It has been mentioned that, according to the theory now most commonly accepted, the Homeric poems were not the work of one author or even of one generation—that on the contrary they grew up gradually in the course of several hundred years, reaching their final form (in the case of the Odyssey) perhaps not before the middle of the seventh century. We must now review briefly the evidence on which this theory is based.

The earliest historical references to the poems reach back only to the beginning of the sixth century, and even these are not altogether satisfactory. Cleisthenes, tyrant of Sicyon, according to Herodotus (V 67) prohibited rhapsodists from reciting the Homeric poems, because they were full of the praises of Argos and its people. But the reference here is perhaps rather to the Thebais or Epigonoi than the Iliad. Again, it is said that when Athens and Megara were disputing about the possession of Salamis, both parties appealed to the authority of Homer in support of their contentions. If this story may be trusted it is of importance as showing that the poems were generally venerated at such an early date. And though all the evidence is late[292], the form in which the passage in question (Il. II 557 f.) has survived does clearly suggest Athenian influence.

References in the works of other poets carry us back to a considerably earlier period. It has already been mentioned that Callinos is said to have attributed the Thebais to Homer, from which we may infer that poems under this name were already known. Archilochos, who likewise flourished before the middle of the seventh century, seems to have attributed the Margites to Homer[293]. The extant fragments of his works also contain several passages which apparently show Homeric influence[294]. Terpandros, probably an older contemporary of Archilochos, is said to have invented a musical accompaniment for the Homeric poems[295]. In Hesiodic poetry we find a number of references to heroic subjects. The Catalogue appears to have dealt with certain adventures of Odysseus, which were probably derived from the Odyssey[296].

This evidence, vague and somewhat uncertain as it is, renders it probable that Homeric poetry was in existence before the seventh century. Further than this we cannot hope for any direct external evidence, for the authors cited are the earliest of whom we know anything worth mention. Indeed the age of the various Hesiodic poems themselves is very problematical. It is customary now to attribute the Theogony and the Works and Days to the close of the eighth century and the other poems to the seventh. But Herodotus (II 53) referred Hesiod, as well as Homer, to a period about 400 years before his own time, i.e. to about the middle of the ninth century.

Turning now to the internal evidence, we may at all events regard one fact as established, namely that the subject-matter was determined at a period considerably anterior to those of which we have been speaking. It is not merely that the persons mentioned are uniformly referred to the Heroic Age, for we have yet to discuss the possibility that all the characters of this age are fictitious. But we have also to take into account the ethnographical indications contained in the poems. There is no hint of the presence of Dorians in the Peloponnesos, nor of the existence of Ionic states in Asia Minor or even in the Cyclades[297]; indeed the scheme of tribal or political geography which they present is far removed from anything we find even in the earliest records of the historical period. We shall see later that the same remark holds good with regard to the system of government depicted in the poems, e.g. in the universal prevalence of kingship, and so also with their indications as to social organisation, religion and even ethical standards. Then there is the fact that in references to weapons bronze is far more frequently mentioned than iron; yet it is generally agreed that iron must have been in common use by the tenth century, while some scholars would refer its introduction to a much earlier date. Lastly, we may take note of certain passages and expressions which seem to contain reminiscences of the prehistoric civilisation of the Aegean—a civilisation which, as we have seen, had passed its zenith in the fourteenth century and which was probably altogether submerged in the convulsions which accompanied the Dorian and Ionic migrations. Among such reminiscences we may probably count the descriptions of the palaces of Menelaos and Alcinoos and the use of such terms as ??a???. Of course it is not to be supposed that any part of the poems goes back to the period of the early civilisation. Yet the features noted above seem to me to point quite clearly to a time when some of the ancient palaces were still known and perhaps still inhabited. Hence it is not merely the case that the poems are concerned exclusively with characters of the Heroic Age. We are bound to conclude further that the environment in which these characters are placed is in general such as belonged to the same period. This of course involves the existence of a verbal tradition practically from the Heroic Age itself. Indeed, we may say that it probably involves a poetic tradition, for we have no evidence for the existence of traditional prose narratives, whereas references to the cultivation of poetry in early times are fairly numerous.

Now it is generally agreed that the Heroic Age—or perhaps we should say the type of civilisation and the ethnographical conditions with which this age is associated—cannot have lasted much beyond the close of the eleventh century. Hence the date accepted by many scholars for the completion of the Odyssey (cf. p. 169) involves a period of more than three centuries, during which the Homeric poems were in process of formation. That is a long period for continued composition in one subject, and it will be well now to review briefly the evidence on which this theory rests.

Kirchhoff[298] dated the 'later redaction' of the Odyssey between Ol. 30 and Ol. 50, or at all events not much before Ol. 30 (B.C. 656). To this conclusion he was led primarily by the reference to the voyage of the Argo in XII 59-72. It is probable enough that this passage implies acquaintance with a poem dealing with Iason's adventures; but the same can hardly be said of Kirchhoff's further suggestion, viz. that this lost poem must have been composed some considerable time after the colonisation of Cyzicos[299]. The accounts which we have of the travels and adventures of the Argonauts can scarcely be said to indicate that the earliest poems on this subject were composed at a time when the Black Sea was already familiar to the Greeks; on the other hand travellers from time to time may have penetrated into that region centuries before the foundation of Cyzicos[300].

Others have sought to show that the later parts of the poem betray an intimate acquaintance with the western seas, such as would be possible only after the development of Corinthian maritime enterprise about the close of the eighth century, whereas the knowledge of the same regions shown by the earlier parts is of the vaguest description[301]. Here the evidence is derived chiefly from the references to Sicily (S??a???) and the Siceloi, Alybas (traditionally placed in the Gulf of Otranto, but perhaps rather a coined name) and Temesa, which is identified with Tempsa in Calabria. This theory seems to me to be open to much the same objections as the other. It is clear now that in prehistoric times the south of Italy was intimately connected with the eastern coast of the Adriatic, and we have no ground for denying that the former may have been known to Greek traders or pirates long before the date of the earliest colonies.

A third argument, and one which has exercised a much wider influence, is based on the relationship of certain portions of the poems to the lost Cyclic poems (Cypria, etc.). It is held for instance that the Catalogues in Il. II, at all events the Trojan catalogue, were taken from the Cypria, and again that in the Nekyia (Od. XI) and elsewhere use has been made of the Little Iliad and the Nostoi, as well as the Cypria. But, granting the correctness of these hypotheses, no conclusions as to date can be drawn from them unless the dates of the lost poems themselves are established. We have seen however that such is not really the case; it is admitted that the attribution of these poems to Arctinos, Lesches and others does not occur until very late times. All that can be said is that they appear to have contained certain 'post-Homeric' features, such as purification for manslaughter (in the Aithiopis). With these we shall have to deal later. There is no need however to suppose that the lost poems were any more homogeneous than the Iliad and Odyssey.

Again it is thought that certain passages betray the influence of Hesiodic poetry, while others indicate genealogies or relationships which are at variance with statements contained in the latter[302]. Among the former we may note especially the list of women in the Nekyia (Od. XI 235-327[303]), which is compared with the Hesiodic Catalogue of heroines. This evidence would be useful for chronological purposes if we knew (i) when Hesiod lived, (ii) that he was the first to compose catalogues of this kind But unfortunately neither of these propositions can be admitted. To the first we have already referred. The majority of scholars hold that Hesiod cannot have lived much after the end of the eighth century. But there is nothing to show that he did not live before that time; for no sound argument can be founded on the last verses of the Theogony. As for the Catalogue it belongs to a class of poetry of which the beginnings may go back to a remote antiquity. The presumption is that it originated in times when descent was still traced through the mother.

On internal grounds many arguments have been brought forward for the purpose of showing that the poems in their present form have undergone a long process of development. With discrepancies in the narrative itself we need not concern ourselves. They are doubtless of importance for determining the question of single or composite authorship, but they do not necessarily point to authorship of quite different ages. For instance, one poet may have conceived of the Achaean camp as fortified, another as without fortifications. But that does not prove that the two poets were not contemporary, for it will not be disputed that the people of the Heroic Age were capable of building fortifications. Again, it may be that the original poem on the 'Wrath of Achilles' did not originally contain Books II-VII. But, apart from one or two details which we shall discuss presently, there is nothing to suggest that these books are the product of an entirely different period.

We may even take what is perhaps the most extreme case, that of the Doloneia. This book is joined on very loosely to what precedes, and its contents are practically disregarded in the rest of the Iliad[304]. Some critics even in ancient times seem to have believed that it did not originally belong to the poem. Moreover it contains a number of features peculiar to itself and several expressions which are regarded as indications of lateness. In particular there are some striking parallels to the passages in the Odyssey, and it is held that in certain cases they are due to direct influence from the latter[305]. But, granting all this, we are still not in a position to decide whether the chronological difference between the Doloneia and the earlier parts of the Iliad is to be reckoned at three centuries or two or one[306].

As no definite results can be attained from such considerations as these we will now confine our attention to arguments which are founded upon real or supposed differences of culture. The most important class of evidence for our purpose is that which relates to the use of the metals. Both bronze and iron are frequently mentioned and there can be no doubt that both were well known. But it has been observed that weapons are nearly always said to be of bronze (?a????, ????e?? ?????, etc.[307]), whereas iron is usually mentioned either as a substance or in reference to tools, especially hatchets[308]. Only in seven verses do we hear of iron weapons, even if we include in this category the knives mentioned in Il. XVIII 34 and XXIII 30. Two verses (ib. VII 141, 143 f.) speak of an iron club and one (ib. IV 123) of an arrowhead, while the other two (Od. XVI 294, XIX 13) refer to the arms in Odysseus' house collectively.

The obvious inference from the statistics is that iron tools came into use before iron weapons, and though this was long thought incredible it has recently been shown that there is some evidence for the prevalence of such conditions in Palestine[309]. Moreover a somewhat striking confirmation of the Homeric evidence was furnished by the excavations at Troy, where a small lump of unwrought iron was found among deposits belonging apparently to the fifth stratum[310]. It has been compared, and doubtless rightly, with the lump mentioned in Il. XXIII 826 ff., though the latter must have been much larger. The presumption is that, like this, it was intended for some tool or agricultural implement; for all the weapons found at Troy—few as they were unfortunately—up to the seventh stratum were of bronze. It is probable therefore that the use of the metals not only in the fifth stratum but also in the sixth—the great Mycenean fortress—was similar to that which is indicated in the Homeric poems.

For those who believe that these poems are the work of a single author the words "Iron does of itself attract a man[311]" (Od. XVI 294, XIX 13) present a serious difficulty. I cannot believe in view of the evidence given above that iron weapons were regularly employed in the Heroic Age[312] and that the use of the word ?a???? is a piece of traditional poetic archaism. Otherwise however there is no alternative but to regard the Odyssey verse as an interpolation[313]. But in reality it is no great step from iron knives and arrow-heads to the use of the same metal for spears or even swords. If we were to adopt the view that the age of the composition of the Homeric poems coincides with the period of transition between the first use of iron for cutting and piercing instruments to its general employment for weapons of all kinds, we should not necessarily require much more than a century for their development. Indeed the presence of iron swords in graves of the sub-Mycenean period in Crete (cf. p. 185) would seem to show that the transition had begun within what may be regarded practically as the Heroic Age itself.

Again, it is held that many anachronisms or chronological inconsistencies appear in the battle scenes of the Iliad. Sometimes we find descriptions of armour and tactics which are thought to be copied from those of Ionic hoplites in early historical times and to be irreconcilable with the type of warfare depicted in other passages. Many of the chief men are represented as armed with breast-plates, for which, it is said, there is no evidence in the Mycenean age[314]—though this statement is more than doubtful[315]. In regard to the form of the shield also there is a discrepancy. Sometimes it is described as being of great length, 'like a tower' or 'reaching to the feet'—terms which would suit the long shields often depicted on objects of the Mycenean age. Sometimes on the other hand we hear of 'round' shields, which suggest the comparatively small circular shield of the historical period.

These inconsistencies only concern us in so far as they are supposed to point to widely different ages. Unfortunately our information regarding the geometrical period is still very defective and we do not know how far its characteristics were the same in all parts of Greece. The same remarks apply with still greater force to the preceding or sub-Mycenean age. Hence, though it may be true that the round shield does not make its appearance in Attica till the close of the eighth century, we cannot argue from this that it was unknown in other parts of Greece[316]. In the more northern parts of Europe it appears to be the earliest form of shield which has been found. More important however is the fact that the Shardina and their confederates used the round shield as far back as the thirteenth century, while the shields represented on the Warrior Vase and the Stele from Mycenae (cf. p. 185) can hardly be regarded otherwise than as a variety of the same type. Hence, whatever may be the connection between the disappearance of the long shield and the growing use of body armour, there is not the slightest justification for supposing that the round variety was not used in the Heroic Age itself.

The commonest type of Mycenean shield, the oval type contracted in the middle, belongs to a class of shields which occur in various parts of the world. It is probably akin to the Zulu shield, though in this the lateral contraction has lost its meaning and almost disappeared. The primary purpose of the whole class appears to be for defence against missile weapons (????? ????t??), whether light javelins or arrows. But the special characteristic of the Mycenean variety is the use of a suspending strap (te?a??[317]) in place of a handle. The object of this was to leave both hands free for the use of a long spear in fighting at close quarters—as we see in the representation of a lion-hunt engraved on a dagger-blade found at Mycenae. But it is to be observed that the method of fighting most commonly employed by Homeric warriors is of quite a different character. First the spear was hurled—apparently with one hand (cf. Il. XXII 320)—and then an attack was made with the sword. For both these movements the Mycenean shield was obviously ill adapted. Indeed for the second, which required agility above everything, it would be more of an encumbrance than a protection. But even when the spear was used for thrusting there is nothing to show that it was usually held in both hands[318]. Hence we can hardly avoid concluding that the Homeric tactics were due to the use of a different type of armature, which included a comparatively small and mobile shield. We need not suppose of course that the Mycenean shield was unknown or even uncommon. It seems fairly clear that Aias the son of Telamon uses one of this type[319], and so also Periphetes the Mycenean whose shield reached to his feet and caused him to stumble (Il. XV 645 ff.)[320].

A further suggestion is that the Homeric use of the chariot was due to the long shield[321]. The argument in this case is that such shields could not be carried on horseback, while their weight was too great to allow them to be borne for any distance on foot. This is an extremely dubious theory for two reasons. In the first place the Homeric use of the chariot is a problem which concerns not Greece alone but a considerable part of Europe, including countries where there is no evidence for the Mycenean shield[322]. Secondly, it may be regarded as a general rule that those peoples which use the long shield not only fight but also go to battle on foot. Moreover the evidence of the poems themselves does not really bear out the suggested connection. Thus there is no instance of the long shield more clear than that belonging to Aias the son of Telamon, and this hero is one of the few leading men who are never said to wear breast-plates. But he is also apparently one of the very few who do not possess chariots. Indeed a better case could probably be made out for connecting the chariot with the breast-plate.

The Homeric use of the chariot gives rise to another question which probably deserves more careful consideration. In the action itself driving appears to be universal; at most we have only one doubtful case of riding (Il. X 513). But there are at least two incidental references (Il. XV 679 ff., Od. V 371) which betray acquaintance with the latter art. It is quite possible therefore that the knowledge of riding was a comparatively recent accomplishment which the poet or poets knew to have been foreign to the Heroic Age. Unfortunately the history of equitation is a very obscure subject. In more eastern countries the use of chariots—which here were war-chariots in the true sense—continued until quite late times. In Cyprus we hear of them at the beginning of the fifth century; and in Italy they were introduced, or re-introduced, still later. But we do not know when riding began. In the wall-sculptures at Karnak[323] which commemorate the victories of Sety I and date from towards the close of the fourteenth century several Hittites are shown on horseback. The scene represents a battle, and it may have been the artist's intention to depict what was not a normal custom but the last resource of fugitives whose chariots had broken down. But even then the possibility remains that in emergencies or under special conditions riding may have been practised by the Greeks long before it was in regular use. The whole subject however requires further investigation, in particular the question whether there is reason for supposing the Hittites to have been more skilled in horsemanship than other nations.

Another series of inconsistencies has been pointed out in references to marriage customs, particularly in regard to the use of the word ?ed?a (?d?a). In several passages this word evidently denotes the sum paid by the bridegroom to the bride's guardian; but in others it seems to mean presents given to the bride at marriage by her own relatives. We can scarcely doubt that a difference of custom is involved in these usages; but it does not necessarily follow that the second group of passages belong to a later period than the first. Account must be taken of local divergencies, for there is hardly any subject in which early Teutonic custom varied so much as in this, even from the time of our oldest records. Again, it has been suggested[324] with considerable probability that the inconsistencies of the Odyssey are to be attributed to a change of custom—not in the sense that the earlier parts of the poem reflect one form and the later parts another, but that the poem as a whole belongs to an age of transition when different forms of matrimonial arrangements were in vogue. This is a question with which we shall have to deal more fully in a later chapter.

We have yet to consider certain inconsistencies in regard to religious observances. Once only (Il. VI 303) is mention made of the figure—a seated figure—of a deity, and consequently it is held that the passage in question must be late. Recent discoveries however have tended to throw doubt on this view; for a number of statuettes, apparently representing deities, have come to light in deposits belonging both to the Mycenean and Geometrical periods, while primitive female figures, often in a sitting position, are quite common. The finding of a larger image would now scarcely call forth much surprise, though it cannot be supposed that such statues were of frequent occurrence.

In references to sanctuaries we sometimes hear of temples (????), but more frequently only of shrines or sacred groves. The most certain examples[325] of the former are those of Apollo and Athene at Troy (Il. V 446, VI 88, VII 83, etc.) and another of Athene at Athens (Il. II 549, Od. VII 81). The sanctuary of Apollo at Chryse is also once described as a temple (Il. I 39), though the account of the sacrifice (ib. 440 ff.) suggests an open-air shrine. Besides these we have a general reference to temples among the Phaeacians (Od. VI 10) and a vow made by Odysseus' followers to construct a temple to Helios on their return home (ib. XII 346). Now it is held that all these passages belong to a late stage in the growth of the poems and that in their original form temples were unknown. Sanctuaries of the earlier period are described only by such terms as ??s?? or t?e??? ??? te ???e??. There can be little doubt that the grove and the open-air shrine represent more primitive types of sanctuary than the temple. But the advocates of this theory seem to have overlooked the fact that among many peoples the more primitive and the more developed forms of sanctuary are found existing side by side[326]. Thus beside the great temple at Upsala, the chief sanctuary of the North, there stood a grove which appears to have been regarded with still greater veneration, even down to the very end of heathen times. Close by was a spring in which human victims were sacrificed[327]. This case shows how entirely unjustifiable it is to assume the non-existence of a temple, when only a shrine or sacred grove happens to be mentioned. We may cite as an example the proposed sacrifice to Spercheios in Il. XXIII 145 ff.[328] In general however the Homeric evidence clearly suggests that temples—and the same may possibly be the case with images—were chiefly to be found in cities, while the more primitive forms of sanctuary remained in less populous places.

I cannot but think that to any student of comparative religion the argument derived from the references to sanctuaries will appear entirely worthless. The argument against the antiquity of the round shield also can hardly be maintained. Of the rest all except the one based on the use of the metals contain a certain element of doubt. But even if we grant their validity in every case it cannot be said that either individually or collectively they necessitate the lapse of a long interval between the earlier and later portions of the poems. If the interval had amounted to anything like three centuries discrepancies of a far more striking character must have come to light.

As yet we have taken no account of linguistic inconsistencies. The poems as we have them present a medley of forms belonging to different ages and different dialects. But these inconsistencies appear everywhere; it is not the case that certain portions of the poems contain only early forms and others only late ones. The Odyssey is said to contain a certain number of apparently late usages, especially of prepositions and conjunctions, which are wanting or only occur rarely in the Iliad. It is held also that within the poems themselves earlier and later portions can be distinguished to a certain extent by similar differences of usage. But the evidence on the whole is slight and generally somewhat ambiguous[329]; and consequently linguistic criteria have as a rule played only a subordinate part in the attempts which have been made to determine the stratification of the poems. We must conclude then either that the later parts were composed in an artificial type of language, thoroughly permeated with archaisms, or that the earlier parts have undergone a very considerable amount of modernisation. Indeed the latter explanation must be admitted to some extent in any case; for relatively modern forms occur frequently in what are usually regarded as the very earliest parts of the poems. But if the preservation of the poems was dependent on oral tradition for any considerable length of time it is very difficult to set a limit to the operations of such a process. In Anglo-Saxon poems—even in those which were not entirely dependent on oral tradition—modernisation prevailed to such an extent that archaic forms disappeared practically everywhere, while substitutions of one word for another were very frequent. The more elaborate character of Greek metre doubtless acted as a check on this tendency to change, but at the same time I cannot help thinking that its importance in the history of Homeric poetry has been greatly underrated.

On the question of dialect something more must be said. It is true no doubt that the language of the poems as we have them must be regarded as Ionic—but only with certain reservations. In the first place we have to note the regular preservation of h-, which in strict Ionic—the language of the Asiatic coast—was lost in the seventh century, if not earlier. Again, we find a considerable number of forms which cannot be assigned to any Ionic dialect, e.g. such as contain -a- (?a??, ?t?e?da?, a???t???). Special attention must be paid to forms which are definitely Aeolic, such as p?s??e?, ?e, ??ee????. Whatever may be the explanation of the preservation of h-, it is universally agreed that the Aeolic element is deeply rooted in the history of Homeric poetry. Some scholars indeed hold that the poems were originally composed in Aeolic and that their present form is practically an Ionic translation. The more general view however is that Ionic was the language of epic composition from the beginning and that such forms as p?s??e? and ?e are derived from early Aeolic lays on which the epics were for the most part based.

The legends as to Homer's birthplace are perhaps not without significance for this question. In ancient times, from Pindar[330] downwards, Smyrna's claim to this honour was the one most generally recognised, and the majority of modern scholars are inclined to the view that the birthplace of Homeric poetry is to be sought in or around that city. Now Smyrna was originally an Aeolic state, but was captured by the Ionians of Colophon[331], apparently towards the close of the eighth century, from which time onwards it appears as Ionic. The mixture of dialect found in the poems—an older stratum of Aeolic underlying a later stratum of Ionic—would therefore be perfectly in accord with what we know of the history of the city, although unfortunately no early inscriptions are extant[332].

The most serious competitor of Smyrna was Chios, the claim of which found favour with several of our earliest authorities. Especially important is the fact that in a fragment published among the remains of Simonides of Ceos (fragm. 85, Bergk), but now frequently attributed to Semonides of Samos, who lived about the middle of the seventh century, a verse of the Iliad (VI 146) is ascribed to the 'man of Chios.' In this island also there dwelt in later times a clan called ????da?[333] who claimed descent from the poet. But here again there is a tradition that the population was at least in part Aeolic[334]. Moreover, though the language of the earliest extant inscriptions is Ionic in its main features, it possesses certain Aeolic characteristics, especially the change of o?n to o?i[335] before s (e.g. p?????s?, ????s? against Ion. p?????s?, ???s?). There is no record of an Ionic conquest of the island, as in the case of Smyrna, but we know that it did not enter the Ionic confederation until a comparatively late period, probably the seventh century[336].

It appears then that the peculiarities of Homeric language can be satisfactorily accounted for by the history of either Smyrna or Chios[337]. But now we are confronted with a very grave difficulty. The same scholars who hold that Smyrna was the birthplace of Homeric poetry yet insist that the language of the epics themselves was never anything else than Ionic, although they allow that the Iliad was nearly complete some considerable time before the conquest of Smyrna. This position is quite incomprehensible to me. The only explanation offered, so far as I am aware, is that the language of this district may have been of a mixed character[338]. It is no doubt true that when the coast was first occupied settlers may have come from many different quarters. But when Mimnermos speaks of the capture of 'Aeolic Smyrna' we are surely not justified in assuming that the city had become Ionicised before that time. On the other hand the supposition that the two dialects were not yet differentiated to any considerable extent appears to me to be irreconcilable with the evidence of the poems themselves as well as with all that we know of the history of the Greek dialects.

The question which we are discussing is one which concerns not only the Iliad and Odyssey, together perhaps with certain Hymns and other Homeric poems, but also the various works attributed to Hesiod. In particular we may note the Works and Days and the Theogony, both of which claim to be of Boeotian origin. Whether by chance or not they contain few forms[339] which are peculiar to Aeolic proper, i.e. the dialect of Asiatic Aeolis. But in all other respects their language is of the Homeric type, i.e. generally speaking Ionic, though with certain reservations, notably that ? is generally kept and ? frequently occurs before ?, ?. Now it cannot be contended seriously that this extraordinary mixed dialect sprang up naturally on both sides of the Aegean. The only alternative however is to suppose that Boeotian poets borrowed it from Asia. But is this really probable at such a time?

Before leaving this subject we must notice briefly the alternative theory that the Homeric poems were originally composed in Aeolic. According to the form in which this theory has become most widely known they were translated into Ionic at a comparatively late date—towards the close of the sixth century[340]. It is rather a serious objection to this hypothesis that the poems contain no trace of late Aeolic characteristics, such as the change of n to i before s (e.g. t???, pa?sa). Further, if the poems had been known so long in Aeolic, though doubt might have prevailed as to Homer's birthplace, the fact that he was an Aeolian could never have been called in question. Above all it is difficult to see how the need of a translation could have arisen at such a date, for the Aeolic dialect was then well known throughout the Greek world through the poems of Alcaeus and Sappho.

On the other hand there can be no possible objection in principle to the idea that the poems have undergone a change of dialect. We have seen that a large proportion of Anglo-Saxon poetry has passed through a similar process, generally from one English dialect to another, but occasionally, as in the case of Genesis (vv. 235-851), from a continental to an English dialect. In some few cases we still have parallel texts preserved in different dialects[341]. Indeed, when the poetry of one community becomes current in another community, it would seem that under certain conditions such changes were not merely possible but even inevitable. This is a question to which we shall have to return in the course of the next few pages.

There is still one vexed question which we have not as yet touched upon, namely the relationship of the Homeric poems to the art of writing. Wolf and his immediate successors held that the art was unknown when these poems came into existence Among more recent scholars however the general tendency has been to regard this view as mistaken. Some leading authorities even hold that considerable portions of the poems were written down from the time of their composition.

The poems themselves contain only one reference to writing, namely in Il. VI 168 ff., where it is stated that Proitos sent Bellerophon to Lycia "and gave him baneful tokens, writing many deadly things in a folded tablet, which he bade him show to his (Proitos') father-in-law, with a view to his own destruction[342]." So long as no further evidence was forthcoming there was a natural inclination either to regard this passage as an interpolation or to interpret it as denoting something which could not properly be called writing. But of late years archaeological investigation has brought to light, especially in Crete, numerous inscriptions dating from very remote times, and there cannot now be any question as to the antiquity of writing in the southern Aegean. Moreover the Homeric poets themselves can hardly have been ignorant of the existence of such an art, for rock-hewn figures with inscriptions dating from pre-Homeric times—including one which has been identified with the figure of 'Niobe' mentioned in Il. XXIV 614 ff.—are to be found quite close to the Asiatic coast.

Yet in spite of all this it is a very remarkable fact that the whole 28,000 verses of the Iliad and Odyssey contain only one reference to writing. The significance of this may be appreciated by turning to modern Servian poetry, which abounds with allusions to letters and written orders, although the minstrels themselves are quite ignorant both of reading and writing. It is true that in Beowulf we find only one direct reference to writing. But the Iliad and Odyssey together contain nearly nine times as many verses as Beowulf.

On the whole it seems to me that the evidence for the antiquity of writing given above does not prove exactly what it is commonly supposed to do. The inscriptions on the rock-hewn figures are Hittite. The ancient Cretan inscriptions have not yet been deciphered, and in view of the later inscriptions found at Praisos the probability as yet is distinctly against their being in the Greek language. But in any case they date from ages long anterior to Homeric times, and there is nothing to prove their continuity with the writing of the historical period. With regard to the passage in Il. VI 168 ff. it is to be observed firstly that Proitos is one of the very earliest persons mentioned in the poems—some three generations removed from the characters of the Trojan story—and secondly that the curious phraseology seems rather to suggest that the poet was speaking of something which he did not clearly understand. On the whole then it is much to be doubted whether writing was a current and native practice during the period when the poems were composed.

A reservation should perhaps be made with regard to the latest elements in the poems. Although definite evidence is wanting, the beginnings of the Greek alphabet may quite probably go back to the ninth century, and it may very well be that the poems had not then attained their final form. But it should not be assumed that the alphabet was introduced simultaneously throughout the Greek world. Some districts may have acquired it generations before others, and Aeolis (including even Chios and Smyrna) was probably not one of the more advanced. Further, we must admit that in all probability its use was at first very limited. From all analogies we should expect that it was employed for inscriptions, correspondence, etc. for a very long time before it was made to serve any literary purpose. Such apparently was the case with the alphabet of ancient Rome and with the Runic alphabet almost throughout its history. Unless the conditions in Greece were quite exceptional we should not expect the alphabet to come into contact with heroic poetry for a considerable time.

The theory that certain portions of the poems were written down from the beginning presupposes of course a use of writing quite different from that which is brought before us in the story of Bellerophon. This theory[343] is, and necessarily must be, bound up with another theory, which we have already discussed, that these portions date from a period not earlier than the seventh century. Our discussion has led us to the conclusion that the evidence for the latter theory is unsatisfactory. But, apart from this, it is inconceivable that the 'literary' portions, which are said to amount to several thousand verses, should contain no reference, direct or indirect, to the use of writing. In Beowulf we find only one direct reference to writing (v. 1694 f.)—an inscription in Runic letters such as had long been in use. But in the Christian additions or 'interpolations' we meet with three examples of the verb scrifan (forscrifan, gescrifan—from Lat. scribere), which of course is indirect evidence for the use of writing, though in a different language[344]. If large portions of the Homeric poems were really of literary origin the authors could scarcely have failed to betray themselves by usages of this kind, even though they deliberately avoided all mention of writing.

In addition to this general consideration we have to take account of the linguistic difficulties discussed above. We have seen that Hesiod's works show almost the same form of language as the Homeric poems, although the Boeotian dialect was quite different from anything spoken on the other side of the Aegean. Did Hesiod, who lived in the eighth century, probably before the Ionian conquest of Smyrna, really employ the 'impure Ionic' in which his poems have come down to us? He himself says (W. and D. 650 ff.) that he had never crossed the sea except (once apparently) to Chalcis. Presumably then his knowledge of heroic poetry was derived either from Boeotia, where he lived, or from Cyme in Aeolis, from whence his father had emigrated. But Cyme never came into Ionian hands. Are we to suppose then that either here or in Boeotia poets were already employing as their vehicle a form of language which according to the theory under discussion owed its existence (whether in ordinary speech or only in poetry) to certain political changes in a third district—changes too which had hardly begun much before the time of Hesiod? This hypothesis seems to me quite incredible[345].

On the other hand if Hesiod's poems have undergone a change of dialect since their original composition may not the Homeric poems have passed through the same process? In this case of course such a change would come about quite naturally if Smyrna or Chios was the original home of the poems. But here we must notice a curious feature in the 'epic dialect' to which we have already referred. Except in Aeolic forms—and this exception deserves to be remarked—the poems almost always preserve initial h-[346]. This is a characteristic which the 'epic dialect' shares with western or European Ionic but not with the language of the Asiatic coast[347]. Its presence raises a distinct difficulty in the way of supposing that the poems were Ionicised in their original home.

Now if the Homeric poems had been written down in Aeolic and preserved in literary form we can hardly doubt that they would have retained their original dialect, just like the works of Alcman, Alcaeus, and Sappho. It must not be argued that Ionic was the proper language of the epic, Doric and Aeolic of the lyric; for if the Homeric poems had become generally known in Aeolic nothing could have prevented this dialect from becoming the language of the epic also. We may assume then that they were not transmitted in written Aeolic. But the same argument really militates against the theory that they were written in Asiatic Ionic[348], though in this case the difference of dialect is less striking.

A form of language practically identical with that of the epics appears in the remains of several poets of the seventh and sixth centuries, such as Archilochos and Solon. The only noticeable difference is in the proportion of non-Ionic forms which they use. Now since these authors belonged to quite different districts we must, if we are to trust our evidence, infer the existence of a kind of literary language at this time. Its difference from Asiatic Ionic is of course comparatively slight, and in the texts which have come down to us it is not always carefully observed[349]. Still there is a sufficient amount of regularity to show that it was generally recognised.

The true home of this literary language must not be sought in Athens, but rather in Euboea or the Cyclades; and we may probably attribute its spread, in part at least, to the influence of the poems of Archilochos. But it certainly affected the writing of Attic for some two centuries, and there can be little doubt that it was thoroughly domiciled in Athens at quite an early date—probably in the seventh century. I cannot see any objection therefore to supposing that it was in Athens that both the Homeric and Hesiodic poems acquired those peculiar linguistic characteristics which we comprehend under the term 'epic dialect.' This of course brings us back to the story that the poems were collected or written down by order of Peisistratos. The evidence for the story is late, and its truth is hotly contested by many scholars. But at all events it has the merit of providing a satisfactory explanation of the linguistic phenomena.

Certainly, if we may judge from the analogy of other peoples, heroic poetry would not by any means be among the first species of literature to get committed to writing. There is no reason whatever for supposing that anything of this kind was written down in England before the eighth century, i.e. at least a century after the language was first applied to literary purposes, in Aethelberht's time. The same remark seems to be true of Ireland, Germany and the North, while Bosnian heroic poetry is being written down only in our own generation, and not by natives of the country. It is only natural therefore to expect that the Homeric poems would be written down according to an orthography which was already well established.

This orthography no doubt represents more or less truly the form in which the poems were recited in Athens at the time. But does it also represent the form in which they were recited at (let us say) Sicyon? That is a question upon which we have no direct evidence. But it is worth noting that in Doric and other non-Ionic states we find a number of ancient inscriptions in hexameters or elegiacs which contain epic words and forms. We may note especially the Gen. sg. ending -???, e.g. ?as???et???, ?d???, ??a?????, and above all false imitations of epic forms, such as ??as??a??[350]. But in all these inscriptions Ionic characteristics are conspicuously absent[351]. Does this mean that wherever the heroic poems were introduced the rhapsodists tried to accommodate them, as far as possible, to the language of the district? But if so, is it possible that the Ionic element in our texts is wholly due to the rhapsodists? A Chalcidian or Naxian or Athenian audience would certainly experience at least as much difficulty in following a purely Aeolic Iliad as a southern English audience would have in listening to a purely Northumbrian or Mercian Beowulf. On the other hand an Iliad Ionicised in Chalcis or Naxos would be easily intelligible in Athens[352].

At all events we have seen that there is a very serious objection on chronological grounds to the view that Hesiod's poems were composed in a form of 'impure Ionic' borrowed from the Asiatic coast. In this case it is surely far more probable that the Ionic element is due to the rhapsodists, whether in Chalcis or Athens. But is there any real reason for denying that the Homeric poems may have had a similar experience? This is a question which I do not feel qualified to answer. But it seems to me to deserve more attention from scholars than it has received as yet.

In this chapter we have seen that the Homeric poems contain elements of great antiquity. Although we have no means of fixing an exact date for these elements, we can hardly doubt that they originated at a time before iron had come into general use for weapons. According to the prevailing opinion of archaeologists this innovation cannot have taken place after the tenth century. We need not suppose that any considerable portions of the poems in their present form date from such an early period. But the 'type' must have been fixed by that time, and to a considerable extent also the subject-matter.

Still more clearly we have seen that there is no ground for supposing that the earlier and later elements are separated from one another by a wide interval. For the idea that the earlier elements reflect the conditions of the last age of Mycenean splendour—probably about the thirteenth century—while the later elements betray acquaintance with conditions of the seventh century, we have not been able to find any justification. The period intervening between the Mycenean age and the beginning of the classical age is certainly one which has as yet yielded comparatively little to archaeological research. But our discussion has led us to infer that the conditions of life reflected in the poems throughout belong to some part of this period, rather than that they are due to a combination taken from the preceding and following ages[353] with a more or less blank interval of some five or six centuries.

I have spoken advisedly of earlier and later 'elements' rather than of earlier and later 'portions' in the poems. Elaborate analyses, such as that proposed for the Odyssey by Prof. von Wilamowitz-MÖllendorff, are admittedly hopeless unless we assent to the hypothesis that the person responsible for the final form of the poem possessed a written text; and we have seen that this hypothesis is open to grave objections. The existence of different strata in the work must doubtless be conceded. We may even allow that it is built up out of shorter epics. But I cannot admit that such a poem as the Odyssey can be successfully constructed out of shorter ones by stringing the latter together, even if we do grant that the additions made by the editor amount to a sixth part of the whole[354]. It is questionable therefore whether we are justified in regarding the last stratum as the work of an 'editor'—whether we ought not rather to regard this person as the 'author' of our poem. He must have used earlier pieces, and he may have incorporated them in large mass in his work. But we have no guarantee that he did not greatly expand his materials as well as provide connecting links between them.

In the Iliad we are confronted to a certain extent with the same problems. But the process of unification does not appear to have been carried out so thoroughly and the proportion of early matter incorporated is probably much greater. The point however which I would especially emphasise in both cases alike is that the unification process cannot be used as an argument for lateness of date. If we bear in mind the undoubtedly archaic character of both poems, the paucity of inconsistencies points to an entirely opposite conclusion. The greater the amount of matter which we attribute to the last strata, the shorter must be the period during which the poems grew until they reached their final form.

Lastly we have seen that though the linguistic evidence agrees very well with the tradition that 'Homer' belonged to Smyrna (or Chios), there are very serious objections to the view that the poems were originally composed in the Ionic dialect[355]. They may have been subsequently Ionicised in their original home, but even that is scarcely certain. The form in which they have come down to us belongs properly to the western Ionic of the islands, which in early times was used as a literary language in Athens.

[292] Plutarch, Solon, cap. 10; Diogenes Laertius, Solon, cap. 48, etc. In some form or other the story was known to Aristotle (Rhet. I 15).