The World of Homer
blue, "very late" in green, with orange for "the Pisistratean editor,"
purple for the "diaskeuast," and mauve for "fragments of older epics"
stuck in the context, and so on, the differences that prevail among the
professors of the Higher Criticism would be amazingly apparent.
One writer of a book on Homer has accused me of neglecting "science" in
favour of mere literary appreciation, and of "trying to set back the
hands on the clock of criticism." Really I want to clean and regulate
that timepiece, which reminds one of
"The crazy old church-clock
And the bewildered chimes,"
in Wordsworth's poem.
Never were chimes more bewildered, verdicts more various, and
contradictions in terms more innocently combined than in the higher
criticism of Homer. It is necessary and right that men's opinions
should alter, in consequence of reflection, and of the increase of
our knowledge of prehistoric Greece, through the revelations of
excavators on the ancient sites of a rediscovered world. It is natural
that Homeric critics should sometimes contradict themselves and each
other. But they contradict each other so constantly and confidently
that, clearly, their conclusions are not to be called conclusions of
_science_.
That in one book a critic should reject, let us say, the hypothesis
of the "Pisistratean recension" of the epics, and, in his next book,
accept it, is nothing. Reflection has caused him to change his opinion.
But when, in one book, in one chapter, perhaps in one page, a critic,
without perceiving it, bases his argument on contradictions in
terms, then his house is founded on the sand, and needs no tempest to
overthrow its pinnacles and towers.
Through indulgence in fantastic theory-making, and through disregard of
logical consistency, Homeric criticism has become, as Blass vigorously
put the case in his latest work, "a swamp haunted by wandering fires,
will-o'-the-wisps."
In 1906, in _Homer and his Age_, I again studied the Homeric Question,
with particular reference to fresh archaeological discoveries, and
to the contradictory methods, as I reckon them, which critics have
employed in the effort to prove that the Homeric epics are mosaics,
composed in, and confusing the manners and usages of, four or five
prehistoric and proto-historic ages.
I do not now reprint either of my earlier books on Homer. Further
study appears to have made many points more clear than they were. It
is especially clear that "the Ionian father of the rest," as Tennyson
calls Homer, is _not_ Ionian; that the early Ionian settlers in Asia
respected Homer's matter, which is Achaean, and did not intermingle
with it any traits of their own very different beliefs, rites, tastes,
morals, usages, armour and costume.
By the term "Ionian" I here mean to speak of the works composed in the
Ionian settlements in Asia, probably in the eighth to seventh centuries
B.C., and of the non-Homeric beliefs, rites, usages, costume and armour
of the same people and period. Most of these beliefs, usages, and rites
also mark historic Hellas, and very probably existed in the early
populations of Greece before the dominance of Homer's Achaeans.
On the chronological period, as determined by archaeology, in which
the _Iliad_ and _Odyssey_ were composed, I am fortunate in having the
support of Mr. Arthur Evans, the chief authority in this matter; while
Mr. T. W. Allen, our leading textual critic, is persuaded of the fact
of Homeric unity. Where language is concerned (as has been said),
the linguistic Appendices to Miss Stawell's _Homer and the Iliad_
(1909), with the minute and elaborate studies of Professor Scott of
the North-Western University, Illinois,[3] seem to me to overthrow
the separatist conclusions as to the presence of an earlier stage of
language and metre in some books; a later, or "Odyssean" stage in other
books of the _Iliad_. I have seen scarcely any public criticism in
reply to Miss Stawell and Professor Scott on these essential points, in
which I have not scholarship enough to pretend to be a judge.
Meanwhile my friend, Mr. Shewan, has in preparation a comprehensive
criticism of the separatist arguments, especially those drawn from
language and metre; a work which, I venture to think, it will not be
easy, and will not be fair, to ignore.
All my writings on the Homeric question are, necessarily,
controversial. The reaction against the suggestion of Wolf, against
a critical tradition of a century's standing, has begun in earnest.
But the friends of that tradition are eminently learned, and occupy
the highest places in scholarship and education. Scholars as eminent,
who differ from them, as a rule, are content to keep their own
opinions, and remain silent. If the views of the reaction, of the
believers in Homeric unity, in the epics as the wonderful legacy
of the brief prehistoric Achaean age, are to prevail, the opposing
ideas must be assailed, and if possible confuted. In all controversy
the constant danger is the tendency to misunderstand opponents. As a
rule, A. supposes B. to be holding this or that position. A. assails
and captures it, but B. was holding quite another position. A. has
misunderstood his case. Critics of works of mine, on other subjects,
have often missed my meaning, and I am therefore constrained to
suppose that I may have, in like manner, misconstrued some of the
opinions of others, which, as I understand them, I am obliged to
contest. I have done my best to understand, and will deeply regret any
failures of interpretation on my part.
Mr. Gilbert Murray, whose opinions I am obliged to oppose in the
course of "the struggle for existence," has, with very great kindness
and courtesy, read my proof sheets, and enabled me to give a less
inaccurate statement of his position. On one point where I had
misapprehended it, I have added an Appendix, "The Lost Epics and the
Homeric Epics."
I owe more than I can easily express to the kindness of my friend, Mr.
A. Shewan, of St. Andrews, who read and corrected my first proofs (any
surviving errors are due to my own want of care), and who has lent me
books and papers from his Homeric collection.
Mr. R. M. Dawkins, Head of the British School of Athens, has had the
goodness to read my chapters on Homeric, Ionian, and historic armour
and costume, and I have quoted the gist of his letters on points
where he differs from my conclusions. The topic of female costume is
peculiarly difficult and disputable.
A. LANG.
_September_ 9, 1910.
[1] Vinzler, _Homer_, p. 597 ff.
[2] See Appendix B, "The Supposed Athenian Recension."
[3] "Odyssean Words found in but One Book of the _Iliad_" _(Classical
Philology_, vol. v. p. 41 ff.). "The Relative Antiquity of the _Iliad_
and _Odyssey_ tested by Abstract Nouns" (_Classical Review_, vol.
xxiv., p. 8 ff.).
CONTENTS
I. HOMER'S WORLD. THE FOUR AGES
II. HOMERIC LANDS AND PEOPLES
III. HOMERIC POLITY. THE OVER LORD
IV. HOMER'S WORLD IN PEACE
V. MEN AND WOMEN
VI. THE HOMERIC WORLD IN WAR
VII. HOMERIC TACTICS
VIII. MEN'S DRESS IN HOMER. ARMOUR
IX. WOMEN'S COSTUME
X. BRONZE AND IRON. WEAPONS AND TOOLS
XI. BURIAL AND THE FUTURE LIFE
XII. RELIGION IN GREECE: PRE-HISTORIC,
HOMERIC, AND HISTORICAL
XIII. TEMPLES. ALTARS. RITUAL. PURIFICATION
XIV. HOMER AND IONIA
XV. ATTIC _VERSUS_ ACHAEAN TRADITIONS
XVI. HOMER AND "THE SAGA"
XVII. THE STORY OF PALAMEDES
XVIII. HOMER AND THE CYCLIC POEMS
XIX. THE GREAT DISCREPANCIES
XX. CONCLUSIONS
_APPENDIXES_
THE CATALOGUE
THE SUPPOSED EXPURGATION OF HOMER
THE ALLEGED ATHENIAN RECENSION OF HOMER
THE LOST EPICS AND THE HOMERIC EPICS (_WIEDERHOLUNGEN_)
INDEX
LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS
MOULDED PITHOS FROM SPARTA _Frontispiece_
SACRIFICE TO ATHENE
DAGGER WITH LION-HUNTERS
TIRYNTHIAN VASE: MAN IN HAUBERK
CRETAN SEAL-IMPRESSION, MINOAN ARMOUR
MENELAUS AND HECTOR FIGHTING OVER EUPHORBUS
WARRIORS ARMING
LADY POURING OUT WINE FOR WARRIOR
PRINCESS FROCK: TIRYNS
COSTUME OF WOMEN: TIRYNTHIAN VASE
METOPE OF ATHENE, OLYMPIA
THE FATES ON THE FRANÇOIS VASE
ARIADNE, THESEUS, AND MINOTAUR
HISTORIC GREEK COSTUME
THE WORLD OF HOMER
CHAPTER I
HOMER'S WORLD. THE FOUR AGES
"Homer's world," "the world that Homer knew," these are familiar
phrases; and criticism is apt to tell us that they are empty phrases.
Nevertheless when we use them we think of that enchanted land, so
clearly seen in the light of "the Sun of Greece"; in the light of
Homer. It is a realm of splendid wars, of gleaming gold and bronze,
of noble men and of the most beautiful of women, which shines through
a rift in the mists that hide the years before it and the years that
followed. Can what appears so brilliant, so living, so solid, have
been unreal, the baseless fabric of a vision; of a dream, too, that
Homer never dreamed, for there was no Homer? The Homeric picture of
life, the critics tell us, displays no actual scene of past human
existence, and is not even the creation of one man's fantasy. It
is but a bright medley and mosaic of coloured particles that came
together fortuitously, or were pieced together clumsily, like some
church window made up of fragments of stained mediaeval glass. "Homeric
civilisation," says a critic, "is like Homeric language; as the one was
never spoken, so the other was never lived by any one society."[1]
It is the object of this book to prove, on the other hand, that Homeric
civilisation, in all its details, was lived at a brief given period;
that it was real. This could never be demonstrated till of recent
years; till search with the spade on ancient sites that were ruinous or
were built over anew in the historic times of Greece, revealed to us
the ages that were before Homer, and that succeeded his day. By dint of
excavations in the soil we now know much of the great Aegean or Minoan
culture that was behind Homer; and know not a little of the Dark Ages
that followed the disruption of his Achaean society.
In studying Homer, and the predecessors and successors of the men
of his Achaean time, we find ourselves obliged to take into account
Four distinct Ages, and the culture of two or perhaps three distinct
peoples; the pre-Homeric population of the Aegean coasts and isles; the
Homeric Achaeans: and the historic Greeks, who appear to descend from,
and to hold of both the pre-Homeric and the Homeric strains of blood
and civilisation.
Turning then to what we shall style the Four Ages, we observe first,
that which is called the "Late Minoan," namely the bloom, in Crete and
on the mainland, of a civilisation even then very ancient, having its
focus, and chief manifestation, in the isle of the Hundred Cities. Here
the art is most graphic, a revelation of the life; the palaces are
most numerous and most magnificent; the towns are most tranquil, being
unwalled, as the palaces are unfortified; while the arrangements, as
for sanitation; and the costume of the women at some periods, are quite
modern in character. Separate bodices and skirts, heavily flounced,
were worn; through all varieties of fashion the dresses were sewn and
shaped. Men did not, as a rule, wear the Homeric smock or chiton, but
loin-cloths or bathing-drawers. Brooches or fibulae, like safety pins,
were not in use.
This culture had also in a less remarkable degree affected the mainland
of Greece. It was an Age of bronze, for weapons and implements,
with this peculiarity, that, while arrow tips were often of stone,
beautifully chipped flint, or of keen black glass-like obsidian, iron