Dr E. Kammer has given some strong reasons for doubting the genuineness of the passage in book xx. describing the duel between Achilles and Aeneas (79-352). The incident is certainly very much out of keeping with the vehement action of that part of the poem, and especially with the moment when Achilles returns to the field, eager to meet Hector and avenge the death of his friend. The interpolation (if it is one) is probably due to local interests. It contains the well-known prophecy that the descendants of Aeneas are to rule over the Trojans,—pointing to the existence of an Aenead dynasty in the Troad. So, too, the legend of Anchises in the Hymn to Aphrodite is evidently local; and Aeneas becomes more prominent in the later epics, especially theCypriaand theἸλίου πέρσιςof Arctinus.
Dr E. Kammer has given some strong reasons for doubting the genuineness of the passage in book xx. describing the duel between Achilles and Aeneas (79-352). The incident is certainly very much out of keeping with the vehement action of that part of the poem, and especially with the moment when Achilles returns to the field, eager to meet Hector and avenge the death of his friend. The interpolation (if it is one) is probably due to local interests. It contains the well-known prophecy that the descendants of Aeneas are to rule over the Trojans,—pointing to the existence of an Aenead dynasty in the Troad. So, too, the legend of Anchises in the Hymn to Aphrodite is evidently local; and Aeneas becomes more prominent in the later epics, especially theCypriaand theἸλίου πέρσιςof Arctinus.
Structure of the Odyssey.—In theOdyssey, as in theIliad, the events related fall within a short space of time. The difficulty of adapting the long wanderings of Ulysses to a plan of this type is got over by the device—first met with in theOdyssey—of making the hero tell the story of his own adventures. In this way the action is made to begin almost immediately before the actual return of Ulysses. Up to the time when he reaches Ithaca it moves on three distinct scenes: we follow the fortunes of Ulysses, of Telemachus on his voyage in the Peloponnesus, and of Penelope with the suitors. The art with which these threads are woven together was recognized by Wolf himself, who admitted the difficulty of applying his theory to the “admirabilis summa et compages” of the poem. Of the comparatively few attempts which have been made to dissect theOdyssey, the most moderate and attractive is that of Professor A. Kirchhoff of Berlin.13
According to Kirchhoff, theOdysseyas we have it is the result of additions made to an original nucleus. There was first of all a “Return of Odysseus,” relating chiefly the adventures with the Cyclops, Calypso and the Phaeacians; then a continuation, the scene of which lay in Ithaca, embracing the bulk of books xiii.-xxiii. The poem so formed was enlarged at some time between Ol. 30 and Ol. 50 by the stories of books x.-xii. (Circe, the Sirens, Scylla, &c.), and the adventures of Telemachus. Lastly, a few passages were interpolated in the time of Peisistratus.The proof that the scenes in Ithaca are by a later hand than the ancient “Return” is found chiefly in a contradiction discussed by Kirchhoff in his sixth dissertation (pp. 135 sqq., ed. 1869). Sometimes Ulysses is represented as aged and worn by toil, so that Penelope, for instance, cannot recognize him; sometimes he is really in the prime of heroic vigour, and his appearing as a beggarly old man is the work of Athena’s wand. The first of these representations is evidently natural, considering the twenty eventful years that have passed; but the second, Kirchhoff holds, is the Ulysses of Calypso’s island and the Phaeacian court. He concludes that the aged Ulysses belongs to the “continuation” (the change wrought by Athena’s wand being a device to reconcile the two views), and hence that the continuation is the work of a different author.Ingenious as this is, there is really very slender ground for Kirchhoff’s thesis. The passages in the second half of theOdysseywhich describe the appearance of Ulysses do not givetwowell-marked representations of him. Sometimes Athena disguises him as a decrepit beggar, sometimes she bestows on him supernatural beauty and vigour. It must be admitted that we are not told exactly how long in each case the effect of these changes lasted. But neither answers to his natural appearance, or to the appearance which he is imagined to present in the earlier books. In the palace of Alcinous, for instance, it is noticed that he is vigorous but “marred by many ills” (Od.viii. 137); and this agrees with the scenes of recognition in the latter part of the poem.The arguments by which Kirchhoff seeks to prove that the stories of books x.-xii. are much later than those of book ix. are not more convincing. He points out some resemblances between these three books and the Argonautic fables, among them the circumstance that a fountain Artacia occurs in both. In the Argonautic story this fountain is placed in the neighbourhood of Cyzicus, and answers to an actual fountain known in historical times. Kirchhoff argues that the Artacia of the Argonautic story must have been taken from the real Artacia, and the Artacia of theOdysseyagain from that of the Argonautic story. And as Cyzicus was settled from Miletus, he infers that both sets of stories must be comparatively late. It is more probable, surely, that the name Artacia occurred independently (as most geographical names are found to occur) in more than one place. Or it may be that the Artacia of theOdysseysuggested the name to the colonists of Cyzicus, whence it was adopted into the later versions of the Argonautic story. The further argument that theNostoirecognized a son of Calypso by Ulysses but no son of Circe, consequently that Circe was unknown to the poet of theNostoi, rests (in the first place) upon a conjectural alteration of a passage in Eustathius, and, moreover, has all the weakness of an argument from silence, in addition to the uncertainty arising from our very slight knowledge of the author whose silence is in question. Finally, when Kirchhoff finds traces in books x.-xii. of their having been originally told by the poet himself instead of being put in the mouth of his hero, we feel that inaccuracies of this kind are apt to creep in wherever a fictitious story is thrown into the form of an autobiography.Inquiries conducted with the refinement which characterizes those of Kirchhoff are always instructive, and his book contains very many just observations; but it is impossible to admit his main conclusions. And perhaps we may infer that no similar attempt can be more successful. It does not indeed follow that theOdysseyis free from interpolations. TheΝεκυίαof book xi. may be later (as Lauer maintained), or it may contain additions, which could easily be inserted in a description of the kind. And the last book is probably by a different hand, as the ancient critics believed. But the unity of theOdysseyas a whole is apparently beyond the reach of the existing weapons of criticism.
According to Kirchhoff, theOdysseyas we have it is the result of additions made to an original nucleus. There was first of all a “Return of Odysseus,” relating chiefly the adventures with the Cyclops, Calypso and the Phaeacians; then a continuation, the scene of which lay in Ithaca, embracing the bulk of books xiii.-xxiii. The poem so formed was enlarged at some time between Ol. 30 and Ol. 50 by the stories of books x.-xii. (Circe, the Sirens, Scylla, &c.), and the adventures of Telemachus. Lastly, a few passages were interpolated in the time of Peisistratus.
The proof that the scenes in Ithaca are by a later hand than the ancient “Return” is found chiefly in a contradiction discussed by Kirchhoff in his sixth dissertation (pp. 135 sqq., ed. 1869). Sometimes Ulysses is represented as aged and worn by toil, so that Penelope, for instance, cannot recognize him; sometimes he is really in the prime of heroic vigour, and his appearing as a beggarly old man is the work of Athena’s wand. The first of these representations is evidently natural, considering the twenty eventful years that have passed; but the second, Kirchhoff holds, is the Ulysses of Calypso’s island and the Phaeacian court. He concludes that the aged Ulysses belongs to the “continuation” (the change wrought by Athena’s wand being a device to reconcile the two views), and hence that the continuation is the work of a different author.
Ingenious as this is, there is really very slender ground for Kirchhoff’s thesis. The passages in the second half of theOdysseywhich describe the appearance of Ulysses do not givetwowell-marked representations of him. Sometimes Athena disguises him as a decrepit beggar, sometimes she bestows on him supernatural beauty and vigour. It must be admitted that we are not told exactly how long in each case the effect of these changes lasted. But neither answers to his natural appearance, or to the appearance which he is imagined to present in the earlier books. In the palace of Alcinous, for instance, it is noticed that he is vigorous but “marred by many ills” (Od.viii. 137); and this agrees with the scenes of recognition in the latter part of the poem.
The arguments by which Kirchhoff seeks to prove that the stories of books x.-xii. are much later than those of book ix. are not more convincing. He points out some resemblances between these three books and the Argonautic fables, among them the circumstance that a fountain Artacia occurs in both. In the Argonautic story this fountain is placed in the neighbourhood of Cyzicus, and answers to an actual fountain known in historical times. Kirchhoff argues that the Artacia of the Argonautic story must have been taken from the real Artacia, and the Artacia of theOdysseyagain from that of the Argonautic story. And as Cyzicus was settled from Miletus, he infers that both sets of stories must be comparatively late. It is more probable, surely, that the name Artacia occurred independently (as most geographical names are found to occur) in more than one place. Or it may be that the Artacia of theOdysseysuggested the name to the colonists of Cyzicus, whence it was adopted into the later versions of the Argonautic story. The further argument that theNostoirecognized a son of Calypso by Ulysses but no son of Circe, consequently that Circe was unknown to the poet of theNostoi, rests (in the first place) upon a conjectural alteration of a passage in Eustathius, and, moreover, has all the weakness of an argument from silence, in addition to the uncertainty arising from our very slight knowledge of the author whose silence is in question. Finally, when Kirchhoff finds traces in books x.-xii. of their having been originally told by the poet himself instead of being put in the mouth of his hero, we feel that inaccuracies of this kind are apt to creep in wherever a fictitious story is thrown into the form of an autobiography.
Inquiries conducted with the refinement which characterizes those of Kirchhoff are always instructive, and his book contains very many just observations; but it is impossible to admit his main conclusions. And perhaps we may infer that no similar attempt can be more successful. It does not indeed follow that theOdysseyis free from interpolations. TheΝεκυίαof book xi. may be later (as Lauer maintained), or it may contain additions, which could easily be inserted in a description of the kind. And the last book is probably by a different hand, as the ancient critics believed. But the unity of theOdysseyas a whole is apparently beyond the reach of the existing weapons of criticism.
Chorizontes.—When we are satisfied that each of the great Homeric poems is either wholly or mainly the work of a single poet, a question remains which has been matter of controversy in ancient as well as modern times—Are they the work of the same poet? Two ancient grammarians, Xeno and Hellanicus, were known as the “separators” (οἱ χωρίζοντες); and Aristarchus appears to have written a treatise against their heresy. In modern times some of the greatest names have been on the side of the “Chorizontes.”
If, as has been maintained in the preceding pages, the external evidence regarding Homer is of no value, the problem now before us may be stated in this form: Given two poems of which nothing is known except that they are of the same school of poetry, what is the probability that they are by the same author? We may find a fair parallel by imagining two plays drawn at hazard from the works of the great tragic writers. It is evident that the burden of proof would rest with those who held them to be by the same hand.
The arguments used in this discussion have been of very various calibre. The ancient Chorizontes observed that the messenger of Zeus is Iris in theIliad, but Hermes in theOdyssey; that the wife of Hephaestus is one of the Charites in theIliad, but Aphrodite in theOdyssey; that the heroes in theIliaddo not eat fish; that Crete has a hundred cities according to theIliad, and only ninety according to theOdyssey; thatπροπάροιθεis used in theIliadof place, in theOdysseyof time, &c. Modern scholars have added to the list, especially by making careful comparisons of the two poems in respect of vocabulary andgrammatical forms. Nothing is more difficult than to assign the degree of weight to be given to such facts. The difference of subject between the two poems is so great that it leads to the most striking differences of detail, especially in the vocabulary. For instance, the wordφόβος, which in Homer means “flight in battle” (not “fear”), occurs thirty-nine times in theIliad, and only once in theOdyssey; but then there are no battles in theOdyssey. Again, the verbῥήγνυμι, “to break,” occurs forty-eight times in theIliad, and once in theOdyssey,—the reason being that it is constantly used of breaking the armour of an enemy, the gate of a city, the hostile ranks, &c. Once more, the wordσκότος, “darkness,” occurs fourteen times in theIliad, once in theOdyssey. But in every one of the fourteen places it is used of “darkness” coming over the sight of a fallen warrior. On the other side, if words such asἀσάμινθος, “a bath,”χέρνιψ, “a basin for the hands,”λέσχη, “a place to meet and talk,” &c., are peculiar to theOdyssey, we have only to remember that the scene in theIliadis hardly ever laid within any walls except those of a tent. These examples will show that mere statistics of the occurrence of words prove little, and that we must begin by looking to the subject and character of each poem. When we do so, we at once find ourselves in the presence of differences of the broadest kind. TheIliadis much more historical in tone and character. The scene of the poem is a real place, and the poet sings (as Ulysses says of Demodocus) as though he had been present himself, or had heard from one who had been. The supernatural element is confined to an interference of the gods, which to the common eye hardly disturbs the natural current of affairs. TheOdyssey, on the contrary, is full of the magical and romantic—“speciosa miracula,” as Horace called them. Moreover, these marvels—which in their original form are doubtless as old as anything in theIliad, since in fact they are part of the vast stock of popular tales (Märchen) diffused all over the world—are mixed up in theOdysseywith the heroes of the Trojan war. This has been especially noticed in the case of the story of Polyphemus, one that is found in many countries, and in versions which cannot all be derived from Homer. W. Grimm has pointed out that the behaviour of Ulysses in that story is senseless and foolhardy, utterly beneath the wise and much-enduring Ulysses of the Trojan war. The reason is simple; he is not the Ulysses of the Trojan war, but a being of the same world as Polyphemus himself—the world of giants and ogres. The question then is—How long must the name of Ulysses have been familiar in the legend (Sage) of Troy before it made its way into the tales of giants and ogres (Märchen), where the poet of theOdysseyfound it?
Again, the Trojan legend has itself received some extension between the time of theIliadand that of theOdyssey. The story of the Wooden Horse is not only unknown to theIliad, but is of a kind which we can hardly imagine the poet of theIliadadmitting. The part taken by Neoptolemus seems also to be a later addition. The tendency to amplify and complete the story shows itself still more in the Cyclic poets. Between theIliadand these poets theOdysseyoften occupies an intermediate position.
This great and significant change in the treatment of the heroic legends is accompanied by numerous minor differences (such as the ancients remarked) in belief, in manners and institutions, and in language. These differences bear out the inference that theOdysseyis of a later age. The progress of reflection is especially shown in the higher ideas entertained regarding the gods. The turbulent Olympian court has almost disappeared. Zeus has acquired the character of a supreme moral ruler; and although Athena and Poseidon are adverse influences in the poem, the notion of a direct contest between them is scrupulously avoided. The advance of morality is shown in the more frequent use of terms such as “just” (δίκαιος), “piety” (ὁσίη), “insolence” (ὕβρις), “god-fearing” (θεουδής), “pure” (ἁγνός); and also in the plot of the story, which is distinctly a contest between right and wrong. In matters bearing upon the arts of life it is unsafe to press the silence of theIliad. We may note, however, the difference between the house of Priam, surrounded by distinct dwellings for his many sons and daughters, and the houses of Ulysses and Alcinous, with many chambers under a single roof. The singer, too, who is so prominent a figure in theOdysseycan hardly be thought to be absent from theIliadmerely because the scene is laid in a camp.
Style of Homer.—A few words remain to be said on the style and general character of the Homeric poems, and on the comparisons which may be made between Homer and analogous poetry in other countries.
The cardinal qualities of the style of Homer have been pointed out once for all by Matthew Arnold. “The translator of Homer,” he says, “should above all be penetrated by a sense of four qualities of his author—that he is eminently rapid; that he is eminently plain and direct, both in the evolution of his thought and in the expression of it, that is, both in his syntax and in his words; that he is eminently plain and direct in the substance of his thought, that is, in his matter and ideas; and, finally, that he is eminently noble” (On Translating Homer, p. 9).
The peculiar rapidity of Homer is due in great measure to his use of the hexameter verse. It is characteristic of early literature that the evolution of the thought—that is, the grammatical form of the sentence—is guided by the structure of the verse; and the correspondence which consequently obtains between the rhythm and the grammar—the thought being given out in lengths, as it were, and these again divided by tolerably uniform pauses—produces a swift flowing movement, such as is rarely found when the periods have been constructed without direct reference to the metre. That Homer possesses this rapidity without falling into the corresponding faults—that is, without becoming either “jerky” or monotonous—is perhaps the best proof of his unequalled poetical skill. The plainness and directness, both of thought and of expression, which characterize Homer were doubtless qualities of his age; but the author of theIliad(like Voltaire, to whom Arnold happily compares him) must have possessed the national gift in a surpassing degree. TheOdysseyis in this respect perceptibly below the level of theIliad.
Rapidity or ease of movement, plainness of expression and plainness of thought, these are not the distinguishing qualities of the great epic poets—Virgil, Dante, Milton. On the contrary, they belong rather to the humbler epico-lyrical school for which Homer has been so often claimed. The proof that Homer does not belong to that school—that his poetry is not in any true sense “ballad-poetry”—is furnished by the higher artistic structure of his poems (already discussed), and as regards style by the fourth of the qualities distinguished by Arnold—the quality ofnobleness. It is his noble and powerful style, sustained through every change of idea and subject, that finally separates Homer from all forms of “ballad-poetry” and “popular epic.”14
But while we are on our guard against a once common error, we may recognize the historical connexion between theIliadandOdysseyand the “ballad” literature which undoubtedly preceded them in Greece. It may even be admitted that the swift-flowing movement, and the simplicity of thought and style, which we admire in theIliadare an inheritance from the earlier “lays”—theκλέα ἀνδρῶνsuch as Achilles and Patroclus sang to the lyre in their tent. Even the metre—the hexameter verse—may be assigned to them. But between these lays and Homer we must place the cultivation of epic poetry as an art.15The pre-Homeric lays doubtless furnished the elements of such a poetry—the alphabet, so to speak, of the art; but they must have been refined and transmuted before they formed poems like theIliadandOdyssey.
A single example will illustrate this. In the scene on the walls of Troy, in the third book of theIliad, after Helen has pointed out Agamemnon, Ulysses and Ajax in answer to Priam’squestions, she goes on unasked to name Idomeneus. Lachmann, whose mind is full of the ballad manner, fastens upon this as an irregularity. “The unskilful transition from Ajax to Idomeneus, about whom no question had been asked,” hecannotattribute to the original poet of the lay (Betrachtungen, p. 15, ed. 1865). But, as was pointed out by A. Römer16, this is exactly the variation which apoetwould introduce to relieve the primitiveballad-likesameness of question and answer; and moreover it forms the transition to the lines about the Dioscuri by which the scene is so touchingly brought to a close.
Analogies.—The development of epic poetry (properly so called) out of the oral songs or ballads of a country is a process which in the nature of things can seldom be observed. It seems clear, however, that the hypothesis of epics such as theIliadandOdysseyhaving been formed by putting together or even by working up shorter poems finds no support from analogy.
Narrative poetry of great interest is found in several countries (such as Spain and Servia), in which it has never attained to the epic stage. In Scandinavia, in Lithuania, in Russia, according to Gaston Paris (Histoire poétique de Charlemagne, p. 9), the national songs have been arrested in a form which may be called intermediate between contemporary poetry and the epic. The true epics are those of India, Persia, Greece, Germany, Britain and France. Most of these, however, fail to afford any useful points of comparison, either from their utter unlikeness to Homer, or because there is no evidence of the existence of anterior popular songs. The most instructive, perhaps the only instructive, parallel is to be found in the French “chansons de geste,” of which theChanson de Rolandis the earliest and best example. These poems are traced back with much probability to the 10th century. They are epic in character, and were recited by professionaljongleurs(who may be compared to theἀοιδοίof Homer). But as early as the 7th century we come upon traces of short lays (the so-called cantilènes) which were in the mouths of all and were sung in chorus. It has been held that the chansons de geste were formed by joining together “bunches” of these earlier cantilènes, and this was the view taken by Léon Gautier in the first edition ofLes Épopées françaises(1865). In the second edition, of which the first volume appeared in 1878, he abandoned this theory. He believes that the epics were generally composed under the influence of earlier songs. “Our first epic poets,” he says, “did not actually and materially patch together pre-existent cantilènes. They were only inspired by these popular songs; they only borrowed from them the traditional and legendary elements. In short, they took nothing from them but the ideas, the spirit, the life; they ‘found’ (ils ont trouvé) all the rest” (p. 80). But he admits that “some of the old poems may have been borrowed from tradition, without any intermediary” (ibid.); and when it is considered that the traces of the “cantilènes” are slight, and that the degree in which they inspired the later poetry must be a matter of impression rather than of proof, it does not surprise us to find other scholars (notably Paul Meyer) attaching less importance to them, or even doubting their existence.17
When Léon Gautier shows how history passes into legend, and legend again into romance, we are reminded of the difference noticed above between theIliadand theOdyssey, and between Homer and the early Cyclic poems. And the peculiar degradation of Homeric characters which appears in some poets (especially Euripides) finds a parallel in the later chansons de geste.18
The comparison of Homer with the great literary epics calls for more discursive treatment than would be in place here. Some external differences have been already indicated. Like the French epics, Homeric poetry is indigenous, and is distinguished by this fact, and by the ease of movement and the simplicity which result from it, from poets such as Virgil, Dante and Milton. It is also distinguished from them by the comparative absence of underlying motives or sentiment. In Virgil’s poetry a sense of the greatness of Rome and Italy is the leading motive of a passionate rhetoric, partly veiled by the “chosen delicacy” of his language. Dante and Milton are still more faithful exponents of the religion and politics of their time. Even the French epics are pervaded by the sentiment of fear and hatred of the Saracens. But in Homer the interest is purely dramatic. There is no strong antipathy of race or religion; the war turns on no political event; the capture of Troy lies outside the range of theIliad. Even the heroes are not the chief national heroes of Greece. The interest lies wholly (so far as we can see) in the picture of human action and feeling.
Bibliography.—A complete bibliography of Homer would fill volumes. The following list is intended to include those books only which are of first-rate importance.Theeditio princepsof Homer, published at Florence in 1488, by Demetrius Chalcondylas, and the Aldine editions of 1504 and 1517, have still some value beyond that of curiosity. The chief modern critical editions are those of Wolf (Halle, 1794-1795; Leipzig, 1804-1807), Spitzner (Gotha, 1832-1836), Bekker (Berlin, 1843; Bonn, 1858), La Roche (Odyssey, 1867-1868;Iliad, 1873-1876, both at Leipzig); Ludwich (Odyssey, Leipzig, 1889-1891;Iliad, 2 vols., 1901 and 1907): W. Leaf (Iliad, London, 1886-1888; 2nd ed. 1900-1902); Merry and Riddell (Odysseyi.-xii., 2nd ed., Oxford, 1886); Monro (Odysseyxiii.-xxiv. with appendices, Oxford, 1901); Monro and Allen (Iliad), and Allen (Odyssey, 1908, Oxford). The commentaries of Barnes, Clarke and Ernesti are practically superseded; but Heyne’sIliad(Leipzig, 1802) and Nitzsch’s commentary on theOdyssey(books i.-xii., Hanover, 1826-1840) are still useful. Nägelbach’sAnmerkungen zur Ilias(A, B 1-483, Γ) is of great value, especially the third edition (by Autenrieth, Nuremberg, 1864). The uniqueScholia Venetaon theIliadwere first made known by Villoison (Homeri Ilias ad veteris codicis Veneti fidem recensita, Scholia in eam antiquissima ex eodem codice aliisque nunc primum edidit, cum Asteriscis, Obeliscis, aliisque signis criticis, Joh. Baptista Caspar d’Ansse de Villoison, Venice, 1788); reprinted, with many additions from other MSS., by Bekker (Scholia in Homeri Iliadem, Berlin, 1825-1826). A new edition has been published by the Oxford Press (Scholia Graeca in Homeri Iliadem, ed. Gul. Dindorfius); six volumes have appeared (1875-1888), the last two edited by Professor E. Maass. The vast commentary of Eustathius was first printed at Rome in 1542; the last edition is that of Stallbaum (Leipzig, 1827). The Scholia on theOdysseywere published by Buttmann (Berlin, 1821), and with greater approach to completeness by W. Dindorf (Oxford, 1855). Although Wolf at once perceived the value of the Venetian Scholia on theIliad, the first scholar who thoroughly explored them was C. Lehrs (De Aristarchi studiis Homericis, Königsberg, 1833; 2nd ed., Leipzig, 1865). Of the studies in the same field which have appeared since, the most important are: Aug. Nauck,Aristophanis Byzantii fragmenta(Halle, 1848); L. Friedländer,Aristoniciπερὶ σημείων Ἰλιαδοςreliquiae(Göttingen, 1853); M. Schmidt,Didymi Chalcenteri fragmenta(Leipzig, 1854); L. Friedländer,Nicanorisπερὶ Ἰλιακῆς στιγμῆςreliquiae(Berlin, 1857); Aug. Lentz,Herodiani Technici reliquiae(Leipzig, 1867); J. La Roche,Die homerische Textkritik im Alterthum(Leipzig, 1866) andHomerische Untersuchungen(Leipzig, 1869); Ad. Römer,Die Werke der Aristarcheer im Cod. Venet. A.(Munich, 1875); A. Ludwich,Aristarch’s Homerische Textkritik(2 vols. Leipzig, 1884-1885); andDie Homervulgata als vor-Alexandrinisch erwiesen(Leipzig, 1898).The literature of the “Homeric Question” begins practically with Wolf’sProlegomena(Halle, 1795). Of the earlier books Wood’sEssay on the Original Genius and Writings of Homeris the most interesting. Wolf’s views were skilfully popularized in W. Müller’sHomerische Vorschule(2nd ed., Leipzig, 1836). G. Hermann’s dissertationsDe interpolationibus Homeri(1832) andDe iteratis apuà Homerum(1840) are reprinted in hisOpuscula. Lachmann’s two papers (Betrachtungen über Homer’s Ilias) were edited together by M. Haupt (2nd ed., Berlin, 1865). Besides the somewhat voluminous writings of Nitzsch, and the discussions contained in the histories of Greek literature by K. O. Müller, Bernhardy, Ulrici and Th. Bergk, and in Grote’sHistory of Greece, see Welcker,Der epischeCyclus oder die homerischen Dichter(Bonn, 1835-1849); on Proclus and the Cycle reference may also be made to Wilamowitz-Möllendorf p. 328 seq.; E. Bethe,Rhein. Mus.(1891), xxvi. p. 593 seq.; O. Immisch,Festschrift Th. Gomperz dargebracht(1902), p. 237 sq.; Lauer,Geschichte der homerischen Poesie(Berlin, 1851); Sengebusch, two dissertations prefixed to the two volumes of W. Dindorf’sHomerin the Teubner series (1855-1856); Friedländer,Die homerische Kritik von Wolf bis Grote(Berlin, 1853); Nutzhorn,Die Entstehungsweise der homerischen Gedichte, mit Vorwort von J. N. Madvig(Leipzig, 1869); E. Kammer,Zur homerischen Frage(Königsberg, 1870); andDie Einheit der Odyssee(Leipzig, 1873); Ä. Kirchhoff,Die Composition der Odyssee(Berlin, 1869); Volkmann,Geschichte und Kritik der Wolf’schen Prolegomena(Leipzig, 1874); K. Sittl,Die Wiederholungen in der Odyssee(München, 1882); U. v. Wilamowitz-Möllendorf,Homerische Untersuchungen(Berlin, 1884); O. Seeck,Die Quellen der Odyssee(Berlin, 1887); F. Blass,Die Interpolationen in der Odyssee(Leipzig, 1905). The interest taken in the question by English students is sufficiently shown in the writings of W. E. Gladstone, F. A. Paley, Henry Hayman (in the Introduction to hisOdyssey), P. Geddes, R. C. Jebb and A. Lang (see especially the latter’sHomer and his Age, 1907).The Homeric dialect must be studied in the books (such as those of G. Curtius) that deal with Greek on the comparative method. The best special work is the briefGriechische Formenlehreof H. L. Ahrens (Göttingen, 1852). Other important works are those of Aug. Fick:Die homerische Odyssee in der ursprünglichen Sprachform wiederhergestelt(Göttingen, 1883);Die homerische Ilias(ibid., 1886); W. Schulze,Quaestiones epicae(Güterslohe, 1892). On Homeric syntax the chief book is B. Delbrück’sSyntactische Forschungen(Halle, 1871-1879), especially vols. i. and iv.; on metre, &c., Hartel’sHomerische Studien(i.-iii., Vienna); Knös,De digammo Homerico quaestiones(Upsala, 1872-1873-1878); Thumb,Zur Geschichte des griech. Digamma, Indogermanische Forschungen(1898), ix. 294 seq. The papers reprinted in Bekker’sHomerische Blätter(Bonn, 1863-1872) and Cobet’sMiscellanea Crilica(Leiden, 1876) are of the highest value. Hoffmann’sQuaestiones Homericae(Clausthal, 1842) is a useful collection of facts. Buttmann’sLexilogus, as an example of method, is still worth study.The antiquities of Homer—using the word in a wide sense—may be studied in the following books: Völcker,Über homerische Geographie und Weltkunde(Hanover, 1830); Nägelsbach’sHomerische Theologie(2nd ed., Nuremberg, 1861); H. Brunn,Die Kunst bei Homer(Munich, 1868); W. W. Lloyd,On the Homeric Design of the Shield of Achilles(London, 1854); Buchholz,Die homerischen Realien(Leipzig, 1871-1873); W. Helbig,Das homerische Epos aus den Denkmälern erläutert(Leipzig, 1884; 2nd ed.,ibid., 1887); W. Reichel,Über homerische Waffen(Vienna, 1894); C. Robert,Studien zur Ilias(Berlin, 1901); W. Ridgeway,The Early Age of Greece(Cambridge, 1901); V. Bérard,Les Phéniciens et l’Odyssée(Paris, 1902-1903); C. Robert, “Topographische Probleme der Ilias,” inHermes, xlii., 1907, pp. 78-112.Among other aids should be mentioned theIndex Homericusof Seber (Oxford, 1780); Prendergast’sConcordance to the Iliad(London, 1875); Dunbar’sid.to theOdyssey and Hymns(Oxford, 1880); Frohwein,Verbum Homericum, (Leipzig, 1881); Gehring,Index Homericus(Leipzig, 1891); theLexicon Homericum, edited by H. Ebeling (Leipzig, 1880-1885) and the facsimile of the cod. Ven. A (Sijthoff; Leiden, 1901), with an introduction by D. Comparetti.
Bibliography.—A complete bibliography of Homer would fill volumes. The following list is intended to include those books only which are of first-rate importance.
Theeditio princepsof Homer, published at Florence in 1488, by Demetrius Chalcondylas, and the Aldine editions of 1504 and 1517, have still some value beyond that of curiosity. The chief modern critical editions are those of Wolf (Halle, 1794-1795; Leipzig, 1804-1807), Spitzner (Gotha, 1832-1836), Bekker (Berlin, 1843; Bonn, 1858), La Roche (Odyssey, 1867-1868;Iliad, 1873-1876, both at Leipzig); Ludwich (Odyssey, Leipzig, 1889-1891;Iliad, 2 vols., 1901 and 1907): W. Leaf (Iliad, London, 1886-1888; 2nd ed. 1900-1902); Merry and Riddell (Odysseyi.-xii., 2nd ed., Oxford, 1886); Monro (Odysseyxiii.-xxiv. with appendices, Oxford, 1901); Monro and Allen (Iliad), and Allen (Odyssey, 1908, Oxford). The commentaries of Barnes, Clarke and Ernesti are practically superseded; but Heyne’sIliad(Leipzig, 1802) and Nitzsch’s commentary on theOdyssey(books i.-xii., Hanover, 1826-1840) are still useful. Nägelbach’sAnmerkungen zur Ilias(A, B 1-483, Γ) is of great value, especially the third edition (by Autenrieth, Nuremberg, 1864). The uniqueScholia Venetaon theIliadwere first made known by Villoison (Homeri Ilias ad veteris codicis Veneti fidem recensita, Scholia in eam antiquissima ex eodem codice aliisque nunc primum edidit, cum Asteriscis, Obeliscis, aliisque signis criticis, Joh. Baptista Caspar d’Ansse de Villoison, Venice, 1788); reprinted, with many additions from other MSS., by Bekker (Scholia in Homeri Iliadem, Berlin, 1825-1826). A new edition has been published by the Oxford Press (Scholia Graeca in Homeri Iliadem, ed. Gul. Dindorfius); six volumes have appeared (1875-1888), the last two edited by Professor E. Maass. The vast commentary of Eustathius was first printed at Rome in 1542; the last edition is that of Stallbaum (Leipzig, 1827). The Scholia on theOdysseywere published by Buttmann (Berlin, 1821), and with greater approach to completeness by W. Dindorf (Oxford, 1855). Although Wolf at once perceived the value of the Venetian Scholia on theIliad, the first scholar who thoroughly explored them was C. Lehrs (De Aristarchi studiis Homericis, Königsberg, 1833; 2nd ed., Leipzig, 1865). Of the studies in the same field which have appeared since, the most important are: Aug. Nauck,Aristophanis Byzantii fragmenta(Halle, 1848); L. Friedländer,Aristoniciπερὶ σημείων Ἰλιαδοςreliquiae(Göttingen, 1853); M. Schmidt,Didymi Chalcenteri fragmenta(Leipzig, 1854); L. Friedländer,Nicanorisπερὶ Ἰλιακῆς στιγμῆςreliquiae(Berlin, 1857); Aug. Lentz,Herodiani Technici reliquiae(Leipzig, 1867); J. La Roche,Die homerische Textkritik im Alterthum(Leipzig, 1866) andHomerische Untersuchungen(Leipzig, 1869); Ad. Römer,Die Werke der Aristarcheer im Cod. Venet. A.(Munich, 1875); A. Ludwich,Aristarch’s Homerische Textkritik(2 vols. Leipzig, 1884-1885); andDie Homervulgata als vor-Alexandrinisch erwiesen(Leipzig, 1898).
The literature of the “Homeric Question” begins practically with Wolf’sProlegomena(Halle, 1795). Of the earlier books Wood’sEssay on the Original Genius and Writings of Homeris the most interesting. Wolf’s views were skilfully popularized in W. Müller’sHomerische Vorschule(2nd ed., Leipzig, 1836). G. Hermann’s dissertationsDe interpolationibus Homeri(1832) andDe iteratis apuà Homerum(1840) are reprinted in hisOpuscula. Lachmann’s two papers (Betrachtungen über Homer’s Ilias) were edited together by M. Haupt (2nd ed., Berlin, 1865). Besides the somewhat voluminous writings of Nitzsch, and the discussions contained in the histories of Greek literature by K. O. Müller, Bernhardy, Ulrici and Th. Bergk, and in Grote’sHistory of Greece, see Welcker,Der epischeCyclus oder die homerischen Dichter(Bonn, 1835-1849); on Proclus and the Cycle reference may also be made to Wilamowitz-Möllendorf p. 328 seq.; E. Bethe,Rhein. Mus.(1891), xxvi. p. 593 seq.; O. Immisch,Festschrift Th. Gomperz dargebracht(1902), p. 237 sq.; Lauer,Geschichte der homerischen Poesie(Berlin, 1851); Sengebusch, two dissertations prefixed to the two volumes of W. Dindorf’sHomerin the Teubner series (1855-1856); Friedländer,Die homerische Kritik von Wolf bis Grote(Berlin, 1853); Nutzhorn,Die Entstehungsweise der homerischen Gedichte, mit Vorwort von J. N. Madvig(Leipzig, 1869); E. Kammer,Zur homerischen Frage(Königsberg, 1870); andDie Einheit der Odyssee(Leipzig, 1873); Ä. Kirchhoff,Die Composition der Odyssee(Berlin, 1869); Volkmann,Geschichte und Kritik der Wolf’schen Prolegomena(Leipzig, 1874); K. Sittl,Die Wiederholungen in der Odyssee(München, 1882); U. v. Wilamowitz-Möllendorf,Homerische Untersuchungen(Berlin, 1884); O. Seeck,Die Quellen der Odyssee(Berlin, 1887); F. Blass,Die Interpolationen in der Odyssee(Leipzig, 1905). The interest taken in the question by English students is sufficiently shown in the writings of W. E. Gladstone, F. A. Paley, Henry Hayman (in the Introduction to hisOdyssey), P. Geddes, R. C. Jebb and A. Lang (see especially the latter’sHomer and his Age, 1907).
The Homeric dialect must be studied in the books (such as those of G. Curtius) that deal with Greek on the comparative method. The best special work is the briefGriechische Formenlehreof H. L. Ahrens (Göttingen, 1852). Other important works are those of Aug. Fick:Die homerische Odyssee in der ursprünglichen Sprachform wiederhergestelt(Göttingen, 1883);Die homerische Ilias(ibid., 1886); W. Schulze,Quaestiones epicae(Güterslohe, 1892). On Homeric syntax the chief book is B. Delbrück’sSyntactische Forschungen(Halle, 1871-1879), especially vols. i. and iv.; on metre, &c., Hartel’sHomerische Studien(i.-iii., Vienna); Knös,De digammo Homerico quaestiones(Upsala, 1872-1873-1878); Thumb,Zur Geschichte des griech. Digamma, Indogermanische Forschungen(1898), ix. 294 seq. The papers reprinted in Bekker’sHomerische Blätter(Bonn, 1863-1872) and Cobet’sMiscellanea Crilica(Leiden, 1876) are of the highest value. Hoffmann’sQuaestiones Homericae(Clausthal, 1842) is a useful collection of facts. Buttmann’sLexilogus, as an example of method, is still worth study.
The antiquities of Homer—using the word in a wide sense—may be studied in the following books: Völcker,Über homerische Geographie und Weltkunde(Hanover, 1830); Nägelsbach’sHomerische Theologie(2nd ed., Nuremberg, 1861); H. Brunn,Die Kunst bei Homer(Munich, 1868); W. W. Lloyd,On the Homeric Design of the Shield of Achilles(London, 1854); Buchholz,Die homerischen Realien(Leipzig, 1871-1873); W. Helbig,Das homerische Epos aus den Denkmälern erläutert(Leipzig, 1884; 2nd ed.,ibid., 1887); W. Reichel,Über homerische Waffen(Vienna, 1894); C. Robert,Studien zur Ilias(Berlin, 1901); W. Ridgeway,The Early Age of Greece(Cambridge, 1901); V. Bérard,Les Phéniciens et l’Odyssée(Paris, 1902-1903); C. Robert, “Topographische Probleme der Ilias,” inHermes, xlii., 1907, pp. 78-112.
Among other aids should be mentioned theIndex Homericusof Seber (Oxford, 1780); Prendergast’sConcordance to the Iliad(London, 1875); Dunbar’sid.to theOdyssey and Hymns(Oxford, 1880); Frohwein,Verbum Homericum, (Leipzig, 1881); Gehring,Index Homericus(Leipzig, 1891); theLexicon Homericum, edited by H. Ebeling (Leipzig, 1880-1885) and the facsimile of the cod. Ven. A (Sijthoff; Leiden, 1901), with an introduction by D. Comparetti.
(D. B. M.)
1This article was thoroughly revised by Dr D. B. Monro before his death in 1905; a few points have since been added by Mr. T. W. Allen.2See a paper in theDiss. Philol. Halenses, ii. 97-219.3Compare thePopular Rhymes of Scotland, published by Robert Chambers.4Compare the branch of myrtle at an Athenian feast (Aristoph.,Nub., 1364).5TheIliadwas also recited at the festival of the Brauronia, at Brauron in Attica (Hesych.s.v.βρανρωνίοις).6Contemporary Review, vol. xxiii. p. 218 ff.7The fact that the Phoenician Vau (ϝ) was retained in the Greek alphabets, and the vowel υ added, shows that when the alphabet was introduced the sound denoted by ϝ was still in full vigour. Otherwise ϝ would have been used for the vowel υ, just as the Phoenician consonant Yod became the vowel ι. But in the Ionic dialect the sound of ϝ died out soon after Homer’s time, if indeed it was still pronounced then. It seems probable therefore that the introduction of the alphabet is not later than the composition of the Homeric poems.8See D. B. Monro’sHomer’s Odyssey, books xiii.-xxiv. (Oxford, 1901, p. 455 sqq.), and the abstract of his paper on the Homeric Dialect read to the Congress of Historical Sciences at Rome, 1903:Atti del Congresso internazionale di scienze storiche, ii. 152, 153, 1905, “Il Dialetto omerico.”9See the chapter in Cobet’sMiscellanea critica, pp. 225-239.10The existence of two groups of the Venetian Scholia was first noticed by Jacob La Roche, and they were first distinguished in the edition of W. Dindorf (Oxford, 1875). There is also a group of Scholia, chiefly exegetical, a collection of which was published by Villoison from a MS. Ven. 453 (s. xi.) in his edition of 1788, and has been again edited by W. Dindorf (Oxford, 1877). The most important collection of this group is contained in theCodex Townleianus(Burney 86 s. xi.) of the British Museum, edited by E. Maass, (Oxford, 1887-1888). The vast commentary of Eustathius (of the 12th century) marks a third stage in the progress of ancient Homeric learning.11Prolegomena ad Homerum, sive de operum Homericorum prisca et genuina forma variisque mutationibus et probabili ratione emendandi.scripsit Frid. Aug. Wolfius, volumen i. (1795).12On this point see a paper by Professor Packard in theTrans. of the American Philological Association(1876).13Die Composition der Odyssee(Berlin, 1869). A full discussion of this book is given by Dr E. Kammer,Die Einheit der Odyssee(Leipzig, 1873).14“As a poet Homer must be acknowledged to excel Shakespeare in the truth, the harmony, the sustained grandeur, the satisfying completeness of his images” (Shelley,Essays, &c., i. 51, ed. 1852).15“The old English balladist may stir Sir Philip Sidney’s heart like a trumpet, and this is much; but Homer, but the few artists in the grand style, can do more—they can refine the raw natural man, they can transmute him” (On Translating Homer, p. 61).16Die exegetischen Scholien der Ilias, p. vii.17“On comprend que des chants populaires nés d’un événement éclatant, victoire ou défaite, puissent contribuer à former la tradition, à en arrêter les traits; ils peuvent aussi devenir le centre de légendes qui se forment pour les expliquer; et de la sorte leur substance au moins arrive au poëte épique qui l’introduit dans sa composition. Voilà ce qui a pu se produire pour de chants très-courts, dont il est d’ailleurs aussi difficile d’affirmer que de nier l’existence. Mais on peut expliquer la formation des chansons de geste par une autre hypothèse” (Meyer,Recherches sur l’épopée française, p. 65). “Ce qui a fait naître la théorie des chants ‘lyrico-épiques’ ou des cantilènes, c’est le système de Wolf sur les poëmes homériques, et de Lachmann sur lesNibelungen. Mais, au moins en ce qui concerne ce dernier poëme, le système est détruit.... On tire encore argument des romances espagnoles, qui, dit-on, sont des ‘cantilènes’ non encore arrivées à l’épopée.... Et c’est le malheur de cette théorie: faute de preuves directes, elle cherche des analogies au dehors: en Espagne, elle trouve des ‘cantilènes,’ mais pas d’épopée; en Allemagne, une épopée, mais pas de cantilènes!” (Ibid.p. 66).18A. Lang,Contemporary Review, vol. xvii., N.S., p. 588.
1This article was thoroughly revised by Dr D. B. Monro before his death in 1905; a few points have since been added by Mr. T. W. Allen.
2See a paper in theDiss. Philol. Halenses, ii. 97-219.
3Compare thePopular Rhymes of Scotland, published by Robert Chambers.
4Compare the branch of myrtle at an Athenian feast (Aristoph.,Nub., 1364).
5TheIliadwas also recited at the festival of the Brauronia, at Brauron in Attica (Hesych.s.v.βρανρωνίοις).
6Contemporary Review, vol. xxiii. p. 218 ff.
7The fact that the Phoenician Vau (ϝ) was retained in the Greek alphabets, and the vowel υ added, shows that when the alphabet was introduced the sound denoted by ϝ was still in full vigour. Otherwise ϝ would have been used for the vowel υ, just as the Phoenician consonant Yod became the vowel ι. But in the Ionic dialect the sound of ϝ died out soon after Homer’s time, if indeed it was still pronounced then. It seems probable therefore that the introduction of the alphabet is not later than the composition of the Homeric poems.
8See D. B. Monro’sHomer’s Odyssey, books xiii.-xxiv. (Oxford, 1901, p. 455 sqq.), and the abstract of his paper on the Homeric Dialect read to the Congress of Historical Sciences at Rome, 1903:Atti del Congresso internazionale di scienze storiche, ii. 152, 153, 1905, “Il Dialetto omerico.”
9See the chapter in Cobet’sMiscellanea critica, pp. 225-239.
10The existence of two groups of the Venetian Scholia was first noticed by Jacob La Roche, and they were first distinguished in the edition of W. Dindorf (Oxford, 1875). There is also a group of Scholia, chiefly exegetical, a collection of which was published by Villoison from a MS. Ven. 453 (s. xi.) in his edition of 1788, and has been again edited by W. Dindorf (Oxford, 1877). The most important collection of this group is contained in theCodex Townleianus(Burney 86 s. xi.) of the British Museum, edited by E. Maass, (Oxford, 1887-1888). The vast commentary of Eustathius (of the 12th century) marks a third stage in the progress of ancient Homeric learning.
11Prolegomena ad Homerum, sive de operum Homericorum prisca et genuina forma variisque mutationibus et probabili ratione emendandi.scripsit Frid. Aug. Wolfius, volumen i. (1795).
12On this point see a paper by Professor Packard in theTrans. of the American Philological Association(1876).
13Die Composition der Odyssee(Berlin, 1869). A full discussion of this book is given by Dr E. Kammer,Die Einheit der Odyssee(Leipzig, 1873).
14“As a poet Homer must be acknowledged to excel Shakespeare in the truth, the harmony, the sustained grandeur, the satisfying completeness of his images” (Shelley,Essays, &c., i. 51, ed. 1852).
15“The old English balladist may stir Sir Philip Sidney’s heart like a trumpet, and this is much; but Homer, but the few artists in the grand style, can do more—they can refine the raw natural man, they can transmute him” (On Translating Homer, p. 61).
16Die exegetischen Scholien der Ilias, p. vii.
17“On comprend que des chants populaires nés d’un événement éclatant, victoire ou défaite, puissent contribuer à former la tradition, à en arrêter les traits; ils peuvent aussi devenir le centre de légendes qui se forment pour les expliquer; et de la sorte leur substance au moins arrive au poëte épique qui l’introduit dans sa composition. Voilà ce qui a pu se produire pour de chants très-courts, dont il est d’ailleurs aussi difficile d’affirmer que de nier l’existence. Mais on peut expliquer la formation des chansons de geste par une autre hypothèse” (Meyer,Recherches sur l’épopée française, p. 65). “Ce qui a fait naître la théorie des chants ‘lyrico-épiques’ ou des cantilènes, c’est le système de Wolf sur les poëmes homériques, et de Lachmann sur lesNibelungen. Mais, au moins en ce qui concerne ce dernier poëme, le système est détruit.... On tire encore argument des romances espagnoles, qui, dit-on, sont des ‘cantilènes’ non encore arrivées à l’épopée.... Et c’est le malheur de cette théorie: faute de preuves directes, elle cherche des analogies au dehors: en Espagne, elle trouve des ‘cantilènes,’ mais pas d’épopée; en Allemagne, une épopée, mais pas de cantilènes!” (Ibid.p. 66).
18A. Lang,Contemporary Review, vol. xvii., N.S., p. 588.
HOMER, WINSLOW(1836-1910), American painter, was born in Boston, U.S.A., on the 24th of February 1836. At the age of nineteen he was apprenticed to a lithographer. Two years later he opened a studio in Boston, and devoted much of his time to making drawings for wood-engravers. In 1859 he removed to New York, where he studied in the night-school of the National Academy of Design. During the American Civil War he was with the troops at the front, and contributed sketches toHarper’s Weekly. The war also furnished him with the subjects for the first two pictures which he exhibited (1863), one of which was “Home, Sweet Home.” His “Prisoners from the Front”—perhaps his most generally popular picture—was exhibited in New York in 1865, and also in Paris in 1867, where he was spending the year in study. Among his other paintings in oil are “Snap the Whip” (which was exhibited at the Philadelphia Centennial Exhibition of 1876, and, in company with “The Country Schoolroom,” at the Paris Salon the following year), “Eating Water-melon,” “The Cotton Pickers,” “Visit from the Old Mistress, Sunday Morning,” “The Life-Line” and “The Coming of the Gale.” His genius, however, has perhaps shown better in his works in water-colour, among which are his marine studies painted at Gloucester, Mass., and his “Inside the Bar,” “The Voice from the Cliffs” (pictures of English fisherwomen), “Tynemouth,” “Wrecking of a Vessel” and “Lost on the Grand Banks.” His work, which principally consists ofgenrepictures, is characterized by strength, rugged directness and unmistakable freshness and originality, rather than by technical excellence, grace of line or beauty of colour. He was little affected by European influences. His types and scenes, apart from his few English pictures, are distinctly American—soldiers in blue, New England children, negroes in the land of cotton, Gloucester fishermen and stormy Atlantic seas. Besides being a member of the Society of Painters in Water-color, New York, he was elected in 1864 an associate and the following year a member of the National Academy of Design.
HOMESTEAD,a borough of Allegheny county, Pennsylvania, U.S.A., on the Monongahela river, 8 m. S.E. of Pittsburg. Pop. (1890) 7911; (1900) 12,554, of whom 3604 were foreign-born and 640 were negroes; (U.S. census, 1910) 18,713. It is served by the Pennsylvania and the Pittsburg & Lake Erie railways, and by the short Union Railroad, which connects with the Bessemer & Lake Erie and the Wabash railways. The borough has a Carnegie library and the C.M. Schwab Manual Training School. Partly in Homestead but chiefly in the adjoining borough of Munhall (and therefore not reported as in Homestead by the U.S. Census) is one of the largest plants in the United States for the manufacture of steel used in the construction of bridges and steel-frame buildings and of steel armour-plate, and this is its chief industry; among Homestead’s other manufactures are glass and fire-bricks. The water-works are owned and operated by the municipality. Homestead was first settled in 1871, and it was incorporated in 1880. In 1892 a labour strike lasting 143 days and one of the most serious in the history of the United States was carried on here by the National Amalgamated Association of Iron and Steel Workers of the United States against the Carnegie Steel Company. The arrival (on the 6th of July) of a force of about 200 Pinkerton detectives from New York and Chicago resulted in a fight in which about 10 men were killed, and to restore order two brigades of the state militia were called out. SeeStrikes and Lockouts.
HOMESTEAD AND EXEMPTION LAWS,laws (principally in the United States) designed primarily either to aid the head of a family to acquire title to a place of residence or to protect the owner against loss of that title through seizure for debt. These laws have all been enacted in America since about the middle of the 19th century, and owe their origin to the demand for a population of the right sort in a new country, to the conviction that the freeholder rather than the tenant is the natural supporter of popular government, to the effort to prevent insolvent debtors from becoming useless members of society, and to the belief that such laws encourage the stability of the family.
By the cessions of several of the older states, and by various treaties with foreign countries, public lands have been acquired for the United States in every state and territory of the Union except the original thirteen, and Maine, Vermont, Kentucky, Tennessee and Texas. For a time they were regarded chiefly as a source of revenue, but about 1820, as the need of revenue for the payment of the national debt decreased and the inhabitants of an increasing number of new states became eager to have the vacant lands within their bounds occupied, the demand that the public lands should be disposed of more in the interest of the settler became increasingly strong, and the homestead idea originated. Until the advent of railways, however, the older states of the North were opposed to promoting the development of the West in this manner, and soon afterwards the Southern representatives in Congress opposed the general homestead bills in the interests of slavery, so that except in isolated cases where settlers were desired to protect some frontier, as in Florida and Oregon, and to a limited extent in the case of the Pre-emption Act of 1841 (see below), the homestead principle was not applied by the national government until the Civil War had begun. A general homestead bill was passed by Congress in 1860, but this was vetoed by President James Buchanan; two years later, however, a similar bill became a law. The act of 1862 originally provided that any citizen of the United States, or applicant for citizenship, who was the head of a family, ortwenty-one years of age, or, if younger, had served not less than fourteen days in the army or navy of the United States during an actual war, might apply for 160 acres or less of unappropriated public lands, and might acquire title to this amount of land by residing upon and cultivating it for five years immediately following, and paying such fees as were necessary to cover the cost of administration; a homestead acquired in this manner was exempted from seizure for any debt contracted prior to the date of issuing the patent. A commutation clause of this act permitted title to be acquired after only six months of residence by paying $1.25 per acre, as provided in the Pre-emption Act of 1841. Act of 1872, amended in 1901, allows any soldier or seaman, who has served at least ninety days in the army or navy of the United States during the Civil War, the Spanish-American War or in the suppression of the insurrection in the Philippines, and was honourably discharged, to apply for a homestead, and permits the deduction of the time of such service, or, if discharged on account of wounds or other disability incurred in the line of duty, the full term of his enlistment, from the five years otherwise required for perfecting title, except that in any case he shall have resided upon and cultivated the land at least one year before the passing of title. Since 1866 mineral lands have been for the most part excluded from entry as homesteads.
In accordance with the provisions of the homestead law, 718,930 homesteads, containing 96,495,414 acres, were established in forty-two years, and besides this principal act, Congress has passed several minor ones of a like nature, that is, acts designed to benefit the actual settler who improves the land. Thus the Pre-emption Act of 1841 gave to any head of a family or any single person over twenty-one years of age, who was a citizen of the United States or had declared his intention to become one, permission to purchase not to exceed 160 acres of public lands after he had resided upon and improved the same for six months; the Timber-Culture Act of 1873 allowed title to 160 acres of public prairie-land to be given to any one who should plant upon it 40 acres of timber, and keep the same in good growing condition for ten years; and the Desert-Land Act of 1877 gave to any citizen of the United States, or to any person who had declared his intention to become one, the privilege of acquiring title to 640 acres of such public land as was not included in mineral or timber lands, and would not without irrigation produce an agricultural crop, by paying twenty-five cents an acre and creating for the tract an artificial water-supply. These several land acts, however, invited fraud to such an extent that in time they promoted the establishment of large land holdings by ranchmen and others quite as much as they encouraged settlement and cultivation, and so great was this evil that in 1891 the Timber-Culture and Pre-emption Acts were repealed, the total amount of land that could be acquired by any one person under the several land laws was limited to 320 acres, the Desert-Land Act was so amended as to require an expenditure of at least three dollars an acre for irrigation, and the original Homestead Act was so amended as to disqualify any person who was already proprietor of more than 160 acres in any state or Territory of the Union for acquiring any more land under its provisions; and in 1896 a residence of fourteen months was required before permitting commutation or the purchase of title. But even these measures were inadequate to prevent fraud. In 1894 Congress, in what is known as the Carey Act, donated to California, Oregon, Nevada, Washington, Idaho, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Arizona, New Mexico and the Dakotas so much of 1,000,000 acres each of desert-lands as each should cause to be irrigated, reclaimed and occupied within ten years,1not less than 20 acres of each 160 acres to be cultivated by actual settlers; and in several of these states and territories irrigating companies have been formed and land offered to settlers in amounts not exceeding 160 acres to each, on terms requiring the settler to purchase ample and perpetual water-rights. In 1902, Congress appropriated the proceeds of the sales of public lands in these states and territories to form a reclamation fund to be used for the construction and maintenance of irrigation works, and lands reclaimed by this means are open to homestead entries, the entry-man being required to pay for the cost of reclamation in ten equal annual instalments without interest. When Texas was admitted to the Union the disposal of its public lands was reserved to the state, and under its laws every person who is the head of a family and without a homestead may acquire title to 160 acres of land by residing upon and improving it for three years; every unmarried man eighteen years of age or over may acquire title to 80 acres in the same way.
A short time before the National Homestead Act for aiding citizens to acquire homesteads went into operation, some of the state legislatures had passed homestead and exemption laws designed to protect homesteads or a certain amount of property against loss to the owners in case they should become insolvent debtors, and by the close of the century the legislature of nearly every state in the Union had passed a law of this nature. These laws vary greatly. In most states the exemption of a homestead or other property from liability for debts can be claimed only by the head of a family, but in Georgia it may be claimed by any aged or infirm person, by any trustee of a family of minor children, or by any person on whom any woman or girls are dependent for support; and in California, although the head of a family may claim exemption for a homestead valued at $5000, any other person may claim exemption for a homestead valued at $1000. In some states exemptions may be claimed either for a farm limited to 40, 80, 160 or 200 acres, or for a house and one or more lots, usually limited in size, in a town, village or city; in other states the homestead for which exemption may be claimed is limited in value, and this value varies from $500 to $5000. With the homestead are usually included the appurtenances thereto, and the courts invariably interpret the law liberally; but many states also exempt a specified amount of personal property, including wearing apparel, furniture, provisions, tools, libraries and in some cases domestic animals and stock in trade. A few states exempt no homestead and only a small amount of personal property; Maryland, for example, exempts only $100 worth of property besides money payable in the nature of insurance, or for relief, in the event of sickness, injury or death. To some debts the exemption does not usually apply; the most common of these are taxes, purchase money, a debt secured by mortgage on the homestead and debts contracted in making improvements upon it; in Maryland the only exception is a judgment for breach of promise to marry or in case of seduction. If the homestead belongs to a married person, the consent of both husband and wife is usually required to mortgage it. Finally, some states require that the homestead for which exemption is to be claimed shall be previously entered upon record, others require only occupancy, and still others permit the homestead to be designated whenever a claim is presented.
Following the example of either the United States Congress or the state legislatures, the governments of several British colonial states and provinces have passed homestead laws. In Quebec every settler on public lands is allowed, after receiving a patent, an exemption of not to exceed 200 acres from that of his widow, of his, her or their children and descendants in the direct line. In Ontario an applicant for a homestead may have not to exceed 200 acres of unappropriated public land for farming purposes by building a house thereon, occupying it for five years, and bringing at least fifteen acres under cultivation; the exemption of such a homestead from liability to seizure for debts is, however, limited to twenty years from the date of application for the land, and does not extend even during that period to rates or taxes. Manitoba, British Columbia, Queensland, New South Wales, South Australia, West Australia and New Zealand also have liberal homestead and exemption laws.