Page:Encyclopædia Britannica, Ninth Edition, v. 12.djvu/129

117 HOME K 117 a few protests were made at the time, the true Homeric controversy did not begin till after the death of Wolf (1824). His speculations were thoroughly in harmony with the ideas and sentiment of the time, and his historical arguments, especially his long array of tastimonies to the work of Pisistratus, were hardly challenged. The first considerable antagonist of the Wollian school was G. W. Nitzsch, whose writings cover the space 1828-1862, and deal with every side of the controversy. In the earlier part of his Mddcmata (1830) he took up the question of written or unwritten literature, on which Wolf s whole argument turned, and showed that the art of writing must be anterior to Pisistratus. In the later part of the same series of discussions (1837), and in his chief work (Die Sagenpoesic der Gricchcn, 1852), he investigated the structure of the Homeric poems, and their relation to the other epics of the Trojan cycle. These epics had meanwhile been made the subject of a work which for exhaustive learning and delicacy of artistic perception has few rivals in the history of philology, the Epic Cycle of F. G. Welcker. The confusion which previous scholars had made between the ancient post-Homeric poets (Arctinus, Lesches, &c.) and the learned mythological writers (such as the &quot;scriptor cyclicus&quot; of Horace) was first cleared up by Welcker. Wolf had argued that if the cyclic writers had known the Iliad and Odyssey which we possess, they would have imitated the unity of structure which distinguishes these two poems. The result of Welcker s labours was to show that the Homeric poems had in fluenced both the form and the substance of epic poetry. In this way there arose a conservative school who admitted more or less freely the absorption of pre-existing lays in the formation of the Iliad and Odyssey, and also the existence of considerable inter polations, but assigned the main work of formation to prehistoric times, and to the genius of a great poet. Whether the two epics were by the same author remained an open question ; the tendency of this group of scholars was decidedly towards separation. Re garding the use of writing too they were not unanimous. K. 0. Miiller, for instance, maintained the view of Wolf on this point, while he strenuously combated the inference which Wolf drew from it. The Prolegomena bore on the title page the words &quot; Yolumen I.&quot; ; but no second volume ever appeared, nor was any attempt made by Wolf himself to carry his theory further. The first important steps in that direction were taken by Gottfried Hermann, chiefly in two dissertations, Do interpolntionibus Homer i (Leips., 1832), and DC Her atis Homer i (Leips., 1840), called forth by the writings of Nitzsch. As the word &quot;interpolation&quot; implies, Hermann did not maintain the hypothesis of a congeries of independent &quot;lays.&quot; Feeling the difficulty of supposing that all the ancient minstrels sang of the &quot; wrath of Achilles&quot; or the &quot; return of Ulysses&quot; (leaving out even the capture of Troy itself), he was led to assume that two poems of no great compass dealing with these two themes became so famous at an early period as to throw other parts of the Trojan into the back ground, and were then enlarged by successive generations of rhapso- dists. Some parts of the Iliad, moreover, seemed to him to be older than the p iem on the wrath of Achilles ; and thus in addition to the &quot;Homeric&quot; and &quot;post-Homeric&quot; matter he distinguished a &quot; pre-Homeric&quot; element. The conjectures of Hermann, in which the Wolfian theory found a modifie I and tentative application, were presently thrown into the shade by the more trenchant method of Lachmann, who (in two papers read to the Berlin Academy in 1837 and 1841) sought to show that the Iliad was made up of sixteen independent &quot;lays,&quot; with various enlargements and interpolations, all finally reduced to order by Pisistratus. The first book, for instance, consists of a lay on the anger of Achilles (1-347), and two continuations, the return of Chryseis (430-492) and the scenes in Olympus (348-429, 493-611). The second book forms a second lay, but several passages, among them the speech of Ulysses (278-332), are interpolated. In the third book the scenes in which Helen and Priam take part (including the making of the truce) are pronounced to be interpolations ; and so on. Regarding the evidence on which these sweeping results are founded, opinions will vary. The degree of smoothness or consistency which is to be expected on the hypo thesis of a single author will be determined by taste rather than argument. The dissection of the first book, for instance, turns partly on a chronological inaccuracy which might well escape the poet as well as his hearers. In examining such points we are apt to forget that the contradictions by which a story is shown to be untrue are quite different from those by which a confessedly untrue story would be shown to be the work of different authors. Structure of the Iliad. The subject of the Iliad, as tho first line proclaims, is the &quot;anger of Achilles.&quot; The manner in which this subject is worked out will appe.ir from the following summary, in which we distinguish (1) the plot, i.e., the story of the quarrel, (2) the main course of the war, which forms a sort of underplot, and (3) subor dinate episodes. I. Quarrel of Achilles with Agamemnon and the Greek army Agamemnon, having been compelled to give up his prize Chryseis, takes Briseis from Achilles Thereupon Achilles appeals to his mother Thetis, who obtains from Zeus a promise that he will give victory to the Trojans until the Greeks pay due honour to her son Meanwhile Achilles takes no part in the war. II. Agamemnon is persuaded by a dream sent from Zeus to take the field with all his forces. His attempt to test the temper of the army nearly leads to their return. Catalogue of the army. Trojan muster Trojan catalogue. III. Meeting of the armies Paris challenges Menelaus Truce made. &quot;Teichoscopy,&quot; Helen pointing out to Priam the Greek leaders. The duel Paris is saved by Aphrodite. IV. Truce broken by Pandarns. Advance of the armies Battle. V. Aristeia of Diomede his combat with Aphrodite VI. Meeting with Glaucus Visit of Hector to (1-311) the city, and oifering of a peplns to Athene. (312-529) Visit of Hector to Paris to Andromache. VII. Return of Hector and Paris to the field. Duel of Ajax and Hector. Truce for burial of dead. The Greeks build a wall round their camp. VIII. Battle The Trojans encamp on the field. IX. Agamemnon sends an embassy by night, offering Achilles restitution and full amends Achilles refuses. X. Doloneia Night expedition of Odysseus and Diomede. XL Aristeia of Agamemnon he is wounded -Wound ing of Diomede and Odysseus. Achilles sends Antilochus to inquire about Machaon. XII. Storming of the wall the Trojans reach the ships. XIII. Zeus ceases to watch the field Poseidon secretly comes to the aid of the Greeks. XIV. Sleep of Zeus, by the contrivance of Here. XV. Zeus awakened Restores the advantage to the Tro jans Ajax alone defends the ships. XVI. Achilles is persuaded to allow Patroclus to take the field. Patroclus drives back the Trojans kills Sarpedon is himself killed by Hector. XVII. Bat tie for the body of Patroclus Aristeia of Menelaus. XVIII. News of the death of Patroclus is brought to Achilles Thetis comes with the Nereids promises to obtain new armour for him from Hephaestus. The shield of Achilles described. XIX. Reconciliation of Achilles His grief and desire to avenge Patroclus. XX. The gods come down to the plain Combat of Achilles with ^Eneas and Hector, who escape. XXI. The Scamander is choked with slain rises against Achilles, who is saved by Hephsestus. XXII. Hector alone stands against Achilles his flight round the walls he is slain. XXIII. Burial of Patroclus Funeral games. XXIV. Priam ransoms the body of Hector his burial. Such is the &quot; action &quot; (Trpu^ts) which in Aristotle s opinion showed the superiority of Homer to all later epic poets. But the proof that his scheme was the work of a great poet does not depend merely upon the artistic unity which excited the wonder of Aristotle. A number of separate &quot;lays &quot;might conceivably be arranged and connected by a man of poetical taste in a manner that would satisfy all requirements. In such a case, however, the connecting passages would be slight and weak. Now, in the lhad these passages are the finest and most characteristic. The element of connexion and unity is the story of the &quot; wrath of Achilles&quot;; and we have only to look at the books which give the story of the wrath to see how essential they are. Even if the ninth book is rejected (as Grote proposed), there remain the speeches of the first, sixteenth, and nine teenth books. These speeches form the cardinal points in the action of the Iliad the framework into which every thing else is set; and they have also the best title to the name of Homer. The further question, however, remains, What shorter narrative piece fulfilling the conditions of an independent