from this part of the Fourth Book that Boreas was\nevidently the wind that Ulysses required to help him forward on his way\nhome, rather than Zephyrus: for it was the latter wind that caught them\nwhen they were already on their passage, and brought the hurricane in\nwhich the ship went to pieces (Od. xii. 408).\n\nAccordingly, as the Bosphorus is geographically fixed, I place\nThrinacie beside it, and Scylla beside Thrinacie.\n\nIt will be observed that, after allowance is made for too much northing\nin the north coast of the Propontis, the mouth of Scylla will be at\nthe point, from which a N. N. E. wind would have brought Ulysses to the\nDardanelles, and would thus have placed him, by the shortest cut, at\nthe very gate of the \u00c6g\u00e6an, and of the known route to his home.\n\nThe Crimea has so much the character of an island, and its\nsouth-eastern face appears to be both in scenery and climate so\ndelightful, while again its proximity to the Ocean-mouth of the Odyssey\nis so suitable, that we might be tempted to consider it as representing\nthe abode of the Sirens. But it is too large for one of Homer\u2019s \u03bd\u1fc6\u03c3\u03bf\u03b9.\nProbably, too, the isle of Sirens should lie on the direct route from\n\u00c6\u00e6a to the Straits.\n\nIX. When out of sight of the island (403), the ship encounters a\nviolent \u0396\u03ad\u03c6\u03c5\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2, and founders. Ulysses mounts on a couple of spars\n(424). In one night Notus drifts him upon the passage of Scylla and\nCharybdis, which he traverses in safety (427-30, 442-6), and then\ndrifting on, apparently with the same wind, he reaches, on the tenth\nday, the island of Calypso, \u1f68\u03b3\u03c5\u03b3\u03af\u03b7 \u03bd\u1fc6\u03c3\u03bf\u03c2 (xii. 447, 8; xxiii. 333),\nwhich is the \u1f44\u03bc\u03c6\u03b1\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2 or central point of the \u03b8\u03ac\u03bb\u03b1\u03c3\u03c3\u03b1 (Od. i. 50): that\nis to say which, as nearly due north from Greece, not only is conceived\nto be alike removed from the supposed eastern and western Ocean, but\nalso if not equidistant, yet very distant, at all points from main land.\n\nX. The next stage to Ogygia is Scheria, \u03a3\u03c7\u03b5\u03c1\u03af\u03b7 (Od. vi. 8), or the \u03b3\u03b1\u03af\u03b7\n\u03a6\u03b1\u03b9\u03ae\u03ba\u03c9\u03bd (Od. v. 345). Leaving Ogygia on his raft (v. 263 and seqq.),\nhe keeps Arctos set on his right, and looking towards his left hand,\ntill on the eighteenth day (v. 278), he arrives in sight of Scheria.\nNeptune, coming up from among the Ethiopians, discerns him afar, from\nthe Solyman mountains (282). The storm rises, and the raft is tossed in\na hurricane of all the winds (293 and 331, 2). At length it founders\n(370): Minerva sends a brisk Boreas, and the hero drifts to Scheria,\narriving on the third day (382-98). Homer gives to Scheria the name\nof \u1f24\u03c0\u03b5\u03b9\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2 (Od. v. 348, 50); and it does not appear clear that he\nconsidered it as an island. At the same time, the term \u1f24\u03c0\u03b5\u03b9\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2 may mean\nthe shore: and the word \u03b3\u03b1\u03af\u03b7 may be used, like \u039a\u03c1\u03ae\u03c4\u03b7 \u03c4\u03b9\u03c2 \u03b3\u03b1\u03af\u2019 \u1f10\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03bd, for\nan island, if it be presumed to be of extraordinary size.\n\nXI. \u1f38\u03b8\u03ac\u03ba\u03b7. The living ship of the Ph\u00e6acians leaves somewhat early\nin the day, after the proper rites; the goods having been stowed at\ndaybreak (Od. xiii. 18, and seqq.) No wind is named: but, with a speed\nmore rapid than that of a hawk, the vessel, propelled by oars, reaches\nIthaca before the next dawn. Od. xiii. 78, 86, 93-5.\n\n~_Directions and distances from \u00c6\u00e6a._~\n\nWe have however still to consider the directions and distances of the\ntour, from \u00c6\u00e6a onwards, on the way home.\n\nHomer plainly intends to describe very short passages, first to the\nisland of the Sirens, next from that island to Scylla, and then from\nScylla to the landing on the coast of Thrinacie. They are not defined:\nbut they by no means correspond with the very considerable eastward\nstretch of the Euxine from the Bosphorus.\n\nIt has already been observed that Homer shortens the eastern recess of\nthe Mediterranean, and brings Egypt nearly to the southward of Crete:\nand that this is part of a system of compression which abbreviates\nall the distances of his Outer geography eastward from Lycia. We have\nnow come to another example of the working of this idea in his mind:\nplacing \u00c6\u00e6a and the Sirens so near the Bosphorus, he plainly curtails\nthe eastward Euxine, like the eastward Mediterranean.\n\nTen days floatage northwards from Scylla would give us a distance of\nnearly five hundred miles in that direction, up to the point where we\nshould fix the island of Calypso.\n\nBut from Ogygia to within sight of Scheria, Ulysses occupies eighteen\ndays in sailing by raft: which will give us for the whole distance\nat sixty miles _per diem_, with an allowance of fifty miles, as the\ndistance from which Ithaca had become visible, about eleven hundred and\nthirty miles. We have also to consider the further question, how far\nScheria is to be placed from Ithaca. We must reckon the time occupied\nby the hawk-like ship at not less than sixteen hours; and we cannot\nreckon the distance below one hundred and eighty or ninety miles.\nThus Ogygia ought to be reckoned at fully thirteen hundred miles from\nIthaca. L\u00e6strygonia is, as we have found, nearly seventeen hundred from\nIthaca. And the site of Ogygia will be upon the point which is both\nat the distance of five hundred miles from the Homeric or transposed\nScylla, and of eleven hundred and thirty miles from the Homeric\nScheria. This point will, I think, lie a little to the west of the real\nsite of Kieff.\n\nThe actual distance from Ithaca to the middle point of Corfu may be\nabout eighty miles. Corfu is said to resemble in its natural features\nthe Scheria of Homer. But if this be admitted, we must remove the site\nof the island in the direction of Dalmatia to more than double its real\ndistance from Ithaca, so as to satisfy the conditions of the Ph\u00e6acian\nvoyage. It will then be near the point where we may, consistently with\nall the representations of Homer, cut off the Greek peninsula, and\nsubstitute for the northward land the great spaces of his sea.\n\nThe island of Calypso, thus determined, will satisfy in a great degree\nthe conditions of the \u1f44\u03bc\u03c6\u03b1\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2 \u03b8\u03b1\u03bb\u03ac\u03c3\u03c3\u03b7\u03c2. It may be nearly equidistant\nfrom \u00c6\u00e6a and the Cimmerian country in the south-east, from Scylla in\nthe south, and from the possible extension of the Cimmerian country\nto the north. Towards \u00c6olia and L\u00e6strygonia on the west the distances\nwill indeed be greater; but as among very great distances Homer may\nnaturally fail to maintain the close measurements of small ones.\n\n~_Tours of Menelaus and Ulysses compared._~\n\nThus, then, we have brought Ulysses home; and now let us proceed to\nexamine the undeveloped, but still rather curious, relation between the\ntours of the two chieftains, Ulysses and Menelaus.\n\nThe readers of Dante will recollect with what complex precision, as\na poetical Architect, he has actually, for the purposes of his work,\nbuilt an Universe of Hell, Purgatory, and Paradise. Every line of his\npoem has a determinate relation to a certain point in space, fixed in\nhis own mind; but whether every such point be fixed or not in nature\nis no more material, than if it were simply one to be determined by\naxes of coordinates. Intricate as the fabric is, this great brother\nof Homer in his art never for a moment lets drop the thread of his\nlabyrinth, but holds it steadily from the beginning of the first canto\nto the end of the hundredth. Homer, composing for a younger world, had\nto deal with all ideas whatsoever in simpler forms; but, I think, it is\ndiscernible that in his way he, too, made a systematic distribution of\nthe Outer Earth, as he had rather vaguely conceived it in his teeming\nimagination.\n\nWe are apt to forget, from the comparatively summary manner in which\nthe subject is dismissed by the Poet, that the voyages and travels of\nMenelaus occupy a time almost as long as those of Ulysses. He has but\nrecently returned, says Nestor to Telemachus, in the last year of his\nfather\u2019s wanderings[628]: and Menelaus himself states, that he came\nhome only in the eighth year after the capture of Troy[629]. And as in\npoint of time, so likewise they are geographically in correspondence.\nTo Menelaus Homer has given, in outline, the southern world from east\nto west, and to Ulysses, in detail, the northern world from west to\neast. It is true that he made Ulysses begin his Wanderings, properly\nso called, with the Lotophagi in Africa: but this is because it was\nnecessary to throw him at Malea, by some wide and irrecoverable\ndeviation, off his route to Ithaca. So Menelaus loses his course at\nthe very same critical point, the Malean Promontory[630]. Then the two\nstrike off to the opposite ends of the diameter: Menelaus to Crete,\nfor Cyprus, Ph\u0153nicia, and Egypt, in the south-east; Ulysses to Africa,\nfor the Cyclopes, \u00c6olia, and L\u00e6strygonia, in the north-west. Again,\nMenelaus visits Libya to the westward, where, it will be remembered, he\nis to find his home after death in the Elysian fields. The counterpart\nof this is in the eastward movement of Ulysses along a northern zone\nto the isle of Circe, and in his visit to the Shades. Again, it is\nPh\u0153nicia, which in the south-east forms a kind of boundary line between\nthe known and the unknown world. Accordingly Homer has given us an\nidealized Ph\u0153nicia on the north-western line. Perhaps only partial,\nbut still perfectly real, resemblances of character establish a\npoetical relation between the \u03a6\u03bf\u03af\u03bd\u03b9\u03ba\u03b5\u03c2 and the \u03a6\u03b1\u03af\u03b7\u03ba\u03b5\u03c2. Other parts\nof the Ph\u00e6acian character might seem to have been borrowed from the\nEgyptians. No one, I think, can doubt that Homer had the Ph\u0153nicians\nto some extent in his mind, when he invented the Ph\u00e6acians. But he has\ngiven us another etymological sign of the connection. The \u03a6\u03bf\u03af\u03bd\u03b9\u03ba\u03b5\u03c2\nstand in evident connection with \u03a3\u03c5\u03c1\u03af\u03b7[631]. Who but they could give\nthat name to the island where Eum\u00e6us was born? an island with which\nwe see them to have been in relations by a double token; the first, a\nPh\u0153nician slave carried thither by the Taphians; and the second, Eum\u00e6us\nas a boy carried off thence by the Ph\u0153nicians, who had paid it a visit\nwith a cargo of fine goods. The island of \u03a8\u03c5\u03c1\u03af\u03b7, lying north-west from\nChios, probably owed its title to the same source: if not also \u03a3\u03ba\u1fe6\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2,\ncorrupted from \u03a3\u03c5\u03c1\u03cc\u03c2. Surely then, like \u03a6\u03b1\u03af\u03b7\u03ba\u03b5\u03c2 from \u03a6\u03bf\u03af\u03bd\u03b9\u03ba\u03b5\u03c2, so Homer\nmade \u03a3\u03c7\u03b5\u03c1\u03af\u03b7 from \u03a3\u03c5\u03c1\u03af\u03b7. It being always remembered that Scheria is for\nHomer, like Ph\u0153nicia, a maritime land. It is nowhere called an island;\nfrom which we know, that Homer either believed it to be attached to the\ncontinent, or to form, like Crete[632], a continent of itself.\n\n[628] Od. iii. 318.\n\n[629] Od. iv. 82.\n\n[630] Od. iii. 286-90.\n\n[631] Od. xv. 402. Much difficulty has been raised about this \u03a3\u03c5\u03c1\u03af\u03b7:\nsee Wood on Homer, pp. 9-16; but surely without need. We have\nno occasion to translate \u03ba\u03b1\u03b8\u03cd\u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03b8\u03b5 into _trans_, \u03c0\u03ad\u03c1\u03b7\u03bd, or\n_beyond_. The \u03a3\u03c5\u03c1\u03af\u03b7 \u03bd\u1fc6\u03c3\u03bf\u03c2, or Syros, has the same bearing in respect\nto Delos, as \u03a8\u03c5\u03c1\u03af\u03b7 in respect to Chios, which is called \u03ba\u03b1\u03b8\u03cd\u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03b8\u03b5\n\u03a7\u03af\u03bf\u03b9\u03bf, Od. iii. 170. It may perhaps mean _to windward_, and this would\ncorrespond with the idea of \u0396\u03ad\u03c6\u03c5\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2 as the prevailing wind\nof the \u00c6g\u00e6an. Another difficulty is made about the phrase \u1f45\u03b8\u03b9 \u03c4\u03c1\u03bf\u03c0\u03b1\u1f76\n\u1f20\u03b5\u03bb\u03af\u03bf\u03b9\u03bf, which is interpreted as describing the position relatively\nto Delos. I know not why this should constitute a difficulty at all,\nif Syros is to the west and north of Delos. But there would be no\ndifficulty, even if Delos were west of Syros: for the words \u1f45\u03b8\u03b9 \u03c4\u03c1\u03bf\u03c0\u03b1\u1f76\n\u1f20\u03b5\u03bb\u03af\u03bf\u03b9\u03bf may apply grammatically to either of the two islands as viewed\nfrom the other.\n\n[632] Od. xix. 172.\n\nThe Erembi of Menelaus are generally understood to be the Arabians.\nThe \u00c6thiopes, whom he also visits, extend from the extreme east to\nthe furthest west of the surface of the earth; and they possibly may\nhave a counterpart in the Cimmerians of the north. In the same zone\nwith the \u00c6thiopes, on the borders of Ocean to the south, a passage of\nthe Iliad places the \u1f04\u03bd\u03b4\u03c1\u03b5\u03c2 \u03a0\u03c5\u03b3\u03bc\u03b1\u1fd6\u03bf\u03b9[633]. Herodotus supports Homer\nin this, as in most other particulars. And the researches of the most\nrecent travellers sustain the assertion of these two old ethnologists\nof Greece, that there are dwarfed races in the interior of Africa,\naccessible from Egypt.\n\n[633] Il. iii. 2-6.\n\nThus, then, it would appear in general that the voyage and travels of\nMenelaus, together with those of Ulysses, including in the former his\nfinal passage to Elysium, cover the entire surface of the earth, such\nas Homer had conceived it. This, however, can only be taken generally,\nand tells us little of what Homer thought concerning the actual form\nof the earth\u2019s surface, while it leaves untouched various questions\nregarding its distribution in detail. With some of these let us now\nendeavour to deal.\n\nAnd first, what was Homer\u2019s belief concerning the form of the earth?\n\n~_Earth of Homer probably oval._~\n\nThe passage of the poems which bears most directly upon the solution of\nthis question is that which describes the Shield of Achilles. We here\nlearn that, in finishing his work, Vulcan gave it the great River Ocean\nfor a border[634]. From this it follows conclusively, that the form of\nthe Shield was that which Homer also conceived to be nearest to the\nform of the surface of the Earth.\n\n[634] Il. xviii. 607.\n\nThe question then arises, what was the form of the Shields treated of\nby Homer? And it is one not easy to answer. Homer compares the light of\nthis very Shield of Achilles in a subsequent passage to that of the\nmoon[635]: but he does not say the full moon, and the moon in certain\nstages might suggest the oval, although when full it would require the\ncircular shape. The epithets which he uses do not solve the question:\nfor some of them appear to agree better with the one supposition, and\nsome with the other. The \u1f04\u03c3\u03c0\u03b9\u03c2 \u1f00\u03bc\u03c6\u03b9\u03b2\u03c1\u03cc\u03c4\u03b7, for instance, in Il. xi.\n32, suggests a shape adapted in a great degree to that of the human\nform. The \u03c0\u03bf\u03b4\u03b7\u03bd\u03b5\u03ba\u1f74\u03c2 of Il. xv. 646 appears absolutely to require it.\nNo circular shield, which reached down to the feet, could have been\ncarried on the arm. But, on the other hand, Homer calls the shield\n\u03b5\u1f54\u03ba\u03c5\u03ba\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2[636] and \u03c0\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03cc\u03c3\u03b5 \u1f34\u03c3\u03b7, which certainly at first sight favour\nthe idea of a circular form. Shall we then suppose that both forms\nprevailed? And if so, which of the two shall we assign to the Shield of\nAchilles?\n\n[635] Il. xix. 374.\n\n[638] Plut. Lacon. Instit. (Opp. vi. 898.) ed. Reiske; Potter\u2019s Greek.\nAntiq. B. iii. ch. iv.\n\n[636] Il. v. 433.\n\nIt appears that in the military system of historic Greece the round\nshield chiefly prevailed; but for the time of Homer I cannot help\nleaning to the supposition that the Shield was oval. For I do not know\nany explicit testimony, with respect to its primitive form, that can\nweigh against the lines of Tyrt\u00e6us[637];\n\n[637] Tyrt. ii. 24. Also Anthol. Gr\u00e6c.\n\n \u03bc\u03ae\u03c1\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 \u03c4\u03b5, \u03ba\u03bd\u03ae\u03bc\u03b1\u03c2 \u03c4\u03b5 \u03ba\u03ac\u03c4\u03c9, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c3\u03c4\u03ad\u03c1\u03bd\u03b1, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f64\u03bc\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2\n \u1f00\u03c3\u03c0\u03af\u03b4\u03bf\u03c2 \u03b5\u1f50\u03c1\u03b5\u03af\u03b7\u03c2 \u03b3\u03b1\u03c3\u03c4\u03c1\u1f76 \u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u03c5\u03c8\u03ac\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2.\n\nAnother strong testimony to the same effect is borne by the ancient\ncustom of bearing the dead warrior upon his shield, whence came the\nold formula of the Spartan mothers, \u1f22 \u03c4\u1f70\u03bd, \u1f22 \u1f10\u03c0\u1f76 \u03c4\u03ac\u03bd; Bring it, or be\nbrought upon it[638].\n\nWith respect to the Homeric epithets, it is impossible to reconcile\nthose which favour the oblong form with the rival sense: but the\n\u03c0\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03cc\u03c3\u03b5 \u1f34\u03c3\u03b7 might apply to any regular figure, and the \u03b5\u1f54\u03ba\u03c5\u03ba\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2 is\nhardly strained if we understand it of an oval pretty regularly formed.\n\nTo a certain extent, the natural form of the hides of animals affords\nan indication; they were worn as cloaks coming down to the heels,\nand they would properly cut into the oblong form[639]. Again, in the\nexpression \u03c3\u03ac\u03ba\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c3\u03b1\u03ba\u03ad\u03ca \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03b8\u03b5\u03bb\u03cd\u03bc\u03bd\u1ff3[640], I understand the epithet to\nmean that the shields were rested on the ground in front of the bearers\nof them. The meaning common to it, in the three places where Homer uses\nit, seems to be \u2018from the ground,\u2019 or \u2018from the base.\u2019\n\n[639] Il. x. 24, 178.\n\n[640] Il. xiii. 130. ix. 537. x. 15.\n\nIt would not be satisfactory to assume that the two forms prevailed,\nbut that they had, though different, been confounded by Homer; and on\nthe whole we shall perhaps do best to consider the \u03c3\u03ac\u03ba\u03bf\u03c2 as an oval.\n\nIt follows that such was, in Homer\u2019s estimation, the form of the world.\nAnd this interpretation agrees with the other Homeric indications on\nthe subject.\n\nWe must, I think, take Homer to have supposed something like an equal\nextension of the earth northward and southward from Greece. But,\nwhether we judge from the Tours of the Odyssey or from the general\nindications of the poems, we have, I think, no sign of an extension\ncorrespondingly great either eastward or westward. The flights of\nmigratory birds, and the prevailing winds, are both evidently from\nthe poles or from the quarters near them. The only great positive\ndevelopments of distance in the Odyssey are those towards L\u00e6strygonia\nand Ogygia, both of which lie in the north; the latter, as an \u1f44\u03bc\u03c6\u03b1\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2,\nwith a sea stretching far beyond it. All appearances, too, go to show\nthat the Eastern Ocean was in Homer\u2019s view at no great distance; and I\napprehend we should consider the Western one as being on his map about\nequally remote from Greece. Now the oval figure will give us what we\nthus appear to want, namely a shorter diameter of the earth from east\nto west, than the diameter from north to south. Some other particulars\nof evidence will appear as we proceed.\n\n~_Points of contact with Oceanus._~\n\nIn conformity with his declaration, that the Ocean-River surrounds the\nearth, he as it were realizes his belief in it, by giving us instances\nof actual contact with it at very many points of the compass. Thus the\nPigmies in the South are visited by the cranes, on their way to the\nOcean in the South[641]. The gods feast with the Ethiopians by the\nOcean, and this must be in the S. E., as Neptune takes the Solyman\nmountains (which are in immediate association with Lycia, a point of\nthe inner world) on his way back to the _Thalassa_[642]. Ulysses visits\nOcean, as we have seen, in the East. The Great Bear escapes dipping\ninto its waters in the North[643]. Menelaus is destined to the Elysian\nplain beside the Ocean, at the point from which Zephyr blows, therefore\nbetween West and North[644].\n\n[641] Il. iii. 5.\n\n[642] Il. xxiii. 205. i. 423. Od. v. 282, 3.\n\n[643] Od. v. 275. Il. xviii. 489.\n\n[644] Od. iv. 561-9.\n\n~_The Caspian Sea and Persian Gulf._~\n\nThis noble conception of a great circumfluent River was doubtless\nfounded upon reports of two classes which had reached Homer. One\nclass would be reports of streams flowing from some great outer water\ninto the _Thalassa_, and seeming to feed it. The other class might be\nformed by reports of waters outside the _Thalassa_, and not known to\ncommunicate with it, which Homer would at once very naturally reckon\nas portions of his great world-embracing Stream. With the former\nclass we have already dealt largely in discussing the Ocean-mouth.\nTo the latter one, Ph\u0153nician sailors might contribute reports of the\nAtlantic and German Oceans. And particularly in the east, I think, we\ncannot doubt that, along with the rumours and traditions of Arabians,\nEthiopians, Persians, and Cimmerians, Homer cannot but have received\nother vague rumours of waters as well as lands; of waters exterior\nto his _Thalassa_ (which included the Mediterranean and the Euxine),\nwaters of which two would clearly be the Caspian Sea, and the Persian\nGulf. On these two I wish to fix attention; and indeed the only other\nwater he was likely to have heard of would probably be the Red Sea.\nNow it will be observed upon any map, 1. that the Caspian lies north\nand south; 2. that a line prolonged from N. to S. down the Caspian\nwill strike the Persian Gulf. In conjunction with this, let the reader\nobserve the course of Ulysses. Quitting the Euxine at the Ocean-mouth,\nor Straits of Yenikal\u00e8, he turns round to the right by the Sea of Azof,\nenlarged so as to join the Caspian. In the interval between them there\nis still a low salt valley, which may in Homer\u2019s time have been a\nwater-way[645]. He is thus in a condition to proceed southward towards\nthe dwelling of Persephone, which I have already shown some cause for\nplacing in the east and to the south. Now the provision of wind, which\nHomer has made for his hero, is precisely that which this hypothesis\nrequires[646]:\n\n[645] Voyages de Pallas, vol. i. p. 320, Paris 1805.\n\n[646] Od. x. 507.\n\n \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03b4\u03ad \u03ba\u03ad \u03c4\u03bf\u03b9 \u03c0\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9\u1f74 \u0392\u03bf\u03c1\u03ad\u03b1\u03bf \u03c6\u03ad\u03c1\u1fc3\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd.\n\nIn other words, from Homer\u2019s use of Boreas in this place it appears\nthat he meant to describe the course of his Ocean-stream at this\nquarter as from south to north, or thereabouts; and this is the line\nactually formed by the junction of the Persian gulf and the Caspian,\nwhich I submit that we may accordingly with propriety consider as\ngenuine fragments of geography, incorporated into his fabulous\nconception of the Ocean-stream.\n\nIt is indeed true that the vague accounts, which had probably reached\nHomer of these two waters, must be supposed not to have included the\nindispensable element of a current. The same remark, however, will\napply to whatever he may have heard of the German or Atlantic Oceans.\nBut in dealing with these shadowy distances, his inference would be\namply warranted, without the means of complete identification, if he\nhad heard of any waters in positions agreeing with that of his ideal\nOcean, capable of communicating easily with its mouth, and, above all,\nindependent of the _Thalassa_.\n\nOne word before we finally quit the subject of the enchanted River; in\norder to complete the chain of connection between the Persephone of\nHomer and the waters of the Persian gulf, in the character of a part of\nOcean, at that point upon the beach, which so well balances the Elysian\nplain in the west.\n\nI have already endeavoured to make use of the names Perseus, Perse,\nand Persephone, as evidences which attach the Persians to the eastern\nextremity of Homer\u2019s ideal world, and which connect the Greek race\nwith a Persian origin. But here we have a geographical trait, which\ndeserves further consideration. The groves of Persephone are on the\nshore of Ocean, in the east, and to the south of the sunrise. What is\nthe meaning of these groves? We are compelled, by unvarying analogies\nof signification, to understand them as both the symbols and the sites\nof a certain organized worship, which was paid to Persephone. But if\npaid, then paid by whom? Certainly not by the nations of the dead: for\nthe place, where these groves were, was not within the kingdom of the\ngoddess, but it was on the shore of Ocean. Ulysses, too, was to haul up\nhis ship there, and only then to enter into the abode of king Aidoneus.\nIt therefore seems to follow, that the Poet meant us to understand this\nas a place where Persephone was habitually worshipped by a portion of\nthe human race, which could only be his Persians or his Ethiopians. I\ndo not say that the two were sharply severed in his mind; but here the\nrace to which he chiefly points appears to be the Persian race[647].\n\n[647] Od. x. 508-12.\n\nThere are even etymological signs, independent of Homer, which deepen\nthe association between the East and the Under-world. Some writers\nhave compared the name Cimmeria with the Arabic word _kahm_, black,\nand _ra_, the mark of the oblique case in Persian: M\u00e6otis with the\nHebrew Maweth, meaning death: and have treated the ancient Tartarus as\nequivalent to the modern Tartary, and as formed by the reduplication of\nTar, in Tarik, the Persic word for darkness[648].\n\n[648] Welsford on Engl. Language, pp. 75, 76, 88. Bleek\u2019s Persian\nVocabulary, (Grammar, p. 170.)\n\n~_Contraction of the Homeric East._~\n\nNext let me wind up what relates to the contraction and compression of\nthe Homeric East.\n\nHomer\u2019s experience did not supply him with any example of a great\nexpanse of land: but the detail and configuration of the countries,\nwith which he was acquainted, was minute. This probably was the reason\nwhy he so readily assumed the existence of that sea to the northward\nof Thrace, in which he has placed the adventures of Ulysses. To that\nsea, as we perceive from the terms of days which he has assigned to\nthe passages of Ulysses, he attached his ideas and his epithets for\nvastness; epithets, which he never bestowed on regions of land; and\nideas, which were sure, indeed, to form a prominent feature in the\nPh\u0153nician reports, that must have supplied him with material. Acting on\nthe same principle, it would appear that he greatly shortens the range\nof Asia Minor eastwards. Through the medium of the Solymi (Il. vi.\n184, 204) he appears to bring the Solyman mountains close upon Lycia.\nA chain now bearing that name skirts the right bank of the Indus: but\nit is probable that Homer identified, or rather confounded, them with\nthe great chain of the Caucasus between the Euxine and the Caspian,\nand with the Taurus joining it, and bordering upon Lycia: for, on the\none hand, we cannot but connect them with the Solymi, the warlike\nneighbours of the Lycians: and on the other, since Neptune, from these\nmountains, sees Ulysses making his homeward voyage from Ogygia, it\nfollows that they must have been conceived by Homer to command a clear\nview of the Euxine, and of its westward extension. Thus he at once\nbrings Egypt nearer to Crete (helping us to explain the Boreas of Od.\nxiv. 253), and Ph\u0153nicia nearer to Lycia: and it is in all likelihood\nimmediately behind Ph\u0153nicia that he imagined to lie the country of the\nPersians and the \u1f04\u03bb\u03c3\u03b5\u03b1 \u03a0\u03b5\u03c1\u03c3\u03b5\u03c6\u03bf\u03bd\u03b5\u03af\u03b7\u03c2 (Od. x. 507), on the shore of that\neastern portion of Oceanus, for which the reports both of the Caspian\nand of the Red Sea, probably, as we have seen, have formed parts of his\nmaterials. Thus we find much and varied evidence converging to support\nthe hypothesis, that Homer greatly compressed his East, and brought\nPersia within moderate distance of the Mediterranean.\n\nIn the obscure perspectives of Grecian legend, we seem to find various\npoints of contact between Egypt, Ph\u0153nicia, and Persia; and each of\nthese points of contact favours the idea that Persia and Ph\u0153nicia were\nclosely associated in Homer\u2019s mind.\n\nProteus, a Ph\u0153nician sea-god, is placed only at a short distance from\nthe Egyptian coast. Helios, strongly associated with Egypt through his\noxen, is associated with Ph\u0153nicia and with the remoter east by his\nrelationship to Circe, and by his residence, the \u1f00\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf\u03bb\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f28\u03b5\u03bb\u03af\u03bf\u03b9\u03bf. And\nagain, from the family of Danaus, a reputed Egyptian, descends Perseus,\nin whose name we find a note of relationship between the Persians and\nthe Greeks. Lycia, too, is near the Solymi, and the Solyman hills are\nreally Persian. Here is a new ray of light cast on Homer\u2019s passion for\nthe Lycians of the War[649].\n\n[649] See Ach\u00e6is, sect. iii.\n\nA few words more will suffice to complete a probable view of the\nterrestrial system of Homer.\n\nThe Ocean surrounds the earth. On its south-eastern beach are\nthe groves of Persephone, and the descent to the Shades: on its\nnorth-western, the Elysian plain. The whole southern range between is\noccupied by the \u0391\u1f30\u03b8\u03af\u03bf\u03c0\u03b5\u03c2, who stretch from the rising to the setting\nsun[650]. The natural counterpart in the cold north to their sun-burnt\nswarthy faces is to be found in the Cimmerians, Homer\u2019s Children of\nthe Mist[651]. Accordingly, they are placed by the Ocean mouth, hard\nby the island of Circe and the Dawn; nearly in contact, therefore,\nwith the Ethiopians of the extreme east. Two hypotheses seem to be\nsuggested by Homer\u2019s treatment of the north. Perhaps Homer imagined\nthat the Cimmerians occupied the northern portion of the earth\nfrom east to west, as the Ethiopians occupied the southern: a very\nappropriate conjecture for the disposal of the country from the Crimea\nto the Cwmri. On the other hand, it seems plain that Homer must have\nreceived from his Ph\u0153nician informants two reports, both ascribed to\nthe North, yet apparently contradictory: the one of countries without\nday, the other of countries without night. The true solution, could\nhe have known it, was by time; each being true of the same place, but\nat different seasons of the year. Not aware of the facts, Homer has\nadopted another method. While preserving the northern locality for both\ntraditions, he has planted the one in the north-west, at the craggy\ncity of Lamus; and the other in the north-east, together with his\nCimmerians.\n\n[650] Od. i. 24.\n\n[651] Od. xi. 15.\n\n~_Outline of his terrestrial system._~\n\nOn the foundation of the conclusions and inferences at which we have\nthus arrived, I have endeavoured to construct a map of the Homeric\nWorld. The materials of this map are of necessity very different.\nFirst, there is the inner or Greek world of geography proper, of which\nthe surface is coloured in red.\n\nNext, there are certain forms of sea and land, genuine, but wholly or\npartially misplaced, which may be recognised by their general likeness\nto their originals in Nature.\n\nThirdly, there is the great mass of fabulous and imaginative\nskiagraphy, which, for the sake of distinction, is drawn in smooth\ninstead of indented outline.\n\nThe Map represents, without any very important variation, the Homeric\nWorld drawn according to the foregoing argument. To facilitate\nverification, or the detection of error, I have made it carry, as far\nas possible, its own evidences, in the inscriptions and references upon\nit.\n\n [Illustration:\n MAP\n of the\n Outer Geography of the Odyssey\n AND OF THE\n Form of the Earth\n ACCORDING TO HOMER.]\n\n\n\n\nEXCURSUS I.\n\nON THE PARENTAGE AND EXTRACTION OF MINOS.\n\n\nIn former portions of this work, I have argued from the name and\nthe Ph\u0153nician extraction of Minos, both to illustrate the dependent\nposition of the Pelasgian race in the Greek countries[652], and\nalso to demonstrate the Ph\u0153nician origin of the Outer Geography\nof the Odyssey[653]. But I have too summarily disposed of the\nimportant question, whether Minos was of Ph\u0153nician origin, and of\nthe construction of the verse Il. xiv. 321. This verse is capable\ngrammatically of being so construed as to contain an assertion of it;\nbut upon further consideration I am not prepared to maintain that it\nought to be so interpreted.\n\n[652] Ach\u00e6is or Ethnology, sect. iii.\n\n[653] Ibid. sect. iv.\n\n~_Genuineness of Il._ xiv. 317-27.~\n\nThe Alexandrian critics summarily condemned the whole passage (Il.\nxiv. 317-27), in which Jupiter details to Juno his various affairs\nwith goddesses and women. \u2018This enumeration,\u2019 says the Scholiast (A)\non verse 327, \u2018is inopportune, for it rather repels Juno than attracts\nher: and Jupiter, when greedy, through the influence of the Cestus, for\nthe satisfaction of his passion, makes a long harangue.\u2019 Heyne follows\nup the censure with a yet more sweeping condemnation. _San\u00e8 absurdiora,\nquam hos decem versus, vix unquam ullus commentus est rhapsodus_[654].\nAnd yet he adds a consideration, which might have served to\narrest judgment until after further hearing. For he says, that the\ncommentators upon them ought to have taken notice that the description\nbelongs to a period, when the relations of man and wife were not such,\nas to prevent the open introduction and parading of concubines; and\nthat Juno might be flattered and allured by a declaration, proceeding\nfrom Jupiter, of the superiority of her charms to those of so many\nbeautiful persons.\n\n[654] Obss. _in loc._\n\nHeyne\u2019s reason appears to me so good, as even to outweigh his\nauthority: but there are other grounds also, on which I decline to bow\nto the proposed excision. The objections taken seem to me invalid on\nthe following grounds;\n\n1. For the reason stated by Heyne.\n\n2. Because, in the whole character of the Homeric Juno, and in the\nwhole of this proceeding, it is the political spirit, and not the\nanimal tendency, that predominates. Of this Homer has given us distinct\nwarning, where he tells us that Juno just before had looked on Jupiter\nfrom afar, and that he was disgusting to her; (v. 158) \u03c3\u03c4\u03c5\u03b3\u03b5\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u03b4\u03ad\n\u03bf\u1f31 \u1f14\u03c0\u03bb\u03b5\u03c4\u03bf \u03b8\u03c5\u03bc\u1ff7. It is therefore futile to argue about her, as if she\nhad been under the paramount sway either of animal desire, or even of\nthe feminine love of admiration, when she was really and exclusively\ngoverned by another master-passion.\n\n3. As she has artfully persuaded Jupiter, that he has an obstacle\nto overcome in diverting her from her intention of travelling to a\ndistance, it is not at all unnatural that Jupiter should use what he\nthinks, and what, as Heyne has shown, he may justly think, to be proper\nand special means of persuasion.\n\n4. The passage is carefully and skilfully composed; and it ends with a\nclimax, so as to give the greatest force to the compliment of which it\nis susceptible.\n\n5. All the representations in it harmonize with the manner of handling\nthe same personages elsewhere in Homer.\n\n6. The passage has that strong vein of nationality, which is so\neminently characteristic of Homer. No intrigues are mentioned, except\nsuch as issued in the birth of children of recognised Hellenic fame.\nThe gross animalism of Jupiter, displayed in the Speech, is in the\nstrictest keeping with the entire context; for it is the basis of the\ntransaction, and gives Juno the opportunity she so adroitly turns to\naccount.\n\n7. Those, who reject the passage as spurious, because the action\nought not at this point to be loaded with a speech, do not, I think,\nbear in mind that a deviation of this kind from the strict poetical\norder is really in keeping with Homer\u2019s practice on other occasions,\nparticularly in the disquisitions of Nestor and of Ph\u0153nix. Such\na deviation appears to be accounted for by his historic aims. To\ncomprehend him in a case of this kind, we must set out from his point\nof departure, according to which, verse was not a mere exercise for\npleasure, but was to be the one great vehicle of all knowledge: and a\npotent instrument in constructing a nationality. Thus, then, what the\nfirst aim rejected, the second might in given cases accept and even\nrequire. Now in this short passage there is a great deal of important\nhistorical information conveyed to us.\n\nWe may therefore with considerable confidence employ such evidence as\nthe speech may be found to afford.\n\nLet us, then, observe the forms of expression as they run in series,\n\n \u03bf\u1f50\u03b4\u2019 \u1f41\u03c0\u03cc\u03c4\u2019 \u1f20\u03c1\u03b1\u03c3\u03ac\u03bc\u03b7\u03bd \u1f38\u03be\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd\u03af\u03b7\u03c2 \u1f00\u03bb\u03cc\u03c7\u03bf\u03b9\u03bf[655].\n \u03bf\u1f50\u03b4\u2019 \u1f45\u03c4\u03b5 \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1 \u0394\u03b1\u03bd\u03ac\u03b7\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u03bb\u03b9\u03c3\u03c6\u03cd\u03c1\u03bf\u03c5 \u1f08\u03ba\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03b9\u03ce\u03bd\u03b7\u03c2[656].\n \u03bf\u1f50\u03b4\u2019 \u1f45\u03c4\u03b5 \u03a6\u03bf\u03af\u03bd\u03b9\u03ba\u03bf\u03c2 \u03ba\u03bf\u03cd\u03c1\u03b7\u03c2 \u03c4\u03b7\u03bb\u03b5\u03ba\u03bb\u03b5\u03af\u03c4\u03bf\u03b9\u03bf[657].\n\n[655] Ver. 317.\n\n[656] Ver. 319.\n\n[657] Ver. 321.\n\n~_Sense of Il._ xiv. 321.~\n\nTaken grammatically, I presume the last verse may mean, (1) The\ndaughter of the distinguished Ph\u0153nix: or (2) The daughter of a\ndistinguished Ph\u0153nician: or (3) A distinguished Ph\u0153nician damsel.\n\n_a._ Against the first it may be urged, that we have no other account\nfrom Homer, or from any early tradition, of this Ph\u0153nix, here described\nas famous.\n\n_b._ Against the second and third, that Homer nowhere directly declares\nthe foreign origin of any great Greek personage.\n\n_c._ Also, that in each of the previous cases, Homer has used the\nproper name of a person nearly connected in order to indicate and\nidentity the woman, whom therefore it is not likely that he would in\nthis single case denote only by her nation, or the nation of her father.\n\n_d._ Against the third, that, in the only other passage where he has\nto speak of a Ph\u0153nician woman, he uses a feminine form, \u03a6\u03bf\u03af\u03bd\u03b9\u03c3\u03c3\u03b1:\n\u1f14\u03c3\u03ba\u03b5 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c4\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u1f10\u03bc\u03bf\u1fd6\u03bf \u03b3\u03c5\u03bd\u1f74 \u03a6\u03bf\u03af\u03bd\u03b9\u03c3\u03c3\u2019 \u1f10\u03bd\u1f76 \u03bf\u1f34\u03ba\u1ff3 (Od. xv. 417). But \u03a6\u03bf\u03af\u03bd\u03b9\u03be\nis grammatically capable of the feminine, as is shown by Herod. i.\n193[658].\n\n[658] See Jelf\u2019s Gr. Gramm. 103.\n\n_e._ Also that Homer, in the few instances where he uses the word\n\u03c4\u03b7\u03bb\u03b5\u03ba\u03bb\u03b5\u03b9\u03c4\u1f78\u03c2, confines it to men. He, however, gives the epithet\n\u1f10\u03c1\u03b9\u03ba\u03c5\u03b4\u1f74\u03c2 to Latona.\n\nThe arguments from the structure of the passage, and from the uniform\nreticence of Homer respecting the foreign origin of Greek personages,\nconvince me that it is not on the whole warrantable to interpret \u03a6\u03bf\u03af\u03bd\u03b9\u03be\nin this place in any other manner, than as the name of the father of\nMinos.\n\nThe name \u03a6\u03bf\u03af\u03bd\u03b9\u03be, however, taken in connection with the period to\nwhich it applies--nearly three generations before the _Troica_--still\ncontinues to supply of itself no trifling presumption of the Ph\u0153nician\norigin of Minos.\n\nIt cannot, I suppose, be doubted that the original meaning of \u03a6\u03bf\u03af\u03bd\u03b9\u03be,\nwhen first used as a proper name in Greece, probably was \u2018of Ph\u0153nician\nbirth, or origin.\u2019 But, if we are to judge by the testimony of Homer,\nthe time, when Minos lived, was but very shortly after the first\nPh\u0153nician arrivals in Greece; and his grandfather Ph\u0153nix, living four\nand a half generations before the _Troica_, was in all likelihood\ncontemporary with, or anterior to, Cadmus. At a period when the\nintercourse of the two countries was in its infancy, we may, I think,\nwith some degree of confidence construe this proper name as indicating\nthe country of origin.\n\n~_Collateral evidence._~\n\nThe other marks connected with Minos and his history give such support\nto this presumption as to bring the supposition up to reasonable\ncertainty. Such are,\n\n1. The connection with D\u00e6dalus.\n\n2. The tradition of the nautical power of Minos.\n\n3. The characteristic epithet \u1f40\u03bb\u03bf\u03cc\u03c6\u03c1\u03c9\u03bd; as also its relation to the\nother Homeric personages with whose name it is joined.\n\n4. The fact that Minos brought a more advanced form of laws and polity\namong a people of lower social organization; the proof thus given that\nhe belonged to a superior race: the probability that, if this race\nhad been Hellenic, Homer would have distinctly marked the connection\nof so distinguished a person with the Hellenic stem: and the apparent\ncertainty that, if not Hellenic, it could only be Ph\u0153nician.\n\nThe positive Homeric grounds for believing Minos to be Ph\u0153nician are\nmuch stronger, than any that sustain the same belief in the case of\nCadmus: and the negative objection, that Homer does not call him by\nthe name of the country from which he sprang, is in fact an indication\nof the Poet\u2019s uniform practice of drawing the curtain over history or\nlegend, at the point where a longer perspective would have the effect\nof exhibiting any Greek hero as derived from a foreign source, and thus\nof confuting that claim to autochthonism which, though it is not much\nhis way to proclaim such matters in the abstract, yet appears to have\noperated with Homer as a practical principle of considerable weight.\n\n\n\n\nEXCURSUS II.\n\nON THE LINE ODYSS. V. 277.\n\n\nI have the less scruple in making the verse Od. v. 277 the subject of\na particular inquiry, because the chief elements of the discussion\nare important with reference to the laws of Homeric Greek, as well as\nwith regard to that adjustment of the Outer Geography, which I have\nsupported by a detailed application to every part of the narrative of\nthe Odyssey, and which I at once admit is in irreconcilable conflict\nwith the popular construction of the account of the voyage from Ogygia\nto Scheria, as far as it depends upon this particular verse.\n\nThe passage is[659] (the \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd referring to \u1f0c\u03c1\u03ba\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd in v. 273)\n\n[659] Od. v. 276, 7.\n\n \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u03b4\u03ae \u03bc\u03b9\u03bd \u1f04\u03bd\u03c9\u03b3\u03b5 \u039a\u03b1\u03bb\u03c5\u03c8\u1f7c, \u03b4\u1fd6\u03b1 \u03b8\u03b5\u03ac\u03c9\u03bd,\n \u03c0\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf\u03c0\u03bf\u03c1\u03b5\u03c5\u03ad\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9 \u1f10\u03c0\u2019 \u1f00\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u1f70 \u03c7\u03b5\u03b9\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u1f14\u03c7\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1.\n\nThe points upon which the signification of the last line must depend,\nseem to be as follows:\n\n1. The meaning of the important Homeric word \u1f00\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03cc\u03c2.\n\n2. The form of the phrase \u1f00\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u1f70 \u03c7\u03b5\u03b9\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2, which is an \u1f05\u03c0\u03b1\u03be \u03bb\u03b5\u03b3\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd\nin Homer.\n\n3. The force of the preposition \u1f10\u03c0\u1f76, particularly with the accusative.\n\nThe second of these points may be speedily dismissed. For (1) the only\nquestion that can arise upon it would be, whether (assuming for the\nmoment the sense of \u1f00\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2) \u2018the left of his hand\u2019 means the left of\nthe line described by the onward movement of his body, or the left of\nthe direction in which his hand, that is, his right or steering hand,\npoints while upon the helm; which would be the exact reverse of the\nformer. But, though the latter interpretation would be grammatically\naccurate, it is too minute and subtle, as respects the sense, to agree\nwith Homer\u2019s methods of expression. And (2) some of the Scholiasts\nreport another reading, \u03bd\u03b7\u1f78\u03c2, instead of \u03c7\u03b5\u03b9\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2, which would present no\npoint of doubt or suspicion under this head.\n\nWe have then two questions to consider; of which the first is the\ngeneral use and treatment by Homer of the word \u1f00\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03cc\u03c2.\n\n~_Senses of \u03b4\u03b5\u03be\u03b9\u1f78\u03c2 and \u1f00\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03cc\u03c2._~\n\nIt appears to me well worth consideration whether the \u03b4\u03b5\u03be\u03b9\u1f78\u03c2 and\n\u1f00\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 of Homer ought not, besides the senses of right and left, to\nbe acknowledged capable of the senses of east and west respectively.\n\nThe word \u1f00\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 takes the sense of _left_ by way of derivation and\nsecond intention only.\n\nThe word \u03c3\u03ba\u03b1\u03b9\u1f78\u03c2 is that, which etymologically and primarily expresses\nthe function of the left hand. The use of this as the principal hand\nis abnormal, and places the body as it were _askew_ (compare \u03c3\u03ba\u03ac\u03b6\u03c9,\n_sc\u00e6vus_, _schief_)[660]. In Homer the only word used singly, i. e.\nwithout a substantive, to express the left hand is \u03c3\u03ba\u03b1\u03b9\u03cc\u03c2. At the same\ntime, we cannot draw positive conclusions from this fact, because\n\u1f00\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 could not stand in the hexameter to represent a feminine noun\nsingular, on account of the laws of metre, which in this point are\ninflexible.\n\n[660] Liddell and Scott.\n\n\u03a3\u03ba\u03b1\u03b9\u1fc7 means the left hand in Il. i. 501. xvi. 734. xxi. 490. This\nadjective is but once used in Homer except for the hand: viz., in Od.\niii. 295 we have \u03c3\u03ba\u03b1\u03b9\u1f78\u03bd \u1fe5\u03af\u03bf\u03bd for \u2018the foreland on the left.\u2019 But \u03a3\u03ba\u03b1\u03b9\u03b1\u1f76\n\u03c0\u03cd\u03bb\u03b1\u03b9 may have meant originally the left hand gates of Troy.\n\nThe application of \u03b4\u03b5\u03be\u03b9\u1f78\u03c2 to the right hand (from which we may\nconsider \u03b4\u03b5\u03be\u03b9\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 as an adaptation for metrical purposes), is to be\nsufficiently accounted for, because it was the hand by which greetings\nwere exchanged, and engagements contracted[661]. But it is not so with\n\u1f00\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03cc\u03c2: and while we contemplate the subject in regard only to the\nuses of the member, the word \u03c3\u03ba\u03b1\u03b9\u1f78\u03c2 remains perfectly unexceptionable,\nand even highly expressive and convenient, in its function of\nexpressing the left hand.\n\n[661] Il. ii. 341. x. 542.\n\nIt appears that the Greek augurs, in estimating the signification of\nomens, were accustomed to stand with their faces northwards; or rather,\nI presume, with their faces set towards a point midway between sunset\nand sunrise. The most common descriptions of omen in the time of Homer\nappear to have been (1) the flight of birds, and (2) the apparition\nof thunder and lightning. The test of a good moving omen was, that it\nshould proceed from the west, and move to the east; and of a bad moving\nomen, that it should proceed from the east, and move to the west.\nPossibly we may trace in this conception the cosmogonical arrangement,\nwhich planted in the West the Elysian plain, and in the East the\ndismal and semi-penal domain of Aidoneus and Persephone. Possibly\nthe brightness of the sun, which caused the East to be regarded as\nthe fountain of light, may be the foundation of it: together, on the\nother hand, with that close visible association between the West and\ndarkness, which the sunset of each day brought before the eyes of men;\nso that to lie \u03c0\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u03b6\u03cc\u03c6\u03bf\u03bd meant to lie towards the West, and was the\nregular opposite of lying towards the sun[662].\n\n[662] Od. ix. 25, 6.\n\nWhatever may have been the basis of the doctrine of the augurs, there\ngrew up an established association (1) between the west and what was\nill-omened or evil, and through this (2) between what was ill-omened\nor evil and the left side of a man. The west was unlucky, because the\nscience of augury made it so. The left hand was unlucky, because in\nthe inspection of omens it was western. One half of the objects in\nthe world, and of the actions of the human body, thus lay, from their\nposition relatively to omens, under an incubus of ill-fortune. It was\nretrieved from this threatening condition, by an euphemism; by the\napplication of a word not merely innocent[663], but preeminently good.\nEverything covered by the blight of evil omen was to be, not only not\nharmful, but \u1f00\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2, better than the best. Consequently it would\nappear that the word \u1f00\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 probably meant westerly, before it could\nmean on the left hand: because not the left hand only, but everything\nwesterly, was within the range of the evil to which it was intended to\napply a remedy.\n\n[663] Compare the use of the word \u03b5\u1f50\u03ce\u03bd\u03c5\u03bc\u03bf\u03c2.\n\nIn a passage like Il. vii. 238, the meaning of \u03b4\u03b5\u03be\u03b9\u1f78\u03c2 and \u1f00\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2\nis, plainly, right and left. But what is it in the speech of Hector,\nwhere he tells Polydamas that he cares not for omens[664],\n\n[664] Il. xii. 238-40.\n\n \u03b5\u1f34\u03c4\u2019 \u1f10\u03c0\u1f76 \u03b4\u03b5\u03be\u03af\u2019 \u1f34\u03c9\u03c3\u03b9 \u03c0\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u1f28\u1ff6 \u03c4\u2019 \u1f28\u03ad\u03bb\u03b9\u03cc\u03bd \u03c4\u03b5,\n \u03b5\u1f34\u03c4\u2019 \u1f10\u03c0\u2019 \u1f00\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u1f70 \u03c4\u03bf\u03af\u03b3\u03b5 \u03c0\u03bf\u03c4\u1f76 \u03b6\u03cc\u03c6\u03bf\u03bd \u1f20\u03b5\u03c1\u03cc\u03b5\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1.\n\nIn the first place, it is a more appropriate, because more direct,\nmethod of description with respect to birds of omen to say, they fly\neastward or westward, than that they fly to the right or the left\nhand: since the sense of right and left has no determinate standard\nof reference, but requires the aid of an assumption that the person\nis actually looking to the north, so that the words may thus become\nequivalent to east and west. But in this case, which is one of warriors\non the battle-field, would there not be something rather incongruous\nin interpolating the suggestion of their turning northwards as they\nspoke, in order to give the proper meaning to these two words? We must\nsurely conceive of Hector standing on the battle-field with his face\ntowards the enemy, if we are to take his posture into view at all. If\nhe stood thus, he would look, as far as we can judge, to the west of\nnorth. Now the \u03b6\u03cc\u03c6\u03bf\u03c2 was the north-west with Homer, and not the west:\nand, conversely, the \u1f28\u1f7c\u03c2 inclined to the south of east. In this way he\nwould nearly have his face to the former, and his back to the latter;\nand if so the meaning of right and left would be not only farfetched,\nbut wholly improper, while the meaning of east and west would be no\nless correct than natural.\n\nI must add, that there are other places in Homer where difficulty\narises, if we are only permitted to construe \u03b4\u03b5\u03be\u03b9\u1f78\u03c2 and \u1f00\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 by\nright and left. I will even venture to say, that there are passages in\nthe Thirteenth Book which render the topography of the battle that it\ndescribes, not only obscure, but even contradictory, if \u1f00\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 in\nthem means _left_; and which become perfectly harmonious if we allowed\nto understand it as signifying _west_.\n\n~_Illustrated from Il._ xiii.~\n\nThese are respectively Il. xiii. 675 and 765.\n\nIn order to apprehend the case, it will be necessary to follow closely\nthe movement of the battle through most of the Book.\n\n1. Il. xiii. 126-9: The Ajaxes are opposed to Hector, \u03bd\u03b7\u03c5\u03c3\u1f76\u03bd \u1f10\u03bd\n\u03bc\u03ad\u03c3\u03c3\u1fc3\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd, 312, 16.\n\n2. The centre being thus provided for, Idomeneus proceeds to the left,\n\u03c3\u03c4\u03c1\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f10\u03c0\u2019 \u1f00\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u1f70 (326), which is the station of Deiphobus; and\nmakes havock in this quarter.\n\n3. Deiphobus, instead of fighting Idomeneus, thinks it prudent to fetch\n\u00c6neas, who is standing aloof, 458 and seqq.\n\n4. Summoned by Deiphobus, \u00c6neas comes with him, attended also by Paris\nand Agenor, 490.\n\n5. They conjointly carry on the fight at that point, with indifferent\nsuccess (495-673), but no decisive issue.\n\n6. Hector, in the centre, remains ignorant that the Trojans were being\nworsted \u03bd\u03b7\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f10\u03c0\u2019 \u1f00\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u1f70 by the Greeks, 675.\n\n7. By the advice of Polydamas he goes in search of other chiefs to\nconsider what is to be done; of Paris among the rest, whom he finds,\n\u03bc\u03ac\u03c7\u03b7\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c0\u2019 \u1f00\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03ac (765). With them he returns to the centre, 753, 802,\n809.\n\nNow the following propositions are, I think, sound:\n\n1. When Homer thus speaks of \u1f10\u03c0\u2019 \u1f00\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u1f70 in Il. xiii. 326, 675, and\n765, respectively, he evidently means to describe in all of them the\nsame side of the battle-field. Where Idomeneus is, in 329, thither he\nbrings \u00c6neas in 469, who is attended at the time by Paris, 490; and\nthere Paris evidently remains until summoned to the centre in 765.\n\n2. If Homer speaks with reference to any particular combatant, of his\nbeing on the left or the right of the battle, he ought to mean the\nGreek left or right if the person be Greek, and the Trojan left or\nright if the person be Trojan.\n\n3. This is actually the rule by which he proceeds elsewhere. For in\nthe Fifth Book, when Mars is in the field on the Trojan side, he says,\nMinerva found him \u03bc\u03ac\u03c7\u03b7\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c0\u2019 \u1f00\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u1f70, Il. v. 355. What is the point\nthus described, and how came he there? The answer is supplied by an\nearlier part of the same Book. In v. 35, Minerva led him out of the\nbattle. In v. 36, she placed him by the shore of the Scamander; that\nis to say, on the Trojan left, and in a position to which, he being a\nTrojan combatant, the Poet gives the name of \u03bc\u03ac\u03c7\u03b7\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c0\u2019 \u1f00\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03ac.\n\nNow \u1f10\u03c0\u2019 \u1f00\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u1f70 is commonly interpreted \u2018on the left.\u2019 But if it means\non the left in Il. xiii., then the passages are contradictory: because\nthis would place Paris on both wings, whereas he obviously is described\nas on the same wing of the battle throughout.\n\nBut if we construe \u1f00\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 as meaning the west in all the three\npassages, then we have the same meaning at once made available for all\nthe three places, so that the account becomes self-consistent again;\nand if the meaning be \u2018on the west,\u2019 then we may understand that\nIdomeneus most naturally betakes himself to the west, because that\nwas the quarter of the Myrmidons, where the Greek line was deprived\nof support. If, however, it be said, that the Greek left is meant\nthroughout, then the expression in v. 765 is both contrary to what\nwould seem reasonable, and at variance with Homer\u2019s own precedent in\nthe Fifth Book.\n\nThus there is considerable reason to suppose that, in Homer, \u1f00\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2\nmay sometimes mean \u2018west.\u2019 So that _if_ \u1f10\u03c0\u1f76 in Od. v. 277 really means\n\u2018upon,\u2019 the phrase will signify, that Ulysses was to have Arctus on the\nwest side of him, which would place Ogygia in the required position to\nthe east of north.\n\n~_The force of \u1f10\u03c0\u1f76 in Homer._~\n\nThe point remaining for discussion is at once the most difficult and\nthe most important. What _is_ the true force of the Homeric \u1f10\u03c0\u03af?\n\nI find the senses of this preposition clearly and comprehensively\ntreated in Jelf\u2019s Greek Grammar, where the leading points of its\nvarious significations are laid down as follows[665]:\n\n[665] Jelf\u2019s Gr. Gr. Nos. 633-5.\n\n1. Its original force is _upon_, or _on_.\n\n2. It is applied to place, time, or causation. Of these three, when\ntreating of a geographical question, we need only consider the first\nwith any minuteness.\n\n3. \u1f18\u03c0\u1f76, when used locally, means with the genitive (_a_) _on_ or _at_,\nand (_b_) motion _towards_ a place or thing. With the dative (_a_) _on_\nor _at_, and (_b_) _by_ or _near_. With the accusative (_a_) _towards_,\nand (_b_) \u2018extension in space over an object, as well with verbs of\nrest as of motion.\u2019 Of this sense examples are quoted in \u03c0\u03bb\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd \u1f10\u03c0\u1f76\n\u03bf\u1f34\u03bd\u03bf\u03c0\u03b1 \u03c0\u03cc\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd for verbs of motion, and \u1f10\u03c0\u2019 \u1f10\u03bd\u03bd\u03ad\u03b1 \u03ba\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c4\u03bf \u03c0\u03ad\u03bb\u03b5\u03b8\u03c1\u03b1 for\nverbs of rest. Both are from Homer, in Il. vii. 83, and Od. xi. 577.\n\nThe Homeric \u1f10\u03c0\u1f76 \u03b4\u03b5\u03be\u03b9\u1f70 and \u1f10\u03c0\u2019 \u1f00\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u1f70 are also quoted as examples of\nthis last-named sense. But in Od. v. 277, if the meaning be _on_ the\nleft, it is plainly quite beyond these definitions: for so far from\nbeing an object extended over space, the star is, as it appears on the\nleft, a luminous point, and nothing more. It was an extension over\nspace, such as the eye has from a window over a prospect; but then\nthat space is the space which lies over-against the star; so that if\nthe space be on the left, the star must be looking towards the left\nindeed, but for that very reason set on the right. The difference here\nis most important in connection with the sense of the preposition. If\n\u1f10\u03c0\u2019 \u1f00\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u1f70 means _on_ the left, it is only on a single point of the\nleft; if it means towards or over-against the right, it means towards\nor over-against the whole right. Now, the former of these senses is, I\ncontend, utterly out of keeping with the whole Homeric use of \u1f10\u03c0\u1f76 as\na preposition governing the accusative: while the latter is quite in\nkeeping with it.\n\n~_Force of \u1f10\u03c0\u1f76 with \u1f00\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03ac._~\n\nThe idea of motion, physical or metaphysical, in some one or other of\nits modifications, appears to inhere essentially in the Homeric use\nof \u1f10\u03c0\u1f76 with the accusative. In the great majority of instances, it is\nused with a verb of motion, which places the matter beyond all doubt.\nIn almost all other instances, either the motion of a body, or some\ncovering of space where there is no motion, are obviously involved.\nThus the Zephyr (\u03ba\u03b5\u03bb\u03ac\u03b4\u03b5\u03b9[666]) whistles \u1f10\u03c0\u1f76 \u03bf\u1f34\u03bd\u03bf\u03c0\u03b1 \u03c0\u03cc\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd. A hero, or\na bevy of maidens, may shout \u1f10\u03c0\u1f76 \u03bc\u03b1\u03ba\u03c1\u03cc\u03bd[667]. The rim of a basket is\ncovered with a plating of gold, \u03c7\u03c1\u03c5\u03c3\u1ff7 \u03b4\u2019 \u1f10\u03c0\u1f76 \u03c7\u03b5\u03af\u03bb\u03b5\u03b1 \u03ba\u03b5\u03ba\u03c1\u03ac\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf: that\nis, the gold is drawn over it[668]. Achilles looks[669] \u1f10\u03c0\u1f76 \u03bf\u1f34\u03bd\u03bf\u03c0\u03b1\n\u03c0\u03cc\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd. The sun appears to mortals \u1f10\u03c0\u1f76 \u03b6\u03b5\u03af\u03b4\u03c9\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd \u1f04\u03c1\u03bf\u03c5\u03c1\u03b1\u03bd[670]. Here we\nshould apparently understand \u2018spread,\u2019 or some equivalent word. We have\n\u2018animals as many as are born\u2019 \u1f10\u03c0\u1f76 \u03b3\u03b1\u1fd6\u03b1\u03bd[671]. Or, again, we have \u2018may\nhis glory be\u2019 (spread) \u1f10\u03c0\u1f76 \u03b6\u03b5\u03af\u03b4\u03c9\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd \u1f04\u03c1\u03bf\u03c5\u03c1\u03b1\u03bd[672]. Again: \u1f10\u03c0\u1f76 \u03b4\u03b7\u03c1\u1f78\u03bd \u03b4\u03ad\n\u03bc\u03bf\u03b9 \u03b1\u1f30\u1f7c\u03bd \u1f14\u03c3\u03c3\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 is, \u2018I shall live long[673].\u2019 And Achilles seated\nhimself \u03b8\u1fd6\u03bd\u2019 \u1f10\u03c6\u2019 \u1f01\u03bb\u1f78\u03c2 \u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03b9\u1fc6\u03c2[674]. A dragon with a purple back is[675]\n\u1f10\u03c0\u1f76 \u03bd\u1ff6\u03c4\u03b1 \u03b4\u03ac\u03c6\u03bf\u03b9\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2. The shoulders of Thersites, compressed against his\nchest, are, \u1f10\u03c0\u1f76 \u03c3\u03c4\u1fc6\u03b8\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u03bf\u03c7\u03c9\u03ba\u03cc\u03c4\u03b5[676]. The horses of Admetus stand\neven with the rod across their backs[677], \u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u03c6\u03cd\u03bb\u1fc3 \u1f10\u03c0\u1f76 \u03bd\u1ff6\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd \u1f10\u0390\u03c3\u03b1\u03c2. I\nhave not confined these examples to merely local cases, because a more\nvaried illustration, I think, here enlarges our means of judgment.\nIn every case, it appears, we may assert that extension, whether in\ntime or space, is implied; and the proper word to construe \u1f10\u03c0\u1f76 (except\nwith certain verbs of motion, as, \u2018he fell on,\u2019 and the like) will be\nover, along, across, or over-against. Further, we have in Il. vi. 400,\naccording to one reading, the preposition \u1f10\u03c0\u1f76 combined with the verb\n\u1f14\u03c7\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd, and governing the accusative. Andromache appears,\n\n[666] Od. ii. 421.\n\n[667] Od. vi. 117. Il. v. 101.\n\n[668] Od. iv. 132.\n\n[669] Il. i. 350.\n\n[670] Od. iii. 3.\n\n[671] Od. iv. 417.\n\n[672] Od. vii. 332.\n\n[673] Il. ix. 415.\n\n[674] Il. i. 350.\n\n[675] Il. ii. 308.\n\n[676] Ibid. 318.\n\n[677] Ibid. 765.\n\n \u03c0\u03b1\u1fd6\u03b4\u2019 \u1f10\u03c0\u1f76 \u03ba\u03cc\u03bb\u03c0\u03bf\u03bd \u1f14\u03c7\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u2019 \u1f00\u03c4\u03b1\u03bb\u03ac\u03c6\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd\u03b1.\n\nThe recent editions read \u03ba\u03cc\u03bb\u03c0\u1ff3: I suppose because the accusative cannot\nproperly give the meaning _upon_ her breast. But we do not require that\nmeaning. The sense seems to be, that Andromache was holding her infant\n_against_ her breast; that is, the infant was held to it by her hands\nfrom the opposite side. The idea of an infant _on_ her breast is quite\nunsuited to a figure declared to be in motion. But the sense may also\nbe, stretched over or across her breast. Thus we always have extension\ninvolved in \u1f10\u03c0\u1f76 with the accusative, whether in range of view or sound,\nsteps of a gradual process, actual motion, pressure towards a point\nwhich is initial motion, or extension over space. But the Homeric use\nof \u1f10\u03c0\u1f76 with the accusative will nowhere, I think, be found applicable\nto the inactive, motionless position of a luminous point simply as\nperceived in space. And if so, it cannot be allowable to construe \u1f10\u03c0\u2019\n\u1f00\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u1f70 \u03c7\u03b5\u03b9\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u1f14\u03c7\u03c9\u03bd, having (Arctus) _on_ his left hand.\n\nThe nearest parallel that I have found to the phrase in Od. v. 277, is\nthe direction given by Idomeneus to Meriones, who had asked him (Il.\nxiii. 307) at what point he would like to enter the line of battle.\nIdomeneus, after giving his reasons, concludes with this injunction:\n\n \u03bd\u1ff6\u03ca\u03bd \u03b4\u2019 \u1f67\u03b4\u2019 \u1f10\u03c0\u2019 \u1f00\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03ad\u03c1\u2019 \u1f14\u03c7\u03b5 \u03c3\u03c4\u03c1\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6.\n\nIn the Odyssey, the order is to keep Arctus \u1f10\u03c0\u2019 \u1f00\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u1f70 \u03c7\u03b5\u03b9\u03c1\u03cc\u03c2. Here\nit is to keep Idomeneus (and Meriones himself, who preceded him), \u1f10\u03c0\u2019\n\u1f00\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u1f70 \u03c3\u03c4\u03c1\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6. The parallel is not complete, because in the latter\ncase the object of the verb moves; in the former it does not move.\nLet us, however, consider the meaning of the latter passage, which is\nindisputable. It is \u2018hold or keep us,\u2019 not on the left, but \u2018towards,\nlooking and moving towards, the left of the army.\u2019 Probably then they\nwere coming from its right. Therefore, if for the moment we waive the\nquestion of motion, the order of Calypso was to keep Arctus looking\ntowards the left of the ship: and accordingly Arctus was to look from\nits right.\n\nWe must, I apprehend, seek the key to the general meaning of this\nphrase from considering that idea of motion involved in the ordinary\nmanifestation of omens, which appears to be the basis of the\nphrase itself. Now, it seems to be the essential and very peculiar\ncharacteristic of this phrase in Homer, and of the sister phrases\n\u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03b4\u03ad\u03be\u03b9\u03b1 (whether written in one word or in two) and \u1f10\u03bd\u03b4\u03ad\u03be\u03b9\u03b1, that they\nvery commonly imply a position different from that which they seem\nat first sight to suggest. For that which goes towards the left is\nnaturally understood to go from the right, and _vice vers\u00e2_.\n\n\u2018To\u2019 and not \u2018on\u2019 is the essential characteristic of the Homeric \u1f10\u03c0\u1f76\nwith the accusative. Accordingly, where \u1f10\u03c0\u1f76 is so used with the words\n\u03b4\u03b5\u03be\u03b9\u1f70 or \u1f00\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u1f70, we may often understand an original position of the\nperson or thing intended, generally opposite to the point or quarter\nexpressed. In such a case as \u03b5\u1f57\u03c1\u03b5\u03bd ... \u03bc\u03ac\u03c7\u03b7\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c0\u2019 \u1f00\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u1f70 we should\njoin \u1f10\u03c0\u2019 \u1f00\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u1f70 with the subject of \u03b5\u1f57\u03c1\u03b5\u03bd, and not with its object.\nNot A found B on the left, but A (coming) towards the left found B\n(there). Again, in Il. xiii. 675, \u03bd\u03b7\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f10\u03c0\u2019 \u1f00\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u1f70 should, I submit,\nbe construed _towards_ the left, or in the direction of the left.\n\nNow, while there is not a single passage in Homer that refuses to bear\na construction founded on these principles, an examination of a variety\nof passages will, I believe, supply us with instances to show, that\nthere is no other consistent mode of rendering the phrases \u1f00\u03c3\u03c4\u03c1\u03ac\u03c0\u03c4\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd\n\u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03b4\u03ad\u03be\u03b9\u03b1; \u1f10\u03ad\u03c1\u03b3\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd \u1f10\u03c0\u2019 \u1f00\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03ac; \u03bf\u1f30\u03bd\u03bf\u03c7\u03cc\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd, \u03b1\u1f30\u03c4\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd, \u03b4\u03b5\u03b9\u03ba\u03bd\u03cd\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9, \u1f10\u03bd\u03b4\u03ad\u03be\u03b9\u03b1;\n\u1f00\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u1f44\u03c1\u03bd\u03b9\u03c2, \u03b4\u03b5\u03be\u03b9\u1f78\u03bd \u1f10\u03c1\u03ce\u03b4\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd, and others.\n\nAnd although in some of these phrases the idea of motion is actually\nincluded, while the motion of omens was the original groundwork of them\nall, yet, as frequently happens, the effect remains when the cause has\ndisappeared. A bird called \u03b4\u03b5\u03be\u03b9\u1f78\u03c2 is one moving \u1f10\u03c0\u1f76 \u03b4\u03b5\u03be\u03b9\u03ac; and this,\naccording to the law of omens, is _usually_ a bird from the left moving\ntowards the right. And thus, by analogy, a star \u1f10\u03c0\u2019 \u1f00\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u1f70 is a star\non the right not moving but looking towards the left. Once more, when\nwe recollect that \u1f10\u03c0\u2019 \u1f00\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u1f70 habitually or very frequently means on\nthe right as well as moving towards the left, it is not difficult to\nconceive so easy and simple a modification of this sense as brings it\nto being on the right, while also looking, instead of moving, towards\nthe left. Lightning, which had appeared on the right, would I apprehend\nbe \u1f00\u03c3\u03c4\u03c1\u03b1\u03c0\u1f74 \u1f10\u03c0\u2019 \u1f00\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03ac: \u1f08\u03c1\u03ba\u03c4\u1f78\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c0\u2019 \u1f00\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u1f70 would be \u2018Arctus on the\nright;\u2019 and the introduction of the word \u1f14\u03c7\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd cannot surely reverse\nthe signification.\n\nIn later Greek, the expressions \u1f10\u03bd\u03b4\u03ad\u03be\u03b9\u03b1 and \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03b4\u03ad\u03be\u03b9\u03b1, with \u1f10\u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u1f70,\nwhich seems to be the counterpart of both, the preposition \u1f10\u03c0\u1f76\nsometimes being divided from and sometimes united with its case, appear\nto be equivalent to our English phrases \u2018on the right,\u2019 and \u2018on the\nleft.\u2019 But not so in Homer.\n\n~_Illustrated from Il._ ii. 353. _Od._ xxi. 141.~\n\nLet us now examine various places of the poems, where \u1f10\u03bd\u03b4\u03ad\u03be\u03b9\u03b1 and\n\u1f10\u03c0\u1f76 \u03b4\u03b5\u03be\u03b9\u1f70 (single or combined) cannot mean on the right, but may be\nrendered either (1) from the left, or (2) towards the right. Thus we\nhave, Il. ii. 353,\n\n \u1f00\u03c3\u03c4\u03c1\u03ac\u03c0\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03b4\u03ad\u03be\u03b9\u2019, \u1f10\u03bd\u03b1\u03af\u03c3\u03b9\u03bc\u03b1 \u03c3\u03ae\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1 \u03c6\u03b1\u03af\u03bd\u03c9\u03bd.\n\nThis means lightning on and from the left, so that the lightning\npasses, or seems to pass, towards the right. The analogy of this\ncase to that of the star is very close; because it is rarely that\nlightning gives the semblance of motion: and this expression precisely\nexemplifies the observation, that these phrases often really imply a\nposition of the subject exactly opposite to that which at first sight\nwould be supposed.\n\nAgain, when Antinous bids the Suitors rise in turn for the trial of the\nbow, he says, Od. xxi. 141,\n\n \u1f44\u03c1\u03bd\u03c5\u03c3\u03b8\u2019 \u1f11\u03be\u03b5\u03af\u03b7\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03b4\u03ad\u03be\u03b9\u03b1, \u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 \u1f11\u03c4\u03b1\u1fd6\u03c1\u03bf\u03b9\u00b7\n\nand he goes to explain himself beyond dispute, by referring to the\norder observed by the cupbearer at the feast;\n\n \u1f00\u03c1\u03be\u03ac\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c7\u03ce\u03c1\u03bf\u03c5, \u1f45\u03b8\u03b5\u03bd \u03c4\u03ad \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1 \u03bf\u1f30\u03bd\u03bf\u03c7\u03bf\u03b5\u03cd\u03b5\u03b9. (142)\n\nHis meaning evidently is, Rise up, beginning on or from the left.\n\n~_From Il._ i. 597. vii. 238. xii. 239, 249.~\n\nThe practice of the cupbearer is stated with respect to Vulcan, Il. i.\n597:\n\n \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1f70\u03c1 \u1f41 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u1f04\u03bb\u03bb\u03bf\u03b9\u03c3\u03b9 \u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u1f10\u03bd\u03b4\u03ad\u03be\u03b9\u03b1 \u03c0\u1fb6\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd\n \u1fa0\u03bd\u03bf\u03c7\u03cc\u03b5\u03b9.\n\nSo the \u03ba\u03ae\u03c1\u03c5\u03be (Il. vii. 183) goes round \u1f10\u03bd\u03b4\u03ad\u03be\u03b9\u03b1 with the lots for the\nchieftains to draw. The beggar[678] in making his round follows the\nsupreme law of luck, and goes \u1f10\u03bd\u03b4\u03ad\u03be\u03b9\u03b1. And as this meaning seems to be\nestablished, we must give the same sense, in Il. ix. 236, to \u1f10\u03bd\u03b4\u03ad\u03be\u03b9\u03b1\n\u03c3\u03ae\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1 \u03c6\u03b1\u03af\u03bd\u03c9\u03bd \u1f00\u03c3\u03c4\u03c1\u03ac\u03c0\u03c4\u03b5\u03b9, as to the \u1f10\u03bd\u03b4\u03ad\u03be\u03b9\u03b1 in Il. ii. 353, namely, that\nJupiter displayed celestial signs on the left.\n\n[678] Od. xvii. 365.\n\nAgain, Hector boasts of his proficiency in moving his shield so as to\ncover his person, Il. vii. 238,\n\n \u03bf\u1f36\u03b4\u2019 \u1f10\u03c0\u1f76 \u03b4\u03b5\u03be\u03b9\u1f70, \u03bf\u1f36\u03b4\u2019 \u1f10\u03c0\u2019 \u1f00\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u1f70 \u03bd\u03c9\u03bc\u1fc6\u03c3\u03b1\u03b9 \u03b2\u1ff6\u03bd.\n\nWe should translate this probably without much thought \u2018to the right\nand to the left.\u2019 But when we consider what sense is required by the\nidea to be conveyed, it is evident that \u1f10\u03c0\u1f76 \u03b4\u03b5\u03be\u03b9\u1f70 means, from the left\nside of his person towards the right, and \u1f10\u03c0\u2019 \u1f00\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u1f70 from the right\nside of his person towards the left. That is to say, the first position\nbefore and during the motion, in each case, is at the side opposite to\nthat indicated by the adjectives respectively.\n\nAgain, in a well known passage (Il. xii. 239.) Hector tells Polydamas\nthat he cares not for omens, be they good or bad;\n\n \u03b5\u1f34\u03c4\u2019 \u1f10\u03c0\u1f76 \u03b4\u03b5\u03be\u03af\u2019 \u1f34\u03c9\u03c3\u03b9 \u03c0\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u1f28\u1ff6 \u03c4\u2019 \u1f28\u03ad\u03bb\u03b9\u03cc\u03bd \u03c4\u03b5,\n \u03b5\u1f34\u03c4\u2019 \u1f10\u03c0\u2019 \u1f00\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u1f70 \u03c4\u03bf\u03af\u03b3\u03b5, \u03c0\u03bf\u03c4\u1f76 \u03b6\u03cc\u03c6\u03bf\u03bd \u1f20\u03b5\u03c1\u03cc\u03b5\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1.\n\nApart from the question, whether the sense of right and left is\nsuitable to this passage at all, and assuming it to be so, the meaning\nis _from the left_ for \u1f10\u03c0\u1f76 \u03b4\u03b5\u03be\u03b9\u1f70 and _from the right_ for \u1f10\u03c0\u2019 \u1f00\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u1f70,\non their way in each case to the opposite quarter.\n\nAgain, the portent which had drawn forth the observation of Hector was,\n(Il. xii. 219,)\n\n \u03b1\u1f30\u03b5\u03c4\u1f78\u03c2 \u1f51\u03c8\u03b9\u03c0\u03ad\u03c4\u03b7\u03c2, \u1f10\u03c0\u2019 \u1f00\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u1f70 \u03bb\u03b1\u1f78\u03bd \u1f10\u03ad\u03c1\u03b3\u03c9\u03bd,\n\nnamely, an eagle appearing on the right and then moving towards the\nleft. Now \u1f10\u03ad\u03c1\u03b3\u03c9 is not properly a verb of motion; and yet we see that\n\u1f10\u03ad\u03c1\u03b3\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd \u1f10\u03c0\u2019 \u1f00\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u1f70 means to close the army in from the right; that is\nto say, the eagle, which does the act \u1f10\u03c0\u2019 \u1f00\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u1f70, is itself on the\nright.\n\nThere were in fact three things, which originally might, and commonly\nwould, be included in each of these phrases. For example, in \u1f10\u03c0\u2019\n\u1f00\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u1f70,\n\n 1. Appearance at a particular point on the right;\n 2. Motion from that point towards the left;\n 3. Rest at another point on the left.\n\nOf these the second named indicates the first and principal intention\nof the word; but when it passes to a second intention or derivative\nsense, it may include either the first point, or the third, or both.\nIn the later Greek it appears rather to indicate the point of rest;\nbut in the Homeric phrases of the corresponding word \u03b4\u03b5\u03be\u03b9\u1f78\u03c2, \u03bf\u1f30\u03bd\u03bf\u03c7\u03bf\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd\n\u1f10\u03bd\u03b4\u03ad\u03be\u03b9\u03b1, \u03b4\u03b5\u03b9\u03ba\u03bd\u03cd\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9 \u1f10\u03bd\u03b4\u03ad\u03be\u03b9\u03b1, \u03b1\u1f30\u03c4\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd \u1f10\u03bd\u03b4\u03ad\u03be\u03b9\u03b1, \u1f00\u03c3\u03c4\u03c1\u03b1\u03c0\u03c4\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd \u1f10\u03c0\u1f76 \u03b4\u03b5\u03be\u03b9\u1f70,\n\u1f10\u03ad\u03c1\u03b3\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd \u1f10\u03c0\u2019 \u1f00\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u1f70, the starting-point, and not the resting-point,\nis the one brought into view. It is the commencement of the motion, in\nevery one of these cases, which is indicated by the phrase, and not its\nclose.\n\nBeing engaged upon this subject, I shall not scruple to examine one\nor two remaining passages, which may assist in its more thorough\nelucidation.\n\n~_From Il._ xxiii. 335-7.~\n\nI therefore ask particular attention to the passage in the Twenty-third\nBook of the Iliad, where Nestor instructs his son concerning his\nmanagement in the chariot-race. On either side of a dry trunk upon the\nplain, there lay two white stones (xxiii. 329). They formed the goal,\nround which the chariots were to be driven, the charioteer keeping them\non his left hand. The pith of the advice of Nestor is, that his son\nis to make a short and close turn round them, so as to have a chance\nof winning, in spite of the slowness of his team. The directions are\n(335-7):\n\n \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1f78\u03c2 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03ba\u03bb\u03b9\u03bd\u03b8\u1fc6\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9 \u1f10\u03cb\u03c0\u03bb\u03ad\u03ba\u03c4\u1ff3 \u1f10\u03bd\u1f76 \u03b4\u03af\u03c6\u03c1\u1ff3\n \u1f26\u03ba\u2019 \u1f10\u03c0\u2019 \u1f00\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u1f70 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03ca\u03bd\u00b7 \u1f00\u03c4\u1f70\u03c1 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03b4\u03b5\u03be\u03b9\u1f78\u03bd \u1f35\u03c0\u03c0\u03bf\u03bd\n \u03ba\u03ad\u03bd\u03c3\u03b1\u03b9 \u1f41\u03bc\u03bf\u03ba\u03bb\u03ae\u03c3\u03b1\u03c2, \u03b5\u1f36\u03be\u03b1\u03af \u03c4\u03ad \u03bf\u1f31 \u1f21\u03bd\u03af\u03b1 \u03c7\u03b5\u03c1\u03c3\u03af\u03bd.\n\nIt is clear from the last line and a half that the goal was to be on\nhis left hand. But what is the meaning of \u03ba\u03bb\u03b9\u03bd\u03b8\u1fc6\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9 \u1f10\u03c0\u2019 \u1f00\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u1f70 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03ca\u03bd?\nNothing can be more scientific than the precept. The horses are to make\na sharp turn: the impetus in the driver\u2019s body might throw him forward\nif he were not prepared: he is to do what every rider in a circus now\ndoes, to lean inwards; and that is expressed by leaning \u1f10\u03c0\u2019 \u1f00\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u1f70,\nof the goal--for \u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03ca\u03bd must, I apprehend, be understood to agree with\nthe dual \u03bb\u1fb6\u03b5 (329), and not the plural \u1f35\u03c0\u03c0\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 (334); particularly\nbecause the word \u1f35\u03c0\u03c0\u03bf\u03c2 is repeated immediately after it. The meaning\nthen is, that he is desired to lean to the left of the goal, while all\nthe time he keeps on its right. We should under the same circumstances\nsay, \u2018Lean gently towards the right side of the goal, as you are about\nto turn round it.\u2019 He, meaning the same thing, says, \u2018Lean towards the\nleft; that is, lean _from the right_, or while keeping on the right,\nof the object named. Now this I take to be exactly the sense of Od.\nv. 277. Ulysses was bid to sail, having the Great Bear placed on his\nright, but looking from his right, and towards his left, as every star\nlooks towards the quarter opposite to that in which it is itself seen.\nHe is to have the star _e dextr\u00e2_, because from that point it looks _ad\nsinistram_. It looks across him towards his left, just as Antilochus\nwas to lean in the direction across the goal towards its left.\n\nThe whole of this interpretation without doubt depends upon the word\n\u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03ca\u03bd; and I do not presume to say that it is necessarily, under\ngrammatical rules, to be understood of the goal, and not of the horses.\nBut it is the more natural construction: and Homer often reverts merely\nby this demonstrative pronoun, without further indication, to a subject\nwhich he has only named some time back[679].\n\n[679] So \u03c4\u03ae\u03bd \u03b4\u03b5, Il. i. 127, and particularly \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd in Il. i. 389,\nmeaning Chryseis, who has not been named since v. 372.\n\nBut if grammar leave that question in any degree open, I apprehend\nthat physical considerations must decide it. It is impossible for the\ndriver to lean to the left of his horses as they are rounding the goal.\nTo the left of his chariot he may lean, as he stands upon it: but to\ntheir left he cannot, for they are considerably in advance of him;\nand in order to make the turn at all, they must, at each point of the\ncurve, which is a curve to the left, be much further along the curve,\nand consequently much further to the left, than he can possibly be. It\nwould be a parallel case, if there were two riders round a circus, one\nfollowing the other, and the rider of the after horse were told to lean\nto the right of the fore horse. Therefore the word \u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03ca\u03bd can, I submit,\nonly refer to the two stones, which form the goal.\n\n~_From Il._ ii. 526.~\n\nA line in the Greek Catalogue will enable us to carry the question\nstill further. In Il. ii. 517, after the two B\u0153otian contingents, come\nthe Phocians: and the Poet says, ver. 526,\n\n \u0392\u03bf\u03b9\u03c9\u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03b4\u2019 \u1f14\u03bc\u03c0\u03bb\u03b7\u03bd \u1f10\u03c0\u2019 \u1f00\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u1f70 \u03b8\u03c9\u03c1\u03ae\u03c3\u03c3\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf.\n\nI see that this is translated even by Voss \u2018on the left.\u2019 Now is not\nthis contrary to all likelihood? Was not all propitious movement with\nHomer from left to right? Has not this been proved by the cases of the\nImmortals, the Omens, the Cupbearer, the Beggar, and the Herald? Is it\nlikely, or is it even conceivable, that Homer should depart from this\nprinciple in his order of the army? Surely the meaning is this: Having\nfixed for himself geographically the order of his contingents, he has\nlikewise to state their order of array upon the field; and accordingly\nby this line he informs us, that the Phocians, who were the second\nof the races he mentions, stood \u1f10\u03c0\u2019 \u1f00\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u1f70 of the B\u0153otians: he of\ncourse means us to understand that the Abantes, the third race, were\n\u1f10\u03c0\u2019 \u1f00\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u1f70 of the Locrians, and so on through the whole: or in other\nwords, that he informs us he does not forget to follow, amidst the\nmultitudinous detail of the Catalogue, the established, the religious,\nand the propitious order of enumeration, namely, the order which begins\nfrom the left, and moves towards the right.\n\nThus we must in this place translate \u1f10\u03c0\u2019 \u1f00\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u1f70 \u2018towards, that is,\nlooking towards the left of the B\u0153otians;\u2019 or \u2018looking to the B\u0153otians\non their left,\u2019 i. e. of the Phocians; the Phocians being, whichever\nconstruction we adopt, on the right, actually on the right, not the\nleft of the B\u0153otians. The real force of the expression probably is\nthis: that the B\u0153otians, having taken their ground, the Phocians came\nup and took theirs next to them on their right.\n\n~_Application to Od._ v. 277.~\n\nNow this case is precisely in point for Od. v. 277: because \u03b8\u03c9\u03c1\u03ae\u03c3\u03c3\u03b5\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9\nis not properly a verb of motion: and in all likelihood it may be\nrelied on independently of further details from Homer, because it\nbrings the matter to an easy test, through the certainty which we may\nwell entertain, that Homer would have the order of his army begin from\nleft to right, like every other duly and auspiciously constituted order.\n\nThere is, however, another interpretation proposed as follows: they,\nthe Phocians, took ground next (\u1f14\u03bc\u03c0\u03bb\u03b7\u03bd) to the B\u0153otians on the left, i.\ne. of the army; the two together, as it were, forming its left wing. To\nthis construction there seem to be conclusive objections:\n\n1. Why should Homer tell us that the B\u0153otians and Phocians together\nconstituted a division of the army, when he tells us nothing similar\nrespecting any of the twenty-six contingents that remain? Neither of\nthese races were particularly distinguished either politically or in\narms.\n\n2. It appears clear that the B\u0153otians and Phocians did not together\nform a division of the army: for, in the Thirteenth Book, the B\u0153otians\nfight in company with the Athenians or Ionians, the Locrians, Phthians,\nand Epeans, but not with the Phocians. Il. xiii. 685, 6.\n\n3. Neither did the B\u0153otians belong to the left wing of the army at all:\nfor they are found defending the centre of the ships against Hector\nand the Trojans, with the two Ajaxes in their front. Il. xiii. 314-16,\n674-84, 685, 700; 701, 2; 719, 20.\n\n4. There is nowhere the smallest sign, that the Greek army was divided\ninto wings and centre at all.\n\n5. The order of the Catalogue is a geographical order, and not that\nof a military arrangement. Therefore it was requisite for Homer to\ntell us how the troops were arranged in the Review. This he has\neffected by telling us that the Phocians, the second of his tribes,\ndrew up on the right of the B\u0153otians: which we have only to consider\ntacitly repeated all through, and the order is thus both complete and\npropitious. But, according to the other construction, the Poet begins\nwith an arrangement by wings, of which we hear nowhere else: and then\nhe forthwith forgets and abandons it.\n\n6. I do not think \u1f10\u03c0\u2019 \u1f00\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u1f70 can be construed to the left of the\narmy. The army has nowhere been named. The phrases \u1f10\u03c0\u1f76 \u03b4\u03b5\u03be\u03b9\u1f70 and \u1f10\u03c0\u2019\n\u1f00\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u1f70 require us to have a subject clearly in view. It is frequently\nnamed, as in \u1f10\u03c0\u2019 \u1f00\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u1f70 \u03bc\u03ac\u03c7\u03b7\u03c2. When it is connected with omens, it\nmeans to the west, and \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03b4\u03ad\u03be\u03b9\u03b1 the reverse. Again, \u03bf\u1f30\u03bd\u03bf\u03c7\u03bf\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03b4\u03ad\u03be\u03b9\u03b1\nis to begin pouring wine from the left, and towards the right end of\nthe rank whom the cupbearer may be serving. The \u2018army\u2019 has not been\nmentioned since the reassembling in v. 207.\n\nThese objections appear to me fatal to the construction now under our\nview. They do not indeed touch the question whether \u1f10\u03c0\u2019 \u1f00\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u1f70 should\nbe interpreted on the left, or (on the right and) towards the left.\nThat must, I think, be decided by the general principles of augury duly\napplied to order and enumeration.\n\nOn the whole, then, I contend that it is wrong to construe Od. v.\n277, \u2018to sail with Arctus _on_ his left hand.\u2019 It would be much more\nnearly right, and would, in fact, convey the meaning, though not in\na grammatical manner, if we construed it \u2018to sail with Arctus on\nhis right hand.\u2019 But the manner of construing it, grammatically and\naccurately, as I submit, is this: \u2018to sail with Arctus looking towards\nthe left (of his hand, or his left hand);\u2019 that is to say, looking\n_from his right_. And generally, that the proper mode of construing \u1f10\u03c0\u2019\n\u1f00\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u1f70 and \u1f10\u03c0\u1f76 \u03b4\u03b5\u03be\u03b9\u1f70 in Homer is, _towards_ the left, _towards_ the\nright; or, conversely, _from_ the right, _from_ the left.\n\nThis meaning is in exact accordance with the North-eastern, and is\nentirely opposed to the North-western, hypothesis. And I venture to\nbelieve that, itself established by sufficient evidence from other\npassages in the poems, it enables us to give a meaning substantially,\nthough perhaps not minutely self-consistent, though of course one not\nbased upon the true configuration of the earth\u2019s surface as it is now\nascertained, to every passage in Homer which relates to the Outer\nGeography of the Odyssey.\n\nBoth \u1f10\u03c0\u2019 \u1f00\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u1f70 and \u1f10\u03c0\u2019 \u1f00\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u1f70 \u03c7\u03b5\u03b9\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 are used repeatedly in the\nHymn to Mercury[680]. One of the passages resembles in its form that\nof the eagle, Il. xii. 219. It is this:\n\n[680] Hymn. Merc. 153. Cf. 418, 424, 499.\n\n \u03ba\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c4\u03bf, \u03c7\u03ad\u03bb\u03c5\u03bd \u1f10\u03c1\u03b1\u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u1f10\u03c0\u2019 \u1f00\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u1f70 \u03c7\u03b5\u03b9\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u1f10\u03ad\u03c1\u03b3\u03c9\u03bd.\n\nAnd probably the basis of the idea is the same. The really correct\nGreek expression for \u2018on the left hand\u2019 I take to be \u03c7\u03b5\u03b9\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u1f10\u03be\n\u1f00\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u1fb6\u03c2, which is used by Euripides[681].\n\n[681] Hecuba 1127.\n\n~_Sense altered in later Greek._~\n\nBut in the later Greek the idea of the point of arrival prevailed over\nthat of the point of departure: and, conventionally at least, the\n\u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03b4\u03ad\u03be\u03b9\u03b1, with its equivalent \u1f10\u03bd\u03b4\u03ad\u03be\u03b9\u03b1, came to mean simply \u2018on the\nright,\u2019 and \u1f10\u03c0\u2019 \u1f00\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u1f70, \u2018on the left.\u2019 It is worth notice, that we\nhave a like ambiguous use in English of the word _towards_. Sometimes\ntowards the left means being on the left: sometimes it means moving\nfrom the right in the direction of the left: and a room \u2018towards the\nsouth\u2019 means one with its windows on the north, looking out over\nthe south, like as the star Arctus looks out towards the left of\nUlysses[682].\n\n[682] I have observed that \u03b4\u03b5\u03be\u03b9\u1f78\u03c2 \u1f44\u03c1\u03bd\u03b9\u03c2 means a bird flying from the\nleft towards the right, and \u1f00\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u1f44\u03c1\u03bd\u03b9\u03c2, the reverse. Here however\nthe force of the epithet is derived from immediate connection with the\nmotion implied, and with the doctrine of omens: \u03b4\u03b5\u03be\u03b9\u1f78\u03c2 \u1f66\u03bc\u03bf\u03c2 would of\ncourse be the right shoulder, and \u03b4\u03b5\u03be\u03b9\u03ae, as we have seen, may stand\nalone to signify the right hand. And so in general with these words,\nwhen used as epithets, apart from a preposition implying motion, and\nfrom any relation to omens.\n\n\n\n\nIV. AOIDOS.\n\n\nSECT. I.\n\n_On the Plot of the Iliad._\n\n~_Theory of Grote on the Iliad._~\n\nAlthough the hope has already been expressed at the commencement of\nthis work, that for England at least, the main questions as to the\nHomeric poems have well nigh been settled in the affirmative sense;\nyet I must not pass by without notice the recently propounded theory\nof Grote. I refer to it, partly on account of the general authority of\nhis work; for this authority may give a currency greater than is really\ndue to a portion of it, which, as lying outside the domain of history\nproper, has perhaps been less maturely considered than his conclusions\nin general. But it is partly also because I do not know that it has yet\nbeen treated of elsewhere; and most of all because the discussion takes\na positive form; for the answer to his argument, which perhaps may be\nfound to render itself into a gratuitous hypothesis, depends entirely\nupon a comprehensive view of the general structure of the poem, and the\nreciprocal relation and adaptation of its parts.\n\nGrote believes, that the poem called the Iliad is divisible into two\ngreat portions: one of them he conceives to be an Achilleis, or a poem\nhaving for its subject the wrath of Achilles, which comprises the First\nBook, the Eighth, and all from the Eleventh to the Twenty-second Books\ninclusive; that the Books from the Second to the Seventh inclusive,\nwith the Ninth and Tenth, and the two last Books, are portions of what\nmay be called an Ilias, or general description of the War of Troy,\nwhich have been introduced into the original Achilleis, most probably\nby another hand; or, if by the original Poet, yet to the destruction,\nor great detriment, of the poetic unity of his work.\n\nIn support of this doctrine he urges,\n\n1. That the Books from the Second to the Seventh inclusive in no\nway contribute to the main action, and are \u2018brought out in a spirit\naltogether indifferent to Achilles and his anger[683].\u2019\n\n[683] Grote\u2019s Hist. of Greece, vol. ii. p. 258 n.\n\n2. That the Ninth Book, containing a full accomplishment of the wishes\nof Achilles in the First, by \u2018atonement and restitution[684],\u2019 is\nreally the termination of the whole poem, and renders the continuance\nof his Wrath absurd: therefore, and also from the language of\nparticular passages, it is plain that \u2018the Books from the Eleventh\ndownwards are composed by a Poet, who has no knowledge of that Ninth\nBook, (or, as I presume he would add, who takes no cognizance of\nit[685].\u2019)\n\n[684] Ibid. p. 241 n.\n\n[685] Ibid. p. 244 n.\n\n3. The Jupiter of the Fourth Book is inconsistent with the Jupiter of\nthe First and Eighth.\n\n4. The abject prostration of Agamemnon in the Ninth Book is\ninconsistent with his spirit and gallantry in the Eleventh.\n\n5. The junction of these Books to the First Book is bad; as the Dream\nof Agamemnon \u2018produces no effect,\u2019 and the Greeks are victorious, not\ndefeated[686].\n\n[686] Ibid. p. 247.\n\n6. For the latter of these reasons, the construction of the wall and\nfosse round the camp landwards is out of place.\n\n7. The tenth Book, though it refers sufficiently to what precedes, has\nno bearing on what follows in the poem.\n\nGrote has argued conclusively against the supposition that we owe the\ncontinuous Iliad[687] to the labours of Pisistratus, and shows that it\nmust have been known in its continuity long before. He places the poems\nbetween 850 and 776 B. C.[688]; admits the splendour of much of the\npoetry which he thus tears from its context[689]; yet he apparently is\nnot startled by the supposition, that the man, or the men, capable of\ncomposing poetry of the superlative kind that makes up his Achilleis,\nshould be so blind to the primary exigencies of such a work for its\neffect as a whole, that he or they could also be capable of thus\nspoiling its unity by adding eight books, which do not belong to the\nsubject, to fifteen others in which it was already completely handled\nand disposed of. And though our historian leans to the belief of a\nplurality of authors for the Iliad, he does not absolutely reject the\nsupposition that it may be the work of one[690].\n\n[687] Grote\u2019s History of Greece, vol. ii. p. 210.\n\n[688] Ibid. p. 178.\n\n[689] Ibid. p. 260, 236, 267.\n\n[690] Ibid. p. 269.\n\n~_Offer of Il._ ix. _and its rejection_.~\n\nAs to the Ninth Book[691], he refers it more decisively to a separate\nhand; and he makes no difficulty about presuming that the Homerids\ncould furnish men capable of composing (for example) the wonderful\nspeech of Achilles from the 307th to the 429th line. Happy Homerids!\nand _felix prole vir\u00fbm_, happy land that could produce them!\n\n[691] Ibid.\n\nIt appears to me that these are wild suppositions. Against no\nsupposition can there be stronger presumptions than against those\nwhich, by dissevering the prime parts of the poem, produce a\nmultiplication of Homers; and however Grote may himself think that\nenlargements such as he describes, do not imply of necessity at least\na double authorship, few indeed, I apprehend, will be found, while\nadmitting his criticisms on the poem, to contend that it can still be\nthe production of a single mind. Still less can I think that any one\nwould now be satisfied with the sequence of Books proposed, or with the\nmutilated proportions, any more than with the reduced dimensions, of\nthe work as a whole.\n\nI will say not that the propounder of such a theory, but that such\na propounder of any theory, is well entitled to have the question\ndiscussed, whether those proportions are indeed mutilated by the\nchange, or whether they are, on the contrary, restored. Let me observe,\nhowever, at the outset, that it is the general argument with which\nonly I shall be careful to deal. I do not admit the discrepancies[692]\nalleged; but neither is it requisite to examine each case in detail,\nsince Grote concedes, that his own theory does not relieve him from\nconflict with particular passages of the poem.\n\n[692] Note, pp. 240-4.\n\nAs respects the Ninth Book, this theory seems to proceed on a\nmisconception of the nature of the offence taken by Achilles; as\nrespects the others, upon a similar misconception of the measure which\nthe Poet intends us to take of his hero\u2019s greatness, and of the modes\nby which he means us to arrive at our estimate.\n\nIt takes time to sound the depths of Homer. Possibly, or even probably,\nmany may share the idea that what Achilles resents is the mere loss of\na captive woman, and that restitution would at once undo the wrong. But\nthey misconceive the act, and the man also, to whom the wrong was done.\nThe soul of Achilles is stirred from its depths by an outrage, which\nseems to him to comprehend all vices within itself. He is wounded in\nan attachment that had become a tender one; for he gives to Briseis the\nname of wife (\u1f04\u03bb\u03bf\u03c7\u03bf\u03bd \u03b8\u03c5\u03bc\u03ac\u03c1\u03b5\u03b1), and avows his care and protection of her\nin that character. A proud and sensitive warrior, he is[693] insulted\nin the face of the army; and to the Greeks, whose governing sentiment\nwas \u03b1\u1f34\u03b4\u03c9\u03c2, or honour, insult was the deadliest of all inflictions.\nFurther, he is defrauded by the withdrawal of that which, by the public\nauthority, presiding over the distribution of spoil, he had been taught\nto call his own; and he keenly feels the combination of deceit with\ninsolence[694]. Justice is outraged in his person, when he alone among\nthe warriors is to have no share of the booty. In this he rightly sees\nan ingratitude of threefold blackness; it is done by the man, for whose\nsake[695] he had come to Troy without an interest of his own; it is\ndone to the man, whose hand, almost unaided, had earned the spoil which\nthe Greeks divided[696]: lastly, it is done to him, on whose valour the\nfortunes of their host with the hopes of their enterprise principally\ndepended, and whose mere presence on the field of itself drives and\nholds aloof the principal champions of Troy[697]. And, lastly, while\nthe whole army is responsible by acquiescence and is so declared by\nhim, (\u1f10\u03c0\u03b5\u03af \u03bc\u2019 \u1f00\u03c6\u03ad\u03bb\u03b5\u03c3\u03b8\u03ad \u03b3\u03b5 \u03b4\u03cc\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2, Il. i. 299,) the insult and wrong\nproceed from one, whose avarice and irresolution made him in the eyes\nof Achilles at once hateful and contemptible[698].\n\n[693] \u1f55\u03b2\u03c1\u03b9\u03c2, Il. i. 203, 214. \u1f10\u03c6\u03c5\u03b2\u03c1\u03af\u03b6\u03c9\u03bd, Il. ix. 368, also 646-8.\n\n[694] Il. ix. 370-6: when he returns again and again to the word:\n\u1f10\u03be\u03b1\u03c0\u03b1\u03c4\u03ae\u03c3\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd, 371; \u1f00\u03c0\u03ac\u03c4\u03b7\u03c3\u03b5, 375; \u1f10\u03be\u03b1\u03c0\u03ac\u03c6\u03bf\u03b9\u03c4\u03bf, 376.\n\n[695] Il. i. 152.\n\n[696] Ibid. 165-8.\n\n[697] Il. v. 789.\n\n[698] Il. i. 225-8.\n\nSuch is the deadly wrong, that lights up the wrath of Achilles. And,\nas he broods over his injuries, according to the law of an honourable\nbut therefore susceptible, and likewise a fierce and haughty nature,\nthe flame waxes hotter and hotter, and requires more and more to quench\nit. Thus there is a terrible progression and expansion in his revenge:\nand by degrees he arrives at a height of fierce vindictiveness, that\nminutely calculates the modes in which the suffering of its object\ncan be carried to a _maximum_, yet so as to leave his own renown\nuntouched, and open the widest field for the exercise of his valour.\nIt is not vice, nor is it virtue, which Homer is describing in his\nAchilles; it is that strange and wayward mixture of regard for right\nand justice with self-love on the one side, and wrath on the other,\nwhich are so common among us men of meaner scale. The difference is,\nthat in Achilles all the parts of the compound are at once deepened to\na superhuman intensity, and raised to a scale of magnificence which\nalmost transcends our powers of vision. We must, indeed, no more look\nfor a didactic and pedantic consistency in the movement of his mind,\nthan in shocks from an earthquake, or bursts of flame from a volcano.\nBut a real consistency there is; and doubtless it could be measured by\nthe rules of every day, if only every day produced an Achilles.\n\nLet us now follow his course with close attention.\n\n~_Restitution not the object of Achilles._~\n\nIt can hardly fail to draw remark, that the spirit of Achilles never\nfrom the first moment fastens on mere restitution, or on restitution\nat all, as its object. With his knowledge of his own might, which was\nenough to prompt him, had he not been restrained from heaven, to assail\nand slay Agamemnon on the spot, he nevertheless does not so much as\nentertain the thought of fighting to keep Briseis. His thought is far\nother than this: \u2018I will not lift a finger against one of you for the\ngirl, since you choose to take from me what you gave (298, 9). I will\nnot hold what you think fit to grudge.\u2019 While he adds, that they shall\nnot touch an article of what is properly his own[699]. Not that he\ncares for mere possession or dispossession. Were that his thought, he\nwould have lifted up the invincible arm for the retention of Briseis.\nBut his thought is this, \u2018One outrage you have done to justice and\nto me, and, encouraged as well as commanded by great deities, I bear\nit; but not even under their promises and injunctions will I endure\nthat you shall sin again.\u2019 The loss he had suffered now became quite\na subordinate image in his mind; punishment of the offenders, and\nnot restitution, was ever before his view. His first threat is that\nof withdrawal (Il. i. 169): which, he conceives, will put a stop to\nAgamemnon\u2019s rapacious accumulations. Next (233) he swears the mighty\noath that every Greek shall rue the day of his wrong, and look in vain\nto Agamemnon for protection against the sword of Hector. Again, in his\nprayer to Thetis, he intreats that she will induce Jupiter to drive the\nGreeks in rout and slaughter back upon the ships and the sea. He never\ndreams of the mere reparation of his wrong: when he refers to Briseis\nin the great oration of the Ninth Book, it is for the purpose of a\nslaying sarcasm against the Atreid\u00e6; his soul utterly refuses to treat\nthe affair in the manner of an action at law for damages; he looks for\nnothing less than the prostration of the Grecian host and its being\nbrought to the very door of utter and final ruin, with the compound\nview of avenging wrong, glorifying justice, enhancing the sufferings\nof his foe, and magnifying the occasion and achievements of his own\nmight, to be put forth when the proper time shall come.\n\n[699] The \u1f04\u03bb\u03bb\u03b1, v. 300, must mean what he had not acquired by gift of\nthe army; since in Il. 9. 335, as well as in i. 167, 356, he apparently\nspeaks of Briseis as the only prize he had received.\n\n~_The offer radically defective._~\n\nThe hero withdraws, and remains aloof. The Greeks, after a panic\nand a recovery, determine to carry on the war without him. But the\nhostile deities, less under restraint than the friendly ones, give\nactive encouragement to the Trojan chiefs and army in the fight. They\nare discerned by the Greeks, who accordingly recede[700]. Finding\nthat, instead of driving the Trojans to the city, on the contrary,\neven before the single fight of Hector and Ajax, they themselves had\nsuffered loss, they supply their camp with the defences, which it\nhad never needed while the name of Achilles and his prowess kept the\nenemy either within their walls, or in the immediate vicinity of the\ncity. This happens in the Seventh Book, and it is the first note of\nthe consequences of the Wrath. In the Eighth, they are more decidedly\nworsted under a divine influence, and are driven back upon their\nworks, while the Trojans bivouac on the place of battle. The army had\nsuffered no heavy loss: yet the infirm will of Agamemnon gives way:\nand, portending greater evils, he a second time counsels flight[701].\nThe advice is warmly repudiated by Diomed and the other chiefs. Still\nthe course of their affairs is now by undeniable signs altered for the\nworse. Hereupon, Nestor advises an attempt to conciliate Achilles by\noffers of restitution and of gifts, with close union and incorporation\ninto the family of Agamemnon. Now it is most important that we should\nobserve, that gifts and kind words were the beginning and the end\nof this mission. There was no confession of wrong authorized by\nAgamemnon, or made by the Envoys, to Achilles. The woes of the Greeks\nare described: Achilles is exhorted to lay aside his Wrath: he is\ntold of all the fine things he will receive upon his compliance: but\nnot one word in the speech of Ulysses conveys the admission at length\ngained from Agamemnon in the Nineteenth Book, that he has offended.\nTherefore Achilles is not appeased: but, I must add, neither is justice\nsatisfied, nor right re-established.\n\n[700] Il. v. 605, 702.\n\n[701] Il. ix. 26.\n\n~_Apology needed also._~\n\nPresents and promises were not what Achilles wanted. On the contrary,\nto his inflamed and inexorable spirit, being less than and different\nfrom the thing he sought, the very offer of them was matter of new\nexasperation. The very offer of them thus made seemed, and in some\ndegree rightly seemed, to imply that they who tendered it must take him\nfor a man, whose mind was cast in the same sordid mould as that of the\nking, who had given the offence. Gifts indeed Achilles must have, and\nabundance of them, when he is at last to be appeased: but it is not in\norder to swell an inventory of possessions: it is that the memory of\nthem may dwell in his mind, and stand upon the record of his life, like\nthe golden ornaments that he wore upon his manly person, namely, to\nexhibit and to make felt his glory.\n\nI do not indeed presume to say we have evidence to show that Achilles\nwould have relented at the period of the mission, if a frank confession\nof wrong, and apology for insult, had been made together with the\nproffer of the gifts. On the contrary, with his higher sentiments there\nmingled a towering passion of a vindictive order. It was as it were\nthe corruption or abuse, not the basis, of the mood of the estranged\nAchilles: but it was there, and there, like everything Achillean,\nin colossal proportions. Still I think it has not been sufficiently\nobserved that, as matter of fact, the proceeding of the Ninth Book was\nradically defective, because it treated the affair as (so to call\nit) one of mere merchandize, to be disposed of like the balance of an\naccount.\n\nWhen Achilles finds that the desire to avenge the death of Patroclus\nhas become paramount within him, and in consequence renounces the\nWrath[702], it is true that he does not stipulate for an apology. But\nneither does he stipulate for the gifts. Both however are given, and\nthe apology comes first in the faltering speech of Agamemnon[703], who\ndistinguishes between two kinds of atonement;\n\n[702] Il. xix. 67.\n\n[703] Ibid. 134-8.\n\n \u1f02\u03c8 \u1f10\u03b8\u03ad\u03bb\u03c9 \u1f00\u03c1\u03ad\u03c3\u03b1\u03b9, \u03b4\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03b1\u03af \u03c4\u2019 \u1f00\u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03b5\u03af\u03c3\u03b9\u2019 \u1f04\u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u03bd\u03b1.\n\nWere there any doubt about the reality of this distinction, it might\nbe removed by evidence which the Odyssey supplies. Eurualus, who\nappears to have been one of the secondary kings in Scheria, had not yet\natoned for his insult to Ulysses, when Alcinous recommended that all\nthe twelve, who belonged to that order, should make a present to the\ndeparting stranger. But from Eurualus, he observes, something more is\nrequisite; he must offer an apology as well as a gift[704];\n\n[704] Od. viii. 390-415.\n\n \u0395\u1f50\u03c1\u03cd\u03b1\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2 \u03b4\u03ad \u1f11 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u1f00\u03c1\u03b5\u03c3\u03c3\u03ac\u03c3\u03b8\u03c9 \u1f10\u03c0\u03ad\u03b5\u03c3\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd\n \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b4\u03ce\u03c1\u1ff3\u00b7 \u1f10\u03c0\u03b5\u1f76 \u03bf\u1f54\u03c4\u03b9 \u1f14\u03c0\u03bf\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u1f70 \u03bc\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c1\u03b1\u03bd \u1f14\u03b5\u03b9\u03c0\u03b5\u03bd.\n\nAnd this is done accordingly, in the amplest and frankest manner.\n\nAll this should be borne in mind, when we estimate the consistency of\nthe Poet through the medium of the conduct of Achilles.\n\nIt was not a moment\u2019s light apprehension, suffered by Agamemnon and the\narmy, that could avail to obliterate his resentment. They had scarcely\ntasted of the cup of bitterness; he required that they should drain it\nto the dregs. He will not hear of the return of Briseis: \u03c4\u1fc7 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b9\u03b1\u03cd\u03c9\u03bd\n\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03c0\u03ad\u03c3\u03b8\u03c9[705]. With a mixture of close argument, terrible denunciation,\nand withering sarcasm, he overpowers and silences the Envoys. Only\nPh\u0153nix can address him, and that after a long pause and in tears.\n\n[705] Il. ix. 336.\n\nYet the mighty spirit of Achilles sways to and fro in the tempest of\nits own emotions. Again he has threatened to depart: bidding them, with\na bitterness that mounts far away into the region of the sublime, come\nthe next day and see, if they think such a sight can be worth their\nseeing, his fleet speeding homeward across the broad Hellespont; or\nnorth \u00c6gean. But this course of action would have balked his appetite\nfor glory; which, as he knew[706], he could only buy, and that with\nhis life, at Troy. Perhaps, too, he was softened by the respect of the\nEnvoys, who were personally agreeable to him; perhaps grimly pleased\nwith the awe that his Titanic passion had inspired; perhaps affected\nwith a sympathetic feeling of regard by the straightforward bluntness\nof Ajax. At any rate it is plain that there followed upon the speech\nof the Telamoniad chief[707] a greater sign of yielding, than any\nwhich the paternal exhortations of Ph\u0153nix, or those most artfully\ndrawn pictures by Ulysses[708] of the rage and fury of Hector, had\nsufficed to produce. In answer to Ulysses, to the bottom of whose\nastuteness his clear eye had pierced, he says, \u2018I shall go[709].\u2019 In\nanswer to Ph\u0153nix[710], \u2018To-morrow we will decide, whether to go or\nstay.\u2019 In answer to Ajax, he makes a more sensible advance. He now so\nfar relents as to tell them, he will bethink himself of battle; yet it\nshall only be when the hand of Hector, dealing death to Greeks, and\nflame to their vessels, shall have reached the tents and ships of the\nMyrmidons. Then it will be time enough: for then, at _his_ encampment\nand by _his_ dark ship, he trows that he will stay the course of\nHector, however keen for fight[711].\n\n[706] Il. i. 352-4.\n\n[707] Il. ix. 624-42. Sup. Agor\u00e8, p. 111.\n\n[708] Ibid. 237-43, and 304-6.\n\n[709] Ibid. 357.\n\n[710] Ibid. 617.\n\n[711] Il. ix. 649-55.\n\n~_Consistency maintained in and after Il._ ix.~\n\nThus far, then, we surely have no pretext for saying that Homer has\ndeparted from the purpose of his poem, of which the man Achilles is the\ncentre and animating principle, and his Wrath with its terrible effects\nthe theme. These effects are now developed up to a certain point: not\nsuch a point as really to endanger the army, or excite strong sympathy\nor apprehension on its behalf, but yet such a point as entirely to tame\nthe irresolute egotism of Agamemnon, and drive his but half-masculine\ncharacter into efforts again to lay hold upon the prop, which he had so\nrashly and lightly, as well as selfishly and unjustly, put away.\n\nIf we were to consider Achilles as engaged in a mere personal quarrel,\nwe must condemn him, without any qualification whatever, for not\naccepting the reparation now tendered by Agamemnon. But if we bear in\nmind that the wrong done was a public wrong, that no confession of this\nwrong was made, that the other kings and leaders, and the whole army,\nbecame in some degree parties to it by their acquiescence, and that he\nwas thus as much or more the vindicator of great public rights than\nthe mere avenger of a personal offence, it is not so clear that the\nconduct of Achilles after the mission of the Ninth Book is incapable\nin principle of justification, according to the moral code of Greece.\nIt must, however, undoubtedly remain amenable to severe censure on the\nscore of excess: a culpability, for the penal notice of which Homer has\nmade abundant provision in the sequel of the poem.\n\nBut this question is by the way: the main issue raised is as to the\npoetical consistency and effect of the structure, which Homer has\nchosen for his work. Upon this there is surely little room for doubt.\n\nFrom the Ninth Book we commence afresh: Achilles in his moody\nseclusion, the Greeks in a manful determination to do their best; even\nAgamemnon is now roused to feel what he has brought upon the army,\nthrown back from his moral irresolution as a chief upon his personal\ncourage as a soldier, and resolved to appear in the field, that he too\nmay earn his laurels there.\n\nAnd these intentions are gallantly fulfilled. The night foray of Diomed\nand Ulysses stands well, as one of the minor but safe measures, by\nwhich a skilful generalship often makes its first efforts to raise the\nspirits of a downcast army. Agamemnon then appears, and shows himself\nto be a warrior of a high, nay of the highest order of strength and\nvalour. The other kings exert themselves with their wonted chivalry.\nBut the decree of Jove, working through the accidents of war, drives\nthree of the four great champions from the field, and leaves only\nAjax; who, invincible wherever he is found, yet cannot be everywhere,\nnor, single handed, govern the result of battle along the whole extent\nof the line. And now come the great exertions and successes of the\nTrojans, especially Sarpedon and his Lycian contingent, Hector playing\nrather a conventional than a real part. Now it goes hard indeed with\nthe Greeks; the fire touches the ships; Patroclus must go forth and\ndie; and the Wrath is at an end, for it is drowned in the bitterness of\nthe tears of Achilles.\n\nWith reference, then, to the main purpose of the poem, it proceeds\nregularly to its climax, and there is no limb of the Iliad separable\nfrom the body without destroying the symmetrical, masculine, and broad\ndevelopment of its general plan. I speak now of the principal fabric\nof the poem. Few who are not prepared to pull that in pieces will, I\napprehend, accede to the proposal to shear it of the two last Books,\nwhich therefore hardly require a separate defence.\n\n~_Skilful adjustment of conflicting aims._~\n\nTo me it appears well worthy of remark, with what extraordinary skill\nHomer has contrived to adjust his poem to the several aims which he had\nto keep in view. The grand one doubtless was the glory of his country\nin the person of Achilles[712]. Still he was bound not to sacrifice\npoetically the martial fame of the rest of Greece even to the first\namong them, whatever calamities he might make the army suffer on his\naccount. To avoid this sacrifice, he was obliged to uphold the military\ncharacter and power of the Greeks in their struggle with the Trojans,\neven when deprived of the prowess of their great champion Achilles.\nAnd yet he could not degrade Hector and the Trojans, or he would have\nreached the lame conclusion of adorning his own country\u2019s heroes with\na poor and unworthy triumph. Thus his course was to be steered among a\nvariety of difficulties, all pressing upon him from opposite quarters.\n\n[712] On the character of Achilles, I recommend reference to Colonel\nMure, Lit. Greece, i. 273-91, and 304-14. In no part of his treatment\nof the poems has that excellent Homerist (if I may presume to say so)\ndone better service. See likewise Professor Wilson\u2019s Essays, Critique\niv: and the Pr\u00e6lections of the Rev. J. Keble, i. 90-104. This refined\nwork, which criticizes the poems in the spirit of a Bard, set an early\nexample, at least to England, of elevating the tone of Homeric study.\n\nWe see at once how steadily he kept in view his pole-star; how he\nhandled the events and characters of his poem so as to give the most\npowerful, or rather it may be said the most overpowering, impression\nof the greatness of his hero, which is lifted higher and higher by\nthe whole movement of the work as it proceeds. Let us now examine\nwhether, in giving full scope to his main purpose, he has been obliged\nto sacrifice others which were also important, nay, if the highest\nexcellence was his aim, even indispensable.\n\nThe paramount glory of Achilles is established by this: first, that in\nthe Ninth Book the whole army, as it were, lies at his feet, and is\nspurned from thence: secondly, that when he finally comes forth, it\nis not in deference to those who have insulted him, but it is under\nthe burning impulses of his own heart. Let us now proceed to inquire\nwhether the Poet has or has not satisfied two other great demands. Has\nhe, as a Greek, done all that was required to glorify Greece, and is\nAchilles its crown only, or is he its substitute? Has he, as a man,\nvindicated the principles of the moral order, and of that retributive\njustice which, even in this world, visibly maintains at least a partial\nbalance between human action and its consequences to the agent?\n\n~_Glory given to Greece._~\n\nWe should look in vain, I think, for a finer and subtler exercise of\npoetic art, than in the mode in which Homer has contrived to convey to\nus, both the general, and in particular the military inferiority of\nthe Trojans, as compared with the Greeks. Hardly any reader can be so\nsuperficial in his observation of the poem, as not to rise from it with\nthis inferiority sufficiently impressed upon his mind. Yet there is\nnot a passage or a word throughout, in which it is asserted. And why?\nBecause every direct assertion that the Trojans were less valiant or\nless strong than their antagonists, would have been so much detracted\nfrom the glory of overcoming them. It was essential to the work of the\nPoet, that he should represent the contest as an arduous one. He might\nhave done this in the coarse method, for which his theurgy would have\nafforded the materials: that is, by converting his Trojans into mere\npuppets, whose arm, at every turn of the narrative, merely represented\nthe impelling force of some deity or other, and, independently of\nsuch extraneous aid, was powerless. But this would have destroyed the\nfull-flushed humanity of Homer\u2019s poem.\n\nAs it is, he has availed himself of the divine element to make up by\nits assistance for the comparative weakness of the Trojan chiefs: but\nit is only a subdued and occasional assistance, so that there is no\nglaring difference in point of free agency between the two parties. Nor\ncan it be without a purpose, that the two deities, who appear in the\nfield on behalf of the Trojans, namely, Venus and Mars, are sent off it\nboth wounded, the one whining, and the other howling, by the prowess\nof Diomed. If the Greeks are to suffer by the gods, he takes care that\nit shall not be by those gods who are the mere national partisans of\nTroy, but by a higher agency; by the decree of Jupiter, now temporarily\nindeed, but effectively, set against them.\n\nIt is by an indefinitely great number of strokes and touches each\nindefinitely small, that Homer has gained his object. The Trojan\nsuccesses are always effected with the concurrence of supernatural\npower; the Greeks not unfrequently without, and sometimes even against\nit[713].\n\n[713] Il. xvi. 780.\n\nHe as it were sets up the Trojans, so to speak, by generalities; but\nhe gives to the Greeks, with certain occasional exceptions, the whole\ndetail of solid achievement. Sometimes he allows a panic of doubt and\nfear to seize their host, but he takes care to make the sentiment only\nflit like a momentary shade over the sun. Thus, when the assembled\nchieftains of the Greek army hesitate to accept the challenge of\nHector[714],\n\n[714] Il. vii. 93.\n\n \u03b1\u1f34\u03b4\u03b5\u03c3\u03b8\u03b5\u03bd \u03bc\u1f72\u03bd \u1f00\u03bd\u03ae\u03bd\u03b1\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9, \u03b4\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd \u03b4\u2019 \u1f51\u03c0\u03bf\u03b4\u03ad\u03c7\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9.\n\nBut after a short interval, and a proper appeal, nine champions appear,\neach and all burning to meet Hector in single combat. Sometimes he\ncontrives to direct his praises to martial appearance and exterior,\nbut carefully avoids the real touches of heroic character; as when\nhe bestows on Paris the noble simile of the \u03c3\u03c4\u03ac\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f35\u03c0\u03c0\u03bf\u03c2. Generally\nhe pays off, as it were, the Trojans with high-sounding words, and\nreserves nearly all the true qualities of heroes, as well as their\nexploits, for the Ach\u00e6ans. With them are the sagacity, consistency,\nfirmness, promptitude, enterprise, power of adapting means to ends,\ncomprehensiveness of view, as well as main strength of hand. But by\nthe expedients I have mentioned, the Trojans are raised to, and kept\nat and no more than at, the level necessary to make them worthy and\ncreditable antagonists. One other engine for the purpose has been\nemployed by him, namely, the real valour and manhood of the Lycian\nkings and forces[715], with whom he had evidently a strong and peculiar\nsympathy; whose chief, Sarpedon, is really a better man in war than\nHector, though much less pretentious; and who, under this prince,\nachieve the only real, great, and independent success that is to be\nfound on that side throughout the whole course of the poems, namely,\nthe first forcing of the Greek entrenchments[716].\n\n[715] Since the first portion of this work went to press, I have found\nfrom the recent and still unfinished work of Welcher, _Griechische\nG\u00f6tterlehre_, i. 2. n., that philological evidence appears to have been\nrecently obtained of a close relationship between the Lycians and the\nGreeks.\n\n[716] Il. xii. 397-9.\n\nThe Trojan inferiority indeed lies very much more palpably in the\nchiefs, than in the common soldiers. Between the bulk of the army on\nthe one side and on the other, Homer represents no great--at least no\nglaring difference. Sometimes the fight is carried on upon terms purely\nequal[717], as during the forenoon of the day in the Eleventh Book:\nwhere there is superiority, it is assigned to the Greeks[718] or to\nthe Trojans[719], according as the exigencies of the poem may require.\nStill he contrives some note of difference so as to draw a line between\nthe merit of the respective successes; thus, when the Trojans turn the\nGreeks to flight, there is commonly an intimation, in more or less\ngeneral terms, of a divine agency stimulating them. Hostile weapons\nare indeed often turned aside on behalf of Greeks: but only in one\ninstance, I think, do the Greeks derive decided advantage from a panic\ndivinely inspired: it is when, in the Sixteenth Book, Jupiter instils\ninto Hector the spirit of fear[720].\n\n[717] Il. xi. 67-83.\n\n[718] Ibid. 90.\n\n[719] Il. viii. 336. xvi. 569. xvii. 596.\n\n[720] Il. xvi. 656.\n\nThis absence of broad contrast between the two soldieries is in entire\naccordance with what we have seen reason to presume as to their\ncomposition; namely, that the rank and file on both sides was in all\nlikelihood composed from kindred and Pelasgian races.\n\nYet a strong jealousy on behalf of his country is ever the predominant\nsentiment in the Poet\u2019s mind; and accordingly he insinuates, with\nmuch art, suggestions which keep even the Trojan soldiery somewhat\nbelow the Greeks; while to the chieftains of the Greek army, though\nhis laudatory epithets are nearly as high on the one side as on the\nother, he assigns in action an enormous superiority, both military\nand intellectual. Accordingly, when we come to cast up the results\nof the actual encounters, we are astounded at the littleness, the\nalmost nothingness, of the Trojan achievements, and at the large havock\nwrought by their opponents, even during the period when Achilles was in\nestrangement[721].\n\n[721] This would be best shown by a list of the considerable personages\nslain on the two sides respectively.\n\nAs regards the armies at large, observe the similes used in the Fourth\nBook[722]. The Greeks move in silence and discipline, like the swelling\nwaves when the tempest is just beginning to gather: the Trojans, like\ninnumerable sheep, who stand bleating in the fold while they are being\nmilked[723]. In the Fifth Book, while it is mentioned, as if casually,\nthat Apollo, Mars, and Eris, were stirring and keeping up the Trojans,\nit is subjoined, without ostensible reference to this intimation, but\nplainly in artful contrast with it, that the Greeks found sufficient\nincentives in the exhortations of the two Ajaxes, of Ulysses, and\nof Diomed[724]. Again, when Hector returns, after his battle with\nAjax[725], to his comrades, we are told that they rejoiced in finding\nhim restored to them in safety, contrary to their expectation,\n\u1f00\u03ad\u03bb\u03c0\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 \u03c3\u03cc\u03bf\u03bd \u03b5\u1f36\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9. On the other hand, it is added, the Greeks led\nAjax to Agamemnon, exulting in his victory over Hector (\u03ba\u03b5\u03c7\u03b1\u03c1\u03b7\u03cc\u03c4\u03b1\n\u03bd\u03af\u03ba\u1fc3). The Greeks feel no thankfulness, because they had, we are\nevidently to understand, felt no fear. And the chief rejoices in his\nvictory, which it really was. It was, indeed, ended as a drawn battle,\nthough Ajax had had the best of it at every stage; but not so much for\nthe honour of Hector, as for the purposes of the poem, since Hector\nhad to meet Achilles in the field, and he would have been degraded by\nencountering an antagonist that anybody else had palpably worsted. To\nstate the paradox as Homer had to confront it, the problem was to make\nAjax conqueror, without letting Hector be conquered.\n\n[722] Ver. 421-38.\n\n[723] Ver. 517-20.\n\n[724] Il. v. 517-21.\n\n[725] Il. vii. 307-12.\n\n~_Inferiority glaring in the Chiefs._~\n\nWhen we look to the case of the chieftains as a whole, the contrast is\nglaring. No first rate, or even second rate, Greek chieftain is ever\nkilled in fair field: Tlepolemus, slain by Sarpedon, comes the nearest\nto that rank, but is not in it. Patroclus is only slain after being\ndisarmed by Apollo: and here it seems to me as if for once the Poet had\na little overshot his mark; for the artifice is gross, and covers the\npretended exploit of Hector with indelible disgrace. In fact, Hector\nnever once achieves a considerable success in the field: though only\nAchilles, the first Greek warrior, is allowed completely to overcome\nhim[726], yet he is decidedly inferior in fight to both Diomed and\nAjax, who jointly occupy the two next places, but as between whom Homer\nhas not decisively marked the claim to precedence. In general terms,\nhe gives it to Ajax more emphatically[727], but he details more and\ngreater acts of prowess in favour of Diomed.\n\n[726] Compare Il. ii. 768, with Il. v. 414.\n\n[727] Il. xi. 185-209.\n\nEven with Agamemnon Hector is admonished, on the part of Jupiter,\nnot to contend: and he follows the advice. Of the Trojan chiefs who\nreally fight, a large proportion are slain; Glaucus, \u00c6neas, Deiphobus,\nand Polydamas are the most considerable who survive. No eminent\nTrojan in fact is ever allowed to display real heroism, except under\ncircumstances where the issue is quite hopeless: accordingly Homer has\nnever surrounded Hector with true heroic grandeur, in deed as well\nas word, until his final battle against Achilles, when he is at last\nbrought to bay, and when his doom is certain. All the considerable\ninjuries inflicted upon great Greek chieftains are from causes not\nimplying personal prowess in their rivals: from the arrows of Pandarus\nor of Paris, or by the chance hit of some insignificant, or at the\nleast secondary, but desperate Trojan, such as Socus, or such as Coon,\nstruck even as he is himself receiving or about to receive his own\ndeath-blow[728]. But for these ignoble wounds, which were inflicted\non many chiefs, including three prime heroes, Agamemnon, Diomed, and\nUlysses, the Greeks, according to the agency of the poem as it stands,\nnever would have been driven back upon their ships at all.\n\n[728] Il. xi. 252, 437.\n\n~_Conflicting exigencies of the plan._~\n\nNow Homer\u2019s difficulty in this matter was not simply that which has\nbeen heretofore pointed out, or which has been commonly supposed. His\naim, says Heyne[729], in representing the disasters of the Greeks is,\n_ut per eas Achillis virtus insigniatur, quippe qu\u00e2 destituti Achivi\nsuccumbunt, e\u00e2dem reddit\u00e2 vincunt_. But this is surely a misstatement\nof the case. Homer has not represented the Greeks _plus_ Achilles as\nsuperior to the Trojans, and the Greeks _minus_ Achilles as inferior\nto them. This was what a vulgar artist, whose mind could only hold\none idea at a time, would have done; nay, what it was difficult to\navoid doing, for it was vital to Homer\u2019s purpose that the vengeance of\nAchilles should be completely satiated: it was not to be thought of\nthat this transcendent character, this ideal hero, should be balked by\nman of woman born; the whole web of the Poet\u2019s thought would have been\nrent across, had there been failure in such a point. What was needful\nin this view could only be accomplished by the extremest calamities of\nthe Greeks. These calamities he had to bring about, and yet to give to\nthe Greeks a real superiority of military virtue. We have seen already\nhow he effected the latter: how did he manage the former? Partly by\ngiving Achilles, in right of his mother Thetis, such an interest in\nthe courts of heaven, as to throw a preponderating divine agency for\nthe time on the side of the Trojans; partly by a skilful use of the\nchances of war, in assigning to Troy a superiority in the comparatively\nignoble skill (as it was then used) of the bow. Thus he causes the\nGreeks to be worsted, notwithstanding their superiority: by their being\nworsted, he satisfies the exigencies of his plot; by exhibiting their\nsuperiority, he fulfils the conditions of his own office as a national\npoet. To speak of the ingenuity of Homer may sound strange, for we are\naccustomed to associate his name with ideas of greater nobleness; but\nstill his ingenuity, in this adjustment of conflicting demands upon\nhim, appears to be such as has never been surpassed.\n\n[729] Exc. ii. ad Il. xxiv. s. iv. vol. viii. p. 801. See, however,\nalso p. 802.\n\n~_Greeks superior even without Achilles._~\n\nAnd here I, for one, cannot but admire the way in which Homer has\nmade purposes, which others would have found conflicting, to serve\nas reciprocal auxiliaries. The Embassy of the Ninth Book certainly\nglorifies Achilles: but let us ask, does it not help also to glorify\nGreece? Let us consider what had happened. The withdrawal of Achilles\nwas at once felt as a great blow; and it acted on the whole tone of\nthe army. This appears in various ways. We read it in the home-sick\nimpulses of the Second Assembly (b. ii.); in the advice of Nestor to\ntake measures for securing the responsibility of officers and men\n(ii. 360-8); in the slackness of various chiefs during the Circuit\nof Agamemnon (b. iv.); in its being recorded to the honour of that\nleader (iv. 223) that he did not flinch from his duty; lastly, in the\nmomentary reluctance of the Greek heroes to encounter Hector (vii.\n93). All this is thoroughly natural. Having leant upon a prop, they\nwere not at once aware of their remaining and intrinsic strength. They,\nlike all persons who have not learned the habit of self-reliance,\nrequired to learn it with pain. Hence, after the very first touch\nof comparative weakness in the field, they conceive the idea of the\nrampart. They had not really been worsted: but their enemies had\nlearned to face them; their position was now no longer what it had used\nto be, when Hector did not venture out in front of the Dardanian Gate.\nBut the building of the rampart produced, as was natural, an increased\nweakness. Besides this, Jupiter, seeing that the tendency of events\nwas not to give a sufficiently rapid and decisive triumph to Achilles,\nnow inhibited those deities, who were friendly to Greece, from taking\npart, while he himself (viii. 75) alarmed and abashed the Greeks\nwith his thunder. They thus feel themselves thrown one full stage\nfurther into weakness. What more natural, than that they should turn\nto Achilles, and try his disposition towards them? This is effected\nin the Ninth Book. They then become acquainted practically, for the\nfirst time, with the fierceness of the seven times heated furnace of\nthe Wrath. This experience teaches them, that they must do or die. So\nat last, the bridge behind them being broken, Greece is put upon her\nmettle. The gallant Diomed becomes the spokesman at once of chivalry\nand of common sense. \u2018You should not have asked him. By asking, you\nhave emboldened and hardened him. Let him alone. Rely upon yourselves.\nRefresh yourselves with sleep and a good meal, and then, order out the\ntroops, and have at them: I for my part will be found in the van[730].\u2019\nThen it is that the Greeks understand their position, and, casting\noff hope from Achilles, place it in themselves. Hence that great\ndevelopment of valorous energies in the Eleventh Book, which proves\nthat in equal fight, even though Achilles were absent, Troy had not a\nhope: so that the expedient of chance-wounds, disabling all the prime\nwarriors but Ajax, is absolutely necessary in order to bring about the\nrequired amount of disaster. It appears to me, I confess, that this is\na masterly adjustment, alike true in nature, and high in art.\n\n[730] Il. ix. 697-709.\n\nBut first, after the great repulse, comes the pilot-balloon, the\ntentative effort, of the Doloneia.\n\nNext to the skill and power with which the Poet has discriminated the\ncharacters of his greater Greek heroes, I am tempted to admire the\ncircumspection and precision, with which he has assigned their relative\ndegrees of prominence in the action. To those who complain of the\nDoloneia for want of a purpose, I would reply that, in the first place,\nbesides its merits as an operation with reference to the circumstances\nof the moment, (for it feeds the army, as it were, with milk, when they\nwere not yet ready for strong meat,) it remarkably varies the tenour of\nthe action, which without it would have fallen into something of sleepy\nsameness, by substituting stratagem for force, and night-adventure for\nthe conflicts of the day. Let those who doubt this strike out the Tenth\nBook, and then consider how the course of the military transactions of\nthe poem would stand without it: how much more justly the first moiety\nof the military action of the poem would stand liable to the imputation\nof monotony, which even now is of necessity the besetting danger of\nthe whole poem. But more; I contend that the Doloneia constitutes,\nin the main, the \u1f00\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u1fd6\u03b1 of Ulysses. His distinguished part in the\nSecond Book is political only, and has no concern with his military\nqualifications. His ordinary military exploits elsewhere are secondary,\nand also scattered. To assign to him a great share in the field\noperations would have been a much less fine preparation, than the Iliad\nnow affords, for his appearance in the Odyssey; and it would also have\nhazarded sameness as between his achievements and the other \u1f00\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u1fd6\u03b1\nof the great chiefs. Besides, there was little room in the field, as\nthe martial art was then understood, for his distinctive qualities,\nself-reliance, presence of mind, fertility in resource. But military\ndistinction, even in the time of Homer, lay in two great departments,\none known as the fight (\u03bc\u03ac\u03c7\u03b7), the other as ambush (\u03bb\u03cc\u03c7\u03bf\u03c2). The latter\nwas of fully equal, nay, on account of its sharper trial of moral\ncourage[731], it was even of still greater honour. To this class the\nnight adventure essentially belonged. Here Ulysses is thoroughly at\nhome. In the Doloneia, Diomed is merely the sword in the hand of\nUlysses; who directs the operation, and overrules his brave companion\nwhen he thinks fit, as, for example, in the matter of the slaughter\nof Dolon. In what other way could Homer have given us an equally\ncharacteristic illustration of the military qualities of Ulysses?\n\n[731] See Il. i. 226-8. xviii. 509-13. and especially xiii. 275-86: and\nSup. Agor\u00e8, p. 92.\n\n~_Harmony in relative prominence of the Chiefs._~\n\nNow this view of the Doloneia fills up, I think, what must otherwise\nbe admitted to be a gap in the poem. It being thus filled up, let us\nobserve the accuracy with which shares in the action of the poem are\nassigned to the respective chiefs. Nestor has his own place apart as\nuniversal counsellor. Ulysses also, who, as the great twin conception\nto Achilles, must never be allowed to appear in a light of inferiority\nto any one, is so managed as not to eclipse the might of Ajax or the\nbravery of Diomed; and yet he has all his attributes kept entire for\nthe great part he had to play in the Odyssey, and is never beaten,\nnever baffled, never excelled. Then Ajax, Diomed, Agamemnon, Menelaus,\neven elderly Idomeneus, have each the stage made clear for them at\ndifferent times, and with scope proportioned to their several claims\nupon us. The very intervals between their several appearances are\nmade as wide as possible: for Diomed is in the Fifth and Eleventh\nBooks, Ajax in the Seventh, Agamemnon in the Eleventh, Idomeneus in\nthe Thirteenth[732], Menelaus in the Seventeenth. Ajax excels in sheer\nmight, Diomed in pure gallantry of soul, and what is called _dash_;\nAgamemnon\u2019s dignity as a warrior is most skilfully maintained, yet\nwithout his being brought into rivalry with those two still greater\nheroes, by Hector\u2019s being counselled to avoid him. Menelaus, secondary\nin mere force, though with a spirit no less brave than gentle, is\ncarried well through by the care taken that he shall only meet with\nappropriate adversaries, and the same pains are employed on behalf of\nIdomeneus. For Patroclus, as the friend and second self of Achilles,\nHomer\u2019s fertile invention has secured a kind of distinction, which\ndoes not displace that of others, and which, notwithstanding, is\neclipsed by none of them. He turns the Trojan host; he slays the great\nSarpedon; he is himself slain only by foul play. I cannot vindicate\nthe clumsy intervention of Apollo, and the meanness of the part\nplayed by Hector in this cardinal passage of his career; still I find\nit curious and instructive to observe in all this a new instance of\nthe intense care, with which the Poet watches over the character\nespecially of his Achilles. He exalts him, by exalting first those\nsecondary eminences, far above which he keeps him towering. Therefore\nhe would have Patroclus slain indeed, but not defeated, by Hector; and\nto this capital object he appears to have made, perhaps unavoidably,\nconsiderable sacrifices.\n\n[732] He bears the chief part from 206. to 488.\n\nUpon the whole, then, it would seem that Homer had to maintain a\ncomplex regard to a variety of objects. First of all there was the\nrelation to observe between Achilles and all the other personages of\nhis poem on both sides of the quarrel. Then in distributing his minor\nAlps, the other prime or distinguished Greek warriors, about this\ngreat Alp, he had to keep in mind and provide for their relations to\none another, as well as to him. Lastly, he had to carry Hector and the\nTrojans so high, that to overcome their chief should be his crowning\nexploit, and yet so low, that they should not stand inconveniently\nbetween the Greeks and the view of such national heroes as Ulysses,\nDiomed, Ajax, and Agamemnon. Like Jupiter on Ida[733], from none of\nthese objects has he ever removed his bright and watchful eye; for all\nof them he has made a provision alike deliberate and skilful.\n\n[733] Il. xvi. 644.\n\nIt only remains to consider the outline of the plot in reference to\nthe Providential Government of the world, and the administration of\nretributive justice; a subject which has been ably handled by Mr.\nGranville Penn[734].\n\n[734] In his \u2018Examination of the Primary Argument of the Iliad.\u2019\nDedicated to Lord Grenville. 1821.\n\nI am not able to admit that broad distinction, which is frequently\ndrawn between the provision made for satisfying this great poetical and\nmoral purpose in the Iliad and in the Odyssey respectively. In each I\nfind it not only remarkable, but even elaborate. In each poem, Homer\nexhibits, above all things else, one chosen human character with the\namplest development. But diversity is the key-note of the development\nin the Odyssey, grandeur or magnitude in the Iliad. The hurricane-like\nforces, that abound in the character of Achilles, entail a greater\namount of aberration from the path of wisdom. But there is not wanting\na proportionate retributive provision. Ulysses, after a long course\nof severe discipline patiently endured, has awarded to him a peaceful\nold age, and a calm death, in his Ithaca barren but beloved, with\nhis people prospering around him. Achilles, on the other hand, is so\nloaded with gorgeous gifts that, wonderful as is their harmony in all\npoints but one, that one is the centre. He has not the same unfailing\nand central solidity of moral equipoise. In himself gallant, just,\ngenerous, refined, still indignity can drive him into an extremity of\npride and fierceness, which call for stern correction. Hence it comes\nabout that, while the adversity of Ulysses is the way to peace, the\ntranscendent glory of Achilles is attended by a series of devouring\nagonies; the rival excitements of fierce pain and fiercer pleasure\naccompany him along a path, which soon and suddenly descends into the\nnight of dismal death. Alike in the one case and in the other, the\nbalance of the moral order is preserved; and that Erin\u016bs, who, in so\nmany particular passages of the poems, makes miniature appearances in\norder to vindicate the eternal laws, such as the heroic age apprehended\nthem, likewise presides in full development over the general action of\neach of these extraordinary poems.\n\n~_Retributive justice in the two poems._~\n\nRetributive justice, inseparably interwoven with human destiny (for\nthus much the Erin\u016bs signified) tracks and dogs Achilles at every\nstage. Take him, for instance, as the Ninth Book shows him, at the very\nsummit of his pride. It is in no light or joyous mood, that he repels\nthe Envoys. Who among readers does not seem to _see_ his spirit writhe,\nwhen he describes the hot and bursting resentment in his breast, the\nstinging recollection of the outrages he has undergone[735]. Even by\nthe irrepressible curiosity, which compels him to mount upon his ship\nfor view, and to send out Patroclus to learn the course of the battle,\nHomer has shown us how false was any semblance of peace, that he could\neven now enjoy in his giddy elevation.\n\n[735] Il. ix. 646-8.\n\nThe rampart is pierced, the ships are reached, the firebrand is hurled,\nand the first Greek ship burns. Achilles must not depart from his word:\nbut his restlessness now conceives an expedient, the sending forth of\nPatroclus to the fight. At the same time, he takes every precaution\nthat sagacity can suggest: he clothes his friend in his own armour,\nexhorts the Myrmidons to support him, above all enjoins him to confine\nhimself to defensive warfare, and not to follow the Trojans, when\nrepulsed, to the city. What then happens to him? That which often\nbefalls ourselves: that when we have turned our back upon wisdom,\nwisdom turns her back upon us. Achilles insisted upon the disaster\nof his countrymen. When it came, it constrained him to send out his\nfriend: and the calamity he had himself invoked was death to the man\nthat he loved better than his own soul.\n\nAnd why did Patroclus die? It was not that Achilles imprudently exposed\nhim to risks beyond his strength. He was abundantly able to encounter\nHector. Hector had no care, so long as the battle was by the ships,\nto encounter this chief. And Achilles had enjoined him to fight by\nthe ships only, lest, if he attempted the city, a deity should take\npart against him[736]. Patroclus disobeyed, and perished accordingly.\nAs Achilles had refused to follow the laws of wisdom for himself, so,\nwhen he carefully obeyed them, they were not to avail him for the\nsaving of his friend. Heaven fought against Patroclus; Jupiter, after\ndeliberation, tempted him from the ships, by causing Hector to fly\ntowards the city; and the counsel of Achilles was now baffled as he\nhad baffled the counsels of others, the dart was launched that was to\npierce his soul to the quick.\n\n[736] Il. xvi. 93.\n\n~_Double conquest over Achilles._~\n\nThus his proud will was doomed to suffer. The suffering is followed by\nthe reconciliation, and by the climax of his glory and revenge in the\ndeath of Hector. How in these Books we see him moving in might almost\npreternatural, with the whole world as it were, and all its forces,\nin subjection to his arm! But he has only passed from one excess of\nfeeling into another: from a vindictive excess of feeling against\nthe Greeks, to another vindictive excess of feeling against Hector.\nThe mutilation and dishonour of the body of his slain antagonist now\nbecome a second idol, stirring the great deep of his passions, and\nbewildering his mind. Thus, in paying off his old debt to the eternal\nlaws, he has already contracted a new one. Again, then, his proud\nwill must be taught to bow. Hence, as Mr. Penn has well shown, the\nnecessity of the Twenty-fourth Book with its beautiful machinery[737].\nAchilles must surrender the darling object of his desire, the wreaking\nof his vengeance on an inanimate corpse. On this occasion, as before,\nhe is subdued: and both times it is through the medium of his tender\naffections. But in both cases his evil gratification is cut short: and\nthe authority of the providential order is reestablished. The Greeks\npursue their righteous war: the respect which nature enjoins is duly\npaid to the remains of Hector, and the poem closes with the verse which\nassures us that this obligation was duly and peacefully discharged.\n\n[737] See the \u2018Primary Argument of the Iliad,\u2019 pp. 241-73.\n\nWith these views, I find in the plot of the Iliad enough of beauty,\norder, and structure, not merely to sustain the supposition of its own\nunity, but to bear an independent testimony, should it be still needed,\nto the existence of a personal and individual Homer as its author.\n\n\nSECT. II.\n\n_The sense of Beauty in Homer; human, animal, and inanimate._\n\nThe idea of Beauty, especially as it is connected with its most\nsignal known manifestation in the human form, and again the \u03c6\u03b8\u03bf\u03c1\u1f70, or\ncorruption of that idea, have each their separate course and history\nin the religion and manners, as well as in the arts, of Greece. By the\nidea of Beauty, I mean here the conception of it in the human mind as\na pure and wonderful essence, nearly akin to the Divine; derived from\nheaven, and both continually and spontaneously tending to revert to its\nsource. By the corruption of that idea, I mean the conception of it\neither mainly or wholly with reference to animal enjoyment; sometimes\nwithin, and sometimes beyond, the laws of Nature.\n\nIn the works of Homer, we find the first of these conceptions\nexceedingly prominent and powerful. It approaches almost to a worship:\nand yet is scarcely at all tainted with the second, scarcely presents\nthe smallest deflection from the very loftiest type. In Homer, that\nis to say, in the Homeric descriptions of human characters and life,\nwe never find Beauty and Vice pleasurably associated: he seems to\nhave felt in the sanctuary of his mind as much at least as this, if\nnot more; that a derogation from purity involved of itself a descent\nfrom the highest to a lower form of beauty: and therefore he never\nassociates his highest descriptions of beauty with vice: differing\nin this not only from so many heathen, but even from many Christian\nauthors.\n\n~_The Dardanid traditions._~\n\nBut yet it is most remarkable that, even in Homer\u2019s time, the level\nof popular tradition on the subject of beauty had begun to descend,\nand though he had escaped the taint, yet it had touched his age.\nLet us, for example, take that most striking series of traditions\nin the Dardanian royal family, which are recorded in the poems of\nHomer. That family appears to have had personal beauty for an almost\nentailed inheritance. Not only Hector, Deiphobus, \u00c6neas, as well as\nParis, possessed it, but Priam, even in his old age and affliction,\nwas divinely beautiful as he entered the apartment of Achilles; and,\nas they sat at meat, and he admired Achilles, Achilles returned his\nadmiration[738].\n\n[738] Il. xxiv. 483, 631. Sup. Ilios, p. 216.\n\nThe line of traditions in this family, to which I now refer, affords\nthe best illustration of the idea of beauty as ever striving, by\nan inner law, to rise to a heavenly life. There are four of these\ntraditions: and as we pass from the older to the more recent, at\neach step that we make, we lose some grain of the first ethereal\npurity. The earliest of them all is the translation, since coarsely\nand without ground called the rape, of Ganymede: consistently indeed\nso called, according to the idea of the fable which has prevailed in\nlater ages, but most absurdly, if it be applied to the tradition in\nthe shape in which it stands with Homer. With him the tale of Ganymede\nis the most simple and perfect assertion of the principle that beauty,\nheavenly in its origin, is heavenly also in its destiny; and that\nthe heaven-born and heaven-bound should contract no taint upon its\nintermediate passage. There were three sons, says Homer, born to Tros;\nIlus was one, Assaracus another: and the third was Ganymede, a match\nfor gods. Ganymede, the most beauteous of men, whom, for his beauty,\nand seemingly before he had come to maturity for succession, the gods\nsnatched up and made the cupbearer of Jupiter, that he might dwell for\never among the Immortals[739]:\n\n[739] Il. xx. 233-5.\n\n \u1f43\u03c2 \u03b4\u1f74 \u03ba\u03ac\u03bb\u03bb\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u03b3\u03ad\u03bd\u03b5\u03c4\u03bf \u03b8\u03bd\u03b7\u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f00\u03bd\u03b8\u03c1\u03ce\u03c0\u03c9\u03bd\u00b7\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 \u03ba\u03ac\u03bb\u03bb\u03b5\u03bf\u03c2 \u03b5\u1f35\u03bd\u03b5\u03ba\u03b1 \u03bf\u1f37\u03bf, \u1f35\u03bd\u2019 \u1f00\u03b8\u03b1\u03bd\u03ac\u03c4\u03bf\u03b9\u03c3\u03b9 \u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u03b5\u03af\u03b7.\n\nThe idea of sanctity, indeed, is not to be discovered here; its traces\ncan only be found among the inspired records; the resemblance to the\ndeity does not reach beyond the flesh and mind; yet the sum of the tale\nis full of interest. The other sons grew up, and became kings; he,\nthat he might not linger, might not suffer, might not contract taint\nor undergo decay on earth, was taken up to that sphere, which is the\nproper home of all things beautiful and good.\n\nThe thought is somewhat related to that of the following remarkable\nlines by Emerson:\n\n Perchance not he, but nature ailed;\n The world, and not the infant, failed.\n It was not ripe yet to sustain\n A genius of so fine a strain,\n Who gazed upon the sun and moon\n As if he came unto his own:\n And pregnant with his grander thought,\n Brought the old order into doubt.\n _His beauty once their beauty tried;\n They could not feed him, and he died,_\n And wandered backward, as in scorn,\n To wait an \u00c6on to be born.\n\nFar as the tradition of Ganymede, according to Homer, is below that\nof Enoch, it is set by a yet wider distance above the later version\nof the same tale. Thus, in Euripides, we find him the \u0394\u03b9\u1f78\u03c2 \u03bb\u03ad\u03ba\u03c4\u03c1\u03c9\u03bd\n\u03c4\u03c1\u03cd\u03c6\u03b7\u03bc\u03b1 \u03c6\u03af\u03bb\u03bf\u03bd (Iph. Aul. 1037): and what is more sad is to find, that\nthis utterly debased and depressed idea prevailed over the original and\npure one, even to its extinction, and was adopted and propagated by the\nhighest and the lowest poets of the Italian romance[740].\n\n[740] For example, we might quote the Orlando Furioso of Ariosto; and\nthe very vulgar poet, Forteguerra, in the Ricciardetto, vi. 23:\n\n Il nettar beve, e Ganimede il mesce,\n Che tanto a Giuno sua spiace e rincresce.\n\n\nNext in order to the tradition of Ganymede comes that of Tithonus,\nwho, on account of his beauty, was carried up, not by the gods at\nlarge, to be as one of them, but by Aurora to become her husband, in\nwhich capacity he remained in the upper regions[741]. This is a step\ndownwards; but the next is a stride. In the third tradition, so far as\nis known from the authentic works of Homer, \u00c6neas is the son of Venus\nand Anchises, but without their standing in the relation of husband and\nwife. The particulars of the narrative are supplied in the early Hymn,\nwhich perhaps was the more readily ascribed to Homer, because it was\nbelieved to embody a primitive form of the tradition. Jupiter inspired\nVenus with a passion for Anchises, and, after having arrayed herself in\nfine vestments and golden ornaments, she presented herself to him as he\nwas playing the lyre in solitude on Ida; when the connection was formed\nthat gave birth to \u00c6neas[742].\n\n[741] Il. xi. 1. Od. v. 1.\n\n[742] Hymn. ad Ven. 45-80.\n\nThe next fall is the greatest of all: according to the later tradition,\nVenus, to obtain a favourable judgment from Paris (of the next\ngeneration to Anchises), promised him a wife of splendid beauty and\ndivine extraction, whom he was to obtain by treachery and robbery, as\nwell as adultery; and filled him with what Homer pronounces an evil\npassion[743].\n\n[743] Il. xxiv. 30.\n\nThe Poet, indeed, tells us nothing of this promise, which appears to\nimply powers far greater than any that the Homeric Aphrodite possessed.\nBut he mentions the contest, informs us that Venus was the winner,\nmakes Paris boast of her partiality, and introduces her as mentioning\nher own favours to Helen[744].\n\n[744] Il. iii. 64, 440, 415.\n\nSuch was the downward course of all in the nature of man that belonged\nto the moral sphere, apart from the cherishing power of Divine\nRevelation; for the chronological order of these legends is also that\nof their descent, step by step, from innocence to vice.\n\nHomer, as we have already seen, represents a very early and chaste\ncondition of human thought. We have now to observe how strong and\ngenuine, as well as pure, was his appetite for beauty.\n\nSince here, as elsewhere, it is not the Poet\u2019s usage to declare himself\nby express statements and elaborate descriptions, we must resort in the\nusual manner to secondary evidence; which, however, converging from\nmany different and opposite quarters upon a single point, is perhaps\nmore conclusive than mere statement, because it shows that we are not\ndealing with a simple opinion, but with a sentiment, a passion, and a\nhabit, which penetrated through the Poet\u2019s whole nature.\n\nI shall notice Homer\u2019s sense of beauty with reference, first and\nchiefly, to the human countenance and form; next, with respect to\nanimals; and thirdly, with respect to inanimate objects and to\ncombinations of them.\n\nAs regards the first and chief branch of this inquiry, we must notice\nto what persons, and in what degrees, Homer assigns beauty, from whom\nhe withholds it; and how far he considers it to give a title to special\nnotice, in cases where no other claim to such a distinction can be made\ngood.\n\nWe may then observe that Homer does not commonly assign personal\nbeauty to any human person, who is morally odious. In any questionable\ninstance where he does so assign it, he seems to follow an historical\ntradition, or to be constrained by his subject. He has covered\nThersites with every sort of deformity; and in the description of the\npersons and of the twelve dissolute women among the fifty domestic\nservants of Ulysses, there is barely a word that implies beauty[745].\n\n[745] Od. xxii. 424-73.\n\nMelantho indeed, the most conspicuous offender, is called in the\nEighteenth Odyssey[746] \u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u03bb\u03b9\u03c0\u03ac\u03c1\u1fc3\u03bf\u03c2. But it seems probable, that he\nfollowed a local tradition concerning her; for, if she had been simply\na creation of his own, he certainly would not have represented her as\nthe daughter of the old and faithful Dolius[747], who, with his six\nsons, bore arms for Ulysses.\n\n[746] Od. xviii. 321-5.\n\n[747] Od. xxiv. 496.\n\n~_Treatment of the beauty of Paris._~\n\nSo also the beauty of Paris was an inseparable incident of the Trojan\ntale. Yet it is remarkable how little it is brought into relief. Where\nhe is called beautiful, it is by way of sarcasm and reproach[748],\n\n[748] Il. iii. 39.\n\n \u0394\u03cd\u03c3\u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b9, \u03b5\u1f36\u03b4\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f04\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5.\n\nThe only passage, in which his beautiful appearance is described at\nall, is from the mouth of Venus[749], to whom Homer never intrusts\nanything, to be either said or done, that he wishes us to regard with\nfavour.\n\n[749] Ibid. 391.\n\nCompelled, however, to set off the imposing exterior of this prince,\nif only for the purpose of heightening the contrast with his cowardice\nin action, he introduces him flourishing his pair of spears at the\ncommencement of the Third Iliad; and what is more, when he again goes\nforth in his newly burnished arms at the close of the Sixth, bestows\nupon him one of the very noblest of his similes, that of the stall-kept\nhorse, high fed and sleek in coat, who having broken away from his\nmanger rushes neighing over the plain[750].\n\n[750] Il. iii. 18. and vi. 506.\n\nIt was necessary, in order to make up the true portrait of Paris, that\nhis exterior should be thus splendid, and his movements imposing; and\nit was also a part of the subtle plan, by which Homer made use of words\nand appearances to bring up the Trojan chieftains and people to some\nkind of level with the Greek. Yet there is something singular in the\nfact that Homer, who does not, I think, repeat his similes in any other\nremarkable case, reproduces the whole of this splendid passage in the\nFifteenth Iliad for Hector[751]. There is here, we may rely upon it,\nsome peculiar meaning. Possibly he grudged the exclusive appropriation\nof so splendid a passage to so despicable a person. There is also\nanother singularity in his mode of proceeding. The simile is given to\nHector without addition, and the poem proceeds\n\n[751] Il. xv. 263.\n\n \u1f63\u03c2 \u1f1d\u03ba\u03c4\u03c9\u03c1 \u03bb\u03b1\u03b9\u03c8\u03b7\u03c1\u1f70 \u03c0\u03cc\u03b4\u03b1\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b3\u03bf\u03cd\u03bd\u03b1\u03c4\u2019 \u1f10\u03bd\u03ce\u03bc\u03b1.\n\nBut where he applies it to Paris, immediately after the conclusion of\nthe noble passage he subjoins (Il. vi. 512.),\n\n \u1f63\u03c2 \u03c5\u1f31\u1f78\u03c2 \u03a0\u03c1\u03b9\u03ac\u03bc\u03bf\u03b9\u03bf \u03a0\u03ac\u03c1\u03b9\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u1f70 \u03a0\u03b5\u03c1\u03b3\u03ac\u03bc\u03bf\u03c5 \u1f04\u03ba\u03c1\u03b7\u03c2\n \u03c4\u03b5\u03cd\u03c7\u03b5\u03c3\u03b9 \u03c0\u03b1\u03bc\u03c6\u03b1\u03af\u03bd\u03c9\u03bd, \u1f65\u03c3\u03c4\u2019 \u1f20\u03bb\u03ad\u03ba\u03c4\u03c9\u03c1, \u1f10\u03b2\u03b5\u03b2\u03ae\u03ba\u03b5\u03b9.\n\nWhat is the meaning of \u1f20\u03bb\u03ad\u03ba\u03c4\u03c9\u03c1? It is commonly taken as equivalent to\n\u1f20\u03bb\u03ad\u03ba\u03c4\u03c9\u03c1 \u1f59\u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03af\u03c9\u03bd, which means the Sun. I cannot but believe that Homer\nmeans by it to signify the cock, called in Greek \u1f00\u03bb\u03ad\u03ba\u03c4\u03c9\u03c1. The \u1f20\u03bb\u03ad\u03ba\u03c4\u03c9\u03c1\n\u1f59\u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03af\u03c9\u03bd, is used as a simile for Achilles; and it would be much against\nthe manner of Homer to use the same simile for a Trojan, and that\nTrojan Paris. Whereas by the strut of the cock he may mean to reduce\nand modify the effect of the noble figure of the stall-horse.\n\n~_Beauty of the Greek chiefs and nation._~\n\nAchilles, who is not only the bravest but by far the most powerful man\nof the host, is also by far the most beautiful; and the very strongest\nterms are used to describe the impression which his appearance produced\non Priam amidst the profoundest sorrow[752];\n\n[752] Il. xxiv. 629.\n\n \u03b8\u03b1\u03cd\u03bc\u03b1\u03b6\u2019 \u1f08\u03c7\u03b9\u03bb\u1fc6\u03b1,\n \u1f45\u03c3\u03c3\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f14\u03b7\u03bd, \u03bf\u1f37\u03cc\u03c2 \u03c4\u03b5\u00b7 \u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c3\u03b9 \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u1f04\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1 \u1f10\u1ff4\u03ba\u03b5\u03b9.\n\nIt may be doubted, whether any other Poet would have ventured to\ncombine the highest and most delicate beauty, with a strength and size\napproaching the superhuman. It was requisite for Achilles, as the\nideal man, not only to want no great human gift, but also to have in\nunmatched degrees whatever gifts he possessed. The beauty of Achilles\nis the true counterpart to the ugliness and deformity of Thersites.\n\nIt appertains to the character of Ulysses, who comes next to Achilles,\nthat he too should not be wanting in any thing that pertains to the\nexcellence of human nature; while completeness and manifoldness is\nthe specific character of his endowments, as unparalleled splendour\nis of those possessed by Achilles. Ulysses[753], therefore, is also\nbeautiful. Again, the office and function of Agamemnon require him\nto be an object capable of attracting admiration and reverence. He,\naccordingly, is of remarkable beauty, but of the kind of beauty that\nhas in it most of dignity[754];\n\n[753] Od. xiii. 430-3.\n\n[754] Il. iii. 169.\n\n \u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u1f78\u03bd \u03b4\u2019 \u03bf\u1f55\u03c4\u03c9 \u1f10\u03b3\u1f7c\u03bd \u03bf\u1f54\u03c0\u03c9 \u1f34\u03b4\u03bf\u03bd \u1f40\u03c6\u03b8\u03b1\u03bb\u03bc\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd,\n \u03bf\u1f50\u03b4\u2019 \u03bf\u1f55\u03c4\u03c9 \u03b3\u03b5\u03c1\u03b1\u03c1\u03cc\u03bd.\n\nHomer never absolutely withholds beauty from any of his Greek heroes,\nyet he does not always expressly state that they possessed it. This\nendowment is, for instance, never given to Diomed, but it is ascribed\nto Ajax in the Eleventh Odyssey[755];\n\n[755] Od. xi. 469.\n\n \u1f43\u03c2 \u1f04\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f14\u03b7\u03bd \u03b5\u1f36\u03b4\u03cc\u03c2 \u03c4\u03b5, \u03b4\u03ad\u03bc\u03b1\u03c2 \u03c4\u03b5,\n \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f04\u03bb\u03bb\u03c9\u03bd \u0394\u03b1\u03bd\u03b1\u1ff6\u03bd, \u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u2019 \u1f00\u03bc\u03cd\u03bc\u03bf\u03bd\u03b1 \u03a0\u03b7\u03bb\u03b5\u03af\u03c9\u03bd\u03b1.\n\nIt is probably because Diomed equals Ajax in chivalry, and very far\nexcels him in mental gifts, that Homer has thrown weight into the scale\nof Ajax by assigning to him expressly, while he is silent about Diomed,\nthe gift of a beautiful person.\n\nAs with individuals, so does Homer deal with masses. It may be observed\nthat he has a lower class of epithets for the Trojans than the Greeks,\nand never allows them the benefit of the same national designations.\nIndividual beauty in men is confined on both sides to the higher ranks;\nbut no Trojan, however beautiful, is ever honoured with the title\nof \u03be\u03b1\u03bd\u03b8\u03cc\u03c2. Again, while he never gives to the Trojans as a body any\nepithet which describes them as possessed of beauty, he has assigned\nseveral expressions of this order to the Greek race. Such are the\nepithets \u03ba\u03b1\u03c1\u03b7\u03ba\u03bf\u03bc\u03cc\u03c9\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 and \u1f11\u03bb\u03af\u03ba\u03c9\u03c0\u03b5\u03c2, and the phrase \u03b5\u1f36\u03b4\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f00\u03b3\u03b7\u03c4\u03bf\u1f76, (Il.\nv. 787. viii. 228.)\n\n~_Beauty of Nireus and others._~\n\nWe have yet to examine how far Homer makes beauty a title to\ndistinguished notice on behalf of those who have no other claim. The\npassage in the Catalogue, where Nireus is named[756], is highly curious\nwith reference to this part of the subject. It is as follows:\n\n[756] Il. ii. 671-5.\n\n \u039d\u03b9\u03c1\u03b5\u1f7a\u03c2 \u03b1\u1f56 \u03a3\u03cd\u03bc\u03b7\u03b8\u03b5\u03bd \u1f04\u03b3\u03b5 \u03c4\u03c1\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03bd\u1fc6\u03b1\u03c2 \u1f10\u0390\u03c3\u03b1\u03c2,\n \u039d\u03b9\u03c1\u03b5\u1f7a\u03c2, \u1f08\u03b3\u03bb\u03b1\u0390\u03b7\u03c2 \u03c5\u1f31\u1f78\u03c2 \u03a7\u03b1\u03c1\u03cc\u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u03cc \u03c4\u2019 \u1f04\u03bd\u03b1\u03ba\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2,\n \u039d\u03b9\u03c1\u03b5\u1f7a\u03c2, \u1f43\u03c2 \u03ba\u03ac\u03bb\u03bb\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f00\u03bd\u1f74\u03c1 \u1f51\u03c0\u1f78 \u1f3c\u03bb\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd \u1f26\u03bb\u03b8\u03b5\u03bd\n \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f04\u03bb\u03bb\u03c9\u03bd \u0394\u03b1\u03bd\u03b1\u1ff6\u03bd, \u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u2019 \u1f00\u03bc\u03cd\u03bc\u03bf\u03bd\u03b1 \u03a0\u03b7\u03bb\u03b5\u03af\u03c9\u03bd\u03b1\u00b7\n \u1f00\u03bb\u03bb\u2019 \u1f00\u03bb\u03b1\u03c0\u03b1\u03b4\u03bd\u1f78\u03c2 \u1f14\u03b7\u03bd, \u03c0\u03b1\u1fe6\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2 \u03b4\u03ad \u03bf\u1f31 \u03b5\u1f35\u03c0\u03b5\u03c4\u03bf \u03bb\u03b1\u03cc\u03c2.\n\nThese five lines form the largest of the merely personal descriptions\ncontained in the Catalogue. Yet they are given to a man, of whom we are\nfrankly told that he was a poor creature, and that he had but a small\nfollowing. Even this does not show the whole strength of the case.\n\n1. His ships were only three: no other commander, having so few, is\nnamed at all. The next smallest number is seven: these were the vessels\nof Philoctetes, and they seem to be named on account of his peculiar\nhistory and great merit.\n\n2. This is the only instance, in which the contingent supplied by a\nsingle and wholly insignificant place is named by itself.\n\n3. This is also one among very few cases of an ordinary birth, where\nthe mother (Agla\u00efe) is named as well as the father (Charopos): the\nothers are usually cases of reputed descent from deities or heroes.\n\n4. The names given to both parents are taken from their personal\nbeauty. They thus enhance the title of the son; and, as we cannot well\nsuppose them connected with history, they were probably invented by the\nPoet for that purpose.\n\n5. The repetition of the name of Nireus thrice, and in each case at\nthe beginning of the verse, the most prominent and emphatic part of it\naccording to the genius of the Greek hexameter, is plainly intentional.\n\n6. All this care is taken in the most ingenious manner to mark a man,\nwho did nothing to enable Homer to name him in any other part of the\nIliad.\n\nOne and one only key is to be found, which will lay open the cause of\nthese singular provisions: it is Homer\u2019s intense love of beauty, which\nmade it in his eyes of itself a title to celebrity. So he determined,\napparently, that the paragon of form should be immortal; and he has\ngiven effect to his determination, for no reader of the Iliad can pass\nby the place without remembering Nireus.\n\nIn a less marked manner, he has given a kindred emphasis to the case\nof Nastes, who wore golden ornaments, and therefore was presumably of\nstrikingly handsome person. With his brother Amphimachus he commanded\nthe Carians, and his name is mentioned thrice (but that of his brother\ntwice only), together with the fact that he wore gold like a girl[757].\n\n[757] Il. ii. 867.\n\nThere is something, as it appears to me, most tender and refined, in\nthis mode used by Homer of fastening attention through repetition of\nthe word, which he wishes gently but firmly to stamp upon the memory.\nWe have another instance of it in Il. xxii. 127,\n\n \u1f05\u03c4\u03b5 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b8\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f20\u0390\u03b8\u03b5\u03cc\u03c2 \u03c4\u03b5,\n \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b8\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f20\u0390\u03b8\u03b5\u03cc\u03c2 \u03c4\u2019 \u1f40\u03b1\u03c1\u03af\u03b6\u03b5\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd \u1f00\u03bb\u03bb\u03ae\u03bb\u03bf\u03b9\u03ca\u03bd.\n\nThere is yet another passage which affords a striking proof of what\nmay be called the worship of beauty in Homer. In the Seventeenth\nIliad, Euphorbus, the son of Panthoos, falls by the hand of Menelaus.\nHomer gives him great credit for charioteering, the use of the spear,\nand other accomplishments; but he performs no other feat in the poem\nthan that of wounding in the back the disarmed, and astounded, and\nheaven-deserted Patroclus. At best, we must call him a very secondary\npersonage. Though his personal comeliness was not defaced like that\nof Paris by cowardice or vice, still he was of the same race that in\nItaly has taken its name from Zerbino. Yet Homer adorns his death with\na notice, perhaps more conspicuous than any which he has attached to\nthe death of any warriors of the Iliad, with the exceptions of Hector,\nSarpedon, and Patroclus. Ten of the most beautiful lines of the poem\nare bestowed in lamenting him, chiefly by an unsurpassed simile, which\ncompares the youth to a tender olive shoot, the victim, when its\nblossoms are overcharged with moisture, of a sudden hurricane. The Poet\nwas moved to this tenderness by the remembrance of his beauty, of his\nhair, like the hair of the Graces, in its tresses bound with golden and\nsilver clasps[758].\n\n[758] Il. xvii. 50-60. Compare the sympathizing account of the death of\nthe _young_ bridegroom Iphidamas (Il. xi. 241-3).\n\n~_Beauty placed among the prime gifts._~\n\nAlthough it is true that Homer eschews with respect to beauty, as well\nas in other matters, the didactic mode of conveying his impressions,\nyet he has placed them distinctly on record in the answer of Ulysses to\nEuryalus. Speaking not at all of women, but of men, he places the gift\nof personal beauty among the prime endowments that can be received from\nthe providence of the gods, in a rank to which only two other gifts are\nadmitted, namely, the power of thought (\u03bd\u03cc\u03bf\u03c2 or \u03c6\u03c1\u03ad\u03bd\u03b5\u03c2), and the power\nof speech (\u1f00\u03b3\u03bf\u03c1\u03b7\u03c4\u03cd\u03c2). In the idea of personal beauty, conveyed under\nthe names \u03b5\u1f36\u03b4\u03bf\u03c2, \u03bc\u03bf\u03c1\u03c6\u1f74, and \u03c7\u03ac\u03c1\u03b9\u03c2, evidently included vigour and power,\nfor it is to his supposed incapacity for athletic exercises[759], that\nthe discourse has reference. Nor can it be said, that this full and\nlarge appreciation by Homer of the value of bodily excellence, was\nsimply a worldly or a pagan, as opposed to a Christian, view.\n\n[759] Od. viii. 167-77.\n\nIt is not true, on the one hand, that when we cease to entertain\nsufficiently elevated views of the destiny and prerogatives of the\nsoul, our standard for the body rises either in proportion or at all.\nNor is it true, on the other, that when we think highly of the soul,\nwe ought in consequence to think meanly of the body, which is both its\ntabernacle and its helpmate. In truth, a somewhat sickly cast seems\nto have come over our tone of thought now for some generations back,\nthe product, perhaps, in part of careless or emasculated teaching\nin the highest matters, and due also in part to the overcrowding of\nthe several functions of our life. But Homer distinctly realized to\nhimself what we know faintly or scarce at all, though nothing is more\nemphatically or conspicuously taught by our religion, namely, that the\nbody is part and parcel of the integer denominated man.\n\nBut the quality of measure ran in rare proportion through all the\nconceptions of the Poet. Stature was a great element of beauty in the\nview of the ancients for women as well as for men: and their admiration\nof tallness, even in women, is hardly restrained by a limit. But\nHomer, who frequently touches the point, has provided a limit. Among\nthe L\u00e6strygonians, the women are of enormous size. Two of the crew of\nUlysses, sent forward to make inquiries, are introduced to the queen.\nThey find her \u2018as big as a mountain,\u2019 and are disgusted at her[760]:\n\n[760] Od. x. 112.\n\n \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03b4\u1f72 \u03b3\u03c5\u03bd\u03b1\u1fd6\u03ba\u03b1\n \u03b5\u1f57\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd \u1f45\u03c3\u03b7\u03bd \u03c4\u2019 \u1f44\u03c1\u03b5\u03bf\u03c2 \u03ba\u03bf\u03c1\u03c5\u03c6\u1f74\u03bd, \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u1f70 \u03b4\u2019 \u1f14\u03c3\u03c4\u03c5\u03b3\u03bf\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03ae\u03bd.\n\nThe large humanity of Homer is also manifested, among other signs, by\nhis sympathy with high qualities in the animal creation. There is no\npassage of deeper pathos in all his works, not Andromache with her\nchild, not Priam before Achilles, than that which recounts the death\nof the dog Argus[761]. The words too are so calm and still, they seem\nto grow faint and fainter, each foot of the verse falls as if it were\ncounting out the last respirations, and, in effect, we witness that\nlast slight and scarcely fluttering breath, with which life is yielded\nup:\n\n[761] Od. xvii. 327.\n\n \u1f0c\u03c1\u03b3\u03bf\u03bd \u03b4\u2019 \u03b1\u1f56 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u1f70 \u039c\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c1\u2019 \u1f14\u03bb\u03b1\u03b2\u03b5\u03bd \u03bc\u03ad\u03bb\u03b1\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 \u03b8\u03b1\u03bd\u03ac\u03c4\u03bf\u03b9\u03bf,\n \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03af\u03ba\u2019 \u1f30\u03b4\u03cc\u03bd\u03c4\u2019 \u1f48\u03b4\u03c5\u03c3\u1fc6\u03b1, \u1f10\u03b5\u03b9\u03ba\u03bf\u03c3\u03c4\u1ff7 \u1f10\u03bd\u03b9\u03b1\u03c5\u03c4\u1ff7.\n\nWe may also trace the same sympathy in minor forms. As, for\ninstance, where he says Telemachus went to the Ithacan assembly not\nunattended[762]:\n\n[762] Od. ii. 10.\n\n \u03b2\u1fc6 \u1fe5\u2019 \u1f34\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u1f00\u03b3\u03bf\u03c1\u1f74\u03bd, \u03c0\u03b1\u03bb\u03ac\u03bc\u1fc3 \u03b4\u2019 \u1f14\u03c7\u03b5 \u03c7\u03ac\u03bb\u03ba\u03b5\u03bf\u03bd \u1f14\u03b3\u03c7\u03bf\u03c2,\n \u03bf\u1f50\u03ba \u03bf\u1f36\u03bf\u03c2.\n\nWe are certainly prepared to hear that some adviser, either divine or\nat the least human, some friend or faithful servant, was by his side:\nbut no--it is simply that some dogs went with him:\n\n \u1f05\u03bc\u03b1 \u03c4\u1ff7\u03b3\u03b5 \u03ba\u03cd\u03bd\u03b5\u03c2 \u03c0\u03cc\u03b4\u03b1\u03c2 \u1f00\u03c1\u03b3\u03bf\u1f76 \u1f15\u03c0\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf.\n\nThere is no sign, however, that Homer attached the peculiar idea of\nbeauty to the race of dogs in any remarkable degree. Indeed, it is only\nin certain breeds that the dog can be called by comparison a beautiful\nanimal. What he always commends is their swiftness; and Homer\u2019s ideas\nof beauty were nowhere more lively than in regard to motion. But we see\nthe Poet\u2019s feeling for form much more characteristically displayed in\nthe case to which we shall now proceed.\n\n~_Beauty in animals, especially horses._~\n\nAmong other inferences which the poems raise in respect to Homer\nhimself, it can hardly be doubted that he was a great lover of horses,\nand felt their beauty, partially in colour, much more in form, and in\nmovement most of all.\n\nThis was quite in keeping with the habits of his country and his race.\nBoth the Trojans and the Greeks appear not only to have employed horses\nin such uses as war, journeys, races, and agricultural labour, but to\nhave given attention to developing the breeds and points of the animal.\nIn his Catalogue, Homer, at the close, invokes the Muse to inform him\nwhich were the best of the horses, as well as of the heroes, on the\nGreek side. He constantly uses epithets both for Trojans and Greeks\nconnected with their successful care and training of the animal:\n\u03b5\u1f54\u03b9\u03c0\u03c0\u03bf\u03c2, \u03b5\u1f54\u03c0\u03c9\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2, \u03c4\u03b1\u03c7\u03cd\u03c0\u03c9\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2, \u1f31\u03c0\u03c0\u03cc\u03b4\u03b1\u03bc\u03bf\u03c2.\n\nHe not only treasures the traditions connected with the animal, but\ntreats them as a part of history. Accordingly, when Diomed desires\nSthenelus to make sure of the horses of \u00c6neas he carefully proceeds to\nstate, that it is because their sires were of the race that Jupiter\ngave to Tros. To them Anchises, without the knowledge of their owner\nLaomedon, brought his own mares, and so obtained a progeny of six:\nof whom he kept four himself, and gave two to his son \u00c6neas (Il. v.\n265-73) that he might take them to Troy.\n\nNay he goes back further yet: where, except in Homer, should we find a\ntradition like that of the mares of Erichthonius, fetched from a time\nfive generations before his subject? Their children had Boreas for\ntheir sire. Three thousand mothers ranged over the plains of the Troad,\nand made their lord the wealthiest of men. So light was their footstep,\nthat if they skimmed the sea it touched the tips only of the curling\nfoam; and if they raced over the cornfield, the ripe ears sustained\ntheir tread without one being broken[763].\n\n[763] Il. xx. 220-9.\n\n~_As to movement, form, and colour._~\n\nIn other places Homer describes with no less of sympathetic emotion the\nvivid and fiery movements of the animal. The most remarkable of all is\nthe noble simile of the stall-kept horse, whom every reader seems to\nsee as with proud head and flowing mane, when he feels his liberty, he\nscours the boundless pastures.\n\nThat adaptation, or effort at adaptation, of sound to sense, which with\npoets in general (always excepting especially Dante and Shakespeare,)\nis a sign that they have applied their whole force to careful\nelaboration, is with Homer only a proof of a fuller and deeper flow\nof his sympathies: wherever we find it, we may be sure that his whole\nheart is in the passage. In this very simile how admirable is the\ntransition from the fine stationary verse that describes the charger\u2019s\ncustomary bathe,\n\n \u03b5\u1f30\u03c9\u03b8\u1f7c\u03c2 \u03bb\u03bf\u03cd\u03b5\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9 \u1f10\u03cb\u03c1\u03c1\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c0\u03bf\u03c4\u03b1\u03bc\u03bf\u1fd6\u03bf,\n\nto his rapid and easy bounding over the plain, when every dactyl marks\na spring[764];\n\n[764] Il. vi. 511.\n\n \u1fe5\u03af\u03bc\u03c6\u03b1 \u1f11 \u03b3\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd\u03b1 \u03c6\u03ad\u03c1\u03b5\u03b9 \u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u03ac \u03c4\u2019 \u1f24\u03b8\u03b5\u03b1 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03bd\u03cc\u03bc\u03bf\u03bd \u1f35\u03c0\u03c0\u03c9\u03bd.\n\nFor this adaptation of metre to sense in connection with the movement\nof horses, we may take another example. To describe Agamemnon dealing\ndestruction among the routed Trojans on foot, we have a line and a half\nof somewhat accelerated but by no means very rapid movement[765];\n\n[765] Il. xi. 158.\n\n \u1f63\u03c2 \u1f04\u03c1\u2019 \u1f51\u03c0\u2019 \u1f08\u03c4\u03c1\u03b5\u03af\u03b4\u1fc3 \u1f08\u03b3\u03b1\u03bc\u03ad\u03bc\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd\u03b9 \u03c0\u1fd6\u03c0\u03c4\u03b5 \u03ba\u03ac\u03c1\u03b7\u03bd\u03b1\n \u03a4\u03c1\u03ce\u03c9\u03bd \u03c6\u03b5\u03c5\u03b3\u03cc\u03bd\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd.\n\nBut when he comes to the Trojan horses in their flight, we have two\nlines, dactylic to the utmost extent that the metre will allow, except\nin one half-foot;\n\n \u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03bb\u03bf\u1f76 \u03b4\u2019 \u1f10\u03c1\u03b9\u03b1\u03cd\u03c7\u03b5\u03bd\u03b5\u03c2 \u1f35\u03c0\u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\n \u03ba\u03b5\u03af\u03bd\u2019 \u1f44\u03c7\u03b5\u03b1 \u03ba\u03c1\u03bf\u03c4\u03ac\u03bb\u03b9\u03b6\u03bf\u03bd \u1f00\u03bd\u1f70 \u03c0\u03c4\u03bf\u03bb\u03ad\u03bc\u03bf\u03b9\u03bf \u03b3\u03b5\u03c6\u03cd\u03c1\u03b1\u03c2,\n \u1f21\u03bd\u03b9\u03cc\u03c7\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 \u03c0\u03bf\u03b8\u03ad\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 \u1f00\u03bc\u03cd\u03bc\u03bf\u03bd\u03b1\u03c2.\n\nThen, coming back to the dead charioteers, he visibly slackens again;\n\n \u03bf\u1f31 \u03b4\u2019 \u1f10\u03c0\u1f76 \u03b3\u03b1\u03af\u1fc3\n \u03ba\u03b5\u03af\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf, \u03b3\u03cd\u03c0\u03b5\u03c3\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u1f7a \u03c6\u03af\u03bb\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03b9 \u1f22 \u1f00\u03bb\u03cc\u03c7\u03bf\u03b9\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd.\n\nTo exhibit numerically the relative distribution of times in these\nmembers of the sentence, we have these three very different proportions;\n\n In the first, 13 long syllables to 8 short.\n\n In the second, 16 long syllables to 22 short.\n\n In the third, 11 long syllables to 10 short.\n\nHe has imparted much of the same glowing movement to the speech,\nwhich in the Nineteenth Iliad is assigned to the Immortal horses of\nAchilles; though the subject includes a reference to the death of their\nmaster[766]. In nearly every line, throughout the passage, that relates\nto their own motion, the number of dactyls is at the maximum, and in\nthe ten lines there are eighty-six short syllables to sixty long ones;\na proportion, which I doubt our finding elsewhere in Homer, except it\nbe among the similes, to which Homer seems in many cases to give a\npeculiarly elastic prosodial movement.\n\n[766] Il. xix. 408-17.\n\nRhesus, king of the Thracians, who arrives at Troy after the\ncommencement of the Wrath, becomes sufficiently distinguished for the\ncentral point of interest in the Doloneia, by virtue chiefly of his\nhorses. They are the most beautiful, says Dolon, and the largest that\nI have ever seen[767];\n\n[767] Il. x. 437.\n\n \u03bb\u03b5\u03c5\u03ba\u03cc\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03b9 \u03c7\u03b9\u03cc\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2, \u03b8\u03b5\u03af\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd \u03b4\u2019 \u1f00\u03bd\u03ad\u03bc\u03bf\u03b9\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u1f41\u03bc\u03bf\u1fd6\u03bf\u03b9.\n\nThe justice of this panegyric is corroborated by the emphatic\nexpression of Nestor, who pronounces them,\n\n \u03b1\u1f30\u03bd\u1ff6\u03c2 \u1f00\u03ba\u03c4\u03af\u03bd\u03b5\u03c3\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u1f10\u03bf\u03b9\u03ba\u03cc\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 \u1f20\u03b5\u03bb\u03af\u03bf\u03b9\u03bf\u00b7\n\nand their unparalleled excellence forms the subject of the speech of\nthe old king, on the return of Ulysses and Diomed to the camp[768].\n\n[768] Il. x. 544-53.\n\nIt is not only, however, in elaborate pictures that Homer shows his\nfeeling for horses, but also, and not less markedly, in minor touches.\nDoes he not speak with the manifest feeling of a skilled admirer of the\nanimal, when he describes the pair driven by Eumelus, rapid as birds,\nthe same in shade of colour, the same in years, the same to a hair\u2019s\nbreadth in height across their backs[769]?\n\n[769] Il. ii. 764.\n\n \u03c0\u03bf\u03b4\u03ce\u03ba\u03b5\u03b1\u03c2, \u1f44\u03c1\u03bd\u03b9\u03b8\u03b1\u03c2 \u1f63\u03c2,\n \u1f44\u03c4\u03c1\u03b9\u03c7\u03b1\u03c2, \u03bf\u1f30\u03ad\u03c4\u03b5\u03b1\u03c2, \u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u03c6\u03cd\u03bb\u1fc3 \u1f10\u03c0\u1f76 \u03bd\u1ff6\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd \u1f10\u0390\u03c3\u03b1\u03c2.\n\nAgain, we are met by the same feeling which, in a bolder flight, made\nthe horses of Rhesus weep, when Pandarus falls headlong from the\nchariot of \u00c6neas, and his arms rattle over him in death. The horses,\ninstead of plunging or starting off, with a finer feeling tremble by\nthe corpse[770];\n\n[770] Il. v. 295.\n\n \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03ad\u03c4\u03c1\u03b5\u03c3\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd \u03b4\u03ad \u03bf\u1f31 \u1f35\u03c0\u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\n \u1f60\u03ba\u03cd\u03c0\u03bf\u03b4\u03b5\u03c2.\n\nWe may trace the same disposition, under a lighter and more amusing\nform, in what had already passed between \u00c6neas and Pandarus. Pandarus\nhad excused himself for not having brought a chariot and horses to\nTroy, on account of his fears about finding forage for them where\nsuch crowds were to be gathered into a small space; at the same time\ndescribing, rather boastfully, his father Lycaon\u2019s eleven carriages\nwith a pair for each. (Il. v. 192-203.) \u00c6neas replies by inviting him\ninto his chariot when he will see what Trojan horses are like. Then, he\ncontinues, do you fight, and I will drive; or, as you may choose, do\nyou drive, and I will fight. Pandarus immediately replies, that \u00c6neas\nhad better by all means be the driver of his own horses.\n\nThen again, Homer will have the utmost care taken of them; and, so to\nspeak, he looks to it himself. When he describes them as unemployed, he\nspecifies their food; those of Achilles during the Wrath stand[771],\n\n[771] Il. ii. 776.\n\n \u03bb\u03c9\u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u1f10\u03c1\u03b5\u03c0\u03c4\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9 \u1f10\u03bb\u03b5\u03cc\u03b8\u03c1\u03b5\u03c0\u03c4\u03cc\u03bd \u03c4\u03b5 \u03c3\u03ad\u03bb\u03b9\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd.\n\nBut those of Lycaon, which had remained at home, were[772]\n\n[772] Il. v. 196.\n\n \u03ba\u03c1\u1fd6 \u03bb\u03b5\u03c5\u03ba\u1f78\u03bd \u1f10\u03c1\u03b5\u03c0\u03c4\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f40\u03bb\u03cd\u03c1\u03b1\u03c2.\n\nTo each he gives the appropriate provender: to the former, in an\nencampment, what the grassy marsh by its side afforded: to the latter,\nin a king\u2019s palace, the grain, or hard food, of their proper home.\n\nAnd so in the night-adventure of the Tenth Book, when Ulysses drags\naway the bodies of those Thracians whom Diomed has slain, it is to make\na clear path for the horses of Rhesus which were to be carried off,\nthat they may not take fright from treading on corpses[773];\n\n[773] Il. x. 489-93.\n\n \u03bd\u03b5\u03ba\u03c1\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u1f00\u03bc\u03b2\u03b1\u03af\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2\u00b7 \u1f00\u03ae\u03b8\u03b5\u03c3\u03c3\u03bf\u03bd \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u1f14\u03c4\u2019 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd.\n\nThroughout the chariot-race, in the Twenty-third Book, we find them\nuppermost in the Poet\u2019s mind, though the drivers, being his prime\nheroes, are not wholly forgotten.\n\nEven as to colour, of which Homer\u2019s perceptions appear to have been\nso vague, it may be remarked, that he employs it somewhat more freely\nwith reference to horses, than to other objects having definite form or\npowers of locomotion.\n\nBut his liveliest conceptions of them are with respect to motion,\nform, and feelings: and I suppose there is no poem like the Iliad for\ncharacteristic touches in respect to any of the three.\n\n~_Beauty in inanimate nature._~\n\nIt has been much debated whether the ancients generally, and whether\nHomer in particular, had any distinct idea of beauty in landscape.\n\nIt may be admitted, even in respect to Homer, that his similes, to\nwhich one would naturally look for proof, less commonly refer to the\neye than to other faculties. They commonly turn upon sound, motion,\nforce, or multitude: rarely, in comparison, upon colour, or even upon\nform; still more rarely upon colour or form in such combinations as to\nconstitute what we call the picturesque.\n\nIt seems to me, that we may draw the best materials of a demonstration\nin this case from comparing his descriptions of the form of scenery\nby means of the outlines of countries, with his use of other epithets\nwhich he employs to denote beauty.\n\nThe country of Laced\u00e6mon was mountainous, and it is hence termed by\nHomer in the Odyssey and in the Catalogue, \u03ba\u03bf\u03b9\u03bb\u03ae. (Il. ii. 581, Od. iv.\n1.)\n\nBut it is also termed by him \u1f10\u03c1\u03b1\u03c4\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd\u1f74 (Il. iii. 239), and this, it may\nbe observed, in a speech of Helen\u2019s; to whom, while she was at Troy,\nthe image of it in memory could hardly, perhaps, be agreeable from any\nmoral association. We are, therefore, led to refer it to the physical\nconformation or beauty of the district.\n\nNext, we have pretty clear proof that in Homer\u2019s mind the epithet\n\u1f10\u03c1\u03b1\u03c4\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd\u1f74 was one proper to describe beauty in the strictest sense. For\nhe says of Helen, with regard to her daughter Hermione[774]:\n\n[774] Od. iv. 13.\n\n \u1f10\u03b3\u03b5\u03af\u03bd\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf \u03c0\u03b1\u1fd6\u03b4\u2019 \u1f10\u03c1\u03b1\u03c4\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd\u1f74\u03bd,\n \u1f19\u03c1\u03bc\u03b9\u03cc\u03bd\u03b7\u03bd, \u1f23 \u03b5\u1f36\u03b4\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f14\u03c7\u03b5 \u03c7\u03c1\u03c5\u03c3\u1fc6\u03c2 \u1f08\u03c6\u03c1\u03bf\u03b4\u03af\u03c4\u03b7\u03c2.\n\n\u2018She had a lovely (\u1f10\u03c1\u03b1\u03c4\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd\u1f74\u03bd) daughter, endowed with the beauty of\ngolden Aphrodite.\u2019 And I observe but few passages in Homer, perhaps\nonly one (Od. xxiii. 300), when \u1f10\u03c1\u03b1\u03c4\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd\u1f78\u03c2 does not naturally and\nproperly bear this sense. A sense etymologically analogous to our own\nuse of the word _lovely_, which we employ to indicate not only beauty,\nbut a high degree of it.\n\nIt therefore appears to be clear that Homer called Laced\u00e6mon \u1f10\u03c1\u03b1\u03c4\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd\u1f74,\nbecause it was shaped in mountain and valley, and because countries\nso formed present a beautiful appearance to the eye, as compared with\ncountries of other forms less marked. It is applied to Emathia (Il.\nxiv. 225) and to Scheria (Od. vii. 79), both mountainous; to the city\nIlios, (Il. v. 210), which stood on ground high and partially abrupt\nnear the roots of Ida; and I do not find it in any place of the poems\nassociated with flat lands.\n\nThe other instance which I shall cite seems to present the argument in\na complete form, within the compass of a single line.\n\nWhen describing Ithaca in the Odyssey, Telemachus says it is[775],\n\n[775] Od. iv. 606.\n\n \u03b1\u1f30\u03b3\u03af\u03b2\u03bf\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03bc\u1fb6\u03bb\u03bb\u03bf\u03bd \u1f10\u03c0\u03ae\u03c1\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f31\u03c0\u03c0\u03bf\u03b2\u03cc\u03c4\u03bf\u03b9\u03bf.\n\nHere we may assume that by \u03b1\u1f30\u03b3\u03af\u03b2\u03bf\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2, goat-feeding, he means\nmountainous, and even sharp and rocky; moreover consequently, in\ncomparison, barren, so that it could not be agreeable in the sense of\nbeing profitable. On the other hand, the horse is an animal ill-suited\nto range among rocks; and by \u1f31\u03c0\u03c0\u03cc\u03b2\u03bf\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 Homer always means a district or\ncountry sufficiently open and plain to be suitable for feeding horses\nin numbers. Now, in saying that Arran is more \u1f10\u03c0\u03ae\u03c1\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 than southern\nLancashire, we should leave no doubt upon the mind of any reader as\nto the meaning; which must surely be that it offers more beauty to the\neye. Just such a comparison does Homer make of the scenery of Ithaca as\nit was with what it would have been, if the island had been flat.\n\nI ought however to notice the very forced interpretation of Damm, which\nis this: _\u03bc\u1fb6\u03bb\u03bb\u03bf\u03bd \u1f10\u03c0\u03ae\u03c1\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2, sc. \u1f10\u03bc\u03bf\u1f76, nam est patria mea; et ad \u03bc\u1fb6\u03bb\u03bb\u03bf\u03bd\nsubintelligit \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c3\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f0c\u03c1\u03b3\u03b5\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c6\u03af\u03bb\u03b7 \u03bc\u03bf\u03b9 \u1f14\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9_.\n\nHomer was better versed in the art of wedding words to thought, than\nsuch an interpretation supposes. For, according to it, the thought\nof Homer was this; \u2018Though you rule over broad and open Argos, my\nmountainous Ithaca is dearer to me, _because it is my country_.\u2019 So\nthat he has left out the point of the sentence, without the faintest\ntrace to guide his reader. The idea of the sentence, which is prolonged\nthrough many verses, turns entirely on the difference between an\nopen and a steep rocky country as such, and not in the least on\nnative attachments. And Telemachus, who is lauding the richness and\nfertility of Argos, and apologizing for the barrenness of Ithaca,\nnot ungracefully, in passing, throws in, by way of compensation, the\nelement of beauty, as one possessed by Ithaca, and as one which it must\nmiss if it were flat.\n\nIndeed, we here trace the usual refinement of Homer in this, that\nTelemachus does not say, True, your Argos is rich, but my Ithaca is\npicturesque: but, after commending the fertility of broad Argos, he\nsays, \u2018In Ithaca we have no broad runs[776], and nothing like a meadow:\nit will feed nothing but goats, yet it is more picturesque than if\n_it_, a little speck of that kind, were flat and open.\u2019\n\n[776] He uses the phrase \u03b4\u03c1\u03cc\u03bc\u03bf\u03b9 \u03b5\u1f50\u03c1\u03ad\u03b5\u03c2. It is curious to find the word\n_runs_, so recently re-established as the classical word for the large\nopen spaces of pasturage in the regions of Australasia.\n\nThe word \u1f10\u03c0\u03ae\u03c1\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 is less frequently used in Homer than \u1f10\u03c1\u03b1\u03c4\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd\u03cc\u03c2;\nbut we have it in six places besides this. There is only one of them\nwhere it is capable of meaning dear, in connection with the idea of\ncountry[777]. In another it means enjoyable or splendid, being applied\nto the banquet[778]. In the other places it is applied to a town on the\nShield, a cavern in Ithaca (twice), and the garments put upon Venus in\nCyprus; and in those four places it can only mean fair or beautiful.\n\n[777] Il. xxii. 121.\n\n[778] Il. ix. 228.\n\nWe are not, then, justified in limiting Homer\u2019s sense of natural beauty\nto what was associated with utility[779]. On the contrary, it appears\nplainly to extend to beauty proper, and even to that kind of beauty in\nnature which we of the present day most love.\n\n[779] See Mr. Cope\u2019s Essay on the Picturesque among the Greeks;\nCambridge Essays, 1856. p. 126.\n\nI have dealt thus far with the most doubtful part of the question, and\nhave ventured to dissent from Mr. Ruskin, whose authority I admit, and\nof whose superior insight, as well as of his extraordinary powers of\nexpression, I am fully conscious.\n\n~_Germ of feeling for the picturesque._~\n\nMr. Ruskin thinks[780] that \u2018Homer has no trace of feeling for what we\ncall the picturesque\u2019; that Telemachus apologizes for the scenery of\nIthaca; and that rocks are never loved but as caves. I think that the\nexpressions I have produced from the text show that these propositions\ncannot be sustained. At the same time I admit that the feeling with\nHomer is one in the bud only: as, indeed, until within a very few\ngenerations, it has lain undeveloped among ourselves. Homer may have\nbeen the father of this sentiment for his nation, as he was of so much\nbesides. But the plant did not grow up kindly among those who followed\nhim.\n\n[780] Ruskin\u2019s Modern Painters, part iv. chap. xiii. pp. 189-92.\n\nI assent entirely, on the other hand, to what Mr. Ruskin has said\nrespecting his sense of orderly beauty in common nature. The garden\nof Alcinous is truly Dutch in its quadrangular conceptions; but it is\nplain that the Poet means us to regard it as truly beautiful[781].\nSymmetry, serenity, regularity, adopted from the forms of living beauty\nwhich were before him, enter largely into Homer\u2019s conceptions of one\nform, at least, of inanimate beauty.\n\n[781] Od. vii. 112-32.\n\nThe scenery of the cave of Calypso[782] is less restrained in its cast,\nthan is the garden in Scheria; but even here Homer introduces four\nfountains, which compose a regular figure, and are evidently meant\nto supply an element of form which was required by the fashionable\nstandard.\n\n[782] Od. v. 63-75.\n\nAnother element of landscape, as we understand it, is, that the natural\nobjects which it represents should be in rather extensive combination;\nand our established traditions would also require that the view of them\nshould be modified by the rendering of the atmosphere, especially with\nreference to the scale of distances.\n\nIt is very difficult to find instances of extended landscape in Homer.\nBut I think that we have at least one, in the famed simile, where he\ncompares the Trojan watchfires on the plain to the calm night, which\nby the light of moon and stars exhibits a breadth of prospect to the\nrejoicing shepherd\u2019s eye. Here are certainly tranquillity and order;\nbut with them we seem also to have both extent and atmosphere; to which\neven bold and even broken outline must be added by those who, like\nmyself, are not prepared to surrender to the destroying \u1f44\u03b2\u03b5\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2 the\nline[783]\n\n[783] Il. viii. 557.\n\n \u1f14\u03ba \u03c4\u2019 \u1f14\u03c6\u03b1\u03bd\u03b5\u03bd \u03c0\u1fb6\u03c3\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c3\u03ba\u03bf\u03c0\u03b9\u03b1\u1f76, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c0\u03c1\u03ce\u03bf\u03bd\u03b5\u03c2 \u1f04\u03ba\u03c1\u03bf\u03b9.\n\nUpon the whole, considering Homer\u2019s early date, and the very late\ndevelopment among the moderns of a taste for scenery of the picturesque\nand romantic order, I do not know that we are entitled even at first\nsight to challenge him as inferior to any modern of analogous date\nin this province. Yet we may fairly pronounce that he is inferior to\nhimself; that is to say, he appears to have a sense of beauty, in the\nregion of inanimate nature, certainly less keen in proportion than\nthat, with which he looked upon the animated creation.\n\nWhat is deficient in him with respect to landscape may however, in all\nlikelihood, be more justly referred to positive than to negative causes.\n\n~_Causes adverse to a more developed feeling._~\n\nIt may be questioned whether the disposition to appreciate still\nnature, especially in large and elaborated combinations, may not in\npart depend upon conditions that were not to be found in the age of\nHomer. I should say, if the expression may be allowed, that we of this\ngeneration take landscape medicinally. Human life grows with the course\nof ages; and, especially in our age, it has grown to be excited and\nhurried. But nature has a reacting tendency towards repose; and, even\nin the case of the grosser stimulants, it seems to be their soothing\npower which most helps to recommend them. Besides the fact, however,\nthat we have wants which the Greeks had not, this subject may be\nregarded in a broader view.\n\nThe mind of Homer and the mind of his age were not addicted even to\ncontemplation, far less to introspection. Of ideas properly subjective\nthere are very few indeed to be found in the poems. We have one such\nfurnished by the passage where he equates thought to a wing, in a\nsimile for the swift ships of the Ph\u00e6acians,\n\n \u1f61\u03c3\u03b5\u1f76 \u03c0\u03c4\u03ad\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd \u1f20\u1f72 \u03bd\u03cc\u03b7\u03bc\u03b1.\n\nAnd another, the most remarkable that he supplies, when in more detail\nhe uses the motion of a thought for an illustration of the rapid flight\nof Juno[784].\n\n[784] Il. xv. 80.\n\nEven when it became speculative, the Greek mind did not give a\nsubjective turn to its speculations. It was probably Christianity\nwhich, by the stimulus it applied to the general conscience, first gave\nmankind the introspective habit on a large scale; and mixed causes\nmay often render the tendency excessive and morbid. But the tendency\nof the heroic age, standing at its maximum in Homer, was to pour life\noutward, nay almost to force it into every thing. The fountain from\nwithin overflowed; and its surplus went to make inanimate nature\nbreathe. The profuse and easy fertility of Homer in simile surely of\nitself demonstrates a wonderful observation and appreciation of nature;\nbut, as has been remarked, these similes are very rarely indeed _still_\nsimiles. They delight in sound, in multitude, above all in motion.\nThe automatic chairs of Vulcan, the living theatre of the Shield of\nAchilles, that oldest mirror of our world, the bounding armour of the\nsame hero, what are all these but the proofs of that redundant energy\nof life, whose first resistless impulse it was to carry the vital fire\nof Prometheus into every object that it encountered, and which, not yet\nhaving felt the palsying touch of exhaustion, lay under no necessity of\ncurative provisions for repose? Therefore, while admitting the defect\nof Homer with respect to colour, and admitting also that landscape (if\nwe are to understand by it the elaborate combination of natural objects\nreaching over considerable distances) is a great addition to the\nenjoyment and wealth of mankind, I think the capital explanation of the\nquestion raised is to be found, not in the want of any space, or of any\nfaculty, in the mind of Homer, but in the fact that the space and the\nfaculties were all occupied with more active and vivifying functions;\nthat the beautiful forms in nature, which we see as beautiful forms\nonly, were to him the hem of the garments, as it were, of that life\nwith which all nature teemed. Accordingly, the general rule of the\npoems is, that where we should be passive, he is active; that which we\nthink it much to contemplate with satisfaction, he is ever at work,\nwith a bolder energy and a keener pleasure, to vivify. We deal with\nexternal nature, as it were unrifled; he saw in it only the residue\nwhich remained to it, after it had at every point thrown off its cream\nin supernatural formations. His uplifting and vitalizing process is\neverywhere at work. Animate nature is raised even to divinity; and\ninanimate nature is borne upward into life.\n\nIf, then, Homer sees less in the mere sensible forms of natural objects\nthan we do, it probably is in a great degree because the genius of his\npeople and his own genius had taught him to invest them with a soul,\nwhich drew up into itself the best of their attractions. Mr. Ruskin\nmost justly tells us, with reference to the sea, that he cuts off\nfrom the material object the sense of something living, and fashions\nit into a great abstract image of a sea-power[785]. Yet it is not, I\nthink, quite true, that the Poet leaves in the watery mass no element\nof life. On the contrary, I should say the key to his whole treatment\nof external nature is to be found in this one proposition: wheresoever\nwe look for figure, he looks for life. His waves (as well as his fire)\nwhen they are stirred[786], shout, in the very word (\u1f30\u03ac\u03c7\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd) that\nhe gives to the Assembly of Ach\u00e6ans: when they break in foam, they\nput on the plume of the warrior\u2019s helmet[787] (\u03ba\u03bf\u03c1\u03cd\u03c3\u03c3\u03b5\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9): when\ntheir lord drives over them, they open wide for joy[788]: and when he\nstrides upon the field of battle, they, too, boil upon the shore, in an\nirrepressible sympathy with his effort and emotion[789].\n\n[785] Modern Painters, part iv. ch. xiii. p. 174.\n\n[786] Il. xxiii. 216. i. 482.\n\n[787] Il. iv. 424.\n\n[788] \u0393\u03b7\u03b8\u03bf\u03c3\u03cd\u03bd\u1fc3 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03b8\u03ac\u03bb\u03b1\u03c3\u03c3\u03b1 \u03b4\u03b9\u0390\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf, Il. xiii. 29.\n\n[789] Il. xiv. 392.\n\n\nSECT. III.\n\n_Homer\u2019s perceptions and use of Number._\n\nWhile the faculties of Homer were in many respects both intense and\nrefined in their action, beyond all ordinary, perhaps we might say\nbeyond all modern, examples, there were other points in which they\nbear the marks of having been less developed than is now common even\namong the mass of many civilized nations. In the power of abstraction\nand distinct introspective contemplation, it is not improbable that he\nwas inferior to the generality of educated men in the present day. In\nsome other lower faculties, he is probably excelled by the majority\nof the population of this country, nay even by many of the children\nin its schools. I venture to specify, as examples of the last-named\nproposition, the faculties of number, and of colour. It may be true of\none or both of these, that a certain indistinctness in the perception\nof them is incidental everywhere to the early stages of society. But\nyet it is surprising to find it where, as with Homer, it accompanies a\nremarkable quickness and maturity not only of great mental powers, but\nof certain other perceptions more akin to number and colour, such as\nthose of motion, of sound, and of form. But let us proceed to examine,\nin the first place, the former of these two subjects.\n\nIt may be observed at the outset, that probably none of us are aware\nto how great an extent our aptitudes with respect to these matters are\ntraditionary, and dependent therefore not upon ourselves, but upon\nthe acquisitions made by the human race before our birth, and upon\nthe degree in which those acquisitions have circulated, and have been\nas it were filtered through and through the community, so as to take\ntheir place among the elementary ideas, impressions, and habits of\nthe population. For such parts of human knowledge, as have attained\nto this position, are usually gained by each successive generation\nthrough the medium of that insensible training, which begins from the\nvery earliest infancy, and which precedes by a great interval all the\nsystematic, and even all the conscious, processes of education. Nor am\nI for one prepared by any means to deny that there may be an actual\n\u2018traducianism\u2019 in the case: on the contrary, in full consistency with\nthe teaching of experience, we may believe that the acquired aptitudes\nof one generation may become, in a greater or a less degree, the\ninherited and inborn aptitudes of another.\n\nWe must, therefore, reckon upon finding a set of marked differences in\nthe relative degrees of advancement among different human faculties in\ndifferent stages of society, which shall be simply referable to the\nsource now pointed out, and distinct altogether from such variations\nas are referable to other causes. It is not difficult to admit this to\nbe true in general: but the question, whether in the case before us\nit applies to number and colour, can of course only be decided by an\nexamination of the Homeric text.\n\nYet, before we enter upon this examination, let us endeavour to throw\nsome further light upon the general aspect of the proposition, which\nhas just been laid down.\n\nOf all visible things, colour is to our English eye the most striking.\nOf all ideas, as conceived by the English mind, number appears to be\nthe most rigidly definite, so that we adopt it as a standard for\nreducing all other things to definiteness; as when we say that this\nfield or this house is five, ten, or twenty times as large as that.\nOur merchants, and even our schoolchildren, are good calculators. So\nthat there is a sense of something strikingly paradoxical, to us in\nparticular, when we speak of Homer as having had only indeterminate\nideas of these subjects.\n\n~_Conceptions of Number not always definite._~\n\nThere are however two practical instances, which may be cited to\nillustrate the position, that number is not a thing to be as matter\nof course definitely conceived in the mind. One of these is the case\nof very young children. To them the very lowest numbers are soon\nintelligible, but all beyond the lowest are not so, and only present\na vague sense of multitude, that cannot be severed into its component\nparts. The distinctive mark of a clear arithmetical conception is, that\nthe mind at one and the same time embraces the two ideas, first of the\naggregate, secondly of each one of the units which make it up. This\ndouble operation of the brain becomes more arduous, as we ascend higher\nin the scale. I have heard a child, put to count beads or something of\nthe sort, reckon them thus: \u2018One, two, three, four, a hundred.\u2019 The\nfirst words express his ideas, the last one his despair. Up to four,\nhis mind could contain the joint ideas of unity and of severalty, but\nnot beyond; so he then passed to an expression wholly general, and\nmeant to express a sense like that of the word multitude.\n\nBut though the transition from number definitely conceived to number\nwithout bounds is like launching into a sea, yet the conception of\nmultitude itself is in one sense susceptible of degree. We may have\nthe idea of a limited, or of an unbounded, multitude. The essential\ndistinction of the first is, that it might possibly be counted;\nthe notion of the second is, that it is wholly beyond the power of\nnumeration to overtake. Probably even the child, to whom the word\n\u2018hundred\u2019 expressed an indefinite idea, would have been faintly\nsensible of a difference in degree between \u2018hundred\u2019 and \u2018million,\u2019\nand would have known that the latter expressed something larger\nthan the former. The circumscribing outline of the idea apprehended\nis loose, but still there is such an outline. The clearness of the\ndouble conception is indeed effaced; the whole only, and not the whole\ntogether with each part, is contemplated by the mind; but still there\nis a certain clouded sense of a real difference in magnitude, as\nbetween one such whole and another.\n\nAnd this leads me to the second of the two illustrations, to which\nreference has been made. That loss of definiteness in the conception of\nnumber, which the child in our day suffers before he has counted over\nhis fingers, the grown man suffers also, though at a point commonly\nmuch higher in the scale. What point that may be, depends very much\nupon the particular habits and aptitudes of the individual. A student\nin a library of a thousand volumes, an officer before his regiment of a\nthousand men upon parade, may have a pretty clear idea of the units as\nwell as of the totals; but when we come to a thousand times a thousand,\nor a thousand times a million, all view of the units, for most men,\nprobably for every man, is lost: the million for the grown man is in\na great degree like the hundred for the child. The numerical term has\nnow become essentially a symbol; not only as every word is by its\nessence a symbol in reference to the idea it immediately denotes; but,\nin a further sense, it is a symbol of a symbol, for that idea which\nit denotes, is itself symbolical: it is a conventional representation\nof a certain vast number of units, far too great to be individually\ncontemplated and apprehended. As we rise higher still from millions,\nsay for example, into the class of billions, the vagueness increases.\nThe million is now become a sort of new unit, and the relation of two\nmillions to one million, is thus pretty clearly apprehended as being\ndouble; but this too becomes obscured as we mount, and even (for\nexample) the relation of quantity between ten billions of wheat-corns,\nand an hundred billions of the same, is far less determinately conveyed\nto the mind, than the relation between ten wheat-corns and one. At this\nhigh level, the nouns of number approximate to the indefinite character\nof the class of algebraic symbols called known quantities.\n\nIn proportion as our conception of numbers is definite, the idea of\nthem, instead of being suited for an address to the imagination,\nremains unsuited for poetic handling, and thrives within the sphere\nof the understanding only. But when we pass beyond the scale of\ndeterminate into that of practically indeterminate amounts, then the\nuse of numbers becomes highly poetical. I would quote, as a very noble\nexample of this use of number, a verse in the Revelations of St. John.\n\u2018And I beheld, and I heard the voice of many angels round about the\nthrone, and the beasts and the elders: and the number of them was ten\nthousand times ten thousand, and thousands of thousands[790].\u2019 As a\nproof of the power of this fine passage, I would observe, that the\ndescent from ten thousand times ten thousand to thousands of thousands,\nthough it is in fact numerically very great, has none of the chilling\neffect of anticlimax, because these numbers are not arithmetically\nconceived, and the last member of the sentence is simply, so to speak,\nthe trail of light which the former draws behind it.\n\n[790] Rev. v. 11.\n\nNow we must keep clearly before our minds the idea, that this poetical\nand figurative use of number among the Greeks at least preceded what\nI may call its calculative use. We shall find in Homer nothing that\ncan strictly be called calculation. He repeatedly gives us what may\nbe termed the factors of a sum in multiplication; but he never even\npartially combines them, even as they are combined for example in\nCowper\u2019s ballad,\n\n John Gilpin\u2019s spouse said to her dear,\n Though wedded we have been\n These _twice ten_ tedious years, yet we\n No holiday have seen.\n\nReference has been made to the convenience which we find in using\nnumber as a measure of quantity, and as a means of comparing things\nof every species in their own kind. But we never meet with this use\nof it in Homer. He has not even the words necessary to enable him to\nsay, \u2018This house is five times as large as that.\u2019 If he had the idea\nto express, he would say, Five houses, each as large as that, would\nhardly be equal to this. The word \u03c4\u03c1\u1f76\u03c2 may be called an adverb of\nmultiplication; but it is never used for these comparisons. Indeed,\nDamm observes, that in a large majority of instances it signifies an\nindefinite number, not a precise one. \u03a4\u03b5\u03c4\u03c1\u03ac\u03ba\u03b9\u03c2 is found only once, and\nin a sense wholly indeterminate: the passage is[791] \u03c4\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03bc\u03ac\u03ba\u03b1\u03c1\u03b5\u03c2 \u0394\u03b1\u03bd\u03b1\u03bf\u1f76\n\u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u03b5\u03c4\u03c1\u03ac\u03ba\u03b9\u03c2. \u03a0\u03b5\u03bd\u03c4\u03ac\u03ba\u03b9\u03c2 does not even exist. Ajax lifts a stone, not\n\u2018twice as large as a mortal of to-day could raise\u2019, but so large that\nit would require two such mortals to raise it. All Homer\u2019s numerical\nexpressions are in the most elementary forms; such forms, as are\nwithout composition, and refuse all further analysis.\n\n[791] Od. v. 306.\n\n~_Greek estimate of the discovery of Number._~\n\nHis use of number appears to have been confined to simple addition: and\nit is probable that all the higher numbers which we find in the poems,\nwere figurative and most vaguely conceived. If we are able to make\ngood the proof of these propositions from the Homeric text, we shall\nthen be well able to understand the manner in which Numeration, or\nthe science of number, is spoken of by the Greeks of the historic age\nas a marvellous invention. It appears in \u00c6schylus, as among the very\ngreatest of the discoveries of Prometheus[792]:\n\n[792] \u00c6sch. Prom. V. 468. see also Soph. Naupl. Fragm. v.\n\n \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03bc\u1f74\u03bd \u1f00\u03c1\u03b9\u03b8\u03bc\u1f78\u03bd, \u1f14\u03be\u03bf\u03c7\u03bf\u03bd \u03c3\u03bf\u03c6\u03b9\u03c3\u03bc\u03ac\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd,\n \u1f10\u03be\u03b5\u1fe6\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2\u00b7\n\nhe goes on to add,\n\n \u03b3\u03c1\u03b1\u03bc\u03bc\u03ac\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd \u03c4\u03b5 \u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u03b8\u03ad\u03c3\u03b5\u03b9\u03c2.\n\nSo that the use of numbers by rule was to the Greek mind as much a\ndiscovery as the letters of the alphabet, and is even described here\nas a greater one: much as in later times men have viewed the use of\nlogarithms, or of the method of fluxions or the calculus. In full\nconformity with this are the superlative terms, in which Plato speaks\nof number. Number, in fact, seems to be exhibited in great part of the\nGreek philosophy, as if it had actually been the guide of the human\nmind in its progress towards realizing all the great and cardinal ideas\nof order, measure, proportion, and relation.\n\nUp to what point human intelligence, in the time of Homer, was able to\npush the process of simple addition, we do not precisely know. It is\nnot, however, hastily to be assumed that, in any one of his faculties,\nHomer was behind his age; and it is safer to believe that the poems,\neven in these points, represent it advantageously. Now, in one place\nat least, we have a primitive account of a process of addition. The\npassage is in the Fourth Odyssey, where Menelaus relates, how Proteus\ncounted upon his fingers the number of his seals[793]. That it was\na certain particular number is obvious, because when four of them\nhad been killed by Eidothee, their skins were put upon Menelaus and\nhis three comrades, and the four Greeks were then counted into the\nherd, so that the word \u1f00\u03c1\u03b9\u03b8\u03bc\u1f78\u03c2 here evidently means a definite total.\nThis addition by Proteus, however, was not addition in the proper\narithmetical sense, and would be more properly called enumeration: it\nwas probably effected simply by adding each unit singly, in succession,\nto the others, with the aid of the fingers, (proved through the word\n\u03c0\u03b5\u03bc\u03c0\u03ac\u03c3\u03c3\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9,) but not by the aid of any scale or combination of units,\neither decimal or quinal. In the word \u03b4\u03b5\u03ba\u1f70\u03c2 we have, indeed, the first\nstep towards a decimal scale; but we have not even that in the case\nof the number five, there being no \u03c0\u03b5\u03bd\u03c4\u1f70\u03c2 or \u03c0\u03b5\u03bc\u03c0\u03c4\u03ac\u03c2. The meaning of\n\u03c0\u03b5\u03bc\u03c0\u03ac\u03c3\u03c3\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 evidently is, not that he arranged the numeration in fives,\nbut that, by means of the fingers of one hand, employed upon those of\nthe other, he assisted the process of simple enumeration.\n\n[793] Od. iv. 412, 451.\n\n~_Highest numerals of the poems._~\n\nHomer\u2019s highest numeral is \u03bc\u03cd\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03b9. He describes the Myrmidons as being\n\u03bc\u03cd\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03b9[794], though, if we assume a mean strength of about eighty-five\nfor their crews, the force would but little have exceeded four\nthousand: and at the _maximum_ of one hundred and twenty for each ship,\nit would only come to six thousand. Again, Homer uses the expression\n\u03bc\u03cd\u03c1\u03b9\u03b1 \u1f94\u03b4\u03b7, to denote a person of instructed and accomplished mind[795].\n\n[794] Il. xxiii. 29.\n\n[795] Od. ii. 16.\n\nNext to the \u03bc\u03cd\u03c1\u03b9\u03b1, the highest numerals employed in the poems are\nthose contained in the passage where the Poet says that the howl of\nMars, on being wounded by Diomed, was as loud as the shout of an army\nof nine thousand or ten thousand men[796]:\n\n[796] Il. v. 860.\n\n \u1f45\u03c3\u03c3\u03bf\u03bd \u03c4\u2019 \u1f10\u03bd\u03bd\u03b5\u03ac\u03c7\u03b9\u03bb\u03bf\u03b9 \u1f10\u03c0\u03af\u03b1\u03c7\u03bf\u03bd \u1f22 \u03b4\u03b5\u03ba\u03ac\u03c7\u03b9\u03bb\u03bf\u03b9\n \u1f00\u03bd\u03ad\u03c1\u03b5\u03c2 \u1f10\u03bd \u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03ad\u03bc\u1ff3.\n\nBut it is clear that the expressions are purely poetical and\nfigurative. For he never comes near the use of such high numbers\nelsewhere; and yet it obviously lay in his path to use these, and\nhigher numbers still, when he was describing the strength of the Greek\nand Trojan armies.\n\nThe highest Homeric number, after those which have been named, is\nfound in the three thousand horses of Erichthonius. This we must also\nconsider poetical, because it is so far beyond the ordinary range\nof the poems, and in some degree likewise because of the obvious\nunlikelihood of his having possessed that particular number of\nmares[797].\n\n[797] Il. xxi. 251.\n\nOnly thrice, besides the instances already quoted, does Homer use the\nfourth power of numbers; it is in the case of the single thousand. A\nthousand measures of wine were sent by Euneos as a present to Agamemnon\nand Menelaus. A thousand watch-fires were kindled by the Trojans on the\nplain. Iphidamas, having given an hundred oxen in order to obtain his\nwife, then promised a thousand goats and sheep out of his countless\nherds[798]. In all these three cases, it is more than doubtful whether\nthe word thousand is not roughly and loosely used as a round number.\nThe combination of the thousand sheep and goats with the hundred oxen,\nimmediately awakens the recollection that even the Homeric hecatomb,\nthough meaning etymologically an hundred oxen, practically meant\nnothing of the kind, but only what we should call a lot or batch of\noxen. Again, it is so obviously improbable that the Trojans should\nin an hurried bivouac have lighted just a thousand fires, and placed\njust fifty men by each, that we may take this passage as plainly\nfigurative, and as conveying no more than a very rude approximation, of\nsuch a kind as would be inadmissible where the practice of calculation\nis familiar. It is then most likely, that in the remaining one of\nthe three passages, the Poet means only to convey that a large and\nliberal present of wine was sent by Euneus, as the consideration for\nhis being allowed to trade with the army. There is certainly more of\napproximation to a definite use of the single thousand, than of the\nthree, the nine, or the ten: but this difference in definiteness is\nin reality a main point in the evidence. Most of all does this become\npalpable, when we consider how strange is in itself the omission to\nstate the numbers of the combatants on either side of this great\nstruggle: an omission so strange, of what would be to ourselves a fact\nof such elementary and primary interest, that we can hardly account for\nit otherwise than by the admission, that to the Greeks of the Homeric\nage the totals of the armies, even if the Poet himself could have\nreckoned them, would have been unintelligible.\n\n[798] Il. vii. 571. viii. 562. xi. 244.\n\nAmong all the numbers found in Homer, the highest which he appears to\nuse with a clearly determinate meaning, is that of the three hundred\nand sixty fat hogs under the care of Eum\u00e6us in Ithaca[799];\n\n[799] Od. xiv. 20.\n\n \u03bf\u1f31 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03c4\u03c1\u03b9\u03b7\u03ba\u03cc\u03c3\u03b9\u03bf\u03af \u03c4\u03b5 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f11\u03be\u03ae\u03ba\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1 \u03c0\u03ad\u03bb\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf.\n\nThe reason for considering this number as having a pretty definite sense\nin the Poet\u2019s mind (quite a different matter, let it be borne in mind,\nfrom the question whether the circumstance is meant to be taken as\nhistorical) is, that it stands in evident association with the number\nof days, as it was probably then reckoned, in the year. It seems plain\nthat he meant to describe the whole circle of the year, where he says,\nthat for each of the days and nights which Jupiter has given, or, in\nhis own words[800],\n\n[800] Od. xiv. 93.\n\n \u1f45\u03c3\u03c3\u03b1\u03b9 \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u03bd\u03cd\u03ba\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 \u03c4\u03b5 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f21\u03bc\u03ad\u03c1\u03b1\u03b9 \u1f10\u03ba \u0394\u03b9\u03cc\u03c2 \u03b5\u1f30\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd,\n\nthe greedy Suitors are not contented with the slaughter of one animal,\nor even of two. Eum\u00e6us then gives an account of the wealth of Ulysses\nin live stock, both within the isle and on the mainland, from whence\nthe animals were supplied: and adds, that from the Ithacan store a\ngoatherd took down daily a fat goat, while he himself as often sent\ndown a fat hog. I have dwelt thus particularly on the detail of this\ncase, because it may fairly be inferred from the correspondence between\nthe number of the hogs and the days of the year, that for once, at all\nevents, the Poet intended to speak, though somewhat at random, yet in\na degree arithmetically, and that of so high a number as 360.\n\nThere are other cases of lower numbers in different parts of the poems,\nwhere it may be argued, with varying measures of probability, that\nHomer had a similar intention.\n\n~_The \u1f11\u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03bc\u03b2\u1f74 and numerals of value._~\n\nThe word \u1f11\u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03bc\u03b2\u1f74, without doubt, affords a striking proof of vagueness\nin the ideas of the heroic age with respect to number: and this\nvagueness extends, yet apparently in varying degrees, to the adjective\n\u1f11\u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03bc\u03b2\u03bf\u1fd6\u03bf\u03c2. I have elsewhere[801] referred to adjectives of this\nformation as indicative of the fact, that for those generations of\nmankind oxen may be said to have constituted a measure of value; and\nthis fact certainly involves an aim at numerical exactitude. It seems,\nindeed, on general grounds far from improbable, that the business of\nexchange may have been the original guide of our race into the art, and\nthus into the science, of arithmetic.\n\n[801] Agor\u00e8, p. 82.\n\nIn the description of the Shield of Minerva, which had an hundred\ngolden drops or tassels, we are told that each of them was \u1f11\u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03bc\u03b2\u03bf\u1fd6\u03bf\u03c2,\nor worth an hundred oxen. This use of the word must be regarded as\nstrongly charged with figure. Minerva was arming to mingle among men\nupon the plain of Troy[802], and it is not likely, therefore, that\nthe Poet would represent her in dimensions utterly inordinate. He\njudiciously reserves this license of exaggeration without bounds for\nscenes where he is beyond the sphere of relations properly human, as\nfor example, the Theomachy and the Under-world. Now we may venture\nto take the Homeric value of an ox before Troy at half an ounce of\ngold. In the prizes of the wrestling match, where a tripod was worth\ntwelve oxen, a highly skilled woman (\u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03bb\u1f70 \u03b4\u2019 \u1f10\u03c0\u03af\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf \u1f14\u03c1\u03b3\u03b1) was worth\nfour[803]. Two ounces of gold would be a low price for such a person in\nalmost any age. According to this computation, each drop on the \u00c6gis of\nMinerva would weigh fifty ounces: the whole would weigh above 300 lbs.\n_avoirdupois_, and if we were to assume the purely ornamental fringe\nin a work of this kind to weigh one tenth part of the whole, the \u00c6gis\nitself would weigh nearly a ton and a half. _Prim\u00e2 facie_, this is\nsusceptible of explanation in either of two ways: the one, that the\nnumbers are used poetically and not arithmetically; the other, that of\nsheer intentional exaggeration in bulk. The rules of the Poet, as they\nare elsewhere applied, oblige us to reject the latter solution, and\nconsequently throw us back upon the former.\n\n[802] Il. ii. 450.\n\n[803] Il. xxiii. 703, 5.\n\n~_The numerals of value._~\n\nAgain, we are told that, when Diomed obtained the exchange of arms from\nGlaucus, he gave a suit of copper, and obtained in return a suit of\ngilt[804];\n\n[804] Il. vi. 236.\n\n \u03c7\u03c1\u03cd\u03c3\u03b5\u03b1 \u03c7\u03b1\u03bb\u03ba\u03b5\u03af\u03c9\u03bd, \u1f11\u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03cc\u03bc\u03b2\u03bf\u03b9\u2019 \u1f10\u03bd\u03bd\u03b5\u03b1\u03b2\u03bf\u03af\u03c9\u03bd.\n\nHere there seems to be a mixture of the metaphorical and the\narithmetical use. For, on the one hand, it is singular that he should\nhave chosen numbers which require the aid of a fraction to express\ntheir relation to one another. He could certainly not have meant to say\nthat the values of the two suits were precisely as 100:9, or as 11\u2151:1.\nAnd yet, on the one hand, he could scarcely use the term \u1f10\u03bd\u03bd\u03b5\u03b1\u03b2\u03bf\u1fd6\u03b1,\nexcept with reference to the known and usual value of a suit of armour,\nwhile the \u1f11\u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03bc\u03b2\u03bf\u1fd6\u03b1, from its use in other places, must be suspected\nof having no more than a merely indeterminate force.\n\nWith this fractional relation of 100:9, may be compared the arrangement\nat the feast in Pylos, where each division of five hundred persons\nwas supplied with nine oxen. These numbers, however, are probably\nless vague than in some other cases: for the provision stated, though\nlarge, is not beyond what a rude plenty might suggest on a great public\noccasion.\n\nAgain, Lycaon, when captured for the second time by Achilles, reminds\nthat hero of what he had fetched or been worth to him on the former\noccasion[805]: \u1f11\u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03cc\u03bc\u03b2\u03bf\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd \u03b4\u03ad \u03c4\u03bf\u03b9 \u1f26\u03bb\u03c6\u03bf\u03bd. Here we have a decisive proof\nof the figurative use of number. Had the young prince been ransomed\nby Priam, a great price, no doubt, would have been given. But Achilles\nsold him into Lemnos, \u1f04\u03bd\u03b5\u03c5\u03b8\u03b5\u03bd \u1f04\u03b3\u03c9\u03bd \u03c0\u03b1\u03c4\u03c1\u03cc\u03c2 \u03c4\u03b5 \u03c6\u03af\u03bb\u03c9\u03bd \u03c4\u03b5: and to the\nLemnians he could hardly have value but as a labourer, although indeed\nit chanced that he was afterwards redeemed, by a \u03be\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 of Priam[806],\nat a high price. We cannot, then, suppose that he had brought any such\nreturn as would be represented by a full hundred of oxen.\n\n[805] Il. xxi. 79.\n\n[806] Il. xxi. 42.\n\nThe evidence thus far, I think, tends powerfully to support the\nhypothesis, that there is an amount of vagueness in Homer\u2019s general\nuse of numbers, unless indeed as to very low ones, which cannot be\nexplained otherwise than as metaphorical or purely poetical: and that\nhis mind never had before it any of those processes, simple as they are\nto all who are familiar with them, of multiplication, subtraction, or\ndivision.\n\nI admit it to be possible, that his manner of treating number may have\nbeen owing to his determination to be intelligible, and to the state of\nthe faculties of his hearers, as much as, or even more than, his own.\nBut to me the supposition of the infant condition even of his faculties\nwith respect to number, though at first sight startling, approves\nitself on reflection as one thoroughly in conformity with analogy and\nnature. Indeed the experience of life may convince us that to this\nhour we should be mistaken, if we supposed arithmetical conceptions\nto be uniform in different minds; that the relations of number are\nfaintly and imperfectly apprehended, except by either practised or else\npeculiarly gifted persons; and that, in short, there is nothing more\nmysterious than arithmetic to those who do not understand it. As one\nillustration of this opinion, I will cite the difficulty which most\neducated persons, when studying history, certainly feel in mastering\nits chronology; while to those who are apt at figures it is not only\nacquired with ease, but it even serves as the _nexus_ and support of\nthe whole chain of events.\n\nThere were several occasions, upon which it would have been most\nnatural and appropriate for Homer to use the faculty of multiplication;\nyet on no one of these has he used it. He constantly supplies us with\nthe materials of a sum, but never once performs the process.\n\n~_Silence as to the numbers of the armies._~\n\nThe first example in the Iliad is supplied by that passage of the\nunhappy speech of Agamemnon to the Assembly in the Second Book, which\ncauses the fever-fit of home-sickness. He compares the strength of\nthe Greek army with that of the Trojans; and he only effects the\npurpose by this feeble but elaborate contrivance. \u2018Should the Greeks\nand Trojans agree to be numbered respectively, and should the Trojans\nproperly so called be placed one by one, but the Greeks in tens, and\nevery Trojan made cupbearer to a Greek ten, many of our tens would be\nwithout a cupbearer[807].\u2019 In the first place, the fact that he calls\nthis ascertaining of comparative force numbering \u1f00\u03c1\u03b9\u03b8\u03bc\u03b7\u03b8\u03b7\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9 is\nremarkable; for it would not have shown the numbers of either army; nor\neven the difference, by which the Greeks exceeded a tenfold ratio to\nthe Trojans; but simply, by leaving an unexhausted residue, the fact\nthat they were more, whether by much or by little, than ten times as\nmany as the besieged. Secondly, it seems plain that, if Homer had known\nwhat was meant by multiplication, he would have used the process in\nthis instance, in lieu of the elaborate (yet poetical) circumlocution\nwhich he has adopted; and would have said the Greeks were ten times,\nor fifteen times, or twenty times, as many as the inhabitants of Troy.\n\n[807] Il. ii. 123-8.\n\nAfter this, Ulysses reminds the Assembly of the apparition of the\ndragon they had seen at Aulis. The phrase \u03c7\u03b8\u03b9\u03b6\u03ac \u03c4\u03b5 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c0\u03c1\u03ce\u03b9\u03b6\u03b1, which he\nemploys, may grammatically either belong to the epoch of the gathering\nat Aulis, or to the time of the plague, which had carried off a part of\nthe force a fortnight or three weeks before. In whichever connection of\nthe two we place it, it affords an instance of extreme indefiniteness\nin the use of two adverbs which are at once expressive of time and\nof number; for on one supposition he must use them to express whole\nyears, and on the other they must mean near a fortnight, and therefore\na certain number of days.\n\nThe next case is remarkable. It is that of the Catalogue.\n\nThe resolution, which introduces it, was not a resolution to number the\nhost; but simply to make a careful division and distribution of the men\nunder their leaders, with a view to a more effective responsibility,\nboth of officers and men[808]. But when the Poet comes to enumerate the\ndivisions, it is evidently a great object with him to make known the\nrelative forces, and thus the relative prominence and power, of the\ndifferent States of Greece. Yet nothing can be more imperfect than the\nmanner in which the enumerating portion of his task is executed. In the\nfirst place, we trace again the old habit of the loose and figurative\nuse of numbers. For Homer could hardly mean us to take literally all\nthe numbers of ships, which he has stated in the Catalogue: since,\nin every case where they come up to or exceed twenty, they run in\ncomplete decades without odd numbers; subject to the single exception\nof the twenty-two ships of Gouneus. Podalirius and Machaon have thirty,\nthe Phocians forty, Achilles fifty, Menelaus sixty, Diomed eighty,\nNestor ninety, Agamemnon an hundred: the only full multiple of ten\nomitted being the utterly intractable \u1f11\u03b2\u03b4\u03bf\u03bc\u03ae\u03ba\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1. But again, he gives\nus no effectual clue to the numbers of the crews. Each of the fifty\nships of the B\u0153otians had one hundred and twenty men, and each of the\nseven ships of Philoctetes had fifty[809]. Thus he supplies us with the\ntwo factors of the sum, which would find the number of men, in each\nof these two cases; but in neither case does he perform the sum; and\nsuch is the uniform practice throughout the poems. For the Greek force\ngenerally, he has not even given us the factors. It has indeed been\nconjectured, that fifty may have been the smallest ship\u2019s company, and\none hundred and twenty the largest: but this is mere conjecture; and\neven if it be well founded, still we do not know whether the generality\nof the ships were about the mean, or nearer one or the other of the\nextremes. Again, it would appear probable from the Odyssey, that these\nnumbers, of fifty and one hundred and twenty, are exclusive at least\nof pilots and commanders, if not also of the stewards[810] and the\nminor officers[811]; for the number mentioned by Alcinous[812] is\nfifty-two; and although he says that all were to sit down to row, the\ntexts when compared cannot but suggest, that the number fifty was an\nusual complement of oars, and that the two were the captain and pilot\nrespectively[813].\n\n[808] Il. ii. 362-8.\n\n[809] Il. ii. 509, 719.\n\n[810] Il. xix. 44.\n\n[811] Il. ii. 362, 5.\n\n[812] Od. viii. 35.\n\n[813] Sup. Agor\u00e8, p. 135.\n\nPlainly, there must have been very great inequalities in the crews\nof the Greek armament; or Homer could not have said, after giving\nAgamemnon an hundred ships, that he had by far the largest force of all\nthe chiefs[814];\n\n[814] Il. ii. 577.\n\n \u1f05\u03bc\u03b1 \u03c4\u1ff7\u03b3\u03b5 \u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u1f7a \u03c0\u03bb\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03b9 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f04\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03b9\n \u03bb\u03b1\u03bf\u1f76 \u1f15\u03c0\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u2019.\n\nFor Diomed and Idomeneus have each eighty ships, and Nestor has ninety,\nso that their numbers would come very near Agamemnon\u2019s, unless their\nships were smaller. But to sum up this discussion. It is evident that,\nif only we suppose the Greeks of Homer\u2019s time to have had a definite\nand well developed sense of number, the mention by Homer of the amount\nof force in the Trojan expedition would have been a fact of the highest\nnational interest and importance. Yet he has left us nothing, which can\nbe said even definitely to approximate to a record of it, though the\nenumeration of the Catalogue appears almost to force the subject upon\nhim. The fair inferences seem to be, that he did not understand the\ncalculative use of numbers at all, or beyond some very limited range;\nand that, even within that range, he for the most part employed them\npoetically and ornamentally; they were decorative and effective, like\nepithets to his song, but they were not statistical; as expressions of\nforce they were no more than (as it were) tentative, and that but very\nrudely.\n\nI am further confirmed in the belief of Homer\u2019s indeterminate\nconception of number, from the strange result to which the contrary\nopinion would lead. He tells us of the Trojan bivouac[815];\n\n[815] Il. viii. 562.\n\n \u03c7\u03af\u03bb\u03b9\u2019 \u1f04\u03c1\u2019 \u1f10\u03bd \u03c0\u03b5\u03b4\u03af\u1ff3 \u03c0\u03c5\u03c1\u1f70 \u03ba\u03b1\u03af\u03b5\u03c4\u03bf\u00b7 \u03c0\u1f70\u03c1 \u03b4\u1f72 \u1f11\u03ba\u03ac\u03c3\u03c4\u1ff3\n \u03b5\u1f35\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf \u03c0\u03b5\u03bd\u03c4\u03ae\u03ba\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1.\n\nIn this case he has given us again the factors of a sum in\nmultiplication, though not the product. Did he mean them to be taken\nliterally? If he did, then it is indeed strange that, although he says\nnothing whatever on the subject of number in the Trojan Catalogue,\nyet he has here supplied us with all the particulars necessary for\nestimating the Trojan force, while as to the Greek army, we remain\nunable to say whether it amounted to fifty thousand, or to half, or\nto twice or thrice that number. But it is quite plain from the total\nabsence of specified numbers in the Trojan Catalogue, that he had no\ndesire, as indeed he had no occasion, to give an accurate account of\nthe Trojan force. On the other hand it appears, from the details of\nthe Greek Catalogue, that he did wish to describe the amount of the\nforce on that side, as far as he could conceive or convey it. If all\nthis be so, then nothing can show more clearly than the thousand Trojan\nwatch-fires, with their fifty men at each, Homer\u2019s figurative manner of\nemploying numerical aggregations. If however we admit the figurative\nuse, we at once find everything harmonious. He describes the Trojans by\nthe method of bold enhancement, at a juncture of the poem where it is\nhis purpose to make them terrible to the Greek imagination.\n\nThe instance of Proteus in the Odyssey has already been referred to:\nbut one more marked is afforded by the description that Eum\u00e6us gives of\nthe herds and flocks of Ulysses. This, again, is one of the instances\nwhere the spirit and gist of the passage almost required that a total\nshould be stated. For the object is to give a telling account. The\nwealth of this prince, says the Poet, was boundless; none of the\nheroes, whether of Ithaca or of the fertile continent, had so much; no,\nnor had any twenty of them. Then he mentions how many herds of cattle,\ngoats, and swine, and flocks of sheep there were, but gives no numbers\nof any of the herds, nor any total: though, shortly before, the poem\nhad mentioned the three hundred and sixty fat hogs under the care of\nEum\u00e6us, and had also given us the sows in the usual manner, stating\nthat there were twelve sties with fifty in each; but not specifying\nanywhere the total of six hundred which these figures yield when\nmultiplied together[816].\n\n[816] Od. xiv. 13-20.\n\nAgain, then the result of all these passages, as well as of more\nwhich might be quoted, is, I think, to show that Homer\u2019s conceptions\nof number, and his use of number, especially when beyond a very low\nlimit, were so indeterminate, that they may not improperly be called\nfigurative.\n\n~_Hesiod\u2019s age of the Nymphs._~\n\nIn support and in illustration of this belief with respect to Homer,\nI would once more refer to the curious fragment ascribed to Hesiod\nrespecting the age of the Nymphs with beauteous locks, which begins,\n\n \u1f10\u03bd\u03bd\u03ad\u03b1 \u03c4\u03bf\u03b9 \u03b6\u03ce\u03b5\u03b9 \u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03b5\u1f70\u03c2 \u03bb\u03b1\u03ba\u03ad\u03c1\u03c5\u03b6\u03b1 \u03ba\u03bf\u03c1\u03ce\u03bd\u03b7\n \u1f00\u03bd\u03b4\u03c1\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f21\u03b2\u03ce\u03bd\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd.\n\nIn the Etymol. Magn. 13. 36, the reading is \u03b3\u03b5\u03c1\u03ce\u03bd\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd; and Ausonius,\nfollowing this authority in his Eighteenth Idyll, makes the \u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03b5\u1f74 no\nless than 96 years. But the sense of \u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03b5\u1f74 is fixed by Homer\u2019s account\nof Nestor, and otherwise, in such a way as greatly to favour the\nreading \u1f21\u03b2\u03ce\u03bd\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd. The word therefore means the term between birth and\nthe prime of life, which may well be taken at thirty years. Then comes\na table as follows.\n\n The age of the daw = 9 ages of men.\n\n The age of the stag = 4 of daws = 36 of men.\n\n The age of the crow = 3 of stags = twelve of daws = 108 of men.\n\n The age of the palm = 9 of crows = 27 of stags = 108 of daws = 972 of\n men.\n\n The age of the Nymph = 10 of palms = 90 of crows = 270 of stags =\n 1080 of daws = 9720 of men.\n\nAnd if the \u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03b5\u1f74 be 30 years, the age of the Nymphs = 30 \u00d7 9720 =\n291,600 years. But the point most remarkable for us is, that while\nHesiod, if Hesiod it be, supplies us with the whole of the first\nfactors after the \u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03b5\u1f74, for this long sum, he does not actually\nperform one single multiplication; nor does he even define the \u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03b5\u1f74,\nwhich is the first and most vital element of all.\n\nHe has thus given us at once a very pretty poetical invention for\nexpressing approximately the age of Nymphs, who are Jove-born indeed,\nyet are not immortal, and a remarkable proof of the indefiniteness of\nnumerical conceptions, and of total unacquaintance with the rules of\narithmetic[817].\n\n[817] I subjoin the rest of this curious fragment;\n\n \u1f14\u03bb\u03b1\u03c6\u03bf\u03c2 \u03b4\u03ad \u03c4\u03b5 \u03c4\u03b5\u03c4\u03c1\u03b1\u03ba\u03cc\u03c1\u03c9\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2\u00b7\n \u03c4\u03c1\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03b4\u2019 \u1f10\u03bb\u03ac\u03c6\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 \u1f41 \u03ba\u03cc\u03c1\u03b1\u03be \u03b3\u03b7\u03c1\u03ac\u03c3\u03ba\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9\u00b7 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1f70\u03c1 \u1f41 \u03c6\u03bf\u03af\u03bd\u03b9\u03be\n \u1f10\u03bd\u03bd\u03ad\u03b1 \u03c4\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 \u03ba\u03cc\u03c1\u03b1\u03ba\u03b1\u03c2\u00b7 \u03b4\u03ad\u03ba\u03b1\u03b4\u2019 \u1f21\u03bc\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 \u03c6\u03bf\u03af\u03bd\u03b9\u03ba\u03b1\u03c2\n \u03bd\u03cd\u03bc\u03c6\u03b1\u03b9 \u1f10\u03cb\u03c0\u03bb\u03cc\u03ba\u03b1\u03bc\u03bf\u03b9, \u03ba\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c1\u03b1\u03b9 \u0394\u03b9\u1f78\u03c2 \u03b1\u1f30\u03b3\u03b9\u03cc\u03c7\u03bf\u03b9\u03bf.\n\nIt is noticed by Pliny, (Nat. Hist. vii. 48.) who terms it fabulous;\nbut it is with more propriety, I think, to be called poetical.\n\nOne consequence of the proposition I have advanced with respect to\nHomer is, to destroy altogether a supposed discrepancy between the\nIliad and the Odyssey, which has often been paraded as a reason, among\nothers, for assigning them to different authors. It is truly alleged\nthat, in the Catalogue[818], Crete is called \u1f11\u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03cc\u03bc\u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03b9\u03c2; and that in\nthe Nineteenth Odyssey[819] we are told of it,\n\n[818] Il. ii. 649.\n\n[819] Od. xix. 173.\n\n \u1f10\u03bd \u03b4\u2019 \u1f04\u03bd\u03b8\u03c1\u03c9\u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\n \u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03bb\u03bf\u1f76, \u1f00\u03c0\u03b5\u03b9\u03c1\u03ad\u03c3\u03b9\u03bf\u03b9, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f10\u03bd\u03bd\u03ae\u03ba\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1 \u03c0\u03cc\u03bb\u03b7\u03b5\u03c2.\n\nEach of these words appears to be interpreted as strictly, as it\nwould be if caught by an auditor in the accounts of some delinquent\nJoint-Stock Company; and thus, forsooth, a diversity of authors for\nthe two poems is to be made good. Now it is not a little odd, if both\nthese poets looked at the subject with the eye of statisticians, that\nwhile each found a different number of cities in Crete, yet each found\nan even, and more or less a round number. But why is \u1f11\u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03cc\u03bc\u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03b9\u03c2 to\nbe more strictly interpreted than \u1f11\u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03bc\u03b2\u03ae? And again, if we are to\nconstrue \u1f10\u03bd\u03bd\u03ae\u03ba\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1 statistically, what are we to do with the very\nword that precedes it, namely, \u1f00\u03c0\u03b5\u03b9\u03c1\u03ad\u03c3\u03b9\u03bf\u03b9? The simple fact of the\njuxtaposition of that word with the \u1f10\u03bd\u03bd\u03ae\u03ba\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1 \u03c0\u03cc\u03bb\u03b7\u03b5\u03c2 should surely have\nsufficed to show, that the whole manner of speech was (what we now\ncall) poetical. So regarding it, I venture even to say that the effect\nof a comparison with the epithet in the Catalogue is to establish, not\na discrepancy in point of fact, but rather a similarity in the measure\nof figurative conception and expression: so that in consequence, as far\nas it is worth any thing, it rather tends to prove the identity, than\nthe diversity, of authorship between the two poems.\n\nA second consequence, which must be drawn from the foregoing\nconclusions, is this; that we shall do wrong to search the poems of\nHomer for any scheme of chronology. The minute enumerations of the\nMosaic books have perhaps given the tone to our ordinary historical\ninquiries: but, at least with respect to Homer, it must appear an\nerroneous course to use his numerical statements as literal, when\nthey are applied to time, after we have had so much evidence of their\ngenerally ornamental and figurative character.\n\nWhen Homer has occasion to define distance, he does not attempt to\ndo it by a fixed measure, but by reference always to human or other\naction: it is as far as a man can throw a spear, (\u03b4\u03bf\u03c5\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c1\u03ce\u03b7); or as\nfar as a man\u2019s cry can be heard (\u1f45\u03c3\u03bf\u03bd \u03c4\u03b5 \u03b3\u03ad\u03b3\u03c9\u03bd\u03b5 \u03b2\u03cc\u03b7\u03c3\u03b1\u03c2); or as far,\nwhen we come to larger spaces, as we can sail within a certain time; if\nI make a good passage, says Achilles[820], I may get to Phthia on the\nthird day: and again, we hear of the distance that a ship can perform\nwithin the day[821]. The horses of the gods in Homer clear, at each\nbound, a space as large as the eye can cover along the surface of the\nsea. As he comes to speak of points more remote and less known, he\nbecomes greatly more vague, and says of Egypt, that even the birds do\nnot get back from it within the year[822]: without doubt drawing his\nidea from those birds which periodically migrate.\n\n[820] Il. ix. 362.\n\n[821] \u1f45\u03c3\u03c3\u03bf\u03bd \u03c4\u03b5 \u03c0\u03b1\u03bd\u03b7\u03bc\u03b5\u03c1\u03af\u03b7 \u03bd\u03b7\u1fe6\u03c2 \u1f24\u03bd\u03c5\u03c3\u03b5, Od. iv. 356.\n\n[822] Od. iii. 322. With this compare the Tempest, Act ii. Sc. 1;\nwhere, be it observed, Shakespeare is treating his subject as one of\nDreamland.\n\n _Ant._ Who\u2019s the next heir of Naples?\n\n _Seb._ Claribel.\n\n _Ant._ She that is queen of Tunis: she, that dwells\n Ten leagues beyond man\u2019s life; she that from Naples\n Can have no note, unless the sun were post,\n (The man i\u2019 th\u2019 moon \u2019s too slow,) till new-born chins\n Be rough and razorable.\n\n\n~_No scheme of Chronology in Homer._~\n\nAs with spaces, so with times. The year indeed by its revolution forms\nitself into a natural whole, and is thus in a manner self-defined. So\nthe waxing and waning moon defines the month. But even with these\nwell marked terms Homer deals loosely; for the birth of infants is\npromised to take place after the revolution of a year from the time of\nconception[823].\n\n[823] Od. xi. 248.\n\n~_Case of the three decades of years._~\n\nI do not remember that he ever mentions a very high number of days or\nof years, but his use of both days and years, when it does not embrace\nterms defined by custom, has the marks of being highly poetical. Take\nfor instance the principal and almost only statements of the poem, that\ncan claim to be called chronological. They are those which represent\nthe period of the siege as a decade of years, preceded by a decade\nof preparation, and followed by a third decade for the vicissitudes\nof the Return. Here are three terms of years, all found in a Poet,\nwho does not elsewhere deal in terms of years at all. Of history,\nor what purports to be such, Homer has given us a great deal, and\nhe has placed it in the exactest and clearest order. But in no one\ninstance, out of all his prior history, does he found himself on any\nnumerical definitions of time. Moreover, these three terms of years\nare all exactly equal, which heightens the unlikelihood of their being\nhistorical. Lastly, the three terms are just of the number of years\nrequired to make up what was, according to all appearances, the Homeric\nterm of a \u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03b5\u1f74, or generation of men.\n\nThe passage, on which the proof of this last assertion must principally\nbe founded, is that in the First Book[824], which describes the age of\nNestor;\n\n[824] Il. i. 250-2.\n\n \u03c4\u1ff7 \u03b4\u2019 \u1f24\u03b4\u03b7 \u03b4\u03cd\u03bf \u03bc\u1f72\u03bd \u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03b5\u03b1\u1f76 \u03bc\u03b5\u03c1\u03cc\u03c0\u03c9\u03bd \u1f00\u03bd\u03b8\u03c1\u03ce\u03c0\u03c9\u03bd\n \u1f10\u03c6\u03b8\u03af\u03b1\u03b8\u2019, \u03bf\u1f35 \u03bf\u1f31 \u03c0\u03c1\u03cc\u03c3\u03b8\u03b5\u03bd \u1f05\u03bc\u03b1 \u03c4\u03c1\u03ac\u03c6\u03b5\u03bd \u1f20\u03b4\u2019 \u1f10\u03b3\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf\n \u1f10\u03bd \u03a0\u03cd\u03bb\u1ff3 \u1f20\u03b3\u03b1\u03b8\u03ad\u1fc3, \u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u1f70 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03c4\u03c1\u03b9\u03c4\u03ac\u03c4\u03bf\u03b9\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u1f04\u03bd\u03b1\u03c3\u03c3\u03b5\u03bd.\n\nI take the word \u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03b5\u1f74 to mean here, \u2018the term of thirty years,\u2019 but\nwith the necessary qualification of \u2018_or_ thereabouts;\u2019 and for the\nfollowing reasons:\n\nNestor is represented in the Iliad as the oldest of the Greek\nchieftains of the first order. Yet Ulysses[825] was elderly, \u1f60\u03bc\u03bf\u03b3\u03ad\u03c1\u03c9\u03bd.\nIdomeneus, again, was older than Ulysses, as is plain from the\nmore marked manner in which his advance in years is described. He\nis \u03bc\u03b5\u03c3\u03b1\u03b9\u03c0\u03cc\u03bb\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2[826], and not fully ablebodied, as appears from his\nsomewhat limited share in military operations; but Nestor is evidently\nolder than Idomeneus, as he always addresses the whole body with the\nauthority that belongs to the most extended experience, and as he\nnever takes an active part, either in battle or in the games. We must,\naccordingly, suppose Nestor to be represented as at this time an old\nman of seventy, or from that to seventy-five.\n\n[825] Il. xxiii. 791.\n\n[826] Il. xiii. 361.\n\nNow the passage implies that he was in the third \u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03b5\u1f74, and in the\nmidst, i. e. not at either extremity, of it: the words are \u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u1f70\n\u03c4\u03c1\u03b9\u03c4\u03ac\u03c4\u03bf\u03b9\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd. No lower number than thirty years will place Nestor fairly\namong, or in the midst of, the third generation from his birth. If, for\nexample, we take five and twenty years as the term, he would have been\nnot so much among the third as on the eve of arriving within the fourth\ngeneration. But neither can we assign to \u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03b5\u1f74 any meaning, which shall\nmake it sensibly exceed thirty years. For as we may say with confidence\nthat the Nestor of the Iliad is over seventy, so, on the other hand,\nwe may fairly compute that he is under eighty; inasmuch as, though\nhe takes no part in exertions actually athletic, he spares himself\nnothing else. He is found by Agamemnon, when the commander in chief\ngoes his rounds, on the field and at the head of his division: he is\nwakeful for the night council, and he goes about awaking others[827].\nRetaining so large a share of bodily activity, he is still not\nrepresented as possessed of strength in such a degree as to border upon\nthe marvellous; he is simply, in regard to corporal qualities, what\nwould now be called a remarkably fine old gentleman. But if instead of\nthirty we were to take forty years, then, in order to have well entered\ninto the third term he must have been already much beyond eighty,\nindeed, probably beyond ninety, in the Iliad, and above an hundred in\nthe Odyssey; an age, which, as he retains in that poem all his mental\npowers, we may be quite sure Homer did not mean to assign to him. If,\nthen, \u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03b5\u1f74 meant any term of years, it must, in all likelihood, have\nbeen somewhere about thirty years.\n\n[827] Il. x. 157.\n\nHomer has been careful, in the case of Nestor, to mark, by an\nappropriate change of expressions, the difference between his age in\nthe two poems respectively. In the Iliad he is exercising the kingly\noffice _among_ the third generation since his birth. In the Odyssey he\nis said to have exhausted the three terms[828];\n\n[828] Od. iii. 245. The meaning may be that he had _reigned_ for above\ntwo generations: but in the Iliad no more is implied than that he had\n_lived_ well into a third.\n\n \u03c4\u03c1\u1f76\u03c2 \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u03b4\u03ae \u03bc\u03af\u03bd \u03c6\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u1f00\u03bd\u03ac\u03be\u03b1\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9 \u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03b5\u2019 \u1f00\u03bd\u03b4\u03c1\u1ff6\u03bd.\n\nThat lucidity and accuracy in Homer\u2019s expressions, to which we are so\noften beholden, may stand us yet further in good stead. Two \u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03b5\u03b1\u1f76\nhad passed, not of men at large, but of _the_ men \u03bf\u1f35 \u03bf\u1f31 \u03c0\u03c1\u03cc\u03c3\u03b8\u03b5\u03bd \u1f05\u03bc\u03b1\n\u03c4\u03c1\u03ac\u03c6\u03b5\u03bd \u1f20\u03b4\u2019 \u1f10\u03b3\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf, of those who were bred and born with him, of his\ncontemporaries. Now this proves that by \u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03b5\u1f74 Homer does not mean the\nfull duration of human life, but that average interval between the\nsuccessions of men, which general experience places at about thirty\nyears. For if Homer had meant by \u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03b5\u1f74 the whole time required for\nthe dying out of a generation, Nestor could not have outlived two\ngenerations of contemporaries. In this sense, his contemporaries were\nmanifestly not two generations, but one, or little more. But if the\nPoet meant the usual interval at which child succeeds to, or rather\nfollows upon, father, the expression is clear; for the meaning is, that\nhe had seen two of these terms of years, or successions, pass over\nthose who were born at the same time with himself. And in fact this\nsense of the term \u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03b5\u1f74 is much closer to its etymology than any other.\nWe may, then, on the whole, pretty safely assume it to be a term of\nyears, having the number thirty, so to speak, for its pivot. And thus\nthe three decades of the war become yet more inadmissible as historical\nexpressions, because they are under the strongest suspicion of being\npoetically employed in order to make up the \u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03b5\u1f74, so far at least as\nthey and it can be considered to approximate to an actual number at all.\n\nIn full conformity with this reasoning, it has been shown by Mure,\nthat the events of the third decade, with their times, instead of ten\nyears only, make up eight years and seven months[829]: and he proceeds\nin the same direction with the foregoing argument so far, at least, as\nto observe, that the decades and their arrangement are conceived \u2018in a\nmixed spirit of hyperbole and method,\u2019 which commonly marks the genius\nof heroic romance[830].\n\n[829] Lit. Greece, i. 460. ii. 139.\n\n[830] Ibid. ii. 138.\n\nThat, however, which enables me with great confidence at once to urge\nHomer\u2019s historical authority, and yet to decline recognising him as a\nchronologist at all, is the fact, that he nowhere founds his history at\nall in chronology, or in the numbering of events by years, more than\nhe numbers distances by miles, but that he arranges the succession\nof occurrences by the \u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03b5\u03b1\u1f76 or succession of human generations. On\nthese generations we must look as the real time-keeping organism of his\nworks: and the time with its elastic periods, although indeterminate in\nits details, is kept by him most accurately and effectually as a whole;\nso that his generations, which are dispersedly recorded in various\nparts of the poems, always tally when they meet. This is not the place\nfor the proof of the assertion: I only refer to it, because it may help\nto dispel the illusion apt to possess the mind with respect to Homer\u2019s\ndecades. We, with our definite numerical ideas, may naturally consider\nthat if an author of our own day had said a war lasted in preparation,\naction, and return, each ten years, and if it was afterwards found\nperhaps to have lasted (say) only for ten years altogether or little\nmore, such an author would have proved himself unworthy of belief: he\nwould have broken faith with us. But Homer does not break faith with\nus in using numbers poetically; they belong to his pictorial and not\nto his historical apparatus, and in connection with this pictorial\napparatus it is that he constantly employs them. I doubt if there is\nany exception to be made to the broad assertion, that, unless in the\nsingle case of the war, with the preceding and following decades,\nHomer never applies number to narrative. And yet the poems are full of\nindependent narratives. Of all these, very few indeed are left unfixed\nin date; and in every case the date, when found, is found, of course\nwith a certain margin, by means of the order of generations.\n\n~_Difficulties of the literal interpretation._~\n\nNow this view of Homer\u2019s mode of chronology will serve, I think, to\nexplain some difficulties that have heretofore led to much of needless\nperplexity. If I am right, it will follow that we must not adopt\nthese decades as a guide to determine arithmetically the order of\nevents, because Homer has never conceived them arithmetically, but\nhas conceived them rather as we conceive millions or billions. Hence\nthey are more justly to be viewed as a drapery thrown loosely over\nhis action, than as a rigid framework into which it must at all costs\nbe made to fit. Let us apply this to various cases; and among them\nto those of Telemachus and Neoptolemus respectively. Ulysses left\nTelemachus a mere child, \u03bd\u03ad\u03bf\u03bd \u03b3\u03b5\u03b3\u03b1\u1ff6\u03c4\u2019 \u1f10\u03bd\u1f76 \u03bf\u1f34\u03ba\u1ff3[831]. He comes back and\nfinds him not a full man, for if he had been a full man, he would have\nbeen guilty of a rooted cowardice beyond excuse, which there is no sign\nthat Homer meant to impute to him; but yet he was approaching manhood.\nStill he is contemptuously called \u03bd\u03ad\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c0\u03b1\u1fd6\u03c2[832] by Antinous. Upon the\nwhole, the case of Telemachus would perhaps, according to the analogy\nof the poems, best fall in with an absence of not more than fifteen\nyears, though it does not absolutely exclude nineteen. Here there may\nbe a slight, yet there is not a glaring, discrepancy. But in another\ncase, that of the number of the days for which Telemachus was absent,\nMure has shown how little Homer cares to follow the lapse of time, in\na case where it does not essentially touch the general order of the\npoem, with the precision that he observes in everything that he treats\nhistorically[833]. I cannot treat this as a difficulty with respect to\nthe question of authorship, or admit it to be one: it is his childlike\nand indeterminate but poetical habit of handling numbers for effect,\njust as a painter handles colour. On the other hand, in the case of\nArgus, on whom dark death laid hold[834],\n\n[831] Od. xii. 112, 144.\n\n[832] Od. iv. 665.\n\n[833] Mure, Hist. Lit. Greece, vol. i. p. 437.\n\n[834] Od. xvii. 327.\n\n \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03af\u03ba\u2019 \u1f30\u03b4\u03cc\u03bd\u03c4\u2019 \u1f48\u03b4\u03c5\u03c3\u1fc6\u03b1 \u1f10\u03b5\u03b9\u03ba\u03bf\u03c3\u03c4\u1ff7 \u1f10\u03bd\u03b9\u03b1\u03c5\u03c4\u1ff7,\n\nhe precisely coincides with his own decades. Yet I believe he does\nthis not from any sense of the necessity of such coincidence, but\nbecause in that incomparable passage he had the extreme old age of a\ndog to represent, and to this the expression of the twentieth year\nwas suited. When, however, we come to the case of Neoptolemus, we\nfind this to be one extremely difficult of adjustment for any critic,\nwho would insist upon a merely numerical precision in Homer. We must\nindeed dismiss from our minds the tales about the concealment of a\nbeardless Achilles at Scyros, under a female disguise; from which he\nwas extracted by the art of Ulysses. Of these stories Homer knows\nnothing; though it seems probable that the grace and beauty of the\ngreat warrior, as he stands in Homer, may have been connected with,\nor may have suggested, them. But what the Poet does represent is,\nthat Achilles went to Troy when without experience in war, that he\nwas put under a certain tutelage of Ph\u0153nix his original teacher, and\nnow one of his lieutenants, that Patroclus as his senior was desired\nby Peleus to give him good advice, and that he is called \u03bd\u03ae\u03c0\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2[835].\nYet his son Neoptolemus succeeds him in command before the close of\nthe war, and attains to very high distinction. It is yet more needful\nto be observed, that his distinction is in council, as well as in\nthe field[836]. The age of Achilles is, indeed, presumably somewhat\nraised by the fact, that Ph\u0153nix seems to represent himself as a good\ndeal younger than Peleus, who, he says, treated him as a father might\nhave done[837]. And again, Achilles is never represented as a young\nman in the Iliad, while Diomed is so represented. Still there is a\ndecided incompatibility in the statements as to Achilles and his son,\nif we suppose that Homer carried in his mind the effect of his three\ndecades, as determining precisely the growth of Neoptolemus in years\nand strength; for Neoptolemus is more advanced at the end of the war,\nthan his illustrious father had been at its beginning. Mure has been\nat the pains[838] to arrange all these matters which depend on the\ndecades chronologically, without, I think, removing the impression that\nmere chronology is considerably strained by them, and that if strictly\njudged, the narrative is, to all appearance, chargeable with some few\nyears of maladjustment. It seems to me more near the truth to consider\nthe three decades, together making up a \u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03b5\u1f74, as a distribution of\ntime which the Poet adopted for its symmetry and grandeur, since it\nrepresented the war as absorbing an age or generation of men: but not\nto hold him bound to adjust the relations of all the events he narrates\nwith reference to a minute regularity of progression, which he seems\nnot to have taken into account, and which his hearers were probably\nquite incapable of appreciating. If we wish to test his historical\ncredit, we may try him by his own scheme of chronology, namely, his\ngenealogies. His legends embrace some seven generations. The same\ncharacters are produced and reproduced in many of them; but they are\nnowhere presented in such a way as to be inconsistent with their order\nof succession according to the ordinary laws of human nature.\n\n[835] Il. ix. 438. and xi. 783.\n\n[836] Od. xi. 510-12.\n\n[837] Il. ix. 481.\n\n[838] Lit. Greece, ii. 141.\n\n~_Uses of the proposed interpretation._~\n\nThe application of these considerations to the poems will assist in\nexplaining difficulties, which it has been thought worth while by\nlearned men to raise.\n\nFor instance; while we take the three decades of years historically,\nwe are perplexed by such questions as, How it came about that the\nGreeks[839] never had been mustered till nine years had passed.\nSecondly, how it was that the Trojans had never until then seen them\nin such force[840]; whereas we know that multitudes of the Greek army\nhad died[841]; and there is no sign that any such communication with\ntheir native country took place during the course of the war, as might\nhave sufficed to replenish their ranks. Thirdly, why the Trojans had\nremained so closely shut within the walls, and yet at the same time\nthe Greeks had so seldom come near them, that Priam should not have\nlearnt to know Agamemnon and his compeers by sight during so long a\nperiod; and this although Achilles may probably have been absent, for\nconsiderable intervals, on his predatory expeditions. Fourthly, how it\ncame about that the great number of allies speaking various tongues,\nwho had gathered round Priam to assist him, should, like the Greek\narmy, not have been marshalled at an earlier time.\n\n[839] Il. ii. 360.\n\n[840] Il. ii. 799.\n\n[841] Il. i. 52. ii. 302.\n\nBut if we suppose the term of ten years to be in the main a figurative\nexpression for conveying the idea of effort lengthened in duration, as\nwell as extraordinary in intensity, difficulties like these, which at\nthe worst are perhaps not very serious, either wholly vanish, or are\nreduced to insignificant proportions. We are then at liberty to suppose\nthat, without at all departing from the general truth of history, Homer\nfelt himself authorized to compress, to expand, or to group the events\nof the war, in such a manner as he thought best for the concentration\nof interest, and for the production of adequate poetical and national\neffect.\n\n\nSECT. IV.\n\n_Homer\u2019s Perceptions and Use of Colour._\n\nThe subject of the Homeric numbers has been discussed at considerable\nlength, on account of its connection with important questions of\nhistory. That of colours may, even on its own merits, deserve a\ncareful examination. This inquiry will resemble, however, the former\ndiscussion in the appearance of paradox, which the argument may seem\nto present. Next to the idea of number, there is none perhaps more\ndefinite to the modern mind generally, as well as in particular to\nthe English mind, than that of colour. That our own country has some\nspecial aptitude in this respect, we may judge from the comparatively\nadvantageous position, which the British painters have always held\nas colourists among other contemporary schools. Nothing seems more\nreadily understood and retained by very young children among us, than\nthe distinctions between the principal colours. In regard to one point,\nthe case of numbers is here reversed. There the idea becomes indefinite\nas we ascend in the scale, here it is as we descend. Colour becomes\ndoubtful as it becomes faint, more and more clear as it is accumulated\nand heightened. But the facility with which we discriminate colour in\nall its marked forms, is probably the result of traditional aptitude,\nsince we seem to find, as we go far backward in human history, that the\nfaculty is less and less mature.\n\nI am conscious that the subject, which is now before us, in reality\ndeserves a scientific investigation, which I am not capable of\naffording to it: and also that we are, as yet, far from being able\nto render the language of the ancients for colour into our own with\nthe confidence, which we can feel in almost every other department of\ninterpretation. My endeavours will be limited, firstly, to a collection\nof \u2018_realien_,\u2019 or facts of the poems, in the case of Colour: and,\nsecondly, to pointing out what appears to be the basis of the ideas and\nperceptions of Homer respecting it, and the relation of that basis to\nthe ideas of the later Greeks.\n\nAmong the signs of the immaturity which I have mentioned, the following\nare found in the poems of Homer:\n\nI. The paucity of his colours.\n\nII. The use of the same word to denote not only different hues or tints\nof the same colour, but colours which, according to us, are essentially\ndifferent.\n\nIII. The description of the same object under epithets of colour\nfundamentally disagreeing one from the other.\n\nIV. The vast predominance of the most crude and elemental forms of\ncolour, black and white, over every other, and the decided tendency to\ntreat other colours as simply intermediate modes between these extremes.\n\nV. The slight use of colour in Homer, as compared with other elements\nof beauty, for the purpose of poetic effect, and its absence in certain\ncases where we might confidently expect to find it.\n\nEach of these topics will deserve a distinct notice.\n\n~_Homeric adjectives of Colour._~\n\nI. First, then, with respect to the paucity of his colours. We find, I\nthink, scarcely more than the following words which can with certainty\nbe described as adjectives of colour properly so called:\n\n 1. \u03bb\u03b5\u03c5\u03ba\u03cc\u03c2.\n 2. \u03bc\u03ad\u03bb\u03b1\u03c2.\n 3. \u03be\u03b1\u03bd\u03b8\u03cc\u03c2.\n 4. \u1f10\u03c1\u03c5\u03b8\u03c1\u03cc\u03c2.\n 5. \u03c0\u03bf\u03c1\u03c6\u03cd\u03c1\u03b5\u03bf\u03c2.\n 6. \u03ba\u03c5\u03ac\u03bd\u03b5\u03bf\u03c2.\n 7. \u03c6\u03bf\u03af\u03bd\u03b9\u03be.\n 8. \u03c0\u03cc\u03bb\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2.\n\nThere are other words which are taken from objects that have colour,\nand to most of which I shall hereafter refer: but which can hardly, in\nconsistency with the whole evidence from the text of Homer, be classed\nas adjectives of definite colour.\n\nNow we must at once be struck with the poverty of the list which\nhas just been given, upon comparing it with our own list of primary\ncolours, which has been determined for us by Nature, and which is as\nfollows:\n\n 1. Red.\n 2. Orange.\n 3. Yellow.\n 4. Green.\n 5. Blue.\n 6. Indigo.\n 7. Violet.\n\nTo these we are to add--\n\n 8. White, the compound of all colours;\n 9. Black, the negative or absence of them all.\n\nOut of these nine, three at least stand unrepresented. For \u03c0\u03cc\u03bb\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2\ncan mean none of them: and \u03c6\u03bf\u03af\u03bd\u03b9\u03be can do no more than double either\n\u03c0\u03bf\u03c1\u03c6\u03cd\u03c1\u03b5\u03bf\u03c2, or \u03be\u03b1\u03bd\u03b8\u1f78\u03c2, or \u1f10\u03c1\u03c5\u03b8\u03c1\u03cc\u03c2. The most favourable presumptions\nwould perhaps arrange the Homeric list as follows:\n\n 1. \u03bb\u03b5\u03c5\u03ba\u1f78\u03c2, white.\n 2. \u03bc\u03ad\u03bb\u03b1\u03c2, black.\n 3. \u03be\u03b1\u03bd\u03b8\u1f78\u03c2, yellow.\n 4. \u1f10\u03c1\u03c5\u03b8\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2, red.\n 5. \u03c0\u03bf\u03c1\u03c6\u03cd\u03c1\u03b5\u03bf\u03c2, violet.\n 6. \u03ba\u03c5\u03ac\u03bd\u03b5\u03bf\u03c2, indigo.\n\nAnd thus orange, green, and blue would remain without any corresponding\nterms. But, in truth, when we examine further into Homer\u2019s mode of\nemploying his adjectives of colour in detail, we shall perceive that he\nis by no means so rich as this classification would allow.\n\nThe other words which will presently be considered, but which have\nvery slight claims indeed to be treated as adjectives of definite\ncolour, are as follows:\n\n 1. \u03c7\u03bb\u03c9\u03c1\u03cc\u03c2.\n 2. \u03b1\u1f30\u03b8\u03b1\u03bb\u03cc\u03b5\u03b9\u03c2.\n 3. \u1fe5\u03bf\u03b4\u03cc\u03b5\u03b9\u03c2.\n 4. \u1f30\u03cc\u03b5\u03b9\u03c2.\n 5. \u03bf\u1f34\u03bd\u03bf\u03c8.\n 6. \u03bc\u03b9\u03bb\u03c4\u03bf\u03c0\u03ac\u03c1\u03b7\u03bf\u03c2.\n 7. \u03b1\u1f34\u03b8\u03c9\u03bd.\n 8. \u1f00\u03c1\u03b3\u03cc\u03c2.\n 9. \u03b1\u1f34\u03bf\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2.\n 10. \u03b3\u03bb\u03b1\u03c5\u03ba\u03cc\u03c2.\n 11. \u03c7\u03ac\u03c1\u03bf\u03c0\u03bf\u03c2.\n 12. \u03c3\u03b9\u03b3\u03b1\u03bb\u03cc\u03b5\u03b9\u03c2.\n 13. \u03bc\u03b1\u03c1\u03bc\u03ac\u03c1\u03b5\u03bf\u03c2.\n\nAlong with each of these adjectives, which are the chief though not\nquite the only ones of their class in Homer, I shall take the cognate\nwords, such as verbs or compounds, which may belong to them.\n\n~_Applications of them._~\n\nII. Let us now review the particular applications which Homer has\nmade of these words respectively. Among them, however, it will not be\nnecessary to include \u03bb\u03b5\u03c5\u03ba\u1f78\u03c2 and \u03bc\u03ad\u03bb\u03b1\u03c2, because those epithets indicate\nideas which have at all times been used, to a considerable extent, by\nway of approximation only.\n\n1. \u03be\u03b1\u03bd\u03b8\u1f78\u03c2 is applied by Homer to the following objects:\n\n_a._ horses, \u1f35\u03c0\u03c0\u03c9\u03bd \u03be\u03b1\u03bd\u03b8\u1f70 \u03ba\u03ac\u03c1\u03b7\u03bd\u03b1, Il. ix. 407.\n\n_b._ hair of men, \u03be\u03b1\u03bd\u03b8\u1f78\u03c2 \u039c\u03b5\u03bd\u03ad\u03bb\u03b1\u03bf\u03c2, _passim_: Achilles, Il. i. 197.\n\n_c._ hair of women, \u03be\u03b1\u03bd\u03b8\u1f74 \u1f08\u03b3\u03b1\u03bc\u03ae\u03b4\u03b7, Il. xi. 739; \u0394\u03b7\u03bc\u03ae\u03c4\u03b7\u03c1, Il. v. 500.\n\n2. \u1f10\u03c1\u03c5\u03b8\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 is evidently the same word with the Latin _ruber_, and with\nour own \u2018ruddy,\u2019 as well as probably the German _roth_.\n\nIt is used by Homer for\n\n _a._ Copper in Il. ix. 365.\n _b._ Nectar, Il. xix. 38.\n _c._ Wine, Od. v. 93.\n _d._ Blood: in \u1f10\u03c1\u03c5\u03b8\u03b1\u03af\u03bd\u03c9, Il. x. 484.\n\n3. \u03c0\u03bf\u03c1\u03c6\u03cd\u03c1\u03b5\u03bf\u03c2 again is the Latin _purpura_, and our \u2018purple,\u2019 as well as\nour \u2018porphyry.\u2019 In the uses of this word we shall find for the first\ntime a startling amount of obvious discrepancy: and it will require to\nbe considered in the proper place, whether this discrepancy is to be\nreferred to a bold exercise of the Poet\u2019s art, or to an undeveloped\nknowledge and a consequently defective standard of colour.\n\nThe word \u03c0\u03bf\u03c1\u03c6\u03cd\u03c1\u03b5\u03bf\u03c2 is employed as follows for objects of sense:\n\n_a._ Blood, Il. xvii. 361.\n\n_b._ Dark cloud, ibid. 551.\n\n_c._ Wave of a river when disturbed, Il. xxi. 326.\n\n_d._ Wave of the sea, Il. i. 482; and the disturbed sea, Il. xvi. 391.\n\n_e._ The ball with which the Ph\u00e6acian dancers played, Od. viii. 373.\n\n_f._ Garments, as Il. viii. 221; Od. iv. 115.\n\n_g._ Carpets, as Od. xxi. 151; Il. xxiv. 645.\n\n_h._ The rainbow, Il. xvii. 547.\n\n_i._ Metaphorically it is applied to Death, Il. v. 83: and, as it would\nappear, to bloody death only.\n\nFurther, the verb \u03c0\u03bf\u03c1\u03c6\u03cd\u03c1\u03c9 is applied\n\n _a._ to the sea darkening, Il. xiv. 16.\n _b._ to the mind brooding, Il. xx. 551.\n\nAgain, the compound \u1f01\u03bb\u03b9\u03c0\u03cc\u03c1\u03c6\u03c5\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2 is applied\n\n _a._ to wool, Od. vi. 53.\n _b._ to garments woven of it, Od. xiii. 108.\n\nIn this epithet we have the additional idea of the sea introduced; and\nit literally means \u2018sea-purple.\u2019 But I postpone any remark with respect\nto Homer\u2019s particular intention in the use of the word, until we come\nto the epithets derived from \u1f34\u03bf\u03bd, a violet.\n\nThree forms of colour at least seem to be comprehended under this group\nof words;\n\n1. The redness of blood.\n\n2. The purple proper, as of the sea in Il. i. 482. To this also\nprobably belongs the rainbow, of whose seven colours three may be\nsaid to belong to the family of blue: and which is termed blue by\nShakespeare.\n\n3. The grey and leaden colour of a dark cloud when about to burst in\nstorm, and of a river when disturbed.\n\nWe shall hereafter see reason to suppose that the word may also and\noften mean what is tawny or brown.\n\n~_Of \u03ba\u03cd\u03b1\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 and \u03ba\u03c5\u03ac\u03bd\u03b5\u03bf\u03c2._~\n\n4. The word \u03ba\u03c5\u03ac\u03bd\u03b5\u03bf\u03c2 is very important in this inquiry; and\nunfortunately it is not less obscure.\n\nIt at once throws us back on the prior question, what was \u03ba\u03cd\u03b1\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2? But\nthis question remains almost wholly undetermined[842]; so that we must\nfollow, as well as we can, the Homeric applications of the word itself,\ntogether with its adjective and its compounds. These are very numerous.\nFirst we have the substantive \u03ba\u03cd\u03b1\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 introduced in three places: in\neach of which it evidently belongs to a combination of colours as well\nas of substances.\n\n[842] See note at the end of the Section.\n\n_a._ Once it is \u03ba\u03cd\u03b1\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 simply. The interior wall of the hall of\nAlcinous is covered with sheets of copper[843]; and round the top is a\n\u03b8\u03c1\u03b9\u03b3\u03ba\u1f78\u03c2 or fringe of \u03ba\u03cd\u03b1\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2. Od. vii. 87.\n\n[843] Ibid.\n\n_b._ Twice it is \u03bc\u03ad\u03bb\u03b1\u03c2 \u03ba\u03cd\u03b1\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2. On the breast-plate of Agamemnon there\nare twenty stripes or layers of tin, twelve of gold, and ten \u03bc\u03ad\u03bb\u03b1\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2\n\u03ba\u03c5\u03ac\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9\u03bf. Il. xi. 24, Also;\n\n_c._ Upon his shield there were ten rounds of copper; and then,\napparently on the face of the shield within these, twenty white bosses\n(\u1f44\u03bc\u03c6\u03b1\u03bb\u03bf\u03b9 \u03bb\u03b5\u03c5\u03ba\u03bf\u1f76) made of tin, if such be the meaning of \u03ba\u03b1\u03c3\u03c3\u03af\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2: in\nthe centre of all, there was one boss \u03bc\u03ad\u03bb\u03b1\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 \u03ba\u03c5\u03ac\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9\u03bf. Il. xi. 35.\n\nPassing now to \u03ba\u03c5\u03ac\u03bd\u03b5\u03bf\u03c2, we come next to three passages where it may\nbe questioned whether they describe colour only, or substance only, or\nboth.\n\n_d._ Upon the breastplate of Agamemnon, which has ten layers of black\n\u03ba\u03cd\u03b1\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2, there are on either side three \u03ba\u03c5\u03ac\u03bd\u03b5\u03bf\u03b9 \u03b4\u03c1\u03ac\u03ba\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 (Il. xi. 26).\nThese are compared to the rainbow, which, as we have already seen, is\ndescribed elsewhere as \u03c0\u03bf\u03c1\u03c6\u03c5\u03c1\u03b5\u03ae.\n\n_e._ On the silver-plated belt of Agamemnon there is a \u03ba\u03c5\u03ac\u03bd\u03b5\u03bf\u03c2 \u03b4\u03c1\u03ac\u03ba\u03c9\u03bd.\nIl. xi. 38, 9.\n\n_f._ Around the golden vineyard on the shield of Achilles, with its\nsilver stakes, there is a fence of \u03ba\u03b1\u03c3\u03c3\u03af\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2 and a trench (\u03ba\u03ac\u03c0\u03b5\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2)\ndescribed as \u03ba\u03c5\u03b1\u03bd\u03ad\u03b7. Il. xviii. 564.\n\nThe other applications at once appear to have reference to colour only.\n\n_g._ To the eyebrows of Jupiter and Juno. Il. i. 528. xv. 102. xvii.\n209.\n\n_h._ To a dark cloud of vapour; but not to a storm-cloud. Il. xxiii.\n188. v. 345. xx. 418.\n\n_i._ To the hair of Hector, Il. xxii. 402; and to the beard of Ulysses,\nwhen he is restored to beauty by Minerva. Od. xvi. 176. With this we\nmay compare the hyacinthine hair of Ulysses in Od. vi. 231.\n\n_j._ To the serried masses of the Greeks: \u03c0\u03c5\u03ba\u03b9\u03bd\u03b1\u1f76 \u03ba\u03af\u03bd\u03c5\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf \u03c6\u03ac\u03bb\u03b1\u03b3\u03b3\u03b5\u03c2\n\u03ba\u03c5\u03ac\u03bd\u03b5\u03b1\u03b9. Il. iv. 281. Now this epithet must have been derived from\ntheir arms, and these would probably be composed in the main of two\nelements, not easy to combine in a common idea of colour; firstly,\ncopper, which is ruddy; and secondly, the hides of oxen upon the\nshields and elsewhere. Homer never (except in Il. xiii. 703, and Od.\nxiii. 32) describes these animals by any epithet of colour. In those\ntwo passages they are \u03b2\u03cc\u03b5 \u03bf\u1f34\u03bd\u03bf\u03c0\u03b5. This epithet will be considered\npresently. In the meantime, we may assume it as probable, that a dark\ncolour would predominate, and that accordingly we should so understand\n\u03ba\u03c5\u03ac\u03bd\u03b5\u03b1\u03b9: but the leaning towards _blue_, which so often characterizes\nthe epithet, thus entirely escapes. The word is also applied to the\nTrojan host, in Il. xvi. 66.\n\n_k._ Thetis puts on mourning garments for Patroclus, when about to\nappear to Achilles, Il. xxiv. 93.\n\n \u03ba\u03ac\u03bb\u03c5\u03bc\u03bc\u2019 \u1f15\u03bb\u03b5 \u03b4\u1fd6\u03b1 \u03b8\u03b5\u03ac\u03c9\u03bd\n \u03ba\u03c5\u03ac\u03bd\u03b5\u03bf\u03bd\u00b7 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03b4\u2019 \u03bf\u1f54\u03c4\u03b9 \u03bc\u03b5\u03bb\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd \u1f14\u03c0\u03bb\u03b5\u03c4\u03bf \u1f14\u03c3\u03b8\u03bf\u03c2.\n\nHere Homer is careful to inform us that the \u03ba\u03ac\u03bb\u03c5\u03bc\u03bc\u03b1, or hood and\nmantle, was the blackest garment possible; and, since in Il. iv. 287 we\nfind that he was acquainted with pitch, we need not scruple to assume\nthat here he speaks literally, and either means a real black, which,\nnevertheless, he also calls \u03ba\u03c5\u03ac\u03bd\u03b5\u03bf\u03bd, or sees no difference between the\ngenuine black and the colour of \u03ba\u03cd\u03b1\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2.\n\n_l._ When the wave of Charybdis retires, the shore appears \u03c8\u03ac\u03bc\u03bc\u1ff3\n\u03ba\u03c5\u03b1\u03bd\u03ad\u1fc3. Now the colour of sea-sand, when it has just been left by the\nwave, is a dull but also rather a light brown.\n\nWe take now the compounds.\n\n1. \u03ba\u03c5\u03b1\u03bd\u03bf\u03c7\u03b1\u03af\u03c4\u03b7\u03c2 is applied\n\n_a._ To Neptune, e. g. Il. xv. 174.\n\n_b._ To a mare, Il. xx. 224.\n\n2. \u03ba\u03c5\u03b1\u03bd\u1ff6\u03c0\u03b9\u03c2 is applied to Amphitrite, or the sea, beating on rocks, Od.\nxii. 60.\n\n3. \u03ba\u03c5\u03b1\u03bd\u03cc\u03c0\u03b5\u03b6\u03b1 is used for the foot of a beautiful table (Il. xi. 628).\nHere possibly substance may be designated rather than colour. Metal at\nthe foot would give steadiness to a table.\n\n4. We have \u03ba\u03c5\u03b1\u03bd\u03cc\u03c0\u03c1\u03c9\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2 and \u03ba\u03c5\u03b1\u03bd\u03bf\u03c0\u03c1\u03ce\u03c1\u03b5\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2 for the prow of a ship.\nEvidently it is the coloured prow: for otherwise the prow would be of\nthe same hue with the rest of the ship. (Il. xv. 693, _et alibi_.) So\nthe prows of ships are called \u03bc\u03b9\u03bb\u03c4\u03bf\u03c0\u03ac\u03c1\u03b7\u03bf\u03b9, in Il. ii. 637, and Od. ix.\n125. Now \u03bc\u03af\u03bb\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 was red earth or ochre; and yet it seems that Homer\nuses \u03bc\u03b9\u03bb\u03c4\u03bf\u03c0\u03ac\u03c1\u03b7\u03bf\u03c2 as equivalent to \u03ba\u03c5\u03b1\u03bd\u03cc\u03c0\u03c1\u03c9\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2. For the first epithet is\napplied in the Catalogue to the ships led by Ulysses; and the second in\nOd. x. 127 to the vessel in which he sailed.\n\nThe uses of this group of words thus appear to exhibit a degree of\nindefiniteness, hardly reconcilable with the supposition that Homer\npossessed accurate ideas of colour. There is no one colour that can\ncover them all. The hood of Thetis is closely akin to black; the prow\nof a ship to at least a dull red; the sand is of russet or a lightish\nbrown; the cloud a leaden grey; the hair and eyebrows are of a deep\nbut not a dull colour; the cornice in the hall of Alcinous must have\nbeen in relief and contrast as compared with the copper wall, and\nsufficiently light or clear to strike the eye at a distance, in an\ninterior lighted at night only from the ground. With perhaps this\nexception, the word \u2018dark\u2019 will cover all the uses of \u03ba\u03c5\u03ac\u03bd\u03b5\u03bf\u03c2: but dark\nderives its force from a relation to light, and not to colour.\n\n~_Of \u03c6\u03bf\u03af\u03bd\u03b9\u03be, \u03c0\u03cc\u03bb\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2._~\n\n5. \u03a6\u03bf\u03af\u03bd\u03b9\u03be in Homer is clearly a word descriptive of colour: but it as\nclearly partakes of the indefinite character attaching to the other\nwords of the class.\n\n_a._ The blood drawn by Pandarus from Menelaus is compared to the\ncolour \u03c6\u03bf\u03af\u03bd\u03b9\u03be, used for staining ivory. In this simile, the sense leans\nto red, especially as the hue of ivory is so near to that of flesh\n(Il. iv. 141). It is mentioned in other places, probably with the same\nsense, as an ornamental dye.\n\n_b._ In Il. xxiii. 454, we learn that one of the horses of Diomed was\n\u03c6\u03bf\u03af\u03bd\u03b9\u03be, with a round white mark on his forehead. Whether we render this\nbay or chestnut, it is materially different from the red colour of\nblood.\n\n_c._ \u03a6\u03bf\u03af\u03bd\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2 is used for blood, Od. xviii. 96.\n\n_d._ As is \u03c6\u03bf\u03b9\u03bd\u1f78\u03c2 in Il. xvi. 159.\n\n_e._ And \u03c6\u03bf\u03b9\u03bd\u03b9\u03ba\u03cc\u03b5\u03b9\u03c2 in Il. xxiii. 716. This word is also applied to a\ncloak, Il. x. 133.\n\n_f._ A dragon or serpent, borne by an eagle, is \u03c6\u03bf\u03b9\u03bd\u03ae\u03b5\u03b9\u03c2, apparently\nbecause dappled or streaked with his own blood, Il. xii. 200-6, 218-21.\n\n_g._ Ships are \u03c6\u03bf\u03b9\u03bd\u03b9\u03ba\u03bf\u03c0\u03ac\u03c1\u03b7\u03bf\u03b9, Od. xi. 123, and xxiii. 272: this word is\napparently synonymous with \u03bc\u03b9\u03bb\u03c4\u03bf\u03c0\u03ac\u03c1\u03b7\u03bf\u03b9.\n\n_h._ The serpent is \u03b4\u03ac\u03c6\u03bf\u03b9\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c0\u1f76 \u03bd\u1ff6\u03c4\u03b1, Il. ii. 308. And we have the\n\u03b4\u03ac\u03c6\u03bf\u03b9\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd \u03b4\u03ad\u03c1\u03bc\u03b1 \u03bb\u03ad\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2, Il. x. 23.\n\nOn the whole, we trace here not less than three senses: that in which\n\u03c6\u03bf\u03af\u03bd\u03b9\u03be is applied to the horse, which appears to be the equivalent\nof \u03be\u03b1\u03bd\u03b8\u1f78\u03c2, the more prevailing word: next, that of the tawny and\ndull-coloured lion\u2019s hide: then that of the brighter but yet deep\ncolour of blood, which is freely called \u03c0\u03bf\u03c1\u03c6\u03cd\u03c1\u03b5\u03bf\u03c2. So that \u03c6\u03bf\u03af\u03bd\u03b9\u03be\nmerely renders other words, and does not at all assist to make up\ndeficiencies in the Homeric vocabulary for the expression of colour.\n\nConsidered as an epithet of colour, the word \u03b4\u03ac\u03c6\u03bf\u03b9\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2, meaning\nblood-red, is inappropriate to the dragon or serpent, and further\nserves to illustrate that vagueness, of which the signs multiply as we\nproceed.\n\n6. \u03c0\u03cc\u03bb\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2 is applied in Homer as follows:\n\n_a._ To human hair in connection with old age, Il. xxii. 74 _et alibi_.\n\n_b._ To the sea, Il. i. 350 _et passim_. It remains to inquire, whether\nthis refers to the sea, or to the foam upon it.\n\n_c._ To iron, Il. ix. 366. xx. 261. Od. xxi. 3, 81. xxiv. 167.\n\n_d._ To the hide of a wolf, which Dolon put on for his nocturnal\nexpedition, Il. x. 334. The meaning of the word here appears to be not\n\u2018gray\u2019 but \u2018white.\u2019 It is Homer\u2019s evident intention to exhibit Dolon as\na sort of simpleton[844] (x. 316, 17); and accordingly he takes a white\ncovering, which makes him visible to the eye by night, so that Ulysses\nsaw him (\u03c6\u03c1\u03ac\u03c3\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf, 339).\n\n[844] The celebrated Hunter noticed that Homer had made Dolon an\nonly son with five sisters, as a proof of the Poet\u2019s sagacity in\nobservation: having himself found, that youths under such circumstances\nare generally more or less effeminate. I owe this information to one of\nthe most distinguished living members of the profession, which Hunter\nhimself adorned. It was also a favourite remark, I believe, with Mr.\nRogers.\n\nThe last, then, of these four uses is _white_. The first clearly\ninclines to the same idea. The second might bear either of two senses.\nBut iron cannot be brought nearer to white, even if we assume it to\nbe always polished, than a bluish grey; which, in truth, is somewhat\ndistant from white. It will, moreover, be seen, that Homer also\ndescribes iron as \u03b1\u1f34\u03b8\u03c9\u03bd, and as \u1f30\u03cc\u03b5\u03b9\u03c2.\n\n~_The quasi-adjectives of colour._~\n\nI now come to the class of words, in dealing with which it will be\nshown that they have not in general even the pretensions of those that\nhave preceded to be treated as adjectives of definite colour.\n\n7. \u03c7\u03bb\u03c9\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 is used in Homer,\n\n_a._ Chiefly in a metaphorical sense, as directly descriptive of fear.\n\n_b._ For the paleness of the face derived from fear, as in \u03c7\u03bb\u03c9\u03c1\u03bf\u1f76 \u1f51\u03c0\u03b1\u1f76\n\u03b4\u03b5\u03af\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2, Il. x. 376 and xv. 4. This use discloses to us the basis of the\nlast-named metaphor.\n\n_c._ For twigs, apparently when fresh-pulled by Eum\u00e6us to make a bed\nfor Ulysses, who was an unexpected guest; Od. xvi. 47.\n\n_d._ For honey, Il. xi. 630: where it must mean either pale, or fresh.\n\n_e._ For the olive-wood club of the Cyclops in Od. ix. 320, 379. Here,\nfor the first time, we find the word applied to an object that might\nperhaps be called green. But still there are two observations to be\nmade. First, even the leaf of the olive is rather grey than green:\nand this is the bark, not the leaf, which is yet more grey, and yet\nless green. Secondly, the governing idea is not the greenness, but the\nnewness: for Ulysses says that he heated it in the ashes until it was\nabout to take fire, \u03c7\u03bb\u03c9\u03c1\u03cc\u03c2 \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1 \u1f10\u03ce\u03bd; although freshly cut, and still\nseething with the sap.\n\n_f._ The derivative \u03c7\u03bb\u03c9\u03c1\u03b7\u1fd2\u03c2 is applied to the nightingale in Od. xix.\n518, as a lover of the woods: and here the idea of greenness seems to\nbe rather less faintly indicated.\n\nUpon the whole, then, \u03c7\u03bb\u03c9\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 indicates rather the absence than the\npresence of definite colour, although it is derived from \u03c7\u03bb\u03bf\u1f74, meaning\nyoung herbage. If regarded as an epithet of colour, it involves at\nonce an hopeless contradiction between the colour of honey on the one\nside, and greenness on the other. Again, the more we assume it to mean\ngreen, the more startling it becomes that it could have taken paleness,\nas is manifestly the case, for its governing idea. Next to paleness,\nit serves chiefly for freshness, i. e. as opposed to what is stale or\nwithered: a singular combination with the former sense. The idea of\ngreen we scarcely find, unless once, connected with this word in the\npoems of Homer: and yet it is a remarkable fact that there is no other\nword in the poems that can even be supposed to represent a colour,\nwhich, not the rainbow only, but every day nature, presents so largely\nto the eye.\n\n8. I take next the word \u03b1\u1f30\u03b8\u03b1\u03bb\u03cc\u03b5\u03b9\u03c2. The Homeric sense of this word seems\nsomewhat to resemble that of \u03ba\u03c5\u03ac\u03bd\u03b5\u03bf\u03c2; although there is the difference\nbetween them, that the derivation here is from \u03b1\u1f30\u03b8\u03ac\u03bb\u03b7, soot.\n\nThis epithet is applied by Homer, in sufficient conformity, as is\ncontended, with the idea of soot,\n\n_a._ To the interior of the palace of Ulysses, Od. xxii. 239, and to\nthat of Priam, Il. ii. 415. In the latter case the word will, as it\nappears from the context, bear to be construed with reference to the\nstate of a house blackened by a conflagration.\n\n_b._ To the dark ash \u03ba\u03cc\u03bd\u03b9\u03c2 \u03b1\u1f30\u03b8\u03b1\u03bb\u03cc\u03b5\u03c3\u03c3\u03b1, which Achilles poured over his\nhead, Il. xviii. 23, and which, in ver. 25, is called \u03bc\u03ad\u03bb\u03b1\u03b9\u03bd\u03b1 \u03c4\u03ad\u03c6\u03c1\u03b7:\nthis material Laertes also used for the same purpose in Od. xxiv. 315.\nYet the propriety of the second of these two applications depends,\nfirst, upon the rather hardy supposition, that both Achilles and\nLaertes had by them, at the moment of their sorrow, the remains of a\nwood-fire; and, secondly, upon the assumption that the word \u03ba\u03cc\u03bd\u03b9\u03c2 may\nmean fire-ashes as well as dust in general. But we may doubt both of\nthese assumptions; while, if \u03ba\u03cc\u03bd\u03b9\u03c2 means \u2018dust,\u2019 and \u03b1\u1f30\u03b8\u03b1\u03bb\u03cc\u03b5\u03b9\u03c2 \u2018sooty,\u2019\nit becomes plain that this epithet is used, like others, with very\ngreat latitude.\n\n9. It may be admitted that, at a first view, the words \u1fe5\u03bf\u03b4\u03cc\u03b5\u03b9\u03c2 and\n\u1fe5\u03bf\u03b4\u03bf\u03b4\u03ac\u03ba\u03c4\u03c5\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2 would appear to be in the strictest sense epithets of\ncolour. But it still would seem that they add nothing to Homer\u2019s\ndefective means of expressing it: and not only so, but, in fact, scanty\nas is their use, it is so little congruous, that we are driven to\nsuppose he must have employed these words in a sense not only elastic,\nbut altogether indeterminate and purely figurative.\n\n\u1fec\u03bf\u03b4\u03bf\u03b4\u03ac\u03ba\u03c4\u03c5\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2, or rosy-fingered, has become, through Homer\u2019s example and\nauthority, a classical epithet for the morning. It is, however, more\nopen to criticism than is usually the case with the Homeric epithets.\nThere is nothing strange in personifying Morn, in order to embellish\nher with an epithet belonging to personal beauty; but redness, applied\nto the fingers, and not merely to their tips, is more than equivocal in\nthis respect, since that colour is only even admissible in the interior\nof the hand, which is the part not seen, and therefore presumably the\npart not intended in \u1fe5\u03bf\u03b4\u03bf\u03b4\u03ac\u03ba\u03c4\u03c5\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2.\n\nThere are certain very fugitive tints of the sky, which approach to the\nhue of the rose: but if Homer had the colour of that flower definitely\nin his view, it is most singular that he should never use it, either\nfor the human form or otherwise, except on this and one other occasion\nonly.\n\nThe nature of that other occasion is yet more strange. Hector\u2019s corpse\nis anointed, in Il. xxiii. 186, with rosy oil, \u1fe5\u03bf\u03b4\u03cc\u03b5\u03bd\u03c4\u03b9 \u1f10\u03bb\u03b1\u03af\u1ff3. It does\nnot appear allowable to follow Damm in rendering this as oil _made\nfrom_ roses: for we have no such thing as \u1f14\u03bb\u03b1\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd in Homer, except from\nthe olive-tree. It therefore applies to the hue of olive oil: and no\nconceivable use of an epithet could be more conclusive to show an\nextreme vagueness in the Poet\u2019s ideas of colour, as well as probably in\nthose of his age.\n\n10. The violet, no less than the rose, has supplied Homer with\nepithets, which he has used in such a manner as to deprive them of all\nspecific force as vehicles for the expression of a peculiar colour.\n\nThere is certainly a great temptation, when we find in Homer the\n\u1f30\u03bf\u03b5\u03b9\u03b4\u03ad\u03b1 \u03c0\u03cc\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd, to give him credit for the full meaning of this very\nbeautiful epithet, which he uses thrice for the sea (Il. ix. 298, Od.\nv. 55, xi. 106), and never in any other connection. But when we examine\nhis employment of cognate words, it is obvious that he can mean little\nmore by the epithet, than to convey a rather vague idea of darkness.\n\nFor he uses \u1f30\u03cc\u03b5\u03b9\u03c2 as an epithet for iron (Il. xxiii. 850): and\n\u1f30\u03bf\u03b4\u03bd\u03b5\u03c6\u1f74\u03c2, first for the wool (Od. iv. 135) with which Helen is\nspinning. Here we might be tempted to presume a purple dye. Yet it\nwould be a somewhat strained supposition: for what title have we to say\nthat dyeing was in use among the Greeks of the Homeric age? Do we hear\nof any dye except that of the \u03c6\u03bf\u03af\u03bd\u03b9\u03be, a name which tends to indicate\na foreign character? And does not the introduction of the M\u00e6onian\nor Carian woman in the simile of Il. iv. 141, to stain the ivory--a\nmost simple example of the art, or scarcely an example at all--afford\na strong presumption, that the art was foreign to Greece? Such is\napparently the true inference: but, if it be the true one, then we at\nonce lose the specific force of purple for all the mantles, carpets,\nand the like, in the poems; and we are only entitled to presume them to\nhave been woven of a dark wool.\n\nThis construction is supported by the second and only other passage,\nin which Homer has used the word \u1f30\u03bf\u03b4\u03bd\u03b5\u03c6\u03ae\u03c2. For here (Od. ix. 426) he\nspeaks of the living sheep of Polyphemus as\n\n \u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u03bf\u03af \u03c4\u03b5 \u03bc\u03b5\u03b3\u03ac\u03bb\u03bf\u03b9 \u03c4\u03b5, \u1f30\u03bf\u03b4\u03bd\u03b5\u03c6\u1f72\u03c2 \u03b5\u1f36\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f14\u03c7\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2.\n\nThis passage appears evidently to apply to what we term black sheep,\nwhich are more strictly of a dark brown. So viewed, it affords another\nmost striking token of the indeterminateness of Homeric colours, that\nthe name of the violet can be employed with such a signification. And\nit also seems to carry forward the proof that the \u03c0\u03bf\u03c1\u03c6\u03cd\u03c1\u03b5\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c7\u03bb\u03b1\u1fd6\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9,\nthe \u1fe5\u03ae\u03b3\u03b5\u03b1, and all other woven objects with that epithet annexed, were\nin reality either black or brown.\n\n11. Homer employs the word \u03bf\u1f34\u03bd\u03bf\u03c8 with evident relation to colour; but\nit is for two objects only, viz.\n\n _a._ For oxen, in Il. xiii. 703, and Od. xiii. 32.\n\n _b._ For the sea, without reference to any peculiar state of it, in\n Il. i. 350, _et alibi_.\n\nThere is no small difficulty in combining these two uses by reference\nto the idea of a common colour. The sea is blue, grey, or green. Oxen\nare black, bay, or brown. I do not refer to their lighter colours,\nwhich are excluded by the nature of the epithet. It is remarkable that,\namong colours properly so called, Homer has none whatever, derived from\nthe name of an object, that are light, unless it be in the case of\nthe rose. The violet, the unknown \u03ba\u03cd\u03b1\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2, the \u03c6\u03bf\u03af\u03bd\u03b9\u03be, the \u03b1\u1f30\u03b8\u03b1\u03bb\u1f74, the\n\u1f01\u03bb\u03b9\u03c0\u03cc\u03c1\u03c6\u03c5\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2, the \u03c0\u03bf\u03c1\u03c6\u03cd\u03c1\u03b7, whatever else they may be, are all dark. And\nto this class \u03bf\u1f34\u03bd\u03bf\u03c8 evidently belongs.\n\nWine is mentioned by Homer in nearly one hundred and forty places:\nin the majority of them it has an epithet: but only ten times is it\ndescribed by an epithet of colour. Of these two are used for it,\n\u1f10\u03c1\u03c5\u03b8\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 and \u03bc\u03ad\u03bb\u03b1\u03c2; so that he plainly conceived of it as dark, but\nprobably without a determinate hue. He more frequently calls it \u03b1\u1f34\u03b8\u03bf\u03c8:\nbut this word, which fluctuates between the ideas of flame and smoke,\neither means tawny, or else refers to light, and not to colour, and\nbears the sense of sparkling.\n\nThus then \u03bf\u1f34\u03bd\u03bf\u03c8, like so many other words that we have gone through,\nvaguely indicates a dark hue, but cannot be referred to any one of the\nknown principal colours.\n\n12. The word \u03bc\u03b9\u03bb\u03c4\u03bf\u03c0\u03ac\u03c1\u03b7\u03bf\u03c2 has already been disposed of in connection\nwith \u03ba\u03c5\u03ac\u03bd\u03b5\u03bf\u03c2 and \u03c6\u03bf\u03af\u03bd\u03b9\u03be.\n\n13. \u03b1\u1f34\u03b8\u03c9\u03bd is applied in Homer\n\n _a._ to horses, as in Il. ii. 839; viii. 185.\n\n _b._ to iron, as in Od. i. 184.\n\n _c._ to a lion, as in Il. x. 23.\n\n _d._ to copper utensils, as in Il. ix. 123; xxiv. 233.\n\n _e._ to a bull, Il. xvi. 488; and to oxen, Od. xviii. 371.\n\n _f._ to an eagle, Il. xv. 690.\n\nWith this word we may take its compound \u03b1\u1f34\u03b8\u03bf\u03c8. It is used\n\n _a._ for wine, as we have seen.\n\n _b._ for copper, Il. iv. 495 _et alibi_.\n\n _c._ for smoke, Od. x. 152.\n\nWe have also the \u0391\u1f30\u03b8\u03af\u03bf\u03c0\u03b5\u03c2, men of the tawny or swarthy countenance,\nbeneath the Southern sun.\n\nIn what manner are we to find a common thread upon which to hang the\ncolours of iron, copper, horses, lions, bulls, eagles, wine, swarthy\nmen, and smoke? We must here again adopt the vague word \u2018dark,\u2019 a word\nof light and not of colour, for the purpose. But as the idea of \u03b1\u1f34\u03b8\u03c9\nincludes flame struggling with smoke, so there may be a flash of light\nupon the dark object. \u03a8\u03bf\u03bb\u03cc\u03b5\u03b9\u03c2, sooty or smutty, belongs to the same\ngroup with \u03b1\u1f30\u03b8\u03b1\u03bb\u03cc\u03b5\u03b9\u03c2 and \u03b1\u1f34\u03b8\u03c9\u03bd, and need not, therefore, be separately\ndiscussed.\n\nAll the remainder of the words noted for examination are to be dealt\nwith in two groups, each referable to a single idea: the first that of\nmotion, and the second that of light.\n\n14, 15. Among adjectives of motion, which have sometimes been\nimproperly treated as adjectives of colour, are \u1f04\u03c1\u03b3\u03bf\u03c2 and \u03b1\u1f34\u03bf\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2.\nThe former acquires an affinity to _white_, because it may signify\nan object which, from being rapidly moved, assumes in the light the\nappearance of whiteness[845], and along with it may be placed its\nderivatives \u1f00\u03c1\u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03bd\u1f78\u03c2, \u1f00\u03c1\u03b3\u03b5\u03c3\u03c4\u1f74\u03c2, \u1f00\u03c1\u03b3\u1f74\u03c2, \u1f00\u03c1\u03b3\u03b9\u03bd\u03cc\u03b5\u03b9\u03c2, \u1f00\u03c1\u03b3\u03b9\u03cc\u03b4\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2, \u1f00\u03c1\u03b3\u03af\u03c0\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2,\nand \u1f00\u03c1\u03b3\u03b9\u03ba\u03ad\u03c1\u03b1\u03c5\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2. The latter, as in \u03b1\u1f34\u03bf\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f44\u03c6\u03b9\u03c2, \u03b1\u1f34\u03bf\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f35\u03c0\u03c0\u03bf\u03c2,\n\u03ba\u03bf\u03c1\u03c5\u03b8\u03b1\u03af\u03bf\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2, \u03c0\u03cc\u03b4\u03b1\u03c2 \u03b1\u1f34\u03bf\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2, seems to mean whatever from the same cause\nappears to shift its hues.\n\n[845] See Ach\u00e6is, or Ethnology, p. 383.\n\n16. Of those adjectives of light in Homer, which have also been taken\nfor adjectives of colour, the most important is \u03b3\u03bb\u03b1\u03c5\u03ba\u03cc\u03c2. Its uses,\nhowever, are only as follows:\n\n_a._ \u03b3\u03bb\u03b1\u03c5\u03ba\u1f74 \u03b8\u03ac\u03bb\u03b1\u03c3\u03c3\u03b1, Il. xvi. 34.\n\n_b._ \u0393\u03bb\u03b1\u03c5\u03ba\u1ff6\u03c0\u03b9\u03c2, the standing epithet, and even a proper name, of\nMinerva, Il. viii. 406.\n\n_c._ \u03b3\u03bb\u03b1\u03c5\u03ba\u03b9\u03cc\u03c9\u03bd; applied to the eye of a lion, when, reaching the height\nof his wrath, he makes his rush at the hunters, Il. xx. 172.\n\nThe last of these passages seems effectually to fix the sense of the\nterm. The word \u03b3\u03bb\u03b1\u03c5\u03ba\u03b9\u03cc\u03c9\u03bd describes a progression. The lion does not\nenhance the colour of his eye as he waxes angry. If, for example,\n\u03b3\u03bb\u03b1\u03c5\u03ba\u1f78\u03c2 can be taken as blue, it certainly does not become more blue:\non the contrary, rage, when kindling fire in the eye, rather subdues\nits peculiar tint by flooding it with a vivid light. So the word\nseems clearly to refer to the brightening flash of the eye under the\ninfluence of passion. Of light and its movement, as also of sound,\nand of beautiful form, Homer\u2019s conceptions are even more distinct\nand lively, than those of colour are, if not dull, yet at least\nindeterminate.\n\n\u0393\u03bb\u03b1\u03c5\u03ba\u1f78\u03c2 is derived from \u03b3\u03bb\u03b1\u03cd\u03c3\u03c3\u03c9; and has for its root \u03bb\u03ac\u03c9, to see. The\nmeaning of bright or flashing will suit the sea, as well as the epithet\nblue. And it suits Minerva far better. \u2018Blue-eyed\u2019 would be for her but\na tame epithet. The luminous eye, on the contrary, entirely accords\nwith her character, and belongs to a marked trait of those primitive\ntraditions, which she appears to represent[846].\n\n[846] See Olympus, sect. ii. p. 53. Welcker (_Griechische G\u00f6tterlehre_,\nvi. 63, p. 300) treats the name \u1f08\u03b8\u03ae\u03bd\u03b7 as immediately akin to \u03b1\u1f30\u03b8\u1f74\u03c1 and\nthe idea of light.\n\n17. \u03a7\u03ac\u03c1\u03bf\u03c0\u03bf\u03c2 is applied to the lion in Od. xi. 611; and it is the\nproper name of the father of Nireus in the Catalogue, while his mother\nis \u1f08\u03b3\u03bb\u03b1\u0390\u03b7. From this latter use we see that \u03c7\u03ac\u03c1\u03bf\u03c0\u03bf\u03c2 is not in Homer\nan epithet of colour; since he never describes the face by means of\ncolour. Its etymology refers us to gladsomeness; and this is much more\nconnected, in the Poet\u2019s mind, with light than with colour.\n\n18, 19. Besides these we have\n\n \u03c3\u03b9\u03b3\u03b1\u03bb\u03cc\u03b5\u03b9\u03c2, glossy, like \u03c3\u03af\u03b1\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2, or fat; and \u03bc\u03b1\u03c1\u03bc\u03ac\u03c1\u03b5\u03bf\u03c2, applied\n\n _a._ to a web, Il. iii. 126.\n\n _b._ to the \u00c6gis, Il. xvii. 594.\n\n _c._ to the sea, Il. xiv. 273.\n\n _d._ to the rim of the Shield, Il. xviii. 480.\n\nWe have also the \u03bc\u03b1\u03c1\u03bc\u03b1\u03c1\u03c5\u03b3\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c0\u03bf\u03b4\u1ff6\u03bd (Od. viii. 265), or twinkling of the\nfeet in the dance: and the verb \u03bc\u03b1\u03c1\u03bc\u03b1\u03af\u03c1\u03c9 is applied to the eyes of\nVenus (Il. iii. 397), to arms (Il. xii. 195 _et alibi_), and to the\ngolden palace of Neptune (Il. xiii. 22). The marble, from which the\nwords are derived, was white: but that signification would not suit any\nof the uses of the words, except the web of Helen. The sense, that will\nsuit them, is one derived from the idea of light, that of glittering or\nsparkling.\n\nLastly: \u1f20\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03b5\u03b9\u03b4\u1f74\u03c2 (Il. v. 770; Od. xiii. 103) is so evidently an\natmospheric epithet only, that it requires no detailed discussion. It\nis worthy of note, as it indicates the idea of atmospheric transparency.\n\n~_Conflict of colours in the same object._~\n\nIII. We might have attained to some nearly similar results, by taking\nthe names of substantives in Homer, and considering the differences in\nthe epithets of colour by which he describes them.\n\nThus, for example, iron is violet, grey, and \u03b1\u1f34\u03b8\u03c9\u03bd or tawny. There is\na certain opposition between the first and second: a very marked one\nbetween the second and third. When considered as names of colour, they\ncannot be reconciled, but they may perhaps be made in some degree to\nharmonize by introducing the element of light. Iron is dark or tawny if\nin the shade: while under light it may appear grey.\n\nAgain, the dragon, or serpent, which is \u03b4\u03ac\u03c6\u03bf\u03b9\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 in Il. ii. 308, is\nalso \u03ba\u03c5\u03ac\u03bd\u03b5\u03bf\u03c2 in Il. xi. 26; and is compared to the rainbow, which is\n\u03c0\u03bf\u03c1\u03c6\u03c5\u03c1\u03ad\u03b7 in Il. xvii. \u0394\u03ac\u03c6\u03bf\u03b9\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2, being applied to the lion\u2019s hide in\nIl. x. 23, is essentially of a dull colour, but the rainbow is as\nessentially bright. Here, again, the only mode of harmonizing is by\nthe supposition that Homer really regulates the use of those epithets\naccording to light; and thus the same object may be dull and bright in\ndifferent positions.\n\nAgain, \u03ba\u03ad\u03c1\u03b1\u03c5\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 is in composition white (\u1f00\u03c1\u03b3\u03b9\u03ba\u03ad\u03c1\u03b1\u03c5\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2): but it is also\n\u03c8\u03bf\u03bb\u03bf\u03b5\u1f76\u03c2, smutty. In truth it is neither: but its near connection both\nwith light and with darkness will admit of its being referred to either.\n\n~_Great predominance of white and black._~\n\nIV. I have next to notice the vast predominance in Homer of the two\nsimple opposites, white and black, which may be called, perhaps, the\nelemental forms of colour: white being the compound of the seven\nprismatic colours in their natural proportions, and black the absence,\nor simple negative, of them all.\n\nThe adjective \u03bc\u03ad\u03bb\u03b1\u03c2, or \u2018black,\u2019 is used, in its different degrees,\ncases, and numbers, about one hundred and seventy times. Besides this,\nwe have the verb \u03bc\u03b5\u03bb\u03b1\u03af\u03bd\u03c9, and several compounds from the adjective. It\nalso forms a very frequent element in proper names.\n\nThe word \u03bb\u03b5\u03c5\u03ba\u1f78\u03c2, or \u2018white,\u2019 is used nearly sixty times: its compound\n\u03bb\u03b5\u03c5\u03ba\u03ce\u03bb\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 forty more, but almost all of these as the stock-epithet\nof Juno, which should not be taken into the account. We have also\n\u03bb\u03b5\u03c5\u03ba\u03b1\u03af\u03bd\u03c9, \u03bb\u03b5\u03cd\u03ba\u03b1\u03c3\u03c0\u03b9\u03c2, and some proper names. But this by no means\nexhausts Homer\u2019s means of expressing whiteness. For that purpose he\nalso uses \u03bc\u03b1\u03c1\u03bc\u03ac\u03c1\u03b5\u03bf\u03c2, \u03c3\u03b9\u03b3\u03b1\u03bb\u03cc\u03b5\u03b9\u03c2, perhaps \u03c0\u03cc\u03bb\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2, and an extensive group\nof words having \u1f00\u03c1\u03b3\u1f78\u03c2 for its centre. In all, whiteness, or something\nintended for it, may perhaps be thus expressed one hundred times or\nmore.\n\nNow assuming for the moment that adjectives of colour, in the prismatic\nsense of the word, are found in Homer, still it is remarkable how\nrarely they are found, in comparison with whiteness and blackness.\n\nFor example: except as a proper name, and as the stock-epithet of\nMenelaus, \u03be\u03b1\u03bd\u03b8\u1f78\u03c2 is, I think, hardly found ten times in Homer.\n\u1f38\u03cc\u03b5\u03b9\u03c2, and its cognate words, come but six times: \u1fe5\u03bf\u03b4\u03cc\u03b5\u03b9\u03c2 is an \u1f05\u03c0\u03b1\u03be\n\u03bb\u03b5\u03b3\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd: \u03bc\u03af\u03bb\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 is only introduced in its compound twice; yet it\nis probably the best _red_ in Homer: \u1f10\u03c1\u03c5\u03b8\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 and \u1f10\u03c1\u03c5\u03b8\u03b1\u03af\u03bd\u03c9 come but\nthirteen times: \u03c0\u03bf\u03c1\u03c6\u03cd\u03c1\u03b5\u03bf\u03c2 and the kindred words are found in all\ntwenty-three times; but it has, I think, been shown that this word was\nwanting, with Homer, in the ingredient of specific colour, and only\nimplied what was dark, whether brown, crimson, purple, or even black.\n\n~_Omissions to specify colour._~\n\nV. It remains to complete this circle of evidence, by adducing cases\nwhere Homer\u2019s omission to name colour, or to describe by means of it,\nis deserving of remark.\n\n1. Homer\u2019s similes are so rich in the use of all sensible imagery,\nthat we might have expected to find colour a frequent and prominent\ningredient in them. But it is not so. They turn chiefly, I think, upon\nthe following ideas:\n\n 1. Motion.\n 2. Force.\n 3. Form.\n 4. Sound.\n 5. Symmetry.\n 6. Number.\n 7. Light and Darkness.\n 8. Very rarely, upon Colour.\n\nIn the greater part of them colour is not even mentioned. I have seen\nthe similes of the poems reckoned at two hundred: and I have found it\ndifficult to note more than three which turn upon colour, even when it\nis vaguely conceived.\n\nThe first is the blood of Menelaus, compared to a crimson dye, on the\ncheek-piece of a horse, Il. iv. 141.\n\nThe second, the meditations of Nestor, likened to the darkening of the\nsea before a storm, Il. xiv. 16-22.\n\nThirdly, the cloud in which Minerva is wrapped is compared to the\nrainbow, Il. xvii. 547-52.\n\nOf these the second is very indefinite: the idea of the first, as we\nhave seen, was inaccurately and loosely conceived: and the third is one\nof the most striking proofs of the want of a close discrimination of\ncolours in Homer.\n\nYet here again we may find life and beauty in the passage, if only\nwe construe it of a cloud illuminated by the rays falling on it.\nIndeed, generally the element of light brings us back to Homer\u2019s usual\ndefiniteness, when his use of colour makes him obscure.\n\n2. Again, in the numerous and very exact epithets by which the Poet has\ndescribed the form and appearance of different countries, we scarcely\nfind any epithet of colour. Out of about sixty of these epithets in the\nGreek Catalogue, there are but three that refer to colour, and these\nall mention whiteness only (\u1f00\u03c1\u03b3\u03b9\u03bd\u03cc\u03b5\u03b9\u03c2, Il. ii. 647, 656, and \u03bb\u03b5\u03c5\u03ba\u03cc\u03c2,\nibid. 735).\n\n~_In the case of the horse._~\n\n3. It is most singular that, though Homer so loved the horse that he\nis never weary of using him with his whole heart for the purposes of\npoetry, yet in all his animated and beautiful descriptions of this\nanimal, colour should be so little prominent. It is said, indeed, that\nHomer tells us the horses of Eumelus corresponded in colour (\u1f45\u03c4\u03c1\u03b9\u03c7\u03b5\u03c2\nIl. ii. 765); but what the colour was we know not; and the question may\nalso be raised, whether the epithet employed does not more properly\nindicate similarity in the fineness of their coat. Perhaps the only\ncases, where colour is distinctly assigned to horses, are the following\ntwo:\n\nFirst, that of the horses of Rhesus. There the colour is the negative\none of whiteness, which seems, with its counterpart blackness, to have\nbeen so much more present to the mind of Homer than any intermediate\ncolour. These horses were (Il. x. 437) \u03bb\u03b5\u03c5\u03ba\u03cc\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03b9 \u03c7\u03b9\u03cc\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2. And\nafterwards Nestor in a noble line declares them like, not to anything\nhaving colour, but to the rays of the sun (Il. x. 547). Thus reappears\nthe old identification in Homer\u2019s mind of light and colour. There is,\nhowever, another reason to which it may be suspected that we owe the\nmention of colour in this instance: namely, that the whiteness is\nintended to make them visible in the gloom, and thus to assist the\ncapture by night.\n\nThe second case is, that of the horse of Diomed in the chariot-race.\nHere Idomeneus mentions the bay or chestnut colour (Il. xxiii. 454)\nwith the white mark, but then it is the only means of identifying the\nmaster, which is essential to his purpose in the speech. Apart from\nthese special reasons, Homer speaks indeed twice of the \u03be\u03b1\u03bd\u03b8\u1f70 \u03ba\u03ac\u03c1\u03b7\u03bd\u03b1\nof horses; this, however, is of horses in the abstract. Nestor (Il. xi.\n680) mentions a set of one hundred and fifty mares all with colour,\nthat is to say, \u03be\u03b1\u03bd\u03b8\u03b1\u03af: a new proof of the lax use of the word, as they\nwould hardly be all alike.\n\nAmong the four horses of Hector (Il. viii. 185), the two of the Atreid\u00e6\n(Il. xxiii. 295), and the three of Achilles (xvi. 475) we find only the\nname Xanthus which is clearly referable to colour: and this is in truth\nthe only colour which, besides white, he ever gives to his horses. For\nit is more probable that by the name \u0392\u03ac\u03bb\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2 he meant to refer to the\neffect of light from rapidity of motion: while \u0391\u1f34\u03b8\u03b7 in Il. xxiii. 409,\n\u0391\u1f34\u03b8\u03c9\u03bd and \u039b\u03ac\u03bc\u03c0\u03bf\u03c2 (Il. viii. 485) may signify brightness or darkness\nindeed, but neither of these is colour.\n\nAgain, in the magnificent simile of the \u03c3\u03c4\u03ac\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f35\u03c0\u03c0\u03bf\u03c2 there is no\ncolour. The three thousand horses of Erichthonius (Il. x. 221) have\nno colour. The horses of Diomed (Il. v. 257) have none. Nor have the\nheaven-born horses of Tros, nor those which Anchises bred from them\n(Il. v. 265. _et seqq._). None of the teams for the race in Il. xxiii.\nhave colour. Lastly; Homer abounds in characteristic and set epithets\nfor horses, such as \u1f60\u03ba\u1f7a\u03c2, \u1f60\u03ba\u03cd\u03c0\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2, \u03c0\u03bf\u03b4\u03ce\u03ba\u03b7\u03c2, \u03bc\u03ce\u03bd\u03c5\u03be, \u1f10\u03c1\u03b9\u03b1\u03cd\u03c7\u03b7\u03bd, \u1f00\u03b5\u03c1\u03c3\u03af\u03c0\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2,\n\u1f10\u03b0\u03c3\u03ba\u03b1\u03c1\u03b8\u03bc\u03bf\u03c2, \u1f51\u03c8\u03ae\u03c7\u03b7\u03c2, \u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u03bb\u03af\u03b8\u03c1\u03b9\u03be, \u03c4\u03b1\u03c7\u1f7a\u03c2, and others; but none of them are\ntaken from colour.\n\nYet colour is in horses a thing so prominent that it seems, wherever\nthey are at all individualized, almost to force itself into the\ndescription. Let us take two examples allied in their beauty, although\nseparated in birth by twenty-two hundred years. The first is from\nEuripides, where the Chorus in _Iphigenia in Aulide_ describes the\nGrecian host before embarcation[847].\n\n[847] Eurip. Iph. in Aul. 213-22.\n\n \u1f41 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03b4\u03b9\u03c6\u03c1\u03b7\u03bb\u03ac\u03c4\u03b1\u03c2 \u03b2\u03bf\u1fb6\u03c4\u2019\n \u0395\u1f54\u03bc\u03b7\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2 \u03a6\u03b5\u03c1\u03b7\u03c4\u03b9\u03ac\u03b4\u03b1\u03c2,\n \u1fa7 \u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u03bb\u03af\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 \u03b5\u1f30\u03b4\u03cc\u03bc\u03b1\u03bd\n \u03c7\u03c1\u03c5\u03c3\u03bf\u03b4\u03b1\u03b9\u03b4\u03ac\u03bb\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 \u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03bc\u03af\u03bf\u03b9\u03c3\u03b9 \u03c0\u03ce\u03bb\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2\n \u03ba\u03ad\u03bd\u03c4\u03c1\u1ff3 \u03b8\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd\u03bf\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2, \u03c4\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 \u03bc\u1f72\u03bd \u03bc\u03ad\u03c3-\n \u03c3\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 \u03b6\u03c5\u03b3\u03af\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2, \u03bb\u03b5\u03c5\u03ba\u03bf\u03c3\u03c4\u03af\u03ba\u03c4\u1ff3 \u03c4\u03c1\u03b9\u03c7\u1f76\n \u03b2\u03b1\u03bb\u03b9\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2, \u03c4\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 \u03b4\u2019 \u1f10\u03be\u1f7c \u03c3\u03b5\u03b9\u03c1\u03b1\u03c6\u03cc\u03c1\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2,\n \u1f00\u03bd\u03c4\u03ae\u03c1\u03b5\u03b9\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u03bc\u03c0\u03b1\u1fd6\u03c3\u03b9 \u03b4\u03c1\u03cc\u03bc\u03c9\u03bd\n \u03c0\u03c5\u1fe4\u1fe5\u03cc\u03c4\u03c1\u03b9\u03c7\u03b1\u03c2, \u03bc\u03bf\u03bd\u03cc\u03c7\u03b1\u03bb\u03b1 \u03b4\u2019 \u1f51\u03c0\u1f78 \u03c3\u03c6\u03c5\u03c1\u1f70\n \u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u03ba\u03b9\u03bb\u03bf\u03b4\u03ad\u03c1\u03bc\u03bf\u03bd\u03b1\u03c2.\n\nThe second, also eminently beautiful, is from Macaulay, where in the\n\u2018Battle of the Lake Regillus\u2019, after the deadly conflict of Mamilius\nand Herminius, he describes what then happened to their steeds.\n\n Fast, fast, with heels wild spurning,\n The _dark-grey_ charger fled;\n He burst through ranks of fighting men,\n He sprang o\u2019er heaps of dead....\n\n But like a graven image\n _Black_ Auster kept his place,\n And ever wistfully he looked\n Into his master\u2019s face.\n\nHow characteristically the element of colour enters into these\nadmirable descriptions.\n\n4. It is not, however, the case of the horse alone, on which an\nargument may be founded. Homer abounds with notices of other animals,\nboth domesticated and wild. We have oxen, dogs, goats, hogs, and sheep.\nNone of his stock epithets for them are drawn from colour; and we have\nseen that by his wine-coloured oxen, and his violet-coloured sheep, he,\nin all likelihood, means no more than dark or tawny. His epithets for\nwild animals are of the same character when they occur, and similarly\ndepend on the scale of degrees between light and darkness, not upon\ncolour. Once he mentions a white goose (Od. xv. 161); but it is borne\non high in the talons of an eagle, and the object evidently is to\ncreate a clear visual image.\n\n5. I would not lay overmuch stress on the fact, that Homer never refers\nto colour in connection with the human frame, unless as regards the\nhair, which is either \u03be\u03b1\u03bd\u03b8\u1f78\u03c2 or \u03ba\u03c5\u03ac\u03bd\u03b5\u03bf\u03c2: expressions which, as we\nshall see, are apparent exceptions, and not real ones. The olive hue\nof the Mediterranean latitudes makes colour a less prominent element\nin human beauty for a Greek climate, than it is for ours. Still its\nalmost entire exclusion is an element in the case. One instance that\nI have noticed, which introduces it, adds to the general mass of\ntestimony. When Minerva (Od. xvi. 175) restores the beauty of Ulysses,\nthe expression is \u1f02\u03c8 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03bc\u03b5\u03bb\u03b1\u03b3\u03c7\u03c1\u03bf\u03b9\u1f74\u03c2 \u03b3\u03ad\u03bd\u03b5\u03c4\u03bf. Now this certainly does not\nmean that his flesh became black again. It can only signify that he\nresumed the olive tint, which was associated with personal vigour and\nbeauty. So that even the \u03bc\u03ad\u03bb\u03b1\u03c2 of Homer means dark, and is indefinite:\nas might indeed be shown by many other instances.\n\n6. Lastly, it seems to deserve remark, that there is not one single\nepithet of Iris taken from colour. She is once, and only once,\n\u03c7\u03c1\u03c5\u03c3\u03cc\u03c0\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2 (Il. viii. 398); but this is in virtue of her office, and\nhas no relation to the rainbow; as, indeed, gold with Homer always\nbelongs to light rather than to colour. All her other epithets, without\nexception, are taken from motion only. She is swift (\u1f60\u03ba\u03ad\u03b1 and \u03c4\u03ac\u03c7\u03b5\u03b9\u03b1),\nswift of foot (\u03c0\u03cc\u03b4\u03b1\u03c2 \u1f60\u03ba\u03ad\u03b1), swift as the wind (\u03c0\u03bf\u03b4\u03ae\u03bd\u03b5\u03bc\u03bf\u03c2), storm-footed\n(\u1f00\u03b5\u03bb\u03bb\u03cc\u03c0\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2[848]), but from colour she derives no part whatever of her\nHomeric costume. Now though the chain of traditions which identified\nIris with the rainbow was broken[849], yet the traces of it were not\nwholly lost. For Homer treated the rainbow, physically, as a prophet\nof storm (Il. xvii. 548): and again, we find that she was still\ntempest-footed. This epithet can only be derived from her original\nrelation to the rainbow. It is therefore highly instructive, that none\nof her traits of colour should have been preserved.\n\n[848] Il. xviii. 409. xxiv. 159.\n\n[849] See Olympus, sect. ii. p. 157.\n\nLastly, let us take the case of the sky, or the heavens. Here Homer\nhad before him the most perfect example of blue. Yet he never once so\ndescribes the sky. His \u03bf\u1f50\u03c1\u03b1\u03bd\u1f78\u03c2 is starry (Il. i. 317), or broad (Il.\niii. 364), or great (Il. i. 497), or iron (Od. xv. 328), or copper (Od.\niii. 2. Il. xvii. 425); but it is never blue. This is an important\npiece of negative testimony.\n\nWe have now before us a pretty large, though I by no means venture to\nsuppose it a complete, collection of the facts of the case.\n\n~_Causes of this peculiar treatment._~\n\nI submit that they warrant the two following propositions:\n\n1. That Homer\u2019s perceptions of the prismatic colours, or colours of the\nrainbow, which depend on the decomposition of light by refraction, and\n_a fortiori_ of their compounds, were, as a general rule, vague and\nindeterminate.\n\n2. That we must therefore seek another basis for his system of colour.\n\nBut a few words may be permitted on the cause which has led to his\ntreatment of the subject in a manner so different from that of the\nmoderns.\n\nAre we justified in referring it to his reputed blindness?\n\nAre we to suppose a defect in his organization, or in that of his\ncountrymen?\n\nOr are we to reject altogether the idea of defect, and to treat his\nuse of colour as one conceived in the spirit which, with even the most\nperfect knowledge, would properly belong to his art?\n\nThe mere tradition of Homer\u2019s blindness is hardly relevant. The\npresumption of it drawn from the poems, because they make Demodocus\nblind, is inappreciably minute. The testimony of the Hymn to Apollo is\nancient[850]; but, as his blindness (if he really was blind) allowed\nof the most vivid conceptions of light, it will not account for\ndefectiveness in his conceptions of colour. The vigorous apprehension\nand accurate description of sensible objects in the poems demonstrate,\nthat we cannot seek in this hypothesis for an explanation of what may\nbe either singular, crude, or irregular.\n\n[850] Hymn. ad Apoll. v. 172.\n\nNeither can we resort to the supposition of anything, that is to be\nproperly called a defect in his organization; when we bear in mind\nhis intense feeling for form, and when we observe his effective and\npowerful handling of the ideas of light and dark.\n\n~_License of Poetry as to colour._~\n\nOur answer to the third question must also, I think, be in the\nnegative. It is true, indeed, that much of merely literal discrepancy\nas to colour might be understood to appertain to the license of poetry.\nThere is high poetical effect in what may be called straining epithets\nof colour. But it seems essential to that effect,\n\n(1.) That the straining should be the exception, and not the rule.\n\n(2.) That there should be a fixed standard of the colour itself, so\nthat the departures from it may be measured. Otherwise the result is\nnot license, but confusion. Shakespeare with high effect says[851],\n\n[851] Macbeth ii. 3.\n\n Here lay Duncan,\n His silver skin laced with his golden blood.\n\nHere the idea is not that silver is of the same colour as skin, nor\ngold as blood; but that the relation of colour between silver and gold\nmay be compared with that between skin and blood: the skin throws the\nblood into relief, as a ground of silver would throw out a projection\nof gold. In license of this kind we can always trace both a rule and an\naim. The rule is relaxed only for the particular occasion. The effect\nproduced is that of tenderness, dignity, and purity. Had Shakespeare\nbeen describing the horrible carnage of a battlefield, he probably\nwould have spoken of black or foul gore instead of using a brightening\nfigure.\n\nNow this purpose is not traceable in Homer\u2019s use of certain words, if\nwe are required to treat them as adjectives of colour. There is no\nPoet, whose _rationale_ is commonly more accessible; but these cases,\nupon such a principle, do not admit of a _rationale_ at all.\n\nTake for instance his use of the rainbow. It is (1) \u03c0\u03bf\u03c1\u03c6\u03c5\u03c1\u03ad\u03b7, and (2)\nlike a \u03b4\u03c1\u03ac\u03ba\u03c9\u03bd, which is \u03ba\u03c5\u03ac\u03bd\u03b5\u03bf\u03c2. Of these, the first may be construed\ndark with a hue of crimson; the second, dark with a hue of deep blue or\nindigo. Surely we have here, viewing it as a whole, a most inadequate\ntreatment of the colours of the rainbow. Shakespeare indeed says[852],\n\n[852] Troilus and Cressida, i. 3, _sub_ fin.\n\n His crest, that prouder than blue Iris bends;\n\nand again, in the Tempest, Ceres addresses Iris thus[853];\n\n[853] Tempest, iv. 1. The rainbow is mentioned as of many colours, in\nMerry Wives of Windsor, iv. 5, Winter\u2019s Tale, iv. 3, and King John, iv.\n2.\n\n And with each end of thy blue bow dost crown\n My bosky acres....\n\nBut (1) blue differs from \u03c0\u03bf\u03c1\u03c6\u03cd\u03c1\u03b5\u03bf\u03c2, which is essentially dark, and\nis not blue. (2) Blue, taken largely, represents three of the seven\nprismatic colours: i. e. indigo and purple along with itself. (3) In\nthe last quoted passage, Iris is also called \u2018many-coloured messenger,\u2019\nand with \u2018saffron wings.\u2019 How different an effect do these words\ngive, as they form a whole, from that of the simile in Il. xvii. In\nwhat manner then are we to understand Homer? I answer, in the way\nof metaphor; and with reference to light and dark, not to prismatic\ncolour. The \u03b4\u03c1\u03ac\u03ba\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 on the buckler and belt are dark and terrible:\nso is the storm of which Iris is the type, and it is in viewing the\nrainbow as a type of what is awful, that we are to find the reason of\nHomer\u2019s simply treating it as dark, and not as a series and system of\ncolours. Perhaps we ought not to overlook the possibility that Homer\nmay also mean to compare the shifting hues of the serpent with the\nvaried appearance of the rainbow.\n\nAgain, let us take his use of \u03bc\u03b5\u03bb\u03b1\u03b3\u03c7\u03c1\u03bf\u03af\u03b7\u03c2. Now the question is, did\nHomer mean by this simply to express darkness, that is to say was\n_dark_ his idea of \u03bc\u03ad\u03bb\u03b1\u03c2, or did he, with the specific idea of black\nin his mind, use the term which denoted it poetically for the olive\ncomplexion of Ulysses? Surely the former: for the latter use of it\nwould have been bad. It would have been straining the figure in the\nwrong direction. For blackness would be a fitting trope only where the\nobject was to describe something awful or repulsive.\n\nBut beauty of form in Homer always leans to light hues and not to dark\nones, whence the Greeks are \u03be\u03b1\u03bd\u03b8\u03bf\u1f76, and the Trojan Hector, though\nbeautiful, is \u03ba\u03c5\u03ac\u03bd\u03b5\u03bf\u03c2 only. Therefore it was not Homer\u2019s object to give\nan enhanced idea of darkness in the tints of Ulysses. And yet, if \u03bc\u03ad\u03bb\u03b1\u03c2\nfor him meant specifically black, then \u03bc\u03b5\u03bb\u03b1\u03b3\u03c7\u03c1\u03bf\u03af\u03b7\u03c2 was the height of\nexaggeration in the wrong sense. But if by \u03bc\u03ad\u03bb\u03b1\u03c2 he only understood\ndark, that was a fair description of the olive tint, as compared with\nthe withered and shrivelled skin of old age.\n\nWe have other proofs from the poems that Homer conceived of \u03bc\u03ad\u03bb\u03b1\u03c2 as\ndark, and not specifically as black. The former idea accords best with\nhis calling earth \u03bc\u03ad\u03bb\u03b1\u03c2, when it is fresh behind the plough (Il. xviii.\n548): and his calling blood \u03bc\u03ad\u03bb\u03b1\u03c2, not stagnant gore, but blood fresh\nas it comes spurting from the wound (Il. i. 303),\n\n \u03b1\u1f36\u03c8\u03ac \u03c4\u03bf\u03b9 \u03b1\u1f37\u03bc\u03b1 \u03ba\u03b5\u03bb\u03b1\u03b9\u03bd\u1f78\u03bd \u1f10\u03c1\u03c9\u03ae\u03c3\u03b5\u03b9 \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u03b4\u03bf\u03c5\u03c1\u03af\u00b7\n\nand again, the fresh blood of Venus herself: \u03bc\u03b5\u03bb\u03b1\u03af\u03bd\u03b5\u03c4\u03bf \u03b4\u1f72 \u03c7\u03c1\u03cc\u03b1 \u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u03cc\u03bd\n(Il. v. 354). It would be bad poetry to call the blood of Venus\n_black_, for the same reasons which make it good poetry in Shakespeare\nto call the blood of Duncan golden. So the \u03bc\u03ad\u03bb\u03b1\u03c2 \u03c0\u03cc\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 of Il. xxiv. 79\nis evidently no more than dark; though in vii. 64 we may properly say\nthe sea blackens.\n\nSo again with wine-coloured oxen, smutty thunder-bolts, violet-coloured\nsheep, and many more, it is surely conclusive against taking them for\ndescriptions of prismatic colours or their compounds, that they would\nbe bad descriptions in their several kinds.\n\n~_Homer\u2019s means of training in colour._~\n\nWe must then seek for the basis of Homer\u2019s system with respect to\ncolour in something outside our own. And it may prepare us the more\nreadily to acknowledge such a basis elsewhere, if we bear in mind,\nthat many of the great elements and sources of colour for us presented\nthemselves differently to him. The olive hue of the skin kept down the\nplay of white and red. The hair tended much more uniformly, than with\nus, to darkness. The sense of colour was less exercised by the culture\nof flowers. The sun sooner changed the spring-greens of the earth into\nbrown. Glass, one of our instruments of instruction, did not exist. The\nrainbow would much more rarely meet the view. The art of painting was\nwholly, and that of dyeing was almost, unknown; and we may estimate\nthe importance of this element of the case by recollecting how much,\nwith the advance of chemistry, the taste of this country in colour has\nimproved within the last twenty years. The artificial colours, with\nwhich the human eye was conversant, were chiefly the ill-defined, and\nanything but full-bodied, tints of metals. The materials, therefore,\nfor a system of colour did not offer themselves to Homer\u2019s vision as\nthey do to ours. Particular colours were indeed exhibited in rare\nbeauty, as the blue of the sea and of the sky. Yet these colours were,\nso to speak, isolated fragments; and, not entering into a general\nscheme, they were apparently not conceived with the precision necessary\nto master them. It seems easy to comprehend that the eye may require a\nfamiliarity with an ordered system of colours, as the condition of its\nbeing able closely to appreciate any one among them.\n\nI conclude, then, that the organ of colour and its impressions were but\npartially developed among the Greeks of the heroic age.\n\nIn lieu of this, Homer seems to have had, firstly some crude\nconceptions of colour derived from the elements; secondly and\nprincipally, a system in lieu of colour, founded upon light and upon\ndarkness, its opposite or negative. We have seen that the \u03bc\u03ad\u03bb\u03b1\u03c2 of\nHomer, which is applied to fine olive tints in the skin, and which\njoins hands with \u03ba\u03c5\u03ac\u03bd\u03b5\u03bf\u03c2 and \u03c0\u03bf\u03c1\u03c6\u03cd\u03c1\u03b5\u03bf\u03c2, means dark, the absence of\nlight. On the other hand, the basis of whiteness is clearly indicated\nto us in the etymology of \u03bb\u03b5\u03c5\u03ba\u1f78\u03c2, which is the same as that of \u03bb\u03b5\u03cd\u03c3\u03c3\u03c9\nto see, and of \u03bb\u03cd\u03ba\u03b7 light in \u03bb\u03c5\u03ba\u03b1\u03b2\u1f70\u03c2 the year, the walk or course of\nlight; as well as in the cognate words, which appear to have their\nroot in the Sanscrit _loch_, from whence _lochan_, an eye[854].\n\n[854] Pritchard\u2019s Celtic Nations, p. 219.\n\n~_His system one of light and dark._~\n\nAs a general proposition, then, I should say that the Homeric colours\nare really the modes and forms of light[855], and of its opposite or\nrather negative, darkness: partially affected perhaps by ideas drawn\nfrom the metals, like the ruddiness of copper, or the sombre and dead\nblue of \u03ba\u03cd\u03b1\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2, whatever the substance may have been; and here and\nthere with an inceptive effort, as it were, to get hold of other ideas\nof colour.\n\n[855] Vid. G\u00f6the, _Geschichte der Farbenlehre_, Works, vol. 53, p. 21.\n(Stuttgart, 1833.)\n\nUnder the application of this principle, I believe that all, or nearly\nall, the Homeric words will fall into their places: and that we shall\nfind that the Poet used them, from his own standing-ground, with great\nvigour and effect. We can now see why \u03bb\u03b5\u03c5\u03ba\u1f78\u03c2 and \u03bc\u03ad\u03bb\u03b1\u03c2 with their\nkindred words have such an immense predominance: though white and black\nare the limiting ratios of colour, rather than colour itself.\n\nOf the transparent and opaque, or _chiaroscuro_, we cannot expect to\nhear from Homer: yet, as has been observed, a rudiment of it may be\ncontained in the highly poetical \u1f20\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03b5\u03b9\u03b4\u1f72\u03c2 of the cave or sea; and\nagain in the \u03b4\u03bd\u03bf\u03c6\u03b5\u03c1\u1f74 \u03bd\u1f7a\u03be (Od. xiii. 269), since \u03bd\u03ad\u03c6\u03bf\u03c2 is the basis of\nthe epithet.\n\nWhen we speak of colour proper, we speak of an effect which is produced\nby the decomposition of light, and which, so long as the eye can\ndischarge its function, is complete, whatever the quantity, or the\nincidence, of light upon the object said to have colour may happen to\nbe.\n\nWhen we speak of light, shade, and darkness, we refer to the quantity\nof light, not decomposed, which falls upon that object, and to the mode\nof its incidence.\n\nOf light, shadow, and darkness thus regarded, Homer had lively and\nmost poetical conceptions. This description of objects by light and its\nabsence tax his materials to the uttermost. His iron-grey, his ruddy,\nhis starry heaven, are so many modes of light. His wine-coloured oxen\nand sea, his violet sheep, his things tawny, purple, sooty, and the\nrest, give us in fact a rich vocabulary of words for describing what\nis dark so far as it has colour, but what also varies between dull and\nbright, according to the quantity of light playing upon it. Here (for\nexample) is the link between his \u03b1\u1f34\u03b8\u03bf\u03c8 \u03ba\u03ac\u03c0\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 and his \u03b1\u1f34\u03b8\u03bf\u03c8 \u03bf\u1f36\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2.\n\nAs these words all follow in the train, so to speak, of \u03bc\u03ad\u03bb\u03b1\u03c2, even so\n\u03bb\u03b5\u03c5\u03ba\u1f78\u03c2 is attended by its own family, all falling under the meaning of\nthe English adjective _light_. On the one hand \u03c7\u03bb\u03c9\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 and \u03c0\u03cc\u03bb\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2; on\nthe other \u03bc\u03b1\u03c1\u03bc\u03ac\u03c1\u03b5\u03bf\u03c2, \u1f00\u03c1\u03b3\u1f78\u03c2, and \u03c3\u03b9\u03b3\u03b1\u03bb\u03cc\u03b5\u03b9\u03c2, all mean _light_; but the\nfirst two are dull, and represent the twilight of colour, or debateable\nground between it and its negative, while the last three are bright and\nglistering.\n\nNothing can be more poetical than Homer\u2019s ideas of dark and light. It\nwas a redundancy of life in these ideas, that made him associate light\nwith motion; as in those fine lines (Il. ii. 437),\n\n \u1f63\u03c2 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f10\u03c1\u03c7\u03bf\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03c9\u03bd \u1f00\u03c0\u1f78 \u03c7\u03b1\u03bb\u03ba\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03b8\u03b5\u03c3\u03c0\u03b5\u03c3\u03af\u03bf\u03b9\u03bf\n \u03b1\u1f34\u03b3\u03bb\u03b7 \u03c0\u03b1\u03bc\u03c6\u03b1\u03bd\u03cc\u03c9\u03c3\u03b1 \u03b4\u03b9\u2019 \u03b1\u1f30\u03b8\u03ad\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2 \u03bf\u1f50\u03c1\u03b1\u03bd\u1f78\u03bd \u1f37\u03ba\u03b5\u03bd.\n\nAnd, again, in the Arming of Achilles (Il. xix. 362),\n\n \u03b1\u1f34\u03b3\u03bb\u03b7 \u03b4\u2019 \u03bf\u1f50\u03c1\u03b1\u03bd\u1f78\u03bd \u1f37\u03ba\u03b5, \u03b3\u03ad\u03bb\u03b1\u03c3\u03c3\u03b5 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03c0\u1fb6\u03c3\u03b1 \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u03c7\u03b8\u03ce\u03bd.\n\nSo, on the other hand, the idea of darkness went to animate\nmetaphysical conceptions, as in black fate, black death, black clouds\nof death, black pains (Il. ii. 859, 834. xvi. 350. iv. 117).\n\nNaturalists tell us, that there exist kinds of creatures respecting\nwhich it is known, that their organs are sensitive to light and\ndarkness, but with no perception whatever either of colour or of\nform[856]. So far as respects form, Homer perceived keenly such forms\nas were beautiful: but of mere geometrical form he may have had very\nindistinct ideas, if we are to judge from his epithets for the form of\na shield. The parallel is nearer in the case of colour; for even his\nperceptions were as yet undigested; as if they were novel, not aided by\ntradition, acquired very much by himself, and fixed as yet neither by\ncustom nor nomenclature.\n\n[856] Wilson\u2019s Five Gateways of Knowledge, p. 4.\n\nFrom the remains which have reached us of the colours of the ancients,\nit has been found practicable to treat of them in precise detail[857].\nBut, in examining the question from the works of Homer, we must bear\nin mind, first, their very early date, and, secondly, the likelihood\nthat heroic Greece may probably have been far behind some countries of\nthe east in the use and in the idea of colour, which has always had a\nprivileged home there.\n\n[857] See, for instance, \u2018Ancient and Modern Colours, by William\nLinton.\u2019 London 1852.\n\n~_Colour in the later Greek language._~\n\nThe tendency, however, to a mixture of the two questions of light and\ncolour appears to be traceable more or less in the popular language,\nand likewise in the philosophy, of the later Greeks.\n\nIn the classical period, the hues of the eye were divided, as \u03bc\u03ad\u03bb\u03b1\u03c2 the\ndarkest, \u03c7\u03ac\u03c1\u03bf\u03c0\u03bf\u03c2 the intermediate, and \u03b3\u03bb\u03b1\u03c5\u03ba\u1f78\u03c2 the lightest.\n\nThe word \u03c0\u03c1\u03ac\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2, leek-green, appears to be quite adequate to the\nexpression of the colour. It is used by Aristotle; but I do not know\nthat it is found in the poets or writers of the best age. For the\nclassical Greek the idea of greenness is expressed by \u03c7\u03bb\u03c9\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2, as\nfar as it is expressed at all. Now this word seems inadequate on two\ngrounds. First, its predominant idea is that of \u2018fresh\u2019 or \u2018recent;\u2019\nwhich is but accidentally, and not invariably, the property of those\nobjects in nature that are green.\n\nWhen we find the word \u03c7\u03bb\u03c9\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 applied alike to objects of a green\ncolour, and to others that have no colour, (or else not in respect of\ntheir colour,) but yet which are fresh or newly sprung, we are led to\nconclude that it was for freshness, and not for greenness, that the\nword was generally used. This idea is confirmed by two circumstances.\nFirst, that when \u03c7\u03bb\u03c9\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 does signify colour, as in the case of\npaleness, (where it cannot mean what is fresh,) it signifies the most\nindefinite and feeble colour, little more indeed than a negative.\n\nThe meaning of \u03c7\u03bb\u03c9\u03c1\u1f78\u03bd \u03b4\u03b5\u03cc\u03c2 is probably ashy-pale fear. In the green of\nthe olive we see the point of connection between this use of the term\non the one hand, and natural verdure on the other. So that the image of\nthe colour green, to the Greeks, was neither lively and bright on the\none hand, nor was it strong and deep on the other.\n\nThe second circumstance is this: that the word \u03c7\u03bb\u03c9\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 is applied by the\nlater Greeks to objects that have a colour, but a colour which is _not_\ngreen: and this by authors who had the full use of sight. Thus, in\nEuripides, (Hecuba 124,) we have \u03b1\u1f35\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b9 \u03c7\u03bb\u03c9\u03c1\u1ff7 for blood freshly shed.\nIt seems plain that, when the epithet could be thus used, colour could\nonly be very carelessly and faintly conceived in the minds either of\nthose who used the expression, or of those to whom it was addressed.\n\nI shall not open the general subject of the treatment of colour by the\nlater Greeks, or by the Latin poets. But that it continued to be both\nfaint and indefinite down to a very late period, and in a degree which\nwould now be deemed very surprising, we may judge both from the general\ntenour of the \u00c6neid, and from the remarkable verse of Albinovanus, an\nAugustan poet, which applied the epithet \u2018purpureus\u2019 to snow;\n\n Brachia purpure\u00e2 candidiora nive.\n\nNeither do I enter into the question, whether the shadows of white\nmay afford any ground for this epithet: because an answer, drawn from\nthe secrets as it were of science or art, could not avail for the\ninterpretation of the works of a poet, who must describe for the common\neye.\n\nSo we may note the \u2018cervix rosea\u2019 of Horace[858], and of Virgil[859].\n\n[858] Hor. Od. I. 13. 2.\n\n[859] Virg. \u00c6n. i. 402.\n\n~_Greek philosophy of colour._~\n\nSuch examination as I have been able to make would lead me to suppose\nwhatever of this kind was crude or defective in the common ideas of\nGreece was not without points of correspondence in its philosophy.\n\nThe treatise \u03a0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u03c7\u03c1\u03c9\u03bc\u03ac\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd, popularly ascribed to Aristotle, would\nappear to belong to some other author. It, however, in conformity with\nGreek ideas[860], bases the system of colour not, as we do, upon the\nprismatic decomposition of light, but upon the four elements; of which\nit declares air, water, and even earth when dry, to be white, fire\nto be \u03be\u03b1\u03bd\u03b8\u1f78\u03c2 or yellow; from the mixtures of these arise all other\ncolours, and \u03c3\u03ba\u03cc\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2, or black, is the absence of light.\n\n[860] Vid. G\u00f6the, _Farbenlehre_, Works, vol. 53. p. 23.\n\nDr. Prantl, a recent editor of this Treatise, has, in a learned Essay\nof his own, gathered together the systems of the various Greek writers\nupon colour; and especially that of Aristotle, from the testimony\nafforded by his _Meteorologica_ and other works. It exhibits a curious\ncombination of the aim at scientific exactness, with the want of the\nphysical knowledge which is, in such matters, its necessary basis. Its\nleading ideas appear to be as follows.\n\nIf we pass by the mere metaphysical portion of the subject, the basis\nof colour is laid theoretically in transparency and motion. With the\nidea of whiteness are associated dryness and heat; and with blackness\ntheir counterparts, wet and cold[861]. The air is white, fire the\nhighest form of white; water is black[862], earth the highest negation\nof colour, and blackest of all. All other colours are treated as\nintermediate between white and black[863]. An analogy prevails between\nthe intervals of the principal colours, and those of sound, taste\n(\u03c7\u03c5\u03bc\u1f78\u03c2), and other sensible objects. There are seven colours[864]:\nnamely,\n\n[861] Prantl\u2019s Aristoteles \u00fcber die Farben, pp. 101, 3.\n\n[862] Ibid. pp. 104, 6.\n\n[863] Ibid. p. 109. Ar. Metaph. I. 7. 1057 a. 23.\n\n[864] Ibid. p. 116. Ar. de Sens. 4. 442 a. 12.\n\n 1. \u03bc\u03ad\u03bb\u03b1\u03bd black.\n 2. \u03be\u03b1\u03bd\u03b8\u1f78\u03bd gold.\n 3. \u03bb\u03b5\u03c5\u03ba\u1f78\u03bd white.\n 4. \u03c6\u03bf\u03b9\u03bd\u03b9\u03ba\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd red.\n 5. \u1f01\u03bb\u03bf\u03c5\u03c1\u03b3\u1f78\u03bd violet.\n 6. \u03c0\u03c1\u03ac\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd green.\n 7. \u03ba\u03c5\u03b1\u03bd\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd blue.\n\nThe \u03c6\u03b1\u03b9\u1f78\u03bd or grey is a mode of black (\u03bc\u03ad\u03bb\u03b1\u03bd \u03c4\u03b9); and the \u03be\u03b1\u03bd\u03b8\u1f78\u03bd is\ningeniously described as having the same relation to light, which\nrichness (\u03bb\u03b9\u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u1f78\u03bd) has to sweetness (\u03b3\u03bb\u03c5\u03ba\u03cd). Red, \u03c6\u03bf\u03b9\u03bd\u03b9\u03ba\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd or\n\u03c0\u03bf\u03c1\u03c6\u03c5\u03c1\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd, is light seen through black. This is the most positive\ncolour after \u03be\u03b1\u03bd\u03b8\u03cc\u03bd; then comes green, and then (\u1f01\u03bb\u03bf\u03c5\u03c1\u03b3\u1f78\u03bd) violet[865].\nHe proceeds, \u1f14\u03c4\u03b9 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03c4\u1f78 \u03c0\u03bb\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bf\u03bd \u03bf\u1f54\u03ba\u03b5\u03c4\u03b9 \u03c6\u03b1\u03af\u03bd\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9; meaning, I suppose, that\nthe \u03ba\u03c5\u03b1\u03bd\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd (the same thing is said by Prantl of \u1f44\u03c1\u03c6\u03bd\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd, which he\ntranslates brown) is so closely akin to the negative, or blackness, as\nto be indistinguishable from it. Thus Aristotle appears to treat grey\nas outside his scale altogether; he gives \u03c0\u03bf\u03c1\u03c6\u03c5\u03c1\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd sometimes to red\nand sometimes to blue[866]; and \u1f44\u03c1\u03c6\u03bd\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd or brown is wholly omitted.\nHis order likewise varies: for, in different passages, \u1f01\u03bb\u03bf\u03c5\u03c1\u03b3\u1f78\u03bd and\n\u03c0\u03c1\u03ac\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd change places.\n\n[865] Ibid. p. 118. Met. III. 4. 374 b. 31.\n\n[866] Comp. Met. I. 5. 342 b. 4. with III. 4. 374 a. 27.\n\n~_Nature of our advantage over Homer._~\n\nThis condition of the philosophy of colour, so many centuries after\nHomer, and in the mind of such a man as Aristotle, may assist in\nexplaining to us the undeveloped state of Homer\u2019s perceptions in this\nparticular department.\n\nThere appears to be a remarkable contrast between such undigested\nideas, and the solidity, truth, and firmness of the remains of colour\nthat have come down to us from the ancients. The explanation, I\nsuppose, is, that those, who had to make practical use of colour, did\nnot wait for the construction of a philosophy, but added to their\napparatus from time to time all substances which, having come within\ntheir knowledge, were found to produce results satisfactory and\nimproving to the eye. And even so Homer, though his organ was little\ntrained in the discrimination of colours, and though he founded himself\nmainly upon mere modifications of light apart from its decomposition,\nyet has made very bold and effective use of these limited materials.\nHis figures in no case jar, while they never fail to strike. Nor are\nwe to suppose that we see in this department an exception to that\ncomparative profusion of power which marked his endowments in general,\nand that he bore, in the particular point, a crippled nature; but\nrather we are to learn that the perceptions so easy and familiar to\nus are the results of a slow traditionary growth in knowledge and in\nthe training of the human organ, which commenced long before we took\nour place in the succession of mankind. We exemplify, even in this\napparently simple matter, the old proverbial saying: \u2018The dwarf sees\nfurther than the giant, for he is lifted on the giant\u2019s shoulders.\u2019\n\n\n _Note on the meaning of \u03ba\u03cd\u03b1\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 and \u03c7\u03b1\u03bb\u03ba\u03cc\u03c2._\n\n The first impression from the Homeric text is likely to be that\n \u03ba\u03cd\u03b1\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 is a metal. For the substantive is mentioned but thrice in\n Homer; and always in immediate connection with metals.\n\n 1. Il. xi. 24. Upon the buckler of Agamemnon there are, with twelve\n \u03bf\u1f36\u03bc\u03bf\u03b9, folds, rims, or plies, of gold, and twenty of tin, ten of\n \u03ba\u03cd\u03b1\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 (\u03bc\u03ad\u03bb\u03b1\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 \u03ba\u03c5\u03ac\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9\u03bf).\n\n 2. Il. xi. 34. On the shield of the king, there were twenty white\n bosses of tin, and, in the middle, one of \u03ba\u03cd\u03b1\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 (\u03bc\u03ad\u03bb\u03b1\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 \u03ba\u03c5\u03ac\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9\u03bf).\n\n 3. Od. vii. 86. The walls of the palace of Alcinous were coated with\n \u03c7\u03b1\u03bb\u03ba\u1f78\u03c2 within, and round about them there was a cornice or fringe\n (\u03b8\u03c1\u03b9\u03b3\u03ba\u1f78\u03c2) of \u03ba\u03cd\u03b1\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2.\n\n There is no doubt that, in later Greek at least, the word acquired\n other significations: such as _lapis lazuli_, the blue cornflower,\n the rockbird (also as being blue), and, lastly, a blue dye or\n lacquer[867]. But, moreover, it seems impossible to identify the\n \u03ba\u03cd\u03b1\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 of Homer with any metal in particular.\n\n [867] Liddell and Scott _in voc._ Millin, Min\u00e9ralogie Hom\u00e9rique, p.\n 149.\n\n Some have asserted the \u03ba\u03cd\u03b1\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 of Homer to be steel[868]. But to this\n there seem to be conclusive objections. It appears very doubtful,\n whether the Greeks were acquainted with the process of making steel\n in masses by the immersion of iron in water. The English translation\n of Beckmann\u2019s History of Inventions ascribes the knowledge of the\n process to Homer; but apparently in error[869]. There is no allusion\n whatever to it: for it is not at all implied by the elementary\n process of the manufacture of a tool in Od ix. 391-3. It was only\n by fire that iron could be made malleable at all: and no doubt it\n was known that by its immersion in water hardness was restored or\n increased (\u03c4\u1f78 \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u03b1\u1f56\u03c4\u03b5 \u03c3\u03b9\u03b4\u03ae\u03c1\u03bf\u03c5 \u03b3\u03b5 \u03ba\u03c1\u03ac\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c3\u03c4\u03af\u03bd). But we have no\n trace either of the repetition of the process on the same piece of\n metal, or of its application to unmanufactured iron, or of a new\n denomination for iron when thus heated and cooled. On the contrary,\n in this passage the metal when fully hardened is still declared to be\n \u03c3\u03af\u03b4\u03b7\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2: and we have nowhere in Homer any trace of a relation between\n \u03ba\u03cd\u03b1\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 and \u03c3\u03af\u03b4\u03b7\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2, except the merely negative one, that neither of\n them is cast into the furnace for making the Shield of Achilles.\n\n [868] Friedreich, Realien, \u00a7 21. p. 86.\n\n [869] Vol. ii. p. 325.\n\n Again, the hardness of iron was such as apparently met all their\n wishes, and almost of itself constituted a difficulty. Hence it is\n used along with stones as a symbol of hardness; \u1f10\u03c0\u03b5\u1f76 \u03bf\u1f54 \u03c3\u03c6\u03b9 \u03bb\u03af\u03b8\u03bf\u03c2\n \u03c7\u03c1\u1f7c\u03c2 \u1f20\u1f72 \u03c3\u03af\u03b4\u03b7\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2[870]. Again, we do not find it worked up with other\n metals; for example, on the buckler or shield of Agamemnon. As we\n have seen, it is not used by Vulcan in making the shield of Achilles.\n The god casts into the fire gold and silver, copper and tin; lead\n being apparently excluded as too soft, and iron as too hard for\n working in masses with the other metals. But the idea of hardness\n is never associated with \u03ba\u03cd\u03b1\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2; and, if it had been hard like\n steel, certainly it would not have been a suitable material for the\n intricate forms of dragons.\n\n [870] Il. iv. 510.\n\n Again, the adjective \u03ba\u03c5\u03ac\u03bd\u03b5\u03bf\u03c2 means in colour what is blue and what\n is deep; and by no means corresponds with the ordinary colour of\n steel. All this, besides the strength of the negative evidence, seems\n inconsistent with the idea that \u03ba\u03cd\u03b1\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 can have been steel.\n\n The Compiler of the Index to Eustathius makes \u03ba\u03cd\u03b1\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 (_in voc._)\n simply a dark metal. But Millin argues that \u03ba\u03cd\u03b1\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 without an epithet\n is tin, and that with the epithet \u03bc\u03ad\u03bb\u03b1\u03c2 it is lead. He observes that\n Pliny[871] appears to call tin by the name of _plumbum_ simply, and\n lead by the name of _plumbum nigrum_: so that the double use of\n \u03ba\u03cd\u03b1\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 and \u03ba\u03b1\u03c3\u03c3\u03af\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2 for tin would be like that of _plumbum_ and\n _stannum_ for the same metal in Latin. This idea treats the substance\n as taking its name from the colour: and is so far sustained by the\n use of the German _blei_, which I presume is the same word as _blau_,\n for lead. But it would be singular that Homer should thus have double\n names for two metals, which of all classes of objects have perhaps\n been most commonly designated by single ones. And this hypothesis\n is not in accordance with the evident meaning of \u03ba\u03c5\u03ac\u03bd\u03b5\u03bf\u03c2 in Homer;\n since the word indicates a dark and deep hue very far from that of\n tin, which Homer describes as white. The after use of \u03ba\u03cd\u03b1\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 is\n equally adverse to the interpretation suggested.\n\n [871] H. N. xxxiv. 16. s. 47.\n\n The most probable interpretation for this difficult word appears\n to be that which is also in accordance with its subsequent use and\n description as a colour. From Linton\u2019s \u2018Ancient and Modern Colours,\u2019\n (p. 21,) it appears that there was a \u03ba\u03cd\u03b1\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u03c6\u03c5\u1f74\u03c2, which was a\n _native_ blue carbonate of copper: and that, according to the express\n testimony of Dioscorides, this was obtained by the ancients from\n the copper-mines: \u03ba\u03cd\u03b1\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03bd\u1fb6\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u03bc\u1f72\u03bd \u1f10\u03bd \u039a\u03cd\u03c0\u03c1\u1ff3 \u1f10\u03ba \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03c7\u03b1\u03bb\u03ba\u03bf\u03c5\u03c1\u03b3\u1ff6\u03bd\n \u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u03ac\u03bb\u03bb\u03c9\u03bd, v. 106. This interpretation would account for our finding\n \u03ba\u03cd\u03b1\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 in Homer: for the rarity of its use: for the dark colour and\n the affinity to \u03c0\u03bf\u03c1\u03c6\u03cd\u03c1\u03b5\u03bf\u03c2. Such a substance would make a good relief\n for the cornice in the palace of Alcinous, against the copper-plated\n walls: and would stand well in the rest of the passages where it\n appears to be placed in relief with other metals, Il. xviii. 564,\n xi. 39, and even on the buckler of Agamemnon, xi. 24. For on this\n buckler, though the serpents, called \u03ba\u03c5\u03ac\u03bd\u03b5\u03bf\u03b9, are evidently placed\n in contrast with the \u03bf\u1f36\u03bc\u03bf\u03b9, and though among the \u03bf\u1f36\u03bc\u03bf\u03b9 there are ten\n of \u03ba\u03cd\u03b1\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2, yet, as they are combined with twelve of gold and twenty\n of tin, the general effect would be one such as we need not suppose\n Homer to have rejected. This blue carbonate is still found among\n other copper-ores, but less in our deep mines, than in the shallow\n ones worked by the ancients. I understand from a gentleman versed\n in metallurgy, that in its purest form it is crystalline, rarely\n massive or earthy, of a deep azure, brittle, easily powdered, and\n thus readily converted to use as a pigment.\n\n I should therefore suppose that the \u03ba\u03cd\u03b1\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 is not a metal: that the\n \u03bf\u1f36\u03bc\u03bf\u03b9 on the buckler mean lines or bands coloured in pigment: and\n that the boss on the shield is probably a nodule of the substance\n in its native state. We can thus understand why \u03ba\u03cd\u03b1\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 is not used\n either with the gold, silver, \u03c7\u03b1\u03bb\u03ba\u1f78\u03c2, and tin, in the forge of\n Vulcan, or with the gold, silver, iron, and \u03c7\u03b1\u03bb\u03ba\u1f78\u03c2 of the chariot\n of Juno[872]. We can also understand why, though \u03ba\u03cd\u03b1\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 is not used\n in the forge, yet the trench round the vineyard on the shield of\n Achilles is \u03ba\u03c5\u03b1\u03bd\u03b5\u03ae[873]. This interpretation is also in conformity\n with the Homeric employment of the adjective \u03ba\u03c5\u03ac\u03bd\u03b5\u03bf\u03c2.\n\n [872] Il. xviii. 474. v. 722.\n\n [873] Ibid. 564.\n\n I understand that there is, in the _Museo Borbonico_ at Naples, a\n spoon or ladle, with a boss on the end of the handle, which is formed\n of this native blue carbonate of copper bored through for the purpose.\n\n Of the four significations given to \u03c7\u03b1\u03bb\u03ba\u1f78\u03c2 in Homer (copper, brass,\n bronze, and iron[874]), I adhere to the first. It cannot be iron,\n (1) because it is never mentioned as hard in the same way with it,\n (2) because it is so much more common, (3) because these metals are\n expressly distinguished one from the other, as in Il. v. 723.\n\n [874] Eustath. Il. i. p. 93.\n\n Neither can the \u03c7\u03b1\u03bb\u03ba\u1f78\u03c2 of Homer be bronze. Not, however, from\n absolute want of hardness: for I learn from competent authority that\n very good cutting instruments (not, of course, equal to steel) may be\n made in a bronze composed of 87\u00bd parts copper, and 12\u00bd parts tin. But\n for the following reasons:\n\n 1. Homer always speaks of it as a pure metal along with other pure\n metals, even where Vulcan casts it into the furnace to be wrought;\n Il. xviii. 474.\n\n 2. Again, because, although we must not argue too confidently from\n Homer\u2019s epithets of colour, yet in this case we may lay considerable\n stress not only on his \u03c7\u03b1\u03bb\u03ba\u1f78\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c1\u03c5\u03b8\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 (since the \u1f10\u03c1\u03c5\u03b8\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 of Homer\n leans to brightness), but upon the \u1f24\u03bd\u03bf\u03c8 and \u03bd\u03ce\u03c1\u03bf\u03c8, which mean bright\n and gleaming. These epithets of light would not apply to bronze: nor\n would Homer plate with bronze the walls of the palace of Alcinous.\n Neither does it appear likely that he would give us a heaven of\n bronze among the imposing imagery of battle, Il. xvii. 424.\n\n 3. It does not appear that Homer knew anything at all of the fusion\n or alloying of metals.\n\n We have, then, to conclude that \u03c7\u03b1\u03bb\u03ba\u1f78\u03c2 was copper, hardened by some\n method; as some think by the agency of water: or else, and more\n probably, according to a very simple process, by cooling slowly in\n the air. (See Millin, Min\u00e9ralogie Hom\u00e9rique, pp. 126-32.)\n\n\nSECT. V.[875]\n\n[875] The substance of this and the two following Sections formed two\nArticles in the Quarterly Review, Nos. 201 and 203, for January and\nJuly respectively, 1857. They are reprinted with the obliging approval\nof Mr. Murray.\n\n_Homer and some of his Successors in Epic Poetry: in particular, Virgil\nand Tasso._\n\n~_Milton and Dante in relation to Homer._~\n\nThe great Epic poets of the world are members of a brotherhood still\nextremely limited, and, as far as appears, not likely to be enlarged.\nIt may indeed well be disputed, with respect to some of the existing\nclaimants, whether they are or are not entitled to stand upon the\nGolden Book. There will also be differences of opinion as to the\nprecedence among those, whose right to appear there is universally\nconfessed. Pretensions are sometimes advanced under the influence of\ntemporary or national partialities, which the silent action of the\ncivilized mind of the world after a time effectually puts down. Among\nthese there could be none more obviously untenable, than that set up on\nbehalf of Milton in the celebrated Epigram of Dryden, which seemed to\nplace him at the head of the poets of the world, and made him combine\nall the great qualities of Homer and of Virgil. Somewhat similar ideas\nwere broached by Cowper in his Table Talk. The lines, as they are less\nfamiliarly remembered, may be quoted here:\n\n Ages elapsed ere Homer\u2019s lamp appeared,\n And ages ere the Mantuan swan was heard;\n To carry Nature lengths unknown before,\n To give a Milton birth, asked ages more.\n\nBut this great master is also subject to undue depreciation, as well\nas flattered by extravagant worship. I myself have been assured in a\ncompany composed of Professors of a German University, who were ardent\nadmirers of Shakespeare, that within the sphere of their knowledge\nMilton was only regarded as of equal rank with Klopstock. It is not,\nI trust, either national vanity or religious prejudice, nor is it\nthe mere wonder inspired by the wide range of his attainments and\nperformances, which makes England claim that he should be numbered in\nthe first class of epic poets; in that class of which Homer is the\nhead, distinguished before all competitors by a clear and even a vast\nsuperiority.\n\nIt would be difficult to institute any satisfactory comparison between\nMilton and Homer; so different, so wanting in points of contact, are\nthe characters partly of the men, and even much more of their works.\nPerhaps the greatest and the most pervading merit of the Iliad is, its\nfidelity and vividness as a mirror of man and of the visible sphere\nin which he lived, with its infinitely varied imagery both actual and\nideal. But that which most excites our admiration in Milton is the\nelasticity and force of genius, by which he has travelled beyond the\nhuman sphere, and bodied forth to us new worlds in the unknown, peopled\nwith inhabitants who must be so immeasurably different from our own\nrace. Homer\u2019s task was one, which admitted of and received what we may\ncall a perfect accomplishment; Milton\u2019s was an undertaking beyond the\nstrength of man, incapable of anything more than faint adumbration,\nand one of which, the more elevated the spectator\u2019s point of view, the\nmore keenly he must find certain defects glare upon him. The poems of\nMilton give us reason to think that his conceptions of character were\nmasculine and powerful; but the subject did not admit of their being\neffectually tested. For his nearest approaches to perfection in his\nart, we must look beyond his epics.\n\nA comparison between Milton and Dante would be somewhat more\npracticable, but it would not accord with the composition of the group,\nwhich I shall here attempt to present, and which has Homer for its\ncentre. On the other hand, Dante might, far better than Milton, be\ncompared with Homer; for while he is in the Purgatorio and Paradiso\nfar more heavenly than Milton, he is also throughout the _Divina\nCommedia_ truly and profoundly human. He is incessantly conversant with\nthe nature and the life of man; and though for the most part he draws\nus, as Flaxman has drawn him, in outline only, yet by the strength and\ndepth of his touch he has produced figures, for example, Francesca and\nUgolino, that have as largely become the common property of mankind,\nif not as Achilles and Ulysses, yet as Lear and Hamlet. Still the\ntheological basis, and the extra-terrene theatre, of Dante\u2019s poem\nremove him to a great distance from Homer, from whom he seems to have\nderived little, and with whom we may therefore feel assured he could\nhave been but little acquainted.\n\nThe poets, whom it is most natural to compare with Homer, are those\nwho have supplied us in the greatest abundance with points of contact\nbetween their own orbits and his, and who at the same time are such\nmanifest children of genius as to entitle them to the honour of being\nworsted in such a conflict. These conditions I presume to be most\nclearly fulfilled by Virgil and Tasso; and we may begin with the elder\nof the pair.\n\nPerhaps Chapman has gone too far when he says \u2018Virgil hath nothing of\nhis own, but only elocution; his invention, matter, and form, being\nall Homer\u2019s[876].\u2019 Yet no small part of this sweeping proposition can\nundoubtedly be made good.\n\n[876] Commentary on Il. ii.\n\nWith an extraordinary amount of admitted imitation and of obvious\nsimilarity on the surface, the \u00c6neid stands, as to almost every\nfundamental particular, in the strongest contrast with the Iliad. As\nto metre, figures, names, places, persons and times, the two works,\nwhere they do not actually concur, stand in as near relations one to\nanother, as seem to be attainable without absolute identity of subject;\nyet it may be doubted whether any two great poems can be named, which\nare so profoundly discordant upon almost every point that touches\ntheir interior spirit; upon everything that relates to the truth of\nour nature, to the laws of thought and action, and to veracity in the\nmanagement of the higher subjects, such as history, morality, polity,\nand religion.\n\n~_Contrast between form and spirit in the \u00c6neid._~\n\nThe immense powers of Virgil as a poet had been demonstrated before he\nwrote the \u00c6neid. He had shown their full splendour in the Georgics;\nthough the \u1f26\u03b8\u03bf\u03c2, or (so to speak) the heart, even of that great\nwork was touched with paralysis by his Epicurean and self-centring\nphilosophy. The \u00c6neid does not bear a fainter impression of his genius.\nThe wonderfully sustained beauty and majesty of its verse, the imposing\nsplendour of its most elaborate delineations, the power of the author\nin unfolding, when he strives to do it, the resources of passion, and\neven perhaps the skill which he has shown in the general construction\nof his plot, cannot be too highly praised. But while its general nature\nas an epic (for the epic poem is preeminently ethical) brought its\ndefects into fuller view, the particular object he proposed to himself\nwas fatal to the attainment of the very highest excellence. While\nHomer sang for national glory, the poem of Virgil is toned throughout\nto a spirit of courtierlike adulation. No muse, however vigorous, can\nmaintain an upright gait under so base a burden.\n\n~_Catalogue in the Iliad and in the \u00c6neid._~\n\nAnd yet, in regard to its external form, the \u00c6neid is perhaps, as a\nwhole, the most majestic poem that the European mind has in any age\nproduced. We often hear of the lofty march of the Iliad; but though\nits versification is always appropriate and therefore never mean,\nit only rises into stateliness, or into a high-pitched sublimity,\nwhen Homer has occasion to brace his energies for an effort. He is\ninvariably true to his own conception of the bard[877], as one who\nshould win and delight the soul of the hearer; and so, when he has\nstrung himself, like a bow, for some great passage of his action,\n\u2018has brought the string to the breast, the iron to the wood,\u2019 and\nhas hit his mark, straightway he unbends himself again. Thus he\nushers in with true grandeur the marshalling of the Greek army in the\nSecond Book, partly by the invocation of the Muses, and partly by an\nassemblage of no less than six consecutive similes, which describe\nrespectively the flash of the Greek arms, the resounding tramp, the\nswarming numbers, the settling down of the ranks as they form the\nline, the busy marshalling by the commanders, the majesty of Agamemnon\npreeminent among them[878]. Having done this, he sets himself about\nthe Catalogue, with no contempt indeed of poetical embellishment by\nepithets, and with an occasional relief by short legends, but still\nin the main as a matter of business, historical, geographical, and\ntopographical. And thus he proceeds, with perfect tranquillity, for\nnear three hundred lines, until his work is done. We then find that\nhe has given us, together with a most minute account of the forces,\na living map of the territories occupied by the Greek races of the\nage. But Virgil, in his imitation of the Homeric Catalogue (upon\nwhich there will be further occasion to comment hereafter, with\nreference to other matters), has pursued a course quite different.\nWaiving Homer\u2019s gorgeous introduction, which pours from a single\npoint a broad stream of splendour over the whole, Virgil with vast,\nand indeed rather painful, effort, carries us through his long-drawn\nlist at a laboriously-sustained elevation. To vary the wearisome\ntask, he uses every diversity of turn that language and grammar can\nsupply[879]. He passes from nominative to vocative, and from vocative\nto nominative. Somebody was present, and then somebody was not absent.\nArms and accoutrements are got up as minutely, as if he had been a\ncareful master of costumes dressing a new drama for the stage. That\nwe may never be let down for a moment, he distributes here and there\nthe similes, which Homer accumulated at the opening, and introduces,\nbetween the accounts of military contingents, legends of twenty or more\nlines. Upon the whole, the level of his verse through the Catalogue,\ninstead of being, like Homer\u2019s, decidedly lower, is even higher than is\nusual with him. There is not in it, I think, a single verse approaching\nto the _sermo pedestris_. His reader misses that tranquillizing relief\nso agreeable in Homer, which varies as it were the play of the muscles,\nand freshens the faculties for a return to higher efforts. Virgil seems\nto treat us, as horses at a certain stage of their decline are treated\nby experienced drivers, who keep them going from fear that, if they\nonce let them stop or slacken, they will be unable to get up their pace\nagain. He never unbends his bow. But a table-land may be as flat, and\neven wearisome, as a plain; and the ornaments in the \u00c6neid frequently\nare not, and indeed could hardly be, more ornamental than the passages\nwhich they purport to embellish.\n\n[877] Od. xvii. 385.\n\n[878] Il. ii. 455-83.\n\n[879] See also Lessing\u2019s Laocoon, c. xviii. respecting the Shield in\nthe \u00c6neid.\n\nThe difference of the two Catalogues cannot be more clearly exhibited\nthan by comparing Homer\u2019s description of the very first contingent,\nthat from B\u0153otia[880], with Virgil\u2019s opening paragraph about Mezentius;\nor Homer\u2019s last and nearly simplest, on the Magnesians[881], with the\ndescription of Camilla, (certainly a description of remarkable beauty,)\nwith which is closed the glittering procession of the Italian army in\nthe \u00c6neid.\n\n[880] Il. ii. 494-510. \u00c6n. vii. 647-54.\n\n[881] Il. ii. 756-9. \u00c6n. vii. 803-17.\n\nThe sustained stateliness of diction, metre, and rhythm in the \u00c6neid\nis a feat, and an astounding feat; but it is more like the performance\nof a trained athlete, between trick and strength, than the grandeur\nof free and simple Nature, such as it is seen in the ancient warrior,\nin Diomed or Achilles; or in Homer, the ancient warrior\u2019s only bard.\nDifferent persons will, according to their temperaments, be apt to\ntreat this augustness of diction as a merit or a fault: all, however,\nmust acknowledge it to be a wonder. In this respect Virgil has been\nfollowed with no ordinary power, but yet not equalled, by Tasso. And\nthe impression, created in this respect by the \u00c6neid as it stands, must\nbe heightened when we remember that it is still an unfinished poem,\nand that the author had at his decease by no means brought it, and the\nlater books of it in particular, up to what he considered the proper\nstandard.\n\nThe immense and untold amount of imitation in Virgil has perhaps tended\nto make us less than duly sensible of his vast original powers; and\nthe mean and feeble effects produced by the character, if we can call\nit a character, of his \u00c6neas, cheat us into an untrue supposition that\nhe could not have possessed a real power of this the highest kind of\ndelineation.\n\n~_Character of \u00c6neas._~\n\nIt is perhaps hardly possible to exhaust the topics of censure which\nmay be justly used against the \u00c6neas of Virgil. His moral deficiencies\nare not (so to speak) hidden amidst the accomplishments of a manly\nintellect, nor his intellectual mediocrity redeemed by any fresh and\ngenuine virtues. He is not, to our knowledge, a statesman; nay more,\nhe is not a warrior; for we feel that his battles and feats of war are\nthe poet\u2019s, and not his: and when he appears in arms we are tempted\nto ask, \u2018Son of Venus, what business have you here?\u2019 The violent\nexaggerations, by which Virgil attempts to vamp up his hero\u2019s martial\ncharacter, only produce the \u03c8\u03c5\u03c7\u03c1\u1f78\u03bd of Longinus; a cold reaction,\napproaching to a shudder, through the reader\u2019s mind. As, for instance,\nwhen in the Shades below, the poet represents the Greek chieftains[882]\nas trembling and flying at the sight of him, the nobleness of the\nverses cannot excuse either the tasteless solecism of the thought,\nor the profanation offered to the memory of Homer in the person of\nhis heroes, who indeed often made \u00c6neas tremble, but never trembled\nat him themselves. But Virgil goes further yet, when he makes Diomed\nassert[883] that, having been engaged in single combat with \u00c6neas, he\nknows by experience how terrible a warrior he will prove; and that, had\nthere been two more such men, Troy would have conquered Greece, and\nnot Greece Troy. Now, \u00c6neas never in the Iliad even once executes a\nreal feat of war; and as to the single combat between the two chiefs,\nDiomed first knocked him down with a stone[884], and then, after he had\nbeen carried off and apparently set to rights by his mother, he was\nthrice saved from the deadly charge of the same warrior by the single\nintervention of Apollo, who by divine force arrested the attack. In\npassing, it may be observed that, since Virgil could, with impunity, as\nit appears, so far as his popularity was concerned, thus mutilate and\nfalsify the author from whose wealth he so largely borrowed, either the\nknowledge of Greek literature in its head and father, Homer, must have\nbeen very low among even the educated Romans, or else their standard of\ntaste must have been seriously debased before they could accept such\ncompliments.\n\n[882] At Dana\u00fbm proceres, etc.--\u00c6n. vi. 489.\n\n[883] \u00c6n. xi. 282-7.\n\n[884] Il. v. 302-10.\n\nIt is common to find fault with \u00c6neas for his vile conduct to Dido, and\nfor the wretched excuse he offers in his own behalf, when he encounters\nher offended spirit in the regions of Aidoneus and Persephone. But the\ntruth is, that this fairly exhibits and illustrates not only the total\nunreality of this particular character, but, as will be further noticed\npresently, the feeble and deteriorated conception of human nature at\nlarge, which Virgil seems to have formed. Man has been treated by him\nas, on the whole, but a shallow being: he had not sounded the depths of\nthe heart, nor measured either the strength of good or the strength of\nevil that may abide in it. The Virgilian \u00c6neas is a made up thing, far\nfitter to stand among the \u03bd\u03b5\u03ba\u03cd\u03c9\u03bd \u1f00\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03b7\u03bd\u03b1 \u03ba\u03ac\u03c1\u03b7\u03bd\u03b1, than among men of true\nflesh and blood.\n\n Thy bones are marrowless, thy blood is cold;\n Thou hast no speculation in those eyes\n Which thou dost glare with[885].\n\n[885] Macbeth iii. 3.\n\nNor can we draw an apology for the defects of this primary character\nin Virgil from the \u00c6neas of Homer. The Dardanian Prince is indeed\nin the Iliad, as to everything essential, a taciturn and background\nfigure. He is placed very high in station and authority, and, as we\nhave seen[886], he may probably have been, by the dignity of lineal\ndescent, the head of the whole Trojan race. But Homer pays him off\nwith generalities; for, as no Poet is greater in the really creative\nwork of character, so none better understands how, where the purpose\nof his poem requires it, to take a lay figure, and stuff him out with\nstraw. In what may be called the vital action of the Iliad, \u00c6neas has\nno considerable share, either martial or political. He is very far\nindeed behind the noble Sarpedon in the first capacity, and Polydamas\nin the second, as well as Hector in both. Still, if there is in the\nHomeric \u00c6neas nothing grand, nothing vigorous, nothing profound,\nthere is on the other hand nothing over-prominent or pretentious, and\ntherefore nothing mean, nothing inconsistent, nothing untrue. All the\nHomeric characters, down to Thersites, are drawn each in its way with\na master\u2019s hand; \u00c6neas forms no exception: on the contrary, we have\nto admire the skill with which, in a kind of middle distance, his\noutline is filled up, and he is kept entirely clear of any confusion\nwith either those greater characters on the Trojan side, who have been\nnamed, or with the effeminate Paris. This is the more worthy of note,\nbecause, as the favourite child of Venus, he bore a qualified and dim\nresemblance to her chief minion; as we may see by certain traits of his\nvery negative bearing in the field, and by Apollo\u2019s putting him (if\nthe phrase may be allowed) to bed in Pergamus[887], when he had been\nrescued from Diomed, just as Venus had done with Paris, after she had\nsaved him in the Third Book from Menelaus[888].\n\n[886] Ach\u00e6is, or Ethnology, sect. ix. p. 491.\n\n[887] Il. v. 445.\n\n[888] Il. iii. 382.\n\nNeither did Virgil fail in the delineation of his hero, or\n\u2018protagonist,\u2019 from simple want of power to portray human character. No\nsuch want can be ascribed to the poet of the Fourth Book of the \u00c6neid.\nAnd if it be true that, amidst all the stormy wildness and intensity of\nthe passion of Dido, there is something not quite natural--something\nthat recalls the very remarkable imitation of it in the \u2018Duchesse de\nla Valli\u00e8re\u2019 of Madame de Genlis, and leaves us almost at a loss to\nsay which of the two has most the character of a copy, and which of\nan original--what are we to say of the genuine and manly character of\nTurnus? The whole of that sketch is as good and true as we can desire;\nand the noble speech in particular, in which he rebukes the trim\ncowardice of Drances, is a work of such extraordinary power and merit,\nthat it is fit (and this I take for the summit of all eulogies) even to\nhave been spoken by the Achilles of Homer. In vigorous reasoning, in\nbiting sarcasm, in chivalrous sentiment, and in indignant passion, it\npresents a combination not easily to be matched; and it is, as a whole,\nadmirably adapted to the oratorical purpose, for which it is presumed\nto have been delivered. But, indeed, from our first view of Turnus to\nour last, we do not find in him a single trait feeble in itself, or\nunworthy of the masculine idea and intention of the portrait, except\nwhere, in the very last passage of his life, his free agency seems to\nbe taken, as it were by force, out of his hands.\n\n~_The false position of Virgil._~\n\nThe failure in the \u00c6neas of Virgil cannot be compared with the case of\nany modern romance, such as the Waverley or Old Mortality of Scott,\nwhere the hero may be an insipid person. All the greater modern\ninventors have been compelled to lay their foundations in the palpable\nbreadth of some historic event: it was the prouder distinction of the\nHomeric epic, that it had a living centre; it hung upon a man; there\nwas enough of vital power in Homer for this end: his Achilles and his\nUlysses were each an Atlas, that sustained the world in which they\nalso moved. Virgil made his poem an \u00c6neid, instead of following the\nexample of the Cyclic poets; he thus pledged himself to his readers,\nthat \u00c6neas should be its centre, its pole, its inward light and life.\nBut he did not keep his word: he had drawn the bow of Homer without\nHomer\u2019s force. He marks perhaps the final transition from the old epic\nof the first class to the new. After him we have the epics of fact, the\nPharsalia, the Thebaid, and so forth. But \u00c6neas stands before us with\nthe pretensions of Achilles and Ulysses; and the failure is great in\nproportion to the gigantic scale of the attempt. When, in the Italian\nromance, the character of the ideal man, as shown in Orlando, again\nbecame the basis of new epic poems, we again find in the protagonist\ngreat weakness indeed, as compared with Achilles and Ulysses; but\nstrength and success as compared with the \u00c6neas of Virgil.\n\nUpon the whole we are thrown back on the supposition that this crying\nvice of the \u00c6neid, the feebleness and untruth of the character of\n\u00c6neas, was due to the false position of Virgil, who was obliged to\ndischarge his functions as a poet in subjection to his dominant\nobligations and liabilities as a courtly parasite of Augustus. As\nthe entire poem, so the character of its hero, was, before all other\nthings, an instrument for glorifying the Emperor of Rome. It at once\nfollowed, that in all respects must that character be such as to avoid\nsuggesting a comparison disadvantageous to the person whose dignity,\nfor political ends, had already been elevated even into the unseen\nworld; nay, whose forestalled divinity was to be kept in a relation\nof absolute and broad superiority to the image of his human ancestor.\n\u00c6neas is himself addressed in the action of the \u00c6neid, as\n\n D\u00ees genite, et geniture deos.\n\nIn order to arrive at the disastrous effects of this mental servitude,\ntake, first, the measure of the cold and unheroic character of\nAugustus; then estimate the degree of relative superiority, which it\nwas essential to Virgil\u2019s position that he should preserve for him\nthroughout; and thus we may come to some practical conception of the\nstraitness of the space within which Virgil had to develop his \u00c6neas,\nor, in other words, to run his match against Homer. All the faults, and\nall the faultiness, of his poem may be really owing, in a degree none\ncan say how great, to this original falseness of position.\n\nOn account of the personal principle on which the ancient epic was\nconstructed, failure in the character of the hero must almost of\nnecessity have entailed failure in the poem. Most of all would this\nfollow in a case where, as in the \u00c6neid, the hero is never out of view,\nand where the action does not, as in the Iliad, travel away from his\nperson, in order then to enhance the splendour and effectiveness of his\nreappearance. Thus the falseness of Virgil\u2019s position was not confined\nto an individual character, but extended to his entire work. Living,\ntoo, in an age less natural and more critical than that of Homer, he\nprovided against criticism, so far as regarded its merely technical\nfunctions, more, and he studied nature less. He had to construct his\nepic for a court, and a corrupt court, not for mankind at large; it\nfollowed, that he could not take his stand upon those deep and broad\nfoundations in human nature itself, which gave Homer a position of\nuniversal command. Hence as a general rule he does not sing from the\nheart, nor to the heart. His touches of genuine nature are rare. Such\nof them as occur have been carefully noted and applauded, for he is\nalways studious to set them off by choice and melodious diction. For my\nown part, I find scarcely any among them so true as the simile of the\nmother labouring with her maidens at night, which he owes to Homer[889]:\n\n[889] Hom. Il. xii. 433.\n\n Castum ut servare cubile\n Conjugis, et possit parvos educere natos[890].\n\n[890] \u00c6n. viii. 407-13.\n\n~_As to religion, liberty, and nationality._~\n\nWith rare exceptions, the reader of Virgil finds himself utterly at a\nloss to see at any point the soul of the poet reflected in his work. We\ncannot tell, amidst the splendid phantasmagoria, where is his heart,\nwhere lie his sympathies. In Homer a genial spirit, breathed from the\nPoet himself, is translucent through the whole; in the \u00c6neid we look in\nvain almost for a single ray of it. Again, Virgil lived at a time when\nthe prevailing religion had lost whatever elements of real influence\nthat of Homer\u2019s era either possessed in its own right, or inherited\nfrom pristine tradition. It was undermined at once by philosophy and\nby licentiousness; and it subsisted only as a machinery, a machinery,\ntoo, already terribly discredited, for civil ends. Thus he lost one\ngreat element of truth and nature, as well as of sublimity and pathos.\nThe extinction of liberty utterly deprived him of another. Homer saw\nbefore him both a religion and a polity young, fresh, and vigorous; for\nVirgil both were practically dead: and whatever this world has of true\ngreatness is so closely dependent upon them, that it was not his fault\nif his poem felt and bears cogent witness to the loss. Even the sphere\nof personal morality was not open to him; for what principle of truth\nor righteousness could he worthily have glorified, without passing\nsevere condemnation on some capital act of the man, whom it was his\nchief obligation to exalt?\n\nAnd once more. Homer sang to his own people of the glorious deeds of\ntheir sires, to whom they were united by fond recollection, and by\nnear historic and local ties. This was at once a stimulus and a check;\nit cheered his labour, and at the same time it absolutely required\nhim to study moral harmony and consistency. Virgil sang to Romans of\nthe deeds of those who were not Romans, and whom only a most hollow\nfiction connected with his hearers, through the dim vista of a thousand\nyears, and under circumstances which made the pretence to historical\ncontinuity little better than ridiculous. Or rather, he sang thus, not\nto Romans, but to their Emperor; he had to bear in mind, not the great\nfountains of emotion in the human heart, but his town-house on the\nEsquiline, and his country-house on the road from Naples to Pozzuoli.\nIn dealing with Greeks, with Trojans, with Carthaginians, he again lost\nHomer\u2019s double advantage: he had nothing to give a healthy stimulus\nto his imagination, and nothing to bring him or to keep him to the\nstandard of truth and nature. And here, perhaps, we hit upon some clue\nto the superior character and attractions of Turnus. The Poet was now\nfor once upon true national ground: he was an Italian minstrel, singing\nto Italians, whether truly or mythically is of less consequence, about\nan Italian hero. Thus he had something like the proper materials to\nwork with; and the result is one worthy of his noble powers, though\nit has the strange consequence of setting all the best sympathies of\nhis readers, and of implying that his own were already set, in direct\nopposition to the ostensible purpose of his poem.\n\nIt appears, however, as if this great and splendid Poet, being\nthrown out of his true bearings in regard to all the deeper sources\nof interest on which an epic writer must depend, such as religion,\npatriotism, and liberty, became consequently reckless, alike in major\nand in minor matters, as to all the inner harmonies of his work, and\ncontented himself with the most unwearied and fastidious labours in its\noutward elaboration, where he could give scope to his extraordinary\npowers of versification and of diction without fear of stumbling upon\nanything unfit for the artificial atmosphere of the Roman court. The\nconsequence is, that a vein of untruthfulness runs throughout the whole\n\u00c6neid, as strong and as remarkable as is the genuineness of thought and\nfeeling in the Homeric poems. Homer walks in the open day, Virgil by\nlamplight. Homer gives us figures that breathe and move, Virgil usually\ntreats us to waxwork. Homer has the full force and play of the drama,\nVirgil is essentially operatic. From Virgil back to Homer is a greater\ndistance, than from Homer back to life.\n\n~_Homer is misapprehended through Virgil._~\n\nBut more. Virgil is at once the copyist of Homer, and, for the\ngenerality of educated men, his interpreter[891]. In all modern Europe\ntaken together, Virgil has had ten who read him, and ten who remember\nhim, for one that Homer could show. Taking this in conjunction with the\ngreat extent of the ground they occupy in common, we may find reason to\nthink that the traditional and public idea of Homer\u2019s works, throughout\nthe entire sphere of the Western civilization, has been formed, to a\nmuch greater degree than could at first be supposed, by the Virgilian\ncopies from him. This is only to say, in other words, that it has been\nsadly impaired, not to say seriously falsified; for there is scarcely\na point of vital moment, in which Virgil follows Homer faithfully, or\nrepresents him either fairly or completely. Now this traditional idea\nis not only the stock idea that governs the indifferent public, but\nit is likewise the idea with which the individual student starts, and\nwhich governs him until he has reached such a point in his progress as\nto discover the necessity, and be conscious moreover of the strength,\nto throw it off. This, however, is a point that, from the nature of\nhuman life and its pursuits, very few students indeed can reach at\nall. Elsewhere we shall see, with what evil and untrue effect Virgil\nhas handled some of the Homeric characters. It is the same in every\nminor trait; and it seems strange that so great a Poet should not have\nhad enough of reverence for another Poet, greater still and enshrined\nin almost the worship of all ages, to have restrained him from such\nconstant and wanton, as well as wilful, mutilations of the Homeric\ntradition. It would, however, appear that Virgil\u2019s miscarriages are not\nall due to carelessness, in the common sense of it. In many instances,\nunless so far as they can be referred to the necessities that press\nupon a courtier, it would seem as if they must be ascribable to torpor\nin the faculties, or defect in the habit of mind, by which Homer should\nhave been appreciated. Nay, sometimes he appears to have been moved\nsimply by metrical convenience to alter the traditions of Homer. Let us\ntake first a minor instance to test this assertion.\n\n[891] In Dibdin\u2019s \u2018Editions of the Greek and Latin Classics,\u2019 we find\nnineteen editions of Virgil between 1469 and 1478. The _Princeps_\nof Homer was only printed in 1488. Panzer, according to Dibdin,\nenumerates ninety editions of Virgil in the 15th century (ii. 540.).\nMr. Hallam says (Lit. Eur., i. 420.), \u2018Ariosto has been _after Homer_\nthe favourite poet of Europe.\u2019 I presume this distinguished writer does\nnot mean to imply that Homer has been more read than any other poet.\nCan his words mean that Homer has been more approved? It is worth while\nto ask the question: for the judgments of Mr. Hallam are like those of\nMinos, and reach into the future.\n\nNothing can be more marked than the prominence of the Scamander as\ncompared with the Simois in Homer. The Simois is named by him only six\ntimes, and none of the passages show it to have been a considerable\nstream. In the Twenty-first Book[892], Scamander invites Simois to join\nhim in pouring forth the flood which was to bear away Achilles, but\nhis \u2018brother\u2019 neither replies, nor takes part in the action. It would\nappear, indeed, from geographical considerations, which belong to the\ntopography of the Troad, that in the summer Simois was probably dry.\nThis entirely accords with the passage in which this river supplies\n\u1f00\u03bc\u03b2\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u03af\u03b7[893], a figure, as may be presumed, of grass, for the horses\nof Juno. At any rate, that passage is at variance with the idea of the\nriver as a tearing torrent. Again, Homer mentions[894] that many heroes\nfell, he does not say in, but about, the stream: above all, he does not\nsay they fell into its waters, but in the dust of it, or near it:\n\n[892] Il. xxi. 307, et seqq.\n\n[893] Il. v. 777.\n\n[894] Il. xii. 22.\n\n \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03a3\u03b9\u03bc\u03cc\u03b5\u03b9\u03c2, \u1f45\u03b8\u03b9 \u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03bb\u1f70 \u03b2\u03bf\u03ac\u03b3\u03c1\u03b9\u03b1 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u03c1\u03c5\u03c6\u03ac\u03bb\u03b5\u03b9\u03b1\u03b9\n \u03ba\u03ac\u03c0\u03c0\u03b5\u03c3\u03bf\u03bd \u1f10\u03bd \u03ba\u03bf\u03bd\u03af\u1fc3\u03c3\u03b9.\n\nAgain, Scamander is personified as the god Xanthus, and plays a great\npart in the action: Simois is not personified at all. Scamander is\n\u03b4\u1fd6\u03bf\u03c2, \u03b4\u03b9\u03bf\u03c4\u03c1\u03b5\u03c6\u1f74\u03c2 and much besides: Simois has no epithets. Simoeisius is\nthe son of Anthemion, a person of secondary account; but Scamandrius is\nthe name given by Hector to his boy. Simois, for all we know, may have\nbeen either a dry bed, or little better than a rivulet; but armed men\nare thrown into Scamander, and whirled by him to the sea. Lastly, the\nplain where the Greek army was reviewed is \u03bb\u03b5\u03b9\u03bc\u1f7c\u03bd \u03a3\u03ba\u03b1\u03bc\u03ac\u03bd\u03b4\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2, \u03c0\u03ad\u03b4\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd\n\u03a3\u03ba\u03b1\u03bc\u03ac\u03bd\u03b4\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd. Now a right conception of these rivers is not altogether\nan insignificant affair, but is material to the clearness of our ideas\nupon the military action of the poem. What then has Virgil done with\nthem? He has simply reversed the Homeric representation. Xanthus is\nwith him the unmarked river, Simois is the mighty torrent. Witness\nthese passages:\n\n Mitto ea, qu\u00e6 muris bellando exhausta sub altis,\n Quos Simois premat ille viros. (\u00c6n. xi. 256.)\n\nAgain:\n\n Victor apud rapidum Simoenta sub Ilio alto. (\u00c6n. v. 261.)\n\nAnd most of all, the passage which he has directly carried off from\nHomer, and corrupted it on his way (\u00c6n. i. 104):\n\n Ubi tot Simois correpta sub undis\n Scuta vir\u00fbm galeasque et fortia corpora volvit.\n\nAnd why all this? Plainly, I apprehend, because, while Scamander was\na word disqualified from entering into the Latin hexameter, Xanthus\nalso was somewhat less convenient than Simois for the march of his\nresounding verse. Now this is a sample in small things of what Virgil\nhas done in nearly all things, both small and great.\n\n~_\u039d\u03b5\u03ba\u03c5\u0390\u03b1 of Homer and Virgil._~\n\nThere are instances in which Virgil is popularly thought to profit\nby the comparison with Homer, and where, notwithstanding, a full\nconsideration may lead to a reversal of the sentence. The \u03bd\u03b5\u03ba\u03c5\u0390\u03b1 of\nthe Eleventh Odyssey, for example, is thought inferior to that of the\nSixth \u00c6neid. To bring them fairly together, we should perhaps put out\nof view the philosophical and prophetical part of the latter[895]; but\nwhether we do it or not is little material in the comparison. In either\nway, the _Inferno_ of Virgil is, upon the whole, a stage procession of\nstately and gorgeous figures; but it has no consistent or veracious\nrelation to any idea of the future or unseen state actually operative\namong mankind. Yet there existed such an idea, at least in the times\nof which Virgil was treating, if not at the period when he lived. It\nwas surely a subject of the deepest interest, and of the most solemn\npathos. What we are as men here depends very much on our conception\nof what we are hereafter to be. There is nothing more touching in all\nthe history of the race of Adam, than its blind and painful feeling\nafter a future still invisible. There is no witness to the comparative\ndegradation of a race or age, so sure as its having ceased to yearn\ntowards any thing beyond the grave. Homer has shown us in the Eleventh\nOdyssey[896], that, together with his keen sense of the present and\nvisible, he felt the full force of this mysterious drawing towards the\nunseen. He is plainly as much in earnest here, as in any part of the\npoems. Virgil, on the other hand, succeeds in investing his hell with\nalmost unequalled pomp, approximating at times to splendour. Homer\nattempts nothing of the kind; but he produces a perfect and profound\nimpression of those regions, according to the idea in his own mind:\nthey are shadowy, gloomy, cold, above all, and in one word, dismal.\nVirgil contrives to leave the reader convinced that _he_ is a very\ngreat artist: Homer lets all such matters take care of themselves.\nBut while Virgil creates no impression at all on the mind as to the\nWorld of Shades, no image of the timid, vague, and dim belief that\nwas entertained respecting it, Homer has set it all before us with a\ntruthfulness never equalled or approached. And yet Virgil abounds in\ndetails and measurements which Homer avoids. Tartarus is twice as deep\nas the distance from earth to sky[897], and the Hydra has fifty mouths.\nYet the details of the one give no impression of reality, while the\nutter local vagueness and dreaminess of the other is far more definite\nin its effect, because it is made to minister to the appropriate\nideas of sadness, sympathy, and awe. As to particular passages, the\nappearance of Dido is full of grandeur; but her silence, the basis of\nit, is borrowed from that of Ajax; while in the Odyssey the striding of\nAchilles in silence over the meadow of asphodel, when he swells with\nexultation upon hearing that his son excelled in council and in war, is\nperhaps one of the most sublime pieces of human representation, which\nHomer himself ever has produced.\n\n[895] \u00c6n. vi. 724-893.\n\n[896] We cannot safely assume the second \u039d\u03b5\u03ba\u03c5\u0390\u03b1 of Od. xxiv. to be free\nfrom interpolations.\n\n[897] Homer has used this figure; but in an entirely different\nconnection, Il. viii. 13-16.\n\n~_Ethnological dislocations._~\n\nLet us now give an instance of Virgil\u2019s utter indifference to historic\ntruth and consistency. It is the more remarkable, because as he was\npretending to derive the Julian family from the stock of \u00c6neas, there\nwould apparently have been some advantage in adhering strictly to the\nHomeric distinctions as to races on both sides in the Trojan war. But\nthis appears to be entirely beneath his attention. For instance, he\ncalls the Homeric Greeks Pelasgi[898]. It may be said he was guided by\nthe Italian traditions, which connected the Greek and Pelasgian names\nas early colonists of that country. But first, some regard should be\npaid to Homer in matters which concern Troy; and it is rather violent\nto call the Greeks Pelasgi, when the only Pelasgi named in the war by\nthe Poet are placed on the side of their enemies. Secondly, as it was\nhis purpose throughout to depress the Greeks, why should he thus thrust\nthem into view as one with an Italian race? Above all, why do this\nin a case, where Homer had himself supplied a link between Italy and\nTroy? Again, Virgil calls the Greek camp _Dorica_ castra[899]. But the\nDorians at the period of the Trojan war were utterly insignificant, and\nare never once named by Homer in connection with the contest. Again,\nVirgil calls Diomed, and the city of Arpi founded by him, \u00c6tolian, and\nmakes him complain that he was not allowed to go back to Calydon[900],\nsimply because his father Tydeus, as a son of \u0152neus, had been of\n\u00c6tolian extraction; though he commanded the Argives, and had nothing\nwhatever to do with the \u00c6tolians of Homer. Again, following a late and\npurposeless tradition, he calls Ulysses \u00c6olides[901], though Homer\nhas given the descent of Ulysses[902] without in any manner attaching\nit to the line of the \u00c6olids, a collection of families whose descent,\non account probably of their historical importance, he is more than\nordinarily careful to mark.\n\n[898] \u00c6n. vi. 503.\n\n[899] \u00c6n. ii. 27. vi. 88.\n\n[900] \u00c6n. xi. 239-270.\n\n[901] \u00c6n. vi. 529.\n\n[902] Od. xvi. 118.\n\nWith cases of simple inaccuracy, to which I do not seek to attach undue\nweight, we may connect the manner in which he confounds, on the other\nside, the distinctions of the Trojan races, so accurately marked by\nHomer. In the Twentieth Iliad, the genealogy of the reigning families\nof Troy and of Dardania is given with great precision. The distinction\nbetween Trojans and Dardanians is preserved through the Iliad, though\nthe Trojan name is sometimes, but rarely, used to include the whole\nindigenous army, and sometimes it even signifies the entire force,\nincluding the allies, which opposed the Greek army. We might here,\nhowever, suppose that it would have been in the interest of Virgil\u2019s\naim to maintain, or even sharpen, the distinction between the Dardanian\nline, which was at most but indirectly worsted by the Greeks, and the\nline of Ilus, which fatally both sinned and suffered in the conflict of\nthe _Troica_. But, on the contrary, he is still less discriminating in\nthe use of names here, than he has been for the Greeks. The companions\nof \u00c6neas are sometimes Teucri, Trojani, or Trojugen\u00e6--sometimes\n\u00c6nead\u00e6, sometimes Dardanid\u00e6. In the first of these names he entirely\ncontravenes Homer, who produces a Teucer eminent among the Greeks,\nbut nowhere connects the name with Troy, while Virgil makes a Cretan\nTeucer[903] the founder of the Trojan race. I grant that he here\nfounds himself upon what may be called a separate tradition, though\nit is vague and slender, of a Teucrian race in Troas. In the two last\nappellations, without any authority, he wholly alters the effect of\nthe Greek patronymic, and changes the mere family-name into a national\nappellation. Then again they appear as the Pergamea gens[904]. But\nPergamus in Homer was simply the citadel of Troy, and is a correlative\nto \u03c0\u03cd\u03c1\u03b3\u03bf\u03c2[905]: the English might almost as well be called the people\nof the Tower. Not content yet, he will also have the Trojans to be\nPhryges:\n\n[903] \u00c6n. iii. 104.\n\n[904] \u00c6n. vi. 63.\n\n[905] Scott and Liddell, in voc.\n\n Phrygibusque adsis pede, diva, secundo[906];\n\n[906] \u00c6n. x. 255. Cf. i. 618, Phrygius Simois; vii. 597, _et alibi_.\n\nthough in Homer the Phrygians are a people both ethnologically and\npolitically separate[907] from the Trojan races. Again as to \u00c6neas\nhimself. He is called Rh\u00e6teius heros[908]; but if Virgil chose thus\nto designate his hero by reference to a single point of the Trojan\nterritory, it should have been one with which he was locally connected,\nwhereas the dominions of his family were not near the promontory\nor upon the coast, but among the hills at the other extreme of the\ncountry. Then again \u00c6neas is Laomedontius heros[909]; but Laomedon was\nof the branch of Ilus, while \u00c6neas belonged to that of Assaracus; and\nwas moreover perjured, while the line of Assaracus was marked with no\nsuch taint. So we have again--\n\n[907] Il. iii. 184.\n\n[908] Il. xii. 436.\n\n[909] Il. viii. 18.\n\n Dardanus, Iliac\u00e6 primus pater urbis et auctor[910];\n\n[910] Ibid. 134. Cf. vi. 650.\n\nbut Dardanus founded Dardania, while Ilium did not exist until the time\nof his great grandson Ilus. And here Virgil seems wholly to forget that\nhe had himself made Teucer the head of the race[911]. In describing the\nmigration of this hero from Crete to Troas, he says:\n\n[911] \u00c6n. iii. 104.\n\n Nondum Ilium et arces\n Pergame\u00e6 steterant; habitabant vallibus imis[912].\n\n[912] \u00c6n. iii. 109.\n\nHere he not only rejects Homer, who places Dardanus and the original\nsettlement among the mountains, but likewise represents what is in\nitself improbable, since eminences, and not bottoms, were commonly\nsought by the first colonists with a view to security. Choosing to\ndepart from Homer, he does not even agree with Apollodorus[913].\nLastly, he is not less neglectful of the actual topography; for he\nimplies that Ilium is among the hills, while it was, according to\nHomer\u2019s express words and according to universal opinion, on the plain\nas opposed to the hills. Again we have from Virgil the allusion--\n\n[913] Apollod. III. xii. 1.\n\n quibus obstitit Ilium, et ingens\n Gloria Dardani\u00e6[914].\n\n[914] \u00c6n. vi. 63.\n\nHere is another case of metre against history, and in all such\ncases history must go (as is said) to the wall. _Ilium_ would not\nsatisfactorily admit the genitive case; there could therefore be no\nglory of Ilium, and on this account Virgil liberally assigns vast\nrenown to Dardania, which was a place of no renown whatever. But he is\nquite as ready, it must be admitted, to contradict himself as he is to\ncontradict Homer. In \u00c6n. ii. 540, he gives it to be understood that the\ncity of Troy alone was the kingdom of Priam, and that the Greek camp\nwas beyond it, for he makes Priam say of his return from the camp,\n\n meque in mea regna remisit.\n\nBut a very little further on he calls Priam (v. 556),\n\n tot quondam populis regnisque superbum\n Regnatorem Asi\u00e6.\n\nEach account is alike inaccurate: Priam had more than a city, but his\ndominions were confined to a mere nook of Asia Minor. And again, before\nquitting this part of the subject, let us observe how, in the case of\nAnchises, he departs from Homer, even where it would have served the\npurpose of his story to follow him closely. The Anchises of Homer is\nan \u1f04\u03bd\u03b1\u03be \u1f00\u03bd\u03b4\u03c1\u1ff6\u03bd; he does not appear at Troy among the \u03b4\u03b7\u03bc\u03bf\u03b3\u03ad\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 of\nthe city, or of Priam\u2019s court, which would have made him a secondary\nfigure; he resides at Dardania as an independent sovereign, and it\nseems not unlikely that in lineal dignity, at least, he was even before\nPriam. But the Anchises of Virgil is resident in Troy[915]; and is\ntherefore, of course, to be taken for a subject of Priam. Here the\nalteration very much lowers the rank of \u00c6neas, and so far, therefore,\nof Augustus.\n\n[915] \u00c6n. ii. 634.\n\nThe effect of all this is, without any real gain either moral or\npoetical, entirely to bewilder the mind of the reader of the \u00c6neid, in\nregard to a subject of real interest both historical and ethnological,\nwith respect to which Homer has left on record a most careful and\nclear representation. It must indeed be admitted, that the intervening\npoets had set many examples of similar license; indeed they had made\nirregularity a rule; but they had no such powerful reasons as Virgil\nhad for imitating, in some points at least, the precision of Homer, and\nbesides, he has perhaps exceeded them all in the multitude and variety\nof his departures from it. On the other hand, some allowance, I admit,\nshould be made for the less flexible character of the Latin tongue,\nwhich might have made the peculiar accuracy of Homer a real difficulty\nto Virgil.\n\nI have thus minutely traced out this course of inconsistency and\ncontradiction in particular instances, because they are highly\nillustrative of the character of Virgil\u2019s work, if not of his mind.\nAfter the political and courtly idea of the poem, he seems to have\nabandoned all solicitude except for its form and sound, and to have\nbeen totally indifferent as to presenting any veracious, or if that\nword imply too much credulity, any self-consistent pattern, of manners,\nplaces, events, or characters.\n\nVirgil must, materially at least, have saturated himself with the Iliad\nbefore he planned the \u00c6neid, for his borrowing is alike incessant\nand diversified; and this it is which renders it so singular that he\nshould at once have exposed himself to the double charge of servilely\nimitating and of gratuitously disfiguring his original.\n\nIf we look to the action of the Twelfth Book of the \u00c6neid, it is all\nmade up from Homer cut in pieces and recast. It begins with the idea of\nthe single combat, borrowed from the Third and Seventh Iliads. Then\ncome the pact and the breach of it by Juturna, under Juno\u2019s influence,\nwhich are borrowed from the treachery of Pandarus, prompted by Minerva,\nunder the same instigation. Next, the flight of Turnus before \u00c6neas is\nborrowed from that of Hector before Achilles. After this, Turnus is\ndisabled by a divine agency, like Patroclus before Hector; a downfall\nbrought about in the one case, as in the other, without peril and\nwithout honour, so that here we have a copy even of one among the\nfew points where the Iliad was little worthy to be imitated. Lastly,\nthe thought of Pallas in the mind of \u00c6neas (more highly wrought,\nhowever, and very effective), plays the part of the recollection of\nPatroclus[916] in the mind of Achilles.\n\n[916] Il. xxii. 331-47.\n\n~_Unfaithful imitations of detail._~\n\nBoth here and elsewhere, the imitations in detail are too numerous to\nbe noted. Some of them even descend to a character which, independently\nof their minuteness, approaches the ludicrous. The very dung, in which\nthe Oilean Ajax loses his footing[917], in the Twenty-third Iliad,\nis reproduced in the Fifth \u00c6neid, that Nisus may flounder in it. But\neven here we may note two characteristic differences. Homer trips up a\npersonage, whom he has no particular occasion to set off favourably.\nVirgil chooses for the object of derision Nisus, on whom, in the\nbeautiful episode which soon after follows, he is about to concentrate\nall the tenderest sympathies of his hearers. And again, Homer makes\nAjax slip where, as he says, the oxen had just been slain over\nPatroclus: Virgil has no such probable cause to allege for the presence\nof the obnoxious material[918], but says _c\u00e6sis forte juvencis_. Now\nthe Trojans had in fact left the tomb of Anchises, and had gone to a\nchosen spot to celebrate the foot-races[919]; so that even his gore and\nordure are quite out of place.\n\n[917] Il. xxiii. 775-81. \u00c6n. v. 333, 356.\n\n[918] Ibid. 329.\n\n[919] Ibid. 286-90.\n\nSo again, of all the _formul\u00e6_ in Homer, it is not very clear why\nVirgil should have chosen to recall the rather commonplace line\n\n \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1f70\u03c1 \u1f10\u03c0\u03b5\u1f76 \u03c0\u03cc\u03c3\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f10\u03b4\u03ae\u03c4\u03c5\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f10\u03be \u1f14\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd \u1f15\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf\n\nin his own more ambitious and resounding verse,\n\n Postquam exemta fames, et amor compressus edendi[920];\n\n[920] \u00c6n. viii. 185.\n\nbut it is still more singular that, instead of saying that hunger and\nthirst were satisfied, he should leave out thirst altogether, and fill\nup his hexameter by mentioning hunger twice over.\n\nStill it seems not a little strange, notwithstanding the power of the\ndisabling causes which have been enumerated, that, with so vast an\namount of material imitation, Virgil should not have acquired, even by\naccident or by sheer force of use, some traits of nearer resemblance in\nfeeling, and in ethical handling, to his great original.\n\nHis maltreatment of the Homeric characters is most conspicuous,\nperhaps, in the instance of Helen. This case, indeed, deserves a\nseparate consideration of the causes which have reduced a beautiful,\ntouching, and remarkably original portrait to a gross and most common\ncaricature. But Ulysses, as the prince of policy, had perhaps a better\nclaim to be comprehended by a Roman at the court of Augustus. Yet\nthe Ulysses of Virgil simply represents the naked ideas of hardness,\ncunning, and cruelty. He is never named but to be abused; and, though\nthe mention of him is not very frequent, it is easy to construct from\nthe poem a pretty large catalogue of vituperative epithets, unmitigated\nby any single one of an opposite character. He is _durus_, _dirus_,\n_s\u00e6vus_, _pellax_, _fandi fictor_, _artifex_, _inventor scelerum_, and\n_scelerum hortator_. Even physical circumstances, however, and those\ntoo of the broadest notoriety, Virgil entirely overlooks. Nothing can\nbe more at variance with the effeminate character of the Homeric Paris,\nhis impotence in fight, and his distinction limited to the bow, which\nwas then the coward\u2019s weapon, than to represent him as possessed of\nvast physical force. Yet even on this Virgil has ventured. In the games\nof the Fifth Book, when \u00c6neas invites candidates for the pugilistic\nencounter, the huge Dares immediately presents himself, and he is\ndescribed as the only person who could box with Paris[921]!\n\n[921] \u00c6n. v. 370.\n\n Solus qui Paridem solitus contendere contra.\n\nHeyne urges by way of apology the authority of Hyginus, who was no\nmore than the contemporary of Virgil himself; and presumes that\nVirgil followed authorities now lost: a sorry defence, because the\nrepresentation is inconsistent not merely with the facts, but with the\nessential idea of the Paris of Homer, and therefore proves that Virgil\ndid not try or care to understand the character, or to be faithful to\nhis master.\n\n~_Maltreatment of Mythology and Ethics._~\n\nBut it is time to give some instances, which show an utter disregard of\neither mythological or moral consistency.\n\nIn the Eighth \u00c6neid, \u00c6neas and Anchises are much troubled in mind; and\nso it appears they must have continued,\n\n N\u00ee signum c\u0153lo Cytherea dedisset aperto;\n Namque improviso vibratus ab \u00e6there fulgor\n Cum sonitu venit[922].\n\n[922] \u00c6n. viii. 523.\n\nThis idea of a _Cytherea tonans_ is as incongruous as it is novel.\nTo preserve the characteristic attributes of the several deities of\nthe Pagan mythology contributes to beauty, and was therefore at least\nan obligation imposed by the poetic art; but Virgil is not content\nwith simply departing from it by taking the management of thunder\nand lightning out of the hands of Jupiter and the highest deities;\nhe cannot be satisfied without giving it to Venus. With her Homeric\ncharacter, and with any consistent conception of her attributes, it is\nutterly irreconcilable.\n\nBut again, in the Second \u00c6neid, Virgil makes Venus address to her son\nthe following majestic lines, when he was about to slay Helen amidst\nthe conflagration of Troy:\n\n Non tibi Tyndaridis facies invisa Lac\u00e6n\u00e6\n Culpatusve Paris: Div\u00fbm inclementia, Div\u00fbm\n Has evertit opes, sternitque a culmine Trojam[923].\n\n[923] \u00c6n. ii. 601.\n\nIn which he plainly imitates the words of Priam,\n\n \u03bf\u1f54\u03c4\u03b9 \u03bc\u03bf\u03b9 \u03b1\u1f30\u03c4\u03af\u03b7 \u1f10\u03c3\u03c3\u1f76, \u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u03af \u03bd\u03cd \u03bc\u03bf\u03b9 \u03b1\u1f34\u03c4\u03b9\u03bf\u03af \u03b5\u1f30\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd,\n \u03bf\u1f35 \u03bc\u03bf\u03b9 \u1f10\u03c6\u03ce\u03c1\u03bc\u03b7\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd \u03c0\u03cc\u03bb\u03b5\u03bc\u03bf\u03bd \u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03cd\u03b4\u03b1\u03ba\u03c1\u03c5\u03bd \u1f08\u03c7\u03b1\u03b9\u1ff6\u03bd[924].\n\n[924] Il. iii. 164.\n\nNow, even with reference to the acquittal of Helen, the cases are\nquite dissimilar. What Homer puts into the mouth of Priam, Virgil\nstamps with the authority of a deity: what Priam says of the Homeric\nHelen, who had been carried off by Paris, and whose general character\nwas very far from depraved, the Venus of Virgil says of a hardened\ntraitress as well as adulteress. Again, what Priam says relative to\nhimself, \u2018_I_ do not blame thee,\u2019 seems in the \u00c6neid to resemble the\nunlimited enunciation of an abstract proposition. But, above all, let\nus notice how lamentably Virgil has mauled the sentiment by introducing\nParis into the passage, of whose moral guilt, if there be such a thing\nas moral guilt upon earth, there could be no doubt, and whom Homer,\nwith true poetic justice, has taken care to punish by making him the\nobject of the general reprobation and hatred of his countrymen[925].\nIn acquitting such an offender, and throwing the charge of his crimes\nupon the Immortals, by the mouth, too, of one belonging to their\nnumber, Virgil has given into the worst form of fatalism, that namely\nwhich annihilates all moral sanctions and ideas as applicable to human\nconduct.\n\n[925] Il. iii. 453, and elsewhere.\n\nAnd this he has done with no plea whatever which might have been\ndrawn, _valeat quantum_, from the exigencies of his poem. Paris was\nnot before the eye of \u00c6neas: Venus was not dissuading her son from\ntaking vengeance upon Paris; he is forced into our sight; the allusion\nis as irrelevant with reference to the purpose of the passage, as it\nis blameworthy in an ethical point of view; and in all probability the\nmention of him is introduced for no other reason than that it supplied\nVirgil with a hemistich to fill up a gap in an extremely fine passage,\nand to secure its prosodial equilibrium, to which the balance of moral\nsanctions is sacrificed without remorse.\n\nAs it is with the management of his gods, so with his conception\nof human nature; Virgil seems to have lost the sight of its higher\nprerogatives, and especially of the great and noble truth, that it\nis susceptible of divine influences without the loss of its free\nagency. The poems of Homer, notwithstanding their copious theurgy, are\nthroughout eminently and entirely human. Their human agency is adorned\nand elevated (as well as unhappily lowered and darkened), it is even\nmodified and controlled, but never inwardly mutilated, curtailed or\nsuperseded, by the interference of the Immortals. But, in regard to his\nrelations with the deities, \u00c6neas is a mere puppet; and the gallant\nspirit of Turnus on his last battlefield is, as it were, put down\nwithin him by main force from heaven.\n\n~_\u00c6neas and Dido in the Shades._~\n\nThus for example, Virgil is not ashamed to introduce to us \u00c6neas in\nthe shades below apologizing to Dido for his black desertion of her by\nsaying, \u2018he could not help it, the gods compelled him; and really he\nnever thought she would take it so much to heart.\u2019\n\n Invitus, regina, tuo de litore cessi;\n Sed me jussa de\u00fbm ...\n Imperiis egere suis; nec credere quivi\n Hunc tantum tibi me discessu ferre dolorem[926].\n\n[926] \u00c6n. vi. 460.\n\nCompare with this the extraordinary truth, beauty, and manfulness of\nthe speech, in which Ulysses takes his farewell of Calypso[927]. This\nis its tenour: \u2018Be not incensed; I know Penelope is less beautiful\nthan thou; yet is my desire, from day by day, towards my home; and\nif I be wrecked upon my way, this too I will endure, even as I have\nendured much before.\u2019 In Virgil\u2019s hands, the chief would probably\nhave shuffled off the responsibility from himself upon the shoulders\nof the gods. Never shall we find one of Homer\u2019s heroes doing this,\neither beforehand, as by saying, \u2018I do not wish to do it, but I am\nordered,\u2019 or retrospectively. There is one exception; it is when\nAgamemnon says that \u1f0c\u03c4\u03b7, the goddess of Mischief, with Jupiter, had\nmisled him[928], and that he was not himself to blame. But Agamemnon,\nalone among the Greek heroes, had in his character a strong element\nof what we call shabbiness; and what is more, he uses this plea only\nafter making reparation, and not, as \u00c6neas does, in lieu of any. To\nresume, however, the thread. Sometimes the Homeric heroes are pious,\nsometimes disobedient; sometimes bold, and sometimes fearful; sometimes\nthey submit to overpowering force, sometimes they struggle even against\ndestiny; but they never appear before us shorn of the first attribute\nof manhood, its free will.\n\n[927] Od. v. 215-24.\n\n[928] Il. xix. 86. When Achilles (270) as it were countersigns this, it\nis evidently in his character of a high-bred gentleman; a character, of\nwhich he gives so many proofs in the poem.\n\nIt seems then that Virgil really did not care to form the habit, and\nthus commonly failed in the power, of working the higher springs of\nour nature. He puts the clay into the fire, but the pitcher does not\nalways come out such as he intended it; not even when, instead of\ntrusting, like Homer, to simple action as the vehicle of his meaning,\nhe uses the precautionary measure of describing it.\n\nThus he prepares us to expect in Mezentius a monster of impiety,\ncruelty, and brutality, from the account and the epithets by which\nhe is introduced to us[929]. In words scattered here and there, this\n\u2018contemptor div\u00fbm\u2019 is made to sustain his impious character. _Dextra\nmihi deus_, he says; and again _nec div\u00fbm parcimus ulli_[930]. But\nthese are really mere black patches, set upon a character with which\nthey do not accord; they remain patches still, and not parts of it.\nPractically, Mezentius proceeds in the poem only as an affectionate\nfather, and as a gallant warrior, should do; and there is no more of\nreal impiety in him, than there is of real piety in \u00c6neas. Nay, here\nagain Virgil shows his contempt of consistency. For, when Mezentius\nslays Orodes, who prophesied that his conqueror would meet with a\nsimilar fate upon the field of battle, Mezentius replies in the most\ndecorous manner (copying the very language of Achilles to the dying\nHector[931]),\n\n[929] \u00c6n. vii. 648; viii. 7, 482.\n\n[930] \u00c6n. x. 773, 880.\n\n[931] Il. xxii. 365.\n\n Nunc morere. Ast de me div\u00fbm pater atque hominum rex\n Viderit[932].\n\n[932] \u00c6n. x. 743.\n\n~_Woman characters of Homer and Virgil._~\n\nThough Virgil is esteemed a woman-hater, he has availed himself of\nthe use of female characters to a degree only exceeded, so far as I\nrecollect, by the highly susceptible Tasso. His celestial machinery is\nprincipally worked by Juno and by Venus: we miss altogether in him that\njovial might of the Homeric Jupiter, which is recalled in the historic\nportraits of king Henry the Eighth of England. Of mortals we have,\nbesides the mute Lavinia, and minor or transitory personages, Dido,\nJuturna, Amata, Camilla. All these play very marked parts in the poem;\nindeed, they supply the mainsprings of the action; and the characters\nof all are drawn with great spirit and success, while the Passion of\nDido will probably always be quoted as the most magnificent witness,\nwhich the whole range of the poem affords, to the original power and\ngenius of its author. Yet even in these, his signal successes, it is\ncurious to notice the dissimilarity between Virgil and Homer. Homer,\ntoo, has been eminently successful in his women. His greater studies of\nHelen, Andromache, and Penelope are fully sustained by the truth and\nforce of all the less conspicuous delineations: Hecuba, Briseis, the\nincomparable Nausicaa, the faithful Euryclea, the pert and heartless\nMelantho. But how different are the works of the two poets! In all\nVirgil\u2019s women (as on the other hand his men are apt to be effeminate)\nthere is a tinge of the masculine. Many a woman would stab herself for\nlove like Dido; but none, not even in France, with her pomp, apparatus,\nand self-consciousness. Their fates, too, are all of a violent\ncharacter. Amata, as well as Dido, commits suicide; Camilla is slain;\nJuturna is immortal indeed, but is dismissed from earth with what for\nher comes nearest to an image of death; with defeat, mortification,\nshame. But on the contrary, the feminineness of Homer\u2019s women has never\nbeen surpassed. In Hecuba alone, at one single point in the story,\nthere is an apparent exception; yet it is no great violence done to\nnature, if we find in her after Hector\u2019s death the wild ferocity of\nthe dam deprived of her offspring, and if revenge then drives her for\na moment into the temper of a cannibal. Elsewhere beyond doubt, even\nin Melantho, the feminine character is not wholly obliterated, but is\nleft at the point where in actual life licentiousness and vanity might\nleave it. In Helen, Andromache, Nausicaa, it reaches a perfection which\nhas never been surpassed, unless by Shakespeare, in human song. There\nis, however, something to be observed, which is more striking and\ncharacteristic. The Virgilian delineations of women tell us absolutely\nnothing, or next to nothing, of the social position of womankind either\nat the epoch of \u00c6neas or at any other; a matter which has stood so\ndifferently in different ages and states of mankind, yet which has at\nall times been one of the surest tests for distinguishing a true and\nhealthy from a hollow civilization. But the Homeric poems furnish a\npicture of this interesting subject not a whit less complete than any\nother picture they contain. The Woman of the heroic age of Greece\nstands before us in that immortal verse no less clear, no less truly\ndrawn, no less carefully shaded, than the Warrior, the Statesman, and\nthe King.\n\nThese are great matters: but Virgil is also as careless, as Homer is\ncareful, of minor proprieties. For instance, he describes the Italian\nsmiths engaged in preparing suits of armour upon the invasion of \u00c6neas.\nSome, he says, make breastplates of brass; and he continues,\n\n Aut leves ocreas lento ducunt argento[933].\n\n[933] \u00c6n. vii. 633.\n\nHere, we presume, his purpose was to represent the hammering process by\na heavy spondaic line--in evident imitation of Homer, who has done it\nstill more completely in the\n\n \u03b8\u03ce\u03c1\u03b7\u03ba\u03b1\u03c2 \u1fe5\u03ae\u03be\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd \u03b4\u03b7\u0390\u03c9\u03bd \u1f00\u03bc\u03c6\u1f76 \u03c3\u03c4\u03ae\u03b8\u03b5\u03c3\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd[934].\n\n[934] Il. ii. 544.\n\nBut Homer always gains his metrical objects without injuring the sense;\nVirgil, on the contrary, has committed an error, by representing silver\n(a most rare and valuable metal, especially in the Trojan times)\nas used in large masses for making armour; and a grosser solecism,\nby representing the greaves as made of far finer material than the\nbreastplates. Perhaps he was helped into this error by a careless\nreminiscence, that Homer had in some way connected silver with the\ngreaves. This is not, however, in armour as generally used, but in the\ncase of some of the greatest chiefs, including Paris, whose dandyism,\nwe know, extended particularly to his arms. Nor are even his greaves\nmade of, or even plated with, silver, but only the clasps of them:\n\n \u03ba\u03bd\u03b7\u03bc\u1fd6\u03b4\u03b1\u03c2 \u03bc\u1f72\u03bd \u03c0\u03c1\u1ff6\u03c4\u03b1 \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u03ba\u03bd\u03ae\u03bc\u1fc3\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u1f14\u03b8\u03b7\u03ba\u03b5\u03bd\n \u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u1f70\u03c2, \u1f00\u03c1\u03b3\u03c5\u03c1\u03ad\u03bf\u03b9\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03c3\u03c6\u03c5\u03c1\u03af\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2 \u1f00\u03c1\u03b1\u03c1\u03c5\u03af\u03b1\u03c2[935].\n\n[935] Il. iii. 330.\n\nVirgil is careful enough as to geography, when he deals with countries\nunder the eye of his hearers. But he can scarcely be excused for\ninverting the Homeric order of the mountains piled up by the giants.\nHomer places Mount Pelion on Ossa, and Ossa on Olympus:\n\n \u1f4c\u03c3\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd \u1f10\u03c0\u2019 \u039f\u1f50\u03bb\u03cd\u03bc\u03c0\u1ff3 \u03bc\u03ad\u03bc\u03b1\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd \u03b8\u03ad\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd, \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1f70\u03c1 \u1f10\u03c0\u2019 \u1f4c\u03c3\u03c3\u1fc3\n \u03a0\u03ae\u03bb\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd \u03b5\u1f30\u03bd\u03bf\u03c3\u03af\u03c6\u03c5\u03bb\u03bb\u03bf\u03bd[936].\n\n[936] Od. xi. 315.\n\nThis description is in conformity with the proportionate heights of\nthe mountains, among which Olympus is the highest, Ossa the next,\nPelion the least. But Virgil makes Pelion the base, and Olympus the\n_apex_:\n\n Ter sunt conati imponere Pelio Ossam\n Scilicet, atque Oss\u00e6 frondosum involvere Olympum[937].\n\n[937] Georg. i. 281.\n\nIt is not simply that Homer is here geographically accurate, and Virgil\nthe reverse. Homer has adopted the pyramidal structure, which satisfies\nthe eye, and lays a firm and obvious road, so to speak, to the skies.\nVirgil does not. He subjoins to his description the verse,\n\n Ter pater extructos disjecit fulmine montes.\n\nBut Jupiter might have spared himself the trouble: the mountains would\nhave tumbled of themselves.\n\n~_Confusion of natural Phenomena._~\n\nBefore parting from the subject, it may be well to give another example\nof the indifference of Virgil to the association between poetry, and\nthe order of external nature as such. In the Fourth \u00c6neid, he speaks of\nMercury as passing over Mount Atlas on his way to Carthage; from what\npoint I do not now inquire. The lines are these[938];\n\n[938] \u00c6n. iv. 248-51.\n\n Atlantis, cinctum assidue cui nubibus atris\n Piniferum caput et vento pulsatur et imbri;\n Nix humeros infusa tegit: tum flumina mento\n Pr\u00e6cipitant senis, et glacie riget horrida barba.\n\nHis pine-bearing head, girt with clouds, is beaten by wind and rain.\nSo far so good. But while such is the temperature of the air at the\nsummit, it grows colder, not warmer, as we descend: for snow covers his\nshoulders. This is the second image. Next, we mount again to his mouth,\nwhich discharges rivers over his chin: and not even here have we done\nwith incongruity, for his beard, although thus watered from above, is\nrough and stiff with ice. Now such a confusion, as is here exhibited,\nof images which nature always exhibits in a fixed and very imposing\norder, is, we may be assured, no mere casual error, but indicates a\nrooted indifference about matters which the poets of nature study, not\nonly with accuracy, but with an accuracy which is the fruit of their\nreverence and love.\n\nThe Dolopes of Homer are a part of the Myrmidons, for they are the\nsubjects of Ph\u0153nix[939], and Ph\u0153nix commands the fifth division of\nthe Myrmidons: they are named by Virgil as a separate race[940]. The\nRhadamanthus of Homer appears to have been conceived by the Poet as a\nmild and benevolent character, for he is placed in the Plains of the\nBlest, while Minos administers severer justice in the under-world. But\nthe Rhadamanthus of Virgil is the judge of the infernal regions, and is\nthe image of rigour; while his Minos[941] has the very mild and also\nsecondary function of dealing, in the vestibule of the Shades, with the\ncases of such persons as had been unjustly condemned on earth[942].\nAgain, where Homer uses exaggeration to enhance effect, Virgil carries\nit far into caricature. In the Iliad, Diomed[943] heaves a stone, of\na weight that \u2018two men such as are nowadays (\u03bf\u1f37\u03bf\u03b9 \u03bd\u1fe6\u03bd \u03b2\u03c1\u03bf\u03c4\u03bf\u03af \u03b5\u1f30\u03c3\u03b9)\ncould scarcely lift.\u2019 He allows for a short interval since the Trojan\nwar, and says that two ordinary men of his day could scarcely lift\nwhat warriors of extraordinary strength, by an extraordinary effort,\nthen raised and hurled. In another place, Ajax flings a stone, such as\neven a man in the fullest vigour could now scarcely hold[944]. Again,\nHector discharges against the Greek rampart one which two strong men\ncould hardly raise with a lever; but then he is specially aided by\nJupiter[945]. Now in the Fifth \u00c6neid, \u00c6neas gives to Mnestheus, as a\nprize, a breastplate which he himself had won, the spoil of Demoleos.\nThis Demoleos[946] was no hero, for he is never named by Homer; again,\nthe Demoleos of Virgil wore the breastplate when he chased the Trojans\nflying in all directions (\u2018palantes,\u2019 \u00c6n. v. 265), so that it must\nhave been light to him: there was no time at all for human degeneracy,\nsince they are still his contemporaries that are on the stage; and yet\nsuch was the weight of this breastplate, that two men together could\nscarcely carry it on their shoulders.\n\n[939] Il. ix. 484, and xvi. 196.\n\n[940] \u00c6n. ii. 7.\n\n[941] \u00c6n. vi. 432.\n\n[942] Although it may be a deviation from the direct path, yet, having\nnoticed in so much detail the unfaithfulness of Virgil to his original,\nI will also give an instance of the accuracy of Horace. In the Seventh\nOde of the First Book, he has occasion to refer to the places made\nfamous in Homeric song; and Athens with him is Palladis urbs; so Argos\n(\u1f31\u03c0\u03c0\u03cc\u03b2\u03bf\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd) is _aptum equis_, Myc\u00e6n\u00e6 (\u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03cd\u03c7\u03c1\u03c5\u03c3\u03bf\u03c2) _dites_, Larissa\n(\u1f10\u03c1\u03b9\u03b2\u03ce\u03bb\u03b1\u03be) _opima_. Laced\u00e6mon is _patiens_, an epithet corresponding\nwith no particular word in Homer, but not contradicted by any; it had\nacquired the character since his time.\n\n[943] Il. v. 303. See also Il. xx. 285.\n\n[944] Il. xii. 382.\n\n[945] Ibid. 445-50.\n\n[946] Homer names a Demoleon, son of Agenor; but he is slain fighting\nfor the Trojans. Il. xx. 395.\n\n \u2018Vix illam famuli Phegeus Sagarisque ferebant\n Multiplicem, connixi humeris[947].\u2019\n\n[947] \u00c6n. vi. 233.\n\nLet it not be thought that the varied examples, which have here been\nquoted, are either irrelevant or without serious significance. There\ncannot, surely, be a more decided error than to treat accuracy in\nmatters of this kind as a matter of sheer indifference. It is not only\ninseparable from the function of the primitive Poet as the historian\nof his subject, but it appertains also to the perfection of his\npoetic nature, that he should have a nice sense of proportion even in\nfigurative language. I have dwelt, however, upon minor points, not for\ntheir own sake, but because the manner in which Virgil handles them\nappears to throw no unimportant light upon the frame and temper of his\nwork at large, and of the later as compared with the earliest poetry.\n\n~_Contrast of principal aims._~\n\nIn diction, Virgil is ornate and Homer simple; in metre, Virgil is\nuniform and sustained, Homer free and varied; in the faculty of\ninvention, for which the historical office of early poetry still\nleaves ample room, Homer is inexhaustible, while, from the needless\naccumulation of imitations in every sort and size, Virgil gives ground\nto suspect that he was poor, at least by comparison. The first thought\nof Homer was his subject, and the second his nation; the first thought\nof Virgil was his Emperor and the court around the throne, the second\nthe elaboration of his verse. Characters, feelings, facts, were used by\nVirgil for producing on the mind the effect of scenic representation;\nthe end of Homer, on the contrary, was to give adequate vent,\nin and through these things poetically conceived and handled, to\nhis own yearnings, and to the sympathies of his hearers[948]. The\nintercommunion of spirit between the poet and those to whom he sang,\nwas not in him a sordid quest of popularity; it was only an expression\nof the truth that he founded both his composition and his hopes upon\nthe basis of a great effort to be the organ of the general heart of\nmankind. All this we may discern in his notices, informal as they are,\nof the profession of the minstrel:\n\n[948] The aim of the poet as such is finely, but somewhat too\nexclusively, expressed in the Sonnet of Filicaja, _Dietro a questi\nancor io_.\n\n \u1f22 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b8\u03ad\u03c3\u03c0\u03b9\u03bd \u1f00\u03bf\u03b9\u03b4\u1f78\u03bd, \u1f45 \u03ba\u03b5\u03bd \u03c4\u03ad\u03c1\u03c0\u1fc3\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u1f00\u03b5\u03af\u03b4\u03c9\u03bd[949]\u00b7\n\n[949] Od. xvii. 385.\n\nin the names he assigns to them, where they were not historical\ncharacters, \u0394\u03b7\u03bc\u03cc\u03b4\u03bf\u03ba\u03bf\u03c2, and \u03a6\u03ae\u03bc\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2 \u03a4\u03b5\u03c1\u03c0\u03b9\u03ac\u03b4\u03b7\u03c2; in the moral uprightness\nwith which he invests them; for, though it was the office of Phemius to\ndelight, his heart was never with the licentious and guilty band that\nheld the palace of Ulysses:\n\n \u1f45\u03c2 \u1fe5\u2019 \u1f24\u03b5\u03b9\u03b4\u03b5 \u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u1f70 \u03bc\u03bd\u03b7\u03c3\u03c4\u1fc6\u03c1\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u1f00\u03bd\u03ac\u03b3\u03ba\u1fc3[950].\n\n[950] Od. xxii. 331.\n\nAnd again, in the offices of guardianship which they exercised; for\nAgamemnon, when he left his home for Troy, carefully enjoined upon the\nbard of his palace the care of Clytemnestra; and his advice, with her\nown right sense, for a time stood her in good stead[951]. Such was the\nbard in the living description of Homer; such he was represented in\nthe Poet himself, never thrust into view, but ever understood, ever\nperceived, through his works. On the other hand, the character of the\nbard, as exhibited in Virgil, is what may be termed professional: the\nfire and power of genius may be in him, but they must work only under\nconventional forms, and for ends prescribed according to the spirit of\nthat lower and narrower utility which is, not logically perhaps, but\nyet very effectively, denominated utilitarianism. A remarkably high\nform of exterior art, with a radical inattention to substance, both\nof facts and laws, has been the result in the case of Virgil. And it\nis rather significant, that this great Poet has nowhere placed upon\nhis canvass the figure of the bard amidst the abodes of man; as if the\nvery type had perished from the earth in those degenerate days, and\nthe memory of him could not be recalled. An effete and corrupted age\ncould no longer conceive a mind like the mind of Homer; an \u00c6olian harp\nso finely strung, that it answers to the faintest movement of the air\nby a proportionate vibration: with every stronger current its music\nrises, along an almost immeasurable scale, which begins with the lowest\nand softest whisper, and ends in the full swell of the organ.\n\n[951] Od. iii. 267.\n\n~_Change in the idea of the Poet\u2019s office._~\n\nBy a false association of ideas, we have come to place accuracy and\ngenius in antagonism to one another. It is Homer who may best undeceive\nus: except indeed that most complete solution which the mind gladly\nperceives when, ascending to the Author of all being, it finds in Him\nalone the source and the perfection, alike of Order and of Light; alike\nof the most minute, and of the most gigantic operations. But among men\nHomer best exemplifies this union. It is not indeed the precision of\ndry facts, terminating upon itself: it is the precision of sympathies,\nof sympathies with nature and with man, to which the minute and\nscrupulous adjustments of Homer are to be referred; and this precision\nis probably due by no means to conscious effort, but to the spontaneous\noperations of the soul. In this view his far-famed, but not even yet\nfully fathomed, accuracy is no deduction from his greatness, but is in\ntruth a proof of the near approach to perfection in the organization\nof his faculties. The later poets have too often torn asunder, what in\nhim was harmoniously combined. They have conferred upon their art a\ndeadly gift, in claiming first an exemption _ad libitum_ from the laws,\nnot only of dry fact, but of Truth in its higher sense, of harmony and\nself-consistency, and of all, except a merely external beauty, which\nwas meant to be the vehicle and not the substitute for all those great\nand discarded qualities. In this work of laceration, Virgil has borne\nno secondary share.\n\nUpon the whole, though it is doubtless natural that Virgil should\nbe compared with Homer, the mind is astonished at finding that he\nshould so often even have gained a preference. We may account for his\nbeing chosen as Dante\u2019s guide, by their being countrymen, and by the\nalmost universal ignorance of Greek when Dante wrote. It is far more\nstaggering to find Saint Augustine emphatically call him[952] _Poeta\nmagnus omniumque pr\u00e6clarissimus atque optimus_; for he was no stranger\nto Greek influences, inasmuch as the philosophy of Plato had a very\nhigh place in his estimation[953]. Nor can this be readily accounted\nfor, except by the advantage which Virgil had through writing in the\nLatin tongue, and by the very great decay of poetical tastes and\nperceptions.\n\n[952] De Civ. Dei, i. 3.\n\n[953] Ibid. viii. 4-11.\n\nStill let us not do wrong to the memory of him, who thrilled with an\nimmeasurable love, as he bore the sacred vessels of the Muses; and who\nhas received so unequivocally the seal of that approbation of mankind,\nprolonged through ages, which comes near to an infallible award. It is\nbut fair to admit, that we must not measure the relative rank of Homer\nand Virgil simply by the comparative merits of their epic works. Homer\nlived in the genial and joyous youth of a poetic nation and a poetic\nreligion, and amid the influences of the soul of freedom: Virgil among\na people always matter-of-fact rather than poetical, in an age and a\ncourt where the heart and its emotions were chilled, where liberty\nwas dead, where religion was a mockery, and the whole higher material\nof his art had passed from freshness into the sear and yellow leaf.\nWhether Virgil, if he had lived the life of Homer in Homer\u2019s country\nand Homer\u2019s time, could have composed the Iliad and the Odyssey, may be\nmore than doubtful; but it is indisputably clear that Homer could not\nhave produced them, if it had been his misfortune to live at the date\nand in the sphere of Virgil.\n\nI pass on now to make some attempt at comparison between the work of\nTasso and the Iliad of Homer. But although the relation between the\nsubjects appears to recommend the choice of Tasso for this purpose\nrather than any other Italian poet, I have to confess, that as far as\nthe qualities of the men are concerned, both Bojardo and Ariosto are in\nmy estimation more Homeric than Tasso; as being nearer to nature in its\ntruest sense, as not conveying the same impression of perpetual effort\nand elaboration, as exempt from the temptation to the conceits so\nunhappily frequent in the _Gerusalemme_, and generally as working with\na freer and broader touch, and exhibiting a more vigorous and elastic\nmovement.\n\n~_The War of Troy and the Crusades._~\n\nThere is, however, a striking resemblance between the relation in\nwhich the Trojan war stood to Greece, and that of the Crusades to\nWestern Europe. The political unity and collective existence of Greece\nwas greatly due to the first, that of Christendom to the second.\nThe combination of races and of chiefs, the arduous character and\nextraordinary prolongation of the effort, the chivalry displayed, the\ndisorganizing effects upon the countries which supplied the invading\narmy, the representation in each of Europe against Asia, of Western\nmankind meeting Eastern mankind in arms, and the proof of superior\nprowess in the former, establish many broad and deep analogies between\nthe subjects of these poems. In both struggles, too, the object\npurported to be the recovery of that which the East had unrighteously\nacquired: and into both what is called sentiment far more largely\nentered, than is common in the history of the wars which have laid\ndesolate our earth.\n\n~_Exaggeration as used by Homer and by Tasso._~\n\nAs Godfrey is Tasso\u2019s version of Agamemnon, so the Rinaldo of Tasso\noccupies a place in the Jerusalem, similar to that of Achilles in the\nIliad. Now the whole character of Achilles, mental and corporeal, which\nranks at least among the most wonderful of all the works of Homer, is\ncolossal and vast, but is not unduly exaggerated. Although the son of\nPeleus evidently was of great bodily size, yet Homer never calls him by\nthe epithets \u03bc\u03ad\u03b3\u03b1\u03c2 and \u03c0\u03b5\u03bb\u03ce\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2, but reserves them for Ajax, because\nthey suggest a predominance of the animal over the incorporeal element,\nwhich, in the case of Achilles, the Poet utterly eschews. The character\nof Rinaldo as a warrior (and in no other respect does he present any\nsalient point) is, as will be shown, exaggerated unduly, but yet does\nnot leave the impression of the vast or colossal, because the excess\nbeyond common nature is not in harmony with the rest of the delineation.\n\nThus the strength of Achilles is the very highest; none can use his\nspear. But Rinaldo, in the assault of the Tower, does the work of a\nbattering-ram. He takes up and carries a beam, of which we are told,\n\n N\u00e8 cos\u00ec alte mai, n\u00e8 cos\u00ec grosse\n Spiega l\u2019 antenne sue ligura nave[954].\n\n[954] Gerus. xix. 36.\n\nWith this he breaks the bars, and beats down the gates; and the stanza\nproceeds:\n\n Non l\u2019 ari\u00e8te di far pi\u00f9 si vanti,\n Non la bombarda, fulmine di morte[955].\n\n[955] Ibid. 37.\n\nNo such excess of muscular power as this is ascribed to Achilles;\nand yet a much more lively impression of grandeur in his martial\ncharacter is left upon the mind of the reader; the fact being that mere\nexaggeration freezes, while the adjusted representation of greatness\nwarms.\n\nThe largest size assigned by Homer to any even of his mythological\npersonages who are in relations with man, and this only in the Shades\nbelow, is in the case of Otus and Ephialtes. At nine years old, when\nthey were put to death, they were nine cubits broad, nine fathoms\n(fifty-four feet) high[956]. These were they, who piled the mountains\nup to heaven. They are among the few figures absolutely gigantic,\nwhich appear in Homer; but they hover only in the distance through the\nmists of the Under-world, and in describing even them he has adhered\nstrictly to the limits of what may be termed the gigantesque. Further\non, he describes Tityus as reaching over nine acres; but he nowhere\npresents any such person to us in active motion, or in any relation\nwith man on earth. In Il. xxi. however, occurs a passage which it is\nmore easy to impugn; for Mars, who had marched about among the Trojans\nand the Greeks in battle without driving either friends or foes from\ntheir propriety by his bulk, and had fought with Diomed in the plain\nof Troy on terms favourable to that hero, when overthrown by Minerva\nin the battle of the gods, covers seven acres (407). Although Homer\nhas skilfully avoided localizing the conflict, this may be thought to\nwear the aspect of a poetical incongruity; because in the Mars of the\nTheomachy we cannot wholly forget the Mars of the plain. As a general\nrule, however, Homer does not employ vast size, except in cases where\nit can suggest no comparison with objects of ordinary dimensions, and\nwhere, accordingly, it in no way jars with our customary standard.\n\n[956] Od. xi. 311.\n\nBut if there be incongruity in the dimensions of the prostrate Mars of\nHomer, what shall we say to Tasso, who, carefully setting out in detail\nthat his infernal assembly is held within the four walls of the palace\nof Pluto, describes the sub-terranean monarch, when he sits in actual\ncouncil, as exceeding in mass, and that immeasurably, any mountain\nwhatever?\n\n N\u00e8 tanto scoglio in mar, n\u00e8 rupe alpestra,\n N\u00e8 pur Calpe s\u2019 innalza, o \u2019l magno Atlante,\n Ch\u2019 anzi lui non paresse un picciol colle[957].\n\n[957] Gerus. iv. 6.\n\nThus, where Homer is in excess, Tasso multiplies upon him by a\nthousandfold. This is not grandeur, but extravagance; nor is it\nvastness, but indistinctness, of which an impression is left upon the\nmind. The passage is followed by a description of the countenance and\ngorge of Pluto, which all readers must remember, but which all readers\nmust likewise wish they could forget. In general it is curious to\ncompare the very sparing use which Homer has made of mere bulk as a\npoetical engine, with the boundless redundance of it, not only even to\nnausea in such writers as Fortiguerra, who vulgarize everything they\ntouch, but even in a patriarch of Italian romance like Bojardo.\n\nIt would not, however, repay the trouble to be entailed by the perusal,\nwere I to draw out in detail a comparison between the diction, taste,\nfigures, and all other incidents of poetic handling, in Tasso, and\nthose of Homer. It is better to direct attention to what more easily\nadmits of being brought into juxtaposition--that is, the general\nstructure and movement of the poems, and the manner in which the\ngreater laws of the poetic art are applied to the respective subjects.\n\nMr. Hallam adopts an opinion of Voltaire, that in the choice of his\nsubject Tasso has been superior to Homer; and adds, that \u2018in the\nvariety of occurrences, in the change of scenes and images, and of\nthe trains of sentiment connected with them in the reader\u2019s mind, we\ncannot place the Iliad on a level with the Jerusalem;\u2019 that, by unity\nof subject and place, the poem of Tasso has a coherence and singleness\nnot to be found in the \u00c6neid; and that, while we expect the victory of\nthe Christians, \u2018we acknowledge the probability and adequacy of the\nevents that delay it[958].\u2019\n\n[958] Hallam\u2019s Literature of Europe, ii. 268.\n\nOf the Italians themselves, some place the work of Tasso at the very\nhead of all Epic compositions: others maintain, that it was surpassed\nby the Orlando Furioso. Tiraboschi, while declining to weigh the poems\nagainst each other generally, yet compares the poets, and gives the\nhigher place to Ariosto[959]. Neither the agitated, struggling, and\ndependent life of Tasso, nor the character of the time in which he\nlived, were favourable to the attainment of the very summit of poetic\nexcellence. The freshness of the morning of Christian civilization in\nItaly had worn away. The romantic poetry, which seemed so congenial\nto that country, and which had attained to such high perfection, had\nnow run its course: it was rather an effort against nature, than a\nmovement in the line of it, when Tasso wrought upon a subject which\nrequired him to bridle his country\u2019s freer Muse, and train her to\nhistoric grandeur and severity. He has left us the undoubted work of a\ngreat mind, adorned with abundant and, in some respects, extraordinary\nbeauties; yet many would own themselves not to have experienced from\nthe Jerusalem that peculiar sort of satisfaction, which any work of\nsimple tenour, if nearly approaching perfection in its kind, even\nthough that kind be somewhat below the epic, never fails to impart to\nthe mass of its readers.\n\n[959] Lett. Ital., vol. vii.\n\nGranting it to be true, that the Siege of Jerusalem is a nobler subject\nthan the Wrath of Achilles, together with all that it includes of the\nsiege of Troy, yet neither is the Siege of Jerusalem, with the high\nelements it comprehends, really the staple of the subject matter of\nTasso, nor is the Siege of Troy the real subject of the poem of Homer.\nTasso had evidently studied with attention the Iliad as well as the\n\u00c6neid; and he has taken largely from, or worked largely after, both,\nbut a great deal more, as far as I have seen, from the former than the\nlatter. In which selection, doubtless, he chose well. The copy of a\ncopy is pretty sure to be a vulgar work. Without noticing at present\nanything except what governs the main action, it may be observed, that\nthe Wrath of Achilles is reproduced in the Offence, given and taken, of\nRinaldo: and the relation of the one to Godfrey is evidently suggested\nby that of the other to Agamemnon.\n\n~_Achilles the subject of the Iliad._~\n\nIt is needful here to return to a topic, which I have already more\nlightly touched. We may reckon it among the chief distinctions of\nHomer, that he has been able to make of the individual man the broad\nbasis of the most heroical among epic songs. The weak thread of the\n\u00c6neid is really sustained by something that lies behind the figure of\n\u00c6neas, namely, by its hanging on the splendid fortunes of Rome; the\nOdyssey is toned more nearly to the colour of a domestic painting; but\nin the Iliad, the man Achilles is the power whose action propels, and\nwhose inaction stops, the world-wide conflict before Troy. The Poet has\naccomplished this great feat by dint of powers, that have given to the\ncharacter of his hero on the one hand dimensions absolutely colossal,\nand, on the other, the finest lines that miniature itself could require.\n\nFor efforts of such a range as this, after-poets had not the necessary\nstrength. They had not such command over the high-born material, of\nwhich man is formed, as to make their mode of treating it in one single\nfigure the main stake, on which the fortune of their entire works was\nto depend. Men like Tasso sought and found a basis, less elevated\nindeed and splendid, but equally solid, and far more accessible, in the\ngreat events of history, or in the multitude of associations, alike\nnoble and familiar, which belonged to them. These, which with Homer\nhad been organically, and not mechanically alone, grouped about the\none great Humanity of his poem, now became the central stem of the\nepic; and the properly and strictly personal element, which had been\nprimary, became no more than accessory. But events are made for man,\nand not man for events; and we can scarcely doubt that the transition\nfrom the older epic, which gathered all its interests around the human\nsoul as a centre, to the newer, which exhibits the human soul itself\nin a subordinate relation to external history or fortune, has been a\ntransition downwards. It may be said, that Achilles is not the subject\nof the Iliad, in the same sense as Ulysses of the Odyssey. It is at\nany rate true that the action of the Odyssey is more directly related\nto the hero, than that of the Iliad. And so precise is the working\nof Homer\u2019s intellect in all that appertains to poetical consistency,\nthat a distinction of shade, just proportioned to this difference, is\nperhaps perceptible in the very _exordia_ of the two poems, \u03bc\u1fc6\u03bd\u03b9\u03bd \u1f04\u03b5\u03b9\u03b4\u03b5\n\u0398\u03b5\u1f70, and \u1f04\u03bd\u03b4\u03c1\u03b1 \u03bc\u03bf\u03b9 \u1f14\u03bd\u03bd\u03b5\u03c0\u03b5, \u039c\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c3\u03b1, \u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03cd\u03c4\u03c1\u03bf\u03c0\u03bf\u03bd. The one seems to propose\nthe Wrath of the Man: the other the Man himself. But substantially\nthe proposition is questionable: Achilles is in effect, as truly as\nUlysses, the life and strength, the chief glory and beauty, of his own\npoem.\n\nIt might perhaps be doubted, whether even the Liberation of Jerusalem\nwas a finer subject for Christendom, than the siege of Troy for the\nGreek race. For it is a mistake to suppose that because the Redemption\nof mankind infinitely transcends all other transactions, the poetry\nwhich is composed about it will therefore be excellent in proportion.\nBut at any rate this is not the question. Homer\u2019s subject is, indeed,\nthe Titanic passion of Achilles, and to this subject every Book of the\nIliad, some of them positively and some negatively, but every one of\nthem effectively, contributes; but is the Liberation of Jerusalem the\ntrue subject of the poem of Tasso?\n\n~_Subject of the Gerusalemme more doubtful._~\n\nThe three first Cantos, with the ninth, the eleventh, and the\nnineteenth, are the only ones, which are in strictness occupied with\nthe proper theme of the Jerusalem. The fifth, fifteenth, and sixteenth,\nand large portions at the least of the other eleven, are taken from\nthe Siege, and are given to the truancy, or erratic and separate\nadventures, of those who ought to have carried it on; mainly of the two\nprincipal Christian warriors, Rinaldo and Tancredi. In short, near a\nmoiety of the work is occupied, not with the Liberation of Jerusalem at\nall, but with the events which draw away the champions pledged to it,\nupon errands of a character the most incongruous with the grand design.\n\nWill it be answered, that in the same manner Achilles disappears\nfrom the eye of the spectator during one moiety of the Iliad? The\napparent parallel is wholly false. For the subject of the Iliad is\nthe passion of Achilles; and the whole movement of the poem in his\nabsence bears directly upon the enhancement and elevation of that\nsubject. It exhibits to us the successive efforts of the Greeks, and\nof their most redoubted chieftains, one by one, to make up for the\nseclusion of Achilles from the fighting host. It was impossible for\nHomer more effectually to magnify his hero, than by recounting fully\nthese exploits and their failure. In showing the perils and calamities\nbrought about by his absence, they deeply impress us with the grandeur\nand efficacy of his presence, and prepare us for the reappearance of\nsomething more than man: of something which, but for a most skilful\npreparatory mechanism, we should probably have repelled as an unnatural\nexaggeration. But the love-born vagaries of the warriors of Tasso are\nmere impediments to the conquest of Jerusalem, and have no effect\nwhatever in enhancing the poetical greatness of the achievement which\nwas to crown the work, while they seriously deduct from the power and\neffectiveness, already in the case of Rinaldo but moderate, of the\ncharacters assigned to the warriors themselves.\n\nIt may therefore be true, as Mr. Hallam has said, that the events\nin Tasso spring naturally one from another; but so may a series of\nsuccessive turnings off the line of a road we have been travelling,\nwhen taken singly, produce no serious, and even no sensible, deviation;\nyet their effect, when taken together, may be wholly to change our\ndirection, and prevent us from making any way at all towards our point.\nWithout doubt, each incident of an epic poem ought to follow naturally\nin the train of that which directly precedes it; but it is far more\nimportant that it should bear a legitimate relation to the central\ndesign, and should magnify, not detract from, the grandeur of that on\nwhich the whole fabric principally depends.\n\nBut there are surely many other objections to the mode, which Tasso\nhas adopted, of impeding and retarding the accomplishment of his main\naction. Considering the nature of his theme, and the solemnity of the\nsanctions under which the Crusades were undertaken, although we have\nno right to ask that passion and infirmity should be banished from the\ncamp, yet the wholesale entanglement of the very first warriors in\nlove affairs, their rushing in a mass, with few exceptions besides\ngreyheads of the camp, upon the track of Armida, their compelling\nGodfrey to allow the interests of this treacherous beauty to interrupt\nthe august purpose of their undertaking, and then the very large\nproportion of the poem occupied in unravelling the web thus tangled,\nform, to my view at least, a bad poetical mixture of the intrusive with\nthe Christian elements of the design.\n\nNor let it here be said, that even so our great Achilles stays the\nprogress of the Greeks towards triumph for the love of a weak woman.\nWe need not dwell on such distinctions as that Briseis was a noble and\nworthy, but Armida an unworthy object of attachment; that Achilles was\nbut one, while Tasso touches all, who by age were capable, with the\nsame phrensy. It is not even this worthy attachment alone, that acts\nupon Achilles: that is not the main stress of the tempest which so\nrends the strong heaving oak when he cries,\n\n \u1f00\u03bb\u03bb\u03ac \u03bc\u03bf\u03b9 \u03bf\u1f30\u03b4\u03ac\u03bd\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u03ba\u03c1\u03b1\u03b4\u03af\u03b7 \u03c7\u03cc\u03bb\u1ff3, \u1f41\u03c0\u03c0\u03cc\u03c4\u2019 \u1f10\u03ba\u03b5\u03af\u03bd\u03c9\u03bd\n \u03bc\u03bd\u03ae\u03c3\u03bf\u03bc\u03b1\u03b9, \u1f65\u03c2 \u03bc\u2019 \u1f00\u03c3\u03cd\u03c6\u03b7\u03bb\u03bf\u03bd \u1f10\u03bd \u1f08\u03c1\u03b3\u03b5\u03af\u03bf\u03b9\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u1f14\u03c1\u03b5\u03be\u03b5\u03bd\n \u1f08\u03c4\u03c1\u03b5\u03af\u03b4\u03b7\u03c2, \u1f61\u03c3\u03b5\u03af \u03c4\u03b9\u03bd\u2019 \u1f00\u03c4\u03af\u03bc\u03b7\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd \u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03bd\u03ac\u03c3\u03c4\u03b7\u03bd[960].\n\n[960] Il. ix. 646.\n\nIn Achilles, baffled love is surmounted by the image of agonizing\npride, pierced through and through; and high over this again towers\nhis hatred of the meanness of Agamemnon, and his sense of Justice,\nstung to the very inmost quick. Even supposing the question to be open,\nwhether Homer has mixed his ingredients in due or in undue proportions,\nat all events there is no essential conflict among them. But such a\nconflict becomes visible and glaring, when a scope is assigned to the\nimpulses and sway of personal passion upon an army devoted to God and\nto the highest aim, such as it is quite impossible to exemplify, nay to\nsuppose, in any army that has ever been banded together for any even of\nthe meaner ends of earthly policy.\n\nAgain, although Tasso\u2019s poem is eminently Christian in its general\nintention, who does not feel that, instead of gathering our main\nsympathies and interest by means of his accessory circumstances round\nhis principal subject, he has too effectually severed them from it,\nand has left it so bare and naked, that his liberation of Jerusalem\nis after all very like a common capture and sack; very like what,\n_mutatis mutandis_, the capture of it by the Saracens must have been?\nWe leave him with our minds full of Tancredi and Clorinda, of Rinaldo\nand Armida, of Gildippe and Odoardo; but the associations, which these\nnames suggest, connect themselves with any subject, rather than with\nthe liberation of the Holy Sepulchre; and the respected Godfrey, with\nhis plans, has, at most points of the poem, little more share in our\nthoughts than the Jupiter of the Iliad, as he feasts remotely grand on\nOlympus, or sits on Ida for the convenience of a nearer view.\n\n~_Relative places of Rinaldo and Tancredi._~\n\nBesides these objections of irrelevant interpolation, incongruous\nmixture, and divided interests, it may be observed that the relative\nprominence of the heroes of Tasso is not clearly pronounced. No one\ncan doubt as to the question, who is the first, and by far the first,\nfigure of the Iliad. Achilles ever haunts us, either in recollection\nor by sight; at any rate, he stands among and above his brother\nchieftains, as Saul out-topped by head and shoulders the people of\nIsrael. But it is not easy to say who is the hero or protagonist of\nthe Jerusalem. Although the interest which he attracts is inferior,\nyet the virtues, intellect, and moral force of Godfrey stand high\nand clear beyond those of all the other more prominent personages:\nhe bears himself so meekly in his high office, and yet so perfectly\nand so exclusively exhibits the political spirit, that by mere moral\nand official greatness he stands, in any general view of the poem, an\ninconvenient neighbour and a dangerous rival to the two other figures,\nfor one of whom the title of hero must have been designed. Taking,\nnext, the yet more serious question between Tancredi and Rinaldo, which\nof this pair is intended to command the chief interest? Apparently,\nin Tasso\u2019s intention, it is Rinaldo; because without him the main\naction stops, with him it proceeds. And yet the poet has assigned to\nTancredi the deadly single combat with, and the triumph so powerfully\ndescribed over, Argante, the only really great and terrible champion on\nthe Mahometan side. How would the Iliad stand, if Diomed had killed\nHector, and had left to Achilles only \u00c6neas or Sarpedon?\n\nTasso here seems himself to have felt an incongruity, and to have\nsought to compensate Rinaldo in quantity for the (comparatively)\ndeficient quality of his conquests. In the final assault he slays a\nmultitude of the enemy like sheep[961]; when, as the poet says, in a\nmanner surely far beneath his theme, the taste of victory had excited\nin him the appetite of carnage[962].\n\n[961] Gerus. xx. 55.\n\n[962] Ibid. 54.\n\nNor is it only in the distribution of military glory, that Rinaldo\nappears to have suffered for the advantage of Tancred. On one occasion\nindeed, immediately after the death of Gernando, Tasso has degraded\nTancred for the advantage of Rinaldo. For the poet makes this warrior\nplead, that the offence of Rinaldo should be considered according to\nthe quality of him who committed it, and that there can be no such\nthing as true justice without respect of persons:\n\n Or ti sovvegna\n Saggio signor, chi sia Rinaldo, e quale;\n ... non dee chi regna\n Nel castigo con tutti esser uguale.\n Vario \u00e8 l\u2019 istesso error ne\u2019 gradi vari;\n E sol l\u2019 egualit\u00e0 giusta \u00e8 co\u2019 pari[963].\n\n[963] Gerus. v. 36.\n\nIt was acting on an opinion of this kind, in the case of the Master of\nStair after the Massacre of Glencoe, that left uneffaced a deep stain\non the memory of William III. and of Scotland. Doubtless there have\nbeen periods when, even in Christian countries, such sentiments have\nbeen professed as well as practised; but can there have been any period\nwhen the utterance of them from the mouth of a knight, who is exhibited\nto us as a pattern, would not have caused a revulsion in the minds of\nordinary hearers or readers?\n\n~_The Woman-characters of Tasso._~\n\nThe Jerusalem is greatly overstocked with interesting couples; so much\nso, that at times we almost seem to be reading a Pastoral poem. Taken\nsingly, the details of these love-stories are worked up with infinite\nart and beauty, and are the most effective and successful portions of\nthe whole Epic; but the aggregate is so much too large, that it chills\nthe general tone, as well as weakens the broader effects. The excess\nof quantity is, indeed, gross and glaring. Tasso has followed the\nChristian Romancers in employing largely the idea of the woman-warrior,\npractically unknown to Homer, introduced with great spirit but no very\nelevated moral effect in Virgil, carried by Bojardo and Ariosto to its\nperfection; and, without doubt, a conception far more suitable to the\nstandard of those great poets of fancy, than to the lofty level of the\nEpic or the higher drama, which deal with the greatest powers and the\ndeepest problems of our nature. Still, as to the manner of employing\nit, we need not deny that high praise must be accorded to the Clorinda\nof Tasso. It is indeed easy to criticize the religious incidents of her\ndeath, and not easy to understand what business she has after death\nin a tree of the enchanted wood; or why, when that wood becomes the\nprey of the carpenters, she is so unceremoniously overlooked in her\nuncomfortable abode. But as to the main exhibition of the character,\nshe follows Bradamante without degeneracy: pure, upright, chivalrous,\nthoroughly martial, and yet not grossly masculine. She falls to\nthe lot of Tancred. But besides the Sofronia, the Erminia, and the\nGildippe, in the second degree of prominence, there is projected on\nthe picture another person yet more conspicuous than even Clorinda,\nnamely, Armida; so different that they can hardly be compared, and yet\ninconveniently jarring from the similarity of their relations to the\ngreat heroes of the poem. Both, too, are lovely; both figure in the\ncamp. Notwithstanding, however, the profusion of charms, which Tasso\nhas called into existence to set off the person and the powers of\nArmida, nothing can be more unsatisfactory than her character itself,\nexcept its place in the poem, and her particular relation to Rinaldo.\nWhen every one else is ravished by her overpowering attractions, he\nremains insensible: and yet afterwards, with no poetical justification\nfor the change, he becomes desperately enamoured of her. Here we see\nthat feebleness in the conception and exhibition of character, which\ndepresses the flight of Tasso, which excludes him from a place in the\nclass, quite as open to poets as to philosophers, the class of the\ngreatest masters of thought and of human nature.\n\n~_The Armida of Tasso._~\n\nWe become acquainted with Armida, the beautiful enchantress, first in\nthe guise of a forlorn damsel, who implores succour from the Christian\nheroes; and this is perhaps the most successful portion of the _r\u00f4le_\nassigned to her. Then she appears as the Circe of her own gardens:\nthen she is a Dido without an \u00c6neas, for the escape of Rinaldo from\nthe disgraceful servitude into which she had inveigled him bears no\nresemblance to the fond and deep passion of the Carthaginian queen,\nwhich grew out of an honourable hospitality afforded to the Trojans in\ndistress. With a disagreeable amount of likeness in detail, the copy\nstill misses the original, and loses all that force and majesty of\nintense passion to which here, and here alone, Virgil has been enabled\nto ascend. Then instead of that tragic end of Dido, in which, though\nwith an attitude somewhat theatrical, softness and fierceness are so\nwonderfully blended, so that she does not forfeit sympathy even in\nher keenest longings for revenge, Armida has recourse to an expedient\nwhich is wholly debased and vulgar. She simply offers herself for\nsale, promising to be the prize of any warrior of the Egyptian camp,\nwho shall execute her vengeance on Rinaldo for the offence of having\nescaped out of her toils.\n\nNor have we yet done with the doublings of her tortuous path. She sees\nRinaldo pass her in the battle; and, not without infinite doubting,\nshoots an arrow at him. It is perhaps difficult to define in language\nwhat it is, that constitutes the difference between the mental\nstruggles of genuine passion, and mere incongruous vacillation. We see\nthe former in Dido; and one sign of it is a certain progression. Where\nthe law of nature is followed, perpetual fluctuation is not allowed;\nby degrees, though they may be slow and many, the mind is worked up to\na strong resolve, where it abides: its agitation and seeming reflux is\nbut the receding wave of the advancing tide; and when once a strong\npurpose is full-formed after struggle in a truly powerful nature,\nwhether of man or woman, it must not be changed. Now this is what we\nmiss in Armida. She is ever playing at backwards and forwards. Thrice\nshe draws the bow, thrice she relaxes it: at last she discharges the\narrow, but with it a wish that it may miss:\n\n Lo stral vol\u00f2; ma con lo strale un voto\n Subito usc\u00ec, che vada il colpo a voto[964].\n\n[964] Gerus. xx. 63.\n\nNot unnaturally, this unsatisfactory passage leads us to one of the\nworst of all the provoking conceits that disfigure from time to time\nthe beautiful pages of this poem:\n\n Tanto poteva in lei, bench\u00e8 perdente,\n (Or che potria vittorioso?) amore[965].\n\n[965] Ib. 64.\n\nYet, after all this, revenge again gets the upper hand, and her eye\nfollows the arrow with avidity, hoping it may strike. She then repeats\nthe shot again and again, and while doing it is again herself shot in\nreturn by love:\n\n E mentre ella saetta, Amor lei piaga[966].\n\n[966] Ib. 65.\n\nAgain the same alternation is reiterated; but her champions fail. She\nflies. She resumes the part of Dido; apostrophizes her own weapons in a\nspeech of near thirty lines, entreating them to despatch her. Rinaldo\nthen arrests her arm; and yet once more, in stanzas replete with beauty\nof diction, we have the same unsatisfactory and indecisive mixture of\nill-assorted emotions, without the strength either of harmony or of\ncontrast, founded on no natural law, connected by no moral or mental\ntie, ordered to no end or consummation. However, he vows himself her\nadorer, and she gives herself up to his disposal:\n\n Ecco l\u2019 ancella tua; d\u2019 essa a tuo senno\n Dispon, gli disse; e le fia legge il cenno[967].\n\n[967] Ib. 136.\n\nAnd so we leave them. But unhappily we cannot, in leaving them, forget\nthat she is a Mahometan and a sorceress; that her frauds have been the\ngreat scandal of the army, and the main obstacle to the completion of\nits design; that she has never throughout the whole poem exhibited a\nsingle quality containing in it the elements of just moral attraction;\nand that this triumph of mere corporeal form, without one solitary\nnote of inward loveliness, is achieved over the greatest of the\nwarriors of Christ, when engaged, under the immediate and special\ndirection of the Almighty, in the recovery of the Holy Sepulchre from\ninfidel dominion. With all these circumstances before us, it must\nbe admitted that a more lame and unsatisfactory contribution to the\nclimax of a great Christian poem could hardly have been contrived.\nNor is the impression much amended by the dedication of the eight\nlast stanzas of the work to the completion of the victory by Godfrey.\nA reader may, on the contrary, well feel perturbed by the sharpness\nof the transition, and by the air of unconsciousness with which, in\ngathering up the threads of the action, Tasso has brought into close\nneighbourhood matters so heterogeneous, that they form a kind of moral\nchaos. And the observation applies to the close of the poem, which may\nwell have accompanied it throughout its course; that the sympathies of\nthe reader are not evoked and managed with due, or with any, reference\nto the greatness and nobleness of the objects, but, on the contrary,\nare allured into the wrong quarter. Homer has carefully contrived, in\nthe case of Paris, that even his extraordinary personal attractions\nshall do nothing to give him a hold upon our favour, while he has\ngiven his warmest sympathies to the beauty of the innocent, though\ncomparatively insignificant, Euphorbus[968]. How tame and flat, on\nthe contrary, has Tasso made the stainless Erminia, whom indeed he\naltogether forgets before the poem closes; and what efforts of art has\nhe not used to gather admiring interest around the character and fate\nof the heartless, even when enamoured, Armida. Nay, more, with some\nbrilliant exceptions, especially that noble one of the first view of\nJerusalem, how cold and slack, how uninteresting to the reader, is the\nmovement of the main action of the poem, compared with that of the\nlove-stories which invade and engross so inordinate a portion of the\nground. We seem to feel that, after all, the Siege of Jerusalem is not\nthe principal business in hand; it is the task which must somehow or\nother be got through, but it is not the life and pulse, the light and\njoy of the poem. As the Siege of Troy was the instrument of Homer, to\nenable him to develop his Achilles, so the much higher subject of the\nCrusade is the tool of Tasso to enable him to exhibit his workmanship,\nchiefly in connection with love-stories, upon very inferior persons\nand performances. The relative values of the setting and the jewel are\ntotally different in the two cases.\n\n[968] Il. xvii. 51.\n\n~_The affront of Gernando._~\n\nBesides the first great hindrance to the prosecution of the siege\nin the seductive power of Armida when she appears in the camp,\nthere is a second, namely, the slaughter of Gernando by Rinaldo,\nupon a personal affront. It has here been objected to the first,\nthat the effect assigned to it is out of proportion to all example\nand to all likelihood, though it may be suitable to the passionate\nsusceptibilities of Tasso\u2019s individual mind; and that this\ndisproportion jars peculiarly from the more than usual elevation of the\nsubject. Is the second obstacle more happily conceived?\n\nRinaldo, in the Fifth Canto, unlike his companions, has proved\nimpregnable to the assaults of Armida\u2019s mingled beauty and art:\n\n Ma perch\u2019 a lui colpi d\u2019 amor pi\u00f9 lenti\n Non hanno il petto oltra la scorza inciso,\n N\u00e8 molto impaziente \u00e8 di rivale,\n N\u00e8 la donzella di seguir gli cale[969].\n\n[969] Gerus. v. 12.\n\nHe rather aspires to succeed to the fallen Dudone in the immediate\ncommand of the forces. Yet even with respect to this, his ambition\npurports to be under the guidance of high principle:\n\n I gradi primi\n Pi\u00f9 meritar che conseguir desio[970].\n\n[970] Ibid. 151.\n\nPresently the Norwegian Prince Gernando, moved by jealousy, insults\nhim; on which Rinaldo there and then gives him the lie, and slays him.\n\nIt is hardly possible to measure the inferiority of this combination,\nas respects poetic art and effect, to the scene of the First Book of\nthe Iliad, with which it must naturally be compared: where Achilles\nis stung, and stung at once in every fibre of his deep, proud, and\nimpassioned nature, by the mingled meanness and tyranny of Agamemnon.\nThe affront in Homer is so contrived that it shall contain all\nthe highest elements of provocation: avarice, tyranny, injustice,\ningratitude, on the one side are made to exacerbate the wounds\ninflicted by public degradation, and by the sudden loss of a beloved\nobject, on the other. But the insult of Gernando to Rinaldo is an\nevery-day insult of the streets: yet an American duellist could not\nhave been more summary in his proceedings, than is the great Christian\nchampion. The brutal provocation instantly breaks down both the piety\nand the moral firmness of Rinaldo. It is not so with Achilles. In him\nthere is a conscious force of self-command, which absolutely, though\nnot relatively to his passion, is even beyond that of other men; and\nthough unequal, indeed, yet is all but not unequal to controlling that\ntempestuous flood of wrath. Nothing can be grander than the picture of\nthis his first great mental convulsion. We must quote the lines:\n\n \u1f63\u03c2 \u03c6\u03ac\u03c4\u03bf\u00b7 \u03a0\u03b7\u03bb\u03b5\u03af\u03c9\u03bd\u03b9 \u03b4\u2019 \u1f04\u03c7\u03bf\u03c2 \u03b3\u03ad\u03bd\u03b5\u03c4\u2019, \u1f10\u03bd \u03b4\u03ad \u03bf\u1f31 \u1f26\u03c4\u03bf\u03c1\n \u03c3\u03c4\u03ae\u03b8\u03b5\u03c3\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u03bb\u03b1\u03c3\u03af\u03bf\u03b9\u03c3\u03b9 \u03b4\u03b9\u03ac\u03bd\u03b4\u03b9\u03c7\u03b1 \u03bc\u03b5\u03c1\u03bc\u03ae\u03c1\u03b9\u03be\u03b5\u03bd,\n \u1f22 \u1f45\u03b3\u03b5 \u03c6\u03ac\u03c3\u03b3\u03b1\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd \u1f40\u03be\u1f7a \u1f10\u03c1\u03c5\u03c3\u03c3\u03ac\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u1f70 \u03bc\u03b7\u03c1\u03bf\u1fe6\n \u03c4\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 \u03bc\u1f72\u03bd \u1f00\u03bd\u03b1\u03c3\u03c4\u03ae\u03c3\u03b5\u03b9\u03b5\u03bd, \u1f41 \u03b4\u2019 \u1f08\u03c4\u03c1\u03b5\u03af\u03b4\u03b7\u03bd \u1f10\u03bd\u03b1\u03c1\u03af\u03b6\u03bf\u03b9,\n \u1f20\u1f72 \u03c7\u03cc\u03bb\u03bf\u03bd \u03c0\u03b1\u03cd\u03c3\u03b5\u03b9\u03b5\u03bd, \u1f10\u03c1\u03b7\u03c4\u03cd\u03c3\u03b5\u03b9\u03ad \u03c4\u03b5 \u03b8\u03c5\u03bc\u03cc\u03bd[971].\n\n[971] Il. i. 188.\n\nThen, while the strong current eddies to and fro within him, and while\nhis fingers, playing instinctively on the handle of his sword, cause\nits blade to be seen, comes the warning vision of Pallas to him, and to\nhim alone. This admonition restores the disturbed balance of his mind;\nand, his inward wound assuaged with the promise of a future revenge, to\nbe wrought out for him by the self-condemning hands of the inflicters\nand abettors of the wrong, he moodily foregoes the reckoning of blood.\n\nSuch is the solid, the Cyclopian structure of the fabric, into which\nHomer has built his characters. Had the hero of Tasso indeed been\nendowed with a sublimity of passion beyond or like that of Achilles, we\nmight not have been entitled to call him strictly to account for the\nslaughter of Gernando. But the truth is, that he is a somewhat jejune\nand feeble character; and his offence in this instance is not from\nthe excess of the impelling, but from the defect, or rather the utter\nabsence, of the restraining power.\n\nGioberti, in a posthumous work[972], remarks that the heroes of\nPaganism are more effective than those of Christianity, because the\nstandard by which they are measured is lower, the idea imperfect\ninstead of perfect. There is, I believe, much both of truth and of\ndepth in this observation. It is no more than justice that Tasso should\nhave the benefit of it, which is not inconsiderable.\n\n[972] _La Riforma Cattolica_, lately published at Turin, with an\nexcellent preface by Massari.\n\n~_Differing modes of describing personages._~\n\nSuch, however, as his heroes are, he takes the precaution to describe\nthem in outline at a very early stage indeed of his proceedings,\nnamely, in the stanzas 8-10 of the First Canto. He here places before\nus Godfrey, Baldwin, Tancred, Boemondo, and Rinaldo; and he resumes\nfrom time to time the business of describing them. Bojardo and\nAriosto avoid this; but it is probably because they were dealing with\ncharacters of well-known type, already familiar to their audience.\nHomer, who drew so much more powerfully, had more to describe than\nany of them. And yet it may be said he never describes characters at\nall, with the very slight exceptions of Nestor, in a few words, and\nThersites with somewhat more detail: the latter, it is evident, because\nhe wanted to concentrate contempt and disgust upon his qualities, for\nexhibiting which in action he could not afford to such a wretch any\nextended space: the former, perhaps because he has thought it better\nfor effect to abstain from marking him through the poem by distinctive\nepithets, and could produce a certain roundness of figure, highly\nsuitable to the personage, in this way with more convenience. But, in\ngeneral, Homer\u2019s characters are described by their actions only, with\nthe aid of choice and characteristic epithets, and here and there of\nsome small but pointed allusion, not from themselves nor from the Poet,\nbut in the speeches of others. Thus he grapples with the full scale of\nthe demands of the dramatic art. Others could not follow him. We must\nnot blame Tasso for a proceeding quite necessary by way of clue to his\npoem; rather, indeed, we should praise the ingenious manner in which he\nhas effected his purpose, by a survey which the Almighty takes of the\nChristian camp; a proceeding alike conducive to the religious character\nof his poem, not always so well cared for, and to the supply of the\nfirst necessities of his readers.\n\nIn the details of his battles, Tasso is a great and skilful describer.\nPerhaps in this point alone, out of so many, he may be termed superior\nto Homer. At least we may be disposed to think he has nothing so\nunsatisfactory under this head as the death of Patroclus. It may\nbe another question how far he is indebted for instruction in this\ndepartment to his great countrymen, especially Ariosto, and also\nwhether he has anywhere equalled the magnificent account of that\nterrible contest with Rodomonte, which, in the Furioso, sums up\nRuggiero\u2019s triumphs.\n\nAs nearly all the greater situations and combinations of the\nGerusalemme, and its general framework, have been suggested by the\nancients, so the minor imitations are too numerous for notice. Many\nof Tasso\u2019s similes are extremely beautiful and finished; and he has\nfollowed Homer in employing them to relieve the narrative of battle;\nbut he has not observed the same judicious parsimony in other parts of\nhis poem; he has apparently not perceived, certainly not followed, the\ngeneral rules of Homer in the distribution of this ornament, and the\nresult has been that they produce a somewhat cloying effect.\n\nLike Virgil, he has been betrayed into imitating Homer in certain\ncases, where the whole reason of the case was changed: as, for\ninstance, in the Invocation before the Catalogue, and in the wish\nexpressed for multiplied organs of speech. To Homer, a reciting poet,\nthe Catalogue was a great effort of memory, and it therefore justified\nthe special application to the Muse: to Tasso it must have been one of\nthe easier parts of his performance. As respects the second point, what\ncan be more reasonable in the case of an unwritten composition? what\nless so, when the poet works with pen and ink? Nor is the case much\nmended by supposing that Tasso had in mind his recitations, unless the\nrecitation had been, not the accident, but the rule, so that the poem\nwould itself, in the ordinary course of thought, be conceived of as\nassociated with the act of reciting.\n\nTasso seems, however, to have fallen into a more serious error in\nintroducing a Second Catalogue into his poem. The first may be defended\nby the same reasoning, which so amply warrants that of Homer. But what\ninterest could Christendom or Italy feel in the detailed muster-roll of\nthe Egyptian army?\n\n~_The Return of Rinaldo._~\n\nIf in the Jerusalem the Wrath is beneath the standard of the Iliad,\nso is the Return. On the side of Rinaldo, indeed, it is most just and\nright, that he should be extricated from the entanglements of the\nseductive Armida: but, on the side of Godfrey, there is the same sorry\nmanagement of all the moral elements of the case. In Homer, Achilles\nwas justly and most deeply offended: on every principle known to the\ncreed of Paganism, or to Greek life and experience, he justly resented\nthe offence: the utmost that can be imputed to him is a decided excess\nin the indulgence of a thoroughly righteous feeling: and this was\nterribly expiated by the bloody death of that friend, who was to him\nas a second self. But the gross offence of Agamemnon is dealt with\naccording to the most righteous rules; and he is compelled by word\nand gift to appease the man whom he had robbed, insulted, and striven\nto degrade. While he is brought both to restitution and to apology,\nhow different is the arrangement of Tasso\u2019s poem! Rinaldo was wronged\nby Gernando: but Godfrey had done no more than his duty: he was the\nminister of public justice, of lawful authority, and of military\ndiscipline: in respect to him, and likewise in respect to the army,\nRinaldo was the offender, Godfrey and public right were only the\nsufferers; yet Godfrey and public right give way under the pressure of\nadversity, and the offender comes back in a kind of triumph.\n\nIf it has been found possible in the case of Virgil to institute a more\nminute comparison with Homer, this cannot be attempted in the case\nof Tasso, for his work hardly admits of juxta-positions in detail.\nWe have already noticed the abundant stock of real analogies between\nthe subject of the Trojan expedition, and that of the Crusades.\nTasso himself, in his anxiety to follow Homer, even added to them, by\nfeigning a centralization of the Christian enterprise, which I fear did\nnot really exist. But to imitate is one thing, to be like is another;\nand it still remains hard really to compare the poems, far harder the\npoets. In order to see this clearly, let us ascend a height, and view\nthe scene which lies before us. How vast a deluge of time and of events\nhas swept away the very world in which Homer lived, and the worlds that\nsucceeded his: the place of nativity is changed, the great gulf of time\nis stretched between, the language is another, the religion new, all\nthe chains of association have been taken to pieces and re-forged, all\nthe old chords of feeling are now mute, and others that give forth a\ndifferent music are strung in their stead. And there is also, it must\nbe confessed, a great and sharp descent from the stature of Homer, as a\ncreative poet, to that of Tasso. Yet he too is a classic of Italy, and\na classic of the world; and if for a moment we feel it a disparagement\nto his country that she suffers in this one comparison, let her soothe\nher ruffled recollection by the consciousness, that though Tasso has\nnot become a rival to Homer, yet he shares this failure with every epic\nwriter of every land. On the other hand, no modern poet, dealing with\nsimilar subject-matter, has been equal to Tasso. None has erected,\nupon similar foundations to his, a fabric so lofty and so durable, so\nrich in beauty and in grace: so well entitled, if not to vie with the\nvery greatest achievement of the ages that went before him, at least\nto challenge or to win the admiration of those generations that have\nsucceeded. But his defeat is, after all, his greatest victory. To lose\nthe match against Homer is a higher prize than to win it from his other\ncompetitors. Few indeed are the sons of genius, and elect among the\nelect, who can be brought into comparison with that sire and king of\nverse; and Tasso, we are persuaded, would bear against none a grudge\nfor thus far, in his own words, limiting his honours:\n\n e ci\u00f2 fia sommo onore;\n Questi gi\u00e0 con Gernando in gara venne[973].\n\n[973] Ger. v. 20.\n\n\nSECTION VI.\n\n_Some principal Homeric characters in Troy._\n\n_Hector: Helen: Paris._\n\nTo one only among the countless millions of human beings has it been\ngiven to draw characters, by the strength of his own individual hand,\nin lines of such force and vigour, that they have become, from his\nday to our own, the common inheritance of civilized man. That one is\nHomer. Ever since his time, besides finding his way into the usually\nimpenetrable East, he has provided literary capital and available stock\nin trade for reciters and hearers, for authors and readers of all times\nand of all places within the limits of the Western world;\n\n Adjice M\u00e6oniden, a quo, ceu fonte perenni,\n Vatum Pieriis ora rigantur aquis.\n\nLike the sun, which furnishes with its light the close courts and\nalleys of London, while himself unseen by their inhabitants, Homer has\nsupplied with the illumination of his ideas millions of minds that were\nnever brought into direct contact with his works, and even millions\nmore, that have hardly been aware of his existence. As the full flow of\nhis genius has opened itself out into ten thousand irrigating channels\nby successive subdivision, there can be no cause for wonder, if some\nof them have not preserved the pellucid clearness of the stream. Like\nblood from the great artery of the heart of man, as it returns through\ninnumerable veins, it is gradually darkened in its flow. The very\nuniversality of the tradition has multiplied the causes of corruption.\nThat which, as to documents, is a guarantee, because their errors\ncorrect one another, as to ideas is a new source of danger, because\nevery thing depends upon constant reference to the finer touches of\nan original, which has escaped from view. And this universality is his\nalone. An Englishman may pardonably think that his great rival in the\nportraiture of character is Shakespeare--a Briton may even go further,\nand challenge, on behalf of Sir Walter Scott, a place in this princely\nchoir, second to no other person but these. Yet the fame of Hamlet,\nOthello, Lady Macbeth, or Falstaff, and much more that of Varney, or\nRavenswood, or Caleb Balderston, or Meg Merrilies, has not yet come,\nand may never come, to be a world-wide fame. On the other hand, that\ndistinction has long been inalienably secured to every character of the\nfirst class, who appears in the Homeric poems. He has conferred upon\nthem a deathless inheritance.\n\nBut, through waywardness and infirmity, mankind corrupts that with\nwhich it sympathizes, and undermines what it obeys. The same law of\nwaste and decomposition, which from day to day corrodes the works of\nnature, operates also in divers manners and degrees upon the creations\nof mind. As the portraitures of individual character, to be found in\nthe works of the great masters of the imaginative faculty, are among\nthe very highest of these creations, so, because they are the greatest,\nthey are the most difficult to render into other forms, and to\ntransfuse through new media. Among the ancient sculptures it is easier\nto find a good Faun than a good Venus, while again those works, which\nembody the very highest ideals, are not only rare, but are in most\ninstances unique. In like manner the Punch and the Harlequin, the broad\ncharacters of primitive spectacle and farce, readily become national,\nand are transmitted, spontaneously as it were, through ages without\nsubstantial change; but the finer and nobler representations of man,\nrequiring greater effort, and a different order of mind to comprehend,\nas well as to project them, rapidly degenerate in the very points on\nwhich their peculiar excellence depends.\n\nOther causes, besides mental impotence in the recipient, contribute\ntowards this result. One main agent is, the inability or the\ndisinclination of mankind to go back to originals. For the mass, a\nmodernizing process is commonly in demand, is readily furnished,\nand is itself again and again varied from age to age. It is always\neasier to derive from what is itself derivative, than to go up to\nthe fountain-head. Into the business of every profession, including\n(now more than ever) that of letters, necessity drives her adamantine\nclamps: and the \u03b2\u03ac\u03bd\u03b1\u03c5\u03c3\u03bf\u03bd and the \u03c6\u03bf\u03c1\u03c4\u03b9\u03ba\u1f78\u03bd, or slang and the clap-trap,\nmaintain a too successful struggle to depress its higher and more\ngenial aims.\n\n~_Causes of injury to Homeric characters._~\n\nIt is not difficult to point out reasons why the characters of Homer\nshould have been peculiarly exposed to injury from the lapse of time.\nMost of all from two causes; because they were of such extraordinary\nand refined merit, and because of the form in which they were conveyed.\nNot only did they bear the stamp that the highest genius alone could\naffix, but nothing less than care, sympathy, and manly effort, could\nenable men to comprehend them. For they were not exhibited in the set\nforms of descriptive passages, which might be learnt by rote, but they\nwere wrought out in the fine, as well as deep and strong lines of life\nand action; and none of them could be defined in terms, until they had\nfirst been profoundly felt within. We were to become acquainted with\nthem as friends, by living with them through their varied fortunes; not\nas strangers, by some letter of introduction, that sets forth their\nbirth, parentage, calling, and qualifications. For earnest and hearty\nattention they provided the richest possible reward; by the careless\nthey were to be enjoyed indeed, but scarcely to be apprehended. To\nthe eyes of such men there is little or nothing to discriminate, as\nbetween Agamemnon, Ajax, Diomed, Menelaus, and Patroclus; and if Nestor\nis a good deal older, Ulysses a good deal more cunning, and Achilles\neven more valiant than the rest, a single touch disposes of these\ndifferences, and enables us to reduce all the eight nearly to a common\ntype. A prior examination of particular instances will best prepare\nus for weighing the force of those other causes, besides the weakness\nof human nature, and the excellence of the works in the general sense\nof the words, that contributed to depress and deface the Homeric\ncharacters.\n\nIn the present Section, then, I propose to invite attention to a few\nHomeric characters, as they stand in the poems, which, as far as I am\nable to judge, stand in need as yet of further elucidation.\n\nPerhaps there is no one particular in which Colonel Mure has rendered\nsuch important service to the modern Homerid\u00e6, as in his account of\nthe Homeric characters. In general, I shall best discharge my duty by\nsimply referring the reader to his pages. I venture, however, to think,\nthat while the paramount subject of the great Grecian characters is\nincomparably handled by him throughout, some exception may be taken to\nhis representation of a part of the Trojan personages; of Hector, for\nexample, and more particularly (if she may be placed in this class) of\nHelen. At least, I presume to regard some of them as fairly capable of\nbeing presented in another light, and I shall proceed at once to make\nthe attempt with Hector.\n\n~_Relation of Orlando to Hector._~\n\nI. \u2018In the character of this hero,\u2019 says Mure, \u2018good and evil\nare so curiously blended that it is hard to say which element\npredominates[974].\u2019 Is there not a different view of the composition of\nqualities, which Mure has thus placed in equipoise?\n\n[974] Character of Hector, Lit. Greece, vol. i. p. 347.\n\nIt is indeed eminently true, as in the same place he proceeds to\nobserve, that in order to maintain what may be called the conventional\nbalance, or stage-equality, which was necessary in order to give\ninterest to his poem, Homer has magnified the prowess of Hector, in\ngeneral terms, as of the highest transcendental order: but that in\nactual achievement he is greatly surpassed by the leading Greek heroes.\nIndeed, in many places of the Iliad it even seems questionable, whether\nHector is a hero at all.\n\nHow successful Homer\u2019s art has been in thus paying off the Trojan\nchampion with generalities, while he nevertheless reserved the true\npalm of military virtue to his own countrymen, we may, perhaps, best\njudge from considering the effect which the picture has had upon the\npoets of Italy, and upon European opinion at large, in more recent\ntimes. With the former, the name of Hector seems to be the prime type\nof the heroic character. Thus Tasso celebrates--\n\n \u2018Il buon Foresto, dell\u2019 Italia Ettorre[975].\u2019\n\n[975] Ger. xvii. 69.\n\nAnd further. Beyond the Alps, Orlando was the prime warrior or\nprotagonist, as well as the finest character, of the medi\u00e6val romance,\nuntil it was modified by Ariosto, whose courtly object it was to\nelevate Ruggiero above him. But with the poets who followed Ariosto,\nRuggiero seems to have been put by as an interpolation, and Orlando\nto have resumed his paramount place. Now the character of Orlando\nis plainly modelled upon the traditional idea of Hector, with the\nChristian element attached to and pervading it. That Hector was thus\nchosen, in preference to Achilles or any Greek hero, may be owing,\namong other causes, to these. First, that the Roman poets, Virgil\nespecially, had taught Italians to look to Troy as the cradle of their\ngrandeur. Secondly, that the character of Hector, from the large\ninfusion into it of moral and of passive ingredients, was better fitted\nfor coalescing with the Christian ideas. And thirdly, that, as the\npart assigned to Italian patriotism in the middle ages was commonly\ndefensive, in this point also Hector offered a more appropriate model.\nThere is more, however, to observe; for it may be thought that, among\nthe Trojans, \u00c6neas would have offered a better groundwork for Italian\npoets. But here we may remark how the genuine and masculine birth\noutlives the spurious. The natural Hector of Homer thrust aside the\npale and sickly automaton of the \u00c6neid, even in Italy, its adopted\ncountry. The latter was so artificial and effete, that it would not\neven bear copying: the former had a foundation in truth, upon which the\nstructure of exaggeration could be reared. Thus Hector became, after\ntwo thousand years, the central power of a new and splendid literature.\n\nBut when we turn back to the verse of Homer, and put together the\nevidence in the case piece by piece, surprise is excited by the\ncontrast between the pretensions of Hector, having its basis in general\ndescriptions and in the later tradition, on the one side, and on the\nother the actual performances, in the Iliad itself, of the Trojan\nchampion. First, there is Achilles, his known superior; of whom, as\na warrior, he comes within no measurable distance. But besides this,\nhe suffers virtual defeat at the hands, once of Diomed, and twice\nof Ajax; glaringly as to the former, and not doubtfully as to the\nlatter: for though the first battle is interrupted, and is taken for\na drawn one, yet Ajax has had the best of it at every point, and,\nwhile the Trojans are too happy upon the mere escape of his opponent\nwithout bodily harm, Homer carries him to the tent of Agamemnon\nrejoicing in his victory (\u03ba\u03b5\u03c7\u03b1\u03c1\u03b7\u03cc\u03c4\u03b1 \u03bd\u03af\u03ba\u1fc3[976]). It is yet more worthy\nof note, that Hector is never permitted in actual fight to overcome\nany one considerable Greek. In the case of Patroclus, the Poet has\neven laid this fact much too barely open; for he makes Hector little,\nif anything, more than the mere executioner of death upon an unarmed\nman. Menelaus, who stood in what we may call the third rank of Grecian\nheroes, is indeed, on one occasion, withdrawn from conflict with him,\nas being too greatly inferior to risk the fight; but the conflict for\nthe body of Patroclus[977] is so contrived as to show even this prince\nholding the field with success in despite of the Trojan chief; and,\nduring the absence of Achilles and Patroclus from the contest, no less\nthan nine other Greek warriors offer themselves to meet him in single\ncombat[978].\n\n[976] Il. vii. 312.\n\n[977] Ibid. 109.\n\n[978] Ibid. 161.\n\nThe greatest exploit of Hector, in the whole Iliad, is the bursting\nopen of the gates of the Greek rampart[979]. But if we compare this\nwith the feat of Sarpedon, who had just before opened a breach by\ntearing down the battlement[980], we must give a decided preference to\nthe Lycian hero; for he performs his achievement in the teeth of Ajax\nand Teucer, who are on the spot; while there is not a single Greek\ncommander present when Hector breaks through the gates. The comparative\nfeebleness of Hector\u2019s military character is, however, most pointedly\nshown in the Eleventh Book, when Jupiter determines to give effect\nto the decision that honour shall be done to him[981]. In the first\nplace, he receives a friendly warning to keep out of the way as long\nas Agamemnon remains on the field. He accordingly enters the battle\nonly when Agamemnon has retired; but he is forthwith driven out of it\nby Diomed[982]. When he again returns to it, the Greeks under Machaon\nbaffle all his efforts, until that very secondary chieftain has been\ndisabled by an arrow from the bow of Paris[983]. And according to all\nhuman appearances, the Trojans must have been defeated and shut up in\nthe city by the Greeks even without Achilles, such was the superiority\nof Ach\u00e6an arms, had not Homer called in the inferior agency of\nstones and arrows to wound three of the four chief remaining Grecian\nwarriors, namely Diomed, Agamemnon, and Ulysses; besides Eurypylus and\nMachaon[984].\n\n[979] Il. xii. 445-71.\n\n[980] Ib. 392-407.\n\n[981] Il. xi. 186-90.\n\n[982] Il. xi. 349-67.\n\n[983] Ib. 502-7.\n\n[984] Ib. 660.\n\nThe only occasion when Hector comes out as a really great and gallant\nwarrior is that one when he is certain to be, and is accordingly,\nworsted by the overpowering might and divine arms of Achilles. For\nhere Homer could safely give him ample scope without endangering or\nobscuring the fame of that hero, to whom, with art never surpassed,\nhe has given an immeasurable, but yet not a forced or unnatural,\npreeminence.\n\n~_Hector second-rate as a hero._~\n\nThe place of Hector, then, as a fighting hero, is certainly no more\nthan second-rate; but so far, I venture to think, is Homer from having\nalmost equally weighted in his character the scales of good and evil\nrespectively, that, with the exception of his boastfulness, it is hard\nto fasten on him so much as a single fault. This boastfulness, and the\ndisproportion between pretension and performance, is not altogether\nconfined to him, but extends in some measure to the other Trojan\nwarriors, except Sarpedon; for example, to Polydamas, \u00c6neas, and Paris.\nSome of the best Greeks too, particularly Diomed, are touched with\nit[985]. And perhaps, in our more elaborated and artificial condition\nof society, we are not quite fair judges how far this practice, which\nmay seem to stand in sharp contrast with the prevailing modesty of\nthe Homeric heroes, may have been with them not a substitute for,\nbut a kind of embellishment and auxiliary to, their strength of soul\nand hand. With us it is justly suspected of implying a tendency to\nfall short in performance: with them it may have appertained to that\nstraightforwardness in the expression of inward emotions, which made\nthem (for example) weep so freely whenever the chord of sorrow was\ntouched within them.\n\n[985] Il. vi. 127.\n\nSo conspicuous is this quality, says Mure, that the name of the Trojan\nchief is to this day synonymous in our own tongue with \u2018bluster\u2019 or\n\u2018swagger[986].\u2019 But it is remarkable that the very same thing has\nhappened in the case of the word \u2018rodomontade,\u2019 which is derived from\nRodomonte, the most powerful, next to Ruggiero, of all the heroes of\nthe Furioso. This circumstance seems to make probable, what, without\nit, would be only possible, namely, that we misconstrue the phrases;\nand that, according to the true meaning, a rodomontader is a man\npassing himself off for a Rodomonte: and one who hectors is a man\nfalsely pretending to be a Hector.\n\n[986] Mure, i. 352.\n\nAnother very high authority, Lord Grenville, intimately acquainted with\nthe poems of Homer, supplies a marked example of the blinding force\nof literary traditions. For in his \u2018Nug\u00e6 Metric\u00e6[987],\u2019 he says: \u2018A\nhectoring fellow is ... strangely distorted in its use to express a\nmeaning almost the opposite of its original.\u2019 And he adds in a note:\n\u2018The Hector of Homer unites, we know,\n\n[987] p. 85.\n\n The mildest manners with the bravest mind.\u2019\n\nThe disposition of the Trojan chief to brag is, however, the more\noffensive, because it vents itself so much in the first person\nsingular; because in the case of Patroclus it seems to be associated\nwith an act at least unmanly; and because upon many occasions Hector\nshows even more than a prudential regard to his personal safety.\n\nWhat is more strange is, that his ordinary strain of boasting is\nchequered with passages of more genuine modesty and humility than are\nto be found in the speech of any other chieftain on either side. As for\nexample, when he acknowledges his marked inferiority to Achilles;\n\n \u03bf\u1f36\u03b4\u03b1 \u03b4\u2019 \u1f45\u03c4\u03b9 \u03c3\u1f7a \u03bc\u1f72\u03bd \u1f10\u03c3\u03b8\u03bb\u1f78\u03c2, \u1f10\u03b3\u1f7c \u03b4\u1f72 \u03c3\u03ad\u03b8\u03b5\u03bd \u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u1f7a \u03c7\u03b5\u03af\u03c1\u03c9\u03bd[988].\n\n[988] Il. xx. 434.\n\nBut above all, in the incomparable verse of his prayer over his infant\nson;\n\n \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c0\u03bf\u03c4\u03ad \u03c4\u03b9\u03c2 \u03b5\u1f34\u03c0\u1fc3, \u03c0\u03b1\u03c4\u03c1\u03cc\u03c2 \u03b3\u2019 \u1f45\u03b4\u03b5 \u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03bb\u1f78\u03bd \u1f00\u03bc\u03b5\u03af\u03bd\u03c9\u03bd[989].\n\n[989] Il. vi. 479.\n\n~_Hector\u2019s moral character._~\n\nHomer is of all poets the most free from any thing that can be called\ntrick; but perhaps it may be that the same necessity of his position,\nwhich obliged him to magnify Trojan prowess in words, while it falls so\nshort in deeds, has found its way from the narrative into the dramatic\npart of the poem. If so, then in Hector\u2019s boasts we may recognise Homer\nworking out his own general purpose rather than conforming with perfect\nfidelity to tradition, or finishing an ideally perfect portrait with\nthe power and exactitude, which he has applied to his greater Grecian\nheroes. Yet, be the cause what it may that has led Homer to exhibit in\nHector the disagreeable gift of a bragging disposition, Mure appears to\nshow less than his usual precision when he ascribes to Hector in one\nplace a partial[990], and in another a total, indifference to the moral\nguilt of his brother Paris.\n\n[990] Vol. i. pp. 349, 60.\n\nWhatever may be the reason, the fact undoubtedly is, that neither on\nthe Trojan, nor even on the Greek side, do we find displayed such a\nsense of the shameful crime of Paris as we might have anticipated\nfrom a first view of the manners and feelings of the age. As far as\nregards the Poet himself, we may read his indignant sense of it in\nthe portraiture he has been careful to give of Paris himself, and of\nhis ill fame among his countrymen; but, undoubtedly, although his act\nis everywhere described as the cause of war, it is nowhere spoken of,\namong those who had suffered by it, with the passion and indignation\nwhich we might suppose it would have aroused. Of all the Greeks,\nonly Menelaus alludes to it as an act of guilt. Various causes may\nbe assigned for this with more or less confidence. A probable one\nis, as we have seen[991], that the act partook of the character of\nan abduction or rape, in which enterprise and force gild or hide the\nugly features of crime. An unpopular form of criminality might then,\nas now, come off the more easily from being covered by another which\nis popular. It also without doubt appears, that another reason may be\nthe length of time which, in any view of the case, must have elapsed\nsince the act had taken place. But perhaps the solution of the question\nis to be mainly found in this consideration, common to modern with\nancient times, that the causes of war are apt to be swallowed up in\nits circumstances. In entering upon the arbitrement of the sword, men\ndo not choose a fixed position, but they embark upon a stream, always\npowerful and often ungovernable. When once the armament was on the\nshores of the Hellespont, there would be on both sides the motive of\nmilitary honour, and, besides this, with the Trojans, the defence of\ntheir families and homes, with the Greeks the hope of plunder and of\nlicense. Hence, even after the Greeks are weakened and discouraged by\nthe secession of Achilles, it is not from them, but from the Trojans,\nthat a proposal proceeds for deciding the case of Helen by single\ncombat. Hence, upon the shameful escape of Paris from fulfilling this\nengagement, after his defeat by Menelaus, we find little expression of\nindignation on one side, and no confession of wrong on the other. But\nthe criticism of Mure seems to amount to this; that it was a capital\nfault on the part of Hector, not to have his mind constantly full of a\nquestion, which was rarely thought of at all by any one on either side,\nexcept Paris and Menelaus, the persons most directly interested.\n\n[991] See sup. Ilios, pp. 196-205.\n\nIt is plain, however, that Homer has represented Hector as keenly\nfeeling and resenting, not only his brother\u2019s cowardice, but his\nsensuality. Twice does he address him as mad with lust, and as a\ndeceiver of women[992]: out of his five speeches addressed to Paris,\nonly one is not reproachful; and in the only one which extends beyond\na few lines he barbs his reproaches on the score of cowardice by fully\nsetting forth his guilt, both morally and as towards his country, in\nthat, being a coward, he was also a ravisher[993]. The charge, however,\nalso takes a more specific form. We see that Hector was greatly\ndelighted, \u1f10\u03c7\u03ac\u03c1\u03b7 \u03bc\u03ad\u03b3\u03b1 when his rebuke[994] had stirred up Paris to\noffer to stake the whole issue on a single combat with Menelaus. But\nit is said, why, when the battle had been lost, did not Hector enforce\nthe terms of the bargain? The answer seems to be this. We stand here\nat a juncture in the poem, where its theurgy supersedes its human\nmechanism. It is presumable that this very thing was about to be done,\nwhen the order of events was interrupted by the counsel of the gods.\nAgamemnon had at the close of the Third Book in due course demanded\nHelen. Jupiter immediately apprehended the consequences; he saw that if\nfaith were kept, Achilles would neither be avenged nor glorified; and\nhe accordingly invited the assembly on Olympus to determine, whether\nHelen should be rendered back or not. When this had been settled in\nthe negative, the question was how to prevent it; and it was done, on\nthe suggestion of Juno, by causing Pandarus to renew the war without\nthe privity of Hector. This shows pretty clearly that the restoration\nof Helen was about to take place, had not the gods interfered; and\ntherefore amply suffices to relieve Hector from reproach, who, it may\nbe observed, takes no part until, when the armies have been long in\nconflict, he has been stung by the reproaches of Sarpedon (v. 493).\nIf censure be due to the arrangement, it must be lodged against the\nPoet, and not against one of his personages, who simply does not appear\nbecause there is no part for him to play.\n\n[992] Il. iii. 39 and xiii. 769.\n\n[993] Il. iii. 46-51.\n\n[994] Ib. 76.\n\n~_His responsibilities beyond his strength._~\n\nLet us now proceed to a somewhat more general view of the character of\nHector.\n\nHe occupies in the Homeric tradition a place altogether peculiar,\nas, at the time of the poem, the sole eminently warlike member of an\nunwarlike family; as the general of a divided and incongruous army; and\nas singly responsible in chief for the safety of his country, while he\nhas not been invested with the dignity and power of king. As to the\nfirst of these points, we have the direct testimony of Homer:\n\n \u03bf\u1f36\u03bf\u03c2 \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u1f10\u03c1\u03cd\u03b5\u03c4\u03bf \u1f3c\u03bb\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd \u1f1d\u03ba\u03c4\u03c9\u03c1[995].\n\n[995] Il. vi. 403.\n\nOf his brothers, Deiphobus alone is represented as in any degree\ndeserving or sharing his confidence. Of his relatives, Polydamas\nappears to have been a rival in the council, \u00c6neas in the succession to\npolitical supremacy: and these were the two most considerable persons\nof the class. It has, I conceive, been shown to be probable, that\nParis was his senior[996]; and that he held his place in Troy by merit\nagainst age. His uneasy relations with his allies might be inferred\nfrom their constituting the great bulk of his force, even were they\nnot more distinctly betokened by the reproach of Sarpedon, and by the\nspeech in which he himself enters on the subject. Together with his\npower over the army, he had the virtual charge of the safety of the\nstate, and we see signs of his influence there; but yet he did not\ndirect the policy of Troy: for the only important measure, which is\nrecorded as having been taken by the Trojans, namely the rejection of\nthe proposals of Antenor to give back Helen to the Greeks, was taken in\nhis absence and without his knowledge. Thus we see in Hector\u2019s case,\nabundantly accumulated, the elements of a false position. And, in a\nword, in order to estimate his character aright, we must keep in full\nview that inferiority of the Trojans, subjects not less than princes,\nas respects political genius and organization, to which the Iliad, when\ncarefully examined, bears ample testimony.\n\n[996] Ilios, pp. 219-23.\n\nUnder the weight of public charge, as Agamemnon in the Greek camp, so,\nand yet more, Hector on the Trojan side, appears to reel; so, and yet\nmore; for, in Hector\u2019s case, political power is crippled by his not\nbeing in actual possession of the supreme station, while responsibility\nis edged and enhanced by his being not only the head to devise, but\nalso the right hand to execute. In neither of the two, however, do we\nfind strong will, definiteness, and constancy of purpose, or unfailing\ncourage. But Agamemnon has the advantage of both wiser counsels around\nhim, and stronger arms than his own near his side. Hector has little\naid. Sarpedon alone of the Trojan commanders (for \u00c6neas really does\nnothing) can be called a warrior of note; and his inferiority to\nPatroclus, notwithstanding his thorough gallantry, is decorated rather\nthan hidden by the stage machinery of divine consultations on the\nsubject of his death. But as Sarpedon in the field plays a part much\ninferior to the corresponding one of Diomed or Ajax, so Polydamas,\nthe Nestor of the Trojans, is not equal to his kindly and genial\ncounterpart. Four times he gives his counsel in the field. Twice he\nprefaces it with personal imputations (xii. 211, and xiii. 726); and\nwhen, in the Twelfth Book (211), he recommends the abandonment of the\nassault on the ships in deference to an omen, feeling and judgment are\nalike on the side of Hector\u2019s reply, who overturns his augury by the\nknown (though, as they proved, deceitful) counsels of Jupiter, and\nemphatically pleads against doubtful signs the indubitable dictates of\npatriotism.\n\n~_His bright side in the affections._~\n\nThe prophetic gift, for whatever reason, is assigned pretty largely\nby Homer to the Trojans. Without entering into the case of Cassandra,\nit attaches to Helenus, and also (xii. 238) apparently to Polydamas,\nwho undertakes to interpret a sign. Hector himself had the weight of\nprescience on his breast, for he tells Andromache[997] that he well\nknows the day of ruin is at hand; and, when he is at the point of\ndeath, he prognosticates the coming fate of Achilles. The concentrated\nstrain of his duties and his previsions is too much for the strength\nof a character which, from the intellectual or dramatic point of view,\nis impulsive, fluctuating, and unequal, and which must therefore\nundoubtedly be set down as so far secondary. But when we pass from\nintellect to moral tone, from \u03b4\u03b9\u03ac\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9\u03b1 to \u1f26\u03b8\u03bf\u03c2, we certainly find\nin Hector one among the most touching, the most human, of all the\ndelineations of masculine character in the Iliad. In him alone has\nHomer presented to us that most commanding and most moving combination,\nof a woman\u2019s gentleness and deep affection with warlike and heroic\nstrength. If the hand of Hector was far weaker than that of the son\nof Peleus, the tempestuous griefs of Achilles do not open to us a\ncharacter nearly so attractive as the depth of the gentle affections\nof Hector, and the mildness warmed into such brilliancy by his martial\nfame. \u2018Thy love to me was wonderful; passing the love of women[998].\u2019\nThe constancy and tenacity of the attachments of Ulysses come out in\nhis relations to Penelope and Telemachus: but, dwelling harmoniously\nin a character of far broader scope and more varied sensibilities, the\npeculiar element of a tenderness matching that of woman is the only one\nthey do not contain. Hector is neither a warrior nor a statesman after\nthe primary, that is the Ach\u00e6an, type: but for a model of intensity and\nsoftness in the love of a father and a husband, it is to him that we\nmust repair, in the incomparable scene by the Sc\u00e6an gate; incomparable,\nunless we may compare it with that other scene, so near at hand, where\nthe sight of young Polydorus slain, piercing him to the heart, raised\nhim in his last hour to the heights of heroism; and where the interest\nand sympathy, that he has attracted all along, are absorbed into\nadmiration of the real sublimity of that closing hour, when he resolved\nto be for ever famous at least in his too certain death.\n\n[997] Il. vi. 447.\n\n[998] 2 Samuel i. 26.\n\nProbably a main reason why Hector has become the groundwork of the\nmodern Orlando is, that no one of the Homeric heroes exhibits a\ncombination of qualities supplying so appropriate a basis for the\ncharacter of a Christian hero; a tone so sensibly approximating to\nthat of the gospel. Partly because of those acts of piety towards the\nImmortals, which can hardly receive in the case of Hector any but a\nfavourable construction, and which drew down the all but unanimous\ncompassion of the Olympian assembly on his remains; but partly also,\nand yet more, in that mild, just, and tender estimate of character,\nwhich not only secured his constant gentleness of demeanour towards\nHelen, but made him her protector against the acrimony of others, and\nrendered him considerate and kind even to Paris[999], so soon as he saw\nhim disposed at length to be personally active in the mortal struggle\nhe had brought upon his country. There is, perhaps, no virtue more\nespecially Christian, than the temper which thus equitably and gently\nmakes allowances for human weakness, particularly if it be weakness by\nthe effects of which we ourselves have suffered.\n\n[999] Il. vi. 521.\n\nThe employment, however, of Hector for the purposes of Christian poetry\nhas certainly had the effect of perverting for us the true Homeric\ntradition. But, in order to understand this, we must throw aside the\nHector of our proverbs or our plays, travel back to the Iliad, and set\nout anew from the starting-point of its great author. We must there\nbe content to take him not as a pure effort of imagination aimed at\nthe production of an ideal man, but as a part of the poem of Homer,\nsubordinated like every other part of it to its main purpose, as well\nas to the general laws of historical consistency. In modelling the\nseveral heroes, he made the exigencies of his Hector yield to the\nexigencies of his Achilles, who could have no real competitor. Nor,\nwith the fine characteristic sense he has everywhere shown of the\nnational differences between Greek and Trojan, could he build up his\nHector on the same foundations with his Greek heroes, or give him that\nstrength and tenacity of tissue which belongs to the European and\nAch\u00e6an character. He could not equip him with either the dauntless\nchivalry in battle, or the profound unswerving sagacity in council,\nwhich were reserved for the kings of his own race, and for those most\nnearly allied to them. He has imparted to the character of the chief\nTrojan hero, no less than to that of the Trojan people at large, a\ndecided Asiatic tinge, which modifies their community of colour with\nthe properly European races. In such characters, instinct and sentiment\ntake oftentimes the place of inquiry and reflection, and impulse\ndoes the work of conviction: the ideas of right, order, consistency,\nmoral dignity and self-respect, are less clearly, less symmetrically,\nconceived. Though in particular cases, such as that of Hector, the\ndeficiency may be made up by a liberal and full development of the most\naffectionate emotions, we feel, in comparing it with the Greeks, that\nwe are dealing with a more contracted type of manhood: as if morally,\nno less than locally, we had gone back with Homer one full stage\nnearer to the cradle of our race, and had arrested and fixed the human\ncharacter at the very point where it is neither child nor man.\n\n~_Inequality of his character._~\n\nThe character of Hector, as it has been here interpreted, does not give\nthat satisfaction to the mind, which thorough clearness and oneness\nwould impart. His intellectual qualities and his affections are not\non the same scale; his martial character jars even with itself. Yet\nperhaps in these very circumstances we may upon consideration find\nbut fresh reason to admire the skill of Homer, and that rarely erring\ninstinct which forbade him to forget his whole in running after his\ndetails.\n\nHis first object seems to have been to give the fullest and boldest\nprominence to the colossal shape, moral as well as physical, of\nAchilles, and therefore to tone down whatever could diminish its\neffect. And here the point of danger evidently lay in Agamemnon;\nthe chief of the army was too likely to be the chief of the poem.\nAccordingly he has broken the unity of that character, and has\nchequered it with weakness in various forms. But this was not all: he\nhad to keep the Greeks before the Trojans, as well as Achilles before\nthe Greeks; not only that he might consult his popularity, but that he\nmight indulge the genial vein of his poesy, and follow the impulses\nof his patriotism, in maintaining high above all question their\nintellectual and martial superiority. Had this, however, been all,\nhis task would have been easy; he would then have had only to depress\ntheir opponents in all the properties that attract admiration. But if\nhe had simply done this, if he had cut off the interest and sympathies\nof his readers from the Trojans by general disparagement, he would have\ndeprived Greek valour of its choicest crown. It is a noble necessity of\nwar that, even in the interest of countrymen, we cannot do injustice to\nadversaries, without feeling the offence recoil on our own heads.\n\nThus it was impossible for Homer to make his Trojan hero at once great\nand consistent; and if he has made Hector unequal, it was to avoid\nmaking him mean. By chequering his martial daring with boastfulness,\nand with occasional weakness of purpose, he has effectually provided\nagainst any interference, from this quarter, to the prejudice of those\nchieftains whose praises he was to sing in the courts and throngs of\nGreece. Thus he has left the field quite clear for expatiating on their\nmilitary virtues; and if, for sufficient reasons, he has departed from\nhis rule in the case of Agamemnon, who receives his compensation in\nsuperiority of rank and power, all his other Greek characters, bearing\nforward parts in the poem, are constructed in faultless conformity to\nthe idea, or modification of an idea, which he had selected for the\nbasis of each. There is not a flaw in the picture of Achilles, Diomed,\nAjax, Nestor, Menelaus, or Ulysses. Not that all these are of a type\nequally elevated, or alike wonderful; but that there is no one thing\nin any of them which does not manifestly conform to its type, and no\none thing consequently which jars with any other. Having thus given to\nhis countrymen a clear and marked ascendancy in what then at least were\nthe only great and governing elements of human society, the strong\nmind, and the strong hand, he does his best for the Trojans with what\nremained, that is to say, with the softer affections of domestic life,\nadding only so much of the martial element as was needful to make them\nno discreditable adversaries for his countrymen. Thus, consistently\nwith all his poetic objects, he has been enabled to present us, to say\nnothing of the highly respectable character of Hecuba, with the three\nunsurpassed pictures of Priam, of Andromache, and perhaps even most, of\nHector.\n\n~_The character of Helen._~\n\nII. Let us now pass on to a production never surpassed by the mind or\nhand of man.\n\nThe character of Argeian Helen occupies a large place in Grecian\nhistory, and is of extreme importance to the entire structure of\nthe Iliad. On behalf of the first of these propositions, we call as\nwitnesses her temple at Sparta, and the Encomium of Isocrates. As to\nthe second, the reason is expressed in some of Homer\u2019s noblest oratory:\n\n \u03c4\u03af \u03b4\u1f72 \u03b4\u03b5\u1fd6 \u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03b5\u03bc\u03b9\u03b6\u03ad\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9 \u03a4\u03c1\u03ce\u03b5\u03c3\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd\n \u1f08\u03c1\u03b3\u03b5\u03af\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2; \u03c4\u03af \u03b4\u1f72 \u03bb\u03b1\u1f78\u03bd \u1f00\u03bd\u03ae\u03b3\u03b1\u03b3\u03b5\u03bd \u1f10\u03bd\u03b8\u03ac\u03b4\u2019 \u1f00\u03b3\u03b5\u03af\u03c1\u03b1\u03c2\n \u1f08\u03c4\u03c1\u03b5\u03af\u03b4\u03b7\u03c2; \u1f22 \u03bf\u1f50\u03c7 \u1f19\u03bb\u03ad\u03bd\u03b7\u03c2 \u1f15\u03bd\u03b5\u03ba\u2019 \u1f20\u03cb\u03ba\u03cc\u03bc\u03bf\u03b9\u03bf[1000];\n\n[1000] Il. ix. 337.\n\nWas she a vicious woman and a seductress, or was she more nearly a\nvictim and a penitent? Do the laws of poetical verisimilitude and\nbeauty, as they were understood by Homer, allow us to suppose that he\nintended to represent his countrymen, of whom he has presented to us\nso lofty a conception, as agitating the world, forsaking home, pouring\nforth their blood, and throwing their country into certain confusion,\nfor the sake of a vile and worthless character? Certainly there were\nperiods, when in the Greek mind the worship of beauty was so thoroughly\ndissociated from all which beauty ought to typify, that an Iliad so\nconstructed might have been approved. But these were periods long after\nHomer\u2019s flesh had mouldered in the grave.\n\nThe present inquiry has nothing to do with the opinion that Helen\nwas, or that she was not, an historical personage. For my own part, I\nknow of no reason except discrepancies of mere traditional chronology\nfor disbelieving her existence. These seem to arise entirely from\nthe practice of putting on a par with Homer tales of very inferior\nauthority to his. But even apart from this, considering what, under\nordinary circumstances, the chronology of pre-historic times is likely\nto be, and how many more chances there are for the preservation of\ngreat events in outline, than for a careful adjustment of their\nrelative times, I cannot but think that difficulties arising from\nother legends as to Helen, and bearing simply upon time, form a very\ninsufficient reason for the wholesale rejection of belief in her\nexistence. Even if, however, she never existed at all, it still is not\none whit the less reasonably to be presumed, that Homer in fictions\nconcerning her would be governed here and elsewhere by all the laws,\nincluding the moral laws, of his art.\n\nNeither is it now the question, whether Helen was the model of an\nheroic character. That is probably inconsistent, for the earliest\ntimes of Greece, with her adulterous relation to Paris and afterwards\nto Deiphobus. But there is a vast space between a faultless and a\nworthless woman. The idea of Helen represented by the later tradition,\nfrom the Greek tragedians downwards, is strictly the latter idea: and\nthis representation has naturally occupied the popular mind, which is\ndeprived of the power of access to the remote Homeric picture. Now\nit seems to be plain that, if this representation be substantially\ntrue, it is a great reproach to the bard of the Iliad as a bard, and\nstamps him as one, who has done his best to poison morality at its\nfountain-head. For there can be no question, that he has made his Helen\nhighly attractive, and that he intends her to possess our sympathies.\nIs it then true, or is it false? Let us proceed to examine the evidence.\n\nIn the Iliad we meet more than once with the line,\n\n \u03c4\u03af\u03c3\u03b1\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9 \u03b4\u2019 \u1f19\u03bb\u03ad\u03bd\u03b7\u03c2 \u1f41\u03c1\u03bc\u03ae\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03ac \u03c4\u03b5 \u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd\u03b1\u03c7\u03ac\u03c2 \u03c4\u03b5[1001]\u00b7\n\n[1001] Il. ii. 356, 590.\n\nand expositors, in order to avoid ascribing to Helen any personal\nwrongs, or the representation of her as rather a sufferer than an\noffender, have resorted to a forced construction of the passage, and\nhave interpreted the words as referring to the expedition undertaken,\nand the griefs suffered, _on account of_ Helen[1002].\n\n[1002] See Heyne on Il. ii. 356. G. C. Crusius (Hanover. 1845, on do.)\nChapman translates in the same sense; but Voss refers the outsetting\nand the groans to Helen herself; so too the Scholiasts.\n\n~_Homer\u2019s intention with respect to it._~\n\nUnless this forced construction be the one intended by Homer, the\npopular conception of her must at once explode. According to the direct\nand natural construction, the Greeks made war to avenge the wrong she\nhad suffered, and the groans which that wrong had drawn from her.\nAnd it is to be observed that this line[1003] is put into the mouth\nof Menelaus, whom it is very natural to represent as most eager to\navenge the wrongs of his wife, but somewhat far-fetched to represent\nas thinking of revenge for the trouble of the expedition he had so\nkeenly promoted. The line, in fact, unless justifiably strained by\nthese expositors, is conclusive in support of the belief that the only\nevil which can justly be imputed to the Homeric Helen simply amounts\nto this, that she was not a woman of perfect virtue backed by absolute\nand indomitable heroism. Pope has rather rudely approximated towards\nrectifying the prevalent impression in a note[1004], where he observes\nthat in all she says of herself \u2018there is scarce a word that is not big\nwith repentance and good nature.\u2019\n\n[1003] Il. ii. 590.\n\n[1004] On Pope\u2019s Il. iii. 165.\n\nBefore examining the direct evidence with respect to the Homeric Helen,\nlet us advert to some which is indirect. And in the first place it may\nbe observed, that Menelaus never expresses the slightest resentment\nagainst her, or appears to have considered her as having in any manner\ninjured him. Next, Priam, whose character is evidently intended to\nattract a good deal of our sympathy and respect, treated her as a\ndaughter:\n\n \u1f11\u03ba\u03c5\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u03b4\u1f72, \u03c0\u03b1\u03c4\u1f74\u03c1 \u1f63\u03c2, \u1f24\u03c0\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2 \u03b1\u1f30\u03b5\u03af[1005].\n\n[1005] Il. xxiv. 770.\n\nNor was this a mere figure; for in the Third Book he addresses her as\n\u03c6\u03af\u03bb\u03bf\u03bd \u03c4\u03ad\u03ba\u03bf\u03c2[1006], and makes her sit down by his side. In conformity\nwith this picture, her sister-in-law Laodice addresses her as \u03bd\u03cd\u03bc\u03c6\u03b1\n\u03c6\u03af\u03bb\u03b7[1007]. Priam goes on to acquit her of all responsibility in his\neyes with regard to the war:\n\n[1006] Il. iii. 162.\n\n[1007] Ibid. 130.\n\n \u03bf\u1f54\u03c4\u03b9 \u03bc\u03bf\u03b9 \u03b1\u1f30\u03c4\u03af\u03b7 \u1f10\u03c3\u03c3\u1f76, \u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u03af \u03bd\u03cd \u03bc\u03bf\u03b9 \u03b1\u1f34\u03c4\u03b9\u03bf\u03af \u03b5\u1f30\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd.\n\nAnd that this was not meant to cover Paris, we may learn from the many\npassages, which show us how the general sentiment of Troy detested him.\nHad Helen been of the character which is commonly imputed to her, such\nan absolution as this would probably not have been ascribed to Priam;\nwhile most certainly it would not have been recorded to the honour of\nHector that he always restrained those, who were disposed to taunt her\non account of the woes she had brought upon Troy[1008].\n\n[1008] Il. xxiv. 768-72.\n\nShe describes herself indeed as the object of general horror in Troy\n(\u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 \u03b4\u03ad \u03bc\u03b5 \u03c0\u03b5\u03c6\u03c1\u03af\u03ba\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd[1009]). But these words do no more than\nstate the impression, at a moment of agony, on her own humbled and\nself-mistrusting mind: while, even had they given a faithful picture of\nthe manner in which she was regarded by the Trojans, still they might\nwell be explained with reference to the woes of which she had been at\nleast the occasion, and the sentiment they describe might as naturally\nhave been felt, even had she been the lawfully obtained wife of Paris.\n\n[1009] Ibid. 775.\n\nThere are two other passages, which may seem at first sight to betoken\na state of mind adverse to her among the Greeks. But the explanation\nof them is simply this, that the cause of woe is naturally enough\ndenounced on account of the misfortunes it has entailed, irrespective\nof the question whether or in what degree it may be a guilty\ncause[1010]. Thus Achilles calls Helen \u1fe5\u03b9\u03b3\u03b5\u03b4\u03ac\u03bd\u03b7, \u2018that horrible Helen;\u2019\nbut it is only when her abduction has produced to him the bitter and\nharrowing affliction of the death of Patroclus. When he mentions her\nin the magnificent speech of the Ninth Book to the envoys, she is\n\u1f19\u03bb\u03ad\u03bd\u03b7 \u1f20\u03b0\u03ba\u03bf\u03bc\u03bf\u03c2, \u2018the fair-haired Helen.\u2019 Now, if she had been vile, the\ncourse of his argument must have constrained him then to state it. For\nhe was reasoning thus: May I not resent the loss of Briseis, who was\ndear to me (\u03b8\u03c5\u03bc\u03b1\u03c1\u03ae\u03c2[1011]), when the sons of Atreus have made their\nloss of Helen the cause of the war? Had Helen been worthless, it would\nhave added greatly to the stringency of his argument to have drawn the\ncontrast in that particular, between the woman whom Agamemnon had taken\naway, and the woman that he was seeking, by means of the convulsive\nstruggle of a nation, to recover.\n\n[1010] Il. xvi.\n\n[1011] Il. ix. 336.\n\nThe other passage is in Od. xxiii., where Penelope, after the\nrecognition of her husband, speaks of Helen in these words:--\n\n \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03b4\u2019 \u1f24\u03c4\u03bf\u03b9 \u1fe5\u03ad\u03be\u03b1\u03b9 \u03b8\u03b5\u1f78\u03c2 \u1f64\u03c1\u03bf\u03c1\u03b5\u03bd \u1f14\u03c1\u03b3\u03bf\u03bd \u1f00\u03b5\u03b9\u03ba\u03ad\u03c2[1012].\n\n[1012] Od. xxiii. 222.\n\nBut even in this only passage where the act of Helen is so described,\nseveral points are to be observed. First, it is referred to a\npreternatural influence, which is not the manner of this Poet in cases\nat least of deep and deliberate crime; secondly, no epithet of infamy\nis applied to her; thirdly, we must observe the drift of the speaker.\nPenelope is excusing herself to Ulysses, for her own extreme caution\nand reserve in admitting his identity. Therefore she is naturally led\nto enhance the dreadful nature of the occurrence where a wife gives\nherself over into the power of any man, other than one known to be\nher husband; and this, whether the act be voluntary or involuntary.\nAccordingly she refers to the act of Helen rather than to the agent,\nand treats it as horrible; but avoids charging it as wilful.\n\n~_Homer\u2019s Epithets for Helen._~\n\nOn the other hand, we may observe that the general tenour of the\nepithets bestowed upon Helen leans on the whole towards the laudatory\nsense.\n\nShe is\n\n \u03b5\u1f50\u03c0\u03b1\u03c4\u03ad\u03c1\u03b5\u03b9\u03b1, the high-born; Il. vi. 292; Od. xxii. 227; most probably\n agreeing in sense with the next phrase.\n\n \u0394\u03b9\u1f78\u03c2 \u1f10\u03ba\u03b3\u03b5\u03b3\u03b1\u03c5\u1fd6\u03b1, the child of Jupiter; Il. iii. 199; _et alibi_.\n\n \u03ba\u03bf\u03cd\u03c1\u03b7 \u0394\u03b9\u1f78\u03c2, the daughter of Jupiter; Il. iii. 426.\n\n \u03b4\u1fd6\u03b1 \u03b3\u03c5\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9\u03ba\u1ff6\u03bd, the excellent, or flower of women; Il. iii. 171, 228;\n and Od. iv. 305; xv. 106.\n\n \u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u03bb\u03b9\u03c0\u03ac\u03c1\u1fc3\u03bf\u03c2, of the beautiful cheeks; Od. xv. 123.\n\n \u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u03bb\u03af\u03ba\u03bf\u03bc\u03bf\u03c2; Od. xv. 58; \u1f20\u03b0\u03ba\u03bf\u03bc\u03bf\u03c2; Il. iii. 329, _et alibi_, the\n fair-haired.\n\n \u03bb\u03b5\u03c5\u03ba\u03ce\u03bb\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2, the white-armed; Il. iii. 121; Od. xxii. 227.\n\n \u03c4\u03b1\u03bd\u03cd\u03c0\u03b5\u03c0\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2, the well-rounded; Il. iii. 228; _et alibi_.\n\n And lastly, \u1f08\u03c1\u03b3\u03b5\u03af\u03b7, the Argive; Il. ii. 161; and in no less than\n twelve other places.\n\nNo one of these appellations carries the smallest taint or censure.\nThe epithet \u03b4\u1fd6\u03b1 in all probability applies to her personal beauty and\nmajesty, as we find it used of Paris and of Clytemnestra. It would\nappear, however, that the use of the term Argive or Argeian, in many\npassages where it is not required for mere description, has a special\nforce. For Homer never exhibits that which is simply Greek in any other\nthan an honourable light; and in calling Helen Argeian, he certainly\nexpresses something of general sympathy towards her. No other person,\nexcept only Juno, is called Argeian. Plainly the effect of his epithets\nfor her as a whole is quite out of harmony with the ideas, which the\nlater tradition has attached to her name. A yet more marked indication\nin her favour, than any of them taken singly will supply, may be\nderived from his likening her, in the palace of Menelaus, to Diana:\n\n \u1f24\u03bb\u03c5\u03b8\u03b5\u03bd, \u1f08\u03c1\u03c4\u03ad\u03bc\u03b9\u03b4\u03b9 \u03c7\u03c1\u03c5\u03c3\u03b7\u03bb\u03b1\u03ba\u03ac\u03c4\u1ff3 \u03b5\u1f30\u03ba\u03c5\u1fd6\u03b1[1013].\n\n[1013] Od. iv. 122.\n\nHe certainly would not have associated by this comparison one, of whom\nhe meant us to think ill, with the chaste and even severe majesty of\nhis ever-pure Diana (\u1f0c\u03c1\u03c4\u03b5\u03bc\u03b9\u03c2 \u1f01\u03b3\u03bd\u03ae).\n\nSo much with regard to the designations applied to Helen in the Iliad\nand Odyssey. Next, with regard to her demeanour. It is admitted to be,\nso far as the matter of chastity is concerned, without any fault other\nthan the inevitable one of her position. Besides other qualities that\nwill be noticed presently, she appears in the light of a refined and\nfeeling, a blameless and even matronly person; a character, which, as\nwe shall see, her abduction by Paris from Menelaus did not disentitle\nher to bear.\n\nWe must beware of applying unconditionally, to women placed under\nconditions widely different, ideas so specifically Christian as those\nthat belong to the absolute sanctity of the marriage tie. We must\nrather look for the moral aspect of the case in the opinions of the\nperiod, and in the particular circumstances which attended the rupture\nof the bond in the given instance, than assume it from the naked fact\nthat there was a rupture.\n\n~_The case of Bathsheba._~\n\nIt may seem not unfair to compare the case of Helen with the somewhat\nsimilar case of Bathsheba among the Jews. If on the one hand we are\nbound to bear in mind the inferior station of the latter personage, on\nthe other it is to be remembered that the Greeks were further removed\nfrom the light of Divine Revelation. Now we are not accustomed to look\nupon the character of Bathsheba as infamous, though she lived with King\nDavid as one among his wives, while Uriah, her former husband, who\nhad been robbed of her, was sent to certain death on her account; and\nthis, so far as we are informed, without awakening in her any peculiar\nemotions of sympathy, sorrow, reluctance, or remorse. And this, as I\ntake it, mainly for two reasons--first, that we have no signs of any\npassion, and in particular of any antecedent passion, for the offending\nking on her part; secondly, that she does not appear to have been\notherwise than passively a party to the abduction.\n\nIt is in the capacity of wife, and only wife, to Paris that Helen\nappears to us in the Iliad: where she herself speaks of Menelaus as her\n\u03c0\u03c1\u03cc\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c0\u03cc\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2[1014].\n\n[1014] Il. iii. 429 cf. 163. See Ilios, pp. 200, 203.\n\nNow the presumed reasons for not regarding the character of Bathsheba\nas infamous apply with nearly equal force to Helen. Indeed the\ncharacter of Helen in one point stands higher in Homer than that of\nBathsheba in the Old Testament, because she lived with Paris as a\nrecognised and only wife, and because of her gentleness, and especially\nof her repentance. Of these as to Bathsheba, we know nothing; but such\npleas as tell for her tell in the main also for Helen. We have no\nindication, either in the Iliad or in the Odyssey, of her having at\nany time felt either passion or affection towards the worthless Paris.\nAbove all, as it will be attempted to prove, the language of the poems\nnot only does not sustain the idea that she willingly left the house of\nher husband Menelaus, but it shows something which closely approaches\nto the direct contrary.\n\nBut there is no method of measuring so accurately the view and\nintention of Homer as to the impression we were meant to receive of\nHelen, as by comparing the language he applies to her with the widely\ndifferent terms in which he describes the conduct of Clytemnestra, in\nconjunction with \u00c6gisthus, during the absence of Agamemnon:\n\n \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03b4\u2019 \u1f10\u03b8\u03ad\u03bb\u03c9\u03bd \u1f10\u03b8\u03ad\u03bb\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd \u1f00\u03bd\u03ae\u03b3\u03b1\u03b3\u03b5\u03bd \u1f45\u03bd\u03b4\u03b5 \u03b4\u03cc\u03bc\u03bf\u03bd\u03b4\u03b5[1015].\n\n[1015] Od. iii. 272.\n\nIn speaking of her own abduction, Helen indeed uses the word\n\u1f24\u03b3\u03b1\u03b3\u03b5[1016]. And again in her sharp expostulation with Aphrodite,\nshe says, \u2018What, will you take me (\u1f04\u03be\u03b5\u03b9\u03c2) to some other Phrygian or\nM\u00e6onian city, where you may have a favourite[1017]?\u2019 Now this by no\nmeans implies her having acted freely; the word \u1f04\u03b3\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd is that commonly\napplied to the carrying off captives from a conquered city, as \u03c6\u03ad\u03c1\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd\nis to the removal of inanimate objects. Undoubtedly in one of her\npassages of self-reproach she says[1018]:\n\n[1016] Od. iv. 262; Il. xxiv. 764.\n\n[1017] Il. iii. 400-2.\n\n[1018] Ibid. 174.\n\n \u03c5\u1f31\u03ad\u03ca \u03c3\u1ff7 \u1f11\u03c0\u03cc\u03bc\u03b7\u03bd, \u03b8\u03ac\u03bb\u03b1\u03bc\u03bf\u03bd \u03b3\u03bd\u03c9\u03c4\u03bf\u03cd\u03c2 \u03c4\u03b5 \u03bb\u03b9\u03c0\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c3\u03b1.\n\nBut, in the first place, it is neither here nor anywhere else said that\nher flight was voluntary; and on the other hand, without doubt, it is\nnot to be pretended that she had resisted with the spirit of a martyr.\nThe real question is as to the first and fatal act of quitting her\nhusband, whether it was premeditated, and whether it was of her free\nchoice. Now both branches of this question appear to be conclusively\ndecided by the word \u1f01\u03c1\u03c0\u03ac\u03be\u03b1\u03c2 in the following passage[1019], spoken by\nParis:\n\n[1019] Ibid. 442-4.\n\n \u03bf\u1f50 \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u03c0\u03ce\u03c0\u03bf\u03c4\u03ad \u03bc\u2019 \u1f67\u03b4\u03ad \u03b3\u2019 \u1f1c\u03c1\u03c9\u03c2 \u03c6\u03c1\u03ad\u03bd\u03b1\u03c2 \u1f00\u03bc\u03c6\u03b5\u03ba\u03ac\u03bb\u03c5\u03c8\u03b5\u03bd,\n \u03bf\u1f50\u03b4\u2019 \u1f45\u03c4\u03b5 \u03c3\u03b5 \u03c0\u03c1\u1ff6\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd \u039b\u03b1\u03ba\u03b5\u03b4\u03b1\u03af\u03bc\u03bf\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f10\u03be \u1f10\u03c1\u03b1\u03c4\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd\u1fc6\u03c2\n \u1f14\u03c0\u03bb\u03b5\u03bf\u03bd \u1f01\u03c1\u03c0\u03ac\u03be\u03b1\u03c2 \u1f10\u03bd \u03c0\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf\u03c0\u03cc\u03c1\u03bf\u03b9\u03c3\u03b9 \u03bd\u03ad\u03b5\u03c3\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd.\n\nAnd the rest of the passage corroborates the evidence, by showing that\nshe was free from any act of guilt at the time when the voyage was\ncommenced. The representation of Menelaus himself, in the Thirteenth\nIliad, accords with the speech of Paris. He charges that Prince and his\nabettors not with having corrupted his wife, but with having carried\nher off,\n\n \u03bf\u1f35 \u03bc\u03b5\u03c5 \u03ba\u03bf\u03c5\u03c1\u03b9\u03b4\u03af\u03b7\u03bd \u1f04\u03bb\u03bf\u03c7\u03bf\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03ba\u03c4\u03ae\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1 \u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03bb\u1f70\n \u03bc\u1f70\u03c8 \u03bf\u1f34\u03c7\u03b5\u03c3\u03b8\u2019 \u1f00\u03bd\u03ac\u03b3\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2, \u1f10\u03c0\u03b5\u1f76 \u03c6\u03b9\u03bb\u03ad\u03b5\u03c3\u03b8\u03b5 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u2019 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1fc7[1020].\n\n[1020] Il. xiii. 626.\n\nAgain, in the only place where Helen refers jointly to her own share\nand to that of Paris in the matter[1021], she distinguishes their\nrespective parts, saying to Hector, \u2018You have had to toil on account of\nme, shameless that I am, and \u1f08\u03bb\u03b5\u03be\u03ac\u03bd\u03b4\u03c1\u03bf\u03c5 \u1f11\u03bd\u03b5\u03ba\u2019 \u1f04\u03c4\u03b7\u03c2, on account of the\nsin of Paris.\u2019\n\n[1021] Il. vi. 355.\n\n~_Picture of Helen in Il._ iii.~\n\nLet us now follow the character of Helen, as it is exhibited in life\nand motion before us by the Poet. In the Third Book, when Paris is\nabout to encounter Menelaus, Iris, in the form of her sister-in-law\nLaodice, announces the fact to Helen, and lets her know that her own\nfate is suspended on the issue, which will decide whether she is to\nbe the wife of Paris or of Menelaus. Laodice finds her busied in\nembroidery, which is to represent the War of Greeks and Trojans. The\nexpression, \u03bd\u03cd\u03bc\u03c6\u03b1 \u03c6\u03af\u03bb\u03b7, with which the disguised goddess addresses her,\nis a sign that she was held in respect, and that when she speaks[1022]\nin the last Book of the taunts and skits of which she was the object,\nwe must understand her to use the natural exaggeration of impassioned\ngrief. At the call of the seeming Laodice, moved apparently by\ntenderness towards her former husband[1023], Helen goes forth, clad in\na robe of simple white[1024]. On her reaching the walls Priam calls\nher to his side, that she may tell him the name of a kingly warrior,\nwho proves to be Agamemnon. In doing this, he gently acquits her of\nall responsibility for the war. She answers in a speech of uncommon\ngrace, \u2018that she dreads while she reveres and loves him: would that\nshe had miserably died rather than leave her family, her nuptial bed,\nher infant, and her friends. But this could not be; so that she ever\npined away in tears.\u2019 She designates herself here and elsewhere[1025]\nas \u03ba\u03cd\u03c9\u03bd, and also as \u03ba\u03cd\u03bd\u03c9\u03c0\u03b9\u03c2, brazen-faced or shameless; but yet she\nappears at all times to have retained the fond recollection of her home\nand friends[1026], and to have lived in grave and sorrowful retirement.\nEverywhere she seems not only not to avoid, but to search for, the\nopportunity of bitter self-accusation. Thus, when she has pointed out\nthe Greek chieftains whom she knew personally, she proceeds, \u2018but I do\nnot see my brothers, Castor and Polydeuces: perhaps they came not from\nGreece; perhaps, though here, yet on account of my infamy and reproach,\nthey will not appear in fight[1027].\u2019\n\n[1022] Il. xxiv. 768.\n\n[1023] Il. iii. 139.\n\n[1024] See Damm on \u1f00\u03c1\u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03bd\u03cc\u03c2.\n\n[1025] Il. vi. 344, 356; Od. iv. 145.\n\n[1026] Od. iv. 184, 254.\n\n[1027] Il. iii. 236-42. Cf. Il. iii. 404. and xxiv.\n\nParis, after his defeat, is removed by Aphrodite from the field:\nMenelaus remains as victor. But Helen still tarries upon the wall,\nevidently hoping that the hour of her restoration had now at last\narrived. The goddess Venus then appears to her, disguised in the\nform of an aged servant; and endeavours to attract her by a glowing\ndescription of Paris, in his beauty and his splendid garments. By\nthis address Helen was alarmed[1028]: and her alarm almost became\nstupefaction, when she perceived the features of the deity. But a\nstrong reaction followed: so that she made a bitter and stinging\nreply. Gentle on all other occasions, she is here sharp and sarcastic.\nShe[1029] reproaches Venus with having come to prevent Menelaus from\ntaking her home in right of his victory; then bids her assume to\nherself the odious character she sought to force on one who had too\nlong borne it, and utterly refuses to go. Venus hereupon intimidates\nher, by a threat of making her hateful alike to Greek and Trojan, and\nso bringing her to miserable destruction. She then obeys, covering\nher face in shame and indignation; and when placed by the goddess in\nfront of Paris in their chamber, she sharply reproaches him; but the\nreal delicacy of her character is maintained in this, that she does it\n\u1f44\u03c3\u03c3\u03b5 \u03c0\u03ac\u03bb\u03b9\u03bd \u03ba\u03bb\u03af\u03bd\u03b1\u03c3\u03b1, with averted and downcast eyes. In what follows,\nshe is but the reluctant instrument of a passion, which Homer seems to\nhave described in this place, contrary to his wont, with the distinct\npurpose of raising indignation to the highest pitch, and covering Paris\nwith a contempt and shame proportioned to the crime he had committed,\nand to the miseries of which by crime he had been the cause.\n\n[1028] The expression is \u03b8\u03c5\u03bc\u1f78\u03bd \u1f10\u03bd\u1f76 \u03c3\u03c4\u03ae\u03b8\u03b5\u03c3\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u1f44\u03c1\u03b9\u03bd\u03b5\u03bd. The verb is used\nby Homer most commonly to denote apprehension (as in Il. iv. 208. xv.\n7. xvi. 280, 509. xviii. 223); though it also sometimes signifies other\nkinds of excitement, such as anger or surprise.\n\n[1029] 383-98.\n\nUpon the whole, this delineation of Helen in the Third Book may well\nbe taken as one of the most masterly parts of the Iliad. The extreme\nfineness and delicacy of its shading mark it as an immortal work of\ngenius, and the gentleness of Helen towards Priam, with her severity to\nherself, and her sternness both to the corrupter, and to the goddess\nthat aided and inspired him, form a moral picture of the most striking\ntruth and beauty. Indeed, if the question be asked, where does Paganism\ncome nearest to the penitential tone and the profound self-abasement\nthat belong to Christianity, we might find it difficult to point out an\ninstance of approximation so striking as is, here and elsewhere, the\nHelen of Homer.\n\n~_In Il._ vi. _Il._ xxiv. _Od._ iv.~\n\nIn three other places of the poems, Helen is put prominently forward.\n\nIn the Sixth Book, before Hector repairs to the field, he goes to\nthe palace of Paris to summon him forth. He finds the effeminate\nprince handling uselessly his arms, while Helen is superintending the\nbeautiful works of her women[1030]. By and by it appears that, sensible\nof the shame of her husband\u2019s cowardice, though without interest in his\nfame, she has been persuading him to go forth and fight; and she takes\nthe opportunity of Hector\u2019s presence to offer him a chair that he may\nrest from his fatigues; to revile herself as, next to her husband, the\ncause of them; and, while grieving that she had outlived her infancy,\nto lament also that, if she was to live at all, she had not been united\nto one less impervious to the sentiment of honour.\n\n[1030] Il. vi. 321-5.\n\nAgain, Homer has thought her not unworthy of the third place, with\nAndromache and Hecuba, as mourners over the mighty Hector, in the\ndeeply touching description of the return of his remains to Troy[1031].\nThe tenour of this speech is kept in the exactest harmony with what has\ngone before.\n\n[1031] Il. xxiv. 760-75.\n\nWe now bid adieu to the Helen of Homer in her sorrow and shame among\nthe Trojans. But the Poet presents her to us again in prosperity and\ndomestic peace, as the Queen of Menelaus; who, though not the heir\nof the high throne of Agamemnon, yet held a station in Greece, after\nthe Return, of highly elevated influence. This is a picture, which\nit would not have been in accordance with the usual course of Homer\nto set before us, had his mind attached to Helen the character given\nto her by the later tradition; for where does he represent to us the\nwicked in prosperity, without bringing down on them subsequently the\nvengeance of heaven? But on the Helen of the Odyssey he has left no\nnote of sorrow, except the most moving and appropriate of all, namely\nthis, that the gods gave her no child after Hermione, the daughter of\nher early youth[1032].\n\n[1032] Od. iv. 13.\n\nFrom her stately chamber she comes forth into the hall, after the\nfeast. She is attended by three maidens, who bear respectively the\nfirst her seat, the second its covering, the third her work-basket and\ndistaff. She remarks on the likeness of Telemachus to Ulysses, and\nhumbly recollects to confess, that she herself has been the cause of\nthe sufferings of the Greeks. The allusions then made to Ulysses cause\nher, with the rest, to weep tenderly; and when her husband with his\nfriends resumes the banquet, she infuses into their wine the soothing\ndrug, supposed to have been opium, which she had obtained from Egypt,\nto make them forgetful of their sorrows. Then she begins to tell tales\nin honour of Ulysses: and how, when in his beggar\u2019s dress he escaped\nscatheless from Troy, and left many of the Trojans slaughtered behind\nhim, she alone, amidst the wailings of the women, was full of joy, for\nher heart had been yearning towards her home.\n\nThere is indeed a trait that deserves notice in the speech of Menelaus,\nwhich has been lately mentioned. Helen came down to detect, if\npossible, the Greeks concealed within the Horse: therefore, to act\nin the interest of the Trojans. Now if, on the one hand, she looked\nback on her country and her first husband with many yearnings, yet\nit was not to be wondered at that as a woman, nowhere pretending\nto the character of a heroine, she should be so far pliable to the\nwishes or subject to the compulsion of the Trojans--especially when we\nremember her love and reverence for their head, and for Hector, who\nhad but lately died in their defence--as to make this effort to defeat\nthe stratagem of the besiegers. But Menelaus, in referring to the\nincident, carefully spares Helen\u2019s feelings by another of those strokes\nof exceeding tact and refinement for which Homer\u2019s writings are so\nremarkable, both generally, and as to the chivalrous character of this\nhero in particular. \u2018Thither,\u2019 he says, that is to the Horse, \u2018thou\ncamest; and no doubt,\u2019 he adds, \u2018it was the influence of some celestial\nbeing, favourable to Troy, that prompted thee;\u2019 thus preventing by\nanticipation the sting that his words might carry:\n\n \u1f26\u03bb\u03b8\u03b5\u03c2 \u1f14\u03c0\u03b5\u03b9\u03c4\u03b1 \u03c3\u1f7a \u03ba\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c3\u03b5\u00b7 \u03ba\u03b5\u03bb\u03b5\u03c5\u03c3\u03ad\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9 \u03b4\u03ad \u03c3\u2019 \u1f14\u03bc\u03b5\u03bb\u03bb\u03b5\u03bd\n \u03b4\u03b1\u03af\u03bc\u03c9\u03bd, \u1f43\u03c2 \u03a4\u03c1\u03ce\u03b5\u03c3\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u1f10\u03b2\u03bf\u03cd\u03bb\u03b5\u03c4\u03bf \u03ba\u1fe6\u03b4\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f40\u03c1\u03ad\u03be\u03b1\u03b9[1033].\n\n[1033] Od. iv. 274.\n\n~_Her marriage to Deiphobus._~\n\nTradition has assigned Deiphobus to Helen, as a husband after the\ndeath of Paris. This tradition is supported, though not expressly,\nyet sufficiently, by the Odyssey; for, says Menelaus, when the Greeks\nhad constructed the Horse, and when Helen was brought down to detect\nthose who were within it, by imitating the voices of their wives\nrespectively, it is added,\n\n \u03ba\u03b1\u03af \u03c4\u03bf\u03b9 \u0394\u03b7\u0390\u03c6\u03bf\u03b2\u03bf\u03c2 \u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u03b5\u03af\u03ba\u03b5\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f15\u03c3\u03c0\u03b5\u03c4\u2019 \u1f30\u03bf\u03cd\u03c3\u1fc3[1034].\n\n[1034] Od. iv. 276.\n\nAnd by the further passage in Od. vii. 517, which represents Ulysses as\nrepairing straight from the Horse to the house of Deiphobus, in company\nwith Menelaus.\n\nPresuming therefore that this tale was well founded, it may be\nremarked, that the selection of Deiphobus, as the person who should\ntake Helen to wife, was probably founded on his superior merit[1035].\nIt was under his image, that Minerva came upon the field to inveigle\nHector into facing Achilles: and Hector then described him as the one\nwhom he loved by far the best amidst his full brothers, the children of\nPriam and of Hecuba. This therefore thoroughly accords with the idea,\nthat Helen was held in respect. Nor let it be thought strange, that\nshe was not permitted to remain single. The idea of single life for\nwomen, outside their fathers\u2019 home, seems to have been wholly unknown\namong the Greeks of Homer. When marriageable, they married; when their\ncountry was overcome, they became, as of course, the appendages of the\ncouch of the captor. Penelope herself never dreamt of urging that, when\nonce the return of Ulysses was out of the question, she could have\nany other option than to make choice among the Suitors whose wife she\nwould become. Telemachus contemplates her immediate restoration to her\nfather\u2019s home when he, her son, should assume the full prerogatives of\nmanhood.\n\n[1035] Lycophron, 168; Schol. on Il. xxiv. 251. In the Troades of\nEuripides she is introduced, saying that Deiphobus took her by force,\nagainst the will of the Phrygians (Trojans), 954-5.\n\nThe whole Homeric evidence, then, appears to show that, from the\nmoment of her removal, neither the usages of society, nor the ideas of\nreligion or the moral code, could allow Helen to remain in the single\nstate. But it may be said this seems to prove too much on her behalf;\nnamely, that both the abduction and the subsequent life were against\nher will. It is, however, entirely in keeping with the testimony of the\npoems, to suppose that her whole offence lay in having permitted at\nthe first, perhaps half unconsciously, the attentions of a flatterer,\nwho became at once a paramour and a tyrant to his victim. In order to\ncomprehend the heroic age, it is indispensable that we should recollect\nthat the responsibilities of women were contracted in proportion to her\nstrength; and that the heroism of endurance, in which she has since\nexcelled, is a Christian product.\n\nThat element of weakness and lightness in a character otherwise\nbeautiful, which the incident of the Horse betrays, was probably at\nonce the source and the measure of her offending in reference to the\ncause of war. It was a mind of relaxed fibre, and vacillated under\npressure. Less than this we cannot suppose, and there is no occasion\nto suppose more. The respect felt, within certain limits, for women in\nthe heroic age, and so powerfully proved by the Odyssey, may perhaps\nbe adverse to the supposition that Paris carried her away without\nsome degree of previous encouragement. I confine myself to \u2018perhaps,\u2019\nbecause it is nowhere indicated in the poems, and we can at most have\nonly a presumption to this effect. On the other hand, it seems certain\nthat what she expiated in life-long sadness was, at any rate, no more\nthan the first step in the ways of folly, the thoughtless error of\nshort-sighted vanity, which the state of manners did not permit her\nsubsequently to redeem. Repent she might: but to return was beyond her\npower.\n\nOn the whole, it may be said with confidence that the Helen of the\nHomeric poems has been conceived, by an author himself of peculiar\ndelicacy, with great truth of nature, and with no intention to deprive\nher of a share in the sympathies of his hearers; that he has made her\na woman, not cast in the mould of martyrs, nor elevated in moral ideas\nto a capacity of comprehension and of endurance above her age, but yet\nendowed with much tenderness of feeling, with the highest grace and\nrefinement, and with a deep and peculiar sense of shame for having\ndone wrong. Probably her appreciation of virtue and of honour, though\nbeneath that of the highest matronly characters, may have been in no\nway inferior to that of society at large in her own time, and superior\nto the standard of many following epochs; nay superior also to that\nwhich has prevailed, at least locally, even at some periods of the\nChristian era: as, for example, when Ariosto wrote the remarkable\npassage--\n\n Perche si de\u2019 punir donna o biasmare\n Che con uno, o pi\u00f9 d\u2019 uno, abbia commesso\n Quel, che l\u2019 uom fa con quante n\u2019 ha appetito\n E lodato ne va, non che impunito[1036]?\n\n[1036] Orl. Fur. iv. 66.\n\n~_General estimate of the Homeric Helen._~\n\nThe degradation of Helen by the later tradition will be treated of\nhereafter. Meantime it will be seen how much on this subject I have\nthe misfortune to differ from Mure, who has been usually so great a\nbenefactor to the students of Homer. With him \u2018Helen is the female\ncounterpart of Paris[1037].\u2019 Paris and Helen are respectively \u2018the\nman of fashion and the woman of pleasure of the heroic age.\u2019 \u2018Both\nare unprincipled votaries of sensual enjoyment; both self-willed and\npetulant, but not devoid of amiable and generous feeling.\u2019 He finds\nindeed in her a \u2018tenderness of heart and kindly disposition;\u2019 and\nsays that \u2018traces of better principle seem also to lurk under the\ngeneral levity of her habits.\u2019 This petulance, this general levity,\nI do not find; but rather the notes of a fatal fall, continually and\ndeeply felt under the general grace and beauty of her character. What\nMure calls her \u2018petulant argument with her patron goddess,\u2019 we take\nto be the noble and indignant reaction of a soul under the yoke of\nconscious slavery, and still quick to the throb of virtue. Indeed I\nderive some comfort from the closing words of his criticism, in which,\nafter expressing his pity and condemnation, he says that still \u2018we are\nconstrained to love and admire.\u2019 In the whole circle of the classical\nliterature, as far as it is known to us, there is, I repeat, nothing\nthat approaches so nearly to what Christian theology would term a sense\nof sin, as the humble demeanour, and the self-denouncing, self-stabbing\nlanguage of the Argeian Helen.\n\n[1037] Book ii. ch. viii. sect. 20.\n\n~_The character of Paris._~\n\nIII. The character of Paris is as worthy, as any other in the poems, of\nthe powerful hand and just judgment of Homer. It is neither on the one\nhand slightly, nor on the other too elaborately, drawn; the touches are\njust such and so many, as his poetic purpose seemed on the one hand to\ndemand, and on the other to admit. Paris is not indeed the gentleman,\nbut he is the fine gentleman, and the pattern voluptuary, of the heroic\nages; and all his successors in these capacities may well be wished joy\nof their illustrious prototype. The redeeming, or at least relieving\npoint in his character, is one which would condemn any personage\nof higher intellectual or moral pretensions; it is a total want of\nearnestness, the unbroken sway of levity and of indifference to all\nserious and manly considerations. He completely fulfils the idea of the\n_poco-curante_, except as to the display of his personal beauty, the\nenjoyment of luxury, and the resort to sensuality as the best refuge\nfrom pain and care. He is not a monster, for he is neither savage nor\nrevengeful; but still further is he from being one of Homer\u2019s heroes,\nfor he has neither honour, courage, eloquence, thought, nor prudence.\nThat he bears the reproaches of Hector without irritation, is due to\nthat same moral apathy, and that narrowness of intelligence, which\nmakes him insensible to those of his wife. No man can seriously resent\nwhat he does not really feel. He is wholly destitute even of the\ndelicacy and refinement which soften many of the features of vice; and\nthe sensuality he shows in the Third Book[1038] partakes largely of the\nbrutal character which marks the lusts of Jupiter. No wise, no generous\nword, ever passes from his lips. On one subject only he is determined\nenough; it is, that he will not give up the woman whom he well knows to\nbe without attachment to him[1039], and whom he keeps not as the object\nof his affections, but merely as the instrument of his pleasures. One\nsolicitude only he cherishes; it is to decorate his person, to exhibit\nhis beauty, to brighten with care the arms that he would fain parade,\nbut has not the courage to employ against the warriors of Greece.\n\n[1038] Il. iii. 437-48.\n\n[1039] Ibid. 428.\n\nThere are other greater achievements in the Iliad, but none finer,\nor more deserving our commendation, than the manner in which Homer\nhas handled the difficult character of Paris. It was quite necessary\nto raise him to a certain point of importance; had he been simply\ncontemptible, his place in the early stages of the Trojan tale, and\nthe prolongation of the War on his account, would have involved a\ntoo violent departure from the laws of poetical credibility. This\nimportance Homer, whether from imagination or from history, has\nsupplied; in part by his very high position. Even if I were wrong in\nthe opinion that the Poet meant to represent him as the eldest son, or\nthe eldest living son, of Priam, it would still at least be plain that\nhe is more eminent and conspicuous than any other member of the royal\nhouse after Hector; while he is so much less worthy than Deiphobus,\nfor example, that no one, I think, could doubt that his distinction is\ndue to his being senior to that respectable prince and warrior, and\nto the rest of his brothers. Further, the Poet has raised him to the\nvery highest elevation in two particulars; one the gift of archery,\nthe other the endowment of corporeal grace and beauty. But neither of\nthese involves one particle of courage, or of any other virtue; for the\narcher of Homer\u2019s time was not like the British bowman, who stood with\nhis comrades in the line, and discharged the function in war which has\nsince fallen to musketry; he was a mere sharpshooter, always having the\nmost deliberate opportunity of aim at the enemy, and always himself out\nof danger. No archer is ever hit in the Iliad; but Pandarus, so skilled\nin the bow, is slain, and Paris is disgraced, when they respectively\nventure to assume the spear. Again, the Poet has contrived that the\naccomplishments of Paris, though in themselves unsurpassed, shall\nattract towards him no share, great or small, of our regard. This\nprince really does more, than even Hector does, to stay the torrent of\nthe Grecian war; for in the Eleventh Book, from behind a pillar, he\nwounds Diomed, who had fought with the Immortals, Eurypylus, who had\nalso been one of the nine accepters of Hector\u2019s challenge, and Machaon,\none of the two surgeons. Thus Homer[1040] has been able to make him\nmost useful in battle, most lovely to the eye, and yet alike detestable\nand detested.\n\n[1040] Il. xi. 368-79, 581-4, 505-7.\n\nThis aim he attains, not by that tame method of description which he so\nmuch eschews, but by the turn he gives to narrative, and by the colour\nhe imparts to it in one or a few words.\n\nParis, though effeminate and apathetic, is not gentle, either to his\nwife or his enemies; and, when he has wounded Diomed, he wishes the\nshot had been a fatal one. The reply of Diomed cuts deeper than any\narrow when he addresses him as,\n\n Bowman! ribald! well-frizzled girl-hunter[1041]!\n\n[1041] Il. xi. 385.\n\nAgain, the Poet tells us, as if by accident, that when, after the\nbattle with Menelaus, he could not be found, it was not because the\nTrojans were unwilling to give him up, for they hated him with the\nhatred, which they felt to dark Death[1042]. And again we learn, how\nhe uses bribery to keep his ground in the Assembly; how he refuses to\nrecognise even his own military inferiority, but lamely accounts for\nthe success of Menelaus by saying that all men have their turn[1043];\nand how he causes shame to his own countrymen and exultation to the\nGreeks, when they contrast the pretensions of his splendid appearance\nwith his miserable performances in the field[1044].\n\n[1042] Il. iii. 454.\n\n[1043] Il. vi. 339.\n\n[1044] Il. iii. 43, 51.\n\nHomer, full as he is of the harmonies of nature, differs in this as in\nso many points from most among later writers, that he does not set at\nnought the due proportion between the moral and the intellectual man,\nnor combine high gifts of mind with a mean and bad heart. He never\nvaries from this rule; and he has been careful to pay it a marked\nobservance in the case of Paris. No set of speeches in the Iliad are\nmarked by greater poverty of ideas. If he cleans his arms and builds\nhis house, which are honourable employments, they are employments\nimmediately connected with the ostentation to which he was so much\ngiven. More than this, the Poet informs us, through the medium of\nHelen, that he was but ill supplied with sense, and that he was too old\nto mend:\n\n \u03c4\u03bf\u03cd\u03c4\u1ff3 \u03b4\u2019 \u03bf\u1f54\u03c4\u2019 \u1f02\u03c1 \u03bd\u1fe6\u03bd \u03c6\u03c1\u03ad\u03bd\u03b5\u03c2 \u1f14\u03bc\u03c0\u03b5\u03b4\u03bf\u03b9, \u03bf\u1f54\u03c4 \u1f04\u03c1\u2019 \u1f40\u03c0\u03af\u03c3\u03c3\u03c9\n \u1f14\u03c3\u03c3\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9[1045].\n\n[1045] Il. vi. 372.\n\nThe immediate transition, in the Third Book, from the field of battle,\nwhere he was disgraced, to the bed of luxury, is admirably suited to\nimpress upon the mind, by the strong contrast, the real character of\nParis. Nor let it be thought, that Homer has gratuitously forced upon\nus the scene between him and his reluctant wife. It was just that he\nshould mark as a bad man him who had sinned grossly, selfishly, and\nfatally, alike against Greece and his own family and country. This\nimpression would not have been consistent and thorough in all its\nparts, if we had been even allowed to suppose that, as a refined,\naffectionate, and tender husband, he made such amends to Helen as the\ncase permitted for the wrong done her in his hot and heady youth. Such\na supposition might excusably have been entertained, and it would have\nbeen supported by the very feebleness of the character of Paris and\nby his part in the war, had Homer been silent upon the subject. He,\ntherefore, though with cautious hand, lifts the veil so far as to show\nus that in our variously compounded nature animal desire can use up\nand absorb the strength which ought to nerve our higher faculties, and\nthat, as none are more cruel than the timid, so none are more brutal\nthan the effeminate.\n\nOne hold, and one only, Paris seems to retain on human affection in\nany sort or form. The paternal instinct of Priam makes him shudder and\nretire, when he is told that Paris is about to meet Menelaus in single\ncombat. This trait would have been of extraordinary and universal\nbeauty, had the object of the affection been even moderately worthy:\nit is a remarkable proof of the debasement of Paris, and of the strong\nsense which Homer gives us of that debasement, that the tender father\nseems in a measure tainted by the very warmth and strength of his love.\n\n\nSECT. VII.\n\n_The declension of the great Homeric Characters in the later\nTradition[1046]._\n\n[1046] See note p. 500. sup.\n\n~_Physical conditions of the Greek Theatre._~\n\nOne legitimate mode of measuring the true greatness of Homer is, by\nobserving what has become of the materials and instruments he worked\nwith, upon their passing into other hands. Acting on this principle,\nlet us now pass on to consider the murderous maltreatment, which the\nmost remarkable of all the Homeric characters have had to endure in\nthe later tradition; partly, as I have already observed, from general,\nand partly from special causes. On the more general influence of this\nkind I have already touched. Among the special causes, we should place\nthe declension in the fundamental ideas of morals and of politics\nbetween the time of Homer and the historic age. With this we may\nreckon one which, though it may appear to be technical, must, in all\nlikelihood, have been most important, namely, the physical necessities\nimposed by the fixed conditions of dramatic representation among the\nGreeks[1047]. Their theatres were constructed on a scale, which may be\ncalled colossal as compared with ours. Both polity and religion entered\ninto the institution of the stage. The intense nationality of their\nlife required a similar character in their plays, and likewise in the\nplaces where they were to be represented. Not therefore a particular\ncompany of auditors, but rather the whole public of the city, where the\nrepresentation took place, was to be accommodated. In consequence, the\ndimensions of the buildings exceeded the usual powers of the human eye\nand ear; so that the figure was heightened by buskins, the countenance\nthrown into bolder and coarser outline by masks, and the voice endowed\nwith a great increase of power by acoustic contrivances within the\nmasks, as well as aided by the construction of the buildings. All this\nwas the more strictly requisite, because the plays were acted in the\nopen air.\n\n[1047] Schlegel, Lect. iii. vol. i. p. 81; Donaldson, Greek Theatre,\nsect. ii.\n\nNow this general exaggeration of feature beyond the standard of\nnature had an irresistible tendency to affect the mode in which\ncharacters were modelled for representation; to cause them to be laid\nout morally as well as physically in strong outline, in masses large\nand comparatively coarse. The fine and careful finishing of Homer\nrequired that those, who were to recite him, should retain an entire\nand unfettered command over the measure in which the bodily organs were\nto be employed. The \u03c4\u03cd\u03bd\u03b7 \u03b4\u2019 \u1f60\u03bc\u03bf\u0390\u03b9\u03bd of Achilles to Patroclus might bear\nto be spoken in a voice of thunder, and would absolutely require the\nbard to use considerable exertion of the lungs; but the scenes of Helen\nwith Priam in the Third Book, of Hector with Andromache in the Sixth,\nof Priam with Achilles in the Twenty-fourth, would admit of no such\ntreatment; and as these passages could not themselves be rendered, so\nneither could anything bearing a true analogy to Homer be given, unless\nthe actor had enjoyed full liberty to contract as well as expand his\nown volume of sound, or unless he had enjoyed both easy access, on any\nterms he pleased, to the ears of his audience, and the full benefit of\nthat most important assistance, which the eye renders to the ear by\nobserving the play of countenance that accompanies delivery. King Lear,\nKing John, or Othello, could not have been represented more truly and\nadequately in a Greek theatre, than the Achilles, or than the Helen,\nof Homer. Those who have ever happened to discuss with a deaf person\na critical subject, requiring circumspect and tender handling, will\nknow how much the necessity for constant tension of the voice restrains\nfreedom in the expression of thought, and mars its perfectness. The\nGreek actors lay under a somewhat similar necessity, and to their\nnecessities of course the diction of the tragedians was, whether\nconsciously or unconsciously, adapted.\n\nLet it, however, be borne in mind, that when we criticize the\nconceptions of the Homeric characters by the later Greek writers,\nit need not be with the supposition that we have eyes to discern in\nHomer what they did not see. Their reproductions must be taken to\nrepresent not so much the free dictates of the mind and judgment of\nthe later poets, as the conditions of representation to which they\nwere compelled to conform, and the popular sentiments and opinions\nwhich, in the character of popular writers, they could not but take\nfor their standard. The invention of printing has given a liberty and\nindependence to thought, at least in conjunction with poetry and the\ndrama, such as it could not possess while the poet, in Athens for\nexample, could sing in no other way but one, namely, to the nation\ncollected in a mass. The poet of modern times may write for a minority\nof the public, nay, for a mere handful of admirers, which is destined,\nyet only in after-years, to grow like the mustard-seed of the parable.\nBut the Athenian dramatist was compelled to be the poet of the majority\nat the moment, and to be carried on the stream of its sympathies,\nhowever adverse its direction might be to that in which, if at liberty\nto choose, he would himself have moved.\n\n~_Obliteration of the finer distinctions._~\n\nAccordingly, when we come to survey the literary history of those great\ncharacters which the Poet gave as a perpetual possession to the world,\nwe find, naturally enough, that the flood of the more recent traditions\nhas long ago come in upon the Homeric narrative, like the inundation\nbrought by Neptune and Apollo over the wall and trench of the Greeks.\nLike every other deluge, in sweeping away the softer materials, which\ngive the more refined lines to the picture, it leaves the comparatively\nhard and sharp ones harder and sharper than ever. Thus it is with the\nHomeric characters, transplanted into the later tradition. The broader\ndistinctions of his personages one from another have been not only\nretained, but exaggerated: all the finer ones have disappeared. No\none, deriving his ideas from Homer only, could confound Diomed with\nAjax, or either with Agamemnon, or any of the three with Menelaus, or\nany of the four with Achilles; but when we come down to the age of\nthe tragedians, what remains to mark them, except only for Agamemnon\nhis office, and for Achilles his superiority in physical strength? In\nthe Homeric poems, the strong and towering intellectual qualities even\noutweigh the great physical and animal forces of his chief hero: by\nthe usual predominance in man of what is gross over what is fine, the\nprincipal and higher parts of his character are afterwards suppressed,\nand it becomes comparatively vulgarized. In the Ulysses of Homer,\nagain, the intellectual element predominates in such a manner, that not\neven the most superficial reader can fail to perceive it. He and Helen\nstand out in the Iliad from among others with whom they might have\nbeen confounded; the first by virtue of his self-mastery and sagacity,\nthe second, not only by her beauty and her fall, but by the singularly\ntender and ethereal shading of her character. The later tradition,\nlaying rude hands upon the subtler distinctions thus established, has\ndegraded these two great characters, the one into little better than a\nstage rogue, the other into little more than a stage voluptuary, who\nadds to the guilt of that character the further and coarse enormities\nof faithlessness, and even of bloodthirstiness.\n\nEven so soon as in the time of the Cyclical writers the character of\nHelen had begun to be altered. In Homer she is the victim of Paris,\ncarried off from her home and country, and only then yielding to his\nlust. In the \u039a\u03cd\u03c0\u03c1\u03b9\u03b1 \u1f14\u03c0\u03b7, as we have that poem reported by Proclus, she\nbegins by receiving his gifts, that is to say, his bribes; she is an\nadulteress under her husband\u2019s roof; and she joins in plundering him,\nin order to escape with her paramour.\n\nIt is in Euripides that we find the largest and most diversified\nreproduction of the old Homeric characters, and to him, therefore,\namong the three tragedians, we should give our chief attention. When we\nconsider them as a whole, according to his representation of them, we\nfind that their entire primitive and patriarchal colouring has gone.\nThe manners are not those of any age in particular; least of all are\nthey the manners of a very early age. And, as the entire company has\nlost its distinctive type, so have the members of it when taken singly.\nIn the Troades, for example, Menelaus is simply the injured and\nexasperated husband; Helen is the faithless wife; and she is kept up to\na certain standard of dramatic importance in the eye of the world only\nby another departure from the Homeric picture, for she is armed with\nan enormous power of argument and sophistry. By a similar appendage of\ningenious disquisition, the essentially plain and matronly qualities of\nHecuba have been overlaid and hidden. Achilles, in the Iphigenia, is\na gallant and a generous warrior; but we have neither the grandeur of\nhis tempestuous emotions as in Homer, nor, on the other hand, any of\nthat peculiar refinement with which they are in so admirable a manner\nboth blended and set in contrast. Agamemnon has lost, in Euripides,\nhis vacillation and misgivings, and is the average and, so to speak,\nrounded king and warrior, instead of the mixed and particoloured, but\nin no sense common-place, character that Homer has made him. Though\nAndromache is a passionately fond mother, she has nothing whatever\nthat identifies her as the original Andromache. Indeed, of the Homeric\nwomen, it may be said that in Euripides they have ceased to be womanly;\nthey have in general nothing of that adjective character (if the phrase\nmay be allowed), that ever leaning and clinging attitude, to which\nsupport from without is a moral necessity, and which so profoundly\nmarks them all in Homer. Again, Iphigenia, Cassandra, Polyxena, who are\neither scarcely or not at all Homeric, have now become grand heroines,\nwith unbounded stage-effect; but there is no stage-effect at all in\nHomer\u2019s Helen, or in his Andromache. Andromache, for example, is not\nelaborately drawn. She is rather a product of Homer\u2019s character and\nfeeling, than of his art. She is simply what Tennyson in his \u2018Isabel\u2019\ncalls \u2018the stately flower of perfect wifehood.\u2019 In her simplicity,\nthe true idea of her might easily have been preserved by the later\nliterature, had the conception of woman as such remained morally the\nsame. But the Andromache of Homer was doomed to deteriorate, on account\nof her purity, as his Achilles, his Ulysses, his Helen degenerated,\nbecause the flights of such high genius could not be sustained, and\nweaker wings drooped down to a lower level. As Hecuba was the aged\nmatron of the Iliad, and Helen its mixed type of woman, so Andromache\nwas the young mother and the wife. Her one only thought lay in her\nhusband and her child; but in the Troades, wordy and diffuse, she\ndiscusses, in a most business-like manner, the question whether she\nshall or shall not transfer her affections to the new lord, whose\nproperty she has become. She ends, indeed, by deciding the question\nrightly; but it is one that the Homeric Andromache never could have\nentertained.\n\nThree, however, among the Homeric characters, have been mangled by\nthe later tradition much more cruelly than any others; they are those\nprime efforts of his mighty genius, Helen, Achilles, and Ulysses.\nThe first, most probably, on account of the wonderful delicacy with\nwhich in Homer it is moulded: the others on account of their singular\ncomprehensiveness and breadth of scope. Each of these three cases well\ndeserves particular consideration.\n\n~_Mutilation of the Helen of Homer._~\n\nIn the case of Helen, the extreme tenderness of the colouring, that\nHomer has employed, multiplied infinitely the chances against its\npreservation. Among all the women of antiquity, she is by nature the\nmost feminine, the finest in grain, though, as in many other instances,\na certain slightness of texture is essentially connected with this\nfineness. Her natural softness is very greatly deepened by the double\neffect of her affliction and her repentance. A quiet and settled\nsadness broods over her whole image, and comes out not only when she\nweeps by the body of Hector, or when her husband\u2019s presence reminds her\nof her offence, but even under the genial smiles and soothing words\nof old Priam on the wall. Vehement and agonizing passion draws deep\nstrong lines, which, even in copies, may be easily caught and easily\npreserved; it is quite different with the profound though low-toned\nsuffering, of which the passive influence, the penetrating tint,\ncirculates as it were in every vein, and issues into view at every pore.\n\n~_Helen of Euripides, Isocrates, Virgil._~\n\nLet us now consider how the character of Helen reappears in Euripides,\nin Isocrates, and in Virgil.\n\nIn the Agamemnon, \u00c6schylus had designated her under the form of a\npun, as \u1f11\u03bb\u03ad\u03bd\u03b1\u03c5\u03c2 \u1f11\u03bb\u03b5\u03c0\u03c4\u03cc\u03bb\u03b9\u03c2; and these phrases, as they stand, cannot\nbe said in any manner to force us beyond the limits of the Homeric\ntradition. But in the Hecuba she is cursed outright by the Chorus,\nand represented by Hecuba herself as having been the great agent,\ninstead of the passive occasion and the suffering instrument, in the\ncalamitous fall of Troy[1048]. In the Troades she is the shame of the\ncountry, the slayer of Priam, the willing fugitive from Sparta[1049].\nAndromache denounces her in the fiercest manner, and gives her for her\nancestors not Jupiter, but Death, Slaughter, Vengeance, Jealousy, and\nall the evils upon earth[1050]. Menelaus is furiously enraged, calls on\nhis attendants to drag her in by her blood-guilty hair, will not give\nher the name of wife, will send her to Laced\u00e6mon[1051], there herself\nto die as a satisfaction to those whose death she has guiltily brought\nabout. When she asks whether she may be heard in defence of herself, he\nanswers summarily, no:\n\n[1048] Hecuba, 429, 924-31.\n\n[1049] Troades, 132, 377.\n\n[1050] Ver. 770.\n\n[1051] Ver. 855-78.\n\n \u03bf\u1f50\u03ba \u1f10\u03c2 \u03bb\u03cc\u03b3\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 \u1f10\u03bb\u03ae\u03bb\u03c5\u03b8\u2019, \u1f00\u03bb\u03bb\u03ac \u03c3\u03b5 \u03ba\u03c4\u03b5\u03bd\u1ff6\u03bd[1052].\n\n[1052] Ver. 900.\n\nShe then delivers a sophistical speech[1053], and pleads, that she\ncould not be guilty in yielding to a passion which even Jupiter\ncould not resist, while she retaliates abuse on Menelaus for leaving\nher exposed to temptation. _Quantum mutata!_ As respects Deiphobus,\nhowever, she declares that she only yielded to force, and that she was\noften detected, after the death of Paris, in endeavours to escape over\nthe wall to the Greeks.\n\n[1053] Ver. 909-60.\n\nWe have moreover an example, in the Helen painted by Euripides, of\nthe rude manner in which characters not understood, and taken to be\ninconsistent by an age which had failed to understand them, were torn\nin pieces, and how the several fragments started anew, each for itself,\non the stream of tradition. In Homer we have the touching contrast\nbetween the chastity of Helen\u2019s mind, and the unlawful condition in\nwhich she lived. The latter, taken separately, was presumed to imply\nan unchaste soul; the former a lawful condition. Instead therefore of\nthe one narrative, we have two; a shade or counterfeit of Helen plays\nthe part of the adulteress with Paris, while the true and living Helen\nremains concealed in Egypt, keeping pure her husband\u2019s bed, so that,\nthough her name has become infamous, her body may remain untainted.\nThis latter tradition is chiefly valuable, because it marks the mode of\ntransition from the Homeric to the spurious representations, and the\nconsciousness of the early poets, that they were not preserving the\nimage drawn by Homer. No scheme, however, constructed of such flimsy\nmaterials, could live; and, naturally enough, the character of Helen\nthe wife was forgotten, that of Helen the voluptuary was preserved.\n\nFrom the vituperation and disgrace of Helen in most of the plays\nof Euripides, we pass to the elaborate panegyric handed down to us\nin the \u1f18\u03b3\u03ba\u03ce\u03bc\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd of Isocrates. The falsehood eulogistic is not less\nunsatisfying than the falsehood damnatory. For now, with the lapse\nof time, we find a further depression of the moral standard. We have\nhere, in its most absolute form, the deification of beauty[1054]; \u1f43\n\u03c3\u03b5\u03bc\u03bd\u03cc\u03c4\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u03b9\u03bc\u03b9\u03ce\u03c4\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b8\u03b5\u03b9\u03cc\u03c4\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f44\u03bd\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd \u1f14\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03bd[1055]. But it\nis totally disjoined from purity. He does not warrant and support his\neulogy upon Helen, by recurring to the true Homeric representation of\nher; but he boldly declares the high value of sensual enjoyment[1056],\ncommends the ambition of Paris to acquire an unrivalled possession and\nthereby a close affinity with the gods, and sees in the war only a\nproof of the immense and just estimation in which both parties held so\ngreat a treasure[1057], without the smallest scruple as to the means by\nwhich it was to be acquired or held. From this picture we may pass on\nto the Helen of Virgil, which represents the destructive process in its\nlast stage of exaggeration, and leaves nothing more for the spirit of\nhavoc to devise.\n\n[1054] I do not remember to have seen the principles of Isocrates\nrigorously applied in modern literature, excepting in the Adrienne de\nla Cardonnaye of M. Eug\u00e8ne Sue\u2019s _Le Juif Errant_.\n\n[1055] Hel. Enc. 61.\n\n[1056] Ibid. 47.\n\n[1057] Ibid. 54.\n\nIn \u00c6n. i. 650, Helen is declared to have _sought_ Troy and unlawful\nnuptials, instead of having been carried off from home against her\nwill. In \u00c6n. vi. 513, she is represented as having made use of the\nreligious orgies on the fatal night, to invite the Greeks into Troy;\nand, after first carefully removing all weapons for defence, she is\nsaid to have opened the apartment of her sleeping husband Deiphobus\nto Menelaus, in the hope that, by becoming accessory to a treacherous\nmurder, she might disarm the resentment of one whom she had so deeply\nwronged. But even this passage has probably done less towards occupying\nthe modern mind with the falsified idea of Helen, than one of most\nextraordinary scenic grandeur in the second \u00c6neid; where \u00c6neas relates\nhow he saw her, the common curse of her own country and of Troy,\ncrouching beside the altar of Vesta, amidst the lurid flames of the\nfinal conflagration, in order to escape the wrath of Menelaus.\n\n Illa sibi infestos eversa ob Pergama Teucros\n Et p\u0153nas Dana\u00fbm et deserti conjugis iras\n Pr\u00e6metuens, Troj\u00e6 et patri\u00e6 communis Erynnis,\n Abdiderat sese, atque aris invisa sedebat.\n\n \u00c6N. ii. 571-4.\n\nAnd then, in language, the glowing magnificence of which serves to hide\nthe very paltry character of the sentiment, \u00c6neas proceeds to announce\nthat he was about to slay the woman who, according to himself, had\nlived for ten years as a friend among his friends; when, at the right\nmoment, his mother Venus appeared, and reminded him that on the whole\nhe might do rather better to think about saving, if possible, his own\nfather, wife, and boy.\n\nThus, in the Helen of Virgil, we have splendid personal beauty combined\nwith an accumulation of the most profoundly odious moral features.\nShe is lost in sensuality, a traitress alike to Greece and to Troy,\nwilling to make miserable victims of others in the hope of purchasing\nher own immunity: all her deep remorse and sorrow, all her tenderness\nand modesty, are blotted out from her character, and the void places in\nthe picture are filled by the detestation, with which both Greeks and\nTrojans regarded, as indeed they might well regard, such a monster. But\nlet us pass on.\n\n~_Achilles and Ulysses._~\n\nAmong the many proofs of the vast scope of Homer\u2019s mind, one of the\nmost remarkable is to be found in the twin characters of his prime\nheroes or protagonists. It seems as if he had taken a survey of human\nnature in its utmost breadth and depth, and, finding that he had not\nthe means to establish a perfect equilibrium between its highest powers\nwhen all in full development, had determined to represent them, with\nreference to the two great functions of intellect and passion, in two\nimmortal figures. In each of the two, each of these elements has been\nrepresented with an extraordinary power, yet so, that the sovereignty\nshould rest in Achilles as to the one, and in Ulysses as to the other.\nBut the depth of emotion in Ulysses is greater than in any other male\ncharacter of the poems, except Achilles; only it is withdrawn from view\nbecause so much under the mastery of his wisdom. And in like manner\non the other hand, a far greater power, directed to the purpose of\nself-command and self-repression, is shown us in Achilles than in any\nother character except Ulysses; but this also is under partial eclipse,\nbecause the injustice, ingratitude, scorn, and meanness which Agamemnon\nconcentrates in the robbery of a beloved object from him, appeal so\nirresistibly to the passionate side of his nature as to bring it out in\noverpowering proportions.\n\nThese being the leading ideas of the two characters, Homer has equipped\neach of them with the apparatus of a full-furnished man; and in\napportioning to each his share of other qualities and accomplishments,\nhe has made such a distribution as on the whole would give the best\nbalance and the most satisfactory general result. Thus it is plain that\nthe character of Achilles, covering as it did volcanic passions, was\nin danger of degenerating into phrensy. Homer has, therefore, assigned\nto him a peculiar refinement. His leisure is beguiled with song,\nconsecrated to the achievements of ancient heroes; he has the finest\ntact, and is by far the greatest gentleman, of all the warriors of the\npoems; even personal ornaments to set off his transcendent beauty[1058]\nare not beneath his notice, a trait which would have been misplaced in\nUlysses, ludicrous in Ajax, and which is in Paris contemptible, but\nwhich has its advantage in Achilles, because it is a simple accessory\nsubordinate to greater matters, and because, so far as it goes, it\nis a weight placed in the scale opposite to that which threatens to\npreponderate, and to mar by the strong vein of violence the general\nharmony of the character.\n\n[1058] Il. ii. 875.\n\nIn the same way, as Ulysses is distinguished by a never-failing\npresence of mind, forethought, and mastery over emotion, so the danger\nfor him lies on the side of an undue predominance of the calculating\nelement, which threatens to reduce him from the heroic standard to\nthe low level of a vulgar utilitarianism. Here, as before, Homer has\nbeen ready with his remedies. He exhibits to us this great prince and\nstatesman as bearing also a character of patriarchal simplicity, and\nmakes him, the profoundest and most astute man of the world, represent\nthe very childhood of the human race in his readiness to ply the\nsickle or to drive the plough[1059]. Above all--and this is the prime\nsafeguard of his character--he makes Ulysses a model for Greece of\nsteady unvarying brightness in the domestic affections. The emotion of\nHector in the Sixth Iliad, and of Priam in the Twenty-fourth, are not\ncapable of comparison with those of Ulysses, because theirs constitute\nthe central points of the characters, and likewise are the products\nof great junctures of danger and affliction respectively, while his\nexhibit and indeed compose a settled and standing bent of his soul.\nHe alone, of all the chieftains who were beneath the walls of Troy,\nis full of the near recollection of his son, his Telemachus[1060];\nhis desire and ambition never pass indeed beyond barren Ithaca, and\nhis daily thought through long years of wandering and detention is\nto return there[1061], to see the very smoke curling upward from its\nchimneys, so that the charms of a goddess are a pain to him, because\nthey keep him from Penelope[1062].\n\n[1059] Od. xviii. 366-75.\n\n[1060] Il. ii. 260.\n\n[1061] Od. i. 58.\n\n[1062] Od. v. 215-20.\n\nSuch was the care with which, in each of these great and wonderful\ncharacters, Homer provided against an exclusive predominance of their\nleading trait. But in vain. Achilles too, more slowly however than\nhis rival, passed, with later authors, into the wild beast; Ulysses\ndescended at a leap into the mere shopman of politics and war; and it\nis singular to see how, when once the basis of the character had been\nvulgarized, and the key to its movements lost, it came to be drawn in\nattitudes the most opposed to even the broadest and most undeniable of\nthe Homeric traits.\n\n~_Mutilation of the Ulysses of Homer._~\n\nThere is nothing in the political character of Ulysses more remarkable,\nthan his power of setting himself in sole action against a multitude;\nwhether we take him in the government of his refractory crew during\nhis wanderings; or in the body of the Horse, when a sound would have\nruined the enterprize of the Greeks, so that he had to lay his strong\nhand over the jaws of the babbler Anticlus[1063]; or in the stern\npreliminaries to his final revenge upon the Suitors; or in his war with\nhis rebellious subjects; or, above all, in the desperate crisis of the\nSecond Iliad, when by his fearless courage, decision, and activity he\nsaves the Greek army from total and shameful failure. And yet, much as\nthe Mahometans[1064] were railed at by the poets of Italy, indeed of\nEngland, in the character of image-worshippers, so Ulysses is held up\nto scorn in Euripides as a mere waiter upon popular favour. Thus in the\nHecuba he is\n\n[1063] Od. iv. 285-8.\n\n[1064] In proof of the establishment of this curious usage in our\nliterature, (which attracted the notice of Selden,) see Mawmet,\nMaumetry in Richardson\u2019s Dictionary, with the illustrative passages.\n\n \u1f41 \u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u03ba\u03b9\u03bb\u03cc\u03c6\u03c1\u03c9\u03bd,\n \u03ba\u03cc\u03c0\u03b9\u03c2, \u1f21\u03b4\u03cd\u03bb\u03bf\u03b3\u03bf\u03c2, \u03b4\u03b7\u03bc\u03bf\u03c7\u03b1\u03c1\u03af\u03c3\u03c4\u03b7\u03c2.\n\nNow, when the most glaring and characteristic facts of the narrative\nof Homer can be thus boldly traversed, there is scarcely room for\nastonishment at any other kind of misrepresentation. As when Hecuba\nlaments, in the Troades[1065], that her lot is to be the captive of the\nbase, faithless, malignant, all-stinging maker of mischief. Such is the\nstanding type of Ulysses in the after-tradition. Whenever anything bad,\ncruel, and above all mean, is to be done, he is the ever-ready, and\nindeed thoroughly Satanic, instrument.\n\n[1065] Tro. 285-9, 1216.\n\nThe Second Epistle of the First Book of Horace is full of interest with\nreference to this subject, because in it he gives us the result of his\nrecent re-perusal of the Homeric poems at Pr\u00e6neste. And, accordingly,\nwe find here a great improvement upon the Ulysses of the Greek drama.\nHe seems to have struck Horace at this time more forcibly, or more\nfavourably, than any other Homeric character; for, after describing in\nstrong terms what was amiss both within and without the walls of Troy,\nhe makes this transition[1066];\n\n[1066] Hor. Ep. I. ii. 18.\n\n Rursus, quid virtus et quid sapientia possit,\n Utile proposuit nobis exemplar Ulyssen.\n\nHe considers this hero as the conqueror of Troy, and notices his\nself-restraint and indomitable courage in adversity. Such was the\nadvantage of an impression fresh from the Homeric text, instead of\nthose drawn from the muddy source of the current traditions. It does\nnot diminish but enhances the compliment, when the acute but Epicurean\nwriter goes on to intimate, in more than half-earnest, that these\nvirtues of Ulysses were too high for imitation, and that he himself was\ncontent rather to emulate the suitors of Penelope, and the easy life of\nthe youths about Alcinous[1067].\n\n[1067] Hor. Epist. I. ii. 1-31.\n\nBut if some small instalment of justice was thus done by Horace to\nthe Homeric Ulysses, Virgil withdrew the boon, and was careful to\nreproduce, without mitigation or relief, the worst features of the\nworst form of the character. With him it is Ulysses who is chosen to\nplay the slayer of Palamedes and the betrayer of Sinon[1068], and to\nlead the party which, conducted by Helen, was to massacre Deiphobus in\nhis chamber[1069]. On account of his fierce cruelty, even the \u2018ground\nis cursed for his sake;\u2019 poor Ithaca is loaded with imprecations by\n\u00c6neas as he passes near it. Once he is called _infelix_, the greatest\ncompliment that he anywhere receives; but his name in few cases escapes\nthe affix of some abusive epithet, drawn alike from inhumanity or from\ncunning, it seems to matter little from which[1070].\n\n[1068] \u00c6n. ii. 90. et seqq.\n\n[1069] \u00c6n. vi. 628.\n\n[1070] \u00c6n. iii. 272. sup. p. 522.\n\n~_Of the Achilles of Homer._~\n\nThe character of Achilles was more fortunate, in the handling it\nexperienced from the Greek drama, than that of Ulysses. In the\nIphigenia of Euripides, the hero of the Iliad appears as a faithful\nlover, and as a gallant and chivalrous warrior. At the same time, it\nhas lost altogether the breadth of touch and largeness of scope, with\nwhich it is drawn in Homer. We miss entirely that unfathomable power\nof intellect, of passion, and also of bodily force, all combined in\none figure, which carry the Achilles of Homer beyond every other human\nexample in the quality of sheer grandeur, and make it touch the limits\nof the superhuman. There is nothing said or done by the Achilles of\nEuripides, nothing reported of him or assigned to him, no impression\nborne into a reader\u2019s mind concerning him, which would not have been\nperfectly suitable to other warriors; for example, to the Diomed of\nHomer. He falls back into a class, and becomes a simple member of it,\ninstead of being a creation paramount and alone; alone, like Olympus\namidst the mountains of Greece; alone for ever in his sublimity, amidst\nthe famous memories of other heroes, no less truly than he was alone in\nhis solitary encampment during the continuance of the Wrath.\n\nWith Pindar Achilles appears in a different dress. He is here conceived\nwithout mind, as a youth marvellous in strength, hardihood, and\nswiftness of foot, growing up into a mighty warrior[1071]. The Achilles\nof Pindar is but as a pebble broken away from the mountain-mass of\nHomer.\n\n[1071] Pind. Nem. iii. 43-64.\n\nCatullus, in his beautiful poem on the Nuptials of Peleus and Thetis,\nhad a rare opportunity of setting forth the glories of Achilles. And\nhe is in fact made the main subject of the nuptial song, properly so\ncalled; yet nothing of him is really celebrated by the poet[1072],\nexcept his valour and his swiftness; all the rest is simple\namplification and embellishment. It seems by this time to have been\nwholly forgotten, that the Homeric Achilles had a soul.\n\n[1072] Epithal. Pel. and Thet. 339-372.\n\nThe discernment of Horace did not here enable him, as it had enabled\nhim before, to escape from the popular delusions,\n\n Scriptor honoratum si forte reponis Achillem,\n Impiger, iracundus, inexorabilis, acer,\n Jura neget sibi nata, nihil non arroget armis[1073].\n\n[1073] Hor. A. P. 120. It will be remembered that the ruthless Bentley\nstruck out even the _honoratum_ of the text, and, with an audacity\nsurpassing his great ingenuity, put in _Homereum_.\n\nThe character is exhibited here in a light at once feeble and\nmisleading, for its cardinal point is made to be the supremacy of\nforce over right. Now in Homer it is a sense that right has been\ndeeply violated, which serves for the very groundwork out of which his\nexasperation rises. He does not view the question as one of _meum_ and\n_tuum_ only, or even mainly. His eye is first upon the gross wrong\ndone, and only then upon himself as the subject of it. He resists\nAgamemnon\u2019s claim[1074] for a compensation at the very first, when it\nis urged, not against him, but against the Greeks at large[1075]; and\nhe bursts out into indignant vituperation of the greedy king before\nAgamemnon has threatened to take Briseis, and when he has only insisted\nthat, if the Greeks do not compensate him, he will then help himself to\nthe prize _either_ of Achilles or of Ajax or of Ulysses. In truth he\nis the assertor of the supremacy of law over will, much more than of\nforce over law; and there is the greatest difference between pushing a\nsound and true principle even to gross excess, and proceeding from the\noutset upon a false one. The former, not the latter, is the case of the\nAchilles of the Iliad.\n\n[1074] Il. i. 122.\n\n[1075] Ib. 149.\n\n~_The Achilles of Statius._~\n\nThe poet Statius observed, with sagacity enough, that the Achilles of\nHomer was but a _torso_; that the Iliad had only allowed him to be\nexhibited in one light, as it were, and at a single juncture of his\ncareer. So he resolved to profit by the ungotten mine, and to found\na poem on the whole Achilles, child and man, in his rising, at his\nzenith, and in his setting blaze;\n\n Nos ire per omnem\n (Sic amor est) heroa velis ...\n ... sed tot\u00e2 juvenem deducere Troj\u00e2[1076].\n\n[1076] Stat. Achill. i.\n\nWe are therefore perhaps entitled to expect from him a fuller and more\ncomprehensive grasp of the character than was usual, even although the\nnarrative is broken off. The five books which remain of this work do\nnot bring him so far as to the plains of Troy; but we leave him on the\nvoyage from Scyros to Troas. They are chiefly occupied, therefore, with\nhis residence there in the disguise of a maiden, and with the incidents\nof his sojourn.\n\nNow the story of Achilles at Scyros, and of his connexion with\nDeidamia, harmonizes with one side of his character as it is drawn in\nHomer. It is evident that his personal beauty was not less graceful\nthan manful; and he alone of the Greek chieftains is related to have\nworn ornaments of gold. Therefore that in the days of his boyhood\nhe should wear the dress of maidens, and pass for one of them, is\nat any rate in accordance with a particular point of the Homeric\ntradition, though little adequate to its lofty tone as a whole. But\nthis particular point is just what Statius contrives wholly to let\ndrop. He shows us Achilles like the sham Anne Page, in the Merry Wives\nof Windsor[1077], \u2018as a great lubberly boy,\u2019 neither careful nor able\nto give any grace to the movement of his limbs. For, in the dance, he\nwould break the heart of any rightminded master of the ceremonies:\n\n[1077] Act v. sc. 5.\n\n Nec servare vices, nec jungere brachia, curat:\n Tunc molles gressus, tunc aspernatur amictus\n Plus solito, rumpitque choros, et plurima turbat.\n\nNor does this writer appear at all to have apprehended the main\nideas of the Homeric character. In the Iliad, the education which\nAchilles receives is the ordinary education of men of his rank, and\nhis transcendent powers in after-life are due to a just, yet no more\nthan a just, development of his extraordinary original gifts. But in\nStatius he is represented as having owed everything to the peculiar\ntraining of Chiron; whose semiferine life he shared, so that his diet\nin childhood consisted of the raw entrails of lions, and the marrow of\nhalf-dead she-wolves! His mind, indeed, was not overlooked amidst these\nbrutalities, for he exhausts a long catalogue of acquirements; but\nStatius, as might be expected, completely drops out of his political\neducation what is its one grand element in Homer, namely, the art of\ngovernment over man by speech. Instead of this, Chiron the Centaur\nmerely teaches him those abstract rules of right, by which he had\nhimself been wont to govern Centaurs[1078].\n\n[1078] Achilleis, v. 163.\n\nTo the same age with the _Achilleis_ of Statius belongs the _Troades_\nof Seneca. However this play may be criticized, as a study, like the\nothers of the same author, for the closet only, and however it may\nbetray the choice of Euripides for a model, it seems to be by some\ndegrees better, in the conception and use of some famous Homeric\ncharacters, than any production since the time of \u00c6schylus. The\ndelineation of Andromache, if it has not ceased to be theatrical, is\nfull at least of intense affection, all still centring in Hector.\nUlysses, though reviled by that matron in her passionate grief, at\nleast does the humane action of allowing her a little time to weep\nbefore the sentence of Calchas is executed upon Astyanax, and shows\nsomething too of the intellect of his antitype[1079]. Helen is\nexhibited not as vicious, but as wanting in firmness of character. She\nis driven by solicitation into the offence of alluring Polyxena to her\nimmolation, under the name of a bridal with Neoptolemus; commences the\nperformance of this false part with self-reproach, and then, challenged\nby Andromache, quits it and avows the truth[1080].\n\n[1079] Seneca, Troades, 765. Ibid. 609 _et seqq._\n\n[1080] Act iv.\n\nBut here we find a new form of departure from the ancient and genuine\ntradition. The principal motive, assigned by Seneca to the Greeks\nfor putting Astyanax to death, is a terrified recollection of his\nfather Hector, and a dread lest, upon attaining to manhood, he should\navenge his own country against Greece. Again, Andromache, as it were,\nintimidates Ulysses, by invoking the shade of her husband:\n\n Rumpe fatorum moras;\n Molire terras, Hector, ut Ulyssen domes!\n Vel umbra satis es[1081].\n\n[1081] Ibid. 685.\n\nA strange inversion of the relations drawn by Homer.\n\nDuring all the time, however, in which we moved among the Greeks and\namong the earlier Romans, the corrupting process acted only upon each\nof the Homeric creations by itself, and there was no cause at work,\nwhich went to alter and pervert wholesale their collective relations to\none another.\n\n~_New relative position of Trojans and Greeks._~\n\nBut from the period when the \u00c6neid appeared, or at least so soon as\nit became the normal poem of the Roman literature, a new cause was\nin operation which, without mitigating in any degree the previous\ndepraving agencies, introduced a new set of them, and began to disturb\nthe positions of the two grand sets of characters, Greek and Trojan,\nrelatively to one another.\n\nVirgil had sought to give to the C\u00e6sars the advantage of a hold upon\nroyal antiquity by fabulous descent. He had before him the choice\nbetween Greece and Troy, which alike and alone enjoyed a world-wide\nhonour. He could not hesitate which to select. The Greek histories were\ntoo near and too well known. Besides, the Greek dynasties generally\nhad dwindled before they disappeared. The splendour of the Pelopids\nin particular had been quenched in calamity and crime, and no other\nof the Homeric lines had attained to greatness in political influence\nor historic fame. But the family of Priam had fallen gloriously in\nfighting for hearth and altar: it had disappeared from history in its\nfull renown, \u2018_Magna_ mei sub terras ibat imago.\u2019 Virgil chose too the\nhouse which was most ancient, and which traced link by link, as that of\nAgamemnon did not, a known and a named lineage up to Jupiter.\n\nFrom this cause, both in the \u00c6neid itself and afterwards, the Trojan\ncharacters were set upon stilts, and the Greeks were left to take their\nchance. Besides the loss of equilibrium, and the allowed predominance\nof coarser elements, which we have to lament in the Greek handling of\nthem, we now see them pass, with the Romans, even into insignificance.\nThe Diomed of Arpi is a person wholly unmarked; and he, like all the\nrest of his countrymen, is treated by Virgil simply as an instrument\nfor obtaining enhanced effect, in the interest that he endeavours to\nconcentrate on his Trojan characters; whereas the key to all Homer\u2019s\ndispositions in the Iliad is to be found in the recollection, that he\ndealt with everything Trojan in the manner which was recommended and\nrequired by his Greek nationality. From this time forward, we find the\npalm both of valour and of wisdom clean carried over from the Greek\nto the Trojan side: the heroes of Homer remain, like unhewn boulders\non the plain, crude, gross, and reciprocally almost indistinguishable\nmasses of cunning or ferocity.\n\nVirgil gave the tone in this respect, not only to the literature of\nancient Rome, but to that of Christian Italy. For this reason, we may\npresume, among others, Orlando, the prime hero of the Italian romance,\nis, as I have before observed, modelled upon Hector. He is in many\nrespects a very grand conception. Pulci, in describing his death, rises\neven to the sublime when he says there is\n\n \u2018Un Dio, ed una Fede, ed uno Orlando.\u2019\n\nWhich we may render in prose \u2018One God, one way to God, one true type\nof manhood.\u2019 Still it is remarkable that in Bojardo, as well as in\nAriosto, the purer traces of the Homeric arrangement thus far at\nleast remain, that Orlando, although he is the type of the Christian\nchivalry, yet, as he resembles Hector in piety and virtue, so likewise\nretains his likeness in this respect, that he is not the most\nformidable or valiant warrior of the poems. In Ariosto particularly,\nhe is made inferior to Mandricardo, to Rodomonte, and most of all, but\nthis for personal and prudential reasons, to Ruggiero. These three\nperhaps may be considered as being respectively the Ajax, the Diomed,\nand the Achilles of the _Orlando Furioso_.\n\nAnd now the fancy for derivation from a Trojan stock, of which Virgil\nhad set the fashion, was fully developed. Ariosto, at great length and\nin the most formal manner, establishes this lineage for his patrons,\nthe family of Este. Others followed him. The humour passed even beyond\nthe limits of Italy, into these then remote isles. A Trojan origin\nwas ascribed to the English nation, and the authority of Homer, as to\ncharacters and history, was openly renounced by Dryden.\n\n \u2018My faithful scene from true records shall tell\n How Trojan valour did the Greek excel:\n Your great forefathers shall their fame regain,\n And Homer\u2019s angry ghost repine in vain[1082].\u2019\n\n[1082] Prologue to Dryden\u2019s Troilus and Cressida; and again in the\nEpilogue spoken by Thersites:\n\n \u2018You British fools, of the old Trojan stock.\u2019\n\n\nIn Oxford, at the revival of classical letters, the name of _Trojans_\nwas assumed by those who were adverse to the new Greek studies, and\nwho, having nothing but a name to rely on, doubtless chose the best\nthey could.\n\n~_The Imitations by Tasso._~\n\nThroughout the \u2018Jerusalem\u2019 of Tasso, we find imitations which are\ninvested with greater interest than the remote copies commonly\nin circulation, because, from the large infusion of many leading\narrangements, copied from Homer, into the plot of the poem, we may\nconclude with reason that they were in all likelihood drawn immediately\nfrom the original. Some of these personages, too, are in so far closely\nimitated from Homer, that Tasso has spent little or nothing of his own\nupon them, but has simply equipped them with as much of the Homeric\nidea as he thought available.\n\nThe most successful among them is Godfrey, modelled, but also perhaps\nimproved, upon Agamemnon, who is by no means in my view one of the\ngreater characters of the Iliad, though he has been incautiously called\nby Mitford \u2018ambitious, active, brave, generous, and humane[1083].\u2019\nAgamemnon has indeed that primary and fundamental qualification for\nhis office, the political spirit, so to term it, and the sense of\nresponsibility, which are so well developed in Godfrey; but it is\ndoubtful whether he is entitled to be called either thoroughly brave,\nor at all generous or humane. Agamemnon\u2019s character is admirably\nadapted to its place and purpose in the Iliad; in any more general\nview, Godfrey\u2019s both stands higher in the moral sphere, and perhaps\nforms by itself a better poetic whole.\n\n[1083] Hist. Greece, ch. i. sect. iv.\n\nWhile the action of Achilles in the Iliad is apparently assigned to\nRinaldo, there is room to doubt whether Tasso meant the person or\ncharacter of his hero to carry corresponding marks of resemblance.\nIn what may be called a by-place of his poem, he has made a passing\nattempt to reproduce both Achilles and Ulysses under the names of\nArgante and Alete, who appear as envoys from the Sultan of Egypt to the\nFrankish camp. For the benefit of the former, Tasso has translated the\ntwo lines that describe Achilles in Horace, and has added a spice of\nthe Virgilian Mezentius:\n\n Impaziente, inesorabil, fero,\n Nell\u2019 arme infaticabil ed invitto,\n D\u2019 ogni Dio sprezzatore, e chi ripone\n Nella spada sua legge e sua ragione[1084].\n\n[1084] Gerus. ii. 59.\n\nAccordingly, Argante proves to be the prime warrior on the Pagan side,\nand his character, described in these lines, is consistently carried\nthrough.\n\nIt is perhaps not to be regretted, that Tasso has left on record no\nother mark that Achilles was in his mind; for it is only the most\ndebased edition of Achilles to whom Argante bears the slightest\nresemblance. The same is the case with Alete. Of humble origin, he\nrises to high honours by his powers of invention and of speech, and by\nthe pliability of his character. Prompt in fiction, adroit in laying\nsnares, a master of the disguised calumnies \u2018_che sono accuse, e pajon\nlodi_[1085],\u2019 he evidently recalls the caricatures, which for two\nthousand years had circulated under the name of the Homeric Ulysses.\nThus Tasso\u2019s acquaintance with the text, whatever it may have been,\ndid not avail to open his eyes, darkened by corrupt tradition, or to\nbring him nearer to the truth as regarded those sovereign creations of\nthe genius of Homer. So sure it is, both in this and in other matters,\nthat when long-established falsehoods have had habitual and undisturbed\npossession of the public mind, they form an atmosphere which we inhale\nlong before consciousness begins. Hence the spurious colours with which\nwe have thus been surreptitiously imbued, long survive the power,\nor even the act, of recurrence to the original standards. For that\nrecurrence rarely takes place with such a concentration of the mind as\nis necessary in order to the double process, first, of disentangling\nitself from the snares of a false conception, and secondly, of building\nup for itself, and this too from the very ground, a true one.\n\n[1085] Gerus. ii. 58.\n\n~_Shakespeare and Chaucer._~\n\nIn the Troilus and Cressida, of which Shakespeare had at least a share,\nwe see, perhaps, one of the lowest and latest pictures of mere medi\u00e6val\nHomerism. The sun of the ancient criticism had set; that of the modern\nhad not risen. It must be admitted that, in this play, although it\nshows the clear handiwork of Shakespeare in some splendid passages,\nand much of beautiful and of characteristic diction, we scarcely\nfind one single living trait of the father of all bards preserved.\nOur incomparable dramatist, by no fault of his own, came in at the\nvery end of that depraved lineage of copyists, for which progressive\ndegeneracy is the necessary law. As is said[1086], he followed Lydgate;\nLydgate drew from a Guido of Messina, who in the thirteenth century\nfounded himself on Dictys Cretensis and Dares Phrygius.\n\n[1086] Stevens on Troilus and Cressida.\n\nBefore his time Chaucer, we may presume, had drawn from the same\nsources. Yet his poem of \u2018Troilus and Cressida\u2019 bears a token of the\nfamiliarity of the English mind with free institutions under the\nPlantagenets. The fidelity with which traditions are preserved, and\nalso the facility with which they are revived, no doubt often depends\nmore upon moral sympathies, than upon any cause operating simply\nthrough the intellect of man. Though dealing with un-Homeric persons,\nor events, or both, and copying again from copies probably very\ncorrupt, yet Chaucer, as an Englishman accustomed to English ideas of\ngovernment, brings out with much more freshness and freedom the notion\nof public deliberation in Troy, (nay, even the very word parliament is\nnot wanting,) than do the poets of the literary age of Greece.\n\n For which delibered was by Parliment\n For Antenor to yielden out Cresside,\n And it pronounced by the President\n Though that Hector may full oft praid;\n And finally, what wight that it withsaid\n It was for nought, it must ben, and should,\n For substaunce of the parliment it would[1087].\n\n[1087] Chaucer\u2019s Troilus and Cressida, book iv.\n\nBut let us return to the so-called Shakespeare.\n\nThersites is converted into the modern fool. Diomed struts upon his\ntoes, while in Homer his modesty among the Greeks is the peculiar\nornament of his valour. Ajax, whom Homer has made lumpish and\ngoodnatured, is full of haughty follies, the coxcomb of warriors; while\nthe mere bulk which, combined with bravery and bluntness, formed his\npeculiar note, is made the distinctive characteristic of Achilles. It\nis still more grievous to find the relation of this hero to Patroclus\ndegraded by foul insinuations, entirely foreign to the Iliad, to its\nauthor, and even to its age. Agamemnon is a mere stage king; and\nit can be no wonder that Nestor\u2019s character, which requires a fine\nappreciation from its gently rounded construction, should have become\nthoroughly commonplace and vapid. The same lot befalls Ulysses, who is\nmade to play quite a secondary part. Paris, without any mending of his\nmoral qualities, is allowed to present a much more respectable figure:\nthe Helen of Homer reproaches his cowardice; but here he says, \u2018I\nwould fain have armed to-day, but my Nell would not have it so[1088].\u2019\nShe appears as the mere adulteress; and those, who remember how she\nis treated in Homer, will be able to measure the declension that time\nand unskilled hands had wrought, when they read the speech of Diomed\ndescribing her as follows:\n\n[1088] Act iii. sc. 1.\n\n She\u2019s bitter to her country: hear me, Paris!\n For every false drop in her bawdy veins\n A Grecian\u2019s life hath sunk: for every scruple\n Of her contaminated carrion weight\n A Trojan hath been slain: since she could speak\n She hath not given so many good words breath\n As, for her, Greeks and Trojans suffered death[1089].\n\n[1089] Act iv. sc. 1.\n\nThe palm of pure heroism is now become so entirely Hector\u2019s property,\nthat Achilles only slays him by means of the swords of his Myrmidons,\nnot by his own proper might; and that, too, does not happen\nuntil, wearied and disarmed, he applies to Achilles to forego his\nvantage[1090]: so that Ajax says with very great propriety indeed,\n\n[1090] Troilus and Cressida, v. 9.\n\n Great Hector was as good a man as he[1091].\n\n[1091] Ibid. v. 10.\n\nShirley\u2019s \u2018Contention of Ajax and Ulysses,\u2019 independently of other\nmerits, deserves notice for a partial return towards just conception\nof the Homeric characters. Yet even here the claim of Ajax to the arms\nof Achilles is founded principally on the impeachment of Ulysses as a\ncoward; and the reply of that chieftain rests much too exclusively on\nsetting up his political merits and achievements, as if he were strong\nin no other title.\n\nThe description of Ajax may deserve to be quoted:\n\n And now I look on Ajax Telamon,\n I may compare him to some spacious building;\n His body holds vast rooms of entertainment,\n And lower parts maintain the offices;\n Only the garret, his exalted head,\n Useless for wise receipt, is fill\u2019d with lumber.\n\nDryden followed Shakespeare in the portion of this field which he had\nselected; and cast afresh the subject of Troilus and Cressida. He\ndeparted alike from Shakespeare and from Chaucer by making Cressida\nprove innocent, a supposition, says Scott, no more endurable in the\npreceding age, than one \u2018which should have exhibited Helen chaste, or\nHector a coward.\u2019 All the incongruities of Shakespeare\u2019s play are here\nreproduced, including the mixture of the modern element of love with\nthe Greek and Trojan chivalry; Ajax and Achilles are depressed to one\nand the same low level.\n\n Ajax and Achilles! two mudwalls of fool,\n That differ only in degrees of thickness[1092],\n\n[1092] Dryden\u2019s Troil. and Cress., act ii. sc. 3.\n\nsays Thersites; and Ulysses answers in a similar strain. Troilus fairly\nslays Diomed in single combat, and is then himself slain by Achilles in\nthe crowd. Hector is dispatched, behind the scenes, under the swords of\na multitude of men[1093].\n\n[1093] Act v. sc. 2.\n\n~_Racine\u2019s Andromaque and Iphig\u00e9nie._~\n\nA short time before this play of Dryden\u2019s, Racine had taken the\ncharacters of the Trojan war in hand. His \u2018Andromaque\u2019 and \u2018Iphig\u00e9nie,\u2019\nhowever, afford us no new lights, and might very well have been\nconceived by a person who had never read a line of Homer, though in\nvarious passages there are imitations which must have filtered from\nthe Homeric text. He was content in general to copy the traditions as\ngiven by Euripides; and it may provoke a smile to read an apology of\none of his editors, Boisjermain, for the manner in which Ulysses is\nhandled in the \u2018Iphig\u00e9nie.\u2019 Appearing, near the outset of the piece, as\na personage of very high importance, he notwithstanding plays in the\nplot a part wholly insignificant, instead of assuming, as he does in\nEuripides, the important function of urging the slaughter of Iphigenia\nfor the honour and benefit of Greece. Speaking of the critics who\nblame this arrangement, the editor says, they have failed to observe\nthat Racine has adopted the jealousy and intrigues of Hermione as the\nprime movers against Iphigenia, and that these produce the same result\nas might otherwise (forsooth) have been brought about by the reasonings\nof Ulysses. The work of literary profanation could hardly be carried\nfurther: it was not to be thus capriciously bandied about from pillar\nto post, that Homer constructed his deathless masterpieces. In the\n\u2018Andromaque,\u2019 much as it is praised, we miss, still more egregiously\nthan in the \u2018Iphig\u00e9nie,\u2019 all the simplicity and grandeur of the Greek\nheroic age, and find ourselves environed by the infinite littleness of\nmerely passionate personal intrigues, which have self only for their\npole and centre. Nothing can be more unsatisfactory than to see these\narchaic Grecian characters dressed in the very last Parisian fashions,\nwith speech and action accordingly. The total want of breadth and\ndepth of character, and of earnestness and resolution, as opposed to\nmere violence, is such that at parts of the \u2018Andromaque\u2019 we are almost\ncompelled to ask, whether we are reading a tragedy or a burlesque? As,\nfor instance, when, with the Sixth Iliad yet lingering upon our mental\nvision, we hear Andromache say to her confidante,\n\n Tu vois le pouvoir de mes yeux[1094];\n\n[1094] Acte iii. sc. 5.\n\nand when Hermione threatens her _pis-aller_ lover, Orestes, with\nrespect to Pyrrhus,\n\n S\u2019il ne meurt aujourd\u2019hui--je puis l\u2019aimer demain[1095].\n\n[1095] Acte iv. sc. iii.\n\nIt is here, too, that we see carried perhaps to the very highest\npoint of exaggeration the misstatement of the relative martial merits\nand performances of Hector and his adversaries. The Greeks Hermione,\nherself a Spartan, describes as\n\n Des peuples qui dix ans ont fui devant Hector;\n Qui cent fois, effray\u00e9s de l\u2019absence de l\u2019Achille,\n Dans leur vaisseaux br\u00fblants ont cherch\u00e9 leur asyle;\n Et qu\u2019on verroit encore, sans l\u2019appui de son fils,\n Redemander H\u00e9l\u00e8ne aux Troyens impunis[1096].\n\n[1096] Acte iii. sc. 3.\n\nIt was well that the handling of Homer should cease altogether for\na time, when the characters and scenes belonging to his subject had\nbecome so thoroughly anti-Homeric, that they only falsified what\nthey ought to have assisted to perpetuate. An interval has followed,\nduring which they have been allowed to repose. It would be hazardous\nto conjecture, after the failures of so many ages, how far they\ncan hereafter be satisfactorily reproduced. It has been reserved\nfor Goethe, with his vigorous grasp of classical antiquity, to\ntread regions bordering upon that of the Iliad and Odyssey with the\nconsciousness of a master\u2019s power. In his \u2018Iphigenie,\u2019 for example, he\nhas given to his scenes, events, and characters the tone and colouring,\nwith which alone they ought to be invested. And, if the study and\ninvestigation of Homer shall henceforward be carried on with a zeal\nat all proportioned to the advantages of the present age, they cannot\nfail to accumulate materials, which it may be permitted us to hope that\nfuture genius will mould into such forms as, if only they are faithful\nto the spirit of their original, must alike abound in beauty, truth,\nand grandeur, and alike avail for the delight and the instruction of\nmankind.\n\n * * * * *\n\n~_Conclusion._~\n\nWe have now walked, in the train and in the light of the great Poet\nof antiquity, through a long, yet, so far at least as he is a party,\nnot a barren circuit. We have begun with his earliest legends, faintly\nglimmering upon us from the distance of an hundred generations. We have\nseen the creations of his mind live and move, breathe and almost burn\nbefore us, under the power and magic of his art. We have found him\nto have shaped a great and noble mould of humanity, separate indeed\nfrom our experience, but allied through a thousand channels with our\nsympathies. We have seen the greatness of our race at one and the same\ntime adorned with the simplicity of its childhood, and built up in\nthe strength of its maturity. We have seen it unfold itself in the\nrelations of society and sex, in peace and in war, in things human\nand things divine; and have examined it under the varied lights of\ncomparison and contrast. We have seen how the memory of that great age,\nand of its yet greater Poet, has been cherished: how the trust which he\nbequeathed to mankind has been acknowledged, and yet how imperfectly it\nhas been discharged. We have striven to trace the fate of some among\nhis greatest creations; and having accompanied them down the stream of\nyears even to our own day, it is full time to part. Nemesis must not\nfind me[1097],\n\n[1097] Il. i. 27.\n\n \u1f22 \u03bd\u1fe6\u03bd \u03b4\u03b7\u03b8\u03cd\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u2019, \u1f22 \u1f55\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd \u03b1\u1f56\u03b8\u03b9\u03c2 \u1f30\u03cc\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1.\n\nTo pass from the study of Homer to the ordinary business of the world\nis to step out of a palace of enchantments into the cold grey light\nof a polar day. But the spells, in which this sorcerer deals, have no\naffinity with that drug from Egypt[1098], which drowns the spirit in\neffeminate indifference: rather they are like the \u03c6\u03ac\u03c1\u03bc\u03b1\u03ba\u03bf\u03bd \u1f10\u03c3\u03b8\u03bb\u1f78\u03bd,\nthe remedial specific[1099], which, freshening the understanding by\ncontact with the truth and strength of nature, should both improve\nits vigilance against deceit and danger, and increase its vigour and\nresolution for the discharge of duty.\n\n[1098] Od. iv. 220-6.\n\n[1099] Od. x. 287.\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 map at the back of the book has been moved to accompany its\ndescription in the text.\n\n\nThe following apparent errors have been corrected:\n\np. 7 \"\u1f00\u03c1\u03c7\u03b9\u03c4\u03b5\u03ba\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd\u03b9\u03ba\u03ae[14]; and that ethical\"--footnote marker added\n\np. 9 \"\u03b2\u03b1\u03c3\u03af\u03bb\u03b5\u03b9\u03b1\" changed to \"\u03b2\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03bb\u03b5\u03af\u03b1\"\n\np. 20 \"\u0392\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03bb\u03b5\u03af\u03b1\" changed to \"\u0392\u03b1\u03c3\u03af\u03bb\u03b5\u03b9\u03b1\"\n\np. 26 \"\u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03cc\u03c2.[43]\"--footnote marker added\n\np. 28 \"no where\" changed to \"nowhere\"\n\np. 31 \"\u03b2\u03b1\u03c3\u03af\u03bb\u03b5\u03b9\u03b1\" changed to \"\u03b2\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03bb\u03b5\u03af\u03b1\"\n\np. 44 \"\u03c0\u03c5\u03b3\u03bc\u03b1\u03c7\u03af\u03b7 \u1f00\u03bb\u03b5\u03b3\u03b5\u03af\u03bd\u03b7\" changed to \"\u03c0\u03c5\u03b3\u03bc\u03b1\u03c7\u03af\u03b7 \u1f00\u03bb\u03b5\u03b3\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd\u1f74\"\n\np. 52 \"Iaolcus\" changed to \"Iolcus\"\n\np. 61 \"\u1f00\u03b5\u03b9\u03ba\u03ad\u03c2[126]\u00b7\" changed to \"\u1f00\u03b5\u03b9\u03ba\u03ad\u03c2[126],\"\n\np. 62 \"\u1f04\u03b3\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2\" changed to \"\u1f00\u03b3\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2\"\n\np. 64 \"\u03ba\u03bb\u03b5\u03cc\u03c2\" changed to \"\u03ba\u03bb\u03ad\u03bf\u03c2\"\n\np. 70 \"\u03b4\u03b7\u03bc\u03b9\u03cc\u03b5\u03c1\u03b3\u03bf\u03b9\" changed to \"\u03b4\u03b7\u03bc\u03b9\u03bf\u03b5\u03c1\u03b3\u03bf\u1f76\"\n\np. 96 \"\u03b2\u03bf\u03cd\u03bb\u03b7\" changed to \"\u03b2\u03bf\u03c5\u03bb\u1f74\"\n\np. 96 \"\u03b2\u03bf\u03cd\u03bb\u03b7\" changed to \"\u03b2\u03bf\u03c5\u03bb\u03ae\"\n\np. 96 (note) \"408-8\" changed to \"408-9\"\n\np. 97 \"\u1f00\u03b3\u03cc\u03c1\u03b7\" changed to \"\u1f00\u03b3\u03bf\u03c1\u1f74\"\n\np. 98 \"\u1f26\u03ba\u03b5\" changed to \"\u1f27\u03ba\u03b5\"\n\np. 100 \"\u1f00\u03b3\u03cc\u03c1\u1fc3\" changed to \"\u1f00\u03b3\u03bf\u03c1\u1fc7\"\n\np. 103 (note) \"24, 391\" changed to \"24. 391\"\n\np. 104 \"\u1f00\u03b3\u03cc\u03c1\u03b7\" changed to \"\u1f00\u03b3\u03bf\u03c1\u1f74\" (two instances)\n\np. 110 \"\u03bc\u03b1\u03bb\u1f70\" changed to \"\u03bc\u03ac\u03bb\u03b1\"\n\np. 117 \"\u1f00\u03b3\u03cc\u03c1\u03b7\u03bd\" changed to \"\u1f00\u03b3\u03bf\u03c1\u1f74\u03bd\"\n\np. 119 \"Coward that that\" changed to \"Coward that\"\n\np. 121 \"slighest\" changed to \"slightest\"\n\np. 123 \"render you\u201d\" changed to \"render you\u2019\"\n\np. 131 \"\u1f24\u03bd\u03b4\u03b1\u03bd\u03b5\" changed to \"\u1f25\u03bd\u03b4\u03b1\u03bd\u03b5\"\n\np. 140 (note) \"497\" changed to \"497.\"\n\np. 151 \"\u1f2c\u03c9\u03c2\" changed to \"\u1f28\u1f7c\u03c2\"\n\np. 153 (sidenote) \"in Troas\" changed to \"in Troas.\"\n\np. 153 \"\u1f2c\u03c6\u03b1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2\" changed to \"\u1f2d\u03c6\u03b1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2\"\n\np. 162 (note) \"Ibid\" changed to \"Ibid.\"\n\np. 172 \"\u1f00\u03b3\u03cc\u03c1\u03b7\" changed to \"\u1f00\u03b3\u03bf\u03c1\u1f74\"\n\np. 172 \"\u03bc\u03b1\u03bb\u1f70\" changed to \"\u03bc\u03ac\u03bb\u03b1\"\n\np. 179 \"the the same\" changed to \"the same\"\n\np. 180 \"\u03b4\u03b7\u03bc\u03b9\u03cc\u03b5\u03c1\u03b3\u03bf\u03c2\" changed to \"\u03b4\u03b7\u03bc\u03b9\u03bf\u03b5\u03c1\u03b3\u1f78\u03c2\"\n\np. 211 \"\u1f10\u03ba\u03c5\u03c1\u1f74\" changed to \"\u1f11\u03ba\u03c5\u03c1\u1f74\"\n\np. 216 \"\u03b1\u1f36\u03b4\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f00\u03b3\u03b7\u03c4\u03cc\u03bd\" changed to \"\u03b5\u1f36\u03b4\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f00\u03b3\u03b7\u03c4\u03cc\u03bd\"\n\np. 226 \"colleagues[483].\" changed to \"colleagues[483]:\"\n\np. 236 \"\u03b2\u03bf\u03cd\u03bb\u03b7\" changed to \"\u03b2\u03bf\u03c5\u03bb\u1f74\"\n\np. 237 \"\u1f00\u03b3\u03cc\u03c1\u1fc3\" changed to \"\u1f00\u03b3\u03bf\u03c1\u1fc7\"\n\np. 237 \"\u1f00\u03b3\u03cc\u03c1\u03b1\u03c2\" changed to \"\u1f00\u03b3\u03bf\u03c1\u1f70\u03c2\"\n\np. 237 \"\u03b2\u03bf\u03c5\u03bb\u03b5\u03cd\u03c4\u03b7\u03c2\" changed to \"\u03b2\u03bf\u03c5\u03bb\u03b5\u03c5\u03c4\u1f74\u03c2\"\n\np. 239 \"twenty one\" changed to \"twenty-one\"\n\np. 239 \"\u03b2\u03bf\u03cd\u03bb\u03b7\" changed to \"\u03b2\u03bf\u03c5\u03bb\u1f74\"\n\np. 239 \"\u1f00\u03b3\u03cc\u03c1\u03b7\" changed to \"\u1f00\u03b3\u03bf\u03c1\u1f74\"\n\np. 246 \"\u1f08\u03ca\u03b4\u1f7c\u03c2\" changed to \"\u0391\u1f30\u03b4\u1f7c\u03c2\"\n\np. 251 \"rout\" changed to \"route\"\n\np. 254 \"arbitary\" changed to \"arbitrary\"\n\np. 279 \"\u1f00\u03bd\u03ad\u03bc\u03bf\u03b9\" changed to \"\u1f04\u03bd\u03b5\u03bc\u03bf\u03b9\"\n\np. 287 \"\u1f2c\u03c9\u03c2\" changed to \"\u1f28\u1f7c\u03c2\"\n\np. 294 the footnote marker after \"current of Yenikal\u00e8\" had no matching\nfootnote in the printed book; the footnote attached to the preceding\nquotation from Od. xi. 13 appears to correspond to this marker.\n\np. 320 \"(7981)\" changed to \"(79-81)\"\n\np. 330 \"or Corfu\" changed to \"of Corfu\"\n\np. 353 \"(95-673)\" changed to \"(495-673)\"\n\np. 355 \"415\" changed to \"415.\"\n\np. 357 \"\u03b5\u1f56\u03c1\u03b5\u03bd\" changed to \"\u03b5\u1f57\u03c1\u03b5\u03bd\" (two instances)\n\np. 358 \"141.\" changed to \"141,\"\n\np. 359 (sidenote) \"xii, 239\" changed to \"xii. 239\"\n\np. 363 \"\u03b8\u03c9\u03c1\u03c1\u03ae\u03c3\u03c3\u03b5\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9\" changed to \u03b8\u03c9\u03c1\u03ae\u03c3\u03c3\u03b5\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9\n\np. 375 \"the speech\" changed to \"speech\"\n\np. 384 (note) \"persongaes\" changed to \"personages\"\n\np. 393 \"gallant just\" changed to \"gallant, just\"\n\np. 410 \"\u03b2\u1fc6 \u1fe5\" changed to \"\u03b2\u1fc6 \u1fe5\u2019\"\n\np. 413 \"short,\" changed to \"short.\"\n\np. 418 \"Though\" changed to \"\u2018Though\"\n\np. 430 \"\u03a4\u03b5\u03c4\u03c1\u03b1\u03ba\u1f76\u03c2\" changed to \"\u03a4\u03b5\u03c4\u03c1\u03ac\u03ba\u03b9\u03c2\"\n\np. 437 \"\u1f11\u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03cc\u03bc\u03b2\u03bf\u1fd6\u03bf\u03bd\" changed to \"\u1f11\u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03cc\u03bc\u03b2\u03bf\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd\"\n\np. 459 \"and violet\" changed to \"and blue\"\n\np. 465 \"Od x.\" changed to \"Od. x.\"\n\np. 483 \"\u03bf\u1f54\u03c1\u03b1\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2\" changed to \"\u03bf\u1f50\u03c1\u03b1\u03bd\u1f78\u03c2\"\n\np. 514 \"thown\" changed to \"thrown\"\n\np. 546 \"exchantress\" changed to \"enchantress\"\n\np. 578 \"passage,\" changed to \"passage\"\n\np. 613 \"Boisjermain,\u2019\" changed to \"Boisjermain,\"\n\n\nInconsistent spelling, hyphenation, italics and punctuation have\notherwise been kept as printed.\n\n\nThe following are used inconsistently in the book:\n\nablebodied and able-bodied\n\nabovenamed and above-named\n\nanything and any thing\n\nbattlefield and battle-field\n\nbon\u00e2 and bona\n\nbreastplate and breast-plate\n\ncommonplace and common-place\n\ncontrol and controul\n\ncornfield and corn-field\n\nfarfetched and far-fetched\n\nfoulmouthed and foul-mouthed\n\nfountainhead and fountain-head\n\nlater and latter\n\nOuter Geography and Outer geography\n\npseudo-Ulysses and Pseudo-Ulysses\n\nreenter and re-enter\n\nreestablished and re-established\n\nS.E. and S. E. (etc.)\n\nsemifabulous and semi-fabulous\n\ntomorrow and to-morrow\n\nwatchfires and watch-fires","title":"Studies on Homer and the Homeric Age, Vol. 3 of 3: I. Agor\u00e8: Polities of the Homeric Age. II. Ilios: Trojans and Greeks Compared. III. Thalassa: The Outer Geography. IV. Aoidos: Some Points of the Poetry of Homer.","tradition":"philosophy-ethics","translated_text":null,"word_count":200436}