ART. II.

2. Prolegomena ad Homerum, sive de Operum Homericorum prisca et genuina forma variisque mutationibus et probabili ratione emendandi. Frid. Aug. Wolfius. Vol. I. Halis Sax. 1785.

3. Prolegomena ad Homerum, sive de Carminum Homericorum origine, auctore, et ætate, &c. Scripsit Rich. Payne Knight. Lipsiae. 1816. THE history of the question, as to the genuineness of these poems, affords a striking proof, that historical criticism, as a science, is recent in its origin. The Iliad and Odyssey had been admired for ages, as splendid monuments of human genius, and as models of epic composition, without a suspicion in the generality of readers that they were not the productions of the bard whose name they bear, although a slight investigation is sufficient to convince any one, that we know nothing with certainty of his origin and life, and that of his age these poems are the only remains. Critics indeed have often expressed their surprise, that in an age, which exhibits no other traces of recorded literature, an individual should have arisen, who, without rules to guide or models to imitate, produced by his own unaided efforts what admiring ages have pronounced to be models in a species of composition, which, in the subsequent progress of the human mind, three or four only have attempted with entire success. The extraordinary nature of the supposition had not, however, suggested to their minds any serious doubts of its truth, (for the doubts which have been entertained respecting the authority of particular passages, or even of whole cantos, form no material exception to our statement), and until a recent period the persuasion has been general, that the Iliad and Odyssey were the creations of one mind, and have come down to us with as few mutilations as, in the nature of the case, was possible.

We speak of the views respecting these poems entertained by the generality of readers. A few isolated instances may be mentioned of those who doubted their genuineness, even among the critics of antiquity, though none went to the length of the modern school. Before the age of the Alexandrian critics, there was a class who maintained, that the Iliad and the Odyssey were the productions of different authors. Among the moderns two may be named, who seem to have been highly sceptical on this point, Casaubon and Bentley. Their opinions, however, are but casually introduced in their writings, by the latter but once,-and excited little attention. The passage in which Bentley expresses his views is found in one of his works written in reply to Collins. We quote it as entitled to respect from the reputation of its author, and as remarkable for the period when it was written. "Homer wrote a sequel of songs and rhapsodies, to be sung by himself for small earnings, and good

cheer at festivals and other days of merriment. These loose songs were not collected together in the form of an epic poem, till about five hundred years after." It is remarkable, that this passage, coming as it did from the Coryphæus of English, indeed of European critics, did not excite more attention. Perhaps, the circumstance that it occurs in a work of theological controversy, and not in one of professed criticism, may in part explain the fact.

A few years before Bentley threw out this view of these poems, opinions were advanced respecting their merits and their genuineness, which were so manifestly the offspring of passion and prejudice, that they made no permanent impression. We refer to those which were elicited by the controversy respecting the comparative merits of the ancients and moderns, in which the names of Perrault and Hedelin, (the Abbé d'Aubignac) were conspicuous; the former of whom affected to regard the poems of Homer as inferior even to the worthless productions of some of his own contemporaries, and the latter went so far as to deny that such a poet ever existed.

The discussions, to which these angry invectives against the classics gave rise, were confined chiefly to their merits. The way was first prepared for a thorough investigation of the subject before us, by Wood, in his Essay on the Original Genius of Homer, published in 1769; in which he investigates the question, whether Homer committed his poems to writing, and maintains the negative with much learning and acumen. The appearance of this essay excited great attention, and opened a new field of inquiry. Heyne, in his Excursus on the last book of the Iliad, discussed the question of its genuineness at considerable length, with ample learning, and at the same time with a spirit which commends itself to his readers. The result of his inquiries seems (for he expresses himself with caution) to be as follows: that the Iliad was not the conception of a single mind; that several distinct poems or rhapsodies, founded on the same general subject, were recited by rhapsodists, as they were termed, and were collected and wrought into an epic poem by the genius and labour of one or more individuals of a later and more refined age, which he supposes to have been that of the Pisistratidæ. The opinion of Heyne, it will be perceived, differs from that of Bentley. The latter ascribed the "loose songs" to Homer himself, while Heyne, although he does not express himself with perfect clearness on this point, was yet evidently inclined to adopt the supposition, that they were a collection of the poems of different authors. "Let that illustrious genius," says he, "be to us a Homer, to whom we are indebted for this union of different poems, made with such wonderful skill. I will claim for him a share of the inspiration of the ancient bards."

But of all who have investigated this intricate subject, Wolf is pre-eminent. To him is due the credit of assailing, with vast learning and research, and with great effect, opinions which were

sanctioned by an antiquity reaching to the dawn of authentic history. Though his reputation in this country, we apprehend, is more that of a fearless adventurer in criticism, an ardent, headstrong innovator, than that of a judicious critic, his Prolegomena, (of which unfortunately the first volume only has ever appeared) sufficiently attest the thoroughness of his investigations, and the patience with which they were conducted. The spirit in which he pursued his inquiries, and the caution with which he adopted conclusions so much at variance with long established opinions, may be learned from his own statement.

"The die has been cast, and not without preparation on my part. Two individuals of great learning are yet living, who perhaps remember the views on this subject which I expressed to them in 1780 and 1781, both in conversation and by letter. Since that time, having been occupied by other cares, I have rarely suffered a word to escape me, which might disturbed the silence or oppose the fixed opinions of the learned. Even in my lectures, for many years, I have followed the example of the expounders of religious doctrines, who from fear of public edicts do not teach what they themselves believe, but what has been prescribed from ancient times; nor have I publicly advanced any of my doubts. I have frequently laid aside and destroyed all notes which I had made of such doubts, to see if, after they had escaped from my memory, a renewed examination of the subject at a subsequent period would remove them. Once indeed I was ashamed, and tired of my way, or rather of my wanderings, after reading Perrault's comparison of the ancients and moderns, where he states that a work similar to his own had been written by one of his countrymen, which would soon be given to the world. Soon after, I obtained the work which he announced, in which, with other things of the same character, the writer denies that Homer ever existed, and asserts that each of his poems was composed from the tragedies and songs of beggars and hawkers in the highways, like those sung on the Pont Neuf. In his preface, moreover, the author avows that he had never learned any thing of value from the Greek ;-one of the few assertions in which all will readily believe him. This treatise, entitled Conjectures Académiques ou Diss. sur l'Iliade, by Hedelin, the Abbé d'Aubignac, a man in other respects neither contemptible nor wanting in sense, which had been long withheld: either out of friendship for him or for the ancients, was at length published after the author's death. The frequent perusal of this publication made me sick of my own opinions, into some resemblance of which his thoughtless temerity and his ignorance of antiquity had carried him, and I seriously began to collect argu. ments in support of the common doctrines, inconsistent as they are; for I perceived that Hedelin had not been well answered by Boileau, Dacier and others. Thus labouring in various ways to meet the historical difficulties of the subject, harassed by them again, and

again compelled to yield, I am conscious that I have indulged neither vanity nor a passion for novel opinions, and that I have used every exertion to avoid the snares of error. To this fact many of my friends can bear witness, whom of late years I have called to share in my labours, inviting them to search for the truth, and to collect with care every thing which they could find in the poems themselves in opposition to my views. And now, I do not urge these points with the wish of bringing over to my opinions any one who is not convinced of their truth; but that, if I have erred or have wrested the truth in any respect, the error may be detected and exposed.”

The opinion of Wolf is, that these poems existed at first in separate portions, most of them the productions of Homer himself, and that they were collected and arranged, so as to form the epics which we now have, in a later age by the Pisistratidæ, or under their patronage; that these works were not at once brought to their present state of perfection, but were emended from time to time by the labours of succeeding critics, until the age of the Alexandrian school. These views coincide very nearly with those of Heyne; the only difference being, that Wolf admits Homer to a large share of the honours which he has received for centuries, while Heyne, if he allows his existence, considers him as one of a number of bards who sung in common the praises of the heroes of the Trojan war.

It has been made a question, to which of these German critics belongs the credit of the new doctrine respecting the Homeric poems. Wolf published his edition of Homer in 1785, while Heyne was preparing his, and thus secured the reputation of being the founder of the new school. Heyne, however, in a memoir read before the Royal Society of Goettingen, claimed the merit of having always entertained the same opinion; a remark which was understood by Wolf, who had been his pupil and heard his lectures upon Homer, to convey an insinuation in regard to his originality, which he repelled with much severity, asserting moreover, that there was a material difference in their views. Hence arose a jealousy between these eminent scholars and critics, which more than once betrays itself in the Excursus of Heyne. The difference in their views, however, so far as we can discern, is unimportant. But a marked difference in their intellectual traits of character is apparent in their writings. The one was cautious, the other bold and fearless; and we apprehend the truth of the matter to be, that what Heyne first suggested, Wolf affirmed. By the boldness of his criticism, the pupil bore away the palm, which his accomplished instructor had long held within his grasp. It is highly probable too, that Heyne was confirmed in the opinions which he had long entertained, but which he had not ventured to publish, by the decision of Wolf, supported as it was by the most profound erudition, and therefore expressed himself in his later writings with more clearness than he had done in his earlier ones.

The genuineness of one or both of these poems, notwithstanding the objections of Heyne and Wolf, has been maintained with much ability and learning; among others, by Hug, a German critic, by the Baron Sainte Croix of France, and by Kichard Payne Knight and Granville Penn of England. Penn defends the perfect unity of the Iliad as fully and with as much spirit as Aristotle could have done. This point is conceded by Knight, whose Prolegomena is, in our estimation, one of the best monuments of English learning. The hypothesis of Wolf and Heyne has been the prevailing belief in Germany; but has found few friends in England, Holland, France or Italy. Volloison, whose edition of the Iliad, founded on a new recension of manuscripts, with a more copious collection of scholia than any that preceded it, did more than anything else to prepare the way for the new doctrines, could never, says his biographer, speak of this perversion, as he regarded it, of his labours, without indignation. He was so afflicted with the idea, that he had unwittingly furnished the materials on which Wolf had constructed his system, and the weapons with which he defended it, as almost to repent that he had published his work. More than once, he was tempted to combat this literary impiety, but was restrained by the fear of adding to its importance, and of giving it currency by his efforts to destroy it. He therefore deemed it best to leave to past and future ages the care of the glory of Homer.

The earliest mention of Homer is made by Pindar, who alludes to the praises of Ulysses and Ajax, as celebrated by the poet, thus recognising the existence of both the Iliad and the Odyssey. Pindar was born in 522 B. C. Herodotus, who recited his history at the Olympic games in 445 B. C., uses this language in his second book; Hesiod and Homer lived four hundred years and no more before me. They formed the Grecian theogony, gave the gods their names,' &c. He also quotes passages from both poems, and what is worthy of notice, refers to what were called the Cyprian verses, and argues that these were not a production of Homer, from the difference between them and the well known poems of the ancient bard. Thucydides, also, a contemporary of Herodotus, often refers to Homer and his poems.

There is no question, then, that these poems existed as early as 500 B. C. For this fact, we have the testimony of contemporary writers. This, however, is more than four hundred years later than the age in which, on the most favourable view, the poet is supposed to have lived. What notices can we collect of their history before this period?

First, then, in regard to Greece Proper; for as Homer was an Ionian, his poems must have been introduced into Greece at a later period. Have we any accounts of their being thus introduced? Heraclides of Pontus, a contemporary of Plato and Aristotle, states in general terms, as quoted by Heyne, that Lycurgus, who lived a