[Footnote: _Iliad_, vol. i. pp. 465-466. Note on Book XI. 756.] The value of this discovery is elsewhere discussed (see _The Interpolations of Nestor_).
The Odyssean notes in this pa.s.sage of a hundred lines (_Iliad_, XI.
670-762) are the occurrence of "a purely Odyssean word" (677), an Attic form of an epic word, and a "forbidden trochaic caesura in the fourth foot"; an Odyssean word for carving meat, applied in a _non_-Odyssean sense (688), a verb for "insulting," not elsewhere found in the _Iliad_ (though the noun is in the _Iliad_) (695), an Odyssean epithet of the sun, "four times in the _Odyssey_" (735). It is also possible that there is an allusion to a four-horse chariot (699).
These are the proofs of Odyssean lateness.
The real difficulty about Odyssean words and grammar in the _Iliad_ is that, if they were in vigorous poetic existence down to the time of Pisistratus (as the Odysseanism of the Asiatic editor proves that they were), and if every rhapsodist could add to and alter the materials at the disposal of the Pisistratean editor at will, we are not told how the fashionable Odysseanisms were kept, on the whole, out of twenty Books of the Iliad.
This is a point on which we cannot insist too strongly, as an argument against the theory that, till the middle of the sixth century B.C., the _Iliad_ scarcely survived save in the memory of strolling rhapsodists.
If that were so, all the Books of the _Iliad_ would, in the course of recitation of old and composition of new pa.s.sages, be equally contaminated with late Odyssean linguistic style. It could not be otherwise; all the Books would be equally modified in pa.s.sing through the lips of modern reciters and composers. Therefore, if twenty out of twenty-four Books are pure, or pure in the main, from Odysseanisms, while four are deeply stained with them, the twenty must not only be earlier than the four, but must have been specially preserved, and kept uncontaminated, in some manner inconsistent with the theory that all alike scarcely existed save in the memory or invention of late strolling reciters.
How the twenty Books relatively pure "in grammatical forms, in syntax, and in vocabulary," could be kept thus clean without the aid of written texts, I am unable to imagine. If left merely to human memory and at the mercy of reciters and new poets, they would have become stained with "the defining article"--and, indeed, an employment of the article which startles grammarians, appears even in the eleventh line of the First Book of the _Iliad_? [Footnote (exact placing uncertain): Cf. Monro and Leaf, on Iliad, I. 11-12.]
Left merely to human memory and the human voice, the twenty more or less innocent Books would have abounded, like the Odyssey, in [Greek: amphi] with the dative meaning "about," and with [Greek: ex] "in consequence of," and "the extension of the use of [Greek: ei] clauses as final and objective clauses," and similar marks of lateness, so interesting to grammarians. [Footnote: Monro, _Odyssey_, ii. pp.
331-333.] But the twenty Books are almost, or quite, inoffensive in these respects.
Now, even in ages of writing, it has been found difficult or impossible to keep linguistic novelties and novelties of metre out of old epics. We later refer (_Archaeology of the Epic_) to the _Chancun de Willame_, of which an unknown benefactor printed two hundred copies in 1903.
Mr. Raymond Weeks, in _Romania_, describes _Willame_ as taking a place beside the _Chanson de Roland_ in the earliest rank of _Chansons de Geste_. If the text can be entirely restored, the poem will appear as "the most primitive" of French epics of the eleventh and twelfth centuries. But it has pa.s.sed from copy to copy in the course of generations. The methods of versification change, and, after line 2647, "there are traces of change in the language. The word _co_, followed by a vowel, hitherto frequent, never again reappears. The vowel _i_, of _li_, nominative masculine of the article" (_li Reis_, "the king"), "never occurs in the text after line 2647. Up to that point it is elided or not at pleasure.... There is a progressive tendency towards hiatus.
After line 1980 the system of a.s.sonance changes. _An_ and en have been kept distinct hitherto; this ceases to be the case." [Footnote: _Romania_, x.x.xiv. pp. 240-246.]
The poem is also notable, like the _Iliad_, for textual repet.i.tion of pa.s.sages, but that is common to all early poetry, which many Homeric critics appear not to understand. In this example we see how apt novelties in grammar and metre are to steal into even written copies of epics, composed in and handed down through uncritical ages; and we are confirmed in the opinion that the relatively pure and orthodox grammar and metre of the twenty Books must have been preserved by written texts carefully "executed. The other four Books, if equally old, were less fortunate. Their grammar and metre, we learn, belong to a later stratum of language.
These opinions of grammarians are not compatible with the hypothesis that _all_ of the _Iliad_, even the "earliest" parts, are loaded with interpolations, forced in at different places and in any age from 1000 B.C. to 540 B.C.; for if that theory were true, the whole of the _Iliad_ would equally be infected with the later Odyssean grammar. According to Mr. Monro and Sir Richard Jebb, it is not.
But suppose, on the other hand, that the later Odyssean grammar abounds all through the whole _Iliad_, then that grammar is not more Odyssean than it is Iliadic. The alleged distinction of early Iliadic grammar, late Odyssean grammar, in that case vanishes. Mr. Leaf is more keen than Mr. Monro and Sir Richard Jebb in detecting late grammar in the _Iliad_ beyond the bounds of Books IX., X., XXIII., XXIV. But he does not carry these discoveries so far as to make the late grammar no less Iliadic than Odyssean. In Book VIII. of the _Iliad_, which he thinks was only made for the purpose of introducing Book IX., [Footnote: _Iliad_, vol.
i. p. 332. 1900.] we ought to find the late Odyssean grammar just as much as we do in Book IX., for it is of the very same date, and probably by one or more of the same authors as Book IX. But we do not find the Odyssean grammar in Book VIII.
Mr. Leaf says, "The peculiar character" of Book VIII. "is easily understood, when we recognise the fact that Book VIII. is intended to serve only as a means for the introduction of Book IX...." which is "late" and "Odyssean." Then Book VIII., intended to introduce Book IX., must be at least as late as Book IX. and might be expected to be at least as Odyssean, indeed one would think it could not be otherwise. Yet it is not so.
Mr. Leaf"s theory has thus to face the difficulty that while the whole _Iliad_, by his view, for more than four centuries, was stuffed with late interpolations, in the course of oral recital through all Greek lands, and was crammed with original "copy" by a sycophant of Pisistratus about 540 B.C., the late grammar concentrated itself in only some four Books. Till some reasonable answer is given to this question--how did twenty Books of the Iliad preserve so creditably the ancient grammar through centuries of change, and of recitation by rhapsodists who used the Odyssean grammar, which infected the four other Books, and the whole of the _Odyssey?_--it seems hardly worth while to discuss this linguistic test.
Any scholar who looks at these pages knows all about the proofs of grammar of a late date in the _Odyssey_ and the four contaminated Books of the _Iliad_. But it may be well to give a few specimens, for the enlightenment of less learned readers of Homer.
The use of [Greek: amfi], with the dative, meaning "about," when _thinking_ or _speaking_ "about" Odysseus or anything else, is peculiar to the _Odyssey_. But how has it not crept into the four Odyssean contaminated Books of the _Iliad_?
[Greek: peri], with the genitive, "follows verbs meaning to speak or know _about_ a person," but only in the _Odyssey_. What preposition follows such verbs in the _Iliad_?
Here, again, we ask: how did the contaminated Books of the _Iliad_ escape the stain of [Greek: peri], with the genitive, after verbs meaning to speak or know? What phrase do they use in the _Iliad_ for speaking or asking _about_ anybody? [Footnote (exact placing uncertain): Monro, Homeric _Grammar_. See Index, under _Iliad_, p. 339.]
[Greek: meta], with the genitive, meaning "among" or "with,"
comes twice in the Odyssey (X. 320; XVI. 140) and thrice in the _Iliad_ (XIII. 700; XXI. 458; XXIV. 400); but all these pa.s.sages in the _Iliad_ are disposed of as "late" parts of the poem.
[Greek: epi], with the accusative, meaning _towards_ a person, comes often in the _Iliad_; once in the Odyssey. But it comes four times in _Iliad_, Book X., which almost every critic scouts as very "late" indeed. If so, why does the "late" _Odyssey_ not deal in this grammatical usage so common in the "late" Book X. of the _Iliad_?
[Greek: epi], with the accusative, "meaning _extent_ (without _motion_)," is chiefly found in the _Odyssey_, and in the Iliad, IX., X., XXIV. On consulting grammarians one thinks that there is not much in this.
[Greek: proti] with the dative, meaning "in addition to," occurs only once (_Odyssey, X. 68_). If it occurs only once, there is little to be learned from the circ.u.mstance.
[Greek: ana] with the genitive, is only in _Odyssey_, only thrice, always of going on board a ship. There are not many ship-farings in the _Iliad_. Odysseus and his men are not described as going on board their ship, in so many words, in _Iliad_, Book I. The usage occurs in the poem where the incidents of seafaring occur frequently, as is to be expected? It is not worth while to persevere with these t.i.thes of mint and c.u.mmin. If "Neglect of Position" be commoner--like "Hiatus in the Bucolic Diaeresis"--in the _Odyssey_ and in _Iliad_, XXIII., XXIV., why do the failings not beset _Iliad_, IX., X., these being such extremely "late" books? As to the later use of the Article in the _Odyssey_ and the Odyssean Books of the _Iliad_, it appears to us that Book I. of the _Iliad_ uses the article as it is used in Book X.; but on this topic we must refer to a special treatise on the language of _Iliad_, Book X., which is promised.
Turning to the vocabulary: "words expressive of civilisation" are bound to be more frequent, as they are, in the Odyssey, a poem of peaceful life, than in a poem about an army in action, like the _Iliad_. Out of all this no clue to the distance of years dividing the two poems can be found. As to words concerning religion, the same holds good. The Odyssey is more frequently _religious_ (see the case of Eumaeus) than the _Iliad_.
In morals the term [Greek: dikaios] is more used in the _Odyssey_, also [Greek: atemistos] ("just" and "lawless"). But that is partly because the Odyssey has to contrast civilised ("just") with wild outlandish people--Cyclopes and Laestrygons, who are "lawless." The _Iliad_ has no occasion to touch on savages; but, as the [Greek: hybris] of the Wooers is a standing topic in the Odyssey (an ethical poem, says Aristotle), the word [Greek: hybris] is of frequent occurrence in the _Odyssey_, in just the same sense as it bears in _Iliad_, I 214--the insolence of Agamemnon. Yet when Achilles has occasion to speak of Agamemnon"s insolence in _Iliad_, Book IX., he does not use the _word_ [Greek: hybris], though Book IX. is so very "late" and "Odyssean." It would be easy to go through the words for moral ideas in the _Odyssey_, and to show that they occur in the numerous moral situations which do not arise, or arise much less frequently, in the _Iliad_. There is not difference enough in the moral standard of the two poems to justify us in a.s.suming that centuries of ethical progress had intervened between their dates of composition. If the _Iliad_, again, were really, like the _Odyssey_, a thing of growth through several centuries, which overlapped the centuries in which the _Odyssey_ grew, the moral ideas of the _Iliad_ and _Odyssey_ would necessarily be much the same, would be indistinguishable. But, as a matter of fact, it would be easy to show that the moral standard of the _Iliad_ is higher, in many places, than the moral standard of the _Odyssey_; and that, therefore, by the critical hypothesis, the _Iliad_ is the later poem of the twain. For example, the behaviour of Achilles is most obnoxious to the moralist in _Iliad_, Book IX., where he refuses gifts of conciliation. But by the critical hypothesis this is not the fault of the _Iliad_, for Book IX.
is declared to be "late," and of the same date as late parts of the _Odyssey_. Achilles is not less open to moral reproach in his abominable cruelty and impiety, as shown in his sacrifice of prisoners of war and his treatment of dead Hector, in _Iliad_, XXIII., XXIV. But these Books also are said to be as late as the _Odyssey_.
The solitary "realistic" or "naturalistic" pa.s.sage in Homer, with which a lover of modern "problem novels" feels happy and at home, is the story of Phoenix, about his seduction of his father"s mistress at the request of his mother. What a charming situation! But that occurs in an "Odyssean" Book of the _Iliad_, Book IX.; and thus Odyssean seems lower, not more advanced, than Iliadic taste in morals. To be sure, the poet disapproves of all these immoralities.
In the Odyssey the hero, to the delight of Athene, lies often and freely and with glee. The Achilles of the _Iliad_ hates a liar "like the gates of Hades"; but he says so in an "Odyssean" Book (Book IX.), so there were obviously different standards in Odyssean ethics.
As to the Odyssey being the work of "a milder age," consider the hanging of Penelope"s maids and the abominable torture of Melanthius. There is no torturing in the [blank s.p.a.ce] for the _Iliad_ happens not to deal with treacherous thralls.
_Enfin_, there is no appreciable moral advance in the _ODYSSEY_ on the moral standard of the _ILIAD_. It is rather the other way. Odysseus, in the _ODYSSEY_, tries to procure poison for his arrow-heads. The person to whom he applies is too moral to oblige him. We never learn that a hero of the _Iliad_ would use poisoned arrows. The poet himself obviously disapproves; in both poems the poet is always on the side of morality and of the highest ethical standard of his age. The standard in both Epics is the same; in both some heroes fall short of the standard.
To return to linguistic tests, it is hard indeed to discover what Mr.
Leaf"s opinion of the value of linguistic tests of lateness really is.
"It is on such fundamental discrepancies"--as he has found in Books IX., XVI.--"that we can depend, _AND ON THESE ALONE_, when we come to dissect the _ILIAD_ ... Some critics have attempted to base their a.n.a.lysis on evidences from language, but I do not think they are sufficient to bear the super-structure which has been raised on them." [Footnote: _Companion,_ p. 25.]
He goes on, still placing a low value on linguistic tests alone, to say: "It is on the broad grounds of the construction and motives of the poem, _AND NOT ON ANY MERELY linguistic CONSIDERATIONS_, that a decision must be sought." [Footnote: _Ibid_., p. x.]
But he contradicts these comfortable words when he comes to "the latest expansions," such as Books XXIII., XXIV. "The latest expansions are thoroughly in the spirit of those which precede, _them ON ACCOUNT OF linguistic EVIDENCE,_ which definitely cla.s.ses them with the _ODYSSEY_ rather than the rest of the _ILIAD_." [Footnote: _Iliad_, vol. ii. p.
xiv.]
Now as Mr. Leaf has told us that we must depend on "fundamental discrepancies," "on these alone," when we want to dissect the _ILIAD;_ as he has told us that linguistic tests alone are "not sufficient to bear the superstructure," &c., how can we lop off two Books "only on account of linguistic evidence"? It would appear that on this point, as on others, Mr. Leaf has entirely changed his mind. But, even in the _Companion_ (p. 388), he had amputated Book XXIV. for no "fundamental discrepancy," but because of "its close kinship to the _ODYSSEY_, as in the whole language of the Book."
Here, as in many other pa.s.sages, if we are to account for discrepancies by the theory of multiplex authorship, we must decide that Mr. Leaf"s books are the work of several critics, not of one critic only. But there is excellent evidence to prove that here we would be mistaken.
Confessedly and regretfully no grammarian, I remain unable, in face of what seem contradictory a.s.sertions about the value of linguistic tests, to ascertain what they are really worth, and what, if anything, they really prove.
Mr. Monro allows much for "the long insensible influence of Attic recitation upon the Homeric text;" ... "many Attic peculiarities may be noted" (so much so that Aristarchus thought Homer must have been an Athenian!). "The poems suffered a gradual and unsystematic because generally unconscious process of modernising, the chief agents in which were the rhapsodists" (reciters in a later democratic age), "who wandered over all parts of Greece, and were likely to be influenced by all the chief forms of literature." [Footnote: Monro, _Homeric Grammar_, pp 394-396. 1891]
Then, wherefore insist so much on tests of language?
Mr. Monro was not only a great grammarian; he had a keen appreciation of poetry. Thus he was conspicuously uneasy in his hypothesis, based on words and grammar, that the two last Books of the _Iliad_ are by a late hand. After quoting Sh.e.l.ley"s remark that, in these two Books, "Homer truly begins to be himself," Mr. Monro writes, "in face of such testimony can we say that the Book in which the climax is reached, in which the last discords of the _Iliad_ are dissolved in chivalrous pity and regret, is not the work of the original poet, but of some Homerid or rhapsodist?"
Mr. Monro, with a struggle, finally voted for grammar, and other indications of lateness, against Sh.e.l.ley and against his own sense of poetry. In a letter to me of May 1905, Mr. Monro sketched a theory that Book IX. (without which he said that he deemed an _Achilleis_ hardly possible) might be a _remanie_ representative of an earlier lay to the same general effect. Some Greek Shakespeare, then, treated an older poem on the theme of Book IX. as Shakespeare treated old plays, namely, as a canvas to work over with a master"s hand. Probably Mr. Monro would not have gone _so_ far in the case of Book XXIV., _The Repentance_ of Achilles. He thought it in too keen contrast with the brutality of Book XXII. (obviously forgetting that in Book XXIV. Achilles is infinitely more brutal than in Book XXII.), and thought it inconsistent with the refusal of Achilles to grant burial at the prayer of the dying Hector, and with his criminal treatment of the dead body of his chivalrous enemy. But in Book XXIV. his ferocity is increased. Mr. Leaf shares Mr. Monro"s view; but Mr. Leaf thinks that a Greek audience forgave Achilles, because he was doing "the will of heaven," and "fighting the great fight of h.e.l.lenism against barbarism." [Footnote: Leaf, _Iliad,_ vol.-ii. p. 429. 1902.] But the Achzeans were not Puritans of the sixteenth century! Moreover, the Trojans are as "h.e.l.lenic" as the Achzeans. They converse, clearly, in the same language. They worship the same G.o.ds. The Achzeans cannot regard them (unless on account of the breach of truce, by no Trojan, but an ally) as the Covenanters regarded "malignants," their name for loyal cavaliers, whom they also styled "Amalekites," and treated as Samuel treated Agag. The Achaeans to whom Homer sang had none of this sanguinary Pharisaism.
Others must decide on the exact value and import of Odyssean grammar as a test of lateness, and must estimate the probable amount of time required for the development of such linguistic differences as they find in the _Odyssey_ and _Iliad_. In undertaking this task they may compare the literary language of America as it was before 1860 and as it is now.
The language of English literature has also been greatly modified in the last forty years, but our times are actively progressive in many directions; linguistic variations might arise more slowly in the Greece of the Epics. We have already shown, in the more appropriate instance of the _Chancun de Willame_, that considerable varieties in diction and metre occur in a single MS. of that poem, a MS. written probably within less than a century of the date of the poem"s composition.
We can also trace, in _remaniements_ of the _Chanson DE ROLAND_, comparatively rapid and quite revolutionary variations from the oldest--the Oxford--ma.n.u.script. Rhyme is subst.i.tuted for a.s.sonance; the process entails frequent modernisations, and yet the basis of thirteenth-century texts continues to be the version of the eleventh century. It may be worth the while of scholars to consider these parallels carefully, as regards the language and prosody of the Odyssean Books of the _Iliad_, and to ask themselves whether the processes of alteration in the course of transmission, which we know to have occurred in the history of the Old French, may not also have affected the _ILIAD_, though why the effect is mainly confined to four Books remains a puzzle. It is enough for us to have shown that if Odyssean varies from Iliadic language, in all other respects the two poems bear the marks of the same age. Meanwhile, a Homeric scholar so eminent as Mr. T. W.
Allen, says that "the linguistic attack upon their age" (that of the Homeric poems) "may be said to have at last definitely failed, and archaeology has erected an apparently indestructible b.u.t.tress for their defence." [Footnote: _Cla.s.sical Review, May_ 1906, p. 194.]
CHAPTER XIII
THE "DOLONEIA"