ae pene St el i — es ra S ic ue Sn Eeeera 1% - a a ber PA a HOad * Pio S55 ERAGILE DOES NOT ; CIRCULATE Cornell Nniversity Library BOUGHT WITH THE INCOME FROM THE SAGE ENDOWMENT FUND THE GIFT OF Henry W. Sage 1891 ee ee The date shicens when this volume was taken. _ To renew thi§ book copy the call N d t a ae “the ibrarian, pee aT? nag a atau as a ae eae mas 4S © HOME USE RULES. All Books subject to Recall. ~* “RR Books not used for . instruction or research are returnable within 4 weeks, : . TE 6 Volume of petiodi-« cals and of. pamphlets _ are held in the library ; as much as possible. . | For special purposes ree—ERRO ey are given out for a limited time. Botrowers _ should : not use their library : . _ privileges for the bene- ; : ‘ “fitof other persons. , MAY-12 27 Books not needed ; : & during recess’ periods /— PPR ei i should be’ returned, to Pe the library, or arrange- J ments made for their - : return during borrow- i ér’s absence, if wanted. 3ooks needed . by re than one person are held on the réserve list. fee Books of + ‘special <—nanaaninneeem5 and gift books,” 3 o00! when the giver wishes APR | it, are not allowed to s : circulate, ’ FRAGILE PAPER Cornell University Library Please handle this book SAO Nett atin.” | iN THE LAY OF DOLON (THE TENTH BOOK OF HOMER’S ILIAD) MACMILLAN AND CoO., LIMITED LONDON « BOMBAY « CALCUTTA MELBOURNE THE MACMILLAN COMPANY NEW YORK + BOSTON + CHICAGO ATLANTA - SAN FRANCISCO THE MACMILLAN CO. OF CANADA, Ltp. TORONTO THE LAY OF DOLON (THE TENTH BOOK OF HOMER'S ILIAD) SOME NOTES ON ITS LANGUAGE VERSE AND CONTENTS - WITH REMARKS BY THE WAY ON THE CANONS AND METHODS OF HOMERIC CRITICISM BY ALEXANDER SHEWAN MACMILLAN AND CO., LIMITED ST. MARTIN’S STREET, LONDON IgII Nz52% 04 Oh 4 Tadaimwpos Aoddyvea / s , o Aaa XS x a“ », a Kata TatvTys, tva Kayo Kard Tov Belov clrw THs Tladoorivys Yarpwddv, ot mavtes, dpyaot te Kal vewrepor <8 £ , eon 2 s THY poppatay attav éotiABwcar, a 23 7d TéLov aiTav évérewav Kal Wroipacay. > A» 2 ON Xr , 2 ee 3 6 7 2 oe eon 2A a éyo ToApynow év TH doOeveia pou cimeiv trép airijs. Vaterra, OMHPOY BIOS KAI ILOIHMATA, 364. Odpoe:, pnde Te Tor Odvatos Katabdpuos oT. K 383. PREFACE AND INTRODUCTORY Aw author has been known to palliate his boldness in making a book by saying he has written it “to supply a want.” The same plea is ventured on behalf of the present work. It may, at first sight, seem difficult to make good such a justification for a contribution to the Homeric Question. The literature of that problem is already of a fullness to defy the bibliographer. And it grows incessantly. Those who try to keep abreast of it in its many branches long for a pause which does not come. There was a brief but welcome lull some years ago. Controversy almost ceased for a time, while disputants fell back and sought to reckon up gain and loss. But the Lachmann drum was beaten afresh ; and the Cretan discoveries, the novelties of the Saga-searchers, the restless strivings of the Culturists, the speculations of Professor Murray and the arguments of Mr. Andrew Lang, have all helped to stimulate discussion. 7A0e & ’Apuatov. Miss Stawell has dealt a heavy blow where it was least expected. The contest is active once more. In Homeric phrase “they battle on relent- lessly.” An enumeration of only the treatises and essays which have appeared during the four years that the present book has occupied, would require a bulky Appendix. And yet, abundant as the contributions to the controversy continue to be, and although the Lay of Dolon has certainly its fair share of attention, it may be claimed that the old excuse is a good reason in the case of the present effort. Destructive criticism has scored many supposed successes by determined and exhaustive polemics against particular books or episodes of the poems. Except in rare instances, such attacks have not been vii vill THE LAY OF DOLON met by replies as careful and detailed. But one thing seems certain, that these demonstrations that there are late parts in the epics are the basis of the whole scheme of disruption. They demand careful examination. We venture to say a word on behalf of a book of the Jiéad which is believed to be bad and late. The Doloneia cries aloud for defence. There is hardly a textbook of Greek literature or handbook to Homer but regards it with disfavour, tempered only occasionally by a word of tolerant pity or of faint praise. Nearly every work on the Homeric Question, nearly every writer on Homeric matters, contrives somehow to cast discredit on it. Its presence in the J/iiad beside lays of varying but generally respectable antiquity is to some almost intolerable. Dr. Leaf seems to regard it as dead to criticism and “not worth” expending trouble on. Finsler, in his full review of Homeric literature, hardly deigns to mention it. Miss Stawell, in her delightful work, while she defends success- fully two of the other books of the Jiéiad which have been classed as “Odyssean,” dismisses its case in a few lines as “simple enough” to dispose of. It is the general attitude; vox omnibus una. And further, the Doloneia has been, more than any other part of the Jdiad, the subject of a number of treatises, devoted to it alone, and all seeking to prove that it is generally bad and altogether ungenuine and late. The newest analysis, in W. Witte’s Studien zu Homer, is as merciless as any. The Doloneia now lies buried below a cairn heaped up to keep its unclean spirit out of the Homeric world, and every passer by adds a boulder or a pebble. They have even made for him who gave it being this cruel epitaph, nihil quod tetigit non inguinavit. This is a sad state of things to one who has always doubted whether the Doloneia is as bad as it is generally painted, and who is now to argue that it is in every way worthy of a place in the Ziad, and as ancient as any other part of that poem. Protests against the condemnation of the lay have been few. Colonel Mure and Mr. Gladstone believed in it, Mr. Andrew Lang has recently spoken out for it, and Mr. Allen certifies that it is PREFACE AND INTRODUCTORY ix no interloper. But in the half century between Mure’s great chapters and Homer and his Age, it was but rarely that a voice was raised against the bastardy of the lay. It was forsaken even by Dr. Monro. In legal phrase, decree went by default, and the issue is, or will soon be held to be, res judicata. We wish to shew cause for the process known as “a review of judg- ment.” The position taken is generally negative and defensive. We seek to prove that the case against this castaway from the Iliad is, for all its bulk, too weak to carry conviction. Truly “there’s a big field to ear.” But the attempt is well worth making. Ifthe disdain of the Higher Criticism for the Lay of Dolon could be shewn to be unreasonable, we might well say of other parts which have become the butts of critical depreciation, ér éxridos aica. The Doloneia is the main theme of this book. But the examination of the literature has taken me further afield, and has led me to consider two beliefs which have gained currency and are almost deemed to be settled beyond dispute. These are the theories that the language of the Odyssey is essentially different from that of the Jiiad, and that there are books of the Iliad, especially I, K, ¥ and ©, which are shewn by their language to be late and Odyssean. Here I have been anticipated in part by Miss Stawell, whose protest against the accepted views will yet, I venture to think, mark a point to be remembered in latter-day criticism of Homer. And lastly, there are the many canons, elaborated in Germany and in much favour in Great Britain and Holland, which are used for its own purposes by the Higher Criticism. Their vitality is phenomenal. They were exposed by Colonel Mure many years ago. They have been denounced by many a writer since. Dr. Carl Rothe shews, with untiring persistence, in his periodical reviews of Homeric literature, how wanting in reason they are. To any one accustomed to the appreciation of evidence they are most questionable principles. But they live and are popular. At every turn their validity as applied to the Doloneia has had to be impugned. Careful enquiry b x THE LAY OF DOLON into its case seems to shew that the lay has been hastily and unfairly judged. And it is with satisfaction that one notes distinct signs that a reaction has at length set in against such methods of arriving at the truth, in their application to the Homeric problem as a whole. The Wolfian attack on the poems was one phase of the mania of the day for proving, in Professor Saintsbury’s phrase, “ that everybody’s work was written by somebody else.” It has had, in its various developments, a successful career for over a century. But there is more place now in the controversy for those who plead for “broader views,” and summaries of Homeric literature shew that opposition to the disintegrators is making itself heard even in Germany, and with considerable effect. In that country a well-known writer on the epic can commence a Homeric paper by saying, “to-day criticism once more speaks more clearly of Homer as a real individual.” Another tells us that the Unitarian view, which not so many years ago was believed to have been laughed out of existence, except in the minds of a few obstinate enthusiasts careless of the results of a century of criticism, is “far from defunct.” The reaction against purely destructive analysis cannot be ignored. The number of scholars who refuse to bow the knee to disruption and who have almost been per- suaded to a belief in unity, is increasing. In truth some of the newest theories come startlingly near it. But the disruptionists are still active. They cannot forget Wolf. It may be, as M. van Gennep suggests, that their loyalty to the tradition is, to some extent, the effect of “collective suggestion.” fuyds adyéu xeiras. The case would not be unique in the annals of scientific enquiry. Chief among the causes which have contributed to this improvement in the prospects of the epics, is the failure of the Higher Criticism to produce any considerable positive results that are generally acceptable. The disagreement among the supporters of the case for disruption is a very remarkable phenomenon. PREFACE AND INTRODUCTORY x1 Essays and treatises which are marvels of acute research, are published only to be severely handled or even refuted out of hand by critics who, on the main question of one or many Homers, are of the same mind as the authors. Miilder speaks of “a centrifugal tendency confusing rather than enlightening. . . . As many beliefs as heads. . . . Every one pipes his own lay about Homer.” The enemies of unity have in their time played many parts, and the student of the Question is bewildered by the number and diversity of Entstehungshypothesen. wdcas § ovx ay éyo pvOncopnat. Nor is it necessary to add one more to the enumerations of theories and varieties which are given in Homeric handbooks. One believed some years ago that Lachmann had been disowned forever. M. M. Croiset declared that his doctrine was dead. But it is true, as has been said, that Lachmannism still prevails under various guises. Robert has even spoken of the “immortal pages” of the great Dissector. But Lachmannism has failed to solve the problem. The Expansionists have equally failed to advance its solution. They have now been seeking after the original nucleus of each poem for ‘many years, and have suggested many reconstructions. But surely the friends of unity have reason when they ask why there has not been a definitive delimitation of this Kern. If it ever existed as a separate entity, its enucleation could not have baffled the learned labours of more than half a century. And now the old order is changing yet again, and it is denied, for.the Ziad at least, that there ever was a Kern. The Lay of the Wrath is found to have been overrated. It is only deklassierter Heldensang, and came, it is said, not first, but last. The Wrath was the motif used to make an Jliad out of the Trojan lays. And the great hero of the 7roica must go under with the Wrath. He is not the only victim. The heroes generally have been exalted or degraded, and provided with new fatherlands and new attributes. We have now a Thessalian Agamemnon, a Thessalian Paris, a Laconian Paris, an Arcadian Aeneas, a Boeotian Hector. Aias, who replaces Achilles in the premier place in Trojan legend, and who is the real sacker of xii THE LAY OF DOLON Troy, is not the Aias of the solid flesh whom we know in the Iliad, wedodpios, Epxos ’Axarov, but a shadowy figure, “son of Shieldstrap,” or, as others will have it, génie du pilier. He was a homeless Outis till Pisistratus gave him to Salamis. All this is the work of a new school, devoted to the study of certain accidents or developments of the saga called saga-displacements (Sagenverschiebungen). Their theories have secured some adherents, though Otto Crusius and others have greatly discredited the method of investigation. It is characterised by a weakness for appreciating indications in history and legend, even in Marchen, at more than their true evidential value, and by the all-weakening assumption that certain parts of the poems have been condemned beyond hope of appeal as late. It seems to mark retrogression towards a very old and almost forgotten stage of Homeric enquiry. It will not be a long step from shieldstrap and doorpost to sun- myth and allegory. Achilles will be the mountain torrent once more, Helen the light of day, and Troy and the 7’roica the water, water everywhere of Forchhammer’s famous hydrographical manual. It is not surprising that there is increasing aversion to the methods of Dissection and the infinite variety of the results it offers for acceptance. And this attitude of dissatisfaction has been stiffened by the positive progress which has been made in several spheres of Homeric and prehistoric research. The props of the Wolfian position have all been shorn away. The part assigned to Pisistratus in many forms of destructive theory is now accepted by only a very small minority of scholars. The revela- tions in Crete have annihilated other fundamentals. The archaeologist has come to the assistance of the Homerist, and “the science of the spade” has, in Dussaud’s words, “upset all received ideas.”' Wolf's repente ex tenebris is now seen to have been a splendid misdescription. Thirty years ago it seemed to Professor Mahaffy and others, that epics “artistically perfect ” 1 Schliemann inaugurated a period of Lrgebnisse unschdtzbar sind (Wilamo- discoveries deren Ende unabsehbar, deren witz, Uber die ionische Wanderung, 2). PREFACE AND INTRODUCTORY xiii could never have “come out of the dark age of a people without written records,” and that a “Committee Homer” was “ nothing in comparison with the single unlettered bard of popular fancy.” It was, as Dr. Monro cautiously described it, an argumentum ad ignorantiam. Now, it is clear that the germs of the heroic poetry which afterwards matured in the Homeric epics, may well have produced their first bloom in the conditions which Aegean explorers have brought to light. Great poetry is one of the natural advaOjpara of such a civilisation. There isa parallel in our own history. The conditions which are said to have generated and fostered the literature of the Elizabethan era, are known to have existed in Minoan Crete. The island was peopled by a race whose artistic genius some influence stimulated to an activity which is a marvel to scholars. Ina few years the old- time discussions as to the ovata duypd, the existence of a reading public and the possibility of memorial composition and transmission, have become obsolete. Mere academic discussion on such points has been superseded. “An inch of potsherd,” or a representation of a shield or lyre, may cancel the results of learned speculation. In the last decade the “triumph of the spade over the pen” has been celebrated in many a learned essay. Tradition has been rehabilitated. In regard to Greek origins, Mr. Hogarth declares that it has been “signally vindicated.” Other authorities tell us that “sober fact corroborates fables.’ The stories of the Early Age of Greece are no longer scorned as only folk-tales, or the record of “a past that never was present.” The legends that made the old island kingdom the incunabula of Hellas, and that told of her former supremacy in Aegean waters, are accepted as historical truth. Pére Lagrange says confidently that “Minos re-enters history”; Professor Ridgeway has fixed his florwit; Mr. Lang has vindicated his Homeric character against interested post-Achaean scandal of a very low order. And the civilisation which has been named from the old king who walked with Zeus, flourished in the regions where the Homeric poems know it or a civilisation xiv THE LAY OF DOLON closely akin to and derived from it. Crete was in intimate relations with Egypt, as the Odyssey suggests, and with Sicily, in very ancient times. The suspicions formerly cast on passages in the poems that mention these countries seem very futile now.’ Every year furnishes more ground for saying of the archaeologist, as was said long ago, though with much less truth, of a textual critic, that he is giving us back our Homer. M. Bérard has rescued the Homeric Geography from the Wonderland to which les géographes de cabinet had banished it, and has resolved some crucial difficulties,—the drive from Pylos to Sparta, the position of Pharos, the puzzles of the Pointed Isles and Nestor’s Iardanos. Mr. Allen’s study of the Catalogue and the Great Appellatives, and Mr. Myres’ of the Homeric references to the Pelasgians, shew that the conditions recorded are real and ancient. When the epics are approached without prejudice, and not with the conviction that they are conglomerates of many ages, consistency and evidence of unity are generally to be found. Dr. Dérpfeld’s exploration of Ithaca and her dytirépata may yet help to establish the ancient date of Homer. The same expert’s monumental Troja wnd Ilion may not have said the last word as to the city of Troy; but as to the great War itself, we have the conviction of the authorities that it has a basis of fact, whether in the struggles of settlers or in an expedition to destroy a rival dominating a great trade- route. That colonial enterprises should attract so much saga is perhaps less likely. But Mycenae may well have been the seat of such a suzerainty as the Jliad implies, and one of Briickner’s contributions to Dérpfeld’s great work makes it probable that the destroyers of the “Sixth Burg” were the Achaeans of Homer. Light comes in, though in feeble rays, from many points. There is ground for hoping that the causes of the attack on Troy will yet be ascertained more fully, and that it will not pass the wit of scholars to separate, in Professor 1 But they die hard. Thoy have latest Homeric essay, Dée Entstehung been put to a new and similar use since der Odyssee, 186 f., restates the Sicilian the above was written. Fick, in his references for the benefit of Cynaethus. PREFACE AND INTRODUCTORY xv Inama’s words, “the little kernel of historical truth from the thick envelope of legend.” Nothing in the current literature of the subject is more striking than the respect accorded to the Homeric record by the best of the archaeologists, unless it be the freedom with which the believers in four centuries of poets talk of and quote a “ Homer,” unified ad hoc, in support of their own theories. There is agreement as to the reality of the “Homeric Age,” meaning by that expression the life and times which are mirrored in the poems, As to its unity there are still differences. But attempts to define “ culture-layers ” have not been successful ; Cauer thinks they cannot succeed. Robert’s effort, unsurpassed among Homeric treatises for acuteness of interpretation and boldness of method, was received with coolness. Mr. Andrew Lang’s demonstration of “one moment of culture,’ in a period of transition and perhaps of disturbance, was so strong that but little has been urged in reply. A doubtful line in the Odyssey’ has been used against it, and also the cremation difficulty by those who do not accept Dorpfeld’s solution. The general silence in face of such a body of proof seems ominous for the divided cause of multiple authorship. A relevant question is whether the supposed contributors to the poems were unique among primitive composers all the world over in this, that they were keen but clumsy patrons of the art of archaising. This has become an idée fixe. But enquiries based on it demand, more than any, the continual acquiescence of the reader in the view that passages in the poems are the products of a late, degenerate, imitative age. When that is granted, various culture-elements can be detected, though they are admitted to be “intertwined and blended” to a degree which makes one wonder that experts should ever essay to separate them, or hope to do so with any degree of success. Reference may be made to the statement, in the introductory chapter of Miilder’s work on the Sources of the Iliad, of the manifold forms which archaising may have 1 T have ventured to propose an emendation of this line in App. M xvi THE LAY OF DOLON assumed. Critics have no small freedom of choice, and a wide range in time from Mycenae to historic Asia Minor. That Tonia had a free hand to manipulate the epics and to introduce her own heroes and her own civilisation, is an assumption second only, for purposes of Dissection, to the postulated Pisistratean Ordner, and one that is not likely to stand long. The age which produced the Homeric poetry was not an unlettered age, not the early period in the life of a people in which the Volksgeist expresses itself only in ballads made and sung by every hearth, or by wandering bards “for good cheer.” No one now denies that the poems are far removed from primitive effort. They are not even “popular epic,” except in the sense in which all epics may be so designated; the folk probably never wanted a connected poetical saga. The dichtende Volksseele seldom rises above the lay. The Jiiad and the Odyssey are “artistic epic”; they are “the creations of a mature art.” It has been said that “every poet has his pedigree.” We may say the same of the two great epics.’ There is general agreement that they appeared at the end and as the fruit of a long period of development. That does not prove that they were each or both together the work of one individual; it does make such an explanation of their origin easier of acceptance. And surely the disappearance of all vestiges of the poetry that preceded them must tend to compel the same belief. It is difficult to understand what influence it was, if not reverence for supreme genius, that, decreed that all other early efforts should be for- gotten, ignota longa nocte, and that the two great epics should alone survive, with a definite ascription as the work of one man. All the ideas current, till a few decades since, of the state of Greece before what was then deemed the dawn of its history, have been changed. Its civilised existence has been extended by centuries. The Homeric poems may have made for themselves their unique place in Greek life long before the days of Solon. Nothing forbids us to believe that the name of Homer had, in 1 In Penelope’s words, + 163, ob yap dard Spvds clot madaupdrov ovd’ dard wérpys. PREFACE AND INTRODUCTORY xvii those early days, the reality, the individuality and the reverence which attach to it when we first hear it, and which in the ancient world it never lost. Had the original sceptics of the eighteenth century possessed the knowledge of the Early Age of Greece which the learned of the present day have acquired, there would perhaps have been no Homeric Question. Must they not have continued to accept the existence of Homérus as readily as the personality of Arctinus or Stasinus ? The position of the Cyclics in Greek literature is now well ascertained, and the better it has been appreciated the more it has told in favour of the antiquity and the unique position of the Iliad and the Odyssey. Careful examination of their remains has proved that they knew and respected the two great epics, the themes of which were, in Hennings’ words, “consecrated ground which the Muses no longer permitted man to tread.” These later epic poets might imitate Homer, but they sedulously refrained from trespassing on his domain. It is as if the Lad and Odyssey had already secured canonical position. Cyclic work is, in universal estimation, of a lower grade, and reflects an inferior order of things, a poorer life, one might almost say, in a later age of degraded ideals. Yet even late, discredited parts of the epics (which are supposed to have been at that period in an inchoate state, greedily receptive of new matter and tenacious of it when acquired) are free from the debased practices and beliefs which are found in the compositions of the Cyclic writers. It seems to be a difficulty in the way of accepting an evolution of the Jiiad and Odyssey in the course of several centuries down to the sixth, that they should have remained through the Cyclic age in a condition which invited unlimited patching, expansion and manipulation, and this in spite of the fact that they were objects of national care and reverence ; while another set of epic productions, of a lower type and never regarded with great respect, came down to posterity intact as the undisputed productions of definite individuals, xviii THE LAY OF DOLON The study of the epics of other countries and of national poems, not generally genuine epics, has made great way since Lachmann, inspired by the Wolfian model, failed first with the Nibelungenlied and then with the Ziad. In the works of Heusler, Ker, Drerup and many others, we see a better way from Lied to Hpos. Signor Comparetti’s essay on the Kalewala is a classic on the origin of national poems, and remains irrefragable. There are such poems, and there are traditional books, which have been made by one form or another of “material synthesis,’ but no instances of finished epics, incomparable in plan, dramatic treatment, nobility and grace, that have had such an origin. Saga may collect in cycles, or be attracted and massed autour d'un noyau primiti, but it never, left to itself and the bards, acquired artistic form. “Wherever there is poetry there is a poet.” For an Jiiad or an Odyssey the genius of the poet is needed, to select, to blend, to transform and re-create That, with the evidence which the poems themselves present of transcendent creative power, is the great argument for the existence of Homer. The unvouched, unreal agencies with which Dissectors have traffic—a Flick-Poet, a Compiler, a Redactor, a Commission, the Dichterseele of the folk, or even the Spirit of Greece working in mysterious fashion through ages, could not create great unities like the epics of Troy. They have produced, in Comparetti’s phrase, only “unruly agglomerations” like the Mahabharata, or a compilation like the Kalewala, which shews us “the natural condition of poetry before it becomes individual and artistic,’—before in fact the aountys appears, when the day of the doudds begins to wane. How can we seriously regard the popular theories, when we find eminent students of early poetry, as Professor Ker, taking as models of epic excellence two growths which are said to have been the sport of time, and to have taken final shape from a haphazard and persistent process of patchwork? Or when we hear the Professor of Poetry at Oxford declare, in words which many of the enemies of unity themselves accept, that “the consent of all competent judges from the earliest recorded time to our own has PREFACE AND INTRODUCTORY xix placed them at the very head of all poetry”? It is difficult, with Professor Murray, to regard it as “much the most likely thing,” or even a likely thing, that the Jliad, one of these “artistically perfect ” poems that stand at the very head of all poetry, is a traditional book which “grew as its people grew,” and the work of generations of poets all endowed with the matchless “intensity of imagination that makes the Iliad alive.” That an Ziad or an Odyssey should have been formed in such a way is to many not merely improbable, but even unthinkable. To Mure it seemed repugnant to reason, as to experience. Pro- fessor Burrows protests that the inability of other nations to produce great epics, is not to be put down to their “sinful tendency to work by evolution,”’—which seems to be an inversion of the argument to make it stand the less steadily and fall the more easily. “Unity can no more bring forward an analogy than evolution can.” But every great epic, as the work of a great poet, is an analogy. That evolution did not end in a Homer elsewhere was the misfortune of the nations, not their fault. Saga is universal, but poets of the very highest stamp are few and far between. The manipulation of the poems by the Higher Criticism has been characterised by excesses which have at length brought the inevitable reaction in favour of more sober procedure. The practice of mutilating them by the excision of whatever proved inconvenient to the views of the individual operator has produced vigorous protests, and not from the Unitarian side alone. xa Kepapeds Kepapel xotécr. It is strange that it has been tolerated so long, when one observes how easily the results of the best professional excisers are rendered of no effect by later workers. The text is now better protected against arbitrary changes. Modernisation during centuries of transmission is as acceptable an explanation of irregularities as the late interpolator or Bearbeiter. Discredited parts of the poems claim the same treatment as those which have found favour in the eyes of Dissectors. The abuse of the Homeric Repetitions was declared a few years ago, by one XX THE LAY OF DOLON of the ablest of the analysers of the Jliad, to be among the worst weaknesses of the Higher Criticism. Only those familiar with the Homeric literature of Germany are in a position to appreciate that rebuke to the full. The Unebenhetten disclosed by a hostile, microscopic criticism such as poetry has perhaps never in the world’s history been subjected to, are beginning to be rated at their true value. Those who are satisfied with Dr. Monro and others that the Great Discrepancies do not exist, can afford to be indifferent to the smaller irregularities on which Dissecting Criticism has waxed so bold. In all these departments of learned Homeric investigation, sounder methods are being opposed to the old uncritical and almost vindictive ways. Cauer’s Grundfragen and Miilder’s Quellen are notable protests against many small popular devices. On the philological side “the decline of the destructive fashion ” has attracted notice, and is no less instructive. Many are the tests; none has proved illuminant. The Digamma, which “o’ertops them all,” has given no results that Dissectors can contemplate with satisfaction. Meillet has recently declared that the poems belong to a stage of Ionic in which F was not yet defunct. Such a pronouncement by such an authority may comfort the upholders of the antiquity of the two epics. The market for other “linguistic peculiarities” is also depressed. The draf cipnuéva, the Article, the Prepositions, the Optatives, the Genitives and the Datives have all grown as sulky and irresponsive as the Digamma. The precise nature of the language of the poems, and whether these are to be regarded as Achaean. or Ionian, are questions still with the experts, though they seem to be on the way to solution. And whether the belief which is gaining ground, that that language was Achaean speech, what Dr. Monro termed the vulgare lustre of the poets of the day, and not an artificial “medley” created by generations of singers, be correct or not, there are many high authorities who are satisfied that the language of the poems is essentially one throughout. Fick’s Aeolic theory has not prevailed against them. dv and és PREFACE AND INTRODUCTORY xxl and the Iteratives have proved to be but blank cartridges. Miss Stawell has sounded the knell of the theory of Odysseanism in the Iliad, and has cut away the main ground for the belief that the epics were composed in different ages. The Neo-Homerists who are transferring the Ménis from the earliest to near the latest place in the Ziad, are undoing at one stroke, to the great satisfaction of Unitarians, much of the philological case which has been elaborated by generations of critics against other parts of that poem. At every step forward the way seems clearer. There is fresh confirmation of unity and reality, and increasing dissatisfaction with the methods which have been popular. Their insufficiency has been exposed, and they are no longer backed by Pisistratus, schools of singers careless of their great heritage, barbarism in early Greece, unreality of the narrative, geography and culture of the poems, and other beliefs of the kind. While successive theories fail and are superseded, the difficulties in the way of the Unitarian belief are disappearing. It is long since a great and judicious authority expressed the opinion that a solution of the problem could never be more than hypothetical. In regard to solutions based on Dissection, that dictum is perhaps incon- trovertible. But much water has in the meantime flowed under the Homeric bridges. If, when another half century has passed, it be still possible to frame hypotheses that are new, another Friedlander may be able to say that there is no room for them. The prima facie case which governs the burden of proof may be too strong. The plea of the adversary has been that it does not lie on him to disprove what was the unanimous belief of learned antiquity, because there never was such a belief. He urged, and continues to urge, that other poems were ascribed to the author of the Jliad and the Odyssey which are now known not to be his, This is one of many positions which Dissecting discussion has always assumed to be inexpugnable. Yet only a careful examination of the passages in Greek literature which were supposed to support it, was necessary for its disproof. Volkmann and Hiller and Rothe have proved that there never Xxli THE LAY OF DOLON was any general attribution of the lesser “ Homeric ” compositions to“ Homer.” The evidence crumbled at their touch, and “Homer” as’a “collective name” was shewn to be a “fantasy.” Mr. Allen has supplemented their proof by an examination of the references to the Homeridae, ending with an “inference from the Sons to the Father.” The onus remains on the disintegrators. The case for the old traditional belief in unity meantime gathers strength with every year. The basis of the case against it is, as we have said, the assumption that certain parts of the poems have been proved to be late. It is an assumption that detracts from the value of Dissecting treatises, not merely in the eyes of Unitarians,—that is a small matter,—but also to such other critics of their own way of thinking as cannot accept the particular delimitation of late and early. It spoils the argument in every other section of any such treatise. Incipient conviction vanishes as passages in the poems which bar conclusions are waved aside as of late origin. When others, though allowed to be early, are neverthe- less known to have been late in securing a place in the epos, such a faculty for divination staggers us. Passages in the Iliad which obstruct a theory may be rejected en bloc because they have been suspected, while passages in the Odyssey that favour it are allowed to stand, although it is easy to find authorities who condemn them also. The decisions, the obiter dicta, or even the bare suspicions of critics in the ancient or the modern world are always available. Or something is detected which can be characterised as unusual, peculiar or difficult, or which occurs elsewhere in the poems, or which does not occur elsewhere, and the enquirer thereupon chalks up “late” and passes on, often without any attempt to justify the inference. Hostile suggestion is assimilated without hesitation. That other ancient and even modern masterpieces can be broken up by the same drastic treatment, is a consideration which is not heeded. No hope seems to lie that way. So far it has proved but a fruitless vexing of the poet’s mind. It was Blass, one of the foremost PREFACE AND INTRODUCTORY Xxill scholars of his day, who exclaimed to the Homeric critics of his country, “you Germans are strange people,” and who asked, if the Odyssey were a Flickpoem, what term of reproach was to be reserved for Faust. He could believe as readily in the Lernaean Hydra as in a “many-headed Homer.” The conformity of the contents of the poems to the individual critic’s views as to late and early is often established with much learning, skill and patience, and with great effect on the reader. But it has to be borne in mind that any such enquirer has in the poems an unparalleled wealth of material of the greatest variety, which can be utilised for application or deduction in many ways. Miilder closes the discussion on archaising in the first chapter of his new work on the Jiiad with the pregnant sentence, “it is beyond doubt that, in the way the Jiiad is treated, everything without exception can be perverted to its opposite.” And there are also at the critic’s disposal the copious results achieved by a long line of predecessors, to draw on in any case in which reasoning requires to be fortified or speculation to be rendered plausible. It is not difficult, with such means at command, to bring the Aealien into agreement with preconceived notions as to the different dates of strata and books and passages. Yet how easily any such laboriously demonstrated harmony can be disturbed, is well known to those who peruse the reviews of treatises of this kind. Their schemes have a foundation of shifting sand. The position is a strange one. On the one side, Unitarians have piled up arguments so strong for homogeneity that they ‘are all but ignored by the opposition. When Dissectors condescend to notice their work, it is generally either to express surprise at the continued existence of their creed,—to Wilamowitz, for in- stance, it is a Wahn or delusion,—or to observe that they “are not to argue with.” Mure has never been answered. His book has not, in the words of Professor Mahaffy, an authority who can see something in his opponents’ case, “received a tithe of the attention it deserves.” It is not, I think, even mentioned in the XXiv THE LAY OF DOLON Handbook of Homeric Study written a few years ago by Father Browne. It is easy to say that it is out of date; but the reasoning in it is of the kind that is not staled by age. Similarly the recognition accorded to the labours of Dr. Rothe, one of the greatest of living Homerists, is anything but adequate. Finsler’s Homer, a work notable among recent comprehensive reviews of Homeric literature, does mention two of his separate treatises, but passes over in silence the careful periodical reports on the Homeric Question which he has made during the past thirty years, though they teem with argument and are specially dis- tinguished by the clearness with which the issues are stated and discussed. Cauer’s work (Grundfragen*) is one of the few known to me that shew intimate acquaintance with them. There is the same disinclination to meet the proofs adduced by other Uni- tarians. On the other side, a great multitude that no man can number of analysers and Dissectors, with something more than the cor Zenodoti, stick faithfully to the old way, greatly encouraged by the failure of their opponents to meet them on their own ground. They have provided themselves with a stock-in-trade which, for wealth of expedient at least, should be a model to destructive criticism for all time to come. We shall venture to give an estimate of it in detail when we have completed our examination of the case against the Doloneia, which will afford us many a glimpse into the Werkstatt of the Dissecting operator. It is disheartening to think that discussion must continue on such lines. One could wish that some scholar of weight and leading would plead for a meeting of experts, after the manner of other learned Conferences. Such a Round Table meeting might at least settle the little that is common to the opposing forces, expunge for ever from the record a number of settled but baseless beliefs, arrive at a concordat on some points in dispute and define the many on which debate must proceed. It might also have the effect of inducing scholars to inform themselves better as to the Homeric literature of other countries. It is PREFACE AND INTRODUCTORY XXV disappointing to find Dr. Monro’s work, especially his splendid résumé of the Question in his edition of the second half of the Odyssey, so seldom referred to in German treatises. But the neglect is more than repaid by the ignorance of, or indifference to, Rothe’s contributions to the controversy that prevails in this country. Veniat felicior aetas ! It was originally intended to confine this work to an examination of the philological attack on the Doloneia. But it was often difficult to weigh objections to the diction without reference to collateral matters of the Unebenheit kind which are rocks of offence to the critics. The whole of the opposition thus came under survey, and chapters have been devoted to the position of the lay in the Jtiad, its affinities with other books of that poem, its alleged Odyssean complexion, and a large bunch of special difficulties which have brought no small gain to its adversaries. A Bibliography has been added. It is roughly compiled, but it may serve as a basis for a better and more complete survey of the literature, and be of assistance to any one who takes up the subject hereafter. The contents of the book are mostly spade-work of a humble description. There is not much in it that pretends to be new; even its mistakes are not original, unless I have failed to follow authority as closely as I have tried to do. Nearly every page is concerned with points on which the great ones of the world of Homeric enquiry are at daggers drawn. It was not for me to express opinions on such matters of contention. In the rare eases in which I have done so, it has been done with the greatest diffidence, in matters philological especially. I have searched Homeric treatises for enlightenment on every point. And the greatest of these are the Iliad and the Odyssey. They are, as has often been said, their own best interpreters. For the rest, I make one comprehensive confession of my indebtedness. But I must, in great gratitude to their authors, make an c xxvi THE LAY OF DOLON exception in regard to a number of indispensable works which, with the standard editions of the text, have always been at my side, —the Homeric Grammar, the Enchiridium, brightest of handbooks, the Concordances, Ebeling’s and Seiler’s Lexicons, Gehring’s Jndew, Schmidt’s Parallel - Lexikon and Mendes da Costa’s Index Etymologicus. There is perhaps more to be won with the help of the mechanical aids than many think. I must also specially name those great store-houses of the criticism of the poems, the Ameis-Hentze editions. And finally, greatest help of all, Dr. Rothe’s reports already referred to. As a record of the progress of the Homeric Question, and of the opinions on every point in it of a scholar whose knowledge of the problem is unsurpassed, and whose fairness and freedom from esprit de coterie are conspicuous, these papers are indispensable and invaluable. Unfortunately the magazine in which they appear is little known in this country. That they are so seldom referred to is greatly to be deplored. I venture to express the hope that they may all be yet collected and republished by their learned author with a summary of the discussions of the past thirty years.! I use the term “ Dissectors” for convenience’ sake, to indicate those writers who represent the disintegrating side of Homeric criticism, that is, all who argue multiple authorship and who seek to assign different parts or strata of the poems to different ages. “Homer” is used as the equivalent of the Iliad and the Odyssey ; “ Homeric” describes what is found or can be paralleled in either or both poems. I have followed no system in the transliteration of proper names, as no plan that has ever appeared seems to be free from objection. And so I leave the book, but with no apology for its heresy, which must justify itself as it can, to the judgment of the modern Homeridae. It may be that the gulfs of the Higher Criticism will wash it down, and that it will never touch the Happy 1 Since the above was written, Dr. peared,—too late, I very much regret, Rothe’s Die Ilias als Dichtung has ap- for me to make use of it for this book. - PREFACE AND INTRODUCTORY XXVil Isles of critical approval. So be it, if it fails to furnish good cause for its author’s belief that the learned are sadly astray in their estimate of the Doloneia. But if it shall only be the means of inducing some one more competent to enter the lists, and especially if some little part of what is contained in it shall prove to be of use in a renewed and better effort, its writer will have good cause to feel satisfied. A. SHEWAN. Sir, ANDREWS, November, 1910. CONTENTS PAGE PREFACE AND INTRODUCTORY ‘ Fi * 4 vii BIBLIOGRAPHY . é : s 2 ; . xxxiii ABBREVIATIONS USED . z . , ; . xxxvii CHAPTER I THE Story oF THE DOLONEIA : : ’ , ] CHAPTER II SoME OPINIONS ON THE DOLONEIA ‘ f : ‘ 11 CHAPTER III, INTERPOLATION ‘ ; > F si 3 . 17 CHAPTER IV EMENDATION ‘ : a « : é k 24 CHAPTER V Tue Lineuistic ATTACK . 3 : . : 27 CHAPTER VI Tue ILIAD AND THE ODYSSEY—-ALLEGED DIFFERENCE OF LANGUAGE 35 CHAPTER VI On Liyeuistic PECULIARITIES : : : ‘ ‘ 48 xxix XXX THE LAY OF DOLON CHAPTER VIII Lineuistic Pecuriaritigs or K—Tur Heap anpD Front CHAPTER IX THE PREPOSITIONS CHAPTER X Tae ARTICLE CHAPTER XI THE PsEuDpo-ARCHAISMS CHAPTER XII Tae DicamMa CHAPTER XIII Tue VERSIFICATION CHAPTER XIV Tur PARALLEL PassaGEs . CHAPTER XV THE ALLEGED Opyssean CHaracter or I, K, WY, 2 CHAPTER XVI Position oF K in tHe Int4p—PASI AE OI TLAAAIOI CHAPTER XVII Position oF K IN THE I[zi14D—MopERN Vinw CHAPTER XVIII THe Docrorine or I ‘PAGE 61 72 77 90 97 106 115 126 133 140 147 CONTENTS XXX1 CHAPTER XIX PAGE Dramatis Prrsonar é : ’ s : ; 150 CHAPTER XX OpyssEus . ‘ ; . : ‘ , . 1162 CHAPTER XXI Minor APFINItiEs ‘ . ; , 4 ‘ 171 CHAPTER XXII Some DIFFicuLtizs : ‘ : 3 ‘ ‘ 178 CHAPTER XXIII ARMOUR AND DREsS 5 ‘ : . , : 189 CHAPTER XXIV Is tHe DoLonera a BuRLESQUE? . 5 ‘ a 199 CHAPTER XXV How 1s if wits tHe Menis? : 4 . ; . 205 CHAPTER XXVI ConcLusIon 5 : : : : ; é 214 APPENDICES A. THe InrerRPotations In K , : ‘ : 221 B. K 465-8 ’ a ‘ 3 . : » 229 C. EMENDATIONS . : s : ; : . 232 D. DirFERENCES BETWEEN THE GRAMMAR OF THE ILIAD AND THAT OF THE ODYSSEY ; : ; 2 : : 238 E. DIFFERENCES IN THE VOCABULARIES OF THE ILIAD AND THE OpDYssEY a ue : j ‘ : . 246 XXX1l THE LAY OF DOLON F. Irmrativy Verps, AN anp EX . G. Linevistic Prcuniarities or K H. Opyssgan Dicrion 1n K TI. Inrapic Diction in K . J. Lineuistic PEcuLIARITIuS In A K. Opyssgan Diction in A L. Dip Opysszus anp DIOMEDE RIDE OR DRIVE! M. adrds yap epeAcetar dvdpa oidypos INDEX 1. GENERAL 2. GREEK . 3. Some Passages DiscussED PAGE 253 257 264 268 270 272 274 279 281 287 289 A PROVISIONAL . BIBLIOGRAPHY OF THE DOLONEIA Axsgott, E. Introduction to Purves’ The Iliad of Homer translated into English Prose, xxix. f. Apam, C. Das Plastische im Homer, 1869, 8, 140f. Ameis-Hentze, Iliad, Anhang zu K, Einleitung. Arnot, C. F. L. De I. poématis compositione, 1838, 14 f. Baumunin, G. F. L. In Philologus, xi. 425f., and Zeitschr. f. d. Alter- tumswiss. 1848, Nr. 43. Becutet, F. Die Vocalcontraction bei Homer, 1908, 3 f. Bextocy, J. Griech, Geschichte, 1893, i. 135 f. Bzreer, J. De Il. et Od. partibus recentioribus, 1908, 90 ff. Berek, T. Hist. Gr. Lit. 1872, i. 597 ff. BernwarDy, G. Hist. Gr. Lit. 1877, pt. ii, 187, 139, 163 f. Betae, E. Homer u. die Heldensage, 1902, 4. Buackiz, J. S. Homer and the Iliad, 1866, i. 257 f. Buakeney, E. H. The Iliad of Homer translated into English Prose, vol. i. 275. Buass, F. Die Interpolationen in d. Od. 1904, 8. Bovueor, A. Etude sur VI, d’Homere, 1888, 195 ff., 462, ff. Branpt, K. Zur Gesch.-u. Komposition d. Il. in N. Jahrb. f. Philol. 1888, 101 f. Review by Rothe, Jb. 1888, 355 ff. Browne, H. Handbook of Homeric Study, 1905, 110, 113. Cammann, E. L. Vorschule z. d. Il. 1829, 49. Caurr, P. Grundfragen d. Homerkritik,? 1909, 133, 268, 441. Curist, W. Hist. Gr. Lit.4 1905, 46; Hom. oder Homeriden,? 1885, 57, 68, 100; Die Wiederholungen, etc., 1880, and Die Interpol., etc., 1879; Zur Chronologie d. altgriech. Epos, 1884, 50, 60; and his Iliad, 1884, 32 f., 74, 83, 95. CurrKE, A. M. Familiar Studies in Homer, 1892, 96 ff. Corpery, J.G. The Iliad of Homer,? 1887, i. 482. Croiset, M. Hist. Gr. Lit. 1887, i. 139. Curtius, G. Andeutgn. tib. d. gegenwirt. Stand d. homn. Frage, 1854, 27, 42, 47. Detia Seta, A. In Rendic. d. re. Accadem. d. Lincei, 1907, xvi. 153, 162, 183 f, 201 f Drervup. E. Homer, 1903, 5, 9, 109. xxxili XXXIV THE LAY OF DOLON Duaas-Monrset. Hist. d. Poésies Homériques, 1831, 68. Dinrzer, H. Hom. Abhandlgn. 1872, 303 ff, 470 ff. Evienpt, J. E. Drei hom. Abhandlgn. 1864, 38, 43, 56. Encet, F. J. Zum Rechte d. Schutzflehenden bei Hom. 1899, 28 ; Ethnograph. z. homn. Kriegs- u. Schiitzlingsrecht, i. 1904, 25, iii. 1906, 10 »., 16, 24. Ergarpt, L. Entstg. d. homn. Gedichte, 1894, 156 ff., 509. Eyssenaarpt, F, Die hom. Dichtung, 1875, 21 f. Fick, A. Ilias, 1886, 383, 388 £., 463 ff. Finsuer, G. Homer, 1908, 518, 601. ForcuHammer, P. W. Erklirung d. Il. auf Grund, etc. 1888, 115 ff. Franke, C. De nominum propr. epithetis Homericis, 1887, 17, 51 f. FriepLANpER, L. Die hom. Kritik von Wolf bis Grote, 1853, 37, 68, 84. Frizs, C. Griech, - Oriental. Untersuchgn., I. Homerische Beitr, B. Mythologische Zusammenhinge, 1904, 235 ff. GeppxEs, W. D. Problem of the Hom, Poems, 1878, 28, 41. Gemott, A. In Hermes, xv. 557 ff., and xviii. 34, 81, 308 ff. Genz. Zur Ilias, 1870, 33. Geprert, C. E. Ursprung d. homn. Gesiinge, 1840, pt. i. 42, 74, 280 f., 411, 430. Gisexz, B. Hom. Forschgn. 1864, 217 ff., 251. Guapstongz, W. E. Studs.in Hom. and the Home. Age, 1858, iii, 389 ff. GoLpscHMipT, M. Gentagelserne i de Homeriske Digte, 1900, 13, 36, 94, 99, 200, 215, 218, 220, 224 f. Grimm, H. Ilias, zehnter bis letzter Gesang, 1895, 12-61; in Deutsche Rundschau, 1892, 69 ff. Grotr, G. Hist. of Greece, chap. xxi. edn. of 1888, 119 f. Gruppe, O. Griech. Mythologie u. Religionsgeschichte, 1906, i. 676 n. Harper, C. Homer, 1904, 234. Hetnzz, R. Virgils epische Technik,? 1908, 215 ff., 446 ff. Henke, O. Iliad, 1896-7, Hilfsbuch, 13. Henry, R.M. In C.R. xx. 192 ff, with criticism by Mr. Andrew Lang, 432 ff., and rejoinder, xxi. 97 ff. Hrecke. Der gegenwart. Stand der homn. Frage, 1856, 25. Horrmann, C. A. J. Quaestiones Hom. ii. 1848, 124 ff., 219, 254 f. Hormann, P. Aristarchs Studien “de cultu et victu heroum,” 1905, 52 f, 56 ff. Hom, A. Ad C. Lachmanni exemplar de aliquot Il. carminum ‘compos. 1853, 10. Jacos, A. Entstg. d. Il. u. Od. 1856, 236 ff. Jager, O. Hom. Aphorismen in Pro Domo, 1894, 228; Homer u. Horaz im Gymnasialunterricht, 1905, 82. Janr, P, De II. libro decimo, 1889. Jess, R. Homer, 1886, 123, 137, 156. Jevons, F. B. Hist. Gr. Lit.2 1889, 505, 508. Jorpan, H. Der Erzahlungsstil in d. Kampfscenen d. Il. 1905, 60 ff. Kammer, E. LEinheit d. Od. 1873, 36 ff.; Asthetischer Kommentar z. Homers I]? 1901, 215 ff. Kayser, K. L. Hom. Abhandlgn. 1881, 8, 75 ff., 85. BIBLIOGRAPHY XXXV Krenz, A. Komposn. d. Il. d. Hom. 1864; Epen d. Hom. pt. ii. 90 ff. Kuuez, H. Entstehungsgesch. d. I. 1889, 153, 162; Vorhomerische Kampfschilderungen i in d. Il. in N. Jahrb. f. Philol. 1893, 86, 90 f. Kyoret, A. J. R. Homeros d. Blinde von Chios, Pt. ii. 1895, 150 ff. Kocks. LEinheit in d. Komposn. d. Il. in Gymnasium, 1890, 55. Kopren, J.H.J. Erklirende Anmkgn. z. Homers II. 1792-1823, iii. 190 ff. Kornyge. LEingang d. neunten Gesanges d. Il. 1896, 13 f. Kuupars. Cur lib. Il. decim. e contextu carm. Homerici emovendus sit, 1876. Lacumann, K. Betrachtgn. iib. Hom. [1.3 ney section xiv.; Fernere Betrachtgn. 1841, 26 f. Lane, A. Homer pal the Epic, 1893, 145 fn; Hom. and his Age, 1906, 12 f., 124, 173 ff., 258 ff. And see Henry. Lawson, J. C. Edn. of Iliad, I and K, 1902. Lear, W. Iliad,? 1900 ; Companion to the Il. 1892, 38, 189 ff. Leymann, C. Gracst. Herese. 1875, 20. Lrars, Avistehug? 1882, 440. Lupwicu, A. Aristarchus, 1884-5, i. 9 ff, ii. 394 ff.; Verhaltnis d. peisistr. Redaction, 1903, i. 3, 7; Rhapsodien d. I], A-2, 1899, 8; Die vermeintl. Notwendgkt., ein Epos Oiros “IXiov, etc., 1902, 12; Die hom. Frage u. ihre Beantwortg. 1904, 3, 5, 9, 11. Mactnar, L. Omero, L’ Iliade, Canto i. 1894, xxiii. f. Mauarry, J. P. Hist. Gr. Lit.2 1891, 56, 81, 83. MenpapD, J. De Contractionis et Synizeseos usu Hom. 1886, 50, 76, 159. Meyer, E. H. Achilleis, 1887, 373 ; Hom. u. d. Il. 1887, 134 ff. Mistriotes, G. IZTOPIA TON OMHPIKON ETION, 1867, 276 f, 313 f. Monro, D. B. Iliad,* 1894; Odyssey v-w, 291, 328, 367 n, 371, 378; Home. Grammar,? 1891, see Index under “Iliad, characteristics of particular books.” Mitper, D. Hom. u. d. altionische Elegie, 1906, 20; Die Ilias u. ihre Quellen, 1910, Index, K. Muuer, H. D. Histor.-mytholog. Untersuchgn. 1892, 71, 94, 131 Miter, K.O. Hist. Gr. Lit., Eng. Transln. by G. C. Lewis, 1847, 53. Mituer, W. Hom. Vorschule,? 1836, 97, 114 f. More, W. Hist. Gr. Lit. 1850, i. 264 ff, ii. 176. Murray, G. Rise of the Greek Epic, 1907, 145, 165 and x, 189; Hist. Gr. Lit. 1907, 20. Naser, 8. A. Quaest. Homeae. 1877, 170 f, 216 ff. Nissg, B. Entwicklg. d. homn. Poesie, 1882, 24 f, 64. Nirscun, A. Uber d. Echtheit d. Doloneia, 1877. Nirzscu, G. W. Sagenpoesie d. Griechen, 1852, 128, 196, 223 ff. ; Beitr. z. Gesch. d. epischen Poesie d. Griechen, 1862, 53, 378 f., 408. NorzHory, F. Entstehungsweise d. homn. Gedichte, 1869, 223 n. Orszuuix, K. Verhiltnis d. Doloneia z. d. tibrig. Theilen d. Il. u.z. Od. 1883. Oster, H. Uber d. Bewaffnung in Homers Il. 1909, 16 f£., 28 f, 73 £., 79. Patzy, F. A. Iliad, 1866-71. PerpMiLueR, R. Commentar d. xxiv. Buches d. IL. xxvii. f., and in Jahrb. f. klass, Philol. 1894, 345 ff. XXXV1 THE LAY OF DOLON Perrin, B. Equestrianism in the Doloneia, in Transns. of the American Philolog. Assocn. vol. xvi. 1885. PiscHowskI, J. De Ironia Iliadis, 1856, 100 ff. Puiss, T. In Jahrb. f. klass. Philol. 1888, 185 ff. Range, F. Die Doloneia, 1881. ReicHet, W. Hom. Waffen,? 1901. See Index locorum. Rippeck, W. Hom. Miscellen. ii. 1888, 23 x. Rirscat, F. Die Alexandrin. Bibliotheken u. d. Sammlung d. homn. Gedichte, 1838, 62 f. Rosert, C. Stud. z. Il. 1901, 501 ff., 574. Romer, A. Hom. Gestalten u. Gestaltgn. 1901, 17. Rornz, C. Jb. Bursian, 1882, 321 ff., 1883, 131 ff., and 1885, 211; Jb. 1887, 332, 1889, 355, 1891, 284, and 1909, 227 Scamip, C. Homerische Studien, 1905-8, i. 10, 11, ii. 19 f., 39-41, iii. 17 f. ScuneipEr, F. Ursprung d. homn. Gedichte, 1873, 26 f. Scoémann, G. F. De reticentia Homeri, 1854, 15 f. Scuutrz, J. Zur Mlias-Kritik, 1900, 18; Das Lied vom Zorn Achills, 1901, 30. Scnunze, W. Quaest. Epicae, Index locorum, K. Scort, J. A. In Classical Philology, 1910, 41 ff. Seymour, T. D. Life in the Home. Age, 1907, 10, 652 f., ete. Sticke, K. F. Quaest. Homericarum, pt. i. 1854. Sirrt, K. Wiederhlgn. i. d. Od. 1882, 7 ff., 30 ff., 68 f. ; Hist. Gr. Lit. 1884, pt. i. 92 f. Sortats, G. Ilios et Iliade, 1892, 71 ff. SraweE.., F. M. Hom. and the Il. 1909, 21, and in App. C. Srrer, G. Iliad, 1886-1900. Trerret, V. Homeére, 1899, 229 ff. Vaueton, M. De thorace apud Homerum, in Mnemos. 1904, 105 ff., and Index locorum. Vaterta, J. N. OMHPOY BIO® KAI ILOIHMATA, 1867, 364 f. Van Herwerpen, H. Quaest. Homcae. 130 f.; Adnott. ad. Il. 34 f. Van Lenruwen, J. Enchiridium dictionis Epicae, 1892-4, xxx., xxxvi. Vonkmann, R. Commentat. Epicae, 1854, 120; Gesch. u. Kritik d. Wolf’schen Prolegg. 1874, 114, 142, 228 and n. Wecxruein, N. Stud. z. IL 1905, 34 and ., 42, 55, 58. WerIDEMANN, F. De ira Achillis, 1889, 3. WEISSENBORN, E. Achilleis u. Ilias, 1890, 19. Witamowitz-Moituenporr, U. Hom. Untersuchgn. 1884, 231, 238, 413. Witxins, G. Growth of the Home. Poems, 1885, 89 f., 123. Wirtz, K. Singular und Plural, 1907, 88, 116. Wirtr, W. Stud. z. Hom. 1908, 1 ff. Wotr, H. Homs. IL erliutert und gewiirdigt, 1905, 40 f. ABBREVIATIONS USED In some instances a work which is quoted several times is referred to by the author’s name alone. In such cases the name of the work is given opposite that of the author in the subjoined list. References to pages of this book have always the addition infra or supra. References to works are in every case to pages, unless it is otherwise stated. Aeol, (Hinrichs). De Homericae elocutionis vestigiis Acolicis. Asth. Komm. (Kammer). Asthetischer Kommentar zu Homers Ilias.” Agar. Homerica. Altton. (Miilder). Homer u. d. altjonische Elegie. Am-H. The Ameis-Hentze editions of the Iliad and Odyssey. Andeutgn. (G. Curtius). Andeutungen itib. d. gegenwiirtigen Stand d, homn. Frage. Anmkgn. (Cauer). Anmerkungen zur Odyssee. Anmkgn. (Nagelsbach). Anmerkungen zur Ilias (A, B 1-483, T').3 Anthrop. and Class. Anthropology and the Classics. Ar. Aristarchus. Ar. (Lehrs). De Aristarchi studiis Homericis.? Ar. (Ludwich). Aristarchs homerische Textkritik. Beitr. (Nitzsch). Beitriige zur Geschichte d. epischen Poesie d. Griechen. Beitr. (Studniczka). Beitriige zur Geschichte d. altgriechischen Tracht. Bergk. Griechische Literaturgeschichte, vol. i. Bernhardy. Grundriss d. griechischen Litteratur, Pt. ii. Bewaffg. (Ostern). Die Bewaffnung in Homers Ilias. Bougot. Etude sur l’Iliade d’Homére. B. ph. Wocht. Berliner philologische Wochenschrift. Bréal. Pour mieux connaitre Homére. Comment. (Peppmiiller). Commentar d. XXIVsten Buches d. Ilias. Commentat. (Baumlein). Commentatio de compositione Iliadis et Odysseae. Comm. Ep. (Volkmann). Commentationes Epicae. Compan. (Leaf), Companion to the Iliad. C.P. Classical Philology. Croiset. Histoire de la Littérature Grecque, vol. i. D.H.A. (Ellendt). Drei homerische Abhandlungen. Discovs. (Burrows). The Discoveries in Crete. Dress (Abrahams). Greek Dress. Diinizer. THomerische Abhandlungen. E.A.@. (Ridgeway). The Early Age of Greece. xxxvii XXXVill THE LAY OF DOLON bel. Ehbeling’s Homeric Lexicon. Einhett (Kammer), Die Einheit d. Odyssee. Ench. van Leeuwen’s Enchiridium dictionis Epicae. Entstg. (Erhardt). Die Entstehung der homn. Gedichte. Entstg, (Giseke). Die allmihliche Entstehung d. Gesinge d. Ilias Entstg. (Jacob). Die Entstehung d. Ilias u. d. Odyssee. Entstg. (Kluge). Entstehungsweise d. Ilias. Entstg. (Nutzhorn). Entstehungsweise d. homn. Gedichte. Eratihlgsst. (Jordan). Erzihlungsstil in d. Kampfscenen d. Ilias. Finsler, Homer. Gesch. u. Krit. (Volkmann). Geschichte u. Kritik d. Wolf’schen Prolegomena. Grdfrgn. (Cauer). Grundfragen d. Homerkritik.? Grimm. Homer, Ilias, zehnter bis letzter Gesang. Grote. History of Greece, edition of 1888. H.A. Homerische Abhandlungen. Hf. and A. (Lang). Homer and his Age. Handbook (Browne). Handbook of Homeric Study. Handbuch (L. Meyer). Handbuch d. griechischen Etymologie. H. and E. (Lang). Homer and the Epic. H. and Il. (Stawell). Homer and the Iliad. Hayman. Edition of the Odyssey. Heinze. Virgils epische Technik.? Helbig. Das hom. Epos aus den Denkmilern erlautert.* H.G. Monro’s Homeric Grammar.? Hist. Gr. History of Greece. H.G.L. History of Greek Literature. Hom. Aph. (Jager). Homerische Aphorismen in Pro Domo. Hom. Krit. (Friedlander), Die hom. Kritik von Wolf bis Grote. Hom. Krit. (Iig.). Die hom. Kritik seit A. Wolf. Hom. od. Homdn. (Christ), Homer oder Homeriden.? Hom. u. Hor. (Jager). Homer und Horaz. H. U. Homerische Untersuchungen. Ideal (Blume). Das Ideal d. Helden u. d. Weibes bei Homer. Il. lb. oct. (Calebow). De Iliadis libro octavo, 1870. Interpol. (Blass). Die Interpolationen in d. Odyssee. Interpol. (Christ). Die Interpolationen bei Homer. Jterat, (Lentz). De versibus apud Homerum perperam iteratis. Jahr. De ITliadis libro decimo. Jahrb. k. A. Jahrbiicher f. d. klassische Altertum, etc. Jahrb. k, P. Jahrbiicher f. klassische Philologie. Jb. Jahresberichte d. philologische Vereins in the Zeitschrift f. d. Gymnasialwesen. Jb. Bursian. Bursian-Miiller’s Jahresberichte iiber d. Fortschritte d. Altertumswissenschaft. Jebb. Homer. Jevons. History of Greek Literature.? Jiriczek, Northern Hero Legends, English Translation in the Temple Primers. Ker. Epic and Romance, edition of 1908. ABBREVIATIONS USED XXX1X Kuhlbars. Cur liber Iliadis decimus emovendus sit. Kiihner-Blass and Kiihner-Gerth. Kiihner’s Ausfiihrliche Grammatik, edited by Blass (Pt. i.) and Gerth (Pt. ii.). L. and V. (Seymour). Homeric Language and Verse. Lawson. Edition of I and K. Lawton. Art and Humanity in Homer. Leaf. Edition of the Tliad.? Life (Seymour). Life in the Homeric Age. Mahaffy. History of Classical Greek Literature? M. and R. Merry and Riddell’s edition of Odyssey I.-XII. M. and T. Goodwin’s Moods and Tenses. M.C. (Cobet). Miscellanea Critica. Menrad. De Contractionis et Synizeseos usu Homerico. Milton (Masson). The Poetical Works of John Milton. M.S.L. Mémoires de la Société de Linguistique de Paris. Mure. Critical History of the Language and Literature of Antient Greece. Murray. Rise of the Greek Epic. Naber. Quaestiones Homericae. Nachtrige (Volkmann). Nachtrage zur Geschichte und Kritik der Wolf’schen Prolegomena. Nitsche. Untersuchung iiber die Echtheit der Doloneia. Nom. propr. (Franke). De nominum propriorum epithetis Homericis. Odyssey (Monro). Edition of Odyssey XIII.-XXIV. Orszulik. Wher das Verhiltnis der Doloneia zu den iibrigen Theilen der Tlias und zur Odyssee. Palaces (Mosso). The Palaces of Crete and their Builders. Pausan. (Frazer). Frazer’s Pausanias’s Description of Greece. Prellwitz. Etymologisches Worterbuch der griechischen Sprache. Problem (Geddes). The Problem of the Homeric Poems. Q.E. Quaestiones Epicae. Q.H. Quaestiones Homericae. Q.L. (Hoch). Quaestiones Lexicologicae ad Homerum pertinentes. Quellen (Miilder). Die Ilias und ihre Quellen. Quest. (van Gennep). La Question d’Homére. Raleigh. Shakespeare in English Men of Letters Series. Ranke. Die Doloneia. Reallex. (Schrader). Reallexikon indogermanischen Altertumskunde. Reichel. Homerische Waffen.? R.G.E. (Murray). Rise of the Greek Epic. Robert. Studien zur Ilias. Sagenp. (Nitzsch). Die Sagenpoesie der Griechen. S. and A. Sikes and Allen’s edition of the Homeric Hymns. Schuchhardt. Schliemann’s Excavations, English Translation. Schulze. Quaestiones Epicae. Scrip. Min. (Evans). Scripta Minoa, vol. i. Seiler. Homeric Lexicon. Solmsen. Untersuchungen zur griechischen Laut- und Verslehre Studien (Wecklein). Studien zur Ilias. e contextu carminis Homerici xl THE LAY OF DOLON Studs. (Clerke). Familiar Studies in Homer. Studs, (Gladstone). Studies on Homer and the Homeric Age. Terret. Homere. Textkrit. (Wecklein). Uber die Methode d. Textkritik, etc., des Homers. Thumb. Zur Geschichte d. griechischen Digamma in I. F., ix. 294 ff. Ursprung (Bonitz). Uher d. Ursprung d. homerischen Gedichte.5 Ursprung (Schneider). Uber d. Ursprung d. homerischen Gedichte. Van L. and da C. van Leeuwen and Mendes da Costa’s editions of the Diad and Odyssey. Verb (G. Curtius). The Greek Verb (English Translation). Vindic. (Buchholz). Vindiciae carminum Homericorum. Vocalcontr. (Bechtel), Vocalcontraction bei Homer. Vogrinz. Grammatik d. homerischen Dialektes. Widerspr. (Rothe). Die Bedeutung d. Widerspriiche f. d. homerische Frage. Wvederhign. (Christ). Die Wiederholungen gleicher u. ahnlicher Verse in d. Ilias. Wriederhlgn. (Rothe). Die Bedeutung d. Wiederholungen f. d. homerische Frage. Wiederhign, (Sittl). Die Wiederholungen in d. Odyssee. Wocht. k. P. Wochenschrift fiir klassische Philologie. Zur Chron. (Christ). Zur Chronologie d. altgriechischen Epos. Zw. h. W. (Friedlinder). Zwei homerische Wéorterverzeichnisse. CHAPTER I THE STORY OF THE DOLONEIA In the end of the ninth book, I, the failure of the mission to Achilles is reported by Odysseus, and is a sore blow to the Achaean chiefs. Diomede, who is impatient of all this discussion, alone speaks out, and with perfect unconcern. The secession of Achilles and the disasters of the day have had no effect on him. He had told Agamemnon bluntly, earlier in the evening, that he was a coward to think of flight; he is now just as disrespectful to Nestor’s plan of conciliating Achilles. They had done wrong to approach the sulking Myrmidon: Diomede has a mind of his own; no parley with the enemy within or without the gates. For the present, rest, and a bold front to the Trojans in the morning, and then, a fight to a finish, His advice is accepted with acclamation, as it always is, and the chiefs disperse to their quarters. It is not stated that Agamemnon himself is encouraged or comforted by the speech of his youthful subaltern. His dejec- tion, we can assume, is too deep. He must refrain, for the moment, from renewing his suggestion that the host should abandon the enterprise and return to Greece. But he fears, we shall see, now that all hope of Achilles’ assistance is gone, that even escape with their lives may be denied them. The tenth book, K, may be divided, as by some editors, into a Nuxteyepoia, or Night Alarm, 1-298, and a Doloneia proper, 299-579. We give, to begin with, only a brief summary of the contents of the lay. We shall know them intimately before we are done with them, for they have been well sifted by the critics. But much trouble would have been saved had they been studied more 1 B 2 THE LAY OF DOLON CHAP. carefully,’ and, we must add, with less prejudice. More than that, the critics have too little regard to what is told us in the rest of the Jliad, from which there emerge several points that must not be overlooked.2 Agamemnon is in the lowest depths of despair. He believes Zeus has deserted him and is favouring Hector; he knows he has alienated his following by his foolish quarrel with Achilles; and the blow Hector had dealt him during the day makes him fear that the worst may still be to come. Alone at his hut, he is seized by a new dread (Grimm, 24). The Trojans, as they have not returned to the city, may be thinking to rush the camp, and a night attack will be a horror’s crown of horror. If we bear all this in mind, we cease to wonder that he cannot sleep, that he seeks Nestor, whom he can trust, and that they visit the guards. As there is no sign, so far, of a movement on the enemy’s part, they sit down and confer with other chiefs who have been summoned. The result is that some one must venture across the plain and make certain, if he can, whether there is to be an attack or not. Diomede volunteers, and selects Odysseus as his companion. They arm themselves, of course with gear suitable for night work, commend themselves to the protection of Athené, and set out. With that the first part of the lay ends, the poet hinting, in the words of Odysseus to the goddess, that there is something more to be recounted than a bit of simple eavesdropping. The scene changes to the Trojan side. Hector would like to know if the Greeks are meditating flight. Dolon offers to ascertain, and having obtained from his chief a promise on oath of the car and horses of Achilles as his reward, starts on his way to the camp. Odysseus and Diomede, seeing him coming, let him pass, give chase and capture him. Questioned by Odysseus he at once lays the blame on Hector, gives all necessary infor- mation, and tells, to save his life, of a new contingent of Thracians under Khésus, lord of a splendid equipage and golden mail. He is then slain, and the two heroes proceed to the Thracian bivouac, 1 For example. Bernhardy objected why Nestor hopes, K 536 f., that (vol. i, 164) that the lay knows only one son of Nestor. The old man him- self says, K 170, that he has sons. Dr. Verrall (Quart. Rev. 1908, 75 f.) observes that the author of K does not know the Wall. But he does; he mentions the (or a) gate. And see p. 181 infra. Jahr, in his monograph, p. 4, wonders Odysseus and Diomede may have had the luck to carry off horses. What more natural, when he had heard the sound of a pair making for the camp ? And so on. 2 The references are given, pp. 151 f. infra. I THE STORY OF THE DOLONEIA 3 where they slaughter the king and twelve of his nobles, and secure the famous steeds and (apparently) the car also. They ride or drive back to the scene of their encounter with Dolon, recover his accoutrements, which they had bestowed against their return, and then continue their way to the Achaean lines, where they are welcomed and warmly congratulated. After a bath, they sit down to a meal. With libation in gratitude to Athené the Book closes. To the ordinary reader it seems a simple, straightforward, and interesting story, with a natural sequence of events, and well adapted to its environment in the Jliad. To the “critical actuary,” for whom it certainly was not written, it wears a very different aspect. He imposes strange limitations on the poet, and subjects his work, both in itself and in its relations to other lays of the Jliad, to a strictly logical interpretation. When he examines the Doloneia sentence by sentence,’ he finds many faults; there are few vices known to Homeric criticism that have not been imputed to its author. We can hardly be surprised. Objectors who are not free from bias, and who, in Professor Saintsbury’s phrase, “ potter overmuch about details,” can have no difficulty in detecting blemishes in an old epic story, which tells of a night of confusion and terror, and of an exploit to which there is no parallel in the poems. It is true of the Doloneia, as of other parts of the Zliad, but in a special degree of the Doloneia, that it has been discredited by what Mr. Gladstone termed the precipitate application of the canons of modern prose—we might almost go further and say the principles of judicial procedure or historical enquiry—to the oldest poetry. In particular, its critics shew a continual weakness for what Mr. Andrew Lang has called “the fallacy of disregarding the Homeric poet’s audience.”? The actors in the Doloneia must behave and speak, the story must run with a smoothness and pre- cision, to please modern tastes. It may be urged that the lay be judged by its probable effect on the public for whom it was com- posed. Judge it, if you please, as a work of art, by canons which you say are for all time. Even so, you may not disregard Goethe’s dictum that any such work is not to be “ praised and 1 Ifthis sounds exaggerated, reference of controversy, be a preferable term. may be made tosome ofthe monographs, The poet's object is, in Miilder’s words as those of Kuhlbars, Jahr, and Sickel. (Quellen, 342), kraftigste Wirkung auf 2 Public” would perhaps, in view das Publikum. 4 THE LAY OF DOLON CHAP. blamed only in detail.” Nor may you disregard contemporary conditions. There may be artistic defects according to our highly elaborated modern notions. The point is, that the early hearer or reader would not mark them,and would regard them as trifles, if he did (Cauer, Grdfrgn. 384). He would test the lay by its effect on him as a whole, and beyond that only by certain prominent points in the story. Naber (Q.H. 166), criticising Lachmann, compares an ancient audience to children, gui sola auriwm voluptate omnia metiuntur. Let us look at the canto then from such a point of view. The early part bores the critics. It is to them unduly long. Their impatience seems unreasonable. An introduction to a stirring adventure is surely not unusual. Rather it strikes us as some- what like Shakespeare’s plan, described on Professor Bradley’s authority by Miss Stawell (2. and Ji. 49), of beginning with “a short scene either full of life or stir, or in some other way arresting.” That is precisely what we have in K. We cannot give up, with some critics, the arresting lines on Agamemnon’s distress. How could the situation be recalled more effectively for any audience than by an opening scene shewing the Achaean leader, the author of all the mischief, aghast at the glare and blare from the lines of the exulting Trojans, and beside himself with dread of what may yet befall? He is for the moment the central figure, and none the less prominent later in the action that he is, for reasons easy to state, displaced to a great extent by Nestor. And the rest of the Introduction would be similarly arresting. It is largely a picture of the camp by night. The Trojan arrange- ments had been sketched in @; those of the Achaeans come naturally in K. The NavoraOyos, we know, interested the ancients. An early audience would surely like to hear of the positions of the contingents; of the size of the camp with the “thousand ships,” as indicated by the many roads through it and the ease with which men and animals could get lost in the dark ; of the way the warriors passed the night, some under cover, some in the open, all with arms at hand; and of the weapons they caught up when roused by an alarm, and the garments they donned,—garments that cause such a shock to some critics that they adopt the high tone of the Tailor and Cutter, and pass serious censure on the poet for his want of taste in dress. Such an audience would appreciate the description of Diomede’s bivouac, I THE STORY OF THE DOLONEIA 5 and they could hardly fail to enjoy the scene between Nestor and that eager young chief, who had been protesting against the fuss with Achilles, and who utters a half growl when roused from sleep. No fears were keeping Aim awake. A fool could see, he had said, that Troy was doomed. They would like the descrip- tion of the lonely steading in the jungle and the prowling beast that keeps the dogs awake; any one would who has had experi- ence of life in forest country. We can believe unhesitatingly that they would regard the account of the arming of the heroes for this unique exploit as most natural and interesting. Above all they would know that what was promised them would be worth listening to, when it is Diomede who adventures, when he selects Odysseus as his companion, and when the two disappear into the night, across the bloody field, “like a pair of lions.” They would have sympathy with the prayers of the departing heroes, which (as some one once said) close the scene like the ‘God send the good craft safe to haven” in an old ship’s mani- fest. Inthe do ut des of Diomede’s petition was comprised much of the ancient appreciation of God’s way to man. Many a worthy Thane and many a ruffian who listened to the lay had doubtless himself made the same bargain with Heaven. There is no lack of interest in the introductory part. Then the adventure. The Achaeans are not looking for great results from their enterprise. With the Trojans hopes are high. The idea that the enemy have had enough and are taking to their ships is Hector’s own, and just what we expect from his sanguine spirit after a first success in the field. The camp is already his and all that it contains. During the day he had set his heart on Nestor’s shield and Diomede’s corslet, and had driven their owners with ignominy to the shelter of the wall. He little thinks, as he selects his man, what a surprise for himself and his bravest and best those two chiefs are at that moment planning. He readily yields to the presumptuous demand for the team that Achilles drives, and Dolon starts in the best of fettle. 67 p av 6dov peuaws. You can almost hear him whistle. The author of Scouting for Boys (see p. 35) should be charmed with the descrip- tion. No doubts disturb Dolon. He has assured his leader that he will not be a “vain spy,” and that he will penetrate to Agamemnon’s ship and learn all secrets. But it is probably the splendid addition to his household wealth that is uppermost 6 THE LAY OF DOLON CHAP. in the thoughts of this master of “much gold and much bronze.” Hector no doubt knew his man when he made oath, By none but Dolon shall this prize be borne, And him alone the immortal steeds adorn. But footsteps behind cause a sudden check to the spy’s exultation. He is to be balked after all; Hector must have ordered messengers to recall him.’ He stands to meet them, and is soon undeceived. Two friends sent after him would hardly carry sword and spear and shield. The boar’s tushes on the casque of one of them have a grisly look. They are messengers of death, and he turns and “stirs his limbs,’ no longer for the great prize that had tempted him, but for dear life, as Hector that sent him forth is himself to run, before two suns have set, in the supreme scene of the Jliad.? The chase is a piece of spirited description; there is nothing more vigorous of its kind in either poem. Critics who have felt the keen joy of riding after hounds will appreciate the hunting simile. The scene lives before us in every detail, and could not have failed to hold those for whom it was written. Dolon is caught, and, when the two Achaeans are done with him, is put out of the way. The poor scout was not cast in the heroic mould, and the little we know of him does not do him credit. Vergil alone has a word for him, we hope a true one, when he describes his son Eumédes as nomine avum referens, animo manibusque parentem. His part in the epic is brief and inglorious. In the rest of the Ziad, as the critics note with triumph, he is not so much as mentioned. Like Rhésus, he appears only to die. But they themselves have striven to build for him an everlasting name. As long, we will not say as Ida stands, but as the Higher Criticism harries the Jdiad, Dolon, son of Eumédes, will not be forgotten. Then the dénouement—the slaughter of the sleeping Thracians and the rush back to the ships. How would the deed appeal to the ancients? Would they abhor it as butchery, or glory in it as a fine piece of derring do? In our day some think it low and unheroic work ; others that in Achaean times an enemy was an 1 Cauer (Grdfrgn. 407) and some com- tor was after all recalling him. pepads, mentators take @\mero, 855,=‘‘hoped.” 339, seems distinctly against this inter- They think the poet means to point pretation. Dolon’s cowardice. He hoped that Hec- 2G\AG wepl puyis, X 161, I THE STORY OF THE DOLONEIA 7 enemy and fair prey wherever found, and that what the scholiasts term 7d xwduvedes affords some justification for the poet. We leave the point for the present and turn to others which we think the men of old would not be likely to overlook, if their interest in the bard and his song is correctly described in the Homeric epic. The obvious one is that Hector has been outwitted. And the outwitting of an enemy is a favourite theme. Soros is always good; a triumph of d0A0s over Soros is better. “For ’tis the sport to have the enginer Hoist with his own petar.” Instances of trickery in the poems are collected by Bischoff, Hom. Poesie, 136. In the days of the Iliad “we are many centuries yet before the age of chivalry. The Greek instinct preferred craft to force as frankly as does an American Indian” (Lawton, 23). Craft is of the essence of some of the best episodes in the poems. The gods themselves are adepts; Athené is proud of her proficiency, v 299. The critics sometimes bowdlerise, affecting a dainty horror of TO amperés. Castum esse decet pium poetam! Fortunately there is nothing to shock them in the Doloneia. The dedos in it is clean, and legitimate; all is fair in war. Stier thinks the Jliad must have a lay in which “men of craft” take a part. And the honours of the game are all with Odysseus and Diomede. Hector’s hopes have had a miserable issue. The failure of Dolon was nothing serious; the loss of the leader of a fresh contingent and his henchmen was something to make the Trojan commander think hard. This was not what he had looked for from a beaten and broken foe. And the perpetrators of the insult are away with the famous team, merry over the success of their escapade, while the pair the gods gave to Peleus are still in their stalls by the sea. As for the scout who was to bring back the glorious news that Troyland was at last to be free from “ the dogs brought thither by fate”—illum Tydides alio pro talibus ausis Affecit pretio.” He is lying on the plain naked and headless, “ dear to the dogs and vultures,” and his fellows are howling in panic about the corpses of the Thracians, while Odysseus and Diomede are enjoying the welcome of their friends. At every point the Achaeans have scored a success. The lay is thoroughly Achaean; the scholiasts saw that. C. Schmid (Hom. Stud. ii. 19) describes the incident as Revanchepolitik. “It 1 TAN éyyeAGvres, Eurip, Rhésus, 815, 2 Aen, xii, 351. 8 THE LAY OF DOLON CHAP. affords an agreeable relief to the national distress ” (Mure, i. 266). The Trojans had had the best of it during the day, and Zeus had no doubt retired to rest, after the stormy scene with his consort in ©, well satisfied that he had at last roused himself to fulfil his promise to Thetis and made a good beginning. The Achaeans, battered in the field and repulsed by Achilles, are sounding the depths. A small diversion, out of deference to an Achaean audience, was surely not an unnatural proceeding on the part of the poet. He cannot reverse the triumph of Hector; but he can—ovvayOopevos tots "Axacois, as a scholiast on another book puts it—take the sting out of it for the moment. He does so by letting his countrymen, though penned behind their wall, avenge their defeat in a way that does not spoil his own plan or interfere with the scheme of the Providence that rules from Olympus. The expedition had this result, that the gloom in the camp was dispelled. Joy came with the light of the morning. And the critics find the lay that tells this “impossible” in its place in the Ziad! It raises its brazen front, they say, zwecklos da ! Ranke notes the “Tragic Irony” in the story. You find in it, if you please, what was afterwards styled a Peripeteia.' The terms had not been invented in the days of the epic, but the men of the time could appreciate a turning of the tables as they had it in the Lay in 0, when at a certain point the curtain falls, or in the opening of y, when the avenging Odysseus reveals himself from his beggar’s rags (Jebb, 11), 6A’ dvaortpéder Oeds. Hector’s dreams are rudely interrupted. His disappointment is not dwelt on, not even mentioned, but an ancient audience might picture to themselves his face when he was told what had happened, and might contrast his feelings then with his arrogant confidence at the gathering that sent Dolon to his death. It is quite in the way of Homer’s simple narrative art to leave a little to the imagination. We are left to image to ourselves something that is not, in the poet’s own phrase, apufjAws eipnuévov. And s0 it is here. The poet could well afford to leave it to hearers of the lay to measure the chagrin of the Trojan commander. In the same way, it should be noted, he has not thought it necessary to remind them that the divine steeds, so generously made over to Dolon, _ | To which, in the Ziad, though K urspriingl. wu. echte Schluss d. Odyssee, is not used as an illustration, a new chaps. i. and ii. Homer, as has often importance is attached by Adam, Der been said, was the first tragic poet. I THE STORY OF THE DOLONEIA 9 are soon to drag the donor himself across the plain by the heels. His audience would not, perhaps, forget it. Their familiarity with the saga is frequently assumed in the poems. Many modern critics seem not to be attracted by the story of the Doloneia. To some, as Dr. Leaf (Compan. 192), the points we have noted are the outcome of “an evident straining after violent contrast which is quite unlike the reserve of the finest epic style, or indeed of good Greek work at any period.” We think the straining, far from evident, is carefully suppressed, and we have not seen it stated that the best Greek criticism, ever at any period, marked and condemned this blot on the Doloneia. Nor do modern critics approve of the story as a well-rounded whole. They are cheated of the pris audpov of 19, and the Bovdy Kepdarén of 43 f., announced at the outset, “ with a flourish of trumpets,” as they describe it, to excite our expectations. They are too much cumbered about small things. Events do not always fall out as foreshadowed by Homer. Sufficient for the moment are the needs of the moment. Fraulein Jordan has well observed (Erzdhlgsst. 62) that the weakest motive is legitimate “if it helps the action for the time being.” (Cf. Romer, Hom. Gest. u. Gestaltgn. 19f.) It is the “situation of the moment” that leads the poet (Harder, Homer, 247), and the critics, failing to observe this, detect discrepancies. When the action in the present case had culminated in a “great deed ”—one, as Odysseus had prayed, that stirred the Trojans mightily—would old-time hearers com- plain of the way in which the bard had led up to it? Two brave men had saved the camp, or at least put it out of its suspense, and for the time being restored Achaean prestige ; and the listener of a simple age, not given to carping at the merely trivial, would be well content with what was offered him. We shall see in the next chapter what an astonishing variety of opinion the narrative of the Doloneia has evoked. We think we see good ground for ranging ourselves with those who commend it. It may be admitted that modern critics could have improved it from their own points of view, had they been present to advise at its creation. But to the men of old, with their love for the saga and its heroes, and no doubt quick to seize the points of a joyous tale from it, made for their entertainment only, the Doloneia as it stands must, we think, have appealed irresistibly. “Intense enjoyment of life may be regarded as the major key 10 THE LAY OF DOLON CHAP. I which dominates the Iliad” (Campbell, Relig. in Greek Lit. 77), and the Doloneia is, in its active part especially, “rammed with life.” It has the “ bright speed ” which Professor Mackail admires in the epic. Contrast its healthy freshness with the excessive sentimentality that mars the beauty of Vergil’s imitation. The Rhésus of the Attic stage is not to be named with it. If it be, as many think, the work of a mere cento-maker or of an inferior rhapsode, we would that Heaven had sent us more such. We are satisfied with the product of what is deemed a despicable decad- ence. We believe the Thanes who listened to the Lay of Dolon in sub-Mycenaean holds or at Ionian courts, could hardly have been better pleased with it, had they known it was from the hand of the author of the Ménis itself. It may be they knew it was. The critics think they know it was not. We may not be able to prove that it was. But we think we can give many good reasons for our belief that they have failed to prove their negative. CHAPTER II SOME OPINIONS ON THE DOLONEIA WE have stated in the preface that it is the fashion to decry the Doloneia as, almost by general consent, inferior and late. It is “persistently written down” (Mr. Allen in C.R. xx. 194). We now pause to consider whether the audit of the lay stands as badly as those who write about it would have us believe. It does not, by any means. Many of its detractors would have used more guarded language had they known Doloneian literature better. To assist a judgment in this matter, we propose to set out a number of opinions on two points—the quality of the Doloneia as epic poetry, and its age. On the first we learn the worst from a recent utterance. Professor Henry (C.R. xix. 192) describes K as “by common consent one of the most worthless books of the Jiiad from a poetical point of view.” “Inevitable blundering” is its author's characteristic. This is the most sweeping condemnation of all. There is hardly “a kindly dump in it.” Robert’s censure is also severe (Stud. 501 f., 574). The poet’s ideas are mean and his poetry unpleasing. But others temper their disapproval with some words of commendation. Dr. Leaf can admit, in his Jntro- duction, that the lay “contains a series of vivid and attractive pictures,” and (Compan. 193) that “the story is vigorous enough.” Holm (Ad Car. Lachm. 10) allows it to be “an epyllion composed with consummate art,” and G. Curtius (Andeutgn. 43, 47), though he detects some failure of poetic power, concurs in the appropri- ateness of the praise. Nitzsch (Beitr. 378) finds it “a lively narrative,” and Bergk (vol. i. 599) “a valuable piece of old poetry.” Ranke quotes Gruppe (Ariadné, 278 ff.), as commending its “dramatic liveliness and genuine poetry.” He himself (Die Dol. 47 ff.), though he denies to the lay the essential qualities 11 12 THE LAY OF DOLON CHAP. of a genuine work of art, pronounces it a work of rich imagination (p. 82). Jacob (Entstg. 239), while he thinks much of it unworthy of Homer, can say of it that it is in great measure a “beautiful Nocturne.” Professor Mahaffy (H.G.L. 67) says the author was a competent poet. Hoffmann (Q.H. ii. 219) thinks he was no worse than the author of V, and for VY we have the eulogy of Schiller. Nitsche specifies some admirable qualities in the narrative, though he thinks a certain poetical crudeness some- what spoils them. Miss Clerke (Studs. 100) speaks of the “animated story.” Bréal (Jowrn. des Savs. 1903, 146), though he is ready to sacrifice the lay, considers it full of dramatic interest. To Orszulik the much criticised opening is “specially fine,” and the whole in language and expression hardly inferior to the good and original parts of the Z/iad,—from which, however, his work absolutely dissociates K. Jahr, after some pages of unmixed fault-finding, ends off thus——res ipsa, quae narratur, semper plausu omnium, gui Homero operam dant, digna est. See also Erhardt, Hntstg. 160 and ff, Giseke, Hom. Forschgn. 251, Cauer, Grdfrgn. 440 f., 501 f, and Am.-H., Anh. to K, Hinletitung. And all this praise, some of it by no means faint praise, is from critics who hold that the Doloneia is late and generally inferior. It is a common accusation that the author is a “clumsy imitator,’ who is guilty of “glaring” plagiarism from other parts of the epics, but it is one of the weakest of the charges that have been levelled at him. See Chap. XIV. infra. Diffuseness in description, superficiality, want of clearness, and confusion of motive are also imputed, as we shall see, but almost wholly with reference to the introductory part of the lay. Others again find a less dignified style than in the rest of the poems. Father Browne thinks (Handbook, 111) that K is “ barely Homeric”; Jebb, that “the characteristic nobleness of the Ziad here sinks to a lower style and tone.”’ Croiset (H.G.Z. i. 139) misses “the grand manner of the Quarrel and the Aristeia of Diomede,” and so Ed. Meyer (Gesch. d. Altert. ii. 405). E. H. Meyer (Hom. u. d. ii, 136) blames the poet for letting the heroes sink to shameless cruelty and robbery with cowardly brutality. Dr. Monro, in his Introduction to K, calls it a “ farcical interlude.” As such it is “out of harmony with the tragic elevation of the Jliad.” But | Homer, 123. See also 156, where part of the Jliad that differs from the his selection of the Catalogue asanother rest in style is somewhat surprising. ul SOME OPINIONS ON THE DOLONEIA 13 the Iliad, though always elevated, is not always tragic. “ Zragical, comical, historical, pastoral, are terms not sufficiently various to denote the variety of the Ziad and the Odyssey” (Ker, 16). Mr. Lang (H. and E#. 148) contests Monro’s view. Terret also (Homére, 229 f.) finds “nothing incompatible with the habitual severity of the Iliad.” We believe that to be a perfectly accurate appreciation. Grote, on the other hand (ii. 130), thinks K “is conceived in a lower vein,” but he adds the reservation, “so far as we can trust our modern ethical sentiment.” This caution does not seem to appeal to the many critics of K. But surely it is the sentiment of the men of old to which we should have regard. Their tastes and standards, if they had any standards, were not those of our modern critics. Had they been, and had their singers suited them, we should have had, as Kammer says (Finheit, 39), “a cold production that the understanding would not object to, but not a Homeric lay.” Am -H., dc, think the Doloneia could not have failed in its effect on those who heard it sung. There are, after all, few critics who have not something to say in praise of the poetry. Among those who are wholly apprecia- tive are Gladstone (Studs. iii. 389 ff), Mure (i. 264 ff), and Lang (H. and A. chap. xili.). Mure especially commends the Homeric purity of the style; there are few parts of the epics more worthy of the genuine Homer. ‘The verdict of Professor Murray (2.G.H. 165 n.), who is not altogether friendly to the lay, is that it is “a brilliantly written book.” His opinion is as far removed from Professor Henry’s as the east is from the west. Mr. Blakeney, in his Z'ranslation of the Iliad, uses the same words, and adds, “without it the J/cad would undoubtedly be poorer.” Probably no other book in either poem has evoked such utterly contradictory opinions. Bougot (Etude, p. 198) and Terret (Homere, 229 ff.) are loud in their praises, and so Kam- mer (op. cit. 36 ff, and Asth. Komm. 2 il. 215 ff). The Doloneia “abounds in fine traits.” One has no right to speak of “absurdity, poverty, carelessness and excess.” Grimm, in the course of an exhaustive analysis admires without stint the Homeric spirit, the delineation of character and other features. Homer loves, like his successors throughout the centuries, to describe “the dim and quiet night.” The adventure is a piece of fine poetry. Harder (Homer, 234) finds it entrancing. To Lehrs 14 THE LAY OF DOLON CHAP. (KI. Schrift. 12 n.) the description of the anxiety and fears of the Achaeans cooped up in the dark is wonderful. Jager (Hom. Aph. 228; cf. Hom. u. Hor. 82) declares that the Doloneia is equal to the best. Schneider (Ursprung, 26 f.) has high praise for it. He speaks with feeling, and with peculiar authority. To appre- ciate its scenes, one should be able to live through them in imagination, or better still, as one gathers Schneider himself has done, should have passed a night in camp with the enemy at hand, or have been despatched in the dark on a reconnaissance of his position. Non cuivis contingit. Next as to the period in which K took its origin. All the critics, a few Unitarians excepted, are satisfied that it is late. But they do not all mean the same thing. “Late” is a vague word, very useful to the Dissector. For K, some three centuries separate extreme views. But nearly all are sure that the lay is later than the Menis, and many, as Ludwich,! that it is the latest of all. So sure are they that they do not trouble to give reasons, unless perhaps that its language is peculiar, or that it is “stuffed with oddities.” They rely on common consent. Some, as Bergk (597 ff), Erhardt, Jc, H. D. Miiller (Hist.-mythol. Untersuchgn. 71), Schultz (Das Lied vom Zorn Achills, 29 f.), and others, who believe that it was a separate lay before a place was found for it in the Iliad, are disposed to allow that K is ancient aw fond. Miilder (Altion. 20) even includes it in certain groups of lays which were bound together later by the Wrath. But generally lateness is assumed. A critic using K to illustrate any point simply says, as Bethe says (Hom. u. d. Heldensage, p. 4), das der Ilias spit eingefiigte K. There are scholars who assign it to a particular century or period. Dr. Leaf’s views have developed since his first edition and the Companion were published. He now thinks the poet “had the Odyssey rather than the Ziiad in his mind”; and the language, and the lion-skin theory propounded by Erhardt, lead him to assign K to the second half of the seventh century B.c. Father Browne (Handbook, 110 ff.) follows him. Jebb (Homer, 163) gives “ perhaps cere. 750-600 Bc.” Brandt (WV. J. 7. Philol. 1888, 81 ff) thinks K came into the Jiiad with a second ° 1 Ub. d. Verhdlt. d. pisis. Redaction K was added at the last to the other 23 7. On p. 8 of his Die Rhapsodien der books to make up the two dozen. dlias A-S appears the suggestion, that ul SOME OPINIONS ON THE DOLONEIA 15 “enlargement or working-over” about 700 B.c. Fick (Ziad, 383, 388 f.) proceeds on a ground of his own. Hipponax, about 550 B.C., alludes to the Doloneia. The verses do not agree with K, which does not know Rhésus as from Ainos. But Fick assumes an alteration of the text of K after Hipponax’ days. K is one of the episodes added to the Iliad after the insertion of Fick’s Otros *TAiov in his “enlarged Iliad.” As the Oiros appears to be of the same period as the Cypria, say 776 B.c., his termini for K are that year and 550. E. H. Meyer (Achilleis, 373, 385; cf. his Hom. u. d. 1. 124) would bring the origin of the lay down to between 700 and 600, in the age of the Hymns. Wilamowitz (Uber das ® der Ilias) seeks to prove that K and I, then Hinzel- lieder, were brought into the Jliad, by means of @, in the seventh century. Robert (Stud. 574) puts K after his “fourth Iliad” and before 600 B.c. Other high authorities, however, go further back. Naber (Q.H. 3, 216 ff.) assigns it to his “fourth age,” which “ nearly touches the eighth century.” Dr. Monro, as I gather from pp. 291, 328, 367 », 371, and 455 of his Odyssey, thought K older than w, the Cyclics and 776 B.c. His view seems to be much the same as Christ’s (Zur Chronol. 60), who believes K was added to the Jiiad in the end of the ninth or the beginning of the eighth century, and Erhardt’s (Hntstg. 505). G. Curtius (Andeutgn. 47) classes the author with “the late Nachdichters,” but not so late as the authors of the Catalogues, who were the latest of all. But many think that the Catalogues are very ancient work. Some authorities date the Doloneia with reference to the Odyssey. The method is not satisfying, as opinions about the origin and age of the Odyssey, and of the poems supposed to have been welded together to make it, are somewhat diverse. These attempts are based on parallel passages, a bad criterion, the application of which to K will be discussed in Chap. XIV. infra. Here I mention some results. Gemoll (Hermes, xv. 557 ff.) proves that K is later than the Odyssey as we now have it; Diintzer (H.A. 472), by the same method, that it is older than the oldest part of that epic. Sittl (Wederhlgn. 68) holds that it was composed after the two principal parts of the Odyssey, but before the Zelemachy, and Busolt (Hist. Gr. 132,137 n.) accepts his 1 Bergk, Fragm, 42 :— Aevady lav Kor’ éyyvs "INlov mipywr én’ dpudrwy Te cal Opniklwy mow amnvapleOn Pioos Alviwy mdduus. 16 THE LAY OF DOLON CHAP. II conclusion. That K is younger than the Odyssey is clear to Wecklein (Studien, 34 n.) on a comparison of K 243 and a 65. On that greatly debated parallel see p. 117 infra. Van Herwerden’s opinion to the same effect (Q.Z. 16 f.) is apparently approved by van Leeuwen (£nch. xxxi.), and he, it should be noted, thinks (ibid, xxxvi.) that both epics were complete, in about their present shape, in the eighth century. Orszulik is in general agreement with them. K is at least not older than the Odyssey. Professor Mahaffy (4.G.Z. 56) thinks it may be “as late as the lays of the Odyssey.” Gladstone, Mure, Lang, Allen, Bougot, Terret and other Unitarians believe that K is and has always been an integral part of the liad, and that it was composed by the one poet to whom we owe the other 23 books and the Odyssey. It is clear from this review that there is a body of highly respectable opinion in favour of, or not severely hostile to, the Doloneia. There are some even among its enemies who, although they regard it as late compared with their Ur-Ilias, are neverthe- less ready to admit that it is ancient, and many of them admire, some of them highly, the work which its author has bequeathed to us. With this encouragement, then, we proceed to our own examination of the case against it. CHAPTER III INTERPOLATION Our first step will be to examine the traditional text of K. The Higher Criticism has dealt somewhat roughly with it. How far are the alterations to be accepted? We have to consider what interpolations have been proved, and whether verbal corruptions have been established, and cured by remedies that can be admitted. We shall find, as a.result of this examination, that many of the difficulties and objections of some critics have disappeared on the shewing of other authorities. And first, the interpolations. We take Fick’s list, as the passages he would expunge, printed in small type in his Iliad, pp. 463 ff, include nearly all that have ever been condemned. Fick is no doubt a giant among the philologists, but as a critic he seems easily prejudiced and inclined to wild surmise. Professor Mahaffy’s description of his procedure (H.G.L. 73) might be extended to many other Dissectors. “Lines superfluous to his scheme are rejected . . . for any reason that comes to hand,” even “because they can be spared!” J may refer also to Rothe in Jb. 1887, 279; Gemoll in Jb. Bursian, 1888, 31; Hennings in Wocht. k. P. 1910, 490, and Mr. Agar’s Homerica. It is not difficult to break up a Homeric canto in this way. A recent treatise seems to rely on the same method. See Rothe in Jd. 1909, 227, on W. Witte’s Stud. 2. Hom. Almost any line in K that contains anything that can be deemed remarkable may be rejected. The golden rule is Calebow’s (JI. lb. oct. 66). “Before a line is removed from its place, it must be shewn that it cannot be tolerated there.” The burden is on the ejector. It is not enough to shew that matter “does not square with our notions of what is consistent,” or right, or pleasing, or 76 wpémov. That 17 c 18 THE LAY OF DOLON CHAP. is “convenient, but unscientific” (Mahaffy, Macm. Mag. xxxviii. 413). The contents of a passage are to be tested by other similar passages in the poems—ée£ adrijs Tis roumaews éhéyyeuv— and, with due limitations, by the practice of other authors. And a Dissector must be kept to the point, producing, as Blass re- quires, Texprpea as well as onpeia. Mere gibes at “leaden versifiers” and the “absurd race of interpolators” and their “utter sillinesses” (prorsus ddvavonra) are irrelevant. And special objection must be taken to the common assumption that “every verse in Homer has its one appropriate place” (Lange in Jb. 1880,138). Repetition is all over the poems. It must also be shewn that corruption of the text is not a possibility. And lastly, there is Kirchhoff’s demand (Odyssee,? 590 f.), “ which ought to become a canon in criticism” (Mahaffy, 61). The objector must state the motive for the interpolation, if deliberate, or, it may be added, furnish a reasonable explanation, if it be due to mistake. No one dare flout so reasonable a rule in the abstract. In practice, when there are inconvenient lines to be got rid of, it is more honoured by silent breach. Then, “almost anything is suspicious which is not indispensable” (Jebb, Trachiniae, lii.). All such salutary restrictions have been greatly disregarded in Homeric criticism. The exacting enquirer has sought to purge the poems of everything that he personally considers objectionable, and to leave them in the “icily regular” condition in which he thinks they should have been composed, and as, in fact, he would himself have written them, sii avait eu le bonheur ad’étre Homére. Where is the poet whose work would survive such treatment? Irregularities and difficulties are found in the works of other great poets (Erhardt, Hntstg. xcvii. ff, and Jevons, 40), as Vergil, Shakespeare, and Goethe. Readers of Faust should have patience with Homer (van Gennep, Quest. 22). Pope and others cut out of Shakespeare’s works, as interpolations by “inferior hands” (the Stiimpers of German criticism), everything that was not according to their several tastes. “There is an attractive simplicity about the method” (Raleigh, 108). That is the secret. Results are tangible, plentiful,—and easily got. So the craving to find interpolations grows with indulgence, and the 1 Vahlen quoted by Rothe, Jb. 1889, Davidson’s Theology of the Old Testa- 372.—For neglect of similar principles ment, p. 5. in Biblical Criticism, see Dr. A. B. uI -INTERPOLATION 19 epics are reduced to shreds. There is another serious consequence. Most passages in the poems have been suspected by one authority or another, ancient or modern, good or bad. For instance, out of 761 lines in P only 63 had, to the knowledge of Buchholz (Vindic. 143), never been questioned. Scotland left intact 80 out of 394 in uv; Wetzel one-third of the lines in II. According to Hennings there are just 58 out of 586 in @ that have not been objected to. Schultze commenced his Jlias-Kritik by cutting some 5000 lines out of the Jliad as additions by rhapsodes (Jb. 1895, 367, and 1902, 139, 157). What a power this gives the critics! If a line has to be removed, or if a Unitarian has used it as authority, it is found that an Alexandrian or some modern critic has suspected it, and that is often sufficient for its condemnation. The interpolations alleged in K are examined in Appendix A, reference being made to the opinions of selected editors of both the disintegrating and the conservative schools. We submit that not one intrusion can be held to be conclusively established. In one or two cases all is not absolutely certain, but neither can interpolation be asserted positively. Some of the cases would never, we think, have attracted the attention of editors, had there not been a highly developed theory of Homeric interpolation to utilise on very small provocation. To the majority of the critics, as they regard both epics as full of interpolations, this must be an unusual, an almost unheard of result. Yet it is not an altogether new view of K. Ranke (p. 79) finds no trace of “working over.” Kluge, who cuts up the Jiiad ruthlessly, declares K is “a unity” (Entstg. 153). So it will be for other parts of the poems, if fairly treated. Blass (Jnterpol.) gave short shrift to scores of atheteses. He might have gone further. Mr. Allen’s ofddpa Tedtwy was fully justified. Jebb adjudged just one line in the Z'rachiniae spurious out of 120 that had been suspected or condemned by “scholars of mark.” He blames the application to the textual criticism of poetry of a “habit of mind such as might be fostered by the habitual composition of telegrams.” There are signs that the craft of the interpolation-hunter “ is in danger to be set at nought.” But it will be long ere the Ziiad and the Odyssey recover from his malfeasance. Dr. Leaf finds few interpolations in K. But he only sees in 20 THE LAY OF DOLON CHAP. this exceptional solidarity corroboration of his conclusion that the lay is very late. He propounds a theory of “ weathering” in his Introductions to A, K, A, II. A modern lay will not have been tampered with. The more ancient the lay, the more it will have been interpolated. But time has smoothed over the joints of the insertions. II has been “harmonised into a beautiful unity.” He formerly thought (Compan. 202) that A was “a perfect piece of ancient and uncontaminated poetry,” with the exception of its prologue and Nestor’s story,see Miss Stawell, Hf. and Zl. 45. Now (nitroduction to A) he perceives it has received accretions and undergone internal modifications which are “ beyond our power to detect.” If the new matter has become so welded into the corpus as to be not separately discernible, we may say, in the words of a legal maxim, de non apparentibus et non existentibus eadem est ratio. But the great body of Dissectors can have nothing to say to this theory. Age has not weathered any part of the poems so as to secure it against desecration. In late and early tracts alike interpolations are found in numbers. And surely if, as Dr. Leaf himself holds, on B 36, and as seems incontestable, verbal cor- ruption always tended to the more modern and familiar, then, the more the interpolations, the more the indications of recent origin. Again he finds—see, ¢g., his notes on P 76 and X 207—+that there are interpolations from K in other parts of the Iliad. But if K was so late that matter could not be foisted into it, we cannot admit that lines could be transferred from it into other parts, for these were, ex hypothesi, as safe against interpolation as K itself. We doubt still more when he tells us in his Jntro- duction to WV, itself a Late Expansion, that there were interpolators of great originality and skill and high inspiration, almost till the decline of the Epos. This seems hardly satisfying. The Higher Criticism does not really seem to understand these interpolating phantoms of the past. They are all but imaginary. But they have become very real beings to the critics. As we read Dissecting treatises, it is as if there had always been but one copy of the poems, which any inferior poet in Greece had access to and full liberty to spoil. For the intruder is generally a “ duffer ” or “ wretched simpleton,” and his work “bungling.” See Volkmann, Nachtréige, ii. 16, for the technical expressions used of interpolators in German treatises. Ir INTERPOLATION 21 But there is little direct evidence of the existence of these spoilers. Who were they? Bearbeiters? We know of the Pisistratean Ordner only, and he, after a very precarious career, is dead to the great majority of scholars. See pp. 135 f. infra. Homerids? Dr. Monro refuses to believe they ever existed (Odyssey, 398 ff.). And ef. Jebb, 170; Leaf, vol. I. xviii. f.; Volkmann, Gesch. u. Krit. 358, and Jb. 1895, 15. But Mr. Allen, in a very exhaustive paper in C.@. i, 135 ff, has come to the conclusion that they were a real guild in Chios. I do not, however, find in the essay any reason for believing that they were given to interpolating the work of their ancestor in the way Dissectors assume. But the rhapsodes ? They are very popular. We may put that to the account of Wolf and the votaries of oral transmission. But oral transmission is not required now. Rhapsodes, we know, recited, and possibly altered and added to their text. But that these additions became permanent is an assumption. Rhapsodes existed in the sixth century B.c., and no doubt practised their art long before. But Solon regulated recitation in that century, and that (Z. and A. 318, quoting Monro) means that there was an official text. The veneration for the poems which Solon’s action implies—and his action is better vouched than that of Pisistratus —no doubt also existed long before, perhaps as far back as the time when the rhapsode succeeded the bard. It was of the strongest, and the poems were jealously guarded (Suter, Unfehi- barkt. Homers, 3, 7 ff.; cf. Friedlander, Hom. Krit. 21). This “deep reverential respect” (Agar, 239) may have been as old as the rhapsodes, and is against a class of reciters being able to manipulate the text. The bards were dear to the gods and esteemed by men. By historical times the rhapsodes were held in some contempt! The contrary is not asserted of their pre- decessors. The status of wandering jonglewrs would not be high. There are critics who think the rhapsodes were composers them- selves. Christ, whose views are summarised by Jebb, believes that “Homerid rhapsodes” (a combination apparently intended fidem facere) could compose such splendid pieces as the Hoplopoeia, the story of Meleager, and the Doloneia. Then they were equal to the best, and it is difficult to believe that, in an age when 1 For a parallel, see Jiriczek, 6. ‘‘The poetry was abandoned to utterly de- Merovingian office of Minstrel to the spised itinerant minstrels and jugglers.” Royal court became extinct; heroic 22 THE LAY OF DOLON CHAP. proprietary right in literary work was beginning to be recognised, they would compose for the benefit of some other poet or poem. “Tasteless rhapsodes ” could also thrust their work in (Jebb, 128). That is still harder to believe. And why did not the Ordner purge the standard text of such inferior additions (Jd. 1890, 130f.)? It is strange that there is no testimony in the scholia or elsewhere to this successful literary activity (Jevons, 53; Lehrs, Ar. 39n.). We are referred to Cynaethus. But his burden is becoming greater than he can bear. He is Fick’s transliterator. Living in a Dorian capital, he changed Aeolian songs into Ionic (Jb. 1887, 334). He is to Adam the Hersteller of the Odyssey, and the supporter of the Neleids who introduced Nestor. He is the “man of Chios” in the Hym. Ap., though Thucydides and Aristophanes did not know it (H#nch. xxxv.). He is the author of the spurious “ Continuation ” of the Odyssey. He is a rhapsodic Proteus of great potentiality. And for authority we have Eustathius and the scholia on Pindar, for which see Christ (Zur Chron. 50 ff.) and Wilamowitz (#.U. 259 and x.). The latter seems to regard Cynaethus as an inferior Doppelgdnger of Pisis- tratus, and speaks of the scholia with anything but respect. This authority is also discussed by Dr. Monro (Odyssey, 400). He takes the popular view of the meaning of mwodAd tov érov mounoavres éuBareiv eis THY ‘Opnpov moinow. But it seems incredible that the poems could be spoiled as late as near 500 B.c.—which would be after Pisistratus had settled the Iliad for all time (see Hennings in Wocht. &. P. 1910, 491). Volk- mann (Nachtrdge, ii. 10) contests the interpretation. Gemoll (Jb. Bursian, 1888, 42) marvels that the words “could be so long misunderstood.” Ludwich (Homervulg. 159 ff) approves. He holds that, even admitting the popular interpretation, the scholia are not sufficient ground for the conclusion drawn. But the rhapsode has an honoured place in Homeric criticism. K has suffered. Lentz (Jterat. 19) finds traces of a careless rhapsode in 396 ff, 409 ff, and 387. We think it is shewn in App. A that all are in place. Lentz gives no special reasons. aires yap épédrgxeras dvdpa parrwdds. Almost anything may be ascribed to him. He is easily marked down. But, it is said, there must be interpolations in the poems, for the Alexandrians marked spurious verses. If they had ever hinted who the trespassers were, the argument would have mi INTERPOLATION 23 more force. And they marked only about a thousand out of the 27,802 lines. What would they think of the depreda- tions of their successors? # xe péy’ oiwwoferav. And the Alexandrians’ judgments can be and are frequently revised. Their atheteses are very often rejected. They went wrong about dusros, PdBos, and ovpaves and aiOyjp. We cannot wonder, for they had not Concordances or a Gehring’s Index among the bropvypata. Who now accepts their judgments on 7d dmperés ? In emendation van Herwerden says (Herm. xvi. 364) they were “leaden and not happy”; as to interpolation, only that they “often judged rightly.” For Mr. Allen’s view see CB. xvii. 262, xx. 194, and xxi. 17. They were as apt as modern critics to solve difficulties by reference to the standards of their own day. As to ovdé éypade and ovik édépero, these are entitled to respect, but they do not contain the last word about a line. For these reasons we hesitate to believe that there ever was much freedom to interpolate. It seems better to cherish a rigid scepticism on the point, and especially to refrain from deciding between Ordner, Bearbeiter, Rhapsode and common Stiimper, till more accurate information about them is forthcoming. Every alleged intrusion must be judged on its merits and on principles consonant with common sense, and must be held to be genuine donec probetur in contrarium. As regards K, we believe it is accurate to say that none is proved. We may regard the lay as an “uncontaminated unit.” CHAPTER IV EMENDATION THE next question is how far the text represents the wording of the author of the lay. There seems to be but one passage which is hopelessly corrupt. For that see App. B, where I have ventured to supplement Dr. Leaf’s amendment. But on what principles are we to proceed in restoring forms which have been altered or words which have been replaced by others? That is a thorny subject. Conservatives such as Ludwich protest against the excesses of Nauck and the Leyden editors and other Radicals. In Britain Dr. Leaf and Mr. Platt are at variance, and Mr. Agar’s craving for uniformity does not please Mr. Allen.’ It will take an age tantas componere lites. Our task, however, is a very limited one. Some of the critics’ many objections to the language of K can be laid by small changes in the vulgate. It is there- fore necessary for us to define once for all how far we are prepared to go in this direction. That the text has suffered everybody knows. The translitera- tion into the new alphabet is generally accepted as one cause of degeneration, though some doubt, as Wilamowitz and Ludwich (Cauer, Grdfrgn. 115 ff.) and Jebb. Alterations due to the repeated copying of the MSS. are admitted by all. The “sleepy scribe” has no doubt much to answer for. Modern philology, helped by the hexameter, exposes his mistakes, for which see Molhuysen’s De tribus Hom. Od. codd. Some would be due to inadvertence, ypadixd duaptnuata. In all cases “the tendency of corruption would be towards the more familiar” (Leaf on B 36). And see HG. 19 n., Mr. Agar’s Homerica, and Dr _) Preface to Platt’s Odyssey, and C.Q. Wecklein’s Textkrit., passim, and con- ii, 227. On the whole question see cluding words. 24 CHAP. IV EMENDATION 25 Monro’s Odyssey, 476. There would be general “ modernisation.” ! Older forms and words would give place to others current later. The Doloneia has suffered the common lot. But it has not had fair treatment. Its linguistic “ peculiarities” are mostly held to be solecisms and to indicate a bad, late poet. Mr. Agar (Homerica, 125 f.) would not charge such lapses to the poet at all, but to copyists or modernisers. The critics, to reverse a remark of Baumeister’s, poetam castigant ubi librarit sunt castigands. Where a trifling change removes the objection, we need not hesitate to amend. The Leyden editors say, in the preface to their Zliad, that the most cautious editors do not refrain from conjecture. It is also true, as Pierron says, that les corrections nwobligent personne; they must be judged on their merits. We shall confine ourselves to changes small and philologically reason- able, such as we think even the most conservative editors will endorse. Arbitrary amendments, the products of divination, and too often resorted to as a way out of a difficulty, are banned. In such cases, especially where there is much inversion of the order of the words, we hesitate. For example, A 88 f See Leaf on its “three sins,’ and the way to rewrite the passage. The wording must be made to conform to certain notions. Mr. Agar (op. cit. 283 f.) condones one sin and apparently would not object to another. Or take a case nearer home. Diintzer proposed, in K 105 ff, to leave out 107 and in 106 to read 7é wep ijas for ef kev "Aytrreds. The remedy is worse than the suspected disease. The passage is intelligible as it stands. See p.157 infra. Such a proposal not only binds no one; it commands no respect. Some examples will shew how limited the licence we claim is. Prepositions were frequently confused,—Cobet, IZC. 398 f, and the commentaries passim. The same may be said of particles. ay was often wrongly inserted. ydp replaced dé Saepe libraris copulas inferserunt. Similarity of letters caused mistakes. See Leaf on N 644, as to € and & LEpithets were interchanged, domera and ayNad, dpioros and dynroi, etc., and other words of the same meaning and metrical value, as xéros and yéXos, drrd€er, érreiryet, and ixdver, mapedy and ep édv,and so on. Phrases also 1 Hennings (reviewing Fick’s Entstg. isation.” He thinks reverence for the d. Od.in Wocht. k. P. 1910, 483) expresses text protected it. It did so, no doubt, a different view. ‘The epic language against changes of the substance of the (in spite of Bentley, Monro, Agar, and _ poems. Fick) mocks all efforts to prove modern- 26 THE LAY OF DOLON CHAP. IV dislodged each other. Words recur in the same position in the verse, and a careless copyist familiar with them there, often in- serted them wrongly. The desire to cure hiatus was a frequent cause of change,’ and ignorance of the Digamma another. Particles were put in and forms or even whole words altered to cure apparent defects. See MG. 362, on “corruption arising from the tendency to repair defects of metre.” In such cases critics of all shades of opinion correct freely. And they can claim that their diagnosis has been confirmed at times by the discovery of new MSS. Instances are given by the Leyden editors in the preface to their Ziad. Barnes’ odtidavoicwv, « 383, is a familiar case. Another is Ruhnken’s BeSpuyvia, Hes. Scut. 160. So also, on K 493, vulg. vexpois auPatvovres, Orszulik notes that this verb has the dat. only there, adding the not very relevant remark that elsewhere oreiBew véxvas is used. éuBaivovtes was con- jectured by Cobet, and now has MS. support. Dr. Leaf, al., compares Z 65 and x 164. So with Cobet’s rdp for ydp, K 61. See Leaf, a/., and on A 8. But yap is as good, both there and in 424, was yap viv; For K, the cases in which acceptable emendation removes difficulties are summarised in App. C. 1 It was often, according to the Hym. Ap. 341; Ench. 77; Cauer, Pref. general view, licit. See Leafon M101, to Od. xxii., and reviewing Nauck in quoting Ahrens, and on II 57 as tothe Jb. 1884, 326. But see Agar, passim, well-known case of evreixeov. Cf. notes for a new view. He certainly has an on E 898, A 242 on such ‘‘fictions” as enormous amount of authority against fioOas and edeyxées. Also Bechtel in him. Hermes, xxxix. 155 f.; S. and A. on CHAPTER V THE LINGUISTIC ATTACK THE linguistic evidence of the spuriousness of K is extremely plentiful. There are few lines in the lay that have not yielded something verbally amiss. The case is formidable, if bulk alone be considered. But we take comfort from the old adage, testimonia ponderanda, non numeranda. If the items or most of them are individually negligible, we need not fear the effect of the sum total. But it is unfortunate that the very number of the counts in the indictment has satisfied so many of the enemies of K, and deterred its friends from clearing its character. It got a bad name in early days. Some “ancients,” as we shall see, affixed a stigma to the lay; and when a book or a passage comes under suspicion, it is easy to find solecisms in its language to complete the case against it. For these abound everywhere in the poems, even in the Ménis itself. For the Doloneia, these aberrations are held to be overwhelming and fatal, and to prove its lateness “unmistakably.” Professor Henry’s dictum (CR. xx. 97) that the verdict of the philologists is “unequivocal” is hardly to be controverted. The first statement of the linguistic sins in K was made by Adolf Holm in 1853, in his essay Ad Car, Lachmanni exemplum de aliquot Il. carm. compositione. More than half of it is devoted to 67Aa in the sense of “arms.” The other occurrences of the word in this sense are in “late” passages. Therefore K, which uses it in this sense, is late. A few other words and expressions are specified. G. Curtius (Andeutgn. 43) found Holm’s enumera- ‘tion “excellent.” The essay might not of itself have had much effect. A blow from Curtius was a more serious matter. Bernhardy followed with a statement (H.G.Z. 163 f.) not much more full than Holm’s, whose attack was developed by 27 28 THE LAY OF DOLON CHAP. Diintzer in Philologus, xii. 41 ff, now pp. 303 ff. of his Hom. Abh. Diintzer ridiculed his predecessor’s effort as relying on “a few dma eipnuéva.” Nor did he share Curtius’ admiration for the argument from é7Aa. His own list is considerable. Yet it is hardly more serious than could be drawn up in an hour or two for almost any other book in either poem. It included evidence of the affinity of K with the Odyssey. But the proof is meagre. And of course there is affinity with the Odyssey. Every book of the Jliad exhibits it. It is,as we shall see, writ large on A, which to most critics is of hoary age. If Diintzer had shewn that words and expressions which recur only in the Odyssey abound in K, there might have been weight in his proof. But he enumerates only a poor dozen, none of them except pfuss of any importance, with two verbs used in the mid. in K and the Odyssey. The demonstration, however, was commended by Christ. The praise was somewhat easily earned. As a matter of fact, “ few books in the J/tad have so small a number of Odyssean words as the Doloneia, and this is the more remarkable from the fact that Odysseus is one of its leading characters.” For the proof see C.P. v. 41 ff. But Diintzer’s statement is insignificant compared with the long catalogue compiled by K. Orszulik in 1883. This, as the fullest statement that has yet appeared, and that probably ever will appear, is the one I take as my text, so it is necessary to say a few words descriptive of its scheme.’ The peculiarities are classed as (1) dzra€ eipnuéva ; (2) strange meanings; (3) singular forms ; (4) remarkable combinations of words, and (5) unusual constructions; to which are added (6) borrowed verses and parts of verses, and (7) remarks on the versification and style. For the last two categories see Chaps. XIV. and XIII, infra. As regards the first five, the words and expressions in every one of them are further subdivided according as they are found,(a) only in K, (8) only in K and the Odyssey, (c) in K and oftener in the Odyssey than in the Jliad, or (d) only in K and in the “ later” parts of the Iliad or in the Odyssey, or in both. It is a great onslaught, and 1] have endeavoured to notice all linguistic objections from every source, except those which are quite trifling or which have been answered by the objectors themselves. There are lists in Monro’s and Leaf’s editions of the Iliad. See also H.G., Index, ‘ Iliad, characteristics of certain books”; van Herwerden, Q@.H. 180 f.; Christ, Hom. od. Homdn. 61, 62 and n., and 99 ff.; Bechtel, Vocalcontr. 8 f.; Jebb, 128 n., etc. For the solecisms detected by Fick, and called by him Verstésse gegen die eptsche Aeolts, see his Iliad, 479 f. v THE LINGUISTIC ATTACK 29 almost unique in Homeric criticism. But one should sow with the hand, not with the sack. Surely no Homerid’s work could ever have exhibited so many deviations from the traditional epic language. And how does Orszulik’s statement consist with the charge that the author of K was a late imitative poet ? On one point, however, we must take objection. For the purpose of his classification, it was of course necessary for Orszulik to set out his distribution of the books of the Iliad according to assumed date of origin, and this is done on pp. 19 ff. of his work. It is enough to say of it that it is almost impossible that it can commend itself in its entirety to any other Homerist. See Rothe’s remarks on it in Jd. Bursian, 1885, 211. Quot eritici—nearly so many are the views as to the limits of the early, somewhat late, late, and very late strata; and until the critics agree on a delimitation, it is futile to consider any such comparison as Orszulik makes of K with the Ur-Jiias and other parts of the Iliad. In effect he asks us to look on words or phrases which do not occur in that ancient and select piece of Homeric poetry as more or less tainted. But that is unreason- able. The Ur-Zlias is not a thesaurus of the epic language. The Lay of the Wrath is, even in its dimensions as assigned by the most liberal of the upholders of the kernel theory, of but small compass. If the Ur-Ilias be made long enough, we shall have no difficulty in vindicating the Doloneia. And we observe that the critics generally appeal with perfect impartiality to any part of the poems in which they can find support, and are far from feeling bound to quote precedent or find analogy within the limits, the ever fluctuating and much debated limits, of the Ur-Ilias. Their very latest parts of the poems are pressed into service on such occasions. If a writer wants to reconstruct the NavoraOuos or to make a map of the Schauplatz of the Iliad, he refers to K. Were there then maps and plans extant down to the latest generation of interpolators? On He12 Dr. Leaf can refer to line 30 of K, a book which is to him the work of a poet of 650 B.c., as authority about the orepdvy.’ On A 277 he quotes K 437 against Hentze’s objection that a certain phrase is “un-Homeric.” Dr. Monro on w 426 relies on K 52 as proving that the double accus. with yoato is “ Homeric.” 1 Though Robert (p. 50) thinks the not understand what he was talking author of K was a Spdtling who did about. 30 THE LAY OF DOLON CHAP. This word “Homeric” makes much mischief. It is a sort of standard to many Dissectors. “Homer” used as an equivalent for “the Jiéad and the Odyssey,” as Jebb in his hand- book professes to use it, is unobjectionable. It is a convenient abbreviation. And if “Homeric” could be used in the same way to mean anything that is found or can be paralleled in the poems, it would be equally harmless. But it is often used in a very different way. Individual critics may have a definite idea themselves of what they mean by the “Homeric spirit,” the “ Homeric tone of mind,” “ Homeric Greece,” “the Homeric Age,” and the like; but when they are authorities to whom “ Homer” spreads himself through centuries, readers have difficulty in following them. And negatively, this use of the word has become a simple way of affixing the stigma of ungenuineness to anything in the poems which it is desired to proscribe. It is said that the thing is “not Homeric.” One cannot read a few pages of a commentary without noticing this looseness of expression. We can understand Dr. Leafs note on B 409, that aSeddeds is “ the only Homeric form.” It is the only one that occurs in the two poems. But we do not understand Dr. Monro’s note on 7 34, that “the synizesis of ypvceov is not Homeric.” See Z 220, ete. Synizesis is everywhere, in Iliad and Odyssey alike. We have &ppeov in the Ur-Jiias itself, A 282. Again, Dr. Leaf says of the similes in B 455-83 that they are “vivid and Homeric.” The meaning appears to be that to his taste they are good, worthy of the poet of the kernel, or perhaps of the undefined period known as “the bloom of the epic.” This is really a popular use of the term. For some, no doubt, as Jebb says, it has “a clear meaning.” But as that meaning depends on the appreciation of the individual, the word is unsuitable for use in a critical treatise. What is or is not worthy of the best of the contributory poets is matter of taste, and tastes on such points differ to a most remarkable extent. What, for instance, could be more widely different than Professor Murray’s and Professor Henry’s opinions of the Doloneia as epic poetry? To some—see Christ, Hom. od. Homdn. 28 f—there is “a marked decline of poetical power ” in the last six books of the Ziad. The judgment astounds others. Christ himself ranks X among the best books of that poem, and quotes O. Miiller’s high appreciation of the scene between Achilles and Priam in Q, and Schiller’s well-known v THE LINGUISTIC ATTACK 31 eulogy of Y. Shelley wrote of the “perpetually increasing magnificence of the last seven books” of the Iliad. “ The Odyssey is sweet, but there is nothing like this.”’ Compare again the opinions of Dr. Leaf (Introduction to ®) and Professor Murray (A.G.E. 242) on the Theomachy. They partly agree, but whereas one thinks the piece is “ poverty-stricken in expression,” the other finds it “admirably written.” The taste of individuals is evidently not to be trusted. “What one critic thinks splendid, another equally competent thinks poor and tame” (Mahaffy in Maem. Mag. xxxviii. 408). “Nothing is rarer than a sure aesthetic judgment” (Erhardt, Hntstg. xix). We recall the story of the “tedious poem on the Fall of Man” by “the old blind schoolmaster, John Milton.” Yet Dissectors rely freely on their own personal predilections to ascribe work that does not please them to a Stiimper. They, as Rothe expresses it (Jb. 1890, 133), “conceive for themselves an Jdealhomer, and expunge mercilessly everything that does not correspond to this ideal.” The “ Homeric” standard is practically useless. Holm (Hist. Gr., Eng. transl., i. 165) thinks that some day “we shall be able to agree as to what is really Homeric in spirit.” That may be doubted. For the present it is certain that the “ Homeric” is an ideal that every one must interpret in his own way, and not of the nature of a well-defined norm to which adherence can be secured. But to return to linguistic phenomena. How are we to estimate these? The only feasible plan, till the late and the early parts of the poems have been fixed beyond dispute—and that will take some time yet—is to follow the old rule, "Ounpov ovK addobEv Trobev, AAN €E adTijs Tis Toincews éhéyyewv. Unum solumque Homerum attendamus (Lehrs, Ar. 50). Homerum ex Homero, pauca necesse est ex plerisque judicemus (Baumlein, Commentat. 27). Cf. Ench. lxxi. This is the procedure that Mr. Agar insists on in his Homerica. “ Make appeal to Homer him- self.” “Let Homer vouch for his own usage.” He frequently quotes K as authority for epic usage, though he says, yielding for a moment to the prevailing feeling, that it “is not always a very safe authority for diction” (p. 113). If K, which is so late in general opinion, can be appealed to, so may it in turn appeal to other parts of the poems. We must utilise all, and see how 1 Quoted by Butler, Authoress of the Odyssey, 106. 32 THE LAY OF DOLON CHAP. much conformity to or variation from 1d &Otuov Tov mrounrod, as the men of old said, ris moujoews, as we must say, is displayed by K, and come to conclusions as best we may, after examining the grounds which objectors adduce. In estimating the peculiari- ties in the mass, we shall compare them with those to be found in A, which is admittedly old and genuine poetry. The concluding words of the last sentence might have been written a few years ago without any qualification. Now a word must be added. Until comparatively recently there has been, to the great body of Dissectors, a Ménis or Ur-Ilias, to which we may say that books A, A, X and some other parts of the Iliad belonged. There has been, of course, great diversity of opinion as to the precise limits of this “ primary J/iad,” and much agreement that it has been altered and interpolated. But it was regarded as the nucleus, and consequently the most ancient part of the great poem. And A has always been accorded special reverence. cepvov érecti tt. References are surely superfluous, but I may quote Bergk, 540, 553; Diintzer, HA. 180 ff; Sittl, MG.Z. 86 £; Jebb, 157; Browne, 104; Christ, Hom. od. Homdn. 28 n.; Kammer, Asth. Komm. 129; and Friedlinder, Hom. Krit. 29 and Anh. i. Opinion has been practically, as Bechtel puts it (Vocalcontr. ix.), unanimous that A is of the very oldest and best. But it is now a good many years since this pre-eminence was challenged by Wilamowitz (see Jb. 1909, 224, and Cauer, Grdfrgn. 304 n.), who expressed the opinion that the critics erred in taking A as the point of departure for analysis of the Ziad. But he failed to attract attention. Now a new generation of analysers is following the line thus indicated, and a novel turn has been given to dissection. Finsler (597 ff.) affirms that there never was an Ur-Jlias. Wecklein (Stud. iii), imbued with the belief that the final solution of the problem of the Jdiad must be sought in a compromise between extreme views, has propounded the theory that Achilles belongs, to the Aeolian saga indeed, but to Ionian poetry (ibid. 51). First there was an Iliad. Then came the Master with the Wrath and converted that Iliad into an Achilleid (p. 56). The Achilleid is and has always been in Tonic ; Fick’s Aeolismus is not required. So Miilder (Altion. 18), —the original Iliad consisted of B-@ and K-M. The whirligig of criticism brings its revenges. © and K, the poor cento v THE LINGUISTIC ATTACK 33 and the despised interloper that Pisistratus befriended, are after all made earlier than protozoic A. The methods of Wecklein and Miilder have been severely dealt with in Jb. 1907, 294 ff.; ef. 1905, 179 f. But the new idea is approved by Professor Murray (7.G.#. 168 f.). The Wrath was “an old traditional motive,” and was employed by the poet who made the Jiias or “poetry about Troy,” to join together and make fairly consistent a mass of “diverse traditions of heroic fighting.” We are told (p. 210) that the subject of the Wrath, which was used in this way, and which has been the theme of unrestrained eulogy, is second-rate, and that Achilles is not an altogether satisfactory hero—opinions on which see Mr. Lang in Blackwood’s Mag. 1908, 87. Bethe also takes the premiership from the object of our old hero-worship. It is Aias, fighting from Rhoeteum, who was the original hero of the Trojan lays. Professor Murray (p. 169) points out that trav ddAdAwv Aavady per dpipova IInvetwva, P 280, » 470, 551, and » 18, is an “inorganic line,” with which one may do what one pleases. But many will think that these passages read better with the inorganic line, and will not entertain the idea that, because it can be cut out, therefore it must have been inserted. That is one of the extreme assumptions of the Dissecting school, a bad specimen of a class that Ludwich’s Méglichkeit ist nicht Notwendigkett is always a sufficient reply to. The line, or rather its way of putting the point, is not confined to Achilles. Have @ 117, II 195, and P 351 also been inserted? Girard (Rev. d. Etudes Greeques, 1902, 245, 249, 286) takes a similar view. There were many Quarrels. It was “a theme the bards loved.” They used no fewer than eleven Quarrels of one kind and another. There were other Jliads before our Iliad, and Achilles may have figured in them. All this is directly subversive of ideas on the origin of the Iliad that have been almost universally popular, and the Ex- pansionists will ask for more proof before they strike their colours. At present there seems to be but little. And even if there were something in the new theories to invite attention, there would be nothing in them that need disturb us here. If the parts of the Iliad outside the Ménis are ancient, so much the better. As to the Ménis itself, we have still a great preponderance of expert opinion in favour of its age, and even D 34 THE LAY OF DOLON CHAP. V the Neo-Homerists who are advocating the new view would not all style it modern. Rothe is not troubled by these novelties (Jd. 1909, 223 f.). He has always held that the poet who made the Jiiad had a mass of old materials to work up. The Iliad igs none the less his own original composition. But we are concerned here only with the question of a standard of reference on philological points, and it is clear that we are, more than ever, justified in referring freely for analogy or precedent to any part of the Zliad. CHAPTER VI THE JZIAD AND THE ODYSSEY——ALLEGED DIFFERENCE OF LANGUAGE WE have seen in Chap. V. that certain linguistic idiosyncrasies are said to dissociate K from the J/iad and to attach it to the Odyssey. As, then, the Odyssey is believed to be later than the bulk of the Jiiad, and it is argued that K must be the same, it is worth our while to examine, in the first instance, the linguistic proof as between the Jliad and the Odyssey as wholes, to see if a difference is traceable which justifies the proposition that the two poems belong to different ages. As we think the finding must be in the negative, we shall venture to take the language as essentially one. We shall examine the lists of Diintzer and Orszulik all the same, but our enquiry will be narrowed to an endeavour to prove that the language of K does not differ essentially from that of the other forty-seven books, without accepting these as differentiated into an earlier and a later group. The view that the two poems are not by the same author or of the same age is not universal, as Croiset (Rev. d. d. Mondes, 1907, 615) would have us believe, but it may be said to be held at present by the majority of scholars. But here again there is great diversity. Some think the two ages were far apart. Others take a much more moderate view.’ If they are some of them inclined to the Chorizontic belief, they are not all satisfied with the conclusiveness of the evidence. They 1 Among these may be quoted xxxviii. 408; Gemoll, Hom. Blat. ii. Nitzsch, Sagenp. 298 f.; Grote, ii, 35 Sitzler, sth. Komm. 2. Od.? 257; 131 ff. ; Friedlander, Die hom. Krit. Platt, J. Phil. xviii, 127; Drerup, 70; Christ, Hom. od. Homdn. 8 ff., 65, Homer, 109, 132; Strickland, La Quest. Interpol. 186, Zur Chronolog. 60, and Omerica, 96; and Miilder, Quellen, 354. H.G.L.4 48; Mahaffy, Macm. Mag. 35 36 THE LAY OF DOLON onAP. recognise the great force of the extraordinary likeness between the two poems in language, style, verse, and other respects. Mr. Platt (J.c.) holds that “in most points the language of the older Iiad and the Odyssey is almost identical.” Some accept different authorship, but not different ages. Others consider that the interval between the poems was short, and can even reduce it to a generation. So Professor Mackail (Procgs. Class. Assocn. 1908, 9), though he admits the possibility that both poems were written by one man. A difference of only a generation must be hard to perceive. It could scarcely be reflected in the language. The Chorizontic theory is one which seems to have won a hearing by its very attractiveness for some minds, for most of the attempted proofs have been short and sketchy. . It is always referred to with respect, but a critic, when bent on discrediting a line, can seldom resist the temptation to remark on a rare word. See also Diintzer himself in H.A. 202. a A. are of course plentiful in passages the subject matter of which is of a special or exceptional kind, as in descriptions of a great shield ‘Hgaorérevetos, of a goddess at her toilet, or of the Schdferei of the Cyclops. Now the subject of K is unusual, even unique. The critics force this on us. The “atmosphere is new.” We agree. The author had for once to narrate the events of a night of anxiety, with much watching and waking, ending in a scouting expedition. One result was that he had to describe dress and accoutrements appropriate to the situation. A xuvén is dparos and addqodgos, and “is called Karairvé.” All these words are & AX. The poet’s own account shews that it was no ordinary casque, but it was evidently the headpiece for Diomede to don (p. 190 infra). Nor must we complain that the poet uses miAos, when he wants to tell us another casque was lined with felt, which was known from the earliest times (Schrader, Reallex., s.v. Filz, and Hehn, Kulturpfl.” 15). ween is surely in no way remarkable. An author’s diction must, when there is a new departure in his narrative, shew corres- ponding variations in vocabulary. Words may be rare to us; we cannot say they were really rare. The diction of the poems is not to be criticised as if it were the product of a literary age of which everything is known, nor should their author or authors be bound by regulations of the nature of Caesar's ut tamquam scopulum, sic fugias inauditum atque insolens verbum. It is not for us to brand a word in Homer as insolens. The language of the poems and the language of (say) 1000 Bc. are not convertible terms. The one must have been but a fraction of the other. To fasten on something rare is an easy way of discrediting a passage. Just so, in Biblical criticism, I have 56 THE LAY OF DOLON CHAP. seen it stated that “the cry of unhebriisch is becoming too customary.” Not long ago critics styled the language of the New Testament, with 10 per cent of its words d. AX., judengriechisch. It is now known to be the «ow, and Deissmann estimates the &. XX. at only 1 per cent. Papyri have wrought the change. If a miracle were to recover for us some Greek documents of 3000 years ago, many philological rarities might acquire a different character. At present we are dependent on the metre (Curtius, quoted in Ench. 313 n.). Diintzer (#.A. p. 323) and Orszulik admit that many of the &. AX. are unimportant. But their lists of unimportant words do not agree, and Dr. Monro mentions some which they dis- card. Such differences tend to emphasise the low value of in- ferences from @ AA. A word is remarkable only if used once instead of a common word, and there is no obvious reason, such as metrical convenience, for its use in the one place. A number of the a AX. on which special stress has been laid are discussed in Chap. VIII., and the rest in App. G. The total in K is not unduly high. Friedlander (op. cit. 746 f.) finds that there is 1 to every 144 lines in the Jliad, 1 to 14 in the Odyssey, 1 to 14+ in the two poems together, and 1 to 144 in K. So our author was not specially addicted to the use of rare words. The same may be said of other suspected books, as ©. Peppmiiller admits it (Comment. xliv). But he has an explanation. Suspected books have few d. AX., because, being late, they borrow freely from other parts of the poems. We need not criticise this reasoning. In regard to many of the single occurrences, the in- ferences against the poet are discounted by the fact that he knows and uses the familiar word or phrase. The fact that he sometimes eschews ib may be due to many reasons. But, whatever the cause, it certainly tells against the charge that he is “a late imitative poet,’ revelling, as Cauer puts it (Grdjfrgn. 441), in the manipulation of the traditional commonplace. It is hardly fair to denounce his imitativeness and his independence in the same breath. An example is moous “Hpns jvxopovo, of Zeus, in that much traduced simile in 5 ff Elsewhere Zeus is épiySoumos qoots "Hpns, which the author could have used here by writing aotpamrnot instead of dotpdrtn. What is the inference ? VII ON LINGUISTIC PECULIARITIES 57 That he was so late that he did not know the familiar de- scription? But he uses it in 329. That he was modern and Odyssean, and avoided or was ignorant of archaic epithets? The one he uses is thoroughly Iliadic in form. But some freedom must be allowed. A stock epithet is at times replaced by another. Athenéd is weydupos only 6 520 and v 121, although the common yAavxed7.s’ could have been used. Another case is éritpérw, said to be used =“ trust” in K 59, and=“yield to” in 79. But in 116 and 421 it has its common sense, committo. In 59 and 79 there is but little divergence (Lawson, a.J/., and Ebel. and Seiler, sv.) Another case is fpov. Diintzer and others point out that the plural fepd is more common. But K has it in 46. And surely ipdv is better in 571 than the more general iepd, sacra, even if we do not with some critics take Dolon’s évapa to be the ipov. See the Commentaries, a.l. Many of the rare words in K are from the same roots as others which are common, or are derivatives from them or compounded with them. In most of these only an extremist would find cause for remark. The point is dealt with by Friedlander (714 ff. and 755 ff). He cannot (p. 768) point to a single word that betrays itself by its derivation as post- Homeric. A number of his illustrations are from K. poctéo, 502, is supported by fotfos, II 361 ands 315. Orszulik would distinguish the sounds in the three cases and make fowléw = “whistle.” But Odysseus may have signalled by some sound short of that. Another is Swpéouar, 557. Swpyrds occurs I 526. Tastes of course differ, but it may be suggested that Swpyoaito is better than doin would be. Odysseus, in reply to Nestor’s speculations, is putting a general case of a god making a special presentation to a favourite. But after all, the explanation of the longer word may be simply metrical convenience, as it is perhaps of Soins Swrivnv, + 268. For dydaifouat, 331, cf. érayraitouar, % 133. As to donpavtos, 485, cf. onwdvropos ob mapedvtos, O 325. onpaivw and onudytwp are found in both poems. dpaBos (dddvTwv), 375, is dr. But dpaPéw is frequent. That madrayos is used in the only other passage, N 283, where the “chattering” of teeth from fright is mentioned, is nothing serious. Other words of the kind objected to in K are given by Friedlander, pp. 760 ff. In the case of K every possible ground of objection is taken. 58 THE LAY OF DOLON (es Orszulik’s remark that there are five words which, occurring only in K, occur in it frequently, may be judged from the following particulars. égifdva, 26, 91f, 578. In 91 it is more probably plain (fav, which occurs V 258, w 209, and in other compound forms 2 25, ¢ 3. Zenodotus read épifavov, T 11; the moderns prefer évifavoy. xridén, 335, 458, of Dolon’s cap,—practically one occurrence. So for verjAvdes, 434, 558, and éxarvvOdvopas, 308, 320, 395,—almost the same line thrice repeated. Ebeling, Seiler, and M. da Costa do not recognise the compound. For the fifth word, dvés, see p. 63 infra. This seems to be trivial argument. Again, Diintzer observes that the author of K is specially addicted to the use of midatoxw and POéyyouat. He uses the former twice; 202 and 478. Why should he not? And the latter is found four times—67, 85, 139, and 457. The first three occurrences are all in the same connection, and very pertinent to the action. We do not object to the author of A for using yodda, 4, yoros, 5, and drowa and éxarouBn, 7 times each, or to the occurrence of the expression xivuyto pdAaryryes three times in A. Both migavonw and POéyyoua: are common in the poems. And lastly, there are three classes of cases which do not seem worthy of detailed notice—Compound verbs occurring only in K, or elsewhere only rarely. In a number of cases I find other authorities do not recognise the compounds, but prefer to take the verb in tmesi, as it is called. See Friedlander (op. cit. 755 f.), Kriiger (Dial. ii, 179), and Cauer (Pref. to Odyssey, xxxii.), etc. In other cases the simple verb is found in other books.— Verbs in the mid. voice. The interchange of the two voices in the poems is admodum notabdilis libertas (Ench. 2'76; ef. Diintzer, 528, and Grosse, Syntax d. Med. u. Pass. 14), The metre was often the cause (Ellendt, D.H.A. 21 ff.). Compare, eg., Buderar otov éovra, « 410, and Bidkere povvov govta, pm 297. Also, mid. forms, as Paddpevos, édduevos, were often inconvenient in the hexameter.—Comparatives and superlatives, éxaoratw, 113,—the compar. only 7 321. smpodepécrepos, 352, @ 221, @ 134,—the superl. only 6 128 and (with wl. word géptaros) 129. There is nothing in this. Similar cases could be quoted from other books. Milton uses “nigh” frequently, but “nigher” never, and “nighest” only once. The form of vu ON LINGUISTIC PECULIARITIES 59 Bpdoowr is objected to, Orszulik refers to rdccwv, £ 230, etc., and pdoowv, 8 203. “One sees at once that these are more recent forms”! But @dcowv, N 819, O 570, and Oaccop (adv.), frequent, should have been referred to. And three final remarks before we proceed to detailed examination. First, it is not claimed that the result will be to purge the Doloneia of peculiarities. That would put it ina category by itself. There is wnus color in the language of the poems, of course. We have seen that the best authorities are agreed as to that. But there are exceptional uses everywhere, even in the Ménis. All we claim is that these are not more noticeably frequent in K than elsewhere. If we exclude the cases in K which can be shewn by Homeric analogy not to be peculiar, those which disappear by the smallest possible emenda- tion, those regarding which learned opinion is as strong one way as the other, and those from which neither lateness nor approximation to later Greek can be inferred, the balance to the debit of K seems quite negligible. And secondly, we call special attention to the Forms and Constructions which are said to be abnormal, and which are discussed in Chap. VIII. and App.G. It will be seen how few and unimportant they are. It may almost be said that not one exceptional construction has been established, and the few forms that are special to the Book can be explained without difficulty. Surely this is enough to dispose of the theory that it is very late. If it was separated by centuries from the epic bloom, is it conceivable that differences on such points could be so few and so small ? And lastly, it may be admitted that the verbal peculiari- ties on the surface of K are perhaps more numerous than in some other parts of the Jiiad. But an explanation may be suggested. I think it cannot be doubted that the Doloneia must have been specially popular for recitation in the ancient world. The incident described is one that would appeal to audiences. It is of surpassing interest in itself, and the heroes of it are Odysseus and Diomede. The lay is, as we are often reminded, easily detachable from the rest of the J/iad, and so suitable for separate recitation. See Cauer, Grdfrgn. 502. If, then, it was often recited, the copies required would be speci- ally numerous. That would involve more copying, and more copyists’ errors. And that is just what we find. The proportion 60 THE LAY OF DOLON CHAP, VII of irregularities which can be cured by trifling, unobjectionable changes in the vulgate is large. If we allow for these, and set aside also the cases which can be explained, such as vfs, Anitis, totcdecot, etc, the balance, we affirm, is no greater than for other parts of the poems which are generally regarded as ancient. It is this residuum that has to be weighed. If, as we feel assured, it is not more serious than remains for A,— which was no doubt a popular lay that suffered as K did—, then K has been sufficiently vindicated. CHAPTER VIII LINGUISTIC PECULIARITIES OF K—-THE HEAD AND FRONT THE great mass of the peculiarities of the diction of K noted by Orszulik and others seem to be quite unimportant, but we dare not leave them unconsidered. They are discussed in App. G. Here we mention all that appear to be of any moment. They are stock examples of the eccentricity imputed to the author of K, they appear in most enumerations of his solecisms, and they have had their effect, I do not doubt, in turning many an honest mind against his lay without further reflection. I include here only &. X., forms, meanings, and constructions. The exceptional com- binations seem generally trivial. First, some &raé Neyopweva :-— Aniris, 460. “Instead of” dyedein (Diintzer; so Leaf and LaRoche, a.l.). The latter word occurs Jl. 5, Od. 3. It might have been used here in place of Anirds. But are the words equivalent? The origin and meaning of these old epithets are notoriously uncertain. ayerein is taken by some as=“leader of the people.” Fick seems to connect it with plunder (Personennamen, 41, 183). TevOecirea he derives from dads (ibid. 373, 397). The occurrences of dyedein do not support the derivation from rela, but, as epithets sometimes became fixed, we can hardly press the point. Still, in a case like y 359, where the goddess is xouvpotpégos, and where ed yraveerris ’AOjvn would suit, the use of “Our Lady of the Spoils” does jar somewhat. Again, Anirus seems to be a title. ’AOnvn A. had a cult at Olympia (Pausan. v. 14, 5; cf. Gruppe, Griech. Mythol. 1208 .). In Preller-Robert’s Index the word is shewn as a cult-epithet. And see Farnell, Cults, i. 309. He does not mention dyedein. On the whole Aniris is 61 62 THE LAY OF DOLON CHAP. an appropriate word in K 460. We cannot say with certainty that its rival would be. déedos, 466, in a difficult passage, certainly corrupt. See the commentators, especially Leaf, and Sayce in App. to Mahaffy’s H.G.Z. 277 f. It is impossible, with opinion very strong that the passage is corrupt, to attach any importance to déeXos. Dr. Leaf amends to dé éAdv. See App. B. émidippias, 475. Rhésus is asleep, and his horses are tethered €& émiduppidd0os mupdrns iwaow. Here again it is said that the common word dyrv& has been discarded. But the poet must have known it, and also a set form of commonplace, adyrvya map twupdrny and the like, in which it occurs and which he could have used here,—say, dvtuyos é« mupdrns Boéos (cf. X 397, VW 324) tudor SédevTo. Then why does he, late and imitative, eschew the common and adopt a new word? Because the latter (from éidippuos, “on a car,” o 51, 75) seems to have meant the whole of the breastwork of the car, and dvtv& the rail at its top running round to the rear part. Reichel (Hom. Waff.? p. 122) thought otherwise, but ‘authority is against him. See Helbig, 127, 144; Engelmann in Jb. 1902, 224; Naumann, tid. 1889, 108; Rumpf, Beitr. 2 hom. Worterklrg. 15 ff.; Ebel. sv. éid.; Leaf on E 727; and, for the schol, Paley on K 475.—In a car at rest in the field the reins were drawn back and tied to one end of the dyrvé. In our case the iyudvres are not necessarily reins, but perhaps heel-ropes. Hobbles were used by Poseidon, N 36. And see Hayman, vol. iii, App. H 3. It would be good to fasten such heel-ropes to the lower part of the breastwork (ésrvd. wvp.); with the point of the pole resting on the ground, there would be less chance of the car being dragged or overturned. cavpwtip, 153. “Everywhere else called odpiayos.” But apparently the latter was the whole butt-end of the spear, the former only the spike in it (Leaf, a.l.; Ebel. s.v. éyyos—cuspis brevior, qua in terram infigebant otiosi—and cf. Ridgeway, £.A.G. 307). Hence wedeuifw with ovp. in all its occurrences, N 443, II 612, P 528. cavp. could not have been used in those places, nor ovp.in K, It is not proved that the cavp. was a modern invention. See Tsountas and Manatt, Mycen. Age, 205. It was in use in late Mycenaean times. No specimen has been found, but it is figured on the Warrior Vase. And as few spear heads VIII LINGUISTIC PECULIARITIES OF K 63 have been found, swords and spears being “arms for the few” in those days ( 614 and T 21, and referred to the use of oAtZoya:,@ 55 (see Leaf’s note) and w 495, and of agdorAifouat, V 26. This is unimportant to those who do not believe that >, T, ©, VY and w are late. Moreover, if é7Aa = “arms” is a late usage, how is it that all the other late books of the Ziad, and the Odyssey throughout, though it knows the F 66 THE LAY OF DOLON CHAP. word and often has it=“ship’s tackle,” eschew the usage com- plained of and instead employ revyea over and over again ? The commentaries throw no light on the word, and its etymology seems to be doubtful (Prellwitz, sv. and L. Meyer, Handbuch, i, 512). a@rat, 391. The plural is objected to by Diintzer. But see I 115 and T 270. For dyéwy in T 298, Bentley con- jectured dréwy. There is more in Dr. Leaf’s remark al. that “drnot is so far peculiar here that it is used of ‘blinding, deception, of a purely human origin.” dry is a word with a number of shades of meaning. It is, in one form or another, Verirrung des Bewusstseins (Jager, Hom. u. Hor. 81, quoting Nigels- bach). In II 805 the word has for once, according to Leaf, a.l., the “ purely physical sense ” of stwpor, but usually it is “hurt done to the mind” (Jebb, 50 7.). It means this in our passage. See Ebeling, s.v.; Goebel, Lexilogus, ii, 131; and Gladstone, Studies, ii, 160 f£ Scherer, De Graecorum ATH®, notione et indole, 14, seems to find nothing unusual in K 391, Rare forms :— elo Oa for ef, a note of Odyssean affinity, as it is found only K 450, + 69, v 179 (é&ecOa). But the 2nd pers. sing. of ele does not occur in the other twenty-three books of the Iliad. Their (supposed) many authors had not occasion to use it. How then can we say what form of that particular part of the verb the original poet, the expanders, and the denswm vulgus of the interpolators would have favoured ? toicdeaot, only K 462 and 5 times in the Odyssey, is in much the same case. The later form of the dat. pl. occurs four times in the Odyssey, but in the Jliad outside K there is no occurrence of the dat. plur. in any gender. I am not aware whether this has been noticed, but I have not seen it expressly stated by any of the many authorities who comment on the form,—as Leaf, a/.; Christ, Znterpol. 199; Hnch. 265 f., AG. 93, 307; Hinrichs, Aecol. 115; van Herwerden, Q.H. 131; Weck in Jahrb. k. P. 1888, 225 ff, ete. One might think, for all that is said, that the regular form of the dat. plur. abounds in the poems. With no occurrence of it in the lad outside K, I do not see how any inference can be drawn. puynocecOat, 365. The only 2nd. fut. pass. in the poems, un- less Sanoeas is to be reckoned. See Ench. 275 f.; Curtius, Verb, VIII LINGUISTIC PECULIARITIES OF K 67 5,490; H.G. 59; and Leaf, aJ. Van Leeuwen suggests puydo- ceoOat from puydfouat, which is used 0 271, though in a very different sense. This seems good. puynoecOat would mean “ go in among,” “join,” as in I 209, K 180, ete. But the sense required is “rush into,’ “tumble in among,” which puydfowas may well have expressed. Verbs in -dfw are often “ frequenta- tive or intensive, but with a trace of contempt” (Monro, £.G. 397, and on vy 9). Bréal, Pour mieux, 199, translates puydfopas se méler. A scribe might easily substitute the more familiar word and form.—lIn either case, the passage shews the poet knew the construction of méAAw with the fut. inf., which is interesting with reference to the doubt raised whether Atocec Oat, 455, is meant for a pres. or a fut. Onxaro, 31, but also & 187. The peculiarity is that it is the only mid. aor. in -ea in Homer. Of riOnus the Ench. says, 381, singulae formae huius verbi multis locis ocewrrunt. The alternative form éero is not one suitable for use in hexameter verse. In £ 19 the poet seems to have been driven to use éréxewto by the unsuitability of éweré@noayv or -Oev. évfov, 373. As it stands, from a form év&os (Leaf, al.), which would be & A. But if yetwappos and -ppoos from féa, why not évfos and -oos from fw? And why not read évfot from év£oos? Bechtel (Vocalcontr. 98) does so, and sees in the contraction evidence that K is late. That need not deter us. Or read év&doy, if Hartel’s év€dev is admissible in @ 215 (Solmsen, 130). Mr. Platt (J Phil. xviii. 132 f.) proposes év£do00 with correption, pointing to dydoov as a dissyllable in mn 261, & 287, where, however, many read dyddaTov. In Ench. 205, the line K 373 is thought to be vitiose traditus. I had suspected the same. We must translate, on the vulgate, “over his shoulder the point of the spear stuck in the ground,” which is not good. We want “ sped over his shoulder and stuck in the ground,” in fact a sentence of the form of those in X 275 f. and Tl 478. Could édvéov have displaced aifev? It may be noticed that éd£oos, which is common, is not elsewhere used as an epithet of dopv, and that it always occupies the place in the verse which it has in K. That makes it possible that it slipped in by the mistake of a copyist. It may be objected that there is no precedent for afev except imaite, b 126. But does the correption of the a require to be vouched ? 68 THE LAY OF DOLON CHAP. éuéo, 124, notable in face of some 160 occurrences of other forms of the gen. éuéOev, near it in metrical value, is found 18 times,—13 times before a word commencing with a vowel (r 99) or a single consonant, and 5 before & in parts of Euvinu. It is possible that these 5 cases are susceptible of explana- tion (Bekker, Hom. Bldt. i. 158 f.), and that none of these occurrences of éuéfev was originally before two consonants, whereas éuéo is. Mr. Agar (p. 95) would restore éuéo before Edves, etc. Perhaps there is not aberration, but conformity to rule here. But, however that may be, there are traces of éuéo and peo in the poems. Cases like éued éxdves may have been originally written with éué. ev may have replaced peo. See Mnemos. xiii. 215; AG. 353; Agar, 284 f, and cf. his remarks on p. 174 on ovpavéo -d0ev; and Bechtel in Robert’s Stud. 262. Perfects in -xa. “The perfects in -«a from derivative verbs,” —ie., apparently, those in -dw, -éw, etc,— BeBinxey (145, 172), wapwyexev (252), adnxotes (98, 312, 399, 471),” are one of the traces of later formation in K (Monro), This is repeated by Dr. Leaf in his Introduction, and by Jebb, 123 n. Tap@yoxev or -nxev might be taken as a late indication,— see instances given by Veitch,—but the verb from which ddn«détes comes and the form BeSinxey appear never to recur in Greek. adnxores is quite doubtful in origin. See Dr. Leaf on K 98, and Ench. 161, where Dr. Monro’s derivation, d-cFaé-éw, is rejected by van Leeuwen, who adds (p. 403) of a number of perf. pteps. like FeFadyxores, fortasse -ndtes sunt scribenda, codicibus non invitis, See to the same effect Dr. Monro himself in HG. 29. And dpndores has been conjectured (Schulze, 454). This one then is a doubtful form and must be left out of considera- tion. PePinxev reappears in II 22, in a passage which is defended by Dr. Leaf with all his strength, and which Robert admits to his Ur-Jiias. As for wapdyeoxer, it is in one of the few lines in K which are generally held to be interpolated, though we (p. 223 infra) shall argue against the view. On the above statement, these perfects do not appear to supply much positive evidence against K. And their origin has not been ascertained beyond all doubt. So Kiihner-Blass, ii. 97, where a discarded view of Curtius’ is preferred to his later opinion, which Monro and Bréal (Pour mieux, 243 f.) and others accept. ViII LINGUISTIC PECULIARITIES OF K 69 These perfects are included in the Index to the ZG. (“ Iliad, characteristics of particular books, esp. I, K, V, Q”) with a number of other indications of affinity with the Odyssey. But in Dr. Monro’s discussion in the body of that work no form is quoted against I, V, ©, except reOaporjxace in I. In W and Q,I find no form of the kind that cannot be paralleled in other books of the Iliad. In the Telemachy, a—8, containing’ 2222 lines, I find nothing at all, According to Loebell (Quaestt. de Perfect Homei. forma et usu, 18) there are 19 such perfects in Homer. But in the whole of the Odyssey there are only 2 that do not appear in the Ziad. It is surely strange that more traces of this later formation are not to be found in “late” parts of the poems. Iterative Verbs, See a note in App. F. Though such verbs are a characteristic of late books, no charge has been or could be made against K. Unusual Constructions :— pédrw, 454, “to be about to,” with the pres. instead of the fut. inf. See Leaf, a2, and on II 47 and VW 773, and ef. Monro on 7 95, The question is whether AiccecGas can be regarded as a fut. Mr. Platt (J. Phil. xxi. 40) thinks not. It is pres., and one of the “innumerable tokens that K is very late.” But see a full discussion in Hnch. 279 f.; nihil insolite est K Abd4, The verb is taken as fut., and the form AlcecOat accepted for II 47. See ibid. 460, and the note to II 47 in van L. and Da C’s Iliad. See also p. 67 supra. Position of. Enclitics. Dr. Monro (.G. 338) says that in this matter “a less strict usage may be traced” in K, and he instances ris Kev, 44, ef pev 89 Erapov ye KedeveTé pw avTor 6éc0ar, 242, viv atte pddiota pe pirat, 280, adX édpev pw, 344, odkér errevta od Tid wor écceat, 453. Dr. Leaf repeats the general statement in his Introduction, but, besides mentioning the irregularity in notes on 344 and 453, does nothing to help out the objection. Dr. Monro himself adds, “the subject, however, needs more detailed investigation.” For line 44 we may refer to the ZG. itself, 336, and to Agar on & 122. 65 rus is treated as a single word. For line 453, we refer to H.G. 339. As regards the division of the line into two equal parts, I observe that Engelbrecht (Due Céisuren des hom. Hexam. ii.) gives two instances from A,—106 and 179. Line 344 in K is usually amended,—see p. 235 infra. In 280 it 70 THE LAY OF DOLON CHAP. may be questioned if there is anything unusual. At any rate, there can be, even on Dr. Monro’s own shewing, a very small residuum of irregularity. ovdév, 216, adjectival use (Monro, Introduction to K, 4.4. 323; Jebb, 189; Leaf on @178, and Ench. 270). Van Leeuwen shews that in a great majority of the occurrences of ovdév, od Te can be read, the corruption being due to desire to remove hiatus (legitimate after «). In our passage the Leyden editors, though they excise the line, read o¥ 7. But is there any real need to amend? The point is that the adjectival use of ovdéy is rare, while the adverbial use, as in A 244, 412, and II 274, is com- paratively common. But surely the use of ovdde’s as an adj. must have been established before its neuter could be used adverbially? We have ovdevi elxav in the Ménis, X 459. There also the Leyden editors write ot rev. beiSm pr) od tus, 39. Dr. Leaf notes, “the only case of uy ov after a verb of fearing in Homer; no other instance is found till Euripides (AZ and T. § 264, 365).” The combination is infrequent in Homer (2G. 255). The cases are A 28, 566, E 233, 0 164, IT 128, 0 569,584. They are all much of a type, although it is true that only in K does yp od come after a verb of fearing expressed. If A 28 and 566, which Delbriick dis- tinguished, though they seem to be identical (MM. and T. 91, Am.-H. Anh. to A 26, and Lieberkiihn, De conjunctis negationibus MH OT, 3), are to be considered independent and not dependent clauses, and we translate (A 28) “ beware lest the staff and fillet avail thee not,’ then we have good support for K. Goodwin inclines to the latter view, but Am.-H. differ. Let the learned decide. Lieberkiihn, op. cit., holds that the usage with verbs verendt cavendique is established for Homer. It would appear to be hard to take any difference there may be in this respect between A and K as indicating an interval of time between them. Optatives—in 211,247, and 557. On 2477 Dr. Monro notes, “ yootnoatey, ‘we may return, a rare use of the opt. without dv or xev: cf. 1.557. The use seems characteristic of this book.” As to 211, the MS. evidence is divided (Leaf, al.) and so are the editors. Out of 18 editions which I have consulted, 12 give re instead of «xe. The Leyden editors read tad? e mdyra. This case must be excluded from consideration. As to the other two, the enumerations given by the authorities shew that, though VIII LINGUISTIC PECULIARITIES OF K i the usage is rare, there are a number of other instances in the poems. See H.G. 272 f.; Kiihner-Gerth, i. 225 f£.; Mand 7. 80; and LaRoche, school edition of the Iliad, on K 557. It may be added, as to the case in 557, that in 556 Nauck has conjectured « for y. There is no MS. authority, but in y 231, where the first half of 556 is repeated, two MSS. have «. See Wecklein, Teatkrit. 65 f. He would insert «xe in most of the passages in the poems. Even in K 247 he would read rovrov xe o7ropévoto for todtov y éorropévoro. It certainly looks as if, as he says, the usage without xey is questionable for Homer. See also Mr. Agar on y 231. These are the really heinous peculiarities of the language of K. It does not appear, when the opinions of the authorities are set out and duly weighed, that much is left which can with certainty be carried to its discredit. As for the minora, some of which have been discussed in Chap. VII. and others catalogued in App. G, they seem to be hardly worthy of serious consideration. CHAPTER IX THE PREPOSITIONS Ir is asserted that there are peculiar uses of certain prepositions in K, that the uses are common to K and the other Odyssean books of the Ziad, and that elsewhere they are found only in the Odyssey. The complaint against K in particular is given by Dr. Monro, in his Introduction to the Book, in these words,—“ the Prepositions have a more abstract meaning.” See also Kuhlbars’ work, p. 18. éwi. “The instances in which extent (without motion) is implied are chiefly found in the Odyssey” (#.G. 181). Instances are found in the Odyssean books of the Jdiad also,—K 213, péya Kév ot érroupdviov Kdéos ein Tdvtas ér’ avOpeTrovs, I 506, V 742, Q 202, 535. In the last the preposition may be im tmesi (Leaf on T 35). The case does not seem to be fairly stated. Dr. Monro commences by saying that the meaning over with verbs of motion is very common, and adds “also with verbs of looking.” He then proceeds to cases of “extent without motion.” But surely the cases of looking are cases of extent without motion. And if we are to attach to the category of motion verbs of looking, why not verbs of shining, as in y 2 f, daetvor él feidwpov dpovpav ? And if the phenomena of sight, why not those of sound, as in 8 421, of a wind xerddovr’ éri olvora mévrov, or in K 213 and Q, 201 f, quoted above, of fame spreading through mankind ? If it be said that in cases of looking a sort of motion over space is implied, then surely the same indulgence can be claimed for the uses impugned in the “Odyssean” books. Motus facile sup- pletur (Ebel. s.v.). In I 506 there is something more than mere implication in the use of the words dzrexmpoOée: and POdver. And the usage is not confined to these four books of the Ziad. 72 CHAP, IX THE PREPOSITIONS 73 Other examples are B 308, Spdxov émt vata Sadowos (iiber den Riicken hin, Nagelsbach), and 765, cradiry él vartov éicas, H 446, 4% pd tis dott Bpotav én’ adretpova yaiav, © 553 f, éml mrodéuovo yebvpas Hato, and perhaps I’ 113, tarmovs pev épvéav él otiyas, for which see Nagelsbach, a.l. Perhaps also P 368, if éé 0’ éccov, which Dr. Leaf says most editors read, is correct. See Dr. Monro, al. The use in épcac’ dpyadéov avéwov emt movrov aytas, BH 254, may be doubtful. Some commentators, as Am.-H. on A 350, even take O7v in éero Oiv’ ép ddos Todts as = Oiva, like Aristophanes’ émrt BdpBapov éfouévn wétadov (Ran. 682). In P 447 =a 131, dcca te yaiay ére mveier te Kab &prrer, there is motion in ép7re, but not in avetet which is the nearer verb. eivar’ él ypdvov, B 299, is a very similar use, “over a space of time,” just as “night is often regarded as a space of darkness” (HG. 183). On the whole the distinction seems to have no real basis, And the “peculiarity” is not confined to éwi. There is a similar use of iad. See H.G. 182, and add to the examples of “extent under,’—which are not confined to the “ Odyssean ” books —E 261, trawv, dccot gacw in no tT nédrcov te. Of. LaRoche, Gebrauch von tid bei Homer, 8 f., and a note, on the point under discussion, by Nagelsbach on A 463. So for apd (4.G. 176). Motion is implied and the acc. is used, though the verbs are not verbs of motion, as A 314, wap &w toraco, or T 49, otao’ dre pev rapa tadppov dpuxryv. For the reverse case, with ézri itself, see A.G. 180. éwi with the dat. is usually =at, upon, but it can take the dat. with verbs of motion, as A 251, 273. So for mpori, H.G. 184. All such cases exemplify the wonderful flexibility of Homeric language and syntax, and, it may be added, the extraordinary freedom admitted in epic practice to assist the adaptation of the diction to the requirements of the hexameter. é&. In H.G. 191, two occurrences in K with a more “ abstract meaning,’—107, é« ydrou dpyadéoro petactpétryn pirov irop, and 68, watpdbev éx yeves d6voudtwv, are quoted by Dr. Monro under his last class of uses, “ with an abstract word.” But the mere use with an abstract word is nothing. Immediately above in his enumeration we find é« veornros quoted from & 86. veorns is not less of an abstractwm than yédos or yeven. As to éx xodov, it does not appear whether he translates “from his 74 THE LAY OF DOLON CHAP.. wrath,” which seems bad with peracrpéyn, or “after his wrath.” The latter is given by Ebel. s.v., who quotes T 290, E 865, and N 493 (Aristarchus’ view), in all of which, it may be noticed, the use is with abstracta. As to é« yevefs, the meaning appears to be “with reference to,” secundum, and it may be admitted it is a solitary use. But it is not solitariness that is objected to. It is the use of é« with abstracta, and that we have seen can be paralleled outside I, K, V, 0. Of one other use of é&, =“in consequence of,” Dr. Monro says (Odyssey, p. 332; cf. H.G. 191) it is found in the Odyssey and I 566. But there is a case (Ebel. sv.) in the Ménis, A 308. év. Also said to have a more abstract meaning in K, which contains two instances of the departures, “nearly confined in the Ziad to I, K, V, O,” from the strictly local sense (4.4. 189). These are :-— 1. “With abstract words,” éy wdvrecot mévotor, K 245, 279. Dr. Monro quotes cases from the other Odyssean books. But there are more, as év poipy, T 186, aicn ev dpyaréy, X 61, év giddrnte, frequent, and év dai’, A 259, “on the occasion of a banquet.” But what, it may be asked, was the poet to do when the noun was in the singular? era was barred (.G. 178, and Leaf on O 118). What other preposition could he use ? 2. “With plurals denoting persons =erd, among,” as 7é Kat aicav éevrov év tpiv, K 445, and other cases quoted from I, V, and the Odyssey. K 127, 435 might have been included. Miss Stawell has shewn (Z. and Ji. 263 ff.) that instances are numerous in other books of the Jiiad. But her conclusions have been questioned (Nation, 9th Oct. 1909) by Professor Murray, who rejects her demonstration altogether. His method is the one referred to briefly, p. 19 supra. As regards both the classes of uses of évy now under reference, I have endeavoured to shew (CQ. Oct. 1910) that the grounds on which he seeks to discredit the lines in which the principal cases in other books of the Ziad occur, are insufficient. dua vie«ra. The phrase is said (4G. 188) to occur “ chiefly in the Odyssey, and K and Q.of the Iliad.” See Miss Stawell, 262 f. The combination occurs once in B, thrice in 0, and nine times in K. Miss Stawell calls it “a marked trick of K.” But any one who reads her explanation of the phrase-——which 1x THE PREPOSITIONS 75 follows Monro’s (Jc.; cf. 183, “but night is often regarded as a space of darkness”), and reflects that d:a viera is appropriate to movement in the open, and further that the whole of the action in K is under the sky, while only a very limited part of that of © is, will see at once that the authors of K and © are, in this matter, in exactly the same case. The spatial sense could be denied to only one of the nine cases in K, 101, but even there the movement of the Trojans through the dark to make an attack is obviously implied. And it is not strange that K and ©, which are the only two parts of the Iliad, besides a few lines in I, which describe movements in the dark, should employ phrases which recur only in parts of the Odyssey devoted to description of the same kind. One must expect in such cases the same wording and the same grammatical constructions. It may be added that dvd vera is once used, & 80, perhaps because the poet wished to employ ovdé, as better than the bare ov in od dia vixtra would have been. Van Herwerden, in Mnemos. xviii. 3'7, actually objects to the reading there because dua. vixra is the regular expression in the poems.—The distribu- tion of the phrase is no more peculiar than that of dua Separa, il. 1, Od. frequent. mpd. The temporal use, as in K 224, cai re mpd o Tob évonoev, “before the other,” is noted (HG. 192) as “rare in Homer.” Only this passage and two from the Odyssey are quoted. The translation, however, is uncertain. Others render “for, on behalf of, the other.” So Ebel. s.v., and Hoch, @.Z. 21. This is the proof from prepositions that K is late and Odyssean. It is not strong. But observe that K has preposi- tional uses which attach it to the Jliad and separate it from the Odyssey. Thus K 298 is quoted, HG. 186, as a use of avd “peculiar to the Iliad.” The use of éri with persons = “towards,” “in quest of,” is (ibid. 180) “almost confined to the Jliad,’—and it occurs four times in K. The use of zepi in K 240 seems to be confined to the Ilad (ibid. 173). The uses of prepositions, therefore, prove K Iliadic as well as Odyssean (C.Q. iv. 77). The departures in the poems from the rules and standards by which criticism, ancient and modern, seeks to regulate their language, are numerous. Genius is superior to such clogs on free expression. See p. 223 infra. Exceptional uses of pre- positions are common. Nevertheless they have played their part 76 THE LAY OF DOLON CHAP, IX in Dissecting treatises. Giseke (Entstg.) essayed to employ them (along with certain metrical phenomena) as a criterion on an extensive scale, and K, like many other books, was shewn to be full of remarkable uses; so much so, that we must say once more that its author was trying to shew how far he could differ from his brother bards. But Giseke’s labours and results have not been seriously regarded. Groupings of parts of the poems on such criteria prorsus inter se repugnant (Buchholz, Vindie. 77 ff.; cf. Ilg, Hom. Krit. 19 f.). G. Curtius (Andeutgn. 34) thinks that many of Giseke’s distinctions are arbitrary and based on subjective appreciation. The origin of prepositions from adverbs would, Curtius holds, be the only proper basis for such an enquiry. Giseke himself does admit (op. cit. 95; cf. Wetzel, De recent. Choriz. stud. 9) that difference of subject must have its influence, but sometimes neglects the point (Curtius, lc, on éx trodéuov). It is a consideration which cannot be disregarded. Compare dia viera, discussed above. Metrical convenience does not appear to be mentioned by Giseke. It also cannot be disregarded in this connection. See pp. 53 f. supra. Sometimes éy could be used and not pera; sometimes pera and not év. The author of K is blamed for using év with a plural, 127, 435, and 445. But it is only because yerd, which he knows and uses in 62 and 250, did not suit (C.Q. iv. 78). An examination, from the Concordances, of the occurrences of év(t) peci(v) and peta dpeci(v) is an in- structive exercise. It is metrical convenience that determines the choice between them. Compare, eg., ¥ 600 with 6 548 f, or A 297 with I 434 f. So for év mpwroor and peta mpwroot, for which and for cara and dvd Oupéy see Diintzer’s reply (HA. 549 ff.) to Ameis. Dr. Monro’s note on w 419 (we opusrtxas) is a good example of this explanation of a rare use. See also .G. 182, on €rvcay id’ apyacr, % 244, and ibid. 188, on dia mrvyas, H 247. dpudrov and mrvydv were metrically impossible. So (ibid. 149) 8? dpecdu, K 185, for 80° dpéwr. We think it is clear that Odyssean connection is not to be inferred from prepositional uses in K, CHAPTER X THE ARTICLE THe Homeric Article, like almost everything else in or connected with the poems, has been the subject of great controversy. There were differences even in Alexandrian days. In recent times pugna extitit haud minus atrow atque vehemens quam de origine compositioneque Iliadis et Odysseae.' There has been diversity of view as to the development of the pronoun o into the fully fledged Article. The common view that it became first a demonstrative adj. and then an Article is questioned by Brugmann (Gr. Gram. 425). The still commoner view that it was originally a demon- strative pronoun has been disputed by Forstemann (op. cit. 3). As to uses, some, as Ameis, have contended that there is no Article in the poems, 6 being always pronominal. The majority accept, in varying degrees, a verus sincerusque articulus. As to classification of uses and shades of significance, the diversity of opinion is quite remarkable. , The view that there is no Article in the poems may be said to be extinct. It relied mainly on excision and emendation. But van Leeuwen characterises the scheme as “ intolerably audacious” (Ench. 264). Where excision and emendation both failed, the only resource was to force the meaning. But such renderings as Ameis’ das (was wir jetat sehen), néimlich das schlechtere, for 7a yepetova, A 5'76,—the Homeric for “bad form,’—are too much for most critics. See Koch, p. 24. They are “ingenious, 1 Koch, De articulo Homerico, Leip- kindly referred me to his remarks on the zig, 1872, The two other special Homeric Article in his paper on Flaws monographs used are Férstemann’s %m Classical Research, reprinted from Bemerkgn. ib. d. Gebrauch d. Artikels Procgs. of Brit. Acad. iii. I am glad bet Hom., Magdeburg, 1861, and Stum- to be able to add some references from mer’s Ub. den Artikel bei Hom., his very clear and useful statement of Schweinfurt, 1886.—Since this chapter the case. was completed, Professor Postgate has 77 78 THE LAY OF DOLON OHAP. forced interpretations” (Kuhl, Bedtg. des Accentes im Hom. 2). Mr. Agar (p. 343) considers “it, the tunic” as a rendering of Tov xiTdva, T 232, “utterly inane.” Kriiger (Griech. Sprachl. ii. 2, 65 f) observes that by this process the Article might be removed from Attic prose. But it is worth noting that this method of interpretation is still followed by high authorities. Thus, Tpdwav tov dpiorov = ihn, den tapfersten (Kiihner-Gerth, i 577); tod marpos = “hin, her father” (M. and R. on 8 134). In avin kal 7d dvdrdooew, uv 52, we take, at first sight, the connection between 7rd and guadoocewv to le one that no man could put asunder. But Nagelsbach explained it by avin cal rodro, pvAdocewy, and Kiihner- Gerth (i. 579) and Brugmann (Gr. Gram. 425) approve. And see HG, 228. I need not criticise these judgments, but I claim that the same measure be meted out to K. Do not deny the possibility of “it, the omen,” or “it (the bird), as an omen,” for to dpvi0’, K 277, or of “he, the bold Odysseus,” for 6 TAjpev ’Oduce’s, K 498 (Brugmann, lc). Do not let prejudice against K make “the” the only possible rendering in such cases, if the alternative rendering is admissible elsewhere. Scholars then are satisfied that there is an Article in the poems, but at the same time that o is also used, both as pronoun and as adjective, with its old demonstrative force. But different schools interpret the phenomena in different ways. To the Dissector the Article is im werden (Forstemann, 1), quasi nascens (Koch, 3), and he sees confirmation of his theory of a gradual growth of the poems. In the earliest days, when the first lay of - the Jliad was composed, he finds there was no Article, though there was already a weakening of the pronoun. But three or four centuries later, when the last addition was stitched on to the poems by the latest pamrrav éméwy dovdds, it was not far from the Attic Article. A critic can test the age of a passage by a rod or a tis. The Unitarian, on the other hand, finds nothing in the use of o to militate against his belief that the poems are the product of one age. It was, he thinks, an age in which an Article had been developed, not in all the matured uses of Attic prose, but in some of them, while the old uses of the pronoun had not altogether died out. How are we to decide? We get no help from the statistics in the special treatises. Like so many other Homeric works, x THE ARTICLE 79 they spoil things for themselves at the outset by assuming late tracts and early in the poems. Stummer sums up (p. 56) very elaborate calculations as follows. In his older parts of the Jlad the genuine Article is found once in every 72 lines. In the younger parts the proportion is the same. In the older parts of the Odyssey it is 1 in 74. In the younger parts it is 1 in 68. The results are neither consistent nor striking. And of course different results would be produced by any one taking different limits for late and early. Stummer himself is driven, by the failure of his statistics, to explain that the later authors made the earlier lays their models in respect of language. Then cadit quaestio. For there will be no difference of usage left to consider. Another reason for disregarding these statistical results is the uncertainty of the text. Modernisation caused the interchange of small words. It was only natural for copyists and editors, accustomed to the Article, to substitute it, deliberately or through oversight, in many of the hundreds of cases in which Attic usage required it. The commentaries abound with examples of alter- native readings, either transmitted in the tradition, or suggested, with general acceptance, by modern editors. Some well-known instances are ra & (éFa) «pra, M 280, Hetdns tov (jetdycGa) éudv, X 280, év S& ra (re) Tetpea, & 485, Odrapov tov (Oada- povde), b 42, THY (ev, TH) S& yuvatea, « 112, 76 ofa (ros fa, Agar), 0 195, @pictos (Ss or dy’ dpiotos). The MSS. waver between & 6 yépwy and dé yépwv. And so on. Bare statistics are dangerous guides. See the conclusion in Dr. Merry’s school edition of a—p, pt. ii. 14. If statistics are to be relied on, they should at least be of classified uses. But then there is the difficulty that the classification will not be accepted by everybody. Classifications differ. It is almost “impossible to establish definite rules” (Merry, wi sup.). This applies to Miss Stawell’s very full statement (op. cit. 276 ff). It follows the HG. It would be easy to criticise the arrangement of classes. For one thing, that “Article of Contrast” is a very doubtful quantity (p. 85 infra). But taking the statement as it stands, there is nothing in it unfavourable to K. Even if K be Odyssean, the imputation amounts to nothing, for Miss Stawell shews that the Articular difference between the two poems is almost mil. She also vindicates V and ©. But what of I and K? It seems to me 80 THE LAY OF DOLON CHAP, that, on the evidence, I is more entitled to a place in her “original Ziad” than either VY or ©. And as for K, the figures for it correspond almost exactly with those compiled for A. Miss Stawell adds, as the only point against K, that its instances shew “a great variety of type.” No particulars are given, and I cannot see that there is any greater variety than A displays. But a stronger point—in favour of K—is that there are in A high uses of the genuine Attic Article which cannot be paralleled in K (p. 86 infra). In view of the great diversity of opinion that prevails on so many points, the only feasible plan seems to be to take the Articular occurrences in K seriatim, see what the learned have to say about them, decide as best we can, on these deliverances, as to the residuum of real Articular uses in the Book, and having got it, compare it with the same in first, an admittedly early part, such as A, and secondly, some other late area. Diintzer, as he denies the Article to the poems, does not refer to it in his case against K, and Orszulik barely mentions it. But two English editors, Drs. Monro and Leaf, give it a conspicuous place in their Introductions to the Book. See also the ZG. 234, and, more recently, Bechtel, Vocalcontr. 3 f. Taking the occurrences in detail, there are, in the first place, some in which there is a v./., or where the text has been amended, though generally the vulgate can stand without detriment to K. pawopévav Tov d&piotov, 236, is discussed, p. 235 infra. mas 8 ai Tay dd\dov Tpdwv duraxai; 408. Aristarchus read was Sat, which is printed by LaRoche, Stier, Leaf, and Fick. See Lehrs, Ar. 354, and Ludwich, Ar. i. 319, and cf. M. and R. on a 225 (crit. note). Bothe long ago sug- gested amas 8 av as more Homeric. He observes that the letters 1 and v are easily confused. Others, as Kiihner-Gerth, i. 580, class the use with rd cdv yépas and 76 cody pévos, both in A,—a common use which Dr. Leaf (on X 280) admits can hardly be expelled from “the most ancient passages.” h ete Tav TwAcdvor Opynedv, 506. Nauck’s 4 8 xy &re mAeovoyv may be original. See p. 232 énfra. But the Article with a compar. is a common use (Leaf, al., quoting the H.G.). Dr. Monro translates “should slay instead more Thracians.” Am.-H., der Mehrzahl, and Pierron, ea istis pluribus. We need = THE ARTICLE 81 not question the use of ray or amend, though Dr. Leaf (on E 673) thinks Nauck’s reading, and Heyne’s, 7) 6 ye wal rredver, “sound more Homeric.” He refers to E 679. We might add II 651 and ® 211. 0 TAnpewv (wroAlmopOos) "Odvo(c)ets, 231, 498, 363, and 6 Kpatepos Asoundns, 536, said by some to be late uses. There are 8 other cases of the same or a very similar kind in the poems, —B 278, T 320, « 436, y 306, @ 532, A 660, and II 25, 358. In all 12 cases the smallest possible change, as by the omission of the o, or writing $¢ or 7dé or dpa in full, gets rid of the Article. Is this chance, or is the Article due to modernisation ? Some would say the latter. Mr. Agar (65 ff, 286 ff) has purged the Odyssey of the Article with vijcos, yapos, Eeivos. But see Prefessor Postgate’s paper, 18 f. and note on 19. The MSS. give some support, for in B 278, K 363, w 306, a few omit the Article. See Leaf on II 358 and Agar on « 436. © But have we necessarily the genuine Article in these cases ? They seem to differ very little from the type in VW 303 (rod NyAniddao), A 614, 519, N 698, where demonstr. force may be claimed. Pierron (on K 498) renders 6 rAnjpov by Lillustre ; Paley (on B 278), 6 mroNtzopOos by “ he, the city-reiving.” Dr. Leaf (on T 147, 76 «fros, on which see Professor Postgate, p. 16 of his paper) notes that the use is confined to late passages. But surely tov Xpdonv, A 11, was overlooked, Whether we take this as jenen im troischen Sagenkreise bekannten (Nigelsb.) or as an approach to the Attic rév Képoy, there it is embedded deep in the Ur-Ilias. If we are to amend there or in other passages of the Ménis quoted above,—A 660, II 25, 358, then we claim the right to amend in K. [If all stand, K has good, ancient support. That the cases are numerous in K, is not a difficulty. Odysseus and Diomede play a very large part in it, and ten of the twelve occurrences in the poems concern those heroes, And lastly, if the occurrences in K are a sign that they were written when the author could not get away from the newly developed Article, we cannot understand why other Odyssean authors could avoid writing dpé o in V 290, 293, 0 3. Classes of cases common in the poems require no special reference, as 6 yépwy, TO mdpos, and cases with a possessive, as ro & éév, 256,—for which see p. 80 supra. So for cases with G 82 THE LAY OF DOLON OHAP, a comparative or a superlative, as roy pév dpetw, 237, and of dpiorot, 539. Even if the latter be taken to mean “ the bravest (generally),” we could refer to A 260, Z 435, A 658, and N 128, not all late passages. But in the occurrence in K it seems that the translation should be “those heroes (just mentioned).” And in the following cases it will not be disputed that we have demonstrative uses. trav mdavtwv, 215, de tous cewx-la (Pierron). ov tpicxadéxarov, 495, 561: “him for the thirteenth” (Monro), dlum qui fuit decimus tertius (Pierron). tov pev 8 Erapov y aipjoeat, 235: “him or that one as com- panion.” ov 8 ogw dvaxta, 559: thn aber thren Herren (Am.-H). Two cases, Tay Svo0 popdwr, 253, and ri vix«r’, 497, occur in lines which are generally suspected, but we do not think they should be excised (pp. 223, 226 infra). And there appears to be nothing exceptional in either. The first is the common use before “a Cardinal Numeral, when a division is made” (4.4. 228), as here between two parts of the night and a third. ry pur is one of Dr. Monro’s bad cases (H.G. 234, and his note ad, “‘for that night.’ But neither the Article nor the Acc. of duration is in place here. This line is probably spurious ”). But how is one to translate “that night” and at the same time say that tjv is the Article? Surely it is demonstrative. The use of ryv v¥xra to mean “in the night” or “at night” (which would be vu«rds as in v 278) would be somewhat absurd. We know well it was night. It must mean “during that night.” So it is taken by Am.-H., withrend jener Nacht, as by Pierron, cette auit-la. En prose ravtny tiv vinra, ila nocte, and by Bothe. So indeed in the translation by Dr. Monro himself. The remaining cases are all specified in H.G. 230, 234, as bad examples of late usage. % to. br és mediov TO Tpwixdv aOpyoeve, 11. Kiihner- Gerth (i. 580) agree that this is an Attic use, but only one of many such in the poems. Attic or not, it seems to have good support, as medlov 7d “Adjiov, Z 201, 7d Iedaoyexdv "Apyos, B 681, and Oeods rods trotaptaplovs, B 279. Oduvpu tov Oprixa, B 595, and the group of expressions, already discussed, of the type r@ "AcxAnmiddy, are not very different. LaRoche, al., refers for illustration to dvjp dpiotos, A 288, and dvruyes ai epi Sidpov, A 535=T 500. Cf. also tyOves of xara Sivas, x THE ARTICLE 83 ® 353. In these passages Dr. Monro, Dr. Leaf and Mr. Platt take af and of as the relative, a change which does not seem to be for the better, and which is not accepted in nine other editions which I have consulted. The phrase in our passage recurs in VW 464, without the 7d, Tpwixdy dy mediov, though V, as a late book, should have a weakness for the Article. In qredLov LKapavSprov, B 465, and ’Hdrvouov wediov, 8 563, 76 could not be inserted. The metre influenced the use of the Article. Sedp’ és rods piAaxas KataBjopuev, 97. Exulato importunus articulus, sceribitorque Sebpo 8) és giraxas, ut y 395, Sedpo 5 époo (van Herwerden in Mnemos. xix. 163). (It may be added that in Hes. Opp. 2, Seite 87 is given by most MSS. for Sedre, A’. See Paley and Rzach, al.) Copyists would easily insert an Attic Article (Stummer, 13, 37, etc, and Agar, passim). It is worth noticing that a similar change in V 485 would get rid of yy in the temporal sense,—the only case in the poems except that alleged in K 105 (p. 233 infra). Some defend rovs as deictic, for which see M. and R. on a 359, and ef. Bréal, 180; ce supplément de clarté que donne le geste. So for ovros,—erebro Setxtexas (Lehrs, Ar. 51). Add Kiihner-Gerth, i. 641, quoting Nitzsch on a 185—den sprechenden Homer muss man sprechen, nicht lesen. The gesture in our case is perhaps implied by Sedpo, “down to the guards yonder” (Stummer, 22, and Vogrinz, 198). Am.-H. take rovs as the pronoun, “them, the guards.” But it is better to accept the insertion of the Article. The author of K uses ¢vAaxes without the Article, in the undoubted sense of our “the guards,” six times. Had he been a late poet with late ways, he would surely have betrayed his late origin in more than one of the seven uses. Fick’s Sedpo peta dvdAaxas does not seem good. xaipe dé Te dpi? "Odvceds, 277. “At the omen of the bird” (Monro, a/.). But why not “at that omen,” hoc oscine (Stier), iiber dieses Vogelzeichen (LaR. and Henke)? The use is surely demonstr., as in tod BactAtos amnvéos, A 340, or rov Spxov, 8 3'78, “that oath of hers” (M. and R.). TO oxhmTpov avdcyeo, 321. “The sceptre,’—‘the defining Article of later Greek” (ZG. 230). Dr. Leaf, however, trans- lates “this sceptre,” which Dolon holds “as in possession of the house.” But that is doubtful, for the gathering is informal. 84 THE LAY OF DOLON OHAP. (For another explanation, see C.R. xx. 205.) LaRoche and Pierron both give “this sceptre,” the latter thinking that Hector has it in his hand. But 328 shews that Hector was not holding the sceptre while Dolon was speaking. He takes it in his hands when Dolon is done, and, as it is not said that he got it from Dolon, it may have been conceived by the poet as lying beside Hector or held by an attendant. In any case Dolon’s request is probably made Sescrex@s, and the best translation seems to be, with Am.-H., “the sceptre there” (ro hinweisend). There is no need to assume the late Article. See Professor Postgate, p. 16, on 76 oxhrrpov in H 412. Kat pot dmoccoy % pev Tovs tamous . . . Swoduer, ob fopéovow .. ., 321 ff, and wh pev Tois trrrovow dvip émoyncertat a&\ros, 330. These two seem to be the weakest of all Dr. Monro’s serious cases. As regards the first, if authority for the demonstr. view is required, see Kiihner-Gerth (i. 578) and Kriiger (Sprachl. ii. 2, 63). Paley says tovs = éxeivous, and Am.-H, render jenen, den 322 f. bezeichneten, just as in a note a.l. Dr. Monro himself on the other case, ois fmrmotow, says “that chariot, Art. referring to 1. 322.” His objection in the case of rovs tarmovs seems unintelligible, except on the assumption that o is the Article if it can be rendered in English by “the.” But even “the” varies much in signification. In “the house that Jack built” it is only a weaker “that,’—Professor Postgate’s “intermediate Article.” In “hold thou the good,” it is the Article in its highest use. Foran Articular use in tois frotow nothing can be said. Miss Stawell, I observe, does not even include it in her enumeration. Professor Postgate remarks that “if ever there was a passage in which solemn emphasis was expressed by article or pronoun adjective,” it is this one. In estimating the results of this detailed survey, attention may be confined to Dr. Monro’s seven bad cases. Three, tovs ious, 322, trois trmoow, 330, and to dpi’, 277, may be disallowed at once, and ai Trav ddAdwv dvraxal, 408, as the reading is much too doubtful. There remain three, about which opinions will differ,—the 6 tAjuor group, 7d Tpwixdv, 11, and Tovs pvraxas, 97. The last, if allowed to stand, is the worst of all. The others have numerous parallels in the poems, and some will believe that the 6 tAjpwv set were never so written at all. The residuum of the Article in Attic uses is very trifling in x THE ARTICLE 85 amount. There is not one instance of the late Article in its highest use. Now let us turn to other parts of the poems. If Dissectors are right, other late parts should be as full of late Articular uses as K’s enemies say it is. A very early part should be absolutely free of them. We begin with A, supposed to have been composed in days when Greek did not yet know the Article. We omit from consideration, as before, all stock cases, ra mpata, 6 yépwv, and the like, and some debatable cases as ta 8 drowa, 20, and TO pev wdetov, 165, and fix our attention on these—rdv Xpvonv, 11, 7d yépas, 167, rH Sexdry, 54, tad 7 ovta ta 7 éoospeva, 70, 7d KpHyvov, 106, ra ndx’, 107, and ra yepelova, 576. They constitute a black list as formidable as Dr. Monro’s for K, and they can hardly be reduced by emendation or manipulation. Dr. Leaf is silent regarding most of them. He admits that tov Xpvonv is hardly to be paralleled in Homer. To yépas is explained (H.G. 230) as a sort of “defining Article,” the whole phrase col 1d yépas being =7d cov yépas. It seems very doubtful if the explanation is good, and better with Paley, al., to recognise “ the ordinary use of the Article.” In 77 dexdrn again, how are we to refuse a real Articular use? It seems the exact equivalent of our “on the tenth (day).” The remaining cases—rd 7° éovra, etc., are all of a stamp, and surely uses of the Article in one of its highest later developments. Dr. Monro explains them (4.G. 228 f.) as a form of his Article of Contrast, “expressing the standing contrasts of great and small, many and few, good and evil, etc., especially when the contrast is brought out by the context.” When the contrast is brought out by the context, the use of the Article may be a special one, though we think even here the examples are often strained to fit a theory. A stock instance is B 217, gorxds env, yords 8 erepov mooa, TH S€ of Buo, «.7.. The HG. 227 (followed by Jebb, 188) translates “but then his shoulders,” in contrast to other parts of Thersites’ body. But there is no contrast. Legs and shoulders are included as similar items in one damaging descrip- tion. But where the contrast is not brought out by the context, what have we but the definite Article of later Greek? This element of contrast is always present in the real Article, and is the more marked the higher its use. The more complete the 86 THE LAY OF DOLON CHAP. “individualisation” or “actualisation” effected by the Article, the more decided the contrast with everything outside the notion or concrete fact so specialised. In one of the cases now under reference, Dr. Monro claims that there is contrast expressed, (“implied” would seem to be the more appropriate description), in the context. He says that 7d xpyyvoy is opposed to Ta xad«’, and that the latter expression is “quite different from the later use of 7d xaxov or ta xaxd for ‘evil’ or ‘evils’ in general.” But in his note a.l. he translates “evil is dear to you to prophesy,” which seems to agree with Nagelsbach’s note on TO Kpnyvov, statt eines concreten Hinzelnen die Gattung ; solches was gut ist. We do not require a contrast, express or implied, in the context. But certainly there is no contrast expressed in Ta T éovta Ta 7 éaoopeva. On the contrary, the two notions are co-ordinated in one affirmation. It is difficult here, as in Ta xepelova, to see anything but a high use of the fully developed Article. As Niagelsbach says of tad 7 édvra, “the Homeric Article is here absolutely identical with the Attic.” So Kiihner- Gerth, i. 579, and Kuhn, op. cit. 2. No attempt, so far as we know, has been made to get rid of these cases by emendation. And they are so strong that we may allow to critics of K all the damage to the Book which can be argued on 7d Tpwixov and even tovs piraxas. If the Article proves K late, I think it proves A later. We next take a passage among the very latest, the “Con- tinuation” of the Odyssey, yr 297 to the end of w. It should be full of genuine Articular uses. On the contrary, Dr. Monro (Odyssey, 323), though he holds the arguments against the passage “overwhelming,” notes only one instance of the later use of the Article, viets of Aodloo, w 497, where the of to some critics, as Nauck, seems corrupt. And—more striking still—there is in this very late area a passage, w 1-204, which is held to be even later. Yet there is not in it a single use of the Article that claims attention. The Zelemachy is also said to be very late. Kirchhoff and his followers (Jebb, 129 f.) would assign it to the author of the “ Continuation,” who flourished in the age (circ. 650 B.c.) which, according to Leaf and Jebb, gave us the Doloneia. Examining 1 This is in his J2iad, vol. I. p. xxii. Dr. Leaf’s rendering of r& xaxd is “ those evil things of yours,” x THE ARTICLE 87 one book, a, for Articular evidence of lateness, we find not one case worth noticing. If we have regard to this and to statistics for a and A (Stummer, 57), we must pronounce the Zelemachy earlier than the Ménis, so far as Articular evidence goes. Or take ©, which is not much higher in critical estimation than K. Peppmiiller, who has left nothing unsaid that could tell against it, is of opinion (Comment. xliii.) that there is in that book no essential advance in the matter of the Article, though both Koch and Férstemann had tried to prove there was. I think Miss Stawell’s lists for A and © shew that Peppmiiller is right. The facts then do not suit Dissectors. Books which are, in their estimation, extremely late, may shew little trace of the genuine Article. On the other hand, their Ur-Jlias may provide a number of high Attic uses. Their theory of an Article developing through centuries along with a growing Jliad and Odyssey seems to be negatived. Some other explanation must be sought. Miss Stawell’s lists shew there are differences which are not to be explained by any theory of late and early. X and A are both Ur-Zlias; they differ much. So do WV and OQ, which are considered Late Expansions. But such differences should not surprise us. The moods of the poet, the varying nature of the subject of his song, and the needs of the verse are enough to account for them. If we select two parts of Paradise Lost which have very different subjects ——as Book VII. 640 lines, and the first 640 lines of Book II.,— it will be found that the occurrences of the Definite Article in the former are very nearly double those in the latter. Kriiger (Sprachl. ii. 2, 65 f.; and ef. Diintzer, 530, and Nagelsbach on A 6 and B 329) lays stress on metrical convenience. He observes that German poets often omit the Article in cases where, in ordinary speech, it could not be dispensed with. Kiihner-Gerth who are satisfied (i. 639 f.) that the genuine Article exists in Homer, remark on the varying frequence of its occurrences in poetry generally. Their view is that the higher the form of the poetry, and the more its descriptive style is removed from the ordinary speech of life, the more sparingly is the Article used. And the nearer the poetry is to actual life, and the closer its relation to the language of the people, the more frequent the employment of the Article. Thus 88 THE LAY OF DOLON CHAP, in Lyric, and in Tragedy, especially in the lyric passages, the use is rare and corresponds to epic practice. In Comedy, on the other hand, the use is akin to that in Attic prose. This appears to apply to the Jliad and the Odyssey. The Epic is the highest, the most stately of all, and Homer’s the noblest of all epic poetry. In matter and language alike it is exalted above others, On Kiihner-Gerth’s principle we can understand his rare use of the Article, and how he became a model to his successors, not in the Epic only, but in other forms of poetry. Pindar (Kihner-Gerth, i. 582) uses the Article but seldom, but its development was, we know, complete before his day. For Tragedy and Comedy we have already given Kiihner-Gerth’s view. Hesiod’s case has some interest. His practice, according to Kiihner-Gerth (i. 581), corresponds entirely to’. Homer’s. But it is added that “it is striking that the pronoun nowhere appears (in Hesiod) as the real Article.’ That can hardly be accepted. Hesiod does use 6 as the Article, and a careful comparison of the Theogony and the Works with the Jiiad and the Odyssey seems to shew that there is hardly a use in either of the former that cannot be paralleled in the epics. Dr. Monro (4G. 234) finds “some advance” in Hesiod. His instances are instructive. All are from the Works, and all except one—rév mpdcbev, 457, which is unimportant—are from the second two hundred lines of the poem. Now this section is peculiar in its subject. It is didactic, like the bulk of the poem, but unlike the part that follows in this, that it is practically a collection of moral precepts. See Paley’s analysis of 201-382. It reads like the Gnomes of Theognis, and, as in these, the use of the Article is frequent. In the Jliad and the Odyssey such moralising is not common. But there is just enough to warrant us in saying that, had there been more, the higher uses of the Article must have been more frequent. It does not seem to be going too far to say that even in the Ur-Zlias the uses of the Article are identical with the highest in Hesiod. The Articular phenomena in Homer require further investiga- tion. A comparison with the poetry of other languages might help towards the explanation of the rarity and irregularity of the uses. It is noticeable how easily the Article can be omitted even in its highest applications. Though we say “hold thou x THE ARTICLE 89 the good,” we can say “avoid evil,” and instead of “the fox is cunning,” “foxes are cunning.” In French “one says les vins du Ehin, but more often les vins de Moselle; ?Empereur dw Maroc, but ?Empereur de Chine ; lettres du Portugal and lettres de Portugal indifferently, but lettres de Suéde. This means that, if the Article does not add to the phrase an entire word (la), it is more easy to use it.”’ A very high authority, Meillet, has recently (IZS.L. 1908, 168) commented on the absence of the Article before nouns in the Homeric poems. The reason is to be found in the epic tradition, not in the non-existence of the Article, un dément si généralement répandu sur tout le domaine hellénique des la date la plus ancienne. The rarity of the Article in Beowulf has been noted by the commentators, as Arnold, p. xiv. of his Introduction, and Huyshe, xxxiiii The German poets, as we have seen, often omit it where it would be used in prose. It must often be inconvenient in any poetry. In the Iliad and the Odyssey there is another indication of the same thing. There does not seem to be one unquestionable case in them of the use of a dissyllabic part of 6 7 ro as the genuine Article. All the ten occurrences of rofo as the Article given by Koch (p. 31) are in stock phrases of the type toio yépovros, and need not be considered the Article. Of rodiv there are four occurrences (p. 35,—II 644 is a mistake), all pronominal. rdov (p. 37) is everywhere demonstrative, and rofo. and tyoe (p. 38) the same, the only case (y 221) in which Koch claims rofou as the Article being clearly so. Our conclusion is that the Article existed in Ur-Zlias times, though not in ali its uses afterwards familiar in Attic prose. We have suggested an explanation of the unequal distribution of occurrences through the two epics, and we have seen that the theory of an Article developing with an expanding body of poetry does not appear to consist with the phenomena. We have also seen that there is nothing more serious against K than can be urged against A. The Articular evidence does not tend to prove it late. 1 Romania, xxviii. 294,—-a review, itself, and so am unable to give fully brought to my notice by Mr. Andrew what the author says about the forme Lang, of a Swedish work on the Article. légére et commode de Varticle. I have not had access to the work CHAPTER XI THE PSEUDO-ARCHAISMS THERE is one class of cases of linguistic aberration in which a specific reason can be given for the inference of lateness. A form has an archaic appearance, but is philologically impossible. The poet responsible for it was trying to reproduce the language of the men of old, but failed. As he was not scholar enough to understand the structure of the words, he succeeded in producing only what Mr. Agar calls the “sham antique.” Philologists can now expose such mistakes, and critics see in them the efforts of “late imitative poets.” This is another hobby which some high authorities (see H.G. 151, and Jebb, 137 f.) think has been ridden too hard. They believe there are fewer archaisms in the poems than is generally supposed. A hankering after the archaic and the production of only the pseudo-archaic, is one of the faults laid to the charge of the author of K. Dr. Leaf (Zntrodn. to K) says “ we seem to have pseudo- archaisms, éypnyopOact, Kpdrecdi, ohiow = tpiv, and perhaps mapap0ainot.” Dr Monro (Jntrodn.) gives, as “clearly pseudo- archaic,” rapapOainot, xpdterdt, éreiyerov, “ perhaps also ozeto (for oéo) and tOjpevos.” Jebb, Jc, thinks Monro’s cases “confirm the relative lateness of the book,” but only with a reservation which he indicates in his general discussion of the question. Father Browne (Handbook, 47 ff.) does not refer to these cases in K in his section on archaisms. We may note, to begin with, what the authorities say on those mentioned. mapapOaina, 346. “Meant for an Opt, the -ov being added in imitation of the Subj. in -yoe (for 7)” So Dr. Monyo, al. But in AG. '73 he seems doubtful, and on p. 48 he admits the possibility of a ¢@aiw, for which cf. Ench. 289 n., quoting G. Meyer and J. Schmidt. Dr. Leaf, a/., holds that the form 90 CHAP, XI THE PSEUDO-ARCHAISMS 91 is a “hybrid monster,’ which he will not impute even to the author of K, and prints tapag¢@dvyo1, with some MS. support. LaRoche corrects to rapapOnjyot, and Fick to wapad@dnor. It is perhaps best to accept wapad@dvyor. A scribe would know Attic ¢@dvm and would not understand Homeric ¢0déyw (from P0avFw, H.G. 47, or metri causa, POdvvw, Ludwich, Av. ii. 127; cf. Schulze, 109). It seems unnecessary with Curtius (Verb, 325) to infer “an aberration of the linguistic sense on the part of a later imitative poet.” He assumes (p. 40) that K is not one of the oldest lays. éretyerov, 361. Jf a conjve, a wrong formation. If an indic., the change to mpo@éyot in the next line is harsh (Monro and Leaf, a./.). Some, as Thiersch, accept the form as a legiti- mate conjve. with a shortened mood-vowel. Curtius (op. cit. 323) denies this, and shews that all similar formations can be removed by simple emendation. Here he approves Paech’s 8 te mpobénot (instead of vulg. 6 5€ Te wpoOénor),' and his comparison of N 62 ff, p 518 f,, for a relative clause with the conjve. introduced into a simile with the indic. So #nch. 304. Dr. Leaf dissents; the two passages quoted are not in point. But the distinction he draws between them and the line in K seems to be without a difference. He also argues that where we have both conjve. and indic. in a simile, the former comes first, and this is generally so. But we have two cases to keep K in countenance, and Am.-H. add P 522. There o d€ mpoOopwv épimrnow, though it is a conjve. that precedes, is a good parallel to our phrase. There is yet another possibility, to read with Fick mpo@éno. from mpobénut. But there is sufficient authority for taking éeéyerov as indic. followed by a conj. So Stacke (De compurationibus Hom. 10). opiow, 398. If=tpiv, uniquein Homer. See Brugmann’s Hin Problem d. hom. Teatkrit. 42 But he assumes K is an exceptional book, and seems (p. 43) to leave the solution of the question dependent on the view we take of its age. Dr. Leaf, a.l., argues for the meaning duiv and for false archaism. Dr. Monro (a.l., and HG. 221) accepts a very different and a much 1 Ar. read 8 dé wpobéyot. Ahrens had have not met with general acceptance. already (Philologus, vi. 25) suggested See Lehrs’ review, in his Kv. Schriften, _, that the hiatus before 6 had led to the 101 ff., and cf. Lentz, Iterat. 19. See insertion of the re. also Leaf, vol. i. App. A, and Monro 2 The conclusions in this learned work thereon, Odyssey, p. 437. 92 THE LAY OF DOLON CHAP. more simple and natural interpretation of the passage, taking odicw in its ordinary sense. It is a question of the reading of the line,—Bovrev-, éOéXover against Bovdrev-, é0érorre. Opinion is divided and is never likely to be at one. Out of 17 editions which I have consulted, 7 give the reading on which Dr. Leaf relies, and 10 the other. I refer to the discussions of 309-12 =396-9 and 208-10= 409-11, pp. 225 f. infra, and suggest that what is there stated confirms the view of Dr. Monro, and that it is unnecessary to infer archaising. odiow in 398 seems to have its ordinary meaning. éypnyopOact, 419. A false form (Leaf, al.) due to a mis- understanding of éypyyopAa1, 67, which is from a perf. mid., and éypnyope, H 371, = 299, which may be mid., or (Ench. 404) act. for éypnyopare. Dr. Monro, on the contrary, thinks (Z.G. 25 and n.) “a Perf. in -0a may be recognised in éypnydp-Oacr . .. perhaps in the Opt. BeBpddouws, A 35.” Cf. Leaf on @ 270. Paley, a.l., says éypyyop0a for éypnydpaba (like émrevijvoba). But van Leeuwen (Ench, 404 n.) quotes authority for Dr. Leaf’s view. For the insertion of @ see ibid. 354, and Kihner-Blass, ii, 239, where is the sinister remark that éypyyopOa occurs only in K. Brugmann (Gr. Gram. 348) seems to think the form may have come into existence in a natural way. See also Hinrichs, Aeol. 15 f. The form has yet to be explained. Archaising is only one possibility. The fact that the author of K knows and uses the mid. in 67, rather diminishes the ground for suspecting that he was using in 419 a word which he did not understand. Kpatecgt, 156. See Leaf, al, Ench. 237, Jebb, 137 n. and HG. 91, It is a “quite anomalous” form, if a dat. sing., so far as our knowledge of the stem goes, but the HG. (Jc. with note) shews that all is not quite clear to the philologists yet. There is a possibility that xpdreops may have been as correct as aotOecds. eoxyapddw is well vouched, though we know éoxdpy only. xorvdndoveds is also, so far as we know, irregular (Neubdildung, Brugmann, Gr. Gram. 239). But is it certain that xpdreocds is meant for a dat. sing.? Ebel. Seiler and Gehring, s.v., and Brugmann, l.c., take it to be a dat. pL, the last- named calling it a Neubildung like (according to some authorities) modecou. So King and Cookson, 332, comparing the -ec- in éméecou. -pt was originally a plural ending (C.R. viii. 402), xI THE PSEUDO-ARCHAISMS 93 and if xpdreogu is sing, it is the only case of a sing. in -¢v of the 3rd decl. in Homer (Kiihner-Blass, i, 491). But it is a question if the plur. is admissible in K 156. Can the poet in that line be referring, as in 152, to the heads of the whole company, and not to Diomede’s head alone? The interposition of 154 f, which certainly relate to Diomede alone, followed by rov in 157, seems to me to be against the idea. If the authorities quoted are right, then cpdreogs can be explained as a corruption of «part «du, which the minor scholia have preserved (Thiersch, Gr. Gram? 293, and cf. Leaf, al). xpati and tamns would both be in place as singulars, though referring to several heads. (Cf. cavpwrfpos in 153.) A shield of any kind is a poor pillow, be it for private or captain, without something softer folded between the head and the shield. See p.197 infra. But I cannot myself think the poet was in 156 referring to the heads of Diomede’s company. Thiersch suggested that the original might have been dd xpards guy, seeing in gu “a vanishing trace of the old Dat. tv or Fiv instead of o7.” If we could postulate a ‘Fe or Fe, a form that could everywhere replace of in the poems, then KPATIFI, later KPATII, may have been the puzzle that led to the adoption of «pdrecqu, on the analogy of *EpéBeodgu, dxeorgu, o1jGerdgu, dperds, which occur 14 times in the position in the verse occupied by xpdrecgds. But the origin of the various forms of the pronoun is still debated (Solmsen, 199; Brugmann, op. cit. 246). There is nothing clear about xpdtecps. It cannot be said beyond doubt that it is a false coinage. It may be a corruption. It may even be correct. ometo, 285. “Perhaps” a false archaism (Monro, Jntrodn. to K), on the mistaken analogy of aidefo (Am.-H. al.; Christ, Hom. od. Homdn. 107; Menrad, 136, and others). But this seems to be no more than suspicion. Schulze’s explanation (404 f.), adopted by Dr. Leaf (cf. his note, E 423, on the forms in -o7), is much simpler,—that it is a case of lengthening in the first arsis. Lines commence with éeé or 84; why not with owéo? A scribe might lengthen the first syllable, whether with a recollection of aiSefo or without it. There is no need to assume archaising, Van Leeuwen (£nch. 371) amends to gamed p’ os. “Athené,” he somewhere says, “could not have listened to Diomede, if he spoke broad Doric!” dperdu, 185. Dr. Monro, H.4. 188, 151, thinks this is 94 THE LAY OF DOLON CHAP. “perhaps a false archaism,” but on what appear to be slender grounds. Also that riO/evov, 34, may be the same. But I cannot find any grounds stated. See p. 259 infra. elacev, 299. The suggestion here is made in Dr, Leaf’s note aJ.. There is just a possibility, no doubt, that a late imitative poet, with inadequate grammatical knowledge, was misled by #ripacev or dacev, but surely it is just as likely to have been a copyist’s error. As Dr. Leaf himself says, “P, Knight’s efaev is no doubt right.” Of. ela "AOjvn, o 346, and note the impfts. xucdjoxero and yprivero, K 300, 302. Again, elac’ “Exrwp, which is condemned as rhythmically impossible, is given by one MS., it was accepted by Wolf and Bekker, and it is printed by Monro, Am.-H., Christ and others On such verse-endings, see Ludwich, Ar. ii. 330 ff., and Sommer in Glotta, i. 156 f. These are all the cases. It is greatly to be regretted that more has not been written on pseudo-archaisms as a class by those who uphold them. We should then feel more certain as to their existence and significance. We have already referred to the caution administered by Monro and Jebb. Jebb follows Monro closely, but, judging from the paucity of the references to these archaisms in the H.G., one cannot think such forms can be numerous. Father Browne (Handbook, 47) says they are, but his examples are not convincing. Paley was an extremist on the subject (Post-epice or Imitative Words in Homer, ii. 33, and pref. to his Zdiad, vol. II. xxxiv. ff). For a damaging criticism of his position see Professor Mahaffy in Macm. Mag, xxxix., especially pp. 322 f. Professor Sayce (App. to Mahaffy’s H.G.L, 275 ff.) finds in these archaisms confirmation of the theory that the language of the poems is a mixed, highly artificial dialect, but that belief seems to be doubted more and more in the present day. See, eg. Mr. Agar’s preface, quoting Dr. Monro. Mr Agar himself, I should think, would not believe in pseudo- archaising by the poet or poets. See p. 110 f. of his work. Modernisation is at least as good an explanation. Early poets are not given to archaising at all (p. 198 infra). The literary art had not, in epic times, got the length of “conventional stylising” (Rothe in Jb. 1889, 367, approving Gemoll and against Wilamowitz). If such forms are due to late imitative poets, many of whom XI THE PSEUDO-ARCHAISMS 95 are supposed to have laboured at the poems, it seems strange that we do not find the Jiiad and the Odyssey full of such indications, When a writer has an inclination that way, he usually indulges it freely. Morris and Newman, for instance, did so in their translations of Homer. Tennyson loved an archaic word or phrase. His son tells us so, and that the poet used to regret that he had never been able to bring in the word “yarely.” The authors of the Revised Version of the Bible used many archaisms, and often stumbled (Driver, Jeremiah, 371 ff.). Macpherson, of Ossian fame, is an example of the dangers of composing in a language one is not thoroughly familiar with. But generally those who have affected the archaic in language have been learned men in a literary age, and they have not made mistakes. But the late Homeric bards, with a leaning to the antique, and without the ability to cultivate the taste success- fully, should have sown their work with false archaisms. That they certainly have not done.’ Our own poet’s mistakes number, at the outside, nine, though we do not know of any one scholar who includes more than six in his list. And observe the terms in which they are stated. They “seem to be” or “ perhaps are” archaisms, or “we may admit the possibility.” And when we examine the possibility, we find there is in every case some explanation as good as that of failure to achieve the archaic. And even if this were their origin, there would be no ground for arguing lateness. Archaisms might have been produced “in 800 or 900 as easily as in 450 Bc. by an Ionian poet who found in the traditional epic diction forms or phrases which no longer existed in the living idiom of his day” (Jebb, .c.). That was surely possible enough if, as the learned hold, the epic art, with its language and verse, was the fruit of a long period of develop- ment. Christ observes (Interpol. 191; cf. Browne, 49, and Cauer, pref. to Odyssey, xi. f. on darndpa) that anomalies of the kind are found in the oldest parts of the poems. They would tend to indicate a difference of authorship, only if we could assume that the language of “Homer” was absolutely perfect. But it is surely just as reasonable to see in them the errors of copyists, or the “fond things vainly invented” (Agar) by them or by editors in later ages, or even the innocent slips of an early bard. Jebb illustrates his position in the matter from éeicato, which Wackernagel took as a scribe’s error for éjcaro. Both 96 THE LAY OF DOLON CHAP, XI would be written in early days EECATO. Our own case of mapapOainor is another illustration. And lastly, we notice how inconsistent this part of the case is with another head of the indictment against the author of K. He is charged with being a late imitator who sought to reproduce the archaic language of the best days of the epic. His “archaistic tendency,” Dr. Leaf says (vol. i. 629), is “notable.” But he is also discredited by long lists of words and expressions which are not to be found in the Ménis, or in other comparatively early and unobjectionable strata of the Ziad. He could hardly have a serious desire to imitate his ancient models by affecting the antique, and at the same time so far neglect the traditional language, and especially its copious and distinctive commonplace, that numerous deviations from established epic usage can now be marked in his lay. A still more serious allegation against him relating to archaeological tendency is discussed further on, pp. 197 f. infra. CHAPTER XII THE DIGAMMA TuE Digamma has been used by the critics as a test of the age of a given part of the poems. It died a natural death in the Ionic of Asia Minor about 800 B.c. (Thumb, LF, ix. 325 and 334; Fick, Odyssey, 8, and Enistg. d. Od. ‘7; and S. and A. Introduction, lxxii.). Before its death it gradually weakened through a period of decay (Verwitterungsepoche). Its experience was thus the reverse of that of the Article. The latter, but nascent in Ur-Ilias days, only reached its prime when, centuries later, the finishing touches were being put to the poems. The Digamma, on the other hand, was “a living sound when the poems began ; they lasted till it had become for Ionia a dead convention ” (Leaf, vol. II. x.). Betweenwhiles it was gathering to itself the in- firmities of age, and these infirmities are characteristic of the books and passages of the poems composed in the interval. This is a useful theory to Dissectors, and they apply it freely when they are bent on proving a passage late, and are neglecting no indication that can be turned to account. “There is a suspicious neglect of the Digamma in line—,” or interpolatorem prodit neglectum F verbi—, is a common form of remark. See Ench. 143. The suggestion often is that the mere neglect is a sign of lateness, because such neglects are not found to mar the purity of the language of early lays. & oivoio, I 224, is an Tonism according to Robert. So then is & ofxad, A 19. To be sure most of the neglects of F in A have been amended away. So they may be elsewhere by any one with a good knowledge of the poems and endowed with a little ingenuity. Difficulties are stated only to be solved by the Zauberschlag, omitte or lege rd Seiva. But,—though Mr. Agar, in the Preface to his Homerica, thinks the end, is in sight,—all the neglects in A have not been 97 - H 98 THE LAY OF DOLON OHAP, purged out of it. And so long as there remains, in the very earliest stratum of the Jiéad, an irreducible residuum, neglects of F in other parts of the poems can have little importance. If the passages impugned get the same treatment as the Ur-Ilias, their Digamma-phenomena will prove as little against them as similar blemishes prove against the kernel of the Jiiad. No- where is more use made of F to discredit passages than in Robert’s Studien. But take away from his instances those in which F is disputable, those in which neglect of F would not be generally admitted, and those which can be paralleled in the Ur-Ilias, and little remains. And we observe that there is a large body of the very highest authority in favour of the view that the Digamma-phenomena are uniform throughout the poems, and cannot be used as a test for predicating late and early in them. We have found the same for the epic language and verse generally (p. 48 supra). Not | that these authorities are all agreed on what we may call the Digamma Question; far from it. The various theories can be found described in any manual. But only this, that many scholars of standing are agreed that neglects and observances of F are so uniform that it is impossible to use it as a test of age. The Ench. 147 (and cf. 567) puts this succinctly: nam modo ab hoc, modo ab illo vocabulo Homerico digamma abest, neque in recentioribus tantum locis sed in antiquissima quaque Iliadis vel Odysseae parte hie illic neglegitur. Naber, who is conspicuous among the Dissectors, also rejects F as a test (Q.H. 79), and quotes authorities. I content myself with reference to Friedlander, Zw. h. W. 770; Ludwich, Ar. ii. 278 ; Bréal, Journ. des Sav. 1908, 143, Rev. de Par. 1903, 764, and Pour mieux, 221; Jebb, 142 n.; and Browne, Handbook, 80. Christ might also be claimed as, on the whole, an adherent of the same view, though the result of his discussions in his various works (Jnterpol. 144 ff. and 166 ff., Hom. od. Homdn. 217, 59, Iliad, 150 ff.) seems to be that in certain parts of the Jdiad and in the Odyssey there is a difference observable. But even between the Jliad and the Odyssey he finds no difference worth remarking (Jnterpol. 167). Still there are, he says, small differences. Thus in his Z.G.L.* 43, he finds that the F of ofvos is more frequently neglected in the Odyssey. But he has omitted to notice that the word is used in that poem twice as often as in the Jliad. xu THE DIGAMMA 99 But in spite of all these declarations by the experts, passages and books continue to be tried by the Digamma, and we propose to submit the Doloneia to the same test. Some, as Thumb and S. and A., opp. citt., investigate on the vulgate. Others correct freely. But once admit corrections, other than such as are trifling and generally acceptable, and uncertainty comes flooding in. The cautious will not accept the amendments of the rash emendators, and they in turn sneer at conservative policy which “regards any change as petus angut.” , Another difficulty is that philologists are not agreed as to the words which are digammated in the poems. Hartel’s list is often followed, but there are authorities who will take exception to one item or another in it. Compare the lists in the HG., Thumb’s paper, the Hnch., Christ's Prolegg., Leskien’s examination of Bekker’s treatment of the Digamma, and other works. “I\cos and "Ios are well-known examples. And there are differences as to whole classes of words, as those which originally commenced with of (Thumb, 331). L. Meyer’s proof, in K.Z. xxiii. 53 ff, that words commencing with 0, ov or w have not F in the poems, is generally accepted, but the rule is not always observed. Again, to take an individual word, Leo Meyer and Prellwitz accept Fermovos. But another authority holds that “nothing could be less justified” (C.Q. iii. 273). The Digamma, it is recognised, did not vanish from all words eodem temporis vestigio. There is still much uncertainty about individual words. Robert asserts initial F in a number of words to which other authorities would deny it. There is disagreement on yet another question,—what are to be considered neglects of F? One class of cases is numerous and important,—those of a short syllable ending in a consonant in thesi’ before initial F in the following word. Did F lengthen such a syllable? Solmsen says it did not. Hoffmann originated the idea (Q.H. ii. 50 ff). Hartel developed it (Hom. Stud. iii. 76 ff.). van Leeuwen objected (Hnch. 156 ff.) and gave strong reasons. Solmsen (129 ff.) upholds it and reinforces it by argu- ments from post-Homeric poetry in Doric, in which F had a longer life, and by analogous phenomena in Homeric verse. See also Meillet in ASL. 1909, 31. Writing in 1901, Solmsen 1 T use the term, in what has become ing the ictus. But see Jebb, 192, and the current sense, of a syllable not bear- C.£. xix. 118, 100 THE LAY OF DOLON OHAP. regretted that the matter had received so little attention,—only from G. Meyer (Gr. Gram. 316 £.), and from Ludwich (Ar. ii. 283), who used it for his own purposes. See also Cauer, Odyssey, p. ix. 2 But Solmsen unfortunately overlooked the Hnch. So the case is still with the judges, and till they decide it, we must remain uncertain how we are to regard a crux such as péAawvay éptccopev, A 141, or % va bBpw idy, A 203, or kbvtarov épdor, K 503. It is worth adding that, using this principle, Solmsen claims (p. 193) to have proved, in Rhein. Mus. liii. 146 f,, that the Catalogue of the Ships, which many say is modern, observes F carefully. Or consider another set of cases. It has been finally established by Thumb and Solmsen that F was a semi-vowel with the sound of the English w (u). How then can 8 ofxaéd or & olvoco be considered a neglect? Bentley remarked that dwoikad is as easy to pronounce as dwell. The point is of interest for us, as we have, in K 497, vi«r OiveiSao. For could not have been more difficult to pronounce than 6Féos or SFjv. The elision before a semi-vowel is not a great matter. In Latin the vowel of -ne, and even syllables ending in a consonant, could be elided before a full consonant, if the verse required it. All neglects of F are evidently not equally serious. It seems then that any mere enumeration of what an individual scholar deems neglects, is not enough for the con- demnation of a given area in the Iliad or the Odyssey. Every instance must be considered, and the net debit against the passage weighed against a similar result for what critics regard as a standard piece of pure Ur-Jilias. And that is what we propose to do for K. We shall find that it survives the com- parison. And what then? The Dissector may tell us he is not surprised ; the bards of the decadence or the superior rhapsodists often had “an accurate sense of the old eptc language.” It has been said already. Christ (Jnterpol. 169) pauses to explain why some cantos,—K is one of them,—shew so little Digamma- irregularity. It is due to the “inclination of the individual poet.” This is one of those resources of destructive criticism which are intended to render opposition dumb. It seems to 1] have been able to trace one brief question, against Solmsen, Danielsson reference to the theory in English,—Mr. in LF. xxv. 264 ff. Sommer in Glotta, ‘Allen’s in C.@. iii. 224. See now, for i. 150, appears to accept Solmsen’s a thoroughgoing review of the whole views. xl THE DIGAMMA 101 render Christ’s own discussions on the Digamma futile. But there are Dissectors who will not regard or even require any such speculation. Bechtel, for example (Vocalcontr. 3), pronounces regarding K,—apparently on the simple ground of SiacKxomiacbar éxaora, which he assumes is borrowed from P 252, and of Siesre, which Fick would replace by Steece-—that F had vanished from the speech of the poet. . Some other attempts have been made to use the Digamma to discredit the Doloneia, though we may observe that it seems very extraordinary that they have been so few. In nearly all the set attacks on the language of K, by Diintzer and Orszulik, by Monro and Leaf and Jebb, the Digamma is not so much as mentioned. We must assume there were no faults, or not faults enough to make a case. Yet those of the extremest view are prepared to accept as late a date as 650 B.c. for the Doloneia. This makes its author later than Hesiod, and contemporary with Archilochus. In the first 579 lines of the Works and Days,— an area as large as K,—there are some forty neglects of F. For Archilochus, Thumb (p. 329; cf. Fick, Od. 8, and Seymour, L. and V. 35) gives the ratio of observances to neglects as 0:13. The difference, in regard to F, between their language and that of the Ménis written centuries before, is plain to every- body. at x’ ddads Svaxpiveer. And K also should be equally unlike the original Jad. But it is not. Hoffmann, in his Q.,, cut up the Jiiad into many pieces of different ages with the help of the Digamma, and (ii. 254 f.) posted K to an age gua confectae sunt multae partes Iliadis, quibus inter se conjunguntur antiquiora ... carmina. His work is a monument of industry, but it has not had lasting value. See Friedlander, Zw. h. W. 770, 776; G. Curtius, Andeutgn. 32 f.; Ilg, Hom. Kritik, i. 19 f.; and Peppmiiller, Comment. xv. The progress of both philology and Homeric criticism has been so great since his day, that it is certain that, if he were working now, he would, on the changed text, distribute the Jiad in different fashion. His final grouping is enough to condemn his results in the eyes of latter-day Dissectors. They will not accept an Ur-Zlias consisting of A, P, X, and part of ®, or the inclusion in one category of A and K. The dictum of Wolf, often quoted with approval, and almost as often forgotten, that we should never be able to tell with accuracy the limits of 102 THE LAY OF DOLON CHAP. the lays which were massed to make an Iliad, has never been ignored more completely than by Hoffmann, ex digammi indieciis servati aut neglectt Iliadem in minutulas particulas dissecante (Christ, Iliad, 151). Hoffmann found in K bad neglects only in four passages, which he therefore held interpolations, It seems then that he should have adjudged the bulk of the Book to be ancient. Of recent years K has figured in an interesting discussion by Thumb in pp. 329 ff. of his paper already referred to. He compares the Digamma-phenomena in certain parts of the Jliad, —the Achaean and Trojan Catalogues in B, the Games in V 261-897, and the whole of K,—which the critics generally think they have proved aliwnde to be late, with those in an early tract consisting of A and A, excluding the passages in these two books condemned by Christ. The vulgate is taken as a basis, without correction. Cases of v éedx. are left aside. Only initial Digamma is considered, and only in words in which its presence hardly admits of doubt. Words in which an original oF degenerated into the spiritus asper are excluded (as Thumb holds that F disappeared from them sooner than from others), and words commencing with o (not followed by 4) or o. In applying the Digamma as a criterion, hiatus-phenomena are, for reasons stated, mostly disregarded, and the Digamma effects taken into account are only (positive) cases in which, (1) a final long vowel or diphthong im thesi remains long before F, (2) those in which F makes “ position,” and (neglects) (3) elision, (4) failure to make position, and (5) failure to prevent correption of a long vowel or diphthong. In short, Thumb seeks an adjudication on cases in which the active influence of F can be asserted with reasonable certainty.! The result is that he finds the proportions of the totals of observances and neglects are, for A and A, 12:9=1:'75, and for B, K, VW, 17:17=1:1. He also gives figures to shew that the latter agree with the oldest of the Hymns, and are therefore, I presume, of the same age. The procedure seems open to question on several grounds. Many scholars will not accept Christ’s excisions. The selection 1 Professor Thumb has, with great he excludes, but that he finds them a courtesy to an entire stranger, explained less certain basis for inference. His to me that he does not deny all rele- method is essentially a tentative one. vance to the words and phenomena which xII THE DIGAMMA 103 of passages so much sui generis as the Catalogues in B will not seem a happy one, A more serious objection still is the small- ness of the number of the instances on which a decision is reached. The element of chance must play a great part. There are parts of the poems where the frequent occurrence of a word or stock phrase which their subject requires, might vitiate the whole of the inference. Thus in P, counting on Thumb’s method, I find a considerable preponderance of observ- ances over neglects. But P is concerned, in great part, with the dragging hither and thither of the corpse of Patroclus, and no fewer than 8 out of the 23 observances of F are ir the word Fepdw. And lastly, I have tested many books in the poems by the same method, and the results often do not by any means correspond to the views of advanced critics. For instance, N is generally decried as a mass of patchwork, much of it of late origin. Yet I do not find in the first 800 lines, or till we come to éwi & laye dads ’Axyardy in 822 and 834, one single case that is a neglect of F within the meaning of Thumb’s scheme, and faye cases are themselves extremely doubt- ful (Znch. 164; Meillet, op. cit. 41; Hartel, Hom. Stud. iii. 37; and Fick, Od. 7 n.). Corroboration of the popular views of late and early is here wanting entirely. So it is, I find, in regard to 0. We might test K by Messrs. Sikes and Allen’s plan (op. cit. lxiv. ff), tabulating al? Digamma-phenomena, though it means the inclusion of much that is unreal, the result of wear and tear. Taking K, 579 lines, A (excluding the Chryseid, supposed to be late), 551 lines, and w, 548 lines, calculating observances and neglects in the way those authorities adopt, combining with their table on p. lxix., and reducing the proportions in a rough way to the same figure, 24, I find the proportions of observances to 24 neglects work out as follows:—w, 73; A, 65; K, 62; Ap. Pyth. 56; Aphr. 45; Ap. Del. 38; Cer. 81; Herm. 12. It seems that A and K are practically in the same position in this matter, and that w, which is supposed to be very late, is better than either. A better plan perhaps is to examine every individual case of neglect. It is the neglects that are the really important factor. Taking K first, they are only 4 in number, for two apparent cases must be excluded from consideration as too doubtful, #Av0” tw, 139, and & i8pd, 572. As to éwy, some 104 THE LAY OF DOLON CHAP. authorities give it F, but Curtius prefers fof from aF, and Thumb excludes the word from his list. But even if Frc were certain, we could read (Ench. 159) #A0e Frown, for rvOov and #\@ov have been interchanged at times. And as to iSpas, scholars are agreed that it had lost F before Homeric times (Ench. 174; H.G. 374; Prellwitz, s.v.; Fick, Odyssey, 7 f.; and Kiihner-Blass’ list). There remain four cases generally regarded as neglects. (1) rv vier OiveiSao, 497. This is a parallel case to 8 olxad’ in A. See p. 97 supra, And we find Airdé\sov, Oivopady te and Saippovos OiveiSao in lines 706 and 813 of E, in passages which some, as Christ, regard as of the old Jiad, not to mention od yap ér’ Oivijos, B 641, which is generally marked spurious. (2) cuvrarov épdo, 503. Here we may read xivtata (H.G. 368, and Bekker, Hom. Blat. ii. 23). If dvria etary and xpyyva eimras are accepted in A 230 and 106, K cannot be denied the benefit of a similar change. There remain (3) and (4), two cases of neglect before éaaros,— mavrov of éxaotos, 215, and sétacKxomiacOat exacta, 388. On the former Dr. Leaf remarks that “the omission of the F in Féxaoros is very rare.” The omission seems to be common (H.G. 366, and Hnch. 167). Dr. Monro observes that “the proportion (of neglects) that can be removed by emendation is not so large as in most cases.” A neglect of the kind in an old formula, & > efrav dtpuve pévos nal Oupov éxdorov, is amended by the critics, to Quuov re éxdorov, and so are cases occurring in what are considered the older parts of the poems. So they have been in our passages. In 215 Heyne replaced oi by ye; Brandreth, by xe. In 388 we can read &cacta SiacKoma- o$at with Christ, a./., and Menrad (120 x), or S:omtetcovta éxaota (see Fick, Jad, 479). Or dravta; final éacra may have crept into some places. See, eg., critical notes on T 332, p 70, @ 222, and + 463 (on which Agar, 349). But there seems to be no need to amend. It is quite certain that the F of éeaaros was very weak. There are at least 9 cases in the poems of the correption of oc and az before the word, including Tov of éxactos, 0 392, and dtacKomidcOba Exactov, P 252. If K is to suffer through F, it can only be on account of OlveiSao, though we protest against even that case. For A, Christ (Jnterpol. 162) gives a list of 13 neglects of F. I omit brreiEowar, 294, and mapetmn, 555, as I have not considered XII THE DIGAMMA 105 Sieve in K; és x«° elmos, 64,8 dvdooew, 288, and x elceras, 548, usually amended by the omission of the particle; xpyyvov elras, 106, and dytiov ein, 230, reading -a in each case; Zeds 5é mpos Gv, 609, not without hesitation; 8 oZad’, 19, for which see p. 97 supra; and even 7é xal épy, 395, though the approved correction, 7é 7s, may be questioned. But the remain- ing three are not so easy to deal with. For écO\js éooera 750s, 576, Bentley suggested écOrjs gota, and Nauck écoeras éoOXjs, which Christ characterises as numeri pessimi. They are at any rate not an improvement on the vulgate. Fick reads éordas éxoer vaGdos. Boisacq, however, s.v. 750s, denies that it had F. And cf. Hnch. 162. But the two that remain resist alteration. Attempts have been made on &Bpw idy, 203, but a satisfactory reading is not to be got sine gravi mutatione (Ench. 174). Robert and Bechtel omit the passage from their Ur-TIlias. As to pédawav épvocopuev, 141, only one very poor emendation has been suggested. Robert and Bechtel (Stud. 214, 277) allow it to stand, referring to Usener. On Solmsen’s principle, there is no neglect. But if that principle be applied universally, the utility of F to Dissectors is enormously reduced. A is no better than K in the matter of the Digamma. I have similarly drawn out results for », but it is un- necessary to extend them. Neglects can mostly be cured by very small amendments, and the doubtful residue does not seem to me as serious as that shewn above for A. I have also, in the course of my investigations, compared the results for many other books in the poems, and have found good ground for believing that those authorities are right who hold (p. 98 supra) that there is no difference, in the matter of F, between one area and another; and this, whether one takes with Thumb only the more decided effects, or with S. and A. all effects as ex- hibited by the vulgate, or, with the majority of critics, exercising the art of emendation and using the results of the most recent _ philology. There seems to be no case against K on the Digamma. The evidence tends to place it in Ur-Ilias times. CHAPTER XIII THE VERSIFICATION THE verse of K seems to be as perfect as that of any other lay. If its author was late, he must have had not only an accurate sense of the old epic language, including a wonderful knowledge of the lost Digamma; he must also have had a good ear, and must have been a master of the intricacies of the old epic verse. We may say no fault has been found with his versification. The caesura in 317 (4G, 340) and the division of 453 (p. 69 supra) are hardly worth mentioning. In Christ’s section on peculiarities of rhythm (Jnéerpol. 170 ff.) K ranks with the best. But if its author’s enemies cannot find faults, they can at least refuse him benefit from their absence. Productiones durtores desunt (Hoffmann, Q.H. ii. 220), but that is not to be counted to the poet for merit. Casu accidit, He was late, and the blemishes ought to be there. Good luck saved him. But K is Odyssean, and the Odyssey differs from the Jliad, it is said, in points of verse structure. And on these points the Odyssean books of the Jiiad are said to favour Odyssean ways. Not K, nor I, but WY and ©. It is strange that the Odyssean group should be split into two parts, but so it is, according to the critics. Weshall compare the poems as wholes, and also enquire how far the tainted books of the Jdiad shew Odyssean leanings. Commencing with “ position,” we may start from the following statement by Dr. Monro (HG. 344, repeated, Odyssey, 333) :— “ Neglect of Position is perceptibly commoner in the Odyssey than in the Zitad. Apart from cases in which the necessities of metre can be pleaded, viz. proper names and words beginning with J -, it will be found that the proportion of examples is about 3:1. It will be seen, too, that some marked instances occur in VY and .” Tt is added that practice is still more lax in Hesiod and the 106 CHAP. XIII THE VERSIFICATION 107 Hymns, and four bad cases are quoted from the “scanty fragments of the Cyclic poets.” This suggests steady degeneration from the early books of the Iliad through the Odyssean books and the Odyssey down to the Cyclics and the Hymns. In K the only two cases that require to be noticed are &BpordEouer, 65, and 8% wAéwv, 252. Both are of course excused (LaRoche, H.U. 6) as words which could not be used if the consonants in the first syllable made position. As to wAéov, LaRoche (p. 15) accepts synizesis. But some object. See Solmsen, 136 ». In any case K compares well with any other part of the Jliad. In A,eg., we find two bad examples, 6 ye mpiv, 97,and Zeds Sé mpos, 609. K’s character in this matter is easily vindicated. Let us now extend the enquiry to VY and Q, which contain “marked instances.” In each we exclude, as before, the cases of words the forms of which require that there be some relaxation of rule. There remain—as in A—just two cases without excuse in each book, in V Hi€e wpds, 868, and poddevts dé xpiev édaiw, 186; in OD éwera mpd, 783, and Kat Ta ye xpuceiny, 795, where LaRoche would excise ye. One case in each book is before a combination (yp) before which a vowel remains short very rarely. (See, however, Agar, 129 ff. He would even restore in A 37, 451, dpyuporokos, 8 Xpicnv.) But all the four cases have this amount of palliation, that they occur in places in the verse,— after the first foot or in the Bucolic Diaeresis,—where there is a pause. There is thus no ground for any special imputation on Wand ©. I has not even been charged. It will be seen further on that it has only one case, 604 wdeiora, 382. K has been cleared above. Therefore this particular metrical looseness cannot be used to separate the Odyssean quartette from the Iliad. Nor can they be attached to the Odyssey, for I think it can be shewn that the practice in it is not noticeably different from that of the Ziad. Dr. Monro, as we have seen, says that cases are thrice as numerous in the Odyssey, but it is not clear how this result has been reached. It is a somewhat troublesome task to examine LaRoche’s lists (#.U. 1-41), and opinions will differ as to what is sufficient reason for removing words from the category of exceptions. To Monro’s “proper names and words beginning with v -,” we must add words which have inside them 108 THE LAY OF DOLON CHAP. two consecutive syllables of the value of V-. And we must exclude standing formulae——which, it may be noted, prove that neglect of position, when necessity compelled, was an old estab- lished practice. But how far is necessity to be recognised ? When vw - is within the word, there is no difficulty. But where v — is initial, there is often a doubt. Thus a short before such forms as Kpoviav, Bpordyv, Opdvois, tpéuers Tpirns, must be allowed, or they are absolutely barred. But what of, say, Kpovos -ov -@, rpédet, tpirn, and the like? Any such word can be used if the poet arranges to have it followed by one commencing with a vowel. If then the poet does not so arrange, but uses the same licence in respect of these forms as in respect of those which it is quite impossible, without licence, to bring into the hexameter, are such cases to be counted against the versification or not? We submit they should not. The u — forms of such words may be taken as making a rule for u » forms. Discriminating then in this way, the only real exceptions appear to be oraOuoi, n 89, SaxpdrA@ev, rT 122, Kexpuppéva, 110, fapérpns, @ 323, rdarere kArAnidecow, pw 215, dpa Kraovons, v 92, 60i mreiora, § 127, I 382, adtap 6 wAnoiov, A 329, audt dé yAaivayv, & 529, were yrwpov, « 234, ra Se Spdypyara, A 69, Hyntope Opyncav, KH 462, nara xpata, 0 92, bé Té pati, wp 99, etreTo Kpwwdpevos, A 697, 88 xpdros, T 121, 7 cases in the Zliad of a final vowel kept short before IIpsayidns, 2 before wpiv in the Iliad and 2 in the Odyssey, 4 before wpo in the Jiiad and 1 in the Odyssey, 6v twa mpatov, y 320, 7é od patos, p 275, 6 cases (other than in formulae) before zpés in the Ziad and 4 in the Odyssey, ob8€ Tt mpocpdcbat, y 106, twa Tpwiddav, > 122, dé xpiev, V 186, and ra ye ypvoeinv, O 795,—29 inexcusable cases from the J/iad, and 20 from the Odyssey. This is in favour of the Odyssey. We might, though I do not think we should, exclude the 9 cases before proper names in the Jliad, but, on the other hand, there are a few cases from the Odyssey which I have included in the list only after great hesitation. We may say the two poems are in this matter as nearly as possible in the same case. Of course another enumerator might bring out a different result, especially if small emendations, many of which LaRoche notices, are accepted. But the total number of cases for which nothing can be said must, on any counting, be so small that no sound inference can be drawn. Further, I believe that there is XLII THE VERSIFICATION 109 explanation of, or at least; some excuse for, the laxity in the great majority of cases, in the fact that it occurs at a pause in the verse. Thus, out of the (29+20=—) 49 cases, the first 4 have the .- within the word. Of the remaining 45 the great majority are situated in pauses, leaving only 10 or so for which there is no shadow of excuse. It may be added that the list given by LaRoche (p. 42) of cases in which the rule is observed and violated in the same line, is very instructive. It contains lines from books of the Ur-Jlias, A, A, X. We may say then, as Dr. Monro says of hiatus, that it is unlikely that neglect of position was ever absolutely forbidden in epic verse. We think it equally unlikely that any difference in this respect between so-called early and late books will ever be established on LaRoche’s lists. Any future examination of these will have to take account of the contents of Sommer’s paper an Glotta, i. 145 ff. And perhaps, for comparison of books, a better method would be to take the ratio of neglects to observances. It is also worth observing that, as briefly remarked in HG. 344, the rule as to position is still more lax in Hesiod and the Hymns. For the former, instances are collected in Paulson’s Stud. Hes. i., and for the latter in Eberhard’s Metr. Beobachtgn. 2. d. hom. Hymnen, i. For Hesiod I count some 17 inexcusable cases in say 2700 lines; for the four longer Hymns about 18in 1900. There are in the Jliad and Odyssey, on my counting, about 49 in 28,000. Instances are from four to five times as numerous in Hesiod and the Hymns. And exceptions are allowed in these before com- binations which always lengthen a preceding vowel in the two epics. The criterion, therefore, separates the latter from the later compositions, and the agreement of K with the rest of the Ziad and with the Odyssey is one more argument against the very late date to which some would assign it. Next as to hiatus, on which much has been written in many treatises. It does not appear to have been asserted anywhere that the verse of K shews any special leaning towards this metrical irregularity, so there is no express charge to be rebutted. But Dr. Monro (4.G. 357) observes that “hiatus in the Bucolic Diaeresis is commoner in the Odyssey than in the Jliad in the proportion of 2:1. Hiatus after the vowel ¢ is also comparatively rare in the Iliad; Knés”—the reference is to his De Digammo 110 THE LAY OF DOLON CHAP. Homerico, 41 ff—* reckons 22 instances (many of them doubtful), against 40 in the Odyssey. It is worth notice that in both these points VW and QO agree with the Odyssey.” We wish to contest this alleged difference between the J/iad and the Odyssey, and to defend the “ Odyssean” books of the former. First, we would remark that the statement seems to be wanting in precision, as statements regarding hiatus unfortunately often are. There is hiatus after a short, there is hiatus (“ weak ” or “improper ”) after a long vowel. Authorities sometimes discuss “hiatus,” meaning only one or the other, but not stating which. There is also, to some metrical experts, as Knos, hiatus which is licit and hiatus which is illicit. And Knos, in the pages on which Dr. Monro draws, confined himself, for his own purposes, to hiatus after a short vowel (Miss Stawell, H. and Ji. 317). When then Dr. Monro refers to hiatus in the Bucolic Diaeresis, the word is used in the restricted sense of licit hiatus, all hiatus there being, according to Knés and others, licit, and in the still more restricted sense of hiatus after a short vowel. But in regard to hiatus after ¢, it is clear from Dr. Monro’s figures that he has collected instances from all Knos’ lists, and that he includes both licit and illicit hiatus. Nothing of all this appears on the face of his statement, which has been copied, in whole or in part, into a number of treatises without any explanation. See Jebb, 139 n; Vogrinz, 47; and Browne, Handbook, 95. On the merits, reference may be made to Miss Stawell’s dis- cussion, Jc. She has rightly objected to the exclusion of cases in the Bucolic Diaeresis after long vowels, and shewn how small the difference between the two poems is when cases after long vowels as well as short are considered. Dr. Monro gives no reason for his discrimination (if intended) between the two classes. Another point noted by Miss Stawell is the effect of the greater amount of speech in the Odyssey. But there is more to be said. A very cursory examination discloses defects in Knés’ enumeration for the Bucolic Diaeresis. It is not complete. I note the absence of E 221, Z 422, K 93, and E 560 (where éouxdres may have been read). There seems to be a case in A itself. @ddacod re Hyjecoa, 157, cannot perhaps be claimed, but in line 129 and in 5 other places in the Iliad the authorities would restore evretyea (vulg. evtetyeov). And Knés omits cases of elision, no doubt as unneces- sary for his enquiry. But the omission is questionable for Dr. XII THE VERSIFICATION 111 Monro’s purpose (and see p. 112 infra). There are many cases in the poems like peramperé’ dOavdroow and dye dxpita Ou. Again, are we to take an old-fashioned or an up-to-date text? Knos excludes the type éyyer d€udevrs (for which Agar, 330, suggests Fof- or gog-). But read éyyei with most editors, and you have hiatus after a short. If you replace -ov by -oo, you manufacture cases by the score. And then the Digamma. If you reject Fiduos, Fos, Féxxos, Fépxos, FéOvos, etc., the list will be greatly enlarged. And jod. Some are positive that it never existed in the epic language (Znch. 181). ctcaro alone, excluded by Knés, would add 4 cases. And so on. Much progress has been made since Knés wrote in 1872-3. He would draw up a different list now. But his list would not please everybody. And to sustain an indictment such as the HG. bases on it, very great care would have to be devoted to it. Again, much value cannot be attached to a difference based on such small totals for 28,000 lines as 23 and 38. And if the suggestion is, as it appears to be, that there was degeneration in the matter of hiatus after a short between the periods of the Jliad and the Odyssey, then surely we should not confine ourselves to the Bucolic Diaeresis. If we test for degeneration in other positions, we find the inference greatly weakened. The cases of hiatus after the third trochee are (Knés, p. 42 ff) liad 55, Odyssey 49. There is not much difference here, even after allowing for the smaller number of lines in the Odyssey. The cases after the first dactyl are 10 (perhaps considerably more) in the Iliad, 3 in the Odyssey (p. 47). This is in favour of the Odyssey. And as to illicit hiatus (pp. 47 f.), the two poems are as nearly as possible alike. Next as to hiatus after «. What is there in ie e? Dr. Monro does not explain. There are 7 cases after « in the Iliad, and 2 in the Odyssey. Are we to discriminate between the two vowels? That hiatus after « is licit makes no difference. Whatever we argue on e¢ against the Odyssey can be argued against the Iliad on 4. And of the e cases in the Zliad, 5 are in QO, 2 in WV, while in I and K there are none. Again the four books do not hang together. And Miss Stawell seems to have reason when she says that the doubtful cases are in the list from the Odyssey, rather than, as Dr. Monro says, in that from the Ziad. For example, in a 225 we should probably 112 THE LAY OF DOLON CHAPY read tis Sat duidos; y 160 is olxade Fréwevor. In 3 cases of nde Epacxov -e,a pw or a F should be inserted. And there are a number of cases in which philologists would give effect to a lost initial c, now represented by the rough breathing in dzrvos, bird, owas, etc. See Mr. Allen in C.Q. iii 226. And other considerations might be urged. If cases after elision are to be included, there are at least 3 in A,—2, 96, and 445. A more careful enumeration will be required. Lists drawn up for quite another purpose are dangerous to argue on. I note that Miss Stawell seems to omit 6 of Knos’ cases from her list for the Jliad, apparently on account of F. But all scholars would not agree. If attempts are to be made to dissociate a book or books from the rest by the hiatus criterion, then it is submitted that all hiatus phenomena should be counted, on some plan such as that adopted by Professor Clapp in his edition of T—O, App. 430 ff. I have made a rough count for K and the “Continua- tion” of the Odyssey, as late, and for A and A, as early books, taking 579 lines (the length of K) in every case. I find they give very similar results. Between them and Hym. Mere., how- ever, I find a great gulf fixed. But Professor Clapp’s classifica- tion of cases seems to be open to criticism on a number of points. And it seems unlikely that there will ever be results of any value from the hiatus test, till there is greater consensus among experts. They have much to settle still about lost initial consonants. Oscar Meyer's @.H. may be referred to. And some of the principles on which they proceed at present seem questionable. Take the case of elision. Professor Clapp says, “where one vowel has already been elided from the first word, the two words are so closely bound together that the hiatus is not felt.” I suppose it is heresy to question this, but one would think prima facie that the closer the two words are, and the nearer the final vowel of the one is brought to the initial vowel of the other, the more the hiatus must be felt, till artificial means, by contraction or synizesis, are resorted to to remove it. The nearer they are without being amalgamated, the shorter the pause between them, and the greater the difficulty or the unpleasantness of pronouncing them separately. If the least objectionable form of hiatus is that which is present when the vowels are separated by a distinct pause, when, as Knés XIE THE VERSIFICATION 113 puts it (p. 45), there is silentio interposito nihil detrimenti a sequentibus vocalibus, then one might suggest that the worst form is that produced by elision. And the text will have to be better ascertained, and quarrels over the principles of textual criticism will have to be composed, before much dependence can be placed on hiatus statistics. One never knows how far the vulgate is being worked on, and how far amendments are accepted. It seems impossible to reconcile the figures given by Knés, by Hoffmann (Q.H. i. 88 ff.), by van Leeuwen (Znch. 79 f. and 592), and by Seymour (LZ. and V. 40 f.). Professor Clapp says (p. 430), “Homer is said to avoid hiatus, and yet in more than 2000 places in the 3754 verses of T—O, according to our text, a word ending with a vowel is followed, in the same verse, by a word beginning with a vowel.” And if the critics are right in their belief that the text has been altered freely to remove hiatus, it must have been much more common originally than now appears. Even omitting cases that are classed as only “apparent,” it may be said that hiatus occurs almost once in every two lines of the poems. So hiatus was not avoided, but only very bad forms of it, of which there are few, so few that their distribution affords no basis for dis- section. Again, hiatus inside a word is surely worse than between two words. When we find such collocations of hiatus in the interiors of words as those in #ie and dieasz——both in A, —it is not easy to believe that the author or authors of the poems considered themselves bound to be at great pains to avoid it between words. Why should dyAd dzrowa be objectionable if dydad is to be passed as blameless? In émi ofpa there is hiatus; join them into a compound and there is none. So with ré 4 and tin. The critics with one breath object to hiatus between words, and with another restore such cacophonies as *Apyetouct, evepyys, Kaxounydvoo, mpocepavee, SFéeos. Dr. Monro’s conclusion (H.G. 357) is that hiatus was never absolutely forbidden in epic verse. That is surely not strong enough. Better with Kiihner-Blass, i. 191, to say that the Homeric language avoided hiatus, doch nicht sehr dngstlich. Wecklein (Teatkrit. 70) thinks hiatus was not objectionable to the Ionian ear, that it was at one time much more frequent in the poems than it is in our text, and that its removal in many cases was due to Attic influence. “The Greek ear was sensitive to hiatus ” I 114 THE LAY OF DOLON CHAP. XIII (Allen in C.Q. iii. 225), The classical Greek ear was. Can that be said of the old Achaean ear? Do we know enough of the original language of the poems to warrant us in deciding? See Fick, Zntstg. d. Od. 4. Such a line as BAjpevos 7} id F éyxel dfvdevts enjoins caution. But, be all this as it may, we think we have said enough to vindicate the Odyssey and the Odyssean books against the metrical head of charge,—so far as it has been formulated. The fact appears to be that the laws of the Homeric hexameter are still far from being thoroughly understood. A comprehensive treatise embodying the copious results of recent philology is a great want. The metric is bound up with the Digamma. Textual criticism to a great extent | seems to wait on both. At present much is in a state of flux. CHAPTER XIV THE PARALLEL PASSAGES Ir has been discovered by the critics that lines in a number of passages in K have been borrowed or imitated from the Odyssey. Their conclusion is that K is later than that poem. I refer chiefly to Gemoll in Herm. xv. 557 ff. See also Sittl, Wiederhign. 30 ff; Nitsche, 23 f.; Orszulik, 39 ff; van Herwerden, Q.H. 130; Kammer, Asth. Komm. 222; Ranke, 76 ff.; Franke, Vom. propr. 51 f ».; Robert, 501 and n.; and W. Witte, Stud. 2 Hom. 7. For Christ’s views see pp. 120 ff. infra. The Homeric Repetitions are admittedly a matter of the first importance. The literature of the subject is not scanty} but unfortunately it is nearly all from the hands of Dissectors, who start with preconceived notions of late and early, and that spoils all. I shall endeavour to give, for every case of repetition in K, most of the principal opinions on it. I think the mere enumeration of contradictory pronouncements will often prove the futility of the method adopted. I take Gemoll’s essay as the basis of my examination. It has secured some approval from other critics, as Hinrichs (Herm. xvii. 105) and Cauer (Grdfrgn. 524). Niese (Hntwick. 65 n.) gives modified adhesion, and so Wilamowitz (HU. 231 and m., cf. 15). On the other hand Sittl (op. cit. 33 f. and 6) condemns Gemoll for his ignorance of repetition literature and for his “fixed idea” of the centoartiger Charakter of K, and compares him with Peppmiiller on 0, “a deterrent example.” Rothe has also some very unfavourable comments in J0. 11 have had reluctantly to reserve Weederholungen is in a category by for a future occasion a chapter review- itself. It opposes the popular view. ing the contents of these treatises and Hennings has some remarks on it in the principles on which they proceed. Homers Odyssee, 37 ff. They are nearly all German. Rothe’s 115 116 ‘THE LAY OF DOLON CHAP, Bursian, 1883, 323. Seeck (Quellen d. Od. 287) remarks “ how fallacious the method is.” Three years later Gemoll returned to the subject unmoved by Sittl’s rebuke (Herm. xviii. 308 ff). In the same volume, 34 ff. he applies his method to the Jliad and the Odyssey as wholes. It has already been stated (p. 15 supra) that, by the same method, Diintzer has proved that it is the Odyssey that imitates, and consequently is dater than K. Gemoll finds that there are pairs of passages in K and the Odyssey with the same phrasing and construction, and containing the same thought or describing the same situation. Only two explanations of any such coincidence are possible. Either the matter is of the nature of a standing formula, or it is the product “of one poetic individuality,” from which another has copied it. If the former alternative is excluded, the latter must be accepted, and we must enquire as to proprietary right. That is, plagiarism is assumed! It is hasty procedure, for it ignores what other scholars of the highest authority regard as one of the most patent characteristics of the poems, as it is of many early literatures and even of some poets in a literary age-——the free repetition of matter. Yet itis a favourite means of discrediting a passage. Any one who is familiar with Dissecting literature knows how frequently lines which occur elsewhere are con- demned, without any serious attempt being made to establish priority. How much can be proved by manipulation of Repetitions is shewn by Miilder, Quellen, 322 f.,and by many other authorities. Gemoll’s cases are :— 1. K 26-8 and § 145 f. The phrase wédeyov Opacdiy oppaivoytes, which occurs in each, does not recur, and is not epic “small change.” That is so far correct. But ddeuov Opaciv is found, Z 254, and opyaivw with ddov, wddov, dovov, in the Odyssey. References to the sufferings before Troy, similar to those in the passages we are discussing, are frequent (p. 173 infra). But Gemoll does not decide between K and 6. Diintzer (p. 476) pronounces 8 the borrower. 2. K 97-9 and w 281 f Again Gemoll refrains from assigning priority. The similarity is confined to the phrase Kamat@ adnores 45e Kal tarve. 3. K 157-9, Nestor wakens Diomede, and, o 44-7, Telemachus wakens Pisistratus, in each case AdE sodl Kiwvioas. There has been a dispute since the days of Aristarchus (Am.-H. Anh. to o xIV THE PARALLEL PASSAGES 117 45). Some favour K, because Nestor was old, and of course an old man cannot stoop. But Gemoll asks why “in all the world” the line (45), if unsuitable, was inserted in 0. Why indeed? But he does not decide in which place it is original. In his later paper, however, he favours o, because the tarvov aoteiv of K recurs only « 548. But how “in all the world” does that affect the question? He also asks why Nestor could not waken Diomede with his spear. But a spear was sharp at both ends, cavpwrnp as well as ai, and not very suitable for so delicate an operation. Blass observes (Interpol. 159) that the scene is full of humour, “ which all do not understand.” He thinks (/.c. and 166) o 45 is spurious. See also Am.-H. Le, and Cauer (Anmkgn., aJl.). Sittl (p. 31) and Monro (on K 158) are cautious. Wilamowitz (H.U.15 n.), Christ (Hom. od. Homdn. 57), and Rothe (Wiederhlgn. 129) favour K. Dr. Leaf (on K 158) thinks AdE qodt Kivjoas is “less suitably used” in o. So K is vindicated——If we consider the phrases in Z 65, E 620, Il 863, N 618, and II 503, we may say our expression is not far from epic commonplace. To raise on it a question of plagiarism seems excess of zeal. 4. K 214 f. and a 245 fl=m@ 122 f=7 130 ff,—-containing the words doco. yap vnecow (vncooww) émixpatéovow apiorot. Gemoll does not object to that line being considered as suitable in K as in other places. Sittl (p. 31), Christ (op. cit. 57) and van Herwerden (Q.H. 13) prefer the Odyssey. Diintzer (p. 473) prefers K. There is nothing on which to decide——émixparéovor recurs, always in the same position in the verse, in B 98 (dat. pl. of ptep.), € 60 and p 320 (-éwor). 5. K 242-4 and a 64-7, two very similar passages. The critics give their attention to éwevra chiefly. Sittl elucidates from the Rig-Veda. Fasi thought it more suitable in K. Gemoll doubts; the lines there are unnatural and forced. In his later paper he makes up his mind for a. Niese and Lentz had ruled out érera there. Gemoll objects, and agrees with Sittl (p. 32) that the éyo is better in a. In ancient times it was held that Zeus would not call a mortal @efos, but that is not now pressed. But see CA. xvii. 238, where the passage in K is condemned. Oeios "Odveceds certainly seems to be of the Gemeingut. Even més dy érevra recurs I 437 (cf. 444). But érevra remains the chief crux. 118 THE LAY OF DOLON OHAP. Some rely also on éyé and AaGoiunv. I will only say briefly that Nitzsch, Diintzer, Wilamowitz, Christ and Rothe favour K, and Sittl, Blass, Wecklein and van Herwerden prefer the claims of a. Cauer (Grdfrgn. 486) finds the érevra in K suitable, the éyo striking, the ére:ra in a wonderful, and the éyé quite natural. What is to be thought of it all? The discussion has been quite infructuous so far. Hennings (Odyssee, 49 f.) frankly gives the puzzle up. 6. K 278-81 and v 299-301. These passages contain the sentence # ré pos (cor) aie ev radvtTecot movovot Tapi- otacat (-pas). For Gemoll the words viv atte uwddiotd pe pirat, “AOnvn, in K, settle the question of precedence. They occur in E117. Therefore the passage in K is a cento! This provokes the scorn of Sittl (p. 33). Reichert (De lid. Od. v et a, 11) seems to say that » is the borrower. Much depends on which passage you wish to discredit. I would only add that, if we compare E 115-8 with our passages, the dzropia will be for some critic to decide order of origin for the three. 7. K 290-4. 290 is »y 391. 291 reminds Gemoll of E 809. 292-4=y 382-4. So here we have another cento. Blass (p. 149) agrees as to K 290. Dr. Leaf thinks 292-4 probably belong to y, but gives no reasons. Sittl (p, 34) would excise them; Diintzer (p. 473) would not. v 391 is rejected by van Herwerden (Herm. xvi. 374) and Agar (p. 240). And so on. See Am.-H. Anh. to both passages. As to K 291 and E 809, the similarity is in the use of wapiocracOa Kal pudrdocew. But see K 279, VW 783, 8 827, o 35, v 47, y 222, and p. 173 infra. Sos is of course frequent. For irae cf. E 61. As to the lines 292-4, Sittl rejects them in K because they disturb the symmetry of the two heroes’ prayers. Almost any reason will do. Diintzer, on the other hand, observes that in y there is no special prayer requiring a vow to secure its fulfilment. There is something in this, if regard be had to the do ut des of Homeric supplications. Diomede, more heroico, thought special inducement necessary. See such cases as those in A 119 ff. and Z 305 ff. But, necessary or not, the vow in y was fulfilled next morning. So we come to a halt again, till some fresh clue is found. We may add one remark. If the poet. of K was a cento- maker, why should he trouble to alter the wérva and éapnyo xiv THE PARALLEL PASSAGES 119 of y? We might ask the same question about K 577 supposed to be taken from £ 96. Why alter ypicayévw? Why alter the familiar dé dé 8% peréece of H 399, etc, to rozov 88 kal weréevre in K 219? The poet could not think to conceal his theft. He did not need to conceal it; there was nothing to blush for. In epic days there was absolute freedom to appropriate. It seems strange. 8. K 324 and »% 344. In K ov& amd d0€ns is peculiar ; as an adverbial addition to ddsos it is unsuitable. So there must be imitation,—by K, as the lines are clumsy in it, and its author habitually traffics in borrowed verses. But dad dotns has no connection with ddvos, and is not difficult to interpret (Sittl, p. 34, and M. and R. on A» 344). And certainly there is no imitation, The whole frame of the sentence differs. duos is only in the one. oxo7rds has different meanings. Per- haps the same may be said of dé 80&ns. See Mr. Lawson, a.l. It seems mere chance has brought cxorrds, in different senses, close to dad S0&ns twice, and has given the “ word-catcher ” an opportunity. 9. K 351-3 and @ 124. These embody, Gemoll thinks, an epic formula, but he notes that mpodepéorepos occurs, outside @, only @ 134,—a dark hint from which we are to argue the worst. There is no ground for suspicion. We might with equal reason suspect O 358 or ® 251 (cf. VW 529), because each contains a similar formula. See p. 175 infra. The remark on pod. seems trivial. 10. K 454-7 and y 326-9. The perverted use of yeupi mayen in K is enough. Gemoll finds it comic of a suppliant. Diintzer (p. 470) decides for K, as @Oeyyouévov is more in place there. Christ also thinks (op. cit. 57 n.) that xy is the imitator. To Sittl (p. 36 n.; cf. Wilamowitz, op. cit. 231 n.) the argument from yevpi way.,—which occurs 18 times, always final in the verse, once of the hand of Penelopé,—is absurd. Epithets are often used without complete regard to suitability. Sittl also discusses Oeyyouévov, but does not assign priority. Kammer (Asth. Komm. 222) favours K. adyéva pécoov éd\aoce is of course, like yespl may. of the Gemeingut. Imitation in K has not been proved. 11. K 482-4 and y 307-9. The authorities take different views, but it is not necessary to give particulars. There are four 120 THE LAY OF DOLON CHAP, occurrences in the poems, not these two alone. The line con- taining émuctpopddny is a formula, ordvos is found in exactly the same connection elsewhere, as A 445, T 214. Descriptions of the earth red with gore are frequent (p. 174 infra). 12. K 533-5 and 540. 533 recurs B 79; 534, & 140. The remaining two remind Gemoll of 7 5 f. (cf. also r 444) and 11. So the passage is made up of reminiscences. It contains formulae and expressions common in the poems. 533 recurs not in B only, but eight times. For the form of expression common to the lines in which «7vzos occur, see B 41, A 466,€122 and K 139. As to 534 and 540, how any one can say they are from the Odyssey and not vice versa, is hard to understand. Diintzer is sure 6 140 is borrowed from K 534. As to K 540 and w 11, ef. 7 351 and also T 242. This completes Gemoll’s review. In some of the cases, he concludes, the proprietary right of the Odyssey is established au/s bestimméeste, while in others the opposite conclusion is negatived. Therefore the case is proved against K. This can, he thinks, surprise no one who knows the singular position of the Doloneia, —but this is parti pris—, and who makes it clear to himself that, if there are borrowings——but there’s the rub!—it is more probable that the great scenes of the Odyssey were before the author of K than vice versa. And borrowing from so many books is proved, that Gemoll concludes that the Odyssey had reached its present form before K was written, As Bougot says (p. 302) of Wilamowitz’ Briseis theory, it is wn bien petit argument en faveur dune théorie bien hasardée. Erhardt, Entstg. 1894 ; Cauer, Grund- Sragen,1 1895. See reviews of Cauer, unfavourable to his conclusions about Pisistratus, by Rothe in Jb. 1896, 185, and by Peppmiiller in B. ph, Weg tee 97 ff. 136 THE LAY OF DOLON OHAP. u. seine litter. Thétigkt. 1885, 30 (Lehrs and Ludwich have settled the question). Mahaffy, 4.G.Z2 1901, 54 and 60 (Grote’s refutation final). Murray, 4.4.2. 1907, 10 ff (Pisistratus did something which gave an opportunity for interpolation). Jevons, AGL. 1889, 29 ff.; Strickland, La Quest. Omerica, 1893, 32 ff. ; Terret, Homére, 1899, 40; Drerup, Homer, 1903, 9 and 37; Pierron, H.G.Z.° 1906, 83 £, cf. his Ziad, Introduction, iii. ff. ; and Finsler, Homer, 1908, 245,—all against. Croiset, Kammer, and Robert appear not to deal with the question. Jebb, Homer, 1887, 114 f. (story doubtful and vague; accepted, it does not disprove original unity). Browne, Handbook, 1905, 25 fi (at most, text settled), Ludwich, Die hom. Frag. u. thre Beantwortg. 1904, 7, and cf. Der blinde Mann von Chios, 1904, 12 ff. (more than mere Hinzellieder before Pisistratus), Christ, H.G.Z.4 1905, 65 (all now agreed Wolf and Lachmann went too far). Sortais, Ilios et Iliade, 1892, 83 (insoutenadle). So Bertrin, La Quest. Hom. 1897, 87 ff. Bréal, 1906, 62 f. (last additions to Iliad before it was brought to Athens), Allen, C.R. 1907, 18 (if any conclusion can be drawn, only that Pisistratus recalled the rhapsodes to their book). Mackail, Procgs. Class, Assocn. 1908, 13 (Pisistratus’ work only a reconstitution). And lastly see the thorough, one might surely say definitive, reviews of the whole question by Dr. Monro, Odyssey, 1901, 402 ff (on which Agar in C.R. xvi. 122), and Mr. Lang, H. and A. 1906, 32-50. The claims of Pisistratus are there absolutely rejected. Dr. Monro even thinks the date of Dieuchidas unimportant. But in fact, as there is admittedly a lacuna in the account of Diogenes Laertius (Diintzer and Rothe in Jb. 1891, 103), no one knows exactly what it was that Dieuchidas said, for the critics fill up the gap in different ways. The discovery of a papyrus might upset all their conjectures, Diintzer appears even to question Wilamowitz’ proof about Dieuchidas. In any case, as Mr. Lang points out (op. cit. 45), Dieuchidas wrote, “as a partisan in an historical dis- pute.” But all we have proposed to ourselves is to shew there has been no reaction. That seems quite clear. But to a few extremists we feel it will not avail to quote authority. ov yap telaes ovd iy meions. They will never desert Pisistratus. His name, however, does not help our story. The next point is the phrase iSiq¢ rerdyOa. Is it genuine? In terdyOau eis Thv woinow the verb is quite in place, but for the use with idi¢ XVI POSITION OF K IN THE JZIAD 137 none of its ordinary meanings seems to suit. Very few of those who quote the Greek give a translation. Professor Murray(165 7.) gives “drawn up by itself.” But tdéccw never bore the sense of “draw up (a document)”? And if “draw up” here means “arrange,” “array,” “marshal,” how could that be done to the Doloneia “ by itself” at its birth? Lachmann’s besonders gesetzt, Wolf's factum pro singulari opusculo, and Finsler’s einzeln geordnet gewesen (p. 518) seem equally objectionable. If tetdyOar is corrupt, id¢¢ may be wrong also. But assume that the critics are right in taking the tale to mean that the Doloneia was composed as an independent lay, and not as part of the Jliad. It goes on to say that K was composed if’ “Oprjpov. These words have received remarkably little attention (Volkmann, Nachtrdge, ii. 10). But it is a good old rule for the interpretation of a document that the whole of the context must be read together. In the present case it is said that the lay was written by Homer, that is, by him who, accord- ing to ancient belief, wrote the rest of the Zliad. Which is just what stamps the story as absurd on its face. K has no raison @étre apart from the situation which was the result of the battle in @, and which was intensified by the failure of the Presbeia in I. It is not the case that K “might be inserted at almost any point” (Miss Stawell, H. and Ji. 21). Grote’s words stand (ii. 119),—“it is framed with great specialty for the antecedent circumstances under which it occurs, and would suit for no other place.” It is part and parcel of the story of the Zliad,—the same scene, the same characters, the same divinities favouring the same heroes. See Niese, Hntwickelung, 24 f. How are we to conceive of it as “independently ” composed by the author of the rest of the Ziiad? If proof from the contents of the lay is required, we may ask, with Nitsche (p. 12), how the author of an independent lay could select the hour or two before the dawn for the expedition? Odysseus says, K 251, “the night is far spent; the dawn is at hand.” The line cannot be “cut out.” It has never been suspected, though 252 f. have. We must have Odysseus’ assent to Diomede’s proposal. The line is con- sistent with all that goes before, and seems conclusive against the theory of an Hinzellied. Lange (Jb. 1880, 142) reviewing Kuhlbars, approves a similar suggestion based on the introductory part of the lay. See also Rothe in Jb. 1909, 227. 138 THE LAY OF DOLON CHAP. If the story is not credible in itself, it is hardly necessary to enquire who the zvadaoi were. On that point the critics are hopelessly divided. The Alexandrians are generally favoured. Lachmann (Fern. Betrachign. 26; on which see Ludwich, Ar. ii. 394 n.) has no doubt about it; Eustathius, wie jeder Kenner weiss, means by “the men of old” the grammarians of Alexandria. Volkmann, on the other hand (Gesch. u. Krit. 228 n.), quotes Lehrs’ Pindarscholien, 167, as shewing that of tradavoi is Eustathius’ usual expression for the treatises from which he derived his information, “and which might be quite modern.” (See Neumann (Lustath. als krit. Quelle f. d. Iliasteat, 181) for Eustathius’ sources.) Bergk (547, 598 n.) thinks of the very old writers on Homer, as Theagenes. See also Diintzer (pp. 2 ff), Sengebusch (Hom. Diss. ii. 44), Pierron on K 1, E Meyer (Herm. xxvii. 371 n.), Erhardt (op. cit. 162), Ench. xxx., and Romer (Hom. Gestalt. u. Gestaltgn. 17). Itisall speculation. We know nothing (Ludwich, /.c.). Some “nameless commentators” (Mure, i. 265) made a conjecture. The observed detachability ef K would easily give rise to it, especially in the time when, as Lehrs says (Ar. 444), it became the fashion to ascribe suspicious parts of the poems to Pisistratus and his learned coadjutors, “of whom Zenodotus and Aristarchus were the chief.” One word more about the story. Does it not place Dissectors in this dilemma? If Pisistratus collected the lays which now form the other 23 books of the Jliad, and at the same time added K, making the whole into the Jiiad as we now have it, there is surely nothing to the discredit of K by comparison with the rest of the lays. But if we are to believe that he took K, which was out in the world by itself, an outcast from what was an already formed Homeric communion, and incorporated it with the rest of the Ziad, which was by this time a poem so far complete in itself, then we must abandon the action ascribed to him as the creator of the Jiiad. It may be added that M. Pottier has described in Monuments Piot, xvi. 107 ff.,a Corinthian vase on which Dolon is represented, along with two other scenes from the Zliad. He believes that the figure of Dolon is taken from une composition plus importante, bas-relief ow peinture, and argues that the episode of Dolon was already part of the Homeric Epopee in the 7th century. And Pisistratus was not born till about 600 (E. Curtius, Hist. Gr.° i. 341). EVI POSITION OF K IN THE JZIAD 139 To sum up. The story, to have any value, depends on a view of the Pisistratean activity which the vast majority of scholars reject. The wording is doubtful. Where the language is precise, it tells in favour of the authenticity of K. No one knows its origin. It leaves the opponents of the unity of the Iliad in a dilemma ov« éor érupos Adyos odTos. Yet, as has been said, it is in no small measure due to this piece of small talk that K has fallen to its present low estate. Note.—Since this chapter was written, Wilamowitz’ paper on @ has appeared (Sttzwngsber. d. kinigl. preuss, Akad. d. Wissn. 1910, xxi.). He holds that © was composed in order to bring I and K, then Hinzellieder, into the Iliad. He does not (p. 382) regard K as very modern, and, as he believes © was written in the 7th century, he must reject altogether the story told by the Tanatoi. CHAPTER XVII POSITION OF K IN THE ILIAD—MODERN VIEW Ir we turn from the ancients to the moderns, we find that the popular view is that an Jiiad once existed without a Doloneia. Then a late bard, noticing there was time in the night between © and A for something more, determined to fill it up, and either invented a new adventure for himself or worked up bits of saga that had been overlooked. There were legends about Diomede, —according to Professor Murray (188 ff.), following Bethe and others, about two individuals of that name, one “a fierce and fiery young warrior, much associated with horses” (cf. Studniczka, Kyrene, 139), the other an “‘ unsympathetic’ Diomedes, a ruffian and a savage,’—even yauSpoxrovos (Eustath. on K 531). There would also be in the 7roica a tradition of Dolon, a herald’s son and a feeble creature, and of his attempt to spy in the Achaean camp. All this the late bard worked up intoalay. It was a poor thing, but his own. But, although it was his own, he gave it up to mankind for the Ziad, and although it was poor, the Jliad was glad to take it and keep it. This was the view of Grote (ii. 119 f.), and it is remarkable for the dictum by which he supports it. K “has not the slightest bearing upon the events of the eleventh or the following books. . . . And this is one mark of a portion subsequently inserted—that though fitted on to the parts which precede, it has no influence on those which follow.” And other high authorities agree, as Nitzsch (Sagenp. 224), “the unsuitability to the action is our ground,” or E. Meyer (Hom. u. d. il. 136), “it stands in the midst zwecklos da.” But even if we admit the presence of Grote’s mark, it will only follow that K was inserted after the rest of the Jliad was complete, not that it was composed and inserted by a new author. The poet of the rest of the Z/iad, assuming for the moment that 140 cu.xvit POSITION OF K IN JLIAD—-MODERN VIEW 141 ' there was only one, may have composed K as an afterthought, as Mure (i. 266) thinks possible. A poet may enlarge his plan (Friedlander, Hom. Krit. 68). The lays may not have been composed in their present order. See Jb. 1891, 282, and 1902, 128, and Jager (Hom. Aph. 186, and Hom. u. Hor. 101), who quotes a letter from Wieland about Oberon. K may even have been the last of all. Tennyson did not make his Jdylls in the order in which they are now arranged. The same may be said of Vergil and the Aeneid (Heinze, 259, Albrecht in Hermes xvi., and Jb, lc). No one will impugn the story of Nisus and Euryalus because, as Heinze admits (p. 446), it has no influence on the books that come after it. And see Rothe (Grenaboten, 1896, 427 f.) on Schiller’s Don Carlos and some other works. The Canterbury Tales were not all composed as parts of a predesigned whole. Again, a poem planned and composed aus einem Guss may be afterwards altered in certain parts. Even a new incident, as a Patrokleta, might be introduced (J0., ut sup., and Gercke in Jahrb. k. A.. 1901, 185). Matter which is part of a work thought out ab iitio may be loose in its setting; still more may a passage added as an afterthought, or one which has been recast. See Jusserand on Piers Plowman in Modern Philology for January 1910. Again, Grote’s principle appears to run counter to the assumption made by Dissectors, that any one had a free hand to interpolate the epics, and also to alter the text to make the new matter harmonise. with it. If, for example, a poet wished to make certain gods interfere in the battles of the Jliad, he could do so. And if he or a successor found that any such interference conflicted with the edict of Zeus in © 5 ff, he could (Leaf, a.l.) add lines 28-40 to cure the discrepancy. How then, we may ask, could the author of K, or he who later inserted it in the Iliad, be so indifferent to the fate of the lay? One small interpolation would have assured its position in the Ziad for ever. A few lines introduced into one of the speeches of Odysseus or Diomede in A, or into the colloquy of Nestor and Agamemnon in , would have sufficed. Or an addition, to supply the refer- ence to the horses of Rhésus which the critics miss so much, say at W 292, as (sit venta numeris)—Aivetav: “Pyaovo 8 édtpuyes axées Urros ev ddtvn édiovto, érel moAd yelpoves Hoar, Ovntol édvtes, TH 8 dp ayipw aBavdtw te. We must surely 142 THE LAY OF DOLON CHAP. refuse to follow Grote, or decline to believe it was so easy to interpolate the poems—-We may apply this to A. The interpolations in it noted by Dr. Leaf are of incomprehensible origin. One is “a pointless generality,” another is “ gnomic,” a third “spoils the picture,” and so on. Not one seems to be designed to help the additions which late poets made to the Iliad. Yet nothing could have secured the inviolability say of I, so well as a few lines inserted in A. They would have made an incontestable voucher. And finally, those who accept Grote’s ruling must deny isolated episodes to an epic poem altogether. But surely that is not a justifiable attitude. It is a special application of the unreasonable canon of Dissecting criticism that anything that can be cut out clean may be suspected. Those who use it do not stop to think how other authors’ works can be mutilated, if such procedure be sanctioned. The prejudice against episodes in Dissecting minds is easily explained. Everything that retards the plot is questioned. An episode retards, so it is suspected. See Allen in C.R. xx. 270. Herodotus wanders, and retards. “By means of digressions he achieved epic variety” (Bury, Anet. Gk, Historians, 41 f.). Other writers digress at times. Other epics have episodes interspersed through them, and commentators make no objection. The Skdéhndma, which some call an epic, is a collection of magnified episodes. We find them in Beowulf and the Idylis. There are episodes in the Aeneid (Heinze, 438). Some, as Bernhardy, maintain that the epos requires episodes. Certainly. They are an obvious source of variety. Aristotle approved of them (Poetics, 1459 a). Terret (p. 235) styles K an épisode de transition, which could not be expected to influence the subsequent action. Baumlein, quoted by Hiecke (Der gegenwirt. Stand d. hom. Frage, 25), thinks that self-evident. See also Blackie (Hom. and the Il. i. 257), Mure (i. 297 ff), Cordery (The Il. of Hom. i. 482), and Bougot (pp. 214 ff). If such a means of varying the story be denied the poet, then the critics’ complaint,—an unreasonable complaint, as Jiger shews (Hom. u. Hor. 86), of the long drawn out Fighting at the Wall and at the Ships should be suppressed. The Z/iad should have been one continued, unvaried surfeit of @ovos te nal alua nab apyaréos ordvos avdpav, with no Ruhepunkt at all. And what would the critics have said then? They would have complained xvi POSITION OF K IN IZIAD—MODERN VIEW 143 even more bitterly of the monotony. As an episode the Doloneia justifies itself. As an episode introducing us to the interior of the camp and then providing an adventure by night which, for the moment, turns the tables, it is admirably conceived and most effectively placed. It now remains to be seen whether there is, as the critics assume, a total absence of connection between K and the rest of the Iliad. Has K, as Grote says, not the slightest bearing upon the events of the following books? Does it stand zwecklos da? Many say no, for the following reason. If the author of ® and I was preparing for the Greek success and the 192 f And we know from the monuments that Mycenaean shields varied in shape. They no doubt also varied in material and weight. See Professor Burrows, Discovs. 207, and C.R. xxi. 20. Some were “figure of eight,” some cylindrical, some of conical section. They were also of different sizes. Mr. Myres protests (C\R. xvi. 73) against the assumption that no Mycenaean shield was circular. Warriors could ride with shields like those of two of the warriors in the siege fragment figured by Dr. Leaf, vol. i 572. Miss Abrahams, (Dress, 6 f.) thinks they are not carrying shields. But we do not agree. It does not seem to be a garment in the case of the man on the right. Mr. Lang observes (op. cit. 132) that the artists of Mycenae represent men as using big shields when hunting lions. As that is “a sport in which speed of foot is desirable,” he concludes that we need not assume that such shields were always heavy. Because Hector’s shield covered him from nape to heel, Z 117 f., we need not infer that all shields were of that length. It should not surprise us to find great variety of armour in the Iliad. The armies were composed of contingents from many different parts of Europe and Asia (Ostern, 92 ff). The ancient Germans, according to Tacitus, knew, in different parts of their territory, the round as well as the long rectangular shield (Petersdorff, Germanen u. Griechen, 13). We have seen that it was the same in Norman times. Next, Diomede’s men sleep with their shields “under their heads,” K 152, as knights do in the Lay of the last Minstrel, or as Rustam does in the Shdindma. Therefore the shields are round, Dr. Leaf says, for the Mycenaean shield might “hardly serve as a pillow.” We do not admit the inference. The round shield cannot have been quite flat, and, if it was, a man would hardly use a plate to lay his head on. It had usually a central boss, to which the surface sloped up from the rim. It would not XXIII ARMOUR AND DRESS 197 make a good pillow. The chances with a Mycenaean shield would be much better. One could get a surface on it on which one’s head would lie steady. There is an indentation at the middle in some specimens in which a head would repose quite comfortably. But a circular shield, mildly pyramidal, and probably with a smooth surface! It is possible, of course, that the poet conceived a cloth or garment as laid between the head and the surface. He certainly did so in Diomede’s case (K 156, and see p. 93 supra). If that were so, most shields could be rendered suitable, and no inference is to be drawn either way. But lastly, even if we concede that the shields are round, that does not prove lateness. Reichel’s idea (p. 41) of Diomede as a regular Ionian hoplite, imoBarns, with his (wroctpddos, is surely fanciful. Dr. Leaf himself admits (vol. i. 575 n.) that the Warrior Vase “shews that the round shield had come in by the end of the Mycenaean epoch,” and that is early enough for our purpose. See also the Mycenaean stelé figured on p. 45 of Drerup’s Homer. For shields of this shape in the Aegean area, see Burrows, Discovs., lc... 3; Murray, 137 n.; Drerup, op. cit. 119 ; Hogarth, Ionia and the East, 73 ; Perrot and Chipiez, Phoen. and Cypr., Eng. Transln., ii. 180; and Eneyelop. Bibl. s.v. “ Shield.” I have seen it stated, but am unable to give a reference, that round shields have been found in “prehistoric layers” at Olympia. And see p. 195 supra (Lang’s reference to Evans), to which add Scrip. Min. i. 25, 277. Ostern (p. 23) finds that round shields are general in the Jliad. In conclusion we may here notice one other point. We have seen in Chap. XI. that the author of K has been charged with archaising in language. There is also an “archaeological tendency notable in K” (Leaf, vol. i. 629). But all that I can find to support this is the following. First “the account of a genuine Mykenaean helmet” in K 261 ff (2c). Next, the dressing of the heroes in the skins of wild animals (Introd. to K). The wild animals are enumerated, and include an ox and a bull. But enough has been said on this point. Thirdly, his note on K 215; the offer of the ewes is “probably .. . a touch of heroic simplicity.” This also has been considered (pp. 185 f. supra). There remains the «vvén to support this archaeological imputation. About that it seems sufficient to say that, if the author of K really had such a penchant, it is inexplicable how 198 THE LAY OF DOLON CHAP. XXIII he neglects to indulge it in regard to the shields, which Dr. Leaf and others say he makes quite modern. See Kluge in Jahrb. k. P. 1893, 91. Ostern (p. 29) assumes our author archaises, apparently because of the lion and panther skins. If the poet introduced skins and an old-time casque, and a otepavn which Robert tells us (p. 290) is the Mycenaean helmet, and refused corslets, all to maintain ancient colour, how is it that he did not make the shields correspond? How did he come to introduce the “Ionian” custom of riding? The archaeological tendency seems to have no evidence to support it. On this point see H. and A. 266 f. Much of the argument in that work is directed to proving that poets in an early age do not archaise consciously; they describe the life of their own day and make their characters live in it. The proof is so good that the opposite belief may surely be regarded as a heresy that cannot be resuscitated. The weight of the opinion of other authorities seems to be to the same effect. Prof. Burrows (Discovs. 216), Dr. Evans (Scrip. Min. i. 61 n.), and Mr. Hall (Oldest Civn. of Greece, 223 f.) may be referred to. See also Gemoll on the antikisierender Homer in Hom. Bldt. ii. 1 ff, and Rothe thereon in Jb. 1889, 367. (For other views see Cauer, Grdfrgn. 261; Drerup, 119; Harder, 241, and Finsler, 567, and cf. 476.) For early European poetry, see Ker, 15. Rothe rejects the conventionelle Stilisierung in life and manners which Wilamowitz finds characteristic of the Epos. Its pictures are “not artificially constructed, but adapted from a real experience ” (Mahaffy, Probs. in Greek Hist. 50), “not a laboured mosaic or an archaeological revival” (Jebb, 37). See also Miss Abrahams, Dress, 16, and van Gennep, Quest. 33 f. For a criticism of the views of Dr. Leaf and Professor Murray, see Mr. Lang in Blackwood’s Mag. 1908, 82 f., and in Anthrop. and Class. 46 f., and cf. 52. See also van Gennep (Quest. 11) on the glaive & double tranchant which cuts all knots. When the critics please, individual contributors to the poems preserve an old tradition faithfully ; when they please, the poets introduce contemporary novelties. So the poems have no chance. It seems difficult, on a careful review of the facts and of the opinions of the archaeological experts, to come to the conclusion that the armour and dress described in K contribute anything to the proof that the lay is not ancient. CHAPTER XXIV IS THE DOLONEIA A BURLESQUE ? A view of the Doloneia which may be said to be quite original has been stated by Professor Henry in C.R. xix. 192 ff. There is a criticism by Mr. Lang, did. 432 ff, and a rejoinder, xx. 97 ff. Professor Henry finds the author an incompetent blunderer, who is “miserable in his attempts to be Homeric.” But there is more than incompetence. The Book is intentional comedy; its author is trying to be funny throughout. He succeeds only twice, apparently. He manages to “hit off” Nestor to perfection, and his picture of Dolon is “worthy of Shakespeare.” But generally his attempts at humour are failures. It is strange if this be so, because many writers who are, to use Professor Henry’s language, “careful readers and ask questions as they read,” have made the humorous element in the poems their special study,—Bischoff, Hess, Nestle, Butler, Hunt, and others. But none of them finds sustained comedy in K from beginning to end. The scholiasts give what Professor Henry terms “sleepy hints,” and no more. Two high authorities, Monro and Jebb, find a less noble tone and something akin to comedy, but, as neither gives any particulars, their judgments cannot be criticised. This cannot, however, be said of Professor Henry’s paper. He exposes a blunderer who is wooing the Comic Muse persistently, but who only succeeds in shocking his critic by his undignified capers. But the critic seems to sweep the string somewhat boldly. His method is to examine the incidents and speeches in the lay, and to show how grotesque they are in themselves, how in- congruous in their setting, and how alien to the Homeric spirit, as he himself conceives it. But it seems impossible to admit, in 199 200 THE LAY OF DOLON CHAP. most cases, that there is any straining after comic effect at all. In others, the slight touch of humour apparent seems to be exaggerated unreasonably. We do not find that the picture of Agamemnon’s distress is intended to make him ridiculous. It is no stronger than others in like situations elsewhere (p. 154 supra). In describing the garments and equipment of the heroes on this almost unique occasion, the poet does not appear to be revelling in absurdity. Quite the contrary (pp. 190 f. supra). It seems an inaccurate translation to say that Nestor wakens Diomede “ with a kick.” Jahr alone (p. 3), as far as I can dis- cover, agrees with Professor Henry here. He thinks Nestor’s behaviour is rude, and such as “no one would bear with equanimity.” The comment of Blass on such an appreciation of the scene has been quoted, p. 117 supra. | We object to the descriptions when it is said that Diomede “ flies at” Nestor, that the chiefs are “a motley crew,” or that Odysseus moves off at the end of the story with a “ guffaw” (xayyadowv). Why not, as Leaf on Z 514 or Paley, ai., “laughing” or “smiling with satisfaction.” We do not hear Nestor’s voice “rising to a shriek ” when Agamemnon approaches. There are no symptoms of fright in the old man; Agamemnon’s reply to him does not indicate that he is in an ecstasy of terror. In all such cases we feel the poet's language is distorted to fit a theory. Again, we cannot see a “distinctly comic element” in the fact that Agamemnon and Menelaus both get up because they cannot sleep, or anything that can excite comment in “the cross purposes” which lead the Trojans to send out a spy when the Achaeans have done the same. These seem to be very ordinary expedients for the poet to adopt. This Plankreuzwng has even been found interesting, not blameworthy (Jordan, Hrzdhlgsst. 64). There had to be a Dolon to tell Odysseus and Diomede about the horses of Rhésus. We can understand Agamemnon’s charge to Menelaus without calling it impertinence (p. 153 supra) And we do not find “drivel in his best tragic style” in his lament to Nestor on the consequences of his folly and its punishment by Zeus. Mr. Lang (Z. and A. 261) compares the cry of Charlemagne, Deus! Si peneuse est ma vie. The “homely English” for od8é ti ce ypy éotdmevar wédeov adv tevyeowv, which is certainly not homely Greek, may be “there is no use standing there with your finger in your mouth.” But a homely rendering could be found for XXIV IS THE DOLONEIA A BURLESQUE? 201 ’ most sentences in Homer. See Butler’s Translations. A homely version of H 109 f.(Agamemnon and Menelaus) would be “ don’t be a fool,” and it would be a thoroughly bad one. “The airs of a great man” is a strange misdescription of Dolon’s appeal for his life, or daxpicas in 377 has no meaning. The critic seems altogether too hot in his mood. We have often seen the con- tributors to the epics held up as Stiémpers, but never aught like this. Parody of other passages in the poems is also charged against the author of K. The offers to accompany Diomede, 228 ff., are “evidently modelled” on © 91-174, a misprint, I think, for © 261 ff. or H 162 ff. Lines 266-71, the history of the xuvén, are a “deliberate parody” of B 102 ff. The description of Dolon’s bodily presence in 316 is a “deliberate parody” of E 801 of Tydeus. Nestor admires Rhésus’ horses, 550, in words that are a parody of those he uses in A 262. Line 556 isa parody of y 231, because, apparently, the initial phrase is the same in each. But these are very extreme inferences, and are to be repudiated absolutely. The most that could be inferred is imitation, There is no ground for alleging parody, unless all imitation is held to be parody. In parody there is pleasantry at the expense of the passage travestied. But we do not admit that even imitation is proved. We must have some regard to the frequency of repetition in the epics. It is not enough to state an equation. Wilamowitz, for instance, who thinks © was composed in order to bring I and K into the Jliad, will not be ‘disposed to admit that K has imitated ©. The terms used of the casque recur not in B only, but also in H 149 and O 310. They are epic commonplace. And we must have regard to the poet’s public. We have already argued (p. 189 supra) that they would probably love to hear the history of the casque, and to have its points carefully recounted. Mr. Lang (Cornhill Mag. 1908, 501 f.) quotes a very similar case from an Irish epic. That the casque, which Siecke (Hermes d. Mondgott, 49) considers “a characteristic emblem,’ was obtained by burglary is quite appropriate. Autolycus we know was a thief, 7 395 f. Had he figured as an honest man in K, the critics would have proclaimed spuriousness at once. Robert does remark (p. 501) that it is “weighty” that K does not appear to know Autolycus as Odysseus’ grandfather. If it does not, then we must note that 202 THE LAY OF DOLON CHAP. that is one more argument against its “Odyssean” character. But as a matter of fact, nothing compels us to the belief that it does not. Another of Professor Henry’s cases, 008 adaocKoriny, «.T.d., 515, has been considered, p. 122 supra. Homeric formulae are not always applied quite appositely. And we do not see how we are to stop at these passages. They are not the only places in which the poet of K may be accused of appropriating to his own use other parts of the poems. Take the prayers of Odysseus and Diomede at starting. We have had occasion to remark (p. 172 supra) on the similarity of the words they utter to those used by these same heroes at other junctures. Professor Henry’s cold remark is “ both pray for success in the approved manner.” But he does not suggest parody. There is certainly no spirit of levity here. These supplications are surely as honest, as apt in expression, and as perfect in their simplicity as any in the poems. They may be placed beside Achilles’ entreaty on behalf of Patroclus, or the despairing év 6& ddet cal dreooov of Aias. Odysseus’ oddé ce AynOw Kivtpevos—* thou markest all my paths ”—recalls the most beautiful of all such petitions, the one made to Apollo by Glaucus, Stivacas S& od mavtoo’ aKovew davépt xndopévm.' The appeals in . the Doloneia seem worthy of the Zliad. Professor Murray (p. 76) glories in “the beauty of those elements in the Saga in which the young hero is befriended and counselled by a mother or a guardian goddess. Think of . . . Odysseus and Athené.” Yet there is as much in the wording of these prayers on which to argue parody as in the other cases which Professor Henry notices. But in fact, in the greater part of the Book there is nothing on which he can convict. It would be hard for the severest critic to find fault with the scene in the Trojan lines, the chase, the raid on the Thracians or the return to camp, so far at least as concerns what is called “ genuine Homeric spirit.” The “burlesque” theory is, as Mr. Blakeney says (Zransin. of Il. 2'75), “overdone.” Humour there certainly is in the Doloneia, but just of the kind which, and no more than, we find in other parts of the poems. We cannot see that its author is practer solitum levis. He mingles gay with grave here as else- where. Idem jucundus et gravis was Quintilian’s judgment. _? Which seems, if any adverse quota- contains a view of the gods that is tion be required, to dispose of Leaf’s ‘‘ hardly Homeric.” note that the expression in the Doloneia XXIV IS THE DOLONEIA A BURLESQUE? 203 Who is to blame the poet? He wrought on the laughter as well as the tears of his audience (Miilder, Quellen, 343). Mure (i. 395 f, 400) and others have not found any offence against poetical propriety. Shakespeare wrote Tragi-comedies. The epic is a complex (Ker, 16). The grand style is not “a panoply which the wearer should never take off” (Professor Saintsbury to the English Association, Jany. 1910). In Vergil’s imitation of the Doloneia in Aen. ix., one man is killed snoring in bed and another is caught hiding behind the big liquor-bowl. The incidents are not scoffed at, though they are alien to the generally severe spirit of the Latin epic. We need not be surprised at the good-natured brush between light-hearted old Nestor and Diomede. There generally is a slight atmosphere of humour about Nestor’s interventions in the liad (Bréal, 108, and see Z. and A. chap. xiv.). Dissectors, in their eagerness to get the son of Neleus out of the poems, are too apt to regard him as “a tedious old fool,” like Polonius, and nothing more. There is humour in the smile with which Odysseus receives Dolon’s account of the splendid bribe that had proved his undoing. The idea of such a weakling driving Achilles’ immortal team was, and excusably, too much for the Achaean’s gravity. There is humour of the grimmest, most thoroughly Iliadic, when Diomede tells Dolon he thinks he must take the precaution of obviating the possibility of any future spying. It is even possible to see with Fries,’ quoted by Professor Henry, a sort of “comic motive” in our story. The Pertpeteia may easily take on that aspect. But Fries does not say he finds comedy in every other incident of a lay that is full of life. The tone of the narrative respects the epic dignity throughout. The subject is of a very special nature. The poet has to describe some things and doings which are in a way trivial, and which hardly fall to be dealt with in other books. But we believe it is only bare justice to him to say that he never fails proprie communia dicere. In his rejoinder to Mr. Lang’s criticism the Professor admits that his view of K is influenced by “the very low date to which it must be assigned.” But, though we do not question his general statement, we must bear in mind that they are hardly in the majority who bring the date as low as 650 or 600 Bo. 1In Griech. - oriental. Untersuchgn. Doloneia in the 10th book of the Maha- 233 ff.—It is interesting to note that dharata. Fries finds a close parallel to the 204 THE LAY OF DOLON CHAP. XXIV We have seen that many critics of repute admit a respectable antiquity, and we hope we have shewn they are right. That being so, we must share Mr. Lang’s wonder how such a “ conscious mockery” could win its way into the canon. Professor Henry points to the Hymn to Hermes, but the parallel is not convincing. The Hymns were compositions of an inferior grade; they were not admitted to the Homeric canon (C.R. xix.117). Its solidarity and sanctity were too great. And there is burlesque in the Hymn to the god of rogues (ibid.). The Hymn itself bears witness (S. and A. 129). There is an obviously “cynical and quasi-parodic” style throughout (ibid. 134). We find that style nowhere in Homer. Dr. Monro (Odyssey, 331) finds in the Odyssey parody of a few expressions in the Jliad. It is very difficult to accept his proof, when one looks into individual instances. I hope to have before long an opportunity of discuss- ing them as a whole. One other point taken by Professor Henry has been noticed by other critics,—the proverbs and proverbial sayings in the lay. He instances those in 173 and 224, and appears to take them as symptomatic of the realism which is characteristic of the Odyssey. But the difference in tone between the two epics which Immisch, whom he quotes, thinks he detects, requires no more explanation than is to be found in difference of subject. To those who find no degradation of the epic and do not find a more “ biotic” tendency or more Individualismus in the Odyssey, or who decline to believe that Q is the work of a late Ionian, Immisch does not appeal. Proverbs are not in themselves a striking phenomenon. They are found elsewhere in the Iliad, P 32=T 198,I 256, etc. See Finsler, 505. And we do not know that sententiae of the kind were proverbs.| They were proverbial, or some of them were, in later times, no doubt. But they may, like many of the phrases and mots of Vergil, Horace, Shakespeare, Pope and others, have become proverbs only after the author’s day. Like Shakespeare, Homer is “full of quota- tions.” See Tolkiehn, De Homeri auctoritate, etc., 248 ff, and the reference to Macrobius. 1 Except in rare instances. Wecan- Nothing forbids us to believe that not doubt that did Spuds obd’ dd wérpys, pexOev 6é re vymios &yvw is original in 7 163, was a saying in common use. Homer. CHAPTER XXV HOW IS IT WITH THE MENIS? THERE is one very good reason why we should hesitate to accept the results of the hostile criticism of K, and that is, that if we apply its methods to A, we find in the latter linguistic peculi- arities and other infirmities, of the same kind and as numerous as those which have been detected in K. If one is to discredit K on the shewing of Dissectors, and to hold that it is later than the rest of the Jiiad and only fit to be fathered on the compilers. of the Odyssey, we must come to the same conclusion regarding the opening scene of the Ménis itself. Ais very kernel. Let us see what it yields when treated as K has been, assuming for the time the role of Dissector and his attitude towards K, and arming ourselves with his methods, canons, beliefs, assumptions and general apparatus. If his peculiarities and irregularities and difficulties prove lateness, we shall be constrained to say that A cannot possibly be early. In App. J the linguistic peculiarities of A are catalogued on the model of Orszulik’s list for K. The one enumeration seems to be about as serious as the other. That for A is a mere rough enumeration. It would no doubt have been of much more formidable dimensions, if the critics had become imbued, three-quarters of a century ago, with the notion that A was late, and had attacked it with the fervour which they have displayed against K. These peculiarities prove that A is late. But we can go a step further. Its close connection with the Odyssey can be established beyond all question. See App. K, in which an enumeration is given of all the words, phrases, etc., in A, which reappear only in the Odyssey and the Odyssean parts of the 205 206 THE LAY OF DOLON OHAP, Iliad,—I, K, V, Q, with %, Nestor’s story in A, the Bototia and the Apaté. A and these parts of the Jliad are shewn to constitute with the Odyssey a homogeneous Odyssean mass. And if we extend our enquiry beyond the language, the Odyssean case against the Book can be made even stronger. Take, for instance, Principal Geddes’ “criterion of honour to Odysseus” (Problem, chap. x.), for which see p. 164 supra. He admits (p. 93) that in A Odysseus is mentioned respectfully, and “as a famous mariner” is charged with an important function. Odysseus in A is the Odysseus of the Odyssey. This indicates that A is “Ulyssean.” Again, according to Dissecting belief, Olympus is a mere mountain in the Jitad; in the Odyssey it is an ideal site in empyreal regions, where the blessed gods live “in quiet seats above the thunder.” A agrees with the Odyssean conception ; Olympus is not a mere mountain. Hephaestus, flung from it by his unnatural father, takes a whole day to reach the earth. “From morn To noon he fell, from noon to dewy eve, A summer’s day.” Had the fall been only from the top of Mount Olympus, he must have reached Lemnos after a hardly appreci- able interval. How different in T 131, for instance! Até, similarly treated by Zeus, raya ixeto épy’ avOpémav, as we should expect. Another point is the mention of the Sintians, who re- appear only in the Lay in 6, the most disreputable of all the productions of Odyssean decadence. Yet another is the mention of the Aethiopians. They are referred to again only in V and the Odyssey. Other geographica might be specified as tending to the same conclusion. Perhaps the most important of all is the intimate knowledge which the author of A exhibits of the coasts and hinterland of Asia Minor. This, as readers of Dr. Leaf’s Iliad know, is a sure sign of lateness, and one that is common in the Odyssey. And again, the conception of the gods. It will be observed, later on in this chapter, that they are degraded from the high status conferred on them by the poets of the hey-day of epic composition. In A there is the multo minor mayjestas deorum which van Nes (De Hom. Quaestt. 36) finds in the Odyssey as compared with the best parts of the Jiiad. Yet another point of similarity is the scarcity of similes. Mure (i. 260) observes that A has not one,—there are small ones in 47,104, and 359 (?)— and that 0 (which is Odyssean) comes nearest to it in this respect among the books of the Jliad. The Odyssey also has few (p. 39 XXV HOW IS IT WITH THE MENIS? 207 supra). It is an indication of the poverty of genius which marked the decadence of the epic. The Hymns and Hesiod’s works exhibit the same defect. In the period known to Dissectors, though they do not define it accurately, as the bloom of the epic, Professor Murray (p. 215) tells us there was a common stock of similes, “ready-made,” to which the bards had access. They could appropriate them and sprinkle their composi- tions with them at will—though, strangely enough, similes are seldom repeated in the two poems. But when the epic ceased to blossom, this reserve of figures must have been lost or dispersed, and the decadent authors were thrown on their own resources. ovdé ti trou noe Evvnia Keipeva todd. But we propose, always arguing on Dissecting lines, to extend the attack on A still further, and to prove that its author was a poor artist, like the poet of K. The general style is “ noticeably mannered” (Leaf, Introduction to K, p. 423). First, there is the “effort to produce striking contrasts,” which Dr. Leaf (cid. 424) finds in K, and Jebb (p. 162) in I and O. Mr. Lang asks (ZZ. and H#. 146) what artist does not produce effects by contrasts, and other authorities support him, as Mure (ii. 47 f.), Roemer (see Jb. 19038, 303), and HE. H. Meyer (Hom. wu. d. Il. 49), but we need not regard their views. We note instances in A. The horrible brutality of Agamemnon—see especially 29-31—is contrasted with the good feeling shewn by the camp generally to the suppliant priest. The calm and general pleasantness of the voyage to Chrysé, and the atonement to the god, are in pleasant (and, some think, skilful) contrast to the Sturm und Drang of the wrangle in the Agora. Even in Heaven itself we have a quick change from the scene in which satisfaction is given to Thetis, and confirmed by a nod that makes Olympus reel, to a scene between the Father of Gods and Men and his spouse which “would be discreditable to their humblest worshippers on earth” (Mure, i. 485 f.). Then, yet another change to the closing burlesque, one of a few incidents in the poems which “ the wits of later centuries” could not improve on (Cauer, Grdfrgn. 345). All is buffoonery; the “rulers of the world” are merrymaking. The place that otherwhere wétwa “H@y fills in their solemn assemblies is taken by a hirpling blacksmith. Apollo, who opens the book as the Angel of Death, closes it playing to the feasters. It is tragedy followed by farce. The Doloneia is “mellow music 208 THE LAY OF DOLON CHAP. match’d with this.” But as in K, it is all “at the expense of the harmony and repose of the epic style” (Leaf, /.c.). Next we mark the tedious diffuseness which the critics blame in K. That is not the way of “the old epos.” “The Ur-Llias is characterised by brevity” (Robert, 88, 105). The Quarrel Scene, like the prologue to the Doloneia, is unduly spun out. The reason is clear on a hint from Jebb (p. 161) as to the origin of I. The poet, “conscious,” like the author of that book and Q, “especially of rhetorical gifts,” indulged his talent too freely. We tire of the recriminations; the half were better than the whole. To make matters worse, the scene includes that certain mark of modernity, an uninteresting reminiscence of Nestor’s young days. The compiler of A is using the “Pylian Epos,” or “grafting a distinct epic ballad” (Leaf on I 523). Worst of all, we miss lucidity of thought. The want of clearness noted, some have thought hypercritically, in K, is as moonlight to sunlight when compared with the ambiguities and obscurities of A. See Bernhardy (p. 157) for blemishes of the kind in die tadellose Menis. We are never told that Apollo stays the plague, unless by the vague reference in 457. The omission is “a small detail, but not quite like the usual epic style” (Leaf on N 256). Oldfather (Lokrika, 464) observes that the information about Chrysé, Chryses and Chryseis is very vague. For instance, at one point Chryses is left praying in the camp. He is next heard of at his home. How he got there is not stated. This is “more than is usually left unexpressed” (Leaf on I 552). Not many expressions in the poems have proved so troublesome as that intractable é« roto in 493. The reference in the very proem to the “counsel of Zeus” is almost as difficult, not to mention the obvious allusion to the Cypria. We can translate 133 in three ways. “The connection of thought” is sometimes not clear, as 282 ff, or “there is a mixture of two trains of thought,” as 352 ff. See Dr. Leaf’s notes on these passages and on éwov in 526. Such adoddeva is not what we expect from the Ur-Ilias. Other peculiarities of style have been noted. The poet has a fondness for asyndeton and ellipsis, and indulges in a “specially harsh” zeugma in 533. He thinks it effective to repeat a word time after time in consecutive lines, as 287 ff. and 436 ff. On the last, Christ (Interpol. 185 f.) remarks with truth that “only a duffer” could shew such want of taste. The Jdyils XXV HOW IS IT WITH THE MENIS? 209 of the King, it may be observed, and some of Shakespeare’s plays exhibit the same cheap striving after effect. Our bard also takes pleasure in coining far-fetched and clumsy phrases, such as yédov kataréyn, apevos kal rrotTov advéew, aiva texodca, Kip elSderas eivar. He has a liking for gnomic or quasi-gnomic deliverances, as in 80, 218, 278 f. There are some intolerable hyperboles. The Giant with a hundred hands does not reappear in the poems, and there is not a monster in them to compare with him, not even Scylla. He is Hesiodic. If Professor Bury’s suggestion (Hist. Gr. 109) that he symbolises a great advance in shipbuilding in the Aegean area, and is “no other than the new racer of the seas sped by a hundred hands,” have anything in it, he may yet help us to date the Ménis, as the lion-skin helps Erhardt and Leaf with the Doloneia. We have in A the most extraordinary theophany of the poems,—a god on earth for nine days massacring the Achaeans and their animals. But we do not hear that their numbers were diminished. We marvel that one, even one, was left. The famous fall of Hephaestus has been mentioned above. Here we may add that a bard of the bloom would never have represented the victim as recalling it in the presence of its brutal perpetrator. Late poetasters, as Dissectors know well, constantly betray themselves by such outrages on propriety. Nihil quod tetigerunt non inquinaverunt. A has not the repose that stamps the work of the old and genuine bards. Its author is, like his brother of K (Monro, Introd. to K, and Jebb, 123, 156), out of touch with “the tragic elevation of the Ziad.” The Billingsgate in the Assembly can be paralleled only in other “late” parts,— B (Thersites), V 473-87, N 769=T 39, and the Odyssey (Irus, Melanthius and the drunken Wooers). A 385 (Diomede to Paris), an imitation of Hector’s abuse of the same hero, is in a passage “that has been suspected” by E. H. Meyer, so it does not count. In A, Agamemnon and Achilles “use language which could scarcely be endured towards servants on the stage” (Coleridge, Greek Classic Poets, 75, quoting Vico). It is not in the best style to represent a god as coming clattering down a mountain side, and sitting down to shoot with a silver bow at— mules and dogs! The scene in Olympus has already been referred to. Plato found it beneath the divine dignity. Very little of all in the Ziad and Odyssey that has escaped the P 210 THE LAY OF DOLON CHAP. Expurgator, is worse than Agamemnon’s words to the father of Chryseis in 31, or his reference to his own “ wedded wife” in 113 f. High respect for women and the marriage bond is characteristic of the best lays. The hero in them is an ideal knight, “who loved one only and who clave to her.” Ordinary Unebenheiten, of the kind that has helped Dissection so much, are abundant. We might ask, with the ancients (Bywater’s Poetics, 333), why the mules and dogs should be the first objects of Apollo’s attention. Why not the horses and cattle? The honourable position thus accorded to dogs is a certain Odyssean note (Geddes, chap. xvi). Mules are as certain a note of lateness. They reappear in B, K, ¥, © and the Odyssey, and outside these only in two very “late” tracts in H and P. In A 469 f. more wine is provided for feasters, after they have put away the desire for eating and drinking (Bergk, 548 n.). It is easy to lay this at the door of a rhapsode; but the line is not “inorganic,” and cannot be got rid of. Achilles takes it upon himself to summon the Agora, as in the generally suspicious book T. The poet only makes matters worse by ex- plaining in 55 that Hera suggested this (Roemer, Hom. Gestalien u. Gestaltungen, 11 and 19). Had she no thought of the “unnumbered woes” she was bringing on the heads of her beloved Achaeans? And why allow them to be slaughtered for nine days without interferig? We do not wonder that Achilles takes a commanding place in military operations (6n dp£evev *"Ayurrgeds, y 106). But this is a very unseemly interference (Roemer, J.c.) with Agamemnon’s prerogatives. Is it a sign of an age that is becoming democratic? Of Hirzel, Themis, Dike, ete., 237 f. The author of A seems to have a grudge against the Generalissimo, and to desire to shew him in as unpleasant a light as possible. Girard (Rev. d. Etudes Grecques, 1902, 233) argues that there was wne conception d’'Iliade qui faisait d’ Achille le principal personnage du poeme. Indeed there is a new view of the kingship in A (Finsler, 383). In the Assembly Kalchas is much too forward. He seems anxious to get a word in, and to precipitate matters, before any one else can be selected to explain. The absurdity of the apparition of Athené requires only to be recalled, All present are reduced to the condition of e/SmAa,— ef. schol. on A 76'7,—while Achilles and the goddess hold their conversation. It is most “un-Homeric” procedure. The same xXV HOW IS IT WITH THE MENIS? 211 may be said of the collection and distribution of booty. Cauer (Grdfrgn. 528) approves Miilder’s suggestion that this is a sign of the late origin of the book. It seems doubtful if Athené was known to the Ur-Ilias. We have commented on her appearance in A. In X her interposition is so mean as to be absolutely intolerable. In A she is mentioned only in Nestor’s tale, which is “late.” Her appearances in what are considered the books of the Kern are no doubt due to Athenian influence. That the interpolators bungled the insertions is nothing strange. And Athené is not the only deity in the Menis who takes us by surprise. Her brother Apollo’s proceedings have been noticed above. And consider Father Zeus as he is exhibited to us, a puny godhead that requires a giant as bodyguard. Compare him with the Zeus we know elsewhere, Hesiod’s conqueror of the Titans; non viget quidquam simile aut secundum. We could point out other blots on the theogony of the Book. Again, the fall of Hephaestus is from a mountain or heaven of unimaginable loftiness, an eminence to “ make Ossa like a wart.” Yetin 532 Thetis takes the intervening space in her stride, so to speak. This is not consistent (Erhardt, Entstg. 9). The two views of Olympus differ toto coelo. There is a glaring discrepancy between A and another part of the Iliad. In B 378 Agamemnon says, referring to the great Quarrel, éyw & fpyov yareraivov. And this is the view usually taken. As Miss Stawell puts it, ZH and Zi. 13, “Agamemnon is obviously in the wrong.” Perhaps. But did not the first taunt, the little spark that lit the conflagration, come from Achilles? What could be more gratuitous than the close of his reply to Kalchas, 90 f? Have we not here the amalgamation of two “ parallel versions,” of the kind that Dr. Leaf detects here and there in the Iliad? The plural in adérecde, 299, may have a similar explanation. But enough. It is easy, when armed with the plenary powers that Dissectors arrogate to themselves, to discredit and break up the Ménis. One other note of lateness requires special mention. There is the “archaeological tendency” that Dr. Leaf detects in K. Unfortunately there is no fighting in A, so we have no blunders as to armour. But there are other archaistic traces, in religious matters especially. The oréupa is one. We nowhere else hear of it as part of priestly insignia. We nowhere else hear Apollo addressed by the very archaic and unintelligible title of YuwOeds. 212 THE LAY OF DOLON CHAP. We nowhere outside A, except in the opening of E, which the critics suspect, read of a priest who is “a professional ‘cursing- man’ like Balaam” (Murray, 150). The professional interpreter of dreams also reappears only in E 149. The old legends of War in Heaven, of Briareus, and of that absurd tumble of Hephaestus, all tell the same tale. In two cases the author is most evidently trying to introduce what Dr. Leaf on K 215 calls “a touch of heroic simplicity.” The famous oxjrrpoyr, the descent of which is described in terms obviously borrowed from the account of the cuvén in K, is a mere bit of stick. It is true this staff is said in 246 to be ypucetous Hrovor memappévov. But that line is “inorganic.” It “can be cut out.” The description is taken from A 633. The remainder of the line, éero 8 aids, is due to a Sttimper who thought he had detected an omission. In 39, ef moré tow yaplevt’ émt vndv gpera, we have the same tendency. This is explained by Dr. Leaf, a.l., as indicating “the most primitive form of temple—a mere roof to protect the image of a god standing in a grove.” And correctly; such shrines in the making may be seen frequently in the India of to-day. The archaising poet would lead us back to times that are but one stage more modern than those in which the tree itself is the habitation of the god (Kern, Anfinge d. hellen. Relig. 13). Wecklein (Studien, 50) sees more in the verse. The word vnds proves that the Achilleis belongs to the modern Ionic period. Cf. Cauer, Grdfrgn. 303 f. The author’s cloven hoof peeps out. Mendacem memorem esse oportet. The question of interpolation I have not space to treat in detail. Many attempts have been made to prove late intrusions, notably the Chryseid and the closing scene, the feast of the gods. They have all been failures. The general opinion is that in A we have a piece of uncontaminated poetry, which confirms our conclusion that it is of late origin. It came into being, like K, at a time when the interpolators were ceasing from troubling (pp. 19 f. supra.). If then any weight is to be given to eccentricities of diction, style and contents, and if Dissectors’ methods are good, it is certain that A was composed by one of the bards who flourished after the close of the golden age of the epic. He betrays himself by his every movement. His symptoms of distress, PwvavTa cuverotar, are those always exhibited by the Flick-Poet as he xXV HOW IS IT WITH THE M#ENIS? 213 staggers under the too vast task he has taken on himself. They are born of sheer incapacity. And all these years critics and poets alike, with their eyes holden, have been lauding this poor lay as a genuine product of supreme genius. It seems to need only a critic endowed with the necessary keenness of scent for the abnormal to disprove all that, and dows revyew érdporor. As surely as the critics have proved the Doloneia to be an addition, a senseless addition, to the Jliad by some inferior scribbler, so surely will they yet destroy our simple, ancient faith in the Mjus auipev. The villainy they have learnt so well they will execute on it, and then down topples the whole of the “Poetry about Troy,” disjecta non lent ruina. fidentem dicere verum NIL vetat. But in all seriousness we ask how A can be held to be old and genuine, if K is, on the evidence against it, to be condemned as modern and spurious and Odyssean. Once get rid of the current superstition that A is ancient, and it can be overthrown—by popular methods—as easily as K has been. We have seen, pp. 32 f. supra, that some Neo-Homerists are already in revolt. Further developments will be awaited with interest, for it seems likely that the last plight of Dissection will be worse than the first, when Lachmann and Kochly tried their prentice hands on the poems. Meantime we are content that K stands or falls with A. CHAPTER XXVI CONCLUSION AT every point the case against the Doloneia seems to fail when tested. We have found nothing in the position of the lay in the Iliad, in its relation to the other books in that poem, or in the “ difficulties” which have been found in it, to indicate that it is late. The same may be said of its language. However we test it, we find evidence of aflinity with the rest of the poem, but distinct differences between it and the linguistic and metrical usages of the Cyclics, the Hymns and Hesiod. The lay is not more “ Odyssean” than the earliest part of the Ur- Ilias, There are parts of the IJliad which are more “ Odyssean ” than others, but the explanation is not that these are later. The differences in language alleged between the Iliad and the Odyssey have dwindled on inspection to very small dimensions. The language of the two poems may be considered one, and the poems themselves of the same age. The Doloneia appears to be as old as the original Ziad of the critics. We think the differences between it and the rest of the poem are so slight, and the correspondence so marked and so significant, that it would not be rash to affirm that it is by the same author as the rest of the books. But we are content to say that the critics have failed to prove that it is of a later date than these. One objection is sure to be made, and may be anticipated at once. We shall be told that where there is smoke, there is fire. Is it possible, it will be asked, that so much could be said against the Doloneia, if it were really as ancient and as genuine as the Ur-Jlias? It is quite possible to produce much smoke from very little fire, if a sufficient quantity of fuel of a certain kind be piled on; and the bulk and character of the case 214 CHAP. XXVI CONCLUSION 215 heaped up against our lay need not surprise us, if we but remember the temper in which the majority of its critics have approached it. “Disinterested endeavour” is conspicuous by its absence. Most of them have come to the test, not in order to find out whether the lay is late or early, but with the conviction that it is late, and only desirous of adding to the proof. Their work is coloured by what has been described in other critics as “a sort of personal partisanship or antipathy,” and which is anything but an aid to fair criticism. We need not wonder that a mass of the objections which are the outcome of enquiry undertaken by Dissectors in such a spirit, are found to be trivial and to disappear at once on examination. Their mere volume is not to be regarded. What is alone of importance is the residue that can with justice be placed against the credit of the lay. And that is no greater than the same for the first book of the Jliad. Its bulk has been greatly increased by the disinclination or inability of objectors to disregard modern conditions, and to place themselves at an ancient standpoint. That there are parts of the Jiiad which have been proved to be later than others, is, as already said, the basis of all the popular theories of its origin. We humbly think that the Odyssean theory must be rejected, and that four books, not to mention minor tracts, are restored to the age of the Ur-Ilias. The rest of the Jliad, that is, the books other than those of the Ur-Ilias and the parts which are styled Odyssean, is composed, roughly, of Dr. Leaf’s First and Second Expansions. Now as against these, opinion is far from strong. Many high authorities who think they are additions to the Ur-ZIlias, are ready to admit that they may be from the hand of the author of the kernel. There is little in them on which an origin more modern than that of the Ménis can be argued. We have even seen that a new school holds that they are more ancient than the Ménis; and personally we cherish a strong belief that, to complete the proof of the antiquity and homogeneity of the Iliad as a whole, it is only necessary to subject the tracts between the Ur-Ilias and the Odyssean area to an examination such as we have applied to the Doloneia. No doubt when such a defence of these parts of the poem is undertaken, points will emerge which we have not had to deal with. But the greater part of the proof will be on identical lines. The principles, assumptions and accepted 216 THE LAY OF DOLON CHAP. beliefs on which Dissecting Criticism proceeds, are now a stereotyped, invariable system. We have had to discuss most of them in the course of our investigations, and we propose, before leaving them, to bring them together in one conspectus here. When we add to them the postulated Ordner, Interpolator, Worker-over, Expurgator and Archaiser, we may ask if such an apparatus has ever, in the history of criticism, been at the command of critics bent on discrediting a body of poetry. And we believe the answer must be that criticism in any age has not anything to shew so unfair, To begin with peculiarities of language. They are often held to prove a line or a passage late, without any further explanation, without any attempt to date the word or usage, and in spite of the fact that exceptional usages are everywhere in Homer. As they are certain evidence of lateness, an obvious resource for the defence is to attempt to shew that the total of significant peculiarity is no greater than in some acceptable book of the poems. But our proof will be useless. We are anticipated by the explanation that many of the late manipulators — of the epics had an accurate sense of the old epic language. & XX. being marks of spuriousness, we may shew that our lay contains comparatively few. But the adversary replies that our bard was late, and, being late, of course borrowed extensively from others. Consequently he did not allow himself sufficient scope for the use of the rare words which would have betrayed him. Similarly, if we try his work by some grammatical test favoured by Dissectors,—if, for instance, we shew that he-is far from vicious in his uses of the Article, we are told again that the inference that he was as early as the authors of blameless tracts is not justified. There is another vice of lateness, prone- ness to imitation, and he, being late, imitated the style and language of his predecessors and betters, and so avoided the solecisms which his composition would otherwise have exhibited. And being late, he is to have no mercy shewn him. If he uses a rare word, there is a protest; if he uses a common one a number of times, it is noted against him, and tends in some mysterious way to shew that the initial assumption that he was late is correct. If he gives detail, he is objectionably diffuse ; if he is succinct and refrains from giving superfluous informa- tion, such a failure in his duty to modern readers is fatal to his XXVI CONCLUSION 217 character. The standard by which his merits and his vices are measured is the Ur-Iiias. His defenders are not to appeal to the later and weaker parts of the epics, but Dissectors themselves may appeal to these freely, when necessary. It would seem to render examination of the language nugatory. Dissectors “ sport with their own deceptions” in a way to dumbfound the opposition. It is much the same with interpolations. If we shew there are none, or very few and those trifling, in the Doloneia, that is a symptom of lateness, inasmuch as, in its late age, interpolation had ceased. If we point to a similar freedom from spurious passages in parts of the Ur-Ilias, we are told that these parts are of course early, and have certainly suffered, but that the hand of kindly Time has smoothed all over, so that no inequality is now perceptible to indicate the intrusions which have undoubtedly taken place. The Doloneia, being late, cannot have suffered thus. Yet it is admitted that there were interpolators of high inspiration and genius even to the latest days of the bloom of the epic, and some of the leaders of Dissection even shew that the poems were added to centuries afterwards, as by Cynaethus at Syracuse. And it will be of no avail for us to point to our adversaries’ admission that other parts of the poems were inter- polated from our lay, though it was itself so late that nothing could be inserted im it. The Doloneia is late, “and there’s an end on’t.” Diintzer established that fact by shewing that the lay uses some words that recur only in the Odyssey and a few that do not recur at all, and that it is soiled by faults that the bards of the bloom of the epic never committed. Their language and style were perfect. todto yépas Baowdniov éryov. But when we apply to the lays of these early authors the tests approved by modern philology, we find they stand the trial no better than the late and inferior cantos. The procedure of Homeric critics in the detection of inter- polations has been characterised in Chap. III. They postulate a state of things that is without a parallel. They assume that there was perfect freedom for any one to add to or to subtract from the poems, though from the earliest date these were regarded with a loving veneration which has seldom, if ever, been equalled in the history of national literatures. And any one manipulating the poems might alter their text as he found it, in order to make a new addition suitable or to conceal an excision. Irregularities 218 THE LAY OF DOLON CHAP. and inequalities could be removed by any one interested, and were removed. Yet contradictions which to Dissectors bear the gravest aspect, contradictions which they hold are absolutely subversive of unity and which they describe as “glaring” and “patent,” were allowed to remain. Interpolations have been discovered in hundreds; some books have been chipped away till almost nothing of them is left. The process has become so easy. Almost any peculiarity is ground for suspicion. But even peculiarity is not essential; if lines are not to the taste of a critic, they may be rejected. If they can be cut out or are not indispensable, they are “inorganic” and may be abandoned to suit the purposes of the individual enquirer. “If a passage is not connected with some other, it is suspicious; if it refers to one, it is still more suspicious. If it contains a contradiction, the fraud is manifest; if it agrees with other matter, the imitation is clear as noonday. Jeu sans régle ... qui ne satisfatt personne.” These are the words of M. Bréal, reviewing (in Journ. d. Savs. 1903, 146), not one of the productions of the mwAnOvs of Homeric criticism, but the Studien zur Ilias of Dr. Carl Robert, one of the leading classical scholars of Germany. See, to precisely the same effect, Calebow, Z0. lid. oct. 50 f., and Wetzel, De choriz. stud. 6 ff. It is not writers of an inferior order alone who descend to such practices. They have become so ingrained in the Higher Criticism, that scholars of the highest standing in other spheres of classical research seem powerless to resist them, and do not seek to avoid them, when they come to deal with Homer. Here again one effect is to render discussion useless. Analogy or precedent cannot be appealed to; there is nothing to appeal to that has not been objected to by some authority in the long line that stretches from Zenodotus to Robert and Fick. But this is forgotten when the appeal has to be made by some member of the destructive school who is attacking a passage. Then there are the Repetitions. The best of the Dissectors frankly admit that Repetition is a very patent characteristic of the epic style, but others seem to forget it entirely. It has come to this, that when two parallel passages are under discussion, the one which the critic wishes to prove the later is often assumed to be so, without reasons being given. It needs only to state the equation. “There is in the Jiiad no lay that one XXVI CONCLUSION 219 cannot by means of repetitions prove to be ancient or very modern, as one pleases” (Miilder, Quellen, 323 n.). Repeated matter may always be taken, and is taken even by the greatest scholars, as evidence of plagiarism, imitation or even parody. The epic commonplace is protected to some extent; it is generally allowed to stand without offence. But when in a passage a certain number of lines can be detected which occur elsewhere, then, be they commonplace or not, a late imitative poet may be proclaimed. We are asked to believe that the epic style was not difficult to imitate, and that “battle vignettes” and other episodes could be turned out with ease and decorated at will with “ready-made” similes, from a common stock that any one might draw on. The author of the Doloneia was one who borrowed freely ; to some critics, indeed, he was no better than a mere cento-maker. This weakness proves that he was of the late imitative order. Yet his lateness is also argued from an independence which is the exact opposite of the vice described. For he can also be shewn to be late by his extraordinarily numerous departures, as in the matter of epithets, from genuine epic practice. But, though so far an innovator, he had at the same time an archaistic and archaeological tendency. He imitated the archaic in his language. Yet no critic who has examined this weakness can make up his mind to as many as one case in a hundred lines of the lay. His “archaeological tendency” he displayed in a random fashion. On some points he imported ancient colour; on others he introduced the practices of his own day. The desire to discredit him o’erleaps itself, and the indictment under this head becomes confused and contradictory. We complain too that the criticism of the lay has been in many respects unfair and one-sided. We have seen that its author’s propensity for pilfering has had special attention. He is accused of plundering the Odyssey. But no one has enquired whether the parallelism on which the charge is based does not also extend to the Jiiad. He is said to be Odyssean in his language; but no one has enquired if he be more so than the authors of genuine lays, or if there be words, expressions, and usages in his work which must, on the principles applied, be held to attach it to the liad and to separate it from the Odyssey. His Odyssean uses of prepositions are carefully enumerated ; his 220 THE LAY OF DOLON CHAP. XXVI Iliadic uses are never mentioned. He descends to producing effects by contrasts; those who charge him thus do not stop to observe that the same thing can be said with even greater force of the Ménis itself. See p. 207 supra, and Am.-H. Finleitung to A. A mass of lines and fragments of lines in his lay are shewn to occur elsewhere, and he is, on the mere number of these, held to be a cento-maker; but it is not stated that, on a similar enumeration, the same inference is permissible against the most ancient parts of the poems. His language is shewn to approximate to later Greek in various ways; but the most obvious and commonly applied test, the Digamma, is hardly mentioned. It is not asked by those who date him as late as 650 or even 600 Bc. whether modernisms which appear in works of poets of that period are found in his. The testing process has not been carried out consistently or completely. There is an obliquity of vision in the critics. At an early stage in modern Homeric criticism Colonel Mure exposed and con- demned the “two-edged logic which nothing could resist,” and the strange canons, of Heyne and Hermann. Inconsistency was held to be undeniable evidence of plurality of workers, in spite of all experience to the contrary. Repetition was to be allowed in only certain specified cases. And many a prejudice quite as irrational has since been allowed to develop into a critical principle. Gnomic lines must be rejected. Anything that can be spared must have been inserted in a late age. A thing mentioned only once must be suspected. If it is mentioned a second time, the repetition indicates an imitative poet, and so on. The principles on which the fabric of the Higher Criticism has been constructed have not been elaborated with sufficient regard to common sense and fairness. Our lay is one of the most unfortunate of their victims. When we “separate facts from fancies” and correct obvious errors and excesses, there remains, we think, little to justify the disdain with which the critics regard the Lay of Dolon. APPENDIX A THE INTERPOLATIONS IN K (1) Lines 5-16, the opening simile and the description of Agamemnon’s distress. The former is “thoroughly bad” (Fick), “pointless and hopeless” (Leaf). See p. 184 supra. With 5-16 away, Fick thinks the formal verse, 17, follows well after 4. That is matter of taste. Even if we admit it, it proves nothing. Next, in as 8 ér dv dotpdmty, 5, dy can be replaced by xe. But that opens up a large question (Monro, Odyssey, 464, and A.G. 393; Ench. 559 ff, and Fick’s works there referred to; Gemoll in Jd. Bursian, 1888, 29 and Naumann in Jb. 1895, 374), which we need not go into, as it is probable that neither dy nor xe is right here, and that we should read ds S& mix (Mnemos. xx. 239 £.). 67 dv is objected to as a. modernism (H.G. 264, 329; Agar, 167, and Wecklein, Teathrit. 62). Lastly, the Article in zediov 75 Tpwikdy points to a “later time.” But later than what? If the lay dates from days when Attic uses of the Article had not yet been developed, it will be very early. And, to be consistent, Fick should not retain other passages containing such uses. He seems to hew the text for the advantage of the moment. (2) 51 £. Superfluous (Fick, Leaf and others, following the Alexandrians). But pleonasm is frequent. There is little of it here, and what there is is tautologia commoti (Bothe). It is un homme ému that speaks (Pierron). We do not dock Agamemnon’s speech in A 287-9, where, in a very bad temper, he repeats the same thing four times. SoArxév=diw is a small matter. And if this be an interpolation, it must have been deliberate. What was the reason for it? None can be stated. Thoroughgoing Dissectors require none. Sit pro ratione voluntas. (3) 57-9. Late, because they refer to I 9-88, which are late (Fick). That cannot be admitted (pp. 147 f. supra). And Fick does not cut out other references to the guards. Also the words are “too. absurd” for Agamemnon to use. But see p. 153 supra. Fick has no objection to the language. (4) 84. Agamemnon goes to Nestor. We cannot assume with Lehrs (Ar. 151 n.) that he enters his hut, for Nestor was sleeping in 221 222 THE LAY OF DOLON APP. A the open. The old chief challenges Agamemnon, and asks why he is roaming about the camp at that hour. Then comes the question in 84, which to Fick is “very inappropriate.” So Lehrs, and with some reason; for it would no doubt be absurd to ask a man inside one’s hut if he were looking for a mule. Is then the question impossible? The authorities are divided. Pierron brackets. Stier thinks the enquiry natural. Dr. Leaf even finds “something peculiarly graphic,” and quotes Schwartz’ comparison of Xen. Anabd, ii. 2, 20, where an ass causes a night alarm. This seems quite satisfying. (5) 146 f. 147 has been “smuggled in” from 327 (Diintzer). Most editors agree. But this cannot be proved (Lange, Jd. 1880, 142). Pierron and Stier retain the line. But the ejectors can in this case suggest a motive. Some one thought, wrongly, that éréouxe required an infin. But instead of supplying this in a suitable line, he took one (327) ready-made, the incongruity of which is glaring to modern critics. Dr. Leaf points out that “the question of fighting or flying” had been settled in I. But we cannot infer that Agamemnon, with his last hope dashed, has abandoned the idea of flight. He reverts to it next day, & 74 ff. Nestor might well, then, if only to humour his chief, whose distress is greater than ever, use the words of 147, for he had not, in his speeches in I 53 ff. and 96 ff., directly negatived the proposal to fly, but only put it aside for the time. (6) 202. Diintzer points to éSpidwvro in 198, and pronounces 202 unnecessary. That may be, but such repetition is quite in the manner of the poems. (7) 211-7. Fick rejects all seven lines, Nauck 213-7, Peppmiiller (Jahrb. k. P. 1894, 34 £.) 214-6, Leaf in his first edition 214-7, and so on, Even Professor Jevons (p. 508) considers the passage one of a few in K that might be sacrificed.—First, juéas is a late form (Fick, and Menrad, p. 107, quoting G. Meyer; and cf. 4.G. 85). Now it oceurs Il. 4, Od. 8. Menrad remarks that all these occurrences are in the Odyssey or late parts of the Iliad, except O 136, ubi rete, 6 8 Hpas eres facile corrigas for the vulgate reiWer, 6 S peas clo. See also Bechtel in TEPA® to 4. Fick, 30. Note Menrad’s method. The objectionable form may stand in passages which he considers late. In the early passage it must be amended. No doubt Meyer is right as to the form, but K 211 is entitled to the same treatment as O 136. Facile corrigas in it, kat dp eis jyas dvéXOor, for dy dvéepyer Oar is thrice used in the poems= “return.” If jjuéas stands in O, it is good authority for K; if it must be amended in O, it can be in K also. Next, the neglect of F in 215, rév mévrwv of Féxacros. On this see p. 104 supra. The Digamma is sadly misapplied in Homeric criticism. What would Fick here? If the bulk of K was composed at a time when F was a living sound in Ionic, its age will be great. And Fick should be true to his principles and not allow other APP. A THE INTERPOLATIONS IN K 223 neglects to stand. Compare what has been said about the Article, p. 221 supra. Tests should be applied consistently. In Hnch. 143, there are some trenchant remarks on Fick’s way with F. TOV mdvTwv ot ékaotos With a plur. verb is awkward (Leaf). The Leyden editors, however, quote 9 392 f. The construction is unusual, certainly. So are other laxities, such as the cyjpa ’AAKpavixdy (Leaf on E 774 and Y 138), and constructions card otveow generally. No particular kind is common, but there are instances and they have to be accepted. éAe réxvoy does not surprise us. Dr. Leaf describes a case of the kind, ¥ 413, as “most natural”; in Il 264 f. Dr. Monro (H.G. 159) sees “a slight boldness of expression.” See also M. and R. on » 181, Leaf on P 755 f., and Cauer, Grdfrgn. 390 ff. These cases are like Milton’s “fairest of all her daughters, Eve,” or Shakespeare’s “more rawer,” ‘most unkindest,” “it is not, nor it cannot come to, good,” and the like. See Raleigh, p. 225 and cf. 28. We must beware of too “dogmatic grammarians,” who “make rules for language as Aristotle made rules for the epic peer, and impose their chill models on submissive decadence.” Nothing i in all this advances the case for interpolation. Another point is the inducement held out by Nestor. On this see p. 185 supra. Fick says it is “simply absurd,” but he uses much the same terms of the splendid simile in II 384 ff., on which see Dr. Leaf. (8) 228-32. Fick brackets. Better, he thinks, with MS. support, write wavres for rodAot in 227,—but that is the reading (of one MS.) only in 236,—and excise the five lines; for all except Idomeneus and Meges (and of course Nestor and Agamemnon) volunteer, and these two alone ought not to be marked as cowards. Then we ought to reject H 162 ff. and © 261 ff, where also Meges is overlooked. But this objection seems to be extreme, and has not been accepted. It may be added, as to the age of Idomeneus, that he was not young. See N 361, and ef. N 512 ff., which might have been written of Nestor. Meges is of the xovpytes (juvenes or principes), T 193, 248. (9) 237-40. Fick approves the athetesis of 240 by the Alex- andrians, but gives no reason. But he also says 237-9 are impossible on account of dpeéw. It seems extreme to sacrifice three whole lines on account of an uncontracted form in a fourth. It is well sup- ported by dpeivw, dpetovs, etc. And see p. 233 infra, on contraction generally. (10) 252 f. dotpa 82 83) rpoBEBnke, tapoxuxev 8 rhéwv VE trav dbo powpdwv, tpirdrn 8 ere poipa AéAeurran. “This puzzling line (253) was rejected, presumably as unintelligible, by the Alexandrian trio” (Leaf). Fick and others approve. Pierron keeps both, as the condemnation of 253 is feeble; Ulysse fait bien de préciser sa pensée. . . . C'est le cas de redondance, 86 7d wepurody, which is a common feature of the poetry. See, eg., Allen in C.R. xx. 268. The syntax of 253 has made a difficulty (Grossmann, Homerica, 26, and Leaf and Lawson, a.l.), which 224 THE LAY OF DOLON — APP. A Mr. Lawson solves by taking rAéwv as gen. plur. of wAéos agreeing with poupdwy, and translating “ passed through two full watches.” Fick states objections to the language. mAéwy should be rAnéiwy. In his Odyssey, p. 19, Aéoves appears to be good. And rér is said to be a bad mistake for téwv. But Fick’s “Ionic” tests have been strongly questioned. Cauer has shewn (Jb. 1884, 290 ff.) by detailed examination that he “has given to the terms ‘Tonic’ and ‘ Aeolic’ an arbitrary and incorrect delimitation,” and requires proof that forms which Fick calls Aeolic were not also old Ionic. See also Gemoll in Jb. Bursian, 1888, 30; H.G. 388 ff. ; Jevons, 504, quoting authorities ; and, for Fick’s reply to Cauer and others, his Ilas, i. ff., and his recent Enistg. d. Od. 5 £. The critiques leave the impression that Fick and his followers have gone further than the remains of the dialects warrant. As regards the particular question which interests us here, the epic form of the gen. plur. of the Ist decl., see especially H.G. 391 ff, where grounds are given for holding that the form in -ewy cannot be definitely classed as only New Ionic. The genesis of the form and the period at which it originated have still to be explained. But in the present case we have the contracted form in -éy, which is a stage beyond -ewv. réyv itself occurs in 5 other places (against rdéwy in 19), e.g. O 656, which is in what Christ regards as the old Iliad. (There van Leeuwen (E£nch. 197) would read rpwrdwv for tév zpwréwv). But it may be suggested that in all such cases réwy was the original. It may have been modernised into ray. The presence of another réwy in the poems may have had something to do with the change. There must have been an intermediate form in -ewv for the Article as for other words. At any rate the expedient seems no more objectionable than some of the amendments by which (Ench. ic.) it is sought to restore the forms in -awy throughout the Ur-Jlias. And here again it seems pertinent to ask, if this contracted form be a sign of lateness, how the other late Odyssean or Ionian books have escaped it almost entirely. I has not one instance, though the gen. plur. in question is used 12 times,—4 in -ewv, 8 in -awy. W and Q together use it 14 times. They appear to present no case of -ewy, but have the -awy form 12 times. The contracted form is found twice, but in YW 112 xvynpav seems a likely original (Ench. 197), and in 2 794 van Leeuwen tells us (ibid., and 41) zapywv must be read. rév in K seems, in fact, to be the only certain form in the four Odyssean books, and it occurs in a line which is one of a few that even some of its defenders are willing to sacrifice. We hesitate for the reasons given. 0, we may add, is equally puzzling in this connection. Dissectors say it was composed in Ionian days as a prologue to I,—according to Wilamowitz, to introduce I and K into the Iliad. It must therefore be more Ionian than these Ionian books, but it provides 11 cases of -awy, and none of -ewy or -Gv. So for another Jonism, the gen. in -ew. APP, A THE INTERPOLATIONS IN K 225 It has 7 cases of the old gen. in -ao and one of -ew, “AiSew, 16, where, using the indulgence accorded by Dissectors to other parts of the poems, “Aida” can be read. éyppeAto, 552, is in a line which many think should never have been introduced by Barnes into the text. How has this very late book avoided these Ionisms ? (11) 292-4. Translated here from y 382-4, in Fick’s opinion, by the Kinleger, i.e. the Ionian who inserted K in the Iliad. That individual makes clumsy reference to this interpolation, when he says, 571, dbp’ ipdv éroaccaiar ’AOivy. But it is very doubtful if that refers to the vow in 292-4. Others think the lines original in y, but others again prefer K. See p. 118 supra. There is nothing on which to decide. (12) 387-9. Odysseus asks Dolon why he is out,—7) twa cvdjowv vextdov KatateOvydtov ; fo “Extwp mpoénxe, x.7.d. Athetesis of 387 as wrongly repeated from 343, with the trivial remark that it was silly of Odysseus to furnish Dolon with a pretext for being abroad. Modern authorities differ. Dr. Leaf thinks it “not obviously out of place.” Stier rejects it. Pierron finds it, if “superfluous, not other- wise offensive.” We cannot understand the doubt. Why should not Odysseus put such a question? Fick alone would have out 388 f. also, on account of the neglect of the F of Féxacra. See p. 104 supra. (13) Hector wants some one to find out whether the Achaeans are still keeping their camp, or only thinking how to get away (309-12). Dolon, when caught, tells Odysseus that Hector has sent him out to enquire as stated, and then follow (396-9) the above 4 lines (309-12) without the change of a single word, except that some MSS. have the vl. Bovrctoure . . . eOéXoure. The Alexandrians were not quite at one about 396-9. Fick thinks them “unsuitable” and repeated from 309-12. Am.-H., on the con- trary, find them thoroughly appropriate. Pierron and Stier retain, and Dr. Leaf does not reject them. The repetition is quite in the epic style, and only a very reckless critic could object to it. The passage has been much discussed, and a large issue as to the meaning of the pronoun o¢icx raised on it. Dr. Monro’s judgment, al. and H.G. 221 f., seems to set the matter at rest. See also Cauer, Grdfrgn. 468 {., and further at end of next case. (14) Nestor wants some one to go out to ascertain the Trojan intentions,—whether the force is to remain on the plain or return to the city (208-10). Odysseus asks Dolon (409-11) in the same words. It is alleged by Fick and other critics, following the Alexandrians, that in 409-11 we have another case of transplanting,—from 208-10. Stier retains them. Pierron doubts and brackets. Dr. Monro only says it is “very possible the lines are wrongly repeated.” Sickel (Q.H. i. 11) retains them, as “such repetitions are characteristic of the poet,” the (to him) incompetent author of K. Let us look into the reasons. First, Dolon, though he answers the other questions put to Q 226 THE LAY OF DOLON APP, A him, does not notice the one in 409-11. But when he had said the allies were sleeping and the Trojans on watch, was there any need for Odysseus to wait for him to say explicitly that the army was not going either to attack or to return to the city? Secondly, there is an “awkward change from the direct to the dependent question,” which is not the case in 208-10. But both Leaf and Monro quote a 170 f. as a similar case. It is repeated in € 188 f. See for the reverse change, a 406. See also Leaf on K 142, Cauer, Grdfrgn. 386 ff., and Naber, § 28. Thirdly, the question is absurd when the night is so far advanced. But does not that objection apply with almost equal force to 208-10? See what Odysseus says in 251 shortly after Nestor has uttered those three lines. There is absurdity, in both cases, if one is to test an epic poet’s chronology on the strict principles that are applied to an historical narrative. I suggest that cases (13) and (14) be considered together. They are identical. The hand that altered BovAetovor and é6éAovcx in the first case would probably have made a similar alteration in the second, had the verbs in 208-10 not been too intractable. There is evidence that those two words are original in the fact that gvAdoccovra: in 396 is in the indic. It resisted change to the opt. Dr. Monro points out that the opt. is wrong. (15) 496 f. Diomede kills Rhésus, who is asleep, doQuotvovra, kaxdy yap dvap Kepadndu éréorn tiv vixr’, Oiveidao mdis, Sid pir "AOjvyns. 497 was athetised. Fick and most editors agree. For the reasons see Leaf, a.l. For the neglect of F in Oiveiao, and for the objections to riv vixra, see pp. 104 and 82 supra. And if these prove the line late, we may argue that the gen. in -ao proves it early. How could the interpolator avoid Oiveiew vids? Dr. Leaf adds that “Homer” is true to nature and would not make a stranger appear ina dream. He thinks a rhapsode took xaxdv dvap to mean not a dream but, in bitter irony, Diomede himself, and added 497 “to explain his meaning.” But it is hard to believe that he would have done it so badly. It is not necessary to infer interpolation. The sense in which most readers will take the passage is well put by Stier,—die 2u Eiupten stehende Traumgestalt ward beim schrecklichen bewachen plitzlich zum leibhaftigen Tydiden. (16) 530 f. pdorifev 8 trmous, ro 8 odk déxovte merérOnv vias exe yAadpupds' ty yap pidov érAero Guy. Most editors ask why the Thracian steeds should like to reach the Achaean camp. Mr. Agar (J. Phil. xxiv. 280) has given a simple solution. Put 7a 8... meréoOnv in parenthesis, and read ty ydp x.r.d. of Diomede, and all is clear. For pdorifev irrovs vias ere he quotes II 728, immous és modcpov merAnyéepev. Add A 280 f. and P 624 f. In a modern poet the addition ty ydp, «.7.’., might, as Dr. Leaf thinks, be flat. But Homeric repetition,—and 530 f. are of the nature of a formula,—is a APP. A THE INTERPOLATIONS IN K 227 thing by itself, and its ways require careful attention. As regards the omission of 531 in some MSS., that may mean only that the misconstruction of the passage prevailed in ancient times. (17) 534. Zenodotus thought borrowed from 6 140. It might possibly be an imitation. For arguing interpolation there is no warrant. And see p. 120 supra. (18) 566 to end, we owe, according to Fick, to the Einleger. 566 on model of A 618 and N 240, and 567 after 0 434 and ® 30. 576=8 48, 577=¢€96. For the inference from these equations that K is the borrower, ipse dixit; nothing more. ipév = “ offering” only here ; elsewhere icpd. See p. 57 supra. ypwrds, 575, un-Homeric. See p. 51 supra. TvdeiSew for -Sa0, 566, is objectionable. See p. 224 supra, on the opposition to Fick’s Ionic views. Fick points out “ perversities” also. Diomede alone claims (!) the horses. But Odysseus had no use for horses, and perhaps he admitted they were the spolia of Diomede, who had done most of the actual work. Again, Odysseus places the “ weapon-booty ” in Diomede’s ship “till they should get the offering ready,” though Diomede alone had vowed one! This is micrology. So as to the warm bath after a wash in the sea (p. 181 supra). And then the taking of Seirvov before sunrise. Everything is “ unnatural and peculiar.” Grimm and Paley also think the conclusion of the book unsatisfactory. The latter thinks 532 to the end may have been “added by another, though doubtless ancient, hand.” Nitzsch, however (see Ranke, 6), thought that K was perhaps an enlargement from an original lay consisting of 203 to the end. No sufficient reason for suspicion has been adduced. It is true the poet does not, at the close, enlarge fully on every point. An ancient audience or ancient readers would not object. The adventure over, the horses admired and jubilation duly expressed, the poet ad eventum festinat, and who are we, Lange asks (Jb. 1875 (1), 141), to prescribe what should be described and what not? Cauer (Grdfrgn. 441) thinks the ending is wohl disponiert. Bergk (p. 599) praises the poet for avoiding unnecessary detail. Does he not after all tell us enough? The old poets should surely be allowed some discretion. “The Epic does not need to be as explicit in respect to the readily obvious, as, say, a Government report” (C.R. xv. 292). The author of K chooses to describe the wakening of Odysseus and Diomede ; are we to quarrel with him because he says of others, in one line, that they were fetched to the fosse? Had he told us how every one of them was wakened, he would certainly have been taken to task. réow ddeiv yaXderdv. The critics object to his diffuseness in the opening part of the lay. Now that he closes succinctly, he is blamed again. Damnatur ob hoc, culpatur ob illud. Strait is the fairway in which he must shape his course, if he is to please modern critics. It is surely rash to infer ungenuineness from an ending not quite satisfactory to our tastes. Perfunctory and even muddled conclusions 228 THE LAY OF DOLON APP. A are not unknown in modern compositions. Mr. Lang has a note in one of his works as to the unsatisfactory winding up of some of Scott’s stories. The close of Paradise Regained has been criticised. A Homeric Dissector would excise the last four lines. Shakespeare sometimes finishes in a hurry. As you like it “ends in a farrago of childish impossibilities” (English Rev. Oct. 1909). The close of Measure for Measure has also been unfavourably judged, and that of Hermann and Dorothea. APPENDIX B K 465-8 > > &s dp épdvycev, Kat dd ev ido’ deipas a a. , ‘ , y 2 nf D> Onxev dvd pupixnv’ SéeAov & eri ofpd st eOyxe, , , , > 9 Z 2” cuppdpyas Sévaxas pupikns tT éprOnr€as dfovs, XN Aad a oF * a Ce ¥ py AdOor atris idvre Ooty Sia vikTa pédAatvav. THE difficulties of this passage are stated as follows by Dr. Leaf in his note on it. SéeAos is a crux. It does not occur again in Greek, except in a gloss of Hesychius. It may be an older uncontracted form of 8}Xos, but if so and it agrees with ofa, the position of re is hardly to be explained. Christ and others join 6 ve, but for this there is no sufficient analogy. SéeAov Sé re ofp’ eréOnxev has been conjectured, but there is no reason why this should have been corrupted. If we omit the 7’ to get the sense “he put up a conspicuous sign,” the hiatus left is intolerable. Following Hesych., déeAos* Seopds, we can translate “he put up a bundle and a mark,” but this is not satisfactory. Dr. Leaf suggests Ojxev dvi pupikny 8 EAav emt ovjpar’ eOnxev, “took and set marks on the tamarisk.”! dvd pvpixny must then be supplied to the first clause from the second, and éAdv is virtually superfluous like dépwv, H 304.—68e éAdy is really no change, only a different grouping of the letters AEEAON. On the mysterious words which of petaxapaxtnpi(ovres evolved, see Mr. Agar, 320. But Dr. Leaf’s emendation does not make all quite satisfactory. There is perhaps more corruption. The words dd ev iivéc’ deipas invite attention. They seem to be surplusage. Odysseus and Diomede have taken from the body of Dolon his cap and wolf-skin, his bow and his spear,—the last called 6ftv dxovra, 335, and 8épu paxpdv, 459, which are convertible terms (see a proof in Petersdorff, Germanen uw. Griechen, 111 f.). These spoils "A@nvaty Anirids Sios "Odvaceds tydo” dvéryeOe xepi, and uttered a prayer, 460 f. After this the words dxd ev, «.7.r., if not an absolutely objectionable repetition, are certainly not required. It is suggested that they may conceal the familiar érit yOovi rovAvBoreipy,—which always ends the verse. The 1 Jt may be assumed that either ofjua dtov -a, lepdy-a., ofjua and ojpara are or ojuara will do, Cf, the uses of d@pov -a, used of the same thing in Z 168, 176. 229 230 THE LAY OF DOLON APP. B rhythm of the two phrases is identical, and the sounds of their individual syllables very similar. We know that epithets and phrases which are common replaced each other at times. See p. 25 supra, and C.R. xv. 291 ff. The words iyéc’ deipas may be due to a reminiscence of ipdco’ dvécxefe in 461 immediately before the prayer. Parts of dpa frequently end lines in the Iliad. There are three instances in K itself, 30, 80 and 505, in the last iydo’ defpas as in our passage. A scribe might make such a slip. The other place where corruption is possible is the phrase Ojxev dvi. pupixnv. The use of dvd is not a common one. Indeed it would be difficult to find an exact parallel to it in Homer. See examples of dvd collected in H.G.§ 210. The absence of a noun for O7jxev to govern is also open to remark. It is suggested that the word évapa, which is used in 528 and 570 to describe the accoutrements of Dolon, has been altered. The word would be quite appropriate in 466, and it can be read with the change of only one letter. The whole passage would then read thus :— &s dp éeddvycev, cat ért yOovi rovArBoretpy a> 4 is , NV fyr 208 , >» OjK evapa* pupixyny 8 édov éxt ojpat One, cuppdpyas K.T.d. This also gets rid of the objectionable 7c. And the sense seems good. “Thus he spake and laid the spoils on the bountiful earth. And taking hold of a tamarisk placed marks (at the spot or over the spoils), grasping together reeds and luxuriant shoots of tamarisk.” According to the vulgate we must understand that the heroes left the spoils on a tamarisk tree, plain to be seen,—the spear certainly could not well be concealed,—by any straggler,—ef. tiva éryardwvra, 206,—who might have come out two cvdAjocwy vextwv, 343, 387. There would thus be a risk of their losing their booty. Odysseus knew better. A track ran past the spot, 339, 349, one of many, II 374, that crossed the plain, and one Trojan they had already found using it. They had to conceal their spoil, and this they did effectually by laying it on the ground and covering it with brushwood,—an inconspicuous mark, but enough to indicate the spot to them when they returned along the road. There is no mention of the tamarisk when they recover the things, 528 f. For the tamarisk reference may be made to Fellner, Hom. Fora, 18, and Buchholz, Realien, i. 2, 252 £. Dr. Otto Stapf, of the Royal Gardens, Kew, has also kindly supplied me with information. The tamarisk is often a mere bush, a collection of slender stems rising straight from the root, but some species are trees of considerable size, as T. tetrandra and T. Pallasii, the latter of which has been found near Abydos. Unfortunately there is nothing in Homer outside our passage that enables us to decide whether it was bush or tree on the Trojan plain. Even a bush of the kind described above might upset APP. B K 465-8 231 a light car, as in Z 239. In ® 18 the expression used of Achilles’ spear may only mean “lying among the tamarisk bushes.” ©& 350 tells us nothing. We must depend on the wording of the lines we are seeking to interpret. If we suppose the pupixy was a bush, dvd does not seem appropriate. If we take it to be a tree, the phrase OjKev ava pupixny seems a poor description of the operation implied,—the disposal of a collection of separate articles in a tree. In either case what necessity was there for a mark? The spear would be easily seen by the heroes as they passed on their return,—if some third person had not anticipated them. APPENDIX C EMENDATIONS (38) Tpwerow éricxorov; (342), viecow éxicxoros iperépyow. éricxotos = “spy” is to Orszulik an Odyssean note. He points to 6 163, éricxoros é8aiwv, and says the word has the same meaning there. We cannot admit that. And the reading in 6 is not certain. Aristophanes read ériotpodos, which Nauck approved. In K, in each case, read -eoow éxe oxordv(s), which Christ and others adopt. (In N 450 there is a vl, Kpyjry ere odpov for ériovpov.) Orszulik, how- ever, thinks that makes no difference to his argument, as oxomds = “spy,” “scout,” recurs outside K only x 156. But see, in the Iliad, B 792, = 523, 2 799. (44) # tis xe(v) éptocerat. van Herwerden would write x’ é fooerat, which van Leeuwen approves, Mnemos. xix. 163. Other editors are satisfied with the vulgate——The commentaries and Mr. Agar’s Homerica shew that, like other small words, ér. has at times dropped out of and been put into the text. In K 161 for ddéyos 8 ért, there is the vl. ddiyos 8€ re. On 506, F ere rv rAcdvav OpyKav, see p. 80 supra, and on ér’ airdy, 493, p. 236 infra. (48) avdp’ &a rocodSe péppep er’ pare pyticacdu, “in the space of one day.” Occurrences of the phrase in a different sense are cited. But in two, A 444, N 234, it is (é’) jars rode; in T 229, B 284, the phrase seems to have the same meaning as in K; and in the remaining two, » 105, € 105, there is no great variation. See Monro and Leaf on K 48, comparing éx! vuxri, © 529. So there is no need to amend.—Perhaps & jars? Cf. dvdp éva in the beginning of the verse. Aristarchus, év 7juaTt.—ér’ jjpate is not late, at least not Attic (Jebb on Oed. Col. 688). (95) ornBéev éxOpwoKxe. ornOéwv does not recur, though other cases of the plural do,—aus metrischen Riicksichten fast nur der Dat. (Witte, Sing. u. Plur. 18). But the objection is to the synizesis. See Menrad, 79. He would read o7iOcos, drawing a distinction in mean- ing between the sing. and plur. which Witte (op. cil. 86 n.) apparently will not allow. But some editors, as Christ, accept o77@eos. And see Ench. 48. On the whole a change seems not required. A 232 APP. © EMENDATIONS 233 copyist might have made a slip; the alteration to ornjOéwy would hardly be deliberate.—As to synizesis, the poems cannot be purged of it without violence. Menrad is not a good guide (Platt in J. Philol. xviii, 168). He assumes certain tracts in the poems are late, and excises inconvenient lines. So in the Ench. 48. Nothing is then impossible. A more moderate view is expressed in H.G. 354. In the Ménis itself, A 282, we have synizesis in this same word, or/Oeq, not to mention d¢peov, on which various attempts have been made (Leaf, a.l.), earlier in the line. (105) 600 mov vuv é€drerat. vey = “now,” for viv, elsewhere only W 485. viv éAeras has slight MS. support (Leaf, a.J.), and Fick adopts it. Dr. Monro (H.G. 320) is in favour of it. The combina-. tion recurs, we may add, in O 110, 73) ydp viv édrop’. Another place where both viv and vw have MS. support is & 325. And see Cobet, M.C. 393. (105) dAAd juy ow, closing the verse. Those who object to contraction correct to dAAd F dio. But see Leaf on P 709 Emendation is possible only in some occurrences of ofv. The change in the present case assumes that Fe and pv are interchangeable. I am not competent to express an opinion, but I observe that Ameis (Hom. Kleinigktn. 22) does not think so. See also Funk, in a paper Auf Hom. Beziigliches, (1884), 2 and 9. To bar contraction is a resource of the Higher Criticism that is used unsparingly. The poet or poets, we know, prefer open forms, because they prefer the dactyl to the spondee. But what demonstra- tion is there that contraction was unknown or very rare, which is not based on an assumed classification of books into early and late? To Ludwich the only explanation of this dogma that suggests itself is,—tel est notre bon plaisir Hundreds of contracted forms are, he says, “unshakably firm” in the text; to remove others simply because they can be removed is mere mania. See also H.G. 354, the notes on a 378 and 7 94 in the conspicuously sound commentary of M. and R., Thouvenin in Philolog. lxiv. 321 ff., Meillet on Bechtel in M.S.L. xv. 167, and Platt in J. Phil. xviii. 127. When a contraction or a synizesis is objected to, the case must be considered on its merits. There is‘no presumption against its genuineness, prima facie. It is not enough to say ‘“Ionism” and “late,” as Robert does in his great work. (106) KjSeou poxOjoev. Orszulik remarks that the only other verb in Homer from this root is poxOi{w, which is 4. A., B 723, ie. in the “late” Bototia. That was barely worth noting. Such pairs of forms are not uncommon,—xovaPéw -ifw, dxAéw -ifw, ete. And as the MSS. give now one form and now another, ¢g., in M 448 and p 299, we might read poxyOiccew in 106 without great daring,—if there were any need. 1Ar, ii, 258 . See also his review of comments on Ludwich’s audentia in this Nauck’s Iliad, ibid. 51 ff. Menrad,179ff., matter. 234 THE LAY OF DOLON APP. 0 (127) tva ydp opw érédpaSov, where iva, elsewhere relative, is said to be demonstrative. See Leaf’s note. iva 7 dp,’ Bekker and Diintzer ; i’ dpa, Peppmiiller. But others see no cause to amend. Translate “for that is where” (Paley) or wo néiémlich (LaRoche) or “where in fact” with Monro, who adds, “iva need not be demonstra- tive. Rather it is the use of ydp that is idiomatic.” (151) éxrds dd KAtoins. van Herwerden (Mnemos. xviii. 34) objects to this as = procul a tentorio, whereas the poet simply meant to say that Diomede was sleeping outside, not in, his hut. So he proposes éxrooOe x\uins. But as it is said Diomede was sleeping surrounded by his men, he may well have been at some distance from his quarters. (159) ré mdévyvxov trvov dwreis; van Herwerden objects (ibid.) that the adj. is in Homer always applied to persons and not to things. He will not read rdvvuxos, quia via recte daxvov careat epitheto. But trvos occurs elsewhere without an epithet, and with dwre?s the bare noun seems quite good. (180) of 8 dre 8) pudAdkecow ev dypopévoww eurxOev. If any one concurs in the objection of Dr. Leaf, who pronounces this line a reminiscence of I’ 209, he may read with Bentley ovvaypopevoiww. Cf. cuvayerpduevot, 2 802. But no change is necessary. (184) Onpds dxovoavres Kparepddpovos, ds te Kal” SAnv... to which might be added kAdy£avros dxovrcay, 276. Orszulik finds the construction peculiar. He says that the nearest cases are dxovéeuev dosed, a 370, and atédijcavros dxovce, « 497, and that elsewhere the verb has a word denoting a sound as object in the accus. But see B 98, II 211, O 506, « 221. Had there been anything in the objection, we might have suggested an original Ojjp’ écaxovovres, the (legitimate) hiatus in xparepéppova, ds te leading to the change. In Eurip. Alc. 31, there is a similar double reading, piv éoépyeras and pyvds épxeras. (198) rdégpov 8’ éxdiaBdvres. In similar compounds, Orszulik says, the did comes before the éx. Apparently there are only two such in Homer,—Srefepéopae and Sieferue. Not much is to be inferred from this. We can, if necessary, adopt «3 S:aRdvres from the scholia. The combination occurs M 458, though in a special sense. The MSS. waver between éx dins and edéiys, II 365, and in y 82 both od dijusos and éxéjpios have support. (199) 604 8%} vextwv Stepatvero yGpos mirrovrwv. The last word, Dr. Leaf thinks, is hardly to be explained. Some, as Christ, write merredtwv, comparing ® 503 and yx 384; others reOvedrwv. Stier, a.., defends the word,—Jmperf. in lebendigen Riickblick- wo, als so viele tot hinsanken (Ovnoxdvrwv), die Erde noch sichtbar blieb. It is remarkable how the poet figures the plain as covered with corpses. See 298 and 349. You could not leave the track without treading on them! There is exactly the same hyperbole in the Shdindma (Warner's translation),— APP. 0 EMENDATIONS 235 .. «. that what with corpses And trunkless heads no vacant space was seen For troops to fight on, wheel, or pass between. (236) gawvopévwy rdv dpurrov, “a curious use, which must mean ‘as they present themselves.” So Dr. Leaf. He mentions the conjecture qovdpevdv tot, surely not a very violent one. But he prefers to keep rév, as K is unsound in the matter of the Article. We do not admit that. As to dawopévwv, G. Schulze proves (Hermes, xxviii, 19 ff.) from Xenophon that LaRoche’s welche sich angeboten haben is right. Classen (Beobachtgn. 167 f£.) seems to find nothing wrong. Grossmann (Homerica, 25) objects to ¢avduevov. Dr. Leaf’s translation is not acceptable. The article with a superlative is common. But rév here is probably pronominal. (292) Body Fvw edpupérwrov. It is not suggested that ju (which seems to be wrongly accented,—but see Glotta, i. 210) is a late form, but, if there is anything against K, we may read with Hnch. 15, 211, vida. van Leeuwen there goes so far as to say a dactyl is necessary before the Bucolic Diaeresis. Cf. Platt, J. Phil. xviii. 150 f. But LaRoche appears to have proved that a spondee there is as good as a dactyl (Jd. 1899, 140). The matter has been given a new aspect by Sommer in Glotta, i. 150, 155. vida may have been changed to jv to remove the hiatus. (343) 4 reve (387, 7 Teva) cvArour vextwv katateOvndtwv. Orszulilk objects that cvAdw elsewhere has either the double accus. or only the accus. of the thing. But cvAciw, which is only another form,—cf. pupdopas -evo, dyopdopat -evo, olvox ew -ebw, and OnpytHp with Onpedw,— has the construction objected to in E 48, and cf. 2 436. Both con- structions are found in later Greek,—L. and 8., s.v. cvAdw. But there may be corruption. Perhaps 7 é&vrea cvAjjowv? Such a synizesis with # in the opening of a line is not uncommon (H.G. 351, and Menrad, 177). ane GAN éGpév puv pra. . . . The synizesis and the contrac- tion in é3yev are objected to. See Leaf, a.J., and on E 256. Also, the pronoun is in a wrong position. So Fick and others accept dAAd F’ éSyev mpGra or ddd’ édwpev tpGra. The pv may be due to the last syllable of the preceding word. (347) dad orparé¢i. Apparently no more peculiar than dz’ airs, dd xadkddu, A 44, 351. On the former Hoogvliet says (Studia Hom. 53) videtur depravatum ex airéo, and possibly we should read orparéo in 347, or orparddev (cf. dr’ otpavdbev). But there is no good reason for interfering (H.G. 149, under dré). (364) Naod drorpajtavre (2)dudKerov eupevés aie. The ending -ov in the 3 pers. dual of an historical tense occurs elsewhere only N 346 and > 583, and the cases have been much discussed. Curtius (Verb, 52 £.) remarks that all three are in late passages, and so Christ (Interpol. 201). See also H.G, 6, and Bekker, Hom. Blit. i. 50 f 236 THE LAY OF DOLON APP, 0 Naber suggested Sudxaov, which van Leeuwen accepts (Ench. 292 f.). van Herwerden (Mnemos. xix. 164) proposes éd:é0Onv for eSudxerov, quod Jacillime e glossemate nasci potuit. On these forms see Bréal (p. 195). It is doubtful if there be need for a change, but in support of van Leeuwen’s conjecture see a very similar line, X 456, podvov drorpitas wéhwos meSiovde Sintra. And see p. 51 supra. (431) kat Bpdyes inmdpaxor, reading of Ar. adopted by some editors against the imrdéédapo of all the MSS. The word recurs only in M, where it is a proper name. As M is “late,” Orszulik finds this noteworthy! Interchange of epithets is common. See p. 25 supra. In K itself we have duipova and zoddxea, 323, and duBpooiny and éphvainv, 142. (449) drodvcopev He peOGpev. Orszulik objects to the contraction in the last word. For the ground see Ench. 307, and Leaf on X 381. The former would read 7} peOéwpev. According to H.G. 70, it is “probably more correct to write these words with ew,” so that we should perhaps read 7é peOéopev. So Rzach (Iliad, Add. et Corrig.). Other instances of the vice here imputed are in what Dr. Leaf considers late books or passages. (451) 48 Siorretowy 7 evavTiBiov wodeui~wv. One of a few instances, according to Dr. Leaf, on @ 576, in which 7 suffers correp- tion. He would read } dyriBiov. But see Agar, p. 56, and C.R. xix. 407. Hither reading will do. (478) obs vaiv ripavoxe AdAwy. The « in mdatoxo, naturally short, is long in thesi only here in Homer (Leaf, a.l.). We might accept Brandreth’s éripavoxe. But there is no necessity. Such a licence is not unknown (Ludwich, 4r. ii. 290). No objection is taken to kai Afpv, A 553. See Ebel. s.v. Aimy, quoting Spitzner. Paley, on M 208, suggests that our word was pronounced murdaicka, as dquv, dry in aiddrov ddwv ending the oriyos petouvpos, M 208. So Jebb, p. 195. Goebel (Leal. i. 64) gives the original form as m- odaicke. (486) aiyerw i} déeoor. In Ench. 210 f. the form aiyeoo’ is preferred, with Bekker. There is authority, but Mr. Agar (283 ; cf. 75) finds in the Odyssey instances in which “‘the archaic form of the dat. pl. in -eo.” has been expelled from the text. Nor is he singular in restoring this form, as appears from the discussion in the Ench. Dr. Monro (#.G. 85) only remarks that -eo. for the ending -ero. is “very rare.” (493) djOecoov yap ér° atrév, of Rhésus’ horses and the corpses about them. The use of airév in the weak sense, “them,” is late (Leaf, a.l.). It seems to be the ordinary “unemphatic” use which is common (H.G. 219 (3)). It is found, for instance, in A 401 and 473, which are in the Ménis. In some cases,—as K 25, where ad ro can be read, with some MS. authority,—emendation is possible. It is true, as Baumeister says (Hym. Merc. 234), that “airés often makes APP. C EMENDATIONS 237 confusion.” In our passage Hoogvliet (op. cif. 61) has conjectured dyGeccov yap durjs, as a word meaning “battle” is required. Com- pare the case in Agar, 156, and that in O 621, where dxrjv or -ry is a vl. for airiy in rd te rporepedyeras atriv. In a third occurrence of airés in K, 345, we ought perhaps to read adroé for airév (Ludwich, a.i., quoting Axt and Déderlein). Mr. Agar’s work has many instructive discussions on this word. See also Mr. Allen’s review in C.Q. iii. 226. (499) civ & eipev indo, of Odysseus and the horses of Rhésus. The verb has been much discussed. Axt(Conject. Hom. 8) conjectured ovv 1} efpev or ody S& 8} efpev (referring for the particles to A 524, N 52, P 466). The sense would be “coupled together.” But the weight of authority is for accepting the text and taking de/pw not as the common verb, but as a separate one = “harness,” ovvdyev xat ovvappo¢ew. Other words and expressions in the poems are referred to in support of this. See Leaf, a.J.; Hnch. 343, 488; H.G. 60; Schultze, 420; and Cobet, I1C. 326. If Meillet is right (.S.L. xv. 150) in taking defpw, “raise,” as from djp, then surely our verb is quite distinct. There is nothing against the credit of K here, but the decision of the learned that the expression means “harnessed” helps to the solution of the question whether Odysseus and Diomede rode or drove back to camp. See pp. 274 ff. infra. APPENDIX D DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE GRAMMAR OF THE ILIAD AND THAT OF THE ODYSSEY I CONFINE myself here generally to supplementing the remarks made on Dr. Monro’s cases by Miss Stawell in Hom. and Il. App. C. The number prefixed to each case below is the number of the section in that Appendix. 1. The form ev. The enumeration does not appear to be complete. Gehring gives additional cases from the J/. and one more, y 304, from the Od. It is to be noted that this Iliadic form occurs in two of the late Odyssean books, I 419, 686, K 27, 465. And is it not likely that 0, e8, and é6ev have in some cases been interchanged } 2 and 3. dudé with dat. and wepi with gen. = “concerning,” with certain verbs. It should be noted that all seven cases of the former, and all save one, a 405, of the latter, from the Od., relate to Odysseus himself. The difference in subject matter between the two poems has its influence. It is natural, again, that in the JI. the * contest” cases should be more numerous. And if cases of the other class occur in that poem, what is the preposition or construction used ? Finally, it may be added that if vexvos réps deiSia, P 240 (cf. P 242), be claimed for the Iliad, then K 93, Aavady wépe Seidia, may also be quoted. In all three cases there is MS. authority for both repidetdva and épu detdia. 5. ért with the acc. of a person= “in quest of.” The adherence of K to the use said to be Iliadic has been noted, p. 75 supra. But Miss Stawell shews that the difference between the two poems in this respect | is “ microscopic.” 6. éré with the acc, to imply extent without motion. See pp. 72 £. supra. 10. dvé with the acc., with collective nouns= “through.” K again conforms to the Iliadic usage. 13. The phrase Sa vixra, Seep. 74 supra, 14. év with plurs. of persons =“ among” and with abstract nouns. See pp. 74 £. supra. 16. é with the gen. = ‘‘in consequence of” See p. 74 supra. 238 APP. D GRAMMAR OF ILIAD AND ODYSSEY 239 21. “The reflexive use of éo, of, @ is much less common in the Od., and is chiefly found in fixed combinations, such as did ¢o, mpott of” (Monro, Odyssey, 333). ‘Excluding Infinitival and Subordinate Clauses, there are 43 examples in the J1., against 18 in the Od.” (H.G. 220). This appears, from Miss Stawell’s account, to be Ebeling’s enumeration. Gehring’s seems to give different results. And, although Miss Stawell’s totals agree with those of the H.G., the instances included in the lists do not. Four mentioned on p, 219 of the H.G., B 239, A 400, E 56 and + 446, are not found in the list in Hom. and Il. And there are other elements of uncertainty. Readings vary, as rpéoOev for mpd s ” > gains K akpnras .. . dAAnAoTW dyTecO. IQs vr +7 ~~ a ovdé Ke Gains .. . Hédvov cov Eppevar ei pev tis Tov dvetpov . . . GAXos evioTe, Wevdds Kev aipev kal voodiloipeOa . . . M58 £. &@& od Kev pea immos... éo Bain. Dr. Monro does not include 2 220 ff., which is a repetition of B 80 f. with only slight alteration. The three cases from the Od. are :— BHOORPPLe DOwaeFrr ODe Obs wo rh aT” OO (4) e 73 £. Oa x’ grea kal aOdvards mep ére\Oov Onjoaro tsar. 4 293 f. ws od« dy éAmowo vedtepoy dvridcavra ep&epuev. : > v 86f. 4 8 par’ drpadews Oéev . . . obSé Kev ipné Kipkos épapTiHoesev. Apparently from his note a.l., Dr. Monro should have added— t 241 f. od« ay rév ye Siw Kai eikoo’ dpakat . a’ obdeos dxAicoeay. Goodwin, M. and T. 162, gives also— a 236 £. érel od Ke Oavdvts wep G8’ dxaxolyny, ei peta ots Erdpows dap. So that there are 6 cases in the Od. against 15 in the Ji. But when we examine them, we cannot attach much importance to the difference in numbers. The 13 instances from the J/. under (a), (6) and (c) are all of the nature of Homeric formulae. Dr. Leaf notes this on E 311. Nearly all of them occur at very similar junctures, or on the occurrence of very similar incidents, in the course of operations in the field of battle. Had the Od. dealt to any extent with such scenes, we might have found the same expressions in it. It should be added here, as regards the three passages from the JJ. under (a), that it has been proposed to read doAwAde in E 311, 388, and dépev in P 70 (van Herwerden in Hermes, xvi. 351 ff.). Bentley had anticipated him (Ludwich a.li.). See also Goebel, Hom. Bilét. i. 10, n. 33. But it seems to be extremely doubtful whether the poet thought of these cases in the past time at all. The authorities differ in their views. Thus on E 311 Dr. Leaf says “the opt. is in itself merely concessive or potential, without reference to past or present.” In his Translation of the Iliad he renders A 539 by “would enter in and make light of.” Kitihner-Gerth (i. 232) translate many of the sentences by the impf. subj., including one of the two cases in (d), viz. M 58 f., where their rendering of éoGaiy would be inscenderet, APP. D GRAMMAR OF JZIZAD AND ODYSSEY 243 not inscendisset. The other case under (d), B 80 f.= 220 ff., seems to get no attention in this connection, and there is no objection to rendering daipev in these two passages by “we might say.” Again, see Goodwin’s account of the matter in M. and T. §§ 440 ff, and App. pp. 387 £. He divides the cases into two groups. In the first of these, his definition of which corresponds to Dr. Monro’s of these cases generally, he places only the three cases from the JJ. in (a) of our list and one from the Od., a 236. The three from the JJ. can, we have seen, be easily amended. And as to a 236, it is certainly doubtful. Dr. Monro, as we have noted, does not include it. M. and R., in note a.J., translate “I should not grieve,” and that seems to be quite good. Goodwin defines his other group as “ potential opts. with xe or dv which seem to belong to the borderland between past and fut. conclusions, and are not definitely fixed in the past (like the apodosis in § 440) by a past tense in the protasis.” These are the majority of the cases not here enumerated. Those which Goodwin does not mention at all are the four of a type in () of our list, and B 81. These five he either considers in no way abnormal or as also in the borderland. He sees in these borderland cases a certain looseness of use of the opt., which is well illustrated by his comparison of 1 241, one of our Odn. cases, with A 271 and E 303. So that if we follow Goodwin, and if we also, with the authority we have quoted, amend the cases in (a) and reject a 236, we get rid altogether of this peculiar opt. as defined by Dr. Monro. But if it be maintained, then we claim that such difference as there is between the J]. and the Od in number of instances is easily accounted for. It seems in all the cases, other than these four doubtful ones, a reasonable alternative to suggest that the poet is bringing a picture before his readers’ or hearers’ eyes vividly, by using language that describes the scene as present before them. In this way, as by other means he makes év pécous tots xwdvvors Tov dxpoariy Soxely oTpepe- oOa.1 This seems to be especially the case with our group (c) from the Jl. The form of speech used in them occurs elsewhere, ¢.g. y 124. Nestor is speaking to Telemachus. The context shews that ovéé xe gains means, not “you (Telemachus) would not say,” but “one would not say.” The very form of words itself is common in other poetry., It is often, as in the Shahndma, ‘thou wouldst have” or “thou mightst have.” It is often on the borderland ; there is the looseness noted by Goodwin in the Homeric cases. Scott’s “might you see,” and Tennyson’s “‘a man far-off might well perceive, If any man that day were left afield, The hard earth shake,”—which recalls A 539 ff,—are instances. But we have the ¢aiys xe form itself, as in an Irish epic (Cornhill Mag. 1908, 499), “you would think it was with partaing her lips were adorned. You would think it was a 1 Tlep) twous, xxvi. One of our pas- 7 Tay Tpocwmuyv dvTuserdbecis to which sages, O 697, is there quoted, though itis the effect is attributed. 244 THE LAY OF DOLON APP. D shower of pearls was in her mouth,” or Vergil’s migrantes cernas, Aen. iv. 401, with which compare, “upon the eastern bank you see,” in Marmion, vi. 19. Goebel explains the Homeric cases in this same way (op. cit. ii. 6, n. 2),—der Dichter sich die Handlung lebhaft vergegen- wiirtigt, sich selbst gleichsam dabei gegenwiirtig denkt. 32. “Optative of concession.” Miss Stawell’s statement seems conclusive. The greater frequency of speech in the Od. accounts for the greater number of cases in that poem. As the use in question is in the first person, it can occur only in speeches. But it may be said of the opt. mood generally, that it is more frequent in speeches. Out of 166 examples of its uses quoted by Dr. Monro in §§ 299-314 of the #.G., 130 are in speeches. We must be careful then how we style an opt. Odyssean. And then the difficulty of classifying opts. as to meaning. The diversity of interpretation is, as every student of the commentaries knows, very remarkable. See M. and T. 383 and ». Dr. Monro himself (#.G. 274) does not seem to be at one with Delbriick as to a number of the cases now under reference. But to take an individual case,—it appears from Dr. Leaf’s note on X 253, ero Kev, 4 Kev ddoinv, that he takes both opts. as potential, that Dr. Monro takes both as concessive, and that Hentze takes the first as potential and the second as concessive. Again Goodwin, p. 191, gives quite a different rendering of one -of the two leading cases given by Dr. Monro (Odyssey, p. 333), 8 219, and if we refer to a, 288, where the line is repeated with the verb in the second person, we see that that is the more natural interpretation. Am.-H. translate some of the instances in a different way from Dr. Monro. On 6 347, eg., the translation is non is swum qui dicam. And on the whole it may be said with certainty that no two interpreters would agree, as to the exact shades of meaning, in a dozen of in- stances. And lastly it may be observed that in Miss Stawell’s list for the /., not one case appears from the three Odyssean books J, K, W, though speeches abound in them all. 37. “Object clauses with «i after verbs of telling, knowing, seeing, thinking, etc.” Another case in which there is too nice discrimination of usage. It is classifying very finely to distinguish, in this construction, between verbs of “seeking and desiring” on the one hand and “seeing (if) and thinking” on the other. Verbs of “telling” might be differentiated from the rest, but there is only one case, » 112, in Dr. Monro’s list. And again the greater prevalence of speeches in the Od. has its effect. This seems the weakest of the three opt. cases. One peculiarity pervades all Dr. Monro’s instances of it. In none of them can it be affirmed that the «¢-clause comes after the verb, if it be meant thereby that it is directly dependent on it. In seven of the cases the verb governs an accus., and the «i-clause follows. In another,» 420 f£, it is at least good to take dws 6x’ dpwra yévorro and not the ei-clause as APP. D GRAMMAR OF IZIAD AND ODYSSEY 245 immediately dependent on the verb (GovAevov), and in the ninth and last, « 439, we may with perfect propriety read és yaiav épdpevos in parenthesis, making the ci-clause come after vixe wapeé In all, except one with of$a, € 119, which is paralleled by A 792, we supply “in the hope that,’—in o 375 it would be something different,—just as in cases from the JI., e.g. A 88, Si¢nuevn, ef ov edetpor, we translate, with Dr. Monro himself, “seeking Pandarus in the hope of finding him.” See M. and T. §§ 488 and 491, where some of our passages are thus rendered.—There is not a case of the construction in any of the four Odyssean books of the Iliad. 39. pav.and piv. pov, Il. 22, Od. 2; piv, Il. 7, Od. 3. There has been much controversy over these forms,—see Ebel., s.v. pjv, and Mutzbauer, Der. hom. Gebrauch d. Partikel MEN, 10 ff.,—but not much disposition to regard the difference in the figures for the two poems as due to different stages of the epic language. It is certain that there has been interchange of pdv, pajv and pev, which are apparently forms of the same particle and equivalent in meaning, and it seems that the origin of the different forms has not yet been cleared up (H.@. 312 f. and Ench. 89 n.). 40. pév otv. Od. 5, Ii. 1 (1 550). It should be noted that the combination in Homer is only a strengthened pev (Kiihner-Gerth, ii. 157 f.), and that there is no suggestion of any approach in these occurrences to its special meanings in later Greek. In Hym. Mere. 577, there is. The difference between the J/. and the Od. in this matter is small, and in two of the occurrences in the latter there is a wl. dp. 42 and 43. Metre. See Chap. XIII. supra. 47. vv. See p. 233 supra. 48. oddev. See p. 70 supra. APPENDIX E DIFFERENCES IN THE VOCABULARIES OF THE ILIAD AND THE ODYSSEY Dr. Monro, in his enumeration (Odyssey, p. 334), excludes words the presence of which in only one poem or the other is due to the peculiar subject matter. See p. 37 supra. But of words not covered by this reservation, he discusses ‘two noteworthy groups.” A The first set in this group are “old poetical words, mostly pre- served in certain fixed or traditional phrases, and often (as far as we can judge) only half understood by the poet himself.”! The first examples are 5 epithets of Zeus, 4 of Apollo, 5 of Ares, 1 of Hera, 1 of Aphrodité, and 3 of horses. But Zeus is mentioned twice as often, Apollo about 5 times as often, Ares more than 10 times as often, Hera 17 times as often, Aphrodité more than twice as often, and tros nearly 10 times as often, in the Jl. as in the Od. It is not surprising then that a few of their epithets in the J/. do not recur in the Od. For instance, Ares is hardly ever absent from the battles of the Ji. In the Od. his solitary appearance, in the Lay of Demodocus, is in a very different capacity. We note that some of these archaic epithets that do not occur in the Od. are found in some of the late “Odyssean” books. Thus pdvvyes is frequent in two of these tainted books, K and W, the reason being that they, unlike the Od., are much occupied with horses. iynyées occurs only twice in all, once in E and once in WY. On the whole, this particular batch of epithets appears to prove nothing. It is supplemented by a list of 25 general epithets, “old poetical words,” found only in the JJ. But 10 of these, Siios, dyxéuaxos, dyxXipayytis, éxerevars (of Bédros, and only twice), xvdudverpa (always of pax, except once), raxtrwros, pirorrdrepos, pevediHios, pevexdppns and modd«ns, are of the kind we expect in the 7. and not in the Od. Much 1 What is the ground for this statement? It is often repeated, as in R.G.E. 214. But I have never seen the reason given. 246 arr. E VOCABULARIES OF IZIAD AND ODYSSEY 247 the same may be said of others, as duyoris, twice in the Jl. of dogs devouring an enemy’s corpse, and twice in Q; Aoéyws, Il. 4, one of the occurrences being in VW; dAiacros, Jl. 7, 5 of them of fighting or its din.—Aaunpds occurs Ii. 10 (1 of them in K), 6 of them being with yotvara, of the quick running of a man pursued,—a rare thing in the Od. aiynpds, which is only another form, occurs JJ. 1, Od. 2.— péppepos, Il. 6, always in neut. plur. with épya expressed or understood. Such épya are more common in the J/. One occurrence is in 0, and 3 are in K. This has been made ground of objection to K.—The same may be said of zevxedavds, for which see p. 65 supra.—The remaining words are of a more neutral kind. épeSevvds, Il. 8 (2 in O and I). On the other hand, ¢peZos in the Od., © and I, 7, in the rest of the Il. only 1; épeuvds, Il. 3, Od. 2.—éaves, whether subst. or adj., hardly seems claimable. It might rather be quoted against the present contention. Cf. és on p. 335 in Monro’s statement.— éXixores, Il. 6 (one of them in Q), but always of the “Ayaioi, who are named jive times as often in the JJ. as in the Od. éAuxdrida. (kovpyv) is found only A 98.—evxddA1pos, Il. 4, one of them in 0, another in the Apaté, always in dpeci mwevkadipyor. evbov eioas (ppévas), which seems quite as archaic, is confined to the Od. Robert, p. 479 and n., makes wevkdAtpos quite a recent importation into the [liad.—vnriayos, Il. 3, vyntirios, Il. 9, are almost confined to Y and ®. In eschewing them the Od. agrees with the bulk of the IJ. vijos is common in both poems. —arxecirerdos, Il, 3, always with Tpwddes, which does not occur in the Od. Very little can be argued on this group of cases. Then follow, always in the category of “old poetical words,” 4adverbs and 1 verb. <«?0ap, Il. 9. Of these, 8 are in battle scenes,— 5 in descriptions of wounds, and the remaining 3 forming a group by themselves.—dvé.ya, Il. 5, 3 being in the phrase dydiuya roca Keio On (of a cloven head), which is not required in the Od., and one of the two others in the Hoplopoeia. 8ixa, from which dvécxa is derived, is found Ji. 3, Od. 7.—For Siarpiovov see p. 38 supra.—iraba, II. 6, is at least not widely diffused; 3 in &, and 1 in the Hoplopoeia. The verbs with which it occurs are much more common in the J/.— xpourpeiv, Il. 19, is much insisted on. See Friedlander, Zw. h. W. 814, and Mure, ii. 494. Many of the occurrences are in respect of the warding off of death, which is a much more frequent event, both in actuality and in contemplation, in the J/. than in the Od. It is noticeable that there is a very great disproportion between the occurrences in the two poems of the other verbs for “helping.” There are in the JJ. 10 occurrences of dutvw and its compounds, and 7 of ddéfw and 40 of dpijyw, for every 2 in the Od. When the occurrences of all these words are scrutinised, the inference to be drawn from those of ypaupéw alone is greatly reduced. But further, among these “old poetical words” there are a number “which are common in the J/., but so rare in the Od, that 248 THE LAY OF DOLON APP. E they are probably only reminiscences.” The latter part of the remark seems to have no real basis. If it means that the words were dying out of use, it is surely not correct, for most of them continued to be used, by Hesiod and other writers. And it is hardly fair to the Od. to blame it for not using these archaic words, and then, when it does so, to say they are only reminiscences. This class contains the following :— pépores, Il. 9, Od. 2. Of the former 4 are, strangely enough, in late “Odyssean” books.—aiyis, f1.11, Od. 1. In the Od. there is less fighting and consequently less opportunity for the mention of the Aegis. In the Mnésterophonia, y 297, it comes in just as in the JI. Why “mere reminiscence”? aiyioyos is common in the Od.— éperpi, Il. 9, Od. 1. All the occurrences in the J/. save one, and the one in the Od., are of divine behests. If one compares the parts played by the gods in the Ji. and Od. respectively, and the number of orders given by them in each to mortal heroes, the difference in the figures causes no astonishment.—jis and évs, JI. 32, Od. 7. Of the 32, 12 are in late “‘Odyssean” books! Eight others are in is te péyas te, Which is surely more appropriate to the poem of many sturdy heroes and their exploits. Seven more are in phrases descriptive of Mériones and Aeneas, who do not appear inthe Od. As to the Od., with 7 occurrences can we talk of mere reminiscence /—dpyid:Aos, Il. 27, Od. 1. In 20 of the cases in the Jl. it is used of Menelaus, and that is how it is used in the Od. It is an epithet of the class we expect to find in the J/.—So for Bporodoryds, Il. 12, Od. 1, of Ares.—So also for exarnBdAos and dyxvAomjryns. Particulars are un- necessary.—dyépwyxos, Jl. 7, Od. 1. Meaning uncertain. Dr. Leaf on B 654 gives 10 etymologies. Of the 7 occurrences in the J1., 2 are in B and K, of Rhodians and Mysians. The other 5 are of the Trojans. These three peoples hardly figure in the Od. The Od. applies the word to an individual, and it seems at least as likely that the poet knew what he was about as that he was using the word ignorantly for effect.—éyiéw and Syiorjs need be noticed only in regard to Dr. Monro’s remark that the latter bears a new sense in p 257. But see, eg. M. and R., Am.-H. and Pierron, a.l.—daidpor. “Tn Jl. from Sds ‘strife, in Od. means ‘wise’ or ‘skilful.’” An old, but quite doubtful, distinction, originated by Buttmann. Cf. Lehrs, Kleine Schriften, 41, and Sitzler, Asth. Komm. Od.,2 255. M. and R. on a 48 refuse absolutely to accept it. LEbel., sv, and Nitzsch on a 48 take the word in all cases from Sajvas. Dr. Monro’s dictum is too sweeping. The word must mean the same thing in both Ji. and Od. in the combination ’Odvojja Saippova rocshoprrnv. —épisovros and épiySouros. See p. 38 supra.—‘The two forms dXcyitw (I1.) and ddcydvw (Od.).” ddreyifw occurs II. 6, always with a neg., and with a gen., in sense of curo, respicio. dAcytve, Od. 5, always in Saira or dairas ddeytvery = curo, procuro, obeo. The verbs apr. VOCABULARIES OF JZIAD AND ODYSSEY 249 appear to have become set ig their respective phrases.—dvrixpi, “only found in the Od. in lines adapted from the J.” Quite gratuitous, unless one accepts Dr. Monro’s theory of imitation of the Il. by the Od., which I venture to think is unfounded. B “On the other hand the Od. shews a marked increase in the words which express what we may call the ideas of civilisation.” Which is surely what we expect in the Od. And see p. 42 supra. Dr. Monro notes especially, as new, (a) “Words denoting condition or occupation.” Bacidea (queen) and Sorowa (and dvacca, we might add) do not occur in the JI. In the Od., 17, 10, 3 times respectively. In 24 out of 30 occurrences, used by a speaker either in addressing or referring to a queen or princess. Such dames play a much less prominent part in the J1., where they come before us more as wives and mothers than as managing households and dealing with dependents. See M. and R. on 7 53. We do not expect Priam, Hector or Paris to use these titles to Hecuba, Andromaché or Helen. In the Achaean camp there is no one of whom they could be used. It cannot be maintained that the J]. did not know the words. And if not by the subject, how is the absence of the words from the late “‘Odyssean” lays,—as I and Q, in which Helen and Agamemnon’s daughters and Kleopatra and Hecuba are referred to,—to be explained !—S8npoepyds. It is surely not remarkable that Snpsoepyot are twice mentioned as a class in the Od. and not in the I1.—do.8ds, common in the Od. of course. In the Il. only in the “late” Hoplopocia and 2. B has Thamyris, but it is also “late.” In the Achaean camp there are none. Dr. Leaf, on I 186, admits we do not expect them. Agamemnon certainly left his bard at home, y 267 f. They were “the appanages of a court, not of a camp” (Jevons, 26). In Troy there are doidoi, 2 720 ff. But that these are “ professional mourners hardly admits of a doubt,”— Leaf, a./. There is a very serious doubt. Professionals in India, for example, wail and beat their breasts. They do not sing an dou). In China they are called “dogs of the devil” ; they “weep and howl.” —Oijres, Od. 1, Il. 0. Onredw, Od. 2, Il. 1. One would think the custom of working for pay must have been familiar long before it got into the legend in & 444. But the mere enumeration of occur- rences is enough here.—rrwyxos, trwxedw, frequent in Od. So adn, GAjpov and &dyrns (and -eJw). Kkexpnpévos, Od. 8, Il. 1, These words, except xexpnpévos, which is a mere ptcp., and in a category by itself, hardly appear in the Od. at all till é when Odysseus appears as a beggar in Ithaca. The words are used when there is occasion for them. See Friedlander, op. cit. 754. Is it argued that beggars were unknown in the days of the Troica? The poet of 5 242 ff. 250 THE LAY OF DOLON APP, E thought differently.—yeirwv, Od. 3, 1l, 0. We do not wonder. See . Friedlander, 789.—Nor is it strange that dAAd@poos is used, in the poem of the Great Wandering, four times of outlandish tribes and peoples. (6) “ Words expressing moral and intellectual qualities.” The list is meagre and the occurrences few in number. The greater frequency of those denoting moral qualities in a poem the plot of which is described by Dr. Monro himself, p. 336, as “a contest between right and wrong,” is hardly worth dwelling on.—Oeovdis, Od. 6, Il. 0, 4 of the former in a formula, always in Odysseus’ mouth, embodying a reflection very natural at various stages of his adventures.—dvdpovos, Od. 5, Il. 1 (Q 365), is open to the same remark. Four of the Odyssean instances are in a similar utterance. dyvds, Od. 5, Il. 0, 4 of the occurrences being as epith. ornans of Artemis or Persephoné. Moral or intellectual advance has apparently little to do with them, or with the use of dyvj once with éopr#. Festivals are rarely mentioned.— éoin twice in the Od., edvouin once. On the latter see Friedlander, 759. As to the former, a most apposite quotation is given for it, Geovdyjs and dyvés, by Miss Stawell, p. 107 £., regarding the use of “pious” in Shakespeare’s works, Intellectual qualities are represented by mivurds, Od. 6, Ii. 0, repippwv, Od. 54, Il. 1, and dropwdus, Od. 4, Il. 0. But rwvri, H 289, muicow, B 249, and dmwicow (or rwicocw), O 10. repidpwv is found in E 412, which is not modern, used of a lady, just as it is in the Od. of Eurykleia 4, and of Penelopé 50 times. It is in fact almost the exclusive property of Penelopé, who is not mentioned in the JI. This group of words proves little. “Some words that denote states of mind” are added,—8vn, Od. 4, éAris, Od. 2, édrwpy, Od. 4. Again the occurrences are instructive. All those of 8%y have reference to the hardships endured by Odysseus, and the other two words are used, each in identically recurring phrases, of the final consummation of the hero’s return and the end of his sufferings. The same poet might well, in a later poem, use new terms for new themes, and repeat them whenever the narrative reverts to the same circumstances. Cf. Oeovdyjs and dvdpovos, supra. The “greatly increased use” of the following words is noted :— Sixawos, Od. 13, I. 3, which is much what we should expect. Four of the occurrences in the Od. are in one of the appropriate formulae referred to supra on Geovd)s and dvdpovos.—édmis, Od. 4, Il. 1, 3 of the former of the Wooers. But drifouo, Od. 3, Il. 2, may be mentioned.—iBpus, -i€w, -rrys, Od. 26, Il. 4. Twenty-one of the Odn. occurrences are of the Wooers and their creature Melanthius. In the JI., tBpus twice in A, and édvBpifw once in I, of the insolence of Agamemnon. No further comment on the distribution of the words is necessary.—dOéuurT0s and -ros, Od. 6, Il. 1. Add Oemoredw, Od. 2, Il. 0. Of the occurrences in the Od., 3 refer to the Cyclops and his fellows. But app. E VOCABULARIES OF IZJAD AND ODYSSEY 251 és and Oguurres are common enough in the Ji. The latter occurs even in A. (c) “Social progress is indicated by new words.” —xprjuara, “ partly replacing the older xrijpara.” The occurrences are xr., Od. 41, Il. 18, xp., Od. 15, Ii. 0. The interchange of the two words in the MSS. has often been remarked. ‘The J/. may formerly have had ypypara in many places where is now read xrijpara” (Friedlander, 806, 814 ; cf. Monro, crit. n. on v 120, and see Agar on 6 352, and Mure, ii. 493). And we cannot be certain that it is correct to say xripara is the older. Much has been written about these words. One remark may be added. 14 of the 18 occurrences of «rijpara in the il. refer—12 of them in the negotiations in T and H—to the property carried off by Paris. The word once used in this connection was naturally enough kept in it. Its importance is thus less than it would have been had its use been more diffused. xrjois is rather more frequent in the Ji. than in the Od.—zpiéis, “ business,” Od. 5, Il.0. (Seymour, Life, 284, rather “errand” than “trade.”) In 2524 it is “accomplishment,” “effect,” which is the meaning in 2 of the 5 Odn. occurrences. In the other 3 it does mean “business” or “errand,” 2 of them being in one of the formulae peculiarly appropri- ate to the poem of adventurous wandering. But apart from this, in which poem should we a priori expect business to be more frequently mentioned !—éoOys, Od. 15, Il. 0 (ér60s, 2 94). One is no more sur- prised than at finding jvioxos -evs -edw, Il. 33, Od. 1, or rede more than 5 and évrea more than 14 times as often in the J/. as in the Od. Will it be said that no word for dress in general had been evolved in Ur-Ilias times 1—oipn, Od. 3, Il. 0, and dpvos, Od. 1, Il. 0, scarcely require remark. Two of the occurrences of oiun and the solitary one of duvos are in 6, where we have much of a bard’s singing.—Increased use of dABos, Od. 8, Il. 2, dABw0s, Od. 14, Il. 1 (but add drAPiddarpor, T 182). réxvy, Od. 7, Il. 1, rexvdopar, Od. 3, Il. 1, rexvijets, Od. 2, Il. 0, rexvnévrws, Od. 1, Il. 0. Naturally. But how little weight is to be given to these distributions is shewn by the fact that réxrwv is found Od. 5, Il. 7, xAvroréxvys, Il. 3, Od. 1, xaxdrexvos, Il. 1, Od. 0, and rextaivopat and compounds, Ll. 3, Od. 1. codéy occurs only in the J1., O 412,—of the skill of a shipwright. (d) “Note also dip, djpus, pdtis, kAenddv,—terms expressing the mystery of ‘word’ or rumour.” Of these words the second and third occur in the Z/. But it is not easy to see how the mystery referred to is to be connected with “ideas of civilisation.” It may be noted that éco« occurs in the J/., and that the mystery of the written, which is later than the spoken word, and which is certainly an evidence of increase of civilisation, is found referred to only in Z 168 fi. And some other words confined to the Iliad :—«édAos ( = adds), Od. 6, Il. 0, roAviparos, Od. 4, Il. 0, vooryos, Od. 14, Il. 0, érneravés, 252 THE LAY OF DOLON APP. E Od. 8, Il. 0, ddeuxys, Od. 3, Il. 0, vizrowos, Od. 8, Ll. 0, and the form é&js (in the Ii. always é£efns). The etymology of xdAAcmos and Kadds has not been cleared up (L. Meyer, Handbuch, ii. 419, 422). It may yet be proved that the former is the older. G. Meyer, Gr. Gram. 66, contends that the genuine Homeric form is «xaAAds,—from xadFés (Prellwitz, 205, and Schultze, 81, 114). Perhaps it is an indication of the same thing that quite a number of Homeric epithets, having all the appearance of antiquity, and many proper names, commence with the form «addr. In Z 321, Bekker conjectured wept xaéAAwa for mepixadr€a.—roAvijpatos and ddevkys are both comparatively rare.— véoripos is strangely singled out. It occurs almost exclusively in the phrase véoripov jpap, used of the salvation which Odysseus is believed to have lost. This is as natural in the poem of the great Néoros as that véoros and vooréw are more frequent in it than in the {1— éxnetavos. See the occurrences, and reflect that the Od. is the poem in which one expects to find descriptions of the comforts of a home and its surroundings.—vyjrowvos, always of the Wooers’ reckless waste. Another instance of repetition, in thoroughly Homeric style, of a word once used in a particular connection. ow occurs Od. 1, Il. 10.— Lastly, é£js, Od. 7, Il. 0, and é£eins, Od. 17, Jl. 6. It is striking, at first sight, that the Od., while it uses the Iliadic form freely, has one of its own. But see p. 38 supra. APPENDIX F ITERATIVE VERBS, AN AND Ez SomE authorities find in the use of Iterative verbs a sign of lateness. Robert (162 and n., and passim) considers them “Ionisms,” and indicative of the late origin of I and other parts. For K, he will not stoop to proof of the same origin for it. Bechtel (Vocalcontr. 3) takes the same line, and notes efepicacxe, K 490. Liesegang (De XXIV. Il. rhapsod. 7) remarks, without pressing the point, how numerous these verbs are in 2. He then gives a list, which shews that K has fewer than any other book of the J]. except M. It has in fact only éfeptoacxe certain. In 489, there is a vl. rAjacke for wAjgee. For diOeccov, 493, see Ludwich, a1, and Vogrinz, 116. The commentaries are silent regarding these forms. I have dis- covered no adverse remark in Dr. Leaf’s edition. Curtius (Verb, chap. xxii.) gives no sign that they are late. See also H.G. 47 f., Ench. 360 f., Kiihner-Blass, ii. 79 ff, Vogrinz, ic, etc. One high authority, Bréal (Journ. d. Savs. 1903, 143, reviewing Stud. z. Ii.) disputes Robert’s view of these verbs, considérés bien gratuitement comme des ionismes. He refers to his own paper on the subject in Mélanges Perrot, which I have not seen. See also his Pour mieuz, 228 ff. The forms abound throughout the poems, and Curtius does not envy the stickler for uniformity who should seek to purge them away. Mr. Agar would even restore ddveoxe in « 279=n 268. If there are 10 in I, there are 11 in A and 10 in X, both Ménis. And certainly K is open to no imputation. The one case in it is derived from the aor. in -ca, and Dr. Monro says, /.c., that these “are only found in Homer.” Fick himself (Jliad, 477) admits that “coarse Ionisms” are not common in K; so I, according to Robert’s view, and K, according to Fick’s, do not hang together in this respect. Fick adds that the Ionisms in K are found as a rule in parts which betray themselves on other grounds as late additions. Now, according to him,—see p. 221 swpra,—K 5-16 is such an addition, and it has been pointed out in C.Q. iv. 77, that 9-16 gave the interpolator a splendid 253 254 THE LAY OF DOLON APP. F opportunity for the employment of this particular Ionism. But not one of the many verbs in these lines has the iterative form. Every reader of Robert’s Studien knows what ample use is made of these Iteratives to discredit passages. An Ionian Bearbeiter or Interpolator could hardly write a line without introducing them. Then how could an Jonian write the 579 lines of K and stumble but once? Again, take the case of M. It was, according to Robert (p. 153), composed after the original Iliad had already received “Tonian additions.” Yet in his enumeration (p. 151) of the “Ionisms” in M he does not give one Iterative. These verbs seem useless as a test,—as useless as av, és or F. As regards dy, some references to the controversy which its presence in the poems has aroused have been given p. 221 supra. The question may some day be settled, if Dr. Monro has not already settled it, but we need not go into it. It suffices for our purpose to say that dy is found in K only 5, as against xe, 23 times. In 4 of these places it can be replaced by xev (in 63, érei «’ for ériv, H.G. 329), and in the fifth ds 8 éadé7’ or ds 8 rik’ (p. 221 supra) can be read. So the presence of dv does not help the Ionistic School against K. It is nowhere fesé. There remains their third resource, the form és. They proceed on the assumption that wherever és, whether the simple word or in a compound, or écw, is metrically certain, there we have Ionian work. The grounds for this are (Bechtel! in Robert’s Stud. 259 f.), (1) that Aeolic had, so far as we know,—an important qualification,—only the form «is, while Ionic in the Lyric age had both «is and és; and (2) a comparison of occurrences in A and 2. Statistics for other parts of the poems are not regarded. This comparison shews that A has only 3 cases of és certain, 2 of which are in suspicious passages, while the third, A 222, can be amended. In 0 there are 12,—10 of és and 2 of écw, or, including repetitions, 14. A number of these can be amended, some with a certain amount of MS. support, but apparently that indulgence is to be reserved for A, and not to be extended to Q. So the book of the Ur-Ilias, as in Bechtel’s judgment it ought to stand, has no blemishes of the kind, while 2 has many. This is held to confirm the belief that ets was the Aeolic form, and that és is late Tonic. The philological question may be left to the philologists. No reference is given by Bechtel to any discussion of the point. But I notice that his view is controverted in Ench. 534, and that there is nothing to support it in the statement in Kiihner-Blass, i. 247 f It may also be observed that it assumes that és has been substituted for eis in a large number of places in the poems, outside the tracts assigned to days when the Jonians were active ; but it is perhaps possible that modernisation has taken place on this scale. But as to the argument 1 And ef. his Vocalcontr. viii. ff. APP. F ITERATIVE VERBS, AN AND E> 255 from the difference between A and Q, it seems reasonable to insist on a larger view of the occurrences. The inference is that A was com- posed in Aeolic in a remote age, while 2 was the work of a late Tonian poet. But if this be the reason why Q is disfigured by this Ionism, how are we to explain the fact that other books which are held to be late Ionian additions, have as few examples of it as the books of the Ur-Ilas? K has only one case, yeipas és duds, 448, which can be amended, as easily as Bechtel amends A 222, by reading yefpas éueto, which Eustathius in fact gives. I has only devdéd- Awy és (€f' 1) Exactov, 180, and od8’ bo” és (ca or dca" 2) “Opyopevor, 381. As for W, it has, in its 897 lines, only one phrase, Oj«’ és dyaéva pépwv, 799 and 886, where, comparing 617, dv’ dydva might be suggested. The first nearly 800 lines of the book furnish no instance. The four books a-é of the Telemachy supply together only 6 cases, some easily removable. In the “Continuation” of the Odyssey there are only 2,—éo.Sé0Onv, w 101, and 7 Kat és "HAda, w 431, where éFidéoOnv and 7 eis have been proposed. We could understand that a single late book might chance to escape this particular Ionian taint, or not to exhibit it to a great extent. But here we have over 5000 late Ionian lines with only 13 occurrences, and they may be cleansed of them almost entirely, if we are allowed to amend as in A. How is it, if those in 2 are to be put down to its Ionian origin, that all these other books, said to be of the same stamp, really attach themselves, in respect of és, to the books of the Kern? The prefer- able explanation seems to be that the subject of 2 happened to require a number of expressions in which és remains a short syllable, and a perusal of the instances, which are given in full by Bechtel, lc., will confirm it. és is certain, if my counting be correct, in only 144 places in the 27,802 lines of the poems. The Odyssey has, proportionally, more instances than the Iliad, 71 against 73, but then it uses the preposition three times for every two occurrences in the Iliad. The two poems are once more in exactly similar case. And the distribution in each is very uniform. Q is the only book that has more than 7. Of the other 47 books, 31 have either three, two, one or none. If there were anything in the test, the proper conclusion would seem to be that Q is the only Ionian book in the Iliad and Odyssey. Professor Smyth (Ionic, 601) says “ Fick’s attempt (Ilias, 537 ff.) to exclude the Ionic és from the Homeric epos is a failure. His allegiance to an Aiolic «is is purchased at the price of emending many passages in the (se judice) older books, and by regarding the unassailable cases of és as substitutes for an (original) Kyprian iv. Wecklein, Curae epigraph. 59, concludes that Homer and the other epic poets have «is in passages metrically authoritative.” In the Bechtel-Robert scheme a number of other usages are stigmatised as Ionisms which, so far as I can ascertain, are not 256 THE LAY OF DOLON APP. F generally so regarded. I will add a word regarding only one, the dat. pl. of the 2nd. decl., as the statistics are puzzling there also. I uses that dat. no fewer than 80 times, and it is never once the modern short form. © gives much the same results. van Leeuwen by two small amendments removes the only two blemishes in 61 occurrences. APPENDIX G LINGUISTIC PECULIARITIES OF K THE peculiarities in the language of K which remain to be enumerated are the following :— L dra€ Acydopeva. dAdekixaxos, 20. There is nothing remarkable in its form (Bréal, 215), or in its use with piri. Cf. 1423 f. Its solitary occurrence is not more noteworthy than the similar & AA., ddreEdveuos and dpxéxaxos. daAckewv kaxdv fjuap occurs thrice in the J/. Dr. Monro (H.G. 118) classes the epithet with others of “an archaic stamp,” which (p. 40 supra) are characteristic of the JJ. rather than the Ben, 430. Surely hardly worth mentioning. OvpGpaios, A 320. watpébev, 68. The suffix had a wide range of use (Kolbe, De suff. OEN usu Hom.), and could be attached freely to nouns, adjs. and verbs. A number of others are d. AX., as dAdOev, wovrdbev, Acypwwvdbev, medobev, Snpddev and vedGev, 10, which is well supported by ve, ® 317, and (Leaf) véaros, 1 153, and veiatos, Z 295. ddadixrnpoat, 94. Friedlander refers to dAvoow, X 70. tpurtorxi, 473, vouched by rpicrotxos, » 91, where Mr. Agar thinks tpwrorxi may be the true reading, and peracroyi, VW 358. Friedlander (Zw. h. W. 752) notes that many words compounded with numerals occur only once. iéppnvos, 216. Orszulik remarks that elsewhere, as A 681, 6 636, . 245 = 309 = 342, a sentence is used to describe an animal with its young !—Note that in this case K eschews the practice of the Od. and the “ Odyssean” story of Nestor in A. Soupnvenés, 357. Like Sunvexrjs, in both poems, and modyvexis, K 24, 178, and O 646. Another instance of the poet finding it convenient to say in one word what is elsewhere,—O 358, etc., described by a sentence. ; xeuds, 361, which occurs in a simile, hardly requires notice. 257 Ss 258 THE LAY OF DOLON APP. G II. Meanings. dpéves, 10, “instead of jrop,”—Orszulik, following LaRoche ; elsewhere, = praccordia. A strange statement. Pierron’s le dia- phragme, dans son sense propre. Les entrailles d Agamemnon. tressaillent seems to state the case correctly. rextaivopat, 19, with parw = “devise a plan,” the common phrase being idaivev p. But dpdferOas and cipioxew (once) are also used. rexraivonat recurs E 62, of shipbuilding. May a verb not be used in a figurative sense? Milton only once uses “build the lofty rhyme.” We have waparexraivoua, & 54 and £ 131, with just as much devia- tion in sense as in our passage. mpodépey (uévos), 479, “display courage.” Commentators compare pido, rpopéepovras and wzpopépovres, I’ 7 and ¢ 92. Add 2p. rpoBadédvres, A 529. But Orszulik, perhaps rightly, claims a slightly different meaning in 479. doOpaivw, which, like doOya, occurs only in the J1., is, it is said, elsewhere = “rattle in the throat” (of the wounded and dying). So E 585, II 826, N 399, ® 182. In K, on the contrary, = “pant,” “ gasp,” —376, of a runner, 496, of a sleeper. But Ebel. omits the rattle and gives the general meaning, aegre et graviter spiritum duco, ut morientes aut qui diu cucurrerunt. In II 826, of a boar overcome by a lion, “gasp” is quite suitable. irmov éreBiyoero, 513, 529, = “mounted (one of) the horses.” Else- where of getting into a car. It is argued, pp. 276 f. infra, that the latter is the meaning in K also. dpvut, 518, = “ waken out of sleep.” That goes too far. Apollo did waken Hippokoén, but by dpoev the poet does not say so. He completes his statement later by adding 6 8 e€ itrvou dvopotcas. Ebel. gives 518-under the meaning émpello, treibe an. ért dpéva pny’ (v1. efx’) iepotory, 46, animum advertit sacris. But it does not seem to be the meaning that is strange here, but the combination of words that is unique. mAdfopat, 91, “I am helpless, distracted,” following the Schol., miavopar kata yvaynv, and LaRoche. Better “I am wandering here because I cannot sleep” (Leaf, aJ.). So Seiler, Am.-H., and Ench. 466. Ebel. quotes Curtius as translating vagor, but with the unnecessary addition, etsi recte Nestoris tentorium petit Agamemno. éptvxw, 161, = separo, in éXdtyos & éru yGpos éptxe:, of the Trojans. But Am.-H., “keeps them off,” surely correctly. The object under- stood must be a pronoun to represent Tpéas, and separat does not give sense. There is a v.l. dad ya@pos eépyeu. Addos, 573. Its only use in Greek of the neck of a human being (Leaf, a.l., and cf. Jebb on Antig. 292). Dr. Leaf also observes that it is oddly interposed between xvijuas and pnpots. Perhaps in 573 it APP. @ LINGUISTIC PECULIARITIES OF K 259 includes more than the neck, possibly the back “from nape to rump.” Cf. its use = “ridge (of a hill),” and the words Aoduj and xaradogpdédua. Aerrés, 226, “only here and Y 590 (the same phrase) in a metaphorical sense.” The use is thus not peculiar to K. évaf, 559,=“ master.” Dr. Monro notes, rare in Ji, See passages such as M 413, II 371, ¥ 517, Q 734, and for dat. following, E 546, N 452, Y 230. It is often, eg. N 28, 38, difficult to pronounce between “lord” and “master.” 8S. and A. (Hym. Ap. 234 ; cf. Fanta, Der Stadt, 27 ff.) call the latter sense “Homeric.” It is relevant to ask what other common word could have been used in 559. avsjicavros, 47, “ ‘by word of mouth,’ whereas by the usual Homeric practice it should mean ‘I never heard any one speaking ’” (Leaf, a.l.). So Dr. Monro,—aidsdw elsewhere = loquor, not dico. But in the formula aa dre ppovéers, it is surely dico. And if in our passage, which runs odS ékAvov abdijoavros avip’ éva . . . pyticacOa, we take, with Ebel., s.v. avSdéw, the acc. and inf. as governed by éxAvov, there is no difficulty in taking av8joavros in the sense said to be required by Homeric practice. III. Forms. kaArpevat, 125. Other similar forms are ¢op- diA- rev6- roOrjpevae. Their origin is doubtful,—Monro on + 333 and H.G. 20; Ench. 435 f. ; Bekker, Hom. Bliat. i. 50, 147; Schulze, 17 ; and Solmsen, 17. kataPelouev, 97, noted by Orszulik, Many editors accept kataBSjopev. See H.G. 384 ff, and Christ, Idad, 149. wer iOouro, 204, peculiar only in this that the reduplicated 2 aor. mid. of this particular verb does not recur. For similar formations see Curtius, Verb, 293, H.G. 39, and Ench. 348. dd otpardédu, 347, in Orszulik’s enumeration without any comment. It is true it occurs only here. But so dd yadkddu and dard vatdu ; and did otjOerdw only twice. xapévres, 541. Elsewhere in the same sense, Orszulik says ynSécvves. But there seems to be the same difference between the two as between gaudentes and laeti (Schmidt, Synon. No. 126), between joy manifested and gladness felt. That the 2 aor. ptcp. pass. occurs only once is not remarkable. The Indea Homericus will provide many such cases. And two forms, besides @:jxaro and the perfs. in -xo, for which see pp. 67 and 68 f. supra, which, though not confined to K, are rare outside it :— TiOjpevov, 34, for which riOjpevor, VY 83 and 247, is compared. The result of much discussion seems to be that it is reOéuevos, a form impossible for the hexameter, with the first syllable lengthened metri gratia. Paley, a.l., says “for r.0éupevov,” which Fick gives in his text. See Leaf, a.J. (quoting Schulze, 16), and on II 145, Solmsen, 16; 260 THE LAY OF DOLON APP. G Curtius, Verb, 340; H.G. 17; Seymour, L. and V. 75; and van Herwerden, Hermes, xvi. 365. Dr. Monro, Introduction to K, says the form is “perhaps” pseudo-archaic, and Menrad, 159, seems to think it due to false analogy. In any case we cannot argue lateness. The form apparently served its purpose for the epic hexameter and did not continue into later Greek. peOe?, 121, is an indication of lateness according to Dr. Monro in his Introduction. But reading Dr. Leaf’s note on E 880 and 4.4. 19, with note, one gathers that there is no certainty about this. Kdpn, in preras ¢ xd pn Oarepav aifnay (of the xarairvé), 259, is taken as a plural by Witte, Sing. u. Plur. 88. Surely a misunderstanding of Homeric practice. See HG. 159. IV. Phrases and Combinations of Words. These include cases in which an epithet is used of a certain person or thing only in K. But such solitary occurrences are common. It is enough to mention éxarnBeAérao, Anrods kat Ais vids and jdveris in A. The point is discussed by Friedlander, Zw. h. W. 758 and 774 ff. See also Franke, Nom. propr. 43 n. Epithets were often ad rem forte narratam adaptata. But when he goes on to say, zbid. 53, that only the late poets traditum in epithetis addendis morem laedunt, we join issue at once. The chief charge against them is that they were imitators and plagiarists. The Higher Criticism cannot be allowed to have it both ways. The following are such epithets in K :— vnr& Seopw, 443. Two of six other epithets of Secpds are of single occurrence, Ovparyys, x 189, and xaderds, E 391. dpdynxes, With ddoyavov, only 256. (But ¢. dudorépwhev dxay- pévov, x 80, comes near.) Elsewhere £ipos a., but only three times in all. Moreover éidos and ¢dcyavov appear to be convertible, as in A 190, 194,and Y 476, 481 (Ostern, Bewaffy. 78 ff.). dyjvopes (TpGes), 299, nowhere else of the Trojan or any other people. dAxiyor, A 483, and edynyevéwy or eindevéwv, ¥ 81, are in exactly the same case. dyjvopas in K 299 is very appropriate, almost = ‘‘bumptious.” See Hector’s speech in 0, especially 532-541, and 542, 553. The scholiast says trepydavias peotds 6 Adyos. Cf. Albracht, Kampf u. Kampfsch. ii. 8. kataOvyrot avdpes, 440. Elsewhere xar. dvOpwro, but only once in the IJ. dy8pes and dvO@pwrou are largely, and Ovnros and KaraOvyrtos entirely, convertible terms. év£oov Sopv, 373. See p. 67 supra. motxthos didpos, 501. The epithet is very common with dppara. Quite a number of the other epithets of S/dpos are used with it only once. APP. G LINGUISTIC PECULIARITIES OF K 261 eumedov ijrop, 94. Elsewhere only with voos (once), pévos (twice), is, Bin, ppéves,—a list which seems to supply good reason why the epithet should be used with jrop. Objection of a different kind is taken to dAvos, used of a person only in 324, GAws ocxords. But dr. otparos, A 179, may be referred to. ozpards is, in Homer, longe potissimum (semper, ut putat Ameis) exercitus (Ebel., s.v.). L’armée non pas & terre, mais vivante et agissante (Bréal, 287). Cf. & 455, d&dtov mndjoat dxovra, and Dr. Leaf’s note, “dart spoken of as an animate being.” In K 324 he suggests, comparing dAaockxoru}, that ddads may be the right reading. Seva. GrAa, 254, 272. It is remarked that Sewvos is elsewhere applied to some particular piece of armour, as in H 245, Y 259 (cdxos), F 385 (dop), E 739, O 309 (aiyés). Considering the circumstances in K, we are not surprised that the two heroes’ equip- ment is not graced by such a description as wepuxaddéa tedxea OF évrea tappavowvta. In their proper places the poet knows and uses the stock phrases,—see 34, 75, 407, 504. The remaining combinations are oropua rodeuoro, 8. Dr. Leaf calls it “curious.” Other editors quote T 313, and icpivys oropa, Y 359. Gpvbis kuxAjoxero, 300. Cf du. xadrécaca (with the best MSS.), Y 114, and dp. cé@wav, § 659, of just such informal assemblages. The Trojans’ dyop;} was in 8. Their later meeting was an dyupis as contrasted with an dyopy (M. and R. on y 31). mapex vdov iyayev (v.l. yradpev), 891. The whole phrase does not recur in Homer. Nor does, we might say, kAérre vow, A 132. mapex voov is found, ¥ 133. See Dr. Leaf on 2 434. aptiver Oar BovAjv, 302. See B 55. édxero xalras tyWod édvre Avi, 15 f., to Dr. Leaf an unusual and involved form of expression. See Monro and other editors a./., com- paring Aw xe 368. xAaiva Suraj, K 134, 7 226, and yA. dowwrxderoa, K 133, & 500, ¢ 118, seem hardly worth commenting on. These epithet cases prove little enough. There remain :— movhiv éd’ typi, K 27, & 709. stypy and the form zovAvs are each found elsewhere. éx’ dykGvos épOwOeis, K 80, can, Orszulik says, be compared only with the phrase in £ 494. There is a resemblance in the first two words, which, however, occur in the J/., II 702, though in a different sense. One might argue affinity with the Jl. in respect of dpOwOeis, which recurs only B 42, ¥ 235. épxeat otos, K 82, 385, x 281. ofos frequently ends a verse in other passages in the J1. vixra 8: dpdvainy, K 83, 276, 386, and. 143. But K has twice the alternative combination vié duBpoain, which occurs Jl. 2, Od. 0. bmvov dwreiv, K 159, « 548. It is not remarkable that some expressions relating to night and sleep are found only in K and the Od. (p. 131 supra). xped térov ike, K 142, ¢ 189, 6 28. As against this Orszulik himself adds ypew ixdéverar, K 118, A 610. AdE rod! xivijoas, and ed Kal érirrapévws,—see pp. 116 and 122 supra. APP, H ODYSSEAN DICTION IN K 267 rea mipatoxev, K 202; eros mipatoxev, x 131=247. The meanings are different. aipatoxw is common in both poems. dotpa mpoBéBnxe, K 252, is compared with pera 8 dorpa BeBrjKet, #312. Per contra, rpoBaivw, found in 3 other places in the JJ., is not in the Od. pterOar and puddocew, joined K 417. Elsewhere only é 107, o 35, —but in reverse order. V. Constructions. timte 8€ ce xped, K 85, a 225. But surely A 606 comes near enough. It seems unnecessary to quote the remarks of commentators. pew with name of animal sacrificed as object, K 292; elsewhere only in the Od. But in A 727 we have ratpov, and A 102 is not irrelevant. éripaiopai twos, “strive after,” K 401, « 344, » 220; elsewhere with accus., “touch,” “handle.” But ¢ 344 has been much discussed. See Agar, 77. Xpurov Képaciv meptxevas, K 294, and y 384, 426, 437 (all three of one operation) ; and cf. ¢ 232. We cannot help it if Homer has to repeat a process. We must take what the poet gives us. I think no one objects to rAvvoi only in X and 6€ or to vermilion on the bows of ships only in B and «. tov 8 aia wept dpévas AVE’ iwy, K 139; cf. . 362 and p 261, and similar phrases in 7 6, + 444. But editors also quote A 89, 466, B 41. Hy 6 tus év Tpdeoor x.7.A., K 314 ff, and jy 8€ tis ev prvnornpow «.7.A., v 287 ff. Orszulik finds the same “order of thought.” We have simply a formula, See E 9, B 811, A 711, and cf. P 575. APPENDIX I ILIADIC DICTION IN K WORDS, ETC., OCCURRING ONLY IN K AND THE OTHER BOOKS OF THE ILIAD I. Words. dotpdrtw, xdAaa, Tpwikds, atdrds (flute), cipey, rpobéAupvos, tYoOs, TexTaivopar, SpOwHeis, Sadosvds, wodnvenis, mapdarén, orepavn, Opacvndpdios, péppepos, Siidiros, PvAa-E, -Kds, -Ki}, -KTIHp, drdwy, mavaiodos, ovpets, Skvos, Tepovdw, Tavperos, épravyxeves, eriopkov, cvAdu, Sjios, Kapxapdbovte, doOpaivw, (wypéw, daowa, SiacKxoTiacOat, pdAoi- oBos, érikoupos, dyxvAdro£os, immoxopucrai, Opyxes, etc. (in Od. only a 361, in the Lay of Demodocus), pupixn, épiOnrArs, Sitvyes, épvOaive, prpos, avepids, hovy, Kvdounds, évapa, Bpotdevra; a number of com- pound verbs, dvacrevayifw (-xw), émracipw, epideiSu, exOpyoke, dmotpérw, mpoBaivw, évrewu, tapapOdvw, drotmiyw, wapatpexw, év- opotw, érurAjoow, SteAatvvw, and some verbals, épuxrés, zoAvKAnTOos, eUTpyTos. pdvuyes, xadKoxitwves, petdppevov, PdBos and doPéw, Obvw and ispds are frequent in the J1., but are found in the Od. very rarely. II. Forms. mupd, SeSeypevos, eypiyyopa, €éAropas (but see p. 233 supra,), Il. 6, Od. 1, éperqu, pirat, aor. mid., aor. érdynv, Aaupypéds, tial, Selous, the redupl. aor. weriOorto, Sapyjpevar, pyuvafw, and éxepoa, 6 times in the J1., which has also éxeipa, the only form the Od. knows. TI. Meanings and Uses. Oetos in voc., and cf. 7B kedady, YW 94 (in Od. only adda puv 7Ociov Kadew, & 147), (worjp, piece of armour, in é 72 belt for chiton, 6Bpryos, of a person, xdéppa, cause of malicious joy in an enemy, krépas (sing.), possession, pofpat, in Od. always portions at a meal, 268 APP. I ILIADIC DICTION IN K 269 different from K 253 and Q 49 (Mofpa:), and Seferepds, in Od. only -p (xetp), not of other parts of the body as in K 373, E 393, A 377, II 405. IV. Combinations of Words. dpurries Tlavaxaidy, spBpos dbérdaros, mrodéuowo ordua, exe tpopos, évtea Kadd, ddAAd pdr’ aivds, yijpai Avype, paidipa via, dpyadéos xdXos, GAKiwos vids, GAN’ ef cis Kadécere, Aud pare ard- Aavros, otepoi) marpds Ards, aitap & y ipws, mdvry émorxdpevos, apnxavds éoot, aides dpdtyoves, vié éxddAvipe, Oepdaovres “Apyos, Oarepiv aifndy, Settepos atre (ad) commencing a verse, Kidos dpéoOar (Od. once), yotvar’ évdua, yAwpds tral Selous, Ovpds dvijxe, mapex véov, ved ard, dyépwxot, of a people (Od., only » 286, of a person), kat aicav, eb kata xéopov, rouxtda tedxea, and trd Tpdwy épupaySot. With méois “Hpys 9}UKOj4010 cf, “EAévys Too. quK., with byoO” égovre of Zeus, titvyos, and with peAindea rupoy, pedippova arupov. The formulae ds épar’ Sewer Sé otS dAaocKorujy efye and rodts 8 dpupaySos belong to the J/. The two latter are found, outside it, only in the Lay in 6 and the “ Continuation” of the Od. V. Constructions. For these see Dr. Leaf’s notes on K 39 (and A 26, yx od), on 40 (infin. after irooynras), on 111 (ei tis Kadéevecev), on 195 (kexAfjaro BovAjv), on 349 (dwvijoavte), on 416 (puvdakas 8 ds eipeas). On uses of prepositions in consonance with the practice of the J]. see p. 75 supra. APPENDIX J LINGUISTIC PECULIARITIES IN A I. daa€ Acyépeva. oréupo, Aowwds, Oeompdmiov (1), “ExarnBerérns, DuwvOeds, dvdsowvos, dyépartos, Td KpHyvov, TpirAdos, TetpardAdos, Pwridverpa, peragt, troBrAnsnv, Sacpds, treporAin, pdverys, dudnpepis, oivoBapys (oivo- Bapetwy and ove BcBapynéres in the Od.), pidoxréavos, SnpoBédpos, madidroyos, Exardy xetpos, moAwdypeTos, émaitios, Tou, Aerw, pAotds, KoAwds, trroddkn, xepvirrouat, éxOodoréw, Aaparerdun (if & 662 be adjudged spurious), drodvpatvopnat, erevpypew, KaTarerow, drodexopat, mpoBovAcpot, érayeipw, peTtappdfopat, dvabyrAéw and pefopsdécw. II. Forms. EXdpia, cadrepos, EAtkadrida (elsewhere always masc.), tpoBe_Bovra (H.G. 23), xwéra, apigw (fut. of dficow; if from a different verb, &. 2.), ons and the like (Leaf on 179), érov (if, as some think, an adv. in 187), dzoaupeirOat, dzroatpeo, SoAopira, opwirepov, odridavds (plur.), paxéovro and payéowro, perhaps Oé\w, 277 and 554 (2), pédw and xaravebw in the mid., and ypaicpy. Iterative verbs are found in 490-2, és is certain in 3 places, and ay and wy occur 9 times. For many other so-called “Ionisms,” xaprtepds, Bordpews, Bovdréwv, etc., see Robert, 213 ff. Ill. Meanings and Uses. mapéepxopat (decipio), dvdcow (of a god’s protection of a locality, —Leaf on 38), SuéfuAos (of a god), "OAvumioe (and Y 47, in a “late” passage), Siornpe (in figurative sense), xAd{w (of inanimate object), ddiocew (in unique figurative sense), orédAopat (“furl (sails),”—else- where oréAAw), raujov (“hymn of praise”; in X 391, “chant of victory”), péAw (act., carmine celebro), téxuwp (“pledge”), rapadns (act., “advise ”), kaOdrropa: (“address,” without unpleasant implica- tion). See also the Commentaries on ds, 182, dade, 399, and jyopev, 367. 270 APP. J LINGUISTIC PECULIARITIES IN A 271 IV. Combinations of Words. KAerte dw, aixpyrdwv with Tpdwv, dvedifew erecw, dveidea propor (and Y 246, in the “late” Aeneid), dvaé dvépov (after a patronymic ; elsewhere (50 times) before the hero’s name in the second half of the verse), dyad. dows, yyHjeroa OddrAacoa, oH Gea Adow, wav epyov=mdvta, sAoumor gPpect, Kvdidverpa with dyopy}, Aolyia Epya, yAvkd vexrap, and ddmrrovs xelpas (elsewhere yefpas -es ddmrous -rot, ending the verse). V. Constructions. dvtidw with accus., 31, a peculiar use of the pass. in abrod kwnOevros, 47, an unusual construction after éferpdOopev, 125, peculiar uses of airdés (Leaf on 47, 218, 500), unusual moods with dv and py (Leaf on 232, 555), a rare use of xaé in 249, the con- junction of subst. and adv., “perhaps unique” (Leaf), in 416, the “strange” accus. with dvedvcero, 496, the omission of é in 547, the abnormal constrn. with xpaicpwory, 566, a peculiar use of od in 603, and the rare pw) od in 28. For peculiar uses of prepositions see the Commentaries and the H.G. on dvd, 15, did, 72, rpds, 239, 339, card, 271, 424, and wepi, 317. For late uses of the Article, see pp. 85 f. supra. VI. Other. For the Digamma-phenomena see pp. 104 f. supra, and for some eccentricities of diction, Berger, De il. e¢ Od. part. recent. 70 ff. For peculiarities of versification see Hoermann, Untersuchgn. iib. d. hom. Frage, i. 41 f., and Dr. Leaf’s and other commentators’ notes on lines 15, 18 (the famous case of cof, which editors have laboured hard to remove), 39, 45, 53, 88, 170, 203, 205, 277, 344, 388, 489, 505, 533. On ra dpdfear, 554, Dr. Leaf has no note. But see Hartel, Hom. Stud. i? 88, and Jb. 1884, 336. The only other case is K 11, of course a suspicious parallel. And there are what “may be,” as in K, false archaisms, though the critics, ei¢nuotvres in the presence of the Ménis, do not so call them. poféovcr, 291, is perhaps of this nature. épeiopev, 62, and Bovdrerar, 67, are anomalies on a par with éretyerov in K. See the Commentaries and Paech, De vet. conjunct. Graec. form. 23 and 34 f. On danipwv, 430, see Cauer, preface to his Odyssey, xii, and Grdfrgn. 155, 492. For the “archaeological tendency” in A, see pp. 197 f. supra. APPENDIX K ODYSSEAN DICTION IN A THE words and expressions in A found only in the Od. or the Odyssean books of the Jl. are dripdlw, ddevos, iBpis, xdarn, draprypéds, SixarmdAos, oixad’ ixérOat, réAus Tpoin = “Troy town,” 129, which seems the best sense, as in A 510, dupe, 59, if used of more than two persons, as van Leeuwen (Mnemos. xiii. 401) believes it is only here and in some places in the Od., dudy8eBnxa (“have under protection ”), dvdoow with gen. of name of place (and once in Z), épedw (6podos, épo¢ only in Q and the Od.), xudpevos Kip, ovpeds, érotxopat (invado, adorior,—also in the Cyprian episode in E£), dvap, evo} (precatio, votum), pd, emurydes, paves dpbpwv (and once in T), dar poder, oikot, ov Stpas ovde pujv, erypéppopa (and B 225), Evvijia, €peTys, eperar éeikoot, avatdein, dvatdeiny érerpevos, 7xHELs, adTHpap, dAlyov te idov Te, woyew (and in a suspected couplet, 636 f., in A), rpddev 78 eyévovro, dOepitw, dper- K@os, dains yains, Geol aiey édvres (and ® 518, in the Theomachy or its junction with something more ancient), imeifouos, gpwew (fluo or ruo), mpoepvetv (via), dmeipova mévrov, Tepio eo, dddKpuTos, aktpopos (“ doomed. to early death ”), évfwvos (and in Z), icp} ExarduBn, roAvBevOyjs, tpdtovor, éppos (“anchorage”), mpoepéoow, mpupvijria, éperpdv, mepraPodAov, orddyxva (and B 426), pod (and N 637, a suspected line), dvéyerOau, ixpevos otpos, oteipa, yrreipos, Seirepov atris, drootelxw, érippdopas, ovpdpdfopat, SoAduntis, émueAropat, eidyoewv, ovdé oe AROw with varia- tions of pron. and verb, cAvroréxvys, érinpa, Séras dudixtredAov (and once in Z), yédws doBeoros, Sia Scuara, pdppcyé, kaxkelovtes, Kabevdu. With éAcxdaida xotpyy cf. the verse endings in 2 26, B 433, and ¢ 113, 142. ddép only A 349, a 410 and K 537. It will be found that the formulae in 57, 233, 312, 445, 470, 475- 6-7, 485 and 606 are confined to the Od. and the Odyssean books of the Il. &6 ddAou piv wavres, 22, with variations of case and number, is of frequent occurrence in the same area, and occurs outside it only in M. For réSe pow xpiinvov eéASup, 41, 504, cf. p 242. eer’ dreur’, 48, commencing a verse, recurs 4 times in the Od. Line 76 is similarly found, with slight variations, 4 times in the Od., and once in Z, and 286 only in K, W, Q and the Od., and once in 6. Line 601 occurs 6 272 APP. K ODYSSEAN DICTION IN A 273 times in the Od., the latter part of it also in 2 713 and+ 162. The formulae are certainly a strong bond between the Meénis and the Od. Parallel passages,—A 2, p 287, 474; A 5,2’ 297; A 29, W 553; A59f,v5£; A 78£,K 32; A88f,7438f; A103 £, 6 661 f.; A116, ¢ 219; A141 f., 7 348 f.; A 245, B 80; A 262, K 550; A 303, 441; A 365, K 250 and © 787; A 432, 7 324; A 435 ff, o 497 ff.; A 460 ff, y 457 ff.; A 462f, y 459f; A 481 ff, B 427 ff.; A 493;0 31; A575 £,0 403 £.; A 599, 0 326; A 610, 7 49. See on this point Haupt in Zusédtze to Lachmann’s Betrachign.? 99, and' KE. H. Meyer, Achilleis, 254. APPENDIX L DID ODYSSEUS AND DIOMEDE RIDE OR DRIVE? THE narrative is as follows, 470 ff. Rhésus lies surrounded by his dpurres, all being asleep, and his horses stand near him, tethered to the framework of his car indoor Odysseus and Diomede approach. Odysseus points out the king to Diomede, and bids the latter either loose the horses or slay the sleepers. Diomede slaughters. As he kills, Odysseus drags the corpses aside to make a clear way for the horses. In due course Diomede despatches Rhésus himself last of allthe company. Meantime Odysseus has untethered the horses, atv & jepev inact, and led them clear of the throng, hitting them with his bow, as he had not thought of taking the whip out of Rhésus’ car. Then he signals to Diomede, who is now considering whether he should make off with the car or butcher more Thracians. Athené warns him of his risk if he tarries. He accepts the warning, and xapradipus immwv éreBijoero. Odysseus smites the horses with his bow, and they speed towards the ships. At the spot where Dolon had been killed, Odysseus reins in (epvéé), Diomede jumps down, gives the spoils into Odysseus’ hands, remounts, whips up the horses, and they gallop on, At the fosse Nestor is the first to hear them. He also welcomes the heroes, who on their arrival xaré@yoav ért yOove. He admires the horses, which are eventually tied up gdrvn éf imzety with Diomede’s other steeds, but there is no separate reference either to the car or to Rhésus’ splendid suit of mail. The discussion on these facts is dudijpurrov. I have examined the views of 29 authorities, of whom 18 are for riding and 11 for driving. There are difficulties either way. I long held for riding, but careful consideration of the arguments of those who are against it has convinced me that they are right. Dr. Leaf formerly (on K 513 in his first edition) held that there was no need to assume that the heroes rode. Now he thinks they did, and that this is a “mark of lateness.” I have already argued (p. 180 supra) that no such in- ference can be drawn. The discussion is mainly concerned with three expressions,—odv 5” Hepey tpaow, 499, and épuge . .. @keas tmous, 527, both of 274 APP. L RIDE OR DRIVE? 275 Odysseus, and xapradinws 8° frrov éreBynoero, 513, of Diomede. As to the first, we have seen (p. 237 supra) that the authorities regard cvvaeipw as = “harness.” The alternative is Dr. Monro’s (on 499) “he coupled them, harnessed them together,” but it is not very clear how he conceives the operation. He adds, “he must at the same time have bridled them (perhaps this is implied by the word gvvacipw) and mounted one: ep. 11, 514, 527.” But bridling the horses for riding was surely impossible. There would be no riding bits and reins lying about. He and others seem to gather that Odysseus somehow coupled the horses and drove them out of the shambles, mounting one of them either before he began to make them move or after he got them clear, and that all that happened after- wards was that Diomede mounted the other and that both set off at a gallop. But this only makes the case worse. The two horses are supposed to gallop along (with riders on their bare backs who are carrying arms and, later, the spoils of Dolon), and tied by their heads or necks,—for surely no other way of “coupling” them was possible! It is unheard of, especially in the dark. We cannot assume that the steeds were accustomed to being ridden at all, but we may assume that they had never been ridden in a way so calculated to bring disaster. They would soon have made their objections to such procedure felt, and Odysseus at any rate,—vyouwsrys and dvermos, as the scholiasts remind us,—would have been sorely put to it to keep his seat. Sevdy 7d apwikov, of course, and we can accept the scholiast’s opinion that Odysseus ry zetpa od Sevrepedes Tivos, but we cannot think that the poet would have deliberately ascribed such a feat to him, or to Diomede either. Such things are done by heroes in a Persian or an Irish epic, not in Homer. The only way out of this difficulty is to assume that, before the heroes started, one of them uncoupled the horses, and that the poet takes this xard 73 cwwmdpevov. But even so, and if we waive the difficulty about riding reins and bits, there is the further one that in line 527 it is said that Odysseus at the spot where they had slain Dolon, épvfe . . . dxéas tmmovs. Such action could not possibly be ascribed to him, if the poet had conceived him as riding one horse and Diomede the other, and the two horses as having been uncoupled. Before we pass on to the second point, the peculiar view of Nitzsch—on ¢ 371—may just be mentioned. He seems to think (cf. schol. P.Q.T. on that line) that Diomede, when he gave up the idea of further slaughter, mounted one of the two horses, and that Odysseus followed, urging them on. In that case Odysseus must have run, and we know that he was a good runner. But the statement, referred to above, of what happened when he and. Diomede arrived at the place of Dolon’s death, is fatal here too. For it is said that A§chol. to K 499: da rhv weploracw Kxadlfovow ot Howes, cuvapricavres atrovs dvayxacOédvres ml yuuvots rots tmmos ois tudow. 4 p* 276 THE LAY OF DOLON APP. L Diomede dismounted and gave the spoils of Dolon into the hands of Odysseus, remounted and whipped up the horses. So far, then, the probabilities seem to. be against riding. The next point is as to the exact meaning of imrwv éreByjoero, used in 513 of Diomede after he gives up the idea of doing more killing, and joins Odysseus, who has signalled to him and is standing waiting for him beside the horses. The advocates of driving point out that trou is regularly used of a car, or of a whole equipage, that is, car and horses together, and that the phrase we are considering means in other passages simply “mounted the car.” That is a consideration of some weight, certainly, But the phrase is of the nature of a formula, and might be transferred, more Homerico, to an operation not quite identical with the one to which it is generally applied. It is more relevant to point out that Diomede could mount only the one horse, and that, whether, Odysseus is conceived as already seated on one of the horses or not, the plural fro. would not be appropriate of Diomede’s jumping on to the back of the other. The application of the formula could hardly be stretched so far. But those who are for riding also urge that it cannot be a case of driving, because Odysseus had brought out only the horses, and it is not stated that Diomede brought out the car. When Odysseus signalled to his friend, the latter was standing pondering two courses, —not three, as some.say ; two of their three are only different forms of the first alternative-—whether to make off with the car (dragging it by the pole or lifting it up bodily) or to kill some more Thracians. When Athené warns him not to waste more time, he obeys and “mounts.” But what does he mount? It is not stated that he takes the car, and we should expect to be told so, if he did. It is, however, replied with some force that Homeric practice justifies us in inferring that he did. In the first place, when a personage in the poems is represented as pondering over two courses, he generally ends by doing the one thing or the other. See Sickel, Q.H. i. 12, re- ferring to A 189, II 647 and E 671. In the last Odysseus is halting in much the same state of doubt as Diomede is in in K. And, in the second place, it may be urged that Athené’s admonition refers only to the contemplated slaughter. That would take time; the removal of the car would not. The poet seems to intend to convey that, when Diomede followed Athené’s advice, he gave up the idea of staying to kill, the only course fraught with danger, and adopted the other, Yet another argument in favour of riding is advanced with some confidence by Mr. Lawson, a.l. “If,” he says, ‘‘as we hear in ll. 500-1, Odysseus was reduced to using his bow to lash the horses,”— that is, when he was bringing them through the corpses to clear ground,—“ ‘because he had forgotten to take the whip out of the chariot,’ why did he continue to use his bow (ll. 513-14) after the APP. L RIDE OR DRIVE? 277 horses had been harnessed to the chariot in which he knew he had previously left the whip?” I think we must infer from the wording of 500 f. that the poet means that there was a whip in the car. But even so, it seems a sufficient answer to say that Odysseus, a vyouirns unused to charioteering, might still omit to avail himself of the whip. It is not said that Odysseus notices he had forgotten to take it. The poet only observes that it did not occur to him to take it. And, per contra, we may point to pdoriéev 8 irmous, 530, said of Diomede, when he ‘remounts after securing the spoils of Dolon. He gives the spoils to Odysseus and evidently takes control himself. If he did not whip up the horses with Rhésus’ pdéorié, what did he use? And if he used the pdorié, he must have been in the car. The opponents of driving urge finally that at the close of the incident there is a good deal which, on the theory of driving, must be assumed to be conveyed xara 7d cwwrdpevoyv. On the arrival of the heroes at the fosse, Nestor expresses the greatest admiration for the horses, but not a word is said about the car,—the armour, which was in the car, he might not see,—though it was, we are told in 438, of splendid workmanship. As to that, however, it may be said that immo. used by Nestor in 545 and 550, and by Odysseus in his reply, 557 and 559, may possibly be meant as usual to include the car. Again, it is objected that the disposal of the car and of Rhésus’ armour is not mentioned in the finale, though we are told, 567 ff, what is done with the horses. But when a poet is hastening to wind up his story, and has given all the essentials that early readers or hearers would expect, we should beware how we insist that not one detail shall be omitted. See p. 227 supra. The recourse to cvwmyows as an explanation of difficulties is no doubt overdone by some critics, but that the expedient, if such it can be called, is common in the poems admits of no doubt whatever. Schdmann’s De feticentia Homeri may be referred to, and cf. Bonitz, Ursprung, 78 f. It is, as Eustathius puts it, a convenient peod0s cuvropias, ws py) OéAovTOs Tod routov évdiatpiBew tots pa) Karpiois,—a way the poet or poets has or have in telling his or their stories. Objection is not made to the statement in B that Agamemnon sat down after making his speech, although in line 55 it had not been stated that he stood up to speak. On the whole the probabilities seem to be decidedly in favour of driving. The amount of the ouw7nous is a difficulty, but not unmiti- gated. The objections to a ride of the kind suggested, especially in the dark, are not so easy to get over or to palliate. We must assume owdrnows here too,—in regard to both the uncoupling of the horses before the ride began and the fact that Odysseus had mounted one of them. Since writing the above, I have procured a copy of an article, “Equestrianism in the Doloneia,” by Professor Perrin, published in 278 THE LAY OF DOLON APP. L Transns. of the American Philolog. Assocn. vol. xvi. 1885. It is an extremely full and able statement of the case for riding. But it fails to persuade me. To rebut the arguments used would take me over much of the ground already covered above. I confine myself there- fore to brief remarks on three points. 1. By trrwv éreBioero Professor Perrin understands that Diomede mounts one of the horses. First, it is urged that that is not strange when the two horses are coupled together. But I cannot accept that fact as reducing the incongruity of the phrase in its application to mounting one horse. Secondly, “to describe a man’s mounting one of the horses thus fastened together, the New-Englander can certainly say ‘he mounted the team,’ even though the word ‘team’ often includes vehicle.” That is natural enough in a country where a driver regularly mounts one horse of two attached to a vehicle, to drive the whole. But in Homer a car is never driven in that way, and consequently the transfer to the horses standing without a vehicle behind them of a phrase descriptive of what is not a usual everyday occurrence, seems unnatural and unlikely. 2. “Odysseus unties the horses from the chariot box” (émidippids), “couples them together with their halter straps and starts to drive them with extemporised reins and goad down through the ranks of sleeping Thracians.” The words I have italicised assume a good deal. And granting that there were tudvyres other than those mentioned by the poet, what about bits? How could there be riding without them ? And does the assumption not involve a considerable addition to the owsrnos already involved in the view that there was riding ? 3. In regard to the two courses which Diomede pondered, Professor Perrin says “either exploit would be rash, for it would take time.” This is surely not a correct statement. To move off with the car would take little more time than to move off without it. To slay “more Thracians” would involve considerable delay, and in addition the risk of an alarm being raised by a cry from one of the victims. I note in conclusion that the paper is not free from prejudice against the Doloneia. Thus in one place Diintzer is followed in his statement that the lay “abounds in abrupt transitions and incomplete descriptions, at great variance with the usual epic minuteness.” As to transitions, they seem to me to be regulated by epic rule most scrupulously (p. 174 supra). Of incomplete descriptions I find no trace either in the lay itself or in the comments of its critics. Its author is usually blamed for excessive minuteness. APPENDIX M avrds yap épéAketas dvdpa oidnpos, 7 294=7 13 THis old crux has been discussed recently by Professor Burrows in his Discoveries in Crete, 214 ff. He refers to Professor Ridgeway’s E.A.G. i, 294 and 303 ff., and to Mr. Lang’s H. and A. 176-208. See also his review of the latter in C_R. xxi. 19 ff., and Mr. Lang’s reply, ibid. 49 ff. oiSypos is taken as meaning weapons of steel for cutting or thrusting, that is, swords and spears. But throughout the poems, except in this single sentence, such weapons are described as made of bronze. We find a club and an arrowhead of iron or steel, but no swords or spears. The word cidypos, therefore, in the two lines quoted above, is in conflict with every other mention of swords and spears in the poems. _ What is to be done with this repeated line? Professor Burrows can accept it as not inconsistent with his “evolution theory” of the origin of the poems; it clearly belongs to a late stage in their development, when iron had superseded bronze as the chief metal for weapons. Others regard it as an interpolation made in that late period. Much controversy has taken place on the two passages of the Od. in which it occurs, and no commentator on that poem can avoid dealing with the matter. Reference may be made to the treatises of Kirchhoff, Kammer, Blass, Monro, Hayman, Ameis-Hentze and many others. Only one attempt, so far as we are aware, has been made to amend the line. The Leyden editors accept épéAxeras dvépa yadxéds, which Mr. Agar (Homerica, 279) approves. In the age of iron the change to cidnpos “ would follow inevitably in a proverbial saying.” We suggest that the original may have been atrws yap dpeAdcrau dvipdot Sipis (not éPéAxeras as given by Mr. Lang in Anthropol. and Class. 65), “for just in such wise” or “readily doth strife spread among men.” This appears to suit the context and to be Homeric in wording, construction and style. Can we then explain the corruption ? ards from avrws requires no remark. ‘The interchange of these words has occurred in other passages. Corruption may have set in 279 280 THE LAY OF DOLON APP. M at the end of theline. A rare word sometimes caused difficulty. S/pus is such a word. It occurs in the poems only P 158 and w 515. The only derivatives are Snpdopar or Snplopa., five times in the Jl. and twice in 6 76-8, and dé%puros, P 42. Both noun and verb appear to be old poetical words. Sypis is not the final word in either of the two lines in which it occurs; oiSypos, on the other hand, is found, in its various cases, in 31 places other than the two under reference, and in 30 of these it closes the verse, as in our two lines. A scribe familiar with it in that position might easily, and by a mistake of only one letter, produce ofSnpos from ANAPAZIAHPI®. If atrds had already been copied down, that would help, The mistake once made, 6féAAcrau could not stand, and éféAxeras may have been substituted. The use of the latter verb in the mid. was common in post-Homeric Greek, in the same sense as it bears in our passage. The mid. is not found elsewhere in Homer. The passive occurs N 597 and & 696. Or dpéAXerat itself may have been the original stumbling-block. It is an old epic verb,—L. and S. and Veitch, s.v.,—and may not have been familiar. The phrase Sjpi 6éAXew does not occur in Homer. But in Hesiod, Opp. 14 and 33, it is used in close connection with épis, as in the two lines in the Od. Jn Homer we have odédAcw ordvov (of Epis), A 445, and dgéAAew wévov, B 420, II 651 and @ 334, both of which are very similar to the suggested combination with éjpus. In the passive d6dcAdw occurs YW 524 and € 233. It is also worth noticing that airds oidypos is in a manner unique in the poems. Applied adjectively to names of gods, human beings or animals, airés is very frequent in the poems. Applied to nouns denoting inanimate objects, it occurs 33 times, but always in an oblique case, sing. or plur., except in the repeated line in the Odyssey. Homeric usage is thus slightly against the probability of either airds aiSnpos or airds yadKds being the original reading. INDEX 1. GENERAL Abstract nouns in Od., 47 ; prepositional uses, 72, 73 f. Abusive language, 166, 209 Achaeans, plight of, 5, 8; poet’s sym- pathy, 7 ff, 128, 148, 183; heroes’ ways, 6ff., 155, 173, 175; attitude of il. to, 171. Achilleid, of Wecklein and others, 32, 212; of Geddes, 164 ff., 176 Achilles, quarrel and secession, 1, 152, 157, 211; saga figure, 32, 162; not a satisfactory hero, 38; sole hope of the Achaeans, 145 f., 148, 157; prayer for Patroclus, 202; curse on Aga- memnon, 154; and 128, 124, 152, 164, 166, 182, 189, 210 Action, laws regulating, 174 Adverbs in the Z., 44 Aeneas, xi, 179, 248 Aeolic, Fick’s views of, 224 Aesthetic judgments, 30 f. Aethiopians, 206 Agamemnon, Thessalian, xi; despair and distress, 1ff., 153f., 157, 184, 200, 222; in the Epipalasis, 128, 155 ; in A, 148; in K, 151ff., 173; he and Nestor, 145, 157 ff. ; brutality, 155, 207, 210; stature, 164; in his hut, 181, 200; in A, 210f. Age of the Doloneia, 14ff., 51, 109, 114 ff., 188, 198, 203. And passim Agriculture, 42 and x. Aias, premier hero, xi f., 88; made into two, 150; loyalty of, 153; not compared to an ass, 165; language used of, 172; shield, 189, 196; prayer, 202 ‘ ee Ailments, vocabulary of, 43 Alexandrian critics, 22f., 77, 138, 172, 265, and App. A passim Amyntor, 187 and n. Anatomy, vocabulary of, 43 Andromaché, 154, 159, 249 Apaté, Odyssean, 206 Aphrodité, epithets of, 246 — Apollo, in K, 159, 258; in A, 169, a ff., 211; epithets, 246; and 123, Appellatives, the Greek,.54- Archaeology, assistance to Homeric enquiry, xii ff., 186 ~~ Archaic language, 40 f., 246 ff. Archaising, xv, Chap. XI., 192, 197 f, 211 f,, 216, 219, 271 Archery. See Bow Architecture, 42 2. Areithoiis, 189 Ares, epithets of, 246 Aristophanes, quoted, 73 Aristotle, quoted or referred to, 37, 121, 142, 171, 174, 178, 179, 210, 223 Armour and dress, of Odysseus and Diomede, 2, 5, 6, 55; in K, 4, 197f., 200; in Jl. and’ Od., 42; epithets, 49; and 64, 175, 190, 251, and Chap. XXIII. And see Lion-skins, Shield, Spear, Corslet, Helmet, Greaves, Casque Arsis and Thesis, 99 n. Artemis, 169, 250 Article, Chap. X.; views, 77f., 87; in- terpretations, 78; Attic, 78, etc. ; in Jl. and Od., 79, 81, 239; due to corruption, 79; classification of uses, 79; of contrast, 79, 85f. ; in Odyssean books, 79f., 87; in K, 80ff., 235; in A, 85f.; in Continuation of Od., 86; in Telemachy, 86f.; in Q, 87; difference in occurrences, 87f.; in later poetry, 88; easily omitted, 54, 88 f. Artistic canons, 3 Asia Minor, knowledge of, 206 | Asios, 158 - +. . ’ Assemblies, 83, 147 ff., 207, 209f., 261 Asyndeton, 54, 175, 208 Até, 66, 206 Athené, care for Odysseus and Diomede, 2f., 172, 187, 202; her cunning, 7; Aniris, dyedeln, 61; in A, 144, 210; in K, 159f.; in Ur-Ilias, 211 Athenians, influence on poems, 160f., 211; not in K, 176 281 282 Attack on language of K, Chap. V. Autolycus, 64, 168, 201 Bards, 7, 21, 227, 249 Baths, 181 f. Bavarian epic referred to, 186 Bearbeiter, 19, 21, 216 Beggars, 249 Beowulf, 89, 142, 189 Biblical Criticism, 18 ., 55 Booty, distribution of, 211 Bow, 38, 144, 168 ff., 189, 209 Briareus, 209, 211, 212 Briseis, 154, 158 Bronze and iron, 279 Bucolic Diaeresis, 107, 109 ff., 235 Burden of proof, in Homeric Question, xxif.; in interpolations, 17 Burglary in the poems, 64, 201 Be in K, Chap. XXIV.; in A, 20 Butchery and cruelty, 6f., 12, 41, 155f. Casque, 6, 55, 168, 190, 197, 201 Catalogue of the ships, 12, 15, 100, 102, 146, 206 Cento, K a, 115, 118, 124f., 220 Characters, Homeric faculty of drawing, and consistency of, 150 f. Chariot, 62, 180, 196, 276 ff. Chaucer referred to, 46, 141, 178 Chios and Homer, 21, 22 Chorizontic belief. See Zliad and Odyssey. Chronology in the epos, 183, 226 Chrysé, Chryseis, Chryses, 207 f., 210, 212 Civilisation, advance claimed in Od., 42f., 249 ff. Clearness, want of in K and A, 208 Combinations of words, peculiar, 54; in K, 260; in Kand Od., 266; in K and Zl., 269; in A, 271; in A and Od., 272 Comedy in K, 12, Chap. XXIV. Commonplace, the epic, deviations from in K, 29, 96, 176, 219; varied, 54, 56f.; in repetitions, Chap. XIV. passim Comparatives and superlatives in K, 58 Compound words, 44, 58, 234 Conclusion of K objected to, 227 f. Constructions, peculiar, in K, 59, 67, 69ff., 126, 262, 267; in K and JZ, 269 ; in A, 271 Continuation of the Od., Cynaethus author, 22; free from linguistic vices, 48; Article in, 86 ; foreshadowed, 146; és in, 255 Contraction of vowels, 50, 67, 223, 224, 233, 235, 236 Contrasts, 9, 207, 220 Corslet, absence of, from K, and theories, 193 ff. THE LAY OF DOLON Country life, 5, 65, 175 Crete, light from, xii ff., 65; Odysseus’ connection with, 168 ff.; corslet and shield in script, 195, 197 Critics and their methods, ix, xix, 216 ff.; not free from bias, 8, 215; bowdlerisation, 7; application of modern standards, 18, 23, 179, 183, 215 ; ways with interpolations, Chap. III.; appeals for precedents, 29; possibility and certainty, 33; arbi- trariness, 49, 100, 222; Article, 79; Unebenheiten, 171; doubtful pro- cedure, 190 f., 254; their principles applied to A, Chap. XXV.; critics hard to please, 227; imitation or reminiscence alleged, 240, 248 Culture in the poems, xv Cunning, 7, 162 Cursing-man, professional, in A, 212 Cyclics, xvii; versification, 107; de- generation in, 151, 176; Cypria, 15, 208 Cyclops, 55, 250 Cynaethus, 22, 217 Cypria, See Cyclics Datives, 52, 236, 256 Deictic 6 and obros, 83, 84 Demodocus’ Lay in 6, 8, 206, 239 f., 246. Derivatives, 57 Descriptions in detail, 190, 278 Dieuchidas, 134 f., 136 Difficulties, 2., 18, Chap. XXII. Diffuseness in K, 12, 208, 216 Digamma, xx, Chap. XII. ; corruption from ignorance of, 26 ; in Continuation of Od., 48; neglect of, in formulae, 50; use by Dissectors, 97f., 220; phenomena uniform, 98, 105; digam- mated words, differences as to, 99; neglects, what? 99f.; semi- vowel, 100; in Hesiod and Archilochus, 101 ; Hoffmann, 101f.; Thumb, 102f.; effects, 102; in P, N, Q, 108; in K, 108 f., 222; in A, 104f.; in Bucolic Diaeresis, 111; metric bound up with, 114 Dignity, epic, alleged want of in K, 12, 199, 209 Diogenes Laertius, 135, 136 Diomede, his pluck, 1, 2, 5 ; and Nestor, 1, 5, 116f., 146, 147, 155, 200, 208 ; his bivouac, 4, 234, 181, 191, 197; Athené’s care for, 5, 159; his corslet, 5; double origin of, 140, 150, 154; in I, 147f.; in K, 154ff; and Aga- memnon, 152, 155; his slaughter of the Thracians, 156; combinations of words used of, 174; as rider, 195; as hoplite, 197 ; and Dolon, 208. And see Odysseus. INDEX Direct speech in J. and Od., 39f., 110, 181, 244 ; change to indirect, 226 Disaffection in the camp, 2, 148, 152 Distance, measures of, 175 Dogs, 209, 210 Dolon, his offer, start and reward, 2, 5, 8; accoutrements, 38, 56, 58, 227, 229f.; capture and death, 6, 7, 63, 155 f., 162, 225f.; character, 6 and n., 158 f.; essential to the story, 200 ; on a vase, 138; and 187, 199, 201 Doloneia, its low place in critical estima- tion, viii; position in and connection with Z2., 8, 127f., 143 ff., and Chap. XXI.; popular, 59f.; foreshadowed in ©, 146; characters consist with rest of I7., 151 ff.; compared with Ur- Itias, Chap. XXV. and passim. Do ut des, 5, 118 Dramatic faculty, 174 Dreams, 212, 226, 262 Dress. See Armour and dress Dual verb forms, 51, 235 Duality of characters, 150, 164 Eastern peoples and ways, 154, 175, 192, 212, 249 Egypt and the Od., xiv Einleger, Fick’s, 14 f., 225, 227 Hinzellied, K as an, 59f., 133, 187, 139 Elision, 52, 100, 110, 112f. Emendations, Chap. IV. and App. C, 18, 23, 49, 59f., 97, 99; now proposed, 24 and App. B, 67, 232, 234, 285 Enclitics, position of, 69 Epic, old English, 178 Epics of other nations, xviiif. And see separate titles as Shdhndma, Kalewala, Beowulf, etc. Epic technique, 174 f. Enipolasis, the, 146, 152f, 155, 160, 166 Episodes, 142 f., 182 f. Epithets, interchanged, 25, 230, 236; in JI. and Od., difference, 38, 39; archaic, 40, 257; of armour, 49; varied to suit metre, 54; single oc- currences, 56 f., 168, 176f., 260; not always appropriate, 119; of Athené, 61; of war, 65; of Odysseus, 167; in K, 266 Ethics of heroic age, 41, 155 f., 162, 250 Eumaeus, 169, 191 Euripides quoted or referred to, 7, 8, 10, 234 Eustathius quoted or referred to, 22, 133, 138, 140, 255 Evolution of epic, xix Ewes and lambs, offer of, 185f., 197, 223 Expansionist theory, xi, 33 283 Expedition of Odysseus and Diomede, 2f., 5ff., 8, 184 Hephrestion of the poems, 41, 150, 210, 21 Feasts, 166, 175, 185 Felt, 55 Forms of words, varied to suit metre, 54, 58; strange, in K, 59, 66 ff., 259; Odyssean, in K, 126,. 266; in K and the Z2., 268; in A, 270 Formulae, difference of in JZ. and Od., 38f.; abnormalities in, 50, 108; in repetitions, Chap. XIV. passim; used inappropriately, 202 ; Odyssean in A, 272f.; in K and the Z7., 269; and 242 and 250 Gender, neglected metri gratia, 54 Genitives, 52, 54, 111, 224 Geography, Homeric, rehabilitated by M. Bérard, xiv Gifts, Athené’s promise of, in A, 154 Glaucus, 173, 202 Gluttony of Odysseus, 186 f. Gnomic sayings, 41, 209, 220 Goethe referred to, xxiii, 3f., 18, 122, 178, 179, 183, 228 Grammar, difference of in Zi, and Od., 36, 39, 43, App. D; effect on, of direct speech, 39, and of repetition, 40; variety of Homeric, 53 ; liberties with, 54 Greaves, not in K, 1938 f. Grief, manifestations of, 154 Guards of the camp, 121, 148f., 153, 221 Hagia Triada vase, the, 195 Hairdressing in Z7, and Od., 42 Hebé, 207 Hector, Boeotian, xi; offer to Dolon, 2, 186 ; sanguine spirit and disappoint- ment, 5, 7, 8, 148, 184; irresistible by help of Zeus, 152, 153, 157 ; in K, 158, 173 Helmet, 193f., 198. And see Casque Hephaestus, 206, 207, 209, 211, 212 Hera, 210, 246 Hérakles, 176, 191, 192 f. Hermes, 64, 121, 159, 204 Herodotus, his digressions, 142 Heroes, Homeric, vicissitudes of, xi Heroic ideal, 151, 155 f. Hesiod, quoted or referred to, 26, 51, 52, 83, 217; language of, 52; Article in, 88 ; versification, 106, 109; and 176, 207, 209, 211, 241, 280 Hiatus, emendation to cure, 26 and x., 70, 234, 235; in relation to F, 102; in K, 109; in Bucolic Diaeresis, 109 ff. ; 284 kinds, 110; after e, 111f.; left by elision, 112 f.; how far avoided, 113 Hippokoon, 159, 258 Hipponax, 15 Hobbles, horses’, 62 Homer, use of name, xv, xxii, 30; to be anbenpicted from his works, 31f.; medical knowledge of, 48. And passim Homeric, uses of the term, 30f., 51; K not, 12, 199, 202 ».; procedure in A not, Chap. XXV. passim Homeric Age, reality of, xv ; our ignor- ance of, 186 Homeric language, xx, 41, 50, 94; in il, and Od. respectively, 43f.; only known from the poems, 46, 55; uni- formity of, 48, 98; interpolators’ knowledge of, 48 ; copiousness, variety and flexibility, 58, 738 Homeric poems, love and reverence for, xvi, 21 Homerids, xxii, 21, 171f., 174 Hoplopoeia, 21, 55 Horace quoted or referred to, 163, 182, 202, 203, 204, 211, 213, 227 Horses, and car of Achilles, 2, 7f., 84, 123, 158, 175, 203; of Rhésus, 3, 62, 175, 179f., 201, 227, App. L; Diomede’s association with, 140, 176 ; in K, 175; in , 176; epithets, 246 Humour in K, 117, Chap. XXIV. Hymns, the Homeric, K same age as, 15 ; gens. and dats. in, 52; F in, 102, 103; versification, 107, 109; and 204, 207, 241, Hym. Ap., 22; Hym. Merc., 52, 112, 204, 245 Hyperbole in A, 209 Idomeneus, 153, 169, 223 Wiad and Odyssey, language of, one, Chap. VI., Apps. D and E, 53, 65, 129 ; Article in, 79; F, 98, 105; versifica- tion, 106 ff., 111; és, 255 [mitation. See Plagiarism and Imitation. {nconsistencies. See Unebenheiten. Inorganic lines, 33, 181, 210, 212, 218 Interpolation, xix, Chap. III; in K 19f., 22f., App. A; principles of ad- judication, 17f; Blass and Jebb, 19; Leaf on weathering, 20 ; interpolators, who? 20 ff.; their strange proceedings, 160f.; freedom to manipulate the poems, 141f., 217f.; interpolator of A, 142; of K, 176; corslet interpola- tions, 193 f. Tomodneiony part of K, unduly long, 4, 22 Ionia and the poems, xvi Irish epic referred to, 189, 201, 248, 275 Trony, tragic, in K, 8 Iros, 182, 209 Iterative verbs, 50, 52f., 253 ff., 270 THE LAY OF DOLON Jod, 111 Kalchas, 210 Kingship in A, 210 Kinship, vocabulary of, 43 Lachmannism, xi Laertes’ apparel, 191 Lateness of passages, as basis of disrup- tion, viii, xxiif.; proved by linguistic peculiarities, 49 ff.; by pseudo-archa- isms, 90, 95f.; by anything uncommon, 180; absence of indications in K, 176; linguistic usages that persisted into later Greek, 40 f.; absence in late books of late indications, 51, 65 f., 69, 81 Later Greek, approximation to, in lan- guage of K, 50f. Lied and Epos, xviii Linguistic peculiarities, xx, Chap. VII. ; those in K, Chap. VIII. and App. G; some really mistakes of copyists, 25 ; enumerations of, in K, 27f. and 2; how to be estimated, 31f., 34, 49, 59; Orszulik’s plan criticised, 28 f.; caused by metricalfnecessity, 53 ; in Ur-Zlias, 59; in A, 205, App. J; and 216 Lion-skins in K, 14, 176, 192f., 209 Logical interpretation of the epic, 3, 179, 220 Longinus quoted or referred to, 37, 243 2. Mahabharata referred to, xviii, 203 n. Marriage bond, 210 Meanings, words with a variety of, 53 ; strange, in K, 65f., 258f. ; Odyssean, in K, 265; Iliadic, 268; peculiar to A, 270; Odyssean, 272 Medical knowledge in the poems, 43 and n. Meges, 223 Melanthios, treatment of, 41, 156, 209, 250 Menelaus, 121, 153, 158, 173, 200, 248 Menestheus, 160 Méwis. See Ur-Ilias or Ménis Meriones, lends Odysseus a bow, 144, 168, 169 ; and 153, 185, 248 Metrical convenience or necessity, 53f., 57, 58, 64, 67, 73, 76, 88, 87, 106 ff, 168, 236 Middle voice, 54, 58, 266 Milton quoted or referred to, 31, 45, 46, 53, 55, 58, 87, 178, 228, 228, 258 Minos, xiii Modernisation. See Text. Modesty, false, Achaean heroes not given to, 173 Méglichkett ist nicht Notwendigkeit, 33 Monotony of the Iliad, complaints of, 142 f. INDEX Mules, 209, 210, 222 Mycenae, seat of suzerainty, xiv. ; Mycenaean culture, Reichel and Robert on, 194; shields, 197 Mythology and myths, fluidity of, 41 Nansikaa and her brothers, 159 Necessities of the moment, 9, 156, 159, 200 Ne ene quod non intellegimus, 18 Neleids and the poems, 22, 147 Nestor, his sons, 2”., 158, 185, 187f.; friend of Agamemnon, 2, 145, 221, 222; in K, 4, 153, 156 ff., 173, 199; in I, 147 ff. ; his shield and his son’s, 5, 144; interpolated by Neleids, 22; military adviser, 163; his apparel, 191; has no corslet, 193; and 1, 121, 155, 167, 181, 182, 200, 201, 208, 221 f. Nibelungentied referred to, xviii, 189, 190, 195 Night in K, 18, 14, 140; effect on language, 55, 131, 266 ; night as space of darkness, 73, 74 f.; a crowded night, 182f.; difference between night and day work, 193 f. Nireus, 161 Nomenclature, 175 Nyktegersia, 1, 127f., 190 Odysseanism in the Ziad, Chap. XV., and Apps. D and E passim; and 14, 28, 37, 66, 69, Chap. IX., 75, 79f., 80, 106, 111, 107 ff, 110ff., 129, 168, 201f., 205 ff., and App. K, 210, 215, 219, 224. Odysseus, Chap. XX.; his part in the adventure, 2, 5; association with Diomede, 7, 81, 145, 166, 172 f., 176, 202, 227; popular hero, 131; degraded by the Cyclics, 151; in the Epipdlesis, » 155, 166; in A, 165f.; in ©, 166f.; as bowman, 168f.; phraseology used of him alone, 172; his gluttony, 186 f. ; his equipment in K, 191f.; as rider, 195 and App. L; and 38, 122, 191, 208, 206 Olympia, 61, 193, 197 Olympus, 206, 207, 209, 211 Omen in K, 159, 187 Optative mood, 40, 43, 241 ff., 70, 226 Ossian, 95 Pandarus, 180 Panthoiis, sons of, 172 Papyri referred to, 56, 65 Parallel passages, Chap. XIV., 15 f,, 219 f, 273. And see Repetitions, and Plagiarism and Imitation Parallel versions, amalgamation of, 211 285 Paris, xi, 168, 191, 209, 249, 251 Patroclus, 155, 158, 187, 202 Penelopé, 119, 169, 250 Perfects, 54, 68, 92 Peripeteia in K, 8 and n., 203 Philoctetes, 161, 168 Phraseology, used of or by individuals, 172 ff., repeated unconsciously, 174 Piers Plowman, 141 Pindar, Article in, 88 ; scholia, 22, 138 Pisander of Kameiros, 192 f. Pisistratus and his Ordner or Com- mission, xii, 21, 22, 49, 122, 127, 147, 149, 160, 216, and Chap. XVI. Plagiarism and imitation charged against K, 12, 56, 90, 201 f., 204, 216, 219, 260, and Chap, XIV. Pleonasm, 221, 223, 261 Pope referred to, 18, 204 Position, neglect of, in verse, 106 ff. Position in verse, words recurring in same, 26, 177 Praetorium in the camp, 181 Prayers of the heroes, 5, 118, 172, 175, 202, 229 Prepositions, Chap. IX., 219, 271 Presbeia to Achilles, 1, 187, 148, 152, 182 Priam, 124, 154, 158, 249 Proém to liad, 179, 208 Protesilaus, 172 Prothystera, 54 Proverbs, Homeric, 204 Pseudo-Archaisms. See Archaising Public of the early poet, 3, 4, 7f., 9, 13, 183, 201, 227 Pylian Epos, supposed, 157, 208 Quality of K as epic poetry, 9 f., 12 ff. Quarrels, 33, 207, 208, 211 Quintilian referred to, 175, 202 Razors, 64 Reaction against disintegrating criti- cism, x Relative, attraction of, 241 Religion. See Theology and Religion Repetitions, xix ; common phenomenon, 18, 201; effect of, on language of J7. and Od., 40; in K and the 0Od., 115 ff.; in K and the JZ/., 123 f.; in A, 125 ; characteristic of early poetry, 116 ; and 218 ff., 225, 226f. Retardation of action, 142, 178 Rhapsodes, their additions to the poems, 19, 21 f; and 100, 122, 186 x., 210, 226 Rhésus, 2, 3, 6, 226, 15, 62, 124, 141f., 274 ff. Rhodian, interpolation, 161; origin of K, 187 n.; epithet, 248 286 Riding, 180, 195, 196, 198, 237, and App. L Saga, 9, 150, 202 Sagenverschiebungen, xii, 150 Sarpedon, 173, 189, 262 Sceptre, Hector’s, 83; Pelopid, 201, 212 Schiller referred to, 141, 178 Scholiasts quoted or referred to, 7, 8, 22, 65, 183 and n., 134, 199, 260, 275 and 2. Scott, Sir Walter, quoted or referred to, 178, 194, 196, 228, 244 Scouts and scouting, 63 f., 184, 190, 200, 232 Scribes and their errors, 24, 25, 59f., 67, 94, 79, 83, 95, 230, 233, 280 Shahnama, the, referred to, 142, 154, 189, 190, 196, 234, 243, 275 Shakespeare quoted or referred to, 4, 18, 178, 48, 46, 53”., 55, 150, 154, 179, 182, 192, 203, 204, 209, 223, 228, 250 Shield, of Achilles, 55, 189; of Nestor, 144; of Aias, 189, 196, 262; of Sarpedon, 189; of Hector, 196; Mycenaean and Ionian, 191, 194 ff., 197 ; shields in K, 195 ff. Sicily, xiv and n. Silence of the poet on certain matters, 64, 182, and App. L Similes, in K, 6, 174f.; in B, 30; in ZZ. and Od., 39, 131, 206; moods in, 91; tertium comparationis,. 165, 184; ready-made, 174, 207; the opening simile in K, 56, 184 f., 221, 258, 261 Singularities in the poems, 50, 179, 186 Sintians, 206 Skins as dress. See Armour and dress Snow, 184 and n., 264 Solon, xvi, 21 Sophocles quoted or referred to, 18, 19, 68, 168, 263 Sparsamkeit of the Epos, law of, 183 Spear, 62 f., 117, 144, 169, 193, 229 ff. Spiritus asper, 102, 112 Stevenson, R. L., referred to, 179 Sthenelus, 145, 155 Stiimper, the, of German criticism, 20, 31, 201, 212 Style and technique, the Homeric, simplicity of, 8; charge of want of dignity, 12; other faults, dbid.; in K 18, 174; variations in, 46; mis- appreciation of a point in, 121 f., and see Contrasts and Necessities of the moment Subject-matter, influence of, on diction, 37, 41, 46, 55, 58, 76, 87, 130, 238, 242, 255, and App. E passim. Subjective appreciation, 30, 76, 120 Synizesis, 30, 50, 67, 232 f., 235 THE LAY OF DOLON Tamarisk, 230 f. Telemachus, 121, 122, 156, 169, 191 Telemachy, age of, 15; perfects in, 69 ; Article, 86 f.; repetitions, 120 ; said to imitate K, 122; és in, 255 Temples, 212 Tennyson quoted or referred to, 45, 53, 55, 95, 141, 142, 165 n., 168, 175, 194, 195, 209, 243 Tests, specific linguistic, F, xx, 49, 52, Chap. XII. ; iterative verbs, xxi, 50, 52, 69, 270, App. F ; dv, xx, 52, 220, App. F; és, xx, 52, App. F; genitives, 51, 52, 224 f.; datives, 52, 256; per- fects in -xa, 68 f. ; dda, 51, 655; xpus, 51. Tests in general, Chap. VII., 224, and see Article, Prepositions, Opta- tives, Contraction, Synizesis, Versifica, tion, Vocabulary, Dual, Archaising, Odysseanism Teucer, 167, 168 Text, xix; corruption of, 18, 20, 24, 26, 53, 62; of K, 24; modernisation, 25, 50, 81, 221, 254; emendation confirmed, 26; uncertainty of, 79; archaisms, 94; the Athenians and the, 160 and n. Theagenes, 138 Theology and Religion, cunning of the gods, 7; religion more advanced in Od., 41f.; poet pulls divine strings, 159f.; gods in Z7. and Od., 206; scene below divine dignity, 209 ; archaism in religious matters, 211; war in Heaven, 212 Theomachy, opinions on, 31; language of, 48 Theophanies, 144, 169, 176, 209 Thersites, 209 Theseus, references to, 160 Thetis, 124, 182, 191, 207, 211 Thoas, 167 Thracians, slaughter of, 155f., metal work, 175 Tlepolemus episode, 182 Tmesis, 58, 72 Tracks in the camp and over the plain, 4, 230 Trades, specialisation of, in Jd., 42 Tradition, xiiif. Tragedy, Attic, Article in, 88 ; degrada- tion of Odysseus, 163 Tragic, element in K, 8 and ».; elevation of the Homeric poetry, 12 Transmission of the poems, xiii, 21 Trojans, attitude of poems to, 171 x. ; noisiness of, 175 ; encamped on high ground, 181; their plans, 225 f. ; hardly mentioned in the Od., 248 Troy, site of, xiv; capture of, 163; plunder got in the district, 182 Tydeus, 172, 175, 176, 201 159 ; INDEX Onebenhetten, 171, 188, 210, 218, 220 ce as belief, xxi f., 45, 151, 172, 174 Or-Ilias or Ménis, vicissitudes of, xi; style of, 12; language of, 27, 29, 48, 217 ; new view of, 32 ff. ; indulgence towards, 49; Ionisms in, 52; Article in, 85f., 87; F in, 97 f.; versification of, 109; relation of K to, 124, 215; infirmities of, Chap. XXV. Veneration for the poems, xvi, 21, 217 Vergil, quoted or referred to, 6, 7, 263, 18, 178, 53, 141, 142, 163, 191, 204, 244, 263 ; his imitation of the Doloneia, 10, 141, 156, 183, 186, 190, 203 Versification, Chap. XIII. ; corruption of text due to supposed defects, 26 ; affected by direct speech, 39; differ- ences, 45; effect on language, 46; unus color, 48; dactyl preferred, 51, 233, 235; causes licence, 53 ; correp- tion, 67; equal division of line, 69; lengthening, 93; spondaic endings, 94; of A, 271 Vocabulary, in J2. and Od. respectively, 287 36, 44, App. E; influences modifying, 39, 40 ; weight of differences in, 40 ff. ; of right and wrong, 41 ; abundance of, 53; our ignorance of, 58, 55; single occurrences, 55; words favoured by K, 57 f.; vocabulary of Milton, 45 f. Volksgeist and Volksseele, xvi Wall and Fosse, 2., 4, 38, 181 Warrior Vase, the, 62, 197 Weathering of surface of poems. See Interpolation Wolf, F. A., x, 21 ‘Wolf, the, 191 and x. ‘Wooers, the, in the Od., 8, 38, 179, 209, 250, 252, 265 Writing, xiii Xenophon quoted or referred to, 222, 235 Zeugma in A, 208 Zeus, deserts Agamemnon, 2, 152, 157 ; his promise to Thetis, 8; in 6, 159f., 166; in A, 211 ; epithets, 56, 246 Zoilus, 187, 191 2. GREEK Some words and expressions discussed or referred to. ayedeln, 61 dyépwxos, 248 ddnxéres, dpnotes, 68 delpw, cuvacipw, 237 anbécow, 64, 253 axun, 64 adKkovw, 234 duos, 119 adn’ touev, 173 dul, 238 dvdixa waca xedoOn, 247 avn xai 7d puddoocev, 78 avriropéw, 64 dyrvé, 62 dak elpnuéva, 28, 54 ff., 257, 270 dd dbéns, 119 dard Ebev dbo’ delpas, 229 (rd) drperés, 7, 23 -us in ace. pl. of 1 decl., 52 and x. dodpwvOos, 182 arn, 53, 66 atrés, 50, 236f., 271, 279 f. adrds yap épédxerar dvdpa oidnpos, App. M BeBinxev, 68 yap, 25, 26 Saippwv, 248 déeXos, SAAos, 50, 62, 228 OerxTix@s, 83, 84 Sedov 7d hpwikby, 164, 275 Ofjpes, 280 Oud vixra, 75 dtamptovoy, 38, 41 Sovpl -art, 51 eypnyopbace -Oar, 90, 92 éypryoprt, 50 @Oev, €o, etc., 238, 239 (7d) €Ocuov Tod rownrod, 32 el-clauses, 244 f. elacev, 94 el ydp, with opt., 126 elcOa, 66 éxdiaBaivw, 234 éxrdduos, 64 éxros dé, 234 &rero, 6 2. éwaurév, etc., 51 éuéo -€bev, 68 év, 74, 76 év dypomévoow, 234 é, 73 f. é aris rijs rounoéws, 18, 31 ffs 8° éfouevot K.7.d., 38 288 ' THE LAY OF DOLON érelyerOar (BidgerGar) Bedéeror, 172 érelyerov, 90, 91 én’ Fuati, 232 éml, 72 f., 75, 238 érviippids, 62, 278 érloxotos, 232 émirpérw, 54, 57 éplydouros méats "Hpys, 56 épldovrros and épiydourros, 38 és, 2ow, 52, App. F éodkovoe, 166 -eot, dat. plur. in, 236 dor’ dv, 52 ert, 232 eB Kal émicrapévws, 122 évéos, 67 evreixeov -ea, 267., 53 7., 110 éGuev, 235 Féxaoros, 101, 104 Fépdw, 104 Fepiaow, 105 Feptw, 103 Ferwovos, 99 Fu, ‘Fu, Fev, 93 Frwy, 104 Fotkos, 97, 100 Fotvos, 97, 98, 100 ¢ and é interchanged, 25 %, correption of, 236 huéas, Fuas, 222 -huevat, infs, in, 259 fw, 235 -Oev, 257 OjKaro, 67 "Ids, 52 taxe, 108 lla rerdx Oar, 186 itdvw and compounds, 58 ludvres, 62 tva, 2384 lduwpor, 168 immoBdrns and larmoorpépos, 197 immépaxor, 236 inmuw éreBjoero, 275 fl. ipdv, lepd, 57 Kkayxardwy, 200 kal ydp rls Te, 172 kal piv dwrhoaca x.T.r., 50 kadds, 52, 252 karaBjouev, 181 xara ovveow, constructions, 223 kar’ o’rapdévny wredyy, 172 Khdeor woxOjoew Kat mreloow, 157 xpdreo gu, 90, 92 f. kbvtarov, 156 AGE wodl Kevjoas, 116 Ayiris, 61 AlocesOat, 67, 69 pay, pny, 245 BeOGpuev, 236 uédrw, 67, 69 bev ody, 245 Meo 68 werd, 74, 76 peradpevoy evpd kadupe, 173 pa ob, 70 meyhoer Oar, 66 poxbéw, -1fw, 233 Navorabpos, 4, 29 vendvoes, 58 vexpots duBatvovres, 26 vuv, 83, 233 Evpdv, 42, 64 Otros ’IXlov, 15 otw, 233 débv dxovra, 229, 266 Butros, 23, 265 8, Sr, ws, otvexa, 240 f. 8mda, 27, 51, 54, 65 br’ dy, 221 005’ dhaockomcip efx’, 122, 202 ovdév, 70 bpédXw, 280 wav &rovoy Satuovlwy, 160 mapa, 73 Tmapapbatnor, 90 f., 96 Tmapyxaxev, 68 mepl, 75, 239 mevxedaves, 65, 247 minrévrwv, 234 mipatoxw, 58, 236 mréwy, 224 motkidos, 176 f., 260 ToduTAHLw, 167 (7d) wpérov, 17 mp6, 75 mpomdpode, 65 mporl, 73 pexdev 6€é re viprios @yvw, 204 cavpwrnp, 62, 117 ojua, -ara, 229 n. alya, 172 oimmnots, 275 ff. oxomidgw, dia-, 64 oxomds, 68, 119, 232 Zu Oevs, 182, 211 oreto, 90, 93 orbua wodguoro, 65 ouvddw, 235 ouvaelpw, 237, 275 oplow, 90, 91, 225 tadact-, radhddpwy, 167 Tdwy, Tov, 224 TiOjuevos, 90, 94, 259 tion, 67 ris, omission of, 262 TAH, 167 f. totcdecat, 66 76,70. . 8, 289 f. Tw 5é of Ouw, 85 UBprs, 152, 250 bd, 73 byde? édvre Aut, 54 galns xe, 243 gaol 6 of radouol, Chap. XVI. dius, 28, 58, 251, 264 dre, 52, 91 INDEX 289 Pbdvw, érevxoua. and Bdd\dw in combina- tion, 174 pbéyyoua, 58, 119 -pt, 92 f. pv, 93 pbBos, 23, 63 puyh, -ade, 63 pvéts, 58, 63 xetpt maxeln, 119 xeupl, xepl, 51 xAaiva, 64 Xpaopeiv, 247 XpHuara, krywara, 251 Xpws, 51 Ode 6é tus etreoxe K.T.d., 50 Os elma drpuve k.7.d,, 88 3. SOME PASSAGES DISCUSSED PAGE K, passin 1-4, ‘ Z 121 5 ff. 4 184f., 221 15 ff. : : 153 f. 19f. : . 9, 1538 26 ff. i 2 116 43 f. ‘ 9, 69, 153 45. . ‘ 124 47 ff. : é 158 51 ff. , 3 221 57 ff. ; . 153, 221 67 ff. * : 153 68 . . ; 124 77 £. : é 194 ‘84. : . 221 89 f. : . 124 93 ff. . ‘ 158 f. 97 ff. : . 116 104 ff. ‘ : 145 105 ff. ; . 25, 157 lll. , ‘ 124 146 f. . % 222 152 . : : 196 f. 157 ££. ; . 116f. 176. ~~C« : 155 202 . . . 222 208 ff. : : 225 f. 211f. 122, 222f. 21s. 185 f. 214f. . 5 117 gi9. 0. Ct 155 228 ff. . . 223 234 ff. - : 155 237 ff. - ‘ 223 240... 158 242 ff. # . 69, 117 f. 251 . 252 f. 265 . 278 ff. 280 . 290 ff. 302 309 ff. 314 ff. 824 335. 336 f. 344. 351-3 365 f. 387 ff. 396 ff. 400 . 401 ff. 409 ff. 439 f. 448 . 453. 454 ff. 465 ff. 482 ff. 493 . 496 f. 499 . 513 . 515. 527 . 530 f. 533 ff. 540 . 566 ff. PAGE PAGE 137 | A. 205 ff. 223 f. 32 ff. 142 3 122 | 213 154 118, 172f. | 240 ff 154 a 69 | Blf.. 121 . 118,225) 55 . 124 124 | 217 . 85 225 | 362 ff. 146 158 f. | 653 ff. 161 119 | A 339 166 6n. | 856 . 123 158 | 370 ff. 155 69; EE. 131 119 | 7Z227f. . . 146 123 | © - . 15, 33, 129, 225 131, 139, 149, 225 165 122f. | 28 ff. 141, 159 f. 123 | 92 ff. 166 f. 225 f. | 521 ff. : s 146 124 | I . 15, 129, 139, 255 147f., 149, 154, 69 207, 208 119 | 34ff. . 146 App. B | 609f. 124 119f. | 654f. 157 26);A . 20 226 | 310 ff. 145 275 | 401 ff. 165 f. 276 | N 246 ff. 144 122 | & Off. 144 275 | 44 ff. 145 226/112 . 146 120, 227 | P 75 ff. 123 120 | 546 . 124 227 | 3 82f. 124 290 X 206 f. 414 f. 74. 677 ff. a 64 ff. 245 ff. y 882 ff 6145f. THE LAY OF DOLON PAGE 123 124 | 207, 208 124 121 117 f. 117 118 116 6 124 A 344 “281. pv 299 ff. & 457 ff. o 4 ff. 44 ff. mw 122f. 296 . THE END PAGE 119 119 116 118 127 121 f. 116f. 117 App. M T1383. 130 ff. vb2. 161 . x 307 ff. 326 ff. 371 . 461 ff. w 318 f. Printed by R. & R. Crark, Limite, Zdinburgh. WORKS ON GREEK LITERATURE PAUSANIAS’S DESCRIPTION OF GREECE. Trans- lated by J. G. FRAZER, Litt.D. With Commentary, Illustrations, and Maps. Six vols. 8vo. 126s. net. PAUSANIAS AND OTHER GREEK SKETCHES. By J. G. Frazer, Litt.D. Globe 8vo. 4s. net. GROWTH AND INFLUENCE OF CLASSICAL GREEK POETRY. By Sir R. C. JeBs, Litt.D. Crown 8vo. 7s. net. A HISTORY OF CLASSICAL GREEK LITERATURE. By the Rev. J. P. Mauarry, M.A., D.D. Two vols. Crown 8vo. Vol. I. The Poets. With an Appendix on Homer by Prof. Saycr. In two parts. Vol. II. The Prose Writers. In two parts. 4s. 6d. each part. ABRIDGED HISTORY OF GREEK LITERATURE. By MM. ALFRED and MAURICE CROISET. Translated by G. F. HEFFELBOWER. 8vo._ 10s. 6d. net. LECTURES ON THE REPUBLIC OF PLATO. By R. L. NETTLESHIP. Edited by G. R. BENSON. 8vo. 8s. 6d. net. ARISTOTLE ON THE ART OF POETRY. A Lecture by A. O. PRICKARD, Fellow and Tutor of New College, Oxford. Crown 8vo. 3s. 6d. ESSAYS ON GREEK LITERATURE. By R. Y. TYRRELL, Litt.D. Crown 8vo. 4s. net. EURIPIDES AND THE SPIRIT OF HIS DRAMAS. By Prof. PAUL DECHARME. Translated by JAMES LOEB, A.B. 8vo. 12s. 6d. net. LONDON: MACMILLAN & CO., LTD. WORKS ON GREEK LITERATURE THE ILIAD OF HOMER. By WALTER Leaf, Litt.D. Second Edition. 8vo. Vol. I. (Books I.-XII.). Vol. II. (Books XIIL-XXIV.). 15s. net each. COMPANION TO THE ILIAD FOR’ ENGLISH READERS. By WALTER LEAF, Litt.D. Crown 8vo. 7s. 6d. THE ILIAD OF HOMER. Translated into English Prose by ANDREW LANG, M.A., WALTER LEafF, Litt.D., and ERNEST MVERS, M.A. Crown 8vo._ 12s. 6d. THE ODYSSEY OF HOMER. Done into English’ by S. H. ButTcHEr, Litt.D., and ANDREW LANG, M.A. Crown 8vo. 7s. 6d. net. THE HOMERIC HYMNS. Edited with notes and appen- dices by T. W. ALLEN, M.A., and E., E. SIKEs, M.A. 8vo. 10s. 6d. net. SOME ASPECTS OF THE GREEK GENIUS. By S. H. BUTCHER, Litt.D. Third Edition. Crown 8vo. 7s. net. HARVARD LECTURES ON THE ORIGINALITY OF GREECE. By S. H. BuTcHER, Litt.D. Crown 8vo. 7s. net. THE ANCIENT GREEK HISTORIANS. (Harvard Lectures.) By Prof. J. B. Bury, Litt.D. 8vo. 7s. 6d. net. ARISTOPHANES AND THE POLITICAL PARTIES AT ATHENS. By MAuRIcE CROISET. Translated by JAMES LOEB. 8vo. 7s. 6d. net. LECTURES ON CLASSICAL SUBJECTS. By Prof. W. R. HARDIE, M.A. Crown 8vo. 7s, net. LONDON: MACMILLAN & CO.,, Lrp. ee