Encyclopaedia Britannica, 11th Edition, "Home, Daniel" to "Hortensius, Quintus"
by Various · English · Gutenberg #39127 · 1,091,804 chars · public domain (US)
The Project Gutenberg eBook of Encyclopaedia Britannica, 11th Edition, "Home, Daniel" to "Hortensius, Quintus"
This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and
most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions
whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms
of the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online
at www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the United States,
you will have to check the laws of the country where you are located
before using this eBook.
Title: Encyclopaedia Britannica, 11th Edition, "Home, Daniel" to "Hortensius, Quintus"
Author: Various
Release date: March 13, 2012 [eBook #39127]
Language: English
Other information and formats: www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/39127
Credits: Produced by Marius Masi, Don Kretz and the Online
Distributed Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net
*** START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK ENCYCLOPAEDIA BRITANNICA, 11TH EDITION, "HOME, DANIEL" TO "HORTENSIUS, QUINTUS" ***
Produced by Marius Masi, Don Kretz and the Online
Distributed Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net
Transcriber's notes:
(1) Numbers following letters (without space) like C2 were originally
printed in subscript. Letter subscripts are preceded by an
underscore, like C_n.
(2) Characters following a carat (^) were printed in superscript.
(3) Side-notes were relocated to function as titles of their respective
paragraphs.
(4) Macrons and breves above letters and dots below letters were not
inserted.
(5) [root] stands for the root symbol; [alpha], [beta], etc. for greek
letters.
(6) The following typographical errors have been corrected:
ARTICLE HOMER: "... he cannot attribute to the original poet of the
lay (Betrachtungen, p. 15, ed. 1865)." 'cannot' amended from
'cannnot'.
ARTICLE HONDURAS: "This instrument gives the legislative power to a
congress of deputies elected for four years by popular vote, in the
ratio of one member for every 10,000 inhabitants." 'inhabitants'
amended from 'imhabitants'.
ARTICLE HORACE: "... and a practice originating in the wants and
convenience of friends temporarily separated from one another by
the public service was ultimately cultivated as a literary
accomplishment." 'convenience' amended from 'covenience'.
ARTICLE HORACE: "At that time he had outlived the coarser pleasures
and risen above the harassing cares of his earlier career ..."
'above' amended from 'bove'.
ARTICLE HORN: "Historisch-biographisches Lexicon der Tonkunstler
(Leipzig, 1790-1792 and 1812-1814)." 'Tonkunstler' amended from
'Tonkunslter'.
ARTICLE HORNBY, SIR GEOFFREY THOMAS PHIPPS: "It was early in 1877
that he went out as commander-in-chief in the Mediterranean, where
his skill in man[oe]uvring the fleet ..." 'Mediterranean' amended
from 'Mediterraean'.
ENCYCLOPAEDIA BRITANNICA
A DICTIONARY OF ARTS, SCIENCES, LITERATURE
AND GENERAL INFORMATION
ELEVENTH EDITION
VOLUME XIII, SLICE VI
Home, Daniel to Hortensius, Quintus
ARTICLES IN THIS SLICE:
HOME, DANIEL DUNGLAS HOPKINS, ESEK
HOME, JOHN HOPKINS, MARK
HOMEL HOPKINS, SAMUEL
HOME OFFICE HOPKINS, WILLIAM
HOMER HOPKINSON, FRANCIS
HOMER, WINSLOW HOPKINSON, JOHN
HOMESTEAD HOPKINSVILLE
HOMESTEAD AND EXEMPTION LAWS HOPPNER, JOHN
HOMEYER, KARL GUSTAV HOP-SCOTCH
HOMICIDE HOPTON, RALPH HOPTON
HOMILETICS HOR, MOUNT
HOMILY HORACE
HOMOEOPATHY HORAE
HOMONYM HORAPOLLON
HOMS HORATII and CURIATII
HO-NAN HORATIUS COCLES
HONAVAR HORDE
HONDA HOREB
HONDECOETER, MELCHIOR D' HOREHOUND
HONDURAS HORGEN
HONE, NATHANIEL HORIZON
HONE, WILLIAM HORMAYR, JOSEPH
HONE HORMISDAS
HONEY HORMIZD
HONEYCOMB HORMUZ
HONEY-EATER HORN, ARVID BERNHARD
HONEY-GUIDE HORN, PHILIP DE MONTMORENCY
HONEY LOCUST HORN (English hero)
HONEYMOON HORN (of animals)
HONEYSUCKLE HORN (wind instrument)
HONFLEUR HORNBEAM
HONG-KONG HORNBILL
HONITON HORNBLENDE
HONNEF HORN-BOOK
HONOLULU HORNBY, SIR GEOFFREY THOMAS PHIPPS
HONORIUS HORNCASTLE
HONORIUS, FLAVIUS HORN DANCE
HONOUR HORNE, GEORGE
HONOURABLE HORNE, RICHARD HENRY, or HENGIST
HONTHEIM, JOHANN NIKOLAUS VON HORNE, THOMAS HARTWELL
HONTHORST, GERARD VAN HORNELL
HOOCH, PIETER DE HORNEMANN, FREDERICK
HOOD, JOHN BELL HORNER, FRANCIS
HOOD, SAMUEL HOOD HORNER, LEONARD
HOOD, SIR SAMUEL HORNES, MORITZ
HOOD, THOMAS HORNFELS
HOOD, TOM HORNING, LETTERS OF
HOOD OF AVALON, ARTHUR HOOD HORNPIPE
HOOD HORNSEY
HOOFT, PIETER CORNELISSEN HOROWITZ, ISAIAH
HOOGSTRATEN, SAMUEL DIRKSZ VAN HORREUM
HOOK, JAMES CLARKE HORROCKS, JEREMIAH
HOOK, THEODORE EDWARD HORROCKS, JOHN
HOOK, WALTER FARQUHAR HORSE
HOOKAH HORSE LATITUDES
HOOKE, ROBERT HORSE-MACKEREL
HOOKER, JOSEPH HORSEMANSHIP
HOOKER, SIR JOSEPH DALTON HORSENS
HOOKER, RICHARD HORSE-POWER
HOOKER, THOMAS HORSE-RACING
HOOKER, SIR WILLIAM JACKSON HORSERADISH
HOOLE, JOHN HORSE-SHOES
HOOLIGAN HORSETAIL
HOOPER, JOHN HORSHAM
HOOPOE HORSLEY, JOHN
HOORN HORSLEY, JOHN CALLCOTT
HOOSICK FALLS HORSLEY, SAMUEL
HOP HORSLEY, WILLIAM
HOPE, ANTHONY HORSMAN, EDWARD
HOPE, THOMAS HORST
HOPEDALE HORT, FENTON JOHN ANTHONY
HOPE-SCOTT, JAMES ROBERT HORTA
HOPFEN, HANS VON HORTEN
HOPI HORTENSIUS, QUINTUS (Roman orator)
HOPKEN, ANDERS JOHAN HORTENSIUS, QUINTUS (dictator of Rome)
HOPKINS, EDWARD WASHBURN
HOME, DANIEL DUNGLAS (1833-1886), Scottish spiritualist, was born near
Edinburgh on the 20th of March 1833, his father being said to be a
natural son of the 10th earl of Home, and his mother a member of a
family credited with second sight. He went with his mother to America,
and on her death was adopted by an aunt. In the United States he came
out as a spiritualistic medium, though, it should be noted, he never
sought to make money out of his exhibitions. In 1855 he came to England
and gave numerous seances, which were attended by many well-known
people. Robert Browning, the poet, went to one of these, but without
altering his contempt for spiritualism, and he subsequently gave his
impression of Home in the unflattering poem of "Sludge the Medium"
(1864); Home, nevertheless, had many disciples, and gave seances at
several European courts. He became a Roman Catholic, but was expelled
from Rome as a sorcerer. In 1866 Mrs Lyon, a wealthy widow, adopted him
as her son, and settled L60,000 upon him. Repenting, however, of her
action, she brought a suit for the return of her money, on the ground
that it had been obtained by "spiritual" influence. It was held that the
burden of establishing the validity of the gift lay on Home, and as he
failed to do so the case was decided against him. He continued, however,
to give seances, mostly on the Continent, and in 1871 appeared before
the tsar of Russia and two Russian scientists, who attested the
phenomena evoked. Returning to England he submitted to a series of
experiments designed to test his pretensions before Professor
(subsequently Sir William) Crookes, which the latter declared to be
thoroughly genuine; and Professor von Boutlerow, of the Russian Academy
of Science, after witnessing a similar series of experiments, expressed
the same opinion. Home published two volumes of _Incidents of my Life
and Lights and Shadows of Spiritualism_. He married successively two
well-connected Russian ladies. He died at Auteuil, France, on the 21st
of June 1886.
HOME, JOHN (1722-1808), Scottish dramatic poet, was born on the 22nd of
September 1722 at Leith, where his father, Alexander Home, who was
distantly related to the earls of Home, filled the office of town-clerk.
He was educated at the grammar school of his native town, and at the
university of Edinburgh, where he graduated M.A. in 1742. Though he
showed a fondness for the profession of arms, he studied divinity, and
was licensed by the presbytery of Edinburgh in 1745. In the same year he
joined as a volunteer against the Pretender, and was taken prisoner at
the battle of Falkirk (1746). With many others he was carried to the
castle of Doune in Perthshire, but soon effected his escape. In July
1746 Home was presented to the parish of Athelstaneford,
Haddingtonshire, vacant by the death of Robert Blair, the author of _The
Grave_. He had leisure to visit his friends and became especially
intimate with David Hume who belonged to the same family as himself. His
first play, _Agis: a tragedy_, founded on Plutarch's narrative, was
finished in 1747. He took it to London and submitted it to Garrick for
representation at Drury Lane, but it was rejected as unsuitable for the
stage. The tragedy of _Douglas_ was suggested to him by hearing a lady
sing the ballad of _Gil Morrice_ or _Child Maurice_ (F. J. Child,
_Popular Ballads_, ii. 263). The ballad supplied him with the outline of
a simple and striking plot. After five years' labour he completed his
play, which he took to London for Garrick's opinion. It also was
rejected, but on his return to Edinburgh his friends resolved that it
should be brought out in that city. It was produced on the 14th of
December 1756 with overwhelming success, in spite of the opposition of
the presbytery, who summoned Alexander Carlyle to answer for having
attended its representation. Home wisely resigned his charge in 1757,
after a visit to London, where _Douglas_ was brought out at Covent
Garden on the 14th of March. Peg Woffington played Lady Randolph, a part
which found a later exponent in Mrs Siddons. David Hume summed up his
admiration for _Douglas_ by saying that his friend possessed "the true
theatric genius of Shakespeare and Otway, refined from the unhappy
barbarism of the one and licentiousness of the other." Gray, writing to
Horace Walpole (August, 1757), said that the author "seemed to have
retrieved the true language of the stage, which has been lost for these
hundred years," but Samuel Johnson held aloof from the general
enthusiasm, and averred that there were not ten good lines in the whole
play (Boswell, _Life_, ed. Croker, 1848, p. 390). In 1758 Home became
private secretary to Lord Bute, then secretary of state, and was
appointed tutor to the prince of Wales; and in 1760 his patron's
influence procured him a pension of L300 per annum and in 1763 a
sinecure worth another L300. Garrick produced _Agis_ at Drury Lane on
the 21st of February 1758. By dint of good acting and powerful support,
according to Genest (_Short Account_ &c., iv. 513 seq.), the piece kept
the stage for eleven days, but it was lamentably inferior to _Douglas_.
In 1760 his tragedy, _The Siege of Aquileia_, was put on the stage,
Garrick taking the part of Aemilius. In 1769 his tragedy of _The Fatal
Discovery_ had a run of nine nights; _Alonzo_ also (1773) had fair
success in the representation; but his last tragedy, _Alfred_ (1778),
was so coolly received that he gave up writing for the stage. In 1778 he
joined a regiment formed by the duke of Buccleuch. He sustained severe
injuries in a fall from horseback which permanently affected his brain,
and was persuaded by his friends to retire. From 1767 he resided either
at Edinburgh or at a villa which he built at Kilduff near his former
parish. It was at this time that he wrote his _History of the Rebellion
of 1745_, which appeared in 1802. Home died at Merchiston Bank, near
Edinburgh, on the 5th of September 1808, in his eighty-sixth year.
_The Works of John Home_ were collected and published by Henry
Mackenzie in 1822 with "An Account of the Life and Writings of Mr John
Home," which also appeared separately in the same year, but several of
his smaller poems seem to have escaped the editor's observation. These
are--"The Fate of Caesar," "Verses upon Inveraray," "Epistle to the
Earl of Eglintoun," "Prologue on the Birthday of the Prince of Wales,
1759" and several "Epigrams," which are printed in vol. ii. of
_Original Poems by Scottish Gentlemen_ (1762). See also Sir W. Scott,
"The Life and Works of John Home" in the _Quarterly Review_ (June,
1827). _Douglas_ is included in numerous collections of British drama.
Voltaire published his _Le Caffe, ou l'Ecossaise_ (1760), _Londres_
(really Geneva), as a translation from the work of Mr Hume, described
as _pasteur de l'eglise d'Edimbourg_, but Home seems to have taken no
notice of the mystification.
HOMEL, or GOMEL, a town of Russia, in the government of Mogilev, and 132
m. by rail S.S.E. of the town of Mogilev, on the Sozh, a tributary of
the Dnieper. Pop. (1900) 45,081, nearly half of whom are Jews. It is an
important junction of the railways from Vilna to Odessa and from Orel to
Poland, and is in steamer communication with Kiev and Mogilev. In front
of Prince Paskevich's castle stands an equestrian statue of the Polish
general Joseph Poniatowski, and in the cathedral is the tomb of the
chancellor Nikolai Petrovich Rumantsev, by Canova. The town carries on a
brisk trade in hops, corn and timber; there are also paper-pulp mills
and oil factories. Homel was founded in the 12th century, and after
changing hands several times between Poles and Russians was annexed to
Russia in 1772. In 1648 it suffered at the hands of the Cossack
chieftain Bogdan Chmielnicki.
HOME OFFICE, a principal government department in the United Kingdom,
the creation of which dates from 1782, when the conduct of foreign
affairs, which had previously been divided between the northern and
southern secretaries, was handed over to the northern department (see
FOREIGN OFFICE). The home department retained control of Irish and
colonial affairs, and of war business until 1794, when an additional
secretary of state was re-appointed. In 1801 the colonial business was
transferred from the home department, which now attends only to domestic
affairs. The head of the department, the principal secretary of state
for home affairs, or home secretary, is a member of the government for
the time being, and of the cabinet, receiving a salary of L5000 a year.
He is the proper medium of communication between the sovereign and the
subject, and receives petitions addressed to the crown. He is
responsible for the maintenance of the king's peace and attends to the
administration of criminal justice, police and prisons, and through him
the sovereign exercises his prerogative of mercy. Within his department
is the supervision of lunatic asylums, reformatories and industrial
schools, and it is his duty to see after the internal well-being of the
country, to enforce the rules made for the health or safety of the
community generally, and especially of those classes employed in special
trades or dangerous occupations. He is assisted by a permanent
under-secretary, a parliamentary secretary and several assistant
under-secretaries.
See Anson, _Law and Custom of the Constitution_. (1907).
HOMER[1] ([Greek: Homeros]), the great epic poet of Greece. Many of the
works once attributed to him are lost; those which remain are the two
great epics, the _Iliad_ and the _Odyssey_, thirty-three _Hymns_, a mock
epic (the _Battle of the Frogs and Mice_), and some pieces of a few
lines each (the so-called _Epigrams_).
_Ancient Accounts of Homer._--Of the date of Homer probably no record,
real or pretended, ever existed. Herodotus (ii. 53) maintains that
Hesiod and Homer lived not more than 400 years before his own time,
consequently not much before 850 B.C. From the controversial tone in
which he expresses himself it is evident that others had made Homer more
ancient; and accordingly the dates given by later authorities, though
very various, generally fall within the 10th and 11th centuries B.C. But
none of these statements has any claim to the character of external
evidence.
The extant lives of Homer (edited in Westermann's _Vitarum Scriptores
Graeci minores_) are eight in number, including the piece called the
_Contest of Hesiod and Homer_. The longest is written in the Ionic
dialect, and bears the name of Herodotus, but is certainly spurious. In
all probability it belongs to the time which was fruitful beyond all
others in literary forgeries, viz. the 2nd century of our era.[2] The
other lives are certainly not more ancient. Their chief value consists
in the curious short poems or fragments of verse which they have
preserved--the so-called _Epigrams_, which used to be printed at the end
of editions of Homer. These are easily recognized as "Popular Rhymes," a
form of folk-lore to be met with in most countries, treasured by the
people as a kind of proverbs.[3] In the Homeric _epigrams_ the interest
turns sometimes on the characteristics of particular localities--Smyrna
and Cyme (_Epigr._ iv.), Erythrae (_Epigr._ vi., vii.), Mt Ida (_Epigr._
x.). Neon Teichos (_Epigr._ i.); others relate to certain trades or
occupations--potters (Epigr. xiv.), sailors, fishermen, goat herds, &c.
Some may be fragments of longer poems, but evidently they are not the
work of any one poet. The fact that they were all ascribed to Homer
merely means that they belong to a period in the history of the Ionian
and Aeolian colonies when "Homer" was a name which drew to itself all
ancient and popular verse.
Again, comparing the "epigrams" with the legends and anecdotes told in
the Lives of Homer, we can hardly doubt that they were the chief source
from which these Lives were derived. Thus in Epigr. iv. we find a blind
poet, a native of Aeolian Smyrna, through which flows the water of the
sacred Meles. Here is doubtless the source of the chief incident of the
Herodotean Life--the birth of Homer "Son of the Meles." The epithet
Aeolian implies high antiquity, inasmuch as according to Herodotus
Smyrna became Ionian about 688 B.C. Naturally the Ionians had their own
version of the story--a version which made Homer come out with the first
Athenian colonists.
The same line of argument may be extended to the _Hymns_, and even to
some of the lost works of the post-Homeric or so-called "Cyclic" poets.
Thus:--
1. The hymn to the Delian Apollo ends with an address of the poet to his
audience. When any stranger comes and asks who is the sweetest singer,
they are to answer with one voice, the "blind man that dwells in rocky
Chios; his songs deserve the prize for all time to come." Thucydides,
who quotes this passage to show the ancient character of the Delian
festival, seems to have no doubt of the Homeric authorship of the hymn.
Hence we may most naturally account for the belief that Homer was a
Chian.
2. The _Margites_--a humorous poem which kept its ground as the reputed
work of Homer down to the time of Aristotle--began with the words,
"There came to Colophon an old man, a divine singer, servant of the
Muses and Apollo." Hence doubtless the claim of Colophon to be the
native city of Homer--a claim supported in the early times of Homeric
learning by the Colophonian poet and grammarian Antimachus.
3. The poem called the _Cypria_ was said to have been given by Homer to
Stasinus of Cyprus as a daughter's dowry. The connexion with Cyprus
appears further in the predominance given in the poem to Aphrodite.
4. The _Little Iliad_ and the _Phocais_, according to the Herodotean
life, were composed by Homer when he lived at Phocaea with a certain
Thestorides, who carried them off to Chios and there gained fame by
reciting them as his own. The name Thestorides occurs in _Epigr._ v.
5. A similar story was told about the poem called the _Taking of
Oechalia_ ([Greek: Oichalias Halosis]), the subject of which was one of
the exploits of Heracles. It passed under the name of Creophylus, a
friend or (as some said) a son-in-law of Homer; but it was generally
believed to have been in fact the work of the poet himself.
6. Finally the _Thebaid_ always counted as the work of Homer. As to the
_Epigoni_, which carried on the Theban story, some doubt seems to have
been felt.
These indications render it probable that the stories connecting Homer
with different cities and islands grew up after his poems had become
known and famous, especially in the new and flourishing colonies of
Aeolis and Ionia. The contention for Homer, in short, began at a time
when his real history was lost, and he had become a sort of mythical
figure, an "eponymous hero," or personification of a great school of
poetry.
An interesting confirmation of this view from the negative side is
furnished by the city which ranked as chief among the Asiatic colonies
of Greece, viz. Miletus. No legend claims for Miletus even a visit from
Homer, or a share in the authorship of any Homeric poem. Yet Arctinus of
Miletus was said to have been a "disciple of Homer," and was certainly
one of the earliest and most considerable of the "Cyclic" poets. His
_Aethiopis_ was composed as a sequel to the _Iliad_; and the structure
and general character of his poems show that he took the _Iliad_ as his
model. Yet in his case we find no trace of the disputed authorship which
is so common with other "Cyclic" poems. How has this come about? Why
have the works of Arctinus escaped the attraction which drew to the name
of Homer such epics as the _Cypria_, the _Little Iliad_, the _Thebaid_,
the _Epigoni_, the _Taking of Oechalia_ and the _Phocais_. The most
obvious account of the matter is that Arctinus was never so far
forgotten that his poems became the subject of dispute. We seem through
him to obtain a glimpse of an early post-Homeric age in Ionia, when the
immediate disciples and successors of Homer were distinct figures in a
trustworthy tradition--when they had not yet merged their individuality
in the legendary "Homer" of the Epic Cycle.
_Recitation of the Poems._--The recitation of epic poetry was called in
historical times "rhapsody" ([Greek: rhapsodia]). The word [Greek:
rhapsodos] is post-Homeric, but was known to Pindar, who gives two
different explanations of it--"singer of stitched verse" ([Greek:
rhapton hepeon aoidoi]), and "singer with the wand" ([Greek: rhabdos]).
Of these the first is etymologically correct (except that it should
rather be "stitcher of verse"); the second was suggested by the fact,
for which there is early evidence, that the reciter was accustomed to
hold a wand in his hand--perhaps, like the sceptre in the Homeric
assembly, as a symbol of the right to a hearing.[4]
The first notice of rhapsody meets us at Sicyon, in the reign of
Cleisthenes (600-560 B.C.), who "put down the rhapsodists on account of
the poems of Homer, because they are all about Argos and the Argives"
(Hdt. v. 67). This description applies very well to the _Iliad_, in
which Argos and Argives occur on almost every page. It may have suited
the _Thebaid_ still better, but there is no need to understand it only
of that poem, as Grote does. The incident shows that the poems of the
Ionic Homer had gained in the 6th century B.C., and in the Doric parts
of the Peloponnesus, the ascendancy, the national importance and the
almost canonical character which they ever afterwards retained.
At Athens there was a law that the Homeric poems should be recited
([Greek: rhapsodeisthai]) on every occasion of the Panathenaea. This law
is appealed to as an especial glory of Athens by the orator Lycurgus
(_Leocr._ 102). Perhaps therefore the custom of public recitation was
exceptional,[5] and unfortunately we do not know when or by whom it was
introduced. The Platonic dialogue _Hipparchus_ attributes it to
Hipparchus, son of Peisistratus. This, however, is part of the
historical romance of which the dialogue mainly consists. The author
makes (perhaps wilfully) all the mistakes about the family of
Peisistratus which Thucydides notices in a well-known passage (vi.
54-59). In one point, however, the writer's testimony is valuable. He
tells us that the law required the rhapsodists to recite "taking each
other up in order ([Greek: ex hypolepseos ephexes]), as they still do."
This recurs in a different form in the statement of Diogenes Laertius
(i. 2. 57) that Solon made a law that the poems should be recited "with
prompting" ([Greek: ex hypoboles]). The question as between Solon and
Hipparchus cannot be settled; but it is at least clear that a due order
of recitation was secured by the presence of a person charged to give
the rhapsodists their cue ([Greek: hypoballein]). It was necessary, of
course, to divide the poem to be recited into parts, and to compel each
contending rhapsodist to take the part assigned to him. Otherwise they
would have chosen favourite or show passages.
The practice of poets or rhapsodists contending for the prize at the
great religious festivals is of considerable antiquity, though
apparently post-Homeric. It is brought vividly before us in the Hymn to
Apollo (see the passage mentioned above), and in two Hymns to Aphrodite
(v. and ix.). The latter of these may evidently be taken to belong to
Salamis in Cyprus and the festival of the Cyprian Aphrodite, in the same
way that the Hymn to Apollo belongs to Delos and the Delian gathering.
The earliest trace of such contests is to be found in the story of
Thamyris, the Thracian singer, who boasted that he could conquer even
the Muses in song (_Il._ ii. 594 ff.).
Much has been made in this part of the subject of a family or clan
([Greek: genos]) of Homeridae in the island of Chios. On the one hand,
it seemed to follow from the existence of such a family that Homer was a
mere "eponymus," or mythical ancestor; on the other hand, it became easy
to imagine the Homeric poems handed down orally in a family whose
hereditary occupation it was to recite them, possibly to add new
episodes from time to time, or to combine their materials in new ways,
as their poetical gifts permitted. But, although there is no reason to
doubt the existence of a family of "Homeridae," it is far from certain
that they had anything to do with Homeric poetry. The word occurs first
in Pindar (_Nem._ 2. 2), who applies it to the rhapsodists ([Greek:
Homeridai rhapton epeon aoidoi]). On this a scholiast says that the name
"Homeridae" denoted originally descendants of Homer, who sang his poems
in succession, but afterwards was applied to rhapsodists who did not
claim descent from him. He adds that there was a famous rhapsodist,
Cynaethus of Chios, who was said to be the author of the Hymn to Apollo,
and to have first recited Homer at Syracuse about the 69th Olympiad.
Nothing here connects the Homeridae with Chios. The statement of the
scholiast is evidently a mere inference from the patronymic form of the
word. If it proves anything, it proves that Cynaethus, who was a Chian
and a rhapsodist, made no claim to Homeric descent. On the other hand
our knowledge of Chian Homeridae comes chiefly from the lexicon of
Harpocration, where we are told that Acusilaus and Hellanicus said that
they were so called from the poet; whereas Seleucus pronounced this to
be an error. Strabo also says that the Chians put forward the Homeridae
as an argument in support of their claim to Homer. These Homeridae,
then, belonged to Chios, but there is no indication of their being
rhapsodists. On the contrary, Plato and other Attic writers use the word
to include interpreters and admirers--in short, the whole "spiritual
kindred"--of Homer. And although we hear of "descendants of Creophylus"
as in possession of the Homeric poems, there is no similar story about
descendants of Homer himself. Such is the evidence on which so many
inferences are based.
The result of the notices now collected is to show that the early
history of epic recitation consists of (1) passages in the Homeric hymns
showing that poets contended for the prize at the great festivals, (2)
the passing mention in Herodotus of rhapsodists at Sicyon, and (3) a law
at Athens, of unknown date, regulating the recitation at the
Panathenaea. Let us now compare these data with the account given in the
Homeric poems. The word "rhapsode" does not yet exist; we hear only of
the "singer" ([Greek: aoidos]), who does not carry a wand or
laurel-branch, but the lyre ([Greek: phormigx]), with which he
accompanies his "song." In the _Iliad_ even the epic "singer" is not met
with. It is Achilles himself who sings the stories of heroes ([Greek:
klea andron]) in his tent, and Patroclus is waiting (_respondere
paratus_), to take up the song in his turn (_Il._ ix. 191). Again we do
not hear of poetical contests (except in the story of Thamyris already
mentioned) or of recitation of epic poetry at festivals. The _Odyssey_
gives us pictures of two great houses, and each has its singer. The song
is on a subject taken from the Trojan war, at some point chosen by the
singer himself, or by his hearers. Phemius pleases the suitors by
singing of the calamitous return of the Greeks; Demodocus sings of a
quarrel between Ulysses and Achilles, and afterwards of the wooden horse
and the capture of Troy.
It may be granted that the author of the _Odyssey_ can hardly have been
just such a singer as he himself describes. The songs of Phemius and
Demodocus are too short, and have too much the character of
improvisations. Nor is it necessary to suppose that epic poetry, at the
time to which the picture in the _Odyssey_ belongs, was confined to the
one type represented. Yet in several respects the conditions under which
the singer finds himself in the house of a chieftain like Odysseus or
Alcinous are more in harmony with the character of Homeric poetry than
those of the later rhapsodic contests. The subdivision of a poem like
the _Iliad_ or _Odyssey_ among different and necessarily unequal
performers must have been injurious to the effect. The highly theatrical
manner of recitation which was fostered by the spirit of competition,
and by the example of the stage, cannot have done justice to the even
movement of the epic style. It is not certain indeed that the practice
of reciting a long poem by the agency of several competitors was
ancient, or that it prevailed elsewhere than at Athens; but as
rhapsodists were numerous, and popular favour throughout Greece became
more and more confined to one or two great works, it must have become
almost a necessity. That it was the mode of recitation contemplated by
the author of the _Iliad_ or _Odyssey_ it is impossible to believe.
The difference made by substituting the wand or branch of laurel for the
lyre of the Homeric singer is a slighter one, though not without
significance. The recitation of the Hesiodic poems was from the first
unaccompanied by the lyre, i.e. they were confessedly _said_, not
_sung_; and it was natural that the example should be extended to Homer.
For it is difficult to believe that the Homeric poems were ever "sung"
in the strict sense of the word. We can only suppose that the lyre in
the hands of the epic poet or reciter was in reality a piece of
convention, a "survival" from the stage in which narrative poetry had a
lyrical character. Probably the poets of the Homeric school--that which
dealt with war and adventure--were the genuine descendants of minstrels
whose "lays" or "ballads" were the amusement of the feasts in an earlier
heroic age; whereas the Hesiodic compositions were non-lyrical from the
first, and were only in verse because that was the universal form of
literature.
It seems, then, that if we imagine Homer as a singer in a royal house of
the Homeric age, but with more freedom regarding the limits of his
subject, and a more tranquil audience than is allowed him in the rapid
movement of the _Odyssey_, we shall probably not be far from the truth.
_Time and Place of Homer._--The oldest direct references to the _Iliad_
and _Odyssey_ are in Herodotus, who quotes from both poems (ii. 53). The
quotation from the _Iliad_ is of interest because it is made in order to
show that Homer supported the story of the travels of Paris to Egypt and
Sidon (whereas the Cyclic poem called the _Cypria_ ignored them), and
also because the part of the _Iliad_ from which it comes is cited as the
"Aristeia of Diomede." This was therefore a recognized part of the poem.
The earliest mention of the name of Homer is found in a fragment of the
philosopher Xenophanes (of the 6th century B.C., or possibly earlier),
who complains of the false notions implanted through the teaching of
Homer. The passage shows, not merely that Homer was well known at
Colophon in the time of Xenophanes, but also that the great advance in
moral and religious ideas which forced Plato to banish Homer from his
republic had made itself felt in the days of the early Ionic
philosophers.
Failing external testimony, the time and place of the Homeric poems can
only be determined (if at all) by internal evidence. This is of two main
kinds: (a) evidence of history, consisting in a comparison of the
political and social condition, the geography, the institutions, the
manners, arts and ideas of Homer with those of other times; (b) evidence
of language, consisting in a comparison with later dialects, in respect
of grammar and vocabulary. To these may be added, as occasionally of
value, (c) much evidence of the direct influence of Homer upon the
subsequent course of literature and art.
(a) The political condition of Greece in the earliest times known to
history is separated from the Greece of Homer by an interval which can
hardly be overestimated. The great national names are different: instead
of Achaeans, Argives, Danai, we find Hellenes, subdivided into Dorians,
Ionians, Aeolians--names either unknown to Homer, or mentioned in terms
more significant than silence. At the dawn of Greek history Mycenae is
no longer the seat of empire; new empires, polities and civilizations
have grown up--Sparta with its military discipline, Delphi with its
religious supremacy, Miletus with its commerce and numberless colonies,
Aeolis and Ionia, Sicily and Magna Graecia.
While the political centre of Homeric Greece is at Mycenae, the real
centre is rather to be found In Boeotia. The Catalogue of the Ships
begins with Boeotia; the list of Boeotian towns is much the longest; and
they sail, not from the bay of Argos, but from the Boeotian harbour of
Aulis. This position is not due to its chiefs, who are all of inferior
rank. The importance of Boeotia for Greek civilization is further shown
by the ancient worship of the Muses on Mount Helicon, and the fact that
the oldest poet whose birthplace was known was the Boeotian Hesiod. Next
to Boeotia and the neighbouring countries, it appears that the
Peloponnesus, Crete and Thessaly were the most important seats of Greek
population.
In the Peloponnesus the face of things was completely altered by the
Dorian conquest, no trace of which is found in Homer. The only Dorians
known in Homer are those that the _Odyssey_ (xix. 177) places in Crete.
It is difficult to connect them with the Dorians of history.
The eastern shores of the Aegean, which the earliest historical records
represent to us as the seat of a brilliant civilization, giving way
before the advance of the great military empires (Lydia and afterwards
Persia), are almost a blank in Homer's map. The line of settlements can
be traced in the Catalogue from Crete to Rhodes, and embraces the
neighbouring islands of Cos and Calymnos. The colonization of Rhodes by
Tlepolemus is related (_Il._ ii. 661 ff.), and seems to mark the
farthest point reached in the Homeric age. Between Rhodes and the Troad
Homer knows of but one city, Miletus--which is a Carian ally of
Troy--and the mouth of one river, the Cayster. Even the Cyclades--Naxos,
Paros, Melos--are unknown to the Homeric world. The disposition of the
Greeks to look to the west for the centres of religious feeling appears
in the mention of Dodona and the Dodonaean Zeus, put in the mouth of the
Thessalian Achilles.
To the north we find the Thracians, known from the stories of Thamyris
the singer (_Il._ ii. 595), and Lycurgus, the enemy of the young god
Dionysus (_Il._ vi. 130). Here the Trojan empire begins. It does not
appear, however, that the Trojans are thought of as people of a
different language. As this is expressly said of the Carians, and of the
Trojan allies who were "summoned from afar," the contrary rather is
implied regarding Troy itself.
The mixed type of government described by Homer--consisting of a king
guided by a council of elders, and bringing all important resolutions
before the assembly of the fighting men--does not seem to have been
universal in Indo-European communities, but to have grown up in many
different parts of the world under the stress of similar conditions. The
king is the commander in war, and the office probably owed its existence
to military necessities. It is not surrounded with any special
sacredness. There were ruling families, laying claim to divine descent,
from whom the king was naturally chosen, but his own fitness is the
essence of his title. The aged Laertes is set aside; the young
Telemachus does not succeed as a matter of course. Nor are any very
definite rights attached to the office. Each tribe in the army before
Troy was commanded by its own king (or kings); but Agamemnon was
supreme, and was "more a king" ([Greek: basileiteros]) than any other.
The assembly is summoned on all critical occasions, and its approval is
the ultimate sanction. A king therefore stands in almost as much need of
oratory as of warlike skill and prowess. Even the division of the spoil
is not made in the _Iliad_ by Agamemnon, but by "the Achaeans" (_Il._ i.
162, 368). The taking of Briseis from Achilles was an arbitrary act, and
against all rule and custom. The council is more difficult to
understand. The "elders" ([Greek: gerontes]) of the _Iliad_ are the same
as the subordinate "kings"; they are summoned by Agamemnon to his tent,
and form a small council of nine or ten persons. In Troy we hear of
elders of the people ([Greek: demogerontes]) who are with Priam, and are
men past the military age. So in Ithaca there are elders who have not
gone to Troy with the army. It would seem therefore that the meeting in
Agamemnon's tent was only a copy or adaptation of the true
constitutional "council of elders," which indeed was essentially
unfitted for the purposes of military service. The king's palace, if we
may judge from Tiryns and Mycenae, was usually in a strong situation on
an "acropolis." In the later times of democracy the acropolis was
reserved for the temples of the principal gods.
Priesthood in Homer is found in the case of particular temples, where an
officer is naturally wanted to take charge of the sacred inclosure and
the sacrifices offered within it. It is perhaps an accident that we do
not hear of priests in Ithaca. Agamemnon performs sacrifice himself, not
because a priestly character was attached to the kingly office, but
simply because he was "master in his own house."
The conception of "law" is foreign to Homer. The later words for it
([Greek: nomos], [Greek: rhetra]) are unknown, and the terms which he
uses ([Greek: dike] and [Greek: themis]) mean merely "custom." Judicial
functions are in the hands of the elders, who "have to do with suits"
([Greek: dikaspoloi]), and "uphold judgments" ([Greek: themistas
eiryatai]). On such matters as the compensation in cases of homicide, it
is evident that there were no rules, but merely a feeling, created by
use and wont, that the relatives of the slain man should be willing to
accept payment. The sense of anger which follows a violation of custom
has the name of "Nemesis"--righteous displeasure.
As there is no law in Homer, so there is no morality. That is to say,
there are no general principles of action, and no words which indicate
that acts have been classified as good or bad, right or wrong. Moral
_feeling_, indeed, existed and was denoted by "Aidos"; but the numerous
meanings of this word--shame, veneration, pity--show how rudimentary the
idea was. And when we look to practice we find that cruel and even
treacherous deeds are spoken of without the least sense that they
deserve censure. The heroes of Homer are hardly more moral agents than
the giants and enchanters of a fairy tale.
The religious ideas of Homer differ in some important points from those
of later Greece. The Apollo of the _Iliad_ has the character of a local
Asiatic deity--"ruler of Chryse and goodly Cilla and Tenedos." He may be
compared with the Clarian and the Lycian god, but he is unlike the
Apollo of Dorian times, the "deliverer" and giver of oracles. Again, the
worship of Dionysus, and of Demeter and Persephone, is mainly or wholly
post-Homeric. The greatest difference, however, lies in the absence of
hero-worship from the Homeric order of things. Castor and Polydeuces,
for instance, are simply brothers of Helen who died before the
expedition to Troy (_Il._ iii. 243.)
The military tactics of Homer belong to the age when the chariot was the
principal engine of warfare. Cavalry is unknown, and the battles are
mainly decided by the prowess of the chiefs. The use of the trumpet is
also later. It has been supposed indeed that the art of riding was known
in Homer's own time, because it occurs in comparisons. But the riding
which he describes (_Il._ xv. 679) is a mere exhibition of skill, such
as we may see in a modern circus. And though he mentions the trumpet
(_Il._ xviii. 219), there is nothing to show that it was used, as in
historical times, to give the signal for the charge.
The chief industries of Homeric times are those of the carpenter
([Greek: tekton]), the worker in leather ([Greek: skutotomos]), the
smith or worker in metal ([Greek: chalkeus])--whose implements are the
hammer and pincers--and the potter ([Greek: kerameus]); also spinning
and weaving, which were carried on by the women. The fine arts are
represented by sculpture in relief, carving in wood and ivory,
embroidery. Statuary is later; it appears to have come into existence in
the 7th century, about the time when casting in metal was invented by
Rhoecus of Samos. In general, as was well shown by A. S. Murray,[6]
Homeric art does not rise above the stage of _decoration_, applied to
objects in common use; while in point of style it is characterized by a
richness and variety of ornament which is in the strongest contrast to
the simplicity of the best periods. It is the work, in short, not of
artists but of skilled workmen; the ideal artist is "Daedalus," a name
which implies mechanical skill and intricate workmanship, not beauty of
design.
One art of the highest importance remains. The question whether writing
was known in the time of Homer was raised in antiquity, and has been
debated with especial eagerness ever since the appearance of Wolf's
_Prolegomena_. In this case we have to consider not merely the
indications of the poems, but also the external evidence which we
possess regarding the use of writing in Greece. This latter kind of
evidence is much more considerable now than it was in Wolf's time. (See
WRITING elsewhere in these volumes.)
The oldest known stage of the Greek alphabet appears to be represented
by inscriptions of the islands of Thera, Melos and Crete, which are
referred to the 40th Olympiad (620 B.C.). The oldest specimen of a
distinctively Ionian alphabet is the famous inscription of the
mercenaries of Psammetichus, in Upper Egypt, as to which the only doubt
is whether the Psammetichus in question is the first or the second, and
consequently whether the inscription is to be dated Ol. 40 or Ol. 47.
Considering that the divergence of two alphabets (like the difference of
two dialects) requires both time and familiar use, we may gather from
these facts that writing was well known in Greece early in the 7th
century B.C.[7]
The rise of prose composition in the 6th century B.C. has been thought
to mark the time when memory was practically superseded by writing as a
means of preserving literature--the earlier use of letters being
confined to short documents, such as lists of names, treaties, laws, &c.
This conclusion, however, is by no means necessary. It may be that down
to comparatively late rimes poetry was not commonly read, but was
recited from memory. But the question is--From what time are we to
suppose that the preservation of long poems was generally secured by the
existence of written copies? Now, without counting the Homeric
poems--which doubtless had exceptional advantages in their fame and
popularity--we find a body of literature dating from the 8th century
B.C. to which the theory of oral transmission is surely inapplicable. In
the Trojan cycle alone we know of the two epics of Arctinus, the _Little
Iliad_ of Lesches, the _Cypria_, the _Nostoi_. The Theban cycle is
represented by the _Thebaid_ (which Callinus, who was of the 7th
century, ascribed to Homer) and the _Epigoni_. Other ancient
epics--ancient enough to have passed under the name of Homer--are the
_Taking of Oechalia_, and the _Phocais_. Again, there are the numerous
works attributed to Hesiod and other poets of the didactic,
mythological and quasi-historical schools--Eumelus of Corinth, Cinaethon
of Sparta, Agias of Troezen, and many more. The preservation of this
vast mass can only be attributed to writing, which must therefore have
been in use for two centuries or more before there was any considerable
prose literature. Nor is this in itself improbable.
The further question, whether the _Iliad_ and _Odyssey_ were originally
written, is much more difficult. External evidence does not reach back
so far, and the internal evidence is curiously indecisive. The only
passage which can be interpreted as a reference to writing occurs in the
story of Bellerophon, told by Glaucus in the sixth book of the _Iliad_.
Proetus, king of Corinth, sent Bellerophon to his father-in-law the king
of Lycia, and gave him "baneful tokens" ([Greek: semata lugra], i.e.
tokens which were messages of death), "scratching on a folded tablet
many spirit-destroying things, and bade him show this to his
father-in-law, that he might perish." The king of Lycia asked duly (on
the tenth day from the guest's coming) for a token ([Greek: hetee sema
idesthai]), and then knew what Proetus wished to be done. In this
account there is nothing to show exactly how the message of Proetus was
expressed. The use of writing for the purpose of the token between
"guest-friends" (_tessera hospitalis_) is certainly very ancient.
Mommsen (_Rom. Forsch_. i. 338 ff.) aptly compares the use in treaties,
which are the oldest species of public documents. But we may suppose
that tokens of some kind--like the marks which the Greek chiefs make on
the lots (_Il._ vii. 175 ff.)--were in use before writing was known. In
any system of signs there were doubtless means of recommending a friend,
or giving warning of the presence of an enemy. There is no difficulty,
therefore, in understanding the message of Proetus without alphabetical
writing. But, on the other hand, there is no reason for so understanding
it.
If the language of Homer is so ambiguous where the use of writing would
naturally be mentioned, we cannot expect to find more decisive
references elsewhere. Arguments have been founded upon the descriptions
of the blind singers in the _Odyssey_, with their songs inspired
directly by the Muse; upon the appeals of the poet to the Muses,
especially in such a place as the opening of the Catalogue; upon the
Catalogue itself, which is a kind of historical document put into verse
to help the memory; upon the shipowner in the _Odyssey_, who has "a good
memory for his cargo," &c. It may be answered, however, that much of
this is traditional, handed down from the time when all poetry was
unwritten. Moreover it is one thing to recognize that a literature is
essentially oral in its form, characteristic of an age which was one of
hearing rather than of reading, and quite another to hold that the same
literature was preserved entirely by oral transmission.
The result of these various considerations seems to be that the age
which we may call the Homeric--the age which is brought before us in
vivid outlines in the _Iliad_ and _Odyssey_--lies beyond the earliest
point to which history enables us to penetrate. And so far as we can
draw any conclusion as to the author (or authors) of the two poems, it
is that the whole debate between the cities of Aeolis and Ionia was wide
of the mark. The author of the _Iliad_, at least, was evidently a
European Greek who lived before the colonization of Asia Minor; and the
claims of the Asiatic cities mean no more than that in the days of their
prosperity these were the chief seats of the fame of Homer.
This is perhaps the place to consider whether the poems are to be
regarded as possessing in any degree the character; of historical
record. The question is one which in the absence of satisfactory
criteria will generally be decided by taste and predilection. A few
suggestions, however, may be made.
1. The events of the _Iliad_ take place in a real locality, the
general features of which are kept steadily in view. There is no doubt
about Sigeum and Rhoeteum, or the river Scamander, or the islands
Imbros, Lemnos and Tenedos. It is at least remarkable that a legend of
the national interest of the "tale of Troy" should be so definitely
localized, and that in a district, which was never famous as a seat of
Greek population. It may be urged, too, that the story of the _Iliad_
is singularly free from the exaggerated and marvellous character which
belongs as a rule to the legends of primitive peoples. The apple of
discord, the arrows of Philoctetes, the invulnerability of Achilles,
and similar fancies, are the additions of later poets. This sobriety,
however, belongs not to the whole _Iliad_, but to the events and
characters of the war. Such figures as Bellerophon, Niobe, the
Amazons, which are thought of as traditions from an earlier
generation, show the marvellous element at work.
2. Certain persons and events in the story have a distinctly mythical
stamp. Helen is a figure of this kind. There was another story
according to which she was carried off by Theseus, and recovered by
her brothers the Dioscuri. There are even traces of a third version,
in which the Messenian twins, Idas and Lynceus, appear.
3. The analogy of the French epic, the _Chanson de Roland_, favours
the belief that there was some nucleus of fact. The defeat of
Roncevaux was really suffered by a part of Charlemagne's army. But the
Saracen army is purely mythical, the true enemy having been the
Gascons. If similarly we leave, as historical, the plain of Troy, and
the name Agamemnon, we shall perhaps not be far wrong.
(b) The dialect of Homer is an early or "primitive" form of the language
which we know as that of Attica in the classical age of Greek
literature. The proof of this proposition is to be obtained chiefly by
comparing the grammatical formation and the syntax of Homer with those
of Attic. The comparison of the vocabulary is in the nature of things
less conclusive on the question of date. It would be impossible to give
the evidence in full without writing a Homeric grammar, but a few
specimens may be of interest.
1. The first aorist in Greek being a "weak" tense, i.e. formed by a
suffix ([Greek: -sa]), whereas the second aorist is a "strong" tense,
distinguished by the form of the root-syllable, we expect to find a
constant tendency to diminish the number of second aorists in use. No
new second aorists, we may be sure, were formed any more than new
"strong" tenses, such as _came_ or _sang_, can be formed in English.
Now in Homer there are upwards of 80 second aorists (not reckoning
aorists of "Verbs in [Greek: mi]," such as [Greek: hesten], [Greek:
eben]), whereas in all Attic prose not more than 30 are found. In this
point therefore the Homeric language is manifestly older. In Attic
poets, it is true, the number of such aorists is much larger than in
prose. But here again we find that they bear witness to Homer. Of the
poetical aorists in Attic the larger part are also Homeric. Others are
not really Attic at all, but borrowed from earlier Aeolic and Doric
poetry. It is plain, in short, that the later poetical vocabulary was
separated from that of prose mainly by the forms which the influence
of Homer had saved from being forgotten.
2. While the whole class of "strong" aorists diminished, certain
smaller groups in the class disappeared altogether. Thus we find in
Homer, but not in the later language:--
(a) The second aorist middle without the "thematic" [epsilon] or
[omicron]: as [Greek: eble-to], _was struck_; [Greek: ephi-to],
_perished_; [Greek: al-to], _leaped_.
(b) The aorist formed by reduplication: as [Greek: dedaev], _taught_;
[Greek: lelabesthai], _to seize_. These constitute a distinct
formation, generally with a "causative" meaning; the solitary Attic
specimen is [Greek: egagon].
3. It had long been known that the subjunctive in Homer often takes a
short vowel (e.g. in the plural, [Greek: -omen], [Greek: -ete] instead
of [Greek: -omen], [Greek: -ete], and in the Mid. [Greek: -omai], &c.
instead of [Greek: -omai], &c.). This was generally said to be done by
"poetic licence," or _metri gratia_. In fact, however, the Homeric
subjunctive is almost quite "regular," though the rule which it obeys
is a different one from the Attic. It may be summed up by saying that
the subjunctive takes [omega] or [eta] when the indicative has
[omicron] or [epsilon], and not otherwise. Thus Homer has [Greek:
i-men], _we go_, [Greek: i-o-men], _let us go_. The later [Greek:
i-o-men] was at first a solecism, an attempt to conjugate a "verb in
[Greek: mi]" like the "verbs in [omega]." It will be evident that
under this rule the perfect and first aorist subjunctive should always
take a short vowel; and this accordingly is the case, with very few
exceptions.
4. The article ([Greek: ho, he, to]) in Homer is chiefly used as an
independent pronoun (_he, she, it_), a use which in Attic appears only
in a few combinations (such as [Greek: ho men ... ho de], _the one ...
the other_). This difference is parallel to the relation between the
Latin _ille_ and the article of the Romance languages.
5. The prepositions offer several points of comparison. What the
grammarians called "tmesis," the separation of the preposition from
the verb with which it is compounded, is peculiar to Homer. The true
account of the matter is that in Homer the place of the preposition is
not rigidly fixed, as it was afterwards. Again, "with" is in Homer
[Greek: syn] (with the dative), in Attic prose [Greek: meta] with the
genitive. Here Attic poetry is intermediate; the use of [Greek: syn]
is retained as a piece of poetical tradition.
6. In addition to the particle [Greek: an], Homer has another, [Greek:
ken], hardly distinguishable in meaning. The Homeric uses of [Greek:
an] and [Greek: ken] are different in several respects from the Attic,
the general result being that the Homeric syntax is more elastic. And
yet it is perfectly definite and precise. Homer uses no constructions
loosely or without corresponding differences of meaning. His rules are
equally strict with those of the later language, but they are not the
same rules. And they differ chiefly in this, that the less common
combinations of the earlier period were disused altogether in the
later.
7. In the vocabulary the most striking difference is that many words
appear from the metre to have contained a sound which they afterwards
lost, viz. that which is written in some Greek alphabets by the
"digamma" [digamma] Thus the words [Greek: anax, asty, ergon, epos],
and many others must have been written at one time [Greek: Fanax,
Fasty, Fergon, Fepos]. This letter, however, died out earlier in Ionic
than in most dialects, and there is no proof that the Homeric poems
were ever written with it.
These are not, speaking generally, the differences that are produced by
the gradual divergence of dialects in a language. They are rather to be
classed with those which we find between the earlier and the later
stages of every language which has had a long history. The Homeric
dialect has passed into New Ionic and Attic by gradual but ceaseless
development of the same kind as that which brought about the change from
Vedic to classical Sanskrit, or from old high German to the present
dialects of Germany.
The points that have been mentioned, to which many others might be
added, make it clear that the Homeric and Attic dialects are separated
by differences which affect the whole structure of the language, and
require a considerable time for their development. At the same time
there is hardly one of these differences which cannot be accounted for
by the natural growth of the language. It has been thought indeed that
the Homeric dialect was a mixed one, mainly Ionic, but containing Aeolic
and even Doric forms; this, however, is a mistaken view of the processes
of language. There are doubtless many Homeric forms which were unknown
to the later Ionic and Attic, and which are found in Aeolic or other
dialects. In general, however, these are _older_ forms, which must have
existed in Ionic at one time, and may very well have belonged to the
Ionic of Homer's time. So too the digamma is called "Aeolic" by
grammarians, and is found on Aeolic and Doric inscriptions. But the
letter was one of the original alphabet, and was retained universally as
a numeral. It can only have fallen into disuse by degrees, as the sound
which it denoted ceased to be pronounced. The fact that there are so
many traces of it in Homer is a strong proof of the antiquity of the
poems, but no proof of admixture with Aeolic.
There is one sense, however, in which an admixture of dialects may be
recognized. It is clear that the variety of forms in Homer is too great
for any actual spoken dialect. To take a single instance: it is
impossible that the genitives in [Greek: -oio] and in [Greek: -ou]
should both have been in everyday use together. The form in [Greek:
-oio] must have been poetical or literary, like the old English forms
that survive in the language of the Bible. The origin of such double
forms is not far to seek. The effect of dialect on style was always
recognized in Greece, and the dialect which had once been adopted by a
particular kind of poetry was ever afterwards adhered to. The Epic of
Homer was doubtless formed originally from a spoken variety of Greek,
but became literary and conventional with time. It is Homer himself who
tells us, in a striking passage (_Il._ iv. 437) that all the Greeks
spoke the same language--that is to say, that they understood one
another, in spite of the inevitable local differences. Experience shows
how some one dialect in a country gains a literary supremacy to which
the whole nation yields. So Tuscan became the type of Italian, and
Anglian of English. But as soon as the dialect is adopted, it begins to
diverge from the colloquial form. Just as modern poetical Italian uses
many older grammatical forms peculiar to itself, so the language of
poetry, even in Homeric times, had formed a deposit (so to speak) of
archaic grammar. There were doubtless poets before Homer, as well as
brave men before Agamemnon; and indeed the formation of a poetical
dialect such as the Homeric must have been the work of several
generations. The use of that dialect (instead of Aeolic) by the Boeotian
poet Hesiod, in a kind of poetry which was not of the Homeric type,
tends to the conclusion that the literary ascendancy of the epic dialect
was anterior to the _Iliad_ and _Odyssey_, and independent of the
influence exercised by these poems.
What then was the original language of Homer? Where and when was it
spoken? [The answer given to this question by Aug. Fick (in 1883) and
still held, with modifications, by some European scholars can no longer
be maintained. Fick's original statement was that in or about the 6th
century B.C. the poems, which had originally worn an Aeolic dress, were
transposed into Ionic. To this it is easily answered that such an event
is not only unique in history, but contrary to all that we know of the
Greek genius. At the period in question an Aeolic literature, the lyrics
of Sappho and Alcaeus, were in existence. If it was found necessary to
transpose the Aeolic Homer, why did the Aeolic lyric verse escape? If,
however, as is the view of some of Fick's followers, the transposition
took place several centuries earlier, before species of literature had
appropriated particular dialects, then the linguistic facts upon which
Fick relied to distinguish the "Aeolic" and "Ionic" elements in Homer
disappear. We have no means of knowing what the Aeolic and Ionic of say
the 9th century were, or if there were such dialects at all. Certain
prominent historical differences between Aeolic and Ionic (the digamma
and alpha) are known to be unoriginal. The view that Homer underwent at
any time a passage from one dialect to another may be dismissed. The
tendency of modern dialectologists is to divide the Greek dialects into
Dorian and non-Dorian. The non-Dorian dialects, Ionic, Attic and the
various forms of Aeolic, are regarded as relatively closely akin, and go
by the common name "Achaean." They formed the common language of Greece
before the Doric invasion. As the scene which Homer depicts is
prae-Dorian Greece, it is reasonable to call his language Achaean. The
historical divergences of Achaean into Aeolian and Ionic were later than
the Migration, and were due to the well-known effects of change of soil
and air.
To what local variety of Achaean Homeric Greek belonged it is idle to
ask. Thessaly, Boeotia and Mycenae have equal claims. It seems clearer
that when once this local variety of Achaean had been used by poets of
eminence as their vehicle for national history, it established its right
to be considered the one poetical language of Hellas. As the dialect of
the Arno in Italy, of Castille in Spain, by the virtue of the genius of
the singers who used them, became literary "Italian" and "Spanish," so
this variety of Achaean elevated itself to the position of the _volgare
illustre_ of Greece.[8]] (T. W. A.)
(c) The influence of Homer upon the subsequent course of Greek
literature is a large subject, even if we restrict it to the centuries
which immediately followed the Homeric age. It will be enough to observe
that in the earliest elegiac poets, such as Archilochus, Tyrtaeus and
Theognis, reminiscences of Homeric language and thought meet us on every
page. If the same cannot be said of the ancient epic poems, that is
because of the extreme scantiness of the existing fragments. Much,
however, is to be gathered from the arguments of the Trojan part of the
Epic Cycle (preserved in the _Codex Venetus_ of the _Iliad_, a full
discussion of which will be found in the _Journal of Hellenic Studies_,
1884, pp. 1-40). An examination of these arguments throws light on two
chief aspects of the relation between Homer and his "cyclic" successors.
1. The later poets sought to complete the story of the Trojan war by
supplying the parts which did not fall within the _Iliad_ and
_Odyssey_--the so-called _ante-homerica_ and _post-homerica_. They did
so largely from hints and passing references in Homer. Thus the
successive episodes of the siege related at length in the _Little
Iliad_, and ending with the story of the Wooden Horse, are nearly all
taken from passages in the _Odyssey_. Much the same may be said of the
_Nosti_.
2. With this process of expansion and development (so to speak) of
Homeric themes is combined the addition of new characters. Such, in the
_Little Iliad_ (e.g.), are the story of the Palladium and of the
treachery of Sinon. Such, too, in the _Cypria_ are the new legendary
figures--Palamedes, Iphigenia, Telephus, Laocoon. These new elements in
the narrative are evidently due not only to the natural growth of legend
in a people highly endowed with imagination, but in a large proportion
also to the new races and countries with which the Greeks came into
contact, as well as to their own rapid advance in wealth and
civilization. It will be observed that the two poems of Arctinus are
remarkable for the proportion of new matter of the latter kind. The
_Aethiopis_ shows us the allies of Troy reinforced by two peoples that
are evidently creations of oriental fancy, the Amazons and Memnon with
his Aethiopians. The _Iliu Persis_, again, was the oldest authority for
the story of Laocoon and of the consequent escape of Aeneas--a story
which connected a surviving branch of the house of Priam with the later
inhabitants of the Troad. On the other hand the fate of Creusa (_sed me
magna deum genetrix his detinet oris_) is a link with the worship of
Cybele. The journey of Calchas to Colophon and his death there, as told
in the _Nosti_, is another instance of the kind. These facts point to a
familiarity with the Greek colonies in Asia which contrasts strongly
with the silence of the _Iliad_ and _Odyssey_.
_Study of Homer._--_The Homeric Question._--The critical study of
Homer began in Greece almost with the beginning of prose writing. The
first name is that of Theagenes of Rhegium, contemporary of Cambyses
(525 B.C.), who is said to have founded the "new grammar" (the older
"grammar" being the art of reading and writing), and to have been the
inventor of the allegorical interpretations by which it was sought to
reconcile the Homeric mythology with the morality and speculative
ideas of the 6th century B.C. The same attitude in the "ancient
quarrel of poetry and philosophy" was soon afterwards taken by
Anaxagoras; and after him by his pupil Metrodorus of Lampsacus, who
explained away all the gods, and even the heroes, as elementary
substances and forces (Agamemnon as the upper air, &c.).
The next writers on Homer of the "grammatical" type were Stesimbrotus
of Thasos (contemporary with Cimon) and Antimachus of Colophon,
himself an epic poet of mark. The _Thebaid_ of Antimachus, however,
was not popular, and seems to have been a great storehouse of
mythological learning rather than a poem of the Homeric school.
Other names of the pre-Socratic and Socratic times are mentioned by
Xenophon, Plato and Aristotle. These were the "ancient Homerics"
([Greek: hoi archaioi Homerikoi]), who busied themselves much with the
hidden meanings of Homer; of whom Aristotle says, with his profound
insight, that they see the small likenesses and overlook the great
ones (_Metaph._ xii.).
The text of Homer must have attracted some attention when Antimachus
came to be known as the "corrector" ([Greek: diorthotes]) of a
distinct edition ([Greek: ekdosis]), Aristotle is said himself to have
made a recension for the use of Alexander the Great. This is unlikely.
His remarks on Homer (in the _Poetics_ and elsewhere) show that he had
made a careful study of the structure and leading ideas of the poems,
but do not throw much light on the text.
The real work of criticism became possible only when great collections
of manuscripts began to be made by the princes of the generation after
Alexander, and when men of learning were employed to sift and arrange
these treasures. In this way the great Alexandrian school of Homeric
criticism began with Zenodotus, the first chief of the museum, and was
continued by Aristophanes and Aristarchus. In Aristarchus ancient
philology culminated, as philosophy had done in Socrates. All earlier
learning either passed into his writings, or was lost; all subsequent
research turned upon his critical and grammatical work.
The means of forming a judgment of the Alexandrine criticism are
scanty. The literary form which preserved the works of the great
historians was unfortunately wanting, or was not sufficiently valued,
in the case of the grammarians. Abridgments and newer treatises soon
drove out the writings of Aristarchus and other founders of the
science. Moreover, a recension could not be reproduced without new
errors soon creeping in. Thus we find that Didymus, writing in the
time of Cicero, does not quote the readings of Aristarchus as we
should quote a _textus receptus_. Indeed, the object of his work seems
to have been to determine what those readings were. Enough, however,
remains to show that Aristarchus had a clear notion of the chief
problems of philology (except perhaps those concerning etymology). He
saw, for example, that it was not enough to find a meaning for the
archaic words (the [Greek: glossai], as they were called), but that
common words (such as [Greek: ponos, phobos]) had their Homeric uses,
which were to be gathered by due induction. In the same spirit he
looked upon the ideas and beliefs of Homer as a consistent whole,
which might be determined from the evidence of the poems. He noticed
especially the difference between the stories known to Homer and those
given by later poets, and made many comparisons between Homeric and
later manners, arts and institutions. Again, he was sensible of the
paramount value of manuscript authority, and appears to have
introduced no readings from mere conjecture. The frequent mention in
the Scholia of "better" and "inferior" texts may indicate a
classification made by him or by the general opinion of critics. His
use of the "obelus" to distinguish spurious verses, which made so
large a part of his fame in antiquity, has rather told against him
with modern scholars.[9] It is chiefly interesting as a proof of the
confusion in which the text must have been before the Alexandrian
times; for it is impossible to understand the readiness of Aristarchus
to suspect the genuineness of verses unless the state of the copies
had pointed to the existence of numerous interpolations. On this
matter, however, we are left to conjecture.
Our knowledge of Alexandrian criticism is derived almost wholly from a
single document, the famous _Iliad_ of the library of St Mark in
Venice (_Codex Venetus_ 454, or _Ven. A_), first published by the
French scholar Villoison in 1788 (_Scholia antiquissima ad Homeri
Iliadem_). This manuscript, written in the 10th century, contains (1)
the best text of the _Iliad_, (2) the critical marks of Aristarchus
and (3) Scholia, consisting mainly of extracts from four grammatical
works, viz. Didymus (contemporary of Cicero) on the recension of
Aristarchus, Aristonicus (fl. 24 B.C.) on the critical marks of
Aristarchus, Herodian (fl. A.D. 160) on the accentuation, and Nicanor
(fl. A.D. 127) on the punctuation, of the _Iliad_.
These extracts present themselves in two distinct forms. One series of
scholia is written in the usual way, on a margin reserved for the
purpose. The other consists of brief scholia, written in very small
characters (but of the same period) on the narrow space left vacant
round the text. Occasionally a scholium of this kind gives the
substance of one of the longer extracts; but as a rule they are
distinct. It would seem, therefore, that after the manuscript was
finished the "marginal scholia" were discovered to be extremely
defective, and a new series of extracts was added in a form which
interfered as little as possible with the appearance of the book.[10]
The mention of the Venetian Scholia leads us at once to the Homeric
controversy; for the immortal _Prolegomena_ of F. A. Wolf[11] appeared
a few years after Villoison's publication, and was founded in great
measure upon the fresh and abundant materials which it furnished. Not
that the "Wolfian theory" of the Homeric poems is directly supported
by anything in the Scholia; the immediate object of the _Prolegomena_
was not to put forward that theory, but to elucidate the new and
remarkable conditions under which the text of Homer had to be settled,
viz. the discovery of an _apparatus criticus_ of the 2nd century B.C.
The questions regarding the original structure and early history of
the poems were raised (forced upon him, it may be said) by the
critical problem; but they were really originated by facts and ideas
of a wholly different order.
The 18th century, in which the spirit of classical correctness had the
most absolute dominion, did not come to an end before a powerful
reaction set in, which affected not only literature but also
speculation and politics. In this movement the leading ideas were
concentrated in the word Nature. The natural condition of society,
natural law, natural religion, the poetry of nature, gained a singular
hold, first on the English philosophers from Hume onwards, and then
(through Rousseau chiefly) on the general drift of thought and action
in Europe. In literature the effect of these ideas was to set up a
false opposition between nature and art. As political writers imagined
a patriarchal innocence prior to codes of law, so men of letters
sought in popular unwritten poetry the freshness and simplicity which
were wanting in the prevailing styles. The blind minstrel was the
counterpart of the noble savage. The supposed discovery of the poems
of Ossian fell in with this train of sentiment, and created an
enthusiasm for the study of early popular poetry. Homer was soon drawn
into the circle of inquiry. Blackwell (Professor of Greek at Aberdeen)
had insisted, in a book published in 1735, on the "naturalness" of
Homer; and Wood (_Essay on the Original Genius of Homer_, London,
1769) was the first who maintained that Homer composed without the
help of writing, and supported his thesis by ancient authority, and
also by the parallel of Ossian. Both these books were translated into
German, and their ideas passed into the popular philosophy of the day.
Everything in short was ripe for the reception of a book that brought
together, with masterly ease and vigour, the old and the new Homeric
learning, and drew from it the historical proof that Homer was no
single poet, writing according to art and rule, but a name which stood
for a golden age of the true spontaneous poetry of genius and nature.
The part of the _Prolegomena_ which deals with the original form of
the Homeric poems occupies pp. xl.-clx. (in the first edition). Wolf
shows how the question of the date of writing meets us on the
threshold of the textual criticism of Homer and accordingly enters
into a full discussion, first of the external evidence, then of the
indications furnished by the poems. Having satisfied himself that
writing was unknown to Homer, he is led to consider the real mode of
transmission, and finds this in the Rhapsodists, of whom the Homeridae
were an hereditary school. And then comes the conclusion to which all
this has been tending: "the die is cast"--the _Iliad_ and _Odyssey_
cannot have been composed in the form in which we know them without
the aid of writing. They must therefore have been, as Bentley had
said, "a sequel of songs and rhapsodies," "loose songs not collected
together in the form of an epic poem till about 500 years after." This
conclusion he then supports by the character attributed to the
"Cyclic" poems (whose want of unity showed that the structure of the
_Iliad_ and _Odyssey_ must be the work of a later time), by one or two
indications of imperfect connexion, and by the doubts of ancient
critics as to the genuineness of certain parts. These, however, are
matters of conjecture. "Historia loquitur." The voice of antiquity is
unanimous in declaring that "Peisistratus first committed the poems of
Homer to writing, and reduced them to the order in which we now read
them."
The appeal of Wolf to the "voice of all antiquity" is by no means
borne out by the different statements on the subject. According to
Heraclides Ponticus (pupil of Plato), the poetry of Homer was first
brought to the Peloponnesus by Lycurgus, who obtained it from the
descendants of Creophylus (_Polit._ fr. 2). Plutarch in his _Life of
Lycurgus_ (c. 4) repeats this story, with the addition that there was
already a faint report of the poems in Greece, and that certain
detached fragments were in the possession of a few persons. Again, the
Platonic dialogue _Hipparchus_ (which though not genuine is probably
earlier than the Alexandrian times) asserts that Hipparchus, son of
Peisistratus, first brought the poems to Athens, and obliged the
rhapsodists at the Panathenaea to follow the order of the text, "as
they still do," instead of reciting portions chosen at will. The
earliest authority for attributing any work of the kind to
Peisistratus is the well-known passage of Cicero (_De Orat._ 3. 34:
"Quis doctior eisdem temporibus illis, aut cujus eloquentia litteris
instructior fuisse traditur quam Pisistrati? qui primus Homeri libros,
confusos antea, sic disposuisse dicitur ut nunc habemus"). To the same
effect Pausanias (vii. p. 594) says that the change of the name
Donoessa to Gonoessa (in _Il._ ii. 573) was thought to have been made
by "Peisistratus or one of his companions," when he collected the
poems, which were then in a fragmentary condition. Finally, Diogenes
Laertius (i. 57) says that Solon made a law that the poems should be
recited with the help of a prompter so that each rhapsodist should
begin where the last left off; and he argues from this that Solon did
more than Peisistratus to make Homer known. The argument is directed
against a certain Dieuchidas of Megara, who appears to have maintained
that the verses about Athens in the Catalogue (_Il._ ii. 546-556) were
interpolated by Peisistratus. The passage is unfortunately corrupt,
but it is at least clear that in the time of Solon, according to
Diogenes, there were complete copies of the poems, such as could be
used to control the recitations. Hence the account of Diogenes is
quite irreconcilable with the notices on which Wolf relied.
It is needless to examine the attempts which have been made to
harmonize these accounts. Such attempts usually start with the tacit
assumption that each of the persons concerned--Lycurgus, Solon,
Peisistratus, Hipparchus--must have done _something_ for the text of
Homer, or for the regulation of the rhapsodists. But we have first to
consider whether any of the accounts come to us on such evidence that
we are bound to consider them as containing a nucleus of truth.
In the first place, the statement that Lycurgus obtained the poems
from descendants of Creophylus must be admitted to be purely mythical.
But if we reject it, have we any better reason for believing the
parallel assertion in the Platonic _Hipparchus_? It is true that
Hipparchus is undoubtedly a real person. On the other hand it is
evident that the Peisistratidae soon became the subject of many
fables. Thucydides notices as a popular mistake the belief that
Hipparchus was the eldest son of Peisistratus, and that consequently
he was the reigning "tyrant" when he was killed by Aristogiton. The
Platonic _Hipparchus_ follows this erroneous version, and may
therefore be regarded as representing (at best) mere local tradition.
We may reasonably go further, and see in this part of the dialogue a
piece of historical romance, designed to put the "tyrant" family in a
favourable light, as patrons of literature and learning.
Again, the account of the _Hipparchus_ is contradicted by Diogenes
Laertius, who says that Solon provided for the due recitation of the
Homeric poems. The only good authorities as to this point are the
orators Lycurgus and Isocrates, who mention the law prescribing the
recitation, but do not say when or by whom it was enacted. The
inference seems a fair one, that the author of the law was really
unknown.
With regard to the statements which attribute some work in connexion
with Homer to Peisistratus, it was noticed by Wolf that Cicero,
Pausanias and the others who mention the matter do so _nearly in the
same words_, and, therefore, appear to have drawn from a common
source. This source was in all probability an epigram quoted in two of
the short lives of Homer, and there said to have been inscribed on the
statue of Peisistratus at Athens. In it Peisistratus is made to say of
himself that he "collected Homer, who was formerly sung in fragments,
for the golden poet was a citizen of ours, since we Athenians founded
Smyrna." The other statements repeat these words with various minor
additions, chiefly intended to explain how the poems had been reduced
to this fragmentary condition, and how Peisistratus set to work to
restore them. Thus all the authority for the work of Peisistratus
"reduces itself to the testimony of a single anonymous inscription"
(Nutzhorn p. 40). Now, what is the value of that testimony? It is
impossible of course to believe that a statue of Peisistratus was set
up at Athens in the time of the free republic. The epigram is almost
certainly a mere literary exercise. And what exactly does it say? Only
that Homer was _recited in fragments_ by the rhapsodists, and that
these partial recitations were made into a continuous whole by
Peisistratus; which does not necessarily mean more than that
Peisistratus did what other authorities ascribe to Solon and
Hipparchus, viz. regulated the recitation.
Against the theory which sees in Peisistratus the author of the first
complete text of Homer we have to set the absolute silence of
Herodotus, Thucydides, the orators and the Alexandrian grammarians.
And it can hardly be thought that their silence is accidental.
Herodotus and Thucydides seem to tell us all that they know of
Peisistratus. The orators Lycurgus and Isocrates make a great deal of
the recitation of Homer at the Panathenaea, but know nothing of the
poems having been collected and arranged at Athens, a fact which would
have redounded still more to the honour of the city. Finally, the
Scholia of the _Ven. A_ contain no reference or allusion to the story
of Peisistratus. As these Scholia are derived in substance from the
writings of Aristarchus, it seems impossible to believe that the story
was known to him. The circumstance that it is referred to in the
_Scholia Townleiana_ and in Eustathius, gives additional weight to
this argument.
The result of these considerations seems to be that nothing rests on
good evidence beyond the fact that Homer was recited by law at the
Panathenaic festival. The rest of the story is probably the result of
gradual expansion and accretion. It was inevitable that later writers
should speculate about the authorship of such a law, and that it
should be attributed with more or less confidence to Solon or
Peisistratus or Hipparchus. The choice would be determined in great
measure by political feeling. It is probably not an accident that
Dieuchidas, who attributed so much to Peisistratus, was a Megarian.
The author of the _Hipparchus_ is evidently influenced by the
anti-democratical tendencies in which he only followed Plato. In the
times to which the story of Peisistratus can be traced, the 1st
century B.C., the substitution of the "tyrant" for the legislator was
extremely natural. It was equally natural that the importance of his
work as regards the text of Homer should be exaggerated. The splendid
patronage of letters by the successors of Alexander, and especially
the great institutions which had been founded at Alexandria and
Pergamum, had made an impression on the imagination of learned men
which was reflected in the current notions of the ancient despots. It
may even be suspected that anecdotes in praise of Peisistratus and
Hipparchus were a delicate form of flattery addressed to the reigning
Ptolemy. Under these influences the older stories of Lycurgus bringing
Homer to the Peloponnesus, and Solon providing for the recitation at
Athens, were thrown into the shade.
In the later Byzantine times it was believed that Peisistratus was
aided by seventy grammarians, of whom Zenedotus and Aristarchus were
the chief. The great Alexandrian grammarians had become figures in a
new mythology. It is true that Tzetzes, one of the writers from whom
we have this story, gives a better version, according to which
Peisistratus employed four men, viz. Onomacritus, Zopyrus of Heraclea,
Orpheus of Croton, and one whose name is corrupt (written [Greek:
epikogkylos]). Many scholars (among them Ritschl) accept this account
as probable. Yet it rests upon no better evidence than the other.
The effect of Wolf's _Prolegomena_ was so overwhelming that, although
a few protests were made at the time, the true Homeric controversy did
not begin till after Wolf's death (1824). His speculations were
thoroughly in harmony with the ideas and sentiment of the time, and
his historical arguments, especially his long array of testimonies to
the work of Peisistratus, were hardly challenged.
The first considerable antagonist of the Wolfian school was G. W.
Nitzsch, whose writings cover the years 1828-1862, and deal with every
side of the controversy. In the earlier part of his _Meletemata_
(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 Peisistratus. In the later part of the same series
of discussions (1837), and in his chief work (_Die Sagenpoesie der
Griechen_, 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 "scriptor cyclicus" 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 influenced
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
interpolations, 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. Regarding the use
of writing, too, they were not unanimous. K. O. Muller, 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 "Volumen I."; 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, _De interpolationibus Homeri_ (Leipzig, 1832), and _De
iteratis Homeri_ (Leipzig, 1840), called forth by the writings of
Nitzsch. As the word "interpolation" implies, Hermann did not maintain
the hypothesis of a congeries of independent "lays." Feeling the
difficulty of supposing that all the ancient minstrels sang of the
"wrath of Achilles" or the "return of Ulysses" (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 story into the
background, and were then enlarged by successive generations of
rhapsodists. Some parts of the _Iliad_, moreover, seemed to him to be
older than the poem on the wrath of Achilles; and thus in addition to
the "Homeric" and "post-Homeric" matter he distinguished a
"pre-Homeric" element.
The conjectures of Hermann, in which the Wolfian theory found a
modified 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 "lays," with various
enlargements and interpolations, all finally reduced to order by
Peisistratus. 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 hypothesis 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 the first line
proclaims, is the "anger of Achilles." The manner in which this subject
is worked out will appear 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) subordinate
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 (probably a later addition).
Trojan muster--Trojan catalogue.
III. Meeting of the Armies--Paris challenges Menelaus--Truce made.
"Teichoscopy," Helen pointing out to Priam the Greek leaders.
The duel--Paris is saved by Aphrodite.
IV. Truce broken by Pandarus.
Advance of the armies--Battle.
V. Aristeia of Diomede--his combat with Aphrodite.
VI.--Meeting with Glaucus--Visit of Hector to the (1-311) city, and
offering of a peplus to Athena.
(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 (in all
probability added later).
XI. Aristeia of Agamemnon--he is wounded--Wounding 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 Hera.
XV. Zeus awakened--Restores the advantage to the Trojans--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. Battle 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 Aeneas
and Hector, who escape.
XXI. The Scamander is choked with slain--rises against Achilles, who
is saved by Hephaestus.
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 "action" ([Greek: praxis]) 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 "lays" 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 _Iliad_ these passages are the finest and most characteristic.
The element of connexion and unity is the story of the "wrath of
Achilles"; 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 nineteenth books. These speeches form the cardinal points
in the action of the _Iliad_--the framework into which everything 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 poem has Lachmann succeeded
in disengaging from the existing _Iliad_? It must be admitted that when
tried by this test his "lays" generally fail. The "quarrel of the
chiefs," the "muster of the army," the "duel of Paris and Menelaus,"
&c., are excellent beginnings, but have no satisfying conclusion. And
the reason is not far to seek. The _Iliad_ is not a history, nor is it a
series of incidents in the history, of the siege. It turns entirely upon
a single incident, occupying a few days only. The several episodes of
the poem are not so many distinct stories, each with an interest of its
own. They are only parts of a single main event. Consequently the type
of epic poem which would be produced by an aggregation of shorter lays
is not the type which we have in the _Iliad_. Rather the _Iliad_ is
itself a single lay which has grown with the growth of poetical art to
the dimensions of an epic.
But the original nucleus and parts of the incidents may be the work of a
single great poet, and yet other episodes may be of different
authorship, wrought into the structure of the poem in later times.
Various theories have been based on this supposition. Grote in
particular held that the original poem, which he called the Achilleis,
did not include books ii.-vii., ix., x., xxiii., xxiv. Such a view may
be defended somewhat as follows.
Of the books which relate the events during the absence of Achilles from
the Greek ranks (ii.-xv.), the last five are directly related to the
main action. They describe the successive steps by which the Greeks are
driven back, first from the plain to the rampart, then to their ships.
Moreover, three of the chief heroes, Agamemnon, Diomede and Ulysses, are
wounded, and this circumstance, as Lachmann himself admitted, is
steadily kept in mind throughout. It is otherwise with the earlier books
(especially ii.-vii.). The chief incidents in that part of the poem--the
panic rush to the ships, the duels of Paris and Menelaus, and of Hector
and Ajax, the Aristeia of Diomede--stand in no relation to the
mainspring of the poem, the promise made by Zeus to Thetis. It is true
that in the thirteenth and fourteenth books the purpose of Zeus is
thwarted for a time by other gods; but in books ii.-vii. it is not so
much thwarted as ignored. Further, the events follow without sufficient
connexion. The truce of the third book is broken by Pandarus, and
Agamemnon passes along the Greek ranks with words of encouragement, but
without a hint of the treachery just committed. The Aristeia of Diomede
ends in the middle of the sixth book; he is uppermost in all thoughts
down to ver. 311, but from this point, in the meetings of Hector with
Helen and Andromache, and again in the seventh book when Hector
challenges the Greek chiefs, his prowess is forgotten. Once more, some
of the incidents seem to belong properly to the beginning of the war.
The joy of Menelaus on seeing Paris, Priam's ignorance of the Greek
leaders, the speeches of Agamemnon in his review of the ranks (in book
iv.), the building of the wall--all these are in place after the Greek
landing, but hardly in the ninth year of the siege.
On the other hand, it may be said, the second book opens with a direct
reference to the events of the first, and the mention of Achilles in the
speech of Thersites (ii. 239 sqq.) is sufficient to keep the main course
of events in view. The Catalogue is connected with its place in the poem
by the lines about Achilles (686-694). When Diomede is at the height of
his Aristeia Helenus says (_Il._ vi. 99), "We did not so fear even
Achilles." And when in the third book Priam asks Helen about the Greek
captains, or when in the seventh book nine champions come forward to
contend with Hector, the want of the greatest hero of all is
sufficiently felt. If these passages do not belong to the period of the
wrath of Achilles, how are we to account for his conspicuous absence?
Further, the want of smoothness and unity which is visible in this part
of the _Iliad_ may be due to other causes than difference of date or
authorship. A national poet such as the author of the _Iliad_ cannot
always choose or arrange his matter at his own will. He is bound by the
traditions of his art, and by the feelings and expectations of his
hearers. The poet who brought the exploits of Diomede into the _Iliad_
doubtless had his reasons for doing so, which were equally strong
whether he was the poet of the Achilleis or a later Homerid or
rhapsodist. And if some of the incidents (those of the third book in
particular) seem to belong to the beginning of the war, it must be
considered that poetically, and to the hearers of the _Iliad_, the war
opens in the third book, and the incidents are of the kind that is
required in such a place. The truce makes a pause which heightens the
interest of the impending battle; the duel and the scene on the walls
are effective in bringing some of the leading characters on the stage,
and in making us acquainted with the previous history. The story of
Paris and Helen especially, and the general position of affairs in Troy,
is put before us in a singularly vivid manner. The book in short forms
so good a _prologue_ to the action of the war that we can hardly be
wrong in attributing it to the genius which devised the rest of the
_Iliad_.
The case against the remaining books is of a different kind. The ninth
and tenth seem like two independent pictures of the night before the
great battle of xi.-xvii. Either is enough to fill the space in Homer's
canvas; and the suspicion arises (as when two Platonic dialogues bear
the same name) that if either had been genuine, the other would not have
come into existence. If one of the two is to be rejected it must be the
tenth, which is certainly the less Homeric. It relates a picturesque
adventure, conceived in a vein more approaching that of comedy than any
other part of the _Iliad_. Moreover, the language in several places
exhibits traces of post-Homeric date. The ninth book, on the other hand,
was rejected by Grote, chiefly on the grounds that the embassy to
Achilles ought to have put an end to the quarrel, and that it is ignored
in later passages, especially in the speeches of Achilles (xi. 609;
xvi. 72, 85). His argument, however, rests on an assumption which we are
apt to bring with us to the reading of the _Iliad_, but which is not
borne out by its language, viz. that there was some definite atonement
demanded by Achilles, or due to him according to the custom and
sentiment of the time. But in the _Iliad_ the whole stress is laid on
the anger of Achilles, which can only be satisfied by the defeat and
extreme peril of the Greeks.[12] He is influenced by his own feeling,
and by nothing else. Accordingly, in the ninth book, when they are still
protected by the rampart (see 348 sqq.), he rejects gifts and fair words
alike; in the sixteenth he is moved by the tears and entreaties of
Patroclus, and the sight of the Greek ships on fire; in the nineteenth
his anger is quenched in grief. But he makes no conditions, either in
rejecting the offers of the embassy or in returning to the Greek army.
And this conduct is the result, not only of his fierce and inexorable
character, but also (as the silence of Homer shows) of the want of any
general rules or principles, any code of morality or of honour, which
would have required him to act in a different way.
Finally, Grote objected to the two last books that they prolong the
action of the _Iliad_ beyond the exigencies of a coherent scheme. Of the
two, the twenty-third could more easily be spared. In language, and
perhaps in style and manner, it is akin to the tenth; while the
twenty-fourth is in the pathetic vein of the ninth, and like it serves
to bring out new aspects of the character of Achilles.
Dr E. Kammer has given some strong reasons for doubting the
genuineness of the passage in book xx. describing the duel between
Achilles and Aeneas (79-352). The incident is certainly very much out
of keeping with the vehement action of that part of the poem, and
especially with the moment when Achilles returns to the field, eager
to meet Hector and avenge the death of his friend. The interpolation
(if it is one) is probably due to local interests. It contains the
well-known prophecy that the descendants of Aeneas are to rule over
the Trojans,--pointing to the existence of an Aenead dynasty in the
Troad. So, too, the legend of Anchises in the Hymn to Aphrodite is
evidently local; and Aeneas becomes more prominent in the later epics,
especially the _Cypria_ and the [Greek: Iliou persis] of Arctinus.
_Structure of the Odyssey._--In the _Odyssey_, as in the _Iliad_, the
events related fall within a short space of time. The difficulty of
adapting the long wanderings of Ulysses to a plan of this type is got
over by the device--first met with in the _Odyssey_--of making the hero
tell the story of his own adventures. In this way the action is made to
begin almost immediately before the actual return of Ulysses. Up to the
time when he reaches Ithaca it moves on three distinct scenes: we follow
the fortunes of Ulysses, of Telemachus on his voyage in the
Peloponnesus, and of Penelope with the suitors. The art with which these
threads are woven together was recognized by Wolf himself, who admitted
the difficulty of applying his theory to the "admirabilis summa et
compages" of the poem. Of the comparatively few attempts which have been
made to dissect the _Odyssey_, the most moderate and attractive is that
of Professor A. Kirchhoff of Berlin.[13]
According to Kirchhoff, the _Odyssey_ as we have it is the result of
additions made to an original nucleus. There was first of all a
"Return of Odysseus," relating chiefly the adventures with the
Cyclops, Calypso and the Phaeacians; then a continuation, the scene of
which lay in Ithaca, embracing the bulk of books xiii.-xxiii. The poem
so formed was enlarged at some time between Ol. 30 and Ol. 50 by the
stories of books x.-xii. (Circe, the Sirens, Scylla, &c.), and the
adventures of Telemachus. Lastly, a few passages were interpolated in
the time of Peisistratus.
The proof that the scenes in Ithaca are by a later hand than the
ancient "Return" is found chiefly in a contradiction discussed by
Kirchhoff in his sixth dissertation (pp. 135 sqq., ed. 1869).
Sometimes Ulysses is represented as aged and worn by toil, so that
Penelope, for instance, cannot recognize him; sometimes he is really
in the prime of heroic vigour, and his appearing as a beggarly old man
is the work of Athena's wand. The first of these representations is
evidently natural, considering the twenty eventful years that have
passed; but the second, Kirchhoff holds, is the Ulysses of Calypso's
island and the Phaeacian court. He concludes that the aged Ulysses
belongs to the "continuation" (the change wrought by Athena's wand
being a device to reconcile the two views), and hence that the
continuation is the work of a different author.
Ingenious as this is, there is really very slender ground for
Kirchhoff's thesis. The passages in the second half of the _Odyssey_
which describe the appearance of Ulysses do not give _two_ well-marked
representations of him. Sometimes Athena disguises him as a decrepit
beggar, sometimes she bestows on him supernatural beauty and vigour.
It must be admitted that we are not told exactly how long in each case
the effect of these changes lasted. But neither answers to his natural
appearance, or to the appearance which he is imagined to present in
the earlier books. In the palace of Alcinous, for instance, it is
noticed that he is vigorous but "marred by many ills" (_Od._ viii.
137); and this agrees with the scenes of recognition in the latter
part of the poem.
The arguments by which Kirchhoff seeks to prove that the stories of
books x.-xii. are much later than those of book ix. are not more
convincing. He points out some resemblances between these three books
and the Argonautic fables, among them the circumstance that a fountain
Artacia occurs in both. In the Argonautic story this fountain is
placed in the neighbourhood of Cyzicus, and answers to an actual
fountain known in historical times. Kirchhoff argues that the Artacia
of the Argonautic story must have been taken from the real Artacia,
and the Artacia of the _Odyssey_ again from that of the Argonautic
story. And as Cyzicus was settled from Miletus, he infers that both
sets of stories must be comparatively late. It is more probable,
surely, that the name Artacia occurred independently (as most
geographical names are found to occur) in more than one place. Or it
may be that the Artacia of the _Odyssey_ suggested the name to the
colonists of Cyzicus, whence it was adopted into the later versions of
the Argonautic story. The further argument that the _Nostoi_
recognized a son of Calypso by Ulysses but no son of Circe,
consequently that Circe was unknown to the poet of the _Nostoi_, rests
(in the first place) upon a conjectural alteration of a passage in
Eustathius, and, moreover, has all the weakness of an argument from
silence, in addition to the uncertainty arising from our very slight
knowledge of the author whose silence is in question. Finally, when
Kirchhoff finds traces in books x.-xii. of their having been
originally told by the poet himself instead of being put in the mouth
of his hero, we feel that inaccuracies of this kind are apt to creep
in wherever a fictitious story is thrown into the form of an
autobiography.
Inquiries conducted with the refinement which characterizes those of
Kirchhoff are always instructive, and his book contains very many just
observations; but it is impossible to admit his main conclusions. And
perhaps we may infer that no similar attempt can be more successful.
It does not indeed follow that the _Odyssey_ is free from
interpolations. The [Greek: Nekuia] of book xi. may be later (as Lauer
maintained), or it may contain additions, which could easily be
inserted in a description of the kind. And the last book is probably
by a different hand, as the ancient critics believed. But the unity of
the _Odyssey_ as a whole is apparently beyond the reach of the
existing weapons of criticism.
_Chorizontes._--When we are satisfied that each of the great Homeric
poems is either wholly or mainly the work of a single poet, a question
remains which has been matter of controversy in ancient as well as
modern times--Are they the work of the same poet? Two ancient
grammarians, Xeno and Hellanicus, were known as the "separators"
([Greek: oi chorizontes]); and Aristarchus appears to have written a
treatise against their heresy. In modern times some of the greatest
names have been on the side of the "Chorizontes."
If, as has been maintained in the preceding pages, the external evidence
regarding Homer is of no value, the problem now before us may be stated
in this form: Given two poems of which nothing is known except that they
are of the same school of poetry, what is the probability that they are
by the same author? We may find a fair parallel by imagining two plays
drawn at hazard from the works of the great tragic writers. It is
evident that the burden of proof would rest with those who held them to
be by the same hand.
The arguments used in this discussion have been of very various calibre.
The ancient Chorizontes observed that the messenger of Zeus is Iris in
the _Iliad_, but Hermes in the _Odyssey_; that the wife of Hephaestus is
one of the Charites in the _Iliad_, but Aphrodite in the _Odyssey_; that
the heroes in the _Iliad_ do not eat fish; that Crete has a hundred
cities according to the _Iliad_, and only ninety according to the
_Odyssey_; that [Greek: proparoithe] is used in the _Iliad_ of place, in
the _Odyssey_ of time, &c. Modern scholars have added to the list,
especially by making careful comparisons of the two poems in respect of
vocabulary and grammatical forms. Nothing is more difficult than to
assign the degree of weight to be given to such facts. The difference of
subject between the two poems is so great that it leads to the most
striking differences of detail, especially in the vocabulary. For
instance, the word [Greek: phobos], which in Homer means "flight in
battle" (not "fear"), occurs thirty-nine times in the _Iliad_, and only
once in the _Odyssey_; but then there are no battles in the _Odyssey_.
Again, the verb [Greek: rhegnymi], "to break," occurs forty-eight times
in the _Iliad_, and once in the _Odyssey_,--the reason being that it is
constantly used of breaking the armour of an enemy, the gate of a city,
the hostile ranks, &c. Once more, the word [Greek: skotos], "darkness,"
occurs fourteen times in the _Iliad_, once in the _Odyssey_. But in
every one of the fourteen places it is used of "darkness" coming over
the sight of a fallen warrior. On the other side, if words such as
[Greek: asaminthos], "a bath," [Greek: chernips], "a basin for the
hands," [Greek: lesche], "a place to meet and talk," &c., are peculiar
to the _Odyssey_, we have only to remember that the scene in the _Iliad_
is hardly ever laid within any walls except those of a tent. These
examples will show that mere statistics of the occurrence of words prove
little, and that we must begin by looking to the subject and character
of each poem. When we do so, we at once find ourselves in the presence
of differences of the broadest kind. The _Iliad_ is much more historical
in tone and character. The scene of the poem is a real place, and the
poet sings (as Ulysses says of Demodocus) as though he had been present
himself, or had heard from one who had been. The supernatural element is
confined to an interference of the gods, which to the common eye hardly
disturbs the natural current of affairs. The _Odyssey_, on the contrary,
is full of the magical and romantic--"speciosa miracula," as Horace
called them. Moreover, these marvels--which in their original form are
doubtless as old as anything in the _Iliad_, since in fact they are part
of the vast stock of popular tales (_Marchen_) diffused all over the
world--are mixed up in the _Odyssey_ with the heroes of the Trojan war.
This has been especially noticed in the case of the story of Polyphemus,
one that is found in many countries, and in versions which cannot all be
derived from Homer. W. Grimm has pointed out that the behaviour of
Ulysses in that story is senseless and foolhardy, utterly beneath the
wise and much-enduring Ulysses of the Trojan war. The reason is simple;
he is not the Ulysses of the Trojan war, but a being of the same world
as Polyphemus himself--the world of giants and ogres. The question then
is--How long must the name of Ulysses have been familiar in the legend
(_Sage_) of Troy before it made its way into the tales of giants and
ogres (_Marchen_), where the poet of the _Odyssey_ found it?
Again, the Trojan legend has itself received some extension between the
time of the _Iliad_ and that of the _Odyssey_. The story of the Wooden
Horse is not only unknown to the _Iliad_, but is of a kind which we can
hardly imagine the poet of the _Iliad_ admitting. The part taken by
Neoptolemus seems also to be a later addition. The tendency to amplify
and complete the story shows itself still more in the Cyclic poets.
Between the _Iliad_ and these poets the _Odyssey_ often occupies an
intermediate position.
This great and significant change in the treatment of the heroic legends
is accompanied by numerous minor differences (such as the ancients
remarked) in belief, in manners and institutions, and in language. These
differences bear out the inference that the _Odyssey_ is of a later age.
The progress of reflection is especially shown in the higher ideas
entertained regarding the gods. The turbulent Olympian court has almost
disappeared. Zeus has acquired the character of a supreme moral ruler;
and although Athena and Poseidon are adverse influences in the poem, the
notion of a direct contest between them is scrupulously avoided. The
advance of morality is shown in the more frequent use of terms such as
"just" ([Greek: dikaios]), "piety" ([Greek: hoshie]), "insolence"
([Greek: hubris]), "god-fearing" ([Greek: theoudes]), "pure" ([Greek:
hagnos]); and also in the plot of the story, which is distinctly a
contest between right and wrong. In matters bearing upon the arts of
life it is unsafe to press the silence of the _Iliad_. We may note,
however, the difference between the house of Priam, surrounded by
distinct dwellings for his many sons and daughters, and the houses of
Ulysses and Alcinous, with many chambers under a single roof. The
singer, too, who is so prominent a figure in the _Odyssey_ can hardly be
thought to be absent from the _Iliad_ merely because the scene is laid
in a camp.
_Style of Homer._--A few words remain to be said on the style and
general character of the Homeric poems, and on the comparisons which may
be made between Homer and analogous poetry in other countries.
The cardinal qualities of the style of Homer have been pointed out once
for all by Matthew Arnold. "The translator of Homer," he says, "should
above all be penetrated by a sense of four qualities of his author--that
he is eminently rapid; that he is eminently plain and direct, both in
the evolution of his thought and in the expression of it, that is, both
in his syntax and in his words; that he is eminently plain and direct in
the substance of his thought, that is, in his matter and ideas; and,
finally, that he is eminently noble" (_On Translating Homer_, p. 9).
The peculiar rapidity of Homer is due in great measure to his use of the
hexameter verse. It is characteristic of early literature that the
evolution of the thought--that is, the grammatical form of the
sentence--is guided by the structure of the verse; and the
correspondence which consequently obtains between the rhythm and the
grammar--the thought being given out in lengths, as it were, and these
again divided by tolerably uniform pauses--produces a swift flowing
movement, such as is rarely found when the periods have been constructed
without direct reference to the metre. That Homer possesses this
rapidity without falling into the corresponding faults--that is, without
becoming either "jerky" or monotonous--is perhaps the best proof of his
unequalled poetical skill. The plainness and directness, both of thought
and of expression, which characterize Homer were doubtless qualities of
his age; but the author of the _Iliad_ (like Voltaire, to whom Arnold
happily compares him) must have possessed the national gift in a
surpassing degree. The _Odyssey_ is in this respect perceptibly below
the level of the _Iliad_.
Rapidity or ease of movement, plainness of expression and plainness of
thought, these are not the distinguishing qualities of the great epic
poets--Virgil, Dante, Milton. On the contrary, they belong rather to the
humbler epico-lyrical school for which Homer has been so often claimed.
The proof that Homer does not belong to that school--that his poetry is
not in any true sense "ballad-poetry"--is furnished by the higher
artistic structure of his poems (already discussed), and as regards
style by the fourth of the qualities distinguished by Arnold--the
quality of _nobleness_. It is his noble and powerful style, sustained
through every change of idea and subject, that finally separates Homer
from all forms of "ballad-poetry" and "popular epic."[14]
But while we are on our guard against a once common error, we may
recognize the historical connexion between the _Iliad_ and _Odyssey_ and
the "ballad" literature which undoubtedly preceded them in Greece. It
may even be admitted that the swift-flowing movement, and the simplicity
of thought and style, which we admire in the _Iliad_ are an inheritance
from the earlier "lays"--the [Greek: klea andron] such as Achilles and
Patroclus sang to the lyre in their tent. Even the metre--the hexameter
verse--may be assigned to them. But between these lays and Homer we must
place the cultivation of epic poetry as an art.[15] The pre-Homeric lays
doubtless furnished the elements of such a poetry--the alphabet, so to
speak, of the art; but they must have been refined and transmuted before
they formed poems like the _Iliad_ and _Odyssey_.
A single example will illustrate this. In the scene on the walls of
Troy, in the third book of the _Iliad_, after Helen has pointed out
Agamemnon, Ulysses and Ajax in answer to Priam's questions, she goes on
unasked to name Idomeneus. Lachmann, whose mind is full of the ballad
manner, fastens upon this as an irregularity. "The unskilful transition
from Ajax to Idomeneus, about whom no question had been asked," he
cannot attribute to the original poet of the lay (_Betrachtungen_, p.
15, ed. 1865). But, as was pointed out by A. Romer[16], 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 process 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 putting 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 Gaston Paris
(_Histoire poetique de Charlemagne_, p. 9), the national songs have been
arrested in a form which may be called intermediate between contemporary
poetry and the epic. The true epics are those of India, Persia, Greece,
Germany, Britain and France. Most of these, 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 "chansons de geste," 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 _jongleurs_ (who may be
compared to the [Greek: aoidoi] 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
"bunches" of these earlier cantilenes, and this was the view taken by
Leon Gautier in the first edition of _Les Epopees francaises_ (1865). In
the second edition, of which the first volume appeared in 1878, he
abandoned this theory. He believes that the epics were generally
composed under the influence of earlier songs. "Our first epic poets,"
he says, "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 ont trouve) all the rest" (p. 80). But he admits that "some
of the old poems may have been borrowed from tradition, without any
intermediary" (ibid.); and when it is considered that the traces of the
"cantilenes" are slight, and that the degree in which they inspired the
later poetry must be a matter of impression rather than of proof, it
does not surprise us to find other scholars (notably Paul Meyer)
attaching less importance to them, or even doubting their existence.[17]
When 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 the peculiar degradation of Homeric characters which appears
in some poets (especially Euripides) finds a parallel in the later
chansons de geste.[18]
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 indigenous, 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 distinguished from them by the
comparative absence of underlying motives 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 "chosen delicacy" 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.
The _editio princeps_ of Homer, published at Florence in 1488, by
Demetrius Chalcondylas, and the Aldine editions of 1504 and 1517, have
still some value beyond that of curiosity. The chief modern critical
editions are those of Wolf (Halle, 1794-1795; Leipzig, 1804-1807),
Spitzner (Gotha, 1832-1836), Bekker (Berlin, 1843; Bonn, 1858), La
Roche (_Odyssey_, 1867-1868; _Iliad_, 1873-1876, both at Leipzig);
Ludwich (_Odyssey_, Leipzig, 1889-1891; _Iliad_, 2 vols., 1901 and
1907): W. Leaf (_Iliad_, London, 1886-1888; 2nd ed. 1900-1902); Merry
and Riddell (_Odyssey_ i.-xii., 2nd ed., Oxford, 1886); Monro
(_Odyssey_ xiii.-xxiv. with appendices, Oxford, 1901); Monro and Allen
(_Iliad_), and Allen (_Odyssey_, 1908, Oxford). The commentaries of
Barnes, Clarke and Ernesti are practically superseded; but Heyne's
_Iliad_ (Leipzig, 1802) and Nitzsch's commentary on the _Odyssey_
(books i.-xii., Hanover, 1826-1840) are still useful. Nagelbach's
_Anmerkungen zur Ilias_ (A, B 1-483, [Gamma]) is of great value,
especially the third edition (by Autenrieth, Nuremberg, 1864). The
unique _Scholia Veneta_ on the _Iliad_ were first made known by
Villoison (_Homeri Ilias ad veteris codicis Veneti fidem recensita,
Scholia in eam antiquissima ex eodem codice aliisque nunc primum
edidit, cum Asteriscis, Obeliscis, aliisque signis criticis, Joh.
Baptista Caspar d'Ansse de Villoison_, Venice, 1788); reprinted, with
many additions from other MSS., by Bekker (_Scholia in Homeri
Iliadem_, Berlin, 1825-1826). A new edition has been published by the
Oxford Press (_Scholia Graeca in Homeri Iliadem_, ed. Gul.
Dindorfius); six volumes have appeared (1875-1888), the last two
edited by Professor E. Maass. The vast commentary of Eustathius was
first printed at Rome in 1542; the last edition is that of Stallbaum
(Leipzig, 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 C. Lehrs (_De Aristarchi studiis
Homericis_, Konigsberg, 1833; 2nd ed., Leipzig, 1865). Of the studies
in the same field which have appeared since, the most important are:
Aug. Nauck, _Aristophanis Byzantii fragmenta_ (Halle, 1848); L.
Friedlander, _Aristonici_ [Greek: peri semeion 'Iliados] _reliquiae_
(Gottingen, 1853); M. Schmidt, _Didymi Chalcenteri fragmenta_
(Leipzig, 1854); L. Friedlander, _Nicanoris_ [Greek: peri Iliakes
stigmes] _reliquiae_ (Berlin, 1857); Aug. Lentz, _Herodiani Technici
reliquiae_ (Leipzig, 1867); J. La Roche, _Die homerische Textkritik im
Alterthum_ (Leipzig, 1866) and _Homerische Untersuchungen_ (Leipzig,
1869); Ad. Romer, _Die Werke der Aristarcheer im Cod. Venet. A._
(Munich, 1875); A. Ludwich, _Aristarch's Homerische Textkritik_ (2
vols. Leipzig, 1884-1885); and _Die Homervulgata als
vor-Alexandrinisch erwiesen_ (Leipzig, 1898).
The literature of the "Homeric Question" begins practically with
Wolf's _Prolegomena_ (Halle, 1795). Of the earlier books Wood's _Essay
on the Original Genius and Writings of Homer_ is the most interesting.
Wolf's views were skilfully popularized in W. Muller's _Homerische
Vorschule_ (2nd ed., Leipzig, 1836). G. Hermann's dissertations _De
interpolationibus Homeri_ (1832) and _De iteratis apua Homerum_ (1840)
are reprinted in his _Opuscula_. Lachmann's two papers (_Betrachtungen
uber Homer's Ilias_) were edited together by M. Haupt (2nd ed.,
Berlin, 1865). Besides the somewhat voluminous writings of Nitzsch,
and the discussions contained in the histories of Greek literature by
K. O. Muller, Bernhardy, Ulrici and Th. Bergk, and in Grote's _History
of Greece_, see Welcker, _Der epische Cyclus oder die homerischen
Dichter_ (Bonn, 1835-1849); on Proclus and the Cycle reference may
also be made to Wilamowitz-Mollendorf p. 328 seq.; E. Bethe, _Rhein.
Mus._ (1891), xxvi. p. 593 seq.; O. Immisch, _Festschrift Th. Gomperz
dargebracht_ (1902), p. 237 sq.; Lauer, _Geschichte der homerischen
Poesie_ (Berlin, 1851); Sengebusch, two dissertations prefixed to the
two volumes of W. Dindorf's _Homer_ in the Teubner series (1855-1856);
Friedlander, _Die homerische Kritik von Wolf bis Grote_ (Berlin,
1853); Nutzhorn, _Die Entstehungsweise der homerischen Gedichte, mit
Vorwort von J. N. Madvig_ (Leipzig, 1869); E. Kammer, _Zur homerischen
Frage_ (Konigsberg, 1870); and _Die Einheit der Odyssee_ (Leipzig,
1873); A. Kirchhoff, _Die Composition der Odyssee_ (Berlin, 1869);
Volkmann, _Geschichte und Kritik der Wolf'schen Prolegomena_ (Leipzig,
1874); K. Sittl, _Die Wiederholungen in der Odyssee_ (Munchen, 1882);
U. v. Wilamowitz-Mollendorf, _Homerische Untersuchungen_ (Berlin,
1884); O. Seeck, _Die Quellen der Odyssee_ (Berlin, 1887); F. Blass,
_Die Interpolationen in der Odyssee_ (Leipzig, 1905). The interest
taken in the question by English students is sufficiently shown in the
writings of W. E. Gladstone, F. A. Paley, Henry Hayman (in the
Introduction to his _Odyssey_), P. Geddes, R. C. Jebb and A. Lang (see
especially the latter's _Homer and his Age_, 1907).
The Homeric dialect must be studied in the books (such as those of G.
Curtius) that deal with Greek on the comparative method. The best
special work is the brief _Griechische Formenlehre_ of H. L. Ahrens
(Gottingen, 1852). Other important works are those of Aug. Fick: _Die
homerische Odyssee in der ursprunglichen Sprachform wiederhergestelt_
(Gottingen, 1883); _Die homerische Ilias_ (_ibid._, 1886); W. Schulze,
_Quaestiones epicae_ (Guterslohe, 1892). On Homeric syntax the chief
book is B. Delbruck's _Syntactische Forschungen_ (Halle, 1871-1879),
especially vols. i. and iv.; on metre, &c., Hartel's _Homerische
Studien_ (i.-iii., Vienna); Knos, _De digammo Homerico quaestiones_
(Upsala, 1872-1873-1878); Thumb, _Zur Geschichte des griech. Digamma,
Indogermanische Forschungen_ (1898), ix. 294 seq. The papers reprinted
in Bekker's _Homerische Blatter_ (Bonn, 1863-1872) and Cobet's
_Miscellanea Crilica_ (Leiden, 1876) are of the highest value.
Hoffmann's _Quaestiones Homericae_ (Clausthal, 1842) is a useful
collection of facts. Buttmann's _Lexilogus_, as an example of method,
is still worth study.
The antiquities of Homer--using the word in a wide sense--may be
studied in the following books: Volcker, _Uber homerische Geographie
und Weltkunde_ (Hanover, 1830); Nagelsbach's _Homerische Theologie_
(2nd ed., Nuremberg, 1861); H. Brunn, _Die Kunst bei Homer_ (Munich,
1868); W. W. Lloyd, _On the Homeric Design of the Shield of Achilles_
(London, 1854); Buchholz, _Die homerischen Realien_ (Leipzig,
1871-1873); W. Helbig, _Das homerische Epos aus den Denkmalern
erlautert_ (Leipzig, 1884; 2nd ed., ibid., 1887); W. Reichel, _Uber
homerische Waffen_ (Vienna, 1894); C. Robert, _Studien zur Ilias_
(Berlin, 1901); W. Ridgeway, _The Early Age of Greece_ (Cambridge,
1901); V. Berard, _Les Pheniciens et l'Odyssee_ (Paris, 1902-1903); C.
Robert, "Topographische Probleme der Ilias," in _Hermes_, xlii., 1907,
pp. 78-112.
Among other aids should be mentioned the _Index Homericus_ of Seber
(Oxford, 1780); Prendergast's _Concordance to the Iliad_ (London,
1875); Dunbar's _id._ to the _Odyssey and Hymns_ (Oxford, 1880);
Frohwein, _Verbum Homericum_, (Leipzig, 1881); Gehring, _Index
Homericus_ (Leipzig, 1891); the _Lexicon Homericum_, edited by H.
Ebeling (Leipzig, 1880-1885) and the facsimile of the cod. Ven. A
(Sijthoff; Leiden, 1901), with an introduction by D. Comparetti.
(D. B. M.)
FOOTNOTES:
[1] This article was thoroughly revised by Dr D. B. Monro before his
death in 1905; a few points have since been added by Mr. T. W. Allen.
[2] See a paper in the _Diss. Philol. Halenses_, ii. 97-219.
[3] Compare the _Popular Rhymes of Scotland_, published by Robert
Chambers.
[4] Compare the branch of myrtle at an Athenian feast (Aristoph.,
_Nub._, 1364).
[5] The _Iliad_ was also recited at the festival of the Brauronia, at
Brauron in Attica (Hesych. _s.v._ [Greek: branroniois]).
[6] _Contemporary Review_, vol. xxiii. p. 218 ff.
[7] The fact that the Phoenician Vau ([digamma]) was retained in the
Greek alphabets, and the vowel [upsilon] added, shows that when the
alphabet was introduced the sound denoted by [digamma] was still in
full vigour. Otherwise [digamma] would have been used for the vowel
[upsilon], just as the Phoenician consonant Yod became the vowel
[iota]. But in the Ionic dialect the sound of [digamma] died out soon
after Homer's time, if indeed it was still pronounced then. It seems
probable therefore that the introduction of the alphabet is not later
than the composition of the Homeric poems.
[8] See D. B. Monro's _Homer's Odyssey_, books xiii.-xxiv. (Oxford,
1901, p. 455 sqq.), and the abstract of his paper on the Homeric
Dialect read to the Congress of Historical Sciences at Rome, 1903:
_Atti del Congresso internazionale di scienze storiche_, ii. 152,
153, 1905, "Il Dialetto omerico."
[9] See the chapter in Cobet's _Miscellanea critica_, pp. 225-239.
[10] The existence of two groups of the Venetian Scholia was first
noticed by Jacob La Roche, and they were first distinguished in the
edition of W. Dindorf (Oxford, 1875). There is also a group of
Scholia, chiefly exegetical, a collection of which was published by
Villoison from a MS. Ven. 453 (s. xi.) in his edition of 1788, and
has been again edited by W. Dindorf (Oxford, 1877). The most
important collection of this group is contained in the _Codex
Townleianus_ (Burney 86 s. xi.) of the British Museum, edited by E.
Maass, (Oxford, 1887-1888). The vast commentary of Eustathius (of the
12th century) marks a third stage in the progress of ancient Homeric
learning.
[11] _Prolegomena ad Homerum, sive de operum Homericorum prisca et
genuina forma variisque mutationibus et probabili ratione emendandi._
scripsit Frid. Aug. Wolfius, volumen i. (1795).
[12] On this point see a paper by Professor Packard in the _Trans. of
the American Philological Association_ (1876).
[13] _Die Composition der Odyssee_ (Berlin, 1869). A full discussion
of this book is given by Dr E. Kammer, _Die Einheit der Odyssee_
(Leipzig, 1873).
[14] "As a poet Homer must be acknowledged to excel Shakespeare in
the truth, the harmony, the sustained grandeur, the satisfying
completeness of his images" (Shelley, _Essays_, &c., i. 51, ed.
1852).
[15] "The old English balladist may stir Sir Philip Sidney's heart
like a trumpet, and this is much; but Homer, but the few artists in
the grand style, can do more--they can refine the raw natural man,
they can transmute him" (_On Translating Homer_, p. 61).
[16] _Die exegetischen Scholien der Ilias_, p. vii.
[17] "On comprend que des chants populaires nes d'un evenement
eclatant, victoire ou defaite, puissent contribuer a 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 poete epique qui l'introduit dans
sa composition. Voila ce qui a pu se produire pour de chants
tres-courts, dont il est d'ailleurs aussi difficile d'affirmer que de
nier l'existence. Mais on peut expliquer la formation des chansons de
geste par une autre hypothese" (Meyer, _Recherches sur l'epopee
francaise_, p. 65). "Ce qui a fait naitre la theorie des chants
'lyrico-epiques' ou des cantilenes, c'est le systeme de Wolf sur les
poemes homeriques, et de Lachmann sur les _Nibelungen_. Mais, au
moins en ce qui concerne ce dernier poeme, le systeme est detruit....
On tire encore argument des romances espagnoles, qui, dit-on, sont
des 'cantilenes' non encore arrivees a l'epopee.... Et 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'epopee; en Allemagne, une epopee, mais pas de cantilenes!"
(_Ibid._ p. 66).
[18] A. Lang, _Contemporary Review_, vol. xvii., N.S., p. 588.
HOMER, WINSLOW (1836-1910), American painter, was born in Boston,
U.S.A., on the 24th of February 1836. At the age of nineteen he was
apprenticed to a lithographer. Two years later he opened a studio in
Boston, and devoted much of his time to making drawings for
wood-engravers. In 1859 he removed to New York, where he studied in the
night-school of the National Academy of Design. During the American
Civil War he was with the troops at the front, and contributed sketches
to _Harper's Weekly_. The war also furnished him with the subjects for
the first two pictures which he exhibited (1863), one of which was
"Home, Sweet Home." His "Prisoners from the Front"--perhaps his most
generally popular picture--was exhibited in New York in 1865, and also
in Paris in 1867, where he was spending the year in study. Among his
other paintings in oil are "Snap the Whip" (which was exhibited at the
Philadelphia Centennial Exhibition of 1876, and, in company with "The
Country Schoolroom," at the Paris Salon the following year), "Eating
Water-melon," "The Cotton Pickers," "Visit from the Old Mistress, Sunday
Morning," "The Life-Line" and "The Coming of the Gale." His genius,
however, has perhaps shown better in his works in water-colour, among
which are his marine studies painted at Gloucester, Mass., and his
"Inside the Bar," "The Voice from the Cliffs" (pictures of English
fisherwomen), "Tynemouth," "Wrecking of a Vessel" and "Lost on the
Grand Banks." His work, which principally consists of _genre_ pictures,
is characterized by strength, rugged directness and unmistakable
freshness and originality, rather than by technical excellence, grace of
line or beauty of colour. He was little affected by European influences.
His types and scenes, apart from his few English pictures, are
distinctly American--soldiers in blue, New England children, negroes in
the land of cotton, Gloucester fishermen and stormy Atlantic seas.
Besides being a member of the Society of Painters in Water-color, New
York, he was elected in 1864 an associate and the following year a
member of the National Academy of Design.
HOMESTEAD, a borough of Allegheny county, Pennsylvania, U.S.A., on the
Monongahela river, 8 m. S.E. of Pittsburg. Pop. (1890) 7911; (1900)
12,554, of whom 3604 were foreign-born and 640 were negroes; (U.S.
census, 1910) 18,713. It is served by the Pennsylvania and the Pittsburg
& Lake Erie railways, and by the short Union Railroad, which connects
with the Bessemer & Lake Erie and the Wabash railways. The borough has a
Carnegie library and the C.M. Schwab Manual Training School. Partly in
Homestead but chiefly in the adjoining borough of Munhall (and therefore
not reported as in Homestead by the U.S. Census) is one of the largest
plants in the United States for the manufacture of steel used in the
construction of bridges and steel-frame buildings and of steel
armour-plate, and this is its chief industry; among Homestead's other
manufactures are glass and fire-bricks. The water-works are owned and
operated by the municipality. Homestead was first settled in 1871, and
it was incorporated in 1880. In 1892 a labour strike lasting 143 days
and one of the most serious in the history of the United States was
carried on here by the National Amalgamated Association of Iron and
Steel Workers of the United States against the Carnegie Steel Company.
The arrival (on the 6th of July) of a force of about 200 Pinkerton
detectives from New York and Chicago resulted in a fight in which about
10 men were killed, and to restore order two brigades of the state
militia were called out. See STRIKES AND LOCKOUTS.
HOMESTEAD AND EXEMPTION LAWS, laws (principally in the United States)
designed primarily either to aid the head of a family to acquire title
to a place of residence or to protect the owner against loss of that
title through seizure for debt. These laws have all been enacted in
America since about the middle of the 19th century, and owe their origin
to the demand for a population of the right sort in a new country, to
the conviction that the freeholder rather than the tenant is the natural
supporter of popular government, to the effort to prevent insolvent
debtors from becoming useless members of society, and to the belief that
such laws encourage the stability of the family.
By the cessions of several of the older states, and by various treaties
with foreign countries, public lands have been acquired for the United
States in every state and territory of the Union except the original
thirteen, and Maine, Vermont, Kentucky, Tennessee and Texas. For a time
they were regarded chiefly as a source of revenue, but about 1820, as
the need of revenue for the payment of the national debt decreased and
the inhabitants of an increasing number of new states became eager to
have the vacant lands within their bounds occupied, the demand that the
public lands should be disposed of more in the interest of the settler
became increasingly strong, and the homestead idea originated. Until the
advent of railways, however, the older states of the North were opposed
to promoting the development of the West in this manner, and soon
afterwards the Southern representatives in Congress opposed the general
homestead bills in the interests of slavery, so that except in isolated
cases where settlers were desired to protect some frontier, as in
Florida and Oregon, and to a limited extent in the case of the
Pre-emption Act of 1841 (see below), the homestead principle was not
applied by the national government until the Civil War had begun. A
general homestead bill was passed by Congress in 1860, but this was
vetoed by President James Buchanan; two years later, however, a similar
bill became a law. The act of 1862 originally provided that any citizen
of the United States, or applicant for citizenship, who was the head of
a family, or twenty-one years of age, or, if younger, had served not
less than fourteen days in the army or navy of the United States during
an actual war, might apply for 160 acres or less of unappropriated
public lands, and might acquire title to this amount of land by residing
upon and cultivating it for five years immediately following, and paying
such fees as were necessary to cover the cost of administration; a
homestead acquired in this manner was exempted from seizure for any debt
contracted prior to the date of issuing the patent. A commutation clause
of this act permitted title to be acquired after only six months of
residence by paying $1.25 per acre, as provided in the Pre-emption Act
of 1841. Act of 1872, amended in 1901, allows any soldier or seaman, who
has served at least ninety days in the army or navy of the United States
during the Civil War, the Spanish-American War or in the suppression of
the insurrection in the Philippines, and was honourably discharged, to
apply for a homestead, and permits the deduction of the time of such
service, or, if discharged on account of wounds or other disability
incurred in the line of duty, the full term of his enlistment, from the
five years otherwise required for perfecting title, except that in any
case he shall have resided upon and cultivated the land at least one
year before the passing of title. Since 1866 mineral lands have been for
the most part excluded from entry as homesteads.
In accordance with the provisions of the homestead law, 718,930
homesteads, containing 96,495,414 acres, were established in forty-two
years, and besides this principal act, Congress has passed several minor
ones of a like nature, that is, acts designed to benefit the actual
settler who improves the land. Thus the Pre-emption Act of 1841 gave to
any head of a family or any single person over twenty-one years of age,
who was a citizen of the United States or had declared his intention to
become one, permission to purchase not to exceed 160 acres of public
lands after he had resided upon and improved the same for six months;
the Timber-Culture Act of 1873 allowed title to 160 acres of public
prairie-land to be given to any one who should plant upon it 40 acres of
timber, and keep the same in good growing condition for ten years; and
the Desert-Land Act of 1877 gave to any citizen of the United States, or
to any person who had declared his intention to become one, the
privilege of acquiring title to 640 acres of such public land as was not
included in mineral or timber lands, and would not without irrigation
produce an agricultural crop, by paying twenty-five cents an acre and
creating for the tract an artificial water-supply. These several land
acts, however, invited fraud to such an extent that in time they
promoted the establishment of large land holdings by ranchmen and others
quite as much as they encouraged settlement and cultivation, and so
great was this evil that in 1891 the Timber-Culture and Pre-emption Acts
were repealed, the total amount of land that could be acquired by any
one person under the several land laws was limited to 320 acres, the
Desert-Land Act was so amended as to require an expenditure of at least
three dollars an acre for irrigation, and the original Homestead Act was
so amended as to disqualify any person who was already proprietor of
more than 160 acres in any state or Territory of the Union for acquiring
any more land under its provisions; and in 1896 a residence of fourteen
months was required before permitting commutation or the purchase of
title. But even these measures were inadequate to prevent fraud. In 1894
Congress, in what is known as the Carey Act, donated to California,
Oregon, Nevada, Washington, Idaho, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Arizona, New
Mexico and the Dakotas so much of 1,000,000 acres each of desert-lands
as each should cause to be irrigated, reclaimed and occupied within ten
years,[1] not less than 20 acres of each 160 acres to be cultivated by
actual settlers; and in several of these states and territories
irrigating companies have been formed and land offered to settlers in
amounts not exceeding 160 acres to each, on terms requiring the settler
to purchase ample and perpetual water-rights. In 1902, Congress
appropriated the proceeds of the sales of public lands in these states
and territories to form a reclamation fund to be used for the
construction and maintenance of irrigation works, and lands reclaimed by
this means are open to homestead entries, the entry-man being required
to pay for the cost of reclamation in ten equal annual instalments
without interest. When Texas was admitted to the Union the disposal of
its public lands was reserved to the state, and under its laws every
person who is the head of a family and without a homestead may acquire
title to 160 acres of land by residing upon and improving it for three
years; every unmarried man eighteen years of age or over may acquire
title to 80 acres in the same way.
A short time before the National Homestead Act for aiding citizens to
acquire homesteads went into operation, some of the state legislatures
had passed homestead and exemption laws designed to protect homesteads
or a certain amount of property against loss to the owners in case they
should become insolvent debtors, and by the close of the century the
legislature of nearly every state in the Union had passed a law of this
nature. These laws vary greatly. In most states the exemption of a
homestead or other property from liability for debts can be claimed only
by the head of a family, but in Georgia it may be claimed by any aged or
infirm person, by any trustee of a family of minor children, or by any
person on whom any woman or girls are dependent for support; and in
California, although the head of a family may claim exemption for a
homestead valued at $5000, any other person may claim exemption for a
homestead valued at $1000. In some states exemptions may be claimed
either for a farm limited to 40, 80, 160 or 200 acres, or for a house
and one or more lots, usually limited in size, in a town, village or
city; in other states the homestead for which exemption may be claimed
is limited in value, and this value varies from $500 to $5000. With the
homestead are usually included the appurtenances thereto, and the courts
invariably interpret the law liberally; but many states also exempt a
specified amount of personal property, including wearing apparel,
furniture, provisions, tools, libraries and in some cases domestic
animals and stock in trade. A few states exempt no homestead and only a
small amount of personal property; Maryland, for example, exempts only
$100 worth of property besides money payable in the nature of insurance,
or for relief, in the event of sickness, injury or death. To some debts
the exemption does not usually apply; the most common of these are
taxes, purchase money, a debt secured by mortgage on the homestead and
debts contracted in making improvements upon it; in Maryland the only
exception is a judgment for breach of promise to marry or in case of
seduction. If the homestead belongs to a married person, the consent of
both husband and wife is usually required to mortgage it. Finally, some
states require that the homestead for which exemption is to be claimed
shall be previously entered upon record, others require only occupancy,
and still others permit the homestead to be designated whenever a claim
is presented.
Following the example of either the United States Congress or the state
legislatures, the governments of several British colonial states and
provinces have passed homestead laws. In Quebec every settler on public
lands is allowed, after receiving a patent, an exemption of not to
exceed 200 acres from that of his widow, of his, her or their children
and descendants in the direct line. In Ontario an applicant for a
homestead may have not to exceed 200 acres of unappropriated public land
for farming purposes by building a house thereon, occupying it for five
years, and bringing at least fifteen acres under cultivation; the
exemption of such a homestead from liability to seizure for debts is,
however, limited to twenty years from the date of application for the
land, and does not extend even during that period to rates or taxes.
Manitoba, British Columbia, Queensland, New South Wales, South
Australia, West Australia and New Zealand also have liberal homestead
and exemption laws.
See J. B. Sanborn, "Some Political Aspects of Homestead Legislation,"
in _The American Historical Review_ (1900); Edward Manson, "The
Homestead Acts," in the _Journal of the Society of Comparative
Legislation_ (London, 1899); S. D. Thompson, _A Treatise on_
_Homesteads and Exemptions_ (San Francisco, 1886); P. Bureau, _Le
Homestead ou l'Insaisissabilite de la petite propriete fonciere_
(Paris, 1894), and L. Vacher, _Le Homestead aux Etats-Unis_ (Paris,
1899). (N. D. M.)
FOOTNOTE:
[1] In 1901 it was provided that the ten years should date from the
segregation of the lands from the public domain.
HOMEYER, KARL GUSTAV (1795-1874), German jurist, was born on the 13th of
August 1795 at Wolgast in Pomerania. After studying law at the
universities of Berlin, Gottingen and Heidelberg (1813-1817), he settled
as a _Privatdocent_, in 1821, at the university of Berlin, where he
became ordinary professor of law in 1827. His principal works are his
edition of the _Sachsenspiegel_ (in 3 vols., 1827, 3rd ed., 1861,
containing also some other important sources of Saxon or Low German
law), which is still unsurpassed in accuracy and sagacity of research,
and his book on _Die Haus- und Hofmarken_ (1870), in which he has given
a history of the use of trade-marks among all the Teutonic nations of
Europe, and which is full of important elucidations of the history of
law and also contains valuable contributions to the history of art and
civilization. In 1850 Homeyer was elected a member of the Berlin Academy
of Sciences, in the _Transactions_ of which he published various papers
exhibiting profound learning (_Uber die Heimat_, 1852; _Genealogie der
Handschriften des Sachsenspiegels_, 1859; _Die Stadtbucher des
Mittelalters_, 1860; _Der Dreissigste_, 1864, &c.). He died on the 20th
of October 1874.
HOMICIDE (Lat. _homicidium_), the general and neutral term for the
killing of one human being by another. The nature of the responsibility
of the slayer to the state and to the relatives of the slain has been
one of the chief concerns of all systems of law from the earliest times,
and it has been variously considered from the points of view of the
sanctity of human life, the interests of the sovereign, the injury to
the family of the slain and the moral guilt, i.e. the motives and
intentions, of the slayer.
The earliest recorded laws (those of Khammurabi) do not contain any
sweeping general provision as to the punishment of homicide. The death
penalty is freely imposed but not for homicide. "If a man strike a
gentleman's daughter that she dies, his own daughter is to be put to
death, if a poor man's the slayer pays 1/2 mina." In the Mosaic law the
general command "Thou shalt not kill" of the Decalogue is in terms
absolute. In primitive law homicide, however innocent, subjected the
slayer to the lawful vengeance of the kindred of the slain, unless he
could make some composition with him. This _lex talionis_ (a life for a
life) resulted: (1) in a course of private justice which still survives
in the vendetta of Corsica and Albania, and the blood feuds arising out
of "difficulties" in the southern and western parts of the United
States; (2) in the recognition of sanctuaries and cities of refuge
within which the avenger of blood might not penetrate to kill an
innocent manslayer; and (3) in the system of wite, bote and wer, by
which the life of every man had its assessed price payable to his chief
and his next of kin.
It took long to induce the relatives of the slain to appreciate anything
beyond the fact of the death of their kinsman or to discriminate between
intentional and accidental homicide. By the laws of Khammurabi (206,
208) striking a man in a quarrel without deadly intent but with fatal
effect was treated as a matter for compensation according to the rank of
the slain. The Pentateuch discriminates between the man "who lieth in
wait for" or "cometh presumptuously" on "his neighbour to slay him with
guile" (Exodus xxi. 13, 14), and the man "who killeth his neighbour
ignorantly whom he hated not in time past" (Deut. xix. 4). But even
killing by misadventure exposed the slayer to the avenger of blood. "As
a man goeth into the wood with his neighbour to hew wood, and his hand
fetcheth a stroke with the axe to cut down a tree and the head slippeth
from the helve and lighteth upon his neighbour that he die: he shall
flee into one of these cities (of refuge) and live" (Deut. xix. 5).
Under the early laws of Teutonic and Celtic communities the
inconveniences of the blood feud were gradually mitigated (see CRIMINAL
LAW) by the system of wite and wer (or eric), but the blood feud
continued long in Friesland and Lower Saxony, and in parts of
Switzerland until the 16th century. In England under the Norman system
homicide became a plea of the crown, and the rights of the kindred to
private vengeance and to compensation were gradually superseded in
favour of the right of the king to forfeitures where the homicide
amounted to a crime (felony).
Though homicide was thus made a public offence and not a matter for
private vengeance, it took long to discriminate between those forms of
homicide which should and those which should not be punished.
The terms of act in English law used to describe _criminal_ homicide are
murder (_mord_, _meurtre_, _murdrum_), manslaughter and _felo de se_ (or
suicide by a person of sound mind).
The original meaning of the word "murder" seems to have been secret
homicide,--"_Murdrum proprie dicitur mors alicujus occulta cujus
interfector ignoratur_" (_Dialogus de Scaccario_ i, x.); and Glanville
says: _Duo sunt genera homicidii, unum est quod dicitur murdrum quod
nullo vidente nullo sciente clam perpetratur, ita quod non assignatur
clamor popularis_ (hue and cry), _est et aliud homicidium quod diciter
simplex homicidium_. After the Conquest, and for the protection of the
ruling race, a fine (also called _murdrum_) was levied for the king on
the hundred or other district in which a stranger was found dead, if the
slayer was not brought to justice and the blood kin of the slain did not
present Englishry, there being a presumption (in favour of the
Exchequer) that the deceased was a Frenchman. After the assize of
Clarendon (1166) the distinction between the killing of Normans and
Englishmen gradually evaporated and the term murder came to acquire its
present meaning of deliberate as distinct from secret homicide. In 1267
it was provided that the murder fine should not be levied in cases of
death by "misadventure" (_per infortunium_).[1] But at that date and for
long afterwards homicide in self-defence or by misadventure or even
while of unsound mind involved at the least a forfeiture of goods, and
required a pardon. These pardons, and restitution of the goods, became a
matter of course, and the judges appear at a later date to have been in
the habit of directing an acquittal in such cases. But it was not until
1828 that the innocence of excusable homicide was expressly declared.
The rule is now expressed in s. 7 of the Offences against the Person Act
1861: "No punishment or forfeiture shall be incurred by any person who
shall kill another by misfortune, or in his own defence, or in any other
manner without felony."
The further differentiation between different degrees of criminal
homicide was marked by legislation of Henry VIII. (1531) taking away
benefit of clergy in the case of "wilful murder with malice prepensed"
(aforethought), and that phrase is still the essential element in the
definition of "wilful murder," which is committed "when a person of
sound memory and discretion unlawfully killeth any reasonable creature
or being and under the king's peace with malice aforethought either
express or implied" (3 Co. Inst. 47). The whole development of the
substantive law as to murder rests on judicial rulings as to the meaning
of malice prepense coupled with the extrajudicial commentaries of Coke,
Hale and Foster; for parliament, though often tempted by bills and
codes, has never ventured on a legislative definition. Much discussion
has ranged round the phrase "malice aforethought," and it has
undoubtedly been expanded by judicial decision so as to create what is
described as "constructive" murder. According to the view of the
criminal code commissioners of 1879 (_Parl. Pap._, 1879, c. 23, 45, p.
23) the term "malice aforethought" is now a common name for all the
following states of mind:--
1. An intent, preceding the act, to kill or do grievous bodily harm to
the person or to any other person:
2. Knowledge that the act done is _likely_ to produce such
consequences, whether coupled with an intention to produce them or
not:
3. An intent to commit any felony: or
4. An intent to resist an officer of police in the execution of his
duty.
The third form of malice aforethought has been much controverted. When
it was first recognized as creating a liability for wilful murder almost
all felonies were capital offences: but even at the end of the 17th
century Lord Holt expressed a view that it should be limited to felonies
involving violence or danger to life, e.g. assault with intent to rob,
or setting fire to a dwelling-house. And Sir James Stephen's opinion is
that, to justify conviction of murder by an act done with intent to
commit a felony, the act done must be one dangerous to life or known to
be likely to cause death.
Starting with the definition above given, English law still retains so
much of its medieval character as to presume all homicide to be
"malicious, and therefore murder, unless it is either _justified_ by the
command or permission of the law, _excused_ on the ground of accident or
self-preservation, or _alleviated_ into manslaughter by being the
involuntary consequence of some act not strictly lawful or occasioned by
some sudden and sufficiently violent provocation." The truth of the
facts alleged in justification, excuse or alleviation, is for the jury
to determine: the question whether if true they support the plea for
which they are put forward is for the court.
In the administration of the English criminal law as to homicide the
consequences of too strict an adherence to the technical definitions of
the offences are avoided (a) by the exercise of the jury of their powers
to convict of manslaughter only even in cases where they are directed
that the offence is murder or nothing; (b) by the report of the judge as
to the particular circumstances of each case in which a conviction of
murder has been followed by the statutory sentence of death; (c) by the
examination of all the evidence in the case by the Home Office in order
to enable the secretary of state to determine whether the prerogative of
mercy should be exercised.
Homicide is justifiable and not criminal when the killing is done in the
execution of the law. The most important case of justifiable homicide is
the execution of a criminal in due course of public justice. This
condition is most stringently interpreted. "To kill the greatest of
malefactors deliberately, uncompelled, and extrajudicially is murder....
And further, if judgment of death be given by a judge not authorized by
lawful commission, and execution is done accordingly, the judge is
guilty of murder" (Stephen's _Commentaries_, book vi. c. iv.). The
execution must be carried out by the proper officer or his deputy: any
person executing the sentence without such authority, were it the judge
himself, would be guilty of murder. And the sentence must be strictly
pursued: to execute a criminal by a kind of death other than that to
which he has been judicially condemned is murder.
Homicide committed by an officer of justice in the course of carrying
out his duty, as such, is also justifiable; e.g. where a felon resists a
legal arrest and is killed in the effort to arrest him (see 2 Pollock
and Maitland, 476); where officers in dispersing a riotous assemblage
kill any of the mob, &c. (see RIOT). In these cases the homicide must be
shown to have been absolutely necessary. Again, homicide is justifiable
if committed in the defence of person or property against forcible and
heinous crime, such as murder, violent robbery, rape or burglary. In
this connexion there has been much discussion as to whether the person
attacked is under a duty to retreat: and in substance the justification
depends on the continuous necessity of attack or defence In order to
prevent the commission by the deceased of the crime threatened.
Homicide is excusable and not criminal at all when committed either by
misadventure or in self-defence. In the former case the homicide is
excused; where a man in the course of doing some lawful work,
accidentally and without intention kills another, e.g. shooting at a
mark and undesignedly hitting and killing a man. The act must be
strictly lawful, and death by misadventure in unlawful sports is not a
case of excusable homicide. Homicide in self-defence is excusable when
the slayer is himself in immediate danger of death, and has done all he
could to avoid the assault. Accordingly, if he strikes and kills his
assailant after the assault is over, this is not excusable homicide. But
if the assault has been premeditated, as in the ease of a duel, the
death of either antagonist has under English law always been held to be
murder and not excusable homicide. The excuse of self-defence covers the
case in which a person in defence of others whom it is his duty to
protect--children, wife, master, &c.--kills an assailant. It has been
considered doubtful whether the plea of self-defence is available to one
who has himself provoked a fray, in the course of which he is so pressed
by his antagonist that his only resource is to kill him.
In English law the term "manslaughter" is applied to those forms of
homicide which though neither justifiable nor excusable are attended by
alleviating circumstances which bring them short of wilful murder. The
offence is not defined by statute, but only by judicial rulings. Its
punishment is as a maximum penal servitude for life, and as a minimum a
fine or recognizances to be of good behaviour. The quantum of punishment
between the limits above stated is in the discretion of the court, and
not, as under continental codes, with fixed minima; and the offence
includes acts and omissions of very varying gravity, from acts which
only by the charitable appreciation of a jury fall short of wilful
murder, to acts or omissions which can only technically be described as
criminal, e.g. where one of two persons engaged in poaching, by pure
accident gets caught in a hedge so that his gun goes off and kills his
fellow-poacher. This may be described as an extreme instance of
"constructive crime."
There are two main forms of "manslaughter":--
1. "Voluntary" homicide under grave and sudden provocation or on a
sudden quarrel in the heat of passion, without the slayer taking undue
advantage or acting in an unusual manner. The substance of the
alleviation of guilt lies in the absence of time for cool reflection or
the formation of a premeditated design to kill. Under English law the
provocation must be by acts and not by words or gestures, and must be
serious and not trivial, and the killing must be immediately after
provocation and while the slayer has lost his self-control in
consequence of the provocation. The provocation need not be by assault
or violence, and perhaps the best-recognized example is the slaying by a
husband of a man found committing adultery with the slayer's wife. In
the case of a sudden quarrel it does not matter who began or provoked
the quarrel. This used to be called "chance medley."
2. "Involuntary" homicide as a result of great rashness or gross
negligence in respect of matters involving danger to human life, e.g. in
driving trains or vehicles, or in dealing with dangerous weapons, or in
performing surgical operations, or in taking care of the helpless.
The innumerable modes in which criminal liability for killing others has
been adjudged under the English definitions of murder and manslaughter
cannot be here stated, and can only be studied by reference to the
judicial decisions collected and discussed in _Russell on Crimes_ and
other English text-books, and in the valuable work by Mr J. D. Mayne on
the criminal law of India, in which the English common law rulings are
stated side by side with the terms and interpretations of the Indian
penal code. Much labour has been expended by many jurists in efforts to
create a scientific and acceptable classification of the various forms
of unlawful homicide which shall properly define the cases which should
be punishable by law and the appropriate punishment. Their efforts have
resulted in the establishment in almost every state except the United
Kingdom of statutory definitions of the crime, beginning with the French
penal code and going down to the criminal code of Japan. In the case of
England, as a result of the labours of Sir James Stephen, a code bill
was submitted to parliament in 1878. In 1879 a draft code was prepared
by Blackburn, Lush and Barry, and was presented to parliament. It was
founded on and prepared with Sir J. Stephen, and is a revision of his
digest of the criminal law.
After defining homicide and culpable homicide, the draft code (cl. 174)
declares culpable homicide to be murder in the following cases: (a) if
the offender means to cause the death of the person killed; (b) if the
offender means to cause to the person killed any bodily injury which is
known to the offender to be likely to cause death, and if the offender,
whether he does or does not mean to cause death, is reckless whether
death ensues or not; (c) if the offender means to cause death or such
bodily injury as aforesaid to one person, so that if that person be
killed the offender would be guilty of murder, and by accident or
mistake the offender kills another person though he does not mean to
hurt the person killed; (d) if the offender for any unlawful object does
an act which he knows or ought to have known to be likely to cause
death, and thereby kills any person, though he may have desired that his
object should be effected without hurting any one.
Further (cl. 175), it is murder (whether the offender means or not death
to ensue, or knows or not that death is likely to ensue) in the
following cases:--"(a) if he means to inflict grievous bodily injury for
the purpose of facilitating the commission of any of the offences
hereinafter mentioned, or the flight of the offender upon the commission
or attempted commission thereof, and death ensues from his violence; (b)
if he administers any stupefying thing for either of the purposes
aforesaid and death ensues from the effects thereof; (c) if he by any
means wilfully stops the breath of any person for either of the purposes
aforesaid and death ensues from such stopping of the breath." The
following are the offences referred to:--"high treason and other
offences against the king's authority, piracy and offences deemed to be
piracy, escape or rescue from prison or lawful custody, resisting lawful
apprehension, murder, rape, forcible abduction, robbery, burglary,
arson." Cl. 176 reduces culpable homicide to manslaughter if the person
who causes death does so "in the heat of passion caused by sudden
provocation"; and "any _wrongful act or insult_ of such a nature as to
be sufficient to deprive any ordinary person of the power of
self-control may be provocation if the offender acts upon it on the
sudden, and before there has been time for his passion to cool. Whether
any particular wrongful act or insult amounts to provocation and whether
the offender was deprived of self-control shall be questions of fact;
but no one shall be deemed to give provocation by doing that which he
had a legal right to do, or which the offender incited him to do in
order to provide an excuse for killing him or doing grievous bodily harm
to any person." Further, "an arrest shall not necessarily reduce the
offence from murder to manslaughter because an arrest was illegal, but
if the illegality was known to the offender it may be evidence of
provocation"; (cl. 177) "culpable homicide not amounting to murder is
manslaughter."
The definitions embodied in these clauses though not yet accepted by the
British legislature, have in substance been embodied in the criminal
codes of Canada (1892 ss. 227-230), New Zealand (1893, ss. 163-166),
Queensland (1899, ss. 300-305), and Western Australia (1901, ss.
275-280).
From the point of view of civil as distinct from criminal responsibility
homicide does not by the common law give any cause of action against the
person causing the death of another in favour of the wife or blood
relations of the deceased. In early law this was otherwise; and the wer
or eric of the deceased came historically before the right of chief or
state. But under English law the rights of relations, except by way of
appeal for felony,[2] were swept aside in favour of the crown, on the
principle that every homicide is presumed felonious (murder) unless the
contrary is proved, and that in all cases of homicide not justifiable by
law a forfeiture was incurred. The rights of the relatives were also
defeated by application of the maxim "_actio personalis moritur cum
persona_" ("a personal action dies with the person") to all proceedings
for injury to the person or to reputation. In Scotland the old theory
was preserved in the law as to assythement.
In England the law was altered at the instance of Lord Campbell in 1846
(9 & 10 V. c. 93) so as to give a right of a claim by the husband, wife,
parent or child of a person killed by a wrongful (or even criminal) act,
neglect or default by another which would have given the deceased if he
had survived a cause of action against the wrongdoer. The compensation
payable is what the surviving relative has lost by the death, and under
the Workmen's Compensation Act 1906 (in all cases to which it applies)
the employer is liable even without negligence to compensate the
dependants of an employee killed by an accident arising out of and in
the course of the employment; and in such cases even if the death was
due to serious and wilful misconduct by the employee, compensation is
payable.
In the Indian penal code the definitions of murder are so drawn as to
limit the offences to cases where it was actually intended to cause
death or bodily injury by the acts or omissions of the slayer, and the
definition of culpable homicide short of murder is so drawn as to
exclude the forms of unintentional manslaughter due to neglect of duty,
e.g. in the conduct of trains or ships or vehicles. This last omission
was supplied in 1870. The Indian code does not treat as murder either
duelling or helping Hindu widows to commit _suttee_ (s. 301, exception
5). In most of the British possessions in Asia and in east Africa the
Indian definitions of homicide have been adopted. In the rest of the
colonies, except South Africa, the law of homicide depends on the
English common law as modified by colonial codes or statutes. In South
Africa it rests mainly on the Roman Dutch law.
_Europe._--In European codes distinctions corresponding to those of the
English law are drawn between premeditated and other forms of criminal
homicide; but more elaborate distinctions are drawn between the degrees
of deliberation or criminality manifested in the slaying, and the
minimum or maximum penalty is varied accordingly.
In the French penal code voluntary homicide is called murder (_meurtre_,
art. 295): but if committed with premeditation or lying in wait is
styled _assassinat_ (_guet-apens_) (296-298). Poisoning (even if the
poison is not fatal), is specially punished, as is parricide (on the
lines of the obsolete English offence of petty treason), and
infanticide, i.e. the killing of newly-born infants. Assassination,
poisoning and parricide are at present capital offences; but a bill to
abolish the death sentence has been laid before the French parliament.
The German code distinguishes between voluntary homicide which is done
with deliberation and such homicide committed without deliberation (ss.
211, 212), and provides for mitigation of punishment where the slaying
was provoked without fault in the slayer by any wrongful act or serious
insult upon the slayer or his relatives by the slain (213). Parricide
and infanticide are specially punished (214, 215), as is killing another
person at his express and earnest request (216)--an offence which would
in England be murder--and it is a separate offence to cause the death of
another, the penalty being increased if the offender was peculiarly
bound by office, calling or trade to use a care which he did not use
(222).
The Italian code punishes as homicide those who with intention to kill
cause the death of another (364). The death penalty is not imposed, but
scales of punishment are provided to deal with aggravated forms of the
offence. Thus _ergastolo_ (penal servitude for life) is the punishment
in the case of homicide of ascendants and descendants, or with
premeditation, or under the sole impulse of brutal ferocity or with
gross cruelty (_gravi sevizie_), or by means of arson, inundation,
drowning and certain other crimes, or to secure the gains or conceal the
commission, or to secure immunity from the consequences, of another
crime (366). Personal violence resulting in death inflicted without
intention to kill is punishable _minore poena_ (368), and it is criminal
to cause the death of another by imprudence, negligence or lack of skill
in an art or profession (_imperitia nella propria arte o professione_),
or by non-observance of regulations, orders or instructions.
The Spanish code has like those of Italy and France special punishments
for parricide (417) and for assassination, in which are included killing
for reward or promise of reward or by inundation (418), and for aiding
another to commit suicide (421). Both the Italian and the Spanish codes
afford a special mitigation to infanticide committed to avoid dishonour
to the mother of the infant or her family.
_America._--The most notable difference between England and the United
States in regard to the law on this subject is the recognition by state
legislation of degrees in murder. English law treats all unlawful
killing not reducible to manslaughter as of the same degree of guilt in
law. American statutes seek to discriminate for purposes of punishment
between the graver and the less culpable forms of murder. Thus an act of
the legislature of Pennsylvania (22nd of April 1794) declares "all
murder which shall be perpetrated by means of poison or by lying in wait
or by any other kind of wilful, deliberate and premeditated killing, or
which shall be committed in the perpetration of or attempt to perpetrate
any arson, rape, robbery or burglary shall be deemed murder of the first
degree; and all other kinds of murder shall be deemed murder of the
second degree." This legislation has been copied or adopted in many if
not most of the other states. There are also statutory degrees of
manslaughter in the legislation of some of the states. The differences
of legislation, coupled with the power of the jury in some states to
determine the sentence, and the limitations on the right of the judges
to comment on the testimony adduced, lead to very great differences
between the administration of the law as to homicide in the two
countries.
AUTHORITIES.--Stephen, _Hist. Cr. Law, Digest Criminal Law_; _Russell
on Crimes_ (7th ed., 1909); Archbold, _Criminal Pleading_ (23rd ed.,
1905); Bishop, _American Criminal Law_ (8th ed.); Pollock and
Maitland, _Hist. English Law_; Pike, _History of Crime_.
(W. F. C.)
FOOTNOTES:
[1] See Select Pleas of Crown, 1 (Selden Society Publ.); Pollock and
Maitland, _Hist. Eng. Law_, ii. 458, 476, 478.
[2] Appeals remained in the law till 1819, but were long before this
disused. In the middle ages they were used as a means of getting
compensation.
HOMILETICS (Gr. [Greek: homiletikos], from [Greek: homilein], to
assemble together), in theology the application of the general
principles of rhetoric to the specific department of public preaching.
It may be further defined as the science that treats of the analysis,
classification, preparation, composition and delivery of sermons. The
formation during recent years of such lectureships as the "Lyman
Beecher" course at Yale University has resulted in increased attention
being given to homiletics, and the published volumes of this series are
the best contribution to the subject.
The older literature is cited exhaustively in W. G. Blaikie, _For the
Work of the Ministry_ (1873); and D. P. Kidder, _Treatise on
Homiletics_ (1864).
HOMILY, a simple religious address, less elaborate than a sermon, and
confining itself to the practical exposition of some ethical topic or
some passage of Scripture. The word [Greek: homilia] from [Greek:
homilein] ([Greek: homou, eilo]), meaning communion, intercourse, and
especially interchange of thought and feeling by means of words
(conversation), was early employed in classical Greek to denote the
instruction which a philosopher gave to his pupils in familiar talk
(Xenophon, _Memorabilia_, I. ii. 6. 15). This usage of the word was long
preserved (Aelian, _Varia Historia_, iii. 19); and the [Greek:
homilesas] of Acts xx. 11 may safely be taken to assign not only a free
and informal but also a didactic character to the apostle Paul's
discourse in the upper chamber of Troas, when "he talked a long while,
even till break of day." That the "talk" on that occasion partook of the
nature of the "exposition" ([Hebrew: drasha]) of Scripture, which,
undertaken by a priest, elder or other competent person, had become a
regular part of the service of the Jewish synagogue,[1] may also with
much probability be assumed. The custom of delivering expositions or
comments more or less extemporaneous on the lessons of the day at all
events passed over soon and readily into the Christian Church, as may be
gathered from the first _Apology_ (c. 67) of Justin Martyr, where we
read that, in connexion with the practice of reading portions from the
collected writings of the prophets and from the memoirs of the apostles,
it had by that time become usual for the presiding minister to deliver a
discourse in which "he admonishes the people, stirring them up to an
imitation of the good works which have been brought before their
notice." This discourse, from its explanatory character, and from the
easy conversational manner of its delivery, was for a long time called
[Greek: homilia] rather than [Greek: logos]: it was regarded as part of
the regular duty of the bishop, but he could devolve it, if he thought
fit, on a presbyter or deacon, or even on a layman. An early and
well-known instance of such delegation is that mentioned by Eusebius
(_Hist. Eccl._ vi. 19) in the case of Origen (216 A.D.).[2] In course of
time the exposition of the lesson for the day came more frequently to
assume a more elaborate character, and to pass into the category of a
[Greek: logos] or even [Greek: philosophia] or [Greek: philosophema];
but when it did so the fact was as far as possible denoted by a change
of name, the word [Greek: homilia] being reserved for the expository or
exegetical lecture as distinguished from the pulpit oration or
sermon.[3] While the church of the 3rd and 4th centuries could point to
a brilliant succession of great preachers, whose discourses were wont to
be taken down in shorthand and circulated among the Christian public as
edifying reading, it does not appear that the supply of ordinary
homiletical talent kept pace with the rapidity of church extension
throughout the Roman empire. In the smaller and remoter communities it
not uncommonly happened that the minister was totally unqualified to
undertake the work of preaching; and though, as is curiously shown by
the case of Rome (Sozomen, _Hist. Eccl._ vii. 19), the regular
exposition of the appointed lessons was by no means regarded as part of
the necessary business of a church, it was generally felt to be
advisable that some provision should be made for the public instruction
of congregations. Even in Jerome's time (_De Vir. Ill._ c. 115),
accordingly, it had become usual to read, in the regular meetings of the
churches which were not so fortunate as to possess a competent preacher,
the written discourses of celebrated fathers; and at a considerably
later period we have on record the canon of at least one provincial
council (that of Vaux, probably the third, held in 529 A.D.), positively
enjoining that if the presbyter through any infirmity is unable himself
to preach, "homilies of the holy fathers" (homiliae sanctorum patrum)
are to be read by the deacons. Thus the finally fixed meaning of the
word homily as an ecclesiastical term came to be a written discourse
(generally possessing the sanction of some great name) read in church by
or for the officiating clergyman when from any cause he was unable to
deliver a sermon of his own. As the standard of clerical education sank
during the dark ages, the habit of using the sermons of others became
almost universal. Among the authors whose works were found specially
serviceable in this way may be mentioned the Venerable Bede, who is
credited with no fewer than 140 homilies in the Basel and Cologne
editions of his works, and who certainly was the author of many
_Homiliae de Tempore_ which were much in vogue during the 8th and
following centuries. Prior to Charlemagne it is probable that several
other collections of homilies had obtained considerable popularity, but
in the time of that emperor these had suffered so many mutilations and
corruptions that an authoritative revision was felt to be imperatively
necessary. The result was the well-known _Homiliarium_, prepared by Paul
Warnefrid, otherwise known as Paulus Diaconus (q.v.).[4] It consists of
176 homilies arranged in order for all the Sundays and festivals of the
ecclesiastical year; and probably was completed before the year 780.
Though written in Latin, its discourses were doubtless intended to be
delivered in the vulgar tongue; the clergy, however, were often too
indolent or too ignorant for this, although by more than one provincial
council they were enjoined to exert themselves so that they might be
able to do so.[5] Hence an important form of literary activity came to
be the translation of the homilies approved by the church into the
vernacular. Thus we find Alfred the Great translating the homilies of
Bede; and in a similar manner arose Aelfric's Anglo-Saxon _Homilies_ and
the German _Homiliarium_ of Ottfried of Weissenburg. Such _Homiliaria_
as were in use in England down to the end of the 15th century were at
the time of the Reformation eagerly sought for and destroyed, so that
they are now extremely rare, and the few copies which have been
preserved are generally in a mutilated or imperfect form.[6]
The _Books of Homilies_ referred to in the 35th article of the Church of
England originated at a convocation in 1542, at which it was agreed "to
make certain homilies for stay of such errors as were then by ignorant
preachers sparkled among the people." Certain homilies, accordingly,
composed by dignitaries of the lower house, were in the following year
produced by the prolocutor; and after some delay a volume was published
in 1547 entitled _Certain sermons or homilies appointed by the King's
Majesty to be declared and read by all parsons, vicars, or curates every
Sunday in their churches where they have cure_. In 1563 a second _Book
of Homilies_ was submitted along with the 39 Articles to convocation; it
was issued the same year under the title _The second Tome of Homilies of
such matters as were promised and instituted in the former part of
Homilies, set out by the authority of the Queen's Majesty, and to be
read in every Parish Church agreeably_. Of the twelve homilies contained
in the first book, four (the 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th) are probably to be
attributed to Cranmer, and one (the 12th) possibly to Latimer; one (the
6th) is by Bonner; another (the 5th) is by John Harpsfield, archdeacon
of London, and another (the 11th) by Thomas Becon, one of Cranmer's
chaplains. The authorship of the others is unknown. The second book
consists of twenty-one homilies, of which the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 7th, 8th,
9th, 16th and 17th have been assigned to Jewel, the 4th to Grindal, the
5th and 6th to Pilkington and the 18th to Parker. See the critical
edition by Griffiths, Oxford, 1869. The homilies are not now read
publicly, though they are sometimes appealed to in controversies
affecting the doctrines of the Anglican Church.
FOOTNOTES:
[1] See Philo, _Quod omnis probus liber_, sec. 12 (ed. Mangey ii.
458; cf. ii. 630).
[2] Sozomen (_Hist. Eccl._ vii. 19) mentions that in Alexandria in
his day the bishop alone was in the custom of preaching; but this, he
implies, was a very exceptional state of matters, dating only from
the time of Arius.
[3] To the more strictly exegetical lectures the names [Greek:
exegeseis, exegemata, exegetika, ektheseis,] were sometimes applied.
But as no popular discourse delivered from the pulpit could ever be
exclusively expository and as on the other hand every sermon
professing to be based on Scripture required to be more or less
"exegetical" and "textual," it would obviously be sometimes very hard
to draw the line of distinction between [Greek: homilia] and [Greek:
logos]. It would be difficult to define very precisely the difference
in French between a "conference" and a "sermon"; and the same
difficulty seems to have been experienced in Greek by Photius, who
says of the eloquent pulpit orations of Chrysostom, that they were
[Greek: homiliai] rather than [Greek: logoi].
[4] Manuscript copies are preserved at Heidelberg, Darmstadt,
Frankfort, Giessen, Cassel and other places. It was first printed at
Spires in 1482. In the Cologne edition of 1530 the title
runs--_Homiliae seu mavis sermones sive conciones ad populum,
praestantissimorum ecclesiae doctorum Hieronymi, Augustini, Ambrosii,
Gregorii, Origenis, Chrysostomi, Bedae, &c., in hunc ordinem digestae
per Alchuinum levitam, idque injungente ei Carolo M. Rom. Imp. cui a
secretis fuit_. Though thus attributed here to Alcuin, who is known
to have revised the Lectionary or _Comes Hieronymi_, the compilation
of the _Homiliarium_ is in the emperor's own commission entrusted to
Paul, to whom it is assigned in the earlier printed editions also. A
comparison of different editions shows that the contents increased
with the ever-growing number of saints' days and festivals, new
discourses by later preachers like Bernard being constantly added.
[5] Neander, _Church History_, v. 174 (Eng. trans. of 1851).
[6] An ancient English metrical homiliarium is preserved in the
library of the university of Cambridge. Earlier versions of it have
existed, and a portion of perhaps the earliest copy, dating from
about the middle of the 13th century, was published in 1862 by Mr J.
Small, librarian to the university of Edinburgh.
HOMOEOPATHY (from the Greek [Greek: homoios], like, and [Greek: pathos],
feeling). The distinctive system of therapeutics which bears the name of
homoeopathy is based upon the law _similia similibus curentur_,[1] the
originator of which was S. C. F. Hahnemann, a native of Meissen in
Germany, who discovered his new principle while he was experimenting
with cinchona bark in 1790, and announced it in 1796.[2] The essential
tenets of homoeopathy--with which is contrasted the "allopathy" ([Greek:
allos], other) of the "orthodox" therapeutics--are that the cure of
disease is effected by drugs that are capable of producing in a healthy
individual symptoms similar to those of the disease to be treated, and
that to ascertain the curative virtues of any drug it must be "proved"
upon healthy persons--that is, taken by individuals of both sexes in a
state of health in gradually increasing doses. The manifestations of
drug action thus produced are carefully recorded, and this record of
"drug-diseases," after being verified by repetition on many "provers,"
constitutes the distinguishing feature of the homoeopathic materia
medica, which, while it embraces the sources, preparation and uses of
drugs as known to the orthodox pharmacopoeia, contains, in addition, the
various "provings" obtained in the manner above described.
Besides the promulgation of the doctrine of similars, Hahnemann also
enunciated a theory to account for the origin of all chronic diseases,
which he asserted were derived either directly or remotely from psora
(the itch), syphilis (venereal disease) or sycosis (fig-wart disease).
This doctrine, although at first adopted by some of the enthusiastic
followers of Hahnemann, was almost immediately discarded by very many
who had a firm belief in his law of cure. In the light of advancing
science such theories are entirely untenable, and it was unfortunate for
the system of medicine which he founded that Hahnemann should have
promulgated such an hypothesis. It served as a target for the shafts of
ridicule showered upon the system by those who were its opponents, and
even at the present time there still exists in the minds of many
misinformed persons the conviction that homoeopathy is a system of
medicine that bases the origin of all chronic disease on the itch or on
syphilis or fig-warts.
Another peculiar feature of homoeopathy is its posology or theory of
dose. It may be asserted that homoeopathic posology has nothing more to
do with the original law of cure than the psora (itch) theory has, and
that it was one of the later creations of Hahnemann's mind. Most
homoeopathists believe more or less in the action of minute doses of
medicine, but it must not be considered as an integral part of the
system. The dose is the corollary, not the principle. Yet in the minds of
many, infinitesimal doses of medicine stand for homoeopathy itself, the
real law of cure being completely put into the background. The question
of dose has also divided the members of the homoeopathic school into
bitter factions, and is therefore a matter for careful consideration.
Many employ low potencies,[3] i.e. mother tinctures, first, second,
sixth dilutions, &c., while others use hundred-thousandths and
millionths.
Some homoeopathists of the present day still believe with Hahnemann
that, even after the material medicinal particles of a drug have been
subdivided to the fullest extent, the continuation of the dynamization
or trituration or succussion develops a spiritual acurative agency, and
that the higher the potency, the more subtle and more powerful is the
curative action. Hahnemann says (_Organon_, 3rd American edition, p.
101), "It is only by means of the spiritual influence of a morbific
agent that our spiritual vital power can be diseased, and in like manner
only by the spiritual operation of medicine can health be restored."
This is absolutely denied by others. Thus there exist two schools among
the adherents of homoeopathy. On the one hand there are the
Hahnemannians, the "Purists" or "High Potency" men, who still profess to
regard the _Organon_ as their Bible, who believe in all the teachings of
Hahnemann, who adhere in their prescriptions to the single dose, the
single medicine, and the highest possible potency, and regard the
doctrine of the spiritual dynamization acquired by trituration and
succussion as indubitable. On the other side there are the "Rational" or
"Low Potency" men, who believe in the universality of the law of cure,
but think that it cannot always be applied, on account of an imperfect
materia medica and a lack of knowledge on the part of the physician.
They believe that in many cases of severe and acute pain palliatives are
required, and that they are free to use all the adjuvants at present
known to science for the relief of suffering humanity--massage,
balneology, electricity, hygiene, &c. The American Institute of
Homoeopathy, the national body of the United States, has adopted the
following resolution and ordered it to be published conspicuously in
each number of the _Transactions_ of the society: "A homoeopathic
physician is one who adds to his knowledge of medicine a special
knowledge of homoeopathic therapeutics. All that pertains to the great
field of medical learning is his by tradition, by inheritance, by
right."
It is claimed that the effect produced upon both the laity and the
general profession of medicine by the introduction of homoeopathy was
salutary in many ways. It diminished the quantity of medicine that was
formerly considered necessary for the eradication of disease, and thus
revealed the fact that the _vis medicatrix naturae_ is often sufficient,
with occasional and gentle assistance, to cure many diseases, especially
those fevers that run a definite and regular course. Corroboration of
the law _similia similibus curentur_ is seen, according to
homoeopathists, in the adoption of the serum therapy, which consists in
the treatment of the most malignant diseases (diphtheria, lock-jaw,
typhoid fever, tuberculosis, bubonic plague) by introducing into the
system a modified form (similar) of those poisons that produce them in
the healthy individual. Hahnemann undoubtedly deserves the credit of
being the first to break decidedly with the old school of medical
practice, in which, forgetful of the teachings of Hippocrates, nature
was either overlooked or rudely opposed by wrong and ungentle methods.
We can scarcely now estimate the force of character and of courage which
was implied in his abandoning the common lines of medicine. More than
this, he and his followers showed results in the treatment of disease
which compared very favourably with the results of contemporary orthodox
practice.
Homoeopathy has given prominence to the therapeutical side of medicine,
and has done much to stimulate the study of the physiological action of
drugs. It has done service in directing more special attention to
various powerful drugs, such as aconite, nux vomica, belladonna, and to
the advantage of giving them in simpler forms than were common before
the days of Hahnemann. But in the medical profession homoeopathy
nevertheless remains under the stigma of being a dissenting sect. It has
been publicly announced that if the homoeopathists would abolish the
name "homoeopathy," and remove it from their periodicals, colleges,
hospitals, dispensaries and asylums, they would be received within the
fold of the regular profession. These conditions have been accepted by a
few homoeopathists who have become members of the most prominent medical
association in the United States.
Homoeopathy as it exists to-day can, in the opinion of its adherents,
stand by itself, and its progress for a century in face of prolonged and
determined opposition appears to its upholders to be evidence of its
truth. There are still, indeed, in both schools of medical thought, men
who stand fast by their old principles. There are homoeopathists who can
see nothing but evil in the practice of their brothers of the orthodox
school, as there are allopathists who still regard homoeopathy as a
humb
Showing first 200,000 characters. Full text: gutenberg.org/ebooks/39127