The Iris of Homer.Iris, the messenger goddess, the last, and also by much the least important of the personages to whom I ascribe a traditive origin, is perhaps not the least clear in her title to it.Her title to rank as one of the deities of the ordinary Olympian assemblage is not subject to doubt. It depends partly on the fact that she is always at hand there. But it is established more distinctly still by the passage, which represents her as carrying to the palace of Zephyr the prayer of Achilles. She finds the Winds engaged in a banquet, and they eagerly solicit her to sit and feast with them. She answers them, like one desirous to escape from second-rate into first-rate company, to the effect that she has not time: the Ethiopians are just about supplying the greater gods with a banquet from their hecatombs; and she must repair to that quarter accordingly, as otherwise she will lose her share of the offerings[272].With respect to her position generally, we have no mark of her being foreign; and all the traditive deities, it may be observed, are sufficiently, though not exclusively national. Again, we have no mark of her beingrecent; on the contrary, she is without parents, and this, though not conclusive, is a sign to the opposite effect.Iris has no original action whatever, but is simply a willing servant of other deities; nor does she disdain spontaneously to officiate on behalf of a distinguished human object of their favour, like Achilles[273]. Only once have we an account of her bringing an order without the name of the sender: it is when she appears to Helen, and exhorts her to repair to the Wall[274]. She is not, however, said even in this place to act on her own account; and we ought probably to understand that, according to the general rule, she comes from Jupiter. It is added, that she inspired Helen with a longing sentiment towards her former husband and country, but this, as is most likely, is meant simply to describe the effect of her words in the ordinary manner of their operation on the understanding. This ancillary character of Iris is exactly what she would bear, if her origin really lay in the primitive tradition of the rainbow.But what seems decisively to establish her relation to that tradition is, that she is firmly connected in Homer with two things that have in themselves no connection whatever, and between which that ancient tradition is the only link.In the first place, her identity of name is the witness to her original connection with the rainbow[275]: which, however, as a standing and ordinary phenomenon of nature, did not bear, apart from positive appointment, in any manner the character of a messenger: and hence we find that by disintegration the two ideas had been entirely separated before the time of Homer, and thename itself is the only remaining witness in the poems to their having been at some former period associated. The function of the messenger was kept in action by the occasions of the Olympian family and polity. In this manner, as the stronger of the two ideas, it held its ground, and took possession of the personal Iris, while the rainbow, though still conceived of as a sign to mortals[276], appears to have been regarded as separate.Of the character of the messenger we find that Iris had so completely become the model, that her name, only modified into Iros, is given to Arnæus, the ribald and burly beggar of the Odyssey, only because he was a go-between, or errand-carrier:οὕνεκ’ ἀπαγγέλλεσκε κιὼν, ὅτε πού τις ἀνώγοι[277].The hypothesis, then, of traditional origin is the key, and the only key, to the position of the Homeric Iris.The Atè of Homer.Before quitting the precinct of the primeval tradition discoverable in Homer, we have yet one very remarkable group of impersonations to consider, that in which the goddessἌτηis the leading figure. Commonly regarded as meaning Mischief, the word is not capable of being fully rendered in English: but Guile is its primary idea, in the train of which come the sister notions of Folly and Calamity.Ἄτηboth wishes and suggests all ill to mortals; but she does not seem in Homer to have any power of injuring them, except through channels, which have been wholly or partially opened to her by their own volition.TheἌτηof the later Greeks is Calamity simply, with a shadow of Destiny hanging in the distance; as in the magnificent figure of the lion’s cub in Æschylus[278].But the word never bears in Homer the sense of calamity coming simply from without. This is evident even from the large and general description, where she appears in company with theΛιταί[279]. Vigorous and nimble, she ranges over the whole earth for mischief. After her, slowly lag the Prayers orΛιταὶ, honoured however in being, like her, daughters of Jupiter. These are limping, decrepit, and unable to see straight before them. The leading idea ofἌτηis not force, but cunning. She is the power that tempts and misleads men to their own cost or ruin, as they afterwards find out. Nay, she tempts the deity also: for she beguiles even Jupiter himself[280]when Hercules is about to be born, and induces him thoughtlessly to promise what will, through Juno’s craft, overturn his own dearly cherished plans. For this excess of daring, however, she herself suffers. Jupiter seizes her by the hair, and hurls her from Olympus, apparently her native seat. Thenceforward she can only exercise her function among men; who, when they have yielded to the seduction, and tasted the ashes under the golden fruit, at length set about repentance or prayer:All lost! to prayers, to prayers! all lost![281]Now though the impersonation of Atè in Homer is one of the indeterminate class, it is surely a mistake to treat it as representing the mere poetical incorporation of an abstract idea. On the contrary, we seem to find in it the old tradition of the Evil One as the Tempter; and it may be said that the word Temptress would best represent the Homeric idea ofἌτη. In this sense it will supply a consistent meaning to the fine passage in the speech of Phœnix: for we are swift, so says the Poet, tofall into temptation, and to offend, ingenious only in not seeing our fault, and covering it with excuses: but slow, and like the half-hearted, decrepitΛιταί, when we have to make our entreaties for pardon, and to think of restitution and amendment. Yet as even the gods listen to their entreaties, ‘so,’ says Phœnix, ‘shouldst thou, O Achilles: and if thou dost not, then mayest yet thyself fall.’ But ifἌτηmeant only misfortune, the passage loses all its harmony, and even becomes absurd; for surely none will say that men are slow to discern adversity, or to offer petitions, wherever they have a prospect of being heard, for relief from it.There is no passage which appears to me more characteristic of the true distinctive character of the HomericἌτη, than that in which Dolon confesses his folly[282]:πολλῇσίν μ’ ἄτῃσι παρὲκ νόον ἤγαγεν Ἕκτωρ.Here we have Hector, the tempter:ἄται, the temptation:νόος, the sound mind, from which temptation diverted the self-duped simpleton:ἤγαγεν, expressive of the medium, namely, through volition, and not by force.The elements combined in the idea of the HomericἌτη, and the conditions of her action, may be presented together as follows:1. She takes the reins of the understanding and conduct of a man.2. She effects this not by force from without, but through the medium of his own will and inward consent, whether unconscious or express.3. Under her dominion he commits offences against the moral law, or the law of prudence.4. These offences are followed by his retributive sufferings.The function of the Tempter is here represented with great precision; but two essential variations have come to be perceptible in the idea taken as a whole.The first, that thisἌτηis herself sometimes prompted or sent by others, as byἘρίνυς, (Od. xv. 234,) or by her withΖεὺςandΜοῖρα, as in Il. xix. 87. And accordingly she too is a daughter, nay, the eldest daughter, of Jupiter himself[283].The second variation is this: that offences against the mere law of prudence find their way into precisely the same category with sins; or, in other words, the true idea of sin had been lost.Ἄτηthe person, andἄτηthe effect, are, moreover, frequently blended by the Poet.Among the principalἌταιof Homer are those,1. Of Jupiter, Il. xix. 91–129.2. Of Dolon, Il. x. 391; leading him to accept the proposal of Hector.3. Of Melampus, Od. xv. 233, 4, causing him to undertake an enterprise beyond his means on account of the daughter of Neleus.All of which are against the law of prudence and forethought.4. Of Agamemnon, Il. xix. 88, 134–8.5. Of Paris, Il. vi. 356, xxiv. 28.6. Of Helen, Od. iv. 261. xxiii. 223.7. Of manslaughter, Il. xxiv. 480.8. Of the drunken centaur Eurytion, who had his ears and nose cut off for his excesses, Od. xxi. 296–302.In one place only of Homer,ἄτηseems to meancalamity not imputable to the sufferer’s fault, further than by some slight want of vigilance. This is theἄτηcharged upon Ulysses, when his companions destroy the oxen of the Sun, Od. xii. 372. At least he had no further share in that matter than that, by going to sleep, he left his comrades to act for themselves.The long continued misconduct of the Suitors is never described as theirἄτη: probably because the word properly signifies a particular temptation followed by a particular act, rather than a continued course of action.This, again, serves the more closely to associateἌτηwith the primitive tradition of the Fall of Man.The higher form of human wickedness, which is attended with deliberate and obstinate persistence in wrong, is notἄτηbutἀτασθαλίη. Such is the wickedness of Ægisthus and of the Suitors; such also that of the Giants. The same phrase is applied to the crew of Ulysses, who devoured the oxen of the Sun[284]: and this appears to conform to the view taken of their offence in the poems, however anomalous that view itself may be.Other traditions of the Evil One.I will now gather into one view the dispersed fragments of tradition concerning the Evil One which seem to be discernible in Homer.1.Ἄτηis the first, and the one which comes nearest to presenting a general outline.2. A second is found inΚρόνος[285], who aims at the destruction of Godhead in its supreme representatives, and is thrust down to Tartarus by Jupiter. And we may here observe an important distinction.Some persons, like Tityus, offend against a particular person who had taken a place in the Olympian Court;or else, apparently like Orion, offend the gods in general by their presumption. They are punished in the Shades. But those who have aimed at the dethronement or destruction of Godhead itself are in the far deeper darkness of Tartarus[286]. I suggest this as a possible explanation of the double place of punishment; which is otherwise apparently a gross solecism in the Homeric system.3. To the latter class of offenders belong the Titans, who most pointedly represent the element of Force in the ancient traditions, whileἌτηembodies that of Guile.These are theθεοὶ ὑποταρτάρεοι, or theἐνέρτεροι, orἔνερθε θεοὶ, who form the infernal court ofΚρόνος;Κρόνον ἄμφις ἐόντες(Il. xiv. 274, 9. xv. 225). They are evidently themselves in a state of penal suffering; but they must also have the power of inflicting the severest punishment on some other offenders; for they, and not Aides or Persephone, seem to be the persons called to be witnesses of the solemn oath for the avoidance of perjury, taken by Juno in the Fourteenth Book[287].4. Of these Titans two are apparently named in the persons of Otus and Ephialtes, children of Neptune.5. To the same class, in all probability, belong the Giants, led by Eurymedon, and born of the same mythological father. Od. vii. 58.6. It is likely that Typhoeus may have been of the same company; for although he is not stated to be in Tartarus, yet his position corresponds with it in the essential feature of being under the earth. (Il. ii. 782. viii. 14). Homer does not indeed expressly say, that Otus and Ephialtes were Titans, nor that Eurymedon was of the same band; nor yet that the Titans were rebels against heaven. But his images are so combined round certain points as to make this matter of safe and clear inference.For the Titans are in Tartarus, and are with and attached toΚρόνος, whom Jupiter thrust down thither. And the giants under Eurymedon, for their mad audacity, are driven to perdition[288]. Lastly, Otus and Ephialtes, who made war upon heaven, and whom Apollo quelled, not appearing, like their mother Iphimedea, in the Shades of the Eleventh Odyssey, can only be in Tartarus[289].From the scattered traditions we may collect and combine the essential points. In Otus and Ephialtes the rebellion is clearly stated, and in Eurymedon it is manifestly implied. In the Titans, who are calledθεοὶ, and in their association withΚρόνος, as also in the high parentage of the others, we have the celestial origin of the rebels. In the hurling down ofΚρόνοςto Tartarus, we have the punishment which they all are enduring, immediately associated with an act of supreme retribution.7. Elsewhere will be found a notice of the singular relation, which may be traced between Neptune and the tradition of the Evil One. This relation is mythological in its basis: but it seems to proceed upon the tradition, that the Evil One was next to the Highest.8. A more recent form of the tradition concerning the great war in heaven seems to be found in the revolt of the Immortals of Olympus, headed by Juno, Neptune, and Minerva, against Jupiter, which was put down by Briareus or Ægæon of the hundred hands.Who this Ægæon was, we can only conjecture: he is nowhere else named in Homer. From his having a double name, one in use among gods, and the otheramong mortals, it might be conjectured that the immediate source of this tradition was either Egypt, or some other country having like Egypt an hieratic and also a demotic tongue. In its substance, it can hardly be other than a separate and dislocated form of the same idea, according to which we see Apollo handed down as the deliverer of Olympus from rebellion. The expression thatallmen (Il. i. 403.) call him Ægæon, tends to universalize him, and thus to connect him with Apollo. He is also (v. 403.) a son of Jupiter, avowedly superior to him in strength:ὁ γὰρ αὖτε βίῃ οὗ πατρὸς ἀμείνων.Citations from Holy Scripture.It is perhaps worth while to notice the coincidence between the language of Homer as to the Giants, and that of the Books of the Ancient Scriptures. Homer says of Eurymedon[290],ὅς ποθ’ ὑπερθύμοισι Γιγάντεσσιν βασίλευεν·ἀλλ’ ὁ μὲν ὤλεσε λαὸν ἀτάσθαλον, ὤλετο δ’ αὐτός.Either the rebellion, or the punishment in hell, of a wicked gang under the name of Giants is referred to in the following passages of the Old Testament and the Apocrypha. The allusion is not made evident, as to the former set of passages, in the Authorized Version; I therefore quote from the Septuagint or the Vulgate.1. Job xxvi. 5.Ecce gigantes gemunt sub aquis, et qui habitant cum eis.Vulgate.μὴ γίγαντες μαιωθήσονται ὑποκάτωθεν ὕδατος καὶ τῶν γειτόνων αὐτοῦ; LXX.2. Prov. ii. 18.ἔθετο γὰρ παρὰ τῷ θανάτῳ τὸν οἶκον αὐτῆς, καὶ παρὰ τῷ ἅδῃ μετὰ τῶν γηγένων τοὺς ἄξονας αὐτῆς. LXX.3. Prov. xxi. 16.Vir, qui erraverit a viâ doctrinæ, in cœtu gigantum commorabitur.Vulg.ἀνὴρ πλανώμενος ἐξ ὅδου δικαιοσύνης ἐν συναγωγῇ γιγάντων ἀναπαύσεται. LXX.See Gen. vi. 4, 5: in which we perhaps see the original link between the Giants, and the rebellion of the fallen angels described by St. Jude, ver. 6: ‘And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day.’We have also the corresponding declaration of St. Peter: ‘God spared not the angels that sinned, but cast them down to hell, and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment; and spared not the old world[291].’Again, in the Apocryphal Books.1. Wisdom xiv. 6. ‘In the old time also, when the proud giants perished, the hope of the world, governed by thy hand, escaped in a weak vessel.’ Auth. Version.2. Ecclus. xvi. 7. ‘He was not pacified toward the old giants, who fell away in the strength of their foolishness.’ Auth. Version.3. Baruch iii. 26, 8. ‘There were giants famous from the beginning.... But they were destroyed, because they had no wisdom, and perished through their own foolishness.’ Auth. Version.We thus appear to find in Homer many displaced fragments of the old traditions of the Bible with respect to the Evil One. In the later Greek and the Roman literature, the traditions on the same subject had almost entirely lost their likeness to their original. The figure ofἌτη, and the idea of spiritual danger to man through guile tempting him extrinsically but inwardly, entirely disappears. There remains only the recollection of a contest waged by brute force, and a solitary remnant of forgotten truth in the fame still adhering to Apollo, that he had been the deliverer and conqueror, who in the critical hour vindicated the supremacy of heaven. In the time of Horace even this recollection had become darkened and confused.From the Homeric traditions of the Evil One and the fallen angels, we may properly pass to those of a future state, which involves, partially at least, the idea of retribution.The Future State in Homer.The representations of the future state in Homer are perhaps the more interesting, because it may be doubted whether they are, logically, quite consistent with one another. For this want of consistency becomes of itself a negative argument in support of the belief that, as they are not capable of being referred to any one generative idea or system, they may be distorted copies or misunderstood portions of primitive truth.Another reason for referring them to this origin appears to be found in their gradual deterioration after the time of Homer. In his theology, future retribution appears as a real sanction of the moral law. In the later history, and generally in the philosophy of Paganism, it has lost this place: practically, a phantasmagoria was substituted for what had been at least a subjective reality: and the most sincere and penetrating minds thought it absurd to associate anything of substance with the condition of the dead[292]. The moral ideas connected with it appear before us indescending series; and thus they point backwards to the remotest period for their origin and their integrity.Lastly, it would appear that the traditions themselves present to us features of the unseen world, such, in a certain degree, as Divine Revelation describes.That world appears to us, in Homer, in three divisions.First there is the Elysian plain, apparently under the government of Rhadamanthus, at which Menelaus, as the favoured son-in-law of Jupiter, is to arrive. It is, physically at least, furnished with all the conditions of repose and happiness.Next there is the region of Aides or Aidoneus, the ordinary receptacle even of the illustrious dead, such as Achilles, Agamemnon, and the older Greek heroes of divine extraction. Hither, if we may trust the Twenty-fourth Odyssey, are carried the Suitors; and here is found the insignificant Elpenor (Od. xi. 51).Thirdly, there is the region of Tartarus, whereΚρόνοςandἸάπετοςreign. This is as far below Aides, as the heaven is upwards from the earth[293].There appears to be some want of clearness in the division between the second region and the third as to their respective offices, and between the second and the first as to their respective tenants.The realm of Aides is, in general, not a place of punishment, but of desolation and of gloom[294]. The shade of Agamemnon weeps aloud with emotion and desire to clasp Ulysses: and Ulysses in vain attempts to console Achilles, for having quitted ‘the warm precincts of the cheerful day.’ But though their state is one of sadness, neither they nor the dead who are namedthere are in general under any judicial infliction. It is stated, indeed, that Minos[295]administers justice among them; but we are not told whether, as seems most probable, this is in determining decisively the fate of each, or whether he merely disposes, as he might have done on earth, of such cases as chanced to arise between any of them for adjudication.The only cases of decided penal infliction in the realm of Aides are those of Tityus, Sisyphus, and Tantalus. Castor and Pollux, who appear here, are evident objects of the favour of the gods[296]. Hercules, like Helen of the later tradition, is curiously disintegrated.Hisεἴδωλονmeets Ulysses, and speaks as if possessed of his identity: but he himself (αὐτὸς) is enjoying reward among the Immortals. The latter of these images represents the laborious and philanthropic side of the character attributed to him, the former the reckless and brutal one. Again it might be thought that the reason for the advancement of Menelaus to Elysium, while Castor and Pollux belong to the under-world, was the very virtuous character of that prince. He is, however, not promoted thither for his virtues, but for being the son-in-law of Jupiter by his marriage with Helen. And thus again, the son-in-law of Jupiter is, as such, placed higher than his sons.The proper and main business of Tartarus is to serve as a place of punishment for deposed and condemned Immortals. There were Iapetos andΚρόνος, there the Titans[297]: there probably Otus and Ephialtes, who not only wounded Mars but assaulted Olympus[298]: there too, were Eurymedon and the Giants, who perished by theirἀτασθάλιαι. Thither it is that Jupiter threatensto hurl down offensive and refractory divinities[299]. Direct rebellion against heaven seems to be the specific offence which draws down the sentence of relegation to Tartarus. Still in the Third Iliad Agamemnon invokes certain deities, as the avengers of perjury upon man[300];καὶ οἱ ὑπένερθε καμόνταςἀνθρώπους τίνυσθον, ὅτις κ’ ἐπίορκον ὀμόσσῃ.It is not clear whether this passage implies that all perjurors are punished in Tartarus; or whether Aidoneus, Persephone, and the Erinues are the subterraneous deities here intended: but as the Titans are elsewhere only mentioned in express connection with Tartarus, and from the description of the Erinues in Il. xix. 259, I incline to the latter opinion.On the whole, then, there is some confusion between these compartments, so to speak, of the invisible world. The realm of Aidoneus seems to partake, in part, of the character both of Tartarus and of the Elysian plain. In common with the former, it includes persons who were objects of especial divine favour. In common with Tartarus, it is for some few, at least, a scene of positive punishment.Still, if we take the three according to their leading idea, they are in substantial correspondence with divine revelation. There is the place of bliss, the final destination of the good. There is the place of torment, occupied by the Evil One and his rebellious companions: and there is an intermediate state, the receptacle of the dead. Here, as might be expected, the resemblance terminates; for as there is no selection for entrance into the kingdom of Aides, so there is no passage onwards from it. We need the less wonder at the too comprehensive place it occupies, relativelyto the places of reward and punishment proper, in the Homeric scheme, when we remember what a tendency to develop itself beyond all bounds, the simple primitive doctrine of the intermediate state has been made to exhibit, in a portion of the Christian Church.A further element of indistinctness attaches to the invisible world of Homer, if we take into view the admission of favoured mortals to Olympus; a process of which he gives us instances, as in Ganymedes and Hercules. In a work of pure invention it is unlikely that Heaven, Elysium, and the under-world would all have been represented as receptacles of souls in favour with the Deity. But some primitive tradition of the translation of Enoch may account for what would otherwise stand as an additional anomaly.Upon the whole, the Homeric pictures of the prolongation of our individual existence beyond the grave; the continuance in the nether world of the habits and propensities acquired or confirmed in this; and the administration in the infernal regions of penalties for sin; all these things, though vaguely conceived, stand in marked contrast with the far more shadowy, impersonal, and, above all, morally neutral pictures of the invisible and future world, which alone were admitted into the practical belief of the best among the Greek philosophers. We are left to presume that the superior picture owed its superiority to the fact that it was not of man’s devising, as it thus so far exceeded what his best efforts could produce.Sacrificial tradition in Homer.The nature, prevalence, and uniformity of sacrifice, should be regarded as another portion of the primeval inheritance, which, from various causes, was perhaps the best preserved of all its parts among nations that had broken the link of connection with the source.Of the sabbatical institution, which the Holy Scripture appears to fix at the creation of man, we find no trace in Homer. But it is easy to perceive that this highly spiritual ordinance was one little likely to survive the rude shocks and necessities of earthly life, while it could not, like sacrifice, derive a sustaining force from appearing to confer upon the gods an absolute gift, profitable to them, and likely to draw down their favour in return.Those who feel inclined to wonder at this disappearance of the sabbath from the record may do well to remember, that on the shield of Achilles, which represents the standing occasions of life in all its departments, there is no one scene which represents any observances simply religious. The religious element, though corrupted, was far from being expelled out of common life; on the contrary, the whole tissue of it was pervaded by that element; but it was in a combined, not in a separate, and therefore not in a sabbatical form.And again, in order to appreciate the unlikelihood that such a tradition as that of the sabbath would long survive the severance from Divine Revelation in this wintry world, we have only to consider how rapidly it is forgotten, in our own time, by Christians in heathen lands, or by those Christian settlers who are severed for the time at least from civilization, and whose energies are absorbed in a ceaseless conflict with the yet untamed powers of nature.
The Iris of Homer.
Iris, the messenger goddess, the last, and also by much the least important of the personages to whom I ascribe a traditive origin, is perhaps not the least clear in her title to it.
Her title to rank as one of the deities of the ordinary Olympian assemblage is not subject to doubt. It depends partly on the fact that she is always at hand there. But it is established more distinctly still by the passage, which represents her as carrying to the palace of Zephyr the prayer of Achilles. She finds the Winds engaged in a banquet, and they eagerly solicit her to sit and feast with them. She answers them, like one desirous to escape from second-rate into first-rate company, to the effect that she has not time: the Ethiopians are just about supplying the greater gods with a banquet from their hecatombs; and she must repair to that quarter accordingly, as otherwise she will lose her share of the offerings[272].
With respect to her position generally, we have no mark of her being foreign; and all the traditive deities, it may be observed, are sufficiently, though not exclusively national. Again, we have no mark of her beingrecent; on the contrary, she is without parents, and this, though not conclusive, is a sign to the opposite effect.
Iris has no original action whatever, but is simply a willing servant of other deities; nor does she disdain spontaneously to officiate on behalf of a distinguished human object of their favour, like Achilles[273]. Only once have we an account of her bringing an order without the name of the sender: it is when she appears to Helen, and exhorts her to repair to the Wall[274]. She is not, however, said even in this place to act on her own account; and we ought probably to understand that, according to the general rule, she comes from Jupiter. It is added, that she inspired Helen with a longing sentiment towards her former husband and country, but this, as is most likely, is meant simply to describe the effect of her words in the ordinary manner of their operation on the understanding. This ancillary character of Iris is exactly what she would bear, if her origin really lay in the primitive tradition of the rainbow.
But what seems decisively to establish her relation to that tradition is, that she is firmly connected in Homer with two things that have in themselves no connection whatever, and between which that ancient tradition is the only link.
In the first place, her identity of name is the witness to her original connection with the rainbow[275]: which, however, as a standing and ordinary phenomenon of nature, did not bear, apart from positive appointment, in any manner the character of a messenger: and hence we find that by disintegration the two ideas had been entirely separated before the time of Homer, and thename itself is the only remaining witness in the poems to their having been at some former period associated. The function of the messenger was kept in action by the occasions of the Olympian family and polity. In this manner, as the stronger of the two ideas, it held its ground, and took possession of the personal Iris, while the rainbow, though still conceived of as a sign to mortals[276], appears to have been regarded as separate.
Of the character of the messenger we find that Iris had so completely become the model, that her name, only modified into Iros, is given to Arnæus, the ribald and burly beggar of the Odyssey, only because he was a go-between, or errand-carrier:
οὕνεκ’ ἀπαγγέλλεσκε κιὼν, ὅτε πού τις ἀνώγοι[277].
οὕνεκ’ ἀπαγγέλλεσκε κιὼν, ὅτε πού τις ἀνώγοι[277].
οὕνεκ’ ἀπαγγέλλεσκε κιὼν, ὅτε πού τις ἀνώγοι[277].
οὕνεκ’ ἀπαγγέλλεσκε κιὼν, ὅτε πού τις ἀνώγοι[277].
The hypothesis, then, of traditional origin is the key, and the only key, to the position of the Homeric Iris.
The Atè of Homer.
Before quitting the precinct of the primeval tradition discoverable in Homer, we have yet one very remarkable group of impersonations to consider, that in which the goddessἌτηis the leading figure. Commonly regarded as meaning Mischief, the word is not capable of being fully rendered in English: but Guile is its primary idea, in the train of which come the sister notions of Folly and Calamity.
Ἄτηboth wishes and suggests all ill to mortals; but she does not seem in Homer to have any power of injuring them, except through channels, which have been wholly or partially opened to her by their own volition.
TheἌτηof the later Greeks is Calamity simply, with a shadow of Destiny hanging in the distance; as in the magnificent figure of the lion’s cub in Æschylus[278].But the word never bears in Homer the sense of calamity coming simply from without. This is evident even from the large and general description, where she appears in company with theΛιταί[279]. Vigorous and nimble, she ranges over the whole earth for mischief. After her, slowly lag the Prayers orΛιταὶ, honoured however in being, like her, daughters of Jupiter. These are limping, decrepit, and unable to see straight before them. The leading idea ofἌτηis not force, but cunning. She is the power that tempts and misleads men to their own cost or ruin, as they afterwards find out. Nay, she tempts the deity also: for she beguiles even Jupiter himself[280]when Hercules is about to be born, and induces him thoughtlessly to promise what will, through Juno’s craft, overturn his own dearly cherished plans. For this excess of daring, however, she herself suffers. Jupiter seizes her by the hair, and hurls her from Olympus, apparently her native seat. Thenceforward she can only exercise her function among men; who, when they have yielded to the seduction, and tasted the ashes under the golden fruit, at length set about repentance or prayer:
All lost! to prayers, to prayers! all lost![281]
All lost! to prayers, to prayers! all lost![281]
All lost! to prayers, to prayers! all lost![281]
All lost! to prayers, to prayers! all lost![281]
Now though the impersonation of Atè in Homer is one of the indeterminate class, it is surely a mistake to treat it as representing the mere poetical incorporation of an abstract idea. On the contrary, we seem to find in it the old tradition of the Evil One as the Tempter; and it may be said that the word Temptress would best represent the Homeric idea ofἌτη. In this sense it will supply a consistent meaning to the fine passage in the speech of Phœnix: for we are swift, so says the Poet, tofall into temptation, and to offend, ingenious only in not seeing our fault, and covering it with excuses: but slow, and like the half-hearted, decrepitΛιταί, when we have to make our entreaties for pardon, and to think of restitution and amendment. Yet as even the gods listen to their entreaties, ‘so,’ says Phœnix, ‘shouldst thou, O Achilles: and if thou dost not, then mayest yet thyself fall.’ But ifἌτηmeant only misfortune, the passage loses all its harmony, and even becomes absurd; for surely none will say that men are slow to discern adversity, or to offer petitions, wherever they have a prospect of being heard, for relief from it.
There is no passage which appears to me more characteristic of the true distinctive character of the HomericἌτη, than that in which Dolon confesses his folly[282]:
πολλῇσίν μ’ ἄτῃσι παρὲκ νόον ἤγαγεν Ἕκτωρ.
πολλῇσίν μ’ ἄτῃσι παρὲκ νόον ἤγαγεν Ἕκτωρ.
πολλῇσίν μ’ ἄτῃσι παρὲκ νόον ἤγαγεν Ἕκτωρ.
πολλῇσίν μ’ ἄτῃσι παρὲκ νόον ἤγαγεν Ἕκτωρ.
Here we have Hector, the tempter:ἄται, the temptation:νόος, the sound mind, from which temptation diverted the self-duped simpleton:ἤγαγεν, expressive of the medium, namely, through volition, and not by force.
The elements combined in the idea of the HomericἌτη, and the conditions of her action, may be presented together as follows:
1. She takes the reins of the understanding and conduct of a man.
2. She effects this not by force from without, but through the medium of his own will and inward consent, whether unconscious or express.
3. Under her dominion he commits offences against the moral law, or the law of prudence.
4. These offences are followed by his retributive sufferings.
The function of the Tempter is here represented with great precision; but two essential variations have come to be perceptible in the idea taken as a whole.
The first, that thisἌτηis herself sometimes prompted or sent by others, as byἘρίνυς, (Od. xv. 234,) or by her withΖεὺςandΜοῖρα, as in Il. xix. 87. And accordingly she too is a daughter, nay, the eldest daughter, of Jupiter himself[283].
The second variation is this: that offences against the mere law of prudence find their way into precisely the same category with sins; or, in other words, the true idea of sin had been lost.Ἄτηthe person, andἄτηthe effect, are, moreover, frequently blended by the Poet.
Among the principalἌταιof Homer are those,
1. Of Jupiter, Il. xix. 91–129.
2. Of Dolon, Il. x. 391; leading him to accept the proposal of Hector.
3. Of Melampus, Od. xv. 233, 4, causing him to undertake an enterprise beyond his means on account of the daughter of Neleus.
All of which are against the law of prudence and forethought.
4. Of Agamemnon, Il. xix. 88, 134–8.
5. Of Paris, Il. vi. 356, xxiv. 28.
6. Of Helen, Od. iv. 261. xxiii. 223.
7. Of manslaughter, Il. xxiv. 480.
8. Of the drunken centaur Eurytion, who had his ears and nose cut off for his excesses, Od. xxi. 296–302.
In one place only of Homer,ἄτηseems to meancalamity not imputable to the sufferer’s fault, further than by some slight want of vigilance. This is theἄτηcharged upon Ulysses, when his companions destroy the oxen of the Sun, Od. xii. 372. At least he had no further share in that matter than that, by going to sleep, he left his comrades to act for themselves.
The long continued misconduct of the Suitors is never described as theirἄτη: probably because the word properly signifies a particular temptation followed by a particular act, rather than a continued course of action.
This, again, serves the more closely to associateἌτηwith the primitive tradition of the Fall of Man.
The higher form of human wickedness, which is attended with deliberate and obstinate persistence in wrong, is notἄτηbutἀτασθαλίη. Such is the wickedness of Ægisthus and of the Suitors; such also that of the Giants. The same phrase is applied to the crew of Ulysses, who devoured the oxen of the Sun[284]: and this appears to conform to the view taken of their offence in the poems, however anomalous that view itself may be.
Other traditions of the Evil One.
I will now gather into one view the dispersed fragments of tradition concerning the Evil One which seem to be discernible in Homer.
1.Ἄτηis the first, and the one which comes nearest to presenting a general outline.
2. A second is found inΚρόνος[285], who aims at the destruction of Godhead in its supreme representatives, and is thrust down to Tartarus by Jupiter. And we may here observe an important distinction.
Some persons, like Tityus, offend against a particular person who had taken a place in the Olympian Court;or else, apparently like Orion, offend the gods in general by their presumption. They are punished in the Shades. But those who have aimed at the dethronement or destruction of Godhead itself are in the far deeper darkness of Tartarus[286]. I suggest this as a possible explanation of the double place of punishment; which is otherwise apparently a gross solecism in the Homeric system.
3. To the latter class of offenders belong the Titans, who most pointedly represent the element of Force in the ancient traditions, whileἌτηembodies that of Guile.
These are theθεοὶ ὑποταρτάρεοι, or theἐνέρτεροι, orἔνερθε θεοὶ, who form the infernal court ofΚρόνος;Κρόνον ἄμφις ἐόντες(Il. xiv. 274, 9. xv. 225). They are evidently themselves in a state of penal suffering; but they must also have the power of inflicting the severest punishment on some other offenders; for they, and not Aides or Persephone, seem to be the persons called to be witnesses of the solemn oath for the avoidance of perjury, taken by Juno in the Fourteenth Book[287].
4. Of these Titans two are apparently named in the persons of Otus and Ephialtes, children of Neptune.
5. To the same class, in all probability, belong the Giants, led by Eurymedon, and born of the same mythological father. Od. vii. 58.
6. It is likely that Typhoeus may have been of the same company; for although he is not stated to be in Tartarus, yet his position corresponds with it in the essential feature of being under the earth. (Il. ii. 782. viii. 14). Homer does not indeed expressly say, that Otus and Ephialtes were Titans, nor that Eurymedon was of the same band; nor yet that the Titans were rebels against heaven. But his images are so combined round certain points as to make this matter of safe and clear inference.
For the Titans are in Tartarus, and are with and attached toΚρόνος, whom Jupiter thrust down thither. And the giants under Eurymedon, for their mad audacity, are driven to perdition[288]. Lastly, Otus and Ephialtes, who made war upon heaven, and whom Apollo quelled, not appearing, like their mother Iphimedea, in the Shades of the Eleventh Odyssey, can only be in Tartarus[289].
From the scattered traditions we may collect and combine the essential points. In Otus and Ephialtes the rebellion is clearly stated, and in Eurymedon it is manifestly implied. In the Titans, who are calledθεοὶ, and in their association withΚρόνος, as also in the high parentage of the others, we have the celestial origin of the rebels. In the hurling down ofΚρόνοςto Tartarus, we have the punishment which they all are enduring, immediately associated with an act of supreme retribution.
7. Elsewhere will be found a notice of the singular relation, which may be traced between Neptune and the tradition of the Evil One. This relation is mythological in its basis: but it seems to proceed upon the tradition, that the Evil One was next to the Highest.
8. A more recent form of the tradition concerning the great war in heaven seems to be found in the revolt of the Immortals of Olympus, headed by Juno, Neptune, and Minerva, against Jupiter, which was put down by Briareus or Ægæon of the hundred hands.
Who this Ægæon was, we can only conjecture: he is nowhere else named in Homer. From his having a double name, one in use among gods, and the otheramong mortals, it might be conjectured that the immediate source of this tradition was either Egypt, or some other country having like Egypt an hieratic and also a demotic tongue. In its substance, it can hardly be other than a separate and dislocated form of the same idea, according to which we see Apollo handed down as the deliverer of Olympus from rebellion. The expression thatallmen (Il. i. 403.) call him Ægæon, tends to universalize him, and thus to connect him with Apollo. He is also (v. 403.) a son of Jupiter, avowedly superior to him in strength:
ὁ γὰρ αὖτε βίῃ οὗ πατρὸς ἀμείνων.
ὁ γὰρ αὖτε βίῃ οὗ πατρὸς ἀμείνων.
ὁ γὰρ αὖτε βίῃ οὗ πατρὸς ἀμείνων.
ὁ γὰρ αὖτε βίῃ οὗ πατρὸς ἀμείνων.
Citations from Holy Scripture.
It is perhaps worth while to notice the coincidence between the language of Homer as to the Giants, and that of the Books of the Ancient Scriptures. Homer says of Eurymedon[290],
ὅς ποθ’ ὑπερθύμοισι Γιγάντεσσιν βασίλευεν·ἀλλ’ ὁ μὲν ὤλεσε λαὸν ἀτάσθαλον, ὤλετο δ’ αὐτός.
ὅς ποθ’ ὑπερθύμοισι Γιγάντεσσιν βασίλευεν·ἀλλ’ ὁ μὲν ὤλεσε λαὸν ἀτάσθαλον, ὤλετο δ’ αὐτός.
ὅς ποθ’ ὑπερθύμοισι Γιγάντεσσιν βασίλευεν·ἀλλ’ ὁ μὲν ὤλεσε λαὸν ἀτάσθαλον, ὤλετο δ’ αὐτός.
ὅς ποθ’ ὑπερθύμοισι Γιγάντεσσιν βασίλευεν·
ἀλλ’ ὁ μὲν ὤλεσε λαὸν ἀτάσθαλον, ὤλετο δ’ αὐτός.
Either the rebellion, or the punishment in hell, of a wicked gang under the name of Giants is referred to in the following passages of the Old Testament and the Apocrypha. The allusion is not made evident, as to the former set of passages, in the Authorized Version; I therefore quote from the Septuagint or the Vulgate.
1. Job xxvi. 5.Ecce gigantes gemunt sub aquis, et qui habitant cum eis.Vulgate.μὴ γίγαντες μαιωθήσονται ὑποκάτωθεν ὕδατος καὶ τῶν γειτόνων αὐτοῦ; LXX.
2. Prov. ii. 18.ἔθετο γὰρ παρὰ τῷ θανάτῳ τὸν οἶκον αὐτῆς, καὶ παρὰ τῷ ἅδῃ μετὰ τῶν γηγένων τοὺς ἄξονας αὐτῆς. LXX.
3. Prov. xxi. 16.Vir, qui erraverit a viâ doctrinæ, in cœtu gigantum commorabitur.Vulg.ἀνὴρ πλανώμενος ἐξ ὅδου δικαιοσύνης ἐν συναγωγῇ γιγάντων ἀναπαύσεται. LXX.
See Gen. vi. 4, 5: in which we perhaps see the original link between the Giants, and the rebellion of the fallen angels described by St. Jude, ver. 6: ‘And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day.’
We have also the corresponding declaration of St. Peter: ‘God spared not the angels that sinned, but cast them down to hell, and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment; and spared not the old world[291].’
Again, in the Apocryphal Books.
1. Wisdom xiv. 6. ‘In the old time also, when the proud giants perished, the hope of the world, governed by thy hand, escaped in a weak vessel.’ Auth. Version.
2. Ecclus. xvi. 7. ‘He was not pacified toward the old giants, who fell away in the strength of their foolishness.’ Auth. Version.
3. Baruch iii. 26, 8. ‘There were giants famous from the beginning.... But they were destroyed, because they had no wisdom, and perished through their own foolishness.’ Auth. Version.
We thus appear to find in Homer many displaced fragments of the old traditions of the Bible with respect to the Evil One. In the later Greek and the Roman literature, the traditions on the same subject had almost entirely lost their likeness to their original. The figure ofἌτη, and the idea of spiritual danger to man through guile tempting him extrinsically but inwardly, entirely disappears. There remains only the recollection of a contest waged by brute force, and a solitary remnant of forgotten truth in the fame still adhering to Apollo, that he had been the deliverer and conqueror, who in the critical hour vindicated the supremacy of heaven. In the time of Horace even this recollection had become darkened and confused.
From the Homeric traditions of the Evil One and the fallen angels, we may properly pass to those of a future state, which involves, partially at least, the idea of retribution.
The Future State in Homer.
The representations of the future state in Homer are perhaps the more interesting, because it may be doubted whether they are, logically, quite consistent with one another. For this want of consistency becomes of itself a negative argument in support of the belief that, as they are not capable of being referred to any one generative idea or system, they may be distorted copies or misunderstood portions of primitive truth.
Another reason for referring them to this origin appears to be found in their gradual deterioration after the time of Homer. In his theology, future retribution appears as a real sanction of the moral law. In the later history, and generally in the philosophy of Paganism, it has lost this place: practically, a phantasmagoria was substituted for what had been at least a subjective reality: and the most sincere and penetrating minds thought it absurd to associate anything of substance with the condition of the dead[292]. The moral ideas connected with it appear before us indescending series; and thus they point backwards to the remotest period for their origin and their integrity.
Lastly, it would appear that the traditions themselves present to us features of the unseen world, such, in a certain degree, as Divine Revelation describes.
That world appears to us, in Homer, in three divisions.
First there is the Elysian plain, apparently under the government of Rhadamanthus, at which Menelaus, as the favoured son-in-law of Jupiter, is to arrive. It is, physically at least, furnished with all the conditions of repose and happiness.
Next there is the region of Aides or Aidoneus, the ordinary receptacle even of the illustrious dead, such as Achilles, Agamemnon, and the older Greek heroes of divine extraction. Hither, if we may trust the Twenty-fourth Odyssey, are carried the Suitors; and here is found the insignificant Elpenor (Od. xi. 51).
Thirdly, there is the region of Tartarus, whereΚρόνοςandἸάπετοςreign. This is as far below Aides, as the heaven is upwards from the earth[293].
There appears to be some want of clearness in the division between the second region and the third as to their respective offices, and between the second and the first as to their respective tenants.
The realm of Aides is, in general, not a place of punishment, but of desolation and of gloom[294]. The shade of Agamemnon weeps aloud with emotion and desire to clasp Ulysses: and Ulysses in vain attempts to console Achilles, for having quitted ‘the warm precincts of the cheerful day.’ But though their state is one of sadness, neither they nor the dead who are namedthere are in general under any judicial infliction. It is stated, indeed, that Minos[295]administers justice among them; but we are not told whether, as seems most probable, this is in determining decisively the fate of each, or whether he merely disposes, as he might have done on earth, of such cases as chanced to arise between any of them for adjudication.
The only cases of decided penal infliction in the realm of Aides are those of Tityus, Sisyphus, and Tantalus. Castor and Pollux, who appear here, are evident objects of the favour of the gods[296]. Hercules, like Helen of the later tradition, is curiously disintegrated.
Hisεἴδωλονmeets Ulysses, and speaks as if possessed of his identity: but he himself (αὐτὸς) is enjoying reward among the Immortals. The latter of these images represents the laborious and philanthropic side of the character attributed to him, the former the reckless and brutal one. Again it might be thought that the reason for the advancement of Menelaus to Elysium, while Castor and Pollux belong to the under-world, was the very virtuous character of that prince. He is, however, not promoted thither for his virtues, but for being the son-in-law of Jupiter by his marriage with Helen. And thus again, the son-in-law of Jupiter is, as such, placed higher than his sons.
The proper and main business of Tartarus is to serve as a place of punishment for deposed and condemned Immortals. There were Iapetos andΚρόνος, there the Titans[297]: there probably Otus and Ephialtes, who not only wounded Mars but assaulted Olympus[298]: there too, were Eurymedon and the Giants, who perished by theirἀτασθάλιαι. Thither it is that Jupiter threatensto hurl down offensive and refractory divinities[299]. Direct rebellion against heaven seems to be the specific offence which draws down the sentence of relegation to Tartarus. Still in the Third Iliad Agamemnon invokes certain deities, as the avengers of perjury upon man[300];
καὶ οἱ ὑπένερθε καμόνταςἀνθρώπους τίνυσθον, ὅτις κ’ ἐπίορκον ὀμόσσῃ.
καὶ οἱ ὑπένερθε καμόνταςἀνθρώπους τίνυσθον, ὅτις κ’ ἐπίορκον ὀμόσσῃ.
καὶ οἱ ὑπένερθε καμόνταςἀνθρώπους τίνυσθον, ὅτις κ’ ἐπίορκον ὀμόσσῃ.
καὶ οἱ ὑπένερθε καμόντας
ἀνθρώπους τίνυσθον, ὅτις κ’ ἐπίορκον ὀμόσσῃ.
It is not clear whether this passage implies that all perjurors are punished in Tartarus; or whether Aidoneus, Persephone, and the Erinues are the subterraneous deities here intended: but as the Titans are elsewhere only mentioned in express connection with Tartarus, and from the description of the Erinues in Il. xix. 259, I incline to the latter opinion.
On the whole, then, there is some confusion between these compartments, so to speak, of the invisible world. The realm of Aidoneus seems to partake, in part, of the character both of Tartarus and of the Elysian plain. In common with the former, it includes persons who were objects of especial divine favour. In common with Tartarus, it is for some few, at least, a scene of positive punishment.
Still, if we take the three according to their leading idea, they are in substantial correspondence with divine revelation. There is the place of bliss, the final destination of the good. There is the place of torment, occupied by the Evil One and his rebellious companions: and there is an intermediate state, the receptacle of the dead. Here, as might be expected, the resemblance terminates; for as there is no selection for entrance into the kingdom of Aides, so there is no passage onwards from it. We need the less wonder at the too comprehensive place it occupies, relativelyto the places of reward and punishment proper, in the Homeric scheme, when we remember what a tendency to develop itself beyond all bounds, the simple primitive doctrine of the intermediate state has been made to exhibit, in a portion of the Christian Church.
A further element of indistinctness attaches to the invisible world of Homer, if we take into view the admission of favoured mortals to Olympus; a process of which he gives us instances, as in Ganymedes and Hercules. In a work of pure invention it is unlikely that Heaven, Elysium, and the under-world would all have been represented as receptacles of souls in favour with the Deity. But some primitive tradition of the translation of Enoch may account for what would otherwise stand as an additional anomaly.
Upon the whole, the Homeric pictures of the prolongation of our individual existence beyond the grave; the continuance in the nether world of the habits and propensities acquired or confirmed in this; and the administration in the infernal regions of penalties for sin; all these things, though vaguely conceived, stand in marked contrast with the far more shadowy, impersonal, and, above all, morally neutral pictures of the invisible and future world, which alone were admitted into the practical belief of the best among the Greek philosophers. We are left to presume that the superior picture owed its superiority to the fact that it was not of man’s devising, as it thus so far exceeded what his best efforts could produce.
Sacrificial tradition in Homer.
The nature, prevalence, and uniformity of sacrifice, should be regarded as another portion of the primeval inheritance, which, from various causes, was perhaps the best preserved of all its parts among nations that had broken the link of connection with the source.
Of the sabbatical institution, which the Holy Scripture appears to fix at the creation of man, we find no trace in Homer. But it is easy to perceive that this highly spiritual ordinance was one little likely to survive the rude shocks and necessities of earthly life, while it could not, like sacrifice, derive a sustaining force from appearing to confer upon the gods an absolute gift, profitable to them, and likely to draw down their favour in return.
Those who feel inclined to wonder at this disappearance of the sabbath from the record may do well to remember, that on the shield of Achilles, which represents the standing occasions of life in all its departments, there is no one scene which represents any observances simply religious. The religious element, though corrupted, was far from being expelled out of common life; on the contrary, the whole tissue of it was pervaded by that element; but it was in a combined, not in a separate, and therefore not in a sabbatical form.
And again, in order to appreciate the unlikelihood that such a tradition as that of the sabbath would long survive the severance from Divine Revelation in this wintry world, we have only to consider how rapidly it is forgotten, in our own time, by Christians in heathen lands, or by those Christian settlers who are severed for the time at least from civilization, and whose energies are absorbed in a ceaseless conflict with the yet untamed powers of nature.