greek p233
I should perhaps tell the reader that the first Book of theIliadis one of the few which modern criticism allows to remain in the possession of the poet who wrote what Professor Jebb calls the "primary"Iliad.
The second of the two passages above referred to isIliadXXIV. 621-651, which runs:—
greek p234
Professor Jebb is disposed to attributeIl. XXIV. to the writer ofIl. IX., which he does not ascribe to Homer, and would datecirc. B.C. 750-600. I regret that I can go no further with him than thatIl. XXIV. andIl. IX. are by the same hand.
It is beyond my scope to point out the slight and perfectly unimportant variations from theIliadwhich are found in some of the Odyssean lines to which I have given a reference; they are with hardly an exception such as are occasioned by difference of context. Though unimportant they are not uninteresting, but I must leave them for the reader to examine if he feels inclined to do so.
He will observe that some lines are nearly and some quite common to the two extracts above given, and I should add that not a few other lines are repeated elsewhere in theIliad, but enough remains that is peculiar to either of the two extracts to convince me that the writer of theOdysseyknew them both. And not only this, but they seem to have risen in her mind as spontaneously, and often no doubt as unconsciously, as passages from the Bible, Prayer-book, and Shakspeare do to ourselves.
If, then, we find the writer so familiar with two such considerable extracts from the first and last Books of theIliad—for I believe the reader will feel no more doubt than I do, that she knew them, and was borrowing from them—can we avoid thinking it probable that she was acquainted, to say the least of it, with the intermediate Books? Such surely should be the most natural and least strained conclusion to arrive at, but I will proceed to shew that she knew the intermediate Books exceedingly well.
I pass over the way in which Mentor's name is coined from Nestor's (cf.Il. II. 76-77 andOd. ii. 224, 225, and 228), and will go on to the striking case of Ulysses' servant Eurybates. InOd. xix. 218, 219 Penelope has asked Ulysses (who is disguised so that she does not recognise him) for details as to the followers Ulysses had with him on his way to Troy, and Ulysses answers that he had a servant named Eurybates who was hunched in the shoulders (xix. 247). Turning toIl. II. 184 we find that Ulysses had a servant from Ithaca named Eurybates, but he does not seem to have been hunched in the shoulders; on reading further, however, we immediately come to Thersites, "whose shoulders were hunched over his chest" (Il. II. 217, 218). Am I too hasty in concluding that thewriter of theOdyssey, wanting an additional detail for Penelope's greater assurance, and not finding one in theIliad, took the hunchiness off the back of the next man to him and set it on to the back of Eurybates? I do not say that no other hypothesis can be framed in order to support a different conclusion, but I think the one given above will best commend itself to common sense; and the most natural inference from it is that the writer of theOdysseyknew at any rate part ofIl. II. much as we have it now.
I often wondered why Menelaus should have been made to return on the self-same day as that on which Orestes was holding the funeral feast of Ægisthus and Clytemnestra; the Greek which tells us that he did so runs:—
αὐτῆμαρ δέ οἱ ἦλθε βοὴν ἀγαθὸς Μενέλαος (Od. iii. 311).
I did not find the explanation till I remembered that inIliadII. 408, when Agamemnon has been inviting the Achæan chieftains to a banquet, he did not ask Menelaus, for Menelaus came of his own accord:—
αὐτόματος δέ οἱ ἦλθε βοὴν ἀγαθὸς Μενέλαος,
on remembering this I observed that it would be less trouble to make Menelaus come home on the very day of Ægisthus' funeral feast than to alter αὐτόματος in any other way which would leave the rest of the line available. I should be ashamed of the writer of theOdysseyfor having done this, unless I believed it to be merely due to unconscious cerebration. That the Odyssean and Iliadic lines are taken the one from the other will approve itself to the instincts of any one who is accustomed to deal with literary questions at all, and it is not conceivable that Menelaus should, in theIliad, have been made to come uninvited because in theOdysseyhe happened to come back on the very day when Orestes was holding Ægisthus' funeral feast; the Iliadic context explains why Menelaus came uninvited—it was because he knew that Agamemnon was too busy to invite him. I infer, therefore, that the writer of theOdysseyagain shows herself familiar with a part ofIl. II.
I can see no sufficient reason for even questioning that the catalogues of the Achæan and Trojan forces in the second Book of theIliadwere part of theIliadas it left Homer's hands. They are wanted so as to explain who the people are of whom we are to hear in the body of the poem; their position, is perfectly natural; the Achæan catalogue is prepared in Nestor's speech (II. 360-368); Homer almost tells us that he has had assistance in compiling it, for he invokes the Muse, as he does more than once in later Books, and declares that he knows nothing of his own knowledge, but depends entirely upon what has been told him[1]; the lines quoted or alluded to in theOdysseyare far too marked to allow of our doubting that the writer knew both catalogues familiarly; I cannot within my limits give them, but would call the reader's attention toIl. II. 488,cf.Od. iv. 240; to the considering Sparta and Lacedæmon as two places (Il. II. 580, 581) which the writer of theOdysseydoes (iv. 10), though she has abundantly shown that she knew them to be but one; toIl. II. 600,cf.Od. iii. 386; to the end of line 614, θαλάσσια ἔργα μεμήλειν,cf.Od. v. 67, θαλάσσια ἔργα μέμηλειν; to 670,cf.Od. ii. 12; to 673, 674,cf.Od. xi. 469, 470; toIl. II. 706, αὐτοκασγνητος μεγαθύμον Πρωτεσιλάου, which must surely be parent of the line αὐτοκασιγνήτου ὀλοόφρονος Αἰήταο,Od. X. 137; toIl. II. 707, ὁπλότερος γένεῇ ὁ δ᾿ ἅμα πρότερος καὶ ἀρείων,cf.Od. xix. 184, where the same line occurs; toIl. II. 721, ἀλλ᾿ ὁ μὲν ἐν νήσῳ κεῖτο κρατέρ᾿ ἄλγεα πάσχων,cf.Od. v. 13, where the same line occurs, but with κεῖται instead of κεȋτο to suit the context;cf. alsoOd. v. 395, where we find πατρός, ὃς ἐν νούσῳ κῆται, κρατέρ᾿ ἄλγεα πάσχων, a line which shows how completely the writer of theOdysseywas saturated with theIliad; toIl. II. 755, Στυγὸς ὕδατός ἐστιν ἀπορρώξ,cf.Od. x. 514, where the same words end the line; toIl. II. 774, δίσκοισιν τέρποντο καὶ αἰγανέῃσιν ἱέντες,cf.Od. iv. 626, and xvii. 168, where the same line occurs; toIl. II. 776, where the horses of the Myrmidons are spoken of as λωτὸν ἐρεπτόμενοι,cf.Od. ix. 97, where the same words are used for Ulysses'men when with the Lotus-eaters; toIl. II. 873, νήπιος, οὐδέ τί οἱ τό γ' ἐπήρκεσε λυγρὸν ὄλεθρον,cf.Od. iv. 292, ἄλγιον, οὐ γάρ οἵ τι τά γ' ἤρκεσε λυγρὸν ὄλεθρον.
None of the passages above quoted or referred to are to be found anywhere else in theIliad, so that if from theIliadat all, they are from the catalogues. But having already shown, as I believe, that the writer of theOdysseyknew lines 76, 77, 78, 184, 216, 217, and 408 of Book II., and accepting the rest of the Book as written by Homer, with or without assistance, I shall not argue further in support of my contention that the whole of Book II. was known to, and occasionally borrowed from, by the writer of theOdyssey.
Perhaps the prettiest example of unconscious cerebration in theOdysseyis to be found in the opening line ofOd. iii, which runs ἠέλιος δ' ἀνόρουσε λιπὼν περικαλλέα λίμνην, which is taken fromIl. v. 20, Ιδαῖος δ' ἀνόρουσε λιπὼν περικαλλέα δίφρον· One is at a loss to conceive how a writer so apparently facile should drift thus on to an Iliadic line of such different signification except as the result of saturation. It is inconceivable that she should have cast about for a line to say that the sun was rising, and thought that Idæus jumping off his chariot would do. She again has this line in her mind when in Book xxii. 95 she writes Τηλέμαχος δ' ἀπόρουσε λιπὼν δολιχόσκιον ἔγχος.
The same kind of unconscious celebration evidenced by the lines last referred to leads her sometimes to repeat lines of her own in a strange way, without probably being at all aware of it. As for example:—
βασιλῆες.....εἰσὶ καὶ ἄλλοιπολλοὶ ἐν ἀμφιάλῳ Ἰθάκῃ νέοι ἠδὲ παλαιοί,(i. 394, 395).
This passage in the following Book becomes:—
εἰσὶ δὲ νῆεςπολλαὶ ἐν ἀμφιάλῳ Ἰθάκῃ νέαι ἠδὲ παλαιαί·(ii. 292, 293).
Another similar case is that of the famous line aboutSisyphus' stone bounding down hill in a string of dactyls,Od. xi. 598, it runs:—
αὖτις ἔπειτα πέδονδε κυλίνδετο λᾶας ἀναιδής.
"The cruel stone came bounding down again on to the plain." I believe this to be nothing but an unconscious adaptation from the one dactylic line that I can remember in theIliad, I mean:—
ἀμφοτέρω δὲ τένοντε καὶ ἴστέα λᾶας ἀναιδὴςἄχρις ἀπηλοίησεν.Il. IV 521, 522.
"The cruel stone shattered the bones of the neck, tendons and all." Granted (which is very doubtful) that there may be an accommodation of sound to sense in the Odyssean line, I contend that the suggestion came from the Iliadic line.
I would gladly go through the wholeIliadcalling attention to the use the writer of theOdysseyhas made of it, but to do this would require hardly less than a book to itself. I will therefore ask the reader to accept my statement that no one Book in theIliadshows any marked difference from the others as regards the use that has been made of it, and will limit myself to those Books that have been most generally declared to be later additions—I mean Book X. and Book XVIII.—for I consider that I have already sufficiently shown the writer of theOdysseyto have known Books I., XXIV., and the Catalogues in Book II. It may be well, however, to include Book XI. in my examination, for this is one of the most undoubted, and it will be interesting to note that the writer of theOdysseyhas both the most doubted and undoubted Books equally at her fingers' ends. I shall only call attention to passages that do not occur more than once in theIliad, and will omit the very numerous ones that may be considered as common form.
InIl. X. 141, 142 we find:—
τίφθ' οὔτω;.....Νύκτα δι' ἀμβροσίην, and inOd. ix. 403, 404.τίπτε τόσον.....Νύκτα δι' ἀμβροσίην.
InIl. X. 142, ὅτι δὴ χρείω τόσον ἴκει;Il.Od. ii. 28, τίνα χρειὼ τόσον ἵκει.
Il. X. 158 begins with the words λὰξ ποδὶ κίνησας. So also doesOd. XV. 45.
Il. X. 214 has, ὅσσοι γὰρ νήεσσιν ἐπικρατέουσιν ἄριστοι, this line is foundOd. i. 245, xvi. 122, xix. 130, but with νήσοισιν instead of νήεσσιν.
Il. X. 220 ends with ὀτρύνει κραδίη καὶ θυμὸς ἀγήνωρ, so also doesOd. xviii. 61.
Il. X. 221 has ἀνδρῶν δυσμενέων δῦναι στράτον ἐγγὺς ἐόντων;cf Od. iv. 246, ἀνδρῶν δυσμενέων κατέδυ πόλιν εὐρυάγυιαν·
Il. X. 243, 244 have, πῶς ἂν ἔπειτ' Ὀδυσῆος ἐγὼ θείοιο λαθοίμην, οὗ περὶ μὲν.....
InOd. i. 65, 66 we find the same words only with ὅς instead of οὗ. This is a very convincing case, for the ἔπειτα, which is quite natural in the Iliadic line, is felt to be rather out of place in the Odyssean one, and makes it plain that the Odyssean passage was taken from the Iliadic, notvice versâ.
Il. X. 255 ends with μενοπτόλεμος Θρασυμήδης, so also doesOd. iii. 442.
Il. X. 278, 279,.....ἥ τέ μοι αἰεὶἐν πάντεσσι πόνοισι παρίστασαι.....cf.Od. xiii. 300, 301,.....ἥ τέ τοι αἰεὶἐν πάντεσσι πόνοισι παρίσταμαι.....Il. X 292-295, σοὶ δ᾿ αὖ ἐγὼ ῥέξω βοȗν ἦνιν εὐρυμέτωπονἀδμήτην, ἣν οὐ πω ὑπὸ ζυγὸν ἤγαγεν ἀνήρ.τήν τοι ἐγὼ ῥέξω χρυσὸν κέρασιν περιχεύας.ὧς ἔφαν εὐχόμενοι, τῶν δ᾿ ἔκλυε Παλλὰς Ἀθήνη.
The first three of these four lines is repeated verbatim inOd. iii. 382-384. InOd. 385 the fourth line becomes ὧς ἔφατ᾿ εὐχόμενος τοȗ δ' ἔκλυε Παλλὰς Ἀθήνη.
Il. X. 351.....ὅσσον τ' ἐπὶ οὖρα πέλονται ἡμιόνων,cf.Od. viii. 124 ἕσσον τ' ἐν νείῳ οὖρον πέλει ἡμιόνοιιν.
Il. X. 400, τὸν δ' ἐπιμειδήσας προσέφη πολύμητις Ὀδύσσευς, this line occursOd. xxii. 371.
Il. X. 429 ends with δῖοί τε Πελασγοί, so also doesOd. xix. 177.
Il. X. 457, φθεγγομένου δ' ἄρα τοῦ γε κάρη κονίῃσιν ἐμίχθη, this line is foundOd. xxii. 329.
Il. X. 534, ψεύσομαι ἦ ἒτυμον ἐρέω κέλεται δέ με θυμός. InOd. iv. 140 this line is found.
Il. X. 556, ῥεῖα θεός γ' ἐθέλων καί κ.τ.λ.Cf.Od. iii. 231.
Il. X. 576 ἔς ῥ ἀσαμίνθους βάντες εὐξέστας λούσαντο. SeeOd. iv. 48, xvii. 87.
Here, then, are seventeen apparent quotations from Book X., omitting any claim on lines which, though they are found in theOdyssey, are also found in other Books of theIliad, from which, and not from Book X., it may be alleged that the writer of theOdysseytook them. This makes the writer of theOdysseyto have taken about one line in every 33 of the 579 lines of which Book X. consists. Disciples of Wolf—no two of whom, however, are of the same opinion, so it is hard to say who they are—must either meet my theory that theOdysseyis all written at one place, by one hand, and in the eleventh century B.C., with stronger weapons than during the last six years they have shown any signs of possessing, or they must fall back on some Laputan-manner-of-making-books theory, which they will be able to devise better than I can.
I do not forget that the opponents of the genuineness ofIl. X. may contend that the passages above given were taken from theOdyssey, but this contention should not be urged in respect of Book X. more than in respect of the other Books, which are all of them equally replete with passages that are found in theOdyssey, and in the case given above ofIl. X. 243, 244 andOd. i. 65, 66, it is not easy to doubt that the Iliadic passage is the original, and the Odyssean the copy.
I will now deal with the undoubted Book XI., omitting as in the case of Book X. all lines that occur in other Books, unless I call special attention to them.
The first two lines of Book XI. are identical with the first two of Book V. of theOdyssey, butIl. XI. 2 occurs also inIl. XIX. 2.
Il. XI. 42, 43, ἵππουριν· δεινὸν δὲ λόφος καθύπερθεν ἔνευεν,εἵλετο δ' ἄλκιμα δοῦρε δύω, κεκορυθμένα χαλκῷ.
These two lines are foundOd. xxii. 124, 125, but the first of them occurs three or four times elsewhere in theIliad.
Il. XI. 181, ἀλλ' ὅτε δὴ τάχ' ἔμελλεν ὑπὸ πτόλιν αἰπύ τετεῖχοςἵξεσθαι τότε δὴ.....cf.Od. iv. 514, 515, ἀλλ' ὅτε δὴ τάχ' ἔμελλεν Μαλείαων ὄρος αἰπύἵξεσθαι τότε δὴ.....
Il. xi. 201, προέηκε τεῒν τάδε μυθήσασθαι,cf.Od. iv. 829, where the same words occur.
Il. XI. 253, ἀντικρὺς δὲ δίεδχε φαεκνοῦ δουρὸς ἀκωκή.cf.Od. xix. 453, where the same line occurs but with διῆλθε for δίεσχε.
Il. XI. 531, ὧς ἄρα φωνήσας ἵμασεν καλλίτριχας ἵππουςcf.Od. xv. 215, where the same line occurs but with ἔλασεν instead of ἵμασεν.
Il. XI. 624-639. The mess which Hecamedé cooked for Patroclus and Machaon was surely present to the mind of the writer of theOdysseywhen she was telling about the mess which Circe cooked for Ulysses' men,Od. X. 234, 235.
Il. XI. 668, 669.....οὐ γὰρ ἐμὴ ἲςἔσθ', οἵη πάρος ἔσκεν ἐνὶ γναμπτοῖσι μέλεσσινcf.Od. xi. 393, 394, ἀλλ᾿ οὐγάρ οἱ ἔτ᾿ ἦν ἲς ἔμπεδος οὐδέ τι κȋκυςοἵη περ πάρος ἔσκεν ἐνὶ γναμπτοȋσι μέλεσσιν.Il. XI. 678, 679.....ἀγέλας, τόσα πώεα οἰῶντόσσα συῶν συβόσια, τόσ' αἰπόλια πλατέ' αἰγῶν.
These lines occurOd. xiv. 100, 101 but with ἀγέλαι instead of ἀγέλας.
Il. XI. 742, τὸν μὲν ἐγὼ προσιόντα βάλον χαλκήρεϊ δουρί. This line is foundOd. xiii. 267 but with κατιόντα for προσιόντα.
Il. XI. 777, στῆμεν ἐνὶπροθύροιστι ταφὼν δ' ἀvόρουσεν Ἀχιλλεύς,cf.Od. xvi. 12, ἔστη ἐνὶ προθύροιστι ταφὼν δ' ἀvόρουσε συβώτης.
Here we have only eleven well-marked passages common to both poems, in spite of the fact that Book XI. is nearly 300 lines longer than Book X., but I am precluded from referring to any passages that occur also in any other Book of theIliad. Running my eye over the underlined lines in my copy of theIliad, I do not find much, though I admit that there is some, difference between their frequency in Book XI., and in the otherBooks. Furthermore I own to finding Book XI. perhaps the least interesting and the most perfunctorily written in all theIliad, and can well believe that the writer of theOdysseyborrowed from it less because she was of the same opinion, but however this may be, the number of common passages above collected is ample to establish the fact that the writer of theOdysseyhad Book XI. in her mind as well as Book X.
I will now go on to examine the passages inIl. XVIII. which the writer of theOdysseyhas wholly or in part adopted. They are:—
Il. XVIII. 22-24, ὦς φάτο τὸν δ' ἄχεος νεφέλη ἐκάλυψε μέλαιναἀμφοτέρῃσι δὲ χερσὶν ἑλὼν κόνιν αἰθαλόεσσανχεύατο κὰκ κεφαλῆς χαρίεν δ' ᾔσχυνε πρόσωπον.
These lines are foundOd. xxiv. 315-317 except that as they refer to an old man, instead of, as in theIliad, to a young one, χαρίεν δ' ᾔσχυνε πρόσωπον has become πολιῆς ἀδινὰ στεναχίζων. The first of the three lines occurs also inIl. XVII. 591.
Il. XVIII. 108, καὶ χόλος ὅς τ' ἐφέηκε πολύφρονά περ χαλεπῆναι,cf.Od. xiv. 464, ἠλεός, ὅς τ' ἐφέηκε πολύφρονά περ μάλ' ἀεῖσαι.
Il. XVIII. 250, Πανθοΐδης· ὁ γὰρ οἶος ὅρα πρόσσω καὶ ὀπίσσω,cfOd. xxiv. 452, where however Πανθοΐδης becomes Μαστορίδης.
Il. XVIII. 344-349,
ἀμφί πυρί στῆσαι τρίποδα μέγαν ὄφρα τάχισταΠάτροκλον λούσειαν ἄπο βρότον αἱματόεντα.οἱ δὲ λοετροχόον τρίποδ' ἵστασαν ἐν πυρὶ κηλέῳ,ἐν δ' ἄρ' ὔδωρ ἐχέαν, ὑπὸ δὲ ξύλα δαῖον ἑλόντες·γάστρην μὲν τρίποδος πῦρ ἄμφεπε, θέρμετο δ' ὔδωραὖτὰρ ἐπεὶ δὴ ζέσσεν ὕδωρ ἐνὶ ἤνοπι χαλκῷ,
cf.Od. viii. 434-437, ὄφρα τάχιστα becomes ὄττι τάχιστα.
Il. XVIII. 345 is omitted. In the following line οί becomes αί, and in the one after this ἑλόντες becomes ἑλοῦσαι·
The last line of the Iliadic passage is not given inOd. viii, but appears without alteration inOd. x. 360.
Il. XVIII. 363, ὅς περ θνητός τ' ἐστὶ καὶ οὐ τόσα μήδεα οἶδεν. This line occursOd. xx. 46.
Il. XVIII. 385-387,
τίπτε Θέτι τανύπεπλε, ἱκάνεις ἡμέτερoν δῶαἰδοίη τε φίλη τε; πάρος γε μὲν οὔ τι θαμίζεις.ἀλλ' ἕπεο προτέρω ἵνα τοι πὰρ ξείνια θείω·
Il. XVIII. 424-427,
τίπτε Θέτι τανύπεπλε, ἱκάνεις ἡμέτερὸν δῶαἰδοίη τε φίλη τε; πάρος γε μὲν οὔ τι θαμίζεις·αὔδα ὅ τι φρονέεις· τελέσαι δέ με θυμὸς ἄνωγενεἰ δύναμαι τελέσαι γε καὶ εἰ τετελεσμένον ἐστίν.
TheOdyssey(v. 87-91) has both these passages combined as follows:—
Τίπτε μοι, Ἐρμεία χρυσόρραπι, εἰλήλουθαςαἰδοῖός, τε φίλος τε; πάρος γε μὲν οὔ τι θαμίζειςαὔδα ὁ τι φρονέεις· τελέσαι δέ με θυμὸς ἄνωγενεἰ δύναμαι τελέσαι γε καὶ εἰ τετελεσμένον ἐστίν.ἀλλ' ἕπεο προτέρω, ἵνα τοι πὰρ ξείνια θείω.
Il. XVIII. 389, 390.....ἐπὶ θρόνου ἀργυροήλουκαλοῦ δαιδαλέου· ὑπὸ δὲ θρῆνυς ποσὶν ἦεν·
These lines will be foundOd. x. 314, 315.
Il. XVIII. 431, ὅσσ' ἐμοὶ ἐκ πασέων Κρονίδης Ζεὺς ἄλγε' ἔδωκεν·
cf.Od. iv. 722, 723.....πέρι γάρ μοι Ὀλύμπιος ἄλγε' ἔδωκενἐκ πασέων,Il. XVIII. 457, τούνεκα νῦν τὰ σὰ γούναθ' ἱκάνομαι αἴ κ'ἐθέλησθα.
This line occursOd. iii. 92 andOd. iv. 322.
Il. XVIII. 463, θάρσει, μή τοι ταῦτα μετὰ φρεσὶσῇσι μελόντων.
This line occursOd. xiii. 362, xvi. 436, and xxiv. 357.
Il. XVIII. 486-489 Πληιάδας θ'.....
ἄρκτον θ', ἣν καὶ ἄμαξαν ἐπίκλησιν καλέουσιν,ἥ τ' αὐτοῦ στρέφεται καί τ' Ωρίωνα δοκεύειοἴη δ' ἄμμορος ἐστι λοετρῶν Ὠκέανοιο·
These lines occurOd. v. 272-275.
Il. XVIII. 533, 534, στησάμενοι δ' ἐμάχοντο μάχην ποταμοȋοπαρ' ὄχθαςβάλλον δ' ἀλλήλους χαλκήρεσιν ἐγχείῃσιν·
These lines are foundOd. ix. 54, 55 with παρὰ νηυσὶ θοῆσιν instead of ποταμοῖο παρ' ὄχθας.
Il. XVIII. 604-606,
τερπόμενοι· μετὰ δέ σφιν ἐμέλπετο Θεῖος ἀοιδὸςφορμίζων· δοίω δὲ κυβερνιστῆρε κατ' αὐτοὺςμολπῆς ἐξάρχοντος ἐδίνευον κατὰ μέσον.
These lines occurOd. iv. 17-19.
To meet the possible objection thatIl. XVIII. was written later than theOdyssey, and might therefore have borrowed from it, I will quote the context of line 108 as well as the line itself. The passage runs (XVIII. 107-110):—
ὦς ἔρις ἔκ τε θεῶν ἔκ τ' ἀνθρώπων άπόλοιτοκαὶ χόλος ὅς τ' ἐφέηκε πολύφρονά περ χαλεπῆναι,ὅς τε πολὺ γλυκίων μέλιτος καταλειβόμενοιοἀνδρῶν ἐν στήθεσσιν ἀέξεται ἠύτε καπνός.
The context of the Odyssean line which I suppose to be derived from this noble passage is as follows (xiv. 462-465):—
κέκλυθι νῦν Ἐύμαιε, καὶ ἄλλοι πάντες εταῖροι·εὐξάμενός τι ἔπος ἐρέω· οἶνος γὰρ ἀνώγειἠλεός, ὅς τ' ἐφέηκε πολύφρονά περ μάλ' ἀεȋσαικαὶ θ' ἁπαλόν γελάσαι, καί τ' ὀρχήσαθαι ἀνῆκεν,
Which is the most likely—that the magnificent Iliadic lines were developed fromOd. xiv. 464, or that this line is an unconscious adaptation fromIl. XVIII. 108? For that the two lines are father and son will hardly be disputed.
Which again commends itself best—that the writer ofIl. XVIII. took the heating of Ulysses' bath water to heat water for Patroclus, or that the writer of theOdysseyomitted the line about Patroclus, and used the rest of the passage to heat water for Ulysses' bath?
As regards the two salutations to Thetis (Il. XVIII. 385-387, and 424-427), is it more likely that the writer ofIl. XVIII. made two bites of the Odyssean cherry of v. 87-91, or that the writer of theOdyssey, wanting but a single salutation, combined the two Iliadic ones as in the passage above given?
Lastly, is the list of constellations which Vulcan put on to the shield of Achilles more likely to have been amplified fromOd. v. 272-275, or these last-named lines to have been taken, with such modification as was necessary, fromIl. XVIII. 486-489? Whatever may be the date of theOdyssey, I cannotdoubt thatIl. XVIII. must be dated earlier; and yet there is no Book of theIliadabout which our eminent Homeric scholars are more full of small complaints, or more unanimous in regarding as an interpolation. If there is one part of theIliadrather than another in which Homer shows himself unapproachable, it is in his description of the shield of Achilles.
I will again assure the reader that all the Books of theIliadseem drawn from with the same freedom as that shown in those which I have now dealt with in detail, and also that I can find no part of theOdysseywhich borrows any less freely from theIliadthan the rest of the poem; here and there difference of subject leads the writer to go three or four pages without a single Iliadic cento, but this is rare. One or two, or even sometimes three or four, Iliadic passages in a page is nearer the average, but of these some will be what may be called common form.
Their frequency raises no suggestion of plagiarism any more than the Biblical quotations inPilgrim's Progresswould do if the references were cut out. They are so built into the context as to be structural, not ornamental; and to preclude the idea of their having been added by copyists or editors. They seem to be the spontaneous outcome of the fullness of the writer's knowledge of theIliad. It is also evident that she is not making a resumé of other people's works; she is telling the storyde novofrom the point of view of herself, her home, her countrymen, and the whole island of Sicily. Other peoples and places may be tolerated, but they raise no enthusiasm in her mind.
Nevertheless, a certain similarity of style and feeling between theOdysseyand all the poems of the Epic cycle is certain to have existed, and indeed can be proved to have existed from the fragments of the lost poems that still remain. In all art, whether literary, pictorial, musical, or architectural, a certain character will be common to a certain age and country. Every age has its stock subjects for artistic treatment; the reason for this is that it is convenient for the reader, spectator, or listener, to be familiar with the main outlines of the story. Written literature is freer in this respectthan painting or sculpture, for it can explain and prepare the reader better for what is coming. Literature which, though written, is intended mainly for recitation before an audience few of whom can read, exists only on condition of its appealing instantly to the understanding, and will, therefore, deal only with what the hearer is supposed already to know in outline. The writer may take any part of the stock national subjects that he or she likes, and within reasonable limits may treat it according to his or her fancy, but it must hitch on to the old familiar story, and hence will arise a certain similarity of style between all poems of the same class that belong to the same age, language, and people. This holds just as good for the medieval Italian painters as it does for the Epic cycle. They offer us a similarity in dissimilarity and a dissimilarity in similarity.
When we remember, however, that the style of theOdysseymust not only perforce gravitate towards that of all the other then existing epic poems, but also that the writer's mind is as strongly leavened with the mind of Homer, let alone the other Cyclic poets, as we have seen it to be, it is not surprising that the veneer of virility thus given to a woman's work should have concealed the less patent, but far more conclusive, evidence that the writer was not of the same sex as the man, or men, from whom she was borrowing.
At the same time, in spite of the use she makes of Homer, I think she was angry with him, and perhaps jealous; on which head I will say more in my next Chapter. Possibly the way he laughs at women and teases them, not because he dislikes them, but because he enjoys playing with them, irritates her; she was not disposed to play on such a serious subject. We have seen how she retorts on him for having made a tripod worth three times as much as a good serviceable woman of all work. His utter contempt, again, for the gods, which he is at no pains to conceal, would be offensive to a writer who never permits herself to go beyond the occasional mild irreverence of the Vicar's daughter. Therefore, she treats Homer, as its seems to me, not without a certain hardness; and this is the only serious fault I have to find with her.
For example, she takes the concluding lines of Hector's farewell to Andromache, a passage which one would have thought she would have shrunk from turning to common uses, and puts it into the mouth of Telemachus when he is simply telling his mother to take herself off. She does this in i. 356-359 and again in xxi. 350-353. This is not as it should be. Nor yet again is her taking the water that was heated to wash the blood from the body of poor Patroclus (Il. XVIII. 344 &c.) and using it for Ulysses' bath (Od. viii. 434-437). Surely the disrespect here is deeper than any that can be found in Homer towards the gods.
But, whatever the spirit may have been in which the writer of theOdysseyhas treated theIliad, I cannot doubt that that she knew this poem exceedingly well in the shape in which we have it, and this is the point which I have thought it worth while to endeavour to substantiate at such length in the foregoing Chapter.
[1]ἡυεῖς δέ κλέος οἷον ἀκούομεν, οὐδέ τι ἴδμεν,Il. II. 486.
[1]ἡυεῖς δέ κλέος οἷον ἀκούομεν, οὐδέ τι ἴδμεν,Il. II. 486.
THE ODYSSEY IN ITS RELATION TO THE OTHER POEMS OF THE TROJAN CYCLE, AND ITS DEVELOPMENT IN THE HANDS OF THE AUTHORESS.
The writer of theOdysseyappears to have known most of those lost poems of the Epic cycle—eight in number—that relate to Troy, but as all we know about them is from the summaries given in the fragment of Proclus, and from a few lines here and there quoted in later authors, we can have no irrefragable certainty that she had the poems before her even when she alludes to incidents mentioned by Proclus as being dealt with in any given one of them. Nevertheless, passages inOd. i. and iii. make it probable that she knew theNostior the Return of the Achæans from Troy, and we may suppose that Nestor's long speeches (Od. iii. 102-200 and 253-328) are derived mainly from this source, for they contain particulars that correspond closely with the epitome of theNostigiven by Proclus.
We can thus explain the correctness of the topography of the Ægæan sea that is manifested in Nestor's speeches, but no where else in the poem beyond a bare knowledge of the existence of Apollo's shrine in Delos (Od. vi. 162) and an occasional mention of Crete. I see Professor Jebb says that theOdyssey"shows a familiar knowledge of Delos;"[1]but there is no warrant for this assertion from anything in the poem.
The writer of theOdysseyseems, in Book iv., to have also known theCypria, which dealt with the events that led up to the Trojan war.
Book xxiv. of theOdyssey(35-97) suggests a knowledge of theÆthiopis. So also does the mention of Memnon (Od. xi. 522).
Knowledge of theLittle Iliadmay be suspected fromOd. iv. 271-283, where Helen seems to be now married to Deiphobus, and from xi. 543-562; as also from xi. 508, 509, where Ulysses says that he took Neoptolemus to Scyrus. Ulysses entering Troy as a spy (Od. iv. 242-256) is also given by Proclus as one of the incidents in theLittle Iliad. I do not see, therefore, that there can be much doubt about the writer of theOdysseyhaving been acquainted with theLittle Iliad, a poem which was apparently of no great length, being only in four Books.
From the two Books of theSack of Troywe get the account of the council held by the Trojans over the wooden horse (Od. viii. 492-517).
We have seen how familiar the authoress of theOdysseywas with theIliad; there only remains, therefore, one of the eight Trojan poems which she does not appear to have known—I mean theTelegony, which is generally, and one would say correctly, placed later than theOdyssey; but even though it were earlier we may be sure that the writer of theOdysseywould have ignored it, for it will hardly bear her out in the character she has given of Penelope.
In passing I may say that though Homer (meaning, of course, the writer of theIliad) occasionally says things that suggest the Cypria, there is not a line that even suggests knowledge of a single one of the incidents given by Proclus as forming the subjects of the other Books of the Trojan cycle; the inference, therefore, would seem to be that none of them, except possibly, though very uncertainly, the Cypria, had appeared before he wrote. Nevertheless we cannot be sure that this was so.
The curious question now arises why the writer of theOdysseyshould have avoided referring to a single Iliadic incident, while showing no unwillingness to treat more or less fully of almost all those mentioned by Proclus as dealt with in the other poems of the Trojan cycle, and also while laying theIliadunder such frequent contributions.
I remember saying to a great publisher that a certain book was obviously much indebted to a certain other book to whichno reference was made. "Has the writer," said the publisher in question, "referred to other modern books on the same subject?" I answered, "Certainly." "Then," said he, "let me tell you that it is our almost unvaried experience that when a writer mentions a number of other books, and omits one which he has evidently borrowed from, the omitted book is the one which has most largely suggested his own." His words seemed to explain my difficulty about the way in which the writer of theOdysseylets the incidents of theIliadso severely alone. It was the poem she was trying to rival, if not to supersede. She knew it to be far the finest of the Trojan cycle; she was so familiar with it that appropriate lines from it were continually suggesting themselves to her—and what is an appropriate line good for if it is not to be appropriated? She knew she could hold her own against the other poems, but she did not feel so sure about theIliad, and she would not cover any of the ground which it had already occupied.
Of course there is always this other explanation possible, I mean that traditions about Homer's private life may have been known to the writer of theOdyssey, which displeased her. He may have beaten his wife, or run away with somebody else's, or both, or done a hundred things which made him not exactly the kind of person whom Arete would like her daughter to countenance more than was absolutely necessary. I believe, however, that the explanation given in the preceding paragraph is the most reasonable.
And now let me explain what I consider to have been the development of theOdysseyin the hands of the poetess. I cannot think that she deliberately set herself to write an epic poem of great length. The work appears to have grown on her hands piecemeal from small beginnings, each additional effort opening the door for further development, till at last there theOdysseywas—a spontaneous growth rather than a thing done by observation. Had it come by observation, no doubt it would have been freer from the anomalies, inconsistencies, absurdities, and small slovenlinesses which are inseparable from the development of any long work, the plan of which has not been fully thought out beforehand. Butsurely in losing these it would have lost not a little of its charm.
From Professor Jebb'sIntroduction to Homer, Ed. 1888, p. 131, I see that he agrees with Kirchhoff in holding that theOdysseycontains "distinct strata of poetical material from different sources and periods," and also that the poem owes its present unity of form to one man; he continues:—
But under this unity of form there are perceptible traces of a process by which different compositions were adapted to one another.
But under this unity of form there are perceptible traces of a process by which different compositions were adapted to one another.
In a note on the preceding page he tells us that Kirchhoff regards the first 87 verses of Book i. as having formed the exordium of the original Return of Ulysses.
My own conclusions, arrived at to the best of my belief before I had read a word of Professor Jebb'sIntroduction, agree in great part with the foregoing. I found theOdysseyto consist of two distinct poems, with widely different aims, and united into a single work, not unskilfully, but still not so skilfully as to conceal a change of scheme. The two poems are: 1. The visit of Ulysses to the Phæacians, with the story of his adventures as related by himself. 2. The story of Penelope and the suitors, with the episode of Telemachus's voyage to Pylos. Of these two, the first was written before the writer had any intention of dealing with the second, while the second in the end became more important than the first.
I cordially agree with Kirchhoff that the present exordium belongs to the earlier poem, but I would break it off at line 79, and not at 87. It is a perfect introduction to the Return of Ulysses, but it is no fit opening for theOdysseyas it stands. I had better perhaps give it more fully than I have done in my abridgement. It runs:—
Tell me, oh Muse, of that ingenious hero who travelled far and wide after he had sacked the strong citadel of Troy. He saw many cities and learned the manners of many nations; moreover, he suffered much by sea while trying to save his own life and bring his men safely home; but do what he might he could not save his men, for they perished through their own sheer folly in eating the cattleof the Sun-god Hyperion; so the god prevented them from ever getting home. Tell me too about all these things, oh daughter of Jove, from whatever source you may know them (i. 1-10).
Tell me, oh Muse, of that ingenious hero who travelled far and wide after he had sacked the strong citadel of Troy. He saw many cities and learned the manners of many nations; moreover, he suffered much by sea while trying to save his own life and bring his men safely home; but do what he might he could not save his men, for they perished through their own sheer folly in eating the cattleof the Sun-god Hyperion; so the god prevented them from ever getting home. Tell me too about all these things, oh daughter of Jove, from whatever source you may know them (i. 1-10).
Then follows the statement that Ulysses was with the nymph Calypso, unable to escape, and that his enemy, Neptune, had gone to the Ethiopians (i. 11-21). The gods meet in council and Jove makes a speech about the revenge taken by Orestes on Ægisthus (i. 26-43); Minerva checks him, turns the subjects on to Ulysses, and upbraids Jove with neglecting him (i. 44-62). Jove answers that he had not forgotten him, and continues:—
"Bear in mind that Neptune is still furious with Ulysses for having blinded an eye of Polyphemus, king of the Cyclopes. Polyphemus is son to Neptune by the nymph Thoösa, daughter to the sea-king Phoreys, but instead of killing him outright he torments him by preventing him from getting home. Still, let us lay our heads together and see how we can help him to return. Neptune will then be pacified, for if we are all of a mind he can hardly hold out against us unsupported" (i. 68-79).
"Bear in mind that Neptune is still furious with Ulysses for having blinded an eye of Polyphemus, king of the Cyclopes. Polyphemus is son to Neptune by the nymph Thoösa, daughter to the sea-king Phoreys, but instead of killing him outright he torments him by preventing him from getting home. Still, let us lay our heads together and see how we can help him to return. Neptune will then be pacified, for if we are all of a mind he can hardly hold out against us unsupported" (i. 68-79).
Let us now omit the rest of Book i., Books ii. iii. and iv. and go on with line 28 of Book v., which follows after a very similar council to the one that now stands at the beginning of Book i. Continuing with line 28 of Book v. we read:—
When he had thus spoken he said to his son Mercury: "Mercury, you are our messenger, go therefore and tell Calypso we have decreed that poor Ulysses is to return home. He is to be conveyed neither by gods nor men, but after a perilous voyage of twenty days upon a raft he is to reach fertile Scheria, &c." (v. 28-34).
When he had thus spoken he said to his son Mercury: "Mercury, you are our messenger, go therefore and tell Calypso we have decreed that poor Ulysses is to return home. He is to be conveyed neither by gods nor men, but after a perilous voyage of twenty days upon a raft he is to reach fertile Scheria, &c." (v. 28-34).
From this point the poem continues with only one certain, and another doubtful, reference to the suitors and Penelope, until (according to Kirchhoff) line 184 of Book xiii. I had thought that the point of juncture between the two poems was in the middle of line 187, and that the ἔγρετο in the second half of the line had perhaps been originally εὖδεν; but it must be somewhere close about this line, and I am quite ready to adopt Kirchhoff's opinion now that I have come to see why Ulysses was made to sleep so profoundly on leaving Scheria.
Till I had got hold of the explanation given on page 173, I naturally thought that the strange sleep of Ulysses had been intended to lead up to something that was to happen in Ithaca, and which had been cancelled when the scheme was enlarged and altered; for without this explanation it is pointless as the poem now stands.
I do not now think that there was ever any account of what happened to Ulysses on his waking up in Ithaca, other than what we now have, but rather that the writer was led to adopt a new scheme at the very point where it became incumbent upon her to complete an old one. For at this point she would first find herself face to face with the difficulty of knowing what to do with Ulysses in Ithaca after she had got him there.
She could not ignore the suitors altogether; their existence and Penelope's profligacy were too notorious. She could not make Ulysses and Penelope meet happily while the suitors were still in his house; and even though he killed them, he could never condone Penelope's conduct—not as an epic hero. The writer of theOdysseyhad evidently thought that she could find some way out of the difficulty, but when it came to the point she discovered that she must either make Ulysses kill his wife along with the suitors, or contend that from first to last she had been pure as new fallen snow. She chose the second alternative, as she would be sure to do, and brazened it out with her audience as best she could. At line 187, therefore, of Book xiii. or thereabouts, she broke up her 'Return' camp and started on a new campaign.
To bring the two poems together she added lines xi. 115-137, in which Teiresias tells Ulysses about the suitors and his further wanderings when he shall have killed them. I suppose Teiresias' prophecy to have originally ended where Circe's does when she repeats his warning about the cattle of the Sun-god verbatim (xii. 137-140) with the line
ὀψὲ κακῶς νεῖαι ὸλέσας ἄπο πάντας ἑταίρους·
The first line of the addition to Teiresias' original prophecy (xi. 115) is also found with a slight variant in ix. 535, but itmerely states that Ulysses will find trouble in his house, without mentioning what the trouble is to be.
With the two exceptions above noted, there is not only nothing in the original poem (i.e., Book i. 1-79 and v. 28—xiii. 187 or thereabouts) to indicate any intention of dealing with the suitors, but there are omissions which make it plain that no such intention existed. In the poem the Muse is only asked to sing the Return of Ulysses. In the speech of Jove at the council of the gods (i. 32-43), he is not thinking about the suitors, as he would assuredly do if the writer had as yet meant to introduce them. In repeated speeches of the gods, and especially in Book v. which is Book i. of the original poem (see lines 36-42, 288, 289, and 345),[2]it seems that Ulysses' most serious troubles were to end when he had reached Scheria. So again Calypso (v. 206-208) tries to deter him from leaving her by saying that he little knows what he will have to go through before he gets home again, but she does not enforce her argument by adding that when he had got to Ithaca the worst was yet to come. I have already dealt with the silence of Ulysses' mother in Hades.
Noting, therefore, that omission is a more telling indication of scheme than lines which, when a new subject is being grafted on to an old one, are certain to be inserted where necessary in order to unify the work, I have no hesitation in believing that Books i. 1-79 and v. 28—xiii. 187 or thereabouts, formed as much as the authoress ever wrote of the original poem; I have the less hesitation in adopting this conclusion because, though I believe that I came to it independently as any one must do who studies theOdysseywith due attention, I find myself in substantial agreement with Kirchhoff in spite of much difference of detail, for I cannot admit that the two poems are by two or more separate people.
The introduction of lines xi. 115-137 and of line ix. 535, with a writing of a new Council of the gods at the beginning of Book v. to take the place of the one that was removed to Book i. 1-79, were the only things that were done to give evena semblance of unity to the old scheme and the new, and to conceal the fact that the Muse after being asked to sing of one subject spends two thirds of her time in singing a very different one, with a climax for which no one had asked her. For, roughly, the Return occupies eight Books and Penelope and the suitors sixteen.
That lines xi. 115-137 were non-existent when Book xiii. was being written is demonstrated by the fact of Ulysses' saying to the Phæacians that he hoped he should find his wife living with her friends in peace (xiii. 42, 43). He could not have said this if Teiresias had already told him that his house would be full of enemies who were eating up his estate, and whom he would have to kill. He could hardly forget such a prophecy after having found Teiresias quite correct about the cattle of the Sun-god. Indeed he tells Penelope about his visit to Hades and his interview with Teiresias (xxiii. 323), so it is plain he remembered it. It is plain, again (from xiii. 382 &c.), that Ulysses was then learning from Minerva about the suitors for the first time—which could not be if Teiresias' prophecy had been already written.
It is surprising; seeing what a little further modification would have put everything quite straight, that the writer should have been content to leave passages here and there which she must have known would betray the want of homogeneity in her work, but we should be very thankful to her for not having tidied it up with greater care. We learn far more about her than we should do if she had made her work go more perfectly upon all fours, and it is herself that we value even more than her poem. She evidently preferred cobbling to cancelling, and small wonder, for if, as was very probably the case, the work was traced with a sharply pointed style of hardened bronze, or even steel,[3]on plates of lead, alteration would not be so easy as it is with us. Besides, we all cobble rather than cancel if we can. It is quite possible, but I need hardly say that it is not more than a mere possibility, that the abruptness of the interpolation in Book iv.lines 621-624, may be due simply to its having been possible to introduce four lines without cutting the MS. about very badly, when a longer passage would have necessitated a more radical interference with it.
We look, then, for the inception of the poem in Books i. 1-79 and v. 28-xiii. 187 or thereabouts, or more roughly in Books v.-xii. inclusive. These Books, though they contain no discrepancies among themselves except the twenty lines added to the prophecy of Teiresias above referred to are not homogeneous in scope, though they are so in style and treatment. They split themselves into two groups of four,i.e., v.-viii. and ix.-xii. The first group is written to bring Ulysses to Scheria and to exhibit the Phæacians and the writer herself—the interest in Ulysses being subordinate; the second is written to describe a periplus of Sicily.
Books ix.-xii. appear to have been written before Books v.-viii. We may gather this from the total absence of Minerva. It is inconceivable that having introduced the Goddess so freely in Books v.-viii. the writer should allow her to drop out from the story when there was such abundant scope for her interference. These Books are certainly by the same hand as the rest of the poem. They show the same amount of Iliadic influence; nowhere does a woman's hand appear more plainly; nowhere is Sicily, and more particularly Trapani, more in evidence, direct or indirect. It is from the beginning of Book ix. that we get our conviction that the Ionian islands were drawn from the Ægadean, and the voyages of Ulysses, as I have already shown, begin effectively with Mt. Eryx and end with Trapani. We may, therefore, dismiss all idea that Books ix.-xii. are by another writer.
Not only is the absence of Minerva inexplicable except by supposing that at the time these Books were written it was no part of the writer's scheme to make her such adea ex machinâas she becomes later, but the writer shows herself aware that the absence of the goddess in Books ix.—xii. requires apology, and makes Ulysses upbraid her for having neglected him from the time he left Troy till she took him into the city of the Phæacians (xiii. 314-323). The goddess excuses herself bysaying she had known all the time that he would get home quite safely, and had kept away because she did not want to quarrel with her uncle Neptune—an excuse which we also find at the end of Book vi., in which Book she has, nevertheless, been beautifying Ulysses and making herself otherwise useful to him. I suppose Neptune did not mind how much his niece helped Ulysses, provided she did not let him see her.
I know how my own books, especially the earlier ones, got cut about, rearranged, altered in scheme, and cobbled to hide alteration, so that I never fairly knew what my scheme was till the book was three-quarters done, and I credit young writers generally with a like tentativeness.
I have now, I believe, shown sufficient cause for thinking that Books ix.-xii.,i.e., the voyage of Ulysses round Sicily, were the part of theOdysseythat was written first. I am further confirmed in this opinion by finding Ulysses fasten his box with a knot that Circe had taught him (viii. 448)—as though the writer knew all about Circe, though the audience, of course, could not yet do so. A knowledge of Book ix., moreover, is shown in Book ii. 19, a passage which does not appear in my abridgement. Here we learn how Antiphus had been eaten by Polyphemus; Book ix. is also presupposed in i. 68, which tells of the blinding of the Cyclops by Ulysses.
We may also confidently say that Books v.—viii. were written before i.-iv. and xiii.-xxiv. (roughly), but what the vicissitudes of Books v.-viii. were, and whether or no they drew upon earlier girlish sketches—as without one shred of evidence in support of my opinion I nevertheless incline to think—these are points which it would be a waste of time to even attempt to determine.
It is in Books v.-viii., and especially in the three last of these books, that the writer is most in her element. Few will differ from Col. Mure, who says of Scheria:—
There can be little doubt from the distinctive peculiarities with which the poet has invested its inhabitants, and the precision and force displayed in his portrait of their character, that the episodewas intended as a satire on the habits of some real people with whom he was familiar.
(Language and Literature of Ancient Greece, Vol. I., p. 404).
Speaking on the same page of the obviously humorous spirit in which the Phæacian episode is conceived, Col. Mure says:—-
This episode is, perhaps, the most brilliant specimen of the poet's combined talent for the delineation of character and for satirical humour. While there is no portion of his works a right understanding of which is so indispensable to a full estimate of his genius, there is none, perhaps, which has been so little understood. Appeal may be made to the tenor of the most esteemed commentaries, still more, perhaps, to the text of the most popular translations, where the gay sarcastic tone of description and dialogue which seasons the whole adventure, is replaced by the tragic solemnity of the gravest scones of theIliad.
This episode is, perhaps, the most brilliant specimen of the poet's combined talent for the delineation of character and for satirical humour. While there is no portion of his works a right understanding of which is so indispensable to a full estimate of his genius, there is none, perhaps, which has been so little understood. Appeal may be made to the tenor of the most esteemed commentaries, still more, perhaps, to the text of the most popular translations, where the gay sarcastic tone of description and dialogue which seasons the whole adventure, is replaced by the tragic solemnity of the gravest scones of theIliad.
People find what they bring. Is it possible that eminent Homeric scholars have found so much seriousness in the more humorous parts of theOdysseybecause they brought it there? To the serious all things are serious. Coleridge, so I learn from the notes at the end of Mr. Gollancz'sTemple Shakespeare, saw no burlesque in the speeches of the players which are introduced intoHamlet. He says:—
The fancy that a burlesque was intended sinks below criticism; the lines, as epic narrative, are superb.
The fancy that a burlesque was intended sinks below criticism; the lines, as epic narrative, are superb.
As Mr. Gollancz has given no reference, so neither can I. Mr. Gollancz continues that if Coleridge had read Act II. Scene i. ofDidoandÆneas—a play left unfinished by Marlowe—he would have changed his mind, but I do not believe he would.
At the same time I take it that the writer was one half laughing and the other half serious, and would sometimes have been hard put to it to know whether she was more in the one vein than in the other. So those who know the cantataNarcissus, advertised at the end of this volume, will admit that there are people who are fully aware that there is no music in this world so great as Handel's, but who will still tryto write music in the style of Handel, and when they have done it, hardly know whether they have been more in jest or earnest, though while doing it they fully believed that they were only writing, so far as in them lay, the kind of music which Handel would have written for such words had he lived a hundred years or so later than he did.
We may note, without, however, being able to deduce anything from it as regards the dates at which the various parts of the poem were composed, that in the first four Books of theOdysseythe season appears to be summer rather than winter. In all the other Books (of course excluding those in which Ulysses tells his story) the season is unquestionably winter, or very early spring. It is noticeable also that snow, which appears so repeatedly in theIliad, and of which Homer evidently felt the beauty very strongly, does not appear, and is hardly even mentioned, in theOdyssey. I should perhaps tell some readers that winter is long and severe in the Troad, while on the West coast of Sicily snow is almost unknown, and the winter is even milder than that of Algiers.
I ought also perhaps hardly to pass over the fact that amber, which is never mentioned in theIliad, appears three times in theOdyssey.[4]This may be mere accident, nevertheless Sicily was an amber-producing country, and indeed still is so; a large collection of Sicilian amber exists in the museum of Castrogiovanni, the ancient Enna, and I have been assured on good authority, but have not verified my informant's statement, that some fine specimens may be seen in the South Kensington Museum. Speaking of Sicilian amber theEncyclopedia Britannicasays:—
The most beautiful specimens are, perhaps, those which are found at Catania. They often possess a beautiful play of purple not to be observed in the product of other places.
The most beautiful specimens are, perhaps, those which are found at Catania. They often possess a beautiful play of purple not to be observed in the product of other places.
I cannot make out whether the first four Books were written before the last twelve or after; probably they were written first, but there is something to be said also on the other side.I will not attempt to settle this point, and will only add that when we hear in mind how both the two main divisions of theOdyssey—the Phæacian episode with the Return of Ulysses, and the story of Penelope and the suitors, show unmistakeable signs of having been written at one place, by woman, by woman who is evidently still very young, and that not a trace of difference in versification, style, or idiom can be found between the two divisions, the only conclusion we should come to is that the poem was written by one and the same woman from the first page to the last. I think we may also conclude in the absence of all evidence to the contrary—for assuredly none exists that deserves the name of evidence—that we have the poem to all intents and purposes in the shape which it had assumed in the hands of the authoress.