{"collection":"philosophy-ethics","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_59132/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_59132","id":"gutenberg_59132","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/59132","summary":null,"tags":["Category: History - Ancient","Category: Philosophy & Ethics","Category: Teaching & Education","Civilization","Greece -- Civilization","Greece -- Intellectual life"],"text":"Produced by Chuck Greif, deaurider and the Online\nDistributed Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net (This\nfile was produced from images generously made available\nby The Internet Archive)\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n                       What Have the Greeks Done\n                       For Modern Civilisation?\n\n                    The Lowell Lectures of 1908-09\n\n                                  By\n\n                         John Pentland Mahaffy\n\n                     C.V.O., D.C.L. (Oxon.), etc.\n\n                      Of Trinity College, Dublin\n\n                          G. P. Putnam\u2019s Sons\n                          New York and London\n                        The Knickerbocker Press\n\n\n                            COPYRIGHT, 1909\n                                  BY\n                             J. P. MAHAFFY\n\n                       [Illustration: colophon]\n\n               _Printed in the United States of America_\n\n\n                            SANCT\u00c6 MEMORI\u00c6\n                           UXORIS CARISSIM\u00c6\n                         CUJUS DULCI CONSORTIO\n                         INGENII SUI PRIMITIAS\n                          ABHINC JAM ANNOS XL\n                               DEDICAVIT\n                          NUNC SERUM LABOREM\n                           CONSECRAT AUCTOR\n\n\n\n\nPREFACE\n\n\nThese lectures, delivered in Boston at the invitation of the Curator of\nthe Lowell Institute, in December and January, 1908-9, are now published\nowing to many requests both from those that heard them and from those\nthat did not. They are an attempt to cover the whole field of Greek\ninfluence, not only in the various arts in which such influence is\ngenerally realised, but also in those departments of thinking in which\nmoderns arrogate to themselves an unquestioned superiority. Yet it will\nbe found, even in the following necessarily brief and popular sketch,\nthat, as regards _thinking_, the Greeks were as supreme in science as in\nother departments, and, though they did not discover the powers of steam\nor electricity, they nevertheless carried out in mechanics works that no\nmodern builder, with all his vaunted control of nature, has yet\nequalled, and so in other pursuits, not only Greek form, but Greek\nthought, has been the greatest and the clearest that the world has yet\nseen.\n\nAnd yet I believed that the high honour in which Greek studies were long\nheld had been exchanged for indifference, or even contempt, especially\nin America, where a hurried education planned for \u201cpractical life\u201d was\nsaid to be taking the place of the old liberal education intended to\nbreed gentlemen. But I found, during my actual visit to America, that I\nhad been misled as to the completeness of this degradation of Greek. As\nis usual, the stranger begins by getting false impressions of the\ncountry he visits, and can only correct these gradually by detailed\nexperience. There were many symptoms that public opinion in the States\nis by no means satisfied with the thought of an absolute reign of modern\nscience, or of specialising education at the fancy of the ignorant youth\nor the more ignorant parent. Even employers in factories are beginning\nto find out, with that plain good sense which marks the solid core of\nAmerican society, that young men who receive a liberal education are\nmore intelligent and useful as tradesmen or mechanics than those who\nhave mastered only one subject. The intellectual outlook tells even upon\nthe handicraft of the apprentice.\n\nThere is therefore some prospect that the mistakes of the last\ngeneration (possibly due to the influence of Harvard and other\nuniversities) will be corrected, and that a proper college education\nwill again replace the bread-and-butter studies in the earlier years of\nall good courses of training. If such a recovery of sound education\ntakes place, it is impossible that Greek shall not resume its old\nimportance. We now know far more of Hellenic work than did our\nfore-fathers. We can vindicate Greek studies in a manner wholly strange\nto them, had they ever thought a vindication called for. But, on the\nother hand, the teaching of Greek must be reformed. It must be made a\nhuman and lively study, taught like a modern language by dictation and\nrecitation, as well as by written composition and reading of authors. In\nmany English public schools, there has been a fashion not only of\nteaching the old languages as if they were indeed dead, but of spoiling\nthe teaching of modern languages by copying this mistake. Much of the\nprejudice against the learning of Greek has been created by this\nblunder, and by its radiation into kindred studies. But this also I\ntrust will be mended, and we shall have a more intelligent method of\nteaching all languages as living vehicles of human expression. Among\nthese, the Greek is far the most perfect.\n\nIf this little book may help toward this great reformation, it will have\namply succeeded in its purpose.\n\nI must not send it out without thanking my many American friends for\ntheir sympathy and encouragement. During my visit, everybody seemed\nready to hear what I had to say, and in some of the discussions which\nwere the result, notably at Philadelphia, there seemed to be quite a\nbody of opinion in my favour. Two observations are worth making here\nbefore I conclude: The American professors of Greek and Latin have\nexactly the same experience that we have in Ireland regarding the\nabandonment of Greek while professing to retain Latin. Neither there nor\nin Ireland have we failed to note the deterioration of Latin teaching,\nand the conviction grows upon us that a teacher who knows no Greek\ncannot be a Latin scholar in any real sense.\n\nSo much for the boasted retaining of Latin while sacrificing Greek.\n\nThe next observation concerns the now fashionable attending of courses\nin English Literature. In no case during my visit did I hear a literary\nconversation spring up among these students of English.\n\nThey have no doubt admirable professors in great numbers, specialists\non every English poet and prose writer worth naming. But apparently\npoetry learnt without labour in the mother tongue is not assimilated or\nappreciated as is the poetry of classical languages, and from them the\ndelight in literature as such spreads into kindred studies. Wherever I\ncited the poets, or indeed great prose such as the Bible, among the\nyoung people who had studied English as a subject for graduation, I\nfound a strange ignorance of what ought to have been most familiar. I\nwas almost driven to believe the paradox that without a classical\neducation even the proper appreciation of English literature is unusual.\n\n                                                               J. P. M.\n\nOn board S. S. _Celtic_, January 20, 1909.\n\n\n\n\nCONTENTS\n\n\n                                                                      PAGE\n\nPREFACE                                                                 ii\n\n   I. INTRODUCTORY                                                       1\n\n  II. GREEK POETRY                                                      31\n\n III. GREEK PROSE                                                       65\n\n  IV. GREEK ART--I: ARCHITECTURE AND SCULPTURE                          98\n\n   V. GREEK ART--II: PAINTING AND MUSIC                                125\n\n  VI. SCIENCE: GRAMMAR--LOGIC--MATHEMATICS--MEDICINE                   147\n\n VII. POLITICS--SOCIOLOGY--LAW                                         181\n\nVIII. HIGHER THINKING, PHILOSOPHY, SPECULATIVE AND PRACTICAL THEOLOGY  213\n\n\n\n\nWhat Have the Greeks Done for Modern Civilisation?\n\n\n\n\nI\n\nINTRODUCTORY\n\n\nAfter more than half a century spent on the study of old Greek life in\nits art, politics, literature, philosophy, and science, I gladly adopt\nthis ample and dignified occasion to give a review of what I have\nlearned to this audience, whose intellectual standard, and whose\nsympathy with the work of a student, are recognised throughout the\nworld. It is a great honour for any man from Europe to speak on this\nplatform, but it implies, in consequence, a grave responsibility, and it\nis impossible to stand before you here without some feeling of awe, for\nI feel I am addressing not merely this most fastidious audience, or even\nthe larger American public, with whom I gladly claim an old acquaintance\nthrough my books, but the great congregation of the educated classes in\nmany and diverse lands.\n\nI do not suppose that any of you will be disposed to dispute the fact\n(which the very title of these lectures presupposes)--that modern\ncivilisation, from various points of view, owes a great debt to the old\nGreeks. If there be any such sceptic here, I trust he will be converted\nin the course of my conversation with him from this platform. But even\nto those who readily admit the fact, explicit proofs of it may not be\nuseless, for they will show you the reasons that have long since\npersuaded the world of teachers to make Greek essential in a liberal\neducation. Assuming, however, for the present the main fact, I think I\nshall begin this discourse most profitably by discussing the supposed\ncauses which gave the Greeks this curious pre-eminence. It is perhaps,\nto use familiar words, putting the cart before the horse, but you need\nhardly be reminded that if in logic we often do not explain a statement\nuntil we have established its truth, in time the order is different. The\ncauses of every great result are hidden in past ages, shrouded by the\nmists of antiquity, covered with the cloud of oblivion, so that in the\npresent case the consideration of the prehistoric causes of the\ngreatness of the Greek intellect may well precede the evidence of that\ngreatness, which we gather by the lamp, often dim, of history, if not by\nthe searchlight of arch\u00e6ological science. Though this subject cannot but\nprove dull to some of you, I shall do my best to relieve the dulness by\nillustrations or even by digressions into kindred fields of knowledge.\n\nI know that there are two considerations which, in the minds of people\nwho are easily satisfied, pass for an adequate account of this\nextraordinary genius of the Greeks. It is usual, especially among those\nwho will not take the trouble to learn Greek, to say that it was really\nthrough Rome that the greatness of the Hellenic race was created. Rome\nconquered the Western world with her roads, her armies, her laws, her\nlanguage, and impressed even on barbarians the culture which she had\nherself adopted and developed. The Latin races which were in the van of\ncivilisation up to the seventeenth century were the daughters of Rome\nand had little direct teaching from Greece.\n\nAll this is perfectly true, but it only moves the problem one step\nbackward. Assuming that the Romans were the carriers of enlightenment to\nthe North and West of Europe, why did they depend so completely on Greek\nteaching; why did they one and all confess that this was the unique\nsource of their progress? They came in due time into contact with the\nculture of Carthage, of Syria, of Egypt. But the splendours of these\ncountries were never to the Romans more than mere curiosities, whereas\nGreek culture was the very breath of their intellectual life. Virgil, a\nvery great poet, frames every one of his works on Greek models, and\ntranslates even from second-rate Greek work. Horace, a very great\nartist, prides himself on having made Greek lyrics at home in his\ncountry, and Lucretius, whose reputation for originality among modern\ncritics is mainly due to the total loss of the original which he copied,\nhimself claims as his main credit that he had ventured to reproduce a\nyet uncopied species of Greek poetry. It is hard to conceive a more\ncomplete case made out for the unparalleled influence of Hellenic genius\nupon proud and dominant neighbours. I will merely remind you how a fresh\nwave of Greek influence, coming into Romanised Europe in the fifteenth\ncentury, caused such a revolution in literature and art as to be called\na new birth (Renascence).\n\nLet us turn to a widely different kind of explanation, which is wont to\nbe set forth at the opening of most modern histories of Greece, as a\n_vera causa_ to account for a wonderful and exceptional result. This\ntheory is the echo of the famous opening of Buckle\u2019s great book on\nCivilisation, wherein it is asserted that man is the creature of\nexternal circumstances and that these determine not only his physical,\nbut his intellectual increase. In particular, the greatness of Egypt and\nits early victory over the obstacles of nature are attributed to the\nheat and moisture of the climate; and so we are told that the temperate\nairs of the \u00c6gean, the multitude of its islands, its indented coast, its\nfiords, its broken outlines, and varied scenery--these are such that the\npeople living among them would naturally develop the qualities which\nhave given the primacy in its turn to Greece. Such conclusions are based\nupon very superficial and inaccurate observation. It was assumed that\nEgypt had been necessarily an unity, owing to the isolation of its land\nfrom neighbours, and to the fact that its great high-road, the Nile,\ntraversed the whole country. We now know this to be false, and that the\nreduction of Egypt first to two, and then to one state was not\naccomplished till after ages of separation among its _nomes_, and was\naccomplished not by natural necessity but by the genius of a conqueror.\nAs regards the physical peculiarities of that country, they are all to\nbe found again on the Indus, with its affluents from far inland Alps\nbringing down a periodical inundation, with its great delta spreading\nfrom Hyderabad, with its long course through a desert which affords it\nnot a rivulet of increase: yet the peoples of the Indus have never\nthriven and waxed great like the Egyptians. So far as our evidence leads\nus, we may assert that had the Egyptians been settled on the Indus, and\nthe population of the Indus on the Nile, the respective parts played by\nthese rivers in civilisation would have been reversed. I am equally\nconvinced that had the Greek race been settled on the Adriatic, with\nmany fiords and islands, and over against Italy, instead of Asia Minor,\nor on the west coast of Italy, with its headlands and bays, its great\nand fruitful islands within sight,--these circumstances would have been\nequally favourable to their genius, whereas they were not sufficient to\nraise the Corsicans and Sardinians, perhaps the best situated of all,\nfrom a very low level among nations. I will not cite Sicily, drawn from\nits obscurity by the Greeks, for they were already great in the scale of\nnations when they transformed that splendid island, long undistinguished\nunder Sikels, Sicans, Ph\u0153nicians, into a brilliant province of\nHellenedom. It may perhaps occur to some of you that the special\nqualities of the race came from its being a purer branch of the great\nAryan stock than its brethren; that it was pre-eminently Japhet dwelling\nin the tents of Shem, unalloyed with the dross of lower races, whose\nanimalism has survived in the defects of other Aryan stocks that dwelt\namong them. But the very opposite seems to be the case. The more we\nstudy the Greek language, the more we are impressed with the number of\nstrange roots, which point to a non-Aryan origin. Many of the words in\ncommonest use, such as \u03b2\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03bb\u03b5\u1f51\u03c2 and \u03c4\u1f51\u03c1\u03b1\u03bd\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2, are not to be explained\nfrom Aryan roots, and anyone who has studied such place-names as Tiryns,\nAssos, and their congeners will fairly conclude that the Greeks were not\npurer from admixture than the Slavs or the Celts.[1] After all that has\nbeen adduced, therefore, to account for the intellectual supremacy of\nthe Greeks, we are compelled to fall back on the ultimate fact--which\nhas not been explained--that they possessed a national genius denied to\ntheir brethren and their neighbours. It is as yet an ultimate fact that\nthe human race is not promoted, except in numbers, by heat and\nmoisture. Some have been higher from the earliest moment that we can\nobserve, or infer, their conditions. Others have remained lower in spite\nof the most favourable circumstances. This is a riddle which no\nhistorian has yet solved. But is it stranger, I ask, than the sporadic\nand unaccountable appearance, in a settled and known society, of\nindividual genius? This is the parallel case wherewith I cannot explain,\nbut only vindicate my position. Is it stranger that one nation should\nemerge into history with exceptional gifts than that there emerges into\nlife, according to no law that we know, individual genius? If you look\nback at the family history of those that have made or upset empires,\nthat have added new domains to science, that have created the poetry of\nthe world, you will find no law or reason to explain their sporadic\nappearance, like that of brilliant meteors across the orderly stars of\nthe sky. They generally come from undistinguished parents; they have\nundistinguished brothers and sisters; they do not transmit their great\nqualities, save in some rare occasions, as if to show that there is even\nhere no prohibitive law. They may be single, or eldest, or youngest,\nchildren, or in the middle of a large family. They need not be noted for\nphysical health. There was once a posthumous and yet prematurely born\ninfant, so puny and wretched that, but for the sorrows of the widowed\nmother, little pains would have been taken to keep it alive, for it was\nher first born. Charitable neighbours nursed it with amazing care, and\nso saved its miserable spark of life from extinction. After a delicate\nand monotonous youth, the child went to Cambridge; he was known in later\nyears as Sir Isaac Newton.\n\nBut if, so long as civilised societies cloak the first beginnings of\nindividual human life in mystery, we can only refer the sporadic\noccurrence of genius to chance, is it any wonder, after the lapse of\nages has covered with its mists the childhood of nations, that we should\nbe unable to give any better answer to explain the occurrence of\nnational genius in one race, while its brothers and sisters are not\nabove the vulgar average? On one thing only I insist: let us not deny a\ngreat fact because we cannot explain it.\n\nAssuming then as ultimate that one nation may be gifted above the rest\nwith genius, let us consider in what the pre-eminence consists. And here\nagain we shall be aided by the analogy of individual genius. The first\nand most superficial answer is that genius is original, that it strikes\nout new ideas, new solutions of problems, new lines of research, while\nthe average man can only learn what others have already discovered for\nhim. But a deeper and more careful inquiry reveals to us that absolutely\nnew ideas are of the very rarest occurrence; almost the whole work of\nhuman genius consists in assimilating what others have thought, in\ncombining what others have imagined separate, in recasting the form of\ntheir thought, and so producing what seems a perfectly new thing, and\nyet is only the old under a new aspect. No instance of this is more\nsignal than that of a great composer in music. The gift of original\nmelody, as it is called, is rare and precious. The possessor of it is\njustly considered a genius. But no melody could possibly speak to us\nexcept a combination of perfectly well known elements. The only\noriginality is in their assimilation and reproduction.\n\nIf then we admit that the assimilation of what others have done is a\nmost important feature in genius, we can affirm not only that the Greeks\nwere gifted with this power, but we can go further and say that they\nsettled in a part of the world eminently suited to suggest new ideas and\nto afford scope for all the combinations which their genius prompted\nthem to make. I have already explained how widely I differ from those\nwho have laid great stress on the characteristics of the country\noccupied by this race. External nature was the very thing that the\nGreeks, all through their great history, felt less keenly than we should\nhave expected. Their want of a sense of the picturesque in nature has\neven been cited as a notable defect. But, though repudiating all this\nkind of argument, I am quite ready for widely different reasons to lay\nmuch weight on the geographical position of Greece. It is an argument\nwhich you will not find, I think, in your histories. This people\nestablished their home on the confines of two very diverse\ncivilisations, so that they were able to assimilate ideas from both and\nto weave them into a fabric of their own.\n\nConcerning the influences coming from the south-east, there was never\nany doubt. All the legends about Cadmus, Danaus, and the like assert the\nimportation of the culture of Ph\u0153nicia and of Egypt into Greece. The\nsame thing is said of the empire of Minos of Crete, which is now found\nto have been a reality, and from which a very early culture passed\nthrough the \u00c6gean Islands to the coasts of Greece. Whether the early\ngraphic systems used at Cnossos made their way to Mycen\u00e6 or Tiryns we\nhave no evidence to determine. Most probably they did, and these may\nhave been the \u201cdire symbols\u201d which Homer mentions as sent with\nBellerophon to seal his fate with the Lycian king. But in any case the\nPh\u0153nician alphabet came in; the use of engraved seals was carried by the\nsame traders from Babylon; the ostrich eggs, the ivory from Africa, the\ndesigns on many objects, tell no uncertain tale. For all that, the\nearliest art of Greece--I will not call it Hellenic as yet--is not\nOriental but European, and with features of its own. And this need not\nbe referred to its originality; far more probably was it caused by\nassimilating another kind of culture, which had features of its own and\nwhich can be shown to have had its influence on Mycen\u00e6an art. This\ncivilisation dwelt in central Europe and came from the north to Greece.\nIt has been called Keltic, it has been called Pelasgian; we find it in\ntombs, and in raths even as far as Ireland. It was from this source that\ncame the fancy for Baltic amber as an ornament--a thing as strange in\nGreece as the ostrich egg. From here too came the shape of early bronze\nweapons, probably the habit of burying the dead in beehive tombs;\nactually many of the patterns used for ornament on tools and weapons.\nAnd who can tell how much more filtered in from this source, which the\nold Greeks called Pelasgian? Thus the Hellenic race was on the verge of\ntwo kinds of culture, and created from both that distinct type which\nultimately became the most perfect in the world.\n\nThe genius for assimilating might seem to imply a collateral\nweakness--the danger of absorption or degeneration into the nations\nwhose ideas are adopted and developed. There are cases in the history of\nman where a conquered race has abandoned its language and religion and\nadopted those of its conquerors. There are other cases where the\nconqueror has been absorbed and the subject race has reasserted itself\nin spite of dominant language and legislation intended to secure its\nultimate absorption. It is one of the salient features of the Hellenic\nrace that, though very receptive of foreign ideas, though always ready\nto profit by the discoveries of neighbours, it never abandoned its\nprimacy in type, and was never absorbed into any other population,\nexcept perhaps in isolated cases and after centuries of separation from\nthe mother stock. The Eretrians whom Darius brought as prisoners to Asia\nand settled in the rich fields of Babylonia were doubtless in the long\nrun absorbed by the surrounding nationalities, but they were still\nrecognisable when Alexander conquered his Empire nearly two hundred\nyears later, and possibly they too may have kept up the affecting custom\nof the people of Posidonia (P\u00e6stum in Italy) at the other extremity of\nthe civilised world, who were indeed, as Strabo tells us, centuries\nlater, barbarised out and out by the Samnites, but who nevertheless\nstill met once a year to lament their fate, and to deplore their loss of\nHellenic life. Apart from these few and small exceptions, this race has\nabsolutely refused to be absorbed by any other, however civilised,\nhowever dominant, and has remained the same in language and in\ncharacteristics from the days when Homer composed for the Ach\u00e6an chiefs,\ndown to this day, when every scholar or student looks upon Athens as the\ngoal of his pilgrimage.\n\nThe permanence of the Greek language is a great and striking evidence.\nThere was never, I suppose, a generation of Greeks from the 8th century\nB.C. to the 20th A.D. which did not understand Homer; but if you are\ndisposed to ascribe this to sentimental causes, then I say that the\nearliest Attic prose differs from the Attic prose of to-day so little as\nto afford us an unique example of persistency. Let me state it in this\nway: Herodotus, if you recalled him from his grave and put a Greek\nnewspaper of to-day into his hands, would at first find the type novel,\nbut would presently recognise in it his own alphabet. He would then\ndiscover a dialect of his Greek, as he heard it at Athens, and though he\nwould doubtless call it very vulgar, and even barbarised, he would in a\nday or two read it quite fluently. So far as my knowledge goes, you will\nfind nothing like this in Europe.\n\nTurning to persistence of characteristics, it is superfluous for me to\nexpound to you this topic at any length, for in the book which forms the\nbasis of the old acquaintance between you and me, I mean my _Social Life\nin Greece_, the main thesis, then, but now no longer, a paradox, was\nthat, though the classical Greeks did great intellectual and artistic\nwork which their descendants could not attempt to rival, yet the moral\nfeatures of the Homeric, the Alcaic, the Pindaric, the Platonic, the\nXenophontic, the Demosthenic Greek were much the same as those of our\nfriends who are now laying claim to Macedonia. There is the same\ncleverness, not without a special delight in overreaching an opponent,\nthe same diligence, the same genuine patriotism, but also the same\nundying jealousy of the success of others, the same want of spirituality\nin religion, the same light esteem for veracity. The models of Phidias\nand Polycletus, of Scopas and Praxiteles, were doubtless to be found in\nreal life[2]; so were the characters of Plato\u2019s _Dialogues_, and in this\nconsisted the genius of their art and their literature, that they\napprehended and perpetuated the ideal, while the average man and average\nsociety in Greece formed a standard of cultivated society, high, but by\nno means perfect. I only mention their average qualities in order to\nemphasise the fact that I do not stand before you a pedant seeing\nnothing but the greatness of his favourite study, but as a plain man\nestimating the history of the past in the light of common-sense.\n\nYet this is not easy when we stand face to face with the wonderful\nperformances of this undying race. What have the Greeks not accomplished\non the stage of the world\u2019s history since they accepted the heritage of\nthe older and richer civilisations? First they dominated and so far\nabsorbed the pre-existing population as to feel themselves the only\npossessors of the country. Some of them even boasted, and without\nraising any controversy, that they were indigenous to that soil. Then\nthey spread themselves over all the Mediterranean coast, beginning with\nAsia Minor, where they collided with the successive empires of\nMesopotamia. They went to Italy and Sicily, which became Greek lands, so\nfar as they were civilised, and then they successfully resisted the\ngreat effort of the Persian Empire to make them a subject province. Even\ntheir Asiatic brethren, who did fall under Persian sway for several\ngenerations, never lost their nationality, nor could they be said to\nhave resumed it again when the Persian Empire fell under Macedonian\nsway. When the Hellenic nationality came to dominate the kingdoms of\nMacedonia, hither Asia, and Egypt, and even when the Romans supervened,\nwho treated it first with respect, presently with contempt, these\narrogant conquerors could never shake off the spiritual domination of\nGreek literature, Greek philosophy, Greek art, and Greek urbanity. Nay,\nso imperishable was the Greek influence that it caused a new boundary\nline to be drawn between East and West, and founded on the old Greek\nByzantium a new capital, where Hellenic refinement and Hellenic art were\nstill to all the ruder Western world the acme of dignity and of\nsplendour. Even when this magnificence had been plundered by barbarous\ncrusaders, and again by less barbarous Turks, the fugitive handful of\nlearned Greeks, with their immortal heritage of letters, lit up an\nintellectual flame in Western Europe that has never since been quenched.\n\nThis last great revival by means of the Greeks is, I think, peculiarly\ninstructive to us to-day. For nothing can show more clearly, or in a\nlarger example, how different is the effect of second-hand or\ntraditional knowledge from that of direct contact with the originals. It\nwas no doubt held in the later Roman Empire, and in the early Middle\nAges, that all the value of Hellenic culture had passed into Roman life,\nthat Roman law, Roman architecture, Roman organisation were far more\nperfect than those of their teachers. Even the latest bloom of Greek\narchitecture, that Byzantine style which is still living in the\nunapproachable St. Sophia of Constantinople, had been carried into\nItaly, France, Germany, and England, where, under the name of decorated\nNorman, it holds its place of honour in our church architecture. St.\nMark\u2019s at Venice is the richest because it is a decadent example of that\nGreek style, and so other Latin adaptations of Greek were supposed to\nafford all the benefits of the originals; nay, in one case--that of the\nLatin Vulgate--Saint Jerome went so far as to compare his version, with\nthe Greek and Hebrew originals written on each side of it, to Christ\ncrucified between the two thieves. There were Greek statues and Greek\ntemples in plenty to copy. Aristotle, confessedly the greatest and most\nencyclopedic of Greek philosophers, could be had in a Latin translation\nand narrowly escaped being canonised as a Latin saint. Was not Virgil\nfar deeper and more artistic than Homer? Was not the _Dies ir\u00e6_ far\ngrander in sound, as well as in sense, than the trivialities of Horace\nor Ovid? So the Western world became Latin, and men were content with\nthe echoes of Greek in their Roman culture.\n\nBut when the real thing came to them again, as it were by accident, mark\nthe sudden and astonishing change. It was at once discovered that the\nRomanised culture of previous centuries had degenerated from the nobler\ntypes, that new influences from the north had in architecture and in art\naltered its purity; that the gloomy splendour of Dante, the mightiest\noutcome of the Middle Ages, had put out the cheerfulness and light of\nGreek life, even as Virgil understood them, with a cruel and relentless\ncreed. With the return of Hellenic serenity, there was no doubt much\nirreligion and paganism associated, but even to that point a revolt\nagainst the spiritual tyranny of the Roman Church cannot be regretted by\nthose who refuse to believe that men can only be kept from crime by\nthreatening them with greater crime--I mean the infliction of eternal\ntorture upon any sentient being. The Gothic fane was no doubt the ideal\ngloom wherein to worship a relentless God and his tortured Christ; the\nRenaissance palace was a place of light and gladness, wherein men could\nread with amazement the epic of Homer, the tragedy of \u00c6schylus, the\ncomedy of Aristophanes, and learn from them what human culture had once\nattained.\n\nAnd so Greek studies resumed their place as the noblest part of a\nliberal education. We got to know and appreciate Greek letters deeply\nand thoroughly as no Roman had ever known them; we got to analyse and\nunderstand Greek logic and philosophy and what is still more subtle, the\ndelicacies of Greek art. We began to add to the treasures unearthed for\nus by the Renaissance, by probing for buried temples in Greece, and\nsearching the sands of Egypt for new texts. The culture of the\nnineteenth century may fairly be called a culture that owes its\ngreatness largely to a thorough appreciation of the unique excellence\nof classical Greek work. Never was I more impressed with this fact than\nin visiting, three or four years ago, a little collection of old Greek\nfragments gathered from private owners, and exhibited by the Burlington\nArt Club in London. They were small things, bronze statuettes, busts,\nornaments, vases, but no intelligent man could avoid the strong and\ninstant conviction that all was essentially patrician art in the highest\nsense. There was not a plebeian note in the whole exhibition.\n\nThese things being so, it seemed to men brought up as I have been, that\nthe supremacy of Greek studies, especially for the education of the\nrising generation, was a fact that no man could contest.\n\nYet, strange to say, within the last twenty years, and possibly due to\nthe reaction of American influences upon Europe, the tide has turned and\nthe great flow of Greek studies is being succeeded by an ebb. Higher\neducation--formerly and indeed in the truest sense always--an\naristocratic privilege, is now to be the right of the democracy, which\nhas no time for it, and all of us, poor and rich, workers for our bread\nand those whose bread is provided, are to pursue the same ends, and\nattain the same cultivation. Need I add that the domain of modern\nscience is so enlarged as to demand a high place in the instruction of\nthose who will presently earn their living by some of its applications?\nThus the program has been enlarged and diversified beyond the capacity\nof any learner, and we begin to think what can best be sacrificed in\norder to save the rest. The advocates of modern science naturally set\nthemselves against what they are pleased to call the dead languages, and\nso, as Greek seemed more remote to them, because of its strange\nalphabet, they have so far prevailed as to get rid, from a vast number\nof schools, of the study of that language. Even in the universities of\nEurope there is an irresistible tendency to make it a voluntary subject\nof study. The innovators, most of whom are ignorant in any proper sense\nboth of Greek and Latin, still profess a great respect for Latin and\nloudly assert its importance even in modern education. But do not be\ndeceived. The day will come shortly when the same attack will be\ndirected against the second \u201cdead language,\u201d as they call it, and we\nshall be expected to throw out another member of our spiritual family to\nthe wolves. For the attack is made in total ignorance of the relative\nvalue of the topics assailed. Anyone with the smallest insight into the\nmatter knows full well that the loss of Latin is as nothing compared to\nthat of Greek. I am not going to argue that question before the present\naudience. If at least three quarters of the good we get from Latin is\nbecause Latin civilisation is based on Greek, is it not infinitely\nbetter to study the great original than any copy, however successful?\nAnd this brings us to the point for the sake of which I have made an\napparent digression.\n\nQuite apart from the scientists (a very plebeian, but expressive, modern\nterm) who pretend that Latin is sufficient for the department of\nlanguage or the study of grammar, or of ancient history, we hear a great\nmany, both in England and in America, who are really fond of higher\ncultivation, who feel obscurely that it is from Greek that such\ncultivation comes, and who long to obtain from it what they find lacking\nin modern refinement. But they strive to do this merely through\nsecond-hand sources. They have recourse to English translations and\nEnglish commentaries and to lectures like the present, in order to fill\nup the gap which they feel in their own early training. Now I will not\ndeny that modern translations are far more faithful than those of more\nindependent imitators, who were not afraid to colour Greek art with hues\nfrom their own palette. I will not deny that the skill of the\nphotographer has reproduced for us the outlines of buildings and statues\nfar more accurately than the best of painters, albeit Turner\u2019s\nconception of P\u00e6stum (for example) is truer in its own way than all the\nphotographs ever taken of that temple. But this brings me to state a\nsomewhat subtle truth, of the greatest import in the present context; a\ngreat original is generally susceptible of divers interpretations,\nwhereas a copy, however excellent, seldom gives us more than one; so\nthat, while the former is eminently suggestive, the latter limits our\nappreciation. The copy of a copy, in law worthless, is so also in\nmatters of art. In each reproduction something is lost, and remember\nthat the more minutely careful the copying, the more slavish is the work\nlikely to be. I know that there are such things as copies greater than\ntheir originals. That is true of the Gospels in our English Bible; it is\nalso true of those portions of Virgil\u2019s _Georgics_ which are translated\nfrom Aratus. But these rare exceptions do not invalidate the general\ntruth of the principle I have enounced. And when even Virgil, probably\nthe most competent translator that ever lived, came to deal with a\nmaster like Theocritus, how feeble the result! I may safely say that if\nwe had no knowledge of Theocritus save through Virgil\u2019s _Eclogues_, he\nwould never have ranked as more than a third-rate poet with us.\n\nThe plain deduction is this: get at the originals at all cost. Do not be\nsatisfied with essays, or dissertations, or commentaries. Go and see the\noriginals, unlock the secrets of the tongue in which they were first\npresented, and then there will open upon you such a Renaissance as\ndawned upon the astonied humanists of the 15th century. The main use of\nsuch a lecture as that which I am now delivering is that you should be\ndiscontented with it, and should desire to pass from the illustration,\nthe commentary, the appreciation, to a direct study of the great\noriginals. Such a course may indeed be impracticable for many of you,\nwho in middle life cannot turn aside to the labour of acquiring another\nlanguage; for the mastering of a language is always an arduous task, and\nall the more so as we advance in years. But if we cannot ourselves\nlearn, this generation ought at least to stimulate and direct the next.\nFor I fear that the present knowledge of Greek in this country is\nconfined to a small minority, while there is still a great majority who\nhave some ambition to be really cultivated. I remember some years ago\nundertaking to teach a class at Chautauqua the _Alcestis_ of Euripides.\nThe difficulty that confronted me was that a score of Greek texts of\nthe play were not forthcoming, and that even in New York they were not\nfound without search and delay. The Greek masterpieces share indeed this\nquality with other examples of perfect art, that even a copy is well\nworth having, and so the many excellent translations from the Greek\nwhich you have in all your libraries, are by no means to be despised.\nBut if you can attain the originals, and master them, the translations,\neven if they have helped you in this task, lose all their value. I\nremember seeing in Mr. Gladstone\u2019s library at Hawarden a whole section\nof his great accommodation for books devoted to translations of the\n_Iliad_ into many languages. There were scores, perhaps hundreds, of\nversions in English, French, German, Italian, Spanish, Danish,\nNorwegian, Russian, Hindustani, and many other tongues, sent to him by\nthe translators as tributes of esteem for his own Homeric studies. I\nasked him did he ever open any of them? He said, \u201cNo; all the time I can\nspare I devote to studying the great originals.\u201d But was there ever a\nclearer demonstration than these myriad translations of the greatness of\na literary masterpiece? Even when there are many excellent versions\nalready published in their own language men will not be content with\nthese efforts, but will ever attempt again the fascinating, never\nending, never convincing task. You could tell, without knowing any\ntongue but English, that there are four supreme poems which have\nexercised a fascination over men that never grows old. They are the\n_Iliad_ of Homer, the _Agamemnon_ of \u00c6schylus, the _Inferno_ of Dante,\nthe _Faust_ of Goethe. Two of these are Greek; but note also that, while\nwe could find in Greek several rivals[3] which are of hardly less\nimportance and by various poets, there is neither in German nor in\nItalian any poem that can for one moment compare with the supreme pieces\nI have named. So pre-eminent are the Greeks in literature. Their other\nart has not survived save in ruins or fragments. But ask any real\nspecialist, such as the late Mr. Penrose, or Dr. D\u00f6rpfeld, what place\nthe best Greek architecture holds in the buildings of the world, and he\nwill tell you that never again can anything equal to the Parthenon at\nAthens be constructed. The huge temple at Karnak in Egypt, the\nmarvellous church of Justinian at Constantinople, the lovely cathedral\nof Rheims are probably the best specimens of perfection in building\nwhich we possess, yet the Parthenon, with its apparent simplicity, shows\na subtle depth of artistic knowledge which justifies us in calling it\nthe finest of earthly buildings. Need I say one word of Greek supremacy\nin other arts here, seeing that the details must form the subject of\nsubsequent lectures?\n\nThe danger I see before this generation is that which came upon the\nRoman world insensibly and which resulted in a decadence not arrested\ntill it sank into the night of the dark ages. The later empire was\ncontent to take Greek art and Greek letters at second hand, and to\nsubstitute Latin culture for the models which had educated their\ngreatest masters. But as I have already told you the copy had not the\nlife of the original. So we too, with all our science, with our increase\nof material knowledge and our restless running to and fro, may sink into\nan ugly, tame, joyless conglomeration of societies, for whom new\ndiscoveries supply hosts of new conveniences, but no return to the\nhappiness and the contentment of a simpler age. Our purblind toothless\nchildren may have their congenital defects vamped up by science, and\nwithout it we should indeed be stranded upon the reefs of despair. But\nhappiness does not lie here, no, nor in motors, nor in turbines, nor in\nwireless messages across the globe, nor in daily newspapers full of\ninextricable fact and falsehood.\n\nI cannot believe that the civilised world will remain satisfied with\nthis dark outlook,--the monopoly of these factories of material\ndiscovery, where furnace and electric light replace the glorious rays of\nthe Sun-God worshipped by the Greeks. There has generally been a great\npower of recovery in our race at large; and periods of decay have been\nfollowed by periods not only of renascence but of rejuvenescence. At all\nepochs when the world grew dull and desponding and the times were out of\njoint, we have the mystical tendency, the inclination to brush aside\nhuman joys and cares and to fix the mind on the Eternal, on the\nineffable delights of communion with the Spirit of the Universe. That\nthis tendency is alive even in modern America, cannot but be obvious to\nthose who have studied the pathology of so-called Christian Science. The\nother tendency is the humanist, that which seeks to recover for us the\njoys and beauties of life, enhanced by art and protected by the\nrefinement of a sound education. This was the aspect of human happiness\nwhich is most perfectly represented, so far as the world has yet run, by\nthe Greeks, and hence the careful and minute study of their life must\nalways appeal to those who desire the \u00e6sthetic reformation of modern\nsociety. Once and again the Greeks have exercised this vast and\nbeneficent influence; is it vain to hope that even still it is not\nexhausted, but potent to cure the ills of man? Peradventure, the\nprophecy of our great and most Hellenic of poets may yet come true, with\na fulfilment wider and deeper than even his large vision could\ncompass:--\n\n    A brighter Hellas rears its mountains, from waves serener far;\n    A new Peneus rolls his fountains against the morning star.\n    Where fairer Tempes bloom, there sleep\n    Young Cyclads on a sunnier deep!\n\n\n\n\nII\n\nGREEK POETRY\n\n\nIn coming before you to-day to treat of the influence of Greek poetry on\nthe modern world, I feel under a special advantage, which is also a\ndisadvantage. Many of you will know that two volumes of my _History of\nGreek Literature_ are devoted to Greek poetry, and those of you who have\nread them must already be familiar with my treatment of the authors and\ntheir works in detail. To such of you, there can be no difficulty in\nfollowing the course of the present lecture. But on the other hand, it\nis hard for me to give to such hearers new material, seeing that I have\nalready done my best in two volumes to satisfy their curiosity. To those\nthat are not familiar with the subject, there is the disadvantage, in\nhearing a man whose intimacy with the subject is of such long standing,\nthat he may allude to things as obvious which to his audience are not\nso, being beyond the bounds of their ordinary reading. But I may very\npossibly be underrating the cultivation of this audience, which is said\nto be on a very different level from that of any similar audience in\nEngland. If so, you, like all competent critics, in contrast to the\nvulgar and the ignorant, will appreciate the difficulties of my task and\nwill judge it with due allowance for these difficulties.\n\nIt is obviously my first duty to-day to put before you the _general_\nfeatures of Greek poetry which have made it a model for succeeding ages\nand nations. Then I shall proceed, with as much detail as time permits,\nto give instances of the effects, direct or indirect, of Greek poetry on\nthe poetry of English-speaking nations. You will find that the features\nwhich are really the most important are not the obvious features, and\nhardly those which we might name if we spoke hastily, or at random. The\nchiefest and most remarkable, which permeates every Greek poet from\nHomer to Theocritus, is that their work is carefully studied, and in no\nsense the mere spontaneous outpouring of the human heart. \u201cI lisped in\nnumbers, for the numbers came,\u201d said, as a matter of pride, a very\nartificial poet. Nothing would seem less worthy of it to a Greek poet.\nHe always despised what we call an untutored genius. We hear talk indeed\nof divine madness and of the inspiration of the Muses, but so far as we\nknow, they never inspired an ignorant man, and never taught an educated\nman to violate the traditions of his school. This studied work comes\nbefore us in its full artificiality in the Homeric poems. It is more\nthan doubtful whether such a language was ever spoken. It is full of\nstrange forms, and the mixed dialect, sometimes even to us\nungrammatical, was the dialect invented or perfected by a school of\nbards who did not profess to reproduce ordinary speech, but something\nfar higher and better, which only the educated poet could compose. And\nwhen I use the term artificial, which has come in modern English to\nsignify something contrasted with natural, and therefore inferior,[4] I\nmust say a word in explanation of my meaning.\n\nIt is not the proper province of art to attain to a perfect\nrepresentation of nature, but a representation of perfect nature. For\nexample, the more the art of sculpture developed in Greece, the more\nthey attained to the representation of a natural but an ideally\nbeautiful figure, such as the Hermes of Praxiteles. So the last triumph\nof a great actor is to reproduce perfectly human nature in its general\nfeatures, if not in its ideal features, and so the philosopher exclaims\nin wonder at the plays of Menander, \u201cO Menander and human life, which of\nyou has copied the other?\u201d But if anyone imagines that art consists\nmerely in photographing vulgar everyday life, he can easily lapse into\nabsurdity. All our habits, so far as they are civilised, depart from\nmere nature and employ artifice to conceal or improve it. If any of you\ncame here in purely natural attire, imagine the scene! I believe such\nthings were attempted in the wild society of Paris in the heyday of the\ngreat Revolution, but even then their attire, though inferior in\nquantity, was in quality not less artificial than the opinions of the\nwearers.\n\nIt follows from these considerations that Greek poetry was always\ndeveloped in schools possessing fixed traditions, and following strict\nlaws both in metre and in diction. If any man thought to break loose\nfrom these restrictions, and write in a manner wholly free and\nunchecked, he would get no hearing in Greece. Such a phenomenon, for\nexample, as your Walt Whitman would have been impossible, or at least we\nshould never have heard of it.\n\nIt is indeed quite true that this does not exclude the rise of new\nschools of thought and new modes of expression. When epic poetry was\nexhausted new sorts of poetry arose; when these proved insufficient\nthere was still further development, but all this is to be accounted for\nwith adherence to law and tradition of some kind. I will take the last\nand therefore the most obvious case first. We have in Theocritus, the\nlatest bloom of pure Greek poetry, bucolic scenes and pastoral language\nwhich were long thought to be the mere echo of the primitive shepherds\nwho fed their flocks in the uplands of Sicily. We know better now.\nTheocritus was a learned man, full of literary jealousies, who wrote in\nthe sultry atmosphere of the university of Alexandria and at the highly\nartificial court of the second Ptolemy. He was probably as remote from\nwhat we call simple human nature as any modern American could be. But he\nwas a great literary artist, and he felt that while all the other\nschools of poetry had gradually lost their contact with real life, and\nwere becoming obtrusively artificial and outworn in public estimation,\nthere was still a vein of folk-song, in scenery contrasting utterly with\nthe crowded sandhills of Alexandria, which might, if treated with\ndelicate art, appeal once more to the sympathy of a weary and decadent\nsociety. No doubt there were plenty of pedants in Alexandria, who\ndespised this return to homely and common life, with its vulgar\npassions, just as the great French critics repudiated with scorn the\nhomely scenes and characters in the tragedies of Shakespeare. The\nexperiment nevertheless succeeded, and this thoroughly artificial but\nartistic representation of the sorrows and joys of illiterate peasants,\nin lovely metre and with carefully chosen liberties of diction,\nfascinated the Greek, then the Roman world, and incited the Renaissance\nto similar, but unsuccessful attempts. It has produced its effects upon\nEnglish poetry down to the work of Tennyson, who shows more traces of\nthe influence of Theocritus than of the influence of any other Greek\npoet. The secret of it was that, when other schools became exhausted,\nTheocritus went back to the people, found among them rude and simple\nsongs which had never yet been adopted by any school or put into\nartistic form, and raised these from the coarseness of nature into the\nrefinement of a subtle and learned art.\n\nWas not the same process the origin of Greek dramatic poetry, though in\nan earlier and far less conscious age? Are we not told that tragedy, and\ncomedy too, arose from the rude songs of the people and the rude\nattempts at acting among simple country folk? The tragedy of \u00c6schylus,\nnay, even the perfect diction and metre of Aristophanes, are as far\nremoved from popular song as it is possible to conceive, yet these too\narose and matured with marvellous quickness from the rude essays of\nuntutored peasants, whose efforts were wholly beneath the attention of\ncivilised society.\n\nWe know nothing, alas! of the cradles of the lyric poetry of\nArchilochus, of Alc\u00e6us, of Sappho; we can tell you nothing of the\n_incunabula_ of that great and varied development which comprised\nseveral schools. Over the whole surface of those primeval waters, which\ncover the world of Greek literature down to the 7th century B.C., we\nhave but the one great solitary beacon, the poetry of Homer, which tells\nus, like the Nantucket light-ship, that we are far, and yet not far,\nfrom the utterances of a literary age:\n\n    As the tall ship, that many a dreary year,\n      Knit to some dismal sandbank far at sea,\n    All thro\u2019 the livelong hours of utter dark\n      Showers slanting light upon the dolorous wave!\n\nBut so much the scanty lyric fragments do tell us with a clear voice:\nthese poets were thoroughly and even elaborately artistic, and their\nvery careful workmanship, if it did arise from an appeal to the songs of\nthe people, shows the very same fastidious care which we find in\nTheocritus, to purify their art from the clay or the dross of everyday\nlanguage. Hence follows as a natural consequence, among a people of\ngenius like the Greeks, a perfection both in form and in spirit, which\nwe justly call classical and which forms the model for almost all\nsubsequent poetry. There are no vagaries of metre or diction; there are\nno exaggerations of sentiment. Every civilised man of any epoch, every\ncritic of judgment, who masters the poetry in the original, finds in it\nmodels of taste which have not since been excelled and only seldom\nequalled.\n\nI need not delay long over a few apparent or real exceptions, so few\nthat they are only enough for cavil, not for serious criticism. We have\nrecovered recently the _Persians_ of Timotheus, whose musical\nperformances were very popular in his day. The poem is the worst that we\nknow coming from its age and country. But we also know that we should\nmerely regard it as the libretto of a musical performance, such as the\nlibretti of the Italian operas we used to frequent in our youth, in\nwhich the text was not of the slightest importance and was generally\nvery bad. The music was the only part of the performance we criticised.\nSo the _Persians_ of Timotheus is ridiculous as a poem on the great\nbattle of Salamis, but even so is pronounced by the authorities on\nmetre, such as Wilamowitz, to be very careful and polished in that\nrespect. The _Mimes_ of Herondas, another recent discovery, are also bad\npoetry, but then they are mere versifications of prose pieces, such as\nthose of Sophron were, and meant, I believe, for acting on a cheap stage\nor for dramatic recitation. They can hardly be called poetry. In much\nearlier days, there was a good deal of tame moral teaching and\nproverbial philosophy expressed in verse. But that also was so, because\nas yet prose had not become an ordinary vehicle of writing, and any man\nwho desired to teach, such as Solon, or Theognis, or Empedocles, must\nexpress himself in verse.\n\nI will mention but one more feature in which Greek poetry had obviously\nan advantage over modern art of the same kind. Being almost altogether\ncomposed, not for a reading, but a listening public, it was closely\nassociated with other arts, especially those of music and dancing, so as\nto form an essential part of many great public festivals. It was the\nsoul which animated the frame of every national pageant. If a poet\nlaureate nowadays is asked to celebrate a great public occasion by a\npoem, he writes an ode or an elegy, such as Tennyson\u2019s \u201cBury the Great\nDuke, with a nation\u2019s lamentation,\u201d and sends it out to countless\nreaders. The Greek poet, on similar occasions, would have a solemn\nprocession, or a dance, or a scenic display, with appropriate music, to\nassist him. These environments secured two great qualities, or rather\ntended to secure them, for we must not assume perfection as a general\nresult in any human product. It secured that the poet would aim at\n_dignity_, avoiding all mean and trivial topics. It also secured\n_brevity_, avoiding discursiveness, which is a fault of much modern\npoetry. Thus Wordsworth\u2019s _Excursion_ would have been intolerable to the\npoet himself, had he been a Greek, and to come to a more appropriate\nillustration, the exuberant and unlimited choruses in Mr. Swinburne\u2019s\n_Atalanta_--otherwise a splendid reflection of Greek tragedy--would not\nhave been tolerated on account of their redundancy, but the poet would\nhave compressed them within such limits as would not put his chorus out\nof breath, or produce dizziness in his hearers.\n\nThe production of poetry for local and special public occasions was also\na main cause of the use of distinct dialects, which did not become\nnational property till some great work had sanctioned their literary\nuse. Thus the artificial Homeric dialect became the _lingua franca_ of\nall epic poets, whatever their country or their date, down to the end of\nold Greek history. Doric choral hymns were adopted by the Attic\ntragedies and put into the interludes of Attic dialogue. Luckily for us\nthe Greeks wrote phonetically and did not conceal their local speech\nunder the cloak of an artificial and false orthography. Thus the poetry\nof the nation has come to us in various dialects, but never, except with\ndeliberate dramatic aim at vulgarity,[5] in the mere language of the\ncommon people.\n\nBut I must now abandon these general considerations and turn to the task\nof showing you, in some famous examples, how Greek poetry, possessing\nthe excellence requisite for a high model, acted upon the greatest and\nbest of our own poets, as well as on others in modern Europe.\n\nEvery one knows that the Greeks have left us three long epic poems--one\nthe epic of war, the second the epic of voyage, the third, that of\nApollonius Rhodius, the epic of adventure combined with a great love\nstory. There were many other early epic poems composed in imitation of\nthe _Iliad_ and _Odyssey_, but they have been laid aside and forgotten,\nmost probably because their material has been worked up by the Greeks\ninto the nobler form of tragedy. For, as you know, the Greeks, who\nconfined themselves to mythical subjects for these tragedies, avoided\nthe _Iliad_ and _Odyssey_, and utilised what were called the Cyclic\npoets. It is mere commonplace to tell you that the _Iliad_ and _Odyssey_\nhave been the unapproachable ideals for all subsequent time. The first\nand greatest foreign imitator was Virgil, and through his immortal epic,\nindirectly more even than directly, the world of poets has been swayed.\nIt is nevertheless very remarkable that these two masterpieces, coming\ncomplete from the early genius of Greece, as Athena leaped full-armed\nfrom the brain of Zeus, appearing, like Melchisedec, without father,\nmother, or descent, to bless the father of the faithful, should never\nagain have been equalled among men.\n\nThe best epic of modern Europe since the classical Renaissance is the\n_Paradise Lost_ of Milton. He has given us ample evidence that he was a\ngreat poet, and yet how far below the _Iliad_ and _Odyssey_ does he\nfall! I need hardly tell you that the controversies which agitated his\nmind, and the mind of his age, disturbed the serenity of his poetic\nvision and dictated to him many digressions which are blots on the\npurity of his golden pages. But that is not to my mind his greatest\ndefect. The action of the gods which in the _Iliad_ is a mere preamble\nto the general action of the poem, or an irrelevant episode, and hardly\ninterferes with its thoroughly human character, is in the theological\npoet far too prominent. It occupies in Milton\u2019s poem the forefront,\ncompared to which the episodes in Eden are but a small matter. The\ntremendous part of the poem is not Paradise lost by man, but heaven lost\nby the angels that fell. It is the conflict between gods and Titans, as\nthe Greeks would have put it, and not the conflicts or mortal heroes\nthat fascinate us. Another remark obtrudes itself as we pass on. The\nweakest book in all the _Iliad_ is the Battle of the Gods. It might\nreadily be expunged from the poem without loss. In Milton the Divine\nwholly outweighs the human in grandeur and is the essence of the poem.\n\nThere is another feature in this epic which disturbs our admiration--the\ngreat richness and even redundancy of the learned similes. In this\nMilton seems to have taken as his model the third Greek epic, which is\nnow forgotten, but which had a great vogue in the Renaissance, I mean\nthe _Argonautics_ of Apollonius. His direct obligations to this poet\nhave been noticed in many places by the commentators. I have no doubt\nthat a careful study would show many more, and it is all the more\ninteresting to reflect how a now forgotten Greek source has had so\nlasting an influence. The greatest contribution I know from Apollonius\nto modern poetry is the famous scene at the opening of Goethe\u2019s _Faust_,\nwhere the world-weary philosopher determines to take a cup of poison,\nbut is suddenly recalled to life by the Easter dawn with its\nResurrection hymn. You have but to read the scene where Medea, wracked\nby what she believes a hopeless passion, turns at the end of a night of\nwakeful agony to the same escape, a cup of poison. But with the dawn and\nthe awakening of human life, the sounds of men react upon her troubled\nspirit and cause her to put aside her dread resolve. With her also, and\nwith the Greek poet, the conception is fresher and better. It is the\nyouth and health of Medea, the wine of life glowing in her veins which\ncalls her back from suicidal gloom when cheerful sounds of human life\nillumine the dawn. The effect of the Easter hymn on Faust, beautiful as\nit is with our Christian associations, does not seem so natural and is\ntherefore on a lesser scale as poetry.\n\nBut when I have started upon the effects of the Greek epic in moulding\nthe great English epic, which strives so hard to assume a different\ntone, with a different subject, I am understating the general influence\nof Greek poetry on Milton. In the days before him we may assume that\nmost of the English poets knew their Greek at second hand, through Latin\ncopies, or through French translations. Ben Jonson indeed, we are\nassured, knew Greek, and Chapman had in his excellent translation made\nthe English world acquainted with Homer\u2019s _Iliad_. It is easy to\nunderrate this second-hand influence and to say that after all it was\nLatin and not Greek. Nothing would be more misleading. A poet may feel\nthe greatness of another even though he does not comprehend his tongue.\nThus Shakespeare, whose drama as a whole was clearly outside of all\nHellenic influences of style, as soon as he read in North\u2019s translation\nPlutarch\u2019s _Lives_, saw in them subjects fit for his immortal plays. And\nnot only as to subject, but as to treatment, he adheres so closely to\nthe Greek master of biography that you can feel the profound respect and\nadmiration the playwright had for his work. Thus the _Antony and\nCleopatra_, to cite but one example, adheres point for point to the\nfamous narrative of Plutarch, and adds nothing to his picture. The\ninfluence of Plutarch on the ruffians of the French Revolution is not\nless remarkable, and will, I think, occupy us in another connection. But\nthen these men had for a century previously been taught by their\nclassical drama to look to the Greeks for lofty principles and ideal\ncharacters. Yet for my purpose it is more relevant to cite a modern\ninstance. No one would say for a moment that the Greek tone in Keats was\ngot through Latin or French versions. Yet he seems never to have known\nGreek enough to read the originals, whose spirit he caught from the\nechoes of classical dictionaries.\n\nBut the indirect knowledge of earlier poets, such for example as the\nstray citation by Shakespeare of the words of Eteocles from Gascoigne\u2019s\nplay, are as nothing when we come to Milton, who shows himself\ntransfused not only with Greek epic, but with the Greek drama. And from\nMilton, as the great master, comes that perfection of poetic style and\nof metre which has moulded all English poetry from his time onward.\nMatthew Arnold even speaks of him as standing above all his successors\nin this unique distinction. But when Arnold compares this excellence\nwith that of Virgil, he should have added that Virgil also owed it to\nthe Greeks. Nor do I find in Virgil\u2019s _\u00c6neid_ anything like the\nfamiliarity with Greek tragedy which I find in Milton. Thus the whole\nsituation at the opening of _Paradise Lost_ is not due to Homer, but\nrather to the _Prometheus Vinctus_ of \u00c6schylus, where the Titan,\novercome and chained to Mt. Caucasus by the superior might of Zeus,\nnevertheless proclaims his undaunted spirit; and of course this struggle\nbetween gods and Titans, which appears so frequently in Greek mythology,\nand hence in Greek poetry, is constantly present to Milton, and suggests\nto him simile and metaphor all through his poem.\n\nBut why delay over these desultory allusions mixed with those of other\nlegendary cycles, all grasped by his vast erudition? Consider the\n_Samson Agonistes_. Here we have the poet deliberately going back to\nstrictly Greek form and even, in his notable preface to the play,\ndefending dramatic poetry against Puritan objections by appealing to\n\u00c6schylus, Sophocles, and Euripides, \u201cthe three tragic poets,\u201d he says,\n\u201cunequalled yet by any, and the best rule to all who endeavour to write\ntragedy.\u201d You wonder when you consider that he had Shakespeare before\nhim, whom he mentions elsewhere with admiration. But the same preface\ntells us clearly why he would not concede to Shakespeare\u2019s tragedy the\nrank he gives to the Greek masters. He says tragedy had fallen into\n\u201clow esteem or rather infamy, happening through the poet\u2019s error of\nintermixing comic stuff with tragic sadness and gravity, or introducing\ntrivial and vulgar characters, which by all judicious persons has been\ncounted absurd.\u201d He took therefore exactly the view of Voltaire, who is\nshocked at the gravedigger in _Hamlet_, and the drunken porter in\n_Macbeth_. Such was also the view of Milton\u2019s great French contemporary\nRacine, who believed that he had composed his plays in the strictest\naccordance with the principles of the ancients. And yet the school of\nShakespeare might easily have defended themselves by citing the practice\nof those very masters, whose example they were recommended to follow. In\nthe first place every Greek tragic poet composed a merry afterlude,\ncalled from its official chorus of Satyrs, a Satyric drama, and this\nfollowed immediately upon their tragedy. Secondly, even in this, the\ngreatest master, \u00c6schylus, does not disdain to bring \u201cvulgar and trivial\npersons\u201d upon his stage, such as the watchman at the opening of the\n_Agamemnon_, and the nurse Kilissa, who intermix comic stuff with the\ntragic sadness of the play, and even enhance the gloom by the contrast.\nOf course the tragedy of Euripides, who deliberately sought to bring\nhis stage nearer to our ordinary life, could not but exhibit such\npassages, as any student of him knows perfectly well.\n\nTaking however Milton\u2019s own view of the nature of Greek tragedy, we have\nhis _Samson Agonistes_ not only constructed on the frame of an Attic\nplay, but in every scene full of reminiscences and allusions showing a\nminute familiarity with the tragic Three. The opening, with its blind\nand world-worn hero, seeking for repose, is taken from the opening of\nthe second \u0152dipus of Sophocles. So is the entry of the chorus, with\ntheir surprise at the doleful sight, but presently they assume much the\nsame part as the ocean nymphs in the _Prometheus_ of \u00c6schylus, and it is\nfrom these two plays that he has borrowed most freely. In the\ndevelopment there is no doubt that Euripides was his real master. The\nlitigious element, if I may so call it, which was dear to the Athenians;\nthe introduction of an insolent giant; of the treacherous Dalila, who\nput forth arguments to be refuted by Samson, and so to fill up long\nscenes in the play--all this is in Euripides\u2019 best manner. So is the\nirruption of the distracted messenger near the close, who narrates the\ncatastrophe.\n\nBut nowhere is the thorough appreciation of the spirit of Greek\ntragedy, as well as its form, more manifest than in the choruses, and in\nthe lyrical monodies which are the finest features of the play. He tells\nus in the preface, already quoted, that he did not observe the form of\nstrophe and antistrophe, strictly corresponding, because this implies a\nmusical accompaniment and performance in singing which was foreign to\nhis purpose. Still less would he bind himself to rhyme, a shackle\nunknown or rather very rare in the poetry of the Greeks. He writes both\nlyrical complaints of Samson, and the choral odes which are interludes\nto the action, in irregular rythm, which we can hardly call metre, and\nwhich are yet in the strictest sense lofty poetry. These things are not\nto the taste of the ordinary commentator. Thus Sir Egerton Brydges, in a\nhandsome and indeed learned edition adorned by Turner\u2019s drawings, says\nat the end of the first chorus: \u201cThough there are magnificent passages\nin this chorus, I cannot quite reconcile my ear to the rythm, nor to\nsome of the expressions, which are, I confess, too like prose.\u201d It is\ninteresting for you to know that Cicero said nearly the same thing about\nPindar. His elaborate metres sounded to the Roman like prose. But to any\none who is intimate with Greek choruses, nothing has ever been composed\nin English which reproduces their effect so perfectly. I need not add\nthat in substance these odes, partly poetic reflections of a general\nsort, partly in direct sympathy with the action of the play, are exactly\nthe r\u00f4le of the chorus in Greek tragedy. In one point only we may say\nthat here Milton is deficient--in that lyrical sweetness which marks\nmany of the choruses of Sophocles and Euripides, so that we can recite\nthem as independent poems. Probably Milton felt his subject too great\nand gloomy for such poetical digressions. For when he chose to give us\nlyrical sweetness, what can exceed his _Comus_? Nor do I know anything\nmore Greek than the lovely though learned lyrical poetry toward the\nclose of that immortal masque.\n\nI now pass from the father of English classical poetry to later but not\nmore varied manifestations of Greek influence. The most remarkable work\nin the early eighteenth century, which took all England by storm, was\nPope\u2019s translation of the _Iliad_. Chapman\u2019s was already there, a very\nmeritorious work, and now rated more highly than its successor. But in\nPope\u2019s day style was paramount. The _Iliad_ must read as a great English\npoem, and we have Homer dressed in eighteenth-century costume, just as\nthe boys that played Terence at Westminster played him in wigs, powder,\nand patches. It is very easy to criticise Pope\u2019s translation. His whole\nattitude was like that of Watteau in landscape; his epithets were\ngenerally wrong, and wrong in principle. \u201cAnd the conscious swain\nblesses the useful light\u201d is the conclusion of a simile. Now Homer\u2019s\nswain was not conscious, nor did he bless the light as useful.[6]\n\nThus we see in Jacques Carrey\u2019s now invaluable drawings of the\nParthenon--for they were done a few years before its disaster--that he\ncould not even copy Phidias\u2019s work before him, without importing the\nstyle of the seventeenth-century Frenchman. All these things are true\nand obvious, and yet the poet, who in translating another, recasts him\ninto his own mould, though he be faithless as a translator, may be far\ngreater as a poet. Ever since I was introduced to Homer by Pope, more\nthan fifty years ago, I have felt that, with all its anachronisms,\nPope\u2019s poem is the greatest and best version of the Greek master, and a\nproper one for those to read who cannot approach the original. No prose\ntranslation, however scholarly and accurate, can give the least idea of\nthe swing of the great epic, and so I feel that the influence of Homer\nthrough Pope has been wide and lasting and that the very defects of so\ngreat a performance have stimulated oft-renewed attempts at reproducing\nthe great masterpiece. Dryden\u2019s Virgil of course led public taste in the\nsame direction, so that we have an age very diverse from Greek in taste,\nand very incongruous to it, nevertheless dominated, perhaps even more\nthan people then imagined, by Greek classical models.\n\nThe case of lyrical poetry is not dissimilar. The poets of the\neighteenth century had before them Horace\u2019s versions of Alc\u00e6us and\nSappho, and the text of Pindar, who was, as Horace had told them, the\ngreatest master of all. But as he was difficult even for Horace to\nunderstand, so he was to the eighteenth-century poets but vaguely\nintelligible. Above all, the very essence of his studied, careful, and\nlearned genius was wholly misunderstood. He was conceived to be a poet\nbeyond the bounds of strict art, drunk with the muse and pouring forth a\ntorrent of splendid thoughts in disregard of all the shackles of metre,\nwhich was so obvious in the \u00c6olic school. Thus they strove to imitate\nhis apparent impetuosity, and the supposed irregularities of his metre,\nand produced many good poems, inspired indeed by the Greek, but wholly\nforeign to their model. The greatest of them was he who knew the\noriginals far better than the rest, and took the pains to master them\nwith scholarly care. We have in Gray a poet of really Greek temper and\nspirit, very learned, very fastidious, very strict in form, though that\nform be rich and various, and to my thinking well worthy of comparison\nwith Simonides or Bacchylides, both in purity of style and splendour of\ndiction.\n\nAn excellent American critic (W. L. Phelps) has shown very clearly how\nGray, beginning with classical training and making the pseudo-classical\nDryden his model, was nevertheless in middle life swept away by the\nRomantic wave which flooded England and which made him prefer Keltic and\nnational subjects to those derived from Greek and Latin traditions. All\nthis is perfectly true, yet equally true is it, that no change of\nsubject could change or mar the splendid form, the pure diction, the\ndelicate taste which Gray derived from his careful study of the Greek\npoets, and which is as clear in his \u201cWelsh bard,\u201d as in his \u201cprogress of\nclassical poesy.\u201d No English poet had hitherto grasped the real\nsplendour of Pindar, not even Milton, and so the Pindaric odes of\nlesser men, such as Cowley and Shenstone, have not survived as popular\npoems, whereas Dryden\u2019s _Ode to St. Cecilia_, and a whole series of\nGray\u2019s poems, show clearly the matchless training which Greek poetry\naffords the modern poet, whatever be his subject or his school.\n\nIt is in fact much more important and interesting to point out these\nindirect influences, than to lay stress on the direct borrowing from the\nGreek in form and diction. This very conflict or contrast may be\nexemplified in Byron\u2019s poetry. He was a leading member of the Romantic\nschool or fashion, and yet all his life he loved and honoured the\nclassical perfection of the Greeks, and not infrequently by a stray\npassage proves how minute his knowledge even of fragments of Greek\npoetry.[7] The political circumstances of modern Greece in the early\nnineteenth century, the great struggle of the population against Turkish\ntyranny--all this gave a romantic foreground to the classical taste\nfostered by the higher schools and colleges throughout Europe; and so\nthe admiration of the old Greeks in art, politics, and literature was a\nsort of classical justification for the Romanticists who had sprung\nfrom the reaction against the false French classicism of an earlier\ngeneration. Byron was first in adding the realities of actual Greece to\nits interest as a mere frame or imaginary locus for classical poetry.\nNone of the eighteenth-century poets, or even the earlier historians of\nGreece, showed the smallest curiosity about the actual home of Greek\nliterature, the actual cradle that nursed all this unequalled genius.\n\nEven Grote and Thirlwall, long after the poets had discovered what\ninspiration was to be derived from the mountains and fiords of Hellas,\nwrote their immortal histories, without any feeling that they would have\ngained, by a knowledge of the ground, a new and living flavour. For they\nhad both means and leisure to travel and yet they sought no help outside\nthe books of their libraries. But Byron brought into poetry at least\nthat realism about Greece which made a study of Greek and of Greece at\nfirst-hand the desire of poets and of artists. Of Keats, who had not the\nopportunities, I have spoken. In Shelley, we have that perfect\ncombination of romantic imagination with profound Greek culture that\nmakes him the greatest and probably the most lasting of that galaxy that\nillumined the early nineteenth century. The least Greek of them all was\nWordsworth, and I venture to say that had he studied Greek poetry, it\nwould have taught him the essential differences which separate it from\nprose--lofty style, select diction, above all, compression within strict\nbounds and moderate limits--and thus have saved both us and him from the\ndreariness of his prosaic _Excursion_. Let none of you think that I\nunderrate his poetic work. But in his highest moments it is the glow of\nGreek splendour, the spiritual lessons of the august Plato that illumine\nhis sober genius, and translate him for the hour into the company of the\nimmortals.\n\nIn the latter half of the nineteenth century, we see the strong desire\nto reproduce the Greek masterpieces not only by people who were poets\nfor the occasion, like Lord Derby or Miss Swanwick, but also by the\nmasters who had already proved their greatness to the English world.\nRobert Browning has given us versions of several plays, the _Agamemnon_,\nthe _Mad Herakles_, the _Alkestis_. In the last, he lays stress rather\non the psychological attitude of Euripides, on his character-drawing,\nthan on the lyrical portions, which are not reproduced in lyrical metre.\nBut how easily he could do this he proved to me when I asked him to\nrender a famous ode of the poet in a form approaching the original.\nWriting to London from Dublin on a Monday, I had his version on\nWednesday evening. The original manuscript I have given to an American\nfriend who treasures it; the words appear in my little monograph on\nEuripides published years ago.\n\nSwinburne and Matthew Arnold have not translated old Greek dramas, but\nhave composed plays after that model. To an intelligent reader who has\nno knowledge of Greek, I know no better approach than to read the\n_Atalanta_ or the _Erechtheus_ of Swinburne, or, if he prefer it, the\n_Merope_ of Arnold, which is not so great a poem as either of the\nothers, but just as faithful a mirror of Greek mind; for the exuberance\nof Swinburne\u2019s choruses, the unrestrained riot of his ebullitions\nagainst the providence of the Gods, may be splendid poetry--they are\nforeign to the chaste and moderate diction which characterises almost\nall Greek literature. If there be a great exception, it is in the gloomy\ngrandeur of \u00c6schylus, and accordingly no play has been so often\nattempted in English as the _Agamemnon_.[8]\n\nWhen we pass from this large influence of Greek drama to that of the\nlyric fragments or the idylls and love stories of our modern poets, I am\nmet by an old assertion of the pedants, that the Greeks were wanting in\nthat love and feeling for nature which is the prerogative of the\nRomantic school. I see no such contrast between Classical and Romantic.\nGray, the most classical of our lyric poets, was the first to insist\nupon the necessity of a poet refreshing his soul with the wild beauties\nof mountain scenery. If we had more of Sappho, we should find that she\ntoo was romantic in that as in every other reasonable sense. The last\nfragment recovered, which prophesies that her girl friend will shine at\nSardis like the moon among the stars in a summer night, paints the\nsplendours of such a night in the glowing colours of a true poet of\nnature. There is in Theocritus, there is in Apollonius, ample evidence\nof a delight in the sights, and still more the sounds, of nature, and so\nthe most classical of our modern lyric poets, Tennyson, shows great\nintimacy with Theocritus, and takes not only his images but still more\nhis tone from that delightful original. Such images as\n\n    Sleep that gentlier on the spirit lies\n    Than tired eyelids upon tired eyes,\n\nand again,\n\n    The moan of doves in immemorial elms,\n    And murmurings of innumerable bees,\n\nare, if not translated from Theocritus, certainly suggested by him. A\nmore explicit borrowing from the Greek will be found in the comparison\nof a strong man\u2019s biceps to the passing of running water over a stone\nthat does not break it:\n\n    And bared the knotted column of his throat,\n    The massive square of his heroic breast,\n    And arms on which the standing muscle sloped\n    As slopes a wild brook o\u2019er a little stone,\n    Running too vehemently to break upon it.\n\nBut in every page of that poet which is not mere familiar home life, I\nfeel in the splendour of his style the very echo of Greek work, and I\ncan well imagine how Euripides would have revelled in the lines,\n\n    His honour rooted in dishonour stood,\n    And faith unfaithful kept him falsely true.\n\nThe influence of Greek comedy is too complicated to be discussed at the\nclose of this discourse. For the greatest of the Greek masters,\nAristophanes, has so intensely Attic a quality that we might as well try\nto imitate the work of Phidias. But his genteel successor Menander has\nbecome, through the versions of Plautus and Terence, the father of\ngenteel comedy in Europe. He was extravagantly praised and popular in\ndecadent Greece. I for one cannot hold that his legacy stands high among\nthe priceless treasures bequeathed to us by his nation. But of his\ninfluence there can be no question.[9]\n\nIt remains for me to say a word to those who ask how far this great\npoetry of the Greeks was reduced to theory, among a nation who loved to\nreduce everything to theory. The climax of this tendency is shown in the\nwork of Aristotle, as we shall see in another connection, and Aristotle\nhas either written, or caused to be written, among his multifarious\ntracts, an essay called the _Poetic_, which is mainly, so far as we have\nit, an analysis of the meaning of Tragic poetry. There are, no doubt,\nsome very important utterances in this tract, notably the famous\ndefinition of tragedy, upon which so many volumes have been written.\nBut, on the whole, I know no poorer and more jejune exposition of a\ngreat subject, so much so that I cannot but suspect that it is one of\nthe many outlying researches that he entrusted to his pupils. Here is\nthe kind of criticism to which I take exception as unworthy of\nAristotle: In the _Iphigenia in Aulis_ Euripides has given us one\ndistinct type in his wonderful gallery of heroines, all facing death for\nthe real or supposed public good, either freely or under the coercion of\ncowardly or cruel princes. This Iphigenia is a young fresh creature just\nblooming into life, and she hears the first news of her fate with an\noutburst of passionate tears, and of supplication against the cruel\nsentence. Yet presently, when she finds her doom sealed, she resigns\nherself with the splendid dignity of an inborn gentlewoman, and so adds\ngreatly to the \u201cpity and the terror\u201d of the tragedy.\n\nThe author of the _Poetic_ says the character is not consistently drawn,\nand therefore faulty. What a contemptible judgment! It is only to be\nmatched by the observation of the worthless pedant who tells us in his\n_scholium_ that the Medea of Euripides had no business to shed tears\nover her children, as she was a hard and cruel character and about to\nmurder them. So again this Aristotle says that poetry is essentially\ndifferent from prose, and gives as an example that the work of Herodotus\nwould not cease to be history even were it cast in metrical form. This\nobservation misses the deeper distinction of poetic and prosaic thought,\nwhich does not depend on metrical form. There are many passages in\nHerodotus which despite their prose form are essentially poetry, as we\nshall see in the next lecture.\n\nThese criticisms will, I trust, console you when I add that I have no\ntime left for a full consideration of the _Poetic_. It is not always\ngiven to those who do great work to expound how they did it. Even among\nthe Greeks there was a current theory that the poet suffered under that\ndivine madness which we call inspiration, and knew not the full force of\nwhat the Muse spoke through his lips. That this inspiration did not\ndispense with careful preparation, with elaborate metrical perfection, I\nhave already told you. We have but recently learned from the _Persians_\nof Timotheus that this metrical perfection may also be used to convey\nthe most ludicrously silly conceits.\n\nLet us therefore take what Time has left us with thankfulness, and not\ndisturb ourselves or mar our enjoyment by the application of barren\ntheories. From Homer to the _Anthology_, you can find great poems and\nsplendid fragments that will exalt you into the higher world reserved\nfor those that can lay aside material cares. There you will enlarge the\nwealth of your souls; there you will enter upon the heritage left you by\nthose that had attained and taken possession of the ideal to which all\nour love of beauty tends as its goal. But let me repeat to those who\ncannot quaff this poetry at the source: take it from the vessels of the\nEnglish poets that are ready to your hands, not from the laboured prose\nof the modern scholar. Take Calverley\u2019s Theocritus; take Browning\u2019s\nEuripides; take Whitelaw\u2019s Sophocles; take Frere\u2019s Aristophanes. Thus\nmay you reach not the real shrine, but, like some proselyte of old, the\nouter court of the matchless Temple.\n\n\n\n\nIII\n\nGREEK PROSE\n\n\nI suppose the ordinary critic, when reviewing the great subject before\nus, would hardly think to-day\u2019s title one of sufficient importance to\noccupy a Boston audience, and yet it ought to be shown that in prose,\nfully as much as in poetry, the Greeks have been the teachers of\ncivilised Europe. Probably also the subject will have to you this\ninterest, that it is not at all so obvious as that of the last lecture.\nEveryone knows about the Greek poets; many of them are the household\nproperty of the modern world. But the origin and the development of\nGreek prose is not so generally studied, and its far-reaching influence\nnot so widely understood. Moreover, we know something more of the early\nstages of its history, and though it also surprises us with its absolute\nperfection in our earliest authors, and seems to leap from the brain of\nthe god as fully armed as the poetry of Homer, yet we _have_ some traces\nof earlier efforts; we have some inkling of what went before Herodotus,\nmore than we have of what went before Homer. That is mostly due to the\nlate origin of prose writing among the Greeks. At first, verse form was\nuniversal for recording all topics of interest. Even genealogies were\ncomposed in hexameters. All the proverbial wisdom of the Seven Sages was\nin metrical form. Solon, the greatest of these sages, even preaches his\npolitics, and gives us his autobiography, in elegiac metre. We seem to\nhave travelled a long way from the epoch when such a man as Mr.\nGladstone or Mr. Roosevelt would address the Senate or the people in\nverse; yet for all that Solon was a lawgiver, probably as great as\neither of them, and a very modern man, too, far more modern in tone and\nspirit than Mr. Gladstone. Nor am I sure that Mr. Roosevelt would not\nenjoy composing his messages to his Senate in verse; still less should I\naffirm that the German Emperor would not revel in heroic verse, as the\nproper vehicle for his exhortations to his subjects.\n\nI note this in order to bring home to you the fact that late in Greek\nspiritual history the greatest men and their audiences remained\nsatisfied with the shackles of metre, as conveying serious teaching in a\nmore permanent and more popular form than prose. For of course at the\nbeginning of society, when there are no written records, men are wont\nto clothe their legends and tales in that form, as it is a great aid to\nthe memory, and can be easily taught to children, who remember the sound\nlong before they pay attention to the sense. I will not speak of\ninscriptions in prose, as they are not intended in early days for works\nof art, any more than the earliest letters, which are mere messages\nconveyed by writing.\n\nBut there _was_ an early attempt made, in the rich society of Ionia, to\nclothe thought in an artistic form without the shackles of metre, and\nthat was the writing of the philosopher Heracleitus. I will speak of his\ngreat and pregnant theory hereafter; what concerns us now is that his\nobscure aphorisms were intended to strike the reader by their form, as\nwell as their matter.\n\nHe had apparently a single predecessor in Pherecydes of Syros. The\nsubjugation of Ionia by the Persians, and especially the fall of\nMiletus, seem to have put an end to this early picturesque writing and\nthinking until it woke up as the scientific vehicle of the Greek school\nof Hippocrates, the Father of Medicine.\n\nIt was in the opposite extreme of the Greek world, the far west, peopled\nmainly not by Ionians but by Dorians, that literary prose made a new\nbeginning, which no political changes were able to crush, till all\nGreece fell under foreign domination. The first of these attempts was\nthe composition, at Syracuse, of a treatise teaching citizens how to\nplead their cases in court. It was a time when revolutions in the state\nand consequent changes of property, arising from confiscations and\nexiles, often reversed by a turn of the wheel of fortune, made it vital\nfor every plaintiff or defendant to be able to prove his case to a jury\nby persuasion. This school, though Doric in origin, passed to Attica,\nbred there a school of famous pleaders, from Antiphon to Demosthenes,\nwho paid the closest attention to the form of their speeches, and so\nperfected the eloquence of the bar for all time.\n\nIn strong contrast to this school was the eloquence of display, referred\nto Gorgias as its earliest master, which made elegant composition and\nsplendid delivery an end in itself, and, in the hands of the educators\ncalled Sophists, often chose a contemptible or repulsive subject in\norder to show how even the most trivial cause was capable of\nglorification by art, just as Teniers makes the pothouse and its drunken\nboors fit to take their place among the treasures that decorate a great\nmansion.\n\nIn these widely contrasted pursuits of careful speaking, there were\nseveral points in common. In both, the subject was either ephemeral or\nmight be trivial; it was the _treatment_ which was the great point of\ninterest and which gave rise to theories and systems. In neither was it\nthe intention to instruct or improve the hearer. In the one, to effect\npersuasion for the moment, in the other to gain admiration for the\nmoment, was the object of the speaker. In both also, though most\ncarefully composed, was the written word wholly subordinate to the\nspoken sound. When these studies first arose, there was as yet no\nreading public, no gathering of books, and studying them at home; but a\npublic vastly fond of talking, and of hearing brilliant talk.\n\nThere were other occasions and interests in Greek life, where the\n_subject_ was of such paramount importance, that for a long time style\nwas regarded with suspicion, as giving a flavour of unreality to the\nstatements of the speaker or writer. One was the narrative of those\nevents that had taken place in past time; the other was the grave\ndeliberation of public men regarding the future of the state, questions\nof justice and of policy in the treatment of citizens, or in the dealing\nwith neighbouring powers. The earlier leaders of Greece, such as\nAristides, Themistocles, Pericles, and the ambitious men who made\nthemselves tyrants, all must have studied the art of persuasion with due\ncare, but it was not for some generations that a professional orator\nlike Demosthenes was intrusted with the charge of public affairs, and\nthat the words orator and politician came to mean the same thing. Yet\neven here, the tendency in the Greek mind to submit everything to law\nand training, to turn every kind of human work into an art, was so\nstrong, that no form of prose writing escaped this schooling, and all of\nit shows a strictness of rhetorical form which seems, at first study of\nit, artificial, until we come to learn that the highest products of\nhuman art are not spontaneous, but the result of careful reflection.\n\nWhile these various efforts towards spoken eloquence were occupying men,\nwe find that early annalists set down either in rude metrical form, or\neven in prose, past events, thus laying the foundation for the greatest\ndevelopment of prose. I mean history, not merely as a record of past\nevents, but as an artistic product, on the same level as dramatic poetry\nor as fresco painting.[10] The earlier attempts are known to us only\nthrough names and scraps of writing; we cannot now tell how far Hecat\u00e6us\nand Xanthus the Lydian were historians in the artistic sense; but there\nis no doubt whatever that in Herodotus the Greeks have given not only to\nthe ancient, but to the modern world, a model of the _art_ of history\nwhich has never been excelled. And as if that were not enough, we have\nin Thucydides another model (one which professes not the charm of\nartistic narrative, but the strict analysis of positive facts) and in\nthis model, which has imposed itself, or has imposed, on generations of\nhistorians, we have another specimen of the use of prose, which is\nlikewise the highest model of the so-called _science_ of history. This\nlatter instance is all the more remarkable because the writer did not,\nlike Herodotus, chose a great world-subject, but a long and dull civil\nwar, in which no gigantic interests were at stake, and yet by his\nconsummate art, by his intense seriousness, little skirmishes in which a\nfew hundreds of men were engaged have become household words in modern\nlife, while elsewhere many a shock of myriads has past into oblivion.\nThus the little actions of the Athenian Phormio with his well trained\nboats against a superior force have given rise to a far larger\nliterature than the great world-battles of Actium or Lepanto in the\nsame seas. There was no Thucydides to write about these latter.\n\nAs I think it easier to impress a modern audience with the importance of\nGreek prose style in this particular branch of its excellence, I shall\nput it in the foremost place. Nothing strikes a reader of the _Poetic_\nof Aristotle (or of the treatise so called) as more incompetent than the\nillustration the writer uses to show that dramatic poetry is more\nphilosophical than history. He says that the former portrays the general\nfeatures of human character, as they must naturally develop, whereas\nhistory has no object but to narrate the details of what has happened,\n_e.g._ what Alcibiades did or suffered. I have already pointed out to\nyou the astounding stupidity with which he has criticised the\ndevelopment of a noble tragic character by a great dramatist--the\n_Iphigenia in Aulis_ of Euripides. His notion of the portraiture of\nhuman nature as it ought to develop is one of commonplace consistency,\nexcluding all those storms and passions which suddenly supervene and\nwhich give to human character all its interest and its variety.\n\nI have spoken to you of Aristotle\u2019s judgments on tragic characters; but\nI am now concerned with his view of history, as a mere narrative of\nparticulars, and I come to consider again his statement that Herodotus\nif put into metre would nevertheless be only history, and not dramatic\npoetry. It is a curious thing that we can here refute the critic from\nhistorical facts which he should have, nay must have, known. One episode\nin the history of Herodotus had already become a famous tragedy in the\nhands of \u00c6schylus, whom we may fairly assert to be a very excellent\njudge of what was proper for a tragic subject. Another historic episode,\nthe _Fall of Miletus_, was made the subject of a tragedy by Phrynichus,\nand if it displeased the Attic audience, who fined the poet, it was not\nbecause the subject was failing in tragic interest, but because it\npossessed too much, for it melted the whole audience into tears, and\nbrought home to them their present misfortunes, as well as their recent\nblunders in policy, and their craven desertion of their kindred in\nIonia.\n\nThe whole essence of prose history, as an art, first comprehended by\nHerodotus, is to regard the course of human affairs not as a mere\ncatalogue of events but as a great human drama depending on large and\neternal principles, wherein the rise and fall of great nations, still\nmore the rise and fall of the great men who sway great nations, afford\nus the contemplation of \u201cdeeds, or series of events of importance and\ncompleteness, producing through the excitement of the feelings of pity\nand terror in the reader the purification of these emotions.\u201d Aristotle\nadds to this his definition of tragedy that the subject must be\nsweetened by graces of diction in every part, and this is exactly what\nthe first great historian did, and what every one of his successors is\nbound to do, if his work is to live as a work of art, and not to be laid\nby as a mere repertory for learned reference. History as a matter of\nstyle is therefore one of the great legacies of the Greeks to mankind.\n\nBut not only in the style does Herodotus agree with the definition of\ntragedy in Aristotle. He does so also in his subject. This must be great\nor dignified, it must have completeness in itself, and it must contain\nthose changes of fortune which are so peculiarly affecting to every\nreader. The struggle between Persia and Greece, its inception, its\nvarying fortunes, the subjugation of Ionia, the anguish of Greece--all\nleading to the climax at Salamis and Platea, and the craven flight of\nXerxes to his home--what greater or more complete subject could a\nhistorian choose? And in order to sweeten it with words, there are many\npauses in the action, filled with delightful digressions, far more\nvarious and more restful than the choruses in a Greek tragedy. These,\nand all the main narrative, and the dramatic dialogues which he\ncomposes for his actors, are presented to us in that easy and flowing\nstyle which seems natural and obvious, because it is the most perfect\nart.\n\nI do not know whether this admirable simplicity is ever the spontaneous\nproduct of human genius. Whenever I have been able to reach the\nevidence, I have found it the result of great labour and fastidious\ncare. I will give you an instance. There was no one more remarkable in\nEurope in his generation for pellucid simplicity of style than Ernest\nRenan. I once saw in a friend\u2019s room a proof which Renan had sent him\nfor revision. I was not allowed to study it, but a glance showed me that\na thin strip of printed matter, the first draft, had been laid down on a\nlarge blue sheet of paper, all the wide margins of which were covered\nwith corrections, alterations, and rehandlings of the printed sentences.\nThere was much erased, much added, much changed more than once. There\nwas perhaps three times as much in the corrections as in the original\ndraft. The result, as we know, was something so easy and natural that it\nseemed to have flowed without the smallest effort from his pen.\n\nBut Herodotus is not the only model by whom the Greeks have established\na standard for modern writers. He has about him the air of a\nstory-teller, and he repeats many legends and wonders, so that graver\nand more sceptical generations set him down as a credulous traveller\neasily deceived by lying reports, if not as a deliberate writer of\nfiction. So many of these so-called lies or inventions have turned out\nafter all to be true or probable (_e.g._, the tradition that the\nEtruscans came to Italy from the coast of Asia Minor by sea) that even\nfrom this point of view Herodotus has been vindicated by modern\nresearch.\n\nIf you want a model of the other kind of history--that which professes\nto be a sober record of carefully sifted facts, which professes to\ndiscard all that is miraculous or legendary, and insist upon testimony,\nthen in the opinion of all the ages you find its perfection in\nThucydides. There used to be a general agreement that in contrast to the\nobviously artistic turn of Herodotus, his successor had exalted history,\nas far as was possible, to the rank of an exact science. We now know\nthat this view is very far from the truth. Thucydides, as his speeches\nshould always have clearly demonstrated, was an artist just as\nconsciously as Herodotus, nay rather a more subtle artist, in that he\nconcealed his art and deluded mankind under the guise of a solemn and\ndignified person, telling nothing but the unvarnished truth.[11] For he\ntoo felt that the tragedies of human affairs were a fit and noble\nsubject for the contemplation of men; he too felt that the lessons\nconveyed by the catastrophes in the affairs of brilliant polities and\nbrilliant men are as valuable as those borrowed from legendary story for\nthe tragic stage. The speeches he puts into the mouths of his characters\nare not those actually delivered, either in language, or probably even\nin substance. They are rather rhetorical expositions of the political\nsituations, as the historian conceived them, and reflections which he\nthinks the reader ought to make. He also knows the more modern way of\ndealing with this side of history. His reflections on the Corcyrean\nmassacre[12] are a famous specimen of this artistic or subjective\nwriting. I have taken pains elsewhere to show that his picture of the\ndegradation of politics in Greece so far as he represents it to be new\nand sudden, is false. All the vices which make up his brilliant but\nlurid sketch were old, well known, and ingrained in the Greek\ncharacter.[13] But it was part of his artistic scheme to represent the\nvices of that age, and especially at Athens, culminating in a brutal and\nwholly unhistorical dialogue with the Melians, as the proper prelude to\nthe great disaster in Sicily and the consequent fall of Athens. Thus\nchoosing a far smaller and poorer subject than Herodotus, treating it\nalso in a far poorer and narrower way, he has by those very restrictions\nintensified his book, and infused into it such dignity and pathos as to\nmake it artistically worthy of the age of Phidias, of Aristophanes, of\nSocrates.\n\nWhen we ask whether the diction of this great work is adequate to its\nartistic conception, the answer is not, I think, far to seek. There are\ntwo kinds of diction in Thucydides, a clear, chaste attractive narrative\nof facts, without ornament, but rising with its subject to a pathetic\nearnestness, which has seldom been surpassed. This narrative, like the\ndialogue of tragedy, is interrupted at suitable moments by the pretended\nspeeches of the actors, which by a curious inversion are like the chorus\nin the play, giving the motives of the action and often the disguised\nopinions of the writer. These are expressed in obscure and contorted\nlanguage, which ancient critics did not hesitate to stigmatise as\nthoroughly bad style. With models of clearness before him, such as\nHerodotus, Euripides, Antiphon, this fault is an idiosyncrasy of\nThucydides, and yet a defect which has not failed to bring to him\ncertain advantages. For obscurity always produces the impression of\nprofundity, especially when it occurs in a solid and weighty author.\nThus the many platitudes in Thucydides\u2019 speeches, and the recurrence of\nobvious ideas, are disguised by contortions of expression, so that the\ndiscovery of the meaning is a mental exercise which flatters and thus\npleases the reader, if he be curious in such things, still more the\ncommentator, who finds wonderful scope for his often mediocre talent in\nsuch labour. This is the quality in Mr. George Meredith who makes his\nadmirers think highly of themselves, while they despise others.[14]\n\nTime fails me to illustrate further, in Xenophon and in Polybius, this\nartistic conception of a period of human history as a great drama, in\nwhich the rise, the splendour, and the fall of great men, great cities,\ngreat nations are told us with artistic selection of the details and\nartistic perfection of style. This was the conception which moved Gibbon\nto write the _Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire_. He saw around him,\nat Rome, the gigantic relics of a bygone civilisation. He felt within\nhim the power of style to present the facts in adequate form; and so we\nobtained another work of art, in which the presentation of the facts is\nnot less important than the facts themselves. As the Greeks put it over\nand over again, and as Cicero repeats it, history is a form of\neloquence, and _that_ history only will last which possesses the _sine\nqua non_ of a great or an attractive style. This is what the Greeks have\ntaught us, and what many of us have ignored to our own ruin as permanent\nteachers.\n\nI will conclude this part of my subject by reminding you that in\nbiography, which as the idyll gives a single scene, or as a cameo gives\nthe portrait of an individual--Plutarch has been the model to all modern\nbiographers. How truly dramatic was his conception and his treatment of\nindividual great lives will come home to you at once when I remind you\nthat Shakespeare found in his _Lives_ subjects for a series of\ntragedies, and in his diction language which required very little\nparaphrase.\n\nLet us now turn back to the sister developments of eloquence, wherein\nthe writing of history had accomplished such triumphs. These are in\nbrief the eloquence of debate, and the eloquence of display. And the\neloquence of debate may either be that of the courts, wherein private\nindividuals, the plaintiff and defendant, are pitted one against the\nother, or that of the public assembly, where political deliberations are\nheld and in which the orator seeks to persuade the majority to adopt his\npolicy or to reject the policy of a political opponent. Remember that in\nall these cases the Greeks were equally adverse to extemporaneous\neffusions. They believed in the artistic arrangement and polished\nexpression of every argument. In the law courts, where litigants had to\nappear in person, and not by counsel, it was the advocate\u2019s duty to\ncompose the client\u2019s speech for him beforehand, and probably to instruct\nhim in its proper delivery. As we never hear of any breaking down in\ncourt, of any client unable to remember or speak out what the advocate\nhad prepared for him, I think it possible that the litigants were\nallowed to read their speeches. In any case, the composition of these\nspeeches became a well-known and lucrative profession, and was\naccordingly adopted by the ablest men. The practice had long suggested\nthe theory, and so from early times there were treatises composed, known\nas \u03c4\u03ad\u03c7\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9, wherein the subtleties of the art of persuasion were\ncarefully analysed and reduced to rule. The early treatises of this kind\nare lost, but we feel their results in the remains of Antiphon and\nIs\u00e6us, and can affirm that they were eminently practical, and thoroughly\nopposed to the froth and fury of what we call popular eloquence. The use\nof figures of speech is reduced to a minimum, the so-called flowers of\nrhetoric are wholly absent. All is tame, severe, temperate, not\npretending to influence the passions but to convince the reason. And yet\nthis latter is to be done not by speaking the language of the heart, but\nby the careful training of the intellect, and the perfection of the\ndelivery.[15] To us moderns these things appear at first hearing to\nflavour of artificiality; the great bugbear of the modern mind, which\ncontrasts it with the purity and sincerity of nature. The Greeks knew\nthis contrast perfectly, and they met it, not by the folly of leaving\nnature to follow its own devices, but by making nature the highest\nartistic product. Thus the court advocates, composing for various\nclients, studied not only the proper arguments to be urged, but that\nthese arguments must be presented \u201cin character\u201d and so they carefully\nkept before them the personality of the speaker. In Lysias especially,\nthis expression of character in the speaker is part of his art, which so\nperfectly apes simplicity that it requires a careful analysis to detect\nbehind the simple utterance of the homely citizen the subtle\nrhetorician.\n\nThis refinement of legal rhetoric seems to me to have been disregarded\nor abandoned when the pleaders became so celebrated that the fiction of\na client speaking for himself was no longer plausible, and when the\npublic that thronged the courts went to hear an oration of Demosthenes\nor Hypereides delivered by his client. Hence the speeches of Demosthenes\nare not so various in ethos, and many of them being delivered about his\nown private affairs, had already taught the public to recognise his\ngreat style. In particular, so many of his orations were not court\nspeeches but political harangues that this latter branch of eloquence\nmay be regarded as that in which he best showed his pre-eminence. And\nthere are not a few instances where the ostensible case was only an\nexcuse for promoting or vindicating a great policy. The acme of all this\nbranch of Greek literature is the famous _de Corona_ of Demosthenes,\nwhich great lawyers and political orators like Lord Brougham have\ndeclared to be the very _ne plus ultra_ of eloquence intended not only\nto persuade, but also to persuade by all the arts of subtle logic, of\nbrilliant sophistry, of red hot argument. And remember men like Lord\nBrougham, though infinitely better practical judges of the effect of\nsuch a speech than are mere scholars, did not know one tithe of the\nsubtleties of style, which have only been detected by the minute\nstudies, not only of the old Greek critics, but of modern German\nscholars.\n\nEven in such a mighty speech as this you will notice the very scanty use\nof ornament. There are none of what we moderns call the flowers of\nrhetoric; there is no sounding peroration. It is the picture of a grave\npatriot vindicating his life\u2019s work against the carping of his enemies\nand the criticism of his opponents. There are indeed passages of gross\nvituperation, wherein by scathing reflections on his opponent\u2019s previous\nlife, he replies to \u00c6schines\u2019 insinuations about his private character.\nNor has the character of \u00c6schines ever recovered from this \u201craking of\nhis record,\u201d which was probably not at all kept within the limits of the\ntruth. But the restraints which have been usual among modern gentlemen\nin debate, especially the modern English gentlemen of the last century,\nwere not regarded as essential to the dignity of the highest Greek court\noration, and that was probably because the jury was composed of the\nmiddle and lower classes who were not shocked by any want of refinement.\n\nNotwithstanding this limitation, there can be no question that in the\noratory of debate the Greeks taught the Romans, then through them\nMedi\u00e6val Europe, then after the Renaissance, modern Europe directly, so\nthat even now they are the acknowledged masters in this splendid art. It\nis all the more astonishing, as we might naturally think that a society\nwithout printing and consequently without a great reading public would\nnot have aimed at producing an eloquence which was not only splendid to\nread when the heat of controversy was allayed, but worthy of study and\nof analysis by the critics of succeeding generations. Nevertheless, with\nno better means of publication for readers than manuscript copies, and\nwithout any hope of great celebrity, or of great profit as the authors\nof written speeches, these Greeks produced work which has perfectly\nstood the test even of new and exacting conditions. In spite of their\nlimited public, the orators had attained to as clear a notion as we have\nof the importance of appealing to a reading and thinking public which\ncould study their arguments and their style at full leisure, and so, not\ncontent with the orations primarily intended for delivery, they also\nperfected the prose essay, and even the prose dialogue, a very peculiar\nform of literature, inasmuch as it is the literary stereotyping of an\napparently spontaneous conversation.\n\nBut when I speak of a reading public, perhaps I should limit it\nsomewhat, and say a public accustomed to hear reading aloud. That is the\nintermediate stage between a mere audience and the mere readers of\nbooks. I am quite accustomed to that intermediate stage in Ireland. You\nmay see there any day groups of people hearing a newspaper or book read\nout, and if the great body of the public is of this class, then the\nwriter must think not only of what he has to say but how it will sound\nwhen read aloud. I take the same principle to have animated the\ncomposers of the splendid English Book of Common Prayer. They desired to\naffect the hearer not only by the sentiment, but by the sound of their\nLiturgy. Now this is the very step in prose writing which was taken by\nthe Greek students of eloquence, and most notably by Isocrates, the\nfather of the political prose essay in Europe.\n\nThere were no doubt accidental or personal causes which conspired to\nthis result at this moment. Isocrates, with great natural gifts for\nstyle and for composition, was wholly deficient in voice and in physique\nfor the profession of public speaking, nor had he the extraordinary\nenergy and perseverance shown by Demosthenes in overcoming these\ndefects. So it occurred to him that he might exercise his influence by\nprose writing in the form of open letters or political pamphlets, where\nhe puts his thoughts into the most polished periods and the most refined\nlanguage.\n\nI cannot but quote to you a curious parallel of a man of genius turning\na natural defect into a splendid success. When Richard Wagner began to\ncompose operas of the received form, he failed because of his want of\nfacility to produce a sustained melody. He then bethought himself of the\nuse of short phrases instead of sustained songs, and in spite of his\noriginal defect he has obtained a very great and deserved popularity.\nThere are, of course, other great qualities in Wagner, especially his\nnovel and splendid use of the orchestra. But the question of melody is\nalways the vital one in music, and no man ever attained the first rank\nthat has left us so few sustained melodies. His _Rienzi_ shows what he\ncould do when he attempted them.\n\nThe laws of prose composition, as devised and perfected by Isocrates,\nare the most subtle and complete ever put into practice by any living\nman, and though of course some of them are only applicable to the Greek\nlanguage, and indeed to Attic Greek, the general principles he expounded\nhave been applied by many writers and in many languages.[16] It is well\nknown that Cicero modelled himself on this style and through him it\nbecame dominant in Europe. The greatest English example in older days is\nthe _Areopagitica_ of Milton, who though manifestly inspired by\nIsocrates, is far from possessing his perfect control of language,\nperfect smoothness of period, perfect clearness of thinking, all of\nwhich make up the charm of the great master. Isocrates was the teacher\nof this great style, not only to pleaders and pamphleteers, but to\nhistorians, and he was blamed for making men like Ephorus and\nTheopompus, his favourite pupils, in writing their once famous works,\nthink more of their diction than of their impartiality or their\nresearch. But surely the duty of making history eloquent, such as we\nhave it in Gibbon, is of paramount value. To this I shall not now\nreturn. I rather desire to call your attention to the supremacy of a\ngreat periodic style even in English, and in these latter days, when\nbrevity, epigram, impatience of style and an affected neglect of form\nare in high fashion. Among the writers of the 19th century, I take by\nfar the greatest stylist to be John Ruskin, and I consider that far the\nlargest part of his influence arose not from his ideas, which were often\nfantastic, but from the admirable way in which they were set forth. But\nhe was essentially the master of the long period, for with him you may\nfind a whole page consisting of one grand sentence, in which many\nclauses are co-ordinated, many lesser ideas balanced, many strands woven\ninto the one great tissue which comes from the writer\u2019s pen as from a\nloom. And that is the reason why he was a greater stylist than all the\nFroudes and Newmans and Paters, who either use short sentences, or if\nthey attempt the period, are neither melodious nor clear.\n\nThe same law holds good in eloquence, when we can find a master to\nillustrate it. The two greatest English orators I have heard during the\nlast generation were Mr. Gladstone and Archbishop Magee. Both dealt in\nthe long period--the former from constant habit, which was even notable\nin his ordinary life, and which spoilt his conversation; the other, who\nwas brief and pungent enough in ordinary talk, trained himself upon the\nmodel of Chalmers, a great Scotch orator before my day. I have seen\nMagee\u2019s copy of Chalmers, and have noted how minutely he had dissected\nand analysed it. But both produced the same wonderful effect by (if I\nmay say so) embarking the audience with them on the billows of great\nperiods, which excited wonder how they would ever come safely to land.\nThe rounding off and concluding of such a period not only with safety\nbut with splendour produced an effect upon their audience unlike\nanything else that I have experienced. The style of neither, though both\nknew Greek well, was based directly on Isocrates; but most certainly\ntheir speech was based upon the principles he had taught and impressed\nso well upon Cicero and his like, upon Milton, upon Jeremy Taylor, upon\nEdmund Burke, all of whom appreciated and practised this supreme prose\nstyle.\n\nBut if the Greeks here showed the modern world the model of the highest\nperfection in the prose essay, they would not have been Greeks if they\nhad not also shown us the perfection of easy conversation, of everyday\ntalk, of the play of various styles, and the expression of various\ncharacters in the cultivated language of the day. And so Plato in his\n_Dialogues_ has shown the world an unapproachable example of\nconversation raised to a high art, which again created a distinct\nliterary form that has never died out.[17]\n\nAll these developments are (with the exception of biography) those of\nthe Golden Age of Greek Literature, and are the discovery of great\nmasters who were the glory of that age. But as we shall see frequently\nin the course of these lectures, the silver age of Greece was almost as\nfruitful in the creation of models for the imitation of modern Europe.\nIt was only after a great body of splendid authors had lived, that we\ncould expect to find literary criticism assuming an important place. For\nthe literary critic is after all a sort of parasite, who lives on the\nbodies of greater and more dignified animals. We know that when the\nlibrary of Alexandria came to be collected, and the sifting of authors\nand of the texts of authors became necessary, there arose a great school\nof critical scholars, who purified the received copies, who apportioned\nthe respective value of the texts, and who developed that censorious\nattitude toward the classical masterpieces which is the bane of the\nmodern world. We still have in the critical essays of Dionysius of\nHalicarnassus and still more in the Tract on the Sublime, belonging to\nthe 1st century A.D., excellent models of what is good and useful in\nthis reflexive attitude of a later age, and of second rate ability. The\ngreat age of production had been very simple and na\u00efve in criticism; the\nattitude of Aristophanes, and even of Plato, in judging poets is merely\na moral judgment and seems never to take into consideration \u00e6sthetic\nquestions. In the Tract on the Sublime we find quite a modern\nstandpoint, and the judgments of this author have had no small effect on\nthe literature of the last century. No less a person than Edmund Burke\nthought it worth while to translate this tract, and how wide was the\nauthor\u2019s sympathy will appear at once from this fact, that he quotes as\na signal instance of the sublime the opening of a work far removed in\nspirit from classical Greek literature--the book of _Genesis_, in the\nGreek version.\n\nI need not delay over the many and various Epistles left us by the\nGreeks, and which you may see collected in one of Didot\u2019s big volumes of\n_Epistolographi Graeci_. But I do not think that we can call letter\nwriting a distinct form of literature, and it is very certain that every\nnation that could use writing materials could hardly fail to adopt it\nin some form. Nor do I think the letters extant are in any way\nremarkable, perhaps because most of them are the compilations of men\nattributing these documents falsely to the great ancients. The letters\nascribed to Plato, Isocrates, and others give us nothing additional of\nliterary importance.[18] I will therefore pass from these, as well as\nfrom the moral harangues of the later rhetors and sophists of whom Dion\nChrysostom is far the most interesting. I wish modern sermons would\nborrow more from this admirable and little used source, for Dion was a\nman of the world, a traveller, a sound moral teacher, and gifted with a\ngreat taste for the picturesque.\n\nBut I cannot conclude without a word about the prose novel of the\nGreeks, who here also founded a form of literature that has assumed\ngigantic importance in the modern world. The novel may be regarded as\nthe last legitimate offering, a child born out of due time, as Saint\nPaul calls himself, but like Saint Paul a greater influence in our\nmodern life than any of his older brethren. It might have been thought\nthat from the modern Comedy of Menander and his rivals to a prose novel\nin the modern sense was but a small and inevitable step, and yet no\nbranch of Greek literature had less influence upon the rise and\ndevelopment of so kindred a subject. The very frame on which all\nMenander\u2019s plays were stretched with wearisome iteration, I mean the\nrehabilitation of a respectable girl, who solely through the neglect or\nthe violence of others, has become a mother without being a wife--such a\ntopic would be wholly repugnant to any Greek novelist we know. For in\nall the stories we possess the main interest turns upon the preservation\nof the heroine\u2019s purity through every sort of temptation, and every sort\nof attempted violence. This was a topic quite strange to Greek sentiment\nand foreign to Greek literature till it was imported from the East by\nthose who had there learned that sort of love-story. There are\nindications of it in the romantic episodes of Xenophon\u2019s _Cyrus_, but\nthe adoption of it as a striking topic is later, and due to Callimachus,\nwhose poem called _Acontius and Cydippe_ was perhaps the first\nlove-story of our modern type offered to the Greek world. A youth and a\nmaiden, whose beauties were described in great detail, meet at a\nreligious ceremony, and fall deeply in love at first sight. The various\nand commonplace obstacles to their union which are familiar in every\nmodern society--worldly parents, a richer suitor for the maiden, threats\nof broken hearts and of suicide--these occupy the story, which through\nmany untoward delays ends in a happy marriage.[19] It may cause\namazement in this audience that such a plot should ever have been new in\nliterature, especially in that of the Greeks, who had every sort of\nhuman experience before them. Yet it was new in the Alexandria of the\nPtolemies, and made its fortune in that world-weary and artificial\nsociety. In all the Greek novels we possess, some such love-story is the\nnecessary thread which glitters through the tissue, so much so that the\nGerman pedants edit them under the title _Scriptores Erotici Graeci_.\nYet the relation between the lovers being absolutely pure, any\ntemptations which occur arise from the passions of violent people who\ncreate no interest in the reader. By far the best specimen we have,\nowing to its simplicity and its natural scenery, is the famous _Daphnis\nand Chloe_, which has found so many imitators ever since the French of\nAmyot has made it accessible to modern Europe. We feel indeed that the\nunknown author was far from possessing the innocence of his characters,\nor the spontaneous appreciation of the nature he describes. The work is\nfrom the time of Decadence in Greek literature, and has the faults of\nits generation. But for all that it is a beautiful work of art, just as\nthe _Idylls_ of Theocritus are beautiful, just as the _Hero and Leander_\nof Mus\u00e6us is beautiful, just as the Martinmas summer of your woods is\nbeautiful, and all the more beloved because we feel it is but \u201cthe\ngilded halo hovering round decay!\u201d\n\nI said it was our best specimen because of its simplicity, and yet it is\nnot wanting in violent and improbable adventures toward its close. But\nthese are as nothing compared to the adventures of lovers in the other\nstories of this kind, because there then was a wholly different vein of\nprose story, which came into fashion with the love-story, and became\namalgamated with it, to the great detriment of both--I mean the stories\nof wild adventures in strange and fabulous lands.\n\nWith the wonderful invasion of the East, there were opened to the\nastonished Greeks new regions of fabulous splendour, of astounding\ntreasure, of amazing nature. So violently was their imagination\nstimulated by what they saw that they set themselves to construct books\nof travels beyond the rising sun and beneath the ocean wave, into the\nhomes of monstrous beasts, and still more monstrous men. The schemes of\nAlexander himself were baulked by his soldiers, who positively refused\nto embark in his wild dreams of universal conquest, but there was\nnothing to impede the imagination of the writers of his deeds, who\ncombined the real narrative of his conquests with his quest after the\nhidden wonders of the East. Hence we have the so-called _Life of\nAlexander_, which I consider to have originated shortly after his death,\nbut to have been amplified and glorified by succeeding generations of\nthose that told their stories to delighted audiences. In this _Life and\nActs_ we have the starting point of a whole literature of Fabulous\nTravels, mixed with descriptions not only of odious savages, but of\nideal societies that lived hidden away from the vices and troubles of\nold and decrepit civilisation. But this literature, so popular in the\nMiddle Ages, is outside the pale of Hellenism. It is not only the last\nchild, but the illegitimate child of their once pure and lofty\nimagination.\n\n\n\n\nIV\n\nGREEK ART--I: ARCHITECTURE AND SCULPTURE\n\n\nIt is of course an illogical division to separate art from literature.\nAmong the Greeks, at all events, literature in all its forms, was not\nonly an art but the most perfect art. No statue of Lysippus is more\nperfect than a drama of Sophocles. But for convenience\u2019 sake, and in\nthis age where literature is seldom an art, we may speak of Greek art as\nthat division of their work where they dealt not with words, but with\nother materials, and where they combined the uses of life with the love\nof the beautiful, as no other nation ever did. We may add that in regard\nto Greek influence on modern life (which is our proper subject), none\nhas been greater and more permanent than that of art in this sense.\nThousands of men have copied, or imagined they copied, Greek art, who\nwere never able to read one word of Greek and who never cared one jot\nabout Greek literature. I take to-day its more solid and larger\nexpressions--architecture and sculpture, reserving for my next lecture\nthe more subjective arts and those of mere ornament.\n\nIt is not true, as you might suppose, that these latter were later in\ndevelopment than the art of architecture. Far from it. In rude\npre-historic ages, when the knowledge of building had not advanced\nbeyond the question of mere safety, we find delicate and beautiful\nornaments put upon arms and on personal decorations. The most elaborate\ntattooing of the savage is consistent with extreme rudeness in his\ndwelling.[20]\n\nThe earliest form of house we know, which was designed not only for\nshelter and durability, but also for safety, is the _underground_\nbeehive house. Beehive huts of stone are common in many nations, and may\nperhaps best be seen now in the huts of the monks on the wild rock of\nSkellig Michael, which is the nearest land in the British Islands to the\ntraveller coming from America. But such huts are not easily defended\nagainst an enemy. This latter advantage is obtained by making the hut a\nchamber underground,[21] and only to be entered by a passage long,\nnarrow, and low, in fact a sort of horizontal shaft into which the\nenemy can only creep on hands and feet, and so can have his head chopped\noff as soon as it appears within the chamber, without possibility of\nusing his weapons. I have seen this form of house in the most primitive\nvillage of the stone and bone age, which is known as the Weem of Scale,\non a very wild bay of the main island of the Orkneys, looking northwest\ninto the Atlantic. There, under the sands accumulated by the gales of\nthousands of years, we find small subterranean huts, with nooks in the\nstone work to hold rude vessels and implements, and with a low covered\nway for the owner to creep in and find himself at home. The weapons\nfound in such houses, many of which are yet unexplored, are either of\nstone or bone or shell. These dwellings, once a very general type--for\nremember, similar wants in mankind produce similar satisfactions of that\nwant in the most widely severed parts of the world--usually come to us\nin the stage of survival, when men had already learned other kinds of\narchitecture. Hence they often preserved for the dwellings of the dead\nthis type of underground beehive house with a long and narrow approach,\nthough as time went on the house was made higher, and the avenue of\napproach better (as we have it in the famous New Grange in Ireland),\nand they even ornamented the inner surface of the slabs that formed the\nwalls. As usual, the prehistoric Greeks did it all more perfectly than\nthe rest of the world. The beehive house known in former days as the\nTreasury of Atreus, but now recognised as a tomb of some prehistoric\nking, is a splendid building fifty feet high, and made of thirty-three\nhorizontal courses of stone overlapping as they rise, with the inner\nsurfaces cut to form a conical chamber. Not only are large lintel stones\nused, but there were rosettes of bronze ornamenting the inner surface of\nthe walls, and the stately avenue (_dromos_) lined with stone work of\ngreat finish and open to the sky, led to an ornamented gate or entrance.\nA restoration of this entrance, made by the aid of the actual pillars\ncarried home long ago by the Marquis of Sligo, now astonishes the\nstudent of prehistoric art in the British Museum.[22] Why do I, however,\ndelay over this very perfect and beautiful kind of building of which\nanother noted specimen is the Tomb of the Miny\u00e6 at Orchomenos in\nB\u0153otia?[23] In the first place, to show you how the highly developed\nand finished forms were the gradual perfection of the oldest and rudest\nprotected house, to which they merely added height, careful finish, and\nornament, which ornament we know from Egyptian parallels to date some\nfifteen centuries before Christ; secondly, to bring home to you the\nimportant fact that the beehive or round house was at an early date\nabandoned to the use of the dead, and not employed for the use of the\nliving till quite late in Greek history, when a few round public\nbuildings show that the idea had not been lost. The men that built the\ngreat and elaborate tomb of Atreus probably never themselves lived in a\nround or beehive, but in a square house. They only maintained the round\nform out of respect for the dead, and indeed for the sake of the safety\nof the treasures buried with the dead.\n\nTo the square house (of course I include under this short word all\nrectangular buildings) we now turn. It seems to me that the earliest\nmodel which suggested this form was the hut of logs, laid one over the\nother alternately at right angles so as to enclose a square space. Two\nupright posts with a horizontal beam over them would supply the first\nrude doorway in an opening left by using shorter logs on each side of\nit, and then it was very obvious that a gable roof to cover the house\nwould be made by laying logs from the top of the wall to rest one\nagainst the other at their upper ends, or of course a flat roof in a\nsimilar way.\n\nWe can derive from this simple form the whole classical architecture of\nEurope. In the first place, the gaps between the logs were filled with\nclay, and so even the great stones at Tiryns are treated. Thus the wall\nwas made staunch against rain and wind. But then someone discovered that\nby making clay into bricks and drying them slowly in the sun, they would\nhave a building material much more serviceable than wooden logs or\nstones. And so the filling up stuff became the main stuff of the wall;\nyet how persistent the idea of using wood can be inferred from the fact\nthat early brick walls have wooden beams built into them longitudinally\nby way of giving firmness, but also affording a danger of complete ruin,\nif the building was attacked by fire. The door posts and the lintels\nwere of wood; for the mud brick wall ending beside the door would\nrapidly suffer if not protected by a facing of wood, and later on, terra\ncotta casing was used to replace the wood. Ultimately, stone door frames\nand pillars replaced the older wooden work. But everywhere the traces\nof the primitive wood work survives. The oldest pillars were tree stems\nset on a stone base. At the top where the weight laid on them tended to\nflatten them out, they were probably bound with a metal band. This you\nsee perpetuated by the Doric pillar, standing on its base without\nplinth, and at the top we have a band running round, and over it a\nsplaying capital with a slab or abacus over it, to protect the inwards\nof the wood from being soaked with rain.\n\nThere is no more persistent ornament in a Doric Temple than that course\nover the actual wall which consists of what are called metopes and\ntriglyphs. The metopes are not foreheads (\u03bc\u03ad\u03c4\u03c9\u03c0\u03b1) as even some persons\nwho know Greek might imagine, but interstices (\u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u03cc\u03c0\u03b1\u03b9), in fact open\nspaces or holes between the triglyphs. Originally, when the roofs were\nof opaque tiles, these openings were necessary to let in light. But the\ntriglyphs, what were they? Vitruvius notes them as beam ends, for he\ncalls the metopes _intertignia_; and why were they always marked with\nthree grooves, as their name implies? Apparently because two horizontal\nbeams, intended to make a ceiling, had a third pinned between them which\nrose to the gable, where it met another, and so formed the skeleton of\nthe sloping roof. When marble tiles, which were semi-transparent, or\nwhen a higher false roof was set on, the metopes were no longer\nnecessary to let in light, and the Greeks made the now closed interstice\nan ornamented surface, showing groups, either painted, or carved in\nrelief, to vary the severe lines of the building.\n\nWe have drifted into some of the leading features of temples, and they\nare indeed the buildings which have most influenced subsequent\ncenturies, but the features of the temple were originally those of the\nstately house, as we can see clearly in the remains discovered at\nTiryns. The roofs and upper stories are all gone, but the arrangements\nof the doorways are quite the same in principle as those of the historic\ntemples, except that in the Tirynthian doorways, there are many\nevidences remaining of the actual use of wooden pilasters and pillars.\nPausanias in the second century still found one or two wooden pillars\nsurviving in the ancient temple of Hera at Olympia. As they got worn\nout, they were replaced by stone, and Dr. D\u00f6rpfeld found that these\nsubstitutions were not all uniform, but in accord with the altering\ntaste of the day. The capitals in particular varied from pillar to\npillar, to judge from those found among the d\u00e9bris of the temple,\nwhich, by the way, contained the famous Hermes of Praxiteles.\n\nThe ultimate separation between the dwelling house and the temple was\nthat the house included a central court with rooms around it, which was\ntoo large to roof over, and so the model was handed on to all southern\nEurope. The Italian palaces, for example, are all dark and fortified\ntoward the street, and contain an inner court and a gallery running\nround it on the building within, on which the rooms open. So permanent\nare the right principles of architecture when once discovered by a race\nof genius.\n\nThe temple or house of the gods was, of course, a single chamber of\nmoderate size with a treasure house behind it, and the gradual\ndevelopment of it from a simple square chamber with one end opened for a\ndoor, and adorned with two pillars between the pilasters which formed\nthe ends of the house wall--the doorway _in antis_, to the elaborate\nperipteral temple with double rows of pillars running round it--all this\nis to be found in any handbook of ancient art. From the very use of the\ntemple as compared with the private house, it followed that while the\ntemple looked outward, and was meant to show its beauty to those that\napproached it, the private house looked inward--all its beauties were\nreserved for the occupants, and care was even taken to prevent any\ncurious observation on the part of the public. But it is only of recent\nyears that the extant ruins have been minutely measured and studied, and\nnow we know that, in addition to building this rectangular house for the\ngod, there were the most elaborate and minute laws observed in the\nproportions of the various parts, and in the optical corrections of\nstraight lines, which were found to appear curved. This perfection,\ntherefore, of Greek religious architecture was not merely the adoption\nof a good practical form, and the carrying out of it in precious\nmaterials and with clear and competent workmanship. The most delicate\nadaptation of curves, the most curious and subtle applications of\nharmonies in lengths and heights, were utilised to produce an effect\nwhich all observers have long felt to be the most marvellous in the\nworld.\n\nBut before I go further I will dispose of an interesting point which\nmany have thought a defect in the architectural genius of the Greeks.\nYou will see in every book that the use of the arch was unknown to them,\nand that for this capital feature in our buildings we are wholly\nindebted to the Romans. That the arch was not in use among the Greeks,\nI attribute to the fact that the round house and conical roof were\ndeliberately rejected by them in favour of the square house and wooden\nstructure of doorways and roofs. As already observed, this form was long\nsince devoted to funeral purposes and to the burying (not burning) of\nthe dead, and so its associations were gloomy. But it seems to me absurd\nto say that people who could frame a conical stone roof, by horizontal\nlayers of stones gradually closing inwards, should not have advanced to\nthe principle of the arch with its keystone. This in fact Pausanias\nassumed them to have done in the Tomb of the Miny\u00e6 at Orchomenos. He\nsays the top stone of the vault is the \u03ac\u03c1\u03bc\u03bf\u03bd\u03af\u03b1 of the whole vault. If\nthis was not accurate in the case of Orchomenos, it at least shows that\nPausanias, a very experienced observer of old Greek building, did not\nhold that this generic distinction existed between Greek and Roman\nbuilding. But, as I said, the Greeks rejected round or conical forms for\nrectangular, and the Roman combination of the two, which passed on to\nthe Renaissance, is distinctly a modification of form to which the\nGreeks would not have agreed. Still less would they have approved of the\nuse of arches and of architraves as the mere ornament of a building, and\nsupporting nothing. To the Greeks every member of their building was\nthere for use. A pillar was set to support an architrave, this latter to\nsupport the beams of a roof. Flat surfaces were decorated with painting,\nor with reliefs, but these flat surfaces were necessary to close in the\nbuilding from the weather. Thus, to illustrate bad building by an\nexample, when you look at the portal of St. Mark\u2019s at Venice, you will\nsee groups of marble pillars with a highly decorated arch over them,\nmaking a rich doorway. But there are more pillars than are wanted to\nsupport the arch, so that some of them stand idle, as a mere added\nornament. That is only one instance of the tawdriness which infects the\ndecadence of a great style--in this case of the Romanesque architecture\nof eastern Italy and Sicily.\n\nThere is a very widespread belief that the arch was invented and first\nused in Italy, and high authorities, like Viollet-le-Duc in his famous\n_Entretiens sur l\u2019architecture_, put forth the theory that the Romans\nlearned its use from the Etruscans, from whom they borrowed so much of\ntheir early civilisation. But if they did, is it certain that the real\norigin was not Greek? Is it likely that this enigmatical nation found\nout a great principle of construction unknown to the Greeks? I think\nnot; and all the more so, as I hold all the early Etruscan culture to\nhave been stimulated by the Greeks, with whom Etruria had an older and\ndeeper connection than was suspected a generation ago. For now we come\nback to the statement of Herodotus, that this nation came from Asia\nMinor, and by sea, to Italy. The settlers of the earliest Greek colony\nin Italy--Cum\u00e6--followed in their track, and their immigration seems not\nto have been very early. Hence they may very well have borrowed their\nuse of the arch from early Greek teachers, and thus imposed it upon the\nRomans and upon the world. But does it really matter to my argument?\nEven the Romans, who perfected the use of the arch, were not satisfied\nwith it unless they had put it inside a Greek face of pillars and\narchitraves. The Greek temple has afforded a model which has been copied\nin every capital of Europe, and in its most perfect form has an artistic\nsplendour which is second to none among the buildings of the world.\n\nI will repeat that, as the Greeks determined at a very early age that\ndomed or circular buildings were the proper receptacle of the dead, so\nthey have transmitted that decision through the Romans to modern Europe.\nThe Pantheon, whatever its original use, has come to be the solemn\nresting-place of national heroes. The great tomb of Hadrian, now the\nCastle of St. Angelo, was built under the same prepossession, and so\nthrough all ages down to the _Invalides_ in Paris, and the memorial to\nShelley at Oxford, all these houses of the dead are the offspring\nartistically of the Treasure-house of Atreus, of the Tomb of the Miny\u00e6,\nand of the rest, consecrated by the old Greeks. Quite recently, when our\nKing brought me to see the Mausoleum of Queen Victoria and her Consort\nat Frogmore, I was able to point out to him that the builders of this\ncircular chamber also, though they probably knew it not themselves, were\ncopying the ancient and almost universal model of a house for the dead.\nThe Greeks very possibly derived this old idea from a northern race. The\noccurrence of similar forms in the early tombs of Ireland and of other\nparts of Europe seem to show that there was some prehistoric agreement\nabout this form of tomb--the most distinguished, as well as the safest,\nresidence they could devise, first for living men, then for departed\nkings or chiefs who demanded cult and sacrifice. That may be all very\ntrue, but it does not alter the fact that it was from the Greeks that\ncivilised Europe adopted the idea.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nI now pass to another field of art, in which this gifted nation has\nexercised an undoubted supremacy down to the present day. The very idea\nof exceeding the excellence of a great Greek statue hardly enters the\nmind of the modern sculptor. If he could but approach the work of\nPraxiteles, or even of the nameless workers who carved the great tomb of\nSidon, he would regard it as an astounding achievement.\n\nWe shall find not a few who attribute this perfection of Greek sculpture\nto the great opportunities they had of observing the play of limb and\nmuscle in their daily exercises in the _pal\u00e6stra_, where men and boys\nexercised naked. That I take to be so far true, that I have often\nsuggested to modern sculptors, who complain of the insufficiency of\ntheir models, to make a pilgrimage for a couple of years to Samoa, or\nthe Solomon Islands, where they may study very noble forms, exercising\nin the purest state of nature, so far as they have not been depraved\ninto clothes by well-meaning, but mischievous, missionaries; and I think\nthat the first sculptor who ventures upon this education may do great\nthings in his art. But it only touches a fringe of the question as\nregards the old Greek triumphs. Naked figures were not the earliest or\ngreatest Greek achievement in sculpture. There are indeed some archaic\nnude Apollos, but all the early goddesses, so far as I know, were\ndraped, and it is in drapery also that Greek sculpture is unique for\nits supreme grace. Need I add that it is not only in single figures, but\nin composition that the Greeks are still our masters? If any of you will\ncompare the frieze of the Parthenon, even as we have it, with any modern\ncomposition of the same sort, it will require no argument to persuade\nhim of the truth of what I say.\n\nThere is another somewhat more subtle reason given for this strange\nsuperiority in art of a people who had not a tithe of our experience or\nof our mechanical resources: I shall give it to you in the words of a\ngifted Italian essayist. Professor Pasquale Villari: \u201cThe problem,\u201d he\nsays, \u201cset before the famous sculptor Donatello, at the dawn of the\nRenaissance, could not be solved by the mere study of ancient art. The\nGreeks had no means of expressing Christian spirit or emotion. Their\nquest was for outward beauty of form, and their nature, being simpler,\nmore spontaneous, and more harmonious than ours, could be adequately\nexpressed in marble. They had no experience of the mental maladies, the\ntortures of remorse, or the whole inner life created by Christianity. In\ntheir times, no ascetics, no hermits, no anchorites, no martyrs, no\ncrusaders, no knight errants had appeared in the world. But in\nDonatello\u2019s day all things were changed; the faculties of the human\nmind had been altered and multiplied. Therefore, a new art was needed to\nrepresent the new inner life. Assuredly, Christ and the Virgin cannot be\nchiselled in the same way as a Venus or an Apollo. Outward beauty was no\nlonger the sole aim of art. It was now bound to express character, which\nis the mind\u2019s outward form. Even the very soul of man, with all its load\nof new struggles, sorrows, and uncertainties, must show through the\nenvelope of marble. Was this possible, and if so, to what extent? That\nwas the question put to Donatello.\u201d[24]\n\nTo criticise this interesting passage, to show what a partial and\nimperfect view it expresses of Greek genius, might be a task instructive\nto my hearers, but too wide and irrelevant to my present discourse. Some\npoints, however, will help us directly to the understanding of Greek\nsculpture.\n\nIt is only too true that the Middle Ages, from which Donatello\u2019s\ngeneration was emerging, were a period of spiritual gloom and\ndepression. But this was due not to the larger troubles and experiences\nof men, but to the spiritual tyranny of the Church, which had distorted\nthe sweetness and benevolence of the Gospel of Christ to include a\nhideous engine of torture. The clearest picture of this odious\nmanufacture of artificial horrors may be seen not only in the many\ngrotesque representations of the tortures of hell, which were anything\nbut grotesque to the public of the Middle Ages, but by attending a\nmedi\u00e6val play, which has been brought out in Boston, as well as in\nLondon--the play called _Everyman_, which magnifies the horrors of death\nby representing the Deity as a gloomy tyrant, served by a greedy and\nheartless Church, which exacts half a man\u2019s fortune for the boon of\nsaving him from eternal torments. These artificial horrors were not\nindeed unknown to the Greeks, for we hear that the punishments of the\nwicked, not to speak of Tantalus, Ixion, and the rest, formed part of\nthe revelations of the Eleusinian Mysteries, but they would on no\naccount have been permitted a place in ordinary life or in art. If the\nAttic public fined the poet Phrynichus 10,000 drachmas for bringing\nbefore them their national sorrows in his _Fall of Miletus_, what would\nthey not have fined the author of _Everyman_, for importing darkness and\nhorror into the day of death and libelling the gods as cruel tyrants\nwith no mercy for the frailties of men?\n\nBut, apart from this imported gloom, it is in my opinion false to say\nthat the Greek was not just as experienced as any modern man in the\ngreat problems and the inevitable sorrows of human life. The whole of\nGreek tragedy consists in the representation of these dolours, and if\nProfessor Villari wants proofs that the terrors of conscience, the\nagonies of remorse, were perfectly known to the Greeks, I ask him to\nturn to the picture of the tyrant\u2019s soul in the eighth book of Plato\u2019s\n_Republic_ or to Xenophon\u2019s _Hiero_. The Greeks were not at all that\nsimple, joyous, spontaneous set of grownup children who appear in many\nof our books upon the subject. They had a large and varied experience of\nlife.[25] But they had the good sense--or shall I say the genius?--to\nconfine their art to what it ought to convey. They felt that marble and\nbronze should not be used to represent the violent emotions of tragedy,\nthe violent moments in human life, and when they lost this reserve,\ntheir sculpture had begun its decadence. The _Laocoon_ with the two\nlittle men representing his children is indeed a work of art of which a\nmodern sculptor might well be proud. It would not have been approved by\nthe Greeks of the Golden Age, and Phidias would have looked upon the\ngroup with contempt, in spite of its technical excellence.\n\nA brief sketch of the development of sculpture will illustrate this\nprinciple. In the first place you must hold fast to the truth, not\nfrequently enough insisted upon, that sculpture among the Greeks\ndeveloped with extraordinary quickness after a long infancy into its\nperfect manhood. The work of 550 B.C., in the full brilliancy of the\ncourts of Polycrates and Periander was still rude and helpless, wanting\naltogether the beauty which we desiderate in that art. As soon as we\nturn 500 B.C. we have such things as the _Charioteer_ of Delphi, figures\nwhich are on the very threshold of perfection, and indeed in some\nrespects, such as the modelling and texture of the arms and feet, quite\nperfect. In another fifty years we have the splendours of Phidias.\n\nNot less remarkable than this rapid growth is the very gradual decay of\nthe art. The age of animals, as is well known, is in proportion to the\nperiod of gestation. It was not so with Greek sculpture. Coming to\nperfection in a couple of generations, it lasted all through the\ngreatness of Greek history into Macedonian times, when it produced such\nwonders as the _Nike_ of Samothrace, down to the Roman conquest, when it\ngave us the _Aphrodite_ of Melos, and even still later, when empresses\nborrowed from it those splendid portrait figures which we admire in the\nVatican and the Lateran museums at Rome. And it is not only the Golden\nAge but the Silver Age of this sculpture which is the eternal model for\nmodern artists.\n\nThe next feature of great importance which concerns us is that this\nbranch of art began (as did medi\u00e6val art) in the service of religion. It\nwas to represent the figure of the god, it was to decorate his temple,\nthat the sculptor made his great efforts. And I hasten to add that the\nart was never dissociated from its sister art of painting, for the\nGreeks always called in the help of colour; not only in architecture,\nbut even in representing single human figures. They felt the utter\ncoldness of Parian or Pentelican marble and they were not afraid to use\nrich colours and even kindred materials to increase the majesty of their\nrepresentations of the Divine.\n\nIt is very remarkable how timid and sporadic, mainly from a\nmisinterpretation of Greek teaching, have hitherto been the attempts to\nreturn to this sound principle. In the twelfth century, indeed,\nadmirable work was done by the sculptor in producing coloured statues,\ngenerally, I think, of wood. Thus the kings and bishops of that time in\nthe Cathedral of Henry the Lion at Brunswick are most striking and\nlifelike specimens of the art, and there are many more in the churches\nand the museums of Northern Europe.[26] But it seems that the discovery\nin the Renaissance of Gr\u00e6co-Roman statues from which all the colour had\nbeen effaced by the action of time, damp, and the contact with clay,\nmisled the early sculptors of that day into the belief that Greek\nstatues were always in the purest white marble; that form only and not\ncolour was the aim of that art; and so we have had our galleries flooded\nwith cold figures, which are only beginning to give way, as may be seen\nin the recent exhibitions of the Royal Academy in London, to more or\nless delicate tinting, or even to relief in high colours, using other\nmaterials than marble. Thus the Greeks have been our masters as well in\nour mistakes as in our successes. But we can now have no doubt as to\ntheir principles. Even in their bronze statues, they were so anxious to\ngive expression by colour that they commonly made the eyes of their\nfigures in black and white.\n\nI turn now to speak for a moment on the principles of composition in\nGreek sculpture, for in such a discourse as this it is obviously better\nto spend time on general considerations than in emphasising details.\nThere were, of course, from archaic times single figures, first of gods,\nthen of men, which ultimately became portrait statuary; but in early\ndays a composition of figures in stone or wood was unknown till they\ncame to decorate architecture with friezes and pediments. Thus the\nstatues which adorned the state entrance to the old temple at Miletus\nwere simply a row of sitting figures like the rows of sphinxes guarding\nthe approach to the Egyptian temple, but there is no composition. It was\nnot till the rise of the fashion of ornamenting buildings with the\nsculptor\u2019s art that, as before said, compositions come into play; and\nmainly in two forms--triangular pediments which filled the once open end\nor gable of a roof, and bands of decoration along the walls of the\nbuilding. The form of the gable--a very flat triangle, with the obtuse\nangle at the vertex--determined the sculptor, just as the shackles of\nmetre determine the poet. But even as these apparent shackles have\nproduced the most splendid effects in poetry, so the limitations of\nspace have suggested to the Greek sculptors the most poetical devices.\nWe now know that even the pre-Persian Parthenon had such a composition\non its gable, of which great serpentine monsters, carved in local stone,\nand then coloured, have been recently recovered. But when the art\nreached its perfection, we have the device of a notable mythical event,\nor a struggle, with agitated or combating figures, arranged\nsymmetrically on either side of a central god, who is greater, calmer\nthan the rest; while in the acute angles, the aspects of nature--rivers,\nwoods, the rising and setting sun--were suggested by graceful lying\nfigures, which show that air of peaceful and silent indifference that is\nthe usual aspect of nature around a great human tragedy.[27]\n\nThese marvellous compositions, full of symmetry and of variety, have\nbeen the examples set before scores of European sculptors, in their\nimitations of classical architecture; but I cannot say that I know a\nsingle specimen that I should like to show here to you in direct\ncomparison with the work of the ancients. It is in this, as in so many\nwalks of art: all the modern resources of science, all the study of the\nold masterpieces, have not sufficed to kindle the spark of genius in our\ninartistic age. We have a thousand resources that the Greeks had not--we\nhave a thousand volumes of exposition, analysis, criticism, telling how\nthese things were done--yet we are like the civilised man trying to\nelicit flame from the sticks which furnish the primitive man with his\nfire. All our efforts only succeed in producing smoke; the living spark\nwill not come.[28]\n\nMuch the same may be said of the second favourite form of Greek\ncomposition in sculpture, the ornamenting of long flat surfaces with\nrows or successions of figures, of which the frieze of the Parthenon is\nthe most familiar, but not the only example. We now know from the\nrecoveries at Delphi, especially the so-called treasury of Siphnos, that\nthis theme was derived by Phidias from older examples.\n\nWhat is the strange fascination in this long row of figures? There is\nthat peculiar combination of sameness and of variety which affords us\ndelight in all the occupations of our life. This procession has one\ngeneral scope. It is bringing offerings to do honour to the gods, and\nbringing them with pomp and circumstance. But while all these men and\nmaidens are bent on the same pursuit, they are represented with an\nendless variety in detail. Some are on curvetting horses, some are\nleading bulls both quiet and uneasy, some are carrying weights upon\ntheir shoulders, some have them on the ground--and are lifting them.\nThere is the unity and difference which in music we know as harmony, and\neach figure is carried out with such simple perfection, with such\nunassuming grace and beauty, that it is hard indeed to point out any\ninsufficiency or defect. There is even this subtlety in the detail of\nthe work--that, as this band of figures was intended to be seen high\nabove the spectator, care was taken to carve the lower limbs in slightly\nflatter relief than the upper, and the limbs of the horses were even\nmade a little lighter than in nature, in order to counterbalance the\npredominance which the part nearer to the spectator\u2019s vision might\nassume.\n\nWhen such are the shattered fragments of an art which once adorned every\ncity and every public building in Greece, it seems impossible to\nconjecture what would have been the effect on modern Europe had the\ngreat mass of it survived. Perhaps not so great as we should be\ndisposed to assert at the first blush of the suggestion. For we could\nhardly avoid calling in the analogy of other arts, and of other times,\nwhere the works of genius preserved and known do not inspire modern\nartists. There is plenty of splendid medi\u00e6val architecture existing, and\nyet our modern architects have not been able to take their place as\nindependent successors. In literature we have had many similar facts\ndiscussed during previous lectures. All the models in the world will not\nsuffice without the divine spark in the teacher as well as the pupil,\nand this gift is rare and sporadic not only in the individual, but among\nthe nations which have hitherto appeared in the course of history. There\nis, moreover, in using workers of a remote age or country as models, one\nconcomitant circumstance which may make our efforts wholly\nincommensurate with theirs. It is the atmosphere in which every society\nlives, by which it has been created or at least fed, and which it\ncreates in its turn. As the modern artist cannot possibly reproduce\nthese surroundings, it is wellnigh impossible that he should reproduce\nthe subtle spirit, once the very breath of Greek art, which has long\nvanished, and which has never since been recalled by the wit of man.\n\n\n\n\nV\n\nGREEK ART--II: PAINTING AND MUSIC\n\n\nWhen we pass from the monumental arts of architecture and sculpture to\nthose of a more subjective character, which use more fleeting vehicles\nfor their expression, we have in modern life painting and music, which\nwe may expect to be more independent of Greek models than the rest. For,\n_ex hypothesi_, pictures so far as they are on panels of wood or canvas\ncan hardly survive the lapse of ages of neglect,[29] and as for music,\nthe notation is so small and poor a clue to its real meaning, that even\nif we understood it perfectly, we should still be a long way from\ngrasping the full meaning as felt by the Greek public. I will give you\nan illustration of this from my own experience. There is in our English\nand Irish cathedrals a tradition of the way in which certain anthems are\nto be sung--a tradition generally derived from those who sang them in\nthe composer\u2019s presence, or under his influence. The older editions of\nthese anthems seldom give any expression marks, the performance being\nentrusted to the taste of the choir or its knowledge of the composer\u2019s\nintentions. A signal example is the finest of Blow\u2019s anthems, \u201cI beheld\nand lo! a great multitude,\u201d composed in the reign of Charles II. (1680),\nand sung ever since by sundry cathedral choirs, amongst others those of\nDublin, where there has from long since been a great school of church\nmusic. In Dublin, this is one of the most moving and dramatic anthems,\nowing to the great liberties taken with the time by the Vicars Choral,\nwho have kept the tradition unbroken. I chanced to hear it sung by the\nvery excellent choir of Magdalen College, Oxford, on their high day--All\nSaints\u2019 Day, when it is annually performed. I was astonished to find\nthat they merely sang it from the text without any of the traditional\nliberties. The effect was so poor and unmeaning as to be almost\nridiculous to one who had been taught to understand the inner sense of\nthe work.\n\nWe are not quite so destitute as to Greek painting, for we have at least\na good many fresco pictures, by more or less obscure and incompetent\nworkmen of the Hellenistic age, to show us what the Greeks aimed at; we\nhave on the many beautiful examples of pottery preserved to us the\nrepresentations of mythical or other scenes which must have had some\nanalogy with the paintings of the same or similar scenes. Lastly, we\nhave many descriptions and epigrams from those who admired the\nmasterpieces of this art, and although these are inadequate, and are\noften the observations of incompetent rhetorical critics, they still\ngive us far more definite ideas than any description of a musical work\ncould possibly supply. As to the Golden Age of painting, we have nothing\nbut these, for our specimens of frescoes on the walls are all either\nfrom pre-historic palaces, or from Gr\u00e6co-Roman houses. If we wish,\ntherefore, to obtain any understanding of this side of Greek art, we\nmust not be content with our poor and sporadic examples, but must enter\nupon some general considerations which will afford a larger and deeper\nbasis for our judgment. For our inferences from the Pompeiian frescoes\nto the lost masterpieces are just as hazardous as if we had lost all the\nmasterpieces of sculpture, and endeavoured to judge of their quality by\nreasoning from the terra cotta figurines of Tanagra and other places,\nwhich are often graceful, but almost always faulty in their modelling.\nShould we indeed have inferred that the modelling of statues in marble\nand in bronze was absolutely perfect?\n\nThe two \u00e6sthetic qualities requisite for success in painting are\nobviously a sense of form, and a sense of colour; without a natural\nappreciation of the beauty inhering in each of these, the highest\ntechnical skill, however valuable, does not suffice. After what you have\nheard about Greek architecture and sculpture, I need not say another\nword to show that in the sense of form the Greeks were supreme and\nunapproachable. But what about their sense of colour? On this the\nevidence is not so clear and has given rise to divers interpretations.\nFirst of all, the Homeric poets, in their vivid pictures of old Greek\nlife, are singularly vague and confused in their words for colour, so\nmuch so that people used to imagine that the poet, because he was blind,\nor the poets, because they were primitive, had no distinct colour-sense.\nI remember this latter view being pressed upon me by Mr. Gladstone in\nconversation, together with the reply he had from Charles Darwin, which\nhe gave me to read, that as even insects are guided by a very clear\nsense of colour, it was absurd to say that the most primitive men should\nnot possess it. This argument seamed both to him and to me hardly\nconclusive, for the faculties which are now human need not have\ndeveloped at the same rate from lower forms, or kept abreast of one\nanother in acuteness. Thus human development might not require an acute\nsense of colour, while that of the insect made it essential, and so\nlower forms of life might be infinitely more developed in some respects\nthan those far higher in the general condition of their senses and their\nintelligence. I therefore took another line in my objection: that we\nknow the Egyptians, centuries before the oldest date allowed for Homer,\nhad at least ten distinct names for colour. And this was not because\nthey felt the difference more distinctly, but because in their arts and\ncrafts they produced the varied shades, and therefore found names for\nthem. Even nowadays, it is not the poet, or even the artist, that\ninvents names for subtle shades of colours, but the milliner or the\nmodiste. When I was young, there were two shades of grey known in the\nphraseology of these people--one as _gris de souris_, the other as _gris\nde souris poursuivie_. This is but a more minute subdivision of our\nsensations of colour invented by those that produce it for trade\npurposes. The want of names for colours is therefore not confined to the\nGreeks. More important is the fact that their early painters are known\nto have used but a few and primary colours, and also the further fact\nthat their temples, which they always coloured (and, to my mind,\nrightly) for effect, were adorned on a simple and primitive plan,--red,\nblue, white, yellow, being, so far as I know, the colours generally\nused.\n\nNow these facts seem to me to harmonise with the small development of a\nsense of the picturesque in landscape, which is characteristic of the\nGreeks. The principles of reproducing perspective with lines and colours\non a flat surface were indeed discovered in the fifth century B.C., by a\ncertain Agatharchus, whose book on shade painting seems, however, to\nhave been a work on scene-painting, as an aid to producing illusions on\nthe stage. Nor does the idea of representing external nature seem to\nhave been a want felt by Greek artists, seeing that they had adopted the\nvery peculiar device of representing mountains and rivers by figures of\nthe gods and nymphs which inhabited them and in which they were\npersonified. The heads of the horses rising from the sea represented on\nthe Parthenon the advent of the day. The graceful figures of nymphs on\nthe pediments of the great temple at Olympia represented the scenery in\nwhich the action was laid. Looking down the whole history of Greek\npainting, from the rude frescoes at Tiryns to the decorations of houses\nat Pompeii, I cannot find that landscape as such ever occupied Greek\nartists, and here therefore we have one of the very few departments in\nwhich the modern world may boast itself independent of its almost\nuniversal teacher.\n\nIt is not so in the case of portrait-painting, and painting of scenes in\nmythical or in real life, for here even the faint echoes of Greek genius\naffected powerfully the artists of the Renaissance. In this field,\nhowever, the influence of Hellenistic sculpture and of relief work was\nso combined with that of the few specimens of actual painting from\nHerculaneum, Pompeii, and other sites, that the separate effect of Greek\npainting on the modern artists is not so easily appreciated. The\nmythical subjects at all events were told and glorified in countless\nepigrams of the Anthology, and as soon as this collection became known\nand popular, it was sure to dominate the fancy of sentimental artists\nlike Botticelli. But if the direct influence of Greek on modern painting\nwas baulked for want of models, the indirect effect of Greek art on the\nbest of modern painters is very great. Consider for a moment the two\nmost refined of modern English painters, the late Lord Leighton, and the\nstill living and working Sir Edward Alma-Tadema. The latter generally\ncalls his subjects Roman, but anyone that knows what the elegances of\nRoman life owe to the Greeks, sees at once that the whole spirit of the\nartist, and of the subjects he delights in, is Greek. The case is still\nmore undisguised with Leighton. All his most striking pictures are from\nGreek life or from Greek legend; his whole conception of beauty is\nderived from the same models, and I well remember, when I used to visit\nhim in his delightful studio in Kensington, seeing it all set round with\ncopies of Greek sculpture, and his fervid utterance that to these\nunapproachable models he owed all his art.\n\nIn the absence of the actual paintings, great use has been made of the\nscenes painted on Greek vases of the best period, some of which attain\nto quite a high level, and we cannot but feel with Sir Alma-Tadema that\nfrom this source he has drawn not a few of his ideas. Surely the\nproducts that inspired Keats with his exquisite Ode make clear to us how\nthe fruitfulness of Greek genius is not dead or even exhausted, but\nstill kindles a pure light in modern minds sensitive enough to catch the\nflame.\n\nIt is to be observed, before we pass on to another subject, that the art\nof painting among the Greeks began, and long remained, a branch of\ndecoration, and was therefore subsidiary to architecture, or stately\nfurniture, or fine pottery. The fashion of producing easel pictures\npainted for their own sake, readily movable and therefore displayed in\ngalleries, as well as upon the walls of palaces, only came in with the\ndecadence or at least the full ripeness of other arts. The products of\nthe painter were akin to those of the epigrammatist, whose elegance may\nwell be called by a poorer word--_finish_--and is to us rather the\nexhibition of great cleverness than the outcome of genius. It was the\nday also of social decadence, when the mere artist became the idol of\nsociety, and could parade his conceit and his vulgarity without fear of\ncensure from patrons who only valued him as the ephemeral fashion. The\ngossip we hear about the old painters often exhibits this painfully\nmodern triviality.\n\nI now turn to the topic of music, in interest second to none, but one in\nwhich I must endeavour to make my discussion intelligible to those who\nhave only a practical knowledge of this subject. In most histories of\nGreek art, music is simply omitted; in the special works upon it, there\nis much that is not only so difficult, but so dry and technical that the\naverage student of Greek life can hardly be expected to approach it.\n\nAs regards existing specimens, we are just as miserably provided as we\nare in the case of painting. We have recovered a few scraps of the\nmusical notation accompanying poetical words; and as we understand this\nnotation, it is an easy task to reproduce the so-called melody. We have\nalso a scrap or two in the notation of instrumental music (apparently an\naccompaniment), a notation, strange to say, differing from the oral. But\nhere the melody is missing. And let me tell you at once that no living\nmusician could attempt to supply it with the smallest verisimilitude.\nThe same is the case with our texts of melody. There was a much lauded\nhymn found a few years ago on the wall of one of the houses uncovered at\nDelphi. In some places the surface of the stone was broken; so that\nthere were gaps here and there of a bar or two in the music. No living\nmusician who knows his business would undertake to supply any one of\nthese gaps.[30] Were it a modern composition, we could with certainty\noffer two or three alternatives, and we could exclude a vast number of\nrestorations as absolutely impossible. Such is not the case with the\nGreek specimens we know, neither do they appeal to our modern taste. To\nsay that these specimens, when played for us, are hideous, is merely the\nexpression of that violated taste. There are many, perhaps even some in\nthis audience, who would say the same thing of the plain song which the\npresent Pope has ordered to be used in Roman Catholic churches to the\nexclusion of more modern music.\n\nThe real conclusion is that so far Greek music is to us unintelligible;\nand yet in all the other arts nothing is more intelligible to modern\nminds than the products of Greek taste which are our best and clearest\nmodels. Is it that a highly artistic nation may be wanting in one\nparticular department? We have before us the case of the modern\nJapanese, whose artistic work in most directions is of great excellence\nand fully appreciated by the world, but who confess (at least I have\nheard one most intelligent native confess) that their music is far below\nthe level of European compositions. But here we probably start from a\ndifference of scale, whereas the Greek scales (or at least the diatonic)\nare the parents of all modern European scales.\n\nAnd now that you have before you the actual problem raised by the extant\nremnants of Greek music, let us turn to the Greeks themselves, and see\nwhat light their writings throw upon the matter. In the first place\nmusic was not only popular but universal among the Greeks. Those who did\nnot cultivate it were worse than Shakspere\u2019s \u201cman that has not music in\nhis soul.\u201d All Greek poetry, even the epic of Homer, was recited\nmusically; the lyric poets were as much musicians as poets; great\ntragedians composed the music for their choral odes, and indeed a Greek\ntragedy when performed must have far more resembled an Italian opera\nthan a play in our sense. This is the combination which Richard Wagner\nstrove to realise. But to be gifted in two directions of art is indeed\nvery rare. The music of \u00c6schylus and Sophocles was probably as inferior\nto their text as Wagner\u2019s text is inferior to his music. All Greek\neducators imply that every boy can learn music; we never hear a word\nabout want of ear, a want of musical faculty. This was to me in former\nyears a great puzzle, for, like all of you, I was brought up in a\nsociety where a few had gifts for music, and the remainder were\nincapable of singing in time or in tune, or of learning to play an\ninstrument with intelligence--and so we drifted away from the older\nfashion of making at least every girl play or sing as an inevitable\ninfliction on society, and now only those who show a keen desire for it\nspend their time at music. But in the new schools, where choirs are\ntaught on the tonic _sol-fa_ system, I am informed by the most competent\nteachers that an inability to appreciate music, or to sing in tune, is\nquite rare, and that the great body of our children can be taught to\nmake and to appreciate good music. If this be so, the Greeks were again\nright, and we in our older generation less wise than they.\n\nIn their opinion, this general possibility of learning music was a\nnecessary condition of another settled conviction among educators, which\nis foreign to us--I mean the conviction that the practice of music has a\ndirect and powerful effect upon the morals of average men. On this point\nthe Greek educators were very explicit, and it is of great practical\nimportance to us nowadays to consider what they say. It was not at all\nidentical with a very widespread belief among modern parents that the\npursuit of music generally is a refined pleasure, and will save the\nyoung from some lower or more mischievous recreation. That view was\nquite familiar to the Greeks. But their distinctive theory was this:\nthat the performing or hearing of certain kinds of music had a direct\neffect, either moral or immoral, upon the mind, and that therefore wise\neducators must encourage the right sort of music only, and banish the\nrest from their pupils. I know very well that there were stray voices,\nespecially from the Epicurean philosophers, saying that this is all\nnonsense, that music can have no such effect, and that the only moral or\nimmoral part of the performance lies in the words.[31] But this only\nshows that the opinion of the vast majority and of the wisest men was\nnot adopted without criticism, and without the other side of the\nquestion being clearly before them. The modern world is under mental\nconditions such as the Epicureans. We have generally assumed that music\nas such had no influence in moulding morals. We feel that it may be so\nin the accessories--that the constant singing of love duets and the\nassociating with theatrical company may do harm and the associating with\nserious musicians may do good--but modern people seem hardly to dream\nthat music such as Wagner\u2019s, apart from the words, may have a direct\neffect upon morals. And yet it is here that we might have incurred a\ngreat and honourable debt to the Greeks, and have used their wisdom to\nsave our youth from serious danger. This is a conviction of mine, not of\nto-day or yesterday, but of forty years\u2019 standing, derived indeed from\nthe suggestions of Plato, but verified by frequent contact with music\nand musicians. I will here give you one striking illustration. Anyone at\nfirst hearing of Wagner\u2019s _Tristan und Isolde_ would perceive that it\nwas a most immoral subject, expressed in highly emotional music. It is\nan artistic glorification of adultery, palliated by the old and vulgar\nexcuse of a magical love-potion. All this is so obvious that I wonder\nsober people would not keep their children from witnessing the work just\nas they endeavour to keep them from reading immoral novels. To me it\nseemed even worse, for I could not but perceive, and had often and long\nsince asserted, that the composer himself wrote the music under the\ninfluence of some such moral aberration, and that, apart from the words,\nit was intended to express his criminal longings and disappointments. It\nis only a year or two since the correspondence of a lady, published\nafter her death, showed that this anticipation was literally true, that\nthese phrases of love-sickness were actually composed and sent to her\nbecause she had awakened in him a passion which she was not wicked\nenough to satisfy.\n\nI know there are people who think transcendent genius such as that of\nNapoleon, or, in his way, of Wagner, affords a justification, or at\nleast an excuse, for such lawlessness. And you have heard much talk\nabout the _Superman_, whose main attribute seems to me _infra_ human,\nwhen the rights of others are concerned. To me the veritable Superman is\nnot the slave of his own passions, who satisfies them at the expense of\nothers, but the master of himself, who, because he is pure, feels and\nhelps the weakness of his neighbours. Not Sir Lancelot but Sir Galahad\nis the ideal of chivalry. Of the one,\n\n    \u201cHis honour rooted in dishonour stood,\n    And faith unfaithful kept him falsely true\u201d;\n\nbut of the other,\n\n    \u201cMy strength is as the strength of ten, because my heart is pure!\u201d\n\nPerhaps, during this digression, the objection may have been rising in\nyour minds that if Greek music was so universally believed to have a\nmoral or immoral influence, this was because it differed wholly in\nquality from that which we pursue, and that therefore an inference from\none to the other is very hazardous. This is supported by the fact\nalready adduced, that the actual remains of Greek music, though legible\nand intelligible in the literal sense, have no power whatever to speak\nto our musical emotions. We must therefore turn back from practice to\ntheory and prove to you that, in spite of these difficulties, Greek\nmusic was distinctly the source and forerunner of our own. And I may say\nby way of preface to this part of my discourse that the simplicity of\nmusic, far from being a cause of its lesser emotional effect, may be the\nvery reason why the great mass of people feel it more deeply. The\nintricacy and difficulty of our modern music tend to estrange it from\nthe feelings of the larger public and to confine its influence to the\nspecial class of trained musicians. The Greeks left us no practical work\non music, no criticism of existing compositions, no comparison of the\neffects produced on audiences by this or that artist, by this or that\nkind of instrument. We find only obvious generalities, such as the flute\nbeing more exciting than the harp. There is indeed one passage where\nPlato goes deeper and inveighs against purely instrumental music as more\nexciting and therefore possibly more mischievous than vocal music with\nan accompaniment, showing that he did not lay the stress of the emotion\nupon the words. Those who have gone deeply into modern music will agree\nwith him; they feel that the emotions produced by a symphony of\nBeethoven are more subtle, and, because more subtle, deeper and more\nlasting than those produced by any vocal music, unless it be eight-part\nmusic, which approaches the richness of an orchestra.\n\nBut this suggestive remark is quite an exception. The extant musical\ntracts are wholly theoretical, and are concerned with the scientific\nbasis of music, not its application to practice. And the first problem\nto which they applied themselves, which they solved, and have handed\ndown to us, their heirs in art, is the determination of the proper scale\nor scales in which music should be composed. This was no easy thing to\ndo, and if you take the trouble to hear the music of any people who have\nnot adopted the Greek solution, or one like it, you will at once\nperceive the difference. I well remember persuading, with great\ndifficulty, a band of gipsies, in Hungary, to play for me not the music\nof the Hungarians, for which they are so celebrated, but some of their\nown Oriental stuff, which they play among themselves in private. I found\nit wholly unintelligible on account of the scale, which seemed to have\nthirteen or fourteen notes within the octave. All this the Greeks had\ncontemplated, and in some of their early scales they used quarter-tones\nand intervals strange and disagreeable to us. But, after much\nhesitation, they fixed upon the diatonic scale, which became the basis\nof their music, and in due time of ours. The varieties of this scale\nwhich they used were far greater than ours. We are contented with the\nvariation of major and minor, and repeat the same intervals in the same\norder with a mere difference of pitch, very slightly modified by the\ntemperament of our tuning. The Greeks thought the position of the two\nsemitones far more important, and considered that the quality of the\nscale, quite apart from pitch, was produced by the variety in the\nplacing of these intervals. But I must repeat that our extant treatises\nare so absolutely scientific and not practical that it would be\nimpossible to attempt an analysis of them in a popular lecture. The\ndiscovery of the scientific basis of concord or harmony and its\ndifference from discord had been made very early by the Pythagoreans,\nand I have often thought that their famous theory that numerical\nrelations were the key of the universe was much stimulated and fortified\nby finding that octaves, fifths, and fourths, which are recognised by\nthe ear as concords, can be produced by stopping a vibrating string at\nthe points dividing it into portions represented by 1:2, 2:3, and 3:4.\nThey did not acknowledge our favorite major \u2153 as a concord, the\nproportion being more complex, _viz._ 4:5 or 5:6; and indeed if the\nmajor \u2153 on our instruments be tuned to its full height of two full\ntones, it sounds sharp and very disagreeable. In this as in most detail\nwe can follow and understand the Greek theory. When Aristotle tells us\nthat the middle note of the scale is that to which the melody always\nreturns, he is evidently speaking of the unaccompanied melody, and there\nare scores of our melodies that move up and down round this keynote,\nwhich may in these cases well represent the central note of the scale.\n\nIt is not possible for me to delay longer on this topic. I therefore sum\nup the result thus: the Greeks had a music to some extent homogeneous\nwith ours; they attributed to its varieties great and direct effects on\nthe morals of men. Seeing that in all their other arts they were so\nsingularly modern and reasonable, it is surely well worth the careful\nconsideration of educators whether similar effects be not latent in our\nmusic, _e.g._ whether the study of Handel, Corelli, Palestrina, may not\nhave a strengthening effect on the mind, whereas the study of Chopin, of\nVerdi, even of Beethoven, with all the vague _Weltschmerz_ which they\ncontain, the unsatisfied longings, the unreasoning discontent, the\nsuspended harmony, may not contribute directly to the vices of modern\nsociety, vices not unknown in the fashionable cities of this\nCommonwealth.\n\nWe now turn to the subject of household furniture and decoration, in\nwhich you will find that there are many and the best of our ideas\nborrowed from the Greeks.\n\nWe have not had the good fortune to unearth a Greek town of the best\nepoch from under lava or from beneath the d\u00e9bris of an earthquake. But\nit is likely that even if the ruins of Antioch were cleared of the great\nrocks that tumbled down upon it, in the many earthquakes of the early\ncenturies of our era, some splendid houses might be discovered. So far,\nhowever, I do not know that, except at Delos, we have been able to find\nclear evidences that the wall decorations and the furniture of a Greek\nhouse were the same in kind as those which a century and a half of\nexcavation has brought up from the dead in Pompeii and Herculaneum.\nThese towns, as well as Naples, which was well known to Cicero as an\nessentially Greek town, were in close proximity to Puteoli, which again\nwas for several centuries the great port for all Alexandrian luxuries\nsince the second Ptolemy had made friends with the Romans. Through\nPuteoli, then, Greek artists and Greek designs made their way to that\ncoast, and even the worship of Isis, and the frequent use of the ibis\nand the crocodile in their designs, show that the Hellenistic artists\nhad felt the influence of native Egyptian work, just as the workman of\nthe French \u201cEmpire\u201d felt the breath of old Egypt, when Napoleon\u2019s\nCommission brought out its splendid work on that mysterious country.\n\nAlthough, therefore, all the little texts scrawled upon the walls by\nchildren are in Latin, I take it the furniture and decoration of the\nsmart houses or villas uncovered are in Greek style, and may thus give\nus some suggestion of the inside of a Greek house. And let me add at\nonce, that the discoveries of such ruins and remains at Rome in the time\nof the Renaissance moulded all the taste of that age, and produced house\ndecoration, in direct imitation of the antique, which has been copied\ndown to the present day.\n\n     NOTE.--I thought that I could not bring before the audience the\n     character of this decoration adequately, except by showing some of\n     the designs, and some of the furniture, on a screen. Some of the\n     pictures were taken from Niccolini\u2019s magnificent _Art of Pompeii_\n     (Naples, 1876-92), the Curator having allowed me to use the\n     expensive process of photographing in colours, in order to show not\n     only the design, but the rich colours of the Pompeian walls.\n\n\n\n\nVI\n\nSCIENCE: GRAMMAR--LOGIC--MATHEMATICS--MEDICINE\n\n\nWhen I speak to you of Greek Science, of course I use the word in the\nold and proper sense to include all strict reasoning, especially of the\ndeductive kind, particularly therefore pure Mathematics, and not merely\nthe inferences from observation and experiment which now commonly assume\nand even monopolise the title of Science. I often see in educational\nprogrammes Science and Mathematics contrasted as distinct things, which\nindeed in this case they are, only because the Science so-called is\noften unworthy of the name. Sciences of observation were, I think, not\nformulated by the Greeks except in the case of Medicine, in which their\nresults are still quoted with respect; in the case of Hydrostatics, as\nHeron\u2019s great book shows; and in the case of Natural History, in which\nthey made the first collection of facts that modern men of science can\nuse; but we have lost what they said on their artistic observations,\nnamely their minute observations of the anatomy of the human body,\nwhich, as I have told you, their sculptors learned to represent with\nsuch accuracy that no modern anatomist can find a flaw in their work.\nThis was done by careful external observation, for the practice of\ndissecting the human body would have seemed to them impious and\nhorrible. But, whenever it was possible, the Greeks went back to first\nprinciples and framed a theory from which they deduced the facts; and\nthis it is which has made their science so valuable. It will not be hard\nto show you how in Logic--the Science of Reasoning,--in Arithmetic, and\nin Geometry--the science of the laws of lines, of figures, and of solid\nbodies in space--they are our teachers to the present day.\n\nIt is well to approach the subject of Logic through the avenue by which\nthe Greeks approached it, through the analysis of ordinary language and\nas the natural expression of thinking. The early poets and great prose\nwriters had so far perfected the use of language that the Greeks in the\ncatalogue of human acquisitions came to put their speech on a very high\npedestal. Delighted with it, and despising all other tongues as\nbarbarous, they convinced themselves that the Greek word adequately\nexpressed the nature of the thing it signified, and therefore that to\nunderstand their language properly was to understand the nature of\nthings. \u039b\u1f41\u03b3\u03bf\u03c2 meant not only speech (_oratio_), but reason (_ratio_),\nand so, after first seeking to obtain clear conceptions of abstract\nideas, they advanced to the structure of sentences and analysed speech\nin so accurate a way that their technical terms are our technical terms\nof to-day. When you talk of _infinitives_, or _genitives_, or\n_participles_, you are only using words borrowed from Latin\ntranslations, often mistranslations, of the Greek. You find these\nlogical studies in their beginning, but by no means in their infancy, in\nthe _Dialogues_ of Plato. Whole conversations are employed in trying to\nfix the connotation of important moral terms, such as _holiness_, or\n_valour_, or _temperance_. And we also find in some of the dialogues an\nappreciation of the difficulties contained in the form of simple\npropositions, the meaning of affirmation or negation, and the nature of\nthe deduction of one proposition from another.\n\nBut I need not detain you with particulars about these early\npreparations for science, when we have before us in Aristotle various\ntreatises on the analysis of speech from its logical side, and the\nlaying down of the laws of formal thinking with such accuracy and\ncompleteness that nothing of importance has ever been added to it. We\nhear it often said that a single man apprehended and systematised these\nlaws. That is not true; there were plenty of tentative essays before his\ntime. But if there be one achievement which has made his name and fame\neverlasting, it is his treatment of the theory of Reasoning.\n\nThe medi\u00e6val universities knew this well, and so do the modern\nuniversities of Europe which are worthy of the name. I need not bear\nwitness to the vast importance of common Logic by telling you that in my\nown youth nothing ever woke me up like having a good Logic put into my\nhands at the age of fourteen. For since that time I have been often\nteaching it and have watched its effects on hundreds of intelligent\nyouths. Among all the subjects that we teach, not for the purpose of\nsupplying mere facts, but for the purpose of training youth to judge\nfacts and co-ordinate their knowledge, I know nothing that benefits the\naverage student like the study of Aristotelian Logic. May I add that, so\nfar as I know American education, the most serious defect I have\nobserved in it is the small attention paid to this subject, and hence\nthe vast number of your men and women who are unable to distinguish a\nsound from an unsound argument, still less to point out where the\nfallacy lies.\n\nThere are here present, I have no doubt, a large number of people,\notherwise highly educated, who, were I to propose a stock example for\ntheir criticism, would feel at a loss how to deal with it. Let me give\nan illustration. \u201cEvery hen comes from an egg; every egg comes from a\nhen; therefore every egg comes from an egg.\u201d Is this a correct argument?\nIf not, where is it at fault? If you had all been trained in Whately\u2019s\nLogic, or any other Logic of the kind, as we were in our youth, such a\nquestion would present no difficulty whatever.\n\nBut if you have failed to derive this lesson from the old Greeks, your\nEnglish ancestors were better advised. All the subtlety of the medi\u00e6val\nschools, all the disputations of their universities, were based on Greek\nLogic; and, if they often wasted their time on idle problems, it must\nalways be remembered that by this means Europe was trained to accuracy\nand subtlety in argument, and hence to weigh vague and random theorising\nand to make men competent critics of any new dogma. We often remark from\nour side of the Atlantic how many wild theories in religion, how many\nsham theories in science, blossom and flourish in this country,\ninhabited though it may be by a most shrewd and intelligent population.\nThe simplest answer is to point to their ignorance of common Logic, and\nhence their liability to be deceived by the most vulgar fallacies. It\nwould be easy to mention a book popular in this country, the pages of\nwhich any logically trained people would only use to wrap sardines or to\nheat a stove.\n\nThe Greeks do not parade their logic in their writings, though we know\nthey were fond of subtleties; there are indeed examples of it in the\n_Sophist_ of Plato, where this sort of thing is ridiculed in his\ntravesty of two professional educators. But there are two great and\nsolid proofs of the power which strict Logic had upon their minds. The\nfirst comes out in their literature. Wherever they undertake to argue an\nissue, whether political, social, or religious, their reasoning is clear\nand easily followed. They of course often start from traditional\nbeliefs, which may not now command assent, but they always reason from\nthese with clear and sober thinking. There was no more important cause\nfor the permanence of that great literature. Its sound thinking has kept\nit from all extravagance and made it acceptable to educated men of all\nages and nations. The second proof is my chief subject to-day: it is the\npeculiarly logical character of Greek mathematics which has made this\ntoo the model of the scientific thinking of the world.\n\nLet me go back to the infancy of Greek science and give you evidence for\nthis statement. Setting aside for the present the metaphysical thinkers,\nwho will occupy us in another chapter, we may safely say that the\nearliest mathematicians were the school of Pythagoras, and also that\ntheir work started (so far as they did not start from the highest of\nall--pure thinking) from Arithmetic. To this science Pythagoras and his\nschool attached such importance that they were supposed to hold that\nnumbers were the essence of the universe. If you think that such a\ntheory is mere nonsense, I may tell you that I have often heard my\ncolleagues, distinguished in modern science, discuss a theory, alive at\nthe present day, that the so-called material universe consists of mere\nmotion, without anything to be moved! At the root of these speculations\nlies the fundamental distinction of form and matter, of the definite and\nthe indefinite; and the Pythagoreans had got a glimpse of the eternal\ntruth that it is only through our intuitions of space and time, and\nthrough abstract concepts explicating these, that we can bring the\nmyriad phenomena of nature under intelligible law. It was an early\nanticipation, so far as we can explain it, of the great theory of\nDescartes, that all the universe could be reduced to mathematical\nrelations, and these handled by algebra, which is in its essence but a\nvery abstract and generalised arithmetic. If therefore all parts of the\nworld stand in mutual arithmetical relations, of which the chemical law\nof definite proportions is the most signal example, the science of\nnumbers must be the capital of every scientific man.\n\nAnd remember that in Greek parlance this was the strict meaning of their\n_arithmetic_--a pure science, while they used the term _logistic_ (or\ncomputation) for the working of practical rules. At the basis of their\ntheory of numbers lay of course the one great assumption which makes the\nscience possible--I mean the absolute equality of the units of any\nnumber used for the purpose of calculation.\n\nThis is not merely the abstraction from all their differences, as when I\nsay that the present audience consists of five hundred people,\nregardless of the countless variations existing between the units of\nthis crowd. It is the assumption of an ideal and accurate identity\nbetween each of the units, as to magnitude, which makes the expression\nof geometrical truths arithmetically possible.\n\nThe truth that 3\u00b2 + 4\u00b2 = 5\u00b2 applies not only to numbers but to lines,\nand probably suggested the geometrical proof to Euclid (1, 47). But it\nis only true if the units in the measurement of each line are exactly\nequal.\n\nStarting from this first assumption, the Pythagoreans began to speculate\non the peculiarities of the natural series of units in use among men,\nand to deduce from these general considerations various theorems, which\nthey believed might solve the secrets of nature. At the very outset they\nwere struck with the obvious contrast between odd and even, which Plato,\nfollowing them, regarded as a fundamental distinction in nature. Had\nthey been told that, thousands of years later, men of science would find\nthat a most primitive and fundamental distinction among animals is\nfounded on this difference, I mean that of _artio-dactyle_, and\n_perisso-dactyle_, actually called by the Greek words, they would have\nsaid that this caused them no surprise, as their arithmetic had long\nsince laid down the distinction as a law of nature. As simple specimens\nof the sort of treatment that the science of numbers received from them,\nI may cite the following: The successive additions of the odd numbers\nproduce the squares of the series of even and odd.[32] The series of\neven numbers when added give us no such result, but rather this--that\nthe addition of even numbers gives us figures which are the products of\nsuccessive numbers differing by only one, _e.g._ 2 + 4 = 3 \u00d7 2; 2 + 4 +\n6 = 4 \u00d7 3, and so on. These latter numbers were regarded as rectangles,\nwhen expressed in lines. It was by the discovery of the relation of the\nsides to the base of a right-angled triangle that they, so to speak,\nstumbled upon irrational numbers. If the two sides are each equal to 1,\nthe hypothenuse is equal to \u221a2, which is no integral number, but a\nproblem in itself.[33]\n\nAll the results of this Pythagorean research lived through into the days\nof Plato and Aristotle and then, as we know from Euclid and Theon, into\nthe learning of Alexandria. The importance recognised by them in the\nnumbers ten and twelve was shown by the general adoption of a decimal\nsystem of notation, and of the division of time on a duodecimal system.\n\nYou will ask me what symbols the Greeks had which could enable them to\ntreat arithmetical figures of any complexity, and on this I could give\nyou now a very definite reply, but the details would lead us away from\nour subject, seeing that this notation was lost in the Dark Ages and was\nultimately replaced by the Arabic numerals. But we now know that they\nhad a very practical system of decimal notation based on the use of the\nletters of the alphabet; and the fact that several letters obsolete in\nthe alphabet of the fifth century B.C. appear as symbols, proves that it\nwas current as early as Pythagorean days. The sign for 6 is the\n_digamma_, that for 90 is the _koph_ of the Ph\u0153nician alphabet, which is\nstill found in Locrian inscriptions; the Ph\u0153nician letter known as\n_sampi_ is used for 900. We know the practical management of this easy\nnotation perfectly from the mass of accounts both private and public\nfound on Egyptian papyri. It can express large numbers far more\ncompendiously than the Roman system, often more compendiously even than\nours. Suppose you desire to express any large number, say 20,050, here\nit is \u03b2/\u039c\u039d; say 47,678, it is \u03b4/\u039c\u0396\u03a7\u039f\u0397, and if there be small gain in\nsimplicity here, I will give you 800,000 = 10,000 \u00d7 80 = \u03c0/\u039c. But these\nare practical matters, though without an easy notation even the most\nscientific thinkers could not make large progress.[34]\n\nThe next great step was to pass from arithmetic to geometry as the\nscience of space and to show how far the same laws governed both.\n\nIf we are not well informed upon the beginnings of arithmetic, we are\nmore fortunate in the case of geometry, and here, if anywhere, the old\nGreeks have been the acknowledged teachers of modern Europe. For we have\nin the so-called _Elements_ of Euclid, composed most probably at\nAlexandria about 300 B.C., a summary of all that had been discovered up\nto his day, doubtless with many new things of his own. He had distinctly\nbuilt upon his predecessors; he has before him all through his book a\nproblem discussed in Plato, that of the possible number of regular\npolyhedra, and its solution forms the climax of his work. But he begins\nfrom the very beginning and builds up his whole doctrine with such\naccuracy that a flaw in the demonstration is hard to be found.\n\nHow did this great master attain to such perfection? The form of his\ndemonstrations does not suggest an intimacy with the logic of his\nimmediate predecessor Aristotle; but from him he might easily have\nobtained the whole notion of a strictly deductive science, which,\nstarting from the smallest possible number of primary data, proceeds to\nderive from these by strict demonstration proposition after proposition.\nPhilosophers of our own time have often expressed wonder at the\nclearness with which these data are laid down. They are three in kind:\nfirst the _common notions_, which apply to all science and all practical\nlife, such as \u201cthe whole is greater than its part\u201d; secondly, the\n_axioms_ peculiar to our intuition of space, such as \u201ctwo right lines\ncannot enclose a space\u201d; and thirdly the very simple _postulates_, which\namount to the use of a ruler and compass with a pencil. There are\nbesides very careful definitions, so careful that they are at first\nobscure, because they apply to the ideal construction of the mind in its\nintuition of pure space and do not concern themselves about the flaws of\nactual figures. Thus his \u201cpoint which has no parts\u201d is not nothing at\nall, but the minimum of definite place; his right line, \u201cwhich lies in\nthe same way (\u03cc\u03bc\u03b1\u03bb\u1ff6\u03c2) between any two points taken upon its length,\u201d is\nsimply unity of direction. Every other line varies in direction in some\nof its successive parts. This is a direct appeal to intuition, without\nwhich we can make no beginning in the science of space. Such also is the\naxiom about parallel lines. Such is also the proof by superposition, to\nshow that two triangles, if some of their measurements be the same, must\nwholly coincide.\n\nBut I must not attempt to give you a lecture on the _Elements_ of\nEuclid, of which some of you may have evil recollections. For it is the\nmisfortune, as well as the glory, of a great work not only to be\nrepeated for centuries, but to be parroted and travestied by those who\nmerely accept its greatness from the voice of ages, and who come to\nthink that the words of inspiration only require blind repetition to\ninstruct men. So if Euclid has become in many classical schools a sort\nof amulet or fetish (which must for common decency be put in the\nprogramme but which may be learned by committing the proofs to memory\nwithout any intelligence) such a misfortune is not the fault of Euclid,\nbut the most pathetic tribute to his genius. Let me also add, for the\nbenefit of those of you who have never seen more than six books of the\n_Elements_, and who probably thought six more than enough, that these\nare but the introduction to the discussion of higher and more complex\nquestions, which show the large advance made by the Greeks in this\nscience, and which explain also how in other arts, such as architecture,\nthere is no defect for want of scientific accuracy. Books VII-X are not\non geometry, but on higher arithmetic, and even treat, as in Book X, of\nincommensurable or irrational quantities. With XI he begins to teach\nsolid geometry, the measurement of pyramids, cones, spheres, and the\nlike, ending (XIII) with the discussion of the five regular polyhedra,\nof which Plato had long since spoken.\n\nFrom the great sequence of discoverers and teachers of pure mathematics,\nI need only here pick out three immortal names: Apollonius of Perga,\nliving about 200 B.C., whose geometrical treatment of conic sections is,\nI am informed, a splendid monument of genius, which would still be the\nbasis of modern study had not the treatment of these figures by analysis\nentirely superseded the geometrical method. Then there is Pappus in the\nsecond century A.D., who gives us in eight books a review of all the\nprevious masters, with important additions of his own. The third name is\nDiophantus, who lived much later, perhaps in the fourth century, and\nwhose work is considered the first great step toward the science of\nAlgebra.\n\nAll these speculations were developed in the direction of mathematical\nphysics by Archimedes, Heron, and other great men of the Alexandrian\nschool. The triumphs of Archimedes in mechanics astonished the Romans,\nwho, in the defence of Syracuse against their attack, found him equal to\na host. But how little Archimedes confined himself to practical problems\nis shown by his famous method of determining the area of a circle by\napproximation, by inscribing and circumscribing polygons of a great\nnumber of sides, which can of course be treated and measured as a\ncomplex of triangles. This is still, I am told, the proof admitted by\nmodern mathematicians as the best.\n\nThe works of Heron show not only an excellent practical knowledge of\nmechanics, but of hydrostatics, from which he deduces a number of most\ningenious inventions, such as our penny in the slot, and even the\nconstruction of a whole scene acted by marionettes moving by a most\nelaborate hidden machinery. It[35] is a fine specimen of his ingenuity\nin using the ordinary mechanical contrivances. He postulates a tall\nhollow basis, adorned with pilasters, and having an architrave, with\nboards covering its upper surface. Over this stands a little round\ntemple, visible from all sides, with six pillars. It is covered with a\nconical roof, and on the apex is a figure of Victory with outspread\nwings and holding in her right hand a garland. Under the centre of the\nroof stands a figure of Bacchus, holding a thyrsus in his left hand, and\na cup in his right. At his feet lies a little stuffed panther. Before\nand behind Bacchus, and outside the temple, stands an altar with dry\nshavings of wood. Also on each side, outside the temple, a Bacchante, in\na proper costume and attitude. The whole concern being set up at some\nsuitable spot, the exhibitor will retire, and the automatic machine will\npresently move forward to a fixed spot. The moment it stops, the altar\nfire in front of Bacchus will light up, and from his thyrsus will flow\nmilk or water, and from his cup wine will be poured out on the panther\nbeneath him, the pilasters beneath will be adorned with garlands, the\nBacchantes will dance round the temple; drums and cymbals will be heard.\nWhen this noise ceases, the figure of Bacchus will turn round to the\nother altar and all the movements be repeated in the other direction. As\nsoon as this has happened the second time, the show is over, and the\nwhole machine will return to its original place. We have felt bound, he\nadds, to make the measurements (which he gives) small, for if made\nlarge, the suspicion naturally arises in the audience that there is a\nman inside the machine producing all the movements. This precaution,\nthen, should be observed in making any automatic machine.\n\nHe then proceeds to give in great detail the construction of this\nmachine. It is as ingenious as any construction of the present day, but\ncannot be presented to you without a series of figures, which are given\nin his book. Any of you may read it in the Greek (Teubner text), to\nwhich is added an excellent German translation. It will be enough to\nmention that the lighting of the altar fires is done by concealing a\nlamp inside the altar immediately under the wood, and by withdrawing a\nmetal plate which separates them. The flowing of milk and wine is\nproduced by concealing two little reservoirs in the summit of the\nbuilding, and leading the liquor by pipes down the inside of the\npillars, and up the inside of the figure of Bacchus, so that, when the\ncocks are turned by machinery, the milk and wine flow and rise to the\nlevel of the thyrsus and the cup, which are set underneath the level of\nthe cisterns. It is evident enough that people who could do these\nthings were capable of inventing the _sakia_ now in use throughout\nEgypt, where a horizontal wheel worked round a capstan by oxen moves\nanother set perpendicularly, at right angles to it, furnished with jars,\nwhich get filled below and, when they pass over the highest point of\ntheir revolution, are emptied into a water course, and so irrigate a\nhigher level. This is well known to have been the invention of these\nAlexandrian mechanicians, whose theory had long preceded their practice,\nand whose applications of science they never valued so highly as their\npure speculations.\n\nPerhaps before leaving the subject I should tell you what was the moving\nforce in the automatic machinery. It was a weight suspended in the air\nby a rope over a pulley, which, as soon as it was allowed to sink from\nits support, made the rope, wrapped round the axle of a large wheel,\nmove the wheel, that was in its turn connected with other wheels. With\nvery great and ingenious contrivance, as the machinery was all carefully\nconcealed, the exhibitor could take his seat among the spectators, and\nmake the ignorant believe that the whole effect was produced by some\nmagic.\n\nNor were the laws of optics and the correction of the illusions of sight\nneglected. Euclid wrote a work on the subject which is now lost; but the\npraise of it by competent men of the Alexandrian school shows that it\nwas on a level with his other scientific productions. To our educated\npublic, the work of the Greeks in most fields is known at least by\nhearsay; the great library of Greek mathematics, scores of volumes, some\nof which are only quite recently published, is, except for Euclid,\nabsolutely unknown. Yet from it is derived not only the scanty knowledge\nof science that filtered through the Romans into Western Europe, but\nalso that adopted by the Arabs, and which in translations from Arabic\nversions came from them into awakening Italy and Germany and France. But\nlet me add that now, when their discoveries in pure mathematics are\nbeing weighed by the light of expert knowledge, we are assured by all\nthose really competent to judge that in no field of learning have the\nold Greeks shown their amazing originality and acuteness more signally\nthan in higher arithmetic and in higher geometry.\n\nThe great fathers of the exact sciences are therefore in arithmetic the\nPythagoreans, whose history is too obscure to mention from it any single\nname before Archytas, Euclid, and Theon of Smyrna; in geometry, Euclid;\nin mechanics, Archimedes; in conic sections, Apollonius of Perga; in\nhydrostatics, Heron; in astronomy, Eudoxus and Hipparchus; last, but not\nleast, in higher arithmetic and algebra, Diophantus; all of these were,\nmoreover, men who did not confine themselves to any single department,\nbut promoted accurate thinking in many. These, and others hardly less\ngreat, have left a record and a legacy to posterity second to none in\nits mighty consequences.\n\nBut among them all Aristotle stands out as the \u201cmaster of those that\nknew\u201d--the man who attained in the Middle Ages such celebrity and\nauthority that he narrowly escaped being canonised as a saint in the\nRoman calendar. If that distinction really belonged to the benefactors\nof mankind, I know not that any man ever lived who had a better claim to\nit. For his life and activity mark an epoch not only in the progress of\nmany sciences, but in the general culture of the human mind, to which I\nknow no parallel. He was brought up under the influence of the Socratic\nmethod of inquiry as perfected by Plato, but, though in some popular\nworks (now lost) he adopted the dialogue as the correct method of\nteaching, there can be no doubt that the sober and practical tone of his\nmind made him despise all the delays and delights of character-drawing,\nand of spinning out the subject, for what we have from him is\npre-eminently plain and scientific in form. There is seldom an\nunnecessary sentence; if there be a metaphor, it is a mere flash of\ncolour across the cold severity of his argument. He writes like a man\nwho had no time to waste and a vast world of subjects to teach. If it\nwas still an age when the sciences had not entered upon the path of\nobservation and experiment, but were philosophical speculations,\nAristotle did more than any man to establish a separation between\nphilosophy and science, while fully recognising, what in our day most\nscientists ignore, that positive science without a sound knowledge of\nphilosophy is apt to run into fatal mistakes.\n\nOf course this immense programme which Aristotle set before him could\nnot be carried out without large collaboration, and so we know that, as\nPlato seems to have underrated such collaboration, and thus have failed\nin fruitfulness among his pupils, Aristotle, who was not chosen as his\nsuccessor by the school (I suppose as usual there were jealousies among\nthe commonplace and docile pupils toward the great original thinker),\nformed and stimulated a band of helpers, who gathered special\nobservations in botany, mineralogy, zo\u00f6logy, physics as the science of\nnature, and others who put into shape his views on rhetoric and on\npoetry, on ethics and on theology. We have, in my opinion, a new\nspecimen of such delegated work in the now famous _Constitution of\nAthens_, which was known and quoted as Aristotle\u2019s through later\nantiquity, but which is rather the work of a pupil and not a brilliant\none. But then we know that Aristotle either wrote or brought out 158 of\nthese tracts on Greek constitutions. To this I shall return in a\nsubsequent lecture.\n\nTheophrastus, Eudemus, and Aristoxenus are among the best-known names of\nthese helpers, and from these we have valuable work extant. Physical\ngeography was entrusted to Dik\u00e6archus. All these researches were carried\nout in the same spirit, and with that unity of purpose that marks a\nschool. There was apparently but one division of all the domain of\nscience in which Aristotle did no original work, and yet his\ncontribution to it is not to be underrated. This was the field of pure\nmathematics. For we know that he entrusted to his ablest pupil, Eudemus\nthe Rhodian, the task of writing the history of what other men had done\nin this field. These books on the history of arithmetic, of geometry,\nand of astronomy (then called astrology) were well known and valued, and\nthe modern critics declare that whatever is now known about the earlier\ndevelopment of mathematics was derived from this pure and rich source.\nStill more remarkable is it that this, the part of the edifice to which\nAristotle himself did not contribute, should have been the only one that\ntook root and flourished without any period of corruption or decay. As\nto Aristotle\u2019s personal competence in this matter, I am assured by the\nbest mathematicians that his not infrequent allusions to mathematics, by\nway of metaphor or illustration, show a clear and sound understanding of\nthe subject. It is not, therefore, the vagary of an idle admirer, but\nthe deliberate expression of a weighty judge, when we learn from him in\nhis Discussion on Beauty--which he, being a Greek, of course seeks in\nform, symmetry, and proportion--that the highest and noblest examples of\nearthly beauty are to be found in mathematics.\n\nEuclid was almost the contemporary of Aristotle, and so the Peripatetic\nMathematics found at Alexandria a new home and a mighty development,\nwhich lasted for centuries and is not stayed to this day. But the rest\nof the vast system of Aristotle seems, after about two generations, to\nhave fallen into incompetent hands. The activity of the Greek intellect\npassed into other channels and became again purely philosophical and\nethical instead of scientific, as I shall show when I speak of the Stoic\nand Epicurean systems.\n\nBut there was another branch of practical science which, if not created\nby Aristotle, was certainly promoted by his studies in zo\u00f6logy and\nbotany. We still regard these sciences as a necessary introduction to\nmedicine, and we may be sure that in old days the order of such studies\nwas not different. The distinction of being the father of rational\nmedicine need not be added to the other crowns which adorn the great\nsage. Both Greeks and moderns are unanimous in awarding that honour to\nHippocrates of Kos, where there was an old guild of physicians, of which\nhe was neither the first nor the last of his name. Hence the works now\nknown as those of Hippocrates may not all be the actual writing of one\nman; for as with Aristotle, so with Hippocrates, there was a school, and\nthe pupils followed in the master\u2019s path. But there is no doubt whatever\nas to the character and tone of his teaching. We find even a literary\ngrandeur in his prose, that is not the writing of any but a great\nmaster. The famous opening of his _Aphorisms_ is probably known to most\nof my hearers. But it is a puzzle to translate without dull\namplification. Here is a paraphrase: \u201cLife is brief, yet craft grows\nslowly; the right time is instantaneous, yet experience is treacherous,\nand decision burdensome.\u201d As is the style, so is the thinking out of the\nproblems before him. Starting from hygiene as the proper basis of\nmedicine, he thinks those should be regarded as the earliest physicians\nwho improved the food of primitive men by crushing grain, by cooking\nmeat, and by selecting edible vegetables. From that time onward, there\nwas growing up an experience of what was healthy and what the reverse.\nIt is this experience which he seeks to systematise by careful\nobservation and so to establish laws of hygiene, and the probable\nnatural prophylactics or remedies afforded by air, water, and climate.\nHe analyses with care the proper aspect for a town and decides (in the\nlatitudes which he knew) for the eastern as the best and the western as\nthe worst. He discusses the quality of the water supply, and lays great\nstress upon its altitude. He sets down careful clinical records of cases\nof fever--typhus, puerperal, malarious, and the like. The results of\nthis rational treatment of disease were far-reaching and permanent. To\ncite to you the cloud of witnesses would be mere waste of time. But I\nwill take one instance, closely related to the history of my great\ncollege and of medicine in Ireland.[36] The founder of the College of\nPhysicians in Ireland under the Cromwellians and Charles II. was John\nStearne, a grand-nephew of Archbishop Ussher, himself also a theologian\nand metaphysician. Driven out of Ireland by the stress of the Rebellion\nof 1641, and educated in all the medical learning of Cambridge, he\nreturned with the Cromwellian restoration of order and became not only a\nFellow of his college (along with some eminent Puritans from Harvard)\nbut a distinguished practitioner in Dublin. By his influence was founded\nthe Royal College of Physicians, once an adjunct to the University and\never since a great and dignified corporation, which has for many\ngenerations contributed eminent men to medical science.\n\nBut Stearne, like Hippocrates, not only practised; he wrote works on\nlife and death; he was a theorist and a philosopher. This man, writing\nfrom the highest standpoint of Cambridge and of Dublin in the middle of\nthe seventeenth century, tells us over and over again that the works of\nHippocrates are wellnigh infallible, and are the only sure guide to\nmedical science in his day.[37] The causes of this attitude are not far\nto seek. All medi\u00e6val medicine had been ruined by the admission of\nsupernatural influences, special interventions, the action of evil\nspirits, the conjunction of hostile constellations, and other rubbish at\nwhich we now smile, but which men of science then deplored. The first\ngreat feature in Hippocrates is the utter ignoring of any such\ninfluences as the special causes of disease or cure. He is afraid of no\nghost or goblin, he never mentions an incantation. And here is a\nmomentous passage, which probably few of you have ever read, that\nexpresses the mental attitude of his school. He is speaking of a class\nof patients affected with impotence who are venerated among the\nScythians and even worshipped, each man fearing for himself, as he\nattributes the sickness to a special visitation of his God. \u201cWell now I\nalso think that these diseases are of divine ordinance and so are all\nthe rest, but not one of them more divine or human than the rest, but\nall are homogeneous, and all from the gods. Yet each of them has its\nnature, and nothing happens without a natural cause.\u201d He then goes on to\nexplain the disease from the practice of too much riding, and observing\nthat it attacks the rich more usually than the poor, because the latter\ndo not live on horseback, he argues:\n\n     If this disease were indeed more divine in origin than the rest, it\n     ought not to attack the rich and well bred among the Scythians, but\n     all alike; nay rather the poor in preference, if indeed the gods\n     delight in honour and service from men, and show them favour\n     accordingly. For it is but natural that the rich should offer many\n     sacrifices to the gods as they have both wealth and honour; but the\n     poor less so, either from want of means, or want of good will\n     toward the gods who have not favoured them, so that the poor ought\n     to be specially subject to punishment for their transgressions or\n     mistakes. But as I said before, this disease is heaven-sent like\n     the rest. For everything happens according to nature.\n\nThis was the spirit that died out when the Greek world decayed, and\nEurope fell a victim to ignorance and superstition. Then came the heyday\nof miraculous images, of relics with power to cure, of pilgrimages, of\nintercessions, of all that mental degradation which the Medi\u00e6val Church,\nfar from repudiating, used for its own purposes. And so the\nresurrection of medical science was connected with rebellion against the\nChurch. Among every three physicians, are two atheists, was the word,\nand even the pious Stearne, whom I have mentioned, preaches a purely\nStoic creed, and systematically ignores all the rites of his church.\n\nHippocrates and his school had in their day to combat similar\nsuperstitions, just as the scientific medicine of our day has to deal\nwith Lourdes and with Christian Science. Within the last few years, we\nhave recovered from oblivion the ruins of the temple and town of\nEpidauros, where the god \u00c6sculapius had a famous shrine, and where\nhundreds of pilgrims assembled to seek cures for their several ailments.\nTheir recreation was as well looked after as in any modern\nwatering-place; the theatre was the most splendid thing of the kind in\nGreece, and there were porticoes, and baths, and groves to secure that\ncomfort and idle amusement which have a great effect on health. But as\nwe know from the ridicule of Aristophanes, corroborated by numbers of\ninscriptions commemorating cures, the method of these Asklepiads was far\nbehind those of Kos; it was superstitious and not scientific. Dreams and\nomens, charms and ceremonial acts still stood in the way of sound\nhygiene and careful clinical observation. Not that I deny the occurrence\nof cures under such treatment. The most sceptical examination of the\nannals of Lourdes shows that mental influences will cure not only mental\ndiseases, and diseases known as nervous, but even those that seemed\nabsolutely physical. And what the Blessed Virgin does for the faithful\nof Lourdes may doubtless be done by the influence of more human and\ntangible causes. These admissions, which I make freely, will not change\nthe opinion now held by every true man of science. It is the opinion of\nHippocrates and his school, and that which he sought to enforce by his\ntheory and his practice. The great truth that work is what exhausts the\nhuman frame, and that food supplies this waste, was laid down clearly in\ntheir practice. The equally important principle, that no organ will keep\nin health and vigour without exercise of its natural function and that\nif disused it will shrink or decay, was also clearly pronounced. They\neven guessed that the greatest problem of medicine (which they failed to\nsolve) was the passage from inorganic into organic substances.\n\nIt is of course idle to say that these practitioners were not encumbered\nand shackled by many false guesses, many pretended discoveries, many\ngroundless speculations of their predecessors. But as the famous oath,\nwhich every practitioner in the school of Kos took, expresses clearly\nthe high moral aim with which even now the physician enters on his noble\nwork, the solemn declaration that he will not abuse his influence or\nintimacy in any house for selfish or immoral purposes, so in their\nscientific aims these Greeks sought to advance human knowledge by\nrecording honestly their observations, even by telling of their\nfailures, and by seeking to leave behind them such clinical work as\nmight enlighten not only successors but opponents. If we compare this\ntruly modest and scientific attitude with that of the doctors whom\nMoli\u00e8re scourged, and whose practice is but too well known to us from\nthe minute account of their treatment of princely or even royal\npatients, we shall again come to the conclusion that where the Greeks\nfailed to teach modern Europe it was not for want of rich suggestion and\nsplendid anticipations of modern science.\n\nI need hardly tell you (in conclusion) that I have not only confined\nmyself to touching the fringes of these vast subjects; I have\ndeliberately omitted large topics such as _optics_, and the correction\nof optical delusions, which the Greeks attained by a subtle use of\ncurves, not merely sections of a large circle, but particularly by the\nuse of the conic section still known by its Greek name of hyperbola. I\nhave said nothing about their astronomy, with its prediction of\neclipses, its application to the calendar, and its use as the basis of\nscientific geography. Had I attempted to weave all these matters into\nthe present lecture, I must have given you a kaleidoscope and not a\npicture. The main fact to be impressed upon you is that the great\ntriumphs of the Greeks in art and in literature were not attained\nwithout a strict education in hard thinking and close reasoning. Plato\nis said to have made it the first condition of entering on a course of\nphilosophy that the pupil should have studied geometry.\n\nIt was in accordance with that principle that in our older universities\nevery student, though he were a specialist in classics, must show an\nadequate knowledge of mathematics. No man in Trinity College, Dublin,\ncan take the degree in languages without having been taught, and having\nqualified in, pure mathematics, physics, and astronomy. That was the\nkind of education given by the Greeks. So far as we have departed from\nit in our education; so far as we have substituted hurry for\ndeliberation, quantity of facts for quality of knowledge, miscellaneous\ninformation for systematic thinking, so far we have rendered modern\nculture impotent to rival their excellence.\n\n\n\n\nVII\n\nPOLITICS--SOCIOLOGY--LAW\n\n\nThere is no department of Greek life where we feel its modernness more\nintensely than when we come to consider political and social philosophy.\nThe Greeks, and the Romans that learned from them, write and talk like\nthoroughly modern men; the discussions of Aristotle and the treatises of\nCicero are quite fit to instruct us in the present day on the\npossibilities of organising human society. The rights of women, for\nexample, are a topic with which they were perfectly familiar. Pass into\nwhat are justly called the Dark Ages or early Middle Ages, and you feel\nthat the world has gone centuries back and not forward. The reign of\nsuperstition, the tyranny of the priest, the miseries of the churl, the\nchildishness of art, the utter stagnation of literature, the\nsubstitution of fortresses for free cities, violence for law, savage\nrudeness for polished urbanity--these are the astounding conditions of\nan Europe most of which once had enjoyed real civilisation.\n\nAmong other causes of this strange retrogression in history, not the\nleast is the disappearance of Greek life and culture into the East,\nwhere Constantinople still adhered to great Hellenic traditions at least\nin law, in language, and in art. All that Roman life and thought had\nborrowed from Greece was unable to make Latin culture fruitful and\npermanent, because it _was_ borrowed from Greece and not really\nassimilated; so it came to pass that, compared with the brightness and\nbuoyancy of Greek culture, the reign of the Latin through civilised\nEurope was an epoch of standstill, of formalism, of intellectual\nbarrenness, of ossification. So long as the Romans were mere docile\npupils of the Greeks, they made great progress in the arts of life; as\nsoon as they felt themselves the acknowledged masters of the world and\ncame to look down upon their teachers, their inborn coarseness and want\nof genius began to reassert itself, and but for the influence of an\nOriental creed, domesticated among them by the Greeks, they would have\nrelapsed, along with their barbarian invaders, into intellectual\ninsignificance.\n\nWhen we inquire into the causes that made politics so developed a\nfeature among the Greeks, we shall in the first place find, even in\nHomer\u2019s societies, the habit of open discussion a leading fact in\neveryday life. There is a sort of instinct to have things talked over\nand reasoned out, so much so that the very king, who has come to a\ndecision with his council, and has ample authority to fulfil it, will\nnot do so without calling together an assembly of the soldiers in the\ncamp or the free citizens in the market-place, and seeking to obtain\ntheir approval by acclamation. This assembly, called together to\napprove, without any power of voting or of reversing the prince\u2019s\ndecision, is regarded by all historians as the embryo of the\nlong-subsequent sovran assemblies of citizens in every Greek democracy.\nThere seem even to have been assertions of absolute power in the mouth\nof the kings in some of the old texts of the _Iliad_, which were\nexpunged by editors, certainly not those of Alexandria, to whom such an\nassertion could contain no offence, but by earlier editors who prepared\nthe poems for the free cities of Greece.[38]\n\nThe next stimulant to the development of politics was the coexistence of\nmany small city-states, with only a few miles square of territory, each\na little sovranty where no king could maintain the mystery of seclusion\nor the obstacle of a solemn etiquette, which Xenophon perceived to be\nessential conditions of the great absolute monarchy of the Persians. So\nit came that the old sovranties, which Aristotle tells us had been\nhereditary and limited[39] as it were a model to later nations in\nconstitutional sovranty, passed away, often without revolution, into\naristocracies, which were the leading type throughout the civilised\nworld both in classical and in medi\u00e6val times, so long as the mass of\nthe people were too ignorant to take upon them the management of public\naffairs. Aristotle tells us that the masses easily remain quiet and\ncontented, provided they are kept in employment and in comfort by the\ngood management of the few. Such an example you are all familiar with in\nthe Venetian Republic, which, like Carthage of old, maintained for a\nlong period, without serious internal disturbance, a considerable empire\nwith a population busy and rich by their trade.\n\nWhere the violence or the selfishness of the few in power who were\ndescendants of the old families of nobles which had once been the\ncouncil of the kings, or who had themselves been local chiefs--where, I\nsay, the neglect or violence of these men produced intolerable\nhardships, we have sanguinary revolutions, at first usually under the\nleadership of an ambitious renegade or soldier of noble origin, who set\nthe masses against the classes. Later, the masses were strong enough to\nmake their revolutions by constitutional or semi-constitutional means,\nand so gained a political power which they could seldom maintain without\nputting to death or exiling the leaders of the nobles. A reader of\nThucydides or Xenophon will recall the manner in which the exiles worked\ncounter-revolutions, and thus stained the face of Greece with violence\nand bloodshed. These scenes of violence play so large a part in our\nGreek histories that you will wonder how any such people could be a\nmodel to others in methods of politics, and it is for that reason that I\nthink it necessary to notice the matter. When we look below the surface\nwe shall find that there were elements of order never eradicated, and\nthat the crimes of the leaders of society did not infect the\ncommon-sense, or destroy the safety, of the mass of the people, until\nthe general decadence in the days of Polybius and the Roman\ninterference.\n\nWhat is this evidence? It is not to be found without some reflection,\nfor, as I have said, it is below the surface. There is no commoner\nphrase in the mouth of Greek revolutionists, or in the mouth of those\nthat dreaded them, than \u201cabolition of debts, and redivision of the\nland.\u201d[40] Aristotle mentions these as the watchword of the mob-leaders.\nBut when I was asked, years ago, by the late Henry Sidgwick of\nCambridge, to find him actual instances of such a revolution in\nauthentic Greek history, I well remember my own surprise, and his also,\nwhen I said there were none to be found. Some such things may possibly\nhave happened in the great Sicilian troubles, when a tyrant drove out\nthe old free population, and settled a town with the surrounding churls\nand his mercenary troops; but on the general face of Greek history, and\nin the records of the well known states, you will not find an\ninstance.[41] The most radical measure to which I can point is the\nreduction of debts twenty-seven per cent. by Solon, who was a very\nconservative statesman, and one most anxious to guard the mercantile\ngood character of his city. As there was no loss of public credit to\nAthens in his time, it is clear that the debts lightened by this\nexceptional proceeding must have been only the debts of a class,\nprobably those due from poor farmers or labourers to their oppressive\nlandlords. If so, it was not more trenchant than the present land\nlegislation of the English Government in Ireland and Scotland, where the\nannual rents of tenants have, in violation of old and formal private\ncontracts, been cut down by the state, often as much as twenty-seven per\ncent.\n\nThe Greeks were great traders by sea and land and no trade can be\ncarried on without assured public credit. Unless investments are fairly\nsafe, no mercantile society can thrive. The ordinary rate of interest in\nGreece, twelve per cent. per annum, appears at first hearing to be\nevidence of insecurity. It is nothing of the kind. It was not higher\nthan the average interest[42] at Rome when that dominant people held the\ntrade of the world, and made themselves as safe as could be. The\ndifference between that and our three per cent. arises from the general\nscarcity at the time of great fortunes in money, owing to the difficulty\nof transit and the imperfect knowledge of a token currency. Banks and\nbills of exchange they commonly used, but to lend money to citizens of a\nneighbouring state, living under different laws and with strange courts\nof law, was never easy, and so the areas of lending and borrowing were\nnot as they are now, a whole continent or even the whole globe. You\nmight imagine such a state of things here in your country if each State\nwas confined to seek investments within its own limits, in which case\nyou might soon find a rate of interest for imported capital not lower\nthan that among the Greeks.\n\nThere was another strong checking power which must always have moderated\nthe revolutionary transports of the Greeks. It was the existence in all\nthe greater cities of a large population of slaves. We know from the\nhistory both of Argos and of Sparta that this was a standing danger to\nthe free population, and we may be sure that in many cases free men\ncomposed their differences, or at least moderated their victory over\ntheir opponents, rather than risk having both subdued by a foreign\nelement.\n\nYou will tell me perhaps that the fact that all the Greek world held\nslaves is another antiquated standpoint, which prevents them from being\nfit teachers for modern nations. But to me that question does not appear\nso simple, and perhaps with the experiences of the last forty years,\neven the American public that has time for reflection may have some\ndoubts on the matter. So great a thinker as Aristotle felt quite clear\nabout it; he believed that there were inferior races fit only to be\ncontrolled, not to control, and he held that it was for their good when\nthese were coerced by the superior intelligence and education of Greeks.\nHe does not express himself, so far as I know, about the many slaves who\nwere Greek prisoners of war, but from his general views it is certain\nthat he would not approve of this form of slavery. Let me add in this\nconnection that he repeatedly says analogous things of those occupied\nwith low handicrafts, such as tinkers or cobblers, which require all\ntheir time and leave them no leisure to educate themselves or to learn\nhigher things. He thinks these workers wholly unfit to be in the\ngoverning class of any state, and maintains that wherever they gained\npower it was in an extreme democracy which soon displayed the vices of\nthat sort of government.\n\nYou must remember that in the small Greek polity, which consisted of a\ncity and a territory of twenty or thirty miles square, the expedient of\nchoosing representatives locally and sending them to the central\nassembly was never felt to be necessary. The citizen must go himself to\nthe assembly and spend his day there; he was liable to be chosen (often\nby lot, that considers no convenience) for duties either administrative\nor judicial. It was evident that those bound to earn their daily bread\nmust stand aside and permit the more leisured classes to do this work.\nThis leisured class, moreover, was greatly enlarged by the existence of\nslaves, for even the poor Athenian had his manual labour done for him\nand so had the necessary time for attending public duties. The Greeks\nnever dreamt of giving their judges or politicians large salaries, as we\ndo, holding that the state had a right to claim the whole life and\nenergy of its citizens. Against one another these citizens were amply\nprotected by the laws; there was no protection against the demands of\nstate, even when these involved the sacrifice of life itself.\n\nSuch being the general frame of mind among thoughtful Greeks and the\ngreat object of the most perfect state being to secure the happiness,\nand therefore of course the liberty, of the mass of its citizens, we\nneed not wonder that they paid early and constant attention to the\nframing of their laws, so that these offered, first to the Romans (who\nused the Attic Code when drawing up the Laws of the XII Tables) and then\nto other nations, models of prudent legislation. All their theorists\nfurther insisted, with no uncertain voice, that the success of any code\nof laws must depend upon the enlightenment of the public that uses them.\nI proceed therefore to speak briefly on three aspects of Greek\nlegislation, the _criminal_, the _civil_, and what I may call the\n_international_, in order to make clear in how many ways the Greeks were\nour masters, so that we may still study their methods of government with\nprofit. The criminal law naturally comes first, for the most urgent\nessential of civilised life is public safety, enabling the citizen to go\nabout when and where he likes without fear of personal molestation, or\neven of being the witness of violence. The Greeks were so well aware of\nthis that they did not think any polity civilised till men had wholly\nabandoned the habit of carrying weapons, and if Aristotle or Thucydides\nhad been told that in America a number of respectable citizens of free\nstates still go armed, they would have said, \u201cThat was once the habit in\nGreece also, but now we are civilised, and regard such a practice as\nessentially barbarous.\u201d If there had been any likelihood of its being\nrevived they would certainly have made it penal, and such seems the\nproper course in any country where the losing of a man\u2019s temper may\ncause the losing of his life, as well as that of others. In modern\nEurope we have happily reached that stage, and even in Ireland, where\nthere are often people threatened for agrarian disputes, and protected\nby the police, the rest of the population walks about securely night and\nday, in crowded cities and in lonely wilds, without ever thinking of\ncarrying a weapon.\n\nThe Attic law, which represents the highest, and also the purest Greek\nfeeling, was extremely jealous not only of the safety, but of the\ndignity of the citizen, and any assault in the streets, even if it\ncaused no dangerous hurt, was severely punished by the law. As in modern\nsocieties, even to touch a man rudely, or against his will, was punished\nas an assault, and if the man assaulted happened to be performing any\nofficial duty for the state, the offence might be considered in the\nlight of _l\u00e8se-majest\u00e9_, or treason against the dignity of the state.\n\nThe penalty of death was indeed inflicted, especially in the older\ncodes, with a frequency reminding us of the European codes of a hundred\nyears ago. But as regards citizens there were two mitigations which made\neven these severe laws milder and more civilised than most of ours. In\nthe first place, there was generally facility given to the man who was\ncondemned to escape over the frontier, and except in cases of great\ncrimes against the state, extradition was not thought of. Exile was of\ncourse a severe penalty, for it meant living abroad as a foreigner, not\nprotected by the safeguards that encompassed the citizens around him.\nSecondly, the manner in which the death sentence was carried out was\ninfinitely more humane and polite than our abominable executions. The\ncase of Socrates is no doubt familiar to you all. He was left free of\nchains to talk with his friends and the cup of poison was placed beside\nhim, to be taken before the setting of the sun. Even the jailor is\nrepresented as a humane and civil man, who carried out his function with\nevery consideration. I will not deny that these very advanced features\nin Greek law were in contrast to some still barbarous survivals; I mean\nthe torturing of slaves and the severity of making a death sentence\nfollow on the majority of one in a very large jury. But survivals of\nbarbarism were but yesterday frequent enough with ourselves.\n\nLet us now turn to the characteristics of the _civil_ law, by which I\nmean the laws controlling the holding of property, the making of\ncontracts, and bequests by testament. I cannot see in the many contracts\nwe have from Greece, or from Egyptian Greece, when settled by Greece\nimmigrants, that the general spirit or the accuracy of these documents\ndiffers from those of our day, except that the penalties for breach of\ncontract seem much severer than ours. In the case of a money obligation,\nthe debtor who did not repay within a fixed date was commonly fined\nfifty per cent. for his delay. There may have been many cases of loans\nin kind, _e.g._, of seed corn, where such a penalty was not\nunreasonable, for there are things which are very valuable at a certain\nseason, and which after that must lie useless for many months. But on\nthe whole I think the Greek idea of keeping a contract was stricter than\nours, and the law more severe. Such was also the case with the Roman\nlaw, which was borrowed from the Greek.\n\nIn so cursory a review of a large subject, I can only select one or two\npoints as illustrations, and speak of them as specimens of the general\nenlightenment of the age. I therefore turn to a particular class about\nwhich we now know a great deal, more particularly owing to a large\ndiscovery of documents which I was fortunate enough to make in 1890. It\nis the Greek will or testament. Lawsuits concerning such documents also\nform the majority of the speeches of Is\u00e6us, the collection of which has\nbeen edited with great skill and learning by Mr. William Wyse of Trinity\nCollege, Cambridge. It used to be thought that all this matter of\ntestament was due to the Romans. It seems now tolerably certain that in\nthis as in most of the other refinements of life the Romans only\ntransmitted to us what the Greeks had taught them.\n\nIn most early states it is only gradually, and not without some\njealousy, that the individual is permitted to bequeath his property as\nhe pleases. At first, he is regarded as the member of a clan, to which\nhis property reverts under certain fixed conditions; later on, the state\ncontrols the division of it among the immediate family of the testator,\nand will not permit any passing of it away to strangers, still less to\nthose who are not citizens. Whether the Greek states ever left absolute\nliberty to their citizens in this matter may be doubted, the interest of\nthe state being much more jealously guarded among these small polities\nthan among the large modern States, when an occasional misuse of such a\npower does no grave public mischief, and only excites moderate censure.\nBut the whole form of the wills we have in Egyptian papyri, and of which\nwe have examples in stone inscriptions, such as the record of the will\nof one Epicteta who bequeathed her estate to public and religious\nobjects, is perfectly modern. Here I quote you the usual formula. First\ncomes the date according to the years of kings or eponymous magistrates.\nThen \u201cThis is the will of Peisias the Lycian, son of X., of sound mind\nand deliberate intention. May it be my lot to live on in health and\nmanage mine own property, but should anything human happen to me, I\nbequeath to my children so much, to my wife such and such things (often\nspecifying the articles), I set free certain slaves, I set apart money\nfor religious purposes. And I appoint as executors such and such\npeople,\u201d in the case of soldiers in Egypt generally the King and Queen\nand their children; and then there follow the names of several, often\nseven or eight, witnesses.[43] These habits, which imply a settled\nsociety, with ordinary habits and traditions, had spread from Greece to\nGreek Egypt three centuries before Christ. There is no doubt that they\nspread similarly not only to the west, but throughout Asia Minor and\nSyria so far as they were not in these regions already in vogue. I will\nonly add that if you desire to read how clearly and carefully a long\ncase involving the claim of a Greek in Egypt against a native\ncorporation was examined and decided, you will find it in the Papyrus I\nof Turin[44] which was published years ago by Am\u00e9d\u00e9e Peyron, and which\nought to be republished and made easier of access. We have the whole\nfinal decision of the court extending over many pages of Greek. The\nrecord must have been found intact in the earthen jar in which it was\npreserved. It rehearses the fortunes of the case from its outset, forty\nyears before the decision. It gives the earlier decisions and a summary\nof the new evidence adduced; and it sums up the whole and gives judgment\nfor the native corporation against the Greek with a clearness which\ncould not be exceeded by the Supreme Court in America. Every word of it\nspeaks strict law and plain common-sense. It was a case of conflicting\nevidence, and this is weighed with absolute fairness. There is not a\nword of superstition, of appeals to the providence of the gods or to any\nauthority beyond that of educated human reason. As such, it is a\ndocument absolutely modern in the highest sense. This then was the tone\nof the civil law transmitted by Greece to succeeding centuries.\n\nI now approach a larger subject, and one of even more permanent\ninterest--the lessons of Greek history regarding the international\nrelations of adjoining civilised states, or the relations of one\nstronger state to others of lesser force or size. The condition of\nGreece all through its early history affords an unique field for the\nstudy of international law; for these numerous small cities, as we\nregard them, were perfectly distinct polities or states, each living\nunder its own laws and traditions, and as separate one from the other in\nidea as are the capitals of any two modern kingdoms. In practice the\nseparation was even greater, for intermarriage between their citizens,\nor the acquiring of property by citizens of another polity, were against\nthe spirit of the age, and were generally forbidden by law. The number,\ntherefore, of treaties, of alliances, of quarrels between these city\nstates was not only enormous, but offered every variety, so much so that\nif you look at any good edition of the earliest European work on this\nsort of law, the famous treatise of Hugo Grotius, _De Jure Pacis et\nBelli_, you will find that the great body of his illustrations is taken\nfrom Greek history, and acknowledged as Greek in the margin of the\ntext. Let us approach first the question of war.\n\nEven from Homer\u2019s time, there was a growing feeling which softened the\nhardships of war between Hellenic peoples. Poisoned weapons were not\ntolerated, and if the prisoners became the slaves of the victors, ransom\nwas very general, and according to Herodotus there was even an\nacknowledged tariff--two _min\u00e6_--accepted throughout Peloponnesus for\nthe release of such a prisoner. I will not pretend that the wars even of\nthe Golden Age were not much fiercer and more cruel than the rose-water\ncampaigns we now carry on, when the wives and children of the enemy are\nsupported in comfort, and he is accordingly encouraged to prolong a\nconflict which only affects his personal convenience. For war is a\nshocking thing, and to sweeten it by such amenities is only to enhance\nits cost of life and of treasure to the victor. But if you were to\ncompare Greek wars with those of the earlier centuries of modern Europe,\nsay the Thirty Years\u2019 War in Germany, you would find the balance of\nhumanity most decidedly on the side of the Greeks. The non-combatants in\na stormed Greek city, though by the laws of war they became slaves, were\nin a far better plight than the unfortunate people of a German town\ncaptured by the Pandurs and Croats of Tilly or Wallenstein. I gladly\nturn from this grievous subject. \u201cWar,\u201d says Thucydides, \u201cis a stern\ntaskmaker, and makes men\u2019s hearts as hard as their circumstances.\u201d\n\nLet us enter on a more grateful and more instructive task, the\ninternational relations of Greek states in peace and particularly their\npolitical combinations or alliances for protection against external\ndangers. It was obvious that a number of distinct small city-states must\nbe at the mercy of a strong invading force which could conquer them one\nby one, and that therefore combinations and alliances among them were\nabsolutely necessary. Such combinations could also be made for offensive\npurposes, as was the case with the Homeric conception of the Siege of\nTroy, and so in after times many Greek theorists actually recommended\nthis policy as an engine of conquest, the very conquest carried out by\nAlexander the Great. But for a long time, alliances were only made for\nthe moment, and to ward off an imminent danger, and they soon fell to\npieces again, owing usually to the reverting of both parties into a\nselfish and jealous policy of isolation. From the seventh century B.C.,\nonward, the waxing of the power of Sparta made a sort of\nsemi-compulsory league among the smaller cities of the Peloponnesus, and\nlater on, after the crisis of the Persian war was over, the Asiatic\nGreeks put themselves under the leadership of Athens. Let me call it by\nits technical name, _hegemony_. This was an alliance under a president\nstate, which was to guide the policy of the league in war, but was not\nsupposed to interfere with the several polities in peace. You all know\nhow the leading power gradually encroached upon the liberties of the\nallies, who really became subjects paying tribute; and when they\nattempted reassertion of their former independence, it was treated by\nAthens as revolt, and crushed with military and naval force. The conduct\nof Sparta when she succeeded to the hegemony of Greece was in no way\ndifferent; perhaps it was harsher, and so we have a vast amount of\nprotest against the tyranny of these leading states, and their\n\u201censlaving\u201d of the rest of Greece. They on their side pointed to the\nnecessity of union to prevent foreign domination; they pointed to the\nlabours and sacrifices the citizens of the leading state had undergone,\nto the security of the seas from pirates, to the increase of trade, and\nof the reputation of Greek civilisation, all produced by their efforts;\nbut generally this came in at the end of the argument: that having\nacquired their power they intended to keep it.\n\nHere then was a great constitutional question and one still under\ndispute in the last century. Supposing that several independent states\ncombine to promote common objects, and make a solemn league or union; is\nit lawful for any one of the contracting parties to withdraw from the\nunion if it considers its liberties infringed? I need not to take into\naccount the further complication, when some of the states involved were\ncreated subsequently by and for the union, in fact were daughters and\nnot mothers of the union. You know how in this country that\nconstitutional problem was only solved by a great war, and this was but\nthe echo of the same kind of conflict endemic in Greece. Yet the tone\nand temper of the world had changed in the long interval. The creation\nand success of many great states led men to appreciate the advantages\nthus obtained, and though there was, and still is, a strong sentiment in\nfavour of small nationalities coerced by the greater--you remember the\nsentiment of all the European press during the recent Boer war--yet on\nthe whole the imperial idea is not unpopular. In Greece it was the\nreverse. From the outset to the end, the right of the smaller members\nof an union to secede was always maintained in theory and produced fatal\nresults in practice.\n\nThe very same problem assumed a slightly different form when twelve\ninsignificant Ach\u00e6an cities combined into the Ach\u00e6an League which\nPolybius has made so famous. The council and governing officers were\nelected in an assembly convened in one of the cities, whither all the\nmembers of the League were entitled to go, but which of course only men\nof leisure could afford to attend. Moreover each city had one collective\nvote, so that numbers were of no direct consequence. The meetings were\nconfined to three days, and to business prepared for them by the\nexecutive. The whole scheme (which was an early and excellent essay in\nFederation, much studied by the founders of the American Union)\nshipwrecked on the question whether single states had a right to enter\ninto separate agreements with powers foreign to the League. Perfect\ninternal independence was of course essential to Greek ideas, but that\nthe power of separate alliances with foreign powers should be allowed,\nseems to us absurd. Nevertheless the sentiment of the Greeks here as\nelsewhere was in favour of this absolute independence, and so the\nLeague was pulled to pieces by the interference of jealous or ambitious\nneighbours.\n\nThus you have a conglomerate of civilised communities, all speaking the\nsame language and with similar ideals of culture, not separated by\nhostile creeds, and with the power, when united, of exercising a\ndominant influence upon the world around them; and yet their power and\ntheir development are paralysed by mutual jealousies and constant\nquarrels, resulting in frequent and desolating wars. We have no cases in\nEurope at all parallel except the condition of Italy in the Renaissance\nand of Germany in the middle of the last century. When I was a boy and\nwe travelled in a carriage through that country (railways had not yet\nbeen introduced) we used in the course of a day to pass through a whole\nprincipality and across a border with custom houses, and a new flag, and\noften a new coinage. There were then, I believe, sixty-six reigning\npersonages--grand dukes, electors, etc.--in Germany. You know how all\nwere either absorbed or reduced to one empire, or allowed to live on as\nvassal states, to use rather a hard word, within the compass of a few\nyears. That was what happened ultimately in Greece, where the Macedonian\npower played a part analogous to that of Prussia, and made itself by a\nsuccessful war against a foreign power not only accepted but popular.\nThe important point in which Greece gives modern nations a further\nlesson is this; Revolutionary or extemporised monarchies in such a case\nwill not succeed. The Greeks, especially in Asia Minor and in Sicily,\nwhere there was danger from foreign powers, had come to the conclusion\nthat a monarch was necessary to combine them into a strong military and\nfinancial power, and they were therefore again willing to submit\nthemselves to tyrants or despots, as they had been of old, when they\nwanted relief from the internecine disputes between the classes and the\nmasses. There were some brilliant essays in this direction made, notably\nby Dionysius of Syracuse, and by Mausollus of Halicarnassus. But they\nfailed to found a dynasty, even as the Bonapartes failed, in spite of\ntheir greatness and the benefits they had conferred.\n\nThus not only the achievements, but the failures of the Greeks may\nconvey to us valuable lessons, because they constituted a thoroughly\n\u201cmodern\u201d society and suffered from the weaknesses and vices of such\nsocieties.\n\nAs this last statement may seem to some of you a paradox, I proceed in\nconclusion to illustrate it, by some observations on the condition of\nGreek society as described to us by Aristotle and by Polybius. The\nformer, in describing his ideal (for he had not yet renounced it) of a\nsmall, well-ordered state, governed in the interest of the majority of\nthe citizens by good laws and humane rulers, makes it his _sine qua non_\nthat the middle class shall outweigh in public importance both the\nwealthy and the indigent. Now that was exactly the condition which in\nthe days of Polybius was becoming rarer and rarer, nay, practically\nunknown. This was the very class disappearing rapidly from every state\nin Greece. And why? The economic conditions were changing, and owing to\nthe great influx of gold from the East and other causes, living was\nbecoming dearer every day. Luxuries were also coming to be regarded as\nnecessities, and so for the poor who had the bribe of large pay and\ngreat license offered them in the mercenary service of Hellenistic\nkings, emigration became the rule, and the want of labour turned farming\nfrom the agricultural to the pastoral type. Hence the middle classes,\nwhich had no capital to work large farms, became poorer and the rich\nricher and more selfish.\n\nAnd what was the remedy adopted by the middle classes to maintain\nthemselves in comfort? An expedient not unknown in this country and for\nnot very dissimilar reasons. It was the limitation of families, the\navoidance of the duty and cost of bringing up children, so that Polybius\nspeaks of it as the signal feature of the Greece of his day--the strange\nbarrenness that had come upon the once prolific inhabitants of the land.\nSuch a misfortune can be avoided only when great immigration exists, and\neven then it results in replacing the old population, the cream of the\ncountry, by the scum gathered from abroad. There were no inducements for\nimmigration into Greece and so the country which was once teeming with\npopulation sunk into somnolence and decay.\n\nCould I offer you a clearer proof of the modern character of this\ncivilisation, which had not only a youth and an age of gold, but then a\nsilver autumn or a Martinmas summer, when Plutarch lived in his little\ndeserted town, surrounded by a complete and terrible decadence? And it\nmay not be out of place to remind you that even with many differences of\nage, of place, and of circumstances, the same moral causes that produce\ndecay in one civilisation are likely to produce it in another.\n\nThe societies that fell into these vices were not ignorant or\nuneducated. The average Greek public was probably better trained in the\nknowledge of great ideas and the enjoyment of great literature than any\npublic nowadays. Grote said very deliberately that the ordinary Attic\ncitizen who attended the assemblies where Pericles and Theramenes and\nDemosthenes spoke, and where many others of like culture joined in the\ndebate--that such a man was better educated, in the political sense,\nthan the average member of the House of Commons in his day; and Grote\nhad attended to the business of that House for ten years of his life. It\nwas then, moreover, an assembly of English gentlemen, of the middle and\nupper classes, with a strong aristocratic flavour. What language would\nhe have used had he compared his Periclean citizen to the House of\nCommons of the twentieth century? But in any case, we may say one thing\nwith certainty, and it is one of the greatest lessons which the Greeks\nhave to tell us: Intellectual culture by itself is no certain antidote\nto decadence in any society--nay, not even in that of Boston,\nMassachusetts.\n\nThe moral conditions of refined Attic life in these dying days are best\nknown from the remains, or from the Latin translations of the society\nplays of the famous Menander. The life which Menander portrayed has\nbeen discussed and estimated in a chapter of my _Greek Life and\nThought_, and you will there see at length how trivial, how selfish, how\nimmoral, how ignoble that life was. If such was indeed the true\ncharacter of Attic society in Menander\u2019s days, we may well congratulate\nthe world that the Macedonian conquerer arose to show the world that\nthere were greater ideals than to while away one\u2019s time in the rotten\nrefinements of decadent Athens.\n\nWhen I wrote that chapter, we were still dependent for our estimate of\nMenander and his society in the Latin translations, or adaptations, by\nPlautus and Terence, and there were those that thought the Roman\nadapters had chosen the trivial side of a society which might be not\nonly refined but serious and thoughtful. The recent discovery of large\nfragments of four plays on a papyrus roll in Egypt has dissipated any\nsuch hopes. The same triviality, the same stupid repetition of vulgar\nand immoral plots and topics meet us throughout these scenes. If there\nbe any moral lesson conveyed by the picture we here have of Attic\nsociety, it is this: that the slave and the prostitute were not only\nmore intelligent, but less immoral than their masters. In all these\nso-called pictures of life, not a single person of the least distinction\nappears--not a single philosopher, or politician, or poet, or man of\nletters, or benefactor--though we know that the walls of temples and\ncities were being covered with panegyrics of leading citizens and their\ncivic and private virtues. Not a single problem of religious or\npolitical importance is ever discussed. There is not even, in the new\nfragments, any wealth of that vulgar proverbial wisdom, or\nsententiousness posing as wisdom, which was gathered from the plays of\nMenander by diligent collectors, and which, surviving in thousands of\nlines, has given him a false importance in the histories of Greek\nliterature. But here, as elsewhere, the lapse of ages had separated the\nwheat from the chaff; the later scholiasts and commentators gathered\nfrom Menander the stray gems, as one might pick from the array of a gay\nbut stupid lady the real diamonds with which she had adorned her\nworthless person.\n\nIn relation to Greek politics, which is our subject to-day, this is no\nidle digression. For it shows us clearly that the higher society of\nAthens had abandoned this great human interest and so had narrowed and\nimpoverished their spiritual life. It is usual to repeat in our\nhistories that the growth of the Macedonian power, of the Hellenistic\nkings, of the Roman Republic, killed all possibility of any serious\nGreek politics, and that in consequence serious men were driven into\nanti-social philosophy at home, active men into mercenary service\nabroad. In Menander\u2019s day and long after it, there was still plenty of\nwork for honest and capable men in saving the liberties and the\ndignities of their native cities. A century later, Polybius shows how\nthe total ruin of Greece and the disastrous conquest by Mummius were\nmainly produced by the follies and violences of stupid and corrupt\ndemagogues. But these demagogues were invested with official power by\nthe votes of those that still practised politics, when the better\nclasses had retired in disgust. If this disgust dated from Menander\u2019s\ntime, then we can only reflect that those who have abdicated their\ninfluence in the day of their country\u2019s prosperity, are not likely to\nregain it when a crisis comes, and when the masses have found for\nthemselves other leaders.\n\nI have seen a very similar catastrophe in the Ireland of my own time. I\nhave seen the old landed gentry, who had long lived a gay, idle,\nhospitable life, when their privileges and their properties were\nattacked by a dangerous agitation, show such want of public spirit,\nsuch miserable mistrust in one another, such reckless folly in not\nspending time, money, and energy in resisting their plunderers, that\nthey lost the sympathy of all their friends, and while they called on\nEnglish influence to protect them, and railed against all concession and\ncompromise, they have seen their land filched from them by successive\nlegislative inroads upon their rights, and their fortunes ruined even by\nthose on whom they relied to defend them. Many a time did I warn those\nabout me of these inevitable consequences, but there I have seen another\ninstance, and one which came home to me with poignant regret, of the\nmiseries induced by mere incompetence. _Quem Deus vult perdere, prius\ndementat._\n\n\n\n\nVIII\n\nHIGHER THINKING, PHILOSOPHY, SPECULATIVE AND PRACTICAL THEOLOGY\n\n\nIn my last lecture I spoke of the small effect, or want of effect, which\na mere intellectual training in the liberal arts might have upon the\naverage morals of a large society. To-day I propose to take you into a\nhigher atmosphere, and consider what occupied the \u00e9lite of Greek society\nin their advanced education, and in their speculations on the nature of\nthings. You must not underrate the enormous advantages the well-born\nyouth then possessed in training his mind, as compared with the youth of\nto-day. In the first place, a very moderate income would keep a\nhousehold in comfort, and remove all the grinding care which, in this\nour modern life with its myriad exigencies, torments so many respectable\nfamilies. In the next place, the demon of competition had not invaded\nthese states, nor was it possible to do as I and many others have done,\nto be a slave for some years in order to obtain a competence by passing\nfirst in a single examination. In the third place, there was no object\nin travelling long distances. What was worth seeing, lay within easy\nreach. In modern life there is only Holland, and perhaps Northern Italy,\nwhich offers the same delights within short distances. The huge amount\nof time spent by Americans in travelling is perhaps one of the most\nserious obstacles to their intellectual advancement. If North America\nwere compressed into one tenth its size, its inhabitants might gain some\nleisure for better education.\n\nThe obvious thing that will strike any intelligent American, who has\nonly heard of Plato, and wants to make his acquaintance through Jowett\u2019s\nnoble translation, is the amount of time these Dialogues waste in\narriving at a conclusion. Nay often they represent a very long\nconversation which comes to no conclusion at all. Yet that feature is\nessential to all higher training of the human mind. You may appear to\nthe vulgar to be wasting time, and yet it is not wasting time, but doing\nthe best you can for a great object. The earth moving in its orbit need\nnot delay its regular course because it revolves upon its axis, and\ncauses its whole surface to enjoy the blessed light of the sun. And the\nnext thing you will find in Plato\u2019s Dialogues (the best exponent of\nhigher education I know) is that the objects in view are not those of\nsense, or of the material needs of life, or of obtaining success in the\nworld. They all, like Saint Paul\u2019s reasonings with Felix, have to do\nwith righteousness and temperance, and judgment to come. But even this\nfield, that of ethical inquiry, is not the highest to which Greek\neducation attained. For their early teachers taught them to think about\nthe universe and its constitution, the nature of mind, the nature of\nmatter, and other high questions of abstract metaphysic.\n\nA notable point about this Greek philosophy is that the priest or the\nenchanter has nothing to say to it. The sage was a layman, who need fear\nno pope, no ban of the Church, in using his reason freely upon the\nproblems even of theology. There were indeed isolated cases, where a man\nwho denied the existence of the traditional gods, or was supposed so to\ndo, was pursued by popular indignation. Diagoras of Melos, called the\natheist, was driven from the societies which thought such teaching\ndangerous; Socrates was prosecuted in like manner, because he was\nsuspected of spreading scepticism among the youth, but he was executed\nonly because he behaved in a manner highly contumacious to the\nestablished order of the State. Had he defended himself in the ordinary\nroutine, he would at most have been subjected to a fine. These isolated\ncases are only mentioned lest you should imagine that they were typical.\nGreek philosophy being secular, was therefore free.\n\nThe earliest thinkers, those of the Ionic school, set themselves to\nsolve by speculation the very question which now engrosses our deepest\nresearches in physics. They thought out, or they inferred from their\nobservations, that \u201cthings are not as they seem\u201d; they found out, what\nwe have attained by long experiment, that the many qualities our senses\nperceive are not fundamental or primary, that as Descartes and Locke and\nSpinoza taught, mechanical composition and varying degrees of motion in\nminute particles of the same kind may produce wholly diverse\nimpressions. The most obvious and striking of these to the ordinary man\nis the case of colour. Descartes had anticipated that the pace of the\nrotation of particles made the differences; we know now that it is not\nrotation, but vibration of ether, and so with variation in tones. But\nthe differences both of colours and sounds are due to the more or less\nrapid motion of the vibration. This was what Thales and Anaximenes and\nAnaximander felt when they said that the world consisted of one\nelement, that moisture, caloric, ether, were the primitive stuff of\nwhich the world was composed. And these famous men were not mere\nmetaphysicians, they showed their intellectual greatness in various\nways. Thales actually predicted an eclipse, to the astonishment of his\ncontemporaries.[45] He showed them that the lesser bear, ending in the\npole star, was a better indication for the sailor to use than the\ngreater. He solved the problem of measuring the height of an\ninaccessible object by comparing its shadow with that of a small one\nwithin reach. He gave valuable advices in politics. So that his\nmetaphysic was both the source and the climax of a wide mental activity.\nSo with Anaximander. He attempted the first map of the known world and\nmade signal advances in astronomy. Anaximenes declared that eclipses\nwere the concealing of one heavenly body by the interposition of\nanother. These were great feats; but they were nothing in comparison to\nthe bold attempts at solving the problem of the origin and nature of the\nworld, wherein their speculations, often erroneous, nevertheless left a\nresiduum of thoughts that were the seeds of all our higher philosophy.\n\nIf Thales laid it down that in all the varieties of plant and animal\nlife there was a common element which was their real or original\nsubstance, Anaximander thought that caloric (or the igneous principle)\nwas necessary to develop the original material. His book is lost, and\nhis views not clear to us, but we know that his geological observations\ntold him that our world had once been covered with water, from which\nland had emerged. He was moreover the first to maintain that nothing was\neternal except the primeval substance of things.\n\n    The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces,\n    The solemn temples, the great globe itself,\n    Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve,\n    And, like the baseless fabric of this vision,\n    Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff\n    As dreams are made on; and our little life\n    Is rounded with a sleep.\n\nIn the largest sense, even applying it to the gods of the Greek\nPantheon, did he assert this colossal doctrine. Anaximenes went further,\nand, assuming that the particles of ether are the most subtle in the\nuniverse, he set up the principle of rarification and condensation of\nmatter, asserting that this was the one great cause of the differences\nin the bodies we perceive. This then was the first expression of the\ndoctrine of the Atomists, which has lasted to the present day.\n\nIt is a common piece of arrogance among experimentalists to say that\nthese wonderful anticipations of modern science were mere gropings in\nthe dark, supported not by experiment, but by what we should call\nsuperficial observations. The wonder is all the greater that these men\nshould in their theories have gone to the root of the matter, and\nthought out the metaphysical possibilities of the composition of the\nworld. Abstract thinking--theory--is after all the true basis of every\ngreat discovery. In complete disregard of the theological cosmogony\nderived from the old poets, they openly inaugurated the birth of a\nnatural science engendered by pure and high thinking.\n\nThis is even more signally the case with Heracleitus of Ephesus. But I\ncan only give you some of his marvellous anticipations in a few words;\nto go into any one of these systems would require a whole lecture, not a\npassage in this discourse. In the first place he agreed with both his\npredecessors, that one subtle element was the foundation of all nature\nand this he sought in what the vulgar call fire, but with him a far more\nsubtle essence, never still for an instant. From this all the universe\nhad been evolved by a process of cooling, and had developed into earth,\nwater, and the rest, but in the end these would return into their\noriginal condition, \u201cso that the earth would be rolled up as a scroll,\nand the elements dissolved with fervent heat.\u201d This far-off glimpse of\nLaplace\u2019s theory, which postulates our whole planetary system starting\nfrom a revolving mass at white heat, is less striking than another that\nlays down the principle that there are endless motions in things which\nthe senses cannot perceive, and that absolute rest is impossible in\nnature.\n\n    The world was never made;\n    It will change, but it will not fade.\n    So let the wind range\n    For even and morn, ever will be, thro\u2019 eternity.\n    Nothing was born, nothing will die,\n    All things will change.[46]\n\nIt is but yesterday that the newest physical philosophers have declared\nthemselves for this doctrine, and tell us that every particle of matter\nis made up of lesser particles in perpetual motion. Heracleitus was no\nless clear on the relativity of the qualities of matter, which are good\nor bad according to the percipient, and from that he drew the\nconclusion that apparent contradictions may coexist and that all nature\nconsists in a perpetual conflict between opposites. Nature is a state of\nwar said he, using the term in a far deeper sense than did later men.\n\nThese amazing conjectures were set down in a quaint, picturesque, but\nabstruse treatise, which even Aristotle found difficult to grasp, but if\never a great imagination sowed seeds in the minds of men, which after\nlong generations germinated into modern science, it was that of\nHeracleitus. His dark enigmas, seasoned with pessimistic utterances,\nwith supreme contempt of the ordinary public, were always attractive and\nstimulating to keen minds.\n\nThe next great name in this magnificent series is Pythagoras, whose\ninfluence revolutionised not only the science but the politics and\nethics of Greece, and created new ideals among men, higher and purer\nthan those of traditional morality. But as I have already said something\nof him in a former discourse, I will hurry on to his contemporaries and\nhis successors.\n\nThe founder of the great school of Elea, an old Greek colony of Ionians\nin the Italian bay south of P\u00e6stum, was Xenophanes, whose main feature\nwas a bold criticism of the popular theology, as represented by the\npoetry of Homer. He could easily show the moral defects of the denizens\nof the Homeric Olympus, and hence inferring their unreality, he pressed\nhome the great doctrine of the unity of the universe, whether ideal or\nreal, and the identification of the Maker (if there ever was a Maker)\nwith his work--a theory which has existed from that day to this under\nthe name of Pantheism, and as such has fascinated the higher spirits\neven among the cold and practical Anglo-Saxons. This feeling of unity in\nall the world with the Eternal Cause of the world has indeed appeared in\nthe far East in other and strange systems of philosophy; but never was\nthe doctrine discussed with such variety as among the Greeks. Lofty\npoetry, hard logic, bitter controversy were all called in to support it,\nand among a clear-sighted, sceptical race, like the Greeks, so vague and\ntranscendent a theory is far more striking and therefore more fruitful\nin its spiritual consequences, than when professed by mere ascetics or\nanchorites who have no contact with common life, and who will not\ncondescend to argument. The Greek Pantheists of the early period were\nmen of high character in public life, respected for their practical\nwisdom and their literary eminence, and it was they that forced upon\nthe world the astounding theory that not only are all the data of our\nsenses illusory and vain, but that even the assumption of any number of\noriginal elements or substances is idle, and must terminate in the great\n_One_, which embraces them all, and merges gods and men, matter and\nmind, into that all-embracing Single Being, of whom a forgotten mystic\nin a later age (but still a Greek) has used this tremendous metaphor:\nthe \u201cgods are his laughter, the race of mortal men his tears.\u201d\n\nThe positive side of the doctrine was mainly due to Parmenides, of whom\nPlato speaks with greater respect than of any other thinker except\nSocrates, and it was clearly a further development, or urging to their\nextreme consequences, of the older theories which reduced all the\nvarious qualities of the world of sense to the manifestations of a\nsingle substance. But they had each made some one reservation and upheld\none of the data of the senses, but each a different one. Was not\ntherefore the inference clear that this was but a half-way house, and\nthat what we call mind and matter are after all not radically distinct\nbut only separate aspects of the primeval one?\n\nIf you think this old-world and idle speculation, I need only refer you\nto Descartes, the father of modern scientific metaphysic, who held that\nhis two universal factors, extension and thought, were after all but\nqualities of the one all-embracing substance which he called God; or I\nmay refer to Spinoza, the spiritual pupil of Descartes, and the most\nimportant Pantheist of the seventeenth, or perhaps of any, century.\n\nThe positive arguments in favour of this subtle speculation, which to\nthe vulgar public of any age must always remain absurd, were in the\nfirst place the untrustworthy character of our senses, which could be\nshown not only to be misleading but to give contradictory reports\nconcerning the same thing; next the general consent of all thinkers that\nthere must be something permanent and indestructible in the midst of all\nthe changes of phenomena; then the inability of any perceived substance,\nsuch as water, or air, however subtle, to satisfy this condition of\npermanence, and to take a position superior to the attacks of rival\ntheories. You must therefore abstract more and more from all qualities\ntill you reach that pure Being, which is all and none, spirit and body,\nunity and infinity, eternal, indestructible, invariable, the source and\nsubstance of all that ever did or ever will exist.\n\nYou can well imagine how these splendid dreams were regarded by the\nclever and practical Greek public, as indeed they have been by average\nmen from that day to this, whenever the great theory has been stated\nafresh by metaphysicians or by mystics. It was the special merit of the\nEleatic Zeno (not the great Stoic who lived far later) to show the\ncarping critic that the difficulties which had led the philosopher to\ndiscard the senses as guides to truth, can be raised in the case of the\ncommon facts of our everyday life, and that the scoffer cannot solve\nthem. I lay stress on these intellectual puzzles, because they have\noccupied philosophers perpetually down to the present day, and in no\nparticular case can we affirm more decidedly that the Greeks were the\nfathers of modern thinking. And do not for a moment imagine that because\nthese subtleties lead to no immediate result, they are therefore barren.\nYou might as well say that physical games and exercises are of no use,\nbecause they merely result in strengthening and improving the human\nframe and the human temper, apart from any further result. Now what were\nZeno\u2019s puzzles? I will mention but the most obvious. Is it conceivable\nthat sound should be made up of non-sounding things? And yet this\nabsurdity is demonstrable. Drop a single millet seed from your hand upon\nthe grass. It will not make the smallest noise. Go on with a second, a\nthird, and so on, till you reach thousands; it is so with them all. Yet\nif you turn out a cartful of such seeds, it will make a considerable\nnoise. How is it possible, if each individual grain is silent? Again,\nyou imagine that if two bodies are moving in the same direction, one\nslower, the other faster, the latter will soon overtake the former. It\nis not so, and can be proved impossible. Conceive the swift-footed\nAchilles trying to overtake a tortoise, and that he runs one hundred\nyards, while the other is crawling but ten. When he has completed his\none hundred, the tortoise is still one ahead, when he has added this\none, the tortoise is still 1/10 ahead, then 1/100, then 1/1000, and so\non _ad infinitum_, for it is mathematically certain that neither series\ncan ever reach the limit, in the one case of III, in the other of II\nyards. Therefore it is demonstrated that Achilles can never in all time\novertake the tortoise.\n\nBut we may go even farther and say that the very idea of motion is\ninconceivable. Every moving body must move in time, and time is divided\ninto moments of time. At each moment the moving body must either be in\nthe place where it is, or the place where it is not. The latter being\nmanifestly absurd, the body must be in the place where it is. But then\nof course it is not moving, for motion can only be defined as a change\nof place. Continuous motion is therefore inconceivable.\n\nI need not do more than mention to you, that these very problems, handed\ndown by Zeno to the schools, formed the subject of interminable disputes\nfor centuries, and if you even now, with all your boasted progress, take\nthem in hand, you will not easily find a logical solution. Happily we\nare no longer in the condition of those medi\u00e6val pedants, of whom we\nhear that not a few went mad, or died of brain fever, because they could\nnot reconcile the foreknowledge and foreordaining of things by God with\nthe absolute free will of men. Nor are any of you, I sincerely trust,\nencumbered with the extraordinary fairness of mind of the medi\u00e6val ass\nof Buridanus which being set between two bundles of hay exactly and\nprecisely alike, died of starvation because it could see no possible\nreason for preferring to eat the one before the other. Nevertheless, I\ntrust you will appreciate that the mental subtlety we inherit from the\nGreeks is no small part of our education.\n\nBut it is not merely in the hard logic of controversy that the Greek\nPantheists have left a great legacy to mankind. If I mistake not, the\nhigher poetry of these latter days is deeply indebted to that grandiose\ntheory, that all nature is but one, that all things whether mute or\nspeaking, whether still or moving, whether fair or hideous, are all the\nmanifestations of the one great All, the ineffable substance which some\ncall a world-soul, some the universe, some God, the supreme _One_,\nwithout variableness or shadow of turning, though only apprehended by\nman in myriad variations. You can find that view of things in Shelley,\nin Wordsworth, in Tennyson, and it is not too much to say that at their\nhighest moments, and in their noblest verse, they are all inspired with\nthis Divine intoxication. It is common to call it Platonism, and my old\nfriend Mr. Shorthouse even wrote an essay to show that the respectable\nand orderly Wordsworth could hardly be called a Christian, so saturated\nwas he with this Pantheistic feeling. His visions of the pre-existence\nof the human soul--these were indeed Platonic; his Pantheistic passages\ncome from the influence which Plato acknowledges, but which he does not\nallow to subjugate him. Wordsworth is the most uneven and often prosaic\nof poets, but in his greatest moments he too feels that intercommunion\nof all nature which is unmistakably Greek and not English--\n\n    A sense sublime\n    Of something far more deeply interfused,\n    Whose dwelling is the light of setting suns,\n    And the round ocean and the living air\n    And the blue sky, and in the mind of man,--\n    A motion and a spirit, that impels\n    All thinking things, all objects of all thoughts,\n    And rolls through all things.\n\nTime fails me to go into the fascinating subject of the Pantheism of\nTennyson, and of other of our poets. It is indeed only spasmodic, but it\nis there, and is a strange note in the singing of an otherwise tame and\nprosaic race.\n\nLet us now return to the great procession of the sages of Hellas. It\ndoes not seem necessary to delay long upon Anaxagoras and Empedocles,\nthough both were very great figures in their day. The principle feature\nin both their systems was that they felt the want of some ideal, or\nsemi-ideal principle to work as a cause in producing the changes in\nnature. Anaxagoras postulated the original particles to be very diverse\nin quality and to enter into the composition of ordinary things so as\nto make up what we call their various qualities. The food we eat, for\nexample, affects all the various parts of human bodies, however\ndifferent, such as the tissue of the flesh, the hair, the nails, the\nviscera, because there is in this food, which is made up from corn or\nother vegetable and animal substances, an assortment of particles each\nof which contributes to nourish the member or part akin to it. If we ask\nhow external bodies are brought together, and made up into unities,\nAnaxagoras felt so keenly the necessity of a moving cause that he set up\nhis famous _Nous_, which we cannot translate by the word _mind_, for it\nwas still a material cause, though far more subtle and active than the\nrest, such as we now imagine ether to be. But even so, Aristotle speaks\nof Anaxagoras as a great and fruitful innovator, inasmuch as he saw that\nbrute matter cannot begin to act or even to move without some\nnon-material or spiritual, or ideal cause. From what we know of\nAnaxagoras, he advanced but a little step in this direction himself; he\nwas only groping his way, but to have been pioneer to Plato and to\nAristotle is itself no mean praise. In a similar direction, the famous\nEmpedocles postulated the principles of Love and Hate, much as we now\npostulate Attraction and Repulsion, to explain the varieties, and the\nmovements, in external nature.\n\nObserve that not one of these Ionic philosophers had yet asserted the\ngreat contrast of mind and matter, the still greater contrast of a\nDivine architect and his work. The phenomena of mind seemed to them but\nto be the result of a subtle and more impalpable combination of elements\nnot differing in kind from the nature of material substances. So when a\nwholly different school came to review what the ancients had\naccomplished, the _Nous_ of Anaxagoras, and the Love and Hate of\nEmpedocles, were hardly felt to be steps in advance. In fact for a while\nthe development seemed to be the other way, for the last great theory we\nhave to notice, before we come to the ideal philosophy of Plato and his\nfollowers, is more decidedly materialistic than all its predecessors.\nThat is the famous Atomic theory of Leucippus and Democritus, which\nmaintained that the universe contains no elements but atoms and the\nvoid, the atoms being hard physical particles of only one quality but\ncapable of myriad mechanical combinations in and by means of the void,\nor empty space which existed more or less in every body. As a\nhypothesis, this is the simplest that has ever been offered to explain\nthe constitution of matter; it has consequently lasted all through the\nRenascence of learning into the newer age and has formed the very basis\nof the modern science of chemistry. The original atoms were not\nconceived as mathematical points, or as having any spiritual quality\nlike the monads of Leibnitz; they were merely very small, impenetrable,\nand differing in figure. It was the density of their combination and\nhence the small fraction of void spaces in any body which made the\ndifference of specific gravity, and the difference of their shape\nproduced other qualities.\n\nBut how did these atoms come together? Here Democritus showed a\nprophetic clearness of sight which may well astonish modern critics. He\nregarded motion in these atoms as a primal fact, probably deriving it\nfrom the theory of Heracleitus. He held that as these atoms collided in\nthe void, not always directly, but obliquely, the striking and the\nstruck assumed a rotatory motion, and so established vortices which\neither attracted suitable atoms or rejected others by the centrifugal\nforce of this rotation. Thus were constructed not only the great spheres\nthat we observe in the sky, but all the ordinary objects around us. Into\nhis explanations of the causes of the irregular forms of these objects\nI cannot enter, by reason of their intricacy. But to what consequences\nhis theory led him may be told you in a sentence. He maintained, with\nthe imagination of a great scientific mind, that there were an endless\nnumber of world-systems through space, differing merely in magnitude,\nsome furnished with several moons, some in process of becoming, others,\nowing to collisions, in process of destruction, some of them wholly\ndeficient in moisture, and hence devoid of animal and plant life. These\nare all consequences which we have drawn from the use of the telescope\nand even the spectroscope, but which this wonderful man reached by way\nof philosophical thinking.\n\nAristotle makes it his chief objection to the Atomic theory that it is\npurely descriptive of phenomena without assigning any cause for the\nprimeval motion of the atoms; that it recognises no Architect, no\nDemiurge who set the myriad crowd of particles into motion, and then\ninto regulated action. But Aristotle was misled by an assumption which\nhas infected philosophy down to the present day--the assumption that a\nstate of rest is prior to, and more natural to matter than a state of\nmotion. This prejudice did not mislead Democritus, though it is an idol\nnot only of the cave, as Bacon would say, but also of the forum. We\nhave been misled and deceived by relative want of motion, to consider\nthat until disturbed by an active impulse matter occupies a fixed place.\nBut now, I would almost say since the twentieth century dawned, this old\nfallacy is giving way to the newer conception that there is no such\nthing as rest in nature, nay not even within the particles of any solid\nbody. So then the primal assumption of the Greek thinker that motion is\nthe natural state of matter was a wonderful anticipation of science, and\nshows once more what giant strides the human race may make by thinking\nas compared with the mere recording of experiments. Even now, when\nstudents of experimental physics are degenerating into mere mechanics,\nwho seek to interrogate nature by the use of delicate machinery, and\ncarefully recorded occurrences, I am assured by those in our great\nUniversity who have been compelled in earlier life to acquire a sound\nknowledge of Greek philosophy, that the study of the old\n_Hylozoists_--the Ionic schools we have reviewed--is the very best\nintroduction to the higher task of framing theories from experiments,\nand when I have heard read in the schools essays written in ignorance of\nthese theories, I have often wondered at the absence of scientific\nlogic of consistent thinking, of clear imagining which characterises the\nmodern scientist. And when we are faced in our universities by the\ngigantic demands of modern scientists for laboratories, machinery,\nupkeep, and what not, by way of promoting what they call very\nridiculously _original research_, they should be told openly and\nconstantly that no mere mechanic, no mere tradesman, however splendidly\nequipped, will ever be worth one straw in original research. Such a high\ncalling, if it is not to be mere name, a mere imposture, requires as its\nfirst implement a trained intellect, taught to speculate, and to devise\ntheories which may or may not be verified or illustrated by mechanical\ntools. The greatest discoverers in modern science were men with bad\ntools, and small equipment. The old Greeks had none at all, and yet how\nmany of the world\u2019s mysteries did they approach and solve, merely by the\nforce of pure and sound speculation! When we hear little modern men of\nscience wondering how the Greeks could have got so far without modern\ninstruments, we feel rather inclined to tell them we wonder the moderns\nhave done so much with the help of these, for in abstract thinking lies\nthe real basis of every great discovery.\n\nSo far, the course of Greek philosophy has led us to the side of\nscience, to the constitution of the world, to the immensity of space, to\nthe physical construction of animal and vegetable life, to the problem\nof the duration of the universe, to the dreams about its origin.\nRegarding all this as _natural philosophy_ (to use an obsolete but\nconvenient expression), there remains another orb of Greek speculation\nwhich took rise with Socrates, passed on through Plato and Aristotle to\nthe Stoic and Epicurean schools, and even illumined with its setting\nrays the old world passing into the night of the Dark Ages. Two things,\nsays the philosopher Kant, impress me always with their peerless\nmajesty--the starry heaven above, and the Moral Law within. It is this\nlatter aspect of human philosophy, bound up as it is on the one side\nwith profound metaphysic, on the other with ordinary practical life,\nthat I must now speak. But here, where the material is large, and our\nevidence very complete, it is not expedient that I should detain you at\nany length. It may be new to some of you that Parmenides or Leucippus\nhave been the fathers of modern systems; but none of you will doubt for\na moment the colossal influence of Plato and Aristotle upon modern\nthought.\n\nYou must beware of exaggerating the revolution in philosophy produced by\nSocrates and the Sophists. It may indeed be true in their case that they\ndespised scientific speculation, and did not care to make researches\ninto the constitution of the universe. Gorgias even erected into a\ntheory his scepticism regarding the reality of our knowledge, and wrote\na famous tract on the impossibility of knowing anything; and he was by\nno means the only nihilist in the course of Greek philosophy. But when\nwe come to Plato, we find high physical speculation, we find high\ntheories of the universe, we find all the learning of his predecessors\nwoven into his system, or utilised by way of illustration. The ideas of\nthe Pythagoreans in particular, influenced him constantly, and his\nadvocacy of a training in geometry, which may, more than people think,\nhave shaped the curriculum of modern public schools in Europe, is\nPythagorean in spirit.\n\nBut in spite of this strong recommendation, it does not appear that\nPlato himself made any advances in that science. His aim was for the\nmoral reform of the individual, and with him of society, by metaphysical\nand ethical training. He had a higher opinion of the value of education\nthan even the modern democrat, or English Radical, who imagines that by\ninfusing knowledge into the masses, you can make them equal to the\nclasses in refinement and in the amenities of life. But Plato\u2019s\neducation was intended strictly for the ruling minority; he did not\nthink the artisan or the labourer fit for this high privilege, and in\nall his ideal schemes, he set up either the exceptional man as a monarch\n(in the _Politicus_), a small oligarchy of guardians (in the\n_Republic_), or a fixed code of strict _Laws_, with severe penalties for\nany violation or even questioning of them--all clearly aristocratic\nforces,--as the safeguards of society. And in spite of all these ethical\nsafeguards, he did not believe that any state, even if ideally\nconstructed, would last for ever, but that it must live through a youth\nand a maturity and ultimately reach the decrepitude of age.\n\nI will not revert to the political speculations of Plato, which belong\nto another part of my subject. My present concern is with his theology\nand his metaphysic. Is it any wonder that the early Christian thinkers,\nsuch as Saint Augustine, delighted in him and called him the Attic\nMoses? In his _Republic_ he goes so far as to propose for his ideal\nstate the expulsion of Homer and the other Epic poets, and the\nestablishment of a loftier creed, as necessary for pure and sound\nmorals. The true deity must be one, and the author of all good. He must\nbe free from all disturbance of passion or caprice, without love or\njealousy, without pride or interest. Any defects there may be in the\nworld are due, not to his want of benevolence, but to his want of\nomnipotence in controlling the necessities of things, or perhaps rather\nbecause no being, omnipotent or not, can possibly be conceived as\nreconciling absolute contradictories.\n\nIt may, for example, be better and nobler for the creation that beings\nshould exist which have a free will of their own and which are not like\nmachines controlled by invincible necessity. But if they have indeed\nfree will, how is it possible they should not go wrong, and cause evil\nin the world as the outcome of their liberty? Yet if this be the cause\nof evil in the world, it implies a higher and better state than one of\nperfect order, with the ideas of virtue and merit expunged from\nexistence.\n\nPlato goes further than any but the highest Christian theologians when\nhe declares the Moral Law to be eternal and immutable, and to be binding\neven on the Author of the universe. In other words, the great medi\u00e6val\ncontroversy,--whether God does a thing because it is right, or whether a\nthing must be right because God does it,--this controversy is solved in\nthe sense of what the Cambridge Platonists have called Immutable\nMorality. If such be the obligation under which even the Deity acts, it\nis an obvious corollary that nothing in the conduct of men is comparable\nto justice, nothing in dignity equal to the obeying of the Moral Law,\nwithout any regard of consequences. Nay more, to be punished for\nwrong-doing is far happier and better than to escape the consequences,\nand so to miss the great lesson that crime brings with it misery as a\njust consequence. Accordingly, a clear knowledge of moral principles is\nof the first moment to all men, and in Plato\u2019s day it was often a more\ndifficult problem to choose the right course, than to follow it when\ndiscovered. This is the meaning of those many researches into the proper\nconnotation of terms expressing moral ideas. What is _justice_, what is\n_temperance_, what is _chastity_, what is _holiness_? On all these,\nthere was little difficulty in showing by discussion that the popular\nnotions were vague, and often self-contradictory. The first step to a\npurer life was to understand its conditions, to bring the intellect, as\nwell as the will, to bear upon the conduct of men. Hence a man who felt\nno difficulty in doing his duty, when he once saw it plainly before him,\nmight well say with Socrates and with Plato, that virtue was knowledge,\nthat right living was a science, and that therefore a high education was\nthe necessary condition of a noble character.\n\nThis attitude is foreign to the morals of Christianity, which accepts\nthe child and the ignorant as better fitted for salvation than the wise\nand prudent. But such a theory, like that of a primitive Church where\nthe members had all things in common, may be very practical at the\nopening of a revolution, yet may afterwards be found impracticable. It\nwas not merely owing to its supposed corruption and decadence that the\nMedi\u00e6val Church came to ignore that poverty and equality of all\nChristians which we find at Jerusalem in the Acts of the Apostles. There\nis an aristocracy among men which no system of religion, of morals, of\npolitics can ignore without disastrous consequences, and that is the\naristocracy of intellect. This was the lesson which Plato taught in\nevery page, and this it was which made him speculate upon the nature of\nthe soul, and its relation to the Author of the universe, and to the\nknowledge of things higher and deeper than mere ordinary experience.\n\nIt was only gradually that he arrived at his conviction of the\nimmortality, or rather of the eternity of the soul; probably it was\nsuggested to him by the mystics and theologians among the Greeks. But in\nhis dialogue known as the _Ph\u00e6do_, he has discussed this now accepted\nbelief with all its difficulties. In the person of Socrates, he has\ncourted all the objections, and has endeavoured to show on metaphysical\nprinciples that the soul, being a perfectly simple active principle,\ndistinct from, and superior to, the body, will not pass away with the\ndeath of its tabernacle but will exist hereafter, as it has existed,\nfrom eternity to eternity. The late Erwin Rohde, a critic not at all\nfavourable to revealed religion, says, I think with great truth, that\n\u201cno human teacher has ever done so much as Plato to extend this belief,\u201d\nwhich has produced not only the noblest spiritual life, but also the\nnoblest poetry. You know it in your English poets, best of all perhaps\nin the sober Wordsworth--\n\n    Our birth is but a sleep and a forgetting;\n      The Soul that rises with us, our life\u2019s Star,\n    Hath had elsewhere its setting,\n      And cometh from afar.\n\nAnd again:\n\n    Hence in a season of calm weather\n    Though inland far we be,\n    Our Souls have sight of that immortal sea\n    Which brought us hither,\n    Can in a moment travel thither,\n    And hear the children sporting on the shore,\n    And hear the mighty waves, rolling for evermore.\n\nNeed I pass on to Aristotle, and show in detail how his philosophy so\ndominated medi\u00e6val learning that it was adopted and protected by the\nChurch, and that it became one of the efforts of the spirit of reform in\nlogic and in psychology to break the shackles which this great thinker\nhad, as the modern spirits often complained, forged to keep the human\nintellect from its advance? Need I tell you that this was owing to a\ntravesty of the great man, learned not from his own pregnant words but\nthrough translations and commentaries?\n\nI will conclude with a reference to the two great systems that dominated\nthe Roman world after Plato and Aristotle had turned philosophy into an\nethical channel--I mean those of the Stoics and of the Epicureans, who\nmapped out human character with a clearness that makes them our teachers\nto the present day. Not that they avoided speculating on the nature of\nthe universe. The physics of Epicurus, borrowed from Democritus, are\namong the most difficult of studies, and the Stoics embraced in their\nview as the motive of action of their wise man all the harmony of the\nuniverse. These speculations may now be antiquated, but as the teachers\nof ethical types, as the expounders of what the highest human wisdom\nfinds in its search for happiness, these two schools have fixed the\ntypes of civilised men for all time. Every man in this audience is born\neither a Stoic or an Epicurean, or what is perhaps far more common,\nalternates from one to the other according to circumstances. In its\nsimplest form the great question is: Are we to live for duty, or live\nfor pleasure--not of course mere vulgar pleasure of the senses, but that\nrefined balance of intellectual and moral pleasure which you will find\nbest explained in my old friend Walter Pater\u2019s _Marius the Epicurean_;\nor else are we to seek for our standard outside ourselves, in the laws\nwhich the Moral Governor of the world has established for its welfare,\nand co-operate with Him in the promotion of His great ends? Such is the\nideal wise man of the Stoics, who despised all earthly delights, all\nphysical pleasures, for the sake of the great law of duty, and the\ngreat mission of living for some nobler purpose than mere animal or\nsocial comforts. We have its best expression in the peroration of\nCicero\u2019s account of the system[47]; or if you will have it in a more\nfamiliar shape, in the loud clarion of Saint Paul: \u201cAs deceivers, and\nyet true; as unknown, and yet well known; as dying, and behold, we live;\nas sorrowful, yet alway rejoicing; as poor, yet making many rich; as\nhaving nothing, yet possessing all things.\u201d[48] For he too was bred a\nStoic, and was not afraid in his addresses to cultivated men of his day\nto preach Stoic theology, akin to Pantheism.\n\nIf the time should ever come when men will no longer be led by\nrevelation, when they will reject miracle and prophecy, and determine to\nbe led by the mere light of reason (men have often anticipated such a\nfuture, regardless of the fact that hitherto religious scepticism has\nalways ended in a recoil from this liberty, and a revival of positive\nand even superstitious creeds)--if, I say, such an age should ever lay\naside the Christian faith, there will still remain the ethical types\nwhich Zeno and Epicurus have crystallised in their systems--there will\nalways remain the man of duty and the man of pleasure, the man who\nlives for others and he who lives for himself, in terms of modern\nphilosophic jargon, the Altruist and the Egoist, the Spiritualist and\nthe Materialist.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nAnd here I break off my unfinished task, unfinished indeed as it must\nbe, for beyond the many things that I have omitted though I knew them,\nthere are many more omitted because I knew them not, because I have not\nfathomed the unfathomable depth and the myriad variety of that genius\nwhich is living, and suggesting, and working all through the ideal\naspects of our modern life. There are probably few men who have lived\nlonger and more intimately with the old Greeks, in more phases of their\nlife, ever probing and seeking for deeper and better knowledge of their\nvast legacy to mankind, of which the rodent tooth of time, the\nsacrilegious hands of men, have lost or destroyed so much. The farther I\nseek, the wider the vistas I see opening before me. So now, when my part\nin the race is nearly run, there remains to me no higher earthly\nsatisfaction than this, that I have carried the torch of Greek fire\nalight through a long life--no higher earthly hope than this, that I\nmay pass that torch to others, who in their turn may keep it aflame with\ngreater brilliancy perhaps, but not with more earnest devotion, \u201cin the\nParliament of men, the Federation of the world.\u201d\n\n\n\n\nINDEX\n\n\nA\n\nAch\u00e6an League, organisation and dissolution, 203, 204\n\n_Acontius and Cydippe_, love story of a modern type, 94\n\nActium, battle, 71\n\n_\u00c6neid_ of Virgil, _see_ Virgil\n\n\u00c6olic school, characteristic, 53\n\n\u00c6schylus, source of his tragedy, 36, 37;\n  one of the \u201cthree tragic poets,\u201d 47;\n  Milton\u2019s view of, 47;\n  characters of his plays, 48;\n  judge of tragedy, 73;\n  music of, 136\n    _Agamemnon_: great play, 27;\n      opening of, 48;\n      \u201cvulgar and trivial persons,\u201d 48;\n      contributes to Byron, 55;\n      Browning\u2019s version, 57;\n      often translated into English, 58\n    _Prometheus Vinctus_: model for _Paradise Lost_, 47\n\n\u00c6sculapius, shrine of, 176\n\n_Agamemnon_, _see_ \u00c6schylus\n\nAgatharchus, discovers principles of perspective, 130\n\nAlc\u00e6us, poet, 37\n\n_Alexander_, _Life of_, 97\n\nAlexandria, library, collecting of, gives impetus to literary criticism, 91\n\nAlexandrian school, development of mechanics, 162;\n  invention of the _sakia_, 165\n\n_Alkestis_, _see_ Euripides\n\nAlma-Tadema, Sir Edward, influenced by Greek art, 131, 132\n\nAmyot, imitated Greek novel, 96\n\nAnatomy, how studied by Greeks, 148\n\nAnaxagoras, principal feature of his system, 229;\n  on original particles, 229;\n  Aristotle on, 229;\n  his famous _Nous_, 230, 231\n\nAnaximander, makes advances in astronomy, 216, 217;\n  geological observations of, 218\n\nAnaximenes, idea of the fundamental element of the world, 216, 217;\n  theory of eclipses, 217\n\nAntiphon, treatises of, 82\n\n_Antony and Cleopatra_, _see_ Shakespeare\n\n_Aphrodite_ of Melos, mentioned, 118\n\nApollonius of Perga, treatment of conic sections, 161, 167\n\nApollonius Rhodius, delights in nature, 59\n  _Argonautics_: great epic, 41;\n    model for Milton, 43;\n    and Goethe\u2019s _Faust_, 44\n\nArabic numerals, 157\n\nArchilochus, poet, 37\n\nArchimedes, triumphs of, in mechanics, 162, 167\n\nArchitecture, earliest form of house, 99;\n  houses of the dead, 100-102, 110, 111;\n  square house, 102;\n  evolution of classical, 103;\n  building materials, 103;\n  Doric, 104;\n  temples, 105, 110;\n  distinction between house and temple, 106, 107;\n  perfection of religious, 106, 107;\n  arch not used by Greeks, 107, 108;\n  Greek and Roman, compared, 108;\n  purpose in parts of a building, 109;\n  origin of arch, 109;\n  Roman use of arch, 110;\n  ornamentation of, by sculpture, 120\n\nArchytas, 167\n\n_Areopagitica_, _see_ Milton\n\n_Argonautics_, _see_ Apollonius Rhodius\n\nArgos, slaves in, 188\n\nAristides, studied oratory, 70\n\nAristocracies, in classical and medi\u00e6val times, 184\n\nAristophanes, as critic, 92;\n  ridicules Asklepiads, 176\n\nAristophanes, diction and metre, 37;\n  greatest master of Greek comedy, 60, 61;\n  Frere\u2019s translation, 61, 64;\n  Rogers\u2019s translation, 61;\n  influence and legacy, 61\n    _Birds and Frogs_: 27\n\nAristotle, almost canonised, 19;\n  criticism of _Iphigenia in Aulis_, 62, 72;\n  criticism of Medea, 62;\n  distinction between prose and poetry, 62, 63;\n  on Herodotus, 62, 63, 73;\n  on dramatic poetry and history, 72, 74;\n  and Herodotus, on style and subject of history, 74;\n  treatise on Language, 149;\n  treatise on Reasoning, 150;\n  arithmetical proof of theorem in geometry, 156;\n  on geometry, 159;\n  \u201cmaster of those that knew,\u201d 167;\n  brought up in Socratic method, 167;\n  style of writing, 167, 168;\n  system of collaboration, 168, 171;\n  collaborators, 169;\n  does no original work in mathematics, 169;\n  competence in mathematics, 170;\n  sciences promoted by, 171;\n  views on slavery, 189;\n  views on craftsmen, 189;\n  essential in his ideal of a state, 206;\n  objection to atomic theory, 233;\n  influence on modern thought, 237;\n  his philosophy and the Church, 242\n    _Constitution of Athens_: 169\n    _Poetic_: on tragic poetry, 61;\n      on dramatic poetry and history, 72\n\nAristoxenus, collaborator with Aristotle, 169\n\nArithmetic, starting-point of mathematics, 153;\n  importance of, to Pythagoras, 153;\n  numbers the essence of the universe, 153, 154;\n  Greek meaning of, 154;\n  Pythagorean speculations on natural series of units, 155;\n  specimens of treatment by Pythagoras, 156;\n  importance of numbers ten and twelve, 156;\n  Greek notation, 157;\n  Euclid\u2019s works on, 161;\n  books on history of, 170\n\nArnold, Matthew, compares Milton\u2019s style with Virgil\u2019s, 46;\n  writes plays after Greek models, 58\n    _Merope_: 58\n\nArt, earliest Greek, 12;\n  proper province of, 33, 34;\n  use of the term, 98\n\nArtificiality of Greek poetry, defined, 33, 34\n\nAsklepiads, method of, 176\n\nAssemblies, in Greek democracies, 183\n\nAstronomy, books on history of, 170\n\n_Atalanta_, _see_ Swinburne\n\nAthens, debts in, 186;\n  leadership, 201;\n  degeneration of spiritual life in, 210\n\nAtomic theory, developed by Leucippus and Democritus, 231, 232;\n  results of, 233;\n  Aristotle\u2019s objections to, 233\n\nAtomists, doctrine of, 218, 219\n\nAtreus, tomb of, 102, 111\n\nAttic citizens, character, 208\n\nAttic Code of laws, 190, 261\n\nAttic life, portrayed by Menander, 208, 209\n\n\nB\n\nBacchylides, comparison of Gray with, 54\n\nBeehive huts, earliest form of house, 99;\n  extant examples, 99, 100;\n  not easily defended, 99;\n  once a general type, 100;\n  houses of the dead, 100-102;\n  Treasury of Athens, 101;\n  development of, 102\n\nBiography, Plutarch, model, 80\n\n_Birds and Frogs_, of Aristophanes, 27\n\nBlow\u2019s anthem, \u201cI beheld and lo! a great multitude,\u201d 126\n\nBoccaccio, and Greek novels, 95\n\nBotany, promoted by Aristotle, 171\n\nBotticelli, Greek influence on, 131\n\nBrougham, Lord, on Demosthenes, 84\n\nBrowning, Robert, his version of _Agamemnon_, 57;\n  version of Euripides, 57, 58, 64\n\nBrydges, Sir Egerton, on choruses in _Samson Agonistes_, 50\n\nBuckle\u2019s _Civilisation_, famous opening, 5\n\nBurke, Edmund, style influenced by Isocrates, 90;\n  translation of the _Tract on the Sublime_, 92\n\nBurlington Art Club of London, collection of Greek fragments, 21\n\nByron, Lord, leader of Romantic school, 55;\n  knowledge of Greek poetry, 55;\n  borrows from \u00c6schylus, 55;\n  interested in Greek life and Greece, 56;\n  interests Romanticists in Greece, 56\n\nByzantine architecture, 18\n\n\nC\n\nCalverley\u2019s _Theocritus_, 64\n\nCambridge Platonists, 240\n\nCarrey, Jacques, drawings of Parthenon, 52\n\nCathedral of Henry the Lion at Brunswick, 119\n\nChalmers, Thomas, Scotch orator, style, 90\n\nChapman, translation of the Iliad, 45, 51\n\n_Charioteer_ of Delphi, 117\n\nChoral hymns, Doric, 41\n\nCicero on Pindar, 50;\n  on history, 80;\n  style modelled on that of Isocrates, 88, 90\n    _De Finibus_: 245\n\nCity states, in Greece, 183;\n  combinations and alliances, 200\n\nColours, use, 118\n\nComedy, Greek, influence, 60, 61\n\nComposition in sculpture, 120, 122\n\n_Comus_, _see_ Milton\n\nConstantinople, adheres to Hellenic traditions, 182\n\n_Constitution of Athens_, 169\n\nContracts, civil, 194\n\nConversation, perfection of Greek style, 90, 91;\n  Plato\u2019s _Dialogues_, 91\n\nCorcyrean massacre, Thucydides on, 77\n\nCornford, Mr., _Thucydides Mythistoricus_, referred to, 77\n\nCriticism, literary, beginnings, 91;\n  models of, 92;\n  _Tract on the Sublime_, 92\n\nCyclic poets, 42\n\n_Cyrus_, of Xenophon, 94\n\n\nD\n\nDante, gloomy splendour, 19\n  _Inferno_: 27\n\n_Daphnis and Chloe_, author unknown, 96;\n  best specimen of Greek novel, 96\n\nDark Ages, conditions in, 181;\n  causes of retrogression, 282\n\nDarwin, Charles, on sense of colour, 128\n\nDeath penalty, 192\n\nDebts, reduction of by Solon, 186\n\n_Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire_, _see_ Gibbon\n\nDecoration, painting a branch of, 132, 133;\n  household, 145, 146\n\n_De Corona_, _see_ Demosthenes\n\n_De Finibus_ of Cicero, 245\n\n_De Jure Pacis et Belli_, by Hugo Grotius, 198\n\nDelos, discoveries at, 145\n\nDelphi, treasury of Siphnos, 122;\n  hymn discovered at, 134\n\nDemocritus, development of Atomic theory, 231, 232;\n  consequences to which his theory led him, 233\n\nDemosthenes, combined orator and politician, 70;\n  character of orations, 83, 84\n    _De Corona_: greatest\n\nGreek oration, 83;\n  style, 84\n\nDerby, Lord, translator, 57\n\nDescartes, teachings of, 216, 224;\n  on colour, 216;\n  on extension and thought, 224\n\nDiagoras of Melos, atheist, 215\n\nDialects, Homeric, 33, 40, 41;\n  main cause of their use, 40\n\n_Dialogues_ of Plato, _see_ Plato\n\nDiatonic scale, basis of Greek music as well as of modern, 135, 142-144\n\nDidot, _Epistolographi Graeci_, 92\n\nDik\u00e6archus, collaborator with Aristotle, 169\n\nDion Chrysostom, rhetor and sophist, 93\n\nDionysius of Halicarnassus, essays of, 92\n\nDionysius of Syracuse, tyrant, 205\n\nDiophantus, work in arithmetic and algebra, 161, 162, 167\n\nDonatello\u2019s problem, 113\n\nDorians, literary prose had its origin among them, 67, 68\n\nDoric choral hymns, 41\n\nDoric pillar, 104\n\nDoric temple, 104\n\nD\u00f6rpfeld, Dr., Greek critic, 27;\n  discoveries at Tiryns, 105\n\nDrama, Greek, beginnings, 36;\n  influence, 46 _ff_, 57, 58\n\nDryden, John, translation of Virgil, 53;\n  model for Gray, 54\n    _Ode to St. Cecilia_: shows Greek influence, 55\n\n\nE\n\n_Eclogues_ of Virgil, 24\n\nEducation, Greek: ethical inquiry, 215;\n  subjects of thought, 215;\n  relation of\nmusic to, 136, 137, 144;\n  relation of mathematics and science to philosophy, 179;\n  higher: and Greek studies, 20;\n  relation of mathematics and philosophy, 179;\n  essential element, 214;\n  best exponent, 215;\n  relation to character, 241\n\nEgypt, greatness, 5;\n  influence on Greece, 11\n\nEgyptian art, influence on Greek art, 145\n\nElea, school of, founder, 221\n\nEleusinian Mysteries, 115\n\nEmpedocles, wrote in verse, 39;\n  principal feature of his system, 229;\n  postulated principles of Love and Hate, 230, 231\n\n_Entretiens sur l\u2019architecture_, _see_ Viollet-le-Duc\n\nEpic poetry, Greek, 41;\n  modern, 42;\n  influence, 42\n\nEpicteta, will of, 196\n\nEpicureans, on music and morals, 138;\n  and Stoics, 244\n\nEpicurus, system of, 245\n\nEpidauros, place of pilgrimage, 176\n\n_Epistolographi Graeci_, 92\n\n_Epoch of Irish History_, _see_ Mahaffy, J. P.\n\n_Erechtheus_ of Swinburne, 58\n\nEtruscans, and the arch, 105;\n  culture of, 110\n\nEuclid, how attained perfection, 158, 159;\n  on optics, 166;\n  father of geometry, 167;\n  founds Peripatetic Mathematics, 170\n    _Elements_: summary of all principles discovered previously, 158;\n      three kinds of data, 159;\n      careful definitions, 159;\n      misfortune of, 160;\n      thirteen books, 160, 161\n\nEudemus the Rhodian, collaborator with Aristotle, 169;\n  his history of sciences, 170\n\nEudoxus, astronomer, 167\n\nEuripides, Milton\u2019s view of, 47;\n  introduces \u201cvulgar and trivial persons\u201d into his plays, 48;\n  influence on development of _Samson Agonistes_, 49;\n  choruses of, 51;\n  Browning\u2019s version of his plays, 57-58, 64;\n  and Tennyson, 60;\n  Medea, 62\n    _Alkestis_: Browning\u2019s version of, 57\n    _Iphigenia in Aulis_: type of heroine, 62;\n      Aristotle\u2019s criticism of, 62, 72\n    _Mad Herakles_: Browning\u2019s version of, 57\n\n_Everyman_, represents horrors of Middle Ages, 115\n\n_Excursion_, _see_ Wordsworth\n\n\nF\n\n_Fall of Miletus_, _see_ Phrynichus\n\n_Faust_, _see_ Goethe\n\nFederation, early example, 203\n\nFick, Augustus, on place-names, 7\n\nFrere\u2019s translation of Aristophanes, 61, 64\n\n\nG\n\nGeometry, Euclid\u2019s, 158-161, 167;\n  books on history of, 170\n\n_Georgics_ of Virgil, 24\n\nGermany, reduction of many states into one empire, 204\n\nGibbon, Edward, _Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire_,\n     conception which moved author to write, 79\n\nGladstone, William E., style of eloquence, 89\n\nGoethe, _Faust_: a world epic, 27;\n  borrowings from _Argonautics_, 44\n\nGolden Age of Greek Literature, 91\n\nGray, Thomas, Greek temper, 54;\n  compared with Simonides\n  and Bacchylides, 54;\n  swept away by Romantic wave, 54;\n  prefers Celtic and national subjects, 54;\n  Greek style, 54;\n  grasps splendour of Pindar, 54;\n  shows influence of Greek poetry, 54, 55;\n  love of nature, 59\n\nGreece, advantageous position of, 11;\n  economic conditions in time of Polybius, 206;\n  modern character of civilisation, 207\n\nGreek culture, vital essence, 182;\n  Latin, compared with, 182\n\nGreek learning, revival of, 17-20\n\nGreek scholars in Western Europe, 17, 18\n\nGreek society, conditions, 213, 214\n\nGreek studies, place in higher education, 20-22;\n  and Latin, 22, 23;\n  source of culture, 23;\n  comparative value of originals and translations, 23-26\n\nGreeks, the, explanations of pre-eminence insufficient, 3-7;\n  pre-eminence unexplained, 7-9;\n  originality, 9;\n  genius of race analogous to genius of individual, 9;\n  powers of assimilation and reproduction, 10-12;\n  important position between two civilisations, 11;\n  effect of diverse influences, 11, 12;\n  receptive, but not\nabsorbed, 13, 14;\n  persistence of characteristics, 15;\n  accomplishments in world\u2019s history, 16-18;\n  influence of, 53;\n  not wanting in love for nature, 59;\n  why no means of expressing Christian spirit, 113;\n  and Christianity, 113;\n  race of varied experience, 116;\n  sense of fitness in sculpture, 116;\n  power of logic upon their minds, 152;\n  triumphs gained by hard thinking, 179;\n  traders, 187;\n  attitude toward monarchy, 205;\n  furnish lessons in failures as well as in achievements, 205, 206;\n  middle classes most important, 206;\n  adopt limitation of family, 207\n\nGrote, George, historian, 56;\n  not interested in travelling in Greece, 56;\n  on Attic citizens, 208\n\nGrotius, Hugo, _De Jure Pacis et Belli_, 198\n\n_Guesses at Truth_, _see_ Hare\n\n\nH\n\n_Hamlet_ of Shakespeare, 48\n\nHare, _Guesses at Truth_, quoted, 52\n\nHecat\u00e6us, historian, 71\n\nHegemony of Greece, what it was, 201;\n  leaders, 201\n\nHellenic race, _see_ Greeks\n\nHeracleitus of Ephesus, early writer of prose, 67;\n  his fundamental element of the world, 219;\n  on qualities of matter, 220, 221\n\nHerculaneum, 145\n\n_Hermes_ of Praxiteles, 106\n\n_Hero and Leander_, 96\n\nHerodotus, Father of History, world model of art of history, 71-75;\n  subject, 71, 74, 78;\n  essence of history as an art, 73;\n  agrees with Aristotle as to style and subject of history, 74;\n  style, 74, 75;\n  so-called inventions of, 76;\n  vindicated, 76;\n  compared with Thucydides, 76, 78;\n  on Cyrene, 77;\n  quoted, 116\n\nHeron, development of mechanics and hydrostatics, 147, 162, 167;\n  ingenious inventions of, 162-164, 165\n\nHerondas, _Mimes_, inferior poetry, 39\n\nHiero of Xenophon, 116\n\nHipparchus, astronomer, 167\n\nHippocrates of Kos, Father of Rational Medicine, 67, 171;\n  founds school of medicine, 171;\n  style of writing, 172;\n  works out a system of treatment, 172;\n  _Aphorisms_ quoted, 172;\n  John Stearne on works of, 174;\n  mental attitude of, 174;\n  ignores supernatural causes of diseases and cures, 175;\n  quoted, 175;\n  combats superstition, 176;\n  principles, 177;\n  oath of practitioners, 178\n\nHipponax, 41\n\nHistory, early annalists, 70;\n  Herodotus and Thucydides, 71;\n  models of the art and science of history, 71;\n  Aristotle\u2019s view of, 72, 74;\n  Herodotus on history as art, 73, 74;\n  views of Herodotus and Aristotle compared, 74;\n  simplicity, 75;\n  Herodotus vindicated, 76;\n  Thucydides compared with Herodotus, 76;\n  views of Thucydides, 77;\n  style of Thucydides, 78, 79;\n  human history as a great drama, 79;\n  characteristics that will make it last, 80\n\n_History of Greek Literature_, _see_ Mahaffy, J. P.\n\nHomer, understood by all generations, 14;\n  his influence through Pope, 53\n\nHomeric dialect, 33, 40, 41\n\nHomeric poems, artificiality, 33;\n  beacon light, 37;\n  translations, 45, 51, 52\n\nHorace, Greek lyrics, 4;\n  version of Alc\u00e6us, Sappho, and Pindar, 53\n\nHydrostatics, development by Heron, 147, 162\n\nHylozoists, study of, basis of higher work in science, 234\n\n\nI\n\n_Iliad_, translated into many languages, 26;\n  a world epic, 27, 41;\n  imitated, 41;\n  model for all time, 42;\n  and Milton\u2019s _Paradise Lost_, 42, 43;\n  Chapman\u2019s translation, 45, 51;\n  Pope\u2019s translation, 51, 52, 53;\n  expunged texts, 183\n\nImmigration, no inducements for, in Greece, 207\n\nIndia, civilisation, 6\n\n_Inferno_ of Dante, 27\n\nInterest, rate of, in Greece, 187\n\nIntermarriage, 198\n\nInternational relations of Greek states, 198;\n  war, 199-200;\n  political combinations or alliances, 200 _ff_\n\nInvalides in Paris, 111\n\nIonia, subjugation of, checks development of Greek prose, 67\n\nIonic school, subjects of speculation, 216;\n  study of, important, 234\n\n_Iphigenia in Aulis_, _see_ Euripides\n\nIreland, landed gentry, 212\n\nIs\u00e6us, treatises of, 82;\n  speeches, 194-196\n\nIsocrates, father of political essay, 86;\n  originates political pamphlets, 87;\n  devises and perfects laws of prose composition, 88;\n  teaches his style, 88\n\n\nJ\n\nJonson, Ben, knowledge of Greek, 45\n\n\nK\n\nKeats, John, Greek spirit, 46;\n  not familiar with Greek originals, 46, 56\n    _Ode on a Greek Vase_: 132\n\nKeltic influences on Greece, 12\n\nKos, school of, 176, 178\n\n\nL\n\nLand legislation in Greece compared with that in Ireland and Scotland, 187\n\nLanguage, perfected use of, by Greeks, 148;\n  analysis of, 149;\n  Greek: Non-Aryan roots, 7;\n  permanence, 14\n\n_Laocoon_, 116\n\nLaplace\u2019s theory, 220\n\nLatin, place in higher education, 22, 23;\n  medium of Greek influence, 45\n\nLatin culture, why not permanent, 182;\n  compared with Greek, 182\n\nLatin races, 3\n\n_Latin Vulgate_, the, St. Jerome compares it with Greek\nand Hebrew originals, 19\n\nLaw, Greek, Attic Code model for Romans and other nations, 190;\n  criminal, 191 _ff_;\n  compared with that of Modern Europe, 192;\n  safety of citizens, 192;\n  death penalty, 192, 193;\n  civil, 193-198;\n  contracts, 194;\n  testaments or wills, 194-197;\n  international, 198 _ff_\n\nLeighton, Lord, influenced by Greek art, 131, 132\n\nLepanto, battle, 72\n\nLetter-writing, Greek letters not remarkable, 93;\n  Cicero\u2019s formul\u00e6, 93;\n  exceptions, 93\n\nLeucippus, development of Atomic theory, 231;\n  father of modern systems, 236\n\nLiterary criticism, beginnings, 91;\n  models, 92;\n  _Tract on the Sublime_, 92\n\nLoans, 194\n\nLocal government, not representative, but popular, 189, 190\n\nLocke, teachings of, 216\n\nLogic, approached by Greeks through analysis of language, 148;\n  beginnings of logical studies, 149;\n  treatises of Aristotle on theory of Reasoning, 149, 150;\n  importance of common logic, 150;\n  small attention paid to, in American education, 150, 152;\n  English and European training in, 151;\n  power of, on Greek minds, 151, 152;\n  and Greek mathematics, 153\n\nLourdes, place of pilgrimage, 177\n\nLucretius, claims, 4\n\nLyric poetry, beginnings, 37;\n  influence, 53-57, 59, 60\n\nLysias, presentation of argument in character, 83\n\n\nM\n\n_Macbeth_, of Shakespeare, 48\n\nMacedonian power, 205, 211\n\nMachinery, inventions of Heron, 162-164;\n  moving force of automatic _sakia_, 165\n\n_Mad Herakles_, _see_ Euripides\n\nMagee, Archbishop, style of eloquence, 89;\n  modelled after Chalmers, 90;\n  style based upon principles of Isocrates, 90\n\nMahaffy, J. P., _Epoch of Irish History_: referred to, 173\n    _History of Greek Literature_: on poetry, 31;\n      on obscurity of Thucydides, 79;\n      on Isocrates and Demosthenes, 82;\n      on conversation, 91\n    _Rambles and Studies in Greece_: on persistence\n       of characteristics, 15, 16\n    _Social Life in Greece_: main thesis, 15\n\n_Marius the Epicurean_, by Walter Pater, 244\n\nMathematics, school of Pythagoras, 153, 155, 156, 161, 167;\n  theory of Descartes, 154;\n  arithmetic, 153, 154;\n  geometry, 158;\n  mathematical physics, 162;\n  library of Greek, 166;\n  pure, 166, 169;\n  Peripatetic, 170\n\nMausollus of Halicarnassus, tyrant, 205\n\nMechanics, development by Archimedes, Heron, and Alexandrian school, 162\n\nMedi\u00e6val schools, training in logic, 150, 151\n\nMedicine, formulated by Greeks, 147;\n  school of Hippocrates, 171 _ff_;\n  medi\u00e6val, 174, 175;\n  and superstition, 174, 175;\n  resurrection of, 176\n\nMenander, character of plays, 34, 94;\n  translations by Plautus and Terence, 61, 208, 209;\n  influence, 61;\n  portrays Attic society, 208-210;\n  fragments of plays discovered in Egypt, 209\n\nMeredith, George, characteristic of his work, 79\n\n_Merope_, of Matthew Arnold, 58\n\nMiddle Ages, a period of gloom, 114, 115;\n  conditions in, 181;\n  causes of retrogression in, 182\n\nMiletus, fall of, checks the development of Greek prose, 67;\n  temple, statues at entrance, 120\n\nMilton, John, poetic vision disturbed by political controversies, 42;\n  influenced by Greek epic, 42;\n  influenced by Greek drama, 46;\n  poetic style and metre, 46;\n  Matthew Arnold on, 46;\n  defence of dramatic poetry, 47;\n  on Shakespeare and Greek masters, 47;\n  on Greek tragedy, 47-49;\n  choruses and lyrical monodies, 50;\n  inspired by Isocrates, 88, 90\n    _Areopagitica_: style, 88\n    _Comus_: lyric sweetness, 51\n    _Paradise Lost_: best modern epic, 42;\n      compared with the _Iliad_, 43;\n      divine and human in, 43;\n      redundancy of similes, 43;\n      and _Argonautics_, 43;\n      and _Prometheus Vinctus_, 47\n    _Samson Agonistes_: Greek form, 47, 49, 50;\n      borrowings from _\u0152dipus_ and _Prometheus_, 49;\n      development influenced by Euripides, 49;\n      Greek spirit, 50;\n  lyrics and choral odes, 50, 51;\n  Sir Egerton Brydges on, 50\n\n_Mimes_, _see_ Herondas\n\nMiny\u00e6, Tomb of the, 101, 108, 111\n\nMotion and matter, 234\n\nMummius, cause of conquest of, 211\n\nMusic, first beginnings, 99, 133 _ff_;\n  notation related to meaning, 125;\n  existing specimens of Greek, fragmentary, 134;\n  comparison of Greek with Japanese, 135;\n  Greek scales, 135, 142-144;\n  and Greek poetry, 136;\n  relation to education, 136, 137, 144;\n  effect upon morals, 137-140, 144;\n  Greek music source of modern, 141;\n  simplicity, 141;\n  Greek works on, 141;\n  Plato on instrumental and vocal, 141;\n  extant Greek tracts on, 142;\n  Hungarian, 142;\n  problems of Greek, 142;\n  scientific basis of harmony discovered by Pythagoreans, 143;\n  Pythagorean theory, 143;\n  Aristotle on melody, 144;\n  summary of Greek music, 144\n\n\nN\n\nNaples, 145\n\nNatural history, collection of facts by Greeks, 147\n\nNatural philosophy, 236\n\n_Nike_ of Samothrace, 117\n\nNovel, development among Greeks, 93, 94;\n  and Menander\u2019s plays, 94;\n  main topic imported from East, 94\n\n\nO\n\n_Ode on a Greek Vase_, by Keats, 132\n\n_Ode to St. Cecilia_, _see_ Dryden\n\n_Odyssey_, world epic, 27, 41;\n  imitated, 41;\n  unequalled, 42\n\n_\u0152dipus_, _see_ Sophocles\n\nOptics, Euclid\u2019s work on, 166\n\nOratory, school of pleaders, 68;\n  treatment of subject, 69;\n  subject of great importance, 69, 70;\n  eloquence of debate and eloquence of display, 68, 81;\n  Greeks adverse to extemporaneous speaking, 81;\n  art of persuasion, 82;\n  arguments and manner of presenting, 82, 83;\n  legal rhetoric, 83;\n  speeches of Demosthenes, 83;\n  _De Corona_, 83;\n  Greek oratory of debate still the model of modern world, 85\n\nOrchomenos, 101\n\nOrnament, earlier in development than architecture, 99;\n  in pre-historic ages, 99;\n  in Doric temple, 104\n\n\nP\n\nPainting, 125 _ff_;\n  examples of Greek, 126, 127;\n  qualities requisite for success, 128;\n  Greek sense of form, 128;\n  Greek sense of colour, 128-130;\n  landscape little developed among Greeks, 130, 131;\n  portraits, 131;\n  mythical subjects, 131;\n  and sculpture, 131;\n  indirect influence on modern painting, 131, 132;\n  Greek vases, 132;\n  branch of decoration, 132, 133\n\nPantheism, doctrine of, 222-224;\n  positive side of, 223;\n  arguments for, 224;\n  how regarded by Greek public, 225;\n  and Wordsworth, Shelley, Tennyson, 228, 229\n\nPantheists, Greek, character of, 222;\n  legacy to mankind, 228;\n  effect on modern poetry, 228\n\nPantheon, 111\n\nPappus, work in geometry, 161\n\nPapyrus I. of Turin, 197\n\n_Paradise Lost_, _see_ Milton\n\nParmenides, 236;\n  gives positive side of doctrine of pantheism, 223\n\nParthenon, unexcelled, 27;\n  J. Carrey\u2019s drawings of, 52;\n  frieze, 113, 122;\n  horses of, 121;\n  ornamentation, 130\n\nPastoral poetry developed by Theocritus, 35\n\nPater, Walter, _Marius the Epicurean_, 244\n\nPaul, Saint, on Stoicism, 245\n\nPausanias, and temple of Hera, 105;\n  and Tomb of the Miny\u00e6, 108\n\nPeisias, the Lycian, will of, 196\n\nPeloponnesus, cities of, 201\n\nPenrose, Mr., Greek critic, 27\n\nPericles studied oratory, 70\n\nPeripatetic Mathematics, 170\n\n_Persians_ of Timotheus, _see_ Timotheus\n\nPeyron, Am\u00e9d\u00e9e, 197\n\n_Ph\u00e6do_, of Plato, 242\n\nPhelps, W. L., on Gray, 54\n\nPherecydes of Syros, predecessor of Heracleitus, 67\n\nPhidias, and the _Laocoon_, 116;\n  his ornamentation of the Parthenon, 121, 122;\n  his procession of figures, 122, 123\n\nPhilodemus, _Tract on Music_, on effect of music on morals, 138\n\nPhilosophy, relation to science, 169, 236;\n  secular and free, 215, 216\n\nPh\u0153nicia, influence on Greece, 11, 12\n\nPh\u0153nician alphabet, 12\n\nPhormio, 71\n\nPhrynichus, _Fall of Miletus_: displeasing to Attic audience, 73, 115\n\nPhysical geography, 169\n\nPhysics, mathematical, 162;\n  developed by Archimedes, 162;\n  development of hydrostatics and mechanics by Heron, 162, 167\n\nPindar, Cicero on, 50;\n  Horace\u2019s appreciation, 53\n\nPindar, _Odes_, 27\n\nPlace-names, Greek, 7\n\nPlato, influence on Wordsworth, 57;\n  as critic, 92;\n  on influence of music, 139, 141;\n  philosophy of, 237;\n  influence on modern thought, 237;\n  views of education, 237, 238;\n  theology, 238 _ff_;\n  on moral law, 239, 240;\n  on aristocracy of intellect, 241;\n  on immortality of soul, 242\n  _Dialogues_: model of conversation, 91;\n    logical studies in, 149;\n    character, 214;\n    subjects, 215\n  _Phaedo_: 242\n  _Politicus_: 238\n  _Republic_: picture of gloom, 116;\n    ideal for safeguard of society in, 238\n  _Sophist_: 152\n\nPlatonism, 228\n\nPlautus, translation of Menander, 61, 209\n\nPlutarch, model for modern biographers, 80\n  _Lives_: North\u2019s translation furnished Shakespeare with subjects, 45, 80;\n    influence on French Revolution, 46\n\n_Poetic_, _see_ Aristotle\n\nPoetry, Greek: 31 _ff_;\n  carefully studied product, 32, 37;\n  dialects, 33, 40;\n  development, 34, 35;\n  pastoral, 35;\n  dramatic, 36;\n  lyric, 37;\n  form and spirit, 38;\n  diction and metre, 38;\n  best studied in the original, 38, 64;\n  examples of inferior, 38, 39;\n  associated with other arts, 39;\n  dignity and brevity, 40;\n  and modern poetry, 41 _ff_;\n  great epics, 41;\n  influence, 42 _ff_;\n  how far reduced to theory, 61-63;\n  translations, 45, 51, 52, 64;\n  indirect influence through Latin, 45;\n  and music, 136\n\nPolitics, causes of development, 182, 183\n\n_Politicus_, of Plato, 238\n\nPolybius, artistic conception of history, 79;\n  and Ach\u00e6an League, 203;\n  on limitation of family, 207;\n  on ruin of Greece, 211\n\nPompeii, 145\n\nPope, Alexander, translation of _Iliad_, 51, 52, 53\n\nPraxiteles unexcelled, 112\n\nPraxiteles, _Hermes_, 33\n\n_Prometheus Vinctus_, _see_ \u00c6schylus\n\nProse, Greek, knowledge of early development of, 65;\n  late origin, 66;\n  poetry more popular than, 66;\n  early attempt at, by Heracleitus, 67;\n  Hippocrates, 67;\n  beginnings among Dorians, 68;\n  prose adapted for a listening public, 86;\n  political essay, 86;\n  laws of composition devised by Isocrates, 88;\n  conversation easy, 90;\n  letter-writing, 92;\n  the novel, 93;\n  books of travel, 97\n\nPuteoli, gateway into Italy, 145\n\nPythagoras, effect of influence, 221;\n  contemporaries and successors, 221\n\nPythagorean school, importance of arithmetic, 153;\n  theory of Descartes, 154;\n  speculations on series of units, 155;\n  specimens of treatment in arithmetic, 156;\n  results of researches, 156;\n  importance of numbers ten and twelve, 156;\n  discoverers and teachers of science, 166, 167\n\nPythagoreans, discover science of harmony, 143;\n  famous theory, 143\n\n\nR\n\nRacine and his plays, 48\n\n_Rambles and Studies in Greece_, _see_ J. P. Mahaffy\n\nRenaissance (Renascence), 4;\n  artists of, 131\n\nR\u00e9nan, Ernest, simplicity of style, 75\n\nRenascence, 4\n\nRepresentation, local, 189\n\n_Republic_, _see_ Plato\n\nResearch, original, requisite for, 235\n\nRogers\u2019s translation of Aristophanes, 61\n\nRoman life and culture, 18, 19\n\nRoman Republic, effect of growth, 211\n\nRomanesque architecture, example of tawdriness, 109\n\nRomans, medium through which Greek learning was spread in\n     Western World, 3, 4, 18, 19, 85, 190, 195;\n  compared with the Greeks, 182\n\nRomantic school, 59\n\nRome, Greek ruins in time of Renaissance, 146\n\n_Romeo and Juliet_, _see_ Shakespeare\n\nRoyal College of Physicians, Ireland, 173\n\nRuskin, John, style, 89\n\n\nS\n\nSt. Angelo, castle of, 111\n\nSt. Mark\u2019s at Venice, architecture of, 18, 109\n\n_Sakia_, invention of, 165\n\n_Samson Agonistes_, _see_ Milton\n\nSappho, 37;\n  Horace\u2019s version of, 53;\n  love for nature, 59\n\nSatyric drama, 48\n\nScience, definition of term as used, 147;\n  relation to philosophy, 168;\n  abstract thinking necessary to experiment and discovery, 235\n\nSciences of observation, 147\n\n_Scriptores Erotici Graeci_, 95\n\nSculpture, Greek: reasons for pre-eminence 112, 113;\n  nude and draped figures, 112, 113;\n  Donatello\u2019s problem, 113, 114;\n  use of bronze and marble, 116, 118;\n  development, 117, 118;\n  decay, 117;\n  never dissociated from painting, 118;\n  coloured statues, 118, 119;\n  principles of composition, 120;\n  second favourite form of composition, 122;\n  effect on Europe, 123\n\nShakespeare, indebted to Plutarch\u2019s _Lives_, 45;\n  indirect knowledge of Greek poets, 46;\n  Milton on, 47, 48;\n  school of, defended 48\n  _Antony and Cleopatra_: source in Plutarch\u2019s _Lives_, 45\n  _Hamlet_: Voltaire\u2019s view of, 48\n  _Macbeth_: Voltaire\u2019s view of, 48\n  _Romeo and Juliet_: Greek origin, 95\n\nShakespeare, school of, and Greek masters, 48\n\nShelley, combines Greek culture with Romantic imagination, 56,\n  and Pantheism, 228\n\nSicilian troubles, 186\n\nSidon, tomb of, 112\n\nSilver Age of Greek Literature, 91\n\nSimonides, Gray compared with, 54\n\nSkellig Michael, beehive huts at, 99\n\nSlavery, among Greeks, 188, 190;\n  Aristotle on, 189\n\nSmyly, Prof., _Essay_; on Greek notation in arithmetic, 158\n\n_Social Life in Greece_, _see_ J. P. Mahaffy\n\nSocrates, prosecution of, 215;\n  causes revolution in philosophy, 236, 237\n\nSolon, use of verse, 39;\n  modern, 66;\n  reduces debts in Athens, 186\n\n_Sophist_, of Plato, 152\n\nSophists, attitude toward scientific speculation, 237\n\nSophocles, Milton on, 47;\n  choruses, 51;\n  Whitelaw\u2019s version of, 64;\n  music of, 136\n  _\u0152dipus_; and Milton\u2019s _Samson Agonistes_, 49\n\nSophron, poet, 39\n\nSovranties, pass into aristocracies, 184, 185;\n  models in constitutional government, 184-186\n\nSparta, slaves in, 188;\n  power, 201\n\nSpinoza, teachings of, 216;\n  Pantheist, 224\n\nStatuary, portrait, 120\n\nStearne, John, Founder of Royal College of Physicians, Ireland, 173;\n  theorist and writer, 173;\n  on works of Hippocrates, 173;\n  and the Church, 176\n\nStoics, speculations, 244-246;\n  and Epicureans, 244-246\n\nStylists, modern English, 89\n\nSwanwick, Miss, translations, 57\n\nSwinburne, Algernon, writer of plays after Greek models, 58\n    _Atalanta_: choruses, 40, 58\n    _Erechtheus_; 58\n\nSyracuse, 68\n\n\nT\n\nTaylor, Jeremy, style influenced by Isocrates, 90\n\nTemples, Greek: Doric ornament, 104;\n  features, 105;\n  at Tiryns, 105;\n  Hera at Olympia, 105;\n  distinction between dwellings and, 106;\n  construction, 106;\n  compared with houses, 107;\n  proportions, 107;\n  furnish models for all Europe, 110\n\nTennyson, influenced by Theocritus, 36, 59, 60;\n  and Euripides, 60;\n  and Pantheism, 228, 229\n\nTerence, translation of Menander, 61, 209\n\nThales, his primitive element of the world, 216, 217;\n  predicts an eclipse, 217\n\nThemistocles, studied oratory, 70\n\nTheocritus, Virgil\u2019s translations, 24;\n  pastoral poet, 35;\n  goes back to life of people, 35, 36;\n  influence on Tennyson, 36, 59, 60;\n  idealises the commonplace, 38;\n  delights in nature, 59;\n  best translation of, 64\n  _Idylls_: 96\n\nTheognis, use of verse, 39\n\nTheon of Smyrna, 167\n\nTheophrastus, collaborator with Aristotle, 169\n\nThirlwall, history written without first-hand knowledge of Greece, 56\n\n\u201cThree tragic poets,\u201d the, 47, 49\n\nThucydides, has given to world model of the science of history, 71;\n  subject, 71, 77, 78;\n  compared with Herodotus, 76, 78;\n  subtle artist, 76;\n  style, 77;\n  picture of politics in Greece, 77;\n  artistic scheme, 78;\n  diction, 78;\n  obscurity, 78, 79;\n  on war, 200\n\n_Thucydides Mythistoricus_, _see_ Cornford\n\nTimotheus, _Persians_: inferior poetry, 38, 39, 63;\n  Wilamowitz on, 39\n\nTiryns, remains of temples at, 105\n\nTombs, domed or circular buildings, 110;\n  Pantheon, 110;\n  Castle of St. Angelo, 111;\n  Invalides in Paris, 111;\n  Mausoleum of Queen Victoria, 111;\n  Treasure House of Atreus, 111;\n  Tomb of the Miny\u00e6, 111;\n  early, in Ireland, 111\n\n_Tract on the Sublime_, translated by Burke, 92;\n  point of view of, 92\n\nTragedy, Greek: material, 42;\n  Milton\u2019s view of, 47, 48\n\nTravels, not thoroughly Greek, 97\n\nTreaties, between Greek city-states, 198\n\nTrinity College, Dublin: some of the requisites for degree, 179\n\nTurin, Academy of, _Transactions_; referred to, 197\n\n\nU\n\nUnions or leagues, question as to rights of contracting parties, 202, 203;\n  European examples, 204\n\n\nV\n\nVases, ornamentation of, 132\n\nVenetian Republic, 184\n\nVillari, Professor Pasquale, _Studies_:\n     quoted, on problem of art in Renaissance, 113, 114\n\nViollet-le-Duc, _Entretiens sur l\u2019architecture_:\n     his theory of the origin of the arch, 109\n\nVirgil, first foreign imitator of Homer, 42;\n  compared with Milton, 46\n    _\u00c6neid_: M. Arnold compares style with Milton\u2019s, 47;\n      Dryden\u2019s translation, 53\n    _Eclogues_: 24\n    _Georgics_: 24\n\nVitruvius, 104\n\n\nW\n\nWagner, Richard, turned natural defect into success, 87;\n  effect of his attempt to combine poetry and music, 136;\n  effect of his music on morals, 138, 139\n    _Tristan and Isolde_: 139\n\nWar, between Hellenic peoples: weapons and prisoners, 199\n\nWeem of Scale, beehive huts at, 100\n\nWhitelaw\u2019s _Sophocles_, 64\n\nWilamowitz, on _Persians_ of Timotheus, 39\n\nWills or testaments, 194-197\n\nWomen\u2019s rights, 181\n\nWordsworth, least Greek of nineteenth-century poets, 57;\n  illuminated by Plato, 57;\n  and Pantheism, 228, 229;\n  immortality of soul, 242, 243\n    _Excursion_: 40, 57\n\nWyse, William, of Trinity College, Cambridge, 195\n\n\nX\n\nXanthus the Lydian, historian, 71\n\nXenophanes, founder of school of Elea, 221;\n  doctrine of, 222\n\nXenophon, historian, 79\n    _Cyrus_: 94\n    _Hiero_: picture of gloom, 116\n\n\nZ\n\nZeno, Eleatic, theory of sound, 225, 226\n\nZeno, the Stoic, 245\n\nZo\u00f6logy promoted by Aristotle, 171\n\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[1] The recent book of August Fick upon the place-names in Greek lands\nshows that the great majority are not Greek, and this is particularly\nthe case with Attica, the purest home of culture, showing that even\nhere there survived a large indigenous population. This is the new\nsignification of the Athenian claim to be _autochthonous_, or native\nchildren of the soil.\n\n[2] The readers of my _Rambles and Studies in Greece_ will remember how\nI was once shipwrecked in the very harbour of \u00c6gina, and compelled to\nseek hospitality in a modest private house. When I saw the woman of the\nhouse in the morning, by the light of day, I shouted to my companions\nthat one of the figures of the Parthenon had walked into the room. The\nsplendid type was there in its perfection.\n\n[3] The _Odyssey_ of Homer, the two tragedies on \u0152dipus of Sophocles,\nthe _Birds and Frogs_ of Aristophanes, the Pythian odes of Pindar, not\nto speak of smaller gems such as the scraps of Sappho and Simonides,\nthe Idylls of Theocritus.\n\n[4] Of course this common inference may be quite mistaken. Artificial\nthings are often a real and great improvement on nature.\n\n[5] This is probably the case with Hipponax.\n\n[6] This remark is from Hare\u2019s almost forgotten _Guesses at Truth_, an\nexcellent book.\n\n[7]\n\n\u201cKeen were his pangs but keener far to feel He nursed the pinion which\nimpelled the steel\u201d\n\nis straight from \u00c6schylus.\n\n[8] I know no translation of the whole seven plays of \u00c6schylus that\nI can recommend, though there be many admirable versions of the\n_Agamemnon_, but among the English reproductions of Sophocles let me\ncall your attention to that of Mr. Whitelaw, of most of Euripides to\nthat of Mr. Way. Both of these are eminently the work of scholars who\nare also poets.\n\n[9] I need hardly add that the brilliant comedies of Aristophanes are\nto be found in the well known books of J. Hookham Frere and of Mr.\nRogers, who has quite recently brought out another play.\n\n[10] I say _fresco_ because this is usually occupied with historical\nscenes.\n\n[11] The reader can now consult the brilliant and suggestive\n_Thucydides Mythistoricus_ of Mr. Cornford on this aspect of the\nhistorian and his work.\n\n[12] Book iii., 82-4\n\n[13] _Cf._ for example what Herodotus tells us in his fourth book of\nthe affairs of Cyrene.\n\n[14] I must refer the audience for details to the chapter on Thucydides\nin my _History of Greek Literature_.\n\n[15] The minuti\u00e6 of rythm and harmony to which they condescended are\nsuch that I could not possibly make them clear to you in a short\npassage of a lecture, but must refer you to the chapters on Isocrates\nand Demosthenes in my _History of Greek Literature_.\n\n[16] _Cf._ \u00a7 457 of my _Greek Literature_.\n\n[17] On this _Cf._ \u00a7\u00a7 416, 437 of my _Greek Literature_.\n\n[18] An exception may be made for the genuine letters of which we\nhave found the actual originals among the papyri of Egypt. Here we\nfind, among Greeks scattered abroad, the offspring of adventurous\nand mercenary soldiers, all the urbanities of modern letter writing.\nAll the Roman formul\u00e6 of politeness we find in Cicero\u2019s letters,\nwere derived from this source--the long current Greek forms of\ncorrespondence.\n\n[19] If Shakspeare\u2019s _Romeo and Juliet_ ends not in happiness, but in\ndisaster, the devices of the play--the sleeping drug, the hiding in the\ntomb where the lovers again unite, these are the stock devices of our\nGreek novels, so clearly, that the story must have been derived through\nItalian versions from a Greek novel of this kind. Boccaccio was clearly\ninfluenced by this literature.\n\n[20] The first beginnings of music, in the form of whistles or pipes,\nare found among prehistoric remains of people who had never learned to\nwrite, but only to draw pictures.\n\n[21] In the rudest cases the house was not excavated but was built on\nthe surface, and then covered with a mound of earth.\n\n[22] The inner lintel stone 30 feet long, 16 deep, and over 3 thick,\nweighs about 112 tons. The _dromos_ is 115 long and 19 wide. The\ndoorway is 17\u00bd feet high and 8 feet wide at the top swelling to 8\u00bd at\nthe ground. The whole chamber about 50 feet high and 50 across the\nfloor. Read description in Baedeker, p. 324.\n\n[23] The beehive chamber I take to be an importation from northern and\ncentral Europe and therefore probably due to that strain in early Greek\ncivilisation.\n\n[24] Villari\u2019s _Studies_, p. 258.\n\n[25] God--says Herodotus in the famous dialogue of Xerxes and Artabanus\non the fugitive character of human happiness--God, that has given to\nman a sweet taste of life, is found grudging in his dole.\n\n[26] Nothing is more striking in the old churches of such towns as\nL\u00fcneburg, Wismar, Rostock, than the representation of the Crucifixion\non the carved wooden work used as the reredos in various chapels as\nwell as over the high altar. The main figures are in high relief, the\ncrowd standing in front of them in the clear, all coloured richly and\nin many colours as well as gilding. But for the painful subject, these\ntriumphs of the carver are perhaps the most splendid in medi\u00e6val art.\nThe magnificent tombs of the Dukes of Burgundy at Dijon are their\nworthy rivals in stone.\n\n[27] The foaming heads of the horses of the rising sun at the left\ncorner of the east pediment of the Parthenon are a splendid exception\nto this calm in the angles of the pediment, and the subdued calmness\nof the horses of Selene, which represent her setting, accentuates this\nexception.\n\n[28] This I tell you from the first-hand evidence of my son who was\nfor years in the Solomon Islands and saw it done a hundred times by\nnatives, but never even after desperate efforts by any European.\n\n[29] A curious exception is now to be made for the panels with\nportraits of the dead found on mummy cases of the first and second\ncenturies in Roman Egypt.\n\n[30] And yet there were several ignorant and random attempts made to\nreproduce it with modern harmonies.\n\n[31] This is the view advocated in the _Tract on Music_ by Philodemus,\nlarge fragments of which were recovered on a charred papyrus from\nHerculaneum. There is another fragment of a similar character recently\ndiscovered and printed by Messrs. Grenfell and Hunt.\n\n[32] _Viz._: 1 + 3 = 2\u00b2\u00b2; 1 + 3 + 5 = 3\u00b2; 1 + 3 + 5 + 7 = 4\u00b2, and so on.\n\n[33] There is even an arithmetical proof mentioned by Aristotle that\nthe ratio of side to diagonal of a square cannot be one of whole\nnumbers.\n\nIf it were, the ratio will be that of two numbers in its lowest terms,\nand hence one must be even and the other odd, else both were still\ndivisible by 2.\n\n[Illustration: graphic] here _b_\u00b2 = 2_a_\u00b2 \u2234 _a_ is odd and _b_ even.\n\nNow let _b_ = 2_c_ then 4_c_\u00b2 = 2_a_\u00b2 and 2_c_\u00b2 = _a_\u00b2 \u2234 _a_ is even\nand _b_ odd, which is absurd.\n\n[34] Readers who wish to prosecute this subject further will find the\nbest exposition of it in Prof. Smyly\u2019s paper in the volume of Essays\ndedicated to Prof. Nicole of Geneva.\n\n[35] Heron, \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f30 \u0391\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u03b7\u03c4\u03b9\u03ba\u1fc6\u03c2, caps. iii. and iv.\n\n[36] See my _Epoch of Irish History_, last chapter.\n\n[37] His theory is laid down in several now forgotten books brimful of\nlearning. It is the theory of four fundamental harmonies, or elements,\nthe relations of which produce in every body health and disease.\n\n[38] \u03c0\u03ac\u03c1 \u03b3\u1f00\u03c1 \u03ad\u03bc\u03bf\u1f30 \u03b8\u03ac\u03bd\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2,, said Agamemnon, according to the copy which\nAristotle quotes.\n\n[39] \u1f10\u03c0\u1f30 \u1fe4\u03ae\u03c4\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2 \u03b3\u03ad\u03c1\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c4\u03c1\u03b9\u03b1\u03c2 \u03b2\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03bb\u03b5\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 (Pol.).\n\n[40] \u03a7\u03c1\u03ad\u03c9\u03bd \u03ac\u03c0\u03bf\u03ba\u03cc\u03c0\u03b7 and \u03b3\u1fc6\u03c2 \u1f00\u03bd\u03b1\u03b4\u03b1\u03c3\u03bc\u03cc\u03c2\n\n[41] The abortive attempt of Agis III. of Sparta only led to his own\nruin.\n\n[42] _Centesim\u00e6 usur\u00e6_\n\n[43] The phrase of \u201csound mind and deliberate intention\u201d (\u039d\u03bf\u1ff6\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f30\n\u03c6\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd\u1ff6\u03bd) points to what is told repeatedly in the speeches of Is\u00e6us; on\nquestions of disputed inheritances, even if a will were proved genuine\nand fully attested, it could be set aside if proof were given of undue\ninfluence, such as lunacy, the effects of a philtre, or the cozening\nof women, even the testator\u2019s wife. The cases he argues might occur\nto-day, and be discussed in like manner.\n\n[44] In the _Transactions_ of the Academy of Turin, 1826.\n\n[45] It happened May 28, 585 B.C.\n\n[46] So Tennyson in a poem of his boyhood.\n\n[47] _De Finibus_, lib. iii., sub. fin.\n\n[48] 2 Cor. vi., 9, 10.","title":"What Have the Greeks Done for Modern Civilisation?","tradition":"philosophy-ethics","translated_text":null,"word_count":59793}