Page:History of Greece Vol II.djvu/184

 168 HISTORY OF GREECE. B. Thierseh rest their theory, explaining the chronological confusion by supposing that the journey of Telemachus to Pylus and Sparta, constituted the subject of an epic originally separate (comprising the first four books and a portion of the fifteenth), and incorporated at second-hand with the remaining poem. And they conceive this view to be farther confirmed by the double assembly of the gods, (at the beginning of the first book as well as of the fifth,) which they treat as an awkward repetition, such as could not have formed part of the primary scheme of any epie poet. But here they only escape a small difficulty by running into another and a greater. For it is impossible to comprehend how the first four books and part of the fifteenth can ever have constituted a distinct epic; since the adventures of Telemachus have no satisfactory termination, except at the point of confluence with those of his father, when the unexpected meeting and recog- nition takes place under the roof of Eunueus, nor can any epic poem ever have described that meeting and recognition without giving some account how Odysseus came thither. Moreover, the first two books of the Odyssey distinctly lay the ground, and carry expectation forward, to the final catastrophe of the poem, treating Telemachus as a subordinate person, and his expedi- tion as merely provisional towards an ulterior result. Nor can I agree with W. Muller, that the real Odyssey might well be sup- posed to begin with the fifth book. On the contrary, the exhibi- tion of the suitors and the Ithakesian agora, presented to us in the second book, is absolutely essential to the full comprehension of the books subsequent to the thirteenth. The suitors are far too important personages in the poem to allow of their being first introduced in so informal a manner as we read in the sixteenth book: indeed, the passing allusions of Athene (xiii. 310, 375) and Eumseus (xiv. 41, 81) to the suitors, presuppose cognizance of them on the part of the hearer. Lastly, the twofold discussion of the gods, at the beginning of the first and fifth books, and the double interference of Athene, far from being a needless repetition, may be shown to suit per- fectly both the genuine epical conditions and the unity of the poem. 1 For although the final consummation, and the organiza- 1 W. Miiller is not cornx t in saying that, in the first assembly of the gods, Zeus promises something v hich he does not perform : Zeus docs not promitt