Page:Encyclopædia Britannica, Ninth Edition, v. 12.djvu/133

121 HOMER 121 ful transition from Ajax to Idomeneus, about whom no ques tion hid been asked,&quot; he cannot attribute to the original poet of the lay (Betrachtungen, p. 15, ed. 18G5). But, as has lately been pointed out, 1 this is exactly the variation which a poet would introduce to relieve the primitive ballad- like sameness of question and answer ; and moreover it forms the transition to the lines about the Dioscuri by which the scene is so touchingly brought to a close. Analogies. The development of epic poetry (properly so called) out of the oral songs or ballads of a country is a pro cess which in the nature of things can seldom be observed. It seems clear, however, that the hypothesis of epics such as the Iliad and Odyssey having been formed by patting together or even by working up shorter poems finds no support from analogy. Narrative poetry of great interest is found in several countries (such as Spain and Servia), in which it has never attained to the epic stage. In Scandinavia, in Lithuania, in Russia, according to M. Gaston Paris (Histoire poetique de Charlemagne, p. 9), the national songs have been arrested in a form which may be called intermediate between con temporary poetry and the epic. The true epics are those of India, Persia, Greece, Germany, Britain, and France. Most of thes?, however, fail to afford any useful points of comparison, either from their utter unlikeness to Homer, or because there is no evidence of the existence of anterior popular songs. The most instructive, perhaps the only instructive, parallel is to be found in the French &quot;chansons de geste,&quot; of which the Chanson de Roland is the earliest and best example. These poems are traced back with much probability to the 10th century. They are epic in character, and were recited by professional jonr/leurs (who may be compared to the doiSoi of Homer). But as early as the 7th century we come upon traces of short lays (the so-called cantilenes) which were in the mouths of all, and were sung in chorus. It has been held that the chansons de geste were formed by joining together &quot;bunches&quot; of these earlier cantile r ies, and this was the view taken by M. Leon Ga itier in the first edition of his great work, Les Epopees franpaises, published in 1865. In the second edition, of which the first volume appeared in 1878, he has aban doned this theory. He still believes that the epics were generally composed under the influence of earlier songs. &quot; Our first epic poets,&quot; lie now says, &quot; did not actually and materially patch together pre-existent cantilenes. They were only inspired by these popular songs ; they only borrowed from them the traditional and legendary elements. In short, they took nothing from them but the ideas, the spirit, the life ; they found (ils out trouve) all the rest &quot; (p. 80). But he admits that &quot;some of the old poems may have been borrowed from tradition, without any interme diary &quot; (ibid.); and when it is considered that the traces of the &quot; cantilenes&quot; are slight, and that the degree in which they inspired the later puetry must be a matter of impres sion rather than of proof, it does not surprise us to find other scholars (notably M. Paul Meyer) attaching less im portance to them, or even doubting their existence. 2 1 By A. Romer, Die Exegetiachcn Schollen der Illas, p. vii. 2 &quot; On co:iiprend que des chants populaires nes d un I venement eclatant, victoire on defaite, puissent contribuera former la tradition, a en arreter les traits ; ils peuvent aussi devenir le centre de legendes qui se forment pour les expliquer ; et de la sorte leur substance au moins arrive au poO te epique qui 1 introduit dans sa composition. Voila ce qui a pu se produire pour de chants tns-courts, dont il est d ailleurs aussi difficile d affirmer que de nier 1 existence. Mais on pent expliquer la formation des chansons de geste par tine autre hypothese&quot; (Meyer, JiechercJies sur I fipopee francaise, p. 65). &quot; Ce qui a fait naitre la tin-one de* chants lyrico-epiques ou des cantilenes, c est le systeme de Wolf sur les poemes honn -riques, et de Laclunann sur les Xibdungeu. Mais, au moins en ce qui concerne co dernier poeme, le systeme est di truit. ... On tire encore argument des romances espagnoles, qui, dit-on, sont des cautilenes 11011 encore When M. Leon Gautier shows how history passes into legend, and legend again into romance, we are reminded of the difference noticed above between the Iliad and the Odyssey, and between Homer and the early Cyclic poems. And as has been recently pointed out, the peculiar degrada tion of Homeric characters which appears in some poets (especially Euripides) finds a parallel in the later chansons de geste. 3 The comparison of Homer with the great literary epics calls for more discursive treatment than would be in place here. Some external differences have been already indicated. Like the French epics, Homeric poetry is indi genous, and is distinguished by this fact, and by the ease of movement and the simplicity which result from it, from poets such as Virgil, Dante, and Milton. It is also distin guished from them by the comparative absence of under lying motive or sentiment. In Virgil s poetry a sense of the greatness of Rome and Italy is the leading motive of a passionate rhetoric, partly veiled by the &quot; chosen delicacy &quot; of his language. Dante and Milton are still more faithful exponents of the religion and politics of their time. Even the French epics are pervaded by the sentiment of fear and hatred of the Saracens. But in Homer the interest is purely dramatic. There is no strong antipathy of race or religion ; the war turns on no political event ; the capture of Troy lies outside the range of the Iliad. Even the heroes are not the chief national heroes of Greece. The interest lies wholly (so far as we can see) in the picture of human action and feeling. Bibliography. A complete bibliography of Homer would fill volumes. The following list is intended to include those books only which are of first-rate importance, or which would be found of use to a student at the present time. The editio princess of Homer, published at Florence in 1488, by Demetrius Chalcondylas, and the Aldine editions of 1504 and 1517, have still some value beyon 1 that of curiosity. The chief modern critical editions are those of Wolf (Halle, 1794-95; Leipsic, 1804-7), Spit/ner (Gotlia, 1832-36), Bekker (Berlin, 1843; Bonn, 1858), and La Roche (Odyssey, 1867-68 ; Iliad, 1873-76, both at Leipsic). The commentaries of Barnes, Clarke, and Ernesti are practically superseded; but Heyne s Iliad (Leipsic, 1802), and Nitzsch s commentary on the Odyssey (books i.-xii., Hanover, 1826-40) are still useful. Nagelhach s Anmcrkungen sur llias (A,B 1-483, r) is of great value, especially the third edition (by Autenrieth, Nurem berg, 1864). The school editions of Faesi, Ameis, and La Roche should be added to the corresponding English books. The unique Scholia Vcncta on the Iliad were first made known by Villoison (Homcri Ilias ad vctcris codicis Vcncti fidem rcccnsifa, Scholia in earn antiquissima ex eodcm codice aliisquc mine primum edidit, cum Astcriseis, Obcliscis, aliisquc signis criticis, Joh. JBaptista Caspar d Anssc de Villoison, Venice, 1788); reprinted, with many additions from other MSS., by Bekker (Scholia in Homcri Iliadem, Berlin, 1825-26). A new edition is being published by the Oxford Press (Scholia Grccca in Homcri Iliadcm, ed. Gul. Dindorh us) ; four volumes have appeared (1875-77). The vast commentary of Kustathins was first printed at Rome in 1542; the last edition is that of Stallbaum (Leipsic, 1827). The Scholia on the Odyssey were published by Buttmann (Berlin, 1821), and with greater approach to completeness by W. Dindorf (Oxford, 1855). Although Wolf at once perceived the value of the Venetian Scholia on the Iliad, the first scholar who thoroughly explored them was K. Lehrs (Dc Aristarchi sfndiis Homericis, Kb nigsberg, 1833; 2ded. Leipsic, 1865). Of the studies in the same field which have appeared since, the most important are : Aug. Nauck, Aristophania Byzanlii fragmcnta (Halle, 1848); L. Friedlander, Aristonici irtpl a-rifj.eitai UioSos reliquice (Gottingen, 1853) ; M. Schmidt, Didymi Chul- ccntcri, fragmcnta (Leipsic, 1854); L. Friedlander, Nicanoris wepl lAia/crJs ffny^ris reliquiae (Berlin, 1857); Aug. Lentz, Hcrodiaiii Tcehniei reliquiae (Leipsic, 1867); J. La Roche, Die homcrische Te.vtkritik im Alterthmn (Leipsic, 1866), and Homcrische Untcr- suchungcn (Leipsic, 1869); Ad. Romer, Die Wcrkc der Aristarchcer im Cod. Vcnet. A. (Munich, 1875). The literature of the &quot;Homeric Question&quot; begins practically with Wolf s Prolegomena, (Halle, 1795). Of the earlier books arrivees & I epopi -e. ... Kt c est le malheur de cette theorie : faute de preuves directes, elle cherche des analogies au dehors ; en Espagne, elle trouve des cantilenes, mais pas d epopoe ; en Allemagne, une epopee, mais pas de cantih -nes !&quot; (Ibid., p. 66). 3 A. Lang, Contemporary Review, vol. xvii., n.s., p. 588. XII. ifi