{"collection":"philosophy-ethics","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_7972/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_7972","id":"gutenberg_7972","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/7972","summary":null,"tags":["Category: Classics of Literature","Category: History - Ancient","Category: Philosophy & Ethics","Civilization, Homeric","Epic poetry, Greek -- History and criticism","Homer","Homer -- Homes and haunts -- Greece"],"text":"Produced by David Moynihan, Lee Dawei, Miranda van de\nHeijning, and the Online Distributed Proofreading Team.\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nHOMER AND HIS AGE\n\nBy Andrew Lang\n\n\n[Illustration: ALGONQUINS UNDER SHIELD _Frontispiece_]\n\n\nTo R. W. RAPER IN ALL GRATITUDE\n\n\n[Etext Editor's note: Due to unclear typesetting of the original work,\nwhich contains unidentifiable characters and blank spaces, it has not\nbeen possible to capture this text completely. Where we have been unable\nto recover the meaning of the text, this has been indicated by the\nannotation [sic] or [blank space]. We hope that in the future a complete\nedition can be found and these gaps can be filled.]\n\n\n\n\nPREFACE\n\n\nIn _Homer and the Epic_, ten or twelve years ago, I examined the\nliterary objections to Homeric unity. These objections are chiefly based\non alleged discrepancies in the narrative, of which no one poet, it\nis supposed, could have been guilty. The critics repose, I venture\nto think, mainly on a fallacy. We may style it the fallacy of \"the\nanalytical reader.\" The poet is expected to satisfy a minutely critical\nreader, a personage whom he could not foresee, and whom he did not\naddress. Nor are \"contradictory instances\" examined--that is, as Blass\nhas recently reminded his countrymen, Homer is put to a test which\nGoethe could not endure. No long fictitious narrative can satisfy \"the\nanalytical reader.\"\n\nThe fallacy is that of disregarding the Homeric poet's audience. He\ndid not sing for Aristotle or for Aristarchus, or for modern minute\nand reflective inquirers, but for warriors and ladies. He certainly\nsatisfied them; but if he does not satisfy microscopic professors, he is\ndescribed as a syndicate of many minstrels, living in many ages.\n\nIn the present volume little is said in defence of the poet's\nconsistency. Several chapters on that point have been excised. The way\nof living which Homer describes is examined, and an effort is made to\nprove that he depicts the life of a single brief age of culture. The\ninvestigation is compelled to a tedious minuteness, because the points\nof attack--the alleged discrepancies in descriptions of the various\ndetails of existence--are so minute as to be all but invisible.\n\nThe unity of the Epics is not so important a topic as the methods of\ncriticism. They ought to be sober, logical, and self-consistent. When\nthese qualities are absent, Homeric criticism may be described, in the\nrecent words of Blass, as \"a swamp haunted by wandering fires, will o'\nthe wisps.\"\n\nIn our country many of the most eminent scholars are no believers in\nseparatist criticism. Justly admiring the industry and erudition of the\nseparatists, they are unmoved by their arguments, to which they do\nnot reply, being convinced in their own minds. But the number and\nperseverance of the separatists make on \"the general reader\" the\nimpression that Homeric unity is chose _jugee_, that _scientia locuta\nest_, and has condemned Homer. This is far from being the case: the\nquestion is still open; \"science\" herself is subject to criticism; and\nnew materials, accruing yearly, forbid a tame acquiescence in hasty\ntheories.\n\nMay I say a word to the lovers of poetry who, in reading Homer, feel no\nmore doubt than in reading Milton that, on the whole, they are studying\na work of one age, by one author? Do not let them be driven from their\nnatural impression by the statement that Science has decided against\nthem. The certainties of the exact sciences are one thing: the opinions\nof Homeric commentators are other and very different things. Among all\nthe branches of knowledge which the Homeric critic should have at his\ncommand, only philology, archaeology, and anthropology can be called\n\"sciences\"; and they are not exact sciences: they are but skirmishing\nadvances towards the true solution of problems prehistoric and\n\"proto-historic.\"\n\nOur knowledge shifts from day to day; on every hand, in regard to almost\nevery topic discussed, we find conflict of opinions. There is no certain\nscientific decision, but there is the possibility of working in the\nscientific spirit, with breadth of comparison; consistency of logic;\neconomy of conjecture; abstinence from the piling of hypothesis on\nhypothesis.\n\nNothing can be more hurtful to science than the dogmatic assumption that\nthe hypothesis most in fashion is scientific.\n\nTwenty years ago, the philological theory of the Solar Myth was preached\nas \"scientific\" in the books, primers, and lectures of popular science.\nTo-day its place knows it no more. The separatist theories of the\nHomeric poems are not more secure than the Solar Myth, \"like a wave\nshall they pass and be passed.\"\n\nWhen writing on \"The Homeric House\" (Chapter X.) I was unacquainted with\nMr. Percy Gardner's essay, \"The Palaces of Homer\" (_Journal of Hellenic\nStudies_, vol. iii. pp. 264-282). Mr. Gardner says that Dasent's plan\nof the Scandinavian Hall \"offers in most respects not likeness, but a\nstriking contrast to the early Greek hall.\" Mr. Monro, who was not aware\nof the parallel which I had drawn between the Homeric and Icelandic\nhouses, accepted it on evidence more recent than that of Sir George\nDasent. Cf. his _Odyssey_, vol. ii. pp. 490-494.\n\nMr. R. W. Raper, of Trinity College, Oxford, has read the proof sheets\nof this work with his habitual kindness, but is in no way responsible\nfor the arguments. Mr. Walter Leaf has also obliged me by mentioning\nsome points as to which I had not completely understood his position,\nand I have tried as far as possible to represent his ideas correctly. I\nhave also received assistance from the wide and minute Homeric lore of\nMr. A. Shewan, of St. Andrews, and have been allowed to consult other\nscholars on various points.\n\nThe first portion of the chapter on \"Bronze and Iron\" appeared in the\nRevue _Archeologique_ for April 1905, and the editor, Monsieur Salomon\nReinach, obliged me with a note on the bad iron swords of the Celts as\ndescribed by Polybius.\n\nThe design of men in three shields of different shapes, from a Dipylon\nvase, is reproduced, with permission, from the British Museum _Guide\nto the Antiquities of the Iron Age_; and the shielded chessmen from\nCatalogue of Scottish Society of Antiquaries. Thanks for the two ships\nwith men under shield are offered to the Rev. Mr. Browne, S.J., author\nof _Handbook of Homeric Studies_ (Longmans). For the Mycenaean gold\ncorslet I thank Mr. John Murray (Schliemann's Mycenae and Tiryns), and\nfor all the other Mycenaean illustrations Messrs. Macmillan and Mr.\nLeaf, publishers and author of Mr. Leaf's edition of the _Iliad_.\n\n\n\n\nCONTENTS:\n\n\nCHAPTER I: THE HOMERIC AGE\n\nCHAPTER II: HYPOTHESES AS TO THE GROWTH OF THE EPICS\n\nCHAPTER III: HYPOTHESES OF EPIC COMPOSITION\n\nCHAPTER IV: LOOSE FEUDALISM: THE OVER-LORD IN \"ILIAD,\" BOOKS I. AND II.\n\nCHAPTER V: AGAMEMNON IN THE LATER \"ILIAD\"\n\nCHAPTER VI: ARCHAEOLOGY OF THE \"ILIAD\"--BURIAL AND CREMATION\n\nCHAPTER VII: HOMERIC ARMOUR\n\nCHAPTER VIII: THE BREASTPLATE\n\nCHAPTER IX: BRONZE AND IRON\n\nCHAPTER X: THE HOMERIC HOUSE\n\nCHAPTER XI: NOTES OF CHANGE IN THE \"ODYSSEY\"\n\nCHAPTER XII: LINGUISTIC PROOFS OF VARIOUS DATES\n\nCHAPTER XIII: THE \"DOLONEIA\"--\"ILIAD,\" BOOK X.\n\nCHAPTER XIV: THE INTERPOLATIONS OF NESTOR\n\nCHAPTER XV: THE COMPARATIVE STUDY OF EARLY EPICS\n\nCHAPTER XVI: HOMER AND THE FRENCH MEDIAEVAL EPICS\n\nCHAPTER XVII: CONCLUSION\n\n\n\n\nLIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS:\n\n\nALGONQUINS UNDER SHIELD\n\nTHE VASE OF ARISTONOTHOS\n\nDAGGER WITH LION-HUNTERS\n\nRINGS: SWORDS AND SHIELDS\n\nFRAGMENTS OF WARRIOR VASE\n\nFRAGMENT OF SIEGE VASE\n\nALGONQUIN CORSLET\n\nGOLD CORSLET\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER I\n\n\nTHE HOMERIC AGE\n\nThe aim of this book is to prove that the Homeric Epics, as wholes, and\napart from passages gravely suspected in antiquity, present a perfectly\nharmonious picture of the entire life and civilisation of one single\nage. The faint variations in the design are not greater than such as\nmark every moment of culture, for in all there is some movement; in all,\ncases are modified by circumstances. If our contention be true, it will\nfollow that the poems themselves, as wholes, are the product of a single\nage, not a mosaic of the work of several changeful centuries.\n\nThis must be the case--if the life drawn is harmonious, the picture\nmust be the work of a single epoch--for it is not in the nature of early\nuncritical times that later poets should adhere, or even try to adhere,\nto the minute details of law, custom, opinion, dress, weapons, houses,\nand so on, as presented in earlier lays or sagas on the same set\nof subjects. Even less are poets in uncritical times inclined to\n\"archaise,\" either by attempting to draw fancy pictures of the manners\nof the past, or by making researches in graves, or among old votive\nofferings in temples, for the purpose of \"preserving local colour.\" The\nidea of such archaising is peculiar to modern times. To take an instance\nmuch to the point, Virgil was a learned poet, famous for his antiquarian\nerudition, and professedly imitating and borrowing from Homer. Now, had\nVirgil worked as a man of to-day would work on a poem of Trojan times,\nhe would have represented his heroes as using weapons of bronze.\n[Footnote: Looking back at my own poem, _Helen of Troy_ (1883), I find\nthat when the metal of a weapon is mentioned the metal is bronze.] No\nsuch idea of archaising occurred to the learned Virgil. It is \"the iron\"\nthat pierces the head of Remulus (_Aeneid_, IX. 633); it is \"the iron\"\nthat waxes warm in the breast of Antiphates (IX. 701). Virgil's men,\nagain, do not wear the great Homeric shield, suspended by a baldric:\nAEneas holds up his buckler (_clipeus_), borne \"on his left arm\" (X. 26\ni). Homer, familiar with no buckler worn on the left arm, has no such\ndescription. When the hostile ranks are to be broken, in the _Aeneid_ it\nis \"with the iron\" (X. 372), and so throughout.\n\nThe most erudite ancient poet, in a critical age of iron, does not\narchaise in our modern fashion. He does not follow his model, Homer, in\nhis descriptions of shields, swords, and spears. But, according to\nmost Homeric critics, the later continuators of the Greek Epics, about\n800-540 B.C., are men living in an age of iron weapons, and of round\nbucklers worn on the left arm. Yet, unlike Virgil, they always give\ntheir heroes arms of bronze, and, unlike Virgil (as we shall see),\nthey do not introduce the buckler worn on the left arm. They adhere\nconscientiously to the use of the vast Mycenaean shield, in their time\nobsolete. Yet, by the theory, in many other respects they innovate\nat will, introducing corslets and greaves, said to be unknown to the\nbeginners of the Greek Epics, just as Virgil innovates in bucklers and\niron weapons. All this theory seems inconsistent, and no ancient poet,\nnot even Virgil, is an archaiser of the modern sort.\n\nAll attempts to prove that the Homeric poems are the work of several\ncenturies appear to rest on a double hypothesis: first, that the later\ncontributors to the _ILIAD_ kept a steady eye on the traditions of the\nremote Achaean age of bronze; next, that they innovated as much as they\npleased.\n\nPoets of an uncritical age do not archaise. This rule is overlooked by\nthe critics who represent the Homeric poems as a complex of the work of\nmany singers in many ages. For example, Professor Percy Gardner, in his\nvery interesting _New chapters in Greek History_ (1892), carries neglect\nof the rule so far as to suppose that the late Homeric poets, being\naware that the ancient heroes could not ride, or write, or eat boiled\nmeat, consciously and purposefully represented them as doing none of\nthese things. This they did \"on the same principle on which a writer of\npastoral idylls in our own day would avoid the mention of the telegraph\nor telephone.\" [Footnote: _Op. cit._, p. 142.] \"A writer of our own\nday,\"--there is the pervading fallacy! It is only writers of the last\ncentury who practise this archaeological refinement. The authors of\n_Beowulf_ and the _Nibelungenlied_, of the Chansons de _Geste_ and of\nthe Arthurian romances, always describe their antique heroes and the\ndetails of their life in conformity with the customs, costume, and\narmour of their own much later ages.\n\nBut Mr. Leaf, to take another instance, remarks as to the lack of the\nmetal lead in the Epics, that it is mentioned in similes only, as though\nthe poet were aware the metal was unknown in the heroic age. [Footnote:\n_Iliad_, Note on, xi. 237.] Here the poet is assumed to be a careful\nbut ill-informed archaeologist, who wishes to give an accurate\nrepresentation of the past. Lead, in fact, was perfectly familiar to the\nMycenaean prime. [Footnote: Tsountas and Manatt, p. 73.] The critical\nusage of supposing that the ancients were like the most recent\nmoderns--in their archaeological preoccupations--is a survival of the\nuncritical habit which invariably beset old poets and artists. Ancient\npoets, of the uncritical ages, never worked \"on the same principle as a\nwriter in our day,\" as regards archaeological precision; at least we are\nacquainted with no example of such accuracy.\n\nLet us take another instance of the critical fallacy. The age of the\nAchaean warriors, who dwelt in the glorious halls of Mycenae, was\nfollowed, at an interval, by the age represented in the relics found in\nthe older tombs outside the Dipylon gate of Athens, an age beginning,\nprobably, about 900-850 B.C. The culture of this \"Dipylon age,\" a\ntime of geometrical ornaments on vases, and of human figures drawn in\ngeometrical forms, lines, and triangles, was quite unlike that of the\nAchaean age in many ways, for example, in mode of burial and in the use\nof iron for weapons. Mr. H. R. Hall, in his learned book, _The Oldest\nCivilisation of Greece_ (1901), supposes the culture described in the\nHomeric poems to be contemporary in Asia with that of this Dipylon\nperiod in Greece. [Footnote: Op. cit., pp. 49, 222.] He says, \"The\nHomeric culture is evidently the culture of the poet's own days; there\nis no attempt to archaise here....\" They do not archaise as to the\ndetails of life, but \"the Homeric poets consciously and consistently\narchaised, in regard to the political conditions of continental Greece,\"\nin the Achaean times. They give \"in all probability a pretty accurate\ndescription\" of the loose feudalism of Mycenaean Greece. [Footnote: Op.\ncit., pp. 223, 225.]\n\nWe shall later show that this Homeric picture of a past political and\nsocial condition of Greece is of vivid and delicate accuracy, that it\nis drawn from the life, not constructed out of historical materials. Mr.\nHall explains the fact by \"the conscious and consistent\" archaeological\nprecision of the Asiatic poets of the ninth century. Now to any one\nwho knows early national poetry, early uncritical art of any kind,\nthis theory seems not easily tenable. The difficulty of the theory is\nincreased, if we suppose that the Achaeans were the recent conquerors\nof the Mycenaeans. Whether we regard the Achaeans as \"Celts,\" with Mr.\nRidgeway, victors over an Aryan people, the Pelasgic Mycenaeans; or\nwhether, with Mr. Hall, we think that the Achaeans were the Aryan\nconquerors of a non-Aryan people, the makers of the Mycenaean\ncivilisation; in the stress of a conquest, followed at no long interval\nby an expulsion at the hands of Dorian invaders, there would be little\nthought of archaising among Achaean poets. [Footnote: Mr. Hall informs\nme that he no longer holds the opinion that the poets archaised.]\n\nA distinction has been made, it is true, between the poet and other\nartists in this respect. Monsieur Perrot says, \"The vase-painter\nreproduces what he sees; while the epic poets endeavoured to represent\na distant past. If Homer gives swords of bronze to his heroes of times\ngone by, it is because he knows that such were the weapons of these\nheroes of long ago. In arming them with bronze he makes use, in his\nway, of what we call 'local colour....' Thus the Homeric poet is a more\nconscientious historian than Virgil!\" [Footnote: La _Grete de l'Epopee_,\nPerrot et Chipiez, p. 230.]\n\nNow we contend that old uncritical poets no more sought for antique\n\"local colour\" than any other artists did. M. Perrot himself says with\ntruth, \"the _CHANSON DE ROLAND_, and all the _Gestes_ of the same cycle\nexplain for us the Iliad and the Odyssey.\" [Footnote: op. cit., p. 5.]\nBut the poet of the _CHANSON DE ROLAND_ accoutres his heroes of old time\nin the costume and armour of his own age, and the later poets of the\nsame cycle introduce the innovations of their time; they do not hunt for\n\"local colour\" in the _CHANSON DE ROLAND_. The very words \"local colour\"\nare a modern phrase for an idea that never occurred to the artists of\nancient uncritical ages. The Homeric poets, like the painters of the\nDipylon period, describe the details of life as they see them with their\nown eyes. Such poets and artists never have the fear of \"anachronisms\"\nbefore them. This, indeed, is plain to the critics themselves, for\nthey, detect anachronisms as to land tenure, burial, the construction\nof houses, marriage customs, weapons, and armour in the _Iliad_ and\n_Odyssey_. These supposed anachronisms we examine later: if they really\nexist they show that the poets were indifferent to local colour\nand archaeological precision, or were incapable of attaining to\narchaeological accuracy. In fact, such artistic revival of the past in\nits habit as it lived is a purely modern ideal.\n\nWe are to show, then, that the Epics, being, as wholes, free from such\ninevitable modifications in the picture of changing details of life as\nuncritical authors always introduce, are the work of the one age which\nthey represent. This is the reverse of what has long been, and still is,\nthe current theory of Homeric criticism, according to which the Homeric\npoems are, and bear manifest marks of being, a mosaic of the poetry of\nseveral ages of change.\n\nTill Wolf published his _Prolegomena_ to [blank space] (1795) there was\nlittle opposition to the old belief that the _ILIAD_ and Odyssey were,\nallowing for interpolations, the work of one, or at most of two, poets.\nAfter the appearance of Wolfs celebrated book, Homeric critics have\nmaintained, generally speaking, that the _ILIAD_ is either a collection\nof short lays disposed in sequence in a late age, or that it contains an\nancient original \"kernel\" round which \"expansions,\" made throughout\nsome centuries of changeful life, have accrued, and have been at last\narranged by a literary redactor or editor.\n\nThe latter theory is now dominant. It is maintained that the _Iliad_ is\na work of at least four centuries. Some of the objections to this theory\nwere obvious to Wolf himself--more obvious to him than to his followers.\nHe was aware, and some of them are not, of the distinction between\nreading the _ILIAD_ as all poetic literature is naturally read, and by\nall authors is meant to be read, for human pleasure, and studying it in\nthe spirit of \"the analytical reader.\" As often as he read for pleasure,\nhe says, disregarding the purely fanciful \"historical conditions\" which\nhe invented for Homer; as often as he yielded himself to that running\nstream of action and narration; as often as he considered the _harmony_\nof _colour_ and of characters in the Epic, no man could be more angry\nwith his own destructive criticism than himself. Wolf ceased to be a\nWolfian whenever he placed himself at the point of view of the reader or\nthe listener, to whom alone every poet makes his appeal.\n\nBut he deemed it his duty to place himself at another point of view,\nthat of the scientific literary historian, the historian of a period\nconcerning whose history he could know nothing. \"How could the thing\nbe possible?\" he asked himself. \"How could a long poem like the _Iliad_\ncome into existence in the historical circumstances?\" [Footnote, exact\nplace in paragraph unknown: Preface to Homer, p, xxii., 1794.]. Wolf was\nunaware that he did not know what the historical circumstances were. We\nknow how little we know, but we do know more than Wolf. He invented the\nhistorical circumstances of the supposed poet. They were, he said, like\nthose of a man who should build a large ship in an inland place, with no\nsea to launch it upon. The _Iliad_ was the large ship; the sea was the\npublic. Homer could have no _readers_, Wolf said, in an age that, like\nthe old hermit of Prague, \"never saw pen and ink,\" had no knowledge\nof letters; or, if letters were dimly known, had never applied them\nto literature. In such circumstances no man could have a motive for\ncomposing a long poem. [Footnote: _Prolegomena to the Iliad_, p. xxvi.]\n\nYet if the original poet, \"Homer,\" could make \"the greater part of the\nsongs,\" as Wolf admitted, what physical impossibility stood in the way\nof his making the whole? Meanwhile, the historical circumstances, as\nconceived of by Wolf, were imaginary. He did not take the circumstances\nof the poet as described in the Odyssey. Here a king or prince has a\nminstrel, honoured as were the minstrels described in the ancient Irish\nbooks of law. His duty is to entertain the prince and his family and\nguests by singing epic chants after supper, and there is no reason why\nhis poetic narratives should be brief, but rather he has an opportunity\nthat never occurred again till the literary age of Greece for producing\na long poem, continued from night to night. In the later age, in the\nAsiatic colonies and in Greece, the rhapsodists, competing for prizes at\nfeasts, or reciting to a civic crowd, were limited in time and gave but\nsnatches of poetry. It is in this later civic age that a poet without\nreaders would have little motive for building Wolfs great ship of song,\nand scant chance of launching it to any profitable purpose. To this\npoint we return; but when once critics, following Wolf, had convinced\nthemselves that a long early poem was impossible, they soon found\nabundant evidence that it had never existed.\n\nThey have discovered discrepancies of which, they say, no one sane poet\ncould have been guilty. They have also discovered that the poems had\nnot, as Wolf declared, \"one 'harmony of colour\" (_unus color_). Each\nage, they say, during which the poems were continued, lent its own\ncolour. The poets, by their theory, now preserved the genuine tradition\nof things old; cremation, cairn and urn burial; the use of the chariot\nin war; the use of bronze for weapons; a peculiar stage of customary\nlaw; a peculiar form of semi-feudal society; a peculiar kind of house.\nBut again, by a change in the theory, the poets introduced later\nnovelties; later forms of defensive armour; later modes of burial; later\nreligious and speculative beliefs; a later style of house; an advanced\nstage of law; modernisms in grammar and language.\n\nThe usual position of critics in this matter is stated by Helbig; and\nwe are to contend that the theory is contradicted by all experience of\nancient literatures, and is in itself the reverse of consistent. \"The\n_artists_ of antiquity,\" says Helbig, with perfect truth, \"had no idea\nof archaeological studies.... They represented legendary scenes in\nconformity with the spirit of their own age, and reproduced the arms and\nimplements and costume that they saw around them.\" [Footnote: _L'Epopee\nHomerique_, p. 5; _Homerische Epos_, p. 4.]\n\nNow a poet is an _artist_, like another, and he, too--no less than the\nvase painter or engraver of gems--in dealing with legends of times past,\nrepresents (in an uncritical age) the arms, utensils, costume, and the\nreligious, geographical, legal, social, and political ideas of his own\nperiod. We shall later prove that this is true by examples from the\nearly mediaeval epic poetry of Europe.\n\nIt follows that if the _Iliad_ is absolutely consistent and harmonious\nin its picture of life, and of all the accessories of life, the _Iliad_\nis the work of a single age, of a single stage of culture, the poet\ndescribing his own environment. But Helbig, on the other hand, citing\nWilamowitz Moellendorff, declares that the _Iliad_--the work of four\ncenturies, he says--maintains its unity of colour by virtue of\nan uninterrupted poetical tradition. [Footnote: _Homerische\nUntersuchungen_, p. 292; _Homerische Epos_, p. I.] If so, the poets must\nhave archaeologised, must have kept asking themselves, \"Is this or that\ndetail true to the past?\" which artists in uncritical ages never do,\nas we have been told by Helbig. They must have carefully pondered the\nsurviving old Achaean lays, which \"were born when the heroes could\nnot read, or boil flesh, or back a steed.\" By carefully observing the\nearliest lays the late poets, in times of changed manners, \"could avoid\nanachronisms by the aid of tradition, which gave them a very exact idea\nof the epic heroes.\" Such is the opinion of Wilamowitz Moellendorff. He\nappears to regard the tradition as keeping the later poets in the old\nway automatically, not consciously, but this, we also learn from Helbig,\ndid not occur. The poets often wandered from the way. [Footnote: Helbig,\n_Homerische Epos,_ pp. 2, 3.] Thus old Mycenaean lays, if any existed,\nwould describe the old Mycenaean mode of burial. The Homeric poet\ndescribes something radically different. We vainly ask for proof that\nin any early national literature known to us poets have been true to the\ncolour and manners of the remote times in which their heroes moved,\nand of which old minstrels sang. The thing is without example: of this\nproofs shall be offered in abundance.\n\nMeanwhile, the whole theory which regards the _Iliad_ as the work of\nfour or five centuries rests on the postulate that poets throughout\nthese centuries did what such poets never do, kept true to the details\nof a life remote from their own, and also did not.\n\nFor Helbig does not, after all, cleave to his opinion. On the other\nhand, he says that the later poets of the _Iliad_ did not cling to\ntradition. \"They allowed themselves to be influenced by their own\nenvironment: _this influence betrays ITSELF IN THE descriptions of\nDETAILS_.... The rhapsodists,\" (reciters, supposed to have altered the\npoems at will), \"did not fail to interpolate relatively recent elements\ninto the oldest parts of the Epic.\" [Footnote: _Homerische Epos,_ p. 2.]\n\nAt this point comes in a complex inconsistency. The Tenth Book of the\n_Iliad_, thinks Helbig--in common with almost all critics--\"is one of\nthe most recent lays of the _Iliad_.\" But in this recent lay (say of\nthe eighth or seventh century) the poet describes the Thracians as on\na level of civilisation with the Achaeans, and, indeed, as even more\nluxurious, wealthy, and refined in the matter of good horses, glorious\narmour, and splendid chariots. But, by the time of the Persian\nwars, says Helbig, the Thracians were regarded by the Greeks as rude\nbarbarians, and their military equipment was totally un-Greek. They did\nnot wear helmets, but caps of fox-skin. They had no body armour; their\nshields were small round bucklers; their weapons were bows and daggers.\nThese customs could not, at the time of the Persian wars, be recent\ninnovations in Thrace. [Footnote: Herodotus, vii. 75.]\n\nHad the poet of _ILIAD_, Book X., known the Thracians in _this_\ncondition, says Helbig, as he was fond of details of costume and arms,\nhe would have certainly described their fox-skin caps, bows, bucklers,\nand so forth. He would not here have followed the Epic tradition, which\nrepresented the Thracians as makers of great swords and as splendidly\narmed charioteers. His audience had met the Thracians in peace and war,\nand would contradict the poet's description of them as heavily armed\ncharioteers. It follows, therefore, that the latest poets, such as the\nauthor of Book X., did not introduce recent details, those of their\nown time, but we have just previously been told that to do so was their\ncustom in the description of details.\n\nNow Studniczka [Footnote: _Homerische Epos, pp. 7-11, cf._ Note I;\n_Zeitschrift fur die Oestern Gymnasien_, 1886, p. 195.] explains the\npicture of the Thracians in _Iliad_, Book X., on Helbig's _other_\nprinciple, namely, that the very late author of the Tenth Book merely\nconforms to the conventional tradition of the Epic, adheres to the model\nset in ancient Achaean, or rather ancient Ionian times, and scrupulously\npreserved by the latest poets--that is, when the latest poets do not\nbring in the new details of their own age. But Helbig will not accept\nhis own theory in this case, whence does it follow that the author of\nthe Tenth Book must, in his opinion, have lived in Achaean times, and\ndescribed the Thracians as they then were, charioteers, heavily armed,\nnot light-clad archers? If this is so, we ask how Helbig can aver that\nthe Tenth Book is one of the latest parts of the _Iliad?_\n\nIn studying the critics who hold that the _Iliad_ is the growth of\nfour centuries--say from the eleventh to the seventh century B.C.--no\nconsistency is to be discovered; the earth is never solid beneath our\nfeet. We find now that the poets are true to tradition in the details of\nancient life--now that the poets introduce whatever modern details they\nplease. The late poets have now a very exact knowledge of the past; now,\nthe late poets know nothing about the past, or, again, some of the poets\nare fond of actual and very minute archaeological research! The theory\nshifts its position as may suit the point to be made at the moment by\nthe critic. All is arbitrary, and it is certain that logic demands a\nvery different method of inquiry. If Helbig and other critics of his\nway of thinking mean that in the _Iliad_ (1) there are parts of genuine\nantiquity; other parts (2) by poets who, with stern accuracy, copied the\nold modes; other parts (3) by poets who tried to copy but failed; with\npassages (4) by poets who deliberately innovated; and passages (5)\nby poets who drew fanciful pictures of the past \"from their inner\nconsciousness,\" while, finally (6), some poets made minute antiquarian\nresearches; and if the argument be that the critics can detect these six\nelements, then we are asked to repose unlimited confidence in critical\npowers of discrimination. The critical standard becomes arbitrary and\nsubjective.\n\nIt is our effort, then, in the following pages to show that the _unus_\ncolor of Wolf does pervade the Epics, that recent details are not often,\nif ever, interpolated, that the poems harmoniously represent one\nage, and that a brief age, of culture; that this effect cannot, in\na thoroughly uncritical period, have been deliberately aimed at and\nproduced by archaeological learning, or by sedulous copying of poetic\ntradition, or by the scientific labours of an editor of the sixth\ncentury B.C. We shall endeavour to prove, what we have already\nindicated, that the hypotheses of expansion are not self-consistent,\nor in accordance with what is known of the evolution of early national\npoetry. The strongest part, perhaps, of our argument is to rest on our\ninterpretation of archaeological evidence, though we shall not\nneglect the more disputable or less convincing contentions of literary\ncriticism.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER II\n\n\nHYPOTHESES AS TO THE GROWTH OF THE EPICS\n\nA theorist who believes that the Homeric poems are the growth of four\nchangeful centuries, must present a definite working hypothesis as to\nhow they escaped from certain influences of the late age in which much\nof them is said to have been composed. We must first ask to what manner\nof audiences did the poets sing, in the alleged four centuries of the\nevolution of the Epics. Mr. Leaf, as a champion of the theory of ages\nof \"expansion,\" answers that \"the _Iliad_ and _Odyssey_ are essentially,\nand above all, Court poems. They were composed to be sung in the palaces\nof a ruling aristocracy ... the poems are aristocratic and courtly, not\npopular.\" [Footnote: Companion to the _Iliad_, pp. 2,8. 1892.] They are\nnot _Volkspoesie_; they are not ballads. \"It is now generally recognised\nthat this conception is radically false.\"\n\nThese opinions, in which we heartily agree--there never was such a\nthing as a \"popular\" Epic--were published fourteen years ago. Mr.\nLeaf, however, would not express them with regard to \"our\" _Iliad_ and\nOdyssey, because, in his view, a considerable part of the _Iliad_, as\nit stands, was made, not by Court bards in the Achaean courts of Europe,\nnot for an audience of noble warriors and dames, but by wandering\nminstrels in the later Ionian colonies of Asia. They did not chant for a\nmilitary aristocracy, but for the enjoyment of town and country folk at\npopular festivals. [Footnote: Iliad, vol. i. p. xvi. 1900.] The poems\nwere _begun_, indeed, he thinks, for \"a wealthy aristocracy living\non the product of their lands,\" in European Greece; were begun by\ncontemporary court minstrels, but were continued, vastly expanded, and\naltered to taste by wandering singers and reciting rhapsodists, who\namused the holidays of a commercial, expansive, and bustling Ionian\ndemocracy. [Footnote: _Companion to the Iliad_, p. II.]\n\n We must suppose that, on this theory, the later poets pleased a\ncommercial democracy by keeping up the tone that had delighted an old\nland-owning military aristocracy. It is not difficult, however, to admit\nthis as possible, for the poems continued to be admired in all ages of\nGreece and under every form of society. The real question is, would the\nmodern poets be the men to keep up a tone some four or five centuries\nold, and to be true, if they were true, to the details of the heroic\nage? \"It is not beyond the bounds of possibility that some part of the\nmost primitive _Iliad_ may have been actually sung by the court minstrel\nin the palace whose ruins can still be seen in Mycenae.\" [Footnote:\nLeaf, _Iliad_, vol. i. p. xv.] But, by the expansionist theory, even\nthe oldest parts of our _Iliad_ are now full of what we may call quite\nrecent Ionian additions, full of late retouches, and full, so to speak,\nof omissions of old parts.\n\nThrough four or five centuries, by the hypothesis, every singer who\ncould find an audience was treating as much as he knew of a vast body of\nancient lays exactly as he pleased, adding here, lopping there, altering\neverywhere. Moreover, these were centuries full of change. The ancient\nAchaean palaces were becoming the ruins which we still behold. The\nold art had faded, and then fallen under the disaster of the Dorian\nconquest. A new art, or a recrudescence of earlier art, very crude and\nbarbaric, had succeeded, and was beginning to acquire form and vitality.\nThe very scene of life was altered: the new singers and listeners dwelt\non the Eastern side of the Aegean. Knights no longer, as in Europe,\nfought from chariots: war was conducted by infantry, for the most part,\nwith mounted auxiliaries. With the disappearance of the war chariot the\nhuge Mycenaean shields had vanished or were very rarely used. The early\nvase painters do not, to my knowledge, represent heroes as fighting from\nwar chariots. They had lost touch with that method. Fighting men now\ncarried relatively small round bucklers, and iron was the metal chiefly\nemployed for swords, spears, and arrow points. Would the new poets,\nin deference to tradition, abstain from mentioning cavalry, or small\nbucklers, or iron swords and spears? or would they avoid puzzling their\nhearers by speaking of obsolete and unfamiliar forms of tactics and of\nmilitary equipment? Would they therefore sing of things familiar--of\niron weapons, small round shields, hoplites, and cavalry? We shall see\nthat confused and self-contradictory answers are given by criticism\nto all these questions by scholars who hold that the Epics are not the\nproduct of one, but of many ages.\n\nThere were other changes between the ages of the original minstrel and\nof the late successors who are said to have busied themselves in adding\nto, mutilating, and altering his old poem. Kings and courts had passed\naway; old Ionian myths and religious usages, unknown to the Homeric\npoets, had come out into the light; commerce and pleasure and early\nphilosophies were the chief concerns of life. Yet the poems continued to\nbe aristocratic in manners; and, in religion and ritual, to be pure from\nrecrudescences of savage poetry and superstition, though the Ionians\n\"did not drop the more primitive phases of belief which had clung to\nthem; these rose to the surface with the rest of the marvellous Ionic\ngenius, and many an ancient survival was enshrined in the literature\nor mythology of Athens which had long passed out of all remembrance at\nMycenas.\" [Footnote: _Companion to the Iliad_, p. 7.]\n\nAmazing to say, none of these \"more primitive phases of belief,\" none\nof the recrudescent savage magic, was intruded by the late Ionian poets\ninto the Iliad which they continued, by the theory. Such phases of\nbelief were, indeed, by their time popular, and frequently appeared in\nthe Cyclic poems on the Trojan war; continuations of the _ILIAD_, which\nwere composed by Ionian authors at the same time as much of the _ILIAD_\nitself (by the theory) was composed. The authors of these Cyclic\npoems--authors contemporary with the makers of much of the\n_ILIAD_--_were_ eminently \"un-Homeric\" in many respects. [Footnote:\n_Cf_. Monro, _The Cyclic Poets; Odyssey_, vol. ii, pp. 342-384.] They\nhad ideas very different from those of the authors of the _Iliad_ and\n_ODYSSEY_, as these ideas have reached us.\n\nHelbig states this curious fact, that the Homeric poems are free from\nmany recent or recrudescent ideas common in other Epics composed during\nthe later centuries of the supposed four hundred years of Epic growth.\n[Footnote: _Homerische Epos_, p. 3.] Thus a signet ring was mentioned\nin the _Ilias Puma_, and there are no rings in _Iliad_ or _Odyssey_.\nBut Helbig does not perceive the insuperable difficulty which here\nencounters his hypothesis. He remarks: \"In certain poems which were\ngrouping themselves around the _Iliad and _Odyssey, we meet data\nabsolutely opposed to the conventional style of the Epic.\" He gives\nthree or four examples of perfectly un-Homeric ideas occurring in Epics\nof the eighth to seventh centuries, B.C., and a large supply of such\ncases can be adduced. But Helbig does not ask how it happened that, if\npoets of these centuries had lost touch with the Epic tradition, and had\nwandered into a new region of thought, as they had, examples of their\nnotions do not occur in the _Iliad_ and _Odyssey_. By his theory these\npoems were being added to and altered, even in their oldest portions,\nat the very period when strange fresh, or old and newly revived fancies\nwere flourishing. If so, how were the _Iliad_ and _Odyssey_, unlike the\nCyclic poems, kept uncontaminated, as they confessedly were, by the new\nromantic ideas?\n\nHere is the real difficulty. Cyclic poets of the eighth and seventh\ncenturies had certainly lost touch with the Epic tradition; their poems\nmake that an admitted fact. Yet poets of the eighth to seventh centuries\nwere, by the theory, busily adding to and altering the ancient lays of\nthe _Iliad_. How did _they_ abstain from the new or revived ideas, and\nfrom the new _genre_ of romance? Are we to believe that one set of late\nIonian poets--they who added to and altered the Iliad--were true\nto tradition, while another contemporary set of Ionian poets, the\nCyclics--authors of new Epics on Homeric themes--are known to have quite\nlost touch with the Homeric taste, religion, and ritual? The reply will\nperhaps be a Cyclic poet said, \"Here I am going to compose quite a new\npoem about the old heroes. I shall make them do and think and believe as\nI please, without reference to the evidence of the old poems.\" But, it\nwill have to be added, the rhapsodists of 800-540 B.C., and the general\neditor of the latter date, thought, _we_ are continuing an old set of\nlays, and we must be very careful in adhering to manners, customs, and\nbeliefs as described by our predecessors. For instance, the old heroes\nhad only bronze, no iron,--and then the rhapsodists forgot, and made\niron a common commodity in the _Iliad_. Again, the rhapsodists knew that\nthe ancient heroes had no corslets--the old lays, we learn, never\nspoke of corslets--but they made them wear corslets of much splendour.\n[Footnote: The reader must remember that the view of the late poets\nas careful adherents of tradition in usages and ideas only obtains\n_sometimes_; at others the critics declare that archaeological precision\nis _not_ preserved, and that the Ionic continuators introduced, for\nexample, the military gear of their own period into a poem which\nrepresents much older weapons and equipments.] This theory does not help\nus. In an uncritical age poets could not discern that their genre of\nromance and religion was alien from that of Homer.\n\nTo return to the puzzle about the careful and precise continuators\nof the _Iliad_, as contrasted with their heedless contemporaries, the\nauthors of the Cyclic poems. How \"non-Homeric\" the authors of these\nCyclic poems were, before and after 660 B.C., we illustrate from\nexamples of their left hand backslidings and right hand fallings\noff. They introduced (1) The Apotheosis of the Dioscuri, who in Homer\n(_Iliad_, III. 243) are merely dead men (_Cypria_). (2) Story of\nIphigenia _Cypria_. (3) Story of Palamedes, who is killed when angling\nby Odysseus and Diomede (Cypria).\n\nHomer's heroes never fish, except in stress of dire necessity, in the\nOdyssey, and Homer's own Diomede and Odysseus would never stoop\nto assassinate a companion when engaged in the contemplative man's\nrecreation. We here see the heroes in late degraded form as on the\nAttic stage. (4) The Cyclics introduce Helen as daughter of Nemesis,\nand describe the flight of Nemesis from Zeus in various animal forms,\na Maerchen of a sort not popular with Homer; an Ionic Maerchen, Mr. Leaf\nwould say. There is nothing like this in the Iliad and Odyssey. (5) They\ncall the son of Achilles, not Neoptolemus, as Homer does, but Pyrrhus.\n(6) They represent the Achaean army as obtaining supplies through three\nmagically gifted maidens, who produce corn, wine, and oil at will, as in\nfairy tales. Another Ionic non-Achaean Maerchen! They bring in ghosts of\nheroes dead and buried. Such ghosts, in Homer's opinion, were impossible\nif the dead had been cremated. All these non-Homeric absurdities, save\nthe last, are from the Cypria, dated by Sir Richard Jebb about 776 B.C.,\nlong before the Odyssey was put into shape, namely, after 660 B. C.\nin his opinion. Yet the alleged late compiler of the Odyssey, in the\nseventh century, never wanders thus from the Homeric standard in taste.\nWhat a skilled archaeologist he must have been! The author of the Cypria\nknew the Iliad, [Footnote: Monro, Odyssey, vol. ii. p. 354.] but his\nknowledge could not keep him true to tradition. (7) In the AEthiopis\n(about 776 B.C.) men are made immortal after death, and are worshipped\nas heroes, an idea foreign to Iliad and Odyssey. (8) There is a savage\nritual of purification from blood shed by a homicide (compare Eumenides,\nline 273). This is unheard of in Iliad and Odyssey, though familiar to\nAeschylus. (9) Achilles, after death, is carried to the isle of Leuke.\n(10) The fate of Ilium, in the Cyclic Little _Iliad_, hangs on the\nPalladium, of which nothing is known in _Iliad_ or _Odyssey_. The\n_Little Iliad_ is dated about 700 B.C. (11) The _Nostoi_ mentions\nMolossians, not named by Homer (which is a trifle); it also mentions\nthe Asiatic city of Colophon, an Ionian colony, which is not a trivial\nself-betrayal on the part of the poet. He is dated about 750 B.C.\n\nThus, more than a century before the _Odyssey_ received its final form,\nafter 660 B.C., from the hands of one man (according to the theory),\nthe other Ionian poets who attempted Epic were betraying themselves as\nnon-Homeric on every hand. [Footnote: Monro, _Odyssey_, vol. ii. pp.\n347-383.]\n\nOur examples are but a few derived from the brief notices of the Cyclic\npoets' works, as mentioned in ancient literature; these poets probably,\nin fact, betrayed themselves constantly. But their contemporaries, the\nmakers of late additions to the _Odyssey_, and the later mosaic worker\nwho put it together, never betrayed themselves to anything like the\nfatal extent of anachronism exhibited by the Cyclic poets. How, if the\ntrue ancient tone, taste, manners, and religion were lost, as the\nCyclic poets show that they were, did the contemporary Ionian poets or\nrhapsodists know and preserve the old manner?\n\nThe best face we can put on the matter is to say that all the Cyclic\npoets were recklessly independent of tradition, while all men who\nbotched at the _Iliad_ were very learned, and very careful to maintain\nharmony in their pictures of life and manners, except when they\nintroduced changes in burial, bride-price, houses, iron, greaves, and\ncorslets, all of them things, by the theory, modern, and when they sang\nin modern grammar.\n\nYet despite this conscientiousness of theirs, most of the many\nauthors of our _Iliad_ and _Odyssey_ were, by the theory, strolling\nirresponsible rhapsodists, like the later _jongleurs_ of the thirteenth\nand fourteenth centuries in mediaeval France. How could these strollers\nkeep their modern Ionian ideas, or their primitive, recrudescent phases\nof belief, out of their lays, as far as they _did_ keep them out, while\nthe contemporary authors of the _Cypria_, _The Sack of Ilios_, and other\nCyclic poets were full of new ideas, legends, and beliefs, or primitive\nnotions revived, and, save when revived, quite obviously late and quite\nun-Homeric in any case?\n\nThe difficulty is the greater if the Cyclic poems were long poems, with\none author to each Epic. Such authors were obviously men of ambition;\nthey produced serious works _de longue haleine_. It is from them that\nwe should naturally expect conservative and studious adhesion to the\ntraditional models. From casual strollers like the rhapsodists and\nchanters at festivals, we look for nothing of the sort. _They_ might be\nexpected to introduce great feats done by sergeants and privates, so to\nspeak--men of the nameless [Greek: laos], the host, the foot men--who\nin Homer are occasionally said to perish of disease or to fall under the\nrain of arrows, but are never distinguished by name. The strollers, it\nmight be thought, would also be the very men to introduce fairy tales,\nfreaks of primitive Ionian myth, discreditable anecdotes of the princely\nheroes, and references to the Ionian colonies.\n\nBut it is not so; the serious, laborious authors of the long Cyclic\npoems do such un-Homeric things as these; the gay, irresponsible\nstrolling singers of a lay here and a lay there--lays now incorporated\nin the _Iliad_ and _Odyssey_--scrupulously avoid such faults. They never\neven introduce a signet ring. These are difficulties in the theory of\nthe _Iliad_ as a patchwork by many hands, in many ages, which nobody\nexplains; which, indeed, nobody seems to find difficult. Yet the\ndifficulty is insuperable. Even if we take refuge with Wilamowitz in the\nidea that the Cyclic and Homeric poems were at first mere protoplasm\nof lays of many ages, and that they were all compiled, say in the sixth\ncentury, into so many narratives, we come no nearer to explaining\nwhy the tone, taste, and ideas of two such narratives--Illiad and\nOdyssey--are confessedly distinct from the tone, taste, and ideas of all\nthe others. The Cyclic poems are certainly the production of a late and\nchanged age? [Footnote: For what manner of audience, if not for readers,\nthe Cyclic poems were composed is a mysterious question.] The _Iliad_ is\nnot in any degree--save perhaps in a few interpolated passages--touched\nby the influences of that late age. It is not a complex of the work\nof four incompatible centuries, as far as this point is concerned--the\npoint of legend, religion, ritual, and conception of heroic character.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER III\n\n\nHYPOTHESES OF EPIC COMPOSITION\n\nWhosoever holds that the Homeric poems were evolved out of the lays of\nmany men, in many places, during many periods of culture, must present a\nconsistent and logical hypothesis as to how they attained their present\nplots and forms. These could not come by accident, even if the plots\nare not good--as all the world held that they were, till after Wolf's\nday--but very bad, as some critics now assert. Still plot and form,\nbeyond the power of chance to produce, the poems do possess. Nobody goes\nso far as to deny that; and critics make hypotheses explanatory of\nthe fact that a single ancient \"kernel\" of some 2500 lines, a \"kernel\"\naltered at will by any one who pleased during four centuries, became a\nconstructive whole. If the hypotheses fail to account for the fact, we\nhave the more reason to believe that the poems are the work of one age,\nand, mainly, of one man.\n\nIn criticising Homeric criticism as it is to-day, we cannot do better\nthan begin by examining the theories of Mr. Leaf which are offered by\nhim merely as \"a working hypothesis.\" His most erudite work is based on\na wide knowledge of German Homeric speculation, of the exact science of\nGrammar, of archaeological discoveries, and of manuscripts. [Footnote:\nThe Iliad. Macmillan & Co. 1900, 1902.] His volumes are, I doubt not, as\nthey certainly deserve to be, on the shelves of every Homeric student,\nold or young, and doubtless their contents reach the higher forms in\nschools, though there is reason to suppose that, about the unity of\nHomer, schoolboys remain conservative.\n\nIn this book of more than 1200 pages Mr. Leaf's space is mainly\ndevoted to textual criticism, philology, and pure scholarship, but his\nIntroductions, Notes, and Appendices also set forth his mature ideas\nabout the Homeric problem in general. He has altered some of his\nopinions since the publication of his _Companion to the Iliad_(1892),\nbut the main lines of his old system are, except on one crucial point,\nunchanged. His theory we shall try to state and criticise; in general\noutline it is the current theory of separatist critics, and it may\nfairly be treated as a good example of such theories.\n\nThe system is to the following effect: Greek tradition, in the classical\nperiod, regarded the _Iliad_ and _Odyssey_ as the work of one man,\nHomer, a native of one or other of the Ionian colonies of Asia Minor.\nBut the poems show few obvious signs of origin in Asia. They deal with\ndwellers, before the Dorian invasion (which the poet never alludes to),\non the continent of Europe and in Crete. [Footnote: If the poet sang\nafter the tempest of war that came down with the Dorians from the\nnorth, he would probably have sought a topic in the Achaean exploits and\nsorrows of that period. The Dorians, not the Trojans, would have been\nthe foes. The epics of France of the eleventh and twelfth centuries\ndwell, not on the real victories of the remote Charlemagne so much as\non the disasters of Aliscans and Roncesvaux--defeats at Saracen hands,\nSaracens being the enemies of the twelfth-century poets. No Saracens,\nin fact, fought at Roncesvaux.] The lays are concerned with \"good old\ntimes\"; presumably between 1500 and 1100 B.C. Their pictures of the\ndetails of life harmonise more with what we know of the society of that\nperiod from the evidence of buildings and recent excavations, than with\nwhat we know of the life and the much more rude and barbaric art of the\nso-called \"Dipylon\" period of \"geometrical\" ornament considerably later.\nIn the Dipylon age though the use of iron, even for swords (made on the\nlines of the old bronze sword), was familiar, art was on a most barbaric\nlevel, not much above the Bed Indian type, as far, at least, as painted\nvases bear witness. The human figure is designed as in Tommy Traddles's\nskeletons; there is, however, some crude but promising idea of\ncomposition.\n\nThe picture of life in the Homeric poems, then, is more like that of,\nsay, 1500-1100 B.C. than of, say, 1000-850 B.C. in Mr. Leaf's opinion.\nCertainly Homer describes a wealthy aristocracy, subject to an\nOver-Lord, who rules, by right divine, from \"golden Mycenae.\" We hear of\nno such potentate in Ionia. Homer's accounts of contemporary art seem to\nbe inspired by the rich art generally dated about 1500-1200. Yet there\nare \"many traces of apparent anachronism,\" of divergence from the more\nantique picture of life. In these divergences are we to recognise the\npicture of a later development of the ancient existence of 1500-1200\nB.C.? Or have elements of the life of a much later age of Greece (say,\n800-550 B.C.) been consciously or unconsciously introduced by the late\npoets? Here Mr. Leaf recognises a point on which we have insisted,\nand must keep insisting, for it is of the first importance. \"It is _a\npriori_ the most probable\" supposition that, \"in an uncritical age,\"\npoets do _not_ \"reproduce the circumstances of the old time,\" but\n\"only clothe the old tale in the garb of their own days.\" Poets in an\nuncritical age always, in our experience, \"clothe old tales with the\ngarb of their own time,\" but Mr. Leaf thinks that, in the case of the\nHomeric poems, this idea \"is not wholly borne out by the facts.\"\n\nIn fact, Mr. Leaf's hypothesis, like Helbig's, exhibits a come-and-go\nbetween the theory that his late poets clung close to tradition and so\nkept true to ancient details of life, and the theory that they did quite\nthe reverse in many cases. Of this frequent examples will occur. He\nwrites, \"The Homeric period is certainly later than the shaft tombs\"\n(discovered at Mycenae by Dr. Schliemann), \"but it does not necessarily\nfollow that it is post-Mycenaean. It is quite possible that certain\nnotable differences between the poems and the monuments\" (of Mycenae)\n\"in burial, for instance, and in women's dress may be due to changes\nwhich arose within the Mycenaean age itself, in that later part of it\nof which our knowledge is defective--almost as defective as it is of\nthe subsequent 'Dipylon' period. On the whole, the resemblance to\nthe typical Mycenaean culture is more striking than the difference.\"\n[Footnote: Leaf, Iliad, vol. i. pp. xiii.-xv. 1900.]\n\nSo far Mr. Leaf states precisely the opinion for which we argue. The\nHomeric poems describe an age later than that of the famous tombs--so\nrich in relics--of the Mycenaean acropolis, and earlier than the tombs\nof the Dipylon of Athens. The poems thus spring out of an age of which,\nexcept from the poems themselves, we know little or nothing, because,\nas is shown later, no cairn burials answering to the frequent Homeric\ndescriptions have ever been discovered--so relics corroborating Homeric\ndescriptions are to seek. But the age attaches itself in many ways to\nthe age of the Mycenaean tombs, while, in our opinion, it stands quite\napart from the post-Dorian culture.\n\nWhere we differ from Mr. Leaf is in believing that the poems, as wholes,\nwere composed in that late Mycenaean period of which, from material\nremains, we know very little; that \"much new\" was not added, as he\nthinks, in \"the Ionian development\" which lasted perhaps \"from the ninth\ncentury B.C. to the seventh.\" We cannot agree with Mr. Leaf, when he,\nlike Helbig, thinks that much of the detail of the ancient life in the\npoems had early become so \"stereotyped\" that no continuator, however\nlate, dared \"intentionally to sap\" the type, \"though he slipped from\ntime to time into involuntary anachronism.\" Some poets are also asserted\nto indulge in _voluntary_ anachronism when, as Mr. Leaf supposes, they\nequip the ancient warriors with corslets and greaves and other body\narmour of bronze such as, in his opinion, the old heroes never knew,\nsuch as never were mentioned in the oldest parts or \"kernel\" of the\npoems. Thus the traditional details of Mycenaean life sometimes are\nregarded as \"stereotyped\" in poetic tradition; sometimes as subject to\nmodern alterations of a sweeping and revolutionary kind.\n\nAs to deliberate adherence to tradition by the poets, we have proved\nthat the Cyclic epic poets of 800-660 B.C. wandered widely from the\nancient models. If, then, every minstrel or rhapsodist who, anywhere,\nadded at will to the old \"kernel\" of the _Achilles_ was, so far as he\nwas able, as conscientiously precise in his stereotyped archaeological\ndetails as Mr. Leaf sometimes supposes, the fact is contrary to general\ncustom in such cases. When later poets in an uncritical age take up and\nrehandle the poetic themes of their predecessors, they always give to\nthe stories \"a new costume,\" as M. Gaston Paris remarks in reference to\nthirteenth century dealings with French epics of the eleventh century.\nBut, in the critics' opinion, the late rehandlers of old Achaean lays\npreserved the archaic modes of life, war, costume, weapons, and\nso forth, with conscientious care, except in certain matters to be\nconsidered later, when they deliberately did the very reverse. Sometimes\nthe late poets devoutly follow tradition. Sometimes they deliberately\ninnovate. Sometimes they pedantically \"archaise,\" bringing in genuine,\nbut by their time forgotten, Mycenaean things, and criticism can detect\ntheir doings in each case.\n\nThough the late continuators of the _Iliad_ were able, despite\ncertain inadvertencies, to keep up for some four centuries in Asia\nthe harmonious picture of ancient Achaean life and society in Europe,\ncritics can distinguish four separate strata, the work of many different\nages, in the _Iliad_. Of the first stratum composed in Europe, say about\n1300-1150 B.C. (I give a conjectural date under all reserves), the topic\nwas _THE Wrath of ACHILLES_. Of this poem, in Mr. Leaf's opinion, (a)\nthe First Book and fifty lines of the Second Book remain intact or,\nperhaps, are a blend of two versions. (b) The _Valour of Agamemnon_ and\n_Defeat of THE Achaeans_. Of this there are portions in Book XI., but\nthey were meddled with, altered, and generally doctored, \"down to the\nlatest period,\" namely, the age of Pisistratus in Athens, the middle of\nthe sixth century B.C. (c) The fight in which, after their defeat, the\nAchaeans try to save the ships from the torch of Hector, and the _Valour\nof Patroclus_ (but some critics do not accept this), with his death\n(XV., XVI. in parts). (d) Some eighty lines on the _ARMING OF ACHILLES_\n(XIX.). (e) Perhaps an incident or two in Books XX., XXI. (f) The\n_Slaying HECTOR_ by Achilles, in Books XXI., XXII. (but some of the learned\nwill not admit this, and we shall, unhappily, have to prove that, if Mr.\nLeaf's principles be correct, we really know nothing about the _SLAYING\nOF HECTOR_ in its original form).\n\nOf these six elements only did the original poem consist, Mr. Leaf\nthinks; a rigid critic will reject as original even the _Valour of\nPatroclus_ and the _DEATH OF HECTOR_, but Mr. Leaf refuses to go so far\nas that. The original poem, as detected by him, is really \"the work of\na single poet, perhaps the greatest in all the world's history.\" If the\noriginal poet did no more than is here allotted to him, especially if he\nleft out the purpose of Zeus and the person of Thetis in Book I., we\ndo not quite understand his unapproachable greatness. He must certainly\nhave drawn a rather commonplace Achilles, as we shall see, and we\nconfess to preferring the _Iliad_ as it stands.\n\nThe brief narrative cut out of the mass by Mr. Leaf, then, was the\ngenuine old original poem or \"kernel.\" What we commonly call the\n_ILIAD_, on the other hand, is, by his theory, a thing of shreds and\npatches, combined in a manner to be later described. The blend,\nwe learn, has none of the masterly unity of the old original poem.\nMeanwhile, as criticism of literary composition is a purely literary\nquestion, critics who differ from Mr. Leaf have a right to hold that\nthe _Iliad_ as it stands contains, and always did contain, a plot of\nmasterly perfection. We need not attend here so closely to Mr. Leaf's\ntheory in the matter of the First Expansions, (2) and the Second\nExpansions, (3) but the latest Expansions (4) give the account of _The\nEMBASSY_ to _Achilles_ with his refusal of _Agamemnon's APOLOGY_(Book\nIX.), the [blank space] (Book XXIV.), the _RECONCILIATION OF ACHILLES\nAND Agamemnon, AND the FUNERAL Games_ of _Patroclus_ (XXIII.). In all\nthese parts of the poem there are, we learn, countless alterations,\nadditions, and expansions, with, last of all, many transitional\npassages, \"the work of the editor inspired by the statesman,\" that is,\nof an hypothetical editor who really by the theory made our _ILIAD_,\nbeing employed to that end by Pistratus about 540 B.C. [Footnote: Leaf,\n_Iliad_, vol. ii. pp. x., xiv. 1900.].\n\nMr. Leaf and critics who take his general view are enabled to detect\nthe patches and tatters of many ages by various tests, for example, by\ndiscovering discrepancies in the narrative, such as in their opinion\nno one sane poet could make. Other proofs of multiplex authorship are\ndiscovered by the critic's private sense of what the poem ought to\nbe, by his instinctive knowledge of style, by detection of the poet's\nsupposed errors in geography, by modernisms and false archaisms in words\nand grammar, and by the presence of many objects, especially weapons and\narmour, which the critic believes to have been unknown to the original\nminstrel.\n\nThus criticism can pick out the things old, fairly old, late, and quite\nrecent, from the mass, evolved through many centuries, which is called\nthe _Iliad_.\n\nIf the existing _ILIAD_ is a mass of \"expansions,\" added at all sorts of\ndates, in any number of places, during very different stages of culture,\nto a single short old poem of the Mycenaean age, science needs an\nhypothesis which will account for the _ILIAD_ \"as it stands.\" Everybody\nsees the need of the hypothesis, How was the medley of new songs by many\ngenerations of irresponsible hands codified into a plot which used to\nbe reckoned fine? How were the manners, customs, and characters, _unus\ncolor_, preserved in a fairly coherent and uniform aspect? How was the\nwhole Greek world, throughout which all manner of discrepant versions\nand incongruous lays must, by the theory, have been current, induced to\naccept the version which has been bequeathed to us? Why, and for what\naudience or what readers, did somebody, in a late age of brief lyrics\nand of philosophic poems, take the trouble to harmonise the body of\ndiscrepant wandering lays, and codify them in the _Iliad_?\n\nAn hypothesis which will answer all these questions is the first thing\nneedful, and hypotheses are produced.\n\nBelievers like Mr. Leaf in the development of the _Iliad_ through\nthe changing revolutionary centuries, between say 1200 and 600 B.C.,\nconsciously stand in need of a working hypothesis which will account,\nabove all, for two facts: first, the relatively correct preservation of\nthe harmony of the picture of life, of ideas political and religious,\nof the characters of the heroes, of the customary law (such as the\nbride-price in marriage), and of the details as to weapons, implements,\ndress, art, houses, and so forth, when these are not (according to the\ntheory) deliberately altered by late poets.\n\nNext, the hypothesis must explain, in Mr. Leafs own words, how a single\nversion of the _Iliad_ came to be accepted, \"where many rival versions\nmust, from the necessity of the case, have once existed side by side.\"\n[Footnote: _Iliad_, vol. i. p. xviii. 1900.]\n\nThree hypotheses have, in fact, been imagined: the first suggests the\npreservation of the original poems in very early written texts; not,\nof course, in \"Homer's autograph.\" This view Mr. Leaf, we shall see,\ndiscards. The second presents the notion of one old sacred college for\nthe maintenance of poetic uniformity. Mr. Leaf rejects this theory,\nwhile supposing that there were schools for professional reciters.\n\nLast, there is the old hypothesis of Wolf: \"Pisistratus\" (about 540\nB.C.) \"was the first who had the Homeric poems committed to writing, and\nbrought into that order in which we now possess them.\"\n\nThis hypothesis, now more than a century old, would, if it rested on\ngood evidence, explain how a single version of the various lays came to\nbe accepted and received as authorised. The Greek world, by the theory,\nhad only in various places various sets of incoherent chants _orally_\ncurrent on the Wrath of The public was everywhere a public of listeners,\nwho heard the lays sung on rare occasions at feasts and fairs, or\nwhenever a strolling rhapsodist took up his pitch, for a day or two,\nat a street corner. There was, by the theory, no reading public for the\nHomeric poetry. But, by the time of Pisistratus, a reading public was\ncoming into existence. The tyrant had the poems collected, edited,\narranged into a continuous narrative, primarily for the purpose of\nregulating the recitals at the Panathenaic festival. When once they\nwere written, copies were made, and the rest of Hellas adopted these for\ntheir public purposes.\n\nOn a small scale we have a case analogous. The old songs of Scotland\nexisted, with the airs, partly in human memory, partly in scattered\nbroadsheets. The airs were good, but the words were often silly, more\noften they were Fescennine--\"more dirt than wit.\" Burns rewrote the\nwords, which were published in handsome volumes, with the old airs, or\nwith these airs altered, and his became the authorised versions, while\nthe ancient anonymous chants were almost entirely forgotten.\n\nThe parallel is fairly close, but there are points of difference. Burns\nwas a great lyric poet, whereas we hear of no great epic poet in the\nage of Pisistratus. The old words which Burns's songs superseded were\nwretched doggerel; not such were the ancient Greek heroic lays. The old\nScottish songs had no sacred historic character; they did not contain\nthe history of the various towns and districts of Scotland. The heroic\nlays of Greece were believed, on the other hand, to be a kind of\nDomesday book of ancient principalities, and cities, and worshipped\nheroes. Thus it was much easier for a great poet like Burns to supersede\nwith his songs a mass of unconsidered \"sculdudery\" old lays, in which no\nman or set of men had any interest, than for a mere editor, in the age\nof Pisistratus, to supersede a set of lays cherished, in one shape or\nanother, by every State in Greece. This holds good, even if, prior to\nPisistratus, there existed in Greece no written texts of Homer, and no\nreading public, a point which we shall show reasons for declining to\nconcede.\n\nThe theory of the edition of Pisistratus, if it rested on valid\nevidence, would explain \"how a single version of the poems came to be\naccepted,\" namely, because the poem was now _written_ for the first\ntime, and oral versions fell out of memory. But it would not, of course,\nexplain how, before Pisistratus, during four or five centuries of\nchange, the new poets and reciters, throughout the Greek world, each\nadding such fresh verses as he pleased, and often introducing such\nmodern details of life as he pleased, kept up the harmony of the Homeric\npicture of life, and character, and law, as far as it confessedly\nexists.\n\nTo take a single instance: the poems never allude to the personal\narmorial bearings of the heroes. They are unknown to or unnamed by\nHomer, but are very familiar on the shields in seventh century and sixth\ncentury vases, and AEschylus introduces them with great poetic effect\nin [blank space]. How did late continuators, familiar with the serpents,\nlions, bulls' heads, crabs, doves, and so forth, on the contemporary\nshields, keep such picturesque and attractive details out of their new\nrhapsodies? In mediaeval France, we shall show, the epics (eleventh to\nthirteenth centuries) deal with Charlemagne and his peers of the eighth\ncentury A.D. But they provide these heroes with the armorial bearings\nwhich came in during the eleventh to twelfth century A.D. The late\nHomeric rhapsodists avoided such tempting anachronisms.\n\nWolf's theory, then, explains \"how a single version came to be\naccepted.\" It was the first _WRITTEN_ version; the others died out, like\nthe old Scots orally repeated songs, when Burns published new words to\nthe airs. But Wolf's theory does not explain the harmony of the picture\nof life, the absence of post-Homeric ideas and ways of living, in the\nfirst written version, which, practically, is our own version.\n\nIn 1892 (_COMPANION TO THE Iliad_) Mr. Leaf adopted a different theory,\nthe hypothesis of a Homeric \"school\" \"which busied itself with the\ntradition of the Homeric poetry,\" for there must have been some central\nauthority to preserve the text intact when it could not be preserved in\nwriting. Were there no such body to maintain a fixed standard, the poems\nmust have ended by varying indefinitely, according to the caprice of\ntheir various reciters. This is perfectly obvious.\n\nSuch a school could keep an eye on anachronisms and excise them; in\nfact, the Maori priests, in an infinitely more barbarous state of\nsociety, had such schools for the preservation of their ancient hymns in\npurity. The older priests \"insisted on a critical and verbatim\nrehearsal of all the ancient lore.\" Proceedings were sanctioned by human\nsacrifices and many mystic rites. We are not told that new poems were\nproduced and criticised; it does not appear that this was the case.\nPupils attended from three to five years, and then qualified as priests\nor _tohunga_ [Footnote: White, _THE Ancient HISTORY OF THE Maori, VOL._\ni. pp. 8-13.]. Suppose that the Asiatic Greeks, like the Maoris and\nZunis, had Poetic Colleges of a sacred kind, admitting new poets, and\nkeeping them up to the antique standard in all respects. If this were\nso, the relative rarity of \"anachronisms\" and of modernisms in language\nin the Homeric poems is explained. But Mr. Leaf has now entirely\nand with a light heart abandoned his theory of a school, which is\nunsupported by evidence, he says.'\n\n\"The great problem,\" he writes, \"for those who maintain the gradual\ngrowth of the poems by a process of crystallisation has been to\nunderstand how a single version came to be accepted, where many rival\nversions must, from the necessity of the case, have once existed side by\nside. The assumption of a school or guild of singers has been made,\" and\nMr. Leaf, in 1892, made the assumption himself: \"as some such hypothesis\nwe are bound to make in order to explain the possibility of any theory\"\n(1892). [Footnote: _COMPANION TO THE Iliad, pp. 20, 21._]\n\nBut now (1900) he says, after mentioning \"the assumption of a school or\nguild of singers,\" that \"the rare mention of [Greek: Homeridai] in\nChios gives no support to this hypothesis, which lacks any other\nconfirmation.\" [Footnote: _Iliad_, vol. i. xviii. p. xix.] He therefore\nnow adopts the Wolfian hypothesis that \"an official copy of Homer was\nmade in Athens at the time of Solon or Pisistratus,\" from the rhapsodies\nexisting in the memory of reciters. [Footnote: _Iliad_, vol. i. p. xix.]\nBut Mr. Leaf had previously said [Footnote: _COMPANION TO THE Iliad_,\np. 190.] that \"the legend which connects his\" (Pisistratus's) \"name\nwith the Homeric poems is itself probably only conjectural, and of\nlate date.\" Now the evidence for Pisistratus which, in 1892, he thought\n\"conjectural and of late date,\" seems to him a sufficient basis for an\nhypothesis of a Pisistratean editor of the Iliad, while the evidence for\nan Homeric school which appeared to him good enough for an hypothesis in\n1892 is rejected as worthless, though, in each case, the evidence itself\nremains just what it used to be.\n\nThis is not very satisfactory, and the Pisistratean hypothesis is much\nless useful to a theorist than the former hypothesis of an Homeric\nschool, for the Pisistratean hypothesis cannot explain the harmony of\nthe characters and the details in the _Iliad_, nor the absence of\nsuch glaring anachronisms as the Cyclic poets made, nor the general\n\"pre-Odyssean\" character of the language and grammar. By the\nPisistratean hypothesis there was not, what Mr. Leaf in 1892 justly\ndeemed essential, a school \"to maintain a fixed standard,\" throughout\nthe changes of four centuries, and against the caprice of many\ngenerations of fresh reciters and irresponsible poets. The hypothesis of\na school _was_ really that which, of the two, best explained the facts,\nand there is no more valid evidence for the first making and writing\nout of our _Iliad_ under Pisistratus than for the existence of a Homeric\nschool.\n\nThe evidence for the _Iliad_ edited for Pisistratus is examined in a\nNote at the close of this chapter. Meanwhile Mr. Leaf now revives Wolf's\nold theory to account for the fact that somehow \"a single version\"\n(of the Homeric poems) \"came to be accepted.\" His present theory, if\nadmitted, does account for the acceptation of a single version of the\npoems, the first standard _written_ version, but fails to explain how\n\"the caprice of the different reciters\" (as he says) did not wander into\nevery variety of anachronism in detail and in diction, thus producing\na chaos which no editor of about 540 A.D. could force into its present\nuniformity.\n\nSuch an editor is now postulated by Mr. Leaf. If his editor's edition,\nas being _written_, was accepted by Greece, then we \"understand how a\nsingle version came to be accepted.\" But we do not understand how\nthe editor could possibly introduce a harmony which could only have\ncharacterised his materials, as Mr. Leaf has justly remarked, if there\nwas an Homeric school \"to maintain a fixed standard.\" But now such\nharmony in the picture of life as exists in the poems is left without\nany explanation. We have now, by the theory, a crowd of rhapsodists,\nmany generations of uncontrolled wandering men, who, for several\ncenturies,\n\n     \"Rave, recite, and madden through the land,\"\n\nwith no written texts, and with no \"fixed body to maintain a standard.\"\nSuch men would certainly not adhere strictly to a stereotyped early\ntradition: _that_ we cannot expect from them.\n\nAgain, no editor of about 540 B.C. could possibly bring harmony of\nmanners, customs, and diction into such of their recitals as he took\ndown in writing.\n\nLet us think out the supposed editor's situation. During three centuries\nnine generations of strollers have worked their will on one ancient\nshort poem, _The Wrath_ of _Achilles_. This is, in itself, an unexampled\nfact. Poets turn to new topics; they do not, as a rule, for centuries\nembroider one single situation out of the myriads which heroic legend\naffords. Strolling reciters are the least careful of men, each would\nrecite in the language and grammar of his day, and introduce the newly\nevolved words and idioms, the new and fashionable manners, costume, and\nweapons of his time. When war chariots became obsolete, he would bring\nin cavalry; when there was no Over-Lord, he would not trouble himself\nto maintain correctly the character and situation of Agamemnon. He would\nspeak of coined money, in cases of buying and selling; his European\ngeography would often be wrong; he would not ignore the Ionian cities\nof Asia; most weapons would be of iron, not bronze, in his lays. Ionian\nreligious ideas could not possibly be excluded, nor changes in customary\nlaw, civil and criminal. Yet, we think, none of these things occurs in\nHomer.\n\nThe editor of the theory had to correct all these anachronisms and\ndiscrepancies. What a task in an uncritical age! The editor's materials\nwould be the lays known to such strollers as happened to be gathered,\nin Athens, perhaps at the Panathenaic festival. The _repertoire_ of each\nstroller would vary indefinitely from those of all the others. One man\nknew this chant, as modified or made by himself; other men knew others,\nequally unsatisfactory.\n\nThe editor must first have written down from recitation all the passages\nthat he could collect. Then he was obliged to construct a narrative\nsequence containing a plot, which he fashioned by a process of selection\nand rejection; and then he had to combine passages, alter them, add\nas much as he thought fit, remove anachronisms, remove discrepancies,\naccidentally bring in fresh discrepancies (as always happens), weave\ntransitional passages, look with an antiquarian eye after the too\nmanifest modernisms in language and manners, and so produce the [blank\nspace]. That, in the sixth century B.C., any man undertook such a task,\nand succeeded so well as to impose on Aristotle and all the later Greek\ncritics, appears to be a theory that could only occur to a modern man of\nletters, who is thinking of the literary conditions of his own time.\nThe editor was doing, and doing infinitely better, what Loennrot, in the\nnineteenth century, tried in vain to achieve for the Finnish _Kalewala_.\n[Footnote: See Comparetti, _The Kalewala_.]\n\nCenturies later than Pisistratus, in a critical age, Apollonius Rhodius\nset about writing an epic of the Homeric times. We know how entirely he\nfailed, on all hands, to restore the manner of Homer. The editor of 540\nB.C. was a more scientific man. Can any one who sets before himself the\nnature of the editor's task believe in him and it? To the master-less\nfloating jellyfish of old poems and new, Mr. Leaf supposes that \"but\nsmall and unimportant additions were made after the end of the eighth\ncentury or thereabouts,\" especially as \"the creative and imaginative\nforces of the Ionian race turned to other forms of expression,\" to\nlyrics and to philosophic poems. But the able Pisistratean editor, after\nall, we find, introduced quantities of new matter into the poems--in the\nmiddle of the sixth century; that kind of industry, then, did not cease\ntowards the end of the eighth century, as we have been told. On the\nother hand, as we shall learn, the editor contributed to the _Iliad_,\namong other things, Nestor's descriptions of his youthful adventures,\nfor the purpose of flattering Nestor's descendant, the tyrant\nPisistratus of Athens.\n\nOne hypothesis, the theory of an Homeric school--which would answer our\nquestion, \"How was the harmony of the picture of life in remote ages\npreserved in poems composed in several succeeding ages, and in totally\naltered conditions of life?\"--Mr. Leaf, as we know, rejects. We might\nsuggest, again, that there were written texts handed down from an early\nperiod, and preserved in new copies from generation to generation. Mr.\nLeaf states his doubt that there were any such texts. \"The poems were\nall this time handed down orally only by tradition among the singers\n(_sic_), who used to wander over Greece reciting them at popular\nfestivals. Writing was indeed known through the whole period of epic\ndevelopment\" (some four centuries at least), \"but it is in the highest\ndegree unlikely that it was ever employed to form a standard text of the\nEpic or _ANY_ part of it. There can hardly have been any standard text;\nat best there was a continuous tradition of those parts of the poems\nwhich were especially popular, and the knowledge of which was a valuable\nasset to the professional reciter.\"\n\nNow we would not contend for the existence of any [blank space] text\nmuch before 600 B.C., and I understand Mr. Leaf not to deny, now, that\nthere may have been texts of the _ODYSSEY_ and _Iliad_ before, say,\n600-540 B.C. If cities and reciters had any ancient texts, then texts\nexisted, though not \"standard\" texts: and by this means the harmony of\nthought, character, and detail in the poems might be preserved. We do\nnot think that it is \"in the highest degree unlikely\" that there were no\ntexts. Is this one of the many points on which every savant must rely on\nhis own sense of what is \"likely\"? To this essential point, the almost\ncertain existence of written texts, we return in our conclusion.\n\nWhat we have to account for is not only the relative lack of\nanachronisms in poems supposed to have been made through a period of at\nleast four hundred years, but also the harmony of the _CHARACTERS_\nin subtle details. Some of the characters will be dealt with later;\nmeanwhile it is plain that Mr. Leaf, when he rejects both the idea\nof written texts prior to 600-540 B.C., and also the idea of a school\ncharged with the duty of \"maintaining a fixed standard,\" leaves a\nterrible task to his supposed editor of orally transmitted poems which,\nhe says--if unpreserved by text or school--\"must have ended by varying\ninfinitely according to the caprice of their various reciters.\"\n[Footnote: _Companion to the Iliad, p. 21._]\n\nOn that head there can be no doubt; in the supposed circumstances no\nharmony, no _unus_ color, could have survived in the poems till the days\nof the sixth century editor.\n\nHere, then, is another difficulty in the path of the theory that the\n_Iliad_ is the work of four centuries. If it was, we are not enabled to\nunderstand how it came to be what it is. No editor could possibly tinker\nit into the whole which we possess; none could steer clear of many\nabsurd anachronisms. These are found by critics, but it is our hope to\nprove that they do not exist.\n\n NOTE\n\nTHE LEGEND OF THE MAKING OF THE \"ILIAD\" UNDER PISISTRATOS\n\nIt has been shown in the text that in 1892 Mr. Leaf thought the story\nabout the making of the _Iliad_ under Pisistratus, a legend without\nauthority, while he regarded the traditions concerning an Homeric school\nas sufficient basis for an hypothesis, \"which we are bound to make in\norder to explain the possibility of any theory.\" In 1900 he entirely\nreversed his position, the school was abandoned, and the story of\nPisistratus was accepted. One objection to accepting any of the various\nlegends about the composing and writing out, for the first time, of the\n_Iliad_, in the sixth century, the age of Pisistratus, was the silence\nof Aristarchus on the subject. He discussed the authenticity of lines\nin the _Iliad_ which, according to the legend, were interpolated for a\npolitical purpose by Solon or Pisistratus, but, as far as his comments\nhave reached us in the scholia, he never said a word about the tradition\nof Athenian interpolation. Now Aristarchus must, at least, have known\nthe tradition of the political use of a disputed line, for Aristotle\nwrites (_Rhetoric_, i. 15) that the Athenians, early in the sixth\ncentury, quoted _Iliad_, II. 558, to prove their right to Salamis.\nAristarchus also discussed _Iliad_, II. 553, 555, to which the Spartans\nappealed on the question of supreme command against Persia (Herodotus,\nvii. 159). Again Aristarchus said nothing, or nothing that has reached\nus, about Athenian interpolation. Once more, Odyssey, II. 631, was said\nby Hereas, a Megarian writer, to have been interpolated by Pisistratus\n(Plutarch.) But \"the scholia that represent the teaching of Aristarchus\"\nnever make any reference to the alleged dealings of Pisistratus with the\n_Iliad_. The silence of Aristarchus, however, affords no safe ground of\nargument to believers or disbelievers in the original edition written\nout by order of Pisistratus.\n\nIt can never be proved that the scholiasts did not omit what Aristarchus\nsaid, though we do not know why they should have done so; and it can\nnever be proved that Aristarchus was ignorant of the traditions about\nPisistratus, or that he thought them unworthy of notice. All is matter\nof conjecture on these points. Mr. Leaf's conversion to belief in the\nstory that our _Iliad_ was practically edited and first committed to\nwriting under Pisistratus appears to be due to the probability that\nAristarchus must have known the tradition. But if he did, there is no\nproof that he accepted it as historically authentic. There is not, in\nfact, any proof even that Aristarchus must have known the tradition. He\nhad probably read Dieuchidas of Megara, for \"Wilamowitz has shown that\nDieuchidas wrote in the fourth century.\" [Footnote: _Iliad_, vol. i.\np. xix.] But, unluckily, we do not know that Dieuchidas stated that the\n_Iliad_ was made and first committed to writing in the sixth century\nB.C. No mortal knows what Dieuchidas said: and, again, what Dieuchidas\nsaid is not evidence. He wrote as a partisan in a historical dispute.\n\nThe story about Pisistratus and his editor, the practical maker of\nthe _Iliad_, is interwoven with a legend about an early appeal, in\nthe beginning of the sixth century B.C., to Homer as an historical\nauthority. The Athenians and Megarians, contending for the possession of\nthe island of Salamis, the home of the hero Aias, are said to have laid\ntheir differences before the Spartans (_cir._ 600-580 B.C.). Each party\nquoted Homer as evidence. Aristotle, who, as we saw, mentions the tale\n(Rhetoric, i. 15), merely says that the Athenians cited _Iliad_,\nII. 558: \"Aias led and stationed his men where the phalanxes of the\nAthenians were posted.\" Aristarchus condemned this line, not (as far\nas evidence goes) because there was a tradition that the Athenians\nhad interpolated it to prove their point, but because he thought it\ninconsistent with _Iliad_, III. 230; IV. 251, which, if I may differ\nfrom so great a critic, it is not; these two passages deal, not with\nthe position of the camps, but of the men in the field on a certain\noccasion. But if Aristarchus had thought the tradition of Athenian\ninterpolation of II. 558 worthy of notice, he might have mentioned it in\nsupport of his opinion. Perhaps he did. No reference to his notice has\nreached us. However this may be, Mr. Leaf mainly bases his faith in\nthe Pisistratean editor (apparently, we shall see, an Asiatic Greek,\nresiding in Athens), on a fragmentary passage of Diogenes Laertius\n(third century A.D.), concerned with the tale of Homer's being cited\nabout 600-580 B.C. as an authority for the early ownership of Salamis.\nIn this text Diogenes quotes Dieuchidas as saying something about\nPisistratus in relation to the Homeric poems, but what Dieuchidas really\nsaid is unknown, for a part has dropped out of the text.\n\nThe text of Diogenes Laertius runs thus (Solon, i. 57): \"He (Solon)\ndecreed that the Homeric poems should be recited by rhapsodists [Greek\ntext: ex hypobolaes]\" (words of disputed sense), so that where the first\nreciter left off thence should begin his successor. It was rather\nSolon, then, than Pisistratus who brought Homer to light ([Greek text:\nephotisen]), as Diogenes says in the Fifth Book of his _Megarica_.\nAnd _the lines_ were _especially these_: \"They who held Athens,\" &c.\n(_Iliad_, II. 546-558), the passage on which the Athenians rested in\ntheir dispute with the Megarians.\n\nAnd _what_ \"lines were especially these\"? Mr. Leaf fills up the gap\nin the sense, after \"Pisistratus\" thus, \"for it was he\" (Solon) \"who\ninterpolated lines in the _Catalogue_, and not Pisistratus.\" He says:\n\"The natural sense of the passage as it stands\" (in Diogenes Laertius)\n\"is this: It was not Peisistratos, as is generally supposed, but Solon\n_who collected the scattered Homer_ of _his_ day, for he it was who\ninterpolated the lines in the _Catalogue of the Ships_\".... But Diogenes\nneither says for himself nor quotes from Dieuchidas anything about\n\"collecting the scattered Homer of his day.\" That Pisistratus did so\nis Mr. Leafs theory, but there is not a hint about anybody collecting\nanything in the Greek. Ritschl, indeed, conjecturally supplying the\ngap in the text of Diogenes, invented the words, \"Who _collected_ the\nHomeric poems, and inserted some things to please the Athenians.\" But\nMr. Leaf rejects that conjecture as \"clearly wrong.\" Then why does he\nadopt, as \"the natural sense of the passage,\" \"it was not Peisistratos\nbut Solon who _collected_ the scattered Homer of his day?\" [Footnote:\n_Iliad_, vol. i. p. xviii.] The testimony of Dieuchidas, as far as we\ncan see in the state of the text, \"refers,\" as Mr. Monro says, \"to\nthe _interpolation_ that has just been mentioned, and need not extend\nfurther back.\" \"Interpolation is a process that postulates a text in\nwhich the additional verses can be inserted,\" whereas, if I understand\nMr. Leaf, the very first text, in his opinion, was that compiled by the\neditor for Pisistratus. [Footnote: Monro, Odyssey, vol. ii. pp. 400 410,\nespecially pp. 408-409.] Mr. Leaf himself dismisses the story of the\nAthenian appeal to Homer for proof of their claim as \"a fiction.\" If,\nso, it does not appear that ancient commentaries on a fiction are of\nany value as proof that Pisistratus produced the earliest edition of\nthe _Iliad_. [Footnote: Mr. Leaf adds that, except in one disputed\nline (_Iliad_, II. 558) Aias \"is not, in the _Iliad_, encamped next\nthe Athenians.\" His proofs of this odd oversight of the fraudulent\ninterpolator, who should have altered the line, are _Iliad_, IV. 327 ff,\nand XII. 681 ff. In the former passage we find Odysseus stationed next\nto the Athenians. But Odysseus would have neighbours on either hand. In\nthe second passage we find the Athenians stationed next to the Boeotians\nand Ionians, but the Athenians, too, had neighbours on either side. The\narrangement was, on the Achaean extreme left, Protesilaus's command (he\nwas dead), and that of Aias; then the Boeotians and Ionians, with\n\"the picked men of the Athenians\"; and then Odysseus, on the\nBoeotolono-Athenian right; or so the Athenians would read the passage.\nThe texts must have seemed favourable to the fraudulent Athenian\ninterpolator denounced by the Megarians, or he would have altered them.\nMr. Leaf, however, argues that line 558 of Book II. \"cannot be original,\nas is patent from the fact that Aias in the rest of the _Iliad_ is not\nencamped next the Athenians\" (see IV. 327; XIII. 681). The Megarians do\nnot seem to have seen it, or they would have cited these passages. But\nwhy argue at all about the Megarian story if it be a fiction? Mr. Leaf\ntakes the brief bald mention of Aias in _Iliad_, II. 558 as \"a mocking\ncry from Athens over the conquest of the island of the Aiakidai.\"\nBut as, in this same _Catalogue_, Aias is styled \"by far the best of\nwarriors\" after Achilles (II. 768), while there is no more honourable\nmention made of Diomede than that he had \"a loud war cry\" (II. 568),\nor of Menelaus but that he was also sonorous, and while Nestor, the\nancestor of Pisistratus, receives not even that amount of praise (line\n601), \"the mocking cry from Athens\" appears a vain imagination.]\n\nThe lines disputed by the Megarians occur in the _Catalogue_, and, as\nto the date and original purpose of the _Catalogue_, the most various\nopinions prevail. In Mr. Leaf's earlier edition of the _Iliad_ (vol. i.\np. 37), he says that \"nothing convincing has been urged to show\" that\nthe _Catalogue_ is \"of late origin.\" We know, from the story of Solon\nand the Megarians, that the _Catalogue_ \"was considered a classical\nwork--the Domesday Book of Greece, at a very early date\"--say 600-580\nB.C. \"It agrees with the poems in being pre-Dorian\" (except in lines\n653-670).\n\n\"There seems therefore to be no valid reason for doubting that it, like\nthe bulk of the _Iliad_ and _Odyssey_, was composed in Achaean times,\nand carried with the emigrants to the coast of Asia Minor....\"\n\nIn his new edition (vol. ii. p. 86), Mr. Leaf concludes that the\n_Catalogue_ \"originally formed an introduction to the whole Cycle,\" the\ncompiling of \"the whole Cycle\" being of uncertain date, but very late\nindeed, on any theory. The author \"studiously preserves an ante-Dorian\nstandpoint. It is admitted that there can be little doubt that some of\nthe material, at least, is old.\"\n\nThese opinions are very different from those expressed by Mr. Leaf in\n1886. He cannot now give \"even an approximate date for the composition\nof the _Catalogue_\" which, we conceive, must be the latest thing in\nHomer, if it was composed \"for that portion of the whole Cycle which, as\nworked up in a separate poem, was called the _Kypria_\" for the _Kypria_\nis obviously a very late performance, done as a prelude to the _Iliad_.\n\nI am unable to imagine how this mutilated passage of Diogenes, even if\nrightly restored, proves that Dieuchidas, a writer of the fourth century\nB.C., alleged that Pisistratus made a collection of scattered Homeric\npoems--in fact, made \"a standard text.\"\n\nThe Pisistratean hypothesis \"was not so long ago unfashionable, but\nin the last few years a clear reaction has set in,\" says Mr. Leaf.\n[Footnote: _Iliad_, i. p. XIX.]\n\nThe reaction has not affected that celebrated scholar, Dr. Blass, who,\nwith Teutonic frankness, calls the Pisistratean edition \"an absurd\nlegend.\" [Footnote: Blass, Die _Interpolationen_ in der _Odyssee_,\npp. I, 2. Halle, 1904.] Meyer says that the Alexandrians rejected the\nPisistratean story \"as a worthless fable,\" differing here from Mr. Leaf\nand Wilamowitz; and he spurns the legend, saying that it is incredible\nthat the whole Greek world would allow the tyrants of Athens to palm off\na Homer on them. [Footnote: Meyer, _Geschichte des Alterthums_, ii. 390,\n391. 1893.]\n\nMr. T. W. Allen, an eminent textual scholar, treats the Pisistratean\neditor with no higher respect. In an Egyptian papyrus containing a\nfragment of Julius Africanus, a Christian chronologer, Mr. Allen finds\nhim talking confidently of the Pisistratidae. They \"stitched together\nthe rest of the epic,\" but excised some magical formulae which\nJulius Africanus preserves. Mr. Allen remarks: \"The statements about\nPisistratus belong to a well-established category, that of Homeric\nmythology.... The anecdotes about Pisistratus and the poet himself are\non a par with Dares, who 'wrote the _Iliad_ before Homer.'\" [Footnote:\n_Classical Review_ xviii. 148.]\n\nThe editor of Pisistratus is hardly in fashion, though that is of no\nimportance. Of importance is the want of evidence for the editor, and,\nas we have shown, the impossible character of the task allotted to him\nby the theory.\n\nAs I suppose Mr. Leaf to insinuate, \"fashion\" has really nothing to do\nwith the question. People who disbelieve in written texts must, and\ndo, oscillate between the theory of an Homeric \"school\" and the Wolfian\ntheory that Pisistratus, or Solon, or somebody procured the making of\nthe first written text at Athens in the sixth century--a theory which\nfails to account for the harmony of the picture of life in the poems,\nand, as Mr. Monro, Grote, Nutzhorn, and many others argue, lacks\nevidence.\n\nAs Mr. Monro reasons, and as Blass states the case bluntly, \"Solon, or\nPisistratus, or whoever it was, put a stop, at least as far as Athens\nwas concerned, to the mangling of Homer\" by the rhapsodists or reciters,\neach anxious to choose a pet passage, and not going through the whole\n_Iliad_ in due sequence. \"But the unity existed before the mangling.\nThat this has been so long and so stubbornly misunderstood is no credit\nto German scholarship: blind uncritical credulity on one side, limitless\nand arbitrary theorising on the other!\" We are not solitary sceptics\nwhen we decline to accept the theory of Mr. Leaf. It is neither bottomed\non evidence nor does it account for the facts in the case. That is to\nsay, the evidence appeals to Mr. Leaf as valid, but is thought worse\nthan inadequate by other great scholars, such as Monro and Blass; while\nthe fact of the harmony of the picture of life, preserved through four\nor five centuries, appears to be left without explanation.\n\nMr. Leaf holds that, in order to organise recitations in due sequence,\nthe making of a text, presenting, for the first time, a due sequence,\nwas necessary. His opponents hold that the sequence already existed, but\nwas endangered by the desultory habits of the rhapsodists. We must here\njudge each for himself; there is no court of final appeal.\n\nI confess to feeling some uncertainty about the correctness of my\nstatement of Mr. Leaf's opinions. He and I both think an early Attic\n\"recension\" probable, or almost certain. But (see' \"Conclusion\") I\nregard such recension as distinct from the traditional \"edition\" of\nPisistratus. Mr. Leaf, I learn, does not regard the \"edition\" as having\n\"made\" the _Iliad_; yet his descriptions of the processes and methods\nof his Pisistratean editor correspond to my idea of the \"making\" of\nour _Iliad_ as it stands. See, for example, Mr. Leaf's Introduction\nto _Iliad_, Book II. He will not even insist on the early Attic as the\nfirst _written_ text; if it was not, its general acceptance seems\nto remain a puzzle. He discards the idea of one Homeric \"school\" of\nparamount authority, but presumes that, as recitation was a profession,\nthere must have been schools. We do not hear of them or know the\nnature of their teaching. The Beauvais \"school\" of _jongleurs_ in Lent\n(fourteenth century A.D.) seems to have been a holiday conference of\nstrollers.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER IV\n\n\nLOOSE FEUDALISM: THE OVER-LORD IN \"ILIAD,\" BOOKS I. AND II.\n\nWe now try to show that the Epics present an historical unity, a\ncomplete and harmonious picture of an age, in its political, social,\nlegal, and religious aspects; in its customs, and in its military\nequipment. A long epic can only present an unity of historical ideas\nif it be the work of one age. Wandering minstrels, living through a\nsuccession of incompatible ages, civic, commercial, democratic, could\nnot preserve, without flaw or failure, the attitude, in the first place,\nof the poet of feudal princes towards an Over-Lord who rules them by\nundisputed right divine, but rules weakly, violently, unjustly, being\nsubject to gusts of arrogance, and avarice, and repentance. Late poets\nnot living in feudal society, and unfamiliar alike with its customary\nlaw, its jealousy of the Over-Lord, its conservative respect for his\nconsecrated function, would inevitably miss the proper tone, and fail in\nsome of the many [blank space] of the feudal situation. This is all the\nmore certain, if we accept Mr. Leaf's theory that each poet-rhapsodist's\n_repertoire_ varied from the _repertoires_ of the rest. There could be\nno unity of treatment in their handling of the character and position of\nthe Over-Lord and of the customary law that regulates his relations with\nhis peers. Again, no editor of 540 B.C. could construct an harmonious\npicture of the Over-Lord in relation to the princes out of the\nfragmentary _repertoires_ of strolling rhapsodists, which now lay before\nhim in written versions. If the editor could do this, he was a man of\nShakespearian genius, and had minute knowledge of a dead society.\nThis becomes evident when, in place of examining the _Iliad_ through\nmicroscopes, looking out for discrepancies, we study it in its large\nlines as a literary whole. The question being, Is the _Iliad_ a\nliterary whole or a mere literary mosaic? we must ask \"What, taking it\nprovisionally as a literary whole, are the qualities of the poet as a\npainter of what we may call feudal society?\"\n\nChoosing the part of the Over-Lord Agamemnon, we must not forget that he\nis one of several analogous figures in the national poetry and romance\nof other feudal ages. Of that great analogous figure, Charlemagne,\nand of his relations with his peers in the earlier and later French\nmediaeval epics we shall later speak. Another example is Arthur, in some\nromances \"the blameless king,\" in others _un roi faineant_.\n\nThe parallel Irish case is found in the Irish saga of Diarmaid and\nGrainne. We read Mr. O'Grady's introduction on the position of Eionn Mac\nCumhail, the legendary Over-Lord of Ireland, the Agamemnon of the Celts.\n\"Fionn, like many men in power, is variable; he is at times magnanimous,\nat other times tyrannical and petty. Diarmaid, Oisin, Oscar, and Caoilte\nMac Rohain are everywhere the [Greek: kaloi kachotoi] of the Fenians;\nof them we never hear anything bad.\" [Footnote: _Transactions of the\nOssianic_ Society, vol. iii. p. 39.]\n\nHuman nature eternally repeats itself in similar conditions of society,\nFrench, Norse, Celtic, and Achaean. \"We never hear anything bad\" of\nDiomede, Odysseus, or Aias, and the evil in Achilles's resentment up to\na certain point is legal, and not beyond what the poet thinks natural\nand pardonable in his circumstances.\n\nThe poet's view of Agamemnon is expressed in the speeches and conduct\nof the peers. In Book I. we see the bullying truculence of Agamemnon,\nwreaked first on the priest of Apollo, Chryses, then in threats against\nthe prophet Chalcas, then in menaces against any prince on whom he\nchooses to avenge his loss of fair Chryseis, and, finally, in the\nSeizure of Briseis from Achilles.\n\nThis part of the First Book of the _Iliad_ is confessedly original, and\nthere is no varying, throughout the Epic, from the strong and delicate\ndrawing of an historical situation, and of a complex character.\nAgamemnon is truculent, and eager to assert his authority, but he is\nalso possessed of a heavy sense of his responsibilities, which often\nunmans him. He has a legal right to a separate \"prize of honour\" (geras)\nafter each capture of spoil. Considering the wrath of Apollo for the\nwrong done in refusing his priest's offered ransom for his daughter,\nAgamemnon will give her back, \"if that is better; rather would I see my\nfolks whole than perishing.\" [Footnote: _Iliad_, I. 115-117.]\n\nHere we note points of feudal law and of kingly character. The giving\nand taking of ransom exists as it did in the Middle Ages; ransom is\nrefused, death is dealt, as the war becomes more fierce towards its\nclose. Agamemnon has sense enough to waive his right to the girlish\nprize, for the sake of his people, but is not so generous as to demand\nno compensation. But there are no fresh spoils to apportion, and the\nOver-Lord threatens to take the prize of one of his peers, even of\nAchilles.\n\nThereon Achilles does what was frequently done in the feudal age of\nwestern Europe, he \"renounces his fealty,\" and will return to Phthia. He\nadds insult, \"thou dog-face!\" The whole situation, we shall show, recurs\nagain and again in the epics of feudal France, the later epics of feudal\ndiscontent. Agamemnon replies that Achilles may do as he pleases. \"I\nhave others by my side that shall do me honour, and, above all, Zeus,\nLord of Counsel\" (I. 175). He rules, literally, by divine right, and we\nshall see that, in the French feudal epics, as in Homer, this claim of\ndivine right is granted, even in the case of an insolent and cowardly\nOver-Lord. Achilles half draws \"his great sword,\" one of the long,\nponderous cut-and-thrust bronze swords of which we have actual examples\nfrom Mycenae and elsewhere. He is restrained by Athene, visible only to\nhim. \"With words, indeed,\" she says, \"revile him .... hereafter shall\ngoodly gifts come to thee, yea, in threefold measure....\"\n\nGifts of atonement for \"surquedry,\" like that of Agamemnon, are given\nand received in the French epics, for example, in the [blank space].\nThe _Iliad_ throughout exhibits much interest in such gifts, and in the\ncustomary law as to their acceptance, and other ritual or etiquette\nof reconciliation. This fact, it will be shown, accounts for a passage\nwhich critics reject, and which is tedious to our taste, as it probably\nwas tedious to the age of the supposed late poets themselves. (Book\nXIX.). But the taste of a feudal audience, as of the audience of the\nSaga men, delighted in \"realistic\" descriptions of their own customs\nand customary law, as in descriptions of costume and armour. This is\nfortunate for students of customary law and costume, but wearies hearers\nand readers who desire the action to advance. Passages of this kind\nwould never be inserted by late poets, who had neither the knowledge of,\nnor any interest in, the subjects.\n\nTo return to Achilles, he is now within his right; the moral goddess\nassures him of that, and he is allowed to give the reins to his\ntongue, as he does in passages to which the mediaeval epics offer many\nparallels. In the mediaeval epics, as in Homer, there is no idea of\nrecourse to a duel between the Over-Lord and his peer. Achilles accuses\nAgamemnon of drunkenness, greed, and poltroonery. He does not\nreturn home, but swears by the sceptre that Agamemnon shall rue his\n_outrecuidance_ when Hector slays the host. By the law of the age\nAchilles remains within his right. His violent words are not resented by\nthe other peers. They tacitly admit, as Athene admits, that Achilles has\nthe right, being so grievously injured, to \"renounce his fealty,\" till\nAgamemnon makes apology and gives gifts of atonement. Such, plainly, is\nthe unwritten feudal law, which gives to the Over-Lord the lion's share\nof booty, the initiative in war and council, and the right to command;\nbut limits him by the privilege of the peers to renounce their fealty\nunder insufferable provocation. In no Book is Agamemnon so direfully\ninsulted as in the First, which is admitted to be of the original\n\"kernel.\" Elsewhere the sympathy of the poet occasionally enables him to\nfeel the elements of pathos in the position of the over-tasked King of\nMen.\n\nAs concerns the apology and the gifts of atonement, the poet has feudal\ncustomary law and usage clearly before his eyes. He knows exactly what\nis due, and the limits of the rights of Over-Lord and prince, matters\nabout which the late Ionian poets could only pick up information by\na course of study in constitutional history--the last thing they were\nlikely to attempt--unless we suppose that they all kept their eyes\non the \"kernel,\" and that steadily, through centuries, generations of\nstrollers worked on the lines laid down in that brief poem.\n\nThus the poet of Book IX.--one of \"the latest expansions,\"--thoroughly\nunderstands the legal and constitutional situation, as between Agamemnon\nand Achilles. Or rather all the poets who collaborated in Book IX.,\nwhich \"had grown by a process of accretion,\" [Footnote: Leaf, Iliad,\nvol. i. p. 371.] understood the legal situation.\n\nReturning to the poet's conception of Agamemnon, we find in the\ncharacter of Agamemnon himself the key to the difficulties which critics\ndiscover in the Second Book. The difficulty is that when Zeus, won over\nto the cause of Achilles by Thetis, sends a false Dream to Agamemnon,\nthe Dream tells the prince that he shall at once take Troy, and bids him\nsummon the host to arms. But Agamemnon, far from doing that, summons\nthe host to a peaceful assembly, with the well-known results of\ndemoralisation.\n\nMr. Leaf explains the circumstances on his own theory of expansions\ncompiled into a confused whole by a late editor. He thinks that probably\nthere were two varying versions even of this earliest Book of the poem.\nIn one (A), the story went on from the quarrel between Agamemnon and\nAchilles, to the holding of a general assembly \"to consider the altered\nstate of affairs.\" This is the Assembly of Book H, but debate, in\nversion A, was opened by Thersites, not by Agamemnon, and Thersites\nproposed instant flight! That was probably the earlier version.\n\nIn the other early version (B), after the quarrel between the chiefs,\nthe story did not, as in A, go on straight to the Assembly, but Achilles\nappealed to his mother, the fair sea-goddess, as in our Iliad, and she\nobtained from Zeus, as in the actual _Iliad_, his promise to honour\nAchilles by giving victory, in his absence, to the Trojans. The poet of\nversion B, in fact, created the beautiful figure of Thetis, so essential\nto the development of the tenderness that underlies the ferocity of\nAchilles. The other and earliest poet, who treated of the Wrath of\nthe author of version A, neglected that opportunity with all that it\ninvolved, and omitted the purpose of Zeus, which is mentioned in the\nfifth line of the Epic. The editor of 540 B.C., seeing good in both\nversions, A and B, \"combined his information,\" and produced Books I. and\nII. of the _ILIAD_ as they stand. [Footnote: Leaf, _Iliad_, vol. i. p.\n47.]\n\nMr. Leaf suggests that \"there is some ground for supposing that the\noldest version of the Wrath of Achilles did not contain the promise of\nZeus to Thetis; it was a tale played exclusively on the earthly stage.\"\n[Footnote: _Ibid_, vol. i. p. xxiii.] In that case the author of the\noldest form (A) must have been a poet very inferior indeed to the later\nauthor of B who took up and altered his work. In _his_ version, Book\nI. does not end with the quarrel of the princes, but Achilles receives,\nwith all the courtesy of his character, the unwelcome heralds of\nAgamemnon, and sends Briseis with them to the Over-Lord. He then with\ntears appeals to his goddess-mother, Thetis of the Sea, who rose from\nthe grey mere like a mist, leaving the sea deeps where she dwelt beside\nher father, the ancient one of the waters. Then sat she face to face\nwith her son as he let the tears down fall, and caressed him, saying,\n\"Child, wherefore weepest thou, for what sorrow of heart? Hide it\nnot, tell it to me; that I may know it as well as thou.\" Here the poet\nstrikes the keynote of the character of Achilles, the deadly in war, the\nfierce in council, who weeps for his lost lady and his wounded honour,\nand cries for help to his mother, as little children cry.\n\nSuch is the Achilles of the _Iliad_ throughout and consistently, but\nsuch he was not to the mind of Mr. Leaf's probably elder poet, the\nauthor of version A. Thetis, in version B, promises to persuade Zeus to\nhonour Achilles by making Agamemnon rue his absence, and, twelve days\nafter the quarrel, wins the god's consent.\n\nIn Book II. Zeus reflects on his promise, and sends a false Dream to\nbeguile Agamemnon, promising that now he shall take Troy. Agamemnon,\nwhile asleep, is full of hope; but when he wakens he dresses in mufti,\nin a soft doublet, a cloak, and sandals; takes his sword (swords were\nthen worn as part of civil costume), and the ancestral sceptre, which he\nwields in peaceful assemblies. Day dawns, and \"he bids the heralds....\"\nA break here occurs, according to the theory.\n\nHere (_Iliad_, Book II., line 50) the kernel ceases, Mr. Leaf says, and\nthe editor of 540 B.C. plays his pranks for a while.\n\nThe kernel (or one of the _two_ kernels), we are to take up again at\nBook II., 443-483, and thence \"skip\" to XI. 56, and now \"we have a\nnarrative masterly in conception and smooth in execution,\" [Footnote:\n_Iliad_, vol. i. p. 47.] says Mr. Leaf. This kernel is kernel B,\nprobably the later kernel of the pair, that in which Achilles appeals to\nhis lady mother, who wins from Zeus the promise to cause Achaean defeat,\ntill Achilles is duly honoured. The whole Epic turns on this promise of\nZeus, as announced in the fifth, sixth, and seventh lines of the very\nfirst Book. If kernel A is the first kernel, the poet left out the\nessence of the plot he had announced. However, let us first examine\nprobable kernel B, reading, as advised, Book II. 1-50, [blank space];\nXI. 56 ff.\n\nWe left Agamemnon (though the Dream bade him summon the host to arms)\ndressed in _civil costume_. His ancestral sceptre in his hand, he is\ngoing to hold a deliberative assembly of the unarmed host. His attire\nproves that fact ([Greek: _prepodaes de ae stolae to epi Boulaen\nexionti_], says the scholiast). Then if we skip, as advised, to II.\n443-483 he bids the heralds call the host not to peaceful council, for\nwhich his costume is appropriate, but to _war_! The host gathers, \"and\nin their midst the lord Agamemnon,\"--still in civil costume, with his\nsceptre (he has not changed his attire as far as we are told)--\"in face\nand eyes like Zeus; in waist like Ares\" (god of war); \"in breast like\nPoseidon,\"--yet, for all that we are told, entirely unarmed! The host,\nhowever, were dressed \"in innumerable bronze,\" \"war was sweeter to them\nthan to depart in their ships to their dear native land,\"--so much did\nAthene encourage them.\n\nBut nobody had been speaking of flight, in THE KERNEL B: THAT proposal\nwas originally made by Thersites, in kernel A, and was attributed to\nAgamemnon in the part of Book II. where the editor blends A and B.\nThis part, at present, Mr. Leaf throws aside as a very late piece of\ncompilation. Turning next, as directed, to XI. 56, we find the Trojans\ndeploying in arms, and the hosts encounter with fury--Agamemnon still,\nfor all that appears, in the raiment of peace, and with the sceptre of\nconstitutional monarchy. \"In he rushed, first of all, and slew Bienor,\"\nand many other gentlemen of Troy, not with his sceptre!\n\nClearly all this is the reverse of \"a narrative masterly in conception\nand smooth in execution:\" it is an impossible narrative.\n\nMr. Leaf has attempted to disengage one of two forms of the old original\npoem from the parasitic later growths; he has promised to show us a\nsmooth and masterly narrative, and the result is a narrative on which\nno Achasan poet could have ventured. In II. 50 the heralds are bidden\n[Greek: _kurussein_], that is to summon the host--to _what_? To a\npeaceful assembly, as Agamemnon's costume proves, says the next line\n(II. 51), but that is excised by Mr. Leaf, and we go on to II. 443, and\nthe reunited passage now reads, \"Agamemnon bade the loud heralds\" (II.\n50) \"call the Achaeans to battle\" (II. 443), and they came, in harness,\nbut their leader--when did he exchange chiton, cloak, and sceptre for\nhelmet, shield, and spear? A host appears in arms; a king who set out\nwith sceptre and doublet is found with a spear, in bronze armour: and\nnot another word is said about the Dream of Agamemnon.\n\nIt is perfectly obvious and certain that the two pieces of the broken\nkernel B do not fit together at all. Nor is this strange, if the kernel\nwas really broken and endured the insertion of matter enough to fill\nnine Books (IL-XL). If kernel B really contained Book II., line 50,\nas Mr. Leaf avers, if Agamemnon, as in that line (50) \"bade the\nclear-voiced heralds do....\" something--what he bade them do was,\nnecessarily, as his peaceful costume proves, to summon the peaceful\nassembly which he was to moderate with his sceptre. At such an assembly,\nor at a preliminary council of Chiefs, he would assuredly speak of his\nDream, as he does in the part excised. Mr. Leaf, if he will not have a\npeaceful assembly as part of kernel B, must begin his excision at the\nmiddle of line 42, in II., where Agamemnon wakens; and must make him\ndress not in mufti but in armour, and call the host of the Achaeans to\narm, as the Dream bade him do, and as he does in II. 443. Perhaps we\nshould then excise II. 45 2, 45 3, with the reference to the plan of\nretreat, for _THAT_ is part of kernel A where there was no promise of\nZeus, and no Dream sent to Agamemnon. Then from II. 483, the description\nof the glorious armed aspect of Agamemnon, Mr. Leaf may pass to XI. 56,\nthe account of the Trojans under Hector, of the battle, of the prowess\nof Agamemnon, inspired by the Dream which he, contrary to Homeric and\nFrench epic custom, has very wisely mentioned to nobody--that is, in the\npart not excised.\n\nThis appears to be the only method by which Mr. Leaf can restore the\ncontinuity of his kernel B.\n\nThough Mr. Leaf has failed to fit Book XI. to any point in Book II., of\ncourse it does not follow that Book XI. cannot be a continuation of the\noriginal _Wrath_ of _Achilles_ (version B). If so, we understand why\nAgamemnon plucks up heart, in Book XI., and is the chief cause of a\ntemporary Trojan reverse. He relies on the Dream sent from Zeus in the\nopening lines of Book II., the Dream which was not in kernel A; the\nDream which he communicated to nobody; the Dream conveying the promise\nthat he should at once take Troy. This is perhaps a tenable theory,\nthough Agamemnon had much reason to doubt whether the host would obey\nhis command to arm, but an alternative theory of why and wherefore\nAgamemnon does great feats of valour, in Book XI., will later be\npropounded. Note that the events of Books XL.-XVIII., by Mr. Leaf's\ntheory, all occur on the very day after Thetis (according to kernel\nB)' [79] obtains from Zeus his promise to honour Achilles by the\ndiscomfiture of the Achaeans; they have suffered nothing till that\nmoment, as far as we learn, from the absence of Achilles and his 2500\nmen: allowing for casualties, say 2000.\n\nSo far we have traced--from Books I. and II. to Book XI.--the fortunes\nof kernel B, of the supposed later of two versions of the opening of the\n_Iliad_. But there may have been a version (A) probably earlier, we have\nbeen told, in which Achilles did not appeal to his mother, nor she to\nZeus, and Zeus did not promise victory to the Trojans, and sent no false\nDream of success to Agamemnon. What were the fortunes of that oldest\nof all old kernels? In this version (A) Agamemnon, having had no Dream,\nsummoned a peaceful assembly to discuss the awkwardness caused by the\nmutiny of Achilles. The host met (_Iliad,_ II. 87-99). Here we pass from\nline 99 to 212-242: Thersites it is who opens the debate, (in version A)\ninsults Agamemnon, and advises flight. The army rushed off to launch the\nships, as in II. 142-210, and were brought back by Odysseus, who made a\nstirring speech, and was well backed by Agamemnon, urging to battle.\n\nVersion A appears to us to have been a version that no heroic audience\nwould endure. A low person like Thersites opens a debate in an assembly\ncalled by the Over-Lord; this could not possibly pass unchallenged among\nlisteners living in the feudal age. When a prince called an assembly,\nhe himself opened the debate, as Achilles does in Book I. 54-67. That\na lewd fellow, the buffoon and grumbler of the host, of \"the people,\"\nnameless and silent throughout the Epic, should rush in and open debate\nin an assembly convoked by the Over-Lord, would have been regarded\nby feudal hearers, or by any hearers with feudal traditions, as an\nintolerable poetical license. Thersites would have been at once pulled\ndown and beaten; the host would not have rushed to the ships on _his_\nmotion. Any feudal audience would know better than to endure such\nan impossibility; they would have asked, \"How could Thersites\nspeak--without the sceptre?\"\n\nAs the poem stands, and ought to stand, nobody less than the Over-Lord,\nacting within his right, ([Greek: ae themis esti] II. 73), could suggest\nthe flight of the host, and be obeyed.\n\nIt is the absolute demoralisation of the host, in consequence of the\nstrange test of their Lord, Agamemnon, making a feigned proposal to fly,\nand it is their confused, bewildered return to the assembly under the\npersuasions of Odysseus, urged by Athene, that alone, in the poem, give\nThersites his unique opportunity to harangue. When the Over-Lord had\ncalled an assembly the first word, of course, was for to speak, as\nhe does in the poem as it stands. That Thersifes should rise in the\narrogance bred by the recent disorderly and demoralised proceedings is\none thing; that he should open the debate when excitement was eager to\nhear Agamemnon, and before demoralisation set in, is quite another. We\nnever hear again of Thersites, or of any one of the commonalty, daring\nto open his mouth in an assembly. Thersites sees his one chance, the\nchance of a life time, and takes it; because Agamemnon, by means of the\ntest--a proposal to flee homewards--which succeeded, it is said, in the\ncase of Cortes,--has reduced the host, already discontented, to a mob.\n\nBefore Agamemnon thus displayed his ineptitude, as he often does later,\nThersites had no chance. All this appears sufficiently obvious, if we\nput ourselves at the point of view of the original listeners. Thersites\nmerely continues, in full assembly, the mutinous babble which he has\nbeen pouring out to his neighbours during the confused rush to launch\nthe ships and during the return produced by the influence of Odysseus.\nThe poet says so himself (_Iliad_, II. 212). \"The rest sat down ...\nonly Thersites still chattered on.\" No original poet could manage the\nsituation in any other way.\n\nWe have now examined Mr. Leaf's two supposed earliest versions of the\nbeginning of the _Iliad_. His presumed earlier version (A), with no\nThetis, no promise of Zeus, and no Dream, and with Thersites opening\ndebate, is jejune, unpoetical, and omits the gentler and most winning\naspect of the character of Achilles, while it could not possibly have\nbeen accepted by a feudal audience for the reasons already given. His\npresumed later version (B), with Thetis, Zeus, and the false Dream,\ncannot be, or certainly has not been, brought by Mr. Leaf into congruous\nconnection with Book XI., and it results in the fighting of the\n_unarmed_ Agamemnon, which no poet could have been so careless as to\ninvent. Agamemnon could not go into battle without helmet, shield, and\nspears (the other armour we need not dwell upon here), and Thersites\ncould not have opened a debate when the Over-Lord had called the\nAssembly, nor could he have moved the chiefs to prepare for flight,\nunless, as in the actual _Iliad_, they had already been demoralised\nby the result of the feigned proposal of flight by Agamemnon, and its\neffect upon the host. Probably every reader who understands heroic\nsociety, temper, and manners will, so far, agree with us.\n\nOur own opinion is that the difficulties in the poem are caused partly\nby the poet's conception of the violent, wavering, excitable,\nand unstable character of Agamemnon; partly by some accident, now\nindiscoverable, save by conjecture, which has happened to the text.\n\nThe story in the actual _Iliad_ is that Zeus, planning disaster for the\nAchaeans, in accordance with his promise to Thetis, sends a false Dream,\nto tell Agamemnon that he will take Troy instantly. He is bidden by the\nDream to summon the host to arms. Agamemnon, _still asleep_, \"has in his\nmind things not to be fulfilled: Him seemeth that he shall take Priam's\ntown that very day\" (II. 36, 37). \"Then he awoke\" (II. 41), and,\nobviously, was no longer so sanguine, once awake!\n\nBeing a man crushed by his responsibility, and, as commander-in-chief,\nextremely timid, though personally brave, he disobeys the Dream, dresses\nin civil costume, and summons the host to a _peaceful_ assembly, not\nto war, as the Dream bade him do. Probably he thought that the host was\ndisaffected, and wanted to argue with them, in place of commanding.\n\nHere it is that the difficulty comes in, and our perplexity is increased\nby our ignorance of the regular procedure in Homeric times. Was the host\nnot in arms and fighting every day, when there was no truce? There seems\nto have been no armistice after the mutiny of Achilles, for we are\ntold that, in the period between his mutiny and the day of the Dream of\nAgamemnon, Achilles \"was neither going to the Assembly, nor into battle,\nbut wasted his heart, abiding there, longing for war and the slogan\"\n(I. 489, 492). Thus it seems that war went on, and that assemblies were\nbeing held, in the absence of Achilles. It appears, however, that the\nfighting was mere skirmishing and raiding, no general onslaught was\nattempted; and from Book II. _73_, 83 it seems to have been a matter\nof doubt, with Agamemnon and Nestor, whether the army would venture a\npitched battle.\n\nIt also appears, from the passage cited (I. 489, 492) that assemblies\nwere being regularly held; we are told that Achilles did not attend\nthem. Yet, when we come to the assembly (II. 86-100) it seems to have\nbeen a special and exciting affair, to judge by the brilliant picture\nof the crowds, the confusion, and the cries. Nothing of the sort is\nindicated in the meeting of the assembly in I. _54-5_ 8. Why is there\nso much excitement at the assembly of Book II.? Partly because it was\nsummoned _at_ dawn, whereas the usual thing was for the host to meet\nin arms before fighting on the plain or going on raids; assemblies were\nheld when the day's work was over. The host, therefore, when summoned\nto an assembly _at dawn_, expects to hear of something out of the\ncommon--as the mutiny of Achilles suggests--and is excited.\n\nWe must ask, then, why does Agamemnon, after the Dream has told him\nmerely to summon the host to arm--a thing of daily routine--call a\ndeliberative morning assembly, a thing clearly not of routine? If\nAgamemnon is really full of confidence, inspired by the Dream, why does\nhe determine, not to do what is customary, call the men to arms, but\nas Jeanne d'Arc said to the Dauphin, to \"hold such long and weary\ncouncils\"? Mr. Jevons speaks of Agamemnon's \"confidence in the delusive\ndream\" as at variance with his proceedings, and would excise II. 35-41,\n\"the only lines which represent Agamemnon as confidently believing in\nthe Dream.\" [Footnote: _Journal_ of _Hellenic_ Studies, vol. vii. pp.\n306, 307.] But the poet never once says that Agamemnon, awake, did\nbelieve confidently in the Dream! Agamemnon dwelt with hope _while_\nasleep; when he wakened--he went and called a peaceful morning assembly,\nthough the Dream bade him call to arms. He did not dare to risk his\nauthority. This was exactly in keeping with his character. The poet\nshould have said, \"When he woke, the Dream appeared to him rather poor\nsecurity for success\" (saying so in poetic language, of course), and\nthen there would be no difficulty in the summoning of an assembly at\ndawn. But either the poet expected us to understand the difference\nbetween the hopes of Agamemnon sleeping, and the doubts of Agamemnon\nwaking to chill realities--an experience common to all of us who\ndream--or some explanatory lines have been dropped out--one or two would\nhave cleared up the matter.\n\nIf I am right, the poet has not been understood. People have not\nobserved that Agamemnon hopes while asleep, and doubts, and acts on his\ndoubt, when awake. Thus Mr. Leaf writes: \"Elated by the dream, as we are\nled to suppose, Agamemnon summons the army--to lead them into battle?\nNothing of the sort; he calls them to assembly.\" [Footnote: _Iliad_,\nvol. ii. p. 46.] But we ought not to have been led to suppose that\nthe waking Agamemnon was so elated as the sleeping Agamemnon. He was\n\"disillusioned\" on waking; his conduct proves it; he did not know what\nto think about the Dream; he did not know how the host would take the\nDream; he doubted whether they would fight at his command, so he called\nan assembly.\n\nMr. Jevons very justly cites a parallel case. Grote has remarked that in\nBook VII. of Herodotus, \"The dream sent by the Gods to frighten Xerxes\nwhen about to recede from his project,\" has \"a marked parallel in the\n_Iliad_.\" Thus Xerxes, after the defection of Artabanus, was despondent,\nlike Agamemnon after the mutiny of Achilles, and was about to recede\nfrom his project. To both a delusive dream is sent urging them to\nproceed. Xerxes calls an assembly, however, and says that he will\nnot proceed. Why? Because, says Herodotus, \"when day came, he thought\nnothing of his dream.\" Agamemnon, once awake, thought doubtfully of\n_his_ dream; he called a Privy Council, told the princes about his\ndream--of which Nestor had a very dubious opinion--and said that he\nwould try the temper of the army by proposing instant flight: the chiefs\nshould restrain the men if they were eager to run away.\n\nNow the epic prose narrative of Herodotus is here clearly based on\n_Iliad_, II., which Herodotus must have understood as I do. But in\nHomer there is no line to say--and one line or two would have been\nenough--that Agamemnon, when awake, doubted, like Xerxes, though\nAgamemnon, when asleep, had been confident. The necessary line, for all\nthat we know, still existed in the text used by Herodotus. Homer\nmay lose a line as well as Dieuchidas of Megara, or rather Diogenes\nLaertius. Juvenal lost a whole passage, re-discovered by Mr. Winstedt\nin a Bodleian manuscript. If Homer expected modern critics to note the\ndelicate distinction between Agamemnon asleep and Agamemnon awake, or to\nunderstand Agamemnon's character, he expected too much. [Footnote: Cf.\nJevons, _Journal of Hellenic Studies_, vol. vii. pp. 306, 307.] The poet\nthen treats the situation on these lines: Agamemnon, awake and free from\nillusion, does not obey the dream, does _not_ call the army to war; he\ntakes a middle course.\n\nIn the whole passage the poet's main motive, as Mr. Monro remarks with\nobvious truth, is \"to let his audience become acquainted with the temper\nand spirit of the army as it was affected by the long siege ... and by\nthe events of the First Book.\" [Footnote: Monro, _Iliad_, vol. i. p.\n261.] The poet could not obtain his object if Agamemnon merely gave the\nsummons to battle; and he thinks Agamemnon precisely the kind of waverer\nwho will call, first the Privy Council of the Chiefs, and then an\nassembly. Herein the homesick host will display its humours, as it does\nwith a vengeance. Agamemnon next tells his Dream to the chiefs (if he\nhad a dream of this kind he would most certainly tell it), and adds (as\nhas been already stated) that he will first test the spirit of the\narmy by a feigned proposal of return to Greece, while the chiefs are to\nrestrain them if they rush to launch the ships. Nestor hints that there\nis not much good in attending to dreams; however, this is the dream of\nthe Over-Lord, who is the favoured of Zeus.\n\nAgamemnon next, addressing the assembly, says that posterity will think\nit a shameful thing that the Achaeans raised the siege of a town with a\npopulation much smaller than their own army; but allies from many\ncities help the Trojans, and are too strong for him, whether posterity\nunderstands that or not. \"Let us flee with our ships!\"\n\nOn this the host break up, in a splendid passage of poetry, and rush\nto launch the ships, the passion of _nostalgie_ carrying away even\nthe chiefs, it appears--a thing most natural in the circumstances.\nBut Athene finds Odysseus in grief: \"neither laid he any hand upon his\nship,\" as the others did, and she encouraged him to stop the flight.\nThis he does, taking the sceptre of Agamemnon from his unnerved hand.\n\nHe goes about reminding the princes \"have we not heard Agamemnon's real\nintention in council?\" (II. 188-197), and rating the common sort. The\nassembly meets again in great confusion; Thersites seizes the chance to\nbe insolent, and is beaten by Odysseus. The host then arms for battle.\n\nThe poet has thus shown Agamemnon in the colours which he wears\nconsistently all through the _Iliad_. He has, as usual, contrasted with\nhim Odysseus, the type of a wise and resolute man. This contrast the\npoet maintains without fail throughout. He has shown us the temper of\nthe weary, home-sick army, and he has persuaded us that he knows how\nsubtle, dangerous, and contagious a thing is military panic. Thus, at\nleast, I venture to read the passage, which, thus read, is perfectly\nintelligible. Agamemnon is no personal coward, but the burden of the\nsafety of the host overcomes him later, and he keeps suggesting flight\nin the ships, as we shall see. Suppose, then, we read on from II. 40\nthus: \"The Dream left him thinking of things not to be, even that on\nthis day he shall take the town of Priam.... But he awoke from sleep\nwith the divine voice ringing in his ears. (_Then it seemed him that\nsome dreams are true and_ some _false, for all do_ not _come through the\nGate of_ Horn.) So he arose and sat up and did on his soft tunic, and\nhis great cloak, and grasped his ancestral sceptre ... and bade the\nclear-voiced heralds summon the Achaeans of the long locks to the\ndeliberative assembly.\" He then, as in II. 53-75 told his Dream to the\npreliminary council, and proposed that he should try the temper of\nthe host by proposing flight--which, if it began, the chiefs were to\nrestrain--before giving orders to arm. The test of the temper of the\nhost acted as it might be expected to act; all rushed to launch the\nships, and the princes were swept away in the tide of flight, Agamemnon\nhimself merely looking on helpless. The panic was contagious; only\nOdysseus escaped its influence, and redeemed the honour of the Achaeans,\nas he did again on a later day.\n\nThe passage certainly has its difficulties. But Erhardt expresses the\nproper state of the case, after giving his analysis. \"The hearer's\nimagination is so captured, first by the dream, then by the brawling\nassembly, by the rush to the ships, by the intervention of Odysseus, by\nthe punishment of Thersites--all these living pictures follow each\nother so fleetly before the eyes that we have scarcely time to make\nobjections.\" [Footnote: _Die Enstehung der Homerische Gedichte_, p.\n29.]. The poet aimed at no more and no less effect than he has\nproduced, and no more should be required by any one, except by\nthat anachronism--\"the analytical reader.\" _He_ has \"time to make\nobjections\": the poet's audience had none; and he must be criticised\nfrom their point of view. Homer did not sing for analytical readers,\nfor the modern professor; he could not possibly conceive that Time would\nbring such a being into existence.\n\nTo return to the character of Agamemnon. In moments of encouragement\nAgamemnon is a valiant fighter, few better spearmen, yet \"he attains not\nto the first Three,\" Achilles, Aias, Diomede. But Agamemnon is unstable\nas water; again and again, as in Book II., the lives and honour of the\nAchaeans are saved in the Over-Lord's despite by one or other of the\npeers. The whole _Iliad_, with consistent uniformity, pursues the scheme\nof character and conduct laid down in the two first Books. It is guided\nat once by feudal allegiance and feudal jealousy, like the _Chansons de\nGeste_ and the early sagas or romances of Ireland. A measure of respect\nfor Agamemnon, even of sympathy, is preserved; he is not degraded as the\nkings and princes are often degraded on the Attic stage, and even in the\nCyclic poems. Would wandering Ionian reciters at fairs have maintained\nthis uniformity? Would the tyrant Pisistratus have made his literary man\ntake this view?\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER V\n\n\nAGAMEMNON IN THE LATER \"ILIAD\"\n\nIn the Third Book, Agamemnon receives the compliments due to his\nsupremacy, aspect, and valour from the lips of Helen and Priam. There\nare other warriors taller by a head, and Odysseus was shorter than he by\na head, so Agamemnon was a man of middle stature. He is \"beautiful and\nroyal\" of aspect; \"a good king and a mighty spearman,\" says Helen.\n\nThe interrupted duel between Menelaus and Paris follows, and then the\ntreacherous wounding of Menelaus by Pandarus. One of Agamemnon's most\nsympathetic characteristics is his intense love of his brother, for\nwhose sake he has made the war. He shudders on seeing the arrow wound,\nbut consoles Menelaus by the certainty that Troy will fall, for the\nTrojans have broken the solemn oath of truce. Zeus \"doth fulfil at last,\nand men make dear amends.\" But with characteristic inconsistency he\ndiscourages Menelaus by a picture of many a proud Trojan leaping on\nhis tomb, while the host will return home-an idea constantly present to\nAgamemnon's mind. He is always the first to propose flight, though he\nwill \"return with shame\" to Mycenae. Menelaus is of much better cheer:\n\"Be of good courage, [blank space] ALL THE HOST OF THE [misprint]\"--a\nthing which Agamemnon does habitually, though he is not a personal\npoltroon. As Menelaus has only a slight flesh wound after all, and\nas the Trojans are doomed men, Agamemnon is now \"eager for glorious\nbattle.\" He encourages the princes, but, of all men, rebukes Odysseus as\n\"last at a fray and first at a feast\": such is his insolence, for which\nmen detest him.\n\nThis is highly characteristic in Agamemnon, who has just been redeemed\nfrom ruin by Odysseus. Rebuked by Odysseus, he \"takes back his word\" as\nusual, and goes on to chide Diomede as better at making speeches than at\nfighting! But Diomede made no answer, \"having respect to the chiding\nof the revered King.\" He even rebukes the son of Capaneus for answering\nAgamemnon haughtily. Diomede, however, does not forget; he bides his\ntime. He now does the great deeds of his day of valour (Book V.).\nAgamemnon meanwhile encourages the host.\n\nDuring Books V., VI. Agamemnon's business is \"to bid the rest keep\nfighting.\" When Hector, in Book VII., challenges any Achaean, nobody\nvolunteers except Menelaus, who has a strong sense of honour. Agamemnon\nrestrains him, and lots are cast: the host pray that the lot may fall\non Aias, Diomede, or Agamemnon (VII. 179-180). Thus the Over-Lord is\nacknowledged to be a man of his hands, especially good at hurling the\nspear, as we see again in Book XXIII.\n\nA truce is proposed for the burial of the dead, and Paris offers to give\nup the wealth that he brought to Troy, and more, if the Achaeans will\ngo home, but Helen he will not give up. We expect Agamemnon to answer as\nbecomes him. But no! All are silent, till Diomede rises. They will not\nreturn, he says, even if Helen be restored, for even a fool knows that\nTroy is doomed, because of the broken oath. The rest shout acquiescence,\nand Agamemnon refuses the compromise. Apparently he would not have\ndisdained it, but for Diomede's reply.\n\nOn the following day the Trojans have the better in the battle, and\nAgamemnon \"has no heart to stand,\" nor have some of his peers. But\nDiomede has more courage, and finally Agamemnon begins to call to\nthe host to fight, but breaks down, weeps, and prays to Zeus \"that\nwe ourselves at least flee and escape;\" he is not an encouraging\ncommander-in-chief! Zeus, in pity, sends a favourable omen; Aias fights\nwell; night falls, and the Trojans camp on the open plain.\n\nAgamemnon, in floods of tears, calls an assembly, and proposes to\n\"return to Argos with dishonour.\" \"Let us flee with our ships to our\ndear native land, for now shall we never take wide-wayed Troy,\" All are\nsilent, till Diomede rises and reminds Agamemnon that \"thou saidst I was\nno man of war, but a coward.\" (In Book V.; we are now in Book IX.) \"Zeus\ngave thee the honour of the sceptre above all men, but valour he gave\nthee not.... Go thy way; thy way is before thee, and thy ships stand\nbeside the sea. But all the other flowing-haired Achaeans will tarry\nhere until we waste Troy.\"\n\nNestor advises Agamemnon to set an advanced guard, which that martialist\nhad never thought of doing, and to discuss matters over supper. A force\nof 700 men, under Meriones and the son of Nestor, was posted between the\nfoss and the wall round the camp; the council met, and Nestor advised\nAgamemnon to approach Achilles with gentle words and gifts of atonement.\nAgamemnon, full of repentance, acknowledges his folly and offers\nenormous atonement. Heralds and three ambassadors are sent; and how\nAchilles received them, with perfect courtesy, but with absolute\ndistrust of Agamemnon and refusal of his gifts, sending the message that\nhe will fight only when fire comes to his own ships, we know.\n\nAchilles is now entirely in the wrong, and the Over-Lord is once more\nwithin his right. He has done all, or more than all, that customary\nlaw demands. In Book IX. Phoenix states the case plainly. \"If Agamemnon\nbrought thee not gifts, and promised thee more hereafter, ... then\nwere I not he that should bid thee cast aside thine anger, and save the\nArgives....\" (IX. 515-517). The case so stands that, if Achilles later\nrelents and fights, the gifts of atonement will no longer be due to him,\nand he \"will not be held in like honour\" (IX. 604).\n\nThe poet knows intimately, and, like his audience, is keenly interested\nin the details of the customary law. We cannot easily suppose this\nframe of mind and this knowledge in a late poet addressing a late Ionian\naudience.\n\nThe ambassadors return to Agamemnon; their evil tidings are received in\ndespairing silence. But Diomede bids Agamemnon take heart and fight next\nday, with his host arrayed \"before the ships\" (IX. 708). This appears to\ncounsel defensive war; but, in fact, and for reasons, when it comes to\nfighting they do battle in the open.\n\nThe next Book (X.) is almost universally thought a late interpolation;\nan opinion elsewhere discussed (see [blank space]). Let us, then, say\nwith Mr. Leaf that the Book begins with \"exaggerated despondency\" and\nends with \"hasty exultation,\" in consequence of a brilliant camisade,\nwherein Odysseus and Diomede massacre a Thracian contingent. Our point\nis that the poet carefully (see _The Doloneia_) continues the study of\nAgamemnon in despondency, and later, by his \"hasty exultation,\" preludes\nto the valour which the Over-Lord displays in Book XI.\n\nThe poet knows that something in the way of personal valour is due to\nAgamemnon's position; he fights brilliantly, receives a flesh wound,\nretires, and is soon proposing a general flight in his accustomed way.\nWhen the Trojans, in Book XIV., are attacking the ships, Agamemnon\nremarks that he fears the disaffection of his whole army (XIV. 49, 51),\nand, as for the coming defeat, that he \"knew it,\" even when Zeus helped\nthe Greeks. They are all to perish far from Argos. Let them drag the\nships to the sea, moor them with stones, and fly, \"For there is no shame\nin fleeing from ruin, even in the night. Better doth he fare who flees\nfrom trouble than he that is overtaken.\" It is now the turn of Odysseus\nagain to save the honour of the army. \"Be silent, lest some other of the\nAchaeans hear this word, that no man should so much as suffer to pass\nthrough his mouth.... And now I wholly scorn thy thoughts, such a word\nhast thou uttered.\" On this Agamemnon instantly repents. \"Right sharply\nhast thou touched my heart with thy stern reproof:\" he has not even the\ncourage of his nervousness.\n\nThe combat is now in the hands of Aias and Patroclus, who is slain.\nAgamemnon, who is wounded, does not reappear till Book XIX., when\nAchilles, anxious to fight and avenge Patroclus at once, without\nformalities of reconciliation, professes his desire to let bygones be\nbygones. Agamemnon excuses his insolence to Achilles as an inspiration\nof Ate: a predestined fault--\"Not I am the cause, but Zeus and Destiny.\"\n\nOdysseus, to clinch the reunion and fulfil customary law, advises\nAgamemnon to bring out the gifts of atonement (the gifts prepared in\nBook IX.), after which the right thing is for him to give a feast of\nreconciliation, \"that Achilles may have nothing lacking of his right.\"\n[Footnote: Book XIX. 179, 180.] The case is one which has been provided\nfor by customary law in every detail. Mr. Leaf argues that all this part\nmust be late, because of the allusion to the gifts offered in Book IX.\nBut we reply, with Mr. Monro, that the Ninth Book is \"almost necessary\nto any Achilleis.\" The question is, would a late editor or poet know\nall the details of customary law in such a case as a quarrel between\nOver-Lord and peer? would a feudal audience have been satisfied with\na poem which did not wind the quarrel up in accordance with usage? and\nwould a late poet, in a society no longer feudal, know how to wind it\nup? Would he find any demand on the part of his audience for a long\nseries of statements, which to a modern seem to interrupt the story?\nTo ourselves it appears that a feudal audience desired the customary\ndetails; to such an audience they were most interesting.\n\nThis is a taste which, as has been said, we find in all early poetry\nand in the sagas; hence the long \"runs\" of the Celtic sagas, minutely\nrepeated descriptions of customary things. The Icelandic saga-men never\nweary, though modern readers do, of legal details. For these reasons we\nreckon the passages in Book XIX. about the reconciliation as original,\nand think they can be nothing else. It is quite natural that, in a\nfeudal society of men who were sticklers for custom, the hearers should\ninsist on having all things done duly and in order--the giving of the\ngifts and the feast of reconciliation--though the passionate Achilles\nhimself desires to fight at once. Odysseus insists that what we may call\nthe regular routine shall be gone through. It is tedious to the modern\nreader, but it is surely much more probable that a feudal poet thus\ngratified his peculiar audience (he looked for no other) than that a\nlate poet, with a different kind of audience, thrust the Reconciliation\nin as an \"after-thought.\" [Footnote: Leaf, _Iliad_, vol. ii. p. 317.]\nThe right thing must be done, Odysseus assures Achilles, \"for I was\nborn first, and know more things.\" It is not the right thing to fight\nat once, unfed, and before the solemn sacrifice by the Over-Lord,\nthe prayer, the Oath of Agamemnon, and the reception of the gifts by\nAchilles; only after these formalities, and after the army has fed, can\nthe host go forth. \"I know more than you do; you are a younger man,\"\nsays Odysseus, speaking in accordance with feudal character, at the risk\nof wearying later unforeseen generations.\n\nThis is not criticism inspired by mere \"literary feeling,\" for \"literary\nfeeling\" is on the side of Achilles, and wishes the story to hurry to\nhis revenge. But ours is [blank space] criticism; we must think of the\npoet in relation to his audience and of their demands, which we can\nestimate by similar demands, vouched for by the supply, in the early\nnational poetry of other peoples and in the Icelandic sagas.\n\nWe hear no more of Agamemnon till, in Book XXIII, 35-38, after the\nslaying of Hector, Achilles \"was brought to noble Agamemnon\" (for that,\nas Odysseus said, was the regular procedure) \"by the Achaean chiefs,\nhardly persuading him thereto, for his heart was wroth for his comrade.\"\nHere they feast, Achilles still full of grief and resentment. He merely\ngoes through the set forms, much against his will. It does appear to us\nthat the later the poet the less he would have known or cared about\nthe forms. An early society is always much interested in forms and in\nfunerals and funeral games, so the poet indulges their taste with the\nlast rites of Patroclus. The last view of Agamemnon is given when,\nat the end of the games, Achilles courteously presents him with the\nflowered _lebes_, the prize for hurling the spear, without asking him to\ncompete, since his superior skill is notorious. This act of courtesy is\nthe real reconciliation; previously Achilles had but gone reluctantly\nthrough the set forms in such cases provided. Even when Agamemnon\noffered the gifts of atonement, Achilles said, \"Give them, as is\ncustomary, or keep them, as you please\" (XIX. 146, 148). Achilles, young\nand passionate, cares nothing for the feudal procedure.\n\nThis rapid survey seems to justify the conclusion that the poet presents\nan uniform and historically correct picture of the Over-Lord and of\nhis relations with his peers, a picture which no late editor could\nhave pieced together out of the widely varying _repertoires_ of late\nstrolling reciters. Such reciters would gladly have forgotten, and such\nan editor would gladly have \"cut\" the \"business\" of the reconciliation.\nThey would also, in a democratic spirit, have degraded the Over-Lord\ninto the tyrant, but throughout, however low Agamemnon may fall, the\npoet is guided by the knowledge that his right to rule is _jure divino_,\nthat he has qualities, that his responsibilities are crushing, \"I, whom\namong all men Zeus hath planted for ever among labours, while my\nbreath abides within me, and my limbs move,\" says the Over-Lord (X.\nSg, go.[sic]). In short, the poet's conception of the Over-Lord is\nthroughout harmonious, is a contemporary conception entertained by a\nsinger who lives among peers that own, and are jealous of, and obey an\nOver-Lord. The character and situation of Agamemnon are a poetic work of\none age, one moment of culture.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER VI\n\n\nARCHAEOLOGY OF THE \"ILIAD\". BURIAL AND CREMATION\n\nIn archaeological discoveries we find the most convincing proofs that\nthe _Iliad_, on the whole, is the production of a single age, not the\npatchwork of several changeful centuries. This may seem an audacious\nstatement, as archaeology has been interpreted of late in such a manner\nas to demand precisely the opposite verdict. But if we can show, as we\nthink we can, that many recent interpretations of the archaeological\nevidence are not valid, because they are not consistent, our contention,\nthough unexpected, will be possible. It is that the combined testimony\nof archaeology and of the Epic proves the _Iliad_ to represent, as\nregards customs, weapons, and armour, a definite moment of evolution; a\nperiod between the age recorded in the art of the Mycenaean shaft graves\nand the age of early iron swords and the \"Dipylon\" period.\n\nBefore the discoveries of the material remains of the \"Mycenzean\"\ntimes, the evidence of archaeology was seldom appropriately invoked\nin discussions of the Homeric question. But in the thirty years since\nSchliemann explored the buried relics of the Mycenzean Acropolis,\nhis \"Grave of Agamemnon,\" a series of excavations has laid bare the\ninterments, the works of art, and the weapons and ornaments of years\nlong prior to the revolution commonly associated with the \"Dorian\nInvasion\" of about 1100-1000 B.C. The objects of all sorts which have\nbeen found in many sites of Greece and the isles, especially of Cyprus\nand Crete, in some respects tally closely with Homeric descriptions,\nin others vary from them widely. Nothing can be less surprising, if the\nheroes whose legendary feats inspired the poet lived centuries before\nhis time, as Charlemagne and his Paladins lived some three centuries\nbefore the composition of the earliest extant _Chansons de Geste_ on\ntheir adventures. There was, in such a case, time for much change in the\ndetails of life, art, weapons and implements. Taking the relics in the\ngraves of the Mycenaean Acropolis as a starting-point, some things would\nendure into the age of the poet, some would be modified, some would\ndisappear.\n\nWe cannot tell how long previous to his own date the poet supposes the\nAchaean heroes to have existed. He frequently ascribes to them feats of\nstrength which \"no man of such as now are\" could perform. This gives\nno definite period for the interval; he might be speaking of the great\ngrandfathers of his own generation. But when he regards the heroes as\nclosely connected by descent of one or two generations with the gods,\nand as in frequent and familiar intercourse with gods and goddesses, we\nmust suppose that he did not think their period recent. The singers\nof the _Chansons de Geste_ knew that angels' visits were few and far\nbetween at the period, say, of the Norman Conquest; but they allowed\nangels to appear in epics dealing with the earlier time, almost as\nfreely as gods intervene in Homer. In short, the Homeric poet undeniably\ntreats the age of his heroes as having already, in the phrase of\nThucydides, \"won its way to the mythical,\" and therefore as indefinitely\nremote.\n\nIt is impossible here to discuss in detail the complex problems of\nMycenaean chronology. If we place the Mycenaean \"bloom-time\" from\n\"the seventeenth or sixteenth to the twelfth century B.C.,\" [Footnote:\nTsountas and Manatt, p. 322.] it is plain that there is space to spare,\nbetween the poet's age and that of his heroes, for the rise of changes\nin war, weapons, and costume. Indeed, there are traces enough of change\neven in the objects and art discovered in the bloom-time, as represented\nby the Mycenaean acropolis itself and by other \"Mycenaean\" sites. The\nart of the fragment of a silver vase in a grave, on which a siege is\nrepresented, is not the art, the costumes are not the costumes, of\nthe inlaid bronze dagger-blade. The men shown on the vase and the\nlion-hunters on the dagger both have their hair close cropped, but on\nthe vase they are naked, on the dagger they wear short drawers. On the\nVaphio cups, found in a _tholos_ chamber-tomb near Amyclae, the men are\n\"long-haired Achaeans,\" with heavy, pendent locks, like the man on a\npyxis from Knossos, published by Mr. Evans; they are of another period\nthan the close-cropped men of the vase and dagger. [Footnote: _Journal\nof Hellenic Studies_, vol. xvi. p. 102.] Two of the men on the silver\nvase are covered either with shields of a shape and size elsewhere\nunknown in Mycenaean art, or with cloaks of an unexampled form. The\nmasonry of the city wall, shown on the vase in the Mycenaean grave,\nis not the ordinary masonry of Mycenae itself. On the vase the wall is\n\"isodomic,\" built of cut stones in regular layers. Most of the Mycenaean\nwalls, on the other hand, are of \"Cyclopean\" style, in large irregular\nblocks.\n\nArt, good and very bad, exists in many various stages in Mycenaean\nrelics. The drawing of a god, with a typical Mycenaean shield in the\nform of a figure 8, on a painted sarcophagus from Milato in Crete,\nis more crude and savage than many productions of the Australian\naboriginals, [Footnote: _Journal of Hellenic Studies, vol. xvi. _p._\n174, fig. 50._ Grosse. _Les Debuts de l'Art,_ pp. 124-176.] the thing is\non the level of Red Indian work. Meanwhile at Vaphio, Enkomi, Knossos,\nand elsewhere the art is often excellent.\n\nIn one essential point the poet describes a custom without parallel\namong the discovered relics of the Mycenaean age--namely, the disposal\nof the bodies of the dead. They are neither buried with their arms, in\nstately _tholos_ tombs nor in shaft graves, as at Mycenae: whether\nthey be princes or simple oarsmen, they are cremated. A pyre of wood is\nbuilt; on this the warrior's body is laid, the pyre is lighted, the body\nis reduced to ashes, the ashes are placed in a vessel or box of gold,\nwrapped round with precious cloths (no arms are buried, as a general\nrule), and a mound, howe, barrow, or tumulus is raised over all. Usually\na _stele_ or pillar crowns the edifice. This method is almost uniform,\nand, as far as cremation and the cairn go, is universal in the _Iliad_\nand _Odyssey_ whenever a burial is described. Now this mode of\ninterment must be the mode of a single age in Greek civilisation. It is\nconfessedly not the method of the Mycenaeans of the shaft grave, or of\nthe latter _tholos_ or stone beehive-shaped grave; again, the Mycenaeans\ndid not burn the dead; they buried. Once more, the Homeric method is not\nthat of the Dipylon period (say 900-750 B.C.) represented by the tombs\noutside the Dipylon gate of Athens. The people of that age now buried,\nnow burned, their dead, and did not build cairns over them. Thus the\nHomeric custom comes between the shaft graves and the latter _tholos_\ngraves, on the one hand, and the Dipylon custom of burning or burying,\nwith sunk or rock-hewn graves, on the other.\n\nThe Homeric poets describe the method of their own period. They\nassuredly do not adhere to an older epic tradition of shaft graves or\n_tholos_ graves, though these must have been described in lays of the\nperiod when such methods of disposal of the dead were in vogue. The\naltar above the shaft-graves in Mycenae proves the cult of ancestors in\nMycenae; of this cult in the _Iliad_ there is no trace, or only a\ndim trace of survival in the slaughter of animals at the funeral. The\nHomeric way of thinking about the state of the dead, weak, shadowy\nthings beyond the river Oceanus, did not permit them to be worshipped\nas potent beings. Only in a passage, possibly interpolated, of the\n_Odyssey_, do we hear that Castor and Polydeuces, brothers of Helen,\nand sons of Tyndareus, through the favour of Zeus have immortality, and\nreceive divine honours. [Footnote: Odyssey, XI. 298-304.]\n\nThese facts are so familiar that we are apt to overlook the strangeness\nof them in the history of religious evolution. The cult of ancestral\nspirits begins in the lowest barbarism, just above the level of the\nAustralian tribes, who, among the Dieri, show some traces of the\npractice, at least, of ghost feeding. [Footnote: Howitt, _Native\nTribes of South-Eastern Australia,_ p. 448. There are also traces of\npropitiation in Western Australia (MS. of Mrs. Bates).] Sometimes, as in\nmany African tribes, ancestor worship is almost the whole of practical\ncult. Usually it accompanies polytheism, existing beside it on a lower\nplane. It was prevalent in the Mycenae of the shaft graves; in Attica\nit was uninterrupted; it is conspicuous in Greece from the ninth century\nonwards. But it is unknown to or ignored by the Homeric poets, though it\ncan hardly have died out of folk custom. Consequently, the poems are\nof one age, an age of cremation and of burial in barrows, with no ghost\nworship. Apparently some revolution as regards burial occurred between\nthe age of the graves of the Mycenaean acropolis and the age of Homer.\nThat age, coming with its form of burning and its absence of the cult\nof the dead, between two epochs of inhumation, ancestor worship, and\nabsence of cairns, is as certainly and definitely an age apart, a\npeculiar period, as any epoch can be.\n\nCremation, with cairn burial of the ashes, is, then, the only form of\nburial mentioned by Homer, and, as far as the poet tells us, the period\nwas not one in which iron was used for swords and spears. At Assarlik\n(Asia Minor) and in Thera early graves, prove the use of cremation,\nbut also, unlike Homer, of iron weapons. [Footnote: Paton, Journal _of\nHellenic Studies,_ viii. 64_ff_. For other references, cf. Poulsen, _Die\nDipylongraeben_, p. 2, Notes. Leipzig 1905.] In these graves the ashes\nare inurned. There are examples of the same usage in Salamis, without\niron. In Crete, in graves of the period of geometrical ornament\n(\"Dipylon\"), burning is more common than inhumation. Cremation is\nattested in a _tholos_ or beehive-shaped grave in Argos, where the vases\nwere late Mycenaean. Below this stratum was an older shaft grave, as is\nusual in _tholos_ interments; it had been plundered? [Footnote: Poulsen,\np.2.]\n\nThe cause of the marked change from Mycenaean inhumation to Homeric\ncremation is matter of conjecture. It has been suggested that burning\nwas introduced during the migrations after the Dorian invasion. Men\ncould carry the ashes of their friends to the place where they finally\nsettled. [Footnote: Helbig, _Homerische Epos,_ p.83] The question may,\nperhaps, be elucidated by excavation, especially in Asia Minor, on\nthe sites of the earliest Greek colonies. At Colophon are many cairns\nunexplored by science. Mr. Ridgeway, as is well known, attributes the\nintroduction of cremation to a conquering northern people, the Achaeans,\nhis \"Celts.\" It is certain that cremation and urn burial of the ashes\nprevailed in Britain during the Age of Bronze, and co-existed with\ninhumation in the great cemetery of Hallstatt, surviving into the Age of\nIron. [Footnote: Cf. _Guide to Antiquities of Early Iron Age,_ British\nMuseum, 1905, by Mr. Reginald A. Smith, under direction of Mr. Charles\nH. Read, for a brief account of Hallstatt culture.] Others suppose a\nchange in Achaean ideas about the soul; it was no longer believed to\nhaunt the grave and grave goods and be capable of haunting the living,\nbut to be wholly set free by burning, and to depart for ever to the\nHouse of Hades, powerless and incapable of hauntings.\n\nIt is never easy to decide as to whether a given mode of burial is the\nresult of a definite opinion about the condition of the dead, or\nwhether the explanation offered by those who practise the method is an\nafterthought. In Tasmania among the lowest savages, now extinct,\nwere found monuments over cremated human remains, accompanied with\n\"characters crudely marked, similar to those which the aborigines\ntattooed on their forearms.\" In one such grave was a spear, \"for the\ndead man to fight with when he is asleep,\" as a native explained. Some\nTasmanian tribes burned the dead and carried the ashes about in amulets;\nothers buried in hollow trees; others simply inhumed. Some placed the\ndead in a hollow tree, and cremated the body after lapse of time. Some\ntied the dead up tightly (a common practice with inhumation), and\nthen burned him. Some buried the dead in an erect 'posture. The common\nexplanation of burning was that it prevented the dead from returning,\nthus it has always been usual to burn the bodies of vampires. Did a race\nso backward hit on an idea unknown to the Mycenaean Greeks?\n[Footnote: Ling Roth., _The Tasmanians_, pp. 128-134. Reports of Early\nDiscoverers.] If the usual explanation be correct--burning prevents\nthe return of the dead--how did the Homeric Greeks come to substitute\nburning for the worship and feeding of the dead, which had certainly\nprevailed? How did the ancient method return, overlapping and blent with\nthe method of cremation, as in the early Dipylon interments? We can\nonly say that the Homeric custom is definite and isolated, and that but\nslight variations occur in the methods of Homeric burial.\n\n(1)In _Iliad_, VI, 4 I 6 _ff_, Andromache _SAYS_ that Achilles slew her\nfather, \"yet he despoiled him not, for his soul had shame of that; but\nhe burnt him in his inlaid armour, and raised a barrow over him.\" We are\nnot told that the armour was interred with the ashes of Eetion. This is\na peculiar case. We always hear in the that the dead are burned, and\nthe ashes of princes are placed in a vessel of gold within an artificial\nhillock; but we do not hear, except in this passage, that they are\nburned in their armour, or that it is burned, or that it is buried with\nthe ashes of the dead. The invariable practice is for the victor, if he\ncan, to despoil the body of the fallen foe; but Achilles for some reason\nspared that indignity in the case of Eetion. [Footnote: German examples\nof burning the amis of the cremated dead and then burying them are given\nby Mr. Ridgeway, _Early Age of Greece,_ vol. i. pp. 498, 499.]\n\n(2) _ILIAD,_ VII. 85. Hector, in his challenge to a single combat, makes\nthe conditions that the victor shall keep the arms and armour of the\nvanquished, but shall restore his body to his friends. The Trojans\nwill burn him, if he falls; if the Achaean falls, the others will do\nsomething expressed by the word [Greek: tarchuchosi] probably a word\nsurviving from an age of embalment. [Footnote: Helbig, _Homerische\nEpos,_ pp. 55, 56.] It has come to mean, generally, to do the funeral\nrites. The hero is to have a barrow or artificial howe or hillock built\nover him, \"beside wide Hellespont,\" a memorial of him, and of Hector's\nvalour.\n\nOn the River Helmsdale, near Kildonan, on the left bank, there is such\na hillock which has never, it is believed, been excavated. It preserves\nthe memory of its occupant, an early Celtic saint; whether he was\ncremated or not it is impossible to say. But his memory is not lost,\nand the howe, cairn, or hillock, in Homer is desired by the heroes as a\nMEMORIAL.\n\nOn the terms proposed by Hector the arms of the dead could not be either\nburned or buried with him.\n\n(3) Iliad, IX. 546. Phoenix says that the Calydonian boar \"brought many\nto the mournful pyre.\" All were cremated.\n\n(4) _Iliad_, XXII 50-55. Andromache in her dirge (the _regret_ of the\nFrench mediaeval epics) says that Hector lies unburied by the ships and\nnaked, but she will burn raiment of his, \"delicate and fair, the work of\nwomen ... to thee no profit, since thou wilt never lie therein, yet this\nshall be honour to thee from the men and women of Troy.\" Her meaning\nis not very clear, but she seems to imply that if Hector's body were in\nTroy it would be clad in garments before cremation.\n\nHelbig appears to think that to clothe the dead in _garments_ was an\nIonian, not an ancient epic custom. But in Homer the dead always wear at\nleast one garment, the [Greek: pharos], a large mantle, either white or\npurple, such as Agamemnon wears in peace (Iliad, II 43), except when,\nlike Eetion and Elpenor in the Odyssey, they are burned in their armour.\nIn _Iliad,_ XXIII. 69 _ff_., the shadow of the dead unburned Patroclus\nappears to Achilles in his sleep asking for \"his dues of fire.\" The\nwhole passage, with the account of the funeral of Patroclus, must be\nread carefully, and compared with the funeral rites of Hector at the\nend of Book XXIV. Helbig, in an essay of great erudition, though perhaps\nrather fantastic in its generalisations, has contrasted the burials of\nthe two heroes. Patroclus is buried, he says, in a true portion of the\nold Aeolic epic (Sir Richard Jebb thought the whole passage \"Ionic\"),\nthough even into this the late Ionian _bearbeiter_ (a spectral figure),\nhas introduced his Ionian notions. But the Twenty-fourth Book itself\nis late and Ionian, Helbig says, not genuine early Aeolian epic poetry.\n[Footnote: Helbig, _Zu den Homerischen Bestattungsgebrauechen_. Aus den\nSitzungsberichten der philos. philol. und histor. Classe der Kgl. bayer.\nAcademie der Wissenschaften. 1900. Heft. ii. pp. 199-299.] The burial of\nPatroclus, then, save for Ionian late interpolations, easily detected by\nHelbig, is, he assures us, genuine \"kernel,\" [Footnote: 2 Op. _laud._,\np. 208.] while Hector's burial \"is partly Ionian, and describes the\ndestiny of the dead heroes otherwise than as in the old Aeolic epos.\"\n\nHere Helbig uses that one of his two alternate theories according to\nwhich the late Ionian poets do not cling to old epic tradition, but\nbring in details of the life of their own date. By Helbig's other\nalternate theory, the late poets cling to the model set in old epic\ntradition in their pictures of details of life.\n\nDisintegrationists differ: far from thinking that the late Ionian poet\nwho buried Hector varied from the AEolic minstrel who buried Patroclus\n(in Book XXIII.), Mr. Leaf says that Hector's burial is \"almost an\nabstract\" of that of Patroclus. [Footnote: Leaf, Iliad, XXII Note to\n791.] He adds that Helbig's attempts \"to distinguish the older AEolic\nfrom the newer and more sceptical 'Ionic' faith seem to me visionary.\"\n[Footnote: Iliad, vol. ii. p. 619. Note 2] Visionary, indeed, they do\nseem, but they are examples of the efforts made to prove that the Iliad\nbears marks of composition continued through several centuries. We must\nremember that, according to Helbig, the Ionians, colonists in a new\ncountry, \"had no use for ghosts.\" A fresh colony does not produce\nghosts. \"There is hardly an English or Scottish castle without its spook\n(_spuck_). On the other hand, you look in vain for such a thing in the\nUnited States\"--spiritualism apart. [Footnote: Op. _laud._, p. 204.]\n\nThis is a hasty generalisation! Helbig will, if he looks, find ghosts\nenough in the literature of North America while still colonial, and in\nAustralia, a still more newly settled country, sixty years ago Fisher's\nghost gave evidence of Fisher's murder, evidence which, as in another\nAustralian case, served the ends of justice. [Footnote: See, in _The_\nValet's Tragedy (A. L.): \"Fisher's Ghost.\"] More recent Australian\nghosts are familiar to psychical research.\n\nThis colonial theory is one of Helbig's too venturous generalisations.\nHe studies the ghost, or rather dream-apparition, of Patroclus after\nexamining the funeral of Hector; but we shall begin with Patroclus.\nAchilles (XXIII. 4-16) first hails his friend \"even in the House of\nHades\" (so he believes that spirits are in Hades), and says that he\nhas brought Hector \"raw for dogs to devour,\" and twelve Trojans of good\nfamily \"to slaughter before thy pyre.\" That night, when Achilles is\nasleep (XXIII. 65) the spirit ([Greek: psyche]) of Patroclus appears to\nhim, says that he is forgotten, and begs to be burned at once, that he\nmay pass the gates of Hades, for the other spirits drive him off and\nwill not let him associate with them \"beyond the River,\" and he wanders\nvaguely along the wide-gated dwelling of Hades. \"Give me thy hand, for\nnever more again shall I come back from Hades, when ye have given me my\ndue of fire.\" Patroclus, being newly discarnate, does not yet know\nthat a spirit cannot take a living man's hand, though, in fact, tactile\nhallucinations are not uncommon in the presence of phantasms of the\ndead. \"Lay not my bones apart from thine ... let one coffer\" ([Greek:\nsoros]) \"hide our bones.\"\n\n [Greek: Soros], like _larnax_, is a coffin (_Sarg_), or\nwhat the Americans call a \"casket,\" in the opinion of Helbig: [Footnote:\nOP. _laud_., p.217.] it is an oblong receptacle of the bones and dust.\nHector was buried in a _larnax_; SO will Achilles and Patroclus be\nwhen Achilles falls, but the dust of Patroclus is kept, meanwhile, in a\ngolden covered cup (phialae) in the quarters of Achilles; it is not laid\nin howe after his cremation (XXIII. 243).\n\nAchilles tries to embrace Patroclus, but fails, like Odysseus with the\nshade of his mother in Hades, in the _ODYSSEY_. He exclaims that \"there\nremaineth then even in the House of Hades a spirit and phantom of the\ndead, albeit the life\" (or the wits) \"be not anywise therein, for all\nnight hath the spirit of hapless Patroclus stood over me....\"\n\nIn this speech Helbig detects the hand of the late Ionian poet. What\ngoes before is part of the genuine old Epic, the kernel, done at a time\nwhen men believed that spooks could take part in the affairs of the\nupper world. Achilles therefore (in his dream), thought that he\ncould embrace his friend. It was the sceptical Ionian, in a fresh and\nspookless colony, who knew that he could not; he thinks the ghost a mere\ndream, and introduces his scepticism in XXIII. 99-107. He brought\nin \"the ruling ideas of his own period.\" The ghost, says the Ionian\n_bearbeiter_, is intangible, though in the genuine old epic the ghost\nhimself thought otherwise--he being new to the situation and without\nexperience. This is the first sample of the critical Ionian spirit,\nlater so remarkable in philosophy and natural science, says Helbig.\n[Footnote: Op. laud., pp. 233,234.]\n\nWe need not discuss this acute critical theory. The natural\ninterpretation of the words of Achilles is obvious; as Mr. Leaf remarks,\nthe words are \"the cry of sudden personal conviction in a matter which\nhas hitherto been lazily accepted as an orthodox dogma.\" [Footnote:\n_Iliad_, vol. ii. p. 620.] Already, as we have seen, Achilles has made\npromises to Patroclus in the House of Hades, now he exclaims \"there\nreally is something in the doctrine of a feeble future life.\"\n\nIt is vain to try to discriminate between an old epic belief in\nable-bodied ghosts and an Ionian belief in mere futile _shades_, in\nthe Homeric poems. Everywhere the dead are too feeble to be worth\nworshipping after they are burned; but, as Mr. Leaf says with obvious\ntruth, and with modern instances, \"men are never so inconsistent as in\ntheir beliefs about the other world.\" We ourselves hold various beliefs\nsimultaneously. The natives of Australia and of Tasmania practise, or\ndid practise, every conceivable way of disposing of the dead--burying,\nburning, exposure in trees, carrying about the bodies or parts of them,\neating the bodies, and so forth. If each such practice corresponded, as\narchaeologists believe, to a different opinion about the soul, then\nall beliefs were held together at once, and this, in fact, is the case.\nThere is not now one and now another hard and fast orthodoxy of belief\nabout the dead, though now we find ancestor worship prominent and now in\nthe shade.\n\nAfter gifts of hair and the setting up of jars full of oil and honey,\nAchilles has the body laid on the top of the pyre in the centre. Bodies\nof sheep and oxen, two dogs and four horses, are strewed around: why, we\nknow not, for the dead is not supposed to need food: the rite may be\na survival, for there were sacrifices at the burials of the Mycenaean\nshaft graves. Achilles slays also the twelve Trojans, \"because of mine\nanger at thy slaying,\" he says (XXIII. 23). This was his reason, as far\nas he consciously had any reason, not that his friend might have twelve\nthralls in Hades. After the pyre is alit Achilles drenches it all night\nwith wine, and, when the flame dies down, the dead hero's bones are\ncollected and placed in the covered cup of gold. The circle of the\nbarrow is then marked out, stones are set up round it (we see them round\nHighland tumuli), and earth is heaped up; no more is done; the tomb is\nempty; the covered cup holding the ashes is in the hut of Achilles.\n\nWe must note another trait. After the body of Patroclus was recovered,\nit was washed, anointed, laid on a bier, and covered from head to foot\n[Greek: heano liti], translated by Helbig, \"with a linen sheet\" (cf.\nXXIII. 254). The golden cup with the ashes is next wrapped [Greek: heano\nliti]; here Mr. Myers renders the words \"with a linen veil.\" Scottish\ncremation burials of the Bronze Age retain traces of linen wrappings\nof the urn. [Footnote: _Proceedings of the Scottish society of\nAntiquaries_, 1905, p. 552. For other cases, _cf._ Leaf, _Iliad_, XXIV.\n796. Note.] Over all a white [Greek: pharos] (mantle) was spread. In\n_Iliad_, XXIV. 231, twelve [Greek: pharea] with chitons, single cloaks,\nand other articles of dress, are taken to Achilles by Priam as part of\nthe ransom of Hector's body. Such is the death-garb of Patroclus; but\nHelbig, looking for Ionian innovations in Book XXIV., finds that the\ndeath-garb of Hector is not the same as that of Patroclus in Book XXIII.\nOne difference is that when the squires of Achilles took the ransom of\nHector from the waggon of Priam, they left in it two [Greek: pharea] and\na well-spun chiton. The women washed and anointed Hector's body; they\nclad him in the chiton, and threw one [Greek: pharos] over it; we are\nnot told what they did with the other. Perhaps, as Mr. Leaf says, it was\nused as a cover for the bier, perhaps it was not, but was laid under the\nbody (Helbig). All we know is that Hector's body was restored to Priam\nin a chiton and a [Greek: pharos], which do not seem to have been\nremoved before he was burned; while Patroclus had no chiton in death,\nbut a [Greek: pharos] and, apparently, a linen sheet.\n\nTo the ordinary reader this does not seem, in the circumstances, a\nstrong mark of different ages and different burial customs. Priam did\nnot bring any linen sheet--or whatever [Greek: heanos lis] may be--in\nthe waggon as part of Hector's ransom; and it neither became Achilles\nto give nor Priam to receive any of Achilles's stuff as death-garb for\nHector. The squires, therefore, gave back to Priam, to clothe his dead\nson, part of what he had brought; nothing can be more natural, and\nthere, we may say, is an end on't. They did what they could in the\ncircumstances. But Helbig has observed that, in a Cean inscription of\nthe fifth century B.C., there is a sumptuary law, forbidding a corpse to\nwear more than three white garments, a sheet under him, a chiton, and a\nmantle cast over him. [Footnote: op. _laud_., p. 209.] He supposes that\nHector wore the chiton, and had one [Greek: pharos] over him and the\nother under him, though Homer does not say that. The Laws of Solon also\nconfined the dead man to three articles of dress. [Footnote: Plutarch,\nSolon, 21.] In doing so Solon sanctioned an old custom, and that Ionian\ncustom, described by the author of Book XXIV., bewrays him, says Helbig,\nfor a late Ionian _bearbeiter_, deserting true epic usages and inserting\nthose of his own day. But in some Attic Dipylon vases, in the pictures\nof funerals, we see no garments or sheets over the corpses.\n\nPenelope also wove a [Greek: charos] against the burial of old Laertes,\nbut surely she ought to have woven for him; on Helbig's showing Hector\nhad _two_, Patroclus had only one; Patroclus is in the old epic, Hector\nand Laertes are in the Ionian epics; therefore, Laertes should have had\ntwo [Greek: charea] but we only hear of one. Penelope had to finish the\n[Greek: charos] and show it; [Footnote: Odyssey, XXIV. 147.] now if she\nwanted to delay her marriage, she should have begun the second [Greek:\ncharos] just as necessary as the first, if Hector, with a pair of\n[Greek: charea] represents Ionian usage. But Penelope never thought of\nwhat, had she read Helbig, she would have seen to be so obvious. She\nthought of no funeral garments for the old man but one shroud [Greek:\nspeiron] (Odyssey, II. 102; XIX. 147); yet, being, by the theory, a\ncharacter of late Ionian, not of genuine old AEolic epic, she should\nhave known better. It is manifest that if even the acuteness and vast\nerudition of Helbig can only find such invisible differences as\nthese between the manners of the genuine old epic and the late Ionian\ninnovations, there is really no difference, beyond such trifles as\ndiversify custom in any age.\n\nHector, when burned and when his ashes have been placed in the casket,\nis laid in a [Greek: kapetos], a ditch or trench (_Iliad_, XV. 356;\nXVIII. 564); but here (XXIV. 797) [Greek: kapetos] is a chamber covered\nwith great stones, within the howe, the casket being swathed with purple\nrobes, and this was the end. The ghost of Hector would not revisit the\nsun, as ghosts do freely in the Cyclic poems, a proof that the Cyclics\nare later than the Homeric poems. [Footnote: Helbig, op. _laud_., pp.\n240, 241.]\n\nIf the burning of the weapons of Eetion and Elpenor are traces of\nanother than the _old_ AEolic epic faith, [Footnote: Ibid., p. 253.]\nthey are also traces of another than the late _Ionic_ epic faith, for no\nweapons are burned with Hector. In the _Odyssey_ the weapons of Achilles\nare not burned; in the _Iliad_ the armour of Patroclus is not burned.\nNo victims of any kind are burned with Hector: possibly the poet was not\nanxious to repeat what he had just described (his last book is already\na very long book); possibly the Trojans did not slay victims at the\nburning.\n\nThe howes or barrows built over the Homeric dead were hillocks high\nenough to be good points of outlook for scouts, as in the case of the\nbarrow of AEsyetes (_Iliad_, II. 793) and \"the steep mound,\" the howe of\nlithe Myrine (II. 814). We do not know that women were usually buried\nin howe, but Myrine was a warrior maiden of the Amazons. We know, then,\nminutely what the Homeric mode of burial was, with such variations as\nhave been noted. We have burning and howe even in the case of an obscure\noarsman like Elpenor. It is not probable, however, that every peaceful\nmechanic had a howe all to himself; he may have had a small family\ncairn; he may not have had an expensive cremation.\n\nThe interesting fact is that no barrow burial precisely of the Homeric\nkind has ever been discovered in Greek sites. The old Mycenaeans buried\neither in shaft graves or in a stately _tholos_; and in rock chambers,\nlater, in the town cemetery: they did not burn the bodies. The people of\nthe Dipylon period sometimes cremated, sometimes inhumed, but they built\nno barrow over the dead. [Footnote: _Annal. de l'Inst.,_ 1872, pp. 135,\n147, 167. Plausen, _ut supra_.] The Dipylon was a period of early iron\nswords, made on the lines of not the best type of bronze sword. Now, in\nMr. Leaf's opinion, our Homeric accounts of burial \"are all late; the\noldest parts of the poems tell us nothing.\" [Footnote: _Iliad_, vol. ii.\np. 619. Note 2. While Mr. Leaf says that \"the oldest parts of the poems\ntell us nothing\" of burial, he accepts XXII. 342, 343 as of the oldest\npart. These lines describe cremation, and Mr. Leaf does not think them\nborrowed from the \"later\" VII. 79, 80, but that VII. 79, 80 are \"perhaps\nborrowed\" from XXII. 342, 343. It follows that \"the oldest parts of the\npoems\" do tell us of cremation.] We shall show, however, that Mr. Leaf's\n\"kernel\" alludes to cremation. What is \"late\"? In this case it is not\nthe Dipylon period, say 900-750 B.C. It is not any later period; one or\ntwo late barrow burials do not answer to the Homeric descriptions. The\n\"late\" parts of the poems, therefore, dealing with burials, in Books\nVI., VII., XIX., XXIII., XXIV., and the Odyssey, are of an age not\nin \"the Mycenaean prime,\" not in the Dipylon period, not in any later\nperiod, say the seventh or sixth centuries B.C., and, necessarily, not\nof any subsequent period. Yet nobody dreams of saying that the poets\ndescribe a purely fanciful form of interment. They speak of what they\nknow in daily life. If it be argued that the late poets preserve, by\nsheer force of epic tradition, a form of burial unknown in their own\nage, we ask, \"Why did epic tradition not preserve the burial methods\nof the Mycenaean prime, the shaft grave, or the _tholos_, without\ncremation?\"\n\nMr. Leaf's own conclusion is that the people of Mycenae were \"spirit\nworshippers, practising inhumation, and partial mummification;\" the\nsecond fact is dubious. \"In the post-Mycenaean 'Dipylon' period, we\nfind cremation and sepulture practised side by side. In the interval,\ntherefore, two beliefs have come into conflict. [Footnote: All\nconceivable beliefs, we have said, about the dead are apt to coexist.\nFor every conceivable and some rather inconceivable contemporary\nAustralian modes of dealing with the dead, see Howitt, _Native Tribes of\nSouth-East Australia_; Spencer and Gillen, _Northern Tribes of Central\nAustralia_.] It seems that the Homeric poems mark this intermediate\npoint....\" [Footnote: Leaf, _Iliad_, vol. ii. p. 622.] In that case\nthe Homeric poems are of one age, or, at least, all of them save \"the\noriginal kernel\" are of one age, namely, a period subsequent to the\nMycenaean prime, but considerably prior to the Dipylon period, which\nexhibits a mixture of custom; cremation and inhumation coexisting,\nwithout barrows or howes.\n\nWe welcome this conclusion, and note that (whatever may be the case\nwith the oldest parts of the poems which say nothing about funerals) the\nlatest expansions must be of about 1100-1000 B.C. (?). The poem is so\nearly that it is prior to hero worship and ancestor worship; or it\nmight be more judicious to say that the poem is of an age that did not,\nofficially, practise ancestor worship, whatever may have occurred in\nfolk-custom. The Homeric age is one which had outgrown ancestor and hero\nworship, and had not, like the age of the Cyclics, relapsed into it.\n_Enfin_, unless we agree with Helbig as to essential variations of\ncustom, the poems are the work of one age, and that a brief age, and an\nage of peculiar customs, cremation and barrow burial; and of a religion\nthat stood, without spirit worship, between the Mycenzean period and the\nninth century. That seems as certain as anything in prehistoric times\ncan be, unless we are to say, that after the age of shaft graves and\nspirit worship came an age of cremation and of no spirit worship; and\nthat late poets consciously and conscientiously preserved the tradition\nof _this_ period into their own ages of hero worship and inhumation,\nthough they did not preserve the tradition of the shaft-grave period.\nWe cannot accept this theory of adherence to stereotyped poetical\ndescriptions, nor can any one consistently adopt it in this case.\n\nThe reason is obvious. Mr. Leaf, with many other critics, distinguishes\nseveral successive periods of \"expansion.\" In the first stratum we have\nthe remains of \"the original kernel.\" Among these remains is The Slaying\nof Hector (XXII. 1-404), \"with but slight additions.\" [Footnote: Leaf,\n_Iliad_, vol. ii. p. xi.] In the Slaying of Hector that hero indicates\ncremation as the mode of burial. \"Give them my body back again, that\nthe Trojans and Trojans' wives grant me my due of fire after my death.\"\nPerhaps this allusion to cremation, in the \"original kernel\" in the\nSlaying of Hector, may be dismissed as a late borrowing from Book VII.\n79, 80, where Hector makes conditions that the fallen hero shall be\nrestored to his friends when he challenges the Achaeans to a duel. But\nwhoever knows the curious economy by way of repetition that marks early\nnational epics has a right to regard the allusion to cremation (XXII,\n342,343) as an example of this practice. Compare _La Chancun de\nWilliame_, lines 1041-1058 with lines 1140-1134. In both the dinner of\na knight who has been long deprived of food is described in passages\ncontaining many identical lines. The poet, having found his formula,\nuses it whenever occasion serves. There are several other examples in\nthe same epic. [Footnote: _Romania_, xxxiv. PP. 245, 246.] Repetitions\nin Homer need not indicate late additions; the artifice is part of the\nepic as it is of the ballad manner. If we are right, cremation is the\nmode of burial even in \"the original kernel.\" Hector, moreover, in the\nkernel (XXII. 256-259) makes, before his final fight with Achilles,\nthe same proposal as he makes in his challenge to a duel (VII. 85 et\n_seqq_.). The victor shall give back the body of the vanquished to his\nfriends, but how the friends are to bury it Hector does not say--in this\nplace. When dying, he does say (XXII. 342, 343).\n\nIn the kernel and all periods of expansion, funeral rites are described,\nand in all the method is cremation, with a howe or a barrow. Thus the\nmethod of cremation had come in as early as the \"kernel,\" The Slaying\nof Hector, and as early as the first expansions, and it lasted till the\nperiod of the latest expansions, such as Books XXIII., XXIV.\n\nBut what is the approximate date of the various expansions of the\noriginal poem? On that point Mr. Leaf gives his opinion. The Making of\nthe Arms of Achilles (Books XVIII., XIX. 1-39) is, with the Funeral of\nPatroclus (XXIII. 1-256), in the second set of expansions, and is thus\ntwo removes later than the original \"kernel.\" [Footnote: Leaf, _Iliad_,\nvol. ii. p. xii.] Now this is the period--the Making of the Shield for\nAchilles is, at least, in touch with the period--of \"the eminently free\nand naturalistic treatment which we find in the best Mycenaean work,\nin the dagger blades, in the siege fragment, and notably in the Vaphio\ncups,\" (which show long-haired men, not men close-cropped, as in the\ndaggers and siege fragment). [Footnote: Leaf, _Iliad_, vol. ii. p, 606.]\nThe poet of the age of the second expansions, then,' is at least\nin touch with the work of the shaft grave and ages. He need not be\ncontemporary with that epoch, but \"may well have had in his mind the\nwork of artists older than himself.\" It is vaguely possible that he may\nhave seen an ancient shield of the Mycenaean prime, and may be inspired\nby that. [Footnote: _Ibid_., vol. ii. pp. 606, 607.]\n\nMoreover, and still more remarkable, the ordinary Homeric form of\ncremation and howe-burial is even older than the period which, if not\ncontemporary with, is clearly reminiscent of, the art of the shaft\ngraves. For, in the period of the first expansions (VII. 1-3 I 2),\nthe form of burial is cremation, with a barrow or tumulus. [Footnote:\n_Ibid_., vol. ii. p. xi. and pp. 606, 607.] Thus Mr. Leaf's opinion\nmight lead us to the conclusion that the usual Homeric form of burial\noccurs in a period _PRIOR_ to an age in which the poet is apparently\nreminiscent of the work of two early epochs--the epoch of shaft graves\nand that of _THOLOS_ graves. If this be so, cremation and urn burial in\ncairns may be nearly as old as the Mycenaean shaft graves, or as old\nas the _THOLOS_ graves, and they endure into the age of the latest\nexpansions.\n\nWe must not press, however, opinions founded on the apparent technical\nresemblance of the free style and coloured metal work on the shield of\nAchilles, to the coloured metal work and free design on the daggers\nof the Mycenaean shaft graves. It is enough for us to note that the\npassages concerning burial, from the \"kernel\" itself, and also from the\nearliest to the latest expansions, are all perfectly harmonious, and of\na single age--unless we are convinced by Helbig's objections. That age\nmust have been brief, indeed, for, before it arrives, the period of\n_tholos_ graves, as at Vaphio, must expire, on one hand, while the\nblending of cremation with inhumation, in the Dipylon age, must have\nbeen evolved after the cremation age passed, on the other. That brief\nintervening age, however, was the age of the _ILIAD_ and Odyssey. This\nconclusion can only be avoided by alleging that late poets, however\nrecent and revolutionary, carefully copied the oldest epic model of\nburial, while they innovated in almost every other point, so we are\ntold. We can go no further till we find an unrifled cairn burial\nanswering to Homeric descriptions. We have, indeed, in Thessaly, \"a\nlarge tumulus which contained a silver urn with burned remains.\" But\nthe accompanying pottery dated it in the second century B.C. [Footnote:\nRidgeway, _Early Age Of Greece_, vol. i. p. 491; _Journal of Hellenic\nStudies, vol. xx_. pp. 20-25.] It is possible enough that all tumuli of\nthe Homeric period have been robbed by grave plunderers in the course\nof the ages, as the Vikings are said to have robbed the cairns of\nSutherlandshire, in which they were not likely to find a rich reward\nfor their labours. A conspicuous howe invites robbery--the heroes of the\nSaga, like Grettir, occasionally rob a howe--and the fact is unlucky for\nthe Homeric archaeologist.\n\nWe have now tried to show that, as regards (1) to the absence from\nHomer of new religious and ritual ideas, or of very old ideas revived\nin Ionia, (2) as concerns the clear conception of a loose form of\nfeudalism, with an Over-Lord, and (3) in the matter of burial, the\n_Iliad_ and Odyssey are self-consistent, and bear the impress of a\nsingle and peculiar moment of culture.\n\nThe fact, if accepted, is incompatible with the theory that the poets\nboth introduced the peculiar conditions of their own later ages and\nalso, on other occasions, consciously and consistently \"archaised.\" Not\nonly is such archaising inconsistent with the art of an uncritical age,\nbut a careful archaiser, with all the resources of Alexandrian criticism\nat his command, could not archaise successfully. We refer to Quintus\nSmyrnaeus, author of the _Post Homerica_, in fourteen books. Quintus\ndoes his best; but we never observe in him that _naif_ delight in\ndescribing weapons and works of art, and details of law and custom which\nare so conspicuous in Homer and in other early poets. He does give us\nPenthesilea's great sword, with a hilt of ivory and silver; but of what\nmetal was the blade? We are not told, and the reader of Quintus will\nobserve that, though he knows [Greek: chalkos], bronze, as a synonym\nfor weapons, he scarcely ever, if ever, says that a sword or spear or\narrow-head was of bronze--a point on which Homer constantly insists.\nWhen he names the military metal Quintus usually speaks of iron. He has\nno interest in the constitutional and legal sides of heroic life, so\nattractive to Homer.\n\nYet Quintus consciously archaises, in a critical age, with Homer as\nhis model. Any one who believes that in an uncritical age rhapsodists\narchaised, with such success as the presumed late poets of the _ILIAD_\nmust have done, may try his hand in our critical age, at a ballad in the\nstyle of the Border ballads. If he succeeds in producing nothing that\nwill at once mark his work as modern, he will be more successful than\nany poet who has made the experiment, and more successful than the most\ningenious modern forgers of gems, jewels, and terra-cottas. They seldom\ndeceive experts, and, when they do, other experts detect the deceit.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER VII\n\n\nHOMERIC ARMOUR\n\nTested by their ideas, their picture of political society, and their\ndescriptions of burial rites, the presumed authors of the alleged\nexpansions of the _Iliad_ all lived in one and the same period of\nculture. But, according to the prevalent critical theory, we read in\nthe _Iliad_ not only large \"expansions\" of many dates, but also briefer\ninterpolations inserted by the strolling reciters or rhapsodists. \"Until\nthe final literary redaction had come,\" says Mr. Leaf--that is about 540\nB.C.--\"we cannot feel sure that any details, even of the oldest work,\nwere secure from the touch of the latest poet.\" [Footnote: Leaf,\n_Iliad_, vol. ii. p. ix.]\n\nHere we are far from Mr. Leaf's own opinion that \"the whole scenery of\nthe poems, the details of armour, palaces, dress, decoration ... had\nbecome stereotyped, and formed a foundation which the Epic poet dared\nnot intentionally sap....\" [Footnote: _Ibid_., vol. i. p. xv.] We now\nfind [Footnote: _Ibid_., vol. ii. p. ix.] that \"the latest poet\" saps\nas much as he pleases down to the middle of the sixth century B.C.\nMoreover, in the middle of the sixth century B.C., the supposed\neditor employed by Hsistratus made \"constant additions of transitional\npassages,\" and added many speeches by Nestor, an ancestor of\nPisistratus.\n\nDid these very late interlopers, down to the sixth century, introduce\nmodern details into the picture of life? did they blur the _unus_ color?\nWe hope to prove that, if they did so at all, it was but slightly. That\nthe poems, however, with a Mycenaean or sub-Mycenaean basis of actual\ncustom and usage, contain numerous contaminations from the usage of\ncenturies as late as the seventh, is the view of Mr. Leaf, and Reichel\nand his followers. [Footnote: Homerische Waffen. Von Wolfgang Reichel.\nWien, 1901.]\n\nReichel's hypothesis is that the heroes of the original poet had no\ndefensive armour except the great Mycenaean shields; that the ponderous\nshield made the use of chariots imperatively necessary; that, after the\nMycenaean age, a small buckler and a corslet superseded the unwieldy\nshield; that chariots were no longer used; that, by the seventh century\nB.C., a warrior could not be thought of without a breastplate; and that\nnew poets thrust corslets and greaves into songs both new and old.\n\nHow the new poets could conceive of warriors as always in chariots,\nwhereas in practice they knew no war chariots, and yet could not\nconceive of them without corslets which the original poet never saw, is\nReichel's secret. The new poets had in the old lays a plain example to\nfollow. They did follow it as to chariots and shields; as to corslets\nand greaves they reversed it. Such is the Reichelian theory.\n\n THE SHIELD\n\nAs regards armour, controversy is waged over the shield, corslet, and\nbronze greaves. In Homer the shield is of leather, plated with bronze,\nand of bronze is the corslet. No shields of bronze plating and no bronze\ncorslets have been found in Mycenaean excavations.\n\nWe have to ask, do the Homeric descriptions of shields tally with the\nrepresentations of shields in works of art, discovered in the graves\nof Mycenae, Spata in Attica, Vaphio in Sparta, and elsewhere? If the\ndescriptions in Homer vary from these relics, to what extent do they\nvary? and do the differences arise from the fact that the poet describes\nconsistently what he sees in his own age, or are the variations caused\nby late rhapsodists in the Iron Age, who keep the great obsolete shields\nand bronze weapons, yet introduce the other military gear of their day,\nsay 800-600 B.C.--gear unknown to the early singers?\n\nIt may be best to inquire, first, what does the poet, or what do\nthe poets, say about shields? and, next, to examine the evidence of\nrepresentations of shields in Mycenaean art; always remembering that the\npoet does not pretend to live, and beyond all doubt does not live, in\nthe Mycenaean prime, and that the testimony of the tombs is liable to be\naltered by fresh discoveries.\n\nIn _Iliad_, II. 388, the shield (_aspis_) is spoken of as \"covering a\nman about\" ([Greek: _amphibrotae_]), while, in the heat of battle, the\nbaldric (_telamon_), or belt of the shield, \"shall be wet with sweat.\"\nThe shield, then, is not an Ionian buckler worn on the left arm, but is\nsuspended by a belt, and covers a man, or most of him, just as Mycenaean\nshields are suspended by belts shown in works of art, and cover the\nbody and legs. This (II. 388) is a general description applying to the\nshields of all men who fight from chariots. Their great shield answers\nto the great mediaeval shield of the knights of the twelfth century, the\n\"double targe,\" worn suspended from the neck by a belt. Such a shield\ncovers a mounted knight's body from mouth to stirrup in an ivory\nchessman of the eleventh to twelfth century A.D., [Footnote: _Catalogue\nof Scottish National Antiquities_, p. 375.] so also in the Bayeux\ntapestry, [Footnote: Gautier, _Chanson de Roland_. Seventh edition, pp.\n393, 394.] and on seals. Dismounted men have the same shield (p. 132).\n\nThe shield of Menelaus (III. 348) is \"equal in all directions,\" which we\nmight conceive to mean, mathematically \"circular,\" as the words do mean\nthat. A shield is said to have \"circles,\" and a spear which grazes\na shield--a shield which was _[Greek: panton eesae]_, \"every way\nequal\"--rends both circles, the outer circle of bronze, and the inner\ncircle of leather (_Iliad_, XX. 273-281). But the passage is not\nunjustly believed to be late; and we cannot rely on it as proof\nthat Homer knew circular shields among others. The epithet _[Greek:\neukuklykos]_, \"of good circle,\" is commonly given to the shields, but\ndoes not mean that the shield was circular, we are told, but merely that\nit was \"made of circular plates.\" [Footnote: Leaf, _Iliad_, vol. i. p.\n573.] As for the shield of Menelaus, and other shields described in the\nsame words, \"every way equal,\" the epithet is not now allowed to mean\n\"circular.\" Mr. Leaf, annotating _Iliad_, I. 306, says that this sense\nis \"intolerably mathematical and prosaic,\" and translates _[Greek:\npanton eesae]_ as \"well balanced on every side.\" Helbig renders the\nepithets in the natural sense, as \"circular.\" [Footnote: Helbig,\n_Homerische Epos_, p. 315; cf., on the other hand, p. 317, Note I.]\n\nTo the rendering \"circular\" it is objected that a circular shield of,\nsay, four feet and a half in diameter, would be intolerably heavy and\nsuperfluously wide, while the shields represented in Mycenaean art are\nnot circles, but rather resemble a figure of eight, in some cases, or a\nsection of a cylinder, in others, or, again, a door (Fig. 5, p. 130).\n\nWhat Homer really meant by such epithets as \"equal every way,\" \"very\ncircular,\" \"of a good circle,\" cannot be ascertained, since Homeric\nepithets of the shield, which were previously rendered \"circular,\" \"of\ngood circle,\" and so on, are now translated in quite other senses, in\norder that Homeric descriptions may be made to tally with Mycenaean\nrepresentations of shields, which are never circular as represented in\nworks of art. In this position of affairs we are unable to determine the\nshape, or shapes, of the shields known to Homer.\n\nA scholar's rendering of Homer's epithets applied to the shield is\nobliged to vary with the variations of his theory about the shield.\nThus, in 1883, Mr. Leaf wrote, \"The poet often calls the shield by names\nwhich seem to imply that it was round, and yet indicates that it was\nlarge enough to cover the whole body of a man.... In descriptions the\nround shape is always implied.\" The words which indicated that the\nshield (or one shield) \"really looked like a tower, and really reached\nfrom neck to ankles\" (in two or three cases), were \"received by the poet\nfrom the earlier Achaean lays.\" \"But to Homer the warriors appeared as\nusing the later small round shield. His belief in the heroic strength of\nthe men of old time made it quite natural to speak of them as bearing\na shield which at once combined the later circular shape and the old\nheroic expanse....\" [Footnote: _Journal of Hellenic Studies, iv. pp._\n283-285.]\n\nHere the Homeric words which naturally mean \"circular\" or \"round\" are\naccepted as meaning \"round\" or \"circular.\" Homer, it is supposed, in\npractice only knows the round shields of the later age, 700 B.C., so he\ncalls shields \"round,\" but, obedient to tradition, he conceives of them\nas very large.\n\nBut, after the appearance of Reichel's speculations, the Homeric words\nfor \"round\" and \"circular\" have been explained as meaning something\nelse, and Mr. Leaf, in place of maintaining that Homer knew no shields\nbut round shields, now writes (1900), \"The small circular shield of\nlater times...is equally unknown to Homer, with a very few curious\nexceptions,\" which Reichel discovered--erroneously, as we shall later\ntry to show. [Footnote: Leaf, _Iliad_, vol. i. p. 575.]\n\nThus does science fluctuate! Now Homer knows in practice none but light\nround bucklers, dating from about 700 B.C.; again, he does not know\nthem at all, though they were habitually used in the period at which\nthe later parts of his Epic were composed. We shall have to ask, how\ndid small round bucklers come to be unknown to late poets who saw them\nconstantly?\n\nSome scholars, then, believe that the old original poet always described\nMycenaean shields, which are of various shapes, but never circular in\nMycenaean art. If there are any circular shields in the poems, these,\nthey say, must have been introduced by poets accustomed, in a much later\nage, to seeing circular bucklers. Therefore Homeric words, hitherto\nunderstood as meaning \"circular,\" must now mean something else--even if\nthe reasoning seems circular.\n\nOther scholars believe that the poet in real life saw various types of\nshields in use, and that some of them were survivals of the Mycenaean\nshields, semi-cylindrical, or shaped like figures of 8, or like a\ndoor; others were circular; and these scholars presume that Homer meant\n\"circular\" when he said \"circular.\" Neither school will convert the\nother, and we cannot decide between them. We do not pretend to be\ncertain as to whether the original poet saw shields of various types,\nincluding the round shape, in use, though that is possible, or whether\nhe saw only the Mycenaean types.\n\nAs regards size, Homer certainly describes, in several cases, shields\nvery much larger than most which we know for certain to have been common\nafter, say, 700 B.C. He speaks of shields reaching from neck to ankles,\nand \"covering the body of a man about.\" Whether he was also familiar\nwith smaller shields of various types is uncertain; he does not\nexplicitly say that any small bucklers were used by the chiefs, nor\ndoes he explicitly say that all shields were of the largest type. It is\npossible that at the time when the Epic was composed various types of\nshield were being tried, while the vast ancient shield was far from\nobsolete.\n\nTo return to the _size_ of the shield. In a feigned tale of Odysseus\n(Odyssey, XIV. 474-477), men in a wintry ambush place their shields over\ntheir shoulders, as they lie on the ground, to be a protection against\nsnow. But any sort of shield, large or small, would protect the\nshoulders of men in a recumbent position. Quite a large shield may seem\nto be indicated in _Iliad_, XIII. 400-405, where Idomeneus curls up his\nwhole person behind his shield; he was \"hidden\" by it. Yet, as any\none can see by experiment, a man who crouched low would be protected\nentirely by a Highland targe of less than thirty inches in diameter, so\nnothing about the size of the shield is ascertained in this passage. On\na black-figured vase in the British Museum (B, 325) the entire body of\na crouching warrior is defended by a large Boeotian buckler, oval, and\nwith _echancrures_ in the sides. The same remark applies to _Z&ad_[sic],\nXXII. 273-275. Hector watches the spear of Achilles as it flies; he\ncrouches, and the spear flies over him. Robert takes this as an \"old\nMycenaean\" dodge--to duck down to the bottom of the shield. [Footnote:\n_Studien zur Ilias_, p. 21.] The avoidance by ducking can be managed\nwith no shield, or with a common Highland targe, which would cover a\nman in a crouching posture, as when Glenbucket's targe was peppered by\nbullets at Clifton (746), and Cluny shouted \"What the devil is this?\"\nthe assailants firing unexpectedly from a ditch. A few moments of\nexperiment, we repeat, prove that a round targe can protect a man in\nHector's attitude, and that the Homeric texts here throw no light on the\n_size_ of the shield.\n\nThe shield of Hector was of black bull's-hide, and as large and long as\nany represented in Mycenaean art, so that, as he walked, the rim knocked\nagainst his neck and ankles. The shape is not mentioned. Despite its\nsize, he _walked_ under it from the plain and field of battle into Troy\n(_Iliad_, VI. 116-118). This must be remembered, as Reichel [Footnote:\nReichel, 38, 39. Father Browne (_Handbook_, p. 230) writes, \"In\n_Odyssey_, XIV 475, Odysseus says he slept within the shield.\" He says\n\"under arms\" (_Odyssey_, XIV. 474, but _cf_. XIV. 479).] maintains that\na man could not walk under shield, or only for a short way; wherefore\nthe war chariot was invented, he says, to carry the fighting man from\npoint to point (Leaf, _Iliad_, vol. i. p. 573). Mr. Leaf elaborates\nthese points: \"Why did not the Homeric heroes ride? Because no man could\ncarry such a shield on horseback.\" [Footnote: _Iliad_, vol. i. p. 573.]\nWe reply that men could and did carry such shields on horseback, as\nwe know on the evidence of works of art and poetry of the eleventh to\ntwelfth centuries A.D. Mr. Ridgeway has explained the introduction\nof chariots as the result of horses too small to carry a heavy and\nheavily-armed man as a cavalier.\n\nThe shield ([Greek: aspis]), we are told by followers of Reichel, was\nonly worn by princes who could afford to keep chariots, charioteers,\nand squires of the body to arm and disarm them. But this can scarcely\nbe true, for all the comrades of Diomede had the shield ([Greek: aspis],\n_Iliad_, X. 152), and the whole host of Pandarus of Troy, a noted\nbowman, were shield-bearers ([Greek: aspistaon laon], _Iliad_, IV.\n90), and some of them held their shields ([Greek: sakae]) in front of\nPandarus when he took a treacherous shot at Menelaus (IV. 113). The\nwhole host could not have chariots and squires, we may presume, so the\nchariot was not indispensable to the _ecuyer_ or shield-bearing man.\n\nThe objections to this conjecture of Reichel are conspicuous, as we now\nprove.\n\nNo Mycenaean work of art shows us a shielded man in a chariot; the men\nwith the monstrous shields are always depicted on foot. The only modern\npeoples who, to our knowledge, used a leather shield of the Mycenaean\nsize and even of a Mycenaean shape had no horses and chariots, as\nwe shall show. The ancient Eastern peoples, such as the Khita and\nEgyptians, who fought from chariots, carried _small_ shields of various\nforms, as in the well-known picture of a battle between the Khita, armed\nwith spears, and the bowmen of Rameses II, who kill horse and man with\narrows from their chariots, and carry no spears; while the Khita, who\nhave no bows, merely spears, are shot down as they advance. [Footnote:\nMaspero, _Hist. Ancienne_, ii. p. 225.]. Egyptians and Khita, who fight\nfrom chariots, use _small_ bucklers, whence it follows that war chariots\nwere not invented, or, at least, were not retained in use, for the\npurpose of giving mobility to men wearing gigantic shields, under which\nthey could not hurry from point to point. War chariots did not cease to\nbe used in Egypt, when men used small shields.\n\nMoreover, Homeric warriors can make marches under shield, while there is\nno mention of chariots to carry them to the point where they are to\nlie in ambush (Odyssey, XIV. 470-510). If the shield was so heavy as\nto render a chariot necessary, would Homer make Hector trudge a\nconsiderable distance under shield, while Achilles, under shield,\nsprints thrice round the whole circumference of Troy? Helbig notices\nseveral other cases of long runs under shield. Either Reichel is wrong,\nwhen he said that the huge shield made the use of the war chariot\nnecessary, or the poet is \"late\"; he is a man who never saw a large\nshield like Hector's, and, though he speaks of such shields, he thinks\nthat men could walk and run under them. When men did walk or run under\nshield, or ride, if they ever rode, they would hang it over the left\nside, like the lion-hunters on the famous inlaid dagger of Mycenae,\n[Footnote: For the chariots, _cf_. Reichel, _Homerische Waffen_,\n120_ff_. Wien, 1901.] or the warrior on the chessman referred to above\n(p. 111).\n\nAias, again, the big, brave, stupid Porthos of the _Iliad_, has the\nlargest shield of all, \"like a tower\" (this shield cannot have been\ncircular), and is recognised by his shield. But he never enters a\nchariot, and, like Odysseus, has none of his own, because both men come\nfrom rugged islands, unfit for chariot driving. Odysseus has plenty\nof shields in his house in Ithaca, as we learn from the account of the\nbattle with the Wooers in the _Odyssey;_ yet, in Ithaca, as at Troy, he\nkept no chariot. Here, then, we have nations who fight from chariots,\nyet use small shields, and heroes who wear enormous shields, yet never\nown a chariot. Clearly, the great shield cannot have been the cause of\nthe use of the war chariot, as in the theory of Reichel.\n\nAias and his shield we meet in _Iliad_, VII. 206-220. \"He clothed\nhimself upon his flesh in _all_ his armour\" ([Greek: teuchea]), to quote\nMr. Leaf's translation; but the poet only _describes_ his shield:\nhis \"towerlike shield of bronze, with sevenfold ox-hide, that Tychius\nwrought him cunningly; Tychius, the best of curriers, that had his home\nin Hyle, who made for him his glancing shield of sevenfold hides of\nstalwart bulls, and overlaid the seven with bronze.\"\n\nThe shield known to Homer then is, in this case, so tall as to resemble\na tower, and has bronze plating over bull's hide. By tradition from an\nage of leather shields the Currier is still the shield-maker, though now\nthe shield has metal plating. It is fairly clear that Greek tradition\nregarded the shield of Aias as of the kind which covered the body from\nchin to ankles, and resembled a bellying sail, or an umbrella unfurled,\nand drawn in at the sides in the middle, so as to offer the semblance\nof two bellies, or of one, pinched in at or near the centre. This is\nprobable, because the coins of Salamis, where Aias was worshipped as a\nlocal hero of great influence, display this shield as the badge of the\nAEginetan dynasty, claiming descent from Aias. The shield is bossed,\nor bellied out, with two half-moons cut in the centre, representing the\n_waist_, or pinched--in part, of the ancient Mycenaean shield; the same\ndevice occurs on a Mycenaean ring from AEgina in the British Museum.\n[Footnote: Evans, _Journal of Hellenic Studies_, xiii. 213-216.]\n\nIn a duel with Aias the spear of Hector pierced the bronze and six\nlayers of hide on his shield, but stuck in the seventh. The spear of\nAias went through the circular (or \"every way balanced\") huge shield\nof Hector, and through his corslet and _chiton_, but Hector had doubled\nhimself up laterally ([Greek: eklinthae], VII. 254), and was not\nwounded. The next stroke of Aias pierced his shield, and wounded his\nneck; Hector replied with a boulder that lighted on the centre of the\nshield of Aias, \"on the boss,\" whether that means a mere ornament or\nknob, or whether it was the genuine boss--which is disputed. Aias broke\nin the shield of Hector with another stone; and the gentle and joyous\npassage of arms was stopped.\n\nThe shield of Agamemnon was of the kind that \"cover all the body of\na man,\" and was \"every way equal,\" or \"circular.\" It was plated\nwith twelve circles of bronze, and had twenty [Greek: omphaloi], or\nornamental knobs of tin, and the centre was of black cyanus (XI.\n31-34). There was also a head of the Gorgon, with Fear and Panic. The\ndescription is not intelligible, and I do not discuss it.\n\nA man could be stabbed in the middle of the belly, \"under his shield\"\n(XI. 424-425), not an easy thing to do, if shields covered the whole\nbody to the feet; but, when a hero was leaping from his chariot (as in\nthis case), no doubt a spear could be pushed up under the shield.\nThe ancient Irish romances tell of a _gae bulg_, a spear held in the\nwarrior's toes, and jerked up under the shield of his enemy! Shields\ncould be held up on high, in an attack on a wall garrisoned by archers\n(XII. 139), the great Norman shield, also, could be thus lifted.\n\nThe Locrians, light armed infantry, had no shields, nor bronze helmets,\nnor spears, but slings and bows (XIII. 714). Mr. Leaf suspects that this\nis a piece of \"false archaism,\" but we do not think that early poets\nin an uncritical age are ever archaeologists, good or bad. The poet is\naware that some men have larger, some smaller shields, just as some have\nlonger and some shorter spears (XIV. 370-377); but this does not prove\nthat the shields were of different types. A tall man might inherit the\nshield of a short father, or _versa_.\n\nA man in turning to fly might trip on the rim of his shield, which\nproves how large it was: \"it reached to his feet.\" This accident of\ntripping occurred to Periphetes of Mycenae, but it might have happened\nto Hector, whose shield reached from neck to ankles. [Footnote: _Iliad_,\nXV. 645-646.]\n\nAchilles must have been a large man, for he knew nobody whose armour\nwould fit him when he lost his own (though his armour fitted Patroclus),\nhe could, however, make shift with the tower-like shield of Aias, he\nsaid.\n\n[Illustration 1: \"THE VASE OF ARISTONOTHOS\"]\n\nThe evidence of the Iliad, then, is mainly to the effect that the heroes\ncarried huge shields, suspended by belts, covering the body and legs. If\nHomer means, by the epithets already cited, \"of good circle\" and \"every\nway equal,\" that some shields of these vast dimensions were circular, we\nhave one example in early Greek art which corroborates his description.\nThis is \"the vase of Aristonothos,\" signed by that painter, and supposed\nto be of the seventh century (Fig. 1). On one side, the companions of\nOdysseus are boring out the eye of the Cyclops; on the other, a galley\nis being rowed to the attack of a ship. On the raised deck of the\ngalley stand three warriors, helmeted and bearing spears. The artist has\nrepresented their shields as covering their right sides, probably for\nthe purpose of showing their devices or blazons. _Their_ shields are\nsmall round bucklers. On the ship are three warriors whose shields,\nthough circular, _cover THE BODY from CHIN TO ANKLES_, as in Homer. One\nshield bears a bull's head; the next has three crosses; the third blazon\nis a crab. [Footnote: Mon. _dell_. Inst., is. pl. 4.]\n\nSuch personal armorial bearings are never mentioned by Homer. It is\nnot usually safe to argue, from his silence, that he is ignorant of\nanything. He never mentions seals or signet rings, yet they cannot but\nhave been familiar to his time. Odysseus does not seal the chest with\nthe Phaeacian presents; he ties it up with a cunning knot; there are\nno rings named among the things wrought by Hephaestus, nor among the\nofferings of the Wooers of Penelope. [Footnote: Helbig citing Odyssey,\nVIII. 445-448; _Iliad_, XVIII. 401; Odyssey, xviii. 292-301.]\n\nBut, if we are to admit that Homer knew not rings and seals, which\nlasted to the latest Mycenaean times, through the Dipylon age, to the\nvery late AEginetan treasure (800 B.C.) in the British Museum, and\nappear again in the earliest dawn of the classical age and in a Cyclic\npoem, it is plain that all the expansionists lived in one, and that a\nmost peculiar _ringless_ age. This view suits our argument to a wish,\nbut it is not credible that rings and seals and engraved stones, so very\ncommon in Mycenaean and later times, should have vanished wholly in the\nHomeric time. The poet never mentions them, just as Shakespeare never\nmentions a thing so familiar to him as tobacco. How often are finger\nrings mentioned in the whole mass of Attic tragic poetry? We remember no\nexample, and instances are certainly rare: Liddell and Scott give none.\nYet the tragedians were, of course, familiar with rings and seals.\n\nManifestly, we cannot say that Homer knew no seals, because he mentions\nnone; but armorial blazons on shields could be ignored by no poet of\nwar, if they existed.\n\nMeanwhile, the shields of the warriors on the vase, being circular and\ncovering body and legs, answer most closely to Homer's descriptions.\nHelbig is reduced to suggest, first, that these shields are worn by men\naboard ship, as if warriors had one sort of shield when aboard ship and\nanother when fighting on land, and as if the men in the other vessel\nwere not equally engaged in a sea fight. No evidence in favour of such\ndifference of practice, by sea and land, is offered. Again, Helbig does\nnot trust the artist, in this case, though the artist is usually trusted\nto draw what he sees; and why should he give the men in the other ship\nor boat small bucklers, genuine, while bedecking the warriors in the\nadverse vessel with large, purely imaginary shields? [Footnote:\nHelbig, _Das Homerische Epos_, ii. pp. 313-314.] It is not in the least\n\"probable,\" as Helbig suggests, that the artist is shirking the trouble\nof drawing the figure.\n\nReichel supposes that round bucklers were novelties when the vase was\npainted (seventh century), and that the artist did not understand how\nto depict them. [Footnote: _Homerische Waffen_, p. 47.] But he depicted\nthem very well as regards the men in the galley, save that, for obvious\naesthetic reasons, he chose to assume that the men in the galley were\nleft-handed and wore their shields on their right arms, his desire\nbeing to display the blazons of both parties. [Footnote: See the same\narrangement in a Dipylon vase. Baumeister, _Denkmaler_, iii. p. 1945.]\nWe thus see, if the artist may be trusted, that shields, which both\n\"reached to the feet\" and were circular, existed in his time (the\nseventh century), so that possibly they may have existed in Homer's\ntime and survived into the age of small bucklers. Tyrtaeus (late seventh\ncentury), as Helbig remarks, speaks of \"a _wide_ shield, covering\nthighs, shins, breast, and shoulders.\" [Footnote: _Tyrtaeus_, xi. 23;\nHelbig, _Das Homerische Epos_, ii. p. 315, Note 2.]\n\nNothing can be more like the large shields of the vase of Aristonothos.\nThus the huge circular shield seems to have been a practicable shield\nin actual use. If so, when Homer spoke of large circular shields he may\nhave meant large circular shields. On the Dodwell pyxis of 650 to 620\nB.C., a man wears an oval shield, covering him from the base of the neck\nto the ankles. He wears it on his left arm. [Footnote: Walters, _Ancient\nPottery_, p. 316.]\n\nOf shields certainly small and light, worn by the chiefs, there is not\na notice in the _Iliad_, unless there be a hint to that effect in\nthe accounts of heroes running, walking considerable distances, and\n\"stepping lightly\" under shields, supposed, by the critics, to be of\ncrushing weight. In such passages the poet may be carried away by his\nown _verve_, or the heroes of ancient times may be deemed capable of\nexertions beyond those of the poet's contemporaries, as he often tells\nus that, in fact, the old heroes were. A poet is not a scientific\nmilitary writer; and in the epic poetry of all other early races very\ngross exaggeration is permitted, as in the [blank space] the old Celtic\nromances, and, of course, the huge epics of India. In Homer \"the skill\nof the poet makes things impossible convincing,\" Aristotle says; and it\nis a critical error to insist on taking Homer absolutely and always _au\npied de la lettre_. He seems, undeniably, to have large body-covering\nshields present to his mind as in common use.\n\nSmall shields of the Greek historic period are \"unknown to Homer,\" Mr.\nLeaf says, \"with a very few curious exceptions,\" [Footnote: _Iliad_,\nvol. i. p. 575.] detected by Reichel in Book X. 15 [Footnote: _Ibid,_\nvol. i. p. 569, fig. 2.], where Diomede's men sleep with their heads\nresting on their shields, whereas a big-bellied Mycenaean shield\nrises, he says, too high for a pillow. But some Mycenzean shields were\nperfectly flat; while, again, nothing could be more comfortable, as a\nhead-rest, than the hollow between the upper and lower bulges of\nthe Mycenzean huge shield. The Zulu wooden head-rest is of the same\ncharacter. Thus this passage in Book X. does not prove that small\ncircular shields were known to Homer, nor does X. 5 13. 526-530, an\nobscure text in which it is uncertain whether Diomede and Odysseus ride\nor drive the horses of Rhesus. They _could_ ride, as every one must\nsee, even though equipped with great body-covering shields. True, the\nshielded hero could neither put his shield at his back nor in front of\nhim when he rode; but he could hang it sidewise, when it would cover his\nleft side, as in the early Middle Ages (1060-1160 A.D.).\n\nThe taking of the shield from a man's shoulders (XI. 374) does not prove\nthe shield to be small; the shield hung by the belt (_telamon_) from\nthe shoulder. [Footnote: On the other side, see Reichel, _Homerische\nWaffen_, pp. 40-44. Wien, 1901. We have replied to his arguments above.]\n\nSo far we have the results that Homer seems most familiar with vast\nbody-covering shields; that such shields were suspended by a baldric,\nnot worn on the left arm; that they were made of layers of hide, plated\nwith bronze, and that such a shield as Aias wore must have been tall,\ndoubtless oblong, \"like a tower,\" possibly it was semi-cylindrical.\nWhether the epithets denoting roundness refer to circular shields or to\nthe double _targe_, g-shaped, of Mycenaean times is uncertain.\n\nWe thus come to a puzzle of unusual magnitude. If Homer does not know\nsmall circular shields, but refers always to huge shields, whereas,\nfrom the eighth century B.C. onwards, such shields were not in use\n(disregarding Tyrtaeus, and the vase of Aristonothos on which they\nappear conspicuously, and the Dodwell pyxis), where are we? Either\nwe have a harmonious picture of war from a very ancient date of large\nshields, or late poets did not introduce the light round buckler of\ntheir own period. Meanwhile they are accused of introducing the bronze\ncorslets and other defensive armour of their own period. Defensive\narmour was unknown, we are told, in the Mycenaean prime, which, if true,\ndoes not affect the question. Homer did not live in or describe the\nMycenaean prime, with its stone arrow-tips. Why did the late poets act\nso inconsistently? Why were they ignorant of small circular shields,\nwhich they saw every day? Or why, if they knew them, did they not\nintroduce them in the poems, which, we are told, they were filling with\nnon-Mycenaean greaves and corslets?\n\nThis is one of the dilemmas which constantly arise to confront the\nadvocates of the theory that the _Iliad_ is a patchwork of many\ngenerations. \"Late\" poets, if really late, certainly in every-day\nlife knew small parrying bucklers worn on the left arm, and huge\nbody-covering shields perhaps they rarely saw in use. They also knew,\nand the original poet, we are told, did not know bronze corslets and\ngreaves. The theory of critics is that late poets introduced the bronze\ncorslets and greaves with which they were familiar into the poems,\nbut scrupulously abstained from alluding to the equally familiar small\nshields. Why are they so recklessly anachronistic and \"up-to-date\"\nwith the corslets and greaves, and so staunchly but inconsistently\nconservative about keeping the huge shields?\n\nMr. Leaf explains thus: \"The groundwork of the Epos is Mycenaean, in the\narrangement of the house, in the prevalence of copper\" (as compared with\niron), \"and, as Reichel has shown, in armour. Yet in many points the\npoems are certainly later than the prime, at least, of the Mycenaean\nage\"--which we are the last to deny. \"Is it that the poets are\ndeliberately trying to present the conditions of an age anterior to\ntheir own? or are they depicting the circumstances by which they are\nsurrounded--circumstances which slowly change during the period of the\ndevelopment of the Epos? Cauer decides for the latter alternative, _the\nonly one which is really conceivable_ [Footnote: Then how is the alleged\narchaeology of the poet of Book X. conceivable?] in an age whose views\nare in many ways so naive as the poems themselves prove them to have\nbeen.\" [Footnote: _Classical Review, ix. pp. 463, 464._]\n\nHere we entirely side with Mr. Leaf. No poet, no painter, no sculptor,\nin a naif, uncritical age, ever represents in art anything but what he\nsees daily in costume, customs, weapons, armour, and ways of life.\nMr. Leaf, however, on the other hand, occasionally chides pieces of\ndeliberate archaeological pedantry in the poets, in spite of his opinion\nthat they are always \"depicting the circumstances by which they are\nsurrounded.\" But as huge man-covering shields are _not_ among the\ncircumstances by which the supposed late poets were surrounded, why\ndo they depict them? Here Mr. Leaf corrects himself, and his argument\ndeparts from the statement that only one theory is \"conceivable,\"\nnamely, that the poets depict their own surroundings, and we are\nintroduced to a new proposition. \"Or rather we must recognise everywhere\na compromise between two opposing principles: the singer, on the one\nhand, has to be conservatively tenacious of the old material which\nserves as the substance of his song; on the other hand, he has to be\nvivid and actual in the contributions which he himself makes to the\ncommon stock.\" [Footnote: _Ibid._, ix. pp. 463, 464.]\n\nThe conduct of such singers is so weirdly inconsistent as not to be\neasily credible. But probably they went further, for \"it is possible\nthat the allusions\" to the corslet \"may have been introduced in the\ncourse of successive modernisation such as the oldest parts of the\n_Iliad_ seem in many cases to have passed through. But, in fact,\n_Iliad_, XI. 234 is the only mention of a corslet in any of the oldest\nstrata, so far as we can distinguish them, and here Reichel translates\n_thorex_ 'shield.'\" [Footnote: Leaf, _Iliad_, vol. i. p. 578.] Mr.\nLeaf's statement we understand to mean that, when the singer or reciter\nwas delivering an ANCIENT lay he did not introduce any of the military\ngear--light round bucklers, greaves, and corslets--with which his\naudience were familiar. But when the singer delivers a new lay, which\nhe himself has added to \"the kernel,\" then he is \"vivid and actual,\" and\nspeaks of greaves and corslets, though he still cleaves in his new lay\nto the obsolete chariot, the enormous shield, and, in an age of iron, to\nweapons of bronze. He is a sadly inconsistent new poet!\n\nMeanwhile, sixteen allusions to the corslet \"can be cut out,\" as\nprobably \"some or all these are additions to the text made at a time\nwhen it seemed absurd to think of a man in full armour without a\ncorslet.\" [Footnote: _Ibid_, vol. i. p. 577.] Thus the reciters, after\nall, did not spare \"the old material\" in the matter of corslets. The\nlate singers have thus been \"conservatively tenacious\" in clinging to\nchariots, weapons of bronze, and obsolete enormous shields, while\nthey have also been \"vivid and actual\" and \"up to date\" in the way\nof introducing everywhere bronze corslets, greaves, and other armour\nunknown, by the theory, in \"the old material which is the substance of\ntheir song.\" By the way, they have not even spared the shield of the\nold material, for it was of leather or wood (we have no trace of metal\nplating on the old Mycenaean shields), and the singer, while retaining\nthe size of it, has added a plating of bronze, which we have every\nreason to suppose that Mycenaean shields of the prime did not present to\nthe stone-headed arrow.\n\nThis theory of singers, who are at once \"conservatively tenacious\" of\nthe old and impudently radical in pushing in the new, appears to us\nto be logically untenable. We have, in Chapter I, observed the same\ninconsistency in Helbig, and shall have occasion to remark again on its\npresence in the work of that great archaeologist. The inconsistency is\ninseparable from theories of expansion through several centuries. \"Many\na method,\" says Mr. Leaf, \"has been proposed which, up to a certain\npoint, seemed irresistible, but there has always been a residuum which\nreturned to plague the inventor.\" [Footnote: _Iliad_, vol. ii. p. X.]\nThis is very true, and our explanation is that no method which starts\nfrom the hypothesis that the poems are the product of several centuries\nwill work. The \"residuum\" is the element which cannot be fitted into any\nsuch hypothesis. But try the hypothesis that the poems are the product\nof a single age, and all is harmonious. There is no baffling \"residuum.\"\nThe poet describes the details of a definite age, not that of the\nMycenaean bloom, not that of 900-600 A.D.\n\nWe cannot, then, suppose that many generations of irresponsible reciters\nat fairs and public festivals conservatively adhered to the huge size of\nthe shield, while altering its material; and also that the same men, for\nthe sake of being \"actual\" and up to date, dragged bronze corslets and\ngreaves not only into new lays, but into passages of lays by old\npoets who had never heard of such things. Consequently, the poetic\ndescriptions of arms and armour must be explained on some other theory.\nIf the poet, again, as others suppose--Mr. Ridgeway for one--knew such\nbronze-covered circular shields as are common in central and western\nEurope of the Bronze Age, why did he sometimes represent them as\nextending from neck to ankles, whereas the known bronze circular shields\nare not of more than 2 feet 2 inches to 2 feet 6 inches in diameter?\n[Footnote: Ridgeway, _Early Age of Greece, vol. i pp. 453, 471._] Such\na shield, without the wood or leather, weighed 5 lbs. 2 ozs., [Footnote:\n_Ibid., vol._ i. p. 462.] and a strong man might walk or run under it.\nHomer's shields would be twice as heavy, at least, though, even then,\nnot too heavy for a Hector, or an Aias, or Achilles. I do not see that\nthe round bronze shields of Limerick, Yetholm, Beith, Lincolnshire, and\nTarquinii, cited by Mr. Ridgeway, answer to Homer's descriptions of huge\nshields. They are too small. But it is perfectly possible, or rather\nhighly probable, that in the poet's day shields of various sizes and\npatterns coexisted.\n\n ARCHAEOLOGY OF THE SHIELDS\n\nTurning to archaeological evidence, we find no remains in the graves of\nthe Mycenaean prime of the bronze which covered the ox-hides of Homeric\nshields, though we do find gold ornaments supposed to have been attached\nto shields. There is no evidence that the Mycenaean shield was plated\nwith bronze. But if we judge from their shape, as represented in works\nof Mycenaean art, some of the Mycenaean shields were not of wood, but of\nhide. In works of art, such as engraved rings and a bronze dagger (Fig.\n2) with pictures inlaid in other metals, the shield, covering the whole\nbody, is of the form of a bellying sail, or a huge umbrella \"up,\" and\npinched at both sides near the centre: or is like a door, or a section\nof a cylinder; only one sort of shield resembles a big-bellied figure\nof 8. Ivory models of shields indicate the same figure. [Footnote:\nSchuchardt, _Schliemann's Excavations_, p. 192.] A gold necklet found\nat Enkomi, in Cyprus, consists of a line of models of this Mycenaean\nshield. [Footnote: _Excavations in Cyprus_, pl. vii. fig. 604. A. S.\nMurray, 1900.]\n\n[Illustration: FIG. 2. DAGGER WITH LION-HUNTERS]\n\n[Illustration: FIG. 3.]\n\nThere also exists a set of small Mycenaean relics called Palladia, found\nat Mycenae, Spata and in the earliest strata of the Acropolis at Athens.\nThey resemble \"two circles joined together so as to intersect one\nanother slightly,\" or \"a long oval pinched in at the middle.\" They vary\nin size from six inches to half an inch, and are of ivory, glazed ware,\nor glass. Several such shields are engraved on Mycenaean gems; one,\nin gold, is attached to a silver vase. The ornamentation shown on them\noccurs, too, on Mycenaean shields in works of art; in short,\nthese little objects are representations in miniature of the big\ndouble-bellied Mycenaean shield. Mr. Ernest Gardner concludes that these\nobjects are the \"schematised\" reductions of an armed human figure, only\nthe shield which covered the whole body is left. They are talismans\nsymbolising an armed divinity, Pallas or another. A Dipylon vase (Fig.\n3) shows a man with a shield, possibly evolved out of this kind, much\nscooped out at the waist, and reaching from neck to knees. The shield\ncovers his side, not his back or front. [Footnote: _Journal of Hellenic\nStudies_, vol. xiii. pp. 21-24.]\n\n[Illustration: FIG. 4.]\n\nOne may guess that the original pinch at the waist of the Mycenaean\nshield was evolved later into the two deep scoops to enable the warrior\nto use his arms more freely, while the shield, hanging from his neck by\na belt, covered the front of his body. Fig. 4 shows shields of 1060-1160\nA.D. equally designed to cover body and legs. Men wore shields, if we\nbelieve the artists of Mycenae, when lion-hunting, a sport in which\nspeed of foot is desirable; so they cannot have been very weighty.\nThe shield then was hung over one side, and running was not so very\ndifficult as if it hung over back or front (_cf._ Fig. 5). The shields\nsometimes reach only from the shoulders to the calf of the leg.\n[Footnote: Reichel, p. 3, fig. 5, Grave III. at Mycenae.] The wearer of\nthe largest kind could only be got at by a sword-stab over the rim into\nthe throat [Footnote: _Ibid_., p. 2, fig. 2.] (Fig. 5). Some shields of\nthis shape were quite small, if an engraved rock-crystal is evidence;\nhere the shield is not half so high as an adjacent goat, but it may be a\nmere decoration to fill the field of the gem. [Footnote: Reichel, p. 3,\nfig. 7.]\n\n[Illustration: FIG. 5. RINGS: SWORDS AND SHIELDS]\n\nOther shields, covering the body from neck to feet, were sections of\ncylinders; several of these are represented on engraved Mycenaean ring\nstones or on the gold; the wearer was protected in front and flank\n[Footnote: _Ibid._, p. 4, fig II, 12; p. I, fig I.] (Fig. 5).\n\nIn a \"maze of buildings\" outside the precincts of the graves of Mycenae,\nDr. Schliemann found fragments of vases much less ancient than the\ncontents of the sepulchres. There was a large amphora, the \"Warrior\nVase\" (Fig. 6). The men wear apparently a close-fitting coat of mail\nover a chiton, which reaches with its fringes half down the thigh. The\nshield is circular, with a half-moon cut out at the bottom. The art is\ninfantile. Other warriors carry long oval shields reaching, at least,\nfrom neck to shin. [Footnote: Schuchardt, _Schliemann's_ Excavations,\npp. 279-285.] They wear round leather caps, their enemies have helmets.\nOn a Mycenaean painted _stele_, apparently of the same relatively late\nperiod, the costume is similar, and the shield--oval--reaches from neck\nto knee. [Footnote: Ridgeway, vol. i. p. 314.] The Homeric shields do\nnot answer to the smaller of these late and ugly representations, while,\nin their bronze plating, Homeric shields seem to differ from the leather\nshields of the Mycenaean prime.\n\nFinally, at Enkomi, near Salamis, in Cyprus, an ivory carving (in the\nBritish Museum) shows a fighting man whose perfectly circular shield\nreaches from neck to knee; this is one of several figures in which Mr.\nArthur Evans finds \"a most valuable illustration of the typical Homeric\narmour.\" [Footnote: _Journal of the Anthropological Institute, vol. xxx.\npp. 209-214, figs. 5, 6, 9._] The shield, however, is not so huge as\nthose of Aias, Hector, and Periphetes.\n\nI can only conclude that Homer describes intermediate types of shield,\nas large as the Mycenaean but plated with bronze, for a reason to be\ngiven later. This kind of shield, the kind known to Homer, was not the\ninvention of late poets living in an age of circular bucklers, worn on\nthe left arm, and these supposed late poets never introduce into the\nepics such bucklers.\n\nWhat manner of military needs prompted the invention of the great\nMycenaean shields which, by Homer's time, were differentiated by the\naddition of metal plating?\n\n[Illustration: FIG. 6. FRAGMENTS OF WARRIOR VASE]\n\nThe process of evolution of the huge Mycenaean shields, and of the\nHomeric shields covering the body from chin to ankles, can easily be\ntraced. The nature of the attack expected may be inferred from the\nnature of the defence employed. Body-covering shields were, obviously,\nat first, _defences against showers of arrows_ tipped with stone. \"In\nthe earlier Mycenaean times the arrow-head of obsidian alone appears,\"\nas in Mycenaean Grave IV. In the upper strata of Mycenae and in the\nlater tombs the arrow-head is usually of bronze. [Footnote: Tsountas and\nManatt, p. 206.] No man going into battle naked, without body armour,\nlike the Mycenaeans (if they had none), could protect himself with\na small shield, or even with a round buckler of twenty-six inches in\ndiameter, against the rain of shafts. In a fight, on the other hand,\nwhere man singled out man, and spears were the missiles, and when the\nwarriors had body armour, or even when they had not, a small\nshield sufficed; as we see among the spear-throwing Zulus and the\nspear-throwing aborigines of Australia (unacquainted with bows and\narrows), who mainly use shields scarcely broader than a bat. On the\nother hand, the archers of the Algonquins in their wars with the\nIroquois, about 1610, used clubs and tomahawks but no spears, no\nmissiles but arrows, and their leather shield was precisely the [Greek:\namphibrotae aspis] of Homer, \"covering the whole of a man.\" It is\ncurious to see, in contemporary drawings (1620), Mycenaean shields on\nRed Indian shoulders!\n\nIn Champlain's sketches of fights between French and Algonquins against\nIroquois (1610-1620), we see the Algonquins outside the Iroquois\nstockade, which is defended by archers, sheltering under huge shields\nshaped like the Mycenaean \"tower\" shield, though less cylindrical; in\nfact, more like the shield of the fallen hunter depicted on the dagger\nof Mycenae. These Algonquin shields partially cover the sides as well as\nthe front of the warrior, who stoops behind them, resting the lower rim\nof the shield on the ground. The shields are oblong and rounded at the\ntop, much like that of Achilles [Footnote: Iliad, vol. ii p. 605] in\nMr. Leaf's restoration? The sides curve inward. Another shield, oval in\nshape and flat, appears to have been suspended from the neck, and covers\nan Iroquois brave from chin to feet. The Red Indian shields, like those\nof Mycenae, were made of leather; usually of buffalo hide, [Footnote:\n_Les Voyages de Sr. de Champlain_, Paris, 1620, f. 22: \"rondache de\ncuir bouili, qui est d'un animal, comme le boufle.\"] good against\nstone-tipped arrows. The braves are naked, like the unshielded archers\non the Mycenaean silver vase fragment representing a siege (Fig. 7). The\ndescription of the Algonquin shields by Champlain, when compared\nwith his drawings, suggests that we cannot always take artistic\nrepresentations as exact. In his designs only a few Algonquins and one\nIroquois carry the huge shields; the unshielded men are stark naked, as\non the Mycenaean silver vase. But in his text Champlain says that the\nIroquois, like the Algonquins, \"carried arrow-proof shields\" and \"a\nsort of armour woven of cotton thread\"--Homer's [Greek: linothoraex]\n(_Iliad_, II. 259, 850). These facts appear in only one of Champlain's\ndrawings [Footnote: Dix's _Champlain_, p. 113. Appleton, New York, 1903.\nLaverdiere's _Champlain_, vol. iv., plate opposite p. 85 (1870).] (Fig.\n8).\n\nThese Iroquois and Algonquin shields are the armour of men exposed, not\nto spears, but to a hail of flint-tipped arrows. As spears came in for\nmissiles in Greek warfare, arrows did not wholly go out, but the noble\nwarriors preferred spear and sword. [Footnote: Cf. Archilochus, 3.] Mr.\nRidgeway erroneously says that \"no Achaean warrior employs the bow for\nwar.\" [Footnote: _Early Age of Greece_, i. 301.] Teucer, frequently, and\nMeriones use the bow; like Pandarus and Paris, on the Trojan side, they\nresort to bow or spear, as occasion serves. Odysseus, in _Iliad_, Book\nX., is armed with the bow and arrows of Meriones when acting as a spy;\nin the _Odyssey_ his skill as an archer is notorious, but he would not\npretend to equal famous bowmen of an older generation, such as Heracles\nand Eurytus of OEchalia, whose bow he possessed but did not take to\nTroy. Philoctetes is his master in archery. [Footnote: Odyssey, VIII.\n219-222.]\n\n[Illustration: FIG. 7. FRAGMENT OF SIEGE VASE]\n\nThe bow, however, was little esteemed by Greek warriors who desired to\ncome to handstrokes, just as it was despised, to their frequent ruin, by\nthe Scots in the old wars with England. Dupplin, Falkirk, Halidon Hill\nand many another field proved the error.\n\nThere was much need in Homeric warfare for protection against heavy\nshowers of arrows. Mr. Monro is hardly correct when he says that, in\nHomer, \"we do not hear of _BODIES_ of archers, of arrows darkening the\nair, as in descriptions of oriental warfare.\" [Footnote: _Ibid._,\nvol. ii. 305.] These precise phrases are not used by Homer; but,\nnevertheless, arrows are flying thick in his battle pieces. The effects\nare not often noticed, because, in Homer, helmet, shield, corslet,\n_zoster_, and greaves, as a rule prevent the shafts from harming\nthe well-born, well-armed chiefs; the nameless host, however, fall\nfrequently. When Hector came forward for a parley (_Iliad_, III.\n79), the Achaens \"kept shooting at him with arrows,\" which he took\nunconcernedly. Teucer shoots nine men in _Iliad_, VIII. 297-304. In\nXI. _85_ the shafts ([Greek: belea]) showered and the common soldiers\nfell--[misprint] being arrows as well as thrown spears. [Footnote:\n_Iliad_, IV. 465; XVI. 668, 678.] Agamemnon and Achilles are as likely,\nthey say, to be hit by arrow as by spear (XI. 191; XXI. 13). Machaon is\nwounded by an arrow. Patroclus meets Eurypylus limping, with an arrow in\nhis thigh--archer unknown. [Footnote: _Iliad_, XI. 809, 810.] Meriones,\nthough an Achaean paladin, sends a bronze-headed arrow through the body\nof Harpalion (XIII. _650_). The light-armed Locrians are all bowmen and\nslingers (XIII. 716). Acamas taunts the Argives as \"bowmen\" (XIV.\n479). \"The war-cry rose on both sides, and the arrows leaped from the\nbowstrings\" (XV. 313). Manifestly the arrows are always on the wing,\nhence the need for the huge Homeric and Mycenaean shields. Therefore,\nas the Achaeans in Homer wore but flimsy corslets (this we are going to\nprove), the great body-covering shield of the Mycenaean prime did not\ngo out of vogue in Homer's time, when bronze had superseded stone\narrow-heads, but was strengthened by bronze plating over the leather.\nIn a later age the bow was more and more neglected in Greek warfare, and\nconsequently large shields went out, after the close of the Mycenaean\nage, and round parrying bucklers came into use.\n\nThe Greeks appear never to have been great archers, for some vases show\neven the old heroes employing the \"primary release,\" the arrow nock\nis held between the thumb and forefinger--an ineffectual release.\n[Footnote: C. J. Longman, _Archery_. Badminton Series.] The archers in\nearly Greek art often stoop or kneel, unlike the erect archers of old\nEngland; the bow is usually small--a child's weapon; the string is often\ndrawn only to the breast, as by Pandarus in the _Iliad_ (IV. i 23). By\n730 B.C. the release with three fingers, our western release, had become\nknown. [Footnote: Leaf _Iliad_, vol. i. p. 585.]\n\n[Illustration: FIG. 8.--ALGONQUIN CORSLET. From Laverdiere, _Oeuvres de\nChamplain_, vol. iv. fol. 4. Quebec, 1870.]\n\nThe course of evolution seems to be: (1) the Mycenaean prime of much\narchery, no body armour (?); huge leather \"man-covering\" shields are\nused, like those of the Algonquins; (2) the same shields strengthened\nwith metal, light body armour-thin corslets--and archery is frequent,\nbut somewhat despised (the Homeric age); (3) the parrying shield of\nthe latest Mycenaean age (infantry with body armour); (4) the Ionian\nhoplites, with body armour and small circular bucklers.\n\nIt appears, then, that the monstrous Mycenaean shield is a survival of\nan age when bows and arrows played the same great part as they did in\nthe wars of the Algonquins and Iroquois. The celebrated picture of a\nsiege on a silver vase, of which fragments were found in Grave IV.,\nshows archers skirmishing; there is an archer in the lion hunt on the\ndagger blade; thirty-five obsidian arrow-heads were discovered in Grave\nIV., while \"in the upper strata of Mycenae and in the later tombs the\narrow-head is usually of bronze, though instances of obsidian still\noccur.\" In 1895 Dr. Tsountas found twenty arrow-heads of bronze, ten in\neach bundle, in a Mycenaean chamber tomb. Messrs. Tsountas and Manatt\nsay, \"In the Acropolis graves at Mycenae... the spear-heads were but\nfew... arrow-heads, on the contrary, are comparatively abundant.\"\nThey infer that \"picked men used shield and spear; the rank and file\ndoubtless fought simply with bow and sling.\" [Footnote: Tsountas and\nManatt, zog. [sic]]. The great Mycenaean shield was obviously evolved\nas a defence against arrows and sling-stones flying too freely to be\nparried with a small buckler. What other purpose could it have served?\nBut other defensive armour was needed, and was evolved, by Homer's men,\nas also, we shall see, by the Algonquins and Iroquois. The Algonquins\nand Iroquois thus prove that men who thought their huge shields very\nefficient, yet felt the desirableness of the protection afforded by\ncorslets, for they wore, in addition to their shields, such corslets as\nthey were able to manufacture, made of cotton, and corresponding to\nthe Homeric [Greek: linothoraex]. [Footnote: In the interior of some\nshields, perhaps of all, were two [Greek: kanones] (VIII 193; XIII.\n407). These have been understood as meaning a brace through which the\nleft arm went, and another brace which the left hand grasped. Herodotus\nsays that the Carians first used shield grips, and that previously\nshields were suspended by belts from the neck and left shoulder\n(Herodotus, i. 171). It would be interesting to know how he learned\nthese facts-perhaps from Homer; but certainly the Homeric shield is\noften described as suspended by a belt. Mr. Leaf used to explain the\n[Greek: kanones] (XIII. 407) as \"serving to attach the two ends of the\nbaldrick to the shield\" (_Hellenic_ Society's _Journal_, iv. 291), as\ndoes Mr. Ridgeway. But now he thinks that they were two pieces of wood,\ncrossing each other, and making the framework on which the leather of\nthe shield was stretched. The hero could grasp the cross-bar, at the\ncentre of gravity, in his left hand, rest the lower rim of the shield on\nthe ground, and crouch behind it (XI. 593; XIII 157). In neither passage\ncited is anything said about resting the lower rim \"on the ground,\"\nand in the second passage the warrior is actually advancing. In this\nattitude, however-grounding the lower rim of the great body-covering\nshield, and crouching behind it--we see Algonquin warriors of about 1610\nin Champlain's drawings of Red Indian warfare.]\n\nMr. Leaf, indeed, when reviewing Reichel, says that \"the use of the\nMycenaean shield is inconsistent with that of the metal breastplate;\n'the shield' covers the wearer in a way which makes a breastplate an\nuseless encumbrance; or rather, it is ignorance of the breastplate which\nalone can explain the use of such frightfully cumbrous gear as the huge\nshield.\" [Footnote: _Classical Review_, ix. p. 55. 1895.]\n\nBut the Algonquins and Iroquois wore such breastplates as they could\nmanufacture, though they also used shields of great size, suspended, in\nMycenaean fashion, from the neck and shoulder by a _telamon_ or belt.\nThe knights of the eleventh century A.D., in addition to very large\nshields, wore ponderous hauberks or byrnies, as we shall prove\npresently. As this combination of great shield with corslet was common\nand natural, we cannot agree with Mr. Leaf when he says, \"it follows\nthat the Homeric warriors wore no metal breastplate, and that all\nthe passages where the [Greek: thoraes] is mentioned are either later\ninterpolations or refer to some other sort of armour,\" which, _ex\nhypothesi_, would itself be superfluous, given the body-covering shield.\n\nShields never make corslets superfluous when men can manufacture\ncorslets.\n\nThe facts speak for themselves: the largest shields are not exclusive,\nso to speak, of corslets; the Homeric warriors used both, just as did\nRed Indians and the mediaeval chivalry of Europe. The use of the aspis\nin Homer, therefore, throws no suspicion on the concomitant use of the\ncorslet. The really surprising fact would be if late poets, who knew\nonly small round bucklers, never introduced them into the poems, but\nalways spoke of enormous shields, while they at the same time did\nintroduce corslets, unknown to the early poems which they continued.\nClearly Reichel's theory is ill inspired and inconsistent. This becomes\nplain as soon as we trace the evolution of shields and corslets in\nages when the bow played a great part in war. The Homeric bronze-plated\nshield and bronze corslet are defences of a given moment in military\nevolution; they are improvements on the large leather shield of\nMycenaean art, but, as the arrows still fly in clouds, the time for the\nsmall parrying buckler has not yet come.\n\nBy the age of the Dipylon vases with human figures, the shield had been\ndeveloped into forms unknown to Homer. In Fig. 3 (p. 131) we see one\nwarrior with a fantastic shield, slim at the waist, with horns, as\nit were, above and below; the greater part of the shield is expended\nuselessly, covering nothing in particular. In form this targe seems to\nbe a burlesque parody of the figure of a Mycenaean shield. The next\nman has a short oblong shield, rather broad for its length--perhaps a\nreduction of the Mycenaean door-shaped shield. The third warrior has a\nround buckler. All these shields are manifestly post-Homeric; the first\ntype is the most common in the Dipylon art; the third survived in the\neighth-century buckler.\n\n[Illustration: FIG. 9.-GOLD CORSLET]\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER VIII\n\n\nTHE BREASTPLATE\n\nNo \"practicable\" breastplates, hauberks, corslets, or any things of the\nkind have so far been discovered in graves of the Mycenaean prime. A\ncorpse in Grave V. at Mycenae had, however, a golden breastplate,\nwith oval bosses representing the nipples and with prettily interlaced\nspirals all over the remainder of the gold (Fig. 9). Another corpse\nhad a plain gold breastplate with the nipples indicated. [Footnote:\nSchuchardt, _Schliemann's_ Excavations, pp. 254-257, fig. 256.]\nThese decorative corslets of gold were probably funereal symbols of\npracticable breastplates of bronze, but no such pieces of armour are\nworn by the fighting-men on the gems and other works of art of Mycenae,\nand none are found in Mycenaean graves. But does this prove anything?\nLeg-guards, broad metal bands clasping the leg below the knee, are found\nin the Mycenaean shaft graves, but are never represented in Mycenaean\nart. [Footnote: Leaf, _Iliad_, vol. i. p. 575.] Meanwhile, bronze\ncorslets are very frequently mentioned in the \"rarely alluded to,\" says\nMr. Leaf, [Footnote: _Iliad_, vol. i. p. 576.] but this must be a\nslip of the pen. Connected with the breastplate or _thorex_ ([Greek:\nthoraex]) is the verb [Greek: thoraesso, thoraessethai], which means \"to\narm,\" or \"equip\" in general.\n\nThe Achaeans are constantly styled in the _ILIAD_ and in the _ODYSSEY_\n\"_chalkochitones_,\" \"with bronze chitons.\" epics have therefore boldly\nargued that by \"bronze chitons\" the poet pleasantly alludes to shields.\nBut as the Mycenaeans seem scarcely to have worn any _CHITONS_ in\nbattle, as far as we are aware from their art, and are not known to have\nhad any bronze shields, the argument evaporates, as Mr. Ridgeway has\npointed out. Nothing can be less like a _chiton_ or smock, loose or\ntight, than either the double-bellied huge shield, the tower-shaped\ncylindrical shield, or the flat, doorlike shield, covering body and legs\nin Mycenaean art. \"The bronze _chiton_,\" says Helbig, \"is only a poetic\nphrase for the corslet.\"\n\nReichel and Mr. Leaf, however, think that \"bronze chitoned\" is probably\n\"a picturesque expression... and refers to the bronze-covered shield.\"\n[Footnote: Leaf, _Iliad_, i. 578.] The breastplate covered the upper\npart of the _chiton_, and so might be called a \"bronze _chiton_,\" above\nall, if it had been evolved, as corselets usually have been, out of\na real _chiton_, interwoven with small plates or rings of bronze. The\nprocess of evolution might be from a padded linen _chiton_ ([Greek:\nlinothooraes]) worn by Teucer, and on the Trojan side by Amphius (as\nby nervous Protestants during Oates's \"Popish Plot\"), to a leathern\n_chiton_, strengthened by rings, or studs, or scales of bronze, and\nthence to plates. [Footnote: Ridgeway, _Early Age of Greece_, vol. i.\npp. 309, 310.] Here, in this armoured _chiton_, would be an object that\na poet might readily call \"a _chiton_ of bronze.\" But that, if he lived\nin the Mycenaean age, when, so far as art shows, _CHITONS_ were not worn\nat all, or very little, and scarcely ever in battle, and when we know\nnothing of bronze-plating on shields, the poet should constantly call a\nmonstrous double-bellied leather shield, or any other Mycemean type of\nshield, \"a _bronze chiton_,\" seems almost unthinkable. \"A leather cloak\"\nwould be a better term for such shields, if cloaks were in fashion.\n\nAccording to Mr. Myres (1899) the \"stock line\" in the _Iliad_, about\npiercing a [Greek: poludaidalos thoraex] or corslet, was inserted \"to\nsatisfy the practical criticisms of a corslet-wearing age,\" the age of\nthe later poets, the Age of Iron. But why did not such practical critics\nobject to the constant presence in the poems of bronze weapons, in their\nage out of date, if they objected to the absence from the poems of the\ncorslets with which they were familiar? Mr. Myres supposes that the line\nabout the [Greek: poludaidalos] corslet was already old, but had merely\nmeant \"many-glittering body clothing\"--garments set with the golden\ndiscs and other ornaments found in Mycemean graves. The bronze corslet,\nhe says, would not be \"many glittering,\" but would reflect \"a single\nstar of light.\" [Footnote: _Journal of Hellenic Studies._ 1899] Now,\nfirst, even if the star were a single star, it would be as \"many\nglittering\" when the warrior was in rapid and changeful motion as the\nstar that danced when Beatrix was born. Secondly, if the contemporary\ncorslets of the Iron Age were NOT \"many glittering,\" practical\ncorslet-wearing critics would ask the poet, \"why do you call corslets\n'many glittering'?\" Thirdly, [Greek: poludaidalos] may surely be\ntranslated \"a thing of much art,\" and Greek corslets were incised with\nornamental designs. Thus Messrs. Hogarth and Bosanquet report \"a very\nremarkable 'Mycemean' bronze breastplate\" from Crete, which \"shows four\nfemale draped figures, the two central ones holding a wreath over a\nbird, below which is a sacred tree. The two outer figures are apparently\ndancing. It is probably a ritual scene, and may help to elucidate the\nnature of early AEgean cults.\" [Footnote: _Journal of Hellenic Studies,\nvol. xx_. p. 322. 1899.] Here, [Greek: poludaidalos]--if that word means\n\"artistically wrought.\" Helbig thinks the Epics silent about the gold\nspangles on dresses. [Footnote: Helbig, p. 71.]\n\nMr. Myres applauds Reichel's theory that [blank space] first meant\na man's chest. If _thorex_ means a man's breast, then _THOREX_ in a\nsecondary sense, one thinks, would mean \"breastplate,\" as waist of a\nwoman means, first, her waist; next, her blouse (American). But Mr.\nMyres and Reichel say that the secondary sense of _THOREX_ is not\nbreastplate but \"body clothing,\" as if a man were all breast, or wore\nonly a breast covering, whereas Mycenaean art shows men wearing nothing\non their breasts, merely drawers or loin-cloths, which could not be\ncalled _THOREX_, as they cover the antipodes of the breast.\n\nThe verb [Greek: thoraesestai], the theory runs on, merely meant \"to\nput on body clothing,\" which Mycenaeans in works of art, if correctly\nrepresented, do not usually put on; they fought naked or in bathing\ndrawers. Surely we might as well argue that a \"waistcoat\" might come\nto mean \"body clothing in general,\" as that a word for the male breast\nbecame, first, a synonym for the covering of the male buttocks and for\napparel in general, and, next, for a bronze breastplate. These arguments\nappear rather unconvincing, [Footnote: _Journal of Hellenic Studies_,\nvol. xx. pp. 149, 150.] nor does Mycenaean art instruct us that men went\ninto battle dressed in body clothing which was thickly set with many\nglittering gold ornaments, and was called \"a many-glittering _thorex_.\"\n\nFurther, if we follow Reichel and Mr. Leaf, the Mycenaeans wore\n_chitons_ and called them _chitons_. They also used bronze-plated\nshields, though of this we have no evidence. Taking the bronze-plated\n(?) shield to stand poetically for the _chiton_, the poet spoke of \"_the\nbronze-chitoned Achaeans_\" But, if we follow Mr. Myres, the Mycenaeans\nalso applied the word _thorex_ to body clothing at large, in place of\nthe word _chiton_; and when a warrior was transfixed by a spear, they\nsaid that his \"many-glittering, gold-studded _thorex_,\" that is, his\nbody clothing in general, was pierced. It does seem simpler to hold\nthat _chiton_ meant _chiton_; that _thorex_ meant, first, \"breast,\" then\n\"breastplate,\" whether of linen, or plaited leather, or bronze, and\nthat to pierce a man through his [Greek: poludaidalos thoraex] meant to\npierce him through his handsome corslet. No mortal ever dreamt that this\nwas so till Reichel tried to make out that the original poet describes\nno armour except the large Mycenaean shield and the _mitre_, and that\nall corslets in the poems were of much later introduction. Possibly they\nwere, but they had plenty of time wherein to be evolved long before the\neighth century, Reichel's date for corslets.\n\nThe argument is that a man with a large shield needs no body armour, or\nuses the shield because he has no body armour.\n\nBut the possession and use of a large shield did not in the Middle Ages,\nor among the Iroquois and Algonquins, make men dispense with corslets,\neven when the shield was worn, as in Homer, slung round the neck by a\n_telamon_ (_guige_ in Old French), belt, or baldric.\n\nWe turn to a French _Chanson de Geste--La Chancun de Willem_--of the\ntwelfth century A.D., to judge by the handwriting. One of the heroes,\nGirard, having failed to rescue Vivien in battle, throws down his\nweapons and armour, blaming each piece for having failed him. Down\ngoes the heavy lance; down goes the ponderous shield, suspended by a\n_telamon: \"Ohitarge grant cume peises al col_!\" down goes the plated\nbyrnie, \"_Ohi grant broine cum me vas apesant_\" [Footnote: _La Chancun\nde Willame_, lines 716-726.]\n\nThe mediaeval warrior has a heavy byrnie as well as a great shield\nsuspended from his neck. It will be remarked also that the Algonquins\nand Iroquois of the beginning of the seventeenth century, as described\nby Champlain, give us the whole line of Mycenaean evolution of armour up\nto a certain point. Not only had they arrow-proof, body-covering shields\nof buffalo hide, but, when Champlain used his arquebus against the\nIroquois in battle, \"they were struck amazed that two of their number\nshould have been killed so promptly, seeing that they wore a sort of\narmour, woven of cotton thread, and carried arrow-proof shields.\"\nWe have already alluded to this passage, but must add that Parkman,\ndescribing from French archives a battle of Illinois against Iroquois\nin 1680, speaks of \"corslets of tough twigs interwoven with cordage.\"\n[Footnote: _Discovery of the Great IV_, [misprint] 1869.] Golden, in his\n_Five Nations_, writes of the Red Indians as wearing \"a kind of cuirass\nmade of pieces of wood joined together.\" [Footnote: Dix, _Champlion_\n[misprint]]\n\nTo the kindness of Mr. Hill Tout I also owe a description of the armour\nof the Indian tribes of north-west America, from a work of his own.\nHe says: \"For protective purposes in warfare they employed shields\nand coat-armour. The shields varied in form and material from tribe to\ntribe. Among the Interior Salish they were commonly made of wood, which\nwas afterwards covered with hide. Sometimes they consisted of several\nthicknesses of hide only. The hides most commonly used were those of the\nelk, buffalo, or bear. After the advent of the Hudson's Bay Co. some of\nthe Indians used to beat out the large copper kettles they obtained from\nthe traders and make polished circular shields of these. In some centres\nlong rectangular shields, made from a single or double hide, were\nemployed. These were often from 4 to 5 feet in length and from 3 to\n4 feet in width--large enough to cover the whole body. Among the\nDene tribes (Sikanis) the shield was generally made of closely-woven\nwicker-work, and was of an ovaloid form (exact size not given).\n\n\"The coat armour was _everywhere used_, and varied in form and style in\nalmost every centre. There were two ways in which this was most commonly\nmade. One of these was the slatted cuirass or corslet, which was formed\nof a series of narrow slats of wood set side by side vertically and\nfastened in place by interfacings of raw hide. It went all round the\nbody, being hung from the shoulders with straps. The other was a kind\nof shirt of double or treble elk hide, fastened at the side with thongs.\nAnother kind of armour, less common than that just described, was the\nlong elk-hide tunic, which reached to and even _below the knees and was\nsleeved to the elbow.\"_\n\nMr. Hill Tout's minute description, with the other facts cited, leaves\nno doubt that even in an early stage, as in later stages of culture, the\nuse of the great shield does not exclude the use of such body armour\nas the means of the warriors enable them to construct. To take another\ninstance, Pausanias describes the corslets of the neolithic Sarmatae,\nwhich he saw dedicated in the temple of Asclepius at Athens. Corslets\nthese bowmen and users of the lasso possessed, though they did not use\nthe metals. They fashioned very elegant corslets out of horses' hoofs,\ncutting them into scales like those of a pine cone, and sewing them on\nto cloth. [Footnote: Pausanias, i. 211. [misprint] 6.]\n\nCertain small, thin, perforated discs of stone found in Scotland have\nbeen ingeniously explained as plates to be strung together on a garment\nof cloth, a neolithic _chiton_. However this may be, since Iroquois and\nAlgonquins and Dene had some sort of woven, or plaited, or wooden, or\nbuff corslet, in addition to their great shields, we may suppose that\nthe Achaeans would not be less inventive. They would pass from the\n[Greek: linothoraex] (answering to the cotton corslet of the Iroquois)\nto a sort of jack or _jaseran_ with rings, scales, or plates, and thence\nto bronze-plate corslets, represented only by the golden breastplates of\nthe Mycenaean grave. Even if the Mycenaeans did not evolve the corslet,\nthere is no reason why, in the Homeric times, it should not have been\nevolved.\n\nFor linen corslets, such as Homer mentions, in actual use and\nrepresented in works of art we consult Mr. Leaf on _The Armour_\nof _Homeric_ Heroes.' He finds Memnon in a white corslet, on a\nblack-figured vase in the British Museum. There is another white\ncorsleted [Footnote: _Journal_ of _Hellenic_ Studies, vol. iv. pp.\n82, 83, 85.] Memnon figured in the _Vases Peints_ of the Duc de Luynes\n(plate xii.). Mr. Leaf suggests that the white colour represents \"a\ncorslet not of metal but of linen,\" and cites _Iliad_, II. 529, 5\n30. \"Xenophon mentions linen corslets as being worn by the Chalybes\"\n(_Anabasis_, iv. 15). Two linen corslets, sent from Egypt to Sparta by\nKing Amasis, are recorded by Herodotus (ii. 182; iii. 47). The corslets\nwere of linen, embroidered in cotton and gold. Such a piece of armour\nor attire might easily develop into the [Greek: streptos chitoon] of\n_Iliad_, V. 113, in which Aristarchus appears to have recognised chain\nor scale armour; but we find no such object represented in Mycenaean\nart, which, of course, does not depict Homeric armour or costume, and\nit seems probable that the bronze corslets mentioned by Homer were plate\narmour. The linen corslet lasted into the early sixth century B.C. In\nthe poem called _Stasiotica_, Alcaeus (_No_. 5) speaks of his helmets,\nbronze greaves and corslets of linen ([Choorakes te neoi linoo]) as a\ndefence against arrows.\n\nMeanwhile a \"bronze _chiton_\" or corslet would turn spent arrows and\nspent spears, and be very useful to a warrior whose shield left him\nexposed to shafts shot or spears thrown from a distance. Again, such\na bronze _chiton_ might stop a spear of which the impetus was spent in\npenetrating the shield. But Homeric corslets did not, as a rule, avail\nto keep out a spear driven by the hand at close quarters, or powerfully\nthrown from a short distance. Even the later Greek corslets do not look\nas if they could resist a heavy spear wielded by a strong hand.\n\nI proceed to show that the Homeric corslet did not avail against a\nspear at close quarters, but could turn an arrow point (once), and could\nsometimes turn a spear which had perforated a shield. So far, and not\nfurther, the Homeric corslet was serviceable. But if a warrior's breast\nor back was not covered by the shield, and received a thrust at close\nquarters, the corslet was pierced more easily than the pad of paper\nwhich was said to have been used as secret armour in a duel by the\nMaster of Sinclair (1708). [Footnote: _Proceedings in Court Marshal held\nupon John, Master of Sinclair_. Sir Walter Scott. Roxburghe Club.\n(Date of event, 1708.)] It is desirable to prove this feebleness of the\ncorslet, because the poet often says that a man was smitten with\nthe spear in breast or back when unprotected by the shield, without\nmentioning the corslet, whence it is argued by the critics that corslets\nwere not worn when the original lays were fashioned, and that they have\nonly been sporadically introduced, in an after age when the corslet was\nuniversal, by \"modernising\" later rhapsodists aiming at the up-to-date.\n\nA weak point is the argument that Homer says back or breast was pierced,\nwithout mentioning the corslet, whence it follows that he knew no\ncorslets. Quintus Smyrnaeus does the same thing. Of course, Quintus\nknew all about corslets, yet (Book I. 248, 256, 257) he makes his heroes\ndrive spear or sword through breast or belly without mentioning the\nresistance of the corslet, even when (I. 144, 594) he has assured\nus that the victim was wearing a corslet. These facts are not due\nto inconsistent interpolation of corslets into the work of this\npost-Christian poet Quintus. [Footnote: I find a similar omission in the\n_Chanson de Roland_.]\n\nCorslets, in Homer, are flimsy; that of Lycaon, worn by Paris, is\npierced by a spear which has also perforated his shield, though the\nspear came only from the weak hand of Menelaus (_Iliad_, III. 357, 358).\nThe arrow of Pandarus whistles through the corslet of Menelaus (IV.\n136). The same archer pierces with an arrow the corslet of Diomede (V.\n99, 100). The corslet of Diomede, however, avails to stop a spear which\nhas traversed his shield (V. 281). The spear of Idomeneus pierces\nthe corslet of Othryoneus, and the spear of Antilochus perforates the\ncorslet of a charioteer (XIII. 371, 397). A few lines later Diomede's\nspear reaches the midriff of Hypsenor. No corslet is here mentioned, but\nneither is the shield mentioned (this constantly occurs), and we cannot\nargue that Hypsenor wore no corslet, unless we are also to contend that\nhe wore no shield, or a small shield. Idomeneus drives his spear through\nthe \"_bronze chiton_\" of Alcathoeus (XIII. 439, 440). Mr. Leaf reckons\nthese lines \"probably an interpolation to turn the linen _chiton_, the\nrending of which is the sign of triumph, into a bronze corslet.\" But we\nask why, if an editor or rhapsodist went through the _Iliad_ introducing\ncorslets, he so often left them out, where the critics detect their\nabsence because they are not mentioned?\n\nThe spear of Idomeneus pierces another feeble corslet over the victim's\nbelly (XIII. 506-508). It is quite a surprise when a corslet does for\nonce avail to turn an arrow (XIII. 586-587). But Aias drives his spear\nthrough the corslet of Phorcys, into his belly (XVII 311-312). Thus the\ncorslet scarcely ever, by itself, protects a hero; it never protects\nhim against an unspent spear; even when his shield stands between his\ncorslet and the spear both are sometimes perforated. Yet occasionally\nthe corslet saves a man when the spear has gone through the shield. The\npoet, therefore, sometimes gives us a man pierced in a part which the\ncorslet covers, without mentioning the flimsy article that could not\nkeep out a spear.\n\nReichel himself came to see, before his regretted death, that he could\nnot explain away the _thorex_ or corslet, on his original lines, as a\nmere general name for \"a piece of armour\"; and he inclined to think that\njacks, with metal plates sewn on, did exist before the Ionian corslet.\n[Footnote: _Homerische Waffen_, pp. 93-94. 1901.] The gold breastplates\nof the Mycenaean graves pointed in this direction. But his general\nargument is that corslets were interpolated into the old lays by poets\nof a corslet-wearing age; and Mr. Leaf holds that corslets may have\nfiltered in, \"during the course of successive modernisation, such as the\noldest parts of the _Iliad_ seem in many cases to have passed through,\"\n[Footnote: Leaf, Iliad, i. p. 578.] though the new poets were, for all\nthat, \"conservatively tenacious of the old material.\" We have already\npointed out the difficulty.\n\nThe poets who did not introduce the new small bucklers with which they\nwere familiar, did stuff the _Iliad_ full of corslets unknown, by\nthe theory, to the original poet, but familiar to rhapsodists living\ncenturies later. Why, if they were bent on modernising, did they not\nmodernise the shields? and how, if they modernised unconsciously, as all\nuncritical poets do, did the shield fail to be unconsciously \"brought up\nto date\"? It seems probable that Homer lived at a period when both huge\nshield and rather feeble corslet were in vogue.\n\nWe shall now examine some of the passages in which Mr. Leaf, mainly\nfollowing Reichel, raises difficulties about corslets. We do not know\ntheir mechanism; they were composed of [Greek: guala], presumed to be a\nbackplate and a breastplate. The word _gualon_ appears to mean a hollow,\nor the converse, something convex. We cannot understand the mechanism\n(see a young man putting on a corslet, on an amphora by Euthymides.\nWalter, vol. ii. p. 176); but, if late poets, familiar with such\ncorslets, did not understand how they worked, they were very dull men.\nWhen their descriptions puzzle us, that is more probably because we are\nnot at the point of view than because poets interpolated mentions of\npieces of armour which they did not understand, and therefore cannot\nhave been familiar with, and, in that case, would not introduce.\n\nMr. Leaf starts with a passage in the _Iliad_ (III. 357-360)--it recurs\nin another case: \"Through the bright shield went the ponderous\nspear, and through the inwrought\" (very artfully wrought), [Greek:\npoludaidalou] \"breastplate it pressed on, and straight beside his flank\nit rent the tunic, but he swerved and escaped black death.\" Mr.\nLeaf says, \"It is obvious that, after a spear has passed through a\nbreastplate, there is no longer any possibility for the wearer to bend\naside and so to avoid the point....\" But I suppose that the wearer, by a\nmotion very natural, doubled up sideways, so to speak, and so the spear\nmerely grazed his flesh. That is what I suppose the poet to intend.\nThe more he knew of corslets, the less would he mention an impossible\ncircumstance in connection with a corslet.\n\nAgain, in many cases the late poets, by the theory--though it is they\nwho bring the corslets in--leave the corslets out! A man without shield,\nhelmet, and spear calls himself \"naked.\" Why did not these late poets,\nit is asked, make him take off his corslet, if he had one, as well as\nhis shield? The case occurs in XXII. 111-113,124-125. Hector thinks of\nlaying aside helmet, spear, and shield, and of parleying with Achilles.\n\"But then he will slay me naked,\" that is, unarmed. \"He still had his\ncorslet,\" the critics say, \"so how could he be naked? or, if he had\nno corslet, this is a passage uncontaminated by the late poets of the\ncorslet age.\" Now certainly Hector _was_ wearing a corslet, which he\nhad taken from Patroclus: that is the essence of the story. He would,\nhowever, be \"naked\" or unprotected if he laid aside helmet, spear, and\nshield, because Achilles could hit him in the head or neck (as he did),\nor lightly drive the spear through the corslet, which, we have proved,\nwas no sound defence against a spear at close quarters, though useful\nagainst chance arrows, and occasionally against spears spent by\ntraversing the shield.\n\nWe next learn that no corslet occurs in the _Odyssey_, or in _Iliad_,\nBook X., called \"very late\": Mr. Leaf suggests that it is of the seventh\ncentury B.C. But if the Odyssey and Iliad, Book X., are really very\nlate, their authors and interpolators were perfectly familiar\nwith Ionian corslets. Why did they leave corslets out, while their\npredecessors and contemporaries were introducing them all up and down\nthe _Iliad_? In fact, in Book X, no prince is regularly equipped; they\nhave been called up to deliberate in the dead of night, and when two go\nas spies they wear casual borrowed gear. It is more important that no\ncorslet is mentioned in Nestor's arms in his tent. But are we to explain\nthis, and the absence of mention of corslets in the Odyssey (where there\nis little about regular fighting), on the ground that the author of\n_Iliad_, Book X., and all the many authors and editors of the\n_Odyssey_ happened to be profound archaeologists, and, unlike their\ncontemporaries, the later poets and interpolators of the _Iliad_, had\nformed the theory that corslets were not known at the time of the siege\nof Troy and therefore must not be mentioned? This is quite incredible.\nNo hypothesis can be more improbable. We cannot imagine late Ionian\nrhapsodists listening to the _Iliad_, and saying, \"These poets of the\n_Iliad_ are all wrong: at the date of the Mycenaean prime, as every\neducated man knows, corslets were not yet in fashion. So we must have no\ncorslets in the _Odyssey_?\"\n\nA modern critic, who thinks this possible, is bringing the practice\nof archaising poets of the late nineteenth century into the minds of\nrhapsodists of the eighth century before Christ. Artists of the middle\nof the sixteenth century always depict Jeanne d'Arc in the armour and\ncostume of their own time, wholly unlike those of 1430. This is the\nregular rule. Late rhapsodists would not delve in the archaeology of the\nMycenaean prime. Indeed, one does not see how they could discover, in\nAsia, that corslets were not worn, five centuries earlier, on the other\nside of the sea.\n\nWe are told that Aias and some other heroes are never spoken of as\nwearing corslets. But Aias certainly did put on a set of pieces of\narmour, and did not trust to his shield alone, tower-like as it was. The\ndescription runs thus: The Achaeans have disarmed, before the duel of\nAias and Hector. Aias draws the lucky lot; he is to 'meet Hector, and\nbids the others pray to Zeus \"while I clothe me in my armour of battle.\"\nWhile they prayed, Aias \"arrayed himself in flashing bronze. And when\nhe had now clothed upon his flesh _all_ his pieces of armour\" ([Greek:\npanta teuchae]) \"he went forth to fight.\" If Aias wore only a shield, as\non Mr. Leaf's hypothesis, he could sling it on before the Achaeans could\nbreathe a _pater noster_. His sword he would not have taken off; swords\nwere always worn. What, then, are \"all his pieces of armour\"? (VII. 193,\n206).\n\nCarl Robert cites passages in which the [Greek: teuchea], taken from\nthe shoulders, include corslets, and are late and Ionian, with other\npassages which are Mycenaean, with no corslet involved. He adds about\ntwenty more passages in which [Greek: teuchea] include corslets. Among\nthese references two are from the _Doloneia_ (X. 254, 272), where\nReichel finds no mention of corslets. How Robert can tell [Greek:\nteuchea], which mean corslets, from [Greek: teuchea], which exclude\ncorslets, is not obvious. But, at all events, he does see corslets, as\nin VII. 122, where Reichel sees none, [Footnote: Robert, _Studien zur\nIlias_, pp. 20-21.] and he is obviously right.\n\nIt is a strong point with Mr. Leaf that \"we never hear of the corslet in\nthe case of Aias....\" [Footnote: Leaf, _Iliad_, vol. i. p. 576.] Robert,\nhowever, like ourselves, detects the corslet among \"_al_ the [Greek:\nteuchea]\" which Aias puts on for his duel with Hector (Iliad, VII. 193,\n206-207).\n\nIn the same Book (VII. 101-103, 122) the same difficulty occurs.\nMenelaus offers to fight Hector, and says, \"I will put on my harness\"\n[Greek: thooraxomai], and does \"put on his fair pieces of armour\"\n[Greek: teuchea kala], Agamemnon forbids him to fight, and his friends\n\"joyfully take his pieces of armour\" [Greek: teuchea] \"from his\nshoulders\" (_Iliad_, VII. 206-207). They take off pieces of armour, in\nthe plural, and a shield cannot be spoken of in the plural; while the\nsword would not be taken off--it was worn even in peaceful costume.\n\nIdomeneus is never named as wearing a corslet, but he remarks that he\nhas plenty of corslets (XIII. 264); and in this and many cases opponents\nof corslets prove their case by cutting out the lines which disprove it.\nAnything may be demonstrated if we may excise whatever passage does\nnot suit our hypothesis. It is impossible to argue against this logical\ndevice, especially when the critic, not satisfied with a clean cut,\nsupposes that some late enthusiast for corslets altered the prayer of\nThetis to Hephaestus for the very purpose of dragging in a corslet.\n[Footnote: Leaf, Note to _Iliad_, xviii. 460, 461.] If there is no\nobjection to a line except that a corslet occurs in it, where is the\nlogic in excising the line because one happens to think that corslets\nare later than the oldest parts of the _Iliad_?\n\nAnother plan is to maintain that if the poet does not in any case\nmention a corslet, there was no corslet. Thus in V. 99, an arrow strikes\nDiomede \"hard by the right shoulder, the plate of the corslet.\" Thirteen\nlines later (V. 112, 113) \"Sthenelus drew the swift shaft right through\nout of Diomede's shoulder, and the blood darted up through the pliant\n_chiton_.\" We do not know what the word here translated \"pliant\" [Greek:\nstreptos] means, and Aristarchus seems to have thought it was \"a coat of\nmail, chain, or scale armour.\" If so, here is the corslet, but in this\ncase, if a corslet or jack with intertwisted small plates or scales or\nrings of bronze be meant, _gualon_ cannot mean a large \"plate,\" as\nit does. Mr. Ridgeway says, \"It seems certain that [Greek: streptos\nchitoon] means, as Aristarchus held, a shirt of mail.\" [Footnote: _Early\nAge of Greece_, vol. i. p, 306.] Mr. Leaf says just the reverse. As\nusual, we come to a deadlock; a clash of learned opinion. But any one\ncan see that, in the space of thirteen lines, no poet or interpolator\nwho wrote V. i 12, i 13 could forget that Diomede was said to be wearing\na corslet in V. 99; and even if the poet could forget, which is out of\nthe question, the editor of 540 B.C. was simply defrauding his employer,\nPiaistratus, if he did not bring a remedy for the stupid fault of the\npoet. When this or that hero is not specifically said to be wearing a\ncorslet, it is usually because the poet has no occasion to mention it,\nthough, as we have seen, a man is occasionally smitten, in the midriff,\nsay, without any remark on the flimsy piece of mail.\n\nThat corslets are usually taken for granted as present by the poet,\neven when they are not explicitly named, seems certain. He constantly\nrepresents the heroes as \"stripping the pieces of mail\" [Greek:\nteuchea], when they have time and opportunity, from fallen foes. If only\nthe shield is taken, if there is nothing else in the way of bronze body\narmour to take, why have we the plural, [Greek: teuchea]? The corslet,\nas well as the shield, must be intended. The stripping is usually \"from\nthe shoulders,\" and it is \"from his shoulders\" that Hector hopes to\nstrip the corslet of Diomede (Iliad, VIII. 195) in a passage, to be\nsure, which the critics think interpolated. However this may be, the\nstripping of the (same Greek characters), cannot be the mere seizure of\nthe shield, but must refer to other pieces of armour: \"all the pieces\nof armour.\" So other pieces of defensive armour besides the shield are\nthroughout taken for granted. If they were not there they could not be\nstripped. It is the chitons that Agamemnon does something to, in the\ncase of two fallen foes (_Iliad_, XI. 100), and Aristarchus thought that\nthese _chitons_ were corslets. But the passage is obscure. In _Iliad_,\nXI. 373, when Diomede strips helmet from head, shield from shoulder,\ncorslet from breast of Agastrophus, Reichel was for excising the\ncorslet, because it was not mentioned when the hero was struck on the\nhip joint. I do not see that an inefficient corslet would protect the\nhip joint. To do that, in our eighteenth century cavalry armour, was the\nbusiness of a _zoster_, as may be seen in a portrait of the Chevalier de\nSt. George in youth. It is a thick ribbed _zoster_ that protects the hip\njoints of the king.\n\nFinally, Mr. Evans observes that the western invaders of Egypt, under\nRameses III, are armed, on the monuments, with cuirasses formed of a\nsuccession of plates, \"horizontal, or rising in a double curve,\" while\nthe Enkomi ivories, already referred to, corroborate the existence\nof corslet, _zoster_, and _zoma_ as articles of defensive armour.\n[Footnote: _Journal of Anthropological Institute_, xxx. p. 213.] \"Recent\ndiscoveries,\" says Mr. Evans, \"thus supply a double corroboration of the\nHomeric tradition which carries back the use of the round shield and the\ncuirass or [Greek: thoraex] to the earlier epic period... With such\na representation before us, a series of Homeric passages on which Dr.\nReichel... has exhausted his powers of destructive criticism, becomes\nreadily intelligible.\" [Footnote: Ibid., p. 214.]\n\nHomer, then, describes armour _later_ than that of the Mycenaean prime,\nwhen, as far as works of art show, only a huge leathern shield was\ncarried, though the gold breastplates of the corpses in the grave\nsuggest that corslets existed. Homer's men, on the other hand, have,\nat least in certain cases quoted above, large bronze-plated shields and\nbronze cuirasses of no great resisting power, perhaps in various stages\nof evolution, from the byrnie with scales or small plates of bronze to\nthe breastplate and backplate, though the plates for breast and back\ncertainly appear to be usually worn.\n\nIt seems that some critics cannot divest themselves of the idea that\n\"the original poet\" of the \"kernel\" was contemporary with them who slept\nin the shaft graves of Mycenae, covered with golden ornaments, and that\nfor body armour he only knew their monstrous shields. Mr. Leaf writes:\n\"The armour of Homeric heroes corresponds closely to that of the\nMykenaean age as we learn it from the monuments. The heroes wore no\nbreastplate; their only defensive armour was the enormous Mykenaean\nshield....\"\n\nThis is only true if we excise all the passages which contradict the\nstatement, and go on with Mr. Leaf to say, \"by the seventh century B.C.,\nor thereabouts, the idea of a panoply without a breastplate had become\nabsurd. By that time the epic poems had almost ceased to grow; but they\nstill admitted a few minor episodes in which the round shield\" (where\n(?) \"and corslet played a part, as well as the interpolation of a certain\nnumber of lines and couplets in which the new armament was mechanically\nintroduced into narratives which originally knew nothing of it.\"\n[Footnote: _Iliad_, vol. i. p. 568.]\n\nOn the other hand, Mr. Leaf says that \"the small circular shield of\nlater times is unknown to Homer,\" with \"a very few curious exceptions,\"\nin which the shields are not said to be small or circular. [Footnote:\n_Iliad_, vol. i. p, 575.]\n\nSurely this is rather arbitrary dealing! We start from our theory that\nthe original poet described the armour of \"the monuments\" though\n_they_ are \"of the prime,\" while he professedly lived long after the\nprime--lived in an age when there must have been changes in military\nequipment. We then cut out, as of the seventh century, whatever passages\ndo not suit our theory. Anybody can prove anything by this method. We\nmight say that the siege scene on the Mycenaean silver vase represents\nthe Mycenaean prime, and that, as there is but one jersey among\neight men otherwise stark naked, we must cut out seven-eighths of the\n_chitons_ in the _Iliad_, these having been interpolated by late poets\nwho did not run about with nothing on. We might call the whole poem\nlate, because the authors know nothing of the Mycenaean bathing-drawers\nso common on the \"monuments.\" The argument compels Mr. Leaf to assume\nthat a shield can be called [Greek: teuchea] in the plural, so, in\n_Iliad_, VII. 122, when the squires of Menelaus \"take the [Greek:\nteuchea] from his shoulders,\" we are assured that \"the shield (aspis)\nwas for the chiefs alone\" (we have seen that all the host of Pandarus\nwore shields), \"for those who could keep a chariot to carry them, and\nsquires to assist them in taking off this ponderous defence\" (see VII\n122). [Footnote: _Iliad_, vol. i. p. 583.]\n\nWe do \"see VII. 122,\" and find that not a _single_ shield, but pieces of\ngear in the plural number were taken off Menelaus. The feeblest warrior\nwithout any assistance could stoop his head and put it through the belt\nof his shield, as an angler takes off his fishing creel, and there he\nwas, totally disarmed. No squire was needed to disarm him, any more\nthan to disarm Girard in the _Chancun de Willame_. Nobody explains why\na shield is spoken of as a number of things, in the plural, and that\nconstantly, and in lines where, if the poet means a shield, prosody\npermits him to _say_ a shield, [Greek: therapontes ap oopoon aspid\nelonto].\n\nIt really does appear that Reichel's logic, his power of visualising\nsimple things and processes, and his knowledge of the evolution\nof defensive armour everywhere, were not equal to his industry and\nclassical erudition. Homer seems to describe what he saw: shields, often\nof great size, made of leather, plated with bronze, and suspended by\nbelts; and, for body armour, feeble bronze corslets and _zosters_. There\nis nothing inconsistent in all this: there was no more reason why an\nHomeric warrior should not wear a corslet as well as a shield than there\nwas reason why a mediaeval knight who carried a _targe_ should not also\nwear a hauberk, or why an Iroquois with a shield should not also\nwear his cotton or wicker-work armour. Defensive gear kept pace with\noffensive weapons. A big leather shield could keep out stone-tipped\narrows; but as bronze-tipped arrows came in and also heavy\nbronze-pointed spears, defensive armour was necessarily strengthened;\nthe shield was plated with bronze, and, if it did not exist before, the\nbronze corslet was developed.\n\nTo keep out stone-tipped arrows was the business of the Mycenaean wooden\nor leather shield. \"Bronze arrow-heads, so common in the _Iliad_,\nare never found,\" says Schuchardt, speaking of Schliemann's Mycenaean\nexcavations. [Footnote: Schuchardt, p. 237.]\n\nThere was thus, as far as arrows went, no reason why Mycenaean shields\nshould be plated with bronze. If the piece of wood in Grave V. was a\nshield, as seems probable, what has become of its bronze plates, if it\nhad any? [Footnote: Schuchardt, p. 269] Gold ornaments, which could only\nbelong to shields, [Footnote: _Ibid_., p. 237.] were found, but bronze\nshield plates never. The inference is certain. The Mycenaean shields\nof the prime were originally wooden or leather defences against\nstone-headed arrows. Homer's shields are bronze-plated shields to keep\nout bronze-headed or even, perhaps, iron-pointed arrows of primitive\nconstruction (IV. 123). Homer describes armour based on Mycenaean lines\nbut developed and advanced as the means of attack improved.\n\nWhere everything is so natural it seems fantastic to explain the\ncircumstances by the theory that poets in a late age sometimes did\nand sometimes did not interpolate the military gear of four centuries\nposterior to the things known by the original singer. These rhapsodists,\nwe reiterate, are now said to be anxiously conservative of Mycenaean\ndetail and even to be deeply learned archaeologists. [Footnote: Leaf,\n_Iliad_, vol. ii. p. 629.] At other times they are said to introduce\nrecklessly part of the military gear of their own age, the corslets,\nwhile sternly excluding the bucklers. All depends on what the theory of\nvery late developments of the Epic may happen to demand at this or that\nmoment.\n\nAgain, Mr. Leaf informs us that \"the first rhapsodies were born in the\nbronze age, in the day of the ponderous Mycenaean shield; the last in\nthe iron age, when men armed themselves with breastplate and light round\nbuckler.\" [Footnote: _Ibid_., vol. ii. p. x.] We cannot guess how he\nfound these things out, for corslets are as common in one \"rhapsody\" as\nin another when circumstances call for the mention of corslets, and\nare entirely unnamed in the Odyssey (save that the Achaeans are\n\"bronze-chitoned\"), while the Odyssey is alleged to be much later than\nthe _Iliad_. As for \"the iron age,\" no \"rhapsodist\" introduces so\nmuch as one iron spear point. It is argued that he speaks of bronze in\ndeference to tradition. Then why does he scout tradition in the matter\nof greaves and corslets, while he sometimes actually goes behind\ntradition to find Mycenaean things unknown to the original poets?\n\nThese theories appear too strangely inconsistent; really these theories\ncannot possibly be accepted. The late poets, of the theory, are in\nthe iron age, and are, of course, familiar with iron weapons; yet, in\nconservative deference to tradition, they keep them absolutely out of\ntheir rhapsodies. They are equally familiar with bronze corslets, so,\nreckless this time of tradition, they thrust them even into rhapsodies\nwhich are centuries older than their own day. They are no less familiar\nwith small bucklers, yet they say nothing about them and cling to\nthe traditional body-covering shield. The source of the inconsistent\ntheories which we have been examining is easily discovered. The scholars\nwho hold these opinions see that several things in the Homeric picture\nof life are based on Mycenaean facts; for example, the size of the\nshields and their suspension by baldrics. But the scholars also do\nsteadfastly believe, following the Wolfian tradition, that there could\nbe no _long_ epic in the early period. Therefore the greater part, much\nthe greater part of the _Iliad_, must necessarily, they say, be the work\nof continuators through several centuries. Critics are fortified in\nthis belief by the discovery of inconsistencies in the Epic, which,\nthey assume, can only be explained as the result of a compilation of the\npatchwork of ages. But as, on this theory, many men in many lands and\nages made the Epic, their contributions cannot but be marked by the\ninevitable changes in manners, customs, beliefs, implements, laws,\nweapons, and so on, which could not but arise in the long process of\ntime. Yet traces of change in law, religion, manners, and customs are\nscarcely, if at all, to be detected; whence it logically follows that a\ndozen generations of irresponsible minstrels and vagrant reciters were\nlearned, conscientious, and staunchly conservative of the archaic tone.\nTheir erudite conservatism, for example, induced them, in deference to\nthe traditions of the bronze age, to describe all weapons as of bronze,\nthough many of the poets were living in an age of weapons of iron. It\nalso prompted them to describe all shields as made on the far-away old\nMycenaean model, though they were themselves used to small circular\nbucklers, with a bracer and a grip, worn on the left arm.\n\nBut at this point the learning and conservatism of the late poets\ndeserted them, and into their new lays, also into the old lays, they\neagerly introduced many unwarrantable corslets and greaves--things of\nthe ninth to seventh centuries. We shall find Helbig stating, on the\nsame page, that in the matter of usages \"the epic poets shunned, as far\nas possible, all that was recent,\" and also that for fear of puzzling\ntheir military audiences they did the reverse: \"they probably kept\naccount of the arms and armour of their own day.\" [Footnote: La\n_Question Mycenienne_, p. 50. _Cf_. Note I.] Now the late poets, on\nthis showing, must have puzzled warriors who used iron weapons by always\nspeaking of bronze weapons. They pleased the critical warriors, on the\nother hand, by introducing the corslets and greaves which every military\nman of their late age possessed. But, again, the poets startled an\naudience which used light bucklers, worn on the left arm, by talking of\nenormous _targes_, slung round the neck.\n\nAll these inconsistencies of theory follow from the assumption that the\n_Iliad_ _must_ be a hotch-potch of many ages. If we assume that, on the\nwhole, it is the work of one age, we see that the poet describes the\nusages which obtained in his own day. The dead are cremated, not, as in\nthe Mycenaean prime, inhumed. The shield has been strengthened to meet\nbronze, not stone-tipped, arrows by bronze plates. Corslets and greaves\nhave been elaborated. Bronze, however, is still the metal for swords and\nspears, and even occasionally for tools and implements, though these are\noften of iron. In short, we have in Homer a picture of a transitional\nage of culture; we have not a medley of old and new, of obsolete and\nmodern. The poets do not describe inhumation, as they should do, if they\nare conservative archaeologists. In that case, though they burn, they\nwould have made their heroes bury their dead, as they did at Mycenas.\nThey do not introduce iron swords and spears, as they must do, if, being\nlate poets, they keep in touch with the armament of their time. If they\nspeak of huge shields only because they are conservative archaeologists,\nthen, on the other hand, they speak of corslets and greaves because they\nare also reckless innovators.\n\nThey cannot be both at once. They are depicting a single age, a single\n\"moment in culture.\" That age is certainly sundered from the Mycenaean\nprime by the century or two in which changing ideas led to the\nsuperseding of burial by burning, or it is sundered from the Mycenaean\nprime by a foreign conquest, a revolution, and the years in which the\nforeign conquerors acquired the language of their subjects.\n\nIn either alternative, and one or other must be actual, there was time\nenough for many changes in the culture of the Mycenaean prime to be\nevolved. These changes, we say, are represented by the descriptions of\nculture in the Iliad. That hypothesis explains, simply and readily, all\nthe facts. The other hypothesis, that the _Iliad_ was begun near the\nMycenaean prime and was continued throughout four or five centuries,\ncannot, first, explain how the _Iliad_ was _composed_, and, next,\nit wanders among apparent contradictories and through a maze of\ninconsistencies.\n\n\n\n THE ZOSTER, ZOMA, AND MITRE\n\n We are far from contending that it is always possible to\nunderstand Homer's descriptions of defensive armour. But as we have\nnever seen the actual objects, perhaps the poet's phrases were clear\nenough to his audience and are only difficult to us. I do not, for\nexample, profess to be sure of what happened when Pandarus shot at\nMenelaus. The arrow lighted \"where the golden buckles of the _zoster_\nwere clasped, and the doubled breastplate met them. So the bitter arrow\nalighted upon the firm _zoster_; through the wrought _zoster_ it sped,\nand through the curiously wrought breastplate it pressed on, and through\nthe _mitre_ he wore to shield his flesh, a barrier against darts; and\nthis best shielded him, yet it passed on even through this,\" and grazed\nthe hero's flesh (_Iliad_, IV. I 32 seq.). Menelaus next says that \"the\nglistering _zoster_ in front stayed the dart, and the _zoma_ beneath,\nand the _mitre_ that the coppersmiths fashioned\" (IV. 185-187). Then the\nsurgeon, Machaon, \"loosed the glistering _zoster_ and the _zoma_, and\nthe _mitre_ beneath that the coppersmiths fashioned\" (IV. 215, 216).\n\nReading as a mere student of poetry I take this to mean that the corslet\nwas of two pieces, fastening in the middle of the back and the middle of\nthe front of a man (though Mr. Monro thinks that the plates met and the\n_zoster_ was buckled at the side); that the _zoster_, a mailed belt,\nbuckled just above the place where the plates of the corslet met; that\nthe arrow went through the meeting-place of the belt buckles, through\nthe place where the plates of the corslet met, and then through the\n_mitre_, a piece of bronze armour worn under the corslet, though the\nnature of this _mitre_ and of the _zoma_ I do not know. Was the _mitre_\na separate article or a continuation of the breastplate, lower down,\nstruck by a dropping arrow?\n\nIn 1883 Mr. Leaf wrote: \"I take it that the _zoma_ means the waist of\nthe cuirass which is covered by the _zoster_, and has the upper edge\nof the _mitre_ or plated apron beneath it fastened round the warrior's\nbody. ... This view is strongly supported by all the archaic vase\npaintings I have been able to find.\" [Footnote: _Journal of Hellenic\nstudies, vol. iv. pp. 74,75_.] We see a \"corslet with a projecting rim\";\nthat rim is called zoma and holds the _zoster_. \"The hips and upper\npart of the thighs were protected either by a belt of leather, sometimes\nplated, called the _mitre_, or else only by the lower part of the\n_chiton_, and this corresponds exactly with Homeric description.\"\n[Footnote: _Journal of Hellenic_ Studies, _pp. 76, 77_.]\n\nAt this time, in days before Reichel, Mr. Leaf believed in bronze\ncorslets, whether of plates or plated jacks; he also believed, we have\nseen, that the huge shields, as of Aias, were survivals in poetry;\nthat \"Homer\" saw small round bucklers in use, and supposed that the old\nwarriors were muscular enough to wear circular shields as great as those\nin the vase of Aristonothos, already described. [Footnote: _Ibid., vol.\niv p. 285_.]\n\nOn the corslet, as we have seen, Mr. Leaf now writes as a disciple of\nReichel. But as to the _mitre_, he rejects Helbig's and Mr. Ridgeway's\nopinion that it was a band of metal a foot wide in front and very narrow\nbehind. Such things have been found in Euboea and in Italy. Mr. Ridgeway\nmentions examples from Bologna, Corneto, Este, Hallstatt, and Hungary.\n[Footnote: _Early Age of Greece, p. 31 I_.] The _zoster_ is now, in\nMr. Leaf's opinion, a \"girdle\" \"holding up the waist-cloth (_zoma_), so\ncharacteristic of Mycenaean dress!\" Reichel's arguments against corslets\n\"militate just as strongly against the presence of such a _mitre_, which\nis, in fact, just the lower half of a corslet.... The conclusion is that\nthe metallic _mitre_ is just as much an intruder into the armament\nof the _Epos_ as the corslet.\" The process of evolution was, Mr.\nLeaf suggests, first, the abandonment of the huge shield, with the\nintroduction of small round bucklers in its place. Then, second, a man\nnaturally felt very unprotected, and put on \"the metallic _mitre_\" of\nHelbig (which covered a foot of him in front and three inches behind).\n\"Only as technical skill improved could the final stage, that of the\nelaborate cuirass, be attained.\"\n\nThis appears to us an improbable sequence of processes. While arrows\nwere flying thick, as they do fly in the _Iliad_, men would not reject\nbody-covering shields for small bucklers while they were still wholly\ndestitute of body armour. Nor would men arm only their stomachs when,\nif they had skill enough to make a metallic _mitre_, they could not have\nbeen so unskilled as to be unable to make corslets of some more or\nless serviceable type. Probably they began with huge shields, added the\n_linothorex_ (like the Iroquois cotton _thorex_), and next, as a rule,\nsuperseded that with the bronze _thorex_, while retaining the huge\nshield, because the bronze _thorex_ was so inadequate to its purpose of\ndefence. Then, when archery ceased to be of so much importance as coming\nto the shock with heavy spears, and as the bronze _thorex_ really could\nsometimes keep out an arrow, they reduced the size of their shields, and\nretained surface enough for parrying spears and meeting point and edge\nof the sword. That appears to be a natural set of sequences, but I\ncannot pretend to guess how the corslet fastened or what the _mitre_ and\n_zoster_ really were, beyond being guards of the stomach and lower part\nof the trunk.\n\n\n\n HELMETS, GREAVES, SPEARS\n\n No helmets of metal, such as Homer mentions, have been found in\nMycenaean graves. A quantity of boars' teeth, sixty in all, were\ndiscovered in Grave V. and may have adorned and strengthened leather\ncaps, now mouldered into dust. An ivory head from Mycenae shows a\nconical cap set with what may be boars' tusks, with a band of the same\nround the chin, and an earpiece which was perhaps of bronze? Spata and\nthe graves of the lower town of Mycenae and the Enkomi ivories show\nsimilar headgear. [Footnote: Tsountas and Manatt, pp. 196, 197.]\n\nThis kind of cap set with boars' tusks is described in _Iliad_, Book X.,\nin the account of the hasty arraying of two spies in the night of terror\nafter the defeat and retreat to the ships. The Trojan spy, Dolon, also\nwears a leather cap. The three spies put on no corslets, as far as we\ncan affirm, their object being to remain inconspicuous and unburdened\nwith glittering bronze greaves and corslets. The Trojan camp was\nbrilliantly lit up with fires, and there may have been a moon, so the\nless bronze the better. In these circumstances alone the heroes of the\nIliad are unequipped, certainly, with bronze helmets, corslets,\nand bronze greaves. [Dislocated Footnote: Evans, _Journal of the\nAnthropological Institute, xxx. pp._ 209-215.] [Footnote: _Iliad, X._\n255-265.]\n\nThe author of Book X. is now regarded as a precise archaeologist, who\nknew that corslets and bronze helmets were not used in Agamemnon's time,\nbut that leather caps with boars' tusks were in fashion; while again, as\nwe shall see, he is said to know nothing about heroic costume (cf. The\n_Doloneia_). As a fact, he has to describe an incident which occurs\nnowhere else in Homer, though it may often have occurred in practice--a\nhurried council during a demoralised night, and the hasty arraying of\ntwo spies, who wish to be lightfooted and inconspicuous. The author's\nevidence as to the leather cap and its garnishing of boars' tusks\ntestifies to a survival of such gear in an age of bronze battle-helmets,\nnot to his own minute antiquarian research.\n\n\n\n GREAVES\n\n Bronze greaves are not found, so far, in Mycenaean tombs in\nGreece, and Reichel argued that the original Homer knew none. The\ngreaves, [Greek: kunmides] \"were gaiters of stuff or leather\"; the one\nmention of bronze greaves is stuff and nonsense interpolated (VII. 41).\nBut why did men who were interpolating bronze corslets freely introduce\nbronze so seldom, if at all, as the material of greaves?\n\nBronze greaves, however, have been found in a Cypro-Mycenaean grave at\nEnkomi (Tomb XV.), _accompanied_ by _an early type_ of _bronze_ dagger,\nwhile bronze greaves adorned with Mycenaean ornament are discovered in\nthe Balkan peninsula at Glassinavc. [Footnote: Evans, _Journal of the\nAnthropological Institute,_ pp. 214, 215, figs. 10, 11.] Thus all Homer's\ndescription of arms is here corroborated by archaeology, and cannot be\ncut out by what Mr. Evans calls \"the Procrustean method\" of Dr. Reichel.\n\nA curious feature about the spear may be noticed. In Book X. while the\nmen of Diomede slept, \"their spears were driven into the ground erect\non the spikes of the butts\" (X. 153). Aristotle mentions that this was\nstill the usage of the Illyrians in his day. [Footnote: _Poctica_,\n25.] Though the word for the spike in the butt (_sauroter_) does not\nelsewhere occur in the _Iliad_, the practice of sticking the spears\nerect in the ground during a truce is mentioned in III. 135: \"They lean\nupon their shields\" (clearly large high shields), \"and the tall spears\nare planted by their sides.\" No butt-spikes have been found in graves of\nthe Mycenaean prime. The _sauroter_ was still used, or still existed, in\nthe days of Herodotus. [Footnote: Tsountas and Manatt, p. 205; Ridgeway,\nvol. i. pp. 306, 307.]\n\nOn the whole, Homer does not offer a medley of the military gear of\nfour centuries--that view we hope to have shown to be a mass of\ninconsistencies--but describes a state of military equipment in advance\nof that of the most famous Mycenaean graves, but other than that of the\nlate \"warrior vase.\" He is also very familiar with some uses of iron, of\nwhich, as we shall see, scarcely any has been found in Mycenaean graves\nof the central period, save in the shape of rings. Homer never mentions\nrings of any metal.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER IX\n\n\nBRONZE AND IRON\n\nTaking the Iliad and Odyssey just as they have reached us they give,\nwith the exception of one line, an entirely harmonious account of the\ncontemporary uses of bronze and iron. Bronze is employed in the making\nof weapons and armour (with cups, ornaments, &c.); iron is employed\n(and bronze is also used) in the making of tools and implements, such\nas knives, axes, adzes, axles of a chariot (that of Hera; mortals use\nan axle tree of oak), and the various implements of agricultural and\npastoral life. Meanwhile, iron is a substance perfectly familiar to the\npoets; it is far indeed from being a priceless rarity (it is impossible\nto trace Homeric stages of advance in knowledge of iron), and it yields\nepithets indicating strength, permanence, and stubborn endurance. These\nepithets are more frequent in the Odyssey and the \"later\" Books of the\nIliad than in the \"earlier\" Books of the Iliad; but, as articles made\nof iron, the Odyssey happens to mention only one set of axes, which is\nspoken of ten times--axes and adzes as a class--and \"iron bonds,\" where\n\"iron\" probably means \"strong,\" \"not to be broken.\" [Footnote: In these\ncircumstances, it is curious that Mr. Monro should have written thus:\n\"In Homer, as is well known, iron is rarely mentioned in comparison\nwith bronze, but the proportion is greater in the Odyssey (25 iron, 80\nbronze) than in the Iliad\" (23 iron, 279 bronze).--Monro, Odyssey, vol.\nii. p. 339. These statistics obviously do not prove that, at the date\nof the composition of the Odyssey, the use of iron was becoming more\ncommon, or that the use of bronze was becoming more rare, than when the\n_Iliad_ was put together. Bronze is, in the poems, the military metal:\nthe _Iliad_ is a military poem, while the _Odyssey_ is an epic of peace;\nconsequently the _Iliad_ is much more copious in references to bronze\nthan the _Odyssey_ has any occasion to be. Wives are far more frequently\nmentioned in the Odyssey than in the _Iliad_, but nobody will argue that\ntherefore marriage had recently come more into vogue. Again, the method\nof counting up references to iron in the Odyssey is quite misleading,\nwhen we remember that ten out of the twenty references are only _one_\nreference to one and the same set of iron tools-axes. Mr. Monro also\nproposed to leave six references to iron in the _Iliad_ out of the\nreckoning, \"as all of them are in lines which can be omitted without\ndetriment to the sense.\" Most of the six are in a recurrent epic formula\ndescriptive of a wealthy man, who possesses iron, as well as bronze,\ngold, and women. The existence of the formula proves familiarity with\niron, and to excise it merely because it contradicts a theory is purely\narbitrary.--Monro, Odyssey, vol. ii. p. 339.]. The statement of facts\ngiven here is much akin to Helbig's account of the uses of bronze and\niron in Homer. [Footnote: Helbig, _Das Homerischi Epos_, pp. 330, 331.\n_1887_.] Helbig writes: \"It is notable that in the Epic there is much\nmore frequent mention of iron _implements_ than of iron _weapons of\nwar_.\" He then gives examples, which we produce later, and especially\nremarks on what Achilles says when he offers a mass of iron as a prize\nin the funeral games of Patroclus. The iron, says Achilles, will serve\nfor the purposes of the ploughman and shepherd, \"a surprising speech\nfrom the son of Peleus, from whom we rather expect an allusion to the\nmilitary uses of the metal.\" Of course, if iron weapons were not in\nvogue while iron was the metal for tools and implements, the words of\nAchilles are appropriate and intelligible.\n\nThe facts being as we and Helbig agree in stating them, we suppose that\nthe Homeric poets sing of the usages of their own time. It is an age\nwhen iron, though quite familiar, is not yet employed for armour, or\nfor swords or spears, which must be of excellent temper, without great\nweight in proportion to their length and size. Iron is only employed in\nHomer for some knives, which are never said to be used in battle\n(not even for dealing the final stab, like the mediaeval poniard, the\n_misericorde_), for axes, which have a short cutting edge, and may be\nthick and weighty behind the edge, and for the rough implements of the\nshepherd and ploughman, such as tips of ploughshares, of goads, and so\nforth.\n\nAs far as archaeological excavations and discoveries enlighten us, these\nrelative uses of bronze and iron did not exist in the ages of Mycenaean\nculture which are represented in the _tholos_ of Vaphio and the graves,\nearlier and later, of Mycenae. Even in the later Mycenaean graves iron\nis found only in the form of finger rings (iron rings were common in\nlate Greece). [Footnote: Tsountas and Manatt, pp. 72, 146, 165.] Iron\nwas scarce in the Cypro-Mycenaean graves of Enkomi. A small knife with\na carved handle had left traces of an iron blade. A couple of lumps\nof iron, one of them apparently the head of a club, were found\nin Schliemann's \"Burned City\" at Hissarlik; for the rest, swords,\nspear-heads, knives, and axes are all of bronze in the age called\n\"Mycenaean.\" But we do not know whether iron _implements_ may not yet\nbe found in the sepulchres of _Thetes_, and other poor and landless\nmen. The latest discoveries in Minoan graves in Crete exhibit tools of\nbronze.\n\nIron, we repeat, is in the poems a perfectly familiar metal. Ownership\nof \"bronze, gold, and iron, which requires much labour\" (in the\nsmithying or smelting), appears regularly in the recurrent epic formula\nfor describing a man of wealth. [Footnote: _Iliad_, VI. 48; IX. 365-366;\nX. 379; XI. 133; _Odyssey_, XIV. 324; XXI. 10.] Iron, bronze, slaves,\nand hides are bartered for sea-borne wine at the siege of Troy?\n[Footnote: _Iliad_, VII. 472-475.] Athene, disguised as Mentes, is\ncarrying a cargo of iron to Temesa (Tamasus in Cyprus?), to barter for\ncopper. The poets are certainly not describing an age in which only a\nman of wealth might indulge in the rare and extravagant luxury of an\niron ring: iron was a common commodity, like cattle, hides, slaves,\nbronze, and other such matters. Common as it was, Homer never once\nmentions its use for defensive armour, or for swords and spears.\n\nOnly in two cases does Homer describe any weapon as of iron. There is to\nbe sure the \"iron,\" the knife with which Antilochus fears Achilles will\ncut his own throat. [Footnote: _Iliad_ XVIII. 34.] But no knife is ever\nused as a weapon of war: knives are employed in cutting the throats of\nvictims (see _Iliad_, III. 271 and XXIII. 30); the knife is said to be\nof iron, in this last passage; also Patroclus uses the knife to cut the\narrow-head out of the flesh of a wounded friend. [Footnote: _Iliad_, XI.\n844.] It is the _knife_ of Achilles that is called \"the iron,\" and on\n\"the iron\" perish the cattle in _Iliad_, XXIII. 30. Mr. Leaf says that\nby \"the usual use, the metal\" (iron) \"is confined to tools of small\nsize.\" [Footnote: Leaf, _Iliad_, xxiii. 30, Note.] This is incorrect;\nthe Odyssey speaks of _great axes_ habitually made of iron. [Footnote:\nOdyssey, IX. 391.] But we do find a knife of bronze, that of Agamemnon,\nused in sacrificing victims; at least so I infer from Iliad, III.\n271-292.\n\nThe only two specimens of _weapons_ named by Homer as of iron are one\narrow-head, used by Pandarus, [Footnote: _Iliad_, IV. 123.] and one\nmace, borne, before Nestor's time, by Areithoeus. To fight with an iron\nmace was an amiable and apparently unique eccentricity of Areithbus, and\ncaused his death. On account of his peculiar practice he was named \"The\nMace man.\" [Footnote: Iliad, VII. 141.] The case is mentioned by Nestor\nas curious and unusual.\n\n Mr. Leaf gets rid of this solitary iron _casse tete_ in a\npleasant way. Since he wrote his _Companion to the Iliad_, 1902, he has\nbecome converted, as we saw, to the theory, demolished by Mr. Monro,\nNutzhorn, and Grote, and denounced by Blass, that the origin of our\nHomer is a text edited by some literary retainer of Pisistratus of\nAthens (about 560-540 B.C.). The editor arranged current lays, \"altered\"\nfreely, and \"wrote in\" as much as he pleased. Probably he wrote this\npassage in which Nestor describes the man of the iron mace, for \"the\ntales of Nestor's youthful exploits, all of which bear the mark of late\nwork, are introduced with no special applicability to the context, but\nrather with the intention of glorifying the ancestor of Pisistratus.\"\n[Footnote: Iliad (1900), VII. 149, Note.] If Pisistratus was pleased\nwith the ancestral portrait, nobody has a right to interfere, but we\nneed hardly linger over this hypothesis (cf. pp. 281-288).\n\n Iron axes are offered as prizes by Achilles, [Footnote: Iliad,\nXXIII. 850.] and we have the iron axes of Odysseus, who shot an arrow\nthrough the apertures in the blades, at the close of the Odyssey.\nBut all these axes, as we shall show, were not weapons, but _peaceful\nimplements_.\n\n As a matter of certain fact the swords and spears of Homer's\nwarriors are invariably said by the poet to be of bronze, not of iron,\nin cases where the metal of the weapons is specified.\n\nExcept for an arrow-head (to which we shall return) and the one iron\nmace, noted as an eccentricity, no weapon in Homer is ever said to be of\niron.\n\nThe richest men use swords of bronze. Not one chooses to indulge in a\nsword said to be of iron. The god, Hephaestus, makes a bronze sword for\nAchilles, whose own bronze sword was lent to Patroclus, and lost by\nhim to Hector. [Footnote: _Iliad_ XVI. 136; XIX. 372-373.] This bronze\nsword, at least, Achilles uses, after receiving the divine armour of the\ngod. The sword of Paris is of bronze, as is the sword of Odysseus in the\nOdyssey. [Footnote: _Iliad_, III. 334-335] Bronze is the sword which he\nbrought from Troy, and bronze is the sword presented to him by Euryalus\nin Phaeacia, and bronze is the spear with which he fought under the\nwalls of Ilios. [Footnote: _Odyssey_, X. 162, 261-262] There are other\nexamples of bronze swords, while spears are invariably said to be of\nbronze, when the metal of the spear is specified.\n\nHere we are on the ground of solid certainty: we see that the Homeric\nwarrior has regularly spear and sword of bronze. If any man used a spear\nor sword of iron, Homer never once mentions the fact. If the poets,\nin an age of iron weapons, always spoke of bronze, out of deference to\ntradition, they must have puzzled their iron-using military patrons.\n\nThus, as regards weapons, the Homeric heroes are in the age of bronze,\nlike them who slept in the tombs of the Mycenaean age. When Homer speaks\nof the use of cutting instruments of iron, he is always concerned,\nexcept in the two cases given, not with [blank space] but with\n_implements_, which really were of iron. The wheelwright fells a tree\n\"with the iron,\" that is, with an axe; Antilochus fears that Achilles\n\"will cut his own throat with the iron,\" that is, with his knife, a\nthing never used in battle; the cattle struggle when slain with \"the\niron,\" that is, the butcher's knife; and Odysseus shoots \"through\nthe iron,\" that is, through the holes in the blade of the iron axes.\n[Footnote: For this peculiar kind of Mycenaean axe with holes in the\nblade, see the design of a bronze example from Vaphio in Tsountas and\nManatt, _The Mycenaean Age_, p. 207, fig. 94.] Thus Homer never says\nthat this or that was done \"with the iron\" in the case of any but one\nweapon of war. Pandarus \"drew the bow-string to his breast and to the\nbow.\" [Footnote: Iliad, W. 123.] Whoever wrote that line was writing\nin an age, we may think, when arrow-heads were commonly of iron; but in\nHomer, when the metal of the arrow-head is mentioned, except, in this\none case, it is always bronze. The iron arrow-tip of Pandarus was of an\nearly type, the shaft did not run into the socket of the arrow-head; the\ntang of the arrow-head, on the other hand, entered the shaft, and was\nwhipped on with sinew. [_Iliad_, IV. 151.] Pretty primitive this method,\nstill the iron is an advance on the uniform bronze of Homer. The line\nabout Pandarus and the iron arrow-head may really be early enough, for\nthe arrow-head is of a primitive kind--socketless--and primitive is\nthe attitude of the archer: he \"drew the arrow to his breast.\" On the\nMycenaean silver bowl, representing a siege, the archers draw to the\nbreast, in the primitive style, as does the archer on the bronze dagger\nwith a representation of a lion hunt. The Assyrians and Khita drew\nto the ear, as the monuments prove, and so does the \"Cypro-Mycenaean\"\narcher of the ivory draught-box from Enkomi. [Footnote: Evans,\nJournal of the Anthropological Institute, vol. xxx. p. 210.] In\nthese circumstances we cannot deny that the poet may have known iron\narrow-heads.\n\nWe now take the case of axes. We never hear from Homer of the use of\nan iron axe in battle, and warlike use of an axe only occurs twice. In\n_Iliad_, XV. 711, in a battle at and on the ships, \"they were fighting\nwith sharp axes and battle-axes\" ([Greek text: axinai]) \"and with great\nswords, and spears armed at butt and tip.\" At and on the ships, men\nwould set hand to whatever tool of cutting edge was accessible. Seiler\nthinks that only the Trojans used the battle-axe; perhaps for damaging\nthe ships: he follows the scholiast. [Greek text: Axinae], however,\n[Footnote: _Iliad_, XIII. 611.] may perhaps be rendered \"battle-axe,\" as\na Trojan, Peisandros, fights with an [Greek text: Axinae], and this is\nthe only place in the _Iliad_, except XV. 711, where the thing is said\nto be used as a weapon. But it is not an _iron_ axe; it is \"of fine\nbronze.\" Only one bronze _battle-axe_, according to Dr. Joseph Anderson,\nis known to have been found in Scotland, though there are many bronze\nheads of axes which were tools.\n\nAxes ([Greek text: pelekeis]) were _implements_, tools of the carpenter,\nwoodcutter, shipwright, and so on; they were not weapons of war of the\nAchaeans.\n\nAs implements they are, with very rare exceptions, of iron. The\nwheelwright fells trees \"with the gleaming iron,\" iron being a synonym\nfor axe and for knife. [Footnote: _Iliad_, IV. 485] In _Iliad_, XIII.\n391, the shipwrights cut timber with axes. In _Iliad_, XXIII. 114,\nwoodcutters' axes are employed in tree-felling, but the results are\nsaid to be produced [Greek text: tanaaekei chalcho], \"by the long-edged\nbronze,\" where the word [Greek text: tanaaekaes] is borrowed from the\nusual epithet of swords; \"the long edge\" is quite inappropriate to a\nwoodcutter's axe. On Calypso's isle Calypso gives to Odysseus a bronze\naxe for his raft-making. Butcher's work is done with an axe. [Footnote:\n_Iliad_, XVII. 520; Odyssey, III. 442-449.] The axes offered by Achilles\nas a prize for archers and the axes through which Odysseus shot are\n_implements_ of iron. [Footnote: _Iliad_, XXIII. 850; Odyssey, XXI. 3,\n81, 97.]\n\nIn the Odyssey, when the poet describes the process of tempering iron,\nwe read, \"as when a smith dips a great axe or an adze in chill water,\nfor thus men temper iron.\" [Footnote: Odyssey, IX. 391-393.] He is not\nusing iron to make a sword or spear, but a tool-adze or axe. The poet is\nperfectly consistent. There are also examples both of bronze axes\nand, apparently, of bronze knives. Thus, though the woodcutter's or\ncarpenter's axe is of bronze in two passages cited, iron is the usual\nmaterial of the axe or adze. Again we saw, when Achilles gives a mass of\niron as a prize in the games, he does not mean the armourer to fashion\nit into sword or spear, but says that it will serve the shepherd or\nploughman for domestic implements, [Footnote: Leaf, _Iliad_ (1902),\nXXIII. line 30, Note.] so that the men need not, on an upland farm, go\nto the city for iron implements. In commenting upon this Mr. Leaf is\nscarcely at the proper point of view. He says, [Footnote: _Iliad_,\nXXIII. 835, Note.] \"the idea of a state of things when the ploughman and\nshepherd forge their own tools from a lump of raw iron has a suspicious\nappearance of a deliberate attempt to represent from the inner\nconsciousness an archaic state of civilisation. In Homeric times the\n[Greek: chalceus] is already specialised as a worker in metals....\"\nHowever, Homer does not say that the ploughman and shepherd \"forge their\nown tools.\" A Homeric chief, far from a town, would have his own smithy,\njust as the laird of Runraurie (now Urrard) had his smithy at the\ntime of the battle of Killicrankie (1689). Mackay's forces left their\n_impedimenta_ \"at the laird's smithy,\" says an eye-witness. [Footnote:\nNapier's _Life_ Of _Dundee_, iii. p. 724.]\n\nThe idea of a late Homeric poet trying to reconstruct from his fancy\na prehistoric state of civilisation is out of the question. Even\nhistorical novelists of the eighteenth century A.D. scarcely attempted\nsuch an effort.\n\nThis was the regular state of things in the Highlands during the\neighteenth century, when many chiefs, and most of the clans, lived far\nfrom any town. But these rural smiths did not make sword-blades, which\nPrince Charles, as late as 1750, bought on the Continent. The\nAndrea Ferrara-marked broadsword blades of the clans were of foreign\nmanufacture. The Highland smiths did such rough iron work as was needed\nfor rural purposes. Perhaps the Homeric chief may have sometimes been\na craftsman like the heroes of the Sagas, great sword-smiths. Odysseus\nhimself, notably an excellent carpenter, may have been as good a\nsword-smith, but every hero was not so accomplished.\n\nIn searching with microscopes for Homeric discrepancies and\ninterpolations, critics are apt to forget the ways of old rural society.\n\nThe Homeric poems, whether composed in one age or throughout five\ncenturies, are thus entirely uniform in allotting bronze as the\nmaterial for all sorts of warlike gear, down to the solitary battle-axe\nmentioned; and iron as the usual metal for heavy tools, knives,\ncarpenters' axes, adzes, and agricultural implements, with the rare\nexceptions which we have cited in the case of bronze knives and axes.\nEither this distinction--iron for tools and implements; bronze for\narmour, swords, and spears--prevailed throughout the period of the\nHomeric poets or poet; or the poets invented such a stage of culture; or\npoets, some centuries later, deliberately kept bronze for weapons only,\nwhile introducing iron for implements. In that case they were showing\narchaeological conscientiousness in following the presumed earlier poets\nof the bronze age, the age of the Mycenaean graves.\n\nNow early poets are never studious archaeologists. Examining the [blank\nspace] certainly based on old lays and legends which survive in\nthe Edda, we find that the poets of the _Nibelungenlied_ introduce\nchivalrous and Christian manners. They do not archaeologise. The poets\nof the French _Chansons de Geste_ (eleventh to thirteenth centuries)\nbring their own weapons, and even armorial bearings, into the 'remote\nage of Charlemagne, which they know from legends and _cantilenes_.\nAgain, the later _remanieurs_ of the earliest _Chansons de Geste_\nmodernise the details of these poems. But, _per impossibile_, and\nfor the sake of argument, suppose that the later interpolators and\ncontinuators of the Homeric lays were antiquarian precisians, or, on\nthe other hand, \"deliberately attempted to reproduce from their inner\nconsciousness an archaic state of civilisation.\" Suppose that, though\nthey lived in an age of iron weapons, they knew, as Hesiod knew, that\nthe old heroes \"had warlike gear of bronze, and ploughed with bronze,\nand there was no black iron.\" [Footnote: Hesiod, _Works and Days_, pp.\n250, 251.] In that case, why did the later interpolating poets introduce\niron as the special material of tools and implements, knives and axes,\nin an age when they knew that there was no iron? Savants such as, by\nthis theory, the later poets of the full-blown age of iron were, they\nmust have known that the knives and axes of the old heroes were made of\nbronze. In old votive offerings in temples and in any Mycenaean graves\nwhich might be opened, the learned poets of 800-600 B.C. saw with their\neyes knives and axes of bronze. [Footnote: _Early Age of Greece_, i.\n413-416.] The knife of Agamemnon ([Greek: machaira]), which hangs from\nhis girdle, beside his sword, [Footnote: _Iliad_, III. 271; XIX. 252.]\ncorresponds to the knives found in Grave IV. at Mycenae; the handles of\nthese dirks have a ring for suspension. [Footnote: Tsountas and Manatt,\np. 204.] But these knives, in Mycenaean graves, are of bronze, and of\nbronze are the axes in the Mycenaean deposits and the dagger of Enkomi.\n[Footnote: _Ibid._, pp. 145, 207, 208, 256. _Evans, Journal of the\nAnthropological Institute_, vol xxx. p, 214.]\n\nWhy, then, did the late poetic interpolators, who knew that the spears\nand swords of the old warriors were of bronze, and who describe them as\nof bronze, not know that their knives and axes were also of bronze? Why\ndid they describe the old knives and axes as of iron, while Hesiod knew,\nand could have told them--did tell them, in fact--that they were of\nbronze? Clearly the theory that Homeric poets were archaeological\nprecisians is impossible. They describe arms as of bronze, tools usually\nas of iron, because they see them to be such in practice.\n\nThe poems, in fact, depict a very extraordinary condition of affairs,\nsuch as no poets could invent and adhere to with uniformity. We are\naccustomed in archaeology to seeing the bronze sword pass by a gradual\ntransition into the iron sword; but, in Homer, people with abundance of\niron never, in any one specified case, use iron sword blades or spears.\nThe greatest chiefs, men said to be rich in gold and iron, always use\nswords and spears of _bronze_ in _Iliad_ and _Odyssey_.\n\nThe usual process of transition from bronze to iron swords, in a\nprehistoric European age, is traced by Mr. Ridgeway at Hallstatt, \"in\nthe heart of the Austrian Alps,\" where a thousand old graves have been\nexplored. The swords pass from bronze to iron with bronze hilts, and,\nfinally, are wholly of iron. Weapons of bronze are fitted with\niron edges. Axes of iron were much more common than axes of bronze.\n[Footnote: _Early Age of Greece_, i. 413-416.] The axes were fashioned\nin the old shapes of the age of bronze, were not of the _bipennis_\nMycenaean model--the double axe--nor of the shape of the letter D, very\nthick, with two round apertures in the blade, like the bronze axe of\nVaphio. [Footnote: Monro, Odyssey, vol. ii. 176.] Probably the axes\nthrough which Odysseus shot an arrow were of this kind, as Mr. Monro,\nand, much earlier, Mr. Butcher and I have argued. [Footnote: _Ibid_.\n(1901), vol. ii. Book XIX. line 572. Note. Butcher and Lang, Odyssey,\nAppendix (1891).]\n\nAt Hallstatt there was the _normal_ evolution from bronze swords and\naxes to iron swords and axes. Why, then, had Homer's men in his time not\nmade this step, seeing that they were familiar with the use of iron? Why\ndo they use bronze for swords and spears, iron for tools? The obvious\nanswer is that they could temper bronze for military purposes much\nbetter than they could temper iron. Now Mr. Ridgeway quotes Polybius\n(ii. 30; ii. 33) for the truly execrable quality of the iron of the\nCeltic invaders of Italy as late as 225 B.C. Their swords were as bad\nas, or worse than, British bayonets; they _always_ \"doubled up.\" \"Their\nlong iron swords were easily bent, and could only give one downward\nstroke with any effect; but after this the edges got so turned and the\nblades so bent that, unless they had time to straighten them with\nthe foot against the ground, they could not deliver a second blow.\"\n[Footnote: _Early Age of Greece_, vol. i. 408.] If the heroes in Homer's\ntime possessed iron as badly tempered as that of the Celts of 225 B.C.,\nthey had every reason to prefer, as they did, excellent bronze for all\ntheir military weapons, while reserving iron for pacific purposes. A\nwoodcutter's axe might have any amount of weight and thickness of iron\nbehind the edge; not so a sword blade or a spear point. [Footnote:\nMonsieur Salomon Reinach suggests to me that the story of Polybius may\nbe a myth. Swords and spear-heads in graves are often found doubled up;\npossibly they are thus made dead, like the owner, and their spirits are\nthus set free to be of use to his spirit. Finding doubled up iron swords\nin Celtic graves, the Romans, M. Beinach suggests, may have explained\ntheir useless condition by the theory that they doubled up in battle,\nleaving their owners easy victims, and this myth was accepted as fact\nby Polybius. But he was not addicted to myth, nor very remote from the\nevents which he chronicles. Again, though bronze grave-weapons in our\nMuseum are often doubled up, the myth is not told of the warriors of the\nage of bronze. We later give examples of the doubling up, in battle, of\nScandinavian iron swords as late as 1000 A.D.]\n\nIn the _Iliad_ we hear of swords breaking at the hilt in dealing a\nstroke at shield or helmet, a thing most incident to bronze swords,\nespecially of the early type, with a thin bronze tang inserted in a\nhilt of wood, ivory, or amber, or with a slight shelf of the bronze hilt\nriveted with three nails on to the bronze blade.\n\nLycaon struck Peneleos on the socket of his helmet crest, \"and his sword\nbrake at the hilt.\" [Footnote: _Iliad_, XVI. 339.] The sword of Menelaus\nbroke into three or four pieces when he smote the helmet ridge of Paris.\n[Footnote: _Iliad_, III. 349, 380.] Iron of the Celtic sort described by\nPolybius would have bent, not broken. There is no doubt on that head:\nif Polybius is not romancing, the Celtic sword of 225 B.C. doubled up at\nevery stroke, like a piece of hoop iron. But Mr. Leaf tells us that, \"by\nprimitive modes of smelting,\" iron is made \"hard and brittle, like cast\niron.\" If so, it would be even less trustworthy for a sword than bronze.\n[Footnote: _Iliad_ (1900), Book VI, line 48, Note.] Perhaps the Celts\nof 225 B.C. did not smelt iron by primitive methods, but discovered some\nprocess for making it not hard and brittle, but flabby.\n\nThe swords of the Mycenaean graves, we know, were all of bronze, and,\nin three intaglios on rings from the graves, the point, not the edge, is\nused, [Footnote: Tsountas and Manatt, p. 199.] once against a lion, once\nover the rim of a shield which covers the whole body of an enemy, and\nonce at too close quarters to permit the use of the edge. It does not\nfollow from these three cases (as critics argue) that no bronze sword\ncould be used for a swashing blow, and there are just half as many\nthrusts as strokes with the bronze sword in the _Iliad_. [Footnote:\nTwenty-four cuts to eleven lunges, in the _Iliad_.] As the poet\nconstantly dwells on the \"long edge\" of the _bronze_ swords and makes\nheroes use both point and edge, how can we argue that Homeric swords\nwere of iron and ill fitted to give point? The Highlanders at Clifton\n(1746) were obliged, contrary to their common practice, to use the point\nagainst Cumberland's dragoons. They, like the Achaeans, had heavy cut\nand thrust swords, but theirs were of steel.\n\nIf the Achaeans had thoroughly excellent bronze, and had iron as bad as\nthat of the Celts a thousand years later, their preference for bronze\nover iron for weapons is explained. In Homer the fighters do not very\noften come to sword strokes; they fight mainly with the spear, except\nin pursuit, now and then. But when they do strike, they cleave heads and\ncut off arms. They could not do this with bronze rapiers, such as those\nwith which men give point over the rim of the shield on two Mycenaean\ngems. But Mr. Myres writes, \"From the shaft graves (of Mycenae) onwards\nthere are two types of swords in the Mycenaean world--one an exaggerated\ndagger riveted into the front end of the hilt, the other with a flat\nflanged tang running the whole length of the hilt, and covered on either\nface by ornamental grip plates riveted on. This sword, though still of\nbronze, can deal a very effective cut; and, as the Mycenaeans had no\narmour for body or head,\" (?) \"the danger of breaking or bending the\nsword on a cuirass or helmet did not arise.\" [Footnote: _Classical\nReview_, xvi. 72.] The danger did exist in Homer's time, as we have\nseen. But a bronze sword, published by Tsountas and Manatt (_Mycenaean\nAge_, p. 199, fig. 88), is emphatically meant to give both point and\nedge, having a solid handle--a continuation of the blade--and a very\nbroad blade, coming to a very fine point. Even in Grave V. at Mycenae,\nwe have a sword blade so massive at the top that it was certainly\ncapable of a swashing blow. [Footnote: Schuchardt, _Schliemann's\nExcavations_, p. _265, fig._ 269.] The sword of the charioteer on the\n_stele_ of Grave V. is equally good for cut and thrust. A pleasanter cut\nand thrust bronze sword than the one found at Ialysus no gentleman could\nwish to handle. [Footnote: Furtwaengler und Loeschke, _Myk. Va._ Taf.\nD.] Homer, in any case, says that his heroes used bronze swords, well\nadapted to strike. If his age had really good bronze, and iron as bad as\nthat of the Celts of Polybius, a thousand years later, their preference\nof bronze over iron for weapons needs no explanation. If their iron\nwas not so bad as that of the Celts, their military conservatism might\nretain bronze for weapons, while in civil life they often used iron for\nimplements.\n\nThe uniform evidence of the Homeric poems can only be explained on the\nsupposition that men had plenty of iron; but, while they used it for\nimplements, did not yet, with a natural conservatism, trust life and\nvictory to iron spears and swords. Unluckily, we cannot test the\ntemper of the earliest known iron swords found in Greece, for rust hath\nconsumed them, and I know not that the temper of the Mycenaean bronze\nswords has been tested against helmets of bronze. I can thus give no\nevidence from experiment.\n\nThere is just one line in Homer which disregards the distinction--iron\nfor implements, bronze for weapons; it is in _Odyssey_, XVI. 294; XIX.\n13. Telemachus is told to remove the warlike harness of Odysseus from\nthe hall, lest the wooers use it in the coming fray. He is to explain\nthe removal by saying that it has been done, \"Lest you fall to strife in\nyour cups, and harm each other, and shame the feast, and _this_ wooing;\n_for iron of himself draweth a man to him_.\" The proverb is manifestly\nof an age when iron was almost universally used for weapons, and thus\nwas, as in Thucydides, synonymous with all warlike gear; but throughout\nthe poems no single article of warlike gear is of iron except one\neccentric mace and one arrow-head of primitive type. The line in the\nOdyssey must therefore be a very late addition; it may be removed\nwithout injuring the sense of the passage in which it occurs. [Footnote:\nThis fact, in itself, is of course no proof of interpolation. _Cf._\nHelbig, _op_. cit., p. 331. He thinks the line very late.] If, on the\nother hand, the line be as old as the oldest parts of the poem, the\nauthor for once forgets his usual antiquarian precision.\n\nWe are thus led to the conclusion that either there was in early Greece\nan age when weapons were all of bronze while implements were often\nof iron, or that the poet, or crowd of poets, invented that state of\nthings. Now early poets never invent in this way; singing to an audience\nof warriors, critical on such a point, they speak of what the warriors\nknow to be actual, except when, in a recognised form of decorative\nexaggeration, they introduce\n\n     \"Masts of the beaten gold\n      And sails of taffetie.\"\n\nOur theory is, then, that in the age when the Homeric poems were\ncomposed, iron, though well known, was on its probation. Men of the\nsword preferred bronze for all their military purposes, just as\nfifteenth-century soldiers found the long-bow and cross-bow much more\neffective than guns, or as the Duke of Wellington forbade the arming of\nall our men with rifles in place of muskets ... for reasons not devoid\nof plausibility.\n\nSir John Evans supposes that, in the seventh century, the Carian and\nIonian invaders of Egypt were still using offensive arms of bronze, not\nof iron. [Footnote: Ancient _Bronze Implements_, p. 8 (1881), citing\nHerodotus, ii. c. 112. Sir John is not sure that Achaean spear-heads\nwere not of copper, for they twice double up against a shield. _Iliad_,\nIII. 348; VII. 259; Evans, p. 13.] Sir John remarks that \"for a\nconsiderable time after the Homeric period, bronze remained in use for\noffensive weapons,\" especially for \"spears, lances, and arrows.\"\nHesiod, quite unlike his contemporaries, the \"later\" poets of Iliad\nand _Odyssey_, gives to Heracles an iron helmet and sword. [Footnote:\n_Scutum Herculis_, pp. 122-138.] Hesiod knew better, but was not a\nconsistent archaiser. Sir John thinks that as early as 500 or even 600\nB.C. iron and steel were in common use for weapons in Greece, but\nnot yet had they altogether superseded bronze battle-axes and spears.\n[Footnote: Evans, p. 18.] By Sir John's showing, iron for offensive\nweapons superseded bronze very slowly indeed in Greece; and, if my\nargument be correct, it had not done so when the Homeric poems were\ncomposed. Iron merely served for utensils, and the poems reflect that\nstage of transition which no poet could dream of inventing.\n\nThese pages had been written before my attention was directed to M.\nBerard's book, _Les Pheniciens et l'Odyssee_ (Paris, 1902). M. Berard\nhas anticipated and rather outrun my ideas. \"I might almost say,\" he\nremarks, \"that iron is the popular metal, native and rustic... the\nshepherd and ploughman can extract and work it without going to the\ntown.\" The chief's smith could work iron, if he had iron to work, and\nthis iron Achilles gave as a prize. \"With rustic methods of working it\niron is always impure; it has 'straws' in it, and is brittle. It may be\nthe metal for peace and for implements. In our fields we see the reaper\nsit down and repair his sickle. In war is needed a metal less hard,\nperhaps, but more tough and not so easily broken. You cannot sit down\nin the field of battle, as in a field of barley, to beat your sword\nstraight....\" [Footnote: Berard, i. 435.]\n\nSo the Celts found, if we believe Polybius.\n\nOn the other hand, iron swords did supersede bronze swords in the long\nrun. Apparently they had not done so in the age of the poet, but iron\nhad certainly ceased to be \"a precious metal\"; knives and woodcutters'\naxes are never made of a metal that is precious and rare. I am thus led,\non a general view, to suppose that the poems took shape when iron was\nvery well known, but was not yet, as in the \"Dipylon\" period in Crete,\ncommonly used by sword-smiths.\n\nThe ideas here stated are not unlike those of Paul Cauer. [Footnote:\n_Grundfrager des Homerkritik,_ pp. 183-187. Leipsic, 1895.] I do not,\nhowever, find the mentions of iron useful as a test of \"early\" and\n\"late\" lays, which it is his theory that they are. Thus he says:--\n\n(1) Iron is often mentioned as part of a man's personal property, while\nwe are not told how he means to use it. It is named with bronze, gold,\nand girls. The poet has no definite picture before his eyes; he is vague\nabout iron. But, we reply, his picture of iron in these passages is\nneither more nor less definite than his mental picture of the other\ncommodities. He calls iron \"hard to smithy,\" \"grey,\" \"dark-hued\"; he\nknows, in fact, all about it. He does not tell us what the owner is\ngoing to do with the gold and the bronze and the girls, any more than he\ntells us what is to be done with the iron. Such information was rather\nin the nature of a luxury than a necessity. Every hearer knew the uses\nof all four commodities. This does not seem to have occurred to Cauer.\n\n(2) Iron is spoken of as an emblem of hard things, as, to take a modern\nexample, in Mr. Swinburne's \"armed and iron maidenhood \"--said of\nAtalanta. Hearts are \"iron,\" strength is \"iron,\" flesh is not \"iron,\" an\n\"iron\" noise goes up to the heaven of bronze. It may not follow, Cauer\nthinks, from these phrases that iron was used in any way. Men are\nsupposed to marvel at its strange properties; it was \"new and rare.\" I\nsee no ground for this inference.\n\n(3) We have the \"iron gates\" of Tartarus, and the \"iron bonds\" in which\nOdysseus was possibly lying; it does not follow that chains or gates\nwere made of iron any more than that gates were of chrysoprase in the\ndays of St. John.\n\n(4) Next, we have mention of implements, not weapons, of iron--a\nremarkable trait of culture. Greek ploughs and axes were made of iron\nbefore spears and swords were of iron.\n\n(5) We have mention of iron weapons, namely, the unique iron mace of\nAreithous and the solitary iron arrow-head of Pandarus, and what Cauer\ncalls the iron swords (more probably knives) of Achilles and others. It\nis objected to the \"iron\" of Achilles that Antilochus fears he will cut\nhis throat with it on hearing of the death of Patroclus, while there\nis no other mention of suicide in the _Iliad_. It does not follow that\nsuicide was unheard of; indeed, Achilles may be thinking of suicide\npresently, in XIII. 98, when he says to his mother: \"Let me die at once,\nsince it was not my lot to succour my comrade.\"\n\n(6) We have the iron-making spoken of in Book IX. 393 of the _Odyssey_.\n\nIt does not appear to us that the use of iron as an epithet bespeaks\nan age when iron was a mysterious thing, known mainly by reputation,\n\"a costly possession.\" The epithets \"iron strength,\" and so on, may as\nreadily be used in our own age or any other. If iron were at first a\n\"precious\" metal, it is odd that Homeric men first used it, as Cauer\nsees that they did, to make points to ploughshares and \"tools of\nagriculture and handiwork.\" \"Then people took to working iron for\nweapons.\" Just so, but we cannot divide the _Iliad_ into earlier and\nlater portions in proportion to the various mentions of iron in various\nBooks. These statistics are of no value for separatist purposes. It is\nimpossible to believe that men when they spoke of \"iron strength,\" \"iron\nhearts,\" \"grey iron,\" \"iron hard to smithy,\" did so because iron was,\nfirst, an almost unknown legendary mineral, next, \"a precious metal,\"\nthen the metal of drudgery, and finally the metal of weapons.\n\nThe real point of interest is, as Cauer sees, that domestic preceded\nmilitary uses of iron among the Achaeans. He seems, however, to think\nthat the confinement of the use of bronze to weapons is a matter of\ntraditional style. [Footnote: \"Nur die Sprache der Dichter hielt an dem\nGebrauch der Bronze fest, die in den Jahrhunderten, waehrend deren der\nEpische Stil erwachsen war, allein geherrscht hatte.\"] But, in the early\ndays of the waxing epics, tools as well as weapons were, as in Homer\nthey occasionally are, of bronze. Why, then, do the supposed late\ncontinuators represent tools, not weapons, as of iron? Why do they not\ncleave to the traditional term--bronze--in the case of tools, as the\nsame men do in the case of weapons?\n\nHelbig offers an apparently untenable explanation of this fact. He has\nproposed an interpretation of the uses of bronze and iron in the poems\nentirely different from that which I offer. [Footnote: _Sur la Question\nMycenienne_. 1896.] Unfortunately, one can scarcely criticise his theory\nwithout entering again into the whole question of the construction\nof the Epics. He thinks that the origin of the poems dates from \"the\nMycenaean period,\" and that the later continuators of the poems retained\nthe traditions of that remote age. Thus they thrice call Mycenae\n\"golden,\" though, in the changed economic conditions of their own\nperiod, Mycenae could no longer be \"golden\"; and I presume that, if\npossible, the city would have issued a papyrus currency without a\nmetallic basis. However this may be, \"in the description of customs\nthe epic poets did their best to avoid everything modern.\" Here we\nhave again that unprecedented phenomenon--early poets who are\narchaeologically precise.\n\nWe have first to suppose that the kernel of the _Iliad_ originated in\nthe Mycenaean age, the age of bronze. We are next to believe that this\nkernel was expanded into the actual Epic in later and changed times,\nbut that the later poets adhered in their descriptions to the Mycenaean\nstandard, avoiding \"everything modern.\" That poets of an uncritical\nperiod, when treating of the themes of ancient legend or song, carefully\navoid everything modern is an opinion not warranted by the usage of\nthe authors of the _Chansons de Geste_, of _Beowulf_, and of the\n_Nibelungenlied_. These poets, we must repeat, invariably introduce\nin their chants concerning ancient days the customs, costume, armour,\nreligion, and weapons of their own time. Dr. Helbig supposes that the\nlate Greek poets, however, who added to the _Iliad_, carefully avoided\ndoing what other poets of uncritical ages have always done. [Footnote:\n_La Question Mycenienne_, p. 50.]\n\nThis is his position in his text (p. 50). In his note 1 to page 50,\nhowever, he occupies the precisely contrary position. \"The epic poems\nwere chanted, as a rule, in the houses of more or less warlike chiefs.\nIt is, then, _a priori_ probable that the later poets took into account\nthe _contemporary_ military state of things. Their audience would have\nbeen much perturbed (_bien cheques_) if they had heard the poet mention\nnothing but arms and forms of attack and defence to which they were\nunaccustomed.\" If so, when iron weapons came in the poets would\nsubstitute iron for bronze, in lays new and old, but they never do.\nHowever, this is Helbig's opinion in his note. But in his text he says\nthat the poets, carefully avoiding the contemporary, \"the modern,\" make\nthe heroes fight, not on horseback, but from chariots. Their listeners,\naccording to his note, must have been _bien cheques_, for there came a\ntime when _they_ were not accustomed to war chariots.\n\nThus the poets who, in Dr. Helbig's text, \"avoid as far as possible all\nthat is modern,\" in his note, on the same page, \"take account of the\ncontemporary state of things,\" and are as modern as possible where\nweapons _are_ concerned. Their audience would be sadly put out (_bien\ncheques_) \"if they heard talk only of arms ... to which they were\nunaccustomed\"; talk of large suspended shields, of uncorsleted heroes,\nand of bronze weapons. They had to endure it, whether they liked it or\nnot, _teste_ Reichel. Dr. Helbig seems to speak correctly in his note;\nin his text his contradictory opinion appears to be wrong. Experience\nteaches us that the poets of an uncritical age--Shakespeare, for\nexample--introduce the weapons of their own period into works dealing\nwith remote ages. Hamlet uses the Elizabethan rapier.\n\nIn his argument on bronze and iron, unluckily, Dr. Helbig deserts the\njudicious opinions of his note for the opposite theory of his text.\nHis late poets, in the age of iron, always say that the weapons of the\nheroes are made of bronze. [Footnote: _Op. laud_., p. 51.] They thus,\n\"as far as possible avoid what is modern.\" But, of course, warriors\nof the age of iron, when they heard the poet talk only of weapons of\nbronze, \"_aurient ete bien choques_\" (as Dr. Helbig truly says in his\nnote), on hearing of nothing but \"_armes auxquels ils n'etaient pas\nhabitues,_\"--arms always of bronze.\n\nThough Dr. Helbig in his text is of the opposite opinion, I must agree\nentirely with the view which he states so clearly in his note. It\nfollows that if a poet speaks invariably of weapons of bronze, he is\nliving in an age when weapons are made of no other material. In his\ntext, however, Dr. Helbig maintains that the poets of later ages \"as far\nas possible avoid everything modern,\" and, therefore, mention none but\nbronze weapons. But, as he has pointed out, they do mention iron tools\nand implements. Why do they desert the traditional bronze? Because \"it\noccasionally happened that a poet, when thinking of an entirely new\nsubject, wholly emancipated himself from traditional forms,\" [Footnote:\n_Op. laud_., pp. 51, 52]\n\nThe examples given in proof are the offer by Achilles of a lump of iron\nas the prize for archery--the iron, as we saw, being destined for the\nmanufacture of pastoral and agricultural implements, in which Dr. Helbig\nincludes the lances of shepherds and ploughmen, though the poet never\nsays that they were of iron. [Footnote: _Iliad_, XXIII. 826, 835;\nOdyssey, XIV. 531; XIII. 225.] There are also the axes through which\nOdysseus shoots his arrow. [Footnote: _Odyssey_, XIX. 587; XXI. 3, X,\n97, 114, 127, 138; XXIV. 168, 177; cf. XXI. 61.] \"The poet here treated\nan entirely new subject, in the development of which he had perfect\nliberty.\" So he speaks freely of iron. \"But,\" we exclaim, \"tools and\nimplements, axes and knives, are not a perfectly new subject!\" They were\nextremely familiar to the age of bronze, the Mycenaean age. Examples of\nbronze tools, arrow-heads, and implements are discovered in excavations\non Mycenaean sites. There was nothing new about bronze tools and\nimplements. Men had bronze tips to their ploughshares, bronze knives,\nbronze axes, bronze arrow-heads before they used iron.\n\nPerhaps we are to understand that feats of archery, non-military\ncontests in bowmanship, are _un sujet a fait nouveau_: a theme so very\nmodern that a poet, in singing of it, could let himself go, and dare to\nspeak of iron implements. But where was the novelty? All peoples who use\nthe bow in war practise archery in time of peace. The poet, moreover,\nspeaks of bronze tools, axes and knives, in other parts of the _Iliad_;\nneither tools nor bronze tools constitute _un sujet tout a fait\nnouveau_. There was nothing new in shooting with a bow and nothing new\nin the existence of axes. Bows and axes were as familiar to the age\nof stone and to the age of bronze as to the age of iron. Dr. Helbig's\nexplanation, therefore, explains nothing, and, unless a better\nexplanation is offered, we return to the theory, rejected by Dr. Helbig,\nthat implements and tools were often, not always, of iron, while weapons\nwere of bronze in the age of the poet. Dr. Helbig rejects this opinion.\nHe writes: \"We cannot in any way admit that, at a period when the socks\nof the plough, the lance points of shepherds\" (which the poet never\ndescribes as of iron), \"and axe-heads were of iron, warriors still used\nweapons of bronze.\" [Footnote: op. _laud._, p. 53.] But it is logically\npossible to admit that this was the real state of affairs, while it is\nlogically impossible to admit that bows and tools were \"new subjects\";\nand that late poets, when they sang of military gear, \"_tenaient\ncompte de l'armement contemporain,_\" carefully avoiding the peril of\nbewildering their hearers by speaking of antiquated arms, and, at the\nsame time, spoke of nothing but antiquated arms--weapons of bronze--and\nof war chariots, to fighting men who did not use war chariots and did\nuse weapons of iron.\n\nThese logical contradictions beset all arguments in which it is\nmaintained that \"the late poets\" are anxious archaisers, and at the same\ntime are eagerly introducing the armour and equipment of their own age.\nThe critics are in the same quandary as to iron and bronze as traps them\nin the case of large shields, small bucklers, greaves, and corslets.\nThey are obliged to assign contradictory attitudes to their \"late\npoets.\" It does not seem possible to admit that a poet, who often\ndescribes axes as of iron in various passages, does so in his account of\na peaceful contest in bowmanship, because contests in bowmanship are _UN\nsujet TOUT a FAIT NOUVEAU;_ and so he feels at liberty to describe axes\nas of iron, while he adheres to bronze as the metal for weapons. He, or\none of the Odyssean poets, had already asserted (Odyssey, IX. 391) that\niron _was_ the metal for adzes and axes.\n\nDr. Helbig's argument [Footnote: _La Question Mycenienne_, p. 54.] does\nnot explain the facts. The bow of Eurytus and the uses to which Odysseus\nis to put it have been in the poet's mind all through the conduct of his\nplot, and there is nothing to suggest that the exploit of bowmanship is\na very new lay, tacked on to the Odyssey.\n\nAfter writing this chapter, I observed that my opinion had been\nanticipated by S. H. Naber. [Footnote: _Quaestiones Homericae_, p.\n60. Amsterdam. Van der Post, 1897.] \"Quod Herodoti diserto testimonio\nnovimus, Homeri restate ferruminatio nondum inventa erat necdum bene\nnoverant mortales, uti opinor, _acuere_ ferrum. Hinc pauperes homines\nubi possunt, ferro utuntur; sed in plerisque rebus turn domi turn\nmilitiae imprimis coguntur uti aere....\"\n\nThe theory of Mr. Ridgeway as to the relative uses of iron and bronze is\nnot, by myself, very easily to be understood. \"The Homeric warrior ...\nhas regularly, as we have seen, spear and sword of iron.\" [Footnote:\n_Early Age of Greece_, vol. i. p. 301.] As no spear or sword of iron is\never mentioned in the _Iliad_ or Odyssey, as both weapons are always\nof bronze when the metal is specified, I have not \"seen\" that they are\n\"regularly,\" or ever, of iron. In proof, Mr. Ridgeway cites the axes\nand knives already mentioned--which are not spears or swords, and are\nsometimes of bronze. He also quotes the line in the Odyssey, \"Iron of\nitself doth attract a man.\" But if this line is genuine and original,\nit does not apply to the state of things in the _Iliad_, while it\ncontradicts the whole Odyssey, in which swords and spears are _ALWAYS_\nof bronze when their metal is mentioned. If the line reveals the true\nstate of things, then throughout the Odyssey, if not throughout the\n_Iliad_, the poets when they invariably speak of bronze swords and\nspears invariably say what they do not mean. If they do this, how are\nwe to know when they mean what they say, and of what value can their\nevidence on points of culture be reckoned? They may always be retaining\ntraditional terms as to usages and customs in an age when these are\nobsolete.\n\nIf the Achaeans were, as in Mr. Ridgeway's theory, a northern\npeople--\"Celts\"--who conquered with iron weapons a Pelasgian\nbronze-using Mycenaean people, it is not credible to me that Achaean or\nPelasgian poets habitually used the traditional Pelasgian term for the\nmetal of weapons, namely, bronze, in songs chanted before victors who\nhad won their triumph with iron. The traditional phrase of a conquered\nbronze-using race could not thus survive and flourish in the poetry of\nan outlandish iron-using race of conquerors.\n\nMr. Ridgeway cites the Odyssey, wherein we are told that \"Euryalus,\nthe Phaeacian, presented to Odysseus a bronze sword, though, as we have\nseen\" (Mr. Ridgeway has seen), \"the usual material for all such weapons\nis iron. But the Phoeacians both belonged to the older race and lived in\na remote island, and therefore swords of bronze may well have continued\nin use in such out-of-the-world places long after iron swords were in\nuse everywhere else in Greece. The man who could not afford iron had to\nbe satisfied with bronze.\" [Footnote: _Early Age of Greece_, p. 305.]\nHere the poet is allowed to mean what he says. The Phaeacian sword is\nreally of bronze, with silver studs, probably on the hilt (Odyssey,\nVIII. 401-407), which was of ivory. The \"out-of-the-world\" islanders\ncould afford ivory, not iron. But when the same poet tells us that\nthe sword which Odysseus brought from Troy was \"a great silver-studded\nbronze sword\" (Odyssey, X. 261, 262), then Mr. Ridgeway does not allow\nthe poet to mean what he says. The poet is now using an epic formula\nolder than the age of iron swords.\n\nThat Mr. Ridgeway adopts Helbig's theory--the poet says \"bronze,\" by a\nsurvival of the diction of the bronze age, when he means iron--I infer\nfrom the following passage: \"_Chalkos_ is the name for the older metal,\nof which cutting weapons were made, and it thus lingered in many phrases\nof the Epic dialect; 'to smite with the _chalkos_' was equivalent to our\nphrase 'to smite with the steel.'\" [Footnote: _Early Age of Greece_, i.\n295.] But we certainly do smite with the steel, while the question is,\n\"_DID_ Homer's men smite with the iron?\" Homer says not; he does not\nmerely use \"an epic phrase\" \"to smite with the _CHALKOS_,\" but he\ncarefully describes swords, spears, and usually arrow-heads as being\nof bronze (_CHALKOS_), while axes, adzes, and knives are frequently\ndescribed by him as of iron.\n\nMr. Ridgeway has an illustrative argument with some one, who says: \"The\ndress and weapons of the Saxons given in the lay of _Beowulf_ fitted\nexactly the bronze weapons in England, for they had shields, and spears,\nand battle-axes, and swords.\" If you pointed out to him that the Saxon\npoem spoke of these weapons as made of iron, he would say, \"I admit\nthat it is a difficulty, but the resemblances are so many that the\ndiscrepancies may be jettisoned.\" [Footnote: _Ridgeway,_ i. 83, 84.]\n\nNow, if the supposed controversialist were a Homeric critic, he would\nnot admit any difficulty. He would say, \"Yes; in _Beowulf_ the\nweapons are said to be of iron, but that is the work of the Christian\n_remanieur,_ or _bearbeiter,_ who introduced all the Christian morality\ninto the old heathen lay, and who also, not to puzzle his iron-using\naudience, changed the bronze into iron weapons.\"\n\nWe may prove anything if we argue, now that the poets retain the\ntradition of obsolete things, now that they modernise as much as they\nplease. Into this method of reasoning, after duly considering it, I\nam unable to come with enthusiasm, being wedded to the belief that the\npoets say what they mean. Were it otherwise, did they not mean what\nthey say, their evidence would be of no value; they might be dealing\nthroughout in terms for things which were unrepresented in their own\nage. To prove this possible, it would be necessary to adduce convincing\nand sufficient examples of early national poets who habitually use\nthe terminology of an age long prior to their own in descriptions of\nobjects, customs, and usages. Meanwhile, it is obvious that my whole\nargument has no archaeological support. We may find \"Mycenaean\" corslets\nand greaves, but they are not in cremation burials. No Homeric cairn\nwith Homeric contents has ever been discovered; and if we did find\nexamples of Homeric cairns, it appears, from the poems, that they would\nvery seldom contain the arms of the dead.\n\nNowhere, again, do we find graves containing bronze swords and iron axes\nand adzes. I know nothing nearer in discoveries to my supposed age\nof bronze weapons and iron tools than a grave of the early iron and\ngeometrical ornament age of Crete--a _tholos_ tomb, with a bronze\nspear-head and a set of iron tools, among others a double axe and a\npick of iron. But these were in company with iron swords? To myself the\ncrowning mystery is, what has become of the Homeric tumuli with their\ncontents? One can but say that only within the last thirty years have we\nfound, or, finding, have recognised Mycenaean burial records. As to the\nbadness of the iron of the North for military purposes, and the probable\nbadness of all early iron weapons, we have testimony two thousand years\nlater than Homer and some twelve hundred years later than Polybius.\nIn the Eyrbyggja Saga (Morris and Maguusson, chap, xxiv.) we read that\nSteinthor \"was girt with a sword that was cunningly wrought; the hilts\nwere white with silver, and the grip wrapped round with the same, but\nthe strings thereof were gilded.\" This was a splendid sword, described\nwith the Homeric delight in such things; but the battle-cry arises, and\nthen \"the fair-wrought sword bit not when it smote armour, and Steinthor\nmust _straighten it under_ his _foot._\" Messrs. Morris and Maguusson add\nin a note: \"This is a very common experience in Scandinavian weapons,\nand for the first time heard of at the battle of Aquae Sextiae between\nMarius and the Teutons.\" [Footnote: The reference is erroneous.] \"In the\nNorth weapon-smiths who knew how to forge tempered or steel-laminated\nweapons were, if not unknown, at least very rare.\" When such skill was\nunknown or rare in Homer's time, nothing was more natural than that\nbronze should hold its own, as the metal for swords and spears, after\niron was commonly used for axes and ploughshares.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER X\n\n\nTHE HOMERIC HOUSE\n\nIf the Homeric poems be, as we maintain, the work of a peculiar age, the\nHomeric house will also, in all likelihood, be peculiar. It will not\nbe the Hellenic house of classical times. Manifestly the dwelling of a\nmilitary-prince in the heroic age would be evolved to meet his needs,\nwhich were not the needs of later Hellenic citizens. In time of peace\nthe later Greeks are weaponless men, not surrounded by and entertaining\nthrongs of armed retainers, like the Homeric chief. The women of later\nGreece, moreover, are in the background of life, dwelling in the women's\nchambers, behind those of the men, in seclusion. The Homeric women also,\nat least in the house of Odysseus, have their separate chambers, which\nthe men seem not to enter except on invitation, though the ladies freely\nhonour by their presence the hall of the warriors. The circumstances,\nhowever, were peculiar--Penelope being unprotected in the absence of her\nlord.\n\nThe whole domestic situation in the Homeric poems--the free equality\nof the women, the military conditions, the life of the chiefs and\nretainers--closely resembles, allowing for differences of climate, that\nof the rich landowners of early Iceland as described in the sagas. There\ncan be no doubt that the house of the Icelandic chief was analogous to\nthe house of the Homeric prince. Societies remarkably similar in mode\nof life were accommodated in dwellings similarly arranged. Though\nthe Icelanders owned no Over-Lord, and, indeed, left their native\nScandinavia to escape the sway of Harold Fairhair, yet each wealthy and\npowerful chief lived in the manner of a Homeric \"king.\" His lands and\nthralls, horses and cattle, occupied his attention when he did not\nchance to be on Viking adventure--\"bearing bane to alien men.\" He\nalways carried sword and spear, and often had occasion to use them.\nHe entertained many guests, and needed a large hall and ample sleeping\naccommodation for strangers and servants. His women were as free and as\nmuch respected as the ladies in Homer; and for a husband to slap a wife\nwas to run the risk of her deadly feud. Thus, far away in the frosts of\nthe north, the life of the chief was like that of the Homeric prince,\nand their houses were alike.\n\nIt is our intention to use this parallel in the discussion of the\nHomeric house. All Icelandic chiefs' houses in the tenth and eleventh\ncenturies were not precisely uniform in structure and accommodation,\nand saga writers of the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, living\nmore comfortably than their forefathers, sometimes confuse matters by\nintroducing the arrangements of their own into the tale of past times.\nBut, in any case, one Icelandic house of the tenth or eleventh century\nmight differ from another in certain details. It is not safe, therefore,\nto argue that difference of detail in Homer's accounts of various houses\nmeans that the varying descriptions were composed in different ages. In\nthe _Odyssey_ the plot demands that the poet must enter into domestic\ndetails much more freely than he ever has occasion to do in the Iliad.\nHe may mention upper chambers freely, for example; it will not follow\nthat in the _Iliad_ upper chambers do not exist because they are only\nmentioned twice in that Epic.\n\nIt is even more important to note that in the house of Odysseus we have\nan unparalleled domestic situation. The lady of the house is beset by\nmore than a hundred wooers--\"sorning\" on her, in the old Scots legal\nphrase--making it impossible for her to inhabit her own hall, and\ndesirable to keep the women as much as possible apart from the men. Thus\nthe Homeric house of which we know most, that of Odysseus, is a house in\na most abnormal condition.\n\nFor the sake of brevity we omit the old theory that the Homeric\nhouse was practically that of historical Greece, with the men's hall\napproached by a door from the courtyard; while a door at the upper end\nof the men's hall yields direct access to the quarters where the women\ndwelt apart, at the rear of the men's hall.\n\nThat opinion has not survived the essay by Mr. J. L. Myres on the \"Plan\nof the Homeric House.\" [Footnote: _Journal of Hellenic Studies_, vol.\nXX, 128-150.] Quite apart from arguments that rest on the ground plans\nof palaces at Mycenae and Tiryns, Mr. Myres has proved, by an exact\nreading of the poet's words, that the descriptions in the _Odyssey_\ncannot be made intelligible on the theory that the poet has in his mind\na house of the Hellenic pattern. But in his essay he hardly touches on\nany Homeric house except that of Odysseus, in which the circumstances\nwere unusual. A later critic, Ferdinand Noack, has demonstrated that\nwe must take other Homeric houses into consideration. [Footnote:\n_Homerische Palaeste_. Teubner. Leipzig, 1903.] The prae-Mycenaean\nhouse is, according to Mr. Myres, on the whole of the same plan as the\nHellenic house of historic days; between these comes the Mycenaean and\nHomeric house; \"so that the Mycenaean house stands out _as an intrusive\nphenomenon_, of comparatively late arrival _and short of duration_...\"\n[Footnote: Myres, _Journal_ of _Hellenic_ Studies, vol. xx. p. 149.]\nNoack goes further; he draws a line between the Mycenaean houses on one\nhand and the houses described by Homer on the other; while he thinks\nthat the \"_late_ Homeric house,\" that of the closing Books of the\nOdyssey, is widely sundered from the Homeric house of the _Iliad_\nand from the houses of Menelaus and Alcinous in earlier Books of the\n_Odyssey._ [Footnote: Noack, p. 73.]\n\nIn this case the Iliadic and earlier Odyssean houses are those of a\nsingle definite age, neither Mycenaean of the prime, nor Hellenic--a\nfact which entirely suits our argument. But it is not so certain, that\nthe house of Odysseus is severed from the other Homeric houses by the\nlater addition of an upper storey, as Noack supposes, and of women's\nquarters, and of separate sleeping chambers for the heads of the family.\n\nThe _Iliad,_ save in two passages, and earlier Books of the _Odyssey_\nmay not mention upper storeys because they have no occasion, or only\nrare occasion, to do so; and some houses may have had upper sleeping\nchambers while others of the same period had not, as we shall prove from\nthe Icelandic parallel.\n\nMr. Myres's idea of the Homeric house, or, at least, of the house of\nOdysseus, is that the women had a _meguron,_ or common hall, apart from\nthat of the men, with other chambers. These did not lie to the direct\nrear of the men's hall, nor were they entered by a door that opened in\nthe back wall of the men's hall. Penelope has a chamber, in which\nshe sleeps and does woman's work, upstairs; her connubial chamber,\nunoccupied during her lord's absence, is certainly on the ground floor.\nThe women's rooms are severed from the men's hall by a courtyard; in\nthe courtyard are chambers. Telemachus has his [Greek: Thalamos], or\nchamber, in the men's courtyard. All this appears plain from the poet's\nwords; and Mr. Myres corroborates, by the ground plans of the palaces\nof Tiryns and Mycenae, a point on which Mr. Monro had doubts, as regards\nTiryns, while he accepted it for Mycenae. [Footnote: Monro, Odyssey, ii.\n497; _Journal of Hellenic Studies_, xx. 136.]\n\nNoack [Footnote: Noack, p. 39.] does not, however, agree.\n\nThere appears to be no doubt that in the centre of the great halls of\nTiryns and of Mycenae, as of the houses in Homer, was the hearth, with\ntwo tall pillars on each side, supporting a _louvre_ higher than the\nrest of the roof, and permitting some, at least, of the smoke of\nthe fire to escape. Beside the fire were the seats of the master and\nmistress of the house, of the minstrel, and of honoured guests. The\nplace of honour was not on a dais at the inmost end of the hall, like\nthe high table in college halls. Mr. Myres holds that in the Homeric\nhouse the [Greek: prodomos], or \"forehouse,\" was a chamber, and was not\nidentical with the [Greek: aethousa], or portico, though he admits that\nthe two words \"are used indifferently to describe the sleeping place of\na guest.\" [Footnote: _Journal of Hellenic Studies_, xx. 144, 155.] This\nwas the case at Tiryns; and in the house of the father of Phoenix,\nin the _Iliad_, the _prodomos_, or forehouse, and the _aethousa_, or\nportico, are certainly separate things (Iliad, IX. 473). Noack does not\naccept the Tiryns evidence for the Homeric house.\n\nOn Mr. Myres's showing, the women in the house of Odysseus had distinct\nand separate quarters into which no man goes uninvited. Odysseus when at\nhome has, with his wife, a separate bedroom; and in his absence Penelope\nsleeps upstairs, where there are several chambers for various purposes.\n\nGranting that all this is so, how do the pictures of the house given in\nthe final part of the _Odyssey_ compare with those in the [Blank space]\nand with the accounts of the dwellings of Menelaus and Alcinous in the\nOdyssey? Noack argues that the house of Odysseus is unlike the other\nHomeric houses, because in these, he reasons, the women have no separate\nquarters, and the lord and lady of the house sleep in the great hall,\nand have no other bedroom, while there are no upper chambers in the\nhouses of the _Iliad_, except in two passages dismissed as \"late.\"\n\nIf all this be so, then the Homeric period, as regards houses and\ndomestic life, belongs to an age apart, not truly Mycenaean, and still\nless later Hellenic.\n\nIt must be remembered that Noack regards the Odyssey as a composite and\nin parts very late mosaic (a view on which I have said what I think\nin _Homer and the Epic_). According to this theory (Kirchhoff is the\nexponent of a popular form thereof) the first Book of the Odyssey\nbelongs to \"the latest stratum,\" and is the \"copy\" of the general\n\"worker-up,\" whether he was the editor employed by Pisistratus or a\nlaborious amateur. This theory is opposed by Sittl, who makes his point\nby cutting out, as interpolations, whatever passages do not suit his\nideas, and do suit Kirchhoff's--this is the regular method of Homeric\ncriticism. The whole cruise of Telemachus (Book IV.) is also regarded\nas a late addition: on this point English scholars hitherto have been\nof the opposite opinion. [Footnote: Cf. Monro, _Odyssey_, vol. ii.\n313-317.]\n\nThe method of all parties is to regard repetitions of phrases as\nexamples of borrowing, except, of course, in the case of the earliest\npoet from whom the others pilfer, and in other cases of prae-Homeric\nsurviving epic formulae. Critics then dispute as to which recurrent\npassage is the earlier, deciding, of course, as may happen to suit\ntheir own general theory. In our opinion these passages are traditional\nformulae, as in our own old ballads and in the _Chansons de Geste_, and\nNoack also takes this view every now and then. They may well be older,\nin many cases, than _Iliad_ and _Odyssey_; or the poet, having found\nhis own formula, economically used it wherever similar circumstances\noccurred. Such passages, so considered, are no tests of earlier\ncomposition in one place, of later composition in another.\n\nWe now look into Noack's theory of the Homeric house. Where do the\nlord and lady sleep? _Not_, he says, as Odysseus and Penelope do (when\nOdysseus is at home), in a separate chamber (_thalamos_) on the ground\nfloor, nor, like Gunnar and Halgerda (Njal's Saga), in an upper chamber.\nThey sleep _mucho domou_; that is, not in a separate recess in the\n_house_, but in a recess of the great hall or _megaron_. Thus, in\nthe hall of Alcinous, the whole space runs from the threshold to the\n_muchos_, the innermost part (_Odyssey_, VII. 87-96). In the hall of\nOdysseus, the Wooers retreat to the _muchos_, \"the innermost part of the\nhall\" (_Odyssey_, XXII. 270). \"The _muchos_, in Homer, never denotes\na separate chamber.\" [Footnote: Noack, p. 45. _Cf_. Monro, Note to\nOdyssey, XXII. 270.]\n\nIn Odyssey, XI. 373, Alcinous says it is not yet time to sleep _ev\nmegaro_, \"in the hall.\" Alcinous and Arete, his wife, sleep \"in the\nrecess of the lofty _domos_,\" that is, in the recess of the _hall_, not\nof \"the house\" (Odyssey, VII. 346). The same words are used of Helen and\nMenelaus (Odyssey, IV. 304). But when Menelaus goes forth next morning,\nhe goes _ek thalamoio_, \"out of his _chamber_\" (_Odyssey_, IV. 310). But\nthis, says Noack, is a mere borrowing of Odyssey, II 2-5, where the same\nwords are used of Telemachus, leaving his chamber, which undeniably was\na separate chamber in the court: Eurycleia lighted him thither at night\n(Odyssey, I. 428). In Odyssey, IV. 121, Helen enters the hall \"from her\nfragrant, lofty chamber,\" so she _had_ a chamber, not in the hall. But,\nsays Noack, this verse \"is not original.\" The late poet of _Odyssey_,\nIV. has cribbed it from the early poet who composed _Odyssey, XIX. 53._\nIn that passage Penelope \"comes from her chamber, like Artemis or golden\nAphrodite.\" Penelope _had_ a chamber--being \"a lone lorn woman,\" who\ncould not sleep in a hall where the Wooers sat up late drinking--and\nthe latest poet transfers this chamber to Helen. But however late and\nlarcenous he may have been, the poet of IV. 121 certainly did not crib\nthe words of the poet of XIX. 53, for he says, \"Helen came out of\nher _fragrant, high-roofed_ chamber.\" The _hall_ was not precisely\n\"fragrant\"! However, Noack supposes that the late poet of Book IV. let\nHelen have a chamber apart, to lead up to the striking scene of her\nentry to the hall where her guests are sitting. May Helen not even have\na boudoir? In _Odyssey_, IV. 263, Helen speaks remorsefully of having\nabandoned her \"chamber,\" and husband, and child, with Paris; but the\nlate poet says this, according to Noack, because he finds that he is\nin for a chamber, so to speak, at all events, as a result of his having\npreviously cribbed the word \"chamber\" from Odyssey, XIX. 53. Otherwise,\nwe presume Helen would have said that she regretted having left \"the\nrecess of the lofty hall\" where she really did sleep. [Footnote: Noack,\npp. 47-48]\n\nThe merit of this method of arguing may be left to the judgment of the\nreader, who will remark that wedded pairs are not described as leaving\nthe hall when they go to bed; they sleep in \"a recess of the lofty\nhouse,\" the innermost part. Is this the same as the \"recess of the\n_hall_\" or is it an innermost part of the _house?_ Who can be certain?\n\nThe bridal chamber, built so cunningly, with the trunk of a tree for the\nsupport of the bed, by Odysseus (odyssey, XXIII. 177-204), is, according\nto Noack, an exception, a solitary freak of Odysseus. But we may reply\nthat the _thalamos_, the separate chamber, is no freak; the freak, by\nknowledge of which Odysseus proves his identity, is the use of the tree\nin the construction of the bed. [blank space] was highly original.\n\nThat separate chambers are needed for grown-up children, _BECAUSE_ the\nparents sleep in the hall, is no strong argument. If the parents had a\nseparate chamber, the young people, unless they slept in the hall, would\nstill need their own. The girls, of course, could not sleep in the hall;\nand, in the absence of both Penelope and Odysseus from the hall, ever\nsince Telemachus was a baby, Telemachus could have slept there. But it\nwill be replied that the Wooers did not beset the hall, and Penelope\ndid not retire to a separate chamber, till Telemachus was a big boy of\nsixteen. Noack argues that he had a separate chamber, though the hall\nwas free, _tradition_. [Footnote: Noack, p. 49.]\n\nWhere does Noack think that, in a normal Homeric house, the girls of\nthe family slept? _They_ could not sleep in the hall, and on the two\noccasions when the _Iliad_ has to mention the chambers of the young\nladies they are \"upper chambers,\" as is natural. But as Noack wants\nto prove the house of Odysseus, with its upper chambers, to be a late\npeculiar house, he, of course, expunges the two mentions of girls' upper\nchambers in the _Odyssey_. The process is simple and easy.\n\nWe find (_Iliad_, XVII. 36) that a son, wedding in his father's and\nmother's life-time, has a _thalamos_ built for him, and a _muchos_\nin the _THALAMOS_, where he leaves his wife when he goes to war. This\ndwelling of grown-up married children, as in the case of the sons of\nPriam, has a _thalamos_, or _doma_, and a courtyard--is a house, in fact\n(_Iliad_, VI. 3 16). Here we seem to distinguish the bed-chamber\nfrom the _doma_, which is the hall. Noack objects that when Odysseus\nfumigates his house, after slaying the Wooers, he thus treats the\n_megaron_, _AND_ the _doma_, _AND_ the courtyard. Therefore, Noack\nargues, the _megaron_, or hall, is one thing; the _doma_ is another. Mr.\nMonro writes, \"_doma_ usually means _megaron_,\" and he supposes a\nslip from another reading, _thalamon_ for _megaron_, which is not\nsatisfactory. But if _doma_ here be not equivalent to _megaron_, what\nroom can it possibly be? Who was killed in another place? what place\ntherefore needed purification except the hall and courtyard? No other\nplaces needed purifying; there is therefore clearly a defect in the\nlines which cannot be used in the argument.\n\nNoack, in any case, maintains that Paris has but one place to live in\nby day and to sleep in by night--his [Greek: talamos]. There he sleeps,\neats, and polishes his weapons and armour. There Hector finds him\nlooking to his gear; Helen and the maids are all there (_Iliad,_ VI.\n321-323). Is this quite certain? Are Helen and the maids in the [Greek:\ntalamos], where Paris is polishing his corslet and looking to his bow,\nor in an adjacent room? If not in another room, why, when Hector is in\nthe room talking to Paris, does Helen ask him to \"come in\"? (_Iliad,_\nVI. 354). He is in, is there another room whence she can hear him?\n\nThe minuteness of these inquiries is tedious!\n\nIn _Iliad,_ III. 125, Iris finds Helen \"in the hall\" weaving. She\nsummons her to come to Priam on the gate. Helen dresses in outdoor\ncostume, and goes forth \"from the chamber,\" [Greek: talamos] (III.\n141-142). Are hall and chamber the same room, or did not Helen dress \"in\nthe chamber\"? In the same Book (III. 174) she repents having left\nthe [Greek: talamos] of Menelaus, not his hall: the passage is not a\nrepetition in words of her speech in the Odyssey.\n\nThe gods, of course, are lodged like men. When we find that Zeus has\nreally a separate sleeping chamber, built by Hephaestus, as Odysseus has\n(_Iliad,_ XIV. 166-167), we are told that this is a late interpolation.\nMr. Leaf, who has a high opinion of this scene, \"the Beguiling of\nZeus,\" places it in the \"second expansions\"; he finds no \"late Odyssean\"\nelements in the language. In _Iliad,_ I. 608-611, Zeus \"departed to his\ncouch\"; he seems not to have stayed and slept in the hall.\n\nHere a quaint problem occurs. Of all late things in the Odyssey the\nlatest is said to be the song of Demodocus about the loves of Ares\nand Aphrodite in the house of Hephaestus. [Footnote: Odyssey, VIII.\n266-300.] We shall show that this opinion is far from certainly correct.\nHephaestus sets a snare round the bed in his [Greek: talamos] and\ncatches the guilty lovers. _Now_, was his [Greek: talamos] or bedroom,\nalso his dining-room? If so, the author of the song, though so \"late,\"\nknows what Noack knows, and what the poets who assign sleeping chambers\nto wedded folks do not know, namely, that neither married gods nor\nmarried men have separate bedrooms. This is plain, for he makes\nHephaestus stand at the front door of his house, and shout to the gods\nto come and see the sinful lovers. [Footnote: Ibid., VI. 304-305] They\nall come and look on _from the front door_ (_Odyssey_, VII. 325), which\nleads into the [Greek: megaron], the hall. If the lovers are in bed in\nthe hall, then hall and bedroom are all one, and the terribly late poet\nwho made this lay knows it, though the late poets of the _Odyssey_ and\n_Iliad_ do not.\n\nIt would appear that the author of the lay is not \"late,\" as we shall\nprove in another case.\n\nNoack, then, will not allow man or god to have a separate wedding\nchamber, nor women, before the late parts of the _Odyssey_, to have\nseparate quarters, except in the house of Odysseus. Women's chambers\ndo not exist in the Homeric house. [Footnote: Noack, p. 50.] If so, how\nremote is the true Homeric house from the house of historical Greece!\n\nAs for upper chambers, those of the daughter of the house (_Iliad,_ II.\n514; XVI. 184), both passages are \"late,\" as we saw (Noack, p.[blank\nspace]). In the _Odyssey_ Penelope both sleeps and works at the shroud\nin an upper chamber. But the whole arrangement of upper chambers as\nwomen's apartments is as late, says Noack, as the time of the poets and\n\"redactors\" (whoever they may have been) of the Odyssey, XXI., XXII.,\nXXIII. [Footnote: Noack, p. 68.] At the earliest these Books are said to\nbe of the eighth century B.C. Here the late poets have their innings at\nlast, and do modernise the Homeric house.\n\nTo prove the absence of upper rooms in the _Iliad_ we have to abolish\nII. 514, where Astyoche meets her divine lover in her upper chamber, and\nXVI. 184, where Polymele celebrates her amour with Hermes \"in the upper\nchambers.\" The places where these two passages occur, _Catalogue_ (Book\nII.) and the _Catalogue_ of the _Myrmidons_ (Book XVI.) are, indeed,\nboth called \"late,\" but the author of the latter knows the early law of\nbride-price, which is supposed to be unknown to the authors of \"late\"\npassages in the Odyssey (XVI. 190).\n\nStated briefly, such are the ideas of Noack. They leave us, at least,\nwith permission to hold that the whole of the Epics, except Books XXI.,\nXXII., and XXIII. of the Odyssey, bear, as regards the house, the marks\nof a distinct peculiar age, coming between the period of Mycenae and\nTiryns on one hand and the eighth century B.C. on the other.\n\nThis is the point for which we have contended, and this suits our\nargument very well, though we are sorry to see that Odyssey, Books XXI.,\nXXII., and XXIII., are no older than the eighth century B.C. But we have\nnot been quite convinced that Helen had not her separate chamber, that\nZeus had not his separate chamber, and that the upper chambers of the\ndaughters of the house in the Iliad are \"late.\" Where, if not in upper\nchambers, did the young princesses repose? Again, the marked separation\nof the women in the house of Odysseus may be the result of Penelope's\ncare in unusual circumstances, though she certainly would not build\na separate hall for them. There are over a hundred handsome young\nscoundrels in her house all day long and deep into the night; she would,\nvainly, do her best to keep her girls apart.\n\nIt stands to reason that young girls of princely families would have\nbedrooms in the house, not in the courtyard-bedrooms out of the way of\nenterprising young men. What safer place could be found for them than in\nupper chambers, as in the Iliad? But, if their lovers were gods, we\nknow that none \"can see a god coming or going against his will.\" The\narrangements of houses may and do vary in different cases in the same\nage.\n\nAs examples we turn to the parallel afforded by the Icelandic sagas and\ntheir pictures of houses of the eleventh century B.C. The present author\nlong ago pointed out the parallel of the houses in the sagas and in\nHomer. [Footnote: _The_ House. Butcher and Lang. Translation of the\nOdyssey.] He took his facts from Dasent's translation of the Njal Saga\n(1861, vol. i. pp. xcviii., ciii., with diagrams). As far as he is\naware, no critic looked into the matter till Mr. Monro (1901), being\napparently unacquainted with Dasent's researches, found similar lore in\nworks by Dr. Valtyr Gudmundsson [Footnote: Monro, Odyssey, vol. ii.\npp. 491-495; _cf_. Gudmundsson, _Der Islandske Bottg i Fristats Tiden_,\n1894; _cf_. Dasent, _Oxford_ Essays, 1858.] The roof of the hall is\nsupported by four rows of columns, the two inner rows are taller, and\nbetween them is the hearth, with seats of honour for the chief guests\nand the lord. The fire was in a kind of trench down the hall; and in\nvery cold weather, we learn from Dasent, long fires could be lit through\nthe extent of the hall. The chief had a raised seat; the guests sat on\nbenches. The high seats were at the centre; not till later times on the\ndais, as in a college hall. The tables were relatively small, and, as in\nHomer, could be removed after a meal. The part of the hall with the\ndais in later days was partitioned off as a _stofa_ or parlour. In early\ntimes cooking was done in the hall.\n\nDr. Gudmundsson, if I understand him, varies from Dasent in some\nrespects. I quote an abstract of his statement.\n\n\"About the year 1000 houses generally consisted of, at least, four\nrooms; often a fifth was added, the so-called bath-room. The oldest form\nfor houses was that of one long line or row of separate rooms united by\nwooden or clay corridors or partitions, and each covered with a roof.\nLater, this was considered unpractical, and they began building some of\nthe houses or rooms behind the others, which facilitated the access from\none to another, and diminished the number of outer doors and corridors.\"\n\n\"Towards the latter part of the tenth century the _skaal_ was used as\ncommon sleeping-room for the whole family, including servants and serfs;\nit was fitted up in the same way as the hall. Like this, it was divided\nin three naves by rows of wooden pillars; the middle floor was lower\nthan that of the two side naves. In these were placed the so-called\n_saet_ or bed-places, not running the whole length of the [blank space]\nfrom gable to gable, but sideways, filling about a third part. Each\n_saet_ was enclosed by broad, strong planks joined into the pillars, but\nnot nailed on, so they might easily be taken out. These planks, called\n_SATTESTOKKE_, could also be turned sideways and used as benches during\nthe day; they were often beautifully carved, and consequently highly\nvalued.\"\n\n\"When settling abroad the people took away with them these planks, and\nput them up in their new home as a symbol of domestic happiness. The\n_saet_ was occupied by the servants of the farm as sleeping-rooms;\ngenerally it was screened by hangings and low panels, which partitioned\nit off like huge separate boxes, used as beds.\"\n\n\"All beds were filled with hay or straw; servants and serfs slept on\nthis without any bedclothes, sometimes a sleeping-bag was used, or\nthey covered themselves with deerskins or a mantle. The family had\nbed-clothes, but only in very wealthy houses were they also provided\nfor the servants. Moveable beds were extremely rare, but are sometimes\nmentioned. Generally two people slept in each bed.\"\n\n\"In the further end of the _skaal_, facing the door, opened out one or\nseveral small bedrooms, destined for the husband with wife and children,\nbesides other members of the family, including guests of a higher\nstanding. These small dormitories were separated by partitions of planks\ninto bedrooms with one or several beds, and shut away from the outer\n_SKAAL_ either by a sliding-door in the wall or by an ordinary door\nshutting with a hasp. Sometimes only a hanging covered the opening.\"\n\n\"In some farms were found underground passages, leading from the\nmaster's bedside to an outside house, or even as far as a wood or\nanother sheltered place in the neighbourhood, to enable the inhabitants\nto save themselves during a night attack. For the same reason each man\nhad his arms suspended over his bed.\"\n\n\"_Ildhus_ or fire-house was the kitchen, often used besides as a\nsleeping-room when the farms were very small. This was quite abolished\nafter the year 1000.\"\n\n\"_Buret_ was the provision house.\"\n\n\"The bathroom was heated from a stone oven; the stones were heated\nred-hot and cold water thrown upon them, which developed a quantity\nof vapour. As the heat and the steam mounted, the people--men and\nwomen--crawled up to a shelf under the roof and remained there as in a\nTurkish bath.\"\n\n\"In large and wealthy houses there was also a women's room, with a\nfireplace built low down in the middle, as in the hall, where the women\nused to sit with their handiwork all day. The men were allowed to come\nin and talk to them, also beggar-women and other vagabonds, who brought\nthem the news from other places. Towards evening and for meals all\nassembled together in the hall.\"\n\nOn this showing, people did not sleep in cabins partitioned off the\ndining-hall, but in the _skaale_; and two similar and similarly situated\nrooms, one the common dining-hall, the other the common sleeping-hall,\nhave been confused by writers on the sagas. [Footnote: Gudmundsson, p,\n14, Note I.] Can there be a similar confusion in the uses of _megaron_,\n_doma_, and _domos_?\n\nIn the Eyrbyggja Saga we have descriptions of the \"fire-hall,\" _skali_\nor _eldhus_. \"The fire-hall was the common sleeping-room in Icelandic\nhomesteads.\" Guests and strangers slept there; not in the portico, as in\nHomer. \"Here were the lock-beds.\" There were butteries; one of these\nwas reached by a ladder. The walls were panelled. [Footnote: _The Ere\nDwellers_, p. 145.] Thorgunna had a \"berth,\" apparently partitioned\noff, in the hall. [Footnote: _Ibid_., 137-140.] As in Homer the hall was\nentered from the courtyard, in which were separate rooms for stores\nand other purposes. In the courtyard also, in the houses of Gunnar of\nLithend and Gisli at Hawkdale, and doubtless in other cases, were the\n_dyngfur_, or ladies' chambers, their \"bowers\" (_Thalamos_, like that of\nTelemachus in the courtyard), where they sat spinning and gossiping. The\n_dyngja_ was originally called _bur_, our \"bower\"; the ballads say \"in\nbower and hall.\" In the ballad of _MARGARET_, her parents are said to\nput her in the way of deadly sin by building her a bower, apparently\nseparate from the main building; she would have been safer in an upper\nchamber, though, even there, not safe--at least, if a god wooed her! It\ndoes not appear that all houses had these chambers for ladies apart from\nthe main building. You did not enter the main hall in Iceland from\nthe court directly in front, but by the \"man's door\" at the west\nside, whence you walked through the porch or outer hall (_prodomos_,\n_aithonsa_), in the centre of which, to the right, were the doors of the\nhall. The women entered by the women's door, at the eastern extremity.\n\nGuests did not sleep, as in Homer, in the _prodomos_, or the\nportico--the climate did not permit it--but in one or other hall. The\nhall was wainscotted; the walls were hung with shields and weapons,\nlike the hall of Odysseus. The heads of the family usually slept in the\naisles, in chambers entered through the wainscot of the hall. Such a\nchamber might be called _muchos_; it was private from the hall though\nunder the same roof. It appears not improbable that some Homeric halls\nhad sleeping places of this kind; such a _muchos_ in Iceland seems to\nhave had windows. [Footnote: Story of Burnt _Njal_, i. 242.]\n\n Gunnar himself, however, slept with his wife, Halegerda, in an\nupper chamber; his mother, who lived with him, also had a room upstairs.\n\nIn Njal's house, too, there was an upper chamber, wherein the foes of\nNjal threw fire. [Footnote:_Ibid_., ii. 173.] But Njal and Bergthora,\nhis wife, when all hope was ended, went into their own bride-chamber\nin the separate aisle of the hall \"and gave over their souls into God's\nhand.\" Under a hide they lay; and when men raised up the hide, after the\nfire had done its work, \"they were unburnt under it. All praised God for\nthat, and thought it was a _GREAT_ token.\" In this house was a weaving\nroom for the women. [Footnote:_Ibid_, ii. 195.]\n\nIt thus appears that Icelandic houses of the heroic age, as regards\nstructural arrangements, were practically identical with the house of\nOdysseus, allowing for a separate sleeping-hall, while the differences\nbetween that and other Homeric houses may be no more than the\ndifferences between various Icelandic dwellings. The parents might sleep\nin bedchambers off the hall or in upper chambers. Ladies might have\nbowers in the courtyard or might have none. The [Greek: laurae]--each\npassage outside the hall--yielded sleeping rooms for servants; and there\nwere store-rooms behind the passage at the top end of the hall, as well\nas separate chambers for stores in the courtyard. Mr. Leaf judiciously\nreconstructs the Homeric house in its \"public rooms,\" of which we hear\nmost, while he leaves the residential portion with \"details and limits\nprobably very variable.\" [Footnote: _Iliad_, vol. i. pp. 586-589, with\ndiagram based on the palace of Tiryns.]\n\nGiven variability, which is natural and to be expected, and given the\nabsence of detail about the \"residential portion\" of other houses than\nthat of Odysseus in the poems, it does not seem to us that this house\nis conspicuously \"late,\" still less that it is the house of historical\nGreece. Manifestly, in all respects it more resembles the houses of Njal\nand Gunnar of Lithend in the heroic age of Iceland.\n\nIn the house, as in the uses of iron and bronze, the weapons, armour,\nrelations of the sexes, customary laws, and everything else, Homer\ngives us an harmonious picture of a single and peculiar age. We find no\nstronger mark of change than in the Odyssean house, if that be changed,\nwhich we show reason to doubt.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XI\n\n\nNOTES OF CHANGE IN THE \"ODYSSEY\"\n\nIf the Homeric descriptions of details of life contain anachronisms,\npoints of detail inserted in later progressive ages, these must be\npeculiarly conspicuous in the Odyssey. Longinus regarded it as the work\nof Homer's advanced life, the sunset of his genius, and nobody denies\nthat it assumes the existence of the _Iliad_ and is posterior to that\nepic. In the Odyssey, then, we are to look, if anywhere, for indications\nof a changed society. That the language of the _Odyssey_, and of four\nBooks of the _Iliad_ (IX., X., XXIII., XXIV.), exhibits signs of change\nis a critical commonplace, but the language is matter for a separate\ndiscussion; we are here concerned with the ideas, manners, customary\nlaws, weapons, implements, and so forth of the Epics.\n\nTaking as a text Mr. Monro's essay, _The Relation of the Odyssey to the\nIliad_, [Footnote: Monro, Odyssey, vol. ii. pp. 324, _seqq_.] we examine\nthe notes of difference which he finds between the twin Epics. As to\nthe passages in which he discovers \"borrowing or close imitation of\npassages\" in the _Iliad_ by the poet of the _Odyssey_, we shall not\ndwell on the matter, because we know so little about the laws regulating\nthe repetition of epic formulae. It is tempting, indeed, to criticise\nMr. Monro's list of twenty-four Odyssean \"borrowings,\" and we might\narrive at some curious results. For example, we could show that the\n_Klothes_, the spinning women who \"spae\" the fate of each new-born\nchild, are not later, but, as less abstract, are if anything earlier\nthan \"the simple _Aisa_ of the _Iliad_.\" [Footnote: _Odyssey_, VII. 197;\n_Iliad_, xx. 127.] But our proof would require an excursion into\nthe beliefs of savage and barbaric peoples who have their _Klothes_,\nspae-women attending each birth, but who are not known to have developed\nthe idea of _Aisa_ or Fate.\n\nWe might also urge that \"to send a spear through the back of a stag\" is\nnot, as Mr. Monro thought, \"an improbable feat,\" and that a man wounded\nto death as Leiocritus was wounded, would not, as Mr. Monro argued,\nfall backwards. He supposes that the poet of the _Odyssey_ borrowed\nthe forward fall from a passage in the _Iliad_, where the fall is in\nkeeping. But, to make good our proof, it might be necessary to spear a\nhuman being in the same way as Leiocritus was speared. [Footnote: Monro,\nodyssey, vol. ii. pp. 239, 230.]\n\nThe repetitions of the Epic, at all events, are not the result of the\nweakness of a poet who had to steal his expressions like a schoolboy.\nThey have some other cause than the indolence or inefficiency of a\n_cento_--making undergraduate. Indeed, a poet who used the many terms in\nthe _Odyssey_ which do not occur in the _Iliad_ was not constrained to\nborrow from any predecessor.\n\nIt is needless to dwell on the Odyssean novelties in vocabulary, which\nwere naturally employed by a poet who had to sing of peace, not of\nwar, and whose epic, as Aristotle says, is \"ethical,\" not military. The\npoet's rich vocabulary is appropriate to his novel subject, that is all.\n\nComing to Religion (I) we find Mr. Leaf assigning to his original\n_Achilleis_--\"the kernel\"--the very same religious ideas as Mr. Monro\ntakes to be marks of \"lateness\" and of advance when he finds them in the\nOdyssey!\n\nIn the original oldest part of the _Iliad_, says Mr. Leaf, \"the gods\nshow themselves just so much as to let us know what are the powers which\ncontrol mankind from heaven.... Their interference is such as becomes\nthe rulers of the world, not partisans in the battle.\" [Footnote: Leaf,\n_Iliad_, vol. ii. pp. xii., xiii.] It is the later poets of the _Iliad_,\nin Mr. Leaf's view, who introduce the meddlesome, undignified, and\nextremely unsportsmanlike gods. The original early poet of the _Iliad_\nhad the nobler religious conceptions.\n\nIn that case--the _Odyssey_ being later than the original kernel of the\nIliad--the _Odyssey_ ought to give us gods as undignified and unworthy\nas those exhibited by the later continuators of the _Iliad_.\n\nBut the reverse is the case. The gods behave fairly well in Book XXIV.\nof the _Iliad_, which, we are to believe, is the latest, or nearly the\nlatest, portion. They are all wroth with the abominable behaviour of\nAchilles to dead Hector (XXIV. 134). They console and protect Priam. As\nfor the _Odyssey_, Mr. Monro finds that in this late Epic the gods\nare just what Mr. Leaf proclaims them to have been in his old original\nkernel. \"There is now an Olympian concert that carries on something like\na moral government of the world. It is very different in the _Iliad_....\"\n[Footnote: Monro, _Odyssey_, ii. 335.]\n\nBut it was not very different; it was just the same, in Mr. Leaf's\ngenuine old original germ of the _Iliad_. In fact, the gods are \"very\nmuch like you and me.\" When their _ichor_ is up, they misbehave as we\ndo when our blood is up, during the fury of war. When Hector is dead and\nwhen the war is over, the gods give play to their higher nature, as\nmen do. There is no difference of religious conception to sever the\n_Odyssey_ from the later but not from the original parts of the _Iliad_.\nIt is all an affair of the circumstances in each case.\n\nThe _Odyssey_ is calmer, more reflective, more _religious_ than the\n_Iliad_, being a poem of peace. The _Iliad_, a poem of war, is more\n_mythological_ than the _Odyssey_: the gods in the _Iliad_ are excited,\nlike the men, by the great war and behave accordingly. That neither\ngods nor men show any real sense of the moral weakness of Agamemnon\nor Achilles, or of the moral superiority of Hector, is an unacceptable\nstatement. [Footnote: Monro, Odyssey, vol. ii. p. 336.] Even Achilles\nand Agamemnon are judged by men and by the poet according to their own\nstandard of ethics and of customary law. There is really no doubt on\nthis point. Too much (2) is made of the supposed different views of\nOlympus--a mountain in Thessaly in the _Iliad_; a snowless, windless,\nsupra-mundane place in _Odyssey_, V. 41-47. [Footnote: _Ibid_., ii.\n396.] Of the Odyssean passage Mr. Merry justly says, \"the actual\ndescription is not irreconcilable with the general Homeric picture of\nOlympus.\" It is \"an idealised mountain,\" and conceptions of it vary,\nwith the variations which are essential to and inseparable from all\nmythological ideas. As Mr. Leaf says, [Footnote: Note to _Iliad_, V.\n750.] \"heaven, _ouranos_ and Olympus, if not identical, are at least\nclosely connected.\" In V. 753, the poet \"regarded the summit of Olympus\nas a half-way stage between heaven and earth,\" thus \"departing from the\noldest Homeric tradition, which made the earthly mountain Olympus, and\nnot any aerial region, the dwelling of the gods.\" But precisely the same\nconfusion of mythical ideas occurs among a people so backward as the\nAustralian south-eastern tribes, whose All Father is now seated on a\nhill-top and now \"above the sky.\" In _ILIAD_, VIII. 25, 26, the poet is\nagain said to have \"entirely lost the real Epic conception of Olympus\nas a mountain in Thessaly,\" and to \"follow the later conception, which\nremoved it from earth to heaven.\" In _Iliad_, XI. 184, \"from heaven\"\nmeans \"from the summit of Olympus, which, though Homer does not identify\nit with _oupavos_, still, as a mountain, reached into heaven\" (Leaf).\nThe poet of Iliad, XI. 184, says plainly that Zeus descended \"_from_\nheaven\" to Mount Ida. In fact, all that is said of Olympus, of heaven,\nof the home of the gods, is poetical, is mythical, and so is necessarily\nsubject to the variations of conception inseparable from mythology. This\nis certain if there be any certainty in mythological science, and here\nno hard and fast line can be drawn between _ODYSSEY_ and _Iliad_.\n\n(3) The next point of difference is that, \"we hear no more of Iris as\nthe messenger of Zeus;\" in the Odyssey, \"the agent of the will of Zeus\nis now Hermes, as in the Twenty-fourth Book of the _Iliad_,\" a late\n\"Odyssean\" Book. But what does that matter, seeing that _ILIAD_, Book\nVIII, is declared to be one of the latest additions; yet in Book VIII.\nIris, not Hermes, is the messenger (VIII. 409-425). If in late times\nHermes, not Iris, is the messenger, why, in a very \"late\" Book (VIII.)\nis Iris the messenger, not Hermes? _Iliad_, Book XXIII., is also a late\n\"Odyssean\" Book, but here Iris goes on her messages (XXIII. 199) moved\nmerely by the prayers of Achilles. In the late Odyssean Book (XXIV.)\nof the _Iliad_, Iris runs on messages from Zeus both to Priam and to\nAchilles. If Iris, in \"Odyssean\" times, had resigned office and been\nsucceeded by Hermes, why did Achilles pray, not to Hermes, but to Iris?\nThere is nothing in the argument about Hermes and Iris. There is nothing\nin the facts but the variability of mythical and poetical conceptions.\nMoreover, the conception of Iris as the messenger certainly existed\nthrough the age of the Odyssey, and later. In the Odyssey the beggar\nman is called \"Irus,\" a male Iris, because he carries messages; and Iris\ndoes her usual duty as messenger in the Homeric Hymns, as well as in the\nso-called late Odyssean Books of the _Iliad_. The poet of the Odyssey\nknew all about Iris; there had arisen no change of belief; he merely\nemployed Hermes as messenger, not of the one god, but of the divine\nAssembly.\n\n(4) Another difference is that in the _Iliad_ the wife of Hephaestus is\none of the Graces; in the Odyssey she is Aphrodite. [Footnote: Monro,\n_Odyssey_, vol. ii. p. 336.] This is one of the inconsistencies which\nare the essence of mythology. Mr. Leaf points out that when Hephaestus\nis about exercising his craft, in making arms for Achilles, Charis \"is\nmade wife of Hephaestus by a more transparent allegory than we find\nelsewhere in Homer,\" whereas, when Aphrodite appears in a comic song\nby Demodocus (Odyssey, VIII. 266-366), \"that passage is later and\nun-Homeric.\" [Footnote: Leaf, _Iliad_, vol. ii. p. 246.]\n\nOf this we do not accept the doctrine that the lay is un-Homeric. The\ndifference comes to no more than _that;_ the accustomed discrepancy\nof mythology, of story-telling about the gods. But as to the lay of\nDemodocus being un-Homeric and late, the poet at least knows the regular\nHomeric practice of the bride-price, and its return by the bride's\nfather to the husband of an adulterous wife (Odyssey, VIII. 318, 319).\nThe poet of this lay, which Mr. Merry defends as Homeric, was intimately\nfamiliar with Homeric customary law. Now, according to Paul Cauer, as we\nshall see, other \"Odyssean\" poets were living in an age of changed\nlaw, later than that of the author of the lay of Demodocus. All these\nso-called differences between _Iliad_ and Odyssey do not point to the\nfact that the _Odyssey_ belongs to a late and changed period of culture,\nof belief and customs. There is nothing in the evidence to prove that\ncontention.\n\nThere (5) are two references to local oracles in the _Odyssey,_ that of\nDodona (XIV. 327; XIX. 296) and that of Pytho (VIII. 80). This is the\nold name of Delphi. Pytho occurs in _Iliad,_ IX. 404, as a very rich\ntemple of Apollo--the oracle is not named, but the oracle brought in the\ntreasures. Achilles (XVI. 233) prays to Pelasgian Zeus of Dodona, whose\npriests were thickly tabued, but says nothing of the oracle of Dodona.\nNeither when in leaguer round Troy, nor when wandering in fairy lands\nforlorn, had the Achaeans or Odysseus much to do with the local oracles\nof Greece; perhaps not, in Homer's time, so important as they were\nlater, and little indeed is said about them in either Epic.\n\n(6) \"The geographical knowledge shown in the Odyssey goes beyond that of\nthe _Iliad_ ... especially in regard to Egypt and Sicily.\" But a poet\nof a widely wandering hero of Western Greece has naturally more occasion\nthan the poet of a fixed army in Asia to show geographical knowledge.\nEgyptian Thebes is named, in _ILIAD_, IX., as a city very rich,\nespecially in chariots; while in the _ODYSSEY_ the poet has occasion\nto show more knowledge of the way to Egypt and of Viking descents from\nCrete on the coast (Odyssey, III. 300; IV. 351; XIV. 257; XVII. 426).\nArchaeology shows that the Mycenaean age was in close commercial\nrelation with Egypt, and that the Mycenaean civilisation extended\nto most Mediterranean lands and islands, and to Italy and Sicily.\n[Footnote: Ridgeway, _Early Age of Greece_, i. 69.] There is nothing\nsuspicious, as \"late,\" in the mention of Sicily by Odysseus in Ithaca\n(Odyssey, XX. 383; XXIV. 307). In the same way, if the poet of a western\npoem does not dilate on the Troad and the people of Asia Minor as\nthe poet of the _ILIAD_ does, that is simply because the scene of the\n_ILIAD_ is in Asia and the scene of the Odyssey is in the west, when it\nis not in No Man's land. From the same cause the poet of sea-faring has\nmore occasion to speak of the Phoenicians, great sea-farers, than the\npoet of the Trojan leaguer.\n\n(7) We know so little about land tenure in Homeric times--and, indeed,\nearly land tenure is a subject so complex and obscure that it is not\neasy to prove advance towards separate property in the _Odyssey_--beyond\nwhat was the rule in the time of the _ILIAD_. In the Making of the Arms\n(XVIII. 541-549) we find many men ploughing a field, and this may have\nbeen a common field. But in what sense? Many ploughs were at work at\nonce on a Scottish runrig field, and each farmer had his own strip on\nseveral common fields, but each farmer held by rent, or by rent and\nservices, from the laird. These common fields were not common property.\nIn XII. 422 we have \"a common field,\" and men measuring a strip and\nquarrelling about the marking-stones, across the \"baulk,\" but it does\nnot follow that they are owners; they may be tenants. Such quarrels were\ncommon in Scotland when the runrig system of common fields, each man\nwith his strip, prevailed. [Footnote: Grey Graham, _Social Life in\nScotland in the Eighteenth Century_, i. 157.]\n\nA man had a [Greek: klaeros] or lot (_ILIAD_, XV. 448), but what was\na \"lot\"? At first, probably, a share in land periodically shifted-&\n_partage noir_ of the Russian peasants. Kings and men who deserve\npublic gratitude receive a [Greek: temenos] a piece of public land, as\nBellerophon did from the Lycians (VI. 194). In the case of Melager such\nan estate is offered to him, but by whom? Not by the people at large,\nbut by the [Greek: gerontes] (IX. 574).\n\nWho are the [Greek: gerontes]? They are not ordinary men of the people;\nthey are, in fact, the gentry. In an age so advanced from tribal\nconditions as is the Homeric time--far advanced beyond ancient tribal\nScotland or Ireland--we conceive that, as in these countries during the\ntribal period, the [Greek: gerontes] (in Celtic, the _Flaith_) held\nin POSSESSION, if not in accordance with the letter of the law, as\nproperty, much more land than a single \"lot.\" The Irish tribal freeman\nhad a right to a \"lot,\" redistributed by rotation. Wealth consisted of\ncattle; and a _bogire_, a man of many kine, let _them_ out to tenants.\nSuch a rich man, a _flatha_, would, in accordance with human nature, use\nhis influence with kineless dependents to acquire in possession several\nlots, avoid the partition, and keep the lots in possession though not\nlegally in property. Such men were the Irish _flaith_, gentry under the\n_RI_, or king, his [Greek: gerontes], each with his _ciniod_, or near\nkinsmen, to back his cause.\n\n\"_Flaith_ seems clearly to mean land-owners,\" or squires, says Sir James\nRamsay. [Footnote: _Foundations of England_, i. 16, Note 4.] If land,\ncontrary to the tribal ideal, came into private hands in early Ireland,\nwe can hardly suppose that, in the more advanced and settled Homeric\nsociety, no man but the king held land equivalent in extent to a\nnumber of \"lots.\" The [Greek: gerontes], the gentry, the chariot-owning\nwarriors, of whom there are hundreds not of kingly rank in Homer (as in\nIreland there were many _flaith_ to one _Ri_) probably, in an informal\nbut tight grip, held considerable lands. When we note their position in\nthe _Iliad_, high above the nameless host, can we imagine that they\ndid not hold more land than the simple, perhaps periodically shifting,\n\"lot\"? There were \"lotless\" men (Odyssey, XL 490), lotless _freemen_,\nand what had become of their lots? Had they not fallen into the hands of\nthe [Greek: gerontes] or the _flaith_?\n\nMr. Ridgeway in a very able essay [Footnote: _Journal of Hellenic\nStudies_, vi. 319-339.] holds different opinions. He points out that\namong a man's possessions, in the _Iliad_, we hear only of personal\nproperty and live stock. It is in one passage only in the Odyssey (XIV.\n211) that we meet with men holding several lots of land; but _they_, we\nremark, occur in Cretean isle, as we know, of very advanced civilisation\nfrom of old.\n\nMr. Ridgeway also asks whether the lotless men may not be \"outsiders,\"\nsuch as are attached to certain villages of Central and Southern India;\n[Footnote: Maine, _Village Communities_, P. 127.] or they may answer to\nthe _Fuidhir_, or \"broken men,\" of early Ireland, fugitives from one\nto another tribe. They would be \"settled on the waste lands of a\ncommunity.\" If so, they would not be lotless; they would have new lots.\n[Footnote: _Journal of Hellenic Studies_, vi. 322, 323.]\n\nLaertes, though a king, is supposed to have won his farm by his own\nlabours from the waste (Odyssey, XXIV. 207). Mr. Monro says, \"the land\nhaving thus been won from the wastes (the [Greek: gae aklaeros te\nkai aktitos] of _H., Ven._ 123), was a [Greek: temenos] or separate\npossession of Laertes.\" The passage is in the rejected conclusion of the\nOdyssey; and if any man might go and squat in the waste, any man might\nhave a lot, or better than one lot. In _Iliad_, XXIII. 832-835, Achilles\nsays that his offered prize of iron will be useful to a man \"whose rich\nfields are very remote from any town,\" Teucer and Meriones compete for\nthe prize: probably they had such rich remote fields, not each a mere\nlot in a common field. These remote fields they are supposed to hold in\nperpetuity, apart from the _temenos_, which, in Mr. Ridgeway's opinion,\nreverted, on the death of each holder, to the community, save where\nkingship was hereditary. Now, if [Greek: klaeros] had come to mean \"a\nlot of land,\" as we say \"a building lot,\" obviously men like Teucer and\nMeriones had many lots, rich fields, which at death might sometimes pass\nto their heirs. Thus there was separate landed property in the _Iliad_;\nbut the passage is denounced, though not by Mr. Ridgeway, as \"late.\"\n\nThe absence of enclosures ([Greek: herkos arouraes]) proves nothing\nabout absence of several property in land. In Scotland the laird's lands\nwere unenclosed till deep in the eighteenth century.\n\nMy own case for land in private possession, in Homeric times, rests\nmainly on human nature in such an advanced society. Such possession as\nI plead for is in accordance with human nature, in a society so\ndistinguished by degrees of wealth as is the Homeric.\n\nUnless we are able to suppose that all the gentry of the _Iliad_ held\nno \"rich fields remote from towns,\" each having but one rotatory lot\napiece, there is no difference in Iliadic and Odyssean land tenure,\nthough we get clearer lights on it in the _Odyssey_.\n\nThe position of the man of several lots may have been indefensible,\nif the ideal of tribal law were ever made real, but wealth in growing\nsocieties universally tends to override such law. Mr. Keller [Footnote:\nHomeric Society, p. 192. 1902.] justly warns us against the attempt\n\"to apply universally certain fixed rules of property development. The\npassages in Homer upon which opinions diverge most are isolated ones,\noccurring in similes and fragmentary descriptions. Under such conditions\nthe formulation of theories or the attempt rigorously to classify can be\nlittle more than an intellectual exercise.\"\n\nWe have not the materials for a scientific knowledge of Homeric real\nproperty; and, with all our materials in Irish law books, how hard it\nis for us to understand the early state of such affairs in Ireland! But\ndoes any one seriously suppose that the knightly class of the _Iliad_,\nthe chariot-driving gentlemen, held no more land--legally or by\npermitted custom--than the two Homeric swains who vituperate each other\nacross a baulk about the right to a few feet of a strip of a runrig\nfield? Whosoever can believe that may also believe that the practice\nof adding \"lot\" to \"lot\" began in the period between the finished\ncomposition of the _Iliad_ (or of the parts of it which allude to land\ntenure) and the beginning of the _Odyssey_ (or of the parts of it which\nrefer to land tenure). The inference is that, though the fact is not\nexplicitly stated in the _Iliad_, there were men who held more \"lots\"\nthan one in Iliadic times as well as in the Odyssean times, when, in a\nsolitary passage of the Odyssey, we do hear of such men in Crete. But\nwhosoever has pored over early European land tenures knows how dim our\nknowledge is, and will not rush to employ his lore in discriminating\nbetween the date of the _Iliad_ and the date of the Odyssey.\n\nNot much proof of change in institutions between Iliadic and Odyssean\ntimes can be extracted from two passages about the ethna, or bride-price\nof Penelope. The rule in both _Iliad_ and _Odyssey_ is that the wooer\ngives a bride-price to the father of the bride, ethna. This was the rule\nknown even to that painfully late and un-Homeric poet who made the Song\nof Demodocus about the loves of Ares and Aphrodite. In that song the\ninjured husband, Hephaestus, claims back the bride-price which he had\npaid to the father of his wife, Zeus. [Footnote: Odyssey, VIII. 318.]\nThis is the accepted custom throughout the _Odyssey_ (VI. 159; XVI. 77;\nXX. 335; XXI. 162; XV. 17, &c.). So far there is no change of manners,\nno introduction of the later practice, a dowry given with the bride,\nin place of a bride-price given to the father by the bridegroom. But\nPenelope was neither maid, wife, nor widow; her husband's fate, alive\nor dead, was uncertain, and her son was so anxious to get her out of the\nhouse that he says he offered gifts _with_ her (XX. 342). In the same\nway, to buy back the goodwill of Achilles, Agamemnon offers to give him\nhis daughter without bride-price, and to add great gifts (_Iliad_, IX.\nl47)--the term for the gifts is [Greek: mailia]. People, of course,\ncould make their own bargain; take as much for their daughter as they\ncould get, or let the gifts go from husband to bride, and then return\nto the husband's home with her (as in Germany in the time of Tacitus,\n_Germania_, 18), or do that, and throw in more gifts. But in Odyssey,\nII. 53, Telemachus says that the Wooers shrink from going to the house\nof Penelope's father, Icarius, who would endow (?) his daughter ([Greek:\neednoosaito]) And again (_Odyssey_, I. 277; II. 196), her father's folk\nwill furnish a bridal feast, and \"array the [Greek: heedna], many, such\nas should accompany a dear daughter.\" Some critics think that the gifts\nhere are _dowry_, a later institution than bride-price; others, that the\nfather of the dear daughter merely chose to be generous, and returned\nthe bride-price, or its equivalent, in whole or part. [Footnote: Merry,\nOdyssey, vol. i. p. 50. Note to Book I 277.] If the former view\nbe correct, these passages in Odyssey, I., II. are later than the\nexceedingly \"late\" song of Demodocus. If the latter theory be correct\nthe father is merely showing goodwill, and doing as the Germans did when\nthey were in a stage of culture much earlier than the Homeric.\n\nThe position of Penelope is very unstable and legally perplexing. Has\nher father her marriage? has her son her marriage? is she not perhaps\nstill a married woman with a living husband? Telemachus would give much\nto have her off his hands, but he refuses to send her to her father's\nhouse, where the old man might be ready enough to return the bride-price\nto her new husband, and get rid of her with honour. For if Telemachus\nsends his mother away against her will he will have to pay a heavy fine\nto her father, and to thole his mother's curse, and lose his character\namong men (odyssey, II. 130-138). The Icelanders of the saga period gave\ndowries with their daughters. But when Njal wanted Hildigunna for his\nfoster-son, Hauskuld, he offered to give [Greek: hedna]. \"I will lay\ndown as much money as will seem fitting to thy niece and thyself,\" he\nsays to Flosi, \"if thou wilt think of making this match.\" [Footnote:\nStory of _Burnt Njal_, ii. p. 81.]\n\nCircumstances alter cases, and we must be hard pressed to discover signs\nof change of manners in the Odyssey as compared with the _Iliad_ if we\nhave to rely on a solitary mention of \"men of many lots\" in Crete,\nand on the perplexed proposals for the second marriage of Penelope.\n[Footnote: For the alleged \"alteration of old customs\" see Cauer,\n_Grundfragen der Homerkritik_, pp. 193-194.] We must not be told that\nthe many other supposed signs of change, Iris, Olympus, and the rest,\nhave \"cumulative weight.\" If we have disposed of each individual\nsupposed note of change in beliefs and manners in its turn, then these\nproofs have, in each case, no individual weight and, cumulatively, are\nnot more ponderous than a feather.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XII\n\n\nLINGUISTIC PROOFS OF VARIOUS DATES\n\nThe great strength of the theory that the poems are the work of several\nages is the existence in them of various strata of languages, earlier\nand later.\n\nNot to speak of differences of vocabulary, Mr. Monro and Mr. Leaf, with\nmany scholars, detect two strata of earlier and later _grammar_ in Iliad\nand Odyssey. In the _Iliad_ four or five Books are infected by \"the\nlater grammar,\" while the Odyssey in general seems to be contaminated.\nMr. Leafs words are: \"When we regard the Epos in large masses, we see\nthat we can roughly arrange the inconsistent elements towards one end or\nthe other of a line of development both linguistic and historical. The\nmain division, that of _Iliad_ and Odyssey, shows a distinct advance\nalong this line; and the distinction is still more marked if we group\nwith the _Odyssey_ four Books of the _Iliad_ whose Odyssean physiognomy\nis well marked. Taking as our main guide the dissection of the plot as\nshown in its episodes, we find that marks of lateness, though nowhere\nentirely absent, group themselves most numerously in the later additions\n...\" [Footnote: _Iliad_, vol. ii. p. X.] We are here concerned with\n_linguistic_ examples of \"lateness.\" The \"four Books whose Odyssean\nphysiognomy\" and language seem \"well marked,\" are IX., X., XXIII., XXIV.\nHere Mr. Leaf, Mr. Monro, and many authorities are agreed. But to these\nfour Odyssean Books of the _Iliad_ Mr. Leaf adds _Iliad_, XI. 664-772:\n\"probably a later addition,\" says Mr. Monro. \"It is notably Odyssean in\ncharacter,\" says Mr. Leaf; and the author \"is ignorant of the geography\nof the Western Peloponnesus. No doubt the author was an Asiatic Greek.\"\n[Footnote: _Iliad_, vol. i. pp. 465-466. Note on Book XI. 756.] The\nvalue of this discovery is elsewhere discussed (see _The Interpolations\nof Nestor_).\n\nThe Odyssean notes in this passage of a hundred lines (_Iliad_, XI.\n670-762) are the occurrence of \"a purely Odyssean word\" (677), an Attic\nform of an epic word, and a \"forbidden trochaic caesura in the fourth\nfoot\"; an Odyssean word for carving meat, applied in a _non_-Odyssean\nsense (688), a verb for \"insulting,\" not elsewhere found in the _Iliad_\n(though the noun is in the _Iliad_) (695), an Odyssean epithet of the\nsun, \"four times in the _Odyssey_\" (735). It is also possible that there\nis an allusion to a four-horse chariot (699).\n\nThese are the proofs of Odyssean lateness.\n\nThe real difficulty about Odyssean words and grammar in the _Iliad_\nis that, if they were in vigorous poetic existence down to the time of\nPisistratus (as the Odysseanism of the Asiatic editor proves that they\nwere), and if every rhapsodist could add to and alter the materials at\nthe disposal of the Pisistratean editor at will, we are not told how the\nfashionable Odysseanisms were kept, on the whole, out of twenty Books of\nthe Iliad.\n\nThis is a point on which we cannot insist too strongly, as an argument\nagainst the theory that, till the middle of the sixth century B.C., the\n_Iliad_ scarcely survived save in the memory of strolling rhapsodists.\nIf that were so, all the Books of the _Iliad_ would, in the course\nof recitation of old and composition of new passages, be equally\ncontaminated with late Odyssean linguistic style. It could not be\notherwise; all the Books would be equally modified in passing through\nthe lips of modern reciters and composers. Therefore, if twenty out\nof twenty-four Books are pure, or pure in the main, from Odysseanisms,\nwhile four are deeply stained with them, the twenty must not only be\nearlier than the four, but must have been specially preserved, and kept\nuncontaminated, in some manner inconsistent with the theory that all\nalike scarcely existed save in the memory or invention of late strolling\nreciters.\n\nHow the twenty Books relatively pure \"in grammatical forms, in syntax,\nand in vocabulary,\" could be kept thus clean without the aid of written\ntexts, I am unable to imagine. If left merely to human memory and at\nthe mercy of reciters and new poets, they would have become stained with\n\"the defining article\"--and, indeed, an employment of the article which\nstartles grammarians, appears even in the eleventh line of the First\nBook of the _Iliad_? [Footnote (exact placing uncertain): Cf. Monro and\nLeaf, on Iliad, I. 11-12.]\n\n Left merely to human memory and the human voice, the twenty more\nor less innocent Books would have abounded, like the Odyssey, in\n[Greek: amphi] with the dative meaning \"about,\" and with [Greek: ex] \"in\nconsequence of,\" and \"the extension of the use of [Greek: ei] clauses\nas final and objective clauses,\" and similar marks of lateness, so\ninteresting to grammarians. [Footnote: Monro, _Odyssey_, ii. pp.\n331-333.] But the twenty Books are almost, or quite, inoffensive in\nthese respects.\n\nNow, even in ages of writing, it has been found difficult or impossible\nto keep linguistic novelties and novelties of metre out of old epics. We\nlater refer (_Archaeology of the Epic_) to the _Chancun de Willame_,\nof which an unknown benefactor printed two hundred copies in 1903.\nMr. Raymond Weeks, in _Romania_, describes _Willame_ as taking a place\nbeside the _Chanson de Roland_ in the earliest rank of _Chansons de\nGeste_. If the text can be entirely restored, the poem will appear\nas \"the most primitive\" of French epics of the eleventh and twelfth\ncenturies. But it has passed from copy to copy in the course of\ngenerations. The methods of versification change, and, after line 2647,\n\"there are traces of change in the language. The word _co_, followed\nby a vowel, hitherto frequent, never again reappears. The vowel _i_,\nof _li_, nominative masculine of the article\" (_li Reis_, \"the king\"),\n\"never occurs in the text after line 2647. Up to that point it is elided\nor not at pleasure.... There is a progressive tendency towards hiatus.\nAfter line 1980 the system of assonance changes. _An_ and en have\nbeen kept distinct hitherto; this ceases to be the case.\" [Footnote:\n_Romania_, xxxiv. pp. 240-246.]\n\nThe poem is also notable, like the _Iliad_, for textual repetition of\npassages, but that is common to all early poetry, which many Homeric\ncritics appear not to understand. In this example we see how apt\nnovelties in grammar and metre are to steal into even written copies of\nepics, composed in and handed down through uncritical ages; and we are\nconfirmed in the opinion that the relatively pure and orthodox grammar\nand metre of the twenty Books must have been preserved by written texts\ncarefully 'executed. The other four Books, if equally old, were less\nfortunate. Their grammar and metre, we learn, belong to a later stratum\nof language.\n\nThese opinions of grammarians are not compatible with the hypothesis\nthat _all_ of the _Iliad_, even the \"earliest\" parts, are loaded with\ninterpolations, forced in at different places and in any age from 1000\nB.C. to 540 B.C.; for if that theory were true, the whole of the _Iliad_\nwould equally be infected with the later Odyssean grammar. According to\nMr. Monro and Sir Richard Jebb, it is not.\n\nBut suppose, on the other hand, that the later Odyssean grammar abounds\nall through the whole _Iliad_, then that grammar is not more Odyssean\nthan it is Iliadic. The alleged distinction of early Iliadic grammar,\nlate Odyssean grammar, in that case vanishes. Mr. Leaf is more keen than\nMr. Monro and Sir Richard Jebb in detecting late grammar in the _Iliad_\nbeyond the bounds of Books IX., X., XXIII., XXIV. But he does not carry\nthese discoveries so far as to make the late grammar no less Iliadic\nthan Odyssean. In Book VIII. of the _Iliad_, which he thinks was only\nmade for the purpose of introducing Book IX., [Footnote: _Iliad_, vol.\ni. p. 332. 1900.] we ought to find the late Odyssean grammar just as\nmuch as we do in Book IX., for it is of the very same date, and probably\nby one or more of the same authors as Book IX. But we do not find the\nOdyssean grammar in Book VIII.\n\nMr. Leaf says, \"The peculiar character\" of Book VIII. \"is easily\nunderstood, when we recognise the fact that Book VIII. is intended to\nserve only as a means for the introduction of Book IX....\" which is\n\"late\" and \"Odyssean.\" Then Book VIII., intended to introduce Book IX.,\nmust be at least as late as Book IX. and might be expected to be at\nleast as Odyssean, indeed one would think it could not be otherwise. Yet\nit is not so.\n\nMr. Leaf's theory has thus to face the difficulty that while the whole\n_Iliad_, by his view, for more than four centuries, was stuffed with\nlate interpolations, in the course of oral recital through all\nGreek lands, and was crammed with original \"copy\" by a sycophant of\nPisistratus about 540 B.C., the late grammar concentrated itself in\nonly some four Books. Till some reasonable answer is given to this\nquestion--how did twenty Books of the Iliad preserve so creditably\nthe ancient grammar through centuries of change, and of recitation by\nrhapsodists who used the Odyssean grammar, which infected the four other\nBooks, and the whole of the _Odyssey?_--it seems hardly worth while to\ndiscuss this linguistic test.\n\nAny scholar who looks at these pages knows all about the proofs of\ngrammar of a late date in the _Odyssey_ and the four contaminated Books\nof the _Iliad_. But it may be well to give a few specimens, for the\nenlightenment of less learned readers of Homer.\n\nThe use of [Greek: amfi], with the dative, meaning \"about,\" when\n_thinking_ or _speaking_ \"about\" Odysseus or anything else, is peculiar\nto the _Odyssey_. But how has it not crept into the four Odyssean\ncontaminated Books of the _Iliad_?\n\n [Greek: peri], with the genitive, \"follows verbs meaning to speak\nor know _about_ a person,\" but only in the _Odyssey_. What preposition\nfollows such verbs in the _Iliad_?\n\nHere, again, we ask: how did the contaminated Books of the _Iliad_\nescape the stain of [Greek: peri], with the genitive, after verbs\nmeaning to speak or know? What phrase do they use in the _Iliad_ for\nspeaking or asking _about_ anybody? [Footnote (exact placing uncertain):\nMonro, Homeric _Grammar_. See Index, under _Iliad_, p. 339.]\n\n [Greek: meta], with the genitive, meaning \"among\" or \"with,\"\ncomes twice in the Odyssey (X. 320; XVI. 140) and thrice in the _Iliad_\n(XIII. 700; XXI. 458; XXIV. 400); but all these passages in the _Iliad_\nare disposed of as \"late\" parts of the poem.\n\n [Greek: epi], with the accusative, meaning _towards_ a\nperson, comes often in the _Iliad_; once in the Odyssey. But it comes\nfour times in _Iliad_, Book X., which almost every critic scouts as very\n\"late\" indeed. If so, why does the \"late\" _Odyssey_ not deal in this\ngrammatical usage so common in the \"late\" Book X. of the _Iliad_?\n\n [Greek: epi], with the accusative, \"meaning _extent_\n(without _motion_),\" is chiefly found in the _Odyssey_, and in the\nIliad, IX., X., XXIV. On consulting grammarians one thinks that there is\nnot much in this.\n\n [Greek: proti] with the dative, meaning \"in addition to,\" occurs\nonly once (_Odyssey, X. 68_). If it occurs only once, there is little to\nbe learned from the circumstance.\n\n [Greek: ana] with the genitive, is only in _Odyssey_, only\nthrice, always of going on board a ship. There are not many ship-farings\nin the _Iliad_. Odysseus and his men are not described as going on board\ntheir ship, in so many words, in _Iliad_, Book I. The usage occurs in\nthe poem where the incidents of seafaring occur frequently, as is to be\nexpected? It is not worth while to persevere with these tithes of mint\nand cummin. If \"Neglect of Position\" be commoner--like \"Hiatus in the\nBucolic Diaeresis\"--in the _Odyssey_ and in _Iliad_, XXIII., XXIV., why\ndo the failings not beset _Iliad_, IX., X., these being such extremely\n\"late\" books? As to the later use of the Article in the _Odyssey_ and\nthe Odyssean Books of the _Iliad_, it appears to us that Book I. of the\n_Iliad_ uses the article as it is used in Book X.; but on this topic we\nmust refer to a special treatise on the language of _Iliad_, Book X.,\nwhich is promised.\n\nTurning to the vocabulary: \"words expressive of civilisation\" are bound\nto be more frequent, as they are, in the Odyssey, a poem of peaceful\nlife, than in a poem about an army in action, like the _Iliad_. Out of\nall this no clue to the distance of years dividing the two poems can be\nfound. As to words concerning religion, the same holds good. The Odyssey\nis more frequently _religious_ (see the case of Eumaeus) than the\n_Iliad_.\n\nIn morals the term [Greek: dikaios] is more used in the _Odyssey_, also\n[Greek: atemistos] (\"just\" and \"lawless\"). But that is partly because\nthe Odyssey has to contrast civilised (\"just\") with wild outlandish\npeople--Cyclopes and Laestrygons, who are \"lawless.\" The _Iliad_ has no\noccasion to touch on savages; but, as the [Greek: hybris] of the Wooers\nis a standing topic in the Odyssey (an ethical poem, says Aristotle),\nthe word [Greek: hybris] is of frequent occurrence in the _Odyssey_,\nin just the same sense as it bears in _Iliad_, I 214--the insolence\nof Agamemnon. Yet when Achilles has occasion to speak of Agamemnon's\ninsolence in _Iliad_, Book IX., he does not use the _word_ [Greek:\nhybris], though Book IX. is so very \"late\" and \"Odyssean.\" It would be\neasy to go through the words for moral ideas in the _Odyssey_, and\nto show that they occur in the numerous moral situations which do not\narise, or arise much less frequently, in the _Iliad_. There is not\ndifference enough in the moral standard of the two poems to justify us\nin assuming that centuries of ethical progress had intervened between\ntheir dates of composition. If the _Iliad_, again, were really, like the\n_Odyssey_, a thing of growth through several centuries, which overlapped\nthe centuries in which the _Odyssey_ grew, the moral ideas of the\n_Iliad_ and _Odyssey_ would necessarily be much the same, would be\nindistinguishable. But, as a matter of fact, it would be easy to show\nthat the moral standard of the _Iliad_ is higher, in many places,\nthan the moral standard of the _Odyssey_; and that, therefore, by the\ncritical hypothesis, the _Iliad_ is the later poem of the twain. For\nexample, the behaviour of Achilles is most obnoxious to the moralist in\n_Iliad_, Book IX., where he refuses gifts of conciliation. But by the\ncritical hypothesis this is not the fault of the _Iliad_, for Book IX.\nis declared to be \"late,\" and of the same date as late parts of the\n_Odyssey_. Achilles is not less open to moral reproach in his abominable\ncruelty and impiety, as shown in his sacrifice of prisoners of war and\nhis treatment of dead Hector, in _Iliad_, XXIII., XXIV. But these Books\nalso are said to be as late as the _Odyssey_.\n\nThe solitary \"realistic\" or \"naturalistic\" passage in Homer, with which\na lover of modern \"problem novels\" feels happy and at home, is the story\nof Phoenix, about his seduction of his father's mistress at the\nrequest of his mother. What a charming situation! But that occurs in an\n\"Odyssean\" Book of the _Iliad_, Book IX.; and thus Odyssean seems lower,\nnot more advanced, than Iliadic taste in morals. To be sure, the poet\ndisapproves of all these immoralities.\n\nIn the Odyssey the hero, to the delight of Athene, lies often and freely\nand with glee. The Achilles of the _Iliad_ hates a liar \"like the gates\nof Hades\"; but he says so in an \"Odyssean\" Book (Book IX.), so there\nwere obviously different standards in Odyssean ethics.\n\nAs to the Odyssey being the work of \"a milder age,\" consider the hanging\nof Penelope's maids and the abominable torture of Melanthius. There is\nno torturing in the [blank space] for the _Iliad_ happens not to deal\nwith treacherous thralls.\n\n_Enfin_, there is no appreciable moral advance in the _ODYSSEY_ on the\nmoral standard of the _ILIAD_. It is rather the other way. Odysseus, in\nthe _ODYSSEY_, tries to procure poison for his arrow-heads. The person\nto whom he applies is too moral to oblige him. We never learn that\na hero of the _Iliad_ would use poisoned arrows. The poet himself\nobviously disapproves; in both poems the poet is always on the side of\nmorality and of the highest ethical standard of his age. The standard in\nboth Epics is the same; in both some heroes fall short of the standard.\n\nTo return to linguistic tests, it is hard indeed to discover what Mr.\nLeaf's opinion of the value of linguistic tests of lateness really is.\n\"It is on such fundamental discrepancies\"--as he has found in Books IX.,\nXVI.--\"that we can depend, _AND ON THESE ALONE_, when we come to dissect\nthe _ILIAD_ ... Some critics have attempted to base their analysis on\nevidences from language, but I do not think they are sufficient to\nbear the super-structure which has been raised on them.\" [Footnote:\n_Companion,_ p. 25.]\n\nHe goes on, still placing a low value on linguistic tests alone, to say:\n\"It is on the broad grounds of the construction and motives of the poem,\n_AND NOT ON ANY MERELY linguistic CONSIDERATIONS_, that a decision must\nbe sought.\" [Footnote: _Ibid_., p. x.]\n\nBut he contradicts these comfortable words when he comes to \"the latest\nexpansions,\" such as Books XXIII., XXIV. \"The latest expansions are\nthoroughly in the spirit of those which precede, _them ON ACCOUNT OF\nlinguistic EVIDENCE,_ which definitely classes them with the _ODYSSEY_\nrather than the rest of the _ILIAD_.\" [Footnote: _Iliad_, vol. ii. p.\nxiv.]\n\nNow as Mr. Leaf has told us that we must depend on \"fundamental\ndiscrepancies,\" \"on these alone,\" when we want to dissect the _ILIAD;_\nas he has told us that linguistic tests alone are \"not sufficient to\nbear the superstructure,\" &c., how can we lop off two Books \"only on\naccount of linguistic evidence\"? It would appear that on this point,\nas on others, Mr. Leaf has entirely changed his mind. But, even in the\n_Companion_ (p. 388), he had amputated Book XXIV. for no \"fundamental\ndiscrepancy,\" but because of \"its close kinship to the _ODYSSEY_, as in\nthe whole language of the Book.\"\n\nHere, as in many other passages, if we are to account for discrepancies\nby the theory of multiplex authorship, we must decide that Mr. Leaf's\nbooks are the work of several critics, not of one critic only. But there\nis excellent evidence to prove that here we would be mistaken.\n\nConfessedly and regretfully no grammarian, I remain unable, in face of\nwhat seem contradictory assertions about the value of linguistic tests,\nto ascertain what they are really worth, and what, if anything, they\nreally prove.\n\nMr. Monro allows much for \"the long insensible influence of Attic\nrecitation upon the Homeric text;\" ... \"many Attic peculiarities may\nbe noted\" (so much so that Aristarchus thought Homer must have been\nan Athenian!). \"The poems suffered a gradual and unsystematic because\ngenerally unconscious process of modernising, the chief agents in\nwhich were the rhapsodists\" (reciters in a later democratic age), \"who\nwandered over all parts of Greece, and were likely to be influenced by\nall the chief forms of literature.\" [Footnote: Monro, _Homeric Grammar_,\npp 394-396. 1891]\n\nThen, wherefore insist so much on tests of language?\n\nMr. Monro was not only a great grammarian; he had a keen appreciation\nof poetry. Thus he was conspicuously uneasy in his hypothesis, based on\nwords and grammar, that the two last Books of the _Iliad_ are by a late\nhand. After quoting Shelley's remark that, in these two Books, \"Homer\ntruly begins to be himself,\" Mr. Monro writes, \"in face of such\ntestimony can we say that the Book in which the climax is reached, in\nwhich the last discords of the _Iliad_ are dissolved in chivalrous pity\nand regret, is not the work of the original poet, but of some Homerid or\nrhapsodist?\"\n\nMr. Monro, with a struggle, finally voted for grammar, and other\nindications of lateness, against Shelley and against his own sense of\npoetry. In a letter to me of May 1905, Mr. Monro sketched a theory that\nBook IX. (without which he said that he deemed an _Achilleis_ hardly\npossible) might be a _remanie_ representative of an earlier lay to the\nsame general effect. Some Greek Shakespeare, then, treated an older poem\non the theme of Book IX. as Shakespeare treated old plays, namely, as a\ncanvas to work over with a master's hand. Probably Mr. Monro would\nnot have gone _so_ far in the case of Book XXIV., _The Repentance_ of\nAchilles. He thought it in too keen contrast with the brutality of Book\nXXII. (obviously forgetting that in Book XXIV. Achilles is infinitely\nmore brutal than in Book XXII.), and thought it inconsistent with the\nrefusal of Achilles to grant burial at the prayer of the dying Hector,\nand with his criminal treatment of the dead body of his chivalrous\nenemy. But in Book XXIV. his ferocity is increased. Mr. Leaf shares\nMr. Monro's view; but Mr. Leaf thinks that a Greek audience forgave\nAchilles, because he was doing \"the will of heaven,\" and \"fighting the\ngreat fight of Hellenism against barbarism.\" [Footnote: Leaf, _Iliad,_\nvol.-ii. p. 429. 1902.] But the Achzeans were not Puritans of the\nsixteenth century! Moreover, the Trojans are as \"Hellenic\" as the\nAchzeans. They converse, clearly, in the same language. They worship\nthe same gods. The Achzeans cannot regard them (unless on account of the\nbreach of truce, by no Trojan, but an ally) as the Covenanters regarded\n\"malignants,\" their name for loyal cavaliers, whom they also styled\n\"Amalekites,\" and treated as Samuel treated Agag. The Achaeans to whom\nHomer sang had none of this sanguinary Pharisaism.\n\nOthers must decide on the exact value and import of Odyssean grammar\nas a test of lateness, and must estimate the probable amount of time\nrequired for the development of such linguistic differences as they find\nin the _Odyssey_ and _Iliad_. In undertaking this task they may compare\nthe literary language of America as it was before 1860 and as it is now.\nThe language of English literature has also been greatly modified in\nthe last forty years, but our times are actively progressive in many\ndirections; linguistic variations might arise more slowly in the Greece\nof the Epics. We have already shown, in the more appropriate instance\nof the _Chancun de Willame_, that considerable varieties in diction and\nmetre occur in a single MS. of that poem, a MS. written probably within\nless than a century of the date of the poem's composition.\n\nWe can also trace, in _remaniements_ of the _Chanson DE ROLAND_,\ncomparatively rapid and quite revolutionary variations from the\noldest--the Oxford--manuscript. Rhyme is substituted for assonance;\nthe process entails frequent modernisations, and yet the basis of\nthirteenth-century texts continues to be the version of the eleventh\ncentury. It may be worth the while of scholars to consider these\nparallels carefully, as regards the language and prosody of the Odyssean\nBooks of the _Iliad_, and to ask themselves whether the processes of\nalteration in the course of transmission, which we know to have occurred\nin the history of the Old French, may not also have affected the\n_ILIAD_, though why the effect is mainly confined to four Books remains\na puzzle. It is enough for us to have shown that if Odyssean varies from\nIliadic language, in all other respects the two poems bear the marks\nof the same age. Meanwhile, a Homeric scholar so eminent as Mr. T. W.\nAllen, says that \"the linguistic attack upon their age\" (that of the\nHomeric poems) \"may be said to have at last definitely failed, and\narchaeology has erected an apparently indestructible buttress for their\ndefence.\" [Footnote: _Classical Review, May_ 1906, p. 194.]\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XIII\n\n\nTHE \"DOLONEIA\"\n\n\"ILIAD,\" BOOK X.\n\nOf all Books in the [blank space] Book X., called the _Doloneia_,\nis most generally scouted and rejected. The Book, in fact, could be\nomitted, and only a minutely analytic reader would perceive the lacuna.\nHe would remark that in Iliad, IX. 65-84, certain military preparations\nare made which, if we suppress Book X., lead up to nothing, and that\nin _Iliad_, XIV. 9-11, we find Nestor with the shield of his son,\nThrasymedes, while Thrasymedes has his father's shield, a fact not\nexplained, though the poet certainly meant something by it. The\nexplanation in both cases is found in Book X., which may also be thought\nto explain why the Achaeans, so disconsolate in Book IX., and why\nAgamemnon, so demoralised, so gaily assume the offensive in Book\nXI. Some ancient critics, Scholiast T and Eustathius, attributed the\n_DOLONEIA_ to Homer, but supposed it to have been a separate composition\nof his added to the _Iliad_ by Pisistratus. This merely proves that\nthey did not find any necessity for the existence of the _DOLONEIA_. Mr.\nAllen, who thinks that \"it always held its present place,\" says, \"the\n_DOLONEIA_ is persistently written down.\" [Footnote: _Classical Review_,\nMay 1906, p. 194]\n\nTo understand the problem of the _DOLONEIA_, we must make a summary of\nits contents. In Book IX. 65-84, at the end of the disastrous fighting\nof Book VIII, the Achaeans, by Nestor's advice, station an advanced\nguard of \"_the young men_\" between the fosse and wall; 700 youths are\nposted there, under Meriones, the squire of Idomeneus, and Thrasymedes,\nthe son of Nestor. All this is preparation for Book X., as Mr. Leaf\nremarks, [Footnote: _Companion_, p. 174.] though in any case an advanced\nguard was needed. Their business is to remain awake, under arms, in case\nthe Trojans, who are encamped on the plain, attempt a night attack. At\ntheir station the young men will be under arms till dawn; they light\nfires and cook their provisions; the Trojans also surround their own\nwatchfires.\n\nThe Achaean chiefs then hold council, and Agamemnon sends the embassy\nto Achilles. The envoys bring back his bitter answer; and all men go to\nsleep in their huts, deeply discouraged, as even Odysseus avowed.\n\nHere the Tenth Book begins, and it is manifest that the poet is\nthoroughly well acquainted with the Ninth Book. Without the arrangements\nmade in the Ninth Book, and without the despairing situation of that\nBook, his lay is impossible. It will be seen that critics suppose him,\nalternately, to have \"quite failed to realise the conditions of life of\nthe heroes of whom he sang\" (that is, if certain lines are genuine), and\nalso to be a peculiarly learned archaeologist and a valuable authority\non weapons. He is addicted to introducing fanciful \"touches of heroic\nsimplicity,\" says Mr. Leaf, and is altogether a puzzling personage to\nthe critics.\n\nThe Book opens with the picture of Agamemnon, sleepless from anxiety,\nwhile the other chiefs, save Menelaus, are sleeping. He \"hears the music\nof the joyous Trojan pipes and flutes\" and sees the reflected glow\nof their camp-fires, we must suppose, for he could not see the fires\nthemselves through the new wall of his own camp, as critics very wisely\nremark. He tears out his hair before Zeus; no one else does so, in the\n_Iliad_, but no one else is Agamemnon, alone and in despair.\n\nHe rises to consult Nestor, throwing a lion's skin over his _chiton_,\nand grasping a spear. Much noise is made about the furs, such as this\nlion's pelt, which the heroes, in Book X., throw about their shoulders\nwhen suddenly aroused. That sportsmen like the heroes should keep the\npelts of animals slain by them for use as coverlets, and should throw on\none of the pelts when aroused in a hurry, is a marvellous thing to the\ncritics. They know that fleeces were used for coverlets of beds (IX.\n661), and pelts of wild animals, slain by Anchises, cover his bed in the\nHymn to Aphrodite.\n\nBut the facts do not enlighten critics. Yet no facts could be more\nnatural. A scientific critic, moreover, never reflects that the poet is\ndealing with an unexampled situation--heroes wakened and called into\nthe cold air in a night of dread, but not called to battle. Thus Reichel\nsays: \"The poet knows so little about true heroic costume that he drapes\nthe princes in skins of lions and panthers, like giants.... But about a\ncorslet he never thinks.\" [Footnote: Reichel, p.70.]\n\nThe simple explanation is that the poet has not hitherto had to tell\nus about men who are called up, not to fight, on a night that must have\nbeen chilly. In war they do not wear skins, though Paris, in archer's\nequipment, wears a pard's skin (III. 17). Naturally, the men throw over\nthemselves their fur coverlets; but Nestor, a chilly veteran, prefers a\n_chiton_ and a wide, double-folded, fleecy purple cloak. The cloak lay\nready to his hand, for such cloaks were used as blankets (XXIV.\n646; Odyssey, III. 349, 351; IV. 299; II. 189). We hear more of such\nbed-coverings in the Odyssey than in the merely because in the _ODYSSEY_\nwe have more references to beds and to people in bed. That a sportsman\nmay have (as many folk have now) a fur coverlet, and may throw it over\nhim as a kind of dressing-gown or \"bed-gown,\" is a simple circumstance\nwhich bewilders the critical mind and perplexed Reichel.\n\nIf the poet knew so little as Reichel supposed his omission of corslets\nis explained. Living in an age of corslets (seventh century), he, being\na literary man, knew nothing about corslets, or, as he is also an acute\narchaeologist, he knew too much; he knew that they were not worn in\nthe Mycenaean prime, so he did not introduce them. The science of this\nremarkable ignoramus, in _this_ view, accounts for his being aware that\npelts of animals were in vogue as coverlets, just as fur dressing-gowns\nwere worn in the sixteenth century, and he introduces them precisely as\nhe leaves corslets out, because he knows that pelts of fur were in use,\nand that, in the Mycenaean prime, corslets were not worn.\n\nIn speaking to Nestor, Agamemnon awakens sympathy: \"Me, of all the\nAchaeans, Zeus has set in toil and labour ceaselessly.\" They are almost\nthe very words of Charlemagne in the _Chanson de Roland: \"Deus, Dist li\nReis, si peneuse est ma vie.\"_ The author of the _Doloneia_ consistently\nconforms to the character of Agamemnon as drawn in the rest of the\n_Iliad_. He is over-anxious; he is demoralising in his fits of gloom,\nbut all the burden of the host hangs on him--sipeneuse _est ma via_.\n\nTo turn to higher things. Menelaus, too, was awake, anxious about the\nArgives, who risked their lives in his cause alone. He got up, put on a\npard's skin and a bronze helmet (here the poet forgets, what he ought\nto have known, that no bronze helmets have been found in the Mycenaean\ngraves). Menelaus takes a spear, and goes to look for Agamemnon, whom he\nfinds arming himself beside his ship. He discovers that Agamemnon means\nto get Nestor to go and speak to the advanced guard, as his son is their\ncommander, and they will obey Nestor. Agamemnon's pride has fallen very\nlow! He tells Menelaus to waken the other chief with all possible formal\ncourtesy, for, brutally rude when in high heart, at present Agamemnon\ncowers to everybody. He himself finds Nestor in bed, his _shield_, two\nspears, and helmet beside him, also his glittering _zoster_. His corslet\nis not named; perhaps the poet knew that the _zoster_, or broad metallic\nbelt, had been evolved, but that the corslet had not been invented; or\nperhaps he \"knows so little about the costume of the heroes\" that he\nis unaware of the existence of corslets. Nestor asks Agamemnon what he\nwants; and Agamemnon says that his is a toilsome life, that he cannot\nsleep, that his knees tremble, and that he wants Nestor to come and\nvisit the outposts.\n\nThere is really nothing absurd in this. Napoleon often visited his\noutposts in the night before Waterloo, and Cromwell rode along his lines\nall through the night before Dunbar, biting his lips till the blood\ndropped on his linen bands. In all three cases hostile armies were\narrayed within striking distance of each other, and the generals were\ncareworn.\n\nNestor admits that it is an anxious night, and rather blames Menelaus\nfor not rousing the other chiefs; but Agamemnon explains and defends his\nbrother. Nestor then puts on the comfortable cloak already described,\nand picks up a spear, [blank space] _in HIS QUARTERS_.\n\nAs for Odysseus, he merely throws a shield over his shoulders. The\ncompany of Diomede are sleeping with their heads on their shields.\nThence Reichel (see \"The Shield\") infers that the late poet of Book X.\ngave them small Ionian round bucklers; but it has been shown that no\nsuch inference is legitimate. Their spears were erect by their sides,\nfixed in the ground by the _sauroter_, or butt-spike, used by the men of\nthe late \"warrior vase\" found at Mycenae. To arrange the spears thus,\nwe have seen, was a point of drill that, in Aristotle's time, survived\namong the Illyrians. [Footnote: _Poetics_, XXV.] The practice is also\nalluded to in _Iliad_, III 135. During a truce \"the tall spears are\nplanted by their sides.\" The poet, whether ignorant or learned, knew\nthat point of war, later obsolete in Greece, but still extant in\nIllyria.\n\nNestor aroused Diomede, whose night apparel was the pelt of a lion; he\ntook his spear, and they came to the outposts, where the men were awake,\nand kept a keen watch on all movements among the Trojans. Nestor praised\nthem, and the princes, taking Nestor's son, Thrasymedes, and Meriones\nwith them, went out into the open in view of the Trojan camp, sat down,\nand held a consultation.\n\nNestor asked if any one would volunteer to go as a spy among the Trojans\nand pick up intelligence. His reward will be \"a black ewe with her lamb\nat her foot,\" from their chiefs--\"nothing like her for value\"--and he\nwill be remembered in songs at feasts, _or_ will be admitted to feasts\nand wine parties of the chiefs. [Footnote: Leaf, Note on X. 215.] The\nproposal is very odd; what do the princes want with black ewes, while\nat feasts they always have honoured places? Can Nestor be thinking of\nsending out any brave swift-footed young member of the outpost party, to\nwhom the reward would be appropriate?\n\nAfter silence, Diomede volunteers to go, with a comrade, though this\nkind of work is very seldom undertaken in any army of any age by a\nchief, and by his remark about admission to wine parties it is clear\nthat Nestor was not thinking of a princely spy. Many others volunteer,\nbut Agamemnon bids Diomede choose his own companion, with a very broad\nhint not to take Menelaus. _HIS_ death, Agamemnon knows, would mean the\ndisgraceful return of the host to Greece; besides he is, throughout the\n_ILIAD_, deeply attached to his brother.\n\nThe poet of Book X., however late, knows the _ILIAD_ well, for he keeps\nup the uniform treatment of the character of the Over-Lord. As he knows\nthe _ILIAD_ well, how can he be ignorant of the conditions of life\nof the heroes? How can he dream of \"introducing a note of heroic\nsimplicity\" (Mr. Leaf's phrase), when he must be as well aware as we are\nof the way in which the heroes lived? We cannot explain the black ewes,\nif meant as a princely reward, but we do not know everything about\nHomeric life.\n\nDiomede chooses Odysseus, \"whom Pallas Athene loveth\"; she was also the\npatroness of Diomede himself, in Books V., VI.\n\nAs they are unarmed--all of the chiefs hastily aroused were unarmed,\nsave for a spear there or a sword here--Thrasymedes gives to Diomede his\ntwo-edged sword, _his_ shield, and \"a helm of bull's hide, without horns\nor crest, that is called a skull-cap (knap-skull), and keeps the heads\nof strong young men.\" All the advanced guard were young men, as we saw\nin Book IX. 77. Obviously, Thrasymedes must then send back to camp,\nthough we are not told it, for another shield, sword, and helmet, as he\nis to lie all night under arms. We shall hear of the shield later.\n\nMeriones, who is an archer (XIII. 650), lends to Odysseus his bow and\nquiver and a sword. He also gives him \"a helm made of leather; and with\nmany a thong it was stiffly wrought within, while without the white\nteeth of a boar of flashing tusks were arrayed, thick set on either side\nwell and cunningly... .\" Here Reichel perceives that the ignorant poet\nis describing a piece of ancient headgear represented in Mycenaean art,\nwhile the boars' teeth were found by Schliemann, to the number of\nsixty, in Grave IV. at Mycenae. Each of them had \"the reverse side\ncut perfectly flat, and with the borings to attach them to some other\nobject.\" They were \"in a veritable funereal armoury.\" The manner of\nsetting the tusks on the cap is shown on an ivory head of a warrior from\nMycenae. [Footnote: Tsountas and Manatt, 196-197.]\n\nReichel recognises that the poet's description in Book X. is excellent,\n\"_ebenso klar als eingehend_.\" He publishes another ivory head from\nSpata, with the same helmet set with boars' tusks. [Footnote: Reichel,\npp. 102-104] Mr. Leaf decides that this description by the poet, wholly\nignorant of heroic costume, as Reichel thinks him, must be \"another\ninstance of the archaic and archaeologising tendency so notable in Book\nX.\" [Footnote: _Iliad_, vol. ii. p. 629.]\n\nAt the same time, according to Reichel and Mr. Leaf, the poet of Book\nX. introduces the small round Ionian buckler, thus showing his utter\nignorance of the great Mycenaean shield. The ignorance was most unusual\nand quite inexcusable, for any one who reads the rest of the _Iliad_\n(which the poet of Book X. knew well) is aware that the Homeric shields\nwere huge, often covering body and legs. This fact the poet of Book X.\ndid not know, in Reichel's opinion. [Footnote: Leaf, _Iliad_, vol. i. p.\n575]\n\nHow are we to understand this poet? He is such an erudite archaeologist\nthat, in the seventh century, he knows and carefully describes a helmet\nof the Mycenaean prime. Did he excavate it? and had the leather interior\nlasted with the felt cap through seven centuries? Or did he see a sample\nin an old temple of the Mycenaean prime, or in a museum of his own\nperiod? Or had he heard of it in a lost Mycenaean poem? Yet, careful\nas he was, so pedantic that he must have puzzled his seventh-century\naudience, who never saw such caps, the poet knew nothing of the shields\nand costumes of the heroes, though he might have found out all that is\nknown about them in the then existing Iliadic lays with which he was\nperfectly familiar--see his portrait of Agamemnon. He was well aware\nthat corslets were, in Homeric poetry, anachronisms, for he gave\nNestor none; yet he fully believed, in his ignorance, that small Ionian\nbucklers loveth; (which need the aid of corslets badly) were the only\nwear among the heroes!\n\nCriticism has, as we often observe, no right to throw the first stone\nat the inconsistencies of Homer. As we cannot possibly believe that one\npoet knew so much which his contemporaries did not know (and how, in the\nseventh century, could he know it?), and that he also knew so little,\nknew nothing in fact, we take our own view. The poet of Book X. sings\nof _a_ fresh topic, a confused night of dread; of young men wearing the\nheadgear which, he says, young men _do_ wear; of pelts of fur such as\nsuddenly wakened men, roused, but not roused for battle, would be likely\nto throw over their bodies against the chill air. He describes things of\nhis own day; things with which he is familiar. He is said to \"take quite\na peculiar delight in the minute description of dress and weapons.\"\n[Footnote: Leaf, _Iliad_, vol. i. p. 423.] We do not observe that he\ndoes describe weapons or shields minutely; but Homer always loves to\ndescribe weapons and costume--scores of examples prove it--and here he\nhappens to be describing such costume as he nowhere else has occasion to\nmention. By an accident of archaeological discovery, we find that\nthere were such caps set with boars' tusks as he introduces. They had\nsurvived, for young men on night duty, into the poet's age. We really\ncannot believe that a poet of the seventh century had made excavations\nin Mycenaean graves. If he did and put the results into his lay, his\naudience--not wearing boars' tusks--would have asked, \"What nonsense is\nthe man talking?\"\n\nErhardt, remarking on the furs which the heroes throw over their\nshoulders when aroused, says that this kind of wrap is very late. It\nwas Peisander who, in the second half of the seventh century, clothed\nHerakles in a lion's skin. Peisander brought this costume into\npoetry, and the author of the _Doloneia_ knew no better than to follow\nPeisander. [Footnote: _Die Enstehung der Homerischen Gedichte_, pp.\n163-164.] The poet of the _Doloneia_ was thus much better acquainted\nwith Peisander than with the Homeric lays, which could have taught\nhim that a hero would never wear a fur coverlet when aroused--not to\nfight--from slumber. Yet he knew about leathern caps set with boars'\ntusks. He must have been an erudite excavator, but, in literature, a\nreader only of recent minor poetry.\n\nHaving procured arms, without corslets (_with_ corslets, according to\nCarl Robert)--whether, if they had none, because the poet knew that\ncorslets were anachronisms, or because spies usually go as lightly\nburdened as possible--Odysseus and Diomede approach the Trojan camp. The\nhour is the darkest hour before dawn. They hear, but do not see, a heron\nsent by Athene as an omen, and pray to the goddess, with promise of\nsacrifice.\n\nIn the Trojan camp Hector has called a council, and asked for a\nvolunteer spy to seek intelligence among the Achaeans. He offers no\nblack ewes as a reward, but the best horses of the enemy. This allures\nDolon, son of a rich Trojan, \"an only son among five sisters,\" a\npoltroon, a weak lad, ugly, but swift of foot, and an enthusiastic lover\nof horses. He asks for the steeds of Achilles, which Hector swears to\ngive him; and to be lightly clad he takes merely spear and bow and a cap\nof ferret skin, with the pelt of a wolf for covering. Odysseus sees him\napproach; he and Diomede lie down among the dead till Dolon passes, then\nthey chase him towards the Achaean camp and catch him. He offers ransom,\nwhich before these last days of the war was often accepted. Odysseus\nreplies evasively, and asks for information. Dolon, thinking that\nthe bitterness of death is past, explains that only the Trojans have\nwatch-fires; the allies, more careless, have none. At the extreme flank\nof the host sleep the newly arrived Thracians, under their king, Rhesus,\nwho has golden armour, and \"the fairest horses that ever I beheld\" (the\nruling passion for horses is strong in Dolon), \"and the greatest, whiter\nthan snow, and for speed like the winds.\"\n\nHaving learned all that he needs to know, Diomede ruthlessly slays\nDolon. Odysseus thanks Athene, and hides the poor spoils of the dead,\nmarking the place. They then creep into the dark camp of the sleeping\nThracians, and as Diomede slays them Odysseus drags each body aside, to\nleave a clear path for the horses, that they may not plunge and tremble\nwhen they are led forth, \"for they were not yet used to dead men.\" No\nline in Homer shows more intimate knowledge and realisation of horses\nand of war. Odysseus drives the horses of Rhesus out of the camp with\nthe bow of Meriones; he has forgotten to take the whip from the chariot.\nDiomede, having slain King Rhesus asleep, thinks whether he shall lift\nout the chariot (war chariots were very light) or drag it by the pole;\nbut Athene warns him to be going. He \"springs upon the steeds,\" and they\nmake for their camp. It is not clearly indicated whether they ride or\ndrive (X., 5 I 3, 527-528, 541); but, suppose that they ride, are we\nto conclude that the fact proves \"lateness\"? The heroes always drive\nin Homer, but it is inconceivable that they could not ride in cases of\nnecessity, as here, if Diomede has thought it wiser not to bring out the\nchariot and harness the horses. Riding is mentioned in _Iliad_, XV.\n679, in a simile; again, in a simile, _Odyssey_, V. 37 I. It is not the\ncustom for heroes to ride; the chariot is used in war and in travelling,\nbut, when there are horses and no chariot, men could not be so imbecile\nas not to mount the horses, nor could the poet be so pedantic as not to\nmake them do so.\n\nThe shields would cause no difficulty; they would be slung sideways,\nlike the shields of knights in the early Middle Ages. The pair, picking\nup Dolon's spoils as they pass, hurry back to the chiefs, where Nestor\nwelcomes them. The others laugh and are encouraged (to encourage them\nand his audience is the aim of the poet); while the pair go to Diomede's\nquarters, wash off the blood and sweat from their limbs in the sea, and\nthen \"enter the polished baths,\" common in the _Odyssey_, unnamed in\nthe Iliad. But on no other occasion in the Iliad are we admitted to view\nthis part of heroic toilette. Nowhere else, in fact, do we accompany a\nhero to his quarters and his tub after the day's work is over. Achilles,\nhowever, refuses to wash, after fighting, in his grief for Patroclus,\nthough plenty of water was being heated for the purpose, and it is to be\npresumed that a bath was ready for the water (_Iliad_, XXIII. 40). See,\ntoo, for Hector's bath, XXII. 444.\n\nThe two heroes then refresh themselves; breakfast, in fact, and drink,\nas is natural. By this time the dawn must have been in the sky, and in\nBook XI. men are stirring with the dawn. Such is the story of Book X.\nThe reader may decide as to whether it is \"_Very_ late; barely\nHomeric,\" or a late and deliberate piece of burlesque, [Footnote: Henry,\n_Classical Review_. March 1906.] or whether it is very Homeric, though\nthe whole set of situations--a night of terror, an anxious chief, a\nnocturnal adventure--are unexampled in the poem.\n\nThe poet's audience of warriors must have been familiar with such\nsituations, and must have appreciated the humorous, ruthless treatment\nof Dolon, the spoiled only brother of five sisters. Mr. Monro admitted\nthat Dolon is Shakespearian, but added, \"too Shakespearian for Homer.\"\nOne may as well say that Agincourt, in Henry V., is \"too Homeric for\nShakespeare.\"\n\nMr. Monro argued that \"the Tenth Book comes in awkwardly after the\nNinth.\" Nitzsche thinks just the reverse. The patriotic warrior audience\nwould delight in the _Doloneia_ after the anguish of Book IX.; would\nlaugh with Odysseus at the close of his adventure, and rejoice with the\nother Achaeans (X. 505).\n\n\"The introductory part of the Book is cumbrous,\" says Mr. Monro. To\nus it is, if we wish to get straight to the adventure, just as the\ncustomary delays in Book XIX., before Achilles is allowed to fight, are\ntedious to us. But the poet's audience did not necessarily share our\ntastes, and might take pleasure (as I do) in the curious details of the\nopening of Book X. The poet was thinking of his audience, not of modern\nprofessors.\n\n\"We hear no more of Rhesus and his Thracians.\" Of Rhesus there was\nno more to hear, and his people probably went home, like Glenbuckie's\nStewarts after the mysterious death of their chief in Amprior's house of\nLeny before Prestonpans (1745). Glenbuckie was mysteriously pistolled\nin the night. \"The style and tone is unlike that of the Iliad ... It\nis rather akin to comedy of a rough farcical kind.\" But it was time for\n\"comic relief.\" If the story of Dolon be comic, it is comic with the\npractical humour of the sagas. In an isolated nocturnal adventure\nand massacre we cannot expect the style of an heroic battle under the\nsunlight. Is the poet not to be allowed to be various, and is the scene\nof the Porter in _Macbeth_, \"in style and tone,\" like the rest of the\ndrama? (_Macbeth_, Act ii. sc. 3). Here, of course, Shakespeare indulges\ninfinitely more in \"comedy of a rough practical kind\" than does the\nauthor of the _Doloneia_.\n\nThe humour and the cruelty do not exceed what is exhibited in many of\nthe _gabes_, or insulting boasts of heroes over dead foes in other parts\nof the _Iliad_; such as the taunting comparison of a warrior falling\nfrom his chariot to a diver after oysters, or as \"one of the Argives\nhath caught the spear in his flesh, and leaning thereon for a staff,\nmethinks that he will go down within the house of Hades\" (XIV. 455-457).\nThe _Iliad_, like the sagas, is rich in this extremely practical humour.\n\nMr. Leaf says that the Book \"must have been composed before the _Iliad_\nhad reached its present form, for it cannot have been meant to follow\non Book IX. It is rather another case of a parallel rival to that Book,\ncoupled with it only in the final literary redaction,\" which Mr. Leaf\ndates in the middle of the sixth century. \"The Book must have been\ncomposed before the _Iliad_ had reached its present form,\" [Footnote:\n_Iliad_, vol. i. p. 424.] It is not easy to understand this decision;\nfor, as Mr. Leaf had previously written, about Book IX. 60-68, \"the\nposting of the watch is at least not necessary to the story, and it has\na suspicious air of being merely a preparation for the next Book, which\nis much later, and which turns entirely upon a visit to the sentinels.\"\n[Footnote: _Companion,_ p.174.]\n\nNow a military audience would not have pardoned the poet of Book IX. if,\nin the circumstances of defeat, with a confident enemy encamped within\nstriking distance, he had not made the Achaeans throw forth their\noutposts. The thing was inevitable and is not suspicious; but the poet\npurposely makes the advanced guard consist of young men under Nestor's\nson and Meriones. He needs them for Book X. Therefore the poet of Book\nIX. is the poet of Book X. preparing his effect in advance; or the poet\nof Book X. is a man who cleverly takes advantage of Book IX., or he\ncomposed his poem of \"a night of terror and adventure,\" \"in the air,\"\nand the editor of 540 B.C., having heard it recited and copied it out,\nwent back to Book IX. and inserted the advanced guard, under Thrasymedes\nand Meriones, to lead up to Book X.\n\nOn Mr. Leafs present theory, [Footnote: Iliad, vol. i. p.424.] Book X.,\nwe presume, was meant, not to follow Book IX., but to follow the end of\nBook VII, being an alternative to Book VIII. (composed, he says, to\nlead up to Book IX.) and Book IX. But Book VII. closes with the Achaean\nrefusal of the compromise offered by Paris--the restoration of the\nproperty but not of the wife of Menelaus. The Trojans and Achaeans feast\nall night; the Trojans feast in the city. There is therefore no place\nhere for Book X. after Book VII, and the Achaeans cannot roam about\nall night, as they are feasting; nor can Agamemnon be in the state of\nanxiety exhibited by him in Book X.\n\nBook X. could not exist without Book IX., and _must_ have been \"meant\nto follow on it.\" Mr. Leaf sees that, in his preface to Book IX.,\n[Footnote: _Iliad_, vol. i. p. 371.] \"The placing of sentinels\" (in Book\nIX. 80, 84) \"is needed as an introduction to Book X. but has nothing to\ndo with this Book\" (IX.). But, we have said, it was inevitable, given\nthe new situation in Book IX. (an Achaean repulse, and the enemy camped\nin front), that an advanced guard must be placed, even if there proved\nto be no need of their services. We presume that Mr. Leaf's literary\neditor, finding that Book X. existed and that the advanced guard was\na necessity of its action, went back to Book IX. and introduced\nan advanced guard of young men, with its captains, Thrasymedes and\nMeriones. Even after this the editor had much to do, if Book IX.\noriginally exhibited Agamemnon as not in terror and despair, as it now\ndoes.\n\nWe need not throw the burden of all this work on the editor. As Mr.\nLeaf elsewhere writes, in a different mind, the Tenth Book \"is obviously\nadapted to its present place in the _Iliad_, for it assumes a moment\nwhen Achilles is absent from the field, and when the Greeks are in deep\ndejection from a recent defeat. These conditions are exactly fulfilled\nby the situation at the end of Book IX.\" [Footnote: _Companion_, p.\n190.]\n\nThis is certainly the case. The Tenth Book could not exist without the\nNinth; yet Mr. Leaf's new opinion is that it \"cannot have been meant to\nfollow on Book IX.\" [Footnote: _Iliad_, vol. i. p. 424.] He was better\ninspired when he held the precisely opposite opinion.\n\nDr. Adolf Kiene [Footnote: Die _Epen des Homer, Zweiter Theil,_ pp.\n90-94. Hanover, 1884.] accepts Book XI. as originally composed to fill\nits present place in the _Iliad._ He points out the despondency of the\nchiefs after receiving the reply of Achilles, and supposes that even\nDiomede (IX. 708) only urges Agamemnon to \"array before the ships thy\nfolk and horsemen,\" for defensive battle. But, encouraged by the success\nof the night adventure, Agamemnon next day assumes the offensive. To\nconsider thus is perhaps to consider too curiously. But it is clear\nthat the Achaeans have been much encouraged by the events of Book X.,\nespecially Agamemnon, whose character, as Kiene observes, is very subtly\nand consistently treated, and \"lies near the poet's heart.\" This is the\npoint which we keep urging. Agamemnon's care for Menelaus is strictly\npreserved in Book X.\n\nNitzsche (I 897) writes, \"Between Book IX. and Book XI there is a gap;\nthat gap the _Doloneia_ fills: it must have been composed to be part of\nthe _ILIAD_.\" But he thinks that the _Doloneia_ has taken the place\nof an earlier lay which filled the gap. [Footnote: Die _Echtheit der\nDoloneia,_ p. 32. Programme des K. K. Staats Gymnasium zu Marburg,\n1877.] That the Book is never referred to later in the _Iliad_, even\nif it be true, is no great argument against its authenticity. For when\nlater references are made to Book IX., they are dismissed as clever late\ninterpolations. If the horses of Rhesus took part, as they do not, in\nthe sports at the funeral of Patroclus, the passage would be called a\nclever interpolation: in fact, Diomede had better horses, divine horses\nto run. However, it is certainly remarkable that the interpolation was\nnot made by one of the interpolators of critical theory.\n\nMeanwhile there is, we think, a reference to Book X. in Book XIV.\n[Footnote: This was pointed out to me by Mr. Shewan, to whose great\nknowledge of Homer I am here much indebted.]\n\nIn _Iliad_, XIV. 9-11, we read that Nestor, in his quarters with the\nwounded Machaon, on the day following the night of Dolon's death, hears\nthe cry of battle and goes out to see what is happening. \"He took the\nwell-wrought shield of his son, horse-taming Thrasymedes, which was\nlying in the hut, all glistening with bronze, but _the son had the\nshield of his father_.\"\n\nWhy had Thrasymedes the shield of his father? At about 3 A.M. before\ndawn the shield of Nestor was lying beside him in his own bedroom (Book\nX. 76), and at the same moment his son Thrasymedes _was_ on outpost\nduty, and had his own shield with him (Book IX. 81).\n\nWhen, then, did father and son exchange shields, and why? Mr. Leaf says,\n\"It is useless to inquire why father and son had thus changed shields,\nas the scholiasts of course do.\"\n\nThe scholiasts merely babble. Homer, of course, meant _something_ by\nthis exchange of shields, which occurred late in the night of Book IX.\nor very early in the following day, that of Books XI-XVI.\n\nLet us follow again the sequence of events. On the night before the\nday when Nestor had Thrasymedes' shield and Thrasymedes had Nestor's,\nThrasymedes was sent out, with shield and all, in command of one of the\nseven companies of an advanced guard, posted between fosse and wall, in\ncase of a camisade by the Trojans, who were encamped on the plain (IX.\n81). With him in command were Meriones and five other young men less\nnotable. They had supplies with them and whatever was needed: they\ncooked supper in bivouac.\n\nIn the _Doloneia_ the wakeful princes, after inspecting the advanced\nguard, go forward within view of the Trojan ranks and consult. With\nthem they take Nestor's son, Thrasymedes, and Meriones (X. 196). The\ntwo young men, being on active service, are armed; the princes are not.\nDiomede, having been suddenly roused out of sleep, with no intention to\nfight, merely threw on his dressing-gown, a lion's skin. Nestor wore a\nthick, double, purple dressing-gown. Odysseus had cast his shield about\nhis shoulders. It was decided that Odysseus and Diomede should enter the\nTrojan camp and \"prove a jeopardy.\" Diomede had no weapon but his spear;\nso Thrasymedes, who is armed as we saw, lends him his bull's-hide\ncap, \"that keeps the heads of stalwart youths,\" his sword (for that of\nDiomede \"was left at the ships\"), and his shield.\n\nDiomede and Odysseus successfully achieve their adventure and return to\nthe chiefs, where they talk with Nestor; and then they go to Diomede's\nhut and drink. The outposts remain, of course, at their stations.\n\nMeanwhile, Thrasymedes, having lent his shield to Diomede, has none of\nhis own. Naturally, as he was to pass the night under arms, he would\nsend to his father's quarters for the old man's shield, a sword, and a\nhelmet. He would remain at his post (his men had provisions) till the\ngeneral _reveillez_ at dawn, and would then breakfast at his post and go\ninto the fray. Nestor, therefore, missing his shield, would send round\nto Diomede's quarters for the shield of Thrasymedes, which had been lent\novernight to Diomede, would take it into the fight, and would bring it\nback to his own hut when he carried the wounded Machaon thither out of\nthe battle. When he arms to go out and seek for information, he picks up\nthe shield of Thrasymedes.\n\nNothing can be more obvious; the poet, being a man of imagination, not\na professor, sees it all, and casually mentions that the son had the\nfather's and the father had the son's shield. His audience, men of the\nsword, see the case as clearly as the poet does: only we moderns and the\nscholiasts, almost as modern as ourselves, are puzzled.\n\nIt may also be argued, though we lay no stress on it, that in Book XI.\n312, when Agamemnon has been wounded, we find Odysseus and Diomede alone\ntogether, without their contingents, because they have not separated\nsince they breakfasted together, after returning from the adventure of\nBook X., and thus they have come rather late to the field. They find\nthe Achaeans demoralised by the wounding of Agamemnon, and they make\na stand. \"What ails us,\" asks Odysseus, \"that we forget our impetuous\nvalour?\" The passage appears to take up the companionship of Odysseus\nand Diomede, who were left breakfasting together at the end of Book X.\nand are not mentioned till we meet them again in this scene of Book XI.,\nas if they had just come on the field.\n\nAs to the linguistic tests of lateness \"there are exceptionally\nnumerous traces of later formation,\" says Mr. Monro; while Fick, tout\n_contraire,_ writes, \"clumsy Ionisms are not common, and, as a rule,\noccur in these parts which on older grounds show themselves to be late\ninterpolations.\" \"The cases of agreement\" (between Fick and Mr. Monro),\n\"are few, and the passages thus condemned are not more numerous in the\n_Doloneia_ than in any average book.\" [Footnote: Jevons, _Journal of\nHellenic Studies_, vii. p. 302.] The six examples of \"a post-Homeric\nuse of the article\" do not seem so very post-Homeric to an ordinary\nintelligence--parallels occur in Book I.--and \"Perfects in [Greek: ka]\nfrom derivative verbs\" do not destroy the impression of antiquity and\nunity which is left by the treatment of character; by the celebrated\ncap with boars' tusks, which no human being could archaeologically\nreconstruct in the seventh century; and by the Homeric vigour in such\ntouches as the horses unused to dead men. As the _Iliad_ certainly\npassed through centuries in which its language could not but be affected\nby linguistic changes, as it could not escape from _remaniements_,\nconsciously or unconsciously introduced by reciters and copyists, the\nlinguistic objections are not strongly felt by us. An unphilological\nreader of Homer notes that Duntzer thinks the _Doloneia_ \"older than the\noldest portion of the Odyssey,\" while Gemoll thinks that the author of\nthe _Doloneia_. was familiar with the _Odyssey_. [Footnote: Duntzer,\n_Homer. Abhanglungen_, p. 324. Gemoll, _Hermes_, xv. 557 ff.]\n\nMeanwhile, one thing seems plain to us: when the author of Book IX.\nposted the guards under Thrasymedes, he was deliberately leading up\nto Book X.; while the casual remark in Book XIV. about the exchange of\nshields between father and son, Nestor and Thrasymedes, glances back at\nBook X. and possibly refers to some lost and more explicit statement.\n\nIt is not always remembered that, if things could drop into the\ninterpolations, things could also drop out of the _ILIAD,_ causing\n_lacunae_, during the dark backward of its early existence.\n\nIf the _Doloneia_ be \"barely Homeric,\" as Father Browne holds, this\nopinion was not shared by the listeners or readers of the sixth century.\nThe vase painters often illustrate the _Doloneia;_ but it does not\nfollow that \"the story was fresh\" because it was \"popular,\" as Mr.\nLeaf suggests, and \"was treated as public property in a different way\"\n(namely, in a comic way) \"from the consecrated early legends\" (_Iliad,_\nII 424, 425). The sixth century vase painters illustrated many passages\nin Homer, not the _Doloneia_ alone. The \"comic way\" was the ruthless\nhumour of two strong warriors capturing one weak coward. Much later,\nwild caricature was applied in vase painting to the most romantic scenes\nin the Odyssey, which were \"consecrated\" enough.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XIV\n\n\nTHE INTERPOLATIONS OF NESTOR\n\nThat several of the passages in which Nestor speaks are very late\ninterpolations, meant to glorify Pisistratus, himself of Nestor's line,\nis a critical opinion to which we have more than once alluded. The first\nexample is in _Iliad,_ II. 530-568. This passage \"is meant at once\nto present Nestor as the leading counsellor of the Greek army, and to\nintroduce the coming _Catalogue_.\" [Footnote: Leaf, _Iliad,_ vol. i. p.\n70.] Now the _Catalogue_ \"originally formed an introduction to the whole\nCycle.\" [Footnote: Ibid., vol. i. p. 87.] But, to repeat an earlier\nobservation, surely the whole Cycle was much later than the period of\nPisistratus and his sons; that is, the compilation of the Homeric and\nCyclic poems into one body of verse, named \"The Cycle,\" is believed to\nhave been much later.\n\nIt is objected that Nestor's advice in this passage, \"Separate thy\nwarriors by tribes and clans\" ([Greek: phyla, phraetras]), \"is out of\nplace in the last year of the war\"; but this suggestion for military\nreorganisation may be admitted as a mere piece of poetical perspective,\nlike Helen's description of the Achaean chiefs in Book III, or Nestor\nmay wish to return to an obsolete system of clan regiments. The\nAthenians had \"tribes\" and \"clans,\" political institutions, and Nestor's\nadvice is noted as a touch of late Attic influence; but about the nature\nand origin of these social divisions we know so little that it is vain\nto argue about them. The advice of Nestor is an appeal to the clan\nspirit--a very serviceable military spirit, as the Highlanders have\noften proved--but we have no information as to whether it existed in\nAchaean times. Nestor speaks as the aged Lochiel spoke to Claverhouse\nbefore Killiecrankie. Did the Athenian army of the sixth century\nfight in clan regiments? The device seems to belong to an earlier\ncivilisation, whether it survived in sixth century Athens or not. It is,\nof course, notorious that tribes and clans are most flourishing among\nthe most backward people, though they were welded into the constitution\nof Athens. The passage, therefore, cannot with any certainty be\ndismissed as very late, for the words for \"tribe\" and \"clan\" could\nnot be novel Athenian inventions, the institutions designated being of\nprehistoric origin.\n\nNestor shows his tactics again in IV. 303-309, offers his \"inopportune\ntactical lucubrations, doubtless under Athenian (Pisistratean)\ninfluence.\" The poet is here denied a sense of humour. That a veteran\nmilitary Polonius should talk as inopportunely about tactics as Dugald\nDalgetty does about the sconce of Drumsnab is an essential part of the\nhumour of the character of Nestor. This is what Nestor's critics do\nnot see; the inopportune nature of his tactical remarks is the point\nof them, just as in the case of the laird of Drumthwacket, \"that should\nbe.\" Scott knew little of Homer, but coincided in the Nestorian humour\nby mere congruity of genius. The Pisistratidze must have been humourless\nif they did not see that the poet smiled as he composed Nestor's\nspeeches, glorifying old deeds of his own and old ways of fighting. He\narrays his Pylians with chariots in front, footmen in the rear. In the\n[blank space] the princely heroes dismounted to fight, the chariots\nfollowing close behind them. [Footnote: _Iliad_, XI. 48-56.] In the same\nway during the Hundred Years' War the English knights dismounted and\ndefeated the French chivalry till, under Jeanne d'Arc and La Hire, the\nFrench learned the lesson, and imitated the English practice. On\nthe other hand, Egyptian wall-paintings show the Egyptian chariotry\nadvancing in neat lines and serried squadrons. According to Nestor\nthese had of old been the Achaean tactics, and he preferred the old way.\nNestor's advice in Book IV. is _not_ to dismount or break the line of\nchariots; these, he says, were the old tactics: \"Even so is the far\nbetter way; thus, moreover, did men of old time lay low cities and\nwalls.\" There was to be no rushing of individuals from the ranks, no\ndismounting. Nestor's were not the tactics of the heroes--they usually\ndismount and do single valiances; but Nestor, commanding his local\ncontingent, recommends the methods of the old school, [Greek: hoi\npretoroi]. What can be more natural and characteristic?\n\nThe poet's meaning seems quite clear. He is not flattering Pisistratus,\nbut, with quiet humour, offers the portrait of a vain, worthy veteran.\nIt is difficult to see how this point can be missed; it never was missed\nbefore Nestor's speeches seemed serviceable to the Pisistratean theory\nof the composition of the _ILIAD_. In his first edition Mr. Leaf\nregarded the interpolations as intended \"to glorify Nestor\" without\nreference to Pisistratus, whom Mr. Leaf did not then recognise as the\nmaster of a sycophantic editor. The passages are really meant to display\nthe old man's habit of glorifying himself and past times. Pisistratus\ncould not feel flattered by passages intended to exhibit his ancestor as\na conceited and inopportune old babbler. I ventured in 1896 to suggest\nthat the interpolator was trying to please Pisistratus, but this was\nsaid in a spirit of mockery.\n\nOf all the characters in Homer that of Nestor is most familiar to the\nunlearned world, merely because Nestor's is a \"character part,\" very\nbroadly drawn.\n\nThe third interpolation of flattery to Pisistratus in the person of\nNestor is found in VII. 125-160. The Achaean chiefs are loath to accept\nthe challenge of Hector to single combat. Only Menelaus rises and arms\nhimself, moved by the strong sense of honour which distinguishes a\nwarrior notoriously deficient in bodily strength. Agamemnon refuses\nto let him fight; the other peers make no movement, and Nestor rebukes\nthem. It is entirely in nature that he should fall back on his memory\nof a similar situation in his youth; when the Arcadian champion,\nEreuthalion, challenged any prince of the Pylians, and when \"no man\nplucked up heart\" to meet him except Nestor himself. Had there never\nbeen any Pisistratus, any poet who created the part of a worthy and\nwordy veteran must have made Nestor speak just as he does speak.\nEreuthalion \"was the tallest and strongest of men that I have slain!\"\nand Nestor, being what he is, offers copious and interesting details\nabout the armour of Ereuthalion and about its former owners. The passage\nis like those in which the Icelandic sagamen dwelt lovingly on the\nhistory of a good sword, or the Maoris on the old possessors of an\nancient jade _patu_. An objection is now taken to Nestor's geography: he\nis said not to know the towns and burns of his own country. He speaks\nof the swift stream Keladon, the streams of Iardanus, and the walls of\nPheia. Pheia \"is no doubt the same as Pheai\" [Footnote: Monro, Note on\nOdyssey, XV. 297.] (Odyssey, XV. 297), \"but that was a maritime town not\nnear Arkadia. There is nothing known of a Keladon or Iardanus anywhere\nnear it.\" Now Didymus (Schol. A) \"is said to have read [Greek: Phaeraes]\nfor [Greek: Pheias],\" following Pherekydes. [Footnote: Leaf, _Iliad_,\nvol. i. 308.] M. Victor Berard, who has made an elaborate study of Elian\ntopography, says that \"Pheia is a cape, not a town,\" and adopts the\nreading \"Phera,\" the [Greek: Pherae] of the journey of Telemachus,\nin the Odyssey. He thinks that the [Greek: Pherae] of Nestor is the\nAliphera of Polybius, and believes that the topography of Nestor and of\nthe journey of Telemachus is correct. The Keladon is now the river or\nburn of Saint Isidore; the Iardanus is at the foot of Mount Kaiapha.\nKeladon has obviously the same sense as the Gaelic Altgarbh, \"the rough\nand brawling stream.\" Iardanus is also a stream in Crete, and Mr. Leaf\nthinks it Semitic--\"_Yarden_, from yarad to flow\"; but the Semites did\nnot give the _Yar_ to the _Yarrow_ nor to the Australian _Yarra Yarra_.\n\nThe country, says M. Berard, is a network of rivers, burns, and\nrivulets; and we cannot have any certainty, we may add, as the same\nriver and burn names recur in many parts of the same country; [Footnote:\nBerard, _Les Pheniciens et L'Odyssee,_ 108-113, 1902] many of them, in\nEngland, are plainly prae-Celtic.\n\nWhile the correct geography may, on this showing, be that of Homer, we\ncannot give up Homer's claim to Nestor's speech. As to Nestor's tale\nabout the armour of Ereuthalion, it is manifest that the first owner of\nthe armour of Ereuthalion, namely Are'ithous, \"the Maceman,\" so called\nbecause he had the singularity of fighting with an iron _casse-tete,_\nas Nestor explains (VII. 138-140), was a famous character in legendary\nhistory. He appears \"as Prince Areithous, the Maceman,\" father (or\ngrand-father?) of an Areithous slain by Hector (VII. 8-10). In Greece,\nit was not unusual for the grandson to bear the grandfather's name,\nand, if the Maceman was grand-father of Hector's victim, there is no\nchronological difficulty. The chronological difficulty, in any case, if\nHector's victim is the son of the Maceman, is not at all beyond a poetic\nnarrator's possibility of error in genealogy. If Nestor's speech is a\nlate interpolation, if its late author borrowed his vivid account of the\nMaceman and his _casse-tete_ from the mere word \"maceman\" in VII. 9, he\nmust be credited with a lively poetic imagination.\n\nFew or none of these reminiscences of Nestor are really \"inapplicable to\nthe context.\" Here the context demands encouragement for heroes who shun\na challenge. Nestor mentions an \"applicable\" and apposite instance of\nsimilar want of courage, and, as his character demands, he is the hero\nof his own story. His brag, or _gabe,_ about \"he was the tallest and\nstrongest of all the men I ever slew,\" is deliciously in keeping, and\nreminds us of the college don who said of the Czar, \"he is the nicest\nemperor I ever met.\" The poet is sketching an innocent vanity; he is not\nflattering Pisistratus.\n\nThe next case is the long narrative of Nestor to the hurried Patroclus,\nwho has been sent by Achilles to bring news of the wounded Machaon (XI.\n604-702). Nestor on this occasion has useful advice to give, namely,\nthat Achilles, if he will not fight, should send his men, under\nPatroclus, to turn the tide of Trojan victory. But the poet wishes to\nprovide an interval of time and of yet more dire disaster before the\nreturn of Patroclus to Achilles. By an obvious literary artifice he\nmakes Nestor detain the reluctant Patroclus with a long story of his own\nearly feats of arms. It is a story of a \"hot-trod,\" so called in Border\nlaw; the Eleians had driven a _creagh_ of cattle from the Pylians, who\npursued, and Nestor killed the Eleian leader, Itymoneus. The speech is\nan Achaean parallel to the Border ballad of \"Jamie Telfer of the Fair\nDodhead,\" in editing which Scott has been accused of making a singular\nand most obvious and puzzling blunder in the topography of his own\nsheriffdom of the Forest. On Scott's showing the scene of the raid is in\nupper Ettrickdale, not, as critics aver, in upper Teviotdale; thus the\nnarrative of the ballad would be impossible. [Footnote: In fact both\nsites on the two Dodburns are impossible; the fault lay with the\nballad-maker, not with Scott.]\n\nThe Pisistratean editor is accused of a similar error. \"No doubt he was\nan Asiatic Greek, completely ignorant of the Peloponnesus.\" [Footnote:\n_Iliad_. Note to XI. 756, and to the _Catalogue_, II. 615-617.] It\nis something to know that Pisistratus employed an editor, or that his\neditor employed a collaborator who was an Asiatic Greek!\n\nMeanwhile, nothing is less secure than arguments based on the\n_Catalogue_. We have already shown how Mr. Leaf's opinions as to the\ndate and historical merits of the _Catalogue_ have widely varied, while\nM. Berard appears to have vindicated the topography of Nestor. Of the\n_Catalogue_ Mr. Allen writes, \"As a table, according to regions, of\nAgamemnon's forces it bears every mark of venerable antiquity,\" showing\n\"a state of things which never recurred in later history, and which no\none had any interest to invent, or even the means for inventing.\" He\nmakes a vigorous defence of the _Catalogue,_ as regards the dominion of\nAchilles, against Mr. Leaf. [Footnote: _Classical Review,_ May 1906, pp.\nx94-201.] Into the details we need not go, but it is not questions of\nHomeric topography, obscure as they are, that can shake our faith in the\nhumorous portrait of old Nestor, or make us suppose that the sympathetic\nmockery of the poet is the sycophantic adulation of the editor to his\nstatesman employer, Pisistratus. If any question may be left to literary\ndiscrimination it is the authentic originality of the portrayal of\nNestor.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XV\n\n\nTHE COMPARATIVE STUDY OF EARLY EPICS\n\nThough comparison is the method of Science, the comparative study of the\nnational poetry of warlike aristocracies, its conditions of growth and\ndecadence, has been much neglected by Homeric critics. Sir Richard Jebb\ntouched on the theme, and, after devoting four pages to a sketch of\nSanskrit, Finnish, Persian, and early Teutonic heroic poetry and _SAGA,_\ndecided that \"in our country, as in others, we fail to find any true\nparallel to the case of the Homeric poems. These poems must be\nstudied in themselves, without looking for aid, in this sense, to\nthe comparative method.\" [Footnote: _Homer_, p. 135.] Part of this\nconclusion seems to us rather hasty. In a brief manual Sir Richard\nhad not space for a thorough comparative study of old heroic poetry\nat large. His quoted sources are: for India, Lassen; for France, Mr.\nSaintsbury's Short History of _FRENCH LITERATURE_ (sixteen pages on\nthis topic), and a work unknown to me, by \"M. Paul\"; for Iceland he only\nquoted _THE Encyclopedia BRITANNICA_ (Mr. Edmund Gosse); for Germany,\nLachmann and Bartsch; for the Finnish _Kalewala,_ the _ENCYCLOPEDIA\nBRITANNICA_ (Mr. Sime and Mr. Keltie); and for England, a _PRIMER OF\nENGLISH LITERATURE_ by Mr. Stopford Brooke.\n\nThese sources appear less than adequate, and Celtic heroic romance is\nentirely omitted. A much deeper and wider comparative criticism of early\nheroic national poetry is needed, before any one has a right to say that\nthe study cannot aid our critical examination of the Homeric problem.\nMany peoples have passed through a stage of culture closely analogous to\nthat of Achaean society as described in the _Iliad_ and Odyssey. Every\nsociety of this kind has had its ruling military class, its ancient\nlegends, and its minstrels who on these legends have based their songs.\nThe similarity of human nature under similar conditions makes it certain\nthat comparison will discover useful parallels between the poetry of\nsocieties separated in time and space but practically identical in\nculture. It is not much to the credit of modern criticism that a topic\nso rich and interesting has been, at least in England, almost entirely\nneglected by Homeric scholars.\n\nMeanwhile, it is perfectly correct to say, as Sir Richard observes, that\n\"we fail to find any true parallel to the case of the Homeric poems,\"\nfor we nowhere find the legends of an heroic age handled by a very great\npoet--the greatest of all poets--except in the _Iliad_ and _Odyssey_.\nBut, on the other hand, the critics refuse to believe that, in the\n_Iliad_ and _Odyssey,_ we possess the heroic Achaean legends handled by\none great poet. They find a composite by many hands, good and bad, and\nof many ages, they say; sometimes the whole composition and part of the\npoems are ascribed to a late _litterateur_. Now to that supposed state\nof things we do find several \"true parallels,\" in Germany, in Finland,\nin Ireland. But the results of work by these many hands in many ages are\nanything but \"a true parallel\" to the results which lie before us in\nthe _Iliad_ and _ODYSSEY_. Where the processes of composite authorship\nthroughout many _AGES_ certainly occur, as in Germany and Ireland, there\nwe find no true parallel to the Homeric poems. It follows that, in all\nprobability, no such processes as the critics postulate produced the\n_Iliad_ and Odyssey, for where the processes existed, beyond doubt they\nfailed egregiously to produce the results.\n\nSir Richard's argument would have been logical if many efforts by many\nhands, in many ages, in England, Finland, Ireland, Iceland, and Germany\ndid actually produce true parallels to the Achaean epics. They did not,\nand why not? Simply because these other races had no Homer. All the\nother necessary conditions were present, the legendary material, the\nheroic society, the Court minstrels, all--except the great poet. In\nall the countries mentioned, except Finland, there existed military\naristocracies with their courts, castles, and minstrels, while the\nminstrels had rich material in legendary history and in myth, and\n_Maerchen_, and old songs. But none of the minstrels was adequate to the\nproduction of an English, German, or Irish _ILIAD_ or _ODYSSEY_, or even\nof a true artistic equivalent in France.\n\nWe have tried to show that the critics, rejecting a Homer, have been\nunable to advance any adequate hypothesis to account for the existence\nof the _ILIAD_ and _ODYSSEY_. Now we see that, where such conditions of\nproduction as they postulate existed but where there was no great epic\ngenius, they can find no true parallels to the Epics. Their logic thus\nbreaks down at both ends.\n\nIt may be replied that in non-Greek lands one condition found in Greek\nsociety failed: the succession of a reading age to an age of heroic\nlisteners. But this is not so. In France and Germany an age of readers\nduly began, but they did not mainly read copies of the old heroic poems.\nThey turned to lyric poetry, as in Greece, and they recast the heroic\nsongs into modern and popular forms in verse and prose, when they took\nany notice of the old heroic poems at all.\n\nOne merit of the Greek epics is a picture of \"a certain phase of early\ncivilisation,\" and that picture is \"a naturally harmonious whole,\" with\n\"unity of impression,\" says Sir Richard Jebb. [Footnote: Homer, p. 37.]\nCertainly we can find no true parallel, on an Homeric scale, to this\n\"harmonious picture\" in the epics of Germany and England or in the\nearly literature of Ireland. Sir Richard, for England, omits notice of\n_Beowulf_; but we know that _Beowulf_, a long heroic poem, is a mass of\nanachronisms--a heathen legend in a Christian setting. The hero, that\ngreat heathen champion, has his epic filled full of Christian allusions\nand Christian morals, because the clerical redactor, in Christian\nEngland, could not but intrude these things into old pagan legends\nevolved by the continental ancestors of our race. He had no \"painful\nanxiety,\" like the supposed Ionic continuators of the Achaean poems\n(when they are not said to have done precisely the reverse), to preserve\nharmony of ancient ideas. Such archaeological anxieties are purely\nmodern.\n\nIf we take the _Nibelungenlied_, [Footnote: See chapter on the\n_Nibelungenlied_ in Homer _AND the Epic_, pp. 382-404.] we find that\nit is a thing of many rehandlings, even in existing manuscripts. For\nexample, the Greeks clung to the hexameter in Homer. Not so did the\nGermans adhere to old metres. The poem that, in the oldest MS., is\nwritten in assonances, in later MSS. is reduced to regular rhymes and is\nretouched in many essential respects. The matter of the _Nibelungenlied_\nis of heathen origin. We see the real state of heathen affairs in the\nIcelandic versions of the same tale, for the Icelanders were peculiar in\npreserving ancient lays; and, when these were woven into a prose saga,\nthe archaic and heathen features were retained. Had the post-Christian\nprose author of the _Volsunga_ been a great poet, we might find in\nhis work a true parallel to the _Iliad_. But, though he preserves the\nharmony of his picture of pre-Christian princely life (save in the\nsavage beginnings of his story), he is not a poet; so the true parallel\nto the Greek epic fails, noble as is the saga in many passages. In the\nGerman _Nibelungenlied_ all is modernised; the characters are Christian,\nthe manners are chivalrous, and _Maerchen_ older than Homer are forced\ninto a wandering mediaeval chronicle-poem. The Germans, in short, had no\nearly poet of genius, and therefore could not produce a true parallel\nto _ILIAD_ or Odyssey. The mediaeval poets, of course, never dreamed\nof archaeological anxiety, as the supposed Ionian continuators are\nsometimes said to have done, any more than did the French and late Welsh\nhandlers of the ancient Celtic Arthurian materials. The late\nGerman _bearbeiter_ of the _Nibelungenlied_ has no idea of unity of\nplot--_enfin_, Germany, having excellent and ancient legendary material\nfor an epic, but producing no parallel to _ILIAD_ and Odyssey, only\nproves how absolutely essential a Homer was to the Greek epics.\n\n\"If any inference could properly be drawn from the Edda\" (the Icelandic\ncollection of heroic lays), says Sir Richard Jebb, \"it would be that\nshort separate poems on cognate subjects can long exist as a collection\n_without_ coalescing into such an artistic whole as the Iliad or the\nOdyssey.\" [Footnote: Homer, p. 33.]\n\nIt is our own argument that Sir Richard states. \"Short separate poems\non cognate subjects\" can certainly co-exist for long anywhere, but they\ncannot automatically and they cannot by aid of an editor become a long\nepic. Nobody can stitch and vamp them into a poem like the _ILIAD_ or\nOdyssey. To produce a poem like either of these a great poetic genius\nmust arise, and fuse the ancient materials, as Hephaestus fused copper\nand tin, and then cast the mass into a mould of his own making. A small\npoet may reduce the legends and lays into a very inartistic whole, a\nvery inharmonious whole, as in the _Nibelungenlied_, but a controlling\npoet, not a mere redactor or editor, is needed to perform even that\nfeat.\n\nWhere a man who is not a poet undertakes to produce the coalescence,\nas Dr. Loennrot (1835-1849) did in the case of the peasant, not courtly,\nlays of Finland, he \"fails to prove that mere combining and editing can\nform an artistic whole out of originally distinct songs, even though\nconcerned with closely related themes,\" says Sir Richard Jebb.\n[Footnote: Homer, p. 134-135.]\n\nThis is perfectly true; much as Loennrot botched and vamped the Finnish\nlays he made no epic out of them. But, as it is true, how did the late\nAthenian drudge of Pisistratus succeed where Loennrot failed? \"In the\ndovetailing of the _ODYSSEY_ we see the work of one mind,\" says Sir\nRichard. [Footnote: Homer, p. 129.] This mind cannot have been the\nproperty of any one but a great poet, obviously, as the _Odyssey_ is\nconfessedly \"an artistic whole.\" Consequently the disintegrators of the\nOdyssey, when they are logical, are reduced to averring that the poem is\nan exceedingly inartistic whole, a whole not artistic at all. While Mr.\nLeaf calls it \"a model of skilful construction,\" Wilamowitz Mollendorff\ndenounces it as the work of \"a slenderly-gifted botcher,\" of about 650\nB.C., a century previous to Mr. Leaf's Athenian editor.\n\nThus we come, after all, to a crisis in which mere literary appreciation\nis the only test of the truth about a work of literature. The Odyssey is\nan admirable piece of artistic composition, or it is the very reverse.\nBlass, Mr. Leaf, Sir Richard Jebb, and the opinion of the ages declare\nthat the composition is excellent. A crowd of German critics and Father\nBrowne, S.J., hold that the composition is feeble. The criterion is the\nliterary taste of each party to the dispute. Kirchhoff and Wilamowitz\nMoellendorff see a late bad patchwork, where Mr. Leaf, Sir Richard\nJebb, Blass, Wolf, and the verdict of all mankind see a masterpiece of\nexcellent construction. The world has judged: the _Odyssey_ is a\nmarvel of construction: therefore is not the work of a late botcher of\ndisparate materials, but of a great early poet. Yet Sir Richard Jebb,\nwhile recognising the _Odyssey_ as \"an artistic whole\" and an harmonious\npicture, and recognising Loennrot's failure \"to prove that mere combining\nand editing can form an artistic whole out of originally distinct\nsongs, even though concerned with closely related themes,\" thinks that\nKirchhoff has made the essence of his theory of late combination of\ndistinct strata of poetical material from different sources and periods,\nin the _Odyssey_, \"in the highest degree probable.\" [Footnote: Homer, p.\n131.]\n\nIt is, of course, possible that Mr. Leaf, who has not edited the\n_Odyssey,_ may now, in deference to his belief in the Pisistratean\neditor, have changed his opinion of the merits of the poem. If the\n_Odyssey,_ like the _Iliad_, was, till about 540 B.C., a chaos of\nlays of all ages, variously known in various _repertoires_ of the\nrhapsodists, and patched up by the Pisistratean editor, then of two\nthings one--either Mr. Leaf abides by his enthusiastic belief in the\nexcellency of the composition, or he does not. If he does still believe\nthat the composition of the _Odyssey_ is a masterpiece, then the\nPisistratean editor was a great master of construction. If he now, on\nthe other hand, agrees with Wilamowitz Moellendorff that the _Odyssey_ is\ncobbler's work, then his literary opinions are unstable.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XVI\n\n\nHOMER AND THE FRENCH MEDIAEVAL EPICS\n\nSir Richard Jebb remarks, with truth, that \"before any definite solution\nof the Homeric problem could derive scientific support from such\nanalogies\" (with epics of other peoples), \"it would be necessary to show\nthat the particular conditions under which the Homeric poems appear in\nearly Greece had been reproduced with sufficient closeness elsewhere.\"\n[Footnote: Homer, pp. 131, 132.] Now we can show that the particular\nconditions under which the Homeric poems confessedly arose were\n\"reproduced with sufficient closeness elsewhere,\" except that no really\ngreat poet was elsewhere present.\n\nThis occurred among the Germanic aristocracy, \"the Franks of France,\"\nin the eleventh, twelfth, and early thirteenth centuries of our era. The\ncloseness of the whole parallel, allowing for the admitted absence in\nFrance of a very great and truly artistic poet, is astonishing.\n\nWe have first, in France, answering to the Achaean aristocracy, the\nFrankish noblesse of warriors dwelling in princely courts and strong\ncastles, dominating an older population, owing a practically doubtful\nfealty to an Over-Lord, the King, passing their days in the chace, in\nprivate war, or in revolt against the Over-Lord, and, for all\nliterary entertainment, depending on the recitations of epic poems by\n_jongleurs_, who in some cases are of gentle birth, and are the authors\nof the poems which they recite.\n\n\"This national poetry,\" says M. Gaston Paris, \"was born and mainly\ndeveloped among the warlike class, princes, lords, and their courts....\nAt first, no doubt, some of these men of the sword themselves composed\nand chanted lays\" (like Achilles), \"but soon there arose a special class\nof poets ... They went from court to court, from castle ... Later,\nwhen the townsfolk began to be interested in their chants, they sank\na degree, and took their stand in public open places ...\" [Footnote:\n_Literature Francaise au Moyen Age_, pp. 36, 37. 1898.]\n\nIn the _Iliad_ we hear of no minstrels in camp: in the _Odyssey_ a\nprince has a minstrel among his retainers--Demodocus, at the court of\nPhaeacia; Phemius, in the house of Odysseus. In Ionia, when princes had\npassed away, rhapsodists recited for gain in marketplaces and at fairs.\nThe parallel with France is so far complete.\n\nThe French national epics, like those of the Achaeans, deal mainly\nwith legends of a long past legendary age. To the French authors the\ngreatness and the fortunes of the Emperor Charles and other heroic heads\nof great Houses provide a theme. The topics of song are his wars, and\nthe prowess and the quarrels of his peers with the Emperor and among\nthemselves. These are seen magnified through a mist of legend; Saracens\nare substituted for Gascon foes, and the great Charles, so nobly\nvenerable a figure in the oldest French epic (the _Chanson de Roland,\ncirc._ 1050-1070 in its earliest extant form), is more degraded, in\nthe later epics, than Agamemnon himself. The \"machinery\" of the gods\nin Homer is replaced by the machinery of angels, but the machinery\nof dreams is in vogue, as in the Iliad and _Odyssey_. The sources are\ntraditional and legendary.\n\nWe know that brief early lays of Charles and other heroes had existed,\nand they may have been familiar to the French epic poets, but they were\nnot merely patched into the epics. The form of verse is not ballad-like,\nbut a series of _laisses_ of decasyllabic lines, each _laisse_\npresenting one assonance, not rhyme. As time went on, rhyme and\nAlexandrine lines were introduced, and the old epics were expanded,\naltered, condensed, _remanies_, with progressive changes in taste,\nmetre, language, manners, and ways of life.\n\nFinally, an age of Cyclic poems began; authors took new characters, whom\nthey attached by false genealogies to the older heroes, and they chanted\nthe adventures of the sons of the former heroes, like the Cyclic poet\nwho sang of the son of Odysseus by Circe. All these conditions are\nundeniably \"true parallels\" to \"the conditions under which the Homeric\npoems appeared.\" The only obvious point of difference vanishes if we\nadmit, with Sir Richard Jebb and M. Salomon Reinach, the possibility of\nthe existence of written texts in the Greece of the early iron age.\n\nWe do not mean texts prepared for a _reading_ public. In France such a\npublic, demanding texts for reading, did not arise till the decadence of\nthe epic. The oldest French texts of their epics are small volumes,\neach page containing some thirty lines in one column. Such volumes were\ncarried about by the _jongleurs_, who chanted their own or other men's\nverses. They were not in the hands of readers. [Footnote: _Epopees\nFrancaises_, Leon Gautier, vol. i. pp. 226-228. 1878.]\n\nAn example of an author-reciter, Jendeus de Brie (he was the maker\nof the first version of the _Bataille Loquifer_, twelfth century) is\ninstructive. Of Jendeus de Brie it is said that \"he wrote the poem,\nkept it very carefully, taught it to no man, made much gain out of it in\nSicily where he sojourned, and left it to his son when he died.\" Similar\nstatements are made in _Renaus de Montauban_ (the existing late version\nis of the thirteenth century) about Huon de Villeneuve, who would not\npart with his poem for horses or furs, or for any price, and about other\npoets. [Footnote: _Epopees Francaises, Leon Gautier_, vol. i. p. 215,\nNote I.]\n\nThese early _jongleurs_ were men of position and distinction; their\ntheme was the _gestes_ of princes; they were not under the ban\nwith which the Church pursued vulgar strollers, men like the Greek\nrhapsodists. Pindar's story that Homer wrote the _Cypria_ [Footnote:\n_Pindari Opera_, vol. iii. p. 654. Boeckh.] and gave the copy, as the\ndowry of his daughter, to Stasinus who married her, could only have\narisen in Greece in circumstances exactly like those of Jendeus de Brie.\nJendeus lived on his poem by reciting it, and left it to his son when he\ndied. The story of Homer and Stasinus could only have been invented in\nan age when the possession of the solitary text of a poem was a source\nof maintenance to the poet. This condition of things could not exist,\neither when there were no written texts or when such texts were\nmultiplied to serve the wants of a reading public.\n\nAgain, a poet in the fortunate position of Jendeus would not teach his\nEpic in a \"school\" of reciters unless he were extremely well paid. In\nlater years, after his death, his poem came, through copies good or bad,\ninto circulation.\n\nLate, in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries, we hear of a \"school\"\nof _jongleurs_ at Beauvais. In Lent they might not ply their profession,\nso they gathered at Beauvais, where they could learn _cantilenae_, new\nlays. [Footnote: _Epopees Francaises_, Leon Gautier, vol. ii. pp. 174,\n175.] But by that time the epic was decadent and dying?\n\nThe audiences of the _jongleurs_, too, were no longer, by that time,\nwhat they had been. The rich and great, now, had library copies of the\nepics; not small _jongleurs'_ copies, but folios, richly illuminated\nand bound, with two or three columns of matter on each page. [Footnote:\nIbid., vol. i. p. 228. See, too, photographs of an illuminated,\ndouble-columned library copy in _La Chancun de Willame_., London, 1903.]\n\nThe age of recitations from a text in princely halls was ending or\nended; the age of a reading public was begun. The earlier condition of\nthe _jongleur_ who was his own poet, and carefully guarded his copyright\nin spite of all temptations to permit the copying of his MS., is\nregarded by Sir Richard Jebb as quite a possible feature of early\nGreece. He thinks that there was \"no wide circulation of writings\nby numerous copies for a reading public\" before the end of the fifth\ncentury B.C. As Greek mercenaries could write, and write well, in the\nseventh to sixth centuries, I incline to think that there may then, and\nearlier, have been a reading public. However, long before that a man\nmight commit his poems to writing. \"Wolf allows that some men did, as\nearly at least as 776 B.C. The verses might never be read by anybody\nexcept himself\" (the author) \"or those to whom he privately bequeathed\nthem\" (as Jendeus de Brie bequeathed his poem to his son), \"but his end\nwould have been gained.\" [Footnote: _Homer_, p. 113.]\n\nRecent discoveries as to the very early date of linear non-Phoenician\nwriting in Crete of course increase the probability of this opinion,\nwhich is corroborated by the story of the _Cypria_, given as a dowry\nwith the author's daughter. Thus \"the particular conditions under which\nthe Homeric poems appeared\" \"been reproduced with sufficient closeness\"\nin every respect, with surprising closeness, in the France of the\neleventh to thirteenth centuries. The social conditions are the same;\nthe legendary materials are of identical character; the method of\npublication by recitation is identical; the cyclic decadence occurs in\nboth cases, the _monomanie cyclique_. In the Greece of Homer we have the\nfour necessary conditions of the epic, as found by M. Leon Gautier in\nmediaeval France. We have:--\n\n(1) An uncritical age confusing history by legend.\n\n(2) We have a national _milieu_ with religious uniformity.\n\n(3) We have poems dealing with--\n\n \"Old unhappy far-off things\n And battles long ago.\"\n\n(4) We have representative heroes, the Over-Lord, and his peers or\npaladins. [Footnote: _Epopees Francaises_, Leon Gautier, vol. i. pp.\n6-9]\n\nIt may be added that in Greece, as in France, some poets adapt into the\nadventures of their heroes world-old _Maerchen_, as in the Odyssey, and\nin the cycle of the parents of Charles.\n\nIn the French, as in the Greek epics, we have such early traits\nof poetry as the textual repetition of speeches, and the recurring\nepithets, \"swift-footed Achilles,\" \"Charles of the white beard,\"\n\"blameless heroes\" (however blamable). Ladies, however old, are always\n\"of the clear face.\" Thus the technical manners of the French and Greek\nepics are closely parallel; they only differ in the exquisite art of\nHomer, to which no approach is made by the French poets.\n\nThe French authors of epic, even more than Homer, abound in episodes\nmuch more distracting than those of the _Iliad_. Of blood and wounds, of\ncourse, both the French and the Greek are profuse: they were writing for\nmen of the sword, not for modern critics. Indeed, the battle pieces of\nFrance almost translate those of Homer. The Achaean \"does on his goodly\ncorslet\"; the French knight \"_sur ses espalles son halberc li colad_.\"\nThe Achaean, with his great sword, shears off an arm at the shoulder.\nThe French knight--\n\n\"_Trenchad le braz, Parmi leschine sun grant espee li passe_.\"\n\nThe huge shield of Aias becomes _cele grant targe duble_ in France, and\nthe warriors boast over their slain in France, as in the _Iliad_. In\nFrance, as in Greece, a favourite epic theme was \"The Wrath\" of a hero,\nof Achilles, of Roland, of Ganelon, of Odysseus and Achilles wrangling\nat a feast to the joy of Agamemnon, \"glad that the bravest of his peers\nwere at strife.\" [Footnote: Odyssey, VIII. 75-7s [sic].]\n\nOf all the many parallels between the Greek and French epics, the most\nextraordinary is the coincidence between Charles with his peers and\nAgamemnon with his princes. The same historical conditions occurred, at\nan interval of more than two thousand years. Agamemnon is the Bretwalda,\nthe Over-Lord, as Mr. Freeman used to say, of the Achaeans: he is the\nsuzerain. Charles in the French epics holds the same position, but the\nFrench poets regard him in different lights. In the earliest epic, the\n_Chanson_ de Roland, a divinity doth hedge the famous Emperor, whom\nJeanne d'Arc styled \"St. Charlemagne.\" He was, in fact, a man of\nthirty-seven at the date of the disaster of Roncesvaux, where Roland\nfell (778 A.D.). But in the tradition that has reached the poet of the\n_chanson_ he is a white-bearded warrior, as vigorous as he is venerable.\nAs he rules by advice of his council, he bids them deliberate on the\nproposals of the Paynim King, Marsile--to accept or refuse them. Roland,\nthe counterpart of Achilles in all respects (Oliver is his Patroclus),\nis for refusing: Ganelon appears to have the rest with him when he\nspeaks in favour of peace and return to France out of Spain. So, in\nthe _Iliad_ (II.), the Achaeans lend a ready ear to Agamemnon when he\nproposes the abandonment of the siege of Troy. Each host, French and\nAchaean, is heartily homesick.\n\nGanelon's advice prevailing, it is necessary to send an envoy to the\nSaracen court. It is a dangerous mission; other envoys have been sent\nand been murdered. The Peers, however, volunteer, beginning with the\naged Naismes, the Nestor of the Franks. His offer is not accepted,\nnor are those of Oliver, Roland, and Turpin. Roland then proposes that\nGanelon shall be sent; and hence arises the Wrath of Ganelon, which was\nthe ruin of Roland and the peers who stood by him. The warriors attack\neach other in speeches of Homeric fury. Charles preserves his dignity,\nand Ganelon departs on his mission. He deliberately sells himself,\nand seals the fate of the peers whom he detests: the surprise of the\nrearguard under Roland, the deadly battle, and the revenge of Charles\nmake up the rest of the poem. Not even in victory is Charles allowed\nrepose; the trumpet again summons him to war. He is of those whom Heaven\nhas called to endless combat--\n\n     \"Their whole lives long to be winding\n      Skeins of grievous wars, till every soul of them perish,\"\n\nin the words of Diomede.\n\nSuch is the picture of the imperial Charles in one of the oldest of the\nFrench epics. The heart of the poet is with the aged, but unbroken and\ntruly imperial, figure of St. Charlemagne--wise, just, and brave, a true\n\"shepherd of the people,\" regarded as the conqueror of all the known\nkingdoms of the world. He is, among his fierce paladins, like \"the\nconscience of a knight among his warring members.\" \"The greatness of\nCharlemagne has entered even into his name;\" but as time went on and\nthe feudal princes began the long struggle against the French king, the\npoets gratified their patrons by degrading the character of the Emperor.\nThey created a second type of Charles, and it is the second type that on\nthe whole most resembles the Agamemnon of the _Iliad._\n\nWe ask why the widely ruling lord of golden Mycenae is so skilfully\nand persistently represented as respectable, indeed, by reason of his\noffice, but detestable, on the whole, in character?\n\nThe answer is that just as the second type of Charles is the result of\nfeudal jealousies of the king, so the character of Agamemnon reflects\nthe princely hatreds of what we may call the feudal age of Greece. The\nmasterly portrait of Agamemnon could only have been designed to win\nthe sympathies of feudal listeners, princes with an Over-Lord whom they\ncannot repudiate, for whose office they have a traditional reverence,\nbut whose power they submit to with no good will, and whose person and\ncharacter some of them can barely tolerate.\n\n [blank space] _an historical unity._ The poem deals with\nwhat may be called a feudal society, and the attitudes of the Achaean\nBretwalda and of his peers are, from beginning to end of the _Iliad_ and\nin every Book of it, those of the peers and king in the later _Chansons\nde Geste_.\n\nReturning to the decadent Charles of the French epics, we lay no stress\non the story of his incest with his sister, Gilain, \"whence sprang\nRoland.\" The House of Thyestes, whence Agamemnon sprang, is marked by\neven blacker legends. The scandal is mythical, like the same scandal\nabout the King Arthur, who in romance is so much inferior to his\nknights, a reflection of feudal jealousies and hatreds. In places the\nreproaches hurled by the peers at Charles read like paraphrases of those\nwhich the Achaean princes cast at Agamemnon. Even Naismes, the Nestor of\nthe French epics, cries: \"It is for you that we have left our lands and\nfiefs, our fair wives and our children ... But, by the Apostle to whom\nthey pray in Rome, were it not that we should be guilty before God we\nwould go back to sweet France, and thin would be your host.\" [Footnote:\n_Chevalerie Ogier_, 1510-1529. _Epopees Francaises_, Leon Gautier, vol.\niii. pp. 156-157.] In the lines quoted we seem to hear the voice of the\nangered Achilles: \"We came not hither in our own quarrel, thou shameless\none, but to please thee! But now go I back to Phthia with my ships--the\nbetter part.\" [Footnote: _Iliad_, I. 158-169.]\n\nAgamemnon answers that Zeus is on his side, just as even the angry\nNaismes admits that duty to God demands obedience to Charles. There\ncannot be parallels more close and true than these, between poems born\nat a distance from each other of more than two thousand years, but born\nin similar historical conditions.\n\nIn Guide _Bourgogne,_ a poem of the twelfth century, Ogier cries, \"They\nsay that Charlemagne is the conqueror of kingdoms: they lie, it is\nRoland who conquers them with Oliver, Naismes of the long beard, and\nmyself. As to Charles, he eats.\" Compare Achilles to Agamemnon, \"Thou,\nheavy with wine, with dog's eyes and heart of deer, never hast thou\ndared to arm thee for war with the host ...\" [Footnote: _Iliad_, I. 227,\n228. _Gui de Bourgogne_, pp. 37-41.] It is Achilles or Roland who stakes\nhis life in war and captures cities; it is Agamemnon or Charles who\ncamps by the wine. Charles, in the _Chanson de Saisnes_, abases himself\nbefore Herapois, even more abjectly than Agamemnon in his offer of\natonement to Achilles. [Footnote: _Epopees Francaises_, Leon Gautier,\nvol. iii. p. 158.] Charles is as arrogant as Agamemnon: he strikes\nRoland with his glove, for an uncommanded victory, and then he loses\nheart and weeps as copiously as the penitent Agamemnon often does when\nhe rues his arrogance. [Footnote: _Entree en Espagne_.]\n\nThe poet of the _Iliad_ is a great and sober artist. He does not make\nAgamemnon endure the lowest disgraces which the latest French epic poets\nheap on Charles. But we see how close is the parallel between Agamemnon\nand the Charles of the decadent type. Both characters are reflections of\nfeudal jealousy of the Over-Lord; both reflect real antique historical\nconditions, and these were the conditions of the Achaeans in Europe, not\nof the Ionians in Asia.\n\nThe treatment of Agamemnon's character is harmonious throughout. It\nis not as if in \"the original poem\" Agamemnon were revered like St.\nCharlemagne in the _Chanson de Roland_, and in the \"later\" parts of the\n_Iliad_ were reduced to the contemptible estate of the Charles of the\ndecadent _Chanson de Geste_. In the _Iliad_ Agamemnon's character is\nconsistently presented from beginning to end, presented, I think, as it\ncould only be by a great poet of the feudal Achaean society in Europe.\nThe Ionians--\"democratic to the core,\" says Mr. Leaf--would either have\ntaken no interest in the figure of the Over-Lord, or would have utterly\ndegraded him below the level of the Charles of the latest _Chansons_. Or\nthe late rhapsodists, in their irresponsible lays, would have presented\na wavering and worthless portrait.\n\nThe conditions under which the _Chansons_ arose were truly parallel\nto the conditions under which the Homeric poems arose, and the poems,\nFrench and Achaean, are also true parallels, except in genius. The\nFrench have no Homer: _cared vate sacro_. It follows that a Homer was\nnecessary to the evolution of the Greek epics.\n\nIt may, perhaps, be replied to this argument that our _Iliad_ is only\na very late _remaniement_, like the fourteenth century _Chansons de\nGeste_, of something much earlier and nobler. But in France, in the age\nof _remaniement_, even the versification had changed from assonance to\nrhyme, from the decasyllabic line to the Alexandrine in the decadence,\nwhile a plentiful lack of seriousness and a love of purely fanciful\nadventures in fairyland take the place of the austere spirit of war.\nLadies \"in a coming on humour\" abound, and Charles is involved with his\nPaladins in _gauloiseries_ of a Rabelaisian cast. The French language\nhas become a new thing through and through, and manners and weapons are\nof a new sort; but the high seriousness of the _Iliad_ is maintained\nthroughout, except in the burlesque battle of the gods: the\nversification is the stately hexameter, linguistic alterations are\npresent, extant, but inconspicuous. That the armour and weapons are\nuniform in character throughout we have tried to prove, while the state\nof society and of religion is certainly throughout harmonious. Our\nparallel, then, between the French and the Greek national epics appears\nas perfect as such a thing can be, surprisingly perfect, while the great\npoint of difference in degree of art is accounted for by the existence\nof an Achaean poet of supreme genius. Not such, certainly, were the\ncomposers of the Cyclic poems, men contemporary with the supposed later\npoets of the _Iliad_.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XVII\n\n\nCONCLUSION\n\nThe conclusion at which we arrive is that the _Iliad_, as a whole, is\nthe work of one age. That it has reached us without interpolations and\n_lacunae_ and _remaniements_ perhaps no person of ordinary sense will\nallege. But that the mass of the Epic is of one age appears to be a\nnatural inference from the breakdown of the hypotheses which attempt to\nexplain it as a late mosaic. We have also endeavoured to prove, quite\napart from the failure of theories of expansion and compilation, that\nthe _Iliad_ presents an historical unity, unity of character, unity of\ncustomary law, and unity in its archaeology. If we are right, we must\nhave an opinion as to how the Epic was preserved.\n\nIf we had evidence for an Homeric school, we might imagine that the Epic\nwas composed by dint of memory, and preserved, like the Sanskrit Hymns\nof the Rig Veda, and the Hymns of the Maoris, the Zunis, and other\npeoples in the lower or middle stage of barbarism, by the exertions and\nteaching of schools. But religious hymns and mythical hymns--the care\nof a priesthood--are one thing; a great secular epic is another. Priests\nwill not devote themselves from age to age to its conservation. It\ncannot be conserved, with its unity of tone and character, and, on the\nwhole, even of language, by generations of paid strollers, who recite\nnew lays of their own, as well as any old lays that they may remember,\nwhich they alter at pleasure.\n\nWe are thus driven back to the theory of early written texts, not\nintended to meet the wants of a reading public, but for the use of the\npoet himself and of those to whom he may bequeath his work. That this\nhas been a method in which orally published epics were composed and\npreserved in a non-reading age we have proved in our chapter on the\nFrench Chansons _de Geste_. Unhappily, the argument that what was done\nin mediaeval France might be done in sub-Mycenaean Greece, is based\non probabilities, and these are differently estimated by critics of\ndifferent schools. All seems to depend on each individual's sense\nof what is \"likely.\" In that case science has nothing to make in the\nmatter. Nitzsche thought that writing might go back to the time of\nHomer. Mr. Monro thought it \"probable enough that writing, even if known\nat the time of Homer, was not used for literary purposes.\" [Footnote:\n_Iliad_, vol. i. p. xxxv.] Sir Richard Jebb, as we saw, took a much more\nfavourable view of the probability of early written texts. M. Salomon\nReinach, arguing from the linear written clay tablets of Knossos and\nfrom a Knossian cup with writing on it in ink, thinks that there\nmay have existed whole \"Minoan\" libraries--manuscripts executed on\nperishable materials, palm leaves, papyrus, or parchment. [Footnote:\n_L'Anthropologie_, vol. xv, pp. 292, 293.] Mr. Leaf, while admitting\nthat \"writing was known in some form through the whole period of epic\ndevelopment,\" holds that \"it is in the highest degree unlikely that it\nwas ever employed to form a standard text of the Epic or any portion of\nit.... At best there was a continuous tradition of those portions of the\npoems which were especially popular ...\" [Footnote: _Iliad_, vol. i.\npp. xvi., xvii.] Father Browne dates the employment of writing for the\npreservation of the Epic \"from the sixth century onwards.\" [Footnote:\n_Handbook of Homeric Study_, p. 134.] He also says that \"it is difficult\nto suppose that the Mycenaeans, who were certainly in contact with this\nform of writing\" (the Cretan linear), \"should not have used it much\nmore freely than our direct evidence warrants us in asserting.\" He then\nmentions the Knossian cup \"with writing inscribed on it apparently in\npen and ink ... The conclusion is that ordinary writing was in use, but\nthat the materials, probably palm leaves, have disappeared.\" [Footnote:\n_Ibid_., pp. 258, 259.]\n\nWhy it should be unlikely that a people confessedly familiar with\nwriting used it for the preservation of literature, when we know that\neven the Red Indians preserve their songs by means of pictographs, while\nWest African tribes use incised characters, is certainly not obvious.\nMany sorts of prae-Phoenician writing were current during the Mycenaean\nage in Asia, Egypt, Assyria, and in Cyprus. As these other peoples used\nwriting of their own sort for literary purposes, it is not easy to\nsee why the Cretans, for example, should not have done the same thing.\nIndeed, Father Browne supposes that the Mycenaeans used \"ordinary\nwriting,\" and used it freely. Nevertheless, the Epic was not written,\nhe says, till the sixth century B.C. Cauer, indeed, remarks that \"the\nFinnish epic\" existed unwritten till Lbnnrot, its Pisistratus,\nfirst collected it from oral recitation. [Footnote: _Grundfragen der\nHomerkritik_, p. 94.] But there is not, and never was, any \"Finnish\nepic.\" There were cosmogonic songs, as among the Maoris and Zunis--songs\nof the beginnings of things; there were magical songs, songs of\nweddings, a song based on the same popular tale that underlies the\nlegend of the Argonauts. There were songs of the Culture Hero, songs of\nburial and feast, and of labour. Loennrot collected these, and tried by\ninterpolations to make an epic out of them; but the point, as Comparetti\nhas proved, is that he failed. There is no Finnish epic, only a mass of\n_Volkslieder._ Cauer's other argument, that the German popular tales,\nGrimm's tales, were unwritten till 1812, is as remote from the point at\nissue. Nothing can be less like an epic than a volume of _Maerchen._\n\nAs usual we are driven back upon a literary judgment. Is the _Iliad_ a\npatchwork of metrical _Maerchen_ or is it an epic nobly constructed? If\nit is the former, writing was not needed; if it is the latter, in the\nabsence of Homeric guilds or colleges, only writing can account for its\npreservation.\n\nIt is impossible to argue against a critic's subjective sense of what\nis likely. Possibly that sense is born of the feeling that the Cretan\nlinear script, for example, or the Cyprian syllabary, looks very odd\nand outlandish. The critic's imagination boggles at the idea of an\nepic written in such scripts. In that case his is not the scientific\nimagination; he is checked merely by the unfamiliar. Or his sense of\nunlikelihood may be a subconscious survival of Wolf's opinion, formed\nby him at a time when the existence of the many scripts of the old world\nwas unknown.\n\nOur own sense of probability leads us to the conclusion that, in an age\nwhen people could write, people wrote down the Epic. If they applied\ntheir art to literature, then the preservation of the Epic is explained.\nWritten first in a prae-Phoenician script, it continued to be written\nin the Greek adaptation of the Phoenician alphabet. There was not yet,\nprobably, a reading public, but there were a few clerkly men.\n\nThat the Cretans, at least, could write long before the age of Homer,\nMr. Arthur Evans has demonstrated by his discoveries. Prom my remote\nundergraduate days I was of the opinion which he has proved to be\ncorrect, starting, like him, from what I knew about savage pictographs.\n[Footnote: Cretan _Pictographs_ and _Prae-Phoenician_ Script. London,\n1905. Annual of British _School_ of Athens, 1900-1901, p. 10. Journal of\n_Hellenic Studies,_ 1897, pp. 327-395.]\n\nM. Reinach and Mr. Evans have pointed out that in this matter tradition\njoins hands with discovery. Diodorus Siculus, speaking of the Cretan\nZeus and probably on Cretan authority, says: \"As to those who hold that\nthe Syrians invented letters, from whom the Phoenicians received them\nand handed them on to the Greeks, ... and that for this reason the\nGreeks call letters 'Phoenician,' some reply that the Phoenicians did\nnot [blank space] letters, but merely modified (transposed 3) the forms\nof the letters, and that most men use this form of script, and thus\nletters came to be styled 'Phoenician.'\" [Footnote: Diodorus Siculus, v.\n74. _L'Anthropologie,_ vol. xi. pp. 497-502.] In fact, the alphabet is\na collection of signs of palaeolithic antiquity and of vast diffusion.\n[Footnote: Origins of the Alphabet. A. L. Fortnightly Review, 1904, pp.\n634-645]\n\nThus the use of writing for the conservation of the Epic cannot seem\nto me to be unlikely, but rather probable; and here one must leave the\nquestion, as the subjective element plays so great a part in every man's\nsense of what is likely or unlikely. That writing cannot have been used\nfor this literary purpose, that the thing is impossible, nobody will now\nassert.\n\nMy supposition is, then, that the text of the Epic existed in AEgean\nscript till Greece adapted to her own tongue the \"Phoenician letters,\"\nwhich I think she did not later than the ninth to eighth centuries; \"at\nthe beginning of the ninth century,\" says Professor Bury. [Footnote:\n_History of Greece_, vol. i. p. 78. 1902.] This may seem an audaciously\nearly date, but when we find vases of the eighth to seventh centuries\nbearing inscriptions, we may infer that a knowledge of reading and\nwriting was reasonably common. When such a humble class of hirelings\nor slaves as the pot-painters can sign their work, expecting their\nsignatures to be read, reading and writing must be very common\naccomplishments among the more fortunate classes.\n\nIf Mr. Gardner is right in dating a number of incised inscriptions on\nearly pottery at Naucratis before the middle of the seventh century,\nwe reach the same conclusion. In fact, if these inscriptions be of a\ncentury earlier than the Abu Simbel inscriptions, of date 590 B.C., we\nreach 690 B.C. Wherefore, as writing does not become common in a moment,\nit must have existed in the eighth century B.C. We are not dealing here\nwith a special learned class, but with ordinary persons who could write.\n[Footnote: _The Early Ionic Alphabet: Journal of Hellenic Studies_, vol.\nvii. pp. 220-239. Roberts, _Introduction to Greek Epigraphy_, pp. 31,\n151, 159, 164, 165-167]\n\nInteresting for our purpose is the verse incised on a Dipylon vase,\nfound at Athens in 1880. It is of an ordinary cream-jug shape, with a\nneck, a handle, a spout, and a round belly. On the neck, within a zigzag\n\"geometrical\" pattern, is a doe, feeding, and a tall water-fowl. On the\nshoulder is scratched with a point, in very antique Attic characters\nrunning from right to left, [Greek: os nun orchaeston panton hatalotata\npais ei, tou tode]. \"This is the jug of him who is the most delicately\nsportive of all dancers of our time.\" The jug is attributed to the\neighth century. [Footnote: Walters, _History of Ancient Pottery_, vol.\nii. p, 243; Kretschmer, _Griechischen Vasen inschriften_, p. 110, 1894,\nof the seventh century. H. von Rohden, _Denkmaler_, iii. pp. 1945, 1946:\n\"Probably dating from the seventh century.\" Roberts, op. cit., vol. i.\np. 74, \"at least as far back as the seventh century,\" p. 75.]\n\nTaking the vase, with Mr. Walters, as of the eighth century, I do not\nsuppose that the amateur who gave it to a dancer and scratched the\nhexameter was of a later generation than the jug itself. The vase may\nhave cost him sixpence: he would give his friend a _new_ vase; it is\nimprobable that old jugs were sold at curiosity shops in these days, and\ngiven by amateurs to artists. The inscription proves that, in the eighth\nto seventh centuries, at a time of very archaic characters (the Alpha is\nlying down on its side, the aspirate is an oblong with closed ends and\na stroke across the middle, and the Iota is curved at each end), people\ncould write with ease, and would put verse into writing. The general\naccomplishment of reading is taken for granted.\n\nReading is also taken for granted by the Gortyn (Cretan) inscription of\ntwelve columns long, _boustro-phedon_ (running alternately from left to\nright, and from right to left). In this inscribed code of laws, incised\non stone, money is not mentioned in the more ancient part, but fines and\nprices are calculated in \"chalders\" and \"bolls\" ([Greek: lebaetes] and\n[Greek: tripodes]), as in Scotland when coin was scarce indeed. Whether\nthe law contemplated the value of the vessels themselves, or, as in\nScotland, of their contents in grain, I know not. The later inscriptions\ndeal with coined money. If coin came in about 650 B.C., the older parts\nof the inscription may easily be of 700 B.C.\n\nThe Gortyn inscription implies the power of writing out a long code\nof laws, and it implies that persons about to go to law could read the\npublic inscription, as we can read a proclamation posted up on a wall,\nor could have it read to them. [Footnote: Roberts, vol. i. pp. 52-55.]\n\nThe alphabets inscribed on vases of the seventh century (Abecedaria),\nwith \"the archaic Greek forms of every one of the twenty-two Phoenician\nletters arranged precisely in the received Semitic order,\" were, one\nsupposes, gifts for boys and girls who were learning to read, just like\nour English alphabets on gingerbread. [Footnote: For Abecedaria, cf.\nRoberts, vol. i. pp. 16-21.]\n\nAmong inscriptions on tombstones of the end of the seventh century,\nthere is the epitaph of a daughter of a potter. [Footnote: Roberts, vol.\ni. p. 76.] These writings testify to the general knowledge of reading,\njust as much as our epitaphs testify to the same state of education. The\nAthenian potter's daughter of the seventh century B.C. had her epitaph,\nbut the grave-stones of highlanders, chiefs or commoners, were usually\nuninscribed till about the end of the eighteenth century, in deference\nto custom, itself arising from the illiteracy of the highlanders in\ntimes past. [Footnote: Ramsay, _Scotland and Scotsmen_, ii. p. 426.\n1888.] I find no difficulty, therefore, in supposing that there were\nsome Greek readers and writers in the eighth century, and that primary\neducation was common in the seventh. In these circumstances my sense of\nthe probable is not revolted by the idea of a written epic, in [blank\nspace] characters, even in the eighth century, but the notion that there\nwas no such thing till the middle of the sixth century seems highly\nimprobable. All the conditions were present which make for the\ncomposition and preservation of literary works in written texts. That\nthere were many early written copies of Homer in the eighth century I am\nnot inclined to believe. The Greeks were early a people who could read,\nbut were not a reading people. Setting newspapers aside, there is no\nsuch thing as a reading _people_.\n\nThe Greeks preferred to listen to recitations, but my hypothesis is that\nthe rhapsodists who recited had texts, like the _jongleurs_' books\nof their epics in France, and that they occasionally, for definite\npurposes, interpolated matter into their texts. There were also texts,\nknown in later times as \"city texts\" ([Greek: ai kata poleis]), which\nAristarchus knew, but he did not adopt the various readings. [Footnote:\nMonro, Odyssey, vol. ii. p, 435.]\n\nAthens had a text in Solon's time, if he entered the decree that the\nwhole Epic should be recited in due order, every five years, at the\nPanathenaic festival. [Footnote: _Ibid_., vol. ii. p. 395.] \"This\nimplies the possession of a complete text.\" [Footnote: _Ibid_., vol. ii.\np. 403.]\n\nCauer remarks that the possibility of \"interpolation\" \"began only after\nthe fixing of the text by Pisistratus.\" [Footnote: _Grundfragen_, p.\n205.] But surely if every poet and reciter could thrust any new lines\nwhich he chose to make into any old lays which he happened to know, that\nwas interpolation, whether he had a book of the words or had none. Such\ninterpolations would fill the orally recited lays which the supposed\nPisistratean editor must have written down from recitation before he\nbegan his colossal task of making the _Iliad_ out of them. If, on the\nother hand, reciters had books of the words, they could interpolate at\npleasure into _them_, and such books may have been among the materials\nused in the construction of a text for the Athenian book market. But if\nour theory be right, there must always have been a few copies of better\ntexts than those of the late reciters' books, and the effort of the\neditors for the book market would be to keep the parts in which most\nmanuscripts were agreed.\n\nBut how did Athens, or any other city, come to possess a text? One\ncan only conjecture; but my conjecture is that there had always been\ntexts--copied out in successive generations--in the hands of the\ncurious; for example, in the hands of the Cyclic poets, who knew our\n_Iliad_ as the late French Cyclic poets knew the earlier _Chansons de\nGeste_. They certainly knew it, for they avoided interference with\nit; they worked at epics which led up to it, as in the _Cypria;_ they\nborrowed _motifs_ from hints and references in the _Iliad_, [Footnote:\nMonro, _Odyssey_, vol. ii. pp. 350, 351.] and they carried on the story\nfrom the death of Hector, in the _AEthiopis_ of Arctinus of Miletus.\nThis epic ended with the death of Achilles, when _The Little Iliad_\nproduced the tale to the bringing in of the wooden horse. Arctinus goes\non with his _Sack_ of _Ilios_, others wrote of _The Return_ of _the\nHeroes,_ and the _Telegonia_ is a sequel to the Odyssey. The authors of\nthese poems knew the _Iliad_, then, as a whole, and how could they have\nknown it thus if it only existed in the casual _repertoire_ of strolling\nreciters? The Cyclic poets more probably had texts of Homer, and\nthemselves wrote their own poems--how it paid, whether they recited them\nand collected rewards or not, is, of course, unknown.\n\nThe Cyclic poems, to quote Sir Richard Jebb, \"help to fix the lowest\nlimit for the age of the Homeric poems. [Footnote: _Homer_, pp. 151,\n154.] The earliest Cyclic poems, dating from about 776 B.C., presuppose\nthe _Iliad_, being planned to introduce or continue it.... It would\nappear, then, that the _Iliad_ must have existed in something like its\npresent compass as early as 800 B.C.; indeed a considerably earlier date\nwill seem probable, if due time is allowed for the poem to have grown\ninto such fame as would incite the effort to continue it and to prelude\nto it.\"\n\nSir Richard then takes the point on which we have already insisted,\nnamely, that the Cyclic poets of the eighth century B.C. live in an\nage of ideas, religions, ritual, and so forth which are absent from the\n_Iliad_ [Footnote: Homer, pp. 154, 155.]\n\nThus the _Iliad_ existed with its characteristics that are prior to 800\nB.C., and in its present compass, and was renowned before 800 B.C. As\nit could not possibly have thus existed in the _repertoire_ of\nirresponsible strolling minstrels and reciters, and as there is no\nevidence for a college, school, or guild which preserved the Epic by\na system of mnemonic teaching, while no one can deny at least the\npossibility of written texts, we are driven to the hypothesis that\nwritten texts there were, whence descended, for example, the text of\nAthens.\n\nWe can scarcely suppose, however, that such texts were perfect in all\nrespects, for we know how, several centuries later, in a reading age,\npapyrus fragments of the _Iliad_ display unwarrantable interpolation.\n[Footnote: Monro, _Odyssey_, vol. ii. pp. 422-426.] But Plato's frequent\nquotations, of course made at an earlier date, show that \"whatever\ninterpolated texts of Homer were then current, the copy from which\nPlato quoted was not one of them.\" [Footnote: _Ibid_., p. 429] Plato had\nsomething much better.\n\nWhen a reading public for Homer arose--and, from the evidences of the\nwidespread early knowledge of reading, such a small public may have come\ninto existence sooner than is commonly supposed--Athens was the centre\nof the book trade. To Athens must be due the prae-Alexandrian Vulgate,\nor prevalent text, practically the same as our own. Some person or\npersons must have made that text--not by taking down from recitation\nall the lays which they could collect, as Herd, Scott, Mrs. Brown,\nand others collected much of the _Border Minstrelsy_, and not by then\ntacking the lays into a newly-composed whole. They must have done their\nbest with such texts as were accessible to them, and among these were\nprobably the copies used by reciters and rhapsodists, answering to the\nMS. books of the mediaeval _jongleurs._\n\nMr. Jevons has justly and acutely remarked that \"we do not know, and\nthere is no external evidence of any description which leads us to\nsuppose, that the _Iliad_ was ever expanded\" (_J. H. S_, vii. 291-308).\n\nThat it was expanded is a mere hypothesis based on the idea that \"if\nthere was an _Iliad_ at all in the ninth century, its length must\nhave been such as was compatible with the conditions of an oral\ndelivery,\"--\"a poem or poems short enough to be recited at a single\nsitting.\"\n\nBut we have proved, with Mr. Jevons and Blass, and by the analogy of the\nChansons that, given a court audience (and a court audience is granted),\nthere were no such narrow limits imposed on the length of a poem orally\nrecited from night to night.\n\nThe length of the _Iliad_ yields, therefore, no argument for expansions\nthroughout several centuries. That theory, suggested by the notion\nthat the original poem _MUST_ have been short, is next supposed to be\nwarranted by the inconsistencies and discrepancies. But we argue that\nthese are only visible, as a rule, to \"the analytical reader,\" for whom\nthe poet certainly was not composing; that they occur in all long\nworks of fictitious narrative; that the discrepancies often are not\ndiscrepancies; and, finally, that they are not nearly so glaring as the\ninconsistencies in the theories of each separatist critic. A theory,\nin such matter as this, is itself an explanatory myth, or the plot of\na story which the critic invents to account for the facts in the case.\nThese critical plots, we have shown, do not account for the facts of the\ncase, for the critics do not excel in constructing plots. They wander\ninto unperceived self-contradictions which they would not pardon in the\npoet. These contradictions are visible to \"the analytical reader,\" who\nconcludes that a very early poet may have been, though Homer seldom is,\nas inconsistent as a modern critic.\n\nMeanwhile, though we have no external evidence that the _Iliad_ was\never expanded--that it was expanded is an explanatory myth of the\ncritics--\"we do know, on good evidence,\" says Mr. Jevons, \"that the\n_Iliad_ was rhapsodised.\" The rhapsodists were men, as a rule, of one\nday recitations, though at a prolonged festival at Athens there was time\nfor the whole _Iliad_ to be recited. \"They chose for recitation such\nincidents as could be readily detached, were interesting in themselves,\nand did not take too long to recite.\" Mr. Jevons suggests that the many\nbrief poems collected in the Homeric hymns are invocations which the\nrhapsodists preluded to their recitals. The practice seems to have been\nfor the rhapsodist first to pay his reverence to the god, \"to begin from\nthe god,\" at whose festival the recitation was being given (the short\nproems collected in the Hymns pay this reverence), \"and then proceed\nwith his rhapsody\"--with his selected passage from the _Iliad_,\n\"Beginning with thee\" (the god of the festival), \"I will go on\nto another lay,\" that is, to his selection from the Epic. Another\nconclusion of the proem often is, \"I will be mindful both of thee and\nof another lay,\" meaning, says Mr. Jevons, that \"the local deity will\nfigure in the recitation from Homer which the rhapsodist is about to\ndeliver.\"\n\nThese explanations, at all events, yield good sense. The invocation of\nAthene (Hymns, XI., XXVIII.) would serve as the proem of invocation to\nthe recital of _Iliad_, V., VI. 1-311, the day of valour of Diomede,\nspurred on by the wanton rebuke of Agamemnon, and aided by Athene. The\ninvocation of Hephaestus (Hymn XX.), would prelude to a recital of the\n_Making of the Awns of Achilles_, and so on.\n\nBut the rhapsodist may be reciting at a festival of Dionysus, about whom\nthere is practically nothing said in the _Iliad_; for it is a proof of\nthe antiquity of the _Iliad_ that, when it was composed, Dionysus had\nnot been raised to the Olympian peerage, being still a folk-god only.\nThe rhapsodist, at a feast of Dionysus in later times, has to introduce\nthe god into his recitation. The god is not in his text, but he adds\nhim. [Footnote:_Ibid_., VI. 130-141]\n\nWhy should any mortal have made this interpolation? Mr. Jevons's theory\nsupplies the answer. The rhapsodist added the passages to suit the\nDionysus feast, at which he was reciting.\n\nThe same explanation is offered for the long story of the _Birth_\nof [blank space] which Agamemnon tells in his speech of apology and\nreconciliation. [Footnote:_Ibid_., XIX. 136.] There is an invocation to\nHeracles (Hymns, XV.), and the author may have added this speech to his\nrhapsody of the Reconciliation, recited at a feast of Heracles. Perhaps\nthe remark of Mr. Leaf offers the real explanation of the presence of\nthis long story in the speech of Agamemnon: \"Many speakers with a bad\ncase take refuge in telling stories.\" Agamemnon shows, says Mr. Leaf,\n\"the peevish nervousness of a man who feels that he has been in the\nwrong,\" and who follows a frank speaker like Achilles, only eager for\nAgamemnon to give the word to form and charge. So Agamemnon takes refuge\nin a long story, throwing the blame of his conduct on Destiny.\n\nWe do not need, then, the theory of a rhapsodist's interpolation, but it\nis quite plausible in itself.\n\nLocal heroes, as well as gods, had their feasts in post-Homeric times,\nand a reciter at a feast of AEneas, or of his mother, Aphrodite, may\nhave foisted in the very futile discourse of Achilles and AEneas,\n[Footnote:_Ibid_., XX. 213-250.] with its reference to Erichthonius, an\nAthenian hero.\n\nIn other cases the rhapsodist rounded off his selected passage by a few\nlines, as in _Iliad_, XIII. 656-659, where a hero is brought to follow\nhis son's dead body to the grave, though the father had been killed\nin _V. 576_. \"It is really such a slip as is often made by authors who\nwrite,\" says Mr. Leaf; and, in _Esmond_, Thackeray makes similar\nerrors. The passage in XVI. 69-80, about which so much is said, as if it\ncontradicted Book IX. (_The Embassy to Achilles_), is also, Mr. Jevons\nthinks, to be explained as \"inserted by a rhapsodist wishing to make\nhis extract complete in itself.\" Another example--the confusion in the\nbeginning of Book II.--we have already discussed (see Chapter IV.), and\ndo not think that any explanation is needed, when we understand that\nAgamemnon, once wide-awake, had no confidence in his dream. However, Mr.\nJevons thinks that rhapsodists, anxious to recite straight on from the\ndream to the battle, added II. 35-41, \"the only lines which represent\nAgamemnon as believing confidently in his dream.\" We have argued that he\nonly believed _till he awoke_, and then, as always, wavered.\n\nThus, in our way of looking at these things, interpolations by\nrhapsodists are not often needed as explanations of difficulties. Still,\ngranted that the rhapsodists, like the _jongleurs_, had texts, and that\nthese were studied by the makers of the Vulgate, interpolations and\nerrors might creep in by this way. As to changes in language, \"a\npoetical dialect... is liable to be gradually modified by the influence\nof the ever-changing colloquial speech. And, in the early times, when\nwriting was little used, this influence would be especially operative.\"\n[Footnote: Monro, _Odyssey_, vol. ii. p. 461.]\n\nTo conclude, the hypothesis of a school of mnemonic teaching of the\n_Iliad_ would account for the preservation of so long a poem in an age\ndestitute of writing, when memory would be well cultivated. There may\nhave been such schools. We only lack evidence for their existence. But\nagainst the hypothesis of the existence of early texts, there is nothing\nexcept the feeling of some critics that it is not likely. \"They are\ndangerous guides, the feelings.\"\n\nIn any case the opinion that the _Iliad_ was a whole, centuries before\nPisistratus, is the hypothesis which is by far the least fertile in\ndifficulties, and, consequently, in inconsistent solutions of the\nproblems which the theory of expansion first raises, and then, like an\nunskilled magician, fails to lay.","title":"Homer and His Age","tradition":"philosophy-ethics","translated_text":null,"word_count":95087}