Hermann Bonitz.

The origin of the Homeric poems; a lecture online

. (page 5 of 7)
Online LibraryHermann BonitzThe origin of the Homeric poems; a lecture → online text (page 5 of 7)
Font size
QR-code for this ebook


and the authorities quoted in them, p. 19 sq. The whole of
diss. I. treats of their value.

39 Sengebusch, Diss. II. pp. 47-69.

40 Sengebusch, Diss. II. p. 70.

41 A view of the several dates, with the authorities for
them, is given by Sengebusch in Jahn's Jahrbiicher, 67,
p. 611 sqq., and Diss. II. p. 78. Roth (Geschichte der
abendl. Philosophic, II. p. 38), with noteworthy naivete"
quotes the date given by Herodotus as if it were the only
one ever suggested. By such a method it is certainly
easy to triumph over the whole Homeric discussion set
on foot by Wolf as "a long since exploded paradox,"
which "proceeded from half -knowledge of history." I
mention this because such lofty language actually imposes
upon readers who are not in a position to investigate the
matter themselves ; and also because recently (Literar.
Centralblatt, 1860, No. 7) philology was reproached with
having kept a significant silence about Roth's book. The
groundlessness of this reproach can be seen by a glance at
the second edition of Zeller's Philosophic der Griechen.
But such a method as that just mentioned in regard to



NOTES 34-43. 81

the period of Homer needs no criticism but to be left to
bring on its own judgment.

42 Those statements are excluded, in both cases, which
depend not on actual tradition, but merely on the conject-
ures and computations of learned men. Sengebusch, Jahn's
Jahrb. 67, p. 609 sqq. ; Diss. II. p. 69.

43 Sengebusch, first in his review of Lauer's Gesch. der
Horn. Poesie, Jahn's Jahrb. 67 ; then in Diss. II. The
chronological principles followed in these discussions are
attacked by J. Brandis, De temporum antiquiss. Graeco-
rum rationibus, Index lect. (Bonna, 1857-58). Compare the
review of this essay by A. von Gutschmid, Jahn's Jahrb.
83. An unqualified condemnation of Sengebusch's in-
vestigations is expressed by Bergk (Griech. Literatur-
Gesch. I. p. 463) : " This hypothesis has been praised as
not only ingenious but well-supported; yet any one who
takes the pains to examine it thoroughly will find it hol-
low and worm-eaten all through." This thorough exam-
ination Bergk does not offer us directly nor enable us to
gain indirectly from his own treatment of the subject.
For, among the statements as to the place of Homer, he
accepts one and condemns all the rest without reason
given; and, as to the time of Homer, he rejects all tradi-
tions as pure fiction, and puts his confidence solely in
general combinations. Such a proceeding is, in truth,
very simple and convenient, but it wholly neglects to ex-
plain the real and unique multiplicity of statements, and
gives one no right to condemn at a blow every attempt to
explain it. See Hartel, Zeitschr. fur d. osterr. Gym.. 1873 ;
and, as to the pseudo-Herodotean life of Homer, which
Bergk adopts, J. Schmidt, De Herodotea quae fertur vita
Homeri (Halle, 1875).

6



82 THE ORIGIN OF THE HOMERIC POEMS.

44 Herod. II. 53 ; Sengebusch, Jahn's Jahrb. 67, p. 373
sqq.

45 Sengebusch, Jahn's Jahrb. 67, p. 614. Against this,
Volkniann, Gesch. und Kritik der Wolf schen Prolego-
mena, p. 358 (cf. p. 275 sqq.) : " We have no tradition
of the work or of the existence of Homeridae or of any
school of epic poetry outside of Chios. The assumption
of their existence is a purely arbitrary assumption."

46 Wolf, Prolegomena, pp. 40-94 ; Sengebusch, Diss. II.
p. 41 sqq. I have left the statement in the lecture un-
changed, although Bergk (Griech. Lit. I. pp. 185-214), and
after him Volkmanu (Gesch. etc., pp. 181-232), have en-
deavored to prove that even before the Trojan War the
art of writing was in use among the Greeks. The earliest
instance of writing yet discovered, of determinable date, is
the cutting of their names by Greek mercenaries on the
Nubian colossus (Kirchhoff, Gricch. Alphabet, 2d ed. p. 31
sqq.). If we assume as probable the earlier of the possi-
ble dates for this inscription, it proves that the art of
writing was widely diffused among the Greeks about
620 B.C. ; and, of course, this wide diffusion implies the
existence and practice of it for a considerable time before
that date. These facts agree fully with the development
of Greek literature in prose and poetry. But to carry
back the use of writing more than five hundred years be-
fore that date is in no way justified by the existence of
this inscription. Bergk himself frankly admits this as
applying to Homer, whose period he puts fully two cen-
turies after the Trojan War: "It is impossible to decide,
on historical evidence, whether these poems w r ere, in the
first instance, committed to writing. . . . We are, therefore,
left to depend upon combinations.'' As to the value of



NOTES 44-47. 83

the most important of these combinations, see Hartel,
Zeitschr. fur d. ostcrr. Gym., 1873, p. 350 sqq., 1874, p. 822
sqq. While I express, at the beginning of my discussion
of the origin of the poems, the conviction that they were
not originally committed to writing, and therein follow
the historical course of the investigation, I feel myself
obliged, in opposition to Bergk and especially to Volk-
mann, to deny that this conviction includes the central
point, or even a clearly decisive element of the answer to
the question as to the origin of the poems. On the con-
trary, this question is to be decided only by arguments
drawn from the poems themselves. If the study of the
poems constrains us to the conclusions stated on p. 59
sqq., we must hold fast those conclusions whether an orig-
inal use of writing in this case is proved on other grounds
or not, although it cannot be overlooked that they agree
best with the latter supposition.

47 Roth, it is true, says (Abendl. Philos. II. p. 41) : " Ho-
mer himself mentions the art of writing, and that, too, as
practised in the heroic age ;" and, certainly, in his transla-
tion of II. 6 : 169 there is mention of it. But that there is
no such mention of it in the words of Homer is so familiar
a fact that it is hardly necessary to refer a reader of Homer
to Lehrs, De Aristarcho, p. 103; Sengebusch, Diss. II. p. 42
sqq. Bergk says on this passage : " The well-known pas-
sage in the Iliad, where Proteus intrusts to Bellerophon
the fateful missive, is explained, not necessarily, but very
probably, as referring to a system of secret writing.
This, however, by no means excludes, but rather pre-
supposes the knowledge and use of the ordinary writ-
ing." The reason given by Bergk for the absence in Ho-
mer of any mention of the arts of reading and writing,



84: THE ORIGIN OF THE HOMERIC POEMS.

though they were known before the Trojan War, viz., " be-
cause they seemed inconsistent with his ideal picture of a
primitive state of society," is one that I cannot criticise, be-
cause I do not understand it. Homer finds it consistent
witli his "picture of primitive society" to mention a high
degree of art in weaving, in the working of metal, ivory,
wood, not as produced by gods only, but by men also, on
whom Athene and Hephaestos have bestowed such gifts.
How would the art of writing, if in use before the heroic
age of the Iliad, as a gift of Hermes perhaps, differ from
these so as to disturb the picture of primitive society?
But, possibly, for it is not easy to follow out his analysis of
the poem, all those references to other arts of civilization
are inventions of the "audacious reviser."

48 Bekker, Horn. Blatter, I. p. 136 : " This [Homeric]
language, developed in the course of a great migration,
under the unceasing influences of the meetings, the fric-
tions, the interminglings of kindred tribes, and controlled
only by song and the lyre, attained indeed to a great wealth
of euphonious forms, but seems to have gone through the
stage of "trying all possible combinations, and to have had
no fixed, unchanging, exclusive system of forms, such as
came in later by the general spread of writing. Litera
scripta manet." On the other hand, Bergk, Griech. Lit. I.
p. 200: "As the peculiar orthography of the poems is a
conclusive proof of their great age, so the remarkably
regular and transparent form of the language shows the
wide diffusion in early times of the art of writing. The
rare purity in which the Greek language was preserved is
scarcely credible without constant use of that art, which
is not only the foundation of all higher cultivation, but
gives to language its settled form and its power to pro-



NOTES 48-55. 85

tect itself against corrupting influences." Compare on
this Hartel, Zeitschr. fur d. osterr. Gyui., 1873, p. 352.

49 The AiQioirig and 'I\iov iripme of the Milesian Arkti-
nos, Welcker,Epische Cycl. II. For the settling of the date
775 B.C. as the cmpi] of Arktinos, see Sengebusch, Jahn's
Jahrb. 67. KirchhofF in his essay, Quaestionum Horn,
particula (Berlin, 1845), proves that the TLv-n-pia of Stasi-
nos, written about 660 B.C., recognized several books of the
Iliad in the form and connection in which we have them.

50 The laws of Zaleukos, about 664 B.C. Cf. Wolf, Proleg.
p. 66 sqq.

51 Sengebusch, Diss. II. p. 45.

52 The authorities for this important fact are given in
Sengebusch, Diss. II. pp. 27^41 ; Diintzer, Hoinerische Ab-
handlungen, pp. 1-27. The historic credibility of the state-
ments about Peisistratos is criticised by Nutzhorn (u. 27),
pp. 16-66, and Volkmann.

53 Sengebusch, Diss. I. pp. 193-197.

54 Sengebusch, Diss. I. pp. 71 sq., 186, 200 sqq.

55 The principles of text-criticism in regard to the Ho-
meric poems which have been accepted since Wolf's time
are concisely stated by L. Friedlander, Jahn ? s Jahrb. 79.
The relation of Wolf's text to those of previous editions
and to Villoison's edition of the MS. Ven. 454 is stated by
Bekker, Horn. Blatter, pp. 232, 296. A material part of the
principles on which Bekker's text-edition of 1843 is based
will be found in his criticism of Wolf 's edition, Horn. Blat-
ter, p. 29. Bekker's text (1843) is the foundation of the
editions which have since appeared, with the exception of
Dindorf 's in the Teubner series, as to which cf. J. La Roche,
Zeitschr. fur d. osterr. Gym., 1863. How far Bekker's princi-
ples were modified in his second edition of 1858 is stated



86 THE ORIGIN OF THE HOMERIC POEMS.

in the preface to that edition, and further explanations are
to be found in the Horn. Blatter. This second edition was
reviewed by W. C. Kayser, Philologus, vols. xvii. and xviii.;
Fricdlander, Jahn's Jahrb. 79; Rumpf, Jahn's Jahrb. 81; J.
La Roche, Zeitschr. fur d. osterr. Gym., 1860. As to the most
recent text-editions with critical apparatus of the Odyssey
by J. La Roche, Leipzig, 1867, and A. Nauck, Berlin, 1874,
see A. Ludwich, Wissensch. Monatsblatter, 1878 ; Jahn's
Jahrb. 109 ; and Eickholt, Zeitschrift fur d. Gymnasialwesen,
1868.

86 These words mark the limits within which all the fol-
lowing discussion is confined; it contains no conclusions
to which the two Homeric poems, as they now lie before
us, do not lead by reasonable inference. It is, for instance,
possible that one might be led, by comparison of the de-
velopment of epic poetry in other nations or by general
reasonings, to hold that, before the existence of epic lays of
moderate compass and limited to single incidents of the
myth, such as the Iliad implies, there must be assumed as
existing epic poems of equally moderate extent but cover-
ing the main substance of the whole myth with less detail.
The reasonableness of such or similar assumptions is not
here discussed, because that would involve abandonment
of the ground on which all our conclusions are based, viz.,
the facts presented to us in Greek literature.

57 Goethe, correspondence with Schiller, No. 472 : " I am
more than ever convinced of the unity and indivisibility of
the poem, and there is no man living, nor will there ever
be, who can settle the question. I, at least, find myself
every moment coming back to a mere subjective opinion ;
so has it been with others before us, and so will it be with
others after us."



NOTES 5C-GO. 87

58 Nitzsch, Sagenpoesie, p. 89, and this idea is carried out
at length in pp. 184-273. Cf. Baumlein, Commentatio de
Homero ejusque carminibus (prefixed to the Iliad in the
Tauchnitz series), pp. xx. -xxvii., particularly p. xxiii. :
11 Xor will any one doubt that a single, and, as Nitzsch has
shown, a tragical idea runs through the whole Iliad," and
again in Philol. II. p. 417. Against such a single funda-
mental idea in the Iliad, see Diintzer, Jahn's Jahrb. 83, and
Supplernentband 2 (Hom. Abhandlungen, pp. 236, 410).

59 Schomann, De reticentia Homeri, Opusc. HI. p. 12 sq.,
and Jahn's Jahrb. 69.

60 Grote, History of Greece, Am. ed. II. p. 179 sqq. As to
the method in which Nitzsch tries to bring the important
passages II. 11 : 609 sq. ; 16 : 72 sqq. into harmony with the
ninth book, see Schouiann, Jahn's Jahrb. 69, and De reticen-
tia Horn., Opusc. III. p. 15. Franke's revision of Faesi's Ili-
ad, in the note on the former passage and at the beginning
of the ninth book, frankly acknowledges the inconsistency.
The silence of La Roche as to the difficulty in both the pas-
sages quoted is a neglect of the function of an explanatory
edition. Faesi's note on the passage in the sixteenth book,
wfiere Achilles, when Patroklos begs his permission to go
into the battle, answers that the Trojans would be in dis-
graceful flight instead of triumphant, il fioi Kptiwv 'Aya/te/tvwv
j/n-ta ('cii}, " if Agamemnon were well disposed to me," is as
follows : " The haughty Achilles is not yet willing to con-
fess that the chief blame for the calamity lies on him, and
refuses to remember that Agamemnon, in the ninth book,
has done all in his power to appease him. He will not be
put in the wrong." The fact, that is, that the here inevita-
ble reference to the ninth book is lacking, is twisted into
a delicate touch of psychological portraiture, but Faesi



88 THE ORIGIN OF THE HOMERIC POEMS.

could hardly deny that for such a purpose the poet ought
to use and would have used other means. This interpreta-
tion really substitutes something else for the text. The ap-
proving reference in Franke's Faesi to the exclusion by the
early critics of 11 : 767-785 seems hardly justified. The es-
sential reason on the part of the early critics (see Schol.
Ven.) for the exclusion of these lines was their want of har-
mony with the ninth book, a point of view which this ed-
itor cannot adopt; and the assumption of an interpolation
is reasonable only when some occasion for the insertion of
it can be shown.

61 II. 15 : 63, 593. Schomann, Jalm's Jahrb. 69.

62 Lachmann has warned us (Friedlander, Die Horn. Kri-
tik, p. vii.) how uncertain the result is if such considera-
tions are allowed much weight. Rash conclusions from the
t'iiraZ tlprinkva and from the differences of vocabulary be-
tween the Iliad and Odyssey are discouraged by the statis-
tics of L. Friedlander, Die kritische Benutzung der aVa
tlprjusva, Philol. 6, and Dissertatio de vocabulis Horn., quae
in alterutro carmine non inveniuntur I.-III. (Universitats-
Schriften, Konigsberg, 1858-59). This, however, diminishes
in no degree the value of careful and thorough investiga-
tions in this direction, such as C. A. J. Hoffmann's Quaestio-
nes Homericae (Clausthal, 1848) ; J. La Roche's Homerische
Studien (Wien, 1861), especially p. vii. sq. ; L. Friedliinder's
Die Garten des Alkinous und der Gebrauch des Prasens bei
Homer, Philol. 6 ; or of special observations, like those of
Liesegang, Zwei Eigentlmmlichkeiten des 16. und 17. Buches
der Ilias, Philol. 6 (against which see Nitzsch, Die Apostro-
phe in Ilias und Odyssee, Philol. 16) ; and Koch, Ueber das
Vorkommen gewisser Formeln in manchen Thcilen der Ili-
as, auderer fur dieselbe Sache in anderen Theilen, Philol. 7.



NOTES 61-65. 89

"We may confidently expect that the thorough investiga-
tion of the Homeric poems in regard to matters of syntax
and vocabulary which is now just started will contribute
to the correction or confirmation of the conclusions which
have been reached hitherto mainly on other lines of evi-
dence. A recent example of most comprehensive, keen-
sighted, and conscientious investigation of this kind is W.
Hartel's Beitrage zur Homerischen Prosodie und Metrik,
in his Homerische Studien, Sitzungsberichte der Phil.-Hist.
Classe der Wiener Akademie, I. vol. 68 (second edition, Ber-
lin, 1873), II. vol. 76, III. vol. 78.

63 A number of these little points are brought together
in Faesi's Iliad, Introd. p. vii., with references to the notes,
where the attempt is made to reduce the contradictions as
much as possible ; in Franke's revision (Introd. p. v.) the
notes are free from the endeavor to disguise and explain
away the extent of the contradictions.

M Cf. II. 16 : 777 with 11 : 86. Schomann, Jahn's Jahrb.
69, p. 18, considers Kltzsch's attempt to reconcile the pas-
sages. Faesi's attempt to diminish the inconsistency does
violence to the language, and is in conflict with his own
note on 8 : 66. Franke (Introd. p. xxxii. and note on
11 : 86) and La Roche (notes on the two passages) rec-
ognize the contradiction without trying to smooth it
away. The essay by A. Kiner, Die Chronologic der Ilias,
Jahn's Jahrb. 83, constructs a complete table of the days in
the action of the Iliad, without paying any attention to
such little matters as these.

65 Schomann, Jahn's Jahrb. 69, p. 19. On this point,
which every discussion of the subject touches, I refer to
Schomann's article, because it includes a consideration of
Nitzsch's argument in defence of the unity.



90 THE ORIGIN OF THE HOMERIC POEMS.

66 Faesi himself admits, at the beginning of the sixteenth
book, that this and the following book contain few points
of connection with the four that precede them, and that
they were originally planned as an independent poem.
Yet his translation, in the note on 1G : 2, of Trapiararo, unsup-
ported by any other case in the Iliad, and impossible here,
by reason of rbv Si ISuv, in 16 : 5, and his supposition that
the first meeting of Achilles and Patroklos is already passed
without mention, can have no other object than to explain
away the omission of the information which Patroklos
was to bring. La Roche's silence does not solve the dif-
ficulty.

67 Different positions of the battle, in immediately con-
nected narratives, may be seen by comparison of 1 1 : 824 with
12 : 35-39. See Lachmann, Betrachtungen, p. 45. Franke's
Faesi states here the simple fact that " the twelfth book
brings at length the battle which has been in prospect since
the end of the seventh book." For the cases of variation in
locality, see Schomann, Jahn's Jahrb. 69, De retipentia
Horn., Opusc. III. p. 21 sq., notes 8, 9.

68 II. 13 : 345-360, compared with 13 : 10-39. See A. Jacob,
Ueber die Entstehung der Ilias und Odyssee, p. 270 sq.
Faesi (on 13 : 352) strives to hide the inconsistency in the
narrative by an impossible translation of XaQpy inrtZavaSue,
which he retains in his third edition, although he has added
to the note on 345 the admission (from Nitzsch, Sagenpoe-
sie, p. 264) that perhaps lines 345-360 may not have origi-
nally belonged in this place. La Roche, contrary to his cus-
tom, touches on this difficulty, and seems to try to solve it
KUTO. TO cua-rrM^vov (see note 79), for he remarks, on 352,
" that Poseidon had in the meantime returned into the sea
is left unmcntioned by the poet ; in 239 it is said UVTIQ ?/3j



NOTES G6-71. 91

&oe ufi irovov dvcpiZv." Bergk (Gr. Lit. I. p. 607) denies the
existence of any inconsistency.

69 See the instances in full in A. Jacob, as above, p. 284
sqq. ; Lachmann, Betrachtungen, p. 35. On the attempts
to minimize the contradictions by interpretation, or to re-
move them by exclusion of lines, as by Faesi on 11 : 193,
see Friedlander, Die Horn. Kritik, p. 35 sq. Franke's Faesi,
on 11 : 193, openly states the difficulty and the different
possible solutions. La Roche says nothing about it.

70 II. 16 : 793-815, compared with 17 : 13, 16, 125, 187, 205.
Faesi's note on 17 : 13 misses the real point of the matter.
It is true that " the poet could not assume that Apollo had
taken the arms of the slain hero away with him ;" but the
difficulty is, that after Patroklos was fvpvog (16 : 815), and
the gods had taken his annor from his shoulders (16 : 846),
there is no propriety in the statements that others stripped
him of them (17 : 125, 187, 205). As to the combination of
different narratives in this part of the poem, see Schiitz,
De Patrocleae compositione (Anclam, 1845).

71 On the general character of the narrative in books XI.-
XVIII. of the Iliad, see the frank statement of Schomann,
Jahn's Jahrb. 69. For the methods of bringing order out of
this confusion, see Nitzsch, Sagenpoesie, pp. 240 sqq., 274
sqq. Among these methods is the discovery that certain
sections of the poem are to be regarded as containing inci-
dents concurrent in time, w r here, however, the poet has un-
fortunately neglected to indicate the concurrence. This
very useful theory of narratives parallel in time is accepted
by Bergk in another connection, Gr. Lit. I. p. 657, 704. Cf.
W. Hartel, Zeitschr. fur d. osterr. Gym., 1873. As to the
contradictions in this portion of the poem, there is general
agreement in the discussions by G. Hermann (work cited



92 THE ORIGIN OF THE HOMERIC POEMS.

in note 26), Lachraann (same note), E. Cauer (Ueber die Ur-
form einiger Rhapsodien der Ilias, Berlin, 1850), W. Rib-
beck (Philol. 8), A. Jacob (note 68) ; but the hypotheses as
to the parts of which it is probably composed differ consid-
erably.

72 Lessing, Laokoon, XVI.

73 By the combination of separate narratives as an occa-
sion of difficulty, I refer, in the examples in the text, always
to connection in subject-matter, not to the words which
form the transition from one narrative to another. The
difference between the two is plainly seen in the case of
the first and second books, where both come into consider-
ation, but in different ways. The case itself is interesting,
on account of the devices employed to solve the difficulty.
That the second book cannot be regarded as a proper con-
tinuation of the first in subject-matter was convincingly
shown by G. Hermann (Opusc. v. p. 57). Since he pointed
out the difficulties, no one has been able to pass them over
in silence. To meet his arguments, Nitzsch (Sagenpoesie)
takes refuge in " the condition of the myth," thus tacitly
admitting the impossibility of an explanation. Nagelsbach
(Anmerk. zur II. 2. Aufl.) declares the second book neces-
sary for the purpose of the poet, " to bring before us the
feeling in the army, the attitude of the chiefs towards Ag-
amemnon;" and that the dream does not turn out destruc-
tive (ouXoe), " does not," says he, " disturb us in the least ;
the decision of Zeus, to give victory to the Trojans, finds a
serious obstacle in the valor of the Greeks, which hinders
its execution." But, however true it is that the feeling of
the army is vividly brought before us in the second book,
still this ought not, if the second book is a continuation of
the first in the original composition, to be done under cir-



NOTES 72-73. 93

cumstances whicli do not agree with the first book. This
point, which is the only one really in question, is not touched
by that explanation of the poet's purpose. And if the fulfil-
ment of the decree of Zeus was hindered by the valor of
the Greeks, would not, and ought not, a poem conceived by
a single mind to have given us a hint that vvip alaav 'Axaioi
Qeprfpoi f/ffav ? Baumlein (Philol. 7), instead of proving the
unity of the two books in subject, offers only the assertion
that there is such a unity, quoting as proof certain lines in
the second book which refer to the first. These lines, which
no one has overlooked in the discussion of the inner connec-
tion of the two books, prove nothing but the intention to
adapt one to the other. Baumlein further describes the
conduct of Agamemnon, in the council and the assembly
of the second book, as " intelligible on psychological princi-
ples from the events of the first book ;" and therein sug-
gests an idea, whicli is expanded with all confidence in an
essay by A. Gobel (Mutzell's G. Z., 1854). In that essay we
have the gap between the two narratives completely filled
by imagination, so as to make the connection seem all right.
These capricious fancies (of which an example is given in
note 79) Faesi regards as well-founded reasoning, and bases
on them his unhesitating statement at the beginning of the
second book, that it " stands in close connection with the


1 2 3 5 7

Online LibraryHermann BonitzThe origin of the Homeric poems; a lecture → online text (page 5 of 7)